DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
for the
PORCELAIN ENAMELING
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Douglas M. Costle
Administrator
Steven Schatzow
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Water, Regulations and Standards
Jeffery D. Denit
Acting Director, Effluent Guidelines Division
Ernst P. Hall, P.E.
Chief, Metals and Machinery Branch
Catherine M. Lowry
Project Officer
January, 1981
Effluent Guidelines Division
Office of Water and Waste Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
-------
CONTENTS
Section
Title
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
Conclusions
i
Recommendations j 3
Introduction j 2l
Legal Authority i 21
Guidelines Development Summary 23
Description of the Porcelain Enameling
Industrial Segment 2?
Industry Summary I 33
Industry Subcategorization 37
Subcategorization!Basis 37
Production Normalizing Parameters 41
Wastewater Use and Water Characterization 43
Data Collection ! 43
Plant Sampling j 44
Data Analysis ; 49
Selection of Pollutant [Parameters 143
Verification Parameters 143
Regulation of Specific Pollutants 179
Control and Treatment Technology 199
End-of-Pipe Treatment Technologies 199
Major Technologies 199
Chemical Reduction of
Chromium 200
Chemical Precipitation 201
Cyanide Precipitation 210
Granular Bed jFiltration 212
Pressure Filtration 215
Settling 217
Skimming ! 221
Major Technologyj Effectiveness 224
Lime and Settle Performance 224
Lime, Settle |and Filter
Performance! 226
Analyses of Treatment System
Effectiveness 228
Minor Technologies 232
Carbon Adsorption 232
-------
Section
VIII,
IX.
X.
Title
Centrifugation
Coalescing
Cyanide Oxidation
Evaporation
Flotation
Gravity Sludge Thickening
Ion Exchange
Membrane Filtration
Peat Adsorption
Reverse Osmosis
Sludge Bed Drying
Ultrafiltration
Vacuun Filtration
In-Plant Technology
Water Reuse
Process Materials Conservation
Filtration of Nickle Baths
Dry Spray Booths
Reclamation of Waste Enamel
Process Modifications
Material Substitutions
Rinse Techniques
Good Housekeeping
Cost of Wastewater Control and Treatment
-Cost Estimation Methodology
Cost Estimates for Individual
Treatment Technologies
Treatment System Cost Estimates
Energy and Non-Water Quality Aspects
Best Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available
Technical Approach to BPT
Selection of Pollutant Parameters
Steel Subcategory
Cast Iron Subcategory
Aluminum Subcategory
Copper Subcategory
Adjustment of Data for Less Than
30 Sampling Days
Best Available Technology Economically
Available Technical Approach to BAT
BAT Option Selection
Regulated Pollutant Parameters
Steel Subcategory
236
238
239
243
246
249
250
253
255
257
260
262
264
265
266
266
266
267
267
269
269
274
307
307
317
331
335
397
397
399
399
404
406
410
412
423
433
428
430
430
IV
-------
Section
XI.
XII.
XIII
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
Title
Cast Iron Subcategory
Aluminum Subcategory
Copper Subcategory
Summary
New Source Performance Standards
Technical Approach to BDT
BDT Option Selection
Regulated Pollutant Parameters
Summary
Pretreatment
Pretreatment Standards
Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology
Acknowledgements
References
Glossary
Page
432
433
434
436
467
467
486
471
474
479
479
487
493
495
502
-------
TABLES
Section Title
111-1 Summary of Sruvey Responses
V-l Summary of Sampling Sites
V-2 Verification Sampling Days for Each Discrete
Process Operation
V-3 Screening and Verification Analysis
Techniques
V-4 Summary of Responses to DCP
V-5 Effluent Profile
V-6 Parameters Found in Screening Analysis
V-7 Verification Analysis Parameters
V-8 Discharge Destination
V-9 Water Use: Porcelain Enameling on Steel
V-10 Water Use: Porcelain Enameling on Cast Iron
V-l1 Water Use: Porcelain Enameling on Aluminum
V-l2 Water Use: Porcelain Enameling on Copper
V-l3 Water Use: Water Use Rates for dcp Plants
V-l4 Water Use: Water Use Rates for dcp Plants
V-l5 Total Raw Waste: Steel Subcategory (mg/1)
V-l6 Total Raw Waste: Cast Iron Subcategory (mg/1)
V-l7 Total Raw Waste: Aluminum Subcategory (mg/1)
V-l8 Total Raw Waste: Copper Subcategory (mg/1)
V-l9 Total Raw Waste: Steel Subcategory (mg/m2)
V-20 Total Raw Waste: Cast Iron Subcategory (mg/m2)
Page
26
64
65
70 .
74
77
79
80
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
VI
-------
Section
V-21
V-22
V-23
V-24
V-25
V-26
V-27
V-28
V-29
V-30
V-31
V-32
V-33
V-34
V-35
V-36
V-37
V-38
V-39 ,
V-40
V-41
Title Page
- ii Jin..
Total Raw Waste: Aluminum Subcategory (mg/m2) 94
Total Raw Waste: Copper Subcategory (mg/m2) 95
Coating Raw Wastewater Summary (mg/1) 95
Raw Waste: Coating of Steel (mg/1) 93
Raw Waste: Coating of Steel (mg/m2) 99
Raw Waste: Coating of Iron (mg/1) 100
Raw Waste: Coating of Iron (mg/m2) 101
Raw Waste: Coating of Aluminum (mg/1) 102
Raw Waste: Coating of Aluminum (mg/m2) 103
Raw Waste: Coating of copper (mg/1) 104
Raw Waste: Coating of Copper (mg/m2) 105
Total and Dissolved Metals Analysis:
Steel Subcategory 1Q6
Total and Dissolved Metals Analysis:
Subcategory " 107
Total arid Dissolved Metals Analysis: Aluminum
Aluminum Subcategory 108
Total and Dissolved Metals Analysis:
Copper Subcategory 109
Dissolved Parameter Analysis 110
Pounds of Priority Pollutant Metals Discharged
by the Porcelain Enameling Industry 111
Raw Waste: Alkaline Cleaning of Steel (mg/1) 112
Raw Waste: Alkaline Cleaning of Steel (mg/m2) 113
Raw Waste: Acid Etch of Steel (mg/1) 114
Raw Waste: Acid Etch of Steel (mg/m2) 115
\m
-------
Section
V-42
V-43
V-44
V-45
V-46
V-47
V-48
V-49
V-50
V-51
V-52
V-53
V-54
V-55
V-56
V-57
V-58
V-59
V-60
VI-1
VI-2
Title
Raw Waste: Nickel Flash on Steel (mg/1)
Raw Waste: Nickel Flash on Steel (mg/m2)
Raw Waste: Neutralization of Steel (mg/1)
Raw Waste: Neutralization of Steel (mg/m2)
Raw Waste: Alkaline Cleaning of Aluminum (mg/1)
Raw Waste: Alkaline Cleaning of Aluminum (mg/m2)
Raw Waste: Acid Etch of Copper (mg/1)
Raw Waste: Acid Etch of Copper (mg/m2)
Effluent Concentration (mg/1) Steel Subcategory
Sampled Plants
Effluent Concentration (mg/1) Cast Iron
Subcategory
Effluent Concentration (mg/1) Aluminum
Subcategory Sampled Plants
Effluent Concentration (mg/1) Copper
Subcategory Sampled Plants
Raw Waste: Preparation of Steel (mg/1)
Raw Waste: Preparation of Steel (mg/m2)
Raw Waste: Preparation of Aluminum (mg/1)
Raw Waste: Preparation of Aluminum (mg/m2)
Raw Waste: Preparation of Copper (mg/1)
Raw Waste: Preparation of Copper (mg/m2)
Sampled Plant Water Use (1/m2)
Pollutant Parameters Selected for Verifica-
tion Sampling and Analysis for the Porcelain
Enameling Category
Priority Pollutant Disposition
v i i i
Page
116
117
118
119
120
121
121
123
11 A
24
11 *7
27
1 28
1 29
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
1A A
44
194
^i
-------
Section Title
VI-3 Non-Conventional and Conventional Pollutant
Parameters Selected for Consideration for
Specific Regulation in the Porcelain
Enameling Category
VII-1 pH Control Effect on Metals Removal
VII-2 Effectiveness of Sodium Hydroxide for
Metals Removal
VII-3 Effectiveness of Lime & Sodium Hydroxide
for Metals Removal
VII-4 Theoretical Solubilities of Hydroxides and
Sulfides fo Heavy Metals in Pure Water
VII-5 Sampling Data from Sulfide Precipitation -
Sedimentation Systems
VII-6 Sulfide Precipitation - Sedimentation
Performance
VI1-7 Concentration of Total Cyanide
VI1-8 Multimedia Filter Performance
VI1-9 Performance of Sampled Settling Systems
VII-10 Skimming Performance
VII-11 Trace Organic Removal by Skimming
VII-12 Hydroxide Precipitation - Settling (L&S)
Performance
VII-13 Hydroxide Precipitation - Settling (L&S)
Performance Additional Parameters
VII-14 Precipitation - Settling - Filtration (LS&F)
Performance Plant 13330
VII-15 Precipitation - Settling - Filtration (LS&F)
Performance Plant 18538
VII-16 Summary of Treatment Effectiveness
VII-17 Activated Carbon Performance (Mercury)
Page
198
203
204
205
206
207
208
211
214
219
222
223
225
226
227
229
233
235
-------
Section Title Page
VII-18 Summary of Treatability Effectiveness for Organic
Priority Pollutants by Activated Carbon 275
VTI-19 Summary of Classes of Organic Compounds
together with examples of Organics that are
Readily Adsorbed on Carbon 276
VII-20 Ion Exchange Performance 252
VII-21 Membrane Filtration System Effluent 254
VI1-22 Peat Adsorption Performance 256
VII-23 Ultrafiltration Performance 263
VI1-24 Theoretical Rinse Water Flows Required to
Maintain a 1,000 to 1 Concentration Reduction 273
VIII-1 Cost Program Pollutant Parameters 309
VII1-2 Treatment Technology Subroutine 312
VIII-3 Wastewater Sampling Frequency 316
VIII-4 Index to Technology Cost Tables 318
VIII-5 Clarifier Chemical Requirements 326
VIII-6 Ball Milling Wastewater Sump Costs 337
VIII-7 Holding Tanks Costs 338
VII1-8 Equalization Tanks Costs 339
VII1-9 Chromium Reduction - Continuous Treatment Costs 340
VIII-10 Chromium Reduction - Batch Treatment - Costs 341
VIII-11 Chemical Hydroxide Precipitation - Sedimentation:
Continuous Treatment Costs 342
VIII-12 Chemical Hydroxide Precipitation - Sedimentation:
Batch Treatment Costs 343
VIII-13 Multi-Media Filtration Costs 344
VIII-14 In-Line Filtration Costs 345
-------
Section
VIII-15
VIII-16
VIII-17
VIII-18
VIII-19
VIII-20
VIII-21
VIII-22
VIII-23
VIII-24
VIII-25
VIII-26
VIII-27
VIII-28
VIII-29
VIII-30
VIII-31
VIII-32
VIII-33
Title
Vacuum Filtration Costs
Pump Station Costs
Countercurrent Rinsing Costs
BPT System Cost - Steel Subcategory
BPT System Cost - Cast Iron Subcategory
BPT System Cost - Aluminum Subcategory
BPT System Cost - Aluminum Subcategory
(Including Chromium Reduction)
BPT System Cost - Copper Subcategory
BAT Option 1 System Cost - Steel
Subcategory
BAT Option 1 System Cost - Cast Iron
Subcategory
BAT Option 1 System Cost - Aluminum
Subcategory
BAT Option 1 System Cost - Aluminum
Subcategory (Including Chromium Reduction)
BAT Option 1 System Cost - Copper
Subcategory
BAT Option 2 System Cost - Steel Category
BAT Option 2 System Cost - Cast Iron
Subcategory
BAT Option 2 System Cost - Aluminum
Subcategory
BAT Option 3 System Cost - Aluminum
Subcategory (Including Chromium Reduction)
BAT Option 2 System Cost - Copper
Subcategory
BAT Option 3 System Cost - Steel
Page
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
36.3
XI
-------
Section
Title
VIII-34
VIII-35
VIII-36
VIII-37
VIII-38
VIII-39
VIII-40
VIII-41
VIII-42
VIII-43
IX-1
IX-2
IX-3
IX-4
IX-5
Subcategory
BAT Option 3 System Cost - Cast Iron
Subcategory
BAT Option 3 System Cost
Subcategory
Aluminum
BAT Option 3 System Cost - Aluminum
Subcategory (Including Chromium Reduction)
BAT Option 3 System Cost - Copper
Subcategory
NSPS Option 2 (Modified) System Cost -
Steel Subcategory
NSPS Option 2 (Modified) System Cost -
Aluminum Subcategory
NSPS Option 2 (Modified) System Cost - Aluminum
Subcategory (Including Chromium Reduction)
NSPS Option 2 (Modified) System Cost -
Copper Subcategory
Nonwater Quality Aspects of Wastewater
Treatment
Nonwater Quality Aspects of Sludge and
Solids Handling
BPT Effluent Limitations - Steel
Subcategory
Comparison of Sampled Plant Mass Discharges
and Discharge Limitations for the Steel
Subcategory
Comparison of Reported Mass Discharges (dcp)
and Discharge Limitations for the Steel
Subcategory
BPT Effluent Limitations - Cast Iron
Subcategory
BPT Effluent Limitations - Aluminum
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
401
415
417
404
-------
Section
IX-6
IX-7
X-l
X-2
X-3
X-4
X-5
X-6
X7
X-8
X-9
X-10
X-ll
X-l 2
X-l 3
X-l 4
Title
Subcategory , v
Comparison of Reported Mass Discharges (dcp)
and Discharge Limitations for the Aluminum
Subcategory
BPT Effluent Limitations for the Copper
Subcategory
Summary of Treatment Effectiveness - Steel
Subcategory
Summary of Treatment Effectiveness - Cast Iron
Subcategory
Summary of Treatment Effectiveness - Aluminum
Subcategory
Summary of Treatment Effectiveness - Copper
Subcategory
Pollutant Reduction Benefits of Control
Systems - Steel Subcategory - Normal Plant
Pollutant Reduction Benefits of Control
Systems cast Iron Subcategory - Normal Plant
Pollutant Reduction Benefits of Control
Systems Aluminum Subcategory - Normal Plant
Pollutant Reduction Benefits of Control
Systems Copper Subcategory - Normal Plant
Total Treatment Performance - Steel Subcategory
Total Treatment Performance - Cast Iron
Subcategory
Total Treatment Performance - Aluminum
Subcategory
Total Treatment Performance - Copper
Subcategory
Total Treatment Performance - Total Category
Summary Table - Pollution Reduction Benefits
Page
408
419
411
c
437
439
440
442
444
446
447
449
451
453
454
456
458
460
-------
Section
X-15
X-16
X-17
X-18
X-19
XI-1
XI-2
XI-3
XI-4
XII-1
XII-2
XII-3
XII-4
XII-5
XII-6
XII-7
XIII-1
XIII-2
XIII-3
XIII-4
Title
Porcelain Subcategory Costs
BAT Effluent Limitations - Steel Subcategory
BAT Effluent Limitations - Cast Iron
Subcategory
BAT Effluent Limitations - Aluminum
Subcategory
BAT Effluent Limitations - Copper
Subcategory
Cost of BDT for NSPS - Normal Plant
New Source Performance Standards - Steel
Subcategory
New Source Performance Standards
Subcategory
Aluminum
New Source Performance Standards - Copper
Subcategory
PSES Mass Standards - Steel Subcategory
PSES Mass Standards - Cast Iron Subcategory
1 .,''
PSES Mass Standards - Aluminum Subcategory
PSES Mass Standards - Copper Subcategory
PSNS Mass Limitations - Steel Subcategory
PSNS Mass Limitations - Aluminum Subcategory
PSNS Mass Limitations - Copper Subcategory
BCT Effluent Limitations - Steel Subcategory
BCT Effluent Limitations - Cast Iron
Subcategory
BCT Effluent Limitations - Aluminum
Subcategory
BCT Effluent Limitations - Copper
Page
462
431
432
433
435
470
472
473
474
480
481
482
483
484
485
485
488
488
489
xiv
-------
Section
Title
Subcategory
Page
489
xv
-------
FIGURES
Number
V-l
V-2
V-3
V-4
VII-1
VII-2
VII-3
VII-4
VII-5
VII-6
VII-7
VII-8
VII-9
VII-10
VII-11
VII-12
VII-13
Title
General Process Sequence for Porcelain
Enameling on Steel
General Process Sequence for Porcelain
Enameling on Cast Iron
General Process Sequence for Porcelain
Enameling on Aluminum
General Process Sequence for Porcelain
Enameling on Copper
Page
139
140
141
142
Hexavalent Chromium Reduction with Sulfur Dioxide 277
278
Comparative Solubilities of Metal Hydroxides
and SuIfides as a Function of pH
Effluent Zinc Concentrations Versus Minimum
Effluent pH
Lead Solubility In Three Alkalies
Granular Bed Filtration Example
Pressure Filtration
Representative Types of Sedimentation
Hydroxide Precipitation - Sedimentation
Effectiveness, Cadmium
Hydroxide Precipitation - Sedimentation
Effectiveness, Chromium
Hydroxide Precipitation - Sedimentation
Effectiveness, Copper
Hydroxide Precipitation - Sedimentation
Effectiveness, Iron
Hydroxide Precipitation - Sedimentation
Effectiveness, Lead
Hydroxide Precipitation - Sedimentation
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
xvi
-------
Number
VI I-14
VI I-15
VII-16
VII-17
VII-18
VII-19
VII-20
VII-21
VII-22
VI1-23
VII-24
VII-25
VII-26
VII-27
VII-28
VII-29
VII-30
VIII-1
VIII-2
VIII-3
Title
Effectiveness, Manganese
Hydroxide Precipitation - Sedimentation
Effectiveness, Nickel
Hydroxide Precipitation - Sedimentation
Effectiveness, Phosphorous
Hydroxide Precipitation - Sedimentation
Effectiveness, Zinc
Activated Carbon Adsorbtion Column
Centrifugation
Treatment of Cyanide Wastes by Alkaline
Chlorination
Typical Ozone Plant for Waste Treatment
UV/Ozonation
Types of Evaporation Equipment
Dissolved Air Flotation
Gravity Thickening
Ion Exchange with Regeneration
Simplified Reverse Osmosis Schematic
Reverse Osmosis Membrane Configuration
Sludge Drying Bed
Simplified Ultrafiltration Flow Schematic
Vacuum Filtration
Simplified Logic Diagram of System Cost
Estimation Program
Simple Waste Treatment System
Sump Tank and Pump Investment Costs
Page
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
375
376
377
xvn
-------
Number Title Page
VIII-4 Sump Labor Requirements 709
VIII-5 Sump Power and Materials Costs 379
VII1-6 Holding Tank Capital Costs 380
VIII-7 Holding Tank Electrical Costs 381
VII1-8 Holding Tank Annual Labor Requirement 382
VIII-9 Chemical reduction of Chromium Investment Costs 383
VIII-10 Annual Labor for Chemical Reduction of Chromium 384
VIII-11 Clarifier Capital Cost Summary 385
VIII-12 Chemical Precipitation and Clarification Costs 386
VIII-13 Predicted Costs of Multimedia Filter 387
VIII-14 In-Line Filtration Investment Costs 388
VIII-15 Annual Labor for In-Line Filtration 389
VIII-16 In-Line Filtration Material Costs for
Operation and Maintenance 390
VIII-17 In-Line Filtration Power Requirements 391
VIII-18 Vacuum Filtration Investment Costs 392
VIII-19 Annual Labor for Vacuum Filtration 393
VIII-20 Vacuum Filtration Material and Supply Costs 394
VIII-21 Vacuum Filtration Electrical Costs 395
IX-1 BPT Treatment System for the Steel, Aluminum
and Copper Subcategories 420
IX-2 BPT Treatment System for the Cast Iron
Subcategory 421
X-l BAT Option 1 Treatment System for Existing
Sources 463
t> , '
X-2 BAT Option 2 Treatment System for Existing
xvm
-------
Number
X-3
XI-
XI-1
Title
Sources
BAT Option 3 Treatment System for Existing
Sources
BDT Option 1 Treatment system
BDT Option 2 Treatment System
464
465
475
476
xix
-------
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
For the purpose of establishing effluent limitations for existing
sources, standards of performance for new sources and pretreatment
standards, EPA has divided the porcelain enameling category into four
subcategories based on basis material. These subcategory selections
have been developed from a review of potential subcategory bases,
including type of process, type of basis materials, raw materials
used, size and age of facilities, number of employees, geographic
location, and water use.
The porcelain enameling process is similar in nature to many other
metal cleaning and surfacing operations. The wastewater results from
rinsing the metal surface and the amount of water required is
proportional to the surface area cleaned and coated. Hence, the area
cleaned or coated is used as the production normalizing parameter.
Sampling and analysis of wastewater streams provided a data base for
establishing limitations and standards. Examination of the production
operations and data supplied by industry provided a profile of water
use in the category. A review of existing technology and its effect
or performance on porcelain enameling wastewater and similar
wastewater provided a basis for wastewater treatment performance.
Data collected from plant visits provided assurance that some existing
facilities do meet BPT and BAT and also provided clear indications why
many systems may not meet BPT or BAT.
-------
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. EPA has divided the porcelain enameling category into four
subcategories for the purpose of effluent limitations and standards.
These subcategories are:
steel
cast iron
aluminum
copper
2. The following effluent limitations are being proposed
existing sources:
A. Subcateqory A - Steel Basis Material
(a) BPT Limitations
for
BPT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Metal
Prep.
Maximum for
any one day
Coating
Oper.
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive
sampling days
Metal
Prep.
Coating^
Oper. ,?
Metric Units - mg/m2 of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Titanium 1.02 0.20 0.34 0.068
Oil & Grease 686. 136.1 342.8 68.1
TSS 1200. 238.2 857.0 170.1
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
5.48
5.48
2.06
62.7
66.8
3.43
49.4
1 .03
51 .4
21 .9
7.54
1635.
74.4
1 .09
1 .09
0.41
12.5
13.3
0.68
9.80
0.21
10.21
4.36
1.50
324.7
14.77
2.40
2.40
1 .03
7.01
27.08
1 .71
37.36
0.34
22.28
8.91
3.08
666.4
22.28
0.48
0.48
0.20
1 .39
5.38
0.34
7.42
0.07
4.42
1 .77
0.61
132.7
4.42
-------
English Units - lbs/1,000,000 ft2 of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Titanium
Oil & Grease
TSS
1.
1.
0.
12.
13.
0.
10.
0.
10.
4.
1 .
334.
15,
2,
0,
140,
12
12
42
8
7
70
1
21
5
49
54
6
2
45
21
3
245.5
0.22
0.22
0.084
2.55
2.72
0.14
2.01
0.042
2.09
0.89
0.31
66.4
3.02
0.49
0.42
27.9
48.8
0.49
0.49
0.21
1 .44
5.54
0.35
7.65
0.07
4.56
1 .82
0.63
136.8
4.56
0.98
0.07
7.01
175.3
0.098
0.098
0.042
0.29
1 .10
0.07
1 .52
0. 14
0.91
0.36
0.13
27.2
0.91
0.20
0.014
13.9
34.8
(b) BAT Limitations
BAT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Maximum for
any one day
Average of daily
value's for 30
consecutive
sampling days
Metal
Prep.
Coating
Oper.
Metal
Prep.
Coating
Oper.
Metric Units - mq/m2 of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Titanium
3.77
3.77
1 .44
9.26
44.9
3.43
21 .9
0.72
23.7
14.4
5.03
1079.76
64.1
7.92
0.72
0.75
0.75
0.29
1 .84
8.92
0.68
4.3"6
0.14
4.7
2.86
1 .00
214.4
12.73
1 .57
0.14
1 .47
1 .47
0.58
3.43
18.2
1 .51
9.94
0.31
10.3
6.17
2.09
445.73
21 .9
3.26
0.31
0.29
0.29
0.12
0.68
3.61
0.30
1 .97
0.06
2.04
1 .23
0.415
88.49
4.36
0.65
0.06
-------
English Units - lbs/1,000,000 ft* of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Titanium
0.77
0.77
0.30
1 .90
9.19
0.71
4.49
0.15
4.48
2.95
1 .03
221.0
13.2
1 .62
0.15
0.153
0.153
0.059
0.376
1 .82
0.139
0.98
0.029
0.96
0.59
0.20
43.88
2.60
0.32
0.029
0.30
0.30
0.12
0.70
3.72
0.31
2.03
0.06
2. 10
1 .26
0.43
91 .2
4.49
0.67
0.63
0.06
0.06
0.024
0.14
0.74
0.06
0.40
0.013
0.42
0.25
0.08
18.11
0.89
0.13
0.01
B- Subcateqory B - Cast Iron Basis Material
(a) BPT Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
BPT Effluent Limitations
Average of daily
values for 30
Maximum for consecutive
mg/m2
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Titanium
Oil & Grease
TSS
(lb/1 ,000
0. 1 1
0.11
0.041
1 .27
1 .35
0.069
1 .00
0.21
1 .04
0.44
0. 15
33.0
1 .50
0.24
0.021
13.8
24.2
,000 ft*)
(0.023)
(0.023)
(0.008)
(0.26)
(0.28)
(0.014)
(0.20)
(0.004)
(0.21)
(0.090)
(0.031 )
(6.76) 1
(0.31)
(0.050)
(0.004)
(2.83)
(4.96) 1
pH Within the range of 7 . 5 to
of area
0.048
0.048
0.021
0.14
0.55
0.035
0.75
0.007
0.45
0. 18
0.062
3.5
0.45
0.097
0.007
6.92
7.3
10.0 at
processed
(0.010)
(0.01.0)
(0.004)
(0.029)
(0.11)
(0.007)
(0.15)
\ \j i +j i
(0.002)
(0.092)
(0.037)
(0.013)
(2.76)
(0. 092)
(0.020)
(0.002)
(1 .42)
(0.14)
all times
-------
(b) BAT Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Subpart B
BAT Effluent Limitations
Average of daily
values for 30
Maximum for consecutive
any one day sampling days
ma/m2 (lb/1,000,OOP ft2) of area processed
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
0.076
0.076
0.029
0.019
0.91
0.07
0.44
0.015
0.48
0.29
0.102
21 .8
1 .29
0.16
( 0;016)
( 0.016)
( 0.006)
( 0.038)
( 0.19 )
( 0.014)
( 0.09 )
( 0.003)
( 0.098)
( 0.059)
( 0.02 )
( 4.46)
( 0.26 )
( 0.03 )
0.03
0.03
0.012
0.069
0.37
0.03
0.20
0.006
0.21
0.12
0.042
8.996
0.44
0.07
( 0.006)
C. Subcateqory C - Aluminum Basis Material
(a) BPT Limitations
0.006)
0.002)
0.014)
0.075)
0.006)
0.04 )
0.001)
0.04 )
0.025)
0.009)
84 )
1
0.09
0.01
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
BPT Effluent Limitations
Average of daily
values for 30
Maximum for consecutive
any one day sampling days
Metal
Prep.
Coating
Oper.
Metal
Prep.
Coating
Oper.
-------
Metric Units - mq/m2 of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Titanium
Oil & Grease
TSS
pH Within
5.61
5.61
2.11
64.2
68.4
7.72
3.51
50.5
1.05
52.6
22.5
7.72
1674.
76.1
12.3
1.05
701 .8
1228.
the range
1.77
1 .77
0.66
20.1
21.6
2.44
1.11
15.9
0.33
16.6
7.08
2.44
528.
24.0
3.87
0.33
221 .4
388.
Of 7.5 to
2.46
2.46
1.05
7.18
27.7
3.16
1.75
38.2
0.35
22.8
9.12
3.16
684.
22.8
4.91
0.35
351 .
877.
10.0 at
0.77
0.77
0.33
2.27
8.75
1.00
0.55
12.1
0.11
7.2
2.88
1 .00
215.9
7.20
1 .55
0.11
110.7
276.8
all times
English Units - lbs/1,000.000 ft2 of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Titanium
Oil & Grease
TSS
pH Within the
1.15
1.15
0.43
13.1
14.0
1.58
0.72
10.3
0.22
10.8
4.60
1 .58
342.5
15.6
2.51
0.22
143.6
251 .3
range of
0.36
0.36
0.14
4.15
4.42
0.50
0.23
3.26
0.68
3.40
1.45
0.50
108.0
4.92
0.79
0.068
45.3
79.3
7.5 to 10.
0.50
0.50
0.22
1.47
5.67
0.65
0.36
7.83
0.72
4.67
1 .87
0.65
140.0
4.67
41 .6
0.072
71.8
179.5
0 at all
0.158
0.158
0.068
0.46
1 .79
0.20
0.11
2.47
0.23
1 .47
0.59
0.20
44.2
1 .47
0.32
0.023
22.7
56.6
times
-------
(b) BAT Limitations
BAT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Maximum for
any one day
Metal
Prep.
Coating
Oper.
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive
sampling days
Metal
Prep.
Coating
Oper.
Metric Units - mq/m2 of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide.
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Titanium
3
3
86
,86
1 .47
9.47
45.97
5.26
3.51
22.46
0.74
24.2
14.7
5.2
1105.3
65.6
8.10
0.74
1 .22
1 .22
0.46
2.99
14.50
1 .66
1.11
7.1
0.23
7.62
4.65
1 .63
348.7
20.7
2.56
0.23
1 .51
1 .51
0.60
3.51
18.6
2.11
1 .54
10.18
0.32
10.53
6.32
2.14
456.17
22.46
3.33
0.32
0.48
0.48
0.19
1.11
5.87
0.66
0.49
3.21
0.10
3.32
1 .99
0.68
143.91
7.08
1 .05
0.10
English Units - lbs/1,000,000 ft2 of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Titanium
0.79
0.79
0.30
1 .94
9.41
1..08
0.72
4.60
0.15
4.95
3.02
1 .06
226.2
13.42
1 .66
0.15
0.25
0.25
0.095
0.61
2.97
0.34
0.23
1 .45
0.048
1 .56
0.95
0.33
71 .36
4.24
0.52
0.48
0.31
0.31
0.12
0.72
3.81
0.43
0.32
2.08
0.065
2.15
1 .29
0.44
93.35
4.60
0.68
0.065
0.097
0.097
0.039
0.23
1 .20
0.14
0.10
0.66
0.02
0.68
0.41
0.14
29.45
1 .45
0.22
0.20
-------
D- Subcateoory D - Copper Basis Material
(a) BPT Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant
BPT Effluent Limitations
Average of daily
values for 30
Maximum for consecutive
fropertv anv
Metal
Prep.
one day
Coating
Oper.
sampl
Metal
Prep.
ing days
Coating
Oper .
Metric Units - mq/mz of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Titanium
Oil & Grease
TSS
pH Within
Enqlish Units -
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
10.8
10.8
4.04
123.1
131 .2
6.73
96.9
2.02
100.9
43.1
14.8
3210.
146.0
23.6
2.02
1345.
2355.
the range
lbs/1 ,000
2.20
2.20
0.83
25.2
26.9
1 .38
19.8
0.41
20.7
8.81
3.03
656.9
30.0
4.82
0.76
0.76
0.28
8.67
9.24
0.47
6.83
0.14
7. 1 1
2.03
1 .04
226.
10.3
1 .66
0.14
94.8
165.9
of 7.5 to
,000 ft2 of
0.16
0.16
0.058
1 .78
1 .89
0.097
1 .40
0.03
1 .46
0.62
0.21
46.3
2.10
0.34
4.71
4.71
2.02
13.8
53.2
3.36
73.3
0.67
43.7
17.5
6.06
w w w
13.2
43.7
9.42
0.67
673.
1682.
10.0 at
0 33
W *J +J
0.33
0 14.
V I *ฑ
0. 97
3.74
0.24
5.17
0.05
3 OR
*> * W w
1 . 23
0 43
W rr J
92.4
3 08
*J * w U
0 fifi
V \J \J
0. 047
47.4
118.5
all times
area processed or coated
0.96
0.96
0.41
2.82
10.9
0.69
15.0
0.14
8. 95
3.58
1 .24
269.
8.95
1.93
0. 068
0.068
0.029
0.20
0.77
0.049
1 06
1 W V
0.010
0 6^
w VJ J
0.25
0.087
18.9
0 63
\S \J fj
0. 14
-------
Titanium
Oil & Grease
TSS
0.41
275.4
482.0
0.029
19.4
34.0
0.14
138.
344.
0.010
9.7
24.3
(b) BAT Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
BAT Effluent Limitations
Average of daily
values for 30
Maximum for consecutive
any one day sampling days
Metal
Prep.
Coating
Oper.
Metal
Prep.
Coating
Oper.
Metric Units - mq/m2 of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Titanium
7.4
7.4
2.83
18.17
88.1
6.73
43.07
1 .41
46.4
28.46
9.89
2119.6 1
125.8
15.5
1 .4
0.52
0.52
0.20
1 .28
6.21
0.47
3.03
0.10
3.27
1 .99
0.697
49.3
8.86
1 .09
0.10
2.89
2.89
1.14
6.73
35.7
2.96
19.5
0.61
20.2
12.1
4.1
874.8
43.1
6.39
0.61
0.20
0.20
0.08
0.08
2.51
0.21
1.37
0.04
1 .42
0.85
0.3
61 .62
3.03
0.45
0.04
English Units - lbs/1.000.000 ft2 of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Titanium
1.51
1.51
0.58
3.72
18.0
1 .38
8.81
0.29
9.50
5.78
2.02
433.8
25.8
3.18
0.29
0.11
0.11
0.04
0.26
1 .27
0.10
0.62
0.02
0.67
0.41
0.14
30.56
1 .81
0.22
0.02
0.59
0.59
0.23
1 .38
7.30
0.61
3.99
0.12
4.13
2.48
0.84
179.02
8.81
1 .31
0.12
0.04
0.04
0.016
0.10
0.51
0.04
0.28
0.009
0.29
0.17
0.06
12.6
0.62
0.09
0.009
10
-------
3. The following effluent standards are being processed for new
sources.
A.
Subcateqory A - Steel Basis Material
NSPS
Average of daily
Pollutant or values for 30
Pollutant Maximum for consecutive
Property _ ; _ any one day sampling days
Clb/1 ,000,000- fta) of area processed
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Oil & Grease
TSS
pH Within
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
45.
2.
0.
14.
21 .
06
39
89
14
92
99
60
21
4
69
33
4
6
the range
(0.012)
(0.080)
(0.390)
(0.029)
(0.190)
(0.20)
(0. 12)
(0.043)
(9.28) 1
(0.55)
(0.068)
(2.95) 1
(4.42) 1
Of 7.5 to
0.025
0. 144
0.76
0.063
0.42
0.43
0.26
0.087
8.7
0.92
0. 14
4.4
4.4
10.0 i
(0,
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(3.
(0.
(0.
(2.
(2.
005)
029)
16)
103)
085)
088)
053)
018)
83)
19)
028)
95)
95)
at all times
B. Subcateqory B - Cast Iron Basis Material
There shall be no discharge of wastewater pollutants.
C. Subcateqory C - Aluminum Basis Material
NSPS
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Maximum for
any one day
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive
sampling days
(lb/1,OOP.OOP ft2) of area processed
Chromium
Cyanide
Lead
Zinc
Aluminum
0.41
0.23
0. 15
1.06
0.64
(0,
(0,
(0.
(0.
16)
09)
06)
38)
(0.25)
0.15
0.09
0.07
0.46
0.28
(0,
(0,
(0,
(0.
(0,
06)
04)
026)
18)
11)
1 1
-------
Oil & Grease 15.3 (6.0) 15.3 (6.0)
TSS 22.95 (9.0) 15.3 (6.0)
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
D. Subcateqory D - Copper Basis Material
NSPS
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Maximum for
any one day
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive
sampling days
mg/m2 (lb/1,000,000 ft2) of area processed
Copper
Zinc
Iron
Oil & Grease
TSS
3.83
2,
5,
02
49
29.3
44.0
( 0.79)
(0.41)
(1.12)
(6.0)
(9.0)
1 .55
0.88
1 .88
29.3
29.3
(0,
(0,
(0.
(6,
32)
18)
38)
0)
(6.0)
pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
4. The following pretreatment standards are being proposed for
existing sources and new sources.
A. Subcateqory A - Steel Basis Material
(a) Pretreatment Standards for Existing Source
PSES
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Maximum for
any one day
Metal Coating
Prep . Oper .
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive
sampling days
Metal Coating
Prep . Oper .
Metric Units - mq/m2 of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Cobalt
3.77
3.77
1 .44
9.26
44.9
3.43
21 .9
0.72
23.7
5.03
0.75
0.75
0.29
1 .84
8.92
0.68
4.36
0.14
4.7
1 .00
1 .47
1 .47
0.58
3.43
18.2
1 .51
9.94
0.31
10.3
2.09
0.29
0.29
0.12
0.68
3.61
0.30
1 .97
0.06
2.04
0.415
12
-------
Fluoride
Manganese
Titanium
1079.76
7.92
0.72
214.4
1.57
0.14
445.73
3.26
0.31
88.49
0.65
0.06
English Units - lbs/1,000,000 ft2 of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Cobalt
Fluoride
Manganese
Titanium
0.77
0.77
0.30
1 .90
9.19
0.71
4.49
0.15
4.48
1.03
221 .0
1 .62
0.15
0.153
0. 153
0.059
0.376
1 .82
0. 139
0.98
0.029
0.96
0.20
43.88
0.32
0.029
0.30
0.30
0.12
0 . 70
3.72
0.31
2.03
0.06
2. 10
0.43
91 .2
0.67
0.063
0.06
0.06
0.024
0. 14
0.74
0.06
0.40
0.013
0.42
0.08
18.11
0.13
0.01
(b) Pretreatment Standards for New Source
Pollutant
Pollutant
Property
or
PSNS Effluent Limitations
Average of daily
values for 30
Maximum for consecutive
any one day sampling days
mq/m2 (lb/1.OOP,OOP ftซ) of area processed
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Cobalt
Fluoride
Manganese
Titanium
0.06
0.39
1 .89
0.14
0.92
0.99
0.21
45.4
0.33
0.03
(0.012)
(0.080)
(0.390)
(0.029)
(0. 190)
(0.20)
(0.043)
(9.28)
(0.068)
(0.006)
0.025
0. 144
0.76
0.063
0.42
0.43
0.087
18.7
0. 14
0.013
(0.005)
(0.029)
(0.16)
(0.103)
(0.085)
(0.088)
(0.018)
(3.83)
(0.028)
(0.003)
13
-------
B. Subcateqory B - Cast Iron Basis Material
(a) Pretreatment Standards for Existing Source
PSES Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Maximum for
any one day
Metal
Prep.
Coating
Oper.
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive
sampling days
Metal
Prep.
Coating
Oper.
mq/m2
(lb/1 ,000
0.076
0.076
0.029
0.019
0.91
0.07
0.44
0.015
0.48
0.102
21 .8
0.16
,000 ft2)
{ 0.016)
( 0.016)
( 0.006)
( 0.038)
( 0.19 )
( 0.014)
( 0.09 )
( 0.003)
( 0.098)
( 0.02 )
( 4.46)
( 0.03 )
of area
0.03
0.03
0.012
0.069
0.37
0.03
0.20
0.006
0.21
0.042
8.996
0.07
processed
( 0.006)
( 0.006)
( 0.002)
( 0.014)
( 0.075)
( 0.006)
( 0.04 )
( 0.001)
( 0.04 )
( 0.009)
( 1 .84 )
( 0.01 )
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Cobalt
Fluoride
Manganese
(b) Pretreatment Standards for New Source
There shall be no process wastewater pollutants introduced into a POTW.
C. Subcateqorv C - Aluminum Basis Material
(a) Pretreatment Standards for Existing Source
PSES
Average of daily
Pollutant or values for 30
Pollutant Maximum for consecutive
Property any one day sampling days
MetalCoatingMetalCoating
Prep. Oper. Prep. Oper.
Metric Units - mq/m2 of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
3.86.
3.86
1 .47
1 .22
1 .22
0.46
1 .51
1 .51
0.60
0.48
0.48
0.19
14
-------
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Cobalt
Fluoride
Manganese
Titanium
9.47
45.97
5.26
3.51
22.46
0.74
24.2
5.2
1105.3
8. 10
0.74
2.99
14.50
1.66
1 .11
7.1
0.23
7.62
1 .63
348.7
2.56
0.23
3.51
18.6
2.11
1 .54
10.18
0.32
10.53
2.14
456.17
3.33
0.32
1.11
5.87
0.66
0.49
3.21
0.10
3.32
0.68
143.91
1 .05
0.10
English Units - lbs/1,000,OOP ft2 of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Cobalt
Fluoride
Manganese
Titanium
0.79
0.79
0.30
1 .94
9.41
1.08
0.72
4.60
0.15
4.95
1.06
226.2
1.66
0. 15
0.25
0.25
0.095
0.61
2.97
0.34
0.23
1 .45
0.048
1 .56
0.33
71 .36
0.52
0.48
0.31
0.31
0.12
0.72
3.81
0.43
0.32
2.08
0.065
2. 15
0.44
93.35
0.68
0.065
0.097
0.097
0.039
0.23
1 .20
0.14
0.10
0.66
0.02
0.68
0. 14
29.45
0.22
0.20
(b) Pretreatment Standards for New Source
PSNS
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Maximum for
any one day
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive
sampling days
(lb/1,000,000 ft^) of area processed
Chromium
Cyanide
Lead
Zinc
0.41
0.23
0.15
1 .06
(0.16)
(0.09)
(0.06)
(0.38)
0.15
0.09
0.07
0.46
(0.06)
(0.04)
(0.026)
(0.18)
15
-------
D. Subcateqorv D - Copper Basis Material
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
PSES
Average of daily
values for 30
Maximum for consecutive
anv one dav sampling days
Metal Coating
Prep. Oper.
Metal Coating
Prep. Oper.
Metric Units - mq/m2 of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Cobalt
Fluoride
Manganese
Titanium
7.4
7.4
2.83
18.17
88.1
6.73
43.07
1.41
46.4
9.89
2119.6 1
15.5
1 .4
0.52
0.52
0.20
1 .28
6.21
0.47
3.03
0.10
3.27
0.697
49.3
1 .09
0.10
2.89
2.89
1 .14
6.73
35.7
2.96
19.5
0.61
20.2
4.1
874.8
6.39
0.61
0.20
0.20
0.08
0.08
2.51
0.21
1 .37
0.04
1 .42
0.3
61.62
0.45
0.04
English Units - lbs/1,000.000 ft2 of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Cobalt
Fluoride
Manganese
Titanium
1 .51
1 .51
0.58
3.72
18.0
1 .38
8.81
0.29
9.50
2.02
433.8
3.18
0.29
0.11
0.11
0.04
0.26
1 .27
0.10
0.62
0.02
0.67
0.14
30.56
0.22
0.02
0.59
0.59
0.23
1 .38
7.30
0.61
3.99
0.12
4.13
0.84
179.02
1 .31
0.12
0.04
0.04
0.016
0.10
0.51
0.04
0.28
0.009
0.29
0.06
12.6
0.09
0.009
16
-------
(b) Pretreatment Standards for New Source
PSNS
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Maximum for
any one day
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive
sampling days
mg/m2 (lb/1,000,000 ft2) of area processed
Copper
Zinc
3.83
2.02
{ 0.79)
(0.41)
1 .55
0.88
(0.32)
(0.18)
5. The following effluent limitations based on the best conventional
treatment are being proposed.
A. Subcategory A - Steel Basis Material
BCT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Maximum for
any one day
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive
sampling days
Metal Coating Metal Coating
Prep. Oper. Prep. Oper.
Metric Units - mg/m2 of area processed or coated
Oil & Grease 343. 0.50 343 0.50
TSS 514 0.75 343 0.50
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
English Units - lbs/1,OOP,OOP ft2 of area processed or coated
Oil & Grease- 70.1 0.102 70.1 0.102
TSS 105.2 0.153 70.1 0.102
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
17
-------
B. Subcategory B - Cast Iron Basis Material
BCT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Maximum for
any one day
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive
sampling days
mq/m2 (lb/1,000,000 ft2) of area processed
TSS 0.50 (0.102) 0.50 (0.102)
Oil and Grease 0.75 (0.153) 0.50 (0.102)
JDH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times.
C. Subcateqory C - Aluminum Basis Material
BCT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Maximum for
any one day
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive
sampling days
Metal
Prep.
Coating
Oper.
Metal
Prep.
Coating
Oper.
Metric Units - mq/m2 of area processed or coated
Oil & Grease 71.8 0.102 71.8 0.102
TSS 107.7 0.153 71.8 0.102
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
English Units - lbs/1,000,000 ft2 of area processed or coated
Oil & Grease 351 0.50 ~351 0.50
TSS 526 0.75 351. 0.50
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
18
-------
Subcateqory D - Copper Basis Material
BCT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Maximum for
any one day
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive
sampling days
Metal Coating Metal Coating
Prep. Oper. Prep. Oper.
Metric Units - mq/m2 of area processed or coated
Oil & Grease 673 0.50 673. 0.50
TSS 1009 0.75 673. 0.50
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
English Units - lbs/1,000,OOP ft2 of area processed or coated
Oil & Grease 138 0.102 138 0.102
TSS 207 0.153 138 0.102
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
19
-------
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
LEGAL AUTHORITY
This report is a technical background document prepared to support
effluent limitations and standards under authority of Sections 301,
304, 306, 307, 308, and 501 of the Clean Water Act (Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as Amended, (the Clean Water Act or the Act).
These effluent limitations and standards are in partial fulfillment of
the Settlement Agreement in Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v.
Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976), modified March 9, 1979. This
document also fulfills the requirements of sections 304(b) and (c) of
the Act. These sections require the Administrator, after consultation
with appropriate Federal and State Agencies and other interested
persons, to issue information on the processes, procedures, or
operating methods which result in the elimination or reduction of the
discharge of pollutants through the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available, the best available
technology economically achievable, and through the implementation of
standards of performance under Section 306 of the Act (New Source
Performance Standards).
Background
The Clean Water Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 established
a comprehensive program to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. By July 1,
1977, existing industrial dischargers were required to achieve
effluent limitations requiring the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT), Section 301(b)(1)(A);
and by July 1, 1983, these dischargers were required to achieve
effluent limitations requiring the application of the best available
technology economically achievable which will result in reasonable
further progress toward the national goal of eliminating the discharge
of all pollutants (BAT), Section 301(b)(2)(A). New industrial direct
dischargers were required to comply with Section 306 new source
performance standards (NSPS), based on best available demonstrated
technology; and new and existing sources which introduce pollutants
into publicly owned treatment works ((POTW) were subject to
pretreatment standards under Sections 307(b) and (c) of the Act.
While the requirements for direct dischargers were to be incorporated
into National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits
issued under Section 402 of the Act, pretreatment standards were made
21
-------
enforceable directly against any owner or operator of any source which
introduces pollutants into POTWs (indirect dischargers).
Although section 402(a)(1) of the 1972 Act authorized the setting of
requirements for direct dischargers on a case-by-case basis, Congress
intended that, for the most part, control requirements would be based
on regulations promulgated by the Administrator of EPA. Section
304(b) of the Act required the Administrator to promulgate regulations
providing guidelines for effluent limitations setting forth the degree
of effluent reduction attainable through the application of BPT and
BAT. Moreover, Section 306 of the Act requires promulgation of
regulations for NSPS. Sections 304(f), 307(b), and 307(c) required
promulgation of regulations for pretreatment standards. In addition
to these regulations for designated industry categories, Section
307(a) of the Act required the Administrator to promulgate effluent
standards applicable to all dischargers of toxic pollutants. Finally,
Section 501(a) of the Act authorized the Administrator to prescribe
any additional regulations necessary to carry out his functions under
the Act.
The EPA was unable to promulgate many of these regulations by the
dates contained in the Act. In 1976, EPA was sued by several
environmental groups, and in settlement of this lawsuit EPA and the
plaintiffs executed a Settlement Agreement which was approved by the
Court. This Agreement required EPA to develop a program and adhere to
a schedule for promulgating for 21 major industries BAT effluent
limitations guidelines, pretreatment standards, and new source
performance standards for 65 priority pollutants and classes of
pollutants. See Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Train, 8
ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976), modified March 9, 1979.
On December 27, 1977, the President signed into law the Clean Water
Act of 1977. Although this law makes several important changes in the
Federal water pollution control program, its most significant feature
is its incorporation into the Act of several of the basic elements of
the Settlement Agreement program for priority pollutant control.
Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and 301(b)(2)(C) of the Act now require the
achievement by July 1, 1984 of effluent limitations requiring
application of BAT for "toxic" pollutants, including the 65 "priority"
pollutants and classes of pollutants which Congress declared "toxic"
under Section 307(a) of the Act. Likewise, EPA's programs for new
source performance standards and pretreatment standards are now aimed
principally at toxic pollutant controls. Moreover, to strengthen the
toxics control program, Section 304{e) of the Act authorizes the
Administrator to prescribe best management practices (BMPs) to prevent
the release of toxic and hazardous pollutants from plant site runoff,
spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and drainage from raw
material storage associated with, or ancillary to, the manufacturing
or treatment process.
22
-------
In Keeping with its emphasis on toxic pollutants, the Clean Water Act
of 1977 also revises the control program for non-toxic pollutants.
Instead of BAT for conventional pollutants identified under Section
304(a)(4) (including biological oxygen demanding, suspended solids,
fecal colifoirm and pH), the new Section 301(b)(2)(E) requires
achievement by July 1, 1984, of effluent limitations requiring the
application of the best conventional pollutant control technology
(BCT). On July 30, 1979, EPA designated oil and grease as a
conventional pollutant. The factors considered in assessing BCT for
an industry include the costs of attaining a reduction in effluents
and the effluent reduction benefits derived compared to the costs and
effluent reduction benefits from the discharge of publicly owned
treatment works (Section 304(b)(4)(B)). For non-toxic,
nonconventional pollutants, Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(F)
require achievement of BAT effluent limitations within three years
after their establishment or July 1, 1984, whichever is later, but not
later than July 1, 1987.
GUIDELINES DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
The effluent limitations and standards for porcelain enameling were
developed from data obtained from previous EPA studies, literature
searches, and a plant survey and evaluation. Initially, information
from EPA records was collected and a literature search was conducted.
This information was then catalogued in the form of individual plant
summaries describing processes performed, production rates, raw
materials utilized, wastewater treatment practices, water uses and
wastewater characteristics.
In addition to providing a quantitative description of the porcelain
enameling category, this information was used to determine if the
characteristics of plants in the category as a whole were uniform and
thus amenable to one set of effluent limitations and standards. Since
the characteristics of the plants in the data base and the wastewater
generation and discharge varied widely, the establishment of
subcategories was determined to be necessary. The subcategorization
of the category was made by using basis material processed as the
subcategory descriptor. The subcategorization process is fully
discussed in Section IV.
To supplement existing data, data collection portfolios (dcp's) under
authority of Section 308 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended, were transmitted by EPA to all known porcelain enameling
companies. In addition to existing and plant supplied information
(via dcp), data were obtained through a sampling program carried out
at selected sites. Sampling consisted of a screening program at one
plant for each basis material type plus verification at up to 5 plants
for each type. Screen sampling was utilized to select pollutant
parameters for analysis in the second or verification phase of the
23
-------
program. The designated priority pollutants (65 toxic pollutants) and
typical porcelain enameling pollutants formed the basic list for
screening. Verification sampling and analysis was conducted to
determine the source and quantity of the selected pollutant parameters
in each subcategory.
Available data were analyzed to determine wastewater generation and
mass discharge rates for each basis material subcategory. In addition
to evaluating pollutant generation and discharges, the full range of
control and treatment technologies existing within the porcelain
enameling category was identified. This was done by taking into
consideration the pollutants to be treated and the chemical, physical,
and biological characteristics of these polluteints. Special attention
was paid to in-process technology such as the recovery and reuse of
process solutions, the recycle of process water and the curtailment of
water use.
The information as outlined above was then evaluated in order to
determine what levels of technology were appropriate as a basis for
effluent limitations for existing sources based on the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT) and based on
best available technology economically achievable (BAT). Levels of
technology appropriate for pretreatment of wastewater introduced into
a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) from both new and existing
sources were also identified as were the new source performance
standards (NSPS) based on best demonstrated control technology,
processes, operating methods, or other alternatives (BDT) for the
control of direct discharges from new sources. Where appropriate, the
data were also used to identify the best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT), although the presence of toxic metals in
most waste streams may limit applicability of these techniques. In
evaluating these technologies various factors were considered. These
included treatment technologies from other. industries, any
pretreatment requirements, the total cost of application of the
technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be
achieved, the age of equipment and facilities involved, the processes
employed, the engineering aspects of the application of various types
of control technique process changes, and non-water quality
environmental impact (including energy requirements).
Sources of Industry Data
Data on the porcelain enameling category were gathered from previous
EPA studies, literature studies, inquiries to federal and state
environmental agencies, raw material manufacturers and suppliers,
trade association contacts and the porcelain enameling manufacturers
themselves. Additionally, meetings were held with industry
representatives and the EPA. All known porcelain enamelers were sent
a data collection portfolio (dcp) to solicit specific information
24
-------
concerning each facility. Finally, a sampling program was carried out
at plants consisting of screen sampling and analysis at five
facilities to determine the presence of a broad range of pollutants
and verification at 15 plants (at 2 plants 2 subcategories were
sampled) to quantify the pollutants present in porcelain enameling
wastewater. Specific details of the sampling program and information
from the above data sources are presented in Section V.
Literature Study - Published literature in the form of books, reports,
papers, periodicals, and promotional materials was examined. The most
informative sources are listed in Section XV.
EPA Studies - A previous preliminary and unpublished EPA study of the
porcelain enameling segment was reviewed. The information included a
summary of the industry describing: the manufacturing processes; the
waste characteristics associated with these processes; recommended
pollutant parameters requiring control; applicable end-of-pipe
treatment technologies for wastewaters; effluent characteristics
resulting from this treatment; and a background bibliography. Also
included in these data were detailed production and sampling
information on approximately 19 manufacturing plants.
Plant Survey and Evaluation - The collection of data pertaining to
facilities that perform porcelain enameling was a two-phased
operation. First, a mail survey was conducted by EPA. A dcp was
mailed to each company in the country known or believed to perform
porcelain enameling. This dcp included sections for general plant
data, specific production process data, waste management process data,
raw and treated wastewater data, waste treatment cost information, and
priority pollutant information based on 1976 production records. A
total of 250 requests for information were mailed. From this mailing,
it was determined that 103 companies operate 123 porcelain enamel
facilities. Of the total data requests, 116 submitted a completed
dcp, 95 reported no porcelain enameling, three were dry processors,
six were not deliverable, 17 mailings went to corporate addresses, 10
were duplicate mailings, and there was no response from three. Some
plants responded with 1977 or 1978 data, while most provided 1976
data. Table III-l (Page 25) summarizes the survey responses received
in terms of number of plants which provided information in each
subcategory.
Utilization of Industry Data
Data collected from the previously listed sources are used throughout
this report in the development of a base for BPT and BAT limitations
and NSPS and pretreatment standards. The EPA studies as well as the
above literature provided the basis for the porcelain enameling
subcategorization discussed in Section IV. Raw wastewater
characteristics for each subcategory presented in Section V were
25
-------
TABLE III-l
PORCELAIN ENAMEL INDUSTRY PROFILE
GENERAL INFORMATION
PERCENT PRODUCTION BY SUBCATEGORY
PLANT
ID
01059
03032
03033
04066
04098
04099
04101
04102
04122
04126
05026
06030
06031
09032
11045
11052
11053
11092
11089
11090
11091
11092
11105
11106
11107
12035
12037
12038
12039
12040
12043
12044
1204S
12234
13330
15031
15032
15033
15194
15712
15949
19049
20015
20059
20067
20089
20090
20091
22024
30043
30062
30053
30054
30076
33077
33083
33084
33085
33086
33088
33092
33097
33098
33617
34031
36030
36039
36052
36069
36072
36077
36078
40031
40032
40033
40034
40035
40036
40039
40040
40041
40042
40043
40050
40053
40055
40063
40540
41062
41076
41078
44031
45030
47032
47033
47034
47036
47047
47038
47050
47051
47111
47670
DATE
BUILT
OR
MODIFIED
1978
1976
1972
1946
1976
1978
1952
1975
1964
1946
1967
1971
1970
1973
1965
1975
1076
1974
1976
1976
1977
1950
1966
1967
1962
1955
1946
1968
1968
1946
19^9
1958
1975
1974
1977
1970
1976
1968
1971
1959
1978
1976
1976
1978
1969
1949
1964
1970
1977
1970
1967
1960
1968
1958
1967
1971
1957
1960
1954
1965
1973
1957
1969
1977
1974
1978
1800
1978
1973
1077
1957
1956
1969
1972
1977
1976
1977
1968
1977
1953
1977
1964
1976
1972
1966
1973
1971
1971
1977
1958
1967
1974
1965
1977
1960
1978
1953
1965
1951
1971
1948
1978
NUMBER
OF
EMPLOYEES
22
50
9
20
30
12
30
40
65
160
600
8
10
55
12
160
10B4
1237
53
75
45
100
22
10
1080
154
40
86
185
125
390
538
20
65
175
75
15
175
79
1080
160
15
80
7
50
_
14
76
13
138
46
8
2800
38
14
373
56
1155
155
4
40
70
27
516
35
50
30
110
6
28
11
3
47
245
1500
51
25
6
75
20
28
11
11
50
75
210
216
9
59
70
55
28
79
28
35
42
12
32
38
40
46
306
48
PE ON PE ON PE ON PE ON PE ON PE ON
STEEL IRON ALUMN COPPER STRIP STEEL STRIP ALUMN
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
** ** **
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
** **
100
100
** **
100
100
** **
** **
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
** **
95 5
** ป*
100
100
** **
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
iqq
*
100
100
100
77 23
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
- No Data Available . ,, ._,
* Process Water Discharged, But Discharge Rate And/Or Production Rate Unavailable
ซ No Production Rate Available But Subcat is Present
-------
obtained from the screening and verification sampling. Dcp
information on wastewater characteristics was incomplete. Selection
of pollutant parameters for control (Section VI) was based on both dcp
responses and verification and screening results. These provided
information on both the pollutants which the plant personnel felt were
in their wastewater discharges and those pollutants specifically found
in porcelain enameling wastewaters as the result of sampling. Based
on the selection of pollutants requiring control and their levels,
applicable treatment technologies were identified and are described in
Section VII of this document. Actual waste treatment technologies
utilized by porcelain enameling plants (as identified in the dcp
responses and observed at the sampled plants) were also used to
identify applicable treatment technologies. The cost of treatment
(both individual technologies and systems) is based primarily on data
from equipment manufacturers and is contained in Section VIII of this
document. Finally, dcp data, sampling data and estimated treatment
system performance are utilized in Sections IX, X, XI, XII and XIII
(BPT, BAT, NSPS, pretreatment and BCT, respectively) in the selection
of applicable treatment systems, the presentation of achievable
effluent levels, and the presentation of actual effluent levels
obtained for each porcelain enameling subcategory. Cost of treatment
systems and environmental benefits are presented for BPT, BAT, NSPS,
and BCT in Sections IX, X, XI, and XIII, respectively.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PORCELAIN ENAMELING INDUSTRIAL SEGMENT
Background
Porcelain enameling is the application of glass-like coatings to
metals such as steel, cast iron, aluminum or copper. The purpose of
the coating is to improve surface characteristics of the product such
as; chemical resistance, abrasion resistance, thermal stability,
electrical resistance and appearance. The coating applied to the
workpiece is called "slip", and is composed of frit (glassy-like raw
material), clays, coloring oxides, metal salts, water, and special
additives such as suspending agents. The vitreous inorganic coating
is produced by applying the slip to the metal by a variety of methods
such as spraying, dipping, and flow coating, and then bonding the
coating to the base metal at temperatures in excess of 500ฐC
(1,000ฐF). At these temperatures, finely ground enamel frit particles
fuse and flow together entrapping the other solid constituents of the
slip to form the permanently bonded, hard porcelain coating.
The facilities regulated by this category may be listed under SIC
codes 3469 (porcelain enameled products, except plumbing supplies),
3431 (enameled iron and metal sanitary ware), 3479 (porcelain
enameling for the trade), 3631 (household cooking equipment), 3632
(household refrigerators and home and farm freezers), 3633 (household
laundry equipment), and 3639 (household appliances, not elsewhere
27
-------
classified). Included among these areas are the large appliance,
cookware, architectural panel, and plumbingware industries.
The porcelain enameling category includes at least 130 plants of
various sizes. Independent shops obtain raw untreated metal, and
produce a wide variety of porcelain enameled products for specific
customers. Sometimes the independent porcelain enameler performs a
toll function, coating basis materials owned by the customer. A
captive porcelain enameling operation is usually an integral part of a
large corporation engaged in many phases of metal production and
finishing. The annual square footage for most independent shops is
lower than captive porcelain enameling operations.
Porcelain enameling facilities generally clean, etch and apply
porcelain enamel to one of four basis materials which are steel, cast
iron, aluminum, and copper. A few facilities coat more than one basis
material, usually steel and cast iron. The basis metal is prepared
for enamel application on both sides of the work piece, but the number
of coats applied varies according to product specifications. A ground
coat is usually applied to the whole work piece with the additional
coatings applied to one side or again to both sides as necessary.
Most porcelain enameling facilities purchase coating materials and
metal preparation chemicals including alkaline cleaners, acids,
neutralizers, etc. Virtually all porcelain enameling facilities blend
and grind purchased materials in a ball mill to make slip, a viscous
fluid to be coated on the work piece.
Slip ingredients are manufactured and sold by only a few specialized
chemical firms. Many formulations of slip may be used in any plant so
that the finished porcelain enamel surface will meet individual
product specifications. In general, porcelain enamel facilities
depend heavily on their individual vendors for technical advice for
optimum use of purchased chemicals.
Description of Porcelain Enameling Process
Regardless of the basis metal being coated, the porcelain enameling
process involves the preparation of the enamel slip, surface
preparation of the basis material, application of the enamel, drying,
and firing to fuse the coating to the metal. The following sections
describe the various production processes involved in porcelain
enameling. They are, ball milling, metal surface preparations, enamel
application methods, and process sequences for each basis metal
coated.
28
-------
Ball Milling
Ball milling is the process of mixing and grinding frit and other raw
materials to form an enamel slip of the appropriate consistency for a
particular application. The components of the enamel are loaded into
a revolving drum (ball mill) with water and grinding balls made of
porcelain or alumina. The revolving motion of the ball mill causes
the balls to impact, trapping raw materials in between them. This
action, over a period of time, breaks the individual particles into
very small fragments and forms a homogenous mixture suitable for
spraying, dipping or flow coating. The very fine particle size
achieved in a ball mill (about 99 percent will pass through a 325 mesh
screen) provides a very large surface area making metal components
more available for leaching into water.
A typical enamel slip is comprised of a combination of the following:
1. Frit or a combination of frits - These make up the major
portion of the slip.
2. Clays - Clays are used as floating agents to suspend the
frit particles in the slip.
3. Gums - Compounds such as gum arabic and gum tragacanth are
used as floating agents in some enamels and in other cases
are used as hardness controllers.
4. Suspending agents such as bentonites and colloidal silica.
5. Opacifiers such as tin oxide, zirconium oxide or uverite.
6. Coloring oxides which impart desired color to the enamel.
7. Electrolytes such as borax, sodium carbonate and magnesium
sulfate which control the properties of the slip.
8. Water, which is the vehicle for the coating.
Basis Material Preparation
In order for the porcelain enamel to form a good bond with the
workpiece, the base metal to be coated must be properly prepared.
Depending on the type of metal being finished, one or more surface
preparation processes are performed. These processes may include
solvent cleaning, alkaline cleaning, acid etch, grit blasting, nickel
strike, neutralization, and chromate cleaning.
Solvent Cleaning is used to remove oily dirt, grease, smears and
fingerprints from metal workpieces. Solvent cleaning is classified as
29
-------
either hot cleaning such as vapor degreasing or cold cleaning which
covers all solvent cleaning performed at or near room temperature.
Vapor degreasing, which is carried out in specifically designed
equipment that maintains a nonflammable solvent such as
trichloroethylene or 1,1,2-trichloroethane at its boiling point, is
used to clean metal parts. It is very effective in removing non-
saponifiable oils, and sulfurized or chlorinated components. It is
also used to flush away soluble soil. In cold cleaning, the solvent
or mixture of solvents is selected based on the type of soil to be
removed. For some parts, diphase cleaning provides the best method of
cleaning where soil removal requires the action of water and organic
compounds. This approach uses a two layer system of water soluble and
water insoluble solvents. Diphase cleaning is particularly useful
where both solvent-soluble and water-soluble lubricants are used.
Alkaline Cleaning is used to remove oils, soils or solid soil from
workpieces. The detergent nature of the cleaning solution provides
most of the cleaning action with agitation of the solution and
movement of the workpiece being of secondary importance. Alkaline
cleaners are classified into three types: soak, spray, and
electrolytic. Soak cleaners are used on easily removed soil. This
type of cleaner is less efficient than spray or electrolytic cleaners.
Spray cleaners combine the detergent properties of the solution with
the impact force of the spray which mechanically loosens the soil. A
difficulty with spray cleaning is that to be effective the spray must
reach all surfaces. Another problem is that the detergent
concentration is often lessened because of foaming.
When aluminum is the metal being porcelain enameled, a stronger
alkaline solution is often used to bring about a mild etch or micro
etch of the metal. The purpose of the etch is to remove a thin layer
of aluminum, thereby ensuring that surface oxides are removed.
Electrolytic cleaning produces the cleanest surfaces available from
conventional methods of cleaning. The effectiveness of this method
results from the strong agitation of the solution by gas evolution and
oxidation-reduction reactions that occur during electrolysis. Also,
certain dirt particles become electrically charged and are repelled
from the surface. Direct current (cathodic), the most common
electrolytic cleaning, uses the workpiece as the cathode, while
reverse current (anodic) cleaning uses the workpiece is the anode.
Periodic reverse current cleaning is a combination of anodic and
cathodic cleaning in which the current is periodically reversed.
Periodic reverse cleaning gives improved smut removal, accelerated
cleaning and a more active surface for subsequent coating.
Acid Etch - Acid may be utilized to remove rust, scale and oxides that
form on a part and to provide a desired surface characteristics prior
30
-------
to porcelain enameling. Acid etch may include acid cleaning, acid
pickling or acid etching. Acid cleaning involves a mild acid solution
which dissolves surface oxides; acid pickling uses a stronger solution
which dissolves and attacks the metal, liberating hydrogen gas which
forces scale from the surface. Acid etching makes use of a strong
acid solution for the controlled removal of surface metal. The result
of this is a clean, bare and etched basis material.
As a rule, sulfuric acid is used for acid etching in the porcelain
enameling industry, although hydrochloric (muriatic) acid, phosphoric
acid and nitric acid are also employed. In many cases, an acid ferric
sulfate solution is used in conjunction with a sulfuric acid dip for
pickling of steel. The ferric sulfate solution attacks or etches the
metal much (four to six times) faster than acid alone. However, since
it does not remove rust, smut and scale as efficiently as sulfuric
acid, a sulfuric acid dip is also required.
Nickel Flash - Prior to the porcelain enameling of many steels, a
nickel plating step is performed. This deposition of nickel is a form
of immersion plating in which a thin metal deposit is obtained by
chemical displacement in the surface of the basis metal. In immersion
plating, a metal displaces from solution any other metal that is below
it in the electromotive series of elements. The more noble metal is
deposited from solution while the more active is dissolved. In this
particular case, nickel comes out of solution and deposits on the
steel while iron ions go into solution.
Nickel flash is employed in order to improve the bond between the
porcelain enamel and the metal. It is normally deposited after the
part has been etched and rinsed. The solution can consist of single
(NiSO4ป6H2p) or double (NiSO4ป(NH3)2S04ป6H20) nickel salts with nickel
sulfate being the predominant component.
Neutralization - The neutralization step follows the acid etch and
nickel strike (if present) steps prior to the porcelain enameling of
steel. Its function is to remove the last traces of acid left on the
metal surface. Neutralization may or may not be followed by a rinse.
The alkali neutralizer solution may be made up of soda ash, borax or
trisodium phosphate and water. The alkalinity of these compounds
neutralizes any remaining acid.
Chromate Cleaning - When certain aluminum alloys (such as high
magnesium alloys) are being porcelain enameled, a chromate cleaning or
pickling solution is usually used to enhance adherence of the enamel.
Typical solutions contain a source of chromate (potassium chromate or
sodium bichromate), sodium hydroxide and water. This step, when used,
is the final preparation step performed on aluminum prior to porcelain
31
-------
enameling. Data received indicate that four aluminum porcelain
enameling plants utilize the chromate cleaning process.
Grit Blasting is a mechanical surface preparation in which an abrasive
impacts the metal to be processed in order to produce a roughened,
matte surface. The mold chilled surface of cast iron must be altered
to achieve a good bond with porcelain enamel and grit blasting has
proven to be effective in producing a suitable surface. Sand, steel
grit, and steel shot are the abrasives used in blasting, though steel
grit appears to be most widely used in porcelain enameling. The parts
which are grit blasted require no additional surface preparation since
they are essentially clean and their roughened surfaces provide a good
'tooth' for porcelain enamel adherence.
Coating Application Methods
r i I.; li. ' , i ' . ,: - ill, ,:
Once the workpiece has undergone the proper basis metal preparation
and the enamel slip has been prepared, the next step is the actual
application of the porcelain enamel. Included among the application
methods used are air spraying, electrostatic spraying, dip coating,
electrostatic powder coating, flow coating, powder coating, and silk
screening. After each coating is applied, the part is fired in a
furnace to fuse the enamel coating to the base metal or substrate.
Air Spraying - The most widely used method of enamel application is
air spraying. In this process, enamel slip is atomized and propelled
by air into a conical pattern, which can be directed over the article
to be coated by an operator or machine. The atomization of the
coating material occurs due to the expansion and turbulence of
compressed air, which tears the slip into tiny droplets.
Air spraying operates with controlled air pressure supplied to the
slip container from a compressed air supply line and finishing
material supplied from a flexible fluid hose. This type of spraying
is especially good if there are frequent color changes or if parts of
random shape and size are to be coated.
Electrostatic Spray Coating incorporates the principles of air
atomized spray coating with the attraction of unlike electric charges.
In electrostatic spray coating, atomized slip particles are charged at
70,000-100,000 volts and directed toward a grounded part. The
electrostatic forces push the particles away from the atomizer and
away from each other. The charged particles are attracted to the
grounded workpiece and adhere to it.
Dip Coating consists of submerging a part in a tank of slip,
withdrawing the part, and permitting it to drain or centrifuging it to
remove excess slip. There are several instances for which dip coating
is well suited:
32
-------
1. Large parts too bulky to be spray coated.
2. Parts with complex shapes or deep recesses.
3. Parts that require metal protection, but uniformity of
coating and appearance are not important
4. Large numbers of small parts such as hardware.
5. Small objects that require coating on only one end.
Flow Coating - In the flow coating process, enamel slip is pumped from
a storage tank to nozzles that are positioned according to the shape
and size of the parts so as to direct the flow of enamel onto the
surface of the parts as the parts are conveyed past the nozzles. The
excess enamel drains back to the storage tank for recirculation.
Powder Coating is an application method employed for cover coating
cast iron. It is a dry process which requires no water. After a
ground coat is applied and fused, the cast iron part is put into a
furnace and heated to a red hot condition. The part is then withdrawn
from the furnace and dusted with porcelain enamel in the form of a dry
powder. The glass powder melts as it strikes the hot surface. The
dusting is carried out as long as the temperature of the part is
higher than the melting point of the powder. If necessary, the
casting can be returned to the furnace and dusted several times to
achieve the desired finish.
Electrostatic Powder Coating is a combination of electrostatic spray
coating and powder coating. Charged dry powder particles are sprayed
toward the workpiece and are attracted to the cold grounded workpiece
by electrostatic attraction. The process is dry, neither using
process water nor generating process wastewater.
Silk Screening is utilized by some companies to impart a decorative
pattern onto a porcelain enameled piece. This is accomplished through
the use of an oil based porcelain enamel which is applied to the part
through a stencil constructed of silk. The enamel is spread on in a
thin layer with a squeegee. After application, the workpiece is baked
to achieve fusion of the enamel. It should be noted that only one
color can be applied and baked at one time.
INDUSTRY SUMMARY
The porcelain enameling industry in the United States is estimated to
consist of at least 130 porcelain enameling plants. The basis
materials enameled are steel, cast iron, aluminum and copper.
Products manufactured are varied, ranging from large cooking
appliances (porcelain on steel) to smaller, more specialized items
33
-------
such as jewelry (porcelain on copper). Of the 116 plants known to
porcelain enamel, 101 facilities enamel on steel, 7 on cast iron
(excluding three dry processors), 14 on aluminum, and two on copper.
Several facilities coat two basis materials.
General Information
Plants range in age from brand new to almost 100 years old.
plants were built or modified significantly after 1960.
Most
Employment in plants engaged in porcelain enameling ranges from 3
to almost 3,000 people. These figures represent total plant
employment and do not necessarily represent only employees
engaged in porcelain enameling for captive operations. The
average employment is 173 people.
88 facilities discharge to municipal treatment systems; 26
discharge to streams or rivers; and 2 discharge to both.
Production Profile
The average (mean) porcelain enamel plant applies
1.03 x 10ซmz/yr (11.1 x 10* ft2/yr). metal preparation
1.21 x 10ซm2/yr (13.0 x 10* ft2/yr). porcelain enamel coated
Total porcelain enamel applied each year by all plants
is estimated at 150 x 10ซ(m2 (1610 x 10ซ ft2).
The average production rate of a plant in each basis
metal subcategory is:
Metal Prep
Coating
(Millions)
Steel
Cast Iron:
Aluminum
Copper
m2/yr
1 .20
0.414
0.013
ft2/yr
12.95
4.456
0.140
m2/yr
1 .34
1 .56
0.25
0.014
ft2/yr
14.38
16.79
2.72
0.151
Porcelain enameling operations generate wastewater from surface
preparation of the basis material and from the enamel application
process. The rate of process water discharge varies from five to
almost 15,000 gallons per hour.
34
-------
The porcelain enameling industrial segment has various types of end-
of-pipe treatment systems but only limited in-process treatment to
handle wastewater streams. Twenty-six percent of the plants have no
treatment in-place. Dcp's indicate that the following waste treatment
components are commonly found in this industrial segment.
Treatment in Place
Percent of Plants
Equalization 33
Settling Tanks 48
pH Adjust-Lime or Caustic 26
pH Adjust-Acid 10
Chemical Precipitation and Sedimentation 21
Sedimentation Lagoon 13
Contract Removal of Sludge 5 '
Landfill of Sludge 30
Industry Outlook
Porcelain enameling as an industry in this country is about 100 years
old. During the first half of the 20th century porcelain enameling
was a vigorous industry segment as it supplied a low cost weather
resistant surface of great durability. Products ranged from household
pots and plumbingware to outdoor signs and building surface panels.
The advent of stainless and aluminum ware, improved characteristics of
painted metals, molded and formed plastic parts and changes in
architectural taste have combined to reduce the relative demand for
porcelain enameling. Despite the fact that lower cost competitive
materials are eroding some porcelain enamel markets, it is not a dying
industry because of the unique properties of porcelain enamel coated
metals.
35
-------
-------
SECTION IV
INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION
INTRODUCTION
Subcategorization should take into account pertinent industry
characteristics, manufacturing process variations/ water use
wastewater characteristics, and other factors which do or could compel
a specific grouping of segments of industry for the purpose of
regulating wastewater pollutants. Effluent limitations and standards
establish mass limitations on the discharge of pollutants which are
applied, through the permit issuance process, to specific dischargers.
Division of the industry segment into subcategories provides a
mechanism for addressing process and product variations which result
in distinct wastewater characteristics. To allow the national
limitations and standards to be applied to a wide range of sizes of
production units, the mass of pollutant discharge must be referenced
to a unit of production. This factor is referred to as a production
normalizing parameter and is developed in conjunction with
Subcategorization.
SUBCATEGORIZATION BASIS
Factors Considered
After considering the nature of the various segments of the porcelain
enameling industry and the operations performed therein, the following
Subcategorization bases were selected for evaluation.
1 .
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10,
1 1 ,
12,
13,
14,
Basis Material Used
Manufacturing Processes
Wastewater Characteristics
Products Manufactured
Water Use
Water Pollution Control Technology
Treatment Costs
Solid Waste Generation and Disposal
Size of Plant
Age of Plant
Number of Employees
Total Energy Requirements (Manufacturing Process
and Waste Treatment and Control)
Non-Water Quality Characteristics
Unique Plant Characteristics
37
-------
Subcateqory Selection
A review of each of the potential subcategorization factors reveals
that the basis material used and the processes performed on these
basis materials are the principal factors affecting the wastewater
characteristics of plants in the porcelain enameling category. This
is because both the process chemicals and the basis material
constituents can appear in wastewaters. The major manufacturing
processes in the porcelain enameling industry are cleaning, etching,
and enamel application. Wastewaters from cleaning and etching are
dependent on the basis material processed, while wastewaters from the
enamel application step are relatively independent of the basis
material. Therefore, subcategorization by basis material inherently
accounts for the process chemicals used. Such a subcategorization is:
A. Porcelain enameling on steel
B. Porcelain enameling on cast iron
C. Porcelain enameling on aluminum
D. Porcelain enameling on copper
In addition to the above subcategorization, the steel and aluminum
base metals could be further divided into two segments, sheet and
strip to account for the significant water saving potential of
continuous operations relative to individual sheet processing.
However, because there are only two known porcelain enamelers on
strip, it was not selected as a separate subcategory.
Other Factors Considered
Other categorization bases considered but not selected for categori-
zation are presented in the following .subsections along with the
reasons why they are not considered as appropriate as the basis
selected.
Products Manufactured. The products porcelain enameled are varied
ranging from pots and pans to washing machine drums. While there are
specific manufacturing differences from product to product {and hence,
wastewater differences), subcategorization by the discrete process
differences associated with each basis metal inherently accounts for
product variation in terms of wastewater characteristics.
Water Use. Water use alone is not a comprehensive enough factor for
subcategorization. While water use is a key element in the
limitations established, it does not inherently relate to the source
or to the type and quantity of the waste. Water use must be related
to the manufacturing process utilizing the water since it dictates the
water use and cannot be used alone as an effective subcategorization
base.
38
-------
Water Pollution Control Technology and Treatment Costs. The necessity
for a subcategorization factor to relate tothe raw wastewater
characteristics of a plant automatically eliminates certain factors
from consideration as potential bases for subdividing the category.
Water pollution control technology, treatment costs, and effluent
discharge destination have no effect on the raw waste water generated
in a plant. The water pollution control technology employed at a
plant and its cost are the result of a requirement to achieve a
particular effluent level for a given raw wastewater load. It does
not affect the raw wastewater characteristics.
Size of Plant. The nature of the processes for the porcelain
enameling industry are the same in all facilities regardless of size.
The size of a plant is not an appropriate basis for subcategorization
parameter since the waste characteristics of a plant per unit of
production are essentially the same for plants of all sizes when
processing the same basis material. Thus, size alone is not an
adequate technical subcategorization parameter since the wastewater
characteristics of plants are dependent on the type of products
produced. ** *
While size is not adequate as the technical subcategorization
parameter, it is recognized that the capital investment for installing
waste control facilities may be greater for small plants relative to
the investment in their production facilities than for larger plants.
Consequently, the size distribution of plants was investigated during
the development of limitations and wastewater treatment technology
recommendations were reviewed to determine if special considerations
are required for small plants.
of Plant. While the relative age of a plant is important in
considering the economic impact of a guideline, it is not an
appropriate basis for grouping the porcelain enamel industry into
subcategories because it does not take into consideration the
significant parameters which affect the raw wastewater
characteristics. The basis material enameled dictates the processes
employed and these have a much more significant impact on the raw
wastewater generated than the age of the plant. In addition,
subcategorization would have to allow for old plants with new
equipment, new plants with old equipment and other possible
combinations.
Number of Employees. The number of employees in a plant does not
directly provide a basis for subcategorization since the number of
employees does not necessarily reflect the production or water use at
any plant. A plant manually controlled and operated by six people may
produce less than an automated plant with two employees that has
extensive automated equipment. Since the amount of wastewater
39
-------
generated is related to the production rates, the number of employees
does not provide a definitive relationship to wastewater generation.
Total Energy Requirements. Total energy requirements were excluded as
a subcategorization parameter primarily because of the difficulty in
obtaining reliable energy estimates specifically for production and
waste treatment. When energy consumption data are available, they are
likely to include other energy requirements such as lighting, process,
air conditioning, and heating or cooling energy figures.
Non-Water Quality Aspects. Non-water quality aspects may have an
effect on the wastewater generated in a plant. A non-water quality
area such as air pollution discharges may be under regulation and
water scrubbers may be used to satisfy such a regulation. This could
result in an additional contribution to the plant's wastewater.
However, it is not the prime cause of wastewater generation in the
porcelain enamel category, and therefore not useful as an overall
subcategorization factor.
Unique Plant Characteristics. Unique plant characteristics such as
geographical location, space availability, and water availability do
not provide a proper basis for subcategorization since they do not
necessarily affect the raw wastewater characteristics of the plant.
Plants in the same geographical area have different wastewater
characteristics. Process water availability may be a function of the
geography of a plant, and the price of water determines any necessary
modifications to water use procedures employed in each plant.
However, required procedural changes to account for water availability
only affect the volume of pollutants discharged, not the
characteristics of the constituents. Waste treatment procedures can.
be utilized in most geographical locations.
A limitation in the availability of land space for constructing a
waste treatment facility may in some cases affect the economic impact
of an effluent limitation. However, in-process controls and rinse
water conservation can be adopted to minimize the size - and thus land
space required - for the end-of-process treatment facility. Often, a
compact treatment unit can easily handle end-of-process waste if good
in-process techniques are utilized to conserve raw materials and
water.
Summary of Subcateqorization
For this study, it was determined that the principal factor affecting
the wastewater characteristics of plants in the porcelain enamel
category is the basis metal enameled. This dictates the type of
preparation required, thus affecting the .waste characteristics. The
coating operations were considered as a separate subcategory because
these wastewaters are basically homogeneous regardless of basis metal
40
-------
to which the enamel is applied. Because of the different subcategory
flows observed the coating wastewaters are subcategorized according to
basis metal.
PRODUCTION NORMALIZING PARAMETERS
The relation of the pollution generation rate to spent solution and
slip generation rates is directly dependent on the amount of porcelain
enameling performed, i.e., the processed area. This leads naturally
to the selection of processed area as a production related pollutant
discharge rate parameter. Processed area might be different for
surface preparation operations and enamel application. This results
from the application of multiple coats of porcelain enamel to a part,
or enamel application on only one side of a part that has had both
sides prepared by a dip operation. Therefore, area processed must
consider both the area prepared (each side) and the area coated.
Weight of material being porcelain enameled is a direct and readily
identifiable production normalizing parameter. However, the thickness
of the basis material can vary. This can result in a variation in
surface area for products of identical weights. This variation in
surface area affects the quantity of spent solutions and process
baths. Thus, the weight of product is not sufficient for determining
a quantitative prediction of pollutant discharge rate. The processed
area must be used.
Raw materials consumed was also considered for a production
normalizing parameter. The amount of chemicals and other materials
used in production is not an accurate measure of the production rate
because some plants are more efficient in their use of porcelain
enamels and chemicals. Reduction of dragout is an important
production feature that can extend the life of various solutions. As
bath dragout is reduced, the amount of solution makeup required is
also reduced. Thus, the amount of raw materials consumed for
identical processed areas can vary widely. For these reasons, the
amount of raw materials consumed is not appropriate as a production
normalizing parameter. In summary, area of basis material cleaned and
area coated were determined to be the most logical and useful
production normalizing parameters.
41
-------
-------
SECTION V
WATER USE AND WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
This section presents supportive data which describe porcelain
enameling water use and wastewater characteristics. Data collection
and data analysis methodologies are discussed. Raw waste and effluent
concentrations, flows and pollutant mass per unit of production area
are presented for the four basis material subcategories and for
specific functional operations in each - most importantly coatinq
operations.
DATA COLLECTION
Data on the porcelain enameling category segment were gathered from
previous EPA studies, literature studies, inquiries to federal and
state environmental agencies, raw material manufacturers and
suppliers, trade association contacts and the porcelain enamelers
themselves via a mail survey and plant visits. Additionally, meetings
were held with industry representatives.
Literature Study;
Published literature in the form of books, reports, papers, per-
iodicals, and promotional materials was examined; the most informative
sources are listed in Section XV. The material researched covered thซ
manufacturing processes utilized in porcelain enameling, water used
waste treatment technology and economic data.
Previous EPA Studies;
Previous EPA studies of the porcelain enameling industry segment were
examined. From these studies information was gathered on
manufacturing processes, waste treatment technology, and some
preliminary raw wastewater characteristics at specific plants.
Federal and State Contacts;
Federal EPA regional offices and several state environmental agencies
were contacted to obtain permit and monitoring data on specific
porcelain enameling plants.
Raw Material Manufacturers and Suppliers;
Eight manufacturers of porcelain enamel slip ingredients were con-
tacted by the EPA and requested to supply priority pollutant in-
43
-------
formation concerning their formulations. This information was
tabulated and is discussed later in this section.
Trade Association Contacts;
In preparation for a survey of the industry, a meeting with
representatives of the Porcelain Enamel Institute {PEI) and the Agency
was held to discuss prior EPA data gathering effort conclusions and to
discuss the information to be gathered in the data collection
portfolio employed in the study. Each dcp question was reviewed to
assure it was necessary and appropriate. Several additional meetings
with the PEI took place during the data collection period at their
request to review the progress of the Agency. The Agency specifically
requested that PEI assist the Agency by providing a mailing list of
PEI members who perform porcelain enameling. PEI refused to comply
with this request. The EPA believes that about 130 facilities do
porcelain enameling; however, only 122 have been identified.
Dcp Survey Data;
The collection of information and data pertaining to individual
manufacturing facilities that perform porcelain enameling consisted of
a mail survey conducted by the EPA. A search through the Dun and
Bradstreet index and discussions with industry personnel provided a
list of the possible porcelain enamelers in the U.S. Dcps were mailed
to all of the companies believed to do porcelain enameling. The dcp
requested general plant data, specific production information, waste
treatment information, process and treated wastewater data, waste
treatment cost information, and priority pollutant information. Of
the 250 dcp's mailed to porcelain enamelers, 116 were filled out and
returned. Of the 116 portfolios received, only 2 contained data on
raw wastewater streams and only 31 contained any effluent stream data.
Of the remaining portfolios: 95 facilities reported- they were no
longer engaged in porcelain enameling, 17 went to corporate addresses,
six were undeliverable, 10 were duplicate mailings, three used no
water (dry process) and three were never returned. Approximately
75percent of the portfolios received were relatively complete and
provided useful information regarding production, size, process
descriptions, wastewater treatment systems, and water use. This
information was sufficient to provide a profile of the porcelain
enameling industry.
PLANT SAMPLING
The data collection effort also included engineering visits and
wastewater sampling at porcelain enameling facilities. A two phased
sampling program was conducted to collect technical and chemical
information about specific plants. The first phase - called screening
- was intended to collect incoming water, raw wastewater and treated
44
-------
wastewater samples and determine the presence or absence of pollutants
with special emphasis on the Agency list of 65 (129 specific) toxic
pollutants. The second phase, verification, was intended to further
confirm (or refute) the toxic pollutants found in the screening of
each subcategory. The presence of conventional pollutants and other
pollutants was determined as appropriate.
The principal difference between screening and verification sampling
and analysis is the chemical analysis method used for analyzing toxic
organic pollutants. For plants which were used for screening,
analysis was performed on the first sampling day. Verification
analysis was performed on the remaining two days of sampling.
Usually, three consecutive days of sampling were conducted at each
sampled plant.
Site Selection - The dcp served as a primary information source in the
selection of plants for visitation and sampling. Specific criteria
used to select plant visit sites for sampling included:
1. Distributing visits according to basis material.
2. Providing a mixture of large and small plants.
3. Selecting plants whose production processes are typical of the
processes performed for each basis material. Consideration was also
given to the understanding of unique processes or treatment not
universally practiced but applicable to the industry in general.
4. A company's knowledge of its production processes, water use,
wastewater generation and treatment system as indicated in the dcp's
received.
5. The presence of wastewater treatment or water conservation
practices.
6. Any problems or situations peculiar to the plant being visited.
Table V-l (Page 63) presents a summary of the sampling sites selected.
Sampling Program - The wastewater sampling program conducted at each
plant consisted of screening and verification, or just verification.
The object of screening was to determine by sampling and analysis
which pollutants were present in plant wastewater for each basis
material porcelain enameled. Screening involved sampling and full
spectrum analysis of one plant in each basis material subcategory.
Once the screening data were obtained, parameters were chosen for
verification analysis based on the pollutants detected during
screening, information reported in the dcp, and technical judgment
concerning the probable presence or absence of each pollutant. The
45
-------
samples collected during verification were
selected parameters.
then analyzed for those
,, , , . .,
Prior to each sampling visit, all available data, such as layouts/ and
diagrams of the selected plant's production processes and waste
treatment facilities, were reviewed. Often a visit to the plant to be
sampled was made prior to the actual sampling visit to finalize the
sampling approach. Representative sample points were then selected to
provide coverage of discrete raw wastewater sources, total raw waste
water entering a waste treatment system, and final effluents. Fi-
nally, before conducting a visit, a detailed sampling plan showing the
selected sample points and all pertinent sample data to be obtained
was generated and reviewed.
For all sampling programs, flow proportioned composite samples or the
equivalent (for batch operations) were taken over the time period that
the plant was in operation - one day for screening and three
consecutive days for verification. On a screening visit, a total raw
waste sample was taken to determine what pollutants were generated by
the production processes, a final effluent sample was collected to
determine which pollutants were removed or contributed by the waste
treatment system, and a plant incoming water sample was taken to
determine if there were any significant pollutants in the water
source.
For the verification sampling visits, samples were taken of the plant
incoming water, final effluent and discrete raw wastewater sources.
Figure V-l (Page 139) presents typical porcelain enameling on steel
process operations and raw wastewater sampling points. These points
generally included incoming water, alkaline cleaning rinse, acid etch
rinse, nickel flash rinse, neutralization rinse, ball milling
wastewater and spray booth wastewater. Table V-2 (Page 64) presents
the number of days verification sampling was performed on each of
these discrete raw wastewater sources for the sampling program.
Figure V-2 (Page 140) presents a process line diagram of a typical
porcelain enameling on cast iron facility. Raw wastewater sampling
points included incoming water and ball milling and enamel application
wastewater. Table V-2 shows the number of sampling days for each
operation at each sampled facility.
Figure V-3 (Page 141) presents typical porcelain enameling on aluminum
process operations and raw wastewater sampling points. Sampling
points for sampled facilities within this subcategory included
incoming water, alkaline cleaning rinse water and ball milling and
enamel application wastewater. All sampled porcelain enameling on
aluminum facilities performed the same process operations
46
-------
Figure V-4 (Page 142) presents typical porcelain enameling on copper
process operations and raw wastewater sampling points. Sampling
points for facilities within this subcategory included incoming water,
acid etch rinse water, and ball milling and enamel application
wastewater. Solvent cleaning was used at one sampled facility
(06031); however, no wastewater was discharged from this operation.
Alkaline cleaning, while being reported in the dcp's as used, was not
observed at any plant visits. Table V-2 presents the number of
sampling days for each of these operations at visited facilities.
All of the samples collected were kept on ice throughout each day of
sampling. At the end of the sampling day, the composite samples were
divided into several bottles and preserved according to EPA protocol.
All samples were subjected to three levels of analysis depending on
the stability of the parameters to be analyzed. On-site analysis,
performed by the sampler at the facility, measured flow rate, pH, and
temperature. Four liters of water from each sample point for each of
the three sampling days were delivered to a laboratory in the vicinity
of the subject plant and analyzed for total cyanide, cyanide amenable
to chlorination, oil and grease, phenols (4AAP method), and total
suspended solids. This analysis was performed by these local la-
boratories within a six hour period after each day's composite sample
was prepared. Because of the sensitive nature of the cyanide analysis
procedure, a quality assurance questionnaire intended to document
conformance of the procedures used by the laboratories with EPA (Part
136) analysis methods was completed by all laboratories performing
this analysis.
The remainder of the composite samples prepared each day were analyzed
by three different laboratories: a central laboratory for verifica-
tion samples and some screening analysis, the EPA Chicago Regional
Laboratory for metals screening analysis, and a laboratory which
specialized in gas chromatograph-mass spectroscopy (GCMS) analysis for
screening of organic priority pollutants. The EPA Chicago Regional
Laboratory employed an inductively coupled argon plasma unit (ICAP) to
analyze the samples for metals.
On a verification sampling visit, the central laboratory only analyzed
for those parameters which were selected after screening for
verification analyses. In addition, special samples were taken of
various process solutions to determine their organic or metals content
and these samples were analyzed at the central laboratory.
Screening and verification parameters and laboratory methodologies are
listed in Table V-3 (Page 65).
Verification Parameter Selection - In order to reduce the volume of
data which must be handled, avoid unnecessary expense, and to direct
47
-------
the scope of the sampling program, a number of the pollutant
parameters analyzed for during the screen sampling are not analyzed
for during the verification sampling. The pollutant parameters which
are chosen for further analysis are called verification pollutant
parameters. Due to the different pollutants present in each
subcategory, verification pollutant parameter selection is done
separately for each subcategory. Three sources of information are
used for their selection: the pollutants the industry believes are
present in their wastewater as reported in dcp responses, the screen
sampling analyses/ and the pollutants the Agency believes should be
present after studying the processes and materials used by the
industry.
The absence or presence of priority pollutants in plant wastewaters
was also investigated as part of the data collection portfolio survey
transmitted to all known porcelain enamel plants. Specifically, a
list of the priority pollutants was attached to all data collection
portfolios to determine which of the priority pollutants should be
investigated further. Table V-4 (Page 70) is a tabulation of the
responses to this survey and presents raw wastewater concentration
ranges. For each priority pollutant, it lists the number of plants
that knew, or believed, it was absent or present in their wastewater.
Supplementing the above information is the sampling data supplied by
porcelain enamelers in their dcp responses. The information received
is presented in Table V-5 {Page 74) for the plants that supplied ana-
lytical data. These data are only from effluent streams since no
significant raw waste data were received in the responses. In
addition to that reported in Table V-5 long term effluent data were
received from two facilities (18538 and 13330). These data are
presented in Section VII of this report, in Tables VII-14 and VII-15
(Pages XX).
Table V-6 (Page 77) presents
screening visits.
screening results tabulated from all
Table V-7 (Page 79) presents the selected verification parameters for
each subcategory based on the above mentioned sampling dcp information
and engineering judgement.
In the final analysis a number of metals other than the basis material
processed or major process bath constituents were found in raw
wastewaters in measurable concentrations. These included antimony,
barium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, selenium,
titanium, and zinc. These metals may be found in the following areas:
The metals are components resulting from direct addition
or contamination of porcelain enamel slips used within
each subcategory.
48
-------
The metals are present in incoming water.
The metals are associated with the basis metal as con-
taminants. These metals can be contaminants resulting
from the original ore reduction and smelting operations.
Some of these metals are present in the applied oils and
greases used during forming or to protect the workpiece.
Metallic fumes and other contaminants, often present in
shop atmospheres, can dissolve into the applied oil film.
Metals from the tanks, pipes and soldered connections
can be dissolved by the process solutions.
As can be seen from Table V-7 a number of organic pollutant parameters
were also detected. Trichloroethylene and 1,1,2-trichloroethane were
detected in the copper subcategory since vapor degreasing is sometimes
used to prepare copper for the application .of slip. Bis(2-
ethylhexyDphthalate and di-n-octyl phthalate were detected in the
aluminum subcategory.
Incoming Water Analysis - Incoming water samples were collected for
each sampled plant and analyzed for verification (and screening where
applicable) parameters. Overall, these analyses revealed very few
parameters whose concentrations were above the minimum detectable or
analytically quantifiable limit of the specific method. The
concentration levels found in the incoming water of parameters common
to process discharges were not significant enough to affect the
anticipated design of a waste treatment system.
DATA ANALYSIS
Porcelain enameling waste characteristics are presented for each basis
material in terms of water use, raw waste stream concentrations and
mass levels and final effluent stream concentrations.
Water Use and Wastewater Generation - Water is used in most porcelain
enameling operations. It provides the mechanism for removing
undesirable material from the ware surface, is the medium for the
chemical reactions that occur on the basis metal, is a vehicle for
coating application, is used as cooling water for ball milling
operations and is used for plant clean-up and maintenance. The nature
of porcelain enamel operations, the area of basis material processed,
and the quantity of and types of chemicals used produce a large volume
of wastewater that requires treatment before discharge, recycle or
reuse. Sampled plant water use by subcategory and process operation
is shown on Table V-60 (Page 136).
49
-------
Wastewater is generated in each subcategory (steel, cast iron,
aluminum, and copper). The wastewater generated by basis material
preparation and coating may (1) flow directly to a municipal sewage
treatment system or to surface water, (2) flow to an onsite waste
treatment system and then to a municipal sewage treatment system or
surface water, (3) be reused directly or following intermediate
treatment, or (4) a combination of the above. Table V-8 (Page 80)
presents effluent destinations as reported in the dcp's for each basis
material subcategory.
Specific Wastewater Sources - Specific wastewater sources in porcelain
enameling may vary from basis material to basis material. Wastewaters
generated from the coating operations are uniform in their origin and
are listed below only once although they are applicable to each
subcategory.
Coating Operations
1) wastewater generated by spraying the outside of ball
mills for cooling
2) wastewater from overspray during application which
is either caught in water curtains or results from
floor and booth area washdowns
3) wastewater from cleaning operations associated with
the ball mills themselves.
Steel Subcateqory - Potential wastewater sources from
basis material preparation are:
1) alkaline cleaning wastewater includes process bath
batch dumps and rinsing operations
2) acid etch wastewater includes process bath batch
dumps and rinsing operations
3) nickel flash wastewater includes process bath
batch dumps, rinsing operations and filter discharges
(filters remove iron from the process bath to
extend the bath life).
4) neutralization of remaining acid wastewater includes
process bath batch dumps and subsequent rinsing opera-
tions.
Cast Iron Subcategory - There is no water used for cast iron basis
material preparation. Dry, mechanical cleaning processes are used.
50
-------
Aluminum Subcateqory - Potential wastewater sources from
material preparation are:
basis
1) alkaline cleaning wastewater includes process bath batch dumps and
discharges from rinsing operations
2) acid etch and chromate conversion coating wastewater.
Copper Subcategory - Potential waste water sources from
basis material preparation are:
1) alkaline cleaning wastewater includes process bath
batch dumps and rinsing operations (some porcelain
enamelers on copper may substitute vapor degreasing)
2) acid etching wastewater includes process bath batch
dumps and rinsing operations.
Dcp responses regarding water use rates for specific operations were
fragmented except for total plant water use for the overall metal
preparation and coating operations. Tables V-9 through V-12 (Pages
82-75) show the visited plant water use for each of the discrete
sources of raw wastewater discussed above for each subcategory. These
flows are production normalized (1/m2) in terms of the area prepared
or enameled as applicable for each operation.
Basis material preparation water use and ball milling and enamel
application water use and production rates obtained from dcp's for the
steel and aluminum subcategories are shown in Tables V-l3 and V-14
(Pages 86-87). These tables present the hourly flow rate (1/hir),
hourly production rate (m2/hr), and production normalized flow (1/m2)
for both streams for all plants within these subcategories for which
dcp data were provided. Dcp data for the cast iron and copper
subcategories relative to water use were limited and plants reporting
such information were also visited. Visited data were reported above.
The production from the dcp's is average hourly production since it
was calculated as the annual production divided by the number of hours
per year the facility operated. These reported production rates
represent the area which undergoes basis material preparation and the
area that receives porcelain enamel as applicable. Where multiple
coats of enamel are applied, they are counted individually.
Raw Waste Characteristics
Wastewater from porcelain enameling operations is characterized by the
chemicals associated with each operation and the base metal. During
verification sampling, discrete samples of each wastewater producing
operation were obtained. The pollutants in the wastewater streams
sampled included the basis metal, oil and grease, and a variety of
51
-------
other pollutants associated with individual process solutions or
porcelain enamel slips. Oil and grease for the porcelain enameling
subcategories is free oil and emulsified oil, not soluble oil. Free
oil and emulsified oils are typically milling oils or rust inhibitors,
and can be removed by the application of coalescing agents,
sedimentation, separation and skimming.
Table V-2 previously presented in this section defines the sampled
plant data base listing the plant ID and the number of sampling days
each facility was sampled.
Raw wastewater sample data in terms of both concentration (mg/1) and
mass apportioned to area prepared plus area enameled (mg/m2) for each
subcategory are shown in Tables V-15 through V-22 (Pages 88-95).
These summary tables represent the total wastewater generated for each
porcelain enameling subcategory. Each table lists the minimum,
maximum, mean, median and flow proportioned average concentration of
verification and screening sample data for parameters whose
concentrations were greater than 0.010 mg/1. This level was selected
beacuse at 0.010 mg/1 and below the organic priority pollutants cannot
be quantified accurately. The level above 0.010 was also selected for
priority pollutant metal and other metals since existing control
technologies cannot effectively reduce the concentration of most
metals below this level. These pollutants are common to both direct
and indirect discharge porcelain enameling facilities since they are
dependent upon basis metal and functional operation performed rather
than wastewater destination.
Following is a detailed discussion of the raw wastewater sources and
characteristics for each basis material subcategory. Coating
wastewater characteristics are discussed first since these operations
contribute by far the largest quantity of pollutants in comparison to
basis material preparation operations. Included is an explanation of
ball milling operations and how they can generate wastewater.
Following the ball milling discussion, the various methods of
application of the porcelain enamel slip are presented along with
their respective contributions to wastewater. Raw wastewater sampling
data from the waste streams are then presented. Finally, the result
of an extensive study done by the Agency to quantify and discern the
environmental impact of the priority pollutant metals discharged by
these processes is presented.
Following the general discussion of coating wastewater, basis metal
preparation operations and the resultant wastewater generated are
presented. In this presentation each basis material subcategory is
discussed separately since these operations, unlike coating
operations, vary significantly from subcategory to subcategory.
52
-------
Ball Milling and Enamel Application
The first operation involved with application of porcelain enamel is
the grinding and mixing of all the various ingredients of the
porcelain enamel slip. The constituents of porcelain enamel usually
include a mixture of frits (glassy raw material), clays and coloring
oxides. Specific additions to this basic mixture can include borax,
feldspar, quartz, cobalt oxide and manganese dioxide. A wide range of
other additions can also be made depending on color, whitening and
ฉpacification requirements. The constituents are weighed and poured
into the ball mill with a carefully measured amount of water if the
enamel is to be applied in a wet or slip form.
The ball mill itself is a cylindrical drum of varying size and is
usually up to 2/3 full of ceramic balls. The ceramic balls serve to
grind and throughly mix all the ingredients. The raw materials are
milled and this produces a potentially detrimental amount of heat
caused by friction. To control the temperature, a fine mist of water
is constantly sprayed onto the outer surface of the mill. In the
majority of cases this cooling water is a source of wastewater since
it usually comes into contact with wasted slip when it falls onto the
floor areas around the ball mill and mixes with spilled slip. After
several hours of grinding, the slip is poured through a screen to trap
oversized particles, and is then placed in containers. Wastewater may
be generated by equipment cleaning, which is done to prevent color
contamination of this screening and holding equipment.
The procedures used for cleaning out ball mills vary greatly from
facility to facility. If space and finances permit, some facilities
have separate ball mills for each color they use and the mills are
rarely cleaned. In other cases close attention is paid to scheduling
of mill runs so the colors milled get progressively darker making only
occasional cleaning necessary. It is a rule of thumb in most
facilities to wash out ball mills as infrequently as possible since a
significant amount of slip adheres to interior walls and the ceramic
balls within the mill. The actual amount of wastewater generated by
ball mill washouts was obtained from data gathered at six porcelain
enameling facilities (ID's 33617, 15712, 12038, 33076, 40053, 36077).
Water use at these facilities ranged from 0.005 1/m2 of area coated to
4.285 1/m2 of area coated. Upon close examination it was found that
two facilities (40053, 36077) had poor housekeeping habits which
resulted in over-stated flows. It was observed at both facilities
that wash down hoses were used carelessly and left running after the
cleaning process was finished. Since good housekeeping plays an
important role in ball mill cleaning these two values were dropped
from further consideration. The remaining four facilities were used
to calculate a mean production normalized wastewater flow of 0.05 1
wastewater per m2 of area coated.
53
-------
Porcelain enamel slip is applied by several different
method is described below.
methods. Each
.Air Spraying - The most widely used method of enamel application is
air spraying. In this process enamel slip is atomized and propelled
by air into a conical pattern, which can be directed over the article
to be coated by an operator or machine.
.Electrostatic Spray Coating - Electrostatic spray coating
incorporates the principles of air atomized spray coating with the
attraction of unlike electric charges. In electrostatic spray
coating, atomized enamel slip particles are charged at 70,000-100,000
volts and directed toward a grounded part. The electrostatic forces
push the particles away from the atomizer and away from each other.
The charged particles are attracted to the grounded workpiece and
adhere to it.
.Dip Coating - In dip coating a part is submerged in a tank of enamel
slip, withdrawn, and permitted to drain or is centrifuged to remove
excess slip.
.Flow Coating - In this process, enamel slip is pumped from a storage
tank to nozzles that are positioned according to the shape and size of
the ware to direct the flow of enamel onto the surface as the parts
are conveyed past the nozzles.
.Powder Coating - The ground (first) coat is applied, the part is
heated to red heat, the powdered enamel is dusted on the part, and the
part is re-fired. The most prevalent use of powder coating is for the
application of a cover (second) coat of enamel to cast iron
workpieces. Three porcelain enameling plants use the dry process
exclusively on cast iron, and therefore generate no coating process
wastewater.
All of these methods of porcelain enamel application generate waste-
water. Air spraying usually generates the largest quantities of
wastewater since overspray must be strictly controlled. This is
usually accomplished by the use of a water curtain behind the
spraybooth. Significant quantities of wastewater are generated when
the water curtains are dumped or cleaned. Electrostatic, dip, and
flow coating operations generate wastewater when application equipment
and floor areas are cleaned. Powder coating operations generate the
smallest quantity of wastewater since little or no clean-up is
necessary.
For the purposes of sampling, all wastewaters associated with ball
milling and enamel application at each plant were mixed, except for
six plants where ball mill washout water was measured separately.
This mixed sample generally included wastewater from the following
54
-------
sources.' ball mill cooling water, ball mill wash out water, water
curtain batch dumps, and general clean-up" water from drain board,
spray equipment and floor areas. Table V-23 (Page 96) presents the
raw wastewater concentrations (mg/1) of the 30 sampled coating streams
for all subcategories. The mean concentration of these streams is
used in calculating the normal plant and subcategory totals for the
amount of pollutants removed and discharged. Tables V-24 through V-31
(Pages 98-105) present the raw wastewater characteristics of coating
operations. These characteristics are presented both in terms of
concentration (mg/1) and production (mg/m2 of area porcelain
enameled). These wastewater streams contain significant amounts of
priority pollutant metals regardless of subcategory. To verify this,
an experiment comparing total metals analysis and dissolved metals
analysis on coating wastewater was conducted. Tables V-32 through V-
35 (Pages 106-109) show the results of this comparison of waste
streams from typical plants in each subcategory.
For the dissolved metals analysis, samples were first settled and then
passed through a 0.45 micron filter. Total metals analysis was
performed on an aliquot sample of a well mixed and unfiltered sample.
A study was also performed to determine the short term leaching
characteristics of enamel coating wastewaters at various pH's over a
24 hour period. The results of this experiment are shown in Table V-
36 (Page 110). These results indicate that at acidic pH levels, a
significant amount of the metals dissolves, and is passed through a
treatment system.
From these studies it was concluded that the priority pollutant metals
contained in the wastewater of ball milling and enamel application
operations pose a significant threat to the environment. The
components of the enamel slip are variable, depending upon specific
formulations which may change hourly. Due to this variability, it
cannot be predicted what will be in coating wastewaters at any given
time. Although a high level of toxic metals is certain, it is
virtually impossible to predict the exact composition and specific
metals to be found at any specific time. Many porcelain enamelers
themselves are not aware of what is in the frit and what coloring
oxides they use. Because of this extreme variability and toxicity, it
is imperative that these operations be strictly controlled. To
further assess these environmental and health hazards, it became
necessary to quantify the amounts of these metals that are discharged
to the environment. Coating wastewater streams were sampled at
fourteen porcelain enameling facilities. Location and contamination
problems were checked at the sample points to verify that the sample
was gathered before any settling had occurred and that no other waste
streams were mixed with the coating wastewater streams. Of these
fourteen plants, six facilities could be used to quantify the amount
of priority pollutant metals lost to the environment. These six
55
-------
facilities were plants 11045, 47051, 40053, 33617, 40063, and 33077.
It then became necessary to quantify the amount of priority pollutant
metals contained in the raw materials supplied to these facilities and
the rest of the porcelain enameling facilities in the dcp data base in
order to calculate a percent loss to the environment of the priority
pollutant metals received at plants as slip ingredients. Dcp supplied
raw material data often contained amounts and brand names of frits and
coloring oxides used by the facility, however, no data were available
on the actual amount of priority pollutant meteils contained in each of
these products. In order to gather these data, the Agency contacted
the eight largest manufacturers of frit and coloring oxides and asked
them to supply the percent of selected elements, including all of the
priority pollutant metals, contained in each of their products and the
amounts of these products that were manufactured in 1976. The results
of this inquiry indicated that the priority pollutant metals contained
in the frits were antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead,
nickel, and zinc. In addition, cobalt, manganese, and trace quantities
of several rare earths were founds. The coloring oxides contained
significant quantities of all of the above with the exception of
arsenic and the rare earths. Selenium, vanadium and trace quantities
of silver were present in coloring oxides but not in the frits.
1 ' ' , '. 'i ,".' >i/ i ' :, ' ,. '. .; .' v*
Using this information the amount of priority pollutant metals in the
raw materials of the six visited plants with sufficient raw wastewater
data was calculated. These figures were compared to the quantitative
analysis of the raw wastewater streams of these six facilities and a
percent loss to the environment of the priority pollutant metals was
calculated. The percent loss to the environment (not applied to
workpiece or reclaimed) ranged from O.Spercent to 21 percent.
To determine the full extent of the impact on the environment of these
discharges, these percent loss figures were applied to the entire
porcelain enameling category. All 116 porcelain enameling facilities
were contacted by the Agency via dcp's and asked to supply frit and
coloring oxide raw material brands and use rates for 1976. Useful
data were eventually gathered from 56 of these 116 facilities. It was
then estimated that these 56 plants used 45,60(3,000 pounds of frit and
813,000 pounds of oxides. The data for 56 plants represented
approximately 75percent of the total raw materials used by the
industry since all of the largest porcelain enainelers were accounted
for in this data base. To depict the entire porcelain enameling
industrial segment, these amounts were extrapolated to represent the
entire 116 facility data base. This resulted in a total of
approximately 57,000,000 pounds of frit and 1,000,000 pounds of oxides
used by the entire porcelain enameling category. The total amount of
priority pollutant metals contained in these frits and oxides is
1,900,000 pounds.
56
-------
The aforementioned percent loss figures calculated for the six visited
facilities, were then applied to the extrapolated frit and oxide
consumed by the 116 facilities in the data base. Table V-37 (Page
111) presents the total amount of priority pollutant metals discharged
to the environment by the entire porcelain enameling industrial
segment. As can be seen from this table, it is estimated that the
entire segment discharges approximately 140,000 pounds per year (or
560 pounds per day) of priority pollutant metals to the environment.
On an individual plant basis, it is expected the average daily
discharge from ball milling and coating operations contains 4.3 pounds
of priority pollutant metals. It is apparent that the coating
operations pose a significant health and environmental hazard and
discharges from these operations must be strictly limited.
Precise chemical data cannot be reported in this document since it
would violate confidentiality agreements between the Agency and raw
material manufacturers.
Steel Subcategory Metal Preparation - Wastewater in this subcategory
results from alkaline cleaning, acid etch, nickel flash,
neutralization and coating operations.
Alkaline Cleaning solutions usually contain one or more of the
following chemicals: sodium hydroxide, sodium carbonate, sodium
metasi.licate, sodium phosphate, (di-or' trisodium) sodium silicate,
sodium tetra phosphate, and a wetting agent. The specific content of
cleaners varies with the type of soil being removed, the cleaners for
steel being more alkaline and active than other cleaners. Wastewaters
from alkaline cleaning operations contain not only the consitituents
of the cleaning bath, but also oils and greases which have been
removed from the part. The wastewaters also contain iron removed from
the base metal, but the amount is small in relation to the iron
removed in the acid etching process.
Alkaline cleaning wastes enter the waste stream in three ways:
1. Rinsing directly following the alkaline cleaning step.
2. Continuous overflow of the rinse tanks.
3. Batch dump of a spent alkaline cleaning bath.
Tables V-38 and V-39 (Pages 112-113) statistically describe in terms
of concentration (mg/1) and production (mg/m2) the pollutants which
were found in the alkaline cleaning raw waste streams of the sampled
facilities which do porcelain enameling on steel. The production area
used is the area cleaned. As shown in these tables, there are
significant levels of suspended solids, oil and grease and in some
cases iron, nickel, and phosphorus.
57
-------
For these and all subsequent tables presenting waste characteristics
in terms of concentration (mg/1), the minimum value listed represents
the minimum concentration found during sampling. Often it is the
minimum detectable concentration. For those tables presenting the
mass of pollutants apportioned to area, the minimum value listed
represents the minimum calculated total mass discharged per hour
divided by the area of the metal preparcjd. The concentration
generating the mass part of the minimum calculation is not necessarily
that associated with the minimum concentration. The maximum
concentration listed represents the maximum concentration found from
sampling. The maximum mass of pollutant apportioned to area
represents the maximum calculated mass discharged per hour divided by
the applicable area. The concentration generating the mass part of
the maximum calculation is not necessarily associated with the maximum
concentration. The mean and median for both concentration and mass
levels apportioned to area are determined from all non-zero sampling
results. The number of data points defines the total number of
positive values used for the mean, median and flow proportioned
average concentration presentations. The "'number of zeros" column
reflects the number of samples analyzed for each parameter where no
detectable concentration was measured. The asterisks indicate the
analysis of samples for which the parameter showed a non-quantifiable
concentration, that is, it was reported to be less than or equal to
0.010 mg/1. The flow proportioned averageconcentration was
determined by calculating the total mass for each parameter for each
non-zero (including asterisk values set equal to zero) sampling result
(concentration times flow) and dividing this mass by the total flow
for all non-zero samples.
Acid Etch typically utilizes either sulfuric acid, or ferric sulfate
in combination with sulfuric acid. Hydrochloric (muriatic),
phosphoric, and nitric acids are also reportedly in use. The
components of the acids enter the waste stream but they are of little
consequence in comparison to the metals that are contributed by the
acid etching operation. Acid solutions after a period of use have a
high metallic content due to the dissolution of the surface of the
steel when it is etched. As a result, large amounts of iron enter by
way of dragout from the acid solutions into rinse waters and also when
the baths are dumped.
Tables V-40 and V-41 (Pages 114-115) describe levels of pollutants
found in the acid etch raw waste streams of plants engaged in
porcelain enameling of steel. Again, the production area utilized is
the area of the base metal etched. As expected, the pH of the sample
stream is very low and the levels of iron are very high. Also present
at significant levels are components of steel such as phosphorus and
manganese.
58
-------
Nickel Flash either through dragout into the rinsewaters or batch
dumping of the spent bath, contributes metals to the raw waste stream.
The process solutions contain nickel salts, nickel sulfate in
particular. After a period of use the nickel bath also contains high
concentrations of iron due to the displacement reaction of the nickel
ions on the steel surface.
Tables V-42 and V-43 (Pages 116-117), which display the pollutants
found in the nickel flash raw waste streams, show the high levels of
nickel and iron which are present.
Neutralization is designed to remove the last traces of acid from the
steel workpiece. The neutralizing bath consists of an alkali such as
soda ash, borax, or trisodium phosphate and water. The contents of
the bath enter the waste stream either through dragout into subsequent
rinses or batch dumping of the process solution tanks. Tables V-44
and V-45 (Pages 118-119) show that few pollutants, except iron, were
found in the neutralization waste streams for plants doing porcelain
enameling on steel.
Coating Operations are the main source of pollution in the porcelain
enameling industry and was discussed previously in this section.
Cast Iron Subcateqory - The only waterborne wastes found at sampled
plants in this subcategory were from coating operations and have been
discussed previously in this section.
Aluminum Subcategory - Wastewater in this subcategory results from
alkaline cleaning, acid treatment, chromate treatment and coating
operations.
Alkaline Cleaning waters contain dirt and grease removed in the
cleaning process as well as the contents of the cleaning solution.
Depending on the strength of the solution, some amount of aluminum is
removed from the workpiece and is in solution. In the case of an
alkaline etch, a considerable amount of aluminum can accumulate in a
bath prior to dumping.
The raw waste constituents found in the alkaline cleaning raw waste
streams of the sampled plants doing porcelain enameling on aluminum
are shown in Tables V-46 and V-47 (Pages 120-121). These tables
present concentration (mg/1) and production normalized (mg/m2 surface
area cleaned) data. As shown in the tables, the typical alkaline
cleaning stream in this subcategory contains suspended solids and
phosphorus as well as aluminum.
Acid solutions are sometimes utilized in the preparation of aluminum
for the purpose of deoxidizing the surface of the workpiece. This
operation is not practiced frequently; a nitric acid solution is used
59
-------
when this step is performed. The nitric acid causes the dissolution
of some metal, resulting in the presence of aluminum in the waste
stream. None of the sampled facilities performed acid treatment.
Chromate Treatment is employed by some facilities to promote adhesion
and good enameling properties. This step is performed last on the
metal preparation line, after alkaline cleaning and acid treatment.
The chromate solution is composed of potassium chromate and sodium
hydroxide; these chemicals enter the waste stream from rinsing or
batch dumps of the chromate bath. None of the visited facilities
performed chromate treatment.
Coating Operations are the major source of pollutants in this
subcategory and were discussed previously in this section.
Copper Subcategory - Wastewater in this
surface preparation and coating operations.
subcategory results from
Surface Preparation is accomplished by alkaline cleaning and acid
etching solutions. These materials can enter the waste stream either
from rinsing or through batch dumps of the process solutions. The
alkaline cleaning step produces wastewater containing oil and soils
that have been removed from the workpieces. Specific raw wastewater
data on alkaline cleaning of copper is not available because it was
not reported in dcp responses and the two copper porcelain enameling
plants sampled did not employ this process. Acid etching adds to the
waste stream copper that has been dissolved from the surface of the
part to be coated. Tables V-48 and V-49 (Pages 122-123) present raw
waste characteristics associated with this operation in terms of
concentration (mg/1) and mass (mg/m2). If a vapor degreasing step is
used, trace amounts of the degreasing solvent may be found in the
waste stream. These solvents are so volatile that the amount present
is likely to be negligible.
Coating wastewater is the major source of pollutants within this
subcategory and was discussed previously in this section.
Effluent Characteristics
A summary of treated effluents from 15 sampled plants with various
levels of treatment is presented in Tables V-50 through V-53 (Pages
124-129). The sampled results are presented by subcategory for the
pollutant parameters selected for regulatory control (Reference
Section VI). Each of these tables also lists the treatment components
at each plant. Limited dcp effluent data are available and were
presented previously in Table V-5.
60
.I,!!!!,1:,, i... II'LI" i, iji I,
-------
Data Summary
Comparison of wastewaters from the different subcategories within the
porcelain enameling industry segment is difficult because of widely
varying basis material preparation operations from subcategory to
subcategory. A comparison between subcategories can best be made if
subcategory wastewater characteristics are split in terms
wastewater
coating.
of
generated by metal preparation and wastewater generated by
Tables V-54 through V-59 (Pages 130-135) present wastewater
characteristics for the basis material preparation stream for each
subcategory. Data for the coating wastewater stream were previously
presented in Tables V-24 and V-25 for the steel subcategory, V-26 and
V-27 for the cast iron subcategory, V-28 and V-29 for the aluminum
subcategory, and V-30 and V-31 for the copper subcategory. Data are
expressed in terms of concentration (mg/1) and mass apportioned to
area prepared or coated (mg/m2) as applicable. Specific information
derived from these tables follows:
Oil and grease levels (mg/m2) in base metal preparation streams were
highest in the copper subcategory and lowest in the steel subcategory.
This is caused by large amounts of drawing oils and waxes applied to
copper parts to prevent oxidation.
Phosphorus levels in the base metal preparation streams are much
higher for the steel and aluminum subcategories than for the copper
subcategory. This Is because few if any porcelain enamelers on copper
perform alkaline cleaning. Porcelain enamelers use alkaline solutions
mainly as cleaners for steel and etchants for aluminum.
The basis metal preparation streams for all three subcategories
(steel, aluminum and copper) contain similar levels of total suspended
solids, with slightly higher levels in the steel and aluminum
subcategories. Steel and aluminum workpieces generally undergo a
larger number of forming operations than copper parts and thus are
likely to have more dirt and grease on the surface.
The basis metal preparation stream of the steel subcategory shows the
highest levels (mg/m2) of basis material. This indicates that steel
workpieces undergo more severe basis material preparation operations.
Levels of lead (mg/m2) are significantly higher in the basis metal
preparation streams for the copper and aluminum subcategories. This
is attributable to higher lead levels in these basis materials.
Levels of nickel in the basis material preparation streams are highest
in the steel subcategory. This significant difference is attributed
61
-------
to the discharge from nickel
material preparation for steel.
desposition operations used in basis
Fluorides in the coating streams are highest in the steel subcategory.
This is attributed to higher concentrations of fluorospars in the
porcelain enamel slip used in this subcategory.
Aluminum is highest in the coating waste stream of the copper
subcategory and lowest in the aluminum subcategory. This is due to
vastly different amounts of aluminum used in the respective porcelain
enamel slips for these subcategories.
In general, wastewater constituents associatedwith coating wastewater
streams vary only slightly according to bonding and color requirements
associated with the basis metal. These requirements are reflected in
the slip ingredients used, which were previously discussed.
62
-------
CO
.1 fe? ฃ
> gj CO
a ง co
*3 w ฃ!
?9 , ^
P c3
CO
co
CO
en
u-i i
-------
s
tn
I
rป
S
3
o
vo
r- 4J
o in
ง
8
K
8
i-
8
x>
ta o
tj Si
!S
ID 0}
o 3i
rH 43
to
o
o
PO rH
tn 01
o
-------
{"5
I
L.J
s
i
43
gฃ
S1
S?
w w งj w ง5 to wwwwwcnwwwwftwww w w
3
if
I
-------
I
i!
g
I
8
I I
cS
ง5 ซS W WOTWWWWWWWWWOTWWWtaW
I
in to
o ซH
p* ao o
in
56
-------
t
s
OCOCOCOCOCOCOCO
c
86
EH
yy
co co co co w raw % coco Jb Jb
T3
ee
oo oo ea OB oo eo oo oo eo
G7
-------
43
cS
CO
UJ
_l
co
w wwwwwwwww w w w w wwwwwwwwwww
0}
ฃ
03
(M ป ซ N WO SO
S383335S
If 1.1
- i-ซ IH a
<-} a a sin &
to % * CO 3 qj
^ SS.S g g So
3"5ง5
M
^ in
-------
C M
t CO
4-> S-
0 X
O 9
^
I
1*
41 O
n
Sl
H O
8
2
ฃ
rl
h
5
i
i
-*
_
at
w
W
O
3
u u
-------
O)
3
C
o
o
LU
_J
LD
H
\O 09
8
61
O Ef
4)
4J
ฃ8
4J W
i-l O
H W
VI
09 O
g1"
i-i 09
U 41
03 M
ti
ฃg
41 -0
O C
4)
U 4)
^ง
H
> h
CO
4)
.C
C8
Hy
a
g5
^P-
*J C
H S
S60
h
s^
ป 41
C
o
h
3
t
M
OB
g
S
3
I
1
41
O
U
0
3
h
a ^
4J
S
8 ง
S
o
41 4)
5?
3iJ
u u
S3
U 1
O Bu
9 M
i
ฃ
a
<0
CO
I
4>
&.
M
u w
VCO
W 41
ซ
M
-U
!
t*
*
1 1
70
-------
TABLE V-4
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO DCP
(NUMBER OF PLANTS RESPONDING IN EACH AREA)
Priority Pollutant
1. acenaphthene
2. acrolein
3. acrylonitrile
4. benzene
5. benzidine
6. carbon tetrachloride
(tetrachlorcmethane)
7. chlorobenzene
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-tridaloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. bis(chloroemthyl) ether
18. bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
(mixed)
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. parachloroneta cresol
23. chloroform (trichloronethane)
24. 2-chlorophenol
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3'-dichloixfoenzidine
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
31. 2,4-dichlorophenol
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,2-dichloropropylene
(1,3-dichloropropene)
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37. 1/2-diphenylhydrazine
38. ethylbenzene
39. fluoranthene
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bronophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
44. methylene chloride
(dichloronethane)
Known
To Be
Present
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 '
0
0
0
0
0
0
Believed
To Be
Present
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
Believed
To Be
Absent
58
58
59
58
57
57
58
57
57
58
56
58
58
56
58
58
59
59
58
60
59
58
59
59
58
58
58
57
58
58
58
57
59
59
59
59
58
61
59
59
58
58
58
Known
To Be
Absent
14
14
13
10
15
15
14
15
15
14
12
13
14
13
14
12
13
13
14
12
13
14
12
13
14
14
14
15
14
14
14
15
13
13
13
13
14
9
13
13
13
13
13
54
12
Raw Wastewater
Concentration
Range mg/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.007
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.002-0.005
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.002
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.002-0.005
71
-------
Priority Pollutant
TABLE V-4 (CON T )
Known Believed Believed Known
To Be To Be To Be To Be
Present Present Absent Absent
45. methyl chloride
(chloromethane) 0
46. methyl bromide (brcnonethane) 0
47. branoform (tribranomethane) 0
48. dichlorobrcmomethane 0
49. tridilorofluoromethane 0
50. dichlorcdifluorqttethane 0
51. chlorodibrcfnomethane 0
52. hexachlorobutadiene 0
53. nexachlorocyclopentadiene 0
54. isophorone 0
55. naphthalene 0
56. nitrobenzene 0
57. 2-nitrophenol 0
58. 4-nitrophenol 0
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol 0
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol 0
61. N-nitrosodimethylamine 0
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine 0
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine 0
64. pentachlorophenol 0
65. phenol 2
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 0
67. butyl benzyl phthalate 0
68. di-n-butyl phthalate 0
69. di-n-octyl phthalate 0
70. diethyl phthalate 0
71. dimethyl phthalate 0
72. 1,2-benzanthracene
(benzo(a)anthracene) 0
73. benzo (a) pyrene (3,4-benzo-
pyrene) 0
74. 3,4-benz6fluoranthene
(benzo (b)fluoranthene) 0
75. 11,12-benzofluoranthene
(benzo(k)fluoranthene) 0
76. chrysene 0
77. acenaphthylene 0
78. anthracene 0
79. 1,12-benzoperylene (benzo(ghi)-
perylene) 0
80. fluorene 0
81. phenanthrene 0
82. 1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene
(dibenzo(a,h)anthracene) 0
83. indeno(l,2,3-cd) pyrene
(2^3-o-phenylene pyrene) D
84. pyrene 0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
1
58
58
58
58
57
56
57
57
57
57
56
56
56
56
56
57
57
57
58
57
56
59
56
57
56
57
56
57
58
57
57
58
57
57
56
55
59
13
13
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
11
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
13
14
12
12
15
14
14
14
14
13
13
14
14
13
14
14
15
13
13
58
57
58
14
14
13
Raw Wastewater
Concentration
Range mg/1
0
0
0.002*
0.002-0.007*
0
0
0.002-0.003*
0
0
0
0
0
0.001
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.002-0.022
0
0.002-0.005
0.011
0.002*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
* The same or a higher concentration was found in the incoming water
72
-------
TABLE V-4 (CONT )
Priority Pollutant
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
87. tfichloroethylene
88. vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
89,. aldrin
90. dieldrin
91. chlordane (technical mixture
and metabolites)
92. 4,4'-DDT
93. 4, 4 '-DDE (p,p!-DDX)
94. 4,4'-DDD (p,p'-TDE)
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
97. endosulfan sulfate
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
( BHC=hexachlorocyclohexane )
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
104. gamma-BHC (lindane)
105. delta-BHC
( PCB-polychlorinated biphenyls)
106. PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
107. PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
108. PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
109. PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
110. PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
111. PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)
112. PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)
113. Toxaphene
114. Antimony
115. Arsenic
116. Asbestos
117. Beryllium
118. Cadmium
119. Ghrcmium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
123. Mercury
124. Nickel
125. Selenium
126. Silver
127. Thallium
128. Zinc
129. 2,3,7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin (TCDD)
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
8
0
2
17
29
28
4
23
3
32
7
4
1
29
0
NON-CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Xylenes
Alkyl epoxides
Known
To Be
Present
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
8
0
2
17
29
28
4
23
3
32
7
4
1
29
0
0
2
0
Believed
To Be
Present
2
9
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
14
2
3
26
21 '
21
1
24
1
19
26
2
1
21
0
2
5
2
Believed
To Be
Absent
57
52
55
58
60
58
60
59
59
59
60
59
59
59
60
59
59
60
60
60
59
59
59
59
59
59
59
60
59
22
39
59
54
19
15
19
53
17
54
15
30
54
58
16
58
23
20
23
Known
To Be
Absent
12
9
12
12
12
14
12
13
13
13
12
13
12
13
12
13
13
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
6
11
11
13
10
7
4
14
8
13
5
9
12
12
6
13
3
3
3
Raw Wastewater
Concentration
Range mg/1
0
0.018
0.004
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.150
0
0.002
0.03-20.0
0.06-0.2
0.02-20.0
0.007
0.5-30.0
0.0002
1.0-3.0
0.72-13.84
0.02
0
0.4-0.7
73
-------
TABLE V-4 (font)
Priority Pollutant
Known
Tb Be
Present
Believed
Tb Be
Present
Believed Known Raw Wastewater
Tb Be Tb Be Concentration
Absent Absent Range rag/1
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Chromium, Hexavalent
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Phenol, Total
Phosphorus
Sodium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Oil & Qrease
TSS
NDt Applicable
NDt Applicable
NDt Applicable
NDt Applicable
ISbt Applicable
ISbt Applicable
Not Applicable
NDt Applicable
NDt Applicable
NDt Applicable
NDt Applicable
NDt Applicable
NDt Applicable
NDt Applicable
NDt Applicable
NDt Applicable
NDt Applicable
NDt Applicable
NDt Applicable
1.0-7.0
1.0-6.0
4.0-10.0
.2
.9-1.0
0
.3-100.0
7.4-12.0
.08-3.0
.2-. 4
0-.012
4.14-80.1
57.-400.0
.02-.04
2.0-20.0
.02
0
1.0
32-364
74
-------
o o
r en o
o ii
CM cn
VO O
s
r-co CM
'r in co
SrHS
ooo
ooo
o
o
o
ง
0 O
O CM
rH co
ง
000
co r- o
rH rH TJ<
CM
vo
CM
CM
\fl
to o
O iH O
O O
O CM
O
o
o o o
vo CM in
cn mo
o o
O rH
o o
*
o o
o
CM
o
o
o
n oo
o
o
o
CO OO
o o
o
CM 00 r-l
O O O
O
VO
ง0
CM
in n
o
in
en
o o
o n
rH CM
o
in
o
o
o
o
o
in
000
rH CO O
o o
o o
CO 00
p
CO
CM
rH
O
o
CO
in
o
8
&
o o
rH VO O
O rH O
O
O
o o o
rH TT in
O O O
o o
O rH
O O
en
o
o
in
in
o
o
o
o
ooo
ooo
ooo
o o
o o
o o
O CO
in ro
r-~ CM
oo
o
ooo
000
r- o o
rH VO CO
in r-
vo
o
o
o
rH rH rH rH rH
rHrHcnOOOOOOOOOOCNCMCOCO
r-j rH rH CM CM .CM CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMMCO
rHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHlHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrH
75
-------
i
^a1 r
oo
*
o o
o
o
CM
O
a\ ซn
in in
a
o
o
00
8
S
in
CMrH
8
o
o
en
r- r-
o o
o
o
n
in ro
V CO
g
o o o
oj co r~
COO rH
88 8
o o o
r co in
CM in rH
8
o
a
o
o
in
o
en cr>
in in
oooooooooooooooo
ooooooo^*cr>ooooooo
I 8
C3 CM
O O
CO CTl
r^ o\
o
o
o
o
o
o o
in in
to
o
o
8
88
o o
** VD
\o a\
tN
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
3*
o o
o o
o o
88888ง8ง8ง888888
oooooooooooooooo
go
in o\
o o
o o o o o
in o o o o
ococooininocooocooooiin
rHrHCMfi^cMencnincnr"
in in in in
rH rH i-H rH
sliliiossssislilsooiigogggooogsgss
W in incSooogl0! ง0^333 ro<ฃ
-------
งo
rH
in
o
O O O O O
o o en o in
CM CM CM CM CM
O O O O CM
o o o .o
o vo ป o
en o o CM
in
o
o
n o'
o o
<3 O VO O
vo in
o
CM
oo o o
CM
CM
u
CO
CM
O
o
o
งง
o o
ง000000
CM o oo in m o
VO rH CM CM CM CM O
ง00 rH
in CM en
Cn rH rH CM
O O rH O VO m CM
CM
O
o
vo o in
oo o co
iH 00 CM
งo oo
IT) O rH
rH O 00 O
I O
VOO CM
covo o
o
o
en
o
o
E5
r~ o
CM rH
o o
o o o o o o o
vo vo CM co co in o
O O rH *ซ ป *
I
in
a
!e
g (H
3 8
b
ฃ3
8
o
in
o
o o
O rH
O O
O O
O
CM
O O O O O O O
o in o m oo o co
r-- O rH O C3 rH O
VO O O O O O Q
o o o o o o o
O rH in rH O O in
CM O O O O CM rH
o o o o >* o o
CM
o o in
O TJซ CO
o o o
O O O
* O CM
rH n o
in o
O rH
o o
CM
rH
O
ooo o
CM
o
o
o
o
o
o
CM
o
in
o
o
o
o
o
o
in rH
o o
o o
o
CM
o
o o o
in rH rH r*- cs
OrHCMmrHrHrHrO rH
o
o o
o o
O OO ^ซ^ซ^<^^< pซป
oo ซCM ooooo r~
ooocMf^ r~r-rf"-t*- in
^TrHr~CM CMCMCMCMOJ rH
o o
CM o
rH OO
o
o
O CO O
*ปroo
co vocoro
in rHOrH
co i-tr-in
_ mmmmmrommmirirHr^
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCSrHVO
'rHrHrHrHrHi-H'*inr*"rซ-r^r^r^r^r^r^r^r^
77
-------
TABLE V-6
PARAMETERS FOUND IN SCREENING ANALYSIS
I&rameter
14 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
23 Chloroform
30 1,2-transdichloroethylene
44 Methylene chloride
47 Bronoform
48 Dichlorobronomethane
51 Chlorodibromomethane
57 2-nitrophenol
66 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
68 Di-n-butyl phthalate
69 Di-n-octyl phthalate
70 Diethyl phthalate
86 Ibluene
87 Trichloroethylene
114 Antimony
117 Beryllium
117 Cadmium
119 Chromium, Total
Chromium, Hexavalent
120 Copper
121 Cyanide
122 Lead
123 Mercury
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
126 Silver
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Calcium
Cobalt
Fluorides
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Phenols, Total
Phosphorus
Sodium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Inlet
Water
Concentration Range (mg/1)
Raw
Wastewater Effluent Blank
*
.002-. 068
*
.001-. 012
.002-. 010
.003-. 008
.001-. 010
*
.001-. 008
.002-. 003
*
.002
.001
*
*
*
.01
.006-. 043
*
.018-. 05
.006-. 13
.04-. 16
*
.192
*
.033
.10
.16-. 3
.01-. 08
.07
19.6-24.0
.027
1.1
.2
4.5-15.0
.007-. 009
.03
.020-. 054
.410-. 6
16-24
.009-. 05
.02
.036
0.4
.007
.002-. 005
.002
.002-. 005
.002
.00 2-. 007
.002-. 003
.001
.002-. 022
.002-. 005
.011
.002-. 024
.018
.004
.150
.002
.03-20.0
.06-. 2
.02
.02-20.0
.007
.5-30.0
.0002
1.0-3.0
.72-3.84
.02
.4-.7
1.0-7.0
1.0-6.0
4.0-10.0
17.0-80.0
.9-1.0
*
.3-100.0
7.4-12.0
.008-3.0
.02-. 03
.005-. 012
4.14-80.1
57.0-400.0
.02-. 04
2.0-20.0
.02
*
*
*
*
.003
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
.014-. 9
.06-. 4
*
.024-. 5
.03
.2-. 5
.0008
.25-4.0
.084-11.8
.01
.07-2.0
.2-2.0
.3-2.0
.157-20.0
26.0-87.0
.044-.8
2.0
100.0
3.1-13.0
.009-2.0
.02-. 04
.009-. 038
2.06-5.14
36.0-250.0
.03
.02-9.0
.03-. 042
.05
.004-.005
*
.014-.024
*
.003
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* NDt detected in analysis
78
-------
TABLE V-7
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS PARAMETERS
PARAMETER
14 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
66 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)Phthalate
69 Di-n-octyl Phthalate
86 Toluene*
87 Trichloroethylene
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium, Total
Chromium, Hexavalent
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Barium
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Phenol, Total
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended Solids
pH
BASIS MATERIAL SUBCATEGORY APPLICABILITY
P/E on P/E on P/E on P/E on
Steel Aluminum Iron Copper
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
* Only if silk screening is performed at the plant
79
-------
TABLE V-8
DIRECT AND INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
DCP PLANTS
STEEL
SUBCATEGORY
DIRECT
DISCHARGERS
11092
15032
15194
20067
30062
33086
33104
33617
36052
40032
40033
40040
40540
41062
IM>IRECT DIRECT
DISCHAH3ERS & INDIRECT
01059 01061
01062
03032
03033
04066
04098
04101
04102
04122
04126
04138
09032
11052
11053
11082
11089
11090
11091
11105
11106
11107
11117
11923
12035
12037
12038
12039
12043
12044
12045
12064
12234
12235
13321
13330
15031
15033
15949
19049
20015
20059
20090
20091
22024
23089
30043 '
33084
33085
33088
33089
33092
33098
36030
36039
36069
36072
36078
40031
40034
40035
40036
40039
40041
40042
40050
40053
40055
44031
45030
47033
47034
47037
47050
09031
NO
DISCHARGE
33097
40043
DIRECT
DISCHARGERS
33053
33077
ALUMINUM
SUBCATEGORY
INDIRECT
DISCHARGERS
04 U6
06030
09037
DIRECT
& INDIRECT
47051
NO
DISCHARGE
12M5
21060
33083
47032
4703ซ
4767ฐ
80
-------
TABLE V-8 (Cant)
DIRECT AND INDIRECT DISHCARGERS
DCP HANTS
DIRECT
DISCHARGERS
COPPER
SUBCATEQQRY
INDIRECT
DISCHARGERS
06031
36030
DIRECT
& INDIRECT
NO
DISCHARGE
DIRECT
DISHCARGERS
40063
47111
IRON
SUBCATEGORY
INDIRECT
DISCHARGERS
04099
04126
04138
12035
12039
12044
.15712
33076
36039
36072
40041
40053
41078
47038
DIRECT
& INDIRECT
12040
NO
DISCHARGE
81
-------
s
s
CO
I rH
VO
CO
CO
ro
vo
vo
CN vo
CO CN
r~
CN
S
jj
C CO
ta co
rH O
01
VO
o
o
o
CO
CO
in
co r-
o co
o
01
r~
o
vo
in
01 rH
in vo
in i-J
S
rH CO
CN VO
CO
n
CO
co
VO
CN
in
in
oT 8
01
01
0) c3
5 u
3 s
"O
1
i (
s1 a
!
H
r?
4J
ง
&
-
w
rH C
>W ^
* 3
& ง
g S1
3 -H
4J rH
18 rH
w O
3 o
(D* rn
rH S U
1s I
fljB *
5
Su
48
01
SS
rH 'OrH
3 Srrf
g * g
C* M
B
01
V
-s 1
S1 |
-H iH
ป f
ft *
$ SI S=* S
ซ y c f* c
* 5 1
J * *
f-rl
a
H 4J O
B1
W -H
23
ss
w o
^1
VJ Q
m 43
SS
!tJg
^8
^VM
i!
tp-4 Xf rH
^a 1
.a .2! .s
JB J3-H Ji
g'S fi
in vo r- co
82
-------
TABLE V-10
WATER USE: CAST IRON SUBCATEGORY
(1/m2)
Process
Surface preparation
Ball milling
Coating
11045
Plant ID
33077 47051
28.5
41.4
18.8
141.9
14.0
14.0
41.6
2.9
Ull
(1)
This plant employs dry spray booths
NOTE: Because of differences in area prepared and coated, these
data cannot be added for each process to obtain overall
subcategory water usage.
83
-------
TABLE V-ll
WATER USE: CAST IRON SUBCATEGORY
(1/m2)
15712
(1)
.01
11
.28
Plant ID
33076
(1)
.22(3)
:/, i ' v .
.03
40053
-(1)
1.27
F, :. i , ''>:
/ 2 \
Process
Surface Preparation
Ball milling
Coating application
- " ' > :"' f1 ; ' ;. .
(1) Surface preparation consists of dry operations such as grit biasing
(2) This plant uses dry spray booths
';. . . I ' '...''., ""< , ' ' i- '
(3) This value represents a combination of washout water and
ball mill cooling water
.'; 3! '.
84
-------
TABLE V-12
WATER USE: COPPER SUBCATEGORY
(1/m2)
Process
Acid Etch
Ball Mill
Coat
Plant ID
36030
57.3
3.7
1.5
Plant ID
06031
87.36
- (1)
0.17
(1) Ball Milling operations at this facility generated no waste water
85
-------
TABLE V-13
WATER USE RATES REPORTED IN DCP's
STEEL SUBCATEGORY
METAL PREPARATION
COATING AND BALL MILLING
PLANT ID
01059
03032
04098
04102
09032
11052
11090
11105
11107
12038
12043
15031
15033
15194
15949
20059
20067
22024
33054
33084
33086
33092
33617
36030
36052
40031
40034
40035
40039
40040
40043
40055
40063
40540
44031
47033
47034
47037
11089
11106
20015
20091
33085
33098
40042
41062
11091
12039
1/hr
397,43
14534
3028
6797.9
71536
3633.98
1911.05
26571
339.89
49205
5744.9
10366.7
14079.8
53368.1
38607
10763.4
1229.7
5376
22710
5905,0
14761,9
31794
4769.1
465.9
14288
7721.4
14306.9
1135.88
11808,8
923.16
49.92
13970
8858.9
3814.9
7608
14429.2
2725.2
5677.5
3406.5
40878
5450.4
7948.5
1457.2
49345
2157.5
734.29
5954.2
9084
m2/hr
245.75
1492.8
96.8
224.38
746.8
466
222
87.13
455
1626
154.55
321.8
1385
259
1061
42.82
164.2
41.82
906.13
349.34
515
536
1990.3
31.65
234.5
246
149
103.5
569.0
10
191
557.17
204
286
148
88
217
274
273
263
561.21
209
157.06
151
61
11
215
254
1/m2
1.62
9.74
31.28
30.3
95.79
7.80
8.61
304.96
0.75
30.26
37.17
32.21
10.17
206.05
36.39
251.36
7.49
128.55
25.06
16.9
28.66
59.32
2.396
14.72
60.93
31.39
96.02
10.97
20.75
92.32
0.26
25.07
43.43
13.34
51.41
163.97
12.56
20.72
12.48
155.43
9.71
38.03
9.28
326.79
35.37
66.75
27.69
35.76
1/hr
227.48
682.06
378.9
10291
3 20 9. 7
113.17
894.02
14307
1363
3785
3093
8565
44852
11355
112793
5693.4
757
18.925
29523
6131.3
578
10787
18320
1691.9
2271
3406.5
2953.1
1267.2
2952.3
265.7
33.28
3970.8
5906
2089.7
5072
9619.4
4768.7
4911.4
1135.5
757
1173.7
18168.4
3,141.9
6294.8
654.4
143.8
3205.5
8403
m2/hr
245.75
783.7
48.4
355.28
746.8
466
224
131.47
455
1626
201.66
943
1385
279
1185
42.82
164.2
24.88
824.8
572.92
339
586
2692
40.36
109.6
467
-292
51.76
569.0
18
191
1446.7
292
286
207
40
128
164
258
229
902.47
209
236.5
155
91
40
324
356
1/m2
0.926
0.87
7.83
28.97
ฅ. 30
0.243
3.99
108.82
3.0
2.33
15.34
9.08
32.38
40.70
95.18
132.96
4.61
0.76
35.79
10.7
1.70
18.41
6.80
41.92
20.72
7.29
10.11
24.48
5.19
14.76
0.174
2.74
20.23
7.31
24.5
240.49
37.26
29.95
4.40
3.3
1.30
86.93
13.28
40.61
7.19
3.60
9.89
23.6
86
-------
TABLE V-1,4
WATER USE RATES REPORTED IN DCP's
ALUMINUM SUBCATEGORY
METAL PREPARATION
COATING AND BALL MILLING
PLANT ID
09037
06030
11045
33077
33083
47032
47036
47051
47670
33053
1/hr
5205.9
6813
1328.2
8119.2
3633.6
13626
3406.5
12490.5
11355
20.06
m2/hr
520.75
55.76
46.47
113.67
107.11
73.37
55.73
88.87
351.72
36.83
1/m2
10.0
122.2
28.58
71.43
33.92
185.72
61.125
140.55
32.28
0.54
1/hr
2803.2
700.2
715.7
4371.7
567.75
1816.8
1286.5
1589.3
11177
10.6
m2/hr
412.46
37.17
46.47
113.67
53.55
73.37
55.73
88.87
175.86
69.03
1/m2
6.8
18.84
15.40
38.46
10.60
24.76
23.08
17.88
63.56
0.154
87
-------
rH rH rH CM
CQ
CM rH T-l CM
CM
CM
3
rHCMCMCMrHrHrH
CM
00
in
o
oonoi-Hoonr>-op*oooco
rHVOCOOCOOOOOOCMOOCM
oo
TJ< co in vo
o PO ^ซ ซH r--
OCMCnrHOOOOOOOOOOO
o en
in
00
CO
S
CM
T-HV0^1ooTroooooooooeyiปHCMvocMooinoHiomt>ซ
-------
t-Hvoino:mcno
p- r^ tn oo
CM
CM
CM
CO
CM
CM CO
CO
O
VO
00
&
oo en en t^- o r** en o
cnovooroovo^ovoooiH
o vo oo
00
CM
00 O CM VD CM O
i CM
CO
o
CM
CM
W
o o o o en o
00 O
ffl &H HSoiHT-H'a'vocMocn
>
n3
T3
SS,
S:dlgฃ
!
&
3s
!
i &u-3
&I8-33.
&.
-l tJ -6 rH -H
S/gl-flllSa
03 Q
0}
|a-
m -H M -H r=) "D 5 S i J3 ,B -H
l-;lac5Nซ rH
rHJS
H &
o ฃ
ซ*int^cocn oปH CMrrinoo
ปHปHi-
-------
Ill1 II 1(1
oooooo oorovoooooHOOocMvovooooTj'ooor-oonrooooo
>*! (H CO CO CO CO O OOCMOOf'-COOVOCMCMOOO^l'OOOOCOi-HCOCOininCOOOOOOO
in o <ฃ> o
oo
in
co
Ol
3
en
ฃ
r-ป VD r-ป o
r^ vo CTป o
o r- a\ f o
o CM
in
o\
JQ
O O CO O
CM ^ in o
o CTI o n o
o ซH ro
co
CO
CM
CM
CM VD
00
er>
CTi
ooooocMoooooooooocooooootnocriCMm
o
t-H Ov CO
ปป THcr>CTiCT> cor- voซa<
ooo coorooo oooi roinvoino in
OOOOOinOOOOOCMOOOOOOOOOOO
T~l rH tH
^M
1
g
O O VO O
CO CO O O
O U3 CO 00 O
O t-H
CM
00
VO
voco
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrHOOO
u
t^J
iซ
i
5 'S
& 5
-a
ซ
8
CO
a
ง
I
^ 0
**
s
I
r -5 ^l-r^!
^3 iiii-g,!
0) *J I iH 4J CO M >C
3 * s e s ^ ฃ ฃ
1
oT
CN
8
CO
ซ
Iti-g
^3 |
MsaaaaBeft
aป
*'"
c^Sfi
VO
O ซ-H CM ^* in CO
CM CM CM CM CM CM
^H TI ^H ^H ^"j t^
90
-------
=tt=
OOOOOOrHOOrHrHrHOCMrOOOCMrHOOป3'OCM.CMOOOOOOOOOCMOOOO
moo o ooo o
ro r- CM o ooo o
....** * * . t * * *
OVDCftCM O OOO O
CM CM
O
CM in ro co o
OOOOOOOOOOPOOinrH^m
o o ro in r-
ซH CT* CM
ID
CM
oo
rH
tl
ฃ
(X
B3
ง
co r-- co o ooo
vo r~ c^ o ooo
....** * ,* ...
oinc^irH o ooo
rH CM
00
in
ซaซoin
oo
ooooooooo
CM
CO O CM *3*
rH in in
rH rป CM
CM CM CO
O O rH
O rH O
*
O 00 O 00
O rH CM
o
o
. *
o
000
o o o
*
o o o
o
o
oomooo
^OCM o ฃ2
o o a-, o rH r^ 2S2
oo.oooooooroooo
ro
000
ooo
ooo
CM
00
rH rH
0
ฐ
rH VO
o co
CM in o oo co o *3* o r*- ^3* o 0*1 o% ^* CM in P** ^ o ^ o
OOOOCMOt^OOOO'3
-------
o o o o
r-l rH rH CM
omooooooHooo o
r-icocooocriCTicovoooooocr!Coina<>ooor-cor-;cr>oo oq
CMrH^CM rH CM CM T-ir-lt-ltHCMCMCMT-)rHrH CM <-H ซH
o oror~-T-iooooo oo
inOOCOOOCT\<ฃ>ซ3
n
rH O
oo
CM
n oo o o o
OO
CM VD CO
00 CO
CM n
a\
rH
ฃ
w
s
o o o
>-i _ CM co in o o
CM
CM
in
VD
If)
O
rHO
O O
OOVO
CO
ro
VO
coin
o
on
ro
in
rocMococMinvo'*!'
ซ-i ซป< vo i-i
o
o
'S'
r-
<;
g
voo r^ineriOOOOOOi-H^rป-Hr>> oo rovo
cMooroorororoi-icMocMOOinno^rtHt^-cor^TC in
o CM * o ^a< t-ro OTHOTHoooino^ovoinoino
CO
ocMco^oocMoooooooooTHOocooincoT-toinvoro in
CM CM r-l CM *H
u
ง
sa
I
I
3
3B
o c
Oj" Q)
>-| ti ^ iH
&-d -9 a>
- ง^3
o
to
s
1
CO
a
ง
0]
::i
.d ฃ -H -H p
Oj PJ H O EH
OปH cMTCinoo
CMCM CMCMCMCM
r-i r-t r-li-lr-liH
92
t, , i,nil !"i!, i.1! I,,1,,
1 ,iJ, ',', i1',; i'i,, :ซi lifinii',:'
-------
=8=
=**= EH r~
Oti -
rn ro in o rn in o r- H o o o o in co o eo <* vo o\ rn -* o VD o^ o
CM
So
s
w
o
CM
J.
vo CM oo
en r- iH o o
in ซ-i o
in vo
in
ปH
in
HrHtH t-HO
1-4 n in
oo ;
: o (
Or^CTiOTHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO'S'OOOOO CM
CM g
u
"-H,B,1L i
^ggsg.^
3
31 ^B
g,a j=> j
g
KG
^ aj
3
i
b w
CO Q) ง g ซ^-d ^
M f3 ฃ -C -H 'H O
M g 5 S3 &H O EH
Lnr~ooo^i oซi csi^inoo
THT-ITH^H CMCM CMCMCMOJ
93
-------
I. ! % " ',." E, If'SlilSiii, iillBi'
o o o o co comvococO'HococMVDvoooo'ซ3tooot'"-ooroooo(V'>o
#= EH co co co co o oorMoor^coovocMCMcoo<<*'oooocoซ-HOOooincooocoinฐo
CM
ฃ
oo in o r- o.
in vo o a\ o
o o CM o r~ o
ooinoo "31 o in *3< ป!< o
r-- oo CM co
r-i -ซ3< co CM ro CM
oocoooooor-iinu">ooi-)T-icMTHor-ooot-iin2;i5
- ' 00 r-i O r-;
(N
n H
CN
oo
ooinoo
rroco
o
ooro
oo
CM
f\]
-------
=ป*=
OOOOOOOTHOOซHTHOP>arOOOCNTHOO'3'Oir>)C1MOOOOOOOOOfVOOO
ro
CM CTiI^COrOO ro O CM
TH ro l^- CM O OOOO OCMCMOTHt~-OOOCOTHOCMVDinvOO"3'00 TH
....** ** . * ....................
rOCM CM iH O% fซ VO CM V0 CO 00
co ro
r 0*1
TH m **
O O
CM IT)
CM
CM
ฃ
*
O OOOO
o oooo
* .** . . . .
o oooo
CMWOVOVOO
oorooow'*o
ocMvoot-Hr-^o
COO
o
10
ooro
tHOOiHvoroTH<ฃ>'ซa<
CMO
i-l
CMOOCMt^i-ICM
O O O O TH
o oooo
* .** ..*
o oooo
CM TH CO CM TH O
oovotoininato
OCMOOt^THCOCOO
ro o f-
"J1 O O>
TH o o\ in ro
oo ro
r- w
TH in
CM OO
t*-
ro
ro
ซ>o
CM
COOOCMCMkO*3<
cxino
rrซฃ>00
cv in ro
Oi
ro
ซ3* O
CTi O O *<3*
TH oo in CM
. . . . -K -K
CMVovฃ>TH'3''aJ
oooo oooooooociooint-ปor--voTHr>jin'!j'OCMOooo
CM CM CM 'S' iH W
\t>
ro
b
^
I
TH
o
CMCM CMCMCMCM
95
-------
o o o o <
oooooo
-"T o *
moor-iooorooiHin
ง0 I
O I
O O I
o oo
co T-ien
OC>]Oซ~{ซ-t
o
o
o
o
o o o in (N co
mvoSR no
oooooo
oooo<-io
OOOOCOO
t- in c co r c in
uiiHin PJooooorHo
ooo oo oo
incor- inin ^t-^
OOOOOOOO
o(Nrooซ3Hoo
OOOOOOOO
OOOOOO \o
oooocoinooo^
o ooooooooooo
O VDOOOOOfMOOOO
inooooooor^oooo
fOOOOOOOO
^j* n o o CTป n
rr CM
96
-------
oioooooooi
- -> o ro o i
oooo oe
o o o o o c
oo o r ^* in o
O O O O
p- O VO .H
o
VD
co o
in in
o iH
o
ooooovovocMoroo
^r co
8'
ON
VD
CM
r O
t-- in
o .-!
ooo^oooaof^oooooooi*
in CM
ooinooooooi
i o < ~
incMcocMrof~c\io.-ioo
rO"3-OCMV0OOOOOOOO
o o o o
o o o o
O O 00 O
ON o r~ o
ON o ro o
ON O ON O !-(
O OJ
m in
o 1-1
o
o
r--ooooooo
ro in
O iH
inooocMirocor-oo
i ON o CM o
ro co o
OOOO O
oooo o
ooeno o
ro
r-
coroco
'S'
ro
ci
in
co
o cnoooooooo
00 UllOOOOVOOtHOO
inooojrocor^rMinino
oooo oo
oooo oo
o o
ro *ป
O >-)
co
ro
on i-i-icrio
r 1
s
ro o o o oo
ro 10 co o CM o
OOOOOCNr-iOOinCS
ooo oooo
r~-ooo oooo o
fMovoin
'<
a1
I . \f> CO CM o CO 00
CM CM ,-H VD
ro
CM O
S3
in
-iincMoiino t~ TO ovocMo2>
OOOOOOTCMOOOCOOOOOO O OoON
OOOOOOOOTHOOOOCMOC3 CM OrH
oooo o o
ซ* oo a\ iH os o
OOOOOCMCMCOOOVD
oooo ooo o
cjioinin VDOO o
Tooor^ cocoo oen<-l
ro^cMCM
^rvocno
voin CO
^oo CM
oooooorooinincM'j'Ooiroo'a'
ooroooor--
'OOq
CM CM
VD
ro
ro
in CM
^r in
o >-i
OOOinOOOOOOOOOOOOปH
oooo o o
VD Vฃ> ro O VD O
ooooocMVDOoroin
oooo oooo
OOOrOO *3-OOO
r- o
VD tH
ro
ro
OOOOOOOCMOCOปH
in >H
ซ* in
O t-l
co ^.-1,-tin r^cMoco
O COซ-ICO<-I TOr^O CO'3'iH'S'
CMOOOlOซHCMOt~CMCMCOOOlO\OO
OOOVDOOVOOOOOOOOOO*-!
co^nomo
oo^corofpi
in o
** in
o ^
CM oo ON r^ co ro o
VD O ro VD in in *H ป, ^ ^ป ^. . , .
rooooooTOOiHCMroocnino o VDCOVDONOO
OOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOO ซ-5 rOCM--IVDCO
t-l
ra
S B ซ
H.H. _C i *J-g
jซ; o b 'E -H 'S o
tj rH C S g ^ _3
''i N 3 w O E M S S EH O
97
-------
=ซ=
OOOOOOrHrH
HCOrHCMCOCOOrHOrHrHCMOt>-OOOOOOinOOOOฐ
rH rH rH CM rH rH
I CM CM CM CM
CO CJ^ CO CO rH CO rH rH rH CA rH ^* rH rH rH rH rH rH VD ON rH rH '
rH rHCM (N rHCMrHCMCMCMCMCMCMrHrH CM'
vo o o
inocnooooinoo in
OOO O OCMincOOOrHOCMininCMrHOVO O in <
4c CN ro o '
r^ c? co ^^ ^^ OQ OQ ^^ ^p ^^ cs '
....*ซ . * *
orปcrปrH o oinoovocMO
O CM O
in rH
10
s
rH
O
ro CN r- ro ro in in
O CM
CM
O O CM
CTv in rH
*|c
O 00 CM I**
r-i CM
O
O O r- CM
2 * * S o 15 3
o
oo
in o
inmo
VD O
VO rH rH
O O O O OO O
mm in
CM
O Oi rH
VD
o CM ^* ^3* *^ o o in o P* o o O1 o% o o o in o o o ^
coining o oooooooooooooi-finorHOoooT
00 rH
f-
ro
I
1
a
3i&8
*< -H v _j
d i * 3
ซ *--r3 "5
feo S
o
o
rHCMCM^COCCrH
co
rH
O rH CM *3* If) 00
CM CM CM CM CM CM
rH rH rH rH rH rH
98
-------
=ซ=KOCbOOOOrHrHrHCOrHCMfOOOOrHOrHrHCMOr^OOOOOOinooOO
H rH rH rH CM rH rH
CM CM CM CM
O O O\ 00 f _ .
rH rH CM CM
O rH rH rH CTt rH ^1* rH rH rH rH *H rH
rHCMrHCMCMCMCMCMCM
CMซ-I CM
VO O O O
00 t-l W O
n oo oo CM
CM
O O
O O
* . * * .
O O
O O CO rH
in
CM
incr*
ro
CM
^3* ^ cri in , o
oo r^ ^D ro ^^
. . . .** .* *
CM
CM CM O O VD
CM 00
in
CM
CMCM
CM
ซ3
CO rH CM
o
o
o
o
O
cn
O
o
O VO
co
in CM
in in
OCMrHOCMOO'3lOQVฃ>crปf"">C'lOCMOinOO
COCM inm o cMinr<-u")cri*3irHino
COrH ^3* rH r~-inrHO*3.,
oinin'r o onoooooooooooorHor^rHo
U O
s
'saais
o b
!
1
g^ifii-pJ
t-H -r-l
fa g
(0 CM >fi T3 S 45
ปH ซ O -H O U
'CMfiQiHlOOJE
rH^CM-g^^fl
ejr6^SUfiS
S
6
B
S:
^ ^ -^
(U
jH
W 15
&
ซ?s i I
-------
to
in t^- vo vo ป3< co
t-HvoinooincTio
ooooomooT-)OrHoocoor--o
co in
CM
H
T-) CM
CM 00
CO
VD
O O O O O O O
OOO
o
-------
=8=
O OO O ^J1 ij O O O O
ปH CM
oo
CM CMCMO'a'CyiOt-ICMO
(TiT-|lฃ>COrHCOVDr^ซHO.-IOOIฃ>COCO
vo e CD vo ro in o ro - cs CM o CD oo -v CM
CM CM cr o o
OO
O
o co o oo
o o co o o
o H
vo o 5 CM o= o o u> H g
r-
CM
J>
to
a
VD
CMinซH
CM O *-) in VD
o o in ro co vo
o o in CM ro n.'o< m in p*. o oo ซ-i *N
00 fO i-l r-i
o
in
ro
CM
CM
vo ro I* CD o o o o o o rH o in 1-1 rH o S S o o In o
cn o
CM
in rป oo
o ii CM ^r in oo
CM CM CM CM CM CM
101
-------
CO 00 00 00 O
OOCMOOr~-OOOVOT-)iHCOOTjซCOCOCOrHOOCOCMinOOCOCOOO
tn o o o
co vo r~ o
o 00 en CM o
rป CM
vo
en
CM
moo rป- o o CM CM oinr-invocncoor;coฃ-5<
oocooocMCMOcooofoo'ffininincMTpc'vooin'sjo
oocMooooooooT-fovovococoocriT-ioocNioco'H
OOOOOinOOOOOCnOOOOOOOOOOrHVOfOVO
co
moo
o r- CM CM ocovo
-------
O O O O CO
*=
CO 00 00 00 O
vo in o o o
CM m vo f- o
00 00 CT> CM O
CM CM
-ซ-..
o o T-I o o
m o o vo vo
en o o oo co
mm vo in
OOVDOOHOOi-lOO
ซH CM
O CM VD
CM
CM
O O
CTi
CM CM
CM
"* vo i-t in o
r^ n in in o
Gt OO Cft t**- O
CM CM
oo
OOiHOO
o o o
i-Hot^vovo
COOCMOOOO
o
O
in
ino
oovooo^roorooovoocnvqvocftoooinpo pyin in 2
"~ " < CM iI
oo
CM
in
oo o ซH 25
CM n CM
CT>
CM
J>
E-l
O O ^ O
rH CM O *ป O
r^ cn o t-i o
VO t-l CO
oo
oo^sroo
OOVOOO
voovovo
(N o m oo oo
CTlOrHOO
in
incr(
oovo
in
oo
O
ป-IV0VOCM
VOVO
o en
CM
^
o
C3
CM
in
CM in o o o
vo en oo o o
T-I vo oo o o
o
OOrOOOOOOOOOinOVOi-IOHOCMOOO
*~l fI T-1
CM
^-~
!
Sic
JS
m
1
13 _ .
!
B
6 B a S ^ S -"
^^&BS ซ^
fi 7 ^ fi 93 B- Q -S
&^5
^
llฃgi
vo
VD
o r-i CM ^ in oo
CM CM CM CM CM CM
103
-------
OOOOOOT-)OOrHrHrHrHrHCMOOCM
OO*3'OCNICMOOOOOOOOOrOO OO O
in o o
o r- in
VO CO Ol
m
vo
CM
o oooo o
o o o o o o
* ** ....** . *
o o o o o o
oomoinomo o
oorHro*3o*9i
oo
m
-^
oo
CM
in CM r-
O O O
m
ฃ
oor~-'3< o oooo o
O\ f- O O OOOO O
....** ** ....** .*
CD r-- cy> TJซ o oooo o
ro CM
ro
en
vor-iroforoocMinin
inr-
ooin
^
oo
o o o
CM i-< O
CM CO O CO
r- r-t ro
CM
CM
CMOOrHOVOOOrOVOO-tfrOinOrHCOOVO'SigC;
CM
o
o
. * *
o
o o o o
o o o o
0000
' * *
o
o
*
o
ooerioSomo o o
oominSooinin OซH o 2_
incoot-^o ooooooooooooooooo
rorOOOf*coOOC3O>OVDซ5'*VDOOCOCST-)
rH O O O
in vo in o
. ... *
r- t-> en CM
CM
o
o
. *
o
oooo
oooo
. . . 4c
OOOO
o o
ooerir~oooinoo
oo
oo
ooo^roo
oo
r-o
CM
Oi ป-) CO i-l
O H
,CM 0
00
i-HiHซ-lrHrH
CM CM
CMCMCMCM
104
-------
RAW WASTE: (BATING OF COPPER (mg/m2)
AVERAGE DAILY VALUES #
6
11
14
15
23
25
29
44
45
48
85
86
87
114
M 115
o 117
01 J-x/
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
)
Flow, 1/m
Minimum pH
Maximum pH
Temperature Deg C
Carbon tetrachloride
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
1,1, 2-Trichloroethane
1, 1, 2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Chloroform
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1, 1-Dichloroethylene
Methylene chloride
Methyl chloride
Dichlorobronomethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium, Total
Chromium, Hexavalent
Copper
Cyanide, Total
Cyanide Amn. to Chlor.
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluorides
Iron
Manganese
Phenols, Total
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended Solids
MINIMUM
0.168
7.60
9.50
22.00
*
*
0.00
*
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
*
*
0.00
*
0.271
0.639
0.002
0.463
0.505
0.000
1.683
0.285
0.259
11.21
3.366
0.034
0.180
16.16
3.332
5.72
4.594
1.050
0.00
5.19
0.601
8.39
71600.
MAXIMUM
5.19
8.20
10.10
38.00
*
*
0.00
*
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
*
*
0.00
*
16.92
1.761
0.306
1.348
2.642
0.000
30.49
0.285
0.259
74.0
205.5
3.722
822.
944.
268.4
319.0
120.8
494.9
0.00
11.95
2328.
473.7
393800.
MEAN
3.595
7.98
9.77
24.04
*
*
0.00
*
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
*
*
0.00
*
8.81
1.200
0.151
0.801
1.417
0.000
21.17
0.285
0.259
32.54
149.8
2.449
379.2
566.
192.3
199.5
70.1
309.7
0.00
8.57
1003.
178.0
205500.
MEDIAN
4.514
8.05
9.70
24.50
*
*
0.00
*
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
*
*
0.00
*
9.02
1.200
0.147
0.696
1.261
0.000
26.26
0.285
0.259
22.45
195.2
3.021
347.3
653.
248.7
236.7
77.5
371.4
0.00
8.57
843.
51.9
15110.
PTS
4
4
3
4
1
1
0
2
4
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
1
4
2
3
4
4
0
4
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
2
4
3
3
#
ZEROS
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
0
0
2
1
0
0
4
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
ฃ0.01 mg/1
-------
TABLE V-32
TOTAL & DISSOLVED METALS ANALYSIS
STEEL SUBCATEGORY
Coating Waste Stream
PARAMETER
pH range
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Titanium
Zinc
TOTAL mg/1
11.2-11.5
136.00
14.10
4.690
10.40
1.80
39.40
46.70
16.30
28.50
300.00
49.10
DISSOLVED mg/1
0.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.019
0.029
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.017
106
-------
TABLE V-33
TOTAL & DISSOLVED METALS ANALYSIS
CAST IRON SUBCATEGORY
Coating Waste Stream
PARAMETER
pH range
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cobalt
Iron
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
TOTAL mg/1
10.3-10.5
254.0
2.930
7.860
18.900
135.00
16.600
0.710
DISSOLVED mg/1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.007
2.10
0.0
0.011
107
-------
TABLE V-34
TOTAL & DISSOLVED METALS ANALYSIS
ALUMINUM SUBCATEGORY
PARAMETER
Coating Waste Stream
TOTAL mg/1
pH Range
Aluminum
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium, total
Iron
Lead
Selenium
Titanium
Zinc
9.2-9.5
0.86
0.110
54.00
0.024
0.180
28.30
7.070
17.50
0.30
DISSOLVED mg/1
0.0
0.0
0.003
0.008
0.0
0.0
0.07
0.0
0.010
108
-------
TABLE V-35
TOTAL & DISSOLVED METALS ANALYSIS
COPPER SUBCATEGORY
Coating Waste Stream
PARAMETER
pH range
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium, total
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Titanium
Zinc
TOTAL mg/1
8.
196.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
64.
7.
28.
4.
118.
49.
0.
555.
196.
0-10.1
00
350
420
035
220
630
00
070
80
82
00
00
810
00
00
DISSOLVED mg/1
0.49
0.27
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.30
0.016
0.028
0.12
0.0
0.043
0.026
0.0
0.0
0.018
109
-------
TABLE V-36
SHORT TERM LEACHING CHARACTERISTICS
OF COATING WASTEWATER
Dissolved Parameter Analysis
PARAMETER
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
CONCENTRATION (mg/1)
pH=4 PH=7
0.70
<1
19.0
1.13
110
1.38
1
24.8
47.0
26.1
0.00
<1
2.68
<1
50
1.58
4.70
pH=10
<1
0.00
<1
<1
<1
13
110
', d!,1 .1| 'i '' ;J|,.,
..hiiii'i'ijijAsi ;;; allLiiiiiii-i.!:,
-------
TABLE V-37
TOXIC METALS DISCHARGED FROM THE
COATING WASTE STREAM PER YEAR
Parameter
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Ibs/yr Discharged
8,000
2,200
1,600
425
6,000
3,000
16,500
225
100,000
Fraction of
Total Metals
Discharged
(Percent)
5.8
1.59
1.16
0.31
4.35
2.17
11.96
0.16
72.49
Total
137,950 Ibs/yr
111
-------
TABLE V-38
RAW WASTE: ALKALINE CLEANING OF STEEL (mg/1)
Flow, I/day
Minimum pH
Maximum pH
Temperature Deg C
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium, Total
Chromium, Hexavalent
120 Copper
121 Cyanide, Total
Cyanide Amn. to Chlor.
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
; Cobalt
Fluorides
Iron
Manganese
Phenols, Total
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended Solids
AVERAGE DAILY VALUES
MINIMUM
1635.
2.000
4.500
28.85
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.004
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.014
0.003
0.013
0.081
0.001
0.230
0.028
0.005
0.006
0.290
0.000
3.000
6.00
MAXIMUM MEAN
122000.
11.20
11.70
75.0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.084
0.260
0.000
0.222
0.000
0.000
0.000
25.00
0.210
0.810
3.150
0.110
1.811
1500.
4.480
0.690
92.4
0.000
63.0
649.
47240.
7.24
8.46
44.78
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.036
0.047
0.000
0.063
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.585
0.107
0.090
0.426
0.056
0.802
89.9
0.497
0.085
14.90
0.000
16.94
139.3
MEDIAN
30280.
7.65
8.50
37.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.018
0.010
0.000
0.040
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.030
0.107
0.037
0.165
0.056
0.780
1.56
0.185
0.029
3.96
0.000
6.00
44.50
#
PTS
21
18
20
20
0
0
0
3
9
0
19
0
0
0
7
2
,,18
16
2
21
18
14
19
18
0
11
20
ZEROS
0
0
0
0
21
21
21
18
12
21
2
8
8
21
12
19
2 '
5 :
19 -
0
0
5
1
1
21
0
0
-------
TABLE V-39
RAW WASTE: ALKALINE CLEANING OF STEEL (mg/m2)
AVERAGE DAILY VALUES
oo
Flow, 1/m
Minimum pH
Maximum pH
Temperature Deg C
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
119 Chrcmium, Total
Chromium, Hexavalent
120 Copper
121 Cyanide, Total
Cyanide Amn. to Chlor.
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluorides
Iron
Manganese
Phenols, Total
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended Solids
MINIMUM
0.918
2.000
4.500
28.85
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.021
0.006
0.000
0.029
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.013
0.003
0.018
0.078
0.007
1.021
0.255
0.090
0.014
1.395
0.000
27.84
15.60
MAXIMUM
122.7
11.20
11.70
75.0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.195
2.883
0.000
1.237
0.000
0.000
0.000
276.1
2.329
3.350
64.8
1.220
115.3
16630.
49.68
4.039
1212.
0.000
187.4
3614.
MEAN
23.40
7.24
8.46
44.78
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.091
0.532
0.000
0.400
0.000
0.000
0.000
39.60
1.166
0.933
9.50
0.614
18.49
995.
4.674
0.946
206.2
0.000
69.2
1334.
MEDIAN
10.42
7.65
8.50
37.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.057
0.046
0.000
0.2380
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.086
1.166
0.509
1.972
0.614
5.252
7.70
1.077
0.633
56.7
0.000
53.2
991.
#
PTS
21
18
20
20
0
0
0
3
9
0
19
0
0
0
7
2
18
16
2
21
18
14
19
18
0
11
20
#
ZEROS
0
0
0
0
21
21
21
18
12
21
2
8
8
21
12
19
2
5
19
0
0
5
1
1
21
0
0
-------
TABLE V-40
RAW WASTE: ACID ETCH OF STEEL (Rig/1)
Flow, I/day
Minimum pH
Maximum pH
Temperature Deg C
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
119 Chrcmium, Total
Chronium, Hexavalent
120 Copper
121 Cyanide, Total
Cyanide Aim. to Chlor.
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 - Selenium
128; Zinc ,,
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluorides
Iron
Manganese
Phenols, Total
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended Solids
AVERAGE DAILY VALUES
MINIMUM
556.
2.000
2.000
20.70
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.014
0.011
0.000
0.006
0.000
0.000
0.050
0.087
0.210
0,017
0.054
0.017
0.140
13.20
0.058
0.005
0.560
0.050
1.000
1.900
MAXIMUM
56200.
6.80
7.50
56.0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.014
3.086
0.000
0.380
0.000
0.000
0.130
25.00
0.210
0,250
3.150
0.380
1.050
10200.
53.0
0.095
12.00
0.050
17.00
314.0
MEAN
23720.
2.430
3.317
33.78
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.014
0.592
0.000
0.075
0.000
0.000
0.085
5.06
0.210
0,106
0.400
0.114
0.576
2144.
8.83
0.379
7.00
0.050
4.530
32.04
MEDIAN
19620.
2.100
2.850
35.0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.014
0.094
0.000
0.055
0.000
0.000
0.085
2.970
0.210
0.091
0.200
0.050
0.720
1280.
2.925
0.029
7.70
0.050
3.500
10.00
I
PTS
21
20
18
20
0
0
0
1
21
0
21
0
0
5
17
1
21
15
18
21
21
20
15
9
1
10
19
f
ZEROS
0
0
0
0
21
21
21
20
0
21
0
7
7
16
4
20
0
6
3
0
0
1
4
0
20
0
0
-------
TABLE V-41
RAW WASTE: ACID ETCH OF STEEL (mg/m2)
AVERAGE DAILY VALUES
Flow, 1/m
Minimum pH
Maximum pH
Temperature Deg C
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
119 Chronium, Total
Chromium, Hexavalent
120 Copper
121 Cyanide, Total
Cyanide Amn. to Chlor.
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluorides
Iron
Manganese
Phenols, Total
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended Solids
MINIMUM.
0.125
2.000
2.000
20.70
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.711
0.039
0.000
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.194
1.279
1.317
0.007
0.007
0.026
0.108
36.79
0.162
0.003
1.561
6.72
0.502
0.251
MAXIMUM
134.4
6.80
7.50
56.0
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.711
7.70
0.000
5.94
0.000
0.000
0.965
156.2
1.317
20.78
423.4
1.980
40.49
17810.
67.2
12.10
431.0
6.72
806.
1970.
MEAN
21.44
2.430
3.317
33.78
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.711
2.033
0.000
1.163
0.000
0.000
0.466
29.76
1.317
2.351
32.46
0.558
10.32
6510.
20.51
1.478
229.5
6.72
101.5
334.0
MEDIAN
6.27
2.100
2.850
35.0
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.711
0.742
0.000
0.441
0.000
0.000
0.425
26.31
1.317
0.616
1.198
0.431
4.642
5460.
14.53
0.220
176.9
6.72
8.18
75.3
PTS
21
20
18
20
0
0
0
1
21
0
21
0
0
5
17
1
21
15
18
21
21
20
15
9
1
10
19
#
ZEROS
0
0
0
0
21
21
21
20
0
21
0
7
7
16
4
20
0
6
3
0
0
1
4
0
20
0
0
-------
TABLE V-42
RAW WASTE: NICKEL FLASH ON STEEL (mg/1)
AVERAGE DAILY VALUES
Flow, I/day
Minimum pH
Maximum pH
Temperature Deg C
114 Antijtony
115 Arsenic
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium, Total
Chrcmium, Hexavalent
120 Copper
121 Cyanide, Total
Cyanide Aim. to Chlor.
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
126 Silver
:128 Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
^ Fluorides
Iron
Manqanese
Phenols, Total
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended Solids
MINIMUM
19080.
2.000
2.100
20.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.012
0.019
0.000
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.900
0.210
0.008
0.036
0.035
0.010
0.270
56.7
0.270
0.008
1.130
0.000
1.000
2.000
MAXIMUM
31190.
3.900
6.20
67.3
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.012
0.260
0.000
0.079
0.000
0.000
0.000
281.0
0.210
0.054
1.310
0.330
0.460
0.820
1500.
7.56
0.095
8.32
0.000
18.00
314.0
MEAN
25240.
2.573
3.400
37.33
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.012
0.088
0.000
0.033
0.000
0.000
0.000
76.3
0.210
0.031
0.201
0.190
0.175
0.551
642:
3.227
0.036
4.507
0.000
5.11
55.7
MEDIAN
24830.
2.300
3.100
31.10
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.012
0.055
0.000
0.019
0.000
0.000
0.000
17.05
0.210
0.031
0,076
0.180
0.081
0.563
492.5
2.995
0.029
4.420
0.000
3.000
25.50
PTS
12
11
9
11
0
0
0
1
12
0
11
0
0
0
12
1
2
12
6
12
12
12
12
8
6
0
7
10
ZEROS
0
0
0
0
12
12
12
11
0
12
1
7
7
12
0
11
1
0
6
0
0
0
0
2
0
12
0
0
-------
Plow, I/in
Minimum pH
Maximum pH
Temperature Deg C
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium, Total
Chronium, Hexavalent
120 Copper
121 Cyanide, Total
Cyanide Amn. to Chlor.
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluorides
Iron
Phenols, Total
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended Solids
TABLE V- 43
RAW WASTE: NICKEL FLASH ON STEEL (rag/m2)
AVERAGE DAILY VALUES
MINIMUM
0.3210
2.000
2.100
20.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.049
0.012
0.000
0.006
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.42
0.732
0.016
0.122
0.023
0.145
210.4
1.702
0.008
16.08
0.000
1.927
12.93
MAXIMUM
25.58
3.900
6.20
67.3
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.049
0.906
0.000
0.358
0.000
0.000
0.000
461.5
0.732
5.40
6.26
1.895
17.90
5225.
19.61
0.844
42.73
0.000
12.36
1094.
MEAN
6.88
2.573
3.400
37.33
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.049
0.390
0.000
0.140
0.000
0.000
0.000
145.0
0.732
1.160
2.871
0.604
4.754
1851.
7.28
0.206
25.44
0.000
6.69
169.9
MEDIAN
3.358
2.300
3.100
31.10
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.049
0.373
0.000
0.165
0.000
0.000
0.000
88.5
0.732
0.359
2.745
0.251
1.480
828.
4.157
0.104
22.38
0.000
5.78
38.34
PTS
12
11
9
11
0
0
0
1
12
0
11
0
0
0
12
1
12
6
12
12
12
12
8
6
0
7
10
#
ZEROS
0
0
0
0
12
12
12
11
0
12
1
7
7
12
0
11
0
6
0
0
0
0
2
0
12
0
0
-------
TABLE V-44
RAW WASTE: NEUTRALIZATION OF STEEL (mg/1)
AVERAGE DAILY VALUES
Flow, I/day
Minimum pH
Maximum pH
Temperature Deg C
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium, Total
Chromium, Hexavalent
120 Copper
121 Cyanide, Total
Cyanide Amn. to Chlor.
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluorides
Iron
; Manganese
; Phenols, Total
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended Solids
MINIMUM
999.
6.00
7.20
8.50
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.012
0.000
0.010
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.075
0.000
0.009
0.042
0.000
0.320
1.810
0.016
0.004
0.040
0.000
1.000
8.00
MAXIMUM
19833.
9.60
9.70
70.0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.03222
0.000
0.014
0.000
0.000
0.000
9.45
0.000
0.0247
0.340
0.000
1.050
43.74
0.2512
0.495
7.50
0.000
3.800
57.0
MEAN
14069.
8.10
8.73
38.65
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.02474
0.000
0.01133
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.716
0.000
0.0131
0.191
0.000
0.686
12.70
0.0629
0.1003
1.733
0.000
2.683
30.17
MEDIAN
15140.
8.50
9.50
42.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.030
0.000
0.010
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.320
0.000
0=011 , >
0.191 * v
0.000 : -
0.860
6.63
0.029
0.0195
0.595
0.000
3.000
25.50
f
PTS
8
7
7
7
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
7
0
7
2
0
7
7
7
6
6
0
6
6
#
ZEROS
0
0
0
0
7
7
7
7
4
7
4
6
6
7
0
7
0
5
7
0
0
0
0
1
7
0
0
-------
TABLE V-45
RAW WASTE: NEUTRALIZATICN OF STEEL (mg/m )
t>
i>
-------
TABLE V-46
RAW WASTE: ALKALINE CLEANING OP ALUMINUM (mg/1)
Flow, I/day
Minimum pH
Maximum pH
Temperature Deg C
66 Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)
Phthalate
69 Di-n-octyl phthalate
86 Toluene
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium, Total
Chromium, Hexavalent
120 Copper
121 Cyanide, Total
Cyanide Amn. to Chlor.
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 . Selenium
128 ; Zinc
Aluminum
Barium
Cobalt
Fluorides
Iron
Manganese
Phenols, Total
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended Solids
AVERAGE DAILY VALUES
MINIMUM
19200. -
6.30
7.90
18.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.007
0.000
0.021
0.015
0.015
0.040
0.000
0,000
0.019
0.680
0.000
0.000
0.720
0.013
0.019
0.005
0.410
0.000
3.000
1.000
MAXIMUM
216700.
9.50
10.40
36.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.018
0.000
0.056
0.176
0.176
4.310
0.000
0,000
0.540
26.00
0.000
0.000
0.980
0.330
0.180
0.016
24.30
0.000
11.00
181.0
MEAN
130900.
8.00
9.35
24.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.012
0.000
0.038
0.095
0.095
2.175
0.000
0,000
0.210
6.64
0.000
0.000
0.880
0.097
0.111
0.008
8.49
0.000
6.85
39.87
MEDIAN
168700. - =
7.93
9.60
23.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.012
0.000
0.038
0.095
O.;095
2.175
0.000:
0,>000
0.170:
4.sm:
0.000
0.000
0.910:
0.059
0.135
0.007
9.40
0.000
6.70
17.00
1
PTS
8
8
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
2
2
2
2
0
0
, 7
7
0
0
8
8
3
7
8
0
4
8
t
ZEROS
0
0
0
0
8
8
3
8
8
8
7
6
8
6
6
6
6
8
8
1 '"
1
8
8
0
0
5
1
0
8
4
0
-------
TABLE V-47
2
RAW WASTE: ALKALINE CLEANING OF ALUMINUM (mg/m )
AVERAGE DAILY VALUES
Flow, 1/m
Minimum pH
Maximum pH
Temperature Deg C
66 Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)
Phthalate
69 Di-n-octyl phthalate
86 Toluene
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium, Total
Chromium, Hexavalent
120 Copper
121 Cyanide, Total
Cyanide Amn. to Chlor.
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Barium
Cobalt
Fluprides
Iron
Manganese
Fhenols, Total
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended Solids
MINIMUM
20.16
6.30
7.90
18.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.150
0.350
0.000
0.878
0.302
0.302
4.951
0.000
0.000
0.464
16.33
0.000
0.000
18.54
0.383
0.864
0.121
9.68
0.000
94.4
20.16
MAXIMUM
160.1
9.50
10.40
36.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.150
0.753
0.000
2.799
21.79
21.79
86.9
0.000
0.000
86.5
1083.
0.000
0.000
156.9
16.50
7.53
1.281
1681.
0.000
469.9
9050.
MEAN
61.8
8.00
9.35
24.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.150
0.551
0.000
1.839
11.04
11.04
45.91
0.000
0.000
20.20
276.5
o.ooo -
0.000
56.1
6.53
5.05
0.530
524.
0.000
253.4
2187.
MEDIAN
43.66
7.93
9.60
23.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.150
0.551
0.000
1.839
11.04
11.04
45.91
0.000
0.000
13.19
205.2
0.000
0.000
35.20
3.778
6.75
0.318
379.6
0.000
224.8
1274.
PTS
8
8
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
2
2
2
2
0
0
7
7
0
0
8
8
3
7
8
0
4
8
ZEROS
0
0
0
0
8
8
3
8
8
8
7
6
8
6
6
6
6
8
8
1
1
8
8
0
0
5
1
0
8
4
0
-------
TABLE V-48
WftSTE: AdD ETCH OF COPPER (rng/1)
ro
AVERAGE DAILY VALUES
6
11
14
15
23
29
44
45
48
85
86
87
114
115
117
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Plow, I/day
Minimum pH
Maximum pH
Temperature Deg C
Carbon tetrachloride
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane
1,1, 2-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Chloroform
1, 1-Dichloroethylene
Methylene chloride
Methyl chloride
Dichlorobronomethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium, Total
Chromium, Hexavalent
Copper
Cyanide, Total
Cyanide Aim. to Chlor.
Lead
; Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluorides
Iron
Manganese
Phenols, Total
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended Solids
* <0.01 mq/1
MINIMUM
6140.
1.800
6.50
19.00
0.00
*
0.00
*
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
*
0.00
0.00
*
0.000
0.00011
0.000
0.0220
0.008
0.000
9.68
0.000
0.000
0.770
0.1199
0.00011
0.0490
0.0002
0.000
0.110
0.150
0.010
0.006
0.520
0.000
196.0
14.00
MAXIMUM
7270.
6.50
6.60
28.00
0.00
*
0.00
*
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
*
0.00
0.00
*
0.000
0.00011
0.000
0.022
0.060
0.000
815.
0.000
0.000
0.770
0.1199
0.00011
2.400
0.170
0.000
0.120
51.3
0.260
0.006
0.520
0.000
196.0
24.00
MEAN
6890.
4.833
6.55
21.67
0.00
*
0.00
*
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
*
0.00
0.00
*
0.000
0.00011
0.000
0.022
0.02566
0.000
278.7
0.000
0.000
0.770
0.1199
0.00011
0.890
0.0734
0.000
0.115
27.41
0.0963
0.006
0.520
0.000
196.0
19.00
MEDIAN
7270.
6.20
6.55
19.00
0.00
*
0.00
*
*
0.00 .
0.00
0.00
*
0.00
0.00
*
0.000
0.00011
0.000
0.022
0.009
0.000
12.00
0.000
0.000
0.770 ;
0.1199
0.00011
0.220
0.050
0.000
0.115
30.78
0.019
0.006
0.520
0.000
196.0
19.00
*
PTS
3
3
2
3
0
- 1
0
2
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
3
0
3
0
0
1
1
1
3
3
0
2
3
3
1
1
0
- " 1 i
; 2 ^ ; | -
. -_ ,1 g! ; >
: " -< -"- - '-
f
ZEROS
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
3
2
0
3
2
3
2
0
3
0
2
1
2
2
2
0 -
0
3
0
0
0
1
1 >
3
0 r
o ?i:
in
-------
PAW WASTE
TABLE V- 4 9
: ACID ETCH OF COPPER (mg/m2)
AVERAGE DAILY VALUES
6
11
14
15
23
29
44
45
48
85
86
87
114
115
'-' 117
ro LJ-'
w 118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
o
Flow, 1/m
Minimum pH
Maximum pH
Temperature Deg C
Carbon tetrachloride
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
1,1, 2-Trichloroethane
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Chloroform
1, 1-Dichloroethylene
Methylene chloride
Methyl chloride
Dichlorcforonome thane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium, Total
Chromium, Hexavalent
Copper
Cyanide, Total
Cyanide Arm. to Chlor.
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluorides
Iron
Manganese
Phenols, Total
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended Solids
MINIMUM
55.2
1.800
6.50
19.00
0.00
*
0.00
*
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.012
0.00
0.00
0.332
0.000
0.010
0.000
1.922
0.4420
0.000
535.
0.000
0.000
67.2
10.48
0.010
2.707
0.018
0.000
6.52
8.89
0.593
0.356
28.73
0.000
10830.
773.
MAXIMUM
87.4
6.50
6.60
28.00
0.00
*
0.00
*
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.024
0.00
0.00
0.332
0.000
0.010
0.000
1.922
5.24
0.000
71200.
0.000
0.000
67.2
10.48
0.010
209.7
10.07
0.000
6.63
2834.
22.70
0.356
28.73
0.000
10830.
1422.
MEAN
67.3
4.833
6.55
21.67
0.00
*
0.00
*
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.018
0.00
0.00
0.332
0.000
0.010
0.000
1.922
2.072
0.000
24130.
0.000
0.000
67.2
10.48
0.010
75.1
4.285
0.000
6.57
1844.
8.12
0.356
28.73
0.000
10830.
1098.
MEDIAN
59.26
6.20
6.55
19.00
0.00
*
0.00
*
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.018
0.00
0.00
0.332
0.000
0.010
0.000
1.922
0.533
0.000
711.
0.000
0.000
67.2
10.48
0.010
13.04
2.762
0.000
6.57
2689.
1.050
0.356
28.73
0.000
10830.
1098.
PTS
3
3
2
3
0
1
0
2
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
3
0
3
0
0
1
1
1
3
3
0
2
3
3
1
1
0
1
2
ZEROS
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
3
2
0
3
2
3
2
0
3
0
2
1
2
2
2
0
0
3
0
0
0
1
1
3
0
0
< 0.01 mg/1
-------
TABLE V-50
:
PARAMETER
SAMPLED PILOTS
EFFUJENT CONCENTRATION (ng/1)
STEEL SOBCATEGCKir
PLANT * 18538
DAY 2 DMT 3
PLANT * 40063
DMT 1 DAY 2
HVY 31
PLANT * 47033
DAY 1 DAY 2
TREATMENT IN PLACE
Equalization
Chromium Reduction
Clarification/Settling
Sludge Dewatering
X
X
X
-indicates no data available.
*indicates effluent contains pollutants from other Point Source Categories.
DRY 3
Aluminum
Antinony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium, Total
Cbbalt
Copper
fluoride
Iron ' *" i
lead
Manganese
Nickel
Phenols, Total
Phosphorus .- " "
Selenium
Titanium 1
zinc ; " ; .... ;
Oil and Grease *<* r"<
Total Suspended Solids
PH V
0.0
-
_
0.003
0.0
0.008
4.1
2.33
0
0.009
0.57
0.053
0.3
0
0.0
0.016
2.0
0
8.0-8.6
0.0
-
.
0
0.004
0.0
0
3.7
0.063
0
0.005
0.190
0.04
0
0.0
0.023
3.0 "
1.0
- 7.2-7.8
9
0.0
0.10
_
_
0
.11
0.006
27
0.063
0
0.470
1.33
0.08
0.4
0
0.0
0.022
25
37
7.2-8.4
0.0
-
0
0
0
0.08
0.009
2.3
0.850
0
0.350
1.04
0.012
1.46
0.0
0.032
12
16
7.0-8.2
0.0
0.10
0
0
0.007
.250
.011
22.5
2.63
0
0.41
1.98
0.155
0.41
0.0
0.25
25
4
6.9-8.5
.350
-
0
0.008
0
0.0
0.003
26
.49
0
0.12
0
0.04
0.24
0
0.0
0.027
8
9.0
8.3-9.8
.350
0
0
0.005
-
0.0
0.003
22
0.57
0.012
0
0.01
1.04
0
0.0
0.044
: 2
13
7.6-8.1
.350
0
0
0.004
- ;'
0.0
-'- 0.003"
21.5 .1
0.58 ;"
' - 0.120*
o --
0.010
0.38 ,
-. ' ' " 0 L : " T
0.0
0.010*
''& 2.4
13
tit- V. 8-8. 2; a/
.350
1.0
0.26
0.019
0.055
0.016
14.5
; 10.1
0
0.155
0.86
0.015
2.38
0.0
0.072
35
3.0-8.7
.550
0
=
0.12
0.019
.260
0.031
14.5
9.73
0
0.43
0.770
0.017
2.21
ซ_
.220
0.230
90.0
; 4. 9-6.5 --
.410
0
0.041
0.023
.120
0.028
14.0
21.7
0
0.20
0.83 ,
0.013
2.57
0.0
0.061
- -
50
3.3-8.0-
-------
TABLE V-50 (Gont)
SAMPLED PLANES
EFFLUENT CX5NCENTRATION (mg/1)
STEEL SUBCATEGGRY
PLANT 40053
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium, Total
Obbalt
Copper
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Phenols, Total
Phosphorus
Selenium
Titanium
Zinc
Oil and Grease
total Suspended Solids
pH
DAY 1
.300
-
-
0
0.011
0.0
0.056
1.050
180.
0
0.620
3.800
0.019
7.95
0
0.0
0.120
-
3.0
2.1-3.2
DAY 2
0.0
-
-
0
0.014
.029
0.046
0.980
275.
0
1.0
2.970
0.037
11.90
0
0.0
0.130
-
10.0
2.1-3.2
DAY 3
.270
-
-
0
0.012
.036
0.055
0.720
300.
0
1.1
4.620
0.015
12.0
b
. 0.0
0.160
_
141
2.1-3.2
PLANT 40162
DAY 1
1.37
0
0
0.055
0.009
0.0
0.010
2.80
0.050
0
0
0.021
0.048
0.48
0
0.0
0.480
1.0
6.0
7.5-8.9
DAY 2
1.93
0
0
0.011
0.009
0.0
0.013
1.60
0.069
0
0
0
0.012
0.730
0
0.0
0.130
3.0
13.0
8.4-9.4
DAY 3
3.08
0
0.160
0.011
0.0
0.016
2.40
0.600
0
0.010
0.020
0.048
1.10
0
.480
0.088
1.0
18.0
8.4-8.9
PLANT 36030
DAY 1
1.760
0
_
0.079
0.061
.590
0.530
6.80
110.
0.530
1.550
0
0.800
0
4.630
1.790
740.
-
DAY 2 DAY 3
166.
16.3
0.780
0.480
1.330
50.
5.880
66.
770.
5.880
82.0
46.80
0.062
3.0
0.570
970.
257
12.0
60100.
6.2-8.2
210.
3.140
0.520
1.090
1.910
43.5
4.180
100.
1010.
4.180
69.
40.50
7.020
1.190
1025.
279
242.
113300.
6.4-10.5
TREATMENT IN PLACE
Equalization
Chromium Reduction
Clarification/Settling
Sludge Dewatering
-indicates no data available.
indicates effluent contains pollutant from other Point Source Categories.
-------
TABLE V-50 (Gont)
SAMPLED PLANTS
EFFLUENT CONCENTRATICN (mg/1)
STEEL SUBCATEGORY
PARAMETER
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium, Tbtal
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Phenols, Tbtal
Phosphorus
Selenium
Titanium
Zinc
Oil and Grease
Ibtal Suspended Solids
DAY 1
PLANT 15051
DAY 2
2.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
.200
0.1
1.95
100.0
0.2
1.0
1.0
0.0
5.140
0.0
2.0
0.3
1.0
78.0
11.15
0.0
0.0
0.003
0.108
.849
0.156
4.326
81.46
0.978
2.057
5.464
0.0
5.195
0.0
9.407
1.842
0.007
340.575
DAY 3
22.975
1.615
0.0
31.79
10.674
955.63
PLANT 36077
DAY 1
10.0
0.0
..
2.000
.080
.300
.200
..
2.000
2.000
.300
1.000
0.014
1.98
0.0
10.00
5.00
0.0
336.0
7.9-8.4
DAY 2
4.29
4.55
0.0
1.34
0.024
.270
0.115
8.3
1.08
1.57
0.185
0.76
0.006
0.8
0.0
6.66
5.13
7.0
90.
8.4-9.2
DAY 3
8.08
3.4
0.0
2.83
0.0
.300
0.0
13.0
2.39
1.51
0.21
0.71
0.007
1.23
0.37
11.80
26.9
9.0
198.0
8.2-8.6
SAMPLED PLANTS
EFFLUENT CCTXENTRATION (ing/1)
CAST IKON SUBCATEGORY
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
ratal Chromiun
Oobalt
Copper
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Phenols, Obtal
Rmpborus
Selenium
Titanium
Zinc
Tbtal Suspended Solids
pH
IN PLACE
Equalization
Chromium Reduction
aarifioation/Settling
Sludge Dewatering
PLANT 15712
DAY 1
.376
_
_
0.014
0.057
.044
0.024
2.0
0.0
0.49
0.009
0.25
.038
2.06
11.8
.022
0.0
11950
7.9-10.7
DAY 2
244.209
_
2.8
_
0.001
7.585
0.001
2.241
18.408
130.145
0.004
_
.008
.910
^L5.851
_
0.681
16971.363
9.2-10.8
DAY 3
342.873
_
2.401
_
0.0
11.283
0.001
' 2.541
20.222
188.242
0.003
_
.014
.734
161.189
_
0.732
18598.203
9.3-10.5
'M', ,*,.ป!', 'i,,,'!' !.'.!". 1
PLANT 33076
DAY 1
1220.012
6.002
1.872
_
0.74
.118
0.415
22.846
876.272
2.227
_
_
_
9.27
_
14.405
81337.87
11.1-11.4
i, i ' ' !.;
DAY 1
180.
0.41
0.91
46.8
6.61
115.0
37.7
6.05
28.9
42.5
.025
1.5
0.53
54.0
3.6
26999.99
8.3-9.0
. ' i ,
PLANT 40053
DAY 2
95.0
9.57
0.21
8.91
2.45
38.0
52.0
3.03
11.4
22.5
.016
.49
0.43
19.1
95.0
6629.99
8.3-9.0
1 i!.'1'!1!"1 illlil':1:
DAY 3
290.0
-
0.76
1.07
95.0
8.75
105.0
150.0
7.58
65.0
67.0
.019
.940
0.82
102.
645.0
27899.98
8.3-9.0
126
-------
ro
TABLE V-51
SAMPLED PLANTS
EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION (rag/1)
CAST IRON SUBCATEGORY
PARAMETER
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium, Total
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Phenols, Total
Phosphorus
Selenium
Titanium
Zinc
Total Suspended Solids
pH
TREATMENT IN PLACE
Equalization
Chromium Reduction
Clarification/Settling
Sludge Dewatering
PLANT 15712
DAY 1 DAY 2
DAY 3
PLANT 33076
DAY 1
DAY 3
.376
-
0.014
0.057
.044
0.024
2.0
0.0
0.49
0.009
0.25
.038
2.06
11.8
.022
0.0
11950
7.9-10.7
244.209
2.8
-
0.001
7.585
0.001
2.241
18.408
130.145
0.004
-
.008
.910
15.851
-.
0.681
16971.363
9.2-10.8
342.873
-
2.401
-
0.0
11.283
0.001
2.541
20.222
188.242
0.003
-
.014
.734
161.189
-
0.732
18598.203
9.3-10.5
1220.012
6.002
1.872
0.74
.118
0.415
22.846
876.272
2.227
-
-
'
9.27
14.405
81337.87
11.1-11.4
180.
_
_
0.41
0.91
46.8
6.61
115.0
37.7
6.05
28.9
42.5
.025
1.5
0.53
54.0
3.6
26999.99
8.3-9.0
95.0
ซ
_
9.57
0.21
8.91
2.45
38.0
52.0
3.03
11.4
22.5
.016
.49
0.43
19.1
95.0
6629.99
8.3-9.0
290.0
w. '
__
0.76
1.07
95.0
8.75
105.0
150.0
7.58
65.0
67.0
.019
.940
0.82
102.
645.0
27899.98
8.3-9.0
X
-------
TABLE V-52
SAMPLED PLANTS
EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION (rag/1)
AUMINIJM SUBCATEGORY
ro
CO
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic .
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium, Total
Chromium, Hexavalent
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Phenols, Total
Phosphorus
Selenium
Titanium
Zinc
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
PLANT 11045
DAY 1
.381
0.26
.228
0.002
0.003
.092
.910
.506
2.765
.007
.008
0.811
1.824
0.1
3.116
138.025
6.95-8.8
DAY 2
.410
0.154
.250
0.0
0.009
.118
.950
.622
2.733
.007
.013
0.435
0.186
3.484
0.175
3.483
159.812
7.0-8.8
DAY 3
10.450
_
_
.243
3.299
0.014
.040
.936
.252
12.706
.071
.006
4.425
0.345
6.395
0.344
3.184
120.143
8.0-10.4
DAY 1
.200
0.0
0.0
.300
0.9
0.006
0.0
0.0
1.50
0.0
0.5
0.0
_
.009
3.57
0.084
.400
0.07
0.0
5.0
8.7-8.8
PLANT 33077
DAY 2
0.0
0.0
0.0
.200
0.057
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
.038
0.0
0.0
_
0.0
0.89
0.0
0.0
0.54
0.0
0.0
9.4-10.0
PLANT 47051
EftY 3
-0.027
0.0
0.0
.110
0.083
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
.033
0.12 :
0.0
0.0
1.14
0.0
0.0 L
0.57
0.0
33.0 si :
8.9-9..0 :
DAY 1
2.86
-
.340
0.003
0.012
0.0
0.0
.009
.082
.100
0.12
.04
.028
.005
8.93
0.0
0.69
10.0
:303.0
7.0-11.0
DAY 2
8.8
.400
0.024
0.019
0.0
.015
.088
.082
.590
0.17
.130
5.61
0.01
0.0
0.091
172.0
256.0 >;,
7.3-8.5 ,
DAY 3
8.6
~"
0.170
0.0
0.14
0.0
0.0
. .060
1.00
0.390 "
0.0
0.07
.165
0.0
"
0.0
0.078 *
35.0
366.0 J
7.0-11.2
TREATMENT IN PLACE
Equalization
Chromium Seduction
Clarification/Settling X
Sludge Dewatering
-indicates no data available
indicates effluent contains pollutant from other Point Source Categories.
-------
TABLE V-53
SAMPLED PLANTS
EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION (rog/1)
COPPER SUBCATEGORY
PARAMETERS
PLANT
06031
DAY 1
PLANT 36030
DAY 2
DAY 3
ro
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium, Total
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Phenols, Total
Phosphorus
Selenium
Titanium
Tr ichloroethylene
Zinc
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
pH
TREATMENT IN PLACE
Equalization
Chromium Reduction
Clarification/Settling
Sludge Dewatering
.208
0.002
0.081
0.003
0.013
.024
0.751
.345
0,542
0.008
0.025
0.16
.004
.011
0.012
6.0-11.2
1.76
0.0
0.079
0.061
.590
0.53
6.8
110.0
0.085
1.55
0.0
.800
0.0
4.63
1.79
740.0
~
166
16.3
0.78
0.48
1.33
50.0
5.88
66.0
770.0
1.69
82.0
46.8
.062
3.0
0.57
970.
257.0
12.0
60100
6.2-8.2
210
3.14
0.52
1.09
1.91
43.50
4.18
100.0
1010.
4.58
69.0
40.5
_.
7.02
1.19
1025.
279.0
242
113300
6.4-10.5
X
X
-indicates no data available.
-------
TABLE V- 54
RAW WASTE: PREPARATION OF STEEL (mg/1)
86
114
115
117
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
CO
o
Flow . I/day
Minimum pH
Maxijnum pH
Temperature Deg C
Toluene
Antimony
:'Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium, Total
Chromium, Hexavalent
Copper
Cyanide, Total
Cyanide Aim. to Chlor.
-Lead
: Nickel
!:: Selenium
: Zinc
-Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluorides
Iron
Manganese
Phenols, Total
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended Solids
AVERACS DAILY VALUES
MINIMUM
9910.
2.000
5.40
27.43
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00169
0.00742
0.000
0.01944
0.000
0.000
0.01583
0.0751
0.00201
0.02002
0.04577
0.01004
0.2040
0.797
0.00326
0.00667
0.3618
0.04337
1.2746
4.768
MAXIMUM
206500.
6.80
11.70
121.0
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.02307
0.3478
0.000
0.1193
0.000
0.000
0.03537
67.2
0.1898
0.3478
3.150
0.1267
1.250
1357.
6.24
0.4727
14.10
0.04337
44.81
287.9
MEAN
90700.
2.472
8.34
41.57
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00892
0.1088
0.000
0.0574
0.000
0.000
0.02405
14.51
0.0959
0.1002
0.3449
0.0521
0.696
535.
1.938
0.0752
5.43
0.04337
12.35
84.0
MEDIAN
81000.
2.100
9.50
33.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00594
0.0549
0.000
0.4995
0.000 '
0.000
0.0225 ,
1.367
0.0959
0.0811
0.1633
0.0243 i
0.786
.488.5
1.247
0.03426
4.395
0.04337
5.05
32.74
t
PTS
21
18
18
20
0
0
0
0
5
20
0
20
0
0
4
15
> 2
19
-in
-17
20
17
18
17
9
1
10
18
I
ZEROS
0
0
0
0
2
20
20
20
15
0
20
0
7
7
16
3
18
0
3 :
3
0
0
0
1
0
19
0
0
-------
TABLE V-55
RAW WASTE: PREPARATION OF STEEL (mg/m)
Flow . 1/m
Minimum pH
Maximum pH
Temperature Deg C
86 Toluene
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium, Total
Chromium, Hexavalent
120 Copper
121 Cyanide, Total
Cyanide Amn. to Chlor.
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
co Fluorides
""" Iron
Manganese
Phenols, Total
Phosphorus
Txtanium
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended Solids
AVERAGE DAILY VALUES
MINIMUM
1.364
2.000
5.40
27.43
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.021-
0.127
0.000
0.143
0.000
0.000
0.194
10.63
0.003
0.042
0.095
0.093
1.3.70
39.55
0.162
0.104
17.96
6.72
56.3
40.59
MAXIMUM
192.1
6.80
11.70
121.0
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.711
7.70
0.000
6.30
0.000
0.000
0.965
520.
4.377
21.13
488.2
2.340
173.6
31282.
93.4
12.84
808.
6.72
930.
6638.
MEAN
49.37
2.472
8.84
41.57
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.407
2.385
0.000
1.672
0.000
0.000
0.476
162.8
2.190
4.178
38.53
1.013
33.34
9550.
28.80
2.528
371.8
6.72
182.2
1854.
MEDIAN
17.13
2.100
9.50
33.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.057
1.295
0.000
1.004
0.000
0.000
0.374
83.8
2.190
1.850
3.769
0.416
16.85
8390.
22.15
1.700
382.5
6.72
71.1
1380.
#
PTS
21
18
18
20
0
0
0
0
5
20
0
20
0
0
4
15
2
19
17
17
20
17
18
17
9
1
10
18
ZEROS
0
0
0
0
2
20
20
20
15
0
20
0
7
7
16
3
18
0
3
3
0
0
0
1
0
19
0
0
-------
TABLE V-56
RAW WASTE: PREPARATION OP ALUMINUM (mg/1)
GO
ro
Flow I/day
Minimum pH
Maximum pH
Temperature Deg C
66 B2-Ethyhexlphthalate
69 Di-n-octyl phthalate
86 Toluene
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium, Total
Chromium, Hexavalent
120 Copper
121 Cyanide, Total
Cyanide Amn. to Chlor.
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Barium
Cobalt
Fluorides
Iron
Manganese
Phenols, Total
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended Solids
AVERAGE DAILY VALUES
MINIMUM
19200.
6.30
7.90
18.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.007
0.000
0.021
0.015
0.015
0.040
0.000
0.000
0.019
0,680
0.000
0.000
0.720
0.013
0.019
0.005
0.410
0.000
3.000
1.000
MAXIMUM
216700.
9.500
10.40
36.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.018
0.000
0.056
0.176
0.176
4.310
0.000
0.000
0.540
25.90
0.000
0.000
0.980
0.330
0.180
0.016
24.30
0.000
11.00
181.0
MEAN
130900.
8.00
9.35
24.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.012
0.000
0.038
0.095
0.095
2.175
0.000
0.000
0.210
6.64
0.000
0.000
0.880
0.969
0.111
0.008
8.49
0.000
6.85
39.87
MEDIAN
168700.
7.93
9.60
23.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.012
0.000
0.038
0.095
0.095
2.175
0.000
0.000
0.170
4.510
0.000
0.000
0.910
0.059
0.135
0.007
9.40
0.000
6.70
17.00
1
PTS
8
8
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
2
2
2
2
0
0
7
7
0
0
8
8
3
7
8
0
4
8
#
ZEROS
0
0
0
0
8
8
3
8
8
8
7
6
8
6
6
6
6
8
8
1
1
8
8
0
0
5
1
0
8
4
0
-------
TABLE V-57
RAW WASTE: PREPARATION OF ALUMINUM (mg/m2)
AVERAGE DAILY VALUES
CO
CO
Flow
Minimum pH
Maximum pH
Temperature Deg C
66 B2-Ethyhexlphthalate
69 Di-n-octyl phthalate
86 Toluene
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium, Total
Chromium, Hexavalent
120 Copper
121 Cyanide, Total
Cyanide Amn. to Chlor.
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Barium
Cobalt
Fluorides
Iron
Manganese
Phenols, Total
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended Solids
MINIMUM
20.16
6.30
7.90
18.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.150
0.350
0.000
0.878
0.302
0.302
4.95
0.000
0.000
0.464
16.33
0.000
0.000
18.54
0.383
0.864
0.121
9.68
0.000
94.4
20.16
MAXIMUM
160.1
9.50
10.40
36.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.150
0.753
0.000
2.799
21.79
21.79
86.9
0.000
0.000
86.5
1083.
0.000
0.000
156.9
16.50
7.53
1.281
1681.
0.000
469.9
9050.
MEAN
61.8
8.00
9.35
24.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.150
0.551
0.000
1.839
11.04
11.04
45.91
0.000
0.000
20.20
276.5
0.000
0.000
56.1
6.53
5.05
0.530
525.
0.000
253.4
2187.
MEDIAN
43.66
7.93
9.60
23.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.150
0.551
0.000
1.839
11.04
11.04
45.91
0.000
0.000
13.19
205.2
0.000
0.000
35.20
3.778
6.75
0.318
379.6
0.000
224.8
1274.
#
PTS
8
8
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
2
2
2
2
0
0
7
7
0
0
8
8
3
7
8
0
4
8
#
ZEROS
0
0
0
0
8
8
3
8
8
8
7
6
8
6
6
6
6
8
8
1
1
8
8
0
0
5
1
0
8
4
0
-------
TABLE V-58
RAW WASTE: PREPARATION OF (DOPIER (rag/1)
Flow I/day
Minimum pH
Maxijnum pH
Temperature Deg C
6 Carbon tetrachloride
11 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
14 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
15 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
23 Chloroform
29 1,l-Dichloroethylene
44 Methylene chloride
45 Methyl chloride
48 Dichlorobrotiomethane
85 Tetrachloroethylene
86 Toluene
87 Trichloroethylene
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium, Total
Chromium, Hexavalent
120 Copper
121 Cyanide, Total
Cyanide Amn. to Chlor.
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluorides
Iron
Manqanese
Phenols, Total
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended Solids
AVERA(S DAILY VALUES
MINIMUM
6140.
1.800
6.50
19.00
0.00
*
0.00
*
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
*
0.00
0.00
*
0.00
0.00011
0.000
0.022
0.008
0.000
9.68
0.000
0.000
0.770
0.1199
0.00011
0.049
0.0002
0.000
0.110
0.150
0.010
0.006
0.520
0.000
196.0
14.00
MAXIMUM MEAN
7270. 6890.
6.500
6.60
28.00
0.00
*
0.00
*
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
*
0.00
0.00
*
0.00
0.00011
0.000
0.022
0.060
0.000
815.
0.000
0.000
0.770
0.1199
0.0001100
2.400
0.170
0.000
0.120
51.3
0.2599
0.006
0.520
0.000
196.0
24.00
4.833
6.55
21.67
0.00
*
0.00
*
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
*
0.00
0.00
*
0.00
0.00011
0.000
0.022
0.02566
0.000
278.7
0.000
0.000
0.770
0.1199
0.00011
0.890
0.0734
0.000
0.115
27.41
0.0963
0.006
0.520
0.000
196.0
19.00
MEDIAN
7280.
6.20
6.55
19.00
0.00
*
0.00
*
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
*
0.00
0.00
*
0.00
0.00011
0.000
0.022
0.009
0.000
12.00
0.000
0,000
0.770
0.1199 .
0.00011
0.220
0.050
0.000
0.115
30.78
0.019
0.006
0.520
0.000
196.0
; 19.00 \~"-i
1
PTS
3
3
0
1
0
2
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
1
3
0
3
0
0
1
1
1
3
3
0
2
3
3
1
1
0
1
2
f
ZEROS
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
3
2
0
3
2
3
2
0
3
0
2
1
2
2
2
0
0
3
0
0
0
1
1
3
0
0
-------
RAW WASTE:
TABLE V-59
PREPARATION OF COPPER (mg/m2)
AVERAGE DAILY VALUES
Flow 1/rn2
Minimum pH
Maximum pH
Temperature Deg C
6 Carbon tetrachloride
11 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
14 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
15 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
23 Chloroform
29 1 , 1-Dichloroethy lene
44 Methylene chloride
45 Methyl chloride
48 Dichlorobronomethane
85 Tetrachloroethylene
86 Toluene
87 Trichloroethylene
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
119 Chrcmium, Total
Chrcmium, Hexavalent
w 120 Copper
^ 121 Cyanide, Total
Cyanide Amn. to Chlor.
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluorides
Iron
Manganese
Phenols, Total
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended Solids
MINIMUM
55.2
1.800
6.50
19.00
0.00
*
0.00
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.012
0.00
0.00
0.332
0.000
0.010
0.000
1.922
0.4420
0.000
535.
0.000
0.000
67.2
10.48
0.010
2.707
0.018
0.000
6.52
8.89
0.593
0.3560
28.73
0.00
10830.
773.
MAXIMUM
87.4
6.50
6.60
28.00
0.00
*
0.00
*
0.020
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.024
0.00
0.00
0.332
0.000
0.010
0.000
1.922
5.24
0.000
71200.
0.000
0.000
67.2
10.48
0.010
209.7
10.07
0.000
6.63
2834.
22.70
0.3560
28.73
0.00
10830.
1422.
MEAN
67.3
4.833
6.55
21.67
0.00
*
0.00
0.010
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.018
0.00
0.00
0.332
0.000
0.010
0.000
1.922
2.072
0.000
24130.
0.000
0.000
67.2
10.48
0.010
75.1
4.285
0.000
6.57
1844.
8.12
0.3560
28.73
0.00
10830.
1098.
MEDIAN
59 3
JJ * -J
6.20
6 55
w *J*J
19.00
0 00
V \J\J
*
0.00
V \J \J
k
0.010
0 00
V \J\J
0.00
0.00
0.018
0.00
0.00
0.332
0.000
0.010
0.000
1.922
0.533
0.000
711.
0.000
0.000
67.2
10.48
0.010
13.04
2.762
0.000
6.57
2689.
1.050
0.3560
28.73
0 00
w ซ \J \J
10830.
1098.
PTS
j
o
3
>J
o
ฃt
j
J
o
V
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
0,
1
3
0
3
0
0
1
1
1
3
3
0
2
3
3
1
1
n
u
1
2
ZEROS
0
0
1
1
1
0
3
2
0
3
2
3
2
0
3
0
2
1
2
2
2
0
0
3
0
0
1
1
o
.7
0
0
* 10.01 mg/1
-------
TABLE V-60 2
SAMPLED PLANT WATER USE ('l'/m )
Steel Subcategory
Plant ID
15051
18538
33617
36030
36077
40053
40063
41062
47033
Sampling
Day
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Metal
Preparation
96.305
55.020
16.582
23.060
27.276
23.060
1.597
1.364
1.364
15.631
13.490
17.174
17.132
17.132
17.132
9.552
8.447
12.248
141.677
49.633
154.970
109.024*
183.749*
192.136*
34.278
Coating
4.229
8.767
6.232
11.480
16.675
8.438
"::: ' ' '0.797
0.755
0.421
4.914
4.936
3.861
4.472
2.708
5.498
1.271
1.271
1.271
18.939
32.291
35.137
4.221
3.384
8.377
1.184
1.355
3.560
6.807
* Value deleted from
subcategory average.
- No water use associated
:!;;,v"\fith metal' preparation.
136
-------
Plant ID
15712
33076
40053
Plant ID
11045
33077
47051
TABLE V-60 (Con't)
SAMPLED PLANT WATER USE (1/m2)
Cast Iron Subcategory*
Sampling
Day
1
2
3
1
2
3
Metal
Preparation
Coating
0.342
0.273
0.238
0.219
1,
1,
256
256
1.256
0.692
* No water use associated
with metal preparation.
SAMPLED PLANT WATER USE (1/m2)
Aluminum Subcategory
Sampling
Day
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Metal
Preparation
220.155
23.598
41.822
160.119*
139.686*
123.776*
49.998
45.491
29.458
35.09
Coating
51.435*
67.146*
64.012*
15.656
30.869
34.921*
3.406
3.771
1.625
11.07
* Value deleted from
subcategory average,
137
-------
TABLE V-60 (Con't) 2
SAMPLED PLANT FLOW DATA (1/m )
Copper Subcategory
Plant ID
06031
36030
Sampling
Day
1
2
3
Metal
Preparation
87.357
59.26
55.243
67.29
Coating
0.168*
5.185
4.834
4.194
4.74
* Value deleted from
subcategory average,
-Indicates no data
available.
138
-------
H2O
I
I
t
H20
I
I
H2O
I
I
H20
H20
i
H20
I
PARTS
ALKALINE
CLEAN
RINSE
*
ACID
ETCH
*
RINSE
*ป
NICKEL
DEPOSITION
**
*
RINSE
U>
vo
FUSION
ENAMEL
APPLICATION
DRY
RINSE
NEUTRALIZATION
SLIP I
BALL
MILLING
H20
SAMPLE POINT
FIGURE V-\. TYPICAL PORCELAIN ENAMELING ON STEEL OPERATION
-------
H20
I
ALKALINE
CLEAN
H20
I
RINSE
H20
1
1
t
DRY
*
ENAMEL
APPLICATION
FUSION
SLIP I
BALL
MILLING
^ H20
SAMPLE POINT
FIGURE V-2. TYPICAL PORCELAIN ENAMELING ON ALUMINUM OPERATION
-------
PARTS
H20 H20 H20
II 1
1 1 1
t t ป
DECREASE
^
ACID
*~
*
RINSE
-fc-
DRY
-*-
*
ENAMEL,
APPLICATION
"*
FUSION
4
BALL,
MILLING
' H,0
* SAMPLE POINT
FIGURE V-3. TYPICAL PORCELAIN ENAMELING ON COPPER OPERATION
-------
H20
I
PARTS
ABRASIVE
BLASTING
SPRAY
APPLICATION
DRY
FURNACE
FUSION
POWDER
COAT
FURNACE
FUSION
SLIP j
BALL
MILLING
-fr H20
* SAMPLE POINT
FIGURE V-4. TYPICAL PORCELAIN ENAMELING ON IRON OPERATION
-------
SECTION VI
SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
In Section V, pollutant parameters to be examined for possible
regulation were presented together with data from plant sampling
visits and subsequent chemical analysis. Priority, nonconventional,
and conventional pollutant parameters were selected for verification
according to a specified rationale.
Each of the pollutant parameters selected for verification analysis is
now discussed in detail. The selected priority pollutant parameters
are discussed in numerical order, followed by nonconventional
pollutants and then conventional pollutant parameters, each in
alphabetical order.
Finally, the pollutant parameters selected for consideration for
specific regulation and those dropped from further consideration in
each subcategory are set forth. The rationale for that selection is
also presented.
VERIFICATION PARAMETERS
Pollutant parameters selected for verification sampling and analysis
in the porcelain enameling point source category are listed in Table
VI-1(Page 144). The subcategory for each is designated. The
subsequent discussion is designed to provide information about: where
the pollutant comes from - whether it is a naturally occurring
element, a processed metal, or a manufactured compound; general
physical properties of the pollutants; toxic effects of the pollutant
in humans and other animals; and behavior of the pollutant in POTW at
the concentrations that might be expected from industrial discharges.
143
-------
TABLE VI-1
i' '_ . ' :( . " vie": '!" .
POLLUTANT PARAMETERS SELECfED
FOR VERIFICATION SAMPLING ANfi ANALYSIS
FOR THE PORCELAIN ENAMELING CATEGORY*
Pollutant
Parameter Steel
14
66
69
86
87
114
115
117
118
119
119
120
122
124
125
128
1,1, 2-Trichloroethylene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium, Total
Chromium, Hexavalent
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Barium
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Phenols, Total
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended Solids
PH
1 ' . t' '*
-
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Subcategory
Cast" Iron Aluminum
' ', ""!' f '!"! i"1!"'; ' '
-
X
X
X
" x' '
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
' :", ;' " ' 'liiv1:1' "
-
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
Copper
, ,( ,j ii" ||,,";i;:'i-
X
X
x
X
X
X
" ' ' x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
*A dash (-) indicates the parameter was not selected for verification;
an x indicates the parameter was selected for verification. Selection
of parameters was made prior to the determination that casting
wastewaters are essentialy similar for each subcategory.
144
-------
1,\,l-TrichloroethaneO4). 1,1,2-Trichloroethane is one of the two
possible trichloroethanes and is sometimes called ethane trichloride
or vinyl trichloride. It is used as a solvent for fats, oils, waxes,
and resins, in the manufacture of 1,1-dichloroethylene, and as an
intermediate in organic synthesis.
1,1,2-Trichloroethane is a clear, colorless liquid at room temperature
with a vapor pressure of 16.7 mm Hg at 20ฐC, and a boiling point of
113ฐC. It is insoluble in water and very soluble in organic solvents.
The formula is CHC12CH2C1.
Human toxicity data for 1,1,2-trichloroethane does not appear in the
literature. The compound does produce liver and kidney damage in
laboratory animals after intraperitoneal administration. No
literature data was found concerning teratogenicity or mutagenicity of
1,1,2-trichloroethane. However, mice treated with 1,1,2-
trichloroethane showed increased incidence of hepatocellular
carcinoma. Although bioconcentration factors are not available for
1,1,2-trichloroethane in fish and other freshwater aquatic organisms,
it is concluded on the basis of octanol-water partition coefficients
that bioconcentration does occur.
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential
carcinogenic effects of exposure to 1,1,2-trichloroethane through
ingestion of water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient
water concentration is zero. Concentrations of this compound
estimated to result in additional lifetime cancer risks at risk levels
of 10-7, 10~ซ, and 1Q-* are o.00006 mg/1, 0.0006 mg/1, and ^3.006 mg/1
respectively. If contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consumed,
excluding the consumption of water, the water concentration should be
less than 0.107 mg/1 to keep the increased lifetime cancer risk below
10~s. Available data show that adverse effects on aquatic life occur
at concentrations higher than those cited for human health risks.
No detailed study of 1,1,2-trichloroethane behavior in PQTW is
available. However, it is reported that small amounts are formed by
chlorination processes and that this compound presists in the
environment (greater than two years) and it is not biologically
degraded. This information is not completely consistant with the
conclusions based on laboratory scale biochemical oxidation studies
relating molecular structure to ease of degradation. The conclusion
reached from the above information is that 1,1,2-trichloroethane will
be biochemically oxidized to a lesser extent than domestic sewage by
biological treatment in POTW.
The lack of water solubility and the relatively high vapor pressure
may lead to removal of this compound from POTW by volatilization.
145
-------
Phthalate Esters (66-71). Phthalic acid, or 1 ,2-benzenedicarboxylic
acid, is one of three isomeric benzenedicarboxylic acids produced by
the chemical industry. The other two isomeric forms are called
isophthalic and terephathalic acids. The formula for all three acids
is C , . t, "V , ' *.* :. ป -A. .<, -^ > ...... owi /^i >, ^>j
From the accumulated data on acute toxicity in animals, phthalate
esters may be considered as having a father low order of toxicity.
Human toxicity data are limited. It is thought that the toxic effects
146
-------
of the esters is most likely due to one of the metabolic products, in
particular the monoester. Oral acute toxicity in animals is greater
for the lower molecular weight esters than for the higher molecular
weight esters.
Orally administered phthalate esters generally produced enlarging of
liver and kidney, and atrophy of testes in laboratory animals.
Specific esters produced enlargement of heart and brain, spleenitis,
and degeneration of central nervous system tissue.
Subacute doses administered orally to laboratory animals produced some
decrease in growth and degeneration of the testes. Chronic studies in
animals showed similar effects to those found in acute and subacute
studies, but to a much lower degree. The same organs were enlarged,
but pathological changes were not usually detected.
A recent study ,of several phthalic esters produced suggestive but not
conclusive evidence that dimethyl and diethyl phthalates have a cancer
liability. Only four of the six priority pollutant esters were
included in the study. Phthalate esters do biconcentrate in fish.
The factors, weighted for relative consumption of various aquatic and
marine food groups, are used to calculate ambient water quality
criteria for four phthalate esters. The values are included in the
discussion of the specific esters.
Studies of toxicity of phthalate esters in freshwater and salt water
organisms are scarce. Available data show that adverse effects on
aquatic life occur at phthalate ester concentrations as low as 0.003
mg/1.
The behavior of phthalate esters in POTW has not been studied.
However, the biochemical oxidation of many of the organic priority
pollutants has .been investigated in laboratory-scale studies at
concentrations higher than would normally be expected in municipal
wastewater. Three of the phthalate esters were studied.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was found to be degraded slightly or not
at all and its removal by biological treatment in a POTW is expected
to be slight or zero. Di-n-butyl phthalate and diethyl phthalate were
degraded to a moderate degree and it is expected that they will be
biochemically oxidized to a lesser extent than domestic sewage by
biological treatment in POTW. Based on these data and other
observations relating molecular structure to ease of biochemical
degradation of other organic pollutants, it is expected that butyl
benzyl phthalate and dimethyl phthalate will be biochemically oxidized
to a lesser extent than domestic sewage by biological treatment in
POTW. On the same basis, it is expected that di-n-octyl phthalate
will not be biochemically oxidized to a significant extent by
biological treatment in POTW. An EPA study of seven POTW revealed
147
-------
that for all but di-n-octyl phthalate, which was not studied, removals
ranged from 62 to 87 percent.
No information was found on possible interferencewith POTWoperation
or the possible effects on sludge by the phthalate esters. The water
insoluble phthalate esters - butylbenzyl and di-n-octyl phthalate -
would tend to remain in sludge, whereas the other four priority
pollutant phthalate esters with water solubilities ranging from 50
mg/1 to 4.5 mg/1 would probably pass through into the POTW effluent.
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate(66). In addition to the general remarks
and discussion on phthalate esters, specific information on
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate is provided. Little information is
available about the physical properties of bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate. It is a liquid boiling at 387ฐC at 5mm Hg and is insoluble
in water. Its formula is C4SH4(COOC8H17)2. This priority pollutant
constitutes about one third of the phthalate ester production in the
U.S. It is commonly referred to as dioctyl phthalate, or DOP, in the
plastics industry where it is the most extensively used compound for
the plasticization of polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate has been approved by the FDA for use in plastics in contact
with food. Therefore, it may be found in wastewaters coming in
contact with discarded plastic food wrappers as well as the PVC films
and shapes normally found in industrial plants. This priority
pollutant is also a commonly used organic diffusion pump oil where its
low vapor pressure is an advantage.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate ingested through water and through
contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water criterion is
determined to be 15 mg/1. If contaminated aquatic organisms alone are
consumed, excluding the consumption of water, the ambient water
criteria is determined to be 50 mg/1.
Although the behavior of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in POTW has not
been studied, biochemical oxidation of this priority pollutant has
been studied on a laboratory scale at concentrations higher than would
normally be expected in municipal wastewater. In fresh water with a
non-acclimated seed culture no biochemical oxidation was observed
after 5, 10, and 20 days. However, with an acclimated seed culture,
biological oxidation occurred to the extents of 13, 0, 6, and 23 of
theoretical after 5, 10, 15 and 20 days, respectively.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate concentrations were 3 to 10 mg/1. Little
or no removal of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate by biological treatment
in POTW is expected.
Butyl benzyl phthalate(67). In addition to the general remarks and
discussion on phthalate esters, specific information on butyl benzyl
J!ii V
148
-------
phthalate is provided. No
properties of this compound.
information, was found on the physical
Butyl benzyl phthalate is used as a plasticizer for PVC. Two special
applications differentiate it from other phthalate esters. It is
approved by the U.S. FDA for food contact in wrappers and containers;
and it is the industry standard for plasticization of vinyl flooring
because it provides stain resistance.
No ambient water criterion is proposed for butyl benzyl phthalate.
Butyl benzyl phthalate removal in POTW by biological treatment
POTW is discussed in the general discussion of phthalate esters.
in
Di-n-butyl phthalate (68). In addition to the general remarks and
discussion on phthalate esters, specific information on di-n-butyl
phthalate (DBF) is provided. DBF is a colorless, oily liquid, boiling
at 340ฐC. Its water solubility at room temperature is reported to be
0.4 g/1 and 4.5g/l in two different chemistry handbooks. The formula
for DBF, C6H4.(COOC4.H,)2 is the same as for its isomer, di-isobutyl
phthalate. DCP production is one to two percent of total U.S.
phthalate ester production.
Dibutyl phthalate is used to a limited extent as a plasticizer for
polyvinylchloride (PVC). It is not approved for contact with food.
It is used in liquid lipsticks and as a diluent for polysulfide dental
impression materials. DBF is used as a plasticizer for nitrocellulose
in making gun powder, and as a fuel in solid propellants for rockets.
Further uses are insecticides, safety glass manufacture, textile
lubricating agents, printing inks, adhesives, paper coatings and resin
solvents.
For protection of human health from the toxic properties of dibutyl
phthalate ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic
organisms, the ambient water criterion is determined to be 34 mg/1.
If contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consumed, excluding the
consumption of water, the ambient water criterion is 154 mg/1.
Although the behavior of di-n-butyl phthalate in POTW has not been
studied, biochemical oxidation of this priority pollutant has been
studied on a laboratory scale at concentrations higher than would
normally be expected in municipal wastewater. Biochemical oxidation
of 35, 43, and 45 percent of theoretical oxidation were obtained after
5, 10, and 20 days, respectively, using sewage microorganisms as an
unacclimated seed culture.
Based on these data it is expected that di-n-butyl phthalate will be
biochemically oxicized to a lesser extent than domestic sewage by
biological treatment in POTW.
149
-------
11 !"! K''.'.'
".H,1 'i|li i!'
Di-n-octyl phthalate(69). In addition to thegeneralremarksand
discussion on phthalate esters, specific inf"6rmatiorii oni.'di~n"-bctyl"
phthalate is provided. Di-n-octyl phthalate is not to be confused
with the isomeric bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate which is commonly
referred to in the plastics industry as DOP. Di-n-octyl phthalate is
a liquid which boils at 220ฐC at 5 mm Hg. It is insoluble in water.
Its molecular formula is C6H4(COOCBH17)2. Its production constitutes
about one percent of all phthalate ester production in the U.S.
Industrially, di-n-octyl
chloride (PVC) resins.
phthalate is used to plasticize"polyvinyl
No ambient water criterion is proposed for di-n-octyl phthalate.
Biological treatment in POTW is expected to lead to little or no
removal of di-n-octyl phthalate.
Methyl phthalate (70). In addition to''"'the'' general' remarks and"
discussion on phthalate esters, specific information on diethyl
phthalate is provided. Diethyl phthalate, or DEP, is a colorless
liquid boiling at 296ฐC, and is insoluble in water. Its molecular
formula is C6H4.(COOC2H5)2. Production of diethyl phthalate
constitutes about 1.5 percent of phthalate ester production in the
U.S.
Diethyl phthalate is approved for use in plastic food containers by
the U.S. FDA. In addition to its use as a polyvinylchloride (PVC)
plasticizer, DEP is used to plasticize cellulose nitrate for gun
powder, to dilute polysulfide dental impression materials, and as an
accelerator fpr dying triacetate fibers. An additional use which
would contribute to its wide distribution in the environment is as an
approved special denaturant for ethyl alcohol. The alcohol-containing
products for which DEP is an approved denaturant include a wide range
of personal care items such as bath preparations, bay rum, colognes,
hair preparations, face and hand creams, perfumes and toilet soaps.
Additionally, this denaturant is approved for use in biocides,
cleaning solutions, disinfectants, insecticides, fungicides, and room
deodorants which have ethyl alcohol as part of the formulation. It is
expected, therefore, that people and buildings would have some surface
loading of this priority pollutant which would find its way into raw
wastewaters.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
diethyl phthalate ingested through water and through contaminated
aquatic organisms, the ambient water criterion" is determined to be
350 mg/1. If contaminated aquatic organismsalone are consumed,
excluding the consumption of water, the ambient water criterion is
1800 mg/1.
150
-------
Although the behavior of diethyl phthalate in POTW has not been
studied, biochemical oxidation of this priority pollutant has been
studied on a laboratory scale at concentrations higher than would
normally be expected in municipal wastewater. Biochemical oxidation
of 79, 84, and 89 percent of theoretical was observed after 5, 5, and
20 days, respectively. Based on these data it is expected that
diethyl phthalate will be biochemically oxidized to a lesser extent
than domestic sewage by biological treatment in POTW.
Dimethyl phthalate (71). In addition to the general remarks and dis-
cussion on phthalate esters, specific information on dimethyl
phthalate (DMP) is provided. DMP has the lowest molecular weight of
the phthalate esters - N.W. = 194 compared to M.W. of 391 for
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. DMP has a boiling point of 282ฐC. It is
a colorless liquid, soluble in water to the extent of 5 mg/1. Its
molecular formula is C6H4(COOCH3)2.
Dimethyl phthalate production in the U.S. is just under one percent of
total phthalate ester production. DMP is used to some extent as a
plasticizer in cellulosics. However, its principle specific use is
for dispersion of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF). PVDF is resistant
to most chemicals and finds use as electrical insulation, chemical
process equipment (particularly pipe), and as a base for long-life
finishes for exterior metal siding. Coil coating techniques are used
to apply PVDF dispersions to aluminum or galvanized steel siding.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
dimethyl phthalatje ingested through water and through contaminated
aquatic organisms, the ambient water criterion is determined to be 313
mg/1. If contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consumed, excluding
the consumption of water, the ambient water criterion is 2800 mg/1.
Based on limited data and observations relating molecular structure to
ease of biochemical degradation of other organic pollutants, it is
expected that dimethyl phthalate will be biochemically oxidized to a
lesser extent than domestic sewage by biological treatment in POTW.
Toluene(86). Toluene is a clear, colorless liquid with a benzene like
odor. It is a naturally occuring compound derived primarily from
petroleum or petrochemical processes. Some toluene is obtained from
the manufacture of metallurgical coke. Toluene is also referred to as
totuol, methylbenzene, methacide, and phenymethane. It is an aromatic
hydrocarbon with the formula CซH5CH3. It boils at 111ฐC and has a
vapor pressure of 30 mm Hg at room temperature. The water solubility
of toluene is 535 mg/1, and it is miscible with a variety of organic
solvents. Annual production of toluene in the U.S. is greater than 2
million metric tons. Approximately two-thirds of the toluene is
converted to benzene and the remaining 30 percent is divided
approximately equally into chemical manufacture, and use as a paint
151
-------
solvent and aviation gasoline additive. An estimated 5,000 metric
tons is discharged to the environment annually as a constituent in
wastewater.
Most data on the effects of toluene in human and other mammals have
been based on inhalation exposure or dermal contact studies. There
appear to be no reports of oral administration of toluene to human
subjects. A long term toxicity study on female rats revealed no
adverse effects on growth, mortality, appearance and behavior, organ
to body weight ratios, blood-urea nitrogen levels, bone marrow counts,
peripheral blood counts, or morphology of major organs. The effects
of inhaled toluene on the central nervous system, both at high and low
concentrations, have been studied in humans and animals. However,
ingested toluene is expected to be handled differently by the body
because it is absorbed more slowly and must first pass through the
liver before reaching the nervous system. Toluene' is extensively and
rapidly metabolized in the liver. One of the principal metabolic
products of toluene is benzoic acid, which itself seems to have little
potential to produce tissue injury.
Ill Jl'/U:1', f-Ji'li 1:
s',1-1 Mia;: t >ซ
Toluene does not appear to be teratogenic in laboratory animals or
mari. Nor is there any conclusive evidence that toluene is mutagenic.
Toluene has not been demonstrated to be positive in any in vitro
mutagenicity or carcinogenicity bioassay system, nor to be
carcinogenic in animals or man.
Toluene has been found in fish caught in harbor waters in the vicinity
of petroleum and petrochemical plants. Biocohcentratioh studies have
not been conducted, but bioconcentration factorshave beencalculated
on the basis of the octanol-water partitioncoefficient.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
toluene ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic
organisms, the ambient water criterion is determined to be 14.3 mg/1.
If contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consumed, excluding the
consumption of water, the ambient water criterion is 424 mg/1.
Available data show that adverse effects on aquatic life occur at
concentrations as low as 5 mg/1.
Acute toxicity tests have been conducted with toluene and a variety of
freshwater fish and Daphnia magna. The latter appears to be
significantly more resistant than fish. No test results have been
reported for the chronic effects of toluene on freshwater fish or
invertebrate species.
Only one study of toluene behavior in POTW is available. However, the
biochemical oxidation of many of the priority pollutants has been
investigated in laboratory scale studies at con- centrations greater
than those expected to be contained by most municipal wastewaters. At
152
.I'a in-, ; A'I,"; IKJ!:-!
-------
toluene concentrations ranging from 3 to 250 mg/1 biochemical
oxidation proceeded to fifty percent of theroetical or greater. The
time period varied from a few hours to 20 days depending on whether or
not the seed culture was acclimated. Phenol adapted acclimated seed
cultures gave the most rapid and extensive biochemical oxidation.
Based on study of the limited data, it is expected that toluene will
be biochemically oxidized to a lesser extent than domestic sewage by
biological treatment in POTW. The volatility and relatively low water
solubility of toluene lead to the expectation that aeration processes
will remove significant quantities of toluene from the POTW. The EPA
studied toluene removal in seven POTW. The removals ranged from 40 to
100 percent. Sludge concentrations of toluene ranged from 54 x 10~3
to 1.85 mg/1.
Trichloroethylene(87). Trichloroethylene (1,1,2-trichloroethylene or
TCE) is a clear colorless liquid which boils at 87ฐC. It has a vapor
pressure of 77 mm Hg at room temperature and is slightly soluble in
water (1 gm/1). U.S. production is greater than 0.25 million metric
tons annually. It is produced from tetrachloroethane by treatment
with lime in the presence of water.
TCE is used for vapor phase degreasing of metal parts, cleaning and
drying electronic components, as a solvent for paints, as a
refrigerant, for extraction of oils, fats, and waxes, and for dry
cleaning. Its widespread use and relatively high volatility result in
detectable levels in many parts of the environment.
Data on the effects produced by ingested TCE are limted. Most studies
have been directed at inhalation exposure. Nervous system disorders
and liver damage are frequent results of inhalation exposure. In the
short term exposures, TCE acts as a central nervous system depressant
- it was used as an anesthetic before its other long term effects were
defined.
TCE has been shown to induce transformation in a highly sensitive in
vitro Fischer rat embryo cell system (F1706) that is used for
identifying carcinogens. Severe and persistant toxicity to the liver
was recently demonstrated when TCE was shown to produce carcinoma of
the liver in mouse strain B6C3F1. One systematic study of TCE
exposure and the incidence of human cancer was based on 518 men
exposed to TCE. The authors of that study concluded that although the
cancer risk to man cannot be ruled out, exposure to low levels of TCE
probably does not present a very serious and general cancer hazard.
TCE is bioconcentrated in aquatic species, making the consumption of
such species by humans a significant source of TCE. For the
protection of human health from the potential carcinogenic effects of
exposure to trichloroethylene through ingestion of water and
contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water concentration is
153
-------
zero. Concentrations of trichloroethylene estimated to result in
additional lifetime cancer risk of 10~7, l,p-ซ, and 10~s are 2.69 x
10~4 mg/1, 2.69 x 10~3 mg/1, and 2.69 x io~s mg/1, respectively. If
contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consumed, excluding the
consumption of water, the water concentration should be less than
0.807 mg/1 to keep the additional lifetime cancer risk below 10~s.
"M"1 r c.i '- " I! /:''! st;,- Mf '".'t" , ' i ( '"; ,',,,.:: >. ,'f1 |i;v!r i;ti 'I'" .#!.
Only a very limited amount of data on the effects of TCE on freshwater
aquatic life are available. One species of fish (fathead minnows)
showed a loss of equilibrium at concentrations below those resulting
in lethal effects. The limited data for aquatic life show that
adverse effects occur at concentrations higher than those cited for
human health risks.
In laboratory scale studies of organic priority pollutants, TCE was
subjected to biochemical oxidation conditions. After 5, 10, and 20
days no biochemical oxidation occurred. On the basis of this study
and general observations relating molecular structure to ease of
degradation, the conclusion is reached that TCE would undergo little
or no biochemical oxidation by biological treatment in a POTW. The
volatility and relatively low water solubility of TCE is expected to
result in volatilization of some of the TCE in aeration steps in a
POTW.
For a recent Agency study, Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly
Owned Treatment Works, the pollutant concentrations in the influent,
effluent, and sludge of 20 POTW's were measured. No conclusions were
made; however, trichloroethylene appeared in 95percent of the influent
stream samples but only in 54percent of the effluent stream samples.
This indicates that trichloroethylene either is concentrated in the
sludge or escapes to the atmosphere. Concentrations in SOpercent of
the sludge samples indicate that much of the trichloroethylene is
concentrated there.
Antimonyd 14).
classified
_._ Antimony (chemical name - stibium, symbol Sb)
as a non-metal or metalloid, is a silvery white , brittle,
crystalline solid. Antimony is found in small ore bodies throughout
the world. Principal ores are oxides of mixed antimony valences, and
an oxysulfide ore. Complex ores with metals are important because the
antimony is recovered as a by-product. Antimony melts at 631ฐC, and
is a poor conductor of electricity and heat.
Annual U.S. consumption of primary antimony ranges from 10,000 to
20,000 tons. About half is consumed in metal products - mostly
antimonial lead for lead acid storage batteries, and about half in non
- metal products. A principal compound is antimony trioxide which is
used as a flame retardant in fabrics, and as ah opacifier in glass,
ceramincs, and enamels. Several antimony compounds are used as
catalysts in organic chemicals synthesis, as fluorinating agents (the
154
-------
antimony fluoride), as pigments, and in fireworks.
applications are economically significant.
Semiconductor
Essentially no information on antimony - induced human health effects
has been derived from community epidemiolocy studies. The available
data are in literature relating effects observed with therapeutic or
medicinal uses of antimony compounds and industrial exposure studies.
Large therapeutic doses of antimonial compounds, usually used to treat
schistisomiasis, have caused severe nausea, vomiting, convulsions,
irregular heart action, liver damage, and skin rashes. Studies of
acute industrial antimony poisoning have revealed loss of appetitie,
diarrhea, headache, and dizziness in addition to the symptoms found in
studies of therapeutic doses of antimony.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
antimony ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic
organisms the ambient water criterion is determined to be 0.146 mg/1.
If contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consumed, excluding the
consumption of water, the ambient water criterion is determined to be
45 mg/1. Available data show that adverse effects on aquatic life
occur at concentrations higher than those cited for human health
risks.
Very little information is available regarding the behavior of
antimony in POTW. The limited solubility of most antimony compounds
expected in POTW, i.e. the oxides and sulfides, suggests that at least
part of the antimony entering a POTW will be precipitated and
incorporated into the sludge. However, some antimony is expected to
remain dissolved and pass through the POTW into the effluent.
Antimony compounds remaining in the sludge under anaerobic conditions
may be connected to stibine (SbH3), a very soluble and very toxic
compound. There are no data to show antimony inhibits any POTW
processes. Antimony is not known to be essential to the growth of
plants, and has been reported to be moderately toxic. Therefore,
sludge containing large amounts of antimony could be detrimental to
plants if it is applied in large amounts to cropland.
Arsenic(115). Arsenic (chemical symbol As), is classified as a
non-metal or metalloid. Elemental arsenic normally exists in the
alpha-crystalline metallic form which is steel gray and brittle, and
in the beta form which is dark gray and amorphous. Arsenic sublimes
at 615ฐC. Arsenic is widely distributed throughout the world in a
large number of minerals. The most important commercial source of
arsenic is as a by-product from treatment of copper, lead, cobalt, and
gold ores. Arsenic is usually marketed as the trioxide (As2O3).
Annual U.S. production of the trioxide approaches 40,000 tons.
The principal use of arsenic is in agricultural chemicals (herbicides)
for controlling weeds in cotton fields. Arsenicals have various
155
-------
applications in medicinal and veterinary use, as wood preservatives,
and in semiconductors.
The effects of arsenic in humans were known by the ancient Greeks and
Romans. The principal toxic effects are gastrointestinal
disturbances. Breakdown ofred blood cellsoccurs.Symptoms of acute
poisoning include vomiting, diarrhea,"abdominalpain, lassitude,
dizziness, and headache. Longer exposure produced dry, falling hair,
brittle, loose nails, eczema; and exfoliation. Arsenicals also
exhibit teratogenic and mutagenic effects in humans. Oral
administration of arsenic compounds has been associated clinically
with skin cancer for nearly a hundred years.Since1888 numerous
studies have linked occupational exposure to, and therapeutic
administration of arsenic compoundsto increasedincidenceof
respiratory and skin cancer.
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential
carcinogenic effects of exposure to arsenic through ingestion of water
and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambientwater concentration is
zero. Concentrations of arsenic estimated toresult in additional
lifetime cancer risk levels of 10-*,TO"6,and 10-*are2.2x 10~7
mg/1, 2.2 x 10-fi ing/1/ and 2.2 x lp-s mg/1,respectively. If
contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consumed, excluding the
consumption of water, the water concentration should be less than 2.7
x 10~4 mg/1 to keep the increased lifetimecancer risk below 10~*.
Available data show that adverse effectsonaquatic life occur at
concentrations higher than those cited for humanhealth risks.
A few studies have been made regarding the behavior of arsenic in
POTW. One EPA survey of 9 POTW reported influent concentrations
ranging from 6.0005 to 0.693 mg/1; effluentsfrom 3 POTW having
biological treatment contained 0.0004 - 0.01 mg/1; 2 POTW showed
arsenic removal efficiencies of 50 and 71 percent in biological
treatment. Inhibition of treatment processes by sodium arsenate is
reported to occur at 0.1 mg/1 in activated sludge, and 1.6 mg/1 in
anaerobic digestion processes. In another study based on data from 60
POTW, arsenic in sludge ranged from 1.6 to 65.6 mg/kg and the median
value was 7.8 mg/kg. Arsenic insludge spread on cropland may be
taken up by plants grown oh that land. Edible plants can take up
arsenic, but normally their growth is inhibited before the plants are
ready for harvest.
Berylliumd17). Beryllium is a dark gray metal of the alkaline earth
family. It is relatively rare, but because of its unique properties
finds widespread use as an alloying element especially for "hardening
copper which is used in springs, electrical contacts, and non-sparking
tools. World production is reported to be in the range of 250 tons
annually. However, much more reaches the environment as emissions
from coal burning operations. Analysis of coal indicates an average
156
-------
beryl Hum
ash.
content of 3 ppm and 0.1 to 1.0 percent in coal ash or fly
The principal ores are beryl (3BeOปAl203ป6Si02) and bertrandite
[Be4Si207(OH)2]. Only two industrial facilities produce beryllium in
the U.S. because of limited demand and the and highly toxic
character. About two-thirds of the annual production goes into
alloys, 20 percent into heat sinks, and 10 percent into beryllium
oxide (BeO) ceramic products.
Beryllium has a specific gravity of 1.846 making it the lightest metal
with a high melting point O350C). Beryllium alloys are corrosion
resistant, but the metal corrodes in aqueous environment. Most common
beryllium compounds are soluble in water, at least to the extent
necessary to produce a toxic concentration of beryllium ions.
Most data on toxicity of beryllium is for inhalation of beryllium
oxide dust. Some studies on orally administered beryllium in
laboratory animals have been reported. Despite the large number of
studies implicating beryllium as a carcinogen, there is no recorded
instance of cancer being produced by ingestion. However, a recently
convened panel of uninvolved experts concluded that epidemiologic
evidence is suggestive that beryllium is a carcinogen in man.
In the aquatic environment beryllium is chronically toxic to aquatic
organisms at 0.0053 mg/1. Water softness has a large effect on
beryllium toxicity to fish. In soft water, beryllium is reportedly
TOO times as toxic as in hard water.
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential
carcinogenic effects of exposure to beryllium through ingestion of
water and contaminated aquatic organisms. The ambient water
concentration is zero. Concentrations of beryllium estimated to
result in additional lifetime cancer risk levels of 10~7, 10-*, and
TO-5 are 0.00000037 mg/1, 0.0000037 mg/1, and 0.000037 mg/1,
respectively. If contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consumed
excluding the consumption of water, the concentration should be less
than 0.000641 mg/1 to keep the increased lifeline cancer risk below
TO-5.
Information on the behavior of beryllium in POTW is scarce. Because
beryllium hydroxide is insoluble in water, most beryllium entering
POTW will probably be in the form of suspended solids- As a result
most of the beryllium will settle and be removed with sludge.
However, beryllium has been shown to inhibit several enzyme systems,
to interfere with DNA metabolism in liver, and to induce chromosomal
and mitotic abnormalities. This interference in cellular processes
may extend to interfere with biological treatment processes. The
157
-------
concentration and effects of beryllium in sludge which could be
applied to cropland has not been studied.
Cadmium is a relatively rare metallic element that is
in sufficient quantities in a pure state to warrant
CadmiumO 18).
seldom fpund .. _....
mining or extraction from the earth's surface. It is found in trace
amounts of about 1 ppm throughout the earth's crust. Cadmium is,
however, a valuable by-product of zinc production.
Cadmium is used primarily as an electroplated metal, and is found
an impurity in the secondary refining of zinc, lead, and copper.
as
Cadmium is an extremely dangerous cumulative toxicant, causing
progressive chronic poisoning in mammals, fish, and probably other
organisms. The metal is not excreted.
. ! ' : :' ' i ! '.'" '' ii i i i i i it in i
Toxic effects of cadmium on man have been reported from throughout the
world. Cadmium may be a factor in the development of such human
pathological conditions as kidney disease, testicular tumors,
hypertension, arteriosclerosis, growth inhibition, chronic disease of
old age, and cancer. Cadmium is normally ingested by humans through
food and water as well as by breathing aircontaminated by cadmium
dust. Cadmium is cumulative in the liver, kidney, pancreas, and
thyroid of humans and other animals. A severe bone and kidney
syndrome known as itai-itai disease has been documented in Japan as
caused by cadmium ingestion via drinking water and contaminated
irrigation water. Ingestion of as little as 0.6 mg/day has produced
the disease. Cadmium acts synergistically with other metals. Copper
and zinc substantially increase its toxicity.
Cadmium is concentrated by marine organisms, particularly mollusks,
which accumulate cadmium in calcareous tissues -and in the viscera. A
concentration factor of 1000 for cadmium in fish muscle has been
reported, as have concentration factors of 3000 in marine plants and
up to 29,600 in certain marine animals. The-eggs and larvae of fish
are apparently more sensitive than adult fish to poisoning by cadmium,
and crustaceans appear to be more sensitive than fish eggs and larvae.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
cadmium ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic
organisms, the ambient water criterion is determined to be 0.010 mg/1.
Available data show that adverse ^'"effects.'on.'aciuatic''life occur at
concentrations in the same range as those cited for human health, and
they are highly dependent on water hardness.
Cadmium is not destroyed when it is introduced into a POTW, and will
either pass through to the POTW effluent or be incorporated into the
POTW sludge. In addition, it can interfere with the POTW treatment
process.
158
-------
In a study of 189 POTW, 75 percent of the primary plants, 57 percent
of the trickling filter plants, 66 percent of the activated sludge
plants and 62 percent of the biological plants allowed over 90 percent
of the influent cadmium to pass thorugh to the POTW effluent. Only 2
of the 189 POTW allowed less than 20 percent pass-through, and none
less than 10 percent pass-through. POTW effluent concentrations
ranged from 0.001 to 1.97 mg/1 (mean 0.028 mg/1, standard deviation
0.167 mg/1).
Cadmium not passed through the POTW will be retained in the sludge
where it is likely to build up in concentration. Cadmium
contamination of sewage sludge limits its use on land since it
increases the level of cadmium in the soil. Data show that cadmium
can be incorporated into crops, including vegetables and grains, from
contaminated soils. Since the crops themselves show no adverse
effects from soils with levels up to 100 mg/kg cadmium, these
contaminated crops could have a significant impact on human health.
Two Federal agencies have already recognized the potential adverse
human health effects posed by the use of sludge on cropland. The FDA
recommends that sludge containing over 30 mg/kg of cadmium should not
be used on agricultural land. Sewage sludge contains 3 to 300 mg/kg
(dry basis) of cadmium mean = 10 mg/kg; median =16 mg/kg. The USDA
also recommends placing limits on the total cadmium from sludge that
may be applied to land.
Chromium(119). Chromium is an elemental metal usually found as a
chromite (FeOปCr2O3). The metal is normally produced by reducing the
oxide with aluminum. A significant proportion of the chromium used is
in the form of compounds such as sodium dichromate (Na2Cr04), and
chromic acid (CrO3) - both are hexavalent chromium compounds.
Chromium is found as an alloying component of many steels and its
compounds are used in electroplating baths, and as corrosion
inhibitors for closed water circulation systems.
The two chromium forms most frequently found in industry wastewaters
are hexavalent and trivalent chromium. Hexavalaent chromium is the
form used for metal treatments. Some of it is reduced to trivalent
chromium as part of the process reaction. The raw wastewater
containing both valence states is usually treated first to reduce
remaining hexavalent to trivalent chromium, and second to precipitate
the trivalent form as the hydroxide. The hexavalent form is not
removed by lime treatment.
Chromium, in its various valence states, is hazardous to man. It can
produce lung tumors when inhaled, and induces skin sensitizations.
Large doses of chromates have corrosive effects on the intestinal
tract and can cause inflammation of the kidneys. Hexavalent chromium
is a known human carcinogen. Levels of chromate ions that show no
159
-------
effect in man appear to be so low as to prohibit determination, to
date.
The toxicity of chromium salts to fish and other aquatic life varies
widely with the species, temperature, pH, valence of the chromium, and
synergistic or antagonistic effects, especially the effect of water
hardness. Studies have shown that trivalent chromium is more toxic to
fish of some types than is hexavalent chromium. Hexavalent chromium
retards growth of one fish species at 0.0002 mg/1. Fish food
organisms and other lower forms of aquatic life are extremely
sensitive to chromium. Therefore, both hexavalent and trivalent
chromium must be considered harmful to particular fish or organisms.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
chromium (except hexavalent chromium) ingested through water and
contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water criterion is 0.050
mg/1. For the maximum protection of human health from the potential
carcinogenic effects of exposure to hexavalent chromium through
ingestion of water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient
water concentration is zero. The estimated levels which would result
in increased lifetime cancer risks of ,10~7/ id"6, andM0~s are 7.4 x
TO-8 mg/1, 7.4 x 10~7 mg/1, and 7.4 x 10~* mg/1 respectively. If
contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consumed, excluding the
consumption of water, the water concentration should be less than 1.5
x 10~5 mg/1 to keep the increased lifetime cancer risk below 10~5.
Chromium is not destroyed when treated by POTW (although the oxidation
state may change), and will either pass through to the POTW effluent
or be incorporated into the POTW sludge. Both oxidation states can
cause POTW treatment inhibition and can also limit the usefuleness of
municipal sludge.
Influent concentrations of chromium to POTW facilities have been
observed by EPA to range from 0.005 to 14.0 mg/1, with a median
concentration of 0.1 mg/1. The efficiencies for removal of chromium
by the activated sludge process can vary greatly, depending on
chromium concentration in the influent, and other operating conditions
at the POTW. Chelation of chromium by organic matter and dissolution
due to the presence of carbonates can cause deviations from the
predicted behavior in treatment systems.
The systematic presence of chromium compounds will halt nitrification
in a POTW for short periods, and most of the chromium will be retained
in the sludge solids. Hexavalent chromium has been reported to
severely affect the nitrification process, but trivalent chromium has
litte or no toxicity to activated sludge, except at high
concentrations. The presence of iron, copper, and low pH will
increase the toxicity of chromium in a POTW by releasing the chromium
into solution to be ingested by microorganisms in the POTW.
160
-------
The amount of chromium which passes through to the POTW effluent
depends on the type of treatment processes used by the POTW. In a
study of 240 POTW's 56 percent of the primary plants allowed more than
80 percent pass through to POTW effluent. More advanced treatment
results in less pass-through. POTW effluent concentrations ranged
from 0.003 to 3.2 mg/1 total chromium {mean = 0.197, standard
deviation = 0.48), and from 0.002 to 0.1 mg/1 hexavalent chromium
(mean = 0.017, standard deviation =0.020).
Chromium not passed through the POTW will be retained in the sludge,
where it is likely to build up in concentration. Sludge
concentrations of total chromium of over 20,000 mg/kg (dry basis) have
been observed. Disposal of sludges containing very high
concentrations of triyalent chromium can potentially cause problems in
uncontrollable landfills. Incineration, or similar destructive
oxidation processes can produce hexavalent chromium from lower valance
states. Hexavalent chromium is potentially more toxic than trivalent
chromium. In cases where high rates of chrome sludge application on
land are used, distinct growth inhibition and plant tissue uptake have
been noted.
Pretreatment of discharges substantially reduces the -concentration of
chromium in sludge. In Buffalo, New York, pretreatment of
electroplating waste resulted in a decrease in chromium concentrations
in POTW sludge from 2,510 to 1,040 mg/kg. A similar reduction
occurred in in Grand Rapids, Michigan POTW where the chromium
concentration in sludge decreased from 11,000 to 2,700 mg/kg when
pretreatment was made a requirement.
Copper(120). Copper is a metallic element that sometimes is found
free, as the native metal, and is also found in minerals such as
cuprite (Cu20), malechite [CuC03ปCu(OH)2], azurite [2CuCO3ปCu(OH)2],
chalcopyrite (CuFeS2), and bornite (Cu5FeS4). Copper is obtained from
these ores by smelting, leaching, and electrolysis. It is used in the
plating, electrical, plumbing, and heating equipment industries, as
well as in insecticides and fungicides.
Traces of copper are found in all forms of plant and animal life, and
the metal is an essential trace element for nutrition. Copper is not
considered to be a cumulative systemic poison for humans as it is
readily excreted by the body, but it can cause symptoms of
gastroenteritis, with nausea and intestinal irritations, at relatively
low dosages. The limiting factor in domestic water supplies is taste.
To prevent this adverse organoleptic effect of copper in water, a
criterion of 1 mg/1 has been established.
The toxicity of copper to aquatic organisms varies significantly, not
only with the species, but also with the physical and chemical
characteristics of the water, including temperature, hardness,
161
-------
turbidity, and carbon dioxide content. In hard water, the toxicity of
copper salts may be reduced by the precipitation of copper carbonate
or other insoluble compounds. The sulfates of copper and zinc, and of
copper and calcium are synergistic in their toxic effect on fish.
Relatively high concentrations of copper may be tolerated by " a'ituTt:
fish for short periods of time; the critical effect of copper appears
to be its higher toxicity to young or juvenile fish. Concentrations
of 0.02 to 0.031 mg/1 have proven fatal to some common fish species.
In general the salmonoids are very sensitive and the sunfishes are
less sensitive to copper.
The recommended
0.00097 mg/1 as
concentration.
criterion to
a 24-hour
protect
average,
saltwater aquatic
and 0.018 mg/1
: :.,.. Jit Lj '"jit >.
life is
maximum
Copper salts cause undesirable color''reactions in the food industry
and cause pitting when deposited on some other metals such as aluminum
and galvanized steel. To control undesirable tasteand odor quality
of ambient water due to the organoleptic properties of copper, the
estimated level is 1.0 mg/1. For total recoverable copper the
criterion to protect freshwater aquatic life is 5.6 x 10~3 mg/1 as a
24 hour average.
Irrigation water containing more than minute quantities of copper can
be detrimental to certain crops. Copper appears in all soils, and its
concentration ranges from 10 to 80 ppm. In soils, copper occurs in
association with hydrous oxides of manganese and iron, and also as
soluble and insoluble complexes with organic matter. Copper is
essential to the life of plants, and the normal range of concentration
in plant tissue is from 5 to 20 ppm. Copper concentrations in plants
normally do not build up to high levels when toxicity occurs. For
example, the concentrations of copper in snapbean leaves and pods was
less than 50 and 20 mg/kg, respectively, under conditions of severe
copper toxicity. Even under conditions of copper toxicity, most of
the excess copper accumulates in the roots; very little is moved to
the aerial part of the plant.
Copper is not destroyed when treated by a POTW, and will either pass
through to the POTW effluent or be retained in the POTW sludge. It
can interfere with the POTW treatment processes and can limit the
usefulness of municipal sludge.
The influent concentration of copper to POTW facilities has been
observed by the EPA to range from 0.01 to 1.97 mg/1, with a median
concentration of 0.12 mg/1. The copper that is removed from the
influent stream of a POTW is adsorbed on the sludge or appears in the
sludge as the hydroxide of the metal. Bench scale pilot studies have
shown that from about 25 percent to 75 percent of the copper passing
162
-------
through the activated sludge process remains in solution In the final
effluent. Four-hour slug dosages of copper suIfate in concentrations
exceeding 50 mg/1 were reported to have severe effects on the removal
efficiency of an unacclimated system, with the system returning to
normal in about 100 hours. Slug dosages of copper in the form of
copper cyanide were observed to have much more severe effects on the
activated sludge system, but the total system returned to normal in 24
hours.
In a recent study of 268 POTW, the median pass-through was over 80
percent for primary plants and 40 to 50 percent for trickling filter,
activated sludge, and biological treatment plants. POTW effluent
concentrations of copper ranged from 0.003 to 1.8 mg/1 (mean 0.126,
standard deviation 0.242).
Copper which does not pass through the POTW will be retained in the
sludge where it will build up in concentration. The presence of
excessive levels of copper in sludge may limit its use on cropland.
Sewage sludge contains up to 16,000 mg/kg of copper, with 730 mg/kg as
the mean value. These concentrations are significantly greater than
those normally found in soil, which usually range from 18 to 80 mg/kg.
Experimental data indicate that when dried sludge is spread over
tillable land, the copper tends to remain in place down to the depth
of tillage, except for copper which is taken up by plants grown in the
soil. Recent investigation has shown that the extractable copper
content of sludge-treated soil decreased with time, which suggests a
reversion of copper to less soluble forms was occurring.
Lead H22). Lead is a soft, malleable, ductible, blueish-gray,
metallic element, usually obtained from the mineral galena (lead
sulfide, PbS), anglesite (lead sulfate, PbS04), or cerussite (lead
carbonate, PbC03). Because it is usually associated with minerals of
zinc, silver, copper, gold, cadmium, antimony, and arsenic, special
purification methods are frequently used before and after extraction
of the metal from the ore concentrate by smelting.
Lead is widely used for its corrosion resistance, sound and vibration
absorption, low melting point (solders), and relatively high
imperviousness to various forms of radiation. Small amounts of
copper, antimony and other metals can be alloyed with lead to achieve
greater hardness, stiffness, or corrosion resistance than is afforded
by the pure metal. Lead compounds are used in glazes and paints.
About one third of U.S. lead consumption goes into storage batteries.
About half of U.S. lead consumption is from secondary lead recovery.
U.S. consumption of lead is in the range of one million tons annually.
Lead ingested by humans produces a variety of toxic effects including
impaired reproductive ability, disturbances in blood chemistry,
neurological disorders, kidney damage, and adverse cardiovascular
163
-------
effects. Exposure to lead in the diet results in permanent increase
in lead levels in the body. Most of the lead entering the body
eventually becomes localized in the bones where it accumulates. Lead
is a carcinogen or cocarcinogen in some species of experimental
animals. Lead is teratogenic in experimental animals. Mutangenicity
data are not available for lead.
ป I'l'l "II 1 ,"'''! HI 11,! I' .
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of lead
ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic organisms, the
ambient water criterion is 0.050 mg/1. Available data show that
adverse effects on aquatic life occur at concentrations as low as 7.5
x TO-4 mg/1.
Lead is not destroyed in POTW, but is passed through to the effluent
or retained in the POTW sludge; it can interfere with POTW treatment
processes and can limit the usefulness of POTW sludge for application
to agricultural croplands. Threshold concentration for inhibition of
the activated sludge process is 0.1 mg/1, and for the nitrification
process is 0.5 mg/1. In a study of 214 POTW, median pass through
values were over 80 percent for primary plants and over 60 percent for
trickling filter, activated sludge, and biological process plants.
Lead concentration in POTW effluents ranged from 0.003 to 1.8 mg/1
(means ป 0.106 mg/1, standard deviation =0.222).
Application of lead-containing sludge tocropland should not affect
the uptake by crops under most conditions because normally lead is
strongly bound by soil. However, under the unusual conditions of low
pH (less than 5.5) and low concentrations of labile phosphorus, lead
solubility is increased and plants can accumulate lead.
,, . ;', ! 'I,,1,! JlJillf1,,'!!"!!,,;!-!1;,1 xl :'' .{ .' "i V!'!", .. I HI. ',"!'! " ,,: 'f "K ."III!1, i , 1
Nickel(124). Nickel is seldom found in nature as the pure elemental
metal. It is a reltively plentiful element and is widely distributed
throughout the earth's crust. It occurs inmarine organisms and is
found in the oceans. The chief commercialores for nickel are
pehtlandite [(Fe,Ni),S8], and a laterltic oreconsisting of hydrated
nickel-iron-magnesium silicate.
Nickel has many and varied uses. It is used in alloys and as the pure
metal. Nickel salts are used for electroplating baths.
The toxicity of nickel to man is thought to be very low, and systemic
poisoning of human beings by nickel or nickel salts is almost unknown.
In non-human mammals nickel acts to inhibit insulin release, depress
growth, and reduce cholesterol. A high incidence of cancer of the
lung and nose has been reported in humans engaged in the refining of
nickel.
Nickel salts can kill fish at very low concentrations. However,
nickel has been found to be less toxic to some fish than copper, zinc,
164
-------
and iron. Nickel is present in coastal and open ocean water at con-
centrations in the range of 0.0001 to 0.006 mg/1 although the most
common values are 0.002 - 0.003 mg/1. Marine animals contain up to
0.4 mg/1 and marine plants contain up to 3 mg/1. Higher nickel
concentrations have been reported to cause reduction in photosynthetic
activity of the giant kelp. A low concentration was found to kill
oyster eggs.
For the protection of human health based on the toxic properties of
nickel ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic
organisms, the ambient water criterion is determined to be 0.134 mg/1.
If contaminated aquatic organisms are consumed, excluding consumption
of water, the ambient water criterion is determined to be 1.01 mg/1.
Available data show that adverse effects on aquatic life occur for
total recoverable nickel concentrations as low as 0.032 mg/1.
Nickel is not destroyed when treated in a POTW, but will either pass
through to the POTW effluent or be retained in the POTW sludge. It
can interfere with POTW treatment processes and can also limit the
usefulness of municipal sludge.
Nickel salts have caused inhibition of the biochemical oxidation of
sewage in a POTW. In a pilot plant, slug doses of nickel
significantly reduced normal treatment efficiencies for a few hours,
but the plant acclimated itself somewhat to the slug dosage and
appeared to achieve normal treatment efficiencies within 40 hours. It
has been reported that the anaerobic digestion process is inhibited
only by high concentrations of nickel, while a low concentration of
nickel inhibits the nitrification process.
The influent concentration of nickel to POTW facilities has been
observed by the EPA to range from 0.01 to 3.19 mg/1, with a median of
0.33 mg/1. In a study of 190 POTW, nickel pass-through was greater
than 90 percent for 82 percent of the primary plants. Median
pass-through for trickling filter, activated sludge, and biological
process plants was greater than 80 percent. POTW effuent
concentrations ranged from 0.002 to 40 mg/1 (mean = 0.410, standard
deviation = 3.279).
Nickel not passed through the POTW will be incorporated into the
sludge. In a recent two-year study of eight cities, four of the
cities had median nickel concentrations of over 350 mg/kg, and two
were over 1,000 mg/kg. The maximum nickel concentration observed was
4,010 mg/kg.
Nickel is found in nearly all soils, plants, and waters. Nickel has
no known essential function in plants. In soils, nickel typically is
found in the range from 10 to 100 mg/kg. Various environmental
exposures to nickel appear to correlate with increased incidence of
165
-------
." --hit liil!":1'1;1;!1 : M^ V^' Hi!1' "fi;"^-'< ]vi-^vj
tumors in man. For example, cancer in the maxillary antrum of snuff
users may result from using plant material girown on soil high in
nickel.
,'''" " ' " , , " ' ป ; ' 'i, ' ,!! i1 , , ," " ill ' " ii i i
Nickel toxicity may develop in plants from application of sewage
sludge on acid soils. Nickel has caused reduction of yields for a
variety of crops including oats, mustard, turnips, and cabbage. In
one study nickel decreased the yields of oats significantly at TOO
mg/kg.
'.'.' ' : , ; . > "! " ', ..... .', '"'( JM ..... ,i,.I:.; li|.; rit -v ,."!. fe'fli1 ... *n ",ป'i .......... >'"*. .....
Whether nickel exerts a toxic effect on plants depends on several soil
factors, the amount of nickel applied, and the contents of other
metals in the sludge. Unlike copper and zinc, which are more
available from inorganic sources than from sludge, nickel uptake by
plants seems to be promoted by the presence of the organic matter in
sludge. Soil treatments, such as liming reduce the solubility of
nickel. Toxicity of nickel to plants is enhanced in acidic soils.
SeleniumQ25) . Selenium (chemical symbol Se) is a non-metallic
element existing in several allotropic forms. Gray selenium, which
has a metallic appearance, is the stable form at ordinary temperatures
and melts at 220ฐC. Selenium is a major component of 38 minerals and
a minor component of 37 others found in various parts of the world.
Most selenium is obtained as a by-product of precious metals recovery
from electrolytic copper refinery slimes. U.S. annual production at
one time reached one million pounds.
i
Principal uses of selenium are in semi-conductors, pigments,
decoloring of glass, zerography, and metallurgy. It also is used to
produce ruby glass used in signal lights. Several selenium compounds
are important oxidizing agents in the synthesis of organic chemicals
and drug products.
While results of some studies suggest that selenium may be an
essential element in human nutrition, the toxic effects of selenium in
humans are well established. Lassitude, loss of hair, discoloration
and loss of fingernails are symptoms of selenium poisoning. In a
fatal case of ingestion of a larger dose of selenium acid, peripheral
vascular collapse, pulumonary edema, and coma occurred. Selenium
produces mutagenic and teratogenic effects, but it has not been
established as exhibiting carcinogenic activity.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
selenium ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic
organisms, the ambient water criterion is determind to be 0.010 mg/1.
Available data show that adverse effects on aquatic life occur at
concentrations higher than that cited for human toxicity.
166
-------
ซ tae available regarding the behavior of selenium in
POTW. One EPA survey of 103 POTW revealed one POTW using biological
treatment and having selenium in the influent. Influent concentration
was 0.0025 mg/1, effluent concentration was 0.0016 mg/1 giving a
removal of 37 percent. It is not known to be inhibitory to POTW
processes. In another study, sludge from POTW in 16 cities was found
to contain from 1.8 to 8.7 mg/kg selenium, compared to 0.01 to 2 mg/kg
in untreated soil. These concentrations of selenium in sludge present
a potential hazard for humans or other mammuals eating crops grown on
soil treated with selenium containing sludge.
Zinc(128). Zinc occurs abundantly in the earth's crust, concentrated
in ores. It is readily refined into the pure, stable, silvery-white
metal. In addition to its use in alloys, zinc is used as a protective
coating on steel. It is applied by hot dipping (i.e. dipping the
steel in molten zinc) or by electroplating.
Zinc can have an adverse effect
centrations. Zinc at concentrations
undesirable taste and odor which
treatment. For the prevention of
organoleptic properties of zinc,
should not exceed 5 mg/1. Available
aquatic life occur at concentrations
on man and animals at high con-
in excess of 5 mg/1 causes an
persists through conventional
adverse effects due to these
concentrations in ambient water
data show that adverse effects on
as low as 0.047 mg/1.
Toxic concentrations of zinc compounds cause adverse changes in the
morphology and physiology of fish. Lethal concentrations in the range
of 0.1 mg/1 have been reported. Acutely toxic concentrations induce
cellular breakdown of the gills, and possibly the clogging of the
gills with mucous. Chronically toxic concentrations of zinc compounds
cause general enfeeblement and widespread histological changes to many
organs, but not to gills. Abnormal swimming behavior has been
reported at 0.04 mg/1. Growth and maturation are retarded by zinc
It has been observed that the effects of zinc poisoning may not become
apparent immediately, so that fish removed from zinc-contaminated
water may die as long as.48 hours after removal.
In general, salmonoids are most sensitive to elemental zinc in soft
water; the rainbow trout is the most sensitive in hard waters. A
complex relationship exists between zinc concentration, dissolved zinc
concentration, pH, temperature, and calcium and magnesium
concentration. Prediction of harmful effects has been less than
reliable and controlled studies have not been extensively documented.
The major concern with zinc compounds in marine waters is not with
acute lethal effects, but rather with the long-term sublethal effects
ot the metallic compounds and complexes. Zinc accumulates in some
marine species, and marine animals contain zinc in the range of 6 to
1500 mg/kg. From the point of view of acute lethal effects
167
-------
.''lill'I'lITi IK '|i Til, ' I'" 'i
invertebrate marine animals seem tobe themost sensitive organism
tested. " " . "'" ' ," '. ] ."
1111 ' . "' " ii'1 i , , ' " i1 ' ' 'l! "(I I1 ;,i,ij i!iii> "'i'"" ..,!, [ .,'" jji ! i I,,;',,; ! ;; ,'r , ,.g yy "' | > n | | | |
Toxicities of zinc in nutrient solutions HaveBeen demonstrated for a
number of plants. A variety of fresh water plants tested manifested
harmful symptoms at concentrations of 10 mg/1, Zinc sulfate has also
been found to be lethal to many plants and it could impair
agricultural uses of the water.
Zinc is not destroyed when treated by POTW, butwill eitherpass
through to the POTW effluent or be retained in the POTW sludge. It
can interfere with treatment processes in the POTW and can also limit
the usefuleness of municipal sludge.
In slug doses, and particularly in the presence of copper, dissolved
zinc can interfere with or seriously disrupt the operation of POTW
biological processes by reducing overallremoval efficiencies, largely
as a result of the toxicity of the metal to biological organisms.
However, zinc solids in the form of hydroxides or sulfides do not
appear to interfere with biological treatment processes, on the basis
of available data. Such solids accumulate inthe sludge.
.. fi " " i : '"'"'i" :: ' :" " ,-<"' ' ' .' '""i ,i i iV ":I',>M;:I ""l , '. : "i'M1"! Ml"1' i i" i ''ป ' *"("''(, (!.*ป' i':(
' ' ,,, i . ,. , i'.j; ; ," !, "J Vj ,* i ',!, i\:;ซ. : ii*-"1! I .j.w-i ov; i*11;-,*,, '.'4,'ittf rtTd '
The influent concentrations of zinc to POTW facilities have been
observed by the EPA to range from 0.017 to 3.91 mg/1, with a median
concentration of 0.33 mg/1. Primary treatment is not efficient in
removing zinc; however, the microbial floe of secondary treatment
readily adsorbs zinc.
In a study of 258 POTW, the median pass-through values were 70 to 88
percent for primary plants, 50 to 60 percent for trickling filter and
biological process plants, and 30-40 percent for activated process
plants. POTW effluent concentrations of zinc ranged from 0.003 to
3.6 mg/1 (mean = 0.330, standard deviation = 0.464).
The zinc which does not pass through the POTW is retained' in the"
sludge. The presence of zinc in sludge may limit its use on cropland.
Sewage sludge contains 72 to over 30,000 mg/kg of zinc, with
3,366 mg/kg as the mean value. These concentrations are significantly
greater than those normally found in soil, which range from 0 to
195 mg/kg, with 94 mg/kg being a common level. Therefore, application
of sewage sludge to soil will generally increase the concentration of
zinc in the soil. Zinc can be toxic to plants, depending upon soil
pH. Lettuce, tomatoes, turnips, mustard, kale, and beets are
especially sensitive to zinc contamination.
Aluminum. Aluminum is a non-conventional pollutant. It is a silvery
white metal, very abundant in the earths crust (8.1 percent), but never
found free in nature. Its principal ore is bauxite. Alumina (A1203)
1 68
-------
i-s extracted from the bauxite and dissolved in
Aluminum is produced by electrolysis of this melt.
molten cryolite.
Aluminum is light, malleable, ductile, possesses high thermal and
electrical conductivity, and is non-magnetic. It can be formed
machined or cast. Although aluminum is very reactive, it forms a
protective oxide film on the surface which prevents corrosion under
many conditions. In contact with other metals in presence of moisture
the protective film is destroyed and voluminous white corrosion
products form. Strong acids and strong alkali also break down the
protective film. Aluminum is one of the principal basis metals used
in the porcelain enameling industry.
Aluminum is non-toxic and its salts are used as coagulants in water
treatment. Although some aluminum salts are soluble, alkaline
conditions cause precipitation of the aluminum as a hydroxide.
Aluminum is commonly used in cooking utensils. There are no reported
adverse physiological effects on man from low concentrations of
aluminum in drinking water.
Aluminum does not have any adverse effects on POTW
concentrations normally encountered.
operation at any
Barium. Barium is a non-conventional pollutant. It is an alkaline
earth metal which in the pure state is soft and silvery white It
reacts with moisture in the air, and reacts vigorously with water,
releasing hydrogen. The principal ore is barite (BaS04) although
witherite (BaC03) was a commerical ore at one time. Many barium
compounds have commerical applications. However, drilling muds
consume 90 percent of all barite produced. For manufacture of the
other chemicals barite is converted to barium sulfide first The
aqueous barium sulfide is then treated to produce the desired product.
Barite itself and some other insoluble barium compounds are used as
fillers and pigments in paints. Barium carbonate is the most
important commerical barium compound except for the natural sulfate
The carbonate is used in the brick, ceramic, oil-well drilling*
photographic, glass, and chemical manufacturing industries.
Barium compounds such as the acetate, chloride, hydroxide, and nitrate
are water soluble; the arsenate, chromate, fluoride, oxalate, and
sulfate are insoluble. Those salts soluble in water and acid
including the carbonate and sulfide are toxic to humans. Barium
sulfate is so insoluble that it is non-toxic and is used in X-ray
medical diagnosis of the digestive tract. For that purpose the
sulfate must pass rigorous tests to assure absence of water or acid
soluble barium.
169
-------
Lethal adult doses of most soluble barium salts are in the range of 1
to 15 g. The barium ion stimulates muscular tissue and causes a
depression in serum potassium. Symptoms of acute barium poisioning
include salivation, vomiting, abdominal pain and diarrhea; slow and
bften irregular pulse; hypertension; heart disturbances; tinnitus,
vertigo; muscle twitching progressing to convulsions or paralysis;
dilated pupils, confusion; and somnolence. Death may occur from
respiratory failure due to paralysis of the respiratory muscles, or
from cardiac arrest or fibrillation.
Raw wastewaters from most industrial facilities are unlikely to bear
concentrations of soluble barium which would pose a threat to human
health The general presence of small concentrations of sulfate ion
in many wastewaters is expected to be sufficient to convert the barium
to the non-toxic barium sulfate.
No data were found relating to the behavior of barium in POTW.
However, the insolubility of barium sulfate and the presence of
sulfates in most municipal wastewaters is expected to lead to removal
of soluble barium by precipitation follwed by settling out with the
other suspended solids. It is reported that the typical mineral
pickup from domestic water use increases the sulfate concentration of
15 to 30 mg/1. If it is assumed that sulfate concentration exists in
POTW, and the sulfate is not destroyed or precipitated by another
metal ion, the dissolved barium concentration would not exceed
0.1 mg/1 at neutral pH in a POTW.
non-conventional pollutant. It is a brittle,
hard, magnetic, gray metal with a reddish tinge. Cobalt ores are
Cobalt. Cobalt is
IldLU, lllctUUC L-J-U , yi_ay ui=i_u.j. n j-1-1. vป .-_ ~~,.. 37 , , , .. -, ป ,-,1
usually the sulfide or arsenide [smaltite-(Co,Ni)As2; cobaltite-CoAsS]
and are sparingly distributed in the earth's crust. Cobalt is usually
produced as a by-product of mining copper, niekel, arsenic, iron,
manganese, or silver. Because of the variety of ores and the very low
concentrations of cobalt, recovery of the metal is accomplished by
several different processes. Most consumption of cobalt is for
alloys. Over two-thirds of U.S. production goes to heat resistant,
magnetic, and wear resistant alloys. Chemicals and color pigments
make up most of the rest of consumption.
Cobalt and many of its alloys are not corrosion resistant, therefore
minor corrosion of any of the tool alloys or electrical resistance
alloys can contribute to its presence in raw wastewater from a variety
of manufacturing facilities. Additionally, the use of cobalt soaps as
dryers to accelerate curing of unsaturated oils used in coatings may
be a general source of small quantities of the metal. Several cobalt
pigments are used in paints to produce yellows or blues.
Cobalt is an essential nutrient for humans and other mammals, and is
present at a fairly constant level of about 1.2 mg in the adult human
170
-------
body. Mammals tolerate low levels of ingested water-soluble cobalt
salts without any toxic symptoms; safe dosage levels in man have been
stated to be 2-7 mg/kg body weight per day. A goitrogenic effect in
humans is observed after the systemic administration of 3-4 mg cobalt
as cobaltous chloride daily for three weeks. Fatal heart disease
among heavy beer drinkers was attributed to the cardiotoxic action of
cobalt salts which were formerly used as additives to improve foaming.
The carcinogenicity of cobalt in rats has been verified, however,
there is no evidence for the involvement of dietary cobalt in
carcinogenisis in mammals.
There are no data available on the behavior of cobalt in POTW. There
are no data to lead to an expectation of adverse effects of cobalt on
POTW operation or the utility of sludge from POTW for crop
application. Cobalt which enters POTW is expected to pass through to
the effluent unless sufficient sulfide ion is present, or generated in
anaerobic processes in the POTW to cause precipitation of the very
insoluble cobalt sulfide.
Fluoride. Fluoride ion (F-) is a non-conventional pollutant.
Fluorine is an extremely reactive, pale yellow, gas which is never
found free in nature. Compounds of fluorine - fluorides - are found
widely distributed in nature. The principal minerals containing
fluorine are fluorspar (CaF2) and cryolite (Na3AlF6). Although
fluorine is produced commercially in small quantities by electrolysis
of potassium bifluoride in anhydrous hydrogen fluoride, the elemental
form bears little relation to the combined ion. Total production of
fluoride chemicals in the U.S. is difficult to estimate because of the
varied uses. Large volume usage compounds are: Calcium fluoride
(est. 1,500,000 tons in U.S.) and sodium fluoroaluminate (est. 100,000
tons in U.S.). Some fluoride compounds and their uses are: sodium
fluoroaluminate - aluminum production; calcium fluoride - steelmaking
hydrofluoric acid production, enamel, iron foundry; boron trifluoride
- organic synthesis; antimony pentafluoride - fluorocarbon production-
fluoboric acid and fluoborates - electroplating; perchloryl fluoride
(C103F) - rocket fuel oxidizer; hydrogen fluoride - organic fluoride
manufacture, pickling acid in stainless steelmaking, manufacture of
aluminum fluoride; sulfur hexafluoride - insulator in high voltage
transformers; polytetrafluoroethylene - inert plastic. Sodium
fluoride is used at a concentration of about 1 ppm in many public
drinking water supplies to prevent tooth decay in children.
The toxic effects of fluoride on humans include severe
gastroenteritis, vomiting, diarrhea, spasms, weakness, thirst, failing
pulse and delayed blood coagulation. Most observations of toxic
effects are made on individuals who intentionally or accidentally
ingest sodium fluoride intended for use as rat poison or insecticide.
Lethal doses for adults are estimated to be as low as 2.5 g. At 1.5
ppm in drinking water, mottling of tooth enamel is reported, and 14
171
-------
I , ,, ' |lh |.r, 'ป, . ', 'ป!!,;,!,:'" ,,!'| !" , |, | '|i | ' ",," ', I: ' I!'11':"','1 ' i".1 H'li'ili'i1' , '! I1 ' ,"ll"'',il'
ppm, consumed over a period of years, may lead to deposition of
calcium fluoride in bone and tendons.
Very few data are available on the behavior of. fluoride in P5fw.
Under usual operating conditions in POTW, fluorides pass through into
the effluent. Very little of the fluoride entering conventional
primary and secondary treatment processes is removed. In one study of
POTW influents conducted by the U.S. EPA, nine POTW reported
concentrations of fluoride ranging from 0.7 mg/1 to 1.2 mg/1, which is
the range of concentrations used for fluoridated drinking water.
Iron. iron is a nonconventional pollutant, it is an abundant metal
found at many places in the earth's crust. The most common iron ore
is hematite (Fe2O3) from which iron is obtained by reduction with
carbon. Other forms of commercial ores are magnetite (Fe3O4) and
taconite (FeSiO). Pure iron is not often found in commercial use, but
it is usually alloyed with other metals and minerals. The most common
of these is carbon. ' i ' V"'^ _ " " ' y" ' ^ '''^"''
Iron is the basic element in the production of steel. Iron with
carbon is used for casting of major parts of machines and it can be
machined, cast, formed, and welded. Ferrous iron is used in paints,
while powdered iron can be sintered and used in powder metallurgy.
Iron compounds are also used to precipitate other metals and
undesirable minerals from industrial wastewater streams.
Corrosion products of iron in water cause"staining of porcelain
fixtures, and ferric iron combines with tannin to produce a dark
violet color. The presence of excessive iron in water discourages
cows from drinking and thus reduces milk production. High
concentrations of ferric and ferrous ions in water kill most fish
introduced to the solution within a few hours. The killing action is
attributed to coatings of iron hydroxide precipitates on the gills.
Iron oxidizing bacteria are dependent on iron in water for growth.
These bacteria form slimes that can affect the aesthetic values of
bodies of water and cause stoppage of flows in pipes.
Iron is an essential nutrient and micro-nutrient for all forms of
growth. Drinking water standards in the U.S. set a limit of 0.3 mg/1
of iron in domestic water supplies based on aesthetic and organoleptic
properties of iron in water.
High concentrations of iron do not pass through a POTW into the
effluent. In some POTW iron salts are added to coagulate precipitates
and suspended sediments into a sludge. In an EPA study of POTW the
concentration of iron in the effluent of 22 biological POTW meeting
secondary treatment performance levels ranged from 0.048 to 0.569 mg/1
with a median value of 0.25 mg/1. This represented removals of 76 to
97 percent with a median of 87 percent removal.
172
-------
Iron in sewage sludge spread on land used for agricultural purposes is
not expcected to have a detrimental effect on crops grown on the land.
Manganese. Manganese is a non-conventional pollutant. It is a gray-
white metal resembling iron, but more brittle. The pure metal does
not occur in nature, but must be produced by reduction of the oxide
with sodium, magnesium, or aluminum, or by electrolysis. The
principal ores are pyrolusite (Mn02) and psilomelane (a complex
mixture of Mn02 and oxides of potassium, barium and other alkali and
alkaline earth metals). The largest percentage of manganese used in
the U.S. is in ferro-manganese alloys. A small amount goes into dry
batteries and chemicals.
Manganese is not often present in natural surface waters because its
hydroxides and carbonates are only sparingly soluble.
Mangenese is undesirable in domestic water supplies because it causes
unpleasant tastes, deposits on food during cooking, stains and
discolors laundry and plumbing fixtures, and fosters the growth of
some microorganisms in reservoirs, filters, and distribution systems.
Small concentratons of 0.2 to 0.3 mg/1 manganese may cause building of
heavy encrustations in piping. Excessive manganese is also
undesirable in water for use in many industries, including textiles,
dyeing, food processing, distilling, brewing, ice, and paper.
The recommended limitations for manganese in drinking water in the
U.S. is 0.05 mg/1. The limit appears to be based on aesthetic and
economic factors rather than physiological hazards. Most
investigators regard manganese to be of no toxicological significance
in drinking water at concentrations not causing unpleasant tastes.
However, cases of manganese poisoning have been reported in the
literature. A small outbreak of encephalitis - like disease, with
early symptoms of lethergy and edema, was traced to manganese in the
drinking water in a village near Tokyo. Three persons died as a
result of poisoning by well water contaminated by manganese derived
from dry-cell batteris buried nearby. Excess manganese in the
drinking water is also believed to be the cause of a rare disease
endemic in Northeastern China.
No data were found regarding the behavior of manganese in POTW.
However, one source reports that typical mineral pickup from domestic
water use results in an increase in manganese concentration of 0.2 to
0.4 mg/1 in a municipal sewage system. Therefore, it is expected that
interference in POTW, if it occurs, would not be noted until manganese
concentrations exceeded 0.4 mg/1.
Phenols(Total). "Total Phenols" is a toxic pollutant parameter.
Total phenols is the result of analysis using the 4-AAP (4-amino-
173
-------
antipyrene) method. This analytical procedure measures the color
development of reaction products between 4-AAP and some phenols. The
results are reported as phenol. Thus "total phenol" is not total
phenols because many phenols (notably nitrophenols) do not react.
Also, since each reacting phenol contributes to the color development
to a different degree, and each phenol has a molecular weight
different from others and from phenol itself, analyses of several
mixtures containing the same total concentration in mg/1 of several
phenols will give different numbers depending on the proportions in
the particular mixture.
Despite these limitations of the analytical method, total phenols is a
useful parameter when the mix of phenols is relatively constant and an
inexpensive monitoring method is desired. In any given plant or even
in an industry subcategory, monitoring of "total phenols" provides an
indication of the concentration of this group of priority pollutants
as well as those phenols not selected as priority pollutants. A
further advantage is that the method is widely used in water quality
determinations.
In an EPA survey of 103 POTW the concentration of "total phenols"
ranged from 0.0001 mg/1 to 0.176 mg/1 in the influent, with -a median
concentration of 0.016 mg/1. Analysis of effluents from 22 of these
same POTW which had biological treatment meeting secondary treatment
performance levels showed "total phenols" concentrations ranging from
0 mg/1 to 0.203 mg/1 with a median of 0.007,, Removals were 64 to 100
percent with a median of 78 percent.
It must be recognized, however, that six of the eleven priority
pollutant phenols could be present in high concentrations and not be
detected. Conversely, it is possible, but not probable, to have a
high "total phenol" concentration without any phenol itself or any of
the ten other priority pollutant phenols present. A characterization
of the phenol mixture to be monitored to establish constancy of
composition will allow "total phenols" to be used with confidence.
Phosphorus. Phosphorus, a conventional pollutant, is a general term
used to designate the various anions containing pentavalent phosphorus
and oxygen - orthophsophate [(PO4)-3], metaphosphate [(PO3)-j,
pyrophosphate [(PO207-4], hypophosphate [(PZ06)-*]. The element
phosphorous exists in several allotropic forms - red, white or yellow,
and black. White phosphorus reacts with oxygen in air, igniting
spontaneously. It is not found free in nature, but is widely
distributed in nature. The most important commercial sources of
phosphate are the apatites [3Ca3(P04)2ซCaF2 and 3Ca3(P04)2ปCaCl2j.
Phosphates also occur in bone and other tissue. Phosphates are
essential for plant and animal life. Several millions of tons of
phosphates are mined and converted for use each year in the U.S. The
174
-------
major form produced is phosphoric acid.
produce other phosphate chemicals.
The acid is then used to
The largest use for phosphates is fertilizer. Most of the U.S.
production of phosphoric acid goes into that application. Phosphates
are used in cleaning preparations for household land industrial
applications and as corrosion inhibitors in boiler feed water and
cooling towers.
Phosphates are not controlled because of toxic effects on man.
Phosphates are controlled because they promote growth of algae and
other plant life in aquatic environments. Such growth becomes
unsightly first, and if it florishes, eventually dies, and adds to the
biological oxygen demand (BOD). The result can be a dead body of
water. No standards or criteria appear to have been established for
U.S. surface waters.
Phosphorus is one of the concerns of any POTW, because phosphates are
introduced into domestic wastewaters from human body wastes and food
wastes as well as household detergents. About ten percent of the
phosphorus entering POTW is insoluble and is removed by primary
settling. Biological treatment removes very little of the remaining
phosphate. Removal is accomplished by forming an insoluble
precipitate Which will settle out. Alum, lime, and ferric chloride or
sulfate are commonly used for this purpose. The point |of addition of
chemicals for phosphate removal requires careful evaluation because pH
adjustment may be required, and material and capital cbsts differ with
different removal 'schemes. The phosphate content of the effluent also
varies according to the scheme used. There is concern about the
effect of phosphate contained in sludge used for soil amendment.
Phosphate is a principal ingredient of fertilizers.
Titanium.. Titanium is a non-conventional pollutant. It is a lustrous
white metal occuring as the oxide in ilmenite (FeOซTiO2) and rutile
(TiO2). The metal is used in heat-resistant, high-strength, light-
weight alloys for aircraft and missiles. It is also used in surgical
appliances because of its high strength and light weight. Titanium
dioxide is used extensively as a white pigment in paints, ceramics,
and plastics.
Toxicity data on titanium are not abundant. Because of the lack of
definitive data titanium compounds are generally considered non-toxic.
Large oral doses of titanium dioxide (Ti02) and thiotitanic acid
(H4TiS03) were tolerated by rabbits for several days with no toxic
symptoms. However, impaired reproductive capacity was observed in
rats fed 5 mg/1 titanium as titanate in drinking water. There was
also a reduction in the male/female ratio and in the number of animals
surviving to the third generation. Titanium compounds iare reported to
inhibit several enzyme systems and to be carcinogenic.
175
-------
The behavior of titanium in POTW has not been studied. On the basis
of the insolubility of the titanium oxides in water, it is expected
that most of the titanium entering the POTW will be removed by
settling and will remain in the sludge. No data were found regarding'
possible effects on plants as a result of spreading titanium -
containing sludge on agricultural cropland.
Oil and Grease. Oil and grease are taken together as one pollutant
parameter. This is a conventional polluant and some of its components
are: ' ... ,
1. Light Hydrocarbons - These include light fuels such as gasoline,
kerosene, and jet fuel, and miscellaneous solvents used for
industrial processing, degreasing, or cleaning purposes. The
presence of these light hydrocarbons may make the removal of
other heavier oil wastes more difficult.
2. Heavy Hydrocarbons, Fuels, and Tars - These include the cruSe
oils, diesel oils, #6 fuel oil, residual oils, slop oils, and in
some cases, asphalt and road tar.
3. Lubricants and Cutting Fluids - These generally fall into two
classes: non-emulsifiable oils such as lubricating oils and
greases and emulsifiable oils such as water soluble oils, rolling
oils, cutting oils, and drawing compounds. Emulsifiable oils may
contain fat soap or various other additives.
4. Vegetable and Animal Fats and Oils - These originate primarily
from processing of foods and natural products.
These compounds can settle or float and may exist as solids or liquids
depending upon factors such as method of use, production process, and
temperature of wastewater.
Oils and grease even in small quantities cause troublesome taste and
odor problems. Scum lines from these agents are produced on water
treatment basin walls and other containers. Fish and water fowl are
adversely affected by oils in their habitat. Oil emulsions may adhere
to the gills of fish causing suffocation, and the flesh of fish is
tainted when microorganisms that were exposed to waste oil are eaten.
Deposition of oil in the bottom sediments of water can serve to
inhibit normal benthic growth. Oil and grease exhibit an oxygen
demand.
Many of the organic priority pollutants will be found distributed
between the oily phase and the aqueous phase in industrial
wastewaters. The presence of phenols, PCBs, PAHs, and almost any
other organic pollutant in the oil and grease make characterization of
176
-------
this parameter almost impossible. However, all of these other
organics add to the objectionable nature of the oil and grease.
Levels of oil and grease which are toxic to aquatic organisms vary
greatly, depending on the type and the species susceptibility.
However, it has been reported that crude oil in concentrations as low
as 0.3 mg/1 is extremely toxic to fresh-water fish. It has been
recommended that public water supply sources be essentially free from
oil and grease.
Oil and grease in quantities of 100 1/sq km show up as a sheen on the
surface of a body of water. The presence of oil slicks decreases the
aesthetic value of a waterway.
Oil and grease is compatible with a POTW activated sludge process in
limited quantity. However, slug loadings or high concentrations of
oil and grease interfere with biological treatment processes. The
oils coat surfaces and solid particles, preventing access of oxygen,
and sealing in some microorganisms. Land spreading of POTW sludge
containing oil and grease uncontaminated by toxic pollutants is not
expected to affect crops grown on the treated land, or animals eating
those crops.
pH. Although not a specific pollutant, pH is related to the acidity
or alkalinity of a wastewater stream. It is not, however, a measure
of either. The term pH is used to describe the hydrogen ion
concentration (or activity) present in a given solution. Values for
pH range from 0 to 14, and these numbers are the negative logarithms
of the hydrogen ion concentrations. A pH of 7 indicates neutrality.
Solutions with a pH above 7 are alkaline, while those solutions with a
pH below 7 are acidic. The relationship of pH and acidity and
alkalinity is not necessarily linear or direct. Knowledge of the
water pH is useful in determining necessary measures for corroison
control, sanitation, and disinfection. Its value is also necessary in
the treatment of industrial wastewaters to determine amounts of
chemcials required to remove pollutants and to measure their
effectiveness. Removal of pollutants, especially dissolved solids is
affected by the pH of the wastewater.
Waters with a pH below 6.0 are corrosive to water works structures,
distribution lines, and household plumbing fixtures and can thus add
constituents to drinking water such as iron, copper, zinc, cadmium,
and lead. The hydrogen ion concentration can affect the taste of the
water and at a low pH, water tastes sour. The bactericidal effect of
chlorine is weakened as the pH increases, and it is advantageous to
keep the pH close to 7.0. This is significant for providng safe
drinking water.
177
-------
Extremes of pH or rapid pH changes can exert stress conditions or kill
aquatic life outright. Even moderate changes from acceptable criteria
limits of pH are deleterious to some species. The relative toxicity
to aquatic life of many materials is increased by changes in the water
pH. For example, metallocyanide complexes can increase a thousand-
fold in toxicity with a drop of 1.5 pH units.
Because of the universal nature of pH and its effect on water quality
and treatment, it is selected as a pollutant parameter for all
subcategories in the porcelain enameling industry. A neutral pH range
(approximately 6-9) is generally desired because either extreme beyond
this range has a deleterious effect on receiving waters or the
pollutant nature of other wastewater constituents.
' i ,; -: ,. ., :; i'f.i-'-!:';' is; , ,;''?r.x; ^1^''" *'.;! i is
Pretreatment for regulation of pH is covered by the "General
Pretreatment Regulations for Exisiting and New Sources of Pollution,"
40 CFR 403.5. This section prohibits the discharge to a POTW of
"pollutants which will cause corrosive structural damage to the POTW
but in no case discharges with pH lower than 5.0 unless the works is
specially designed to accommodate such discharges."
Tota1 Suspended So1ids(TSS). Suspended solids include both organic
and inorganic materials. The inorganic compounds include sand, silt,
and clay. The organic fraction includes such materials as grease,
oil, tar, and animal and vegetable waste products. These solids may
settle out rapidly, and bottom deposits are often a mixture of both
organic and inorganic solids. Solids may be suspended in water for a
time and then settle to the bed of the stream or lake. These solids
discharged with man's wastes may be inert, slowly biodegradable
materials, or rapidly decomposable substances. While in suspension,
suspended solids increase the turbidity of the water, reduce light
penetration, and impair the photosynthetic activity of aquatic plants.
Suspended solids in water interfere with many industrial processes and
cause foaming in boilers and incrustations on equipment exposed to
such water, especially as the temperature rises. They are undesirable
in process water used in the manufacture of steel, in the textile
industry, in laundries, in dyeing, and in cooling systems.
Solids in suspension are aesthetically displeasing. When they settle
to form sludge deposits on the stream or lake bed, they are often
damaging to the life in the water. Solids, when transformed to sludge
deposit, may do a variety of damaging things, including blanketing the
stream or lake bed and thereby destroying the living spaces for those
benthic organisms that would otherwise occupy the habitat. When of an
organic nature, solids use a portion or all of the dissolved oxygen
available in the area. Organic materials also serve as a food source
for sludgeworms and associated organisms.
178
-------
Disregarding any toxic effect attributable to substances leached out
by water, suspended solids may kill fish and shellfish by causing
abrasive injuries and by clogging the gills and respiratory passages
of various aquatic fauna. Indirectly, suspended solids are inimical
to aquatic life because they screen out light, and they promote and
maintain the development of noxious conditions through oxygen
depletion. This results in the killing of fish and fish food
organisms. Suspended solids also reduce the recreational value of the
water. ,
Total suspended solids is a traditional pollutant which is compatible
with a well-run POTW. This pollutant with the exception of those
components which are described elsewhere in this section, e.g., heavy
metal components, does not interfere with the operation of a POTW.
However, since a considerable portion of the innocuous TSS may be
inseparably bound to the constituents which do interfere with POTW
operation, or produce unusable sludge, or subsequently dissolve to
produce unacceptable POTW effluent, TSS may be considered a toxic
waste hazard.
REGULATION OF SPECIFIC POLLUTANTS
Discussions of individual pollutant parameters selected or not
selected for consideration for specific regulation are based on data
obtained by sampling and analysing raw wastewater streams from all
discrete operations generating wastewater. From one to five
operations were sampled in each subcategory.
The coating operation generates the largest quantity of pollutants in
porcelain enameling. Composition of the frit used on different basis
metals depends little on the metal. Color, flow characteristics and
service requirements have the greater influence on frit composition.
Therefore, data generated from raw wastewaters from the coating
operations in all four subcategories is combined. Data on priority
pollutant metals, nonconventional and conventional pollutants is
reviewed. The selection for consideration for regulation is based on
the combined data and is applicable to all subcategories.
Concentrations of priority pollutants appearing in streams from metal
preparation processes are considered within each subcategory.
Selection for consideration for regulation is based only on those data
for metal preparation processes, and any final regulation must
consider these selections and the selections based on coating
operations.
Coating Operations - All Subcategories
Pollutant Parameters Considered for Specific Regulation. Based on
verification sampling results and a careful examination of the
179
-------
porcelain enameling coating processes and raw materials, twenty
pollutant parameters were selected for consideration for specific
regulation in effluent limitations and standards for all
subcategories. The twenty are: antimony, arsenic, cadmium,
chromium(total), copper, lead, nickel, selenium, zinc, aluminum,
barium, cobalt, fluoride, iron, manganese, titanium, oil and grease,
phosphorus, total suspended solids and pH.
Antimony concentrations appeared on 17 of 40 sampling days for the
coating process. The maximum concentration was 1,020 mg/1. Antimony
oxides are used as coloring agents in porcelain enameling. Some of
the concentrations are greater than the level that can be achieved
with specific treatment methods. Therefore, antimony is considered
for specific regulation in coating wastewater streams from all
subcategories.
Arsenic concentrations appeared on 14 of 40 sampling days for the
coating process. The maximum concentration was 3.8 mg/1. Arsenic
compounds are used as coloring agents in enameling slips. All of the
arsenic concentrations are greater than the level that can be achieved
with specific treatment methods. Therefore, arsenic is considered for
specific regulation in coating wastewater streams from all
subcategories.
Cadmium concentrations appeared on 28 of 40 sampling days for the
coating process. The maximum concentration was 54.0 mg/1. Cadmium
compounds are used as coloring agents in enameling slip. Most of the
concentrations were greater than the level that can be achieved with
specific treatment methods. Therefore, cadmium is considered for
specific regulation in coating wastewaters from all subcategories.
Chromium(total) concentrations appeared on all 40 sampling days for
the coating process. The maximum concentration was 37.4 mg/1.
Chromium compounds are used as coloring agents in enamel slip. About
one-third of the chromium concentrations were greater than the level
achievable with specific treatment technology. Therefore,
chromium(total) is considered for specific regulation in coating
wastewaters from all subcategories.
Copper concentrations appeared on 38 of 40 sampling days for the
coating process. The maximum concentration was 55.0 mg/1. Copper
oxide is used as a coloring agent in enamel slip. About one-third of
the concentrations were greater than the level that can be achieved
with specific treatment methods. Therefore, copper is considered for
specific regulation in coating wastewater from all subcategories.
Lead concentrations appeared on 38 of 40 sampling days for the coating
process. The maximum concentration was 876.3 mg/1. Lead compounds
are used in enamel slips. All of the lead concentrations are greater
180
-------
than the level that can be achieved with specific treatment
technology. Therefore, lead is considered for specific regulation in
coating wastewater from all subcategories.
Nickel concentrations appeared on 32 of 40 sampling days for the
coating process. The maximum concentration was 358.0 mg/1. Most of
the nickel concentrations are greater than the level that can be
achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore, nickel is
considered for specific regulation in coating wastewaters from all
subcategories.
Selenium concentrations appeared on 29 of 40 sampling days for the
coating process. The maximum concentration was 161.2 mg/1. Selenium
is used in some enamel slips. Most of the selenium concentrations
were greater than the level that can be achieved with specific
treatment methods. Therefore, selenium is considered for specific
regulation in the coating wastewaters from all subcategories.
Zinc concentrations appeared on 39 of 40 sampling days for the coating
process. The maximum concentration was 1,320 mg/1. Zinc oxide is
extensively used in enamel slip. Most of the zinc concentrations were
greater than the-level achievable with specific treatment methods.
Therefore, zinc is considered for specific regulation in coating
wastewaters from all subcategories.
Aluminum concentrations appeared on all 40 sampling days for the
coating process. The maximum concentrations was 1,525 mg/1. Aluminum
is used in some enamel slips. More than half of the concentrations
were greater than the level that can be achieved with specific
treatment methods. Therefore, aluminum is considered for specific
regulation in coating wastewaters from all subcategories.
Cobalt concentrations appeared on 33 of 40 sampling days for the
coating process. The maximum concentration was 350.0 mg/1. Cobalt
compounds are used to color enamel slips. Most of the cobalt
concentrations were greater than the level that can be achieved with
specific treatment methods. Therefore, cobalt is considered for
specific regulation in coating wastewaters for all subcategories.
Fluoride concentrations appeared on all 40 process sampling days for
the coating process. The maximum concentration was 115.0 mg/1.
Fluoride in porcelain enameling raw wastewater results from the use of
fluorspar in the enamel slip. Many of the fluoride concentrations
were greater than the level that can be achieved with specific
treatment methods. Therefore, fluoride is considered for specific
regulation in coating wastewaters from all subcategories.
V.
Iron concentrations appeared on 38 of 39 sampling days for the coating
process. The maximum concentration was 620.0 mg/1. Many of the iron
181
-------
I 'i'M = "
concentrations were greater than the level that can be achieved with
specific regulation in coating wastewaters from all subcategories.
i ' '"'"':, "! ' |i|i;||,; '||", /h j, I" ,, ! ',!" '. ' i ' ,. , '"I1 ; i, ' , ;,,' i;!,,'"'J, '.' ' ,, Pin,,, , "" "'j.
Manganese concentrations appeared on 34 of 40 ssanip'ling days for the
coating process. The maximum concentration was 400.0 mg/1. Manganese
compounds are used to color enamel slips. Many of the manganese
concentrations were greater than the level that, can be achieved with
specific treatment methods. Therefore, manganese is considered for
specific regulation in coating wastewaters from all subcategories.
! ' ...... " ' '11 " ' ' ' ' " ' ' "'
- , : ..... .,.. , , ,
Phosphorus concentrations appeared on 25 of 36 sampling days for the
coating process. The maximum concentration was 71.0 mg/1. More than
half of the concentrations are' greater than the level that can be
achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore phosphorus is
considered for specific regulation in coating wastewaters from all
subcategor ies .
Titanium concentrations appeared on 37 of 40 sampling days for the
coating operation. The maximum concentration was 1,641.45 mg/1.
Titanium oxide is used as a pigment in enamel slip. About two-thirds
of the concentrations are greater than the level that can be achieved
with specific treatment methods. Therefore, titanium is considered
for specific regulation in the coating wastewater from all
subcategories.
;";!;' " , J ...... , ;! ' ': '.,>'. v >' i w'.fh11:!1,." '.'. ...... ', .. ;1'v -'i i'v;,'^'?S'
Oil and grease concentrations appeared on 24 of 29 sampling days for
the coating process. The maximum concentration was 98 mg/1. This
concentration is within the range found in domestic wastewaters and
therefore should be suitable for discharge to POTW. Several of the
concentrations are greater than the level that can be achieved with
specific treatment methods. Therefore, Oil and Grease is considered
for specific regulation in coating wastewaters from all subcategories
for direct discharges only.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) concentrations appeared on all 39
sampling days for the coating process. The maximum concentration was
319,600 mg/1. TSS from the coating process is essentially a dilute
enamel slip. It therefore contains many of the priority pollutant
metals which makes it unsuitable for discharge to POTW. All
concentrations were greater than the level that can be achieved with
specific treatment methods. Therefore, TSS is considered for specific
regulation in coating wastewaters from all subcategories for direct
and indirect discharges.
pH ranged from 5.8 to 12.5 on the 30 sampling days for the coating
process. Specific treatment methods can readily bring pH values
within the prescribed limits of 6 to 9. Therefore, pH is considered
for specific regulation in coating wastewaters from all subcategories.
K'1 Si
182
-------
Pollutant Parameters Not Considered for Specific Regulation. A total
of six pollutant parameters that were evaluated in verification
sampling and analysis were dropped from further consideration for
specific regulation in coating wastewaters from all subcategories.
The six are: bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, di-n-octyl phthalate,
toluene, chromium (hexavalent), phenols (total), and beryllium.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate concentrations appeared on 2 of 10 sampling
days for the coating process. The concentrations were below the
analytical quantification limit. Therefore, bis(2-ethyl
hexyl)phthalate is not considered for specific regulation in coating
wastewaters from any subcategory.
Di-n-octyl phthalate concentrations did not appear on any of 10 sample
days for the coating process. Therefore, di-n-octyl phthalate is not
considered for specific regulation in coating wastewaters from any
subcategory.
Toluene concentrations appeared on 2 of 13 sampling days for the
coating process. The maximum concentration was 0.018 mg/1. Both
concentrations are lower than the level that is considered to cause or
likely to cause toxic effects. Therefore, toluene is not considered
for specific regulation in coating wastewaters from any subcategory.
Beryllium concentrations appeared on 15 of 40 sampling days for the
coating process. The maximum concentration was 0.12 mg/1. Beryllium
can not be removed by specific treatment methods from raw wastewater
at that level. Therefore, beryllium is not considered for specific
regulation in coating wastewaters for any subcategory.
Chromium (hexavalent) concentrations did not appear on any of 40
sample days for the coating process. Therefore, hexavalent chromium
is not considered for specific regulation in coating wastewaters for
any subcategory.
Phenols (Total) concentrations appeared on 27 of 38 sampling days for
the coating process. The maximum concentration was 0.07 mg/1 which is
the same level found in influent water for some plants. Therefore,
total phenols is not considered for specific regulation in coating
wastewaters from any subcategory.
Steel Subcategory
Pollutant Parameters Considered for Specific Regulation. Based on
verification sampling results and a careful examination of the steel
subcategory manufacturing processes other than coating and raw
materials, fourteen pollutant parameters were selected for
consideration for specific regulation in effluent limitations and
standards for processes other than coating in this subcategory. The
183
-------
fourteen are: cadmium, chromium (total), copper, lead, nickel, zinc,
aluminum, cobalt, iron, manganese, phosphorus, oil and grease, total
suspended solids and pH.
,; ' .'.'' " .. ' :' '!,":ป ir ' ' I *"' I: i ' ".; .'ซ ' 'S'M!' VIM""1 '1 (.
Cadmium concentrations appeared on 5 of 61 process sampling days for
the steel subcategory. The maximum concentration was 0.084 mg/1. One
of the concentrations is greater than the levelthan can be achieved
with specific treatment methods. Therefore, cadmium is considered for
specific regulation in this subcategory.
Chromium concentrations appeared on 45 of 61 process sampling days for
the steel subcategory. The maximum concentration was 3.07 mg/1.
Several of the concentrations are greater than the level achievable
with specific treatment methods. Therefore, chromium is selected for
specific regulation in this subcategory.
Copper concentrations appeared on 54 of 61 process sampling days for
the steel subcategory. The maximum concentration was 0.38 mg/1.
Several of the concentrations exceeded the level achievable .with
specific treatment methods. Therefore, copper is considered for
specific regulation in this subcategory.
Lead concentrations appeared on 5 of 61 process sampling days. The
maximum concentration was 0.13 mg/1. All the concentrations exceeded
the level that is achievable with specific treatment methods.
Therefore, lead is considered for specific regulation in this
subcategory.
Jl'.ll! "il' '.ill ,>'!!, n "'
i11;1, ,1! "I liiiGI
-------
concentrations are greater than the level achievable with specific
treatment methods. Therefore, cobalt ' is .considered for specific
regulation in this subcategory.
Iron concentrations appeared on all 58 process sampling days for the
steel subcategory. The maximum concentration was 10,200 mg/1. Iron
is removed from steel during acid dipping and nickel flash operations.
Most of the iron concentrations were greater than the level that can
be achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore, iron is
considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Manganese concentrations appeared on 53 of 59 process sampling days
for the steel subcategory. The maximum concentration was 53.0 mg/1.
Some of the concentrations are greater than the level than can be
achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore, manganese is
considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Phosphorus concentrations appeared on 39 of 41 sampling days in the
steel subcategory. The maximum was 92.4 mg/1. Phosphorus is present
in many compounds used for alkaline cleaning of metals. Most of the
concentrations were greater than the level that can be achieved with
specific treatment methods. Therefore, phosphorus is considered for
specific regulation in this subcategory.
Oil and Grease concentrations appeared on all 34 process sampling days
for the steel subcategory. The maximum concentration was 63 mg/1.
This pollutant parameter enters porcelain enameling wastewater streams
from steel cleaning operations and from equipment washdown. Some of
the concentrations are greater than the level that can be achieved
with specific treatment methods. All concentrations are in the range
that can be handled by POTW. Therefore, the oil and grease parameter
is considered for specific regulation for direct dischargers only, in
this subcategory.
Total Suspended solids (TSS) .concentrations appeared on 36 of 55
process sampling days for the steel subcategory. The maximum
concentration was 649;2 mg/1. Nearly half of the concentrations are
greater than the level that can be achieved with specific treatment
methods. Because most of the solids contain one or more of the
priority pollutant metals, these solids are not suitable for discharge
to POTW. Therefore, Total Suspended Solids is considered for specific
regulation for direct and indirect dischargers in this subcategory.
pH ranged from 2.0 to 11.7 on 61 process sampling days in the steel
subcategory. pH can be controlled within the limits of 6 to 9 with
specific treatment methods. Therefore, pH is considered for specific
regulation in this subcategory.
185
-------
Pollutant Parameters Not Considered for Specific Regulation. Six
pollutant parameters that were evaluated in verification sampling and
analysis were dropped from further consideration for specific
regulation in the steel subcategory. These parameters were found to
be present in raw wastewaters infrequently or at levels below those
usually achieved by specific treatment methods. The six are:
antimony, arsenic, selenium, fluoride, phenols (total), and titanium.
Antimony concentrations did not appear on any of 61 process sampling
days for the steel subcategory. Therefore, antimony is not considered
for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Arsenic concentrations did not appear on any of 61 process sampling
days for the steel subcategory. Therefore, arsenic is not considered
for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Selenium concentrations appeared on 4 of 61 process sampling days in
the steel subcategory. The concentration was 0.21 mg/1 which is lower
than the level that can be achieved with specific treatment methods.
Therefore, selenium is not considered for specific regulation in this
subcategory.
Fluoride concentrations appeared on all 61 process sampling days. The
maximum concentration was 1.8 mg/1 which was less than the
concentration in the inlet water at one plant,. Therefore, fluoride is
not considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Phenols (Total) concentrations appeared on 48 of 54 process sampling
days for the steel subcategory. The maximum concentration was 0.69
mg/1. Only two concentrations were greater than those found in inlet
water at two plants (about 0.05 mg/1). The maximum concentration was
not considered to be environmentally significant. Therefore, Total
Phenols is not considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
I ;. , . . ' ' , : " ;ii' 1 '. ' ! ' I1'1'. ' ' ' 1!!1! ".'!!' I' -'
Titanium concentrations appeared on 1 of 61 process sampling days for
the steel subcategory. This concentration was 0.05 mg/1, therefore,
titanium is not considered for specific regulation in this
subcategory.
Cast Iron Subcategory
Coating process raw wastewater was the only stream sampled for the
cast iron subcategory. Therefore, all selections for consideration
for specific regulation of pollutant parameters are based on those
combined coating process concentrations discussed at the beginning of
this section.
186
-------
Aluminum Subcateqory . ,
Pollutant Parameters Considered for Specific Regulation. Based on
verification sampling results and careful examination of the aluminum
subcategory alkaline cleaning process (the only process sampled other
than coating), seven pollutant parameters were selected for
consideration for specific regulation in effluent limitations and
standards for this subcategory. The seven are: chromium (total),
lead, zinc, aluminum, phosphorus, total suspended solids and pH.
Chromium (total)- concentrations appeared at low levels on 2 of 8
process sampling days for the aluminum subcategory. However, dcp
responses indicate that there are a few porcelain enamelers on
aluminum that use a chromate coating as a basis metal preparation
operation. This process operation was not included in the sampling
program. Based on this dcp information total chromium is considered
for specific regulaiton in this subcategory.
Lead concentrations appeared on 2 of 8 process sampling days for the
aluminum subcategory. The greater concentration was 4.31 mg/1. Both
concentrations were greater than the level that can be achieved with
specific treatment methods. Therefore, lead is considered for
specific regulation in this subcategory.
Zinc concentrations appeared on 7 of 8 process sampling days for the
aluminum subcategory. The maximum concentration was 0.54 mg/1. Some
of the concentrations were greater than the level that can be achieved
with specific treatment methods. Therefore, zinc is considered for
specific regulation in this subcategory.
Aluminum concentrations appeared on 7 of 8 process sampling days for
the aluminum subcategory. The maximum concentration was 25.9 mg/1.
Most of the aluminum concentrations and greater than the concentration
level that can be achieved with specific treatment methods.
Therefore, aluminum is considered for specific regulation in this
subcategory.
Phosphorus concentrations appeared on all 8 process sampling days for
the aluminum subcategory. The maximum concentration was 24.3 mg/1.
Phosphorus compounds are used in many alkaline cleaners. Half of the
phosphorus concentrations were greater than the level that can be
achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore, phosphorus is
considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) concentrations appeared on all 8 process
sampling days for the aluminum subcategory. The maximum concentration
was 181.0 mg/1. Half of the concentrations were greater than the
level that can be achieved with specific treatment methods.
187
-------
';:" ';.! * i I ,!;':
" ,ff* 'S i'tfi 11 IPISi '
Therefore, TSS is considered for specific regulation in this
subcategory.
pH ranged from 6.3 to 10.4 on 8 process sampling days for the aluminum
subcategory. pH can be controlled within the limits of 6 to 9 with
specific treatment methods and is therefore considered for specific
regulation in this subcategory.
Pollutant Parameters Not Considered for Specific Regulation. A total
of eighteen pollutant parameters that were evaluated in verification
sampling and analysis were dropped from further consideration for
specific regulation in the aluminum subcategory. These parameters
were found to be present in raw wastewaters infrequently or at levels
below those usually achieved by specific treatment methods. The
eighteen are: bis(2-ethylhexyl )phthalate, di~n-octyl phthalate,
antimony, arsenic, berylluim, cadmium, chromium (hexavalent), copper,
nickel, selenium, barium, cobalt, fluoride, iron, manganese, phenols
(total), titanium, and oil and grease.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl )phthalate concentrations appeared on 1 of 9 process
sampling days for the aluminum subcategory. The concentration was
0.022 mg/1 which is lower than the concentration designated as causing
or likely to cause toxic effects in humans. Therefore^
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate is not considered for regulation in
subcategory .
. , , ,, , . .
Di-n-octyl phthalate concentrations appeared on 1 of 9 process
sampling days for the aluminum subcategory. The concentration was
0.011 mg/1 which is lower than the concentration designated as cuasing
or likely to cause toxic effects in hymans. Therefore, di-n-octyl
phthalate is not considered for specific regulation in this
subcategory.
Antimony concentrations did not appear on any of 8 process sampling
days for the aluminum subcategory. Therefore, antimony is not
considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
. ;:!"' ' : ; ; ' :-;'v. : :' ' ' !' ,i'' II ..... " , " ..... I, , i1. ! ,;'iiiSSiS'
Arsenic concentrations did not appear on any of 8 process sampling
days for the aluminum subcategory. Therefore, arsenic is not
considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
'. i I li,1!1!::!':,, &!>'" ..' '
Beryllium concentration did not appear on any of 8 process sampling
days for the aluminum subcategory. Therefore, beryllium is not
considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Cadmium concentrations appeared on 1 of 8 process sampling days for
the aluminum subcategory. The concentration was 0.003 mg/1 which is
lower than the level that can be achieved with specific treatment
188
-------
technology. Therefore, cadmium
regulation in this subcategory.
is not considered for specific
Chromium (hexavalent) concentrations did not appear on any of 8
process sampling days for the aluminum subcategory. Therefore,
hexavalent chromium is not considered for specific regulation in this
subcategory.
Copper concentrations appeared on 2 of 8 process sampling days for the
aluminum subcategory. The maximum concentration was 0.056 mg/1. Both
concentrations were lower than the level that can be achieved with
specific treatment methods. Therefore, copper is not selected for
specific regulation in this subcategory.
Nickel concentrations did not appear on any of 8 process sampling days
for the aluminum subcategory. Therefore, nickel is not considered for
specific regulation in this subcategory.
Selenium concentrations did not appear on any of 8 process sampling
days for the aluminum subcategory. Therefore, selenium is not
considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Barimum concentrations did not appear on any of 8 process sampling
days for the aluminum subcategory. Therefore, barium is not
considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Cobalt concentrations did not appear on any of 8 process sampling days
for the aluminum subcategory. Therefore, cobalt is not considered for
specific regulation in this subcategory.
Fluoride concentrations appeared on all 8 process sampling days for
the aluminum subcategory. The maximum concentration was 0.98 mg/1.
All concentrations were lower than the level that can be achieved with
specific treatment methods. Therefore, fluoride is not considered for
specific regulation in this subcategory.
Iron concentrations appeared on all 8 process sampling days for the
aluminum subcategory. The maximum concentration was 0.33 mg/1. This
concentration was only slightly greater than the level that can be
achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore, iron is not
considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Manganese concentrations appeared on 3 of 8 process sampling days for
the aluminum subcategory. The maximum concentration was 0.18 mg/1.
All concentrations were lower than the level that can be achieved with
specific treatment methods. Therefore, manganese is not considered
for specific regulation in this subcategory.
189
-------
Phenols (total) concentrations appeared on 7 of 8 process sampling
days for the aluminum subcategory. The maximum concentration was
0.016 mg/1. This concentration is lower than the level that can be
achieved for many specific phenols using specific treatment methods.
Therefore, total phenols is not considered for specific regulation in
this subcategory.
Titanium concentrations did not appear on any of 8 process sampling
days for the aluminum subcategory. Therefore, titanium is not
considered for specific regulation in the aluminum subcategory.
Oil and Grease concentrations appeared on 4 of 8 process sampling days
for the aluminum subcategory. The maximum concentration was 11.0
mg/1. All concentrations are lower than the level that can be
achieved with specific treatment methods. Therefore, oil and grease
is not considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
..'', . , ' . . ..... '; ..' > ;: ;., : > ;..; -; ii* . ;,;/ --f^ 4 , p j , >. FI /i f **, ;,r >tf . :; "ฃ :> i ..... :-: ..... ; : i ,
' '' ' ' ' , "i1 '' ' : > " it'll : :'"I ; ' ......... ; ;' , !' ' ' ' '-! ...
Copper Subcategory
t :
Pollutant Parameters Considered for Specific Regulation - Based on
verification sampling results and careful examination of the copper
subcategory acid etching process (the only process sampled other than
coating), six pollutant parameters were selected for consideration for
specific regulation in effluent limitations and standards for this
subcategory. The six are: copper, zinc, iron, total suspended solids,
oil and grease, and pH.
Copper concentrations appeared on 3 of 3 sampling days for the acid
etching process. The maximum concentration was 814.52 mg/1. All of
the copper concentrations are greater than the level that can be
achieved with specific treatment technology. Therefore, copper is
considered for specific regulation in the copper subcategory.
Zinc concentrations appeared on 3 of 3 process sampling days for the
copper subcategory. The maximum concentrations was 2.40 mg/1. One of
the concentrations was greater than the level that can be achieved
with specific treatment methods. Therefore, zinc is considered for
specific regulation in this subcategory.
, , ,,., - i ' * i ..... ,' . ...... ' ; "' ......... '/:, ;;..;::.. ; ii'" ."ii'l1"', J, '. uK. *' .
-------
level that can be achieved with specific treatment methods. All
concentrations are in the range that can be handled by POTW.
Therefore, the oil and grease parameter is considered for specific
regulation for direct dischargers only, in this subcategory.
pH ranged from 1.8 to 6.5 on 3 process sampling days for the copper
subcategory. pH can be controlled within the limits of 6 to 9 with
specific treatment methods and is therefore considered for specific
regulation in this subcategory.
Total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations appeared on 2 of 2 process
sampling days. The maximum concentration was 24.0 mg/1. This
concentration is greater than the level that can be achieved with
specific treatment methods. Therefore TSS is considered for specific
regulation in this subcategory.
Pollutant Parameters Non Considered for Specific Regulation. Nineteen
pollutant parameters that were evaluated in verification sampling and
analysis were dropped from further consideration for specific
regulation in the copper subcategory. These parameters were found to
be present in raw wastewaters infrequently or at levels below those
usually achieved by specific treatment methods. The nineteen are:
1,1,2-trichloroethane, toluene, trichloroethylene, antimony, arsenic,
cadmium, total chromium, lead, nickel, selenium, aluminum, barium,
cobalt, flouri.de, manganese, total phenols, phosphorus, titanium, and
total suspended solids.
1,1,2-Trichloroethane, toluene, antimony, arsenic, selenium, cobalt,
and titanium were not found above the analytical quantification limit
on any of the 3 sampling days for this subcategory. Therefore, these
parameters were dropped from any further consideration as pollutant
parameters within this subcategory.
Trichloroethylene concentrations appeared on 1 of 1 process sampling
days for this subcategory. This concentration was 0.004 mg/1. This
concentration is lower than the level that can be achieved by specific
treatment methods. Therefore, trichloroethylene is not considered for
specific regulation within this subcategory.
Cadmium concentrations appeared on 1 of 2 process sampling days for
the aluminum subcategory. The concentration was 0.02 mg/1 which is
lower than the level that can be achieved with specific treatment
technology. Therefore, cadmium is not considered for specific
regulation in this subcategory.
Chromium (total) concentrations appeared on 3 of 3 process sampling
days for the aluminum subcategory. The concentrations were lower than
the level that can be achieved with specific treatment methods.
191
-------
Therefore, total chromium is not considered for specific regulation in
this subcategory.
I'l . . . '-..... 11. ; 1'. ' I
?' ' ' ' " ' ', "' '::'' ,' , I I ,, III I I
Nickel concentrations appeared on only 1 of 3 sampling days for this
subcategory. This concentration was 0.12mg/l. This concentration
was lower than the level that can be achieved with specific treatment
methods. Therefore, nickel is not considered for specific regulation
in the subcategory.
i ' ' : I - ,'ft'"!'"' , t, ' >. ' , ' i. ' ti, ly'llili't:*-, il'::1
Barium concentrations did not appear on any of 3 process sampling days
for the aluminum subccategory. Therefore, barium is not considered
for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Fluoride concentrations appeared on 2 of 2 process sampling days for
the copper subcategory. The maximum concentration was 0.11 mg/1. All
concentrations were lower than the level that can be achieved with
specific treatment methods. Therefore, fluoride is not considered for
specific regulation in this subcategory.
Manganese concentrations appeared on 3 of 3 process sampling days for
the copper subcategory. The maximum concentration was 0.26 mg/1. All
concentrations were lower than the level that can be achieved with
specific treatment methods. Therefore, manganese is not considered
for specific regulation in this subcategory.
Phenols (total) concentrations appeared on 1 of 2 process sampling
days for the copper subcategory. The maximum concentration was 0.006
mg/1. This concentration is lower than the level that can be achieved
for many specific phenols using specific treatment methods.
Therefore, total phenols is not considered for regulation within this
subcategory.
! ; ;, > <. ^i<\**n-:& ! '''^'. >:,:'. .'^ay:
Lead concentrations appeared on only 1 of 3 process sampling days for
this subcategory. This concentration was 0.77 mg/1. Concentrations
which appeared on the other two sampling days were less than the
minimum detectable limit. Therefore, lead was dropped from further
consideration as a pollutant parameter within this subcategory.
Aluminum concentrations appeared on 2 of 3 process sampling days. The
maximum concentration was 0,17 mg/1. This concentration is lower than
the level that can be achieved by many specific treatment methods.
Therefore, aluminum is not considered for regulation within this
subcategory.
Phosphorus concentrations appeared on 1 of 2 process sampling days for
the copper subcategory. This concentration was 0.52 mg/1. This
concentration is lower than the level that can be achieved by many
specific treatment method. Therefore, phosphorus is not considered
for regulation within the copper subcategory.
192
-------
Summary
Table VI-2 (Page 193) present the results of selection of priority
pollutant parameters for consideration for specific regulations for
the steel, cast iron, aluminum, and copper subcategories,
respectively. The "Not Detected" symbol includes pollutants not
detected in raw wastewater streams during screening and verification
analysis. "Environmentally Insignificant" includes parameters found
in only one plant, or present only below an environmentally
significant level "Not Treatable" means that the concentrations were
lower than the level achievable with the specific treatment methods
considered in Section VII. Table VI-3 (Page 198) summarizes the
selection of non-conventional and conventional pollutant parameters
for consideration for specific regulation by subcategory.
193
-------
TABLE VI-2
PRIORITY POLLUTANT DISPOSITION
PORCELAIN ENAMELING
Steel
Pollutant
Subcategory
Cast Iron Aluminum
001 Acenaphthene ND
002 Acroleln ND
003 Acrylonltrile ND
004 Benzene ND
005 Benzidine ND
006 Carbon tetrachlpride
(tetrachloromethane) ND
007 Chlorobenzene ND
008 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene ND
009 Hexachlorobenzene ND
010 1,2-dichloroethane ND
Oil 1,1,1-triehi orethane ND
012 Hexachloroethane ND
013 1,1-dichloroethane ND
014 1,1,2-trichloroethane ND
015 1,1,2,2-tetra-
chloroethane ND
016 Chloroethane ND
017 Bis (chloromethyl)
ether ND
018 Bis (2-chloroethyl)
ether ND
019 2-chloroethyl vinyl
ether (mixed) ND
020 2-chloronaphthalene ND
021 2,4,6-trichlorophenol ND
022 Parachlorometa cresol ND
023 Chlqroform (trichloro-
methane) ND
024 2-chlorophenol ND
025 1,2-dichlorobenzene ND
026 1,3-dichlorobenzene ND
027 1,4-dichl orobenzene ND
028 3,3-dichlorobenzidine ND
029 1,1-dichloroethylene ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Copper
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NQ
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LEGEND:
ND
NQ
El
NT
REG
NOT DETECTED
NOT QUANTIFIABLE
ENVIRONMENTALLY INSIGNIFICANT
NOT TREATABLE
REGULATION CONSIDERED
194
-------
TABLE VI-2
PRIORITY POLLUTANT DISPOSITION
PORCELAIN ENAMELING
Steel
Subcategpry
Cast IronAluminum
Pollutant
030 1,2-trans-dichloro-
ethylene ND
031 2,4-dichlorophenol ND
032 1,2-dichloropropane ND
033 1,2-dichloropropylene
(1,3-dichloropropene) ND
034 2,4-dimethylphenol ND
035 2,4-d1n1tro toluene ND
036 2,6-dinitrotoluene ND
037 1,2-diphenylhydrazine ND
038 Ethyl benzene ND
039 Fluoranthene ND
040 4-chlorophenyl phenyl
ether ND
041 4-bromophenyl phenyl
ether ND
042 Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)
ether ND
043 Bis(2-chloroethoxy)
methane ND
044 Methylene chloride
(dichloromethane) ND
045 Methyl chloride
(dichloromethane) ND
046 Methyl bromide
(bromomethane) ND
047 Bromoform (tribromo-
methane) ND
048 Dichl orobromomethane ND
049 Trichiorofluoromethane ND
050 Dichlorodifluoromethane ND
051 Chiorodibromomethane ND
052 Hexachlorobutadiene ND
053 Hexachloromyclopenta-
diene ND
054 Isophorone ND
055 Naphthalene ND
056 Nitrobenzene ND
057 2-nitrophenol ND
058 4-nitrophenol ND
059 2,4-dinitrophenol ND
060 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol ND
061 N-nitrosodimethylamine ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Copper
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
195
-------
TABLE VI-2
PRIORITY POLLUTANT DISPOSITION
PORCELAIN ENAMELING
Pollutant
Steel
ND
062 N-nitrosodiphenylamine
063 N-nitrosodi-n-propyl-
amine ND
064 Pehtachlorophenol ND
065 Phenol ND
066 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate) ND
067 Butyl benzyl phthalate ND
068 Di-N-Butyl Phthalate ND
069 Di-n-octyl phthalate ND
070 Diethyl Phthalate ND
071 Dimethyl phthalate ND
072 1,2-benzanthracene
(benzo(a)anthracene) ND
073 Benzp(a)pyrene (3,4-
benzopyrene) ND
074 3,4-Benzofl uoranthene
(benzo(b)fiuoranthene) ND
075 11,12-benzof1uoranthene
(benzo(b)fl uoranthene) ND
076 Chrysene ND
077 Acenaphthylene ND
078 Anthracene ND
079 1,12-benzoperylene
(benzo(ghi)perylene) ND
080 Fluorene ND
081 Phenanthrene ND
082 1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene
(dibenzo(,h)anthracene) ND
083 Indeno(l,2,3-cd) pyrene
(2,3-o-pheynylene
pyrene) ND
084 Pyrene ND
085 Tetrachloroethylene ND
086 To!uene ND
087 Trichloroethylene NQ
088 Vinyl chloride (chloro-
ethyl ene) ND
089 Aldrin ND
090 Dieldrin ND
091 Chlordane (technical mixture
and metabolites) ND
092 4,4-DDT ND
Cast Iron
ND
ND
ND
ND
NQ
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Subcategory
Aluminum
ND
ND
ND
ND
El
ND
ND
El
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Copper
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NQ
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NQ
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
196
i I
-------
TABLE VI-2
PRIORITY POLLUTANT DISPOSITION
PORCELAIN ENAMELING
Pollutant
Subcategpry
Steel Cast IronAluminum
093
094
095
096
097
098
099
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
4,4-DDE (p.p-DDX)
4,4-DDD (p.p-TDE)
Alpha-endosulfan
Beta-endosul fan
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide (BHC-
hexachlorocyclohexane)
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
Gamma- BHC (lindane)
Delta-BHC (PCB-poly-
chlorinated biphenyls)
PCB-1242(Arochlor 1242)
PCB-1254(Arochlor 1254)
PCB-122K Arochlor 1221)
PCB-1232(Arochlor 1232)
PCB-1248(Arochlor 1248)
PCB-1260( Arochlor 1260)
PCB-1016(Arochlor 1016)
Toxaphene
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromiumm
Copper
Cyanide, Total
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
dibenzo-p-dioxin
(TCDD)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REG
REG
ND
NT
REG
REG
REG
ND
REG
ND
REG
REG
REG
ND
REG
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND -
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REG
REG
ND
ND
REG
REG
REG
ND
REG
ND
REG
REG
ND
ND
REG
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REG
REG
ND
NT
REG
REG
REG
REG
REG
ND
REG
REG
ND
ND
REG
ND
Copper
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
REG
REG
ND
ND
REG
REG
REG
ND
REG
ND
REG
REG
ND
ND
REG
ND
197
-------
TABLE VI-3
NON-CONVENTIONAL AND CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
SELECTED FOR CONSIDERATION FOR SPECIFIC REGULATION IN
THE PORCELAIN ENAMELING CATEGORY
Pollutant
Parameter Steel
Aluminum X
Cobalt X
Fluoride X
Iron X
Manganese X
Phosphorus X
Titanium X
Oil and Grease X
TSS X
pH X
Subcategory
Cast Iron Aluminum
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Copper
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
!''- .,( ; i
:'f i ;;
198
-------
SECTION VII
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
This section describes the treatment techniques currently used or
available to remove or recover wastewater pollutants normally
generated by the porcelain enameling industrial point source category.
Included are discussions of individual end-of-pipe treatment
technologies and in-plant technologies.
END-OF-PIPE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Individual recovery and treatment technologies are described which are
used or are suitable for use in treating wastewater discharges from
porcelain enameling facilities. Each description includes a
functional description and discussions of application and performance,
advantages and limitations, operational factors of reliability,
maintainability, solid waste aspects, and demonstration status. The
treatment processes described include both technologies presently
demonstrated within the porcelain enameling category, and technologies
demonstrated in treatment of similar wastes in other industries.
Porcelain enameling wastewater streams characteristically contain
significant levels , of toxic metals. Cadmium, lead, nickel, and zinc
are found in porcelain enameling wastewater streams at very
substantial concentrations. These toxic inorganic pollutants
constitute the most significant wastewater pollutants in this
category.
In general, these pollutants are removed by chemical precipitation and
sedimentation or filtration. Most of them may be effectively removed
by precipitation of metal hydroxides or carbonates utilizing the
reaction with lime, sodium hydroxide, or sodium carbonate. For some,
improved removals are provided by the use of sodium sulfide or ferrous
sulfide to precipitate the pollutants as sulfide compounds with
exceedingly low solubilities.
Discussion of end-of-pipe treatment technologies is divided into three
parts: the major technologies; the effectiveness of major
technologies; and minor end-of-pipe technologies.
MAJOR TECHNOLOGIES
In Sections IX, and X, the rationales for selecting >the treatment
systems are discussed. The individual technologies used in the system
are described here. The major end-of-pipe technologies are: chemical
reduction of hexavalent chromium, chemical precipitation of dissolved
199
-------
II. 1 I'll!
metals, cyanide precipitation, granular bed filtration, pressurized
paper or cloth filtration, settling of suspended solids, and skimming
of oil. In practice, precipitation of metals and settling of the
resulting precipitates is often a unified two-step operation.
Suspended solids originally present in raw wastewaters are not
appreciably affected by the precipitation operation and are removed
with the precipitated metals in the settling operations. Settling
operations can be evaluated independently of hydroxide or other
chemical precipitation operations, but hydroxide and other chemical
precipitation operations can only be evaluated in combination with a
solids removal operation.
Chemical Reduction Of_ Chromium
, '; . "ป '<>. : .' ' ',. ,:; ''T;;'"'' '"-l&i 'i::% -.i.'*:-^:. '&, '.Y,-'1".:" y ', ."ฃ. fi-ji
Description of the Process. Reduction is a chemical reaction in which
electrons are transferred to the chemical being reduced from the
chemical initiating the transfer (the reducing agent). Sulfur
dioxide, sodium bisulfite, sodium metabisulfite, and ferrous sulfate
form strong reducing agents in aqueous solution and are often used in
industrial waste treatment facilities for the reduction of hexavalent
chromium to the trivalent form. The reduction allows removal of
chromium from solution in conjunction with other metallic salts by
alkaline precipitation. Hexavalent chromium is not precipitated as
the hydroxide.
Gaseous sulfur dioxide is a widely used reducing agent and provides a
good example of the chemical reduction process. Reduction using other
reagents is chemically similar. The reactions involved may be
illustrated as follows:
3 S02 + 3 H20
3 H2SO3 + 2H2Cr04
3 H2S03
Cr2(SO4)3 + 5 H20
The above reaction is favored by low plf. A pH of from 2 to 3 is
normal for situations requiring complete reduction. At pH levels
above 5, the reduction rate is slow. Oxidizing agents such as
dissolved oxygen and ferric iron interfere with the reduction process
by consuming the reducing agent.
A typical treatment consists of 45 minutes retention in a reaction
tank. The reaction tank has an electronic recorder-controller device
to control process conditions with respect to pH and oxidation
reduction potential (ORP). Gaseous sulfur dioxide is metered to the
reaction tank to maintain the ORP within the range of 250 to 300
millivolts. Sulfuric acid is added to maintain a pH level of from 1.8
to 2.0. The reaction tank is equipped with a propeller agitator
designed to provide approximately one turnover per minute. Figure
VII-1 (Page 277) shows a continuous chromium reduction system.
200
.! 'i 7 HI! I , .'('"UK :
-------
Application and Performance. Chromium reduction is used in porcelain
enameling for treating chromating rinses for high-magnesium aluminum
basis materials. Electroplating rinse waters and cooling tower
blowdown are two major sources of chromium in waste streams. Chromium
reduction may also be used in porcelain enameling plants. A study of
an operational waste treatment facility chemically reducing hexavalent
chromium has shown that a 99.7 percent reduction efficiency is easily
achieved. Final concentrations of 0.05 mg/1 are readily attained, and
concentrations of 0.01 mg/1 are considered to be attainable by
properly maintained and operated equipment.
Advantages and Limitations. The major advantage of chemical
to destroy hexavalent chromium is that it is a fully proven
based on many years of experience. Operation at ambient
results in minimal energy consumption, and the process,
when using sulfur dioxide, is well suited to automatic
Furthermore, the equipment is readily obtainable from many
and operation is straightforward.
reduction
technology
conditions
especially
control.
suppliers,
One limitation of chemical reduction of hexavalent chromium is that
for high concentrations of chromium, the cost of treatment chemicals
may be prohibitive. When this situation occurs, other treatment
techniques are likely to be more economical. Chemical interference by
oxidizing agents is possible in the treatment of mixed wastes, and the
treatment itself may introduce pollutants if not properly controlled.
Storage and handling of sulfur dioxide is somewhat hazardous.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Maintenance consists of periodic
removal of sludge, the frequency of which is a function of the input
concentrations of detrimental constituents.
Solid Waste Aspects; Pretreatment to eliminate substances which will
interfere with the process may often be necessary. This process
produces trivalent chromium which can be controlled by further
treatment. There may, however, be small amounts of sludge collected
due to minor shifts in the solubility of the contaminants. This
sludge can be processed by the main sludge treatment equipment.
Demonstration Status. The reduction of chromium waste by sulfur
dioxide or sodium bisulfite is a classic process and is used by
numerous plants which have hexavalent chromium compounds in
wastewaters such as electroplating and noncontact cooling.
Chemical Precipitation
Dissolved toxic metal ions and certain anions may be chemically
precipitated for removal by physical means such as sedimentation,
filtration, or centrifugation. Several reagents are commonly used to
effect this precipitation.
201
-------
1)
2)
3)
4)
Alkaline compounds such as lime or sodium hydroxide may be used
to precipitate many toxic metal ions as metal hydroxides. Lime
also may precipitate phosphates as insoluble calcium phosphate
and fluorides as calcium fluoride.
Both "soluble" sulfides such as hydrogen sulfide orsodium
sulfide and "insoluble" sulfides such as ferrous sulfide may be
used to precipitate many heavy metal ions as insoluble metal
sulfides.
Ferrous sulfate, zinc sulfate or both (as is required) may be
used to precipitate cyanide as a f.>rro or zinc ferricyanide
complex. (Discussed in following subsection)
Carbonate precipitates may be used to remove metals either by
direct precipitation using a carbonate reagent such as calcium
carbonate or by converting hydroxides into carbonates using
carbon dioxide.
These treatment chemicals may be added to a flash mixer or rapid mix
tank, to a presettling tank, or directly to a clarifier or other
settling device. Because metal hydroxides tend to be colloidal in
nature, coagulating agents may also be added to facilitate settling.
After the solids have been removed, final pH adjustment may be
required to reduce the high pH created by the alkaline treatment
chemicals.
Chemical precipitation as a mechanism for removing metals from
wastewater is a complex process of at least two steps - precipitation
of the unwanted metals and removal of the precipitate. Some small
amount of metal will remain dissolved in the wastewater after complete
precipitation. The amount of residual dissolvedmetal depends on the
treatment chemicals used and related factors. The effectiveness of
this method of removing any specific metal depends on the fraction of
the specific metal in the raw waste (and hence in the precipitate) and
the effectiveness of suspended solids removal,,
Application and Performance; Chemical precipitation is used in
porcelain enameling for precipitation of dissolved metals. It can be
used to remove metal ions such as aluminum, antimony, arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper,iron, lead, manganese,
mercury, molybdenum, tin and zinc. The process is also applicable to
any substance that can be transformed into an insoluble form such as
fluorides, phosphates, soaps, sulfides and others. Because it is
simple and effective, chemical precipitation is extensively used for
industrial waste treatment.
202
-------
The performance of chemical precipitation depends on several
variables. The most important factors affecting precipitation
effectiveness are:
Maintenance of an alkaline pH throughout
reaction and subsequent settling;
the precipitation
Addition of a sufficient excess of treatment ions
the precipitation reaction to completion;
to drive
3.
4.
Addition of an adequate supply of sacrifical ions (such as
iron or aluminum) to ensure precipitation and removal of
specific target ions; and
Effective removal of precipitated solids (see
technologies discussed under "Solids Removal").
appropriate
Control of pH. Irrespective of the solids removal technology
employed, proper control of pH is absolutely essential for favorable
performance of precipitation-sedimentation technologies. This is
clearly illustrated by solubility curves for selected metals
hydroxides and sulfides shown in Figure VII-2, (Page 278) ;and by
plotting effluent zinc concentrations against pH as shown in Figure
VII-3 (Page 279). Figure VII-2 was obtained from Development Document
ฃor the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Zinc Segment of Nonferrous Metals
Manufacturing Point Source Category, U.S. E.P.A., EPA 440/1-74/032,
November, 1974. Figure VII-3 was plotted from the sampling data from
several facilities with metal finishing operations. It is partially
illustrated by data obtained from 3,consecutive days of sampling at
one metal processing plant (47432) as displayed in Table VII-1.
through this system is approximately 49,263 1/h (13,000 gal/hr).
TABLE VII-1
pH CONTROL EFFECT ON METALS REMOVAL
Flow
Day 1
In Out
Day 2
In Out
Day 3
In Out
pH Range 2.4-3.4 8.5-8.7 1.0-3.0 5.0-6.0 2.0-5.0 6.5-8.1
(mg/1) ...
TSS 39 8 16 19167
Copper 312 0.22 120 5.12 107 0.66,
Zinc 250 0.31 32.5 25.0 43.8 0.66
203
-------
This treatment system uses lime precipitation (pH adjustment) followed
by coagulant addition and sedimentation. Samples were taken before
(in) and after (out) the treatment system. The best treatment for
removal of copper and zinc was achieved on day one, when the pH was
maintained at a satisfactory level. The poorest treatment was found
on the second day, when the pH slipped to an unacceptably low level
and intermediate values were were achieved onthe third day when pH
values were less than desirable but in between the first and second
days.
Sodium hydroxide is used by one facility (plant 439) for pH adjustment
and chemical precipitation, followed by settling (sedimentation and a
polishing lagoon) of precipitated solids. Samples were taken prior to
caustic addition and following the polishing lagoon. Flow through the
system is approximately 22,700 1/hr (6,000 gal/hr).
TABLE VI1-2
Effectiveness of Sodium Hydroxidefor Metals Removal
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
pH Range
(mg/1)
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mn
Ni
Zn
TSS
2.1-2.9
0.097
0.063
9.24
1.0
0.11
0.077
.054
9.0-9.3
0.0
0.018
0.76
0.11
0.06
0.011
0.0
13
2.0-2.4
0.057
0.078
15.5
1 .36
0.12
0.036
0.12
8.7-9.1
0.005'
0.014
6.92
0.13
0.044
0.009
0.6
v '. '*: ",!
2.0-2.4
0.068
0.053
9.41
1.45
0.11
0.069
0.19
8.6-9.1
0.005
0.019
0.95
0.11
0.044
0.011
0.037
',: '"i Vii '?y ' ?''!
11 ;;;;; ;;;
These data indicate that the system was operated efficiently. Ef-
fluent pH was controlled within the range of 8.6-9.3, and, while raw
waste loadings were not unusually high, most heavy metals were removed
to very low concentrations.
204
-------
Lime and sodium hydroxide are sometimes used to precipitate metals.
Data developed from plant 40063, exemplify efficient operation of a
chemical precipitation and settling system. Table VI1-3 shows
sampling data from this system, which uses lime and sodium hydroxide
for pH adjustment, chemical precipitation, polyelectrolyte flocculant
addition, and sedimentation. Samples were taken of the raw waste
influent to the system and of the clarifier effluent. Flow through
the system is approximately 5,000 gal/hr.
TABLE VI1-3
Effectiveness of Lime and Sodium Hydroxide for Metals Removal
Day 1
(mg/1)
Al
Cu
Fe
Mn
Ni
Se
Ti
Zn
TSS
In
9.2-9.6
37.3
0.65
137
175
6.86
28.6
143
18.5
4390
Out
8.3-9.8
0.35
0.003
0.49
0.12
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.027
9
Day 2
In
9.2
38.1
0.63
no
205
5.84
30.2
125
16.2
3595
Out
7.6-8.1
0.35
0.003
0,57
0.012
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.044
13
Day 3
In
9.6
29.9
0.72
208
245
5.63
27.4
1 15
17.0
2805
Out
7.8-8.2
0.35
0.003
0.58
0.12
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.01
13
At this plant, effluent TSS levels were below 15 mg/1 on each day,
despite average raw waste TSS concentrations of over 3500 mg/1.
Effluent pH was maintained at approximately 8, lime addition was suf-
ficient to precipitate the dissolved metal ions, and the flocculant
addition and clarifier retention served to remove effectively the
precipitated solids.
Sulfide precipitation is sometimes used to precipitate metals
resulting in improved metals removals. Most metal sulfides are less
soluble than hydroxides and the precipitates are frequently more
dependably removed from water. Solubilities for selected metal
205
-------
' i'
hydroxide, carbonate and sulfide precipitates are shown in Table VII-4
(Page XX) (Source: Lange's Handbook of Chemistry). Sulfide
precipitation is particularly effective in removing specific metals
such as silver and mercury. Sampling data from three industrial
plants using sulfide precipitation appear in Table VI1-5.
These data were obtained from three sources:
Summary Report, Control and Treatment Technology for the Metal
Finishing Industry; Sulfide Precipitation, U.S. E.P.A., EPA No.
625/8/80-003, 1979.
Industrial Finishing, Vol. 35, No. 11, November, 1979.
Electroplating sampling data from plant 27045.
TABLE VII-4
THEORETICAL SOLUBILITIES OF HYDROXIDES AND SULFIDES
OF HEAVY METALS IN PURE WATER
Metal
Cadmium (Cd++)
Chromium (Cr+++)
Cobalt (Co++)
Copper (Cu++)
Iron (Feซ"ซ-)
Lead (Pb++)
Manganese (Mn++)
Mercury (Hg++)
Nickel (Ni++)
Silver (Ag+)
Tin (Sn++)
Zinc (An++)
As Hydroxide
' '"' " ' ' ' ;'?
2.3 x 10-s
8.4 x 10-*
2.2 x 10-i
2.2 x lO-2
8.9 x ID-*
2.1
1 .2
3.9 x 10-*
6.9 x 10-3
13.3
1.1 x 10-*
1.1
Solubility ofmetalion, mg/1
As Carbonate As Sulfide
1.6x10-*
7.0x1q-ป
3.9 x lO-2
1.9 x 10-ป
2.1 x 10-1
7.0 x 10-*
;'. ;-' ^y^s^^l''^!
6.7 x TO-10
No precipitate
1.0 x 10-8
5.8 x 10-18
3.4 x TO-5
3.8 x 10-ป
2.1 x 10-3
9.0 x 10-20
6.9 x 10-8
7.4 x 10-12
3.8 x 10-*
2.3 x 10~7
;!iM,,I'i'."'^iซMJ' Hi If-
206
-------
TABLE VI1-5
SAMPLING DATA FROM SULFIDE
PRECIPITATION-SEDIMENTATION SYSTEMS
Treatment
pH
(mg/1)
Cr+6
Cr
Cu
Fe
Ni
Zn
Lime, FeS, Poly-
electrolyte,
Settle, Filter
In
Out
5.0-6.8 8-9
25.6
32.3
<0.014
<0.04
0.52 0.10
39.5 <0.07
Lime, FeS, Poly-
electrolyte,
Settle, Filter
In
7.7
Out
7.38
0.022 <0.020
2.4 <0.1
108 0.6
0.68 <0.1
33.9 <0.1
NaOH, Ferric
Chloride, NaS,
Clarify (1 stage)
In
Out
11.45 <.005
18.35 <.005
0.029 0.003
0.060 0.009
In all cases except iron, effluent concentrations are below 0.1 mg/1
and in many cases below O.Olmg/1 for the three plants studied.
Sampling data from several chlorine-caustic manufacturing plants using
sulfide precipitation demonstrate effluent mercury concentrations
varying between 0.009 and 0.03 mg/1. As shown in Figure VI1-2, the
solubilities of PbS and Ag2S are lower at alkaline pH levels than the
corresponding hydroxides. This implies that removal performance for
lead and silver sulfides should be comparable to or better than that
shown for the metals listed in Table VI1-5. Bench scale tests on
several types of metal finishing and manufacturing wastewater indicate
that metals removal to levels of less than 0.05 mg/1 and in some cases
less than 0.01 ipg/1 are common in systems using sulfide precipitation
followed by clarification. Some of the bench scale data, particularly
in the case of lead, do not support such low effluent concentrations.
However, lead is consistently removed to very low levels (less than
0.02 mg/1) in systems using hydroxide and carbonate precipitation and
sedimentation.
Of particular interest is the ability of sulfide to precipitate
hexavalent chromium (Cr+6) without prior reduction to the tri-valent
state as is required in the hydroxide process. When ferrous sulfide
is used as the precipitant, iron and sulfide act as reducing agents
for the hexavalent chromium according to the reaction:
CrO3+ FeS + 3H2O = Fe(OH)3 + Cr(OH)3 + S
207
-------
(,', '"Mfl11::,!;,; t '
The sludge produced in this reaction consists mainly of ferric hy-
droxides, chromic hydroxides and various metallic sulfides. Some
excess hydroxyl ions are generated in this process, possibly requiring
a downward re-adjustment of pH.
Based on the available data, Table VII-6 shows the minimum reliably
attainable effluent concentrations for sulf ide precipitation-
sedimentation systems. These values are used to calculate performance
predictions of sulf ide precipitation-sedimentation systems.
Table VII-6 is based on Two reports:
"
, , > < .. . . - -, . . , ,,.
Summary Report , Control and Treatment Technology for the Metal
Finishing Industry; Sulf ide Precipitation, U.S. EPA., EPA No.
625/8/80-003, 1979.
' ' " '' 1 !"
Addendum to Development Document for
i :< ...... . '
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards, Major Inorganic
Products Segment of Inorganics Point Source Category, U.S. EPA.,
EPA Contract No. EPA 68-01-3281 (Task 7), June, 1978.
TABLE VII-6
SULFIDE PRECIPITATION-SEDIMENTATION PERFORMANCE
Parameter
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Ni
Ag
Zn
Treated Effluent
(mg/1)
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.01
it!--
.; ; it
i1 ;*,!" -IB'"1,
Carbonate precipitation is sometimes used to precipitate metals,
especially where precipitated metals values are to be recovered. The
solubility of most metal carbonates is intermediate between hydroxide
and sulfide solubilities; in addition, carbonates form easily filtered
precipitates.
Carbonate ions appear to be particularly useful in precipitating lead
and antimony. Sodium carbonate has been observed being added at
treatment to improve lead precipitation and removal in some industrial
plants. The lead hydroxide and lead carbonate solubility curves
208
:,,;!.,; i, i .a;: i ,;:::,',,: t;
-------
displayed in Figure VII-4 (Page XX) ("Heavy Metals Removal," 6y
Kenneth Lanovette, Chemical Enqineerinq/Deskbook Issue, Oct. 17, 1977)
explain this phenomenon.
Advantages and Limitations
Chemical precipitation has proven to be an effective technique for
removing many pollutants from industrial wastewater. It operates at
ambient conditions and is well suited to automatic control. The use
of chemical precipitation may be limited because of: interference by
chelating agents, possible chemical interference in mixed wastewaters
and treatment chemicals, or the potentially hazardous situation
involved with the storage and handling of those chemicals. Lime is
usually added as a slurry when used in hydroxide precipitation. The
slurry must be kept well mixed and the addition lines periodically
checked to avoid block of the lines, which may result from a buildup
of solids. Also, hydroxide precipitation usually makes recovery of
the precipitated metals difficult, because of the heterogeneous nature
of most hydroxide sludges.
The major advantage of the sulfide precipitation process is that the
extremely low solubility of most metal sulfides promotes very high
metal removal efficiencies; the sulfide process also has the ability
to remove chromates and dichromates without preliminary reduction of
the chromium to its trivalent state. In addition, sulfide can
precipitate metals complexed with most complexing agents. The process
demands care, however, in maintaining the pH of the solution at
approximately 10 in order to minimize the generation of toxic hydrogen
sulfide gas. For this reason, ventilation of the treatment tanks may
be a necessary precaution in most installations. The use of ferrous
sulfide reduces or virtually eliminates the problem of hydrogen
sulfide evolution. As with hydroxide precipitation, excess sulfide
ion must be present to drive the precipitation reaction to completion.
Since the sulfide ion itself is toxic, sulfide addition must be
carefully controlled to maximize heavy metals precipitation with a
minimum of excess sulfide to avoid the necessity of post treatment.
At very high excess sulfide levels and high pH, soluble mercury-
sulfide compounds may also be formed. Where excess sulfide is
present, aeration of the effluent stream can aid in oxidizing residual
sulfide to the less harmful sodium sulfate (Na2S04). The cost of
sulfide precipitants is high in comparison with hydroxide
precipitants, and disposal of metallic sulfide sludges may pose
problems. An essential element in effective sulfide precipitation is
the removal of precipitated solids from the wastewater and proper
disposal in an appropriate site. Sulfide precipitation will also
generate a higher volume of sludge, than hydroxide precipitation,
resulting in higher disposal and dewatering costs. This is especially
true when ferrous sulfide is used as the precipitant.
209
-------
Sulfide precipitation may be used as a polishing treatment after
hydroxide precipitation-sedimentation. This treatment configuration
may provide the better treatment effectiveness of sulfide
precipitation while minimizing the variability caused by changes in
raw waste and reducing the amount of sulfide precipitant required.
'!;" ' , ' ' ' .'! '..,' if" 'K?'l#\',l v i. i ''';'! ">l si r;!'.j''.'..i''1.!1. >!.."'';if !''/:"+'> ^ M;.;
Operational Factors. Reliability: Alkaline chemical precipitation is
highly reliable, although proper monitoring and control are required.
Sulfide precipitation systems provide similar reliability.
i' ! ' . .' " ' ' . ; ,;;. ''i'";;,!;,;,,';;;,!! j;';;:-)! ;;,,;, |. 4.;,((;,,ซ: ;>'f ;,; ; " ,!:;>;;' ,A,-; :\$ 'V'viili JSS
',. ' ' . 1;-' ; ' ' ' ' .i1 . "VII"1'1 'l.lr Ji", ,!frT'. i,; t Tv1/""""'1 ;II;! '' ป",'/!! I1":,'! .'Bir
Maintainability: The major maintenance needs involve periodic upkeep
of monitoring equipment, automatic feeding equipment, mixing
equipment, and other hardware. Removal of accumulated sludge is
necessary for efficient operation of precipitation-sedimentation
systems.
ii!ซ , , ' ': . ' '. ( ', ; , ' , .!", rj, .'> Mill,;!" ' i'jT.:. ;' ::,t ' ,'i: I i ..
Solid Waste Aspects: Solids which precipitate out are removed in a
subsequent treatment step. Ultimately, these solids require proper
disposal.
Demonstration Status. Chemical precipitation of metal hydroxides isa
classic waste treatment technology used by most industrial waste
treatment systems. Chemical precipitation of metals in the carbonate
form alone has been found to be feasibleand iscommercially used to
permit metals recovery and water reuse. Full scale commercial sulfide
precipitation units are in operation at numerous installations. As
noted earlier, sedimentation to remove precipitates is discussed
separately.
1, , i, , , , ' ''.,. I' ',,:.' !' . !" , i'"1.! :.':".'"'f.1. I"'" '' .' !': ''''I!: ":' '" " ]l " . .' "' '' 3""' "'!il "'5 "i"! ,i! ''''I"1!!!11!!!!11 ' '
Use in Porcelain Enameling Plants. Chemical precipitation is used at
23 porcelain enameling plants. The quality of treatment provided,
however, is variable. A review of collected data and on-site
observations reveals that control of systemparameters is often pbor.
Where precipitates are removed by clarification, retention timesare
likely to be short and cleaning and maintenance questionable.
Similarly, pH control is frequently inadequate. As a result of these
factors, effluent performance at porcelain enameling plants nominally
practicing the same wastewater treatment is observed to vary widely.
Cyanide Precipitation
Cyanide precipitation, although a method for treating cyanide in
wastewaters, does not destroy cyanide. The cyanide is retained in the
sludge that is formed. Reports indicate that during exposure to
sunlight the cyanide complexes can break down and form free cyanide.
For this reason the sludge from this treatment method must be disposed
of carefully.
210
-------
Cyanide may be precipitated and settled out of wastewaters by the
addition of zinc sulfate or ferrous sulfate. In the presence of iron,
cyanide will form extremely stable cyanide complexes. The addition of
zinc sulfate or ferrous sulfate forms zinc ferrocyanide or ferro and
ferricyanide complexes.
Adequate removal of the precipitated cyanide requires that the pH must
be kept at 9.0 and an appropriate retention time be maintained. A
study has shown that the formation of the complex is very dependent on
pH. At pH's of 8 and 10 the residual cyanide concentrations measured
are twice those of the same reaction carried out at a pH of 9.
Removal efficiencies also depend heavily on the retention time
allowed. The formation of the complexes takes place rather slowly.
Depending upon the excess amount of zinc sulfate or ferrous sulfate
added, at least a 30 minute retention time should be allowed for the
formation of the cyanide complex before continuing on to the
clarification stage.
One experiment with an initial concentration of 10 mg/1 of cyanide
showed that 98 percent of the cyanide was complexed ten minutes after
the addition of ferrous sulfate at twice the theoretical amount
necessary. Interference from other metal ions, such as cadmium, might
result in the need for longer retention times.
Table VII-7 presents data from three coil coating plants.
- - . . TABLE VII-7
CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL CYANIDE
(mg/1)
Plant
1057
33056
12052
Mean
Method
FeS04
FeSO4
ZnS04
In
2.
2,
3,
0,
0,
0,
Out
57
42
28
14
16
46
0.12
The concentrations are those of the stream entering and leaving the
treatment system. Plant 1057 allowed a 27 minute retention time for
the formation of the complex. The retention time for the other plants
is not known. The data suggest that over a wide range of cyanide
concentration in the raw waste, the concentration of cyanide can be
reduced in the effluent stream to under 0.15 mg/1.
211
-------
Application and Performance. Cyanide precipitation can be used when"
cyanide destruction is not feasible because of the presence of cyanide
complexes which are difficult to destroy. Effluent concentrations of
cyanide well below 0.15 mg/1 are possible.
Advantages and Limitations. Cyanide precipitation is
method of treating cyanide. Problems may occur
interfere withthe formation of the complexes.
an inexpensive
when metal ions
Demonstration Status; Cyanide precipitationis not used inany
porcelain enameling plants.
Granular Bed Filtration
if at 'slit';
Filtration occurs in nature as thesurfaceground waters arecleansed
by sand. Silica sand, anthracite coal/ and gafhet arecommon filter
media used in water treatment plants. These are usually supported by
gravel. A medium may be used singly or in "comBiha'fclbhwith others.
The multimediafilters may be arranged to maintain relatively distinct
layers by virtue of balancing the forces of gravity, flow, and
bouyancy on the individual particles. This is accomplished by
selecting appropriate filter flow rates (gal/min/ft2), media grain
size, and density.
Granul.ar bed filters may be classified in terms of filtration fate,
filter media/ flow pattern, or method of pressurization. Traditional
rate classifications are slow sand, rapidsand,and high rate mixed
media. In the slow sand filter, flux or hydraulic loading is
relatively low, and removal of collected solid's to clean the filter is
therefore relatively infrequent. The filter is often cleaned by
scraping off the inlet face (top) of the sand bed. In the higher rate
filters, cleaning is frequent and is accomplished by a periodic
backwash, opposite to the direction of normal flow.
A filter may use a single medium such as sand or diatomaceous earth,
but dual and mixed (multiple) media filters allow higher flow rates
and efficiencies. The dual media filter usually consists of a fine
bed of sand under a coarser bed of anthracite coal. The coarse coal
removes most of the influent solids, while the fine sand performs a
polishing function. At the end of the backwash, the fine sand settles
to the bottom because it is denser than thecoal, arid the filter is
ready for normal operation. The mixed media filter operates on the
same principle, with the finer, denser media at the bottom and the
coarser/ less dense media at the top. The usual arrangement is garnet
at the bottom (outlet end) of the bed^sandin the middle,and
anthracite coal at the top.Somemixing ofthese layers "occursarid
is, in fact, desirable.
212
-------
The flow pattern is usually top-to-bottom, but other patterns are
sometimes used. Upflow and biflow filters are also used. In a biflow
filter, the influent enters both the top and the bottom and exits
laterally. The advantage of an upflow filter is that the influent
serves as the backwash. The disadvantage is that the bed tends to
become fluidized, which decreases filtration efficiency. The biflow
design is an attempt to overcome this problem.
The classic granular bed filter operates by gravity flow; however,
pressurized filters are fairly widely used. They permit higher solids
loadings before cleaning and are advantageous when the filter effluent
must be pressurized for further downstream treatment. In addition,
pressurized filter systems are often less costly for low to moderate
flow rates.
Figure VII-5 (Page 281) depicts a high rate, dual media, gravity
downflow granular bed filter, with self-stored backwash. Both
filtrate and backwash are piped around the bed in an arrangement that
permits gravity upflow of the backwash, with the stored filtrate
serving as backwash. Addition of the indicated coagulant and
polyelectrolyte usually results in a substantial improvement in filter
performance.
Auxiliary filter cleaning is sometimes employed in the upper few
inches of filter beds. This is conventionally referred to as surface
wash and is accomplished by water jets just below the surface of the
expanded bed during the backwash cycle. These jets enhance the
scouring action in the bed by increasing the agitation.
An important feature for, successful downflow filtration and
backwashing is the underdrain. This is the support structure for the
bed. The underdrain provides an area for collection of the filtered
water without clogging from either the filtered solids or the media
grains. In addition, the underdrain prevents loss of the media with
the water, and during the backwash cycle it provides even flow
distribution over the bed. Failure to dissipate the velocity head
during the filter or backwash cycle will result in bed upset and the
need for major repairs.
Several standard approaches are employed for filter underdrains. The
simplest one consists of a parallel porous pipe imbedded under a layer
of coarse gravel and manifolded to a header pipe for effluent removal.
Other approaches to the underdrain system are known as the Leopold and
the Wheeler filter bottoms. Both of these incorporate false concrete
bottoms with specific porosity configurations to provide drainage and
velocity head dissipation.
Filter system operation may be manual or automatic. The filter
backwash cycle may be on a timed basis, a pressure drop basis with a
213
-------
terminal value which triggers backwash, or a solids carryover basis
from turbidity monitoring of the outlet stream. All of these schemes
have been used successfully.
!!:' . !. "; i , ; <. "!;I ! ;- ", ' .!/!-:"-'"';:"i = S'.HO.Kimi*" d^ii'ftif ' vi:i:i.' '.I d' f ir-Jiir ill Ii!1
.;. ii ; IL . " " i i r.f'M ;-,"" ;. *. nM'1*1 T'l'i'-B'11 'm , ..-f'1 " '.'f t;, il"1" ;ซ V. f *'TJIffl".iRr'.'
Application and Performance. Wastewater treatment plants often use
granular bed filters for polishing after settling operations.
Granular bed filtration thus has potential application to nearly all
industrial plants. Chemical additives whichenhance theupstream
treatment equipment may or may not be 'compatiblewithofenhance the
filtration process. Normal operating flow rates for various types of
filters are as follows:
Slow Sand 2.04 - 5.30 l/m2-hr
Rapid Sand 40.74 - 51.48 i/nia-hr
High Rate Mixed Media 81.48 - 122.22 l/m2-hr
:" : "' -.-.1' : ' ''f, ii' ': ;i'Ji'" :"'['' ;i!:'"'i,;i:'- Y&tK ii;?MiS^imM*$.': J'M*$* f1'*;1'!*I1!"!ill!
Suspended solids are commonly removed from wastewater streams by
filtering through a deep 0.3-0.9 m (1-3 feet) granular filter bed.
The porous bed formed by the granular media can be designed to remove
practically all suspended particles. Even colloidal suspensions
(roughly 1 to 100 microns) are adsorbed on thesurface of themedia'
grains as they pass in close proximity through the narrow passages
between grains.
Properly operated filters following some form of pretreatment which
reduce suspended solids below 200 mg/1 should produce water with less
than 10 mg/1 TSS. For example, multimedia filters produced the
effluent qualities shown in Table VI1-8 below.
TABLE VI1-8
Plant ID
06097
13924
18538
30172
36048
Mean
MULTIMEDIA FILTER PERFORMANCE
TSS Effluent Concentration, mg/1
0.0, 0.0, 0.5
1
8, 2.2, 5.6, 4.0,
0,
0
1.4, 7.0,
2.1, 2.6,
2.61
0
5
',!:< .,i- ,ii.
2.0, 5.6, 3.6, 2.4, 3.4
4.0, 3.0, 2.2, 2.8
Advantages and Limitations. The principal advantages of granular bed
filtration are low initial and operating costs, reduced land
requirements over other methods to achieve the same level of solids
removal, and elimination of chemical additions to the discharge
stream. However, the filter may require pretreatment if the solids
214
-------
level is high (over 100 mg/1). Operator .training must be somewhat
extensive due to the controls and periodic backwashing involved, and
backwash must be stored and dewatered for economical disposal.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Recent improvements in filter
technology have significantly improved filtration reliability.
Control systems, improved designs, and good operating procedures have
made filtration a highly reliable method of water treatment.
Maintainability: Deep bed filters may be operated with either manual
or automatic backwash. In either case, they must be periodically
inspected for media attrition, partial plugging, and leakage. Where
backwashing is not used, collected solids must be removed by
shoveling, and filter media must be at least partially replaced.
Solid Waste Aspects: Filter backwash is generally recycled within the
wastewater treatment system, so that the solids ultimately appear in
the sludge stream from settling for subsequent dewatering.
Alternatively, the backwash stream may be dewatered directly or, if
there is no backwash, the collected solids may be disposed of in a
suitable landfill. In either of these situations there is a solids
disposal problem similar to that of settling operations.
Demonstrat ion Status. Deep bed filters are in common use in municipal
treatment plants. Their use in polishing industrial effluent from
settling operations is increasing, and the technology is proven and
conventional. Granular bed filtration is used in many manufacturing
plants.
Pressure Filtration
Although granular bed filters are sometimes pressurized, pressure
filtration refers to operations where a relatively thin woven or
felted cloth or paper is used with or without a filter aid. Pressure
filtration works by pumping the liquid through a filter material which
is impenetrable to the solid phase. The positive pressure exerted by
the feed pumps or other mechanical means provides the pressure
differential which is the principal driving force. Figure VII-6 (Page
282) represents the operation of one type of pressure filter.
A typical pressure filtration unit consists of a number of plates or
trays which are held rigidly in a frame to ensure alignment and which
are pressed together between a fixed end and a traveling end. On the
surface of each plate is mounted a filter made of cloth or a synthetic
fiber. The feed stream is pumped into the unit and passes through
holes in the trays along the length of the press until the cavities or
chambers between the trays are completely filled. The solids are then
entrapped, and a cake begins to form on the surface of the filter
215
-------
material.
retained.
The water passes through the fibers, and the solids are
?1 lit!!: a r.:::m ::;, e
At the bottom of the trays are drainage ports. The filtrate is
collected and discharged to a common drain. As the filter medium
becomes coated with sludge, the flow of filtrate through the filter
drops sharply, indicating that the capacity of the filter has been
exhausted. The unit must then be cleaned of the sludge. After the
cleaning or replacement of the filter media, the unit is again ready
for operation.
A typical use of pressure filters is to dewater sludge. However, for
low flow rates of wastewater, a single horizontal filter element with
a disposable filter paper is a suitable substitute for granular bed
filtration as a polishing operation. Such a filter is essentially a
pressure filter because it can withstand therange of pressure usually
associated with plate and frame filters. Such a filter also produces
a filter cake with solids in the range produced by large plate and
frame filters used to dewater sludge. Thus, for small flow rates
polishing and dewatering of part of the sludge is accomplished in the
same operation.
Application and Performance. Pressure filtration is used in porcelain
enameling for sludge dewatering and also for direct removal of
precipitated and other suspended solids from wastewater.
' "ft ".'.'' ;, ii ' - !"<" .^'.'>' ' :"> , sir-Ti1 im'ii;Ai!*JV"- ^"'tir '*^i\w*;*i*ir:
Because dewatering is such a common operation in treatment systems,
pressure filtration is a technique which can be found in many
industries concerned with removing solids from their waste stream.
In a typical pressure filter, chemically preconditioned sludge
detained in the unit for one to three hours under pressures varying
from 5 to 13 atmospheres exhibited final solids content between 25 and
50 percent.
Advantages and Limitations. The pressures which may be applied to a
sludge for removal of water by filter presses that are currently
available range from 5 to 13 atmospheres. As a result, pressure
filtration may reduce the amount of chemical pretreatment required for
sludge dewatering. Sludge retained in the form of the filter cake has
a higher percentage of solids than that from centrifuge or vacuum
filter. Thus, it can be easily accommodated by materials handling
systems.
As a primary solids removal technique, pressure filtration requires
less space than sedimentation and is well suited to streams with high
solids loadings. The sludge produced may be disposed of without
further dewatering, but the amount of sludge is increased by the use
of filter precoat materials (usually diatomaceous earth). Also, cloth
"' !ซ' 1"' , *:'!'ป 'I' '
216
-------
pressure filters often do not achieve as high a degree
clarification as clarifiers or granular media filters.
of effluent
Two disadvantages associated with pressure filtration in the past have
been the short life of the filter cloths and lack of automation. New
synthetic fibers have largely offset the first of these problems.
Also, units with automatic feeding and pressing cycles are now avail-
able.
For larger operations, the relatively high space requirements, as
compared to those of a centrifuge, could be prohibitive in some
situations.
Operational Factors. Reliability: With proper pretreatment, design,
and control, pressure filtration is a highly dependable system.
Maintainability: Maintenance consists of periodic cleaning or
replacement of the filter media, drainage grids, drainage piping,
filter pans, and other parts of the system. If the removal of the
sludge cake is not automated, additional time is required for this
operation.
Solid Waste Aspects: Because it is generally drier than other types
of sludges, the.filter sludge cake can be handled with relative ease.
The accumulated sludge may be disposed of by any of the accepted
procedures depending, on its chemical composition. The levels of toxic
metals present in sludge from treating porcelain enameling wastewater
necessitate proper disposal.
Demonstration Status.
Pressure filtration is a commonly used
technology in a great many commercial applications.
Settling
Settling is a process which removes solid particles from a liquid
matrix by gravitational force. This is done by reducing the velocity
of the feed stream in a large volume tank or lagoon so that
gravitational settling can occur. Figure VII-7 (Page XX) shows two
typical settling devices.
Settling is often preceded by chemical precipitation which converts
dissolved pollutants to solid form and by coagulation which enhances
settling by coagulating suspended precipitates into larger, faster
settling particles.
If no chemical pretreatment is used, the wastewater is fed into a tank
or lagoon where it loses velocity and the suspended solids are allowed
to settle out. Long retention times are generally required.
Accumulated sludge can be collected either periodically or
217
-------
continuously and either manually or mechanically. Simple settling,
however, may require excessively large catchments, and long retention
times (days as compared with hours) to achieve high removal
efficiencies. Because of this, addition of settling aids such as
alum, ferric iron or polymeric flocculants is often economically
attractive.
In practice, chemical precipitation often precedes settling, and
inorganic coagulants or polyelectrolytic flocculants are usually added
as well. Common coagulants include sodium sulfate, sodium aluminate,
ferrous or ferric sulfate, and ferric chloride. Organic
polyelectrolytes vary in structure, but all usually form larger floe
particles than coagulants used alone.
Following this pretreatment, the wastewater can be fed into a holding
tank or lagoon for settling, but is more often piped into a clarifier
for the same purpose. A clarifier reduces space requirements, reduces
retention time, and increases solids removal efficiency. Conventional
clarifiers generally consist of a circular or rectangular tank with a
mechanical sludge collecting device or with a sloping funnel-shaped
bottom designed for sludge collection. In advanced settling devices
inclined plates, slanted tubes, or a lamellar network may be included
within the tank in order to increase the effectivesettling area,
increasing capacity. A fraction of the sludge stream is often
recirculated to the inlet, promoting formation of a denser sludge.
Application and Performance. Settling is used in the porcelain
enameling category to remove precipitated metals. Settling can be
used to remove most suspended solids in a particular waste stream/
thus it is used extensively by many different industrial waste
treatment facilities. Because most metal iqn pollutants are readily
converted to solid metal hydroxide precipitates, settling is of
particular use in those industries associated with metal production,
metal finishing, metal working, and any other industry with high
concentrations of metal ions in their wastes. In addition to toxic
metals, suitably precipitated materials effectively removed by
settling include aluminum, iron, manganese, cobalt, antimony,
beryllium, molybdenum, fluoride, phosphate and many others.
A properly operating settling system can efficiently remove suspended
solids, precipitated metal hydroxides, and other impurities from
wastewater. The performance of the process depends on a variety of
factors, including the density and particle size of the solids, the
effective charge on the suspended particles, and the types of
chemicals usedin pretreatment. The site of fldcculant or coagulant
addition also may significantly influence the effectiveness of
clarification. If the flocculant is subjected to too much mixing
before entering the clarifier, the complexes may be sheared and the
settling effectiveness diminished. At the same time, the flocculant
218
-------
must have, sufficient mixing and reaction time in order for effective
set-up and settling to occur. Plant personnel have observed that the
line or trough leading into the clarifier is often the most efficient
site for flocculant addition. The performance of simple settling is a
function of the retention time, particle size and density, and the
surface area of the basin.
The data displayed in Table VI1-9 indicate suspended solids removal
efficiencies in settling systems.
TABLE VI1-9
PERFORMANCE OF SAMPLED SETTLING SYSTEMS
PLANT ID
01057
09025
11058
12075
19019
33617
40063
44062
46050
SETTLING
DEVICE
Lagoon
Clarifier
Settling
Ponds
Clarifier
Settling
Pond
Settling
Tank
Clarifier
Lagoon
Clarifier
Clarifier
Settling
SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION (mg/1)
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
In
Out In
Out In
Out
&
54
1100
451
284
170
4390
182
295
6
9
17
6
1
9
13
10
56
1900
242
50
1662
3595
1 18
42
6
12
10
1
16
12
14
10
50
1620
502
1298
2805
174
153
5
5
14
13
23
8
The mean effluent TSS concentration obtained by the plants shown in
Table VI1-9 is 10.1 mg/1. Influent concentrations averaged 838 mg/1.
The maximum effluent TSS value reported is 23 mg/1. These plants all
use alkaline pH adjustment to precipitate metal hydroxides, and most
add a coagulant or flocculant prior to settling.
Advantages and Limitations. The major advantage of simple settling is
its simplicity as demonstrated by the gravitational settling of solid
particulate waste in a holding tank or lagoon. The major problem with
simple settling is the long retention time necessary to achieve
complete settling, especially if the specific gravity of the suspended
matter is close to that of water. Some materials cannot be
practically removed by simple settling alone.
Settling performed in a clarifier is effective in removing slow-
settling suspended matter in a shorter time and in less space than a
219
-------
simple settling system. Also, effluent quality is often better from a
clarifier. The cost of installing and maintaining a clarifier,
however, is substantially greater than the costs associated with
simple settling.
'W'iJIUEL ' loir
in i.4,11'!, I1" lull1 mi"! i liiiil I!,! ,":!:,
Inclined plate, slant tube, and lamella settlers have even higher
removal efficiencies than conventional clarifiers, and greater
capacities per unit area are possible. Installed costs for these
advanced settling systems are claimed to be one half the cost of
conventional systems of similar capacity.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Settling can be a highly reliable
technology for removing suspended solids. Sufficient retention time
and regular sludge removal are important factors affecting the
reliability of all settling systems. Proper control of pH adjustment,
chemical precipitation, and coagulant or flocculant addition are
additional factors affecting settling efficiencies in systems
(frequently clarifiers) where these methods are used.
i ;_ . ;,' ] i , ; ';; r';, ;'"'v<' '.'< ,'$} '^W^j:;.\j i"ai:>|f:,!! Ji^r^v^ii-.i^li^fft;.'!
Those advanced settlers using slanted tubes, inclined plates, or a
lamellar network may require pre-screening of the waste in order to
eliminate any fibrous materials which could potentially clog the
system. Some installations are especially vulnerable to shock
loadings, as by storm water runoff, but proper system design will
prevent this." ' ' ' p _ | ^ i ^ i | | ^rri
Maintainability: When clarifiers or other advanced settlers are used,
the associated system utilized for chemicalpretreatment and sludge
dragout must be maintained on a regular basis. Routine maintenance of
mechanical parts is also necessary. Lagoons require little
maintenance other than periodic sludge removal.
Demonstration Status. Settling represents the typical method of
solids removal and is employed extensively in industrial waste
treatment. The advanced clarifiers are just beginning to appear in
significant numbers in commercial applications. Settling in simple or
compactly designed systems is used in many porcelain enameling plants
as shown below.
Settling Device
Lagoon
Settling Tanks
Clarifier
Tube or Plate Settler
Number of Plants
12
51
19
.. , 4
, . . .
Settling is used both as part of end-of-pipe treatment and within the
plant to allow recovery of process solutions and raw materials.
':<?! ,l,i! Illi'liJ J'i'Utj '' I'.i'l , ','!' iiCl"". ' :'!', , i ,"
'f,., '! ItiR;!,!'11!,!;,1!; -I".1 ""f:-i,l '!' '<'. .'' iis,1 ri-t".
fjfj.."( 11,1,;:t:. e.i'n :,i.i
'';,(('V [Ml.1'Vf.'fl :
220
-------
Skimming
Pollutants with a specific gravity less than water will often float
unassisted to the surface of the wastewater. Skimming removes these
floating wastes. Skimming normally takes place in a tank designed to
allow the floating debris to rise and remain on the surface, while the
liquid flows to an outlet located below the floating layer. Skimming
devices are therefore suited to the removal of non-emulsified oils
from raw waste streams. Common skimming mechanisms include the
rotating drum type, which picks up oil from the surface of the water
as it rotates. A doctor blade scrapes oil from the drum and collects
it in a trough for disposal or reuse. The water portion is allowed to
flow under the rotating drum. Occasionally, an underflow baffle is
installed after the drum; this has the advantage of retaining any
floating oil which escapes the drum skimmer. The belt type skimmer is
pulled vertically through the water, collecting oil which is scraped
off from the surface and collected in a drum. Gravity separators,
such as the API type, utilize overflow and underflow baffles to skim a
floating oil layer from the surface of the wastewater. An overflow-
underflow baffle allows a small amount of wastewater (the oil portion)
to flow over into a trough for disposition or reuse while the majority
of the water flows underneath the baffle. This is followed by an
overflow baffle, which is set at a height relative to the first baffle
such that only the oil bearing portion will flow over the first baffle
during normal plant operation. A diffusion device, such as a vertical
slot baffle, aids in creating a uniform flow through the system and
increasing oil removal efficiency.
Application and Performance. Oil removed from the workpiece is a
principal source of oil. Skimming is applicable to any waste stream
containing pollutants which float to the surface. It is commonly used
to remove free oil, grease, and soaps. Skimming is often used in
conjunction with air flotation or settling in order to increase its
effectiveness.
The removal efficiency of a skimmer is partly a function of the
retention time of the water in the tank. Larger, more buoyant
particles require less retention time than smaller particles. Thus,
the efficiency also depends on the composition of the waste stream.
The retention time required to allow phase separation and subsequent
skimming varies from 1 to 15 minutes, depending on the wastewater
characteristics.
API or other gravity-type separators tend to be more suitable for use
where the amount of surface oil flowing through the system is
consistently significant. Drum and belt type skimmers are applicable
to waste streams which evidence smaller amounts of floating oil and
where surges of floating oil are not a problem. Using an API
separator system in conjunction with a drum type skimmer would be a
221
-------
'-t hirvi/^K ,>,Hr:"
'
very effective method of removing floating contaminants from non-
emulsified oily waste streams. Sampling data shown below illustrate
the capabilities of the technology with both extremely high and
moderate oil influent levels.
; ! "''' ' : ','. * , . . ' i i i i H
TABLE VII-10
SKIMMING PERFORMANCE
Oil & Grease Oil & Grease
Plant Skimmer Type
06058 API
06058 Belt
In
mg/1
Out
mg/1
224,669
19.4
17.9
8.3
Based on data from installations in a variety of manufacturing plants,
it is determined that effluent oil levels may be reliably reduced
below 10 mg/1 with moderate influent concentrations.
concentrations of oil such as the 22 percent shown above
two step treatment to achieve this level.
Very high
may require
'Hi'!'",:;i", |!iH!ii!"!i|i,i "!,11"
Skimming which removes oil may also be used to remove base levels of
organics. Plant sampling data show that many organic compounds tend
to be removed in standard wastewater treatment equipment. Oil
separation not only removes oil but also organics that are more
soluble in oil than in water. Clarification removes organic solids
directly and probably removes dissolved organics by adsorption on
inorganic solids.
The source of these organic pollutants is not always known with
certainty, although in the copper and copper alloy industry they seem
to derive mainly from various process lubricants. They are also
sometimes present in the plant water supply, as additives to
proprietary formulations of cleaners, or due to leaching from plastic
lines and other materials.
A study of priotity pollutant organic compounds commonly found in
certain waste streams indicated that incidental removal of these
compounds often occurs as a result of oil removal or clarification
processes. When all organics analyses from visited plants are
considered, removal of organic compounds by other waste treatment
technologies appears to be marginal in many cases. However, when only
raw waste concentrations of 0.05 mg/1 or greater are considered,
incidental organics removal becomes much more apparent. Lower values,
those less than 0.05 mg/1, are much more subject to analytical
variation, while higher values indicate a significant presence of a
given compound. When these factors are taken into account, analysis
data indicate that mpst clarificationand oil removal treatment
222
-------
systems remove significant amounts of the organic compounds present in
the raw waste. The API oil-water separation system and the thermal
emulsion breaker performed notably in this regard, as shown in the
following table (all values in-mg/1).
TABLE VII-11
TRACE ORGANIC REMOVAL BY SKIMMING
Eff.
API (06058)
Inf.
TEB (04086)
Inf. Eff.
Oil & Grease 225,000
Chloroform .023
Methylene Chloride .013
Naphthalene 2.31
N-nitrosodiphenylamine 59.0
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 11.0
Diethyl phthalate
Butylbenzyl phthalate .005
Di-n-octyl phthalate .019
Anthracene - phenanthrene 16.4
Toluene .02
14,
6
007
012
004
182
027
2,590
0
0
1 .83
-
1.55
.017
002
002
014
,012
144
10.3
0
0
.003
.018
.005
.002
Data from five plant days demonstrate removal of organics by the
combined oil skimming and settling operations performed on coil
coating wastewaters. Days were chosen where treatment system influent
and effluent analyses provided paired data points for oil and grease
and the organics present. All organics found at quantifiable levels
on those days were included. Further, only those days were chosen
where oil and grease raw wastewater concentrations exceeded 10 mg/1
and where there was reduction in oil and grease going through the
treatment system. All plant sampling days which met the above
criteria are included below. The conclusion is that when oil and
grease are removed, organics are removed, also.
Percent Removal
Plant-Day
1054-3
13029-2
13029-3
38053-1
38053-2
Oil & Grease
95.9
98.3
95.1
96.8
98.5
Organics
98.2
78.0
77.0
81 .3
86.3
The unit operation most applicable to removal of trace priority
organics is adsorption, and chemical oxidation is another possibility.
Biological degradation is not generally applicable because the
223
-------
organics are not present in sufficient concentration to sustain a
biomass and because most of the organicsare resistant to
b i odegradat i on.
Advantages and Limitations. Skimming as a pretreatment is effective
in removing naturally floating waste material. It also improves the
performance of subsequent downstream treatments.
'":? ' !': '..' ..' ". i'r';^!1!': : ! .:',' ',-' ..' ' i;. ": ' ' "
Many pollutants, particularly dispersed or emulsified oil, will not
float "naturally" but require additional treatments. Therefore,
skimming alone may not remove all the pollutants capable of being
removed by air flotation or other more sophisticated technologies.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Because of its
skimming is a very reliable technique.
Maintainability: The skimming mechanism requires
lubrication, adjustment, and replacement of worn parts.
simplicity,
periodic
Solid Waste Aspects: The collected layer of debris must be disposed
of by contractor removal, landfill, or incineration. Because
relatively large quantities of water are present in the collected
wastes, incineration is not always a viable disposal method.
Demonstration Status. Skimming is a common operation
extensively by industrial wastewater treatment, systems. Oil
is used in at least two porcelain enameling plants.
MAJOR TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS
utilized
skimming
The performance of individual treatment technologies was presented for
BPT and BAT. Performance of operating systems representing both
levels of treatment technology is discussed here. Subsequently, an
analysis of effectiveness of such systems is made to develop one-day
maximum and thirty-day average concentration levels to be used in
regulating pollutants at BPT and BAT.
L&S (Lime and Settle) Performance
Sampling data was analyzed from fifty-five industrial plants which use
chemical precipitation as a waste treatment technology. These plants
include the electroplating, mechanical products, metal finishing, coil
coating, porcelain enameling, battery manufacturing, copper forming
and aluminum forming categories. All of the plants employ pH
adjustment and hydroxide precipitation using lime or caustic, followed
by settling {tank, lagoon or clarifier) for solids removal. Most also
add a coagulant or flocculant prior to solids removal. No sample
analyses were included where effluent TSS levels exceeded 50 mg/1 or
where the effluent pH fell below 7.0. This was done to exclude any
224
.|,..ii" a.,-!'!,..!, i'ii niiai i
-------
data which represented clearly inadequate operation of the treatment
system. These data are derived from a variety of industrial
manufacturing operations which have wastewater relatively similar to
porcelain enameling wastewaters. Plots were made of the available
data for eight metal pollutants showing effluent concentration vs. raw
waste concentration (Figures VII-3 - VII-11) for each parameter.
Table VII-12 summarizes data shown in Figures VII-3 through VII-11,
tabulating for each pollutant of interest the number of data points
and average of observed values. Generally accepted design values
(GADV) for these metals are also shown in Table VII-12.
TABLE VII-12
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION - SETTLING (L&S) PERFORMANCE
Specific
metal
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Ni
Zn
Fe
Mn
P
No. data
points
38
64
74
85
61
69
88
20
44
Observed
Average
0.013
0.47
0.61
0.034
0.84
0.40
0.57
0.11
4.08
A number of other pollutant parameters were considered with regard to
the performance of hydroxide precipitation-sedimentation treatment
systems in removing them from industrial wastewater. Sampling data
for most of these parameters is scarce, so published sources were
consulted for the determination of average and 24-hour maximum concen-
trations.
The information
documents:
on these other parameters was extracted from four
Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New
Source Performance Standards for the Miscellaneous Nonferrous Metals
E.P.A,
Segment of the Nonferrous Metals Point Source
EPA-440/1-76/067, March, 1979.
Category, U.S.
Addendum to Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and New Source Performance Standards, Major Inorganic Products Segment
of Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing Point Source Category, U.S.
E.P.A., E.P.A. Contract No. EPA-68-01-3281 (Task 7), June, 1978.
225
-------
Development Document for BAT Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New
Source Performance Standards for the Ore Mining and Dressing Industry,
U.S. E.P.A., E.P.A. Contract No. 68-01-4845, September, 1979.
Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New
Source Performance Standards for the Ore Mining and Dressing Point
Source Category, U.S. E.P.A., PB-286520 and PB-286521, April/July
1978.
The available data indicate that the concentrations shown in Table
VII-13 are reliably attainable with hydroxide precipitation and
sedimentation. The precipitation of silver appears to be accomplished
by alkaline chloride precipitation and adequate chloride ions must be
available for this reaction to occur.
r : ',; TABLE VII-13,', '._" ,"/.' \ '. , . . ,.'[ ' '
i| i , I '' f , j, . 'II,,, I1. + iLi'ii " 'JO'(I"." |, !ซ|i "i, ',i"j, , .'"','I!!1 ji, "I,,, ,! i ';'" '
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION-SETTLING (L&S) PERFbRMANCE
ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS
Parameter
(mg/1)
Sb
As
Be
Hg
Se
Ag
Al
Co
F
Ti
Average
0.05
0.05
0.3
0.03
0.01
0.10
0.2
0.07
15
0.01
24-Hour Maximum
9-.5Q
0.50
1 .0
0.10
0.10
P. 30
0 - 55
0^50
30
0.10
i i1'!!!, ;!",!,,(ป!
LS&F (Lime-Settle-Filtertion) Performance
Tables VII-13 and VII-14 show long term data from two porcelain
enameling plants which have well operated precipitation-sedimentation
treatment followed by filtration. Both plants reduce hexavalent
chromium before neutralizing and precipitating metals with lime. A
clarifier is used to remove much of the solidsloadand a filter is
used to "polish" or complete removal of suspended solids. Plant 13330
uses pressure filtration, while 18538 uses a rapid sand filter.
Raw waste data was collected only occasionally at each facility and
the raw waste data is presented as an indication of the nature of the
wastewater treated. Data from plant 13330 was received as a
statistical summary and is presented as received. Raw laboratory data
was collected at 18538 and reviewed forspurious points and
discrepancies. The method of treating the data base is discussed
below under lime, settle, and filter treatment effectiveness.
226
.;:,,'Jvj ,-.
-------
TABLE VII-14
(LS&F) PERFORMANCE
Plant 13330
Parameters No Pts
For 1979-Treated
Cr
Cu
Ni
Zn
Fe
For 1978-Treated
Cr
Cu
Ni
Zn
Fe
Raw Waste
Cr
Cu
Ni
Zn
Fe
Range mq/1
Mean +_
std. dev
Mean + 2
std. dev.
Wastewater
47
12
47
47
0.
0.
0.
0.
015
01
08
08
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
13
03
64
53
0
0
0
0
.045
.019
.22
.17
+0
+0
+ 0
+0
/029
.006
.13
.09
0
0
0
0
.10
.03
.48
.35
Wastewater
47
28
47
47
21
5
5
5
5
5
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
32.
0.
1 .
33.
10.
01
005
10
08
26
0
08
65
2
0
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 2.
- 1 .
- 72
- 0
- 20
- 32
- 95
07
055
92
35
1
.0
.45
.0
.0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
.06
.016
.20
.23
.49
+ 0
+ 0
+ 0
+ 0
+0
.10
.010
.14
.34
.18
0
0
0
0
0
.26
.04
.48
.91
.85
TABLE VII-15
(LS&F) PERFORMANCE
Plant 18538
Parameters
No Pts.
For 1979-Treated Wastewater
Range mg/1
Cr
Cu
Ni
Zn
Fe
TSS
175
176
175
175
174
2
0.0
0.0
0.01
0.01
0.01
- 0.40
- 0.22
- 1 .49
- 0.66
- 2.40
Mean +_'
std. dev.
0.068 +0.075
0.024 +0.021
0.219 +0.234
0.054 +0.064
0.303 +0.398
Mean + 2
std. dev.
0.22
0.07
0.69
0.18
1 .10
1.00 - 1.00
227
-------
For 1978-Treated Wastewater
Cr
Cu
Ni
Zn
Fe
144
143
143
131
144
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.70
0.23
1 .03
0.24
1 .76
0.05$) +0.088
0.017 +0.020
0.147 +0.142
0.037 +0.034
0.200 +0.223
0.24
0.06
0.43
0.11
0.47
Total 1974-1979-Treated Wastewater
Cr
Cu
Ni
Zn
Fe
1288
1290
1287
1273
1287
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
- 0.56
- 0.23
- 1 .88
- 0.66
- 3.15
Raw Waste
Cr
Cu
Ni
Zn
Fe
TSS
3
3
3
2
3
2.80 -
0.09 -
1 .61 -
2.35 -
3.13 -
177 -
9. 15
0.27
4.89
3.39
35.9
446
0.038 +0.055
0.0111 +0.016
0.184 +_0.211
0.035 +_0.045
0.402 +0.509
5.90
0.17
3.33
22.4
0,
0,
0.
0,
15
04
60
13
1 .42
These data are presented to demonstrate the performance of
precipitation-sedimentation-filtration technology (also known as lime,
settle and filter technology) under actual operating conditions and
over a long period of time.
1 | . i, ' : I v1'!' : ," I. : i i."'' i . ' . ,( .' .' v:Ji /i if'i'
It should be noted that the iron content of the raw waste of 'both
plants is high. This results in coprecipitation of toxic metals with
iron, a process sometimes called ferrite precipitation. Ferrite
precipitation using high-calcium lime for pH control yields the
results shown above. Plant operating personnel indicate that this
chemical treatment combination (sometimeswith polymer assisted
coagulation) generally produces better and more consistant metals
removal than other combinations of sacrificial metal ions and alkalis.
Analysis of Treatment System Effectiveness
Data were presented in Tables VII-14 and 'VI1-15 showing the
effectiveness of lime and settle, and lime, settle, arid filter
technologies when applied to porcelain enameling or essentially
similar wastewaters. An analysis of these data has been made to
develop one day maximum and 30 day average values for use in
establishing effluent limitations and standards. Several approaches
using engineering logic and statistical analysis were investigated and
considered. These approaches are briefly discussed and the average
228
-------
, 30-day average, and maximum (1-day) values are tabulated
lime and settle, and lime, settle and filter technologies.
for
Lime and settle technology data presented in Figures VI1-8 through
VII-16 are summarized in Table VII-12. The data summary shows
observed average values. To develop the required regulatory base
concentrations from these data, variability factors were transferred
from electroplating pretreatment (Electroplating Pretreatment
Development Document, 440/1-79/003, page 397). and applied to the
observed average values. One-day-maximum and 30-day-average values
were calculated and are presented in Table VII-16.
For the pollutants for which no observed one-day variability factor
values are available the average variability factor from
electroplating one-day values (i.e. 3.18) was used to calculate one-
day maximum regulatory values from average (mean) values presented in
Tables VII-12 and VII-13. Likewise, the average variability factor
from electroplating 30-day-average variability factors (i.e. 1.3) was
used to calculate 30-day average regulatory values. These calculated
one-day maximums and 30-day averages, to be used for regulations, are
presented in Table VII-16.
Table - A
Variability Factors of Lime and Settle (L&S) Technology
Metal one-day maximum 30 day average
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Ni
Zn
Fe
Mean
electro-
plating
2.9
3.9
3.2
2.9
2.9
.0
.81
3
3
3.81
electro-
plating
1.3
1 .4
1 .3
1 .3
1 .3
1 .3
1 .3
1 .3
Lime, settle and filter technology data are presented in Tables VII-14
and VI1-15. These data represent two operating porcelain enameling
plants (18538 and 13330) in which the technology has been installed
and operated for some years. Plant 13330 data was received as a
statistical summary and is presented without change. Plant 18530 data
was received as raw laboratory analysis data. Discussions with plant
personnel indicated that operating experiments and changes in
materials and reagents and occasional operating errors had occured
229
-------
during the data collection period. No specific information was
available on those variables. To sort out high values probably caused
by methodological factors from random statistical variability, or data
noise, plant 18538 data were analyzed. For each of four pollutants
(chromium, nickel, zinc, and iron), the mean and standard deviation
(sigma) were calculated for the entire data set. A data day was
removed from the complete data set when any individual pollutant
concentration for that day exceeded the sum of the mean plus three
sigma for that pollutant. Fifty-one data days from a total of about
1400 were eliminated by this method.
ii - i , " i ' , . .; ,'. I,/ " i; ป, I", ,i iซ [.,, i. !ซ' ; '., ;i:,'< n .. i1 <[.;,. ::':,.".%'Miwiwatf
Another approach was also used as a check on the above method of
eliminating certain high values. The minimum values of raw wastewater
concentrations from Plant 18538 for the same four pollutants were
compared to the total set of values for the corresponding pollutants.
Any day on which the pollutant concentration exceeded the minimum
value from raw wastewater concentrations for that pollutant was
discarded. Forty-five days of data were eliminated by that procedure.
Forty-three days of data were eliminated by either procedures. Since
common engineering practice (mean plus 3 sigma) and logic (treated
waste should be less than raw waste) seem to coincide, the data base
with the 51 spurious data days eliminated will be the basis for all
further analysis. Range, mean, standard deviation and mean plus two
standard deviations are shown in Tables VII-13 and VII-14 for Cr, Cu,
Ni, Zn and Fe.
The Plant 18538 data was separated into 1979, 1978, and total data
base segments. With the statistical analysis from Plant 13330 for
1978 and 1979 this in effect created five data sets in which there is
some overlap between the individual yearsand total data sets from
Plant 18538. By comparing these five parts it is apparent that they
are quite similar and all appear to be from the same family of
numbers. Selecting the greatest mean and greatest mean plus two
standard deviations draws values from four of the five data bases.
These values are displayed in the first two columns of Table A and
represent one approach to analysis of the lime, settle, and filter
data to obtain average (mean) and one-day maximum values for
regulatory purposes.
The other candidates for regulatory values are presented in Table B
and were derived by multiplying the mean by the appropriate
variability factor from electroplating (Table A). These values are
the ones used for one-day maximum and 30-day average regulatory
numbers. ' ' ' ' "
ll",1!1 ,'JT "I . I;!1:1!.:1!'
230
-------
Table - B
Analysis of Plant 13330 and Plant 18538 Data
Composite
Mean
Cr 0.068
Cu 0.02
Ni 0.22
Zn 0.23
Fe 0.49
/
Mean*
2 sigma
0.26
0.07
0.69
0.91
1 .42
Compos i t e Compos i t e
Mean X Mean X
Plant 18538 One Day 30 day
Electpltg. Electpltg.
Var.Fact. Var.Fact.
0.27 0.095
0.077 0.026
0.64 0.286
0.69 0.299
1.87 0.637
Concentration values for regulatory use are displayed in Table VI1-16.
Mean values for BPT were taken from Tables VII-12, VII-13, and the
discussions following VI1-9, and VII-10. Thirty-day average and one-
day maximum values for BPT were derived from means and variability
factors as discussed earlier under lime and settle technology.
Copper levels achieved at Plants 13330 and 18538 may be lower than
generally achievable because of the high iron content and low copper
content of the raw wastewaters. Therefore, the mean concentration
value achieved is not used; LS&F mean used is derived from the L&S
technology.
The mean concentration of lead is not reduced from the L&S value
because of the relatively high solubility of lead carbonate.
L&S cyanide mean levels shown in Table VI1-7 are ratioed to one day
maximum and 30 day average values using mean variability factors.
LS&F mean cyanide is calculated by applying the ratios of removals L&S
and LS&F as discussed previously for LS&F metals limitations. The
cyanide performance was arrived at by using the average of the metal
variability factors from the electroplating pretreatment development
document. The electroplating report provides a variability factor for
cyanide but it is not used here. The development of the cyanide
variability for electroplating was based on the treatment
(destruction) of cyanide by oxidation (chlorination). The treatment
method used here is cyanide precipitation. Because cyanide
precipitation is limited by the same physical processes as the metal
precipitation, it is expected that the variabilities will be similar.
Therefore, the average of the metal variability factors has been used
as a basis for calculating the cyanide daily maximum and thirty day
average treatment effectiveness values.
231
-------
The filter performance for removing TSS as shown in Table VII-8 yields
a mean effluent concentration of 2.61 mg/1 and calculates to a 30 day
average of 5.58 mg/1; a one day maximum of 8.23. These calculated
values more than amply support the classic values of 10 and 15,
respectively, which are used for LS&F.
Mean values for LS&F for pollutants not already discussed are derived
by reducing the L&S mean by one-third. The one-third reduction was
established after examining the percent reduction in concentrations
going from L&S to LS&F data for Cr, Ni, Zn, and TSS. The reductions
were 85 percent, 74 percent, 54 percent, and 74 percent, respectively.
The 33 percent reduction is conservative when compared to the smallest
reduction for metals removals of more than 50 percent in going from
L&S to LS&F.
The one-day maximum and 30-day average values for LS&F for pollutants
for which data were not available were derived by multiplying the
means by the average one-day and 30-day variability factors. Although
iron was reduced in some LS&F operations, some facilities using that
treatment introduce iron compounds to aid settling. Therefore, the
value for iron at LS&F was held at the L&S level so as to not unduly
penalize the operations which use therelatively less objectionable
iron compounds to enhance removals of toxic metals.
MINOR TECHNOLOGIES
Several other treatment technologies were considered for possible
application in BPT or BAT. These technologies are presented here with
a full discussion for most of them. A few are only described briefly
because of limited technical development.
Carbon Adsorption
organ!cs "frbrii "waiter"
is one of the
It
_
The use of activated carbon to remove dissolved
and wastewater is a long demonstrated technology.
most effective organic removal processes available. This sorption
process is reversible, allowing activated carbon to be regenerated for
reuse by the application of heat and steam or solvent. Activated
carbon has also proved to be an effective adsorbent for many toxic
metals, including mercury. Regeneration of carbon which has adsorbed
significant metals, however, may be difficult.
I I
232
, ,! 11 iiil'NHiliiiii II11,| l/l I'l'ijr "I , i I'li i Li, 'MPiiIrl in11 ,',|i..i , in.' "' 'n i i,,i'i ', '!' In
-------
TABLE VI1-16
Summary of Treatment Effectiveness
ro
oo
CO
Pollutant
Parameter
114 Sb
115 As
117 Be
118 Cd
119 Cr
120 Cu
121 CN
122 Pb
123 Hg
124 Ml
125 Se
126 Ag
128 Zn
Al
Co
F
Fe
Mn
P
Ti
O&G
TSS
L&S
Technology
System
Mean
0.05
0.05
0.3
0.02
0.47
0.61
0.07
0.034
0.03
0.84
0.01
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.07
15.0
0.57
0.11
4.08
0.01
10.1
One
Day
Max.
0.16
0.16
0.96
0.06
1.83
1.95
0.22
0.10
0.10
1.44
0.03
0.32
1.5
0.64
0.22
47.7
2.17
0.35
13.0
0.03
20.0
35.0
Thirty
Day
Avg.
0.07
0.07
0.39
0.03
0.66
0.79
0.09
0.05
0.04
1.09
0.01
0.13
0.65
0.26
0.09
19.5
0.65
0.14
5.30
0.01
10.0
25.0
Mean
0.033
0.033
0.20
0.014
0.07
0.41
0.047
0.034
0.02
0.22
0.007
0.007
0.23
0.14
0.047
10.0
0.49
0.079
2.78
0.007
2.6
LS&F Sulfide
Technology Precipitation
System Filtration
One
Day
Max.
0.11
0.11
0.63
0.044
0.27
1.31
0.15
0.10
0.063
0.64
0.021
0.21
0.69
0.42
0.147
31.5
1.87
0.23
8.57
0.021
10.0
15.0
Thirty
Day
Avg. Mean
0.043
0.043
0.26
0.018 0.01
0.10 0.05
0.53 0.05
0.06
0.044 0.01
0.026 0.03
0.29 0.05
0.009
0.087 0.05
0.30 0.01
0.18
0.061
13.0
0.64
0.095
3.54
0.009
10.0
10.0
One
Day
Max.
0.032
0.16
0.16
0.032
0.095
0.16
0.16
0.032
Thirty
Day
Avg.
0.013
0.065
0.065
0.013
0.039
0.065,
0.065
0.013
-------
The term activated carbon applies to any amorphous form of carbon that
has been specially treated to give high adsorption capacities.
Typical raw materials include coal, wood, coconut shells, petroleum
base residues and char from sewage sludge pyrolysis. A carefully
controlled process of dehydration, carbonization, and oxidation yields
a product which is called activated carbon. This material has a high
capacity for adsorption due primarily to the large surface area
available for adsorption, 500-1500 rnVgm resulting from a large number
of internal pores. Pore sizes generally range from 10-100 angstroms
in radius.
Activated carbon removes contaminants from waiter by the process of
adsorption, or the attraction and accumulation of one substance on the
surface of another. Activated carbon preferentially adsorbs organic
compounds and, because of this selectivity, is particularly effective
in removing organic compounds from aqueous solution.
Carbon adsorption requires pretreatment to remove excess suspended
solids, oils, and greases. Suspended solids in the influent should be
less than 50 mg/1 to minimize backwash requirements; a downflow carbon
bed can handle much higher levels (up to 2000 mg/1), but requires
frequent backwashing. Backwashing morethan two or three times a day
is not desirable; at 50 mg/1 suspended solids one backwash will
suffice. Oil and grease should be less than about 10 mg/1. A high
level of dissolved inorganic material in the influent may cause
problems with thermal carbon reactivation (i.e., scaling and loss of
activity) unless appropriate preventive steps are taken. Such steps
might include pH control, softening, or the use of an acid wash on the
carbon prior to reactivation.
Activated carbon is available in both powdered and granular form. An
adsorption column packed with granular activated carbon is shown in
Figure VII-17 (Page 293). Powdered carbon is less expensive per unit
weight and may have slightly higher adsorption capacity, but it is
more difficult to handle and to regenerate.
Application and Performance. Carbon adsorption is used to remove
mercury from wastewaters. The removal rate is influenced by the
mercury level in the influent to the adsorption unit. Removal levels
found at three manufacturing facilities are:
234
-------
Plant
A
B
C
TABLE VI1-17
ACTIVATED CARBON PERFORMANCE (MERCURY)
Mercury.levels - mg/1
In
28.0
0.36
0.008
Out
0.9
0.015
0.0005
In the aggregate these data indicate that very low effluent levels
could be attained from any raw waste by use of multiple adsorption
stages. This is characteristic of adsorption processes.
Isotherm tests have indicated that activated carbon is very effective
in adsorbing 65 percent of the organic priority pollutants and is
reasonably effective for another 22 percent. Specifically, for the
organics of particular interest, activated carbon was very effective
in removing 2,4-dimethylphenol, fluoranthene, isophorone, naphthalene,
all phthalates, and phenanthrene. It was reasonably effective on
1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, phenol, and toluene. Table
VII-18 (Page 275) summarizes the treatability effectiveness for most
of the organic priority pollutants by activated carbon as compiled by
EPA. Table VII-19 (Page 276) summarizes classes of organic compounds
together with examples of organics that are readily adsorbed on
carbon.
Advantages and Limitations. The major benefits of carbon treatment
include applicability to a wide variety of organics, and high removal
efficiency. Inorganics such as cyanide, chromium, and mercury are
also removed effectively. Variations in concentration and flow rate
are well tolerated. The system is compact, and recovery of adsorbed
materials is sometimes practical. However, destruction of adsorbed
compounds often occurs during thermal regeneration. If carbon cannot
be thermally desorbed, it must be disposed of along with any adsorbed
pollutants. The capital and operating costs of thermal regeneration
are relatively high. Cost surveys show that thermal regeneration is
generally economical when carbon usage exceeds about 1,000 Ib/day.
Carbon cannot remove low molecular weight or highly soluble organics.
It also has a low tolerance for suspended solids, which must be
removed to at least 50 mg/1 in the influent water.
Operational Factors. Reliability: This system should be very
reliable with upstream protection and proper operation and maintenance
procedures.
235
-------
Maintainability: This system requires periodic regeneration or
replacement of spent carbon and is dependent upon raw waste load and
process efficiency.
Solid Waste Aspects: Solid waste from this process is contaminated
activated carbon that requires disposal. Carbon undergoes
regeneration, reduces the solid waste problem by reducing the
frequency of carbon replacement.
Demonstration Status. Carbon adsorptionsystems have been
demonstrated to be practical and economical in reducing COD, BOD and
related parameters in secondary municipal and industrial wastewaters;
in removing toxic or refractory organics from isolated industrial
wastewaters; in removing and recovering certain organics from
wastewaters; and for the removal, at times with recovery, of selected
inorganic chemicals from aqueous wastes. Carbon adsorption is a
viable and economic process for organic waste streams containing up to
1 to 5 percent of refractory or toxic organics.. Its applicability for
removal of inorganics such as metals has also been demonstrated.
Centrifuqation
Centrifugation is the application of centrifugal force to separate
solids and liquids in a liquid-solid mixture or to effect
concentration of the solids. The application of centrifugal force is
effective because of the density differential normally found between
the insoluble solids and the liquid in which they are contained. As a
waste treatment procedure, centrifugation is applied to dewatering of
sludges. Onetype of centrifuge is shown in Figure VII-18 (Page 294).
There are three common types of"centrifuges:thedisc, basket, and
conveyor type. All three operate by removing solids under the
influence of centrifugal force. The fundamental difference between
the three types is the method by which solids are collected in and
discharged from the bowl.
In the disc centrifuge, the sludge feed is distributed between narrow
channels that are present as spaces between stacked conical discs.
Suspended particles are collected and discharged continuously through
small orifices in the bowl wall. The clarified effluent is discharged
through an overflow weir.
A second type of centrifuge which is useful in dewatering sludges is
the basket centrifuge. In this type of centrifuge, sludge feed is
introduced at the bottom of the basket, and sol ids collect at the bowl
wall while clarified effluent overflowsthe lip ring at the top.
Since the basket centrifuge does not have provision for continuous
discharge of collected cake, operation requires interruption of the
' ' ' ''' "1'
236
iLiiilUI]' riHi!'1'"!!!,1! iii'l ' Llll'KiJ! "'UlllMillii'''!,;1 ;\
-------
feed for cake discharge for a minute or two
overall cycle.
in
a 10 to 30 minute
The third type of centrifuge commonly used in sludge dewatering is the
conveyor type. Sludge is fed through a stationary feed pipe into a
rotating bowl in which the solids are settled out against the bowl
wall by centrifugal force. From the bowl wall, they are moved by a
screw to the end of the machine, at which point whey are discharged.
The liquid effluent is discharged through ports after passing the
length of the bowl under centrifugal force.
Application And Performance. Virtually all industrial waste treatment
systems producing sludge can use centrifugation to dewater.
Centrifugation is currently being used by a wide range of industrial
concerns.
The performance of sludge dewatering by centrifugation depends on the
feed rate, the rotational velocity of the drum, and the sludge
composition and concentration. Assuming proper design and operation,
the solids content of the sludge can be increased to 20-35 percent.
Advantages And Limitations. Sludge dewatering centrifuges have
minimal space requirements and show a high degree of effluent
clarification. The operation is simple, clean, and relatively
inexpensive. The area required for a centrifuge system installation
is less than that required for a filter system or sludge drying bed of
equal capacity, and the initial cost is lower.
Centrifuges have a high power cost that partially offsets the low
initial cost. Special consideration must also be given to providing
sturdy foundations and soundproofing because of the vibration and
noise that result from centrifuge operation. Adequate electrical
power must also be provided since large motors are required. The
major difficulty encountered in the operation of centrifuges has been
the disposal of the concentrate which is relatively high in suspended,
non-settling solids.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Centrifugation is highly reliable
with proper control of factors such as sludge feed, consistency, and
temperature. Pretreatment such as grit removal and coagulant addition
may be necessary, depending on the composition of the sludge and on
the type of centrifuge employed.
Maintainability: Maintenance consists of periodic lubrication,
cleaning, and inspection. The frequency and degree of inspection
required varies depending on the type of sludge solids being dewatered
and the maintenance service conditions. If the sludge is abrasive, it
is recommended that the first inspection of the rotating assembly be
made after approximately 1,000 hours of operation. If the sludge is
237
-------
':,;;,;': i; J Jl* IKA
not abrasive or corrosive, then the initial inspection might be
delayed. Centrifuges not equipped with a continuous sludge discharge
system-require periodic shutdowns for manual sludge cake removal.
Hi - , "';[ :* ' Mซ' 'h 7,^-'Vฑ4%.Wf M5SCT ? W% ปWi'.'''* <#'' ( 1 m
Solid Waste Aspects: Sludge dewatered in the centrifugation process
may be disposed of by landfill. The clarified effluent (centrate), if
high in dissolved or suspended solids, may require further treatment
prior to discharge.
Demonstration Status. Centrifugation is currently used in a great
many commercial applications to dewater sludge. Work is underway to
improve the efficiency, increase the capacity,
associated with centrifugation.
and lower the costs
Coalescing " ' ' "
The basic principle of coalescence involves the preferential wetting
of a coalescing medium by oil droplets which accumulate on the medium
and then rise to the surface of the solution as they combine to form
larger particles. The mostimportant requirements for coalescing
media are wettability for oil and large surface area. Monofilament
line is sometimes used as a coalescing medium.
Coalescing stages may be integrated with a wide variety of gravity oil
separation devices, and some systems may incorporate several
coalescing stages. In general a preliminary oil skimming step is
desirable to avoid overloading the coalescer.
1 ,; ..';t r'1 =-:,;:'"'iv-Mi ^i:^^?:^:^fil&^!::^:lV;i''3Sl6 ;i!:;^
One commercially marketed system for oily waste treatment combines
coalescing with inclined plate separation and filtration. In this
system, the oily wastes flow into an inclined plate settler. This
unit consists of a stack of inclined baffle plates in a cylindrical
container with an oil collection chamber at the top. The oil droplets
rise and impinge uponthe undersidesof the plates. They then migrate
upward to a guide rib which directs the oil to the oil collection
chamber, from which oil is discharged for reuse or disposal.
The oily water continues on through another cylinder containing re-
placeable filter cartridges, which remove suspended particles from the
waste. From there the wastewater enters a final cylinder in which the
coalescing material is housed. As the oily v/ater passes through the
many small, irregular, continuous passages in the coalescing material,
the oil droplets coalesce and rise to an oil collection chamber.
Application and Performance. Coalescing is used to treat oily wastes
which do not separate readily in simple gravity systems. The three
stage system described above has achieved effluent concentrations of
10-15 mg/1 oil and grease from raw waste concentrations of 1000 mg/1
or more.
238
-------
Advantages and Limitations. Coalescing allows removal of oil droplets
too finely dispersed for conventional gravity separation-skimming
technology. It also can significantly reduce the residence times (and
therefore separator volumes) required to achieve separation of oil
from some wastes. Because of its simplicity, coalescing provides
generally high reliability and low capital and operating costs.
Coalescing is not generally effective in removing soluble or
chemically stabilized emulsified oils. To avoid plugging, coalescers
must be protected by pretreatment from very high concentrations of
free oil and grease and suspended solids. Frequent replacement of
prefilters may be necessary when raw waste oil concentrations are
high.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Coalescing is inherently highly
reliable since there are no moving parts, and the coalescing substrate
(monofilament, etc.) is inert in the process and therefore not
subject to frequent regeneration or replacement requirements. Large
loads or inadequate pretreatment, however, may result in plugging or
bypass of coalescing stages.
Maintainability: Maintenance requirements are generally limited to
replacement of the coalescing medium on an infrequent basis.
Solid Waste Aspects: No appreciable solid waste is generated by
process.
this
Demonstration Status. Coalescing has been fully demonstrated in
industries generating oily wastewater, although none are currently in
use at any porcelain enameling facility.
CYANIDE OXIDATION
Cyanide Oxidation By_ Chlorine
Cyanide oxidation using chlorine is widely used in industrial waste
treatment to oxidize cyanide. Chlorine can be utilized in either the
elemental or hypochlorite forms. This classic procedure can be
illustrated by the following two step chemical reaction:
1.
2.
C12
3C1
NaCN
2NaOH - NaCNO + 2NaCl + H0
6NaOH + 2NaCNO = 2NaHC03
N
6NaCl + 2H0
The reaction presented as equation (2) for the oxidation of cyanate is
the final step in the oxidation of cyanide. A complete system for the
alkaline chlorination of cyanide is shown in Figure VII-19 (Page 295).
The alkaline chlorination process oxidizes cyanides to carbon dioxide
and nitrogen. The equipment often consists of an equalization tank
followed by two reaction tanks, although the reaction can be carried
out in a single tank. Each tank has an electronic recorder-controller
239
-------
I ,-. ' ' ' : ;i.":i;V ''' ''.-{11. . .j !'. I I I ill III
to maintain required conditions with respect to pH and oxidation
reduction potential (ORP). In the first reaction tank, conditions are
adjusted to oxidize cyanides to cyanates. To effect the reaction,
chlorine is metered to the reaction tank as required to maintain the
ORP in the range of 350 to 400 millivolts, arid 50 percent aqueous
caustic soda is added to maintain a pH range of 9.5 to 10. In the
second reaction tank, conditions are maintained to oxidize cyanate to
carbon dioxide and nitrogen. The desirable ORP and pH for this
reaction are 600 millivolts and a pH of 8.0. Each of the reaction
tanks is equipped with a propeller agitator designed to provide
approximately one turnover per minute. Treatment by the batch process
is accomplished by using two tanks, one for collection of water over a
specified time period, and one tank for the treatment of an
accumulated batch. If dumps of concentrated wastes are frequent,
another tank may be required to equalize the flow to the treatment
tank. When the holding tank is full, the liquid is transferred to the
reaction tank for treatment. After treatment, the supernatant is
discharged and the sludges are collected for removal and ultimate
disposal.
Application and Performance. The oxidation of cyanide wasteby
chlorine is a classic process and is found in most industrial plants
using cyanide. This process is capable of achieving effluent levels
that are nondetectable. The process is potentially applicable to coil
coating facilities where cyanide is a component in conversion coating
formulations.
Advantages and Limitations. Some advantages of chlorine oxidation"for
handlingprocess effluents are operation at ambient temperature,
suitability for automatic control, and low cost. Disadvantages
include the need for careful pH control, possible chemical
interference in the treatment of mixed wastes, and the potential
hazard of storing and handlingchlorine gas.
Operational Factors. Reliability:
Chlorine oxidation is h'lgh'ly'
reliable with proper monitoring and control, and proper pretreatment
to control interfering substances.
Maintainability: Maintenance consists of periodic removal of sludge
and recalibration of instruments.
Solid Waste Aspects: There is no solid waste; problem associated with"
chlorine oxidation.
111/1 i
'"'ijfijii
Demonstration Status. The oxidation of cyanide wastes by chlorine is
a widely used process in plants using cyanide in cleaning and metal
processing baths.
240
-------
Cyanide Oxidation By Ozone
Ozone is a highly reactive oxidizing agent which is approximately ten
times more soluble than oxygen on a weight basis in water. Ozone may
be .produced by several methods, but the silent electrical discharge
method is predominant in the field. The silent electrical discharge
process produces ozone by passing oxygen or air between electrodes
separated by an insulating material. A complete ozonation system is
represented in Figure VI1-20 (Page 296).
Application and Performance. Ozonation has been applied commercially
to oxidize cyanides, phenolic chemicals, and organo-metal complexes.
Its applicability to photographic wastewaters has been studied in the
laboratory with good results. Ozone is used in industrial waste
treatment primarily to oxidize cyanide to cyanate and to oxidize
phenols and dyes to a variety of colorless nontoxic products.
Oxidation of cyanide to cyanate is illustrated below:
CN- + 03 = CNO- + O2
Continued exposure to ozone will convert the cyanate formed to carbon
dioxide and ammonia; however, this is not economically practical.
Ozone oxidation of cyanide to cyanate requires 1.8 to 2.0 pounds ozone
per pound of CN-; complete oxidation requires 4.6 to 5.0 pounds ozone
per pound of CN-. ' Zinc, copper, and nickel cyanides are easily
destroyed to a nondetectable level, but cobalt and iron cyanides are
more resistant to ozone treatment.
Advantages and Limitations. Some advantages of ozone oxidation for
handling process effluents are its suitability to automatic control
and on-site generation and the fact that reaction products are not
chlorinated organics and no dissolved solids are added in the
treatment step. Ozone in the presence of activated carbon,
ultraviolet, and other promoters shows promise of reducing reaction
time and improving ozone utilization, but the process at present is
limited by high capital expense, possible chemical interference in the
treatment of mixed wastes, and an energy requirement of 25 kwh/kg of
ozone generated. Cyanide is not economically oxidized beyond the
cyanate form.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Ozone oxidation is highly reliable
with proper monitoring and control, and proper pretreatment to control
interfering substances.
Maintainability: Maintenance consists of periodic removal of sludge,
and periodic renewal of filters and desiccators required for the input
241
-------
of clean dry air; filter life is a function ofinput concentrations of
detrimental constituents.
Solid Waste Aspects: Pretreatment to eliminate substances which will
interfere with the process may be necessary. Dewatering of sludge
generated in the ozone oxidation process or in an "in line" process
may be desirable prior to disposal.
Cyanide Oxidation By_ Ozone With UV Radiation
One of the modifications of the ozonatiori process is the simultaneous
application of ultraviolet light and ozonefor the treatmentof
wastewater, including treatment of halogenatecl organics. The combined
action of these two forms produces reactions by photolysis,
photosensitization, hydroxylation, oxygenation and oxidation. The
process is unique because several reactions and reaction species are
active simultaneously.
Ozonation is facilitated by ultraviolet absorption because both the
ozone and the reactant molecules are raised to a higher energy state
so that they react more rapidly. In addition, free radicals for use
in the reaction are readily hydrolyzed by the water present. The
energy and reaction intermediates created by the introduction of both
ultraviolet and ozone greatly reduce the amount of ozone required
compared with a system using ozone alone. Figure VI1-21 (Page 297)
shows a three-stage UV-ozone system. A system to treat mixed cyanides
requires pretreatment that involves chemical coagulation,
sedimentation, clarification, equalization, and pH adjustment.
Application and Performance. The ozone-UV radiation process was
developed primarily for cyanide treatment in the electroplating and
color photo-processing areas. It has been successfully applied to
mixed cyanides and organics from organic chemicals manufacturing
processes. The process is particularly useful for treatment of
complexed cyanides such as ferricyanide, copper cyanide and nickel
cyanide, which are resistant to ozone alone.
{..':ป' iiicjijt, ป, :>.
Four
Ozone combined with UV radiation is a relatively new technology.
units are currently in operation and all four treat cyanide bearing
waste.
' '
Ft. :
Cyanide Oxidation By Hydrogen Peroxide
Hydrogen peroxide oxidation removes both cyanide and metals in cyanide
containing wastewaters. In this process, cyanide bearing waters are
heated to 49 - 54ฐC (120 - 13pฐF) and the pH is adjusted to 10.5 -
11.8. Formalin (37 percent formaldehyde) is added while the tank is
vigorously agitated. After 2-5 minutes, a proprietary peroxygen
compound (41 percent hydrogen peroxide with a catalyst and additives)
'" ,nซ V! ,!!' .' "'I1*!
242
-------
is added. After an hour of mixing, the reaction is complete. The
cyanide is converted to cyanate and the metals are precipitated as
oxides or hydroxides. The metals are then removed from solution by
either settling or filtration.
The main equipment required for this process is two holding tanks
equipped with heaters and air spargers or mechanical stirrers. These
tanks may be used in a batch or continuous fashion, with one tank
being used for treatment while the other is being filled. A settling
tank or a filter is needed to concentrate the precipitate.
Application and Performance. The hydrogen peroxide oxidation process
is applicable to cyanide bearing wastewaters, especially those
containing metal-cyanide complexes. In terms of waste reduction
performance, this process can reduce total cyanide to less than 0.1
mg/1 and the zinc or cadmium to less than 1.0 mg/1.
Advantages and Limitations. Chemical costs are similar to those for
alkaline chlorination using chlorine and lower than those for
treatment with hypochlorite. All free cyanide reacts and is
completely oxidized to the less toxic cyanate state. In addition, the
metals precipitate and settle quickly, and they may be recoverable in
many instances. However, the process requires energy expenditures to
heat the wastewater prior to treatment.
Demonstration Status. This treatment process was introduced
and is used in several facilities.
Evaporation
in 1971
Evaporation is a concentration process. Water is evaporated from a
solution, increasing the concentration of solute in the remaining
solution. If the resulting water vapor is condensed back to liquid
water, the evaporation-condensation process is called distillation.
However, to be consistent with industry terminology, evaporation is
used in this report to describe both processes. Both atmospheric and
vacuum evaporation are commonly used in industry today. Specific
evaporation techniques are shown in Figure VI1-22 (Page 298) and
discussed below.
Atmospheric evaporation could be accomplished simply by boiling the
liquid. However, to aid evaporation,.heated liquid is sprayed on an
evaporation surface, and air is blown over the surface and subse-
quently released to the atmosphere. Thus, evaporation occurs by
humidification of the air stream, similar to a drying process. Equip-
ment for carrying out atmospheric evaporation is quite similar for
most applications. The major element is generally a packed column
with an accumulator bottom. Accumulated wastewater is pumped from the
base of the column, through a heat exchanger, and back into the top of
243
-------
, , ,,1 .i, , , .-.,, , ,,, , , ....... : ; , , 'i. .
the column, where it is sprayed into the packing. At the same time,
air drawn upward through the packing by a fan is heated as it contacts
the hot liquid. The liquid partially vaporizes and humidifies the air
stream. The fan then blows the hot, humid air to the outside
atmosphere. A scrubber is often unnecessary because the packed column
itself acts as a scrubber.
Another form of atmospheric evaporator also works on the air humidi-
fication principle, but the evaporated water is recovered for reuse by
condensation. These air humidif ication techniques operate well below
the boiling point of water and can utilize waste process heat to
supply the energy required.
In vacuum evaporation, the evaporation pressure is lowered to cause
the liquid to boil at reduced temperature. All of the water vapor is
condensed an<3c to maintain the vacuum condition, noncondensible gases
(air in particular) are removed by a vacuum pump. Vacuum evaporation
may be either single or double effect. In double effect evaporation,
two evaporators are used, and the water vapor from the first
evaporator (which may be heated by steam) is used to supply heat to
the second evaporator. As it supplies heat, the water vapor from the
first evaporator condenses. Approximately equal quantities of
wastewater are evaporated in each unit; thus, the double effect system
evaporates twice the amount of water that a single effect system does,
at nearly the same cost in energy but with added capital cost and
complexity. The double effect technique is thermodynamically possible
because the second evaporator is maintained at lower pressure (higher
vacuUm) and, therefore, lower evaporation temperature. Another means
of increasing energy efficiency is vapor recompression (thermal or
mechanical), which enables heat to be transferred from the condensing
water vapor to the evaporating wastewater. Vacuum evaporation
equipment may be classified as submerged tube or climbing film
evaporation units.
In the most commonly used submerged tube evaporator, the heating and
condensing coil are contained in a single vessel to reduce capital
cost. The vacuum in the vessel is maintained by an eductor-type pump,
which creates the required vacuum by the flow of the condenser cooling
water through a venturi. Waste water accumulates in the bottom of the
vessel, and it is evaporated by means of submerged steam coils. The
resulting water vapor condenses as it contacts the condensing coils in
the top of the vessel. The condensate then drips off the condensing
coils into a collection trough that carries it out . of the vessel.
Concentrate is removed from the bottom of the , vessel .
! , !' ,.' ' ,.!. .' , i ' I w,;";iซ1; , i ,,.H ,! I,1.. ','. , . ...... ' ..... ,, L,' II
The major elements of the climbing film evaporator are the evaporator,
separator, condenser, and vacuum pump. Waste water is "drawn" into
the system by the vacuum so that a constant liquid level is maintained
in the separator. Liquid enters the steam- jacketed evaporator tubes,
244
-------
and part of it evaporates so that a mixture of vapor and liquid enters
the separator. The design of the separator is such that the liquid is
continuously circulated from the separator to the evaporator. The
vapor entering the separator flows out through a mesh entrainment
separator to the condenser, where it is condensed as it flows down
through the condenser tubes. The condensate, along with any entrained
air, is pumped out of the bottom of the condenser by a liquid ring
vacuum pump. The liquid seal provided by the condensate keeps the
vacuum in the system from being broken.
Application and Performance. Both atmospheric and vacuum evaporation
are used in many industrial plants, mainly for the concentration and
recovery of process solutions. Many of these evaporators also recover
water for rinsing. Evaporation has also been applied to recovery of
phosphate metal cleaning solutions.
In theory, evaporation should yield a concentrate and a deionized
condensate. Actually, carry-over has resulted in condensate metal
concentrations as high as 10 mg/1, although the usual level is less
than 3 mg/1, pure enough for most final rinses. The condensate may
also contain organic brighteners and antifearning agents. These can be
removed with an activated carbon bed, if necessary. Samples from one
plant showed 1,900 mg/1 zinc in the feed, 4,570 mg/1 in the
concentrate, and 0.4 mg/1 in the condensate. Another plant had 416
mg/1 copper in the feed and 21,800 mg/1 in the concentrate. Chromium
analysis for that plant indicated 5,060 mg/1 in the feed and 27,500
mg/1 in the concentrate. Evaporators are available in a range of
capacities, typically from 15 to 75 gph, and may be used in parallel
arrangements for processing of higher flow rates.
Advantages and Limitations. Advantages of the evaporation process are
that it permits recovery of a wide variety of process chemicals, and
it is often applicable to concentration or removal of compounds which
cannot be accomplished by any other means. The major disadvantage is
that the evaporation process consumes relatively large amounts of
energy for the evaporation of water. However, the recovery of waste
heat from many industrial processes (e.g., diesel generators,
incinerators, boilers and furnaces) should be considered as a source
of this heat for a totally integrated evaporation system. Also, in
some cases solar heating could be inexpensively and effectively
applied to evaporation units. For some applications, pretreatment may
be required to remove solids or bacteria which tend to cause fouling
in the condenser or evaporator. The buildup of scale on the
evaporator surfaces reduces the heat transfer efficiency and may
present a maintenance problem or increase operating cost. However, it
has been demonstrated that fouling of the heat transfer surfaces can
be avoided or minimized for certain dissolved solids by maintaining a
seed slurry which provides preferential sites for precipitate
deposition. In addition, low temperature differences in the
245
-------
evaporator will eliminate nucleate boiling and supersaturation
effects. Steam distiliable impurities in the process stream are
carried over with the product water and must be handled by pre or post
treatment.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Proper maintenance will ensure a
high degree of reliability for the system. Without such attention,
rapid fouling or deterioration of vacuum seals may occur, especially
when handling corrosive liquids.
Maintainability: Operating parameters can be automatically
controlled. Pretreatment may be required, as well as periodic
cleaning of the system. Regular replacement of seals, especially in a
corrosive environment, may be necessary.
Solid Waste Aspects: With only a few exceptions, the process does not
generate appreciable quantities of solid waste.
Demonstration Status. Evaporation is a fully developed, commercially
available wastewater treatment system. It is used extensively to
recover plating chemicals in the electroplating industry and a pilot
scale unit has been used in connection with phosphating of aluminum.
Proven performance in silver recovery indicates that evaporation could
be a useful treatment operation for the photographic industry, as well
as for metal finishing. No data have been reported showing the use of
evaporation in porcelain enameling plants.
Flotation
Flotation is the process of
or oil to float to the
concentrated and removed.
bubbles which attach to the
and causing them to float.
of sedimentation. Figure
flotation system.
causing particles such as metal hydroxides
surface of a tank where they can be
This is accomplished by releasing gas
solid particles, increasing their buoyancy
In principle, this process is the opposite
VI1-23 (Page 299) shows one type of
Flotation is used primarily in the treatment of wastewater streams
that carry heavy loads of finely divided suspended solids or b'il^
Solids having a specific gravity only slightlygreaterthan 1.0, which
would require abnormally long sedimentation times, may be removed in
much less time by flotation.
..I. -
-------
The principal difference among types of flotation is the method of
generating the minute gas bubbles (usually air) in a suspension of
water and small particles. Chemicals may be used to improve the
efficiency with any of the basic methods. The following paragraphs
describe the different flotation techniques and the method of bubble
generation for each process.
Froth Flotation - Froth flotation is based on differences in the
physiochemical properties in various particles. Wettability and
surface properties affect the tendency of particles to attach
themselves to gas bubbles in an aqueous medium. In froth flotation,
air is blown through the solution containing flotation reagents. The
particles with water repellant surfaces stick to air bubbles as they
rise and are brought to the surface. A mineralized froth layer, with
mineral particles attached to air bubbles, is formed. Particles of
other minerals which are readily wetted by water do not stick to air
bubbles and remain in suspension.
Dispersed Air Flotation - In dispersed air flotation, gas bubbles are
generated by introducing the air by means of mechanical agitation with
impellers or by forcing air through porous media. Dispersed air
flotation is used mainly in the metallurgical industry.
Dissolved Air Flotation - In dissolved air flotation, bubbles are
produced by releasing air from a supersaturated solution under
relatively high pressure. There are two types of contact between the
gas bubbles and particles. The first type is predominant in the
flotation of flocculated materials and involves the entrapment of
rising gas bubbles in the flocculated particles as they increase in
size. The bond between the bubble and particle is one of physical
capture only. The second type of contact is one of adhesion.
Adhesion results from the intermolecular attraction exerted at the
interface between the solid particle and gaseous bubble.
Vacuum Flotation - This process consists of saturating the waste water
with air either directly in an aeration tank, or by permitting air to
enter on the suction of a wastewater pump. A partial vacuum is
applied, which causes the dissolved air to come out of solution as
minute bubbles. The bubbles attach to solid particles and rise to the
surface to form a scum blanket, which is normally removed by a
skimming mechanism. Grit and other heavy solids that settle to the
bottom are generally raked to a central sludge pump for removal. A
typical vacuum flotation unit consists of a covered cylindrical tank
in which a partial vacuum is maintained. The tank is equipped with
scum and sludge removal mechanisms. The floating material is
continuously swept to the tank periphery, automatically discharged
into a scum trough, and removed from the unit by a pump also under
partial vacuum. Auxilliary equipment includes an aeration tank for
247
-------
saturating the wastewater with air, a tank with a short retention time
for removal of large bubbles, vacuum pumps, sludge and scum pumps.
Application and Performance. The primary variables for flotation
design are pressure, feed solids concentration,and retentionperiod.
The suspended solids in the effluent decrease, and the concentration
of solids in jthe, float increases with increasing retention period.
When the flotation process is used primarily for clarification, a
retention period of 20 to 30 minutes is adequate for separation and
concentration.
Advantages and Limitations. Some advantages of the flotation process
are the high levels of solids separation achieved in many
applications, the relatively low energy requirements, and the
adaptability to meet the treatment requirements of different waste
types. Limitations of flotation are that it often requires addition
of chemicals to enhance process performance and that it generates
large quantities of solid waste.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Flotation systems normally are
very reliable with proper maintenance of the sludge collector
mechanism and the motors and pumps used for aeration.
Maintainability: Routine maintenance is required on the pumps and
motors. The sludge collector mechanism is subject to possible cor-
rosion or breakage and may require periodic replacement.
Solid Waste Aspects: Chemicals are commonly used to aid the flotation
process by creating a surface or a structure that can easily adsorb or
entrap air bubbles. Inorganic chemicals, such as the aluminum and
ferric salts, and activated silica, can bind the particulate matter
together and create a structure that can entrap air bubbles. Various
organic chemicals can change the nature of either the air-liquid
interface or the solid-liquid interface, or both. These compounds
usually collect on the interface to bring about the desired changes.
The added chemicals plus the particles in solution combine toform a
large volume of sludge which must be further treated or properly
disposed.
; , '' '"'"'! , " ' '":il";i"' ' ' " II I II I III II
Demonstration Status. Flotation is a fully developed process and is
readily available for the treatment of a wide variety of industrial
waste streams'., ' " ' : , ,"".' ' , \ ,". ' ''". .."",' .TIV'IT.'
Gravity Sludge Thickening
j
In the gravity thickening process, dilute sludge is fed from a primary
settling device to a thickening tank where rakes stir the sludge
gently to densify it and to push it to a central collection well. The
supernatant is returned to the primary settling tank. The thickened
248
-------
sludge that collects on the bottom of the tank is pumped to dewatering
equipment or hauled away. Figure VII-24 (Page 300) shows the
construction of a gravity thickener.
Application and Performance. Thickeners are generally used in
facilities where the sludge is to be further dewatered by a compact
mechanical device such as a vacuum filter or centrifuge. Doubling the
solids content in the thickener substantially reduces capital and
operating cost of the subsequent dewatering device and also reduces
cost for hauling. The process is potentially applicable to almost any
industrial plant.
Organic sludges from sedimentation units of one to two percent solids
concentration can usually be gravity thickened to six to ten percent;
chemical sludges can be thickened to four to six percent.
Advantages and Limitations. The principal advantage of a gravity
sludge thickening process is that it facilitates further sludge
dewatering. Other advantages are high reliability and minimum
maintenance requirements.
Limitations of the sludge thickening process are its sensitivity to
the flow rate through the thickener and the sludge removal rate.
These rates must be low enough not to disturb the thickened sludge.
Operational Factors.
Reliability: Reliability is high with proper
A gravity thickener is designed on the basis of
GIGS x on cinci OPGE* 3t x on * n y4.wvo.wjr wii*.^*^^**^-!- *. ^ %^^.ป^*.^jปป*->* %^** ซ**** w**^ *. ซ* v *.
square feet per pound of solids per day, in which the required surface
area is related to the solids entering and leaving the unit.
Thickener area requirements are also expressed in terms of mass
loading, grams of solids per square meter per day (Ibs/ft*/day).
Maintainability: Twice a year, a thickener must be shut down for
lubrication of the drive mechanisms. Occasionally, water must be
pumped back through the system in order to clear sludge pipes.
Solid Waste Aspects: Thickened sludge from a gravity thickening
process will usually require further dewatering prior to disposal,
incineration, or drying. The clear effluent may be recirculated in
part, or it may be subjected to further treatment prior to discharge.
Demonstration Status. Gravity sludge thickeners are used throughout
industry to reduce water content to a level where ,the sludge may be
efficiently handled. Further dewatering is usually practiced to
minimize costs of hauling the sludge to approved landfill areas.
Sludge thickening is used in two porcelain enameling plants.
249
-------
Insoluble Starch Xanthate
Insoluble starch .xanthate is essentially an ion exchange medium used
to remo.ve dissolved heavy metals from wastewater. The water may then
either be reused (recovery application) or discharged (end-of-pipe
application). In a commercial electroplating operation, starch
xanthate is coated on a filter medium. Rinse water containing toxic
metals is circulated through the filters and then reused for rinsing.
The starch^heavy metal complex is disposed of and replaced
periodically. Laboratory tests indicate that recovery of metals from
the complex is feasible, with regeneration of the starch xanthate.
Besides electroplating, starch xanthate is potentially applicable to
porcelain enameling, and any other industrial plants where dilute
metal wastewater streams are generated. Its present use is limited to
one electroplating plant.
Ion Exchange
Ion exchange is a process in which ions, held by electrostatic forces
to charged functional groups on the surface of the ion exchange resin,
are exchanged for ions of similar charge from the solution in which
the resin is immersed. This i$ classified as a sorption process be-
cause the exchange occurs on the surface of the resin, and the ex-
changing ion must undergo a phase transfer from solution phase to
solid phase. Thus, ionic contaminants in a waste stream can be ex-
changed for the harmless ions of the resin.
Although the precise technique may vary slightly according to the ap-
plication involved, a generalized process description follows. The
wastewater stream being treated passes through a filter to remove any
solids, then flows through a cation exchanger which contains the ion
exchange resin. Here, metallic impurities such as copper, iron, and
trivalent chromium are retained. The streamthen passes through the
anion exchanger and its associated resin. '. Hex.ayalent chromium, for
example, is retained in this stage. If one pass does not reduce the
contaminant levels sufficiently, the stream may then enter another
series of exchangers. Many ion exchange systems are equipped with
more than one set of exchangers for this reason.
The other major portion of the ion exchange process concerns the re-
generation of the resin, which now holds those impurities retained
from the waste stream. An ion exchange unit with in-place regen-
eration is shown in Figure VII-25 (Page 301). Metal ions such as
nickel are removed by an acid, cation exchange, resin which is
regenerated with hydrochloric or sulfuric acid, replacing the metal
ion with one or more hydrogen ions. Anions such as dichromate are
removed by a basic, anion exchange, resin which is regenerated with
sodium hydroxide, replacing the anion with one or more hydroxyl ions.
250
1 ,1111 , "i /I"!1 nil1!:,
'. ., -',! ,. i i,;',!,Hili 1. ,.,i.,' :.,;:,! ' Irl'iiA'if'i;,;..,;,r I < .,,;'.!:.,, Jin.;} u;:liji ,,'!!ฃ'1.1':.':' ji- ' , irjฃi81ilafl ' lilvS ''SI
-------
The three principal methods employed by industry for regenerating the
spent resin are:
A) Replacement Service: A regeneration service replaces the spent
resin with regenerated resin, and regenerates the spent resin at
its own facility. The service then has the problem of treating
and disposing of the spent regenerant.
B) In-Place Regeneration: Some establishments may find it less
expensive to do their own regeneration. The spent resin column
is shut down for perhaps an hour, and the spent resin is
regenerated. This results in one or more waste streams which
must be treated in an appropriate manner. Regeneration is
performed as the resins require it, usually every few months.
C) Cyclic Regeneration: In this process, the regeneration of the
spent resins takes place within the ion exchange unit itself in
alternating cycles with the ion removal process. A regeneration
frequency of twice an hour is typical. This very short cycle
time permits operation with a very small quantity of resin and
with fairly concentrated solutions, resulting in a very compact
system. Again, this process varies according to application, but
the regeneration cycle generally begins with caustic being pumped
through the anion exchanger, carrying out hexavalent chromium,
for example, as sodium dichromate. The sodium dichromate stream
then passes through a cation exchanger, converting the sodium
dichromate to chromic acid. After concentration by evaporation
or other means, the chromic acid can be returned to the process
line. Meanwhile, the cation exchanger is regenerated with
sulfuric acid, resulting in a waste acid stream containing the
metallic impurities removed earlier. Flushing the exchangers
with water completes the cycle. Thus, the wastewater is purified
and, in this example, chromic acid is recovered. The ion
exchangers, with newly regenerated resin, then enter the ion
removal cycle again.
Application and Performance. The list of pollutants for which the ion
exchange system has proven effective includes aluminum, arsenic,
cadmium, chromium (hexavalent and trivalent), copper, cyanide, gold,
iron, lead, manganese, nickel, selenium, silver, tin, zinc, and more.
Thus, it can be applied to a wide variety of industrial concerns.
Because of the heavy concentrations of metals in their wastewater, the
metal finishing industries utilize ion exchange in several ways. As
an end-of-pipe treatment, ion exchange is certainly feasible, but its
greatest value is in recovery applications. It is commonly used as an
integrated treatment to recover rinse water and process chemicals.
Some electroplating facilities use ion exchange to concentrate and
purify plating baths.
251
-------
Ill I
Ion exchange is highly efficient at recovering metal bearing solu-
tions. Recovery of chromium, nickel, phosphate solution, and sulfuric
acid from anodizing is commercial. A chromic acid recovery efficiency
of 99.5 percent has been demonstrated. Typical data for purification
of rinse water have been reported.
TABLE VI1-20
ION EXCHANGE PERFORMANCE
Parameter
All Values
Al
Cd
Cr+3
Cr+6
Cu
CN
Au
Fe
Pb
Mn
Ni
Ag
SO4
Sn
Zn
Advantages
Plant
Prior To
Purifi-
mg/1 cation
5.6
5.7
3 . 1
7.1
4.5
9.8
7.4
4.4
6.2
1.5
1.7
14.8
and Limitations.
A !
After
Purifi-
cation
0.20
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.09
0.04
0.01
-
O.QO
0.00
0.66
0.00
0.40
Ion exchange is
11 |!'i;!i SlFvi,;! , ! ; ,'::'"' !
"Plant
Prior To
Pur if i-
cation
ซ
-
-
43.0
3.40
2. 30
~
1.70
":::"i!i i.60
9. 10
210.00
i ,. id
.. fi ,,:|~| ,,_... i,|r;:
,. i1" ''. , ! ' ' !ป;; ,
B ' "' " "
After
Purifi-
cation
_
-
' -
-
0.10
0.09
0?10
-
0.01
-
b.oi
o.oi
2.00
d.io
a versatile technol*
applicable to a great many situations. This flexibility, along with
its compact nature and performance, makes ion exchange a very
effective method of waste water treatment.However, the resinsin"
these systems can prove to be a limiting factor. The thermal limits
of the anion resins, generally in the vicinity of 60ฐC, could prevent
its use in certain situations. Similarly, nitric acid, chromic acid,
and hydrogen peroxide can all damage the resins, as will iron,
manganese, and copper when present with sufficient concentrations of
dissolved oxygen. Removal of a particular trace contaminant may be
uneconomical because of the presence of other ionic species that are
preferentially removed. The regeneration of the resins presents its
own problems. The cost of the regenerative chemicals can be high.In"
addition, the waste streams originatingfrom the regeneration process
are extremely high in pollutant concentrations, although low in
volume. These must be further processed for proper disposal.
252
-------
Operational Factors. Reliability: With the exception of occasional
clogging or fouling of the resins, ion exchange has proved to be a
highly dependable technology.
Maintainability: Only the normal maintenance of pumps, valves, piping
and other hardware used in the regeneration process is required.
Solid Waste Aspects: Few, if any, solids accumulate within the ion
exchangers, and those which do appear are removed by the regeneration
process. Proper prior treatment and planning can eliminate solid
buildup problems altogether. The brine resulting from regeneration of
the ion exchange resin most usually must be treated to remove metals
before discharge. This can generate solid waste.
Demonstration Status. All of the applications mentioned in this
document are available for commercial use, and industry sources
estimate the number of units currently in the field at well over 120.
The research and development in ion exchange is focusing on improving
the quality and efficiency of the resins, rather than new
applications. Work is also being done on a continuous regeneration
process whereby the resins are contained on a fluid-transfusible belt.
The belt passes through a compartmented tank with ion exchange,
washing, and regeneration sections. The resins are therefore
continually used and regenerated. No such system, however, has been
reported beyond the pilot stage.
Membrane Filtration '
Membrane filtration is a treatment system for removing precipitated
metals from a wastewater stream. It must therefore be preceded by
those treatment techniques which will properly prepare the wastewater
for solids removal. Typically, a membrane filtration unit is preceded
by pH adjustment or sulfide addition for precipitation of the metals.
These steps are followed by the addition of a proprietary chemical
reagent which causes the precipitate to be non-gelatinous, easily
dewatered, and highly stable. The resulting mixture of pretreated
wastewater and reagent is continuously recirculated through a filter
module and back into a recirculation tank. The filter module contains
tubular membranes. While the reagent-metal hydroxide precipitate
mixture flows through the inside of the tubes, the water and any
dissolved salts permeate the membrane. When the recirculating slurry
reaches a concentration of 10 to 15 percent solids, it is pumped out
of the system as sludge.
Application and Performance. Membrane filtration appears to be
applicable to any wastewater or process water containing metal ions
which can be precipitated using hydroxide, sulfide or carbonate
precipitation. It could function as the primary treatment system, but
also might find application as a polishing treatment (after
253
-------
precipitation and settling) to ensure continued compliance with metals
limitations. Membrane filtration systems are being used in a number
of industrial applications, particularly in the metal finishing area.
They have also been used for removal of toxic metals in the metal
fabrication industry and the paper industry.
The permeate is claimed by one manufacturer to contain less than the
effluent concentrations shown in the following table, regardless of
the influent concentrations. These claims have been largely
substantiated by the analysis of water samples at various plants in
various industries.
In the performance predictions for this technology, pollutant
concentrations are reduced to the levels shown below unless lower
levels are present in the influent stream.
I ' | ' . ^ ...; TABLE Vlf^V,, "^"^
MEMBRANE FILTRATION SYSTEMEFFLUENT
Specific
Metal
Al
Cr,
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
CN
Hi
Zn
TSS
(+6}
(T)
Manufacturing
Guarantee
0.5
0.02
0.03
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.02
0.1
0.1
and Limitations.
Plant 19066
In Out
Plant 31022
In Out Achievable
Performance
0.05
0.20
6.30
0.05
0.02
Q.40
6.10
10-0
0.
4.
18.
288
0.
<0.
9.
2.
632
.iM '
46
13
8
652
005
$6
09
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
<0.
0.
6.
o.
01
018
043
3
01
005
017
046
v. :, ::
5
98
8
21
0
-------
Operational Factors. Reliability: Membrane filtration has been shown
to be a very reliable system, provided that the pH is strictly
controlled. Improper pH can result in the clogging of the membrane.
Also, surges in the flow rate of the waste stream must be controlled
in order to prevent solids from passing through the filter and into
the effluent.
Maintainability: The membrane filters must be regularly monitored,
and cleaned or replaced as necessary. Depending on the composition of
the waste stream and its flow rate, frequent cleaning of the filters
may be required. Flushing with hydrochloric acid for 6-24 hours will
usually suffice. In addition, the routine maintenance of pumps,
valves, and other plumbing is required.
Solid Waste Aspects: When the recirculating reagent-precipitate
slurry reaches 10 to 15 percent solids, it is pumped out of the
system. It can then be disposed of directly or it can undergo a
dewatering process. Because this sludge contains toxic metals, it
requires proper disposal.
Demonstration Status. There are more than 25 membrane filtration
systems presently in use on metal finishing and similar wastewaters.
Bench scale and pilot studies are being run in an attempt to expand
the list of pollutants for which this system is known to be effective.
No data have been reported showing the use of membrane filtration in
porcelain enameling plants.
Peat Adsorption
Peat moss is a complex natural organic material containing lignin and
cellulose as major constituents. These constituents, particularly
lignin, bear polar functional groups, such as alcohols, aldehydes,
ketones, acids, phenolic hydroxides, and ethers, that can be involved
in chemical bonding. Because of the polar nature of the material, its
adsorption of dissolved solids such as transition metals and polar
organic molecules is quite high. These properties have led to the use
of peat as an agent for the purification of industrial wastewater.
Peat adsorption is a "polishing" process which can achieve very low
effluent concentrations for several pollutants. If the concentrations
of pollutants are above 10 mg/1, then peat adsorption must be preceded
by pH adjustment for metals precipitation and subsequent
clarification. Pretreatment is also required for chromium wastes
using ferric chloride and sodium sulfide. The wastewater is then
pumped into a large metal chamber called a kier which contains a layer
of peat through which the waste stream passes. The water flows to a
second kier for further adsorption. The wastewater is then ready for
discharge. This system may be automated or manually operated.
255
-------
, .
' '.!: .!.'' -.'' ..-.,' ' '; . ';. i U :. M ..'ซ:, ' .T,.' J ftJMt
Application and Performance. Peat adsorption can be used in porcelain
enameling for removal of residual dissolved metals from clarifier
effluent. Peat moss may be used to treat wastewaters containing heavy
metals such as mercury, cadmium, zinc, copper, iron, nickel, chromium,
and lead, as well as organic matter such as oil, detergents, and dyes.
i , .' !',,',, ,; "iป :" ' ' ' ,i. u : :' ;:"!''i ' , ,: , * ,. i, -* , mi ill i / :i
The following table contains performance figures obtained from pilot
plant studies. Peat adsorption was preceded by pH adjustment for
precipitation and by clarification.
*S '' i TABLE VI1-22 '
Pollutant
(mg/1)
Cr+6
Cu
CN
Pb
Hg
Ni
Ag
Sb
Zn
PEAT ADSOPRTION PERFORMANCE
In
35,
000
250
36
20
1
2
1
2
1
.0
.0
.0
.5
.0
.5
.5
Out
0.04
P 24
0.7
0.025
6". 02
0.07
6.05
0.9
0.25
In addition, pilot plant studies have shown that chelated metal
wastes, as well as the chelating agents themselves, are removed by
contact with peat moss.
; , ': i - -:: "' i\ , ' ".. ' ! Ill II | ; , I I III111! I
Advantages and Limitations. The major advantages of the system
include its ability to yield low pollutant concentrations, its broad
scope in terms of the pollutants eliminated, and its capacity to
accept wide variations of waste water composition.
i! '- \.1 *"' ""':" "' ^:'^>:; '[$$*& 1} '^jjkM ,,' i ','>'''?'<:'< rti^^'^J'&JM^^
Limitations include the cost of purchasing, storing, and disposing of
the peat moss; the necessity for regular replacement of the peat may
lead to high operation and maintenance costs. Also, the pH adjustment
must be altered according to the composition of the. waste stream.
Operational
reliability
Factors. Reliability: The question of long term
is not yet fully answered. Although the manufacturer
reports it to be a highly reliable system, operatingexperienceis
needed to verify the claim.
...... Sf"-f"-:
Maintainability: The peat moss used in this process soon exhausts its
capacity to adsorb pollutants. At that time, the kiers must be
opened, the peat removed, and fresh peat placed inside. Although this
256
-------
procedure is easily and quickly accomplished, it must be done at
regular intervals, or the system's efficiency drops drastically.
Solid Waste Aspects: After removal from the kier, the spent peat must
be eliminated. If incineration is used, precautions should be taken
to insure that those pollutants removed from the water are not
released again in the combustion process. Presence of sulfides in the
spent peat, for example, will give rise to sulfur dioxide in the fumes
from burning. The presence of significant quantities of toxic metals
in procelain enameling wastewater will in general preclude
incineration of peat used in treating these wastes.
Demonstration Status. Only three facilities currently use commercial
adsorption systems in the United States - a textile manufacturer, a
newsprint facility, and a metal reclamation firm. No data have been
reported showing the use of peat adsorption in procelain enameling
plants.
Reverse Osmosis
The process of osmosis involves the passage of a liquid through a
semipermeable membrane from a dilute to a more concentrated solution.
Reverse osmosis (RO) is an operation in which pressure is applied to
the more concentrated solution, forcing the permeate to diffuse
through the membrane and into the more dilute solution. This
filtering action produces a concentrate and a permeate on opposite
sides of the membrane. The concentrate can then be further treated or
returned to the original operation for continued use, while the
permeate water can be recycled for use as clean water. Figure VI1-26
(Page 302) depicts a reverse osmosis system.
As illustrated in Figure VII-27 (Page 303), there are three basic
configurations used in commercially available RO modules: tubular,
spiral-wound, and hollow fiber. All of these operate on the principle
described above, the major difference being their mechanical and
structural design characteristics.
The tubular membrane module uses
acetate membrane-lining. A common
of 2.5 cm (1 inch) diameter
encased in a plastic shroud. Feed
pressures varying from 40 - 55 atm
through the walls of the tube and
concentrate is drained off at the
tubular RO module uses a straight
the same operating conditions.
a porous tube with a cellulose
tubular module consists of a length
tube wound on a supporting spool and
water is driven into the tube under
(600-800 psi). The permeate passes
is collected in a manifold while the
end of the tube. A less widely used
tube contained in a housing, under
Spiral-wound membranes consist of a porous backing sandwiched between
two cellulose acetate membrane sheets and bonded along three edges.
257
-------
The fourth edge of the composite sheet is attached to a large permeate
collector tube. A spacer screen is then placed on top ofthe membrane
sandwich and the entire stack is rolled around the centrally located
tubular permeate collector. The rolled up package is inserted into a
pipe able to withstand the high operating pressures employed in this
process, up to 55 atm (800 psi) with the spiral-wound module. When
the system is operating, the pressurized product water permeates the
membrane and flows through the backing material to the central
collector tube. The concentrate is drained offat the end of the
container pipe and can be reprocessed or sent to further treatment
facilities.
The hollow fiber membrane configuration is made up of a bundle of
polyamide fibers of approximately 0.0075 cm (0.003 in.) OD and 0.0043
cm (0.0017 in.) ID. A commonly used hollow fiber module contains
several hundred thousand of the fibers placed in a long tube, wrapped
around a flow screen, and roiled into a spiral. The fibers are bent
in a U-shape and their ends are supported by an epoxy bond. The
hollow fiber unit is operated under 27 atm (400 psi), the feed water
being dispersed from the center of the module through a porous
distributor tube. Permeate flows through the membrane to the hollow
interiors of the fibers and is collected at the ends of the fibers.
[Ml ,i" 1:1 !!",,'!.'.! Jf ."
The hollow fiber and spiral-wound modules have a distinct advantage
over the tubular system in that they are able to load a very large
membrane surface area into a relatively small volume. However, these
two membrane types are much more susceptible to fouling than the
tubular system, which has a larger flow channel. Thischaracteristic
also makes the tubular membrane much easierto clean and regenerate
than either the spiral-wound or hollow fiber modules. One
manufacturer claims that 1:heir helical tubular module can be
physically wiped clean by passing a softporous polyurethaneplug
under pressure through the module.
'(I-yilliiill: ', lit, ',!,":
plication
le overflow from
and Performance.
In a number of metal processing plants,
rinse in a countercurrentsetup is
Ap
the overflow from the first
directed to a reverse osmosis unit, where it is separated into two
streams. The concentrated stream contains dragged out chemicals and
is returned to the bath to replace the loss of solution due to
evaporation and dragout. The dilute stream (the permeate) is routed
to the last rinse tank to provide water for the rinsing operation.
The rinse flows from the last tank to the first tank and the cycle is
complete.
The closed-loop system described above may be supplemented by the
addition of a vacuum evaporator after the RO unit in order to further
reduce the volume of reverse osmosis concentrate. The evaporated
vapor can be condensed and returned to the last rinse tank or sent on
for further treatment.
258
-------
The largest application has been for the recovery of nickel solutions.
It has been shown that RO can generally be applied to most acid metal
baths with a high degree of performance, providing that the membrane
unit is not overtaxed. The limitations most critical here are the
allowable pH range and maximum operating pressure for each particular
configuration. Adequate prefiltration is also essential. Only three
membrane types are readily available in commercial RO units, and their
overwhelming use has been for the recovery of various acid metal
baths. For the purpose of calculating performance predictions of this
technology, a rejection ratio of 98 percent is assumed for dissolved
salts, with 95 percent permeate recovery.
Advantages and Limitations. The major advantage of reverse osmosis
for handling process effluents is its ability to concentrate dilute
solutions for recovery of salts and chemicals with low power
requirements. No latent heat of vaporization or fusion is required
for effecting separations; the main energy requirement is for a high
pressure pump. It requires relatively little floor space for compact,
high capacity units, and it exhibits good recovery and rejection rates
for a number of typical process solutions. A limitation of the
reverse osmosis process for treatment of process effluents is its
limited temperature range for satisfactory operation. For cellulose
acetate systems, the preferred limits are 18ฐ to 30ฐC {65ฐ to 85ฐF);
higher temperatures will increase the rate of membrane hydrolysis and
reduce system life, while lower temperatures will result in decreased
fluxes with no damage to the membrane. Another limitation is
inability to handle certain solutions. Strong oxidizing agents,
strongly acidic or basic solutions, solvents, and other organic
compounds can cause dissolution of the membrane. Poor rejection of
some compounds such as borates and low molecular weight organics is
another problem. Fouling of membranes by slightly soluble components
in solution or colloids has caused failures, and fouling of membranes
by feed waters with high levels of suspended solids can be a problem.
A final limitation is inability to treat or achieve high concentration
with some solutions. Some concentrated solutions may have initial os-
motic pressures which are so high.that they either exceed available
operating pressures or are uneconomical to treat.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Very good reliability is achieved
so long as the proper precautions are taken to minimize the chances of
fouling or degrading the membrane. Sufficient testing of the waste
stream prior to application of an RO system will provide the
information needed to insure a successful application.
Maintainability: Membrane life is estimated to range from six months
to three years, depending on the use of the system. Down time for
flushing or cleaning is on the order of 2 hours as often as once each
week; a substantial portion of maintenance time must be spent on
cleaning any prefilters installed ahead of the reverse osmosis unit..
259
-------
1 : ll'Sii'lll11! iii
Solid Waste Aspects: In a closed loop system utilizing RO there is a
constant recycle of concentrate and a minimal amount of solid waste.
Prefiltration eliminates many solids before they reach the module and
helps keep the buildup to a minimum. These solids require proper
disposal.
Demonstration Status. There are presently at least
reverse osmosis waste water applications in a variety of
one hundred
industries.
In addition to these, there are thirty to forty units being used to
provide pure process water for several industries. Despite the many
types and configurations of membranes, only the spiral-wound cellulose
acetate membrane has had widespread success in commercial
applications.
Sludge Bed Drying
'" lilHlll < '1111!.!:'
WUBIT ,111!! ,;ซii
11 ,';.; " M i, * ' - '. ''. '-i , ^i' '"'i1!1!1'1 i" : . fa. ; i,;!1',;'.. i. i ; ''i... , T . .' i , . j - .'TUMMTHK
As a waste treatment procedure, sl\idge bed drying is employed to
reduce the water content of a variety of sludges to the point where
they are amenable to mechanical collection arid removal to landfill.
These beds usually consist of 15 to 45 cm (6 to 18 in.) of sand over a
30 cm (12 in.) deep gravel drain system made up of 3 to 6 mm (1/8 to
1/4 in.) graded gravel overlying drain tiles. Figure VII-28 (Page
304) shows the construction of a drying bed.
Drying beds are usually divided into sectional areas approximately 7.5
meters (25 ft) wide x 30 to 60 meters (100 to 200 ft) long. The
partitions may be earth embankments, but more often are made of planks
and supporting grooved posts.
To apply liquid sludge to the sand bed, a closed conduit or a pressure
pipeline with valved outlets at each sand bed section is often
employed. Another method of application is by means of an open
channel with appropriately placed side openings which are controlled
by slide gates. With either type of delivery system, a concrete
splash slab should be provided to receive the falling sludge and
prevent erosion of the sand surface.
Where it is necessary to dewater sludge continuously throughout the
year regardless of the weather, sludge beds may be covered with a
fiberglass reinforced plastic or other roof. Covered drying beds
permit a greater volume of sludge drying per year in most climates
because of the protection afforded from rain or snow and because of
more efficient control of temperature. Depending on the climate, a
combination of open and enclosed beds will provide maximum utilization
of the sludge bed drying facilities.
260
-------
Application and Performance. Sludge drying beds are a means of
dewatering sludge from clarifiers and thickeners. They are widely
used both in municipal and industrial treatment facilities.
Dewatering of sludge on sand beds occurs by two mechanisms: filtration
of water through the bed and evaporation of water as a result of
radiation and convection. Filtration is generally complete in one to
two days and may result in solids concentrations as high as 15 to 20
percent. The rate of filtration depends on the drainability of the
sludge.
The rate of air drying of sludge is related to temperature, relative
humidity, and air velocity. Evaporation will proceed at a constant
rate to a critical moisture content, then at a falling rate to an
equilibrium moisture content. The average evaporation rate for a
sludge is about 75 percent of that from a free water surface.
Advantages and Limitations. The main advantage of sludge drying beds
over other types of sludge dewatering is the -relatively low cost of
construction, operation, and maintenance.
Its disadvantages are the large area of land required and long drying
times that depend, to a great extent, on climate and weather.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Reliability is high with favorable
climactic conditions, proper bed design and care to avoid excessive or
unequal sludge application. If climatic conditions in a given area
are not favorable for adequate drying, a cover may be necessary.
Maintainability: Maintenance consists basically of periodic removal
of the dried sludge. Sand removed from the drying bed with the sludge
must be replaced and the sand layer resurfaced.
The resurfacing of sludge beds is the major expense item in sludge bed
maintenance, but there are other areas which may require attention.
Underdrains occasionally become clogged and have to be cleaned.
Valves or sludge gates that control the flow of sludge to the beds
must be kept watertight. Provision for drainage of lines in winter
should be provided to prevent damage from freezing. The partitions
between beds should be tight so that sludge will not flow from one
compartment to another. The outer walls or banks around the beds
should also be watertight.
Solid Waste Aspects: The full sludge drying bed must either be
abandoned or the collected solids must be removed to a landfill.
These solids contain whatever metals or other materials were settled
in the clarifier. Metals will be present as hydroxides, oxides,
sulfides, or other salts. They have the potential for leaching and
contaminating ground water, whatever the location of the semidried
261
-------
solids. Thus the abandoned bed or landfillshould include provision
for runoff control and leachate monitoring.
Demonstration Status. Sludge beds have been in common use in both
municipal and industrial facilities for many years. However,
protection of ground water from contamination is not always adequate.
':-;;' '-! " !' . ;... . .;:,.",, ,;,,' , "I! ::'i. i;! '.",, ".! , ',. .":.,; , ' :'\ "i "";; -"i;; ""I, ",':'
Ultrafiltration
Ultrafiltration (UF) is a process which uses semipermeable polymeric
membranes to separate emulsified or colloidal materials suspended in a
liquid phase by pressurizing the liquid so that it permeates the
membrane. The membrane of an ultrafilter forms a molecular screen
which retains molecular particlesbased on their differences in size,
shape, and chemical structure. The membrane permits passage of
solvents and lower molecular weight molecules. At present, an
ultrafilter Is capable of removing materials with molecular weights in
the range of1,000 to 100,000 and particles of comparable or larger
sizes.
In an Ultrafiltration process, the feed solution is pumped through a
tubular membrane unit. Water and some low molecular weight materials
pass through the membrane under the applied pressure of 10 to 100
psig. Emulsified oil droplets and suspended particles are retained,
concentrated, and removed continuously. In contrast to ordinary
filtration, retained materials are washed off the membrane filter
rather than held by it. Figure VII-XX (Page 305) represents the
Ultrafiltration process.
Application and Performance. Ultrafiltration has potential
application to porcelain enameling plants for separation of oils and
residual solids from a variety of waste streams. In treating
porcelain enameling wastewater its greatest applicability would be as
a polishing treatment to remove residual precipitated metals after
chemical precipitation and clarification. Successful commercial use,
however, has been primarily for separation of emulsified oils from
wastewater. Over one hundred such units now operate in the United
States, treating emulsified oils from a variety of industrial
processes. Capacities of currently operating units range from a few
hundred gallons a week to 50,000 gallons per day. Concentration of
oily emulsions to 60 percent oil or more are possible. Oil
concentrates of 40 percent or more are generally suitable for
incineration, and the permeate can be treated further and in some
cases recycled back to the process. In this way, it is possible to
eliminate contractor removal costs for oil from some oily waste
Streams. . , .. , , , .'..'!. . ,""' '. ,"" ''',"
The following test data indicate Ultrafiltration performance
that UF is not intended to remove dissolved solids):
; :,ซ': :
Ir
(note
'll !..!
262
-------
TABLE VI1-23
ULTRAFILTRATION PERFORMANCE
Parameter
Oil (freon extractable)
COD
TSS
Total Solids
Feed (mq/1)
1230
8920
1380
2900
Permeate (mq/1)
4
148
13
296
The removal percentages shown are typical, but they can be influenced
by pH and other conditions.
The permeate or effluent from the ultrafiltration unit is normally of
a quality that can be reused in industrial applications or discharged
directly. The concentrate from the ultrafiltration unit can be
disposed of as any oily or solid waste.
Advantages and Limitations. Ultrafiltration is sometimes an
attractive alternative to chemical treatment because of lower capital
equipment, installation, and operating costs, very high oil and
suspended solids removal, and little required pretreatment. It places
a positive barrier between pollutants and effluent which reduces the
possibility of extensive pollutant discharge due to operator error or
upset in settling and skimming systems. Alkaline values in alkaline
cleaning solutions can be recovered and reused in process.
A limitation of ultrafiltration for treatment of process effluents is
its narrow temperature range (18ฐ to 30ฐC) for satisfactory operation.
Membrane life decreases with higher temperatures, but flux increases
at elevated temperatures. Therefore, surface area requirements are a
function of temperature and become a tradeoff between initial costs
and replacement costs for the membrane. In addition, ultrafiltration
cannot handle certain solutions. Strong oxidizing agents, solvents,
and other organic compounds can dissolve the membrane. Fouling is
sometimes a problem, although the high velocity of the wastewater
normally creates enough turbulence to keep fouling at a minimum.
Large solids particles can sometimes puncture the membrane and must be
removed by gravity settling or filtration prior to the ultrafiltration
unit.
Operational Factors. Reliability: The reliability of an
ultrafiltration system is dependent on the proper filtration, settling
or other treatment of incoming waste streams to prevent damage to the
membrane. Careful pilot studies should be done in each instance to
determine necessary pretreatment steps and the exact membrane type to
be used.
263
-------
Maintainability: A limited amount of regular maintenance is required
for the pumping system. In addition, membranes must be periodically
changed. Maintenance associated with membrane plugging can be reduced
by selection of a membrane with optimum physical characteristics and
sufficient velocity of the waste stream. It is often necessary to
occasionally pass a detergent solution through the system to remove an
oil and grease film which accumulates on the membrane. With proper
maintenance membrane life can be greater than twelve months.
' " ' " " ' '* i; ..... '' '
Solid Waste
, , . . \\ ,' Vili flu
Aspects; Ultraf iltration is used primarily to recover
solids and liquids. It therefore eliminates solid waste problems when
the solids (e.g. , paint solids) can be recycled to the process.
Otherwise, the stream containing solids must be treated by end-of-pipe
equipment. In the most probable applications within the porcelain
enameling category, the ultraf ilter would remove hydroxides or
su If ides of metals which have recovery value.
Demonstration Status. The ultraf iltration process is well developed
and commercially available for treatment of wastewater or recovery of
certain high molecular weight liquid and solid contaminants.
Vacuum Filtration
In wastewater treatment plants, sludge dewaterihg by vacuum filtration
generally uses cylindrical drum filters. These drums have a filter
medium which may be cloth made of natural or synthetic fibers or a
wire-mesh fabric. The drum is suspended above and dips into a vat of
sludge. As the drum rotates slowly, part of its circumference is
subject to an internal vacuum that draws sludge to the filter medium.
Water is drawn through the porous filter cake to a discharge port, and
the dewatered sludge, loosened by compressed air, is scraped from the
filter mesh. Because the dewatering of sludge on vacuum filters is
relativley expensive per kilogram of water removed, the liquid sludge
is frequently thickened prior to processing. A vacuum filter is shown
in Figure VII-30 (Page 306).
Application and Performance. Vacuum filters; are frequently used both
in municipal treatment plants and in a wide variety of industries.
They are most commonly used in larger facilities, which may have a
thickener to double the solids content of clarifier sludge before
vacuum filtering.
The function of vacuum filtration is to reduce the water content of
sludge, so that the solids content increases from about 5 percent to
about 30 percent.
264
-------
Advantages and Limitations. Although the initial cost and area
requirement of the vacuum filtration system are higher than those of a
centrifuge, the operating cost is lower, and no special provisions for
sound and vibration protection need be made. The dewatered sludge
from this process is in the form of a moist cake and can be
conveniently handled.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Vacuum filter systems have proven
reliable at many industrial and municipal treatment facilities. At
present, the largest municipal installation is at the West Southwest
waste water treatment plant of Chicago, Illinois, where 96 large
filters were installed in 1925, functioned approximately 25 years, and
then were replaced with larger units. Original vacuum filters at
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota now have over 28 years of continuous
service, and Chicago has some units with similar or greater service
life.
Maintainability: Maintenance consists of the cleaning or replacement
of the filter media, drainage grids, drainage piping, filter pans, and
other parts of the equipment. Experience in a number of vacuum filter
plants indicates that maintenance consumes approximately 5 to 15
percent of the total time. If carbonate buildup or other problems are
unusually severe, maintenance time may be as high as 20 percent. For
this reason, it is desirable to maintain one or more spare units.
If intermittent operation is used, the filter equipment should be
drained and washed each time it is taken out of service. An allowance
for this wash time must be made in filtering schedules.
Solid Waste Aspects: Vacuum filters generate a solid cake which is
usually trucked directly to landfill. All of the metals extracted
from the plant wastewater are concentrated in the filter cake as
hydroxides, oxides, sulfides, or other salts.
Demonstration Status. Vacuum filtration has been widely used for many
years. It is a fully proven, conventional technology for sludge
dewatering.
IN-PLANT TECHNOLOGY
The intent of in-plant technology for the porcelain enameling
industrial segment is to reduce or eliminate the waste load requiring
end-of-pipe treatment and thereby improve the quality of the effluent
discharge. In-plant technology involves water reuse, process
materials conservation, reclamation of waste enamel, process
modifications, material substitutions, improved rinse techniques and
good housekeeping practices. The sections which follow detail each of
these in-plant technologies describing the applicability and overall
effect of each in the porcelain enameling category.
265
-------
Water Reuse
' .' "" '"''if": , >' "" j ' ; " 4 ,">f~, : !i !' ''> X"11' I, I ( I.I I II
There are several plants in the porcelain enameling data base that
demonstrated the potential for water reuse in this category. For
example, water which is employed for non-contact cooling or air
conditioning can be reused for rinses in the base metal preparation
line and as washdown water in the ball milling area. Plant 11045
utilized water from their air "conditioningsystem as washdown for
improperly coated parts and spray coating equipment. Plant 40053
utilized a recirculation of rinse water from the acid pickling rinses
to the alkaline cleaner rinses, The facility also used cooling water
from air compressors as make-up water for the acid pickle rinses.
Plant personnel reported an overall water savings of 22 percent per
year using these water reuse schemes. Reuse of acid rinse water in
alkaline rinses has been demonstrated at many electroplating plants.
^ ' . ,"[. '.-?;;.s';;'^., ^:, ":'i.^]i^^:^m H-;// i >' ,h'ii
Another method for reusing rinse water is a closed loop de-ionized
rinse water system. Some plants, in order to remove any traces of
process solution from the surfaces of the workpieces prior to
enameling, rinse their workpieces in a deionized water final rinse.
This water can be recirculated through an ion exchange unit to remove
the impurities picked up in rinsing. The purified water is then
returned to the rinse tank for further process work. This type of
rinse is most commonly seen in the porcelain enameling on aluminum
subcategory where the basis material is relatively clean.
; ' , .i |. ", (, . ..".; , :'. , .'.,<,: i|p b ป>' 'l. "'- ' , BJfii is! IT>"I .! i" . *T'''f ,rr i . .( ., '"""": 'WWKli
Process Materials Conservation Filtration of Nickel Baths - During the
nickel deposition process, a chemical reaction takes place in which
ions come out of the solution and displace ironions going into
solution. It is good practice from a processstandpoint to filter the
nickel bath to prevent the iron from building up to a contaminating
level. Several types of filters are available for this purpose.
Filter types can include: filter leaf, filterbag, flat bed filter,
and string wound "cartridge" type filters. Many o'f these filters can
incorporate diatomaceous earth as a filtering aid by spraying it on
the filter substrate. Utilization of afilter extends the life of the
process solution. This is advantageous from a waste treatment point
of view since the bath will have to be dumped less often, in some
cases bath life can be increased as much assix months to one year.
This means a smaller pollutant load on the waste treatment system that
is directly attributable to the nickel deposition process. A similar
filtration scheme can be utilized on neutralizer baths.
Dry Spray Booths - Plants which utilize spray coating as their means
of enamel application must contain the overspray. Most companies
employ wet spray booths which use a "curtain" ofwater to trap
oversprayed enamel particles. Also available are dry spray booths
which use filter screens to remove the enamel particles from the air
that is forced through the booth. These dry booths eliminate the
266
-------
entry of oversprayed enamel into a wastewater stream. Plant 40053
which porcelain enamels both steel and cast iron used dry spray booths
for applying enamel to both basis materials. Enamel overspray was
allowed to dry on the floor and was simply swept up at the end of the
day. Plants 06031 and 13330 also use dry spray booths for the ground
and cover coat application on copper parts. After the overspray drvs,
it is collected and ^reused.
Reclamation of_ Waste Enamel
Enamel slip which is oversprayed does not undergo chemical or physical
changes. This material can therefore be reused under certain
conditions. The frit which is recovered cannot include a mixture of
colors since it would be impossible to separate the colors.
Therefore, only a plant which consistently uses a particular color can
efficiently recover its frit. Plants 15712, 44031, and 33076, recover
enamel from their spray booths and associated settling sumps. The
recovered enamel is then used in the ground coat enamel mixtures
(approximately SOpercent of the mixture). Many other plants recover
waste enamel for eventual reclamation by suppliers. Plant 06031,
which porcelain enamels on copper, also recovers waste enamel. Waste
dry powder enamel is mixed in a ratio of 7:10 with new frit in the
formulation of new ground coat enamel. Plant 13330 currently has a
working enamel reclamation system for both ground and cover coat
enamels,' The facility incorporates several dry spray booths to
segregate the application of ground and different colors of cover coat
enamel. Oversprayed enamel is allowed to dry on the walls and floor
area of the spray booths then scraped and swept up for reuse. This
reclamation system has allowed this facility to significantly reduce
water use in the ball milling and enamel application areas.
Experimental work is being done with reusing multi-color waste enamel
for ground coats in the porcelain enameling on steel subcategory.
However, colors of enamel vary tremendously within this subcategory
making it difficult to produce a consistent ground coat color from
waste enamel.
Process Modifications
Process modifications can reduce the amount of water required for
rinsing or even eliminate waste load sources. Significant water
savings can also be realized by proper scheduling of slip preparation
runs. If facilities do not have enough ball mills to have one for
each color, employing a pattern of milling light to dark colored
enamels can preclude washing the mills between each color change.
This will significantly increase the time between required ball mill
cleanings. As another example, one plant has reported finding a new
basis material preparation process called NPNN (No-Pickle, No-Nickel).
This basis material preparation process consists of seven steps: 1.
solvent clean 2. detergent clean 3. cold rinse 4. acid clean
267
-------
(SOpercent phosphoric acid) 5. acid clean {SOpercent cleaner,
70percent phosphoric acid) 6. cold rinse 7. neutral izer (soda ash &
borox). After this treatment, enamel is applied in a normal fashion.
Plant ID 13330 realized significant water use reductions through spray
application of basis material preparation chemicals instead of the
typical bath system. Basis material preparation operations still
include alkaline cleaning, acid etch, nickel flash and neutralization.
This facility also adds a hydrogen peroxide solution to the sulfuric
acid etch solution to control the ferric ion concentration. Plant
personnel report that the addition of hydrogen peroxide both
significantly extends the life of the etch solution and results in a
thirty-three percent increase in etching capacity per amount of
chemical used.
,, | ,, . .. , ,f,.. , ,
Another process line modification is the replacement of a wet process
with a dry one. For example, dry surface blasting can sometimes be
employed in place of chemical cleaning with its attendant water use.
This can only be employed with certain types of steel since the highly
abrasive blasting may damage light gauge steel. Another water saving
process modification involves the method of enamel application.
Electrostatic spray coating achieves the same results as normal spray
coating, but at a much higher coverage efficiency. Consequently,
electrostatic spray coating has much less overspray to be caught in a
water curtain, so it generates only part of the waste load of normal
spray coating. Work is also being done using electrostatic dry powder
application; a system which generates no waste water for coating or
ball milling.
'Kf'< ...... JtfW.l!
Electrostatic dry powder application operates on the same principle as
electrostatic wet spraying operations with the enamel particles and
workpiece having opposite electrical charges. Currently electrostatic
dry powder porcelain applications require only one coat of enamel
which is fired at a much lower temperature than conventional porcelain
enamels. Traditional preparation operations followed by electrostatic
dry powder application are currently being used at two porcelain
enameling facilities (IDf's 12038,21060). Pilot operations are
functional at three other porcelain enameling facilities (ID's 33617,
47034, 33054) . A basis material preparation option associated with
dry powder coating is electrophoretic application of a thin coating
of zinc to prevent oxidation and produce a tightened bond with the
porcelain enamel . This system is currently used by several porcelain
enamelers in Europe. A supplier of enamels has developed another
basis metal preparation option which incorporates an acid cleaning
step followed by the electrostatic application of a preparation
compound followed by electrostatic dry powder porcelain application.
Suppliers of the various dry powder systems claim they not only save
significant amounts of water, but also use of these systems can result
in up to a SOpercent savings in energy use.
' :.'>' ':': "', J ' :. '. "! .....
268
i- , ,
/jiifeii iiilii
-------
A. number of plants within the data base have omitted the nickel
deposition step. Deletion of this step, however, can require changes
in slip formulations and firing temperatures.
Changes in production schedule can also lighten the load on a waste
treatment system either directly or indirectly. Scheduling a
succession of the same color coatings can increase the time between
required ball mill washings. In addition, raw basis material or parts
to be porcelain enameled which are kept in storage for any length of
time can develop corrosion. This corrosion and the presence of dried
fabricating lubricants often necessitates the use of an extra system.
Another consideration is the timing of batch dumps. If an alkaline
bath can be dumped safely with an acid bath, it reduces the
consumption of treatment chemicals relative to separate dumps.
Holding tanks can be installed to facilitate this concurrent dumping
of acid and alkaline baths to the waste treatment system.
Material Substitutions
The substitution of non-toxic or easily treatable materials for toxic
materials is another method of easing the load on and increasing the
effectiveness of an end-of-pipe treatment system. The replacement of
sulfuric acid with hydrochloric acid in the pickling process is a
possible material substitution. It has been shown, however, that
hydrochloric acid etchant can take 2 to 3 times longer than sulfuric
acid. Although sulfuric acid is cheaper to purchase, hydrochloric
acid is easier to regenerate. It has been shown however, that acid
regeneration done on a small scale is not economically feasible. Care
should also be used in the selection of alkaline cleaners. Cleaners
should be specifically tailored to the basis material being cleaned
and the nature of the soils and oils to be removed. Avoiding cleaners
with high concentrations of complexing agents or caustics can preclude
subsequent solids precipitation problems in waste treatment. A few
facilities report using alkaline cleaners specifically tailored to
remove a drawing compound which was purchased from the same supplier
as the alkaline cleaner.
Rinse Techniques
Reductions in the amount of water used in porcelain enameling can be
realized through installation and use of efficient rinse techniques.
Cost savings associated with this water use reduction result from
lower cost for rinse water and reduced chemical costs for wastewater
treatment. An added benefit is that the waste treatment efficiency is
also improved. It is estimated that rinse steps may consume over 90
percent of the water used by a typical porcelain enameling facility.
Consequently, the greatest water use reductions can be anticipated to
come from modifications of rinse techniques.
269
-------
Rinsing is essentially a dilution step which reduces the concentration
of contaminants on theworkpiece. The design of rinse systems for
minimum wateruse dependson the maximum levelofcontamination
allowed to remain on the workpiece (without reducing acceptable
product quality or causing poisoning of a subsequent bath) as well as
on the efficiency or effectiveness of each rinse stage.
.'' i': - :,; ;; \$,?,n 7;:1;j. ;,,;;- j-f\, n.'.:.::.ซ ;,:.if.. :. ; ( ;< , I ,; I'it; lilt'!
A rinse system is considered efficient if the dissolved solids
concentration is reduced just to the point where no noticeable effects
occur either as a quality problem or as excessive drag-in to the next
process step. Operation of a rinse tank or tanks whichachievea
10,000 to 1 reduction in concentrations whereonly a 1/000 to 1
reduction is required representsinefficientuse of water. Operating
rinse tanks at or near their maximum acceptablelevel of contamination
provides the most efficient and economical form of rinsing.
Inefficient operation manifestsitself inhigher operating costs not
only from the purchase cost of water,but alsofromthetreatmentof
it. " .; v:. i:';'."'..;',.:".: : : r : ',::,
,i,iij'! ' | ,, f" ::;l''!,', "'' ' f1"1" '" ,,'i '' 1'!":""ii ii''!''!,ป"1''"'IM';'] k ,ii si'1-; i'j'i'i?11:. i1 ซiซi''"".""' i!"1"1"1! r'...iO",;;1 ii ' ; 1,1 > r'diiJLpi AKV
Since the purpose of rinsing is to remove process solution from the
surface of the workpiece, the best way to reduce the amount of rinsing
required is to reduce the dragout.Areductionin dragbutresultsIn
a reduction of waste that has to be treated. Dragout is a function of
several factors including workpiece geometry, viscosity and surface
tension of the process solution', withdrawal and drainagetime and
racking. These factors affecting dragout are described below.
1. Geometry of the Part - This partly determines the amount of
dragout contributed by a part and is one of the principal
determinants for ^he type of rinsing arrangement selected".
A ' flat sheet with holes 'is jwell s^I't^ed^^fg.r.'^^n/,impact' spray
rinse rather "than 'an immersion rinse"',' "but" ' "ifor 'parts '" with
cups or recesses a 'spray"rinse Is'totally ineffective.
'' , "" .,' i ' ";! ; ' V"''.: : i I'1 ;" '"! , "i.:.."''-'"*;,'1":;1 , ,:;iMVJliBP^'J:'':,.'''^S '': "''ff ซ'!=" 1 '"*< .'tii'J'i'&ai'.WV
2. Kinematic Viscosity of the Process Solution - Kinematic
Viscosity is an important factor in determining process bath
dragout. The effect of increasing kinematic viscosity is
that it increases the dragout volumein the withdrawal phase
and decreases the rate of draining during the drainage
phase. It is advantageoustodecrease the dragout and
increase the drainage rate. Consequently, the process
solution kinematic viscosity should be as low as possible.
Increasing the temperature of the solution decreases its
viscosity, therebyreducingthe volume of process solution
going to the rinse tank. Care must be exercised in
increasing bath temperaturesince the rate of bath
decomposition may increase sighificahtlywith temperature
increases.
270
-------
3. Surface Tension of the Process Solution - Surface tension is
a major factor that controls the removal of dragout during
the drainage phase. To remove a liquid film from a solid
surface, the gravitation force must overcome the adhesive
force between the liquid and the surface. The amount of
work required to remove the film is a function of the
surface tension of the liquid and the contact angle.
Lowering the surface tension reduces the amount of work re-
quired to remove the liquid and reduces the edge effect (the
bead of liquid adhering to the edges of the part). A
secondary benefit of lowering the surface tension is to
increase the metal uniformity. Surafce tension may be
reduced by increasing the temperature of the process
solution or more effectively, by use of a wetting agent.
4. Time of_ Withdrawal and Drainage - The withdrawal velocity of
a part from a solution had an effect similar to that of
kinematic viscosity. Increasing the velocity or decreasing
the time of withdrawal increases the volume of solution that
is retained by the part. Since time is directly related to
production rate, it is more advantageous to reduce the
dragout volume initially adhering to the part rather than
attempt to drain a large volume from the part.
5. Racking - Proper racking of parts is the most effective way
to reduce dragout. Parts should be arranged so that no cup-
like recesses are formed, the longest dimension should be
horizontal, the major surface vertical, and each part should
drain freely without dripping onto another part. The racks
themselves should be periodically inspected to insure the
integrity of the rack coating. * Loose coatings can con-
tribute significantly to dragout. Physical or geometrical
design of racks is of primary -concern for the control of
dragout both from the racks and the parts themselves.
Dragout from the rack can be minimized by designing it to
drain freely such that no pockets of process solution can be
retained.
The different types of rinsing commonly used within the metal
finishing industry are described below.
1. Single Running Rinse - This arrangement requires a large
volume of water to effect a large degree of contaminant
removal. Although in widespread use, single running rinse
tanks should be modified or replaced by a more effective
rinsing arrangement to reduce water use.
2. Countercurrent Rinse - The countercurrent rinse provides for
the most efficient water usage and thus, where possible, the
271
-------
counter-current rinse should be used. There is only one
fresh water feed for the entire set of tanks, and it is
introduced in the last tank f the arrangement. The
overflow from each tank ."'becomes ฃhe feed for the tank
preceding it. Thus, the concentration of dissolvedsalts
decreases rapidly from the first to the last tank.
In a situation requiring a 1,000 to 1 concentration
reduction, the addition of a second rinse tank (with a
coUntercurrent flow arrangement) will reduce the theoretical
water demand by 97 percent.
I,,; ' ., j ; : .:, . ^ " ,,; , , , , ป,, ,,j" if 'Mt-K' i. 1 ,',"! , ,.'J|'! [' ' '>' I It ".,' *i!' ,1:;:
3- Series Rinse - The major advantage of the series rinse over
the countercurrent system is that the tanks of the series
can be individually heated or level controlled since each
has a separate feed. Each tank reaches its own equilibrium
condition; the first rinse having the lowest concentration.
This system uses water moreefficiently than the single
ruri'hing rinse, and the concentration of dissolved salts
decreases in each successive tank.
4. Spray Rinse - Spray rinsing is considered the most efficient
of the various rinse techniques in continuous dilution
rinsing. The main concern encountered in use of this mode
is the efficiency of the spray (i.e., the volume of water
contacting the part and removing contamination compared to
the volume of water discharged). Spray rinsing is well
suited for flatsheets. The impact of the spray also
provides an effective mechanism forremoving dragout from
recesses with a large width to depth ratio.
5. Dead, Still, or Reclaim Rinses - Thisform of rinsing is
particularly applicable for initial rinsing after metal
plating because the dead rinse allows for easier recovery of
the metal and lower water usage. The rinsing should then be
continued in a countercurrent or spray arrangement.
The use of different rinse types will result in wide variations in
water use. Table VII-24 shows the theoretical flow requirements for
several different rinse types to maintain a 1,000 to 1 reduction in
concentration. ' ' ' '. "
272
-------
TABLE VI1-24
THEORETICAL RINSE WATER-FLOWS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A
1,000 TO 1 CONCENTRATION REDUCTION
Type of Rinse
Number of Rinses
Required Flow (gpm)
Single Series Countercurrent
12323
10 0.61 0.27 0.31 0.1
Another method of conserving water through efficient rinsing is by
controlling the flow of the feed water entering the rinse tanks. Some
flow control methods are listed below.
! Conductivity Controllers - Conductivity controllers provide
for efficient use and good control of the rinse process.
This controller utilizes a conductivity cell to measure the
conductance of the solution which, for an electrolyte, is
dependent upon the ionic concentration. The conductivity
cell, immersed in the rinse tank or overflow line, is
connected to a controller which will open or close a
solenoid on the makeup line.
As the rinse becomes more contaminated, its conductance
increases until the set point of the controller is reached,
causing the solenoid to open and allowing makeup to enter.
Makeup flow will continue until the conductance drops below
the set point. The advantage of this method of control is
that water is flowing only when required. A major
manufacturer of conductivity controllers supplied to plants
in the Metal Finishing Category claims that water usage can
be reduced by as much as 50-85 percent when the controllers
are used.
2. Liquid Level Controllers - These controllers find their
greatest use on closed loop rinsing systems. A typical
arrangement uses a liquid level sensor in both the rinse
tank and the process tank, and a solenoid on the rinse tank
makeup water line. When the process solution evaporates to
below the level of the level controller, the pump is
activated, and solution is transferred from the rinse tank
to the process tank. The pump will remain active until the
process tank level controller is satisfied. As the liquid
level of the rinse tank drops due to the pumpout, the rinse
tank controller will open the solenoid allowing makeup water
to enter.
273
-------
3. Manually Operated Valves - Manually operated valves are
susceptible to misuse and should, therefore, be installed in
conjunction only with other devices. Orifices should be
installed in addition to the valveto limit the flow rateof
rinse water. For rinsestations that require manual
movement of work and require manual control of the rinse
(possibly due to low use), dead man valves should be
installed in addition to the orifice to limit the flow rate
ofrinse water. They should be located so as to discourage
jamming them open.
4. Orifices or Flow Restrietors - Thesedevices are usually
installed for rinse tanks that have a constant production
rate, the newer restrictors can maintain a constant flow
even if the water supply pressure fluctuates. Orifices are
not as efficient as conductivity or liquid level
controllers, but are far superior to manual valves.
Good Housekeeping
Good housekeeping and proper maintenance of coating equipment are
required to reduce wastewater loads to the treatment systems. The
ball milling and enamel application areas need constant attention to
maintain cleanliness and to avoid the waste of clean-up water. Hoses
should be shut off when not in use (it was noticed that at several
visited plants they were left running constantly). It is also
recommended that pressure nozzles be installed on the hoses to
increase cleaning effectiveness and reduce water use.
: , ', i ,, ,, ',; V1' ' '!!. ,! '' , '' "'' ,!' , , ' I I I II I I I I III
Periodic inspection of the basis material preparation tank liner and
the tanks themselves reduces the chance of a catastrophic failure
which could overload the waste discharge. Periodic inspection should
also be performed on all auxiliary porcelain enameling equipment.
This includes lead inspections of pumps, filters, process piping, and
immersion steam heating coils. Neutralizer and nickel filter cleaning
should be done in curbed areas or in a manner such that solution
retained by the filter is dumped to the appropriate waste stream.
Good housekeeping is also applicable to chemical storage areas.
Storage areas should be isolated from high hazard fire areas and
arranged so that if a fire or explosion occurs in such areas, loss of
the stored chemicals due to deluged quantities of water would not
overwhelm the treatment facilities or cause excessive ground water
pollution. Good housekeeping practices also include the use of drain
boards between processing tanks. Bridging the gap between adjacent
tanks via drain boards allows for recovery of dragout that drips off
the parts while they are being transferred from one tank to another.
The board should be mounted in a fashion that drains the dragout back
into the tank from which it originated.
274
-------
TABLE VI1-18
RATING CF PRIORIT* FttJUTEAOTS OTIUZING CARBON ADSCRPTICN
Priority tollutant
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
aceraphthene
acrolein
acrylonitrile
benzene
benzidine
carbon tetrachloride
(tetrachloromethane)
chlozobenzene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1,1-trichloroethane
hexachloroethane
1,1-dichloroetnane
1,1,2-trichloroe thane
1,1,2,2-tetrachloreethane
chloroethane
bis(chlorcnsethyl)ether
bis{2-ehloroethyl)etner
2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
(nixed)
2-chloronaphthalene
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
parachlorcmeta cresol
chloroform (trichlorcmethane)
2-chlorophenol
1,2-dichlorcbenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
2,4-dichlorophenol
1,2-dichlorc
1,2-dichloropropylene
(1,3,-dichloropropenfc)
2,4-dimethylphenol
2,4- 100 mg/g carbon at C. - 10 ma/1
adsorbs at levels T 100 ng/g carbon at C| < 1.0 ag/1
Category M (moderate renewal)
adsorbs at levels > 100 ปg/g carbon at C. - 10 ma/1
adsorbs at levels ฃ 100 mg/g carbon at C| < 1.0 ag/1
Category L (low renoval)
adsorbs at levels < 100 mg/g carbon at Cซ - 10 an/1
adsorbs at levels < 10 mg/g carbon at Cfr< 1.0 eg/I
Cf final concentrations of priority pollutant at equilibrium
trichlorofluoranethane
dichlorodifluororaethane
chlorodibromomethane
hexachlorobutadiene
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
iaophotone
naphthalene
nitrobenzene
2-flitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
*Haiwal Rating
H
L
M
H
H
R
R
R
R
R
R
M
H
M
R
M
H
H
H
H
H
R
H
W-nitroacdimethylwnine
N-nitroeodipnenylanine
N-nitaJsodi-n-propylamine
pentachlorophenol
phenol
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
dietnyl phthalate
disethyl phthalate
1,2-benzanthracene (benzo
(a)anthracene)
benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-benxo- R
Syrene)
3,4-benzofluoranthene R
(benzo(b) fluoranthene)
11,12-benzofluoranthene H
(benzo(k)fluoranthene)
chrysene H
acenaphthylena R
anthracene R
1,12-benaoperylene (benzo R
(^ii)-perylene)
fluorene H
phenanthrene R
1,2,5,6-dibenzathracane R
(dibenzo (a,h) anthracene)
indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene H
(2,3-o-phenylene pyrene)
pyrene
tetrachlorcethylene M
toluene M
trichloroethylene L
vinyl chloride L
(chlorcethylene)
PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242) R
KB-1254 (Atcchlor 1254) H
KB-1221 (Arochlor 1221) H
KS-1332 (Arochlor 1232) R
KB-1248 {Arochlor 1248) R
KB-1260 (Arochlor 1260) R
KB-1016 (Arochlor 1016) R
275
-------
1 :'"'. I" -I'!!':''! A! Mi!1:;4 :,:,,i
TABLE VII-19 , ;
CLASSES OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ADSORBED ON CARBON
Organic Chemical Class
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Polynuclear Aronatics
Chlorinated Aromatics
Phenolics
Chlorinated Phenolics
High Molecular Weight Aliphatic and
Branch Chain Hydrocarbons
ซ"ซ> , . i it. * . , >
Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
High Molecular Weight Aliphatic Acids
and Aromatic Acids
High Molecular Weight Aliphatic Amines
and Aromatic Amines
..'I I I ; I", . 11." ri'
High Molecular Weight Ketones, Esters,
Ethers and Alcohols
Surfactants
Soluble Organic Dyes
Examples of Chemical -Class
,!%?: i*ป:;'i V'i;''':'' :J'--.': :,.",'i i... 'ii-i'
benzene, toluene, xylene
naphthalene, anthracene
bephenyls
chlorpbenzene, polychlorina ted
! biphctnyls.'/aldrin, endrin, '" "
tQ.xaphene, DDT
phenol, cresol, resorcenol
arid polyphenyls
trichlorophenol, pentachloro-
iphenol
f ' '. ' i"-i, ' ', i ,: !. ' ,:, , i ' '
gasoline, kerosine
"." .' :";1 "1,; 1 i1 . , I f',:X:K " ::':,: ".i; Vi i1;
carbon tetrachloride,
perchloroethylene
ii i i n
tar acids, benzoic acid
lii .'ES'i.'.JIil1. 'i'r'"1:"' !'
aniline, toluene diamine
11 ' i .!' / ' v... " i.'; i"," , (. I'-!' i,s ii",1,:1,;;!1 M!
.; 'is,. ,i ;.;.. f.., , , ; ,"";, j;, . '!( r;?
hydroquinone, polyethylene
glycol
alkyl benzene sulfonates
melkylene blue, Indigo carmine
High Molecular Weight includes compounds in the broad range of from 4 to 20
carbon atoms.
iji. v, l ,,'i: '>'
:i'ป ' :J ' ">A:ll>,i: iiii"
'
276
-------
SULFURIC
ACID
SULFUR
DIOXIDE
LIME OR CAUSTIC
r
i CONTROLLER! Ii
rvj RAW WASTE
>j (HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM)
00
J-l
ORPCONTROLLER
REACTION TANK
(TRIVALENT CHROMIUM)
00
pH CONTROLLER
~*JL
PRECIPITATION TANK
TO CLARIFlER
(CHROMIUM
HYDROXIDE)
FIGURE VIM. HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM REDUCTION WITH SULFUR DIOXIDE
-------
CONCENTRATION OP DISSOLVED METAL '(MG/L)
-------
ro
5
[ON (MG/L.)
J
a
H
z
u
u
z
0
u
u
z
"^ 9
N z
H
z
III
3
J
U.
k.
U
1
/
O
<
o "
>
o
o
o
o
o
0 0
o
0 .<
In 08 ซ
> 0 ฐ
8ฐ
On ~ J
0
-
0
O
I, 5 6 ~ 7 ~ 8 ~ *9 10 11 l<
MINIMUM EFFLUENT pH
FIGURE VIl-3. EFFLUENT ZINC CONCENTRATION VS. MINIMUM EFFLUENT pH
-------
0.40
SODA ASH AND
CAUSTIC SODA
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
pH
FIGURE VH-4. LEAD SOLUBILITY IN THRlE ALkALIES
10.S
-------
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
WATER
LEVEL
STORED
BACKWASH
WATER
--FILTER
BACKW ASH
THREE WAY VALVE
DRAIN
FIGURE VII-5. GRANULAR BED FILTRATION
281
-------
PERFORATED
BACKING PLATE
FABRIC
FILTER MEDIUM
SOLID
RECTANGULAR
END PLATE
INLET
SLUDGE
FABRIC
FILTER MEDIUM
ENTRAPPED SOLIDS
FILTERED LIQUID OUTLET
PLATES AND FRAMES ARE
PRESSED TOGETHER DURING
FILTRATION CYCLE
RECTANGULAR
METAL PLATE
RECTANGULAR FRAME
FIGURE VII-6. PRESSURE FILTRATION
' ' '
282
-------
SEDIMENTATION BASIN
INLET ZONE
INLET LIQUID
BAFFLES TO MAINTAIN
QUIESCENT CONDITIONS
OUTLET ZONE
SETTLING PARTICLE
. TRAJECTORY .
OUTLET LIQUID
BELT-TYPE SOLIDS COLLECTION
MECHANISM
SETTLED PARTICLES COLLECTED
AND PERIODICALLY REMOVED
CIRCULAR CLARIFIER
SETTLING ZONE.
INLET LIQUID
_i
.CIRCULAR BAFFLE
..ANNULAR OVERFLOW WEIR
_3 *
INLET ZONE
* *
fป .
*/*
* * * V * '
* */ LIQUID
.VVFUow .*
OUTLET LIQUID
SETTLING PARTICLES
REVOLVING COLLECTION
MECHANISM
SETTLED PARTICLES
COLLECTED AND PERIODICALLY
REMOVED
SLUDGE DRAWOFF
FIGURE VII-7. REPRESENTATIVE TYPES OF SEDIMENTATION
283
-------
ro
oo
ATION (MG/L)
p
* ' C
JEATED EFFLUENT CONCENTR
-p ' .
b
S"
3 E
a
u
0.001
rv
"* N
- DC
~ / f
-Q
f\
O O-j
o
IUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 38
UMBER OF PORCELAIN ENAMELING
IBSERVATIONS: 2
ORCELAIN ENAMELING DATA
f)
Y
0 <
5
-O
0
PH=ป
Q-,
ฐ
f*
^
p
D
**
0.01 o.l
O
V
*
k-
1.0
n n
-
"-.-- .- - .
i -..---
__ ^ ^ ;-j| =
- "~ ."V " ':
ป"-.
\if ป ปi i
_ ;-;Si:iJ-;:iS;i
f .ifi:_- -i-^ai
1 '*!
^^^^ - ' ฐ-^
~ ^= :
l_::^i^ai
;'-.;". "._"-, i;;
i i *' ซซ!!
~
-^/"i.-iiJ-aH!
4 = - ^ ^ =
": -.-----Vฃ|
100,0
CADMIUM RAW WASTE CONCENTRATION (MG/L)
FIGURE VII-8. HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION & SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS -CADMIUM
-------
10.0
ro
oo
en
_l
ef
Z
0
H
Z
111
U
Z
0
u
i-
z
u
U.
u.
u
0
u
H
H-
2
3
i
o
K
X
U
1.0
0.1
o.ot
NU
NU
/" OB
i i i i 1 1 ii 1 i i i i
MBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 64
MBER OF PORCELAIN ENAMELING
SERVATIONS: 3
PORCELAIN ENAMELING DATA
c
>
0.1 y
0
y
j
i
)
c
y
o o
o
0
ฐnฐ
c
ฉ
UC
v
)
>
o
u
D
9, -
1
o
0
*
(
c
rP
\j^
3
o
o
A-
D
r
o u u 0 \j^\j ^ 000 ,000.0
CHROMIUM RAW WASTE CONCENTRATION (MG/L.)
FIGURE VII-9. HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATIONS: SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS -CHROMIUM
-------
IN3
CO
Cf:
J
ซ3
Z
0
p
K
t-
Z
III
u
z
0
u
I-
z
u
3
a
u.
u.
u
Q
U
1-
u
V.
I-
K
Z
a.
0
U
10.0
1.0
O.I
0.01
1 1
- N
~ N
/P
i 1 t i t i i 1 1 1 1 i j
UMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 74
UMBER OF PORCELAIN ENAMELING
BSERVATIONS: 6
ORCELAIN ENAMELING DATA
Q-
0
Q
c
o.i ^ ปปป vx >^y
-
--j 6
; '
c
ฐ o
0
u
0
o
'ฑ.
o
u
3
P
c
t
/i.o
o
0
o
e
-
o
-i$
o
c
inn
1_
c
r
j
c
i
0
~<
J
Cg
J
100.0
1000.0
COPPER RAW WASTE CONCENTRATION (MG/L)
FIGURE VII-10. HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION & SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS -COPPER
S *
-------
10.0
rv>
00
_l
o"
z
0
p
Z
111
u
0
u
H
z
u
3
U.
u.
u
Q
U
<
U
K
F-
Z
0
1.0
0.1
0.01
1
NL
NL
0OE
:/po
i 1 1 1 1 1 M i i i 1 1
IMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 88
IMBER OF PORCELAIN ENAMELING
JSERVATIONS: 6
RCELAIN ENAMELING DATA
(
i
^ฐ
X
^o
)
I
)
/
u
)
ro
^N ,
cW
o
3D ฐ
j-Oti
Cr X.
O
0
/
r
O
(
O
)
Q^
\~
j
3
(
O
0
9
r>
F>
0
rS
O
C
>
i
i
<
^fc
\^
A
1
r1
^
o
ซ
o
o
n
t^
3
,-, O
ง
)
ft
QL_
^
O
Ql
1
o
*
o
/
D
if
r
.
/
)
^
o~
y
/ c
J
-------
ION (MG/L)
a '. ;
- c
H - - -
f
" -* " >Z
(>
o
-Q
III
< O.Oli
Ill :
H
Q
r J ;
, : :? - .;_ " - - ;
'------ -- ^ ^^ - ซ ^ -
.. = : . sr,_. =1, -^_
0.001
N
/C
UMBE
UMBE
IBSER
ORCE
:R o
:RO
VA'
LAI
(
FC
F 1
ric
N
O
i
0
)B!
0
N!
Eh
J
o
5E
f?C
(A
3
c
R
E
3
M
9
V*
L/
EL
-
r~
TIONS: 85
ilN ENAMELING
ING DATA
J
Q,
9P
GD O
)
0
J
0
<9
t)
r
ซ_r <_ซ_ซ \^j \^i^f vปitjiji j^ Ar^A/WU/l
--" y v ^
o.oi /* r T o.i
n
<
>
c
1=
i
' i
(
,-ป \-ป v
i.
o
o
)
r>
JUW U
0
O
C
3
C
>
../w " o
10.0 100
LEAD RAW WASTE CONCENTRATION (MG/L)
FIGURE VII-12. HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION & SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS - LEAD
;' IHi '
-' "I V . ff, If^^,-: . t^ :
-------
ro
oo
J
0"
z
0
H
K
1-
U
O
0
u
z
u
3
J
U.
u.
u
Q
U
1-
bl
K
l-
bl
in
u
z
0
z
1.0
0.1
0.01
0.001
0
"
1
1 1
1
NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 20
~ NUMBER OF PORCELAIN ENAMELING
_ OBSERVATIONS: 6
~ P P(
(
1
DRCELAIN ENAMELING DATA
i
)
S f~
^
3
'
i
?
M
o
/
1 V
Q.
^(
I
>
^
o
*
o
\
W 1.0 1 0.0 100.0 1 000.0
MANGANESE RAW WASTE CONCENTRATION (MG/L)
FIGURE VIM 3. HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION & SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS - MANGANESE
-------
10.0
-
I" ' : ro
-'--- ~ UD
1 7 . - : 0
j~~- "_--'" : - 'ป : :
s ";. : ' --"'- ; , -
= =, ' i - ฐ = _ = ' _ :=
"_^ -~-i=^ - :_^; i=^\-
';ซ m , ป > ;' j" -
, ; ;;ซ : *
SB* - :-_ Lj .-;?ซ -:, ! ;
|y J tJ - ' ;J= ^ "J : "-
i^ i - ~:- = -ฃ =: s =ฐ i:
1=1 ,
i = = -
J
o"
z
0
H
(K
Z
U
u
- z
0
H
z
111
"D
= , ,, J
"" U.
: u
Q
U
>
u
- I-
j
Ul
= ^c
u
z
- - *
Hr
1.0
0.1
0.01
Nl
NL
I Pฐl
_/ "C
1
1
JMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 61
JMBER OF PORCELAIN ENAMELING
JSLRVATIONS. 6
>RCELAIN ENAMELING DATA
O
L
o
0
3
f^
-^jr
0
u
o
1
c
>
o
c
1
U
(
0.1 1.0 j^
3
n
o
>
^
r
\fr
)
(
<
^
>
>
f*
k^
In
^v
'V^
^
o
o
o
^
o
>
ti
I
1
c
c
r
M
Ml
r
ka
r
-
ฐ0
\J
O
O
10.0 100.0 1000.0
NICKEL RAW WASTE CONCENTRATION (MG/L)
FIGURE VII-I4. HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATIONS SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS -NICKEL
-------
(V
vD
J
0^
z
0
H
K
l-
Z
U
u
z
0
u
h-
z
u
3
J
b.
b.
U
Q
Id
H
H
tn
a:
0
a.
in
0
X
a.
100.0
10.0
1.0
0.1.
Nl
~n
1 1
\ 1 i i i i i 1 1 1 1 i
JMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 44
i
NUMBER OF PORCELAIN ENAMELING
- n01
J** PC
O
3SERVATIONS: 4
>RCELAIN ENAMELING DATA
6
71
T
u
o
f)
.-e
^
Q
--o
Pi il i(
O m
o
i
o
o
o
~T
3
J
f
o
C
(,ป
Q
^
ซ-0 w 10.0
00.0
1
^
nnn n
10.000.0
PHOSPHORUS RAW WASTE CONCENTRATION (MG/L)
FIGURE VIMS. HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION & SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS -PHOSPHORUS
-------
10.0
ro
ir>
IV)
1.0
H
Z
U
u
Z
0
u
t-
z
u
D
U.
u.
u
Q
U
1-
u
o:
i-
u
Z
N
0.1
0.01
1
l"l
1
1 1
- NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 69
~" NUMBER OF PORCELAIN ENAMELING
/"~ OBSERVAT
P<
3RCE
LAU
^
^
C
oc
o
10
4 i
(
0
^s
ฃN
>
AN
5
7
IE
LI
O
X!
1ฐ
(
D
1
o
NG DATA
(
O
' 0
/
e_
/
o v
-\
CD
D
\
)
7
\
c
)
O
^
^
D
V
, )
C
O
~l
>
.
0
^ o
t\ C
V >
o
Do
0
^^
v-'
o
y
o
o
C
V
0
D
/-
C
<
(
)
o
'o 9,
v-J
o
o
0.1
1.0 v 10.0
ZINC RAW WASTE CONCENTRATION (MG/L)
100.0
1000.0
FIGURE VII-16. HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION & SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS - ZINC
-------
FLANGE
WASTE WATER
WASH WATER
SURFACE WASH
MANIFOLD
BACKWASH
INFLUENT
DISTRIBUTOR
BACKWASH
REPLACEMENT CARBON
CARBON REMOVAL PORT
^-TREATED WATER
SUPPORT PLATE
FIGURE VH-17. ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION COLUMN
293
-------
">.< M',ป;iii:Ti IB ซ>
CONVEYOR DRIVE i_ ^DRYING
'ZONE
IBOWL DRIVE
LIQUID
OUTLET
SLUDGE
INLET
IVAJVJVIVJYAJI
CYCLOGEAR
SLUDGE
DISCHARGE
BOWL
REGULATING
RING
IMPELLER
FIGURE VII-18. CENTRIFUGAHON
294
"ป. I, ,,',:;;!;:: ,,L 'i!' ','.', iSiilii,;:! t,;!' ซ ;^;;.' itlEiii" a'k: ::'t,, . .[.. .'. I 'I ill In I ' il I'
-------
RAW WASTE
VD
Ul
CAUSTIC
SODA
PH
CONTROLLER
OR"CONTROLLERS
CAUSTIC
SODA
pH
CONTROLLER
TREATED
WASTE
REACTION TANK
FIGURE VIM9. TREATMENT OF CYANIDE WASTE BY ALKALINE CHLORINATION
-------
CONTROLS
OZONE
GENERATOR
DRY AIR
n
U
OZONE
REACTION
TANK
TREATED
WASTE
RAW WASTE-
FIGURE VII-20. TYPICAL OZONE PLANT FOR WASTE TREATMENT
296
-------
MIXER
0
FH
ST
SE
ST
WASTEWATER T.*
FEED TANK
1 1
t
to
1-
?ST ง
AGE j
3
CO
H
:OND 5
AGE j
3
CO
H
ilRD ง
AGE 3
3
HD
PUMP
TREATED WATER
C
c
1
t=
1
=3
i
c
2
j
c
1
=3
1
[
GAS
TEMPERATURE
CONTROL,
PH MONITORING
TEMPERATURE
CONTROL,
PH MONITORING
TEMPERATURE
CONTROL, ,
: PH MONITORING
OZONE
OZONE
GENERATOR
FIGURE V1I-21. UV/O2ONATION
297
-------
EXHAUST
CONDENSER
00.
WATER VAPOR
PACKED TOWER
EVAPORATOR
WASTEWATER
HEAT
EXCHANGER
EAM
STEAM
CONDENSATE
CONCENTRATE
PUMP
ATMOSPHERIC EVAPORATOR
CONDENSATE
WASTEWATER
VACUUM
PUMP
.\\\\\\\\\\.\V
STEAM
COOLING
WATER
EVAPORATOR
STEAM
STEAM
CONDENSATE
WASTEWATER
VAPOR-LIQUID
MIXTURE /SEPARATOR
_L
CONCENTRATE
CLIMBING FILM EVAPORATOR
WASTE
WATER
FEED
CONCENTRATE
SUBMERGED TUBE EVAPORATOR
STEAM
CONDENSATE
I . -
s- I = "
SAM ;
-
HOT VAPOR
*-
STEAM
CONDENSATE
B
ป
CONCENTRATE
VAPOR
.^v"^-
CONDEN-
SATE
_
I
T
f
COOLING
WATER
INDENSATE
/ACUUM PUMP
ACCUMULATOR
. CONDENSATE
FOR REUSE
CONCENTRATE FOR REUSE
DOUBLE-EFFECT EVAPORATOR
it i
ซ,-; *
FIGURE VII-22. TYPES OF EVAPORATION EQUIPMENT
-------
OILY WATER
INFLUENT
WATER
DISCHARGE
MOTOR
DRIVEN
RAKE
v I
OVERFLOW
SHUTOFF
VALVE
AIR IN
BACK PRESS
VALVE
TO SLUDGE
TANK *
EXCESS
AIR OUT
LEVEL
CONTROLLER
FIGURE VII-23. DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION
299
-------
I t .it: IE HV, i.
CONDUIT
TO MOTOR
INFLUENT
CONDUIT TO
OVERLOAD
ALARM
COUMTERFLOW
INFLUENT WELL
DIRECTION OF ROTATION
EFFLUENT PIPE
EFFLUENT CHANNEL
PLAN
HANDRAIL
TURNTABLE
BASE
INFLUENT ป
CENTER COLUMN
CENTER CAGE
WEIR
SQUEEGEE
FIGURE VII-24. GRAVITY THICKENING
300
-------
WASTE WATER CONTAINING
DISSOLVED METALS OR
OTHER IONS
REGENERANT
'SOLUTION
-DIVFRTER VALVE
"DISTRIBUTOR
-SUPPORT
REGENERANT TO REUSE,
TREATMENT, OR DISPOSAL
-DIVERTER VALVE
METAL-FREE WATER
' FOR REUSE OR DISCHARGE
FIGURE VII-25. ION EXCHANGE WITH REGENERATION
301
-------
MACROMOLECULES
AND SOLIDS
MOST
SALTS 4|
fc ^^^
MEMBRANE
Ap = 450 PSI
.
: W ATE if?
PERMEATE (WATER)
MEMBRANE CROSS SECTION,
IN TUBIUUAR, HOLLOW FIBER,
OR SPIRAL-WOUND CONFIGURATION
FEED
O SALTS OR SOLIDS
WATER MOLECULES
CONCENTRATE
(SALTS)
FIGURE VII-26. SIMPLIFIED REVERSE OSMOSIS SCHEMATIC
302
', lii III. iLKiiii!, MI,,li'..1'1,, /I1'! I '"in,'!',..,. ',
-------
PERMEATE
TUBE
ADHESIVE BOUND
SPIRAL. MODULE
FEED
PERMEATE
FUOW
CONCENTRATE
FV-OW
FEED F1-ฐW
O-RING'
BACKING MATERIAL.
-MESH SPACER
MiEMBRANE
SPIRAL MEMBRANE MODULE
POROUS SUPPORT TUBE
WITH MEMBRANE
= 0 BRACKISH
WATER
FEED FLOW
PRODUCT WATER
PERMEATE FLOW
BRINE
CONCENTRATE
FLOW
PRODUCT WATER
TUBULAR REVERSE OSMOSIS MODULE
OPEN ENDS
OF FIBERS
. EPOXY
TUBE SHEET
SNAP
RING
"O" RING
SEAL
POROUS
BACK-UP DISC
SNAP
RING'
CONCENTRATE
OUTLET
END PLATE
POROUS FEED
DISTRIBUTOR TUBE -
PERMEATE
END PLATE
HOLLOW FIBER MODULE
FIGURE VII-27. REVERSE OSMOSIS MEMBRANE CONFIGURATIONS
303
-------
6-IN. VITRIFIED PIPE LAID
WITH PLASTIC JOINTS
6-IN. FLANGED
SHEAR GATE
-6-IN. CI PIPE
PLAN
6-IN. FINE SAND
3-IN. COARSE SAND
3-IN. FINE GRAVEL
3-IN. MEDIUM GRAVEL
3 TO 6 IN. COARSE GRAVEL
Z-1N. PLANK
WALK
PIPE COLUMN FOR
GLASS-OVER
3-IN. MEDIUM GRAVEL
6-IN. UNDERDRAIN LAlO-
WITH OPEN JOINTS
SECTION A-A
FIGURE V1I-28. SLUDGE DRYINC5 BED
304
-------
ULTRAFILTRATION
P = 1 0-50 PSI
MEMBRANE
WATER
SALTS
PERMEATE
MEMBRANE
o
o
FEED
e
ซ ซ
CONCENTRATE
'o
O OIL PARTICLES
DISSOLVED SALTS AND LOW-MOLECULAR-WEIGHT ORGANICS
FIGURE VII-29. SIMPLIFIED ULTRAFILTRATION FLOW SCHEMATIC
305
-------
FABRIC OR WIRE
FILTER MEDIA
STRETCHED OVER
REVOLVING DRUM
DIRECTION OF ROTATION
SOLIDS SCRAPED
OFF FILTER MEDIA iซ^>
VACUUM
SOURCE
MEDIA
MEANS
VACUUM
SOLIDS COLLECTION
HOPPER
INLET LIQUID
TO BE
FILTERED
TROUGH
FILTERED LIQUID
FIGURE VII-30. VACUUM FILTRATION
306
-------
SECTION VIII
COST OF WASTE WATER CONTROL AND TREATMENT
INTRODUCTION
This section presents estimates of the cost of implementation of
wastewater treatment and control options for each of the subcategories
included in the porcelain enameling industrial segment. These cost
estimates, together with the pollutant reduction performance for each
treatment and control option presented in Sections IX, X, XI, XII and
XIII provide a basis for evaluation of the options presented and
identification of the best practicable control technology currently
available (BPT), best available technology economically achievable
(BAT), best demonstrated technology (BDT), best alternative for
pretreatment and best conventional pollutant control technology
(BCT).. The cost estimates also provide the basis for the
determination of the probable economic impact of regulation at
different pollutant discharge levels on the porcelain enameling
industrial segment. In addition, this section addresses non-water
quality environmental impacts of wastewater treatment and control
alternatives including air pollution, noise pollution, solid wastes,
and energy requirements.
To arrive at the cost estimates presented in this section, specific
wastewater treatment technologies and in-process control techniques
were selected from, among those discussed in Section VII and combined
in wastewater treatment and control systems appropriate for each
subcategory. As described in more detail below, investment and annual
costs for each system were estimated based on wastewater flows and raw
wastewater characteristics for each subcategory as presented in
Section V. Cost estimates are also presented for individual treatment
technologies included in the wastewater treatment systems.
COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
Cost estimation is accomplished using a computer program which accepts
inputs specifying the treatment system to be estimated, chemical
characteristics of the raw wastewater streams treated, flow rates and
operating schedules. The program accesses models for specific
treatment components which relate component investment and operating
costs, materials and energy requirements, and effluent stream
characteristics to influent flow rates and stream characteristics.
Component models are exercised sequentially as the components are
encountered in the system to determine chemical characteristics and
flow rates at each point. Component investment and annual costs are
also determined and used in the computation of total system costs.
Mass balance calculations are used to determine the characteristics of
combined streams resulting from mixing two or more streams and to
307
-------
determine the volume of sludges or liquid wastes resulting from
treatment operations such as chemical precipitation and settling and
filtration. ' ' ". ''"I' \ , ....... , ................ 1 ;,'.
Cost estimates are broken down into several distinct elements In
addition to total investment and annual ''"costs: operation and
maintenance costs, energy costs, depreciation, and annual costs of
capital. The cost estimation program incorporates provisions for
adjustment of all costs to a common dollar base on the basis of
economic indices appropriate to capital equipment and operating
supplies. Labor and electrical power costs are input variables
appropriate to the dollar base year for cost estimates. These cost
breakdown and adjustment factors as well as other aspects of the cost
estimation process are discussed in greater detail in the following
paragraphs.
Cost Estimation Input Data
The wastewater treatment system descriptions input to the computer
cost estimation program include both a specification of the wastewater
treatment components included and a definition of their
interconnections. For some components, retention times or other
operating parameters are specified in the input, while for others,
such as reagent mix tanks and clarifiers, these parameters are
specified within the program based on prevailing design practice in
industrial wastewater treatment. The wastewater treatment system
descriptions may include multiple raw wastewater stream inputs and
multiple treatment trains. For example, ball milling and coating
wastewater streams are segregated and treated by settling prior to
mixing with metal preparation wastewaters for subsequent chemical
precipitation treatment.
The specific treatment systems selected for cost estimation for each
subcategory were based on an examination of raw waste characteristics,
consideration of manufacturing processes, and an evaluation of
available treatment technologies discussed in Section VII. The
rationale for selection of these systems is presented in Sections IX
through XII. ..... ...... ............................
'
f , . ......... ; ! i, ...... .> , ,;' ..:" .,' , t - ........ . i .......... : < ....... ii. ..... :. -
The input data set also includes chemical characteristics for each raw
wastewater stream specified as input to the treatment systems for
which costs are to be estimated. These characteristics are derived
from the raw wastewater sampling data presented in Section V. fh"e"
pollutant parameters which are presently accepted as input by the cost
estimation program are shown in Table VIII-1 . The values of these
parameters are used in determining materials consumption, sludge
volumes, treatment component sizes, and effluent characteristics. The
list of input parameters is expanded periodically as additional
pollutants are found to be significant in wastewater streams from
308
;;[,. i'iiti-ii li'ii'ju-ii,!. t-. lililiit!;:" ::M
i;,,iH !'] iti.ii'll.
i I i; .ill.: iL li.:,il, .:,, Jr
-------
industries under study and as additional treatment technology cost and
performance data become available. For the porcelain enameling
industrial segment, individual subcategories commonly encompass a
number of different wastewater streams which are present to varying
degrees at different facilities. The raw wastewater characteristics
shown as input to wastewater treatment represent a mix of these
streams including all significant pollutants generated in the
subcategory and will not in general correspond precisely to process
wastewater at any existing facility. The process by which these raw
wastewaters were defined is explained in Section V.
TABLE VIII-1
COST PROGRAM POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
Parameter, Units
Flow, MGD
pH, pH units
Turbidity, Jackson Units
Temperature, degree C
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1
Residual Chlorine, mg/1
Acidity, mg/1 CaC03
Alkalinity, mg/1 CaC03
Ammonia, mg/1
Biochemical Oxygen Demand mg/1
Color, Chloroplatinate units
Sulfide, mg/1
Cyanides, mg/1
Kjeldahl Nitrogen, mg/1
Phenols, mg/1
Conductance, micromhos/cm
Total Solids, mg/1
Total Suspended Solids, mg/1
Settleable Solids, mg/1
Aluminum, mg/1
Barium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chromium, Total, mg/1
Copper, mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
Iron, Total, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Molybdenum, mg/1
Total Volatile Solids, mg/1
Parameter, Units
Oil, Grease, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1 CaC03
Chemical Oxygen Demand, mg/1
Algicides, mg/1
Total Phosphates, mg/1
Polychlorobiphenyls, mg/1
Potassium, mg/1
Silica, mg/1
Sodium, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Sulfite, mg/1
Titanium, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Borpn, mg/1
Iron, Dissolved, mg/1
Mercury, mg/1
Nickel, mg/1
Nitrate, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silver, mg/1
Strontium, mg/1
Surfactants, mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Plasticizers, mg/1
Antimony, mg/1
Bromide, mg/1
Cobalt, mg/1 v
Thallium, mg/1
Tin, mg/1
Chromium, Hexavalent, mg/1
309
-------
"' '" .->, ' "' .. ;K;'.V.;'"V!jif'vt..: I-' .:'':- , '|T ''I1: ::'
1 ' ' , 'N ''"' i i!1 , ,!l!l'l'i'! i"1 ' ! ' .1 ' >' I i1 ''"'' i1!1 " ' ปi! ', ,"
!;; , ; ,- : , .';.'':.';:,' '"Jill ',.':.^,'.'>,' '. ' ' r;,o i1 .' i;1. V ir.j:.'
The final input data set comprises raw wastewater flowrates for each'
input stream for one or more plants in each subcategory addressed.
Three cases, corresponding to high, low and typical flows encountered
at existing facilities, were used for each porcelain enameling
subcategory to represent the range of treatment costs which would be
incurred in the implementation of each control and treatment option
offered. In addition, data corresponding to the flow rates reported
by each plant in the category were input to the computer to provide
cost estimates for use in economic impact analysis.
System Cost Computation
A simplified flow chart for the estimation of wastewater treatment arid
control costs from the input data described above is presented in
Figure, VIII-1 (Page 375). In the computation, raw wastewater
characteristics and flow rates for the firstcaseareusedasinput to
the model for the first treatment technologyspecified in the system
definition. This model is used to determine|hesize and cost ofthe
component, materials and energy consumed in its operation, and the
volume and characteristics of the stream]s)discharged from it. These
stream characteristics are then used'as" Input to the next component(s)
encountered in the system definition. This procedure is continued
until the complete system costs and the volume and characteristics of
the final effluent stream(s) and sludge wastes have been determined.
In addition to treatment components, the systemmay include mixersin
which two streams are combined, and splitters in which part of a
stream is directed to another destination. These elements are handled
by mass balance calculations and allow cost estimation for specific
treatment of segregated process wastewaters prior to combination with
other process wastewaters for further treatment, and representation of
partial recycle of wastewater.
As an example of this computation process, the sequence of calcula-
tions involved in the development of cost estimates for the simple
treatment system shown in Figure VIII-2 (Page 376) is described.
Initially, input specifications for the treatment system are read to
set up the sequence of computations. The subroutine addressing
chemical precipitation and clarification is then accessed. The sizes
of the mixing tank and clarification basin are calculated based on the
raw wastewater flow rate to provide 45 minute retention in the mix
tank and a 33.3 gal/hr/ft2 surface loading in the clarifier. Based on
these sizes, investment and annual costs for labor, supplies for the
mixing tank and clarifier including mixers, clarifier rakes and other
directly related equipment are determined. Fixed investment costs are
then added to account for sludge pumps, controls, piping, and reagent
feed systems.
Based on the input raw wastewater concentrations and flow rates, the
reagent additions (lime, alum, and polyelectrdlyte) are calculated to
310
MI i 11 mi
-------
provide fixed concentrations of alum and polyelectrolyte and lOpercent
excess lime over that required for stoichiometric reaction with the
acidity and metals present in the wastewater stream. Costs are
calculated for these materials, and the suspended solids and flow
leaving the mixing tank and entering the clarifier are increased to
reflect the lime solids added and precipitates formed. These modified
stream characteristics are then used with performance algorithms for
the clarifier (as discussed in Section VII) to determine
concentrations of each pollutant in the clarifier effluent stream. By
mass balance, the amount of each pollutant in the clarifier sludge may
be determined. The volume of the sludge stream is determined by the
concentration of TSS which is fixed at 4-5percent based on general
operating experience, and concentrations of other pollutants in the
sludge stream are determined from their masses and the volume of the
stream.
The subroutine describing vacuum filtration is then called, and the
mass of suspended solids in the clarifier sludge stream is used to
determine the size and investment cost of the vacuum filtration unit.
To determine manhours required for operation, operating hours for the
filter are calculated from the flow rate and TSS concentration.
Maintenance labor requirements are added as a fixed additional cost.
The sludge flow rate and TSS content are then used to determine costs
of materials and supplies for vacuum filter operation including iron
and alum added as filter aids, and the electrical power costs for
operation. Finally, the vacuum filter performance algorithms are used
to determine the volume and characteristics of the vacuum filter
sludge and filtrate, and the costs of contract disposal of the sludge
are calculated. The recycle of vacuum filter filtrate to the chemical
precipitation and settling system is not reflected in the calculations
due to the difficulty of iterative solution of such loops and the
general observation that the contributions of such streams to the
total flow and pollutant levels are, in practice, negligibly small.
Allowance for such minor contributions is made in the 20percent excess
capacity provided in most components.
The costs determined for all components of the system are summed and
subsidiary costs are added to provide output specifying total
investment and annual costs for the system and annual costs for
capital, depreciation, operation and maintenance, and energy. Costs
for specific system components and the characteristics of all streams
in the system may also be specified as output from the program.
Treatment Component Models
The cost estimation program presently incorporates subroutines
providing cost and performance calculations for the treatment
technologies identified in Table VII1-2. These subroutines have been
311
-------
developed over a period of years from the best available information
including on-site observations of treatment system performance, costs,
construction practices at a large number of industrial facilities,
published data, and information obtained from suppliers of wastewater
treatment equipment. The subroutines are modified and new subroutines
added as additional data allow improvements in treatment technologies
presently available, and as additional treatment technologies are
required for the industrial wastewater streams under study. Specific
discussion of each of the treatment component models used in costing
wastewater treatment and control systems for the porcelain enameling
industrial segment is presented later in this sectionwhere cost
estimation is addressed, and in Section VII where performance aspects
were developed.
TABLE VII1-2
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY SUBROUTINES
Treatment Process Subroutines
Spray/Fog Rinse
Countercurrent Rinse
Vacuum Filtration
Gravity Thickening
Sludge Drying Beds
Holding Tanks
Centrifugation
Equalization
Contractor Removal
Reverse Osmosis
Landfill
Chemical Reduction of Chrom.
Chemical Oxidaton of Cyanide
Neutralization
Clarification (Settling Tank/Tube Settler)
API Oil Skimming
Emulsion Breaking (Chem/Thermal)
Membrane Filtration
Filtration (Diatomaceous Earth)
Ion Exchange - w/Plant Regeneration
Ion Exchange - Service Regeneration
Flash Evaporation
Climbing Film Evaporation
Atmospheric Evaporation
Cyclic Ion Exchange
Post Aeration
Sludge Pumping
Copper Cementation
Sanitary Sewer Discharge Fee
U 1 tr af i 1 tra t ion
Submerge<3 Tube Evaporation
Fl otat ion/Separ at ion
Wiped Film Evaporation
Trickling Filter
Activated Carbon Adsorption
Nickel Filter
Sulfide Precipitation
''""' ' '
ii . , , .,
Chromium Regener at ion
Pressure Filter
Multimedia Granular Filter
Sump
Cooling Tower
Ozonation
Activated Sludge
Coalescing Oil Separator
Non Contact Cooling Basin
Raiw Wastewater Pumping
Preliminary Treatment
Preliminary Sedimentation
Aerator - Final Settler
Ch 1 or i nation
Flotation Thickening
Multiple Hearth Incineration
Aerobic Digestion
312
i JiliiiAfllfcil "1,-H,
-------
In general terms, cost estimation is provided by mathematical
relationships in each subroutine approximating observed correlations
between component costs and the most significant operational
parameters such as water flow rate, retention times, and pollutant
concentrations. In general, flow rate is the primary determinant of
investment costs and of most annual costs with the exception of
materials costs. In some cases, however, as discussed for the vacuum
filter, pollutant concentrations may also significantly influence
costs.
Cost Factors and Adjustments
As previously indicated, costs are adjusted to a common dollar base
and are generally influenced by a number of factors including: Cost of
Labor, Cost of Energy, Capital Recovery Costs and Debt-Equity Ratio.
These cost adjustments and factors are discussed below.
Dollar Base - A dollar base of January 1978 was used for all costs.
Investment Cost Adjustment - Investment costs were adjusted to the
aforementioned dollar base by use of the Sewage Treatment Plant
Construction Cost Index. This cost is published monthly by the EPA
Division of Facilities Construction and Operation. The national
average of the Construction Cost Index for January 1978 was 288.0.
Supply Cost Adjustment - Costs of supplies such as chemicals were
related to the dollar base by the Producer Price Index (formerly known
as the Wholesale Price Index). This figure was obtained from the U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Monthly Labor
Review". For January 1978 the "Industrial Commodities" Wholesale
Price Index was 201.6. Process supply and replacement costs were
included in the estimate of the total process operating and mainten-
ance cost.
Cost of_ Labor - To relate the operating and maintenance labor costs,
the hourly wage rate for non-supervisory workers in water, stream, and
sanitary systems was used from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics Monthly publication, "Employment and Earnings". For
January 1978, this wage rate was $6100 per hour. This wage rate was
then applied to estimates of operation and maintenance man-hours
within each process to obtain process direct labor charges. To
account for indirect labor charges, 15 percent of the direct labor
costs was added to the direct labor charge to yield estimated total
labor costs. Such items as Social Security, employer contributions to
pension or retirement funds, and employer-paid premiums to various
forms of insurance programs were considered indirect labor costs.
313
-------
Cost of Energy - Energy requirements were calculated directly within
each process. Estimated costs were then determined by applying an
electrical rate of 3.3 cents per kilowatt hour.
! , '. '. '. !!' '..v,' ' I11!'1'1'.',/''!] ' !.' ;" , V, , ' - '" , A. ; > ; ; jJrJ'f'i JF"'' iij>'.
The electrical charge for January 1978 was corroborated through
consultation with the Energy Consulting Services Department of the
Connecticut, Light and Power Company. This electrical charge was
determined by assuming that any electrical needs of a waste treatment
facility or in-process technology would be satisfied by an existing
electrical distribution system; i.e., no new meter would be required.
This eliminated the formation of any new demand load base for the
electrical charge.
Capital Recovery Costs - Capital recovery costs were divided into
straight line ten-year depreciation and cost of capital at a ten
percent annual interest rate for a period of ten years. The ten year
depreciation period was consistent with the faster write-off
(financial life) allowed for these facilities even though the
equipment life is in the range of 20 to 25 years.
The annual cost of capital was calculated by using the capital
recovery factor approach.
The capital recovery factor is normally used in industry to help
allocate the initial investment and the interest to the total
operating cost of the facility. It is equal to:
CRF = i + i
(1+i) n-1
where i is the annual interest rate and N is the number of years over
which the capital is to be recovered. The annual capital recovery was
obtained by multiplying the initial investmentby the capital recovery
factor. The annual depreciation of the capital investment was
calculated by dividing the initial investment by the depreciation
period N, which was assumed to be ten years. The annual cost of
capital was then equal to the annual capital recovery minus the
depreciation.
Debt-Equity Ratio - Limitations on new borrowings assume that debt may
not exceed a set percentage of the shareholders equity. This defines
the breakdown of the capital investment between debt and equity
charges. However, due to the lack of information about the financial
status of various plants, it was not feasible to estimate typical
shareholders equity to obtain debt financing limitations. For these
reasons, capital cost was not broken into debt and equity charges.
Rather, the annual cost of capital was calculated via the procedure
outlined in the Capital Recovery Costs section above.
314
' ,1 I'I"111!1
-------
Subsidiary Costs &
The waste treatment and control system costs presented In Tables VIII-
18 through VIII-41 (Pages 349-372) for end-of-pipe and in-process
waste water control and treatment systems include subsidiary costs
associated with system construction and operation. These subsidiary
costs include:
administration and laboratory facilities
garage and shop facilities
line segregation
yardwork
piping
instrumentation
land
engineering
legal, fiscal, and administrative
interest during construction
Administrative and laboratory facility treatment investment is the
cost of constructing space for administration and laboratory functions
for the wastewater treatment system. For these cost computations, it
was assumed that new building space would be required to house the
waste treatment system control components (metering and
instrumentation as applicable), laboratory facilities (if desired) and
any other supportive functions requiring building space. A fixed
investment cost for the construction of a nine hundred square foot
(900 ft2) one story building was included in the capital cost
estimation.
For laboratory operations, an analytical fee of $90 (January 1978
dollars) was charged for each wastewater sample, regardless of whether
the;laboratory work was done on or off site. This analytical fee is
typical of the charges experienced by the EPA contractor during the
past several years of sampling programs. The frequency of wastewater
sampling is a function of wastewater discharge flow and is presented
in Table VII1-3. This frequency was suggested by the Water Compliance
Division of the USEPA.
315
-------
For industrial waste treatment facilities being costed, no garage and
shop investment cost was included. This cost item was assumed to be
part of the normal plant costs and was not allocated to the wastewater
treatment system.
Line segregation investment costs account for plant modifications to
segregate wastewater streams. The investment costs for line
segregation included placing a trench in the existing plant floor and
installing the lines in this trench. The same trench was used forall
pipes. The pipes were assumed to run fromthe center of the floor to
a corner. A rate of 2.04 liters per hour of wastewater discharge per
square meter of area (0.05 gal/hr-ft2) was used to determine floor and
trench dimensions from wastewater flow ratesfpr yse in this cpงt
estimation process. It was assumed that a transfer pumpwould be
required for each segregated process line in order to transfer the
wastes to the treatment system.
TABLE VII1-3
WASTEWATER SAMPLINC3 FREQUENCY
Waste Water Discharge
(liters per day)
0 - 37,850
37,851 - 189,250
'Y , . ;i
189,251 - 378,500
378,501 - 946,250
946,250+
Sampling Frequency
once per month
twice per month
once per month
twice per week
thrice per week
The yardwork investment cost item includes the cost of general site
clearing, lighting, manholes, tunnels, conduits, and general site
items outside the structural confines of particular individual plant
components. This cost is typically 9 to 18 percent of the installed
components investment costs. For these cost estimates, an average of
14 percent was utilized. Annual yardwork operation and maintenance
costs are considered a part of normal plant maintenance and were not
included in these cost estimates.
i , ,..'! l!" >' f" Si!1"!1!!! " . ' , ' i" , "I rJi " ' i " '" ' ' ! ''' <
" ; ;; ;'.'" '.!' >."< '!;.[} 5V;f i1!"; ?w\ ; <'tt:'MW$m!Wซl-Y^ ^>. <".(. nllil'i
The piping investment cost item includes the cost of intercomponent
piping, valves, and piping required to transfer the wastes to the
waste treatment system. This cost is estimated to be equal to 20
percent of installed component investment costs.
316
-------
The instrumentation investment cost item includes the cost of metering
equipment, electrical wiring, cable, treatment component operational
controls, and motor control centers as required for each of the waste
treatment systems described in Sections IX through XII of the
document. The instrumentation investment cost is.estimated based upon
the requirements of each waste treatment system.
No new land purchases were required. It was assumed that the land
required for the end-of-pipe treatment system was already available at
the plant.
Engineering costs include both basic and special services. Basic
services include preliminary design reports, detailed design, and
certain office and field engineering services during construction of
projects. Special services include improvement studies, resident
engineering, soils investigations, land surveys, operation and
maintenance manuals, and other miscellaneous services. Engineering
cost is a function of process installed and yardwork investment costs
and ranges between 5.7 and 14percent depending on the total of these
costs.
Legal, fiscal and administrative costs relate to planning and
construction of waste water treatment facilities and include such
items as preparation of legal documents, preparation of construction
contracts, acquisition of land, etc. These costs are a function of
process installed, yardwork, engineering, and land investment costs
ranging between 1 and Spercent of the total of these costs.
Interest cost during construction is the interest cost accrued on
funds from the time payment is made to the contractor, to the end of
the construction period. The total of all other project investment
costs (process installed; yardwork; land; engineering; and legal,
fiscal, and administrative) and the applied interest affect this cost.
An interest rate of 10 percent was used to determine the interest cost
for these estimates. In general, interest cost during construction
varies between 3 and lOpercent of total system costs depending on the
total costs.
COST ESTIMATES FOR INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Table VII1-4 lists those technologies which are incorporated in the
wastewater treatment and control options offered for the porcelain
enameling industrial segment and for which cost estimates have been
developed. These treatment technologies have been selected from among
the larger set of available alternatives discussed in Section VII on
the basis of an evaluation of raw waste characteristics, typical plant
characteristics (e.g. location, production schedules, product mix, and
land availability), and present treatment practices within the
subcategories addressed. Specific rationale for selection is addressed
317
-------
in Sections IX, X, XI and XII. Cost estimatesfor eachtechnology
addressed in this section include inyeง1;ment costs and annual costs
for depreciation, capital, operation and maintenance, and energy.
Investment - Investment is the capital expenditure required "to 'bring
the technology into operation. If the installation is a package
contract, the investment is the purchase price of the installed
equipment. Otherwise, it includes the equipment cost, cost of
freight, insurance and taxes, and installation costs.
Total Annual Cost - Total annual cost is the sum of annual costs for
depreciation, capital, operation and maintenance (less energy), and
energy (as a separate function).
: "''j .',', " >>. i . '! ' ,, i , ' '!. , f. 'i, " ;:,...'.< I1!-" ,. i". , V i. M :; ,' n; : i>v, r Hi1,.!'! .ii.
Depreciation - Depreciation is an allowance, based on tax
regulations, for the recovery of fixed capital from an investment
to be considered as a non-cash annlialexpense. It may be
regarded as the decline in value of a capital asset due to
wearout and obsolescence.
Capital - The annual cost of capital is the cost, to the plant,
of obtaining capital expressed as an interest rate. It is equal
to the capital recovery cost (as previously discussed on cost
factors) less depreciation.
Operation and Maintenance - Operation and maintenance cost is the
annual cost of running the waste water treatment equipment. It
includes laborand materials such as waste treatment chemicals.
As presented on the tables, operation and maintenance cost does
not include energy (power or fuel) costs because these costs are
shown separately.
'i ' I1 " ' ' I1 ' r " i, ' , 'II "' 'i1 i Jllil '. ' . llili'M!!, ill i! '' I '''i i, ' ' ,'' I ill ,,!'* '. '"' .. '" M'g ' ,' . ' ' ' i ! '' 'i1'1' |i"!!",!, .111' hill| ,
-------
VIII-12
VIII-13
VIII-14
VIII-15
VIII-16
VIII-17
Continuous Treatment
Chemical Precipitation and Settling;
Batch Treatment
Multimedia Filtration
"In-line" Filtration
Vacuum Filtration
In Process Control Technology
Pump Station
Countercurrent Rinsing
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
Ball Milling Wastewater Sump
This technology provides removal and reclamation of slip from coating
wastewaters through gravity settling in a sump. A complete system for
accomplishing this operation includes contruction of an in-ground
concrete sump and associated pumping equipment for settled slip.
Investment Cost - Investment costs are determined for this technology
for continuous treatment systems using concrete tank construction.
The continuous treatment system includes a pump for removal of
accumulated sludge (settled slip).
The in-ground sump is a reinforced concrete unit sized for a 2.0 hour
retention time, with an excess capacity factor of 20percent. The unit
is sized on a length/width ratio of 5.0, a depth of 1.52 meters and a
wall thickness of 0.305 meters (1.0 feet). Capital costs include
excavation.
Figure VII1-3 (Page 377) presents capital costs for the sump tank and
associated pumping equipment. All costs presented include motors,
starters,
sump.
alternators and piping specifically associated with the
Operation and Maintenance Costs
The operation and maintenance cost for
sump routine include:
the ball milling wastewater
1) Labor (operation and maintenance)
2) Energy
3) Materials
Each of these contributing factors is discussed below.
LABOR
Operation and maintenance costs for the sump are presented in
319
-------
Figure VII1-4 (Page 378).
t ,:' ป" . , . '. ' i','', jii.1.'>:
. ; ENERGY ' ' '. '"' ,;,'"" ' '"'"' '"
The energy costs are calculated based upon the sludge pump
horsepower requirements. Energy costs are presented in Figure
VIII-5 (Page 379).
'I','..1 H I1 i1, , T llhll
MATERIALS
Costs associated with maintenance materials for the sump are
presented in Figure VIII-5.
Given the above requirements, operation and maintenance costs for
the ball milling wastewater sump are calculated based on the follow-
ing:
$6.00 per man-hour + 1Spercent indirect labor charge
$0.033/kilowatt-hour of required electricity
Holding Tanks
Tanks serving a variety of purposes in wastewater treatment and
control systems are fundamentally similar in design and construction
and in cost. They may include equalization tanks, solution holding
tanks, slurry or sludge holding tanks, mixing tanks, and settling
tanks from which sludge is intermittently removed manually or by
sludge pumps. Tanks for all of these purposes are addressed in a
single cost estimation subroutine withadditional costs for auxilliary
equipment such as sludge pumps added as appropriate.
Capital Costs. Costs are estimated for steel tanks. Tank construc-
tion may be specified as input data, or determined on a least cost
basis. Retention time is specified as input data and, together with
stream flow rate, determines tank size. Capital costs for steel tanks
sized for 0.5 days retention and 20percent excess capacity are shown
as functions of stream flow rate in Figure VIII-6 (Page 380). These
costs include mixers, pumps and installation.
Operation and Maintenance Costs. For all holding tanks except sludge
holding tanks, operation and maintenance costs are minimal in
comparison to other system O&M costs. Therefore only energy costs for
pump and mixer operation are determined. These energy costs are
presented in Figure VIII-7 (Page 381).
For sludge holding tanks, additional operation and maintenance labor
requirements are reflected in increased O&Mcosts, Therequired
manhours used in cost estimation are presented in Figure VIII-8 (Page
320
,i,;i! in: iliiiai 'i! I .Jiii, I'iM .,',
'i; iiy
-------
382). Labor costs are determined using a labor
manhour plus 1Spercent indirect labor charge.
rate of $6.00 per
Where tanks are used for settling as in lime precipitation and
clarification batch treatment, additional operation and maintenance
costs are calculated as discussed specifically for each technology.
Chromium Reduction
This technology provides chemical reduction of hexavalent chromium
under acid conditions to allow subsequent removal of the trivalent
form by precipitation as the hydroxide. Treatment may be provided in
either continuous or batch mode, and cost estimates are developed for
both. Operating mode for system cost estimates is selected on a least
cost basis.
Capital Cost. Cost estimates include all required equipment for
performing this treatment technology including reagent dosage,
reaction tanks, mixers and controls. Different reagents are provided
for batch and continuous treatment resulting in different system
design considerations as discussed below.
For both continuous and batch treatment, sulfuric acid is added for pH
control. A 90 day supply is stored in the 25 percent aqueous form in
an above-ground, covered concrete tank, 0.305 m. (1 ft) thick.
For continuous chromium reduction the single chromium reduction tank
is sized in an above-ground cylindrical concrete tank with a 0.305 m.
(1 ft) wall thickness, a 45 minute retention time, and an excess
capacity factor of 1.2. Sulfur dioxide is added to convert the
influent hexavalent chromium to the trivalent form. The control
system for continuous chromium reduction consists of:
1 immersion pH probe and transmitter
1 immersion ORP probe and transmitter
1 pH and ORP monitor
2 slow process controllers ,..
1 sulfonator and associated pressure regulator
1 sulfuric acid pump ,r
1 transfer pump for sulfur dioxide ejector
2 maintenance kits for electrodes, and miscellaneous,
electrical equipment and piping r
For batch chromium reduction, the dual chromium reduction tanks are
sized as above-ground cylindrical concrete tanks, 0.305 m. (1 ft)
thick, with a 4 hour retention time, and an excess capacity factor of
1.2. Sodium bisulfite is added to reduce the hexavalent chromium.
321
-------
A completely manual system is provided for batch operation. Sub-
sidiary equipment includes:
1 sodium bisufite mixing and feed tank
1 metal stand and agitator collector
1 sodium bisulfite mixer with disconnects
1 suIfuric acid pump
1 sulfuric acid mixer with disconnects
2 immersion pH probes
1 pH monitor, and miscellaneous piping
Capital costs for batch and continuous treatment systems are presented
in Figure VIII-9 (Page 283).
Operation and Maintenance. Costs for operating and maintaining
chromium reduction systems include labor, chemical addition, and
energy requirements. Thse factors are determined as follows:
LABOR
The labor requirements are plotted in Figure VIII-10 (Page 284).
Maintenance of the batch system is assumed negligible and so it is not
shown.
CHEMICAL ADDITION
For the continuous system, sulfur dioxide is added according to the
following:
if" ft
(Ibs SO2/day) = (15.43) (flow to unit-MGD) (Cr+ซ mg/1)
In the batch mode, sodium bisulfite is added in place of sulfur
dioxide according to the following:
(Ibs NaHSO3/day = (20.06) (flow to unit-MGD) (Cr+ซ mg/1)
ENERGY
Two horsepower is required for chemical mixing. The mixers are
assumed to operate continuously over the operation time of the
treatment system.
Given the above requirements, operation and maintenance costs are
calculated based on the following:
$6.00 per manhour + ISpercent indirect labor charge
$380/ton of sulfur dioxide
$20/ton of sodium bisulfite
$0.033/kilowatt hour of required electricity
322
-------
Chemical Precipitation and Settling
This technology removes dissolved pollutants by the formation of
precipitates by reaction with added lime and subsequent removal of the
precipitated solids by gravity settling in a clarifier. Several
distinct operating modes and construction techniques are costed to
provide least cost treatment over a broad range of -flow rates.
Because of their interrelationships and integration in common
equipment in some installations, both the chemical addition and solids
removal equipment are addressed in a single subroutine. The chemical
precipitation and sedimentation subroutine also incorporates an oil
skimming device on the clarifier for removal of floating oils.
Investment Costs. Investment costs are determined for this technology
for both batch and continuous treatment systems using steel tank or
concrete tank construction. The system selected is based upon least
cost on an annual basis as discussed previously in this Section.
Continuous treatment systems include a mix tank for reagent feed
addition (flocculation basin) and a clarification basin with
associated sludge rakes and pumps. Batch treatment systems include
only reaction settling tanks and sludge pumps.
The flocculator included in the continuous chemcial precipitation and
sedimentation system can be either a steel tank or concrete tank unit.
The concrete unit is based on a 45 minute retention time, a length to
width ratio of 5, a depth of 8 feet, a wall thickness of 1 foot, and a
20 percent excess capacity factor. The steel unit size is based on a
45 minute retention time, and a 20 percent excess capacity factor.
Capital costs for both the concrete and steel units include excavation
(as required) and a mixer.
The concrete settling tank included in the continuous chemical
precipitation and clarification system is an in-ground unit sized for
a hydraulic loading of 33.3 gph/ft2, a wall thickness of 1 foot, and
an excess capacity factor of 20 percent. The steel settling tank
included in the continuous chemical precipitation and clarification
system is a circular above-ground unit sized for a hydraulic loading
of 33.3 gph/ft2, and an excess capacity factor of 20 percent. The
depth of the circular steel tank is assumed to increase linearly
between six and fifteen feet for tanks with diameters between eight
and twenty-four feet respectively. For tanks greater than twenty-four
feet in diameter,, the depth is assumed to be a constant fifteen feet.
An allowance for field fabrication for the larger volume steel
settling tanks is included in the capital cost estimation.
For batch treatment systems, dual above ground cylindrical steel tanks
sized for an eight hour retention period and a 20 percent excess
capacity factor are employed. The batch treatment system does not
include a flocculation unit.
323
-------
" ill*1
A fixed cost of $3,202 is included in the clarifier capital cost
estimates for sludge pumps regardless of whether above-ground steel
tanks (in the batch or continuous operation modes) or the in-ground
concrete settling tank are used. This cost covers the expense of two
centrifugal sludge pumps. Fixed costs of $2,000 and $11,000 are
included to cover the expense of polymer feed systems for the batch
and continuous operation modes respectively. The $11,000 figure is
included regardless of whether concrete or steel tank construction is
employed for the continuous operation mode.
Lime addition for chemical precipitation in the batch mode is assumed
to be performed manually. A variable cost allowance for lime addition
equipment is included in the continuous operation mode. This cost
allowance covers the expense associated with a lime storage hopper,
feeding equipment, slurry formation and mixing and slurry feed pumps.
The cost allowance increases as clarifier tank size increases.
S:1 ' ' ' ..... |" '... : ........ . * ; ' ...... ,:.;,,,! ,' "'"_; ฃ; jj'T:,,,1; ] , , " , "yr,, ' ; '' " = '. ".] ..... :';;;nj| ' IJ
' ' :
Figure VIII-11 (Page 385) shows a comparison of capital (investment)
cost curves for batch and continuous chemical precipitation and
clarification systems. The continuous treatment system investment
cost is based on a steel flocculation unit followed by a steel
clarification basin. This combination of treatment components was
found to be less expensive than the concrete flocculation basin,
concrete clar if 1 cat ion basin combination; or any combination of steel
and concrete flocculation and clarification units. The batch
treatment investment curve is based upon two above-ground cylindrical
steel tank clarifier units. Bqth, the continuous and batch system
investment curves include allowances for the sludge pump, polymer feed
systems, and lime addition equipment (continuous system only).
All costs presented above include motors, starters, alternators, and
piping specifically associated with each treatment component.
Operation and Maintenance Costs
The operation and maintenance costs for the clarifier routine include:
1) Cost of chemicals added (lime, sodium sulfide)
2) Labor (operation and maintenance)
3) Energy
Each of these contributing factors are discussed below.
CHEMICAL COST
Lime is added for metals and solids removal
chemical required is based on equivalent
pollutant parameters present in the stream
324
The amount qf
amounts of various
entering the clarifier
-------
unit. The methods used in determining the lime requirements are
shown in Table VIII-5.
LABOR
Figure VII1-12 (Page 386) presents the man-hour requirements for
the continuous clarifier system. For the batch system,
maintenance labor is assumed negligible and operation labor is
calculated from:
(man-hours for operation)
ENERGY
390 + (.975) (Ibs. lime added per
day)
The energy costs are calculated from
pump horsepower requirements.
Continuous Mode
the clarifier and sludge
The clarifier horsepower requirement is assumed constant over the
hours of operation of the treatment system at a level of
0.0000265 horsepower per 1 gph of flow influent to the clarifier.
The sludge pumps are assumed operational for 5 minutes of each
operational hour at a level of 0.00212 horsepower per 1 gph of
sludge stream flow.
Batch Mode
The clarifier horsepower requirement is assumed to occur for 7.5
minutes per operational hour at the following level:
influent flow <1042 gph; 0.0048 hp/gph
influent flow >1042 gph; 0.0096 hp/gph
The power required for the sludge pumps in the batch system is
the same as that required for the sludge pumps in the continuous
system. :
325
-------
TABLE VII1-5
CLARIFIER CHEMICAL REQUIREMENTS
LIME REQUIREMENT^
POLLUTANT A(Lime)
Chromium, Total
Copper
Acidity
Iron, Dissolved
Zinc
Cadmium
Cobalt
Manganese
Aluminum
0.000470
0.000256
0.000162
0.000438
0.000250
0.000146
0.000276
0.000296
0.000907
1) (Lime Demand Per Pollutant, Ibs/day) = A(Lime) x Flow Rate
(GPH) x Ppllutant Concentration (mg/1)
Given the above requirements, operation '"arid maintenance costs
are calculated based on the following:
$6.00 per man-hour + 15 percent indirect labor charge
$41.26/ton of lime
$0.033/kilowatt-hour of required electricity
Granular Bed Multimedia Filtration
This technology provides removal of suspended solids by filtration
through a bed of particles of several distinct size ranges. As a
polishing treatment after chemical precipitation and clarification
processes, multimedia filtration provides i .improved removal of
precipitates and thereby improved removal of the original dissolved
pollutants. ' : ;
Capital Costs. The size of the" granularbed multimedia filtration
unit is based on 20 percent excess flow capacity and a hydraulic
loading of 0.5 ft2/gpm. Capital cost is presented in Figure VIII-13
(Page 387) as a function of flow installation.
Operation
and
Maintenance.
The costs shownin Figure VIII-13 (Page
XX) for operation and maintenance include contributions of materials,
electricity and labor. These .curves .resultfrom correlations made
with data obtained by a major manufacturer. Energy costs are
estimated to be 3 percent of total O&M. .,-., ..,,..-
326
-------
In-Line Filtration
In-line filtration for removal of suspended solids is accomplished by
using one of several types of filtration apparatuses. The various
types of filters available include filter leaf, filter bag, flat bed
filters and string-wound "cartridge" type filters. Many of these
filters can incorporate diatomaceous earth as a filtering aid by
spraying it on the filter substrate.
Capital Cost. Unit cost estimates for in-line filtration apparatuses
are based on one filter station comprised of one filter unit, one pump
and associated valving. Capital costs for the in-line filtration unit
are displayed in Figure VIII-14 (Page 388).
Operation and Maintenance
Cost. The operation and maintenance costs
Each of
for in-line filtration include labor, materials and energy.
these costs is discussed below.
LABOR
Labor requirements for operation and maintenance of the in-line
filtration unit are presented in Figure VIII-15 (Page 389). A
labor rate of $6.00 per hour plus percent indirect labor charge
is used in determining labor costs. The unit is shut down one
hour of each day for maintenance.
MATERIALS
Material costs for operation and maintenance of the
filtration unit are shown in Figure VIII-16 (Page 390).
ENERGY
in-line
Electrical energy requirements for the in-line filtration unit
are shown in Figure VII1-17 (Page 391). Electrical cost is
calculated based on a charge of $0.033 per kilowatt hour.
Power requirements, filter flux rate and manpower requirements
are based on manufacturers data.
Vacuum Filtration -':
" : '.: -. ",.( i: , ;. , :., ... .. " .'.'.'...' _
Vacuum filtration is widely used to reduce the water content of high
solids streams. In the porcelain enameling industrial segment, this
technology is applied to dewatering sludge from clarifiers, membrane
filters and other wastewater treatment units.
i " ' , . ...^ ^ , .- ^ .^ , . . -
Capital Costs. The vacuum filter is sized based on a typical loading
of 14.6 kg of influent solids 1 hr - m* of filter area (3 Ibs/ft2-hr).
327
-------
The curves of cost versus flow rate at TSS concentrations of 3 percent
and 5 percent are shown in Figure VIII-ll-T (Page 392. The capital
costs obtained from this curve include installation costs.
: ; ; , ".. ' ; ..; , , : : .; \1,^', ,1 ' , .;: '; . /V"1*1!
Operation and Maintenance Cost
LABOR
The vacuum filtration subroutine calculates operating hours per
year based on flow rate and the total suspended solids concentration
in the influent stream. Figure VII1-19 (Page Page 393) shows the
variance of operating hours with flow rate and TSS concentration.
Maintenance
year.
labor for vacuum filtration is fixed at 24 manhours per
MATERIALS
, :'''>'' T ' ' -''. '; ''; ':;':i!";J, ',
The cost of materials and supplies needed for operation and
maintenance includes belts, oil, grease, seals, and chemicals required
to raise the total suspended solids to the vacuum filter. The amount
of chemicals required (iron and alum) is based on raising the TSS
concentration to the filter by 1 mg/1. Costs of materials required as
a function of flow rate and unaltered TSS concentrations is presented
in Figure VIII-20 (Page 394).
v i "::. ' ': :" ; .'-I,1.!' i " : <: : >, "' :..,+: ii'i"],,;1
ENERGY ; ' ^ " ! , ,; i ,.;.;;;'; ;
Electrical costs needed to supply ppwer for pumps and controls is
presented in Figure VIII-21 (Page 395). As th'e required horsepower of
the pumps is dependent on the influent TSS level, the costs are
presented as a function of flow rate and TSS level.
Contract Removal
5 i
. ,
Sludge, waste oils, and in some cases concentrated waste solutions
frequently result from wastewater treatment processes. These may be
disposed of on-site by incineration, landfill or reclamation, but are
most often removed on a contract basis for off-site disposal. System
cost estimates presented in this report are based on contract removal
of sludges and waste oils. In addition, where only small volumes of
concentrated wastewater are .produced, contract-removal of off-site
treatment may represent the -most cost-effective approach to water
pollution abatement. Estimates of solution contract haul costs are
also provided by this subroutine and may be selected in place of on-
site treatment on a least-cost basis.
Capital Costs. Capital investment for contract removal is zero.
328
-------
Operating Costs. Annual costs are estimated for contract removal of
total waste streams, or sludge and oil streams as specified in input
data. Sludge and oil removal costs are further divided into wet and
dry haulage depending upon whether or not upstream sludge dewatering
is provided. The use of wet haulage or of sludge dewatering and dry
haulage is based on least cost as determined by annualized system
costs over a ten year period. Wet haulage costs are always used in
batch treatment systems and when the volume of the sludge stream is
less than 100 gallons per day.
Both wet sludge haulage and total waste haulage differ in cost de-
pending on the chemical composition of the waste removed. Wastes are
classified as cyanide bearing, hexavalent chromium bearing, or oily,
and are assigned different haulage costs as shown below.
Waste Composition
0.05 mg/1 CN-
>0.1 mg/1 Cr+ซ
Oil & grease-TSS
All others
Haulage Cost
$0.45/gallon
$0.20/gallon
$0.12/gallon
$0.16/gallon
Dry sludge haul costs are estimated at $0.12 gallon and 40 percent dry
solids in the sludge.
In-process Treatment and Control Components
Several major in-process control techniques have been identified for
use in reducing wastewater pollutant discharges from porcelain
enameling facilities. ,
Recycle Pump
In order to recycle the treated ball mill wastes back to the process
operation, construction of a small pump station will be required. Due
to engineering considerations,- it was assumed that the pump station
would be constructed next to the holding tank in the end-of-pipe
treatment system for ball milling wastes. : '. . : ,
Capital Cost. Cost estimates for the pump station are based on a one-
pump station comprised of an in-ground concrete dry well, one pump>
piping, valving and control instrumenation. Construction cost
estimates also included such variables as excavation, concrete and
reinforcing steel. , ; ; .
Operation and Maintenance Cost. The operation and maintenance costs
for the pump station include labor, materials and energy. Each of
these costs is discussed below.
329
-------
LABOR
i , ; , , ; , v,i ;; l...y 'i'.rj , ;;'-;, '', 'V^'ir ,v" !;;'ซS" i'Ki,,|T
Labor requirements for operation and maintenance of the pump
station are based upon one hour of maintenance per week of
operation. 'A rate of $6.00 per hour plus a 15 percent indirect
labor charge (to cover the cost of employee fringe benefits) is
used in determining labor costs.
MATERIALS
Annual material costs for operation and maintenance of the pump
station are assummed to be equal to 3 percent of the initial
capital cost.
ENERGY
Electrical energy requirements for the pump station are based
upon pump motor horsepower requirements. Electrical cost is
calculated based upon a charge of $0.033 per kilowatt-hour.
.i,''1 i ,' ' ' i,i,.|i' , W, I,1!"," j I i .' ill* ,'.".'' . ' '!' ' ':,' i Hi1 , 'i"1'1',
Countercurrent Rinsing
In order to reduce the volume of the surface preparation waste streams
to required discharge levels, installation ofCountercurrentrinsing
equipment will be necessary. Countercurrent rinsing requires
additional rinse tanks or spray equipment and plumbing as compared to
single-stage rinses, and extension of materials handling equipment or
provision of additional manpower for rinse operation.
Capital Cost. Cost estimates for countercurrerit rinsing are ipasedf"
upon installation of a three stage system on each of the individual
waste streams associated with surface preparation. Cost estimates
included such variables as tank costs, recycle pump and motor costs,
piping, valving, and control instrumentation costs.
Operation and Maintenance Cost. The operation and maintenance costs
associated with Countercurrent rinsing include labor, materials and
energy. Each of these costs is discussed below.
LABOR
Labor requirements for operation and maintenance of the pump
station are based upon one hour of maintenance per week of operation
for each process line associated with surface preparation. A rate of
$6.00 per hour plus a 15 percent indirect labor charge (to cover the
cost of employee fringe benefits) is used in determining labor costs.
MATERIALS
330
-------
Annual material costs for operation and maintenance of each
countercurrent rinsing system are assummed to be 3 percent of the
initial system capital cost.
ENERGY
Electrical energy requirements for each countercurrent rinsing
system are based upon recirculation pump motor horsepower re-
quirements. Electrical cost is calculated based upon a charge of
$0.033 per kilowatt-hour.
Summary of Treatment and Control Component Costs. Costs for each of
the treatment and control components discussed above as applied to
process wastewater streams within the porcelain enameling industrial
segment are presented in Tables VII1-6 through VII1-17. Three levels
of cost are provided for each technology representative of typical,
low, and high raw wastewater flow rates encountered within the
category.
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST ESTIMATES ,
This section presents estimates of the total cost of wastewater
treatment and control systems for porcelain enameling process waste-
water incorporating the treatment arid control components discussed
above.: Cost estimates . representing:three different ;flow rates cor-
responding to average, low, and high ,fldw rates, in the" subcategory
addressed are presented for each ^system ; in 'order", to provide an
indication of the range of , costs to be', Incurred in , implement trig each
level of treatment. All available flow data* from 'industry data
collection portfolios were used^ in defining average, maximum,, and
minimum raw waste flows, ;and flow;'; breakdowns w.here : streams are;
segregated for treatment, 'for use ; i,n 'thjes^; .cost estimates. 1 Raw;
wastewater, characteristics Iwere determined'based on sampiirig'data as
discussed in Section V. ' ' :- - - ' = ..i ,. >. ^ = *.^r..., ;
The system costs presented include -component cpsts, as ,di-scussed , abpye
and ; subsidiary costs ', inciudirig. engl;n^er;ing,''-iine r' segregat'iorij
admininstration, and interest ,; expenses during :'construction.'" ' 'in
developing cost estimates for BPT %Stims; it''is assumed that none''of
the specified treatment and control measures are in place so-that the
presented costs represent total costs for the systems. ?ป<,:,;
Sy:stem' feost 'Estimates'' jfspf) "'"* 'ฐi: "i: !>;<> Vl')5 J''<5t.{->..-.f .-:. :n:s.,l
~i^ -. ' f .,.;,.; ; . .., -.rr-: ' i >. i . ". t . iป 1 3 "'*.'"': I. )':>. : ' > f r t} i . ; >
This '>;ection! presents': fh4 ^system co,st estimates fpr'th^ BPT "end-pf-
pipe treatment "systems; : Several; 'flow' rates 'are presented sf<]r 'each
case'to effectively mddel a"wid4 spectrum of'plant sizes.'
331
-------
The representative flow rates used in the BPT system cost estimates
were determined as being typical based upon actual sampled flow data
and flow information received in the data collection portfolios.
The representative end-of-pipe treatment systems for the steel,
aluminum, copper, and cast iron subcategories are depicted in Section
IX of the document. The chemical reduction of chromium is shown as an
optional treatment process. The use of this treatment component is
determined by the production processes being employed at the plant.
For the purpose of the BPT system cost estimates, chromium reduction
was included for the aluminum subcategory only, since aluminum is the
only subcategory which has chromium in the wastewater. These
wastewaters are generated from chromic acid sealer and conversion
coating rinses. All subcategories have chemical (lime) precipitation
and settling (clarifier) followed by vacuum filtration.
'..". , ,! ' '" " ' ' ' ;, ' "." i Jit;''Hi:;11 i! (,|,?.'.!! I .';.'. ! .: is'? 'ii-i r;[>,'s ,'jj, ,if"'. ji y^ars! 3,fi:JEW\
The costing assumptions for each component oฃ the BPT system were
discussed above under Technology Costs and Assumptions. In addition
to these components, contractor sludge removal was included in all
cost estimates.
Tables VII1-18 through VII1-22 present costs for various BPT treatment
system influent flow rates. The basic cost elements used in preparing
these tables are the same as those presented for the individual
technologies: investment, annual capital costs, annual depreciation,
annual operations and maintenenace cost (less energy cost), energy
cost, and total annual cost. These elements were discussed in detail
earlier in this section.
For the cost computations, a least costtreatment system selection was
performed. This procedure calculated the costs for a batch treatment
system, a continuous treatment system, and haulaway of the complete
wastewater flow over a 10 year comparison period, and the least
expensive system was selected for presentation in the system cost
tables. The various investment costs assume that the treatment system
must be specially constructed and include all subsidiary costs
discussed under the Cost Breakdown Factors segment of this section.
Operation and maintenance costs assumecontinuous operation, 24 hours
a day, 5 days per week, for 52 weeks per year.
System Cost Estimates (BAT Option I)
System cost estimates of the effects of adding a granularbed
multimedia filter to the previously discussed BPT end-of-pipe systems
were developed to provideBAT Option 1 Treatment Cost Estimates.
Schematics of the BAT Option 1 System for the steel, aluminum and
copper subcategory are shown in Section X of the document. A
schematic diagram of the BAT Option 1 System for the cast iron
subcategory is also presented in Section X. The chemical reduction of
1 : ,1, . Ill I I '" ปi Hi I! V I. "iปi' r Mil' ,,"l!!!l,i''! I il|n' , II:; ;:
332
-------
chromium is shown as an optional treatment process. The costing
assumptions for the granular bed multimedia filter were discussed
above under the Technology Costs and Assumptions Subsection.
Several flow rates are presented for each case to effectively model a
wide spectrum of plant sites. The various plant flow rates in-
corporate the concept of water use reduction to the production
normalized industry average level or better.
Tables VII1-23 through VII1-27 present BAT Option 1 treatment costs
for construction of the entire end-of-pipe system. These costs would
be representative of expenditures to be expected for a plant with no
treatment in place to attain BAT Option 1.
System Cost Estimates (BAT Option 2)
The BAT Option 2 alternative calls for reduction of the plant
discharge flow rate by using in-process technologies. Two major
techniques, in terms of both incurred cost and wastewater reduction,
are: 1) Separation of the ball milling and enamel application
wastewater from other process waste streams and, 2) reduction of the
ball mill and coating discharge flow to a minimum level. This minimum
level is equal to the fresh water required for ball mill washing.
Total flow through the treatment system remains the same as for the
BAT Option 1 System.
The representative treatment system for the steel, aluminum, copper
and cast iron subcategories are shown in Section X. The chemical
reduction of chromium is shown as an optional treatment process. For
the BAT Option 2 alternative, the ball milling and enamel application
wastewater has been separated from the other process waste stream in
order that a portion of the treated ball milling wastewater can be
recycled back to the ball milling process. This will result in a
reduction of the total plant discharge flow.
Several flow rates are presented for each case to effectively model a
wide spectrum of plant sizes. Flow rates for the porcelain enameling
waste streams (other than the ball mill wash) for the BAT Option 2
system are equivalent to those found in the BAT Option 1 system.
Tables VIII-28 through VIII-32 present the BAT Option 2 treatment
system costs for construction of the entire system. These costs would
be representative of expenditures to be expected for a plant with no
treatment in place to attain the BAT Option 2 level of treatment.
System Cost Estimates (BAT Option 3)
The BAT Option 3 treatment alternative is very similar to the BAT
Option 2 system discussed above. The only difference is one of flow
333
-------
reduction in the metal preparation waste stream. The modified BAT
Option 3 treatment schematics are displayed in Section X of the
document.
Several flow rates are presented for each case to effectively model a
wide spectrum of plant sites. The various plant flow rates
incorporate the concept of water use reduction to the lowest sampled
plant water use level found in each subcategory at least for the
surface preparation waste stream.
Flow rates for the ball milling wastewater stream for the BAT Option 3
system are equivalent to and incorporate the concepts discussed in the
BAT Option 2 system.
Table VIII-33 through VIII-37 present theBAT Option 3
system costs for construction of the entire system. These costs would
be representative of expenditures to be expected for a plant with no
treatment in place to attain the BAT Option 3 level of treatment.
System Cost Estimates - (New Sources)
', ' , 'Sari'" '! | "" ''. ("f ll"1'ifi". iJ '. I ,*i jriiii'" .'"fiiii" 't'"'"' JV'-'V1'1"'i'"'!'""':,'.' ' ;' [' *!,:';;''. V* .',,' "!:: "'" ''",''''!"!'' 'SI,'1!"''
The suggested treatment alternative for the modifiedNSPS Option T is
identical to the treatment alternative discussed for existing source
BAT Option 3. These costs were presented in Tables VIII-33 through
VIII-37.
The modified NSPS Option 2 is similar to the BAT Option 3 for metal
preparation wastewater. In-process technology involving electrostatic
coating which requires no water will be used for the modified NSPS
Option 2. Thus ball milling and coating is a dry operation for this
level. Flow rates for porcelain enameling wastewater streams (other
than the ball mill wash) for the modified NSPS Option 2 system are
equivalent to those found in the BAT Option 3 system. Tables VIII-38
through VII1-41 present treatment system costs for construction of the
modified NSPS Option 2 system.
Use of Cost Estimation Results
Cost estimates presented in the tables in this section are re-
presentative of costs typically incurred in implementing treatment and
control equivalent to the specified levels. They will not, in
general, correspond precisely to cost experience at any individual
plant. Specific plant conditions such as age, location, plant layout,
or present production and treatment practices may yield costs which
are either higher or lower than the presented costs. Because the BPT
costs shown are total system costs and do not assume any treatment in
place, it is probable that most plants will require smaller
expenditures to reach the specified levels of control from their
present status.
334
-------
actual costs of installing and operating a BPT system at a
particular plant may be substantially lower than the tabulated values.
Reductions in investment and operating costs are possible in several
areas. Design and installation costs may be reduced by using plant
workers. Equipment costs may be reduced by using or modifying
existing equipment instead of purchasing all new equipment.
Application of an excess capacity factor, which increases the size of
most equipment foundation costs could be reduced if an existing
concrete pad or floor can be utilized. Equipment size requirements may
be reduced by the ease of treatment (for example, shorter retention
time) of particular wastewater streams. Substantial reduction in both
investment and operating cost may be achieved if a plant reduces its
water use rate below that assumed in costing.
ENERGY AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
Energy and non-water quality aspects of the wastewater treatment
technologies described in Section VII are summarized in Tables VIII-42
and VIII-43 (Pages 373-374). Energy requirements are listed, the
impact on environmental air and noise pollution is noted, and solid
waste generation characteristics are summarized. The treatment
processes are divided into two groups, wastewater treatment processes
on Table VIII-42, and sludge and solids handling processes on Table
VIII-43.
Energy Aspects
Energy aspects of the wastewater treatment processes are important
because of the impact of energy use on our natural resources and on
the economy. Electrical power and fuel requirements (coal, oil, or
gas) are listed in units of kilowatt hours per ton of dry solids for
sludge and solids handling. Specific energy uses are noted in the
"Remarks" column.
Non-Water Quality Aspects
It is important to consider the impact of each treatment process on
air, noise, and radiation pollution of the environment to preclude the
development of a more adverse environmental impact.
In general, none of the liquid handling processes causes air pol-
lution. With sulfide precipitation, however, the potential exists for
evolution of hydrogen sulfide, a toxic gas. Proper control of pH in
treatment eliminates this problem. Alkaline chlorination for cyanide
destruction and chromium reduction using sulfur dioxide also have
potential atmospheric emissions. With proper design and operation,
however, air pollution impacts are eliminated. None of the wastewater
treatment processes causes objectionable noise and none of the
335
-------
treatment processes has any potential for radioactive radiation
hazards.
i i ' " ' ,,iiiii",,i . uป' 'i,,,i, , .i1, ,':i i', "' ,, ' ii ', !' Hi ,' . ซ'iii,,ii< 'Lii'i',! siii";1
The solid waste impact of each wastewater treatment process is in-
dicated in two columns on Table VIII-43. The first column shows
whether effluent solids are to be expected and, if so, the solids
content in qualitative terms. The second column"lists typical values
of percent solids of sludge or residue.
The processes for treating the wastewaters from this category produce
considerable volumes of sludges. In order to ensure long-term
protection of the environment from harmful sludge constituents,
special consideration of disposal sites should be made by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and municipal authorities where
applicable.
If I*: " Ill ,',ฃ'I,'
336
-------
Flow Rate
TABLE VIII-6
Ball Milling Wastewater Sump-Cost
to
u>
-j
(Liter/Hr)
(Gallons per Day, GPD)
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
19
(120)
Continuous
$1003
63
100
3129
158
$3451
4558
(2890)
Continuous
$8402
527
840
3129
259
$4756
15,929
(101000)
Continuous
$18420
1156
1842
3285
511
$ 6794
-------
to
CO
oo
Flow Rate
(Liter/Hr)
(Gallons per Day, GPD)
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
TABLE VIII-7
Holding Tanks - Costs
140
2940
6215
(886)
Continuous
$5605
352
560
0
321
$1233
(18640)
Continuous
$26906
1688
2691
0
3589
$ 7968
(39406)
Continuous
$44492
2792
4449
0
7412
$14653
-------
Flow Rate
TABLE VIII-8
Equalization Tanks - Costs
co
U)
(Liter/Hr)
(Gallons per Day, GPD)
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
95
(600)
Continuous
$4977
312
498
0
311
11355
(72000)
Continuous
$68739
4313
6874
0
13412
27284
(173000)
Continuous
$135261
8487
13526
0
32006
$1121
$24600
$ 54019
-------
.. ..TABLE VIII-9
Chromium Reduction - Continuous Treatment Costs
oo
, *ป
V O'
E L
Flow Rate
(Liter/Hr)
; (Gallons per Day, GPD)
Least Cost Operation Mode :
Investment :
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs ;
Depreciation j
; Operation & Maintenance
- : Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
19
76
189
(120)
Continuous
$20010
1201
2001
700
323
$ 4225
(480)
Continuous
$20583
1291
2058
744
323
$ 4416
(1200)
Continuous
$21087
1362
s ; ,. 2108
=-= .-- r= '- ' ~-
_-' v 803 ;
'-':. ' 323
x- =$ 4596
I
- -
II
-------
TABLE VI11-10
Chromium Reduction - Batch Treatment - Costs
u>
Flow Rate
(Liter/Hr)
(Gallons per Day, GPD)
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
19
(120)
Batch
$8030
435
803
15
323
76
(480)
Batch
$8532
535
853
65
323
189
(1200)
Batch
$9539
652
954'
132
323
$1576
$1776
$2061
-------
: , , -. . . TABLE :viii-ii , -. ".. , ^
Chemical (Hydroxide) Precipitation - Sedimentation: Continuous Treatment - Costs
w
Flow Rate
(Liter/Hr)
(Gallons per Day, GPD)
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs
Depreciation
; Operation & Maintenance
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
38
(240)
2845
(18040)
56775
(360000)
Continuous Continuous Continuous
$31350 $45076 $103154
1967
3135
$ 7939
2828
4508
$10504
6472
10315
2837
0
3165
3
27013
100
$ 43901
-------
U)
ฃ>>
U)
TABLE VIII-12
Chemical (Hydroxide) Precipitation - Sedimentation: Batch Treatment - Costs
Flow Rate
(Liter/Hr)
(Gallons per Day, GPD)
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
95
(600)
Batch
$13347
837
1335
6755
23
$ 8950
946
(6000)
Batch
$23185
1455
2319
6746
44
$10563
56775
(360000)
Batch
$209826
13166
20983
54544
2963
$ 91655
-------
Flow Rate
; TABLE, VIII-13 -
Multi-Media Filtration - Costs
Co
(Liter/Hr)
(Gallons per Day,, GPD)
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs
Depreciation
: Operation & Maintenance
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
140
5651
18035
(886)
Continuous
$2366
148
237
= i
5440
14
$5839 :
(35838)
Continuous
$22604
1418
2260
: 5966
146
$ 9790
(114355)
Continuous
$45878
2879
;: 4588
6671
301
" $1443 9
-------
TABLE VIII-14
IN-LINE FILTRATION - COST
OJ
*ป
U1
Flow Rate
(Liter/Hr)
(Gallons per Day, GPD)
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
7.57
T487
$ 400
$5,459
$1,067
$5,588
75.7
(480)
$1,628
25
40
5,391
67
107
5,407
10,2
163
5,421
10
$5,696
-------
Flow Rate
TABLE VII1-15
Vacuum Filtration - Costs
(Liter/Hr)
(Gallons per Day, GPD)
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs :
; Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance^
Costs (Excluding Energyr:
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs*
17
624
4817
(106)
Continuous
$25218
1582
2522
4392
1242
$ 9739
(3954)
Continuous
$30540
1916
3054
11621 -.:
1420
$18011
(30542
Continuous
$72665
4559
7266
44256
5392
$61474
ill
-------
00
Flow Rate
(Liter/Er)
(Gallons per Day, GPD)
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
TABLE VIII-16
Pump Station - Costs
35.33
700.2
24716.05
(224.02)
Continuous
$1686
106
169
141
154
(1479.95)
Continuous
$44197
2771
4420
1685
343
(104,480)
Continuous
$97588
6119
9759
3287
3432
$ 570
$ 9219
$22597
-------
Flow Rate
CO
,,-ฃ
- B 00
(Liter/Hr)
(Gallons per Day, GPD)
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
Annual Costs:
; Capital Costs
Depreciation :
Operation & Maintenance
; Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
TABLE VIII-17
Countercurrent Rinsing - Costs
23.42
224.26
1528.61
(49.50)
Continuous
$59030
3701
5903
2490
2060
(473.99)
Continuous ,
$88545
5552
8854 : V:
; 3735 .;;
3090 : :
(3230.87)
Continuous
$118060
7402
' 11806
4980
4120
$14154
$21231
$28308
-------
Flow Rate
TABLE VIII-18
BPT System Cost - Steel Subcategory
LO
(Liter/Hr)
(Gallons per Day, GPD)
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
3788
4912
$ 77952
18925
18818
$193382
56775
(24020)
Batch
$228197
14318
22820
35902
(120000)
Continuous
$456313
28632
45631
100301
(360000)
Continuous
$753113
47255
75311
255563
53842
$431972
-------
' TABLE VI11-19
BPT System Cost - Aluminum Subcategory
Plow Rate
U)
Ul
o
(Liter/Hr)
(Gallons per Day, GPD)
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
3788
12049
18925
(24020)
Batch
$226719
14226
22672
18050
4884
$ 59832
(76400)
Continuous
$363731
22823
36373
21826
11989
$ 93011
(120000)
Continuous
$418613
26266
41861
30135
17604
$115866
-------
TABLE VIII-20
BPT System Cost - Aluminum Subcategory (includes Chromium Reduction)
Flow Rate
OJ
(Liter/Hr)
(Gallons per Day, GPD)
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
3864
(24500)
Batch
$245529
15406
24553
18148
5209
$ 63317
12125
(76880)
Batch
$364694
22883
36469
24613
12939
$ 96905
19001
(120480
Continuous
$458731
28784
45873
30910
17927
$123493
-------
TABLE VIII-21
BPT System Cost - Copper Subcategory
Flow Rate
"-to -
(Liter/Hr) .
(Gallons per Day, GPD)
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs
Depreciation
: Operation & Maintenance
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
201
(1272)
Batch
$143135
8981
14314
19221
1758
$ 44274
379
(2402)
Batch
$149809
9400
14981
23026
1910
$ 49317
568
(3600)
Batch
$159075
9981
15907
f,',
26619
2075
$ 54582;
-------
TABLE VIII-22
BPT System Cost - Cast Iron Subcategory
Flow Rate
Ul
LO
(Liter/Hr)
(Gallons per Day, GPD)
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
19
227
1325
(120)
Batch
$75943
4765
7594
13358
179
(1440)
Batch
$129481
8124
12948
21141
1432
(8400)
Batch
$165147
10362
16515
45857
1777
$25897
$ 43646
$ 74511
-------
TABLE VIII-23
BAT Option 1 System Cost - Steel Subcategory
Flow Rate
OJ
Ul
(Liter/Hr)
(Gallons per Day, GPD)
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
1893
11355
37882
(12000)
Batch
$210061
13180
21006
33127
3300
$ 70614
(72000)
Continuous
$430848
27034
43085
75942
12074
$158135
(240200)
Continuous
$698085
43802
69809
201790
37040
$352441
-------
TABLE VIII-24
BAT Option 1 System Cost - Aluminum Subcategory
Flow Rate
oo
Ul
(Liter/Hr)
(Gallons per Day, GPD)
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
2845
(18040)
Batch
$234969
14743
23497
23375
4157
$ 65772
9084
(57600)
Batch
$355266
22291
35527
29699
9936
$ 97452
16275
(103200)
Continuous
$469088
29433
46909
35803
15638
$127784
-------
TABLE VIII-25
BAT Option 1 System Cost - Aluminum Subcategory (Includes Chromium Reduction)
CO
Ul
CTi
Flow Rate
(Liter/Hr)
(Gallons per Day, GPD)
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment .
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
2921
9160
16351
(18520)
Batch
$254013
15938
25401
23484 '_ _
4484 :
$ 69307
(58080)
Batch
$374956
23527
37496
29797
10264
$101084
(103680)
Batch
$487049
30560
48705
38172
16801
$134238
-------
U)
Ln
--J
TABLE VIII-26
BAT Option 1 System Cost - Copper Subcategory
Flow Rate
(Liter/Hr)
(Gallons per Day, GPD)
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
151
321
493
(960)
Batch
$144258
9052
14426
24040
1749
$ 49266
(2036)
Batch
$153027
9602
15303
27998
1877
$ 54780
(3124)
Batch
$163488
10258
16349
31417
2037
$ 60061
-------
TABLE VIII-27
BAT Option 1 System Cost - Cast Iron Subcategory
to
ui
oo
Flow Rate
(Liter/Hr)
(Gallons per Day, GPD)
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs
Depreciation :
Operation & Maintenance
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
19
(120)
Batch
$76839
4821
7684
227
(1440)
Batch
$133487
8376
13349
1325
(8400)
Batch
$176818
11095
17682
18753
182
$31440
26581
1447
$ 49752
51413
1820
$ 82010
-------
TABLE VIII-28
BAT Option 2 System Cost - Steel Category
Flow Rate
oo
(Liter/Hr)
(Gallons per Day, GPD)
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
1893
11355
37882
(12000)
Batch
$280609
17607
28061
48763
4554
$ 98984
(72000)
Continuous
$530276
33272
53028
74227
12958
$173485
(240200)
Continuous
$832237
52220
83224
163460
37746
$336648
-------
TABLE VI11-29
BAT Option 2 System Cost - Aluminum Subcategory
Flow Rate
U)
<31
O
(Liter/Hr)
(Gallons per Day, GPD)
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
2845
9084
16275
(18040)
Continuous
$304054
19078
30405
25057
2810
$ 77350
(57600)
Batch
$432625
27145
43263
45252
11104
$126763
(103200)
Continuous
$572792
35940
57279
45252
16839
$155310
-------
TABLE VIII-30
BAT Option 2 System Cost - Aluminum Subcategory (Includes Chromium Reduction)
Flow Rate
U)
en
H
(Liter/Hr)
(Gallons per Day, GPD)
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
2921
9160
16351
(18520)
Batch
$241267
15138
24127
40865
3246
$ 83376
(58080)
*.i
Batch
$452360
28383
45236
45351
11432
$130402
(103680)
Continuous
$612820
38452
61282
46020
17162
$162917
-------
CO
&
to
TABLE VIII-31
BAT Option 2 System Cost - Copper Subcategory
Flow Rate
(Liter/Hr)
(Gallons per Day, GPD)
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
155
321
496
(984)
Batch
$167629
10518
16763
36661
1772
$ 65714
(2036)
Batch
$178504
11200
17850
41165
1904^
$ 72120
(3148)
Batch
$187696
11777
18770
45468
2067
$ 78082
-------
TABLE VIII-32
BAT Option 2 System Cost - Cast Iron Subcategory
Flow Rate
u>
<7\
co
(Liter/Hr)
(Gallons per Day, GPD)
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
19
227
1325
(120)
Batch
$87131
5467
8713
18742
490
$33413
(1440)
Batch
$146570
9197
14657
26459
1760
$ 52072
(8400)
Batch
$196648
12339
19665
50753
2896
$ 85653
-------
TABLE VI11-33
BAT Option 3 System Cost - Steel Subcategory
Flow Rate
CO
(Liter/Hr)
(Gallons per Day, GPD)
;Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
1136
(7200)
Batch
$266920
16748
26692
8327
(52800)
Continuous
$517237
32454
51724
26495
(168000)
Continuous *
$806728
50619
80673
43331
4346
64110
12602
127041
34533
$ 91118
$160889
$292866
-------
TABLE VIII-34
BAT Option 3 System Cost - Aluminum Subcategory
Flow Rate
UJ
-------
=- --- -- --- TABLE1 VI11-3 5 - -
BAT Option 3 System Cost - Aluminum Subcategory (Includes Chromium Reduction)
Flow Rate
CO
-------
TABLE VI11-36
BAT Option 3 System Cost - Copper Subcategory
Flow Rate
OJ
a\
-j
(Liter/Hr) 95 227 397
(Gallons per Day, GPD) (600) (T4~38) ("25T6)
Least Cost Operation Mode Batch Batch Batch
Investment $160139 $173260 $183232
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs 10048 10871 11497
Depreciation 16014 17326 18323
Operation & Maintenance
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs) 35067 38760 42918
Energy and Power Costs 1766 1818 1930
Total Annual Costs $ 62895 $ 68776 $ 74718
-------
TABLE VII1-37
BAT Option 3 System Cost - Cast Iron Subcategory
Flow Rate
U)
en
cป
(Liter/Hr)
(Gallons per Day, GPD)
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
19
(120)
Batch
$87131
5467
8713
18742
490
227
(1440)
Batch
$146570
9197
14657
26459
1760
1325
(8400)
Batch
$196648
12339
19665
; ;ฃ; 50753
2896
$33413
$ 52072
$ 85653
-------
TABLE VIII-38
NSPS Option 2 (Modified) System Cost - Steel Subcategory
Flow Rate
co
-------
.. . . TABLE VI11-3,9
NSPS Option 2 (Modified) System Cost - Aluminum Subcategory
Flow Rate
U)
^j
o
(Liter/Hr) 946
(Gallons per Day, GPD) (6000)
Least Cost Operation Mode Batch
Investment $140908
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs 8841
Depreciation 14091
Operation & Maintenance ;
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs $ 46994
3028
(19200)
5678
(36000)
Continuous Batch
$252819 $303265
15863
25282
$ 61985
19029
30326
22705
1357
17038
3801
26870
8495
$ 84719
I IS
! ; |j
-------
TABLE VIII-40
NSPS Option 2 (Modified) System Cost - Aluminum Subcategory (Includes Chromium Reduction)
to
-v]
Flow Rate
(Liter/Hr)
(Gallons per Day, GPD)
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
1022
(6480)
Batch
$160081
10044
16008
23089
1684
$ 50826
3104
(19680)
Continuous
$291618
18298
29162
17805
4125
$ 69390
5753
(36480)
Batch
$322588
20241
32259
26971
8823
$ 88293
-------
TABLE VI11-41
NSPS Option 2 (Modified) System Cost - Copper Subcategory
Flow Rate
OJ
(Liter/Hr)
(Gallons per Day, GPD)
Least Cost Operation Mode
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital Costs
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Costs (Excluding Energy
& Power Costs)
Energy and Power Costs
Total Annual Costs
38
(240)
Batch
$85293
5622
8959
18948
339
95
(600)
Batch
$99022
6213
9902
19461
351
189
(1200)
Batch
$106476
6681
10648
-.5 ;=. r|j=_---
20281 ; -::---
431 T :
$33868
$35927
$ 38041
-------
TABLE VIII-42
NONWATER QUALITY ASPECTS OF WASTE WATER TREATMEHF
PROCESS
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT
Chemical Reduction
Skimming
Clarification
Flotation
Chemical
Oxidation by Chlorine
Qx&a&tion By Ozone
Chemical Precipitation
Sedimentation
Deep Bed
Ion Exchange
u> Adsorption
CJ
Evaporation
Reverse Osmosis
Ultrafiltration
Membrane Filtration
Electrochemical
Chromium Reduction
Electrochemical
Chromium Regeneration
Power Fuel
kwh
1000 liters
1.0
0.01-.3
0.1-3.2
1.0
0.3
0.5-5.0
1.02
0.1-3.2
0.10
0.5
0.1
*2.5
3.0
1.25-3.0
1.25-3.0
0.2-0.8
2.0
Energy
Use
Mixing
Skimmer Drive
Sludge Collec-
tor Drive
Recirculation
Pump, Compressor,
Skim
Mixing
Mixing
Ozone Generation
Flocculation
Paddles
Sludge Collector
Drive
Head, Backwash
Pumps
Pumps
Pumps, Evaporate
During Regenera-
tion
Evaporate Water
High Pressure
Pump
High Pressure
Pump
High Pressure
Pump
Reactifier,
Pump
Regeneration,
Pump
Air
Pollution
Impact
Noire
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Noise
Pollution
Impact
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Not
Objectionable
None
Carbon
None
Not
Objectionable
Not
Objectionable
Not
Objectionable
None
None
Solid
Waste
None
Concentrated
Concentrated
Concentrated
None
None
Concentrated
Concentrated
Concentrated
None
None/Waste
Concentrated/
Dewatered
Dilute
Concentrate
Dilute
Concentrate
Dilute
Concentrate
Concentrate
None
Solid Waste
Concentration
% Dry Solids
5-50 (oil)
1-10
3-5
3-10
1-3
Variable
NA
40
50-100
1-40
1-40
1-40
1-3
* 10DBTD/1000 liters
-------
PROCESS
TABLE VI11-43
NONWATER QUALITY ASPECTS OF SLUDGE AND SOLIDS HANDLING
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT
Sludge
Thickening
Pressure
Filtration
Sand Bed -
Drying .1
Vacuum
Filter
Centr i f ugation
Landfill
Lagooning
7 ' Power
kwh
ton dry solids
29-920
21
16.7-
66.8
=. 0.2-
98.5
Fuel
kwh
ton dry solids
~"""*
35
20-980
36
Energy-
Use
A
Skimmer,
Sludge Rake
Drive
High Pressure
Pumps
Removal
Equipment
Vacuum Pump,
,, Rotation
!- Rotation
Haul , Land-
fill 1-10
Mile Trip
Removal
Equipment
Air
Pollution
Impact
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Noise
Pollution
Impact
None
None
None
Not
Objectionable
Not
Ob j ectionable
None
None
Solid '
Waste
Concentrated
Dewatered
Dewatered
Dewatered
Dewatered
Dewatered
Dewatered
Solid Waste
Concentration
% Dry Solids
,4-27
25-50
15-40
20-40
215-50
,3-5
-------
SIMPLIFIED LOGIC DIAGRAM
SYSTEM COST ESTIMATION PROGRAM
NON-RECYCLE
SYSTEMS
INPUT
A) RAW WASTE DESCRIPTION
B) SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
C) "DECISION" PARAMETERS
D) COST FACTORS
PROCESS CALCULATIONS
A) PERFORMANCE-POLLUTANT
PARAMETER EFFECTS
B) EQUIPMENT SIZE
C) PROCESS COST
(RECYCLE SYSTEMS)
CONVERGENCE
A) POLLUTANT PARAMETER
TOLERANCE CHECK
(NOT WITHIN
TOLERANCE LIMITS)
(WITHIN TOLERANCE LIMITS)
COST CALCULATIONS
A) SUM INDIVIDUAL PROCESS
COSTS
B) ADD SUBSIDIARY COSTS
C) ADJUST TO DESIRED DOLLAR BASE
OUTPUT
A) STREAM DESCRIPTIONS -
COMPLETE SYSTEM
B) INDIVIDUAL PROCESS SIZE AND
COSTS'
C) OVERALL SYSTEM INVESTMENT
AND ANNUAL COSTS'
FIGURE VIII-1. COST ESTIMATION PROGRAM
375
-------
CHEMICAL
ADDITION
RAW WASTE
(FLOW, TSS. LEAD,
ZINC, ACIDITY)
CHEMICAL-
PRECIPITATION
SEDIMENTATION
EFFLUENT
.1 '!! i1, llVil ซ 'J l"!l?i
SLUDGE
(CONTRACTOR
REMOVED)
FIGURE VIII-2. SIMPLE WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM
376
-------
LLZ
INVESTMENT COST {DOLLARS - JAN, '78)
70
m
CO
W
o
1
D
o
T3
rn
2
H
O
8
o
o>
-------
00
vj
00
r
I. io3
i-
z
u
u
3
o
UI
"0
2
" J
-<
3
rz
t Z
-
100
10
10
OPERATION
. MAINTENANCE
100
10"
IO*
10
6 '
FLOW RATE TO SUMP {1 PH)
FIGURE VIII-4. SUMP LABOR REQUIREMENTS
-------
(jO
-J
FLOW RATE TO SUMP (I PH)
FIGURE VIII-5. SUMP POWER AND MATERIALS COSTS
-------
10'
to
00
o
CO
2
ซ
<
J
O
tซ
0
O
u
y
<
Q
= : J
O
10
I0
10
100
10"
FLOW RATE TO HOLDING TANK - LPH
10s
RETENTION TIME = I DAY (24 HOURS)
FIGURE VIII-6. HOLDING TANK CAPITAL COSTS
-------
a
<
u
to
z
u
2
u
K
5
o
u
03 -1
M <
U
ฃ
o
u
u
10ฐ
10-
10'
10
100
IOJ
10"
10s
FLOW RATE TO HOLDING - LPH
260 DAYS/YEAR
FIGURE VIII-7. HOLDING TANK ELECTRICAL COSTS
-------
10 =
K
<
U
>
wf
K
"Z
0
ฃ
Q
111
,K
5
a
UI
a:
E
0
m
<
_i
j
<
3
Z
Z
<
*
ฐ
o
w
>-
f- -
a^l
ati!
ISJ
10*
10
100
10
FLOW RATE TO HOLDING TANK - LPH
10s %-
JC;
FIGURE VIII-8. HOLDING TANK ANNUAL LABOR REQUIREMENT
WB si
J^LT
-------
CO
ts
Z
<
J
J
0
a
8
u
I-
u
00 OJ
00 UI
too
10
10"
10"
FLOW RATE TO CHROMIUM REDUCTION (I PH)
FIGURE VIII-9. CHEMICAL REDUCTION OF CHROMIUM INVESTMENT COSTS
-------
10'
U)
e
3
0
tt
0
m
10-
CO
CO
MINIMUM CONTINUOUS PROCESS MAINTENANCE
10'
^
<&
^
X
10
10
100
10-
10
10*
10"
FLOW RATE TO CHROMIUM REDUCTION (I PH)
BATCH MAINTENANCE = 0 HOURS
FIGURE VIII-IO. ANNUAL LABOR FOR CHEMICAL REDUCTION OF CHROMIUM
-------
10
tn
v.
tn
0
o
ฃ "
Ul
u
E
E
j
u
10
10
FLOW RATE TO CLARIFIER - LPH
FIGURE VIII-11. CLARIFIER CAPITAL COST SUMMARY
-------
REQUIRED LABOR (HOURS/YEAR)
U>
00
ov
2
Q
-C
70
m
o
o
M
O
O
w
o
o
O
o
Ul
o
o
O
O
VJ
o
o
co
o
o
O
m
o
>
TJ
o
TJ
o
23
n
H
o
o
n
0
:
BdPi
ran
-------
10s
10
oo
N
Z
<
">
i
in
tt
< '
a
j
0
Q
U>
V^
^
100
10
100
10"
FLOW RATE (I/HR)
FIGURE VIII-13. PREDICTED COSTS OF MULTIMEDIA FILTRATION
-------
10*
Z 10s
I
Ifl
w"
: 00
00
o
oi
0
u
H
UI
2
en
u
10"
IOJ
10
100 10a
FLOW RATE TO IN-LINE FILTERS (1 PH)
10"
FIGURE VIII-I4. IN-LINE FILTRATION INVESTMENT COSTS
-------
to-
OPERATION
X
to
งซo2
0
X
z
<
s
H
Z
u
2
U
K
5
a
Id
a
a:
o 10
CD
<
00
/
to
100
10J 104
FLOW RATE TO IN-LINE FILTERS (1 PH)
10 =
10"
FIGURE VIIl-15. ANNUAL LABOR FOR IN-LINE FILTRATION
-------
10'
I
K
J
0
ฃ
CO H
VO V)
0 8
j
2
ฃ- 10
h
s
to1
10
JOO
I03
I0
10
FLOW RATE TO IN-LINE FILTERS (I PH)
FIGURE VIII-16. IN-LINE FILTRATION MATERIAL COSTS FOR
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
-------
T6ฃ
POWER REQUIREMENT (HP)
o *
b 3 g
/
/
x
/
X
-4
/
/
>
>
^r
X
r
/
X
x
X
/
^
/
/
x
X
X
>
/
x^
X
x
X
/
/
/
>/
X
X
X
^
x
r^'
10
100
IOJ
I0a
10 =
FLOW RATE TO IN-LINE FILTERS {I PH)
FIGURE VIII-17. IN-LINE FILTRATION POWER REQUIREMENTS
-------
10
in
K
<
J
J
0
0
o
H
III
LO
VD
to
to"
10
100
IOJ
10"
10s
FLOW RATE TO VACUUM FILTER (1 PH)
to1
FIGURE VIII-18. VACUUM FILTRATION INVESTMENT COSTS
-------
100
FLOW RATE TO VACUUM FILTER (1 PH)
FIGURE VIII-I9. ANNUAL LABOR FOR VACUUM FILTRATION
-------
oo
t>
l
tn
v.
tn
fe
0
u
w z
ID 0.
451 tn
0
Z
UI
5
10
100 I03
FLOW RATE TO VACUUM FILTER (1 PH)
10"
I0a
FIGURE VIII-20. VACUUM FILTRATION MATERIAL AND SUPPLY COSTS
-------
10
OJ
(O
(J1
to
IN
I
tfl
0
ฃ
U)
(0
0
U
U
oE
U
U
J
U
FLOW RATE TO VACUUM FILTER (I PH)
FIGURE VIII-2I. VACUUM FILTRATION ELECTRICAL COSTS
-------
I1 i; i :; ' : , li
U' Ml iK;'
IPs;
:,' ft ซ"ป
-------
SECTION IX
BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
The factors considered in defining BPT include the total cost of
application of technology in relation to the effluent reduction bene-
fits from such application, the age of equipment and facilities
involved, the process employed, non-water quality environmental
impacts {including energy requirements) and other factors the
Administrator considers appropriate. In general, the BPT technology
level represents the average of the best existing performances of
plants in various ages, sizes, processes or other common charac-
teristics. Where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BPT
may be transferred from a different subcategory or category.
Limitations based on transfer technology must be supported by a
conclusion that the technology is, indeed, transferrable and a
reasonable prediction that it will be capable of achieving the
prescribed effluent limits. See Tanner's Council of America v.
Train, suP^a. BPT focuses on end-of-pipe treatment ratherthan
process changes or internal controls, except where such are common
industry practice.
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO BPT
This category was studied and previous work examined to identify the
processes used and the wastewaters generated during porcelain
enameling operations. After subcategorization and additional
information collection using both dcp forms and specific plant
sampling and analysis, the total information about the industrial
segment was examined to determine what constituted an appropriate BPT
Some of the salient considerations were:
Basis metal preparation generates acidic and alkaline wastewaters
containing oils, dissolved metals, and suspended solids in the steel,
aluminum, and copper subcategories.
Coating, which includes ball milling and enamel application, generates
wastewaters containing a high level of toxic metals from frit and
color oxides, plus solids from clays in the enamel slip.
Of the 116 porcelain enameling plants, 24 have chemical precipitation
equipment, 55 have settling tanks or settling lagoons, 22 have
clarifiers or tube or plate settlers, and 16 have sludge dewatering to
assist in sludge disposal.
Some of the factors outlined above which must be considered in
establishing effluent limitations based on BPT have already been
397
-------
considered by this document. The age of equipment and facilities
involved and the processes employed were taken into account in
subcategorization and are discussed fully in Section IV. Nonwater
quality impacts and energy requirements are considered in Section
viii. ' ; ; i i ' ' " ' ' _ "^'[ ' "_ ' ' i ; ^ ;_"_"
, ' > i ! . .'..'''. ;:: :'.., V ,''!ซ';;!*' i', ijUCNUJi. . ; I " :'' ,i,ii !.'".: .*' ซ< .', " i'"'" :'f *ป'"' '
Porcelain enameling consists of two sets of processes - metal
preparation and coating - that generate different wastewater streams
in each subcategory. In both wastewater strecims for each subcategory,
as discussed in Section III and IV, the volume of wastewater is
related to the area of material processed.
As a general approach to BPT for this industrial segment, treatment of
wastewaters from the two processes in each subcategory in a single
(combined) treatment system is provided. Enamel slip from the coating
operations should be settled prior to the mixing of coating wastes
with metal preparation wastewaters. The enamel slip normally contains
high concentrations of suspended solids and significant quantities of
toxic metals, many of which are bound to the frits and coloring oxides
in an undissolved state. Presettling of this wastewater stream
reduces the potential dissolution of the toxic metals that would
result from exposure of this waste stream to the acidic, metal
preparationwastewaters. In some cases, plants that use a chromating
process prior to porcelain enameling on aluminum must reduce
hexavalent chromium to the trivalent state so that it can be
precipitated and removed along with other metals. In all subcate-
gories the dissolved metals must be precipitated and suspended solids,
including the metal precipitate, removed.
Therefore, the strategy for approaching BPT treatment is to settle the
coating wastes separately, reduce hexavalent chromium in the metal
preparation stream where necessary, combine the wastewater streams,
and apply lime and settle technology to remove metals and solids (see
Figure IX-1 at Page 420). The overall treatment strategy is
applicable throughout the industrial segment except in the case of the
cast iron subcategory where metal preparation generally requires no
water use. The BPT approach for this subcategory is therefore pre-
settling of the coating wastewater stream followed by chemical
precipitation and settling (see Figure IX-2 at Page 421). Although
lime and settle technology is the suggested BPT system, lime, settle
and filter technology is used at two plants (ID 18538, 13330).
Industry use of lime, settle and filter technology has demonstrated
the increased effectiveness and the applicability of this technology,
and this system may be used for increased solids removal under BPT.
Wastewater flows differ from subcategory to subcategory, resulting in
different mass limitations for each subcategory.
An examination of the wastewater treatment systems used by visited
porcelain enameling plants shows that all of the elements of the
398
il!
ii - , ;j '.. WiE^itii, .i/! '.' '
i iiiliiixia-i -ih'Jt'ii>t!t>;.L: ,1 ./ii. ' ;' ii-
',,!.i,,,,: liiLT',!.!,1.!''! an, I, i ,!.h. iillimiM.JII:. J 'ii.ii.1
-------
proposed BPT system are in place in three sampled plants in the steel
and aluminum subcategories (33617, 40063, 33077). The copper and cast
iron subcategories have universally inadequate treatment, and there-
fore the BPT technology must be transferred to those subcategories.
The plants sampled were initially selected as the best plants with BPT
systems; however, not all of the sampled plants proved to be the best,
as only two sampled plants in the steel subcategory and one sampled
plant in the aluminum subcategory demonstrated proper operation of BPT
systems. Therefore, the performance data presented in Table VI1-16
are derived from various metal finishing categories that treat
wastewaters similar to those generated from porcelain enameling. The
three sampled BPT plants show performance better than or equal to that
indicated by the Table VII-16 data and therefore justify the transfer
of performance data.
SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
Pollutant parameters to be regulated by BPT in the porcelain enameling
industrial segment were selected because of their presence at
treatable concentrations in wastewaters from each of the four subcate-
gories. When pH and TSS are controlled within specified limits,
metals can be removed adequately. Table VII-16 summarizes the
treatment effectiveness of lime and settle' technology (L&S) for all
pollutant parameters regulated in the porcelain enameling category.
The importance of pH control is stressed in Section VII and its im-
portance for metals removal cannot be over-emphasized. Even small
variations from the optimum pH level can result in less than optimum
functioning of the system. A study of plant effluent data presented
for each subcategory shows the importance of pH. The optimum level
may shift slightly from the normal 8.8 to 9.3 level depending upon
wastewater composition. Therefore, the regulated pH is specified to
be within a range of 7.5-10.0 (instead of the more common 6.0-9.0) to
accomodate optimum efficiency without the necessity for a final pH
adjustment.
STEEL SUBCATEGORY
The BPT technology train for steel subcategory wastewater treatment
consists of settling for coating wastes, flow equalization of the
combined wastewaters from both waste streams, chemical precipitation
and sedimentation. Although lime and settle technology is suggested
for solids removal, industry use of lime, settle, and filter
technology has demonstrated the increased effectiveness and
applicability of this technology. Therefore, lime, settle, and filter
technology may be used for solids removal under BPT. However, the BPT
system for which costs are estimated and performance data are reported
uses lime and settle technology.
399
-------
Flow data from sampled plants were used to calculate allowable mass
discharges Because these data were verifed by on-site measurement.
The sampled plants were initially believed to represent the best
plants in terms of both waste treatment technology and water use;
however, not all of the sampled plants proved to be the best. Flow
data from Plant ID 47033 were excluded from the calculation of the
average normalized flow for the metal preparation stream. This plant
had significantly higher water use in the metal preparation area than
the other sampled plants. Examination of the information obtained
during this visit revealed that rinse tanks on the pickle line were
corroded and leaking severely. As a result, the plant had nearly
three times the normalized water use of other sampled plants and is
clearly not among the best plants. Excluding Plant ID 47033 in
determining an average of the best production related flow for metal
preparation, the average discharge flows per unit of production at
sampled plants are:
Metal Preparation: 34.278 1/m2
Coating: 6.807 1/m2
These values are used as the flow basisfor calculating mass based
limitations for BPT. Production related discharge flows were also
calculated from flow and production data reported in the dcp's.
Average discharge flows per unit of production reported are:
Metal Preparation: 57.04 1/m2
Coating: 25.98 1/m2
These flows are significantly higher than the average production
normalized flow measured at sampled plants. Because the water use at
plants in the dcp data base could not be verified, the reported flows
cannot be confirmed to represent the average of the best practices,
and users of excessive amounts of water cannot be clearly distin-
guished from users of average amounts. For these reasons, the flows
reported in the dcp's were not used in determining BPT mass discharge
limitations.
However, the flows reported in the dcp's are comparable to the
measured flows at sampled plants when those plants which appear to be
excessive water users are eliminated from the dcpaverage
calculations. For the metal preparation stream, the eliminationof
the five plants with production related flows greater than the
measured flow at sampled Plant ID 47033 (a known user of excessive
water) reduces the average discharge flow for dcp plants. Likewise,
the elimination of eight plants reporting flow rates from coating
greater than the highest water use at sampled plants reduces the dcp
average for the coating stream. Average discharge flows per unit of
production reported are:
400
-------
Metal Preparation:
Coating:
28.46 l/m*
11.50 l/m2
Thes.e adjusted average flows, though not used in determining mass
discharge limitations, support the conclusion that the average
measured flows for sampled plants reflect an industry-wide average for
the best plants.
Plants whose present production normalized flows are significantly
above the average flows used in calculating the BPT limitations for
metal preparation and coating will need to reduce these flows to meet
the BPT limitations. This can usually be done at no significant cost
by correcting obvious excessive water using practices (such as leaking
rinse tanks) or by shutting off flows to rinses when they are not in
use and installing flow control valves on rinse tanks. Specific water
conservation practices applicable are detailed in Section VII.
The typical characteristics of wastewaters from the metal preparation
and coating operations in the steel subcategory are presented in
Tables V-37 to V-45 and Tables V-24 and V-25, respectively. Tables V-
15 and V-19 present typical characteristics of total raw wastewater
for the steel subcategory. Tables VI-2 and VI-3 lists the pollutants
that should be considered when setting effluent limitations for this
subcategory. It appears appropriate at BPT to regulate antimony,
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, aluminum,
cobalt, fluoride, iron, manganese, titanium, selenium, oil and grease,
total suspended solids, and pH. Using lime and settle technology, the
concentration of regulated pollutants would be reduced to the levels
described in Table VI1-16. When those concentrations are applied to
the wastewater flow described above, the mass of pollutant allowed to
be discharged per unit area prepared and coated can be calculated.
Table IX-1 presents the limitations derived from this calculation.
TABLE IX-1
STEEL SUBCATEGORY
BPT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Metal
Prep.
Maximum for
any one day
Coating
Oper.
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive
sampling days
Metal
Prep.
Coating
Oper.
Metric Units - mq/m2 of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
5.48
5.48
1 .09
1 .09
2.40
2.40
0.48
0.48
401
-------
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Titanium
Oil & Grease
TSS
pH Within
2.06
62.7
66.8
3.43
49.4
1 .03
51 .4
2 1.9
7.54
1635.
74.4
12.0
1 .02
686.
1200.
the range
0.41
12.5
13.3
0.68
9.80
0.21
10.21
4.36
1 .50
324.7
14.77
2.38
0.20
136.1
238.2
of 7.5 to
1 .03
7.01
27.08
1.71
37.36
0.34
22.28
8.91
3.08
666.4
22.28
4.80
0.34
342.8
857.0
10.0 at
0.20
1 .39
5.38
0.34
7.42
0.07
4.42
1 ". 77
0.61
132.7
4.42
0.95
0.068
68.1
17 0.1
all times
English Units - lbs/1,OOP,OOP ft2 of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Titanium
Oil & Grease
TSS
pH Within the
BPT limitations are based on the assumption that metal preparation and
coating wastewaters will be combined and treated in a single treatment
system. The permitted discharge of pollutants from this treatment
system is equal to the sum of the allowable pollutant dischargefrom'
metal preparation operations and coating operations.
'" ' 1" " '' r ":tr.- ,,. ; ! I, Hi "III, i .:;?;;'!ซt',ip
To determine the reasonableness of these potential limitations, data
from the sampled plants were examined to determine how many plants met
this limitation. Table IX-2 (Page 415) presents a comparison of the
sampled plant mass discharges and the discharge limitations for the
steel subcategory. Of the two sampled plants employing lime and
1 .12
1 .12
0.42
12.8
13.7
0.70
10.1
0.21
10.5
4.49
1 .54
334.6
15.2
2.45
0.21
140.3
245.5
range of
0.22
0.22
0.084
2.55
2.72
0.14
2.01
0.042
2.09
0.89
0.31
66.4
3.02
0.49
0.42
27.9
48.8
7.5 to
0.49
0.49
0.21
1 .44
5.54
'0.35
7.65
0.07
4.56
1 .82
0.63
136.8
4 .56
0.98
0.07
7.01
175.3
10.0 at
0.098
0.098
0.042
0.29
1.10
0.07
1 .52
0.14
0.91
0.36
0.13
27.2
6.91
0.20
0.014
13.9
34.8
all times
402
-------
settle (BPT) technology, one plant (33617) meets all the BPT mass and
flow limitations. The other sampled steel subcategory plant employing
BPT technology (40063) meets all the limitations for the first
sampling day. On the second and third sampling days, the coating
flows were double the coating flow measured the first day. The
coating flows on the second and third days were five times the mean
flow from sampled plants. Therefore on the second and third sampling
days plant 40063 exceeded the limitations for aluminum and flouride.
Observations made during the visit to this plant reveal that flow can
be reduced by more careful attention to ball mill washdown practices.
Specifically, hoses used in washing the ball mill should be turned off
when not in use, and plant personnel should carefully control the
water used during this operation.
Although none of the eight dcp plants employing BPT technology
reported monitoring data for every regulated parameter, two dcp plants
(13330, 03032) meet the BPT limitations for the parameters reported
(Table IX-3, Page 417) in their dcps. Plant 40540 meets the
limitations for all parameters reported except iron. This plant
reported a water use level for coating exceeding the sampled plant
average for the coating stream, bringing the mass discharge over the
limitation for iron.
Plant 40035 meets the limitations on all but three parameters re-
ported. The plant water use for coating exceeds the sampled plant
average for the coating stream. Plant 40055 meets all of the
limitations except for iron and nickel. The plant did not report a pH
level, and a less than optimum pH can result in less than maximum
precipitation of metals. Plant 33054 reported a pH of 6.2 which is
well below the optimum level for precipitation of metals. This plant
also reported water use above the sampled plant average for the
coating stream; facts which are believed to account for its failure to
meet several of the BPT limitations.
Two additional dcp plants (33097, 34031) reported effluent concen-
tration levels equal to or less than the concentrations used to
calculate BPT limitations for all parameters reported. However,
neither plant provided enough data to determine whether they meet the
mass discharge limitations.
Data indicate that the lime and settle treatment system is capable of
producing effluent within the limitations proposed when the system is
operated properly. Therefore, the proposed limitations in Table IX-1
for the steel subcategory are reasonable and achievable.
In the establishment of BPT, the cost of application of technology
must be considered i-n relation to the effluent reduction benefits from
such application. The quantity of pollutants removed by BPT and the
total cost of application of BPT are displayed in Table X-15 (Page
403
-------
460). The capital cost of BPT as an increment above the cost of in-
place treatment equipment is estimated to be $20.0 million for the
steel subcategory. Annual cost of BPT for the steel subcategory is
estimated to be $11.0 million. The quantity of pollutants removed by
the BPT system for this subcategory is estimated to be 19,600 kkg/yr
(18,000 tons/yr) including 331 kkg/yr (300 tons/yr) of toxic
pollutants. The effluent reduction benefit is worth the dollar cost
of required BPT.
CAST IRON SUBCATEGORY
The BPT technology train for the cast iron" subcategory wastewater
treatment consists of simple settling of coating wastewaters to remove
large particles followed by chemical precipitation and settling. The
metal preparation operations in the cast iron subcategory are
generally dry. Porcelain enamelers on cast iron often reuse the
settled slip in a 1:1 ratio with new slip in the formulation of enamel
ground coat. Therefore, the installation of drag chains is
recommended in the initial settling sump to aid in slip reclamation.
'ป ; , , '' i , , i" i j ' ;, " iliiir Ml /':!ซ'.n ซ ' "i ' ft ,M' im'l I J',!! : Vi i ป '.., ", ./'I'l: " :;Xli!i'Jnii|i: ' ';!ซ/'(
ir " I; i: , , :,' '.'.' !' ,,.r.T '':!.' f:~"t>V!'^%F-l I. '' ' i ' WY .' ," '..'..! ,, ' f. 1 .'* Ill:' vllti J.
All visited plants were included in the subcategory average flow used
to calculate BPT mass discharge limitations. The average production
related wastewater flows is:
Coating: 0.692 1/m2
The typical characteristics of wastewaters from the ball milling arid
enamel application operations in the cast iron subcategory are pre-
sented in Table V-23. Tables VI-2 and VI-3 list the pollutants that
should be considered in setting effluent limitations for this
subcategory. It appears appropriate at BPT to regulate antimony,
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, zinc,
aluminum, barium, cobalt, fluoride, iron, manganese, titanium, oil and
grease, total suspended solids, iron and pH. Using lime and settle
technology, the concentration of regulated pollutants would be reduced
to the levels described in Table VII-16.
When those concentrations are applied to the sampled plant mean
wastewater flow described above, the mass of pollutant allowed to be
discharged per unit area coated can be calculated. Table IX-4
presents the limitations derived from this calculation.
TABLE IX-4
CAST IRON SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant or
BPT Effluent Limitations
Average of daily
values for 30
404
-------
Pollutant
Property
Maximum for
any one day
consecutive
sampling days
mq/m2 (lb/1,000,000 ft2) of area processed
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Titanium
Oil & Grease
TSS
pH Within
0.11
0.11
0.041
1 .27
1 .35
0.069
1 .00
1 .04
0.44
0.15
33.0
1 .50
0.24
0.021
13.8
24.2
the range
(0.023)
(0.023)
(0.008)
(0.26)
(0.28)
(0.014)
(0.20)
(0.21)
(0.090)
(0.031 )
(6.76) 1
(0.31)
(0.050)
(0.004)
(2.83)
(4.96) 1
of 7.5 to
0.048
0.048
0.021
0.14
0.55
0.035
0.75
0.45
0.18
0.062
3.5
0.45
0.097
0.007
6.92
7.3
10.0 at
(0.010)
(0.010)
(0.004)
(0.029)
(0.11)
(0.007)
(0.15)
(0.092)
(0.037)
(0.013)
(2.76)
(0.092)
(0.020)
(0.002)
(1.42)
(0.14)
all times
To determine the reasonableness of these potential limitations, the
cast iron subcategory data base was scrutinized to determine if any
plants meet the requirements for BPT. The cast iron subcategory was
found to have universally inadequate treatment based on the
environmentally unsound effluent characteristics measured at the three
sampled plants (15712, 33076, 40053). Therefore, BPT must be
transferred to the cast iron subcategory from the other subcategories
such as the steel subcategory in the porcelain enameling industry and
from treatment found in other industries which generate similar
wastewaters.
The data indicate that the technology being transferred is capable of
producing effluent that meets the expected BPT performance levels.
The treatment system is capable of producing effluent within the
limitations proposed for the cast iron subcategory when the system is
operated properly and when wastewater generation is carefully
controlled. Therefore, the proposed limitations in Table IX-4 for the
cast iron subcategory are reasonable and achievable.
In the establishment of BPT, the cost of application of technology
must be considered in relation to the effluent reduction benefits from
such application. The quantity of pollutants removed by BPT and the
total cost of application of BPT are displayed in Table X-15 (Page
462). The capital cost of BPT as an increment above the cost of in-
place treatment equipment is estimated to be $0.41 million for the
405
-------
cast iron subcategory. Annual cost of BPT for the cast iron
subcategory is estimated to be $0.273 million. The quantity of
pollutants removed by the BPT system for this subcategory is estimated
to be 160,700 kg/yr (146 tons/yr) including 2,350 kg/yr (2.13 tons/yr)
of toxic pollutants. The effluent reduction benefit is worth the
dollar cost of required BPT.
ALUMINUM SUBCATEGORY
The BPT treatment technology train for aluminum subcategory wastewater
consists of settling for coating wastewat;r, chromium reduction of
chromating wastewater where applicable, equalization of the combined
wastewaters from the metal preparation and coating wastewater streams,
and chemical precipitation and sedimentation. Although lime addition
and settling are suggested for solids removal, industry use of liming,
settling, and filtering has demonstrated the increased effectiveness
and applicability of this technology. Therefore, lime, settle, and
filter technology may be used for solids removal under BPT. However,
the recommended BPT system for which costs are estimated and
performance data reported uses lime and settle technology.
" ' ' '' ' ' ' '' " "' '
t,
;
".
, ,.*: :,ii'<". v v
allowable
, , . . , , ,, . .....
Flow data from sampled plants were used to calculate aowabe mass
discharges because these data were verified. by on-site measurement.
Although the sampled plants were initially selected to represent the'
best plants in terms of wastewater treatment technology and water use,
not all sampled plants proved to be the best. Flow data from Plant ID
33077 were excluded from the subcategory average flow calculation for
the metal preparation stream. Observation of the metal prepar'atToh '
operation at this plant revealed excessive water use, including the
discharge of rinse water during off-hours of production. The plant
used more than four times the average quantity of metal preparation
water used by other visited plants and clearly is not among the best
plants in terms of water use. Similarly, water use data from Plant ID
11045 were excluded from the subcategory average flow calculation for
the coating stream. During the sampling period, this plant used large
quantities of water in washing off improperly enameled parts. The
additional water used for this purpose increased the total coating
discharge to nearly 5 1/2 times the average water use at other visited
plants.
Excluding Plant ID 33077 from the metal preparation flow calculations
and Plant ID 11045 from the coating flow calculations, the average
discharge flow rates per unit of production at sampled plants are:
Metal Preparation: 35.09 1/m2
Coating: 1 1 . 07 l/m*
These production normalized flows are used for BPT mass limitation
calculations. Production related discharge; flow rates were also
406
'" I!:1
i
1 i
i!:.,ii ,..;,;'.:::,.;: in
U ;;,;/
-------
calculated from flow rate and production data reported in dcp's.
Average discharge flows per unit of production reported are:
Metal Preparation: 68.63 1/m2
Coating: 21.95 1/m2
These flows are significantly
rate measured at sampled plants.
the dcp data base could not
cannot be confirmed to represent
excessive water users cannot
water users. For these reasons,
not used in determining BPT mass
higher than the average adjusted flow
Because the water use at plants in
be verified, the reported flow rates
the average of the best plants, and
be clearly distinguished from average
the flows reported in the dcp's were
discharge limitations.
However, the flows reported in the dcp's are comparable to the
measured flow rates at sampled plants when those plants which appear
to be excessive water users are eliminated from the dcp average cal-
culations. For the metal preparation stream, the elimination of two
plants reporting flows equal to or greater than the flow at Plant ID
33077 (a known user of excessive water) reduces the average discharge
flow rate for dcp plants. Likewise, the elimination of the one plant
reporting a flow from coating greater than or equal to the flow at
Plant ID 11045 (a known user of excessive water) also reduces the
average. These adjusted dcp flows support the fact that the average
measured flows for visited plants reflect an industry-wide average for
the best plants. Average discharge flows per unit of production are:
Metal Preparation: 45.00 1/m2
Coating: 17.33 1/m2
The typical characteristics of wastewaters from the metal preparation
and coating operations in the aluminum subcategory are presented in
Tables V-46 to V-47 and V-28 to V-29, respectively. Tables V-17 and
V-21 present typical characteristics of total raw wastewater for the
aluminum subcategory. Tables VI-2 and VI-3 list the pollutants that
should be considered in setting effluent limitations for this
subcategory. It appears appropriate at BPT to regulate cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, aluminum, barium, cobalt,
fluoride, iron, manganese, titanium, oil and grease, total suspended
solids, and pH. Using lime and settle technology, the concentration
of regulated pollutants would be reduced to the levels described in
Table VII-16.
When those concentrations are applied to the sampled plant mean
wastewater flow described above, the mass of pollutant allowed to be
discharged per unit area prepared and coated can be calculated. Table
IX-5 presents the limitations derived from this calculation.
407
-------
At BPT it is presumed that metal preparationand coating wastewaters
will be combined and treated in a single treatment system. The
discharge of pollutants and the effluent from this treatment system is
equal to the sum of the allowable pollutant discharge from metal
preparation operations and coating operations.
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
TABLE IX-5
, i " ' J . ' : , ' " , ' , |
ALUMINUM SUBCATEGORY
BPT Effluent Limitations
Average of daily
[ i , ' . . values for^30
Maximum for consecutive'
any one day sampling clays
Metal Coating Metal Coating
i-;" ' ' 'Prep. Oper. PrepI " Oper";
Metric Units - mq/m2 of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Titanium
Oil & Grease
TSS
pH Within
5.61
5.61
2.11
64.2
68.4
7.72
3.51
50.5
52.6
22.5
7.72
1674.
76.1
12.3
1 .05
701 .8
1228.
the range
1 .77
1 .77
0.66
20.1
21 .6
2.44
1.11
15.9
16.6
7.08
2.44
528.
24 . 0
3.87
0.33
221 .4
388.
Of 7.5 to
2.46
2.46
1 .05
7.18
27.7
3.16
1 .75
38.2
22.8
9.12
3. 16
684.
22.8
4.91
0.35
351 .
877.
10.0 at
0.77
0.77
0.33
2.27
8.75
1.00
0.55
12.1
7.2
2.88
1 .00
215.9
7. 20
1 .55
0.11
110.7
276.8
all times
English Units- lbs/1,000,OOP ft2 of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
1 .
1 .
0.
13.
14.
1 .
15
15
43
1
0
58
0.72
0.36
0.36
0.14
4.15
4.42
0.50
0.23
0.50
0.50
0.22
1 .47
5.67
0.65
0.36
0 . 1 58
0.158
0.068
0.46
1 .79
0.20
0.11
408
11 , i-ii ii 4 ;,,;.!, >'i ' ,-y i1.'!:' .it, !!!,i!:!i! H,:: i,, I,, " -, ; JV; "I J ','.,,1 15; ,<* i;.. -si f'
|i ill 5; I
-------
Nickel
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Titanium
Oil & Grease
TSS
10.3
10.8
4.60
1 .58
342.5
15.6
2.51
0.22
143.6
251 .3
3.26
3.40
1 .45
0.50
108.0
4.92
0.79
0.068
45.3
79.3
7; 83
4.67
1 .87
0.65
140.0
4.67
41 .6
0.072
71 .8
179.5
2.47
1 .47
0.59
0.20
44.2
1 .47
0.32
0.023
22.7
56.6
To determine the reasonableness of these potential limitations, data
from the one sampled plant having BPT technology (33077) were examined
to determine whether the plant meets these limitations. Table IX-6
(Page 419) presents a comparison of the sampled plant mass discharges
and the discharged limitations for the aluminum subcategory. Plant
33077 meets 15 of the 20 limitations on one sampling day and 12 of the
20 limitations on a second sampling day. The plant failed to meet
some of the limitations because water use for both the metal
preparation and coating wastewater streams exceeds the sampled plant
averages by a significant amount. As explained earlier in this
section, Plant 33077 was observed to use more than four times the
average water used by the other sampled plants in its metal
preparation operations. Plant personnel were also observed leaving
hoses and sinks running after ball mill washdowns. In this
subcategory water use is high compared to other subcategories and
treatment is universally inadequate.
Dcp's submitted by plants in the aluminum subcategory were carefully
scrutinized to determine which plants employ a system. With the
exception of one of the sampled BPT plants, none of the plants submit-
ting dcp's has an operating BPT treatment system.
The data indicate that the treatment system is capable of producing
effluent within the limitations proposed when the system is operated
properly and when wastewater generation is carefully controlled.
Therefore, the limitations set forth in Table IX-5 for the aluminum
subcategory are reasonable and achievable.
In the establishment of BPT, the cost of application of technology
must be considered in relation to the effluent reduction benefits from
such application. The quantity of pollutants removed by BPT and the
total cost of application of BPT are displayed in Table X-15. The
capital cost of BPT as an increment above the cost of in-place
treatment equipment is estimated to be $2.00 million for the aluminum
subcategory. Annual cost of BPT for the aluminum subcategory is
estimated to be $0.644 million. The quantity of pollutants removed by
the BPT system for this subcategory is estimated to be 842,500 kg/yr
(764 tons/yr) including 119,000 kg/yr (108 tons/yr) of toxic
409
-------
pollutants. The effluent reduction benefit is worth the dollar cost
of required BPT.
1 i , 'if ,, ! : i . :i . "'! "' "''' " :, ,'"' 'ii'i-tol'i.!'"*1
COPPER SUBCATEGORY
ปi!!"ii",;*,; "(i1!1 j 1,-,'iiiii!] i ri
The BPT technology train for copper subcategory wastewater treatment
consists of settling for coating wastewater, equalization of the
combined wastewater from the metal preparation and coating wastewater
streams, and chemical precipitation and settling. Although lime
addition and settling are recommended for solids removal, industry use
of liming, settling, and filtering has demonstrated the increased
effectiveness and applicability of this technology. Therefore, lime,
settle, and filter technology may be used for solids removal under
BPT. However, the recommended BPT system for which costs are
estimated and performance data reported uses lime and settle
technology.
: ! , ',:, , .,,:' i i',.:;'vV'jy ', ' ftฃ.! U4! K'* .^^\ '-I :J. *? ^KJ.Jli:
Flow data from sampled plants were used to calculate allowable mass
discharges because all copper subcategory plants submitting dcp's were
also sampled.
Of the two sampled plants, Plant ID 06031 had an essentially dry
coating process and was therefore excluded from the subcategory
average for the coating waste stream. The average production
normalized flow for the copper subcategory for metal preparation is
67.29 1/m2. The coating flow for the one plant in the subcategory
generating coating wastewater is 4.74 1/m2.
I ' "';;!.*: ': i '!" fiii '''i J . : ;'!';!' ';!! ""f1, ''.. ' ! ' . iVilI
The typical characteristics of wastewaters from the metal preparation
and coating operations in the copper subcategory are presented in
Tables V-48 to V-49 and V-30 to V-34, respectively. Tables V-18 and
V-22 present typical characteristics of total raw wastewater for the
copper subcategory. Tables VI-2 and VI-3 list the pollutants that
should be considered in setting effluent limitatons for this
subcategory. It appears appropriate at BPT to regulate antimony,
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, aluminum,
cobalt, fluoride, iron, manganese, titanium, oil and grease, total
suspended solids, and pH. Using lime and settle technology, the
concentration of regulated pollutants would be reduced to the levels
described in Table VII-16.
When those concentrations are applied to the sampled plant mean
wastewater flow described above, the mass of pollutant allowed to be
discharged per unit area prepared and coated can be calculated. Table
IX-7 presents the limitations derived from this calculation.
410
-------
TABLE IX-7
COPPER SUBCATEGORY
BPT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Metal
Prep.
Maximum for
any one day
Coating
Oper.
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive
sampling days
Metal
Prep.
Coating
Oper.
Metric Units - mq/m2 of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Titanium
Oil & Grease
TSS
pH Within
English Units - lbs/1,OOP,OOP ft2 of area processed or coated
10.8
10.8
4.04
123.1
131 .2
6.73
96.9
100.9
43.1
14.8
3210.
146.0
23.6
2.02
1345.
2355.
the range
0.76
0.76
0.28
8.67
9.24
0.47
6.83
7. 1 1
2.03
1 .04
226.
10.3
1 .66
0.14
94.8
165.9
Of 7.5 to
4.71
4.71
2.02
13.8
53.2
3.36
73.3
43.7
17.5
6.06
13.2
43.7
9.42
0.67
673.
1682.
10.0 at
0.33
0.33
0.14
0.97
3.74
0.24
5.17
3.08
1 .23
0.43
92.4
3.08
0.66
0.047
47.4
118.5
all times
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Titanium
Oil & Grease
2
2
20
20
0.83
25.2
26.9
1 .38
19.8
20.7
8.81
3.03
656.9
30.0
4.82
0.41
275.4
0.16
0. 16
0.058
1 .78
1 .89
0.097
1
1
,40
,46
0.62
0.21
46.3
2.10
0.34
0.029
19.4
0.96
0.96
0.41
2.82
10.9
0.69
15.0
8.95
3.58
1 .24
269.
8.95
1 .93
0.14
138.
18
0.068
0.068
0.029
0.20
0.77
0.049
1 .06
0.63
0.25
0.087
9
0.63
0.14
0.010
9.7
411
-------
TSS
pH
482.p 34.Q 344. 24-3
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
. ' ,. ; . ,, .., -i. < ,, . .,, ,,. ,.. , ,
At BPT it is presumed that metal preparation and coating wastewaters
will be combined and treated in a single treatment system. The
discharge of pollutants and the effluent from this treatment system is
equal to the sum of the allowable pollutantdischarge from metal
preparation operations and coating operations.
To determine the reasonableness of these potential limitations, the
copper subcategory data base was scrutinized to determine if any
plants meet the requirements for BPT. The copper subcategory was
found to have, universally inadequate treatment based on the effluent
characteristics measured atthe two sampled plants (06031, 36030).
Therefore, BPT must be transferred to the copper subcategory from the
other subcategories in the porcelain enameling industry and from
treatment found in other industries, which generate similar wastes.
: '': , ' ' i' - ' |" ' ' , I I I i M If l|
11" !' lr. I . ..' I I" i1 ' I II III
The data indicate that the technology being transferred is capable of
producing an effluent that meets the expected BPT performance levels
for the steel and aluminum subcategories. Because the steel and
aluminum subcategories generate wastewaters similar to copper
subcategory wastewaters, the treatment system is capable of producing
effluent within the limitations proposed for the copper subcategory
when the system is operated properly and when flow is carefully
controlled. Therefore, the proposed limitations in Table IX-7 for the
copper subcategory are reasonable and achievable.
In the establishment of BPT, the cost of application of technology
must be considered in relation to the effluent reduction benefits from
such application. The quantity of pollutants removed by BPT and the
total cost of application of BPT are displayed in Table X-15. The
capital cost of BPT as an increment above the cost of in-place
treatment equipment is estimated to be $0.28 million for the copper
subcategory. Annual cost of BPT for the copper subcategory is
estimated to be $ 0.088 million. The quantity of pollutants removed
by the BPT system for this subcategory is estimated to be 2,317,000
kg/yr (2,102 tons/yr) including 345,600 kg/yr (313.5 tons/yr) of toxic
pollutants. The effluent reduction benefit is worth the dollar cost
of required BPT.
Adjustment of data for less than 3ฃ sampling days
A method of interpolation between one day and 30 day average
values has been developed by the Agency and previously published.
This method developed as a part of electroplating pretreatment
development document was published at 44 FR 56330 October 1, 1979.
412
-------
For the purpose of enforcement of limitation and standards (BPT, BAT,
BCT, NSPS and pretreatment), consecutive samples taken and analyzed
shall be considered as being taken on consecutive sampling days even
though one or more non-sampling days intervene. In applying the
limitations and standards where more than one but less than 30 samples
have been taken and analyzed, the following formula shall be used to
establish the standard for each pollutant which the average of the
samples shall not exceed:
Lx = L
30
- L30) x Fx]
Where:
Lx ซ Standard not to be exceeded by the
average of X consecutive samples.
Lj = Maximum for any one day.
L30 = Standard not to be exceeded by the
average of 30 consecutive days.
Fx = Multiplier for number of samples
analyzed (from table below).
413
-------
llui "",ซ ."IllHi
! 'Ill-I' < .'.li
No,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
,14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Table - Valuesof Fx
Samples:
'ป ...... it Si,; I
''li1, i i,, " li1 Irillii'l jih
; -IiJ i!",
Fx
1 .00
0.597
0.430
0.335
0.266
0.223
0.186
0.167
0,141
0.127
0.114
0.102
0.089
0.077
0.064
0.058
0.052
0.045
0.039
0.033
0.030
0.026
0-023
0.020
0.016
0.013
0.010
0.007
O.OQ3
0.000
414
-------
TABLE IX-2
COMPARISON OF BPT MASS DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS
AND ACTUAL DISCHARGES OF STEEL SUBCATEGORY
SAMPLED PLANTS WITH BPT
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
DAY 1 (kg/day)
ACTUAL TOTAL TOTAL
DISCHARGE LIMITATION
PLANT 33617
DAY 2 (kg/day)
ACTUAL TOTAL TOTAL
DISC .IE LIMITATION
DAY 3 (kg/day)
ACTUAL TOTAL TOTAL
DISCHARGE LIMITATION
114 Antimony 0
115 Arsenic 0
117 Beryllium 0
118 Cadmium 0
119 Chromium, Total 0
120 Copper 0.002
122 Lead 0
124 Nickel 0.182
125 Selenium
128 Zinc 0.006
Aluminum 0
Cobalt 0.014
Fluoride 4.028
Iron 0.149
Manganese 0.061
Phosphorus 0.256
Titanium 0
Oil and Grease 2.102
Total Suspended Solids 2.802
0.202
0.202
1.125
0.086
1.908
2.284
0.144
3.152
0.029
1.879
0.752
0.261
56.38
1.879
0.405
15.285
0.029
28.91
72.28
0.019
0
0
0
0.001
0
0.258
0
0.004
0
0.021
5.241
0.122
0.091
0.078
0
4.85
7.18
0.202
0. 202 -
1.125
0.086
1.908
2.284
0.144
3.152
0.029
1. 879
0.752
0.261
56.38
1.879
0.405
15. 285
0.029
28.91
72.28
0.013
0
-
0
0.001
0.001
0
0.264
0
0.033
0
0.033
3.004
0.351
0.055
0.055
0
3.338
0.534
0.202
0.202
1.125
0.086
1.908
2.284
0.144
3.152
0.029
1.879
0.752
0.261
56.38
1.879
0.405
15.285
0.029
28.91
72.28
- Indicates no data available
0 Indicates less than minimum detectable limit
or not detected at all
-------
TABLE IX-2 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF BPT MASS DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS
AND ACTUAL DISCHARGES OF STEEL SUBCATEGORY
SAMPLED PLANTS WITH BPT
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
DAY 1 (kg/day)
ACTUAL TOTAL TOTAL
DISCHARGE LIMITATION
PLANT 40063
DAY 2 (kg/day)
ACTUAL TOTAL TOTAL
DISCHARGE LIMITATION
DAY 3 (kg/day)
ACTUAL TOTAL TOTAL
DISCHARGE LIMITATION
Ch
114 Antimony 0
115 Arsenic 0
117 Beryllium 0
118 Cadmium 0.002
119 Chromium, Total 0
120 Copper 0.001
122 Lead 0
124 Nickel 0
125 Selenium f 0
128 Zinc 0.007
Aluminum 0.091
Cobalt -=*:--- :0
Fluoride -... ;: i6.78
Iron 0.128
Manganese " 0.031
Phosphorus :0.062
Titanium .. ,_;0
Oil and Grease ""- -2.08
Total Suspended Solids 2.35
- Indicates no data available;
0 Indicates, less than minimum detectable limit
or not detected at all
0.027
0.027
0.152
0.012
0.258
0.308
0.019
0.426
0.004
0.254
0.102
0.035
7.614
0.254
0.055
2.067
0.004
3.905
9.762
0
0
0
0.002
0.001
-
0
0
0.017
0.137
0
8.59
0.222
0.005
0.406
0
0.781
5.08
0.029
0.029
0.161
0.012
0.273
0.327
0.021
0.451
0.004
0.269
0.108
0.037
8.067
0.269
0.058
2.190
0.004
4.137
10.343
0
0
0
0.002
-
0.001
-
0
0
0.004
0.144
0
8.86
0.239
0.049
0.157
0
0.989
5.36
0.026
0.026
0.145
0.011
0.246
0.295
0.019
0.407
0.004
0.243
0.097
0.034
7.279
0.243
0.052
1.976
0.004
3.733
9.332
-------
TABLE IX-3
COMPARISON OF BPT MASS DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS
AND ACTUAL DISCHARGES OF ALUMINUM SUBCATEGORY
SAMPLED PLANTS WITH BPT
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
DAY 1 (kg/day)
ACTUAL TOTAL TOTAL
DISCHARGE LIMITATION
PLANT 33077
DAY 2 (kg/day)
ACTUAL TOTAL TOTAL
DISCHARGE LIMITATION
DAY 3 (kg/day)
ACTUAL TOTAL TOTAL
DISCHARGE LIMITATION
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium, Total
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids 0
0
0
0
0.01
0
0
0
0
0
-0.0969
0
0
0.359
0.007
0
0.160
0
0
0
0.0033
0.0033
0.018
0.0014
0.0311
0.0372
0.0023
0.0514
0.0005
0.0306
0.0123
0.0042
0.919
0.0306
0.0066
0.250
0.0005
0.471
1.178
0
0
0
0.061
0.0004
0
0.034
0
0.0057
0.0048
0.0136
0
0.102
0
0
0.243
0.027
0
0.341
0.0013
0.0013
0.007
0.0005
0.0119
0.0142
0.0009
0.0196
0.0002
0.0117
0.0047
0.0016
0.351
0.0117
0.0025
0.095
0.0002
0.180
0.450
0
0
0
0.018
0
0
0.026
0
0
0.124
0.006
0
0.391
0.007
0
0.248
0
0
7.169
0.0045
0.0045
0.025
0.0019
0.0428
0.0512
0.0032
0.0707
0.0006
0.0422
0.0169
0.0058
1.264
0.0422
0.0091
0.344
0.344
0.648
1.621
0 Indicates less than minimum detectable limit
or not detected at all.
-------
TABLE IX-6
COMPARISON OF BPT MASS DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS
AND ACTUAL DISCHARGES REPORTED IN DCP's BY
STEEL SUBCATEGORY PLANTS WITH BPT TREATMENT
(KG/DAY)
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
PLANT 33054
ACTUAL TOTAL TOTAL
DISCHARGE LIMITATION
PLANT 33097
ACTUAL TOTAL TOTAL
DISCHARGE LIMITATION
PLANT 34031
ACTUAL TOTAL TOTAL
DISCHARGE LIMITATION
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic -
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium, Total 0.180
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel 0.85
125 Selenium
128 Zinc K 0.707
Aluminum -. :-
=" Cobalt
: Fluoride :;: _,L:^ .-
Iron ;;-- xi ;? ; 0.707
Manganese '""' v ^ -
Phosphorus - ; 1.39
Titanium -
Oil and Grease 9.71
Total Suspended uSolids 21.58
0.388
0.64
0.382
0.382
"3.110
5.88
14.69
0.04
0.41
0.086
0.119
0.001
0.0004
0.0018
0
0.0019
0.0028
0.0014
0
0.0056
0.0024
0.053
0.063
0.0040
0.087
0.0008
0.052
12.26
2.72
- Indicates no data reported
0 Indicates less than minimum detectable limit
or not detected at all.
-------
TABLE IX-6 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF BPT MASS DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS
AND ACTUAL DISCHARGES REPORTED IN DCP's BY
STEEL SUBCATEGORY PLANTS WITH BPT TREATMENT
(KG/DAY)
POLLlfEANT PARAMETER
PLANT 40035
ACTUAL TOTAL TOTAL
DISCHARGE LIMITATION
PLANT 40055
ACTUAL TOTAL TOTAL
DISCHARGE LIMITATION
PLANT 40540
ACTUAL TOTAL TOTAL
DISCHARGE LIMITATION
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium, Total
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
0
0
0.00004
0.0002
0.0007
0.0004
0.0056
0
0.0038
0.0007
0.042
0.179
0.002
0.423
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.0009
0.02
0.025
0.0016
0.034
0.0003
0.02
0.0028
0.609
0.02
0.004
0.165
0.0003
0.0004
0.049
0.003
0.002
0.0047
0.08
0.024
0.022
0.003
0.02
0.460
0.035
0.760
0.453
0.181
0.063
1.529
0.453
0.007
0
0.04
0.005
0.343
0.186
0.223
0.307
0.183
0.183
0.846
0.781
- Indicates no data reported
0 Indicates less than minimum detectable limit
or not detected at all.
-------
TABLE IX-6 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF BPT MASS DISCHARGE UMETATIONS
AND ACTUAL DISCHARGES REPORTED IN DCP's BY
STEEL SUBCATEGORY PLANTS WITH BPT TREATMEOT
(KG/DAY)
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
PLANT 40035
ACTUAL TOTAL TOTAL
DISCHARGE LIMITATION
PLANT 40055
ACTUAL TOTAL TOTAL
DISCHARGE LIMITATION
PLANT 40540
ACTUAL TOTAL TOTAL
DISCHARGE LIMITATION
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium, Total
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Phosphorus
Titanium ;
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
0
0
0.00004
0.0002
0.0007
0.0004
0.0056
0
0.0038
0.0007
0.042
0.179
0.002
0.423
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.0009
0.02
0.025
0.0016
0.034
0.0003
0.02
0.0028
0.609
0.02
0.004
0.165
0.0003
0.0004
0.049
0.003
0.002
0.0047
0.03
0.024
0.022
0. 003
0.02
0.460
0.035
0.760
0.453
0.181
0.063
1.529
0.453
0.007
0
0.04
0.005
0.343
0.186
0.223
0.307
0.183
0.183
0.846
0.781
:- Indicates no data reported
0 Indicates less than minimum detectable limit
or not detected at all.
-------
FRIT
RECLAMATION
COATING
WASTEWATER
SETTLING
SUMP
SUPERNATANT
ALL OTHER
PORCELAIN
ENAMELING
WASTEWATER
EQUALIZATION
CHEMICAL
ADDITION ,
CHROMIUM
BEARING
WASTEWATER
CHROMIUM
REDUCTION
CHEMICAL
ADDITION
k_A^ALCA^A
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION
SEDIMENTATION
DISCHARGE
SLUDGE
RECYCLE
SLUDGE TO
DISPOSAL
SLUDGE
DEWATERING
(IF APPLICABLE)
FIGURE IX-1. BPT TREATMENT SYSTEM FOR THE STEEL, ALUMINUM, AND COPPER SUBCATEGORIES
-------
PO
ro
FRIT
RECLAMATION
CHEMICAL
ADDITION
COATING
WASTEWATER
^^-*
SETT
SU
-y^^^.
LING
MP
wm$
'/
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION
ofc>
ซ
-------
SECTION X
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
The factors considered in assessing best available technology
economically achievable (BAT) include the age of equipment and
facilities involved, the process employed, process changes, nonwater
quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements) and the
costs of application of such technology (Section 304(b)(2)(B)). In
general, the BAT technology level represents, at a minimum, the best
existing economically achievable performance of plants of various
ages, sizes, processes or other shared characteristics. As with BPT,
in those categories where existing performance is universally
inadequate BAT may include process changes or internal controls, even
when not common industry practice.
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO BAT
In pursuing this second round of effluent regulations, the Agency
desired to review a wide range of BAT technology options and evaluate
the available possibilities to ensure that the most effective and
beneficial technologies were used as the basis of BAT. To accomplish
this, the Agency developed three significant technology options which
might be applied to porcelain enameling as BAT options. These options
were to consider the range of technologies which are available and
applicable to the category and subcategories therein, and to suggest
three technology trains which would make substantial progress toward
prevention of environmental pollution above and beyond progress to be
achieved by BPT.
In a draft development document that was given Timited circulation in
September 1979 to industry and environmental groups, six BAT treatment
systems were described. The six systems were grouped under three BAT
levels of treatment. Comments from the limited but technically
knowledgeable audience were used in making the selection of a specific
BAT option. A system of chemical precipitation and settling repeated
in series was eliminated as cost ineffective; and two others - one
involving reverse osmosis, the other ultrafiltration - requiring
of all water were eliminated on the basis that the
cause product quality problems when used for
mills. The three remaining systems are described
and 3 and are displayed in Figures X-l through
complete recycle
recycled water may
washing out ball
here as Options 1, 2,
X-3 (Pages 463-465).
In summary form the BAT treatment technologies for porcelain enameling
are:
423
-------
At BAT Option 1 :
o
Coating wastewaters
- Settling sump
wastewater plus metal
preparation
Settled coating
wastewaters
- chromium reduction (where necessary in aluminum sub-
category)
- chemical precipitation
- settling (clarifier)
- polishing filtration
- final pH adjustment (if necessary)
, .
At BAT Option 2:
o
Coating wastewaters (zero discharge)
- settling sump
- settling (clarifier without chemical precipitation)
- polishing filtration
- holding tank
- recycle to process
category)
Metal preparation wastewaters
- chromium reduction (where
necessary in aluminum sub-
- chemical precipitation
- settling (clarifier)
- polishing filtration
- final pH adjustment
rinse water reuse and flow controls
- spray or countercurrent rinsing
At BAT Option 3:
category)
Coating wastewaters - same as BAT Option 2
Metal preparation wastewaters (zero discharge)
- chromium reduction (where necessary in aluminum sub-
- chemical precipitation
- settling (clarifier)
-polishing filtration
- holding tank
- rinse water reuse and flow controls
-spray or countercurrent rinsing
- recycle to process
424
-------
Bk.1 Option Modification
After the limited review by industry and environmental groups, the
Agency carefully reconsidered the three remaining technology options
to determine their feasibility and beneficial characteristics.
BAT Option 1 was carefully examined and restructured. First, an
equalization tank was inserted for the mixed wastewater streams prior
to chemical precipitation. Such a tank is necessary to accommodate
the batch operation of the ball mill. Second, the pH adjustment
following the polishing filtration was eliminated because the pH will
be regulated to an acceptable discharge range prior to sedimentation.
There is no flow reduction at BAT Option 1, the regulatory flows are
the same as those at BPT. In summary, modified BAT Option 1 consists
of s
o Coating wastewaters
- settling sump
o Settled coating wastewater plus metal preparation
wastewaters
- chromium reduction (where necessary in aluminum
subcategory)
- equalization tank
- chemical precipitation
- settling (clarifier)
- polishing filtration
#
The Agency considered this Option, after modification, to be
technologically suitable for cost and performance comparison with the
other two modified options.
BAT Option 2 was also carefully examined and restructured. Completely
separate treatment systems for coating wastewaters and metal
preparation wastewaters are retained. However, complete recycling
(zero discharge) of coating wastewater was eliminated in response to
industry comments that fresh water is needed to clean out a ball mill.
To determine the quantity of discharge that could reasonably be
permitted, the Agency studied the data to determine the average
quantity of water used in washing out a ball mill. This represents
the fresh water that must be added, and therefore is the quanitity
permitted to be discharged from the coating waste treatment system.
Further consideration of industry comments led to elimination of the
granular bed multimedia filter from the coating treatment technology
train. While ball mill washouts require fresh water, other
applications of water in coating operations do not require the level
of purity achievable with a granular bed multimedia filter.
Elimination of the filter substantially reduces the cost of the Option
425
-------
2 system while maintaining sufficient water quality to permit reuse in
processes other than ball mill washdown. However, the discharged
water from coating requires additional solids removal after settling.
For this purpose, a pressure filter with a paper element is inserted
immediately prior to discharge.
A further addition to the coating treatment system is chemical
precipitation to aid in sedimentation. Careful study of the nature of
the metals in the wastewater revealed that some are dissolved and may
require precipitation with lime. In summary, modified BAT Option 2
consists of: ; , . , =_ ,.
o Coating wastewaters
- settling sump
- chemical precipitation
- settling (clarifier)
- recycle all coating water needs
- paper element pressure filter
except ball mill washout
o Metal preparation wastewaters
- chromium reduction (where necessary in aluminum
subcategory)
- Settling (clarifier)
- polishing filtration
- rinse water reuse and flow controls
- spray or countercurrent rinsing
After modifying this Option the Agency considered it to be
technologically suitable for cost and performance comparision with
Option 1 and 3. Option 2 was ultimately recommended on a technical
basis as the preferred BAT option, but due to significant economic
impacts BAT Option 1 was selected.
BAT Option 3 was examined and found to need restructuring also.
Completely separate treatment systems for coating wastewaters and
metal preparation wastewaters are retained, as for Option 2. Coating
wastewater treatment and limitation is the Seime as for modified BAT-2.
Further industry comments indicated that reuse of the acid etch rinse
for rinsing after alkaline cleaningis hot technically feasible
because impurities would be introduced from the acid etch rinse that
would interfere with proper rinsing of the metal after alkaline
cleaning. Therefore, the treatment of metal preparation wastewaters
for this Option was modified to eliminate total recycle (zero
discharge). Three stage countercurrent rinses were introduced after
alkaline cleaning, acid etching, and nickel flash application. The
permitted wastewater discharge was calculated by applying the water-
saving factor for three-stage countercurrent rinsing to the wastewater
426
-------
discharge figures derived from sampled plant data for metal
water use. In summary, modified BAT Option 3 consists of:
ฃ>.
o Coating wastewater
finishing
category)
- settling sump
- chemical precipitation
- settling (clarifier)
- recycle all coating waster needs except ball mill washout
- paper element pressure filter
Metal preparation wastewaters
- chromium reduction (where necessary in aluminum sub-
- chemical precipitation
- settling (clarifier)
- polishing filtration
- three-stage counter current rinsing after
- alkaline cleaning, acid etch, (nickel flash
- steel subcategory)
Subsequent to the above modifications to Options 1, 2, and 3 and the
technical and economic impact considerations, another option was
devised. Option 1.6 was so designated because it combined some
desirable technology features of Option 2, yet should cost no more
than Option 1. Option 1.6 was not subjected to a formal economic
impact study and therefore is not set forth as a proposed wastewater
treatment system. The elements of Option 1.6 are presented here for
comparison with Options 1 and 2, because it may receive further
consideration after proposal. BAT Option 1.6 consists of:
o Coating wastewaters
- settling sump
category)
Settled coating wastewater plus metal preparation wastewater
- chromium reduction (where necessary in aluminum sub-
- equalizaton tank
- chemical precipitation
- settling (clarifier)
- recycle all coating water needs except ball mill washout
- polishing filtraton for discharged water
This option has the same treatment technology as Option 1, but by
recycling almost all of the coating wastewater flow reduces the size
of the multimedia filter - a relatively high cost unit.
427
-------
BAT Option Selection
The three modified BAT options were studied carefully and the
technical merits and disadvantages of each were compared. The Agency
believes that modification of the three options has made them
compatable with the operational requirements of porcelain enameling
operations. Therefore, selection is based on a weighing of technical
effectiveness and economic factors.
BAT Option 1 was considered to be less effective technically than
Option 2 in its metals removal operation. Although a substantial part
of the metals in the coating wastewater stream may be present as
undissolved metal oxides or other compounds;, the metals in those
compounds can be released by the dissolving action of acidic
wastewater from the the metal preparation operations. Thus BAT Option
2 which segregates the two wastewater streams completely, avoids
mixing acidic wastewaters with coating wastewaters. Certain toxic
metals, such as beryllium and selenium, which are present as
undissolved compounds in slip, cannot be removed as effectively if
they are solubilized and then precipitated. For this reason BAT
Option 2 is preferred over BAT Option 1 .
'" " ' ' ' '
, ,
BAT Option 2 was chosen over BAT Option 3 for existing sources because
the countercurrent rinsing required by Option 3 requires plant
shutdown to install the rinses and modify the production line. Costs
for such a shutdown cannot be easily ?stimated because of the
variation in production losses from plant to plant.
BAT Option 2 as modified consists of a settling sump for coating
wastewaters followed by chemical precipitation and sedimentation.
Water to be recycled to operations other than ball mill washdown is
taken from the system after sedimentation a_nd the blowdown, equal in
volume to ball mill washdown, is treated in a paper filter. One
monitoring point is established at the filter outflow.
:" ..... :i ;* . h /;-. w <*'><''& ..... - ....... "i; ....... wm ....... mmmB ..... wu..^** ..... i. ..... m
For metal preparation, BAT Option 2 requires no in-process water use
reduction technology. End-of-pipe treatment consists of chemical
precipitation, settling and a polishing filter. The monitoring point
for this stream is established at the polishing filter outflow.
The BAT technology is applied as described to steel, cast iron,
aluminum, and copper subcategories.
INDUSTRY COST AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF TREATMENT OPTIONS
An estimate of capital and annual costs for BPT and BAT Options 1, 2,
and 3 was prepared for each subcategory,, The capital cost of
treatment technology in place was also calculated for each subcategory
using the methodology in Section VIII.
428
-------
The following method was used for obtaining cost figures. The total
cost of in-place treatment equipment for each subcategory was
estimated using information provided on dcp's. An average cost for a
"normal plant" was determined by dividing each total subcategory cost
by the number of plants having operations in that subcategory. Some
plants carry out operations in more than one subcategory leading to
double or triple counting of the plant; thus the sum of "normal
plants" will not equal the actual number of physical plants in the
category. For "capital in place" this procedure defines the "normal
plant."
For calculating BPT and BAT Options 1,2, and 3 costs, a "normal plant"
production was calculated by summing production for all plants in each
subcategory and dividing by the number of plants having operations in
that subcategory. The resulting average production per plant was
multiplied by the mean production normalized flow for the subcategory
to give a normal plant flow. Sizing the control technology selected
for BPT and each BAT level for the "normal plant" flow and applying
the costing information from Section VIII, a capital cost and annual
cost for a "normal plant" was established. Subcategory capital and
annual costs were summed from the 98 sample plants and extrapolated to
116 plants. The subcategory costs were summed to arrive at category
costs.
Pollutant reduction benefits for each subcategory were derived by; (a)
characterizing raw wastewater and effluent from each proposed
treatment system in terms of concentrations produced and production
normalized discharges (Tables X-l through X-4) (Pages 437-442) for
each significant pollutant found; (b) calculating the quantities
removed and discharged in one year by a normal plant (Tables X-5
through X-8 (Pages 444-449); and (c) calculating the quantities
removed and discharged in one year by subcategory and for the category
(Tables X-9 through X-13) (Pages 451-458). Table X-14 (Page 460)
summarizes treatment performances by subcategory for BPT and each BAT
option showing the mass of pollutants removed and discharged by each
option. The capital and annual costs for BPT and BAT are presented by
subcategory in Table X-l5 (Page 462). In Tables X-14 and X-l5 all
plants in the category are included as if they were direct
dischargers. Study of Table X-14 shows that BAT-2 produces greater
incremental benefits than the other BAT options. All pollutant
parameter calculations were based on mean raw wastewater
concentrations for visited plants.
As a result of the comparison of environmental benefits and the
economic impact, Option 1 was selected instead of Option 2, the
original choice based on technology effectiveness.
429
-------
REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
The raw wastewater concentrations from individual operations and from
the subcategory total were examined to select toxic and other
pollutant parameters found at treatable levels. In each subcategory,
several toxic metals were selected for regulation. The achievable
effluent concentrations of the regulated pollutants using BAT Option 2
technology.
The metals selected for specific regulation are discussed by
subcategory. The effluent limitations achievable by application of
BAT are also presented by subcategory.
STEEL SUBCATEGORY
The effluent limitations based on BAT for the steel subcategory are
based on: the achievable concentration of regulated pollutants (mg/1);
the subcategory mean water use rate for the metal preparation stream
1/m2, and the coating stream (1/m2 coating area). The mean water use
as set forth in Section IX is:
Metal preparation: 34.278 1/m2
Coating: 6.807 1/m2
These flows are used to calculate limitations based on BAT for the
metal preparation and the coating waste streams for the steel
subcategory.
Pollutant parameters selected for specific regulation for the steel
subcategory metal preparation waste stream are: chromium, lead,
nickel, aluminum,cobalt, iron, manganese and titanium.
"!, ',i,r; ., ;H,
I'i'.J'liill! i!m III I! fi'Hi .'ft!.I:
The parameters selected for specific regulation for the steel
subcategory coating waste stream are: cadmium,, chromium, copper, lead,
nickel, zinc, aluminum, cobalt, fluoride, iron, manganese, and
titanium. " ' . ' " ' ^ " ' ', ''... ,",',, , "'" "i^i", "
Although Option 2 is recommended as the best available technology,
Option 1 was selected due to significant economic impacts and
therefore the limitations listed below are based on 34.278 1/m2 for
the metal preparation stream and 6.807 1/m2 for the coating stream.
When the flows presented above are applied to the achievable effluent
concentrations for LS&F technology listed in Table VII-16, the mass of
pollutant allowed to be discharged per unit area of metal prepared or
per unit coating area can be calculated. Table X-16 shows the
limitations derived from this calculation.
430
-------
TABLE X-16
STEEL SUBCATEGORY
BAT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Metal
Prep.
Maximum for
any one day
Coating
Oper.
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive
sampling days
Metal
Prep.
Coating
Oper.
Metric Units - mq/m2 of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Titanium
3.77
3.77
1 .44
9.26
44.9
3.43
21 .9
0.72
23.7
14.4
5.03
1079.76
64.1
7.92
0.72
0.75
0.75
0.29
1 .84
8.92
0.68
4.36
0.14
4.7
2.86
1 .00
214.4
12.73
1 .57
0.14
1.47
1 .47
0.58
3.43
18.2
1.51
9.94
0.31
10.3
6.17
2.09
445.73
21.9
3.26
0.31
0.29
0.29
0.12
0.68
3.61
0.30
1 .97
0.06
2.04
1 .23
0.415
88.49
4.36
0.65
0.06
English Units - lbs/1,000,000 ft2 of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Titanium
0.77
0.77
0.30
1 .90
9.19
0.71
4.49
0.45
4.84
2.95
1
221
03
0
13.2
1 .62
0.15
0.153
0.153
0.059
0.376
1 .82
0.139
0.98
0.029
0.96
0.59
0.20
43.88
2.60
0.32
0.029
0.30
0.30
0.12
0.70
3.72
0.31
2.03
0.06
2.10
1 .26
0.43
91 .2
4.49
0.67
0.063
0.06
0.06
0.024
0.14
0.74
0.06
0.40
0.013
0.42
0.25
0.08
18.11
0.89
0.13
0.01
431
-------
CAST IRON SUBCATEGORY
The BAT effluent limitations for the cast iron subcategory are based
on the concentrations of regulated pollutants (mg/1) achievable by
LS&F technology and on the mean water use for coating (1/m2). Metal
preparation in the cast iron subcategory is dry, and therefore metal
preparation is set at zero discharge. The average quantity of coating
is water 0.692 1/m2.
Pollutant parameters selected for regulationfor the cast iron
subcategory are: cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium,
zinc, aluminum, cobalt, fluoride, iron, manganese, titanium, oil and
grease, total suspended solids, and pH.
Although Option 2 is the best available technology, Option 1 was
selected for these limitations due to significant economic impacts.
When the flow of 0.692 1/m2 is 'applied to the achievable effluent
concentrations for LS&F technology listed in Table VII-16 the mass of
pollutant allowed to be discharged per unit area prepared and coated
can be calculated. Table X-17 shows the limitations derived from this
calculation.
TABLE X-17
CAST IRON SUBCATEGORY
'*,. i: I,,
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
BAT Effluent Limitations
Average of daily
values for 30
Maximum for consecutive
any one day sampling days
i" ii" ,ป ", ' ' , "" i ': MI ป ' '.in .:w i
mq/m2 (lb/1,000,000 ft2) of area processed
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
0.076
0.076
0.029
0.019
0.91
0.07
0.44
0.015
0.48
0.29
0.102
21 .8
1.29
0/016)
0.016)
0.006)
0.038]
0.19 ]
0.014!
0.09 ;
0.003]
0.098!
0.059!
0.02 :
4.46)
0.26 :
0.03
0.03
0.012
0.069
0.37
0.03
0.20
0.006
0.21
0.12
0.042
8.996
0.44
( o.ooe;
( 0.006!
'( 0.002!
( 0.014!
( 0.075!
( 0.006!
( 0.04 :
( o.ooi:
( 0.04 ;
( 0.025;
( 0.009;
( 1.84
(0.09
432
,! VI! I.^
ii: >',!:,:" : :. U,".m
i,::,;! V";fl ' i! Mil i'iiaii j'i'i,, ,
-------
Manganese 0.16
ALUMINUM SUBCATEGORY
( 0.03 ) 0.07
{ 0.07 )
The effluent limitations based on BAT for the aluminum subcategory are
based on: the achievable concentrations of regulated pollutants (mg/1)
using LS&F technology; the subcategory mean water use rate for the me-
tal preparation stream 1/m2 the coating stream (1/m2 coating area).
The mean water use for the metal preparation stream set forth in
Section IX is 35.09 1/m2. The average water use for coating is 11.07
1/m2.
Pollutant parameters selected for regulation for the aluminum
subcategory metal preparation stream at BAT are: lead, aluminum, total
suspended solids, and pH.
Parameters selected for regulation for the aluminum subcategory
coating stream at BAT are: cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel,
zinc, aluminum, cobalt, fluoride, iron, manganese, and titanium.
Although Option 2 is the best available technology, Option 1
selected for BAT limitations due to projected economic impacts.
was
When the flows for the metal preparation stream and for the coating
stream are applied to the effluent concentrations achievable by
application of LS&F technology listed in Table VII-16, the mass of
pollutant allowed to be discharged per unit area prepared or unit
coating area can be calculated. Table X-18 shows the limitations
derived from this calculation.
TABLE X-18
ALUMINUM SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
BAT Effluent Limitations
Average of daily
values for 30
Maximum for consecutive
any one day sampling days
Metal Coating Metal Coating
Prep. Oper. Prep. Oper.
Metric Units - mg/m2 of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
3.86
3.86
1 .47
9.47
45.97
1 .22
1 .22
0.46
2.99
14.50
1 .51
1 .51
0.60
3.51
18.6
0.48
0.48
0.19
1.11
5.87
433
-------
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Titanium
5.26
3.51
22.46
0.74
24.2
14.7
5.2
1105.3
65.6
8.10
0.74
1.66
1 .11
7.1
0.23
7.62
4.65
1 .63
348.7
20.7
2.56
0.23
2.11
1 .54
10.18
0.32
10.53
6.32
2.14
456.17
22.46
3.33
0.32
0.66
0.49
3.21
0.10
3.32
T.99
0168
143,91
7.08
1.05
0.10
English Units - lbs/1,000,000 ft2 of area processed or coated
Antimony 0.79
Arsenic 0.79
Cadmium 0.30
Chromium 1.94
Copper 9.41
Cyanide 1.08
Lead 0.72
Nickel 4.60
Selenium 0.15
Zinc 4.95
Aluminum 3.02
Cobalt 1.06
Fluoride 226.2
Iron 13.42
Manganese 1.66
Titanium 0.15
COPPER SUBCATEGORY
The effluent limitations based on BAT for the copper subcategory are
based on: the achievable concentration of regulated pollutants (mg/1);
the subcategory mean water use rate for the metal preparation stream
and the coating stream (1/m2 coating area). The mean water use for
the metal preparation stream as set forth in Section IX is 67.29 1/m2.
The mean water use for the coating stream is 4.74 1/m2.
Pollutant parameters selected for specific regulation for the copper
subcategory metal preparation stream at BAT are: copper, lead, zinc,
iron, oil and grease, total suspended solids, and pH.
Parameters selected for specific regulation for the copper subcategory
coating stream at BAT are: cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel,
zinc, aluminum, cobalt, fluoride, iron, manganese, phosphorus,
titanium, oil and grease, total suspended solids, and pH.
0.25
0.25
0.095
0.61
2.97
0.34
0.23
1 .45
0.048
1.56
0.95
0.33
71 .36
4.24
0.52
0.48
0.31
0.31
0.12
0.72
3.81
0.43
0.32
2:68
0.065
2.15
1:29
0.44
93.35
4.60
0.68
0.065
0.097
0.097
0.039
0.23
1 .20
0.14
0.10
0.66
0.02
0.68
0.41
0.14
29.45
1 .45
0.22
0.20
434
-------
Although Option 2 is the best available technology, Option 1 was
selected for BAT limitations due to projected economic impacts of
Option 2.
When the flows for the metal preparation stream and the coating stream
are applied to the achievable LS&F effluent concentrations listed in
Table VII-16, the mass of pollutant allowed to be discharged per unit
area prepared and coated can be calculated. Table X-19 shows the
limitations derived from this calculation.
TABLE X-19
COPPER SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
BAT Effluent Limitations
Average of daily
values for 30
Maximum for
any one day
consecutive
samplinq days
Metal Coating Metal Coating
Prep. Oper. Prep. Oper.
Metric Units - mg/m2 of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Titanium
7.
7.
2.
18.
88.
4
4
83
17
1
1
46
28
9
2119
125
15
6.73
43.07
41
,4
,46
,89
,6 1
,8
.5
1 .4
0.52
0.52
0.20
1 .28
6.21
0.47
3.03
0.10
3.27
1 .99
0.697
49.3
8.86
1 .09
0.10
2.89
2.89
1 . 14
6.73
35.7
2.96
19.5
0.61
20.2
12.1
4.1
874.8
43.1
6.39
0.61
0.20
0.20
0.08
0.08
2.51
0.21
1 .37
0.04
1 .42
0.85
0.3
61 .62
3.03
0.45
0.04
English Units - lbs/1,000,000 ft2 of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
1.51
1 .51
0.58
3.72
18.0
1 .38
8.81
0.11
0.11
0.04
0.26
1 .27
0.10
0.62
0.59
0.59
0.23
1 .38
7.30
0.61
3.99
0.04
0.04
0.016
0.10
0.51
0.04
0.28
435
-------
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Titanium
SUMMARY
0.29
9.50
5.78
2.02
433.8
25.8
3.18
0.29
0.02
0.67
0.41
0.14
30.56
1 .81
0.22
0.02
0.12 0.669
4.13 0.29
2.48 0.17
6.84 (3.66
179.02 12.6
8.81
1 .31
0.62
0.09
0.12 0.009
Plants 18538 and 13330, used in Section VII, to establish performance
data for lime, settle, and filter technology, are porcelain enameling
plants. Therefore, the required BAT Option 1 technology is adequately
demonstrated on porcelain enameling wastewaters.
' " " ' ' " '' '
, .. .. ; ,. ,. ..... .
Although the Option 2 technology exhibits a substantial reduction o
pollutants discharged over Option 1, it was not chosen by the Agency
for setting the porcelain enameling regulation. Option 1 was chosen
due to potential economic impacts at the Option 2 level. As stated
above, the lime, settle and filter technology is a proven technology
in the Porcelain Enameling industry, and therefore these BAT
limitations are both reasonable and achievable.
436
-------
TABLE X-l
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
STEEL SUBCATEGORY
Parameter
2
Flow Liter/m
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Barium
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
TSS
pH 2.0-11.70 2.0-11.70 7.0-12.5 7.0-12.5 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0
Total Tbxic Metals 14.91 510.9 305.8 2082 1.149 39.39 2.633 17.92 0.487 16.69
Conventionals 96.32 3302 15310 104200 20.1 689.0 20.1 136.8 12.6 431.9
Total Pollutants 654.6 22440 21330 145220 26.97 924.4 42.78 291.2 17.25 591.4
Raw Waste
Metal Prep
mg/1
0.0000
0.000
0.000
0.009
0.109
0.057
0.024
14.51
0.096
0.100
0.345
0.052
0.696
535.1
1.738
5.434
0.043
12.35
83.98
mg/m
34.28
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.309
3.736
1.954
0.823
497.4
3.291
3.428
11.83
1.782
23.86
18340
59.58
186.3
1.474
423.2
2879
mg/1
77.75
1.792
0.049
6.741
1.573
4.028
51.44
36.68
11.89
113.9
184.1
10.52
36.47
27.98
43.93
54.33
4.631
5357
15.87
15290
Coating
mg/m
6.807
529.2
12.20
0.3335
45.88
10.39
27.42
350.2
249.7
80.91
775.3
1253
71.64
248.2
190.4
299.0
369.9
31.52
36470
108.0
104100
BPT
Metal Prep 0
mg/1
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.009
0.109
0.057
0.024
0.84
0.01
0.100
0.200
0.052
0.696
0.57
0.11
4.08
0.010
10
10.1
mg/m
34.28
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.309
3.736
1.954
0.8227
28.80
0.3428
3.428
6.857
1.782
23.86
19.54
3.771
139.9
0.343
342.8
346.2
Coating 0
mg/1
0.050
0.050
0.049
0.02
0.47
0.61
0.034
0.84
0.01
0.50
0.20
0.007
0.070
15
0.57
0.11
4.08
0.010
10
10.0
mg/m
6.807
0.3404
0.3404
0.3335
0.136
3.199
4.152
0.231
5.718
0.0681
3.404
1.361
0.0476
0.476
102.1
3.880
0.7488
27.77
0.068
68.07
68.75
BAT-1
tfetal Prep ~,
mg/1
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.009
0.070
0.057
0.024
0.220
0.007
0.100
0.133
0*047
0.696
0.49
0.073
2.72
0.007
10
2.6
rag/hi
34.28
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.309
2.400
1.954
0.8227
7.541
0.2400
3.428
4.559
1.611
23.86
16.80
2.502
93.24
0.240
342.8
89.12
-------
TABLE X-l (Continued)
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
STEEL SUBCATEGORY
Parameter
Flow Liters/m
114 Antimony ~
115 Arsenic L
117 Berylliunv,
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel ,
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Barium
Cobalt
Fluoride .;
Iron ,
Cu>
-GD
-: -^
ng/l
0.033
0.033
0.049
0.013
0.070
0.41
0.034
0.220
0.007
0.23
, 0.133
"BAT - 1 *
Coating
ปg/m
6.807
0.225 --
0.225 '
0.3335
0.0885
0.476
2.791
0.231
1.496
0.0476
1.566
0.905
- ss - " * =
Metal
nq/1
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.009
0.070
0.057
0.024
.0.220
"0.007
0.100
:0.133
" "! BAT
Prep
mg/nT
34.28
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.309
2.400
1.954
0.8227
7.541
0.007
3.428
4.559
:0.0002 0.00136- ,
0.047
10
0.49
i 0.073
! 2.72
0.007
10
2.6
0.476
68.07
3.335 ,
0.4969 -
18.52
0.048
68.07
17.70
1 0.047
,: 0.696
. 0.49
: '0.073
, :2.72
0.007
10
2.6
1.611
23.86
16.80
2.502
93.24
0.240
342.8
89.12
- 2
rng/1
0.033
0.033
0.049
0.013
0.070
0.41
0.034
0.220
0.007
0.23
0.133
Coating ,
ng/m
0.05
0.00165
0.00165
0.00245
0.00065
0.0035
0.0205
0.0017
0.011
0.00035
0.0115
0.00665
Metal
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.009
0.070
0.057
0.024
0.220
0.007
0.100
0.133
BAT
Prep 2
rag/m
1.44
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.01296
0.1008
0.0821
0.0346
0.3168
0.0101
0.144
0.1915
0.0002 0.00001
0.047
10
0.49
0.073
2.72
0.007
10
2.6
0.00235
0.50
0.0245
0.00365
0.136
0.00035
0.50
0.13
0.047
0.696
0.49
0.073
2.72
0.007
10
2.6
0.06768
1.002
0.7056
0.1051
3.917
0.01008
14.40
3.744
- 3
ng/i
0.033
0.033
0.049
0.013
0.070
0.41
0.034
0.220
0.007
0.23
0.133
0.0002
0.047
10
0.49
0.073
2.72
0.007
10
2.6
*' ij -' ~f -J
Coating ,
rog/ir
0.05
0.00165
0.00165
0.00245
0.00065
0.0035
0.0205
0.0017
0.011
0.00035
0.0115
0.00665
0.00001
0.00235
0.50
0.0245
0.00365
0.136
0.00035
0.50
0.13
Phosphorus;??;
Titanium ,: '
Oil & Grease
TSS
pH 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0
Total Toxic Metals 1.099 7.480 0.487 16.69 1.099 0.0550 0.487 0.7014 1.099 0.0550 ;
Conventionals 12.6 85.77 12.6 431.9 12.6 -0.63 12.6 18.14 12.6 0.63 '
Total Pollutants 27.17 185.1 17.25 591.4 27.17 1.358 17.25 24.84 27.17 1.358
-------
OJ
uo
TABLE X-2
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
CAST IRON SUBCATEQORY
Parameter
Raw Waste
Coating ป
mg/1 mg/m
Flow liters/m2
114
UP
.13.7
J.I6
119
120
122
124
125
128
Antimony'
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Ccpper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Barium*
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
TSS
77.75
1.792
0.049
6.741
1.573
4.028
51.44
36.68
11.89
113.9
184.1
10.52
36.47
27.98
43.93
54.33
4.631
5357
15.87
15290
0.691
53.72
1.239
0.03386
4.658
1.087
2.784
35.55
25.35
8.213
78.70
127.2
7.272
25.20
19.33
30.35
37.55
3.200
3702
10.96 '
10570
BPT
Coating _
mg/1 mg/m
0.050
0.050
0.049
0.02
0.47
0.61
0.034
0.84
0.01
0.50
0.20
0.007
0.070
15
0.57
0.11
4.08
0.010
10
10.1
0.69J
0.03455
0.03455
0.03386
0.0138
0.3248
0.4215
0.0235
0.5804
0.0069
0.3455
0.1382
0.004837
0.04837
10.37
0.3939
0.0760
2.819
0.00691
6.91
6.979
BAT - 1
Coating ,
mg/1 mg/m
0.033
0.033
0.049
0.013
0.070
0.41
0.034
0.220
0.007
0.23
0.133
0.00002
0.047
10
0.49
0.073
2.72
0.007
10
2.6
0.691
0.0228
0.0228
0.03386
0.00898
0.04837
0.2833
0.0235
0.1520
0.0048
0.1589
0.0919
0.004837
0.0325
6.910
0.3386
0.0504
1.880
0.004837
6.910
1.797
BAT - 2
Coating
mg/l mg/m
0.033
0.033
0.049
0.013
0.070
0.41
0.034
0.220
0.007
0.23
0.133
0.0002
0.047
10
0.49
0.073
2.72
0.007
10
2.6
0.05
0.00165
0.00165
0.00245
0.00065
0.0035
0.0205
0.0017
0.011
0.00035
0.0115
0.00665
0.00001
0.00235
0.5
0.0245
0.000365
0.136
0.00035
0.50
0.13
BAT - 3
Coating ,
mg/1 mg/m
0.033
0.033
0.049
0.013
0.070.
0.41
0.034
0.220
0.007
0.23
0.133
0.0002
0.047
10
0.49
0.073
2.72
0.007
10
2.6
0.05
0.0165
0.00165
0.00245
0.00065
0.0035
0.0205
0.0017
0.011
0.00035
0.0115
0.00665
0.00001
0.00235
0.5
0.0245
0.00365
0.136
0.00035
0.50
0.13
pH 7.0-12.5 7.0-12.5 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0
Total Toxic Metals305.8 211.3 "> ซH 1.819 1-099 0.7593 1-099 0.0550 1.099 0.0550
Conventionals 15310 10580
Total Pollutants21330 14740
20.1
42.78
13.889
29.56
12.6
27.17
8.707
18.78
12.6
27.17
0.63
1.358
12.6
27.17
0.63
1.358
-------
-Pa
-f=.
O
Raw Waste
MLEX-3
OP TREAWENT EFFECTIVENESS
ALCMINtH SURCATEGORY
BPT
Parameter
Flow Liters/m2
114
115
117
118
119
120
122
124
125
128
*
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Barium
Cobalt :
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
TSS
pH
Total Toxic
Metals
"Metal Prep '
mg/1 mg/m
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.013
0.039
2.175
0.000
0.000
0.210
6.644
0.000
0.880
0.097
0.111
8,487
0.000
6.850
^9.88
6.3-10.4
2.44
35.09
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.105
0.456
1.369
76.32
0.000
0.000
7.369
233.1
0.000
30.88
3.404
3.895
297,8
0.000
240.4
1399
6.3-10
85.62
Coating
.mg/1 mg/m
77.75
1.792
0.049
.6.741
1.573
4.028
51.44
36.68
11.89
113.9
184.1
10.52
36.47
27.98
43.93
54.33
4.631
5357
15.87
15290
.4 7.0-12.
305.8
11.07
860.7
19.84
0.5424
74.62
17.41
44.59
569.5
406.1
131.6
1261
2038
116.5
403.7
309.7
486.3
601.4
51.26
59300
175.6
169300
5 7.0-12.5
3386
fetal Peep
mg/1
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.013
0.039
0.034
0.000
0.000
0.210
0.20
0.000
0.880
0.097
0.111
4,08
0.000
6.850
10.1
7.5-10.0
0.299
--H^
mg/m2
35.09
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.105
0.456
1.369
1.193
0.000
0 .000
7.369
7.078
0.000
30.88
3.404
3.895
143=2
0.000
240.4
354.4
7.5-10.0
10.49
-f~= is - -, i ^ : - -, =1 - - =
Coating
mg/1 mg/m
0.050
0.050
0.049
0.02
0.47
0.61
0.034
0.84
0.01
0.50
0.20
0.007
0.070
15
0.57
0.11
4,08
0.01
10
10.1
7.5-10.0
2.633
11.07
0.5535
0.5535
0.5424
0.2214
5.203
6.753
0.376
9.299
0.1107
5.535
2.214
0.07749
0.7749
166.1
6.310
1.218
45,17
0.1107
110.7
111.8
7.5-10
29.15
-
i
r
.0
Corwentionals 46.73 1640 15310 169500
Total Pol- 65.39 2294 21330 236200
lutants
16.95
22.62
594.8
793.7
20.1
42.78
222.5
473.6
BAT-1
fetal Prep
mg/1 mg/n
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.013
0.039
0.034
0.000
0.000
0.210
0.133
0.000
0.880
0.097
0.073
0.000
;6.850
2.6
7.5-10.0
:0.299
9.45
13.65
35.09
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.105
0.456
1.369
1.193
0.000
0.000
7.369
4.667
0.000
30.88
3.404
2.562
95,45
0.000
240.4 ~
91.23 ;
7.5-10:.0
10.49
331.6
479.1
-------
BAT-1
TABLE X-3 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
ALUMINUM SUBCATEGORY
BAT-2
BAT-3
Parameter
Coating 2
mg/1 mg/m
Flow Liters/m2
114
115
117
118
119
120
122
124
125
128
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Barium
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
TSS
pH
Total Toxic
Metals
Convent ionals
Total Pol-
0.033
0.033
0.049
0.013
0.070
0.41
0.034
0.22
0.007
0.23
0.133
0.0002
0.047
10
0.49
0.073
2.72
0.007
10
2.6
7.5-10.0
1.099
12.6
27.17
11.07
0.3653
0.3653
0.5424
0.1439
0.775
4.539
0.3764
2.435
0.0775
2.546
1.472
0.002214
0.5203
110.7
5.242
0.808
30.11
0.07749
110.7
28.78
7.5-10.0
12.17
139.5
301.5
Metal Prep ,
mg/1 mg/m
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.013
0.039
0.034
0.000
0.000
0.210
0.133
0.000
0.880
0.097
0.073
2.72
0.000
6.850
2.6
7.5-10.0
0.299
9.45
13.65
35.09
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.105
0.456
1.369
1.193
0.000
0.000
7.369
4.667
0.000
30.88
3.404
2.562
95.45
0.000
240.4
91.23
7.5-10.0
10.49
331.6
479.1
Coating ,
mg/1 mg/m
0.033
0.033
0.049
0.013
0.070
0.41
0.034
0.22
0.007
0.23
0.133
0.0002
0.047
10
0.49
0.073
2.72
0.007
10
2.6
7.5-10.0
1.099
12.6
27.17
0.05
0.00165
0.00165
0.00245
0.00065
0.0035
0.0205
0.0017
0.011
0.00035
0.0115
0.00665
0.00001
0.00235
0.50
0.0245
0.00365
0.136
0.00035
0.50
0.13
7.5-10.0
0.0550
0.63
1.358
Metal Prep ,
mg/1 rog/m
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.013
0.039
0.034
0.000
0.000
0.210
0.133
0.000
0.880
0.097
0.073
2.72
0.000
6.850
2.6
7.5-10.0
0.299
9.45
13.65
1.47
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00441
0.0191
0.0573
0.0500
0.000
0.000
0.309
0.195
0.000
1.294
0.143
0.107
4.000
0.000
10.07
3.822
7.5-10.0
0.440
13.89
20.07
Coating ,
mg/1 mg/m
0.033
0.033
0.049
0.013
0.070
0.41
0.034
0.22
0.007
0.23
0.133
0.0002
0.047
10
0.49
0.073
2.72
0.007
10
2.6
7.5-10.0
1.099
12.6
27.17
0.05
0.00165
0.00165
0.00245
0.00065
0.0035
0.0205
0.0017
0.011
0.00035
0.0115
0.00665
0.00001
0.00235
0.50
0.0245
0.00365
0.136
0.00035
0.50
0.13
7.5-10,
0.0550
0.63
1.358
lutants
-------
TABLE X-4
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
COPPER SUBCATEGORY
Raw Waste
ro
Parameter1" '
2
Flow Liters/ra
114
115
117
118
119
120
122
124
125
128
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium ~ *
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Barium
Cobalt
Fluoride ;
Iron -j~-
Manganese ;"-
Phosphorus^,
Titanium :s
Oil & Grease
TSS
Metal Prep _
mg/1 mg/m
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.022
0.026
278.7
0.770
0.120
0.000
0.890
0.073
0.000
0.115
27.41
0.096
0.520
0.000
196.0
19.00
67.29
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.480
1.750
18760
51.81
8.075
0.000
59.89
4.912
0.000
7.738
1844
6.460
34.99
0.000
13190
1279
Coating
rog /I mg/m
77.75
1.792
0.049
6.741
1.573
4.028
51.44
36.68
11.89
113.9
184.1
10.52
36.47
27.98
43.93
54.33
4.631
5357
15.87
15290
4.74
368.5
8.496
0.2323
31.95
7.445
19.09
243.8
173.9
56.34
539.9
872.5
49.88
172.9
132.6
208.2
257.5
21.95
25390
75.20
72480
PH
Total Toxic
Metals
1.8-6.6
1.8-6.6
7.0-12.5
7.0-12.5
280.5
Convert- 215.0
tionals
Total Pol- 523.7
lutants
18880
14470
35250
305.8
15310
21330
1450
72560
101100
Metal
rag/1
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.02
0.026
0.61
0.034
0.120
0.000
0.500
0.073
0.000
0.115
0.57
0.096
0.520
0.000
10
10.1
7.5-10.0
1.31
20.1
22.78
PPT
Prep Coating _
mg/m mg/1 ag/m
67.29
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.346
1.750
41.05
2.288
8.075
0.00
33.65
4.912
0.000
7.738
38.36
6.460
34.99
0.000
672.9
679.6
7.5-10.0
88.16
1352.5
1533.1
0.050
0.050
0.049
0.02
0.47
0.61
0.034
0.84
0.01
0.50
0.20
0.007
0.070
15
0.57
0.11
4.08
0.010
10
10.1
7.5-10.0
2.633
20.1
42.78
4.74
0.237
0.237
0.2323
0.0948
2.228
2.891
0.161
3.982
0.0474
2.370
0.948
0.03318
0.3318
71.10
2.702
0.5212
19.34
0.0474
47.40
47.87
7.5-10.0
12.48
95.27
202.77
RAT-1
Metal Prep
rag/1 rag/if
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.013
0.026
0.41
0.034
0.120
0.000
0.23
0.073
0.000
0.115
0.49
0.073
0.520
0.000
10
2.6
7.5-10.0
0.833
12.6
14.70
67.29
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.8748
1.750
27.59
2.288
8.075
0.000
15.48 .
4.912
0.000
7.738
32.97
4.912 '"---"
34.99
0.000 * : SS1
672.9 /;
175.0
7.5-10.0 ~:
56.06 "-'
i*=
847.9 Y
989.5 .-"
-------
TABLE X-4 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
COPPER SUBCATEQORY
BAT-1
Coating
BAT-2
BAT-3
Metal Prep ,
mg/1 mg/nr
Coating _
mg/1 mg/m
Metal Prep ,
mg/1 mg/m
Coating ~
mg/1 mg/m
-p.
-Pa
OJ
*. ULMlMb ซ*ซ*. "*Jf "
Flow Liters/m2
114
115
117
118
119
120
122
124
125
128
Antimony-
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chronium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Barium
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
TSS
PH
Total Toxic
Metals
Conven-
tionals
Total Pol-
lutants.
0.033
0.033
0.049
0.013
0.070
0.41
0.034
0.22
0.007
0.23
0.133
0.0002
0.047
10
0.49
0.073
2.72
0.007
10
2.6
7.5-10.0
1.099
12.6
27.17
j, ...
4.74
0.1564
0.1564
0.2323
0.00065
0.3318
1.943
0.161
1.043
0.0332
1.090
0.6304
0.000948
0.2228
47.40
2.323
0.346
12.89
0.033
47.4
12.32
7.5-10.0
5.147
59.72
128.7
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.013
0.026
0.41
0.034
0.120
0.000
0.23
0.073
0.000
0.115
0.49
0.073
0.520
0.000
10
2.6
7.5-10.0
0.833
12.6
14.70
67.29
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.8748
1.750
27.59
2.288
8.075
0.000
15.48
4.912
0.000
7.738
32.98
4.912
34.99
0.000
672.9
175.Q
7.5-10.0
56.06
847.9
989.5
0.033
0.033
0.049
0.013
0.070
0.41
0.034
0.22
0.007
0.23
0.133
0.002
0.047
10
0.49
0.073
2.72
0".007
10
2.6
7.5-10.0
1.099
12.6
27.17
0.05
0.00165
0.00165
0.00245
0.00065
0.0035
0.0205
0.0017
0.011
0.00035
0.0115
0.00665 -
0.00001
0.00235
0.50
0.0245
0.00365
0.136
0.00035
0.50
0.13
7.5-10.0
0.0550
0.63
1.358
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.013
0.026
0.41
0.034
0.120
0.000
0.23
0.073
0.000
0.115
0.49
0.073
0.520
0.000
10
2.6
7.5-10.0
0.833
12.6
14.72
2.827
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.0367
0.0735
1.159
0.0961
0.339
0.000
13.17
0.206
0.000
0.324
1.385
0.206
1.470
0.000
28.27
7.353
7.5-10.0
2.354
35.62
41.57
0.033
0.033
0.049
0.013
0.070
0.41
0.034
0.22
0.007
0.23
0.133
0.0002
0.047
10
0.49
0.073
2.72
0.007
10
2.6
7.5-10.0
1.099
12.6
26.73
0.05
0.00165
0.00165
0.00245
0.00065
0.0035
0.0205
0.0017
0.011
0.00035
0.0115
0.00665
0.00001
0.00235
0.50
0.0245
0.00365
0.136
0.00035
0.50
0.13
7.5-10.0
0.0550
0.63
1.358
-------
TABLE X-5
JEOLLOTAOT REDOCTION BENEFITS OP CONTROL SYSTEMS
STEEL SDBCATEQORX - NORMAL PLANT
Parameter ,
Flow liters/yr ;X 106
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic ซ
117 Beryllium '
118 Cadmium -
119 Chronium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium "
128 Zinc ;
: Aluminum :
Barium
Cobalt -;-
Fluoride :~
Iron ;-
Manganese;
Htosphorus ;
Titanium , ;
Oil & Grease
TSS :
Total Toxic Metals
Unreg Toxic Metals
Conventional^
Total Pollutants
Sludge Generated
. ;-- Raw Waste, -
Matal Prep Coating Metal Prep Coating
" " Removed Removed
kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr
41.26
0.000
; o.ooo
0.000
0.3713
4.497
2.352
0.9902
598.7
3.961
: 4.126
, 14.23
. 2.146
28.72
22078
71.71
! : 224.2
i 1.774
> - 509.6
3465.
2.0-11
3 i 615.0
S
3975
27010
9.098
707.4
16.30
0.4458
61.33
14.31
36.65
468.0
333.7
108.2
1036
1675
95.71
331.8
254.6
399.7
494.3
42.13
48738
144.4
139108
.7 7.0-12
2782
139252
194066
-2.063
-2.063
0.000
, -0.456
-10.03
-20.82
-0.422
564.04
3.548
-16.05
5.978
; -0.2888
- 0.779
; -118.1
22054
67.17
: 55.9
1.361
97
3048
.5 7.5-10
515.7
: 3145
25730
238000
706.9
15.85
0.000
61.15
10.03
31.10
467.7
326.1
108.1
1031
1673
95.65
331.2
118.1
394.5
493.3
5.01
48738
53.42
139016
.0 7.5-10.0
2758
139069
193700
511000
HPT --_-_', i -.. RAT-I-
Metal Prep Coating Metal' Prep " Coating Metal Prep
Discharged Discharged Removed Removed , Discharged
kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr
41.26
2.063
2.063
0.000
0.8252
14.53
23.17
1.403
34.66
0.4126
20.63
8.252
0.2888
2.888
146.8
23.52
4.539'
168.3
0.4126
412.6
416.7
7.5-10.0
99.76
829.3
1284
9.098
0.4549
0.4549
0.4458
0.182
4.276
5.550
0.30S3
7.642
0.0910
4.549
1.820
0.06369
0.6369
136.5
5.186
1.001
37.12
0.09098
90.98
91.89
7.5-10
23.95
182.9
389.2
-1.362
-1.362
0.000
-0.163
1.609
-14.57
0.4221
589.6
3.672
-5.357
8.742
-0.00825
0.207
-118.1
22057
68.70
112
1.485
97
3358
.0 7.5-10.
571.6
3455
26160
245000
707.1
16.00
0.000
61.21
13.67
32.92
467.7
331.7
108.1
1033.9
1673.8
95.71
331.4
163.6
395.2
493.6
17.38
48738
53.42
139084
0 7.5-10.0
2772
139137
193800
512000
41.26
1.362
1.362
0.000
0.5346
2.888
16.92
1.403
9.077
0.2888
9.490
5.488
0.00825
1.939
146.8
20.22
3.012
112.2
0.2888
412.6
107.3
7.5-10.0
43.33
519.9
853.2
101 plants in subcategory
-------
TABLE X-5
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS OF CONTROL SYSTEMS
STEEL SUBCATEGORY - NORMAL PLANT
Parameter
Flow liters/yr x 10
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 . Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Barium
01
-ฃ- Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
TSS
pH
Total Toxic Metals
Unreg Toxic Metals
Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Sludge Generated
BAT-3
Dtt
Coating Metal Prep Coating
Discharged Removed Removed
kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr
^^^
9.098
0.3002
0.3002
0.4458
0.1183
0.6369
3.730
0.3093
2.002
0.06369
2.093
1.210
0.001820
0.4276
90.98
4.458
0.6642
24.75
0.06369
90.98
23.65
7.5-10.0
9.999
114.6
247.2
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.609
0.000
0.000
589.6
3.672
0.000
8.742
0.207
0.000
22057
68.70
112
1.485
97
3358
7.5-10.
594.9
3455
26300
244000
707.4
16.30
0.4425
61.33
14.31
36.62
468
333.7
108.2
1036
1675
95.71
331.8
253.9
399.7
494.3
41.95
48738
143.7
139108
0 7.5-10.0
2782
139252
194000
513000
,j.~^
Metal Prep
Discharged
kg/yr
41.26
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.3713
2.888
2.352
0.9902
9.077
0.2888
4.126
5.488
1.939
28.72
20.22
3.012
112.2
0.2888
412.6
107.3
7.5-10.0
20.09
519.9
711.9
Coating Metal Prep Coating
Discharged Removed Removed
kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr
0.06683
0.002205 0.000
0.002205 0.000
0.003275 0.000
0.000869 0.3557
0.004678 4.378
0.02740 2.253
0.00227 0.9486
0.01470 598.3
0.0004678 3.949
0.01537 3.953
0.000013 14.00
0.000013
0.003141 2.065
0.6683 11.39
0.0327 22077
0.00488 71.58
0.1818 219.5
0.0004678 1.762
0.6683 492.3
0.1738 3460
7.5-10.0 7.5-10.
0.07344 614.1
0.8421 3952
1.807 26960
245000
707.4
16.30
0.4425
61.33
14.31
36.62
468
333.7
108.2
1036
1675
95.71
331.8
253.9
399.7
494.3
41.95
48738
143.7
139108
0 7.5-10.0
2782
139252
194000
513000
Metal Prep
Discharged
kg/yr
1.733
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.01560
0.1213
0.09871
0.04159
0.3813
0.0121
0.1733
0.2305
0.08145
17.33
0.849
0.127
4.714
0.1213
17.33
4.506
7.5-10.0
0.8439
21.84
46.02
Coating
Discharged
kg/yr
0.06683
0.002205
0.002205
0.003275
0.000869
0.004678
0.02740
0.00227
0.01470
0.0004678
0.01537
0.000013
0.000013
0.003141
,0.6683
0.0327
0.00488
0.1818
0.0004678
0.6688
0.1738
7.5-10.0
0.07344
0.8421
1.807
101 plants in subcategory
-------
TABLE X-6
POLLOTftNT REDUCTION BENEFITS OF CONTROL SYSTEMS
CAST IRON SUBCATBOORY - NORMAL PLANT
Parameter
Flow Liters/yr x 10
114 Antimony .
-115 Arsenic
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium ;
119 Chromium
-120 Copper
122 Lead ;
,-124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 7,inc
Aluminum ,
Barium ;
^ Cobalt L
."01 Fluoride ^ ii
Iron
Manganese"; ;;
- Phosphorus ,,
Titanium 3
Oil & Grease
I TSS
PH
Total Toxic Metals
Unreq Toxic Metals
Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Sludge Generated
7 plants in subcategory
Raw Waste ,
Coating ' Coating
Removed
kg/yr kg/yr
1.078
83.81
1.932
0.05282
7.267
10.60
4.342
55.45
39.54
12.82
122.8
,198.5
\ 11.34
J , 39.31
', = 30.16
ป 47.36
T 58.57
, , 4.992
= 5775
17.11
: 16483
7.0-12.5
-- 338.6
:16500
'23004
83.76
1.878
0.000
7.245
,10.093
3.684
55.41
38.635
12.809
122.3
198.3
11.33
S 39.23
" 13.99
> 46.746
58.45
;t 0.594
5775
6.33'
16472
7.5-10.0
335.8
16478
22958
60610
BPT BAT-1
Coating Coating
Discharged Removed
kg/yr kg/yr
1.078
0.0539
0.0539
0.05282
0.02156
0.5067
0.6576
0.03665
0.9055
0.01078
0.539
0.2156
0.007546
0.07546
16.17
0.6145
0.1186
4.398
0.01078
10.78
10.89
7.5-10.0
2.838
21.67
46.12
83.77
1.896
0.000
7.253
10.52
4.267
55.41
39.30
12.812
122.55
198.4
11.34
39.26
19.38
46.832
58.49
2.06
5775
6.33
16480
7.5-10.0
337.8
16486
22975
60740
Coating Coating
Discharged Removed
kg/yr kg/yr
1.078
0.03557
0.03557
0.05282
0.01401
0.07546
0.07546
0.03665
0.2372
0.007546
0.2479
0.1434
0.00002
0.05067
10.78
0.5282
0.07869
2.932
0.007546
10.78
2.803
7.5-10.0
0.8182
13.58
28.92
83.81
1.929
0.01460
7.266
10.59
4.310
55.447
39.52
12.819
122.78
198.5
11.34
39.31
29.38
47.322
58.56
4.780
5775
16.33 1
16483
7.5-10.
338.5
16499
23002
60890
BAT-2
Gating Coating
Discharged Removed
kg/yr kg/yr
0.07801
0.002574
0.002574
0.003822
0.001014
0.005461
0.03198
0.002652
0.01716
0.000546
0.01794
0.01038
0.0000156
0.003666
0.7801
0.03822
0.005695
0.2122
0.000546
0.7801
0.2028
0 7.5-10.0
0.0857
0.9829
83.81
1.929
0.01460
7.266
10.59
4.310
55.447
39.52
12.819
122.78
198.5
11.34
39.31
29.38
47.322
58.56
4.780
5775
16.331
16483
7.5-10.
338.5
16499
23002
60890
BAT-3
Coating
Discharged
kg/yr
0.07801
0.002574
0.002574
0.003822
0.001014
0.005461
0.03198
0.002652
0.01716
0.000546
0.01794
0.01038
0.0000156
0.003666
0.7801
0.03822
0.005695
0.2122
0.000546
0.7801
0.2028
0 7.5-10.0
338.5
0.9829
23002
-------
TABLE X-7
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS OF CONTROL SYSTEMS
ALUMINUM SUBCATBGORY - NORMAL PLANT
Raw Waste
BPT
BAT-1
Parameter
Flew liters/yr x 106
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Barium
Cobalt
Fluoride
$ Iron
^ Manganese
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
TSS
pH
Total Toxic Metals
Unreg Toxic Metals
Convent ionals
Tctal Pollutants
Sludge Generated
Metal Prep
kg/yr
14.54
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.04362
0.1890
0.5671
31.62
0.000
0.000
3.053
96.60
0.000
12.80
1.410
1.614
123.4
U.OOO
99.60
579.9
6.3-10.4 6
35.47
679.5
950.8
Coating
kg/yr
2.802
217.9
5.021
0 .1373
18:89
4.408
11.29
144.1
102.8
33.32
319.1
515.8
29.48
102.2
78.40
123.1
152.2
12.98
15010
44.47
42843
.3-10.4
857.0
42887
59769
Metal Prep
Removed
kg/yr
-0.727
-0.727
0.000
-0.243
-3.091
-8.302
31.13
-12.21
-0.145
-4.218
93.69
-0.102
0.000
-36.37
-6.875
0.000
64.08
-0.145
-16.45
433.0
7.5-10.0
1.47
433.0
532.3
2720
Coating
Removed
kg/yr
217.8
4.881
0.000
18.83
3.091
9.581
144.0
100.4
33.29
317.7
515.2
29.46
102.0
36.37
121.5
151.9
1.55
15010
16.45
42815
7.5-10.0
849.6
42831
59649
149000
Metal Prep
Discharged
kg/yr
14.54
0.727
0.727
0.000
0.291
3.280
8.869
0.4944
12.21
0.145
7.27
2.908
0.102
1.02
49.17
8.288
1.614
59.32
0.145
116.05
146.9
7.5-10.0
34.01
246.5
419.5
Coating
Discharged
kg/yr
2.802
0.1401
0 .1401
0.1373
0.05604
1.317
1.709
0.0953
2.354
0 .0280
1.401
0.5604
0.01961
0.1961
42.03
1.597
0.308
11.43
0.02802
28.02
28.30
7.5-10.0
7.378
56.32
119.9
Metal Prep Coating
Removed
kg/yr
-0.480
-0.480
0.000
-0.142
-0.822
0.000
31.13
-3.215
0.000
0.000
94.67
-0.003
-0.716
-36.37
-5.752
0.553
81.fi1;
-0.102
-16.22
542.1
7.5-10.0
20.74
542.1
682.8
3470
Removed
kg/yr
217.8
4.929
0.000
18.85
4.212
10.14
144.0
102.2
33.30
318.5
515.4
29.48
102.1
36.37
121.7
152.0
5.359
15010
16.45
42836
7.5-10.0
853.9
42852
59682.
153000
Metal Prep
Discharged
kg/yr
14.54
0.480
0.480
0.000
0.189
1.018
5.961
0.4944
3.199
0.102
3.344
1.934
0.003
0.684 ,
49.17
7.125
1.061
IQ.^
0.102
116.05
37.80
7.5-10.0
15.27
137.4
275.9
Coating
Discharged
kg/yr
2.802
0.0925
0.0925
0.1373
0.0364
0.1961
1.149
0.0953
0.6164
0.01961
0.6445
0.3727
0 .0005604
0.1317
42.03
1.373
0.2045
7.621
0.01961
28.02
7.285
7.5-10.0
3.080
35.31
90.14
14 plants in subcategory
-------
TABLE X-7 (Continued)
POLLUTION REDUCTION BENEFITS OF CONTROL SYSTEMS
ALOHINtM SUBCATEQORY - NORMAL PLANT
BAT-2
BAT-3
00
Parameter
Flow liters/yr x 106
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Barium
Cobalt <
Fluoride
Iron ,, -'.
Manganese 'ซ ? ;
Phosphorus - i ;
Titanium __ ::
Oil & Grease
TSS
pH :, :
Total Toxic Metals
Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Sludge Generated ;
Metal Prep Coating Metal Prep Coating
Removed Removed Discharged Discharged
kg/yr
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
31.13
0.000
0.000
0.000
94.67
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.553
83.85
0.000
0.000
542.1
7.5-10.0
31.13
542.1
752.3
4810
kg/yr
217.9
5.021
0 .1367
18.89
4.408
11.28
144.1
102.8
33.32
319.1
515.8
29.48
102.2
78.27
123.1
152.2
12.95
15010
44.34
42843
7.5-10.0
857.0
42887
59770
158000
kg/yr
14.54
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.04362
0.1890
0.5671
0.4944
0.000
0.000
3.053
1.934
0.000
12.80
1.410
1.061
39.55
0.000
99.60
37.80
7.5-10.0
4.347
137.4
198.5
kg/yr
0.01265
0.0004174
0.0004174
0.0006198
0.000164
0.0008855
0.00519
0.000430
0.002783
0 .000089
0.00291
0.001682
0.0000025
0.0005945
0.1265
0 .00620
0.000923
0.0344
0.0000885
0.1265
0.03289
7.5-10.0
0.0139
0.1594
0.3437
Metal Prep Coating
Removed Removed
kg/yr
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.0418
0.181
0.543
31.60
0.000
0.000
2.925
96.52
0.000
12.26
1.351
1.570
121.7
0.000
95.43
578.3
7.5-10.0
35.29
673.7
942.5
5330
kg/yr
217.9
5.021
0.1367
18.89
4.408
11.28
144.1
102.8
33.32
319.1
515.8
29.48
102.2
78.27
123.1
152.2
12.95
15010
44.34
42843
7.5-10.0
857.0
42887
59770
158000
Metal Prep
Discharged
kg/yr
0.6091
0.000
0 .000
0.000
0.00183
0.00792
0.0238
0.0207
0.000
0.000
0.128
0.081
0.000
0.536
0.059
0.0445
1.657
0.000
4.172
1.584
7.5-10.0
0.182
5.756
8.316
Coating
Discharged
kg/yr
0.01265
0.0004174
0.0004174
0.0006198
0.000164
0.0008855
0.00519
0.000430
0.002783
0 .000089
0.00291
0.001682
0 .0000025
0.0005945t
0.1265
0.00620
0.000923
0.0344
0.0000885
0.1265
0.03289
7.5-10.0
0.0139
0.1594
0.3437
-------
TABLE X-8
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS OF CONTROL SYSTEMS
COPPER SUBCATEQORY - NORMAL PLANT
Raw Waste
BPT
BAT-1
Parameter
Flow liters/yr x 106
114 Antirony
115 Arsenic
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Barium
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Qrease
TSS
pH~
Total Toxic Metals
Unreg Toxic Metals
Convent ionals
Total Pollutants
Sludge Generated
Metal Prep
kg/yr
0.8924
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.01963
0.02320
248.7
0.6871
0.1071
0.000
0.7942
0.06515
0.000
0 .1026
24.46
0.08567
0.4640
0.000
174.9
16.96
1.8-6.6
250.3
191.9
467.4
Coating
kg/yr
0 .06651
5.171
0 .1192
0 .003259
0.4483 ,-
0.1046
0 .2679
3.421
2.440
0.7908
7.575
12.24
0.6997
2.426
1.861
2.922
3.613
0.3080
356.3
1.056
1017
7.0-12.5
20.34
1018
1419
Metal Prep
Removed
kg/yr'
-0.04462
-0.04462
0.000
0.00175
-0.0733
248.2
0.6568
-1.146
-0.00892
0.3480
-0.116
-0.00625
-0.0625
-0.8633
23.95
-0.0787
-0.0366
-0.00892
166.0 .
7.947
7.5-10.0
247.9
173.9
444.7
2330
Coating Metal Prep
Coating
Removed Discharged Discharged
kg/yr
5.168
0.1159
0.000
0.4470
0.0733
0.2273
3.419
2.384
0.7901
7.542
12.23
0.6992
2.421
0.8633
2.884
3.606
. 0.0366
356.3
0.3909
1016
7.5-10.0
20.17
1016
1416
3730
kg/yr
0 .8924
0.04462
0.04462
0.000
0.01785
0.0965
0.5444
0.0303
0.750
0.00892
0 .4462
0.178
0.00625
0.000
0.9659
0.5087
0.0982
0.5006
0.00892
8.924
9.013
7.5-10.0
1.983
17.94
22.31
kg/yr
0 .06651
0 .003326
0.003326
0.003259
0.00133
0 .03130
0 .04057
0 .002261
0.5587
0.000665
0.03326
0.01330
0 .0004655
0.004656
0.9977
0.03791
0.007316
0.2714
0.0006651
0.6651
0.6718
7.5-10.0
0.142
1.337
3.848
Metal Prep
Removed
kg/yr
-0.0294
-0.0294
0.000
0.00803
-0.0341
248.3
0.6568
-0.0888
-0.00625
0.5889
-0.527
-0.000178
-0.419
-1.196
24.02
0.0205
-0.1271
-0^00625
166.0
14.64
7.5-10.0
249.4
180.6
451.8
2330
Coating Metal Prep
Coating
Removed Discharged Discharged
kg/yr
5.169
0.1170
0.000
0 .4474
0 .09994
0.2406
3.419
2.425
0.7903
7.560
12.23
0.6997
2.423
1.196
2.889
3.608
0.1271
356.3
0.3909
1017
7.5-10.0
20.27
1017
1417
3750
kg/yr
0.8924
0.0294
0.0294
0.000
0.0116
0.0625
0.3659
0.0303
0.1963
0.00625
0.2053
0.119
0.000178
0.0419
1.299
0.4373
0.06515
0.5911
0.00625
8.924
2.320
7.5-10.0
0.937
11.24
14.74
kg/yr
0 .06651
0.0021-95
0 .002195
0.003259
0.000865
0.004656
0 .0273
0.00226
0.01463
0.000466
0.0153
0.008896
0*0000133
0.003126
0.6651
0.0326
0.000465 5
0.1809
0.0004655
0.6651
0.1729
7.5-10.0
0 .0731
0 .838
1,807
2 plants in subcategory
-------
TABLE X-8 (Continued)
POLOTCANI1 REDUCTION BENEFITS OF CONTROL SYSTEMS
COPPER SUBCATEQORY - NORMAL PLANT
BAT-2
BAT-3
UT
o
Parameter
Flow liters/yr x 106
-114 Antimony
,115 Arsenic
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Barium
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron : ;
Manganese
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
TSS
pH
Total Toxic Metals
Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Sludge Generated
Metal Prep Coating Metal Prep Coating Metal Prep Coating Metal Prep Coating
Removed Removed Discharged Discharged Removed Removed Discharged Discharged
kg/yr
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00803
0.000
248.3
0.6568
0.000
0.000
0.5889
0.000
0.000
0.000
24.02
0.0205
o.ogo
0.000
166.0
14.64
7.5-10.0
249.6
180.6
454.2
2360
kg/yr
5.171
0.1192
kg/yr
0.8924
0.000
0.000
0.003225 0.000
0.4482
0.1046
0.2679
3.421
2.440
0.7908
7.575
12.24
0.6997
2.426
1.854
2.922
3.613
0.3061
356.3
1.049
1017
7.5-10.0
20.34
1018
1419
3750
0.0116
0.02320
0.3659
0.0303
0.1071
0.000
0.2053
0.06515
0.000
0.1026
0.4373
0.06515
0.4640
0.000
8.924
2.320
7.5-10.0
0.7434
11.24
13.12
kg/yr
0.0007016
0.0000231
0.0000231
0.0000343
0.0000091
0.0000491
0.0000288
0.0000238
0.000154
0.0000049
0.000161
0.0000933
0.0000014
0.0000329
0.007016
0.000344
0.0000512
9:Q0191
0.0000049
0.007016
0.001824
7.5-10.0
0.00051
0.00884
0.0188
kg/yr
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.0148
0.0222
248.7
0.686
0.103
0.000
0.786
0.0624
0.000
0.0983
24.44
0.0829
0.445
0.000
174.5
16.86
7.5-10.0
250.3
191.4
466.8
2390
kg/yr
5.171
0.1192
0.003225
0.4482
0.1046
0.2679
3.421
2.440
0.7908
7.575
12.24
0.6997
2.426
1.854
2.922
3.613
0.3061
356.3
1.049
1017
7.5-10.0
20.34
1018
1419
3750
kg/yr
0.0375
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00488
0.000975
0.0154
0.00127
0.0045
0.000
0.00862
0.00274
0.000
0.00431
0.0184
0.00274
0.0195
0.000
0.375
0.0975
7.5-10.0
0.0356
0.473
.0.556
kg/yr
0.0007016
0.0000231
0.0000231
0.0000343
0.0000091
0.0000491
0.0000288
0.0000238
0.000154
0.0000049
0.000161
0.0000933
0.0000014
0.0000329
0.007016
0.000344
0.0000512
0 nOJ
-------
TABLE X-9
TOTAL TREATMENT PERFORMANCE
STEEL SUBCATEGORY.
Raw Waste
BPT
BAT-1
Parameter
114
115
117
118
119
120
122
124
125
128
Flow liters/yr x 106
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Barium
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
TSS
pH
Total Toxic Metals
Convent ionals
Total Pollutants
Sludge Generated
Metal Prep
kg/yr
4167
0.000
0.000
0.000
37.50
454.2
237.6
100.0
60470
400.1
416.7
1437
216.7
2901
2230000
7243
22640
179.2
51470
350000
2.0-11.7
62120
401500
2728000
Coating
kg/yr
918.9
71450
1646
45.03
6194
1445
3702
47270
33700
10930
104600
169200
9667
33510
25710
40370
49920
4255
4923000
14580
14050000
7.0-12.5
281000
14060000
19600000
Metal Prep
Removed
kg/yr
-208.3
-208.3
0.000
-46.06
-1013
-2103
-42.62
56964
358.3
-1621
603.8
-29.17
-78.68
-11930
2230000
6784
5646
137.5
9797
307800
7.5-10.0
52280
317600
2601000
24040000
Coating Metal Prep Coating Metal Prep Coating
Removed Discharged Discharged Removed Removed
kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr
71400
1601
0
6176
1013
3141
47200
32900
10900
104100
169000
9661
33450
11930
39800
49820
506
4923000
5395
14040000
7.5-10
279000
14050000
19600000
51610000
4167
208.3
208.3
.000 0.000
83.35
1468
2340
141.7
3501
2084
416.7
833.5
29.17
291.7
14830
2376
458
17000
41.67
41670
42090
.0 7.5-10.0
10080
83760
129700
918.9
45.94
45.94
45.03
18.38
432
560.6
31.24
771.8
9.191
459.4
183.8
6.433
64.33
13790
523.8
101
3749
9.189
9189
9281
7.5-10.0
2420
18470
39310
-137.6
-137.6
71420
1616
0.000 0.000
-16.46
162.5
-1472
-42.63
59550
370.9
6182
1381
3325
47240
33500
10920
0.000 104400
882.9
169000
-0.833 9667
20.91
-11930
2230000
6949
11310
150.0
9797
339200
7.5-10.0
57740
349000
2644000
24240000
33470
16520
39900
49900
1755
4923000
5395
14050000
7.5-10.0
280000
14060000
19600000
51710000
Metal Prep Coating
Discharged Discharged
kg/yr kg/yr
4167
137.6
137.6
54.18
37.50
291.7
1709
141.7
916.8
29.2
958.5
554.3
0.833
195.8
14830
2042
304
11330
29.17
41670
10840
7.5-10.0
4376
52510
86170
918.9
30.32
30.32
45.03
11.95
64.33
376.7
31.24
202.2
. 6.432
229.7
122.2
0 .1838
43.19
9189
450.3
67.08
2500
6.433
9189
2389
7.5-10.0
1010
11580
25000
-------
WBLE x-9 (Cbntlnued))
TOTAL TREATMENT PERFORMANCE
SIEEL SUBCATEOORY
BAT-2
Metal Prep Coating Metal Prep Coating
Removed Removed Discharged Discharged
BAT-3
Metal Prep Coating Metal Prep Coating
Removed' Removed Discharged Removed
Parameter
Flow liters/yr x 10
114 Antimony,
115 Arsenic >
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Barium
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
TSS
PH :
Total Toxic! Metals
Conve nt ionals
Total Pollutants
Sludge Generated
kg/yr
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
162.5
0.000
0.000
59550
370.9
0.000
882.9
20.91
0.000
2230000
6939
1133"
150.0
9797
339200
7.5-10.0
60085
349000
2660000
24640000
kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr
71450
1646
44.69
6194
1445
3699
47270
33700
10930
104600
169200
9667
33510
25640
40370
49920
4237
4923000
14510
14050000
7.5-10.0
281000
14060000
19600000
51810000
4167
0.000
0.000
0.000
37.50
291.7
237.6
100
916.8
29.2
416.7
554.3
195.8
2901
2042
304
11330
29.17
41670
10840
7.5-10.0
2030
52510
71900
6.750
0.2227
0.2227
0.3308
0.1350
0.4725
2.767
0.229
1.485
0.0472
1.678
0.00131
0.001313
0.3172
67.50
3.303
0.493
18.36
0.04725
67.50
17.55
7.5-10.0
7.417
85.05
182.5
kg/yr
0.000
0.000
0.000
35.93
442.2
227.6
95.81
60430
398.8
399.3
1414
; 208.6
1150
; 2230000
-- 7230
* 22200
178.0
49720
349500
i 7.5-10.0
; 62000
399200
i 2722000
24750000
kg/yr
71450
1646
44.69
6194
1445
3699
47270
33700
10930
104600
16920
9667
33510
25640
40370
49920
4237
4923000
14510
14050000
7.5-10.0
281000
14060000
1960000
51810000
kg/yr
175.0
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.576
12.25
9.970
4.201
38.51
1.222
17.50
23.28
8.226
1750
85.75
12.83
476.1
1.225
1750
455.1
7.5-10.0
85.23
2205
4648
kg/yr
6.750
0.2227
0.2227
0.3308
0.1350
0.4725
2.767
0.229
1.485 , .
0.0472
1.678
0.00131
0.001313 >_.
0.3172 O;
67i50
3.303 i Vf-s
0.493 " :!
18.36 i r^
0.04725 -^-
67.50 :.--:
17.55 ;--;
7.5-10.0 "":
7.417
85.05
182.5 ;
-------
TABLE X-10
TOTAL TREATMENT PERFORMANCE
CAST IRON SUBCATEGORY
cn
GO
Raw Vfeste BPT
Paramater
Plow
114
115
117
118
119
120
122
124
125
128
Liters/yr x 106
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Barium
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
TSS
pH
Total Toxic Metals
Convent ionals
Total Pollutants
Sludge Generated
Coating
kg/yr
7.546
586.7
13.52
0.3697
50.87
74.20
30.39
388.2
276.8
89.74
859.6
1390
79.38
275.2
211.1
331.5
410.0
34.94
40430
119.8
115400
Coating
Removed
kg/yr
586.3
13.15
0.000
50.72
70.65
25.79
387.9
270.4
89.66
856.1
1388
79.31
274.6
97.93
327.2
409.2
4.158
40430
44.31
115300
7.0-12.5 7.5-10.0
2370
115500
161052
2351
115300
160700
424300
Coating
BAT-1
Coating
Discharged Removed
kg/yr
7.546
0.3773
0.3773
0.3697
0.1509
3.547
4.603
0.2566
6.339
0.0755
3.773
1.509
0.05282
0.5282
113.2
4.302
0.8302
30.79
0.07546
75.46
76.23
kg/yr
586.4
13.27
0.000
50.77
73.64
29.87
387.9
275.1
89.68
857.9
1389
79.38
274.8
135.7
327.8
409.4
14.42
40430
44.31
115400
7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0
19.87
151.7
322.8
2365 .
115400
160900
425200
Coating
BAT-2 BAT-3
Coating
Discharged Removed
kg/yr
7.546
0.2490
0.2490
0.3697
0.0981
0.5282
0.5282
0.2566
1.660
0.05282
1.735
1.004
0.00014
0.3547
75.46
3.697
0.5508
20.52
0.05282
75.46
19.62
7.5-10.
5.727
95.08
202.4
^ kg/yr
586.7
13.50 .
0.1022
50.86
74.13
30.17
388.13
276.6
89.73
859.5
1390
79.38
275.2
205.7
331.3
409.9
33.46
40430
114.3
115400
0 7.5-10.0
2369
115500
161309
426200
Coating Coating
Discharged Removed
kg/yr kg/yr
0.5461
0.01802 586.7
0.01802 13.50
0.02675 0.1022
0.007098 50.86
0.03823 74.13
0.2239 30.17
0.01856 338.13
0.1201 276.6
0.00382 89.73
0.1256 859.5
0.07266 1390
0.0001092 79.38
0.02566 275.2
5.461 205.7
0.2675 331.3
0.0398 409.9
1.485 33.46
0.003822 40430
5.461 114.3
1.420 115400
7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0
0.6000 2369
6.881 115500
14.84 161039
426200
Coating
Discharged
kg/yr
0.5461
0.01802
0.01802
0.02675
0.007098
0.03823
0.2239
0.01856
0.1201
0.00382
0.1256
0.07266
0.0001092
0.025*66
5.461
0.2675
0.0398
1.485
0.003822
5.461
1.420
7.5-10.0
0.6000
6.881
14.84
-------
TABLE X-ll
TOTAL TREATMENT PERFORMANCE
AUWINIM SUBCATBOORY
Parameter
Plow Liters/yr x 106
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Barium
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
TSS
203.6
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.6107
2.646
7.939
422.7
0.000
- 0.000
* 42.74
1352
0.000
179.2
19.74
, 22.60
1728
0.000
^1394
"8119
39.23
3051
70.29-
1.922
264.5
61.71
158.1
2017
1439
466.5
4467
7221
412.7
1428
1098
1723
2131
181.7
210100
622.6
599800
pH 6.3-10.0 6.3-10.0
Ibtal Toxic Metals 496.6 12000
Conventionals - 9513 600400
Total Pollutants 13310 836700
Sludge Generated
BPT
Metal Prep Coating
Removed Removed
kg/yr kg/yr
-10.18
-10.18
0.000
-3.402
-43.27
-116.2
435.8
-170.9
-2.03
-59.05
1312
-1.428
0.000
-509.2
-96.25
G.OOG
897.1
-2.03
-230.3
6062
7.5-10
20.59
6062
7452
38080
3049
68.33
0.000
263.6
43.27
134.1
2016
1406
462.6
4448
7213
412.4
1428
509.2
1707
2127
21.7
210100
230.3
599410
.0 7.5-10.0
11890
599600
835000
2086000
_ ; i _ ' - - BAT-1
Metal Prep Coating Metal Prep Coating
Discharged Discharged Renoved Removed
kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr
203.6
10.18
10.18
0.000
4.074
45.92
124.2
6.922
170.9
2.03
101.8
40.71
14.28
688.4
116.0
22.60
830.5
2.03
1625
2057
7.5-10.0
476.2
3451
5874
39.23
1.961
1.961
1.922
0.7846
18.44
23.93
1.334
32.96
3.923
19.61
7.846
0.2745
2.745
588.4
22.36
4.312
160.0
0.3923
392.3
396.2
7.5-10.0
106.8
788.5
1682
-6.72
-6.72
0.000
-1.988
-11.51
-67.37
435.8
-45.01
-1.428
-4.704
1325
-0.042
-10.02
-509.2
-80.53
7.742
,1174
-1.428
-227.1
7589
7.5-10
290.4
7589
9558
48580
3049
69.01
0.000
263.9
58.97
142.0
2016
1431
463.8
4459
7216
412.7
1429
509.2
1704
2128
75.03 -7-
210100 ;
230.3
599700
.0 7.5-10.0
11950
599900
835500
2142000
Metal Prep
Discharged
kg/yr
203.6
6.72
6.72
0.000
2.646
14.25
83.45
6.922
44.79
1.428
46.82
27.08
0.042
9.576
688.4
99.75
14,85 ':
553.7 J
1.428 -
1625 :
529.2
7.5-10.0
213.7
1923
3763
-------
Paraneter
Flow Liters/yr x 10
-t=ป
en
on
TABLE X-ll (Continued)
TOTAL TREATMENT Pซ5RPCKMflNCE
ALUMINUM SURCATEQORY
BAT-1
Coating
Discharged
kg/yr
Metal Prep
Removed
kg/yr
BAT-2
Coating
Removed
kg/yr
Metal Prep
Discharged
kg/yr
Coating
Discharged
kg/yr
Metal Prep
Removed
kg/yr
BAT-3
Coating
Removed
kg/yr
Metal Prep
Discharged
kg/yr
Coating
Discharged
kg/yr
39.23
203.6
0.1771
8.527
0.1771
114
115
117
118
119
120
122
124
125
128
Ant irony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Capper
Lear!
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Barium
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
TSS
PH
Total Toxic Metals
Convent ionals
Total Pollutants
Sludqe Generated
1.295
1.295
1.922
0.5096
2.745
16.09
1.334
8.630
2.628
9.023
5.218
0.007846
1.844
588.4
19.22
2.863
106.7
0.2745
392.3
102.0
7.5-10.0
45.47
494.3
1264
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
435.8
0.000
0.000
0.000
1325
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.742
1174
0.000
0.000
7589
7.5-10
435.8
7589
10530
67340
3051
70
1
264
61
157
2017
1439
466
4467
7221
412
1428
1096
1723
2131
181.
210100
620.
599800
.29
.914
.5
.71
.9
.5
.7
,3
,8
.0 7.5-10.0
11997
600400
836700
2212000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.6107
2.646
7.937
6.922
0.000
0.000
42.74
27.08
0.000
179.2
19.74
14.85
553.7
0.000
1394
529.2
7.5-10.0
60.86
1923
2779
0.005844
0.005844
0.008677
0.002296
0.01240
0.0727
0.00602
0.3896
0.01187
0.0407
0.02355
0.00035
0.008323
1.771
0.0868
0.01292
0.4816
0.001239
1.771
0.4605
7.5-10.0
0.5560
2.232
5.173
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.585
2.534
7.602
442.4
0.000
0.000
40.95
1351
0.000
171.6
18.91
21.98
1704
0.000
1336
8096
7.5-10
494.1
9432
13192
74620
3051
70.29
1.914
264.5
61.71
157.9
2017
1439
466.5
4467
7221
412.7
1428
1096
1723
2131
1181.3
210100
620.8
599800
.0 7.5-10.0
11997 '
600400
836700
2212000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.0256
o.nr
0.333
0.290
0.000
0.000
1.792
1.134
0.000
7.50
0.826
0.623
23.20
0.000
58.41
22.18
7.5-10.0
2.552
80.59
116.4
0.005844
0.005844
0.008677
0.002296
0.01240
0.0727
0.00602
0.3896
0.01187
0.0407
0.02355
0.00035
0.008323
1.771
0.0868
0.01292
0.4816
0.001239
1.771
0.4605
7.5-10.0
0.5560
2.232
5.173
-------
TABLE X-12
TOTAL TREATMENT reRFORMANCE
COPPER SUBCATEGORY
en
Parameter
Flow Liters/yr x 106
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
narium
Cobalt : '-
Fluoride ~ .:
Iron :
Manganese, ,? , ,--:--,
Phosphorus i; '*
Titanium
Oil & Grease
TSS
pH
Total Toxic Metals
Corwentionals
Tbtal Pollutants
Sludge Generated
1 " : Raw-Haste* - = "- v~ - --
fetal Prep
kg/yr
1.785
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.03926
0.0464
497.4
1.374
0.2124
0.000
1.588
0.1303
0.000
0.2052
48.92
i 0.1713
: 0.9218
0.000
349.8
33.92
1.8-6.6
500.7
:383.7
934.7
Coating
kg/yr
0.1330
10.34
0.2384
0.006518
0.8966
0.2092
0.5358
6.842
4.880
1.582
15.15
24.48
1.399
4.852
3.722
5.844
7.226
0.616
712.6
2.112
2C2034
7:0-12.5
40.68
2036
2838
fetal Prep
Ramoved
kg/yr
-0.08924
-0.08924
0.000
-- 0.0035
-0.1466
496.4
1.314
-2.292
-0.01780
0.696
-0.232
" -0.0125
.-.- -0.125
-1.727
47.90
-0.1574
j; -0.0732
-0.0178
332
15.89
7.5-10.0
495.8
347.9
889.2
4460
BPT
Coating
Removed
kg/yr
10.34
0.2318
0.000
0.894
0.147
0.455
6.838
4.768
1.569
15.08
24.46
1.398
4.842
1.727
5.768
7.212
0.0732
712.6
0.7818
2032
7.5-10.0
40.32
2033
2831
7460
: ,--
fetal Prep
Discharged
kg/yr
1.785
0.08924
0.08924
0.000
0.0357
0.193
1.088
0.0606
1.50
0.01784
0.8924
0.356
0.0125
0.125
1.932
1.017
0.196
1.001
0.0178
17.85
18.03
7.5-10.0
3.966
35.88
44.50
,_- ;, ,;,,, , ,
Coating
Discharged
kg/yr
0.1330
0.006652
0.006652
0.006518
0.00266
0.0626
0.0811
0.00452
0.1117
0.01330
0.06652
0.0266
0.000931
0.009312
1.995
0.07582
0.01463
0.5428
0.001330
1.330
1.344
7.5-10.0
0.362
2.674
5.702
- ,- - , , ,,,
fetal Prep
Removed
kg/yr
-0.0588
-0.0588
0.000
0.0161
-0.0682
496.6
1.314
-0.178
-0.0125
1.178
-1.054
-0.000356
-0.838
-2.392
48.04
0,041
v -0.2542
-0.0125
1332.0
29.28
7.5-10.0
- 498.7
361.3
= 903.5
4460
: BAT-l
Coating
Removed
kg/yr
10.34
0.234
0.000
0.8948
0.200
0.4812
6.838
4.850
1.573
15.12
24.46
1.399
4.846
2.392
5.778
7.216
0.2542
712.6
0.7818
2034
7.5-10.0
40.53
2035
2834
7460
.
fetal Prep
Discharged
kg/yr
1.785
0.0588
0.0588
0.000
0.0232
0.125
0.7318
0.0606
0.3926
0.125
0.4106
0.238
0.000356
0.0838
2.598
0.8746
0.1303
1.182
0.0125
17.85
4.640
7.5-10.0
1.986
22.49
29.60
-------
TABLE X-12 (Continued)
TOTAL TREATMENT PERFORMANCE
COPPER SUBCATEGORY
cn
Parameter
Flow liters/yr x 10
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
117 Beryllium
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Barium
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
TSS
pH
total Toxic Metals
Convent ionals
Ibtal Pollutants
Sludge Generated
BAT-1
Coating
Discharged
kg/yr
0.1330
0.00439
0.00439
0.006518
0.00173
0.09312
0.0546
0.00452
0.02926
0.008912
0.0306
0.01769
0.0000266
0.006252
1.330
0.0652
0.00972
0.3618
0.000931
1.330
0.3458
7.5-10.0
0.238
1.676
3.706
BAT-2
Metal Prep Coating
Removed Removed
kg/yr kg/yr
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.0161
0.000
496.6
1.314
0.000
0.000
1.178
0.000
0.000
0.000
48.04
0.041
0.000
0.000
332.0
29.28
7.5-10
499.1
361.3
908.5
4720
10.34
0.2384
0.00645
0.8964
0.2092
0.5358
6.842
4.88
1.582
15.15
24.48
1.399
4.852
3.708
5.844
7.226
0.6122
712.6
2.098
2034
.0 7.5-10.0
40.68
2036
2837
7500
Metal Prep
Discharged
kg/yr
1.785
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.0232
0.0464
0.7318
0.0606
0.2142
0.000
0.4106
0.1303
0.000
0.2052
0.8746
0.1303
0.928
0.000
17.85
4.640
7.5-10.0
1.487
22.49
26.25
Coating
Discharged
kg/yr
0.001403
0.0000462
0.0000462
0.0000686
0.0000182
0.0000982
0.0000576
0.0000476
0.000308
0.000094
0.0140
0.0001866
0.000028
0.0000658
0.01403
0.000688
0.000102
0.00382
0.0000098
0.01403
0.003648
7.5-10.0
0.0148
0.01708
0.0514
BAT-3
Metal Prep Coating
Removed Removed
kg/yr kg/yr
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.0296
0.0444
497.4
1.372
0.206
0.000
1.572
0.125
0.000
0.197
48.88
0.166
0.89
0.000
349
33.72
7.5-10
500.6
382.7
935.4
4780
10.34
0.2384
0.00645
0.8964
0.2092
0.5358
6.842
4.88
1.582
15.15
24.48
1.399
4.852
3.708
5.844
7.226 '
0.6122
712.6
2.098
2034
.0 7.5-10.0
40.68
2036
2837
7500
Matal Prep
Discharged
kg/yr
0.075
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.0096
0.00195
0.0308
0.00254
0.009
0.000
0.0172
0.00548
0.000
0.00862
0.0368
0.00548
0.039
0.000
0.75
0.195
7.5-10.0
0.0711
0.945
1.111
Coating
Discharged
kg/yr
0.001403
0.0000462
0.0000462
0.0000686
0.0000182
0.0000982
0.0000576
0.0000476
0.000308
0.000094
0.0140
0.0001866
0.000028
0.0000658
0.01403
0.000688
0.000102
0.00382
0.00000098
0.01403
0.003648
7.5-10.0
0.0148
0.01708
0.0514
-------
TABLE X-13 (Continued)
TOTAL TREATMENT PERFORMANCE
TOTAL CATEGORY
Parameter
Plow Liters/yr x 10
BAT-1
Coating
Discharged
kg/yr
Metal Prep
Removed
kg/yr
BAT-2
Coating
Removed
kg/yr
Metal Prep
Discharged
Wyr
Coating
Discharged
kg/yr
Metal Prep
Removed
kg/yr
BAM
Coating
Removed
kg/yr
Metal Prep
Discharged
kg/yr
Coating
Discharged
kg/yr
96r,.8
~ en
. CO,
4372
0.000
0.000
0.000
38.13
294.4
245.9
107
9.7
29.2
460
581.5
195.8
3080
2063
319
2628
29.17
43080
11370
pH 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0
Total -toxic Metals 1270 61000 295300 2090
Conventkmals 12200 357000 14800000 54500
Total Pollutants 26640 2670000 20600000 74700
Sludge Generated 24710000 54460000
7.475
114
115
117
118
119
120
122
124
125
128
antimony
Arsenic-
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
zinc
Aluminum
Barium
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Phosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
T3S
31.87
31.87
47.33
12.56
67.70
393.4
32.84
212.5
9.12
427.5
128.4
0.1918
45.39
9854
473.3
70.5
2628
6.761
9658
2511
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.0161
162.5
497.0
435.8
59550
370.9
1.178
2208
20.91
0.000
2230000
6S47
12484
150.0
10130
346800
75100
1730
46.71
6510
1581
38888
49680
35420
11490
109900
177800
10160
35220
26950
42430
52470
4420
5174000
15250
14770000
183.6
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.611
12.36
10.33
4.414
38.52
1.22
19.31
24.42
8.226
1758
86.61
13,46
499.3
1.225
1809
39.93
7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0
9.0 63000 295300 88
0.2466
0.2466
0.3663
0.144
0.5232
3.063
0.254
2.0
0.063
1.860
0.10
0.001800
0.3512
74.75
3.66
0.506
20.33
0.05232
74.75
19.43
0.000
0.000
0.000
36.54
444.8
732.6
539.6
60430
398.8
441.8
2765
208.6
1322
2230000
7252
23900
178.0
51410
357600
75100
1730
46.71
6510
1581
3887
49680
35420
114.90
109900
177800
10160
35220
26950
42430
52470
4420
5174000
15250
14770000
94.2
203
409000
2738000
24830000
14800000
20600000
54460000
1880
4330
7.475
0.2466
0.2466
0.3663
0.144
0.5232
3.063
0.254
2.0
0.063
1.860
0.10
0.001800
0.3512
74.75
3.66
0,506
20.33
0.05232
74.75
19.43
7.5-10.0
9.0
94.2
203
-------
TftBLE X-13
TOTAL TREAOMaW PERFORMANCE
TOTAL CATEGORY
in
10
Parameter
Plow Liters/yr x 10
114
115
117
118
119
120
122
124
125
128
Antimony
Arsenic
Reryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Parium
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Fhosphorus
Titanium
Oil & Grease
OSS
pH
Raw Haste BPT BAT-1
Metal Prep Coating [fetal Prep Coating Matal Prep Coating Metal Prep Coating
Removed Removed Discharged Discharged Removed Removed
kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr
4372
0.000
0.000
0.000
38.15
456.9
743.9
544.1
60470
400.1
461.7
2789
216.7
3080
2230000
7266
24370
179.2
53210
358200
965.
75100
17300
47.
6510
1581
3891
49680
35420
11500
109900
177800
10160
35220
27020
42430
52470
4472
5174000
15320
14770000
1.8-11.7 6
total -toxic Metals 63110
Conventionals
total Pollutants
Sludge Generated
411400
2742000
295400
14790000
20610000
8
-218.6
-218.6
33 0.000
-49.46
-1056
-1723
395.1
56790
356.3
-1679
1916
-30.61
-78.81
-12440
2230000
6784
6543
135.4
10130
313900
75050
1683
0.
6491
1127
3301
49610
34580
11450
108560
177600
10150
35160
12540
41834
52363
532
5174000
5670
14760000
.3-12.5 7.5-10.0 7
52600
324000
2609000
24080000
293000
14800000
20560000
54130000
4372
218.
218.
000 0.
87.
1514
2465
148.
3501
41.
460.
874.
30.
216.
15520
2493
481
17830
43.
43080
44170
.5-10.0 7
10550
87300
135400
6
6
000
.46
7
67
3
6
61
7
7
.5-10.0
965.8
48.28
48.28
47.33'
19.32
454
589.2
32.83
811.2
13.20
482.8
193.2
6.761
67.61
14490
550.5
106.2
3940
9.658
9658
9755
7.5-10
2550
19410
41300
-144.4
-144.4
0.000
-18.43
150.9
-1043
394.5
59500
369.5
-544.6
2207
-0.875
10.05
-12440
2230000
6947
12484
148.6
10130
346800
75070
1699
0.000
6498
1514
3497
49650
35210
11480
109700
177600
10160
35180
17170
41940
52440
1845
5174000
5670
14770000
.0 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0
61000
357000
2655000
24290000
294300
14780000
20600000
54280000
Metal Prep
Discharged
kg/yr
4372
144.4
144.4
0.000
56.85
311.5
1793
148.7
962
30.75
1006
0.875
205.5
15520
2143
319
11880
30.61
43080
11370
7.5-10.0
4598
54450
89730
-------
X-14
SUMMARY TABLE
POLLUTION REDXTICN BENEFITS
Ci
O
Paraneter
Steel Subcategory
Total Toxic Metals
Oonventionals
Total Pollutants
Sludge Generated
Cast Iron Subcategory
Total Toxic Metals
Oonventionals
Total Pollutants
Sludge Generated
Aluminum Subcategory
Total Toxic Metals
Conventionals
Total Pollutants ;
Sludge Generated
Copper Subcategory ,
; Total Toxic Metals
Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Sludge Generated
Total Category
Total Toxic Metals
Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Sludge Generated
Raw Wiste DPT J ' BMML
Metal Prep Coating fetal Prep Coating fetal Prep Coating fetal Prep Coating fetal Prep
F v Pปraved Removed Discharged Discharged Renewed Removed Discharged
kg/yr kg/yr kg/vr kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr
62100
402000
2730000
497
* 9510
jj 13300
*i
;- 501
384
935
63100
411000
2740000
2810000
14100000
19600000
2400
116000
. 161000
12000
600000
837000
40.7
2040
2840
295000
14800000
20600000
52280
318000
2601000
24040000
20.59
6060
7452
38080
495.3
348
889.2
4460
52600
324000
2609000
24080000
279000
14100000
19600000
51610000
2350
115000
160700
424300
11890
600000
835000
2086000
40.3
2030
2830
7460
293280
14800000
20560000
54130000
10080
83800
129700
476.2
3450
5874
3.966
35.9
44.50
10550
87300
135400
2420
18500
39300
20
152
320
107
789
1680
0.4
2.67
5.7
2550
19400
41300
57740
349000
2644000
24240000
290.4
7590
9558
48580
498.7
361
903.5
4460
58520
357000
2655000
24290000
280000
14100000
19600000
51710000
2370
115000
160900
425200
11950
600000
836000
2142000
40.5
2040
2830
7460
294300
14800000
20580000
54280000
4376
52500
86170
213.7
1920
3763
1.986
22.50
29.60
4598
54500
89730
-------
TABLE X-14 (Continued)
SUMMARY TABLE
POLLUTION REDUCTION BENEFITS
Steel Subcategory
Total Toxic Metals
Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Sludge Generated
Cast Iron Subcategory
Total Toxic Metals
Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Sludge Generated
Aluminum Subcategory
Total Toxic Metals
Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Sludge Generated
Copper Subcategory
Total Toxic Metals
Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Sludge Generated
Total Category
Ibtal Toxic Metals
Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Sludge Generated
BAT-1 BAT-2 BAT-3
Coating Metal Prep Coating Matal Prep Coating Metal Prep Coating Metal Prep Coating
Discharged Removed Removed Discharged Discharged Removed Removed Discharged Discharge
kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr . kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr
1010
11600
25000
5.7
95.1
200
45
494
1260
0.2
1.68
3.7
1270
12200
26640
60100
349000
2660000
24640000
436
7590
?.0530
67340
499
361
909
4720
61000
357000
2670000
24710000
281000
14100000
19600000
51810000
2370
116000
161000
426200
12000
600000
837000
2212000
40.7
2040
2840
7500
295300
14800000
20600000
54460000
2030
52500
71900
61
1920
2780
1.5
22.5
26.3
2090
54500
74700
7.417
85.1
182.5
0.6
6.88
15
0.56
2.230
5.2
0.015
0.0171
0.05
9.6'
94.2
203
62000
399000
2722000
24750000
494
9432
13190
74620
501
383
935
4780
63000
409000
2738000
24830000
281000
14100000
19600000
51810000
2370
116000
161000
426200
12000
600000
837000
2212000
40.7
2040
7500
295300
14800000
20600000
54460000
85.23
2210
4650
2.5
80.6
116.4
0.07
0.95
1.11
88
1850
4330
7.417
85.1
182.5
0.6
6.88
15
0.56
2.230
5.2
0.015
0.0171
0.05
9.0
94.2
203
-------
Z917
*ป
00
en
o
o
o
I-1 10
-J en to
(-> en en
co o vo
*>. .
-J CO
00 *.
00
o o
o o
~J to O M
oo ro o rf*
o o o u>
o o o o
o o o o
oooo
O Ol
10 -J
00
o o
o o
" en
o o vo
o o o
000
o o o o
en
o vo
o in
00
8S
M to
Ul *>. O
tO CO O M
o o o vo
O O O 00
o o o o
ง000
o o o
en en i->
to oo (-
en vo en
o o o
o o o
000
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
to to
-O ~J CO
CO CO VD
o o o
o o o
0000
03 o
CO tO
O O O O
o o o o
o o o o
a\ H" -J
o oo vo
oo w I-1
vo to
o
ง0 O
o o
o o o
** o *.
^ ^ ซ
to o to
en I-1 en
en o en
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
-J IO I
to CO
en vo
00
o o
o o
u> w en
!- I-1 to
S88
oooo
co co
I-1 )- >u
ui en en
80 o
o o
oooo
oo M
to t-1
o o
o o
o o
vo en
to en
o o
-i o
I O
00 CO M tO
o en en en
o *ป *ป vo
oooo
oooo
oooo
co en vo t-1
en en to to
|-i -J CO 00
Jo oo
o o o
oooo
งi
i
Si
Ul U)
00 VO
-J N3
o o
o o
o o
-J I-1
on 01
en en
gง
CO
en
o
o
o
o
o
CO t-
en oo
o o
o o
o o
oo
o o
o o
S
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
88
''If'1:,1!'!!" '
ii',,
CO
to
CO CO
to to
o en
ง<
<
OO M
to to
O O
o o
-------
FRIT
RECLAMATION
COATING
WASTEWATER
SETTLING
SUMP
SUPERNATANT
BACKWASH
METAL PREPARATION
WASTEWATER
EQUALIZATION
O1
co
CHEMICAL
ADDITION
CHROMIUM
CHEMICAL
ADDITION
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION
SEDIMENTATION
SLUDGE
POLISHING >;'
DISCHARGE
RECYCLE
SLUDGE TO
DISPOSAL
SLUDGE
DEWATERING
(IF APPLICABLE)
BEARING
WASTEWATER
**^\^ty~s^*.
CHROMIUM
REDUCTION
<=&>
NOTE: CAST IRON SUBCATEGORY GENERATES NO METAL PREPARATION WASTEWATER
EQUALIZATION TANK IS UNNECESSARY FOR CAST IRON SUBCATEGORY.
FIGURE X-I. EXISTING SOURCES BAT OPTION I
-------
FRIT
RECLAMATION
RETURN TO
PROCESS
SETTLING
SUMP
SLUDGE
DEWATERING
BACKWASH
METAL PREPARATION
WASTEWATER
CHROMIUM
BEARING
WASTEWATER
CHROMIUM
REDUCTION
<==ฃ>
NOTE: CAST IRON SUBCATEGORY GENERATES
NO METAL PREPARATION WASTEWATER,
FIGURE X-2. EXISTING SOURCES, BAT OPTION 2
-------
I l| II I
| PARTS|ป-| PARTS \-^-\ PARTS J
I J I _l I I
PARTS TO COATING
CM
cn
NOTE: CAST IRON SUBCATEGORY GENERATES
NO METAL PREPARATION WASTEWATER.
SLUDGE
DEWATERING
FIGURE X-3. EXISTING SOURCES BAT OPTION 3
-------
< ;ซ? I';",:!""}'"
-------
SECTION XI
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
INTRODUCTION
This section presents effluent characteristics attainable by new
sources through the application of the best available demonstrated
control technology (BDT), processes, operating methods, or other
alternatives, including where practicable, a standard permitting no
discharge of pollutants. Two technology options are discussed, and
the rationale for selecting between them is outlined. The selection
of pollutant parameters for specific regulation is discussed, and
discharge limitations for the regulated pollutants are presented for
each subcategory.
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO BDT
As a general approach for the industrial segment, two options for BDT
were evaluated. The technologies described are equally applicable to
all the subcategories except for cast iron, which generates no metal
preparation wastewater and, therefore, requires no treatment of metal
preparation wastes. Mass limitations derived from these options vary
for each subcategory because of varying water use and wastewater
generation rates. Extreme technologies such as distillation were
rejected a priori as not cost effective, or as unproven. The two
options were considered in a draft development document which was
given limited circulation to industry and environmental groups.
Comments from this limited, but technically knowledgeable, audience
were received and used in making the selection of a specific BDT
option.
In summary form the BDT treatment technologies considered
porcelain enameling are:
for
At BDT Option 1:
Complete segregation of coating and metal preparation wastewaters.
o Coating wastewaters (total recycle)
- settling sump
lime, settle and filter
holding tank
- recycle to process
o Metal preparation wastewaters
467
-------
lime, settle and filter
pH adjust, if necessary
in-process wastewater reduction technologies
rinse flow controls
recirculation of pickle rinse to alkaline
cleaning rinse (steel subcategory)
nickel filter for the nickle flash bath
(steel subcategory)
elimination of neutralizer rinse
counter-current or gpray rinsing
discharge
At BDT Option 2
11' ;/'"' ,?;ฃ];!
No discharge from metal preparation or coating operations.
Coating wastewaters
all of BDT Option 1 technologies
Metal preparation wastewaters
all of BDT Option 1 technologies plus
equalization
ultrafiltration of alkaline cleaner
reverse osmosis for nickelrinse waters (steel
subcategory)
chromium regeneration (aluminum subcategory)
BDT OPTION SELECTION:
BDT Option 1 was modified after industry comment and further Agency
review. Total recycle of coating wastewater was determined to be
unfeasible because industry comments indicated that ball mill washouts
require the use of fresh water to maintain high product quality.
Therefore BDT Option 1 was modified to permit a coating discharge
equal to the quantity of fresh water needed to wash out a ball mill.
The average amount of water used -to wash out a ball mill is 0.05 1/m2
(reference Section V). While ball mill washouts require fresh water,
other uses ofwater within the coating operations do not require such
high quality. Therefore the polishing filterwas eliminated from the
BDT Option 1 treatment train. Elimination of the polishing filter
reduces the cost of BDT Option 1 while maintaining sufficient water
quality in the wastewater stream to permit reuse in processes.
Because of the 0.05 1/m2 fresh water allowance for ball mill washout,
an in-line paper, cloth or metal filter is recommended for further
solids removal prior to discharge.
468
-------
For metal preparation operations, an equalization tank is recommended
to reduce shock loadings to the treatment system. Also, after lime,
settle and filter treatment, a pH adjust unit is unnecessary, because
wastewater discharge will be within the recommended range for
discharge (7.5-10.0). Recycle of acid etch rinse water to the
alkaline cleaning rinse is no longer recommended because industry
commented that the alkaline cleaning rinse would become contaminated
and therefore interfere with the proper cleaning of the metal ware.
In-process flow control methods, which include rinse flow controls and
countercurrent rinses, can reduce metal preparation water use to 1/23
of the average plant flow. This reduction is based on the measured
metal preparation flow of plant 33617, which discharged the lowest
flow of all sampled plants. This plant has two-stage countercurrent
rinsing, and its discharge from the metal preparation line was
measured at 1.44 1/m2. This 1.44 1/m2 is approximately 1/23 the mean
steel subcategory sampled plants discharge. This flow reduction was
not found in any plants in the aluminum or copper subcategories,
therefore flow reduction for these subcategories are based on 1/23 of
the measured sampled plants average flow from each of these
subcategories.
*
BDT Option 2 was modified as shown in Figure XI-1 (Page 475) to
provide for zero discharge of coating wastewater through the use of
electrostatic dry powder coating, a completely dry process. The dry
powder coating process is explained in detail in Section VII. The use
of this process eliminates the need for any treatment of coating
wastes.
Therefore, for the steel, aluminum, and copper subcategories,
treatment is required for metal preparation wastewarters only. For the
cast iron subcategory, no treatment is required under modified BDT
Option 2 because the coating process recommended is dry.
BDT Option 2 was also modified to permit a discharge from the metal
preparation wastewater treatment system. Using rinse flow controls
and countercurrent rinsing, a metal preparation discharge flow that is
1/23 the average metal preparation flow of the sampled plants in each
subcategory is achievable. This flow figure is based on the measured
metal preparation flow of Plant 33617, which discharged the lowest
flow of all the sampled plants. Through the use of a two-stage and a
three-stage countercurrent rinse, Plant 33617 discharged 1.44 1/m2 a
figure which is approximately 1/23 the mean steel subcategory sampled
plant discharge flow. Because no aluminum or copper subcategory
plants currently employ countercurrent rinsing, flow control
technology must be transferred from the steel subcategory to these two
subcategories.
469
-------
Reverse osmosis, ultrafiltration, and chromium regeneration were
eliminated from BDT Option 2 because costs for these treatment
components cannot be estimated,and the Agencyhas determined "that'
they will not display pollution reduction benefits that will outweigh
the costs of installation and operation.
Modified BDT Option 1 was not selected as the preferred option because
it is more costly than modified Option 2 and does not provide greater
pollution reduction benefits. The use of in-process technologies for
new sources to eliminate wastewater from coating operations as
prescribed in modified BDT Option 2 substantially reduces the cost of
wastewater treatment. Therefore, modified BDT Option 1, while'
feasible for new sources, is not preferred.
'. ' -. vsi , ; ;: <; ; " " i" ' i ' i i', , | ' ')
As presented, the modified BDT Option 2, consists of electrostatic dry
powder coating and lime, settle, and filter treatment of metal
preparation wastewaters. The use of in-process flowcontrol
technologies is recommended for the metal preparation process line.
These technologies, which include countercurrentrinses to reduce
rinse water use, are feasible for new sources because they can be
built into the process and do not require rebuilding of already
existing process lines. Likewise, the use of electrostatic dry powder
coating is feasible for new sources because the initial investment has
not already been made in wet coating technology. Therefore,
electrostatic dry powder coating is a cost effective method of
achieving zero discharge of coating wastes.
COST AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS of TREATMENT OPTIONS
An estimate of capital and annual costs for each BDT option was
prepared for each subcategory as an aid to choosing the best BDT
option. Results are presented in Table XI-1 which is based on January
1978 dollars.
TABLE XI-1
BDT CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS
Subcategory
Steel
Cast Iron
Aluminum
Copper
Steel
Cast Iron
Aluminum
Option
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Normal Plant
Treatment System
Flow (Itiers/hr)
Capital
Costs $
1
,688
459
910
57
270
0
163
470
,
201,000
343,000
221,000
179,000
0
160,000
Annual
Costs $
126,000
68,000
98,000
78,000
71,000
0
63,000
-------
Copper
36
129,000 44,000
For -calculating BDT options 1 and 2 costs the "normal plant" flow as
derived in Section X was used. An average plant production was
multiplied by a production normalized flow for each operation in each
subcategory. Control technology was sized for the "normal plant."
The pollutant reduction benefit for each subcategory was derived by
(a) characterizing raw wastewater and effluent from each proposed
treatment system in terms of concentrations produced and production
normalized discharges for each ,significant pollutant found in each
subcategory; and (b) calculating the quantities removed and discharged
in one year by a "normal plant." Results of these calculations were
Tables X-5, X-6, X-7 and X-8. All pollutant parameter
are mean total raw wastewater concentrations for
presented in
concentrations
sampled plants.
REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
The raw wastewater concentrations from individual operations and from
the subcategory total were examined to select pollutant parameters
found most frequently and at the highest levels. In each subcategory,
a range of toxic metal pollutants as well as oil and grease, TSS and
pH was selected for regulation. Maintaining pH of effluents within a
narrow range at the optimum pH level, and then fixing a low TSS
concentration assures removal of those toxic metals not selected for
specific regulation.
Table VII-16 presents the achievable effluent concentrations of the
regulated pollutants using the prescribed lime, settle, and filter
technology of modified BDT Option 2. The metals selected for specific
regulation as well as performance standards achieved by application of
BDT are discussed by subcategory.
Steel Subcategory
New source performance standards for the steel subcategory metal
preparation waste stream are based on the lowest flow achieved among
the sampled plants. As explained above, Plant 33617 discharged an
average metal preparation flow of 1.44 1/m2 using a three-stage and a
two-stage countercurrent rinse. This value is approximately 1/23 the
mean steel subcategory metal preparation flow. Because BDT modified
Option 2 recommends electrostatic dry powder coating, no wastewater is
discharged from coating operations therefore no standards are required
for coating wastewaters.
Pollutant parameters recommended for regulation at BDT are: cadmium,
total chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, aluminum, cobalt,
471
-------
flouride, iron, manganese, oil and grease, TSS, and pH. When the
achievable effluent concentrations listed above for these parameters
are applied to the flow given above, the mass of pollutant allowed to
be discharged per unit area of metal prepared can be calculated. Table
XI-2 shows the performance standards derived from this calculation.
TABLE XI-2
NSPS
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Maximum for
any one day
Average of daily
values fqr 30
consecutive
sampling' days'
mg/m2 (lb/1,000,000 ft2) of area processed
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Iron
Manganese
Oil & Grease
TSS
pH Within
0.06
0.39
1 .89
0.14
0.92
0.99
0.60
0.21
2.69
6.33
14.4
21 .6
the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
0.
6.
6.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
2.
4.
012)
080)
390)
029)
190)
20)
12)
043)
55)
068)
95)
42)
0.
0.
0.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
14.
14.
025
144
76
063
42
43
26
087
92
14
4
4
(0.
,:,',( A,;
(6.
"Co".
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
'"(Of".
(2.
(2.
005)
029)
16)
103)
085)
088)
053)
018)
19)
028)
95)
.9.5)
1,,,1'lU .'i ..,,fi! ป,',' ' nil1 "I
II I'
III
Cast Iron Subcategory
,,,f i , , , "; ' ii ', i ii, ; , "M , ซ 'jil'THi ; i;,,,1 'i | , ' ,p , ',, I '!Y ป ,," '!i ;, , I '; ,, -I1 ซi "I 1
Because metal preparation in the cast iron subcategory is dry and" EOT"1
modified Option 2 prescribes electrostatic dry powder coating, no
porcelain enameling wastewater will be generated by new sources in the
cast iron subcategory. Therefore, thenew source performance standard
for this subcategory is zero discharge of wastewater pollutants.
Aluminum Subcateqory
New source performance standards for the aluminum subcategory metal
preparation waste stream are based on the percent flow reduction
achievable with the use of countercurrent rinses and rinse flow
controls. As explained above, the achievable flow is 1/23 the mean
flow of the sampled plants in the aluminum subcategory, or 1.53 1/m2.
This flow will be used to calculate new source performance standards
472
-------
for the metal preparation waste stream. Because BDT modified Option 2
prescribes electrostatic dry powder coating, no wastewater is
discharged from coating operations and no standards are required for
coating wastes.
Pollutant parameters selected for regulation at BDT are: chromium,
copper, cyanide, nickel, zinc, lead, aluminum, TSS, and pH. When the
achievable effluent concentrations for these parameters are applied to
the flow given above, the mass of pollutant allowed to be discharged
per unit area of metal prepared can be calculated. Table XI-3 shows
the performance standards derived from this calculation.
TABLE XI-3
NSPS
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Maximum for
any one day
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive
sampling days
mg/m2 (lb/1,000,000 ft2) of area processed
Chromium
Cyanide
Lead
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
TSS
0.41
0.23
0.15
1.06
0.64
15.3
22.95
(0,
(0.
(0,
(0,
(0,
(6,
16)
09)
06)
38)
25)
0)
(9.0)
0.15
0.09
0.07
0.46
0.28
15.3
15.3
(0,
(0,
(0,
(0,
(0,
(6.
06)
04)
026)
18)
11)
0)
(6.0)
pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Copper Subcategory
New source performance standards for the copper subcategory metal
preparation waste stream are based on the percent flow reduction
achievable with the use of countercurrent rinses and rinse flow
controls. As explained above, the achievable flow is 1/23 the mean
for sampled plants in the copper subcategory, or 2.93 1/m2. This flow
will be used to calculate new source performance standards for the
metal preparation waste stream; Because BDT modified Option 2
prescribes electrostatic dry powder coating, no wastewater is
discharged from coating operations and no standards are required for
coating wastes. >
473
-------
Pollutant parameters selected for regulation at BDT are: copper, zinc,
iron, oil and grease, TSS, and pH. When the effluent concentrations
for these parameters are applied to the flow given above, the mass of
pollutant allowed to be discharged per unit area of metal prepared can
be calculated. Table XI-4 shows the performance standards derived
from this calculation.
TABLE XI-4
NSPS
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Maximum for
any one day
Average of daily
values for 30 . \
consecutive
sampling days
mq/m2 (lb/1,000,000 ft2) of area processed
Copper
Zinc
Iron
Oil & Grease
TSS
3
2
5
29
.83
;o2
,49
,3
44.0
( 0.79)
(0.41)
(1.12)
(6.0)
(9.0)
1 .55
0.88
1 .88
29.3
29.3
(0.32)
(0.18)
(0.38)
(6.0)
(6.0)
pH
SUMMARY
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
The achievable BDT effluent concentrations are based on performance
data from Plants 18538 and 13330 in Sfgtign yjlwhichare porcelain
enameling plants. Therefore, the lime, settle,and filter treatment
has demonstrated effectiveness on porcelain enameling wastewaters. By
transferring flow reduction technologies the BDT limitations are
reasonable and achievable for all subcategories.
"l ", ' - . , !|| ! '!' |i; , i'|! j;1"" i/i1 ""],>!!';! ' '' ' , ."'ilhj ,,., '!,',, , / ', ,'" 1 " ' !!.' " ., ' . ;,,' , i'i1!1''!!'!:
Six porcelain enameling plants are known to use electrostatic dry
powder coating (reference Section VII). Therefore, electrostatic dry
powder coating is a proven technology that can be applied to new
sources.
474
-------
O1
PARTS
I >l II I
-| PARTS \-^^\ PARTS |-ปH PARTS!
PARTS TO COATING
METAL
PREPARATION
OPERATIONS
PROCESS
BATCH
' DUMPS
I I I I I J
COUNTER CURRENT RINSES
I I
BACKWASH
METAL PREPARATION
WASTEWATER
EQUALIZATION
CHEMICAL
ADDITION,
CHROMIUM
BEARING
WASTEWATER
CHROMIUM
REDUCTION
CHEMICAL
ADDITION
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION
SEDIMENTATION
SLUDGE
jf POLISHING fj"
'
DISCHARGE
RECYCLE
SLUDGE TO
DISPOSAL
SLUDGE
DEWATERING
(IF NECESSARY)
NOTE: COATING OPERATIONS GENERATE NO WASTEWATER.
CAST IRON SUBCATEGORY GENERATES NO WASTEWATER.
FIGURE XI-1. NEW SOURCES MODIFIED BDT OPTION 2 SELECTED OPTION
-------
-------
SECTION XII
PRETREATMENT
Section 307(b) of the 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 of pollutants which pass through, interfere with, or are
otherwise incompatible with the operation of POTW. The Clean Water
Act of 1977 adds a new dimension by requiring pretreatment for
pollutants, such as toxic metals, that limit POTW sludge management
alternatives, including the beneficial use of sludges on agricultural
lands. The legislative history of the 1977 Act indicates that
pretreatment standards are to be technology-based, analagous to the
best available technology for removal of toxic 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 dischargers, like new direct dischargers, 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.
INTRODUCTION
This section describes the control technology for pretreatment of
process wastewaters from existing sources and new sources. The mass
discharge limitations of regulated pollutants for existing and new
sources, based on the described control technology, are presented.
PSES
The treatment system for pretreatment at existing sources (PSES) is
the same as the BAT Option 1 treatment system. This system is
presented in Figure X-l (Page 462). Each element of the control
technology must be retained for pretreatment.
As with BAT, the technical recommendation for PSES was that coating
wastewaters be treated separately from metal preparation wastewaters
to prevent any further dissolution of toxic metals contained in the
coating wastewater stream. Again, as described in Section X,
significant economic impacts at the BAT 2 level prompted the Agency to
select PSES as equivalent to BAT Option 1. This option requires
combined treatment of wastewater with a lime, settle and filter
system. Hexavalent chromium reduction may be required for porcelain
enamelers on aluminum if a chromate metal preparation operation is
used. As with BAT, wastewater flows generated by metal preparation
477
-------
t; :l:-!',: if1' I' Jill!,!'!'!,1!"1
'! , ' , . ,' I ', ','"?", . :': ' ,:i ;,.!. U 1'ii.t if "in!;-..,
operations should meet the industry average as explained in Section IX
of this document.
Tables XII-1 through XI1-4 present pretreatment mass discharge
limitations for existing sources.
TABLE XII-1
STEEL SUBCATEGORY
PSES
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Maximum for
any one day
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive
sampling days
Metal
Prep.
Coating
Oper.
Metal
Prep.
Coating
Oper.
Metric Units - mg/m2 of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Titanium
3.77
3.77
1 .44
9.26
44.9
3.43
21 .9
0.72
23.7
14.4
5.03
1079.76
64.1
7.92
0.72
0.75
0.75
0.29
1 .84
8.92
0.68
4.36
0.14
4.7
2.86
1 .00
214.4
12.73
1 .57
0.14
1 .47
1 .47
0.58
3.43
18.2
1 .51
9.94
,,Q,31
10.3
6 . 1 7
2.09
445.73
11 'Illllll ,1 1, I'll',!
21 .9
3.26
0,31
0-29
0.29
0. 12
0.68
3.61
0.30
1 .97
0.06
2.04
"T.""23
0.415
18-49
4.36
0.65
0.06
English Units - lbs/1,000,000 ft2 of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
0.77
0.77
0.30
1 .90
9.19
0.71
4.49
0.45
4.84
2.95
0.153
0.153
0.059
0.376
1 .82
0.139
0.98
0.029
0.96
0.59
0.30
0.30
0.12
0.70
3.72
0.31
2.03
0.06
2.10
1.2 6
0.06
0.06
0.024
Q.I 4
0.74
0.06
0.40
0.013
0.42
0.25
478
-------
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Titanium
1 .03
221 .0
13.2
1 .62
0.15
0.20
43.88
2.60
0.32
0.029
0.43
91 .2
4.49
0.67
0.63
0.08
18.11
0.89
0.13
0.01
TABLE XI1-2
CAST IRON SUBCATEGORY
PSES Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Maximum for
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive
Coating
Oper .
mg/m2 (lb/1 ,000,000
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
1
0
.076
.076
.029
.019
.91
.07
.44
.015
.48
.29
.102
.8
.29
.16
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
4.
0.
0.
ft2
016
016
006
038
19
014
09
003
098
059
02
46)
26
03
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Coating
Oper.
of area processed
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
8.
0.
0.
03
03
012
069
37
03
20
006
21
12
042
996
44
07
(
(
{
(
(
(
(
{
(
(
(
(
(
(
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1 .
0.
0.
006)
006)
002)
014)
075)
006)
04 )
001 )
04 )
025)
009)
84 )
09 )
01 )
479
-------
TABLE XI1-3
ALUMINUM SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
PSES, ; ;,;,;,;,:, |IKII
Average of daily
values for, 30
Maximum for consecutive
any one day sampling days
Metal Coating Metal Coating
Prep. Oper. Prep. Oper.
Metric Units - mq/m2 of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Titanium
"i,i
1 i'i
English Units -
" !'
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Titanium
' !: i" I;.:'"'!'!1'! ;
3.86
3,86.
1 .47
9.47
45^97
5.26
3.51
22.46
0.74
24 . 2
14.7
5.2
1105.3
65.6
8.10
0.74
: |' ;!',,"!
lbs/1 ,006,000
' . cf.r! '' * "
0.79
0.79
6.30
1.94
9.41
1.08
0.72
4.60
0.15
4.95
3.02
1 .06
226.2
13.42
1 .66
0.15
'; .' ' . ''," ' !f;l j, '..Iff.'-- ':.'," ' i,'i ' ', '-si' , ' ,
'- ::' ' i'l'.JV ;. ', ! ' .' : 4 . ' i ;' . '
1 .22
1 .22
0.46
2.99"1
14.50
1 .66
. , Till,
7 , ]
0.23
7.62
4.65
1 .63
348.7
20.7
2l56
0.23
i! ,;ป! .HI, ;
1 ' "f ' ' I'i, 'ii| ii :
ft* Of
I, '; '' '"-'ป^
'0.25""
0.25
0.095
0.61
2.97
0.34
0.23
1 .45
0.048
1.56
0.95
0.33
71 .36
4.24
0.52
0,48
1.51 0.48
1.51 0.48
'.'j.eo ' 0,19 ;; : , ' v
3.51
1.11
18.6 5.87
2.11 0.66
1 . 54
10.18
0.32
10.53
6.32
2.14
0.49
3.21
0.10
3.32
1 .99
0.68
456.17 143.91
22.46
3l33
0.32
': '' i'fi, ;|| *'i 'i !',','
IV A: i1'1 li'iiif !'!.'"
7.08
1 .05
M,ฐ,,v *,"<..' '.
: , ;,,, i'i ',!.! u /iii, ; ' , ,!',.!' , , ,
area processed or coated
^'' JS' r'!"!1!1"1' "ft'r
''o.Sl""
0.31
0. ,,12,,
b"."7"2
3.81
0.43
0.32
2.08
0 . 065
2.15
1 .29
0 . 44
':'' ;; ,;; ' ,11; ;,,, "', fi ' , | .',, $\ ,| ; .: .
/ v i ,' , ' " ' I ii,! ป " " ' "j'!!' : ' ''
0.097
0.097
0.039
0.23
1 .20
0.14
0.10
0.66
0.02
0.68
0.41
0.14
93.35 29.45
4.60
0.68
0.065
1 .45
0.22
0.20
V'i? 1;
480
; -44 liiiii1!
-------
TABLE XI1-4
COPPER SUBCATEGORV
PSES
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Maximum for
any one day
Metal Coating
Prep. Oper.
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive
sampling days
Metal Coating
Prep . Oper .
Metric Units - mg/m2 of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Titanium
7.4
7.4
2.83
18.17
88.1
6.73
43.07
1 .41
46.4
28.46
9.89
2119.6 1
125.8
15.5
1 .4
0.52
0.52
0.20
1 .28
6.21
0.47
3.03
0.10
3.27
1 .99
0.697
49.3
8.86
1 .09
0.10
2.89
2.89
1 .14
6.73
35.7
2.96
19.5
0.61
20.2
12.1
4.1
874.8
43.1
6.39
0.61
0.20
0.20
0.08
0.08
2.51
0.21
1 .37
0.04
1 .42
0.85
0.3
61 .62
3.03
0.45
0.04
English Units - lbs/1,OOP,OOP ft2 of area processed or coated
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Titanium
1.51
1 .51
0.58
3.72
18.0
1 .38
8.81
0.29
9.50
5.78
2.02
433.8
25.8
3.18
0.29
0.11
0. 1 1
0.04
0.26
1 .27
0.10
0.62
0.02
0.67
0.41
0. 14
30.56
1 .81
0.22
0.02
0.59
0.59
0.23
1 .38
7.30
0.61
3.99
0.12
4. 13
2.48
0.84
179.02
8.81
1 .31
0.12
0.04
0.04
0.016
0.10
0.51
0.04
0.28
0.009
0.29
0.17
0.06
12.6
0.62
0.09
0.009
481
-------
-Mi! 3 >"S:; I
PSNS
ipf,'',''
, .. ., , , . , . ..
As with BDT, PSNS for the steel, aluminum and copper subcategories
prescribes that wastewater flows from metal preparation operations
meet the flows achievable with the use of countercurrent rinsing and
rinse flow controls. The achievable flow with countercurrent rinsing
for each subcategory has been shown to Be 1 723 Ehe mean metal
preparation flow at sampled plants in each subcategory (reference
Section XI).
PSNS also requires that coating operations for all subcategories be
altered to institute electrostatic dry powder coating. This type of
coating, currently in use at several porcelain enameling facilities in
this country and in at least 10 plants in Europe, (ref. Section VII),
results in totally dry coating operations for all subcategories. The
recommended treatment system for PSNS is presented in Figure XI-2 for
the steel, aluminum, and copper subcategories. Since the only
wastewater generated in the cast iron subcategory comes from coating
operations and is eliminated at BDT, no treatment is necessary.
The pollutants recommended for regulation at PSNS arethe sameas
those selected at BDT (reference Section XI). Nonconventional
pollutants, iron and aluminum, are not regulated at PSNS although the
control technology recommended will remove these pollutants. Tables
XI1-5 through XII-7 present pretreatment mass discharge limitations
for new sources.
: ' .v; TABLE Xli-5 .. ,
STEEL SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
PSNS Effluent
Maximum for
any one day
Limitations
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive
sampling days
mq/m2 (lb/1,000,000 ft2) of area processed
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Cobalt
Fluoride
Manganese
Titanium
0.
0.
1 .
0.
0.
0.
0.
45.
0.
0.
06
39
89
14
92
99
21
4
33
03
f '! ' it ,'V: : . '
(0.012)
(0.080)
(0.390)
(0.029)
(0.190)
(0.20)
(6.043)
(9.28)
(0.068)
(0.006)
' '^i;:;;*f iv'i'i 3
0.025
0.144
0.76
0.063
0.42
0.43
0.087
18.7
0.14
0.013
'.ii> "iff! tpp!""^."..
(6.005)
(0:029)
(67 16)
(0.103)
(0.085)
(0.088)
(0.018)
(3.83)
(0.028)
(0.003)
, "' .Un,!':,'
i'1!'!!''"1!
482
,,1'v Villl'! ' ''ll"i'!l' ''.:
"' '.ll f i1' 111."'1
' jl j !:ซl -I I'll' "III j'; "'lull
-------
TABLE XI1-6
ALUMINUM SUBCATEGORY
PSNS
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Maximum for
any one day
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive
sampling days
mq/m2 (lb/1,000,000 ft2) of area processed
Chromium
Cyanide
Lead
Zinc
7.70
4.28
2.85
19.7
(1.58)
(0.86)
(0.58)
(4.03)
2.85
1 .71
1 .26
8.56
(0.58)
(0.35)
(0.26)
(1.75)
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
TABLE XI1-7
COPPER SUBCATEGORY
PSNS
Maximum for
any one day
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive
sampling days
mg/m2 (lb/1,000,OOP ft2) of area processed
Copper
Zinc
Oil & Grease
TSS
pH Within
the
75.0
39.5
572.
859.
range
(15,
(8,
(117,
(176,
of 7.5
3) 30,
08) 17,
) 573,
) 573,
to 10.0
at
(0.70)
(3.51)
(117.)
(117.)
all times
483
-------
:!l! v !,*,:, i
-------
SECTION XIII
BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
The 1977 amendments added section 301(b)(4)(E) to the Act,
establishing "best conventional pollutant control technology" (BCT)
for discharges of conventional pollutants from existing industrial
point sources. Conventional pollutants are those defined in section
304(b)(4) - BOD, TSS, fecal coliform and ph - and any additional
pollutants defined by the Administrator as "conventional." On July
30, 1979, EPA designated oil and grease as a conventional pollutant
(44 Fed. Reg. 44501).
BCT is not an additional limitation, but replaces BAT for the control
of conventional pollutants. BCT requires that limitations for
conventional pollutants be assessed in light of a new "cost-
reasonableness" test, which involves a comparison of the cost and
level of reduction of conventional pollutants from the discharge of
POTW's to the cost and level of reduction of such pollutants from a
class or category of industrial sources. As part of its review of BAT
for certain industries, EPA proposed methodology for this cost test.
(See 44 Fed. Reg. 50732, August 29, 1979). This method is now used
for the primary industries covered by the Consent Agreement.
EPA is proposing that the "indicator" conventional pollutants, which
are used as "indicators" of control for toxic pollutants, be treated
as toxic pollutants. In this way, effluent limitations will be
established for the conventional indicator pollutants at BAT levels,
and the limitations will not have to pass the BCT cost test. When a
permittee, in a specific case, can show that the waste stream does not
contain any of the toxic pollutants that a conventional toxic
"indicator" was designed to remove, then the BAT limitation on that
conventional pollutant will no longer be treated as a limitation on a
toxic pollutant. The technology identified as BAT control of toxic
pollutants also affords removal of conventional pollutants to BAT
levels.
BCT TECHNOLOGY AND PERFORMANCE
The BCT technology for existing sources for all subcategories (See
Figure X-2) includes lime, settle and filter treatment of the combined
metal preparation and coating wastewater streams. Metal preparation
operations in the cast iron subcategory are dry.
The effluent limitations for conventional pollutant parameters
presented in Tables XIII-1 to XIII-4 for existing sources.
are
485
-------
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
TABLE XIII-1
BCT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
! ,' SjEEL'SUBCATEGORY
EXISTING SOURCES'-"1
BCT Effluent Limitations
Average of daily
values for 30
Maximum for consecutive
any one day sampling days
Metal
Prep.
Coating
Oper.
Metal
Prep.
Coating
Oper.
Metric Units - mq/m2 of area processed or coated
Oil & Grease 343. 0.50 343 6.50
TSS 514 0.75 343 0.50
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
English Units - lbs/1,000,000 ft2 of area processed or coated
''j|... !' ij ij ' ,, if "':;: , , in, ' . ; , *' !, ^.'j1'! i,:;, ซfl' : m, .y , 'T1;,!: T IP'vil'T1'if" 'I1 1! ' -'i'l! "ll|l|!il|11 i "' , ',''lp ' II ""'' ""' ''" ''" ii '
Oil & Grease 70.1 0.10270.1 0.102
TSS 105.2 0.153 70.1 0.102
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
TABLE XII1-2
BCT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
CAST IRON SUBCATEGbRY
EXISTING SOURCES
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
BCT Effluent Limitations
Average of daily
values for 30
Maximum for consecutive
any one day sampling days
mq/m2 (lb/1,000.000 ft^) of area processed
TSS 0.50 (0.102) 0.50 (0.102)
Oil and Grease 0.75 (0.153) 0.50 (0.102)
p_H Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times,
486
-------
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
TABLE XII1-3
BCT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
ALUMINUM SUBCATEGORY
EXISTING SOURCES
BCT Effluent Limitations
Average of daily
values for 30
Maximum for consecutive
any one day sampling days
Metal
Prep.
Coating
Oper.
Metal
Prep.
Coating
Oper.
Metric Units - mg/m2 of area processed or coated
Oil & Grease
pH
71.8 0.102 71.8 0.102
107.7 0.153 71.8 0.102
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
English Units - lbs/1 ,000,000 ft2 of area processed or coated
Oil & Grease 351 ' 0.50 351 0.50
TSS 526 0.75 351. 0.50
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
TABLE XII1-4
BCT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
COPPER SUBCATEGORY
EXISTING SOURCES
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
BCT Effluent Limitations
Average of daily
values for 30
Maximum for consecutive
any one day sampling days
Metal
Prep.
Coating
Oper.
Metal
Prep.
Coating
Oper.
Metric Units - mg/m2 of area processed or coated
Oil & Grease
pH
673 0.50 673. 0.50
1009 0.75 673. 0.50
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
487
-------
Ill '"
English Units - lbs/1,000,000 ft2 of area processed or coated
Oil
TSS
pH
& Grease
Q-102
0.153
138
207 0.153 138 0.102
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
138
138
0.102
0.102
BCT COST TEST
EPA applied the cost test to the costs associateel with the removal of
conventional pollutants in the porcelain enameling industrial segment.
The estimates of investment costs and rJiQyals of conventional
pollutants were presented for BPT and BAT by subcategdry in Section X.
Table XII1-5 presents these estimates together with the cost ratios of
annual dollars per pound for the incremental annual costs and
pollutant removals achieved by going fromBPTtoBCT technology. The
comparison figure of 1.27/lb for first quarter 1978 for incremental
cost of removing conventional pollutants at POTW was obtained from
cost data published in the Federal Register (44 Fed. Reg. 50755,
August 29, 1979). The costs in TableXII1-5 are based onJanuary,
1978 dollars.
Although cost of removal of conventional pollutants by BCT technology
does not meet the cost.test, the fact that the conventional pollutants
are used as indicators to regulate toxicpollutants at BAT results in
the conclusion by EPA thatthe BCT limitations are reasonable.
488
-------
TABLJ! XIII-5
SUMMARY OB' BCT COST TEST
BPT
P'ibcategory
St-eel
Cist: Iron
Al inuinum
o,p,er
Removed
Ib/yr
43,910,00-0
253,000
1,333,000
5,233
Annual Cost
$/yr
10>999,000
351,000
930,000
109,000
BCT
Removed
Ib/yr
48,990,000
255,000
1,337,000
5,282
Annual Cost
15,661,000
479,000
1,476,000
158,000
Incremental
Increment BCT-BPT Cost
Removed
Ib/yr
80,000
2,000
4,000
49
Annual Cost
4,662,000
128,000
546,000
49,000
Ratio
$/lb
58.28
64.00
136.50
1000.00
CO
-------
r ! it !H ! t :
-------
SECTION XIV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Environmental Protection Agency acknowledges that it was aided in
the collection of information for and in the preparation of this
Development Document by Hamilton Standard, Division of United
Technologies Corporation. Some sections of this report are edited
versions of a draft report and supplimental information prepared by
Hamilton Standard Division. Hamilton Standard's effort was managed by
Mr. Daniel J. Lizdas and Mr. Robert Blaser. Mr. Robert Blaser
directed the engineering activities, and field operations were under
the direction of Mr. Richard Kearns. Major contributions to the
report were made by Messrs. Paul Barnett, Peter Formica, Jack Nash,
and Ms. Vivian Sandlund. Others who contributed to this report
include Ms. Gail Kitchin, and Messrs. Peter Wilk, John Vounats, Remy
Halm, Mark Hellstein, Armand Ruby, Robert Patulak, Jeffrey Wehner, Don
Smith, and Peter Williams.
Acknowledgement and appreciation is also given to Ms. Mary Sinkwich
Ms. Lori Kucharzyk, and Ms. Kathy Maceyka of Hamilton Standard who
worked so diligently to prepare, edit, publish and distribute the
manuscript.
Acknowledgement and appreciation is also given to Mr. Harold B.
Coughlin, Chief, Guidelines Implementation Branch, Effluent Guidelines
Division, for administrative support and to Mrs. Kaye Storey, Mrs.
Pearl Smith, Ms. Nancy Zrubek, and Ms. Carol Swann of the word
processing staff for their tireless and dedicated effort in this
manuscript.
A Special acknowledgement is made to John P. Whitescarver who served
as the initial project officer for this project and has continued as a
special consultant and to Dr. Robert Hardy for his contributions as a
chemist and technical writer.
Finally, appreciation is also extended to the Porcelain Enamel
Institute (PEI) and the plants and individuals who participated in and
contributed data for the formulation of this document. In particular,
significant information was provided by Mr. John Oliver, Executive
Vice President of the PEI and Mr. Lester Smith of Porcelain Metals
Corp.
491
-------
', '...iv '-i',,;*-: f i'..f 'lib"*:' .rjt'
-------
SECTION XV
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10,
"The Surface Treatment and Finishing of Aluminum and Its Alloys"
by S. Werrick, PhD, Metal Finishing Abstracts, Third Edition,
Robert Draper Ltd., Teddington, 1964.
Guidebook & Directory, Metal Finishing, 1974, 1975, 1977 and
1978. American Metals and Plastics Publications Inc., One
University Plaza Hackensack, New Jersey 90601.
The Science of Surface Coatings, edited by Dr. H. W.
1962.
Metals Handbook, Volume 2
Metals, Metals Park, Ohio.
Chatfield,
8th Edition, American Society for
5. Journal of Metal Finishing; "Pretreatment for Water-Borne
Coatings" - April, 1977
"Guidelines for Wastewater Treatment" - September, 1977
"Guidelines for Wastewater Treatment" - October, 1977
"Technical Developments in 1977 for Organic (Paint) Coatings,
Processes and Equipment" - February, 1978
"Technical Developments in 1977, Inorganic (Metallic) Finishes,
Processes and Equipment" - February, 1978
"The Organic Corner" by Joseph Mazia, - April, 1978
"The Organic Corner" by Joseph Mazia, - May, 1978
"The Economical Use of Pretreatment Solutions" - May, 1978 "The
Organic Corner" by Joseph Mazia, - June, 1978
"Selection of a Paint Pretreatment System, Part I" - June, 1978
"The Organic Corner," by Joseph Mazia - September, 1978
How Do Phosphate Coatings Reduce Wear on Movings Parts,
Cavanagh.
W. R.
Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Second Edition,
1963, Interscience Publishers, New York
Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Technology,
1963, Interscience Publishers, New York
Second Edition,
Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals, Verschueren,
Karel, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York 1977
Handbook of Chemistry, Lange, Norbert, Adolph, McGraw Hill,
York 1973
New
493
-------
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21 .
22.
23,
24,
Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, Sax N,
Nostrand Reinhold Co. New York
Irving, Van
i l.ilij , ;i i |. .''I1} ,,-.. ,;'. ;!,,)",,:. i' ;,i ''.',} a'li'Oift'.illBTJU t"'--~\ "':'H i, A" >.'. "W I'.ii,' if'.l'WV i,- KSiX^^
Environmental Control in the Organic and Petrochemical
Industries, Jones, H. R, Noyes Data Corp,, 1971
Hazardous Chemicals Handling and Disposal,. Howes, Robert
Kent, Robert, Noyes Data Corp., Park Ridge, New Jersey 1970
and
"I "'!!'li,,,,lll!! Wl'i'ifMl
Industrial Pollution, Sax, N. Irving, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.,
New York 1974
"Treatability of 65 Chemicals - Part A - Biochemical Oxidation of
Organic Compounds", June 24, 1977, Memorandum, Murray P. Strier
to Roberf B. Schaffer
"Treatability of Chemicals - Part B - Adsorption of Organic
Compounds onActivated Carbon," December 8, 1977, Memorandum,
Murray P. Strier to Robert B. Schaffer
"Treatability of the Organic Priority "Pollutant's - Part C - Their
Estimated (30 day avg) Treated Effluents Concentration - A
Molecular Engineering Approach", June 1978, Memorandum, Murray P.
Strier to Robert B. Schaffer
Water Quality Criteria"Second "Edition, edTted by Jack 'Edward'
McKee and Harold W. Wolf, 1963 The Resources Agency of
California, State Water Quality Control Board, Publication No. 3-
A
The Condensed Chemical Dictionary,
GessnerG. Hawley, 1977
Ninth Edition, Revised by
Wastewater Treatment technology, James W. Patterson
Unit Operations for.Treatment of Hazardous
Edited by D. J. Denyo, 1978
Industrial Wastes,
"Development Document For Proposed Existing Source Pretreatment
Standards For The Electroplating Point Source Category", February
1978, EPA440/1-7 8/0 8 5
"Industrial Waste and Pretreatment in the Buffalo
System", EPA contract#R803005, Oklahoma, 1977
i j i in in in in in
Municipal
"Pretreatment of Industrial Wastes", Seminar Handout, U.S.
1978
EPA,
494
-------
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31 .
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
"Sources of Metals in Municipal Sludge and Industrial
Pretreatment as a Control Option", ORD Task Force on Assessment
of Sources of Metals in Sludges and Pretreatment as a Control
Option, U.S., EPA 1977
"Effects of Copper on Aerobic Biological Sewage Treatment", Water
Pollution Control Federation Journal, February 1963 p 227-241
Wastewater Engineering, 2nd edition, Metcalf and Eddy
Chemical Technology, L.W. Codd, et. al., Barnes and Noble, New
York, 1972
"Factors Influencing the Condensation of 4-aminoantipyrene with
derivatives of Hydroxybenzene - II. Influence of Hydronium Ion
Concentration on Absorbtivity," Samuel D. Faust and Edward W.
Mikulewicz, Water Research, 1967, Pergannon Press, Great Britain
"Factors Influencing the Condensation of 4-aminoantipyrene with
derivatives of Hydroxylbenzene - I. a Critique," Samuel D. Faust
and Edward W. Mikulewicz, Water Research, 1967, Pergannon Press,
Great Britain 30. Scott, Murray C., "SulfexT* - A New Process
Technology for Removal of Heavy Metals from Waste Streams, "
presented at 1977 Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, May 10, 11,
and 12, 1977.
"Sulfext. Heavy Metals Waste Treatment Process," Technical
Bulletin, Vol. XII, code 4413.2002 (Permutitฎ) July, 1977.
Scott, Murray C., "Treatment of Plating Effluent by Sulfide
Process," Products Finishing, August, 1978.
Lonouette, Kenneth H., "Heavy Metals
Engineering, October 17, pp. 73-80.
Removal," Chemical
Curry, Nolan A., "Philogophy and Methodology of Metallic Waste
Treatment," 27th Industrial Waste Conference.
Patterson, James W., Allen, Herbert E. and Scala, John J.,
"Carbonate Precipitation for Heavy Metals Pollutants," Journal of
Water Pollution Control Federation, December, 1977 pp. 2397-2410.
Bellack, Ervin, "Arsenic Removal from Potable Water," Journal
American Water Works Association, July, 1971.
Robinson, A. K. "Sulfide -vs- Hydroxide Precipitation of Heavy
Metals from Industrial Wastewater," Presented at EPA/AES First
Annual conference on Advanced Pollution Control for the Metal
Finishing Industry, January 17-19, 1978.
495
-------
i ' "" " ': ....... ,; ', ri" , ', "I 'I , " '' ' . ..... : "' if. ' Ill | |l|
is ,, ,!'!''' iiiii;1 " , ..... i . ,
-------
50. Stover, R.C., Sommers, L.E. and Silviera, D.J., "Evaluation of
Metals in Wastewater Sludge," Journal of Water Pollution Control
Federation, Vol. 48, No. 9, September, 1976, pp. 2165-2175.
51. Neufeld, Howard D. and Hermann, Edward R., "Heavy Metal Removal
by Activated Sludge," Journal of Water Pollution Control
Federation, Vol. 47, No. 2, February, 1975, pp. 310-329.
52. Schroder, Henry A. and Mitchener, Marian, "Toxic Effects of Trace
Elements on the Reproduction of Mice and Rats," Archieves of
Environmental Health, Vol. 23, August, 1971, pp. 102-106.
53. Venugopal, B. and Luckey, T.D., "Metal Toxicity in Mannals .2,"
(Plenum Press, New York, N.Y.), 1978.
54. Poison, C.J. and Tattergall, R.N., "Clinical Toxicology," {J.B.
Lipinocott Company), 1976.
55. Hall, Ernst P. and Barnes, Deveraeaux, "Treatment of
Electroplating Rinse Waters and Effluent Solutions," presented to
the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Miami Beach, Fl.,
November 12, 1978.
56. Mytelka, Alan I., Czachor, Joseph S., Guggino, William B. and
* Golub, Howard, "Heavy Metals in Wastewater and Treatment Plant
Effluents," Journal of Water Pollution control Federation, Vol.
45, No. 9, September, 1973, pp. 1859-1884.
57. Davis, III, James A., and Jacknow, Joel, "Heavy Metals in
Wastewater in Three Urban Areas, "Journal of Water Pollution
Control Federation^. September, 1975, pp. 2292-2297.
58. Klein, Larry A., Lang, Martin, Nash, Norman and Kirschner,
Seymour L., "Sources of Metals in New York City Wastewater,"
Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 46, No. 12,
December, 1974, pp. 2653-2662.
59. Brown, H.G., Hensley, C.P., McKinney, G.L. and Robinson, J.L.,
"Efficiency of Heavy Metals Removal in Municipal Sewage Treatment
Plants," Environmental Letters, 5 (2), 1973, pp. 103-114.
60. Ghosh, Mriganka M. and Zugger, Paul D., "Toxic Effects of Mercury
on the Activated Sludge Process," Journal of Water Pollution
Control Federation, Vol. 45, No. 3, March, 1973, pp. 424-433.
61. Mowat, Anne, "Measurement of Metal Toxicity by Biochemical Oxygen
Demand," Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 48,
No. 5, May, 1976, pp. 853-866.
497
-------
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
12.
72.
73.
, . , , . , ,. ,. .. ,. . .,
Oliver, Barry G. and Cosgrove, Ernest G. , "The Efficiency of
Heavy Metal Removal by a Conventional Activated Sludge Treatment
Plant," Water Re-soar ch, Vol. 8, 1074, pp. 869-874.
"Acenaphthene" Proposed Water Quality Criteria, PB296782,
Criterion Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (44 FR 43660-43697, July 25, 1979).
. ..... - ., , , , . . .. . .
"Chlorinated Ethanes" Proposed Water Quality Criteria, PB297920,
Criterion Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (44 FR 56628-56657, October 1, i 979).
"Dichloroethylenes" Proposed Water Quality Criteria, PB292432,
Criterion Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (44 FR 15925-15981, March 15, ' "1 979).
i1 . 1 >, ,!,
V."11,'! i']''"'< ''!'! J ii" I II Illll) I
"Dimethylphenol" Proposed Water Quality Criteria, PB292432,
Criterion Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and
standards (44 FR 5926-15981, March 15, 1979).
"Fluoranthene" Proposed Water quality Criteria, PB292433,
Criterion Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (44 FR 56628-56657, October 1,1979).
; " ;l, ,r . : v - i ' i \l!! Ii "> ' ";I i, :;ซf;!:!:,,,' I ]vJ4ซ;!'iife:": t:,', '.'aw',ซ"i:",",",jป:)tซ 'n,'ป!, U *i i. '^m^S^imm
"Isophorone" Proposed Water Quality Criteria, PB296798, Criterion
{Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (44
FR 43660-3697, July 25, 1979).
"Naphthalene" Proposed Water Quality Criteria, PB296786,
Criterion StandardsDivisipn, Office ofWater Regulationsand
Standards (44 FR '%3&&'6-l$69i'f July 25,
II . Ill lit i
'llr!I
"Phenol" Proposed Water Quality Criteria, PB296787, Criterion
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (44
Fr 43660-3697, July 25, 1979).
"Phthaiate Esters" Proposed Water Quality Criteria, PB296804,
Criterion Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and
Standard's (44 Fr 43660543697, July 25, 1979).
"Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons" Proposed Water Quality
Criteria, PB297926, Criterion Standards Divisipn, Office of Water
Regulations and Standards (44 FR 56628-56657", 'O'c't'oBer 1, 1979).
"Toluene" Proposed Water Quality Criteria, PB296805, Criterion
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (44
FR 3660-3697, July 25, 1979).
' '
498
-------
74. "Trichloroethylene" Proposed Water Quality Criteria, PB292443,
Criterion Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (44 FR 56628-56657, October 1, 1979).
75. "Cadmium" Proposed Water Quality Criteria, PB292423, Criterion
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (44
FR 56628-6657, October 1, 1979).
76. "Chromium" Proposed Water Quality criteria, PB297922, Criterion
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (44
FR 6628-56657, October 1, 1979).
77. "Copper" Proposed Water Quality Criteria, PB296791, Criterion
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (44
FR 43660-43697, July 25, 1979).
78. "Cyanide" Proposed Water Quality Criteria, PB296792, Criterion
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (44
Fr 56628-56657, October 1, 1979).
79. "Lead" Proposed Water Quality Criteria, PB292437, Criterion
Standards Division, Office of Water regulations and Standards (44
FR 15926-15981, March 15, 1979).
80. "Nickel" Proposed Water quality Criteria, PB296800, Criterion
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (44
FR 43660-43697, July 25, 1979).
81. "Zinc" Proposed Water Quality Criteria, PB296807, Criterion
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (44
FR 43660-43697, July 25, 1979).
499
-------
SECTION XVI
GLOSSARY
"HI " >lni i, '11
Abrasive Blasting - Cleaning process utilizing a mixture of grit and
air forced under pressure against a surface, prior to enameling.
1 ,'. "!-, "'ปซ i iSili'liil!
Accumulation - In reference to biological systems, the concentration
of a substance which collects in a tissue or organism and which does
not disappear over time.
Acidity - The quantitative capacity of aqueous solutions to react with
hydroxyl ions. It is measured by titration with a standard solution
of a base tp a specified end point. Usually expressed as milligrams
per liter of calcium carbonate.
Act - The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92-500) as amended
by the Clean Water Act of 1|77 (P.L. 95-217).
Adsorption - The adhesion of an extremely thin layer of molecules of a
gas or liquid to the surfaces of solids (granular activated carbon for
instance) or liquids with which they are in contact.
Algicide - Chemicals used in the control of phytoplankton (algae) in
bodies of water. ] ,,
Alkaline Cleaning - A process for cleaning basis materials in which
mineral deposits, animal fats and oils are removed from the surface.
Solutions at high temperatures containing caustic soda ash, alkaline
silicates, alkaline phosphates and ionic and nonionic detergents are
commonly used.
Alkalinity - The capacity of water to neutralize acids, a property
imparted by the water's content of carbonates, bicarbonates,
hydroxides, and occasionally borates, silicates, and phosphates. It
is expressed in milligrams per liter of equivalent calcium carbonate.
, ,;' ' "!'' /"ll 'I1 . !ซ" ' T'lij1" T1 ,i ;"" |, ' Jilnli I ll I n in in n i i i i 'i'1 in n in in inn
, n. I1' , ' ,il' , ' 1 HIM ' I,, , i: :!. . "" I I II I I ll .1 I I I II 11
Annealing - Heating operation following the shaping of metal parts to
normalize the crystalline structure. Annealing may also moderately
burin off surface oil to prepare the surface for porcelain enameling.
,n '! . ' '!' ...... " i ..... i.':| ," ' ' > ' ".,1 ,, H
Backwashing - The process of cleaning a filter or ion exchange
by reversing the flow of water.
column
Baffles - Deflector vanes, guides, grids, grating, or similar devices
constructed or placed in flowing water or sewage to (1) check or
effect a more uniform distribution of velocities; (2) absorb energy;
(3) divert, guide, or agitate the liquids; and (4) check eddv
currents .
500
-------
Baking - A. heating/drying process carried out in an enclosure where
the temperature is maintained in excess of 150ฐC.
Ball Milling - Process for grinding enamels utilizing vitreous china
balls in a rotating cylindrical mill.
Basis Material ojr Metal - That substance of which the workpieces are
made and that receives the coating and the treatments in preparation
for coating.
BAT - Best Available Technology Economically Achievable under
304(b)(2)(B).
BCT - Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology under Section
304(b){4) of the Act.
BDT - Best demonstrated control technology processes, operating
methods, or other alternatives, including where practicable, a
standard permitting no discharge of pollutant under Section 306(a)(l)
of the Act.
Bentonites - Highly colloidal clay materials added to enamel slips,
thereby improving susceptibility to the action of electrolytes.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) - (1) The quantity of oxygen used in
the biochemical oxidation of organic matter in a specified time, at a
specified temperature, and under specified conditions. (2) Standard
test used in assessing wastewater strength.
Biodegradable - The part of organic matter which can be oxidized by
bioprocesses; e.g., biodegradable detergents, food wastes, animal
manure, etc.
Biological Wastewater Treatment - Forms of wastewater treatment in
which bacteria or biochemical action is intensified to stabilize,
oxidize, and nitrify the unstable organic matter present.
BPT - Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available.
Buffer - Any of certain combinations of chemicals used to stabilize
the pH values or alkalinities of solutions.
Cake, Sludge - The material resulting from air drying or dewatering
sludge (usually forkable or spadable).
Calibration - The determination, checking, or rectifying of the
graduation of any instrument giving quantitative measurements.
501
-------
i'lซ!!ซ
ซ! ?:''!!,-I! ,!!!;:?!ซ )
Captive Operation - A manufacturing operation carried out in a
facility to support other manufacturing, fabrication, or assembly
operations.
Carcinogenic - Referring to the ability of a substance to cause
cancer.
Central Treatment Facility - Treatment plant which co-treats process
wastewaters from more than one manufacturing operation or co-treats
process wastewaters with noncontact cooling water, or with nonprocess
wastewaters (e.g., utility blowdown, miscellaneous runoff, etc).
Centrifugation - The removal of water in a sludge and water slurry by
introducing the water and sludge slurry into a centrifuge. The sludge
is driven outward with the water remaining near the center.
Charge - The dry components of slip which are loaded into a ball
for grinding.
mill
Chemical Coagulation - The destabilization and initial aggregation of
colloidal and finely divided suspended matter by the addition of a
floe-forming chemical.
i .. ,;(, :, . I . i ", -I " : :: >
? : / ts.'.W' ; -:r ' '':.' >:',> ::;
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) - (1) A test based on the principle that
all organic compounds, with few exceptions, can be oxidized to carbon
dioxide and water by the action of strong oxidizing agents under acid
conditions. Organic matter is converted to carbon dioxide and water
regardless of the biological assimilability of the substances. One of
the chief limitations of this test is its inability to differentiate
between biologically oxidizable and biologically inert organic matter.
The major advantage of this test is the short time required for
evaluation (2 hrs). (2) The amount of oxygen required for the
chemical oxidization of organics in a liquid.
Chemical Oxidation (Including Cyanide) -The addition of chemical
agents to wastewater for the purpose of oxidizing pollutant material.
Chemical Precipitation - (1) Precipitation induced by addition of
chemicals. (2) The process of softening water by the addition of lime
and soda ash as the precipitants.
Chlorination - The application of chlorine to water or wastewater
generally for the purpose of disinfection, but frequently for
accomplishing other biological or chemical results.
r i I ' ''* i i ,.'^'.'-\ ! ' - \ . i : !(, k.
Chromate Conversion Coating - A process whereby a metal is either
sprayed with or immersed in an aqueous acidified chromate solution
consisting mostly of chromic acid and water soluble salts of chromic
acid together with various catalysts or activators (such as cyanide).
502
-------
Clarifier - A unit which provides for removing undissolved materials
from a liquid, specifically by sedimentation.
Clean Water Act - The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended by the Clean Water Act of
1977 (Public Law 95-217)
Colloids - A finely divided dispersion of one material called the
"dispersed phase" in another material which is called the "dispersion
medium". Colloids are not separated by gravity, thus a solid in
liquid colloid cannot be separated by sedimentation.
Compatible Pollutant - A specific substance in a waste stream which
alone can create a potential pollution problem, yet is used to the
advantage of a certain treatment process when combined with other
wastes.
Wastewater
Sample - A combination of individual samples of
taken at selected intervals and mixed in
Composite
water or wastewater
proportion to flow or time to minimize the effect of the variability
of an individual sample.
ft
Concentration Factor - Refers to the biological concentration factor
which is the ratio of the concentration within the tissue or organism
to the concentration outside the tissue or organism.
Concentration, Hydrogen Ion - The weight of hydrogen ions in grams per
liter of solution. Commonly expressed as the pH value that equals the
logarithm of the reciprocal of the hydrogen ion concentration.
Contamination - A general term signifiying the introduction into water
of microorganisms, chemicals, wastes or sewage which render the water
unfit for its intended use.
Contractor Removal - The disposal of oils, spent solutions, or sludge
by means of a scavenger service.
Conversion Coating - A chemical treatment or electrochemical
modification of the metal surface so that the coating formed is an
integral part of the parent metal.
Cooling Tower - A device used to cool water used in the
processes before returning the water for reuse.
Cover Coat - The final coat of porcelain enamel.
manufacturing
Degreasing - The process of removing greases and oils from the surface
of the base material.
503
-------
Dewatering - A process whereby water is removed from sludge.
Coating - Method of enamel application in which a part is sub-
merged in a tank of enamel slip, withdrawn, and drained or centrifuged
to remove excess slip.
, , - , ,. h.:
Dissolved Solids ~ Theoretically the anhydrous residues of the dis-
solved constituents in water. Actually the term is defined by the
method used in determination. In water and wastewater treatment, the
Standard Methods tests are used.
Dragout - The solution that adheres to the part or workpiece and is
carried past the edge of the tank.
........... I " > , ..... : . ,. ..... Si , '"ป:; ' ''; ' !" i> ' I ; ' , ' :' 'I ......... i\t ' "ii" : , ' ..... ' \ " ....... ' ,r>;r ..... -' ;;;;' . i ;*; ....... ;,,r laisia ....... rjBf t ,li! ..... fil ...... iili 131'!' ...... '!*' " ..... vซ ..... II ,,, IS S-iK ;i ....... f '! ........ i!,!!!
Drawing Compound - Oils, waxes, or greases added to facilitate
stamping and forming of metal.
Drying Beds - Areas for dewatering of sludge by evaporation and
seepage.
Dump ~ The intermittent discharge of process weistes for purposes of
replenishment of chemicals or maintenance.
i ' i1
Effluent - The quantities, rates, and chemical, physical, biological,
and other constituents of waters which are discharged from point
sources.
Emergency Procedures - The various special procedures necessary to
protect that environment from wastewater treatment plant failures due
to power outages, chemical spills, equipment failures, major storms,
floods, etc.
Emulsion Breaking - Decreasing the stability of dispersion of one
liquid in another.
' ' '' ' .' :*fo . ' , ' ',' ' : ' ; : ' ; ii' *' ': :s- ' % ..... ; !' ;i 'is <$' ..... , !;' s^i*:!'! si ..... u ..... s mi
Enamel - Combination of frit, inorganic pigments, clays and other
ingredients which are blended, in a ball mill, applied to ware
Surface, and fused at high temperatures to produce a glass-like
coating.
,"'"|; , .i ., , |. ..... | ,; , || ',, '',<' ''n 'W;,,,, 1; | || | i Ilil II I I I II II II I II III I II I I 1 I II If
Enameling Iron - Type of steel made especially for application or
porcelain enamel coatings.
I
End-of-Pipe Treatment - The reduction and/or removal of pollutants by
treatment just prior to actual discharge.
Equalization - The process whereby waste streams from different
sources varying in pH, chemical constituents, and flow rates are
collected in a common container for metgripg into the waste treatment
504
-------
system. The effluent stream from this equalization tank will have a
fairly constant flow and pH level, and will contain a homogenous
chemical mixture which prevents an unnecessary shock to the waste
treatment system.
Feeder, Chemical, Dry - A mechanical device for applying dry chemicals
to water and sewage at a rate controlled manually or automatically by
the rate of flow.
Feeder, Chemical, Solution - A mechanical device for applying
chemicals in liquid to water and sewage at a rate controlled manually
or automatically by the rate of flow.
Filter - A barrier through which solid particles cannot pass, used for
the separation of undissolved solids from a liquid.
Filter, Intermittent - A natural or artificial bed of sand or other
granular medium to which sewage is added in intermittent flooding
doses. As the sewage passes through the bed, solids are retained in
the bed.
Filter, Rapid Sand - A filter for the purification of water which has
been previously treated (usually by coagulation and sedimentation).
Wastewater passes through a filtering medium consisting of a layer of
sand or prepared anthracite coal or other suitable material, usually
from 24 to 30 inches thick and resting on a supporting bed of gravel
or a porous medium such as carborundum. The filtrate is removed by a
drain system. The filter is cleaned periodically by reversing the
flow of the water through the filtering medium. Sometimes
supplemented by mechanical or air agitation during backwashing to
remove mud and other solids that are lodged in the sand.
Filter, Trickling - A filter consisting of an artificial bed of coarse
material, such as broken stone, clinkers, slats, or brush. Sewage is
applied to the bed in drops, films, or spray, from troughs, drippers,
moving distributors or fixed nozzles. Wastewater trickles through the
medium, forming bacterial slimes which clarify and oxidize the sewage.
Filter, Vacuum - A filter consisting of a cylindrical drum mounted on
a horizontal axis. The drum is covered with a filter cloth and
revolves with a partial submergence in liquid. A vacuum is maintained
under the cloth for the larger part of a revolution to extract
moisture, and the cake is scraped off continuously.
Filtration - The process of separating undissolved solids from a
liquid using a barrier through which solid particles cannot pass.
Flash - See Nickel Flash ;
505
-------
Float Gauge - A device for measuring the elevation of the surface of a
liquid, the actuating element of which is a buoyant float that rests
on the surfaceof the liquid and rises or falls with it. The
elevation of the surface is measured by a chain or tape attached to
the float.
by the aggregation of fine
Floe - A very fine, fluffy mass formed
suspended particles.
Flocculator - An apparatus designed for the formation of floe in water
or sewage.
Flocculation - In water and wastewater treatment, the agglomeration of
colloidal and finely divided suspended matter after coagulation by
gentle stirring by either mechanical or hydraulic means. In
biological wastewater treatment where coagulation is not used,
agglomeration may be accomplished biologically.
Flow Coat - Method of enamel application during which enamel is pumped
through nozzles to flood the item with coating'material. (Slip)
, ,;.. ! , :>" I- ''.'.. ; ,,', Mi- ;, ';>ซ;*Wi'tll ill:'! ^p.:1*!:^ ,W-JM<ป! ltr-;-ซWt'W Ill); MR
Flow-Proportioned Sample - A sample taken in proportion to flow.
Frit - Specially formulated glass in granular or flake form.
a continuous,
Fusion - The heating of an enamel-coated item, forming
uniform glass film.
. ;i , i j ,,; ; , ., y;,".^.,,!'*. i ii'iiiiii I I i i ' iiiii i!"ii ii
G'Cab:Sample - A single sample of wastewater taken at neither set time
nor flow. .i( r ,,,vi v
Grease - In wastewater, a group of substances including fats, waxes,
free fatty acids, calcium and magnesium soaps, mineral oil, and
certain other nonfatty materials.
Grease Skimmer - A device for removing grease or scum from the surface
of wastewater in a tank. ;
Ground Coat - First coat of porcelain enamel.
Hardness - A characteristic of water, imparted by salts of calcium,
magnesium, and iron such as bicarbonates, carbonates, sulfates,
chlorides, andnitrates that cause curdling of soap, deposition of
scale in boilers, damage in some industrial processes, and sometimes
objectionable taste. It may be determined by a standard laboratory
procedure" or computed from the amounts of calcium and magnesium as
well as iron, aluminum, manganese, barium, strontium, and zinc, and is
expressed as equivalent calcium carbonate.
1
i
506
i
-------
Heavy Etch - Removal of 2.0 grams per square foot
iron from the base metal.
or
more of total
Metals - A general name given to the ions of metallic elements
sufch as copper, zinc, chromium, and nickel. They are normally removed
from wastewater by forming an insoluble precipitate (usually a
metallic hydroxide).
Heavy Nickel Deposition - Deposition of 0.07 grams per square foot or
more of total nickel on the basis metal.
Holding Tank - A tank for temporary storage of liquids.
Industrial Wastes - The wastes generated by industrial processes as
distinct from domestic or sanitary wastes.
Influent - Water or other liquid, either raw or partly treated,
flowing into a reservoir basin or treatment plant.
In-Process Control Technology - Technology used to regulate chemical
and rinse water use in process operations in order to conserve
chemicals and rinse water and reduce wastewater discharge.
Ion Exchange - A reversible chemical reaction between a solid (ion
exchanger) and a fluid (usually a water solution) by means of which
ions may be interchanged from one substance to another. , The
superficial physical structure of the solid is not affected.
Lagoon - A man-made pond or lake for holding wastewater for the
removal of suspended solids. Lagoons are also used as retention ponds
after chemical clarification to polish the effluent and to safeguard
against upsets in the clarifier; for stabilization of organic matter
by biological oxidation; for storage of sludge; and for cooling of
water.
Landfill - The disposal of inert, insoluble waste solids by dumping at
an approved site and covering with earth.
Lime - Any of a family of chemicals consisting essentially of calcium
hydroxide made from limestone (calcite) which is composed almost
wholly of calcium carbonates or a mixture of calcium and magnesium
carbonates.
Lime, Settle - Precipitation of dissolved solids in wastewater using
lime and the subsequent gravity-induced deposition of the suspended
matter.
Lime, Settle, Filter - Lime, settle treatment of wastewater
by additional suspended solids removal using a filter.
kfollowed
507
-------
Limiting Orifice - A device that limits flow by constriction to a
relatively small area.
Make-Up Water - Total amount of water used by
step.
Mil - A unit of thickness. 0.001 inch.
a process on process
Milligrams Per liter (mg/1) - This is a weight per volume designation
used in water and wastewater analysis.
Mixed Media Granular Bed Filtration - A filter which uses two or more
filter materials of differing specific gravities selected to produce a
filter uniformly graded from coarse to fine.
Mutagenic - The ability of a substance to increase the frequency or
extent of mutation.
""Si ; i ;; , .; ' , oiii .;..? ;,ป;;{in;;.;. i:; >,; (j, ' V;'!,.;.;^ * .^it.Mffla^fiw,
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) - The ''Feder'ai''
mechanism for requlating point source discharge by means of permits.
Neutralization - (1) Chemical addition of either acid or base to a
solution such that the pH is adjusted to approximately 7. (2)
Pretreatment operation used on steel to neutralize in an alkaline bath
any traces of acid left from pickling.
Nickel Flash - A chemical preparation process in which nickel com-
pounds are reduced to metallic nickel and deposited on the surface of
the treated item, -while iron is oxidized to the ferrous ion.
Noncontact Cooling Water - Water, used for cooling, which does not
come into direct contact with any raw material,r intermediate product,
waste product, or finished product.
NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
NSPS - New Source Performance Standards.
Prthophosphate - An acid or salt containing phosphorus as PO3.
Outfall - The point or location where sewage or drainage discharges
from a sewer, drain, or conduit.
Parshall Flume - A calibrated device developed by Parshall for
measuring the flow of liquid in an open conduit. It consists
essentially of a contracting length, a throat, and an expanding
length. At the throat is a sill over which the flow passes at
critical depth. The upper and lower heads are each measured at a
508
[': i '.
-------
definite distance from the sill. The lower head cannot be measured
unless the sill is submerged more than about 67 percent.
p_H - The negative of the logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration.
The concentration is the weight of hydrogen ions, in grams per liter
of solution. Neutral water, for example, has a pH value of 7. At pH
lower than 7, a solution is acidic. At pH higher than 7, a solution
is alkaline.
p_H Adjustment - A means of maintaining the optimum pH through the use
of chemical additives.
Pickling - Chemical preparation operation which etches the surface of
the treated item, removing rust, scale and some basis metal.
Pollutant - Dredged spoil, solid wastes, incinerator residue, sewage,
garbage, sewage sludge, chemical wastes, biological materials,
radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock,
sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal and agricultural waste
discharged into water.
Pollutant Parameters - Those constituents of wastewater determined
be"
to
detrimental to
requiring control.
public health or the environment and, therefore,
Pollution Load - A measure of the unit mass of a wastewater in terms
of its solids or oxygen-demanding characteristics or in terms of harm
to receiving waters.
Polyelectrolytes - Used as a coagulant or a coagulant aid in water and
wastewater treatment. They are synthetic or natural polymers
containing ionic constituents. They may be cationic, anionic, or
nonionic.
POTW - Publicly Owned Treatment Works.
Powder Coating - Coating application method in which a heated part is
dusted with enamel in powder form. Upon striking the workpiece, the
powder melts and adheres to the part; the part is subsequently fired.
Prechlorination - (1) Chlorination of water prior to filtration. (2)
Chlorination of sewage prior to treatment.
Precipitate - The discrete particles
liquid solution.
of material rejected from a
Precipitation - The rejection of discrete particles of material from a
liquid solution.
509
-------
Precipitation, Chemical - (1) Precipitation induced by addition of
chemicals. (2) The process of softening water by the addition of lime
and soda ash asthe precipitants.
Pressure Filtration - The process of solid/liquid phase separation
effected by passing the more permeable liquid phase through a mesh
which is impenetrable to the solid phase.
Pretreatment - Any wastewater treatment process used to reduce
pollution load partially before the wastewater is introduced into a
main sewer system or delivered to a treatment plant for substantial
reduction of the pollution load.
Primary Treatment - A process to remove substantially all floating and
settleable solids in wastewater and partially reduce the concentration
of suspended solids.
1>": A.HLi,l I I'll I,,,'
ili'mi i!!li Illiullnll 11 "lUfi'i:!"'!!.
Priority Pollutants - The 129 specific pollutants established by the
EPA from the 65 pollutants and classes of pollutants as outlined in
the consent decree of June 8, 1976.
11 " "l|l,!1l|il , , " '" , '',!', .HI1' ' I'. ' .'' ',.,,,'' ' ii ,''',.', Ill III I I .' i 'I II II I II II
Processed Area - {Expressed in terms of square feet and square
meters). The dimensional area directly involved in a particular
processing step.
" '
Process Wastewater - Any water which, during manufacturing or
processing, comes into direct contact with or results from the
production or use of any raw materials, intermediate product, finished
product, by-product, or waste product.
' ' :;! : i I :' i :: : '". , " .....
Process Water - Water prior to its direct contact use in a process or
operation. (This water may be any combination of raw water, service
water, or either process wastewater or treatment facility effluent to
be recycled or reused).
PSES - Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources.
PSNS - Pretreatment Standards for New Sources.
Publicly Owned Treatment Works - A central treatment works serving a
municipality.
'r" , i . ; ' ": ', ......
Raw Water - Plant intake water prior to any treatment or use.
Reaction Cell - A chamber in which the chemical reactant is rapidly
recirculated to prevent chemical depletion, facilitate sludge removal
and automatically provide chemical replenishment control.
. ! i ' "'.ii i. ;.; >
Rectangular Weir - A weir having a notch that is rectangular in shape.
510
ii '!, "Ill
if' " i,',! .I Bail1'! '/H '< iiii
-------
Recycled Mater - Process wastewater or treatment facility effluent
which is recirculated to the same process.
Reduction Practices - (1) Wastewater reduction practices can mean the
reduction of water use to lower,the volume of wastewater requiring
treatment and (2) the use of chemical reductant materials to lower the
valence state of a specific wastewater pollutant.
Reduction Treatment - The opposite of oxidation treatment wherein a
reductant (chemical) is used to lower the valence state of a pollutant
to a less toxic form e.g.; the use of S02 to "reduce" chromium +6 to
chromium +3 in an acidic solution.
Retention Time - The time allowed for solids to collect in a settling
tank. Theoretically retention time is equal to the volume of the tank
divided by the flow rate. The actual retention time is determined by
the purpose of the tank and is designed to allow for completion of a
chemical reaction such as reduction of hexavalent chromium or the
destruction of cyanide.
Reused Water - Process wastewater or treatment facility effluent which
is further used in a manufacturing process.
Sanitary Sewer - A sewer that carries liquid and water boilne wastes
from residences, commercial buildings, industrial plants, and
institutions together with minor quantities of ground, storm, and
surface waters that are not admitted intentionally.
Sanitary Wastes - Wastewater generated by non-industrial processes;
e.g., showers, toilets, food preparation operations.
Scrubber - General term used in reference to a "Wet" Air Pollution
Control Device.
Secondary Settling Tank - A tank through which effluent from some
prior treatment process flows for the purpose of removing settleable
solids.
Secondary Wastewater Treatment - The treatment of wastewater
biological methods after primary treatment by sedimentation.
by
Sedimentation - The gravity-induced deposition of suspended matter
carried by water, wastewater, or other liquids. It is usually
accomplished by reducing the velocity of the liquid below the point at
which it can transport the suspended material. Also called settling.
Service Water - Raw water which has been treated prior to its use in a
process or operation; i.e., make-up water.
511
-------
Settling - See Sedimentation.
si,
Sewage, Storm - Liquid flowing in sewers during or following a period
of heavy rainfall.
Sewer - A pipe or conduit, generally closed, but normally not flowing
full, for carrying sewage and other waste liquids.
Settleable Solids - (1 ) That matter in wastewater which will hot stay"'
in suspension during a preselected settling period, such as one hour,
but settles to the bottom. (2) In the Imhoff cone test, the volume of
matter that settles to the bottom of the cone in one hour.
Silk Screening - Coating method in which an enamel is spread onto a
workpiece through a stencil screen.
Single Coat - The application of only one coat of porcelain enamel.
This may be a finish coat in the "Direct-on" process.
Skimming Tank - A tank so designed that floating matter will rise and
remain on the surface of the wastewaterunti1removed, while the
liquid discharges continuously under certain walls or scum boards.
'",;ii;i , '" ' I ซ ":' V'.'f : ': I Nil I 'I'm ,1 I I'll III
Slip - A suspension of ceramic material in either water or oil.
Sludge - The solids (and accompanying water and organic matter) which
are separated from sewage or industrial wastewater.
Sludge Conditioning - A process employed to prepare sludge for final
disposal. Can be thickening, digesting, heat treatment, etc.
>i '!, | :":: ;;v ,;"'",,;;,.: i"' :;;^'(|;:y^fl'^|ffit'i'" i'i-'if#'"
Sludge Disposal - The final disposal of solid wastes.
Sludge Thickening - The increase in solids concentration of sludge in
a sedimentation or digestion tank.
Solvent - A liquid capable of dissolving one or more other substances.
, ,r ii i ''',!'i,,i'',',,,, '' ,! >,, ,is ii, i'i 'I'll1'11 iiiin,iliiii,iMi ,i'i,iiiiii|iii:ii,i:iiii,ii ' >, ,i, ii,i '"' I
Spills - A chemical or material spill is an unintentional discharge of
more than 10 percent of the daily usage of a reqularly used substance.
In the case of a rarely used (one per year or less) chemical or
substance, a spill is that amount that would result in 1Opercent added
loading to the normal air, water or solid waste loadings measured as
the closest equivalent pollutant.
Spray Booth - Structure used to contain airborne
which do not adhere to ware.
of enamel"
512
"III ' ",! :',,W\l' lii,TI I'll
f ' .1 ni1::.:;', .ซ ^ty-i ',,;!:. , :"'i';.?y,i' ' *'V >. "' ' .v *' '''''WM^n.^W^''
.V -jj ;: te;?1 ','f-';!sl^!'tJl'' >'!'! ^.^'f'MJSiilJE^
''V1; .'"$'; '- iiiif f'V*' " i '' ii i , bii1 '' .'rf,'1 .:-.' ' ii ,';::.iป ซ!>:"!*iiKiii' j
"I"',,,, II1, III"',, ; ' ,1,1! Mull,,, ,1 ,1' ,, I/:1 ,1,11 , 1,, ,' ,,|,|:,,|li IIILhlK'l,,1 J'!,,,! "HI,,1 |,|T
! -i ,. ::. -, i ,: ', : - ', 'ji,-.i , ;:;,;,
-------
Stabilization Lagoon - A shallow pond for storage of wastewater before
discharge. Such lagoons may serve only to detain and equalize
wastewater composition before regulated discharge to a stream, but
often they are used for biological oxidation.
Stabilization Pond - A type of oxidation pond in which biological
oxidation of organic matter is effected by natural or artifically
accelerated transfer of oxygen to the water from air.
Suspended Solids - (1) Solids that are in suspension in water,
wastewater, or other liquids, and which are largely removable by
laboratory filtering. (2) The quantity of material removed from
wastewater in a laboratory test, as prescribed in "Standard Methods
for the Examination of Water and Wastewater" and referred to as non-
filterable residue.
Total Cyanide - The total content of cyanide including simple and/or
complex ions. In analytical terminology, total cyanide is the sum of
cyanide amenable to chlorination and that which is not, according to
standard analytical methods.
Total Solids - The total amount of solids in a wastewater in both
solution and suspension.
Toxicitv - Referring to the ability of a substance to cause injury
an organism through chemical activity.
to
Treatment Efficiency - Usually refers to the percentage reduction of a
specific pollutant or group of pollutants by a specific wastewater
treatment step or treatment plant.
Treatment Fac i1ity Effluent - Treated process wastewater.
Turbidity - (1) A condition in water or wastewater caused by the
presence of suspended matter, resulting in the scattering and
absorption of light rays. (2) A measure of fine suspended matter in
liquids. (3) An analytical quantity usually reported in arbitrary
turbidity units determined by measurements of light diffraction.
Turbulent Flow - (1) The flow of a liquid past an object such that the
velocity at any fixed point in the fluid varies irregularly. (2) A
type of liquid flow in which there is an unsteady motion of the
particles and the motion at a fixed point varies in no definite
manner. Sometimes called eddy flow, sinuous flow.
Uverite - Trade name for an antimony titanium fluorine complex used in
white cover enamels.
Vacuum Filtration - See Filter, Vacuum.
513
-------
Water Balance - An accounting of all water entering and leaving a unit
process or operation in either a liquid or vapor form or via raw
material, intermediate product, finished product, by-product, waste
product, or via process leaks, so that the difference in flow between
all entering and leaving streams is zero.
Weir - (1) A diversion dam. (2) A device that has a crest and some
containment of known geometric shape, such as a V, trapezoid, or
rectangle and is used to measure flow of liquid. The liquid surface
is exposed to the atmosphere. Flow is related to upstream height of
water above the crest, to position of crest with respect to downstream
water surface, and to geometry of the weir opening.
514
-------
TABLE
METRIC TABLE
CONVERSION TABLE
MULTIPLY (ENGLISH UNITS)
ENGLISH UNIT ABBREVIATION
by TO OBTAIN (METRIC UNITS)
CONVERSION ABBREVIATION METRIC UNIT
acre ac
acre - feet ac ft
British Thermal
Unit BTU
British Thermal
Unit/pound BTU/lb
cubic feet/minute cfm
cubic feet/second cfs
cubic feet cu ft
cubic feet cu ft
cubic inches cu in
degree Fahrenheit [F
feet ft
gallon gal
gallon/minute gpm
horsepower hp
inches in
inches of mercury in Hg
pounds lb
million gallons/day mgd
mi 1 e mi
pound/square
inch (gauge) psig
square feet sq ft
square inches sq in
ton (short) ton
yard yd
kg cal/kg
cu m/min
m/min
m
cu
cu
1
cm
0.405 ha
1233.5 cu m
0.252 kg cal
0.555
0.028
1.7
0.028
28.32
16.39 cu
0.555([F-32)* [C
0.3048 m
3.785 1
0.0631 I/sec
0.7457 kw
2.54 cm
0.03342 atm
0.454 kg
3,785 cu m/day
1.609 km
(0.06805 psig +1)* atm
0.0929 sq m
6.452 sq cm
0.907 kkg
0.9144 m
* Actual conversion, not a multiplier
hectares
cubic meters
kilogram - calories
kilogram calories/kilogram
cubic meters/minute
cubic meters/minute
cubic meters
liters
cubic centimeters
degree Centigrade
meters
liters |
liters/second
killowatts
centimeters
atmospheres
kilograms
cubic meters/day
kilometer
atmospheres (absolute)
square meters
square centimeters
metric ton (1000 kilograms]
meter
515
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1981-341 -08S/4636
-------
1 llilllll
------- |