DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
for
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
for the
NONFERROUS METALS FORMING AND METAL POWDERS
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
VOLUME III
Lee M. Thomas
Administrator
Lawrence J. Jensen
Assistant Administrator for Water
William A. Whittington
Director
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Devereaux Barnes, Acting Director
Industrial Technology Division
Ernst P. Hall, P.E., Chief
Metals Industries Branch
Janet K. Goodwin
Technical Project Officer
September 1986
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Industrial Technology Division
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
-------
iis document is divided into three volumes. Volume I contains'Sections
I through IV. Volume II contains Sections V and VI.. Volume III contains
Sections VII through XVI.
SECTION I
SECTION II
SECTION III
SECTION IV
SECTION V
SECTION VI
SECTION VII
SECTION VIII
SECTION IX
SECTION X
SECTION XI
SECTION XII
SECTION XIII
SECTION XIV
SECTION XV
SECTION XVI
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTION
INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION
WATER USE AND WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
COST OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND CONTROL'
BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
GLOSSARY
REFERENCES
-------
-------
Section
CONTENTS
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1
Methodology
Technology Basis for Limitations
and Standards
RECOMMENDATIONS 7
BPT and BAT Mass Limitations
New Source Performance Standards
Pretreatment Standards for Existing
and New Sources
INTRODUCTION 319
Legal Authority
Data Collection and Utilization
Description of the Nonferrous
Metals Forming Category
• Description of Nonferrous Metals
Forming Processes
INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION 385
Evaluation and Selection of
Subcategorization Factors
Production Normalizing Parameter
Selection
Description of Subcategories
WATER USE AND WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 413
Data Sources
Water Use and Wastewater Characteristics
SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS 1119
Rationale for Selection of Pollutant
Parameters
Description of Pollutant Parameters
Pollutant Selection by Subcategory
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 1311
End-of-Pipe Treatment Technologies
Major Technologies
Major Technology Effectiveness
Minor Technologies
In-Process Pollution Control Techniques
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Section
VIII
Page
IX
XI
COST OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND CONTROL 1461
Summary of Cost Estimates
Cost Estimation.Methodology
Cost Estimates for Individual Treatment
Technologies
Compliance Cost Estimation
Nonwater Quality Aspects
BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 1553
CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
Technical Approach to BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming Subcategory
Magnesium Forming Subcategory
Nickel-Cobalt Forming Subcategory
Precious Metals Forming Subcategory
Refractory Metals Forming Subcategory
Titanium Forming Subcategory
Uranium Forming Subcategory
Zinc Forming Subcategory <
Zirconium Hafnium Forming Subcategory
Metal Powders Subcategory
Application of Regulation in Permits
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY 1757
ACHIEVABLE
Technical Approach to BAT
BAT Option Selection
Regulated Pollutant Parameters
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming Subcategory
Magnesium Forming Subcategory
Nickel-Cobalt Forming Subcategory '
Precious Metals Forming Subcategory
Refractory Metals Forming Subcategory
Titanium Forming Subcategory
Uranium Forming Subcategory ;
Zinc Forming Subcategory
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming Subcategory
Metals Powders Subcategory
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 1915
Technical Approach to NSPS
NSPS Option Selection
Regulated Pollutant Parameter
New Source Performance Standards
11
-------
Section
XII
XIII
XIV
XV
XVI
CONTENTS (Continued)
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
Introduction of Nonferrous Metals
Forming Wastewater into POTW
Technical Approach to Pretreatment
PSES and PSNS Option Selection
Regulated Pollutant Parameters
Pretreatment Standards
BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
GLOSSARY
REFERENCES
Page
2013
2187
2189
2191
2211
111
-------
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
III-l
III-2
III-3
III-4
IV-1
V-l
V-2
V-3
V-4
V-5
V-6
V-7
V-8
Title page
Metal Types Not Formed on a 356
Commercial Scale, or for which
Forming Operations Generate No
Wastewater
Metal Types Covered Under the 357
Nonferrous Metals Forming
Category
Years Since Nonferrous Forming 358
Operations Began at Plant
Nonferrous Metal Production by 359
Product Formed in 1981
Number of Plants Discharging 411
Nonferrous Metals Forming
Wastewater, By- Subcate'gory
Number of Samples Per Waste 478
Stream, By Subcategory
Sample Analysis Laboratories 483
Nonpriority Pollutants Analyzed 484
for During Sampling Effort
Supporting This Regulation
Results of Chemical Analyses of 486
Sampled Lead and Nickel Extrusion
Press and Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling Water
Results of Chemical Analyses of 487
Sampled Lead, Nickel, and
Precious Metals Rolling Spent
Emulsions
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Rolling Spent 488
Emulsions
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Rolling Spent 489
Emulsions Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Rolling Spent 492
Soap Solutions
v
-------
Table
V-9
V-10
V-ll
V-12
V-13
V-14
V-15
V-16
V-17
V-18
V-19
V-20
V-21
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Title Page
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Rolling Spent 493
Neat 'Oils
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Drawing Spent 494
Emulsions
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Drawing Spent 495
Soap Solutions
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Drawing Spent 496
Soap Solutions Raw Wastewater
Characteristics
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Extrusion Press 497
or Solution Heat Treatment ;
Contact Cooling Water
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Extrusion Press 498
Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water Raw Wastewater
Characteristics
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Extrusion Press 501
Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Swaging Spent 502
Emulsions
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Continuous Strip 503
Casting Contact Cooling Water
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Continuous Strip 504
Casting Contact Cooling Water
Raw Wastewater Characteristics
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Semi-Continuous 506
Ingot Casting Contact Cooling
Water
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Semi-Continuous 507
Ingot Casting Contact Cooling
Water Raw Wastewater Characteristics
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Shot Casting Con- 510
tact Cooling Water
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
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
Title Paqe
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Shot Casting 511
Contact Cooling Water Raw
Wastewater
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Shot Forming Wet 514
Air Pollution Control Slowdown
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Alkaline Cleaning 515
Spent Baths
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Alkaline Cleaning 516
Spent Baths Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Alkaline Cleaning 519
Rinse
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Alkaline Cleaning 520
Rinse Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
Magnesium Rolling Spent Emulsions 524
Magnesium Forging Spent Lubricants 525
Magnesium Forging Contact Cooling 526
Water
Magnesium Forging Equipment Cleaning 527
Wastewater
Magnesium Direct Chill Casting Con- 528
tact Cooling Water
Magnesium Surface Treatment Spent 529
Baths
Magnesium Surface Treatment Spent 530
Baths Raw Wastewater Sampling Data
Magnesium Surface Treatment Rinse 535
Magnesium Surface Treatment Rinse 536
Raw Wastewater Sampling Data
vn
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
V-37
V-38
V-39
V-40
V-41
V-42
V-43
V-44
V-45
V-46
V-47
V-48
V-49
V-50
V-51
Title page
Magnesium Sawing or Grinding Spent 548
Emulsions
Magnesium Wet Air Pollution Control 549
Slowdown
Magnesium Wet Air Pollution Control 550
Slowdown Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
Nickel-Cobalt Rolling Spent Neat 552
Oils :
Nickel-Cobalt Rolling Spent Emulsions 553
Nickel-Cobalt Rolling Spent Emulsions 554
Raw Wastewater Sampling Data
Nickel-Cobalt Rolling Contact Cooling 558
Water
Nickel-Cobalt Rolling Contact Cooling 559
Water Raw Wastewater Sampling Data
Nickel-Cobalt Tube Reducing Spent 566
Lubricants
Nickel-Cobalt Tube Reducing Spent 567
Lubricants Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
Nickel-Cobalt Drawing Spent Neat 570
Oils
Nickel-Cobalt Drawing Spent Emulsions 571
Nickel-Cobalt Drawing Spent Emulsions 572
Raw Wastewater Sampling Data
Nickel-Cobalt Extrusion Spent > 574
Lubricants
Nickel-Cobalt Extrusion Press and 575
Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water
Vlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
V-52
V-53
V-54
V-55
V-56
V-57
V-58
V-59
V-60
V-61
V-62
V-63
V-64
Title Page
Nickel-Cobalt Extrusion Press and 576
Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Nickel-Cobalt Extrusion Press 579
Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Nickel-Cobalt Extrusion Press 580
Hydraulic Fluid Leakage Raw
Wastewater Sampling Data
Nickel-Cobalt Forging Spent 584
Lubricants
Nickel-Cobalt Forging Contact 585
Cooling Water
Nickel-Cobalt Forging Contact 586
Cooling Water Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Nickel-Cobalt Forging Equipment 590
Cleaning Wastewater
Nickel-Cobalt Forging Press 591
Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Nickel-Cobalt Forging Press 592
Hydraulic Fluid Leakage Raw
Wastewater Sampling Data
Nickel-Cobalt Metal Powder 595
Production Atomization
Wastewater
Nickel-Cobalt Metal Powder 596
Production Atomization
Wastewater Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Nickel-Cobalt Stationary Casting 601
Contact Cooling Water
Nickel-Cobalt Vacuum Melting 602
Steam Condensate
IX
-------
Table
V-65
V-66
V-67
V-68
V-69
V-70
V-71
V-72
V-73
V-74
V-75
V-76
V-77
V-78
V-79
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Title Page
Nickel-Cobalt Vacuum Melting 603
Steam Condensate Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Nickel-Cobalt Annealing and 60S
Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling Water i
Nickel-Cobalt Annealing and 607
Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling Water Raw :
Wastewater Sampling Data '
Nickel-Cobalt Surface Treatment 611
• Spent Baths
Nickel-Cobalt Surface Treatment 612
Spent Baths Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Nickel-Cobalt Surface Treatment 620
Rinse
Nickel-Cobalt Surface Treatment 621
Rinse Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
Nickel-Cobalt Ammonia Rinse 635
Nickel-Cobalt Ammonia Rinse Raw 636
Wastewater Sampling Data
Nickel-Cobalt Alkaline Cleaning 639
Spent Baths
Nickel-Cobalt Alkaline Cleaning 640
Spent Baths Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Nickel-Cobalt Alkaline Cleaning 646
Rinse
Nickel-Cobalt Alkaline Cleaning 647
Rinse Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data '
Nickel-Cobalt Molten Salt Rinse 654
Nickel-Cobalt Molten Salt Rinse 655
Raw Wastewater Sampling Data
-------
Table
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Title
Paqe
V-80
V-81
V-82
V-83
V-84
V-85
V-86
V-87
V-88
V-89
V-90
V-91
V-92
V-93
V-94
Nickel-Cobalt Sawing or Grinding 661
Spent Emulsions
Nickel-Cobalt Sawing or Grinding 662
Spent Emulsions Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Nickel-Cobalt Sawing or Grinding 685
Rinse
Nickel-Cobalt Steam Cleaning 686
Condensate
Nickel-Cobalt Hydrostatic Tube 687
Testing and Ultrasonic Testing
Wastewater
Nickel-Cobalt Dye Penetrant Testing 688
Wastewater
Nickel-Cobalt Dye Penetrant Testing 689
Wastewater Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
Nickel-Cobalt Wet Air Pollution 691
Control Slowdown
Nickel-Cobalt Wet Air Pollution 692
Control Slowdown Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Nickel-Cobalt Electrocoating Rinse 697
Precious Metals Rolling Spent Neat 698
Oils
Precious Metals Rolling Spent 699
Emulsions
Precious Metals Rolling Spent 700
Emulsions Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Precious Metals Drawing Spent 705
Neat Oils
Precious Mstals Drawing Spent 706
Emulsions
XI
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
V-96
V-97
V-98
V-99
V-100
V-101
V-102
V-103
V-104
V-105
V-106
V-107
V-108
Title • Paqe
Precious Metals Drawing Spent 707
Emulsions Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Precious Metals Drawing Spent Soap 710
Solutions
Precious Metals Metal Powder 711
Production Atomization
Wastewater
Precious Metals Direct Chill Casting 712
Contact Cooling
Precious Metals Shot Casting Contact 713
Cooling Water
Precious Metals Shot Casting Contact 714
Cooling Water Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Precious Metals Stationary Casting 717
Contact Cooling Water
Precious Metals Semi-Continuous and 718
Continuous Casting Contact Cooling
Water :
Precious Metals Semi-Continuous and 719
Continuous Casting Contact Cooling
Water Raw Wastewater Sampling Data
Precious Metals Heat Treatment' Con- 723
tact Cooling Water
Precious Metals Surface Treatment 724
Spent Baths
Precious Metals Surface Treatment 725
Rinse
Precious Metals Surface Treatment 726
Rinse Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
Precious Metals Alkaline Cleaning 732
Spent Baths
xii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
V-109
V-110
V-lll
V-112
V-113
V-114
V-115
V-116
V-117
V-118
V-119
V-120
V-121
V-122
V-123
Title Paqe
Precious Metals Alkaline Cleaning 733
Rinse
Precious Metals Alkaline Cleaning 734
Prebonding Wastewater
Precious Metals Alkaline Cleaning 735
Prebonding Wastewater Raw
Wastewater Sampling Data
Precious Metals Tumbling or 740
Burnishing Wastewater
Precious Metals Tumbling or 741
Burnishing Wastewater Raw
Wastewater Sampling Data
Precious Metals Sawing or Grinding 745
Spent Neat Oils
Precious Metals Sawing or Grinding 746
Spent Emulsions
Precious Metals Sawing or Grinding 747
Spent Emulsions Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Precious Metals Pressure Bonding 750
Contact Cooling Water
Precious Metals Pressure Bonding 751
Contact Cooling Water Raw
Wastewater Sampling Data
Precious Metals Wet Air Pollution - 754
Control Slowdown
Refractory Metals Rolling Spent 755
Neat Oils and Graphite-Based
Lubricants
Refractory Metals Rolling Spent 756
Emulsions
Refractory Metals Drawing Spent 757
Lubricants
Refractory Metals Extrusion Spent 758
Lubricants
Xlll
-------
Table
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Title
Page
V-124
V-125
V-126
V-127
V-128
V-129
V-130
V-131
V-132
V-133
V-134
V-135
V-136
V-137
V-138
V-139
Refractory Metals Extrusion Press 759
Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Refractory Metals Extrusion Press 760
Hydraulic Fluid Leakage Raw
Wastewater Sampling Data
Refractory Metals Forging Spent 762
Lubricants
Refractory Metals Forging Contact 763
Cooling Water
•Refractory Metals Metal Powder 764
Production Wastewater
Refractory Metals Metal Powder 765
Production Floor Wash Wastewater
Refractory Metals Metal Powder 766
Pressing Spent Lubricants
Refractory Metals Surface Treatment 767
Spent Baths
Refractory Metals Surface Treatment 768
Spent Baths Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Refractory Metals Surface Treatment 771
Rinse
Refractory Metals Surface Treatment 772
Rinse Raw Wastewater Sampling^ Data
Refractory Metals Alkaline Cleaning 778
Spent Baths
Refractory Metals Alkaline Cleaning 779
Spent Baths Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
Refractory Metals Alkaline Cleaning 781
Rinse
Refractory Metals Molten Salt Rinse 782
Refractory Metals Molten Salt Rinse 783
Raw Wastewater Sampling Data
xiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Title
Paqe
V-140
V-141
V-142
V-143
V-144
V-145
V-146
V-147
V-148
V-149
V-150
V-151
V-152
V-153
Refractory Metals Tumbling or 789
Burnishing Wastewater
Refractory Metals Tumbling or 790
Burnishing Wastewater Raw
Wastewater Sampling Data
Refractory Metals Sawing or Grinding 796
Spent Neat Oils
Refractory Metals Sawing or Grinding 797
Spent Emulsions
Refractory Metals Sawing or Grinding 798
Spent Emulsions Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Refractory Metals Sawing or Grinding 800
Contact Cooling Water
Refractory Metals Sawing or Grinding 801
Contact Cooling Water Raw
Wastewater Sampling Data
Refractory Metals Sawing or Grinding 805
Rinse
Refractory Metals Dye Penetrant 806
Testing Wastewater
Refractory Metals Dye Penetrant 807
Testing Wastewater Raw
Wastewater Sampling Data
Refractory Metals Equipment Cleaning 810
Wastewater
Refractory Metals Equipment Cleaning 811
Wastewater Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
Refractory Metals Miscellaneous 813
Wastewater Sources
Refractory Metals Wet Air Pollution 814
Control Slowdown
xv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Title
Paqe
V-154
V-155
V-156
V-157
V-158
V-159
V-160
V-161
V-162
V-163
V-164
V-165
V-166
V-167
V-168
V-169
V-170
Refractory Metals Wet Air Pollution 815
Control Slowdown Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Titanium Rolling Spent Neat Oils 819
Titanium Rolling Contact Cooling 820
Water
Titanium Drawing Spent Neat Oils 821
Titanium Extrusion Spent Neat Oils 822
Titanium Extrusion Spent Emulsions 823
Titanium Extrusion Press Hydraulic 824
Fluid Leakage
Titanium Extrusion Press Hydraulic 825
Fluid Leakage Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Titanium Forging Spent Lubricants 826
Titanium Forging Contact Cooling 827
Water
Titanium Forging Equipment Cleaning 828
Wastewater
Titanium Forging Press Hydraulic 829
Fluid Leakage
Titanium Tube Reducing Spent 830
Lubricants
Titanium Tube Reducing Spent 831
Lubricants Raw Wastewater '.
Sampling Data
Titanium Heat Treatment Contact 832
Cooling Water
Titanium Heat Treatment Contact 833
Cooling Water Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Titanium Surface Treatment Spent 836
Baths
xvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Title
Page
V-171
V-172
V-173
V-174
V-175
V-176
V-177
V-178
V-179
V-180
V-181
V-182
V-183
V-184
V-185
V-186
Titanium Surface Treatment Spent 837
Baths Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
Titanium Surface Treatment Rinse 841
Titanium Surface Treatment Rinse 842
Raw Wastewater Sampling Data
Titanium Alkaline Cleaning Spent 847
Baths
Titanium Alkaline Cleaning Spent 848
Baths Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
Titanium Alkaline Cleaning Rinse 850
Titanium Alkaline Cleaning Rinse 851
Raw Wastewater Sampling Data
Titanium Molten Salt Rinse 853
Titanium Tumbling Wastewater ,854
Titanium Tumbling Wastewater Raw 855
Wastewater Sampling Data
Titanium Sawing or Grinding Spent 858
Neat Oils
Titanium Sawing or Grinding Spent 859
Emulsions
Titanium Sawing or Grinding Spent 860
Emulsions Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
Titanium Sawing or Grinding Contact 865
Cooling Water
Titanium Sawing or Grinding Contact 866
Cooling Water Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Titanium Dye Penetrant Testing 867
Wastewater
xvii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Title
Paqe
V-187
V-188
V-189
V-190
V-191
V-192
V-193
V-194
V-195
V-196
V-197
V-198
V-199
V-200
V-201
V-202
V-203
Titanium Hydrotesting Wastewater 868
Titanium Wet Air Pollution Control 869
Slowdown
Titanium Wet Air Pollution Control 870
Slowdown Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
Uranium Extrusion Spent Lubricants 873
Uranium Extrusion Tool Contact 874
Cooling Water
Uranium Forging Spent Lubricants 875
Uranium Heat Treatment Contact 876
Cooling Water
Uranium Heat Treatment Contact 877
Cooling Water Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Uranium Surface Treatment Spent 884
Baths
Uranium Surface Treatment Spent 885
Baths Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
Uranium Surface Treatment Rinse 888
Uranium Surface Treatment Rinse 889
Raw Wastewater Sampling Data
Uranium Sawing or Grinding Spent 894
Emulsions
Uranium Sawing or Grinding Spent 895
Emulsions Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Uranium Sawing or Grinding Contact 898
Cooling Water
Uranium Sawing or Grinding Rinse 899
Uranium Area Cleaning Washwater 900
xviii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Title
Paqe
V-204
V-205
V-206
V-207
V-208
V-209
V-210
V-211
V-212
V-213
V-214
V-215
V-216
V-217
V-218
V-219
V-220
Uranium Area Cleaning Washwater 901
Raw Wastewater Sampling Data
Uranium Wet Air Pollution Control 908
Slowdown
Uranium Wet Air Pollution Control 909
Slowdown Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
Uranium Drum Washwater 911
Uranium Drum Washwater Raw 913
Wastewater Sampling Data
Uranium Laundry Washwater 917
Uranium Laundry Washwater Raw 918
Wastewater Sampling. Data
Zinc Rolling Spent Neat Oils 921
Zinc Rolling Spent Emulsions 922
Zinc Rolling Contact Cooling 923
Water
Zinc Drawing Spent Emulsions 924
Zinc Direct Chill Casting 925
Contact Cooling Water
Zinc Stationary Casting Contact 926
..Cooling Water
Zinc Heat Treatment Contact 927
Cooling Water
Zinc Surface Treatment Spent 928
Baths
Zinc Surface Treatment Rinse 929
Zinc Surface Treatment Rinse 930
Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
xix
-------
LIST OF TABLE,:,
teemed)
V-222
V-223
V-224
V-225
V-226
V-227
V-228
V-229
V-230
V-231
V-232
V-233
V-234
V-235
V-236
Title
Zinc Alkaline Cleaning Spent 935
Baths
Zinc Alkaline Cleaning Rinse 936
Zinc Alkaline Cleaning Rinse 937
Raw Wastewater Sampling Data
Zinc Sawing or Grinding Spent 942
Emulsions
Zinc Electrocoating Rinse 943
Zirconium-Hafnium Rolling Spent 944
Neat Oils
Zirconium-Hafnium Drawing Spent 945
Lubricants
Zirconium-Hafnium Extrusion Spent 946
Lubricants
Zirconium-Hafnium Extrusion Press 947
Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Zirconium-Hafnium Extrusion Press 948
Hydraulic Fluid Leakage Raw
Wastewater Sampling Data
Zirconium-Hafnium Swaging Spent 949
Neat Oils
Zirconium-Hafnium Tube Reducing 950
Spent Lubricants
Zirconium-Hafnium Heat Treatment 951
Contact, Cooling Water
Zirconium-Hafnium Heat Treatment 952
Contact Cooling Water Raw
Wastewater Sampling Data
Zirconium-Hafnium Surface Treatment 955
Spent Baths
Zirconium-Hafnium Surface Treatment 956
Spent Baths Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
xx
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Title
V-237
V-238
V-239
V-240
V-241
V-242
V-243
V-244
V-245
V-246
V-247
V-248
V-249
V-250
V-251
Zirconium-Hafnium Surface Treatment
Rinse
Zirconium-Hafnium Alkaline Cleaning
Spent Baths
Zirconium-Hafnium Alkaline Cleaning
Rinse
Zirconium-Hafnium Molten Salt Rinse
Zirconium-Hafnium Sawing or Grinding
Spent Neat Oils
Zirconium-Hafnium Sawing or Grinding
Spent Emulsions
Zirconium-Hafnium Sawing or Grinding
Contact Cooling Water
Zirconium-Hafnium Sawing or Grinding
Rinse
Zirconium-Hafnium Inspection and
Testing Wastewater
Zirconium-Hafnium Inspection and
Testing Wastewater Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Zirconium-Hafnium Degreasing Spent
Solvents
Zirconium-Hafnium Degreasing Rinse
Zirconium-Hafnium Wet Air Pollution
Control Slowdown
Metal Powders Metal Powder Production
Atomization Wastewater
Metal Powders Metal Powder Production
j^gi-jc
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
974
975
976
977
978
V-252
Atomization Wastewater Raw
Wastewater Sampling Data
Metal Powders Tumbling, Burnishing or
Cleaning Wastewater
980
xxi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Title
Page
V-253
V-254
V-255
V-256
V-257
V-258
V-259
V-260
V-261
V-262
V-263
V-264
V-265
V-266
Metal Powders Tumbling, Burnishing or 982
Cleaning Wastewater Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Metal Powders Sawing or Grinding 987
Spent Neat Oils
Metal Powders Sawing or Grinding 988
Spent Emulsions ;
Metal Powders Sawing or Grinding 989
Spent Emulsions Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Metal Powders Sawing or Grinding 993
• Contact Cooling Water
Metal Powders Sawing or Grinding 994
Contact Cooling Water Raw ;
Wastewater Sampling Data
Metal Powders Sizing Spent Neat 995
Oils
Metal Powders Sizing Spent Emulsions 996
Metal Powders Steam Treatment Wet 997
Air Pollution Control Slowdown
Metal Powders Steam Treatment Wet 998
Air Pollution Control Slowdown
Raw Wastewater Sampling Data:
Metal Powders Oil-Resin 1001
Impregnation Spent Neat Oils •
Metal Powders Hot Pressing Contact 1002
Cooling Water
Metal Powders Hot Pressing Contact 1003
Cooling Water Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Metal Powders Mixing Wet Air 1004
Pollution Control Slowdown
xxn
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
V-267
V-268
V-269
V-270
V-271
V-272
V-273
V-274
V-275
V-276
V-277
V-278
V-279
V-280
V-281
V-282
Title Paqe
Metal Powders Mixing Wet Air 1005
Pollution Control Slowdown
Raw Wastewater Sampling Data
Wastewater Treatment Performance 1006
Data - Plant A
Wastewater Treatment Performance 1009
Data - Plant B
Wastewater Treatment Performance 1013
Data - Plant D
Wastewater Treatment Performance 1017
Data - Plant E
Wastewater Treatment Performance 1025
Data - Plant F
Wastewater Treatment Performance 1032
Data - Plant I
Wastewater Treatment Performance 1038
Data - Plant J
Wastewater Treatment Performance 1041
Data - Plant M
Wastewater Treatment Performance 1051
Data - Plant Q
Wastewater Treatment Performance 1060
Data - Plant R
Wastewater Treatment Performance 1062
Data - Plant S
Wastewater Treatment Performance 1064
Data - Plant T
Wastewater Treatment Performance 1065
Data - Plant U
Wastewater Treatment Performance 1072
Data - Plant V
Wastewater Treatment Performance 1080
Data - Plant W
XXlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Paqe
VI-1
VI-2
VI-3
VI-4
VI-5
VI-6
VI-7
VI-8
VI-9
VI-10
VI-11
VI-12
Wastewater Treatment Performance 1084
Data - Plant X
Wastewater Treatment Performance 1089
Data - Plant Y
Wastewater Treatment Performance 1094
Data - Plant Z
List of 129 Priority Pollutants 1245
Analytical Quantification and 1251
Treatment Effectiveness Values
Priority Pollutant Disposition: 1255
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Subcategory
Priority Pollutant Disposition 1259
Magnesium Forming Subcategory
Priority Pollutant Disposition 1263
Nickel-Cobalt Forming Subcategory
Priority Pollutant Disposition 1273
Precious Metals Forming
Subcategory
Priority Pollutant Disposition 1280
Refractory Metals Forming
Subcategory
Priority Pollutant Disposition 1287
Titanium Forming Subcategory;
Priority Pollutant Disposition 1294
Uranium Forming Subcategory
Priority Pollutant Disposition 1298
Zinc Forming Subcategory
Priority Pollutant Disposition 1302
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Subcategory
Priority Pollutant Disposition 130"6
Metal Powders Subcategory
xxiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
VII-1
VII-2
VII-3
VII-4
VII-5
VIII-6
VII-7
VII-8
VII-9
VII-10
VII-11
VII-12
VII-13
VII-14
VII-15
VII-16
VII-17
Title . Page
pH Control Effect on Metals 1400
Removal
Effectiveness of Sodium Hydroxide 1400
for Metals Removal
Effectiveness of Lime and Sodium 1401
Hydroxide for Metals Removal
Theoretical Solubilities of 1401
Hydroxides and Sulfide of
Selected Metals in Pure Water
Sampling Data From Sulfide 1402
Precipitation-Sedimentation
Systems
Sulfide Precipitation-Sedimentation 1403
Performance
Ferrite Co-Precipitation Performance 1404
Concentration of Total Cyanide 1404
Multimedia Filter Performance 1405
Performance of Selected Settling. 1405
Systems
Skimming Performance 1406
Selected Partition Coefficients 1407
Trace Organic Removal by Skimming 1408
Combined Metals Data Effluent 1408
Values
L & S Performance Additional 1409
Pollutants
Combined Metals Data Set - 1409
Untreated Wastewater
Maximum Pollutant Level in 1410
Untreated Wastewater Additional
Pollutants
XXV
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Title
Paqe
VII-18
VII-19
VII-20
VII-21
VII-22
VII-23
VII-24
VII-25
VII-26
VII-27
VII-28
VII-29
VII-30
VIII-1
VIII-2
VIII-3
Precipitation-Settling-Filtration 1411
(LS&F) Performance Plant A
Precipitation-Settling-Filtration 1412
(LS&F) Performance Plant B ,
Precipitation-Settling-Filtration 1413
(LS&F) Performance Plant C
Summary of Treatment Effectiveness 1414
Summary of Treatment Effectiveness 1415
for Selected Nonconventional
Pollutants
Treatability Rating of Priority 1416
Pollutants
Classes of Organic Compounds 1417
Adsorbed on Carbon
Activated Carbon Performance 1418
(Mercury)
Ion Exchange Performance . 1418
Membrane Filtration System 1419
Effluent
Peat Adsorption Performance 1419
Ultrafiltration Performance 1420
Chemical Emulsion Breaking 1421
Efficiencies
BPT Costs of Compliance for 1508
the Nonferrous Metals
Forming Category
BAT Costs of Compliance for the 1509
Nonferrous Metals Forming
Category
PSES Costs of Compliance for the 1510
Nonferrous Metals Forming
Category
xxvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Title
Page
VIII-4
VIII-5
VIII-6
VIII-7
Nonferrous Metals Forming Category 1511
Cost Equations for Recommended
Treatment and Control Technologies
Components of Total Capital
Investment
Components of Total Annualized
Investment
Wastewater Sampling Frequency
1518
1519
1520
VIII-8
VIII-9
VIII-10
VIII-11
VIII-12
VIII-13
VIII-14
VIII-15
VIII-16
IX-1
IX-2
Pollutant Parameter Important to • 1521
Treatment System Design
Sludge to Influent Flow Ratios 1522
Key to Cost Curves.and Equations 1523
Cost Equations Used in Cost Curve 1524
Method
Number of Plants for Which Costs 1525
Were Scaled From Similar Plants
Flow Reduction Recycle Ratio and 1526
Association Cost Assumptions
Segregation Cost Basis 1528
Nonferrous Metals Forming Solid 1529
Waste Generation
Nonferrous Metals Forming Energy 1530
Consumption
Potential Preliminary Treatment 1626
Requirements Lead-Tin-Bismuth
Forming Subcategory
Potential Preliminary Treatment 1627
Requirements Magnesium Forming
Subcategory
xxvn
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Title
Pac
IX-3
IX-4
IX-5
IX-6
IX-7
IX-8
IX-9
IX-10
IX-11
IX-12
IX-13
IX-14
Potential Preliminary Treatment 1628
Requirements Nickel-Cobalt
Forming Subcategory
Potential Preliminary Treatment 1630
Requirements Precious Metals
Forming Subcategory
Potential Preliminary Treatment 1631
Requirements Refractory Metals
Forming Subcategory
Potential Preliminary Treatment 1633
Requirements Titanium Forming
Subcategory
Potential Preliminary Treatment 1635
Requirements Uranium Forming
Subcategory
Potential Preliminary Treatment 1636
Requirements Zinc Forming
Subcategory
Potential Preliminary Treatment 1637
Requirements Zirconium-Hafnium
Forming Subcategory
Potential Preliminary Treatment 1638
Requirements Metal Powders
Subcategory
BPT Regulatory Flows for Production 1639
Operations - Lead-Tin-Bismuth
Forming Subcategory ;
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming Subcategory 1641
BPT Effluent Limitations
BPT Regulatory Flows for Production 1648
Operations - Magnesium Forming
Subcategory
Magnesium Forming Subcategory BPT 1649
Effluent Limitations
xxviii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
IX-16
IX-17
IX-18
IX-19
IX-20
IX-21
IX-22
IX-23
IX-24
IX-25
IX-26
IX-27
IX-28
Title
BPT Regulatory Flows for Production 1653
Operations - Nickel-Cobalt
Forming Subcategory
Nickel-Cobalt Forming Subcategory 1656
BPT Effluent Limitations
BPT Regulatory Flows for Production 1670
Operations - Precious Metals
Forming Subcategory
Precious Metals Forming Subcategory 1672
BPT Effluent Limitations
BPT Regulatory Flows for Production 1682
Operations - Refractory Metals
Forming Subcategory
Refractory Metals Forming Subcate- 1684
gory BPT Effluent Limitations
BPT Regulatory Flows for Production 1701
Operations - Titanium Forming
Subcategory
Titanium Forming Subcategory BPT 1703
Effluent Limitations
BPT Regulatory Flows for Production 1715
Operations - Uranium Forming
Uranium Forming Subcategory BPT 1717
Effluent Limitations
BPT Regulatory Flows for Production 1724
Operations - Zinc Forming
Subcategory
Zinc Forming Subcategory BPT 1725
Effluent Limitations
BPT Regulatory Flows for Production 1731
Operations - Zirconium-Hafnium
Forming Subcategory
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming Subcate- 1733
gory BPT Effluent Limitations
xxix
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
IX-30
IX-31
IX-32
IX-33
Title Page
BPT Regulatory Flows for Production 1741
Operations - Metal Powders
Subcategory
Metal Powders Subcategory BPT \ 1742
Effluent Limitations
Allowable Discharge Calculations for 1748
Refractory Metals Forming Plant X
in Example 1 (Nickel)
Allowable Discharge Calculations for 1749
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming Plant Y
in Example 2 (Total Suspended
'Solids)
Allowable Discharge Calculations for 1751
Nickel-Cobalt and Titanium Forming
Plant Z in Example 3 (Nickel)
IX-34
X-l
X-2
X-3
X-4
X-5
Allowable Discharge Calculations for 1753
Nickel-Cobalt and Titanium Forming
Plant Z in Example 3 (Cyanide)
Capital and Annual Cost Estimates 1794
for BAT (PSES) Total Subcategory
Capital and Annual Cost Estimates 1795
for BAT Direct Dischargers
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1796
Reduction Benefit Estimates Lead-
Tin-Bismuth Forming Subcategory
Total Subcategory
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1797
Reduction Benefit Estimates
Magnesium Forming Subcategory
Total Subcategory
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1798
Reduction Benefit Estimates
Nickel-Cobalt Forming Subcategory
Total Subcategory
XXX
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
X-7
X-8
X-9
X-10
X-ll
X-12
X-13
X-14
Title
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1799
Reduction Benefit Estimates Precious
Metals Forming Subcategory Total
Subcategory
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1800
Reduction Benefit Estimates
Refractory Metals Forming
Subcategory Total Subcategory
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1801
Reduction Benefit Estimates
Titanium Forming Subcategory Total
Subcategory
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant • 1802
Reduction Benefit Estimates
Uranium Forming Subcategory Total
Subcategory
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1803
Reduction Benefit Estimates Zinc
Forming Subcategory Total
Subcategory
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1804
Reduction Benefit Estimates
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Subcategory Total Subcategory
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1805
Reduction Benefit Estimates Metal
Powders Subcategory Total
Subcategory
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1806
Reduction Benefit Estimates Lead-
Tin-Bismuth Forming Subcategory
Direct Dischargers
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1807
Reduction Benefit Estimates
Magnesium Forming Subcategory
D5 rect Dischargers
xxxi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
X-16
X-17
X-18
X-19
X-20
X-21
X-22
X-23
X-24
Title
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1808
Reduction Benefit Estimates Nickel-
Cobalt Forming Subcategory Direct
Dischargers
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1809
Reduction Benefit Estimates
Precious Metals Forming Subcategory
Direct Dischargers
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1810
Reduction Benefit Estimates
Refractory Metals Forming
Subcategory Direct Dischargers
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1811
Reduction Benefit Estimates
Titanium Forming Subcategory
Direct Dischargers
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1812
Reduction Benefit Estimates Uranium
Forming Subcategory Direct
Dischargers
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant
Reduction Benefit Estimates Zinc
Forming Subcategory
1813
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1814
Reduction Estimates Zirconium- ,
Hafnium Forming Direct Dischargers
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1815
Reduction Estimates Metal Powders
Subcategory Direct Dischargers
Options Selected as the Technology 1816
Basis for BAT
BAT Regulatory Flows for the Produc- 1817
tion Operations - Lead-Tin-Bismuth
Forming Subcategory
xxxii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Title
Pac
X-27
X-28
X-29
X-30
X-31
X-32
X-33
X-34
X-35
X-36
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming Subcategory 1819
BAT Effluent Limitations
BAT_Regulatory Flows for the Produc- 1824
tipn Operations - Magnesium Forming
Subcategory
Magnesium Forming Subcategory BAT
Effluent Limitations
1825
BAT Regulatory Flows for the Produc^- 1829
tion Operations - Nickel-Cobalt
Forming Subcategory
Nickel-Cobalt Forming Subcategory 1832
BAT Effluent Limitations
BAT Regulatory Flows for the 1845
Production Operations - Precious
Metal Forming Subcategory
Precious Metals Forming Subcategory 1847
BAT Effluent Limitations
BAT Regulatory Flows for the 1856
Production Operations - Refractory
Metals Forming Subcategory
Refractory Metals Forming Subcate- 1858
gory BAT Effluent Limitations
BAT Regulatory Flows for the 1869
Production Operations -
Titanium Forming Subcategory
Titanium Forming Subcategory BAT 1871
Effluent Limitations
BAT Regulatory Flows for the 1882
Production Operations - Uranium
Forming Subcategory
xxxni
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Title
Paqe
X-37
X-38
X-39
X-40
X-41
X-42
X-43
XI-1
XI-2
XI-3
XI-4
XI-5
XI-6
XI-7
Uranium Forming Subcategory BAT 1884
Effluent Limitations
BAT Regulatory Flows for the ' 1889
Production Operations - Zinc
Forming Subcategory
Zinc Forming Subcategory BAT 1890
Effluent Limitations
BAT Regulatory Flows for the 1896
Production Operations -
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Subcategory
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming 1898
Subcategory BAT Effluent
Limitations
BAT Regulatory Flows for the 1906
Production Operations - Metal
Powders Subcategory
Metal Powders Subcategory BAT 1907
Effluent Limitations
Options Selected as the Bases 1919
for NSPS
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming Subcategory 1920
New Source Performance Standards
Magnesium Forming Subcategory New 1927
Source Performance Standards
Nickel-Cobalt Forming Subcategory 1931
New Source Performance Standards
Precious Metals Forming Subcategory 1946
New Source Performance Standards
Refractory Metals Forming Subcate- 1956
gory New Source Performance Standards
Titanium Forming Subcategory New
Source Performance Standards
1973
XXXIV
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Title
XI-8
XI-9
XI-10
XI-11
XII-1
XII-2
XII-3
X1I-4
XII-5
XII-6
XII-7
Uranium Forming Subcategory New
Source Performance Standards
Zinc Forming Subcategory New
Source Performance Standards
1986
1993
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming Subcate- 1999
gory New Source Performance Standards
Metal Powders Subcategory New Source 2006
Performance Standards
POTW Removals of the Toxic Pollu- 2019
tants Found in Nonferrous Metals
Forming Wastewater
Pollutant Removal Percentages for 2021
BAT or PSES Model Technology By
Subcategory
Option Selected as the Model 2022
Technology Basis for PSES and
PSNS
Capital and Annual Cost Estimates 2023
for PSES Options Indirect
Dischargers
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 2025
Reduction Benefit Estimates Lead-
Tin-Bismuth Forming Subcategory
Indire'ct Dischargers
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 2026
Reduction Benefit Estimates Magnesium
Forming Subcategory Indirect
Dischargers
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 2027
Reduction Benefit Estimates Nickel-
Cobalt Forming Subcategory Indirect
Dischargers
xxxv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Title
XII-8
XII-9
XII-10
XII-11
XII-12
XII-13
XII-14
XII-15
XII-16
XII-17
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 2028
Reduction Benefit Estimates Precious
Metals Forming Subcategory Indirect
Dischargers
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 2029
Reduction Benefit Estimates Refractory
Metals Forming Subcategory Indirect
Dischargers
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 2030
Reduction Benefit Estimates Titanium
Forming Subcategory Indirect
Dischargers
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 2031
Reduction Benefit Estimates
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming Subcategory
Indirect Dischargers
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 2032
Reduction Benefit Estimates Metal
Powders Subcategory Indirect
. Dischargers
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming Subcategory 2033
Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources
Magnesium Forming Subcategory 2038
Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources
Nickel-Cobalt Forming Subcategory 2042
Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources
Precious Metals Forming Subcategory 2055
Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources
Refractory Metals Forming Subcate- 2064
gory Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources :
xxxvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Title
Page
XII-18
XI1-19
XII-20
XII-21
XII-22
Titanium Forming Subcategory
Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources
Uranium Forming Subcategory
Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources
2075
2085
Zinc Forming Subcategory Pretreat-^ 2091
ment Standards for Existing Sources
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming Subcate-
gory Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources
2097
Metal Powders Subcategory Pretreat- 2105
ment Standards for "Existing Sources
XII-23
XII-24
XII-25
XII-26
XII-27
XII-28
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming Subcategory 2110
Pretreatment Standards for
New Sources
Magnesium Forming Subcategory 2115
Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources
Nickel-Cobalt Forming Subcategory 2119
Pretreatment Standards for
New Sources
Precious Metals Forming Subcategory 2132
Pretreatment Standards for
New Sources
Refractory Metals Forming Subcate- 2141
gory Pretreatment Standards for
New Sources
Titanium Forming Subcategory 2152
Pretreatment Standards for
New Sources
xxxvii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
Title
Paqe
XII-29
XII-30
XII-31
XII-32
Uranium Forming Subcategory 2162
Pretreatment Standards for
New Sources
Zinc Forming Subcategory Pretreat- 2168
ment Standards for New Sources
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming Subcate- 2174
gory Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources
Metal Powders Subcategory Pretreat- 2182
ment Standards for New Sources
XXXVlll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
III-l
III-2
III-3
III-4
III-5
III-6
III-7
III-8
III-9
111-10
III-ll
111-12
111-13
111-14
111-15
111-16
111-17
111-18
111-19
111-20
111-21
111-22
111-23
111-24
Title ,, Page
Geographical Distribution of Nonferrous 360
Forming Plants
Sequence of Nonferrous Metals Forming 361
Operations
Common Rolling Mill Configurations . 362
Reversing Hot Strip Mill 363
4-High Cold Rolling Mill ' 364
Tube Drawing 365
Hydraulic Draw Bench 366
Direct Extrusion 367
Extrusion Press " 368
Extrusion Tooling and Setup 369
Forging 370
Ring Rolling 371
Impacting 372
Some Clad Configurations 373
Atomization 374
Powder Metallurgy Die Compaction 375
Direct Chill Casting 376
Direct Chill (D.C.) Casting, Unit 377
Continuous Sheet Casting 373
Continuous Strip Casting 379
Shot Casting 380
Roller Hearth Annealing Furnace 381
Bulk Pickling Tank 382
Continuous Pickling Line 383
xxxix
-------
Figure
111-25
V-l
V-2
V-3
V-4
V-5
V-6
V-7
V-8
V-9
V-10
V-ll
V-l 2
V-l 3
V-14
V-l 5
V-l 6
V-17
V-18
V-l 9
V-20
V-21
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Title ,
Vapor Degreaser
Wastewater Sources at Plant A
Wastewater Sources at Plant B
Wastewater Sources at Plant C
Wastewater Sources at Plant D
Wastewater Sources at Plant E
Wastewater Sources at Plant F
Wastewater Sources at Plant G
Wastewater Sources at Plant I
Wastewater Sources at Plant J
Wastewater Sources at Plant K
Wastewater Sources at Plant L
Wastewater Sources at Plant M
Wastewater Sources at Plant N
Wastewater Sources at Plant O
Wastewater Sources at Plant P
Wastewater Sources at Plant Q
Wastewater Sources at Plant R
Wastewater Sources at Plant S
Wastewater Sources at Plant T
Wastewater Sources at Plant V
Wastewater Sources at Plant Z
Page
384
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
xl
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure
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
VII-14
VII-15
VII-16
VII-17
VII-18
Title page
Comparative Solubilities of Metal 1422
Hydroxides and Sulfide as a
Function of pH
Lead Solubility in Three Alkalies 1423
Effluent Zinc Concentrations vs. 1424
Minimum Effluent pH
Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation 1425
Effectiveness - Cadmium
Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation 1426
Effectiveness - Chromium
Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation 1427
Effectiveness - Copper
Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation 1428
Effectiveness - Lead
.Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation 1429
Effectiveness - Nickel and Aluminum
Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation 1430
Effectiveness - Zinc
Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation 1431
Effectiveness - Iron
Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation 1432
Effectiveness - Manganese
Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation 1433
Effectiveness - TSS
Hexavalent Chromium Reduction with 1434
Sulfur Dioxide
Granular Bed Filtration 1435
Pressure Filtration 1436
Representative Types of Sedimentation 1437
Activated Carbon Adsorption Column 1438
Centrifugation 1439
xli
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure .
VII-19
VII-20
VII-21
VII-22
VII-23
VII-24
VII-25
VII-26
VII-27
VII-28
VII-29
VII-30
VII-31
VII-32
VII-33
VII-34
VII-35
VII-36
VII-37
VII-38
Title
Treatment of Cyanide Waste 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 Configurations
Sludge Drying Bed
Simplified Ultraf iltration Flow
Schematic
Vacuum Filtration
Flow Diagram for Emulsion Breaking with
Chemicals
Filter Configurations
Gravity Oil/Water Separator
Flow Diagram for a Batch Treatment
Ultraf iltration System
Flow Diagram of Activated Carbon
Adsorption with Regeneration
Flow Diagram for Recycling with a
Coolint Tower
Countercurrent Rinsing (Tanks)
Effect of Added Rinse Stages on Water
Use
xlii
Page
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure
VIII-1
VIII-2
VIII-3
VIII-4
VIII-5
VIII-6
VIII-7
VIII-8
VIII-9
VIII-10
VIII-11
VIII-12
VIII-13
VIII-14
VIII-15
VIII-16
VIII-17
Title ' • ' Page
General Logic Diagram of Computer 1531
Cost Model
Logic Diagram of Module Design 1532
Procedure
Logic Diagram of the Cost 1533
Estimation Routine
Capital Cost of a Spray Rinsing 1534
System
Capital and Annual Costs of Aerated 1535
Rectangular Fiberglass Tanks
Capital and Annual Costs of Centri- 1536
fugal Pumps
Capital and Annual Costs of Cooling 1537
Towers and Holding Tank -
Capital and Annual Costs of Holding 1538
Tanks and Recycle Piping
Capital and Annual Costs of 1539
Equalization
Capital and Annual Costs of Cyanide 1540
Precipitation
Capital and Annual Costs of Chromium 1541
Reduction
Capital Costs of Iron Coprecipitation 1542
Annual Costs of Iron Coprecipitation 1543
Capital and Annual Costs of Chemical 1544
Emulsion Breaking
Capital and Annual Costs of Ammonia 1545
Steam Stripping
Capital and Annual Costs of Chemical 1546
Precipitation
Capital Costs for Carbon Steel Vacuum 1547
Filters
xliii
-------
Figure
VIII-18
VIII-19
VIII-20
VIII-21
XI-1
X-l
X-2
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Title page
Capital Costs for Stainless Steel 1548
Vacuum Filters
Annual Costs for Vacuum Filters 1549
Capital and Annual Costs for Multi- 1550
media and Cartridge Filtration
Annual Costs for Contract Hauling 1551
BPT Treatment Train for the Non- 1755
ferrous Metals Forming Category
BAT Option 1 and 2 Treatment Train 1912
for the Nonferrous Metals Forming
Category
BAT Option 3 Treatment Train for 1913
the Nonferrous Metals Forming
Category
xliv
-------
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 nonferrous metals forming and metal powders
industrial point source category (hereafter referred to as
nonferrous metals forming). Included are discussions of
individual end-of-pipe treatment technologies and in-plant
technologies. These treatment technologies are widely used
in many industrial categories, • and data and
information to support, their .effectiveness has been drawn
from a similarly wide range of sources and data bases.
END-OF-PIPE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Individual recovery and treatment technologies are described
which are used or are suitable for use in treating wastewater
discharges from nonferrous metals forming plants. Each
description includes a functional description and discussion of
application and performance, advantages and limitations,
operational' factors (reliability, maintainability, solid
waste aspects), and demonstration status. The treatment
processes described include both technologies •" presently
demonstrated within the category, and technologies
demonstrated in treatment of similar wastes in other industries.-
Nonferrous metals forming wastewaters characteristically may be
acid or alkaline; may contain substantial levels of
dissolved or particulate metals including cadmium, chromium,
copper, lead, nickel, -silver, and zinc; may contain
substantial levels of cyanide,, ammonia and fluoride; may contain
only small or trace amounts of toxic organics; and are generally
free from strong chelating agents. The toxic inorganic
pollutants constitute the most significant wastewater pollutants
in this category. Oils and emulsions are also present in waste
streams emanating- from forming ' operations using neat and
emulsified oil lubricants. Ammonia is present in wastewater
discharges associated with some surface treatment operations.
In general, these pollutants are removed by oil
removal (skimming and emulsion breaking), ammonia steam
stripping, hexavalent chromium reduction, 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 removal's, are provided by the use
of sodium sulfide or ferrous sulfide to precipitate the
pollutants as sulfide compounds with very low" solubilities.
13-11 •
-------
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, X, XI, and XII the rationale for selecting
treatment systems is discussed. The individual technologies used
in the system are described here. The major end-of-pipe
technologies for treating nonferrous metals forming wastewaters
are: (1) chemical reduction of chromium, (2) chemical
precipitation, (3) cyanide precipitation, (4) granular bed
filtration, (5) pressure filtration, (6) settling, and (7)
skimming. In practice, precipitation of metals and settling
of the resulting precipitates is often a unified two-step
operation. Suspended solids originally present in raw
wastewaters are not appreciably affected by the precipitation
operation and are removed with the precipitated metals in
the settling operations. Settling operations can be evaluated
independently of hydroxide or other chemical precipitation
operations, but hydroxide and other chemical precipitation
operations can only be evaluated in combination with a
solids removal operation.
1. Chemical Reduction of Chromium
Description of_ the Process. Reduction is a chemical reaction in
which electrons' are transferred to the chemical being reduced
from the chemical initiating the transfer (the reducing agent).
Sulfur dioxide, sodium bisulfite, sodium metabisulfite, and
ferrous sulfate form strong reducing agents in aqueous solution
and are often used in industrial waste treatment facilities for
the reduction of hexavalent chromium to the trivalent form. The
reduction allows removal of chromium from solution in conjunction
with other metallic salts by alkaline precipitation. Hexavalent
chromium is not precipitated as the hydroxide.
Gaseous sulfur dioxide is a widely used reducing agent and
provides a good example of the chemical reduction process.
Reduction using other reagents is chemically similar. The
reactions involved may be illustrated as follows:
3 S02 + 3 H20 > 3 H2S03
3 H2S03 +
3H2S032 H2Cr04 > Cr2 (S04)3 + 5 H20 ,
The above reaction is favored by low pH. A pH of from 2 to 3 is
-normal for situations requiring complete reduction. At pH levels
above 5, the reduction rate is slow. Oxidizing agents such as
dissolved oxygen and ferric iron interfere with the reduction
process by consuming the reducing agent.
1312
-------
A typical treatment consists of 45 minutes r ^ncion
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.
tank is equipped with a propeller agitator
approximately one turnover per minute.
continuous chromium reduction system.
The reaction
designed to provide
Figure VII-13 shows a
Application and Performance. Chromium reduction is -used in
nonferrous metals forming for treating chromium containing
wastewaters such as surface treatment baths and rinses. A study
of an operational waste treatment facility chemically
hexavalent chromium has shown that a 99.7 percent
efficiency is easily achieved. Final concentrations
mg/1 are readily attained, and concentrations
reducing
reduction
of 0.05
of 0.01
and
mg/1 are considered to be attainable by.properly maintained
operated equipment.
Advantages and Limitations. The major advantage of chemical
reduction to reduce hexavalent chromium is that it is a fully
proven technology based on many years of experience. Operation
at ambient conditions results in minimal energy consumption, and
the process, especially when using sulfur dioxide, is well suited
to automatic control. Furthermore, the equipment is readily
obtainable from many suppliers, and operation is straightforward.
One limitation of chemical reduction of hexavalent chromium is
that for high concentrations of chromium, the cost of treatment
chemicals may be prohibitive. When this situation occurs, other
treatment techniques are likely to be more economical. Chemical
interference by oxidizing agents is possible in the treatment of
mixed wastes, and the treatment itself may introduce pollutants
if not properly controlled. Storage and handling of sulfur
dioxide is somewhat hazardous.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Maintenance consists of
periodic removal of sludge, the frequency of removal depends on
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. However, small amounts of sludge may be
collected as the result of 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 from operations such as electroplating conversion
1313
-------
coating and noncontact cooling. Six nonferrous metals forming
plants reported the use of hexavalent chromium reduction to treat
chromium containing wastewaters.
2. Chemical Precipitation
Dissolved toxic metal ions and certain anions may be chemically
precipitated for removal by physical means such as sedimentation,
filtration, or centrifugation. Several reagents are commonly
used to effect this precipitation:
1) Alkaline compounds such as lime or sodium hydroxide may be
used to precipitate many toxic metal ions as metal hydroxides.
Lime also may precipitate phosphates as insoluble calcium
phosphate, fluorides as calcium fluoride, and arsenic as calcium
arsenate.
2) Both "soluble" sulfides such as hydrogen sulfide or sodium
sulfide and "insoluble" sulfides such as ferrous sulfide may be
used to precipitate many heavy metal ions as metal sulfides.
3) Ferrous sulfate, zinc sulfate or both (as is required) may be
used to precipitate cyanide as a ferro or zinc ferricyanide
complex.
4) Carbonate precipitates may be used to remove metals either by
direct precipitation using a carbonate reagent such as calcium
carbonate or by converting hydroxides into carbonates using
carbon dioxide.
These treatment chemicals may be added to a flash mixer or rapid
mix tank, to a presettling tank, or directly to a clarifier or
other settling device. Because metal hydroxides tend to be col-
loidal in nature, coagulating agents may also be added to faci-
litate settling. After the solids have been removed, final pH
adjustment may be required to reduce the high pH created by the
alkaline treatment chemicals.
Chemical precipitation as a mechanism for removing metals from
wastewater is a complex process of at least two steps - pre-
cipitation of the unwanted metals and removal of the precipitate.
Some very small amount of metal will remain dissolved in the
wastewater after precipitation is complete. The amount of
residual dissolved metal depends on the treatment chemicals
used and related factors. The effectiveness of this method of
removing any specific metal depends on the fraction of the
specific metal in the raw waste (and hence in the
precipitate) and the effectiveness of suspended solids
removal. In specific instances, a sacrifical ion such as iron
or aluminum may be added to aid in the removal of toxic
metals by co-precipitation.
Application and Performance. Chemical precipitation is used in
nonferrous metals forming for precipitation of dissolved metals.
It can be used to remove metal ions such as antimony,
1314
-------
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, ' chremium, copper, lead,
mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, zinc, alum.' . ., cob^'" .
columbium, gold, hafnium, iron, manganese, molybdenu.-u,
tantalum, tin, tungsten, vanadium and zirconium. 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
treatment.
is extensively used for industrial waste
The performance of chemical precipitation depends on several
variables. The more important factors -affecting precipitation
effectiveness are:
1. Maintenance of an appropriate '{usually alkaline) pH throughout
the precipitation reaction and subsequent settling;
2. Addition of a sufficient excess of treatment ions to drive the
precipitation reaction to completion;
3. Addition of an adequate supply of sacrifical ions (such as
iron or aluminum) to ensure precipitation and removal of
specific target ions; and
4. Effective removal of precipitated solids (see appropriate
solids removal technologies).
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 curve.s
for selected metals hydroxides and sulfides shown in Figure VII-1
and by plotting effluent zinc concentrations against pH as
shown in Figure VII-3. Figure VII-3 was obtained from
Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Zinc
Segment of Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Point Source
Category, U.S. E.P.A., EPA 440/1-74/033, November, 1974. Figure
VII-3 was plotted from the sampling data from several facilities
with metal finishing operations. It is partially illustrated by
data obtained from 3 consecutive days of sampling at one metal
processing plant (47432) as displayed in Table VII-1. Flow
through this system is approximately 49,263 1/hr (13,000
gal/hr). ' •
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; intermediate values were achieved on the
third day, when pH values were 1e^s than desirable but in between
those for the first and second days.
1315
-------
Sodium hydroxide is used by another 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). These data displayed
in Table VII-2 indicate that the system was operated
efficiently. Effluent pH was controlled within the range of 8.6
to 9.3, and, while raw waste loadings were not unusually high,
most toxic metals were removed to very low concentrations.
Lime and sodium hydroxide (combined) are sometimes used to
precipitate metals. Data developed from plant 40063, a facility
with a metal bearing wastewater, exemplify efficient operation of
a chemical precipitation and settling system. Table VII-3 shows
sampling data from this system, which uses lime and sodium
hydroxide for pH adjustment, chemical precipitation,
polyelectrolyte flocculant addition, and sedimentation. Samples
were taken of the raw waste influent to the system and of the
clarifier effluent. Flow through the system is approximately
19,000 1/hr (5,000 gal/hr).
At this plant, effluent TSS levels were below 15 mg/1 on each
day, despite average raw waste TSS concentrations of over 3500
mg/1. Effluent pH was maintained at approximately 8, lime
addition was sufficient to precipitate the dissolved metal ions,
and the flocculant addition and clarifier retention served to
remove effectively the precipitated solids.
Sulfide precipitation is sometimes used to precipitate metals
resulting in improved metals removals. Most metal sulfides are
less soluble than hydroxides, and the precipitates are frequently
more dependably removed from water. Solubilities for selected
metal hydroxide, carbonate and sulfide precipitates are shown in
Table VII-4. (Source: Lange's Handbook of Chemistry).
Sulfide precipitation is particularly effective in removing
specific metals such as silver and mercury. Sampling data
from three industrial plants using sulfide precipitation
appear in Table VII-5. In all cases except iron, effluent
concentrations are below 0.1 mg/1 and in many cases below
0.01 mg/1 for the three plants studied.
Sampling data from several chlorine-caustic manufacturing plants
using sulfide precipitation demonstrate effluent mercury
concentrations varying between 0.009 and 0.03 mg/1. As shown in
Figure yil-l, the solubilities of PbS and Ag2S are lower
at alkaline pH levels than either the corresponding hydroxides
or other sulfide compounds. This implies that removal
performance for lead and silver sulfides should be comparable to
or better than that for the metal hydroxides. Bench scale tests
on several types of metal finishing and manufacturing
wastewater indicate that metals removal to levels of less than
0.05 mg/1 and in some cases less than 0.01 mg/1 are common
in systems using sulfide precipitation followed by clarification.
1316
-------
Some of the bench scale data, particularly in the c- of
do not support such low effluent concentrations Howe-,.
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: ,
FeS
3H20 ---- > Fe(OH)3 ;+ Cr(OH)3
The sludge produced in this reaction consists mainly of ferric
hydroxides, chromic hydroxides, and various metallic sulfides.
Some excess hydroxyl ions are generated in this process, possibly
requiring a downward re-adjustment of pH.
Based on the available data, Table VII-6 shows the minimum
reliably attainable effluent concentrations for sulfide
precipitation-sedimentation systems. These values are- used to
calculate performance predictions of sulfide precipitation-
sedimentation systems.
Carbonate precipitation is sometimes used to precipitate metals,
especially where precipitated metals values are to be recovered.
The solubility of most metal carbonates is intermediate between
hydroxide and sulfide solubilities; in addition, carbonates form
easily filtered precipitates.
Carbonate ions appear to be particularly useful in precipitating
lead and antimony. Sodium carbonate has been observed being
added at treatment to improve lead precipitation and removal in
some industrial plants. The lead hydroxide and lead carbonate
solubility curves displayed in Figure VII-2 ("Heavy Metals
Removal," by Kenneth Lanovette, Chemical
Engineer ing/Deskbook Issue, October 17, 1977) explain this
phenomenon.
Co-precipitation With Iron. The presence of substantial
quantites of iron in metal bearing wastewaters before treatment
has been shown to improve the removal of toxic metals. In some
cases this iron is an integral part of the industrial wastewater;
in other cases iron is deliberately added as a preliminary
treatment or first step of treatment. The iron functions to
improve toxic metal removal by three mechanisms: the iron co-
precipitates with toxic metals forming a stable precipitate
which desolubilizes the toxic metal; the iron improves the
settleability of the precipitate; and the large amount of iron
reduces the fraction of toxic metal in the precipitate. Co-
precipitation with iron has been practiced for many years
incidentally when iron was a substantial consitutent of raw
wastewater and intentionally when iron salts were ' added as a
1317
-------
coagulant aid. Aluminum or mixed iron-aluminum salt also have
been used. The addition of iron for co-precipitation to aid in
toxic metals removal is considered a routine part of
state-of-the-art lime and settle technology which should be
implemented as required to achieve optimal removal of toxic
metals.
Co-precipitation using large amounts of ferrous iron salts is
known as ferrite co-precipitation because magnetic iron oxide or
ferrite is formed. The addition of ferrous salts (sulfate) is
followed by alkali precipitation and air oxidation. The
resultant precipitate is easily removed by filtration and may be
removed magnetically. Data illustrating the performance of
ferrite co-precipitation is shown in Table VII-7.
Advantages and Limitations. Chemical precipitation has proved 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, because of possible chemical interference with mixed
wastewaters and treatment chemicals, or because of the
potentially hazardous situation involved with the storage and
handling of those chemicals. Nonferrous metals forming
wastewaters do not normally contain chelating agents or
complex pollutant matrix formations which would interfere with or
limit the use of chemical precipitation. Lime is usually
added as a slurry when used in hydroxide precipitation. The
slurry must be kept well mixed and the addition lines
periodically checked to prevent blocking of the lines, which may
result from a buildup of solids. Also, lime precipitation
usually makes recovery of the precipitated metals
difficult, because of the heterogeneous nature of most lime
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 restrict the gen-
eration of toxic hydrogen sulfide gas. For this reason,
ventilation of the treatment tanks may be a necessary precaution
in most installations. The use of insoluble sulfides reduces the
problem of hydrogen sulfide evolution. As with hydroxide
precipitation, excess sulfide ion must be present to drive the
precipitation reaction to completion. Since the sulfide ion
itself is toxic, sulfide addition must be carefully controlled to
maximize heavy metals precipitation with a minimum of excess
sulfide to avoid the necessity of post treatment. At very high
excess sulfide levels and high pH, soluble mercury-sulfide
compounds may also be formed. Where excess sulfide is present,
aeration of the effluent stream can aid in oxidizing residual
1318
-------
sulfide to the less harmful sodium sulfate (Na2SC>4). "re
cost of sulfide precipitants is high in C'.\ _.a:.'jLt.on
hydroxide precipitants, and disposal of metallic sulfide sludges
may pose problems. An essential element in effective'
sulfide precipitation is the removal of precipitated solids
from the wastewater and proper disposal in' an appropriate
site. Sulfide precipitation will also generate a higher volume
of sludge than hydroxide precipitation, resulting in
higher disposal and dewatering costs. This is especially true
when ferrous sulfide is used as the precipitant.
Sulfide precipitation may be used as a 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. Sulfide is also effective as a
pretreatment technology before lime and settle to remove specific
pollutants such as chromium.
Reliability:
Alkaline
chemical
Operational Factors.
precipitation is highly reliable, although proper monitoring and
control are required. Sulfide precipitation systems provide
similar reliability.
Maintainability: The major maintenance needs involve periodic
upkeep of monitoring equipment, automatic feeding equipment,
mixing equipment, and other hardware. Removal of accumulated
sludge is necessary for efficient operation of precipitation-
sedimentation systems.
Solid Waste Aspects: Solids which precipitate out are removed in
a subsequent treatment step. Ultimately, these solids require
proper disposal.
Demonstration Status. Chemical precipitation of metal hydroxides
HT a classic waste treatment technology used by most industrial
waste treatment systems. Chemical precipitation of some metals,
in particular lead and antimony, in the carbonate form has
been found to be feasible and is commercially used to permit
metals recovery and water reuse. Full scale commercial
sulfide precipitation units are in operation at numerous
installations. As noted earlier, sedimentation to remove
precipitates is discussed separately.
Use in Nonferrous Metals Forming Plants. Forty-six nonferrous
metals forming plants currently operate chemical precipitation
(lime or caustic systems). The quality of treatment provided,
however, is variable. A review of collected data and on-site
observations reveals that control of system parameters is often
poor. Where precipitates are removed by clarification,
retention times are likely to be short and cleaning and
maintenance questionable. Similarly, pH control is frequently
inadequate. As a result of these factors, effluent performance
1319
-------
at nonferrous metals forming plants nominally practicing the
same wastewater treatment is observed to vary widely.
3. Cyanide Precipitation
Cyanide precipitation, although a method for treating cyanide in
wastewaters, does not destroy cyanide. The cyanide is retained
in the sludge that is formed. Reports indicate that during
exposure to sunlight, the cyanide complexes can break down and
form free cyanide. For this reason, the sludge from this
treatment method must be disposed of carefully.
Cyanide may be precipitated and settled out of wastewaters by the
addition of zinc sulfate or ferrous sulfate. In the presence of
iron, cyanide will form extremely stable cyanide complexes. The
addition of zinc sulfate or ferrous sulfate forms zinc
ferrocyanide or ferro and ferricyanide complexes.
Adequate removal of the precipitated cyanide requires that the pH
must be kept at 9.0 and an appropriate retention time be
maintained. A study has shown that the formation of the complex
is very dependent on pH. At a pH of either 8 or 10, the residual
cyanide concentration measured is twice that of the same reaction
carried out at a pH of 9. Removal efficiencies also depend
heavily on the retention time allowed. The formation of the
complexes takes place rather slowly. Depending upon the excess
amount of zinc sulfate or ferrous sulfate added, at least a 30
minute retention time should be allowed for the formation of the
cyanide complex before continuing on to the clarification stage.
One experiment with an initial concentration of 10 mg/1 of
cyanide showed that 98 percent of the cyanide was complexed ten
minutes after the addition of ferrous sulfate at twice the
theoretical amount necessary. Interference from other metal
ions, such as cadmium, might result in the need for longer
retention times.
Table VII-8 presents cyanide precipitation data from three
coil coating plants. A fourth plant was visited for the
purpose of observing plant testing of the cyanide precipitation
system. Specific data from this facility are not included
because: (1) the pH was usually well below the .optimum level of
9.0; (2) the historical treatment data were hot obtained using
the standard cyanide analysis procedure; and (3) matched input-
output data were not made available by the plant. Scanning the
available data indicates that the raw waste CN level was in the
range of 25.0; the pH 7.5; and treated CN level was from 0.1 to
0.2.
The concentrations shown on Table VII-8 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
1320
-------
concentration in the raw waste, the concentration
cyanide can be reduced in the effluent stream to ur .-u..l'j r.
of
Application and Performance. Cyanide precipitation can be used
when cyanide destruction is not feasible because of the presence
of cyanide complexes which are difficult, to destroy. Effluent
concentrations of cyanide well below 0.15 mg/1 are possible.
Advantages and Limitations. Cyanide precipitation is an
inexpensive method of treating cyanide. Problems may occur when
metal ions interfere with the formation of the complexes.
4.
Granular Bed Filtration
Filtration occurs in nature as the surface and ground
waters are cleansed by sand. Silica sand, anthracite coal, and
garnet are common filter , media used in water' treatment
plants. These are usually supported by gravel. The media may be
used singly or in combination. The -multimedia filters may be
arranged to maintain relatively distinct layers by, virtue of
balancing the forces of gravity, flow, and buoyancy on the
individual particles. This is accomplished by selecting
appropriate filter flow rates (gpm/sq-ft), media grain size, and
density.
Granular bed filters may be classified in terms of filtration
rate, filter media, flow pattern, or method of pressurization.
Traditional rate classifications are slow sand, rapid sand, and
high rate mixed media. In the slow sand filter, flux or
hydraulic loading is relatively low, . and removal of collected
solids to clean the filter is therefore relatively infrequent-.
The filter is often cleaned by scraping off the inlet face (top)
of the sand bed. In the higher rate filters, cleaning is
frequent and is accomplished by a periodic backwash, opposite to
the direction of normal flow.
A filter may use a single medium.such as sand or diatomaceous
earth, but dual and mixed (multiple) media filters allow higher
flow rates and efficiencies. Figure VII-32 shows five different
filter configurations. The dual media filter usually consists
of a fine bed of sand under a coarser bed of anthracite coal.
The coarse coal removes most of the influent solids, while the
fine sand performs a polishing function. At the end of the
backwash, the fine sand settles to the bottom because it is
denser than the coal, and the filter is ready for normal
operation. The mixed media filter operates on the same
principle, with the finer, denser media at the bottom and the
coarser, less dense media at the top. The usual arrangement is
garnet at the bottom (outlet end) of the bed, sand in the middle,
and anthracite coal at the top. Some mixing of these layers
occurs and is, in fact, desirable.
The flow pattern is usually top-to-bottom, but,other patterns are
sometimes used. Upflow filters are sometimes used, and in a
horizontal filter the flow is horizontal. In a biflow filter,
1321
-------
the influent enters both the top and the bottom and exits
laterally. The advantage of an upflow filter is that with an
upflow backwash, the particles of a single filter medium are
distributed and maintained in the desired coarse-to-fine (bottom-
to-top) arrangement. The disadvantage is that the bed tends to
become fluidized/ which ruins filtration efficiency. The biflow
design is an attempt to overcome this problem.
The classic granular bed filter operates by gravity flow;
however, pressure filters are fairly widely used. They permit
higher solids loadings before cleaning and are advantageous when
the filter effluent must be pressurized for further downstream
treatment. In addition, pressure filter systems are often less
costly for low to moderate flow rates.
Figure VII-14 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.
Auxilliary filter cleaning is sometimes employed in the upper few
inches of filter beds. This is conventionally referred to as
surface wash and is accomplished by water jets just below the
surface of the expanded bed during the backwash cycle. These
jets enhance the scouring action in the bed by increasing the
agitation.
An important feature for successful filtration and backwashing is
the underdrain. This is the support structure for the bed. The
underdrain provides an area for collection of the filtered water
without clogging from either the filtered solids or the media
grains. In addition, the underdrain prevents loss of the media
with the water, and during the backwash cycle it provides even
flow distribution over the bed. Failure to dissipate the
velocity head during the filter or backwash cycle will result in
bed upset and the need for major repairs.
Several standard approaches are employed for filter underdrains.
The simplest one consists of a parallel porous pipe imbedded
under a layer of coarse gravel and attached via a manifold to a
header pipe for effluent removal. Other approaches to the
underdrain system are known as the Leopold and Wheeler filter
bottoms. Both of these incorporate false concrete bottoms
with specific porosity configurations to" provide drainage and
velocity head dissipation.
Filter system operation may be manual or automatic. The filter
backwash cycle may be on a timed basis, a pressure drop basis
with a terminal value which triggers backwash, or a solids carry-
over basis from turbidity monitoring of the outlet stream. All
of these schemes have been used successfully.
1322
-------
Application and
use granular
Performance.
_ Wastewater treatment plants often
for polishing after clarification,
similar operations. Granular bed
application to nearly all
bed filters
sedimentation, or other
filtration thus has potential
industrial plants. Chemical additives which enhance t*h«Tupstream
treatment equipment may or may not be compatible with or enhance
the filtration process. Normal operating flow rates for various
types of filters are:
Slow Sand
Rapid Sand
2.04 - 5.30 1/sq m-hr
40.74 - 51.48 1/sq m-hr
High Rate Mixed Media 81.48 - 122.22 1/sq m-hr
Suspended solids are commonly removed from wastewater streams bv
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 the
surface of the media grains as they pass in close proximity in
the narrow bed passages.
Properly operated filters following some pretreatment to reduce
suspended solids below 200 mg/1 should produce water with less
than 10 mg/1 TSS. For example, multimedia filters produced the
effluent qualities shown in Table VII-9.
Advantages and Limitations. The principal advantages of granular
bed filtration are its comparatively (to other filters) low
initial and operating costs, reduced land requirements over other
methods to achieve the same level of solids removal, and
elimination of chemical additions to the discharge stream
However, the filter may require pretreatment if the solids level
is high (over 100 mg/1). Operator training must be somewhat
extensive due to the controls and periodic backwashing involved,
and backwash must be stored and dewatered for economical
disposal.
Operational Factors. Reliability: The recent improvements in
filter technology have significantly improved filtration
reliability. Control systems, improved designs, and good
operating procedures have made filtration a highly reliable
method of water treatment.
Maintainability: Deep bed filters may be operated with either
manual or automatic backwash. in either case, they must be
periodically inspected for media attrition, partial plugging, and
leakage. Where backwashing is not used, collected solids must be
removed by shoveling, and filter media must be at least partiallv
replaced. *
Solid Waste Aspects: Filter • backwash is generally recycled
within the wastewater treatment system, so that the solids
1323
-------
ultimately appear in the clarifier sludge stream for subsequent
dewatering. Alternatively, the backwash stream may be dewatered
directly or, if there is no backwash, the collected solids may be
disposed of in a suitable landfill. in either of these
situations there is a solids disposal problem similar to that of
clarifiers.
Demonstration Status. Deep bed filters are in common use in
municipal treatment plants. Their use in polishing industrial
clarifier effluent is increasing, and the technology is proven
and conventional. As noted previously, however, little
data is available characterizing the effectiveness of filters
presently in use within the industry. One nonferrous metals
forming plant has granular media filtration in place.
5. Pressure Filtration
Pressure
material
pressure
provides
force.
pressure
filtration works by pumping the liquid through a filter
which is impenetrable to the solid phase. The positive
exerted by the feed pumps or other mechanical means
the pressure differential which is the principal driving
Figure VII-15 ) represents the operation of one type of
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, a filter made of
cloth or synthetic fiber is mounted. The feed stream is pumped
into the unit and passes through holes in the trays along the
length of the press until the cavities or chambers between the
trays are completely filled. The solids are then entrapped, and
a cake begins to form on the surface of the filter material. The
water passes through the fibers, and the solids are retained.
At the bottom of the trays are drainage ports. The filtrate is
collected and discharged to a common drain. As the filter medium
becomes coated with sludge, the flow of filtrate through the
filter drops sharply, indicating that the capacity of the filter
has been exhausted. The unit must then be cleaned of the sludge.
After the cleaning or replacement of the filter media, the unit
is again ready for operation.
Application and Performance. Pressure filtration is used in
nonferrous metals forming plants for sludge dewatering and also
for_ direct removal of precipitated and other suspended
solids from wastewater. 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.
1324
-------
Advantages and Limitations. The pressures which may be applied
to a sludge for removal of water by filter presses that are
currently available range from 5 to 13 atmospheres. As a result,
pressure filtration may reduce the amount of chemical
pretreatment required for sludge dewatering. Sludge retained in
the form of the filter cake has a higher percentage of solids
than that from centrifuge or vacuum filter. Thus, it can be
easily accommodated by materials handling systems.
As a primary solids removal technique, pressure filtration
requires _less space than clarification and is well suited to
streams with high solids loadings. The sludge produced may be
disposed without further dewatering, but the amount of sludge is
increased by the use of filter precoat materials (usually
diatomaceous earth). Also, cloth pressure filters often do not
achieve as high a degree of effluent clarification as clarifiers
or granular media filters.
Two disadvantages associated with pressure filtration in the past
have been the short life of the filter cloths and lack of
automation. New synthetic fibers have largely offset the first
of these problems. Also, units with automatic feeding and
pressing cycles are now available.
For larger operations, the relatively high space requirements, as
compared to those of a centrifuge, could be prohibitive in some
situations.
Operational Factors. Reliability: With proper pretreatment,
design, and control, pressure filtration is a highly dependable
system.
Maintainability: Maintenance consists of periodic cleaning or
replacement of the filter media, drainage grids, drainage piping,
filter pans, and other parts of the system. If the removal of
the sludge cake is not automated, additional time is required for
this operation.
Solid Waste Aspects: Because it is generally drier than other
types_of sludges, the filter sludge cake can be handled with
relative ease. The accumulated sludge may be disposed by any of
the accepted procedures depending on its chemical composition.
The levels of toxic metals present in sludge from treating
nonferrous metals forming wastewater necessitate proper disposal.
Demonstration Status. Pressure filtration is a commonly used
technology in a great many commercial applications.
6. Settling
Settling is a process which removes solid particles from a liquid
matrix by gravitational force. This is done by reducing the
velocity of the feed stream in a large volume tank or lagoon so
1325
-------
that gravitational settling can occur. Figure VII-16 shows two
typical settling devices.
Settling is often preceded by chemical precipitation which
converts dissolved pollutants to solid form and by coagulation
which enhances settling by coagulating suspended precipitates
into larger, faster settling particles.
If no chemical pretreatment is used, the wastewater is fed into a
tank or lagoon where it loses velocity and the suspended solids
are allowed to settle out. Long retention times are generally
required. Accumulated sludge can be collected either
periodically or continuously and either manually or mechanically
Simple settling, however, may require excessively large
catchments, and long retention times (days as compared with
hours) to achieve high removal efficiencies. Because of this
addition of settling aids such as alum or polymeric flocculants
is often economically attractive.
In practice, chemical precipitation often precedes settling, and
inorganic coagulants or polyelectrolytic flocculants are usually
added as well. Common coagulants include sodium sulfate, sodium
aluminate, ferrous or ferric sulfate, and ferric chloride
Organic polyelectrolytes vary in structure, but all usually form
larger floe particles than coagulants used alone.
Following this pretreatment, the wastewater can be fed into a
holding tank or lagoon for settling, but is more often piped into
a clarifier for the same purpose. A clarifier reduces space
requirements, reduces retention time, and increases solids
removal efficiency. Conventional clarifiers generally consist of
a circular or rectangular tank with a mechanical sludge
collecting device or with a sloping funnel-shaped bottom designed
for sludge collection. In advanced settling devices, inclined
plates, slanted tubes, or a lamellar network may be included
within the clarifier tank in order to increase the effective
settling area, increasing capacity. A fraction of the sludqe
stream is often recirculated to the inlet, promoting formation of
a denser sludge.
Settling is based on the ability of gravity (Newton's Law) to
cause small particles to fall or settle (Stokes1 Law) through the
fluid they are suspended in. Presuming that the factors
affecting chemical precipitation are controlled to achieve a
readily settleable precipitate, the principal factors controlling
settling are the particle characteristics and the upflow rate of
the suspending fluid. When the effective settling area is great
enough to allow settling, any increase in the effective settling
area will produce no increase in solids removal.
Therefore, if a plant has installed equipment that provides the
appropriate overflow rate, the precipitated metals in the
effluent can be effectively removed. The number of settling
devices operated in series or in parallel by a facility is not
important with regard to suspended solids removal; rather it
1326
-------
is important that the settling devices provide sufficient
effective settling area.
Another important facet of ' sedimentation theory is that
diminishing removal of 'suspended solids is achieved for a unit
increase in the -effective settling area. Generally, it has• been
found that suspended solids removal performance varies with the
effective up-flow rate. Qualitatively the performance increases
asymptotically to a maximum level beyond which a decrease in up-
flow rate provides incrementally insignificant increases in
removal. This maximum level is dictated by particle size
distribution, density characteristic of the particles and the
water matrix, chemicals used for precipitation and pH at
which precipitation occurs.
Application and Performance. Settling or clarification- is used
in the nonferrous metals forming category to remove
precipitated metals. Settling can be used to remove most
suspended solids in a particular waste stream; thus it is
used extensively by many different industrial waste treatment
facilities. Because most metal ion pollutants are readily
converted to solid metal hydroxide precipitates, settling is
of particular use in those industries associated with metal
production, metal finishing, metal working, and any other
industry with high concentrations of metal ions in their
wastewaters. In addition to toxic metals, suitably
precipitated materials effectively removed by settling include
aluminum, iron, manganese, cobalt, molybdenum, fluoride,
phosphate, and many others.
A properly operating settling system can efficiently remove
suspended solids, precipitated metal hydroxides, and other
impurities from wastewater. The performance of the process
depends on a variety of factors, including the density and
particle size of the solids, the effective charge on the
suspended particles, and the types of chemicals used in
pretreatment. The site of flocculant or coagulant addition also
may significantly influence the effectiveness of clarification.
If the flocculant is subjected to too much mixing before entering
the clarifier, the complexes may be sheared and the settling
effectiveness diminished. At the same time, the flocculant must
have sufficient mixing and reaction time in order for effective
set-up and settling to occur. Plant personnel have observed that
the line or trough leading into the clarifier is often the most
efficient site for flocculant addition. The performance of
simple settling is a function of the retention time, particle
size and density, and the surface area of the basin.
The data displayed in Table VII-10 indicate suspended solids
removal efficiencies in settling systems. The mean
effluent TSS concentration obtained by the plants shown in Table
VII-10 is 10.1 mg/1. Influent concentrations averaged 838 .mg/1.
The maximum effluent TSS value reported is 23 mg/1. These plants
all use alkaline pH adjustment to precipitate metal hydroxides,
and most add a coagulant or flocculant prior to settling.
1327
-------
Advantages and Limitations. The major advantage of simple
settling is its simplicity as demonstrated by the gravitational
settling of solid particulate waste in a holding tank or lagoon.
The major problem with simple settling is the long retention time
necessary to achieve complete settling, especially if the
specific gravity of the suspended matter is close to that of
water. Some materials cannot be practically removed by simple
settling alone.
Settling performed in a clarifier is effective in removing slow-
settling suspended matter in a shorter time and in less space
than a simple settling system. Also, effluent quality is often
better from a clarifier. The cost of installing and maintaining
a clarifier, however, is substantially greater than the costs
associated with simple settling.
Inclined plate, slant tube, and lamella settlers have even higher
removal efficiencies than conventional clarifiers,- and greater
capacities per unit area are possible. Installed costs for these
advanced clarification systems are claimed to be one half the
cost of conventional systems of similar capacity.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Settling can be a highly
reliable technology for removing suspended solids. Sufficient
retention time and regular sludge removal are important factors
affecting the reliability of all settling systems. Proper
control of pH adjustment, chemical precipitation, and coagulant
or flocculant addition are additional factors affecting settling
efficiencies in systems (frequently clarifiers) where these
methods are used.
Those advanced settlers using slanted tubes, inclined plates, or
a lamellar network may require pre-screening of the waste in
order to eliminate any fibrous materials which could potentially
clog the system. Some installations are especially vulnerable to
shock loadings, as from storm water runoff, but proper system
design will prevent this.
Maintainability: When clarifiers or other advanced settling
devices are used, the associated system utilized for chemical
pretreatment and sludge dragout must be maintained on a regular
basis. Routine maintenance of mechanical parts is also
necessary. Lagoons require little, maintenance other than
periodic sludge removal.
Demonstration Status. Settling represents the typical method of
solids removal and is employed extensively in industrial waste
treatment. The advanced clarifiers are just beginning to appear
in significant numbers in commercial applications. Seventy-five
nonferrous metals forming plants currently operate sedimentation
or clarification systems. .
1328
-------
7. 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 (see Figure VII-33), 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 disposal 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 in
increasing oil removal efficiency.
Application and Performance. Oil skimming is used in
nonferrous metals forming plants to remove free oil used as a
forming lubricant. Another source of oil is lubricants for
drive mechanisms and other machinery contacted by process water.
Skimming is applicable to any waste stream "containing
pollutants which float to the surface. 'It is commonly used to
remove free oil, grease, and soaps. Skimming is often used in
conjunction with air flotation or clarification in order to
increase its effectiveness.
The removal efficiency of a skimmer is partly a 'function of the
retention time of the water in the tank. Larger, more buoyant
particles require less retention, time than smaller particles.
Thus, the efficiency also depends on the composition of the waste
stream-. The retention time required to allow phase separation
and subsequent skimming varies from 1 to 15 minutes, depending on
the wastewater characteristics.
API or other gravity-type separators tend to be-more suitable for
use where the amount of surface oil flowing through the system is
consistently significant. -Drum and• belt type skimmers are
applicable to waste streams which evidence smaller amounts•• • of
floating oil and where surges of floating oil are not a problem.
Using an API separator system in conjunction with a drum type
1329
-------
skimmer is a very effective method of removing floating
contaminants from nonemulsified oily waste streams. Sampling
data shown in Table VII-11 illustrate the capabilities of the
technology with both extremely high and moderate oil influent
levels.
These data are intended to be illustrative of the very high level
of oil and grease removals attainable in a simple two-step oil
removal system. Based on the performance of installations in a
variety of manufacturing plants and permit requirements that are
consistently achieved, it has been determined that effluent oil
levels may be reliably reduced below 10 mg/1 with moderate
influent concentrations. Very high concentrations of oil such
as the 22 percent shown above may require two-step treatment to
achieve this level.
Skimming which removes oil may also be used to remove base levels
of organics. Plant sampling data show that many organic
compounds tend to be removed in standard wastewater treatment
equipment. Oil separation not only removes oil but also organics
that are more soluble in oil than in water. Clarification
removes organic solids directly and probably removes dissolved
organics by adsorption on inorganic solids.
The source of these organic pollutants is not always known with
certainty, although in metal forming operations they seem to
derive mainly from various process lubricants. They are also
sometimes present in the plant water supply, as additives to
proprietary formulations of cleaners, or as the result of
leaching from plastic lines and other materials.
High molecular weight organics in particular are, much more
soluble in organic solvents than in water. Thus they are much
more concentrated in the oil phase that is skimmed than in the
wastewater. The ratio of solubilities of a compound in oil and
water phases is called the partition coefficient. The logarithm
of the partition coefficients for selected polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbon (PAH) and other toxic organic compounds in octanol
and water are shown in Table VII-12.
A review of priority organic compounds commonly found in metal
forming operation waste streams indicated that incidental removal
of these compounds often occurs as a result of oil removal or
clarification processes. When all organics analyses from visited
plants are considered, removal of organic compounds by other
waste treatment technologies appears to be marginal in many
cases. However, when only raw waste concentrations of 0.05 mg/1
or greater are considered, incidental organics removal becomes
much more apparent. Lower values, those less than 0.05 mg/1,
are much more subject to analytical variation, while higher
values indicate a significant presence of a given compound. When
these factors are taken into account, analysis data indicate that
most_clarification and oil removal treatment systems remove
significant amounts of the toxic organic compounds present in the
1330
-------
raw waste. The API oil-water separation system performed no anly
in this regard, as shown in Table VII-13.
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
also are removed.
Percent Removal
Plant-Day
Oil & Grease
Organics
1054-3
13029-2
13029-3
38053-1
38053-2
Mean
95.9
98.3
95.1
96.8
98.5
96.9
98.2
78.0
77.0
81.3
86.3
84.2
The unit operation most applicable to removal of trace priority
organics is adsorption, and chemical oxidation is another
possibility. Biological degradation is not generally applicable
because the organics are not present in sufficient concentration
to sustain a biomass and because most of the
resistant to biodegradation.
organics are
Advantages and Limitations. Skimming as a pretreatment is
effective in removing naturally floating waste material. It also
improves the performance of subsequent downstream treatments.
Many pollutants, particularly dispersed or emulsified oil, will
not float "naturally" but require additional treatments. There-
fore, skimming alone may not remove all the pollutants capable of
being removed by air flotation or other more sophisticated
technologies.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Because
skimming is a very reliable technique.
of its simplicity,
Maintainability: The skimming mechanism requires
lubrication, adjustment, and replacement of worn parts.
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
1331
-------
vast.es, incineration is not always a viable disposal
method.
Demonstration Status. Skimming is a common operation utilized
extensively by industrial waste treatment systems. Oil skimming
is used in 30 nonferrous metals forming plants.
8. Chemical Emulsion Breaking
Chemical treatment is often used to break stable oil-in-water (O-.
W) emulsions. An O-W emulsion consists of oil dispersed in
water, stabilized by electrical charges and emulsifying agent. A
stable emulsion will not separate or break down without some form
of treatment.
Once an emulsion is broken, the difference in specific gravities
allows the oil to float to the surface of the water. Solids
usually form a layer between the oil and water, since some oil is
retained in the solids. The longer the retention time, the more
complete and distinct the separation between the oil, solids, and
water will be. Often other methods of gravity differential
separation, such as air flotation or rotational separation (e.g.,
centrifugation), are used to enhance and speed separation. A
schematic flow diagram of one type of application is shown in
Figure VII-31.
The major equipment required for chemical emulsion breaking
includes: reaction chambers with agitators, chemical storage
tanks, chemical feed systems, pumps, and piping.
Emulsifiers may be used in the plant to aid in stabilizing or
forming emulsions. Emulsifiers are surface-active agents which
alter the characteristics of the oil and water interface. These
surfactants have rather long polar molecules. One end of the
molecule is particularly soluble in water (e.g., carboxyl,
sulfate, hydroxyl, or sulfonate groups) and the other end is
readily soluble in oils (an organic group which varies greatly
with the different surfactant type). Thus, the surfactant
emulsifies or suspends the organic material (oil) in water.
Emulsifiers also lower the surface tension of the O-W emulsion as
a result of solvation and ionic complexing. These emulsions must
be destabilized in the treatment system.
Application and Performance. Emulsion breaking is applicable to
waste streams containing emulsified oils or lubricants such as
rolling and drawing emulsions. Typical chemical emulsion
breaking efficiencies are given in Table VII-30.
Treatment of spent O-W emulsions involves the use of chemicals to
break the emulsion followed by gravity differential separation.
Factors to be considered for breaking emulsions are type of
chemicals, dosage and sequence of addition, pH, mechanical shear
and agitation, heat, and retention time.
1332
-------
• .'. •*!(:.. s, alum, ferric chloride, and organic emulsion breakers
r,- eav. emulsions by neutralizing repulsive charges between
partjcles, precipitating or salting out emulsifying agents, or
altering the interfacial film between the oil and water so it is
readily broken. Reactive cations (e.g., H(+l), Al(+3), Fe(+3),
and cationic polymers) are particularly effective in breaking
dilute O-W emulsions. Once the charges have been neutralized or
the interfacial film broken, the small oil droplets and suspended
solids will -be adsorbed on the surface of the floe that is
formed, or break out and float to the top. Various types of
emulsion-breaking chemicals are used for the various types of
oils.
If more than one chemical is required, the sequence of addition
can make quite a difference in both breaking efficiency and
chemical dosages.
Wastewater pH plays an important role in emulsion breaking,
especially if cationic inorganic chemicals, such as alum, are
used as coagulants. A depressed pH in the range of 2 to 4 keeps
the aluminum ion in its most positive state where it can function
most effectively for charge neutralization. After some of the
oil is broken free and skimmed, raising the pH into the 6 to 8
range with lime or caustic will cause the aluminum to hydrolyze
and precipitate as alumium hydroxide. This floe entraps or
adsorbs destabilized oil droplets which can then be separated
from the water phase. Cationic polymers can break emulsions over
a wider pH range and thus avoid acid corrosion and the additional
sludge generated from neutralization; however, an inorganic
flocculant is usually required to supplement the polymer emulsion
breaker's adsorptive properties.
Mixing is important in breaking O-W emulsions. Proper chemical
feed and dispersion is required for effective results. Mixing
also causes collisions which help break the emulsion, and
subsequently helps to agglomerate droplets.
In all emulsions, the mix of two immiscible liquids has a
specific gravity very close to that of water. Heating lowers the
viscosity and increases the apparent specific gravity
differential between oil and water. Heating also increases the
frequency of droplet collisions, which helps to rupture the
interfacial film.
Chemical emulsion breaking can be used with oil skimming to
achieve the treatment effectiveness concentrations that oil
skimming alone will achieve for non-emulsified streams. This
type of treatment is proven to be reliable and is considered
state-of-the-art for nonferrous metals forming emulsified oily
wastewaters.
Advantages and Limitations. Advantages gained from the use of
chemicals for breaking O-W emulsions are the high removal
efficiency potential and the possibility of reclaiming the oily
waste. Disadvantages are corrosion problems associated with
1333
-------
acid-aJam systems- skilled operator requirements foi oa .'-n
Treatment, and chemical sludges produced.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Chemical emulsion breaking is
a very reliable process. The main control parameters, pH and
temperature, are fairly easy to control.
Maintainability: Maintenance is required on pumps, motors, and
valves, as well as periodic cleaning of 'the treatment tank to
remove any accumulated solids. Energy use is limited to mixers
and pumps.
Solid Waste Aspects: The surface oil and oily sludge produced
are usually hauled away by a licensed contractor. if the
recovered oil has a sufficiently low percentage of water, it may
be burned for its fuel value or processed and reused.
Demonstration Status. Twelve plants in the nonferrous metals
forming category currently break emulsions with chemicals.
MAJOR TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS
The performance of individual treatment technologies was
presented above. Performance of operating systems is discussed
here. Two different systems are considered: L&S (hydroxide
precipitation and sedimentation or lime and settle) and LS&F
(hydroxide precipitation, sedimentation, and filtration or lime,
settle, and filter). Subsequently, an analysis of effectiveness
of such systems is made to develop one-day maximum, and ten-day
and thirty-day average concentration levels to be used in
regulating pollutants. Evaluation of the L&S and the LS&F
systems is' carried out on the assumption that chemical reduction
of chromium, cyanide precipitation, and oil removal are installed
and operating properly where appropriate.
L&S Performance — Combined Metals Data Base ,
A data base known as the "combined metals data base" (CMDB) was
used to determine treatment effectiveness of lime and settle
treatment for certain pollutants. The CMDB was developed over
several years and has been used in a number of regulations.
During the development of coil coating and other categorical
effluent limitations and standards, chemical analysis data were
collected of raw wastewater (treatment influent) and treated
wastewater (treatment effluent) from 55 plants (126 data days)
sampled by EPA (or its contractor) using EPA sampling and
chemical analysis protocols. These data are the initial data
base for determining the effectiveness of L&S technology in
treating nine pollutants. Each of the plants in the initial data
base belongs to at least one of the following industry
categories: aluminum forming, battery manufacturing, coil coating
(including canmaking), copper forming, electroplating and
porcelain enameling. All of the plants employ pH adjustment and
hydroxide precipitation using lime or caustic, followed by
Stokes' law settling (tank, lagoon or clarifier) for solids
1334
-------
removal. An analysis of this data was presented in the
development documents for the proposed regulations for coil
coating and porcelain enameling (January 1981). Prior to
analyzing the data, some values were deleted from the data base.
These deletions were made to ensure that the data reflect
properly operated treatment systems. The following criteria were
used in making these deletions:
- Plants where malfunctioning processes or treatment systems at
the time of sampling were identified.
Data days where pH was less than 7.0 for extended periods
of time or TSS was greater than 50 mg/1 (these are prima
facie indications of poor operation).
In response to the coil coating and . porcelain enameling
proposals, some commenters claimed that it was inappropriate to
use data from some categories for regulation of other categories.
In response to these comments, the Agency reanalyzed the .data.
An analysis of variance was applied to the data for the.126 days
of sampling to test the hypothesis of homogeneous plant mean raw
and treated effluent levels across categories by pollutant. This
analysis is described in the report "A Statistical Analysis of
the Combined Metals Industries Effluent Data" which is in the
administrative record supporting this rulemaking. Homogeneity is
the absence of statistically discernable differences among the
categories, while heterogeneity is the opposite, i.e., the
presence of statistically discernable differences. The main
conclusion drawn from the analysis of variance is that, with the
exception of electroplating, the categories included in the data
base are generally homogeneous with regard to mean pollutant
concentrations in both raw and treated effluent. That is/ when
data from electroplating facilities are included in the analysis,
the hypothesis of . homogeneity across categories is rejected.
When the electroplating data are removed from the analysis the
conclusion changes substantially and the hypothesis of
homogeneity across categories is not rejected. On the basis of
this analysis, the electroplating data were removed from the data
base used to determine limitations for the coil coating, and
porcelain enameling, copper forming, aluminum forming,
battery manufacturing, nonferrous metals manufacturing,
canmaking, and nonferrous metals forming regulations.
The statistical analysis provides support for the technical
engineering judgment that electroplating wastewaters are
sufficiently different from the wastewaters of other industrial
categories in the,data base to warrant removal of electroplating
data from the data base used to determine treatment
effectiveness.
For the purpose of determining treatment effectiveness,
additional data were deleted from the data base. These deletions
were made, almost exclusively, in cases where" effluent data
points were associated with low influent values. This was done
in two steps. First, effluent values measured on the same day as
1335
-------
influent values chat were less than or equal to 0.1 mg/1 were
deleted. Second, the remaining data were screened for cases in
which all influent values at a plant were low although slightly
above the 0.1 mg/1 value. These data were deleted not as
individual data points but as plant clusters of data that were
consistently low and thus not relevent to assessing treatment. A
few data points were also deleted where malfunctions not
previously identified were recognized. The data basic to the
CMDB are displayed graphically in Figures VII-4 to 12.
After all deletions, 148 data points from 19 plants remained.
These data were used to determine the concentration basis of
limitations derived from the CMDB used for this regulation.
The CMDB was reviewed following its use in a number of proposed
regulations. Comments pointed out a few errors in the data,
and the Agency's review identified a few transcription errors
and some data points that were appropriate for inclusion
in the data that had not been used previously because of
errors in data record identification numbers. Documents in
the record of this rulemaking identify all the changes, the
reasons for the changes, and the effect of these changes on the
data base. Other comments on the CMDB asserted that the data
base was too small and that the statistical methods used were
overly complex. Responses to specific comments regarding the
application of the CMDB to the nonferrous metals forming category
are included in the record of this rulemaking. The ' Agency
believes that the data base is adequate to determine effluent
concentrations achievable with lime and settle
treatment. The statistical methods employed in the analysis are
well known and appropriate statistical references are provided in
the documents in the record that describe the analysis.
The revised data base was reexamined for homogeneity. The
earlier conclusions were unchanged. The categories show good
overall homogeneity with respect to concentrations of the nine
pollutants in both raw and treated wastewaters with the exception.
of electroplating.
Certain effluent data associated with low influent values
were deleted, and then the remaining data were fit to a
lognormal distribution to determine treatment effectiveness
values. The deletion of data was done in two steps. First,
effluent values measured on the same day as influent values that
were less than or equal to 0.1 mg/1 were deleted. Second, the
remaining data were screened for cases in which all influent
values at a plant were low although slightly above the 0.1 mg/1
value. These data were deleted not as individual data
points but as plant clusters of data that were consistently low
and thus not relevant to assessing treatment. The revised
combined metals data base used for this regulation
consists of 162 data points from 18 plants.
1336
-------
One-day Effluent Values
The concentrations determined from the CMDB used to establish
limitations and standards at proposal were also used to establish
final limitations and standards. The basic assumption underlying
the determination of treatment effectiveness is that the
data for a particular pollutant are lognormally distributed by
plant. The lognormal has been found to provide a satisfactory
fit to plant effluent data in a number of effluent guidelines
categories and there was no evidence that the lognormal was not
suitable in the case of the CMDB. Thus, we assumed measurements
of each pollutant from a particular plant, denoted by X,^ were
assumed to follow a lognormal distribution with log mean "y" and
log variancea2. The mean, variance and 99th percentile
of X are then:
mean of X = E(X) = exp (y + a /2)
variance of X = V(X) = exp (2y + a2) [exp(a2) - 1]
99th percentile = X.99 = exp (y + 2.33a)
where exp is e, the base of the natural logarithm. The term
lognormal is used because the logarithm of X has a normal
distribution with mean y and variance ,cr^. Using .the
of lognormality the actual treatment
determined using a lognormal distribution
approximates the distribution of an average
of the plants in the data base, i.e., an "average plant"
distribution. The notion of an "average plant" distribution
is not a strict statistical concept but is used here to
determine limits that would represent the performance capability
of an average of the plants in the data base.
This "average plant" distribution for a particular pollutant was
developed as follows: the log mean was determined by taking the
average of all the observations for the pollutant across plants.
The log variance was determined by the pooled within-plant
variance. This is the weighted average of the plant variances.
Thus, the log mean represents the average of all the data for the
pollutant and the log variance . represents the average
plant log variances or average plant variability
pollutant.
The one day effluent values were determined as follows:
basic assumption
effectiveness was
that, in a sense,
of
for
the
the
Let Xij = the jth observation on a particular pollutant at
i where
1 = 1, . . . , I
j = 1, . . . , Ji
I = total number of plants
plant
1337
-------
Ji = number of observations at plant i
Then yij = In Xij
where In means the natural logarithm.
Then y = log mean over all plants
I Ji
2 E yij/n,
where n = total number of observations
I
2 Ji
i=l
and V(y) = pooled log variance
I
2 (Ji - 1) Si2
i = 1
where Si2 =
S (Ji - 1)
i = 1
log variance at plant i
Jj •
Jj = 1
Yi)/(Ji - 1)
yi = log mean at plant i.
Thus, y and V(y) are the log mean and log variance, respectively,
of the lognormal distribution used to determine the treatment
effectiveness. The estimated mean and 99th percentile • of this
distribution form the basis for the long term average and daily
maximum effluent limitations, respectively. The estimates are
mean = E\X) = exp(y)
(0.5V(y))
99th percentile = X\99 = exp [y + 2.33 /vTy) ]
where li' ( . ) is a Bessel function and exp is e, the base of the
natural logarithms (See Aitchison, J. and J.A.C. Brown, The
Lognormal Distribution, Cambridge University Press, r963). ~Tn
cases where zeros were present in the data, a generalized form of
1338
-------
the lognormal, known as the delta distribution was used (See
Aitchison and Brown, op. cit., Chapter 9).
For certain pollutants, this approach was modified slightly to
ensure that well-operated lime and settle plants in all CMDB
categories would achieve the pollutant concentration values
calculated from the CMDB. For instance, after excluding the
electroplating data and other data that did not reflect pollutant
removal or proper treatment, the effluent copper data from the
copper forming plants were statistically significantly greater
than the copper data from the other plants. This indicated that
copper forming plants might have difficulty achieving an effluent
concentration value calculated from copper data from all CMDB
categories. Thus, copper effluent values shown in Table VII-14
(page ) are based only on the copper effluent data from the
copper forming plants. That is, the log mean for copper is the
mean of the logs of all copper values from the copper forming
plants only and the log variance is the pooled log variance of
the copper forming plant data only. A similar situation occurred
in the case of lead. That is, after excluding the electroplating
data, the effluent lead data from battery manufacturing were
significantly greater than the other categories. This indicated
that battery manufacturing plants might have difficulty achieving
a lead concentration calculated from all the CMDB categories.
The lead values proposed were therefore based on the battery
manufacturing lead data only. Comments on the proposed battery
manufacturing regulation objected to this procedure and asserted
that the lead, concentration values were too low. Following
proposal, the Agency obtained additional lead effluent data from
a battery manufacturing facility with well-operated lime and
settle treatment. These data were combined with the proposal
lead data and analyzed to determine the final treatment
effectiveness concentrations. The mean lead concentration is
unchanged at 0.12 mg/1 but the final one-day maximum and monthly
10-day average maximum increased to 0.42 and 0.20 mg/1,
respectively. A complete discussion of the lead data and
analysis is contained in a memorandum in the record of this
rulemaking.
In the case of cadmium, after excluding the electroplating data
and data that did not reflect removal or proper treatment, there
were insufficient data to estimate the log variance for cadmium.
The variance used to determine the values shown in Table VII-14
for cadmium was estimated by pooling the within-plant variances
for all the other metals. Thus, the cadmium variability is the
average of the plant variability averaged over all the other
metals. The log mean for cadmium is the mean of the logs of the
cadmium observations only. A complete discussion of the data and
calculations for all the metals is contained in the
administrative record for this rulemaking.
Average Effluent Values
Average_ effluent values that form the basis for the monthly-
limitations were developed in a manner consistent with the method
1339
-------
used to develop one-day treatment effectiveness in that the
lognormal distribution used for the one-day effluent values was
also used as the basis for the average values. That is, we
assume a number of consecutive measurements are drawn from the
distribution of daily measurements. .The average of ten
measurements taken during a month was used as the basis for the
monthly average limitations. The approach used for the 10
measurements values was employed previously in regulations for
other categories and was proposed for the nonferrous metals
forming category. That is, the distribution of the average of 10
samples from a lognormal was approximated by another
lognormal distribution. Although the approximation is not
precise theoretically, there is empirical evidence based on
effluent data from a number of categories that the lognormal
is an adequate approximation for the distribution of small
samples. In the course of previous work the approximation
was verified in a computer simulation study (see "Development
Document for Existing Sources Pretreatment Standards for the
Electroplating Point Source Category", EPA 440/1-79/003,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., August
1979). We also note that the average values were developed
assuming independence of the observations although no
particular sampling scheme was assumed.
Ten-Sample Average
The formulas for the 10-sample limitations were derived on the
basis of simple relationships between, the mean and variance of
the distributions of the daily pollutant measurements and the
average of 10 measurements. We assume the daily concentration
measurements for a particular pollutant, denoted by X, follow a
lognormal distribution with log mean and log variance denoted by
U and a , respect ivey. Let X^Q denote the mean of
10 consecutive measurements. The following relationships then
hold assuming the daily measurements are independent:
mean of X10 = E(X1()) = E(X) !
variance of X10 = V(X10) = V(X) 10.
Where E(X) and V(X) are the mean and variance of X, respectively,
defined above. We then assume that XIQ follows a
lognormal distribution with log mean VIQ and log standard
deviations2:^. The niean and variance of XIQ are then
E(X10) = exp
0.5a21Q)
V(X10) = exp (2y10 + a2 0 [exp (a2-,0) - 1]
Now, y1Q and cr210 can be derived in terms of p and a2! as
y!0 = y + ff2/2 - 0.5 In [1 + exp (a2 - 1)/N]
1340
-------
= In
I.
... 2
Therefore, !-io and " 10 can be estimated using the
above relationships and the estimates of u and a2 obtained
for the underlying lognormal distribution. The 10-sample
limitation value was determined by the estimate of the
approximate 99th percentile of the distribution of the 10-sample
average given by
X1Q (-99) = exp (:,,
Where (IJ_Q and a
respectively.
10 + 2.33.; 1Q).
are the estimates of IJ-,Q and
Thirty-Sample Average
Monthly average values based on the average of 30 daily
measurements were also calculated. These are included because
monthly limitations based on 30 samples have been used in the
past and for comparison with the 10-sample values. The average
values based on 30 measurements are determined on the basis of a
statistical result known as the Central Limit Theorem. This
Theorem states that, under general , and nonrestrictive
assumptions, the distribution of a sum of a number of random
variables, say n, is approximated by the normal distribution.
The approximation improves as the number of variables, n,
increases. -The Theorem is quite general in that no particular
distributional form is assumed for the distribution of the
individual variables. In most applications (as in approximating
the distribution of 30-day averages) the Theorem is used to
approximate the distribution of the average of n observations of
a random variable. The result makes it possible to compute
approximate probability statements about the average in a wide
range of cases. For instance, it is possible to compute a value
below which a specified percentage (e.g., 99 percent) of the
averages of n observations are likely to fall. Most textbooks
state that 25 or 30 observations are sufficient for the
approximation to be valid. In applying the Theorem to the
distribution of the 30-day - average effluent values, we
approximate the distribution of the average of 30 observations
drawn from the distribution of daily measurements and use the
estimated 99th percentile of this distribution.
Thirty-Sample Average Calculation
The formulas for the 30-sample average were based on an
application of the Central Limit Theorem. According to the
Theorem, the average of 30 observations '" drawn from the
distribution of daily measurements, denoted by XSQ,
is approximately normally distributed. The mean and variance
of X3Q are:
1341
-------
mean of X3g = E(X3o) = E(X)
variance of X30 = V(X30) = V(X)/30.
The 30-sample average value was determined by the estimate of
the approximate 99th percentile of the distribution of the
30-sample average given by
Xso(.99) = E(X) = 2.33 /T(X) -: 30
where
= exp(y) fn (0.5V9y)~)
and V(X) = exp(2y) [yn(2V(y)) - n (n-2/n-])
The formulas for E(X) and V(X) are estimates of E(X) and V(X),
respectively, given in Aitchison, J. and J.A.C. Brown, The
Lognormal Distribution, Cambridge University Press, 1963, page
45. ;
Application
In response to the proposed coil coating and porcelain enameling
regulations, the Agency received comments pointing out that
permits usually required less than 30 samples to be taken during
a month while the monthly average used as the basis for permits
and pretreatment requirements usually is based on the average of
30 samples.
In applying the treatment effectiveness values to regulations we
have considered the comments, examined the sampling frequency
required by many permits and considered the change in values of
averages depending on the number of consecutive sampling days in
the averages. The most common frequency of sampling required in
permits is about ten samples per month or slightly greater than
twice weekly. The 99th percentiles of the distribution of
averages of ten consecutive sampling days are not substantially
different from the 99th percentile of the distribution's 30-day
average. (Compared to the one-day maximum, the ten-day average
is about 80 percent of the difference between one- and 30-day
values). Hence the ten-day average provides a reasonable basis
for a monthly average limitation and is typical of the sampling
frequency required by existing permits.
The monthly average limitation is to be achieved in all permits
and pretreatment standards regardless of the number of samples
required to be analyzed and averaged by the permit or the
pretreatment authority.
Additional Pollutants
Twenty-three additional pollutant parameters were evaluated to
determine the performance of lime and settle treatment systems
1342
-------
multiplying
appropriate
the ratio
variability
in removing them from industrial wastewater. Performance data
for these parameters is not a part of the CMDB so other data
available to the Agency from categories not included in the CMDB
has been used to determine the long-term average performance
of lime and settle technology for each pollutant. These data
indicate that the concentrations shown in Table VII-15
are reliably attainable with hydroxide precipitation and
settling. Treatment effectiveness values were calculated by
the mean performance from Table VII-15 by the
variability factor. (The variability factor is
of the value of concern to the mean). The pooled
vat-Lc^a.-^, factors are: one-day maximum - 4.100; ten-day
average - 1.821; and 30-day average - 1.618 these one-, ten-, and
thirty-day values are tabulated in Table VII-21.
In establishing which data were suitable for use in Table VII-14
two factors were heavily weighed: (1) the nature of the
wastewater; and (2) the range of pollutants or pollutant matrix
in the r-aw wastewater. These data have been selected from
processes that generate dissolved metals in the wastewater arid
which are generally free from complexing agents. The pollutant
matrix was evaluated by comparing the concentrations of
pollutants found in the raw wastewaters- with the range of •
pollutants in the raw wastewaters of the combined metals data
set These data are displayed in Tables VII-16 and VII-17
and' indicate that there is sufficient similarity in the
raw wastes to logically assume transferability of the treated
pollutant concentrations to the combined metals data base.
Nonferrous metals forming wastewaters also were compared to the
wastewaters from plants in categories from which treatment
effectiveness values were calculated. The available data on
these added pollutants do not allow homogeneity analysis as was
performed on the combined metals data base. The data source for
each added pollutant is discussed separately.
Antimony (Sb) - The treatment effectiveness concentration for
antimony Isbased on data from a battery and secondary
lead plant. Both EPA sampling data and recent permit_ data
(1978-1982) confirm the achievability of 0.7 mg/1 in the
battery manufacturing wastewater matrix included in the combined
data set. The untreated wastewater matrix shown in Table VII-17
is comparable with the untreated wastewater from the combined
metals data set.
Arsenic (AsJ_ - The treatment effectiveness concentration of
0~5—mg/1 ~foF arsenic is based on permit data from two
nonferrous metals manufacturing plants. The untreated
wastewater matrix shown in Table VII-17 is comparable with the
combined data set matrix.
Beryllium (Be) - The treatment effectiveness of beryllium is
transferredFrom the nonferrous metals manufacturing industry.
The 0.3 mg/1 performance is achieved at a beryllium plant with
the comparable untreated wastewater matrix shown in Table VII-
17.
1343
-------
Mercury (Hg) - The 0.06 mg/1 treatment effectiveness
concentration of mercury is based on data from four battery
plants. The untreated wastewater matrix at these plants was
considered in the combined metals data set.
Selenium
- The 0.30 mg/1
_: -„, _ treatment
concentration of selenium is based on recent
effectiveness
permit data
from one of the nonferrous metals manufacturing plants also
used for arsenic performance. The untreated wastewater
matrix for this plant is shown in Table VII-17,
Silver (Ag) - The treatment effectiveness concentration of 0.1
mg/1 for silver is based on an estimate from the inorganic
chemicals industry. Additional data supporting a treatability as
stringent or more stringent than 0.1 mg/1 is also
available
The untreated
summarized
from seven nonferrous metals manufacturing plants.
wastewater matrix for these plants is comparable and
in Table VII-17.
Thallium
(Tl) - The 0.50 mg/1 treatment effectiveness
concentration for thallium is transferred from the inorganic
chemicals industry. Although no untreated wastewater data are
available to verify comparability with the combined metals
data set plants, no other sources of data for thallium
treatability could be identified.
Aluminum (Al) - The 2.24 mg/1 treatment effectiveness
concentration of aluminum is based on the mean performance of
three aluminum forming plants and one coil coating plant. These
plants are from categories included in the combined metals data
set, assuring untreated wastewater matrix comparability.
Barium (Ba) - The treatment effectiveness concentration for
barium (0.42 mg/1) is based on data from one nonferrous metals
forming plant. The untreated wastewater matrix shown in Table
VII-17 is comparable with the combined metals data base.
Boron (B) - The treatment effectiveness concentration of 0.36
mg/1 for boron is based on data from a nonferrous metals plant.
The untreated wastewater matrix shown in Table VII-17 is
comparable with the combined metals data base.
Cesium (Cs) - The treatment effectiveness concentration for
cesium (0.124 mg/1) is based on the performance achievable for
sodium using ion exchange technology. This transfer of
performance is technically justiciable because of the similarity
of the chemical and physical behavior of these monovalent atoms.
Cobalt (Co) - The 0.05 mg/1 treatment effectiveness
concentration is based on nearly complete removal of cobalt at a
porcelain enameling plant with a mean untreated wastewater
cobalt^concentration of 4.31 mg/1. in this case, the analytical
detection using aspiration techniques for this pollutant is
used as the basis of the treatability. Porcelain enameling was
1344
-------
considered in the combined metals data base,
untreated wastewater matrix comparability.
assuring
Columbium (Cb) - Data collected at two refractory metals forming
plants indicate that lime and settle reduces columbium to below
the level of detection (using x-ray fluorescence analytical
methods) when an operating pH of eight is maintained. Another
sampled lime and settle treatment system is operated at a higher
pH, from 10.5 to 11.5, effluent concentrations of columbium from
this system are significantly higher. Therefore, the data
indicate that if the treatment system is operated at a pH near 8,
columbium should be removed to below the level of detection. The
level of detection (0.12 mg/1) is used as the one-day maximum
concentration for lime and settle treatment effectiveness. No
long-term, 10-day, and 30-day average treatment effectiveness
values are established since it is impossible to determine
precisely what concentrations are achievable. The untreated
wastewater matrix show in Table VII-17 is comparable with the
combined metals data base.
Fluoride (F) - The 14.5 mg/1 treatment effectiveness
concentration of fluoride is based on the mean performance
(216 samples) of an electronics manufacturing plant. The
untreated wastewater matrix for this plant shown in Table VII-17
is comparable to the combined metals data set. The fluoride
level in the electronics wastewater • (760 mg/1) is
significantly greater than the fluoride level in raw nonferrous
metals forming wastewater leading to the conclusion that the
nonferrous metals forming wastewater should be no more difficult
to treat for fluoride removal than the electronics wastewater.
The fluoride level in the CMDB - electroplating data ranges from
1.29 to 70.0 mg/1. Fluoride concentrations in some waste
streams, such a hydrofluoric acid surface treatment baths, the
combined raw waste concentrations that mix concentrated fluoride
wastewaters with dilute wastewaters range from 5.3 to 117 mg/1.
leading to the conclusion that the nonferrous metals forming
wastewater should be no more difficult to treat to
remove fluoride than electronics wastewater.
Gallium (Ga) - The treatment effectiveness concentration of
gallium is assumed to be the same as the level for chromium
(0.084 mg/1) for the reasons discussed below for indium. The
Agency requested data on the treatability of gallium and
solicited comment on the assumption that the achievable
performance for gallium should be similar received disputing this
claim.
Germanium (Ge) - The treatment effectiveness concentration of
germanium is assumed to be the same as the level for chromium
(0.084 mg/1) for the reasons discussed for indium (see below).
The Agency requested data on the treatability of germanium and
solicited comment on the assumption that the achievable
performance for germanium should be similar to that of chromium.
No comments were received disputing this claim.
1345
-------
Gold (Au) - The treatment effectiveness concentration for gold is
based on the performance achieved for paladium using ion
exchange. This transfer of performance is technically
justifiable because of the similarity of. the physical and
chemical behavior of these precious metals.
Hafnium (Hf) - The treatment effectiveness concentration for
hafnium 7.28 mg/1 is based on the transfer of performance data
for zirconium. The Agency believes that since the water
chemistry for zirconium and hafnium is similiar, hafnium can be
removed to the same levels as zirconium.
Indium
- The treatment effectiveness concentration for
indium is assumed to be the same as the level for chromium (0.084
mg/1). Lacking any treated effluent data for indium, a
comparison was made between the theoretical solubilities of
indium and the metals in the combined Metals Data Base: cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc. The theoretical
solubility of indium (2.5 x 10"') is more similar to the
theoretical solubility of chromium (1.64 x 10 ° mg/1) than it
is to the theoretical solubilities of cadmium, copper, lead,
nickel or zinc. -The theoretical solubilities of these metals
range from 20 x 10 3 to 2.2 x 10 5 mg/1. This comparison
is further supported by the fact that indium and chromium both
form hydroxides in the trivalent state. Cadmium/ copper, lead,
nickel and zinc all form divalent hydroxides.
Magnesium (Mg) - Data collected at a magnesium forming plant
indicate that lime and settle reduces magnesium to below the
level of detection. The level of detection (0.1 mg/1) is used as
the one-day maximum concentration for lime and settle treatment
effectiveness. No long-term, 10-day, and 30-day average
treatment effectiveness values are established since it is
impossible to determine precisely what concentrations are
achievable.
Molybdenum (Mo) - The 1.83 mg/1 treatment effectiveness
concentration is based on data from a nonferrous metals
manufacturing and forming, plant which uses coprecipitation of
molybdenum with iron. The treatment effectiveness concentration
of 1.83 mg/1 is achievable with iron coprecipitation and lime and
settle treatment. The untreated wastewater matrix show in Table
VII-17 is comparable with the combined metals data base.
Phosphorus (P) - The 4.08 mg/1 treatment effectiveness
concentration of phosphorus is based on the mean of 44
samples including 19 samples from the Combined Metals Data Base
and 25 samples from the electroplating data base. Inclusion
of electroplating data with the combined metals data was
considered appropriate, since the removal mechanism for
phosphorus is a precipitation reaction with calcium rather than
hydroxide.
Platinum
- The treatment effectiveness concentration, for
platinum is based on the performance achieved for pathadium using
1346
-------
ion exchange. This transfer of performance is technically
justifiable because of the similarity of the physical and
chemical behavior of the these precious metals.
Radium 226 (Ra 226) - The treatment effectiveness concentration
of 6.17 picocuries per liter for radium 226 is based on d^ata from
one facility in the uranium subcategory of the Ore Mining and
Dressing category which practices barium chloride coprecipitation
in conjunction with lime and settle treatment. The untreated
wastewater matrix shown in Table VII-17 is comparable with the
combined metals data base.
Rhenium (Re) - The treatment effectiveness concentration for
rhenium (1.83 mg/1) is based on the performance, achieved for
molybdenum at a nonferrous metals manufacturing and forming
plant. This transfer of performance is technically justifiable
because of the similarity of the physical and chemical behavior
of these compounds.
Rubidium (Rb
Rb) - The treatment effectiveness concentration for
rubidium (0.124 mg/1) is based on the performance achievable for
sodium using ion exchange technology. This transfer of
performance is technically justifiable because of the similarity
of the chemical and physical behavior of these monvalent atoms.
Tantalum (Ta) - As with columbium, data collected at two
refractory metals forming plants indicate that lime and settle
reduces tantalum to below the level of detection (using x-ray
fluorescence,analytical methods) when an operating pH of eight is
maintained. Another sampled lime and settle treatment system is
operated at, a higher pH, from 10.5 to 11.5. Effluent
concentrations of tantalum from this system are significantly
higher. Therefore, the data indicate that if the treatment
system is operated at a pH near 8, tantalum should be removed to
below the level of detection. .The level.,.pf detection (0.45 mg/1)
is used as the one-day maximum concentration for lime and settle
treatment effectiveness. No long-term, 10-day, and 30-day
average treatment effectiveness values are established since it
is impossible to determine precisely what concentrations are
achievable. The untreated wastewater matrix shown in Table VII-
17 is comparable with the combined metals data base.
Tin (Sn) - The treatment effectiveness concentration of 1.07 mg/1
for tin is based on data from one metal finishing tin plant. The
untreated wastewater matrix shown in Table VII-17 is comparable
with the combined metals data base.
Titanium (Ti) - The 0.19 mg/1 treatment effectiveness
concentration is based on the mean performance of four nonferrous
metals forming plants. A total of 9 samples were included in the
calculation of the mean performance. The untreated wastewater
matrix shown in Table VII-17 is comparable with the combined
metals data base.
1347
-------
Tungsten £Wj_ - The 1.29 mg/. treatment effectiveness
concentration (using x-ray fluorescene analytical methods) is
based on data collected from the refractory metals forming plant
where an operation pH of 10.5 to 11.5 was used. The data
indicate that maintaining the pH within this range achieves
significantly better removal of tungsten than a pH near 8.
Therefore, refractory metals forming plants that treat
wastewaters containing both columbium, tantalum and tungsten or
other metals that precipitate at a higher pH may need to use a
two-stage lime and settle to remove all of these metals. The
untreated wastewater matrix shown in Table VII-17 is comparable
with the combined metals data base.
Uranium (U) - The 4.00 mg/1 treatment effectiveness concentration
(using fluorometry analytical methods) is based on the
performance of one uranium forming plant. The untreated
wastewater matrix shown in Table VII-17 is comparable with the
combined metals data base.
Vanadium (V) - Data collected at two nonferrous metals forming
plants indicate that lime and settle reduces vanadium to below
the detection limit. The level of detection (0.10 mg/1) is used
as the one-day maximum' concentration for lime and settle
treatment effectiveness. No long-term, 10-day, or 30-day average
treatment effectiveness values are established since it is
impossible to determine precisely what concentrations are
achievable. The untreated wastewater matrix shown in Table VII-
17 is comparable with the combined metals data base.
Zirconium (Zr) - The zirconium treatment effectiveness of 7.28
mg/1^ is based on the mean performance of two nonferrous metals
^
forming plants with lime and settle treatment. One plant forms
zirconium and the other plant forms refractory metals. The
untreated wastewater matrix shown in Table VII-17 is comparable
with the combined metals data base.
LS&F Performance
Tables VII-18 and VII-19 show long term data from two plants
which have well operated precipitation-settling treatment
followed by filtration. The wastewaters from both plants
contain pollutants from metals processing and finishing
operations (multi-category). Both plants reduce hexavalent
chromium before neutralizing and precipitating metals with lime.
A clarifier is used to remove much of the solids load and a
filter is used to "polish" or complete removal of suspended
solids. Plant A uses a pressure filter, while Plant B uses a
rapid sand filter.
Raw wastewater data was collected only occasionally at each
facility and the raw . wastewater data is presented as an
indication of the nature of the wastewater treated. Data from
plant A was received as a statistical summary and is presented as
received. Raw laboratory data was collected at Plant B and
reviewed for spurious points and discrepancies. The method of
1348
-------
treating the data base is discussed below under lime, settle, and
filter treatment effectiveness.
Table VII-20 shows long-term data for zinc and cadmium removal
at Plant C, a primary zinc smelter, which operates a LS&F system.
This data represents about 4 months (103 data days) taken
immediately before the smelter was closed. It has been
arranged similarily to the data from Plants A and B for
comparison and use.
These data are presented to demonstrate- the performance of
precipitation-settling-filtration (LS&F) technology under actual
operating conditions and over a long period of time.
It should be noted that the iron content of the raw wastewater of
Plants A and B is high while that for Plant C is low. This
results, for Plants A and B, in co-precipitation of toxic metals
with iron. Precipitation using high-calcium lime for pH control
yields the results shown above. Plant operating personnel
indicate that this chemical treatment combination (sometimes with
polymer assisted coagulation) generally produces better and more
consistent metals removal than other combinations of sacrificial
metal ions and alkalis.
The LS&F performance data presented here are based on systems
that provide polishing filtration after effective L&S treatment.
We have previously shown that L&S treatment is equally applicable
to wastewaters from the five CMDB categories because of
the homogeneity of its raw and treated wastewaters, and
other factors. Because of the similarity of the wastewaters
after L&S treatment, the Agency believes these wastewaters
are equally amenable to treatment using polishing filters
added to the L&S treatment system. The Agency concludes that
LS&F data based on porcelain enameling and nonferrous metals
manufacturing is directly applicable to the aluminum forming,
copper forming, battery manufacturing, coil coating,
nonferrous metals forming and metal molding and casting
categories, and the canmaking subcategory as well as it is to
porcelain enameling and nonferrous metals manufacturing smelting
and refining.
Analysis of Treatment System Effectiveness
Data are presented in Table VII-14 showing the mean, one-day,
10-day and 30-day values for nine pollutants examined in the L&S
combined metals data base. The pooled variability factor for
seven metal pollutants (excluding cadmium because of the small
number of data points) was determined and is used to estimate
one-day, 10-day and 30-day values. (The variability factor is
the ratio of the value of concern to the mean: the pooled
variability factors are: one-day maximum - 4.100; ten-day
average - 1.821; and 30-day average - 1.618.) For values not
calculated from the CMDB as previously discussed, the mean value
for pollutants shown in Table VII-15 were multiplied by the-
1349
-------
variability factors to derive the value to obtain the one-,
and 30-day values. These are tabulated in Table VII-21.
ten-
The treatment effectiveness for sulfide precipitation and
filtration has been calculated similarly. Long term average
values shown in Table VII-6 have been multiplied by the
appropriate variability factor to estimate one-day maximum, and
ten-day and 30-day average values. ' Variability factors
developed in the combined metals data base were used because the
raw wastewaters are identical and the treatment methods are
similar as both use chemical precipitation and solids removal to
control metals.
LS&P technology data are presented in Tables VII-18 and VII-19.
These data represent two operating plants (A and B) in which the
technology has been installed and operated for some years. Plant
A data was received as a statistical summary and is presented
without change. Plant B data was received as raw laboratory
analysis data. Discussions with plant personnel indicated that
operating experiments and changes in materials and ,reagents and
occasional operating errors had occurred during the data
collection period. No specific information was available on
those variables. To sort out high values probably caused by
methodological factors from random statistical variability, or
data noise, the Plant B data were analyzed. For each of four
pollutants (chromium, nickel, zinc, and iron), the mean and
standard deviation (sigma) were calculated for the entire data
set. A data day was removed from the complete data set when any
individual pollutant concentration for that day exceeded the sum
of the mean plus three sigma for that pollutant. Fifty-one data
days (from a total of about 1300) were eliminated by this method.
Another approach was also used as a check on the above method of
eliminating certain high values. The minimum values of raw
wastewater concentrations from Plant B for the same four
pollutants were compared to the total set of values for the
corresponding pollutants. Any day on which the treated
wastewater pollutant concentration exceeded the minimum value
selected from raw wastewater concentrations for that pollutant
was discarded. Forty-five days of data were eliminated by that
procedure. Forty-three days of data in common were eliminated by
either procedure. Since common engineering practice (mean plus
3 sigma) and logic (treated wastewater concentrations should be
less than raw wastewater concentrations) seem to coincide, the
data base with the 51 spurious data days eliminated is the basis
for all further analysis. Range, mean plus standard deviation
and mean plus two standard deviations are shown in Tables VII-18
and VII-19 for Cr, Cu, Ni, Zn and Fe.
The Plant B data were separated into 1979, 1978, and total
data base (six years) segments. With the statistical analysis
from Plant A for 1978 and 1979, this in effect created five data
sets in which there is some overlap between the individual
years and total data sets from Plant B. By comparing these five
parts, it is apparent that they are quite similar and all appear
1350
-------
to be from the same family of numbers. The largest mean
found among the five data sets for each pollutant was selected as
the long-term mean for LS&F technology and is used -as the
LS&F mean in Table VII-21.
Plant C data was used as a basis for cadmium removal performance
and as a check on the zinc values derived from Plants A and B.
The cadmium data is displayed in Table VII-20 and is
incorporated into Table VII-21 for LS&F. The zinc data was
analyzed for compliance with the 1-day and 30-day values in Table
VII-21; no zinc value of the 103 data points exceeded the 1-day
zinc value of 1.02 mg/1. The 103 data points were separated into
blocks of 30 points and averaged. Each of the 3 full 30-day
averages was less than the Table VII-21 value of -.0.31 mg/1.
Additionally the Plant C raw wastewater pollutant concentrations
(Table VII-20) are well within the range of raw wastewater
concentrations of the combined metals data base (Table VII-16),
further supporting the conclusion that Plant C wastewater data is
comparable to similar data from Plants A and B.
Concentration values for regulatory use are displayed in Table
VII-21. Mean one-day, ten-day and 30-day values for L&S for
nine pollutants were taken from Table VII-14; the remaining L&S
values were developed using the mean values in Table VII-15 and
the mean variability factors discussed above.
LS&F mean values for Cd, Cr, Ni, Zn, and Fe are derived
from Plants A,' B, and C as discussed above. One-, ten- and
thirty-day values are derived by applying the variability
factor developed from the pooled data base for the specific
pollutant to the mean for that pollutant. Other LS&F, values
are calculated using the long term average or mean and the
appropriate variability factors.
Mean values for LS&F for pollutants not already discussed are
derived by reducing the L&S mean by one-third. The one-third
reduction was established after examining the percent reduction
in concentrations going from L&S to LS&F data for Cd, Cr, Ni, Zn,
and Fe. The average reduction is 0.3338 or one-third.
Variability factors for these additional pollutants are identical
to the variabilities established for L&S treatment of these
pollutants (using the variance from the pooled metals data base
or the mean of other pollutant variances if a pollutant-specific
variance is not available). Since filtration is a non-
preferential technology with regard to metals treated, and
furthermore, is being used to polish relatively clean wastewater
(wastewater after lime and settle treatment), EPA believes it is
reasonable to assume that these additional pollutants will be
removed at the same average rate.
Copper levels achieved at Plants A and B may be lower than
generally achievable because of the high iron content and low
copper content of the raw v.-astewaters. Therefore, the mean
concentration value from Plants A and B achieved is hot used; the
LS&F mean for copper is derived from the L&S technology.
1351
-------
Uranium levels achieved by L&S treatment showed substantially
ihp5 ,JaSSabJllty thai\ the nine Parameters included in the CUDE.
The standard approach to the derivation of LS&F treatment
effectiveness concentrations results in one-day, 10-day and 30-
day values for LS&F treatment that are greater than the
corresponding values for L&S treatment. Therefore, the LS&F
«niUrfL f°irn Sranium_ar?Aderived by reducing the L&S long term,
one-day, 10-day and 30-day values by one-third to derive the
corresponding LS&F values. ueiAve tne
L&S cyanide mean levels shown in Table VII-8 are ratioed to one-
???' ten~day and 30-day values using mean variability factors.
SS JSS11 r SSnide 1Si calc^ated by applying the ratios of
L&S and LS&F removals as discussed previously for LS&F metals
limitations. The cyanide performance was arrived at by usinq the
average metal variability factors. The treatment method used
Sanihe P^^P^tion Because cyanide precipitation is
by the same physical processes as the metal
iSn' P 1Su exPected that the variabilities will be
Therefore' the average of the metal variability factors
n ,«5eJhaB4-a 53S1S -f°r calculating the cyanide one-day,
ten-day and thirty-day average treatment effectiveness values.
The filter performance for removing TSS as shown in Table VII-9
yields a mean effluent concentration of 2.61 mg/1 and calculates
to a 10-day average of 4.33, 30-day average of 3.36 mg/1 and a
one-day maximum of 8.88. These calculated values more than
amply support the classic thirty-day and one-day values of 10
mg/1 and 15 mg/1, respectively, which are used for LS&Fo
Although iron concentrations were reduced with the
application of a filter to the lime and settle system, somJ
facilities using that treatment introduce iron compounds to aid
settling. Therefore, the one-day, ten-day and 30-day values
for iron at LS&F were held at the L&S level so as to not
penalize the
objectionable
metals.
-- - ——— —. —.»•_-i. L^\^ u*^> t-\_/ iiw L. unduly
operations which use the relatively less
iron compounds to enhance removals of toxic
The removal of additional fluoride by adding polishing filtration
fLSiSr ^eCa?Se ^mS a?d Settle treatment removes calcium
fluoride to a level near its solubility. The one available data
™£t appears to question the ability of filters to achieve high
removals of additional fluoride. The fluoride levels
demonstrated for L&S are used as the treatment effectiveness for
LS&F.
MINOR TECHNOLOGIES
Several other_treatment technologies were considered ;for possible
application in this category. These technologies are presented
• •-
1352
-------
9. Carbon Adsorption
The use of activated carbon to remove dissolved organics from
water and wastewater is a long demonstrated technology. It is
one of the most efficient organic removal processes available.
This sorption process is reversible, allowing activated carbon to
be regenerated for reuse by the application of heat and steam or
solvent. Activated carbon has also proved to be an effective
adsorbent for many toxic metals, including mercury. Regeneration
of carbon which has adsorbed significant amounts of metals,
however, may be difficult.
The term activated carbon applies to any amorphous form of carbon
that has been specially treated to give high -adsorption
capacities. Typical raw materials include coal, wood, coconut
shells, petroleum base residues, and char from sewage sludge
pyrolysis. A carefully controlled process of dehydration,
carbonization, and oxidation yields a product which is called
activated carbon. This material has a high capacity for
adsorption due primarily to the large surface area available for
adsorption, 500 to 1500 m2/sq m resulting from a large number
of internal pores. Pore sizes generally range from 10 to
100 angstroms in radius.
Activated carbon removes contaminants from water by the process
of adsorption, or the attraction and "accumulation of one
substance on the surface of another. Activated carbon
preferentially adsorbs organic compounds and, because of this
selectivity, is particularly effective in removing organic
compounds' from aqueous solution.
Carbon adsorption requires pretreatment to remove excess
suspended solids, oils, and greases. Suspended solids in the
influent should be less than 50 mg/1 to minimize backwash
requirements; a downflow carbon bed can handle much higher levels
(up to 2000 mg/1) but requires frequent backwashing. Backwashing
more than two or three times a day is not desirable; at 50 mg/1
suspended solids, one backwash will suffice. Oil and grease
should be less than about 10 mg/1. A high level of dissolved
inorganic material in the influent may cause problems with
thermal carbon reactivation (i.e., scaling and loss of activity)
unless appropriate preventive steps are taken. Such steps might
include pH control, softening, or the use of an acid wash on the
carbon prior to reactivation.
Activated carbon is available in both powdered and granular form.
An adsorption column packed with granular activated carbon is
shown in Figure VII-17. A flow diagram of an activated carbon
adsorption system, with regeneration, is shown in Figure VII-
35. 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
1353
-------
mercury level in the influent to the adsorption unit. In Table
VII-25 removal levels found at three manufacturing facilities are
listed.
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-23 summarizes the treatment effectiveness for most of the
organic priority pollutants by activated carbon as compiled
by EPA. Table VTI-24 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 use 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.
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
which undergoes regeneration reduces the solid waste
problem by reducing the frequency of carbon replacement.
Demonstration Status. Carbon adsorption systems have been
demonstrated to be practical and economical in reducing COD, BOD,
1354
-------
and related parameters in secondary municipal and industrial
wastewaters; in removing toxic or refractory organics from
isolated industrial wastewaters; in removing and recovering
certain organics from wastewaters; and in removing and some times
recovering 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.
10. Centrifugation
Centrifugation is the application of centrifugal force to
separate solids and liquids in a liquid-solid mixture or to
effect concentration of the solids. The application of
centrifugal force is effective because of the density
differential normally found between the insoluble solids and the
liquid in which they are contained. As a waste treatment
procedure, Centrifugation is applied to dewatering of sludges
One type of centrifuge is shown in Figure VII-18.
There are three common types of centrifuges; disc, basket, and
conveyor. All three operate by removing solids under the
influence of centrifugal force. The fundamental difference among
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 solids
collect at the bowl wall while clarified effluent overflows the
lip _nng at the top. Since the basket centrifuge does not have
provision for continuous discharge of collected cake, operation
requires interruption of the feed for cake discharge for a minute
or two in a 10- to 30-minute overall cycle.
The third type of centrifuge commonly used in sludge dewaterinq
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,
the solids are moved by a screw to the end of the machine, at
which point they are discharged. The liquid effluent is
discharged through ports after passing the length of the bowl
under centrifugal force.
Application and Performance. Virtually all industrial waste
treatment systems producing sludge can use Centrifugation to
dewater it. Centrifugation is currently being used by a wide •
range of industrial concerns.
1355
-------
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 to 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, nonsettling solids.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Centrifugation is highly
reliable with proper control of factors such as sludge feed,
consistency, and temperature. Pretreatment such as grit removal
and coagulant addition may be necessary, depending on the
composition of the sludge and on the type of centrifuge employed.
Maintainability: Maintenance consists of periodic lubrication,
cleaning, and inspection. The frequency and degree of inspection
required varies depending on the type of sludge solids being
dewatered and the maintenance service conditions. If the sludge
is abrasive, it is recommended that the first inspection of the
rotating assembly be made after approximately 1,000 hours of
operation. If the sludge is not abrasive or corrosive, then the
initial inspection might be delayed. Centrifuges not equipped
with a continuous sludge discharge system require periodic
shutdowns for manual sludge cake removal.
Solid Waste Aspects: Sludge dewatered in the centrifugation
process may be disposed of by landfill. The clarified effluent
(centrate), if high in dissolved or suspended solids, may require
further treatment prior to discharge.
Demonstration Status. Centrifugation is currently used in a
great many commercial applications to dewater sludge. Work is
underway to improve the efficiency, increase the capacity, and
lower the costs associated with centrifugation.
11. Coalescing
The basic principle of coalescence involves the preferential
wetting of a coalescing medium by oil droplets which accumulate
1356
-------
on the medium and then rise to the surface of the solution as
they combine to form larger particles. The most important
requirements for coalescing media are wettability for oil and
large surface area. Monofilament line is sometimes used as a
coalescing medium.
Coalescing stages may be integrated with a wide variety of
gravity oil separation devices, and some systems may incorporate
several coalescing stages. In general, a preliminary oil
skimming step is desirable to avoid overloading the coalescer.
One commercially marketed system for oily waste treatment
combines coalescing with inclined plate separation and
filtration. In this system, the oily wastes flow into an
inclined plate settler. This unit consists of a stack of
inclined baffle plates in a cylindrical container with an oil
collection chamber at the top. The oil droplets rise and impinge
upon the undersides of the plates. They then migrate upward to a
guide rib which directs the oil to the oil collection chamber,
from which oil is discharged for reuse or disposal.
The oily water continues on through another cylinder containing
replaceable filter cartridges, which remove suspended particles
from the waste. From there the wastewater enters a final'
cylinder in which the coalescing material,is housed. As the oily
water passes through the many small, irregular, continuous
passages in the coalescing material, the oil droplets coalesce
and rise to an oil collection chamber.
Application and Performance. Coalescing is used to 'treat oily
wastes which do not separate readily in simple gravity systems.
The three-stage system described above has achieved effluent
concentrations of 10 to 15 mg/1 oil and grease from raw waste
concentrations of 1000 mg/1 or more.
Advantages and Limitations. Coalescing allows removal of oil
droplets too finely dispersed for conventional gravity
separation-skimming technology. It also can significantly reduce
the residence times (and therefore separator volumes) required to
achieve separation of oil from some wastes. Because of its
simplicity, coalescing provides generally high reliability and
low capital and operating costs. Coalescing is not generally
effective in removing soluble or chemically stabilized emulsified
oils. To avoid plugging, coalescers must be protected by
pretreatment from very high concentrations of free oil and grease
and suspended solids. Frequent replacement of prefilters may be
necessary when raw waste oil concentrations are high.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Coalescing is inherently
highly reliable since there are no moving parts, and the
coalescing substrate (monofilament, etc.) is inert in the
process and therefore not subject to frequent regeneration or
replacement requirements. Large loads or. inadequate
pretreatment, however, may result in plugging or bypass of
coalescing stages.
1357
-------
Maintainability: Maintenance requirements are generally limited
to replacement of the coalescing medium on an infrequent basis.
Solid Waste Aspects: No appreciable solid waste is generated by
this process.
Demonstration Status. Coalescing has been'fully demonstrated in
industries generating oily wastewater, although no
nonferrous metals forming plants specifically reported their use.
12. Cyanide Oxidation by Chlorine
Cyanide oxidation using chlorine is widely used in industrial
waste treatment to oxidize cyanide. Chlorine can be utilized in
either the elemental or hypochlorite forms. This classic
procedure can be illustrated by the following two step chemical
reaction:
1. Cl2 + NaCN + 2NaOH > NaCNO + 2NaCl + H2O
2. 3C12 + 6NaOH + 2NaCNO > 2NaHCC-3 + N32 + 6NaCl +
2H20
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.
The alkaline chlorination process oxidizes cyanides to carbon
dioxide and nitrogen. The equipment often consists of an
equalization tank followed by two reaction tanks, although the
reaction can be carried out in a single tank. Each tank has an
electronic recorder-controller to maintain required conditions
with respect to pH and oxidation reduction potential (ORP). In
the first reaction tank, conditions are adjusted to oxidize
cyanides to cyanates. To effect the reaction, : chlorine is
metered to the reaction tank as required to maintain the ORP in
the range of 350 to 400 millivolts, and 50 percent aqueous
caustic soda is added to maintain a pH range of 9.5 to 10. In
the second reaction tank, conditions are maintained to oxidize
cyanate to carbon dioxide and nitrogen. The desirable ORP and pH
for tthis 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 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 thfe sludges are
collected for removal and ultimate disposal.
1358
-------
Application and Performance. The oxidation of cyanide .waste by
chlorine is a classic process and is found in most industrial
plants using cyanide. This process is capable of achieving
effluent levels that are nondetectable* The process is
potentially applicable to nonferrous metals forming facilities
where cyanide is a component in wastewater.
Advantages and Limitations. Some advantages of chlorine
oxidation for handling process effluents are operation at ambient
temperature, suitability for automatic control, and low cost.
Disadvantages include the need for careful pH control, possible
chemical interference in the treatment of mixed wastes, and the
potential hazard of storing and handling chlorine gas.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Chlorine oxidation is highly
reliable with proper monitoring and control and proper
pretreatment to control interfering substances.
Maintainability: Maintenance consists of periodic remoyal of
sludge and recalibration of instruments.
Solid Waste Aspects: There is no solid waste problem associated
with chlorine oxidation. .
Demonstration . Status. The oxidation of cyanide wastes by
chlorine is a widely used process in plants using cyanide in
cleaning and metal processing baths. Alkaline chlorination is
also used for cyanide treatment in a number of inorganic chemical
facilities producing hydroganic acid and various metal cyanides.
One nonferrous metals forming plant is currently using this
technology to treat process wastewaters.
13. 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
VII-20.
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~ + O3 > CNO~ + 02
1359
-------
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 arid desiccators ' required
for the input of clean dry air; filter life is a function of
input concentrations of detrimental constituents.
Solid Waste Aspects: Pretreatment to eliminate substances which
will interfere with the process may be necessary. Dewatering of
sludge generated in the ozone oxidation process or in an "in
line" process may be desirable prior to disposal.
14. Cyanide Oxidation By_ Ozone With UV Radiation
One of the modifications of the ozonation
simultaneous application of ultraviolet light and
treatment of wastewater, including treatment
organics. The combined action of these two
reactions by photolysis, photosensitization,
oxygenation, and oxidation. The process is
several reactions and reaction species are active
process is the
ozone for the
of halogenated,
forms produces
hydroxylation,
unique because
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 VII-21 shows a three-stage UV-ozone system. A-
system to treat mixed cyanides requires pretreatment that
1360
-------
involves chemical coagulation, sedimentation, clarification,
equalization, and pH adjustment.
Application and Performance. The ozone-UV radiation process .was
developed primarily for cyanide treatment in the electroplating
and color photo-processing areas. It has been successfully
applied to mixed cyanides and organics from organic chemicals
manufacturing processes. The process is particularly useful for
treatment of complexed cyanides such as ferricyanide, copper
cyanide, and nickel cyanide, which are resistant to ozone alone.
Ozone combined with UV radiation is a relatively new technology.
Four units are currently in operation, and all four treat cyanide .
bearing waste.
Ozone-UV treatment could be used in nonferrous metals forming
plants to destroy cyanide present in some waste streams.
15. 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 to 54C (120 to 130F) and the pH is
adjusted to 10.5 to 11.8. Formalin (37 percent formaldehyde) is
added while the tank is vigorously agitated. After 2 to 5
minutes, a proprietary peroxygen compound'(41 percent hydrogen
peroxide with a catalyst and additives) is added. After an hour
of mixing, the reaction is complete. The cyanide is converted to
cyanate, and the metals are precipitated as oxides or hydroxides.
The metals are then removed from solution by either settling or
filtration.
The main equipment required for this process is two holding tanks
equipped with heaters and air spargers or mechanical stirrers.
These tanks may be used in a batch or continuous fashion, with
one tank being used for treatment while the other is being
filled. A settling tank or a filter is needed to concentrate the
precipitate.
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 in
1971 and is used in several facilities. No nonferrous metals
forming plants use oxidation by hydrogen peroxide.
1361
-------
16. Evaporation
Evaporation is a concentration process. Water is evaporated from
a solution, increasing the concentration of solSte in the
remaining solution, if the resulting water vapor isP conSensel
«3 i'- ' e evaP°^ton-condesation proes is
called distillation. Howe
«3 i'-
called distillation. However, to be consistent with industrv
terminology, evaporation is used in this report to describe both
processes. Both atmospheric and vacuum evaporation^ arl coLoSlv
used in industry today. Specific evaporation techni^Sre
shown in Figure VII-22 and discussed below. ^ecnniques are
Atmospheric evaporation could be accomplished simply by boilinq
the liquid. However, to aid evaporation, heated liquid if
sprayed on an evaporation surface, and air is blown ovlr the
surface and subsequently released to the atmosphere Thus
evaporation occurs by humidification of the air strlam, similar
to a drying process. Equipment for carrying out atmospheric
evaporation is quite similar for most applications The maior
element is generally a packed column with an accumulator bo t?o£
Accumulated wastewater is pumped from the base of the column'
through a heat exchanger, and back into the top of the column'
where it is sprayed into the packing. At the same time air
drawn .upward through the packing by a fan is heat Pd^^
2S2*S?S- th* hot.li<3uid- *he liquid ypa?tifajy valises and
humidifies the air stream. The fan then blows the hot, humid air
to the outside atmosphere. A scrubber is often unnecessarv
because the packed column itself acts as a scrubber? unnecessary
- °f atmosPheric evaporator also works on the air
humidification principle, but the evaporated water is recovered
for reuse by condensation. These air humidification technioues
operate well below the boiling point of wate? aSd can utiliw
waste process heat to supply the energy required. utilize
In vacuum evaporation,' the evaporation pressure is lowered to
cause the liquid to boil at reduced temperature. Jn"f the
water vapor is condensed, and to maintain the vacuum condition
2SSS °nd*nsible ^ases (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, Ind the
S^^Va?°r fr°!? fc?e flrSt evaP°rator (Shich may be hea?2d by
steam is used to supply heat to the second evaporator As it
supplies heat, the water vapor from the 'firSt evaporltor
condenses. Approximately equal quantities of wastlwater a?e
«
ss-
1362
-------
Another means of increasing energy efficiency is .vapor
recompression evaporation, which enables heat to be transferred
from the condensing water vapor to the evaporating wastewater.
Water vapor generated from incoming wastewaters flows to a vapor
compressor. The compressed steam than travels through the
wastewater via an enclosed tube 'or coil in which it condenses as
heat is transferred to the surrounding solution. In this way,
the compressed vapor serves as a heating medium. After
condensation, this distillate is drawn off continuously as the
clean water stream. The heat contained in the compressed vapor
is used to heat the wastewater, and energy costs for system
operation are reduced.
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. Wastewater
accumulates in the bottom of the vessel, and it is evaporated by
means of submerged 'steam coils. The resulting water vapor
condenses as it contacts the condensing coils in the top of the
vessel. The condensate then drips off the condensing coils into
a collection trough that carries it out of the vessel.
Concentrate is removed from the bottom of the vessel.
The major elements of the climbing film evaporator are the
evaporator, separator, condenser, and vacuum pump. Wastewater is
"drawn" into the system by the vacuum so that a constant liquid
level is maintained in the separator. Liquid enters the steam-
jacketed evaporator tubes, and part of it evaporates 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 antifoaming
agents. These can be removed with an activated carbon bed, if
necessary. Samples from one plant showed 1,900 mg/1 zinc in the
feed, 4,570 mg/1 in the concentrate, and 0.4 mg/1 in the
1363
-------
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. Capital costs for vapor compression
evaporators are substantially higher than for other types of
evaporation equipment. However, the energy costs associated with
the operation of a vapor compression evaporator are significantly
lower than costs of other evaproator types. For some
applications, pretreatment may be required to remove solids or
bacteria which tend to cause fouling in the condenser or
evaporator. The buildup of scale on the evaporator surfaces
reduces the heat transfer efficiency and may present a
maintenance problem or increase operating cost. However, it has
been demonstrated that fouling of the heat transfer surfaces can
be avoided or minimized for certain dissolved solids by
maintaining a seed slurry which provides preferential sites for
precipitate deposition. In addition, low temperature differences
in the evaporator will eliminate nucleate boiling and
supersaturation effects. Steam distillable 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 corrosive liquids are handled.
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,
wastewater treatment system. It is used
in the electroplating
commercially available
extensively to recover plating chemicals t =
industry, and a pilot scale unit has been used in connection with
phosphating of aluminum. Proven performance in silver recovery
1364
-------
indicates that evaporation could be a useful treatment operation
for the photographic industry, as well as for metal finishing.
Vapor compression evaporation has been practically demonstrated
in a number of industries, including chemical manufacturing, food
processing, pulp and paper, and metal working.
17. Flotation
Flotation is the process of causing particles such as metal
hydroxides or oil to float to the surface of a tank where they
can be concentrated and removed. This is accomplished by
releasing gas bubbles which attach to the solid particles,
increasing their buoyancy and causing them to float. In
principle, this process is the opposite of sedimentation. Figure
VII-23 shows one type of flotation system.
Flotation is used primarily in the treatment of wastewater
streams that carry heavy loads of finely divided suspended solids
or oil. Solids having a specific gravity only slightly greater
than 1.0, which would require abnormally long sedimentation
times, may be removed in much less time by flotation. Dissolved
air flotation is of greatest interest in removing oil from water
and is less effective in removing heavier precipitates.
This process may be performed in several ways: foam, dispersed
air, dissolved air, gravity, and vacuum flotation are the most
commonly used techniques. Chemical additives are often used to
enhance the performance of the flotation process.
The principal difference among types of flotation is the method
of generating the minute gas bubbles (usually air) in a
suspension of water and small particles. Chemicals.may be used
to improve the efficiency with any of the basic methods. The
following paragraphs describe the different flotation techniques
and the method of bubble generation for each process.
Froth Flotation - Froth flotation is based on differences in the
physiochemical properties in various particles. Wettability and
surface properties affect the particles' ability to attach
themselves to 'gas bubbles in an aqueous medium. In froth
flotation, air is blown through the solution containing flotation
reagents. The particles with water repellant surfaces stick to
air bubbles as they rise and are brought to the surface. A
mineralized froth layer, with mineral particles attached to air
bubbles, is formed. Particles of other minerals which are
" readily wetted by water do not stick to air bubbles and remain in
suspension.
Dispersed Air Flotation - In dispersed air flotation, gas bubbles
are generated by introducing the air by means of mechanical
agitation with impellers or by forcing air through porous media.
Dispersed air flotation is used mainly in the metallurgical
industry.
1365
-------
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
wastewater 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.
Auxiliary equipment includes an aeration tank for saturating the
wastewater with air, a tank with a short retention time for
removal of large bubbles, vacuum pumps, and sludge pumps.
Application and Performance. The primary variables for flotation
design are pressure, feed solids concentration, and retention
period. The suspended solids in the effluent decrease, and the
concentration of solids in the float increases with increasing
retention period. When the flotation process is used primarily
for clarification, a retention period of 20 to 30 minutes usually
is adequate for separation and concentration.
Advantages and Limitations. Some advantages of the flotation
process are the high levels of solids separation achieved in many
applications, the relatively low energy requirements, and the
adaptability to meet the treatment requirements of different
waste types. Limitations of flotation are that it often requires
addition of chemicals to enhance process performance and that it
generates large quantities of solid waste.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Flotation systems normally
are very reliable with proper maintenance of the sludge collector
mechanism and the motors and pumps used for aeration.
Maintainability: Routine.maintenance is required on the pumps
and _motors. The sludge collector mechanism is subject to
possible corrosion or breakage and may require periodic
replacement.
1366
-------
Solid Waste Aspects: Chemicals are commonly used to aid the
flotation process by creating a surface or a structure that c^n
easily adsorb or entrap air bubbles. Inorganic chemicals, such
as the aluminum and ferric salts, and activated silica* can bind
the particulate matter together and create a structure that can
entrap air bubbles. Various organic chemicals can change the
nature of either the air-liquid interface or the solid-liquid
interface, or both. These compounds usually collect on the
interface to bring about the desired changes. The added
chemicals plus the particles in solution combine to form a large
volume of sludge which must be further treated or properly
disposed. .
Demonstration Status. Flotation is a fully developed process and
is readily available for the treatment of a wide variety of
industrial waste streams.
18« Gravity Sludge Thickening
In the gravity thickening process, dilute sludge is fed from a
primary settling tank or clarifier to a thickening tank where.
rakes stir the sludge gently to density it and to push it to a
central collection well. The supernatant is returned to the
primary settling tank. The thickened sludge that collects on the
bottom of the tank is pumped to dewatering equipment or hauled
away." Figure VII-24 shows the construction of a gravity
thickener.
Application ,and Performance. Thickeners are generally used in
facilities where the sludge is to be further dewatered by a
compact mechanical device such as a vacuum filter or centrifuge.
Doubling the solids content in the thickener substantially
reduces capital and operating cost of the subsequent dewatering
device and also reduces cost for hauling. The process is
potentially applicable to almost any industrial plant.
Organic sludges from sedimentation units of one to two percent
solids concentration can usually be gravity thickened to six to
ten percent; chemical sludges can be thickened to four to six
percent.
Advantages and Limitations. The principal advantage of a gravity
sludge thickening process is that it facilitates further sludge
dewatering. Other advantages are high reliability and minimum
maintenance requirements.
Limitations of the sludge thickening process are its - sensitivity
to the flow rate through the thickener and the sludge removal
rate. These rates must be low enough not to disturb the
thickened sludge.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Reliability is high with
proper design and operation. A gravity thickener is designed on
the basis of square feet per pound of solids per day, in which
the required surface area is related to the solids entering and
1367
-------
leaving the unit. Thickener area requirements are also expressed
in terms of mass loading, grams of solids per square meter r>er
day (Ibs/sq ft/day).
Maintainability: Twice a year, a thickener must be shut down for
lubrication of the drive mechanisms. Occasionally, water must be
pumped back through the system in order to clear sludge pipes.
Solid Waste Aspects: Thickened sludge from a gravity thickening
process will usually require further dewatering prior to
disposal, incineration, or drying. The clear effluent may be
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.
19. Insoluble Starch Xanthate '
Insoluble starch xanthate is essentially an ion exchange medium
used to remove dissolved heavy metals from wastewater. The water
may then either be reused (recovery .application) or discharged
(end-of-pipe application). In a commercial electroplating oper-
ation, starch xanthate is coated on a filter medium. Rinse water
containing dragged out heavy metals .is circulated through the
filters and then reused for rinsing. The starch-heavy metal
complex is disposed of and replaced periodically. Laboratory
tests indicate that recovery of metals from the complex is
feasible, with regeneration of the starch xanthate. Besides
electroplating, starch xanthate is potentially applicable to any
other industrial plants where dilute metal wastewater streams are
generated. Its present use is limited to one electroplating
plant.
20. Ion Exchange
Ion exchange is a process in which ions, held by electrostatic
forces to charged functional groups on the surface of the ion
exchange resin, are exchanged for ions of similar charge from the
solution in which the resin is immersed. This is classified as a
sorption process because the exchange occurs on the surface of
the resin, and the exchanging ion must undergo a phase transfer
from solution phase to solid phase. Thus, ionic contaminants in
a waste stream can be exchanged for the harmless ions of the
resin.
Although the precise technique may vary slightly according to the
application involved, a generalized process description follows.
The wastewater stream being treated passes through a filter to
remove any solids, then flows through a cation exchanger which
contains the ion exchange resin. Here, metallic impurities such
as copper, iron, and trivalent chromium are retained. The stream
1368
-------
then passes through the anion exchanger and its associated resin.
Hexavalent chromium, for example, is retained in this stage. if
one pass does not reduce the contaminant levels sufficiently, the
stream may then enter another series of exchangers. Many ion
exchange systems are equipped with more than one set of
exchangers for this reason. A strongly basic anion exchange
resin may be used alone to remove precious metals, such as gold,
palladium and platinum.
The other major portion of the ion exchange process concerns the
regeneration of the resin, which now holds those impurities
retained from the waste stream. An ion exchange unit with in-
place regeneration is shown in Figure VII-25. 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 sodi'um hydroxide, replacing the anion
with one or more hydroxyl ions. The three principal methods
employed by industry for regenerating the spent resin are:
A) Replacement Service: A regeneration service
replaces the spent resin with regenerated resin,
and regenerates the spent resin at its own facility.
.The service then has the problem of treating and
disposing of the spent regenerant.
B) In-Place Regenerations 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.
1369
-------
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 proved effective includes aluminum,
arsenic, cadmium, chromium (hexavalent and trivalent), copper,
cyanide, gold, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, platinum and
palladium, 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 recovery1applications. It
is commonly used as an integrated treatment to recover
rinse water and process chemicals. Some electroplating
facilities use ion exchange to concentrate and purify
plating baths. Also, many industrial concerns use ion exchange
to reduce salt concentrations in incoming water sources.
Ion exchange is highly efficient at recovering metal bearing
solutions. Recovery of chromium, nickel, phosphate solution, and
sulfuric acid from anodizing is common. . A; chromic acid
recovery efficiency of 99.5 percent has been demonstrated.
Typical data for purification of rinse water have been reported
and are displayed in Table VII-26.. Sampling at a nonferrous
metals manufacturing battery manufacturing plant characterized
influent and effluent streams for an ion exchange unit on a
silver bearing waste. This system was in start-up at the time
of sampling, however, and was not found to be operating
effectively.
Advantages
technology
and Limitations.
Ion exchange
a great many
is a versatile
situations. This
applicable to
flexibility, along with its compact nature and performance, makes
ion exchange a very effective method of wastewater treatment.
However, the resins in these systems can prove to be a limiting
factor. The thermal limits of the anion resins, generally in the
vicinity of 60C, could prevent its use in certain situations.
Similarly, nitric acid, chromic acid, and hydrogen peroxide can
all damage the resins, as will iron, manganese, arid 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 originating from the
regeneration process are extremely high in pollutant
concentrations, although low in volume. These must be
further processed for proper disposal. ;
1370
-------
Operational Factors.
occasional clogging
— ~^,_..-. j.v^iiiij. <-j.wyyo.ny i_i j. J-UUJ-J.Iig OT TZne TS
proved to be a highly dependable technology
Reliability: With the exception of
or fouling of the resins, ion exchange ha?
nrJAhl £* 1-ooHnr*\l r-\mr
Maintainability: Only the normal maintenance of pumps, valves
piping and other hardware used in the regeneration process is
required.
Solid Waste Aspects: Few, if any, solids accumulate within the
ion exchangers, and those which do appear are removed by the re-
generation process. Proper prior treatment and planning can eli-
minate solids buildup problems altogether. The brine
resulting from regeneration of the ion exchange resin
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 focusinq 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 compartmentalized
tank with ion exchange, washing, and regeneration sections. The
resins are therefore continually used and fegenerated. No such
system, however, has been reported beyond the pilot stage.
21. 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 nongelatinous, easily dewatered, and highly
J™in; • ^suiting 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 precipitatl
mixture flows through the inside of the tubes, the watSr and any
dissolved salts permeate the membrane. When the recirculating
slurry reaches a concentration of 10 to 15 percent solids, it il
pumped out of the system as sludge. ^xxas, ic is
Application and Performance. Membrane filtration appears to be
applicable to any wastewater or process water containing meta!
ions which can be precipitated using hydroxide, sulfide or
carbonate precipitation. It could function as the primary
trSSSS ,S??tem' bu^ ajs°.»i9ht find application as a pollshfng
treatment (after precipitation and settling) to ensure continued
compliance with metals limitations. Membrane fil^tion systemt
are being used in a number of industrial 2pp?icltions?'
1371
-------
particularly in the metal finishing area. They have also been
used for toxic metals removal in the metal fabrication industry
and the paper industry.
The permeate is claimed by one manufacturer to contain less than
the effluent concentrations shown in Table VII-27 regardless
of the influent concentrations. These claims have been
largely substantiated by the analysis of1 water samples at
various plants in various industries.
In the performance predictions for this technology, pollutant
concentrations are reduced to the levels shown in Table VII-27
unless lower levels are present in the influent stream.
Advantages and Limitations. A major advantage of the membrane
filtration system is that installations can use most of the
conventional end-of-pipe systems that may already be in place.
Removal efficiencies are claimed to be excellent, even with
sudden variation of pollutant input rates; however, the
effectiveness of the membrane filtration system can be limited by
clogging of the filters. Because pH changes in the waste stream
greatly intensify clogging problems, the pH must be carefully
monitored and controlled'. Clogging can force the shutdown of
the system and may interfere with production. In addition,
the relatively high capital cost of this system may limit its
use.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Membrane filtration has been
shown to be a very reliable system, provided that the pH is
strictly controlled. Improper pH can result in the clogging of
the membrane. Also, surges in the flow rate of the waste stream
must be controlled in order to prevent solids from passing
through the filter and into the effluent.
Maintainability: The membrane filters must be regularly
monitored, and cleaned or replaced as necessary. Depending on
the composition of the waste stream and its flow rate, frequent
cleaning of the filters may be required. Flushing with
hydrochloric acid for 6 to 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.
1372
-------
22. 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.
Application and Performance. Peat adsorption can be used in
nonferrous metals forming for removal of residual dissolved
metals from clarifier effluent. Peat moss may be used to
treat wastewaters containing heavy metals such as mercury,
cadmium, zinc, copper, iron, nickel, chromium, and lead, as
well as organic matter such as oil, detergents, 'and
dyes. Peat adsorption is currently used commercially at a
textile plant, a newsprint facility, and a metal reclamation
operation.
Table VII-28 contains performance figures obtained from pilot
plant studies. Peat adsorption was preceded by pH adjustment
for precipitation and by clarification.
In addition, pilot plant studies have shown that chelated metal
wastes, as well as the chelating agents themselves, are removed
by contact with peat moss.
Advantages and Limitations. The major advantages of the system
include its ability to yield low pollutant concentrations, its
broad .scope in terms of the pollutants eliminated, and its
capacity to accept wide variations of waste water composition.
Limitations include the cost of purchasing, storing, and
disposing of the peat moss; the necessity for regular replacement
of the peat may lead to high operation and maintenance costs.
Also, the pH adjustment must be altered according to the
composition of the waste stream.
Operational Factors. Reliability: The question of long term
reliability is not yet fully answered. Although the manufacturer
1373
-------
reports it to be a highly reliable system,
is needed to verify the claim.
operating experience
Maintainability: The peat moss used in this process soon
exhausts its capacity to adsorb pollutants. At that time, the
kiers must be opened, the peat removed, and fresh peat placed
inside. Although this procedure is easily and quickly
accomplished, it must be done at regular intervals, or the
system's efficiency drops drastically.
Solid Waste Aspects: After removal from the kier, the spent peat
must be eliminated. If incineration is used, precautions should
be taken to insure that those pollutants removed:from the water
are not released again in the combustion process. Presence of
sulfides in the spent peat, for example, will give rise to sulfur
dioxide in the fumes from burning. The presence of significant
quantities of toxic heavy metals in battery manufacturing
wastewater will in general preclude incineration of peat used in
treating these wastes.
Demonstration Status.
Only three facilities currently use
systems in the United States - a textile
commercial adsorption ^ _ _,__
manufacturer, a newsprint facility, and a metal reclamation firm"
No data have been reported showing the use of peat adsorption in
nonferrous metals forming plants.
23. Reverse Osmosis
The process of osmosis involves the passage of a liquid through a
semipermeable membrane from a dilute to a more concentrated
solution. Reverse osmosis (RO) is an operation in which pressure
is applied to the more concentrated solution, forcing the per-
meate to diffuse through the membrane and into the more dilute
solution. This filtering action produces a concentrate and a
permeate on opposite sides of the membrane. The concentrate can
then_be further treated or returned to the original operation for
•continued use, while the permeate water can be recycled for use
as clean water. Figure VII-26 depicts a reverse osmosis
system.
As illustrated in Figure VII-27, there are three basic
configurations used in commercially available RO modules:
tubular, spiral-wound, and hollow fiber. All of these operate on
the principle described above, the major difference being their
mechanical and structural design characteristics.
The tubular membrane module uses a porous tube with a cellulose
acetate membrane lining. A common tubular module consists of a
length of 2.5 cm (1 inch) diameter tube wound on a supporting
spool and encased in a plastic shroud. Feed water is driven into
the tube under pressures varying from 40 to 55 atm (600-800 psi).
The permeate passes through the walls of the tube and is
collected in a manifold while the concentrate is drained off at
the end of the tube. A less widely used tubular RO module uses a
1374
-------
straight tube contained in a housing, under
conditions.
the same operating
Spiral-wound membranes consist of a porous backing sandwiched
between two cellulose acetate membrane sheets and bonded along
three edges. The fourth edge of the composite sheet is attached
to a large permeate collector tube. A spacer screen is then
placed on top of the membrane sandwich, and the entire stack is
rolled around the centrally located tubular permeate collector.
The rolled up package is inserted into a pipe able to withstand
the high operating pressures employed in this process, up to 55
atm (800 psi) with the spiral-wound module. When the system is
operating, the pressurized product water permeates the membrane
and flows through the backing material to the central collector
tube. .The concentrate is drained off at the end of the container
pipe and can be reprocessed or sent to further treatment facili-
ties.
The hollow fiber membrane configuration is made up of a bundle of
polyamide fibers of approximately 0.0075 cm (0.003 in.) OD and
0.0043 cm (0.0017 in.) ID. A commonly used hollow fiber module
contains several hundred thousand of the fibers placed in a long
tube, wrapped around a flow screen, and rolled into a spiral.
The fibers are bent in a U-shape and their ends are supported by
an epoxy bond. The hollow fiber unit is operated under 27 atm
(400 psi), the feed water being dispersed from the center of the
module through a porous distributor tube. Permeate flows through
the membrane to the hollow interiors of the fibers and is
collected at-the ends of the fibers.
The hollow fiber and spiral-wound modules have a distinct advan-
tage over the tubular system in that they are able to load a very
large membrane surface area into a relatively small volume.
However, these two membrane types are much more susceptible to
fouling than the tubular system, which has a larger flow channel.
This characteristic also makes the tubular membrane much easfer
to clean and regenerate than either the spiral-wound or hollow
fiber modules. One manufacturer claims that their helical
tubular module can be physically wiped clean by passing a soft
porous polyurethane plug under pressure through the module.
Application and Performance. In a number of metal processing
plants, the overflow from the first rinse in a countercurrent
setup is directed to a reverse osmosis unit, where it is
separated into two streams. The concentrated stream contains
dragged out chemicals and is returned to the bath to replace the
loss of solution caused by 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
1375
-------
evaporated vapor can be condensed and returned to the last rinse
tank or sent on for further treatment.
The largest application has been for the recovery of nickel solu-
tions. It has been shown that RO can generally be applied to
™e£a]Vv,bathS uWith a high degree of Performance,
that the membrane unit is not overtaxed. The
limitations most critical here are the allowable pH ranqe 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.
i
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 lowmpower requirements. No latent heat of vaporization or
fusion is required for effecting separations; the main energy
requirement is for a high pressure pump. It requires relatively
little floor space for compact, high capacity units, and it
exhibits good recovery and rejection rates for a number of
typical process solutions. A limitation of the reverse osmosis
process for treatment of process effluents is its limited
temperature range for satisfactory operation. For cellulose
acetate systems, the preferred limits are 18 to 30C (65 to 85F) •
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. Foulinq of
membranes by slightly soluble components in solution or colloids
has caused failures, and fouling of membranes by feed waters with
V^h 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 osmotic 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.
Downtime for flushing or cleaning is on the order of two hours as
1376
-------
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.
Solid Waste Aspects: In a closed loop system utilizing RO,
there is a constant recycle of concentrate and a minimal
amount of solid waste. Prefiltration eliminates many solids
before they reach the module and helps keep the buildup to a
minimum. These solids require proper disposal.
Demonstration Status. There are presently at least one hundred
reverse osmosis wastewater applications in a variety of
industries. In addition to these, there are 30 to 40 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 suc-
cess in commercial applications.
24. Sludge Bed Drying
As a waste treatment procedure, sludge bed drying is employed to
reduce the water content of a variety of sludges to the point
where they are amenable to mechanical collection and removal to
landfill. These beds usually consist of 15 to 45 cm (6 to 18
in.) of sand over a 30 cm (12 in.) deep gravel drain system made
up of 3 to 6 mm (1/8 to 1/4 in.) graded gravel overlying drain
tiles. Figure VII-28 shows the construction of a drying
bed.
Drying ' beds are usually divided into sectional areas
approximately 7.5 meters (25 ft) wide x 30 to 60 meters (100 to
200 ft) long. The partitions may be earth embankments, but more
often are made of planks and supporting grooved posts..
To apply liquid sludge to the sand bed, a closed conduit or a
pressure pipeline with valved outlets at each sand bed section is
often employed. Another method of application is by means of an
open channel with appropriately placed side openings which are
controlled by slide gates. With either type of delivery system,
a concrete splash slab should be provided to receive the falling
sludge and prevent erosion of the sand surface.
Where it is necessary to dewater sludge continuously throughout
the year regardless of the weather, sludge beds may be covered
with a fiberglass reinforced plastic or other roof. Covered
drying beds permit a greater volume of sludge drying per year in
most climates because of the protection afforded from rain or
snow and because of more efficient control of temperature.
Depending on the climate, a combination of open and enclosed beds
will provide maximum utilization of the sludge bed drying
facilities.
Application and Performance. Sludge drying beds are. a means of
dewatering sludge from clarifiers and thickeners. They are
1377
-------
facilities'^
municiPal and industrial treatment
Dewatering of sludge on sand beds occurs by two mechanism^-
fiiS?"?" 0?.W^er thr°Ugh the bed and evaporation of wa£er Is 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 I free water
Advantages and Limitations. The main advantage of sludge dryinq
beds over other types of sludge dewatering is the relatively low
cost of construction, operation, and. maintenance.
weathr
* x, - large area of land ^quired and long
depend, to a great extent, on climate and
Operational Factors. Reliability: Reliability is high with
favorable climatic conditions, proper bed. design and clre to
a^d«--eXCe?S1Ve -°r unec*ual sludge application. if climatic
conditions in a given area are not favorable for adequate dryino
a cover may be necessary. ux.yj.ug,
Maintainability: Maintenance consists basically of periodic
re?£VaJ °? Jthe dried Slud9e. 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
°Ja,;^dge, to the beds must be kept watertight. Provision for
drainage of _ lines in winter should be provided to prevent damage
£u°? Jrfezin?- 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
«JvJi; in the clanfier. Metals will be present as hydroxides,
oxides, sulfides, or other salts. They have the potential for
leaching and contaminating ground water, whatever the location of
the semidried solids. Thus the abandoned bed or landfill should
include provision for runoff control and leachate monitoring.
1378
-------
Demonstration Status. " Sludge beds have been in common use in
both municipal and industrial facilities for many yea;o.
However, protection of ground water from contamination is not
always adequate.
25. 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 ultrafliter forms a
molecular screen which retains molecular particles based 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 of 1,000 to 100,000 and particles
of comparable or larger sizes.
In an Ultrafiltration process, the feed solution is pumped
through a tubular membrane unit. Water and some low molecular
weight materials pass through the membrane under the applied
pressure of 2 to 8 atm (10 to 100 psig). Emulsified oil droplets
and suspended particles are retained, concentrated, and removed
continuously. In contrast to ordinary filtration, retained
materials are washed off the membrane filter rather than held by
it. Figure VII-29 represents the ulfcrafiltration process!
Figure VI1-34 . shows a flow diagram for a batch treatment
Ultrafiltration system.
Application and Performance. Ultrafiltration has potential
application to nonferrous metals forming wastewater for
separation of oils and residual solids from a variety of
waste streams. In treating nonferrous metals forming 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 is 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 test data in Table VII-29 indicate Ultrafiltration
performance (note that UF is not intended to remove dissolved
solids). 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
1379
-------
applications or discharged directly. The concentrate from the
ultrafiltration unit can be disposed of as any oily or solid
waste.
Advantages and Limitations. Ultrafiltration is sometimes an
attractive alternative to chemical treatment because of lower
capital equipment, installation, and operating costs, very high
oil and suspended solids removal, and little required
pretreatment. It places a positive barrier between pollutants
and effluent which reduces the possibility of extensive pollutant
discharge due to operator error or upset in settling and skimming
systems. Alkaline values in alkaline cleaning solutions can 'be
recovered and reused in process.
A limitation of ultrafiltration for treatment of process
effluents is its narrow temperature range (18 to 30C) 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 trade-off 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 therefore must be
removed by gravity settling or filtration prior to the
ultrafiltration unit.
Operational , Factors. Reliability: The reliability of an
ultrafiltration system is dependent on the proper filtration,
settling or other treatment of incoming waste streams to prevent
damage to the membrane. Careful pilot studies should be done in
each instance to determine necessary pretreatment steps and the
exact membrane type to be used.
Maintainability: A limited amount of regular' maintenance is
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 occasionally necessary to 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.
Solid Waste Aspects: Ultrafiltration is used primarily to
recover solids and liquids. It therefore eliminates solid waste
problems when the solids (e.g., paint solids) can be recycled to
the process. Otherwise, the stream containing solids must be
treated by end-of-pipe equipment. In the most probable
applications within the nonferrous metals forming category,
1380
-------
the ultrafilter would remove hydroxides or sulfides
which have recovery value.
of
metals
Demonstration Status. The ultrafiltration process is well
developed and commercially available for treatment of wastewater
or recovery of certain high molecular weight liquid and solid
contaminants.
use.
One nonferrous metals forming plant reported its
26. Vacuum Filtration
In wastewater treatment plants, sludge dewatering by vacuum
filtration generally uses cylindrical drum filters. These drums
have a filter medium which may be cloth made of natural or
synthetic fibers or a wire-mesh fabric. The drum is suspended
above and dips into a vat of sludge. As the drum rotates slowly,
part of its circumference is subject to an internal vacuum that
draws sludge to the filter medium. Water is drawn through the
porous filter cake to a discharge port, and the dewatered sludge,
loosened by compressed air, is scraped from the filter mesh.
Because the.dewatering of sludge on vacuum filters is relatively
expensive per kilogram of water removed, the liquid sludge is
frequently thickened prior to processing. A vacuum filter is
shown in Figure VII-30.
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
clacifier. sludge before vacuum filtering.
The function of vacuum filtration is to reduce the water content
of sludge, so that the solids content increases from about 5
percent to about 30 percent.
Advantages and Limitations. Although the initial cost and area
requirement of the vacuum filtration system are higher than those
of a centrifuge, the operating cost is lower, and no special
provisions for sound and vibration protection need be made. The
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 wastewater 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'
1381
-------
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 dn 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
a fully proven, conventional technology for
used in 18
many years. It is
sludge dewatering. Vacuum filtration is
nonferrous metals forming plants for sludge dewatering.
27. Permanganate Oxidation
Permanganate oxidation is a chemical reaction by which wastewater
pollutants can be oxidized. When the reaction is carried to
completion, the byproducts of the oxidation are not
environmentally harmful. A large number of pollutants can be
practically oxidized by permanganate, including cyanides,
hydrogen sulfide, and phenol. In addition, the chemical oxygen
demand ^ (COD) and many odors in wastewaters and sludges can be
significantly reduced by permanganate oxidation carried to its
end point. Potassium permanganate can be added to wastewater in
either dry or slurry form. The oxidation occurs optimally in the
8 to 9 pH range. As an example of the permanganate oxidation
process, the following chemical equation shows the oxidation of
phenol by potassium permanganate:
3 C6H5(OH). + 28 KMn04 + 5H2 ---- > 18 CO2 + 28KOH + 28
One of the byproducts of this oxidation is manganese dioxide
(Mn02)f which occurs as a relatively stable hydrous
colloid usually having a negative charge. These properties, in
addition to its large surface area, enable manganese dioxide to
act as a sorbent for metal cation, thus enhancing their removal
from the wastewater.
Application and Performance. Commercial use of permanganate
oxidation has been primarily for the control of phenol and waste
odors. Several municipal waste treatment facilities report that
initial hydrogen sulfide concentrations (causing serious odor
problems) as high as 100 mg/1 have been reduced to zero through
the application of potassium permanganate. A variety of
industries (including metal finishers and agricultural chemical
manufacturers) have used permanganate oxidation to totally
1382
-------
destroy phenol in their wastewaters.
Advantages and Limitations. Permanganate oxidation has several
advantages as a wastewater treatment technique. Handling and
storage are facilitated by its non-toxic and non-corrosive
nature. Performance has been proved in a number of municipal and
industrial applications. The tendency of the manganese dioxide
by-product to act as a coagulant aid is a distinct advantage over
other types of.chemical treatment.
The cost of permanganate oxidation treatment can be limiting
where very large dosages are required to oxidize wastewater
pollutants. In addition, care must be taken in storage to
prevent exposure to intense heat, acids, or reducing agents;
exposure could create a fire hazard or cause explosions. Of
greatest concern is the environmental hazard which the use of
manganese chemicals in treatment could cause. Care must be taken
to remove the manganese from treated water before discharge.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Maintenance' consists of
periodic sludge removal and cleaning of pump feed lines.
Frequency of maintenance is dependent on .wastewater
characteristics.
Solid Waste Aspects: Sludge is generated by the process where
the manganese dioxide byproduct tends to act as a coagulant aid.
The sludge from permanganate oxidation can be collected and
handled by standard sludge treatment and processing equipment.
Demonstration Status. The oxidation of wastewater pollutants by
potassium permanganate is a proven treatment process in several
types of industries. It has been shown effective in treating .a
wide variety of pollutants in both municipal and industrial
wastes. No nonferrqus metals forming plants are know to use
permanganate oxidation for wastewater treatment at this time.
28. Ammonia Steam Stripping
Ammonia, often used as a process reagent, dissolves in water to
an extent governed by the partial pressure of the gas in contact
with the liquid. The ammonia may be removed from process
wastewaters by stripping with air or steam.
Air stripping takes place in a packed or lattice tower; air is
blown through the packed bed or lattice, over which the ammonia-
laden stream flows. Usually, the wastewater is heated prior to
delivery to the tower, and air is used at ambient temperature.
The term "ammonia steam stripping" refers to the process of
desorbing aqueous ammonia by contacting the liquid with a
sufficient amount of ammonia-free steam. The steam is introduced
countercurrent to the wastewater to maximize removal of ammonia.
The operation is commonly carried out in packed bed or tray
columns, and the pH is adjusted to 12 or more with lime. Simple'
1383
-------
tray designs (such as dish and doughnut trays) are used in steam
stripping because of the presence of appreciable suspended solids
and the scaling produced by lime. These allow easy cleaning of
the tower, at the expense of somewhat lower steam water contact
efficiency, necessitating the use of more trays for the same
removal efficiency.
Application and Performance. The evaporation of water and the
volatilization of ammonia generally produces a drop in both
temperature and pH, which ultimately limit the removal of ammonia
in a single air stripping tower. However, high removals are
favored by:
1. High pH values, which shift the equilibrium from ammonium
toward free ammonia;
2. High temperature, which decreases the solubility of ammonia
in aqueous solutions; and
3. Intimate and extended contact between the wastewater to * be
stripped and the stripping gas.
Of these factors, pH and temperature are generally more cost-
effective to optimize than increasing contact time by an increase
in contact tank volume or recirculation ratio. The temperature
will, to some extent, be controlled by the climatic conditions;
the pH of the wastewater can be adjusted to assure optimum
stripping.
Steam stripping offers better ammonia removal (99 percent or
better) than air stripping for high-ammonia wastewaters found in
the magnesium forming, titanium forming and zirconium-hafnium
forming subcategories of this category. The performance of an
ammonia stripping column is influenced by a number of important
variables that are associated with the wastewater being treated
and column design. Brief discussions of these variables follow.
Wastewater pH: Ammonia in water exists in two forms, NH3 and
NH4+, the distribution of which is pH-dependent. Since
only the molecular form of ammonia (NH3) can be stripped,
increasing the fraction of NH3 by increasing the pH enhances
the rate of ammonia desorption.
Column Temperature: The temperature of the stripping column
affects the equilibrium between gaseous and dissolved ammonia, as
well as the equilibrium between the molecular and ionized forms
of ammonia in water. An increase in the temperature reduces the
ammonia solubility and increases the fraction of aqueous ammonia
that is in the molecular form, both of which have favorable
effects on the desorption rate.
Steam rate: The rate of ammonia transfer from the liquid to gas
phase is directly proportional to the degree of ammonia
undersaturation in the desorbing gas. Increasing the rate of
1384
-------
steam supply, therefore, increases undersaturation and ammonia
transfer.
Column design: A properly designed stripper column achieves
uniform distribution of the feed liquid across the cross-section
of the column, rapid renewal of the liquid-gas interface, and
extended liquid-gas contacting area and time.
Chemical analysis data were collected for raw waste (treatment
influent) and treated waste (treatment effluent) from one plant
in the iron and steel category. EPA collected six paired samples
over a two-month period. These data are the data base for
determining the effectiveness of ammonia steam stripping
technology and are contained within the public record-supporting
this document. Ammonia treatment at this coke plant consisted of
two steam stripping columns in series with steam injected
countercurrently to the flow of the wastewater., A lime reactor
for pH adjustment separated the two stripping columns.
An arithmetic mean of the treatment effluent data produced an
ammonia long-term mean value of 32.2 mg/1. The one-day maximum,
10-day, and 30-day average concentrations attainable by ammonia
steam stripping were calculated using the long-term mean of the
32.2 mg/1 and the variability factors developed for the combined
metals data base. This produced ammonia concentrations of
133.3, 58.6, and 52.1 mg/1 ammonia for the one-day maximum, 10-
day and 30-day averages, respectively.
EPA believes the performance data from the iron 'and steel
category provide a valid measure of this technology's performance
on nonferrous metals forming category wastewater.
The Agency has verified the proposed steam stripping performance
values using steam stripping data collected at a zirconium-
hafnium manufacturing plant, a plant in the nonferrous metals
manufacturing category which has raw ammonia concentrations as
high as any in the nonferrous metals forming category. Data
collected by the plant represent almost two years of daily
operations, and support the long-term mean used to establish
treatment effectiveness.
Several comments were received regarding the application of
ammonia steam stripping technology to nonferrous metals
manufacturing wastewaters. These comments stated that ammonia
steam stripping performance data transferred from the iron and
steel category are not appropriate for the nonferrous metals
manufacturing category. Many of the commenters believe plugging
of the column due to precipitates will adversely affect their
ability to achieve the promulgated steam stripping performance
values. In developing compliance costs, the Agency designed the
steam stripping module to allow for a weekly acid cleaning to
reduce plugging problems (see Section VIII, p. xxx). Through
Section 308 information requests, the Agency attempted to gather
data at plants which stated they could not achieve the proposed
limits. However, very little data were submitted to support
1385
-------
their claims or document column performance. Therefore, the
Agency has retained the proposed performance based on the data
from the iron and steel category.
Commenters on the limitations and standards for the secondary
aluminum subcategory of the nonferrbus metals manufacturing
category contend that stripped ammonia will have to be disposed
of as corrosive hazardous waste. The Agency does not agree with
the commenters because ammonia has an Intrinsic value. The
ammonia can either be sold, given away, or reused in the
manufacturing process. Steam stripping can recover significant'
quantities of reagent ammonia from wastewaters containing
extremely high initial ammonia concentrations, which partially
offsets the capital and energy costs of the technology.
Advantages and Limitations. Strippers are widely used in
industry to remove a variety of materials, including hydrogen
sulfide and volatile organics as well as ammonia, from aqueous
streams. The basic techniques have been applied both in-process
and in wastewater treatment applications and are well understood
The use of steam strippers with and without pH adjustment is
standard practice for the removal of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia
in the petroleum refining industry and has been studied
extensively in this context. Air stripping is used to treat
municipal and industrial wastewater and is recognized as an
effective technique of broad applicability. Both air and steam
stripping^ have successfully treated ammonia-laden wastewater,
both within the nonferrous metals manufacturing category and for
similar wastes in closely related industries.
The major drawback of air stripping is the low efficiency in cold
weather and the possibility of freezing within the tower
Because lime may cause scaling problems and the types of towers
used in air stripping are not easily cleaned, caustic soda is
generally employed to raise the feed pH. Air stripping simply
transfers the ammonia from water to air, whereas steam stripping
allows for recovery and, if so desired, reuse of ammonia. The
two major limitations of steam strippers are the critical column
design required for proper operation and the operational problems
associated with fouling of the packing material.
Operational Factors. Reliability and Maintainability: Strippers
are relatively easy to operate. The most complicated part of a
steam stripper is the boiler. Periodic maintenance will prevent
unexpected shutdowns of the boiler.
Packing fouling interferes with the intimate contacting of
liquid-gas, thus decreasing the column efficiency, and eventually
leads to flooding. The stripper column is periodically taken out
of service and cleaned with acid and water with air sparging
Column cutoff is predicated on a maximum allowable pressure drop
across the packing of maximum "acceptable" ammonia content in the
stripper bottoms. Although packing fouling may not be completely
avoidable due to endothermic CaS04 precipitation, column runs
could be prolonged by a preliminary treatment step designed to
1386
-------
remove suspended solids originally present in the feed and those
precipitated after lime addition.
Demonstration Status. Steam stripping has proved to be an
efficient, reliable process for the removal of ammonia from many
types of industries wastewaters that contain high concentrations
of ammonia. Industries using ammonia steam stripping technology
include the fertilizer, iron and steel, petroleum refining,
organic chemicals manufacturing, and nonferrous metals
manufacturing industries. One nonferrous metals forming plant
reported using this technology.
IN-PROCESS POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNIQUES
In general, the most cost-effective • pollution reduction tech-
niques available to any industry are those which prevent
completely the entry of pollutants into process wastewater or
reduce the volume of wastewater requiring treatment. These "in-
process" controls can increase treatment effectiveness by
reducing the volume of wastewater to treatment,
resulting in more concentrated waste streams from which they can
be more completely removed, or by eliminating pollutants which
are not readily removed or which interfere with the
treatment of other pollutants. They also frequently yield
economic benefits in reduced water consumption, decreased waste
treatment costs and decreased consumption or recovery of process
materials.
Techniques which may be applied to reduce pollutant discharges
from most nonferrous metals forming subcategories include
wastewater segregation, water recycle and reuse, water use
reduction, process modification, and plant maintenance and
good housekeeping. Effective in-process control at most
plants will entail a combination of several techniques.
Frequently, the practice of one in-process control technique is
required for the successful implementation of another. For
example, wastewater segregation is frequently a prerequisite
for the extensive practice of wastewater recycle or reuse. ,
Wastewater Segregation
The segregation of wastewater streams is a key element in
implementing pollution control in the nonferrous metals forming
category. Separation of noncontact cooling water from
process wastewater prevents dilution of the process wastes and
maintains the character of the non-contact stream for subsequent
reuse or discharge. Similarly, the segregation of process
wastewater streams differing significantly in their
chemical characteristics can reduce treatment costs and
increase effectiveness.
Mixing process wastewater with noncontact cooling water increases
the total volume of process \vascewater. This has an adverse
effect on both treatment performance and cost. The increased
volume of wastewater increases the size and cost of treatment
1387
-------
facilities. Since a given treatment technology has a specific
treatment effectiveness and can only achieve certain discharge
concentrations of pollutants, the total mass of pollutants which
is discharged increased with dilution. Thus a plant which
segregates noncontact cooling water and pther nonprocess waters
from process wastewater will almost always achieve a lower
mass discharge of pollutants• while substantially reducing
treatment costs.
Nonferrous metals forming plants commonly produce multiple
process and nonprocess wastewater streams. The identified
nonprocess streams include wastewater streams that are reusable
after minimal treatment and other streams that are not reusable.
Reusable waters are most often noncontact cooling waters. This
water is uncontaminated and can be recycled in a closed indirect
cooling configuration as well as use as makeup for process water.
Noncontact cooling water is commonly recycled for reuse.
The segregation of dilute process waste streams from those bear-
ing high pollutant loads may allow further use of the dilute
streams. Sometimes the lightly polluted stream may be recycled
to the process from which they were discharged, such as
annealing. Other wastewater streams may be suitable for use
in another process with only minimal treatment.
Segregation of wastewater streams may allow separate treatment
of the wastewater stream which often costs less. For
example, wastewater streams containing high levels of suspended
solids may be treated in separate inexpensive settling
systems rather than a more expensive lime and settle
treatment system. Often the clarified wastewater is suitable
for further process use and both pollutant loads and the
wastewater volume requiring further treatment are reduced.
Segregation and separate treatment of selected wastewater streams
may yield an additional economic benefit to the plant by allowing
increased recovery of process materials. The solids borne by
wastewater from a specific process operation are primarily
composed of materials used in that operation. Sludges
resulting from separate settling of these streams may be
reclaimed for use in the process with little or no processing or
recovered for reprocessing.
Wastewater Recycle and Reuse
The recycle or reuse of process wastewater is a particularly
effective technique for the re-duction of both pollutant
discharges and treatment costs. The term "recycle" is used to
designate the return of process wastewater, usually after
some treatment, to the process or processes from which it
originated, while "reuse" refers to the use of wastewater from
one process in another. Both recycle and reuse of process
wastewater are presently practiced at nonferrous metals
forming plants, although recycle is more extensively used. The
most frequently recycled waste streams include wet air pollution
* 1388
-------
control wastewater discharges,"- casting contact cooling water,
annealing and heat treatment contact cooling water and rolling
emulsions. Numerous other process wastewater streams- from
nonferrous metals forming processes may also be recycled or
reused. Both recycle and reuse are frequently possible without
extensive treatment of the wastewater; process pollutants
present in the waste stream are often tolerable (or
occasionally even beneficial) for process use. Recycle or
reuse in these instances yields cost savings by reducing
the volume of wastewater requiring treatment. Where treatment
is required for recycle or reuse, it is frequently
considerably simpler than the treatment necessary to achieve
effluent quality suitable for release to the environment.
Treatment prior to recycle or reuse observed in present
practice is generally restricted to simple settling or
neutralization. Since these treatment practices are less costly
than those used prior to discharge, economic as well as
environmental benefits are usually realized. In addition ' to
these in-process recycle and reuse practices, some plants
return part or all of the treated effluent from an end-of-pipe
treatment system for further process use.
Recycle can usually be implemented with minimal expense and comp-
lications because the required treatment is often minimal and the
water for recycle is immediately available. As an example, hot
rolling contact cooling water can be * collected in the
immediate area of the rolling mill cooled in a cooling tower,
and recycled for use in the rolling process. A flow diagram for
recycling direct chill casting water with a cooling tower is
shown in -Figure VII-36.
The rate of water used in wet air scrubbers is determined by the
requirement for adequate contact with the air being scrubbed and
not by the mass of pollutants to be removed. As 'a result,
wastewater streams from once-through scrubbers are character-
istically very dilute and high in volume. These streams can
usually be recycled extensively without treatment with no
deleterious effect on scrubber performance. Limited treatment
such as neutralization where acid fumes are scrubbed can signifi-
cantly increase the practical recycle rate.
Water used in washing process equipment and production floor
areas frequently serves primarily to remove solid materials and
is often treated by settling and recycled. This practice is
especially prevalent in the precious metals subcategory but is
observed in other subcategories as well. The extent of
recycle of these waste streams may be very high, and in many
cases no wastewater is discharged from the recycle loop.
Water used in surface treatment rinsing is also recirculated in
some cases. This practice is ultimately limited by the
concentrations of materials rinsed off the product in the
rinsewater. Wastewater from contact cooling operations also may
contain low concentrations of pollutants which do not interfere.
with the recycle of these streams. In some cases, recycle of
1389
-------
contact cooling water with no treatment is observed while in
others, provisions for heat removal in cooling towers or closed
heat exchangers is required. Where contact cooling water becomes
heavily contaminated with acid, neutralization may be
required to minimize corrosion.
Water used in vacuum pump seals and steam ejectors commonly
becomes contaminated with process pollutants. The levels of
contaminants in these waste streams are sometimes low enough
to allow recycle to the process with minimal treatment. A
high degree of recycle of wastewater from contact cooling streams
may require provisions for neutralization or removal of heat.
The extent of recycle possible in most process water uses is
ultimately limited by increasing concentrations of dissolved
solids in the water. The buildup of dissolved salts generally
necessitates some small discharge or "blowdown" from the process
to treatment. In those cases, where the rate of addition of
dissolved salts is balanced by removal of dissolved solids in
water entrained in settled solids, complete recycle with no
discharge can be achieved. In other instances, the contaminants
which build up in the recycle loop may be compatible with another
process operation, and ' the "blowdown" may be used in another
process. An example of this is the reuse of alkaline cleaning
rinsewater as make-up to an acid fume wet air pollution control
recirculating system. The rinsewater provides alkaline species
to neutralize the acid fumes.
Water Use Reduction
The volume of wastewater discharge from a plant or specific
process operation may be reduced by simply eliminating
excess _ flow and unnecessary water use. Often this may be
accomplished with no change in the manufacturing process or
equipment and without any capital expenditure. A comparison of
the volumes of process water used in and discharged from
equivalent process operations at different plants or on
different days at the same plant indicates substantial
opportunities for water use reductions. Additional reductions
in process water use and discharge may be achieved by
modifications to process techniques and equipment.
Many production units in nonferrous metals forming plants
were observed to operate intermittently or at highly variable
production rates. The practice of shutting off process water
flow during periods when the unit is not operating and of
adjusting flow rates during periods of low production can
prevent much unnecessary water use. Water may be shut off
and controlled manually or through automatically controlled
valves. Manual adjustments have been found to be somewhat
unreliable in practice; production personnel often fail to turn
off manual valves when production units are shut down and tend to
increase water flow rates to maximum - levels "to insure good
operation" regardless of production activity. Automatic shut-
off valves may be used to turn off water flows when
1390
-------
production units are inactive. Automatic adjustment of flow
rates according to production levels requires more sophisticated
control systems incorporating, production, rate . sensors .
Observations and flow measurements at visited nonferrous metals
forming plants indicate that automatic flow controls are
rarely employed. Manual control of process water use is
generally observed in process rinse operations, and little or no
adjustment of these flows to production level is practiced.
The present situation is exemplified by a rinse operation at one
plant where the daily average production normalized discharge
flow rate was observed to vary from 287 to 1230 1/kkg over a
three-day span. Thus, significant reductions in pollutant
discharges can be achieved by the application of flow control in
this category at essentially no cost. (A net savings may
be realized from the reduced cost of water and sewage
charges.) Additional .flow reductions may be achieved by
the implementation of more effective water use in some process
operations.
Rinsing is a common operation in nonferrous metals forming plants
and a major source of wastewater discharge at most plants.
Efficient rinsing requires the removal of the greatest possible
mass of material in the smallest possible volume of
water. It is achieved by ensuring that the material removed
is distributed uniformly through the rinse water.
Rinsing efficiency is also increased by the use of multi-stage
and countercurrent cascade rinses (see figures VII-37 and VII-
38). Multi-stage rinses reduce the total rinse water requirements
by allowing the removal of much of the contaminant in a more
concentrated rinse with only the final stage rinse diluted to
the levels required for final product cleanliness.. In a
countercurrent cascade rinse, dilute wastewater from each
rinse stage is reused in the preceding rinse stage and all of
the contaminants are discharged in a single concentrated waste
stream. The technical aspects of countercurrent
cascade rinsing are detailed later in this section.
Equipment and area cleanup practices observed at nonferrous
metals forming plants vary widely. While some plants
employ completely dry cleanup techniques, many others use
water with varying degrees of efficiency. The practice of
"hosing down" equipment and production areas generally represents
a very in-efficient use of water, especially when hoses are
left running during periods when they are not used.
Alternative techniques which use water more efficiently
include vacuum pick-up floor wash machines and bucket and sponge
or bucket and mop techniques as observed at some plants.
Additional reduction in process water and wastewater dis-
charge may be achieved by the substitution of dry air pollution
control devices such as baghouses for wet scrubbers where the
emissions requiring control are amenable to these techniques.
1391
-------
Countercurrent Cascade Rinsing and Multistage Rinsing
Of the many schemes discussed above for reduction of water use in
nonferrous metals forming plant, countercurrent cascade
rinsing is most likely to result in the greatest
reduction of water consumption and use.
Countercurrent cascade rinses are already employed in some plants
in the nonferrous metals forming category. in most cases,
however, these techniques are not combined with effective flow
control, and the wastewater discharge volumes from the
countercurrent cascade rinses are as large as or larger than
corresponding single stage rinse flows at other plants.
Rinse water requirements and the benefits of countercurrent
cascade rinsing may be influenced by the volume of drag-out
solution carried into each rinse stage by the electrode or
material being rinsed, by the number of rinse stages used, by the
initial concentrations of impurities being removed, and by the
final product cleanliness required. The influence of these
factors is expressed in the rinsing equation which may be stated
simply as: . .
Vr = Co (1/n) x VD
Cf
Vr is the flow through each rinse stage.
Co is the concentration of the contaminant(s) in the initial
process, bath
Cf is the concentration of the contaminant(s) in
the final rinse to give acceptable product cleanliness
n
VD
is the number of rinse stages employed,
and
is the flow of drag-out carried into each rinse stage
For a multistage rinse, the total volume of rinse wastewater is
equal to n times Vr while for a countercurrent rinse, Vr is the
total volume of wastewater discharge.
For a multistage rinse, the total volume of rinsewater is equal
to n times Vr while for a countercurrent rinse the total volume
of water equals Vr. As an example, the flow reduction achieved
for pickling a nickel sheet can be estimated through the use of a
two-stage countercurrent cascade rinse following the surface
treatment bath. The mass of nickel in one square meter of sheet
that is 6 mm (0.006 m) in thickness can be calculated using the
density of nickel, 8.90 kkg/m-* (556 Ibs/cu ft), as follows;
= (0.006 m) x (8.90 kkg/m3) = 0.053 kkg/m2 of sheet.
1392
-------
Using the mean surface treatment rinsewater discharge, Vr can
then be calculated as follows:
Vr ='(0.053 kkg x 10,600 1 = 561.8 1/m2 of sheet
m^ kkg
Drag-out is solution which remains on the surface of materials
being rinsed when it is removed from process baths or rinses.
Without specific plant data available to determine drag-out, an
estimate of rinsewater reduction to be achieved with two-stage
countercurrent rinsing can be made by assuming a thickness of any
process solution film as it is introduced into the rinse tank.
If the film on a piece of nickel sheet is 0.015 mm (0.6 mil)
thick, (equivalent to the film on a well-drained vertical
surface) then the volume of process solution, VD, carried into
the rinse tank on two sides of a one square metter of sheet will
be:
VD = (0.015 mm) x ( 1 ra/mm) x (1000 1/m3) x 2
1000
= 0.030 1/m2 of sheet
Let r = Co, then r = 1/n - Vr.
Cf~ VD
For single-stage rinsing, n = 1, therefore, r = Vr
VD
and r = 561.8 = 18,727
0.030
For a 2-stage countercurrent cascade rinse to obtain the same r,
that is the same product cleanliness,
Vr = r 1/2' therefore Vr = 18,727 1/2 = 136.8
VD~ VD
But VD = 0.030 1/m2 of sheet; therefore, for 2-stage
countercurrent cascade' rinsing, Vr is:
Vr = 136.8 x 0.030 - 4.10 1/m2 of sheet
In this theoretical calculation, a flow reduction of greater than
99 percent can be achieved. The actual numbers may vary
depending on efficiency of squeegees or air knives, and the rinse
ratio desired.
1393
-------
Significant flow reductions can be achieved by the addition of
only one other stage in the rinsing operation, as discussed
above. The largest reductions are made by adding the first few
stages. Additional rinsing stages cost additional money. The
actual number of stages added depends on site-specific layout and
operating conditions. With higher costs for water and waste
treatment, more stages might be economical. With very low water
costs, fewer stages would be economical. In considering retrofit
applications, the space available for additional tanks is also
important. After considering all of these points, the Agency
believes that countercurrent cascade rinsing is an effective and
economical means of reducing wastewater flow and consequently
pollutant discharge.
If the flow from stage to stage can be effected by gravity,
either- by raising the latter rinse stage tanks or by varying the
height of the overflow weirs, countercurrent cascade rinsing is
usually quite economical. If, on the other hand, pumps and level
controls must be used, then other methods, such as spray rinsing,
may be more feasible.
Another factor is the need for agitation, which will reduce short
circuiting of the flow. ' Large amounts of short circuiting can
reduce the flow reduction attained by adding more stages. In
cases where water is cascading in enormous quantities over a
workpiece, the high flow usually provides enough agitation. As
more staging is applied to reduce the amount of water, the point
will be reached where the flow of the water itself is not
sufficient to provide agitation. This necessitates either
careful baffling of the tanks or additional mechanical agitation.
Countercurrent cascade rinsing has been widely used as a flow
reduction technique in the metal finishing industry. In aluminum
conversion coating lines.that are subject to the coil coating
limitations, countercurrent cascade rinsing is currently used in
order to reduce costs of wastewater treatment systems (by
allowing use of smaller systems) for direct dischargers and
additionally to reduce sewer charges for indirect dischargers
since those costs are based on flow.
Countercurrent cascade rinsing is currently practiced at 12
nonferrous metals forming plants.
Rinsing
Spray rinsing is another method used to dilute the concentration
of contaminants adhering to the surface of a workpiece. The
basis of this approach is to spray water onto the surface of the
workpiece as opposed to submerging it into a tank. The amount of
water contacting the workpiece, and therefore the amount of water
discharged, is minimized as a result. The water use and
discharge rates can be further reduced through recirculation of
the rinse water.
1394
-------
The equipment required for spray rinsing includes piping, spray
nozzles, a pump, a holding tank and a collection basin. The
holding tank may serve as the collection basin to collect the
rinse water prior to recirculation as a method of space
economization. Spray rinsing is demonstrated in plants in the
nonferrous metals forming category.
Regeneration of Chemical Baths
Regeneration of chemical baths is used to remove contaminants and
recover and reuse the bath chemicals, thus minimizing the
chemical requirements of the bath while achieving zero discharge.
Chemical bath regeneration is applicable to recover . and reuse
chemicals associated with caustic surface treatment baths,
sulfuric acid surface treatment baths, chromic acid surface
treatment baths, and alkaline cleaning baths.
Some metal salts can be precipitated out of chemical baths by
applying a temperature change or shift to the bath. Once the
metal salts are precipitated out of solution, the chemical
properties and utility of the bath can then be restored by adding
fresh chemicals. The addition of lime may aid in precipitating
dissolved metals by forming carbonates or hydroxides.
Ultrafiltration, previously discussed in 'this section, can be
used to remove oils and particulates from alkaline cleaning
baths, allowing the recovery of the water and alkali values to be
a reused in the make-up of fresh bath rather than treating and
discharging them..
Ultrafiltration membranes allow only low molecular weight solutes
and water to pass through and return to the bath; particulates
and oils are held back in a concentrated phase. The concentrated
material is then disposed of separately as a solid waste.
The advantages of bath regeneration are: (1) it reduces the
volume of discharge of the chemical bath water; (2) the surface
treatment operations are made more efficient because the bath can
be kept at a relatively constant strength; (3) it results in
reduced maintenance labor associated with the bath; and (4) it
reduces chemical costs by recovering chemicals and increasing
bath life.
Chemical bath regeneration results in lower maintenance labor
because the bath life is extended. Regeneration also increases
the process reliability in that it eliminates extended periods of
downtime to dump the entire bath solution.
It may be necessary to allow baths normally operated at elevated
temperatures to cool prior to regeneration. As an example, hot
detergent baths will require cooling prior to introducing
material into the ultrafiltration membrane.
1395
-------
Regeneration of caustic, detergent, chromic acid, and sulfuric
acid baths results in the formation of precipitates. These
precipitates are collected, dewatered, if necessary, and then
disposed of as solid wastes. The metal sulfate precipitate
resulting from sulfuric acid baths .may be commercially
marketable. The solid waste aspects of wastewater treatment
sludges similar to regeneration sludges are discussed in detail
in Section VIII.
There are commercial processes available for regenerating baths
which are patented or claimed confidential. In general, these
regeneration processes are based on the fundamental concepts
described above.
As discussed previously in this section, ultrafiltration is well
developed and commercially available for recovery of high
molecular weight liquids and solid contaminants. EPA is not
aware of any nonferrous metals forming plants that have applied
ultrafiltration for the purpose of regenerating bath materials.
There are two aluminum forming plants and one nonferrous metals
forming plant using ultrafiltration to recover spent lubricant
Since alkaline cleaning baths are used to remove these lubricants
from the metalsurface prior to further processing, it is
reasonable to assume that ultrafiltration is equally applicable
for separating these same lubricants from alkaline cleaning baths
used in nonferrous metals forming plants.
Regeneration may be applicable in specific applications in the
nonferrous metals forming category although at present it does
not appear to be applicable on a nationwide basis.
Contract Hauling
Contract hauling refers to. the industry practice of contracting
with a firm to collect and transport wastes for off-site
disposal. This practice is particularly applicable to low-
volume, high concentration waste streams. Examples of such waste
streams in the nonferrous metals forming industry are pickling
baths, drawing lubricants, and cold rolling lubricants.
The dcp data identified several waste solvent haulers, most of
whom haul solvent in addition to their primary business of
hauling waste oils. The value of waste solvents seems to be
sufficient to make waste solvent hauling a viable business.
Telephone interviews conducted during the development of metal
finishing regulations indicate that the number of solvent haulers
is increasing and that their operations are becoming more
sophisticated because of the increased value of waste solvent.
In addition, a number of chemical suppliers include waste hauling
costs in their new solvent price. Some of the larger solvent
refiners make credit arrangements with their clientele; for
example, it was reported that one supplier returns 50 gallons of
refined solvent for every 100 gallons hauled.
1396
-------
Lubricating Oil and Deoiling Solvent Recovery
The recycle of lubricating oils is a common practice in the
industry. The degree of recycle is dependent upon any in-line
treatment (e.g., filtration to remove metal fines and other
contaminants), and the useful life of the specific oil in its
application. Usually, this involves continuous recirculation of
the oil, with losses in the recycle loop from evaporation, oil
carried off by the metal product, g and minor losses from in-line
treatment. Some plants periodically replace the entire batch of
oil once its required properties are depleted. In other cases, a
continuous bleed or blowdown stream of oil is withdrawn from the
recycle loop to maintain a constant level of oil quality. Fresh
make-up oil is added to compensate for the blowdown -and other
losses, and in-line filtration is used between cycles.
Reuse of oil from spent emulsions used in rolling and drawing is
practiced at some plants. The free oil skimmed from gravity oil
and water separation, following emulsion breaking, is valuable.
This free oil contains some solids and water which must be
removed before the oil can be reused. The traditional treatment
involves acidifying the oil in a heated cooker, using steam coils
or live steam to heat the oil to a rolling boil. When the oil is
sufficiently heated, the steam is shut off and the oil and water
are permitted to separate. The collected floating oil layer is
suitable for use as supplemental boiler fuel or for some other
type of in-house reuse. Other plants choose to sell their oily
wastes to oil scavengers, rather than reclaiming the oil
themselves. • The water phase from this operation is either sent
to treatment or, if of a high enough quality, it can be recycled
and used to make up fresh emulsion.
Some plants collected and recycle rolling oils via mist
eliminators. In the rolling process, pils are sprayed as a fine
mist on the rollers for cooling and lubricating purposes, and
some of this oil becomes airborne and may be lost via exhaust
fans or volatilization. With the rising price of oils, it is
becoming a more common practice to prevent these losses. Another
reason for using hood and mist eliminators is the improvement in
the working environment.
Using organic solvents to deoil or degrease nonferrous metals is
usually performed prior to sale or subsequent operations such as
coating. Recycling the spent solvent can be conomically
attractive along with its environmental advantages. No plants
are known to use distillation units to reclaim spent solvent for
recycling in this category. Most plants in this category
contract haul spent solvents or sell them to a reclaimer. No
nonferrous metals forming plants currently discharge spent
solvents as a direct discharge. There are several plants that
discharge spent solvents to a POTW; however, this practice is not
widespread and is subject to strict controls by the POTW for
those that do discharge. The Agency is establishing a no
discharge requirement for this waste stream. This is discussed
more fully in Sections IX through XIII.
1397
-------
Dry Air Pollution Control Devices
The use of dry air pollution control devices allows the
elimination of waste streams with high pollution potential, i.e.,
wastestreams from wet air pollution control devices. However,
the choice of air pollution control equipment is complicated, and
sometimes a wet system is the necessary choice. The important
difference between wet and dry devices 'is that wet devices
control gaseous pollutants as well as particulates.
Wet devices may be chosen over dry devices when any of the
following factors are found: (1) the particle size is
predominantly under 20 microns, (2) flammable particles or gases
are to be treated and there is minimal combustion risk, (3) both
vapors- and particles are to be removed from the carrier medium
and (4) the gases are corrosive and may damage dry air pollution
control devices.
Equipment for dry control of air emissions includes cyclones, dry
electrostatic precipitators, fabric filters, and afterburners.
These devices remove particulate matter, the first three by
entrapment and the afterburners by combustion.
Afterburner use is limited to air emissions consisting mostly of
combustible particles. Characteristics of the particulate-laden
gas which affect the design and use of a device are gas density,
temperature, viscosity, flammability, cbrrosiveness, toxicity,
humidity, and dew point. Particulate characteristics which
affect the design and use of a device are particle size, shape,
density, resistivity, concentration, and other physiochemical
properties.
Scrubbers must be used in forging because of the potential fire
hazard of baghouses used in this capacity. The oily mist
generated in-this operation is highly flammable and also tends to
plug and bind fabric filters, reducing their efficiency.
Caustic surface treatment wet air pollution control is necessary
due to the corrosive nature of the gases.
Proper application of a dry control device can result in
particulate removal efficiencies greater than 99 percent by
weight for fabric filters, electrostatic precipitators, and
afterburners, and up to 95 percent for cyclones.
Common wet air pollution control devices are wet electrostatic
precipitators, venturi scrubbers, and packed tower scrubbers.
Collection efficiency for gases will depend on the solubility of
the contaminant in the scrubbing liquid. Depending on the
contaminant removed, collection efficiencies usually approach 99
percent for particles and gases.
Some nonferrous metals forming plants industry report the use of
dry air pollution controls for forging.
1398
-------
Good Housekeeping
Good housekeeping and proper equipment maintenance are necessary
factors in reducing wastewater loads to treatment systems.
Control of accidental spills of oils, process chemicals, and
wastewater from washdown and filter cleaning or removal can aid
in maintaining the segregation of wastewater streams. Curbed
areas should be used to contain ot control these wastes.
Leaks in pump casings, process piping, etc., should be minimized
to maintain efficient water use. One particular type of leakage
which may cause a water pollution problem is the contamination of
noncontact cooling water by hydraulic oils, especially if this
type of water, is discharged without treatment.
Good housekeeping is also important in chemical, solvent, and oil
storage areas to preclude a catastrophic failure situation.
Storage areas should be isolated from high fire-hazard areas and
arranged so that if a fire or explosion occurs, treatment
facilities will not be overwhelmed nor excessive groundwater
pollution caused by large quantities of chemical-laden fire-
protection water.
Bath or rinse waters that drip off the metal product while it is
being transferred from one tank to another (dragout) should be
collected and returned to their originating tanks. This can be
done with simple drain boards.
A conscientiously applied program of water use reduction can be a
very effective method of curtailing unnecessary wastewater flows.
Judicious use of washdown water and avoidance of unattended
running hoses can significantly reduce water use.
1399
-------
TABLE VII-1
pH CONTROL EFFECT ON METALS REMOVAL
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
Copper
Zinc
39
312
250
8
0.22
0.31
16 19
120 5.12
32.5 25.0
16
107
43.8
7
0.66
0.66
TABLE VI1-2
EFFECTIVENESS OF SODIUM HYDROXIDE FOR METALS REMOVAL
In
Day 1
Out
In
Day 2
Out
In
Day 3
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mn
Ni
Zn
TSS
0.097
0.063
9.24
1 .0
0.11
0.077
.054
0.0
0.018
0.76
0.11
0.06
0.011
0.0
0.057
0.078
15.5
1 .36
0. 12
0.036
0.12
0.005
0.014
0. 92
0.13
0.044
0.009
0.0
0.068
0.053
9. 41
1 .45
0.1 1
0.069
0.19
Out
pH Range 2.1-2.9 9.0-9.3 2.0-2.4 8.7-9.V- 2.0-2.4 8.6-9.1
(mg/1) ~ •-••:-
0.005
0.019
0.95
0.11
0.044
0.011
0.037
13
11
11
1400
-------
TABLE VII-5
SAMPLING DATA FROM SULFIDE
PRECIPITATION-SEDIMENTATION SYSTEMS
Treatment
Lime, FeS, Poly-
electrolyte,
Settle, Filter
Lime, FeS, Poly-
electrolyte,
Settle, Filter
NaOH, Ferric
Chloride, Na2S
Clarify (1 stage)
pH
(mg/1
Cr+6
Cr
Cu
Fe
Ni
Zn
These
In
5 . 0-6 .
25.
32.
0.
39.
6
3
52
5
Out
8 8-9
<0.014
<0. 04
0.10
<0.07
data were obtained from
Summary Report,
Control
Metal Finishing Industry
In
7
0
2
108
0
33
three
.7
.022
.4
,68
.9
<0
<0
0
<0
0
Out
7.38
.020
.1
.6
.1
.01
In
1 1
18
0
0
.45
.35
.029
.060
Out
<,005
<.005
0.003
0.009
sources:
and Treatment
: Sulf
ide
Technology
Precipi tat ion ,
for
USEPA,
the
EPA
No. 625/8/80-003, 1979,
Industrial Finishing, Vol. 35, No. 11, November, 1979.
Electroplating sampling data from plant 27045.
1402
-------
TABLE VI1-3
EFFECTIVENESS OF LIME AND SODIUM HYDROXIDE FOR METALS REMOVAL
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
pH Range
(mg/1 /
Al
Co
Cu
Fe
Mn
Ni
Se .
Ti
Zn
In
9.2-9.6
37.3
3.92
0.65
137
175
6.86
28.6
143
18.5
Out
8.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
*0.
0.
0.
3-9.8
35
0
003
49
12
0
0
0
027
In
9.2
38. 1
4.65
0.63
1 10
205
5.84
30.2
125
16.2
Out
7.
'o.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6-8. 1
35
0
003
57
012
0
0
0
044
In
9.6
29. 9
4 . 37
0.72
208
245
5.63
27.4
1 15
17.0
Out
7.
0.
0.
0.
.' 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
8-8. 2
35
0
003
58
12
0
0
0
01
TSS
4390
3595
13
2805
13
Metal
TABLE VII-4
THEORETICAL SOLUBILITIES OF HYDROXIDES AND, SULFIDES
OF SELECTED METALS IN PURE WATER
Cadmium (Cd++)
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper (Cu •*"*•)
Iron (Fe-*-*-)
Lead (Pb-*-*-)
Manganese (Mn++)
Mercury (Hg++)
Nickel (Ni++)
Silver (Ag+)
Tin (Sn++)
Zinc (Zn++)
As Hydroxide
2.3 x 10-s
8.4 x 10-*
2.2 x 10-»
2.2 x TO-2
8.9 x 10-*
2.1
1 .2
3.9 x 10-«
6.9 x 10-3
13.3
1.1 x 10~4
1 .1
Solubility of metal ion, mq/1
As Carbonate
1 .0 x 10-*
7.0 x lO-3
3.9 x 10-2
1.9 x 10~l
2. 1 x 10-*
7.0 x 10-*
As Sulfide
6.7 x 10-»o
No precipitate
1.0 x 10-8
5.8 x 10-l»
3.4 x TO-5
3.8 x lO-9
2.1 x lO-3
9.0 x 10-20
6.9 x 10-8
7.4 x 10-* 2
3.8 x 10-s
2.3 x lO-7
1401
-------
TABLE VII-6
SULFIDE PRECIPITATION-SEDIMENTATION PERFORMANCE
Parameter Treated Effluent
(mg/1)
Cd 0.01
Cr (T) 0.05
Cu 0.05
Pb 0.01
Hg 0.03
Ni 0.05
Ag 0.05
Zn 0.01
Table VI1-6 is based on two reports:
Summary Report, Control and Treatment Technology for the
Metal Finishing Industry; Sulfide Precipitation, USEPA, EPA
No. 625/8/80-003, 1979.
Addendum to Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards, Major
Inorganic Products Segment of Inorganics Point Source
Category, USEPA., EPA Contract No. EPA-68-01-3281 (Task 7),
June, 1978.
1403
-------
Table VII-7
FERRITE CO-PRECIPITATION PERFORMANCE
Metal
Mercury
Cadmium
Copper
Zinc
Chromium
Manganese
Nickel
Iron
Bismuth
Lead
Influent(mg/1)
7.4
240
10
18
10
12
1,000
600
240
475
Effluent(mg/l)
0.001
0.008
0.010 •
0.016
<0.010
0.007
0.200
0.06
0.100
0.010
NOTE: These data are from:
Sources and Treatment of Wastewater in the Nonferrous
Metals Industry, USEPA, EPA No. 600/2-80-074, 1980.
Plant
1057
33056
12052
Mean
.TABLE VI1-8
CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL CYANIDE
Method
FeS04
FeSO*
ZnS04
(mg/1)
In
2.57
2.42
3.28
0.14
0.16
0.46
0.12
Out
0.024
0.015
0.032
0.09
0.09
0. 14
0.06
0.07
1404
-------
Plant ID t
06097
13924
18538
30172
36048
mean
Table VI1-9
MULTIMEDIA FILTER PERFORMANCE
TSS Effluent Concentration, mq/1
0.
1 .
3.
1 .
1 .
2.
2.
0,
8,
o,
0
4,
1,
61
0.
2.
2.
7.
2.
0,
2,
0,
o,
6,
0.
5.
5.
1 .
1 .
5
6, 4.'0- 4.0, 3.0, 2.
6, 3.6, 2.4, 3.4
0
5
2,2.8
TABLE VII-10
PERFORMANCE OF SELECTED 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
Tank
SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION (mg/1)
Day 1
In
54
1100
451
284
170
—
4390
182
295
Out
6
9
17
6
1
_
9
13
10
Day
In
56
1900
-
242
50
1662
3595
1 18
42
2
Out
6
12
-
10
1
16
12
14
10
Day 3
In
50
1620
-
502
—
1298
2805
174
153
Out
5
5
- •
14
—
4
13
23
8
1405
-------
Table VII-11
SKIMMING PERFORMANCE
Oil & Grease
mg/1
Plant Skimmer Type
06058 API
06058 Belt
In
224,669
19.4
Out
17.9
8.3
1406
-------
TABLE VII-12
SELECTED PARITION COEFFICIENTS
Priority Pollutant
Log Octanol/Water
Partition Coefficient
1 Acenaphthene
11 1, 1 ,.1-Trichloroethane
13 1,1-Dichloroethane
15 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
18 Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
23 Chloroform
29 1 ,1-Dichloroethylene
39 Fluoranthene
44 Methylene chloride
64 Pentachlorophenol
66 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
67 Butyl benzyl phthalate
68 Di-n-butyl phthalate
72 Benzo(a)anthracene
73 Benzo(a)pyrene
74 3,4-benzofluoranthene
75 Benzo(k)fluoranthene
76 Chrysene
77 Acenaphthylene
78 Anthracene
79 Benzo(ghi)perylene
80 Fluorene
81 Phenanthrene
82 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83 Indeno(1,2,3,cd)pyrene
84 Pyrene
85 Tetrachloroethylene
86 Toluene
4.33
2. 17
1 .79
2.56
1 .58
1 .97
1 .48
5.33
1 .25
5.01
8.73
5,
5
5
6,
5,
4.
80
20
61
6.04
6.57
84
61
07
4.45
7.23
4. 18
4.46
5.97
7.66
5.32
2.88
2.69
1407
-------
TABLE VII-13
TRACE ORGANIC REMOVAL BY SKIMMING
API PLUS BELT SKIMMERS
(From Plant 06058)
Oil & Grease
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Naphthalene
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Bis-2-ethylhexyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Butylbenzyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Anthracene - phenanthrene
Toluene
225,000
0.023
0.013
2.31
59.0
11.0
0.005
0.019
16.4
0.02
Eff.
mg/1
14.6
0.007
0.012
0.004
0. 182
0.027
0.002
0.002
0.014
0.012
Table VII-14
COMBINED METALS DATA EFFLUENT VALUES (mg/1)
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Ni
Zn
Fe
Mn
TSS
Mean
0.079
0.084
0.58
0.12
0.74
0.33
0.41
0.16
12.0
One Day
Max.
0.34
0.44
1 .90
0.42
1 .92
1 .46
1 .20
0.68
41 .0
10 Day Avg.
Max.
0.15
0.18
1 .00
0.20
1 .27
0.61
0.61
0.29
19.5
30 Day Avg,
Max.
0,
0,
0,
0,
1 ,
0,
0.
0.
13
12
73
16
00
45
50
21
15.5
1408
-------
TABLE VII-15
L&S PERFORMANCE
ADDITIONAL POLLUTANTS
Pollutant
Sb
As
Be
Hg
Se
Ag
Tl
Al
Co
F
Average Performance (mq/1
0.7
0.51
0.30
0.06
0.30
0. 10
0.50
2.24
0.05
14.5
TABLE VI1-16
COMBINED METALS DATA SET - UNTREATED WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Ni
Zn
Fe
Mn
TSS
Min. Cone (mg/1)
<0. 1
<0. 1
<0. 1
<0. 1
<0. 1
4.6
Max. Cone, (mq/1)
3.83
1 16
108
29.2
27.5
337.
263
5.98
4390
1409
-------
a:
Id
1
H
|l
r. S»
t-* 5C S»
J O
a w cu
^ u j
s •* i
fc o
SS »-l
< H
t~» i-i
J 0
•J <
0
Ot
§
z
3
•C
B
3 B
2 .5
B a
•-t B
8fl
s
•*4
B
O
U
Ll
N
B
0)
JJ
£
B
3
H
B
3
B
a
4J
•H
H
G
E-i
>0
CM
CM
•0
IB
* 01 *H
ss §
» Z ^J
(U
"O
o
3
t*4
B
^_j
C 13
o m
u c
o
01
r-4
•H
CO
S
3
t-t
*-t
Li
01
CQ
40 B
V 3
•P* t-t
C C
01 01
0) rH
U 01
< w
c
S
•H
4J
e:
POLLUTANT
eg m O O o eg m
III • ^ ^ vO|r^ l.. Ill co 1 ' | 110 to"-* 11^ eg
o ft t— i i— i eg o c^ ON r«» en » r^
•
•
tn in in o Q
III CMcnin CMICM IICM III III III III 1 1 r» «
• • • CM • , _« CO
O O O O O
V V V V
en r-.
O O CM CM O* O -^ '
III ... *|. II* til til III tcg.lll ~i
0 0 0 0 0 ' ~< P-ieg V
V
m ^- r-. CM •* vo oo
eg • • •!• II- lit ieg| III 1 en *3* '
co in CM m* vo f-» f-o en
O eno^O *-< 0°"* m
101 10- 01- II- III III -01 III -II 1
•O*OO O -4 O
O O O -4
m *3- r»- CM *a" vo vo vo CM eg CM oo o
III CM • • • 1 • It- ... 1 -• 1 -II III en-l CM
• o -3- o*> <-t o eg ,-t eg cjs egvo eg
o
V
,-toocgino*.^ Q r^eo
III ...entvo II* 111 Ivo| III (II lenl
Oegeg.-o r^ CM
v eg m o v
coegeno-a-Oo ^-icn o oom t-t
oo •* • . r-.|. lo« I • I lin» -II "II III -,3 S H =>« C CM B [3 C B 3 U.
CO-HS3 >» 3 •^'0 -"L3 30)03-HO
§^-lfH 3^U W--* -^M B W ^-H tJC»-l ^4J 3-HC
C-H ^BQ» 30> C(U 3C-H §t*. "P*^ cm -< t3 O ««
•H0)>s E O O. *O O ^ 0)>O *^O2 3OC X^H^J 0)00 CtOO
4-i ta t» *auo. nj u o *H,HC u i-i ^i ^-130 t-t *o c c w c mc^ «-*
C t-> V ed-CO OJQ)*H 0)^*-^ (Q O O OyHlJ 2 ^ /° -^ *4 S I^Cfl-H ^H
<-3 CQ CQ O Ufel-4 2: « H H §-• H &>N O
1410
'( ,' " i
o
m
eg
V
o
eg
o
m
en
m
o
eg
sr
vO
m
O
vO
CO
r*.
00
m
vO
eg
m
en
.£•
en
-o
01
•a
C CO
r^ a> *a
0} CX-H
J-» W r-t
0 3 O
H CO CO
•a
0)
M
U ft)
01 C
JJ (Q
vH
r-f U
O
M C
0)
a. JJ
co n)
01 4J
•H 3
(J ,— t
3 fH
U O
o a
« „
c n
•H
01 T3
3 C
•-1 h-l
fx
-------
TABLE VII-18
PRECIPITATJON-SETTLING-FILTRATION (LS&F) PERFORMANCE
Plant A
Parameters No Pts
For 1 979-Treated
Cr
Cu
Ni
Zn
Fe
For 1978-freated
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.
+-o.
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
10
010
14
34
18
0.
-o.
0.
0.
0.
26
04
48
91
85
1411
-------
TABLE VII-19
PRECIPITATION-SETTLING-FILTRATION (LS&F) PERFORMANCE
Plant B
Parameters
For 1
.
For 1
Total
No Pts.
Range mq/1
Mean +_
std. dev.
Mean + 2
std. dev.
979-Treated Wastewater
Cr
Cu
Ni
Zn
Fe
TSS
175
176
175
175
174
2
0.0
0.0
0.01
0.01
0.01
1 .00
- 0
- 0
- 1
- 0
- 2
- 1
,40
.22
.49
.66
.40
.00
0
0
0
0
0
.068
.024
.219
.054
.303
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
075
021
234
064
398
0.
0.
0.
0.
1 .
22
07
69
18
10
978-Treated Wastewater
Cr
Cu
Ni
Zn
Fe
1974-1
Cr
Cu
Ni
Zn •
Fe
144
143
143
131
144
979-Treated'
1288
1290
1287
1273
1287
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
- 0
- 0
- 1
- 0
- 1
.70
.23
.03
.24
.76
0
0
0
0
0
.059
.017
. 147
.037
.200
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
+0.
088
020
142
034
223
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
24
06
43
11
47
Wastewater
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
- 0
- 0
- 1
- 0
- 3
.56
.23
.88
.66
.15
0
0
0
0
0
.038
.011
.184
.035
.402
+ 0.
+0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
+0.
055
016
211
045
509
0.
0.
0.
0.
1 .
15
04
60
13
42
Raw Waste
Cr
Cu
Ni
Zn
Fe
TSS
3
3
3
2
3
2 1
2.80
0.09
1 .61
2.35
3.13
77
- 9
- 0
- 4
- 3
-35
-466
.15
.27
.89
.39
.9
•
5
0
3
22
.90
.17
.33
.4
1412
-------
TABLE VII-20
PRECIPITATION-SETTLING-FILTRATION
Plant C
[LS&F) PERFORMANCE
For Treated Wastewater
Parameters No Pts.
For Treated Wastewater
Cd
Zn
TSS
pH
103
103
103
103
For Untreated Wastewater
Cd
Zn
Fe
TSS
pH
103
103
3
103
' 103
Range mg/1
Mean +_
std. dev.
0.010 - 0.500 0.049 +0.049
0.039 - 0.899 0.290 +.0.131
0.100 - 5.00 1.244 +1.043
7.1 - 7.9 9.2*
Mean + 2
std. dev.
0. 147
0.552
3.33
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
039
949
107
80
8
- 2
-29
- 0
-19
- 8
.319
.8
.46
.6
.2
0.
11 .
0.
5.
7.
542
009
255
616
6*
+ 0.
+ 6.
±2-
381
933
896
1 .
24.
1 1 .
304
956
408
* pH value is median of 103 values.
1413
-------
CD
C XO)
o a m
T- a i.
•w i g>
o o >
t. CO <
CD — — co en — — co
— COCO — t CO CD —
ooo oooo o
ooo oooo o
U. 0)
X Dl
c (a a
OQ L.
"- I CD
•WO >
a - <
in'
eo — — co in — —
— en en — m en en
ooo o o o o
ooo
o o
CO
o
o
ax E
i- a D
u a E
o i i-
I. CD X
a. c a
OS
CD
T3
D
01
C
a
ID
SE
OCM CM
OOO
•» co — —
O — CM CM
— eo in
O OO
o o o
«- CO
O 0
in
o
in
o
o
o
o
o
co
in
ui
CJ
us
CD
x a>
10 a
o L.
i CD
o >
co <
E
CD
•M CD
(/) X O)
X 10 10
co a u
i CD
o
c
•C X E
U O D
eo o E
o Ic
U. c co
eflO E
co
(D ID CM
r- in co
co o en co — to en co o in— — co o en
o — T o — o CMCO— inco »»• o in in — «r oo
ooo ooo ooo ooo oo
CM OCO
CM
O O «T O O
co CM r-.
CD CO CO
coin-- cococo p^r^cM —CM — j*. —co
o — co o — o coco— co «t (*•• o ^ CDCMCO oo
ooo ooo ooo ooo oo
CM O CO
CM
O O *t O CM
CO O) CM
O) CO 03
o i-co o co in in CM en OCM —t oo
CMCOCM CMCM— incOCM *f O — — in CM CO CM OO
'-'-O O O — OOO OOO' — —
cooen — p — oin
in — — —
n , ui
" \
in
a:
t-
u.
0
CC
E
13
to
C
CO
CD
£
CD
X O)
(0 10
O C
1 CD
0 >
CO <
E
*" X O)
10 10 (0
xo t.
o >
CD
O
o
C X E
C. <0 D
00 E
CD 1 f-
1- 0) X
C (0
to O E
o3
N f O
«t CO CM
OOO
T co en
— CO t
— 0 O
co co in
CM en in
— o o
t^ en co
CO O CM
CM CM —
en
t
r-- co co
o o in
r- CM CD v o o o co ^ in --coco
o •- o i>- co •- in co CMOU> •* «- o o
ooo ooo ooo ooo oo CM o ^ o o TT
4J L
c eg
— (0
— i.
O IS
a a.
a in CD
co < to
TJ I- 3
u u u
z a a) -.-coo) —c — o ac Si/}
oai zco< I-N - co en o — CM eo i- in co r~ eo
•-'-'- — — CM CMCMCM CMCMCM CMCM
1414
-------
C*4
CM
1
t-l
t— i
>
0)
_
.Q
m
H
^-4
,—
O)
s_f
>
1-
Z
[—
O
_J ;
O ,
a
_J
<
HI
*>
-!
z
o
f—
z
UJ
>
z
o
u
z
o
z
a
UJ
H
U
UJ
UJ
I/)
a:
0
u_
to
I/)
UJ
z
UJ
>
t_4
1-
u
UJ
u.
u_
UJ
z
UJ
E
1-
111
a:
H
u_
o
or
«£
S
O
CO
>,
ID
(— t
1
O
CO
E
CD
•^ >s
• (A IB
>» O
in i
o
01
o
0
c >.
z. co
U D
(I) 1
t- CD
c
U. 0
o3
CO
_J
><
CO
1
o
CO
e
CD
4J
Ul >
>. a
I/) Q
1
xo
Olr-
0
o
c
r >
U CO
CD a
Hi
1
a
> c
oS O
, _j
c
CO
4-<
D
>—
O
a.
CD
01
CO
CD
>
<
CD
01
ID
CD
>
"*
E
3
E
'x
CO
S
c
CO
CD
S
CD
O!
CO
t.
CD
>
<
CD
ai
CO
L.
CD
>
<
E
E
X
co
S
c
CO
CD
S
CD
4-1
CD
E
10
L.
to
a
"•
CM** Z*Z **2 ZZ* Z
in
— co co in CM —
CD O CM CM J in *- O
CD** O>*CM #*O •- CO * O)
in
* »
CM *co incococj^*
CO'--- p*- — o —^in ^CM*- r^.
cooo ooin ooo coia 01
CO — . —
•-co co in t- --
CM 00 CM »— ' O3 CO 00
•** «*• **• *•* •
CM»» T*«-. **O OCM*'^J-
CO
r-.
•** CJ*O **'O CJCJ* CJ
CM** Z*2 **Z ZZ* Z
in
CM r- CO CO
co o *r ^ r-* r* cj)
•** •*• **. ..*
CO** CO* CO **O CMT* CO
in — —
* *
CM * — inT> IM
c
o
••- -o
~O 4-> CD
CD O v
C. CD CO
in ** —
.r- CD D
— "DO
J3
co **- co
V O O
Ul
CD U) 4-<
4-1 O
CD i- 2
C E
O -r- 1
Z _J
* * O
* Z
1415
-------
TABLE VI1-23
TREATABILITY RATING OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
UTILIZING CARBON ADSORPTION
Priority Pollutant Rati
1. acenaphthene H
2. acrolain r,
3. acrylonitrila L
4. benzene M
5. benzidine a
6. carbon tetrachlorida M
(tatrachloroMthane)
7. chlorohenzane H
S. 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene H
9. hexachlorobenzene a
10. 1,2-dichloroethane H
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethana N
12. haxechloroethana H
13. 1,1-dichloroethana M
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethana M
IS. 1,1,2,2-tetrachlorathano a
16. chloroathane L
17. bia(chlorcettthyl) ether
IS. bis(2-chloroethyl) ether M
19. 2-chloroethylvinyl ether L
(mixed)
20. 2-chloronaphtha.lene H
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol a
22. parachloroatata erasol • a
23. chloroform (trichloroMthane) L
24. 2-chlorophanol a
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene H
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene a
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene n
28. 3,3'-dichlorob«>nzldin« a
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene L
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene L
31. 2,4-dichlorophcnol a
32. 1,2-dichloropropane N
33. 1,2-dichloropropylene H
(1,3-dichloropropene)
34. 2,4-diaethylphenol H
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene a
36. 2,6-dinitrcrtolu«n« ' a
37. 1,2-dlphanylhydrazina a
38- •tbyUwnzana M
39. fluoranthan* - a
40. 4-chloroph«nyl ph«nyl «th«r a
41. <-broaoph«nyl phanyl «th«r a
42. bifl(2-chloroi»opropyl)«th«r H
43. bla(2-chloro*thox7)aathan« H
44. Mtbyl«n* chlorid* L
(dlchloroatathana)
45. awthyl chlorida (chloroaathana) L
46. Mthyl broadda (hrranmatliana) L
47. brcanfoxm (tribroaeaathana) H
48. dichloxobroaeatathan* H
•Hota Explanation of Haaoval Ratinga
Cataqory B (high raaoval)
adsorba at lavala i 100 ag/g carbon at Cf « 10 rag/1
adiorba at lavala >100 ag/g carbon at Cf < 1.0 ag/1
Catagory M (aodarata raaoral)
adiorba at lavala >100 ag/g carbon at C - 10 ag/1
adaorba at l«v«l» £100 iig/g carbon at C. < 1.0 «g/l
Catagory L (low raaoval)
adiorba at lavals < 100 mg/g carbon at c. • 10 mg/1
adsorb* at laval* <10 ag/g carbon at C < 1.0 ag/1
C. - final concentrations of priority pollutant at equilibrium
Priority Pollutant
49. trichlorofluoronathana M
50. dichlorodifluoromathana L
51. chlorodibronoMthana H
52. haxachlorobutadiana R
53. haxachlorocyclopantadiana H
54. isophoron* B
55. naphtfaalan* H
56. nitrobanzana H
57. 2-nitrophenol R
58. 4-aitrophanol a
59. 2,4-dinitropnanol R
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-crasol a
61. N-nitrosodlaathylaBin* M
62. H-nitrosodiphanylamina a
63. W-nitrosodi-n-propylaHina N
64. pantachlorophanol a
65. phanol H
66. bis(2~ethylhaxyl)phthalata H
67. butyl banzyl phthalata a
68. di-n-butyl phthalata a
69. di-n-octyl phthalata . a
70. diathyl phthalata a
71. disiathyl phthalata a
72. 1,2-oanzanthracana a
(banco(a)anthracan*)
73. banzo(a)pvrana (3,4-banzo- R
pyrana)
74. 3r4-banzofluoranthana a
(banco(b)fluoranthana)
75. 11,12-banzofluoranthana a
(banzo(k)fluoranthan*)
76. ehrysana a
77. acanaphthylana H
78. anthracana a
79. 1,12-bsnzoparylane (banzo a
(Thi)-parylana)
80. fluorana R
81. phananthrana a
82. 1,2,3,6-dibanzanthrac-^a B
(dibanzo(a(h) anthracana)
83. indano (1,2,3-cd) pyrena R
(2<3-o-phanylana pyrana)
84. pyrana -
85. tatraehloroathylana M
86. toluana H
87. triehloroathylene L
88. vinyl chloride L
(chloroethy lene)
106. PCS-1242 (Aroclor 1242) R
107. PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254) R
108. 9CB-1221 (Aroclor 1221) R
109. PCB-1332 (Aroclor 1232) a
110. PCB-I248 (Aroclor 1248) R
111. PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260) a
112. PCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016) H
1416
-------
Table VII - 24
CLASSES OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ADSORBED 'ON CARBON
Organic Chemical Class
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Polynuclear Aromatics
Chlorinated Aromatics
Phenolics
Chlorinated Phenolics
High Molecular Weight Aliphatic and
Branch Chain Hydrocarbons
Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
High Molecular Weight Aliphatic Acids
and Aromatic Acids
High Molecular Weight Aliphatic Amines
and Aromatic Amines
High Molecular Weight Ketones, Esters,
Ethers and Alcohols
Surfactants
Soluble Organic Dyes
Examples of Chesical Class
benzene, toluene, xylene
naphthalene, anthracene
bephenyls
chlorobenzene, polychlorinated
biphenyls, aldrin, endrin,
toxaphene, DDT
phenol, cresol, fesor'ceriol
and polyphenyls
trichlorophenol, pentachloro-
phenol
gasoline, kerosine
carbon tetrachloride,
perchloroethylene
tar acids, benzoic acid
aniline, toluene diamine
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.
1417
-------
Table VII-25
ACTIVATED CARBON PERFORMANCE (MERCURY)
Plant
A
B
C
Mercury 'levels -
In
28.0
0.36
0.008
Table VII-26
mg/1
Out
',0,9
6.015
0.0005
ION EXCHANGE PERFORMANCE
Parameter
All Values mg/1
Al
Cd
Cr+3
Cr+6
Cu
CN
Au
Fe
Pb
Mn
Ni
Ag
S04
Sn
Zn
Plant
Prior To
Pur if ir-
cation
5.6
5.7
3.1
7.1
4.5
9.8
7.4
4.4
6.2
1.5
1.7
14.8
A
After
Purifi-
cation
0.20
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.09
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.40
Plant
Prior To
Purifi-
cation
i-
43.0
3.40
2.30 '
1 .70,
1 .60
9.10
210.00
1.10
B
After
Purifi-
cation
-
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.01
2.00
0.10
1418
-------
Table VII-27
MEMBRANE FILTRATION SYSTEM EFFLUENT
Specific
Metal
Al
Cr, (+6)
Cr (T)
Cu
Fe
Pb
CN
Ni
Zn
TSS
Manufacturers
Guarantee
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
—
5
02
03
1
1
05
02
1
1
—
Plant
In
0.
4.
18.
288
0.
<0.
9.
2.
632
46
13
8
652
005
56
09
19066
Out
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
<0.
0.
0.
0.
01
018
043
3
01
005
017
046
1
Plant
In
5.
98.
8.
21 .
o-.
<0.
194
5.
13.
25
4
00
1
288
005"
00
0
31022
Out
<0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
<0.
0.
0.
8.
005
057
222
263
01
005
352
051
0
Predicted
Performanc
0.05
0.20
0.30
0. 05
0.02
0.40
0. 10
1.0
Pollutant
(mg/1)
Cr + 6
Cu
CN
Pt>
Hg
Ni
Ag
Sb
Zn
Table VII-28
PEAT ADSORPTION PERFORMANCE
In
35,000
250
36.0
20.0
1 .0
2.5
1 .0
2.5
1 .5
Out
0.04
0.24
0.7
0.025
0.02
0.07
0.05
0.9
0.25
1419
-------
Table VII-29
ULTRAFILTRATION PERFORMANCE
Parameter
•Oil (freon extractable)
COD
TSS
Total Solids
Feed (mq/1)
1230
8920
1380
2900
Permeate (mg/1)
4
148
13
296
1420
-------
TABLE VI1-30
CHEMICAL EMULSION BREAKING EFFICIENCIES
Parameter
O&G
TSS
O&G
TSS
O&G
TSS
O&G
Concentration (mq/1)
Influent Effluent
6,060
2,612
13,000
18,400
21,300
540
680
1,060
2,300
12,500
13,800
1 ,650
2,200
3,470
7,200
98
46
277
189
1 21
59
140
52
27
18
187
153
63
80
Reference
Sampling data*
Sampling data*
Sampling data**
Katnick and Pavilcius, 197
*0il and grease and total suspended solids were taken as grab
samples before and after batch emulsion breaking treatment which
used alumn and polymer on emulsified rolling oil wastewater.
•fOil and grease (grab) and total suspended solids (grab) samples
were taken on three consecutive days from emulsified rolling
oil wastewater. A commercial demulsifier was used in this batch
treatment.
**0il and grease (grab) and total suspended solids (composite)
samples were taken on three consecutive days from emulsified
rolling oil wastewater. A commercial demulsifier (polymer)
was used in this batch treatment.
++This result is from a full-scale batch chemical treatment system
for emulsified oils from a .steel rolling mill.
1421
-------
10'
10*
to'
10
,-2
10
J
u to'4
o
u
10-3
o
u
u
g
u
,0-to _
10'
,-M —
to'
•12 —
10'
A,(OH)
Cd(OH)2
PbS
* 7 a »
PH
10 tl 12 IS
FIGURE VIM. COMPARATIVE SOLUBILITIES OF METAL HYDROXIDES
AND SULFIDE AS A FUNCTION OF pH
1422
-------
0.40
SODA ASH AND
CAUSTIC SODA
e.o
6.5
9.0
8.5
10.0
10.5
PH
FIGURE Vll-2. LEAD SOLUBILITY IN THREE ALKALIES
1423
-------
u
to
coo
bl
u
N
Ul
u
*
u
O
NOIJ.VMJ.N33N03 3NIZ
1424
-------
01.
C >
CVI
II
c/>
C
o
I
8
X3
O ~
"o
IH
o>
J5
E
3
Z
c
o
o
o
(O
cc
£
re
O
C/5
C/9
O
UJ
tS.
Is
> I
i" 2
So"
Q.
CJ
x
o
cc
a
_o
2 .5
1 "g ^
0-0 =
e = .9
ST; *
—
E Si
(I/Bui) uoijenuaouoQ
pajeajj. tuni
QJ
1425
-------
<
©
®-
©
-<
in
«M
, u
' =
; o
1
' 3
Z
I
o
I
u
©
oc
l'
o
CJ
Ul
u.
Uu
UJ
2
ill
lit
5 * x
S Q U
"•
u
UJ
cc
a.
Ul
o
X
o
cc
a
(I/Bui) UOIJEJJUBOUOQ luanfjjg
1426
-------
-®
©
©
•r
©
©
II
(/)
c
o
-S
I
z
o
«
O
u
o;
00
LU
>
o
<
K
LU
'S cc
e
o
u
UJ
cc
Q.
UJ
s
X
o
cc
o
(|/0iu) uo|iBnuaauo3
pajBaaj. JiaddoQ
1427
-------
CM
CM
s
o
»*-
o
k.
o>
xi
E
3
a
V)
C/9
o>
Z
O
©'
,«
-€
.2
e
o
1
QC
CD
o
t-
<
©
oc
a.
UJ
D
X
o
(|/6ui) uoi}Bnu93uo3
1428
-------
©.
©
J
-xx
o
o
c/i vt
c c
.2 .5
"^ *2
£ £
J J
o o
**- H—
o o
.
£ £
Vi
oo
LU
z
LU
U
LU
- J.
1 g
c
o
CJ
o
o
i
oc
© X
oo
- "
oc
Q.
UJ
Q
X
o
cc
a
(l/Gui)
i(\] 0
x
1429
-------
©
©
©-
©
©
®
c
CM
II
en
C
e
1
3
o
Si
UJ
u
UJ
u.
Ul
.5
i
o
u
CC
u
B
(SJ
en
> 52
a o
5
UJ
DC
a.
UJ
a
x
o
CC
o
(l/Buj) uoiienuaauoQ }uan|jjg
1430
-------
©
©
-$)-
'•L
©
©
-4>
a-
©
©
^
©
CO
CM
II
c/s
O
%
.n
o
E
=s
mg
on
CO
CO
UJ
o
UJ
UJ
Si
o
2 5
Concen
on Raw W
UJ UJ.
QC
D.
LU
Q
o
oc
(|/Sui)
uoj|
1431
-------
TIT
(
II
M
c
e
I
I
e
o
a>
i
CO
CO
LU
z
LU
u
uj
uj
^ £ uj
I E uj
CJ
UJ
ec
a.
UJ
O
X
o
cc
a
(l/Biu) uojjEJUJaauoQ
1432
-------
_£
-^
0
-6
-©-
©0
©
©
_©_
©
©
©
©
Q)
©
•)
©
-©-
C)
c
C)
c
in
•ta-
il
tu
*/s
.n
o
»*••
o
o>
J3
E
U)
tn
LLI
_O
"*-<
2
•*-»
c
03
u
c
o
O
Vi
00
LU
o
<
UJ LU
CC c«
li
D-
O
UJ
cc
o.
UJ
o
X
O
cc
o
(I/Bui)
$Si
1433
-------
K
3
8
1
o
X
u
p
9
B
O
u
I
j
n
I
I
j.
D
e
u
K
O
°
I—_-.-_—.— — ._«
n O
u
Z
£s
J U
D
-*4-
r
I l
LJ
tt
j
o
I
8
*
o
u
u
a
P
o
e
u
u
u
O
i
5
K
V)
Z
o
a
u
O
K
U
I-
u
<
<
X
u
Z
u
DC
O
H
1434
-------
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
STORED
BACKWASH
WATER
•—FILTER
nBACKWASH-*-
COLLECTION CHAMBER
DRAIN
FIGURE VIM4. GRANULAR BED FILTRATION
1435
-------
PERFORATED
BACKING PLATE.
\
FABRIC
FILTER MEDIUM^
SOLID
RECTANGULAR
END PLATE »•
A
W
v
\
^ II 1
/•
/•
! /
f
\
^L
_™
X
*•—
**-
s~
^~~
r
s~~
/*-
*, ^
',
'
/-'
^ '
S '
mm '
t
'. *
t
f
t
r *
•M S
m* ^
~.',
nS
J
,'
c
*.v
;»;
»• rf
'•'•.'
S-
''•',
S
V
/
>
^
)
S
J
1
y
V
ji
x
V
V
k
. 1
'I
\
V,
<
^%
V
V
rt
*.*•
•.
•.
't'
•^^
iff
p
f •;,-'::
&?;'
9
i
'<
. •,
i
f< ':
•.'.
f
/
f
f
* M
^ •;•;
/ ;•;-
' mm
/ Bpl
/ [:•:
'>?:
', r-
' •!'!
' -,';'
/
^ Wl
t ;
\
^ v
*•'•> f
ss
-^
— •
— *
"•— «s
— »
—>
<
k ^
"
><
>
N
>
>
N
A
/
''
k
^
\
(
X
L
1
-«i INLET
SLUDGE
S^ FILTER MEDIUM
^ENTRAPPED SOLIDS
PLATES AND FRAMES ARE
PRESSED TOGETHER DURING
FILTRATION CYCLE
\
\
^RECTANGULAR
METAL PLATE
FILTERED LIQUID OUTLET
RECTANGULAR FRAME
FIGURE VII-15. PRESSURE FILTRATION
1436
-------
SEDIMENTATION BASIN
INLET ZONE
BAFFLES TO MAINTAIN
QUIESCENT CONDITIONS
OUTLET ZONE
INLET LIQUID
*-*W» * SETTLING PARTICLf
* • "**«»*.* • TRAJECTORY . •
OUTLET LIQUID
t
BELT-TYPE SOLIDS COLLECTION
MECHANISM
SETTLED PARTICLES COLLECTED
AND PERIODICALLY REMOVED
CIRCULAR CLARIFIER
SETTLING ZONE.
INLET LIQUID
, CIRCULAR BAFFLE
. ANNULAR OVERFLOW WEIR
—• • • •
INLET ZONE
.
*-.• •><*••
• • • •- • •
« • r- • • " * *
• /• LIQUID
•'WFLOW .*
OUTLET LIQUID
•SETTLING PARTICLES
REVOLVING COLLECTION
MECHANISM
SETTLED PARTICLES
COLLECTED AND PERIODICALLY
REMOVED
SLUDGE DRAWOFF
FIGURE VII-16. REPRESENTATIVE TYPES OF SEDIMENTATION
1437
-------
FLANGE
WASTE WATCH
WASH WATCW
SURFACE WA»H
MANIFOLD
BACKWASH
INFLUENT
DISTRIBUTOR
BACKWASH
NEPbACKMENT CARBON
CAMION REMOVAL VOMT
TMCATCP WATEM
•IWOWT PLATE
FIGURE VI1-17. ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION COLUMN
1438
-------
CONVEYOR DRIVE L_ DRYING
'ZONE
i—BOWL DRIVE
r
-LIQUID ZONE-
LIQUID
OUTLET
SLUDGE
INLFT
CYCLOGEAR
SLUDGE
DISCHARGE
CONVEYOR BOWL
REGULATING
RING
IMPELLER
FIGURE VII-18. CENTRIFUGATION
1439
-------
O
o
z
u
u
z
CD
UJ
§
U
Q
U
u.
o
I-
UI
<
U
bl
OC
O
1440
-------
CONTROLS
OZONE
GENERATOR
DRY AIR
D
1 II I
OZONE
REACTION
TANK
TREATED
WASTE
X
RAW WASTE-
FIGURE Vll-20. TYPICAL OZONE PLANT FOR WASTE TREATMENT
1441
-------
r
MIXER
Fll
»T
SE
ST
WASTEWATER
FEED TANK
l_
Tl
SI
\,
.*
• IE
tM
*?t o
AGE j
3
n
:OND J
AGE 3
. 3
-------
LJ
U
K.
O
0.
<
w
u.
O
W
CM
-------
OILY WATER
INFLUENT
WATER
DISCHARGE
-»
MOTOR
DRIVEN
RAKE
% i i t t i
OVERFLOW
SHUTOFF
VALVE
AIR IN
•ACK PRESS
VALVE
TO SLUDGE
TANK •"*
EXCESS
AIR OUT
LEVEL
CONTROLLER
FIGURE VII-23. DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION
1444
-------
CONDUIT
TO MOTOR
INFLUENT
CONDUIT TO
OVERLOAD
ALARM
COUNTERFLOW
INFLUENT WELL
DRIVE UNIT
OVERLOAD ALARM
EFFLUENT WEIR
DIRECTION OF ROTATION
EFFLUENT PIPE
EFFLUENT CHANNEL
PLAN
INFLUENT
TURNTABLE
BASE
HANDRAIL
CENTER COLUMN
— CENTER CAGE
WEIR
STILTS
CENTER SCRAPER
SQUEEGEE
SLUDGE PIPE
FIGURE VII-24. GRAVITY THICKENING
1445
-------
WASTE WATER CONTAINING
DISSOLVED METAL* OK
OTHER IONS
/T
,REGENERANT
"SOLUTION
-DIVERTER VALVE
I V
-DISTRIBUTOR
SUPPORT
RECENERANT TO REUSE,
TREATMENT. OR DISPOSAL'
-DIVERTER VALVE
MI:TAL-FREE WATER
FOR REUSE OR DISCHARGE
FIGURE VII-25. ION EXCHANGE WITH REGENERATION
1446
-------
• »
• MOST
• SALTS
MACROMOLCCULES
AND SOLIDS
MEMBRANE
- 490 PS I
WATER
/MEMBRANE CROSS SECTION.
IN TUBULAR, HOLLOW FIBER,
OR SPIRAL-WOUND CONFIGURATION
9 I 1 '•/ ' •
* «~» * O -» ft / ^ * fi
FEED
o. «° • .
• **.-• / o ,'
o o " o
. . o .
t i y » i r _ *
*(•* ' ( '
o o
CONCENTRATE
(SALTS)
O SALTS OR SOLIDS
• WATER MOLECULES
FIGURE VII-26. SfMPLIFIED REVERSE OSMOSIS SCHEMATIC
1447
-------
PERMEATE
TUBE
ADHESIVE BOUND
SPIRAL, MODULE
CONCENTRATE
FLOW
BACKING MATERIAL
MESH SPACER
MEMBRANE
SPIRAL MEMBRANE MODULE
PRODUCT WATER
^H°MEMUBRA°NRETTUBE —EATE FLOW
»••* BRACKISH
WATER
FEED FLOW
!"•%:•" "• ••<••>•>«•
\fO .V 0 «D H>0«°.>. • , *0»J
^:'i
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
CONCENTRATE
OUTLET
END PLATE
POROUS FEED
DISTRIBUTOR TUBE •
<=>
PERMEATE
END PLATE
HOLLOW FIBER MODULE
FIGURE VII-27. REVERSE OSMOSIS MEMBRANE CONFIGURATIONS
1448
-------
c
*
1 f.
' U =tn
TT
i
i
n
3 l| C
ji
1
1
I
1
ll
3 « h
It
JL___
6-IN. VITRIFIE
r-d Ll i
V
1 1
? i1 s
i
ii
i
i>
? n \
n
jk.^
D PIPE LAID — '
WITH PLASTIC JOINTS
] jl (
il
II
II
II
•
II
] i| r
ll
^-SPLASH BOX
> 1 1 ^—
\ II 1
0 ]
V ll h
1 1
1 1
I!
'!
i M ^
n
n
n ^
^
B"
,» U =tT-TT
ir
o 1'
1 n
? « !! ^
ft. to II
ssl!
U OJI
**" z 1
5 mil
> °ii
r IE il' i
w S II
, JW
)r^
|l
? ' \
|
1
g
1
1
) ii i
^ U — U *•
ir
M
i! •
i
it
n
Ii
i
n
n
i n i
n
:==Jk
jp
i!
i i
1
ll
II
i II I
6-IN. FLANGED ||
X^\"SHEAR GATE f,
\"
V— i
H
ll
A
J
PLAN
6-IN. FINE SAND
3-IN. COARSE SAND
3-IN. FINE GRAVEL
3-IN. MEDIUM GRAVEL
3 TO • IN. COARSE GRAVEL
v
2-1 N. PLANK
WALK
PIPE COLUMN FOR
GLASS-OVER
3-IN. MEDIUM GRAVEL
6-IN. UNDERDRAIN LAID-
WITH OPEN JOINTS
SECTION A-A
FIGURE Vll-28. SLUDGE DRYING BED
1449
-------
ULTRAFILTRATION
MACROMOLECULES
P» 10-50 PSI
MEMBRANE
ft *
WATER SALTS
-MEMBRANE
PERMEATE
°**
v- •<>
• • * •
O CONCENTRATE
. .. .
•(-• • I- •
O OIL PARTICLES
0 DISSOLVED SALTS AND LOW-MOLECULAR-WEIGHT ORCANICS
FIGURE VII-29. SIMPLIFIED ULTRAFILTRATION FLOW SCHEMATIC
1450
-------
FABRIC OR WIRE
FILTER MEDIA
STRETCHED OVER
REVOLVING DRUM
DIRECTION OF ROTATION
ROLLER
SOLIDS SCRAPED
OFF FILTER MEDIA
SOLIDS COLLECTION
HOPPER
INLET LIQUID
TO BE
FILTERED
-TROUGH
FILTERED LIQUID
FIGURE Vll-30. VACUUM FILTRATION
1451
-------
>
O ui
I- CD
-------
•OVERFLOW
TROUGH
(a)
30-40 in-
INFLUENT
I
V-'-'SANO •'•:."
..-.y; COARSE
EFFLUENT
EFFLUENT |
(b)
6- 10 ft —
DEPTH
t
^ n n n n Hr*
:FINE:.:.::.V-.-'
• j'; >. • ,' • .'•- .
•';';•_;'; SAND •'.•>
".."", • •'..-•'
*•'•' '.'
;•. :< COARSE'
f
-x-{
1
;
\' INFLUENT
-SRIT TO
RETAIN
SAND
STRAINER'
EFFLUENT
4-6M
DEPTH-
.'.;.-• FIN £"/.:>
_ \ '•'"'• * • '—
• ••'.COARSE.'-
UNOERORAIN
CHAMBER —
UNDERDRAIN \
CHAMBER—l
UNDERORAIN \
CHAMBER—A
INFLUENT
INFLUENT
(d)
COARSE MEDIA-
INTERMIX ZONE-
FINER MEDIA —
FINEST MEDIA-
^ANTHRACITE'-
.-.'••.•'SILICA-'.."'.:'.
(e)
T
30-
i
30-40in
COARSE MEDIA
INTERMIX ZONE-
FINER MEDIA-
FINEST MEDIA-
J
ANTHRACITE
•'•.•'."••C'OAL;'-'-'-
If INFLI
INFLUENT
T
28- 48 in
UNDERORAIN
CHAMBER —
EFFLUENT
\ . I \-GARNET SAND
UNDERDRAIN I f EFFLUENT
CHAMBER—1
Figure VII-32
FILTER CONFIGURATIONS
(a) Single-Media Conventional Filter.
(b) Single-Media Upflow Filter.
(c) Single-Media Biflow Filter.
(d) Dual-Media Filter.
(e) Mixed-Media (Triple-
Media) Filter.
1453
-------
o
ce
S
cr
«x
Q.
UJ
-------
a.
UJ§
ffiz
2="
LU
CD
S
LU
C/5
o
CO
CO v;
UJ *
O.-Z
O <
EC I-
CL
bco
< UJ
IT
§<
O
, Z
=! O
O {Z
UJ (T
UJ <
UJ
UJ
CC
LU O
Q. Z
CO <
O
UJ
UJ O
1455
-------
-------
EVAPORATION
CONTACT COOLING
WATER
COOLING
TOWER
SLOWDOWN
DISCHARGE
RECYCLED FLOW
MAKE-UP WATER
Figure VII-36
FLOW DIAGRAM FOR RECYCLING WITH A COOLING TOWER
1457
-------
SINGLE RINSE
OUTGOING WATER
-•> WORK MOVEMENT
INCOMING WATER
DOUBLE COUNTERFLOW
RINSE
OUTGOING WATER
WORK
-•* MOVEMENT
INCOMING WATER
TRIPLE COUNTERFLOW
RINSE
WORK MOVEMENT
INCOMING
r- WATER
OUTGOING WATER
Figure VII-37
COUNTER CURRENT RINSING (TANKS)
1458
-------
lOOOr—
Rinse Stages
Figure VII-38
EFFECT OF ADDED RINSE STAGES ON WATER USE
1459
-------
-------
SECTION VIII
COST OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND CONTROL
This section contains a summary of cost estimates, a discussion
of the cost methodology used to develop these estimates, and
descriptions of the equipment and assumptions for each individual
treatment technology. These cost estimates, together with the
estimated pollutant reduction performance for each treatment and
control option presented in Sections IX, X, XI, and XII, provide
a basis for evaluating each regulatory option. The cost
estimates also provide the basis for determining the probable
economic impact of regulation on the category at different
pollutant discharge levels. In addition, this section addresses
nonwater quality environmental impacts of wastewater treatment
and control alternatives, including air pollution, solid wastes,
and energy requirements.
SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES
- . • i
The total capital and annual costs of compliance associated with
the final regulation are presented by subcategory in Tables VIII-
1 through VIII-3 for regulatory options BPT, BAT, and PSES,
respectively. The number of direct and - indirect discharging
plants in each subcategory is also shown. The cost estimation
methodology used to obtain these plant cost estimates is
described in the following subsection.
COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
Two general approaches to. cost estimation are possible. The
first is a plant-by-plant approach in which costs are estimated
for each individual plant in the category. Alternatively, in a
model plant approach, costs can be projected for an entire
category (or subcategory) based on cost estimates for an
appropriately selected subset of plants. The plant-by-plant cost
estimation procedure is usually preferred compared with the model
plant approach because it maximizes the use of plant specific
data.
TBS:
To implement the selected approach, the wastewater
characteristics and appropriate treatment technologies for the
category are identified. These are discussed in Section V and
Section VII of this document, respectively. Based on a
preliminary technical and economic evaluation, the model
treatment systems are developed for each regulatory option from
the available set of treatment processes. When these systems
are established, a cost data base is developed containing capital
and operating costs for each applicable technology. To apply
this data base to each plant for cost estimation, the following
steps are taken:
1461
-------
1. Define the components of the treatment system (e.g.,
chemical precipitation, multimedia filtration) that are
applicable to the waste streams under consideration at
the plant and their sequence.
2. Define the flows and pollutant concentrations of the
waste streams entering the treatment system.
3. Estimate capital and annual costs for this treatment
system.
4. Estimate the actual compliance costs by accounting for
and subtracting the costs for existing treatment-in-
place.
5. Repeat steps 1-4 for each regulatory option.
In this subsection, the changes made in the cost estimation
methodology from proposal are presented first. Following this,
each of the elements of the cost estimation procedure are
presented. This includes development of the cost data base, the
plant profile data base, and the wastewater characterization data
base. The subsection concludes with a discussion of the three
methods used for treatment system cost estimation-application of
a computer cost estimation model, use of cost curves and
equations, and scaling of costs from similar plants.
Cost Data Base Development
A preliminary step required prior to cost estimation is the
development of a cost data base, which includes the compilation
of cost data and standardization of the data to a common dollar
basis. The sources of cost data, the components of the cost
estimates, and the update factors used for standardization (to
March 1982 dollars in this case) are described below.
Sources of Cost Data
Capital and annual cost data for the selected treatment processes
were obtained from three sources: (1) equipment manufacturers,
(2) literature data, and (3) cost data from existing plants. The
major source of equipment costs was contacts with equipment
vendors, while the majority of annual cost information was
obtained from the literature. Additional cost and design data
were obtained from data collection portfolios when possible.
Components of Costs
The components of the capital and annual costs and the terminol-
ogy used in this study are presented here in order to ensure
unambiguous interpretation of the cost .estimates and cost curves
included in this section.
1462
-------
Capital Costs. The total capital costs consist of two major
components: direct, or total module capital costs and indirect,
or system capital costs. The direct capital costs include:
(1) Purchased equipment cost,
(2) Delivery charges (based on shipping distance of 500
miles), and
(3) Installation (including labor, excavation, site work,
and materials).
The direct components of the total capital cost are derived
separately for each unit process, or treatment technology. lA
this particular case, each unit process cost includes individual
equipment costs (e.g., pumps, tanks, feed systems, etc.). The
correlating equations used to generate the individual equipment
costs are presented in Table VIII-4.
Indirect capital costs consist of contingency, engineering, and
contractor fees. These indirect costs are derived from factored
estimates, i.e., they are estimated as percentages of a subtotal
of the total capital cost, as shown in Table VIII-5.
Annual Costs. The total annualized costs also consist of both a
direct and a-system component as in the case of total capital
costs. The components of the total annualized costs are listed
in Table VIII-6. Direct annual costs include the following:
9
o Raw materials - These costs are for chemicals and other
materials used in the treatment processes, which may
include lime, caustic, sodium thiosulfate, sulfur diox-
ide, ion exchange resins, sulfuric acid, hydrochloric
acid, ferrous sulfate, ferric chloride, and pdlyelectro-
lyte.
o Operating labor and materials - These costs account for
the labor and materials directly associated with opera-
tion of the process equipment. Labor requirements are
estimated in terms of hours per year. A labor rate of
$21 per hour was used to convert the hour requirements
into an annual cost. This composite labor rate included
a base labor rate of $9 per hour for skilled labor, 15
percent of the base labor rate for supervision and plant
overhead at 100 percent of the total labor rate. The
base labor rate was obtained from the "Monthly Labor
Review," which is published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. For the
metals industry, this wage rate was approximately $9 per
hour in March of 1982.
1463
-------
o Maintenance labor and materials - These costs account for
the labor and materials required for repair and routine
maintenance of the equipment. They are based on informa-
tion gathered from the open literature and from equipment
vendors.
o Energy - Energy, or power, costs are calculated based on
total energy requirements (in kW-hrs), an electricity
charge of $0.0483/kilowatt-hour and an operating schedule
of 24 hours/day, 250 days/year unless specified other-
wise. The electricity charge rate (March 1982) is based
on the average retail electricity prices charged for
industrial service by selected Class A privately-owned
utilities, as reported in the Department of Energy's
Monthly Energy Review.
System annual costs include monitoring, insurance and
amortization. Monitoring refers to the periodic analysis of
wastewater effluent samples to ensure that discharge limitations
are being met. The annual cost of monitoring was calculated
using an analytical lab fee of $120 per wastewater sample and a
sampling frequency based on the wastewater discharge rate, as
shown in Table yiII-7, page . The values shown in Table VIII-
7 represent typical requirements contained in NPDES permits. For
the economic impact analysis, the Agency also estimated
monitoring costs based on 10 samples per month, which is
consistent with the statistical basis for the monthly limit.
The cost of taxes and insurance is assumed to be one percent of
the total depreciable capital investment.
Amortization costs, which account for depreciation and the cost
of financing, were calculated using a capital recovery factor
(CRF). A CRP value of 0.177 was used, which is based on an
interest rate of 12 percent, and a taxable lifetime of 10 years.
The CRF is multiplied by the total depreciable investment to
obtain the annual amortization costs.
Standardization of Cost Data
All capital and annual cost data were standardized by adjusting
to March 1982 dollars based on the following cost indices.
Capital Investment. Investment costs were adjusted using the
EPA-Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index. The value of
this index for March 1982 is 414.0.
Chemicals. The Chemical Engineering Producer Price Index for
industrial chemicals is used. This index is published biweekly
in Chemical Engineering magazine. The March 1982 value of this
index is 362.6.
Energy. Power costs are adjusted by using the price of
electricity on the desired date and multiplying it by the energy
requirements for the treatment module in kW-hr equivalents. The
1464
-------
industrial charge rate for electricity for March 1982 is $0.0483
per kW-hr as mentioned previously in the annual costs discussion.
Labor. Annual costs are adjusted by multiplying the hourly labor
rate by the labor requirements (in labor-hours), if the latter is
known. The labor rate for March 1982 was assumed to be $21 per
hour (see above). In cases where the labor-hour requirements are
unknown, the annual labor costs are updated using the EPA-Sewage
Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index. The value of this index
for March 1982 is 414.0 as stated above.
Plant Specific Flowsheet
After the cost data base have been developed, the next step of
the cost estimation procedure is the selection of the appropriate
treatment technologies and their sequence for a particular plant.
These are determined for a given regulatory option by applying
the general treatment diagram for that subcategory to the plant.
This general option diagram is modified as appropriate to reflect
the specific treatment technologies that the plant will require.
For instance, one plant in a subcategory may generate wastewater
from a certain operation that requires oil-water separation.
Another plant in the same subcategory may not generate this waste
stream and thus may not require oil-water separation technology.
The specific plant flowsheets will reflect this difference.
Wastewater Characteristics
Upon establishing the appropriate flowsheet for a given plant,
the next step is to define the influent waste stream
characteristics (flow and pollutant concentrations).
The list of .pollutants which may influence the design (and thus
the cost) of the treatment system is shown in Table VIII-8.
This list includes the conventional, priority metal, and selected
nonconventional pollutants that are generally found in metal-
bearing waste streams. Varying influent concentrations will
affect the various wastewater treatment processes. For example,
influent waste streams with high metals loadings require a
greater volume of precipitant (such as lime) and generate a
greater amount of sludge than waste streams with lower metals
concentrations.
The raw waste concentrations of pollutants present in the
influent waste streams for cost estimation were based primarily
on field sampling data. A production normalized raw waste value
in milligrams of pollutant per metric ton of production was
calculated for each pollutant by multiplying the measured
concentration by the corresponding waste stream flow and dividing
this result by the corresponding production associated with
generation of the waste stream. These raw waste values are
averaged across all sampled plants where the waste stream is
found. These final raw waste values are used in the cost
estimation procedure to establish influent pollutant loadings to
each plant's treatment system. The underlying assumption in this
1465
-------
approach is that the amount of pollutant that is discharged by a
process is a function of the off-mass of product that is produced
by the process. The amount of water used in the process is
assumed to not affect the mass of pollutant discharged. This
assumption is also called the constant mass assumption since the
mass of pollutant discharged remains the same even if the flow of
water carrying the pollutant is changed.
The individual flows for cost estimation are determined for each
waste stream. The procedure used to derive these flows is as
follows:
(1) The production normalized flows (1/kkg) were determined
for each waste stream based on production (kkg/yr) and
current flow (1/yr) data obtained from each plant's
dcp or trip report data where possible.
(2) This flow was compared to the regulatory flow allowance
(1/kkg) established by the Agency for each waste
stream.
(3) The lower of the two flows was selected as the cost
estimation flow. The flow in 1/yr is calculated by
multiplying the selected flow by the production associ-
ated with that waste stream.
(4) The regulatory flow was assigned to waste streams for
which actual flow rate data.were unavailable for a
plant.
In the nonferrous metals forming category, production and flow
information -was not available for all plants. For these
facilities, the best approach is to use either the cost curves
(which are based on general assumptions of the pertinent
wastewater characteristics) or scaling costs based on analogous
plants. These approaches, and where each was used, are discussed
later in this section.
Treatment System Cost Estimation
Costs for the nonferrous metals forming category were estimated
in one of three ways: (1) through use of a computer cost
estimation model, (2) through use of cost curves, or (3) through
scaling of costs from other similar facilities. Selecting the
appropriate method for each plant was based primarily on the
quality and timeliness of the information available for that
plant. Where complete information (flows, production, analytical
data, in-place treatment technology) was available, the computer
cost estimation model or the cost curves were selected. The cost
curves were generally developed using the same algorithms used in
the cost estimation model, and thus the two cost estimation
methods give comparable results. The cost scaling procedure was
selected for plants with nonferrous metals forming wastewater
flows of less than 5 percent of the plant's total wastewater
flow, or where available information was so sparse that use of
1466
-------
one of the other two procedures was precluded. Each procedure is
discussed in detail below.
Cost Estimation Model
The computer-based cost estimation model was designed to provide
conceptual wastewater treatment design and cost estimates based
on wastewater flows, pollutant loadings, and unit operations that
are specified by the user. The model was developed using a
modular approach; that is, individual wastewater treatment
processes such as gravity settling are contained in semi-
independent entities known as modules. These modules are used as
building blocks in the determination of the treatment system flow
diagram. Because this approach allows substantial flexibility in
treatment system cost estimation, the model did not require
modification for each regulatory option.
Each module was developed by coupling design information from the
technical literature with actual design data from operating
plants. This results in a more realistic design than using
either theoretical or actual data alone, and correspondingly more
accurate cost estimates. The fundamental units for cost estima-
tion are not•the modules themselves but the components within
each module. These components range in configuration from a
single piece of equipment, such as a pump to components with
several individual pieces, such as a lime feed system. Each
component is sized based on one or more fundamental parameters.
For instance, the lime feed system is sized by calculating the
lime dosage required to adjust the pH of the influent to 9 and
precipitate 'dissolved pollutants. Thus, a larger feed system
would be designed for a chemical precipitation unit treating
wastewater containing high concentrations of dissolved metals
than for one. treating wastewater of the same flow rate but lower
metals loadings.
The cost estimation model consists of four main parts, or catego-
ries of programs:
o User input programs,
o Design and simulation programs,
o Cost estimation programs, and
o Auxiliary programs.
A general logic diagram depicting the overall calculational
sequence is shown in Figure VIII-1.
The user input programs allow entry of all data required by the
model, including the plant specific flowsheet, flow and
composition data for each waste stream, and specification of
recycle loops. The design portion of the model calculates the
design parameter for each module of the flowsheet based on the
user input and material balances performed around each module.
Figure' VIII-2, depicts the logic flow diagram for the design
portion of the model.
1467
-------
The design parameters are used as input to the cost estimation
programs to calculate the costs for each module equipment
component (individual correlating cost equations were developed
for each of these components). The total direct capital and
annual costs are equal to the sum of the module capital and
annual costs, respectively. System, or indirect costs (e.g.,
engineering, amortization) are then calculated (see Table VIII-5,
and Table VIII-6, and added to the total .direct costs to obtain
the total system costs. The logic flow for the cost estimation
programs is displayed in Figure VIII-3. The auxiliary programs
store and transfer the final cost estimates to data files, which
are then used to generate final summary tables (see Table VIII-
10, for a sample summary table).
Cost Curves
The cost curves were developed using the computer cost estimation
model. Therefore, the design and cost assumptions for each
treatment option presented later in this section also apply to
cost curve development. Several flows were selected for each
treatment operation and the capital and annual costs were plotted
against the flow or other design parameter. In cases where the
cost was a function of two or more independent variables (e.g.,
countercurrent cascade rinsing), a combination of curves or
curves and equations was used. To simplify the calculations, the
sludge handling operations (i.e., vacuum filtration and contract
hauling) cost curves were plotted as a function of influent flow
to the sludge handling operation. 'This necessitated a
calculation of the ratio of sludge produced to the influent
wastewater flow. This ratio is a function of the wastewater
pollutant loadings. Wastewater characteristics from the
subcategories to be costed using the cost curves (nickel-cobalt,
titanium, zirconium-hafnium, uranium, and refractory metals) were
reviewed to determine how. many sludge ratios were required to
accurately reflect variation among these subcategories. This
resulted in the identification of the need for four ratios. The
subcategories represented by each ratio and the ratios themselves
appear in Table VIII-9. The table also presents the dry sludge
ratios used in cost estimation for contract hauling.
To calculate the sludge generation ratios, a model plant
representative of the plants in the subcategory group was
developed. This plant included those waste streams within the
group that contained the highest pollutant loadings. Next, the
computer cost estimation model was utilized to perform the
necessary material balances around a treatment system designed
for the model plant. Flows based on BAT regulatory requirements
were used. From this analysis, the sludge ratios were calculated
as the volume of sludge produced divided by the influent flow to
treatment. In cases where the waste stream mix diverged
substantially from the set of waste streams used to develop the
ratio, the ratio was revised accordingly. The ratios used for
each plant are documented in the public record supporting this
rulemaking.
1468
-------
In addition to chemical precipitation, the sludge ratios for
cyanide precipitation in the titanium forming subcategory were
calculated. The values are 0.72 1 sludge/1 influent and 0.11 1
sludge/1 influent for wet (3 percent) sludge and for dry (20
percent) sludge, respectively.
To calculate the necessary flow to read the sludge handling
curves, the influent wastewater flow is multiplied by the
corresponding sludge ratio.
After the curves and equations were developed, they were
validated by comparing curve-derived costs with those generated
by the computer model. Average agreement within 25 percent was
obtained for each treatment option.
Having verified the cost curves, the necessary flow and design
data were tabulated for each treatment operation at each plant.
The curves were then read to obtain individual treatment
operation costs. The results were summed and added to costs for
enclosures and segregation. System capital costs (engineering,
contractor's fee, contingency) were then applied as were system
annual costs (amortization, taxes and insurance, and monitoring)
to arrive at the necessary totals for each plant.
Table VIII-10 lists each treatment operation and , the
corresponding figure or table number where the specific cost
correlation is displayed.
Cost Scaling
The third method used to estimate compliance costs was to scale
capital and operating costs from similar plants that had been
costed by one of the other two methods. As indicated earlier,
this technique was utilized for plants for which insufficient
information was available to use one of the other two procedures,
and for plants whose nonferrous metals forming flow was less than
5 percent of the total plant flow. In the latter case, the
impact of the nonferrous metals forming regulation is small
enough that a more sophisticated method is unwarranted.
Table VTII-12 lists the number of plants in each subcategory that
were addressed by the scaling procedure.
The procedure used for scaling consists of four steps. First,
all available information about the plant is summarized. This
includes the presence and wastewater flows of each nonferrous
metals forming subcategory and other industrial categories, the
type of wastewater treatment present at the plant, and the
relative production of each subcategory and category at the
plant. In the second step, this profile was compared to plants
within or outside of the nonferrous metals forming category to
identify the most similar facility according to the profile
factors given above.
1469
-------
Third, the identified plant's total capital and operating costs
were scaled based on the flow and the six-tenths rule for cost
estimation:
Cost for
Subject
Plant
Cost for
Analogous
Plant
Plow for
x Subject Plant
Flow for
Analogous Plant
The six-tenths rule has been widely applied
approximation of equipment costs.
0.6
for first order
Finally, the costs of compliance attributable to the nonferrous
metals forming regulation are calculated by apportioning the
total plant costs on a flow basis.
A greater subjectivity is associated with this procedure than the
other two methods due to the inherent uncertainties in selecting
and applying analogous plants. However, this procedure yields
costs of an acceptable degree of accuracy when examined in light
of the availability of information and the minimal overall cost
impact of these plants on the forming category.
The calculations and selected analogous plants for each plant
subjected 'to this procedure are contained in the record
supporting this rulemaking.
General Cost Assumptions
Regardless of the cost methodology applied, several general cost
assumptions were used throughout the category. These include:
(1) Lime is used for pH adjustment and coagulation in all
chemical precipitation and sedimentation systems except
for the precious metals subcategory. Caustic is used
for precious metals forming wastewater to facilitate
precious metals recovery from treatment sludges. These
sludges may be recovered by, heating in a furnace. " If
lime is used in chemical precipitation, the calcium
ions present in the sludge would cause hot spots in the
furnace. This will result in degradation of the
furnace lining. Therefore, caustic is used for the
precious metals forming subcategory since sodium ions
do not cause this condition and fluoride (which
requires calcium for removal as calcium fluoride) is
not found in significant quantities in precious metals
forming wastewater.
1470
-------
(2) Sludges produced as a result of'chemical" precipitation
and sedimentation which contain excess lime are consid-
ered to be uonhazardous waste, industrial facilities
will have to test these sludges Exceptions are sludges
produced by treating uranium forming wastewater, which
are considered radioactive wastes.
(3) Sludges produced as a result of cyanide precipitation
are considered to be hazardous.
(4) Equalization tanks prior to chemical precipitation are
not included for plant flows of <100 1/hr.
(5) For plant flows less than 50 gallons per week, " compli-
ance costs are estimated based on treatment or disposal
by an off-site source, i.e., contract disposal.
(6) Enclosure costs are assumed to be zero for all modules
except vacuum filters and, in some cases, chemical feed
systems.
(7) Combined treatment of chemical precipitation, chromium
reduction (where applicable), and cyanide precipitation
(where applicable) is used for flow rates less than
2,200 1/hr. If the costs calculated for combined
treatment are less than the costs estimated for each
separate treatment operation, the former costs are
used. Additional information is provided under COST
ESTIMATES FOR INDIVIDUAL TECHNOLOGIES - Combined
Treatment, below.
(8) In cases in which a single plant has wastewater gener-
ating processes associated with different nonferrous
metals forming subcategories and or other industrial
categories, costs are estimated for a single treatment
system. In most cases, the combined treatment system
costs are then apportioned between subcategories and
categories on a flow-weighted basis since hydraulic
flow is the primary determinant of equipment size and
cost. It is possible, however, for the combined
treatment system to include a treatment module that is
required by only one of the associated subcategories.
In this case, ~the total costs for that particular
module are included in the costs for the subcategory
which requires the module. Where the module in
question involves flow reduction, the costs are appor
tioned based on an influent flow-weighted basis. Such
cost apportioning is essentially only a bookkeeping
exercise to allocate costs; the total costs calculated
for the plant remain the same.
1471
-------
Consideration of Existing Treatment
The cost estimates calculated by the model represent "greenfield
costs" that do not account for equipment that plants may already
have in-place, i.e., these costs include existing treatment
equipment. In order to estimate the actual compliance cost that
would be incurred by a plant to meet the effluent guidelines,
"credit" should be given to account for treatment in place at
that plant. This was accomplished by subtracting capital and
annual costs of treatment in place from the "greenfield costs" to
obtain the actual or required capital and annual costs of
compliance.
Existing treatment is considered as such only if the capacity arid
performance of the existing equipment (measured in terms of
estimated ability to meet the proposed effluent limitations) is
equivalent to that of the technologies considered by the Agency.
The primary source of information regarding existing treatment
was data collection portfolios (dcps).
General assumptions applying to all subcategories used for
determining treatment in-place qualifications in specific
instances include:
(1) In cases in which existing equipment has adequate
performance but insufficient capacity, it is assumed
that the plant would comply by either installing
additional required capacity to supplement the existing
equipment or disregard the existing equipment and
install new equipment to treat the entire flow. This
selection was based on the lowest total annualized
cost.
(2) When a plant reported processing treatment plant
sludges for metal recovery, capital and annual costs
for sludge handling (vacuum filtration and contract
hauling) are not included in the compliance costs. It
is assumed that it is economical for the plant to
practice recycle in this case, and therefore, the
related costs are considered to be process associated,
or a cost of doing business.
(3) Capital costs for flow reduction (via recycling) were
not included in the compliance costs whenever the plant
reported recycle of the stream, even if the specific
method of recycle was not reported.
1472
-------
(4) Settling lagoons were assumed to be equivalent to
vacuum filtration for dewatering treatment plant
sludges. Thus, whenever a plant reported settling
lagoons to be currently in use for treatment plant
sludges, the capital costs of vacuum filtration were
not included. It was assumed that annual vacuum
filtration costs were comparable to those for
operation of settling lagoons and were used to
approximate the annual operating cost for lagoons.
COST ESTIMATES FOR INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Treatment technologies have been selected from among the larger
set of available alternatives discussed in Section .VII after
considering such factors as raw waste characteristics, typical
plant characteristics (e.g., location, production schedules,
product mix, and land availability), and present treatment
practices. Specific rationales for selection is addressed in
Sections IX, X, XI, and XII .of this document. Cost estimates for
each technology addressed in this section include investment
costs and annual costs for amortization,
maintenance, and energy.
operation and
The specific design and cost assumptions for each wastewater
treatment module are listed under the subheadings to follow.
Costs are presented as a function of influent wastewater flow
except where noted in the unit process assumptions.
Costs are 'presented for the following control and treatment
technologies:
- Countercurrent cascade-spray rinsing,
Cooling towers,
Holding tanks,
Flow equalization,
Cyanide precipitation and gravity settling,
Chromium reduction,
- Iron co-precipitation,
- Chemical emulsion breaking,
Ammonia steam stripping,
- Oil-water separation,
- Chemical'precipitation and gravity settling,
Combined treatment,
- Vacuum filtration,
- Multimedia filtration,
Ion exchange, and
- Contract hauling.
In addition,' costs for the following
compliance costs are also discussed:
Enclosures, and
- Segregation.
items associated with
1473
-------
Countercurrent Cascade-Spray Rinsing
Countercurrent cascade rinsing is used to reduce water use in
rinsing operations. In this process, the cleanest water is used
for final rinsing of an item, preceded by rinse stages using
water with progressively more contaminates to partially rinse the
item. Fresh make-up water is added to the final rinse stage, and
contaminated rinse water is discharged from the initial rinse
stage. The make-up water for all but the final rinse stage is
from the following stage. The addition of overhead sprays to the
rinsing process also increases rinsing efficiency. Therefore,
countercurrent cascade rinsing with sprays was costed when
appropriate as a flow reduction technology for rinse operations.
The costs for countercurrent cascade-spray rinsing apply to a
two-stage rinse system, each consisting of the following
equipment:
o Two fiberglass rectangular tanks (for existing sources,
costs include only one additional tank since the first
tank was assumed to be in place).
o One spray rinsing system if not in place,
—stainless steel spray nozzles
—valves
—Teflon-lined piping system
—conductivity meter
—strainer
—splash guard.
o PVC spargers (air diffuser) for agitation,
—one sparger/1.5 feet of tank length
—4 cubic feet of air/min/sparger
—8 hours installation
—20 feet of interconnecting piping.
o One blower (including motor) for supplying air to the
sparger.
Retrofit capital costs are estimated at 15 percent of the
installed equipment cost.
Information reported in dcps was used to estimate the volume of
countercurrent rinse tanks. If no information was available,
tank volume was assumed to be 1,000 gallons. When it was
determined from a plant's dcp that two-stage countercurrent
cascade rinsing could be achieved by converting two existing
adjacent rinse tanks, only piping, pump, and spray rinsing costs
were accounted for. A constant value of $1,000 was estimated for
the piping costs.
1474
-------
Maintenance .materials are estimated at 2 percent of purchased
equipment cost, and maintenance labor is estimated at 5 percent
of the operating hours.
Capital costs for the spray rinsing system are presented in
Figure VIII-4, and annual costs as an equation in Table VIII-11.
Capital and annual costs may be determined for rectangular
fiberglass tanks with spargers and interconnecting piping in
Figure VIII-5. Capital and annual costs for pumps may be found
in Figure VIII-6.
Cooling Towers
Cooling towers are used to reduce discharge flows by .recycling
cooling water waste streams. Holding tanks are used to recycle
flows less than 3f400 liters per hour (15 gpm). This flow
represents the effective minimum cooling tower capacity generally
available.
The cooling tower capacity is based on the amount of heat
removed, which takes into account both the design flow and the
temperature decrease needed across the cooling tower. The
influent flow to- the cooling tower and the recycle rate are based
on the assumptions given in Table VIII-13, page . It should
be noted that for BAT a cooling tower is not included for cases
in which the actual flow is less than the reduced regulatory flow
(BAT flow) since flow reduction is not required.
The temperature decrease is calculated as the difference between
the hot water (inlet) and cold water (outlet) temperatures. The
cold water temperature was assumed to be 20C (85F) and an average
value calculated from sampling data is used as the hot water
temperature for a particular waste stream. When such data were
unavailable, or resulted in a temperature less than 35C (95F), a
value of 35C (95F) was assumed, resulting in a cooling
requirement for a 6C (10F) temperature drop. The other two
design parameters, namely the wet bulb temperature (i.e., ambient
temperature at 100 percent relative humidity) and the approach
(the difference between the outlet water temperature and the wet
bulb temperature), were assumed to be constant at 25C (77F) and
4C (8F), respectively.
For flow rates above 3,400 1/hr, a cooling tower is assumed. The
cooling tower is sized by calculating the required capacity in
evaporative tons. Cost data were gathered for cooling towers up
to 700 evaporative tons.
The capital costs of .cooling tower systems include the following
equipment:
- Cooling tower (crossflow, mechanically-induced) and
typical accessories;
- Piping and valves (305 meters (1,000 ft.), carbon steel);
1475
-------
Cold water storage tank (1-hour retention time);
- Recirculation pump, centrifugal; and
- Chemical treatment system (for pH, slime and corrosion
control).
For heat removal requirements exceeding ,700 evaporative tons,
multiple cooling towers are assumed.
The direct capital costs include purchased equipment cost,
delivery, and installation. Installation costs for cooling
towers are assumed to be 200 percent of the cooling tower cost
based on information supplied by vendors.
Direct annual costs include raw chemicals for water treatment and
fan energy requirements. Maintenance and operating labor was
assumed to be constant at 60 hours per year. The water treatment
chemical cost is based on a rate of $220/1,000 Iph ($5/gpm) of
recirculated water.
For small recirculating flows (less than 15 gpm), holding tanks
were used for recycling .cooling water. A holding tank system
consists of a steel tank, 61 meters (200 feet) of piping, and a
recirculation pump. The capacity of the holding tank is based on
the cooling requirements of the water to be cooled. Calculation
of the tank volume is based on a surface area requirement of
0.025 mVlph (60 ftVgpm) of recirculated flow and
constant relative tank dimensions.
Capital costs for the holding tank system include purchased
equipment cost, delivery and installation. The annual costs are
attributable to the operation of the pump only (i.e., annual
costs for tank and piping are assumed to be negligible).
Capital and annual costs for cooling towers and tanks are
presented in Figure VIII-7.
Holding Tanks-Recycle
A holding tank is used to recycle water back to a process.
Holding tanks are usually used when the recycled water need not
be cooled. The equipment used to determine capital costs are a
tank, pump, and recycle piping. Fiberglass tanks were used for
capacities of 24,000 gallons or less; steel tanks for larger
capacities. Annual costs are associated only with the pump. The
tank capital cost is estimated on the basis of required volume.
Required tank volume is calculated on the basis of influent flow
rate, 20 percent excess capacity, and four-hour retention time.
The influent flow and the degree of recycle were derived from the
assumptions outlined in Table VIII-13.
Cost curves for direct capital and annual costs are presented in
Figure VIII-8.
1476
-------
Flow Equalization
Flow equalization is accomplished through equalization tanks
which are sized based on a retention time of 8 or 16 hours and an
excess capacity factor of 1.2. Fiberglass tanks were used for
capacities of 24,000 gallons or less; steel tanks for larger
capacities. A retention time of 16 hours was assumed only when
the equalization tank preceded a chemical precipitation system
with "low flow" mode, and the operating hours were greater than
or equal to 16 hours per day. In this case, the additional
retention time is required to hold wastewater during batch
treatment, since treatment is assumed to require 16 hours and
only one reaction tank is included in the "low flow" batch mode.
Cost data were available for steel equalization tank up to a
capacity of 1,893,000 liters (500,000. gallons) ; multiple units
were required for volumes greater than 1,893,000 liters (500,000
gallons). The tanks are fitted with agitators with a horsepower
requirement of 0.006 kW/1,000 liters (0.03 hp/1,000 gallons) of
capacity to prevent sedimentation. An influent transfer pump is
also. included in the equalization system.
Annual costs include electricity costs for the agitator and pump
and 5 percent of. the installed tank cost for maintenance.
Cost curves for capital and annual costs are presented in Figure
VIII-9, for equalization at 8 hours and 16 hours retention time.
Cyanide Precipitation and Gravity Settling
Cyanide precipitation is a two-stage process to remove complexed
and uncomplexed cyanide as a precipitate. In the first step, the
wastewater is contacted with an excess of FeSC>4.7H20 at
pH 9.0 to ensure that all cyanide is converted to the complexed
form:
6CN~ -
Fe3(Fe(CN) 6) 2
21H20 + 3SO4
2~
The hexacyanoferrate is then routed to the second stage,
additional FeSC-4.7H20 and acid are added. In this stage,
the pH is lowered to 4.0 or less, causing the precipitation
Fe3(Fe(CN)6)2 (Turnbull's blue) and its analogues:
where
of
3FeSO4.7H20
2Fe(CN)63 ->
Fe3(Fe(CN)6)2 + 21H20 + 3SO42~
The blue precipitate is settled and the overflow is discharged
for further treatment.
Since the complexation step adjusts the pH to 9, metal- hydroxides
will precipitate. These hydroxides may either be settled and
1477
-------
removed at pH 9 or resolubilized at pH 4 in the
precipitation step and removed later in a downstream cnemicai
precipitation unit. Advantages of preliminary removal of the
metal hydroxides include teduced acid requirements in the final
precipitation step, since the metals will resolubilize when the
pH is adjusted to 4. However, the hydroxide sludge may be
classified as hazardous due to the presence of cyanide. In
addition, the continuous mode operation requires an additional
clarifier between the complexation and precipitation step. These
additional costs make the settling of metal hydroxides
economically unattractive in the continuous mode. However, the
batch mode requires no extra equipment. Consequently, metal
hydroxide sludge removal in this case is desirable before the
precipitation step. Therefore, the batch cyanide precipitation
step settles two sludges: metal hydroxide sludge (at pH 9) and
cyanide sludge (at pH 4).
Costs were estimated for both batch and continuous systems with
the operating mode selected on a least cost basis. The equipment
and assumptions used in each mode are detailed below.
Costs for the complexation step in the continuous mode are based
on the following:
(1) Ferrous sulfate feed system
- ferrous sulfate steel storage hoppers with dust
collectors (largest hopper size is 170 m3 (6,000
ftd); 1.5 days storage)
- enclosure for storage tanks
- •volumetric feeders (small installations)
- mechanical weigh belt feeders (large installations)
- dissolving tanks (5-minute detention time, 6 percent
solution) - dual-head diaphragm metering pumps
- instrumentation and controls
(2) Lime feed system
- hydrated lime
- feeder
- slurry mix tank (5-minute retention time)
- feed pump
- instrumentation (pH control)
(3) H2SC-4 feed system (used when influent pH is >9)
- 93 percent ^804 delivered in bulk or in drums
- acid storage tank (15 days retention) when delivered
in bulk
- metering pump (standby provided)
- pipe and valves
- instrumentation and controls
1478
-------
(4) Reaction tank and agitator (fiberglass, 60-minute
retention time, 20 percent excess capacity, agitator
mount, concrete slab) ..
(5) Effluent transfer pump.
Costs for the second step (precipitation) in the continuous mode
are based on the following equipment:
(1) FeSO4 feed system - as above
(2) H2SO4 feed system - as above
(3) Polymer feed system
storage hopper
- chemical mix tank with agitator
- chemical metering pump
(4) Reaction tank with agitator (fiberglass, 30-minute
retention time, 20 percent excess capacity, agitator
mount, concrete slab)
(5) Clarifier
- sized based on 709 lph/m2 (17.4 gph/ft2), 3 percent
solids in underflow
steel or concrete, above ground - support
structure, sludge scraper, and other
'internals
center feed
(6) Effluent transfer pump
(7) Sludge transfer pump.
Operation and maintenance costs for continuous mode cyanide
precipitation include labor requirements to operate and maintain
the system, el.ectric power for mixers, pumps, clarifier and
controls, and treatment chemicals. Electrical requirements are
also included for the chemical storage enclosures for lighting
and ventilation and in the case of caustic storage, heating. The
following assumptions are used in establishing O&M costs for the
complexation step in the continuous mode:
(1) Ferrous sulfate feed system
- stoichiometry of 1 mole FeSC>4.7H2O to 6 moles CN~
- 1.5 times stoichiometric dosage to drive reaction to
completion
- operating labor at 10 min/feeder/shift
- maintenance labor at 8 hrs/yr for liquid metering
pumps
power based on agitators, metering pumps
- maintenance materials at 3 percent .of capital cost
1479
-------
- chemical cost (sewage grade) at $0.1268 per kg
($0.0575 per Ib)
(2) Lime feed system
- dosage based on pH and metals content to raise pH to
9
- operating and maintenance labor requirements are
based on 20 min/day; in addition, 8 hrs/7,260 kg (8
hrs/16,000 Ibs) are assumed for delivery of hydrated
lime
- maintenance materials cost is estimated as 3 percent
of the purchased equipment cost
- chemical cost of lime is based on $0.0474/kg
($0.0215 per Ib) for hydrated lime delivered in bags
(3) Acid feed system (if required)
- dosage based on pH and metals to bring pH to 9
- labor unloading - 0.25 hr/drum acid
- labor operation - 15 min/day
- annual maintenance - 8 hrs
- power (includes metering pump)
- maintenance materials - 3 percent of capital cost
- chemical cost at $0.082 per kg ($0.037 per Ib)
(4) Reaction tank with agitator
- maintenance materials
— tank: 2 percent of tank capital cost
.— pump: 5 percent of pump capital cost
- power based on agitator (70 percent efficiency) at
0.099 kW/1,000 liters (0.5 hp/1,000 gallons) of tank
volume
(5) Pump
operating labor at 0.04 hr/operating day
- maintenance labor at 0.005 hr/operating hour
- maintenance materials at 5 percent of capital cost
- power based on pump hp.
The following assumptions were used for the continuous mode
precipitation step:
(1) Ferrous sulfate feed system
- stoichiometric dosage based on 3 moles PeSO4.7H2O to
2 moles of iron-complexed cyanide (Fe(CN)6~)
- total dosage is 10 times stoichiometric dosage based
on data from an Agency treatability study
- other assumptions as above
1480
-------
(2) H2SO4 feed system
dosage based on pH adjustment to 4 and resolubiliza-
tion of the metal hydroxides from the complexation
step
- other assumptions as above
(3) Polymer feed system
- 2 mg/1 dosage
operation labor at 134 hrs/yr, maintenance labor at
32 hrs/yr
- maintenance materials at 3 percent of the capital
cost
- power at 17,300 kW/yr
- chemical cost at $4.96/kg ($2.25/lb)
(4) Reaction tank with agitator
- see assumptions above
(5) Clarifier
- maintenance materials range from 0.8 percent to 2
percent as a function of increasing size
- labor - 150 to 500 hrs/yr (depending on size)
- power - based on horsepower requirements for sludge
pumping and sludge scraper drive unit
(6) Effluent transfer pump
- see assumptions above
(7) Sludge pump
sized on underflow from clarifier
- operation and maintenance labor varies with flow
rate
- maintenance materials - varies from 7 percent to 10
percent of capital cost depending on flow rate.
The batch mode cyanide precipitation step accomplishes both
complexation and precipitation in the same vessel. Costs for
batch mode cyanide complexation and precipitation are based on
the following equipment:
(1) Ferrous sulfate addition
- from bags
added manually to reaction tank
1481
-------
(2) Lime addition
from bags
- added manually to reaction tank
(3) H2S04 addition
- from 208 liter (55 gallon) drums
- stainless steel valve to control flow
(4) Reaction tank aip agitator (fiberglass, 8.5 hours
minimum retention time, 20 percent excess capacity,
agitator mount, concrete slab)
(5) Effluent transfer pump
(6) Sludge pump.
Operation^ and maintenance costs for batch mode cyanide
complexatzon and precipitation include costs for the labor
required to operate and maintain the equipment; electrical power
for agitators, pumps, and controls; and chemicals. The
assumptions used in estimating costs are as follows:
(1) Ferrous sulfate addition
- stoichiometric dosage
—complexation: 1 mole FeSO4.7H20 per 6 moles CN~
—precipitation: 3 moles FeSO4.7H2O per 2 moles of
the iron cyanide complex (Fe(CN)g)2
- actual dosage in excess of stoichiometric
—complexation: 1.5 times stoichiometric dosaqe
added
—precipitation: 10 times stoichiometric dosaqe
added
- operating labor at 0.25 hr/batch
- chemical cost (sewage grade) at S0.1268/ka
($0.0575/lb) ' y
- no maintenance labor or materials, or power costs
(2) Lime addition
- dosage based on pH and metals content to raise pH to
- operating labor at 0.25 hr/batch
- chemical cost at $0.0474/kg ($0.0215/lb)
- no maintenance labor or materials, or power costs
(3) H2SO4 addition
- dosage based on pH and metals content to lower pH to
9 (for complexation if required) and/or to lower pH
to 4 (for precipitation)
1482
-------
-. operating labor at 0.25 hr/batch
- chemical cost at $0.082/kg ($0.037/lb)
- no maintenance labor or materials, or power costs
(4) Reaction tank with agitator
- maintenance materials
—tank: 2 percent of tank capital cost
—pump: 5 percent of pump capital cost
power based on agitator (70 percent efficiency) at
0.099 kW/1,000 liters (0.5 hp/1,000 gallons) of tank
volume
(5) Effluent transfer pump
- operating labor at 0.04 hr/operating day
- maintenance labor at 0.005 hr/operating day
- maintenance materials at 5 percent of capital cost
- pow.er based on pump hp
(6) Sludge pump
- operation and maintenance costs vary with flow rate
maintenance materials costs vary from 7 to 10
percent of capital cost depending on flow rate.
Capital and annual costs for continuous and batch mode cyanide
precipitation are presented in Figure VIII-10.
At plants where the total flow requiring cyanide treatment is
low, cyanide precipitation and settling may be accomplished in
the same unit as chemical precipitation and settling. This is
called combined treatment and is discussed later in this section.
Chromium Reduction
Chromium reduction refers to the reduction of hexavalent chromium
to the trivalent form. Chromium in the hexavalent state will not
precipitate as a hydroxide; it must first be reduced to trivalent
chromium. For large flows (greater than 2,000 1/hr) which
undergo continuous treatment, the waste stream is treated by
addition of acid (to lower pH to 2.5) and gaseous sulfur dioxide
(SC-2) dissolved in water in an agitated reaction vessel. The
SC-2 is oxidized to sulfate (804) while it reduces the
chromium. For smaller flows (less than 2,000 1/hr), for which
batch treatment is more appropriate, the waste stream is treated
by manual addition of sodium metabisulfite in the same reaction
vessel used for chemical precipitation. The chemistry of this
operation is similar to that for SO2 addition. This is
referred to as combined treatment, and is discussed more fully
later in this section.
The equipment required for the continuous stream includes a
g02 feed system (sulfonator), a H2SO4 feed system, an
acid resistant reactor vessel and agitator, and.a stainless steel'
1483
-------
pump. The reaction pH is 2.5 and the SO2 dosage is a
SSSni?" °f fc?f influ
Iron Co-Precipitation
Molybdenum is effectively precipitated by addition of high
X2?SS °f ^°n Sa*tS at low PH' ^though the precipitation
chemistry and precise iron-molybdenum compounds formed are not
«f Ji-i • e?stood£ „ comPlexation and physical adsorption onto
settling iron hydroxide floe have both been postulated as
mechanisms for molybdenum removal. This technolog? is described
in more detail in Section VII. aescrioea
ironnsalt dosage has been determined empirically as
a 10:1 weight ratio of iron to the summed mass of
1484
-------
molybdenum To alleviate scaling problems, FeCl3 is selected
over Fe2(SO4)3 as the iron "source. The pH for
optimum precipitation is 4.0. Hydrochloric acid is added as the
acid source. Removal of 'the insoluble precipitates is
accomplished during chemical precipitation and sedimentation.
Capital and operating costs ' have been estimated for both
continuous, batch and low flow operating modes. However, for the
nonferrous metals forming industry, all plants requiring iron co-
precipitation generated flows in the batch and low flow treatment
ranges. Assumptions for cost estimation of the batch Fed?
feed system are as follows:
Capital
o Flow between 100 1/hr and 10,500 1/hr
o Influent molybdenum concentration is assumed as 150 mg/1
o FeCl3 (40 weight percent solution) is added at 10:1 iron
to molybdenum ratio
o FeCl3 storage hopper:
o
2-week supply
Mix tank of 8 hrs retention, 20 percent excess, 50 gal
minimum
o Agitator at 0.5 hp/1,000 gal., 0.25 hp minimum
o Pump at 3 gpm feed
Annual
... o Operating labor at 0.75 hour/batch
o Maintenance, labor at 1 hour/week
o Batch is 8 hrs of flow
o FeCl3 (sewage grade) at $174/ton
Assumptions for the low flow FeCl3 feed system include:
Capital
o Flow less than 2,200 1/hr
o Manual addition of FeCl3 from bags (hopper included at
$2,360 for flows greater than 500 1/hr)
o 10,000 gallons of wastewater accumulated prior to treat-
ment
Annual
10,000 gallons of wastewater accumulated prior to treat-
ment
1485
-------
o Operating labor and maintenance labor are calculated by
0.25 hr/batch + 0.0025 hr/lb FeCl3
o PeCl3 cost is $0.21/lb for flow < 500 1/hr; $0.087/lb for
flows > 500 1/hr
Assumptions for the batch and low flow pH adjustment system are
as follows:
Capital
o
o
o
Annual
Manual addition from drum
$250 capital cost for acid valve
Dosage based on 100 mg CaCC>3/l alkalinity
o 0.25 hr/batch for operation labor
o 1 hr/7 batches for maintenance labor
o HC1 (22° Baume) is $85/ton
The sludge generation .from iron co-precipitation is 0.05 1
sludge/1 of influent flow from molybdenum-containing streams
(0.0075 1 sludge/1 influent for dewatered sludge). This sludge
is in addition to the sludge ratios presented earlier.
Capital costs for iron co-precipitation are presented in Figure
VIII-12, while annual costs are presented in Figure VIII-13.
Chemical Emulsion Breaking
Chemical emulsion breaking involves the separation of relatively
stable oil-water mixtures by chemical addition. Alum, polymer,
and sulfuric acid are commonly used to destabilize oil-water
mixtures. In the determination of capital and annual costs based
on continuous operation, 400 mg/1 of alum and 2 mg/1 of polymer
are added to waste streams containing emulsified oil. In the
continuous system, no sulfuric acid is required. The equipment
included in the capital and annual costs for continuous chemical
emulsion breaking are as follows:
(1) Alum and polymer feed systems
— storage units
- dilution tanks
conveyors and chemical feed lines
- chemical feed pumps
(2) Rapid mix tank (retention time of 15 minutes; mixer
velocity gradient is 300/sec, 20 percent excess capac-
ity)
(3) Flocculation tank (retention time of 45 minutes; mixer
velocity gradient is 100/sec, 20 percent excess capac-
ity)
1486
-------
(4) Pump.
Following the flocculation tank.,
mixture is routed to oil skimming.
the destabilized oil-water
In the determination of capital and annual costs based on batch
operation, sulfuric acid is added to waste streams containing
emulsified oil until a pH of 3 is reached. No alum or polymer is
required. The following equipment is included in the determina-
tion of capital and annual costs based on batch operation:
(1) Sulfuric acid feed systems
storage tanks or drums
chemical feed lines
chemical feed pumps
(2) Two.tanks equipped with agitators (retention time of 8
hrs, mixer velocity gradient is 300/sec, 20 percent
excess capacity)
(3) Two belt oil skimmers
(4) Two waste oil pumps
(5) Two effluent water pumps
(6) One waste oil storage tank (sized to retain the waste
. oil from eight batches, 20 percent excess capacity).
The capital and annual costs for continuous and batch chemical
emulsion breaking were determined by summing the costs from the
above equipment. Alum, polymer, and sulfuric acid costs were
assumed to be $0.257 per kg ($0.118 per pound), $4.95 per kg
($2.25 per pound), and $0.08 per kg of 93 percent acid ($0.037
per pound of 93 percent acid), respectively.
Operation and maintenance and energy costs for the different
types of equipment which comprise the batch and continuous
systems were drawn from various literature sources and are
included in the annual costs.
The cutoff flow for determining the operation mode (batch or
continuous) is 1,000 liters per hour (264 gal/hr), above which
the continuous system is costed; at lower flows, the batch system
is costed.
For annual influent flows to the chemical emulsion breaking
system of 92,100 liters/year (24,000 gallons/year) or less, it is
more economical to directly contract haul rather than treat the
waste stream. The breakpoint flow is based on a total annualized
cost comparison and a contract hauling rate of $0.40/gallon (no
credit was given for oil resale).
1487
-------
Capital and annual costs for chemical emulsion breaking are
presented in Figure VIII-14.
Ammonia Steam Stripping
Ammonia removal using steam is a proven technology that is in use
in many industries. Ammonia is "more volatile than water and may
be removed using steam to raise the temperature and preferen-
tially evaporate the ammonia. This process is most economically
done in a plate or packed tower, where the method of contacting
the liquid and vapor phases reduces the steam requirement.
The .pH of the influent wastewater is raised to approximately 12
by the addition of lime to convert almost all of the ammonia
present to molecular ammonia (NH3). The water is preheated
before it is sent to the column. This process takes place by
indirectly contacting the influent with the column effluent and
with the gaseous product via heat exchangers. The water enters
the top of the column and travels downward. The steam is
injected at the bottom and rises through the column, contacting
the water in a countercurrent fashion. The source of the steam
may be either boiled wastewater or another steam generation
system, such as the plant boiler system.
The presence of solids in the wastewater, both those present in
the influent and those which may be generated by adjusting the pH
(such as metal hydroxides), necessitates periodic cleaning of the
column. This requires an acid cleaning system and a surge tank
to hold wastewater while the column is being cleaned. The column
is assumed to require cleaning approximately once per week based
on the demonstrated long-term cleaning requirements of an ammonia
stripping facility. The volume of cleaning solution used per
cleaning operation is assumed to be equal to the total volume of
the empty column (i.e., without packing).
For the estimation of capital and annual costs, the following
pieces of equipment were included in the design of the steam
stripper:
(1) Packed tower
- 3-inch Rashig rings
- hydraulic loading rate = 2 gpm/ft2
- height equivalent to a theoretical plate
(2) pH adjustment system
= 3 ft
- lime feed system (continuous) - see chemical precip-
itation section for discussion
- rapid mix tank, fiberglass (5-minute retention time)
- agitator (velocity gradient is 300 ft/sec/ft)
- control system
- pump
(3) Heat exchangers (stainless steel)
1488
-------
(4) Reboiler (gas-fired)
(5) Acid cleaning system
- batch tank, fiberglass
- agitator (velocity gradient is 60/sec)
- metering pump
(6) Surge tank (8-hour retention time).
The direct capital cost of the lime feed system was based on the
chemical feed rate as noted in the discussion on chemical precip-
itation. Sulfuric acid used in the acid cleaning system was
assumed to be added manually, requiring no special equipment.
Other equipment costs were direct or indirect functions of the
influent flow rate. Direct annual costs include operation and
maintenance labor for the lime feed system, heat exchangers and
reboiler; the cost of lime and sulfuric acid, maintenance materi-
als, energy costs required to run the agitators and pumps; and
natural gas costs to operate the reboiler. The cost of natural
gas is $6.70/1,000 scf. The total direct capital and annual
costs are presented in Figure VIII-15. .
Oil-Water Separation
Oil skimming costs apply to the removal of free (non-emulsified)
oil using either a coalescent plate oil-water separator or a belt
skimmer located on the equalization tank. The latter is applica-
ble to low oil removal rates (less than 189 liters per day)
whereas the coalescent plate separator is used for oil removal
rates greater than 189 liters/day (50 gpd).
Although the required coalescent plate separator capacity is
dependent on many factors, the sizing was based primarily on the
influent wastewater flow rate, with the following design values
assumed for the remaining parameters of importance:
Parameter
Specific gravity of oil
Operating temperature (°F)
Effluent oil concentration (mg/1)
Design Value
0.85
68
10.0
Extreme operating conditions, such as influent oil concentrations
greater than 30,000 mg/1, or temperatures much lower than 20C
(68F) were accounted for in the sizing of the separator.
Additional capacity for such extreme conditions was provided
using correlations developed from actual oil separator
performance data.
The capital and annual costs of oil-water separation include the
following equipment:
1489
-------
- Coalescent plate separator with automatic shutoff valve
and level sensor
- Oily waste storage tanks (2-week retention time)
- Oily waste discharge pump
- Effluent discharge pump
Influent flow rates up to 159,100 1/hr (700 gpm) are treated in a
single unit; flows greater than this require multiple units.
The direct annual costs for oil-water separation include the cost
of operating and maintenance labor and replacement parts. Annual
costs for the coalescent plate separators alone are minimal and
involve only periodic cleaning and replacement of the plates.
If the amount of oil discharged is 189 liters/day (50 gpd) or
less, it is more economical to use a belt skimmer rather than a
coalescent plate separator. This belt skimmer may be attached to
the equalization basin which is usually necessary to equalize
flow surges. The belt skimmer-equalization basin configuration
is assumed to achieve 10 mg/1 oil in the effluent.
The equipment included in the belt oil skimmer and associated
design parameters and assumptions are presented below.
(1) Belt oil skimmer
- 12-inch width
- 6-foot length
(2) Oily waste storage tank
- 2-week storage
- fiberglass
Capital costs for belt skimmers were obtained from published
vendor quotes. Annual costs were estimated from the energy and
operation and maintenance requirements. Energy requirements are
calculated from the skimmer motor horsepower. Operating labor is
assumed constant at 26 hours per year. Maintenance labor is
assumed to require 24 labor hours per year and belt replacement
once a year.
Capital and annual costs for oil-water separation are $2,600 and
$1,300, respectively, based on these assumptions.
Chemical Precipitation and Gravity Settling
Chemical precipitation using lime or caustic followed by gravity
settling is a fundamental technology for metals removal. In
practice, quicklime (CaO), hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2)/ or
caustic (NaOH) can be used to precipitate toxic and other metals.
Where lime is selected, hydrated lime is generally more
economical for low lime requirements since the use of slakers,
which are necessary for quicklime usage, is practical only for
large volume applications of lime (greater than 50 Ibs/hr). The
1490
-------
chemical precipitant used for compliance costs estimation depends
on a variety of factors and the subcategory being considered.
Lime or caustic is used to adjust the pH of the influent waste
stream to a value of approximately 9, at which optimum overall
precipitation of the metals as metal hydroxides is assumed to
occur. The chemical precipitant dosage is calculated as a
theoretical stoichiometric requirement based on the pH and the
influent metals concentrations. In addition, particular waste
streams may contain significant amounts of fluoride. The
fluoride will form calcium fluoride (CaF2) when combined with
free calcium ions which are present if lime is used as the
chemical precipitant. The additional sludge due to calcium
fluoride formation is included in the sludge generation
calculations. In cases where the calcium consumed by calcium
fluoride formation exceeds the calcium level resulting from
dosing for pH adjustment and metal hydroxide formation, the
additional lime needed to consume the remaining fluoride is
included in the total theoretical dosage calculation. The total
chemical dosage requirement is obtained by assuming an excess of
10 percent. of the theoretical dosage. The effluent
concentrations are generally based on the Agency's combined
metals data base treatment effectiveness values for chemical
precipitation technology described in Section VII.
The costs of chemical precipitation and gravity settling are
based on one of three operating modes, depending on the influent
flow: continuous, "normal" batch, or "low flow" batch. The use
of a particular mode for cost estimation purposes is determined
on a least cost (total annualized) basis. The economic; break-
point between continuous and normal batch was estimated to be
10,600 1/hr (46.7 gpm). Below 2,200 1/hr, it was found that the
low flow batch was the most economical. The direct capital and
annual costs are presented in Figure VIII-16 for .all three
operating modes.
Continuous Mode. For continuous operation, the following
equipment is included in the determination of capital and annual
costs:
(1) Chemical precipitant feed system (continuous)
- lime
—bags (for hydrated lime) or storage units (30-day
storage capacity) for quicklime
—slurry mix tank (5-minute retention time) or
slaker
—feed pumps (for hydrated lime slurry) or gravity
feed (for quicklime slurry)
—instrumentation (pH control)
caustic
—day tanks (2) with mixers and feeders for feed
rates less than 200 Ibs/day; fiberglass tank with
15-day storage capacity otherwise
—chemical metering pumps
1491
-------
—pipe and valves
—instrumentation (pH control)
(2) Polymer feed system
- storage hopper
- chemical mix tank with agitator
- chemical metering pump
(3) Reaction system
- rapid mix tank, fiberglass (5-minute retention time)
- agitator (velocity gradient is 300 ft/sec/ft)
- instrumentation and control
(4) Gravity settling system
- clarifier, circular, steel (overflow rate is 560
gpd/ft2; underflow solids is 3 percent)
(5) Sludge pump
Ten percent of the clarifier underflow stream is recycled to the
pH adjustment tank to serve as seed material for the incoming
waste stream.
The direct capital costs of the chemical precipitant and polymer
feed are based on the respective feed rates (dry Ibs/hr), which
are dependent on the influent waste stream characteristics. The
flexibility of this feature (i.e., costs are independent of other
module components) was previously noted in the description of the
cost estimation model. The remaining equipment costs (e.g., for
tanks, agitators, pumps) were developed as a function of the
influent flow (either directly or indirectly, when coupled with
the design assumptions).
Direct annual costs for the continuous system are based on the
following assumptions:
(1) Lime feed system
- operating and maintenance labor requirements are
based on 3 hrs/day for the quicklime feed system and
20 min/day for the hydrated lime feed system; in
addition, 5 hrs/50,000 Ibs are required for bulk
delivery of quicklime and 8 hrs/16,000 Ibs are
assumed for delivery of hydrated lime
- maintenance materials cost is estimated as 3 percent
of the purchased equipment cost
- chemical cost of lime is based on $47.40/kkg
($43.00/ton) for hydrated lime delivered in bags and
$34.50/kkg ($31.30/ton) for quicklime delivered on a
bulk basis (these costs were obtained from the
Chemical Marketing Reporter)
1492
-------
(2) Caustic feed system
- labor for unloading of dry NaOH requires 8 hours/
16,000 Ibs delivered; liquid 50 percent NaOH
requires 5 hours/50,000 Ibs
- operating labor for dry NaOH feeders is 10 min/day/
feeder ,
- operating labor for metering pump is 15 jnin/day
- maintenance materials cost is assumed to be 3
percent of the purchased equipment cost
- maintenance labor requires 8 hours/year
energy cost is based on the horsepower requirements
for the feed pumps and mixers; energy requirements
generally represent less than 5 percent .of the total
annual costs for the caustic feed system
chemical cost is $0.183 per Ib
(3) Polymer feed system
- polymer requirements are based on a dosage of 2 mg/1
the operating labor is assumed to be 134 hrs/yr,
which includes delivery and solution preparation
requirements; maintenance labor is estimated at 32
hrs/yr
- energy costs for the feed pump and mixer are based
on 17,300 kW-hr/yr
- chemical cost for polymer is based on $5.00/kkg
($2.25/lb)
(4) Reaction system
- operating and maintenance labor requirements are 120
hrs/yr
- pumps are assumed to require .0.005 hrs of, mainte-
nance/operating hr (for flows less than 100 gpm) or
0.01 hrs/operating hr (flows greater than 100 gpm),
in addition to 0.05 hrs/pperating day for pump
operation
-' maintenance materials costs are estimated as 5
percent of the purchased equipment cost
energy costs are based on the power requirements for
the pump (function of flow) and agitator (0.06
hp/1,000 gal); an agitator efficiency of 70 percent
was assumed
(5) Gravity settling system
annual operating and maintenance labor requirements
range from 150 hrs for the minimum size clarifier
(3QO ft^) to 500 hrs for a clarifier of 30,000
ft_; in addition, labor hours for operation and
maintenance of the sludge pumps were assumed to range
from 55 to 420 hrs/yr, depending on the pump capacity
(10 to 1,500 gpm)
1493
-------
- maintenance material costs are estimated as 3
percent of the purchased equipment cost
- energy costs are based on power requirements for the
sludge pump and rake mechanism.
Normal Batch Mode. The normal batch treatment system, which is
used for flows between 2,200 and 10,600 1/yr, consists of the
following equipment:
(1) Chemical precipitant feed system
- lime (batch)
—slurry tank (5-minute retention time)
—agitator
—feed pump ,
- caustic (batch)
—fiberglass tank (1-week storage)
—chemical metering pump
(2) Polymer feed system (batch)
- chemical mix tank (5-day retention time)
- agitator . '
- chemical metering pump
(3) Reaction system
- reaction tanks (minimum pf 2) (8-hour retention time
each)
- agitators (2) (velocity gradient is 300 ft/sec/ft)
- pH control system
The reaction tanks used for pH adjustment are sized to hold the
wastewater volume accumulated for one batch period (assumed to be
8 hours). The tanks are arranged in a parallel setup to allow
treatment in one tank while wastewater is accumulated in the
other tank. A separate gravity settler is not necessary since
settling can occur'in the reaction tank after precipitation has
taken place. The settled sludge is then pumped to the dewatering
stage if necessary.
Direct annual costs for the normal batch treatment system are
based on the following assumptions:
(1) Lime feed system (batch)
- operating labor requirements range from 15 to 60
min/batch, depending on the feed rate (5 to 1,000
Ibs of hydrated lime/batch)
- maintenance labor is assumed to be constant at 52
hrs/yr (1 hr/week)
- energy costs for the agitator and feed pump are
assumed to be negligible
- chemical costs are based on the use of hydrated lime
(see continuous feed system assumptions)
1494
-------
(2) Caustic feed system (batch)
operating labor requirements are based on 30 min/
metering pump/shift
- maintenance labor requirements are 16, hrs/metering
pump/year
energy costs are assumed to be negligible
chemical costs are based on the use of 50 percent
liquid caustic solution (see continuous feed system)
(3) Polymer feed system (batch)
- polymer requirements are based on a dosage of 2 mg/1
operating and maintenance labor are assumed to
require 50 hrs/year
chemical cost for polymer is based on $5.00/kkg
($2.25/lb)
(4) Reaction system
required operating labor is assumed to be 1 hr/batch
(for pH control, sampling, valve operation, etc.)
- maintenance labor requirements are 52 hrs/yr
energy costs are based on power requirements for
operation of the sludge pump and agitators.
Low-Flow Batch Mode.
For small influent flows (less than 2r200
it is more economical on a total annualized cost basis to
the "low flow" batch treatment system. The lower flows
1/hr),
select
allow an assumption of up to five days for the batch duration, or
holding time, as opposed to eight hours for the normal batch
system. However, whenever the total batch volume (based on a
five-day holding time) exceeds 10,000 gallons, which is the
maximum single batch tank capacity, the holding time is decreased
accordingly to maintain the batch volume under this level.
Capital costs for the low flow system are based on the following
equipment:
(1) Reaction system
reaction/holding tank (5-day or less retention time)
agitator
transfer pump
(2) Polymer feed system (batch)
- chemical mix tank (5-day retention time)
agitator
- chemical metering pump.
The polymer feed system is included for the low flow system for
manufacturing processes operating in excess of 16 hours per day.
The addition of polymer for plants operating 16 hours or less per
1495
-------
day is assumed to be unnecessary due to the additional settling
time available.
Only one tank is required for both equalization and treatment
since sedimentation is assumed to be accomplished during nonpro-
duction hours (since the holding time is greater than the time
required for treatment). Costs 'for a chemical precipitant feed
system are not included since lime or caustic addition at low
application rates can be assumed to be done manually by the
operator. A common pump is used for transfer of both the super-
natant and sludge through an appropriate valving arrangement.
As in the normal batch case, annual costs consist mainly of labor
costs for the low flow system and are based on the following
assumptions:
(1) Reaction system
- operating labor is assumed to be constant at 1
hr/batch (for pH control, sampling, filling, etc.);
additional labor is also required for the manual
addition of lime or caustic, ranging from 15 minutes
to 1.5 hrs/batch depending on the feed requirement
(1 to 500 Ibs/batch)
- maintenance labor is 52 hrs/year (1 hr/week)
- energy costs are based on power requirements associ-
ated with the agitator and pump
- chemical costs are based on the use of hydrated lime
or liquid caustic (50 percent)
(2) Polymer feed system (batch)
- see assumptions for normal batch treatment.
Combined Treatment
For small treatment systems (i.e., flow is less than 2,200. 1/hr)
where one or more pretreatment steps is required (e.g., cyanide
precipitation or chromium reduction), significant cost savings
can be realized by using a single reactor vessel and multiple
treatment steps versus treatment in several separate tanks. For
the nonferrous metals forming industry, this combined treatment
approach was_ used, where applicable, in the precious metals
forming and iron, copper and aluminum metal powders subcatego-
ries.
The treatment steps that may be performed in combined treatment
include chemical emulsion breaking, oil-water separation, cyanide
precipitation, chromium reduction, and chemical precipitation and
settling. Only those steps specifically required by the waste
streams at the plant are included in the design.
The design basis for combined treatment begins with the chemical
precipitation unit. This unit is designed to hold wastewater
from the plant for a period up to five days, based on the optimal
1496
-------
cost of capital equipment and operating costs. The total reten-
tion time required is calculated by summing the individual
retention times associated with each treatment step. The tank
size is then calculated based on the larger of either the holdup
time or the total retention time.
The equipment that may be used in combined treatment includes:
(1) Manual lime or caustic addition
(2) Batch reactor tank
(3) Pump
(4) Agitator
(5) Polymer feed system (if required)
(6) FeSO4 feed system (if required)
(7) H2SO4 feed system (if required)
(8) Na2S2Os feed system (if required)
(9) Belt skimmer (if required).
The design bases such as dosages and feed equipment are identical
to those presented in the respective treatment discussions for
batch operation, with the following exceptions:
(1) Annual costs for chemical addition are adjusted by the
number of days of holdup
(2) Batch reactor tank annual costs are recalculated as
follows:
- one hour/batch for operating labor for each treat-
ment step except chromium reduction, where 0.5
hour/batch is used
- 52 hours/year total maintenance
(3) The chemical feed rates for identical chemicals
required in separate treatment steps are additive.
The capital and annual costs calculated by combined treatment are
apportioned to each treatment step as follows:
Treatment Step
Chemical Precipitation
Cyanide Precipitation
Chromium Reduction
Cost Items
Batch reactor tank
Lime addition
Pump
Agitator
Polymer feed system
FeSC-4 feed system
H2SO4 feed system
feed system
H2SC-4 feed system (if cyanide
precipitation is not
present)
1497
-------
Chemical Emulsion Breaking
Vacuum Filtration
Belt skimmer
H2SO4 feed system (if cyanide
precipitation or chromium
reduction is not present)
The underflow from the clarifier at 3 percent solids is routed to
a rotary precoat vacuum filter, which dewaters sludge to a cake
of 20 percent dry solids. The dewatered sludge is disposed of by
contract hauling and the filtrate is recycled to the chemical
precipitation step.
of
is based on a yield of 14.6 kg of dry solids/hr
: of filter area (3 lbs/hr/ft2), a solids
The capacity of the vacuum filter, expressed as square feet
filtration area,
per square meter
capture of 95 percent and an excess capacity of 30 percent. It
was assumed that the filter was operated eight hours/operating
day.
Cost data were compiled for vacuum filters ranging from 0.9 to
69.7 m2 (9.4 to 750 ft2) 'of filter surface area. Based
on a total annualized cost comparison, it was assumed that it was
more economical to directly contract haul clarifier underflow
streams which were less than 50 1/hr (0.23 gpm), rather than
dewater by vacuum filtration before hauling.
The costs for the vacuum filtration system include the following
equipment:
(1) Vacuum filter with precoat but no sludge conditioning
(2) Housing
(3) "Influent transfer pump
(4) Slurry holding tank
(5) Sludge pumps.
The vacuum filter is sized based on 8 hrs/day operation. The
slurry holding tank and pump are excluded when the treatment
system operates 8 hrs/day or less. It was assumed in this case
that the underflow from the clarifier directly enters the vacuum
filter and that holding tank volume for the slurry in addition to
the clarifier holding capacity was unnecessary. For cases where
the treatment system is operated for more than 8 hrs/day, the
under-flow is stored during vacuum filter non-operating hours.
Accordingly, the filter is sized to filter the stored slurry in
an 8 hour period each day. The holding tank capacity is based on
the difference between the plant and vacuum filter operating
hours plus an excess capacity of 20 percent.
Cost curves for direct capital and annual costs are presented in
Figures VIII-17 and VIII-18, for vacuum filtration. Two cost
curves are presented, one for stainless steel filter systems and
one for carbon steel filter systems. The stainless steel filter
and appurtenances are used for sludges from cyanide
1498
-------
precipitation, carbon steel filters for all other sludges.
Annual cost for both designs are presented in Figure VIII-19.
The following assumptions were made for developing capital and
annual costs:
(1) Annual costs associated with the vacuum filter were
developed based on continuous operation (24 hrs/day,
365 days/year). These costs were adjusted for a
plant's individual operating schedule by assuming that
annual costs are proportional to the hours the vacuum
filter actually operates. Thus, annual costs were
adjusted by the ratio of actual vacuum filter operating
hours per year (8 hrs/day x number days/year) to the
number of hours in continuous operation (8,760 hrs/
year).
(2) Annual vacuum filter costs include operating and
maintenance labor (ranging from 200 to 3,000 hrs/year
as a function of filter size), maintenance materials
(generally less than 5 percent of capital cost), and
energy requirements (mainly for the vacuum pumps).
(3) Enclosure costs for vacuum filtration were based on
applying rates of $45/ft2 and $5/ft2/year for capital
and annual costs, respectively to- the estimated floor
area required by the vacuum filter system. The capital
cost rate for enclosure is the standard value as
discussed below in the costs for enclosures discussion.
. The annual cost rate accounts for electrical energy
requirements for the filter housing. Floor area for
the enclosure is based on equipment dimensions reported
in vendor literature, ranging from 300 ft2 for the
minimum size filter (9.4 ft2) to 1,400 ft2 for a vacuum
filtration capacity of 1,320 ft2.
Multimedia Filtration
Multimedia filtration is used as a wastewater treatment polishing
device to remove suspended solids not removed in previous treat-
ment processes. The filter beds consist of graded layers of
coarse anthracite coal and fine sand. The equipment used to
determine capital and annual costs are as follows:
(1) Gravity flow, vertical steel cylindrical filters with
media (anthracite and sand)
(2) Influent storage tank sized for one backwash volume
(3) Backwash tank sized for one backwash volume
(4) Backwash pump to provide necessary flow and head for
backwash operations
- air scour system
1499
-------
(5) Influent transfer pump
- piping, valves, and a c" Irol system.
The hydraulic loading rate is 7,335 lph/m2 (180 gph/ft2)
and the backwash loading rate is 29,340 lph/m2 (720
gph/ft^). The filter is backwashed once per 24 hours for 10
minutes. The backwash volume is provided from the stored
filtrate.
Effluent pollutant concentrations are based on the Agency's
combined metals data base for treatability of pollutants by
filtration technology.
Cartridge-type filters are used instead of multimedia filters to
treat small flows (less than 800 liters/hour) since they are more
economical than multimedia filters at these flows (based on a
least total annualized cost comparison). The effluent quality
achieved by these filters was equivalent to the level attained by
multimedia filters. The equipment items used to determine
capital and annual costs for membrane filtration are as follows:
(1) Influent holding tank sized for 8 hours retention
(2) Pump
(3) Prefilter
- prefilter cartridges
- prefilter housings
(4) Membrane filter
- membrane filter cartridges
- .housing
The majority of annual cost is attributable to replacement of the
spent prefilter and membrane filter cartridges. The maximum
loading for the prefilter and membrane filter cartridges was
assumed to be 0.225 kg per 0.254 m units length of cartridge.
The annual energy and maintenance costs associated with the pump
are also included in the total annual costs. Cost curves for
direct capital and annual costs for multimedia filtration and
capital costs for cartridge filtration are presented in Figure
VIII-20. Annual costs for cartridge filtration are obtained from
Table VIII-11.
Ion Exchange
This technology is applicable to precious metals recovery and
final effluent polishing in the precious metals subcategory. It
operates by absorption of charged precious metal ions onto a
strongly anionic resin, which replaces the metal ions with
chloride or hydroxide ions. It has been found that loading of
1500
-------
the resin to exhaustion and recovery of metals through combustion
is preferred over regeneration; separation efficiency of the
desired metals during regeneration is not usually adequate.
EPA has determined that removal of precious metal ions is achiev-
able at no net cost, since the annual value of recovered metal
exceeds the annualized cost of column operation. This analysis
was based on median flows and concentrations of precious metals
at a model plant. The mass of metal recovered was calculated
using a treatability value for each metal (Au, Pt, Pd) of 0.01
mg/1 (0.007 mg/1 for silver). The metal value was determined by
assuming 2/3 of the market price for each metal. This was
compared to the cost of operating and depreciating the ion
exchange column.
Contract Hauling
Concentrated sludge and waste oils are removed on a contract
basis for off-site disposal. The cost of contract hauling
depends on the classification of the waste as being either
hazardous or nonhazardous. For nonhazardous wastes, a rate of
$0.106/liter ($0.40/gallon) was used in determining contract
hauling costs. The cost for contract hauling hazardous wastes
was developed from a survey of waste disposal services and varies
with the amount of waste hauled. No capital costs are associated
with contract hauling. Annual cost curves for contract hauling
nonhazardous and hazardous wastes are presented in Figure VIII-
£ J. •
Enclosures
The costs of enclosures for equipment considered to require
protection from inclement weather were accounted for separately
from the module costs (except for vacuum filtration).
ular, chemical feed systems were generally assumed
enclosure.
In partic-
to require
the
the
Costs for enclosures were obtained by first estimating
required enclosure area and then multiplying this value by
$/ft2 unit cost. A capital cost of $45/ft2 was
estimated, based on the following:
- structure (including roofing, materials, insulation,-
etc.)
- site work (masonry, installation, etc.)
electrical and plumbing.
The rate for annual costs of enclosures is $5/ft2/yr which
accounts for energy requirements for heating and lighting the
enclosure.
The required enclosure area is determined as the amount of total
required enclosure area which exceeds the enclosure area esti-
1501
-------
mated to be available at a particular plant. It was assumed that
a common structure could be used to enclose all equipment needing
housing unless information was available to indicate that sepa-
rate enclosures are needed (e.g., due to plant layout). The
individual areas are estimated at 50 ft2 per feed system.
The available enclosure areas associated with each plant site
were based on experience from site visits at numerous plants.
For plant flows less than 1,100 1/hr, between 1,100 1/hr and
10,800 1/hr, and over 10,800 1/hr, the estimated available areas
are 150 ft^, 200 ft% and 250 ft% respectively.
The estimated available area did not exceed the required enclo-
sure area at any plant in this category.
Segregation
Estimation of costs for segregation of process wastewaters for
the nonferrous metals forming category is required by the fre-
quency of multiple subcategories and categories present at plants
covered by this regulation. Eighty-two of the approximately 150
plants for which costs were estimated for this regulation are
such plants. Because the subcategories and categories repre-
sented at these plants may have different arrays of regulated
pollutants, the possibility exists for mass allowances to be
incorporated into a plant's permit that are in fact not required
from a treatment standpoint. EPA seeks to avoid such a situation
due to its potential for allowing additional pollutants to be
discharged into the environment. As. discussed in Section X, EPA
took steps to minimize monitoring difficulties that could arise
from this situation. However, segregation of wastewater contain-
ing different pollutants may be required for optimal environmen-
tal benefit. EPA does not seek to discourage combined treatment
of process wastewater where such treatment provides effective
removal of regulated pollutants.
Segregation costs, which are essentially the costs associated
with transporting wastewater from its point of generation to the
treatment system, are therefore a function of the subcategories
and categories present at the plant. In case I, which is the
most_ common, the nonferrous metals forming flow is a small
portion _of the total process wastewater flow. The cost of
segregating the flow from each nonferrous metals forming process
at a particular plant was estimated by multiplying a per stream
segregation cost by the number of waste streams in each subcate-
gory that are present at the plant. These costs are then attrib-
uted to each forming subcategory.
In case II, the nonferrous metals forming wastewater is the major
wastewater flow. Here the cost is also calculated by using the
per stream cost, however, the number of wastewater streams not
associated with the major nonferrous metals forming subcategory
were used. The costs were then assigned to the major nonferrous
metals forming subcategory to reflect the cost of compliance by
the major subcategory with its effluent limitations.
1502
-------
The per stream segregation costs and assumptions are
Table VIII-14.
listed in
Finally, an additional cost for segregation must be included for
separation of process wastewaters that are discharged from the
same equipment, where this equipment is used to process metals
that are in separate subcategories. For instance, the same
surface treatment rinse tank may rinse titanium parts over a
certain period and then be used for rinsing of nickel parts. The
cost for this segregation is represented by the cost of a holding
tank of 4 hours retention, a pump, and connecting piping. The
resulting cost was assigned to each nonferrous metals forming
subcategory for which wastewater is discharged from the common
equipment.
For the purpose of evaluating the economic impact of the nonfer-
rous metals forming regulation, the Agency estimated the compli-
ance cost for each plant on the basis of a combined wastewater
treatment system. Nonferrous metals forming plants that generate
process wastewater which is regulated by more than one nonferrous
metals forming subcategory with different model end-of-pipe
treatment requirements may be able to comply with permit require-
ments using a less costly treatment system than a system which
will treat all process wastewater to meet the most stringent
limitations.
Costs for segregation of wastewaters not included in this regula-
tion (e.g., noncontact cooling water) were also included in the
compliance cost estimates. The capital costs for segregating the
above streams were determined using a rate of $6,900 for each
stream requiring segregation. This rate is based on the purchase
and installation of 50 feet of 4-inch piping (with valves, pipe
racks, and elbows) for each stream. Annual costs associated with
segregation are assumed to be negligible.
Where a common stormwater-process wastewater piping system was
used at a plant, costs were included for both segregation of each
process waste stream to treatment (based on the above rate) and
segregation of stormwater for rerouting around the treatment
system. Stormwater segregation cost is $8,800 based on the
underground installation of 300 feet of 24-inch diameter concrete
pipe.
COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATION
A cost summary was prepared for each plant. An example of this
summary for plants that were costed by the computer model may be
found in Table VIII-15, page . Referring to this table, five
types of data are included for each option: run number, total
capital costs, required capital costs, total annual costs, and
required annual costs. Run number refers to which computer run
the costs were derived from.
Total capital costs include the capital cost estimate for each
piece of wastewater treatment equipment necessary to meet mass
1503
-------
Limitations. Required capital costs are determined by consider-
ing the equipment and wastewater treatment system a plant cur-
rently has in place. As discussed previously, the required
capital costs reflect the estimates of the actual capital cost
the facility will incur to purchase and install the necessary
treatment equipment by accounting for what that facility already
has installed.
For plants that discharge wastewater in more than one subcategory
in the nonferrous metals forming category, or in more than one
category, the compliance costs must be allocated to the different
subcategories and categories. In general, this allocation is
done based on the flow contribution of each subcategory and
category. For instance, if 33 percent of the flow came from the
nickel and cobalt forming subcategory, the titanium forming
subcategory, and the electroplating category each, the capital
and annual costs allocated to each of the two forming subcatego-
ries and the other category would be 33 percent.
An exception to this rule occurs when preliminary treatment steps
such as chromium reduction are performed on only a portion of the
total plant wastewater flow. In this case, the costs associated
with the preliminary step are allocated solely to the subcatego-
ries and categories that discharge water requiring that treat-
ment. Where flow reduction is included, the costs are appor-
tioned as above keeping constant the portion(s) borne by subcate-
gories where flow is not reduced. This prevents compliance costs
from increasing for a subcategory from option to option when no
regulatory flow change has been established. Examples and
detailed calculation sheets for the apportionment of costs at
each plant are contained in the public record for this
rulemaking.
NONWATER QUALITY ASPECTS
The elimination or reduction of one form of pollution may aggra-
vate other environmental problems. Therefore, Sections 304(b)
and 306 of the Act require EPA to consider the nonwater quality
environmental impacts (including energy requirements) of certain
regulations. In compliance With these provisions, EPA has
considered the effect of this regulation on air pollution, solid
waste generation, water scarcity, and energy consumption. This
regulation was circulated to and reviewed by EPA personnel
responsible for nonwater quality environmental programs. While
it is difficult to balance pollution problems against each other
and against energy utilization, the Administrator has determined
that the impacts identified below are justified by the benefits
associated with compliance with the limitations and standards.
The following are the nonwater quality environmental impacts
associated with compliance with BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS.
Air Pollution, Radiation, and Noise
In general, none of the wastewater treatment or control processes
causes air pollution. Steam stripping of ammonia has a potential
1504
-------
to generate atmospheric emissions; however, with proper design
and operation, air pollution impacts are prevented. None of the
wastewater treatment processes cause objectionable noise or have
any potential for radiation hazards.
Solid Waste Disposal .
As shown in Section V, the waste streams being discharged contain
large quantities of toxic and other metals; the most common
method of removing the metals is by chemical precipitation.
Consequently, significant volumes of heavy metal-laden sludge are
generated that must be disposed of properly.
The technologies that directly generate sludge are:
1. Cyanide precipitation,
2. Chemical precipitation (lime or caustic),
3. Multimedia filtration, and
4. Oil water separation.
Table VIII-15 presents the sludge volumes generated by plants for
each regulatory option in each subcategory, page
The estimated sludge volumes generated from wastewater treatment
were obtained from material balances performed by the computer
model and extrapolated to the entire category. Generally, the
solid waste requiring disposal is .a dewatered.sludge resulting
from vacuum filtration, which contains 20 percent solids (by
weight). The solids content will be lower in cases where it is
more economical to contract haul a waste stream directly from the
process without undergoing treatment.
A major concern in the disposal of sludges, is the contamination
of - soils, plants, and animals by the heavy metals contained in
the sludge. The leaching of heavy metals from sludge and subse-
quent movement through soils is enhanced by acidic conditions.
Sludges formed by chemical precipitation possess high pH values
and thus are resistant to acid leaching. Since the largest
amount of sludge that results from the alternatives is generated
by chemical precipitation, it is not expected that metals will be
readily leached from the sludge. Disposal of sludges in a lined
sanitary landfill will further reduce the possibility of heavy
metals contamination of soils, plants, and animals.
Other methods of treating and disposing sludge are available.
One method currently being used at a number of plants is reuse or
recycle, usually to recover metals. This is especially common at
plants in the precious metals forming subcategory. Since the
metal concentrations in some sludges may be substantial, it may
be cost-effective for some plants to recover the metal fraction
of their sludges prior to,disposal.
Wastes generated by nonferrous metal formers are subject to
regulation under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) if they are hazardous. However, the Agency
1505
-------
examined solid wastes similar to those that would be generated at
nonferrous metals forming plants by the suggested treatment
technologies (that is, the sludges from lime and settle treat-
ment) and believes they are not hazardous wastes under the
Agency]s regulations implementing Subtitle C of RCRA. The one
exception to this is solid waste generated by cyanide precipita-
tion. This sludge is expected to be hazardous and this judgement
was included in this study. None of the noncyanide wastes are
specifically listed as hazardous, nor are they likely to exhibit
one of the four characteristics of hazardous waste (see 40 CFR
Part^ 261) based on the recommended technology of chemical
precipitation and sedimentation, preceded where necessary by
hexavalent chromium reduction. By the addition of a small excess
of lime during treatment, similar sludges, specifically toxic
metal-bearing sludges generated by other industries such as the
iron and steel industry passed the Extraction Procedure (EP)
toxicity test (see 40 CFR 261.24), Thus, the Agency believes
that nonferrous metals forming wastewater treatment sludges will
similarly not be EP toxic if the recommended technology is
applied.
The Agency is not proposing an allowance for discharge of spent
solvents from the solvent degreasing operations at nonferrous
metals forming plants. Disposal of the spent solvent may be
subject to regulation under RCRA. However, no plant in the
nonferrous metals forming industry is known to currently dis-
charge the spent solvents. Therefore, the cost of disposal of
the spent solvents has not been included in estimating the cost
of this proposed regulation because all plants which use solvent
degreasing already incur those costs.
Although solid wastes generated as a result of these guidelines
are not expected to be hazardous, generators of these wastes must
test the waste to determine if the wastes meet any of the charac-
teristics of hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 261.10). The Agency
also may list these wastes as hazardous under 40 CFR 261.11.
If these wastes are hazardous, as defined by RCRA, they will come
within the scope of RCRA's "cradle to grave" hazardous waste
management program, requiring regulation from the point of
generation to point of final disposition. EPA's generator
standards require generators of hazardous nonferrous metals
forming wastes to meet containerization, labelling, recordkeep-
ing, and reporting requirements; if plants dispose of hazardous
wastes off-site, they have to prepare a manifest which tracks the
movement of the wastes from the generator's premises to a permit-
ted off-site treatment, storage, or disposal facility (see 40 CFR
262.20). The transporter regulations require transporters of
hazardous wastes to comply with the manifest system to assure
that the wastes are delivered to a permitted facility (see 40 CFR
263.20). Finally, RCRA regulations establish standards for
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
allowed to receive such wastes (see 40,CFR Part 264).
1506
-------
Even if these wastes are not identified as hazardous, they still
must be disposed of in compliance with the Subtitle D open
dumping standards, implementing Section 4004 of RCRA (see 44 FR
53438, September 13, 1979). The Agency has calculated as part of
the costs for wastewater treatment, the cost of hauling and
disposing of these wastes.
Consumptive Water Loss
Treatment and control technologies that require extensive recy-
cling and reuse of water may require cooling mechanisms. Evapo-
rative cooling mechanisms can cause water loss and contribute to
water scarcity problems-a primary concern in arid and semi-arid
regions. While this regulation assumes water reuse, the overall
amount of reuse through evaporative cooling mechanisms is low and
the quantity of water involved is not significant. In addition,
most nonferrous metals forming plants are located east of the
Mississippi where water scarcity is not a problem. The Agency
has concluded that consumptive water loss is insignificant and
that the pollution reduction benefits of recycle technologies
outweigh their impact on consumptive water loss.
Energy Requirements ...
The incremental energy requirements of a wastewater treatment
system have been determined in order to consider the impact of
this regulation on natural resource depletion and on various
national economic factors associated with energy consumption.
The calculation of energy requirements for wastewater treatment
facilities proceeded in two steps. First, the portion of operat-
ing costs which were attributable to energy requirements was
estimated for each wastewater treatment module. Then, these
fractions, or energy factors, were applied to each module in all
plants to obtain the energy costs associated with wastewater
treatment for each plant. These costs were summed for each
subcategory and converted to kW-hrs using the electricity charge
rate previously mentioned ($0.0483/kW-hr for March 1982). The
total plant energy usage was calculated based on the data collec-
tion portfolios.
Table VIII-16, presents these energy requirements for each
regulatory option in each subcategory. From the data in this
table, the Agency has concluded that the energy requirements of
the proposed tr-eatment options will not significantly affect the
natural resource base nor energy distribution or consumption in
communities where plants are located.
1507
-------
o CM 3
oco c
ucn c
• — <••
o
T- a
+• O
ID (£
10
t-a
ui
-
O +>
cc. «
UJ
o
o
o
to
O)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
(D
o
o
o
o
00
O)
o o
o o
o o
o
o
o
— <
OJ
CM
o-
o
o
O
O
O
< N <
CM
CO
O
O
a
ca
o
co CM
M- o>
•- CO
to r-
CM co
CM
00
CO
CM
uj o
O 2£
•- ZM
I <£
t-4 l-l CC
W _IO
M a u.
O1
0) U-l
E U.H
« OUj
M
I- W
U13
OO
ua:
a:
t-UJ
a u.
*• u
a o
i- a en
0 i. c
§-r- C8
Q JC
3 O
Z"»- 8)
O-.-
a
tO CO CM *-
(d
T)
C? 0, 5 . -5
i » 5 E E
I- C E O O
o--t.ii. u.
u. E o
>> O) I- U. M E
I- £ C O — 0) 3
O-Ki-U-WOCO) •*-
CODE — *• t- c C
(DEc--p(Oa)E-^ i-
(Ot-U-BSOl, Oi-CX
O CO JQE>.U.O-^I
-D I E O t. u. E E
3C30IOOE 1-3
W -r- -r- I 3*.3EO"-
HOJ— OOt-3ULC
I <0 O t- (9 C t- O
TJ C v O L (0 C O O
a>
TJ
I
o
0.
C
o
u
C
o
TJ
-------
4-"^
uJ ix
X O
I- C3
UJ
ce. i-
o <
u. u
UJ U
cj z
CM Z M
I < E
>-< 1-1 a:
M -JO
>H a. u.
o u)
0) O _1
u. I-
o uj
in
t- to
i/) 3
00
o a:
o:
h- UJ
< u.
CQ z
o
z
o
"- 10
•M (V
(0 *•
^ (8 —
3 E (9
O)"- *•
a: co a.
UJ CD
u
IA
V i.
U 0)
t- a) 01
-
o
p
o
p
a>
r-
o
p
p
co
o>
p
p
p
CM
in
co
p
o
p
in
co
p
p
p
CM
CM
CO CM —
P
P
P
O
CO
in
ca
c.
o
a>
co
(0
o
en
c
'i
o
u.
a
to
i
c
H
I
•o
<0
0)
0)
c
'i
o
Ul
CO
c
oi
CO
JD
O
0
01
c
i
o
u.
in
CO
4-*
CO
0)
c
o
u.
U)
M
o
1-
o
o
CO
t.
Ol
c
i
o
01
c
i
o
O)
c
i
o
U-
o
c
O)
c
'i
o
u.
E
3
CO
I
E
3
c
o
o
01
1_
0)
•a
3
o
a
U
-------
UJ K
XO
I-CS
111
CtfH
O<
U. U
ui a
OZ
CO Zw
I - -I
o *> n
o:
a
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
V
CO
CO
o
o
o
CM
in
o
CD
a
u
a
o
i-
i
TJ
SI
(0
CD
'C
o
u.
E
(D
c
.
i.
o
-K
O
(9
U.
t-
ffl
cc
D)
c
t-
E
c.
O
a.
a>
c
O)
c
1
o
u_
E
E O) (d t_
t. C X
111
-------
•3-
1
1-4
t—t
^-^
i>
01
n
a
^-
00
UJ
1-4
C3
O
O
I
u
111
H-
-J
O
o:
> t-
tt Z
o o
U 0
UJ
I- Q
< Z
o <
O (-
z z
l-» UJ
E 2
O <
U. UJ
or
00 H-
< o
H UJ
ui a
£ z
UJ
) S
=) E
O O
or o
C£ UJ
uj or
u,
z o:
o o
z u.
00
z
o
t-
or
UJ
1-
00
o
o
. T3
O
HI
Ol
C
a
cc.
c
0
+J
ra
3
CJ
UJ
c
a>
e
a
3
cr
UJ
CO
CO
o
V
a.
I
V
in
CM
O
^-\
cj
*^
in
o
o
+
^^
a
I
•3-
•~^ o
a
I x
• a.
r- I
in
X
CO
— 00
cn o
CO •
00 O
n u
cj <
a
E
CO
o
1
o
t-
o
*4->
a
+j
•i—
01
<
o
in
V.
a
V
CO
CO
o
CM
f*\ ^"\
a. u
• X *•• '
*— '
in
S o
CO •
^f O
CM +
co ^^
Q.
1 X
a co
CM O
. o
CO X
in •-*
CM >
• — o.
X
T *~-*
in x
in
• CO
in oo
00
4-'
C
UJ
a
0
^_
t_
o
+j
a
+i
.(-
o>
CM
•—
V
U.
a
V
CM
r-
t
CM —
CO
O X
O) CO
• cn— i
O) — (-
oo cn oo
• z
+ CD
00 +
U. X •— i
Q >-*
^-^CM CM
X 0 U-
CO Q
cn o
00 CO X
CO *^
CD
o x in
CM O)
CO 1- 00
X 0
1 ^— CM
CD
• — • 1
f- CM
O ^N^
o u. u_ •
• o a
— X .X O
* II II
c
] i c
00 3
a o
•<- CJ
c
O Ol
E C
< Q.
0
o
o
o,
o
O V
a" 3 3
CO
V V
V
o o
300
o o
V - -
0 0
O CO CD
«-^ l~\
t-^r~* ^\
^— ' 3 *~s
X X
X
in in
r- CD 53-
000
a o o •
000
o o o
CO •- O)
— - —
CO
1 I*'
*~* CM
00 CM
0
CD 1
CM CJ)
CO O
CO
+ CM
rq — .
O •' CM
O 00 -^
• '• a c
CO X —
II II
CJ <
o
a)
u
o
c
o
.
a)
M-
L.
M
CJ
O
o
03
CM
V
00
V
O
o
CO
CM
in
CM
CM CO
to in
^ o
CM •
CM
cn •
o o
CM 1
O)
+ o
00
. CM ' — i
cn cp ^^
- a c
*- X —
II II
u <
_
<1)
a>
4->
00
^
0)
,.
.,_
L
(0
o
n
3
o
TJ in
l_ 3
CO O
N "D
ca u
JI (0
C N
O ft
Z I
^^
u
^
vS
r^ Q.
CM X
o *-^
•- CM
+ 0
fs. ^-
>. CO
a. o N-
• T. ^f CO
^-^ CM fx.
'-» O CD
• O • CJ)
*-^ o •—
1 0
O i . .
^ ao
X
O O O 0) 1
II 11 II II - -
o < o <
fc
CD ;
c
T
-,
(Q
X
^
u *
(0
+J
c
o
o
1511
-------
TO
0
c
+J
c
o
u
1
»-*
t-»
JO
a
•ROL TECHNOLOGIES
trz
oo
ocj
Ul
t-Q
-i UJ
£ £
.
44
5 0 0
— 0 0
a i~- r-
> V V
«-
0 Z Z
0 0
eu K t-
O) U CJ
c
eo v v
cc
in in
z z
CJ CJ
c c
"~ •"
c
o co -'O a>
co in oo co
t* en o o
•0 • t
oo in o> «-
ao ao
X X
0) + Q) +
II II
tJ <
E
a>
10
>^
+i
C t-
a o
•^ h*
CT O>
UJ C
^_
o
o
o
o
§ 0
- o
0 0
o o
"> S §
V v
> o
> o in
v o
v o v
o
0 0 — >
o o
- o v v
CM T-" > 0
r-
CM
t
co
^
r-
m
0
i--
o
CM
?
cnco
mi
*- X
II
U
c
1)
en
c
o
o
N
"a
tr
Ul
CO
oo **
CM >
r- c
i r^
CO
^ un
> oo
^* CMi— i
CO CM
,- o^
•» •>
o o c
en —
CM eo in
>OJCO
*r t^mcj
— 'U.
v- a c
X ~-
y
•P II
CO
CD U
<~\
a.
X
*^
^-*
u.
%^
CO
o
a
m
in
o
CO
CM
ii
"*
1512
-------
•o
c
c
0
u
\^f
^t
1
t— 1
t— <
1— 1
>
CD
r—
.a
CD
H
MING CATEGORY
WENT AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
(Y
O
a.
ts>
i
<
H
Hl
5
to
3
O
a:
a:
HI
H.
z
o
z
1—
<
HI
a:
H
O
HI
a
Z
HI
E
S
O
u
HI
a
a:
o
H.
to
z
o
l-l
5
or
HI
1-
to
O
u
•a
0
— o
n) a
>
CO
U. . CO
o
0 V
CD O
Ol — X
c
CO V V
cr
X O
Q.
I
C ^
o u.
•r- ^v
4J
CO —
D CO
CT —
HI "O •
cu o
CD
II- +
.C '"^
u >
•w a
as m
.a ^
s in
o o • o
— in o co
4- CM »- O)
3 II II II
O
-J 0 < 0
l_
CD
E
ID
O
it-
CD
V a
C
CD
E e
a. CD
•r- 4J
3 10
a >.
HI LO
T3
CD
••»
>.
a
i
^-i
X
in
o
o
T—
X
in
—
a> in
--
co
CO
S co
CM
— 1
co
in CM
in *-^
o m
o
in
+ I
a
en «-
CO
r—
O •-
• CO
in co
'—en
^ i
a —
CO
u
«i
o
o
o
V
H.
V
o
CO CM
CO CO
N CO
CO CO
0 0
1 +
H. U.
C C •
CO T~ U
* in -i
CM in •—
o co —*
' n.
— — I
+ + ^
H.
en CM ~~^
* CM
CM CO +
CM r--
CO ' — • CO ' — •
• CM -CM
tO r^t -^
• — ' U_ ^-> H.
a c a c
X • — X •—
CO — 0) --•
II II
o <
CO
E
_l
E »
CO 3
•w O
U) 3
>. c
tO •!-
4^
•a c
CD 0
0) O
UL ^^
o
CO
in
in
V
H.
V
(-.
o
1-
<3-
01 —
— 0
en co
in en
to o
r^ •
o o
o +
+ --•
H.
H. — ^
— a
-- CM I
CO
tO 4J
m
n <4-
co —
CO D
u_ to
in
o
V
H.
V
o
o
en
CO
a
in
in
o
0
u.
c
CM
CO
co
to
o
4.
,_
,_
.—
CO
CO • — '
• CM
en ^^
i— 'U.
a c
co -_^
ii
u •
L
CO
E
^.
o
a
E
a
in
to
13
CD
a.
CM
V
H.
V
in
o
a>
CO
en
o
0
o
u.
c
o en a
in ^o T
o u. •- — /
^ on.
CM ' ^
•t- • O
in in
^ — -1- CM
> in
a. -^ CM
I CM in
v en +
'-» +• O
u. co —
%^ o • CM
in aj<-^
CM •- ' — ' U_
* - a c
• CO X «—
O •— CD ^-*
II II II
< o <
1513
-------
(Continued)
^t
M
l-l
^
o
£>
a
t-
FORMING CATEGORY
REATMENT AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
00 K
< Q
I- UJ
UJ O
s z
IU
COS
00
o: u
CC IU
uj o:
u.
z o:
00
Z U.
Z
O
1-4
a
IU
1-
C/J
o
u
>,
4-»
i- 0
TD O
f- CM
CO CO
V
<*-
o u.
O V
01
c —
CO O
a:
0
a>
CM CM
CO O>
O CM
O 0
CO
*- o
o
o
/-s
+ U,
c
u. — > >
C Q.
c ^-* •— *-^
0 —<-<
»- in co u.
CO CO —
D CO OCO
CT CM • f
U) • 0 r-
O CO
+ 0.
a o
f 01 +
^- co
— r-lCOr—
• CM -CM
CO^f-.-^
i_ •u.'—u.
a c a c
X — X •—
CD >— ' 0) v^
II II
CJ <
u
t_
3
f—
3
V 00
c
i E
a. a>
•f- 4J
D U)
CT >»
UJ CO
T3 tJ
CD •*•
CD U
u. <
o
o
in
V
CO
V
r-
CM
CO
CM CM
^-.co
*~
CM t>
+ Or—
CM CM
CO "-*
CO CO <
CO "-i tO
- a c
0 X —
*~ CD ^^
II 11
0<
a
•a
CD
E
•r-
*^
3
E
i.
CD
—
u.
o
1-
V
V
CM
in
CO
CM •
•-* 1
t* o:
o
in co
O CO
• co
o co
1 •-
'-'O .
a
»-_/ 1
•-> o
> CO *-v
—'in > i
— CM ^
^~ r^ ^^ co >•
^ •— >• m — •»
CO • Q. — •
• 0 I h. CO
a *-^ « •—
co + •— . in co
CM CO CO
to: + co'
aj co co
55- CM — ' r^ -f
• in o
CM -.
CD 1-
00
1- C
CD CD
+* U
co ut
3 0)
•~ co
T- O
OCJ
in in
CM CM
V V
O CJ
o o
o o o o
r- o o o
co co o in
CM — CM —
II II II II
CJ < CJ <
^
t_
0
4J
CO
L
co
a
CD -~~
CO 3:
0
L CD —
CD au-
to I
S 1 -
•V *• ni
•>- CD CO
O CD-'
A
a
CO
CO
0
s
c
CO
co
CM
00'-.
CO _J
0^
t o
CO O
CM
in ' — '
in CM
co a
~-< c
u u
u <
CD
U
CJ
CD
or
O)
c
Q_
a
1514
-------
TJ
0)
3
C
C
O
CJ
h-
DC Z
00
O CJ
UJ
h- Q
< Z
0 <
C3 1-
•y -ar
NONFERROUS METALS FORMIt
FOR RECOMMENDED TREATMEf
C/)
z
o
l~
13
o
UJ
L—
CO
o
CJ
ft
-4-»
•5
(0
0
ID
01
• c
la
a:
Equation
+|
C
E
a
••"
3
cr
UJ
o
V
V
CM
CM
> 0 '
CO
m co
o .
CM —
CO
in i
o
0 a:
> 0
— o >
— co a
— 0 I
cn •<-<
in CM
CM +• ^
o;
+ in in
GO *->
co cn
in coin
CO —1
• — 0
CO • •-
00 O
CM— X
II II
U <
CD
CD
•o
l_
L
CO
CJ
•
1-
z
It-
CD
t_
a
(O
m
CO
V
V
o
CM
^-* to
CO
co r»
co •
CO •-
in
O 1
a:
1 1/1
> CO
co r- *-%
CO CO •>
in co a
• 0 X
in o —
CM
a:
CO O) t/l
I- CO •—>
• CO
CM CMin
— 001
CO • O
•CO —
CMI
1 X
II II
0 <
o
o
in
CO
V
V
CO
CM
h-
CO
o
CM
o
o
c
exp[6. 31076 •*• 0.228887(
(lnV)2J
n
o
co
O)
14-
t.
+J
C
0)
CJ
a
E
3
a
CO
o
CM
CO
o
o
c
^
exp[6. 67588 + 0.031335
(1nY)2] (HPB)
u
<
0
o
in
V
V
in
CO
CM CM
> CM
CM
in o
CO •
CM O
r-
co +
o
o c
1 » —
--^CM
> r~
CM
r» m
cn —
o •
o o
CM CO
t a
«j ^^
CO CO i— •
• • CM
CO — >
CM Q. C
• X '—
CM CO --^
11 II
CJ <
a
0)
•o
3
«
a
E
3
a
CO
i
0
x"
o
o
+
in
o
0
CD
o
o
0
i
CM
CM
— CM
CM —
-X
II
o
_
CD
0)
'
01
C
in
c
t£
CO
L
a
in .
CJ
CM
o
0
CL
I
in
0
u
<
0
in
CO
V
u.
V
o
CM
/~>CM
U- "-^
*~s u
CO
CM CO
CO CO
coco
in co
— o
o —
i i
a. u.
CM CM
CO •
in «3-
— o
• r-
co -
CO CM
.. + 4-
co a>
• o
to •
co «r
CO CO
-cn
- CO
11 II
0 <
(_
o
CO
c
• o
14-
3 .
in
o
o
0
V
V
r-
in
in
CO
in
h-
o
o
c
exp|4i73808 - 0.0628537
UnV)2)
M
CJ
L.
O
•H
y
CO
CO
o:
u
co
m
•
_
CO
1- '
0
o
CO
^ CO
in
— in
t o
0 — •
cn > o
— a.
• CO 1
CO
CM O
T in
^ * CO-T-.
. CM
O O CO—.
O Ol — X
— o a c
" » X •—
CO •— Q *^
II II II
CJ < <
1515
-------
CO
Ul
o
o
> o
f O
•a o
~- in
19 V
ID o
0> O
C O
a
o: v
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1-
in
O
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
V
>
V
o
o
in
o
o
o
in
CM
V
>
0
in
CO
V
o
in
r-
CO
V
fff^
T)
e>
c
•r-
4*
e
0
u
«_s
fj
1
t-4
l-f
>
O
a
a
t-
u
Ul
1-
o
CX
ttZ
OO
O U
Ul
t- O
-l Ul
QZ h~
O ^
LL Ul
cc
101-
4J
CO
• .fp
o
+ O f CJ
\«* • ^aS
O O
O CM O CM
COO — O
in o co o
II II H II
o < u <.
0754345
0
^.
y-^
^
c
k.^
^
CO
in
CO
CM
(O
0
o
i
CO
o
CO >-<
t*.r- ,O
• CM--/
t ^^
*-^ ^ CM
a co
X •— •
Q) ^-^ O
II II
U <
in
o
in x
o (O
*•> CO
> t-
co
CO +
0
in
in
CM O
1 CM?
'•"* >
> *-^ CT)
*w^ ^f
t CO
too
V 1 O
to •
"-O
CO
X 1
^
co in*->
in CM CD >
CM o — a.
o *- in^-^
r» -CMr-.
to ^ • x-«
• o >
(O 1 •-•>-•
II II
o
(S.
^-
CO
o
r-
•
o
CM
+ *" ^
CM
CM <
r- co
0 t
CO CO
CO t
CO •
CMO
O 1
1 ^^
<
/-^(/)
CO
%«/ co
o
eo ^r
CM r-
t ^»
t CO
+ ^
co > a><^-* t^ v
4n
031
CM O
+
CO X
II
o
Offl ^
mi
h- 0 CM
**f •
•- xo
n u
u <
CO •-
co r-
O T
•— f*«
h* ^
II tt
0<
t
^^
<— i «f
/•"* V)
4 ^" '
CO
CD
CM in
CD CO
in co
co m
n •
co o
*
0 +
+ to
in
CO CM
in •
CM CO
• o
co n
CO r\
*"^ CD
in •
s_* ^^
II II
u <
1
l-
to
o
u
*J
c
o
n
•f**
D
o-
Ul
0)
o
t.
o
c
0
o
•
c
a
i-
u
to
CO
o
(.
o
a
•r*
u.
CD
13)
L.
10
•
c
1-
M
(8
O
0)
•^
U.
*"
CO
E
•
c
10
1-
^
10
"3 *• E
««- 0
•ci *•
ca u
•i-> ia >
u n co
0) 10
o:— c
C3) O
- u a
c a a
a i- a
i- u. ui
»—
a
o
co
0
0)
l_
(0
-
c
a
t-
a
c
o
I
u.
E
1516
-------
f^
•a
1-
o: z
o o
13 (J
UJ
1- Q
< Z
U <
a \-
z z
1-4 UJ
E S
o: H
o <
U. UJ
OL
to i-
< a
H UJ
UJ Q
£ Z
UJ
31
o o
a: o
a: uJ
UJ CC
u.
z cc
O o
z u.
00
z
o
1-4
1-
^
or
UJ
L
UJ
o
u
T3
a
4-
0
a
0)
c
<3
a:
c
o
>r-
4J
(0
^
CT
UJ
4-*
c
0)
E
d
3 •
cr
UJ
^^
U)
01
^~
0
73 C
O
CN ••-
r^^> CD 4J ^^
L r. o> ra w
rao^-^ L n^T 'a?
>* (tj (0 «^-* Q. *~ •*-* 3 +•*
«^^+J 3 I- OID'-N.C LC
CQT3TD O^^'^t-HT-Q) 0)(0 O£
— C C UW-H D-^--N >» OJ 0)OJE JT^
OOO -*-<.C(l) jCCCU-r-a) *-> 01 fO I- EflC
"OQ.Q. CO4- ^xOi t- 04 •— 3•> /'~N Ul (0 *""» •*-" ^~
00 Q) OJ fl) Q. ^— ' C OJ C (0 GJ QJ ^ ^~< ^— ' D L_ UJ *«~ (0
07 •*•* 4-* >• "~ E^^CDtrtE*— "~^'~x "DEtO O"Ot*-M-C-»-|t_-M ^ W4-— 0)t_>.tO t_l_
Ot*-*t-0) OOOOJ C<1) CO>-Q)O'-O(OjQO)C
u r- .^u— o s 01 E c ^3 r tart ^esi
^_^o— L.U-M asS"-C3"-— u 4^ am- >»•— *— •—
O 3T-.r-jD'i-Q)Q)(D*4-|*--*j*t-T)>i-3a)nji-(Cfl)
C UO T3'O3Z
a) d)tju^3(j)(i)0tf)E"O- C C (Q -C — Ol-*— WO)*'- 3C •«-'—• *r*OlQ(UBJl8
CLU_(l.X-J-JZi— iOOU-t/lh-333S
n ii ii u u ii ii ii ii u u ii u u ii ii ii u ii H ii ii ii ii ii ii u
(0
L. ma. ao. XQ.CLX -izcoo coco
ro m Q r r ^
1517
-------
Table VIII-5
COMPONENTS OF TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Number Item
1 Bare Module Capital Costs
2 Electrical & instrumentation
3 Yard piping
4 Enclosure
5 Pumping
6 Retrofit allowance
7 Total Module Cost
8 Engineering/admin. & legal
9 Construction/yardwork
10 Total Plant Cost
11 Contingency
12 Contractor's fee
13 Total Construction Cost
14 Interest during construction
15 Total Depreciable Investment
16 Land
17 Working capital
18 Total Capital Investment
Cost
Direct capital costs3
Included in item 1
Included in item 1
Included in item 1
Included in item 1
Included in item 1
Item 1 + items 2
through 6
10% of item 7
0% of item 7
Item 7 + items 8
through 9
15% of item 10
10% of item 10
Item 10 + items 11
through 12
0% of item 13
Item 13 + item 14
0% of item 15
0% of item 15
Item 15 + items 16
through 17
aDirect capital costs include costs of equipment and required
accessories, installation, and delivery.
1518
-------
Table VII1-6
COMPONENTS OF TOTAL ANNUALIZED INVESTMENT
Number Item
19 Bare Module Annual Costs
20 Overhead
21 Monitoring
22 Taxes and Insurance
23 Amortization
24 Total Annualized Costs
"Cost
Direct annual costsa
0% of item 15b
See footenote c
1% of item 15
CRF x item 15d
Item 19 + items 20
through 23
aDirect annual costs include costs of raw materials, energy,
operating labor, maintenance and repair.
15 is the total depreciable investment obtained from Table
""" «j •
GSee page for an explanation of the determination of
monitoring costs.
dThe capital recovery factor (CRF) was used to account for
depreciation and the cost of financing.
1519
-------
Table VIII-7
WASTEWATER SAMPLING FREQUENCY
Wastewater Discharge
(liters per day)
0 - 37,850
37,851 - 189,250
189,251 - 378,500
378,501 - 946,250
946,250+
Sampling Frequency
Once per month
Twice per month
Once per week
Twice per week
Three times per week
1520
-------
Table VIII-8
POLLUTANT PARAMETERS IMPORTANT TO TREATMENT SYSTEM DESIGN
Parameter
Flow rate
pH
Temperature
Total suspended solids
Acidity (as CaCO3)
Aluminum
Ammonia
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (trivalent)
Chromium (hexavalent)
Cobalt
Columbium
Copper
Cyanide (free)
Cyanide (total)
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Oil and grease
Phosphorus
Selenium
Silver
Sulfate
Tantalum
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Tungsten
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Zirconium
Units
liters/hour
pH units
6F
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
1521
-------
Table VII1-9
THE RATIO OF SLUDGE TO INFLUENT WASTEWATER FLOW
FOR COST CURVE DEVELOPMENT
Subcategory Group
Ni-Cof U, Zr
Ti
Refractory Metals - Ia
Refractory Metals - IIb
Wet (3%) Sludge
Ratio
0.14
0.66
0.05
0.89
Dry (20%) Sludge
Ratio
0.02
0.10
0.007
0.13
aThese include plants with surface treatment baths and rinses,
sawing and grinding lubricants, and alkaline cleaning baths and
rinses.
bThese include plants with tumbling wastewater and sawing and
grinding lubricants.
1522
-------
Table VIII-10
KEY TO COST CURVES AND EQUATIONS
Module
Spray Rinsing
Equipment
Pump
Countercurrent Rinsing
Tank, Rectangular
Fiberglass
Pump
Cyanide Precipitation
Chromium Reduction
Batch
Continuous
Holding Tanks
Cooling Towers
Equalization
Chemical Emulsion Breaking
Oil Skimming
Chemical Precipitation and
and Settling
Vacuum Filtration
Carbon Steel
Stainless Steel*
Multimedia Filtration
Contract Hauling
Iron Co-Precipitation
Low-Flow
Flow < 499 1/hr
500 1/hr < Flow <
2,200 1/hr
Batch and Continuous
Capital Cost
Figure VIII-4
Figure VIII-6
Figure VIII-5
Figure VIII-6
Figure VIII-10
Figure VIII-11
Figure VIII-11
Figure VIII-8
Figure VIII-7
Figure VIII-9
Figure VIII-14
$2,600
Figure VIII-16
Figure VIII-17
Figure VIII-18
Figure VIII-20
$ 250
$2,510
Figure VIII-12
Annual Cost
Table VIII-11
Figure VIII-6
Figure VIII-5
Figure VIII-6
Figure VIII-10
Table VIII-11
Figure VIII-11
Figure VIII-8
Figure VIII-7
Figure VIII-9
Figure VIII-14
$1,300
Figure VIII-16
Figure VIII-19
Figure VIli-19
Figure VIII-20
Table VIII-11
Figure VIII-21
Figure VIII-13
Figure VIII-13
Figure' VIII-13
*Used for sludges from cyanide precipitation,
1523
-------
•4- >.
O -W
o
o
c —
id ra
o: >
X
V
o
in
o
o
O
O
UJ
a:
=>
o
I-
uj
O
U
a a
— ui
a i/>
a o
z
o
cr
ul
o
o
a. —>
Q X
•—• T
--. I
CO O
Q *~
O. X
cr
ui
a.
I
in
o
in
o
m
m
in
CM
O
to
o
01
o i
o o
o —
c
+> O
0} 4->
E o C
a 3 o
•r- "O "~
3 W +•
cr cc n
HI L.
E E *•
0) 0) 3 —
Ifl O
C t-
>. £ "il
o o v
i. -u t-
a to m u
..
U>
C
O
•1-
c
(^
d)
a
0)
5
a
to
u
a
0)
^
t.
(0
o
•o
N
CO
en
^-^
Ul
•M
Ifl
O
u
^
n
c
c
n)
4j
U
0)
L
.^
a
n
<
i- >>
a a
a
IA
n t-
> 3
to o
•a £.
Ol 01
c c
4J 4J
to to
1. t.
Q) 111
a a
oo
II II
> Q
a a
Q I
L.
3
O
JZ
Ifl
c
(U
4J
t_ •»-
o —
Q) «»/
>»
t. 5
ai a
a i-
01 X
t. a
3 •—
O '1-
c.
I.
Ol 0)
c -^
•i- IB
4-> X
a at
o in
a a
03
n n
>
a.
IX
1524
-------
Table VII1-12
NUMBER OF PLANTS FOR WHICH COSTS WERE SCALED.
FROM SIMILAR PLANTS
Subcategory
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Magnesium Forming
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Precious Metals Forming
Refractory Metals Forming
Titanium Forming
Uranium Forming
Zinc Forming
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Metal Powders
Number of Plants
12
1
5
9
10
6
0
0
0
5
1525
-------
Ifl U
o >
w u
o >
•a
OJ *•
u • c
*•
u o o u u o
3 3 i- 3 3 i-
"O "D •*-• T3 T3 •*-•
0) G) 10 0) 0) 10
cc tr <- 0:0:1-
*• 0:0:1-
M a
— o
— -a is
•r- C. -r- •:- -- u) 3
Q) C C8
E C-r-
ECO
D C
-------
T3
ID
3
C
jj
c
o
u
CO
1
>-<
l-l
^
0)
£1
18
h-
0 AND ASSOCIATED COST ASSUMPTIONS
i-i '
J—
a
UI
o
u
UJ
Cf.
z
o
h-
(_>
a
UJ
C£
3
O
u_
Action '
5. Set discharge from flow reduction
c
m
.c
10
10
0)
Ifl
to
to
0)
o
o
c
o.
e
o
L
(4-
2
O
14-
c
o —
10
V 3
•r- 4-»
TJ 0
C <
O
o
nd equipment equal to actual plant reduc
n flow.
B.
a * c
0 O
CQ .* +•
a
c u o
O i-
i 0 18
a-^ r
O -P -4-1
18
C L 10
to to
X! 0) 0)
+J — •—
o
t. >, 2
01 O 0
•M 0) —
10 L. 14-
0)
1- *• 18
0) C
tfl C
-fJ .— •!-
D a
XI (0
*— / r— -4-1
tfl —
< 3 3
C U 01
0 18 L
•M 01 -D
ax: c .
O -P (8
6. Set discharge from flow reduction
nd equipment equal to Option B.
wn,
10 O
c .*
to ^~^ c.
r: m 3
c u
in o T-
w ••-
0) -K O
— a-r-
o +•
10 ia
•r- C 1-
10
to jr o)
Q) O
0 1- >
O O O
L. -H 0)
ami.
E t- -H
o o) c
I- (8
q- 4-< •—
3 a
s n
— 18
q- < 3
4J
— c o
(8 0 18
*> v 0)
u ar
< o +•
•
c
(0
r:
t.
0)
+j
18
0)
(_
O)
3
0
q_
10
C
.^
M
4J
^_
3
10
0!
[_
L. m
o
c
- 0
O i-
L. 4J
o> a
N O
7. Set discharge equal to actual plant
flow.
c
(0
in
10
o>
_ *L
10 C
•r- O
.(—
to *•
10 U
01 3
U T>
O Ol
[_ I-
a
o
6 C
O
I- 0)
.,—
2 10 •
O 3 U
— 0)
q- m 3
(T
•— c *^*
tfl 0 C
3 ••- x:
-4-" *" O
u a o>
< o +•
•
n techniques (i.e., holding, tanks, cooling
ed as: R = Option A Flow - Option B Flow*
Option A Flow
0 V
•^ 10
4J —
O 3
3 O
t> —
0) Ifl
L- U
2 10
O -r-
.—
q- o
.»-
TJ -P
0> 10
4J L.
t_
O • 0)
a»-^ •—
01 10 U
i- i- >.
0) 0
>. C 01
C 01 t-
ifl ^
O -u
ai •- c
u x: to
O 4J 4J
q- to
01 - C
.0 to a
I- O
3. 01
OS 01
— o x:
U. -H f-
^
ulated as:
u
10
u
a
•t-
o
•r-
4-1
Ifl
L
01
—
O
>,
u
01
L
+j
C
Ifl
,—
a
r—
(8
3
-*-»
U
18
0)
e~
t-
#
*
»
After Flow Reduction
uction
•o
2 01
o a:
•—
U_ 2
O
1 —
U.
c
O 0)
•.- u
4J O
o q-
3 01
•0 CO
01
o: 2
o
2 —
O U-
r—
U-
01
t_
o
14-
01
as
2
o
^
ti-
ll
OL
-
..
10
01
£
3
to
10
18
0)
n
<8
4J
m
•r—
x:
0)
o
z
s flow reduction.
iltration with in-process flow reduction.
tfl <4-
0)
u ra
O ™~
<- T3
a 01
1 E
c •<-
f 4J
^-
r 3
-*-• 6
'i-
5 "O
c
01 01 18
•— 1—
-M -H -
+J -H 0)
0) 0) —
W W -H
•+J
t) ID 0)
c c 10
10 ra
^
0) 0) 0)
E E E
IJ II II
II II II
< m u
c c c
o o o
»r- «(- -r-
a a a
000
1527
-------
CD O
c id
c m
•r- 3— a
01 tJ «J T3
o >
on— o
v- a a A
I- i-
za
o
to
o-- c
SO)
£ 3 £ r o n
•s, "O ^ *^ (0 "^
O •*- O O OJ O
O 13 O o I- O
A ••- V A E A
1528
-------
Table VIII-15
NONFERROUS METALS FORMING
SOLID WASTE GENERATION (kkg/yr)
Subcategory
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Magnesium Forming
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Precious Metals Forming
Refractory Metals Forming
Titanium Forming
Uranium Forming
Zinc Forming
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Metal Powders
BPT
9.68
189
81.7
19.0
162
705
150
99.6
65.6
27.4
BAT
11.2
191
113
22.3
196
901
153
101
80.3
27.4
PSES
22.2
33.2
3,800
58.7
1,130
1,710
0
0
2.23
273
1529
-------
Table VIII-16
NONFERROUS METALS FORMING
ENERGY CONSUMPTION (1000 kW-hr/yr)
Subcategory
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Magnesium Forming
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Precious Metals Forming
Refractory Metals Forming
Titanium Forming
Uranium Forming
Zinc Forming
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Metal Powders
BPT
330
110
880
440.
330
880
220
110
440
330
BAT
330
110
880
440
330
880
220
110
440
330
PSES
890
50
950
1,160
1,260
580
50
110
1,310
1530
-------
CREATE DATA FILES
FOR AUTOMATIC
DATA ENTRY
( START J
USER INPUT
MAIN DESIGN ROUTINE
TO CALL REQUIRED
MODULES
DESIGN
MODULE 2
DESIGN
MODULE 3
DESIGN
MODULE N
J
OUTPUT DESIGN
VALUES &
MATERIAL BALANCE
(OPTIONAL)
MAIN COST ROUTINE
TO CAU. REQUIRED
MODULES
CALCULATE SYSTEM
COSTS
rSINT COST RESULTS
±
TRANSFER RESULTS
TO DISK DATA FILES
1
r
C
Figure VIII-1
GENERAL LOGIC DIAGRAM OF COMPUTER COST MODEL
1531
-------
Figure VIII-2
LOGIC DIAGRAM OF MODULE DESIGN PROCEDURE
1532
-------
DESIGN VALUES
AND CONFIGURATION
TOOM MATERIAL
BALANCE PROGRAM
Figure VIII-3
LOGIC DIAGRAM OF THE COST ESTIMATION ROUTINE
1533
-------
:^^
-t°
3*"
2
_o.
:<
-u
in
K
5
ce
o.
ta
I
^ z
IU
M
M
l-l
(U
H
C/D
>-"
OT
CO
53
CO
-------
zs Hoavw) sisoa ivnNMVioaaia "ivioi
o
2 I
3
<
o
ai
S
O
M
M
M
(1)
bO
•H
6 b
r- »-
(S 28 HOHVW) S1SOO 133aia 1V1OX
1535
-------
-------
cc
LU
I
a
z
3
O
o
a '
o
o
u.
1-
LU
D
i
H
M
M
>
-------
a:
(5
z
S
o
o
o
z
UJ
oo
I
>
0)
txO
•H
PM
M
W
i-J
O
C/3
H
O
H
3
O
o
O
O
<
Q
H
H
5!
o
(S 28 HOUVIAI) S1SOO 103«ia 1V101
1538
-------
<
a!
,«j
"o
ic
o
-Uj-
-5.
-O-
1
ee
cc
:o:
\
X
CM
O
JZ
O
g
N
g
I
IU
_J
u.
Z
<-
Z-
<
o
o
cr\
M
0)
50
•n)
13
O
M
•^
CO
H
CO
o
CJ
Q
2!
m
o
CM
O
(s zs.
sj-soo ioaaia ivj.cn
1539
-------
o
m
oc
a.
Ill
a
2
O
e
§
t-
01
_J
U.
z
o
r-4
I
M
M
M
50
•H
P-i
M
Pi
w
o
IH
CJ
CO
EH
w
o
o
<
«j
M
(s za. HOHVW) sxsoo loauia IVJ.OA
1540
-------
o
i o.
. o
03
, 3
O
.-
z
IS
O
M
H
O
O
o
o
§
a
ui
ce
5
o
-------
p
I
h*
3
u
o
Z
o
iu
K
O.
O
u
o
E
i
I
5
§
H
s
O
CM
PH
O
I O
M
M
0)
bO
•H
fn
O
CO
H
CO
o
o
PM
o o
(9 28 HOHVW) S1SO3 IVJJdVO X33UIO1V1OX
1542
-------
X
\
1)
Z
a
z
^
\
X
x
s,
\
s^
X
-
\
\
• ^
\
V
5
\
BATCH
-g
\
X
\
\
\
\
\
O
V-
6
^
•r
o
o *•
v* <.
a.
LU
K
a.
O
O
O
K
1 Ol ftAO 1
cOl
1—
.J
Z
o
o
co
rH
(U
O
M
i
M
PH
H
O
sa
§
Q
03
H
CO
O
(ax/a 28 HOHVWI) SJ.SQO IVONNV xoaaia nvioi
1543
-------
\
C3
01
e
, en
2 2
g
U)
«J
D
01
O
01
U
8
O
z
01
i
M
PQ
Z
O
H
CO
-------
r-4
I
M
CU
60
•H
Fn
O
a
M
PH
PH
M
OS
H
CO
CO
(« 28.
SJ.SOO 1D3HIQ 1VJ.OJ.
1545
-------
Si
Z
O
a
o
LU
cc
a.
o
i
LU
O
1
a.
H
LU
VO
r-<
I
M
M
H
-------
•en
cc
•x
\\
a S
u.
s
< ^
> o
3
u.
o o
(s zs Hoavw) sisoo iviidvo ioaaia ivioi
M
M
M
0)
M
W
§
PQ
CJ
Pi
o
Cn
O
u
M
PM
<
O
1547
-------
o
UJ
cc
UJ
CC
CO
Dd
s
M
AY
Q.
<
O.
.e
X
s
HI
LL
s
o
o
o
oo
r-i
i
M
-------
OS
e
•9
^
«
E
«
y
^
\
N
CO
e
X
S,
S
^,
s
\
^
\
s
s
\
s
*\
\
\s
NN
-
S.
\\
\ > V
\ \ \
\ \ ^
\\ 1
\\
V
1
1
I
T
1'
i
i
\
I
1
-
o
^
e
o UJ
2 S
ul
S
3
3
O
<
O
g
o
u.
H-
& 5
- 3
J^ m
2 «
= f
>
a
m
a
5
o i
s
UJ
m
H-
3
S
H-
^
U)
C
lij
0
H
M
M
CU
CO
Pd
w
H
|Z>
u
£
Pi
o
Fn
CO
H
CO
o
o
J
^
O O
f- «-
(HA/S Z8 HOHVW) SiSOO 1VHNNV 103«ia 1VJ.O1
1549
-------
— 1
If
5
cc
< •-
Q • "
S--
3
\
s
\
_i,
\
s
\
-V
2"\
_____ _
\ -!
\1
\ • "
— v-
\
\
L-
— — z • -
1—
cc
Z
UI
0
E
CC
<
\
\
_S^
\
^\
L
J
\
\
^
\
]
\
\
\\
P
\l
I—
O
r*
*0
r-
W
\
« 1
O H
t
5
UI
5
"o 0
*" *~
g
a
LL
1-
UJ
D
*o
°0
o
I
M
M
M
>
0)
M
M
O
O
a
S
o
Q
M
Q
O
fe
C/3
H
cn
o
I
la
H
5!
"o
to
o
*0
co
o
($ 28. HOHVI/U) S1SOO 1O3UIQ1V1O1
1550
-------
US
O
-
. -^
s,
s
\
V
vj
\
s
s
\
s X
\
-
\
N
s
\
S,
\
"X
\
V
\
\
V^
\
N
s
\
s
V
^ .
S
s,
^
u>
O
Q
HAZAR
"V
\
s
V
X
"*
\
M
3_
VZAROO
II
-r
^
Q
z
s^
\
\
\
'o
r"
<•»
0
N
O
T"
O
*"
o
o
Q
HI
I
<
I
O
O
til
£
i
LU
O
111
"£.
O
in
O
(s 28. HOUVW) SJLSOO ivnwNv loaaio ivioi
1551
-------
-------
SECTION IX
BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
.CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
This section defines the effluent characteristics attainable
through the application of best practicable control technology
currently available (BPT), Section 301(b)(1)(A). BPT reflects
the average of the best existing performance by plants of various
sizes, ages, and manufacturing processes within the nonferrous
metals forming category.
The factors considered in identifying BPT include the total cost
of applying the technology in relation to the effluent reduction
benefits from such application, the age of equipment and facili-
ties involved, the manufacturing processes employed, nonwatef
quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements)/
and other factors the Administrator considers appropriate. In
general, the BPT level represents the average of the best exist-
ing performances of plants of various ages, sizes, processes, or
other common characteristics. Where existing performance is
uniformly inadequate, BPT may be transferred from a different
subcategory or category. Limitations based on transfer of
technology are supported by a rationale concluding that the
technology is, indeed, transferable, and a reasonable prediction
that it will be capable of achieving the prescribed effluent
limits. See Tanner's Council of America v. Train, 540 F..2d 1188
(4th Cir. 1976). BPT focuses on end-of-pipe treatment rather
than process changes or internal controls, except where such
practices are common industry practice.
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO BPT
The Agency studied the nonferrous metals forming category to
identify the manufacturing processes used and wastewaters gener-
ated during nonferrous metals forming. Information was collected
from industry using data collection portfolios, and wastewaters
from specific plants were sampled and analyzed. The Agency used
these data to subcategorize the category and determine what
constitutes an appropriate BPT. The factors which were con-
sidered in establishing subcategories are' discussed fully in
Section IV. Nonwater quality impacts and energy requirements are
considered in Section VIII.
The category has been subcategorized, for the purpose of regula-
tion, on the basis of metal type formed. Each subcategory is
further divided into specific wastewater sources associated with
specific manufacturing operations. The regulation establishes
pollutant discharge limitations for each source of process
wastewater identified within the subcategory. This approach to
regulation is referred to as the building block approach with
each waste stream being a building block. Compliance with the
regulation is determined on an overall plant basis rather than
for individual building blocks. The building block approach is
1553
-------
useful for this category since many nonferrous metals
*
«
show that thS tfeatment scheme detailed below will remove all
^llutantB present in significant concentrations to an acceptable
level.
SSara Separate preliminary treatment steps for chromium
reduction, lmu?sionl breaking, cyanide removal, and ammonia
asrvs.
inarv
steps (when necessary) and chemical
-
ion
1554
-------
prior to combined wastewater treatment. The basis for perfor-
mance of these treatment technologies is set forth in substantial
detail in Section VII.
For each of the subcategories, a specific approach was followed
for the development of BPT mass limitations. To account for
production and flow variability from plant to plant, a unit of
production or production normalizing parameter (PNP) was deter-
mined for each operation which could then be related to the flow
from the operation to determine a production normalized flow. As
discussed in Section IV, the PNP for the nonferrous metals
forming category is off-metric ton (the metric tons of metal
removed from a forming operation or associated operation at the
end of a process cycle), with one exception. Laundry washwater
in the uranium forming subcategory is normalized to employee-day.
Each subcategory was analyzed to determine: (1) which operations
included generated wastewater, (2) specific flow rates generated,
and (3) specific production normalized flows for each operation.
The normalized flows were then analyzed to determine which flow
was to be used as the basis for BPT mass limitations for that
operation. The selected flow (referred to as the BPT regulatory
flow), reflects the water use controls which are common practices
within the industry. The overall effectiveness of end-of-pipe
treatment for the removal of wastewater pollutants is improved by
the application of water flow controls within the process to
limit the volume of wastewater requiring treatment. However, the
controls or in-process technologies recommended under BPT include
only those measures which are commonly practiced within the
category or subcategory. Except for recycle of lubricating
emulsions, most plants in this category do not have flow
reduction in place. Therefore, flow reduction is not generally
included as part of the BPT technology.
In general, the BPT regulatory flows are based on the average of
all applicable data. However, for some waste streams with a
large range of production normalized flows the median was used as
the basis for the BPT regulatory flow. The Agency believes the
median is more representative of the current typical water use
for these waste streams than the average. Plants with existing
flows above the average or median may have to implement some
method of flow reduction to achieve the BPT limitations. In most
cases, this will involve improving house-keeping practices,
better maintenance to limit water leakage, or reducing excess
flow by turning down a flow valve. It is not believed that these
modifications will generate any significant costs for the plants.
In fact, these plants should save money by reducing water
consumption.
Pollutant discharge limitations for this category are expressed
as mass loadings, i.e., allowable mass of pollutant discharge per
off-kilogram of production (mg/off-kg). Mass loadings were
calculated for 'each operation (building block) within each
subcategory. The mass loadings were calculated by multiplying
the BPT regulatory flow (1/off-kkg) for the operation by the
1555
-------
effluent concentration achievable by the BPT treatment, technology
(mg/1). Table VII-21 presents the effluent concentrations
achievable by the BPT model treatment train for the pollutants
regulated in each subcategory. These concentrations are based on
the performance of chemical precipitation and sedimentation (lime
and settle) when applied to a broad range of metal-bearing waste-
waters, with preliminary treatment, when necessary. The deriva-
tion of these achievable effluent concentrations is discussed in
substantial detail in Section VII.
In deriving mass limitations from the BPT model treatment tech-
nology, the Agency assumed that all wastewaters generated within
a subcategory were combined for treatment in a single or common
treatment system for that subcategory, even though flow and
sometimes pollutant characteristics of process wastewater 'streams
vary within the subcategory. A disadvantage of common treatment
is that some loss in pollutant removal effectiveness will result
where waste streams containing specific pollutants at treatable
levels are combined with other streams in which these same
pollutants are absent or present at very low concentrations.
Under these circumstances a plant may prefer to segregate these
waste streams and bypass treatment. Since treatment systems
considered under BPT are primarily for metals, oil and grease,
and suspended solids removal, and many existing plants usually
had one common treatment system in place for these pollutants, it
is reasonable to assume a common treatment system for each
subcategory to calculate the system's cost and effectiveness.
Regulated Pollutant Parameters
In Section VI, priority pollutant parameters are selected for
consideration for regulation in the nonferrous metals forming
subcategories because of their frequent presence at treatable
concentrations in raw wastewaters. The selected pollutant
parameters include total suspended solids- oil and grease, and pH
which are regulated in every subcategory, i'rJ.writy metals are
also regulated in every subcategory, though the specific metals
regulated vary. Nonconventional pollutants selected for
regulation also vary . with different subcategories.
Nonconventional pollutants regulated in one or more subcategories
include ammonia, fluoride, and molybdenum. The basis for
regulating total suspended solids, oil and grease, and pH is
discussed below. Selection of priority and nonconventional
pollutants for regulation will be included in the individual
subcategory discussions presented later in this section since
regulated priority metal and nonconventional pollutants vary with
the different subcategories.
Total suspended solids, in addition to being present at high
concentrations in raw wastewater from nonferrous metals forming
operations, is an important control parameter for metals removal
in chemical precipitation and settling treatment systems. Metals
are precipitated as insoluble metal hydroxides, and effective
solids removal is required in order to ensure reduced levels of
regulated metals in the treatment system effluent. Therefore, '
i
1556
-------
total suspended solids are regulated as a conventional pollutant
to be removed from the wastewater prior to discharge.
Oil and grease is regulated under BPT since a number of nonfer-
rous^metals forming operations (i.e., rolling, sawing, grinding,
drawing, extrusion) generate emulsified wastewater streams which
may be discharged. In addition, the equipment used to form
nonferrous metals use significant quantities of oil as machinery
lubricant or hydraulic fluid, these oils frequently get into the
process wastewater as tramp oils.
The importance of pH control is documented in Section VII and its
importance in metals removal technology cannot be overemphasized.
Even small excursions from the optimum pH level can result in
less than optimum functioning of the treatment system and inabil-
ity to achieve specified results. The optimum operating level
for removal of most metals is usually pH 8.8 to 9.3. However
nickel, cadmium, and silver require higher pH for optimal
removal. To allow a reasonable operating margin and to preclude
the need for final pH adjustment, the effluent pH is specified to
be within the range of 7.5 to 10.
The remainder of this section describes the development of BPT
mass loadings for each subcategory. The development of BPT
regulatory flows for each operation in each subcategory is pre-
sented in detail. The pollutants selected and excluded from
regulation, and the cost and benefit of the regulation at BPT are
also presented.
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
Production operations that generate wastewater in the lead-tin-
bismuth forming subcategory include rolling, drawing, extrusion,
swaging, continuous strip casting, semi-continuous ingot casting
shot casting, shot forming, alkaline cleaning, and degreasing.
Water use practices, wastewater streams, and wastewater discharge
flows from these operations were discussed in Section V. This
information provided the basis for development of the BPT regula-
tory flow allowances summarized in Table IX-11.' The following
paragraphs discuss the basis for the BPT flow allowances for each
waste stream.
The
Rolling
Rolling is performed at 26 plants in this subcategory.
following information is available from these plants:
Number of plants and operations using emulsion lubricant: 7
Number of plants and operations using soap solution lubricant:
X •
No lubricants were reported to be used in over 15 rolling opera-
tions.
1557
-------
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Rolling Spent Emulsions. All of the operations
usingrollingemulsions completely recycle the emulsions and
periodically batch dump them when they become spent. The spent
emulsion from one operation is incinerated; the spent emulsion
from one operation is applied to land; and the spent emulsion
from five operations is contract hauled. Spent emulsions which
are contract hauled off-site typically receive some type of
emulsion breaking (chemical or thermal) and oil skimming treat-
ment. After this treatment the water fraction is discharged and
the oil fraction is either sent to a reclaiming operation or
landfilled directly. Since spent emulsions are often treated on-
site and the water discharged (with the oil fraction contract
hauled), EPA is allowing a discharge for this waste stream. The
BPT discharge allowance is 23.4 1/kkg (5.60 gal/ton),.the average
of the six reported production normalized discharge flows.
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Rolling Spent Soap Solutions. The one operation
usingrollingsoap solutions applies and discharges 43.0 1/kkg
(10.3 gal/ton). Therefore, the BPT discharge allowance is 43.0
1/kkg (10.3 gal/ton).
Drawing
Drawing is performed at 26 plants in the- lead-tin-bismuth forming
subcategory. The following information is available from these
plants:
Number of plants and operations using neat oil lubricant: 3
Number of plants and operations using emulsion lubricant: 6
plants, 8 operations.
Number of plants and operations using soap solution lubricant-
coolant: 2.
No lubricants were reported, to be used in over five operations.
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Drawing Spent Neat Oils. None of the three
operations using neat oils discharge any of the lubricant. Two
achieve zero discharge through total recycle and one contract
hauls batches of the spent neat oils periodically. Since neat
oils are pure oil streams, with no water fraction, it is better
to remove the oil directly by contract hauling and not to dis-
charge the stream than to commingle the oil with water streams
and then remove it later using an oil-water separation process.
Therefore, this waste stream should not be discharged.
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Drawing Spent Emulsions. Six of the eight
operations using emulsion lubricants do not discharge spent
emulsion. Two operations periodically discharge the spent
emulsion. Information sufficient to calculate production normal-
ized discharge flows was available for only one of the operations
which discharge the spent emulsion. Four of the six remaining
operations achieve zero discharge through 100 percent recycle of
the emulsions with drag-out on the product surface being the only
loss, while two operations report contract hauling the spent
emulsions after periodic batch dumps. Information sufficient to
1558
-------
calculate production normalized discharge flows was not available
for the operations which contract haul the spent emulsion. Spent
emulsions which are contract hauled off-site typically receive
some type of emulsion breaking (chemical or thermal) and oil
skimming treatment. After this treatment, the water fraction is
discharged and the oil fraction is either sent to a reclaiming
operation or landfilled directly. Since spent emulsions are
often treated on-site and the water discharged (with the oil
fraction contract hauled), EPA is allowing a discharge for this
waste stream. The BPT discharge allowance is 26.3 1/kkg (6.30
gal/ton), the only reported non-zero production normalized
discharge flow.
Lead-Tin-Bismuth
Drawing Spent Soap Solutions.
using soap solutions as a drawing lubricant
One of the two
periodi-
operations
cally discharges the solution. The other operation achieves zero
discharge through total recycle. The BPT discharge allowance is
7.46 1/kkg (1.79 gal/ton), the one reported non-zero production
normalized discharge flow.
Extrusion
Extrusion is performed at 43 plants in this subcategory. The
following information is available from these plants:
Number of plants and operations using contact cooling water: 14
plants, 17 operations
Number of plants and operations reporting hydraulic fluid
leakage: 2.
None of the plants reported using water-based lubricants in
extrusion operations.
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Extrusion Press and Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling Water. As discussed in Section III,contact
cooling water is used in extrusion operations, either by spraying
water onto the metal as it emerges from the die or press, or by
direct quenching in a contact water bath. Three operations were
reported to achieve zero discharge by 100 percent recycle and one
operation reported achieving zero discharge by 100 percent
recycle with periodic contract hauling. A discharge with no
recycle is reported for 11 extrusion operations. No water use
data were reported for one of these operations. A discharge with
an unknown recycle rate was reported by two plants. The BPT dis-
charge allowance is the average of the 10 reported non-zero
production normalized discharge flows, 1,440 1/kkg (346 gal/ton).
Production normalized discharge flows for the two operations with
unknown recycle ratios were not included in the average.
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage. One of
the 43 plants with extrusion operations discharges hydraulic
fluid leakage from an extrusion press. Another plant reported 100
percent recycle of hydraulic fluid leakage. The Agency believes
that other plants in the lead-tin-bismuth forming subcategory use
similar extrusion presses and may have leakage. The BPT dis-
1559
-------
charge allowance is based on the one reported
normalized discharge f'ow, 55.0 1/kkg (13,2 gal/ton).
Swaging
production
Swaging is performed at five plants in this subcategory. Emul-
sions are used for lubrication in a total or four operations at
three plants. Two plants did not report the use of lubricants in
swaging operations.
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Swaging Spent Emulsions. Three of the four
swaging operations which use lubricants achieve zero discharge by
100 percent recycle, with evaporation and drag-out on the product
surface being the only losses. Spent emulsion is batch dis-
charged from the other operation. Spent emulsions which are
contract hauled off-site typically receive some type of emulsion
breaking (chemical or thermal) and oil skimming treatment. After
this treatment, the water fraction is discharged and the oil
fraction is either sent to a reclaiming operation or landfilled
directly. Since the spent emulsions are often treated on-site
and the water discharged (with the oil fraction contract hauled)
by plants in this category and other categories, EPA is allowing
a discharge for this waste stream. The BPT discharge allowance
is 1.77 1/kkg (0.424 gal/ton), the only reported non-zero produc-
tion normalized discharge flow.
Casting
The following information was reported on casting operations in
this subcategory:
Total number of plants: 34
Number of plants and operations with continuous strip casting: 6
LV.mbar using contact cooling water: 5
Number of plants and operations using sern.l-continuous ingot
casting: 3
Number using contact cooling water: 3
Number of plants and operations with shot casting: 3 Number
using contact cooling water: 3
Number of plants and operations with continuous wheel casting: 1
Number using contact cooling water: 0
Number of plants and operations with continuous sheet
casting: 1 Number using contact cooling water: 0
Number of plants and operations with stationary casting (also
referred to as chill casting and mold casting): 26 plants, 28
operations
Number using contact cooling water: 0
Number or plants and operations with shot pressing: 2 Number
1560
-------
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Continuous Strip Casting Contact Cooling Water.
in rive of the six continuous strip casting operations" - the
is c°»letel recycled9 and periSSicaSj
n .
K ™ °ne °Perati°n uses only noncontact cooling water
The BPT discharge allowance is the average of the five reported
production normalized discharges flows, 1.00 1/kkg (0.240
y d -L / L \J li j m
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Semi-Continuous ingot Casting Contact Cooling
Water Water use and discharge data were-^p^te^TToT-only— £E§
operation. Contact cooling water from this operation is dis-
charged on a once-through basis. Based on the one Sported
fc
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Shot Casting Contact Cooling Water. in two of
H,^LJ e™Perati°nS' the contact cooling wateT-Js periodically
dumped. The average of the two reported production normalized
gal/tSn"?? 1S ""* BPT dischar^e allowance, 37.3 1/kkg (S 95
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Shot Forming Wet Air Pollution Control Slowdown.
One plant provided information on shot forming - ft •"reported
using a wet scrubber to control air pollution9 from thl lead
polishing and drying unit operations of a shot forming line The
scrubber water is discharged on a once-through basiJ? The BPT
norm.li.ed water use of the
Alkaline Cleaning
provided information on six alkaline cleaning opera-
Spent baths are
The BP?
the averlge of
Average or
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths
discharged from six_ alkiTTHe— ^leinTSg-^i
discharge allowance is 120 1/kkg (28.7 gal/ton) ,
the six production normalized discharge flows.
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Alkaline Cleaning Rinse. Four alkaline cleanina
operationS< discharge rinse with no-T¥c7cle. The BPT dischargl
allowance is 2,360 1/kkg (565 gal/ton)/ the average of the four
production normalized water use from the four operations.
Degreasing
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Degreasing Spent Solvents. A small number of
surveyed plants with solventde^Feasing operations have process
wastewater streams associated with the operation. Because most
plants practice solvent degreasing without wastewater discharge,
the Agency believes zero discharge of wastewater is the
ate discharge limitation.
1561
-------
Regulated Pollutants
The priority pollutants considered for regulation under BPT are
listed in Section VI, along with an explanation of why they were
considered. The only priority pollutants considered for regula-
tion are antimony and lead. These two pollutants have been
selected for regulation under BPT along with total suspended
solids, oil and grease, and pH. The basis for regulating total
suspended solids, oil and grease, and pH under BPT was discussed
earlier in this section. The basis for regulating antimony and
lead is discussed below.
Antimony has been selected for regulation under BPT since it is
frequently found at treatable concentrations in process waste-
water streams from this subcategory. Treatable antimony concen-
trations were found in shot casting contact cooling water,
alkaline cleaning spent baths, and alkaline cleaning rinse.
Lead has been selected for regulation under BPT since it was
found at treatable concentrations in all process wastewater
samples analyzed from this subcategory and because it is the
metal being processed. The Agency believes that when antimony
and lead are controlled with the application of lime and settle
technology, control of other priority metals which may be present
in process wastewater is assured.
Treatment Train
The BPT model treatment train for the lead-tin-bismuth forming
subcategory consists of preliminary treatment when necessary,
specifically emulsion breaking and oil skimming. The effluent
from preliminary treatment is combined with other wastewater for
common treatment by oil skimming and lime and settle. Waste
streams potentially needing preliminary chemical emulsion break-
ing are listed in Table IX-1. Figure IX-1 presents a schematic
of the general BPT treatment-train for the nonferrous metals
forming category.
Effluent Limitations
The pollutant mass discharge limitations (milligrams of pollutant
per off-kilogram of PNP) were calculated by multiplying the BPT
regulatory flows summarized in Table IX-11 (1/kkg) by the concen-
tration achievable by the BPT model treatment system summarized
in Table VII-21 (mg/1) for each pollutant parameter considered
for regulation at BPT (1/off-kkg x mg/1 x kkg/1,000 kg = mg/off-
kg). The results of this computation for all waste streams-and
regulated pollutants in the lead-tin-bismuth forming subcategory
are summarized in Table IX-13. This limitation table lists all
the pollutants which were considered for regulation; those
specifically regulated are marked with an asterisk.
1562
-------
Costs and Benefits
In establishing BPT, EPA considered the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievability. As shown in Table X-3 (page xxxx), the application
of BPT to the total lead-tin-bismuth forming subcategory will
remove approximately 5,730 kg/yr (12f610 Ibs/yr) of pollutants
including 235 kg/yr (520 Ibs/yr) of toxic pollutants. As shown
in Table X-13 (page xxxx), the application of BPT to direct
dischargers only will remove approximately 1,450 kg/yr (3,190
Ibs/yr) of pollutants including 45 kg/yr (100 Ibs/yr) of toxic
pollutants. Since there are only three direct discharge plants
in this subcategory, total subcategory capital and annual costs
will not be reported in this document in order to protect confi-
dentiality claims. The Agency concludes that these pollutant
removals justify the costs incurred by plants in this
subcategory.
MAGNESIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
Production operations that generate wastewater in the magnesium
forming subcategory include rolling, forging, direct chill
casting, surface treatment, sawing, grinding, and degreasing.
Water use practices, wastewater streams, and wastewater discharge
flows from these operations were discussed in Section V. This
information provided the basis for development of the BPT regula-
tory flow allowances summarized in Table IX-13. The following
paragraphs discuss the basis for the BPT flow allowances for each
waste stream.
Rolling
The following information was reported on rolling operations in
this subcategory:
Number of plants: 1 .
Number of operations using emulsion lubricant: 2.
Magnesium Rolling Spent Emulsions. The emulsions from both
operations are batch dumped and hauled off-site by a waste
contractor. The quantity of emulsion hauled was not reported for
either operation. Spent emulsions which are .contract hauled off-
site typically receive some type of emulsion breaking (chemical
or thermal) and oil skimming treatment. After this treatment,
the water fraction is discharged and the oil fraction is either
sent to a reclaiming operation or landfilled directly. Since
spent emulsions are often treated on-site and the water
discharged (with the oil fraction contract hauled), EPA is
allowing a discharge for this waste stream. The BPT flow has
been set equal to the BPT flow given for spent aluminum rolling
emulsions, 74.6 1/kkg (17.9 gal/ton). The Agency believes that,
because aluminum and magnesium have similar melting points and
1563
-------
other metallurgical properties, similar arac=,-Ls ot waste emulsion
will be generated in rolling the two metals..
Forging
The following information was reported on Corging operations in
this subcategory:
Number of plants: 4 .,--,,
Number of plants and operations using lubricants: j plants,
4 operations Number of plants and operations using contact
3°°piants?te4* operations Number of equipment cleaning operations:
2.
Magnesium Forging Spent Lubricants. The ou-.y loss of iub,- Leant
from any of the foUr operations is through drag-out on the
product surface. Consequently, there is no BPT discharge
allowance for forming spent lubricants. Since, magnesium forging
?ub?icants are not water based, they should be kept separate from
other process wastewater streams and therefore, should not be
discharged.
Magnesium Forging Contact Cooling Water. One operation has no
water dischaTgi~dSe~tc~IOO percent recycle and evaporation. The
BPT flow is the average of the two reported non-zero production
normalized discharge flows, 2,890 1/kkg (693 gal/ton).
Magnesium Forging Equipment Cleaning Wastewater. One plant
reported " using water to clean equipment in its two forging
operations. The equipment cleaning wastewater from these opera-
tions is not recycled. The BPT discharge allowance, based on the
average production normalized water use from the two operations,
is 39.9 1/kkg (9.59 gal/ton).
Casting
Magnesium Direct Chill Casting Contact Co^Unc, Water.. One
Honfefrous metals forming plant casts magnesium by t-.fe direct
chill method. The cooling water used in this operation _ is
completely recycled. Another plant has a direct chill casting
operation which is *n integral part of 3 ^gnes-,- srnelcing and
refining (nonferrous metals manufacturing pnase LL} operation.
Once-through contact cooling water is discharged from tnis
operation. The BPT flow of 3,9.50 1/kkg (947 gal/ton) is based on
the production normalized water use for the nonferrous metals
manufacturing operation.
Surface Treatment
Three ulants supplied information on magnesium surface, treatment
operations. Information was provided on the discharge of nine
surface treatment baths and on seven sui-faci creal.me.it rinse
operations.
1564
-------
Magnesium Surface Treatment Spent Baths. An unreported amount of
wastewater is contract hauled from two of the operations.
Wastewater discharge flows were reported for three of the remain-
ing seven operations. The BPT discharge allowance is the average
of production normalized discharge flow from three operations,
466 1/kkg (112 gal/ton).
Magnesium Surface Treatment Rinse. One operation uses 100
percent recycle with a periodic batch discharge of rinse. Of the
remaining six operations, two operations consist of single stage
overflow^ rinses with no recycle, two operations consist of a
spray rinse followed by an overflow rinse with no recycle, and
two operations consist of non-cascade sequential rinsing stages.
The average of the seven production normalized discharge flows is
the BPT flow, 18,900 1/kkg (4,520 gal/ton).
Sawing or Grinding
The use of emulsion lubricants was reported for a total
operations at two plants.
of two
Magnesium Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions. One operation
achieves zero discharge by 100 percent recycle. Some emulsion
from this operation is lost due to evaporation and drag-out on
the product. In the other operation, the emulsion is recycled
with periodic batch discharges contract hauled to treatment and
disposal off-site. Since spent emulsions are often treated on-
site and the water discharged (with the oil fraction contract
hauled), EPA is allowing a discharge for this waste stream. The
BPT allowance has been set equal to the production normalized
discharge flow of contract hauled emulsion, 19.5 1/kkg (4.68
gal/ton).
Degreasing
Magnesium Degreasing Spent Solvents. Only a small number of
surveyed plants with solvent degreasing operations have process
wastewater streams associated with the operation. Because most
plants practice solvent degreasing without wastewater discharge,
the Agency believes zero discharge of wastewater is an appropri-
ate discharge limitation.
Wet Air Pollution Control
Magnesium Wet Air Pollution Control Slowdown. Slowdown from the
wet air pollution control devices used to control air pollution
from forging, sanding and repairing, and surface treatment is
included under this building block. The Agency believes that the
water requirements for scrubbing air emissions from these areas
are similar. Three of the four operations practice 90 percent
recycle or greater of the scrubber liquor while no recycle is
used in the remaining operation. Flow reduction is considered
BPT technology for wet air pollution control blowdown since three
of the four plants practice 90 percent or greater recycle.
1565
-------An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
presents a schematic of the general BPT treatment train for the
nonferrous metals forming category.
Effluent Limitations
The pollutant mass discharge limitations (milligrams of pollutant
per off-kilogram of PNP) were calculated by multiplying the BPT
regulatory flows summarized in Table IX-13 (1/kkg) by the concen-
tration achievable by the BPT model treatment system summarized
in Table VII-21 (mg/1) for each pollutant parameter considered
for regulation at BPT (1/off-kkg x mg/1 x 1 kkg/1,000 kg =
mg/off-kg). The results of this computation for all waste
streams and regulated pollutants as well as magnesium in the
^magnesium forming subcategory are summarized in Table IX-14.
Although no limitations have been established for magnesium,
Table IX-14 includes magnesium mass discharge limitations
attainable using the BPT model technology. These limitations are
presented for the guidance of permit writers. Only daily maximum
limitations are presented, based on the detection limit for
magnesium (0.10 mg/1), because lime and settle treatment was
determined to remove magnesium to below the level of analytical
quantification. The attainable monthly average discharge is
expected to be lower than the one day maximum limitation^ but
since it would be impossible to monitor for compliance with a
lower level, no monthly average has been presented.
The limitation table lists all the pollutants which were consid-
ered for regulation; those specifically regulated are marked with
an asterisk.
Costs and Benefits
In establishing BPT, EPA considered the cost of trsatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievability. As shown in Table X-4 (page xxxx), the application
of BPT to the.total magnesium forming subcategory will remove
approximately 33,570 kg/yr (73,855 Ibs/yr) of pollutants includ-
ing 16,900 kg/yr (37,180 Ibs/yr) of toxic pollutants. As shown
in Table X-l (page xxxx), the corresponding capital and annual
costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are $218,000 and $146,000
per year, respectively. As shown in Table X-14 (page xxxx), the
application of BPT to direct dischargers only will remove approx-
imately 28,615 kg/yr (62,950 Ibs/yr) of pollutants including
14,790 kg/yr (32,540 Ibs/yr) of toxic pollutants. As shown in
Table X-2 (page xxxx), the corresponding capital and annual costs
(1982 dollars) for this removal are $148,200 and $95,700 per
year, respectively. The Agency concludes that these pollutant
removals justify the costs incurred by the plants in this subcat-
egory. .
1567
-------
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
Production operations which generate process wastewater in the
nickel-cobalt forming subcategory include rolling, tube reducing,
drawing, extrusion, forging, metal powder production, stationary
casting, vacuum melting, heat treatment, surface treatment,
cleaning, sawing, grinding, product testing, and degreasing.
Water use practices, wastewater streams and wastewater discharge
flows from these operations were discussed in Section V. This
information provided the basis for development of the BPT regula-
tory flow allowances summarized in Table IX-15. The following
paragraphs discuss "the basis for the BPT flow allowances for each
waste stream.
Rolling
Rolling is performed at 30 plants in the nickel-cobalt forming
subcategory. The following information is available from these
plants:
Number of plants and operations using neat oil lubricant: 5
plants, 6 operations
Number of plants and operations using emulsion lubricant: 5
plants, 7 operations
Number of plants and operations using contact cooling water: 6
plants, 9 operations.
Approximately 15 plants reported no use of lubricants or contact
cooling water for their rolling operations.
Nickel-Cobalt Rolling Spent Neat Oils. The neat oils in four of
the operations are consumed during the rolling operation, while
the neat oils in the other two operations are contract hauled.
Since neat oils are pure oil streams, with no water fraction, it
is better to remove the oil directly by contract hauling and not
to discharge the stream than to commingle the oil with water
streams and then remove it later using an oil-water separation
process. Consequently, this waste stream should not be
discharged.
Nickel-Cobalt Rolling Spent Emulsions. Spent rolling emulsions
are either treated on-site or contract hauled for treatment and
disposal off-site. Production normalized discharge flows are
available for three of the seven rolling operations which use
spent emulsions. Spent emulsions from two of these operations
are treated on-site while emulsion from the third operation is
contract hauled. A BPT discharge allowance of 170 1/kkg (40.9
gal/ton) has been established for this stream since spent emul-
sion is sometimes treated on-site and the water discharged (with
the oil fraction contract hauled). The BPT flow is based on the
average of the three reported production normalized discharge
flows.
1568
-------
...Nick el-Cobalt Rolling Contact Cooling Water. Plow information
was available for eight of the nine rolling operations which use
contact cooling water. Two operations achieve zero discharge by
completely recycling the contact cooling water stream. No
information regarding the amount of water used in these opera-
tions was available. The other operations use widely varying
amounts of water for contact cooling. Production normalized
water uses for these operations vary from 72.8 to 43,400 1/kkg.
The BPT flow of 3,770 1/kkg (905 gal/ton) is based on the median
of the six reported production normalized cooling water uses.
The median is believed to be a better representation of the
current typical water use for this operation than the average
(arithmetic mean) because of the large range of reported produc-
tion normalized water uses.
Tube Reducing
Three plants reported information on three tube reducing (also
referred to as pilgering) operations. Lubricants are used in
these operations.
Nickel-Cobalt Tube Reducing Spent Lubricant. There shall be no
discharge allowance for the discharge of pollutants . from tube
reducing spent lubricants if once each month for six consecutive
months the facility owner or operator demonstrates the absence of
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine, N-nitrosodimethylamine, and N-
nitrosodiphenylamine by sampling and analyzing spent tube
reducing lubricants. If the facility complies with this
requirement for six months then the frequency of sampling may be
reduced to once each quarter. A facility shall be considered in
compliance with this requirement if the concentrations of the
three nitrosamine compounds does not exceed the analytical
quantification levels set forth in 40 CFR Part 13fi which are
0.020 mg/1 for N-nitrosodiphenylamine, 0.020 for N-nitrosodi-n-
propylamine, and 0.050 mg/1 for N-nitrosodimethylamine.
Drawing
Drawing is performed at 32 plants in the nickel-cobalt forming
subcategory. The following information is available from these
plants:
Number of plants and operations using neat oil lubricant: 8
plants, 11 operations
Number of plants and operations using emulsion lubricant: 8
plants, 9 operations.
No lubricants were reported to be used at over 15 plants.
Nickel-Cobalt Drawing Spent Neat Oils. Neat oils from nine of
the 11 operations are contract hauled; the only loss of neat oil
from one operation is by evaporation and drag-out; no information
regarding spent neat oils is available for the other drawing
operation which uses a neat oil lubricant. As discussed previ-
ously for rolling spent neat oils, it is better to remove the
1569
-------
neat oils directly and not to discharge the stream than to
commingle the oil wita water streams and then remove it later.
Therefore, this waste stream should not be discharged.
Nickel-Cobalt Drawing
3ent Emulsions. Spent emulsions from
eight of the nine plants reporting the use ,of emulsion lubricants
are periodically contract hauled to treatment and disposal off-
site. One operation periodically discharges the spent emulsion.
Information sufficient to calculate production normalized
discharge flows was available for two of the operations which
haul the emulsion and the one which discharges it. As discussed
previously for drawing spent emulsions in the lead-tin-bismuth
forming subcategory, spent emulsions are often treated on-site
and the water discharged (with the oil fraction contract hauled)
by plants in this category and other categories. Therefore, the
BPT discharge allowance is the average of the three reported
production normalized discharge flows, 95.4 1/kkg (22.9 gal/ton).
Extrusion
Extrusion is performed at eight plants in this subcategory.
following information is available from these plants:
The
Number of plants and operations using lubricants: 4
Number of plants and operations using press and solution heat
treatment contact cooling water: 2
Number of plants and operations recording hydraulic fluid
leakage: 1.
Nickel-Cobalt Extrusion Spent Lubricants. Lubricants are com-
pletely recycled in all operations, with the only loss occurring
through evaporation and drag-out. The extrusion lubricants which
are used are typically neat oils. Since neat oils are pure oil
streams, with no water fraction, it is better to remove the oil
directly and not to discharge the stream than to commingle the
oil with water streams and then remove it later. Therefore, this
waste stream should not be discharged.
Nickel-Cobalt Extrusion Press and Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water. As discussed in Section III, contact cooling
water is used in extrusion operations to accomplish a heat
treatment effect, either by spraying water onto the metal as it
emerges from the die or press, or by direct quenching in a water
bath. Contact cooling water in one of the operations is recycled
and periodically batch dumped; the other operation discharges
with no recycle. The average of the two reported production
normalized discharge flows is the BPT discharge allowance, 83.2
1/kkg (20.0 gal/ton).
Nickel-Cobalt Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage. Discharge
of hydraulic fluid leakage was reported from one extrusion
operation. The BPT discharge allowance of 232 1/kkg (55.6
gal/ton) is based on the production normalized discharge flow
from this operation.
1570
-------
Forging
Forging is performed aj: 31 plants in the nickel-cobalt forming
subcategory. The following information is available from these
plants:
Number of plants and operations using lubricants: 5 plants, 6
operations
Number of plants and operations using contact cooling water: 6
Number of plants and operations reporting hydraulic fluid
leakage: 1
Number of equipment cleaning operations: 1 plant, 2 operations.
Approximately 20 dry forging operations were reported.
Nickel-Cobalt Forging Spent Lubricants. The lubricants from the
six operations are either contract hauled directly or only lost
through evaporation and drag-out. It is better to remove the
neat oil and graphite-based lubricants typically used in forging
operations from this subcategory and not to discharge the stream
than to commingle the lubricants with other water streams and
then remove them later. Therefore, this waste stream should not
be discharged.
Nickel-Cobalt Forging Contact Cooling Water. Five of the six
plants that reported this waste stream provided flow information.
Four plants discharge the cooling water without any recycle while
one plant recycles over 95 percent of the water. The BPT dis-
charge of 474 1/kkg (114 gal/ton) is based on the average produc-
tion normalized water use for the five plants providing flow
information.
Nickel-Cobalt Forging Equipment Cleaning Wastewater. One plant
reported using water to clean the equipment in its two forging
operations. The BPT discharge allowance, based on the average of
the two production normalized water uses, is 40.0 1/kkg (9.57
gal/ton).
Nickel-Cobalt Forging Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage. One plant
reported a discharge of forging press hydraulic fluid leakage.
The BPT discharge allowance of 187 1/kkg (44.8 gal/ton) is based
on the production normalized discharge flow of hydraulic leakage
from this operation.
Casting
The following information was reported on casting operations in
this subcategory:
Total number of plants: 12
Number of plants and operations with stationary casting: 10
plants, 12 operations
Number using contact cooling water: 2
Number dry: 10
1571
-------
Number of plants and operations with vacuum melting and casting:
3
Number of plants with vacuum melting steam condensate: 2
Number dry: 1
Number of plants and operations with electroflux remelting: 2
Number dry: 2.
Water. Two
In one
Nickel-Cobalt Stationary Casting Contact Cooling
stationary casting operations use contact cooling water.
operation the cooling water is completely reused in other nonfer-
rous forming operations at the plant. The cooling water is not
recycled in the other operation but some is lost through evapora-
tion and drag-out. The BPT allowance of 12,100 1/kkg (2,900
gal/ton) is based on the average production normalized water use
for the two operations.
Nickel-Cobalt Vacuum Melting Steam Condensate. Information was
reported on two vacuum melting operations which generate a steam
condensate waste stream. In one operation the entire volume of
steam condensate is reused for surface treatment rinse. The
other operation recycles 98 percent of the steam condensate
through a cooling tower. Analysis of a sample of the bleed
stream from the cooling tower indicated that there are no pollu-
tants present above treatable concentrations. In fact, some
pollutants were found at concentrations lower than source water
concentrations. Vacuum melting steam condensate can, therefore,
be reused in the generation of steam for vacuum melting or in
other processes present at the forming plant. The feasibility of
reusing the condensate is demonstrated by the operation which
currently reuses the condensate for surface treatment rinse.
Therefore, since analysis of the condensate indicates that no
pollutants are present at treatable concentrations, and it is
current industry practice to reuse the condensate in other
forming operations, no allowance is provided for this stream.
Metal Powder Production
Metal powder production operations are performed at 15 plants.
Atomization wastewater is generated in a total of seven opera-
tions at six plants. No wastewater is generated from atomization
processes at nine plants.
Nickel-Cobalt Metal Powder Production Atomization Wastewater.
Production normalized discharge flows for this waste stream vary
widely from 1,280 1/kkg to 75,300 1/kkg. The BPT flow allowance
of 2,620 1/kkg (629 gal/ton) is based on the median of seven
production normalized discharge flows. Because of the large
range of production normalized discharge flows, the median is
believed to be a better representation of the current typical
water use for this operation than the average (arithmetic mean).
1572
-------
Solution Heat Treatment
Heat treatment operations are performed at 31 plants. Contact
cooling water is used in a total of 22 operations at 17 plants.
No water is used at 14 plants.
Nickel-Cobalt Annealing and Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water. No BPT discharge allowance is provided for this
stream. The zero discharge allowance is based on 100 percent
reuse of the wastewater, either as annealing contact cooling
water or in other processes present at the forming plants.
Analysis of a sample of this wastewater indicates that there are
no pollutants present above treatable concentrations and there-
fore, reuse is possible. Furthermore, three operations which use
annealing contact cooling water recycle all of the cooling water.
In one operation the cooling water is treated by oil skimming and
recycled to the cooling process. In two operations, the cooling
water is recycled without treatment.
Surface Treatment
Thirty plants provided information on surface treatment opera-
tions in the nickel-cobalt forming subcategory.
Nickel-Cobalt Surface Treatment Spent Baths. A total of 39
surface treatment bath operations were identified. Spent baths
from six operations are discharged to evaporation ponds, baths
from 10 operations are contract hauled to treatment and disposal
off-site and 23 baths are discharged to either a POTW or surface
water. The BPT regulatory flow of 935 1/kkg (224 gal/ton) is
based on the average of the 24 reported production normalized
flows. Information sufficient to calculate production normalized
flows was provided for 25 baths that are discharge:! or contract
hauled.
Nickel-Cobalt Surface Treatment Rinse. Thirty-three surface
treatment rinse operations were identified. Rinse from seven
operations is discharged to evaporation ponds or surface
impoundments, and rinse from two operations is contract hauled.
In one process, the rinse is treated and reused. The BPT flow of
23,600 1/kkg (5,640 gal/ton) is based on the average of the 24
production normalized water uses reported for this operation.
Ammonia Rinse Treatment
Two plants reported using an ammonia rinse in a total of 3
operations.
Nickel-Cobalt Ammonia Rinse. All three operations are stagnant
rinses with batch discharges. The BPT flow of 14.8 1/kkg (3.54
gal/ton) is based on the average production normalized discharge
flow from the three operations.
1573
-------
Alkaline Cleaning
Eighteen plants provided information on alkaline cleaning opera-
tions in the nickel-cobalt subcategory. The reported operations
include 23 baths and 22 rinses.
Nickel-Cobalt Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths. Seven baths are
dischargedto evaporation ponds or impoundments, and two are
contract hauled to treatment and disposal off-site. Flow data
were available for 15 baths. Production normalized discharge
flows for these baths vary from 1.2 1/kkg to 231 1/kkg. The BPT
flow of 33.9 1/kkg (8.13 gal/ton) is based on the median produc-
tion normalized discharge flow from the 15 baths. The median is
believed to be a better representation of,the current typical
flow for this operation than the average (arithmetic mean)
because of the large range of production normalized discharge
flows. The production normalized water use for a combined bath
and rinse was not included in the average because the individual
discharges could not be discerned.
Nickel-Cobalt Alkaline Cleaning Rinse. Rinse from eight
operations is discharged to evaporation ponds, impoundments, or
applied to land. Rinse from one operation is treated and reused.
Water use data are available for a total of 12 alkaline cleaning
rinse operations. The BPT flow of 2,330 1/kkg (559 gal/ton) is
the average production normalized water use for 11 operations.
The production normalized water use for a combined bath and rinse
was not included in the average because the individual discharges
could not be discerned.
Molten Salt Treatment
Six plants reported using molten salt treatment in a total of
eight operations.
Nickel-Cobalt Molten Salt Rinse. The BPT flow for this stream is
8,440 1/kkg (2,020 gal/ton). This flow is the average production
normalized water use for six nonrecycled overflowing rinses. The
water uses for two stagnant rinses were not included in the
average because flow reduction through stagnant rinsing is
considered to be part of the BAT technology.
Sawing or Grinding
Twenty-one plants reported using emulsion lubricants in a total
of 25 sawing or grinding operations. One rinse operation was
also reported.
Nickel-Cobalt Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions. Information
sufficient to calculate production normalized discharge flows was
reported for five operations. ' The BPT flow allowance of 39.4
1/kkg (9.45 gal/ton) is based on the average production normal-
ized discharge flow from the five operations.
1574
-------
Nickel-Cobalt Sawing or Grinding Rinse. One plant reported
generating this waste stream. The BPT regulatory flow of 1,810
1/kkg (435 gal/ton) is based on the production normalized dis-
charge flow from this plant.
Steam Cleaning
Nickel-Cobalt Steam Cleaning Condensate. Two plants reported the
discharge of contact steam condensate from product cleaning
operations. Neither plant recycles the condensate. Only one
plant reported information sufficient to calculate production
normalized flows. The BPT discharge allowance is the one
reported production normalized discharge flow, 30.1 1/kkg (7.22
gal/ton).
Product Testing
Tube Testing and Ultrasonic
Nickel-Cobalt Hydrostatic
The Agency believes that hydrostatic tube
Wastewater.
Testing
testing
reused in
and ultrasonic testing wastewater can be recycled or
other processes present at the forming plant. Also, some plants
in this category discharge wastewater from these operations less
than once per year, which is effectively zero discharge. There-
fore, no allowance for the discharge of process wastewater
pollutants is provided for this stream.
Nickel-Cobalt Dye Penetrant Testing Wastewater. Three plants
reported generating wastewater from six dye penetrant testing
operations. Flow information was reported for two operations.
The BPT discharge allowance of 213 1/kkg (50.9 gal/ton) is the
average production normalized discharge flow from the two opera-
tions.
Miscellaneous Wastewater
Nickel-Cobalt Miscellaneous Wastewater Sources.
Some low volume
of wastewater were reported in dcps and observed during
and sampling visits. These include wastewater from
sources
the site
maintenance and cleanup. The Agency has determined that none of
the plants reporting these specific water uses discharge these
wastewaters to surface waters (directly or indirectly). However,
because the Agency believes this type of low volume periodic
discharge occurs at most plants, the Agency has combined these
individual wastewater sources under the term "miscellaneous
wastewater sources" and provided a BPT discharge allowance of 246
1/kkg (58.4 gal/ton).
Degreasing
Nickel-Cobalt Degreasing Spent Solvents.
surveyed plants with solvent degreasing
Only a small number of
operations indicated
having process wastewater streams associated with the operation.
Because most plants practice solvent degreasing without waste-
water discharge, the Agency believes zero discharge of wastewater,
is an appropriate discharge limitation.
1575
-------
Wet Air Pollution Control
Nickel-Cobalt Wet Air Pollution Control Slowdown. Wet air
pollution control devices are used to control air emissions from
surface treatment operations, shot blasting, molten salt treat-
ment and rolling. Six plants reported achieving over 90 percent
recycle of the scrubber water. Therefore, the BPT discharge
allowance of 810 1/kkg (194 gal/ton) is based on 90 percent
recycle of the average production normalized water use for six
operations since 90 percent recycle or greater is current typical
industry practice.
Electrocoating
Nickel-Cobalt Electrocoating Rinse. One plant reported
discharging electrocoating rinse. The BPT regulatory filow of
3,370 1/kkg (807 gal/ton) is based on the production normalized
discharge flow from this one plant.
Regulated Pollutants
The priority pollutants considered for regulation under BPT are
listed in Section VI along with an explanation of why the»y were
considered. The priority pollutants considered for regulcition in
this subcategory are cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and
zinc. Chromium and nickel are selected for regulation under BPT
along with fluoride, total suspended solids,.oil and grease, and
pH. The priority pollutants cadmium, copper, lead, and :zinc ar.e
not specifically regulated under BPT for the reasons given in
Section X. The basis -for regulating total suspended solids, oil
and grease, and pH under BPT was discussed earlier in this
section. The basis for regulating total chromium, nickel, and
fluoride is discussed below.
Total chromium is regulated since it includes both hexavalent and
trivalent forms of chromium. Only the trivalent form is removed
by the lime and settle technology. Therefore, the hexavalent
form must be reduced by preliminary chromium reduction treatment
in order to meet the limitations on chromium in this subcategory.
Chromium was found at treatable concentrations in 71 of 90 raw
wastewater samples, and 16 of the 18 raw wastewater streams in
which it was analyzed.
Nickel has been selected for regulation under BPT since it was
found at treatable concentrations in 81 of 90 raw wastewater
samples and because it is the metal being processed. Nickel was
present at treatable concentrations in 16 of the 18 raw waste-
water streams in which it was analyzed. The Agency believes that
when chromium and nickel are controlled with the application of
lime and settle technology and preliminary treatment when needed,
the control of other priority pollutants which may be present is
assured.
1576
-------
Fluoride was found at treatable concentrations in 21 of 89 raw
wastewater samples and in six of 18 raw wastewater streams in
which it was analyzed. Therefore, fluoride is selected for
regulation under BPT.
Treatment Train
The BPT model treatment train for the nickel-cobalt forming
subcategory consists of preliminary treatment when necessary,
specifically emulsion breaking and oil skimming, and chromium
reduction. The effluent from preliminary treatment is combined
with other wastewater for common treatment by oil skimming and
lime and settle. Waste streams potentially needing preliminary
treatment are listed in Table IX-3. Figure IX-1 presents a
schematic of the general BPT treatment train for the nonferrous
metals forming category.
Effluent Limitations
The pollutant mass discharge limitations (milligrams of pollutant
per off-kilogram of PNP) were calculated by multiplying the BPT
regulatory flows summarized in Table IX-15 (1/kkg) by the concen-
tration achievable by the BPT model treatment system summarized
in Table VII-21 (rag/1) for each pollutant parameter considered
for regulation at BPT (1/off-kkg x mg/1 x 1 kkg/1,000 kg =
mg/off-kg). The results of this computation for all waste
streams and regulated pollutants in the nickel-cobalt forming
subcategory are summarized in Table IX-16. This limitation table
lists all the pollutants which were considered for regulation;
those specifically regulated are marked with an asterisk.
Costs and Benefits
In establishing BPT, EPA must consider the cost of treatment and
control in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. BPT
costs and benefits are tabulated along with BAT costs and bene-
fits in Section X. As shown in Table X-5 (page xxxx), the appli-
cation of BPT to the total nickel-cobalt forming subcategory will
remove approximately 729,230 kg/yr (1,604,300 Ibs/yr) of pollu-
tants including 99,570 kg/yr (219,050 Ibs/yr) of toxic metals.
As shown in Table X-l (page xxxx), the corresponding capital and
annual costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are $3.342 million
and $2.077 million per year, respectively. As shown in Table X-
15 (page xxxx), the application of BPT to direct dischargers only
will remove approximately 21,590 kg/yr (47,500 Ibs/yr) of
pollutants including 10,400 kg/yr (22,880 Ibs/yr) of toxic
metals. As shown in Table X-2 (page xxxx), the corresponding
capital and annual costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are
$392,000 and $186,000 per year, respectively. The Agency con-
cludes that these pollutant removals justify the costs incurred
by plants in this subcategory.
1577
-------
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
Production operations that generate process wastewater in the
precious metals forming subcategory include rolling, drawing,
metal powder production, direct chill casting, shot casting,
stationary casting, semi-continuous and continuous casting, heat
treatment, surface treatment, alkaline cleaning, tumbling,
burnishing, sawing, grinding, pressure bonding, and degreasing.
The wet scrubbers used for air pollution control at some plants
are also a source of process wastewater. Water use practices,
wastewater streams and wastewater discharge flows from these
operations were discussed in Section V. This information pro-
vided the basis for development of the BPT regulatory flow
allowances summarized in Table IX-17. The following paragraphs
discuss the basis for the BPT flow allowances for each waste
stream.
Rolling
Rolling is performed at 33 plants in this subcategory.
following information is available from these plants:
Number of plants and operations using neat oil lubricant:
Number of plants and operations using emulsion lubricant:
plants, 6 operations.
No lubricants were reported to be used at approximately
plants.
The
2
5
25
Precious Metals Rolling Spent Neat Oils.
requirement for this waste
No discharge is the BPT
stream. Spent neat oil is not
discharged from the two rolling operations where the use of neat
oil lubricants was reported. One operation achieves zero
discharge through recirculation with some loss due to drag-out on
the product. No information regarding how zero discharge is
achieved was reported for the other operation. Since neat oils
are pure oil streams, with no water fraction, it is better to
remove the oil directly by contract hauling and not to discharge
the stream than to commingle the -oil with water streams and then
remove it later. .
Precious Metals Rolling Spent Emulsions. Information sufficient
to calculate production normalized flows was available for three
of the six operations where the use of emulsion lubricants was
reported. The BPT regulatory allowance of 77.1 1/kkg (18.5
gal/ton) is based on the average of the three production normal-
ized discharge flows. This regulatory flow incorporates recycle
with periodic discharge of spent emulsion since this is current
practice at the three plants supplying flow data for this waste-
water stream.
1578
-------
Drawing
Drawing is performed at 25 precious metals forming plants.
following information is available from these plants:
Number of plants and operations using neat oil
Number of plants and operations using emulsion
plants, 12 operations
Number of plants and operations using soap solutions:
No lubricants are used at approximately 15 plants.
lubricant:
lubricant:
The
1
8
2.
Precious Metals Drawing Spent Neat Oils. Neat oils are com-
pletely consumed in the one drawing process where neat oil
lubricants are used. As discussed previously/ should a plant
need to dispose of these lubricants it is better to remove them
directly by contract hauling and not to discharge the stream.
Therefore, this stream should not be discharged.
Precious Metals Drawing Spent Emulsions. Drawing emulsions are
completely recycled with the only loss due to evaporation and
drag-out in three operations. Seven operations recycle the
emulsion with periodic batch discharges. The spent emulsion from
four of the seven operations is contract hauled to- treatment and
disposal off-site. The BPT regulatory flow of 47.5 1/kkg (11.4
gal/ton) is based on the average of five non-zero production
normalized discharge flows from operations where emulsion is
recycled with periodic batch discharges. The production normal-
ized discharge flow from one operation where no recycle is
practiced was not included in the BPT regulatory flow calculation
since once-through discharge of spent emulsion is not indicative
of current industry practice.
Precious Metals Drawing Spent Soap Solutions. No discharge data
were provided on one operation and one operation was reported to
periodically discharge spent soap solution. The BPT discharge
allowance is the one reported value, 3.12 1/kkg (0.748 gal/ton).
Metal Powder Production
Metal powder production operations are performed at eight plants.
Atomization wastewater is generated at one of these plants.
Precious Metals Metal Powder Production Atomization Wastewater.
The BPT discharge allowance, based on the one reported production
normalized discharge flow, is 6,680 1/kkg (1,600 gal/ton).
Casting
Casting is performed at 23 plants in the precious metals forming
subcategory. The following information is available from these
plants:
1579
-------
Number of plants and operations with direct chill casting using
contact cooling water: 3 plants, 4 operations
Number of plants and operations with shot casting using contact
cooling water: 1
Number of plants and operations with stationary casting using
contact cooling water: 5
Number of plants and operations with semi-continuous and
continuous casting using contact cooling water: 5.
Precious Metals Di^ecjb Chill Casting Contact Cooling Water. In
one reported direct chill casting operation the cooling water is
completely recycled with no discharge. The contact cooling water
is discharged from two operations on a once-through basis. The
BPT flow allowance of 10,800 1/kkg (2,590 gal/ton) is based on
the average production normalized water use from these two opera-.
tions. The production normalized water use from one operation
with an unreported discharge flow was not used in the BPT flow
calculation since it is nearly 10 times greater than the water
use for the other two discharging operations, and therefore not
indicative of current industry practice.
Precious Metals Shot Casting Contact Cooling Water.
The
regulatory flow allowance is the production normalized water
from the one reported operation, 3,670 1/kkg (880 gal/ton).
BPT
use
Precious Metals Stationary Casting Contact Cooling Water. Five
plants reported using contact cooling water to cool stationary
castings. One plant completely recycles this water, one prac-
tices 99.8 percent recycle, and one plant only discharges the
cooling water periodically. Water recycle practices were not
reported by the other two plants. No BPT discharge allowance is
provided for this waste stream. The zero discharge allowance is
based on practices currently in use at one plant in this subcate-
gory and in plants from several other subcategories in the
category which perform the same operation on other metals.
Precious Metals Semi-Continuous and Continuous Casting Contact
Cooling Water. Two plants completely recycle the cooling water
wTth no discharge. Flow data were reported for one of the three
plants which discharge this stream. The BPT regulatory allowance
is based on the one reported, nonrecycled production normalized
water use, 10,300 1/kkg (2,480 gal/ton).
Heat Treatment
Precious Metals Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water. Eleven
plants reported using contact cooling water in a total of 20 heat
treatment operations. Contact cooling water is used in anneal-
ing, rolling, and extrusion heat treatment. The BPT regulatory
flow is based on the median of 12 reported production normalized
water uses, 4,170 1/kkg (1,000 gal/ton). The median is believed
to be a better representation of the current typical water use
for this operation than the average (arithmetic mean) because of
che large range of reported production normalized water uses (659
1/1-' -• to 1. i"7 . O'>0 i •"- ':o) .
L580
-------
Surface Treatment
Seventeen plants supplied information on surface treatment
operations. Wastewater is generated and discharged from these
operations as follows:
Number of baths contract hauled or discharged:
Number of baths never discharged: 4
16
Number of rinses discharged:
completely recycled: 1.
18 Number of rinses treated and
Precious Metals Surface Treatment Spent Baths.
No
wastewater
discharge data were reported for 12 of the operations. The BPT
discharge allowance is the average of the four reported produc-
tion normalized discharge flows, 96.3 1/kkg (23.1 gal/ton).
Precious Metals Surface Treatment Rinse. One rinse operation
uses two-stage countercurrent cascade rinsing and another
operation uses three-stage countercurrent cascade rinsing. The
BPT regulatory flow of 6,160 1/kkg (1,480 gal/ton) is based on
the average production normalized water use for seven noncascaded
rinse operations because flow reduction through cascade rinsing
is considered to be part of the BAT technology.
Alkaline Cleaning
Nine plants supplied information on alkaline cleaning operations.
Seven plants supplied information on alkaline cleaning prebonding
operations. Wastewater is generated and discharged from these
operations as follows:
Number of alkaline cleaning baths contract hauled or discharged:
8
Number of alkaline cleaning baths never discharged: 0
Number of alkaline cleaning rinses discharged: 7
Number of alkaline cleaning prebonding operations discharging
wastewater: 8.
Precious Metals Alkaline • Cleaning
Baths. Production
normalized flow information is available for one bath. The BPT
regulatory flow of 60.0 1/kkg (14.4 gal/ton) is based on the
production normalized discharge flow from this bath.
Precious Metals Alkaline Cleaning Rinse. Flow data were
available for four alkaline cleaning rinse operations. No
recycle or other flow reduction techniques are used for any of
these operations. The BPT regulatory flow of 11,200 1/kkg (2,690
gal/ton) is based on the average production normalized water use
from the four operations.
1581
-------
Precious Metals Alkaline Cleaning Prebonding Wastewater. Flow
information is available for all of the alkaline cleaning pre-
bonding operations. The BPT regulatory flow of 11,600 1/kkg
(2,770 gal/ton) is based on the median production normalized
water use for the eight operations. The median is believed to be
a better representation of the current typical water use for this
operation than the average (arithmetic mean) because of the large
range of reported production normalized water uses (10.2 1/kkg to
93,800 1/kkg).
Tumbling or Burnishing
Precious Metals Tumbling or Burnishing Wastewater. Flow informa-
tion was reported for two- tumbling operations and two burnishing
operations. No recycle is practiced for any of these operations.
The BPT flow allowance of 12,100 1/kkg (2,910 gal/ton) is based
on the average production normalized water use for the four
operations.
Sawing or Grinding
Precious Metals Sawing or Grinding Spent Neat Oils. Neat oil is
used as a lubricant in one grinding operation. The neat oil is
completely recycled with some loss due to evaporation and drag-
out. As previously discussed, since neat oils are pure oil
streams, with no water fraction, it is better to remove the oil
directly by contract hauling and not to discharge the stream than
to commingle the oil with water streams and then remove it later.
Therefore, the BPT flow allowance is zero.
Precious Metals Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions. An emulsion
lubricant is used in four operations. In each of the four
operations, the emulsion is recirculated with periodic discharges
contract hauled to treatment and disposal off-site. However, a
BPT regulatory flow has been established for this stream since
the spent emulsion could be treated on-site and the water frac-
tion discharged (with the oil fraction contract hauled). The BPT
regulatory flow of 93.4 1/kkg (22.4 gal/ton) is based on the
median production normalized discharge flow from the four opera-
tions. The median is believed to be a better representation of
the current typical water use for this operation than the average
(arithmetic mean) because of the large range of reported produc-
tion normalized discharge flows (3.17 1/kkg to 2,775 1/kkg).
Pressure Bonding
Precious Metals Pressure Bonding Contact Cooling Water. One
plant reported using contact cooling water after a pressure
bonding operation. The production normalized discharge flow from
this operation is the BPT regulatory flow, 83.5 1/kkg (20.0
gal/ton).
1582
-------
Degreasing
Precious Metals Degreasing Spent Solvents.
of surveyed plants with solvent
process wastewater streams
Because most plants practice solvent degreasing without
Only a small number
degreasing operations have
associated with the operation.
waste-
water discharge, the Agency believes zero discharge of wastewater
is an appropriate discharge limitation.
Wet Air Pollution Control
Precious Metals Wet Air Pollution Control Slowdown. Wet air
pollution control devices are used to control air emissions from
two surface treatment operations and three casting operations.
The scrubber water is completely recycled with no discharge in
two operations, and a periodic discharge is contract hauled to
treatment and disposal off-site in a third operation. Since zero
discharge from wet air pollution devices is common practice in
this subcategory, no BPT flow allowance is provided for this
stream.
Deleted Waste Streams
Precious Metals Metal Powder Production Milling Wastewater. At
proposal, an allowance was written for metal powder production
milling wastewater. Upon re-examination of the information
available, it was determined that the operation upon which the
allowance was based is powder metallurgy part milling, not powder
milling. The discharge from this operation is covered by tum-
bling, burnishing wastewater allowance and its reported PNF has
been included in the calculation of the tumbling, burnishing
wastewater regulatory flow and discharge allowance.
Regulated Pollutants
The priority pollutants considered for regulation under BPT are
listed in Section VI along with an explanation of why they have
been considered. The pollutants selected for regulation under
BPT are cadmium, copper, lead, silver, cyanide, oil and grease,
total suspended solids and pH. The priority metal pollutants
chromium, nickel, and zinc, listed in Section VI are not
specifically regulated under BPT for the reasons explained in
Section X. The basis for regulating oil and grease, total
suspended solids and pH was discussed earlier in this section.
The basis for regulating cadmium, copper, lead, silver, and
cyanide is discussed below.
Cadmium is selected for regulation since it was found at treat-
able concentrations in 23 of 37 raw wastewater samples. Cadmium
was present at treatable concentrations in rolling spent emul-
sions, shot casting contact cooling water, semi-continuous and
continuous casting contact cooling water, heat treatment contact
cooling water, surface treatment spent baths, surface treatment
rinse, alkaline cleaning spent baths, alkaline cleaning
1583
-------
prebonding wastewater, tumbling and burnishing wastewater, and
pressure bonding contact cooling water.
Copper is selected for regulation since it was found at treatable
concentrations in 32 of 37 raw wastewater samples. Copper was
found at treatable concentrations in all raw wastewater streams
in which it was analyzed. This includes all of the waste streams
where cadmium was found at treatable concentrations, and also
drawing spent emulsions.
Lead is selected for regulation since it was found at treatable
concentrations in 25 of 37 raw wastewater samples. Lead was
found at treatable concentration in 11 of the 12 raw wastewater
streams in which it was analyzed.
Silver is selected for regulation because it was found at treat-
able concentrations in 11 of 37 raw wastewater samples, it is a
toxic metal, and it is one of the metals formed in this subcate-
gory. Silver was found at treatable concentrations in rolling
spent emulsions, drawing spent emulsions, surface treatment spent
baths, surface treatment rinse, alkaline cleaning spent baths,
and tumbling, burnishing wastewater.
Cyanide is selected for regulation since it was found at treat-
able concentrations in alkaline cleaning prebonding wastewater
and semi-continuous and continuous casting contact cooling water.
Preliminary cyanide precipitation is needed to remove this
pollutant from wastewater. Therefore regulation of cyanide is
appropriate for this subcategory.
Treatment Train
The BPT model treatment train for the precious metals forming
subcategory consists of preliminary treatment when necessary,
specifically chemical emulsion breaking and oil skimming, and
cyanide precipitation. The effluent from preliminary treatment
is combined with other wastewater for common treatment by oil
skimming and lime and settle. Waste streams potentially needing
preliminary treatment are listed in Table IX-4. Figure IX-1
presents a schematic of the general BPT treatment train for the
nonferrous metals forming category.
Effluent Limitations
The pollutant mass discharge limitations (milligrams of pollutant
per metric ton of PNP) were calculated by multiplying the BPT
regulatory flows summarized in Table IX-17 (1/kkg) by the concen-
tration achievable by the BPT model treatment system summarized
in Table VII-21 (mg/1) for each pollutant parameter considered
for regulation at BPT (1/off-kkg x mg/1 x 1 kkg/1,000 kg =
mg/off-kg). The results of this computation for all waste
streams and regulated pollutants in the precious metals forming
subcategory are summarized in Table IX-18. This limitation table
lists all the pollutants which were considered for regulation and
t1-• • • specifically regulated ure marked with an asterisk.
1584
-------
Costs and Benefits
In establishing BPT, EPA must consider the cost of treatment and
control in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. BPT
costs and benefits are tabulated along with BAT costs and bene-
fits in Section X. As shown in Table X-6 (page xxxx), the appli-
cation of BPT to the total precious metals forming subcategory
will remove approximately 12,635 kg/yr (27,800 Ibs/yr) of pollu-
tants including 110 kg/yr (242 Ibs/yr) of toxic metals. As shown
in Table X-l (page xxxx), the corresponding capital and annual
costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are $1.013 million and
$0.414 million per year, respectively. As shown in Table X-16
(page xxxx), the application of BPT to direct dischargers only
will remove approximately 2,875 kg/yr (6,325 Ibs/yr) of pollu-
tants including 21 kg/yr (46 Ibs/yr) of toxic metals. As shown
in Table X-2 (page xxxx), the corresponding capital and annual
costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are $226,000 and $98,000
per year, respectively. The Agency concludes that these pollu-
tant removals justify the costs incurred by plants in this
subcategory.
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
Production operations that generate process wastewater in the
refractory metals forming subcategory include rolling, drawing,
extrusion, forging, metal powder production, surface treatment,
alkaline cleaning, molten salt treatment, tumbling, burnishing,
sawing, grinding, product testing, equipment cleaning, degreasing
and a few miscellaneous operations. The wet scrubbers used for
air pollution control at some plants are also a source of process
wastewater. Water use practices, wastewater streams and waste-
water discharge flows from these operations were discussed in
Section V. This information provided the basis for development
of the BPT regulatory flow allowances summarized in Table IX-19.
The following paragraphs discuss the basis for the BPT flow
allowances for each waste stream.
Rolling
Rolling is performed at approximately 16 plants in the refractory
metals forming subcategory. The following information is avail-
able from these plants:
Number of plants and operations using neat oil or graphite-based
lubricants: 2
Number of plants and operations using emulsion lubricants: 1.
No lubricants are used at approximately 13 plants.
Refractory Metals Rolling Spent Neat Oils and Graphite Based
Lubricants. One operation uses a neat oil lubricant and. the
other operation uses a graphite-based lubricant. The lubricant
in both processes is completely recycled with some loss due to
1585
-------
evaporation and drag-out. Should a plant find the need to
dispose these lubricants, it would be better to. remove the
lubricants directly by contract hauling and not to discharge the
stream rather than to combine the lubricants with water streams,
and remove them later. Therefore, rolling spent neat oils and
graphite-based lubricants should not be discharged.
Refractory Metals Rolling Spent Emulsions. Spent emulsion in the
one rolling operation which uses an emulsified lubricant is
periodically batch dumped and contract hauled. As discussed
previously for rolling spent emulsions in the lead-tin-bismuth
forming subcategory, the spent emulsions are often treated on-
site and the water discharged (with the oil fraction contract
hauled) by plants in this category and other categories. There-
fore, the production normalized discharge flow from the one
operation is the BPT discharge allowance, 429 1/kkg (103
gal/ton).
Drawing
Drawing is performed at approximately 16 refractory metals
forming plants. Six plants reported using lubricants in a total
of seven drawing operations.
Refractory Metals Drawing Spent Lubricants. No lubricant is
discharged from six of the seven drawing operations reporting the
use of lubricants. In four operations, the lubricant is com-
pletely recycled with some lubricant consumed or lost through
evaporation and drag-out. In the other zero discharge opera-
tions, the only losses are due to lubricant being consumed and
burned off or through evaporation and drag-out. One operation
has no available water discharge data. The drawing lubricants
used include neat oils, graphite-based lubricants, and dry soap
lubricants. Should a plant find the need to dispose of these
lubricants, it would be better to remove them directly by con-
tract hauling and not to discharge the stream rather than to
combine the lubricants with water streams and remove them later.
Therefore, drawing spent lubricants should not be discharged.
Extrusion
Extrusion is performed at approximately seven plants in this
subcategory. The following information is available from these
plants:
Number of plants and operations using lubricants: 3
Number of plants and operations reporting hydraulic fluid
leakage: 1.
Four plants did not report the use of lubricants or hydraulic
fluid leakage from their extrusion operations.
Refractory Metals Extrusion Spent Lubricants. There are no
reported discharges of spent extrusion lubricants. Should a
plant need to dispose of these lubricants, it would be better to
them directly by contract haulii.-:; rather than to combine
1586
-------
the lubricants with wastewater streams and remove them
Therefore, this waste stream should not be discharged.
Metals Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid
later.
Refractory
Leakage of extrusion press hydraulic fluid was observed
Leakage.
at one
discharge allowance is based on the
operation, 1,190
plant. The BPT
production normalized discharge flow for this
1/kkg (235 gal/ton).
Forging
Forgjno i,s performed at approximately 10 refractory metals
forming plants. The following information is available for these
plants:
Number of plants and operations using lubricants: 3 plants, 4
operations
Number of plants and operations using contact cooling water: 2.
No lubricants or contact cooling water was reported to be used at
over five plants.
Refractory Metals Forging Spent Lubricants. No lubricants are
discharged from the four operations for which lubricant was
reported. The only loss is due to evaporation and drag-out.
Should a plant find the need to dispose of these lubricants, it
would be better to remove the lubricants directly by contract
hauling and not to discharge the stream than to combine the
lubricants with wastewater streams and remove them later.
Therefore, this waste stream should not be discharged.
Refractory Metals Forging Contact Cooling Water. Flow data were
%
provided for one operation. None of the contact cooling water in
this operation is recycled. The BPT discharge allowance is the
production normalized water use from this one operation, 323
1/kkg (77.5 gal/ton).
Metal Powder Production
Metal powder production operations are performed at approximately
46 refractory metal forming plants. The following information is
available from these plants:
Number of plants and operations generating metal powder
production wastewater: 3 plants, 5 operations
Number of plants and operations generating floorwash wastewater:
2.
No process wastewater is generated from metal powder
operations at approximately 40 plants.
production
Refractory Metals Metal Powder Production Wastewater. None of
the operations practice any recycle of the metal powder produc-
tion wastewater. No wastewater is discharged from two operations
since it evaporates in drying operations. The BPT regulatory
Clow of 281 1/kkg (67.3 gal/ton) is based on the median produc-
tion normalized water use for five operations which discharge.
1587
-------
The median is believed to be a better representation of the
current typical watet use for this operation than the average
(arithmetic mean) because of the large range of reported produc-
tion normalized water uses (37.1 l./kkg to 34,500 1/kkg).
Refractory Metals Metal Powder Production Floorwash Wastewater.
The floorwash wastewater is completely recycled by one plant
while at the other plant the wastewater is contract hauled.
Since neither plant which generates the waste stream reported
discharging it, there shall be no discharge from this waste
stream.
Lubricants.
The
Refractory Metals Metal Powder Pressing
one plant which reported using metal powder pressing lubricants
achieves zero discharge of the lubricants through 100 percent
recycle. Therefore, the BPT flow allowance is zero.
Surface Treatment
Twelve plants supplied information on refractory metals surface
treatment operations.
Refractory Metals Surface Treatment Spent Baths. Flow data were
supplied for six of the 15 reported surface treatment baths. The
BPT regulatory flow of 389 1/kkg (93.3 gal/ton) is based on the
average production normalized discharge flow from the six opera-
tions.
Refractory Metals Surface Treatment Rinse. Fourteen surface
treatment rinse operations were reported. Two-stage counter-
current cascade rinsing is practiced at two of the operations.
No flow reduction techniques were reported for the other 12
operations. Discharge data were available for the two
countercurrent cascade rinses and four non-cascaded rinse opera-
tions. The BPT flow of 121,000 1/kkg (29,100 gal/ton) is based
on the average production normalized water use from the four non-
cascaded rinse operations. The countercurrent cascade rinse
operations were not included in the flow calculation since
countercurrent cascade rinsing is a BAT technology, and does not
represent current typical water use for this operation.
Alkaline Cleaning
Fourteen plants supplied information on alkaline cleaning opera-
tions. A total of 14 alkaline cleaning baths and 18 alkaline
cleaning rinses were reported.
Refractory Metals Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths. Flow data were
available for three of the 14 reported alkaline cleaning baths.
The BPT regulatory flow of 334 1/kkg (80.2 gal/ton) is based on
the average production normalized discharge flow from the three
operations.
Refractory Metals Alkaline Cleanin
av3i~^rble for "> " rinse operations.
_ Rinse. Flow data were
No flow reduction practices
1588
-------
(countercurrent cascade rinsing, recycle, etc.) were reported for
any of these operations. The BPT regulatory flow of 816,000
1/kkg (196,000 gal/ton) is based on the average production
normalized water use from the 11 operations.
Molten Salt Treatment
Refractory Metals Molten Salt Rinse. Five plants reported a
total of six molten salt rinse operations. No flow reduction
practices were reported for five of the operations. In one
operation, a decreased flow rate is used to significantly reduce
the discharge of molten salt rinse. Flow data were available for
five of the six operations. The BPT regulatory flow of 6,330
1/kkg (1,520 gal/ton) is based on the average production
normalized water use from the five operations.
Tumbling or Burnishing Wastewater
Refractory Metals Tumbling or Burnishing Wastewater. Seven
plants reported generating wastewater from 10 tumbling and
burnishing operations. No flow reduction practices were reported
for any of these operations. Flow data were supplied for eight
of the operations. The BPT regulatory flow of -12,500 1/kkg
(3,000 gal/ton) is based on the median production normalized
water use from the eight operations. The median is believed to
be a better representation of the current typical water use for
this operation than the average because of the large range of
production normalized water uses (953 1/kkg to 666,000 1/kkg).
Sawing or Grinding
Thirteen plants reported generating wastewater from sawing or
grinding operations. The following information is available from
these plants:
Number of plants and operations using neat oil lubricant: 3
Number of plants and operations using emulsion lubricant:
plants, 16 operations
Number of plants and operations using contact cooling water:
plants, 8 operations
Number of plants and. operations using a rinse: 2.
8
5
Refractory Metals Sawing or Grinding Spent Neat Oils. No dis-
charge information was reported for one operation. Spent neat
oils are contract hauled to treatment and disposal off-site in
the other two operations. Since neat oils are pure oil streams,
with no water fraction, it is better to remove the oil directly
by contract hauling and not to discharge the stream than to
commingle the oil with water streams and remove it later.
Therefore, this waste stream should not be discharged.
Refractory Metals Sawing o£ Grinding Spent Emulsions. The spent
emulsions from six operations are contract hauled; emulsions are
completely recycled in one operation; the only loss of emulsions
from three operations is through drag-out or consumption.
1589
-------
Discharge data were available for four operations. The average
production normalized discharge flow from the four operations is
the BPT discharge allowance, 297 1/kkg (71.1 gal/ton).
Refractory Metals Sawing or Grinding Contact Cooling Water. Zero
discharge is achieved in three operations through 100 percent
recycle; in one operation 80 percent of the cooling water is
recycled; in another operation cooling water is only periodically
discharged; no recycle is practiced in three operations. The BPT
regulatory flow of 24,300 1/kkg (5,820 gal/ton) is based on the
average production normalized water use from the four operations
where water use data were available.
Refractory Metals Sawing or Grinding Rinse. No recycle or other
flow reduction practices are used in either of the two reported
rinse operations. Flow data were provided for one operation.
The BPT flow of 135 1/kkg (32.5 gal/ton) is based on the
production normalized water use for this operation.
Product Testing
Refractory Metals Dye Penetrant Testing Wastewater. Wastewater
from a dye penetrant testing operation was observed at one
sampled plant. The BPT discharge allowance is the production
normalized discharge flow for this operation, 77.6 1/kkg (18.6
gal/ton).
Equipment Cleaning
Refractory Metals Equipment Cleaning Wastewater. Three plants
reported generating wastewater from cleaning various equipment
such as spray driers, forging presses, ring rollers, tools, and
wet abrasive saw areas. A total of six equipment cleaning
operations were reported. In one operation, zero discharge is
achieved by completely recycling the cleaning wastewater. The
BPT regulatory flow of 1,360 1/kkg (326 gal/ton) is based on the
median production normalized discharge flow from the six opera-
tions. The six production normalized discharge flows included in
the median calculation include five non-zero discharge flows and
the zero discharge flow from the operation practicing 100 percent
recycle. The median is believed to be a better representation of
the current typical water use for this operation than the average
because of the large range of production normalized discharge
flows (0 1/kkg to 2l",140 1/kkg).
Miscellaneous Wastewater
Refractory Metals Miscellaneous Wastewater. Miscellaneous
wastewater streams identified in this subcategory include waste-
water from a post oil coating dip rinse, a quench of extrusion
tools, and spent emulsions from grinding the stainless steel
rolls used in refractory metals rolling operations. The BPT
discharge allowance is 345 1/kkg (83.0 gal/ton), 10 percent of
the one reported production normalized discharge flow. This
1590
-------
discharge is a free flowing tool quench which can be 90 percent
flow reduced by recycling it through a holding tank.
Degreasing
Refractory Metals Degreasing Spent Solvents. Only a small number
of surveyed plants with solvent degreasing operations have
process wastewater streams associated with the operation.
Because most plants practice solvent degreasing without waste-
water discharge, the Agency believes zero discharge of wastewater
is an appropriate discharge limitation.
Wet Air Pollution Control
Refractory Metals Wet Air Pollution Control Scrubber Slowdown.
In this subcategory, wet air pollution control devices are used
to control air emissions from metal powder production, surface
treatment, surface coating, and sawing and grinding operations.
The use of wet air pollution control devices was reported for a
total of nine operations. Scrubber water from one operation is
completely recycled with no discharge. In two other operations,
the discharge flow of scrubber water is reduced by recycling over
90 percent of the scrubber water. Water use data were available
for four operations. The BPT regulatory flow of 787 1/kkg (189
gal/ton) is based on 90 percent reduction of the average produc-
tion normalized water use from three of these operations. The
production normalized water use for one operation was over 175
times larger than the other values and was believed to be so
atypical of current typical water use that it was not included in
the regulatory flow calculation.
Deleted Waste Streams
Following proposal, the Agency received additional data and
conducted a review of all available data concerning wastewater
discharges. This review led to a reinterpretation of some data
reported prior to proposal. As a result, the following waste
streams included in the proposed regulation have been deleted
from the final regulation:
o Extrusion Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water,
o Metal Powder Pressing Spent Lubricant,
o Casting Contact Cooling Water, and
o Post-Casting Wash Water.
Data included under these waste streams at proposal have been
reclassified under other waste streams in this subcategory as
appropriate.
Regulated Pollutants
The priority pollutants considered for regulation under BPT are
listed in Section VI along with an explanation of why they were
considered. The pollutants selected for regulation under BPT are
copper, nickel, fluoride, molybdenum, oil and grease, total
1591
-------
suspended solids and pH. The priority pollutants chromium, lead,
silver, and zinc, and the nonconventional pollutants columbium,
tantalum, tungsten, and vanadium are not specifically regulated
under BPT for the reasons explained in Section X. The basis for
regulating oil and grease, total suspended solids, and pH under
BPT was discussed earlier in this section. The basis for
regulating copper, nickel, fluoride, and molybdenum is discussed
below.
Copper is selected for regulation since it was found at treatable
concentrations in nine of 25 raw wastewater samples. Copper was
present at treatable concentrations in extrusion press hydraulic
fluid leakage, surface treatment spent baths, surface treatment
rinse, alkaline cleaning spent baths, tumbling and burnishing
wastewater, and sawing or grinding contact cooling water.
Nickel is selected for regulation since it was found at treatable
concentrations in 13 of 25 raw wastewater samples. Nickel was
found at treatable concentrations in all wastewater streams
listed in the previous paragraph for copper. It was also present
at treatable concentrations in molten salt rinse and dye
penetrant testing wastewater.
Fluoride is selected for regulation since it was found at treat-
able concentrations in seven of 21 raw wastewater samples.
Fluoride was present at treatable concentrations in surface
treatment rinse, alkaline cleaning spent baths, molten salt
rinse, and wet air pollution control blowdown.
Molybdenum is selected for regulation since it was present at
treatable concentrations in five of 25 raw wastewater samples and
it is one of the metals formed in this subcategory. Molybdenum
is specifically regulated under BPT because it will not be
adequately removed by the technology (lime and settle) required
for the removal of the regulated priority metal pollutants,
copper and nickel. The addition of iron to a lime and settle
system (i.e., iron coprecipitation) is necessary for effective
removal of molybdenum. Regulation of priority metals only is not
sufficient to ensure the removal of molybdenum from refractory
metals forming wastewater.
Treatment Train
The BPT model.treatment train for the refractory metals forming
subcategory consists of preliminary treatment when necessary,
specifically chemical emulsion breaking and oil skimming. The
effluent from preliminary treatment is combined with other
wastewater for common oil skimming, iron coprecipitation, and
lime and settle treatment. Waste streams potentially needing
preliminary treatment are listed in Table IX-5. Figure IX-1
presents a schematic of the general BPT treatment train for the
nonferrous metals forming category.
1592
-------
Effluent Limitations
The pollutant mass discharge limitations (milligrams of pollutant
per off-kilogram of PNP) were calculated by multiplying the BPT
regulatory flows summarized in Table IX-19 (1/kkg) by the concen-
tration achievable by the BPT model treatment system summarized
in Table VII-21 (mg/1) for each pollutant parameter considered
for regulation at BPT (1/kkg x mg/1 x kkg/1,000 kg = mg/off-kg).
The results of this computation for all waste streams and
regulated pollutants in the refractory metals forming subcategory
are summarized in Table IX-20. Although no limitations have been
established for columbium, tantalum, tungsten, and vanadium,
Table IX-20 includes mass, discharge limitations for these
pollutants which are attainable using the BPT model technology.
These limitations are presented for the guidance of permit
writers. Only daily maximum limitations are presented for
columbium, tantalum, and vanadium, based on the detection limits
of 0.12, 0.46, and 0.10 mg/1, respectively. Lime and settle
treatment was determined to remove these pollutants to below
their level of analytical quantification. The attainable monthly
average discharge is expected to be lower than the one-day
maximum limitation, but since it would be impossible to monitor
for compliance with a lower level, no monthly average has been
presented.
The limitations table lists all the pollutants which were consid-
ered for regulation. Those specifically regulated are marked
with an asterisk.
Costs and Benefits
In establishing BPT, EPA must consider the cost of treatment and
control in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. BPT
costs and benefits are tabulated along with BAT costs and bene-
fits in Section X. As shown in Table X-7 (page xxxx), the appli-
cation of BPT to the total refractory metals forming subcategory
will remove approximately 183,300 kg/yr (403,260 Ibs/yr) of
pollutants including 54 kg/yr (119 Ibs/yr) of toxic metals. As
shown in Table X-l xxxx), the corresponding capital and annual
costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are $1.117 million and
$0.582 million per year, respectively. As shown in Table X-17
(page xxxx), the application of BPT to direct dischargers only
will remove approximately 24,220 kg/yr (53,285 Ibs/yr) of
pollutants. As shown in Table X-2 (page xxxx), the corresponding
capital and annual costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are
$87,000 and $44,000 per year, respectively. The Agency concludes
that these pollutant removals justify the costs incurred by
plants in this subcategory.
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
Production operations that generate process wastewater in the
titanium forming subcategory include rolling, drawing, extrusion,
1593
-------
forging, tube reducing, heat treatment, surface treatment,
alkaline cleaning, molten salt treatment, tumbling, sawing,
grinding, product testing, degreasing and various miscellaneous
operations. The wet scrubbers used for air pollution control at
some plants are also a source of process wastewater. Water use
practices, wastewater streams, and wastewater discharge flows
from these operations were discussed in Section V. This informa-
tion provided the basis for development of the BPT regulatory
flow allowances summarized in Table IX-21. The following para-
graphs discuss the basis for the BPT flow allowances for each
waste stream.
Rolling
Rolling is performed at 16 plants in the titanium forming subcat-
egory. The following information is available from these plants:
Number of plants and operations using neat oil lubricant: 2
Number of plants and operations using contact cooling water: 4.
No lubricants or contact cooling water were reported to be used
at approximately 10 plants.
Titanium Rolling Spent Neat Oils. No neat oils are discharged
from either of the operations reporting the use of this lubri-
cant. As previously discussed, should a plant need to dispose of
this stream, it would be better to remove the neat oils directly
by contract hauling and not to discharge them than to commingle
the neat oils with wastewater streams and remove them later using
an oil-water separation process. Therefore, this waste stream
should not be discharged.
Titanium Rolling Contact Cooling Water. Reliable flow data were
only available for one of the four rolling operations which use
contact cooling water. No recycle is practiced in this opera-
tion. The BPT flow of 4,880 1/kkg (1,170 gal/ton) is based on
the production normalized water use for the operation.
Drawing
Drawing is performed at six titanium forming plants. Two plants
reported using neat oil lubricants in a total of two operations.
No lubricants were reported to be used at the other four plants.
Titanium Drawing Spent Neat Oils. Spent neat oils from both
operations reporting the use of this lubricant are contract
hauled to treatment and disposal off-site. It is better to
handle the neat oils in this manner rather than to commingle them
with wastewater streams and then remove them later using an oil-
water separation process. Therefore, this waste stream should
not be discharged.
Extrusion
Extrusion is performed at nine plants in this subcategory. The
following information is available from these plants:
1594
-------
Number of plants and operations using neat oil lubricant: 5
Number of plants and operations using emulsion lubricant: 1
Number of plants and operations with hydraulic fluid leakage: 1
Three plants did not report the use of lubricants or hydraulic
fluid leakage.
Titanium Extrusion Spent Neat Oils. Neat oils are not discharged
the five extrusion operations using a neat oil
of
from any
lubricant. The only loss of neat oil is through evaporation and
drag-out. Should a plant from these operations need to dispose
of this stream, it would be better to remove the neat oils
directly by contract hauling rather than to combine them with
wastewater streams and remove them later by oil-water separation.
Therefore, this waste stream should not be discharged.
Titanium Extrusion Spent Emulsions. One plant reported discharg-
ing spent emulsion lubricants from an extrusion operation. No
recycle of the emulsion is practiced in this operation. The BPT
regulatory flow of 71.9 1/kkg (17.2 gal/ton) is based on the
production normalized discharge flow from the operation.
Titanium Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage. The BPT
178 1/kkg (42.8 gal/ton) is based on the
discharge flow -from the only plant which
regulatory flow of
production normalized
reported this stream.
Forging
Forging is performed at 32 titanium forming plants.
ing information is available from these plants:
The follow-
Number of plants and operations using lubricants: 7 plants, 8
operations
Number of plants and operations using contact cooling water: 4
Number of plants and operations with equipment cleaning
wastewater: 1 plant, 2 operations
Number of plants and operations with hydraulic fluid leakage: 2.
Over 20 plants from this subcategory reported that no waste
streams were generated from forging operations.
Titanium Forging Spent Lubricants. The lubricants in seven of
the eight operations are consumed during forging and the lubri-
cants from the other operation are contract hauled. The forging
lubricants are typically neat oils. As discussed previously, it
is better to remove neat oils directly by contract hauling and
not to discharge the stream rather than to commingle them with
wastewater streams and then remove them later by oil-water
separation. Therefore, this waste stream should not be
discharged.
Titanium Forging Contact Cooling Water. Flow information is
available for three of the four forging operations which use
contact cooling water. In one operation 95 percent of the
cooling water is recycled; no recycle is practiced for the other
1595
-------
two operations. The BPT regulatory flow of 2,000 1/kkg (479
gal/ton) is based on th3 average production normalized water use
for the three operations.
Titanium Forging Equipment Cleaning Wastewater. No recycle is
practiced for either of the two reported equipment cleaning
operations. The BPT regulatory flow of 40.0 1/kkg (9.60 gal/ton)
is based on the average production normalized discharge flow from
the two operations.
Titanium Forging Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage. Flow data are
available for one of the forging operations where hydraulic fluid
leakage was reported. The BPT regulatory flow of 1,010 1/kkg
(242 gal/ton) is based on the production normalized discharge
flow from this operation.
Tube Reducing
Titanium Tube Reducing Spent Lubricants. One of the lubricants
used in reducing titanium tubes is a neat oil. Since neat oils
contain no water, the Agency believes that it is better to haul
the oil directly and not to commingle it with wastewater streams
only to remove it later. Other titanium tube reducing lubricants
are emulsions. A tube reducing emulsion was sampled at a nickel
forming plant. Analysis of the sampled tube reducing lubricant
showed treatable concentrations of N-nitrosodiphenylamine, a
toxic organic pollutant with potentially carcinogenic properties.
If one nitrosamine compound is present in this wastewater source
then there are likely to be other compounds or other nitrosamine
compounds could be formed as this compound most likely was in the
presence of precursors, under the conditions created by the tube
reducing process. Therefore, there shall be no discharge of
titanium tube reducing lubricant.
Heat Treatment
Ten plants reported
treatment operations.
using contact cooling water in 10 heat
Titanium Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water. No BPT discharge
allowance is provided for this stream. The zero discharge
allowance is based on 100 percent reuse of this wastewater,
either as heat treatment contact cooling water or in other
processes present at the titanium forming plant. Analysis of a
similar nickel forming waste stream, "Annealing and Solution Heat
Treatment Contact Cooling Water," indicated that the wastewater
did not contain any treatable concentrations of pollutants.
Therefore, reuse of the wastewater is possible. Furthermore,
reuse of nickel annealing and solution heat treatment contact
cooling water is demonstrated at three plants. Because titanium
heat treatment contact cooling water contains pollutants at
concentrations similar to nickel annealing and solution heat
treatment contact cooling water (since the processes are simi-
lar), there is no discharge allowance for titanium heat treatment
contact cooling based on the reuse of this wastewater stream.
1596
-------
Surface Treatment • : " :
Twenty-one plants reported information on surface treatment
operations. A total of 32 surface treatment baths and 29 surface
treatment rinse operations were reported.
Titanium Surface Treatment Spent Baths. Flow data were available
for 21 baths which are either discharged or contract hauled. The
BPT regulatory flow of 208 1/kkg (49.9 gal/ton) is based on the
median production normalized discharge flow of the 21 baths. The
median is believed to be a better representation of the current
discharge from this operation than the average because of the
large range of reported production normalized discharge flows
(1.71 1/kkg to 1,310 1/kkg).
Titanium Surface Treatment Rinse. Countercurrent cascade rinsing
"the rinse operations. In one
is not practiced in any oi
operation 40 percent of the rinse is recycled while rinsewater is
only periodically discharged from five operations. The BPT
regulatory flow of 29,200 1/kkg (7,000 gal/ton) is based on the
average of 16 of 19 reported production normalized rinse
application rates. Three reported values were riot used to
calculate the average because they are much larger than the other
values. Therefore, the Agency does not believe that these
outlying values are representative of current typical water use
for this operation.
Alkaline Cleaning
Six plants supplied information on alkaline cleaning operations.
All six plants discharge spent cleaning baths and rinse.
Titanium Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths. Flow data were available
for seven of the eight reported baths. The BPT regulatory flow
of 240 1/kkg (57.5 gal/ton) is the median production normalized
discharge flow of the seven reported wastewater discharges. The
median is believed to be a better representation of the current
typical discharge for this operation than the average because of
the large range of reported production normalized discharge flows
(52.1 1/kkg to 9,810 1/kkg).
Titanium Alkaline Cleaning Rinse. Flow data were available for
six of the seven reported rinse operations. No recycle or other
flow reduction practices were used in any of these operations.
The BPT regulatory flow of 2,760 1/kkg (663 gal/ton) is based on
the median production normalized water use from four operations.
Two operations with very high flows were not included in the
calculation. Both of these very high flows came from operations
described as "Free-Flowing Rinses." Because this is the least
efficient type of rinsing, in terms of water use, the two
operations were excluded from the determination of current
typical practice used for the BPT allowance. The median is
believed to be a better representation of the current typical
water use for this operation than the average (arithmetic mean)
1597
-------
because of the large range of rinse flows even after excluding
the two high values (3-?8 1/kkg to 82,300 1/kkg) .
Molten Salt Treatment
Titanium Molten Salt Rinse. One plant reported generating rinse
from a molten salt treatment operation. The BPT regulatory flow
of 955 1/kkg (229 gal/ton) is based on the production normalized
discharge flow from this operation.
Tumbling
Titanium Tumbling Wastewater. One plant reported generating
wastewater from a titanium tumbling operation. The wastewater
from this operation is discharged on a once-through basis. The
BPT discharge flow of 790 1/kkg (189 gal/ton) is based on the
production normalized water use for this operation.
Sawing or Grinding
Thirteen plants reported generating wastewater from sawing or
grinding operations. The following information is available from
these plants:
Number of plants and operations using neat oil lubricant: 2
Number of plants and operations using emulsions and synthetic
coolants: 11 plants, 19 operations
Number of plants and operations using contact cooling water: 1.
Titanium Sawing or Grinding Spent Neat Oils. In one operation,
the only loss of neat oils occurs through evaporation and drag-
out. Spent neat oils from the other operation are contract
hauled to treatment and disposal off-site. It is better to
remove neat oils directly by contract hauling than to commingle
the oils with wastewater streams only to remove them later using
an oil-water separation process. Therefore, this waste stream
should not be discharged.
Titanium Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions and Synthetic Cool-
ants. In this subcategory, these lubricants are either
completely recycled with no discharge or recycled with periodic
batch discharges. The lubricants in four operations are com-
pletely recycled with no discharge. In four other operations the
only loss of lubricant is through evaporation and drag-out.
Lubricant is periodically dumped from seven operations. Flow
data were available for six of the operations which discharge
spent emulsions and synthetic coolants. Recycle with periodic
batch discharges is practiced in four of these operations while
no recycle is used for the other two operations. The BPT regula-
tory flow of 183 1/kkg (43.8 gal/ton) is based on the average
production normalized discharge flow from these six operations.
The four recycle operations were included in the calculation
since recycle is current typical industry practice.
1598
-------
Titanium Sawing or Grinding Contact Cooling Water. The use o£
contact cooling water was reported for only one operation.
Cooling water is discharged on a once-through basis from this
operation. The BPT regulatory flow of 4,760 1/kkg (1,140
gal/ton) is based on the production normalized water use for this
operation.
Product Testing
Titanium Dye Penetrant Testing Wastewater. Wastewater is gener-
ated from six dye penetrant testing operations. Flow data are
available for two of these operations. The BPT regulatory flow
of 1,120 1/kkg (268 gal/ton) is based on the average production
normalised discharge flow from these two operations.
Miscellaneous Wastewater Sources
TJ tanium Miscellaneous Wastewater Sources. Miscellaneous waste-
water sources identified in this subcategory include wastewater
from cleaning tools, hydrotesting wastewater, and spillage from
an abrasive saw area. Discharge data were only available for the
tool cleaning and hydrotesting operations. The BPT regulatory
flow of 32.4 1/kkg (7.77 gal/ton) is based on the- production
normalized discharge flow from the tool cleaning operation.
Hydrotesting wastewater is not included in the basis because the
Agency believes that hydrotesting wastewater should not be
discharged, but should be reused for hydrotesting or other
forming operations.
Degreasing
Titanium Degreasing Spent Solvents. Only a small number of
surveyed plants with solvent degreasing operations have process
wastewater streams associated with the operation. Because most
plants practice solvent degreasing without wastewater discharge,
the Agency believes zero discharge of wastewater is an appropri-
ate discharge limitation.
Wet Air Pollution Control
Titanium Wet Air Pollution Control Slowdown. Titanium forming
plants reported using wet air pollution control devices to
control air emissions from forging and surface treatment opera-
tions. Ninety percent or greater recycle of the scrubber water
is practiced by five of the 14 reported operations and only
periodic batch discharges were reported for another operation.
Scrubber water is discharged on a once-through basis from five
operations. No flow data are available for the remaining three
operations. The BPT regulatory flow of 2,140 1/kkg (514 gal/ton)
is based on the median production normalized water use from the
11 operations for which water use data were available. The
median is believed to be a better representation of the current
typical water use than the average (arithmetic mean) because- of
the large range of production normalized water uses from the 11
operations (88.1 1/kkg to 554,000 1/kkg).
1599
-------
Deleted Waste Streams
Titanium Cold Rolling Spent Lubricants. Following proposal, the
Agency received additional data and conducted a review of all
available data concerning wastewater discharges in this subcate-
gory. This review led to a reinterpretation of some data
reported prior to proposal. As a result, the Cold Rolling Spent
Lubricant waste stream included in the proposed regulation for
this subcategory has been deleted from the final regulation. All
data included under Cold Rolling Spent Lubricants at proposal,
have been reclassified under other waste streams in this subcate-
gory for the final regulation.
Regulated Pollutants
The priority pollutants considered for regulation under BPT are
listed in Section VI along with an explanation of why they have
been considered. The pollutants selected for regulation under
BPT are lead, zinc, cyanide, ammonia, fluoride, oil and grease,
total suspended solids, and pH. The priority metals chromium,
copper, and nickel, and the nonconventional pollutant titanium
are not specifically regulated under BPT for the reasons
explained in Section X. The basis for regulating oil and grease,
total suspended solids and pH under BPT was discussed earlier in
this section. The basis for regulating lead, zinc, cyanide,
ammonia, and fluoride is discussed below.
Lead is selected for regulation since it was found at treatable
concentrations in 18 of 21 raw wastewater samples. Lead was
present at treatable concentrations in all raw wastewater streams
in which it was analyzed. These streams are rolling contact
cooling water, surface treatment spent baths, surface treatment
rinse, molten salt rinse, tumbling wastewater, dye penetrant
testing wastewater, wet air pollution control blowdown and sawing
or grinding spent emulsions and synthetic coolants.
Zinc is selected for regulation since it was found at treatable
concentrations in 10 of 21 raw wastewater samples. Zinc was
present at treatable concentrations in seven of the eight raw
wastewater streams in which it was analyzed.
Cyanide is selected for regulation since it was found at treat-
able concentrations in rolling contact cooling water, tumbling
wastewater, dye penetrant testing wastewater, and sawing or
grinding spent emulsions and synthetic coolants. Preliminary
cyanide precipitation is needed to remove this pollutant from
wastewater. Therefore, regulation of cyanide is appropriate for
the titanium forming subcategory.
Ammonia is selected for regulation since it was found at treat-
able concentrations in surface treatment rinse and tumbling
wastewater. Preliminary ammonia steam stripping is needed to
remove ammonia from these wastewaters. Therefore, regulation of
ammonia is appropriate for the titanium forming subcategory.
1600
-------
Fluoride is selected for regulation since it was found at treat-
able concentrations in 17 of 22 raw wastewater samples and seven
of the eight raw wastewater streams in which it was analyzed.
Treatment Train
The BPT model treatment train for the titanium forming subcate-
gory consists of preliminary treatment when necessary, specifi-
cally chemical emulsion breaking and oil skimming, cyanide
precipitation, and ammonia steam stripping. The effluent from
preliminary treatment is combined with other wastewater for
common treatment by oil skimming and lime and settle. Waste
streams potentially needing preliminary treatment are listed in
Table IX-6. Figure IX-1 presents a schematic of the general
treatment train for the nonferrous metals forming category.
Effluent Limitations
The pollutant mass discharge limitations (milligrams of pollutant
per off-kilogram of PNP) were calculated by multiplying the BPT
regulatory flows summarized in Table IX-21 (1/kkg) -by the concen-
tration achievable by the BPT model treatment system summarized
in Table VII-21 (mg/1) for each pollutant parameter considered
for regulation at BPT (1/kkg x mg/1 x kkg/1,000 kg = mg/off-kg).
The results of this computation for all waste streams and regu-
lated pollutants in the titanium forming subcategory are summa-
rized in Table IX-22. Although no limitations have been
established for titanium, Table IX-22 includes titanium mass
discharge limitations attainable using the BPT model technology.
These limitations are presented as guidance for permit writers.
This limitation table lists all the pollutants which were consid-
ered for regulation. Those specifically regulated are marked
with an asterisk.
Costs and Benefits
In establishing BPT, EPA must consider the cost of treatment and
control in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. BPT
costs and benefits are tabulated along with BAT costs and bene-
fits in Section X. As shown in Table X-8 (page xxxx), the appli-
cation of BPT to the total titanium forming subcategory will
remove approximately 350,650 kg/yr (771,430 Ibs/yr) of pollu-
tants, including 300 kg/yr (660 Ibs/yr) of toxic metals. As
shown in Table X-l, the corresponding capital and annual costs
(1982 dollars) for this removal are $2.879 million and $2.571
million per year, respectively. As shown in Table X-18 (page
xxxx), the application of BPT to direct dischargers only will
remove approximately 105,460 kg/yr (232,010 Ibs/yr) of pollutants
including 90 kg/yr (200 Ibs/yr) of toxic metals. As shown in
Table X-2 (page xxxx), the corresponding capital and annual costs
(1982 dollars) for this removal are $2.238 million and .$2.261
million per year, respectively. The Agency concludes that these
1601
-------
pollutant removals justify the costs incurred by plants in this
subcategory.
URANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
Production operations that generate process wastewater in the
uranium forming subcategory include extrusion, forging, heat
treatment, surface treatment, sawing, grinding, area cleaning,
drum washing, on-site laundries, and degreasing. The wet scrub-
bers used for air pollution control at some plants are also a
source of process wastewater. Water use practices, wastewater
streams, and wastewater discharge flows from these operations
were discussed in Section V. This information provided the basis
for development of the BPT regulatory flow allowances summarized
in Table IX-23. The following paragraphs discuss the basis for
the BPT flow allowances for each waste stream.
Extrusion
Extrusion is performed at one uranium forming plant. The follow-
ing information was reported on extrusion operations by this
plant:
Number of operations: 1
Number of operations using lubricants: 1
Number of operations using contact cooling water: 1.
Uranium Extrusion Spent Lubricants. No lubricants are discharged
from the one uranium extrusion operation where their use was
reported. Extrusion lubricants are typically neat oils. Should
a uranium forming plant need to dispose of a spent neat oil
stream, it would be better to remove the stream directly by
contract hauling rather than to commingle the oil with wastewater
streams only to remove it later using an oil-water separation
process. Therefore, this waste stream should not be discharged.
Uranium Extrusion Tool Contact Cooling Water. One plant reported
using contact cooling water to quench extrusion tools. No
recycle is practiced for this operation. The BPT discharge
allowance is the production normalized water use from the opera-
tion, 344 1/kkg (82.5 gal/ton).
Forging
The following information was reported on forging operations in
this subcategory:
Number of plants: 1
Number of operations: 1
Number of operations using lubricants: 1.
1602
-------
Uranium Forging Spent Lubricants. No lubricants are discharged
fromthe only reported forging operation. The only loss of
lubricant from this operation is due to evaporation and drag-out.
Forging lubricants are typically neat oils. As previously
discussed, should a plant need to dispose of the oil, it would be
better to remove the oil directly by contract hauling rather than
to commingle it with other wastewaters only to remove it later
using an oil-water separation process. Therefore, this waste
stream should not be discharged.
Heat Treatment
Two plants reported using contact cooling water in a total of
five heat treatment operations.
Uranium Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water. In -three opera-
tions/ the cooling water is periodically batch discharged. The
cooling water is discharged on a once-through basis from two
operations. The BPT regulatory flow of 1,900 1/kkg (455 gal/ton)
is based on the average production normalized water use from
these two operations.
Surface Treatment
All three uranium forming plants provided information on surface
treatment operations. Three surface treatment baths and two
surface treatment rinse operations were reported.
Uranium Surface Treatment Spent Baths. Flow data were available
for one of the three surface treatment bath operations. The BPT
regulatory flow of 27.2 1/kkg (6.52 gal/ton) is based on the
production normalized discharge flow from this bath.
Uranium Surface Treatment Rinse. Flow data were available for
each of the two reported rinse operations. Although neither
countercurrent cascade rinsing nor recycle is practiced in either
rinse operation, water use for both operations is low, indicating
conservative water use. The BPT regulatory flow of 337 1/kkg
(80.9 gal/ton) is based on the average production normalized
discharge flow from the two operations.
Sawing or Grinding
Uranium Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions. Lubricating emul-
sions are used in three operations. In all three operations,
spent emulsions are periodically discharged. Discharge flow data
were available for two of the operations. The BPT regulatory
flow of 5.68 1/kkg (1.36 gal/ton) is based on the average produc-
tion normalized discharge flow from the two operations.
Uranium Sawing or Grinding Contact Cooling Water. One plant
reported using contact cooling water to quench parts following a
shear cutting operation. No information on recycle or other flow
reduction practices was reported for this operation. The BPT
regulatory flow of 1,650 1/kkg (395 gal/ton) is based on the
1603
-------
production
tion.
normalized discharge flow from the quenching opera-
Uranium Sawing or Grinding Rinse. One plant reported using a
stagnant rinse after a sawing operation. The stagnant rinse is
periodically discharged. The BPT regulatory flow is the produc-
tion normalized discharge flow from the stagnant rinse, 4.65
1/kkg (1.12 gal/ton).
Area Cleaning
Uranium Area Cleaning Wastewater. One plant reported discharging
wastewater from cleanup operations in three different areas of
the plant. The BPT regulatory flow of 42.9 1/kkg (10.3 gal/ton)
is based on the average production normalized discharge flow from
the three cleanup operations.
Degreasing
Uranium Degreasing
Solvents. Only a small
number of
plants with solvent degreasing operations have process
Because most
surveyed
wastewater streams associated with the operation.
plants practice solvent degreasing without wastewater discharge,
the Agency believes zero discharge of wastewater is an appropri-
ate discharge limitation.
Wet Air Pollution Control
Uranium Wet Air Pollution Control Slowdown. Two plants reported
usingwet air pollution control scrubber devices to control air
emissions from surface treatment operations. No wastewater is
discharged from one scrubber operation. Wastewater is only
periodically discharged from the other operation. The BPT
regulatory flow of 3.49 1/kkg (0.836 gal/ton) is based on the
production normalized discharge flow from this operation.
Drum Wash
Uranium Drum Washwater. One plant reported washing solid waste
drums before they were contract hauled to off-site disposal. The
BPT regulatory flow of 44.3 1/kkg (10.6 gal/ton) is based on the
production normalized discharge flow from this operation.
Laundry
Uranium Laundry Washwater. Wastewater from the on-site launder-
ing of employee uniforms is generated at one plant. The Agency
established the normalizing parameter for this building block as
the number of employees, not a unit of production. . The BPT
regulatory flow of 52.4 I/employee-day (12.6 gal/employee-day) is
based on the water use for the one reported operation.
1604
-------
Regulated Pollutants
The priority pollutants considered for regulation under BPT are
listed in Section VI along with an explanation of why they have
been considered. The pollutants selected for regulation under
BPT are cadmium, total chromium, copper, nickel, fluoride,
molybdenum, oil and grease, total suspended solids, and pH. The
priority pollutants lead and zinc, and the nonconventional
pollutants uranium and radium-226 are not specifically regulated
for the reasons explained in Section X. The basis for regulating
oil and grease, total suspended solids, and pH under BPT was
discussed earlier in this section. The basis for regulating
cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, fluoride, and molybdenum is
discussed below.
Cadmium is selected for regulation since it was found at treat-
able concentrations in seven of 14 raw wastewater samples and
four of the eight raw wastewater streams in which it was ana-
lyzed. Treatable concentrations of cadmium were found in surface
treatment spent baths, surface treatment rinse, area cleaning
wastewater and sawing, grinding spent emulsions.
Total chromium is selected for regulation since it was present at
treatable concentrations in seven of 14 raw wastewater samples
and five of the eight raw wastewater streams in which it was
analyzed. Treatable concentrations of total chromium were found
in heat treatment contact cooling water, surface treatment spent
baths, surface treatment rinse, area cleaning wastewater and
sawing or grinding spent emulsions. Total chromium includes both
the trivalent and hexavalent forms of chromium. Only the tri-
valent form is effectively removed by lime and settle technology.
Hexavalent chromium, which may be present in wastewaters such as
surface treatment spent baths and surface treatment rinse, must
be reduced to the trivalent form by preliminary chromium
reduction treatment in order to meet the limitation "on total
chromium in this subcategory. Therefore, regulation of total
chromium is appropriate for the uranium forming subcategory.
Copper is selected for regulation since it was found at treatable
concentrations in 10 of 14 raw wastewater samples and six of the
eight raw wastewater streams in which it was analyzed. Copper
was found at treatable concentrations in all of the waste streams
listed in the previous paragraph for chromium, and it was also
present at treatable concentrations in drum washwater.
Lead is selected for regulation since it was found at treatable
concentrations in 13 of 14 raw wastewater samples and seven of
the eight raw wastewater streams in which it was analyzed. Lead
was found at treatable concentrations in all of the waste streams
listed in the previous paragraph for chromium, and it was also
present at treatable concentrations in drum washwater and surface
treatment wet air pollution control blowdown.
Nickel is selected for regulation since it was found at treatable
concentrations in eight of 14 raw wastewater samples and four of
1605
-------
the eight raw wastewater streams in which it was analyzed.
Treatable concentrations of nickel were present in heat treatment
contact cooling water, surface treatment spent baths, surface
treatment rinse, and area cleaning wastewater.
Fluoride is selected for regulation since it was present at
treatable concentrations in one of 14 raw wastewater samples and
one of eight raw wastewater streams in which it was analyzed.
Fluoride is specifically regulated under BPT because it will not
be adequately removed by the technology (lime and settle)
required for the removal of the regulated priority metals pollu-
tants, copper and nickel.
Molybdenum is selected for regulation since it was present at
treatable concentrations in three of 14 raw wastewater samples
and two of the eight raw wastewater streams in which it was.
analyzed. Molybdenum is specifically regulated under BPT because
it will not be adequately removed by the technology (lime and
settle) required for the removal of the regulated priority metal
pollutants, copper and nickel. The addition of iron to a lime
and settle system (i.e., iron coprecipitation) is necessary for
efficient removal of molybdenum. Regulation of priority metals
only is not sufficient to ensure the removal of molybdenum from
uranium forming wastewater.
Treatment Train
The BPT model treatment train for the uranium forming subcategory
consists of preliminary treatment when necessary, specifically
chromium reduction, and chemical emulsion breaking and oil
skimming. The effluent from preliminary treatment is combined
with other wastewater for common treatment by oil skimming, iron
coprecipitation, and lime and settle. Waste streams potentially
needing preliminary treatment are listed in Table IX-7. Figure
IX-1 presents a schematic of the general BPT treatment train for
the nonferrous metals forming category.
Effluent Limitations
The pollutant mass discharge limitations (milligrams of pollutant
per off-kilogram of PNP) were calculated by multiplying the BPT
regulatory flows summarized in Table IX-23 (1/kkg) by the concen-
tration achievable by the BPT model treatment system summarized
in Table VII-21 (mg/1) for each pollutant parameter considered
for regulation'at BPT (1/kkg x mg/1 x kkg/1,000 kg = mg/off-kg).
The results of this computation for all waste streams and regu-
lated pollutants in the uranium forming subcategory are summa-
rized in Table IX-24. Although no limitations have been
established for uranium, Table IX-24 includes uranium mass
discharge limitations attainable using the BPT model technology.
These limitations are presented for the guidance of permit
writers. The limitations table lists all the pollutants which
were considered for regulation. Those specifically regulated are
marked with an asterisk.
1606
-------
Costs and Benefits
In establishing BPTf EPA must consider the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievability. As shown in Table X-9 (page xxxx), the application
of BPT to the total uranium forming subcategory will remove
approximately 23,100 kg/yr (50,820 Ibs/yr) of pollutants includ-
ing 46 kg/yr (100 Ibs/yr) of toxic pollutants. The application
of BPT to direct dischargers will remove the same amount of
pollutants since all uranium forming plants are direct discharg-
ers. Since there are only two plants in this subcategory, total
subcategory and direct discharger capital and annual costs will
not be reported in this document in order to protect confidenti-
ality claims. The Agency concludes that the pollutant removals
justify the costs incurred by plants in this subcategory.
ZINC FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
Production operations that generate process wastewater in the
zinc forming subcategory include rolling, drawing, direct chill
casting, stationary casting, annealing heat treatment, surface
treatment, alkaline cleaning, sawing, grinding, degreasing, and
electroplating. Water use practices, wastewater streams, and
wastewater discharge flows from these operations were discussed
in Section V. This information provided the basis for develop-
ment of the BPT regulatory flow allowances summarized in Table
IX-25. The following paragraphs discuss the basis for the BPT
flow allowances for each, waste stream.
Rolling
Rolling is performed at four zinc forming plants.
information is available from these plants:
The following
Number of plants and operations using neat oil lubricant:
Number of plants and operations using emulsion lubricant:
Number of plants and operations using contact cooling water:
plant, 2 operations.
1
3
1
Zinc Rolling Spent Neat Oils. The one rolling operation that
uses a neat oil lubricant does not discharge any of the lubri-
cant. Drag-out on the product surface accounts for the only
loss. Should the plant ever need to dispose the neat oil, it
would be better to remove the oil directly by contract hauling
and not to discharge the stream. Therefore, this waste stream
should not be discharged.
Zinc Rolling Spent Emulsions. The spent emulsion from one of the
three operations is applied to land; the spent emulsion from
another operation is contract hauled; and the spent emulsion from
the third operation is treated on-site and the water fraction is
completely reused. As discussed previously for rolling spent
emulsions in the lead-tin-bismuth forming subcategory, spent
1607
-------
emulsions are often created on-site and the water discharged
(with the oil fract:on contract hauled). Therefore, EPA is
providing a discharge allowance. The BPT discharge allowance is
1.39 1/kkg (0.334 gal/ton), the only reported production
normalized flow.
Zinc Rolling Contact Cooling Water. Flow data were available for
two of the three rolling operations where the use of contact
cooling water was reported. Contact cooling water is discharged
on a once-through basis from both operations. The BPT regulatory
flow of 536 1/kkg (129 gal/ton) is based on the average produc-
tion normalized water use from the two operations.
Drawing
Drawing is performed at seven plants in this subcategory. Pour
plants reported the use of emulsion lubricants in a total of four
drawing operations.
Zinc Drawing Spent Emulsions. The spent emulsion from two of the
four operations is contract hauled and the spent emulsion from
two operations is treated on-site and the water fraction is dis-
charged. Flow data were available for one of the four opera-
tions. The BPT regulatory flow of 5.80 1/kkg (1.39 gal/ton) is
based on the production normalized discharge flow from this
operation.
Casting
Casting is performed at six zinc forming plants. The following
information is available from these plants:
Number of plants and operations with direct chill casting using
contact cooling water: 2
Number of plants and operations with stationary casting using
contact cooling water: 1
Number of plants and operations with continuous casting: 2
Number dry: 2.
Zinc Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling Water. The contact
cooling water from one operation is completely recycled with no
discharge; the contact cooling water from the other operation is
discharged with no recycle. The BPT discharge allowance is 505
1/kkg (121 gal/ton), the production normalized water use for the
one reported non-zero discharge operation.
Zinc Stationary Casting Contact Cooling Water. The contact
cooling water in the one operation is completely evaporated.
Therefore, the BPT discharge allowance is zero.
Heat Treatment
The following information was reported on heat treatment opera-
tions in this subcategory:
1608
-------
Number of plants: 1
Number of operations: 1
Number of operations using contact cooling water:
1.
Zinc Annealing Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water. The contact
cooling water in the one operation is batch dumped daily. The
BPT discharge allowance is 763 1/kkg (183 gal/ton), the produc-
tion normalized discharge flow from the one operation.
Surface Treatment
Two plants provided information on zinc surface treatment opera-
tions. Four surface treatment baths and three surface treatment
rinse operations were reported.
Zinc Surface Treatment Spent Baths. Discharge flow data were
available for three of the four baths. The BPT discharge allow-
ance of 88.7 1/kkg (21.3 gal/ton) is based on the average produc-
tion normalized discharge flow from the three operations.
Zinc Surface Treatment Rinse. Neither countercurrent cascade
rinsing or recycle was reported for any of the three surface
treatment rinse operations. The BPT regulatory flow of 3,580
1/kkg is based on the average production normalized water use for
the three operations.
Alkaline Cleaning
Two plants supplied information on alkaline cleaning. At
plant, an alkaline cleaning bath is followed by a rinse.
each
Zinc Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths. The BPT regulatory flow of
3.55 1/kkg(0.850 gal/ton) is based on the average production
normalized discharge flow from the two alkaline cleaning bath
operations.
Zinc Alkaline Cleaning Rinse. Two stage countercurrent cascade
rinsing is utilized in one operation and spray rinsing is
practiced in the other operation. Both of these rinsing methods
reduce water use compared to traditional rinsing methods. The
BPT discharge flow of 1,690 1/kkg (405 gal/ton) is based on the
average production normalized discharge flow from the two opera-
tions.
Sawing or Grinding
One
plant provided
An emulsion is used as a lubricant
Zinc Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions.
information on grinding zinc.
in the grinding operation. The emulsion is completely recircu-
lated and periodically batch dumped. The BPT discharge allowance
is 23.8 1/kkg (5.71 gal/ton), the production normalized discharge
flow from the operation.
1609
-------
Degreasing
Zinc Degreasing Spent Solvent. Only a small number of surveyed
plants with solvent degreasing operations have process wastewater
streams associated with the operation. Because most plants
practice solvent degreasing without wastewater discharge, the
Agency believes zero discharge of wastewater is an appropriate
discharge limitation.
Electrocoating
Zinc Electrocoating Rinse. One plant reported discharging
wastewater from an electrocoating rinse operation. The BPT
discharge allowance of 2,290 1/kkg (550 gal/ton) is based on the
production normalized water use for the rinse operation.
Regulated Pollutants
The priority pollutants considered for regulation under BPT are
listed in Section VI along with an explanation of why they were
considered. The pollutants selected for regulation under BPT are
total chromium, copper, zinc, cyanide, oil and grease, total
suspended solids, and pH. The priority pollutant nickel, listed
in Section VI as selected for further consideration, is not
specifically regulated under BPT for the reasons explained in
Section X. The basis for regulating oil and grease, total
suspended solids, and pH was discussed earlier in this section.
The basis for regulating total chromium, copper, zinc, and
cyanide is discussed below.
Total chromium is selected for regulation since it was found
above treatability in a surface treatment rinse sample and the
Agency believes it is also present at treatable concentrations in
surface treatment spent baths. Surface treatment baths and rinse
may contain the hexavalent form of chromium which must be reduced
by the trivalent form by preliminary chromium reduction before
mium is appropriate for this subcategory.
Copper is selected for regulation since the Agency believes that
treatable concentrations of copper may be present in raw waste-
water streams such as electrocoating rinse. In one electro-
coating operation reported in this subcategory, copper is plated
onto zinc. Therefore, the electrocoating rinse from this
operation is likely to contain treatable copper concentrations.
Zinc is selected for regulation since it was found at treatable
concentrations in both raw wastewater streams in which it was
analyzed and it is the metal being formed in this subcategory.
In addition, the Agency believes that other raw wastewater
streams may contain treatable zinc concentrations.
Cyanide is selected for regulation since it was found above its
treatable concentration in an alkaline cleaning rinse sample and
is a process chemical used in the electrocoating process.
Preliminary cyanide precipitation treatment is needed to remove
1610
-------
cyanide from wastewater. Therefore, regulation of cyanide in the
zinc forming subcategory jLs appropriate.
Treatment Train
The BPT model treatment train for the zinc forming subcategory
consists of preliminary treatment when necessary, specifically
chromium reduction, chemical emulsion breaking and oil skimming,
and cyanide precipitation. The effluent from preliminary treat-
ment is combined with other wastewater for common treatment by
oil skimming, and lime and settle. Waste streams potentially
needing preliminary treatment are listed in Table IX-8. Figure
IX-1 presents a schematic of the general BPT treatment train for
the nonferrous metals forming category.
Effluent Limitations
The pollutant mass discharge limitations (milligrams of pollutant
per off-kilogram of PNP) were calculated by multiplying the BPT
regulatory flows summarized in Table IX-25 (1/kkg) by the concen-
tration achievable by the BPT model treatment system summarized
in Table VII-21 (mg/1) for each pollutant parameter considered
for regulation at BPT (1/kkg x mg/1 x kkg/1,000 kg - mg/off-kg).
The results of this computation for all waste streams and regu-
lated pollutants in the zinc forming subcategory are summarized
in Table IX-26. This limitations table lists all the pollutants
which were considered for regulation and those specifically
regulated are marked with an asterisk.
Costs and Benefits
In establishing BPT, EPA considered the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievability. As shown in Table X-10 (page xxxx), the applica-
tion of BPT to the total zinc forming subcategory will remove
approximately 308,260 kg/yr (678,170 Ibs/yr) of pollutants
including 262,210 kg/yr (576,860 Ibs/yr) of toxic pollutants. As
shown in Table X-20 (page xxxx), the application of BPT to direct
dischargers only will remove approximately 307,400 kg/yr (676,280
Ibs/yr) of pollutants including 262,150 kg/yr (576,730 Ibs/yr) of
toxic pollutants. Since there is only one direct discharge plant
in this subcategory, total subcategory capital and-annual costs
and direct discharger capital and annual costs will not be
reported in this document in order to protect confidentiality
claims. The Agency concludes that the pollutant removals justify
the costs incurred by plants in this subcategory.
ZIRCONIUM-HAFNIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Production operations that generate process wastewater in the
zirconium-hafnium forming subcategory include rolling, drawing,
extrusion, swaging, tube reducing, heat treatment, surface
treatment, alkaline cleaning, molten salt treatment, sawing,
grinding, product testing, and degreasing. The wet scrubbers
used for air pollution control at some plants are also a source
1611
-------
of process wastewater. Water use practices, wastewater streams,
and wastewater discharge flows from these operations were dis-
cussed in Section V. This information provided the basis for
development of the BPT regulatory flow allowances summarized in
Table IX-27. The following paragraphs discuss the basis for the
BPT flow allowances for each waste stream.
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
Rolling
Rolling is performed at seven plants in the zirconium-hafnium
forming subcategory. One plant reported using a lubricant in one
rolling operation.
Zirconium-Hafnium Rolling
jent Neat Oils.
No neat
oils are
Should the plant ever find
remove
dischargedfrom the one operation.
the need to dispose the neat oil, it would be better to
the oil directly by contract hauling rather than to commingle the
oil with wastewater streams and remove it later using oil-water
separation treatment. Therefore, this waste stream should not be
discharged.
Drawing
Drawing is performed at four plants in this subcategory. These
plants reported using lubricant in a total of three drawing
operations.
Zirconium-Hafnium Drawing Spent Lubricants. The only loss of
lubricantin one operation is through evaporation and drag-out;
spent lubricants from another operation are contract hauled; no
flow information is available for the other operation. Drawing
lubricants are typically neat oils. It is better to remove these
lubricants directly by contract hauling rather than to commingle
the lubricants withvwastewater streams only to remove them later.
Therefore, this waste stream should not be discharged.
Extrusion
Extrusion is performed at five zirconium-hafnium forming plants.
The following information is available from these plants:
Number of plaats and operations using lubricants: 4 plants, 5
operations
Number of plants and operations with hydraulic fluid leakage: 1.
Zirconium-Hafnium Extrusion Spent Lubricants.
No lubricants are
Should a plant need
discharged from any of the five operations.
to dispose of these lubricants, it would be better to remove them
directly by contract hauling rather than commingle the lubricants
with wastewater streams and remove them later. Therefore, this
waste-stream should not be discharged.
612
-------
Zirconium-Hafnium Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage. One
plant reported the discharge of leakage from extrusion presses.
Hydraulic fluid leaks result from the moving connection points in
high pressure extrusion presses. The BPT discharge allowance of
237 1/kkg (56.9 gal/ton) is based on the production normalized
discharge flow of leakage from the one operation.
Swaging
Zirconium-Hafnium Swaging Spent Neat Oils. One plant reported
using neat oil lubricants in a swaging operation. The only loss
of neat oils from this operation is through dragout. Should the
plant ever need to dispose of spent neat oils, it would be better
to remove the oil directly by contract hauling rather than to
combine the neat oil with wastewater streams and then remove it
later using oil-water separation treatment. Therefore, this
waste stream should not be discharged.
Tube Reducing
Zirconium-Hafnium Tube Reducing Spent Lubricants. There shall be
no discharge allowance for the discharge of pollutants from tube
reducing spent lubricants, if once each month for six consecutive
months the facility owner or operator demonstrate the absence of
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine, N-nitrosodimethylamine, and N-
nitrosdiphenylamine by sampling and analyzing spent tube reducing
lubricants. If the facility complies with this requirement for
six months then the frequency of sampling may be reduced to once
each quarter. A facility shall be considered in compliance with
this requirement if the concentrations of the three nitrosamine
compounds does not exceed the analytical quantification levels
set forth in 40 CFR Part 136 which are 0.020 mg/1 for N-
nitrosodiphenylamine, 0.020 mg/1 for N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine,
and 0.050 mg/1 for N-nitrosodimethylamine.
Heat Treatment
Zirconium-Hafnium Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water. Contact
coolingwater is used in six heat treatment operations. Flow
information was available for four of these operations. The BPT
regulatory flow of 343 1/kkg (82.3 gal/ton) is based on the
median production normalized water use for the four operations.
The median is believed to be a better representation of the
current typical water use for this operation than the average
(arithmetic mean) because of the large range of reported produc-
tion normalized water uses (135 1/kkg to 6,000 1/kkg).
Surface Treatment
Eight plants supplied information on surface treatment operations
in the zirconium-hafnium forming subcategory.
Zirconium-Hafnium Surface Treatment Spent Baths. Flow data- were
available for nine of the 14 reported surface treatment baths.
The BPT regulatory flow of 340 1/kkg (81.5 gal/ton) is based on
1613
-------
the median production normalized discharge flow of the nine
operations. The median is believed to be a better representation
of the current typical discharge from this operation than the
average (arithmetic mean) because of the large range of produc-
tion normalized discharge flows (102 1/kkg to 64,300 1/kkg).
Zirconium-Hafnium Surface Treatment Rinse.
Flow data
treatment
were
rinse
available for 10 of the 12 reported surface
operations. Countercurrent cascade rinsing and recycle are not
practiced in any of these operations. The BPT regulatory flow of
8,880 1/kkg (2,130 gal/ton) is based on the median production
normalized water use for the 10 operations. The median is
believed to be a better representation of the current typical
water use for this operation than the average (arithmetic mean)
because of the large range of production normalized water uses
(297 1/kkg to 971,000 1/kkg).
A total of 13
Flow data were
Alkaline Cleaning
Zirconium-Hafnium Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths.
alkaline cleaning bath operations were reported.
available for 12 of these operations. The BPT regulatory flow of
1,600 1/kkg (384 gal/ton) is based on the average production
normalized discharge flow of the 12 operations.
Zirconium-Hafnium Alkaline Cleaning Rinse. Flow data were
available for 10 of 11 reported alkaline cleaning rinse opera-
tions. Countercurrent cascade rinsing and recycle are not
practiced in any of these operations. The BPT regulatory flow of
31,400 1/kkg (7,530 gal/ton) is based on the average production
normalized water use for the 10 operations.
Molten Salt Treatment
Zirconium-Hafnium Molten Salt Rinse. Two plants reported
discharging molten salt rinse. Neither plant practices
Countercurrent cascade rinsing or recycle of the rinse, however
the water use for one plant was very low (only 20.86 1/kkg). The
BPT regulatory flow of 7,560 1/kkg (1,810 gal/ton) is based on
the average production normalized water use for the two
operations.
Sawing or Grinding
Zirconium-Hafnium Sawing or Grinding Spent Neat Oils. The use of
a neat oil lubricant was reported for only one operation. The
only loss of lubricant from this operation is through drag-out.
Should spent neat oil from this operation ever need to be dis-
posed, it would be better to contract haul the lubricant directly
and not to discharge the stream. Therefore, this waste stream
should not be discharged.
Zirconium-Hafnium Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions. The use of
emulsion lubricants was reported for seven operations. No flow
were available for three operations; the only loss of
1614
-------
emulsion from three other operations is from evaporation and
drag-out; flow data were available for one operation in which
spent emulsion is periodically discharged to an evaporation pond.
Since spent emulsions are often treated on-site and the water
fraction discharged (with the oil fraction reused or contract
hauled), EPA is allowing a discharge for this waste stream. The
BPT regulatory flow of 281 1/kkg (67.2 gal/ton) is based on the
production normalized discharge flow for the one operation which
discharges spent emulsion to an evaporation pond.
Zirconium-Hafnium Sawing or Grinding Contact Cooling Water. Flow
data were available for one of the two operations where the use
of contact cooling water was reported. The BPT regulatory flow
of 321 1/kkg (77.0 gal/ton) is based on the production normalized
discharge flow from this operation.
Zirconium-Hafnium Sawing or Grinding Rinse. Products are
sometimes rinsed following grit blasting and belt polishing
operations. Pour rinse operations were reported in this subejCte-
gory. No recycle is practiced in any of these operations. The
BPT regulatory flow of 1,800 1/kkg (431 gal/ton) is based on the
median production normalized water use for the four operations.
The median is believed to be a better representation of the
current typical water use for this operation than the average
(arithmetic mean) because of the large range of production
normalized water uses (123 1/kkg to 19,600 1/kkg).
Product Testing
Zirconium-Hafnium Inspection and Testing Wastewater. Wastewater
is discharged from four product testing operations in this
subcategory: a hydrotesting operation, a non-destructive testing
operation, a dye penetrant testing operation, and an ultrasonic
tube testing operation. Flow data were available for the hydro-
testing operation and non-destructive testing operation. The BPT
regulatory flow of 15.4 1/kkg (3.70 gal/ton) is based on the
production normalized discharge flow from the non-destructive
testing operation. The hydrotesting operation flow was not
included in the regulatory flow calculation because the Agency
believes that the water used for hydrotesting can be recycled or
reused in other water-demanding operations at the forming plant.
Degreasing
Zirconium-Hafnium Degreasing Spent Solvents. Three degreasing
operations were reported in this subcategory. In one operation,
the solvent is completely recycled with no discharge; spent
solvent from two operations is contract hauled. Therefore, the
BPT discharge allowance is zero.
Zirconium-Hafnium Degreasing Rinse. One plant dischages
wastewater from a degreasing rinse operation. This is the only
plant in the subcategory discharging wastewater from a degreasing
operation. Samples of this wastewater were analyzed after
proposal and high concentrations of volatile organic solvents
1615
-------
were detected. Some plants degrease formed zirconium without
generating any wastewater by using solvents which need not be
followed by a water rinse, while other plants degrease formed
zirconium without solvents, by using alkaline (detergent)
cleaning followed by a water rinse. Because the Agency believes
this plant could'achieve zero discharge by converting the water
rinse into a second solvent cleaning step or could use a
detergent cleaning instead of solvents, the BPT allowance for
this solvent degreasing rinse stream is based on zero discharge.
Wet Air Pollution Control
Zirconium-Hafnium Wet Air Pollution Control Slowdown. Water is
used in wet air pollution control devices on surface treatment,
rolling, forging, and extrusion operations. A total of eight
operations where wet air pollution control devices are used were
identified. However, wastewater is reported to be discharged to
surface water from only one of the eight operations. Therefore,
since the majority of plants with this wastewater stream are
achieving no discharge from this stream, there shall be no
allowance for the discharge of wastewater pollutants.
Regulated Pollutants
The priority pollutants considered for regulation under BPT are
listed in Section VI along with an explanation of why they were
considered. The pollutants selected for regulation under BPT are
total chromium, nickel, cyanide, fluoride, oil and grease, total
suspended solids, and pH. The priority pollutants copper, lead,
and zinc, and the nonconventional pollutants zirconium and
hafnium, are not specifically regulated under BPT for the reasons
explained in Section X. The basis for regulating oil and grease,
total suspended solids, and pH was discussed earlier in this
section. The basis for regulating total chromium, nickel,
cyanide, ammonia, and fluoride is discussed below.
Total chromium is selected for regulation since it was found at
treatable concentrations in 10 of 19 raw wastewater samples and
five of nine raw wastewater streams in which it was analyzed.
Treatable total chromium concentrations were found in tube
reducing spent lubricant, surface treatment spent baths, surface
treatment rinse, alkaline cleaning spent baths, and degreasing
spent solvents. Waste streams such as surface treatment spent
baths and surface treatment rinse may contain the hexavalent form
of chromium. ' As previously discussed, preliminary chromium
reduction is needed to reduce hexavalent chromium to the
trivalent state since the hexavalent form is not removed by lime
and settle technology. Therefore, regulation of total chromium
is appropriate for this subcategory.
Nickel is selected for regulation since it was found at treatable
concentrations in six of 19 raw wastewater samples and three of
the nine raw wastewater streams in which it was analyzed. Nickel
was found at treatable concentrations in tube reducing spent
1616
-------
lubricant, surface treatment spent baths, and degreasing spent
solvents. • .
Cyanide is selected for regulation since it was found at treat-
able concentrations in surface treatment spent baths. Prelimi-
nary cyanide precipitation is needed to remove this pollutant
from wastewater. Therefore, regulation of cyanide is appropriate
for tnis subcategory.
Ammonia is selected for regulation because it was found at
treatable concentrations in surface treatment baths and tube
reducing spent lubricants. Preliminary ammonia steam stripping
may be needed to remove ammonia from these wastewaters. There-
fore, regulation of ammonia is appropriate for the zirconium-
hafnium forming subcategory.
Fluoride is selected for regulation since it was found at treat-
able concentrations in five of 18 raw wastewater samples.
Fluoride was found at treatable concentrations in surface treat-
ment baths and rinses.
Treatment Train
The BPT model treatment train for the zirconium-hafnium forming
subcategory consists of preliminary treatment when necessary,
specifically chromium reduction, chemical emulsion breaking and
oil skimming, and cyanide precipitation. The effluent from
preliminary treatment is combined with other wastewater for
common treatment by oil skimming and lime and settle. Waste
streams potentially needing preliminary treatment are listed in
Table IX-9. Figure IX-1 presents a schematic of the general BPT
treatment train for the nonferrous metals forming category.
Effluent Limitations
The pollutant mass discharge limitations (milligrams of pollutant
per off-kilogram of PNP) were calculated by multiplying the BPT
regulatory flows summarized in Table IX-27 (1/kkg) by the concen-
tration achievable by the BPT model treatment system summarized
in Table VII-21 (mg/1) for each pollutant parameter considered
for regulation at BPT (1/kkg x mg/1 x kkg/1,000 kg = mg/off-kg).
The results of this computation for all waste streams and regu-
lated pollutants in the zirconium-hafnium forming subcategory are
summarized in Table IX-28. Although no limitations have been
established for zirconium and hafnium, Table IX-28 includes
zirconium and hafnium mass discharge limitations attainable using
the BPT model technology. These limitations are presented for
the guidance of permit writers. The limitations table lists all
the pollutants which were considered for regulation. Those
specifically regulated are marked with an asterisk.
Costs and Benefits
In establishing BPT, EPA must consider the cost of treatment and
control in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. BPT
1617
-------
costs and benefits are tabulated along with BAT costs and bene-
fits in Section X. As shown in Table X-ll (page xxxx), the
application of BPT to the total zirconium-hafnium forming subcat-
egory will remove approximately 17,340 kg/yr (38,150 Ibs/yr) of
pollutants including 640 kg/yr (1,410 Ibs/yr) of toxic metals.
As shown in Table X-l (page xxxx), the corresponding capital and
annual costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are $0.367 million
and $0.330 million per year, respectively. As shown in Table X-
21 (page xxxx), the application of BPT to direct dischargers only
will remove approximately 16,315 kg/yr (35,890 Ibs/yr) of
pollutants including 640 kg/yr (1,410 Ibs/yr) of toxic metals.
As shown in Table X-2 (page xxxx), the corresponding capital and
annual costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are $0.359 million
and $0.327 million per year, respectively. The Agency concludes
that these pollutant removals justify the costs incurred by
plants in this subcategory.
METAL POWDERS SUBCATEGORY
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
Production operations that generate process wastewater in the
metal powders subcategory include metal powder production,
tumbling, burnishing, cleaning, sawing, grinding, sizing, steam
treatment, oil-resin impregnation, degreasing, hot pressing, and
mixing. Water use practices, wastewater streams and wastewater
discharge flows from these operations were discussed in Section
V. This information provided the basis for development of the
BPT regulatory flow allowances summarized in Table IX-29. The
following paragraphs discuss the basis for the BPT flow allow-
ances for each waste stream.
Metal Powder Production
Metal powder production operations were reported by approximately
70 plants in this subcategory. The following information is
available from these plants:
Number of plants and operations with wet atomization wastewater:
5 plants, 6 operations
Number of plants and operations with wet air pollution control
devices: 2.
Metal Powder Production Wet Atomization Wastewater. No recycle
was reported for any of the six operations. From an examination
of the available data, it is not apparent that there is any
significant difference in water use and discharge among the
different metals in this subcategory. Therefore, the BPT dis-
charge allowance is the average production normalized discharge
flow from the six operations, 5,040 1/kkg (1,210 gal/ton).
Tumbling, Burnishing or Cleaning
Metal Powders Tumbling, Burnishing or_ Cleaning Wastewater.
Twer^'-r.ine p^^s reported information on 40 tumbling, burnish-
1618
-------
ing, and other physical-chemical cleaning operations associated
with powder metallurgy parts production. Water use data were
available for 25 operations. The BPT regulatory flow of 4,400
1/kkg (1,050 gal/ton) is based on the average production normal-
ized water use for the 25 operations.
Sawing or Grinding
Metal Powders Sawing or Grinding Spent Neat Oils. A neat oil
lubricant is used in one operation. Spent neat oils from this
operation are contract hauled to treatment and disposal off-site.
It is better to handle neat oils in this manner rather than
combine them with wastewater streams only to remove them later
using oil-water separation treatment. Therefore, the BPT dis-
charge allowance is zero.
Metal Powders Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions. Emulsion
lubricants are used in seven operations. No emulsions are
discharged from one operation; emulsions are periodically dis-
charged from five operations; emulsions are discharged on a once-
through basis from one operation. The production normalized
discharge flow from the once-through operation is over five times
higher than the discharge values from the other operations. This
value was not included in the regulatory flow calculation because
it does not represent the current typical discharge practice for
this subcategory. The BPT regulatory flow of 18.1 1/kkg (4.33
gal/ton) is based on the average production normalized discharge
flow of the five periodic discharge operations.
Metal Powders Sawing or_ Grinding Contact Cooling Water. Contact
cooling water is used in four operations. Plow data were avail-
able for one .of these operations. The cooling water is dis-
charged on a once-through basis from this operation. The current
water use at the one plant reporting flow data is excessive
compared to current water use for this operation in other subcat-
egories. The BPT regulatory flow of 1,620 1/kkg (389 gal/ton) is
based on 99 percent recycle of the water use for this one opera-
tion. This is comparable to the allowance for this operation in
other subcategories.
Sizing
Metal Powders Sizing Spent Neat Oils. Neat oil lubricants are
used in two sizing operations. The neat oils are completely
recycled with no discharge in either operation. Should the neat
oil from either operation ever need to be disposed, it would be
better to directly remove the oil by contract hauling rather than
to commingle the oil with wastewater streams and then remove it
later. Therefore, the BPT discharge allowance is zero.
Metal Powders Sizing Spent Emulsions. An emulsion lubricant is
used in one sizing operation. Since spent emulsions are often
treated on-site and the water fraction discharged by plants in
this category and other categories, EPA is allowing a discharge
for this waste stream. The BPT discharge allowance of 14.6 1/kkg
1619
-------
(3.50 gal/ton) is based on the production normalized water use
for this operation.
Steam Treatment
Metal Powders Steam Treatment Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown.
One plant operates a wet scrubber to control air pollution from
its steam treatment process. No recycle of the scrubber water is
practiced. The BPT discharge allowance of 792 1/kkg (190
gal/ton) is based on the production normalized water use for the
one operation.
Oil-Resin Impregnation
Metal Powders Oil-Resin Impregnation Spent Neat Oils. Seven
plants reported using neat oils in oil-resin impregnation pro-
cesses. Neat oils are completely recycled with no discharge in
two operations; spent neat oils from three operations are con-
tract hauled; no data are available for the other two operations.
It is better to remove neat oils directly by contract hauling
rather than to commingle them with wastewater streams and then
remove them later using oil-water separation treatment. There-
fore, this waste stream should not be discharged.
Degreasing
Metal Powders Degreasing Spent Solvents. Only a small number of
surveyed plants with solvent degreasing operations have process
wastewater streams associated with the operation. Because most
plants practice solvent degreasing without wastewater discharge,
the Agency believes zero discharge of wastewater is an appropri-
ate discharge limitation.
Hot Pressing
Metal Powders Hot Pressing Contact Cooling Water. One plant
reported using contact cooling water in a hot pressing operation.
None of the cooling water used in this operation is recycled.
The BPT regulatory flow of 8,800 1/kkg (2,110 gal/ton) is based
on the production normalized water use for the one operation.
Mixing
Metal Powders. Mixing Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown. One
plant reported using a wet scrubber to control air pollution from
a mixing operation. Ninety percent of the scrubber water is
recycled. The BPT regulatory flow of 7,900 1/kkg (1,890 gal/ton)
is based on the production normalized discharge flow from the
scrubber.
Deleted Waste Streams
Metal Powder Production Milling Wastewater. Following proposal,
the Agency received additional data and conducted a review of all
avai1*v»le data concerning wastswater discharges in this subcate-
1620
-------
gory. This review led to a reinterpretation of some data
reported prior to proposal. As a result, the Metal Powder
Production Milling wastewater stream included in the proposed
regulation for this subcategory has been deleted from the final
regulation. This waste stream was improperly classified at
proposal. Since the plant believed to have this wastewater at
proposal actually mills fabricated parts, not powder, its
reported production normalized flow was included in the
calculation of the tumbling, burnishing or cleaning wastewater
discharge allowance.
Metal Pp.wder Production Wet Air Pollution Control Slowdown.
Prior to proposal, two plants reported the use of wet air pollu-
tion control devices associated with metal powders production.
One plant reported complete recycle of scrubber water; the other
reported that 85 percent of the scrubber water is recycled.
Following proposal, the Agency received additional data concern-
ing wastewater discharges in this subcategory. These data
included the fact that the discharging scrubber is no longer
operated. Therefore, the Metal Powder Production Wet Air Pollu-
tion Control Slowdown waste stream included in the proposed
regulation for this subcategory has been deleted from the final
regulation.
Regulated Pollutants
The priority pollutants considered for regulation under BPT are
listed in Section VI along with an explanation of why they were
considered. The pollutants selected for regulation under BPT are
copper, lead, cyanide, oil and grease, total suspended solids and
pH. The priority pollutants chromium, nickel, and zinc, and the
nonconventional pollutants iron and aluminum are not specifically
regulated under BPT for the reasons explained in Section X. The
basis for regulating oil and grease, total suspended solids, and
pH was discussed earlier in this section. The basis for
regulating copper, lead, and cyanide is discussed below.
Copper is regulated since it is one of the metals being processed
in this subcategory and it was found at treatable concentrations
in 10 of 18 raw wastewater samples and three of the four raw
wastewater streams in which it was analyzed. Copper was present
at treatable concentrations in metal powder production wet
atomization wastewater, tumbling, burnishing or cleaning waste-
water, and sawing or grinding spent emulsions.
Lead is selected for regulation since it was found at treatable
concentrations in eight of 18 samples and three of the four raw
wastewater streams in which it was analyzed. Lead was found at
treatable concentrations in the same raw waste streams listed in
the previous paragraph for copper.
Cyanide is selected for regulation since it was present in
treatable concentrations in eight of 17 raw wastewater samples
and three of the four raw wastewater streams in which it was
analyzed. Treatable concentrations of cyanide were found in
1621
-------
tumbling, burnishing or cleaning wastewater, sawing or grinding
spent emulsions, and steam treatment wet air pollution control
blowdown. Preliminary cyanide precipitation is needed to remove
cyanide from these wastewater streams. Therefore, regulation of
cyanide is appropriate for this subcategory.
Treatment Train
The BPT model treatment train for the metal powders subcategory
consists of preliminary treatment when necessary, specifically
chemical emulsion breaking and oil skimming and cyanide precipi-
tation. The effluent from preliminary treatment is combined with
other wastewater for common treatment by oil skimming and lime
and settle. Waste streams potentially needing preliminary
treatment are listed in Table IX-10. Figure IX-1 presents a
schematic of the general BPT treatment train for the nonferrous
metals forming category.
Effluent Limitations
The pollutant mass discharge limitations (milligrams of pollutant
per off-kilogram of PNP) were calculated by multiplying the BPT
regulatory flows summarized in Table IX-29 (1/kkg) by the concen-
tration achievable by the BPT model treatment system summarized
in Table VII-21 (mg/1) for each pollutant parameter considered
for regulation at BPT (1/kkg x mg/1 x kkg/1,000 kg = mg/off-kg).
The results of this computation for all waste streams and regu-
lated pollutants in the metal powders subcategory are summarized
in Table IX-30. Although no limitations have been established
for iron and aluminum, Table IX-30 includes mass discharge
limitations for these pollutants attainable using the BPT model
technology. These limitations are presented for the guidance of
permit writers. The limitations table lists all the pollutants
which were considered for regulation. Those specifically
regulated are marked with an asterisk.
Costs and Benefits
In establishing BPT, EPA considered the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievability. As shown in Table X-12 (page xxxx), the applica-
tion of BPT to the total metal powders subcategory will remove
approximately 57,570 !:g/yr (126,650 Ibs/yr) of pollutants includ-
ing 1,085 kg/yr (2,390 Ibs/yr) of toxic pollutants. As shown in
Table X-22 (page xxxx), the application of BPT to direct
dischargers only will remove approximately 4,105 kg/yr (9,030
Ibs/yr) of pollutants including 128 kg/yr (282 Ibs/yr) of toxic
pollutants. Since there are only three direct discharge plants
in this subcategory, total subcategory capital and annual costs
will not be reported in this document in order to protect
confidentiality claims. The Agency concludes that the pollutant
removals justify the costs incurred by plants in this
subcategory.
1622
-------
APPLICATION OF REGULATION IN PERMITS
The purpose of these limitations (and standards) is to form a
uniform basis for regulating wastewater effluent from the nonfer-
rous metals forming category. For direct dischargers, this is
accomplished through NPDES permits. Since the nonferrous metals
forming category is regulated on an individual waste stream
"building-block" approach, three examples of applying these
limitations to determine the allowable discharge from nonferrous
metals forming facilities are given below.
Example 1
Plant X forms a refractory metal strip by a rolling operation
which uses an emulsion as a lubricant. The plant produces 20 kkg
(44,000 Ibs) of final product strip per day. In the process, a
stock billet is heated and put through a reversing rolling mill
for five passes, then annealed (dry annealing), brought back to
the rolling mill for three more passes, annealed again, rolled
for four more passes, and annealed for a final time to produce
the product. Table IX-31 illustrates the calculation of the
allowable BPT discharge for nickel, one of the pollutants regu-
lated in this subcategory. The allowable discharge for the other
regulated pollutants would be calculated in the same way.
This example illustrates the calculation of an allowable pollu-
tant mass discharge using "off-kilograms." The term "off-kilo-
gram" means the mass of metal or metal alloy removed from a
forming operation at the end of a process cycle for transfer to a
different machine or process. A reversing mill allows the metal
to pass between the rollers several times without having to be
removed from the mill. Therefore, on a multiple pass roll, the
mass of metal rolled is considered to have been processed only
once; the off-mass equals the mass. In this example, since the
metal is removed from the reversing mill for annealing and then
returned, the off-mass of rolling equals the mass of metal times
the number of times it is returned to the process. Therefore,
for this plant, the off-kilograms to produce 20 kkg of final
product is 60 off-kkg. This is the daily production used in the
calculations presented in Table IX-31.
Example 2
Plant Y forms lead bullets by an extrusion and swaging process
and casts lead shot. The plant operates 250 days per year with a
total annual production of 250,000 kg (551,000 Ibs) of shot and
1,000,000 kg (2,205,000 Ibs) of bullets. Shot is produced by
casting. Bullets are produced by casting lead into ingots
(stationary casting), extrusion followed by a spray quench at the
press, and swaging. Approximately 5 percent of the lead is lost
to scrap following extrusion. The bullets are washed and rinsed
before being assembled into cartridges. Table IX-32 illustrates
the calculation of the allowable BPT discharge of total suspended
solids (TSS).
1623
-------
The daily shot casting production is 250,000 kg/yr divided by 250
days/yr or 1,000 kg/day. The number of kg of shot produced is
equal to the number of off-kg formed. This production is
multiplied by the shot casting limitation (mg/off-kg) to get the
daily discharge limit for shot casting at Plant Y. The daily
amount of lead cast and extruded is 1,050,000 kg/yr divided by
250 days/yr or 4,200 kg/day. This production is multiplied by
the limitations (mg/off-kg) for extrusion press or solution heat
treatment contact cooling water and extrusion press hydraulic
fluid leakage to get the first part of the daily discharge limits
for bullet making. The daily bullet production is 1,000,000
kg/yr divided by 250 days/yr or 4,000 kg/day. This production is
multiplied by the limitations (mg/off-kg) for swaging spent
emulsions, alkaline cleaning spent baths, and alkaline cleaning
rinse to get the second part of the daily discharge limits for
bullet making. The sum of the daily limits for the individual
operations becomes the plant limit.
^
Example 3
Plant Z forms nickel and titanium alloys. This plant forges 125
kkg (275,000 Ibs) of nickel and 25 kkg (55,000 Ibs) of titanium
per year (250 days). Eighty percent of the nickel and 10 percent
of the titanium are pickled, then rinsed with a spray. The plant
also contact cools forgings with water following forging and has
a wet air pollution control scrubber to control the fumes from
the pickling bath. This example demonstrates the application of
the limitations for nickel which is a regulated pollutant in the
nickel forming subcategory and for cyanide a regulated pollutant
in the titanium forming subcategory to the combined discharge of
nickel forming process wastewater and titanium forming process
wastewater. Table IX-33 illustrates the calculation of the BPT
discharge allowance for nickel. Although nickel was not specifi-
cally regulated in the titanium forming subcategory, it is
present in treatable concentrations in titanium forming waste-
water. The Agency chose not to specifically regulate nickel in
this subcategory because it should be adequately controlled by
the other regulated pollutants. Since nickel is present in the
titanium forming wastewater, Plant Z will need an allowance for
nickel from this source to comply with the nickel discharge
allowance. Therefore, the mass allowance for nickel from the
titanium forming wastewater is added to the mass allowance from
nickel-cobalt forming. The mass limitations for nickel can be
obtained from Tables IX-16 and IX-22 which provide the limita-
tions for regulated pollutants and other pollutants considered
for but not specifically regulated.
The calculation of the mass allowance for the pollutant cyanide
is illustrated in Table IX-34. Cyanide is regulated in the
titanium forming subcategory, but not in the nickel-cobalt
forming subcategory. Cyanide was not found in significant
quantities in any nickel-cobalt process wastewater, and was not
considered for regulation in the nickel-cobalt subcategory.
Since the nickel-forming process wastewater from Plant Z would
not be expected to contribute any cyanide to the mass loading in
1624
-------
the effluent, it is not appropriate to add a mass allowance for
cyanide from the nickel forming wastewater to the mass allowance
for cyanide from the titanium forming wastewater.
1625
-------
I/I .r- .r-
O E
O. U -r- f-
i_ E ID E a
a a> c
(0 U
UJ £
I/) Ifl S W 3 t- C
C — C — •"-• o
0! 00 00 3
-------
D)
c
a>
c
Z
111
UJ
a
w >
o ce
oro
iu o
a 01
iu CQ
5 1}
N I- (/)
I <
X UJO
w o; z
I- w
a
a ceo
>
0) U
— (9
a c
w'i
10 i-
o —
a. ID
i.
a
(0
u
1 0) 0)
o c c
r o o
u z z
c c
o oi o o>
i- C T- C
4J -f- -H •*-
u a o a
o a 3 a
u .,- TJ "-
0) C 01 t-
L. *> L +•
10 U)
•i- (0 •>- IB
E d> E 0)
O -H O +J •
L. in t. in
U
3
TJ
O
10
0)
t-
4J
(/)
a
a o>
x c
to oi c
c c to
•i- — — i_
10 QUO)
— o *•
D u *• a
E ex
(J) -M 4) Q)
o e *•
•H (0 Q. 10
c *> — a
0) C 3 X
a o CT
i/> u uj
0)
C
u
10
4-»
c
o
o
II)
.c
c
o
a
E c
u x
o
-w T3
C X
d) o
a —
01 CO
UJ
o
a.
a
t.
0)
a
o
n
-------
Ol
in f
c «
L. *• JD
— a
30) C
a <- o
Q) H- «-
CC M
O U D
— 10 E
JO C O
t-
z
UJ
o —
Q. 01
I.
a
10
u
E O
0) C
jc o
u z
01
c
10
u
o
c
o
z
01
c
0)
01
c
a
ai
L
XI
C
o
u
ffl a) E
C C 01
o o r
z z u
o
c
o
c c
o o
u u
3 D
•D -O
0) 01
U t.
E E
D 3
0) 00
C I. I.
O C. £
Z U U
i
X
JD
(9
a: o:
MO
so
cr uj
UJH
o: <
u
z§
uj in
HO
< z
> u.
or
Z-J
= 2
!j u
UJ I
du UJ
_l u
< 11
I-
z
10
o
I.
u
a
in o
— o
3 u
o *•
u
v a
c *•
o c
a o
10 o
c
111
a
10
u
O)
c
o
V O
a u
o
.c -w
u
c 10
o v
•r- C
*• o
30 —
O -M 10
« C l-
01 -DO)
t. E >. 01
o *• i- r. n
IB 01 X
in 01 *> i/i ifl
I/I L. 10 I/I 01
01 4-» X 01 •—
u u
a. a.
L T3
01 -r-
(0 01 —
X C U-
01 c u
C (0 «-
•i-ffl —
• L. 3
O U 01 10
O -ML.
O *• (0 T3 01
C X > Ol
•M ID 01 £ (0
O E -H i
(0 a. w w 10
4J •*- (Q I/I 01
C 3 X 01 —
O (J t.
u uj a.
Ol
c
u
10
+J
c
o
(J
in
JC L
*J 4)
n -w
n to
X
•M 0)
c u
111 C
a-t-
u) a:
o
a
to
i.
o
a
o
Ol
c
o
a:
c
o
Ol t-
C Ifl
"3 i.
a v
<- X
a uj
01
c
Ol
L.
o
u.
•o
o
L.
O.
L
01
•D
X
O
a.
01
c
>
L
(0
C
o
- f I/I I/)
0) 10
£ U
1628
-------
in
\-
z
in
If)
4J
c
TJ 0)
0) £
L 4J
•p- (0
3 0)
IT t-
4> t-
CC
>,
CD I.
— (0
£! C
a. o
01
c
41
l_
a
c c
o o c
•«- *r o
U U M
3 3 -
TJ T> 3
41 41 E
L. I. 41
§ § «
•i— U
E 6 -r-
41 O 4) O E 41
C U C I. 41 C
O £ O £ £ O
Z U Z U U Z
41
C
o
at
c
o
z
u
•o
4)
O
L
£
U
4)
C
O
C
o
o
w O
uo
OFUJ
aj i-
oc <
o
H m
z 3
u to
£
I- <3
< Z
UJ .-,
I OL
X < f-
i-i Z _l
M <
ID s co
— MO
JD -I U
a ui i
i- a: _i
a. ui
^
_i u
< M
•H Z
K
Z
UJ
I-
o
a.
(A
a
M
c
o
u) in
£ L <- — t. 4) C
•WO) 4) 34) «• 4)
(0 4J *J g *J A *J
n « S X C X 3
0) •*•* 4} 4) O
in C I/I II) CMT3+'-'-
C 4)C C 4IC C M I.
^- a«- T- a-- o B (B
a: too: ce to
0)
a
o
0)
C
10
41
41
CO C
C —
o a
i •*
a>
c
•a
c
i.
v O
a
I/)
0)
Ol
C
c
10
41
a
c
u
4)
t-
c
10
I.
-H
4)
C
41
a
4)
**
10
X
4)
4J
C
o
u
c
o
*• O)
3 C
O
a
i.
i-
<
41
3
1629
-------
in
i-
z
Ul
s >
ui D:
ao
» o
3 Ul
01-
ui <
a: u
m
l- 3
z 10
ui
E (J
T HZ
X Ul £
M CX CT
1-0
0) UL
jo ce oo
to < _i
t- z <
Sui
M S
_l
Ul U)
(£ U
ao
_i u
< ui
•i CX
I- a
z
Ul
J-
o
a
01 01
c c
in ~- i-
•v it it
cam
73 (0 01 01
me L L.
u *• u a
f 10
30 C C
CT <- O O
0) h- ~- »-
Q£ (/)(/!
>% — —
(DC- 3 3
— (0 E E
a c 01 01
w 6 -
Ul «- (0
o — o
a 01 i-
a o>
.c
cj
01
c
x
<0
c 01
O L.
n
10
u
i 01
o c
c o
o z
0)
c
o
z
01 0) 0)
c c c
o o o
z z z
c c c c c c
o o o o o o
z z z z z z
a
de
(0
u
T=
01
r
u
01
c
o
z
Ul
(0
L.
m
n v
C (0
o x
.r- ffl
Ul 3
c —
o o
•r- Ul
ui
— a
3 (0
E o
01 u
c c c
01 01 01
a a a
t/l (/) U)
01
c
u
10
c
o
o
01
c
u
10
c
o
u
c
o
o
01
c
O)
c
o
o
u
4J
o
(0
4-«
C
o
u
Ul
£.«-
4J 01
10 +>
n to
X
+j 01
C Ul
01 C
Q.-r-
n
,.c u oi
+• 01 C
(0 *• -r-
-Q tfl T3
X C
-u a) o
c ui n
oi c 01
a.--- c
i/i a: a
„
(_
01
4-1
(I)
X
01
4-1
in
(0
3
Ul
*—
3
E
01
4^
C
0)
a
(/]
o
0
u
4J
U
(0
c
o
u
10
t-
01
a
o
01
c
Ol
c
— X
— 10
O L.
cr a
u
3
TD
O
U
a
13
x
o
a
10
01
01
c
Ul
(0
CJ
01
•o c
10 *•
ui
I/I (0
3 O
O
3 UI
C 3
01 U
C 01
ui a
10
u
— Ol
— c
i 4J *J 3
u ui c c
Ifl O •<-
U U 4J
I C
•i- O
O E O
JC 01
01 (/I
(0
01
(0
01
L
t-
0)
o
(0
3
t/l
Ol
c
c
(0
01
01
c
c
l_
3
CD
Ol
c
Ol
c
T3
C
1_
o
L
o
01
c
X
10
Ol
c
T3
C
o
ca
oi
c.
3
Ul
Ul
01
C-
a
1630
-------
II)
4J
C
TJ fl)
4) E
C 4->
•i- (8
3 HI
i»i-
o:
» <-
— ia
J3 C
0)
c
A
0)
I.
.O
C
o
IE - -
I-
UJ >
SEE
111 O
a: o
M DJ
01-
ar <
ui u
CE m
O —
a o
u
a
18
U
i
0)
JC
o
c c
o o
u u
3 D
•a TJ
a> o
u t_
E E
O)
c
C C
O O C
•i- -r- o
O U
3 3
13 -0
ID r~
Ifl O
— o e
3 O 0)
E 4->
a) +> <8
U X
4-» (8 0)
C 4-. Ifl
0) C C
a o i-
V) O CE
t-
0)
4-1
18
X
0)
4-1
Ifl
5
<8
X
0)
0)
a
o
c
o
oi ••-
c w
— L.
— 4-*
O x
CE UJ
X
o
a
o
u.
U
18
»*-
t.
3
00
a
c
01
c
L.
Ifl Ol
"- C
I- ^
3 C
CQ •!-
I.
4J L. O
•— O
18 t-
« Ol O
C
C t- Ol
ID — c
r i »
O 3 18
E I- W
O)
C
+* O)
Ifl C
fl) •!—
H C
18
V 0
C —
(0 O
0)
c
a>
a.
C
0)
a
3
cr
uj
1631
-------
z
111 >
SK
tuo
CEO
10
4*
C
TJ 0)
o> 6
u +•
*• id
3 0)
a u
a H
tt
>.
am
•o 3
e H v>
3 z
C < S
O UJ K
u a o
<— t-u.
in > i/i
i o: _i
x < <
M Z H
« UJ
O S Z
CO
0)
4J
IA
a
a
a
H
UJ t£
ttO
CLH
U
-I <
< (X
i-l U.
l- til
z ce
iu
3
O
T.
a
c
X
o
•o
z
o
ia
x
c o
O -M
1- II)
*• ig
o
c
4^
c
o
u
c
o
0)
a
o
V)
3
o
ID
C Ifl
o
a.
•— O I.
— (. f
(D 3 <
U O
ID I/) •u
n- a>
S 3
1632
-------
u)
z
111
3
ee.
Ifl
4J '
•O
t_
a
o
ai ai
c c
a a
0) 0
c c
c c.
o o
3 3
E E
0) 01
c
C
O
«
IB
O
a
c'
o
z
—
B C t-
01 C U
c id *•
"o u o a m
o +• t- c
u *• id x) «> v
c * >. 01 (d
4-> 0) 0) £ (Q ,O
O E *• JC
JJ "- 03 Ul O)
C 3 I 01 —
o or i.
u ui a.
C
O
a
i/i
t.
o
-w
a
CM
OIC
> a:
I.
0)
id
x
01
i
c
X
in t-
a>
•a *•
C id
<9 u) x
+*
in c 01
c id c
•r* O •"
MOO
— O O
1-30
at E u
V <&•<- V
a
r c £ *•
ui ai -w c
id a o
I CO O
c
o
a
o
c
o
O> T-
c u
-- 3
— 1.
-- 4J
O x
CC 1U
O)
c
01
l_
o
c
0)
+*
id
41
L.
l-
0)
u
(d
O)
c
c
id
4)
u
c
id
in 0)
c
O)
c
T)
C
I.
o
01
Id
I/)
1633
-------
1-
z
111
0) E
t. *J
— 18
3 a
cr<-
h-
o:
>.
-> 0:0
13 Ui
O I- I-
a r <
c uio
«- Z OJ
«/>
UI
u> > s
i o: o:
X
ffl
in
I
ID
2
S)
-4J
I/I
3
n
>
o
TJ
Z
o
ui
O
a.
01 (0
C X
C f O
o *• *•
— o w
4J O (0
(0 H S
<-
0) -M
a c
o n)
c
o
U
c
o
o
a.
Ui
3
O
0)
c ifl
Q) (00)
C — O t.
ffl — C. f-
Q. O 3 <
U O
O U) I/) +>
>. «- OJ
OS 3
1634
-------
ID
•M
T3 0
(D g
I. -P
••- a
D o
cr i.
a> t-
cc
>,
0) I.
r— flj
n c
« i
10 -r-
O —
a o>
L.
Q.
0)
C
o
z
0) 0) 0)
C CC
o o o
z zz
10
u
(I) C C C
r o o o
u z z z
u
T>
ID
a:
e
C
o
z
C
o
z
UI
a
I-*
D >
oa
UI O
a. o
tu
I- H
z <
UI U
s m
H ^
< Irt
UJ
a: 19
H z
K-l
> s
cc a
< o
z u.
»-«
E E
-I >-<
uj z
a: <
a a.
•
Waste Stream
contact cooling water
>—
o
o
H
l_
n)
4-<
(0
X
01
c.
o
0
u
u
(0
4-*
c
o
(J
t baths
c.
0)
a
10
ewater
in
c
cc
t emulsions
c
01
a
CO
L
01
10
3
O)
C
o
o
u
u
(0
c
o
CJ
ewater
a
c
H~
(X
water
r
n
10
c
X
o
•o
X
o
_
CD
ewater
4J
in
10
3
ewater
4J
in
10
3
1-
z
UI
1-
o
a
10
L
0)
a
o
0)
01
c
O)
c
c
o
o
c
o
O) D
c —
t- —
c o
« a
m
— i-
u •-
<
(0
HI *-
L 0)
< X
I.
0)
4-*
C .
T3
E C
L 10
Q -I
1635
-------
O
II) «-
V X.
c a
•oo o
a E <-
t. -M xi
f a
30 C
or L- o
01- f
o: u
x —
6> t. 3
— IS 6
-DC 0)
X C
a o
u *•
o a
oil
U
a
c c
o o
0)
c
JC
a
a>
z
UJ
UI
OS
to •*• id (9 •*"
o — u u c
O. O -r- 1- (8
t. E o E >»
O. O C 0> U
jr o jc
u z o
c c
o o
u u
3D
T3 TJ
O 0}
I. I.
E E
33
-r-.,- J3
(0 a
a a
"- •»-
O O
0} Q>
1-1-
a a
4) O
(It
E
00 C C E
(.1. an) o
nc. x >. £
U U CJ O U
o
c
o
z
s>
Z UI
UJ H
•3. <
CD I- U
I < CO
X UJ 3
•M a u>
o u
>• z
£i
19
H-
< Z
Z(E
i-O
Su.
>H
_J U
IUZ
C£ >H
a N
E 0)
(9 -M
t. X
V
(/) ID o> in
c c c
o o~- o
ID in o in
a — o —
o *• a
u
•u 19 -f
C *• C
Q. O CL
(O U t/)
i.
o
01
c
01
c
o o
o o
u u
u
a
•M
C
o
u
u
a
•H
c
o
u
IA
.C t-
*• CD
a v
XI (0
X
-u d)
c in
IB C
Q.*f-
w a
in
£ t_
*. (1)
m *>
4J CD
c in
(1) C
c
o
a
o
a.
c
o
o
a
o
O)
c
o
a:
o>
c
X
a
0)
c
in
ra
cj
O)
c
in
<9
u
(0
o
I
c
o
o
to
c
Cl O
C E
f- •!•»
— (9
19 O
O t-
C H
C
C
o
E
+•
n
a>
L.
0)
c
O)
C
••-
13
CO)
i- C
t. i-
yj *•
(0
l_ O
O U
o
a u
c **
i- u
za
a —
> iu
1636
-------
Z
UJ >
E CE
UJ o
CC o
n 111
o
in o o E o a o
c c i. o> c c c
oo r £00 o
z z u o z z z
UJ o
tt CO
I- l/l
z
U1O
E Z
0) 1- 1-1
I < S
x iu cc
M tr o
- > s
n a: 3
a < M
t- 2 Z
i-l U-
5$
_i i
01 £
a 3
a M
z
-I O
< o
n D£
I- 1-1
Z N
UJ
O
a
3
id
•o 0)
> 0)
£ Id
Ul Id
10 0)
(U ~
L.
Q.
O)
c
U
id
+J
C
o
JQ p*
I/) OC
M Ol
c c
o ••-
(I) O
— O
u i
•u ••-
w o a
A
X
«
+*
V)
5
a
o
C -w
u id
£ 0)
•M L
Id H
C 0)
I- O
id
01
•^
C
ID
ID
«t
0)
3
t/l
O
2
Ol
•o
01
Id
CO
a
•o
A
C
o
u
0)
a
Ul
c
1637
-------
•"• (0
3 0>
CT I.
ID U
— IB
J3 C
ra
+j
^i
O)
c
O)
c
L
n
z
Ul
IU
cc
3
OS-
Ill or
ceo
o
i ni
z i-
IU <
O S lu
cc o
in •»• 0)
o — a
a 01 T-
c m c
a. c ra
o >
z u
eai e o)
01 C 0> C
.c o .c o
u z u z
a)
c
o
z
0)
c
o
z
e ^j
ra ra
01 x
L OJ
«•• 4J
« U)
(0
01 X
o
•9
I-
Z O
-. a
s
n -I
J «t
IU I-
tt IU
a s
c
o c
— 0)
4J 4^
m a)
N x
*«« QJ
6 «
o in
10
x
in 01 in
c c c
o •- o
in o
— o
3 o
aj -M
u
v m
c *•
HI C
a o
oo u
c
u
a
in
01
c
u
a
4->
C
o
u
c
X
o
T3
X
o
z
IU
I-
o
a
a
o
a
c
C at
o
*> 01
o c
ID r
o in
o>
c
•a
c
t.
o
a. c
u
L 3
oi m
T3 O)
X • C t.
O 01— O
a c c
•»• ra en
— - a> c
ra D — --
u E u x
ai 3 ra
S I- 10
01
c
•u C
C O
o> u
4-" C
ra o
0} >r-
t- 4->
I- 3
e ^
ra o
ai a.
en
c
o
r
o
a
i.
O-H
c c
•-- o
X O
1638
-------
_
1
X
t-H
11
a
19
i-
a
0
is
in
5
u
CO
3
01
O
Z
5
X
o
o: u.
o
U. I
01 rj
3 £
O 01
U- (Q
1
> Z
Q£ >-*
H 1
< Q
-1 <
13 UJ
O —1
UJ
CC 1
1- 01
a z
CO O
h-
^
cc
Ul
a.
o
z
o
1-
(J
Q
O
ce.
CL
O)
c
N
—
01
01
in —
19 0
S <-
o
iO
in
<3°
,-o
CM
IA
C
O
in
^
01
c
01
a
01
Ol
c
_
_
o
a
i i +-•
9 -^J (9
L. 0)
in 13 n £
c
£ 0 £ £ £
+J «r- 4-1 +J +J
3 4J 3 3.3
S3 £ E E
Ul — VI Ul Ul
•r- O — -i- U) —
£1 IA £1 J C ' n
> : 1 O 1
c a c c ••- c
• r- 19 T- -~ 4-1 *r-
4J O — Ul t- 3 4-
1 Ul : C : — '
T3 "3 0 - 0 -C
19 £ 31 i- U Ul 19
ai4-i D « i o
_ .r- — .— — ^. —
x 3 ra
u- n- E t- o t-
O T3 O 01 O Ul O
01
in — in £ IA jc IA
in — in 4^ in 4^ in
19 O 10 •"— (9 •"— 19
SI- S X E X E
O O)
CO CO !-•
o o to — co
t— ^
CO
to
O CO ^~
. 1 t
CO o to r~ o
^T CM
c
o
Ol
C Ul
•*- 3
X l-
19 -H
t. X
Q UJ
16:
—
4-«
c
01
3
CT
01 U
in 01
-D 4J
D 19
(A X
T3 £
C 4J
19 ••-
X
^
0) T3
4J 0)
19 —
01 0
t- o
V U
L.
01
4J
19
X
Ol
c
•r-
^~
a
o
o
4-»
o
19
V
c
o
u
39
+J
2
£
•VI
—
^
—
—
4-J
1
73
19
01
—
•o
1^ Q]
O "D
3
in t.
IA 4-<
19 X
S 01
CM
CO
1—
o
in
in
01
Ol
19
(9
01
•—
13
•f-
3
•—
>t
£
(/)
Ul
0)
t_
a
-t-»
3
E in
V Z
— c
.2 ••-
! Ul
c —
— 3
*-* E
0)
^
n] £
01 4J
— .r-
X
M-
0 T3
01
Ul O)
IA (9
19 X
E IA
^~
CM
^
0
f-
1-
•—
in
c
o
•^
in
^
3
E
01
::
01
a
l/l
01
c
•1—
01
19
X
01
U)
19
u
4-<
2
E
Ul
•—
£1
c
-r-
*J
1
•o
(9
01
—
14-
0
Ul
Ul
19
s
o
^
CM
o
o
o
•
»—
u
01
4->
19
X
Ol
c
• r*
«.
o
o
u
4-*
u
(9
c
0
CJ
Ol
c
in
19
(J
a
•f-
u
01
Ul
3
o
3
c
Ol •-
C 4J
c
4-< O
IA U
19
'-"
method
a
• r-
l_
4-1
IA
in
3
Q
3
c
.,—
4^
c
o
o
01
f"
4^
>,
n
o
Ol
C Ul
a
£ 3
+J c
3 —
E *•
Ul C
i- o
Zj U
1 1
C "-
.r- »
« 5
i in
•a
19 01
01 £
— 4^
»4- >*
o o ~a
a
U) 4J £
IA IA 4-i
19 19 01
.SUE
^
0
I-J
T
Ol
CM
t_
01
4J
19
X
Ol
c
•t—
„.
o
o
o
4-1
o
(9
• c
0
u
4-J
o
01
c
Ul
D
3
c
• r-
4J
c
O Ol
o c
1 1-
•r- 4-1
E IA
01 19
01 O
0
in
4-1
D
Jl
—
J2
^
.f-
+J
1
•3
ra
0)
—
•4-
o
Ul
Ul
(0
E
it"!
01
CO
CO
1
f^
CO
1.
01
4^
19
X
Ol
c
•1-
r-
o
o
u
4-J
0
19
c
o
u
Ol
c
»r-
4-1
Ul
19
o
4-1
o
£
01
-------
r
01
c
o
c.
a>
It.
u o
o «->
z a
c
c 5
o t.
"• {0
^ a
o
•3
o
a
z ~ c r;
O TJ
0)
ui E
C JM
o u. o
U I
~ >- z
CD
•DO)
0) U
N (4
— O
io n
i. o
o
10
Ol
CO
CM
in
(O
in
to
oo
in
o
to
CO
X
<0
_l <
Z5 UJ
U -I
— a i
a
13 H u>
H az
ca O
P
IT
01
a
O
o
u
o
o
ce
a.
a
i.
*^
io
o
10
— in
O £
a •"
c n
1. X £>
•r- O
10 T3 *•
X C
*• O III
a — a
5 a io
c
u
a
io
10
i.
a
a
o
01
c
O
XT
01
01
c
c
10
0)
10
JC
—
<
01
in
10
0)
c
01
CD
a
1640
-------
Table IX-12
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Rolling Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
rolled with emulsions
*Antimony .067 .030
*Lead .010 .005
*Oil and Grease .468 .281
*TSS .960 .457
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Rolling Spent Soap Solutions
Pollutant or~~Maximum forMaximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
rolled with soap solutions
*Antimony .124 .055
*Lead .018 .009
*Oil and Grease .860 .516
*TSS 1.770 .839
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Drawing Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1641
-------
Table IX-12 (Continued)
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Drawing Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
drawn with emulsions
*Antimony
*Lead
*0il and Grease
*TSS
.076
.011
.526
1.080
.034
.005
.316
.513
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Drawing Spent Soap Solutions
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
drawn with soap solutions
*Antimony
*Lead
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.021
.003
.149
.306
.010
.001
.090
.146
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1642
-------
Table IX-12 (Continued)
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Extrusion Press or Solution Heat Treatment CCW
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
heat treated
*Antimony 4.130 1.850
*Lead .605 .288
*Oil and Grease 28.800 17.300
*TSS 59.100 28.100
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
extruded
*Antimony .158 .070
*Lead .023 .011
*Oil and Grease 1.100 .660
*TSS 2.260 1.070
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1643
-------
Table IX-12 (Continued)
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Swaging Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
swaged with emulsions
*Antimony .0051 .0023
*Lead .0008 .0004
*Oil and Grease .0354 .0213
*TSS .0726 .0345
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Continuous Strip Casting Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
cast by the continuous strip method
*Antimony
*Lead
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.0029
.0004
.0200
.0410
.0013
.0002
.0120
.0195
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1644
-------
Table IX-12 (Continued)
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Semi-Continuous Ingot Casting Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
ingot cast by the semi-continuous method
*Antimony .084 .038
*Lead .012 .006
*0il and Grease .588 .353
*TSS 1.210 .574
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Shot Casting Contact Cooling Water .
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg(Ib/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
shot cast
*Antimony .107 .048
*Lead .016 .007
*Oil and Grease .746 .448
*TSS 1.530 .728
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1645
-------
Table IX-12 (Continued)
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Shot-Forming Wet Air Pollution Control Slowdown
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of lead^-tin-bismuth
shot formed
*Antimony
*Lead
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
1.690
.247
11.800
24.100
.753
.118
7.060
11.500
'pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-^bismuth
alkaline cleaned
*Antimony
*Lead
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.345
.050
2.400
4.920
.154
.024
1.440
2.340
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1646
-------
Table IX-12 (Continued)
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Rinse
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
alkaline cleaned
*Antimony 6.780 3.020
*Lead .991 .472
*0il and Grease 47.200 28.300
*TSS 96.800 46.000
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1647
-------
Ol
c
a u
E 01
U 4->
z!
10
c u
o
X
13
01
r*
O
o
u
c
o
TJ
01
Ol
1.
o
n-
E
3
in
01
c
Ol
10
E
1^
o
in
in
a
3-
eaning
.»
o
Ol
c
L
3
Or
0)
(_
44
c
E
a
3
CO
t_
01
44
10
X
f
£J
-f-
X
.c
4-1
X
+1
in
m
u
E
3
in
CO
c
01
10
E
V-
o
in
in
10
E
in
•0
0
c.
4-1
01
E
*—
r—
,*•
C
0
4-1
u
01
i_
fr-
u
0)
0
a
<4-
1_
3
U)
E
3
M
Ol
C
01
E oi
3 01
•r- I.
in o
0) "4-
c
01 t-
n o
•a
<4- CO
O L.
U) (0
ui a
uu
w cez
I 0(9
O I- <
J3 _l
a => i
H O
III I/I
ex z
o
O.P
m <
CE
ai
a
o
o
o
o
cr
a
o
•a 01
O L.
N 13
— O
cd IA
L O.
O
z l-
Q.
m
id
01
01
in
CO
to
CO
01
co
o
CM
in
n)
01
c
10
in
01 c
4-* o
in T-
m u
01
a
u
01
«
in
+• 01
c c
o ••-
o —
t- O
<- O
n u
3
~- -M
U
4-1 10
c +4
01 C
a o
C/l O
o en
01 co
CD
o
in
01
co
co
o
o
o>
in
o>
01
c
"c.
10
co
c
01
a
3
CT
UJ
Ol
C
u
as
c
o
o
in
c.
c
o
a
1/1
c
01
a
o c
u x
o
•p -a
c x
01 o
a —
co CQ
o
a
o
01
c
in c
a 01
u E
4-1
— Ifl
— CO
01
c
o
cc
Ol
c
Ol
u
o
u.
r
o
U 10
CO «t-
t. L
"- 3
Q U)
Ol
C
•D
C
0
01
c
(0
10
01
c
o
u
4-1
c
o
o
c
o
o
a
M t-
10 f-
01 <
Ol 44
01 01
O 3
1648
-------
Table ix-14
MAGNESIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Magnesium Forming
Rolling Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of magnesium
rolled with emulsions
*Chromium
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Magnesium
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.033
.109
9.950
4.440
.007
1.490
3.060
.013
.046
4.370
1.970
.895
1.460
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Magnesium Forming
Forging Spent Lubricants.
There could be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Magnesium Forming
Forging Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of forged magnesium
cooled with water
*Chromium
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Magnesium
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
1.270
4.220
385.000
172.000
.289
57.800
119.000
.520
1.760
170.000
76.300
34.700
56.400
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1649
-------
Table.IX-14 (Continued)
MAGNESIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Magnesium Forming
Forging Equipment Cleaning Wastewater
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg(Ib/million off-lbs)of magnesium
forged
*Chromium
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Magnesium
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.0176
.0583
5.3200
2.3800
.0040
.7980
1.6400
,0072
,0244
,3400
,0600
,4790
,7780
"pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Magnesium Forming
Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of magnesium
cast with direct chill methods
*Chromium
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Magnesium
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
1.740
5.770
527..000
235.000
.395
79.000
162.000
.711
2.410
232.000
104.000
47.400
77.000
*pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1650
-------
Table IX-14 (Continued)
MAGNESIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Magnesium Forming
Surface Treatment Spent Baths
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg(Ib/million off-lbs) of magnesium
surface treated
*Chromium
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Magnesium
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.205
.681
62.100
27.700
.047
9.320
19.100
.084
.284
27.300
12.300
5.590
9.090
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Magnesium Forming
Surface Treatment Rinse
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of magnesium
surface treated
*Chromium
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Magnesium
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
8.320
27.600
2,520.000
1,130.000
1.890
378.000
775.000
3.400
11.500
1,110.000
499.000
227.000
369.000
*pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1651
-------
Table IX-14 (Continued)
MAGNESIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Magnesium Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of magnesium
sawed or ground
*Chromium
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Magnesium
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.009
.029
2.600
1.160
.002
.390
.800
.004
.012
1.140
.515
.234
.380
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Magnesium Forming
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Magnesium Forming
Wet Air Pollution Control Slowdown
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of magnesium
formed
*Chromium
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Magnesium
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.273
.904
82.500
36.900
.062
12.400
25.400
.112
.378
36.300
16.400
7.430
12.100
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1652
-------
Ol
c
a u
E 01
||
CO
c t.
o a
•r- O.
u
•o
o
L
a.
T3
a<
(0
o
u
i
— IA
01 C
.* o
u •*•
•r- (0
c —
O 01
IA £
10 *"
10 —
£ X
o
~C 0)
M- (0
O X
10 £
10 V
co i-
£ S
c
X
CO
o
u
I
— Ifl
01 C
* o
o •-
f- IA
c —
•>- E
O 01
IA £
10 v
a «-
£ X
T3
01
TJ
3
U 1
4J 01 i.
x to 01
01 O *•
3 CO
*> 01 X
O TJ £
n c v
o co ••-
U X
1 TJ
— 01 TJ
0) 4J 0)
^ Ifl —
0 01 0
•r- U 0
C 4-> U
0 CO —
01 4J
IA £ C
IA 01
Ifl t- 3
£ 0 CT
•o
01
TJ
3
u
4-»
X
01
*•
CO
n
0
u
i
^—
0)
ji
u
.^
c
4-
O
Ifl
IA
CO
£
4-1
r—
(0
fl
o
u
i
»—
01
jt
u
•i- L
C 01
4_t
TJ Ifl
01 X
Ol
U £
O *•
4- "-
X
U-
0 TJ
01
10 —
to o
CO O
£ 0
i
TJ C
01 CO
01 111
u •—
o u
u-
Ol
4*1 C
*— •(—
CO L-
.Q .r-
O 3
0 .
0 £•
u
1 TJ
— 01
01 U
X 3
0 TJ
•I— o
C I-
a
*- c
0 L. 0
01 -r-
10 TJ +•
U! X Ifl
CO O N
£ CL"-
4J
in
10
U Ol
c
•— -M
(d u)
np (IJ
0 0
u
1 >.
— l_
oi co
X C
0 0
c +•
co
<4- 4^
O 10
10 £
10 +>
CO -r-
£ x
cc
o
CJJ
UJ
CJ
a: ct
po
o <
in -i to
-u. o
i u
x > i
MIX _l
o u
01
TJ 01
01 L.
N CO
"- £
— o
CO IA
I- O
o
Z I-
a
CO
CO
Ol
01
in
o
oi
o
o
IA
in
in
01
oi
CM
(O
o
o
01
Ol
JC
o
f-
o
r-
i-
in
oi
CM
co
o
o
t- o
CXI CM
•- CO
o
o
HO
111
a.
H z
a o
CO 1-4
cc
UJ
o.
o
o
HI
o
u
o
o
IX
a
Waste Stream
nt neat oils
CD
a
nt emulsions
o
a
t/i
tact cooling water
c
o
o
nt lubricants
01
a
U)
(A
o
ID
c
c
Ol
a
to
nt emulsions
01
a
nt lubricants
0)
a
ss or solution hea
01
t.
a
atment contact coo
er
01 4J
t- CO
ss hydraulic fluid
kage
Q) (Q
L. 01
a T-
nt lubricants
01
Q.
i/i
i_
CD
CO
X
Ol
o
0
u
u
co
c
o
u
CO
X
01
IA
10
X
Ol
c
c
co
01
c
01
a
3
a
UJ
01
01
a
a
ai
L
TJ 01
3 CO
— X
V- 0)
4-*
u to
i- CO
— X
3
CO C
I. O
TJ •!-
£ O
N
tfl -i-
IA E
0) O
L +•
a <
01
c
u
co
c
o
u
10
u
01
a
o
01
c
o
a.
01
c
u
3
TJ
01 Ol
a. c.
01 x
o 10
3 V
I- Q
Ol
c
Ol
u
o
u
3
TJ
O
I.
a
01
TJ
X
o
a
01
01
c
10
Q
u
X
t,
a'
o
1653
-------
^^
•O
01
3
C
44
C
o
u
in
"J"
X
01
2)
Id
1-
o:
o
a
Ul
\-
u
CD
=>
0
z
o: E
o cc
u- o
u.
in
O -J
-1 <
u.g
>» CJ
CC 1
O -I
HUI
-1 U
O Z
Ul
CK 1
H l/l
Q.Z
03 O
1-
t£.
Ul
O.
0
Z
0
1-4
1-
u
a
o
o:
a.
cn
c
N
id <-
E o
£44
o o
Z E
id
c u
o id
**~ Q.
44
O
3
•a
o
a.
c
o
44
_
oi id
•o cn cn
N id
f r
M U
a in
1. O
0
Zl-
o.
CO
cn
JC
^
E
id
01
1-
44
V)
01
44
in
id
3:
C
o
+4
a
0)
a.
O
o
o
01
id
in
c
01
•a
c
o
u
E
id
o
44
t/1
cn
c
44
»_
CO
E
3
3
U
id
o
o
L
Ol
44
n
X
O1
c
.r-
•—
O
O
u
44
u
id
44
c
o
u
c
0
44
3
O
44
•a c
c co
to e
44
cn id
C CO
i- L.
— i-
id
O -w
C Id
C 0)
< r
0)
u
Id
1-
3
in
.
id
X)
0
u
i
• _
o
o
tf-
c
O 0)
4->
(0 nj
(A 0)
m u
^>
(S|
CM
in
CO
cn
IA
f*
44
id
44
c
01
a
4j
C
01
E
id
o>
L
1-
01
U
id
L.
3
l/l
CO
u
id
u
3
IA
„
Id
O
U
|
^
01
u
tr>
c
0 01
44
IA id
IA 01
id L.
o
in
to
«
in
o
o
CO
CO
CM
u
0)
44
Id
J
0)
IA
C
.r~
ce
•a
0)
a
01
i-
44
— o
n 44
0 3
0 —
1 O
— U)
01
.x id
O i-
— c
C 0
o id
in r
IA +4
id--
£ X
^
in
CO
CO
•
^f
*-
01
IA
C
•r-
or
id
c
o
<
CO
c
fim
Id
*•»
id
_
id
0
u
i
^
01
u
.^
c
0 01
c
IA id
IA 01
id —
E 0
CO
»-
CO
cn
•
CO
co
in •
.c
id
X)
4j
c
01
a
1/5
O)
c
c
id
01
0
0)
c
_•
Id
_».
<
o
c
»f-
,_
id
^_
id
,_
id
0
u
i
r—
01
u
.^
c
O 01
c
in id
in o>
id —
E u
cn
in
in
o
CO
co
CM
t_
0)
44
id
X
0)
in
c
^—
cc
13
ID
+J
id
0)
L
44
_
id
o
u 44
i —
— cd
ca in
o c
•t- CO
C *•
0 E
IA SL
in 44
id ••-
E X
O
0-4
o
•
CM
O
<^-
DO
L
Ol
44
id
X
01
IA
C
^-
a:
4j
^_
ca
c
0)
-M
,—
0
s
t.
o
•o
01
X
to
IA
— C
id o
JO f
O IA
O —
1 3
- E
01 01
O JC
•r~ 44
C i-
X
o -a
c
- in 3
in o
id t-
E cn
in
tf
O)
^
cn
CO
r
in
c
o
•f
v>
3
E
tl)
•!•'
c
01
a
W)
cn
c
•5
c
•r-
1-
o
L
O
cn
c
•f
X
id
TO
C
0 TD
1- 01
cn in
c
C •!-
0 l-
TJ -M
Q) r—
x id
Id X)
in o
u
o —
0)
in .*
IA U
id •-
•s. c
in
CO
> C
X id
•a
0)
44 in
IA tJ
01 O
•M r
44
44 01
id
XI 44
o c
u id
i t-
*— 44
01 01
U 01
.f- Q.
c
01
o -a
IA r
in 44
id i-
E 2
Ol
O
in
CO
CM
t_
01
44
id
X
01
44
in
id
3
cn
c
•r>
44
(A
01
H
44
C
id
44
0)
c
0)
a
01
>,
Q
•o
01
E
u
o
II.
i!
id
XI
o
u
1
r~
01
u
-------
01
c
I
o
TJ I-
01 4->
E o
L 01
O —
I4_ Q)
ra L
E 0)
C- V
o o
Z E
ID
c t-
o a
i- C.
CD
n
a
o
i
j:
o
D
O
(/) I/I 4->
w t/i nl
(0 (00
S so
C
O
O
I
X
a1
c
13
HI
I-
<
O
m
tf
M
a: S
o a
u. o
-1 <
U. 03
>s
a i
Psi
36
o z
Of t
(U
T3 CD
0) t-
N (0
— U
(0 n
c .^
i- a
o
Z H-
a
CD
a
at
05 O
— 00
o o
— r-
oo m
a. z
CD o
1-4
I-
a.
ui
a
O
u
a
o
cc
a
w
4J T3 01
C 2 M
0) O C
a —
W 03 CC
a
a
o
o
L.
4J
c
o
o
c
o
•!-• 0)
3 C
O)
c
10
m
at
t_
0)
(U
Q
(0
O
o
O
1655
-------
Table IX-16
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Rolling Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Rolling Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
rolled with emulsions
Cadmium
*Chromium
Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Zinc
*Fluoride
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.058
.075
.323
.071
.327
.248
10.100
3.400
6.970
.026
.031
.170
.034
.216
.104
4.490
2.040
3.320
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Rolling Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg(Ib/million off-lbs)of nickel-cobalt
rolled with water
Cadmium 1.280 .566
*Chromium 1.660 .679
Copper 7.170 3.770
Lead 1.590 .754
*Nickel 7.240 4.790
Zinc 5.510 2.300
*Fluoride 225.000 99.500
*Oil and Grease 75.400 45.300
*TSS / 155.000 73.500
*pH /Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1656
-------
xaoie xx-ie fcontinued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Tube Reducing Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Drawing Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Drawing Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs
drawn with emulsions
Cadmium
*Chromium
Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Zinc
*Fluoride
*0il and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within the range of
) of nickel-cobalt
.033
.042
.181
.040
.183
.139
5.680
1.910
3.910
7.5 to 10.0 at all
.014
.017
.095
.019
.121
.058
2.520
1.150
1.860
times
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Extrusion Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1657
-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Extrusion Press or Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
heat treated
Cadmium
*Chromium
Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Zinc
*Fluoride
*0il and Grease
*TSS
.028
.037
.158
.035
.160
.122
4.950
1.670
3.410
.013
.015
.083
.017
.106
.051
2.200
.999
1.620
*pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
extruded
Cadmium
*Chromium
Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Zinc
*Fluoride
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.079
.102
.441
.098
.446
.339
13.800
4.640
9.510
.035
.042
.232
.046
.295
.142
6.130
2.790
4.530
"pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1658
-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Forging Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Forging Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of forged nickel-cobalt
cooled with water
Cadmium
*Chromium
Coppe r
Lead
*Nickel
Zinc
*Fluoride
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.161
.209
.901
.199
.910
.692
28.200
9.480
19.500
.071
.085
.474
.095
.602
.289
12.500
5.690
9.250
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Forging Equipment Cleaning Wastewater
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
forged
Cadmium
*Chromium
Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Zinc
*Fluoride
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
,0136
,0176
,0760
,0168
,0768
,0584
,3800
,8000
.6400
0060
,0072
,0400
0080
,0508
,0244
,0600
,4800
,7800
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1659
-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Forging Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
forged
Cadmium
*Chromium
Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Zinc
*Fluoride
*0il and Grease
*TSS
.064
.082
.356
.079
.359
.273
11.100
3.740
7.670
.028
.034
.187
.037
.238
.114
4.940
2.250
3.650
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Metal Powder Production Atomization Wastewater
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg(Ib/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
metal powder atomized
Cadmium
*Chromium
Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Zinc
*Fluoride
*0il and Grease
*TSS
.891
1.150
4.980
,100
030
3.830
156.000
52.400
108.000
1,
5,
.393
.472
2.620
.524
3.330
1.600
69.200
31.500
51.100
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1660
-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Stationary Casting Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
cast with stationary casting methods
Cadmium
*Chromium
Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Zinc
*Fluoride
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
4.120
5.330
23.000
5.080
23.300
17.700
720.000
242.000
496.000
1.820
2.18C
12.100
2.420
15.400
7.380
320.000
145.000
236.000
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Vacuum Melting Steam Condensate
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Annealing and Solution Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1661
-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Surface Treatment Spent Baths
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (ib/miilion off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
surface treated
Cadmium
*Chromium
Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Zinc
*Fluoride
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.318
.412
1.780
.393
1.800
1.370
55.700
18;700
38.400
.140
.169
.935
.187
1.190
.571
24.700
11.200
18.300
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Surface Treatment Rinse
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg(Ib/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
surface treated
Cadmium
*Chromium
Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Zinc
*Fluoride
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
8.030
10.400
44.900
9.910
45.300
34.500
1,410.000
472.000
968.000
3.540
4.250
23.600
4.720
30.000
14.400
623.000
283.000
460,000
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1662
-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS •
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Ammonia Rinse
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
•monthly average
mg/off-kg(Ib/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
treated with ammonia solution
Cadmium
*Chromium
Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Zinc
*Fluoride
*0il and Grease
*TSS
.005
.007
.028
.006
.028
.022
.881
.296
.607
.002
.003
.015
.003
.019
.009
.391
.17.8
.289
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
alkaline cleaned
Cadmium
*Chromium
'Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Zinc
*Fluoride
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.012
.015
.064
.014
.065
.050
2.020
.678
1.390
.005
.006
.034
.007
.043
.021
.895
.407
.661
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1663
-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Rinse
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
alkaline cleaned
Cadmium
*Chromium
Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Zinc
*Fluoride
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.792
1.030
4.430
.979
,480
,400
139.000
46.600
95.600
4,
3,
.350
.420
2.330
.466
2.960
1.420
61.500
28.000
45.500
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Molten Salt Rinse
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
treated with molten salt
Cadmium
*Chromium
Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Zinc
*Fluoride
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
2.870
3.720
16.100
3.550
16.200
12.300
502.000
169.000
346.000
1.270
1.520
8.440
1.690
10.700
5.150
223.000
101.000
165.000
*pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1664
-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg {Ib/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
sawed or ground with emulsions
Cadmium
*Chromium
Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Zinc
*Fluoride
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.013
.017
.075
.017
.076
.058
2.350
.788
1.620
.006
.007
.039
.008
.050
.024
1.040
.473
.769
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Sawing or Grinding Rinse
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg {Ib/million off-lbs) of sawed or ground
nickel-cobalt rinsed
Cadmium
*Chromium
Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Zinc
*Fluoride
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.616
.797
3.440
.760
3.480
2.640
108.000
36.200
74.200
.272
.326
1.810
.362
2.300
1.110
47.800
21.700
35.300
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1665
-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Steam Cleaning Condensate
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
steam cleaned
Cadmium
*Chromium
Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Zinc
*Fluoride
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.010
.013
.057
.013
.058
.044
1.790
.602
1.240
.005
.005
.030
.006
.038
.018
.795
.361
.587
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Hydrostatic Tube Testing and Ultrasonic Testing
Wastewater ,; . •; :. .
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1666
-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Dye Penetrant Testing Wastewater
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
tested with dye penetrant methods
Cadmium
*Chromium
Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Zinc
*Fluoride
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.072
.094
.405
.090
.409
.311
12.700
4.260
8.740
.032
.038
.213
.043
.271
.130
5.630
2.560
4.160
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Miscellaneous Wastewater Sources
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
formed
Cadmium
*Chromium
Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Zinc
*Fluoride
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.084
.108
.468
.104
.473
.359
14.700
4.920
10.100
.037
.044
.246
.049
.313
.150
6.500
2.950
4.800
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1667
-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
- BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Wet Air Pollution Control Slowdown
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
formed
Cadmium
*Chromium
Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Zinc
*Pluoride
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
,276
,357
,540
,340
,560
,180
48.200
16.200
33.200
1,
1,
.122
.146
.810
.162
1.030
.494
21.400
9.720
15.800
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1668
-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Electrocoating Rinse
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
electrocoated
Cadmium
*Chromium
Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Zinc
*Fluoride
*0il and Grease
*TSS
1.150
1.480
6.410
1.420
6.470
4.920
201.000
67.400
138.000
.506
.607
3.370
.674
4.280
2.060
89.000
40.500
65.700
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
-1669
-------
•-
X
o
3
o
o
01
5
o
CO
co
0
•z.
M
s
o:
cc o
o u.
u.
CO _l
2 <
01-
_l Ul
U.S
> CO
CK 3
OO
l~
in
"3
E
0)
-M
C
0)
a
to
c
3
(0
t_
•Q
in
^
o
4J
0)
E
en
3
o in
•^ c
u o
Q) «i—
c- in
a—
3
t- E
o 01
10 £
10 -M
(0 T-
E 2
t
o —
•—
in
o i-
^
10 10
— c
•"- O
0
10
10 "3
01 E
C 01
4J ±1
c c
01 01
a a
CO CO
en
c
s
a
O
c
3
10
l_
•a
CO
^_
10
4-*
ai in
E c
o
10 "-
3 +•
O 3
•r- «—
0 0
01 10
l_
a a
10
i- o
O 10
in £
in v
(0 i-
E I
CO
sf
Is-
0
CM
^-
co
in
c
o
.1-
4-»
3
O
10
a
10
o
10
4J
c
0)
a.
CO
c.
o
n
2 C
o b
Q.'r-
«
10 10
T N
S) ••-
•V E
01 O
E +.
n
10 .
3 *•
O 01
•r- ~f
U
01 >.
c- £1
Q. ,
TJ
14. a
d o
3
10 TJ
10 O
10 C.
E a
0
o
co
•
»-
o
m
co
co
c.
0)
(0
2
0)
4J
in
(0
2
C
0
•r-
-H
cd
N
.,—
E
o
4J
10
4-1
01
3
C
O
>r-
4j
0
3
•D
0
l_
a.
L
0)
•a
X
0
a.
^-
10
01
4-»
in
(0 T3
u o
£
10 4J
— 01
10 E
+j
01 —
E -
10 £
3 U
O
••- 4J
U U
01 0)
t_ c.
a-r-
T3
4-
O 01
^
10 -M
10
10 >.
S J3
0
C7)
to
0
CM
o
o
CO
o
L
01
44
10
2
O)
c
«r-
r—
O
o
0
4J
o
10
4-1
C
O
CJ
O)
c
4J
in
10
o
p-
p_
.r-
^
O
• 4J
O) U
C 01
•r- t.
4J ••-
10 Q
10
o
4J
0
£
to
10
_
10
4-»
01
E
in
3
O
ti-
ll
0)
(_
a
4-
o
in -^
in in
(0 10
E u
o
CO
CO
o
^
CO
CO
L
0)
4J
10
2
Ol
c
«r-
^
O
o
o
4_i
O
10
4-f
c
o
u
O)
c
4J
10
(0
o
4-»
o
f~
I/)
o
o
c.
01
4J
10
2
0)
c
•r-
^
o
o
o
4J
o
10
4J
c
o
o
Ol
c
>r-
^
in
10
CJ
>j
c.
10
c
o
.r-
4->
10
4J
CO
4J
in
10
u c.
o
CO
— in
10 3
4J O
0) 3
E c
•r- T3
10 4-< O
3 C £
O O *•
.r- O 01
o I E
Ql T-
c- E 10
a ai 3
in o
•^ 3
O 0) C
£ *^~
10 4J 4^
CO C
10 >, o
E n u
o
CO
^f
•
CM
0
O
CO
0
C.
01
4-1
to
2
01
c
•r-
r—
O
o
o
4J
U
to
4-1
C
o
CJ
•o
C 0)
10 C
.1—
CO 4J
3 in
o to
3 O
c
•r- W
•P 3
c o
0 3
CJ C
i ••-
'i c
01 o
CO O
10
3
0
u
0)
C- X3
a 01
4J
t3 10
0) 01
T3 c.
3 4-<
L
4-1 4J
X 10
01 01
£
tt-
6 co
r—
10 10
10 4-"
(0 01
E E
0
a
O
•
»—
a
(•**
*—
t
L.
0)
+j
10
2
01
C
«r-
r—
O
o
u
4J
U
10
4J
c •
o
u
+"
c
a
E
10
0)
c_
1-
4-*
10
01
I
10
10
4-*
01
E
in
3 "D
o o
•r- 4-*
U 10
01 01
c. t.
a+-
14- a)
o u
to
CO M-
co L
10 3
E 10
"-
•CO
CM
CO
CO
O)
in
£
4J
10
£1
4-*
c
0)
a
CO
4^
C
01
E
4_f
10
0)
t_
^_
01
0
10
tf_
u
3
CO
10
,_
10
4->
01
E
10
3 -D
O 01
•r- 4J
•O (0
01 0)
t- (.
a-u
14. 01
o u
10
in n-
10 L
10 3
E 10
0
m
*j-
«
•—
o
CO
r-
co
c.
0)
4J
(0
2
0)
in
c
a:
10
to
4-(
01
E
in T3
3 01
o c
•r- (0
U 01
0) --
c. o
a
0)
•4- C
O T-
r—
in to
in -*
to -
E M
"*
^•-
»—
o
o
CO
to
£
•H
10
n
4J
C
01
a
co
O)
c
•r-
c
10
01
~-
o
01
c
.r-
f—
(0
y
_-
<
1670
-------
Normal izing
etar
E
c id
0 U
•>- id
4J Q.
O
3
•a
o
(_
a
(0
4-*
a>
3
O
U
HI
t.
D.
•4-
O
M
Ifl
m
13
0)
C
M
u
«—
o
0)
C
• r^
,,—
nj
V
^-
a
n
c
(0
ffl
HI
in
3
O
O
0)
[_
a
ti_
o
in
in
to
£
o
4-1
1-
O
t_
a
13
c
(0
0
o
^~
<0
44
HI O)
e c
0) 13
w c
cd o
n n
s metal s
3
O
O
IB
(_
a
•4-
o
in
10
to
5
13
O
in
c
u
3
J3
1_
O
•Q
Q)
^_
^3
E
4-<
(0
"O •
a>
£
•a
0)
in
td
n
i
i-
0)
4^
id
s metals sawed
3
O
O
0)
l_
a
n.
o
03
m
-------
Table IX-18
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Rolling Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Rolling Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of precious metals
rolled with emulsions
*Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Silver
Zinc
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within the
.026
.034
.147
.022
.032
.148
.032
.113
1.540
3.160
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all
.012
.014
.077
.009
.015
.098
.013
.0,47
.925
1.510
times
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Drawing Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1672
-------
table IX-18
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Drawing Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg(Ib/million off-lbs)of precious metals
drawn with emulsions
*Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Silver
Zinc
*0il and Grease
*TSS
.016
.021
.090
.014
.020
.091
.020
.069
.950
1.950
.007
.009
.048
.006
.010
.060
.008
.029
.570
.926
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Drawing Spent Soap Solutions
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of precious metals
drawn with soap solutions
*Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Silver
Zinc
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.0011
.0014
.0059
.0009
.0013
.0060
.0013
.0046
.0624
.1280
.0005
.0006
.0031
.0004
.0006
.0040
.0005
.0019
.0375
.0609
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1673
-------
Table IX-18 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Metal Powder Production Atomization Wastewater
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of precious metals
powder wet atomized
*Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Silver
Zinc
*0il and Grease
*TSS
2.270
2.940
12.700
1.940
2.810
12.800
2.740
9.750
134.000
274.000
1,
1,
,000
,200
6.680
.802
1.340
8.490
1.140
4.080
80.200
130.000
*pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of precious metals
cast by the direct chill method
*Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Silyer
Zinc
*0il and Grease
*TSS
3.670
4.750
20.500
3.130
4.540
20.800
4.430
15.800
216.000
443.000
1.620
1.950
10.800
1.300
2.160
13.700
1.840
6.590
130.000
211.000
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1674
-------
Table IX-18 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Shot Casting Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg(Ib/million off-lbs) of precious metals
shot cast
*Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Silver
Zinc
*0il and Grease
*TSS
1,
1,
1.250
1.620
6.980
,070
,540
7.050
1.510
5.360
73.400
151.000
.551
.661
3.670
.441
.734
4.660
.624
2.240
44.100
71.600
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Stationary Casting Contact Cooling Water
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1675
-------
Table IX-18 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Semi-Continuous and Continuous Casting Contact
Cooling Water
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of precious metals cast
by the semi-continuous or continuous method
*Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Silver
Zinc
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
3.500
4.530
19.600
2.990
4.330
19.800
4.230
15.100
206.000
423.000
1.550
1.860
10.300
1.240
2.060
13.100
1.750
6.290
124.000
201.000
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of extruded precious
metals heat treated
*Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Silver
Zinc
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
1,
1,
7,
1,
1,
,420
,840
,930
,210
,750
8.010
1.710
6.090
83.400
171.000
.626
.751
4.170
.501
.834
5.300
.709
2.550
50.100
81.300
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1676
-------
Table IX-18 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Surface Treatment Spent Baths
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of extruded precious
metals heat treated
*Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Silver
Zinc
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.033
.042
.183
.028
.041
.185
.040
.141
..930
1.950
.015
.017
.096
.012
.019
.123
.016
.059
1.160
1.880
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Surface Treatment Rinse
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of precious metals
surface treated
*Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Silver
Zinc
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
2.100
2.710
11.700
1.790
2.590
11.800
2.530
9.000
123.000
253.000
.924
1.110
6.160
.739
1.230
,830
,050
,760
73.900
120.000
7.
1,
3,
*pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1677
-------
Table IX-18 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of precious metals
alkaline cleaned
*Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Silver
Zinc
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
,020
,026
,114
,017
,025
,115
,025
,088
,200
,460
.009
.011
.060
.007
.012
.076
.010
.037
.720
1.170
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Rinse
Pollutant or
pollutant' property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of precious metals
alkaline cleaned
*Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Silver
Zinc
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
3.810
4.930
21.300
3.250
4.710
21.500
4.590
16.400
224.000
459.000
1.680
2.020
11.200
1.350
2.240
14.200
1.910
6.830
135.000
219.000
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1678
-------
Table IX-18 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Prebonding Wastewater
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of precious metals and
base metal cleaned prior to bonding
*Cadmium 3.950 1.740
Chromium 5.110 2.090
*Copper 22.100 11.600
*Cyanide 3.370
*Lead 4.870
Nickel 22.300
*Silver 4.760
Zinc 17.000
*Oil and Grease 232.000
*TSS 476.000
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1.390
2.320
14.800
970
080
139.000
226.000
1,
7.
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Tumbling or Burnishing Wastewater
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of precious metals
tumbled or burnished
*Cadmium
Chromi-um
*Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Silver
Zinc
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
4.120
5.330
23.000
3.510
5.080
23.300
4.960
17.700
242.000
496.000
1.820
2.180
12.100
1.450
2.420
15.400
2.060
7.380
145.000
236.000
*pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1679
-------
Table IX-18 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg(Ib/million off-lbs)of precious metals
sawed or ground with emulsions
*Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Silver
Zinc
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
,032
,041
,178
,027
,039
,180
,038
,137
,870
,830
.014
.017
.093
.011
.019
.119
.016
.057
1.120
1.820
*pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1680
-------
Table IX-18 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Pressure Bonding Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of precious metals and
base metal pressure bonded
*Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Silver
Zinc
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
,028
,037
,159
024
,035
,161
,034
,122
,670
,430
.013
.015
.084
.010
.017
.106
.014
.051
1.000
1.630
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Wet Air Pollution Control Slowdown
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1681
-------
O)
c
ni
E <-
I- 0)
o +j
z a>
c§
a i.
•r- 18
•M a.
u
3
13
O
L.
a
to
«
4^
at in
E c
o
C- 10
o —
u E
o o
q- .c
t. t-
X
o -a
CD
10 —
CO —
co o
E t-
u
CO
L.
q-
01
f_
V- 01
O T3
3
to u
tO 4J
to x
E 01
l_ t-
O CD
u to
td X
q- JT
01 4J
Ol 01
o o
4- O
u
q-
o to
in to
in +J
co o>
E E
to v
— 18
co x
01 Ol
e c
C_ 3
O
U 0)
to u
U 3
q- "D
01 o
u <-
a
q-
O t-
a>
to T3
to x
18 O
S a.
in
ra
01
E
>,
L
O
V -0
U 0)
tO 4J
I. 10
14. CD
01 <-
i- V
q— 01
O U
18
10 q-
cn L
18 3
E to
to
co
01
s
>^
t-
o
4-< ~O
u o
tO 4J
t. tO
q- 01
01 L
1- V
q_ CD
a o
to
CO q-
10 C
18 3
E to
to
'to
01
£
>,
{_
O t>
4J 0)
0 C
18 CO
C. 01
q- —
01 U
L.
01
q- c
O "-
r—
10 18
to x
co <-
E (0
to
CO
01
E
>^
(_
o -o
4J CU
u c
CO 18
I- 01
q- —
01 U
L
O
q- c
O -r-
,_
10 tO
to ^
18 —
E fO
to
^- 4J
to —
0)
f_ i-'
0 —
t C~
i- to
o •-
4J ^
U l-
10 D
I- D
14-
01 t-
l_ O
q- -a
O 0)
, —
to o
in E
to 3
E -M
a.
o
a
in
i-
o
CO
3
to
(9
Z
a:
o
a a.
o
u. 10
til
T3 Ol
0) 1-
N CO
M- .C
^- O
(0 10
es
o
z l-
a
m
18
01
co
o
in
co
CM
01
a
Ol
CM
O
en
co
co
r-
oo
CM
CO
Ol
o
o
O)
CM
ai o
co o
CO O
o
00
o o
O CM
o in
to —
05
f O
CO O
CO O
o
CO
CO
o
o
o
o
o
in
I >
X > or
« a o
o (-
O I- U
S _i o:
a 3 a.
(- out
ui a:
a:
i
t-
a to
m z
o
a:
ui
a
o
E
o
o
C£
a.
E
co
o
c.
to
01
I
ID
a
CO
01
•a
(8
in
to +•
— c
•»- co
o u
01
01
co
co
ai
c8 i- in T-
t_
co n
O 3
C 0)
CD CO
a co
10 J3
a
to
JD
3
3
CO
L
T3
4J 4J 10
c c in
cu a) ai
a a t-
to to a.
c
18
O
•r*
L
n
3
C
01
a
to
m
c
o
o
u
to
X
01
to
to
a
to
18
a
c
o
a
to
to
.a
c
0)
a
Ol
a
o
01
c
o
01 ~-
c to
x u
ca 4>
t- X
D HI
ai
c
oi
c.
o
o
3
TJ
O
01
•a
X
o
a
ai
ai
c
in
to
ai
o>
•o
O
a.
V t-
01 3
2 to
01
c
c
to
CD
C_>
01
c
"a
<
O)
c
3
m
— o
to
CO . O!
C
C T-
01 —
*| n
- E
O 3
1682
-------
f •*
TD
111
3
C
""
C
0
(_)
v_/
Ol
1
X
1-1
III
5
CO
H
cc
o
u.
00
3
o
[
U-
>
o:
o
1-
<
_i
>
cr
o
O
UJ
1-
<
CJ
CO
Z>
00
C3
z
I-H
s
a
o
u.
00
_j
^
h-
LLI
E
>
cr
O
t-
CJ
<
cc
U-
1 i zing
a
E L.
L. 01
O -P
Z 01
E
C CO
o t_
••- CO
•M a.
o
3
T3
O
L.
Q.
C
O
4J
>v
—
01 CO
"a 01 o
CD U
N CO
•i- £ '
— u
10 in
E-
L. O
0
Z 1-
CL
CD
01
*f
^
r—
o
o
y me t a 1 s
;_
O
-u
O
(0
L.
<+-
QJ
t_
tt-
o
w
03
(0
s
t—
1
r-
r-
p^.
O)
(N
i th emul si on
2
T!
C
3
O
L.
Ol
l_
O
"O
01
3
CO
in
y metals
i_
o
•P
u
CO
L.
4-
0)
L.
4-
O
I/I
W
CO
s
o
CM
CD
»
in
o
o
CO
1$
CM
i th contact
s
73
c
D
O
[_
O)
L.
O
T)
01
3.
CO
«
L
0)
+j
10
I
01
c
, —
o
o
o
;.. metals
^_
o
+j
u
CO
[_
4-
co
L.
H-
o
in
in
CO
s
in
IN
CO
IT:
CO
.—
>'id subse-
Tj
TJ
c
D
0
L,
0)
L.
O
•D
01
S
CO
m
•o
01
in
c
—
L.
>,
P—
+J
C
01
3
CT
y metals
enetrant
t- a
o
•H 01
u >
CO 13
L.
«- £
CD 4J
L. -I-
£
*- in
0 T3 "D
01 O
in -H r
in in 4-»
CO 01 01
S 4J E
cc
CD
. •—
CO
c-
fv^
•/ metals
L.
0
+J
u
CO
L.
4-
OJ
1_
tf~
O
in
in
18
s
CO
-CM
CO
o
CO
CO
,—
r. h requi r i ng
it
E
a
<^
3
cr
01
c
o
X)
01
£
t-
o
4-
t-
51
j^
CO
3
.C
4>
.,-
3
O)
C
•r-
C
CO
0)
.—
o
y metals
L.
O
-H
O
CO
l_
4-
01
L.
t-
o n
m
w E
W L.
CO O
•& 4-
O
CO
00
in
^
CO
o
o
y metals
L-
o
•4-J
O
CC
L.
4-
01
1_
4-
O
in
in
CO
S
m
00
i —
i-.
CD
rface coated
d "' ..
D 01
tn -M
CO
- a
13 1-
C V
D
O 01
c o
Ol CO
4-
- L
-O D
oi in
3
CO t.
in o
ID UJ .
UJ
a
H-
a
m
u.
1
00
-z.
o
|_4
1-
cc
UJ
a.
o
2;
o
1-
CJ
•"")
Q
O
a
a.
E
CO
0]
t_
4J
to
01
4J
in
CO
3
en
.—
•r-
0
4_»
CO
01
C
44
C
01
a
00
CO
C
o
•1—
1/1
I—
^
E
HI
4^
C
01
a
00
U
01
4^
CO
5
Ol
c
•1—
—
o
o
o
4->
o
10
+J
c
o
CJ
t-
0)
CO
2
0)
in
c
o:
L.
a
4-J
CO
5
01
•4-J
10
CO
3
L.
01
4J
CO
3
01
^•4-J
in
CO
3
tn
3
o
•i—
L.
co
in
-H
c
01
r_
o
in
•M
c
0)
• a
00
C
O
T3
3:
O
m
Ol
c
-"-• T3
CO C
01 L.
n LO
O.
L,
O
O)
c
3
CO
00
Ol
c
•r-
+J
in
01
H
4J
C
co
L
4J
01
C •
01
a
01
>,
Q
O)
C
c
CO
01
.—
o
•fj
c
01
E
a
•r-
3 •
o-
UJ
co
X
0)
4^
in
CO
3
tn
3
o
01
c
CO
~- in
— 01
01 O
0 L
in 3
•r- O
S oo
01
c
.,—
in
CO
0)
L.
01
01
Q '
C
o
CJ
c
o
4J
^3
_
, —
O
a
L.
.,—
^
4^
01
3
1683
-------
Table IX-20
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Rolling Spent Neat Oils and Graphite-Based Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Rolling Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg(Ib/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
rolled with emulsions
Chromium
*Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Columbium
*Fluoride
*Molybdenum
Tantalum
Vanadium
Tungsten
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within
.189
.815
.180
.824
.176
.627
.052
25.500
2.840
.193
.043
2.990
8.580
17.600
the range of 7.5 to
.077
.429
.086
.545
.073
.262
11.300
1.470
1.190
5.150
8.370
10.0 at all times
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Drawing Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1684
-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Extrusion Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any prie day
Maximum for
mpnthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
extruded
Chromium
* Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Columbium
*Fluoride
*Molybdenum
Tantalum
Vanadium
Tungsten
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within
.524
2.260
.500
2.290
.488
1.740
.143
70.800
7.870
.536
.119
8.280
23.800
48.800
the range of 7.5 to
.214
1.190
.238
1.510
.203
.726
31.400
4.070
3.310
14.300
23.200
10.0 at all times
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Forging Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1685
-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Forging Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of forged refractory
metals cooled with water
Chromium
*Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Columbium
*Fluoride
*Molybdenum
Tantalum
Vanadium
Tungsten
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.142
.614
.136
.620
.133
.472
.039
19.200
2.140
.146
.032
2.250
6.460
13.300
.058
.323
.065
.410
.055
.197
8.530
1.110
.898
3.880
6.300
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1686
-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Metal Powder Production Wastewater
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg(Ib/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
powder produced
Chromium
*Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Columbium
*Fluoride
*Molybdenum
Tantalum
Vanadium
Tungsten
*Oil"and Grease
*TSS
.124
.534
.118
.540
.115
.410
.034
16.700
1.860
.127
.028
1.960
5.620
11.500
.051
.281
.056
.357
.048
.172
7.420
.961
.781
3.370
5.480
"pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Metal Powder Production Floor Wash Water
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Metal Powder Pressing Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1687
-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Surface Treatment Spent Baths
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg(Ib/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
surface treated
Chromium
*Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Columbium
*Fluoride
*Molybdenum
Tantalum
Vanadium
Tungsten
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within
.171
.739
.164
.747
.160
.568
.047
23.200
2.570
.175
.039
2.710
7.780
16.000
the range of 7.5 to 10.0
.070
.389
.078
.494
.066
.237
10.300
1.330
_• —
1.080
4.670
7.590
at all times
1688
-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Surface Treatment Rinse
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
surface treated
Chromium
*Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Columbium
*Fluoride
*Molybdenum
Tantalum
Vanadium
Tungsten
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within the
53.300
230.000
50.800
233.000
49.600
177.OOP
14.5QO
7,200.000
800.000
54.500
12.100
842.000
2,420.000
4,960.000
range of 7.5 to 10,
21.800
121.000
24.200
154.000
20.600
73.800
3,200.000
414.000
337.000
1,450.000
2,360.000
at all times
1689
-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
alkaline cleaned
Chromium
*Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Columbium
*Fluoride
*Molybdenum
Tantalum
Vanadium
Tungsten
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.147
.635
.140
.641
.137
.488
.040
19.900
2.210
.151
.033
2.330
6.680
13.700
.060
.334
.067
.424
.057
.204
8.820
1.140
.929
4.010
6.520
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1690
-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Rinse
Maximum for
any one day
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
alkaline cleaned
Chromium
*Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Columbium
*Fluoride
*Molybdenum
Tantalum
Vanadium
Tungsten
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within the
359.
1,550.
343.
1,570.
335.
1,190.
97.
48,600.
5,400.
367.
81.
5,680.
16,300.
33,500.
range of 7
000
000
000
000
000
000
900
000
000
000
600
000
000
000
.5 to
147.000
816.000
163.000
1,040.000
139.000
498.000
21,600.000
2,790.000
2,270.000
9,790.000
15,900.000
10.0 at all times
1691
-------
r
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Molten Salt Rinse
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
treated with molten salt
Chromium
*Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Columbium
*Fluoride
*Molybdenum
Tantalum
Vanadium
Tungsten
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
*pH , Within the range
2.790
12.000
2.660
12.200
2.600
9.240
.760
377.000
41.900
2.850
.633
44.100
127.000
260.000
of 7.5 to 10.0
1.140
6.330
1.270
8.040
1.080
3.860
167.000
21.700
17.600
76.000
124.000
at all times
1692
-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Tumbling or Burnishing Wasfcewater
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
tumbled or burnished
Chromium
* Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Columbium
*Fluoride
*Molybdenum
Tantalum
Vanadium
Tungsten
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within the
5.500
23.800
5.250
24.000
5.130
18.300
1.500
744.000
82.600
5.630
1.250
87.000
250.000
513.000
range of 7.5 to
2.250
12.500
2.500
15.900
2.130
7.630
330.000
42.800
34.800
150.000
244.000
10.0 at all times
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1693
-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
sawed or ground with emulsions
Chromium
*Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Columbium
*Fluoride
*Molybdenum
Tantalum
Vanadium
Tungsten
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.131
.565
.125
.570
.122
.434
.036
17.700
1.970
.134
.030
,070
2,
5,
940
12.200
.054
.297
.059
.377
.051
.181
7.840
1.020
.826
3.570
5.790
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1694
-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
B~PT
Refractory Metals Forming
Sawing or Grinding Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
sawed or ground with contact cooling water
Chromium
*Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Columbium
*Fluoride
*Molybdenum
Tantalum
Vanadium
Tungsten
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
10
45
10
46
9
35
2
1,450
161
11
2
169
486
997
.700
.200
.200
.700
.970
.500
.920
.000
.000
.000
.430
.000
.000
.000
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0
4.380
24.300
4.860
30.900
4.130
14.800
642.000
83.100
67.600
292.000
474.000
at all times
1695
-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Sawing or Grinding Rinse
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of sawed or ground
refractory metals rinsed
Chromium
*Copper
Lead
'*Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Columbium
*Fluoride
*Molybdenum
Tantalum
Vanadium
Tungsten
*0il and Grease
*TSS
.059
.257
.057
.259
.055
.197
.016
8.030
.893
.061
.014
.940
2.700
5.540
.024
.135
.027
.172
.023
.082
3.570
.462
.376
1.620
2.630
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1696
-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Dye Penetrant Testing Wastewater
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of refractory metals,
tested with dye penetrant methods
Chromium
*Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Columbium
*Fluoride
*Molybdenum
Tantalum
Vanadium
Tungsten
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.034
.148
.033
.149
.032
.113
.009
4.620
.513
.035
.008
.540
1.550
3.180
.014
.078
.016
.099
.013
.047
2.050
.266
.216
.931
1.520
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1697
-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Equipment Cleaning Wastewater
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
formed
Chromium .599 .245
*Copper 2.590 1.360
Lead .571 .272
*Nickel 2.610 1.730
Silver .558 .231
Zinc 1.990 .830
Columbium .163
*Fluoride 80.900 35.900
*Molybdenum 8.990 4.650
Tantalum .612
Vanadium .136
Tungsten 9.470 3.780
*Oil and Grease 27.200 16.300
*TSS 55.800 26.500
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1698
-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Miscellaneous Wastewater Sources
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
formed
Chromium
*Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Columbium
*Fluoride
*Molybdenum
Tantalum
Vanadium
Tungsten
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.152
.656
.145
.663
.142
.504
.041
20.500
2.280
.155
.035
2.400
6.900
14.200
.345
.069
.438
.059
.211
9.110
1.180
.959
4.140
6.730
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1699
-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Wet Air Pollution Control Slowdown
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg(Ib/million off-lbs)of refractory metals
formed
Chromium
*Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Columbium
*Fluoride
*Molybdenum
Tantalum
Vanadium
Tungsten
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within the
.346
1.500
.331
1.510
.323
1.150
.095
46.800
5.200
.354
.079
5.480
15.800
32.300
range of 7.5 to
.142
.787
.158
1.000
.134
.480
20.800
2.690
2.190
9.450
15,400
10.0 at all times
1700
-------
ng
oduction Norma
Parameter
Mass of titanium rolled
contact cooling water
rud
4-< «
C
it- O
o ••-
ul
in —
w 3
id E
2 a
uded
Ma
ed
T)
01
01
t.
O L
<*- 01
<*- 10
o i
in r.
in 4-*
id i-
S x
Mass of t i tanium _f orged on
equipment requi' ing cleaning
with water
Ma
<*- TD
C 01
4-»
in id
in ID
id t-
i- T:
o 01
4-*
in to
in ID
10 t-
14- T3
o 01
c
10 (0
at 01
id —
S O
ka
t- T)
O 01
c
en to
in o
10 —
S o
Q:
o
o
UJ
o
m
o
01
O
Z
o: i-.
O E
a. o:
o
01 u_
O S
•a 01
01 I-
N to
•r- JZ
— u
id in
t- a
o
•z. t-
a
m
10
oi
o
so
CM
•3-
CM
o
a
o
CO
10
o
00
GO
I-.
o
o
o
o
o
CD
O
CM
O
O
CM
Ol
CM
O
CM
O
CO
n
a
O I-H
I- H
oi
10
id
c
id
L.
T3
c
(0
u
c.
JD
01
c
r — 4-.
u
Cd
in
01
c
o.
c
01
a
01
c
ID
a
M
c
01
a
0>
a
o
01
c
01
c
01
c
O)
c
T3
01
to
ID
01
o
id
4-
I.
3
01
01
c
ID
<
1701
-------
01
c
(0
E t-
L 0)
O +•
c ra
o <~
i- a
v a
o
3
T3
O
U
a.
TJ
0)
TJ
0)
CO
3 TJ
•r- 01
C E
CO
-*-» TJ
•^ a
+j in
CO
o c 01
01 i-
in 4-1 in o
o >— tn +*
co o ra ra
E E EX
I.
o
c
01 •!-
3 in
10 •—
M 3
E
E 01
D
"- C
c •-«
0<
I- I-
< 1-1
_J 1-
O I
UJ
o:
-------
Table IX-22
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Titanium Forming
Rolling Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Titanium Forming
Rolling Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg(Ib/million off-lbs)of titanium
rolled with contact cooling water
Chromium
Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Titanium
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
2.150
9.270
,420
,050
,370
,130
651.000
291.000
4.590
97.600
200.000
1,
2,
9,
7,
.879
4.880
.586
.976
6.200
2.980
286.000
129.000
2.000
58.600
95.200
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Titanium Forming
Drawing Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Titanium Forming
Extrusion Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1703
-------
Table IX-22 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Titanium Forming
Extrusion Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium
extruded with emulsions
Chromium
Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Titanium
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.032
.137
.021
.030
.138
.105
9.590
4.280
.068
1.440
2.950
.013
.072
.009
.014
.091
.044
4.220
1.900
.030
.863
1.400
*pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Titanium Forming
Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium
extruded
Chromium
Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Titanium
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.078
.338
.052
.075
.342
.260
23.700
10.600
.168
3.560
7.300
.032
.178
.021
.036
.226
.109
10.500
4.700
.073
2.140
3.470
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1704
-------
Table IX-22 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Titanium Forming
Forging Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Titanium Forming
Forging Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of forged titanium
cooled with water
Chromium
Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Titanium
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
,880
,800
,580
,840
,840
,920
267.000
119.000
1.880
40.000
82.000
3,
2.
.360
2.000
.240
.400
2.540
1.220
117.000
52.800
.R20
24.000
39.000
"PH
Within the range of 7.5.. to 10.0 at all times
1705
-------
Table IX-22 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Titanium Forming
Forging Equipment Cleaning Wastewater
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of titanium
forged
Chromium
Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Titanium
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.018
.076
.012
.017
.077
.058
5.330
2.380
.038
.800
1.640
.007
.040
.005
.008
.051
.024
2.350
1.060
.016
.480
.780
"pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Titanium Forming
Forging Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg(Ib/million off-lbs)of titanium
forged
Chromium
Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Titanium
*0il and Grease
*TSS
.445
1.920
.293
.424
1.940
1.480
135.000
60.100
.950
20.200
41.400
.182
1.010
.121
.202
1.280
.616
59.200
26.700
.414
12.100
19.700
*pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1706
-------
Table IX-22 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Titanium Forming
Tube Reducing Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Titanium Forming
Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Titanium Forming
Surface Treatment Spent Baths
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of titanium
surface treated
Chromium
Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Titanium
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.092
.395
.060
.087
.400
.304
27.700
12.400
.196
4.160
8.530
.038
.208
.025
.042
.264
.127
12.200
5.490
.085
2.500
4.060
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1707
-------
Table IX-22 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Titanium Forming
Surface Treatment Rinse
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of titanium
surface treated
Chromium
Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Titanium
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
12.900
55.500
8.470
12.300
56.100
42.700
3,890.000
1,740.000
27.500
584.000
1,200.000
5.260
29.200
3.510
5.840
37.100
17.800
1,710.000
771.000
12.000
351.000
570.000
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Titanium Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of titanium
alkaline cleaned
Chromium
Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Titanium
*0il and Grease
*TSS
.106
.456
.070
.101
.461
.351
32.000
14.300
.226
4.800
9.840
.043
.240
.029
.048
.305
.147
14.100
6.340
.098
2.880
4.680
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1708
-------
Table IX-22 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Titanium Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Rinse
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg {Ib/million off-lbs) of titanium
alkaline cleaned
Chromium
Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Titanium
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
1,
5,
,220
,250
.801
1.160
5.300
4.030
368.000
164.000
2.600
55.200
113.000
.497
2.760
.331
.552
5.10
,690
162.000
72.900
1.130
33.100
53.800
3,
1,
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0.at all times
BPT
Titanium Forming
Molten Salt Rinse
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of titanium
treated with molten salt
Chromium
Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Titanium
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.420
1.820
.277
.401
1.840
1.400
128.000
56.800
.898
19.100
39.200
.172
.955
.115
.191
1.210
.583
56.000
25.200
.392
11.500
18.600
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1709
-------
Table IX-22 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATION'S
BPT
Titanium Forming
Tumbling Wastewater
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of titanium tumbled
Chromium
Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Titanium
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.348
1.500
.229
.332
1.520
1.160
106.000
47.000
.743
15.800
32.400
.142
.790
.095
.158
1.010
.482
46.300
20.900
.324
9.480
15.400
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Titanium Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1710
-------
Table IX-22 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Titanium Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
ing/off-kg (Ib/million off-Ibs) of titanium
sawed or ground with em:.; Is ions
Chromium
Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Titanium
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.081
.348
.053
.077
.352
.267
24.400
10.900
.172
3.660
7.510
.033
.183
.022
.037
.233
.112
10.700
4.830
.075
2.200
3.570
fcpH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Titanium Forming
Sawing or Grinding Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of titanium
sawed or ground with contact cooling water
Chromium
Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Titanium
*0il and Grease
*TSS
100
050
.380
,000
,140
,950
,000
,000
4.480
95.200
195.000
2.
9.
1,
2,
9,
6,
635,
283,
.857
4.760
.571
.952
6.050
2.910
279.000
126.000
1.950
57.100
92.800
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1711
-------
Table IX-22 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Titanium Forming
Dye Penetrant Testing Wastewater
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of titanium
tested with dye penetrant methods
Chromium
Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Titanium
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.493
2.130
.325
.471
2.150
1.640
149.000
66.700
1.050
22.400
45.900
.202
1.120
.135
.224
1.420
.683
65.700
29.600
.459
13.500
21.900
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Titanium Forming
Hydrotesting Wastewater
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1712
-------
Table IX-22 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Titanium Forming
Miscellaneous Wastewater Soi
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of titanium formed
Chromium
Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Titanium
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.014
.062
.009
.014
.062
.047
4.320
1.930
,031
.648
1.330
.OC5
.032
.004
.006
.041
.020
1.900
.856
.013
.389
.632
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Titanium- Forming
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1713
-------
Table IX-22 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGQRY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Titanium Forming
Wet Air Pollution Control Slowdown
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (Ib/million off-lbs) of titanium
formed
Chromium
Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Titanium
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.942
4.070
.621
.899
4.110
3.130
285.000
128.000
2.010
42.800
87.800
.385
2.140
.257
.428
2.720
1.310
126.000
56.500
.878
25.700.
41.800
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1714
-------
O)
c
10
e L
L 0)
O 4J
Z 0!
e
C 10
o t-
•i- to
4j CL
O
.1- q
2 O
O
T)
11) -4~>
T3 O
3 10
1- -M
•H C
X 0
0) U
E 0)
D C t_
•r- ,r- 0)
C t, +J
CO "r CO
I- D £
3 CT
01 JZ
O -r-
U) O Ol
CO O C
S ^ .r-
10
n i
01
Q1TD r
I- C -H
o to —
'~ 5
0)
C
•o
CD
m
c
o
"O
OJ
T)
D
L
4j
X
a>
n_
o
0)
w
5
4J
to
0)
t_
-M
4-*
to
JZ
E
3
•r-
C
tc
'-.-
3
0>
,—
0
c
u
>,
r—
4-*
c
0)
D
CJ
0)
m
-9 s
u)
3
fl
f:
3
•(-
C
TO
l_
3
q_
O
Vi
;f)
(ti
s
"O
Q)
•H
ni
01
L,
-H
3
1/1
CT
D
.(-
C
(0
L.
D
4-
C
U3
W
CO
s
n
0)
-H
to
0)
L
4-"
CO
W
E
D
•i-
C
to
u
3
t-
o
U)
10
to
£
.,-
-Jl
1 —
•j
^
0)
r
• r-
^
13
C
D
O
L.
O)
to
e
3
-r-
c
10
t_
3
4-
O
to
CO
to
2
u
CO
•H
c
o
u
f
^
•1-
J
•D
c
3
O
(_
O)
(_
0)
4-j
(C
I
t; J5
3 n
— 3
3 C
CO
4-
O 13
C
10 3
10 O
10 i-
S Ol
•o
tu
4-
O
CO
IN
I
X
o:
o
o
UJ
<
(J
m
o: z
O M
U- E
Ct
M O
3 u-
O
-I S
U- =3
t-H
> Z
o: <
O cc
a) t-
N CO
— u
co to
I- Q
o
Z I-
0.
CO
O)
to
CO
in
in
•a-
o
m
in
CJ)
co
o
CO
CO
in
(O
o
o
CJ)
i--
co
o
\f>
to
O i/>
UJ Z
cc o
a <
m a:
UJ
a.
o
Q
o
a:
Q.
to
O)
c
c —
CO O
a o
n
3
n
3
C
CD
a
O)
c
c
CO
a
01
c.
0)
a
D)
C
O
ID
4J
C
O
o
.C
10
to
3
c
CD
a
0).
a
o
O)
c
en
u
o
1.
1-
U)
o
10
1-
1.
3
to
O)
c
•a
c
01
c •
O)
c
c
10
0)
D)
C
10
co
a>
•L
a>
a>
o
1715
-------
en
c
a
e L
U
c ta
O 1.
••- 18
•4-1 O.
O
3
T3
O
1.
Q.
01 a
W 0)
(0 C
s +<
E
C
(0
L.
3
1-
o
in
in
id
a
T3
a:
o
10
CO
CO
c
o
o
CO
CM
X
O
ca
u. s
en
MO
3 u.
O
-IE
u. n
>H
> z
a: <
o cr
C3 M
UJ Z
cr o
IB t.
N to
"- C.
— o
to u
e ••-
i- a
o
z i-
a
m
a>
CO
CO
a
s
a
4J
U
I
O
c_
-H
C
o
o
c
o
(0 +-
I- 3
O ~
D. —
O O
a.
•o
6 c
D 3
1- ID
Q _J
> ra
(8 13
|