-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT
X
The first step in the calculation of the removal estimates is the
calculation of production normalized raw waste values (mg/kkg)
for each pollutant in each waste stream. The raw waste, values
were calculated using one of three methods. When analytical
concentration data (mg/1) and sampled production normalized flow
values (1/kkg) were available for a given waste stream,
individual raw waste values for each sample were calculated and
averaged. This method allows for the retention of any
relationship between concentration, flow and production. When
sampled production normalized flows were not available for a
given waste stream, an average concentration was calculated for
each pollutant, and the average production normalized flow taken
from the dcp information for that waste stream was used to
calculate the raw waste. When analytical values were not
available for a given waste stream, the raw waste values for a
strJam of similar water quality was used.
The total flow (1/yr) for each option for each subcategory was
calculated by the following three steps: first, comparing the
actual discharge to the regulatory flow for each waste stream;
second, selecting the smaller of the two values; and _third,
summing the smaller flow values for each waste stream in the
subcategory for each option. The regulatory flow values were
calculated by multiplying the total production associated with
each waste stream in each subcategory (kkg/yr) by the
appropriate production normalized flow (1/kkg) for each waste
stream for each option.
The raw waste mass values (kg/yr) for each pollutant in each
subcategory were calculated by summing individual raw waste
masses for each waste stream in the subcategory. The individual
raw waste mass values were calculated by multiplying the total
production associated with each waste stream in each subcategory
(kkg/yr) by the raw waste value (mg/kkg) for each pollutant in
each waste stream.
The mass discharged (kg/yr) for each pollutant for each option
for each subcategory was calculated by multiplying the total flow
(1/yr) for those waste streams which enter the central
pretreatment system, by the treatment effectiveness concentration
(mg/1) (Table VII-21 page xxx) for each pollutant for the
appropriate option.
The total mass removed (kg/yr) for each pollutant for each option
for each subcategory was calculated by subtracting the total mass
discharged (kg/yr) from the total raw mass (kg/yr).
Total treatment performance values for each subcategory were
calculated by using the total production (kkg/yr) of all plants
in the subcategory for each waste stream. Treatment performance
values for direct dischargers in each subcategory were calculated
by using the total production (kkg/yr) of all direct dischargers
in the subcategory for each waste stream.
MODIFICATION OF EXISTING BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
394
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - X
Modifications were promulgated to all existing promulgated BAT
effluent limitations in the nonferrous metals manufacturing
category. In general, the existing BAT effluent limitations have
been modified to incorporate the building block approach. A
detailed discussion regarding the development of mass limitations
from this approach is presented in Section IX. Other
modifications to the primary lead subcategory, secondary aluminum
subcategory, primary zinc subcategory, and metallurgical acid
plants subcategory were made as a result of new information
supplied to the Agency.
To reflect the changes in stormwater allowances promulgated for
BPT in the primary copper smelting and secondary copper
subcategories, the Agency is promulgating modifications to the
stormwater allowances promulgated under BAT. The promulgated
changes allow a discharge resulting from a catastrophic
rainstorm, but they eliminate the monthly net precipitation
discharge allowance. The building block approach is not
developed for these two subcategories since they are required to
maintain zero discharge of all process wastewater pollutants.
The technology basis for BAT has been modified, in most cases to
be lime precipitation, sedimentation and filtration. Sulfide
precipitation is also included as the technology basis for the
primary lead, primary zinc, and metallurgical acid plants
subcategories and for one primary copper plant. The Agency
believes this represents the best available technology
economically achievable.
Allowances for Net Precipitation in Bauxite Refining
Promulgated BPT and BAT limitations for the bauxite refining
subcategory are based on the use of settling impoundments.
Facilities in this subcategory are subject to a zero discharge
requirement; however, during any month they can discharge a
volume of water equal to the difference between precipitation
that falls within the impoundment and evaporation from that
impoundment for that month (net precipitation).
We are promulgating minor technical amendments to delete or
correct references to PDF considerations under Part 125 and
pretreatment references to Part 128. We are not altering the
existing BAT (promulgated on April 8, 1974 under Subpart A to 40
CFR Part 421) which prohibits the discharge of process wastewater
except for an allowance for net precipitation that falls" within
process wastewater impoundments.
395
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - X
Primary Aluminum Smelting
The previous BAT effluent limitations were developed by
considering each plant as a single wastewater source and
allocating one discharge rate from which the effluent limitations
were calculated. The technology basis from which these effluent
limitations were developed are lime and settle performance
values. The modified BAT effluent limitations were developed for
individual wastewater sources identified within the primary
aluminum subcategory, and effluent concentrations attainable with
lime precipitation, sedimentation, filtration, and cyanide
precipitation. This technology is discussed in greater detail in
the BAT option selection of this section.
Secondary Aluminum Smelting
The previously promulgated BAT for this subcategory prohibited
the discharge of process wastewater. However, new information
supports the need for discharge of wastewater from chlorine
demagging, an operation considered and included in the
promulgated zero discharge regulation. Three dry processes
existed at the time of promulgation: the Durham process; the
Alcoa process; and the Teller process. The Agency believed that
each of these processes were sufficiently well demonstrated to be
installed and become operational by 1984, the compliance date for
BAT. Consequently, there was no justification for a discharge
allowance associated with this waste stream.
New information shows that the technologies are not sufficiently
demonstrated nor are they applicable to plants on a nationwide
basis. For this reason, the promulgated BAT has been modified;
the modified BAT is based on the use of wet scrubbing on chlorine
demagging operations.
Information received through comments on the 1983 proposed
regulation and through data requests shows a need for discharge
of water from ingot conveyer casting* A discharge allowance will
be provided, but is intended only for those plants that do not
practice chlorine demagging wet air pollution control. Complete
reuse of ingot conveyer casting contact cooling water in
demagging wet air scrubber operations is demonstrated.
Comments and information received in response to dcp requests
subsequent to the 1983 proposal also show the need for a
discharge allowance for wet scrubbers used in delacquering
operations, where paint and lacquers are burned from the surface
of aluminum can scrap. The promulgated BAT effluent limitations
include this waste stream, which was not considered nor included
in the 1974 BAT regulation.
Primary Electrolytic Copper Refining
The previous BAT effluent limitations were developed by
considering each plant as a single wastewater source and
allocating one discharge rate from which the effluent limitations
396
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - X
were calculated. The technology basis was lime precipitation and
sedimentation performance values. The modified BAT effluent
limitations were developed for individual wastewater sources
identified within the primary electrolytic copper refining
subcategory, and effluent concentrations attainable with lime
precipitation, sedimentation, in-process flow reduction, and
multimedia filtration. This technology is discussed in greater
detail in the BAT option selection of this section.
Primary Lead
With the exception of stormwater exemptions, the previous BAT
effluent limitations required zero discharge of all process
wastewater pollutants. Before proposing modified limitations in
1983, information supplied to the Agency showed that slag removed
from the smelting furnace may contain recoverable concentrations
of lead. For the smelter slag to be recycled back into the
production process, it must be granulated so that it is
compatible with concentrated ore. The Agency has determined that
this waste stream requires a discharge to control the build-up of
suspended solids.
However, in the final rule, EPA has moved the proposed flow
allowance for blast furnace slag granulation to dross
reverberatory slag granulation. The Agency changed this
allowance so that a plant that achieves zero discharge of blast
furnace slag granulation would not receive a discharge allowance
that is not needed.
Primary Zinc
The previous BAT effluent limitations were developed from one
wastewater discharge rate and lime and settle performance values.
The modified BAT effluent limitations were developed for
individual wastewater sources identified within the primary zinc
subcategory, and effluent concentrations attainable with lime
precipitation, sedimentation, sulfide precipitation (and
sedimentation), in-process flow reduction, and multimedia
filtration. This technology is discussed in greater detail in
the BAT option selection of this section.
Metallurgical Acid Plants
As discussed in Section IX, the metallurgical acid plants sub-
category has been modified to include acid plants associated with
primary lead and zinc smelters, and primary molybdenum roasters.
This is based on the similarity between discharge rates and
effluent characteristics of wastewaters from all metallurgical
acid plants. The Agency is also establishing effluent
limitations for fluoride and molybdenum in discharges from acid
plants associated with primary molybdenum operations. The
existing BAT limitations are based on the BPT technology (lime
precipitation and sedimentation), in-process wastewater
reduction, with sulfide precipitation, iron co-precipitation
preliminary treatment and filtration. Flow reductions are based
397
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - X
on 90 percent recycle of scrubber liquor.
Compliance with the BAT limitations for the metallurgical acid
plants subcategory by the two direct discharging primary
molybdenum facilities which operate sulfuric acid plants will
result in the annual removal of an estimated 4,651 kg of priority
pollutants which is 219 kg of priority pollutants greater than
the estimated BPT removed and 67,539 kg of total pollutants
including molybdenum.
The costs for this subcategory are not presented here because the
data on which they are based have been claimed to be
confidential. The Agency has determined that BAT limitations for
this subcategory are technically feasible and economically
achievable.
MODIFIED APPROACH TO STORMWATER
For the same reasons discussed in detail in Section IX, no
allowance will be given for stormwater under BAT. Stormwater is
or can be segregated from the process wastewater. Furthermore,
stormwater is site-specific and is best addressed on a case-by-
case basis by the permit writer. Should a sufficient number of
plants demonstrate that segregation of stormwater would result in
excessive costs or is not technically feasible, or demonstrate
that contamination of stormwater with process pollutants is an
unavoidable result of manufacturing processes, the Agency will
consider modification of the promulgated regulation as
appropriate.
The BAT regulations on catastrophic and net precipitation
exemptions are modified for several subcategories. These changes
are presented in Table X-2 (page xxx). The reasons for modifying
the BAT relief provisions for primary copper smelting, primary
copper electrolytic refining, secondary copper and primary lead
are as follows:
1. The technology . basis for BAT has been changed from
wastewater impoundments to equipment such as holding
tanks, cooling towers, and clarifiers. This type of
equipment is not influenced to the same degree as
cooling impoundments. As a result, storm relief is not
necessary to treat process wastewater (with the
exception noted in (2) below).
2. For primary copper smelting and secondary copper,
impoundments to treat cooling water are used at many
facilities as an alternative to cooling towers. EPA
has thus provided that stormwater may be discharged
from these impoundments when a 25-year, 24-hour storm
or larger has been experienced by the facility. The
volume of water that may be discharged is only that
which falls directly on the impoundment surface.
Further, since the size required for cooling water
impoundments is substantially smaller than impoundments
398
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - X
that treat other process wastewaters, no net
precipitation relief is necessary. The amount of
freeboard available in the proper design and operation
of these cooling water ponds is sufficient for most
facilities to accommodate the fluctuations in volume
resulting from the precipitation cycle without having
to discharge.
BAT OPTION SELECTION
The option generally selected throughout the category is Option C
- chemical precipitation, sedimentation, in-process flow
reduction, and multimedia filtration, along with applicable
pretreatment, including ammonia air or steam stripping, cyanide
precipitation, sulfide precipitation, iron co-precipitation, and
oil skimming pretreatment, and ion exchange end-of-pipe
treatment. The Agency has selected BPT plus in-process wastewater
flow reduction and the use of filtration as an effluent polishing
step as BAT for all of the subcategories except secondary
aluminum, which includes preliminary treatment of phenolics with
activated carbon adsorption, where applicable, and primary and
secondary germanium and gallium, where BAT is based on lime and
settle.
This combination of treatment technologies has been selected
because they are technically feasible and are demonstrated within
the nonferrous metals manufacturing category. Implementation of
this treatment scheme would result in the removal of an estimated
1,968,000 kg/yr of priority pollutants from current discharge
estimates. Although the Agency is not required to balance the
costs against effluent reduction benefits (see Weyerhaeuser v.
Costle, supra), the Agency has given substantial weight to the
reasonableness of cost. The Agency's current economic analysis
shows that this combination of treatment technologies is
economically achievable. Price increases are not expected to
exceed 2.5 percent for any subcategory.
Of the 36 subcategories considered in nonferrous metals
manufacturing, EPA has reserved setting BAT limitations for the
following three subcategories:
1. Secondary Indium
2. Secondary Mercury
3. Secondary Nickel
As discussed earlier, EPA has excluded the following five sub-
categories from limitations under the provisions of Paragraph 8
of the Settlement Agreement:
1. Primary Boron
2. Primary Cesium and Rubidium
3. Primary Lithium
4. Primary Magnesium
5. Secondary Zinc
399
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - X
BAT Effluent limitations have been promulgated for the following
28 subcategories:
1. Bauxite Refining
2. Primary Aluminum Smelting
3. Secondary Aluminum Smelting
4. Primary Copper Smelting
5. Primary Electrolytic Copper Refining
6. Secondary Copper
7. Primary Lead
8. Primary Zinc
9. Metallurgical Acid Plants
10. Primary Tungsten
11. Primary Columbium-Tantalum
12. Secondary Silver
13. Secondary Lead
14. Primary Antimony
15. Primary Beryllium
16. Primary and Secondary Germanium and Gallium
17. Primary Molybdenum and Rhenium
18. Secondary Molybdenum and Vanadium
19. Primary Nickel and Cobalt
20. Primary Precious Metals and Mercury
21. Secondary Precious Metals
22. Primary Rare Earth Metals
23. Secondary Tantalum
24. Secondary Tin
25. Primary and Secondary Titanium
26. Secondary Tungsten and Cobalt
27. Secondary Uranium
28. Primary Zirconium and Hafnium
The general approach taken by the Agency for BAT regulation of
this category and the BAT option selected for each subcategory is
presented in this section. The actual limitations may be found
in Section II of each subcategory suppliment.
After publication of the nonferrous metals manufacturing
regulations/ some petitioners challenged the promulgated rule.
EPA developed settlement agreements based on somw of these
petitions. The results of these settlement agreements are
discussed in the pertinent subcategory supplements.
In the regulatory sections of each subcategory supplement, the
pollutants
regulatory
pollutants
pollutants
pollutants
presented
discharge
pollutants
considered for regulation are included in the
tables for that subcategory. Only some of these
were selected for regulation and the regulated
are indicated with an asterisk in each table. The
found at treatable levels but not regulated are
to assist the permit writer by advising him of the
allowance that would have been assigned if these
had been regulated.
400
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT «- X
Primary Aluminum Smelting
The BAT option selected is flow reduction, lime precipitation,
sedimentation, and filtration for control of toxic metals and
fluoride, and cyanide precipitation preliminary treatment.
This combination of treatment technologies was selected because
it provides additional pollutant removal achievable by the
primary aluminum subcategory and it is economically achievable.
Lime precipitation and sedimentation are widely practiced at
primary aluminum plants, and as indicated in the previous
section, form the basis for the BPT limitations. Filtration
serves as an important polishing step in BAT. For this
subcategory, it results in the removal of 271,350 kg/yr of toxic
pollutants and 5,231,000 kg/yr of nonconventional pollutants from
the estimated raw discharge. Further, lime precipitation and
sedimentation are demonstrated at 11 primary aluminum smelters,
while filtration is demonstrated at 23 plants in the nonferrous
metals manufacturing category including one plant in the primary
aluminum subcategory. The estimated capital investment cost of
BAT is $16 million (1982 dollars) and the annual cost is $10.5
million.
Cyanide precipitation preliminary treatment is directed at
control of free and complexed cyanides in waste streams within
the primary aluminum subcategory that result from use of coke and
pitch in the electrolytic reduction process. These waste streams
collectively discharge approximately 62,000 kg/yr of cyanide.
The Agency conducted a pilot-scale treatment performance study
for cyanide precipitation on wastewater from a cathode
reprocessing operation, the only primary aluminum operation to
generate cyanide. The treatment effectiveness concentration for
cyanide achieved from this study is the basis for the mass
limitation. The mean was also shown, in data submitted by a
primary aluminum facility, to be achievable by ion exchange
technology applied to cyanide-contaminated groundwater. In
developing variability factors for 'cyanide precipitation
technology, EPA will continue, to use the mean variability from
the combined metals data base because only two data points were
generated by the treatability study.
Flow reduction is an important element of BAT because it results
in reduced dilution of pollutants and smaller hydraulic flows,
which in turn lead to more efficient treatment, smaller treatment
systems, and an associated reduction in the net cost of
treatment. Wastewater flow reduction is based on increased
recycle of scrubber liquor from potline, potline SO2 emissions,
potroom, and anode bake scrubbers, in addition to casting contact
cooling water.
Secondary Aluminum Smelting
The BAT effluent limitations for the secondary aluminum
subcategory are based on lime precipitation, sedimentation,
filtration, ammonia steam stripping, and activated carbon
401
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - X
adsorption. Ammonia steam stripping is selected by the Agency
over air stripping because air stripping reduces ammonia
concentrations by simply transferring pollutants from one media
(water) to another (air). Steam stripping reduces ammonia
concentrations by stripping the ammonia from wastewater with
steam. The ammonia is concentrated in the steam phase and may be
condensed, collected, and sold as a by-product or disposed off-
site. Ammonia steam stripping is demonstrated by five facilities
in the nonferrous metals manufacturing category. Filtration is
not demonstrated in the secondary aluminum subcategory; however,
it is demonstrated in the nonferrous metals manufacturing
category.
Activated carbon adsorption preliminary treatment to remove 4-AAP
phenols applies to plants discharging scrubber water from
delacquering furnace operations (an operation that removes paint
and other surface coatings from aluminum scrap).
Application of the promulgated BAT will result in the removal of
9,590 kg/yr of toxic pollutants, 526 kg/yr of phenols, and 90,300
^9/Yr °f aluminum from the estimated raw discharge. The
estimated capital investment cost of the promulgated BAT is $1.1
million (1982 dollars) and the estimated annual cost is $0.64
million.
Primary Copper Electrolytic Refining
The BAT effluent limitations for Primary Copper Electrolytic
Refining are based on in-process flow reduction and end-of-pipe
treatment technology consisting of lime precipitation,
sedimentation, and multimedia filtration. Sulfide precipitation
is added for one integrated copper refiner and smelter based on
the demonstrated inability of this plant to meet the arsenic mass
limitations with lime and settle technology. The Agency believes
that the mass limitations are achievable using sulfide
precipitation based on bench-scale performance tests using the
plant's wastewater. Filtration is not demonstrated in this
subcategory, but it is transferred from the primary aluminum.,
secondary copper, primary zinc, primary lead, secondary lead, and
secondary silver subcategories.
Application of the promulgated BAT will result in the removal of
48,700 kg/yr of toxic pollutants from the estimated raw
discharge. The estimated capital investment cost of the
promulgated BAT is $2.7 million (1982 dollars) and the estimated
annual cost is $1.7 million.
Primary Lead
The effluent limitations for the primary lead subcategory are
based on the existing BPT with additional reduction in pollutant
discharge achieved through in-process wastewater flow reduction,
sulfide precipitation technology, and the use of filtration as an
effluent polishing step. Wastewater flow reduction is based on
the complete recycle of process wastewater from zinc fuming wet
402
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - X
air pollution control, blast furnace slag granulation, and hard
lead refining wet air pollution control. Extensive treatment
performance data submitted to the Agency from a well-operated
plant in this subcategory indicate that, for this facility, the
proposed BAT mass limitations are not achievable with lime,
settle and filter technology. The principal reason for not being
able to attain the proposed effluent limits is the inability to
achieve the combined metals data base lime, settle and filter
concentration values. The specific technical factors in this
failure could not be determined from the data submitted. However,
the Agency believes the addition of sulfide precipitation, in
conjunction with multimedia filtration, will achieve the
treatment effectiveness values because of the lower solubility of
metal sulfides (i.e., lower than metal hydroxides) as well as
performance data for sulfide technology obtained from treating
nonferrous metals and inorganic chemical wastewaters. Sulfide
precipitation is currently demonstrated at a primary molybdenum
plant with a metallurgical acid plant, and at a cadmium plant in
the primary zinc, subcategory. Filtration is currently
demonstrated by one facility in the primary lead subcategory.
Application of the promulgated BAT will result in the removal of
734 kg/yr of toxic pollutants over the estimated BPT removal.
The primary lead subcategory is estimated to incur a capital cost
of $0.2 million (1982 dollars) and an annual cost of $0.11
million to implement the BAT technology.
Primary Zinc
The BAT effluent limitations for the primary zinc subcategory are
based on BPT with additional reduction in pollutant discharge
achieved through in-process wastewater flow reduction, sulfide
precipitation technology, and the use of filtration as an
effluent polishing step. Wastewater flow reduction is based on
increased recycle of casting scrubber water and casting contact
cooling water. As discussed above, sulfide precipitation and
filtration is added to ensure achievability of the combined
metals data base treatment effectiveness,, concentration values for
lime, settle and filter technology. Sulfide precipitation is
currently demonstrated at a cadmium plant in the primary zinc
subcategory, and at a primary molybdenum plant with a
metallurgical acid plant. Filtration is currently in place at
one of the three direct discharging plants in the primary zinc
subcategory.
Application of the promulgated BAT effluent mass limitations will
result in the removal of 1,159,000 kg/yr of toxic pollutants from
the estimated raw discharge. The estimated capital investment
cost of the promulgated BAT is $0.46 million (1982 dollars) and
the estimated annual cost is $0.24 million. Activated alumina
and reverse osmosis were also considered for BAT but were
rejected. These technologies are not demonstrated in the
category, nor are they clearly transferable.
403
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - X
Metallurgical Acid Plants
The BAT effluent limitations for metallurgical acid plants are
based on BPT with additional reduction in pollutant discharge
achieved through in-process wastewater flow reduction, sulfide
precipitation technology, and the use of filtration as an
effluent polishing step. Wastewater flow reduction is based on
increased recycle of acid plant scrubber liquor. As discussed
above, sulfide precipitation and filtration is added to ensure
achievability of the combined metals data base treatment
effectiveness concentration values for lime, settle and filter
technology. Sulfide precipitation is currently demonstrated at a
cadmium plant in the primary zinc subcategory, and at a primary
molybdenum plant with a metallurgical acid plant. Filtration is
currently demonstrated at two of the seven direct discharging
plants in the metallurgical acid plants subcategory.
Application of the promulgated BAT mass limitations will result
in the removal of 136,800 kg/yr of toxic pollutants from the
estimated raw discharge. The estimated capital investment cost
of BAT is $1.97 million (1982 dollars) and the annual cost is
$1.24 million.
Filtration, option C, was selected instead of option B because it
is demonstrated and results in removal of 7,590 kg/yr of toxic
pollutants.
Primary Tungsten
The BAT limitations for the primary tungsten subcategory are
based on BPT with additional reduction in pollutant discharge
achieved through in-process wastewater flow reduction and the use
of filtration as an effluent polishing step. Wastewater flow
reduction is based on 90 percent recycle of scrubber liquors.
Filtration is currently demonstrated at 23 plants in the
category.
Application ,of the promulgated BAT will remove an estimated 5,140
kg/yr °f toxic pollutants, which is 318 kg/yr of toxic metals
over the estimated BPT removal. No additional ammonia is removed
at BAT, nor are any toxic organics removed. -The estimated
capital investment cost of BAT is $0.77 million (1982 dollars)
and the estimated annual cost is $1.0 million.
Primary Columbium-Tantalum
The BAT limitations for the primary columbium-tantalum
subcategory are based on BPT with additional reduction in
pollutant discharge achieved through in-process wastewater flow
reduction and the use of filtration as an effluent polishing
step. Wastewater flow reduction is based on increased recycle of
scrubber liquors associated with three sources: concentrate
digestion scrubber, solvent extraction scrubber, and
precipitation scrubber. Filtration is currently demonstrated at
23 nonferrous metals manufacturing plants.
404
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - X
Application of the promulgated BAT will result in the removal of
283 kg/yr of toxic pollutants and 1,980 kg/yr of nonconventional
pollutants over the estimated BPT removal. The estimated capital
investment cost of BAT is $0.83 million (1982 dollars) and the
estimated annual cost is $1.2 million.
Filtration, option C, was selected instead of option B because it
is demonstrated and results in removal of 57 kg/yr of toxic
pollutants and 94 kg/yr of nonconventional pollutants.
Secondary Silver
The BAT limitations for the secondary silver subcategory are
based on BPT with additional reduction in pollutant discharge
through in-process wastewater flow reduction and the use of
filtration as an effluent polishing step. Wastewater flow
reduction is based on complete recycle of furnace scrubber water.
Filtration is currently demonstrated at two of the seven direct
discharging secondary silver plants.
Application of the promulgated BAT will result in the removal of
132 kg/yr of toxic pollutants over the estimated BPT removal.
The estimated capital investment cost of the promulgated BAT is
$0.28 million (1982 dollars) and the annual cost is $0.39
million.
Filtration, option C, was selected instead of option B because it
is demonstrated and results in removal of 132 kg/yr of toxic
pollutants.
Secondary Lead
The BAT limitations for the secondary lead subcategory are based
on BPT with additional reduction in pollutant discharge through
in-process wastewater flow reduction and the use of filtration as
an effluent polishing step. Wastewater flow reduction is based
on 90 percent recycle of casting . contact cooling water and
complete recycle of facility washdown water and battery case
classification wastewater. Filtration is currently demonstrated
at one of eight direct discharging secondary lead plants and
seven plants in this subcategory.
Application of the promulgated BAT will result in the removal of
350 kg/yr of toxic pollutants over the estimated BPT removal.
The estimated capital investment cost of this technology is $1.86
million, (1982 dollars) and the estimated annual cost is $1.24
million.
Primary Antimony
The BAT limitations for the primary antimony subcategory are
based on chemical precipitation and sedimentation and sulfide
precipitation preliminary treatment (BPT technology) with the
405
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - X
addition of filtration.
The pollutants specifically limited under BAT are antimony,
arsenic, and mercury. The priority pollutants cadmium, copper,
lead, and zinc were also considered for regulation because they
were found at treatable concentrations in the raw wastewaters
from this subcategory. These pollutants were not selected for
specific regulation because they will be effectively controlled
when the regulated priority metals are treated to the levels
achievable by the model BAT technology.
Implementation of the BAT limitations would remove annually an
estimated 18 kg of priority metals over the estimated BPT
discharge. Estimated capital cost for achieving BAT is $208,300,
and annualized cost is $560,400.
Primary Beryllium
The BAT limitations for the primary beryllium subcategory are
based on chemical precipitation and sedimentation preceded by
scrubber liquor recycle, ammonia steam stripping and cyanide
precipitation (BPT technology), with the addition of filtration
and scrubber water recycle. Flow reduction is based on greater
than 90 percent recycle of beryllium oxide calcining furnace wet
air pollution control. The one beryllium plant currently
generating beryllium oxide calcining furnace wet air pollution
control wastewater does practice recycle.
The pollutants specifically limited under BAT are beryllium,
chromium, copper, cyanide, ammonia, and fluoride.
Implementation of the BAT limitations would remove annually an
estimated 8 kg of priority metals and 0.5 kg of cyanide over the
estimated BPT discharge. No additional ammonia is removed.
The costs and specific removal data for this subcategory are not
presented here because the data on which they are based has been
claimed to be confidential.
Primary and Secondary Germanium and Gallium
The BAT limitations for the primary and secondary germanium and
gallium subcategory are based on chemical precipitation and
sedimentation (BPT technology).
The pollutants specifically limited under BAT are arsenic, lead,
zinc, and fluoride. The priority pollutants antimony, cadmium,
chromium, copper, nickel, selenium, silver and thallium were also
considered for regulation because they were found at treatable
concentrations in the raw wastewaters from this subcategory.
These pollutants were not " selected for specific regulation
because they will be effectively controlled when the regulated
priority metals are treated to the concentrations achievable by
the model " BAT technology. EPA is including limitations for
gallium and germanium as guidance for permitting authorities.
406
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - X
Although there are no existing direct dischargers in this
subcategory, BAT is promulgated for any existing zero discharger
who elects to discharge at some point in the future. This action
was necessary because wastewaters from germanium and gallium
operations which contain significant loadings of priority
pollutants are currently being disposed of in a RCRA permitted
surface impoundment.
The costs and specific removal data for this subcategory are not
presented here because the data on which they are based has been
claimed to be confidential.
Primary Molybdenum and Rhenium
The BAT limitations for the primary molybdenum and rhenium
subcategory are based on preliminary treatment consisting to
ammonia steam stripping, iron co-precipitation, and end-of-pipe
treatment consisting of chemical precipitation and sedimentation
(BPT technology), with the addition of in-process wastewater flow
reduction and filtration. Flow reductions are based on 90
percent recycle of scrubber liquor, a rate demonstrated by one of
the two direct discharger plants.
The pollutants specifically limited under BAT are arsenic, lead,
molybdenum, nickel, selenium, fluoride, and ammonia. The
priority pollutants chromium, copper, and zinc were also
considered for regulation because they were found at treatable
concentrations in the raw wastewaters from this subcategory.
These pollutants were not selected for specific regulation
because they will be effectively controlled when the regulated
priority metals are treated to the levels achievable by the model
BAT technology.
Implementation of the BAT limitations would remove annually an
estimated 11 kg of priority metals greater than the estimated BPT
removal. No additional ammonia is removed at BAT.
The costs and specific removal data for this subcategory are not
presented here because the data on which they are based has been
claimed to be confidential.
Secondary Molybdenum and Vanadium
The BAT limitations for the secondary molybdenum and vanadium
subcategory are based .on preliminary treatment consisting of
ammonia air stripping followed by end-of-pipe treatment
consisting of iron co-precipitation, chemical precipitation and
sedimentation (BPT technology) and filtration.
The pollutants specifically limited under . BAT are arsenic,
chromium, lead, molybdenum, nickel, iron, and ammonia. The
priority pollutants antimony, beryllium, cadmium, and zinc were
also considered for regulation because they were found at
treatable concentrations in the raw wastewaters from this
407
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - X
subcategory. These pollutants were not selected for specific
regulation because they will be effectively controlled when the
regulated priority metals are treated to the concentrations
achievable by the model BAT technology. EPA is providing
limitations for the following pollutants as guidance for
permitting authorities: copper, zinc, aluminum, boron, cobalt,
germanium, manganese, tin, titanium, and vanadium.
Implementation of the BAT limitations would remove annually an
estimated 76 kg of priority metals greater than the estimated BPT
removal.
The costs and specific removal data for this subcategory are not
presented here because the data on which they are based has been
claimed to be confidential.
Primary Nickel and Cobalt
The BAT limitations for the primary nickel and cobalt subcategory
are based on preliminary treatment consisting of ammonia steam
stripping followed by end-of-pipe treatment consisting of
chemical precipitation and sedimentation (BPT technology), and
filtration. A filter is presently utilized by the one plant in
this subcategory.
The pollutants specifically limited under BAT are cobalt, copper,
nickel, and ammonia. The priority pollutant zinc was also
considered for regulation because it was found at treatable
concentrations in the raw wastewaters from this subcategory.
This pollutant was not selected for specific regulation because
it will be effectively controlled when the regulated priority
metals are treated to the levels achievable by the model BAT
technology.
Implementation of the BAT limitations would remove annually an
estimated 5 kg of toxic metals greater than the estimated BPT
removal'.
The costs and specific removal data for this subcategory are not
presented here because the data on which they are based has been
claimed to be confidential.
Primary Precious Metals and Mercury
The BAT limitations for the primary precious metals and mercury
subcategory are based on preliminary treatment consisting of oil
skimming and end-of-pipe treatment consisting of chemical
precipitation and sedimentation (BPT technology), with the
addition of in-process wastewater flow reduction, filtration and
ion-exchange.
The pollutants specifically limited under BAT are gold, lead,
mercury, silver, and zinc. The priority pollutants arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel and thallium were also
considered for regulation because they were found at treatable
408
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - X
concentrations in the raw wastewaters from this subcategory.
These pollutants were not selected for specific regulation
because they will be effectively controlled when the regulated
priority metals are treated to the levels achievable by the model
BAT technology. *
Implementation of the BAT limitations would remove annually an
estimated 1.0 kg of priority metals greater than the estimated
BPT removal. Estimated capital cost for achieving BAT is $3,025,
and annualized cost is $27/300.
Secondary Precious Metals
The BAT limitations for the secondary precious metals subcategory
are based on preliminary treatment consisting of cyanide
precipitation and ammonia steam stripping and end-of-pipe
treatment consisting of chemical precipitation and sedimentation
(BPT technology), with the addition of in-process wastewater flow
reduction, filtration and ion exchange. Flow reductions are
based on recycle of scrubber effluent. Twenty-one of the 29
existing plants currently have scrubber liquor recycle rates of
90 percent or greater. A filter is also presently utilized by
one plant in the subcategory.
The pollutants specifically limited under BAT are copper,
cyanide, zinc, ammonia, gold, palladium, and platinum. The
priority pollutants antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead,
nickel, selenium, silver and thallium were also considered for
regulation because they were found at treatable concentrations in
the raw wastewaters from this subcategory. These pollutants were
not selected for specific regulation because they will be
effectively controlled when the regulated priority metals are
treated to the levels achievable by the model BAT technology.
Implementation to the BAT limitations would remove annually an
estimated 10 kg of priority pollutants greater than the estimated
BPT removal. No additional ammonia or cyanide is removed at BAT.
The costs and specific removal data for this subcategory are not
presented here because the data on which they are based has been
claimed to be confidential.
Primary Rare Earth Metals
The BAT limitations that were promulgated for
earth metals subcategory on September 20,
withdrawn. These limitations were withdrawn
to adequately address the sole plant's
Administrative Record. Therefore, national
not available for this subcategory, and a
manufacturing plant's effluent limitations
developed by the local permitting authority
program.
Secondary Tantalum
the primary rare
1985 have been
because EPA failed
comments in the
BAT limitations are
rare earth metal
will need to be
through the NPDES
409
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - X
The BAT limitations for the secondary tantalum subcategory are
based on chemical precipitation and sedimentation (BPT
technology) with the addition of filtration.
The pollutants specifically limited under BAT are copper, lead,
nickel, zinc, and tantalum. The priority pollutants antimony,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, and silver were also considered for
regulation because they were found at treatable concentrations in
the raw wastewaters from this subcategory. These pollutants were
not selected for specific regulation because they will be
effectively controlled when the suggested priority metals are
treated to the levels achievable by the model BAT technology.
Implementation of the BAT limitations would remove annually an
estimated 4.8 kg of metal priority pollutants more than the
estimated BPT removal.
The costs and specific removal data for this subcategory are not
presented here because the data on which they are based has been
claimed to be confidential.
Secondary Tin
The BAT limitations for the secondary tin subcategory are based
on preliminary treatment consisting of cyanide precipitation when
required, and end-of-pipe treatment consisting of chemical
precipitation and sedimentation (BPT technology), with the
addition of filtration.
The pollutants specifically limited under BAT are arsenic,
cyanide, lead, iron, tin, and fluoride. The priority pollutants
antimony, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, selenium, silver,
thallium, and zinc were also considered for regulation because
they were found at treatable concentrations in the raw waste-
waters from this subcategory. These pollutants were not selected
for specific regulation because they will be effectively
controlled when the regulated priority metals, are treated to the
levels achievable by the model BAT technology.
Implementation to the BAT limitations would remove annually an
estimated 26 kg of priority metals over the estimated BPT
discharge. An additional 128 kg of fluoride is removed annually
at BAT. The costs and specific removal data for this subcategory
are not presented here because the data on which they are based
has been claimed to be confidential.
Primary and Secondary Titanium
EPA is exempting from limitations those titanium plants which do
not practice electrolytic recovery of magnesium and which use
vacuum distillation instead of leaching to purify titanium
sponge. BAT limitations are promulgated for all other titanium
plants' based on chemical precipitation, sedimentation, and oil
skimming pretreatment where required (BPT technology), plus flow
410
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - X
reduction and filtration. Flow reduction is based on 90 percent
recycle of scrubber effluent through holding tanks and 90 percent
recycle of casting contact cooling water through cooling towers.
The pollutants specifically limited under BAT are chromium, lead,
nickel, and titanium. The priority pollutants antimony, cadmium,
copper, thallium, and zinc were also considered for regulation
because they were found at treatable concentrations in the raw
wastewaters from this subcategory. These pollutants were not
selected for specific regulation because they will be effectively
controlled when the regulated priority metals are treated to the
levels achievable by the model BAT technology.
Implementation of the BAT limitations would remove annually an
estimated 299 kg to priority pollutants from the current
discharge. Estimated capital cost for achieving BAT is
$1,030,000, and annualized cost is $585,000.
Secondary Tungsten and Cobalt
The BAT limitations for the secondary tungsten and cobalt
subcategory are based on preliminary treatment consisting of
ammonia steam stripping and oil skimming, and end-of-pipe
treatment consisting of chemical precipitation and sedimentation
(BPT technology), plus filtration.
The pollutants specifically limited under BAT are cobalt, copper,
nickel, tungsten, and ammonia. The priority pollutants arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, lead, silver, and zinc were also considered
for regulation because they were found at treatable
concentrations in the raw wastewaters from this subcategory.
These pollutants were not selected for specific regulation
because they will be effectively controlled when the regulated
priority metals are treated to the levels achievable by the model
BAT technology.
Implementation of the BAT limitations would remove annually an
estimated 100 kg of priority., pollutants more than estimated BPT
removal.
The costs and specific removal data for this subcategory are not
presented here because the data on which they are based has been
claimed to be confidential.
Secondary Uranium
The BAT limitations for the secondary uranium subcategory are
based on end-of-pipe treatment consisting of chemical
precipitation and sedimentation (BPT technology), and filtration.
Flow reduction of laundry wastewater is included in BAT.
The pollutants specifically limited under BAT are chromium,
copper, nickel, and fluoride. The priority pollutants antimony,
arsenic, cadmium, lead, selenium, silver, zinc, and the
nonconventional pollutant uranium were also considered for
411
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - X
regulation because they were found at treatable concentrations in
the raw wastewaters from the subcategory. These pollutants were
not selected for specific regulation because they will be
effectively controlled when the regulated priority metals are
treated to the levels achievable by the model BAT technology.
Guidance is being provided to permit writers for the control of
uranium.
Implementation of the BAT limitations would remove annually an
estimated 126 kg of priority metals from the current discharge.
Estimated capital cost for achieving BAT is $88,000, and
annualized cost is $107,000 (1982 dollars).
Primary Zirconium and Hafnium
EPA is exempting from limitations those plants which only produce
zirconium or zirconium-nickel alloys by magnesium reduction of
ZrO2. Limitations apply to all other plants in the subcategory.
BAT limitations are based on the same flow allowances provided at
BPT (cyanide precipitation, ammonia steam stripping and chemical
precipitation and sedimentation), plus in-process wastewater flow
reduction and filtration.
The pollutants specifically limited under BAT are chromium,
cyanide, lead, nickel, and ammonia. The priority pollutants
cadmium, thallium, zinc, and the nonconventional pollutants
zirconium and hafnium were also considered for regulation because
they were found at treatable concentrations in the raw waste-
waters from this subcategory. These pollutants were not selected
for specific regulation because they will be effectively con-
trolled when the regulated priority metals are treated to the
levels achievable by the model BAT technology.
The costs and specific removal data for this subcategory are not
presented here because the data on which they are based has been
claimed to be confidential.
REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
Presented in Section VI of this document is a list of the
pollutant parameters found at concentrations and frequencies
above treatable concentrations that warrant further
consideration. Although these pollutants were found at treatable
concentrations, the Agency is not promulgating regulation of each
pollutant selected for further consideration. The high cost
associated with analysis of metal priority pollutants has
prompted EPA to develop an alternative method for regulating and
monitoring toxic pollutant discharges from the nonferrous metals
manufacturing category. Rather than developing specific effluent
mass limitations and standards for each of the priority metals
found in treatable concentrations in the raw wastewater from a
given subcategory, the Agency is promulgating effluent mass
limitations only for those pollutants generated in the greatest
quantities as shown by the pollutant reduction benefit analysis.
412
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - X
By establishing limitations and standards for certain metal
pollutants, dischargers will attain the same degree of control
over metal pollutants as they would have been required to achieve
had all the metal pollutants been directly limited. This
approach is technically justified since the treatable
concentrations achievable with chemical precipitation and
sedimentation technology are based on optimized treatment for
concomitant multiple metals removal. Thus, even though metals
have somewhat different theoretical solubilities, they will be
removed at very nearly the same rate in a chemical precipitation
and sedimentation treatment system operated for multiple metals
removal. Filtration as part of the technology basis is likewise
justified because this technology removes metals non-
preferentially.
The Agency has excluded several toxic organic pollutants from
specific regulation in the primary tungsten, primary columbium-
tantalum, and secondary silver subcategories because they were
found in trace (deminimus quantities) amounts and are neither
causing nor likely to cause toxic effects.
The conventional pollutants oil and grease, pH, and TSS are
excluded from regulation in BAT. They are regulated by BCT.
Table X-2 (page 416) presents the pollutants selected for
specific regulation in BAT and Table X-3 (page 419) presents
those pollutants that are effectively controlled by technologies
upon which are based other effluent limitations and guidelines.
Table X-4 (page 424) presents those pollutants excluded because
they are neither causing nor likely to cause toxic effects. A
more detailed discussion on the selection and exclusion of
priority pollutants is presented in Sections VI and X of each
subcategory supplement.
EXAMPLE OF THE BUILDING BLOCK APPROACH IN DEVELOPING PERMITS
That there is a wide range of differences in manufacturing
facilities has been emphasized by industry representatives and
observed by Agency personnel. This diversity of processes makes
it virtually impossible to establish effluent limitations and
standards on a whole plant basis such that they are fair and
achievable for industry and protective of the environment. To
better accomplish these seemingly mutually exclusive goals, the
Agency has adopted the building block approach to developing
discharge limits for use in water discharge permits. The building
block approach allows the permit.writer to establish appropriate
and achievable effluent limits for any discharge point by
combining appropriate limitations based upon the various
processes that contribute wastewater to the discharge point.
Each building block represents a single ,, process or discharge
stream from a process within, - the subcategory. Because of
differences in manufacturing-processes, all'building blocks will
not occur in every plant in a subcategory. Similarly, the amount
of material processed through any building block may vary from
plant to plant both because of the product output of the plant
413.
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - X
and the manufacturing processes used. The building block approach
takes both of these variables into account; the first by allowing
the selection of only those building blocks that are in use and
the second by relating the quantity of pollutant allowed to be
discharged to the materials processed or produced by a building
block. This measure of production is called a production
normalizing parameter (PNP) and is specific to each building
block.
As a simplified example, consider a facility which produces
aluminum from bauxite and treats the wastewater prior to
discharge. The facility in this example discharges wastewater
from potroom wet air pollution control and direct chill casting.
Only a part of the aluminum reduced in the potroom is processed
through the direct chill casting operation; the remainder is cast
into sow molds and generates no process wastewater. By
multiplying the production for each of these operations by the
limitations or standards in 40 CFR 421 for potroom wet air
pollution control and direct chill casting and by summing the
products obtained for each of these waste streams, the permit
writer can obtain the allowable mass discharge.
The permit writer must develop a quantification of the PNP for
each building block so that it is a reasonable representation of
the actual production level of the building block. The factors to
be taken into account in this quantification and the procedures
for calculating the reasonable representation of the actual
production have been reviewed in the development of 40 CFR 126.
The permit writer is expected to take into account production
variations in establishing a reasonable measure of the actual
production for use in the calculation of the discharge allowance.
If, for example, the reasonable representation of the actual
production associated with the potroom wet air pollution control
system is 550 kkg/day and the reasonable representation of the
production of aluminum through direct chill casting is 410
kkg/day the maximum for any one day discharge limit based on the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT) for the
pollutant nickel is 0.72486 kg/day as calculated below:
Potroom Wet Air Pollution Control
(550 kkg/day) x (0.733 mg/kg) x (10~3mg/kg)
= 0.42515 kg nickel, maximum for any one day
Direct Chill Casting
(410 kkg/day) x (0.731 mg/kg) x (10~3mg/kg)
= 0.29971 kg nickel, maximum for any one day
Total
0.72486 kg nickel, maximum for any one day
414
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - X
Table X-l
OPTIONS CONSIDERED FOR EACH OF THE NONFERROUS
METALS MANUFACTURING SUBCATEGORIES
Subcategory
Primary Aluminum Smelting
Secondary Aluminum Smelting
Primary Copper Electrolytic
Refining
Primary Zinc
Primary Lead
Metallurgical Acid Plants
Primary Tungsten
Primary Columbium-Tantalum
Secondary Silver
Secondary Lead
Primary Antimony
Primary Beryllium
Primary and Secondary
Germanium and Gallium
Secondary Indium
Secondary Mercury
Primary Molybdenum and
Rhenium
Secondary Molybdenum and
Vanadium
Primary Nickel and Cobalt
Secondary Nickel
Primary Precious Metals and
Mercury
Secondary Precious Metals
Primary Rare Earth Metals
Secondary Tantalum
Secondary Tin
Primary and Secondary Titanium
Secondary Tungsten and Cobalt
Secondary Uranium
Primary Zirconium and Hafnium
Options Considered
E
X
A
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x-*-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X,
X1
X
X
x
X1
B
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
c
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
Includes recycle of scrubber liquors as part of Option A.
415
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - X
Table X-2
BAT REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
Subcategory
Primary Aluminum Smelting
Secondary Aluminum
Primary Electrolytic Copper
Refining
Primary Lead
Primary Zinc
Metallurgical Acid Plants
Primary Tungsten
Primary Columbium-Tantalum
Secondary Silver
Pollutant Parameters
73. benzo(a)pyrene
114. antimony
121. cyanide (total)
124. nickel
aluminum
fluoride
122. lead
128. zinc
aluminum
ammonia (N)
phenolics
(total; by
4-AAP method)
114. arsenic
120. copper
124. nickel
122. lead
128. zinc
118. cadmium
120. copper
122. lead
128. zinc
115. arsenic
118. cadmium
120. copper
122. lead
128. zinc
122. lead
128. zinc
ammonia (N)
122. lead
128. zinc
ammonia (N)
fluoride
120. copper
128. zinc
ammonia (N)
416
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - X
Table X-2 (Continued)
BAT REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
Subcateqory
Secondary Lead
Primary Antimony
Primary Beryllium
Primary and Secondary Germanium
and Gallium
Primary Molybdenum and Rhenium
Secondary Molybdenum and Vanadium
Primary Nickel and Cobalt
Primary Precious Metals and Mercury
Pollutant Parameters
114. antimony
115. arsenic
122. lead
128. zinc
ammonia (N)
t
114. antimony
115. arsenic
123. mercury
117. beryllium
119. chromium (total)
120. copper
121. cyanide
ammonia (as N)
fluoride
115. arsenic
122. lead
128. zinc
fluoride
115. arsenic
122. lead
124. nickel
125. selenium
fluoride
molybdenum
ammonia (as N)
115. arsenic
119. chromium
122. lead
124. nickel
molybdenum
ammonia (as N)
iron
120.. copper
124. nickel
cobalt
ammonia (as N)
122. lead
123. mercury
126. silver
128. zinc
gold
417
-------
r
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - X
Table X-2 (Continued)
BAT REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
Subcategory
Secondary Precious Metals
Primary Rare Earth Metals
Secondary Tantalum
Secondary Tin
Primary and Secondary Titanium
Secondary Tungsten and Cobalt
Secondary Uranium
Primary Zirconium and Hafnium
Pollutant Parameters
120. copper
121. cyanide
128. zinc
ammonia (as N)
gold
palladium
platinum
9. hexachlorobenzene
119. chromium (total)
122. lead
124. nickel
120. copper
122. lead
124. nickel
128. zinc
tantalum
115. arsenic
121. cyanide
122. lead
iron
tin
fluoride
119. chromium (total)
122. lead
124. nickel
titanium
120. copper
124. nickel
cobalt
tungsten
ammonia (as N)
119. chromium (total)
120. copper
124. nickel
fluoride
119. chromium (total)
121. cyanide (total)
122. lead
124. nickel
ammonia (as N)
418
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - X
Table X-3
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED BY TECHNOLOGIES UPON
WHICH ARE BASED OTHER EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES
Subcategory
Primary Aluminum Smelting
Secondary Aluminum
Primary Electrolytic
Copper Refining
Primary Lead
Primary Zinc
Pollutant Parameters
1. acenaphthene
39. fluoranthene
55. naphthalene
72. benzo(a)anthracene
(1,2-benzanthracene)
76. chrysene
78. anthracene (a)
79. benzo(ghi)perylene
{1,11-benzoperylene)
80. fluorene
81. phenanthrene (a)
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
(1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene)
84. pyrene
115. arsenic
116. asbestos (Fibrous)
118. cadmium
119. chromium (Total)
120. copper
122. lead
125. selenium
128. zinc
(a) Reported together.
65. phenol
118. ,cadmium
119. chromium (Total)
122. lead
126. silver
128. zinc
116. asbestos (Fibrous)
118. cadmium
115. arsenic
116. asbestos (Fibrous)
119. chromium (Total)
124. nickel
126. silver
419
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - X
Table X-3 (Continued)
TOXIC POLLUTANTS EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED BY TECHNOLOGIES
UPON WHICH ARE BASED OTHER EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES
Subcategory
Metallurgical Acid Plants
Primary Tungsten
Primary Columbium-Tantalum
Secondary Silver
Secondary Lead
Primary Antimony
Pollutants
114. antimony
119. chromium (Total)
123. mercury
124. nickel
125. selenium
126. silver
118. cadmium
119. chromium (Total)
124. nickel
125. silver
127. thallium
114. antimony
115. arsenic
116. asbestos (Fibrous)
118. cadmium
119. chromium (Total)
120. copper
124. nickel
125. selenium
127. thallium
114. antimony
115. arsenic
118. cadmium
119. chromium (Total)
121. cyanide
122. lead
124. nickel
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
118. cadmium
119. chromium (Total)
120. copper
124. nickel
126. silver
127. thallium
118. cadmium
120. copper
128. zinc
420
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - X
Table X-3 (Continued)
TOXIC POLLUTANTS EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED BY TECHNOLOGIES
UPON WHICH ARE BASED OTHER EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES
Subcategory
Pollutants
Primary and Secondary Germanium 114. antimony
and Gallium 118. cadmium
119. chromium
120. copper
124. nickel
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
Primary Molybdenum and Rhenium 119. chromium (total)
120. copper
128. zinc
Secondary Molybdenum and
Vanadium
Primary Nickel and Cobalt
Primary Precious Metals and
Mercury
114.
117.
118.
128.
Secondary Precious Metals
115.
118.
119.
120.
124.
127.
114.
115.
118.
119.
122.
124.
125.
126.
127.
antimony
beryllium
cadmium
zinc
128. zinc
arsenic
cadmium
chromium
copper
nickel
thallium
antimony
arsenic
cadmium
chromium
lead
nickel
selenium
silver,
thallium
421
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - X
Table X-3 (Continued)
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED BY TECHNOLOGIES UPON
WHICH OTHER EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES ARE BASED
Subcategory
Primary Rare Earth Metals
Pollutant Parameters
Secondary Tantalum
Secondary Tin
Primary and Secondary
Titanium
Secondary Tungsten and
Cobalt
4.
115.
118.
120.
125.
126.
127.
128.
114.
117.
118.
119.
126.
114.
118.
119.
120.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
114.
118.
120.
128.
115.
118.
119.
124.
126.
128.
benzene
arsenic
cadmium
copper
selenium
silver
thallium
zinc
antimony
beryllium
cadmium
chromium (total)
silver
antimony
cadmium .
chromium
copper
nickel
selenium
silver
thallium
zinc
antimony
cadmium
copper
zinc
arsenic
cadmium
chromium
lead
silver
zinc
422
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - X
Table X-3 (Continued)
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED BY TECHNOLOGIES UPON
WHICH OTHER EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES ARE BASED
Subcategory
Secondary Uranium
Pollutant Parameters
114.
115.
118.
122.
125.
126.
128.
antimony
arsenic
cadmium
lead
selenium
silver
zinc
Primary Zirconium and Hafnium 118. cadmium
127. thallium
128. zinc
423
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - X
Table X-4
TOXIC POLLUTANTS DETECTED BUT ONLY IN TRACE AMOUNTS
AND ARE NEITHER CAUSING NOR LIKELY TO CAUSE TOXIC EFFECTS
Subcategory
Primary Tungsten
Primary Columbium-Tantalum
Secondary Silver
Pollutants
11. Iflr1-trichloroethane
55. naphthalene
65. phenol
73. benzo(a)pyrene
79. benzo(ghi)perylene
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
4. benzene
6. carbon tetrachloride
7. chlorobenzene
8. lf2,4-trichlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
38. ethylbenzene
51. chlorodibromomethane
85. tetrachloroethylene
87. trichloroethylene
4. benzene
6. carbon tetrachloride
(tetrachloroemethane)
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
11. Iflf1-trichloroethane
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
38. ethylbenzene
84. pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
87. trichloroethylene
total phenolics (by 4-AAP
method)
424
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XI
SECTION XI
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The basis for new source performance standards (NSPS) under
Section 306 of the Clean Water Act is the best available
demonstrated technology (BDT). New plants have the opportunity
to design the best and most efficient production processes and
wastewater treatment technologies. Therefore/ NSPS includes
process changes, in-plant controls (including elimination to
wastewater discharges for some streams), operating procedure
changes, and end-of-pipe treatment technologies to reduce
pollution to the maximum extent possible. This section describes
the control technology for treatment of wastewater from new
sources and presents mass discharge limitations of regulated
pollutants for NSPS, based on the described control technology.
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO NSPS
All wastewater treatment technologies applicable to a new source
in the nonferrous metals manufacturing category have been
considered previously for the BAT options. For this reason, four
options were considered as the basis for NSPS, all identical to
BAT options in Section X. In summary, the treatment technologies
considered for nonferrous metals manufacturing new facilities are
outlined below:
Option A is based on:
Chemical precipitation of metals followed by sedimentation,
and, where required, ion exchange, sulfide precipitation,
iron co-precipitation, cyanide precipitation, ammonia air or
steam stripping,.and oil skimming.
Option B is based on:
Option A plus process wastewater flow reduction by the
following methods:
Contact cooling water recycle through cooling
towers.
Holding tanks for all other process wastewater
subject to recycle.
Option C is based on:
Option B plus multimedia filtration.
Option E is based on:
Option C plus activated carbon adsorption applied to the
total plant discharge as a polishing step.
425
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XI
The options listed above are general and can be applied to all
subcategories. Wastewater flow reduction within the nonferrous
metals manufacturing category is generally based on the recycle
of scrubbing liquors and casting contact cooling water.
Additional flow reduction is achievable for new sources through
alternative process methods which are subcategory-specific.
Additional flow reduction attainable for each subcategory is
discussed later in this section regarding the NSPS option
selection.
For several subcategories, the regulatory production normalized
flows for NSPS are the same as the production normalized flows
for the selected BAT option. The mass of pollutant allowed to be
discharged per mass of product is calculated by multiplying the
appropriate treatment effectiveness value (one-day maximum and
10-day average values) (mg/1) by the production normalized flows
(1/kkg). When these calculations are performed, the mass-based
NSPS can be derived for the selected option. Effluent
concentrations attainable by the NSPS treatment options are
identical to those presented in Section VII of this document
(Table VII-21 page xxx).
MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING NSPS
New source performance standards had been promulgated previously
for the primary and secondary aluminum smelting subcategories.
The technology basis for these standards was lime precipitation,
sedimentation, and in-process flow reduction of process
wastewater. EPA is promulgating modifications to these NSPS "to
incorporate changes promulgated for BAT and to include additional
flow reductions possible at new sources in the primary aluminum
subcategory.
As discussed in Section IX, the metallurgical acid plants
subcategory has been modified to include acid plants associated
with primary lead and zinc smelters, and - primary molybdenum
roasters,. This is based on the similarity between discharge
rates and effluent characteristics of wastewaters from all
metallurgical acid plants.
NSPS OPTION SELECTION
In general, EPA is promulgating that the best available
demonstrated technology be equivalent to BAT technology (NSPS
Option C). For the subcategories where EPA has reserved setting
BAT limitations, chemical precipitation, sedimentation, and
filtration is generally selected as the technology basis for
NSPS. The principal treatment method for Option C is in-process
flow reduction, chemical precipitation, sedimentation, and
multimedia filtration. Option C also includes ion exchange,
sulfide precipitation, cyanide precipitation, iron co-
precipitation, ammonia air or steam stripping, and oil skimming,
where required. As discussed in Sections IX and X, these
technologies are currently used at plants within this point
426
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XI
source category. The Agency recognizes that new sources have the
opportunity to implement more advanced levels to treatment
without incurring the costs to retrofit equipment, and the costs
of partial or complete shutdown to install new production
equipment. Specifically the design of new plants can be based on
recycle of contact cooling water through cooling towers, recycle
of air pollution control scrubber liquor or the use of dry air
pollution control equipment. New plants also have the
opportunity to consider alternate degassing or slag granulation
methods during the preliminary design of the facility.
The data relied upon for selection of NSPS were primarily the
data developed for existing sources which included costs on a
plant-by-plant basis along with retrofit costs where applicable.
The Agency believes that compliance costs could be lower for new
sources than the cost estimates for equivalent existing sources,
because production processes can be designed on the basis of
lower flows and there will be no costs associated with
retrofitting the in-process controls. Therefore, new sources
will have costs that are not greater than the costs that existing
sources would incur in achieving equivalent pollutant discharge
reduction. Based on this analysis, the Agency believes that the
selected NSPS (NSPS Option C) is an appropriate choice.
Section II of each subcategory supplement presents a summary of
the NSPS for the Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Point Source
Category. The pollutants selected for regulation for each
subcategory are identical to those selected for BAT with the
addition of conventional pollutant parameters (e.g., TSS, oil and
grease, and pH). The pollutants regulated under NSPS are
presented for each subcategory in Table XI-1 (page 435).
Presented below is a brief discussion describing the technology
option selected for NSPS for each subcategory.
Primary Aluminum Smelting
New source performance standards for primary aluminum are based
on BAT plus additional flow reduction. Additional flow reduction
is achievable through the use of dry air pollution scrubbing on
potlines, anode bake plants, and anode paste plants and
elimination of potroom and degassing scrubber discharges.
Potroom scrubbing discharges are eliminated by design of
efficient potline scrubbing (eliminating potroom scrubbing
completely) or 100 percent recycle (with blowdown recycled to
casting). Degassing scrubbers are limited by replacing chlorine
degassing with inert gases.
These flow reductions are demonstrated at existing plants, but
are not included in BAT because they might involve substantial
retrofit costs at other existing plants. However, new plants can
include these reductions in plant design at no significant
additional cost.
The Agency does not believe that the promulgated NSPS will
provide a barrier to entry for new facilities. In fact,
427
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XI
installation of dry scrubbing instead of wet scrubbing in new
facilities reduces the cost of end-of-pipe treatment by reducing
the overall volume of wastewater discharged.
Secondary Aluminum Smelting
The technology basis and discharge allowances for NSPS are
equivalent to that of the promulgated BAT, with the exception of
dross washing. Dross washing is not provided a discharge
allowance in the NSPS because of the demonstration of dry milling
in the subcategory. Dry milling is not required for existing
sources due to the extensive retrofit costs of installing
milling, grinding, and screening operations. However, new
sources have the opportunity to install the best equipment
without the cost of major retrofits. The Agency also does not
believe that new plants could achieve any additional flow
reduction for chlorine demagging and casting contact cooling
beyond that promulgated for BAT.
Primary Copper Smelting
The promulgated NSPS for the primary copper smelting subcategory
is zero discharge of all process pollutants without a
catastrophic storm discharge allowance. The Agency believes that
new smelting facilities can be constructed using cooling towers
to cool and recirculate casting contact cooling water and slag
granulation wastewater instead of large volume cooling
impoundments. This technology is demonstrated in this
subcategory. Thus, this modification eliminates the allowance
for the catastrophic precipitation discharge allowed at BAT. The
costs associated with construction and operation of a cooling
tower system are not significantly greater than those for cooling
impoundments, and as such, the Agency believes that the
promulgated NSPS will not constitute a barrier for entry of new
facilities. As a result of this modification, the discharge of
toxic metals during months of net precipitation will be
eliminated.
Primary Electrolytic Copper Refining
The promulgated NSPS for the primary electrolytic copper refining
subcategory are equivalent to promulgated BAT. Review of the
subcategory indicates that no additional demonstrated
technologies exist that improve on BAT. The Agency also believes
that new plants could not achieve any additional flow reduction
beyond that promulgated for BAT.
Secondary Copper
New source performance standards for the secondary copper
subcategory are promulgated as zero discharge of all process
wastewater pollutants. It is believed that new sources can be
constructed with demonstrated cooling tower technology
exclusively and that the cost of cooling towers instead of
cooling impoundments is minimal. This eliminates the allowance
428
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XI
needed for catastrophic stormwater provided at BAT. Therefore,
NSPS, as defined, does not constitute a barrier to entry for new
plants.
Primary Lead
The promulgated NSPS prohibit the discharge of all process
wastewater pollutants from primary lead smelting except those
industrial hygiene streams provided an allowance at BAT and for
which an allowance remains necessary. Zero discharge is
achievable through complete recycle and reuse of dross and blast
furnace slag granulation wastewater or through slag dumping.
Elimination of discharge from dross or blast furnace slag
granulation is demonstrated in four of the six existing plants,
but it is not included at BAT because it would involve
substantial retrofit costs for the one existing discharger by
requiring the installation of a modified sintering machine. New
plants can include elimination of the discharge from the slag
granulation process in the plant design at no significant
additional cost. Elimination of the sinter plant materials
handling wet air pollution control waste stream is based on dry
scrubbing to control fugitive lead emissions during materials
handling. Therefore, NSPS does not present any barrier to entry
for new plants.
Primary Zinc
New source performance standards for the primary zinc subcategory
are promulgated equal to BAT. Review of the subcategory
indicates that no new demonstrated technologies exist that
improve on BAT.
Dry scrubbing is not demonstrated for controlling emissions from
zinc reduction furnaces, leaching, and product casting. The
nature of these emissions (acidic fumes, hot particulate matter)
technically precludes the use of dry scrubbers. Therefore, a
discharge allowance is included from this source at NSPS
equivalent to that promulgated,, for BAT. The Agency believes that
new plants could not achieve any additional flow reduction beyond
that promulgated for BAT.
Metallurgical Acid Plants
New source performance standards for the metallurgical acid
plants subcategory are promulgated equal to BAT. Review of the
subcategory indicates that no new demonstrated technologies exist
that improve on BAT. The Agency also does not believe that new
plants could achieve any additional flow reduction beyond that
promulgated for BAT.
Primary Tungsten
For the primary tungsten subcategory, NSPS are promulgated as
equal to BAT. Review of the subcategory indicates that no new
demonstrated technologies that improve on BAT exist.
429
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XI
Dry scrubbing is not demonstrated for controlling emissions from
acid leaching, APT conversion to oxides and tungsten reduction
furnaces. The nature of these emissions (acid fumes, hot
particulate matter) technically precludes the use of dry
scrubbers. Therefore, a discharge allowance is included for
these sources at NSPS equivalent to that promulgated for BAT.
Also, the Agency does not believe that new plants could achieve
any additional flow reduction beyond the 90 percent scrubber
effluent recycle promulgated for BAT.
Primary Columbium-Tantalum
The promulgated NSPS for the primary columbium-tantalum
subcategory is equivalent to BAT. Review of the subcategory
indicates that no new demonstrated technologies that improve on
BAT exist.
Dry scrubbing is not demonstrated for controlling emissions from
concentration digestion, solvent extraction, precipitation,
oxides calcining, and reduction of tantalum salt to metal. The
nature of these emissions (acidic fumes, hot particulate matter)
technically precludes the use of dry scrubbers. Therefore, a
discharge allowance is included for these sources at NSPS
equivalent to that promulgated for BAT. The Agency also does not
believe that new plants could achieve any additional flow
reduction beyond that promulgated for BAT.
Secondary Silver
The promulgated NSPS for the secondary silver subcategory is
equivalent to BAT. Review of the subcategory indicates that no
new demonstrated technologies that improve on BAT exist.
Dry scrubbing is not demonstrated for controlling emissions from
film stripping and precipitation of film stripping solutions,
precipitation and filtration of photographic solutions, and
leaching and precipitation of non-photographic solutions. The
nature of these emissions (acidic fumes, hot particulate matter)
technically precludes the use of dry scrubbers. Therefore, a
discharge allowance is included for these sources at NSPS!
equivalent to that promulgated for BAT. The Agency also does not
believe that new plants could achieve any additional flow
reduction beyond that promulgated for BAT.
Secondary Lead
The promulgated NSPS for the secondary lead subcategory is
equivalent to BAT with additional flow reduction over BAT levels
using dry scrubbing to control emissions from kettle refining.
Review of the subcategory indicates that no other new
demonstrated technologies that improve on BAT exist.
Existing wet scrubbers are used to control emissions and prevent
baghouse fires caused by sparking when sawdust and phosphorus are
430
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XI
applied to the surface of the metal while in the kettle. Dry
scrubbers can be used for this purpose if spark arresters and
settling chambers are installed to trap sparks. According to
the Secondary Lead Smelters Association, this is a demonstrated
and viable technology option. Dry scrubbing is not required at
BAT because of the extensive retrofit costs of switching from wet
to dry scrubbing. Dry scrubbing, however, is not demonstrated
for controlling emissions from blast and reverberatory furnaces,
and the nature of these emissions (hot particulate matter)
precludes the use of dry scrubbing. Therefore, "a discharge
allowance is included for this source at NSPS equivalent to that
promulgated for BAT. The Agency also does not believe that new
plants could achieve any additional flow reduction beyond that
promulgated for BAT.
Primary Antimony
The promulgated NSPS for primary antimony are equal to BAT. We
do not believe that new plants could achieve any reduction in
flow beyond the flows prom-ulgated for BAT. Because NSPS is
equal to BAT, we believe that the NSPS will-not pose a barrier to
the entry of new plants into this subcategory.
Primary Beryllium
The promulgated NSPS for primary beryllium are equal to BAT. We
do not believe that new plants could achieve any flow reduction
beyond the allowances promulgated for BAT. Because NSPS is equal
to BAT, we believe that the NSPS will not have a detrimental
impact on the entry of new plants into this subcategory.
Primary and Secondary Germanium and Gallium
The promulgated NSPS for primary and secondary germanium and
gallium are equal to BAT. We do not believe that new plants
could achieve any reduction in flow beyond the flow allowances
promulgated for BAT. Because NSPS is equal to BAT, we believe
that the NSPS will not have a detrimental impact on the entry of
new plants into this subcategory.
Secondary Indium
The NSPS for the secondary indium subcategory are based on
chemical precipitation and sedimentation, (the same model
technology as PSES). The pollutants and pollutant parameters
specifically limited under NSPS are cadmium, lead, zinc, indium,
total suspended solids, and pH. The priority pollutants
chromium, nickel, selenium, silver, and thallium were also
considered for regulation because they are present at treatable
concentrations in the raw wastewaters from this subcategory.
These pollutants were not selected for specific regulation
because they will be effectively controlled when the regulated
priority metals are treated to the levels achievable by the model
technology.
431
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XI
The costs and specific removal data for this subcategory are not
presented here because the data on which they are based has been
claimed to be confidential. We believe the promulgated NSPS are
economically achievable, and that they do not pose a barrier to
entry of new plants into this subcategory.
Secondary Mercury
The promulgated NSPS for secondary mercury are based on chemical
precipitation, sedimentation, and filtration. This technology is
fully demonstrated in many nonferrous metals manufacturing sub-
categories and would be expected to perform at the same level in
this subcategory.
The pollutants specifically limited under NSPS are lead, mercury,
TSS, and pH. The priority pollutants arsenic, cadmium, copper,
silver, and zinc were also considered for regulation because they
are present at treatable concentrations in the raw wastewaters
from this subcategory. These pollutants were not selected for
specific regulation because they will be effectively controlled
when the regulated priority metals are treated to the levels
achievable by the model technology.
We believe the promulgated NSPS are economically achievable, and
that they are not a barrier to entry of new plants into this
subcategory.
Primary Molybdenum and Rhenium
The promulgated NSPS for primary molybdenum and rhenium are equal
to BAT. We do not believe that new plants could achieve any flow
reduction beyond the allowances promulgated for BAT. Because
NSPS are equal to BAT, we believe that the NSPS will not have a
detrimental impact on the entry to new plants into this
subcategory.
Secondary Molybdenum and Vanadium
The promulgated NSPS for secondary molybdenum and vanadium are
equal to BAT. We do not believe that new plants could achieve
any reduction in flow beyond the flow allow-ances promulgated for
BAT. Because NSPS are equal to BAT, we believe that the NSPS
will not pose a barrier to the entry of new plants into this
subcategory.
Primary Nickel and Cobalt
The promulgated NSPS for primary nickel and cobalt are equal to
BAT. We do not believe that new plants could achieve any
reduction in flow beyond the flow allow-ances promulgated for
BAT. Because NSPS are equal to BAT, we believe that the NSPS
will not pose a barrier to the entry of new plants into this
subcategory.
432
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XI
Secondary Nickel
The promulgated NSPS for secondary nickel are equivalent to PSES
(chemical precipitation and sedimentation technology). We do not
believe that new plants could achieve any reduction in flow
beyond the flow allowances promulgated for PSES. Because NSPS
are _equal to PSES, we believe that the NSPS will not pose a
barrier to the entry of new plants into this subcategory.
Primary Precious Metals and Mercury
The promulgated NSPS for primary precious metals and mercury are
equal to BAT. We do not believe that new plants could achieve
any reduction in flow beyond the allowances promulgated for BAT.
Because NSPS are equal to BAT, we believe that the NSPS will not
have a detrimental impact on the entry of new plants into this
subcategory.
Secondary Precious Metals
The promulgated NSPS for secondary precious metals are equal to
BAT. We do not believe that new plants could achieve any
reduction in flow beyond the allowances promulgated for BAT.
Because NSPS are equal to BAT, we believe that the NSPS are
economically achievable, and that they are not a barrier to entry
of new plants into this subcategory.
Primary Rare Earth Metals
The promulgated NSPS for primary rare earth metals are equal to
BAT, which is based on in-process flow reduction, lime, settle
and filter treatment, , followed by activated carbon polishing
technology for control of toxic inorganic and organic pollutants.
Although the BPT and BAT limitations were remanded for this
subcategory, EPA feels that new sources would be able to
economically achieve these new source standards.
The NSPS for this subcategory are based on in-process wastewater
flow reduction, followed by lime, settle, and filter and
activated carbon adsorption end of pipe treatments. Flow
reduction is based on 90 percent recycle of scrubber effluent.
Activated carbon technology is transferred from the iron and
steel category where it is a demonstrated technology for removal
of toxic organic pollutants.
The pollutants specifically limited under NSPS are
hexachlorobenzene, chromium, lead, and nickel. The priority
pollutants benzene, arsenic, cadmium, copper, selenium, silver,
thallium, and zinc were also considered for regulation because
they were found at treatable concentrations in the raw
wastewaters from this subcategory. These pollutants were not
selected for specific regulation because they will be effectively
controlled when the regulated priority pollutants are treated to
the levels achievable by the model NSPS technology.
433
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XI
Secondary Tantalum
The promulgated NSPS for secondary tantalum are equal to BAT. We
do not believe that new plants could achieve any reduction in
flow beyond the allowances promulgated for BAT. Because NSPS are
equal to BAT, we believe that the NSPS will not pose a barrier to
the entry of new plants into this subcategory.
Secondary Tin
The promulgated NSPS for secondary tin are equal to BAT. We do
not believe that new plants could achieve any reduction in flow
beyond the allowances promulgated for BAT. Because NSPS are
equal to BAT, we believe that the NSPS will not pose a barrier to
the entry of new plants into this subcategory.
Primary and Secondary Titanium
The promulgated NSPS for primary and secondary titanium are equal
to BAT plus flow reduction technology with additional flow
reduction for four streams. Zero discharge is promulgated for
chip crushing, sponge crushing and screening, and scrap milling
wet air pollution control wastewater based on dry scrubbing.
Zero discharge is also promulgated for chlorine liquefaction wet
air pollution control based on by-product recovery of scrubber
liquor as hypochlorous acid. Cost for dry scrubbing air pollution
control in a new facility is no greater than the cost for wet
scrubbing which was the basis for BAT cost estimates. Because
NSPS are equal to BAT, we believe that the NSPS will not pose a
barrier to the entry of new plants into this subcategory.
Secondary Tungsten and Cobalt
The promulgated NSPS for secondary tungsten and cobalt are equal
to BAT. We do not believe that new plants could achieve any
reduction in flow beyond the allowances promulgated for BAT.
Because NSPS are equal to BAT, we- believe that the NSPS will not
pose a barrier to the entry of new plants into this subcategory.
Secondary Uranium
The promulgated NSPS for secondary uranium are equal to BAT. We
do not believe that new plants could achieve any reduction in
flow beyond the allowances promulgated for BAT. Because NSPS are
equal to BAT, we believe that the NSPS will not pose a barrier to
the entry of new plants into this subcategory.
Primary Zirconium and Hafnium
The promulgated NSPS for primary zirconium and hafnium are equal
to BAT. We do not believe that new plants could achieve any
reduction in flow beyond the allowances promulgated for BAT.
Because NSPS are equal to BAT, we believe that the NSPS will not
pose a barrier to the entry of new plants into this subcategory.
434
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XI
Table XI-1
REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
Subcategory
Primary Aluminum Smelting
Secondary Aluminum Smelting
Primary Electrolytic Copper
Refining
Primary Lead
Primary Zinc
Metallurgical Acid Plants
Pollutant Parameters
73. benzo(a)pyrene
114. antimony
121. cyanide (total)
124. nickel
aluminum
fluoride
oil and grease
TSS
pH
122. lead
128. zinc
aluminum
ammonia (N)
oil and grease
phenolics (total;
by 4-AAP method)
TSS
pH
114. arsenic
120. copper
124. nickel
TSS
pH
122. lead
128. zinc
TSS
pH
118. cadmium
120. copper
122. lead
128. zinc
TSS
pH
115. arsenic
118. cadmium
120. copper
122. lead
128. zinc
TSS
PH
435
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XI
Table XI-1 (Continued)
REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
Subcategory
Primary Tungsten
Pollutant Parameters
Primary Columbium-Tantalum
122.
128.
122.
128.
Secondary Silver
Secondary Lead
Primary Antimony
Primary Beryllium
120.
128.
114.
115.
122.
128.
114.
115.
123.
117.
119.
120.
121.
Primary and Secondary Germanium
and Gallium
115.
122.
128.
lead
zinc
ammonia (N)
TSS
pH
lead
zinc
ammonia (N)
fluoride
TSS
pH
copper
zinc
ammonia (N)
TSS
pH
antimony
arsenic
lead
zinc
ammonia (N)
TSS
antimony
arsenic
mercury
TSS
PH
beryllium
chromium (total)
copper
cyanide
ammonia (as N)
fluoride
TSS
PH
arsenic
lead
zinc
fluoride
TSS
pH
436
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
, SECT - XI
Table XI-1 (Continued)
REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
Subcategory
Secondary Molybdenum and Vanadium
Primary Nickel and Cobalt
Primary Precious Metals and Mercury
Secondary Precious Metals
Primary Rare Earth Metals
Pollutant Parameters
115. arsenic
119. chromium
122. lead
124. nickel
molybdenum
ammonia (as N)
iron
TSS
PH
120. copper
124. nickel
cobalt
ammonia (as N)
TSS
pH
122. lead
123. mercury
126. silver
128. zinc
gold
oil and grease
TSS
pH
120. copper
121. cyanide
128. zinc
ammonia (as N)
gold
palladium
platinum
TSS
pH
119. chromium (Total)
122. lead
124. nickel
TSS
437
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XI
Table XI-1 (Continued)
REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
Subcategory
Pollutant Parameters
Secondary Tantalum
Secondary Tin
Primary and Secondary Titanium
Secondary Tungsten and Cobalt
Secondary Uranium
120. copper
122. lead
124. nickel
128. zinc
tantalum
TSS
pH
115. arsenic
121. cyanide
122. lead
iron
tin
fluoride
TSS
PH
119. chromium (total)
122. lead
124. nickel
titanium
oil and grease
TSS
pH
120. copper
124. nickel
cobalt
tungsten
oil and grease
ammonia (as N)
TSS
pH
119. chromium (total)
120. copper
124. nickel
fluoride
TSS
438
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XI
Table XI-1 (Continued)
REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
Subcategory
Primary Zirconium and Hafnium
Pollutant Parameters
119. chromium (total)
121. cyanide (total)
122. lead
124. nickel
ammonia (as N)
TSS
PH
439
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT SECT - XI
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
440
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XII
SECTION XII
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
Section 307(b) of the Clean Wajter Act requires EPA to promulgate
pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES), which must be
achieved within three years of promulgation. PSES are designed
to prevent the discharge ofl pollutants which pass through,
interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation
of publicly owned treatment wqjrks (POTW). The Clean Water Act of
1977 adds a new dimension! by requiring pretreatment for
pollutants, such as heavy ..petals, that limit POTW sludge
management alternatives, inducing 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
priority pollutants.
Section 307(c) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment
standards for new sources:"(PSNS) at the same time that it
promulgates NSPS. New indirect discharge facilities, like new
direct discharge facilities, have the opportunity 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.
General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of
Pollution were published in the Federal Register, Vol. 46, No.
18, Wednesday, January 28, 1981. These regulations describe the
Agency's overall policy for establishing and enforcing
pretreatment standards for new and existing users of a POTW and
delineates the responsibilities and deadlines applicable to each
party in this effort. In addition, 40 CFR Part 403, Section
403.5 (b,), outlines prohibited discharges which apply to all users
of a POTW.
This section describes the treatment and control technology for
pretreatment of process wastewaters from existing sources and new
sources, and presents mass discharge limitations of regulated
pollutants for existing and new sources, based on the
control technology. It also serves to summarize
previous rulemakings in the nonferrous metals
category.
REGULATORY APPROACH 'i-^
described
changes from
manufacturing
There are 125 faciliti'es, representing 28 percent of the
nonferrous metals manufacturing category, who discharge
wastewaters to POTW. Pretreatment standards are established to
ensure removal of pollutants discharged by these facilities which
may interfere with, pas;s through, or be incompatible with POTW
.operations. A determination of which pollutants may pass through
or be incompatible wi|h?POTW operations, and thus be subject to
441
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XII
pretreatment standards, depends on the level of treatment used by
the POTW. In general, more pollutants will pass through or
interfere with a POTW using primary treatment (usually physical
separation by settling) than one which has installed secondary
treatment (settling plus biological treatment).
Many of the pollutants contained in nonferrous metals
manufacturing wastewaters are not biodegradable and are,
therefore, not effectively treated by such systems. Furthermore,
these pollutants have been known to pass through or interfere
with the normal operations of these systems. Problems associated
with the uncontrolled release of pollutant parameters identified
in nonferrous metals manufacturing process wastewaters to POTW
were discussed in Section VI.
The Agency based the selection of pretreatment standards for the
nonferrous metals manufacturing category on the minimization of
pass-through of priority pollutants at POTW. For _ each
subcategory, the Agency compared removal rates for each priority
pollutant limited by the pretreatment options to the removal rate
for that pollutant at well-operated POTW. The POTW removal rates
were determined through a study conducted by the Agency at over
40 POTW and a statistical analysis of the data. (See Fate of
Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works, EPA 440/1-
80-301, October, 1980; and Determining National Removal Credits
for Selected Pollutants for Publicly Owned Treatment Works, EPA
removal rates
440/82-008, September,
presented below:
Priority Pollutant
1982.) The POTW
POTW Removal Rate
are
Antimony 0%
Arsenic 0%
Cadmium 38%
Chromium 65%
Copper 58%
Cyanide 52%
Lead 48%
Mercury 69%
Nickel 19%
Selenium 0%
Silver 66%
Zinc 65%
Hexachlorobenzene 12%
Ammonia 40%
Fluoride 0%
Total Regulated Metals 62%
There were no data concerning POTW removals for beryllium, boron,
cobalt, germanium, indium, molybdenum, radium 226, thallium, tin,
titanium, and uranium, to compare with our estimates of in-plant
treatment. Removal of these pollutants is solubility related.
Since the removal of metal pollutants for which data are
available is also'solubility related, EPA believes that these
pollutants may pass through a POTW. It was assumed, therefore,
442
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XII
that these metals pass"- through "a POTW because they are soluble in
water and are not degradable. Pass-through data are not
available for benzo(aJ^Syrene; however, pass-through data for five
other polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons do not exceed 83 percent.
This value was used for organics pass-through calculations.
A pollutant is deemed to pass through the POTW when the average
percentage removed nationwide by well-operated POTW, meeting
secondary treatment requirements, is less than the percentage
removed by direct dischargers complying with BAT effluent
limitations guidelines for that pollutant. (See generally, 46 FR
9415-16 (January 28, 1981).) For example, if the selected PSES
option removed 90 percent of the cadmium generated by the
subcategory, cadmium would be considered to pass through because
a well-operated POTW would be expected to remove 38 percent.
Conversely, if the selected PSES option removed only 30 percent
of the cadmium generated by the subcategory, it would not be
considered to pass through. In the latter case, cadmium would
not be selected for specific regulation because a well-operated
POTW would have a greater removal efficiency.
*'; '. '
The analysis described above was performed for each subcategory
starting with the pollutants selected for regulation at BAT. The
conventional pollutant parameters (TSS, pH, and oil and grease)
and aluminum were not considered for regulation under
pretreatment standards. The conventional pollutants are
effectively controlled by POTW, while aluminum is used to enhance
settling. For those subcategories where ammonia was selected for
specific limitation, it will also be selected for limitation
under pretreatment standards. Most .POTW in the United States are
not designed for nitrification. Hence, aside from incidental
removal, most, if not all, of the ammonia introduced into POTW
will pass through into receiving waters without treatment.
An examination of the percent removal for the selected
pretreatment options indicated that the pretreatment option
selected removed at least 95 percent of the priority pollutants
generated in the nonferrous metals manufacturing point source
category. Consequently, the priority pollutants regulated for
each subcategory under BAT will also be regulated under
pretreatment standards. Table XII-1 (page 460) presents the
pollutants selected for regulation for pretreatment standards.
MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
Existing pretreatment standards proposed for the nonferrous
metals manufacturing category are being revised to incorporate
the building block approach as discussed earlier. In addition,
information has become available regarding proposed pretreatment
standards that warrant.revision of promulgated standards.
Primary Aluminum Smelting ?
Pretreatment standards for new sources hjad been promulgated
previously to limit the quantity of fluoride discharged from
443
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XII
primary aluminum smelters to POTW. The technology basis for this
limitation was lime precipitation and sedimentation. PSNS for
primary aluminum has been revised to incorporate the building
block approach and the same technology basis as for new sources.
Since the PSNS regulation was proposed, three additional
technologies have been identified as demonstrated or transferable
to the primary aluminum subcategory. These technologies,
filtration, activated carbon, and dry alumina for scrubbing
systems, would greatly reduce the amount of toxic pollutants
discharged by a new source. A thorough discussion of the
building block approach and selection of regulated pollutant
parameters is presented in the primary aluminum supplement.
Secondary Aluminum Smelting
The previously promulgated pretreatment standards for existing
secondary aluminum facilities limited the quantity of oil and
grease allowed to be discharged from metal cooling, the pH from
demagging fume scrubbers, and the quantity of ammonia discharged
from residue milling. These mass limitations have been revised
to include additional waste streams that warrant regulations and
to upgrade the technology basis so that it is analogous to the
promulgated BAT.
Pretreatment standards previously promulgated for new sources
require zero discharge of all process generated pollutants into
POTW with the exception of demagging fume scrubber liquor. A
discharge from this scrubber was allowed only when chlorine is
used as a demagging agent. Mass limitations developed for this
discharge were based on chemical precipitation and sedimentation
technology. Revision of the promulgated pretreatment standard
was necessary in light of comments and information received and
to incorporate the more thorough building block approach (see
Section X). An extensive description of the development of these
standards can be found in the secondary aluminum supplement.
Secondary Coppe'r
The promulgated pretreatment standards for existing sources allows
the discharge of process wastewaters subject to limitations
developed from chemical precipitation and sedimentation.
technology. Currently promulgated BAT limitations, however,
require zero discharge of all process wastewaters. Therefore,
PSES is being promulgated as zero discharge through recycle and
reuse making it equivalent to BAT.
Metallurgical Acid Plants
As discussed in Section IX, the metallurgical acid plants sub-
category has been modified to include acid plants associated with
primary molybdenum roasters. This is based on the similarity
between discharge rates and effluent characteristics of waste-
waters from all metallurgical acid plants.
EPA sis not extend the applicability of the existing
444
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT .DOCUMENT
SECT - XII
metallurgical acid plant pretreatment standards to include
molybdenum acid plants because there are no indirect discharging
molybdenum acid plants. ,
We have extended the applicability of the existing PSNS for
metallurgical acid plants to include metallurgical acid plants
associated with primary molybdenum roasters. It is necessary to
promulgate PSNS to prevent pass-through of arsenic, cadmium,
copper, lead, and zinc. These priority pollutants are removed by
a well-operated POTW achieving secondary treatment at an average
of 42 percent, while BAT level technology removes approximately
83 percent.
We believe that the promulgated PSNS are achievable, and that
they are not a barrier to entry of newj: plants into this
subcategory. ^
OPTION SELECTION \:
The treatment schemes considered for pretreatment standards for
existing sources are identical to those considered for BAT. The
treatment schemes considered for pretreatment standards for new
sources are also identical to those considered for BAT with the
exception of primary aluminum smelting, secondary aluminum,
primary lead, arid secondary lead, where additional flow reduction
is required. Each of the options considered builds upon the BPT
technology basis of chemical precipitation and sedimentation.
Depending on the pollutants present in the subcategories' raw
wastewaters, a combination of the treatment technologies listed
below were considered:
o Option A - End-of-pipe treatment consisting of chemical
precipitation, sedimentation, and ion-exchange, and
preliminary treatment, where necessary, consisting of
oil skimming, cyanide precipitation, sulfide precipi-
tation, iron co-precipitation, and ammonia air or steam
stripping. This combination of technology reduces
priority metals and cyanide, conventional, and
nonconventional pollutants.
o Option B - Option B is equal to Option A preceded by
flow reduction of process wastewater through the use
of cooling towers for contact cooling water and holding
tanks for all other process wastewater subject to
recycle.
o Option C - Option C is equal to Option ;B plus end-of-
pipe polishing filtration for further reduction of
priority metals and TSS.
o Option E - Option E consists of Option C plus activated
carbon adsorption applied to the total plant discharge
as a polishing step to reduce priority organic concen-
trations. V
445
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XII
The general approach taken by the Agency for pretreatment
standards for this category is presented below. The mass-based
standards for each subcategory may be found in Section II of each
subcategory supplement. The options selected for the category on
which to base pretreatment standards are discussed below.
Primary Aluminum Smelting
Pretreatment standards for existing sources will not be
promulgated for the primary aluminum smelting subcategory since
there are no existing indirect dischargers.
The technology basis for PSNS is identical to NSPS and includes
flow reduction, lime precipitation, sedimentation, and filtration
for control of toxic metals, and cyanide precipitation
preliminary treatment.
Secondary Aluminum Smelting
The technology basis for PSES is in-process flow reduction lime,
precipitation, sedimentation, and filtration. Preliminary
treatment consisting of ammonia steam stripping and activated
carbon adsorption is included for selected streams. The
achievable concentration for ammonia steam stripping is based on
iron and steel manufacturing category data. Flow reduction for
the selected technology option over current discharge rates
represents a 75 percent reduction in flow. Ammonia steam
stripping and lime precipitation and sedimentation, and filter
technologies are presently demonstrated in the nonferrous metals
manufacturing category. Ammonia air stripping was the technology
basis for the previously promulgated PSES. Steam stripping was
promulgated j.n this rule instead of air stripping because it is a
superior technology in that it does not transfer the pollutant
from one media to another. Activated carbon adsorption is
selected to control phenolics in the scrubber stream from
delacquering operations.
Implementation of the promulgated PSES would remove annually an
estimated 11,300 kg/yr of toxic pollutants, 96 kg/yr of ammonia,
and 212 kg/yr of phenolics over estimated raw discharges.
Capital cost for achieving promulgated PSES is $2.3 million (1982
dollars), and annual cost of $1.4 million.
The technology basis used to develop standards for new sources is
identical to those used for existing sources. There is no
demonstrated technology that is better than the PSES technology.
Primary Copper Smelting
No pretreatment standards for existing sources are promulgated
for the primary copper smelting subcategory since there are no
existing indirect dischargers.
The technology basis for promulgated PSNS is identical to NSPS
446
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XII
n,n- dlschar<3e of all process wastewater
pollutants, with no allowance for catastrophic stormwater
discharge. New indirect discharger^will be constructed with
cooling towers, not cooling impoundments, since they will be
located near POTW, suggesting that they will be near heavily
populated areas where land is scarce making the cost of acquiring
land to install an impoundment relatively high. Thus, we do not
believe there are any incremental costs associated with PSNS.
Primary Electrolytic Copper Refining
No pretreatment standards for existing sources are promulgated
for the primary electrolytic copper refining subcategory since
there are no existing indirect dischargers.
The technology basis of pretreatment for new sources is identical
to BAT and NSPS and is based on lime precipitation,
sedimentation, filtration, and 90 percent recycle for casting
oaC^ -C00iin9 "ater. As in NSPS, all other waste stream!
generated at copper refineries are not included in the flow
allowance. . j-j-uw
Secondary Copper
As mentioned earlier in this section, PSES for secondary copper
is being modified to make it equivalent to BAT, or zero
discharge. Implementation of the promulgated PSES would remove
an estimated 9,500 kg/yr of toxic pollutants from raw discharges?
en *C!S fcimat(rd capital cost for achieving the promulgated PSES is
$0 654 million (1982 dollars) and the annual cost is $0.277
HI i x j_ j. o n
no techn?lo9v basis for promulgated PSNS is identical to NSPS,
PSES, and BAT. NO allowance for catastrophic stormwater
discharges is provided as is discussed in Chapter XI for NSPS.
Primary Lead
The- technology for promulgated PSES is equivalent to BAT
treatment _ and consists of in-process flow reduction, lime
precipitation, sedimentation, sulfide precipitation (and
sedimentation), and multimedia filtration. Implementation of the
promulgated PSES will remove an estimated 117 kg/yr of toxic
over raw discharge. The capital cost for achieving
1S-i?-'°57 million <1982 dollars) and the annual cos??!
million.
The technology basis for promulgated PSNS is equivalent to NSPS
or zero discharge except for industrial hygiene streams provided
an allowance at NSPS. As discussed in Chapter XI for NSPS, slaa
removed from dross reverberatory furnaces contains economical
recoverable amounts of lead that are granulated before recycling
New facilities will have the opportunity to install dry slaq
conditioning devices to eliminate the usage of wastewater in this
process or implement a 100 percent recycle system of slag
447
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XII
granulation wastewater. Elimination of the sinter plant
materials handling wet air pollution control stream can also be
accomplished with dry methods or 100 percent recycle. The Agency
believes the elimination of these process wastewater sources can
be accomplished without additional cost beyond BAT-equivalent
costs.
Primary Zinc
The technology basis for the promulgated PSES in the primary zinc
subcategory is equivalent to BAT. The treatment consists of in-
process flow reduction, lime precipitation, sedimentation,
sulfide precipitation (and sedimentation), and multimedia
filtration. Implementation of the PSES would remove an estimated
650,000 kg/yr of toxic pollutants over raw discharge. The
estimated capital cost for achieving PSES is $0.12 million (1982
dollars) and the annual cost is $0.058 million.
The technology basis for promulgated pretreatment standards f or
new sources is equivalent to the NSPS basis of flow reduction,
lime precipitation, sedimentation, sulfide precipitation and
sedimentation, and filtration. The PSNS flow allowances are
based on minimization of process wastewater wherever possible
through the use of cooling "towers to recycle contact cooling
water and sedimentation basins for wet scrubbing wastewater. The
discharges from contact cooling and scrubbers is based on 90
percent recycle. Elimination of wastewater from scrubbers by
installing dry scrubbers is not demonstrated for controlling
emissions from zinc reduction furnaces, leaching, and product
casting. The nature of emissions from these sources (acidic
fumes, hot particulate matter) technically precludes the use of
dry scrubbers.
the
The
Metallurgical Acid Plants
The technology basis for the promulgated PSES in
metallurgical acid plants subcategory is equivalent to BAT.
treatment consists of in-process flow reduction,
precipitation, sedimentation, and multimedia filtration. Sulfide
precipitation is included for all primary lead and primary _ zinc
acid plants and one primary copper acid plant. Implementation of
the promulgated PSES would remove approximately 12,500 kg/yr o£
toxic metals over raw discharge. The capital cost for PSES is an
estimated $0.16 million (1982 dollars) and the annual cost is
$0.085 million.
The promulgated technology basis for pretreatment for new sources
is equivalent to the NSPS basis of flow reduction, lime
precipitation, sedimentation, sulfide precipitation, and
filtration. There is no demonstrated technology that provides
better pollutant removal than that promulgated for PSNS. The
acid plant blowdown allowance allocated for PSNS is based on 90
percent recycle. The Agency believes that no additional flow
reduction is feasible for new sources because the only other
available flow reduction technology, reverse osmosis, is not
448
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XII
demonstrated nor is it clearly transferable for this subcategory.
Primary Tungsten
The technology basis for the promulgated PSES in the
primary tungsten subcategory is equivalent to BAT. The selected
treatment _ consists of in-process flow reduction, lime
precipitation and sedimentation, ammonia steam stripping, and
filtration.
Implementation of the promulgated PSES limitations would remove
an estimated 3,400 kg/yr of toxic pollutants over estimated raw
discharge, and an estimated 63,320 kg/yr of ammonia. The capital
cost for achieving promulgated PSES is $0.568 million (1982
dollars), and annual cost of $0.445 million.
The technology basis for promulgated PSNS is identical to PSES.
The PSES flow allowances are based on minimization of process
wastewater wherever possible through the use of cooling towers to
recycle contact cooling water and sedimentation basins for wet
scrubbing wastewater. These discharges are based on 90 percent
recycle of these waste streams. Dry scrubbing is not
demonstrated for controlling emissions from acid leaching, APT
conversion to oxides and tungsten reduction furnaces. The nature
of these emissions (acidic fumes, hot particulate matter)
technically precludes the use of dry scrubbers.
Primary Columbium-Tantalum
The technology basis for the promulgated PSES in the
primary columbium-tantalum subcategory is equivalent to BAT. The
selected treatment consists of in-process flow reduction, lime
precipitation and sedimentation, ammonia steam stripping, and
filtration. Flow reduction is based on 90 percent recycle of
scrubber effluent that is the flow basis of BAT. This flow rate
is achieved by both indirect dischargers in the subcategory, and
filters are demonstrated at 23 plants in the nonferrous metals
manufacturing category.
Implementation of the promulgated PSES limitations would remove
18,590 kg/yr of toxic pollutants, 290,460 kg/yr of ammonia and
400,175 kg/yr of fluoride from raw discharges. Capital cost for
achieving promulgated PSES is $1.03 million (1982 dollars), and
annual cost of $0.7 million.
The technology basis for promulgated PSNS is identical to NSPS,
PSES and BAT. There is no known economically feasible,
demonstrated technology that is better than PSES technology. The
PSES flow allowances are based on minimization of process
wastewater wherever possible through the use of cooling towers to
recycle contact cooling water and sedimentation basins for wet
scrubbing wastewater. The discharges are based on 90 percent
recycle of these waste streams. Dry scrubbing is not
demonstrated for controlling emissions from concentration
digestion, solvent extraction, precipitation, oxides calcining,
449
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XII
and reduction of tantalum salt to metal. The nature of these
emissions (acidic fumes, hot particulate matter) technically
precludes the use of dry scrubbers.
Secondary Silver
The technology basis for the promulgated PSES in the secondary
silver subcategory is equivalent to BAT. The selected treatment
consists of in-process flow reduction, lime precipitation,
sedimentation, and multimedia filtration, along with ammonia
steam stripping preliminary treatment. Flow reduction is based
on complete recycle of furnace wet air pollution control.
Filtration is currently in place at eight of the 26 indirect
discharging secondary silver plants. Promulgated PSES would
remove an estimated 4,259 kg/yr of toxic pollutants and
approximately 42,400 kg/yr of ammonia generated by the industry.
Capital cost for achieving promulgated PSES is $0.63 million
(1982 dollars), with an annual cost of $0.42 million.
The promulgated technology basis for PSNS is equivalent to the
NSPS basis of in-process flow reduction, lime precipitation and
sedimentation, filtration, and ammonia steam stripping. Review
of the subcategory indicates that no new demonstrated
technologies that improve on this BAT technology exist.
Dry scrubbing is not demonstrated for controlling emissions from
film stripping and precipitation of film stripping solutions,
precipitation and filtration of photographic solutions, and
leaching and precipitation of non-photographic solutions. The
nature of these emissions (acidic fumes, hot particulate matter)
technically precludes the use of dry scrubbers. Therefore, an
allowance is included for these sources at PSES equivalent to
that promulgated for BAT and PSES. The Agency also does not
believe that new plants could achieve any additional flow
reduction beyond that promulgated for BAT.
Secondary Lead
The technology basis for the promulgated PSES in the secondary
lead subcategory is equivalent to BAT. The selected treatment
consists of in-process flow reduction, lime precipitation,
sedimentation, and multimedia filtration. Flow
based on 90 percent recycle of casting contact
reduction is
cooling water
through cooling towers. Filtration is achieved by five of the 26
indirect discharging secondary lead plants.
Implementation of the promulgated PSES would remove an estimated
46,500 kg/yr of toxic pollutants over estimated raw discharge.
Capital cost for achieving promulgated PSES is $4.26 million
(1982 dollars), with an annual cost of $2.51 million.
Pretreatment standards for new sources are equivalent to the NSPS
basis of in-process flow reduction, lime precipitation,
sedimentation and filtration with the additional flow reduction
over BAT levels using dry scrubbing to control emissions from
450
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XII
kettle refining. Flow reduction is based on 90 percent recycle
of scrubber effluent and casting contact cooling water using
cooling towers and holding tanks. There is no known demonstrated
technology that is better than the technology basis promulgated
for new secondary lead plants. Existing wet scrubbers are used
to control emissions and prevent baghouse fires caused by
sparking when sawdust and phosphorus are applied to the surface
of the metal while in the kettle. Dry scrubbers can be used for
this purpose if spark arresters and settling chambers are
installed to trap sparks. According to the Secondary Lead
Smelters Association, this is a demonstrated and viable
technology option. Dry scrubbing is not required at BAT because
of the extensive retrofit costs of switching from wet to dry
scrubbing. Dry scrubbing is not demonstrated for controlling
emissions from blast and reverberatory furnaces, and the nature
of these emissions (hot particulate matter) precludes the use of
dry scrubbing.
Primary Antimony
Pretreatment standards for existing sources were not promulgated
for the primary antimony subcategory because there are no exist-
ing indirect dischargers. We have promulgated PSNS equivalent to
NSPS and BAT. The technology basis for PSNS is identical to NSPS
and BAT. It was necessary to promulgate PSNS to prevent pass-
through of priority metals. These metals are removed by a well-
operated POTW achieving secondary treatment at an average of 61
percent. PSNS technology removes these pollutants at an average
of 98 percent. No additional flow reduction for new sources is
feasible beyond the allowances promulgated for BAT. We believe
that the PSNS are not a barrier to entry of new plants into this
subcategory because they do not include any additional costs
compared to BAT.
Primary Beryllium
Pretreatment standards for existing sources were not promulgated
for the primary beryllium subcategory since there are no indirect
dischargers. The technology basis for promulgated PSNS is
identical to NSPS and BAT. It was necessary to promulgate PSNS
to prevent pass-through of beryllium, chromium, copper, cyanide,
and fluoride. These priority pollutants are removed by a
well-operated POTW achieving secondary treatment at an average of
41 percent while BAT technology removes approximately 93 percent.
The PSNS flow allowances are based on minimization to process
wastewater wherever possible through the use of holding tanks for
wet scrubbing wastewater. The flow allowances are identical to
those promulgated for BAT.
Primary and Secondary Germanium and Gallium
EPA promulgated PSES and PSNS limitations for this subcategory
based on chemical precipitation and sedimentation treatment.
We have promulgated PSES to prevent pass-through to arsenic,
451
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XII
lead, zinc, and fluoride. These pollutants are removed by a
well-operated POTW achieving secondary treatment at an average of
33 percent while BAT technology removes approximately 87 percent.
Implementation of the PSES limitations would remove annually
estimated 564 kg of priority metal pollutants.
an
The costs and specific removal data for this subcategory are not
presented here because the data on which they are based have been
claimed to be cponfidential. The promulgated PSES will not result
in adverse economic impacts.
We have promulgated PSNS equivalent to PSES, NSPS and BAT. The
technology basis for promulgated PSNS is identical to NSPS, PSES,
and BAT. The same pollutants pass through as at PSES, for the
same reasons. We believe that the promulgated PSNS are not a
barrier to entry of new plants into this subcategory because they
do not include any additional costs compared to BAT.
Secondary Indium
PSES limitations for this subcategory are promulgated based on
chemical precipitation and sedimentation technology. The
pollutants specifically regulated under PSES are cadmium, lead,
zinc, and indium. The priority pollutants chromium, nickel,
selenium, silver, and thallium were also considered for regula-
tion because they are present at treatable concentrations in the
raw wastewaters from this subcategory. These pollutants were not
selected for specific regulation because they will be effectively
controlled when the regulated priority metals are treated to the
levels achievable by the model technology. It is necessary to
promulgate PSES to prevent pass-through of cadmium, lead, and
zinc. These toxic pollutants are removed by a well-operated POTW
achieving secondary treatment at an average of 38 percent while
this BAT level technology removes approximately 90 percent.
Implementation of the PSES limitations would remove annually
estimated 586 kg of priority metals and 288 kg of indium.
an
We have promulgated PSNS equal to NSPS. The technology basis for
PSNS is identical to NSPS. The same pollutants pass through as
at PSES, for the same reasons.
We believe that the promulgated PSNS are achievable, and that
they are not a barrier to entry of new plants into this
subcategory.
Secondary Mercury
Pretreatment standards for existing sources were not promulgated
for the secondary mercury subcategory since there are no existing
indirect dischargers.
We have promulgated PSNS equivalent to NSPS for this subcategory.
It was necessary to promulgate PSNS to prevent pass-through of
452
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XII
lead, and mercury. These pollutants are removed by a well-
operated POTW achieving secondary treatment at an average of 59
percent while PSNS level technology removes approximately 99
percent.
We believe that the promulgated PSNS are achievable, and that
they are not a barrier to entry of new plants into this
subcategory.
Primary Molybdenum and Rhenium
Pretreatment standards for existing sources were not promulgated
for the primary molybdenum and rhenium subcategory since there
are no existing indirect dischargers.
We have promulgated PSNS equal to BAT and NSPS for this
subcategory. It was necessary to promulgate PSNS to prevent
pass-through of arsenic, lead, nickel, selenium, molybdenum, and
ammonia. These priority pollutants are removed by a well-
operated POTW achieving secondary treatment at an average of 13
percent, while the NSPS and BAT level technology removes
approximately 79 percent.
We believe that the promulgated PSNS are achievable, and that
they are not a barrier to entry of new plants into this
subcategory.
Secondary Molybdenum and Vanadium
Pretreatment standards for existing sources were not promulgated
for the secondary molybdenum and vanadium subcategory since there
are no existing indirect dischargers.
We have promulgated PSNS equal to BAT and NSPS for this
subcategory. It was necessary to promulgate PSNS to prevent pass-
through of arsenic, chromium, lead, nickel, molybdenum, iron, and
ammonia. These priority pollutants are removed by a well-
operated POTW achieving secondary treatment at an average of 23
percent, while the NSPS and BAT level technology removes
approximately 98 percent.
The technology basis for PSNS is ammonia air stripping, iron co-
precipitation, chemical precipitation, sedimentation, and
filtration. The achievable concentration for ammonia air
stripping is based on nonferrous metals manufacturing category
data, as explained in the discussion of BPT and BAT in this
subcategory supplement.
We believe that the promulgated PSNS are achievable, and that
they are not a barrier to entry of new plants into this
subcategory because they do not include any additional costs
compared to BAT.
Primary Nickel and Cobalt
453
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XII
Pretreatment standards for existing sources were not promulgated
for the primary nickel and cobalt subcategory since there are no
existing indirect dischargers.
We have promulgated PSNS equal to BAT and NSPS for this
subcategory. It was necessary to promulgate PSNS to prevent
pass-through to copper, nickel, cobalt, and ammonia. These
priority pollutants are removed by a well-operated POTW at an
average of 26 percent, while SAT technology removes approximately
58 percent.
The technology basis for PSNS is ammonia steam stripping,
chemical precipitation and sedimentation, and filtration. The
achievable concentration for ammonia steam stripping is based on
iron and steel manufacturing category data, as explained in the
discussion of BPT and BAT for this subcategory.
We believe that the promulgated PSNS are achievable, and that
they are not a barrier to entry of new plants into this
subcategory because they do not include any additional costs
compared to BAT.
Secondary Nickel
PSES for this subcategory are promulgated based on chemical
precipitation and sedimentation. The pollutants specifically
regulated under PSES are chromium, copper, and nickel. The
priority pollutants arsenic and zinc were also considered for
regulation because they are present at treatable concentrations
in the raw wastewaters from this subcategory. These pollutants
were not selected for specific regulation because they will be
effectively controlled when the regulated priority metals are
treated to the levels achievable by the model technology. We are
promulgating PSES to prevent pass-through to chromium, copper,
and nickel. These pollutants are removed by a well-operated POTW
at an average of 32 percent while PSES technology removes
approximately 84 percent.
Implementation of the promulgated PSES limitations would remove
annually an estimated 1,624 kg of priority metals from the raw
waste loads. We estimate a capital cost of $320,000 and, .an
annualized cost of $161,233 to achieve PSES. The promulgated
PSES will not result in adverse economic impacts.
We have promulgated PSNS equivalent to NSPS and PSES. The same
pollutants pass through at PSNS as at PSES, for the same reasons.
The PSES flow allowances are based on minimization of process
wastewater wherever possible.
We believe that the promulgated PSNS are achievable, and that
they are not a barrier to entry of new plants into this
subcategory.
Primary Precious Metals and Mercury
454
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XII
Pretreatment standards for existing sources were not promulgated
for the primary precious metals and mercury subcategory because
there are no existing indirect dischargers.
We have promulgated PSNS equal to BAT and NSPS for this
subcategory. It was necessary to promulgate PSNS to prevent pass-
through of gold, lead, mercury, silver, and zinc. These priority
pollutants are removed by a well-operated POTW at an average of
62 percent, while the NSPS and BAT technology removes
approximately 93 percent.
The technology basis for PSNS is oil skimming, chemical
precipitation and sedimentation, wastewater flow reduction,
filtration and ion exchange. Flow reduction is based on 90
percent recycle of scrubber effluent that is the flow basis of
BAT.
We believe that the promulgated PSNS are achievable, and that
they are not a barrier to entry to new plants into this
subcategory because they do not include any additional costs
compared to BAT.
Secondary Precious Metals
The technology basis for the promulgated PSES in the secondary
precious metals subcategory is equivalent to BAT. It is
necessary to promulgate PSES to prevent pass-through of copper,
cyanide, zinc, ammonia, gold, palladium, and platinum. The
priority pollutants are removed by a well-operated POTW achieving
secondary treatment at an average of 32 percent while BAT level
technology removes approximately 99 percent. The technology
basis for PSES is chemical precipitation and sedimentation,
ammonia steam stripping, cyanide precipitation, wastewater flow
reduction, filtration, and ion exchange. The achievable
concentration for ammonia steam stripping is based on iron and
steel manufacturing category data, as explained in the discussion
of BPT and BAT for this subcategory. Flow reduction is based on
the same recycle of scrubbej effluent and granulation water that
is the flow basis of BAT. Recycle is practiced by 21 of the 29
existing plants in the subcategory.
Implementation of the promulgated PSES limitations would remove
annually an estimated 110,300 kg of priority pollutants including
866 kg of cyanide, and an estimated 10,530 kg of ammonia from the
raw waste load. Capital cost for achieving PSES is $1,734,265
and annualized cost of $1,059,367. The proposed PSES will not
result in adverse economic impacts.
We have promulgated PSNS equivalent to NSPS and BAT. The
technology basis for promulgated PSNS is identical to NSPS and
BAT. The same pollutants pass through at PSNS as at PSES, for the
same reasons. The NSPS flow allowances are based on minimization
of process wastewater wherever possible through the use of
holding tanks to recycle wet scrubbing wastewater and granulation
water. The discharges are based on recycle of these waste
455
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XII
streams. We believe that the promulgated PSNS are achievable,
and that they are not a barrier to entry of new plants into this
subcategory because they do not include any additional costs
compared to BAT and PSES.
Primary Rare Earth Metals
PSES and PSNS for this subcategory are based on chemical
precipitation and sedimentation, in-process wastewater flow
reduction, filtration, and activated carbon adsorption. Flow
reduction is based on 90 percent recycle of scrubber effluent.
Activated carbon technology is transferred from the iron and
steel category where it is a demonstrated technology for removal
of priority organic pollutants.
The pollutants specifically limited under PSES and PSNS are
hexachlorobenzene, chromium, lead, and nickel. The priority
pollutants benzene, arsenic, cadmium, copper, selenium, silver,
thallium, and zinc were also considered for regulation because
they were found at treatable concentrations in the raw
wastewaters from this subcategory. These pollutants were not
selected for specific regulation because they will be effectively
controlled when the regulated priority pollutants are treated to
the levels achievable by the model PSES and PSNS technology.
Secondary Tantalum
Pretreatment standards for existing sources were not promulgated
for the secondary tantalum subcategory since there are no
existing indirect dischargers.
We have promulgated PSNS equal to NSPS and BAT. It was necessary
to promulgate PSNS to prevent pass-through of copper, lead,
nickel, zinc, and tantalum. These priority pollutants are
removed by a well-operated POTW achieving secondary treatment at
an average of 48 percent, while BAT level technology removes
approximately 99 percent.
We believe that the promulgated PSNS are achievable, and that
they are not a barrier to entry to new plants into this
subcategory because they do not include any additional costs
compared to BAT.
Secondary Tin
The technology basis for the promulgated PSES in the secondary
tin subcategory is equivalent to BAT. It is necessary to
promulgate PSES to prevent pass-through to arsenic, cyanide,
lead, iron, tin, and fluoride. These priority pollutants and
fluoride are removed by a well-operated POTW achieving secondary
treatment at an average of 17 percent while BAT technology
removes approximately 97 percent. The technology basis for PSES
is chemical precipitation, sedimentation, and filtration with
preliminary treatment consisting of cyanide precipitation where
required.
456
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XII
Implementation of the promulgated PSES limitations would remove
annually an estimated 167 kg of priority metals, 6,227 kg of tin,
20 kg of cyanide, and 25,105 kg of fluoride over estimated cur-
rent discharge. Capital cost for achieving PSES is $160,187, and
annual cost of $50,044. The promulgated PSES will not result in
adverse economic impacts.
We have promulgated PSNS equivalent to PSES, NSPS, and BAT. The
technology basis for PSNS is identical to NSPS, PSES, and BAT.
The same pollutants pass through at PSNS as at PSES, for the same
reasons. The PSNS flow allowances are identical to the flow
allowances for BAT, NSPS, and PSES.
There would be no additional cost for PSNS above the costs
estimated for BAT. We believe that the promulgated PSNS are
achievable, and that they are not a barrier to entry of new
plants into this subcategory because they do not include any
additional costs compared to BAT and PSES.
Primary and Secondary Titanium
We have promulgated PSES equal to BAT for this subcategory. It
is necessary to promulgate PSES to prevent pass-through of
chromium, lead, nickel, and titanium. These priority pollutants
are removed by a well-operated POTW achieving secondary treatment
at an average of 14 percent while BAT technology removes
approximately 76 percent. Implementation of the promulgated PSES
limitations would remove annually an estimated 1.7 kg of priority
pollutants, and 147 kg of titanium from the current discharge.
The cost data for this subcategory are not presented here because
the _data on which they are based have been claimed to be
confidential. The promulgated PSES will not result in adverse
economic impacts.
We have promulgated PSNS equivalent to NSPS. The technology
basis for promulgated. PSNS is identical to NSPS. The same
pollutants are regulated at PSNS as at PSES and they pass through
at PSNS as at PSES, for the same reasons. The PSNS and NSPS flow
allowances are based on minimization to process wastewater
wherever possible through the use of cooling towers to recycle
contact cooling water and holding tanks for wet scrubbing
wastewater. The discharge allowance for pollutants is the same
at PSNS and NSPS. The discharges are based on 90 percent recycle
of these waste streams (see Section IX - recycle of wet scrubber
and contact cooling water). As in NSPS, flow reduction beyond
BAT (zero discharge) is promulgated for chip crushing, sponge
crushing and screening, and scrap milling wet air pollution
control wastewater based on dry scrubbing. Also, zero discharge
is promulgated for chlorine liquification wet air pollution
control wastewater based on by-product recovery.
We believe that the promulgated PSNS are achievable, and that
they are not a barrier to entry of new plants into this
457
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XII
subcategory because they do not include any additional costs
compared to BAT and PSES.
Secondary Tungsten and Cobalt
The technology basis for the promulgated PSES in the secondary
tungsten and cobalt subcategory is equivalent to BAT and PSNS.
It was necessary to promulgate PSES and PSNS to prevent pass-
through to copper, nickel, cobalt, tungsten, and ammonia. These
priority pollutants are removed by a well-operated POTW achieving
secondary treatment at an average of 26 percent, while the NSPS
and BAT level technology removes approximately 97 percent.
The technology basis for PSES and PSNS is ammonia steam_ strip-
ping, oil skimming, chemical precipitation and sedimentation, and
filtration. The achievable concentration for ammonia steam
stripping is based on iron and steel manufacturing category data,
as explained in the discussion of BPT and BAT for this
subcategory.
Implementation of the PSES limitations would remove annually an
estimated 13 kg of priority pollutants. Capital and annual costs
expected to be incurred to achieve PSES are $16,293 and $8,765,
respectively. The Agency has determined that PSES are
economically achievable and will not result in adverse economic
impacts.
We believe that the promulgated PSNS are achievable, and that
they are not a barrier to entry of new plants into this
subcategory because they do not include any additional costs
compared to BAT.
Secondary Uranium
Pretreatment standards for existing sources were not'promulgated
for the secondary uranium subcategory since there are no existing
indirect dischargers.
We Have promulgated PSNS equal to BAT and NSPS for this
subcategory. It was necessary to promulgate PSNS to prevent
passthrough of chromium, copper, nickel, and fluoride. These
priority pollutants are removed by a well-operated POTW achieving
secondary treatment at an average of 40 percent, while the NSPS
and BAT level technology removes approximately 88 percent.
The technology basis for PSNS is chemical precipitation,
sedimentation, and filtration, plus in-process wastewater flow
reduction.
We believe that the promulgated PSNS are achievable, and that
they are not a barrier to entry of new plants into this
subcategory because they do not include any additional costs
compared to BAT.
458
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XII
Primary Zirconium and Hafnium
EPA did not promulgate pretreatment standards for existing
sources for the primary zirconium and hafnium subcategory. We
had proposed PSES for this subcategory in a two tier regulatory
approach. However, we are excluding from national regulation
plants which only reduce zirconium or zirconium-nickel alloys
from zirconium dioxide with magnesium or hydrogen. Since the
only indirect discharger in the subcategory complies with this
requirement, we have decided not to establish PSES for this
subcategory. However, this facility will still be subject to
general pretreatment standards.
We are promulgating PSNS equivalent to NSPS and BAT. The
technology basis for promulgated PSNS is identical to NSPS. The
following priority pollutants pass through: chromium, cyanide,
lead, nickel, and ammonia. It is necessary to promulgate PSNS to
prevent pass-through. These pollutants are removed by a well-
operated POTW achieving secondary treatment at an average of 30
percent, while BAT technology removes approximately 80 percent.
We know of no economically feasible, demonstrated technology that
is better than BAT and NSPS technology.
We believe that the promulgated PSNS are achievable, and that
they are not a barrier to entry of new plants into this
subcategory because they do not include any additional costs
compared to BAT and PSES.
459
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XII
Table XII-1
POLLUTANTS SELECTED FOR REGULATION FOR PRETREATMENT
STANDARDS BY SUBCATEGORY
Subcategory
Pollutant Parameters
Primary Aluminum Smelting*
Secondary Aluminum Smelting
Primary Copper Smelting
Primary Electrolytic Copper
Refining*
Primary Lead
Primary Zinc
Metallurgical Acid Plants
Primary Tungsten
Primary Columbium-Tantalum
Secondary Silver
73. benzo(a)pyrene
114. antimony
121. cyanide (total)
124. nickel
fluoride
122. lead
128. zinc
ammonia (N)
phenolics
(by 4-AAP
Method)
114. arsenic
120. copper
124. nickel
122. lead
128. zinc
118. cadmium
120. copper
122. lead
128. zinc
115. arsenic
118. cadmium+
120. copper
122. lead
128. zinc+
122. lead
128. zinc
ammonia (N)
122. lead
128. zinc
ammonia (N)
fluoride
120. copper
128. zinc
ammonia (N)
460
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XII
Table XII-1 (Continued)
POLLUTANTS SELECTED FOR REGULATION FOR PRETREATMENT
STANDARDS BY SUBCATEGORY
Subcategory
Secondary Lead
Primary Antimony
Primary Beryllium
Primary and Secondary
Germanium and Gallium
Secondary Indium
Secondary Mercury
Primary Molybdenum
and Rhenium
Secondary Molybdenum
and Vanadium
Pollutant Parameters
114. antimony
115. arsenic
122. lead
128. zinc
ammonia (N)
114. antimony
115. arsenic
123. mercury
117. beryllium
119. chromium
120. copper
121. cyanide
ammonia (as N)
fluoride
115. arsenic
122. lead
128. zinc
fluoride
118. cadmium
122. lead
128. zinc
indium
122. lead
123. mercury
115. arsenic
122. lead
124. nickel
125. selenium
fluoride
molybdenum
ammonia (as N)
115. arsenic
119. chromium
122. lead
124. nickel
iron
molybdenum
ammonia (as N)
461
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XII
Table XII-1 (Continued)
POLLUTANTS SELECTED FOR REGULATION FOR PRETREATMENT
STANDARDS BY SUBCATEGORY
Subcategory
Primary Nickel and Cobalt
Secondary Nickel
Primary Precious Metals
and Mercury
Secondary Precious Metals
Pollutant Parameters
120. copper
124. nickel
cobalt
ammonia (as N)
119. chromium
120. copper
124. nickel
122. lead
123. mercury
126. silver
128. zinc
gold
120. copper
121. cyanide
128. zinc
ammonia (as N)
gold
palladium
platinum
Primary Rare Earth Metals
Secondary Tantalum
Secondary Tin
9.
119.
122.
124.
120.
122.
124.
128.
115.
121.
122.
hexachlorobenzene
chromium
lead
nickel
copper
lead
nickel
zinc
tantalum
arsenic
cyanide
lead
iron
tin
fluoride
(total)
462
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XII
Table XII-1 (Continued)
POLLUTANTS SELECTED FOR REGULATION FOR PRETREATMENT
STANDARDS BY SUBCATEGORY
Subcategory
Primary and Secondary
Titanium
Secondary Tungsten
and Cobalt
Secondary Uranium
Primary Zirconium
and Hafnium
Pollutant Parameters
119. chromium (total)
122. -lead
124. nickel
titanium
120. copper
124. nickel
cobalt
tungsten
ammonia (as N)
119. chromium (.total)
120. copper
124. nickel
fluoride
119. chromium (total)
121. cyanide (total)
122. lead
124. nickel
ammonia (as N)
*Regulated by PSNS only.
+Regulated by PSES only.
463
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XII
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
464
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT -XIII
SECTION XIII
BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
EPA is not promulgating best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT) for the nonferrous metals manufacturing category
at this time.
465
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT SECT -XIII
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
466
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XIV
SECTION XIV
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The nonferrous metals manufacturing project has been ongoing as a
regulation development project since the Consent Agreement of
1976 required EPA to re-study and expand the regulation of this
industry category. During this eleven year period many persons
have contributed in a meaningful way toward the successful
completion of the project. This section is intended to provide
some recognition to those who have labored in behalf of this
regulation development effort.
Much of the sampling, analysis, data compilation and draft
manuscript preparation has been conducted by contractors for the
EPA. The initial contractor in this effort was Sverdrup and
Parcel and Associates under Contact No. 68-01-4409. Technical
personnel of this contractor who worked on the project included:
Mr. Donald Washington, Project Manager, Mr. Garry Aronberg, Ms.
Claudia O'Leary, Mr. Antony Tawa, Mr. Charles Amelotti and Mr.
Jeff Carlton. The second and final contractor in this effort was
Radian Corporation under Contracts N. 68-01-6529, 68-01-6999 and
68-03-3411. Technical personnel of this contractor who worked on
the project included: Mr. James Sherman, Program Manager, Mr.
Mark Hereth, Project Director, Mr. Ron Dickson, Mr. John
Vidumsky, Mr. Richard Weisman, Mr. Tom Grome, Mr. Marc Papai, Ms.
Lori Stoll, Mr. John Collins, Mr. Mike Zapkin, Mr. Andrew Oven
and Ms. Diane Neuhaus. Acknowledgment and appreciation is also
made to the Radian secretarial staff, Ms. Nancy Johnson, Ms.
Sandra Zapkin and Ms. Daphne Phillips for their tireless efforts.
This regulation development project has been under the direction
of Mr. Ernst P. Hall, Chief of the Metals Industry Branch,
Industrial Technology Division of EPA. Technical Project
Officers for this project were (in order of succession) Ms.
Patricia Williams, Mr. James Berlow, Ms. Maria Irizarry, and Ms.
Eleanor Zimmerman, with assistant project Officers Mr. Geoffery
Grubbs and Mr. Stuart Colton. The final review and editing of
this document has been under the immediate direction of Mr. Hall.
Special note is made of the contribution of the word processing
staff of the Industrial Technology Division, Ms. Kaye Starr, Ms.
Nancy Zubric, Ms. Pearl Smith, Ms. Carol Swann and Ms. Glenda
Nesby and a special commendation is given to Ms. Smith for her
tireless efforts in producing the final drafts and camera ready
copy of the entire document.
The cooperation of the Aluminum Association, American Mining
Congress, Aluminum Recycling Association, Tantalum Producers
Association and Secondary Lead Smelters Association along with
their technical committees and individual companies that supplied
information and whose plants were sampled is gratefully
acknowledged.
467
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XIV
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
468
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XV
SECTION XV
REFERENCES
1. Sampling and Analysis Procedures for Screening of Industrial
Effluents for Priority Pollutants, USEPA Environmental Monitoring
and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH 45268 (March, 1977,
revised April, 1977).
2. "Mineral Facts and Problems," Bureau to Mines Bulletin 667,
Washington. D.C., Department to the Interior (1975).
3. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards for the Primary Aluminum Smelt-
ing Subcategory, EPA-4401/l-74-019d. Environmental Protection
Agency (March, 1974).
4. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards for the Secondary Aluminum
Subcategory, EPA-400/l-74-019e, Environmental Protection Agency
(March, 1974).
5. Development Document for Interim Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Proposed New Source Performance Standards for the
Primary Copper Smelting Subcategory and Primary Copper Refining
Subcategory, EPA-440/l-75/032b, Environmental Protection Agency
(February, 1975).
6. Development Document for Interim Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Proposed New Source Performance Standards for the
Secondary Copper Subcategory, EPA-440/l-75/032c, Environmental
Protection Agency (February, 1975).
7. Development Document for Interim Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Proposed New Source Performance Standards for the
Lead Segment, EPA-440/l-75/032a, Environmental Protection Agency
(February, 1975).
8. Development Document for Interim Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Proposed New Source Performance Standards for the
Zinc Segment, EPA-440/1-75/032, Environmental Protection Agency
(February, 1975).
9. Draft Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guide-
lines and New Source Performance Standards for the Miscellaneous.
Nonferrous Metals Segment, EPA-440/1-76/067, Environmental
Protection Agency (March, 1977).
10. "National Resources Defense Council v. Train", Environmental
Reporter - Cases 8 ERC 2120 (1976).
469
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XV
11. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards for the Bauxite Refining Indus-
try, EPA-440/1-74/019C, Environmental Protection Agency (March,
1974).
12. Pound, C. E. and Crites, R. W., "Land Treatment of Municipal
Wastewater Effluents, Design Factors - Part 1," Paper presented
at USEPA Technology Transfer Seminars (1975).
13. Wilson, Phillip R., Brush Wellman,
Personal Communication (August, 1978).
Inc., Elmore, OH,
14. Description of the Beryllium Production Processes at the
Brush Wellman, Inc. Plant in Elmore, OH, Brush Wellman, Inc.
(1977). (Photocopy).
15. Phillips, A. J., "The World's Most Complex Metallurgy (Cop-
per, Lead and Zinc)," Transactions to the Metallurgical Society
of AIME, 224, 657 (August, 1976).
16. Schack, C. H. and Clemmons, B. H., "Review and Evaluation of
Silver-Production Techniques," Information Circular 8266, United
States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines (March, 1965).
17. Technical Study Report: BATEA-NSPS-PSES-PSNS-Textile Mills
Point Source Category, Report submitted to EPA-Effluent Guide-
lines Division by Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc.
(November, 1978).
18. The Merck Index, 8th edition, Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ
(1968).
19. Rose, A. and Rose, E., The Condensed Chemical Dictionary,
6th ed., Reinhold Publishing Company, New York (1961).
20. McKee, J. E. and Wolf, H. W. (eds.), Water Quality Criteria,
2nd edition, California State Water Resources Control Board
(1963).
21. Quinby-Hunt, M. S., "Monitoring Metals in Water," American
Chemistry (December, 1978), pp. 17-37.
22. Fassel, V. A. and Kniseley, R. N., "Inductively Coupled
Plasma - Optical Emission Spectroscopy," Analytical Chemistry,
46,13 (1974)
23. Study of Selected Pollutant Parameters in Publicly Owned
Treatment Works, Draft report submitted to EPA-Effluent Guide-
lines Division by Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc.
(February, 1977).
24. Schwartz, H. G. and Buzzell, J. C., The Impact of Toxic
Pollutants on Municipal Wastewater Systems, EPA Technology
Transfer, Joint Municipal/Industrial Seminar on Pretreatment of
Industrial Wastes, Dallas, TX (July, 1978).
470
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XV
25. Class notes and research compiled for graduate class, Autumn
Qtr., 1976-77 School year at Montana State University by G. A.
Murgel.
26. Gough, P. and Shocklette, H. T., "Toxicity of Selected Ele-
ments to Plants, Animals and ManAn Outline," Geochemical Survey
of the Western Energy Regions, Third Annual Progress Report,
July, 1976, US Geological Survey Open File Report 76-729,
Department of the Interior, Denver (1976).
27. Second Interim Report - Textile Industry BATEA-NSPS-PSES-
PSNS Study, report submitted to EPA-Effluent Guidelines Division
by Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. (June, 1978).
28. Proposed Criteria for Water Quality, Vol. 1, Environmental
Protection Agency (October, 1973) citing Vanselow, A. P.,
"Nickel, in Diagnostic Criteria for Plants and Soils," H. D.
Chapman, ed., University of California, Division of Agricultural
Science, Berkeley, pp. 302-309 (1966).
29. Morrison, R. T. and Boyd, R. N., Organic Chemistry, 3rd ed.,
Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston (1973).
30. McKee, J. E. and Woll, H. W. (eds), Water Quality Criteria,
2nd edition, California State Water Resources Control Board
(1963) citing Browning, E., "Toxicity of Industrial Metals,
Butterworth, London, England (1961).
31. citing Stokinger, H. E. and Woodward, R. L., "Toxicologic
Methods for Establishing Drinking Water Standards," Journal AWWA,
50, 515 (1958).
32. citing Waldichuk, M., "Sedimentation of Radioactive Wastes
in the Sea," Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Circular No. 59
(January, 1961).
33. citing "Quality Criteria for Water," U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; Washington, D.C., Reference No. 440/9-76-023.
34. Bronstein, M. A., Priviters, E. L., and Terlecky, P. M.,
Jr., "Analysis of Selected Wastewater Samples of Chrysotile
Asbestos and Total Fiber Counts - Nonferrous Metals Point Source
Category," Calspan Advanced Technology Center, Report No. ND-
5782-M-19 for USEPA, Effluent Guidelines Division (November 1,
1978).
35. Hallenbeck, W. H. and Hesse, C. S., "A Review of the
Health Effects of Ingested Asbestos," Review of Environmental
Health, 2, 3, 157 (1977).
36. McKee, J. E. and Wolf, H. W. (eds), Water quality Criteria,
2nd edition, California State Water Resources Control Board,
(1963) citing The Merck Index, 7th ed., Merck & Co., Inc.,
Rahway, NJ (1960) .
471
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XV
37. citing Pomelee, C. S., "Toxicity of Beryllium," Sewage
and Industrial Wastes, 25, 1424 (1953).
38. citing Rothstein, "Toxicology of the Minor Metals,"
University of Rochester, AEC Project, UR-262 (June 5, 1953).
39. citing Truhout, R. and Boudene, C., "Enquiries Into the
Pacts of Cadmium in the Body During Poisoning: Of Special
Interest to Industrial Medicine," Archiv. Hig. Roda 5, 19 (1954);
AMA Archives of Industrial Health 11, 179 (February, 1955).
40. citing Fairhall, L. T., "Toxic Contaminants of Drinking
Water," Journal New England Water Works Association, 55, 400
(1941).
41. citing Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission,
"Report on the Physiological Effects of Copper on Man," The
Kettering Laboratory, College of Medicine, University of
Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH (January 28, 1953).
42. citing "Copper and the Human Organism," Journal
Water Works Association, 21, 262 (1929).
American
43. citing Taylor, E. W., "The Examination of Waters and
Water Supplies," P. Blakiston's Son and Co. (1949).
44. citing "Water Quality and Treatment,"
(1950).
2nd ed., AWWA
45. citing Hale, F. E., "Relation to Copper and Brass Pipe
to Health," Water Works Eng., 95, 240, 84, 139, 187 (1942).
46. citing "Drinking Water Standards," Title 42 - Public Health
Chapter 1 - Public Health Service, Department to Health,
Education, and Welfare; Part 72 - Interstate Quarantine Federal
Register 2152 (March 6, 1962).
47. citing Derby, R. L., Hopkins, 0. C., Gullans, 0., Baylis,
J. R., Bean, E. L., and Malony, F., "Water Quality Standards,"
Journal American Water Works Association, 52, 1159 (September,
1960).
48. McKee, J. E. and Wolf, H. W., (eds.). Water Quality
Criteria, 2nd edition, California State Water Resources Control
Board, (1963) citing Klein, L., "Aspects of River Pollution,"
Butterworth Scientific Publications, London and Academic Press,
Inc., New York (1957) .
49. citing Fuchess, H., Bruns, H., and Haupt, H., "Danger of
Lead Poisoning From Water Supplies," Theo. Steinkopff (Dresden)
(1938); Journal American Water Works Association, 30, 1425
(1938).
50. citing "Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission,
Subcommittee on Toxicities, Metal Finishing Industries Action
472
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XV
Committee," Report No. 3 (1950).
51. Pickering, Q. H. and Henderson, C., "The Acute Toxicity of
Some Heavy Metals to Different Species of Warm Water Fish,"
Intnat. J. Air-Water Pollution, 10: 453-463 (1966).
52. Murdock, H. R. Industrial Wastes," Ind. Eng. Chem. 99A-102A
(1953).
53. Calabrese, A., et. al., "The Toxicity of Heavy Metals of
Embryos of the American Oyster, Crassostrea Virginicia," Marine
Biology 38: 162-166 (1973).
54. citing Russell, F. C., "Minerals in Pasture, Deficien-cies
and Excesses in Relation to Animal Health," Imperial Bureau of
Animal Nutrition, Aberdeen, Scotland, Tech. Communication 15
(1944).
55. citing Hurd-Kaner, A., "Selenium Absorption by Plants and
their Resulting Toxicity to Animals," Smithsonian Inst. Ann.
Rept., p. 289 (1934-35).
56. citing Byers, H. G., "Selenium Occurrence in Certain Soils
in the United States with a Discussion of Related Topics," U.S.
Department of Agr. Tech. Bull. No. 582 (August, 1935).
57. citing Fairhall, L. T., "Toxic Contaminants of Drinking
Water," Journal New England Water Works Association, 55, 400
(1941).
58. citing Smith, M. I., Franke, K. W., and Westfall, B. B.,
"Survey to Determine the Possibility of Selenium Detoxification
in the Rural Population Living on Seleniferous Soil," Public
Health Repts. 51, 1496 (1936).
59. citing Kehoe, R. A., Cholak, J., and Largent, E. J., "The
Hygienic - Significance of the Contamination of Water with Certain
Mineral Constituents," Journal American Water Works Association,
36, 645 (1944).
60. citing Schwarz, K., "Effects of Trace Amounts of Selenium,"
Proc. Conf. Physical. Effects of Water Quality, U.S.P.H.S., p. 79
(September, 1960).
61. Water Quality Criteria of 1972. NAS Report.
62. US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research
Science, Consumer and Food Economics Research Division, "Food
Consumption of Households in the United States " (Spring, 1965),
Preliminary Report, Agricultural Research Service, Washington,
D.C.
63. Hill, W. R. and Pillsburg" D. M., "Argyria Investigation -
Toxicity Properties of 'Silver," American Silver Producers
Research Project Report, Appendix 11.
473
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XV
64. citing Brown, A. W. A., "Insect Control by Chemicals," John
Wiley and Sons (1951).
65. Lougis, P., "The Physiological Effect of Zinc in Seawater,"
Comptes Rendu, Paris, 253:740-741 (1961).
66. Wisely, B. and Blick, R. A., "Mortality of Marine
Invertebrate Larvae in Mercury, Copper and Zinc Solutions," Aust.
J. of Mar. Fresh. Res., 18:63-72 (1967).
67. Clarke, G. L., "Poisoning and Recovery in Barnacles and
Mussels," Biol. Bull., 93:73-91 (1947).
68. Foreman, C. T., "Food Safety and the Consumer," EPA Jour. 4,
10, 16 (November/December, 1978).
69. Marnahan, S. E., Environmental Chemistry, 2nd ed., Willard
Grant Press, Boston (1975).
70. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, Environ-
mental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, EPA-625/6-74-003a
USEPA, Cincinnati, OH (1976).
71. Krocta, H. and Lucas, R. L., "Information Required for the
Selection and Performance Evaluation of Wet Scrubbers," Journal
of Pollution Control Association, 22, 6, 459.
72. Pourbaix, M., Atlas of Electrochemical Equilibria in
Aqueous Solutions, Pergamon Press, New York (1966) cited in
Development Document for Interim Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Proposed New Source Performance Standards for the
Primary Copper Smelting Subcategory and Primary Copper Refining
Subcategory, EPA-440/l-75/032b, Environmental Protection Agency
(February, 1975).
73. Draft Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guide-
lines and New Source Performance Standards for the Miscellaneous
Nonferrous Metals Segment, EPA-440/1-76/067, Environmental
Protection Agency (March, 1977) citing Miller, D. G., "Fluoride
Precipitation in Metal Finishing Waste Effluent," Water-1974:I.
Industrial Waste Treatment, American Institute of Chemical
Engineers Symposium Series, 70, 144 (1974).
74. Parker and Fong, "Fluoride Removal: Technology and Cost
Estimates," Industrial Wastes (November/December, 1975).
75. Rohrer, L., "Lime, Calcium Chloride Beat Fluoride Waste-
water," Water and Wastes Engineering (November, 1974), p. 66
cited in Draft Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the
Miscellaneous Nonferrous Metals Segment, EPA-440/1-76/067,
Environmental Protection Agency (March, 1977).
76. Zabben, W. and Jewett, H. W., "The Treatment of Fluoride
474
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XV
Wastes," Proceedings of 22nd Industrial Waste Conference,
University (May 2-4, 1967), pp. 706-716.
Purdue
77. Manual of Treatment Techniques for Meeting the Interim
Primary Drinking Water Regulations, EPA-600/8-77-005,
Environmental Protection Agency (April, 1978).
78. Patterson, J.W.
Pollution Abatement,"
(1976).
"Technology and Economics of Industrial
IIEQ Document #76/22 Project #20.070A
79. Maruyama, T., Hannah, S. A., and Cohen, J. M. , "Metal
Removal by Chemical Treatment Processes," Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation, 47, 5, 962.
80. Gulp, G. L. and Gulp, R. L., New Concepts in Water
Purification, (Van Nostrand, Reinhold and Company, New York
(1974), pp. 222-224.
81. Jenkins, S. N. , Knight, D. G., and Humphreys, R. E., "The
Solubility of Heavy Metal Hydroxides in Water, Sewage, and Sewage
Sludge, I. The Solubility of Some Metal Hydroxides," Interna-
tional Journal of Air and Water Pollution, 8, 537 (1964).
82. Sittig, M., Pollutant Removal Handbook.
Park Ridge, NJ (1973).
Noyes Data Corp.,
83. Link, W. E. and Rabosky, J. G., "Fluoride Removal from
Wastewater Employing Calcium Precipitation and Iron Salt Coagu-
lation," Proceedings of the 31st Industrial Waste Conference,
Purdue University, pp. 485-500 (1976).
84. Beychak, M. R., Aqueous Wastes from Petroleum and Petrochem-
ical Plants, John Wiley and Sons (1967) cited in Draft Develop-
ment Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Miscellaneous Nonferrous Metals
Segment, EPA-440/1-76-067, Environmental Protection Agency
(March, 1977). '
85. "Stripping, Extraction, Adsorption, and Ion Exchange,"
Manual on Disposal of Refinery Wastes - Liquid Wastes, American
Petroleum Institute, Washington, D. C. (1973) cited by Draft
Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New
Source Performance Standards for the Miscellaneous Nonferrous
Metals Segment, EPA-440/1-76/067, Environmental Protection Agency
(March, 1977).
86. Grantz, R. G., "Stripper Performance Tied to NH3 Fixation,"
Oil and Gas Journal, 73, 24, 80 (1975) cited by Draft Development
Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Miscellaneous Nonferrous Metals
Segment, EPA-440/1-76/067, Environmental Protection Agency
(March, 1977).
87. Wrek, W. J. and Snow, R. H., "Design to Cross Flow Cooling
475
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XV
Towers and Ammonia Stripping Towers," Industrial Engineering
Process Design Development, 11, 3 (1972) cited by Draft Develop-
ment Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Miscellaneous Metals Segment, EPA-
440/1-76-067, Environmental Protection Agency (March, 1977).
88. Mioderszewski, D., "Ammonia Removal - What's Best," Water
and Wastes Engineering (July, 1975) cited by Draft Development
Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Miscellaneous Metals Segment, EPA-
440/1-76-067, Environmental Protection Agency (March, 1977).
89. Schlauch, R. M., and Epstein, A. C., Treatment to Metal
Finishing Wastes by Sulfide Precipitation, EPA 600/2-77-049.
90. Coleman, R. T., Colley, D. J., Klausmeier, R. F., Malish, D.
A., Meserole, N. P., Micheletti, W. C., and Schwitzgebel, K.,
Draft Copy Treatment Methods for Acidic Wastewater Containing
Potentially Toxic Metal Compounds, Report by Radian Corporation,
Austin, TX, submitted to USEPA Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH (1978).
91. Bettler, C. R., "Lime Neutralization of Low-Acidity Waste-
water," Proceedings of 32nd Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue
University (1977), p. 830.
92. Permuitt Co., Inc., Proceedings of seminar on metal waste
treatment featuring the Sulfex process, Paramus, NJ, undated.
93. Larson, H. P., Shou, K. P., Ross, L. W., "Chemical Treatment
of Metal Bearing Mine Drainage," Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation, 45, 8, 1682 (1974) cited by Coleman, R. T., et. al.,
Draft Copy Treatment Methods for Acidic Wastewater Containing
Potentially Toxic Metal Compounds, Report by Radian Corporation,
Austin, TX, submitted to USEPA Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH (1978).
94. Murao, K. and Sei, N., "Recovery of Heavy Metals from the
Wastewater of Sulfuric Acid Process in Ahio Smelter," Proceedings
of Joint MMIJ AIME Meeting on World Mining and Metallurgical
Technology, Denver, September, 1976, Volume 2, pp. 808-16 (1976)
cited by Coleman, R. T., et. al., Draft Copy Treatment Methods
for Acidic Wastewater Containing Potentially Toxic Metal
Compounds, Report by Radian Corporation, Austin, TX, submitted to
USEPA Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH (1978).
95. LaPerle, R. L., "Removal of Metals from Photographic
Effluent by Sodium Sulfide Precipitation," Journal Appl. Photogr.
Eng. 2, 134, (1976) cited by Coleman, R. T., et. al., Draft Copy
Treatment Methods for Acidic Wastewater Containing Potentially
Toxic Metal Compounds, Report by Radian Corporation, Austin, TX,
submitted to USEPA Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH (1978).
476
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XV
96. Scott, M. (Senior Marketing Specialist, Permutit Company),
Private communications with R. Klausmeier (November, 1977) cited
by^Coleman, R. T., et. al., Draft Copy Treatment Methods for
Acidic Wastewater Containing Potentially Toxic Metal Compounds,
Report by Radian Corporation, Austin, TX, submitted to USEPA
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH
(1978) .
97. Development Document for Interim Final and Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for
the Ore Mining and Dressing Industry, EPA-440/1-75-061, Environ-
mental Protection Agency (1975) cited by Coleman, R. T., et. al.,
Draft Copy Treatment Methods for Acidic Wastewater Containing
Potentially Toxic Metal Compounds, Report by Radian Corporation
Austin, TX, submitted to USEPA Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH (1978).
98. Coleman, R. T. and Malish, D. A., Trip Report to Paul Bergoe
and Son, Boliden Aktiebolag and Outokumpu as part to EPA Contract
68-02-2608, Radian Corporation (November, 1977) cited by Coleman,
R. T., et. al., Dragt Copy Treatment Methods for Acidic Waste-
water Containing Potentially Toxic Metal Compounds, Report by
Radian Corporation, Austin, TX, submitted to USEPA Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH (1978).
99. Maltson, M. E., "Membrane Desalting Gets Big Push," Water
and Wastes Engineering (April, 1975), p. 35.
100. Cruver, J. E., "Reverse Osmosis for Water Reuse,"
Environmental System (June, 1973).
Gulf
101. "Water Renovation of Municipal Effluents by Reverse
Osmosis," Gulf Oil Corporation, San Diego (February, 1972).
102. Spatz, D. D., "Methods of Water Purification," Presented to
the American Association of Nephrology Nurses and Technicians at
the ASAIO AANNT Joint Conference, Seattle, Washington (April,
j- y / £ /
103. Donnelly, R. G., Goldsmith, R. L., McNulty, K. J. , Grant,
D. C., and Tan, M. , Treatment to Electroplating Wastes by Reverse
Osmosis, EPA-600/2-76-261, Environmental Protection Aqencv
(September, 1976). ^ *
104. Rook, J. J., "Haloforms in Drinking Water," Journal
American Water Works Association, 68:3:168 (1976).
105. Rook, J. J., "Formation to Haloforms During Chlorination of
Natural Waters," Journal Water Treatment Examination, 23:234
( iy 74 ) . .
106. Trussell, R. R, and Umphres, M. D., "The Formation of
Trihalomethanes," Journal American Water Works Association
70:11:604 (1978).
477
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XV
107. Nebel, C., Goltschlintg, R. D., Holmes, J. L., and Unangst,
p. C., "Ozone Oxidation of Phenolic Effluents," Proceedings of
the 31st Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University (1976),
pp. 940-951.
108. Rosen, H M., "Wastewater Ozonation: a Process Whose Time
Has Come," Civil Engineering, 47, 11, 65 (1976).
109. Hardisty, D. M. and Rosen, H. M., "Industrial Wastewater
Ozonation," Proceedings of the 32nd Industrial Waste Conference,
Purdue University (1976), pp. 940-951.
110. Traces of Heavy Metals in Water Removal Processes and
Monitoring, EPA-902/9-74-D01, Environmental Protection Agency
(November, 1973).
111. Symons, J. M., "Interim Treatment Guide for Controlling
Organic Contaminants in Drinking Water Using Granular Activated
Carbon," Water Supply Research Division, Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, USEPA,
Cincinnati, OH (January, 1978).
112. McCreary, J. J. and V. L. Snoeyink, "Granular Activated
Carbon in Water Treatment," Journal American Water Works
Association, 69, 8, 437 (1977).
113. Grieves, C. G. and Stevenson, M. K., "Activated Carbon
Improves Effluents," Industrial Wastes (July/August, 1977), pp.
30-35.
114. Beebe, R. L. and Stevens, J. I., "Activated Carbon System
for Wastewater Renovation," Water and Wastes Engineering
(January, 1967), pp. 43-45.
115. Gulp, G. L. and Shuckrow, A. J., "What lies ahead for PAC,"
Water and Wastes Engineering (February, 1977), pp. 67-72, 74.
116. Savinelli, E. A. and Black, A. P., "Defluoridation of Water
With Activated Alumina," Journal American Water Works
Association, 50, 1, 33 (1958).
117. Paulson, E. G., "Reducing Fluoride in Industrial Waste-
water," Chemical Engineering, Deskbook Issue (October 17, 1977).
118. Bishop, P. L. and Sansovey, G., "Fluoride Removal from
Drinking Water by Fluidized Activated Alumina Adsorption,"
Journal American Water Works Association, 70,10,554 (1978).
119. Harmon, J. A. and Kalichman, S. G., "Defluoridation of
Drinking Water in Southern California," Journal American Water
Works Association, 57:2:245 (1965).
120. Maier, F. J.,
Works, 91:90 (1960).
"Partial Defluoridation of Water," Public
478
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XV
121. Bellack, E., "Arsenic Removal from Potable Water," Journal
American Water Works Association, 63, 7 (1971).
122. Gupta, S. K. and Chen, K. Y., "Arsenic Removal by Adsorp-
tion," Journal Water Pollution Control Association (March, 1978),
pp. 493-506.
123. Johnson, D. E. L., "Reverse Osmosis Recycling System for
Government Arsenal," American Metal Market (July 31, 1973) cited
in Draft Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and New Source Performance Standards for the Miscellaneous
Nonferrous Metals Segment, EPA-440/1-76-067, Environmental
Protection Agency (March, 1977).
124. Nachod, F. C. and Schubert, J., Ion Exchange Technology,
Academic Press, Inc. (1956).
125. Volkert, David, and Associates, "Monograph on the Effec-
tiveness and Cost of Water Treatment Processes for the Removal of
Specific Contaminants," EPA 68-01-1833, Office of Air and Water
(1974) cited by Contaminants Associated with Direct and Indirect
Reuse of Municipal Wastewater, EPA-600/1-78-019 (March, 1978).
126. Clark, J. W., Viessman, W., Jr., and Hammer, M., Water
Supply and Pollution Control, (3rd ed.) IEP, New York (1977).
127. AWARE (Associated Water and Air Resources Engineers, Inc.),
Analysis to National Industrial Water Pollution Control Costs,"
(May 21, 1973) .
128. AWARE, "Alternatives for Managing Wastewater in the Three
Rivers Watershed Area," (October, 1972).
129. Bechtel, "A Guide to the Selection of Cost-Effective
Wastewater Treatment Systems," EPA 430/9-75-002 (July, 1975).
130. Smith R., "Cost of Conventional and Advanced Treatment of
Wastewater," Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 40, 9,
1546 (1968).
131. Icarus, "Capital and Operating Costs of Pollution Control
Equipment Modules," Vols. I and II, EPA-R5-73-023a & b (July,
1973).
132. Monti, R. P. and Silberman, P. T., "Wastewater System
Alternatives: What Are They . . . and What Cost," Water and
Waste Engineering (May, 1974), p. 40.
133. Process Design Manual for Removal of Suspended Solids, EPA-
625/175-003a (January, 1975).
134. Process Design Manual for Carbon Adsorption, EPA
71-002a (October, 1973).
625/1-
135. Grits, G. J., "Economic Factors in Water Treatment,"
479
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XV
Industrial Water Engineering (November, 1971), p. 22.
136. Barnard, J. L. and Eckenfelder, W. W., Jr., "Treatment Cost
Relationships for Industrial Waste Treatment, Environmental and
Water Resources Engineering, Vanderbilt University (1971).
137. Grits, G. J. and Glover, G. G., "Cooling Slowdown in
Cooling Towers," Water and Wastes Engineering (April, 1975), p.
45.
138. Kremen, S. S., "The True Cost of Reverse Osmosis,"
Industrial Wastes (November/December, 1973), p. 24.
139. Cruver, J. E. and Sleigh, J. H., "Reverse Osmosis - The
Emerging Answer to Seawater Desalination," Industrial Water
Engineering (June/July, 1976), p. 9.
140. Doud, D. H., "Field Experience with Five Reverse Osmosis
Plants," Water and Sewage Works (June, 1976), p. 96.
141. Lacey, R. E. and Loed, S., (eds.), "Industrial Processing
with Membranes," in The Cost of Reverse Osmosis, John Wiley and
Sons (1972).
142. Disposal of Brines Produced in Renovation of Industrial
Wastewater, FWPA Contract #14-12-492 (May, 1970).
143. Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment and Disposal,
EPA 625/1-74-006 (October, 1974).
144. Black & Veatch, "Estimating Cost and Manpower Requirements
for Conventional Wastewater Treatment Facilities," EPA Contract
#14-12-462 (October, 1971).
145. Osmonics, Inc., "Reverse Osmosis and Ultrafiltration
Systems Bulletin No. G7606," (1978).
146. Buckley, J. D., "Reverse Osmosis Moving from Theory.to
Practice,"" From Fluid Systems Div., UOP, Inc. (Reprint from
Consulting Engineer), 45, 5, 55 (1975).
147. Process Design Manual for Nitrogen Control, EPA-Technology
Transfer (October, 1975).
148. Rizzo and Shepherd, "Treating Industrial Wastewater with
Activated Carbon," Chemical Engineering (January 3, 1977).
149. Richardson, "1978-79 Process Equipment," Vol. 4 of
Richardson Rapid System.
150. Thiansky, D. P., "Historical Development of Water Pollution
Control Cost Functions," Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation, 46, 5, 813 (1974).
151. Zimmerman, O. T., "Wastewater Treatment," Cost Engineering
480
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XV
(October, 1971), p. 11.
152. Watson, I. C., (Control Research, Inc.) "Manual for
Calculation of Conventional Water Treatment Costs," Office of
Saline Water (March, 1972).
153. Gulp, R. L., Wesner, G. M., Gulp, G. L., Handbook of
Advanced Wastewater Treatment, McGraw Hill (1978).
154. Dynatech R/D Company, A Survey of Alternate Methods for
Cooling Condenser Discharge Water Large-Scale Heat Rejection
Equipment, EPA Project No. 16130 DHS (July, 1969).
155. Development Document for Steam Electric Power Generating,
EPA 440/1-73/029 (March, 1974).
156. "Cooling Towers - Special Report," Industrial Water
Engineering (May, 1970).
157. AFL Industries, Inc., "Product Bulletin #12-05.Bl (Shelter
Uses)," Chicago, IL (December 29, 1977).
158. Fisher Scientific Co., Catalog 77 (1977).
159. Isco, Inc., Purchase Order Form, Wastewater Samplers
(1977).
160. Dames & Moore, Construction Cost for Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Plants: 1973-1977, EPA-430/9-77-013, MCD-37 (January,
1978).
161. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering: Collection,
Treatment, Disposal, McGraw-Hill, New York (1972).
162. Obert, E. F. and Young, R. L., Elements of Thermodynamics
and Heat Transfer, McGraw-Hill (1962), p. 270.
163. Paulson, E. G., "How to Get Rid of Toxic Organics,"
Chemical Engineering, Deskbook Issue (October 17, 1977), pp. 21-
^ /
164. CH2-M-Hill, "Estimating Staffing for Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Facilities," EPA #68-01-0328 (March, 1973).
165. "EPA Indexes Reflect Easing Costs," Engineering News Record
(December 23, 1976), p. 87.
166. Chemical Marketing Reporter, Vol. 210, 10-26 (December 6
and December 20, 1976).
167. Smith, J. E., "Inventory of Energy Use in Wastewater Sludge
Treatment and Disposal," Industrial Water Engineering
(July/August, 1977).
168. Jones, J. L., Bomberger, D. C., Jr.,'and Lewis, F. M.,
481
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XV
"Energy Usage and Recovery in Sludge Disposal, Parts 1 & 2, "Water
and Sewage Works (July and August, 1977), pp. 44-47 and 42-46.
169. Hagen, R. M. and Roberts, E. B.-, "Energy Requirements for
Wastewater Treatment, Part 2," Water and Sewage Works (December,
1976), p. 52.
170. Banersi, S. K. and O'Conner, J. T., "Designing More Energy
Efficient Wastewater Treatment Plants," Civil Engineering
(September, 1977),'p. 76.
171. "Electrical Power Consumption for Municipal Wastewater
Treatment," EPA-R2-73-281 (1973).
172. Hillmer, T. J., Jr., "Economics of Transporting Wastewater
Sludge," Public Works (September, 1977), p. 110.
173. Ettlich, W. F., "Economics of Transport Methods of Sludge."
Proceedings of the Third National Conference on Sludge Manage-
ment, Disposal and Utilization (December 14-16, 1976), pp. 7-14.
174. NUS/Rice Laboratory, "Sampling Prices," Pittsburgh, PA
(1978) .
175. WARF Instruments, Inc., "Pricing Lists and Policies,"
Madison, WI (June, 15, 1973).
176. Orlando Laboratories, Inc., "Service Brochure and Fee
Schedule #16," Orlando, FL (January 1, 1978).
177. St. Louis Testing Laboratory, "Water and Wastewater
Analysis - Fee Schedule," St. Louis, MO (August, 1976).
178. Ecology Audits, Inc., "Laboratory Services - Individual
Component Analysis," Dallas, TX (August, 1976).
179. Laclede Gas Company, (Lab Div.), "Laboratory Pricing
Schedule," St. Louis, MO (August, 1977).
180. Industrial Testing Lab, Inc., "Price List," St. Louis, MO
(October, 1975).
181. Luther, P. A., Kennedy, D. C., and Edgerley, E., Jr.
"Treatability and Functional Design of a Physical-Chemical
Wastewater Treatment System for a Printing and Photodeveloping
Plant," 31st Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, pp. 876-884
(1976).
182. Hindin, E. and Bennett, P. J., "Water Reclamation by
Reverse Osmosis," Water and Sewage Works, 116, 2, 66 (February,
1969).
183. Cruver, J. E. and Nusbaum, I., "Application of Reverse
Osmosis to Wastewater Treatment," Journal Water Pollution Control
Association, 476, 2, 301 (February, 1974).
482
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XV
184. Cruver, J. E., "Reverse Osmosis - Where It Stands Today,"
Water and Sewage Works, 120, 10, 74 (October, 1973).
185. Vanderborght, B. M. and Vangrieken, R. E., "Enrichment of
Trace Metals by Adsorption on Activated Carbon," Analytic
Chemistry, 49, 2, 311 (February, 1977).
186. Hannah, S. A., "Jelus, by Physical and Chemical Treatment
Processes," Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 50, 11,
2297 (1978).
187. Argo, D. G. and Gulp, G. L., "Heavy Metals Removed in
Wastewater Treatment Processes - Parts 1 and 2," Water and Sewage
Works, August, 1972, pp. 62-65, and September, 1972, pp. 128-132.
188. Hager, D. G., "Industrial Wastewater Treatment by Granular
Activated Carbon," Industrial Water Engineering, pp. 14-28
(January/February, 1974) 189. Rohrer, K. L., "Chemical
Precipitants for Lead-Bearing Wastewaters," Industrial Water
Engineering, 12, 3 13 (1975).
189. Brody, M. A. and Lumpkins, R. J., "Performance of Dual-
Media Filters," Chemical Engineering Progress (April, 1977).
190. Bernardin, F. E., "Cyanide Detoxification Using Absorption
and Catalytic Oxidation," Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation, 45, 2 (February, 1973).
191. Russel, D. L., "PCB's: The Problem Surrounding Us and What
Must be Done," Pollution Engineering (August, 1977).
192. Chriswell, C. D., et. al., "Comparison of Macroreticular
Resin and Activated Carbon as Sorbents," Journal American Water
Works Association (December, 1977).
193. Gehm, H. W. and Bregman, J. I., Handbook of- Water Resources
and Pollution Control, Van Nostrand -Reinhold Company (1976).
194. Considine, Douglas M., Energy Technology Handbook,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, c.1977, pp. 5-173-5-181.
195. Absalom, Sandra T., Boron, U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., May, 1979.
196. Rathen, John A., Antimony, U.S. Dept. to the Interior,
Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., June, 1979.
197. Harris, Keith L., Cesium, U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., May, 1979.
483
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT SECT - XV
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
484
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XVI
SECTION XVI
GLOSSARY
This section is an alphabetical listing to technical terms (with
definitions) used in this document which may not be familiar to
the reader.
4-AAP Colorimetric Method
An analytical method for total phenols and total phenolic com-
pounds that involves reaction with the color developing agent 4-
aminoantipyrine.
Acidity
The quantitative capacity to aqueous solutions to react with
hydroxyl ions. It is measured by titration with a standard
solution to a base to a specified end point, and is usually
expressed as milligrams per liter to calcium carbonate.
The Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 as
amended by the Clean Water Act to 1977 (PL 92-500).
Amortization
The allocation of a cost or account according to a specified
schedule, based on the principal, interest and period of cost
allocation.
Analytical Quantification Level
The minimum concentration at which quantification of a specified
pollutant can be reliably measured.
Anglesite
A mineral occurring in crystalline form or as a compact mass.
Antimonial Lead
An alloy composed of lead and up to 25 percent antimony.
Backwashinq
The operation of cleaning a filter or column by reversing the
flow of liquid through it and washing out matter previously
trapped.
485
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XVI
Baghouses
The area for housing bag type air filters, an air pollution control
equipment device.
Ball Mill
Pulverizing equipment for the grinding of raw material
is done by steel balls, pebbles, or rods.
Barton Process
Grinding
A process for making lead oxide to be used in lead acid
batteries. Molten lead is fed, agitated, and stirred in a pot
with the resulting fine droplets oxidized. Material is collected
in a settling chamber where crystalline varieties of lead oxide
are formed.
Batch Treatment
A waste treatment method where wastewater is collected over a
period of time and then treated prior to discharge. Treatment is
not continuous, but collection may be continuous.
Bench Scale Pilot Studies
Experiments providing data concerning the treatability of a
wastewater stream or the efficiency of a treatment process con-
ducted using laboratory-size equipment.
Best Available Demonstrated Technology (BDT)
Treatment technology upon which new source performance standards
are to be based as defined by Section 306 to the Act.
Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
The selected technology applicable to control toxic and
nonconventional pollutants on which effluent limitations are
established. These limitations are to be achieved by July 1,
1984 by industrial discharges to surface waters as defined by
Section 301(b)(2)(C) of the Act.
Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
The selected technology applicable to control conventional
pollutants used to develop effluent limitations to be achieved by
July 1, 1984 for industrial discharges to surface waters as
defined in Section 301(b)(2)(E) of the Act.
Best Management Practices (BMP)
Regulations intended to control the release of toxic and hazard-
ous pollutants from plant runoff, spillage, leaks, solid waste
disposal, and drainage from raw material storage.
486
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XVI
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
The selected technology applicable to develop effluent limita-
tions to have been achieved by July 1, 1977 (originally) for
industrial discharges to surface waters as defined by Section
301(b)(l)(A) of the Act.
Betterton Process
A process used to remove bismuth from lead by adding calcium and
magnesium. These compounds precipitate the bismuth which floats
to the top of the molten bath where it can be skimmed from the
molten metal.
Billet
A long, round slender cast product used as raw material in
subsequent forming operations.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
The quantity of oxygen used in the biochemical oxidation of
organic matter under specified conditions for a specified time.
Blast Furnace
A furnace for smelting ore concentrates. Heated air is blown in
at the bottom to the furnace, producing changes in the combustion
rate.
Blister Copper
Copper with 96 to 99 percent purity and appearing blistered; made
by forcing air through molten copper matte.
Slowdown
The minimum discharge to circulating water from a unit operation
such as a scrubber for the purpose of discharging dissolved
solids or other contaminants contained in the water, the further
buildup of which would cause concentration in amounts exceeding
limits established by best engineering practice.
Building Block
The smallest sub-unit or segment of a subcategory for which a
specific effluent limitation is established. Building blocks are
directly usable in defining the processes used in a plant and in
developing the discharge allowances for that plant.
Calcining
Heating to a high temperature without fusing so
material or make other changes.
as to remove
487
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XVI
Carbon Reduction
The process of using the carbon of coke as a reducing agent in
the blast furnace.
Cementation
A process in which metal is added to a solution to initiate the
precipitation of another metal. For example, iron may be added
to a copper sulfate solution to precipitate Cu:
-F Cu +
Cerussite
A mineral occurring in crystalline form and made of lead
carbonate.
Charge
Material that has been melted by being placed inside a furnace.
Charging Scrap
Scrap material put into a furnace for melting.
Chelation
The formation to coordinate covalent bonds between a central
metal ion and a liquid that contains two or more sites for com-
bination with the metal ion.
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
A measure of the oxygen-consuming capacity to the organic and
inorganic matter present in the water or wastewater.
Cold-Crucible Arc Melting
Melting and purification of metal in a cold refractory vessel or
pot.
Colloid
Suspended solids whose diameter may vary between less than one
micron and fifteen microns.
Composite Samples
A series of samples collected over a period of time but combined
into a single sample for analysis. The individual samples can be
taken after a specified amount of time has passed (time compo-
sited) , or after a specified volume of water has passed the sam-
pling point (flow composited). The sample can be automatically
488
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XVI
collected and composited by a sampler or can be manually
collected and combined.
Consent Decree (Settlement Agreement)
Agreement between EPA and various environmental groups, as insti-
tuted by the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, directing EPA to study and promulgate regulations for
the toxic pollutants (NRDC, Inc. v. Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C.
1976), modified March 9, 1979, 12 ERC 1833, 1841).
Contact Water
Any water or oil that comes into direct contact with the metal,
whether it is raw material, intermediate product, waste product,
or finished product.
Continuous Casting
A casting process that produces sheet, rod, or other long shapes
by solidifying the metal while it is being poured through an
open-ended mold using little or no contact cooling water. Thus,
no restrictions are placed on the length of the product and it is
not necessary to stop the process to remove the cast product.
Continuous Treatment
Treatment of waste streams operating without interruption as
opposed to batch treatment. Sometimes referred to as flow-
through treatment. , .
Contractor Removal
Disposal
firm.
of oils, spent solutions, or sludge by a commercial
Conventional Pollutants
Constituents of wastewater as determined by Section 304(a)(4) of
the Act, including but not limited to pollutants classified as
biological-oxygen-demanding> oil and grease, suspended, solids,
fecal coliforms, and pH.
Converting
The process of blowing air through molten metal to oxidize
impurities.
Cooling Tower
A hollow, vertical structure with internal baffles designed to
break up falling water'so that it is cooled by upward-flowing air
and the evaporation of water.
489
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XVI
Copper Matte
An impure sulfide mixture formed by smelting the sulfide ores in
copper.
Cupelled
Refined by means of a small shallow porous bone cup that is used
in assaying precious metals.
Cupola Furnace
A vertical cylindrical furnace for melting materials on a small
scale. This furnace is similar to a reverberatory furnace but
only on a smaller scale.
Cyclones
A funnel-shaped device for removing particulates from air or
other fluids by centrifugal means.
Data Collection Portfolio (dcp)
The questionnaire used in the survey of the nonferrous metals
manufacturing industry.
Degassing
The removal of dissolved hydrogen from the molten metal prior to
casting. This process also helps to remove oxides and impurities
from the melt.
Direct Chill Casting s
A method of casting where the molten metal is poured into a
water-cooled mold. The base of this mold is the top of a
hydraulic cylinder that lowers the aluminum first through the
mold and then through a. water spray and bath to cause solidifica-
tion. The vertical distance of the drop limits the length of the
ingot. This process is also known as semi-continuous casting.
Direct Discharger
Any point source that discharges to a surface water.
Pore
Gold and silver bullion remaining in a cupelling furnace after
oxidized lead is removed.
Dross
Oxidized impurities occurring on the surface of molten metal.
490
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XVI
Drying Beds
Areas for dewatering of sludge by evaporation and seepage.
Effluent
Discharge from a point source.
Effluent Limitation
Any standard (including schedules of compliance) established by a
state or EPA on quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemi-
cal, physical, biological, and other constituents that are dis-
charged from point sources into navigable waters, the waters of
the contiguous zone, or the ocean.
Electrolysis
A method of producing chemical reactions by sending electric
current through electrolytes or molten salt.
Electrolytic Refining
A purification process in which metals undergo electrolysis.
Electrolytic Slime
Insoluble impurities removed from the bottom of an electrolytic
cell during electrolytic refining.
Electron Beam Melting
A melting process in which an electron beam is used as a heating
source.
Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP)
A gas cleaning device that induces an electrical charge on a
solid particle which is then attracted to an oppositely charged
collector plate. The collector plates are intermittently
vibrated to discharge the collected dust to a hopper.
End-of-Pipe Treatment
The reduction of pollutants by wastewater treatment prior to dis-
charge or reuse.
Film Stripping
Separation of silver-bearing material from scrap photographic
film.
491
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XVI
Fluid Bed Roaster
A type of roaster in which the material is suspended in air
during roasting.
Fluxes
Substances added to molten metal to help remove impurities and
prevent excessive oxidation, or promote the fusing of the metals.
Galena
A bluish gray mineral occurring in the form of crystals, masses,
or grains; it constitutes the principal ore of lead.
Gangue
Valueless rock and mineral mined with ore.
ore, the material is known as "slag."
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy (GC/MS)
When separated from
Chemical analytical instrumentation used for quantitative organic
analysis.
Grab Sample
A single sample of wastewater taken without regard to time or
flow.
Hardeners
Master alloys that are added to a melt to control hardness.
Harris Process
A process in which sodium hydroxide and sodium nitrate are added
to molten lead to soften or refine it. These ,.two compounds react
with impurities in the molten metal forming a slag that floats to
the top of the molten metal.
Humidification Chamber
A chamber in which the water vapor content of a gas is increased.
Hydrogenation
The addition of hydrogen to a molecule.
Hydrometallurgical
The use of wet processes to treat metals.
492
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XVI
Indirect Discharger
Any point source that discharges to a publicly owned treatment
works.
Inductively-Coupled Argon Plasma Spectrophotometer (ICAP)
A laboratory device used for the analysis of metals.
Ingot
A large, block-shaped casting produced by various methods. Ingots
are intermediate products from which other products are made.
In-Process Control Technology
Any procedure or equipment used to conserve chemicals and water
throughout the production operations, resulting in a reduction of
the wastewater volume.
Litharge «
A yellowish lead oxide compound with a crystalline form; also
known as lead monoxide.
Matte
A metal sulfide mixture produced by smelting sulfide ores.
Mischmetal
A rare earth metal alloy comprised of 94 to 99 percent of the
natural mixture of rare earth metals. The balance of the alloy
includes traces of other elements and 1 to 2 percent iron.
Mitsubishi Process
A process used in primary copper refining which incorporates
three furnaces to combine roasting, smelting, and converting into
one continuous process. The Mitsubishi process results in
reduced smelting rates and heating costs.
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
Effluent limitations for new industrial point sources as defined
by Section 306 of the Act.
Nonconventional Pollutant
Parameters selected for use in performance standards that have
not been previously designated as either conventional or toxic
pollutants.
493
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XVI
Non-Water Quality Environmental Impact
The_ecological impact as a result to solid, air, or thermal pol-
lution due to the application to various wastewater technologies
to achieve the effluent guidelines limitations. Also associated
with the non-water quality aspect is the energy impact of waste-
water treatment.
NPDES Permits
Permits issued by EPA or an approved state program under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System as required by
the Clean Water Act.
Off-Gases
Gases, vapors, and fumes produced as a result of a metal forming
operation.
Oil and Grease (O&G)
Any material that is extracted by freon from an acidified sample
and that is not volatilized during the analysis, such as hydro-
carbons, fatty acids, soaps, fats, waxes, and oils.
Outokumpu Furnace
A furnace used for flash smelting, in which hot sulfide concen-
trate is fed into a reaction shaft along with preheated air and
fluxes. The concentrate roasts and smelts itself in a single
autogeneous process.
Parke's Process
A_process in which zinc is added to molten lead to form insoluble
zinc-gold and zinc-silver compounds. The compounds are skimmed
and the zinc is removed through-vacuum de-zincing.
Pelletized
An agglomeration process in which an unbaked pellet is heat
hardened. The pellets increase the reduction rate in a blast
furnace by improving permeability and gas-solid contact.
El
The pH is the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion activity of
a solution.
Platinum Group Metals
A name given to a group of metals comprised of platinum,
palladium, rhodium, iridium, osmium, and ruthenium.
494
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XVI
Pollutant Parameters
Those constituents of wastewater determined to be detrimental
and, therefore, requiring control.
Precious Metals
A generic term referring to the elements gold, silver, platinum,
palladium, rhodium, iridium, osmium, and ruthenium as a group.
Precipitation Supernatent
A liquid or fluid forming a layer above precipitated solids.
Priority Pollutants
Those pollutants included in Table 2 of Committee Print number
95-30 of the "Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the
House of Representatives," subject to the Act.
Process Water
Water used in a production process that contacts the product, raw
materials, or reagents.
Production Normalizing Parameter (PNP)
The unit to production specified in the regulations used to
determine the mass of pollution a production facility may
discharge.
PSES
Pretreatment standards (effluent regulations) for
sources applicable to indirect dischargers.
PSNS
existing
Pretreatment standards (effluent regulations) for new sources
applicable to new indirect dischargers.
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)
A waste treatment facility that is owned by a state or
municipality.
Pug Mill
A machine for mixing and tempering a plastic material by the
action to blades revolving in a drum or trough.
495
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XVI
Pyrometallurgical
The use to high-temperature processes to treat metals.
Raffinate
Undissolved liquid mixture not removed during solvent refining.
Rare Earth Metals
A name given to a group of elements including scandium, yttrium,
and lanthanum to lutetium, inclusive.
Recycle
Returning treated or untreated wastewater to the production pro-
cess from which it originated for use as process water.
Reduction
A reaction in which there is a decrease in valence resulting
from a gain in electrons.
Reuse .... ...;.'.
The use of treated or untreated process wastewater in a different
production process.
Reverberatory Furnaces :
Rectangular furnaces in which the fuel is burned above the metal
and the heat reflects off the walls and into the metal.
Roasting .....-., ,
Heating ore to remove impurities prior to smelting. Impurities
within the ore are oxidized and leave the furnace in gaseous
form.
Rod , "
An intermediate metal product having a solid, round cross
section 9.5 mm (3/8 inches) or more in diameter.
Rotary Furnace
A circular furnace which rotates the workpiece around the axis of
the furnace during heat treatment.
Scrubber Liquor
The untreated wastewater stream produced by wet scrubbers clean-
ing gases produced by metal manufacturing operations.
496
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XVI
Shot Casting
A method of casting in which molten metal is poured into a
vibrating feeder, where droplets of molten metal are formed
through perforated openings. The droplets are cooled in a quench
tank.
Sintering
The process of forming a bonded mass by heating metal powders
without melting.
Skimmings
Slag removed from the surface of smelted metal.
Slag
The product of fluxes and impurities resulting from the smelting
of metal.
Smelting
The process of heating ore mixtures to separate liquid metal and
impurities.
Soft Lead
Lead produced by the removal of antimony through oxidation. The
lead is characterized by low hardness and strength.
Spent Hypo Solution
A solution consisting of photographic film fixing bath and wash
water which contains unreduced silver from film processing.
Stationary Casting
A process in which the molten metal is poured into molds and
allowed to air-cool. It is often used to recycle in-house scrap.
Subcategorization
The process of segmentation of an industry into groups of plants
for which uniform effluent limitations can be established.
Supernatent
A liquid or fluid forming a layer above settled solids.
497
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XVI
Surface Water
Any visible stream or body of water, natural or man-made. This
does not include bodies of water whose sole purpose is wastewater
retention or the removal of pollutants, such as holding ponds or
lagoons.
Surfactants
Surface active chemicals that tend to lower the surface tension
between liquids.
Sweating
Bringing small globules of low-melting constituents to an alloy
surface during heat treatment.
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Organic and inorganic molecules and ions that are in true solu-
tion in the water or wastewater.
Total Organic Carbon (TOG)
A measure of the organic contaminants in a wastewater. The TOC
analysis does not measure as much of the organics as the COD or
BOD tests, but is much quicker than these tests.
Total Recycle
The complete reuse of a stream, with make-up water added for
evaporation losses. There is no blowdown stream from a totally
recycled flow and the process water is not periodically or con-
tinuously discharged.
or treated effluent.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Solids in suspension in water, wastewater,
Also known as suspended solids.
Traveling Grate Furnace
A furnace with a moving grate that conveys material through the
heating zone. The feed is ignited on the surface as the grate
moves past the burners; air is blown in the charge to burn the
fuel by downdraft combustion as it moves continuously toward
discharge.
Tubing Blank
A sample taken by passing one gallon to distilled water through a
composite sampling device before initiation of actual wastewater
sampling.
498
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
SECT - XVI
Tuyere
Openings in the shell and refractory lining of a furnace through
which air is forced.
Vacuum Dezincing
A process for removing zinc from a metal by melting or heating
the solid metal in a vacuum.
Venturi Scrubbers
A gas cleaning device utilizing liquid to remove dust and mist
from process gas streams.
Volatile Substances
Materials that are readily vaporizable at relatively low
temperatures.
Wastewater Discharge Factor
The ratio between water discharged from a production process and
the mass of product of that production process. Recycle water in
not included.
Water Use Factor
The total amount of contact water or oil entering a process
divided by the amount of product produced by this process. The
amount of water involved includes the recycle and make-up water.
Wet-Scrubbers
Air pollution control devices used for removing pollutants as the
Igas passes through the spray.
Zero Discharger
Any industrial or municipal facility that does not discharge
wastewater.
The following sources were used for defining terms in the
glossary:
Gill, G. B., Nonferrous Extractive Metallurgy.
Sons, New York, NY, 1980.
John Wiley &
Lapedes, Daniel N., Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms,
2nd edition. New York, NY, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1978.
McGannon, Harold E., The Making, Shaping, and Treating of Steel,
9th edition. Pittsburgh, PA, U.S. Steel Corp., 1971.
499
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT SECT - XVI
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
500
-------