xvEPA
440182073B
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Effluent Guidelines Division
WH-552
Washington DC 20460
EP>
November 1982
Water and Waste Management
Development
Document for
Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and
Standards for the
Aluminum Forming
Proposed
Point Source Category
-------
I-**
.***
»•'
*v* •
* ;
-------
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
for
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
for the
ALUMINUM FORMING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Anne M. Gorsuch
Administrator
Frederick A. Eidsness
Assistant Administrator for Water
Steven Schatzow
Director
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Jeffery D. Denit, Director
Effluent Guidelines Division
Ernst P. Hall, P.E., Chief
Metals and Machinery Branch
Janet K. Goodwin
Technical Project Officer
November 1982
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Effluent Guidelines Division
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1
II RECOMMENDATIONS 5
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH
NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY 5
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH
EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY 8
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE EXTRUSION
SUBCATEGORY 10
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH
NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY 12
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH
EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY 14
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH
NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY 17
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH
EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY ..... 18
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE EXTRUSION
SUBCATEGORY 20
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH
NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY 21
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH
EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY 23
NSPS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS
SUBCATEGORY 24
NSPS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS
SUBCATEGORY 26
NSPS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY 28
NSPS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY 30
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
II NSPS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS
SUBCATEGORY 31
NSPS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS
SUBCATEGORY 33
PSES FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS
SUBCATEGORY 36
PSES FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS
SUBCATEGORY 38
PSES FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY 40
PSES FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY 41
PSES FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS
SUBCATEGORY 43
PSES FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS
SUBCATEGORY 45
PSNS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS
SUBCATEGORY 47
PSNS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS
SUBCATEGORY 49
PSNS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY 51
PSNS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY 53
PSNS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS
SUBCATEGORY 54
PSNS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS
SUBCATEGORY 56
ALTERNATE BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING
WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY 59
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
II ALTERNATE BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY 60
ALTERNATE BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE
EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY 62
ALTERNATE BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE
DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY 63
ALTERNATE BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY. . 65
ALTERNATE PSES FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS
SUBCATEGORY 66
ALTERNATE PSES FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS
SUBCATEGORY 68
ALTERNATE PSES FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY . 70
ALTERNATE PSES FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY . . 72
ALTERNATE PSES FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS
SUBCATEGORY 73
ALTERNATE PSES FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS
OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY 75
III INTRODUCTION 79
PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY 79
METHODOLOGY 81
Approach of Study 81
Data Collection and Methods of Evaluation. . . 81
Literature Review 81
Existing Data 82
Data Collection Portfolios 82
GENERAL PROFILE OF THE ALUMINUM FORMING
CATEGORY 84
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
III ALUMINUM FORMING PROCESSES 87
CORE OPERATIONS 88
Rolling 88
Extrusion 90
Forging 91
Drawing 93
Sawing 93
Swaging 94
ANCILLARY OPERATIONS 94
Casting 94
Direct Chill Casting 96
Continuous Casting 97
Stationary Casting 99
Heat Treatment 99
Cleaning and Etching 102
Solvent Cleaning 103
Alkaline and Acid Cleaning 104
Chemical and Electrochemical Brightening . . . 104
Etching 105
Desmutting and Deoxidizing 105
Anodizing 105
Chemical Conversion Coating 106
IV INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION 123
SUBCATEGORIZATION BASIS 123
Factors Considered 123
Subcategorization Factors Considered 124
Raw Materials 125
Manufacturing Processes 125
Wastewater Characteristics and Treatment
Technologies 126
Products Manufactured 126
Process Water Use 127
Size 128
Age 128
Unique Plant Characteristics 128
Location 128
Unit Operations 129
Subcategory Selection 130
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section
IV
Raw Materials 130
Manufacturing Processes 131
Wastewater Characteristics . . 131
Products Manufactured 131
Process Water Use 132
Size 132
Age 132
Location 132
Unit Operations 132
Production Normalizing Parameter 134
Mass of Aluminum Processed 134
Number of End Products Processed 135
Surface Area of Aluminum Processed 135
Mass of Process Chemicals Used 135
Selection of Production Normalizing Parameter. 135
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED SUBCATEGORIES 136
Subcategory Terminology and Usage 136
Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory 138
Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory 141
Extrusion Subcategory 144
Forging Subcategory 146
Drawing with Neat Oils Subcategory 148
Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps Subcategory. . 150
WATER USE AND WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS ... 153
DATA SOURCES 153
Historical Data 153
Data Collection Portfolios 153
Sampling and Analysis Program 155
Site Selection 155
Field Sampling 155
Sample Collection, Preservation, and Trans-
portation 156
Sample Analysis 158
Quality Control 161
WATER USE AND WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS ... 161
CORE OPERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH MAJOR FORMING
PROCESSES 162
VI1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section
V Rolling '. 162
Rolling with Neat Oils Spent Lubricant .... 162
Rolling with Emulsions Spent Emulsion 162
Roll Grinding Spent Emulsion 163
Extrusion 163
Extrusion Die Cleaning Bath 163
Extrusion Die Cleaning Rinse 164
Extrusion Die Cleaning Scrubber Liquor .... 165
Extrusion Press Scrubber Liquor 165
Extrusion Dummy Block Contact Cooling Water. . 165
Forging 166
Drawing 166
Drawing with Neat Oils Spent Lubricant .... 166
Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps Spent
Emulsion 166
Swaging 167
CORE OPERATIONS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH SPECIFIC
MAJOR FORMING PROCESSES 167
Sawing Spent Lubricant 167
Degreasing Spent Solvents 167
Annealing Atmosphere Scrubber Liquor 168
ANCILLARY OPERATIONS 168
Heat Treatment 168
Solution and Press Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water 168
Cleaning or Etching Bath 169
Cleaning or Etching Rinse 170
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor 171
Forging Scrubber Liquor 171
Casting 171
Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling Water . . 171
Continuous Rod Casting Contact Cooling Water . 172
Continuous Rod Casting Spent Lubricant .... 173
Continuous Sheet Casting Spent Lubricant . . . 173
Stationary Casting 174
Degassing Scrubber Liquor 174
Additional Wastewater Samples 174
Treated Wastewater Samples 174
Vlll
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
VI SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS 437
RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAM-
ETERS 438
DESCRIPTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS 439
POLLUTANT SELECTION FOR CORE WASTE STREAMS. . . 504
Rolling with Neat Oils Core Waste Streams . . . 504
Rolling with Emulsions Core Waste Streams . . . 512
Extrusion Core Waste Streams 519
Forging Core Waste Streams 528
Drawing with Neat Oils Core Waste Streams . . . 535
Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps Core Waste
Streams 543
POLLUTANT SELECTION FOR ANCILLARY WASTE
STREAMS 551
Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling Water. . . 551
Continuous Rod Casting Contact Cooling Water. . 551
Continuous Sheet Casting Spent Lubricants . . . 558
Continous Rod Casting Spent Lubricants 558
Forging Scrubber Liquor 565
Solution and Press Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water 570
Cleaning or Etching Bath 577
Cleaning or Etching Rinse 583
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor 590
Degassing Scrubber Liquor 593
VII CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 605
END-OF-PIPE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES 605
MAJOR TECHNOLOGIES 606
Chemical Reduction of Chromium 606
Chemical Precipitation 608
Cyanide Precipitation 614
Granular Bed Filtration 615
Pressure Filtration 619
Settling 621
Skimming 623
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section
VII Chemical Emulsion Breaking 627
Thermal Emulsion Breaking 629
MAJOR TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS 631
LScS Performance - Combined Metals Data Base . . 631
One-Day Effluent Values 632
Average Effluent Values 635
Application 637
Additional Pollutants 638
LS&F Performance 640
Analysis of Treatment System Effectiveness. . . 641
MINOR TECHNOLOGIES 644
Carbon Adsorption 644
Flotation 646
Centrifugation 648
Coalescing 650
Cyanide Oxidation by Chlorine 652
Cyanide Oxidation by Ozone 653
Cyanide Oxidation by Ozone with UV Radiation. . 654
Cyanide Oxidation by Hydrogen Peroxide 655
Evaporation 656
Gravity Sludge Thickening 659
Ion Exchange 660
Insoluble Starch Xanthate 663
Peat Adsorption 663
Membrane Filtration 665
Reverse Osmosis 667
Sludge Bed Drying 670
Ultrafiltration 672
Vacuum Filtration 674
IN-PLANT TECHNOLOGY 675
Process Water Recycle 675
Process Water Reuse 678
Countercurrent Cascade Rinsing 679
Regeneration of Chemical Baths 683
Process Water Use Reduction 684
Wastewater Segregation 685
Lubricating Oil and Deoiling Solvent Recovery . 685
Dry Air Pollution Control Devices 686
Good Housekeeping 688
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
VIII COSTS, ENERGY, AND NONWATER QUALITY ASPECTS . . 757
BASIS FOR COST ESTIMATION 757
Sources of Cost Data 757
Determination of Costs 757
Cost Data Reliability 760
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES AND RELATED COSTS. . . . 761
Skimming 761
Chemical Emulsion Breaking 762
Dissolved Air Flotation 763
Thermal Emulsion Breaking 763
Multimedia Filtration 764
pH Adjustment 764
Lime and Settle (L&S) 765
Hexavalent Chromium Reduction 766
Cyanide Oxidation 767
Cyanide Precipitation 768
Activated Carbon Adsorption 771
Vacuum Filtration 772
Contractor Hauling. 772
Countercurrent Cascade Rinsing 773
Regeneration of Chemical Baths 773
Flow Equalization 774
Pumping 774
Holding Tank 775
Recycle of Cooling Water 775
Enclosures 776
Cost Calculation Example 776
NONWATER QUALITY ASPECTS OF POLLUTION CONTROL . 780
Air Pollution 781
Solid Waste 781
Consumptive Water Loss 782
Energy Requirements 783
IX BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY
AVAILABLE 793
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO BPT 793
Regulated Pollutant Parameters 797
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
IX ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY 798
Production Operations and Discharge Flows . . . 798
Core Operations 799
Ancillary Operations 802
Pollutants 804
Treatment Train 804
Effluent Limitations 805
Benefits. 805
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY 806
Production Operations and Discharge Flows . . . 806
Core Operations 806
Ancillary Operations 808
Pollutants 809
Treatment Train 810
Effluent Limitations 810
Benefits 810
EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY 811
Production Operations and Discharge Flows ... 811
Core Operations 811
Ancillary Operations 813
Pollutants 814
Treatment Train 815
Effluent Limitations 815
Benefits 815
FORGING SUBCATEGORY 816
Production Operations and Discharge Flows . . . 816
Core Operations 816
Ancillary Operations 817
Pollutants 818
Treatment Train 818
Effluent Limitations 819
Benefits 819
DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY 819
Production Operations and Discharge Flows ... 819
Core Operations . 819
Ancillary Operations 821
XIX
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
IX Pol lutant s 82 2
Treatment Train 822
Effluent Limitations 823
Benefits 823
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY . . 823
Production Operations and Discharge Flows . . . 823
Core Operations 824
Ancillary Operations 826
Pollutants 826
Treatment Train 827
Effluent Limitations 827
Benefits 827
APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS IN PERMITS 828
Example 1 828
Example 2 ._ 828
X BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY
ACHIEVABLE 881
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO BAT 881
OPTION 1 883
OPTION 2 884
OPTION 3 885
OPTION 4 886
OPTION 5 886
OPTION 6 887
BAT OPTION SELECTION 887
Industry Cost and Environmental Benefits of
the Various Treatment Options 887
Selected Option for BAT 889
Kill
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
X REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS 891
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY 893
Discharge Flows 893
Pollutants 895
Treatment Train 895
Effluent Limitations 895
Benefits 895
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY 896
Discharge Flows 896
Pollutants 896
Treatment Train 896
Effluent Limitations 897
Benefits 897
EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY 897
Discharge Flows 897
Pollutants 898
Treatment Train 899
Effluent Limitations 899
Benefits 899
FORGING SUBCATEGORY 899
Discharge Flows 899
Pollutants 900
Treatment Train 900
Effluent Limitations 901
Benefits 901
DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY 901
Discharge Flows 901
Pollutants 902
Treatment Train 902
Effluent Limitations 903
Benefits 903
XXV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
X DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY . . 903
Discharge Flows 903
Pollutants 904
Treatment Train 904
Effluent Limitations 904
Benefits 905
XI NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 981
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO NSPS 981
NSPS OPTION SELECTION 982
Costs and Environmental Benefits of Treatment
Options 983
REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS 983
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 983
XII PRETREATMENT STANDARDS 1007
DISCHARGE OF ALUMINUM FORMING WASTEWATERS TO
A POTW 1007
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO PRETREATMENT 1009
PSES AND PSNS OPTION SELECTION. . . 1010
Costs and Environmental Benefits of Treatment
Options 1011
REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS 1011
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS 1012
XIII BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY. 1071
XIV ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 1073
XV REFERENCES 1075
XVI GLOSSARY 1089
XV
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
III-l PROFILE OF ALUMINUM FORMING PLANTS 108
III-2 PLANT AGE DISTRIBUTION BY DISCHARGE TYPE .... 110
III-3 DISTRIBUTION OF FACILITIES ACCORDING TO TIME
ELAPSED SINCE LATEST MAJOR PLANT MODIFICATION. . Ill
V-l ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SPENT LUBRICANTS 196
V-2 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SPENT LUBRICANTS RAW
WASTEWATER 197
V-3 SAMPLING DATA ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SPENT
LUBRICANTS RAW WASTEWATER 201
V-4 ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SPENT EMULSION 203
V-5 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SPENT EMULSIONS RAW
WASTEWATER 204
V-6 SAMPLING DATA ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SPENT
EMULSIONS RAW WASTEWATER 208
V-7 ROLL GRINDING SPENT LUBRICANT 216
V-8 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ROLL GRINDING SPENT LUBRICANT RAW WASTEWATER . . 217
V-9 SAMPLING DATA ROLL GRINDING SPENT EMULSION
RAW WASTEWATER 221
V-10 EXTRUSION DIE CLEANING BATH 222
V-ll EXTRUSION DIE CLEANING RINSE 223
V-l2 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
EXTRUSION DIE CLEANING RINSE RAW WASTEWATER. . . 224
V-l3 SAMPLING DATA EXTRUSION DIE CLEANING RINSE
RAW WASTEWATER 228
xvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
V-14 EXTRUSION DIE CLEANING SCRUBBER LIQUOR 231
V-15 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
EXTRUSION DIE CLEANING SCRUBBER LIQUOR RAW
WASTEWATER 232
V-16 SAMPLING DATA EXTRUSION DIE CLEANING -SCRUBBER
LIQUOR RAW WASTEWATER 236
V-17 EXTRUSION PRESS SCRUBBER LIQUOR 237
V-18 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
EXTRUSION PRESS SCRUBBER LIQUOR RAW WASTEWATER . 238
V-19 SAMPLING DATA EXTRUSION PRESS SCRUBBER LIQUOR
RAW WASTEWATER 242
V-20 EXTRUSION DUMMY BLOCK CONTACT COOLING WATER. . . 243
V-21 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
EXTRUSION DUMMY BLOCK CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER 244
V-22 SAMPLING DATA EXTRUSION DUMMY BLOCK COOLING
RAW WASTEWATER 248
V-23 DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SPENT LUBRICANT 249
V-24 DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SPENT EMULSION . 250
V-25 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SPENT EMULSION
RAW WASTEWATER 251
V-26 SAMPLING DATA DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS
SPENT EMULSION RAW WASTEWATER 255
V-27 SAWING SPENT LUBRICANT 256
V-28 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
DECREASING SPENT SOLVENTS RAW WASTEWATER .... 257
V-29 SAMPLING DATA DECREASING SPENT SOLVENTS RAW
WASTEWATER . . . 261
xvn
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
V-30 ANNEALING ATMOSPHERE SCRUBBER LIQUOR 262
V-31 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ANNEALING ATMOSPHERE SCRUBBER LIQUOR RAW
WASTEWATER 263
V-32 SAMPLING DATA ANNEALING ATMOSPHERE SCRUBBER
LIQUOR RAW WASTEWATER 267
V-33 ROLLING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING
WATER 268
V-34 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ROLLING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING
WATER RAW WASTEWATER 269
V-35 SAMPLING DATA ROLLING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT
CONTACT COOLING WATER RAW WASTEWATER 273
V-36 EXTRUSION PRESS HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING
WATER 276
V-37 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
EXTRUSION PRESS HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING
WATER RAW WASTEWATER 277
V-38 SAMPLING DATA EXTRUSION PRESS HEAT TREATMENT
CONTACT COOLING WATER RAW WASTEWATER 281
V-39 EXTRUSION SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT
COOLING WATER 287
V-40 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
EXTRUSION SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT
COOLING WATER RAW WASTEWATER 288
V-41 SAMPLING DATA EXTRUSION SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT
CONTACT COOLING WATER RAW WASTEWATER 292
V-42 FORGING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING
WATER 295
V-43 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
FORGING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING
WATER RAW WASTEWATER 296
XVlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
V-44 SAMPLING DATA FORGING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT
CONTACT COOLING WATER RAW WASTEWATER 300
V-45 DRAWING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING
WATER 305
V-46 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
DRAWING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING
WATER RAW WASTEWATER 306
V-47 SAMPLING DATA DRAWING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT
CONTACT COOLING WATER RAW WASTEWATER 310
V-48 CLEANING OR ETCHING BATH 314
V-49 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
CLEANING OR ETCHING BATH RAW WASTEWATER 315
V-50 SAMPLING DATA CLEANING OR ETCHING BATH RAW
WASTEWATER 319
V-51 CLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE 324
V-52 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
CLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE RAW WASTEWATER .... 325
V-53 SAMPLING DATA CLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE RAW
WASTEWATER 329
V-54 CLEANING OR ETCHING SCRUBBER LIQUOR 349
V-55 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
CLEANING OR ETCHING SCRUBBER LIQUOR RAW WASTE-
WATER 350
V-56 SAMPLING DATA CLEANING OR ETCHING SCRUBBER
LIQUOR RAW WASTEWATER 354
V-57 FORGING SCRUBBER LIQUOR 355
V-58 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
FORGING SCRUBBER LIQUOR RAW WASTEWATER 356
V-59 SAMPLING DATA FORGING SCRUBBER LIQUOR RAW
WASTEWATER 360
xix
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
V-60 DIRECT CHILL CASTING CONTACT COOLING WATER
(ALUMINUM FORMING PLANTS) 362
V-61 DIRECT CHILL CASTING CONTACT COOLING WATER
(PRIMARY ALUMINUM PLANTS) 364
V-62 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
DIRECT CHILL CASTING CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER 365
V-63 SAMPLING DATA DIRECT CHILL CASTING CONTACT
CONTACT COOLING WATER RAW WASTEWATER 369
V-64 CONTINUOUS ROD CASTING CONTACT COOLING WATER . . 383
V-65 CONTINUOUS ROD CASTING SPENT LUBRICANT 384
V-66 CONTINUOUS SHEET CASTING SPENT LUBRICANT .... 385
V-67 DEGASSING SCRUBBER LIQUOR (PRIMARY ALUMINUM
PLANTS) 386
V-68 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
DEGASSING SCRUBBER LIQUOR RAW WASTEWATER .... 387
V-69 SAMPLING DATA DEGASSING SCRUBBER LIQUOR RAW
WASTEWATER 391
V-70 SAMPLING DATA ADDITIONAL WASTEWATER RAW WASTE-
WATER 392
V-71 SAMPLING DATA PLANT B TREATED WASTEWATER .... 401
V-72 SAMPLING DATA PLANT C TREATED WASTEWATER .... 405
V-73 SAMPLING DATA PLANT D TREATED WASTEWATER .... 406
V-74 SAMPLING DATA PLANT E TREATED WASTEWATER .... 411
V-75 SAMPLING DATA PLANT H TREATED WASTEWATER .... 419
V-76 SAMPLING DATA PLANT J TREATED WASTEWATER .... 421
V-77 SAMPLING DATA PLANT K TREATED WASTEWATER .... 423
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
V-78 SAMPLING DATA PLANT L TREATED WASTEWATER .... 425
V-79 SAMPLING DATA PLANT P TREATED WASTEWATER .... 426
V-80 SAMPLING DATA PLANT Q TREATED WASTEWATER .... 428
V-81 SAMPLING DATA PLANT U TREATED WASTEWATER .... 430
V-82 SAMPLING DATA PLANT V TREATED WASTEWATER .... 434
VI-1 LIST OF 129 TOXIC POLLUTANTS 598
VII-1 pH CONTROL EFFECT ON METALS REMOVAL 728
VII-2 EFFECTIVENESS OF SODIUM HYDROXIDE FOR METALS
REMOVAL 729
VII-3 EFFECTIVENESS OF LIME AND SODIUM HYDROXIDE FOR
METALS REMOVAL 730
VII-4 THEORETICAL SOLUBILITIES OF HYDROXIDES AND
SULFIDES OF SELECTED METALS IN PURE WATER. ... 731
VII-5 SAMPLING DATA FROM SULFIDE PRECIPITATION-
SEDIMENTATION SYSTEMS 732
VII-6 SULFIDE PRECIPITATION-SEDIMENTATION PERFORMANCE. 733
VII-7 FERRITE CO-PRECIPITATION PERFORMANCE 734
VII-8 CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL CYANIDE (mg/1) 735
VII-9 MULTIMEDIA FILTER PERFORMANCE 736
VII-10 PERFORMANCE OF SELECTED SETTLING SYSTEMS .... 737
VII-11 SKIMMING PERFORMANCE 738
VII-12 TRACE ORGANIC REMOVAL BY SKIMMING API PLUS
BELT SKIMMERS 739
VII-13 CHEMICAL EMULSION BREAKING EFFICIENCIES 740
xxi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
VII-14
VII-15
VII-16
VII-17
VII-18
VII-19
VII-20
VII-21
VII-22
VII-23
VII-24
VII-25
VII-26
VII-27
VII-28
VIII-1
VIII-2
VIII-3
COMBINED METALS DATA EFFLUENT VALUES
LScS PERFORMANCE ADDITIONAL POLLUTANTS
COMBINED METALS DATA SET - UNTREATED WASTE -
WATER
MAXIMUM POLLUTANT LEVEL IN UNTREATED WASTE-
WATER ADDITIONAL POLLUTANTS
PRECIPITATION-SETTLING-FILTRATION (LS&F)
PERFORMANCE PLANT A
PRECIPITATION-SETTLING-FILTRATION (LSStf)
PERFORMANCE PLANT B
PRECIPITATION-SETTLING-FILTRATION (LSScF)
PERFORMANCE PLANT C
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS (mg/D . . .
TREATABILITY RATING OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
UTILIZING CARBON ADSORPTION
CLASSES OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ADSORBED ON
CARBON
ACTIVATED CARBON PERFORMANCE
ION EXCHANGE PERFORMANCE
PEAT ADSORPTION PERFORMANCE
MEMBRANE FILTRATON SYSTEM EFFLUENT
ULTRAFILTRATION PERFORMANCE
COST EQUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDED TREATMENT AND
CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
OILY SLUDGE PRODUCTION ASSOCIATED WITH
ALUMINUM FORMING
LIME DOSAGE REQUIREMENTS AND LIME SLUDGE
PRODUCTION ASSOCIATED WITH ALUMINUM FORMING . .
Page
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
784
789
790
XXI1
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
VIII-4 CARBON EXHAUSTION RATES ASSOCIATED WITH
ALUMINUM FORMING 791
IX-1 PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - ROLLING WITH NEAT
OILS SUBCATEGORY 830
IX-2 COMPARISON OF WASTEWATER DISCHARGE RATES FROM
CLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE STREAMS 832
IX-3 CONCENTRATION RANGE OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED
FOR BPT REGULATION IN CORE AND ANCILLARY WASTE
STREAMS - ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY. . 833
IX-4 BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH
NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY 836
IX-5 PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - ROLLING WITH EMUL-
SIONS SUBCATEGORY 840
IX-6 CONCENTRATION RANGE OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED
FOR BPT REGULATION IN CORE AND ANCILLARY WASTE
STREAMS - ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY. . 841
IX-7 BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH
EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY 844
IX-8 PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY . 847
IX-9 CONCENTRATION RANGE OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED
FOR BPT REGULATION IN CORE AND ANCILLARY WASTE
STREAMS - EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY 848
IX-10 BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUB-
CATEGORY 851
IX-11 PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - FORGING SUBCATEGORY . . 855
IX-12 CONCENTRATION RANGE OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED
FOR BPT REGULATION IN CORE AND ANCILLARY WASTE
STREAMS - FORGING SUBCATEGORY 856
IX-13 BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATE-
GORY 859
XXlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
IX-14 PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS
SUBCATEGORY 862
IX-15 CONCENTRATION RANGE OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED
FOR BPT REGULATION IN CORE AND ANCILLARY WASTE
STREAMS - DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY. . 863
IX-16 BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH
NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY 866
IX-17 PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS
OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY 870
IX-18 COMPARISON OF WASTEWATER DISCHARGE RATES FROM
DRAWING EMULSION AND SOAP STREAMS 871
IX-19 CONCENTRATION RANGE OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED
FOR BPT REGULATION IN CORE AND ANCILLARY WASTE
STREAMS - DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS
SUBCATEGORY 872
IX-20 BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH
EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY 875
IX-21 ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE CALCULATIONS FOR PLANT X
IN EXAMPLE 1 879
IX-22 ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE CALCULATIONS FOR PLANT Y
IN EXAMPLE 2 880
X-l CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS ESTIMATES FOR BAT
OPTIONS TOTAL SUBCATEGORY 912
X-2 CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS ESTIMATES FOR BAT
OPTIONS DIRECT DISCHARGERS 913
X-3 TOTAL TREATMENT PERFORMANCE ROLLING WITH NEAT
OILS SUBCATEGORY 914
X-4 TOTAL TREATMENT PERFORMANCE ROLLING WITH
EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY 916
X-5 TOTAL TREATMENT PERFORMANCE EXTRUSION SUBCATE-
GORY 918
XXIV
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
X-6 TOTAL TREATMENT PERFORMANCE FORGING SUBCATE-
GORY 920
X-7 TOTAL TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DRAWING WITH NEAT
OILS SUBCATEGORY 922
X-8 TOTAL TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DRAWING WITH
EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY 924
X-9 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - DIRECT DISCHARGERS
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY 926
X-10 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - DIRECT DISCHARGERS
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY 928
X-ll TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - DIRECT DISCHARGERS
EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY 930
X-12 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - DIRECT DISCHARGERS
DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY. ...... 932
X-13 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - DIRECT DISCHARGERS
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY . . 934
X-14 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - NORMAL PLANT ROLLING
WITH NEAT OIL SUBCATEGORY 936
X-15 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - NORMAL PLANT ROLLING
WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY 938
X-16 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - NORMAL PLANT EXTRUSION
SUBCATEGORY 940
X-17 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - NORMAL PLANT FORGING
SUBCATEGORY 942
X-18 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - NORMAL PLANT DRAWING
WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY 944
X-19 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - NORMAL PLANT DRAWING
WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY 946
X-20 PRODUCTION NORMALIZED RAW WASTE VALUES AND
CONCENTRATIONS FOR ALUMINUM FORMING WASTEWATER
STREAMS 948
XXV
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
X-21 '
X-22
X-23
X-24
X-25
X-26
X-27
X-28
X-29
X-30
X-31
X-32
X-33
XI-1
XI-2
XI-3
TTO - EVALUATION OF OIL TREATMENT EFFECTIVE-
NESS ON TOXICS REMOVAL
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - ROLLING WITH NEAT
OILS SUBCATEGORY
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE .ROLLING WITH
NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS
SUBCATEGORY
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH
EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY .
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUB-
CATEGORY
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - FORGING SUBCATEGORY . .
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATE-
GORY
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - DRAWING WITH NEAT
OILS SUBCATEGORY
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH
NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS
OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH
EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
NSPS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS
SUBCATEGORY
NSPS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS
SUBCATEGORY
NSPS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Page
951
952
954
958
959
962
963
967
968
971
972
976
977
985
989
992
XXVI
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
XI-4 NSPS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY 996
XI-5 NSPS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS
SUBCATEGORY 999
XI-6 NSPS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS
SUBCATEGORY 1003
XII-1 CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COST ESTIMATES FOR BAT
OPTIONS INDIRECT DISCHARGERS 1014
XII-2 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY 1015
XII-3 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY 1017
XII-4 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY 1019
XII-5 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
FORGING SUBCATEGORY 1021
XII-6 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY 1023
XII-7 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY . . 1025
XII-8 PSES FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS
SUBCATEGORY 1027
XII-9 PSES FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS
SUBCATEGORY 1031
XII-10 PSES FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY 1034
XII-11 PSES FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY 1038
XII-12 PSES FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS
SUBCATEGORY 1041
XXVll
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
XII-13
XII-14
XII-15
XII-16
XII-17
XII-18
XII-19
PSES FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS
SUBCATEGORY
PSNS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS
SUBCATEGORY ,
PSNS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS
SUBCATEGORY
PSNS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
PSNS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY.
PSNS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS
SUBCATEGORY
PSNS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS
SUBCATEGORY
Page
1045
1049
1053
1056
1060
1063
1067
XXVI11
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
III-l ALUMINUM FORMING PRODUCTS 107
III-2 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF ALUMINUM FORMING
PLANTS 109
III-3 COMMON ROLLING MILL CONFIGURATIONS 112
III-4 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PLANTS WITH
HOT/COLD ROLLING 113
III-5 DIRECT EXTRUSION 114
III-6 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PLANTS WITH
EXTRUSION 115
III-7 FORGING 116
III-8 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PLANTS WITH
FORGING , 117
III-9 TUBE DRAWING 118
111-10 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PLANTS WITH TUBE,
WIRE, ROD AND BAR DRAWING 119
III-ll DIRECT CHILL CASTING 120
111-12 CONTINUOUS CASTING 121
111-13 VAPOR DECREASING 122
V-l WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT A 176
V-2 WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT B 177
V-3 WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT C 178
V-4 WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT D 179
V-5 WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT E 180
V-6 WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT F 181
V-7 WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT G 182
xxxx
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
V-8 WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT H 183
V-9 WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT J 184
V-10 WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT K 185
V-ll WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT L 186
V-12 WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT N 187
V-13 WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT P 188
V-14 WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT Q 189
V-15 WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT R 190
V-16 WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT S 191
V-17 WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT T 192
V-18 WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT U 193
V-19 WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT V 194
V-20 WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT W 195
VII-1 HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM REDUCTION WITH SULFUR
DIOXIDE 689
VII-2 COMPARATIVE SOLUBILITIES OF METAL HYDROXIDES
AND SULFIDE AS A FUNCTION OF pH 690
VII-3 EFFLUENT ZINC CONCENTRATION VS. MINIMUM
EFFLUENT pH 691
VII-4 LEAD SOLUBILITY IN THREE ALKALIES 692
VII-5 FILTER CONFIGURATIONS 693
VII-6 GRANULAR BED FILTRATION 694
VII-7 PRESSURE FILTRATION 695
VII-8 REPRESENTATIVE TYPES OF SEDIMENTATION ..... 696
XXX
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure
VII-9
VII-10
VII-11
VII-12
VII-13
VII-14
VII-15
VII-16
VII-17
VII-18
VII-19
VII-20
VII-21
VII-22
VII-23
VII-24
VII-25
GRAVITY OIL/WATER SEPARATOR
FLOW DIAGRAM FOR EMULSION BREAKING WITH
CHEMICALS
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFEC-
TIVENESS CADMIUM
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFEC-
TIVENESS CHROMIUM
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFEC-
TIVENESS COPPER
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFEC-
TIVENESS LEAD
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFEC-
TIVENESS NICKEL AND ALUMINUM
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFEC-
TIVENESS ZINC
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFEC-
TIVENESS IRON
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFEC-
TIVENESS MANGANESE
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFEC-
TIVENESS TSS
FLOW DIAGRAM OF ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
WITH REGENERATION
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION COLUMN
DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION
CENTRIFUGATION
TREATMENT OF CYANIDE WASTE BY ALKALINE CHLO-
RINATION
TYPICAL OZONE PLANT FOR WASTE TREATMENT ....
Page
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
xxxi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
VII-26 UV/OZONATION 714
VII-27 TYPES OF EVAPORATION EQUIPMENT 715
VII-28 GRAVITY THICKENING 716
VII-29 ION EXCHANGE WITH REGENERATION 717
VII-30 SIMPLIFIED REVERSE OSMOSIS SCHEMATIC 718
VII-31 REVERSE OSMOSIS MEMBRANE CONFIGURATIONS .... 719
VII-32 SLUDGE DRYING BED 720
VII-33 SIMPLIFIED ULTRAFILTRATION FLOW SCHEMATIC ... 721
VII-34 FLOW DIAGRAM FOR A BATCH TREATMENT ULTRA-
FILTRATION SYSTEM 722
VII-35 VACUUM FILTRATION 723
VII-36 FLOW DIAGRAM FOR RECYCLING WITH A COOLING
TOWER 724
VII-37 COUNTERCURRENT RINSING (TANKS) . . . , 725
VII-38 EFFECT OF ADDED RINSE STAGES ON WATER USE . . . 726
VII-39 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF SPINNING NOZZLE ALUMINUM
REFINING PROCESS 727
IX-1 BPT TREATMENT TRAIN FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT
OILS SUBCATEGORY 835
IX-2 BPT TREATMENT TRAIN FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMUL-
SIONS SUBCATEGORY 843
IX-3 BPT TREATMENT TRAIN FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATE-
GORY 850
IX-4 BPT TREATMENT TRAIN FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY. 858
IX-5 BPT TREATMENT TRAIN FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT
OILS SUBCATEGORY 865
XXX11
-------
Figure
IX-6
X-l
X-2
X-3
X-4
X-5
X-6
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
BPT TREATMENT TRAIN FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMUL-
SIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
BAT TREATMENT TRAIN FOR OPTION 1
BAT TREATMENT TRAIN FOR OPTION 2
BAT TREATMENT TRAIN FOR OPTION 3
BAT TREATMENT TRAIN FOR OPTION 4
BAT TREATMENT TRAIN FOR OPTION 5
BAT TREATMENT TRAIN FOR OPTION 6
Page
874
906
907
908
909
910
911
XXXI11
-------
-------
SECTION I
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Pursuant to Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, and 501 of the Clean
Water Act and the Settlement Agreement in Natural Resources
Defense Council v. Train 8 ERG 2120 (D.D.C. 1976) modified 12 ERG
1833 (D.D.C. 1979), EPA has collected and analyzed data for
plants in the Aluminum Forming Point Source Category. There are
no existing effluent limitations or performance standards for
this industry. This document and the administrative record
provide the technical basis for proposing effluent limitations
guidelines for existing direct dischargers, pretreatment stan-
dards for new and existing indirect dischargers, and standards of
performance for new source direct dischargers.
Two hundred seventy-seven plants employing 28,500 people make up
this category. Of the 277 plants, 58 discharge directly to
rivers, lakes, or streams; 66 discharge to publicly owned treat-
ment works (POTW); and 153 do not discharge process wastewater.
The Agency developed a data collection portfolio (dcp) to collect
information regarding plant size, age, production, the production
processes used, the quantity of process wastewater used and dis-
charged, wastewater treatment in-place, and disposal practices at
plants practicing aluminum forming. The dcp' s were sent to 580
firms known or believed to perform aluminum forming, 95 percent
of these firms responded,
EPA sampled the raw (untreated) and treated process wastewater at
20 aluminum forming plants. Screen sampling was performed at
four facilities, each representing one of the major manufacturing
processes of rolling, extruding, forging, and drawing. Samples
were collected from wastewater sources associated with the major
manufacturing processes, as well as any associated processes,
including cleaning, etching, solution heat treatment, and anneal-
ing, among others. Each of the samples was analyzed to determine
the presence or absence, and if present, the concentration of 129
toxic priority pollutants, plus conventional and selected noncon-
ventional pollutants. The remaining 16 plants were sampled to
verify the findings and strengthen the data base.
The Agency examined the rate of production and wastewater genera-
tion reported in the dcp' s for each aluminum forming operation.
These data combined with the wastewater characteristics deter-
mined during sampling became the principle bases for subcatego-
rizing this category. Based on these data, the most appropriate
-------
approach to subcategorizing this category is by the major manu-
facturing processes. In addition, a review of the use of lubri-
cants in rolling and drawing showed that these operations needed
to be segmented according to whether neat oils or soaps and emul-
sions are used. A neat oil is a pure oil which when spent of its
lubricating properties, can be hauled to an oil reclaimer or used
as fuel in the plant. Emulsions and soaps are mixtures of oils
and water. When these lubricants are spent, plants can contract
haul them to a disposal site, or treat them to remove the oil and
discharge or reuse the water. The aluminum forming category is
subcategorized based on manufacturing processes and wastewater
characteristics, resulting in six subcategories: rolling with
neat oils, rolling with emulsions, extrusion, forging, drawing
with neat oils, and drawing with emulsions or soaps.
Each subcategory is divided into two segments. The first seg-
ment, called the core, consists of the specific forming operation
and related operations that are an integral part of the forming
process. The core also includes operations that may be found in
conjunction with the forming operation but do not discharge
wastewater. The effluent flow from the core for each of the sub-
categories is production normalized or related to the mass of
aluminum processed through the forming operation, and the limita-
tions at BPT and BAT are based on the effluent flow and the
treatment effectiveness.
The second segment of each subcategory consists of ancillary
operations that generate wastewater and when practiced are an
integral part of the aluminum forming process. These ancillary
operations, such as solution heat treatment, cleaning or etching,
and casting, are practiced to achieve desired characteristics or
finishes on the aluminum products and can be characterized by the
generation of large volumes of wastewater. Because they are not
found at every plant in a subcategory and they are not always
unique to a specific subcategory, they are not included in the
core. Instead, a separate limitation is proposed for the waste
streams generated by these ancillary operations and normalized by
the mass of aluminum processed through the ancillary operation.
An aluminum forming plant would be permitted to discharge pollu-
tants equivalent to the sum of the limitations established for
the core and the ancillary operation(s) practiced at the plant.
EPA used the subcategories to study the characteristics of the
untreated wastewater for the purpose of selecting in-plant
control and end-of-pipe treatment options. The pollutants
present at levels of most significant concentration are:
Cadmium,
Chromium,
Cyanide,
-------
Copper,
Lead,
- Nickel,
Zinc,
Aluminum,
Oil and grease,
Suspended solids, and
Specific toxic organics.
The Agency studied various end-of-pipe technologies to treat the
above pollutants, including:
Chemical precipitation and sedimentation (lime and
settle),
Oil skimming,
Chromium reduction,
Cyanide oxidation or precipitation,
Multimedia filtration,
Carbon adsorption,
Reverse osmosis,
Chemical emulsion breaking, and
Thermal emulsion breaking.
EPA also studied various types of in-plant controls reported in
the dcp's and observed during sampling. The in-plant controls
studied included:
Recycle of contact cooling water and scrubber liquor,
Countercurrent cascade rinsing,
Hauling or regeneration of chemical baths for cleaning
or etching, and
Alternative fluxing and degassing methods which do not
require wet scrubbing.
Engineering costs were prepared for each of the treatment options
considered for each plant in the category. These costs were then
used by the Agency to estimate the impact of implementing the
various options on the industry. For each subcategory for each
control and treatment option, the number of potential closures,
-------
number of employees affected, and impact on price were estimated.
These results are reported in the Economic Impact Analysis of
Proposed Effluent Limitations and Standards for the Aluminum
Forming Industry.
The Agency has also examined the performance of each control and
treatment option. The Agency has identified BPT to represent the
average of the best existing technology. Metals removal based on
lime and settle technology is the basis for the BPT limitations
on zinc, aluminum, and suspended solids, while oil removal by
skimming and chemical emulsion breaking were selected as the
basis for the oil and grease limitation. Chromium reduction may
be necessary to achieve the limitation on chromium. Cyanide
removal may be necessary if cyanide is present in wastewaters.
The goal of BAT is to achieve increased levels of toxic pollutant
removal. For BAT, the Agency selected the same end-of-pipe
treatment as BPT in conjunction with several in-process control
technologies which include recycle of process water from scrub-
bing and contact cooling waste streams, countercurrent cascade
rinsing, regeneration or hauling of chemical baths used for
cleaning or etching, and alternate fluxing and desgassing methods
to achieve zero discharge. All of the control technologies, as
well as the end-of-pipe treatment, except for cyanide removal,
are currently being applied to aluminum forming process waste-
water. The Agency is considering promulgating BAT on the basis
of the addition of polishing filters.
BDT, which is the technical basis of NSPS is similar to BAT with
the addition of polishing filters. In selecting BDT, EPA recog-
nizes that new plants have the opportunity to implement the best
and most efficient manufacturing processes and control and
treatment technology.
For PSES, the Agency selected the same technology as BAT, which
is BPT end-of-pipe treatment in conjunction with several
in-process flow reduction control techniques. For PSNS, the
Agency selected the same technology as NSPS, which is BPT
end-of-pipe treatment with the addition of polishing filters in
conjunction with several in-process flow reduction control tech-
niques. The Agency is considering promulgating PSES on the basis
of the addition of polishing filters.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
EPA has divided the aluminum forming category into six
subcategories for the purpose of effluent limitations and
standards. These subcategories are:
- Rolling With Neat Oils
Rolling With Emulsions
Extrusion
- Forging
Drawing With Neat Oils
Drawing With Emulsions or Soaps
BPT is being proposed based on the treatment effectiveness
achievable by the application of oil skimming and chemical
precipitation and sedimentation (lime and settle) technology.
The following BPT effluent limitations are being proposed for
existing sources:
A. BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS
SUBCATEGORY
(a) Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams Without An
Annealing Furnace Scrubber
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with neat oils
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
6.96
4.81
22.05
75.44
331.60
679.78
2.82
1,99
9.28
30.84
198.96
331.60
_pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
-------
(b) Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams With An
Annealing Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/blllion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with neat oils
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Oil Se Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
pH
18.03
12.45
57.10
195.33
858.60
1,760.13
7.30
5.15
24.04
79.85
515.16
858.60
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
(c) Continuous Sheet Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119
121
128
Chromium 0.77
Cyanide 0.53
Zinc 2.45
Aluminum 8.39
Oil & Grease 36.86
Total Suspended 75.56
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5
0.31
0.22
1.03
3.43
22.12
36.86
to 10.0 at all times.
(d) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
3,236.10
2,234.45
10,247.65
35,057.75
154,100.00
315,905.00
1,309.85
924.60
4,314.80
14,331.30
92,460.00
154,100.00
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
L
-------
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium 85.85
Cyanide 59.28
Zinc 271.85
Aluminum 930.02
Oil & Grease 4,088.00
Total Suspended 8,380.40
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5
34.75
24.53
114.46
380.18
2,452.80
4,088.00
to 10.0 at all times.
(f) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium 7,081.20
Cyanide 4,889.40
Zinc 22,423.80
Aluminum 76,713,00
Oil & Grease 337,200.00
Total Suspended 691,260.00
Solids
pH Within the range
2,866.20
2,023.20
9,441.60
31,359.60
202,320.00
337,200.00
of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times.
(g) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium 7,232.40
Cyanide 4,993.80
Zinc 22,902.60
Aluminum 78,351.00
Oil & Grease 344,400.00
Total Suspended 706,020.00
Solids
pH Within the range
2,927.40
2,066.40
9,643.20
32,029.20
206,640.00
344,400.00
of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times.
J
-------
B. BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS
SUBCATEGORY
(a) Rolling With Emulsions - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with emulsions
119
121
128
Chromium 38 . 26
Cyanide 26.42
Zinc 121.15
Aluminum 414.46
Oil & Grease 1,821.80
Total Suspended 3,734.69
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5
15.49
10.93
51.01
169.43
1,093.08
1,821.80
to 10.0 at all times.
(b) Direct Chill Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by direct chill methods
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
pH
839.58
579.71
2,658.67
9,095.45
39,980.00
81,959.00
Within the range of 7.5
339.83
239.88
1,119.44
3,718.14
23,988.00
39,980.00
to 10.0 at all times.
(c) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119
121
128
Chromium 3,236.10
Cyanide 2,234.45
Zinc 10,247.65
Aluminum 35,057 .75
Oil & Grease 154,100.00
Total Suspended 315,905.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5
1,309.85
924.60
4,314.80
14,331.30
92,460.00
154,100.00
to 10,0 at all times.
-------
(d) Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Pay
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium 85.85
Cyanide 59.28
Zinc 271.85
Aluminum 930.02
Oil & Grease 4,088.00
Total Suspended 8,380.40
Solids
pH Within the range
34.75
24.53
114.46
380.18
2,452.80
4,088.00
of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times.
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium 7,081.20
Cyanide 4,889.40
Zinc 22,423.80
Aluminum 76,713.00
Oil Sc Grease 337,200.00
Total Suspended 691,260.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5
2,866.20
2,023.20
9,441.60
31,359.60
202,320.00
337,200.00
to 10.0 at all times.
(f) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium 7,232.40
Cyanide 4,993.80
Zinc 22,902.60
Aluminum 78,351.00
Oil & Grease 344,400.00
Total Suspended 706,020.00
Solids
pH Within the range
2,927.40
2,066.40
9,643.20
32,029.20
206,640.00
344,400.00
of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times.
-------
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
(a) Extrusion - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum extruded
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
135.95
93.87
430.52
1,472.84
6,474.00
13,271.70
pH Within the range of 7.5
55.03
38.84
181.27
602.08
3,884.40
6,474.00
to 10.0 at all times.
(b) Direct Chill Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) o£ aluminum cast by direct chill methods
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
839.58
579.71
2,658.67
9,095.45
39,980.00
81,959.00
pH Within the range of 7.5
339.83
239.88
1,119.44
3,718.14
23,988.00
39,980.00
to 10.0 at all times.
(c) Solution and Press Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling
Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
M ax imutof o r
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119
121
128
Chromium 3,236,10
Cyanide 2,234.45
Zinc 10,247.65
Aluminum 35,057 .75
Oil & Grease 154,100.00
Total Suspended 315,905.00
Solids
pH Within the range
1,309.85
924.60
4,314.80
14,331.30
92,460.00
154,100.00
of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times.
10
-------
(d) Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
' mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium 85.85
Cyanide 59.28
Zinc 271.85
Aluminum 930.02
Oil & Grease 4,088,00
Total Suspended 8,380,40
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5
34.75
24.53
114.46
380.18
2,452.80
4,088.00
to 10.0 at all times.
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium 7,081.20
Cyanide 4,889.40
Zinc 22,423.80
Aluminum 76,713.00
Oil & Grease 337,200.00
Total Suspended 691,260.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5
2,866.20
2,023.20
9,441.60
31,359.60
202,320.00
337,200.00
to 10.0 at all times.
(f) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Oil Sc Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
7,232.40
4,993.80
22,902.60
78,351.00
344,400.00
706,020.00
2,927.40
2,066.40
9,643.20
32,029.20
206,640.00
344,400.00
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
11
-------
(g) Degassing - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum degassed
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil 8t Grease
Total Suspended 1
Solids
pH Within
12.26
8.47
38.82
132.81
583.80
,196,79
the range of 7.5
4.96
3.50
16.35
54.29
350.28
583.80
to 10.0 at all times.
D. BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS
SUBCATEGORY
(a) Drawing With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum drawn with neat oils
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
3.28
2.26
10.38
35.52
156.14
320.09
1.33
0.94
4.37
14.52
93.68
156.14
pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
(b) Continuous Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
pH
437.64
302.18
1,385.86
4,741.10
20,840.00
42,722.00
177.14
125.04
583.52
1,938.12
12,504.00
20,840.00
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
12
-------
(c) Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Pay Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119
121
128
Chromium 0.77
Cyanide 0.53
Zinc 2.45
Aluminum 8.39
Oil St Grease 36.86
Total Suspended 75.56
Solids
pH Within the range
0.31
0.22
1.03
3.43
22.12
36.86
of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times.
(d) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) o£ aluminum quenched
119 Chromium 3,236.10 1,309.85
121 Cyanide 2,234.45 924.60
128 Zinc 10,247.65 4,314.80
Aluminum 35,057.75 14,331.30
Oil & Grease 154,100.00 92,460.00
Total Suspended 315,905.00 154,100.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
85.85
59.28
271.85
930.02
4,088.00
8,380.40
pH Within the range of 7.5
34.75
24.53
114.46
380.18
2,452.80
4,088.00
to 10.0 at all times.
13
-------
(f) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
7,081.20
4,889.40
22,423.80
76,713.00
337,200.00
691,260.00
pH Within the range of 7.5
2,866.20
2,023.20
9,441.60
31,359.60
202,320.00
337,200.00
to 10.0 at all times.
(g) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
7,232.40
4,993.80
22,902.60
78,351.00
344,400.00
706,020.00
2,927.40
2,066.40
9,643.20
32,029.20
206,640.00
344,400,00
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
E. BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS
OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
(a) Drawing With Emulsions or Soaps - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum drawn with emulsions or soaps
119
121
128
Chromium 178.21
Cyanide 123.05
Zinc 564.32
Aluminum 1,930.57
Oil Sc Grease 8,486.00
Total Suspended 17,396.30
Solids
pH Within the range
72.13
50.92
237.61
789.20
5,091.60
8,486.00
of 7,5 to 10.0 at all times.
-------
(b) Continuous Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billlon Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119
121
128
Chromium 437 .64
Cyanide 302.18
Zinc 1,385.86
Aluminum 4,741 .10
Oil & Grease 20,840.00
Total Suspended 42,722.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5
177.14
125.04
583.52
1,938.12
12,504.00
20,840.00
to 10.0 at all times.
(c) Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil St Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
pH Within
0.77
0.53
2.45
8.39
36.86
75.56
the range
0.31
0.22
1.03
3.43
22.12
36.86
of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times.
(d) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119 Chromium 3,236.10 1 ,309.85
121 Cyanide 2,234.45 924.60
128 Zinc 10,247.65 4,314.80
Aluminum 35,057.75 14,331.30
Oil & Grease 154,100.00 92,460.00
Total Suspended 315,905.00 154,100.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
15
-------
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium 85.85
Cyanide 59.28
Zinc 271.85
Aluminum 930.02
Oil & Grease 4,088.00
Total Suspended 8,380.40
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5
34.75
24.53
114.46
380.18
2,452.80
4,088.00
to 10.0 at all times.
(f) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium 7,081.20 2,866.20
121 Cyanide 4 ,889.40 2 ,023 .20
128 Zinc 22,423.80 9,441.60
Aluminum 76 ,713 .00 31,359 .60
Oil & Grease 337,200.00 202,320.00
Total Suspended 691,260 .00 337 ,200.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
(g) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium 7,232.40
Cyanide 4,993.80
Zinc 22,902.60
Aluminum 78,351.00
Oil & Grease 344,400.00
Total Suspended 706,020.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5
2,927.40
2,066.40
9,643.20
32,029.20
206,640.00
344,400.00
to 10.0 at all times.
16
-------
3. BAT is being proposed based on the treatment effectiveness
achievable by the application of oil skimming, chemical
precipitation, and sedimentation (lime and settle) technology
and in-process flow reduction control methods. The following
BAT effluent limitations are being proposed for existing
sources:
A. BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS
SUBCATEGORY
(a) Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams Without An
Annealing Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with neat oils
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
6.96
4.81
22.05
75.44
2.82
1.99
9.28
30.84
(b) Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams With An
Annealing Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with neat oils
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
18.03
12.45
57.10
195.33
7.30
5.15
24.04
79.85
(c) Continuous Sheet Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Aluminum
0.77
0,53
2.45
8.39
0.31
0.22
1.03
3.43
17
-------
(d) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119 Chromium 855.54 346.29
121 Cyanide 590.73 244.44
128 Zinc 2,709.21 1,140.72
Aluminum 9,268.35 3,788.82
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
~Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
708.12
488.94
2,242.38
7,671.30
286.62
202.32
944.16
3,135.96
(f) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum forMaximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium 811.86 328.61
121 Cyanide 560.57 231.96
128 Zinc 2,570.89 1,082.48
Aluminum 8,795.15 3,595.38
B. BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS
SUBCATEGORY
(a) Rolling With Emulsions - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with emulsions
119 Chromium 38.26 15.49
121 Cyanide 26.42 10.93
128 Zinc 121.15 51.01
Aluminum 414.46 169.43
18
-------
(b) Direct Chill Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by direct chill methods
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
839.58
579.71
2,658.67
9,095.45
339.83
239.88
1,119.44
3,718.14
(c) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119 Chromium 855.54 346.29
121 Cyanide 590.73 244.44
128 Zinc 2,709.21 1,140.72
Aluminum 9,268.35 3,788.82
(d) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
708.12
488.94
2,242.38
7,671.30
286.62
202.32
944.16
3,135.96
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
m
g/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium 811.86 328.61
121 Cyanide 560.57 231.96
128 Zinc 2,570.89 1,082.48
Aluminum 8,795.15 3,595.38
19
-------
C. BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
(a) Extrusion - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum extruded
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
125.20
86.45
396.47
1,356.36
50.68
35.77
166.94
554.47
(b) Direct Chill Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by direct chill methods
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Aluminum
839.58
579.71
2,658.67
9,095.45
339.83
239.88
1,119.44
3,718.14
(c) Solution and Press Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling
Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
855.54
590.73
2,709.21
9,268.35
346.29
244.44
1,140.72
3,788.82
(d) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
708.12
488.94
2,242.38
7,671.30
286.62
202.32
944.16
3,135.96
20
-------
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/bi11ion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Aluminum
811.86
560.57
2,570.89
8,795.15
328.61
231.96
1,082.48
3,595.38
D. BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS
SUBCATEGORY
(a) Drawing With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum drawn with neat oils
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Aluminum
3.28
2.26
10.38
35.52
1.33
0.94
4.37
14.52
(b) Continuous Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Aluminum
43.76
30.22
138.59
474.11
17.71
12.50
58.35
193.81
21
-------
(c) Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Aluminum
0.77
0.53
2.45
8.39
0.31
0.22
1.03
3.43
(d) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Aluminum
855.54
590.73
2,709.21
9,268.35
346.29
244.44
1,140.72
3,788.82
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day
119
121
128
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum
Chromium 708.12
Cyanide 488.94
Zinc 2,242.38
Aluminum 7,671.30
Maximum for
Monthly Average
cleaned or etched
286.62
202.32
944.16
3,135.96
(f) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) o£ aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Aluminum
811.86
560.57
2,570.89
8,795.15
328.61
231.96
1,082.48
3,595.38
22
-------
E. BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS
OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
(a) Drawing With Emulsions or Soaps - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
m,
.g/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum drawn with emulsions or soaps
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
178.21
123.05
564.32
1,930.57
72.13
50.92
237.61
789.20
(b) Continuous Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum for'
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
43.76
30.22
138.59
474.11
17.71
12.50
58.35
193.81
(c) Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
0.77
0.53
2.45
8.39
0.31
0.22
1.03
3.43
(d) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
855.54
590.73
2,709.21
9,268.35
346.29
244.44
1,140.72
3,788.82
23
-------
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
708.12
488.94
2,242.38
7,671.30
286.62
202.32
944.16
3,135.96
(f) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium 811.86 328.61
121 Cyanide 560.57 231.96
128 Zinc 2,570.89 1,082.48
Aluminum 8,795.15 3,595.38
4. NSPS is being proposed based on the treatment effectiveness
achievable by the application of oil skimming, chemical
precipitation, sedimentation and filtration Clime, settle,
and filter) technology and in-process flow reduction control
methods. The following effluent standards are being proposed
for new sources:
A. NSPS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
(a) Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams Without An
Annealing Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant orMaximum for"Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with neat oils
119 Chromium 6.13 2.49
121 Cyanide 3.32 1.33
128 Zinc 16.91 6.96
Aluminum 50.24 20.56
Oil & Grease 165.80 165.80
Total Suspended 248.70 182.38
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times.
24
-------
(b) Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams With An
Annealing Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with neat oils
119 Chromium 15.88 6.44
121 Cyanide 8.59 3.43
128 Zinc 43.79 18.03
Aluminum 130.08 53.23
Oil & Grease 429.30 429.30
Total Suspended 643.95 472.23
Solids
p_H Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
(c) Continuous Sheet Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
pH Within
0.68
0.37
1.88
5.58
18.43
27.65
the range of 7.5
0.28
0.15
0.77
2.29
18.43
20.27
to 10.0 at all times.
(d) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119
121
128
Chromium 753.69
Cyanide 407.40
Zinc 2,077.74
Aluminum 6 ,172 .11
Oil St Grease 20,370.00
Total Suspended 30,555.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5
305.55
162.96
855.54
2,525.88
20,370.00
22,407.00
to 10.0 at all times.
25
-------
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium 623.82
Cyanide 337.20
Zinc 1,719.72
Aluminum 5,108.58
Oil & Grease 16,860.00
Total Suspended 25,290.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5
252.90
134.88
708.12
2,090.64
16,860.00
18,546.00
to 10.0 at all times.
(£) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/bil1ion Ibs)_o£_alumlnum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium 715.21
Cyanide 386.60
Zinc 1,971.66
Aluminum 5,856.99
Oil & Grease 19,330.00
Total Suspended 28,995.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5
289.95
154.64
811.86
2,396.92
19,330.00
21,263.00
to 10.0 at all times.
B. NSPS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
(a) Rolling With Emulsions - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with emulsions
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended 1
Solids
pH Within
33.70
8.22
92.91
276.00
910.90
,366.35
the range of 7 . 5
13.66
7.29
38.26
112.95
910.90
1,001.99
to 10.0 at all times.
26
-------
(b) Direct Chill Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by direct chill methods
119 Chromium 739.63
121 Cyanide 399.80
128 Zinc 2,038.98
Aluminum 6,056.97
Oil & Grease 19,990.00
Total Suspended 29,985.00
Solids
299.85
159.92
839.58
2,478.76
19,990.00
21,989.00
PH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
(c) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119
121
128
Chromium 753.69
Cyanide 407.40
Zinc 2,077.74
Aluminum 6,172.11
Oil & Grease 20,370.00
Total Suspended 30,555.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5
305.55
162.96
855.54
2,525.88
20,370.00
22,407.00
to 10.0 at all times.
(d) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
m
g/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium 623.82
Cyanide 337.20
Zinc 1,719.72
Aluminum 5,108.58
Oil Se Grease 16,860.00
Total Suspended 25,290.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5
252.90
134.88
708.12
2,090.64
16,860.00
18,546.00
to 10.0 at all times.
27
-------
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Pay for Monthly Average
119
121
128
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum
Chromium 715.21
Cyanide 386.60
Zinc 1,971.66
Aluminum 5,856.99
Oil & Grease 19,330.00
Total Suspended 28,995.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.
cleaned or etched
289.95
154.64
811.86
2,396.92
19,330.00
21,263.00
5 to 10.0 at all times.
C. NSPS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
(a) Extrusion - Core Waste Streams
~" Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
119
121
128
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum
Chromium 110.30
Cyanide 59.62
Zinc 304.06
Aluminum 903.24
Oil k Grease 2,981.00
Total Suspended 4,471.50
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to
extruded
44.72
23.85
125.20
369.64
2,981.00
3,279.10
10.0 at all times.
(b) Direct Chill Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion
119
121
128
Ibs)
of
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc 2
Aluminum 6
Oil St Grease 19
Total Suspended 29
Solids
pH Within
aluminum cast by
739.
399.
,038.
,056.
,990.
,985.
the
63
80
98
97
00
00
range of 7.5
direct
2,
19,
21,
to 10.
chill methods
299.
159.
839.
478.
990.
989.
0 at
85
92
58
76
00
00
all times.
2 8
-------
(c) Solution and Press Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling
Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119
121
128
Chromium 753.69
Cyanide 407.40
Zinc 2,077.74
Aluminum 6,172.11
Oil & Grease 20,370.00
Total Suspended 30,555.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5
305.55
162.96
855.54
2,525.88
20,370.00
22,407.00
to 10.0 at all times.
(d) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium 623.82
Cyanide 337.20
Zinc 1,719.72
Aluminum 5,108.58
Oil & Grease 16,860.00
Total Suspended 25,290.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5
252.90
134.88
708.12
2,090.64
16,860.00
18,546.00
to 10.0 at all times.
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Pay
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium 715.21
Cyanide 386.60
Zinc 1,971.66
Aluminum 5,856.99
Oil & Grease 19,330.00
Total Suspended 28,995.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5
289.95
154.64
811.86
2,396.92
19,330.00
21,263.00
to 10.0 at all times.
29
-------
D. NSPS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
(a) Forging - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib /billion
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil St Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
pH Witbin
2
1
7
23
78
117
the
Ibs) of aluminum forged
.89
.56
.96
.66
.07
.11
range of 7.5
1.
0.
3.
9.
78.
85.
to 10.0 at
17
62
28
68
07
88
all times .
(b) Forging - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum forged
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil St Grease
Total Suspended 1
Solids
pH Within
34.89
18.86
96.20
285.76
943.10
,414.65
the range of 7.5
14.15
7.54
39.61
116.94
943.10
1,037.41
to 10.0 at all times.
(c) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) o£ aluminum quenched
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Oil St Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
El
753.69
407.40
2,077.74
6,172.11
20,370.00
30,555.00
305.55
162.96
855.54
2,525.88
20,370.00
22,407.00
Within the range of 7,5 to 10.0 at all times
3 0
-------
(d) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Maximum for
Any One Day
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium 623.82
Cyanide 337.20
Zinc 1,719.72
Aluminum 5,108.58
Oil & Grease 16,860.00
Total Suspended 25,290.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5
252.90
134.88
708.12
2,090.64
16,860.00
18,546.00
to 10.0 at all times.
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium 715.21
121 Cyanide 386.60
128 Zinc 1,971.66
Aluminum 5,856.99
Oil & Grease 19,330.00
Total Suspended 28,995.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5
289.95
154.64
811.86
2,396.92
19,330.00
21,263.00
to 10.0 at all times.
E. NSPS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
(a) Drawing With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum drawn with neat oils
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
2.89
1,56
7.96
23.66
78.07
117.11
1.17
0.62
3.28
9.68
78.07
85.88
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
31
-------
(b) Continuous Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119
121
128
Chromium 38.55
Cyanide 20.84
Zinc 106.28
Aluminum 315,73
Oil & Grease 1,042.00
Total Suspended 1,563.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5
15.63
8.34
43.76
129.21
1,042.00
1,146.20
to 10.0 at all times.
(c) Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil Sc Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
pH Within
0.68
0.37
1.88
5.58
18.43
27.65
the range of 7.5
0.28
0.15
0.77
2.29
18.43
20.27
to 10.0 at all times.
(d) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119
121
128
Chromium 753.69
Cyanide 407.40
Zinc 2,077.74
Aluminum 6,172.11
Oil & Grease 20,370.00
Total Suspended 30,555.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5
305.55
162.96
855.54
2,525.88
20,370.00
22,407.00
to 10.0 at all times.
32
-------
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium 623.82
Cyanide 337.20
Zinc 1,719.72
Aluminum 5,108.58
Oil & Grease 16,860.00
Total Suspended 25,290.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5
252.90
134.88
708.12
2,090.64
16,860.00
18,546.00
to 10.0 at all times.
(f) Cleaning or Etching •* Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
m
g/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium 715.21
Cyanide 386.60
Zinc 1,971.66
Aluminum 5,856.99
Oil & Grease 19,330.00
Total Suspended 28,995.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5
289.95
154.64
811.86
2,396.92
19,330.00
21,263.00
to 10.0 at all times.
F. NSPS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
(a) Drawing With Emulsions or Soaps - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum drawn with emulsions or soaps
119
121
128
Chromium 156.99
Cyanide 84.86
Zinc 432.79
Aluminum 1,285.63
Oil & Grease 4,243.00
Total Suspended 6,364.50
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5
63.65
33.94
178.21
526.13
4,243.00
4,667.30
to 10.0 at all times.
33
-------
(b) Continuous Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119
121
128
Chromium 38.55
Cyanide 20.84
Zinc 106.28
Aluminum 315.73
Oil St Grease 1,042.00
Total Suspended 1,563.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5
15.63
8.34
43.76
129.21
1,042.00
1,146.20
to 10.0 at all times.
(c) Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil St Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
pH Within
0.68
0.37
1.88
5.58
18.43
27.65
the range of 7.5
0.28
0.15
0.77
2.29
18.43
20.27
to 10.0 at all times.
(d) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119
121
128
Chromium 753.69
Cyanide 407.40
Zinc 2,077.74
Aluminum 6,172.11
Oil & Grease 20,370.00
Total Suspended 30,555.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5
305.55
162.96
855.54
2,525.88
20,370.00
22,407.00
to 10.0 at all times.
34
I
-------
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium 623.82
Cyanide 337.20
Zinc 1,719.72
Aluminum 5,108.58
Oil St Grease 16,860.00
Total Suspended 25,290.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7 . 5
252.90
134.88
708.12
2,090.64
16,860.00
18,546.00
to 10.0 at all times.
(f) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium 715.21
Cyanide 386.60
Zinc 1,971.66
Aluminum 5,856.99
Oil & Grease 19,330.00
Total Suspended 28,995.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5
289.95
154.64
811.86
2,396.92
19,330.00
21,263.00
to 10.0 at all times.
35
-------
5. PSES is being proposed based on the treatment effectiveness
achievable by the application of oil skimming and chemical
precipitation and sedimentation (lime and settle) technology
and in-process flow reduction control methods. The following
pretreatment standards are being proposed for existing
sources:
A. PSES FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
(a) Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams Without An
Annealing Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with neat oils
119 Chromium 6.96
121 Cyanide 4.81
128 Zinc 22.05
Total Toxic Organics 11.44
(TTO)
Oil St Grease* 331.60
2.82
1.99
9.28
198,96
(b) Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams With An
Annealing Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with neat oils
119 Chromium 18.03
121 Cyanide 12.45
128 Zinc 57.10
Total Toxic Organics 29.62
(TTO)
Oil & Grease* 858.60
7.30
5.15
24.04
515.16
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
3 6
-------
(c) Continuous Sheet Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic Organics
(TTO)
Oil & Grease*
0.77
0.53
2.45
1.27
36.86
0.31
0.22
1.03
22.12
(d) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil St Grease*
855.54
590.73
2,709.21
1,405.53
40,740.00
346.29
244.44
1,140.72
24,440.00
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Pay
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium 708.12
121 Cyanide 488.94
128 Zinc 2,242.38
Total Toxic 1,163.34
Organics (TTO)
Oil St Grease* 33,720.00
286.62
202.32
944.16
20,232.00
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
37
-------
(£) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil Se Grease*
811.86
560.57
2,570.89
1,333.77
38,660.00
328.61
231.96
1,082.48
23,196.00
B. PSES FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
(a) Rolling With Emulsions - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with emulsions
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic Organics
(TTO)
Oil & Grease* 1
38.26
26.42
121.15
62.85
,821.80
15.49
10.93
51.01
1,093.08
(b) Direct Chill Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by direct chill methods
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil St Grease*
839.58
579.71
2,658.67
1,379.31
39,980.00
339.83
239.88
1,119.44
23,988.00
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
3 e
-------
(c) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) o£ aluminum quenched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil Sc Grease*
855.54
590.73
2,709.21
1,405.53
40,740.00
346.29
244.44
1,140.72
24,440.00
(d) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day
119
121
128
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum
Chromium 708.12
Cyanide 488.94
Zinc 2,242.38
Total Toxic 1,163.34
Organics (TTO)
Oil Sc Grease* 33,720.00
Maximum
for Monthly Average
cleaned or etched
286.62
202.32
944.16
20,232.00
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Pay for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium 811.86 328.61
121 Cyanide 560.57 231.96
128 Zinc 2,570.89 1,082.48
Total Toxic 1,333.77
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 38,660.00 23,196.00
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
39
-------
C. PSES FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
(a) Extrusion - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum extruded
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
125.20
86.45
396.47
205.69
5,962.00
50.68
35.77
166.94
-
3,577.20
(b) Direct Chill Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by direct chill methods
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
839.58
579.71
2,658.67
1,379.31
39,980.00
339.83
239.88
1,119.44
23,988.00
(c) Solution and Press Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling
Water
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
855.54
590.73
2,709.21
1,405.53
40,740.00
346.29
244.44
1,140.72
24,440.00
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
40
-------
(d) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil St Grease*
708.12
488.94
2,242.38
1,163.34
33,720.00
286.62
202.32
944.16
20,232.00
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
811.86
560.57
2,570.89
1,333.77
38,660.00
328.61
231.96
1,082.48
23,196.00
D. PSES FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
(a) Forging - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum forged
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic Organics
(TTO)
Oil Sc Grease*
3.28
2.26
10.38
5.39
156.14
1.33
0.94
4.37
93.68
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
41
-------
(b) Forging - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum forged
119 Chromium 39.61 16.03
121 Cyanide 27.35 11.32
128 Zinc 125.43 52.81
Total Toxic 65.07
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 1,886.20 1,131.72
(c) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/blllion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
855.54
590.73
2,709.21
1,405.53
40,740.00
346.29
244.44
1,140.72
-
24,440.00
(d) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium 708.12 286.62
121 Cyanide 488.94 202.32
128 Zinc 2,242.38 944.16
Total Toxic 1,163.34
Organics (TTO)
Oil fc Grease* 33,720.00 20,232.00
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
811.86
560.57
2,570.89
1,333.77
38,660.00
328.61
231.96
1,082.48
23,196.00
E. PSES FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
(a) Drawing With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum drawn with neat oils
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic Organics
(TTO)
Oil & Grease*
3.28
2.26
10.38
5.39
156.14
1.33
0.94
4.37
93.68
(b) Continuous Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods-
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
43.76
30.22
138.59
71.90
2,084.00
17.71
12.50
58.35
-
1,250.40
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
43
-------
(c) Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic Organics
(TTO)
Oil & Grease*
0.77
0.53
2.45
1.27
36.86
0.31
0.22
1.03
-
22.12
(d) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
855.54
590.73
2,709.21
1,405.53
40,740.00
346.29
244.44
1,140.72
24,440.00
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium 708.12 286.62
121 Cyanide 488.94 202.32
128 Zinc 2,242.38 944.16
Total Toxic 1,163.34
Organics (TTO)
Oil fc Grease* 33,720.00 20,232.00
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
44
-------
(f) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil St Grease*
811.86
560.57
2,570.89
1,333.77
38,660.00
328.61
231.96
1,082.48
23,196.00
F. PSES FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
(a) Drawing With Emulsions or Soaps - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum drawn with emulsions or soaps
119 Chromium 178.21
121 Cyanide 123.05
128 Zinc 564.32
Total Toxic 292.77
Organics (TTO)
Oil St Grease* 8,486.00
72.13
50.92
237.61
5,091.60
(b) Continuous Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
mg/kkg (Ib/billion
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
Maximum for Maximum
Any One Day for Monthly Average
Ibs) of aluminum cast by
43
30
138
71
2,084
.76
.22
.59
.90
.00
continuous
17
12
58
1,250
.71
.50
.35
.40
methods
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
45
-------
(c) Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic Organics
(TTO)
Oil & Grease*
0.77
0.53
2.45
1.27
36.86
0.31
0.22
1.03
-
22.12
(d) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
855.54
590.73
2,709.21
1,405.53
40,740.00
346.29
244.44
1,140.72
-
24,440.00
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium 708.12 286.62
121 Cyanide 488.94 202.32
128 Zinc 2,242.38 944.16
Total Toxic 1,163.34
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 33,720.00 20,232.00
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
46
-------
(f) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
i
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil St Grease*
811.86
560.57
2,570.89
1,333.77
38,660.00
328.61
231.96
1,082.48
23,196.00
6. PSNS is being proposed based on the treatment effectiveness
achievable by the application of oil skimming and chemical
precipitation, sedimentation and filtration (lime, settle,
and filter) technology and in-process flow reduction control
methods. The following pretreatment standards are being
proposed for new sources:
A. PSNS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
(a) Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams Without An
Annealing Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with neat oils
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic Organics
(TTO)
Oil St Grease*
6.13
3.32
16.91
11.44
165.80
2.49
1.33
6.96
-
165.80
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
47
-------
(b) Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams With An
Annealing Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with neat oils
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic Organics
(TTO)
Oil & Grease*
15.88
8.59
43.79
29.62
429.30
6.44
3.43
18.03
-
429.30
(c) Continuous Sheet Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic Organics
(TTO)
Oil Se Grease*
0.68
0.37
1.88
1.27
18.43
0.28
0.15
0.77
-
18.43
(d) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil St Grease*
753.69
407.40
2,077.74
1,405.53
20,370.00
305.55
162.96
855.54
20,370.00
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
48
-------
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mft/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium 623.82 252.90
121 Cyanide 337.20 134.88
128 Zinc 1,719.72 708.12
Total Toxic 1,163.34
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 16,860.00 16,860.00
(f) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day
119
121
128
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum
Chromium 715.21
Cyanide 386.60
Zinc 1,971.66
Total Toxic 1,333.77
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 19,330.00
Maximum
for Monthly Average
cleaned or etched
289.95
154.64
811.86
19,330.00
B. PSNS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
(a) Rolling With Emulsions - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with emulsions
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic Organics
(TTO)
Oil St Grease*
33.70
18.22
92.92
62.85
910.90
13.66
7.29
38.26
-
910.90
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
(b) Direct Chill Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by direct chill methods
119 Chromium 739.63 299.85
121 Cyanide 399.80 159.92
128 Zinc 2,038.98 839.58
Total Toxic 1,379.31
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 19,990.00 19,990.00
(c) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
119
121
128
mg/kkg
Maximum for Maximum
Any One Day for Monthly Average
(Ib/billion Ibs)
Chromium 753.69
Cyanide 407.40
Zinc 2,077.74
Total Toxic 1,405.53
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 20,370.00
of aluminum quenched
305.55
162.96
855.54
20,370.00
(d) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium 623.82 252.90
121 Cyanide 337.20 134.88
128 Zinc 1,719.72 708.12
Total Toxic 1,163.34
Organics (TTO)
Oil St Grease* 16,860.00 16,860.00
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
50
-------
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billlon Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil St Grease*
715.21
386.60
1,971.66
1,333.77
19,330.00
289.95
154.64
811.86
19,330.00
C. PSNS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
(a) Extrusion - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum extruded
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
110.30
59.62
304.06
205.69
2,981.00
44.72
23.85
125.20
-
2,981.00
(b) Direct Chill Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by direct chill methods
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil Sc Grease*
739.63
399.80
2,038.98
1,379.31
19,990.00
299.85
159.92
839.58
19,990.00
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
5 1
-------
(c) Solution and Press Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling
Water
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil 8t Grease*
753.69
407.40
2,077.74
1,405.53
20,370.00
305.55
162.96
855.54
20,370.00
(d) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day
119
121
128
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum
Chromium 623.82
Cyanide 337.20
Zinc 1,719.72
Total Toxic 1,163.34
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 16,860.00
Maximum
for Monthly Average
cleaned or etched
252.90
134.88
708.12
16,860.00
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium 715.21 289.95
121 Cyanide 386.60 154.64
128 Zinc 1,971.66 811.86
Total Toxic 1,333.77
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 19,330.00 19,330.00
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
52
-------
D. PSNS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
(a) Forging - Core Waste Streams
PolJ-utant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum foreed
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic Organics
(TTO)
Oil Si Grease*
2.89
1.56
7.96
5.39
78.07
1.17
0.62
3.28
78.07
(b) Forging - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum forged
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
34
18
96
65
943
.89
.86
.20
.07
.10
14.
7.
39.
..
943.
15
54
61
10
(c) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
753
407
2,077
1,405
20,370
.69
.40
.74
.53
.00
305
162
855
-
20,370
.55
.96
.54
.00
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
53
-------
(d) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
623.82
337.20
1,719.72
1,163.34
16,860.00
252.90
134.88
708.12
16,860.00
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
~~ Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) o£ aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil Sc Grease*
715.21
386.60
1,971.66
1,333.77
19,330.00
289.95
154.64
811.86
19,330.00
E. PSNS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
(a) Drawing With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) o£ aluminum drawn with neat oils
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic Organics
(TTO)
Oil & Grease*
2.89
1.56
7,96
5.39
78.07
1.17
0.62
3.28
-
78.07
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
54
-------
(b) Continuous Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
38.55
20.84
106.28
71.90
1,042.00
15.63
8.34
43.76
-
1,042.00
(c) Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) o£ aluminum cast by continuous methods
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic Organics
(TTO)
Oil 8t Grease*
0.68
0.37
1.88
1.27
18.43
0.28
0.15
0.77
-
18.43
(d) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil St Grease*
753.69
407.40
2,077.74
1,405.53
20,370.00
305.55
162.96
855.54
20,370.00
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
55
-------
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Pay
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
623.82
337.20
1,719.72
1,163.34
16,860.00
252.90
134.88
708.12
16,860.00
(£) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium 715.21
121 Cyanide 386.60
128 Zinc 1,971.66
Total Toxic 1,333.77
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 19,330.00
289.95
154.64
811.86
19,330.00
F. PSNS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
(a) Drawing With Emulsions or Soaps - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum drawn with emulsions or soaps
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil St Grease*
156.99
84.86
432.79
292.77
4,243.00
63.65
33.94
178.21
-
4,243.00
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
56
-------
(b) Continuous Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
38.55
20.84
106.28
71.90
1,042.00
15.63
8.34
43.76
-
1,042.00
(c) Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119 Chromium 0.68 0.28
121 Cyanide 0.37 0.15
128 Zinc 1.88 0.77
Total Toxic Organics 1.27
(TTO)
Oil & Grease* 18.43 18.43
(d) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
119
121
128
mg/kkg
Maximum for Maximum
Any One Day for Monthly Average
(Ib/billion Ibs)
Chromium^ 753.69
Cyanide 407.40
Zinc 2,077.74
Total Toxic 1,405.53
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 20,370.00
of aluminum quenched
305.55
162.96
855.54
20,370.00
^Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
57
-------
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium 623.82
121 Cyanide 337.20
128 Zinc 1,719.72
Total Toxic 1,163.34
Organics (TTO)
Oil St Grease* 16,860.00
252.90
134.88
708.12
16,860.00
(f) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day
119
121
128
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum
Chromium 715.21
Cyanide 386.60
Zinc 1,971.66
Total Toxic 1,333.77
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 19,330.00
Maximum
for Monthly Average
cleaned or etched
289.95
154.64
811.86
19,330.00
*Alternate monitoring limit
for TTO.
- oil and grease may be substituted
58
-------
7. EPA is considering promulgating BAT effluent limitations
more stringent than the limitations now proposed for BAT.
The limitations are based upon the treatment effectiveness
achieved through the control and treatment used to form the
basis of BAT, with the addition of filtration. In the event
that the Agency decides to promulgate these more stringent
limitations, the following would apply:
A. ALTERNATE BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS
SUBCATEGORY
(a) Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams Without An
Annealing Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with neat oils
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
6.13
3.32
16.91
50.24
2.49
1.33
6.96
20.56
(b) Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams With An
Annealing Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with neat oils
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
15.88
8.59
43.79
130.08
6.44
3.43
18.03
53.23
(c) Continuous Sheet Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
0.68
0.37
1.88
5.58
0.28
0.15
0.77
2.29
59
-------
(d) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Aluminum
753.69
407.40
2,077.74
6,172.11
305.55
162.96
855.54
2,525.88
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
623.82
337.20
1,719.72
5,108.58
252.90
134.88
708.12
2,090.64
(f) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Aluminum
715.21
386.60
1,971.66
5,856.99
289.95
154.64
811.86
2,396.92
B. ALTERNATE BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS
SUBCATEGORY
(a) Rolling With Emulsions - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with emulsions
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Aluminum
33.70
8.22
92.91
276.00
13.66
7.29
38.26
112.95
60
-------
(b) Direct Chill Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by direct chill methods
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Aluminum
739.63
399.80
2,038.98
6,056.97
299.85
159.92
839.58
2,478.76
(c) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Aluminum
753.69
407.40
2,077.74
6,172.11
305.55
162.96
855.54
2,525.88
(d) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
623.82
337.20
1,719.72
5,108.58
252.90
134.88
708.12
2,090.64
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Aluminum
715.21
386.60
1,971.66
5,856.99
289.95
154.64
811.86
2,396.92
61
-------
C. ALTERNATE BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
(a) Extrusion - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum extruded
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Aluminum
110.30
59.62
304.06
903.24
44.72
23.85
125.20
369.64
(b) Direct Chill Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billlon Ibs) of aluminum cast by direct chill methods
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Aluminum
739.63
399.80
2,038.98
6,056.97
299.85
159.92
839.58
2,478.76
(c) Solution and Press Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling
Water
Pollutant or Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119 Chromium 753.69
121 Cyanide 407.40
128 Zinc 2,077.74
Aluminum 6,172.11
305.55
162.96
855.54
2,525.88
(d) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum
119 Chromium 623.82
121 Cyanide 337.20
128 Zinc 1,719.72
Aluminum 5,108.58
Maximum for
Monthly Average
cleaned or etched
252.90
134.88
708.12
2,090.64
62
-------
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Aluminum
715.21
386.60
1,971.66
5.856.99
289.95
154.64
811.86
2,396.92
D. ALTERNATE BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS
SUBCATEGORY
(a) Drawing With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billlon Ibs) of aluminum drawn with neat oils
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
2.89
1.56
7.96
23.66
1.17
0.62
3.28
9.68
(b) Continuous Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Aluminum
38.55
20.84
106.28
315.73
15.63
8.34
43.76
129.21
63
-------
(c) Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
m
g/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Aluminum
0.68
0.37
1.88
5.58
0.28
0.15
0.77
2.29
(d) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Aluminum
753.69
407.40
2,077.74
6>172.11
305.55
162.96
855.54
2,525.88
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Maximum for
Monthly Average
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
623.82
337.20
1,719.72
5,108.58
252.90
134.88
708.12
2,090.64
(f) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
128 Zinc
Aluminum
715.21
386.60
1,971.66
5,856.99
289.95
154.64
811.86
2,396.92
64
-------
E. ALTERNATE BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS
OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
(a) Drawing With Emulsions or Soaps - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum drawn with emulsions or soaps
119 Chromium 156.99 63.65
121 Cyanide 84.86 33.94
128 Zinc 432.79 178.21
Aluminum 1,285.63 526.13
(b) Continuous Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
38.55
20.84
106.28
315.73
15.63
8.34
43.76
129,21
(c) Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
0.68
0.37
1.88
5.58
0.28
0.15
0.77
2.29
(d) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119 Chromium 753.69 305.55
121 Cyanide 407.40 162.96
128 Zinc 2,077.74 855.54
Aluminum 6,172.11 2,525.88
65
-------
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
623-82
337.20
1,719.72
5,108,58
252.90
134.88
708.12
2,090.64
(f) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Pay Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Aluminum
715.21
386.60
1,971.66
5,856.99
289.95
154.64
811.86
2,396.92
8. EPA is considering promulgating PSES standards more stringent
than the standards now proposed for PSES. The standards are
based upon the treatment effectiveness achieved through the
control and treatment used to form the basis of PSES, with
the addition of filtration. In the event that the Agency
decides to promulgate these more stringent standards, the
following would apply:
A. ALTERNATE PSES FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
(a) Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams Without An
Annealing Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with neat oils
119 Chromium 6.13 2.49
121 Cyanide 3.32 1.33
128 Zinc 16.91 6.96
Total Toxic Organics 11.44
(TTO)
Oil & Grease* 165.80 165.80
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
66
-------
(b) Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams With An
Annealing Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with neat oils
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic Organics
(TTO)
Oil & Grease*
15.88
8.59
43.79
29.62
429.30
6.44
3.43
18.03
429.30
(c) Continuous Sheet Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Pay
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic Organics
(TTO)
Oil & Grease*
0.68
0.37
1.88
1.27
18.43
0.28
0.15
0.77
-
18.43
(d) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil St Grease*
753.69
407.40
2,077.74
1,405.53
20,370.00
305.55
162.96
855.54
20,370.00
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
67
-------
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (lb/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
623.82
337.20
1,719.72
1,163.34
16,860.00
252.90
134.88
708.12
16,860.00
(f) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
"Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (lb/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium 715.21
121 Cyanide 386.60
128 Zinc 1,971.66
Total Toxic 1,333.77
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 19,330.00
289.95
154.64
811.86
19,330.00
B. ALTERNATE PSES FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
(a) Rolling With Emulsions - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (lb/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with emulsions
119 Chromium 33.70
121 Cyanide 18.22
128 Zinc 92.92
Total Toxic Organics 62.85
(TTO)
Oil & Grease* 910.90
13.66
7.29
38.26
910.90
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
68
-------
(b) Direct Chill Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by direct chill methods
119 Chromium 739.63
121 Cyanide 399.80
128 Zinc 2,038.98
Total Toxic 1,379.31
Organics (TTO)
Oil Sc Grease* 19,990.00
299.85
159.92
839.58
19,990.00
(c) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day for
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum
119 Chromium 753.69
121 Cyanide 407.40
128 Zinc 2,077.74
Total Toxic 1,405.53
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 20,370.00
(d) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day for
.Maximum
Monthly Average
quenched
305.55
162.96
855.54
20,370.00
Maximum
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium 623.82
121 Cyanide 337.20
128 Zinc 1,719.72
Total Toxic 1,163.34
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 16,860.00
252.90
134.88
708.12
16,860.00
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
69
-------
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (lb/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
715.21
386.60
1,971.66
1,333.77
19,330.00
289.95
154.64
811.86
19,330.00
C. ALTERNATE PSES FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
(a) Extrusion - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (lb/billion Ibs) of aluminum extruded
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil SE Grease*
110.30
59.62
304.06
205.69
2,981.00
44.72
23.85
125.20
-
2,981.00
(b) Direct Chill Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (lb/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by direct chill methods
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
739.63
399.80
2,038.98
1,379.31
19,990.00
299.85
159.92
839.58
19,990.00
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
70
-------
(c) Solution and Press Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling
Water
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
753.69
407.40
2,077.74
1,405.53
20,370.00
305.55
162.96
855.54
20,370.00
(d) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day
119
121
128
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum
Chromium 623.82
Cyanide 337.20
Zinc 1,719.72
Total Toxic 1,163.34
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 16,860.00
Maximum
for Monthly Average
cleaned or etched
252.90
134.88
708.12
16,860.00
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
m
g/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium 715.21 289.95
121 Cyanide 386.60 154.64
128 Zinc 1,971.66 811.86
Total Toxic 1,333.77
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 19,330.00 19,330.00
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
71
-------
D. ALTERNATE PSES FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
(a) Forging - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum forged
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic Organics
(TTO)
Oil & Grease*
2.89
1.56
7.96
5.39
78.07
1.17
0.62
3.28
-
78.07
(b) Forging - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
m
g/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum forged
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil St Grease*
34.89
18.86
96.20
65.07
943.10
14.15
7.54
39.61
-
943.10
(c) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
me/kke (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
753.69
407.40
2,077.74
1,405.53
20,370.00
305.55
162.96
855.54
20,370.00
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
72
-------
(d) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium 623.82
121 Cyanide 337.20
128 Zinc 1,719.72
Total Toxic 1,163.34
Organics (TTO)
____ Oil 8c Grease* 16,860.00
252.90
134.88
708.12
16,860.00
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day
119
121
128
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum
Chromium 715.21
Cyanide 386.60
Zinc 1,971.66
Total Toxic 1,333.77
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 19,330.00
Maximum
for Monthly Average
cleaned or etched
289.95
154.64
811.86
19,330.00
E. ALTERNATE PSES FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
(a) Drawing With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum drawn with neat oils
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic Organics
(TTO)
Oil 8t Grease*
2.89
1.56
7,96
5.39
78.07
1.17
0.62
3.28
78.07
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
73
-------
(b) Continuous Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
38.55
20.84
106.28
71.90
1,042.00
15.63
8.34
43.76
1,042.00
(c) Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic Organics
(TTO)
Oil St Grease*
0.68
0.37
1.88
1.27
18.43
0.28
0.15
0.77
18.43
(d) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
753.69
407.40
2,077.74
1,405.53
20,370.00
305.55
162.96
855.54
20,370.00
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
74
-------
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium 623.82
121 Cyanide 337.20
128 Zinc 1,719.72
Total Toxic 1,163.34
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 16,860.00
252.90
134.88
708.12
16,860.00
(f) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil Se Grease*
715.21
386.60
1,971,66
1,333.77
19,330.00
289.95
154.64
811.86
19,330.00
F. ALTERNATE PSES FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS
SUBCATEGORY
(a) Drawing With Emulsions or Soaps - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum drawn with emulsions or soaps
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
156.99
84.86
432.79
292.77
4,243.00
63.65
33.94
178.21
-
4,243.00
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
75
-------
(b) Continuous Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
38.55
20,84
106.28
71,90
1,042.00
15.63
8.34
43.76
-
1,042.00
(c) Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maxxmum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic Organics
(TTO)
Oil & Grease*
0.68
0.37
1.88
1.27
18.43
0.28
0.15
0.77
-
18.43
(d) Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
119
121
128
Chromium
Cyanide
Zinc
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil St Grease*
753.69
407.40
2,077.74
1,405.53
20,370.00
305.55
162.96
855.54
-
20,370.00
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
76
-------
(e) Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
119 Chromium 623.82
121 Cyanide 337.20
128 Zinc 1,719.72
Total Toxic 1,163.34
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 16,860.00
252.90
134.88
708.12
16,860.00
(f) Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day
119
121
128
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum
Chromium 715.21
Cyanide 386.60
Zinc 1,971.66
Total Toxic 1,333.77
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 19,330.00
Maximum
for Monthly Average
cleaned or etched
289.95
154.64
811.86
19,330.00
*Alternate monitoring limit
for TTO.
- oil and grease may be substituted
77
-------
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
established a comprehensive program to "restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters," under Section 101(a). By July 1, 1977, existing indus-
trial dischargers were required to achieve "effluent limitations
requiring the application of the best practicable control tech-
nology currently available" (BPT), under Section 301(b)(1) (A) ;
and by July 1, 1983, these dischargers were required to achieve
"effluent limitations requiring the application of the best
available technology economically achievable . . . which will
result in reasonable further progress toward the national goal of
eliminating the discharge of all pollutants" (BAT), under Section
301(b)(2)(A). New industrial direct dischargers were required to
comply with Section 306 new source performance standards (NSPS),
based on best available demonstrated technology; existing and new
dischargers to publicly owned treatment works (POTW) were subject
to pretreatment standards under Sections 307(b) (PSES) and (c)
(PSNS), respectively, of the Act. While the requirements for
direct dischargers were to be incorporated into National Pollu-
tant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued under
Section 402 of the Act, pretreatment standards were made enforce-
able directly against discharges to a POTW (indirect discharg-
ers). Although Section 402(a)(1) of the 1972 Act authorized the
setting of NPDES permit requirements for direct dischargers on a
case-by-case basis, Congress intended that, for the most part,
control requirements would be based on the degree of effluent
reduction attainable through the application of BPT and BAT.
Moreover, Sections 304(c) and 306 of the Act required promulga-
tion of regulations for new sources (NSPS); and Sections 304(f),
307(b), and 307(c) required promulgation of regulations for
pretreatment standards. In addition to these regulations for
designated industry categories, Section 307(a) of the Act
required the Administrator to promulgate effluent standards
applicable to all dischargers of toxic pollutants. Finally,
Section 301 (a) of the Act authorized the Administrator to pre-
scribe any additional regulations "necessary to carry out his
functions ' under the Act.
EPA was unable to promulgate many of these regulations by the
dates contained in the Act. In 1976, EPA was sued by several
environmental groups and in settlement of this lawsuit, EPA and
the plaintiffs executed a "Settlement Agreement," which was
approved by the Court. This Agreement required EPA to develop a
79
-------
program and adhere to a schedule for promulgating 21 major
industries' BAT effluent limitations guidelines, pretreatment
standards, and new source performance standards for 65 "priority"
pollutants and classes of pollutants. See Settlement Agreement
in Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Train, 8 ERG 2120
(D.D.C. 1976), modified 12 ERG 1833 (D.P.C. 1979).
On December 27, 1977, the President signed into law amendments to
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 95-217). The Act,
as amended, is commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act.
Although this Act makes several important changes in the federal
water pollution control program, its most significant feature is
its incorporation of several of the basic elements of the Settle-
ment Agreement program for toxic pollution control. Sections
301(b)(2)(A) and 301 (b) (2) (C) of the Act now require the achieve-
ment, by July 1, 1984, of effluent limitations requiring applica-
tion of BAT for toxic pollutants, including the 65 priority pol-
lutants and classes of pollutants (the same priority pollutants
as listed in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Train), which
Congress declared toxic under Section 307(a) of the Act. Like-
wise, EPA's programs for new source performance standards and
pretreatment standards are now aimed principally at control of
these toxic pollutants. Moreover, to strengthen the toxics
control program, Congress added Section 304(e) to the Act,
authorizing the Administrator to prescribe "best management
practices" (BMP) to prevent the release of toxic and hazardous
pollutants from plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or
waste disposal, and drainage from raw material storage associated
with, or ancillary to, the manufacturing or treatment process.
In keeping with its emphasis on toxic pollutants, the Clean Water
Act also revised the control program for nontoxic pollutants.
Instead of BAT for "conventional pollutants identified under
Section 304(a)(4) (including biological oxygen demand, suspended
solids, oil and grease, fecal coliform, and pH), the new Section
301 (b)(2)(E) requires achievement, by July 1, 1984, of "effluent
limitations requiring the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT). The factors considered in
assessing BCT for an industry include a two-part "cost-
reasonableness" test [Section 304(b)(4)(B)], American Paper
Institute v. EPA, 660 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1981T The first part
compares the cost for private industry to reduce its conventional
pollutants with the costs to publicly owned treatment works for
similar levels of reduction in their discharge of pollutants.
The second part examines the cost effectiveness of additional
industrial treatment beyond BPT. For nontoxic. nonconventional
pollutants, Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(F) require achieve-
ment of BAT effluent limitations within three years after their
establishment or not later than July 1, 1984.
80
-------
The purpose of this report is to provide the supporting technical
data regarding water use, pollutants, and treatment technologies
for BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, or PSNS effluent limitations that EPA
is proposing for the aluminum forming category under Sections
301, 304, 306, 307, and 501 of the Clean Water Act.
METHODOLOGY
Approach of Study
EPA gathered and evaluated technical data in the course of
developing these guidelines in order to perform the following
tasks:
1. To profile the category with regard to the production,
manufacturing processes, geographical distribution,
potential wastewater streams, and discharge mode of
aluminum forming plants.
2. To subcategorize, if necessary, in order to permit
regulation of the aluminum forming category in an
equitable and manageable way. This was done by taking
all of the factors mentioned above plus others into
account.
3. To characterize wastewater, detailing water use, waste-
water discharge, and the occurrence of priority, conven-
tional, and nonconventional pollutants, in waste streams
from aluminum forming processes.
4. To select pollutant parameters — those priority or con-
ventional pollutants present at significant concentra-
tions in wastewater streams — that should be considered
for regulation.
5. To consider control and treatment technologies and
select alternative methods for reducing pollutant dis-
charge in this category.
6. To evaluate the costs of implementing the alternative
control and treatment technologies.
7. To present possible regulatory alternatives.
Data Collection and Methods of Evaluation
Literature Review. EPA reviewed and evaluated existing litera-
ture for background information to clarify and define various
aspects of the aluminum forming category and to determine general
characteristics and trends in production processes and wastewater
treatment technology. Review of current literature continued
81
-------
throughout the development of these guidelines. Information
gathered in this review was used, along with information from
other sources as discussed below, in the following specific
areas:
Introduction (Section III) - description of production
processes and the associated lubricants and wastewater
streams.
Subcategorization (Section IV) - identification of
differences in manufacturing process technology and their
potential effect on associated wastewater streams.
Selection of Pollutant Parameters (Section VI) - infor-
mation regarding the toxicity and potential sources of
the pollutants identified in wastewater from aluminum
forming processes.
Control and Treatment Technology (Section VII) - infor-
mation on alternative controls and treatments and
corresponding effects on pollutant removal.
Costs (Section VIII) - formulation of the methodology
and equations for determining the current capital and
annual costs to apply the selected treatment alterna-
tives.
Existing Data. Information related to aluminum forming pro-
cesses, wastewater, or wastewater treatment technology was
compiled from a number of sources. Technical data gathered for
development of guidelines for related categories, such as the
nonferrous metals category, were reviewed and incorporated into
this guideline, where applicable.
The concentration or mass loading of pollutant parameters in
wastewater effluent discharges are monitored and reported as
required by individual state agencies. These historical data are
available from NPDES monitoring reports.
Frequent contact has been maintained with industry personnel.
Contributions from these -sources were particularly useful for
clarifying differences in production processes.
Data Collection Portfolios. The aluminum forming plants were
surveyed to gather information regarding plant size, age and
production, the production processes used, and the quantity,
treatment, and disposal of wastewater generated at these plants.
This information was requested in data collection portfolios
(dcp's) mailed to all companies known or believed to be involved
in the forming of aluminum or aluminum alloys. The original
mailing list was compiled from the following sources:
82
-------
U.S. Department of Commerce, Directory of Aluminum
Suppliers in the United States, Revised January 1978.
Architectural Aluminum Manufacturers Association,
Membership Directory, 1977.
Aluminum Foil Containing Manufacturers Association,
Membership Roster as of May 1, 1978.
Dun Sc Bradstreet, Inc., Million Dollar Directory, 1978.
In all, dcp's were sent to 580 firms. Approximately 95 percent
of the companies responded to the survey. In many cases,
companies contacted were not actually members of the aluminum
forming category as it is defined by the Agency. Where firms had
aluminum forming operations at more than one location, a dcp was
returned for each plant. A total of 279 dcp's applicable to the
aluminum forming category were returned. Two plants have since
ceased aluminum forming operations, therefore, a total of 277
plants were included in the data base. In cases where the dcp
responses were incomplete or unclear, additional information was
requested by telephone or letter.
The dcp responses were interpreted individually, and the follow-
ing data were documented for future reference and evaluation:
Company name, plant address, and name of the contact
listed in the dcp.
Plant discharge status as direct (to surface water),
indirect (to POTV), or zero discharge.
Production process streams present at the plant, as well
as associated flow rates; production rates; operating
hours; wastewater treatment, reuse, or disposal methods;
the quantity and nature of process chemicals; and the
percent of any soluble oil used in emulsified mixtures.
Capital and annual treatment costs.
Availability of pollutant monitoring data provided by the
plant.
The summary listing of this information provided a consistent,
systematic method of evaluating and summarizing the dcp
responses. In addition, procedures were developed to simplify
subsequent analyses. The procedures developed had the following
capabilities:
Selection and listing of plants containing specific pro-
duction process streams or treatment technologies.
83
-------
Summation of the number of plants containing specific
process stream and treatment combinations.
Calculation of the percent recycle present for specific
streams and summation of the number of plants recycling
this stream within various percent recycle ranges.
Calculation of annual production values associated with
each process stream and summation of the number of plants
with these process streams having production values
within various ranges.
Calculation of water use and blowdown from individual
process streams.
The calculated information and summaries were important and
frequently used in the development of this guideline. Summaries
were used in the category profile, evaluation of subcategoriza-
tion, and analysis of in-place treatment and control technolo-
gies. Calculated information was used in the determination of
water use and discharge values for the conversion of pollutant
concentrations to mass loadings.
GENERAL PROFILE OF THE ALUMINUM FORMING CATEGORY
There are a number of advantages to using aluminum in a wide
variety of products. Chief among these are that aluminum is
lightweight, tough, resistant to corrosion, and has high elec-
trical conductivity. The major uses of aluminum are in the
building and construction industry, transportation industries,
the electrical products industry, and in container and package
manufacturing.
Products manufactured by aluminum forming operations generally
serve as stock for subsequent fabricating operations, as shown in
Figure III-l. Cast ingots and billets are the starting point for
making sheet and plate, extrusions, forgings, and rod, for use in
drawing operations. Rolled aluminum sheet and plate can be used
as stock for stampings, can blanks, and roll formed products; as
finished products in building, ship and aircraft construction; or
as foil. Extrusions can be used as raw stock for forging and
drawing; to fabricate final products, such as bumpers, window
frames, or light standards; or can be sold as final products,
such as beams or extruded tubing. Forgings are either sold as
consumer products or used as parts in the production of
machinery, aircraft, and engines.
The variety and type of products produced at one location has a
large influence on the production capacity of the forming plant,
the number of people employed, and the amount of water used. The
84
-------
capital intensive investment, large source of energy required,
and specialized labor force involved in making aluminum sheet,
strip, foil,'and plate products limit the number of facilities
available to meet the demand for these sheet products. Most
sheet products are made at a few large plants owned by major com-
panies. Table III-l summarizes data about these and other prod-
ucts of aluminum forming. A variety of sheet products are often
produced at the same location. Other products, such as billets
and extrusions, are frequently made in conjunction with the
rolled products at these plants.
Tubes, rod, cable, and wire are produced at sites that range in
size from very large to small. On a mass basis most drawn
products are produced by a few large companies or factories,
while the remainder are produced by a number of smaller firms.
Employment varies from a few to several hundred people.
Extrusion and forging processes, which produce a wide variety of
products, do not require large facilities. Consequently, extru-
sion and forging products are formed at many sites by a number of
companies. Production and employment at facilities using either
type of process range from small plants with few workers to large
plants with hundreds of employees. Some extrusion plants have
other forming operations as well. Forging; however, is usually
performed by plants that are not involved in other processes.
Casting in the aluminum forming category, both continuous and
direct chill, is done prior to another operation, such as rolling
or extrusion. Aluminum billets or ingots are rarely cast at
aluminum forming plants for sale to other industries or firms.
Stationary casting in this industry usually involves only melted
in-plant scrap aluminum. The ingots, frequently called pigs or
sows, produced from stationary casting are normally remelted and
used as stock for continuous or direct chill casting.
The dcp responses indicate that 156 companies own 277 aluminum
forming plants. Five of the companies own 22 percent of the
plants, and 16 companies own 42 percent of the production
facilities.
Employment data is given in the dcp responses for 248 plants (89
percent of the total). These plants report a total of 28,557
workers involved in aluminum forming. Employment at the indi-
vidual sites ranges from one to 2,100 people. The employment
distribution of aluminum forming workers at the 248 plants is:
69 percent employ fewer than 100 people in aluminum forming
operations; 83 percent employ fewer than 200 people in this
capacity; and 95 percent employ fewer than 500 people.
85
-------
Reported production of formed aluminum at individual plant sites
ranged from .09 kkg (0.1 ton) to almost 360,000 kkg (400,000
tons) during 1977. The aluminum forming production distribution
for the 249 plants, for which 1977 production data were availa-
ble , is summarized as follows: 75 percent produced less than
9,000 kkg (10,000 tons); 96 percent produced less than 45,000 kkg
(50,000 tons); and 98 percent produced less than 180,000 kkg
(200,000 tons).
Aluminum forming plants are not limited to any one geographical
location. As shown in Figure 1II-2, plants are found throughout
most of the United States, but the majority are located east of
the Mississippi River. Population density is not a limiting
factor in plant location. Aluminum forming plants tend to be
more common in urban areas, but they are frequently found in
rural areas as well.
The majority of the aluminum forming plants (55 percent) that
reported the age of their facility indicated they were built
since 1957. Table 1II-2 shows the age distribution of aluminum
forming plants according to their classification as direct, indi-
rect, and zero discharge type. The dates of most recent modifi-
cation were reported by 230 plants. The distribution of facili-
ties according to time elapsed since their last major plant
modification is given in Table III-3. Of the 277 aluminum
forming plants, 44 percent have been modified since 1972.
One hundred fifty-three plants indicated that no wastewater from
aluminum forming operations is discharged to either surface
waters or a POTW. Of the remaining 124, 58 discharge an effluent
from aluminum forming directly to surface waters, and 66 dis-
charge indirectly, sending aluminum forming effluent through a
POTW. The volume of aluminum forming wastewater discharged by
plants in this category ranges from 0 to 2,896,000 liters per
hour (0 to 765,000 gal/hr). The mean volume is approximately
74,000 liters per hour (19,540 gal/hr) for those plants having
discharges. Two hundred fifty-nine plants supplied wastewater
data. This is less than the total number of aluminum forming
plants in the category because several plants did not provide
enough information to calculate the flows. Of these 259 plants,
65 percent reported no wastewater discharge from aluminum forming
operations; 90 percent discharge less than 19,000 liters per hour
(5,000 gal/hr); and 98 percent discharge less than 190,000 liters
per hour (50,000 gal/hr). There is no correlation between over-
all water use and total aluminum production; however, correla-
tions can be developed between water use or wastewater discharge
and production on a process basis. This is discussed further in
Section V.
86
-------
Sixty plants reported some form of treatment for wastewater from
aluminum forming processes. Another 13 plants mentioned treat-
ment only for wastes not covered under the aluminum forming
category. The most common forms of wastewater treatment are pH
adjustment, clarification, gravity oil separation (skimming), and
lagooning. In-line filtration and cooling towers are frequently
used as wastewater controls. Oily wastes are separated into oil
and water fractions by emulsion breaking using heat or chemicals.
Gravity separation is frequently used to separate neat oil and
broken emulsions from the water fraction. The oil portion is
usually removed by a contractor, although some plants dispose of
it by land application, incineration, or lagooning. Sludges
generally are not thickened, but are disposed of without treat-
ment; however, vacuum and pressure filters, centrifuges, and
drying beds are occasionally used. Sludge disposal methods
include landfill and contractor removal. Disposal of wastewater
is being accomplished by discharge to surface waters or a POTW,
by contractor removal, or by land application.
ALUMINUM FORMING PROCESSES
Aluminum forming processes, for the purpose of this guideline,
are those manufacturing operations in which aluminum or aluminum
alloys are shaped into semifinished or mill products by hot or
cold working. These manufacturing operations, called core opera-
tions (see Section IV), include rolling, extruding, forging and
drawing of aluminum. Associated processes, called ancillary
operations, such as the casting of aluminum alloys for subsequent
forming, heat treatment, cleaning, and etching are also included.
Water is used in combination with oil lubricants, surface pro-
cessing chemicals, and in contact cooling as a part of these
operations in order to achieve specified desired metal character-
istics (i.e., tensile strength, malleability, specific surface
properties). Water may also be used in wet air pollution control
devices (i.e., wet scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators) to
collect fumes and particulates. A further discussion of waste-
water sources from aluminum forming processes is presented in
Section V. Regulatory flow allowances for waste streams under
BPT and BAT are presented and discussed in Sections IX and X,
respectively.
EPA recognizes that plants sometimes combine nonaluminum forming
process and nonprocess wastewater prior to treatment and
discharge. Pollutant discharge allowances will be established
only for aluminum forming process wastewater, not the nonaluminum
process or nonprocess wastewaters under this regulation. The
flows and wastewater characteristics are a function of the plant
layout and water handling practices. As a result, the pollutant
discharge effluent limitation for nonaluminum forming wastewater
87
-------
streams will be prepared by the permitting authority. These
wastewaters are not further discussed in this document or covered
by the regulation.
CORE OPERATIONS
Rolling
The rolling process is used to transform cast aluminum ingot into
any one of a number of intermediate or final products. Pressure
exerted by the rollers as aluminum is passed between them reduces
the thickness in the metal and may cause work hardening. Square
ingots cast by the direct chill method described previously are
often used in the production of wire, rod, and bar. The ingots
are usually reduced by hot rolling to elongated forms, known as
blooms. Additional hot or cold rolling may be used to produce
rod, bar, or wire. Rod is defined as having a solid round cross
section 0.95 cm (3/8 inch) or more in diameter. Bar is also
identified by a cross section with 0.95 cm (3.8 inch) or more
between two parallel sides, but it is not round. Wire is
characterized by a diameter of less than 0.95 cm (3/8 inch).
Although the design of rolling mills varies considerably, the
principle behind the proces s is es sent ially the s ame. At the
rolling mill, aluminum is passed through a set of rolls that
reduces the thickness of the metal and increases its length. Two
common roll configurations are shown in Figure I1I-3. Multiple
passes through the rolls are usually required, and mills are
frequently designed to allow rolling in the reverse direction.
For wire, rod, and bar products, grooves in the upper and lower
rolls account for the various reductions in cross sectional area.
At sheet mills, ingots are heated to temperatures ranging from
400 to 500°C and hot rolled to form slabs. Hot rolling is
usually followed by further reduction of thickness on a cold
rolling mill. The hot rolled product is generally limited to
plate [typically defined as being greater than or equal to 6.3 mm
(0.25 inch) thick]. Cold rolled products are classified as sheet
[from 6.3 to 0.15 mm (0.249 to 0.007 inch) thick] and foil [below
0.15 mm (0.006 inch) thick].
As will be discussed later in this section, heat treatment is
usually required before and between stages of the rolling pro-
ces s. Ingots are usually made homogeneous in grain structure
prior to hot rolling in order to remove the effects of casting on
the aluminum1s mechanical properties. Annealing is typically
required between passes or after cold rolling to keep the metal
ductile and remove the effects of work hardening. The kind and
degree of heat treatment applied depends on the alloy involved,
the nature of the rolling operation, and the properties desired
in the product.
-------
It is necessary to use a cooling and lubricating compound during
rolling to prevent excessive wear on the rolls, to prevent adhe-
sion of aluminum to the rolls, and to maintain a suitable and
uniform rolling temperature. Oil-in-water emulsions, stabilized
with emulsifying agents such as soaps and other polar organic
materials, are used for this purpose in hot rolling operations.
Emulsion concentrations usually vary between 5 and 10 percent
oil. Evaporation of the lubricant as it is sprayed on the hot
metal serves to cool the rolling process. Mist eliminators may
be used to recover rolling emulsions that are dispersed to the
atmosphere. The emulsions are typically filtered to remove metal
fines and other contaminants and recirculated through the mills.
The use of deionized water to replace evaporative and carryover
losses and the addition of bactericides and antioxidizing agents
are practiced at many plants to increase the life of the emul-
sions. Nevertheless, the emulsions eventually become rancid or
degraded and must be eliminated from circulation either by con-
tinuous bleed or periodic discharge. Most cold rolling opera-
tions use mineral oil or kerosene-based lubricants rather than
water-based compounds to avoid staining the aluminum surface;
however, emulsions are used for cold rolling in other countries
and, to a limited extent, in the United States. As in hot
rolling, mist eliminators are commonly used to collect cold
rolling mists in order to recover the rolling oils for reuse.
The steel rolls used in hot and cold rolling operations require
periodic machining to remove aluminum buildup and to grind away
any cracks or imperfections that appear on the surface of the
rolls. Although the survey of the industry indicated that roll
grinding with water is practiced, the use of an oil-in-water
emulsion is much more common. This emulsion is usually recycled
and periodically discharged after treatment with other emulsified
waste streams at the plant. Some plants have demonstrated that
the discharge of roll grinding emulsions can be avoided by
in-line removal using magnetic separation of steel fines from the
emulsion or filtration techniques. With this treatment, the
emulsion can be recycled indefinitely with no bleed stream other
than carryover on the rolls.
Of the plants surveyed, 57 have rolling operations. Twenty-three
of these discharge wastewater directly to surface water, nine
discharge indirectly through a POTW, and 25 do not discharge
process wastewater. The geographical location of plants with
aluminum rolling operations is presented in Figure III-4. The
annual production of rolled aluminum at these plants during 1977
varied from 270 to 580,000 kkg (300 to 640,000 tons), with a mean
value of 200,000 kkg (110,000 tons). The production distribution
is summarized as follows: of the 45 rolling operations for which
1977 production data were available, 36 percent produced less
than 18,000 kkg (20,000 tons) of aluminum and aluminum alloys;
73 percent produced less than 90,000 kkg (100,000 tons); and
90 percent produced less than 360,000 kkg (400,000 tons).
89
-------
Extrusion
In the extrusion process, high pressures are applied to a cast
billet of aluminum, forcing the metal to flow througji a die ori-
fice. The resulting product is an elongated shape or tube of
uniform cross sectional area. Extrusions are manufactured using
either a mechanical or a hydraulic extrusion press.
There are two basic methods of extrusion practiced in the
aluminum forming category:
direct extrusion, and
indirect extrusion.
The direct extrusion process is shown schematically in Figure
III-5. A heated cylindrical billet is placed into the ingot
chamber, and the dummy block and ram are placed into position
behind it. Pressure is exerted on the ram by hydraulic or
mechanical means, forcing the metal to flow through the die
opening. The extrusion is sawed off next to the die, and the
dummy block and ingot butt are released. Hollow shapes are
produced with the use of a mandrel postioned in the die opening
so that the aluminum is forced to flow around it. A less common
technique, indirect extrusion, is similar, except that in this
method, the die is forced against the billet extruding the metal
in the opposite direction through the ram stem. A dummy block is
not used in indirect extrusion.
Although aluminum can be extruded cold, it is usually first
heated to a temperature ranging from 375 to 525 C, so that little
work hardening will be imposed on the product. Heat treatment is
frequently used after extrusion to attain the desired mechanical
properties. Heat treatment techniques will be described later in
this section. At some plants, contact cooling of the extrusion,
sometimes called press heat treatment quench, is practiced as it
leaves the press. This can be done in one of three ways: with a
water spray near the die, by immersion in a water tank adjacent
to the runout table, or by passing the aluminum through a water
wall. A third wastewater stream which may be associated with the
extrusion process is dummy block cooling water. Following an
extrusion, the dummy block drops from the press, and is cooled
before being used again. Air cooling is most commonly used for
this purpose, but water is used at a few plants to quench the
dummy blocks.
The extrusion process requires the use of a lubricant to prevent
adhesion of the aluminum to the die and ingot container walls.
In hot extrusion, limited amounts of lubricant are applied to the
ram and die face or to the billet ends. For cold extrusion, the
90
-------
container walls, billet surfaces, and die orifice must be lubri-
cated with a thin film of viscous or solid lubricant. The lubri-
cant most commonly used in extrusion is graphite in an oil or
water base. A less common technique, spraying liquid nitrogen on
the billet prior to extrusion, is also used. The nitrogen
vaporizes during the extrusion process and acts as a lubricant.
The steel dies used in the extrusion process require frequent
dressing and repairing to ensure the necessary dimensional pre-
cision and surface quality of the product. The aluminum that has
adhered to the die orifice is typically removed by soaking the
die in a caustic solution. The aluminum is dissolved and later
precipitated as aluminum oxide. The caustic bath is followed by
a water rinse of the dies. The rinse is frequently discharged as
a wastewater stream.
In all, 163 extrusion plants were identified in this survey. 0£
these, 85 indicated that no wastewater is discharged from alumi-
num forming operations at the plant; 38 identified themselves as
direct dischargers; and 40 indicated indirect discharge of the
process effluent to a POTW. In subsequent investigation of
extrusion practices, it became apparent that these figures may be
misleading. At many of the extrusion plants contacted, personnel
did not realize that die cleaning rinse water was considered to
be an aluminum forming wastewater stream as defined in this
study. For this reason, some of the plants classified as zero
discharge are believed to be discharging this effluent stream
either to surface waters or to a POTW.
The geographical location of the extrusion plants is shown in
Figure III-6. Annual production of extruded products from these
plants ranged between 6.8 and 68,000 kkg (7.5 and 75,000 tons) in
1977. The production distribution is summarized as follows: of
the 157 extrusion operations for which 1977 production data were
available, 58 percent produced less than 4,500 kkg (5,000 tons)
of aluminum and aluminum alloys; 81 percent produced less than
9,000 kkg (10,000 tons); and 92 percent produced less than 18,000
kkg (20,000 tons).
Forging
Forging is a process in which aluminum is formed, usually hot,
into shapes by employing compressive forces. The actual forging
process is a dry operation. There are four basic methods of
forging practiced in the aluminum forming category:
Closed die forging,
Open die forging,
Rolled ring forging, and
Cold impact extruding.
91
-------
In each of these techniques, pressure is exerted on dies or
rolls, forcing the heated stock to take the desired shape. The
first three methods are shown schematically in Figure III-7.
Closed die forging, the most prevalent method, is accomplished by
hammering or squeezing the aluminum between two steel dies, one
fixed to the hammer or press ram and the other to the anvil.
Forging hammers, mechanical presses, and hydraulic presses can be
used for the closed die forging of aluminum alloys. The heated
stock is placed in the lower die and, by one or more blows of the
ram, forced to take the shape of the die set. In closed-die
forging, aluminum is shaped entirely within the cavity created by
these two dies. The die set comes together to completely enclose
the forging, giving lateral restraining to the flow of the metal.
The process of open die forging is similar to that described
above, but in this method, the shape of the forging is determined
by manually turning the stock and regulating the blows of the
hammer or strokes of the press. Open die forging requires a
great deal of skill and only simple, roughly shaped forgings can
be produced. Its use is usually restricted to items produced in
small quantities and to development work where the cost of making
closed type dies is prohibitive.
The process of rolled ring forging is used in the manufacture of
seamless rings. A hollow cylindrical billet is rotated between a
mandrel and pressure roll to reduce its thickness and increase
its diameter.
The process of impact extruding is performed by placing a cut-off
piece of aluminum in a bottom die. A top die consisting of a
round or rectangular punch and fastened to the press ram is
driven into the aluminum slug, causing the aluminum to be driven
up around the top punch. Usually, the aluminum adheres to the
punch and must be stripped off as the press ram rises.
Proper lubrication of the dies is essential in forging aluminum
alloys. Collodial graphite in either a water or an oil medium is
usually sprayed onto the dies for this purpose. Particulates and
smoke may be generated from the partial combustion of oil-based
lubricants as they contact the hot forging dies. In those cases,
air pollution controls may be required. Baghouses, wet scrub-
bers, and commercially available dry scrubbers are in use at
aluminum forming facilities.
Forging of aluminum alloys is practiced at 16 plants located as
shown in Figure III-8. Of those plants, 12 discharge aluminum
forming wastewater indirectly to a POTW, and the remaining four
plants have no discharge of process wastewater. The production
distribution is summarized as follows: of the 15 forging opera-
tions for which 1977 production data were available, 67 percent
92
-------
produced less than 900 kkg (1,000 tons) of aluminum and aluminum
alloys; 80 percent produced less than 4,500 kkg (5,000 tons); and
87 percent produced less than 9,000 kkg (10,000 tons).
Drawing
The term drawing, when it applies to the manufacture of tube,
rod, bar, or wire, refers to the pulling of metal through a die
or succession of dies to reduce its diameter, alter the cross
sectional shape, or increase its hardness. In the drawing of
aluminum tubing, one end of the extruded tube is swaged to form a
solid point and then passed through the die. A clamp, known as a
bogie, grips the swaged end of tubing, as shown in Figure III-9.
A mandrel is then inserted into the die orifice, and the tubing
is pulled between the mandrel and die, reducing the outside diam-
eter and the wall thickness of the tubing. Wire, rod, and bar
drawing is accomplished in a similar manner, but the aluminum is
drawn through a simple die orifice without using a mandrel.
In order to ensure uniform drawing temperatures and avoid exces-
sive wear on the dies and mandrels used, it is essential that a
suitable lubricant be applied during drawing. A wide variety of
lubricants are used for this purpose. Heavier draws, which have
a higher reduction in diameter, may require oil-based lubricants,
but oil-in-water emulsions are used for many applications. Soap
solutions may also be used for some of the lighter draws. Draw-
ing oils are usually recycled until their lubricating properties
are exhausted.
Intermediate annealing is frequently required between draws in
order to restore the ductility lost by cold working of the drawn
product. Degreasing of the aluminum may be required to prevent
burning of heavy lubricating oils in the annealing furnaces.
Of the plants surveyed, 77 are involved in the drawing of tube,
wire, rod, and bar. The geographical location of these plants is
shown in Figure 111-10. No aluminum forming wastewater is dis-
charged at 51 of the plants. Of the remainder, 10 discharge
directly to surface water, and 16 discharge indirectly to a POTW.
The production distribution is summarized as follows: of the 57
drawing operations for which 1977 production data were available,
46 percent produced less than 900 kkg (1,000 tons) of aluminum
and aluminum alloys; 74 percent produced less than 4,500 kkg
(5,000 tons); and 82 percent produced less than 9,000 kkg
(10,000 tons).
Sawing. Sawing may be required for a number of aluminum forming
processes. Before ingots can be used as stock for rolling or
extrusion, the ingot may require scalping or sawing to a suitable
length. Following processes such as rolling, extrusion, and
drawing, the aluminum products may be sawed. The circular saws
93
-------
and band saws used generally require a cutting lubricant in order
to minimize friction and act as a coolant. Oil-in-water emul-
sions or mineral-based oils are usually applied to the sides of
the blade as a spray. In some cases, a heavy grease or wax may
be used as a saw lubricant. Normally, saw oils are not dis-
charged as a wastewater stream. The lubricants frequently are
carried over on the product or removed together with the saw
chips for reprocessing. In some cases; however, recycle and dis-
charge of a low-volume saw lubricant stream is practiced,
Swaging. Swaging is a forming operation frequently associated
with drawing. Swaging is often the initial step in drawing tube
or wire. By repeated blows of one or more pairs of opposing
dies, a solid point is formed. The point is then inserted
through the drawing die and gripped. In a few cases, swaging is
used in tube forming without a subsequent drawing operation.
Some lubricants, such as waxes and kerosene, may be used to
prevent adhesion of the metal or oxide on the swaging dies.
ANCILLARY OPERATIONS
Casting
Before aluminum alloys can be used for rolling or extrusion, and
subsequently for other aluminum forming operations, they are usu-
ally cast into ingots of suitable size and shape. Although
ingots may be prepared at smelters or other forming plants, 85 of
the 277 plants surveyed indicated that casting is done on site.
In addition, 30 of the 31 primary aluminum plants surveyed in the
nonferrous metals study indicated that some form of casting is
done on site. Nine of these plants fall into both the aluminum
forming and nonferrous metals categories. Therefore, 106 primary
reduction and aluminum forming plants have casting operations on
site.
The equipment and methods of casting used at aluminum forming
plants are the same as those employed by primary plants plus the
water requirements and waste characteristics are also very simi-
lar. Casting done at a plant which does both primary aluminum
reduction and aluminum forming will be subject to the casting
limitations for primary aluminum if they cast the aluminum
directly without cooling. If the aluminum is a remelted primary
aluminum product then the casting subsequent to the remelting
will be subject to the aluminum forming limitations.
The aluminum alloys used as the raw materials for casting opera-
tions are sometimes purchased from nearby smelters and trans-
ported to the forming plants in the molten state. Usually, how-
ever, purchased aluminum ingots are charged together with alloy-
ing elements into melting furnaces at the casting plants.
-------
Several types of furnaces can be used, but reverberatory furnaces
are the most common. The melting temperatures used range from
650 to 750°C.
At many plants, fluxes are added to the metal in order to reduce
hydrogen contamination, remove oxides, and eliminate undesirable
trace elements. Solid fluxes, such as hexachloroethane, aluminum
chloride, and anhydrous magnesium chloride, may be used, but it
is more common to bubble gases such as chlorine, nitrogen, argon,
helium, and mixtures of chlorine and inert gases through the
molten metal. Fluxing is accomplished by inserting a long,
perforated "lance" into the molten liquid and pumping the gas
through it. This forces the oxides of aluminum back up to the
surface. The oxides form on top of the metal while it stands in
the crucibles and after it is poured into the furnace, and--being
heavier than pure aluminum—sink down into the molten metal.
Bubbles in the fluxing material surround the aluminum oxide and
carry it up to the surface, where it can be skimmed off with big,
long-handled rakes.
After alloying and fluxing, the metal is allowed to flow into a
second or holding" compartment of the furnace, which acts as a
reservoir. When the reservoir of molten metal is sufficiently
full the metal may be drawn off to be cast.
Certain complex reactions occur in the furnace itself and, as a
result, some hydrogen gas is trapped in the molten metal. So,
just before it moves from the charging furnace to the holding
furnaces, the metal is "degassed" by introducing a combination of
nitrogen and chlorine gas, or chlorine gas alone, or other chemi-
cals. Although similar to fluxing in its description, degassing
has an entirely different purpose but both may occur in the same
operation.
The fluxing and degassing operations are not the same as the
demagging process used in the manufacture of secondary aluminum.
Like degassing and fluxing, demagging involves bubbling of chlo-
rine gas through molten aluminum, however the constituent to be
removed through demagging is primarily magnesium. Thus, the
demagging process is a refining process which frequently requires
significantly more chlorine than degassing or fluxing and some
type of wet air pollution control.
One of the problems associated with furnace degassing with
chlorine is the need for air pollution control. If the alloy
being treated does not contain magnesium, the chlorine gas will
react to form aluminum chloride, which exists as a dense, white
smoke. The presence of hydrochloric acid in these vapors
necessitates the use of wet scrubbers. For this reason, other
gases or mixtures of gases may be preferred as degassing agents.
In addition, a number of in-line treatment methods that eliminate
95
-------
the need for fluxing when degassing aluminum have recently been
developed and are being adopted by the industry. For a more
detailed description of these alternatives, see Section VII. One
of the aluminum forming plants and four primary aluminum plants
with casting operations reported using wet air pollution controls
to treat fumes from their melting furnaces. Chlorine was
occasionally cited as a degassing agent.
The casting methods used in aluminum forming can be divided into
three classes:
Direct chill casting,
Continuous casting, and
Stationary casting.
The process variations among these techniques affect both the
metallic properties of the aluminum that is cast and the
characteristics of associated wastewater streams.
Direct Chill Casting. Direct chill casting is performed at 61
aluminum forming plants and is the most widely used method of
casting aluminum for subsequent forming. Direct chill casting is
characterized by continuous solidification of the metal while it
is being poured. The length of an ingot cast using this method
is determined by the vertical distance it is allowed to drop
rather than by mold dimensions.
As shown in Figure III-ll , molten aluminum is tapped from the
melting furnace and flows through a distributor channel into a
shallow mold. Noncontact cooling water circulates within this
mold, causing solidification of the aluminum. The base of the
mold is attached to a hydraulic cylinder which is gradually
lowered as pouring continues. As the solidified aluminum leaves
the mold, it is sprayed with contact cooling water to reduce the
temperature of the forming ingot. The cylinder continues to
descend into a tank of water, causing further cooling of the
ingot as it is immersed. When the cylinder has reached its
lowest position, pouring stops and the ingot is lifted from the
pit. The hydraulic cylinder is then raised and positioned for
another casting cycle.
In direct chill casting, lubrication of the mold is required to
ensure proper ingot quality. Lard or castor oil is usually
applied before casting begins and may be reapplied during the
drop. Much of the lubricant volatilizes on contact with the
molten aluminum, but contamination of the contact cooling water
with oil and oil residues does occur.
The production distribution is summarized as follows: of the 56
direct chill casting operations for which 1977 production data
were available, 52 percent produced less than 23,000 kkg (25,000
96
-------
tons) of aluminum and aluminum alloys; 73 percent produced less
than 45,000 kkg (50,000 tons); and 89 percent produced less than
180,000 kkg (200,000 tons). Direct chill casting is also per-
formed by 27 primary aluminum plants covered in the nonferrous
metals survey. A comparison of production information was made
using production capacity from the two data sets, since the pri-
mary aluminum data was not from 1977. Of the 18 reduction plants
supplying production capacity data, 28 percent produce less than
90,000 kkg (100,000 tons); 78 percent produce less than 180,000
kkg (200,000 tons); and 94 percent produce less than 227,000 kkg
(250,000 tons).
Continuous Casting. Of the aluminum forming category plants sur-
veyed, 15 use continuous casting instead of, or in addition to,
direct chill casting methods. Unlike direct chill casting, no
restrictions are placed on the length of the casting, and it is
not necessary to interrupt production to remove the cast product.
The use of continuous casting eliminates or reduces the degree of
subsequent rolling required.
A relatively new technology, continuous casting of aluminum first
came into practice in the late 1950fs. Since then, improvements
and modifications have resulted in the increased use of this pro-
cess. Current applications include the casting of plate, sheet,
foil, and rod. Because continuous casting affects the mechanical
properties of the aluminum cast, the use of continuous casting is
limited by the alloys used, the nature of subsequent forming
operations, and the desired properties of the finished product.
In applications where continuous casting can be used, the follow-
ing advantages have been cited:
Increased flexibility in the dimensions of the cast
product;
Low capital costs, as little as 10 to 15 percent of the
cost of conventional direct chill casting and hot rolling
methods; and
Low energy requirements, reducing the amount of energy
required to produce comparable products by direct chill
casting and rolling methods by 35 to 80 percent, depend-
ing on the product being cast.
In addition, the use of continuous casting techniques has been
found to significantly reduce or eliminate the use of contact
cooling water and oil lubricants.
A number of different continuous casting processes are currently
being used in the industry. Although the methods vary somewhat,
they are similar in principle to one of the three processes dia-
grammed schematically in Figure 111-12. The most common method
97
-------
of continuous sheet casting, shown in Figure 1II-12A, substitutes
a single casting process for the conventional direct chill cast-
ing, scalping, heating, and hot rolling sequence. The typical
continuous sheet casting line consists of melting and holding
furnaces, a caster, pinch roll, shear, bridle, and coiler.
Molten aluminum flows from the holding furnace through a degas-
sing chamber or filter to the caster headbox. The level of
molten aluminum maintained in the headbox causes the metal to
flow upwards through the top assembly, which distributes it
uniformly across the width of the casting rolls. The aluminum
solidifies as it leaves the tip and is further cooled and solidi-
fied as it passes through the internally water-cooled rolls. It
leaves the caster as a formed sheet and successively passes
through pinch rolls, a shear, and a tension bridle before being
wound into a coil. The cooling water associated with this method
of continuous sheet casting never comes into contact with the
aluminum metal.
Another method of casting continuous aluminum sheet is shown in
Figure III-12B. This process is not very common and is limited
due to the mechanical properties of the sheet produced. Molten
aluminum is poured into a rotating perforated cylinder. The
droplets formed are air cooled and solidify as they fall. At '
this point, the pellets may either be removed for temporary stor-
age or charged directly to a preheated chamber, hot rolled into
sheet, and coiled. This unique process design not only elimi-
nates the use of contact cooling water, but also results in con-
siderable reductions in the amount of noncontact cooling water
required in the production of sheet.
Several methods of wheel casting, similar to the one shown in
Figure III-12C, are currently being used to produce aluminum rod.
Typically, continuous rod is manufactured on an integrated cast-
ing and rolling line consisting of a wheel belt caster, pinch
roll, shear, rolling trains, and a coiler. A ring mold is set
into the edge of the casting wheel. The mold is bound peripher-
ally by a continuous belt which loops around the casting wheel
and an associated idler wheel. As the casting wheel rotates,
aluminum is poured into the mold and solidifies. After a rota-
tion of approximately 180°, the belt separates from the mold,
releasing the still pliable aluminum bar. The bar then enters
directly into an in-line rolling mill, where it is rolled into
rod and coiled. Noncontact cooling water circulating within the
casting wheel is used to control the temperature of the ring
mold. Cooling of the belt is, for the most part, also accom-
plished by noncontact water, though some plants indicated that
contact with the aluminum bar as it leaves the mold is difficult
to avoid. Some models are actually designed so that cooling
water circulates within the interior of the wheel and then flows
over the freshly cast bar and onto the belt as the belt separates
from the ring mold. Because continuous casting incorporates
98
-------
casting and rolling into a single process, rolling lubricants may
be required. Frequently, oil emulsions similar to those used in
conventional hot rolling are used for this purpose. Graphite
solutions may be suitable for roll lubrication of some continuous
casting processes. In other instances, aqueous solutions of
magnesia are used.
The production distribution is summarized as follows: of the 14
continuous casting operations for which 1977 production data were
available, 57 percent produced less than 18,000 kkg (20,000 tons)
of aluminum and aluminum alloys; 71 percent produced less than
27,000 kkg (30,000 tons); and 100 percent produced less than
36,000 kkg (40,000 tons). Five plants in the primary aluminum
industry have continuous casting. Production was compared using
the production capacity rather than actual production since 1977
production was not available. Of the four plants supplying pro-
duction capacity data, one plant has a capacity less than 22,700
kkg (25,000 tons); two plants have a capacity of 45,000 kkg
(50,000 tons) or less; and no plant has a capacity above 68,000
kkg (75,000 tons).
Stationary Casting. Stationary casting of aluminum ingots is
practiced at 16 aluminum plants, usually to recycle in-house
aluminum scrap. The production distribution is summarized as
follows: of the 10 stationary 'casting operations for which 1977
production data were available, 50 percent produced less than
1,800 kkg (2,000 tons) of aluminum and aluminum alloys; 70 per-
cent produced less than 4,500 kkg (5,000 tons); and 90 percent
produced less than 9,000 kkg (10,000 tons). In the stationary
casting method, molten aluminum is poured into cast iron molds
and allowed to air cool. Lubricants and cooling water are not
required. Melting and casting procedures are dictated by the
intended use of the ingots produced. Frequently, the ingots are
used as raw material for subsequent aluminum forming operations
at the plant. Other plants sell these ingots for reprocessing.
Heat Treatment
Heat treatment is an integral part of aluminum forming practiced
at nearly every plant in the category. It is frequently used
both in process and as a final step in forming to give the
aluminum alloy the desired mechanical properties. The general
types of heat treatment applied are the following:
- Homogenizing, to increase the workability and help con-
trol recrystallization and grain growth following
casting;
Annealing, to soften work-hardened and heatrtreated
alloys, relieve stress, and stabilize properties and
dimensions;
99
-------
Solution heat treatment, to improve mechanical properties
by maximizing the concentration of hardening constituents
in solid solution; and
Artificial aging, to provide hardening by precipitation
of constituents from solid solution.
Homogenizing, annealing, and aging are dry processes, while solu-
tion heat treatment typically involves significant quantities of
contact cooling water.
In the casting process, large crystals of intermetallic compounds
are distributed heterogeneously throughout the ingot. Homogeni-
zation of the cast ingot provides a more uniform distribution of
the soluble constituents within the alloy. By reducing the brit-
tleness caused by casting, homogenization prepares the ingot for
subsequent forming operations. The need for homogenization and
the time and temperatures required are dependent on the alloy
involved, the ingot size, the method of casting used, and the
nature of the subsequent forming operations. Typically, the
ingot is heated to a temperature ranging between 425 and 650°C
and held at that temperature for four to 48 hours. The ingots
are then allowed to air cool. One plant does use a water mist to
aid final cooling after homogenizing.
Annealing is used by plants in the aluminum forming category to
remove the effects of strain hardening or solution heat treat-
ment. The alloy is raised to its recrystallization temperature,
typically between 350 and 400°C. Nonheat-treatable, strain-
hardened alloys need only be held in the furnace until the
annealing temperature is reached; heat-treatable alloys usually
require a detention time of two or three hours. In continuous
furnaces, the metal is raised to higher temperatures (i,e., 425
to 450°C) and detained in the furnace for 30 to 60 seconds. Once
removed from the annealing furnace, it is essential that the
heat-treatable alloys be cooled to 250°C or lower at a slow, con-
trolled rate. After annealing, the aluminum is in a ductile,
more workable condition suitable for subsequent forming opera-
tions. One plant reported that a water seal was used on its
annealing furnace to maintain the inert atmosphere in the anneal-
ing furnace. Water circulates through a fibrous material which
provides the seal between the furnace door and the frame. The
purpose of the water is to prevent scorching of the seal mate-
rial. Some of the water does pass through the fibrous material
and contacts the metal; however, this water evaporates on
contact. After discussions with the plant and the furnace
vendor, it was concluded that the furnace seal water is a non-
contact cooling water stream.
Solution heat treatment is accomplished by raising the tempera-
ture of a heat-treatable alloy to the eutectic temperature, where
100
-------
it is held for the required length of time and quenched rapidly.
As a result of this process, the metallic constituents in the
alloy are held in a super-saturated solid solution, improving its
mechanical properties. The metal temperatures recommended for
solution heat treatment of formed aluminum alloys typically range
from 450 to 550 C. The required length of time the metal must be
held at this temperature varies from one to 48 hours. In the
case of extrusion, certain aluminum alloys can be solution heat
treated immediately following the extrusion process. In this
procedure, known as press heat treatment, the metal is extruded
at the required temperatures and quenched with contact cooling
water as it emerges from the die or press.
The quenching techniques used in solution heat treatment are
frequently critical in achieving the desired mechanical proper-
ties. The sensitivity of alloys to quenching varies, but delays
in transferring the product from the furnace to the quench, a
quenching rate that is incorrect or not uniform, and the quality
of the quenching medium used can all have serious detrimental
effects. With few exceptions, contact cooling water is used to
quench solution heat treated products. Immersion-quenching in
contact cooling water, typically ranging from 65 to 100°C, is
used for most aluminum formed products. Forgings can be quenched
at cooler temperatures (i.e., 60 to 70°C). Spray or flush
quenching is sometimes used to quench thick products. Solution
heat treated forgings of certain alloys can be quenched using an
air blast rather than a water medium. Air quenching can also be
used for certain extrusions following press heat treatment.
Immersion quenching using glycol is often found in the manufac-
ture of high-performance aeronautical components. This unusual
operation is critical for achieving desired mechanical proper-
ties, and its use may increase as the demand for high-quality
parts goes up.
Artificial aging, also known as precipitation heat treatment, is
applied to some aluminum alloys in order to cause precipitation
of super-saturated constituents in the metal. The alloy is
heated to a relatively low temperature (i.e., 120 to 200°C) for
several hours and then air cooled. Artificial aging is fre-
quently used following solution heat treatment to develop the
maximum hardness and ultimate tensile and yield strength in the
metal. For certain alloys, the mechanical properties are maxi-
mized by sequentially applying solution heat treatment, cold
working, and artificial aging.
At elevated temperatures, the presence of water vapors can dis-
rupt the oxide film on the surface of the product, especially i£
the atmosphere is also contaminated with ammonia or sulfur com-
pounds. Possible detrimental effects include surface blistering,
porosity, discoloration, and a decrease in tensile properties.
When this occurs, it is necessary to control the atmosphere
101
-------
within a heat treatment furnace. A number of techniques can be
used to control the atmosphere. At some aluminum forming plants,
natural gas is burned to generate an inert atmosphere. The
resulting flue gases are cooled to remove moisture and are intro-
duced to the heat treatment furnace. Under the proper condi-
tions, the same fuel that heats the furnace can be used for this
* i
purpose. Because of the high sulfur content in most furnace
fuels; however, the off-gases require treatment by wet scrubbers
before they can be used as inert atmosphere for heat treatment.
Cleaning and Etching
A number of chemical or electrochemical treatments may be applied
after the forming of aluminum or aluminum alloy products. Sol-
vent, acid and alkaline solutions, and detergents can be used to
clean soils such as oil and grease from the aluminum surface.
Acid and alkaline solutions can also be used to etch the product
or brighten its surface. Deoxidizing and desmutting are accom-
plished with acid solutions. Surface treatments and their asso-
ciated rinses are usually combined in a single line of successive
tanks. Wastewater discharge from these lines is typically com-
mingled prior to treatment or discharge. In some cases, rinse
water from one treatment is reused in the rinse of another.
These treatments may be used for cleaning purposes or to provide
the desired finish for an aluminum formed product, or they may
simply prepare the aluminum surface for subsequent coating by
such processes as anodizing, conversion coating, electroplating,
painting, and porcelain enameling. A number of different terms
are commonly used in referring to sequences of surface treatments
(e.g., pickling lines, cleaning lines, etch lines, preparation
lines, and pretreatment lines). The terminology depends, to some
degree, on the purpose of the lines, but usage varies within the
industry. In addition, the characteristics of wastewater gener-
ated by surface treatment is determined by the unit components of
the treatment lines rather than the specific purpose of its
application. In order to simplify discussion, the term cleaning
or etching is used in this document to refer to any surface
treatment processes other than solvent cleaning.
Surface treatment operations performed as an integral part of the
forming process are considered to be within the scope of the
aluminum forming category. In other words, those surface treat-
ment operations that immediately follow an aluminum forming
operation or precede further forming or working of the aluminum
are considered a part of aluminum forming.
In situations where surface treatment operations are an integral
part of coil coating lines or are not an integral part of the
forming process, (i.e., performed at another site) the waste-
waters will not be considered as aluminum forming wastewaters.
102
-------
Solvent Cleaning. Solvent cleaners are used to remove oil and
grease compounds from the surface of aluminum products. This
process is usually used to remove cold rolling and drawing
lubricants before products are annealed, finished, or shipped.
There are three basic methods of solvent cleaning: vapor
degreasing, cold cleaning, and emulsified solvent degreasing.
Vapor degreasing, the predominant method of solvent cleaning in
the aluminum forming industry, uses the hot vapors of chlorinated
solvents to remove oils, greases, and waxes. In simplest form,
vapor degreasing units consist of an open steel tank similar to
the one shown in Figure III-13A. Solvent is heated at the bottom
of a steel tank and, as it boils, a hot solvent vapor is gener-
ated. Because of its higher density, the vapor displaces air and
fills the tank. Near the top of the tank, condenser coils
provide a cooling zone in which the vapors condense and are
prevented from rising above a fixed level. When cool aluminum
forming products are lowered into the hot vapor, the solvent con-
denses onto the product, dissolving oils present on the surface.
Vapor degreasing units may also incorporate immersion or spraying
of the hot solvent for more effective cleaning. Conveyor systems
similar to the one shown in Figure III-13B are used in some
applications.
The solvents most commonly used for vapor degreasing in aluminum
forming are trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and per-
chloroethylene. Selection of the solvent depends on a number of
factors, including solvent boiling point, product dimension, and
alloy makeup; and the nature of the oil, grease, or wax to be
removed. Stabilizing agents are usually added to the solvents.
Vapor degreasing solvents are frequently recovered by distilla-
tion. Solvents can be distilled either within the degreasing
unit itself or in a solvent recovery still. The sludge residue
generated in the recovery process is toxic and may be flammable.
Suitable handling and disposal procedures must be followed and
are discussed in subsequent sections of this report (principally
in Section VII).
Cold cleaning is another solvent cleaning method and involves
hand wiping, spraying, or immersion of metal parts in organic
solvents to remove oil, grease, and other contaminants from the
surface. A variety of solvents or solvent blends, primarily
petroleums and chlorinated hydrocarbons, are used in cold clean-
ing. These solvents can be reclaimed by distillation either on
site or by an outside recovery service. For highly contaminated
solvents; however, reclamation may not be cost effective, and
contract hauling is the disposal method of choice. In general,
cold cleaning is not as effective as vapor degreasing treatment,
but the costs are considerably lower.
103
-------
Emuls ifled solvents can also be used to clean aluminum, but they
are less efficient than pure solvents, and their use is limited
to the removal of light oil and grease. Reclamation of emulsi-
fied solvents is not economically feasible at this time.
Contract hauling of the spent solvents is the disposal method
practiced by plants in the aluminum forming category.
Due to the toxic nature of many cleaning solvents, emission con-
trols may be required.
Alkaline and Acid Cleaning. Alkaline cleaning is the most common
method of cleaning aluminum surfaces. The alkaline solutions
vary in pH and chemical composition. Inhibitors are frequently
added to minimize or prevent attack on the metal. Alkaline
cleaners are able to emulsify vegetable and animal oils and
greases to a certain degree and are effective in the removal of
lard, oil, and other such compounds. Mineral oils and grease, on
the other hand, are not emulsified by alkaline cleaning solutions
and, therefore, are not removed as effectively.
Aluminum products can be cleaned with an alkaline solution either
by immersion or spray. The solution is usually maintained at a
temperature ranging between 60 and 80°C. Rinsing, usually with
warm water, should follow the alkaline cleaning process to
prevent the solution from drying on the product.
Acid solutions can also be used for aluminum cleaning, but they
are less effective than either alkaline or solvent cleaning sys-
tems. Their use is generally limited to the removal of oxides
and smut. Acid cleaning solutions usually have a pH ranging from
4.0 to 5.7 and temperatures between room temperature and 80 C.
The solutions typically contain one or two acids (e.g., nitric,
sulfuric, phosphoric, chromic, and hydrofluoric acids).
Chemical and Electrochemical Brightening. The surface of alumi-
num or aluminum alloys can be chemically or electrochemically
brightened to improve surface smoothness and reflectance. Chemi-
cal brightening is accomplished by immersing the product in baths
of concentrated or dilute acid solutions. The acids most com-
monly used for this purpose are sulfuric; nitric; phosphoric;
acetic; and, to a lesser extent, chromic and hydrofluoric. Other
constituents, such as copper or lead salts, glycerol, and
ethylene glycol, may be added as well.
Aluminum can also be brightened by electrochemical methods. The
product is immersed in an electrolyte bath, through which direct
current is passed. The electrolytic solutions are acidic, con-
taining hydrofluoric, phosphoric, chromic, or sulfuric acid, or
they may be alkaline, containing sodium carbonate or trisodium
phosphate.
104
-------
Etching. Chemical etchants are used to reduce or eliminate
scratches and other surface imperfections, to remove oxides, or
to provide surface roughness. The most widely used etchant is an
aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide. The concentration and tem-
perature of the caustic bath are carefully controlled to provide
the desired degree of etching. In general, the sodium hydroxide
concentration ranges from 1 to 15 percent, and the solution is
maintained between 50 and 80°C. It is important that products
are rinsed immediately following caustic etching.
As a result of etching with a caustic solution, the surface of
the product may be discolored. Alloying constituents, such as
copper, manganese, and silicon, as well as other impurities in
the metal, are not dissolved in the etchant and form a dark
residual film referred to as smut. In order to alleviate this
problem, caustic etching is frequently followed by destautting.
For specific aluminum alloys or desired finishes, acid etching
may be used. Aluminum-silicon alloys are frequently etched in a
solution containing nitric and hydrofluoric acids. Fumes
generated by acid etching are corrosive and may constitute a
health hazard requiring suitable air pollution control. In
general, etching with acids is more expensive, but it may result
in less aluminum loss, which can be an economic advantage.
Desmutting and Deoxidizing. Acid solutions are used in desmut-
ting and deoxidizing aluminum products. Desmutting, a process
frequently applied following caustic etching, is accomplished by
immersion in an acid solution that dissolves the residual film.
Although a number of acid solutions can be used to remove smut,
dilute nitric acid is most commonly employed.
Deoxidizers are acid solutions formulated to remove specific
oxide films and coatings from the aluminum products. The oxides
may have been formed naturally, or they may result from heat
treatment or other surface treatments. Deoxidizing solutions can
be composed of a variety of acids, including chromic, phosphoric,
sulfuric, nitric, and hydrofluoric acid.
Anodizing. Anodizing is either a chemical or an electrolytic
oxidation process which converts the surface of the metal to an
insoluble oxide. These oxide coatings provide corrosion protec-
tion, decorative surfaces, a base for painting and other coating
processes, as well as special electrical and mechanical proper-
ties.
The majority of anodizing is carried out by immersion of racked
parts in tanks. Continuous anodizing may be done on large coils
of aluminum in a manner similar to continuous electroplating.
The formation of the oxide occurs (in electrolytic anodizing)
when the parts are made anodic in dilute sulfuric acid or dilute
105
-------
chromic acid solutions. The oxide layer begins formation at the
extreme outer surface, and as the reaction proceeds, the oxide
grows into the metal. The last formed oxide, known as the bound-
ary layer, is located at the interface between the aluminum and
the oxide. The boundary is extremely thin and nonporous. The
sulfuric acid process is typically used for all parts subject to
stress or containing recesses in which the sulfuric acid solution
may be retained and attack the aluminum. Chromic acid anodic
coatings are more protective than sulfuric acid coatings and have
a relatively thick boundary layer. For these reasons, a chromic
acid bath is used if a complete rinsing of the part cannot be
achieved.
Chemical Conversion Coating. This manufacturing operation
includes chromating, phosphating, and passivating. These coat-
ings are applied to previously deposited metal or basis material
for increased corrosion protection, lubricity, preparation of the
surface for additional coatings, or formulation of a special
surface appearance. In chromating, a portion of the aluminum is
converted to one of the components of the protective film formed
by the coating solution. This occurs by reaction with aqueous
solutions containing hexavalent chromium and active organic or
inorganic compounds. Most of the coatings are applied by
chemical immersion, although a spray or brush treatment can be
used.
Phosphate coatings are used to provide a good base for paints and
other organic coatings, to condition the surfaces for cold form-
ing operations by providing a base for drawing compounds and
lubricants, and to impart corrosion resistance to the aluminum
surface by the coating itself or by providing a suitable base for
rust-preventive oils or waxes. Phosphate conversion coatings are
formed by the immersion of aluminum in a dilute solution of phos-
phoric acid. The method of applying the phosphate coating is
dependent upon the size and shape of the part to be coated.
Small parts frequently are coated in barrels immersed in the
phosphating solution. Large parts may be spray coated or
continuously passed through the phosphating solution.
106
-------
INGOT
Sow and Pig'
STATIONARY
CASTING
IN-HOUSE
SCRAP
FORGING
FORCINGS
CONTINUOUS CASTING
HOT/COLD ROLLING
MOLTEN
ALUMINUM
ALLOY
DIRECT CHILL
OR STATIONARY
CASTING
INGOT
OR
BILLET
EXTRUSION
TUBE,
ROD,
OR BAR
DRAWING
TUBE, ROD,
BAR, OR
WIRE
HOT
ROLLING
PLATE
COLD
ROLLING
r*
SHEET
COLD ^
ROLLING
FOIL
CONTINUOUS CASTING
Figure III-l
ALUMINUM FORMING PRODUCTS
-------
Table III-l
PROFILE OF ALUMINUM FORMING PLANTS
PRODUCTION (tons/yr ) EMPLOYMENT
Aluminum
Product
Plate
Sheet
Strip
Foil
Tube
Rod
Wire &
Cable
Extrusions
Forgings
Number
of
Plants
7
16
21
15
25
13
48
141
13
Industry
Total
6. OOxl O4
8.34xl05
7.28x105
2.091xl05
7.08xl04
4.747xl04
1.988xl05
9.07xl05
1. 856x1 O4
Plant
Average
8.57xl03
5.56xl04
3.639xl04
1. 394x1 O4
3,078
4,747
4,229
6.48x103
1,547
Plant
Average
852
693
356
294
176
125
43
100
94
108
-------
WUH
1-3
Z-12
*Z-3
u>
>r
I-l Z-2 *
HAMS
n z~2
I OKI A
-1 7 J
D 1 (
1-2 V
MO >
7 3
U-2 7
1-2 ,
AHR /
Z-3 /*
^ IT
Puerto Rico:
D-l
Z-5\ Z-l
D - Direct Process Wastewater Discharge Plants
I - Indirect Process Wastewater Dicharge Plants
Z - Zero Process Wastewater Discharge Plants
Figure III-2
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF ALUMINUM FORMING PLANTS
-------
Table III-2
PLANT AGE DISTRIBUTION BY DISCHARGE TYPE
Type of
Plant
Discharge
Direct
Indirect
Zero
Total
No
Data
0
0
3
3
Plant Age As of
0-5
1
10
17
28
6-10
7
5
24
36
11-2CT
18
17
52
87
21-30
18
15
32
65
31-50
11
7
9
27
1977 (Years)
41-50
0
2
6
8
51-60
1
3
3
7
61-75
1
4
2
7
75+*
1
3
5
9
Total
58
66
153
277
*These plants may have installed aluminum forming operations after their initial
construction.
-------
Table III-3
DISTRIBUTION OF FACILITIES ACCORDING TO TIME ELAPSED
SINCE LATEST MAJOR PLANT MODIFICATION
Type of
Plant
Discharge
Direct
Indirect
Zero
Total
No
Data
8
13
38
59
Years Elapsed Since Latest Major Modification (As of 1977)
0-5
31
34
69
134
6-10
12
10
26
48
11-15
5
3
4
12
16-20
1
3
9
13
21+
1
3
7
11
Total
58
66
153
277
-------
A. TWO-HIGH REVERSING MILL
B. THREE-HIGH CONTINUOUS ROLLING MILL
Figure III-3
COMMON ROLLING MILL CONFIGURATIONS
112
-------
V-1
VA
LO
•Figure
PLANTS
wm HOT/COW
-------
BLOCK
-PISTON
HOLDER
114
-------
Rico:
D - Direct Process Wastewater Discharge Plants
I - Indirect Process Wastewater Discharge Plants
Z - Zero Process Wastewater Discharge Plants
Figure III-6
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PLANTS WITH EXTRUSION
-------
PISTON ROD
RAM
TOP DIE
- FORGWG -
BOTTOM DIE
ANVIL CAP
ANVIL
A. CLOSED .HIE FORGING
B. OPEN DIE FORGING
EDGING
ROLLS
PRESSURE ROLL
MANDREL
C. ROLLED RING FORGING
Figure III-7
FORGING
116
-------
D
D - Direct Process Wastewater Discharge Plants
I - Indirect Process Wastewater Discharge Plants
Z - Zero Process Wastewater Discharge Plants
Figure III-8
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PLANTS WITH FORGING
-------
MANDREL
OO
SWAGGED END
/
/
////////// <_^-
/
/ / °F
1 * ^—Ef^^^T^
////////// /^
MTUBE
t
\
y rVKir
^DRAWN TUBE X_ir-
^BOGIE
-DIE
IOLDER
Figure III-9
TUBE DRAWING
-------
Direct Process Wastewater Discharge Plants
Indirect Process Wastewater Discharge Plants
Zero Pro-cess Wastewater Discharge Plants
Figure 111-10
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PLANTS WITH
TUBE, WIRE, ROD AND BAR DRAWING
-------
MELTING"^!
FURNACE ^E:
•=^ DISTRIBUTOR TROUGH
XXX XXXXX
MOLTEN ALUMINUM
LIQUID METAL
to
o
SOLIDIFIED INGOT
XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX
NONCONTACT COOLED MOLD
CONTACT COOLING SPRAY
b
CONTACT COOLING
WATER TANK
HYDRAULIC CYLINDER
Figure III-ll
DIRECT CHILL CASTING
-------
MOLTEN ALUMINUM
SHEET
SHEAR
) D
COILER
HOLDING
FURNACE
CASTER ROLLS
(NONCONTACT
WATER COOLING)
> D
PINCH
ROLL
\s\s*^
BRIDLE
jBELT
A. CONVENTIONAL SHEET CASTING
MOLTEN ALUMINUM
ROD
SHEAR
g o
PINCH
CASTING WHEEL R°LL
(NONCONTACT/MINIMAL CONTACT
WATER COOLING)
ROUGH
TRAIN
FINISHING
TRAIN
COILER
MOLTEN ALUMINUM
ROTATING
PERFORATED
CYLINDER
(AIR COOLING)
REHEATING
CHAMBER
COMPACTING
ROLLERS
SHEET
B. CASTING SHEET FROM PELLETS
C. WHEEL CASTING OF ROD
Figure 111-12
CONTINUOUS CASTING
-------
c ,
CONDENSATE-
TROUGH
3 WATER JACKET
(NONCONTACT COOLING)
VAPOR ZONE
^ -SOLVENT
HEATING ELEMENT
CLEANOUT DOOR
A. OPEN TOP VAPOR DEGREASER
SHEET
-VAPOR
ZONE
WATED SOLVENT
B. STRIP CONVEYORIZED DEGREASER
^WATER
JACKET
Figure 111-13
VAPOR DECREASING
122
-------
SECTION IV
INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION
Subcategorization should take Into account pertinent industry
characteristics, manufacturing process variations, wastewater
characteristics, and other factors. Effluent limitations and
standards establish mass limitations on the discharge of pollu-
tants which are applied, through the permit issuance process, to
specific dischargers. To allow the national standard to be
applied to a wide range of sizes of production units, the mass of
pollutant discharge must be referenced to a unit of production.
This factor is referred to as a production normalizing parameter
and is developed in conjunction with subcategorization.
Division of the category into subcategories provides a mechanism
for addressing process and product variations which result in
distinct wastewater characteristics. The selection of production
normalizing parameters provides the means for compensating for
differences in production rates among plants with similar
products and processes within a uniform set of mass-based
effluent limitations and standards.
SUBCATEGORIZATION BASIS
Factors Considered
After considering the nature of the various segments of the
aluminum forming industry and their operations, EPA evaluated
possible bases for subcategorization. These include:
1. Raw Materials Used
2. Manufacturing Processes
3. Wastewater Characteristics
4. Products Manufactured
5. Water Use
6. Water Pollution Control Technology
7. Treatment Costs
8. Solid Waste Generation and Disposal
9. Size of Plant
10. Age of Plant
11. Number of Employees
12. Total Energy Requirements (Manufacturing Process and
Water Treatment and Control)
13. Non-Water Quality Characteristics
14. Unique Plant Characteristics
123
-------
In addition to considering how the individual factors influenced
subcategorization, the interrelationship between different
factors was also evaluated.
After considering the above factors, it was concluded that the
aluminum forming category is comprised of separate and distinct
processes with enough variability in products and wastes to
require the division of the industry into a number of discrete
subcategories. The individual processes, wastewater characteris-
tics, and treatment effectiveness comprise the most significant
factors in the subcategorization of this complex industry. The
remaining factors either served to support and substantiate the
subcategorization or were shown to be inappropriate bases for
subcategorization. Discussion of each of the factors is pre-
sented later in this section.
Effluent limitations and standards establishing mass limitations
on the discharge of pollutants are applied to direct dischargers
through the permit issuance process and to indirect dischargers
by POTW. The mass limitations are normalized to some factor of
production to avoid the possibility of plants meeting the
limitations by dilution rather than treatment. The production
normalizing parameter (PNP) allows for equitable consideration of
all plants, regardless of size or volume of production, because
we assume that the mass of pollutants discharged in the raw
wastewater is dependent on the production processes that generate
the wastewater. Thus, the wastewater from a given process will
have similar characteristics from plant to plant with a constant
mass of pollutant generated per an appropriate unit of
production.
To establish effluent limitations that relate the mass of pollu-
tants discharged to production within the above subcategories,
appropriate PNP's had to be selected. In this analysis, the
following alternatives were considered:
1. mass of aluminum processed
2. number of products processed
3. area of aluminum processed
4. mass of process chemicals used
The evaluation of alternative PNP's, discussed further in this
section, involved consideration of the same factors used in
analyzing subcategorization.
Subcatesorization Factors Considered
Each of the factors considered in developing subcategorization is
discussed below. In evaluating these factors, the following
items were addressed: the nature of subcategorization based on
124
-------
the factor being considered; the positive and negative aspects of
the potential subcategorization; and the potential PNP' s that
could be used in conjunction with this subcategorization scheme.
Raw Materials. The raw materials used in the aluminum forming
category can be classified as follows:
aluminum and aluminum alloys;
lubricants;
surface treatment, degreasing, and furnace fluxing
chemicals; and
additives to lubricants and cooling water.
At times, the same raw material may take on various effluent
characteristics, and these will require different treatment. For
example, an oil that is emulsified requires different treatment
than the same oil in a pure state. Due to process variations and
the proprietary nature of many chemical additives, it is diffi-
cult to establish a production normalizing parameter that
directly relates pollutant discharge to specific process chemi-
cals or lubricants,
Manufacturing Processes. There are four principal manufacturing
processes used in aluminum forming: rolling, extrusion, forging,
and drawing. Since the terminology is common in the aluminum
forming industry, subcategorization using these four processes
would be easily recognized and understood.
Typically, a company will have only one of these forming opera-
tions at an individual plant site, as tabulated below. Conse-
quently, all the plant operations associated with that facility
would be regulated under one subcategory.
PLANTS HAVING ONLY ONE ALUMINUM FORMING
OPERATION ON-SITE
Forming Operation
Rolling
Extrusion
Forging
Drawing
Number of Plants
With Only This
Forming Operation
37
144
13
52
Percent of Total
Plants With This
Forming Operation
65
88
81
68
125
-------
Subcategorization based on the principal manufacturing processes
does not take into account the wastewater generated by minor or
ancillary production processes. In many cases, the principal
manufacturing process will contribute only a small fraction of
the plant's total process wastewater.
Wastewater Characteristics and Treatment Technologies. Using
wastewater characteristics as a criterion, the following sub-
categorization would result: emulsions; pure oils, also known as
neat oils; oil-in water (nonemulsified) mixtures; and acidic or
basic wastewaters. The major types of unit operations producing
the identified waste streams are listed below.
Waste Stream
Emulsions
Neat Oils
Oil-in-water (nonemulsified)
mixtures
Acidic or basic wastewaters
Unit Operations Producing
the Waste Stream
Hot Rolling
Cold Rolling
Drawing
Cold Rolling
Drawing
Casting
Solution heat treatment
Cleaning or etching
Extrusion die cleaning
Cleaning or etching
This Subcategorization scheme reflects the fact that effective
wastewater pollutant removal is dependent on the wastewater
characteristics and treatment system designed for removal of
these pollutants. Treatment of emulsified and oil-in-water (non-
emulsified) wastewaters in the same treatment system is inappro-
priate because additional treatment steps are required to break
emulsions. Wastewaters generated during the cleaning or etching
of aluminum with an acid or base solution may require pH adjust-
ment with metals removal and may not need to be treated for oil
removal. Finally, since spent neat oils are pure oil and contain
no water, they may frequently be disposed of by incineration or
contract hauling, thus requiring no treatment.
Products Manufactured. Another approach to Subcategorization is
based on the products manufactured, as listed below:
126
-------
Product
Associated
Manufacturing Process
Plate
Sheet
Strip
Foil
Rod and bar
Tubing
Miscellaneous shapes
Wire and cable
Other (L shapes, I-beams, etc.)
Rolling
Rolling
Rolling
Rolling
Rolling, extrusion, drawing
Extrusion or drawing
Forging
Drawing
Drawing or extrus ion
The product manufactured is an excellent criterion for subcate-
gorization if the waste characterization and production process
to produce a given item are the same from plant to plant; how-
ever, this approach is not applicable to the manufacture of many
aluminum formed products. For example, rods can be produced by
two different production processes which generate similar waste-
water (i.e., rolling and drawing), the mass of pollutants gener-
ated per unit of rod produced by rolling will be different than
the amount generated by drawing the rod. Furthermore, some
products produced by the same process may use different lubri-
cants, therefore generating a waste with different characteris-
tics. Strip and sheet, for example, can be produced by opera-
tions which use either neat or emulsified oils as lubricants.
This approach to subcategorization does not take into account
ancillary operations, such as cleaning or etching, heat treat-
ment, and casting, that may be found at any given plant. All of
these factors make it very difficult to develop an equitable
regulation using products manufactured as a basis for
subcategorization.
Process Water Use. Major differences in water use (volume of
water applied to a process per mass of product) between
facilities with large and small production could warrant the
development of subcategories.
As will be discussed in Section V, analysis of the data indicated
that production normalized water use (i.e., gallons per ton of
aluminum formed) for a given unit operation is usually indepen-
dent of production volume. For example, a large direct chill
casting operation will use about the same amount of water per ton
of ingot produced as an operation casting much less aluminum by
the same method. For certain unit operations, there is a trend
for the normalized water use to decrease with increased produc-
tion; however, no distinct break point could be identified to
distinguish between water use at high production and low produc-
tion plants.
127
-------
Size. The number of employees and amount of aluminum processed
were used to measure relative sizes of aluminum forming plants.
Wastewaters produced by a production process are largely indepen-
dent of the number of plant employees. Variations in staff occur
for many reasons, including shift differences, clerical and
administrative support, maintenance workers, efficiency of plant
operations, and market fluctuations. Due to these and other
factors, the number of employees is constantly fluctuating, mak-
ing it difficult to develop a correlation between the number of
employees and wastewater generation.
Subcategorization based on size in terms of production of
aluminum would group plants by the off-pounds of extrusions,
sheets, rods, etc. This is a good method of subcategorization
for an economic analysis on this category since plants producing
rod will compete for the same market, and smaller production
plants may have very different characteristics than large produc-
tion plants. One drawback to this subcategorization approach is
that it does not account for the ancillary operations frequently
performed in conjunction with the forming operation.
Aluminum forming is one of the newest large-volume metal
industries. The demand for aluminum products has grown greatly
since the end of World War II. Thus, aluminum forming plants are
relatively modern; most are less than 30 years old. Furthermore,
to remain competitive, plants must be constantly modernized.
Modernization of production equipment, processes, treatment sys-
tems , and air pollution control equipment is undertaken on a con-
tinuous basis throughout the industry. Data regarding the age
and date of the latest major modification for each plant were
compiled from the dcp responses and summarized in Tables III-2
and I1I-3 (pp. 110 and 111 ), respectively.
Unique Plant Characteristics. Aluminum forming plants are unique
on the basis of their physical locations and unit operations.
These unit operations are necessary to the manufacturing process,
but vary from plant to plant, depending on the product and
specifications.
Location. The geographical distribution of the aluminum forming
plants is shown in Figure III-2 (p. 109). The plants are not
limited to any one geographical location, but they are generally
located east of the Mississippi River, with pockets of plants
located in the western states of Washington, California, and
Texas. Although some cost savings may be realized for facilities
located in nonurban settings where land is available to install
lagoons, equivalent control of wastewater pollutant discharge can
be achieved by urban plants with the use of physical and chemical
128
-------
treatment systems that have smaller land requirements. Since
most plants are located in the eastern part of the United States
(an area where precipitation exceeds evaporation) or in urban
areas, evaporation and land application of the wastewater are not
commonly used. Presently, only 27 of the 277 plants evaporate or
apply wastewater to land.
Unit Operations, The following is a list of the unit operations
performed as part of the aluminum forming process.
Unit Operation
Direct chill
casting
Continuous rod
casting
Continuous sheet
casting
Stationary
casting
Hot rolling
Cold rolling
Roll grinding
Degassing
Extrusion die
cleaning
Extrusion dummy
block cooling
Forging
Drawing
Annealing
Press heat
treatment
Waste Stream
Contact cooling water
Spent lubricant
Contact cooling water
Spent lubricant
Dry operation
Spent emulsion
Spent neat oil or
emulsion
Spent emulsion
Scrubber liquor
Bath caustic solution
Rinse water
Scrubber liquor
Contact cooling water
Scrubber liquor
Sp,ent neat oil, emulsion,
or soap solution
Atmosphere scrubber
liquor
Contact cooling water
129
-------
Unit Operation
Waste Stream
Solution heat
treatment
Homogenizing
Artificial aging
Degreasing
Cleaning or
etching
Sawing
Swaging
Contact cooling water
Dry operation
Dry operation
Spent solvents
Bath caustic, acid, or
detergent solutions
Rinse water
Scrubber liquor
Spent neat oil or
emulsion
Dry operation
Included in this list are several operations that either do not
discharge a waste stream or discharge small quantities of pollu-
tants. Furthermore, for subcategories based on these operations,
this approach to subcategorization does not take into account the
different types of oils used for lubrication. For example, draw-
ing can use a neat oil lubricant or an emulsified oil lubricant.
Waste characteristics and treatment schemes are different for the
two types of oils used.
Subcategory Selection
In selecting the subcategories, the Agency tried to minimize the
number of subcategories, but at the same time provide sufficient
segmentation to account for the differences between processes and
associated wastewater streams. Because the aluminum forming
category encompasses a variety of operations that generate
wastewaters with differing characteristics, it is necessary to
consider a combination of factors when establishing
subcategorization.
Each of the, factors listed and discussed previously are evaluated
below on the basis of suitability for subcategorizing the
aluminum forming category.
Raw Materials. The pollutants in the wastewater discharged are
dependent on the raw materials; however, the amount of pollutants
discharged does not directly correlate with the nature of raw
materials used. Discharge of heavy metals may result from the
presence of these compounds in the aluminum alloy; however, the
amount of metal that enters the wastewater is largely dependent
130
-------
on the operation performed on the alloy. For instance, etching
the workpiece will result in a higher metal discharge than roll-
ing the workpiece. Subcategorization solely on the basis of raw
materials was considered inappropriate for this category because
of the difficulty associated with correlating raw materials with
the discharge of pollutants.
Manufacturing Processes. Aluminum forming is widely character-
ized by the principal manufacturing processes of rolling, extrud-
ing, forging, and drawing. The industry has built plants around
a single production process and is familiar with the terminology.
Pollutant generation can be related to the mass of production
from these processes. On this basis, subcategorization based on
manufacturing processes is appropriate for this category; how-
ever, the four processes of rolling, extruding, forging, and
drawing do not account for the different lubricants, requiring
different treatments, that can be used for the rolling and
drawing operations. This approach to subcategorization also
fails to consider the unique properties of the aluminum forming
plants in the variety of ancillary unit operations that may be
present, many of which generate large volumes of wastewater.
Therefore, the manufacturing processes by themselves are not
suitable for subcategorizing the aluminum forming category.
Wastewater Characteristics. Wastewater characteristics are very
important in the consideration of appropriate treatment tech-
nology and form the basis for effluent limitations. Subcategori-
zation based solely on wastewater characteristics is inappropri-
ate for the aluminum forming category since it is difficult to
develop a production normalizing parameter. More than one
manufacturing process may generate a waste stream with the same
characteristics, such as rolling and drawing which both can use
neat oils and emulsions. Volume of wastewater, or in this case
lubricant generated per the mass of aluminum rolled, may vary
greatly with the volume generated per mass of aluminum drawn.
The purpose of subcategorizing is to allow for equitable regula-
tions across a category and the subcategories must allow for a
normalizing parameter to establish mass limitations. Wastewater
characteristics alone are inappropriate for subcategorizing the
aluminum forming category.
Products Manufactured. As discussed previously, the same product
can be manufactured by as many as three of the aluminum forming
operations. The mass of pollutant generated per unit of product
will be different depending on the type of forming operation
employed. Subcategorization based on products manufactured does
not account for the ancillary operations, such as cleaning or
etching, heat treatment, and casting, that may be found at any
given plant. These factors make it very difficult to develop a
reliable effluent limitation using products manufactured as a
basis for the subcategorization. Thus, this is an inappropriate
131
-------
approach for subcategorizing the aluminum forming category to
establish equitable effluent limitations; however, subcategoriza-
tion on the basis of products manufactured is an appropriate
approach for characterizing the industry for an economic impact
analysis where the emphasis is on a plant's ability to compete in
the marketplace.
Process Water Use, Process water use, when related to the mass
of aluminum processed, is fairly constant regardless of the pro-
duction volume. Since no distinct differences in water use could
be identified between plants with large production volumes and
plants with small production volumes, the Agency has determined
that this approach is inappropriate to subcategorize the aluminum
forming category. Flows which are normalized by some aspect of
production are used to establish effluent limitations; variations
in water use or discharge were considered and are discussed in
detail in Sections V and IX.
Size. Size in terms of employment is considered to be an
inappropriate basis for subcategorization because it cannot be
directly related to the generation of wastewater. Size in terms
of production is also considered to be inappropriate for sub-
categorizing to establish effluent guidelines, since it does not
account for the wastewaters generated by the ancillary
operations.
Age. Since most aluminum forming plants have been built in the
past 30 years and have been modernized frequently, age is not a
valid basis for subcategorization.
Location. Location does not appear to be a significant factor on
which to base subcategorization. Most aluminum forming plants
are located in urban areas ; thus, there is no vast disparity in
land availability between urban and rural plants. In addition,
few plants use land application or evaporation to treat aluminum
forming wastewaters.
Unit Operations. The principal benefit from using unit opera-
tions as a basis for subcategorization is that an appropriate
effluent limitation can be established for each waste stream
generated. For each regulated pollutant, a specific pollutant
mass discharge value could be calculated for each waste stream
present at the facility. These values would be summed to
determine the total mass discharge allowed for that pollutant at
that facility.
The difficulties with this approach are the large number of sub-
categories (approximately 25) and the need for a separate pro-
duction normalizing parameter for each subcategory or unit
operation.
132
-------
Primarily because of the large number of subcategories and com-
plications associated with it, subcategorization based on unit
operations alone was not considered to be appropriate.
The aluminum forming category is not well suited to subcategori-
zation using any one of the factors discussed in this section.
By applying a combination of factors, such as manufacturing
processes, unit operations, raw materials, and wastewater
characteristics, the aluminum forming category can be divided
into six subcategories:
1. Rolling with Neat Oils
2. Rolling with Emulsions
3. Extrusion
4. Forging
5. Drawing with Neat Oils
6. Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps
Each manufacturing process consists of the four principle form-
ing operations plus a number o£ ancillary operations. Each of
these unit operations must be addressed by the limitations and
standards. Since not all plants with a given manufacturing
process have the same number of ancillary unit operations, some
method of equating the plants must be developed. In addition to
the principle forming operation, there are some ancillary
operations that are unique to the principle forming operations
and others that are necessary to manufacture the final product.
For the purpose of subcategorization, the forming operation and
these closely related ancillary operations are grouped to
comprise a core operation. Another group of operations is not
unique to the forming operations, is not always necessary in the
manufacturing process, and does not discharge wastewater. For
simplification, these are included with the other operations in
the core. The core thus becomes a distinct regulatory unit that
for the purpose of establishing limits is viewed as a single
source of pollutants.
There are still a number of unit operations that do not fit into
the core. These operations are not unique to a forming process,
discharge wastewater (usually large volumes), and are not always
necessary to the manufacturing process. Because these operations
make significant contributions to the pollutant loadings when
they are performed, but they are not performed consistently
throughout the subcategory, they are not included in the core.
Instead, these operations are included in the subcategories as
ancillary operations that for regulatory purposes can be added to
the core when appropriate to limit the pollutant discharges from
aluminum forming plants.
Subcategorization on the basis of the core and ancillary opera-
tions as previously defined does not take into account the
different types of wastes that can be generated by rolling and
133
-------
drawing. To account for the two types of wastes generated by
rolling and drawing lubricants, four distinct operations were
formed; rolling that uses neat oils, rolling that uses emulsions,
drawing that uses neat oils, and drawing that uses emulsions or
soaps. These four operations are still identifiable by the
industry and account for the differences in wastewater generated
by the same forming operation. Furthermore, each can be related
to some unit of production to normalize plant practices and can
be applied to the subcategorization scheme of a core and ancil-
lary operations. Thus, the manufacturing processes, unit opera-
tions, raw materials, and wastewater characteristics all play an
important part in subcategorizing the aluminum forming category.
Production Normalizing Parameter
In order to ensure equitable regulation of the category, effluent
limitations guidelines and standards of performance have been
established on a pollutant mass discharge basis (i.e., mass of
pollutant discharged per unit of production). The unit of pro-
duction specified in these regulations is known as a production
normalizing parameter (PNP). Establishing concentration limita-
tions rather than mass-based limits was considered; however, a
plant that diluted its wastewater would have an advantage in
meeting concentration-based limitations over a plant that con-
served water. Thus, with concentration limitations a plant might
actually be penalized for having good water conservation
practices. To avoid this possibility, the mass of pollutants in
the discharge has been related to a specific PNP to establish a
limitation that will limit the pollutant mass discharged
proportionate to an amount of production.
The approach used in selecting the appropriate PNP for a given
subcategory or ancillary operation is two-fold: achieving a cor-
relation between production and the corresponding discharge of
pollutants and ensuring feasibility and ease of regulation. Some
of the alternatives considered in specifying the PNP include:
1, Mass of aluminum processed,
2. Number of finished products manufactured,
3. Surface area of aluminum processed, and
4. Mass of process chemicals used.
The evaluation of these alternatives is summarized in the dis-
cussion that follows.
Mass of Aluminum Processed. The aluminum forming industry
typically maintains production records of the pounds of aluminum
processed by an individual unit operation. Availability of these
production data and lack of data for other production parameters,
such as area of aluminum and number of products, makes this the
most convenient parameter to use. The aluminum forming dcp
134
-------
requested three production values: the capacity production rate
for the unit operation in question, the maximum production rate
achieved in 1977, and the average production rate for 1977, all
in Ib/hr. The PNP is based on the average production rates
reported in the dcp!s. In most cases, the plants were operating
their units at or near the capacity production rate. The average
production rate will correlate with the mass of pollutants found
in the wastewater.
Number of End Products Processed. The number of products pro-
cessed by a given plant would not account for the variations in
size and shape typical of formed products. Extrusions, for
instance, are produced in a wide range of sizes. It would be
unreasonable to expect the quenching of a large extrusion to use
the same amount of water required for a smaller extruded product.
Surface Area of Aluminum Processed. The area of aluminum pro-
cessed is not generally kept or known by industry. In some
cases, such as forging of miscellaneous shapes, surface area data
would be difficult to determine. Surface area data would be
difficult to collect. Surface area is an appropriate production
normalizing parameter for aluminum which has been cleaned or
etched (for these operations, the water use and discharge ought
to show a correlation with surface area).
Mass of Process Chemicals Used. The mass of process chemicals
used(e.g., lubricants, solvents, and cleaning or etching solu-
tions) is dependent on the processes which the aluminum undergoes
rather than the other raw materials used in the process.
Selection of the Production Normalizing Parameter
Two of the four parameters considered, number of finished prod-
ucts and mass of process chemicals are not appropriate PNP s for
the aluminum forming category. The number of finished products
is inappropriate because of the lack of consistency and uni-
formity in the finished products manufactured by an aluminum
forming plant, particularly by an extrusion or forging plant.
Also the processes vary from plant to plant even when producing
essentially the same product. The mass of process chemicals is
an inappropriate PNP because the mass of pollutants discharged is
more directly related to the type of operation using the process
chemicals than the amount of these compounds used, although the
process chemicals frequently enter the wastewater.
The surface area of product as a PNP would relate the mass of
pollutants discharged to the surface area of aluminum that con-
tacts the process wastewater. This parameter would be appropri-
ate for a number of aluminum forming operations that, produce
wastewater, since the mass of pollutants entering the wastewater
is proportional to the aluminum it is contacted with. The Agency
135
-------
is not selecting surface area as a production normalizing param-
eter because surface area is not always the most appropriate
parameter, especially in contact cooling situations where the
volume of water used is more closely related to the mass of
product. Aluminum formed products, especially forged products or
extrusions, also come in a wide variety of shapes and the surface
area of these shapes would be difficult to determine.
The fourth parameter considered is the mass of product. The
Agency has selected mass as the most appropriate PNP. The mass
of pollutants can be related to the mass of aluminum processed
and most companies keep production records in terms of mass. For
the six subcategories, the core operations are closely related to
the principle forming operation and the mass of pollutants gener-
ated from each ought to be dependent on the mass of aluminum
processed through the forming operation. Thus, there is only one
PNP for each core based on the mass of pollutants processed
through the forming operation. Each ancillary operation has a
separate PNP based on the mass of aluminum processed through the
ancillary operation. An example of how the PNP's apply when
establishing mass discharge limits is shown in Section IX.
The PNP for aluminum forming is "off-kilograms" or the kilograms
of product removed from a machine at the end of a process cycle.
In the rolling process aluminum ingot enters the mill to be
processed. Following one process cycle which may substantially
reduce the ingot's thickness, the aluminum is removed from the
rolling mill where it may be processed through another operation,
such as annealing, sizing, cleaning, or it may simply be stored
before being brought back to the rolling mill for another process
cycle, further reducing the thickness. The mass of aluminum
removed from the rolling mill after each process cycle multiplied
by the number of process cycles is the PNP for that process. The
core of each subcategory has one PNP which is based on the mass
of aluminum processed through the principal forming operation.
There is a different PNP for each ancillary operation which is
the mass of aluminum removed from the process following each
process cycle. For example, the PNP for solution heat treatment
would be the mass of aluminum removed from the contact cooling
water quench that follows solution heat treatment. In the case
of press heat treatment the PNP is still the mass of aluminum
removed from the contact cooling water quench that immediately
follows extrusion.
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED SUBCATEGORIES
Subcategory Terminology and Usage
Each subcategory is broken into "core" and "ancillary" opera-
tions. The core is composed of those operations that always
occur with the subcategory, are dry operations, or are an
136
-------
integral part of the manufacturing process. The core limitation
is based on the mass of aluminum passed through the principle
manufacturing unit. The core limitation does not vary within a
given subcategory and applies to all the plants in that
subcategory.
Operations not included in the core are classified as ancillary
operations. These are operations involving discharged wastewater
streams of significant pollutant concentrations and flows that
may or may not be present at any one facility. The ancillary
operations are based on the mass of aluminum processed through
the given ancillary operations. In other words, the mass of
aluminum cast by the direct chill method is the normalizing
parameter for casting, the mass of aluminum cleaned or etched is
the normalizing parameter for cleaning or etching. If they are
present, the permit writer adds the appropriate pollutant
limitations to the core limitation to determine the effluent
limitation for the facility as a whole.
The ancillary operation of cleaning or etching shall include all
surface treatment operations, including chemical or electrochemi-
cal anodizing and conversion coating when performed as an inte-
gral part of the aluminum forming process. A cleaning or etching
operation is defined by the cleaning or etching baths which are
followed by a rinse. Multiple baths would be considered multiple
cleaning or etching operations only when each bath is followed by
a rinse and a separate limitation would apply to each bath rinse
combination. Multiple rinses following a single bath will be
regulated by a single limitation.
In the following discussion, the aluminum forming subcategories
are presented on an individual basis. The core and ancillary
operations included in each subcategory are briefly described,
and the appropriate production normalizing parameters are
identified.
Some plants will include more than one subcategory. The fre-
quency of plants with more than one subcategory is tabulated
below. In these cases, the subcategories should be used as
building blocks to establish permit limitations. It should be
noted that in most cases the ancillary operations will be
included with only one subcategory. The ancillary operation is
associated with the core operation it is most closely associated
with. As an example, consider a rolling plant which has both
rolling with neat oils and rolling with emulsions. As one of the
ancillary operations, this plant has direct chill casting. Since
the casting precedes rolling with emulsions and the rolling with
emulsions operation is. performed on the product of the casting
operation, casting will be considered an ancillary operation only
to the Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory.
137
-------
The lists presented in the following discussions provide informa-
tion specific to the subcategory being addressed. The frequency
of occurrence of ancillary streams looks at each ancillary opera-
tion individually and apart from any other ancillary operations
that may be present at the same plant. Thus, the sum of the fre-
quencies of the ancillary operations cannot be related to the
number of plants in that subcategory. The same methods have been
applied to the frequency of subcategory overlap. Since there are
some plants that will be in more than one subcategory, the sum of
plants in each subcategory will be larger than the number of
plants in the category.
INCIDENCE OF OVERLAP WITH MORE THAN ONE OTHER SUBCATEGORY
Subcategory
Rolling with Neat Oils
Rolling with Emulsions
Extrusion
Forging
Drawing with Neat Oils
Drawing with Emulsions
or Soaps
Total Plants in
One or More
Subcategory
34
28
22
9
25
5
Percent of
Total Plants in
the Subcategory
68
86
13
57
38
38
Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory
This subcategory is applicable to all wastewater discharges
resulting from or associated with aluminum rolling operations in
which neat oils are used as a lubricant. The unit operations and
associated waste streams covered by this subcategory and the
appropriate production normalizing parameters are listed below.
138
-------
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Unit Operation
CORE:
Rolling with neat oils
Roll grinding
Stationary casting
Homogenizing
Annealing
Artificial aging
Degreasing
Sawing
Miscellaneous non-
descript wastewater
sources
ANCILLARY:
Waste Stream
Spent lubricant
Spent emulsion
None
None
Atmosphere
scrubber
liquor
None
Spent solvent
Spent lubricant
Various
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Rolling solution heat
treatment
Cleaning or etching
Spent lubricant
Contact cooling
water
Bath
Rinse
Scrubber liquor
Mass of
rolled
Mass of
rolled
Mass of
rolled
Mass of
rolled
Mass of
rolled
aluminum
with neat oil
aluminum
with neat oil
aluminum
with neat oil
aluminum
with neat oil
aluminum
with neat oil
Mass of aluminum
rolled with neat oil
Mass of aluminum
rolled with neat oil
Mass of aluminum
rolled with neat oil
Mass of aluminum
rolled with neat oil
Mass of aluminum sheet
cast by continuous
methods
Mass of aluminum
quenched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned .or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
139
-------
The following list summarizes data pertaining to the number of
plants in this subcategory and the waste streams which are
present at those plants:
Frequency
Associated Waste Streams
No. of Plants
CORE:
Rolling with neat oils spent lubricant
Roll grinding spent emulsion
Annealing atmosphere scrubber liquor
Sawing spent lubricant
Miscellanous nondescript wastewater
ANCILLARY:
Continuous sheet casting
Spent lubricant
Rolling solution heat treatment
Contact cooling water
Cleaning or etching
Bath
Rinse
Scrubber liquor
50
*
1
*
*
11
6
9
9
0
Percent of
Total Plants
in the
Subcategory
100
*
2
*
*
22
12
18
18
0
*An accurate count could not be determined from available data,
assumed to be present at all plants.
As this table shows, 50 of the plants surveyed in this study are
included in the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory. For the
majority of these plants, the core regulations can be applied
without alteration because no ancillary streams are present.
However, continuous sheet casting is practiced at 11 plants (22
percent), and cleaning or etching of the rolled product is prac-
ticed at 9 plants (18 percent). The presence of heat treatment
was reported at only six plants (12 percent).
140
-------
Over half of the plants (33 of 50) associated with this subcate-
gory were also associated with one or more additional subcate-
gories. The most common case, overlap with the Rolling with
Emulsions Subcategory, was reported at 19 of the 50 plants (38
percent). Frequently, rolling of aluminum with emulsions is
followed by rolling to desired gauge using neat oils. It is
important to realize that at these plants, operations such as
casting were considered to be associated with the emulsion roll-
ing rather than neat oil rolling for the purpose of subcategori-
zation. In this way, duplication of streams is avoided. Seven
of the plants (14 percent) were included in both the Rolling with
Neat Oils and Drawing with Neat Oils subcategories. In these
cases, the aluminum was usually first rolled and then drawn to
form the desired product. If the drawn product was then etched
or heat treated, these operations were associated with drawing
with neat oils rather than rolling with neat oils. In only four
cases (8 percent) was overlap with more than one other
subcategory found to exist.
As discussed in Section III (p. 100 ), the annealing operation
does not use process water. One of the plants surveyed anneals
aluminum which is rolled with neat oils and derives the inert gas
atmosphere used in its annealing process from furnace off gases.
Because of the sulfur content of furnace fuels, the off gases
require cleaning with wet scrubbers to remove contaminants.
Other plants import cleaned gases or burn natural gas to provide
an inert atmosphere. Since the Agency believes that this scrub-
ber is necessary to the operation of the annealing furnace, an
allowance has been included as part of the core of the Rolling
with Neat Oils Subcategory. For the Rolling with Neat Oils
Subcategory, two core allowances will be established, because
most plants do not have an annealing scrubber liquor flow.
Separate allowances will be established for core waste streams
without an annealing furnace scrubber and for core waste streams
with an annealing furnace scrubber.
Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory
This subcategory is applicable to all wastewater discharges
resulting from or associated with aluminum rolling operations in
which oil-in-water emulsions are used as lubricants. The unit
operations and associated waste streams covered by this sub-
category and the appropriate production normalizing parameters
are listed below.
141
-------
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Unit Operation
CORE:
Rolling with emulsions
Roll grinding
Stationary casting
Homogenizing
Artificial aging
Degreasing
Annealing
Sawing
Miscellaneous non-
descript wastewater
sources
ANCILLARY:
Direct chill casting
Rolling solution heat
treatment
Cleaning or etching
Waste Stream
Spent emulsion
Spent emulsion
None
None
None
None
None
Spent lubricant
Various
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Contact cooling
water
Contact cooling
water
Bath
Rinse
Scrubber liquor
Mass of
with
Mass of
with
Mass of
with
Mass of
with
Mass of
with
Mass of
with
Mass of
with
Mass of
with
Mass of
with
aluminum
emulsions
aluminum
emulsions
aluminum
emulsions
aluminum
emulsions
aluminum
emulsions
aluminum
emulsions
aluminum
emulsions
aluminum
emulsions
aluminum
emulsions
rolled
rolled
rolled
rolled
rolled
rolled
rolled
rolled
rolled
Mass of aluminum cast
by direct chill
method
Mass of aluminum
quenched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
The following list summarizes data pertaining to the number of
plants in this subcategory and the waste streams which are pres-
ent at those plants.
142
-------
Frequency
Associated Waste Streams
CORE:
Rolling with emulsions spent emulsion
Roll grinding spent emulsion
Sawing spent lubricant
Miscellaneous nondescript wastewater
ANCILLARY:
Direct chill casting
Contact cooling water
Rolling solution heat treatment
Contact cooling water
Cleaning or Etching
Bath
Rinse
Scrubber liquor
No. of Plants
29
*
Percent of
Total Plants
in the
Subcategory
100
*
20
8
7
7
2
69
28
24
24
7
*An accurate count could not be determined from available data,
assumed to be present at all plants.
Of the plants surveyed in this study, 29 were classified as
belonging to the Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory. The core
streams in this subcategory include rolling emulsions that are
expected to be present at every plant. As shown in the preceding
list, the regulation of plants in this subcategory will usually
require consideration of waste streams associated with ancillary
operations. Direct chill casting is associated with the rolling
operations at 20 of the plants surveyed. Solution heat treatment
is practiced at eight plants. Seven plants will also require
regulation of cleaning or etching baths and rinses as an ancil-
lary stream, and two plants will receive an allocation for a
cleaning or etching scrubber liquor discharge.
In all but one case (97 percent), plants in the Rolling with
Emulsions Subcategory were also included in one or more other
subcategories. The most common case, overlap with the Rolling
with Neat Oils Subcategory, was reported at 19 of the 29 plants
(66 percent). Frequently, rolling of aluminum with emulsions is
followed by rolling to desired gauge using neat oils. It is
important to realize that at these plants, operations such as
direct chill casting were considered to be associated with the
emulsion rolling rather than neat oil rolling for the purpose of
subcategorization. In this way, duplication of streams is
avoided. Two of the plants (7 percent) were included in both the
143
-------
Rolling with Emulsions and Drawing with Neat Oils subcategories.
Two of the plants (7 percent) were included in both the Rolling
with Emulsions and Extrusion subcategories. In five cases (17
percent), overlap with more than one other subcategory was found
to exis£.
Extrusion Subcategory
This subcategory is applicable to all wastewater discharges
resulting from or associated with aluminum extrusion operations.
The unit operations and associated waste streams covered by this
subcategory and the appropriate production normalizing parameters
are listed below.
EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Unit Operation
CORE:
Extrusion
Die cleaning
Stationary casting
Annealing
Homogenizing
Artificial aging
Degreasing
Sawing
Miscellaneous non-
descript wastewater
sources
Waste Stream
Dummy block
cooling
Bath and rinse
Scrubber liquor
None
None
None
None
Spent solvent
Spent lubricant
Various
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of aluminum
extruded
Mass of aluminum
extruded
Mass of aluminum
extruded
Mass of aluminum
extruded
Mass of aluminum
extruded
Mass of aluminum
extruded
Mass of aluminum
extruded
Mass of aluminum
extruded
Mass of aluminum
extruded
Mass of aluminum
extruded
144
-------
EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY (Continued)
Unit Operation
ANCILLARY:
Direct chill casting
Extrusion press or
solution heat
treatment
Cleaning or etching
Degassing
Waste Stream
Contact cooling
water
Contact cooling
water
Bath
Rinse
Scrubber liquor
Scrubber liquor
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of aluminum cast
by direct chill
method
Mass of aluminum
quenched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
degassed
The following list summarizes data pertaining to the number of
plants in this subcategory and the waste streams which are
present at those plants:
Frequency
Associated Waste Streams
CORE:
Extrusion
Die cleaning bath and rinse
Die cleaning scrubber liquor
Sawing spent lubricant
Miscellaneous nondescript wastewater
No. of Plants
163
*
*
*
*
Percent of
Total Plants
in the
Subcategory
100
*
*
*
*
145
-------
Frequency
Associated Waste Streams
No. of Plants
ANCILLARY:
Direct chill casting
Contact cooling water 44
Extrusion press and solution heat treatment
Contact cooling water 52
Cleaning or etching
Bath 41
Rinse 41
Scrubber liquor 2
Degassing
Scrubber liquor 1
Percent of
Total Plants
in the
Subcategory
27
32
25
25
1
*An accurate count could not be determined from available data,
assumed to be present at all plants.
The Extrusion Subcategory includes more plants than any other
subcategory, 163, or approximately half of the plants surveyed.
Although an accurate count was not possible from the available
data, extrusion die cleaning is expected to be present at every
extrusion plant, and this operation serves as the principal com-
ponent of the core for this subcategory.
More than half of the plants in this subcategory can be regulated
on the basis of the core allocation alone, but the other facil-
ities will require the consideration of ancillary streams. As
shown in the preceding list, the most common ancillary operation
is heat treatment (associated with extrusion at 52 of these
plants), followed by direct chill casting (27 percent) and
cleaning or etching (25 percent).
Although most of the plants in the Extrusion Subcategory (88
percent) are not associated with any other subcategories, some
overlap does occur. In the most common example, nine of the
extrusion plants (6 percent) are also associated with the Drawing
with Neat Oils Subcategory.
Forging Subcateflory
This subcategory is applicable to all wastewater discharges
resulting from or associated with aluminum forging operations.
The unit operations and associated waste streams covered by this
subcategory and the appropriate production normalizing parameters
are listed below.
146
-------
FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Unit Operation
CORE:
Forging
Artificial aging
Annealing
Degreasing
Sawing
Miscellaneous non-
descript wastewater
sources
Waste Stream
None
None
None
Spent solvent
Spent lubricant
Various
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of
forged
Mass of
forged
Mass of
forged
Mass of
forged
Mass of
forged
Mass of
forged
aluminum
aluminum
aluminum
aluminum
aluminum
aluminum
ANCILLARY:
Forging air pollution
control
Forging solution heat
treatment
Cleaning or etching
Scrubber liquor
Contact cooling
water
Bath
Rinse
Scrubber liquor
Mass of aluminum
forged
Mass of aluminum
quenched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
The following list summarizes data pertaining to the number of
plants in this subcategory and the waste streams which are
present at these plants:
147
-------
Frequency
Associated Waste Streams
CORE:
Sawing spent lubricant
Miscellaneous nondescript wastewater
ANCILLARY:
Forging air pollution control
Scrubber liquor
Forging solution heat treatment
Contact cooling water
Cleaning or etching
Bath
Rinse
Scrubber liquor
No. of Plants
16
4
11
13
13
2
Percent of
Total Plants
in the
Subcategory
100
25
69
81
81
13
*An accurate count could not be determined from available data,
assumed to be present at all plants.
Of the 16 plants identified with the Forging Subcategory, only 1
could be regulated by the core streams alone. The most common
ancillary streams, cleaning or etching baths and rinses, are each
associated with 81 percent of the forging plants. Frequently,
more than one ancillary stream was associated with a given plant.
Six of the sixteen forging plants (38 percent) involved at least
three such streams.
Most of the plants in the Forging Subcategory (81 percent) did
not have operations associated with any other subcategory. No
overlap occurred with only one other subcategory. Some overlap
did occur, however, with the Extrusion and Drawing subcategories.
Drawing with Neat Oils Subcategory
This subcategory is applicable to all wastewater discharges
resulting from or associated with aluminum drawing operations in
which neat oils are used as a lubricant. The unit operations and
associated waste streams covered by this subcategory and the
appropriate production normalizing parameters are listed below.
148
-------
DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Unit Operation
CORE:
Drawing with neat oils
Stationary casting
Homogenizing
Annealing
Artificial aging
Degreasing
Sawing
Swaging
Miscellaneous non-
descript wastewater
sources
ANCILLARY:
Continuous rod casting
Waste Stream
Spent lubricant
None
None
None
None
Spent solvent
Spent lubricant
None
Various
Drawing solution heat
treatment
Cleaning or etching
Contact cooling
water
Spent lubricant
Contact cooling
water
Bath
Rinse
Scrubber liquor
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of aluminum drawn
with neat oils
Mass of aluminum drawn
with neat oils
Mass of aluminum drawn
with neat oils
Mass of aluminum drawn
with neat oils
Mass of aluminum drawn
with neat oils
Mass of aluminum drawn
with neat oils
Mass of aluminum drawn
with neat oils
Mass of aluminum drawn
with neat oils
Mass of aluminum drawn
with neat oils
Mass of aluminum rod
cast by continuous
methods
Mass of aluminum rod
cast by continuous
methods
Mass of aluminum
quenched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
The following list summarizes data pertaining to the number of
plants in this subcategory and the waste streams which are
present at those plants:
1.49
-------
Frequency
Associated Waste Streams
No. of Plants
CORE:
Drawing with neat oils spent lubricant
Sawing spent lubricant
Miscellaneous nondescript wastewater
ANCILLARY:
Continous rod casting
Contact cooling water
Spent lubricant
Drawing solution heat treatment
Contact cooling water
Cleaning or etching
Bath
Rinse
Scrubber liquor
66
*
*
2
2
8
13
13
0
Percent of
Total Plants
in the
Subcategory
100
*
*
3
3
12
20
20
0
*An accurate count could not be determined from available data,
assumed to be present at all plants.
The Drawing with Neat Oils Subcategory is the second largest
aluminum forming subcategory and contains 66 of the 277 plants
surveyed in this study. The majority of the plants in the
Drawing with Neat Oils Subcategory can be regulated on the basis
of the core alone. Heat treatment contact cooling water and
cleaning or etching baths and rinses are the most common ancil-
lary streams in this subcategory.
Frequent overlap with other subcategories was noted. The most
common case was with the Extrusion Subcategory; nine of the neat
oil drawing plants (14 percent) were found to have extrusion
processes as well. In all, 36 percent of the plants in the
Drawing with Neat Oils Subcategory were also associated with one
or more other alumminum forming subcategories.
Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps Subcategory
This subcategory is applicable to all wastewater discharges
resulting from or associated with the aluminum drawing operations
which use oil-in-water emulsion or soap solution lubricants. The
unit operations and associated waste streams covered by this sub-
category and the appropriate production normalizing parameters
are listed below.
150
-------
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Unit Operation
CORE:
Drawing with emulsions
or soaps
Stationary casting
Artificial aging
Homogenizing
Annealing
Degreasing
Sawing
Swaging
Miscellaneous non-
descript wastewater
sources
Waste Stream
Spent emulsion
None
None
None
None
Spent solvent
Spent lubricant
None
Various
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of aluminum
with emulsions
soaps
Mass of aluminum
with emulsions
soaps
Mass of aluminum
with emulsions
soaps
Mass of aluminum
with emulsions
soaps
Mass of aluminum
with emuls ions
soaps
Mass of aluminum
with emulsions
soaps
Mass of
with
soaps
Mass of
with
soaps
Mass of
with
soaps
aluminum
emulsions
aluminum
emulsions
aluminum
emulsions
drawn
or
drawn
or
drawn
or
drawn
or
drawn
or
drawn
or
drawn
or
drawn
or
drawn
or
ANCILLARY:
Continuous rod casting
Drawing solution heat
treatment
Cleaning or etching
Contact cooling
water
Spent lubricant
Contact cooling
water
Bath
Rinse
Scrubber liquor
Mass of aluminum rod
cast by continuous
methods
Mass of aluminum rod
cast by continuous
methods
Mass of aluminum
quenched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
151
-------
The following list summarizes data pertaining to the number of
plants in this subcategory and the waste streams which are
present at these plants:
Frequency
Associated Waste Streams
CORE:
Drawing with emulsions or soaps spent
lubricants
Sawing spent lubricants
Miscellaneous nondescript wastewater
ANCILLARY:
Continuous rod casting
Contact cooling water
Spent lubricant
Drawing solution heat treatment
Contact cooling water
Cleaning or etching
Bath
Rinse
Scrubber liquor
No. of Plants
13
*
*
Percent of
Total Plants
in the
Subcategory
100
*
*
8
8
31
8
8
0
*An accurate count could not be determined from available data,
assumed to be present at all plants.
The Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps Subcategory is the smallest
of the aluminum forming subcategories, with only 13 plants. The
principal core stream in this subcategory, spent emulsions from
drawing with emulsions or soaps, is present at all 13 plants.
For the majority of plants, the core streams accurately describe
all wastewater associated with the subcategory. At four of the
plants (31 percent), solution heat treatment is applied to the
drawn product. Continuous rod casting and cleaning or etching
were each reported less frequently. Consideration of the
appropriate ancillary streams is required for these plants.
Most of the plants (69 percent) are not associated with any other
subcategories. Overlap with other subcategories was observed at
four of the thirteen plants surveyed (31 percent).
152
-------
SECTION V
WATER USE AND WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
This section presents the analytical data that characterize the
raw wastewater and indicate the effectiveness of various waste-
water treatment processes and the flow data that serve as the
basis for developing regulatory flows in the aluminum forming
category. The data were obtained from three sources: long-term
or historical data, data collection portfolios (dcp's), and sam-
pling and analysis programs.
DATA SOURCES
Historical Data
A useful source of long-term or historical data available for
aluminum forming plants are the Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMR's) completed as a part of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES). All applicable DMR's were obtained
through the EPA regional offices and state regulatory agencies
for the year 1977, the last complete year for which information
was available. The DMR's present a summary of the analytical
results from a series of samples taken during a given month for
the pollutants designated in the plant's permit. In general,
minimum, maximum, and average values, in mg/1 or Ibs/day, are
presented for such pollutants as total suspended solids, alumi-
num, oil and grease, pH, copper, and zinc. The samples are
collected from the plant outfall(s), which represents the dis-
charge(s) from the plant. For facilities with wastewater treat-
ment, the DMR's provide a measure of the performance of the
treatment system. In theory, these data could then serve as a
basis for characterizing treated wastewater from aluminum forming
plants; however, there is no influent to treatment information
and too little information on the performance of the plant at the
time the samples were collected to use these data in formulating
performance levels of various levels of treatment. They do serve
as a set of data that can be used to verify the treatability
performance levels presented in Section VII, Control and
Treatment Technology (Table VII-21, p. 743 ).
Data Collection Portfolios
The dcp responses supplied the quantity of aluminum produced dur-
ing 1977, as well as the average production rate (Ib/hr), maximum
production rate, and the rate at full capacity for each opera-
tion. When data were supplied, the quantity of wastewater pro-
duced by a production process and the quantity of production of
that process were added to the data base. The average 1977 pro-
duction rate is considered most representative for relating to
153
-------
water use and raw waste characteristics, and has been used as the
normalizing basis for calculations.
Data supplied by dcp responses were evaluated, and two flow-to-
production ratios were calculated for each stream. The two
ratios, water use and wastewater discharge flow, are differenti-
ated by the flow value used in calculation. Water use is defined
as the volume of water or other fluid (e.g., emulsions, lubri-
cants) required for a given process per mass of aluminum product
and is therefore based on the sura of recycle and make-up flows to
a given process, Wastewater flow discharged after pretreatment
or recycle (if these are present) is used in calculating the
production normalized flow--the volume of wastewater discharged
from a given process to further treatment, disposal, or discharge
per mass of aluminum produced. Differences between the water use
and wastewater flows associated with a given stream result from
recycle, evaporation, and carryover on the product. The produc-
tion values used in calculation correspond to the production
normalizing parameter, PNP, assigned to each stream, as outlined
in Section IV.
The production normalized flows were compiled and statistically
analyzed by stream type. Where appropriate, an attempt was made
to identify factors that could account for variations in water
use. This information is summarized in this section. A similar
analysis of factors affecting the wastewater values is presented
in Sections IX, X, XI, and XII where representative BPT, BAT,
NSPS, and pretreatment discharge flows are selected for use in
calculating the effluent limitations.
The BPT discharge flows were also used to estimate flows at
aluminum forming plants that supplied EPA with only production
data. The estimated flow was then used to determine the cost of
wastewater treatment at these facilities (see Section VIII).
The methods used in evaluation of wastewater data varied as
dictated by the intended use of the results. For example, in
Section VI the wastewater data from effluent samples are examined
to select pollutants for consideration in regulating the
category.
Congress directed EPA to regulate pollutant discharges based on a
production normalized basis; that is, kilograms (pounds) of pol-
lutant per metric ton (ton) of production, recognizing that the
mass of pollutants discharged is proportional to the production,
as discussed in Section IV. Thus, the mass loading data (kg of
pollutant per kkg of production) from sampled plants were
averaged to determine mass loadings typical of the different
wastewater streams.
154
-------
The concentration of pollutants detected in individual samples
may not be representative of the wastewater stream due to dif-
fering degrees of dilution at each plant.
Sampling and Analysis Program
The sampling and analysis program discussed in this section was
undertaken primarily to implement the Consent Decree and to iden-
tify pollutants of concern in the industry, with emphasis on
toxic pollutants. Samples were collected at 20 aluminum forming
facilities and subsequently analyzed.
This section summarizes the purpose of the sampling trips and
identifies the sites sampled and parameters analyzed. It also
presents an overview of sample collection, preservation, and
transportation techniques. Finally, it describes the pollutant
parameters quantified, the methods of analyses and laboratories
used, the detectable concentration of each pollutant, and the
general approach used to ensure the reliability of the analytical
data produced.
Site Selection. The plants sampled were selected to be repre-
sentative of the industry. Considerations included the number of
operations to be represented, how well each facility represented
the subcategory as indicated by available data, potential prob-
lems in meeting technology-based standards, differences in pro-
duction processes used, and wastewater treatment in place.
Field Sampling. After selection of the plants to be sampled,
each plant was contacted by telephone, and a letter of notifica-
tion was sent to each plant as to when a visit would be expected.
These inquiries led to acquisition of facility information neces-
sary for efficient on-site sampling. The information resulted in
selection of the sources of wastewater to be sampled at each
plant. The sample points included, but were not limited to,
untreated and treated discharges, process wastewater, and par-
tially treated wastewater.
Sites visited for this sampling program are listed below by sub-
category and letter designation:
1. Rolling with Neat Oils - Plants B, C, D, E, N, P,
U, and T.
2. Rolling with Emulsions - Plants B, C, D, E, H, P,
T, and U.
3. Extrusion - Plants F, G, K, L, N, R, V, and W.
155
-------
4. Forging - Plants A, J, Q, R, and W.
5. Drawing with Neat Oils - Plants E, H, R, and V.
6, Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps - Plants S and W.
Sample Collection, Preservation, and Transportation. Collection,
preservation,and transportation of samples were accomplished in
accordance with procedures outlined in Appendix III of "Sampling
and Analysis Procedures for Screening of Industrial Effluents for
Priority Pollutants" (published by the Environmental Monitoring
and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, March 1977, revised,
April 1977) and in "Sampling Screening Procedure for the
Measurement of Priority Pollutants" (published by the EPA
Effluent Guidelines Division, Washington, D.C., October 1976).
The procedures are summarized in the paragraphs that follow.
Whenever practical, all samples collected at each sampling point
were taken from mid-channel at raid-depth in a turbulent, well-
mixed portion of the waste stream. Periodically, the temperature
and pH of each waste stream sampled were measured on-site.
Each large composite (Type 1) sample was collected in a new
11.4-liter (3-gallon), narrow-mouth glass jug that had been
washed with detergent and water, rinsed with tap water, rinsed
with distilled water, rinsed with methylene chloride, and air
dried at room temperature in a dust-free environment.
Before collection of Type 1 samples, new Tygon® tubing was cut to
minimum lengths and installed on the inlet and outlet (suction
and discharge) fittings of the automatic sampler. Two liters
(2.1 quarts) of blank water, known to be free of organic com-
pounds and brought to the sampling site from the analytical
laboratory, were pumped through the sampler and its attached tub-
ing into the glass jug; the water was then distributed to cover
the interior of the jug and subsequently discarded.
A blank was produced by pumping an additional 3 liters (3.2
quarts) of blank water through the sampler, distributed inside
the glass jug, and poured into a 3.8-liter (1 gallon) sample
bottle that had been cleaned in the same manner as the glass jug.
The blank sample was sealed with a Teflon®-lined cap, labeled,
and packed in ice in a plastic foam-insulated chest. This sample
subsequently was analyzed to determine any contamination con-
tributed by the automatic sampler.
During collection of each Type 1 sample, the glass jug was packed
in ice in a separate plastic foam-insulated container. After the
complete composite sample had been collected, it was mixed to
156
-------
provide a homogeneous mixture, and two 0.95-liter (1 quart)
aliquots were removed for metals analysis and placed in new
labeled plastic 0.95-liter bottles which had been rinsed with
distilled water. One of these 0.95-liter aliquots was sealed
with a Teflon®-lined cap; placed in an iced, insulated chest to
maintain it at 4°C (39°F), and shipped by air for plasma-arc
metal analysis. Initially, the second sample was stabilized by
the addition of 5 ml (0.2 ounce) of concentrated nitric acid,
capped and iced in the same manner as the first, and shipped by
air to the contractor's facility for atomic-absorption metal
analysis.
Because of subsequent EPA notification that the acid pH of the
stabilized sample fell outside the limits permissible under
Department of Transportation regulations for air shipment,
stabilization of the second sample in the field was discontinued.
Instead, this sample was acid-stabilized at the analytical
laboratory.
After removal of the two 0.95-liter (1 quart) metals aliquots
from the composite sample, the balance of the sample in the
11.4-liter (3 gallon) glass jug was subdivided for analysis of
nonvolatile organics, asbestos, conventional, and nonconventional
parameters. If a portion of this 7.7-liter (2 gallon) sample was
requested by an industry representative for independent analysis,
a 0.95-liter (1 quart) aliquot was placed in a sample container
supplied by the representative.
Sample Types 2 (cyanide) and 3 (total phenol) were stored in new
bottles which had been iced and labeled, 1-liter (33.8 ounce)
clear plastic bottles for Type 2, and 0.47-liter (16 ounce) amber
glass for Type 3. The bottles had been cleaned by rinsing with
distilled water, and the samples were preserved as described
below.
To each Type 2 (cyanide) sample, sodium hydroxide was added as
necessary to elevate the pH to 12 or more (as measured using pH
paper). Where the presence of chlorine was suspected, the sample
was tested for chlorine (which would decompose most of the
cyanide) by using potassium iodide/starch paper. If the paper
turned blue, ascorbic acid crystals were slowly added and dis-
solved until a drop of the sample produced no change in the color
of the test paper. An additional 0.6 gram (0.021 ounce) of
ascorbic acid was added, and the sample bottle was sealed (by a
Teflon®-lined cap), labeled, iced, and shipped for analysis.
To each Type 3 (total phenol) sample, phosphoric acid was added
as necessary to reduce the pH to 4 or less (as measured using pH
paper). Then, 0.5 gram (0.018 ounce) of copper sulfate was added
to kill bacteria, and the sample bottle was sealed (by a
Teflon®-lined cap), labeled, iced, and shipped for analysis.
157
-------
Each Type 4 (volatile organics) sample was stored in a new 125-ml
(4.2 ounce) glass bottle that had been rinsed with tap water and
distilled water, heated to 105°C (221°F) for one hour, and
cooled. This method was also used to prepare the septum and lid
for each bottle. Each bottle, when used, was filled to overflow-
ing, sealed with a Teflon®-faced silicone septum (Teflon® side
down) and a crimped aluminum cap, labeled, and iced. Hermetic
sealing was verified by inverting and tapping the sealed con-
tainer to confirm the absence of air bubbles. (If bubbles were
found, the bottle was opened, a few additional drops of sample
were added, and a new seal was installed.) Samples were main-
tained hermetically sealed and iced until analyzed.
Wastewater samples were collected in two stages: screening and
verification. Ideally, the screening phase involves collection
of samples from every waste stream in the category. Pollutants
that were not detected during screening were not considered
further in the study. Because of the tight schedule of this
study, there was not time to analyze all of the samples obtained
during screening before verification sampling began. Therefore,
verification samples were analyzed for almost all of the toxic
pollutants, as well as selected conventional and nonconventional
pollutants.
Sample Analysis. Samples were sent by air to one of five labora-
tories: Cyrus Wm. Rice Division of NUS Corporation of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; ARO, Inc. of Tullahoma, Tennessee;
Systems Science and Software (SSS) of San Diego, California:
Spectrix of Houston, Texas; and Radian Corporation of Austin,
Texas. Screening samples went to Rice; there the samples were
split for metals analysis. An aliquot of each metal sample
received by Rice was sent to EPA's Chicago laboratory for
inductively coupled argon plasma emission spectrophotometry
(ICAP) analysis; Rice retained an aliquot for atomic absorption
spectrophotometry (AA). Twenty-two metals were analyzed by ICAP,
and five metals were analyzed by AA, as follows:
Metals Analyzed by ICAP
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Silver
Aluminum
Boron
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Lead
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Ytrium
Zinc
158
-------
Metals Analyzed by AA
Antimony
Arsenic
Selenium
Thallium
Mercury
Many o£ the metals analyzed by ICAP are not classified as pollu-
tants and are not reported in this document as pollutants. They
are considered only because they consume lime and increase sludge
production in wastewater treatment facilities.
Verification samples went to Radian or ARO when metal analysis
was performed by AA. Since metals analysis of screening samples
was complete before verification metals analysis began, Radian
analyzed the samples only for metals shown to be significant in
the aluminum forming category or those expected to consume large
amounts of lime.
Some verification samples were sent to System, Science and
Software (SSS), Spectrix, Radian, or Rice, where analysis for the
organic toxic pollutants was done.
Due to their very similar physical and chemical properties, it is
extremely difficult to separate the seven polychlorinated
biphenyls (pollutants 106 to 112) for analytical identification
and quantification. For that reason, the concentrations of the
polychlorinated biphenyls are reported by the analytical
laboratory in two groups: one group consists of PCB-1242,
PCB-1254, and PCB-1221; the other group consists of PCB-1232,
PCB-1248, PCB-1260, and PCB-1016. For convenience, the first
group will be referred to as PCB-1254 and the second as PCB-1248.
The samples were not analyzed for Pollutant 129, 2,3,7,8-tetra-
chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) because no authentic reference sam-
ple was available to the analytical laboratory.
Past studies by EPA and others have identified many nontoxic
pollutant parameters useful in characterizing industrial waste-
waters and in evaluating treatment process removal efficiencies.
Some of these pollutants may also be selected as reliable indi-
cators of the presence of specific toxic pollutants. For these
reasons, a number of nontoxic pollutants were also studied for
the aluminum forming category. These additional pollutants may
be divided into two general groups:
159
-------
Conventional
Nonconventional
total suspended solids (TSS) chemical oxygen demand (COD)
oil and grease phenols (total)
pH total organic carbon (TOG)
total dissolved solids (IDS)
Congress has defined the following criteria for the selection of
conventional pollutants:
(1) Generally those pollutants which are naturally
occurring, biodegradable, oxygen demanding materials,
and solids which have characteristics similar to
naturally occurring biodegradable substances; or,
(2) Include those classes of pollutants which tradi-
tionally have been the primary focus of wastewater
control.
In addition, aluminum, calcium, magnesium, alkalinity, total dis-
solved solids, and sulfate were measured to provide data to
evaluate the cost of lime and settle treatment of certain
wastewater streams.
The analytical quantification levels used in evaluation of the
sampling data reflect the accuracy of the analytical methods
employed. Below these concentrations, the identification of the
individual compounds is possible, but quantification is diffi-
cult. Pesticides and PCB's can be analytically quantified at
concentrations above 0.005 mg/1, and other organic toxic levels
above 0.010 mg/1 levels associated with toxic metals are as
follows: 0.100 mg/1 for antimony; 0.10 mg/1 for arsenic; 1 x
107 fibers/1 for asbestos; 0.010 mg/1 for beryllium; 0.002 mg/1
for cadmium; 0.005 mg/1 for chromium; 0.009 mg/1 for copper;
0.100 mg/1 for cyanide; 0.02 mg/1 for lead; 0.0001 mg/1 for
mercury; 0.005 mg/1 for nickel; 0,010 mg/1 for selenium; 0.020
mg/1 for silver; 0.100 mg/1 for thallium; and 0.050 mg/1 for
zinc.
These detection limits are not the same as published detection
limits for these pollutants by the same analytical methods. The
detection limits used were reported with the analytical data and
hence are the appropriate limits to apply to the data. Detection
limit variation can occur as a result of a number of laboratory-
specific, equipment-specific, and daily operator-specific
factors. These factors can include day-to-day differences in
machine calibration, variation in stock solutions, and variation
in operators.
160
-------
Quality Control. Quality control measures used in performing all
analyses conducted for this program complied with the guidelines
given in "Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in Water and
Wastewater Laboratories" (published by EPA Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976). As
part of the daily quality control program, blanks (including
sealed samples of blank water carried to each sampling site and
returned unopened, as well as samples of blank water used in the
field), standards, and spiked samples were routinely analyzed
with actual samples. As part of the overall program, all
analytical instruments (such as balances, spectrophotometers, and
recorders) were routinely maintained and calibrated.
The atomic-absorption spectrometer used for metal analysis was
checked to see that it was operating correctly and performing
within expected limits. Appropriate standards were included
after at least every 10 samples. Also, approximately 15 percent
of the analyses were spiked with distilled water to assure
recovery of the metal of interest. Reagent blanks were analyzed
for each metal, and sample values were corrected if necessary.
WATER USE AND WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
To simplify the presentation of the sampling data, tables were
developed that present ranges of concentrations with the number
of samples in which each pollutant was found within these ranges.
For each waste stream a frequency of occurrance table is pre-
sented for all 129 toxic pollutants. For those pollutants
detected above analytically quantifiable concentrations in any
sample of that wastewater stream, the actual analytical data is
presented in a second table. Where no data is listed for a
specific day of sampling, it indicates that the wastewater
samples for the stream were not collected.
The statistical analysis of data includes some samples measured
at levels considered not quantifiable. The base neutrals, acid
fraction, and volatile organics are considered not quantifiable
at concentrations equal to or less than 0.010 mg/1. Below this
level, organic analytical results are not quantitatively accu-
rate; however, the analyses are useful to indicate the presence
of a particular pollutant. Nonquantifiable results are desig-
nated in the tables with an asterisk (double asterisk for
pesticides).
When calculating averages from the organic sample data, non-
quantifiable results were assumed to be zero. Organics data
reported as not detected (ND) are not averaged. For example,
three samples reported as ND, *, 0.021 mg/1 would average as
0.010 mg/1.
161
-------
In the following discussion, water use and field sampling data
are presented for each core operation by subcategory. Discus-
sions of the water use and discharge rates and field sampling
data for the ancillary operations follows thereafter. Appro-
priate tubing or background blank and source water concentrations
are presented with the summaries of the sampling data. Figures
V-l through V-20 show the location of wastewater sampling sites
at each facility. The method by which each sample was collected
is indicated by number, as follows:
1 one-time grab
2 24-hour manual composite
3 24-hour automatic composite
4 48-hour manual composite
5 48-hour automatic composite
6 72-hour manual composite
7 72-hour automatic composite
CORE OPERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH MAJOR FORMING PROCESSES
Rolling
Rolling with Neat Oils Spent Lubricant. As described in Section
III, the cold rolling of aluminum products typically requires the
use of mineral oil or kerosene-based lubricants. The oils are
usually recycled with in-line filtration and periodically dis-
posed of by sale to an oil reclaimer or by incineration. Because
discharge of this stream is not practiced, limited flow data were
available for analysis. Of the 50 plants surveyed that use neat
oil rolling lubricants, water (oil) use could be calculated for
only four. These data are presented and summarized in Table V-l.
None of the plants provided sufficient flow data to calculate the
degree of recycle practiced or the discharge flow of this stream.
Toxic pollutant frequency occurence data are presented in Table
V-2. Wastewater sampling data for neat oil lubricants are
presented in Table V-3.
Rolling with Emulsions Spent Emulsion. Of the plants surveyed,
29 rolling operations were identified that use oil-in-water emul-
sions as coolants and lubricants. Rolling emulsions are typi-
cally recycled using in-line filtration treatment. Several
plants discharge a bleed stream, but periodic discharge of the
recycled emulsion is more commonly practiced.
Water use, wastewater factors, and percent recyle corresponding
to this stream are summarized In Table V-4.
Toxic pollutant frequency occurrence data are presented in Table
V-5. Table V-6 summarizes the field sampling data for toxic and
162
-------
selected conventional and nonconventional pollutants. This
stream is characterized by high levels of COD (79.8 to 1,520,000
mg/1), TOC (38.0 to 560,000 mg/1), and phenolic compounds as
measured by total phenolics-4AAP (0.210 to 49.0 mg/1). Several
toxic organic pollutants were detected in the spent emulsions at
significant concentrations. These included several of the
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs).
Roll Grinding Spent Emulsion. The steel rolls used in rolling
operations require periodic machining to remove aluminum buildup
and surface imperfections. In responding to the dcpfs, most
plants did not interpret the scope of aluminum forming processes
to include roll grinding. For this reason, a number of plants
were contacted by telephone to supplement the dcp responses.
Although the survey for this stream is not as complete as for the
other aluminum forming processes, it provided a basis for the
analysis of water use and wastewater rates typically associated
with roll grinding. This information is summarized in Table V-7,
along with the degree of recycle or disposal mode practiced at
those plants.
A roll grinding operation was sampled at one facility. This sam-
ple was not from an emulsified stream. Due to the nature of the
roll grinding operation, it is assumed that the wastewater char-
acteristics of the resultant spent emulsions are similar to those
of the rolling with emulsions spent emulsion waste stream. Toxic
pollutant frequency occurrence data for the nonemulsified stream
are presented in Table V-S. The field sampling data are summa-
rized in Table V-9. This waste stream is characterized by high
levels of oil and grease (107 mg/1), suspended solids (118 mg/1),
and COD (230 mg/1). Only one of the toxic organic pollutants,
acrolein, was detected (0.05 »g/l).
Extrusion
Extrusion Pie Cleaning Bath* As discussed in Section III
(p.91 ),the steel dies used in extrusion require frequent dres-
sing to ensure the necessary dimensional precision and surface
quality of the product. The aluminum that has adhered to the die
orifice is typically removed by soaking the die in a caustic
solution. A few plants indicated that mechanical brushing could
be used to clean very simple dies, but caustic cleaning is a much
more common practice. As with roll grinding, it was necessary to
supplement the survey of die cleaning operations with telephone
calls to several plants. Of the 163 extrusion plants, 37 are
known to have die cleaning facilities. Water use and wastewater
values corresponding to the die cleaning caustic bath were
163
-------
calculated for plants for which Information was available. This
information is presented and statistically summarized in Table
V-10.
Although recycle of the caustic solution, as such, is never
practiced, periodic discharge of these stagnant baths is common.
For this reason, water use (make-up rate) and wastewater (dis-
charge rates) are normally identical. Variations in the water
use in caustic die cleaning baths may result from the following:
Intricacy and size of the die orifice.
Aluminum alloy being extruded.
Concentration of caustic used.
Individual plant practices.
Sufficient information is not available, however, to analyze the
effect of these factors.
Wastewater samples were not collected from extrusion die cleaning
baths during the sampling program. Due to the nature of the
extrusion die cleaning operation, it is assumed that the waste-
water characteristics of this stream are similar to discharges
from cleaning or etching baths. Untreated wastewater data for
cleaning and etching baths are summarized in Tables V-50 and
V-51.
Extrusion Die Cleaning Rinse. After caustic treatment, the
extrusion dies are rinsed with water. At some plants, the dies
are simply hosed off; at others, a rinse tank is used for this
purpose. Most of the plants contacted indicated that rinsing was
required to avoid damage to the die and the material being
extruded. Water use and wastewater factors could be calculated
for only nine of the thirty plants. This information is pre-
sented and summarized in Table V-ll. As can be seen, water use
is small and recycle, as such, is not practiced. Water use does
not appear to be affected by differences in rinsing method (i.e.,
hose or rinse tank). Other factors, such as the intricacy of the
dies, concentration of caustic used, aluminum alloy being
extruded, and individual plant practices, could account for
variations in water use. Sufficient data were not available to
determine the degree of influence of these factors.
Toxic pollutant frequency occurrence data are presented in Table
V-12. Table V-13 summarizes the field sampling data for toxic
and selected conventional and nonconventional pollutants detected
above the analytically quantifiable levels. This waste stream is
characterized by high concentrations of aluminum (9.41 to 400
mg/1), dissolved solids (3,230 to 7,200 mg/1), and low concentra-
tions of suspended solids (28 to 120 mg/1) and oil and grease
(<2.9 to 8 mg/1). Only five of the toxic organic pollutants were
detected during sampling.
164
-------
Extrusion Die Cleaning Scrubber Liquor. Of the plants surveyed,
two Indicated the use of wet scrubbers associated with their die
cleaning operations. As with the other die cleaning streams,
however, this survey may not accurately represent the total
number of plants with this waste stream. Wet scrubbers may be
required to treat fumes from the caustic die cleaning operation
in order to control air pollution emissions and ensure a safe
working environment. Water use and wastewater factors are
calculated in Table V-14. Toxic pollutant frequency occurrence
data are presented in Table V-15. Table V-16 summarizes the
field sampling data for toxic and selected conventional and
nonconventional pollutants detected above the analytically
quantifiable levels. This waste stream is characterized by
relatively high levels of oil and grease (57.6 mg/1) and dis-
solved solids (330 mg/1). The toxic metals, when detected, were
present at levels well below their treatability levels.
Extrusion Press Scrubber Liquor. Of the 163 extrusion plants
surveyed, two plants reported the use of wet scrubbers at the
extrusion presses to remove caustic fumes. These fumes occur as
a result of cleaning aluminum from extrusion presses between
operations.
One of these plants reported sufficient data for the calculation
of wastewater values. The scrubber at this plant runs continu-
ously without recycle and has water use and wastewater values of
2,071 1/kkg. The other plant, while not supplying enough
information to allow calculation of these values, reported that
their scrubber is only run intermittently. These data appear in
Table V-17. This waste stream was sampled at only one plant.
Toxic pollutant frequency occurrence data are presented in Table
V-18. The field sampling data are summarized in Table V-19. As
can be seen in the table, this stream is characterized by low
levels of suspended solids (5 mg/1) and elevated levels of dis-
solved solids (357 mg/1). All of the toxic metals were detected
well below their treatability levels.
Extrusion Dummy Block Contact Cooling Water. As described in
Section III (p.90 ), a dummy block is placed between the ram and
ingot during the direct extrusion process. After the extrusion
is complete, the ingot butt and dummy block are released from the
press. Typically, the dummy blocks are allowed to air cool; how-
ever, of the 163 extrusion plants, three indicated that water was
used for this purpose. As can be seen in Table V-20, none of
these plants recycle the cooling water. Data were available to
calculate water use and wastewater discharge rates for two of the
three plants.
165
-------
Toxic pollutant frequency occurrence data are presented in Table
V-21. Data from wastewater sampling of dummy block cooling water
are presented in Table V-22. This waste stream is characterized
by elevated concentrations of oil and grease (74 mg/1) and dis-
solved solids (50 mg/1). Only one toxic organic pollutant
(chloroform) was detected (0.08 mg/1). None of the toxic metals
were detected.
Forging
There are no core waste streams that are unique to the forging
operation.
Drawing
Drawing with Neat Oils Spent Lubricant. Of the 277 plants sur-
veyed"]66 draw aluminum products using neat oil lubricants. Two
plants avoid discharge of this stream by 100 percent recycle of
the drawing oil. Most of the plants dispose of the spent oil by
incineration or contractor hauling and did not provide the flow
data required to calculate water (oil) use and wastewater dis-
charge (oil) values. Table V-23 shows the water use and waste-
water values for the plants that supplied sufficient information
for the calculation of these values.
No wastewater samples were collected from neat oils for drawing.
Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps Spent Emulsion. Of the plants
surveyed, nine draw aluminum products using oil-in-water emul-
sions, and four indicated that soap solutions were used as draw-
ing lubricants. Water use and wastewater factors calculated for
this stream are presented and summarized in Table V-24. As can
be seen, the solutions are frequently recycled and discharged
periodically after their lubricating properties are exhausted.
Wastewater discharge factors were calculated for seven of the 13
plants. As shown in Table V-24, the wastewater discharge rates
associated with these plants vary considerably. Analysis of the
data has shown that this variation is related to differences in
the dimension of wire being drawn. The amount of lubricant
required for drawing a given length of wire is roughly the same
for fine and coarse wire. Since the weight of finer wire is
less, the corresponding production figures will be lower. As a
result, the wastewater factors calculated as flow per unit
production will be higher for lubricants used in fine wire
drawing than in drawing of coarse wire.
Toxic pollutant frequency occurrence data are presented in Table
V-25. Table V-26 summarizes the field sampling data for the
toxic and selected conventional and nonconventional pollutants
detected above analytically quantifiable levels. This waste
166
-------
stream is characterized by extremely high levels of oil and
grease (51,500 mg/1) and the presence of certain toxic organic
pollutants.
Swaging. Swaging is frequently associated with drawing opera-
tions and has been included in the Drawing with Neat Oils
Subcategory. Swaging is used as an initial step in drawing with
tube or wire. By repeated blows of one or more pairs of opposing
dies, a solid point is formed. This can then be inserted through
the die and gripped for drawing. In a few cases, swaging is used
in tube forming without a subsequent drawing operation. Some
lubricants, such as waxes and kerosene, may be used to prevent
adhesion of metal or oxide on the dies. Discharge of swaging
lubricants was not reported by any of the plants surveyed in this
study.
CORE OPERATIONS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH SPECIFIC MAJOR FORMING
PROCESSES
Sawing Spent Lubricant. Although sawing is associated with
nearly all aluminum forming operations, only 12 of the plants
surveyed reported the use of saw oil emulsions. Because plants
frequently failed to mention minor streams that are not dis-
charged, the actual number of plants using saw lubricants is
probably much higher. The lubricants are frequently recycled
and, in most instances, discharge from the system is limited to
carryover and disposal by contractor hauling. Only three plants
reported direct or indirect discharge of saw oils.
Water use and wastewater factors were calculated for plants pro-
viding flow and production data corresponding to the stream.
These factors are shown and summarized in Table V-27.
Field samples of sawing spent lubricant were not collected. Due
to the nature of the lubricants used in the sawing operation, it
is assumed that the wastewater characteristics of this waste
stream are similar to those of the rolling with emulsions spent
emulsion waste stream. These data are presented in Tables V-5
and V-6.
Decreasing Spent Solvents. Although 34 solvent degreasing
operations have been identified from dcp responses, no discharge
is typically associated with this process, and little flow data
were provided. Vapor degreasing, the predominant method of sol-
vent cleaning in the aluminum forming industry, is described in
Section III (p. 103 ). A number of toxic organic pollutants,
including trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and perchlo-
roethylene, are commonly used solvents for vapor degreasing. The
solvents are frequently reclaimed by distillation, either on-site
or by an outside recovery service.
167
-------
Toxic pollutant frequency occurrence data are presented in Table
V-28. Field sampling data for cleaning solvent streams are
summarized in Table V-29. Besides the presence of volatile
organic pollutants mentioned above, this waste stream is charac-
terized by high levels of oil and grease (2,180 mg/1), COD (330
mg/1), and TOG (143 mg/1).
Annealing Atmosphere Scrubber Liquor. As described in Section
III (p. 100 )., annealing is used to soften work-hardened and
solution-heat-treated alloys, to relieve stress, and to stabilize
the properties and dimensions of the aluminum product. In some
cases, it is necessary to control the atmosphere within the
annealing furnace. At elevated temperatures, the presence of
water vapors can disrupt the oxide film on the surface of the
product, especially if the atmosphere is also contaminated with
ammonia or sulfur compounds. Inert gas atmospheres can be used
within the furnace to avoid possible detrimental effects, such as
blistering, discoloration, and a decrease in tensile properties.
At some plants, natural gas is burned to generate an inert atmos-
phere. At one of the aluminum forming plants surveyed, flue
gases from the burning of fuel to heat the annealing furnace are
used as the furnace atmosphere. Due to the sulfur content of
furnace fuels; however, the off gases require treatment by wet
scrubbers before they can be used as an inert atmosphere for heat
treatment. The scrubber in use at this plant was reported to
require a relatively large flow of water which is extensively
recycled (more than 99 percent). The water use and wastewater
values calculated for this stream are shown in Table V-30.
Toxic pollutant frequency occurrence data are presented in Table
V-31. Table V-32 summarizes the field sampling data for those
pollutants detected above analytically quantifiable levels. This
waste stream is characterized by high levels of sulfates if the
furnace fuel has a high sulfur content.
ANCILLARY OPERATIONS
Heat Treatment
Solution and Press Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water. Heat
treatment of aluminum products frequently involves the use of a
water quench in order to achieve desired metallic properties. At
the 277 aluminum forming plants surveyed, 88 solution heat
treatment processes were identified that involve water quenching.
The field samples from heat treatment quenching processes have
been identified and compiled according to the aluminum forming
operation that it follows (i.e., rolling, forging, drawing, and
extrusion). Additional differentiation was made between press
and solution heat treatment of extrusions. The wastewater
streams and the tables which list the water use, percent recycle,
168
-------
wastwater values, frequency
and sampling data for toxic
pollutants are listed below;
Wastewater Stream
Rolling Solution Heat
Treatment Contact Cooling
Water
Extrusion Press Heat
Treatment Contact Cooling
Water
Extrusion Solution Heat
Treatment Contact Cooling
Water
Forging Solution Heat
Treatment Contact Cooling
Water
Drawing Solution Heat
Treatment Contact Cooling
Water
of occurrence of toxic pollutants,
and conventional and nonconventional
Water Use, Toxic
Percent Pollutant
Recycle, Frequency Field
Wastewater of Sampling
Values Occurrence Data
Table V-33 Table V-34 Table V-35
Table V-36 Table V-37 Table V-38
Table V-39 Table V-40 Table V-41
Table V-42 Table V-43 Table V-44
Table V-45 Table V-46 Table V-47
The water use factors calculated for this stream were analyzed to
determine if a relationship exists between water use requirements
and the type of products being quenched (extrusions, forgings,
etc.) or the method of heat treatment used (e.g., press versus
solution heat treatment of extrusions). It was determined that
neither of these factors account for the variations in water use.
Heat treatment water requirements are independent of the major
forming process which precedes the heat treatment operation. The
water requirements are a function of several variables, including
the mass and surface area of the aluminum, the time allowed for
cooling, and the temperature gradient.
Since the water use requirements are independent of the major
forming process which precedes the operation, it is assumed that
the pollutant loadings in the discharged wastewater are also
independent and will be similar for the various heat treatment
operations. For regulatory purposes the wastewater discharge
values for all the heat treatment operations will be combined
into a single value for all solution and press heat treatment
operations.
Cleaning or Etching Bath. As described in Section III (p.102 ),
a variety of chemical solutions are used for cleaning purposes or
to provide the desired finish for formed aluminum products.
169
-------
These treatments and their associated rinses are usually combined
in a single line of successive tanks. Wastewater discharged from
these lines is typically commingled prior to treatment or
discharge.
The acid, alkaline, and detergent solutions used in cleaning or
etching lines are usually maintained as stagnant baths into which
the products are immersed. Chemicals are added as required to
make up for losses due to evaporation, carryover, and splash-out.
In this survey, most of the plants with cleaning or etching lines
did not indicate discharge of these chemical dips. A few plants
reported periodic discharge of cleaning or etching compounds,
usually following treatment. Other plants indicated that the
chemical dip is hauled periodically by an outside contractor or
disposed of on-site. Water use and wastewater discharge rates
for this stream are presented in Table V-48.
Table V-49 presents the frequency of occurrence of toxic pol-
lutants for this wastewater stream type. Table V-50 summarizes
the field sampling data for those pollutants detected above
analytically quantifiable levels. This waste stream is charac-
terized by high levels of several of the toxic metals, copper,
chromium and lead, oil and grease (7 to 100 mg/1), suspended
solids (1 to 348 mg/1), aluminum (30 to 70,000 mg/1), dissolved
solids (27,600 to 284,000 mg/1), and TOG (1 to 3,550 mg/1).
Cleaning or Etching Rinse. Rinsing is usually required following
if
successive chemical treatments within cleaning or etching lines.
The most common methods are spray rinsing or immersion in a con-
tinuous-flow rinse tank. The number of rinses within a given
line varied from plant to plant, depending on the kind of surface
treatment applied,
Water use and wastewater values calculated for the cleaning or
etch lines at aluminum forming plants are shown in Table V-51.
As can be seen, cleaning or etching lines with multiple rinses
tend to have higher water use and wastewater discharge values.
Direct correlations between these factors cannot be established
on the basis of these data. A more detailed discussion of fac-
tors which could account for variations in wastewater discharge
of this stream is presented in Section IX. The percent of
recycled rinse water could not be calculated because of the
difficulty in defining the amount of water used. This was caused
by countercurrent and stagnant rinses, carryover, and other
practices peculiar to the cleaning or etching lines in the
aluminum forming category.
Toxic pollutant frequency occurrence data are presented in Table
V-52. Table V-53 summarizes the field sampling data for those
pollutants detected above analytically quantifiable levels. This
waste stream, like cleaning or etching baths, is characterized by
170
-------
elevated concentrations of the toxic metals, copper, chromium,
and lead. In addition, nickel and zinc were present at high
levels in many samples. Oil and grease and suspended solids were
also present at high levels, but lower relative to the baths, as
would be expected.
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor. Of the 40 plants with
cleaning and etching lines,six indicated that wet scrubbers are
associated with these operations. Fumes from caustic or acid
baths may require treatment to control air pollution emissions
and ensure a safe working environment. Sufficient flow data were
available to calculate water use from two of the six plants, and
wastewater values were available from three of the six plants.
This information is summarized and presented in Table V-54.
Toxic pollutant frequency occurrence data are presented in Table
V-55. Table V-56 summarizes the field sampling data for those
pollutants detected above the analytically quantifiable levels.
This waste stream is characterized by low levels of contamina-
tion, as exhibited by suspended solids at 12 mg/1.
Forging Scrubber Liquor. Of the 16 forging plants surveyed,
three indicated that wet scrubbers were used to control
particulates and smoke generated from the partial combustion of
oil-based lubricants in the forging process. Water use and
wastewater discharge rates are summarized in Table V-57.
Toxic pollutant frequency occurrence data are presented in Table
V-58. Table V-59 summarizes the field sampling data for the
toxic and selected conventional and nonconventional pollutants
detected above the analytically quantifiable levels. This waste
stream is characterized by the presence of eight toxic organic
pollutants, five of which were polynuclear aromatics. The five
were present at concentrations ranging from 0.018 to 0.075 mg/1.
High levels of oil and grease (162 mg/1), COD (349 mg/1), and
dissolved solids (388 mg/1) are also characteristic of this waste
stream.
Casting
Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling Water.
surveyed, 61 aluminum forming and
ng water. Of the plants
27 primary aluminum plants
indicated that they cast aluminum or aluminum alloys using the
direct chill method. Because the ingot or billet produced by
direct chill casting is used as stock for subsequent rolling or
extrusion, this wastewater stream is considered to be an ancil-
lary stream for the Rolling with Emulsions and Extrusion
Subcategories.
Contact cooling water is used in the direct chill casting method
to spray the ingot or billet as it drops from the m<5ld and then
171
-------
to quench it as it is immersed in a cooling tank at the bottom of
the casting pit. As described in Section III (p. 96 ), the cool-
ing water may be contaminated by lubricants applied to the mold
before and during the casting process. Some plants discharge
this cooling water stream without recycle, but it is commonly
recirculated through a cooling tower. Even with recycle, peri-
odic discharge or the discharge of a continuous bleed stream is
required to prevent the accumulation of dissolved solids. Of the
48 aluminum forming plants for which information was available,
30 recycle the contact cooling water stream used in direct chill
casting. The average recycle rate at these plants was 96
percent, but the reported values ranged between 50 and 100
percent.
The calculated water use, percent recycle and wastewater values
corresponding to direct chill casting cooling water streams at
aluminum forming plants are presented in Table V-60, along with a
statistical summary of this data. For comparative purposes, the
calculated water use, percent recycle, and wastewater values for
primary aluminum plants with direct chill casting operations are
presented in Table V-61.
Toxic pollutant frequency occurrence data are presented in Table
V-62. The field sampling data for those pollutants detected
above analytically quantifiable levels are summarized in Table
V-63. This waste stream is characterized by the presence of
certain toxic organic pollutants at levels ranging from 0.500
mg/1 to below the level of detection. It is also characterized
by elevated levels of oil and grease (5 to 214 mg/1) and
suspended solids (1 to 220 mg/1).
Continuous Rod Casting Contact Cooling Water. Three of the
aluminum forming plants surveyed in this study use continuous
casting methods to manufacture aluminum rod for subsequent draw-
ing. Four primary aluminum plants also have continuous rod
casting operations. This process, also referred to as Properzi
or wheel casting, is described in Section III (p. 98 ). Although
the cooling water associated with continuous rod casting is, for
the most part, noncontact, some contact with the freshly cast
aluminum bar as it leaves the ring mold is difficult to avoid.
For this reason, the cooling water used in continuous rod casting
operations is classified as an ancillary stream associated with
the Drawing with Neat Oils and Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps
Subcategories.
Water use and wastewater factors corresponding to this stream
could be calculated for only one of the aluminum forming con-
tinuous rod casting plants. At this facility no recycle of the
cooling water was practiced. Water use and wastewater rates
could not be calculated for the other aluminum forming plant
172
-------
known to recycle and periodically discharge this stream. The
other plant indicated that contact cooling water was not used.
This information is presented in Table V-64.
No field samples were collected of this cooling water stream.
Due to the nature of the continuous rod casting operation, it is
assumed that the wastewater characteristics of this stream are
similar to those of the direct chill casting contact cooling
water waste stream. These data are presented in Tables V-62 and
V-63.
Continuous Rod Casting Spent Lubricant. As discussed in Section
III (p. 98 ), in continuous casting operations, oil-in-water
emulsions are used as lubricants. Both of the rod casting plants
providing information practiced total recycle of this stream,
although one aluminum forming plant indicated that periodic dis-
posal was required. Sufficient flow and production data were not
available to calculate water use or wastewater flows for this
stream. Some recycle information is presented in Table V-65.
No continuous rod casting lubricant field samples were col-
lected. Due to the nature of the lubricant used in the continu-
ous rod casting operation, it is assumed that the wastewater
characteristics of this waste stream are similar to those of the
rolling with emulsions spent emulsion waste stream. These data
are presented in Tables V-5 and V-6.
Continuous Sheet Casting Spent Lubricant. Of the 277 plants sur-
veyed in the aluminum forming study,11 cast aluminum sheet pro-
ducts using continuous techniques such as the Hunter or Hazelett
methods. No plants in the primary aluminum industry reported
casting aluminum sheet products using continuous methods. While
continuous sheet or strip casting uses only noncontact cooling
water, a few plants indicated that lubricants were required for
the associated rolling line. Oil-in-water emulsions, graphite
solutions, and aqueous solutions of magnesia can be used for this
purpose. Of the plants surveyed, five reported the use of lubri-
cants in their continuous sheet casting operations. The lubri-
cants were always recycled and two of the plants indicated that
periodic disposal of this stream was required. Water use and
wastewater rates of this stream are shown for the plants in Table
V-66. Other plants reported periodic disposal of the lubricant,
but provided no flow data. Six additional facilities with con-
tinuous sheet casting did not indicate the use of a rolling
lubricant.
No wastewater samples were collected from continuous sheet cast-
ing operations. Due to the nature of the type of lubricant used
in this operation, it is assumed that the wastewater character-
istics of this waste stream are similar to those of the rolling
173
-------
with emulsions spent emulsion waste stream.
presented in Tables V-5 and V-6.
These data are
Stationary Casting. All of the 16 stationary casting facilities
surveyed in the aluminum forming study indicated that contact
cooling water is not associated with stationary casting. Any
water used to cool the molds is strictly noncontact. Small quan-
tities of water are sometimes sprayed onto the surface of the
molten metal in stationary casting operations. Although not
reported to occur in aluminum forming stationary casting opera-
tions, if contact water is used, it probably is evaporated and
not discharged.
Degassing Scrubber Liquor. The purpose, variations, and limita-
tions of metal treatment technologies are described in Section
III (p. 95 ). While the wastewater sampling program was in
progress, two of the plants visited had wet air pollution control
devices cleaning the degassing fumes. Since that time, the plant
that was sampled replaced the wet scrubbers with dry devices.
Only one of the 80 plants with casting operations surveyed in
this study continues to use wet air pollution controls in associ-
ation with their metal treatment operations prior to casting.
Sufficient data were not available from this plant; however, to
calculate the water use or wastewater flow of this stream. There
have been four plants that have gone to the alternative degassing
air pollution control methods since the draft document was
written. Eleven primary aluminum plants reported using wet air
pollution controls in their metal treatment operations. Of
these, four provided enough information to allow the calculation
of water use values and five gave enough data for wastewater
calculations. This information is presented in Table V-67.
Toxic pollutant frequency occurrence data are presented in Table
V-68. Table V-69 summarizes the field sampling data for those
pollutants detected above analytically quantifiable levels. This
wastewater is characterized by slightly elevated levels of
suspended solids (<38 mg/1).
Additional Wastewater Samples
Table V-70 presents the field sampling data for all raw waste
samples not previously presented. Most of these samples repre-
sent combined wastewater streams (e.g., contact cooling water and
noncontact cooling water) or streams not considered in the scope
of this regulation.
Treated Wastewater Samples
Tables V-71 through V-82 present the field sampling data for the
treated wastewater from 12 of the 20 sampled plants. These
174
-------
treated wastewater data have been incorporated into the larger
data base which was used to determine the treatment effectiveness
for different control systems. The treatability limits selected
for the aluminum forming control options are presented in Section
VII (Control and Treatment Technology) (Table VII-21, p. 748 ).
Most of the treated wastewater streams analyzed were collected
after some form of oil separation (Streams D-15, E-8, and U-3)
and emulsion breaking process (Streams B-7, C-9, E-9, P-7, and
U-8) (see Figures V-l through V-20). As expected, these streams
showed lower concentrations of oil and grease (<100 mg/1) than
found in the influent raw waste streams. In addition, one stream
(Stream B-8) was sampled after an ultrafiltration process which
removes a large percentage of the oil and grease from the raw
waste. Also, samples collected after settling ponds, lagoons, or
clarifiers (Streams D-4, E-ll, J-6, K.-5, and Q-4) showed reduced
levels of suspended solids. Lime and settle system effluents
(Streams D-14 and K-5) had toxic metal concentrations below the
detection limits for most of the toxic metals.
175
-------
Landfill
Figure V-l
WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT A
176
-------
B-l
To Deionizer
Treatment
Direct
Chill
Surfactant
Cooling
_
*l
Oil
To Discharge
Sludge Sampling
B-10
Hot
Rolling
Cold
Rolling
-2
Breaking
Contractor
Hauled
S-5
Etch
Line
Rinse
(Acid)
Recycled
To Discharge
Figure V-2
WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT B
177
-------
C-l
Direct
Chill
Casting
Cooling Tower
To Storm
Sewer
Alum Polymer
MaOH
'To Discharge
*• To POTW
Figure V-3
WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT C
178
-------
D-i
D-15
To Discharge
Figure V-4
WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT D
179
-------
Contractot Hauled
E-L
To Discharge
Figure V-5
WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT E
180
-------
7-1
Source
Tap Water
Direct Chill
Casting
Noncontact
Cooling
Noncontact
Cooling
F-3
F-4
F-5
To Discharge
Extrusion
Press Heat
Treatment
Extrusion Die
Cleaning Rinse
(Caustic)
Noncontact
Cooling
F-6
F-7
-»• To Discharge
Waste
Hydraulic
Oil
.>. Contractor Hauled
Figure V-6
WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT F
181
-------
Source
Tap Water
G-2
Source
Deionized Water
Extrusion
Press
Heat Treatment,
Extrusion
Press
Heat Treatment,
Vibratory
Finish
Deionizer and
Demineralizec
Regenerate
Extrusion Die
Cleaning Bath
(Caustlcl __
G-4.5.&6
Clarifier
Discarded Fines
•*• To POTW
Honcontact
Cooling
^
Cooling Tower
"»
Evaporation
Pond
Figure V-7
WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT G
182
-------
H-9
Source
Tap Water
Direct Chill
Casting
-£>-»
Cooling Tower
Noncontact
Cooling
H-l
H-2
Oil-Water
Separation
H-7
Oil
Sample
H-3
H-8
Oil
Sample
Oil-Water
Separation
)ischarge
Etch Line
Rinse
(Detergent)
Etch Line
Rinse
(Caustic)
Etch Line
Rinse
(Acid)
H-4
-8^-—
H-5
(^ K
& *
H-6
Hg) J
To POTW
Figure V-8
WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT H
183
-------
J-l
Source
Tap Water
Sawing Spent
Lubricancs
Contractor
Hauled
Etch Line
Rinse
(Acid)
Etch Line
Scrubber
Vibratory
Finish
J-4
J-5
Waste Receiving
Tank
pH Adjustment
Clarifier
Holding Tank
J-6
Reuse as
Etch Line
Rinse
Forging Solu-
tion Heat
Treatment
J-3
To
POTW
Figure V-9
WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT J
184
-------
Contractor
Hauled
Discharge
Filter Cake
to Landfill
*• To
Discharge
Figure V-10
WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT K.
185
-------
To
Discharge
To
Discharge
L-9
Figure V-ll
WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT L
186
-------
*• To Land
Application
Contractor
Hauled
Figure V-12
WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT N
187
-------
P-6
P-l
P-4
Source
Well Water
Source
Softened Water
Source
Deionized Water
P-2
Direct Chill
Casting
h — ®-
Cooling
Tower
Discharge
Hot Rolling
Hydraulic and
Tramp Oils
P-5
Holding Tank
Emulsion
Breaking
Oil-Water
Separation
P-7
Evaporation
Lagoon
P-f
Contractor
Hauled
Figure V-13
WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT P
188
-------
Source
Tap Water
Etch Line
Rinses
(Caustic
and Acid)
Forging
Solution
Heat
Treatment
Q-2
-8-
Q-3
Clarifier
Q-4
To POTW
q-5
Sludge to Landfill
Figure V-14
WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT Q
-------
R-l
Figure V-15
WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT R
To POTW
190
-------
S-l
Source
Well Water
Drawing
S-2
Lubricant
Holding Tank
-fr. To POTW
Figure V-16
WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT S
19J
-------
T-l
Hot Rolling
Noncontact
Cooling
Cooling
Tow«r
To POTW
Figure V-17
WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT T
192
-------
1 Source
Well Water
Stormwater
Moncontact
Cooling
„ Tower
tf-2
Direct Chill
Casting
®
Cooling""'
0-5
Rolling Solu-
tion Heat
Treatment
Hoc Rolling
Cold Rolling
Cold Rolling
Small
Roll
Grinders
Large
Roll
Grinders
te v^v
^ Cooline
Tower
U-4
U-ll
U-6
®_
* Oil-
1
,
U-7
(SO »• Clarifier *• To
^^ Discha
0-3
ition ^— Separation
Oil
> .
r
Oil
i>
(?> u~9
Emulsion .
Breaking
• :
Oil
Storage
Pond /
-------
To 3iach«ra«
Figure V-19
WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT V
194
-------
W-l
Source Water
Drawing Solution
Heat Treatment
W-2
W-3
Grease Trap
Extrusion Solu-
tion
Heat Treatment
W-4
Extrusion Die
Cleaning
Scrubber
Extrusion Die
Cleaning
Rinse
W-5
W-6
Clarifier
Discharge
Extrusion Press
Scrubber
Forging Solution
•Heat Treatment
W-7
W-8
W-9
W-LO
W-ll
Figure V-20
WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT W
195
-------
Table V-l
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SPENT LUBRICANTS
Plant
1
2
3
4
Water Use
1/kkg gal/ton
Percent
Recycle
10.17
4.586
4.753
3.144
2.440
1.100
1.140
0.7540
*
*
Wastewater
1/kkg gal/ton
*
*
*Data not available.
Statistical Summary
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Sample:
3.144
10.17
5.666
4.670
0.7540
2.440
1.359
1.120
4 of 50 plants
Note: Table does not include 46 plants which provided insuffi-
cient information to calculate water use and wastewater
values.
196
-------
Table V-2
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SPENT LUBRICANTS
RAW WASTF.WATER
Analytical
Quantification
Level
\o
-J
Pollutant
1. acenaphthene
2. acrolein
3. acrylonitrile
4. benzene
5. benzidine
6. carbon tetrachloride
7. chlorobenzene
8. 1, 2,4-trichlorobenzene
9 . hexachlorobenaene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethano
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. bis(chloromethyl)ether
18. bis(chloroethyl)ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
23. chloroform
24. 2-chlorophenol
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobetizene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3'-dtchlorobenztdine
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroetliylene
31. 2 ,4-dichlorophenol
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropene
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
35. 2,4-dinitrotolucne
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
38. ethylbenzene
39. Eluoranthene
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
O.OiO
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
I
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
m- DTDIT- U.TOT- ~
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
-------
Table V-2 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SPENT LUBRICANTS
RAW WASTEWATER
Analytical
Quantification
Level
Pollutant
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
44. raethylene chloride
45. methyl chloride (chloromethane)
46. methyl bromide (bromomethane)
47. bromoform (tribromomethane)
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. trichlorofluoromethane
50. dichlorodifluoromethane
51. chlorodibromomethane
52. nexachlorobutadietie
\£ 53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Co 54. isophorone
55. naphthalene
56. nitrobenzene
57. 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59 - 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
64. pentachlorophenol
65. phenol
66. bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
72. benzo(a)anthracene
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
75. benzo(k)Cluoranthene
76. chrysene
77. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (a)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
O.OJO
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
2
2
2
2
J
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Number of Times Observed
in S amp le s (mg/ 1 )
~~~
0. 010
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1.000+
-------
Table V-2 (Continual)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SPENT LUBRICANTS
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
79. benzo(ghl)perylene
80. fluorene
81. phenanthrene (a)
82. dibenzo(a,'a)anthracane
83. indeno (L,2,3-c,d)pyrene
84. pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
87. trichloroethylene
88. vinyl chlortde (chloroethylene)
39. aldrin
90. dieldrin
91. chlordane
92. 4,4'-DDT
93. 4,4'-DDE
94. 4,4'-DDD
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
97. endosulfan sulfate
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
102. alpha-DHC
103. beta-SHC
104. gamma-BHC
105. delta-BHC
106. PCB-1242 (b)
107. PCB-1254 (b)
108. PCB-1221 (b)
109. PCB-1232 (b)
110. PCB-1248 (c)
111. PCB-1260 (c)
112. PCB-1016 (c)
113. toxaphene
114. antimony
115. arsenic
116. asbestos
Analytical
Qunnti ft cation
Level
(o.g/1)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.005
0. 005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0. 005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.100
0.010
10 MFL
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
I
1
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
0
-
-
0
0
I
0
Number Number of Times Observed
of in Samples (me/1)
Samples NU- 0.011- 0. 101-
Analy?,ed 0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
2 2
2 2
-
2 2
2 2
2 2
1 1
1 I
1 I
1 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
0
-
-
0
0
2 2
0
-------
Table V-2 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SPKNT LUBRICANTS
RAW WASTEWATKK
Pollutant
117. beryllium
118. cadmium
119. chromium (total)
120. copper
121. cyanide (total)
122. lead
123. mercury
124. nickel
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
128. zinc
o
o
129. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mfi/i)
0.010
0.002
0.005
0.009
0.100
0.020
0. 0001
0.005
0.01
0.02
0.100
0.050
0.005
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
1
1
]
1
1
)
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
2
0
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (m&/l)
ND- O.Oll-
0.010 0.100
2
2
2
1
0.1U1-
1.000 1.
2
000+
2
2
2
1
2
(a), (b) , (c) Reported together.
-------
Table V-3
SAMPLING DATA
ROLLING WETH NEAT OILS SPENT LUBRICANTS
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Toxic Pollutants
4. benzene
11 . 1 , 1, 1-trichloroethane
38, ethyl benzene
44. methylene chloride
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
78. anthracene (a)
81. phenanthrene (a)
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
118. cadmium
1 19. chromium
120. copper
122. lead
124. nickel
128. zinc
Nonconvent tonal
aluminum
calcium
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
magnesium
phenols (total ; by 4-AAP method)
total organic carbon (TOC)
Stream
Code
U-6
U-6
U-6
U-6
U-6
U-6
U-6
U-6
U-6
U-6
U-6
U-6
U-6
U-6
U-6
U-6
U-6
U-6
U-6
U-6
U-6
U-6
Sample
Typet
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Concentrations (mg/1)
Source
*
*
ND
*
*
*
*
NI)
ND
ND
0.002
<0.001
0.013
0.010
0.016
<0.010
<0.100
58.7
7 . 4^
Day 1
350.
110.
48.
150.
0.
2.
5.
1.
0.
3.
732
485
20,930
43.
2.
11,000
000
000
000
000
29
13
25
09
044
2
9
2
Day 2
0.
0.
0.
0.
640.
100.
100.
200.
1.
0.
0.
20.
22
7.
1.
20
663
351
20,810
43.
2.
13,000
080
200
880
310
000
000
000
000
400
510
44
0
73
87
3
1
3 Average
0.080
o.
0.
0.
495.
105-
74.
175.
1.
0.
0.
11.
14
4.
0.
12
698
418
20,870
43.
2.
12,000
200
880
310
000
000
000
000
400
510
37
1
41
96
6
2
-------
Table V-3 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SPENT LUBRICANTS
RAW WASTEWATER
M
O
Pollutant
C o n ve n t^o na1
oil and grease
suspended solids
(a) Reported together.
Stream
Code
U-6
U-6
Sample
Typet
Source
Concent:rat ions (tng/1)
Day 1
78,300
58
Day 2
91,400
66
Da^_3_ Average
85 , 400
62
tSample Type
Note: These numbers also app ly to subsequent sampling data tabl.es in this section.
1 one-time grab
2 24-hour manual compos ite
3 24-hour automatic composite
4 48-hour manual compos ite
5 48-hour automatic composite
6 72-hour manual composite
7 72-hour automatic composite
Indicates less than or equal to 0.01 rog/1.
Indicates less than or equal to 0.005 mg/1.
*
**
-------
Table V-4
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SPENT EMULSION
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Water Use
1/kkg gal/ton
60.46
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
30,600
*
54,870
41,110
*
76,340
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
14.50
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
7,340
*
13,160
*
*
9,860
18,310
*
*
*
*
*
*
*Data not available.
P Periodic discharge.
B Bleed discharge.
Statistical Summary
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Sample:
Note:
60.46 14.50
76,340 18,310
40,600 9,737
41,110 9,860
5 of 29 plants
Percent
Recycle
* (P)
* (P)
* (P)
99 (B)
* (P)
* (P)
* (P)
* (P)
* (P)
* (P)
* (P)
* (P)
* (P)
* (P)
* (P)
* (P)
100 (P)
* (P)
* (P)
97 (B)
* (P)
*
85 (B)
*
100 (P)
100 (P)
* (P)
* (P)
* (P)
* (P)
*
*
Wastewater
1/kkg
0.3344
0.3919
0.5879
0.6046
0.6404
0.6671
1.376
2.039
3.919
4.837
5.045
6.921
7.255
12.63
15.05
23.35
28.13
50.87
89.39
181.4
197.8
228.6
304.4
344.4
352.2
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
gal/ton
0.0802
0.0940
0.1410
0.1450
0.1536
0.1600
0.3300
0.4890
0.9400
1.160
1.210
1.660
1.740
3.030
3.610
5.600
6.746
12.20
21.44
43.50
47.43
54.82
73.00
82.60
84.48
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.3344 0.0802
352.2 84.48
74.51 17.87
7.255 1.740
25 of 29 plants
Three plants discharge from both hot and cold rolling
operations which appear separately in this table.
203
-------
en fD i—
h- rt -
G 3- NJ
O ^ i
M I-'Q.
to cr H-
3 fD T3
rr 3 3-
3" N fD
(D fD 3
3 3 •<
fD fD i—
3"
a
i-i
to
N
H-
3
fty
NJ ro
Cf> £-
i i
C* CL
r» r"
3 3
h" r"
rr rr
f M
C 0
rr rt
0 0
i—1 i--
C C
fD (D
3 D
fD O
.£> <-•> ro
i I 1
a. D. Q*
r" t— h"
3 n n
fD 3" 3"
rr f-1 r- •
J 0 0
^ if rt
i-1 O O
"Q "O "O
3" f M
fD O O
3 "3 "3
o ro B
fas
fB fD
^
I
C.
h"
n
IT
i— '
O
n
o
•3
3"
ro
a
o
i—*
M r-*
i i
n a.
rl r"
to n
3 3"
OT f— '
| Q
a. n
h" O
n (D
3-rr
O "•<
n r-1
O fD
fD 3
ft (D
3*
<•<
!— *
fD
3
fD
OJ C-
- \
i a.
D, r-
r" n
O 3"
3" --
h" ' 0
0 r)
M 0
o a-
cr fo
fD 3
N fD
h" 3
am
r"
3
(B
W
I
a
H-
n
3"
t— •
o
t^
0
0*
fD
3
fD
3
fD
1
1 3"
O, i— '
H. o
0 it
3* O
i— T!
O 3*
i-l (D
0 3
0-0
fD f-
3
(D
3
(D
n "a
3- 1
O 3*
0 0
hh ^
O 0
n t
3 3
i
o
rl
fD
Cfl
O
h- '
KiNiisjo'cfo i-i>-'!-'3''-'i-'D">--ir) n a'CT'to su
i i H- H- 3" » " » fD-- fD- 3"tofDfDnn
-C-OOW W r- 'i-'i-'i-'X I--NJX hOr- 'f-i 3 3ri >i
- 3" 3"^^^-sO »- Ito- Ito" OCTMN^O
OM-'t-'O O M Wt-OQiO f-'&O -P* if O H« (D 1— ' l— '
iOO3"3"O» ir"3*l(-"3'iO3a.3OfD
ft if pj (— ' (— 'fDNirrnMrtni— 'rto1 H'f03H-
rtOOOOrt lri3"Or|3"OffDrT3 H-3
r"3fDrii-(3'rTr"i-'rlh"r-'i-iH'3fDfD rt
OtortOOtofDOOOnOOf^Nrt f
3"O 3TD33ft3'M(tlD"Ma'3'tDt-l H-
I-" P*v
3
to
i-1
^
N
ft
a.
>
3
to
f-
^
N
CD
a
o
o
o
o
o
Q
I--
o
o
o
h- '
o
o
?
-o
c
to
3
f rr
fD r-
< Ml
fD H1
h- O
to
rt
r"
O
3
C/i
rt
r^
fD Q
to m
3
CO
CD
to
B
•a o
r- rn
(D
M
C
'
O
o
I—H
3
f/>
u
a
1 n3
1— '
C
1— '
O
r-
1
fD
w
^>
g
00
5
>
3
to
i— i
^<
rr
h"
n
a
t—1
s
c
3
cr
fD
rl
^
C
3
cr
ro
i^
-z.
c
3
fD
O
H
r"
3
fD
to
O
CJ*
w
f
fD
a
50
•>
^
^
^*
w
Pi
^
H
PI
^j
f-i
M
2!
n
c
H
H
~
PI
3
C
f
C/l
r-t
O
z
Crt
CO
^
p]
21
!-3
PI
S
C"1
Cfl
M
O
2
V3
p]
2
n
•<
o
T]
O
n
n
a
pcj
y3
PI
2
c^
PI
O
•n
i-i '
O
X
£
-a
O
r
r-
H
^
El
H
M
H
to
cr
i— '
fD
<;
i
ui
-------
Table V-5 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SPENT EMULSIONS
RAW WASTEWATER
ro
o
Ln
Pollutant
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
43. bis(2~chloroethoxy)methane
44. methylene chloride
45. methyl chloride (chloromethane)
46. methyl bromide (bromomethane)
47- bromoform (tribroraomethane)
48. dichlorobromoraethane
49- trichlorofluoromethane
50. dichlorodifluororoethane
51- chlorod ibromoraethane
52. hexachlocobutadtene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. isophorone
55. naphthalene
56. nitrobenzene
57- 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamlno
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
64. pentachlorophenol
65. phenol
66. big (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
69. di-n-ocCyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
72- benzo(a)anthracene
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
75- benzo(k)fluoranthene
76. chrysene
77. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (a)
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(rag/D _
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.01Q
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
6
6
6
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
10
10
9
9
9
9
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Number
iu
ND- 0.
0.010 0.
9
9
9
9
3
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
7
9
10
10
10
10
9
6
9
10
7
5
8
5
9
5
8
9
9
9
9
8
8
7
of Times Observed
Samples (mg/1)
Oil- 0. 101-
100 1.000 1.000+
1 4
2
2 1
2 1
2 2
1
2 2
2 2
1
1
I
2
-------
Table V-5 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SPENT EMULSIONS
RAW WASTEWATER
to
O
Fol_lutant
79- benzo(ghi)perylene
80. fluorene
81. phenanthrene (a)
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno (1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
84. pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
87. trichloroethylene
88. vinyl chloride (chloroethylene?
89. aldrin
90. dieldrin
91- chlordane
92. 4,4'-DDT
93. 4,4'~DDE
94. 4,4'-DDR
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endogulfan
97. endosulfan sulfate
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BBC
104. gamma-BHC
105. delta-BHC
106. PCB-1242 (b)
107. PCB-1254 (b)
108. PCB-1221 (b)
109. PCB-1232 (b)
110. PCB-1248 (c)
111. PCB-1260 (c)
112. PCB-1016 (c)
113. toxaphene
114. antimony
115. arsenic
116. asbestos
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/1)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0,010
0,005
0,005
0,005
0,005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.100
0.010
10 MFL
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
6
6
-
6
6
6
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
-
5
-
-
5
-
-
5
5
5
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
9
9
-
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
-
7
-
-
7
_
-
7
9
9
0
Number
in
ND- 0.
0.010 0.
9
4
9
9
5
4
3
7
8
7
7
6
7
6
7
7
7
6
6
5
7
7
6
6
7
7
4
4
7
9
5
of Times Observed
Samples (mg/1)
Oil- 0.101-
100 1.000 1.000+
2 3
4
1 3
3 2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2 1
I 1 1
4
-------
Table V-5 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SPENT EMULSIONS
RAW WASTEWATER
Analytical
Quantification
Level
Pollutant
117. beryllium
118. cadmium
119. chromium (total)
120. copper
121. cyanide (total)
122. lead
123. mercury
124. nickel
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
128. zinc
129. 2,3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
0.010
0.002
0.005
0.009
0.100
0.020
0. 0001
0.005
0.01
0.02
0.100
0.050
0.005
Humber
of
Streams
Analyzed
5
5
5
5
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
9
9
9
9
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
0
Number
in
ND- 0.
0.010 0.
9
4
3
4
2
3
9
3
9
9
9
3
of Times Observed
Samples (mg/1)
011-
100
4
3
5
2
0.101-
1.000 1.
1
3
2
2
1
4
000+
3
1
5
6
(a), (b) , (c) Reported together.
-------
Table V-6
SAMPLING DATA
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SPENT EMULSIONS
RAW UASTEWATKR
Pollutant
Toxic Pol lutanCj;
1 . acenaphthcncj
to
O
00
2. acroleln
. benzene
7. chlorobenzene
21. 2,6 ,6-trLchlorophenol
23. chloroform
30. 1 ,2-t rans-
ND *
ND *
0.011 ND
ND ND
NO NO
ND
0 . 026 *
ND ND
0.690 ND
NU ND
0.089 ND
0.030 0.070
5.700
0.095
0.050
0.040
*
0.010
*
*
0.011
0.022
0.013
0.690
0.089
0 . 040
0.040
-------
Table V-6 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SPENT EMULSIONS
RAW UASTEWATRR
Pollutant
39. fluoranthene
44. methylene chloride
55. naphtha]ene
62. N-nitrosodipheny Inmine
65. phenol
66. his(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
Stream
Code
B-6
E-7
P-5
T-l
U-4
U-ll
E-7
P-5
U-4
U-ll
B-6
E-7
P-5
T-l
U-4
U-ll
B-6
E-7
P-5
T-l
U-4
U-ll
B-6
E-7
P-5
T-l
U-4
U-ll
B-6
E-7
P-5
T-l
U-4
U-ll
B-6
E-7
P-5
T-l
U-4
U-ll
Sample
Source
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.017
0.010
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
*
ND
ND
ND
0.010
*
ND
ND
ND
Concent rations^mg, /_!)
Day 1 Pay 2 Day 3 Average
ND
ND 0.066 0.051
ND ND
ND
Ml)
0.020
* 1.100 0.360
1.200 1.000 1.300
*
*
NO
ND ND ND
0.750 ND
ND
0.150
*
ND
ND 0.780 1.500
ND ND
ND
ND
0.600
ND
ND 0.270 ND
ND 0.180 ND
9.900
ND
ND
ND
2.900 0.320 0.520
ND ND
1.900
ND
ND
ND
ND ND ND
ND ND
0.190
ND
ND
0.
0.
0.
1.
*
*
0.
0.
*
1.
0.
0.
0.
9.
1.
1.
0.
059
020
487
167
750
150
140
600
270
180
900
247
900
190
-------
Table V-6 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SPENT EMULSIONS
RAW UASTEVATER
Pollutant
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
76. chrysene
77. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (a)
81. phenanthrene (a)
80. fluorene
Stream
Code
B-6
E-7
P-5
T-l
U-4
U-ll
B-6
E-7
P-5
T-l
U-4
U-ll
B-6
E-7
P-5
T-l
U-4
U-ll
B-6
E-7
P-5
T-l
U-4
U-ll
B-6
E-7
P-5
T-l
U-4
U-ll
B-6
E-7
P-5
T-l
U-4
U-ll
B-6
E-7
P-5
T-l
U-4
U-ll
Sample
Type
6
3
1
1
1
1
6
3
1
1
1
1
6
3
1
1
1
1
6
3
1
1
1
1
6
3
1
1
1
1
6
3
1
1
1
1
6
3
1
1
1
1
Source
*
*
ND
*
*
*
*
ND
*
*
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
NT)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 1
ND
3.100
ND
19.000
ND
ND
ND
1.900
ND
3.100
NU
ND
ND
1.200
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.360
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
<0.090
<0.200
ND
ND
Nil
0.450
0.070
0.0/40
Day 2 Day 3 Average
0.370 0.330 1.267
ND
19.000
0.340 0.220 0.820
ND
3.100
ND ND 1 . 200
ND
ND ND
ND
0.360
*
1.000 ND 1.000
ND
1.000 2.000 1.500
ND
<0.090
<0.200
0.220 0.760 0.490
ND
0.450
0.070
0.040
-------
Table V-6 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SPENT EMULSIONS
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
84. pyrene
ho
M
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
87. trichloroethylene
91. chlordane
93. 4,4'-DDE
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
Stream
Code
B-6
E-7
P-5
T-l
U-4
U-ll
E-7
F-5
U-4
U-ll
E-7
P-5
U-4
U-ll
E-7
P-5
U-4
U-ll
B-6
E-7
P-5
T-l
U-ll
B-6
E-7
P-5
T-l
U-ll
B-6
E-7
P-5
T-l
I)-11
B-6
E-7
P-5
T-l
U-ll
Source
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
A*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl>
NO
Da'
__ Concent rations (ntg/1)
' •"• Day^ 2 Day 3 Average
ND
ND 0.075 0.048
ND ND
0.098
ND
0.020
ND 0.040 0.010
4.700 1.900 4.200
*
*
ND 0. 089 *
0.200 0.040 0.160
0. 040
A
ND 4.800 ND
ND ND ND
ND
ND
ND
0.013
ND ND ND
ND
ND
0,053
ND
ND ND ND
ND
ND
0.008
ND
ND ND ND
ND
ND
0.006
ND
ND ND ND
ND
ND
0.
0.
0.
0.
3.
*
*
0.
0.
0.
•*
4.
0.
0.
0.
0.
062
098
020
025
600
045
133
040
800
013
053
008
006
-------
Table V-6 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SPENT EMULSIONS
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant:
97. endosulCan sal fate
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
102. alpha-BIIC
103- beta-BHC
106. FCB-1242 (b)
107. PCB-1254 (b)
308. PCB-1221 (b)
109. PCB-1232 (c)
110. PCB-1248 (c)
111. PCB-1260 (c)
112. PCB-1016 (c)
115.
arsenic
Stream
Code
B-6
E-7
P-5
T-l
U-ll
B-6
E-7
P-5
T-l
U-ll
B-6
E-7
P-5
T-l
U-ll
B-6
E-7
P-5
T-l
U-ll
B-6
E-7
P-5
T-l
U-ll
B-6
E-7
P-5
T-l
U-ll
B-6
E-7
P-5
T-l
U-ll
B-6
E-7
P-5
U-4
U-ll
Sample
Type
6
3
1
1
1
6
3
1
1
1
6
3
1
I
1
6
3
1
1
1
6
3
1
1
1
6
3
1
1
1
6
3
1
1
1
6
3
1
1
I
Source
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
**
HD
ND
**
**•
ND
ND
**
**
ND
ND
ND
ND
<0.01
<0.010
0.001
<0.002
<0.002
Da
Concentrations (mg/1)
iy 1 Day 2
0.010
0.012
ND ND
ND
ND
0.010
0.066
ND ND
HD
ND
ND
0.014
ND ND
0.058
ND
0.013
ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND
0.018
ND
1.100
0.076
ND ND
0.063
ND
1.800
0.160
ND ND
0.065
ND
0.05
<0.010 <0.010
0.016 0.019
<0.002
<0.002
Day 3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
<0.010
0.013
0.010
0.012
0.010
0.066
0.014
0,058
0.013
0.018
1.100
0.076
0.063
1.800
0.160
0.065
0.05
<0.010
0.016
<0.002
<0.002
-------
Table V-6 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SPENT EMULSIONS
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
NJ
M
U)
118. cadmium
119. chromium
120. copper
121. cyanide
122. lead
123. mercury
124. nickel
128,
Stream
Code
B-6
E-7
P-5
U-4
U-ll
B-6
E-7
P-5
U-4
U-ll
B-6
E-7
P-5
U-4
U-ll
B-6
D-2
E-7
P-5
U-4
U-ll
B-6
E-7
P-5
U-4
U-ll
B-6
E-7
P-5
U-4
U-ll
B-6
E-7
P-5
U-4
U-ll
B-6
E-7
P-5
U-4
U-ll
Source
<0.002
<0.0005
0.002
0.002
<0.005
0.002
<0.001
<0.001
0.009
0.009
0,013
0.013
Concentrations (mg/1)
<0.020
0.002
0.010
0.010
0.0004
<0.0001
0.005
0.005
<0.005
<0.001
0.016
0.016
<0.050
<0.010
<0.01Q
<0.010
Day 1
<0.002
<0.0002
0.014
0.065
0.180
1
0.001
0.031
0.115
0.124
1
0.009
1.10
7.40
4.14
0.019
0.059
0.053
0.16
<0.02
<0.02
0.4
0.005
2.10
12.10
56.90
0.0001
<0.020
<0.0001
0.004
0.007
1
<0.001
0.070
0.214
0.130
5
0.008
1.3
4.200
2.200
Day 2
<0.0002
0.016
<0.001
0.070
0.003
ND
0.016
2.5
<0.002
2.40
<0. 100
<0.0001
<0.001
0.140
<0.005
1.7
Day 3
<0.0002
0.014
0.001
0.023
0.009
0.780
0.055
0.17
0. 003
1.50
<0.100
-------
Table V-6 (Continued)
SAMPLING 0ATA
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SPENT EMULSIONS
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
NonconyentlQnal
alkalinity
a luminuro
calcium
chemical oxygon demand (COO)
dissolved solids
magnesium
phenols (total; by 4-AAP method)
sulfate
total organic carbon (TOC)
Stream
Code
E-7
U-4
U-ll
E-7
P-5
U-4
U-ll
E-7
P-5
U-4
U-ll
D-2
E-7
P-5
U-4
U-ll
U-4
U-ll
E-7
P-5
U-4
U-ll
D-2
E-7
P-5
U-4
U-H
E-7
V-2
E-7
P-5
U-4
U-ll
Sample
Type
Source
ND
<0.09
<0.5
<0. 1
68
96.0
58.7
58.7
<5
<5
Concentrations (mgAl)
3.8
26.00
7.44
7.44
ND
I
2,000
^LJ
330.
440
620
350
52
210
20
-------
Pollutant
Conventional
oil and grease
suspended solids
pM (standard units)
(a), (b) , (c) Reported together,
Table V-6 (Continued)
SAMPLING DMA
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SPENT EMULSIONS
RAW WASTEWATER
Stream
Code
P-5
Sample
Type
D-2
E-7
P-5
T-l
U-4
U-ll
D-2
E-7
P-5
U-4
U-ll
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
3
1
1
1
Source
Concentrations (rng/1)
Daj^J.
802,000
21,300
12,500
1,277
28,400
30,700
2,700
0.540
2,200
3,910
890
Day 2 Day 3
13,000 18,400
2,300 1,380
1.060 0.680
1,700 3,500
Average
802,000
17.6 —
5,390
1,277
28,400
30,700
2,700
0.760
2,500
3,910
890
7.1
6.9
-------
Table V-7
ROLL GRINDING SPENT LUBRICANT
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Water Use Percent
1/kkg gal/ton Recycle
* 100
* 100
* P
* *
* P
0.0138 P
* *
Wastewater
1/kkg gal/ton
0
0
0.1626
1.837
4.317
*
*
*Sufficient data not available to calculate these values,
P Total recycle with periodic discharge.
Statistical Summary
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Sample:
Nonzero Mean
Sample:
0 0
18.00 4.317
5.266 1.263
0.6779 0.1626
5 of 7 plants
8.770 2.103
3 of 7 plants
216
-------
Table V-8
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ROLL GRINDING SPENT LUBRICANT
RAW WASTEWATER
NJ
Pollutant
1. acenaphthene
2. acrolein
3. acrylonltrile
4. benzene
5. benzidine
6. carbon tetrachlorlde
7. chlorobenzene
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
11. 1,1,1-trlchloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. bis(chloromethyl)ether
18. bis (chloroethyl)ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
23. chloroform
24. 2-chlorophenol
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3'-dlchlorobenzldine
29. lf1-dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
31. 2,4-dTchTorophenol
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropene
34. 2,4-diraethylphenol
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dlnitrotoluene
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
38. ethylbenzene
39. fluoranthene
Analytical
Quantification
Level
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number o£ Times Observed
in Samples (ma/1)
ND- 0.011- 0.101-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
Table V-8 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ROLL GRINDING SPENT LUBRICANT
RAW WASTEWATER
Analytical
Quantification
Level
to
I-1
00
Pollutant
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
44. methylene chloride
45. methyl chloride (chlororaethane)
46. methyl bromide (broraoraethane)
47. bromoform (tribrorooraethane)
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. trichlorofluororaethane
50. dichlorodifluororaethane
51- chlorodibroraomethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. isophorone
55. naphthalene
56. nitrobenzene
57. 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodimethylaraine
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
64. pentachlorophenol
65. phenol
66. bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
72. benzo(a)anthracene
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
7 5. benzo(k)fluoranthene
76. chrysene
77. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (a)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0,010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number o£ Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
= 0.011- 0.101-
0.010 0.100
1.000
1.000+
-------
Table V-8 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ROLL GRINDING SPENT LUBRICANT
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
79. benzo(ghi)perylene
80. fluorene
81. phenanthrene (a)
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno (1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
84. pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
87. trichloroethylene
88. vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
89. aldrin
90. dieldrin
91- chlordane
92. 4,4'-DDT
N> 93. 4>4'-DDE
£ 94. 4,4'-ODD
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
97. endosulfan sulfate
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
104. gamma-BHC
105. delta-BHC
106. PCB-1242 (b)
107. PCB-1254 (b)
108. PCB-1221 (b)
109- PCB-1232 (b)
110. PCB-1248 (c)
111. PCB-1260 (c)
112. PCB-1016 (c)
113. toxaphene
114. antimony
115- arsenic
116. asbestos
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(*g/l)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0,005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.100
0.010
10 MFL
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
1
1
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
-
-
1
-
-
1
0
1
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
1
1
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
-
-
1
-
-
1
0
1
0
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
ND- 0.011- 0.101-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
Table V-8 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ROLL GRINDING SPENT LUBRICANT
RAW WASTEWATER
to
N>
O
Pol lilt ant
117. beryllium
118. cadmium
119. chromium (total)
120. copper
121. cyanide (total)
122. lead
123. mercury
124. nickel
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
128. zinc
129. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(a), (b), (c) Reported together.
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mR/1)
0.010
0.002
0.005
0.009
0.100
0.020
0. 0001
0.005
0.01
0.02
0.100
0.050
0.005
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
Number
in
ND- 0-
0.010 0.
1
1
1
1
1
1
of Times Observed
Samples
011-
100
1
(mg/1)
u.ioi-
1.000 1.000+
1
1
-------
Table V-9
SAMPLING DATA
ROLL GRINDING SPENT EMULSION
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Toxic Pollutants
2.
119-
120.
122.
acrolein
chromium
copper
lead
123. mercury
124. nickel
Nonconventional
alkalinity
i *
aluminum
calcium
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
magnesium
phenol (total; by 4-AAP method)
sulfate
total organic carbon (TOG)
Conventional
oi1 and grease
suspended solids
pH (standard units)
Stream
Code
U-7
U-7
U-7
U-7
U-7
U-7
U-7
U-7
U-7
U-7
U-7
U-7
U-7
U-7
U-7
U-7
U-7
Sample
Type
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Source
ND
<0.001
0.013
0.010
0.005
0.016
<0.1
58.7
7.44
8.0
Concentrations (mg/l
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
0.050
0.850
0.150
0.006
0.005
0.044
180
<0.1
69-8
230
10.5
0.007
59
2.5
107
118
6.0
)
Average
0.050
0.850
0.150
0.006
0.005
0.044
180
<0.1
69.8
230
10.5
0.007
59
2.5
107
118
-------
Table V-10
EXTRUSION DIE CLEANING BATH
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Water Use
1/kkg gal/ton
51.87
*
0.2506
2.472
2.811
4.009
5.833
12.52
13.90
13.99
39.68
53.45
9.957
*
12.44
*
0.0601
0.5929
0.6742
0.9615
1.399
3.003
3.333
3.356
9.517
12.82
2.388
*Data not available.
**Not applicable.
Statistical Summary
Minimum 0.2506 0.0601
Maximum 53.45 12.82
Mean 17.56 4.212
Median 11.24 2.696
Sample: 12 of 37 plants
Nonzero 17-56 4.212
Mean
Sample: 12 of 37 plants
Percent
Recycle
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Wastewater
1/kkg gal/ton
0
0
0
0.2506
2.060
2.811
3.341
5.833
12.52
13.90
13.99
39.68
53.45
*
0
0
0
0.0601
0.4941
0.6742
0.8013
399
003
,333
356
9.517
12.82
*
0 0
53.45 12.82
11.37 2.728
3.341 0.8013
13 of 37 plants
14.79 3.546
10 of 37 plants
Note: Table does not include 23 plants which provided insuffi-
cient information to calculate water use and wastewater
value s.
222
-------
Table V-ll
EXTRUSION DIE CLEANING RINSE
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Water Use
1/kkg gal/ton
*
0.7025
4.009
5.833
8.285
9.957
11.78
*
53.45
155.6
Minimum
Max imum
Mean
Median
Sample:
Nonzero
Mean
Sample:
Note:
*
0.1685
0.9615
1.399
1.987
2.388
2.826
*
12.82
37.33
*Data not available.
Statistical Summary
0.7025 0.1685
155.6 37.33
31.21 7.485
9.121 2.188
8 of 30 plants
31.21 7.485
8 of 30 plants
Percent
Recycle
100
0
*
0
0
0
0
*
0
*
Wastewater
1/kkg gal/ton
0
0.7025
3.341
5.833
8.285
9.957
11.78
18.65
53.45
118.6
0
118.6
23.06
9.121
0
0.1685
0.8013
399
,987
388
826
4.473
12.82
28.44
0
28.44
5.530
2.188
10 of 30 plants
25.62 6.145
9 of 30 plants
Table does not include 20 plants which provided insuffi-
cient information to calculate water use and wastewater
values.
223
-------
Table V-12
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
EXTRUSION DIE CLEANING RINSE
RAW WASTEWATER
ro
K>
Pollutant
1. acenaphthene
2. acrolein
3. acrylonitrile
4. benzene
5- benzidine
6. carbon tetrachloride
7. chlorobenzene
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
11. 1,1,1-trlchloroethane
12. hexachloroe thane
13- 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. bis(chlororoethyl)ether
18. bis(chloroeehyl)ether
19- 2-chloroethyl vinyl echer
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
23. chloroform
24. 2-chlorophenol
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
29- 1,1-dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
31. 2,4-HTcRTorophenol
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropene
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
38. ethylbenzene
39- fluoranthene
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/D
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
o.oio
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0,010
0.010
0.010
0,010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
^2
2
2
2
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
~ND^— o.oii- ormr^
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
-------
Table V-12 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
EXTRUSION DIE CLEANING RINSE
RAW WVSTEWATER
Analytical
Quantification
Level
Pollutant
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
44. methylene chloride
45. methyl chloride (chloromethane)
46. methyl bromide (broraomethane)
47. bromoform (tribromomethane)
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. trichlorofluoromethane
50. dichlorodifluoromethane
51. chlorodibrornome thane
52, hexachlorobutadiene
J^ 53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
i^n 54. isophorone
55. naphthalene
56. nitrobenzene
57. 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. H-nitrosodimethylamine
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
64. pentachlorophenol
65. phenol
66. bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
72. benzo(a)anthracene
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
75. benzo(k)fluoranthene
76. chrysene
77. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (a)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Numbet
in
ND- 0.
(K010 0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (me/1)
~~TrTffr:
1.000 1.000+
-------
Table V-12 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
EXTRUSION DIE CLEANING RINSE
RAW WASTEWATER
to
Pollutant
79. benzo(ghi)perylene
80. fluorene
81. phenanthrene (a)
82, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno (1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
84. pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
87. trichloroethylene
88. vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
89. aldrin
90. dieldrin
91. chlordane
92. 4,4'-DDT
93. 4,4'-DDE
94. 4,4'-ODD
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
97. endosulfan sulfate
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
104. gamma-BHC
105. delta-BHC
106. PCB-1242 (b)
107. PCB-1254 (b)
108. PCB-1221 (b)
109. PCB-1232 (b)
110. PCB-1248 (c)
111. PCB-1260 (c)
112. PCB-10I6 (c)
113. toxaphene
114. antimony
115. arsenic
116. asbestos
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/1)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.100
0.010
10 MFL
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
2
2
-
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
-
-
-
2
-
-
2
3
3
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
2
2
-
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
-
-
-
2
-
-
2
5
5
0
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (me/1)
0.011- 0.101-
0.010 0.100
1.000
1.000+
-------
Table V-12 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
EXTRUSION DIE CLEANING RINSE
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
117. beryllium
118. cadmium
119. chromium (total)
120. copper
121. cyanide (total)
122. lead
123. mercury
124. nickel
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
128. zinc
129. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/1)
0.010
0.002
0.005
0.009
0.100
0-020
0.0001
0.005
0.01
0.02
0.100
0.050
0.005
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
ND-
0.010
5
3
1
2
5
4
4
4
4
o.on-
0.100
2
4
3
1
1
1
1
2
0.101-
1.000
1
4
5
2
1.000+
1
1
NJ
(a), (b), (c) Reported together.
-------
Table V-13
SAMPLING DATA
EXTRUSION DIE CLEANING RINSE
RAW WASTEWATER
K>
N3
CD
Pollutant
Toxic Pollutants
4. benzene
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
44. methylene chloride
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
86. toluene
114. antimony
115. arsenic
116. cadmium
119. chromium
120. copper
121. cyanide
122. lead
Stream
Code
F-7
V-2
F-7
V-2
F-7
V-2
F-7
V-2
F-7
V-2
F-7
V-2
W-6
F-7
V-2
W-6
F-7
V-2
W-6
F-7
V-2
W-6
F-7
V-2
W-6
F-7
V-2
W-6
F-7
V-2
W-6
Sample
Type
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
Source
ND
0.004
ND
ND
0.024
0.015
0.025
0.008
*
0.002
<0.1
<0.001
0.003
<0.01
<0.005
<0.005
<0.002
<0.001
<0.001
<0.005
<0.001
0.004
<0.009
0.027
0.010
0.0042
0.030
<0.020
0.079
0.009
Concentrations (mg/l)
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
ND
0.004
ND
0.002
0.036
0.021
0.027
0.008
ND
0.002
<0.1
0.013
0.035 <0.001 0.015
<0.01
0.042
0,004 0.009 <0.005
0.020
0.020
0.001 <0.001 <0.001
0.090
0.210
0.037 0.030 0.045
0.200
0.320
2.4 0.930 0.300
0.002
0.0042
0.015 0.015 0.015
0.600
0.270
0.830 0.130 0.550
Averatts
0.004
0.002
0.036
0.021
0.027
0.008
0.002
<0. 1
0.013
<0.017
<0.01
0.042
<0. 006
0.020
0. 020
<0.001
0.090
0.210
0.037
0.200
0.320
1.2
0.002
0.0042
0.015
0.600
0.270
0.503
-------
Table V-13 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
EXTRUSION DIE CLEANING RINSE
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
123. mercury
124. nickel
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
128. zinc
Nonconventional
alkalinity
aluminum
calcium
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Stream
Code
F-7
V-2
W-6
F-7
V-2
W-6
F-7
V-2
W-6
F-7
V-2
W-6
F-7
V-2
W-6
F-7
V-2
W-6
F-7
V-2
W-6
F-7
V-2
W-6
F-7
V-2
W-6
F-7
V-2
W-6
Source
0. 0006
< 0.0002
<0.002
<0.005
0.009
0.060
<0.01
0.020
0.015
<0.02
0.05
0.02
<0.001
<0.001
<0.050
0.500
0.030
170
0.09
0.06
9.B
55
12
Concentrat ions (mg/1)
Day 1 Day 2
0.0007
< 0.0002
<0.002 <0.002
<0.005
0.10
0.010 0.021
<0,01
<0.005
0.100 <0.005
<0.02
<0.001
0.02 <0.001
<0. 1
<0.001
0.002 <0.001
0.100
0.100
1.500 0.300
Day 3 Average
0.0007
<0.0002
<0.002 <0.002
<0.005
0.10
<0.009 <0.013
<0.01
<0.005
<0.005 <0.037
<0.02
<0.001
<0.001 <0.01
<0.1
<0.001
0.057 <0.026
0.100
0.100
0.26 0.69
.ND
5,400
3,200
430
48
4.8
<0.03
6.9
55
12
28
20
1,700
23
20
60
3,100
0.42
3.7
5,400
2,700
430
48
9
12
<0.03
6.9
26
12
28
31
-------
Table V-13 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
EXTRUSION DIE CLEANING RINSE
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
ro
u>
o
dissolved solids
magnesium
phenols (total; by 4-AAP method)
sulfate
total organic carbon (TOC)
Conventional
oil and grease
suspended solids
pH (standard units)
Stream
Code
F-7
V-2
W-6
F-7
V-2
W-6
F-7
V-2
W-6
F-7
V-2
W-6
F-7
V-2
tf-6
Sample
Type
I
I
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
Source
3
63
19
0.062
1.0
81
4.7
0
Pay 1
3,237
7,200
3,700
0.03
2.7
12
0.005
0.019
0.012
60
290
110
19
120
7
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day 2 Day 3
2,200 3,800
11 1.6
0.088 0.060
170 180
20 11
Average
3,237
7,200
3,200
0.03
2.7
8
0.005
0.019
0.053
60
290
150
19
120
13
F-7
V-2
W-6
F-7
V-2
W-6
F-7
V-2
W-6
16
6.6
7.55
7.3
7.7
8
17
6.8
28
120
26
10.85
10.3
11.5
<1
130
II. 7
<1
44
8
17
<3
28
120
67
7.8
-------
Table V-14
EXTRUSION DIE CLEANING SCRUBBER LIQUOR
Plant
1
2
Water Use
1/kkg gal /ton
258.8
292.2
62.08
70.08
Percent
Recycle
0
0
Wastewater
1/kkg gal /ton
258.8
292.2
62.08
70.08
Statistical Summary
Mean 275.5 66.08
Sample: 2 of 2 plants
275.5 66.08
2 of 2 plants
231
-------
Table V-15
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
EXTRUSION DIE CLEANING SCRUBBER LIQUOR
RAW WASTEWATER
Pol lilt ant
1. acenaphthene
2. acroleln
3. acrylonitrtle
4. benzene
5. benzidlne
6. carbon tetrachloride
7. chlorobenzene
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. bis(chloromethyl)ether
18. bis(chloroethyl)ether
19- 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
23. chloroform
24. 2-chlorophenol
25- 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3'-dichlorobenzid ine
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroeEhylene
31. 2,4-dichlorophenol
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropene
34. 2,4-dLmethylphenol
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
38. ethylbenzene
39. Eluoranthene
Analytical
Quantification
Level
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND-
0.010
Number oE Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1) _
0.100
1.000
l.OOOf
-------
Table V-15 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
EXTRUSION DIE CLEANING SCRUBBER LIQUOR
RMJ WASTEWATER
Analytical
Quantification
Level
Pollutant
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-broroophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
44. methylene chloride
45. methyl chloride (chlororaethane)
46. methyl bromide (broraomethane)
47. bromoform (tribroraoraethane)
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. trichlorofluororaethane
50. dichlorodifluoromethane
51. chlorodibromoraethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. isophorone
55. naphthalene
56. nitrobenzene
57. 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenoV
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodiraethylamine
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
64. pentachlorophenol
65. phenol
66. bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalace
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68, di-n-butyl phthalate
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
72. benzo(a)anthracene
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
75. benzo(k)fluoranthene
76. chrysene
7 7. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (a)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1) _
~ND^ 0~7Tjn - OTIOIT"
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.0004-
-------
Table V-15 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
EXTRUSION DIE CLEANING SCRUBBER LIQUOR
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
79. benzo(ghi)perylene
80. fluorene
81. phenanthrene (a)
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno (1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
84. pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
87. trichloroethylene
88. vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
89. aldrin
g 90. dieldrin
JN 91. chlordane
92. 4,4'-DDT
93. 4,4'-DDE
94. 4,4'-DDD
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
97. endosulfan sulfate
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
104. gamma-BHC
105. delta-BHC
106. PCB-1242 (b)
107. PCB-1254 (b)
108. PCB-1221 (b)
109. PCB-1232 (b)
110. PCB-I248 (c)
111. PCB-1260 (c)
112. PCB-1016 (c)
113. toxaphene
114. antimony
115. arsenic
116. asbestos
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/I)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.100
0.010
10 MFL
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
0
-
-
0
I
1
0
Number Number of Times Observed
of in Samples (mg/1)
Samples ND- 0.011- 0.101-
Analyzed 0. 010 0. 100 1 .000 1 . 000+
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
0
-
-
0
3 2 1
3 3
0
-------
Table V-15 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
EXTRUSION DIE CLEANING SCRUBBER LIQUOR
RAW WASTEWATER
to
OJ
Ui
Pollutant: (mg/1)
117. beryllium 0.010
118. cadmium 0.002
119. chromium (total) 0.005
120. copper 0.009
121- cyanide (total) 0.100
122. lead 0.020
123. mercury 0.0001
124. nickel 0.005
125. selenium 0.01
126. silver 0.02
127. thallium 0.100
128. zinc 0.050
129. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0.005
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
Number
in
ND- 0.
0.010 0-
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
of Times Observed
Samples (me/1)
Oil- O.lOl-
100 1.000 1.000+
3
1
3
(a), (b), (c) Reported together.
-------
Table V-16
SAMPLING DATA
EXTRUSION DIE CLEANING SCRUBBER LIQUOR
RAW WASTEWATER
Lo
Pollutant
Toxic^ Pollutants
114. antimony
118. cadmium
119. chromium
120. copper
121. cyanide
122. lead
124. nickel
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
128. zinc
Ngnconventional
alkalinity
aluminum
calcium
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
dissolved solids
magnesium
phenols (total; by 4-AAP method)
sulfate
total organic carbon (TOC)
Conventional
oil and grease
suspended solids
pH (standard units)
Stream
Code
W-5
W-5
W-5
W-5
W-5
W-5
W-5
W-5
W-5
W-5
W-5
tf-5
W-5
W-5
W-5
W-5
W-5
W-5
W-5
W-5
W-5 '
W-5
W-5
Sample
Type
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
Source
0.003
<0.001
0.004
0.010
0.030
0.009
0.060
0.015
0.02
<0.001
0.03
170
0.06
55
12
3
19
1.00
81
0
6.6
<1
7.7
Day 1
0.013
<0.001
0.004
0.006
0.020
0.005
<0.001
0.005
0.001
0.010
0.04
200
1.3
49
7.7
270
18
0.0095
70
5
160
1
8.1
Concentrations (rag/1)
Day 2
<0.001
0.001
0.003
0.006
0.013
0.024
<0.001
0.005
<0.001
<0.001
0.03
190
0.65
30
7.5
300
16
0.095
65
5
7.1
4
8.2
Day 3
<0.001
<0.001
0.003
0.006
0.020
0.006
0.003
<0.005
<0.001
<0.001
0.02
220
0.60
30
<1
420
15
0.14
80
4
5.7
2
8.3
Average
<0.005
<0.001
0.003
0.006
0.018
0.012
<0.002
<0.005
<0.001
<0. 004
0.03
203
0.9
36
<5
330
16
0.08
71
5
58
2
-------
Table V-17
EXTRUSION PRESS SCRUBBER LIQUOR
Plant
1
2
Water Use
1/kkg gal /ton
2,071
*
496.7
*
Percent
Recycle
0
*
Wastewater
1/kkg gal/ton
2,071
*
496.7
*
*Data not available.
Sample.: 1 of 2 plants
1 of 2 plants
237
-------
Table V-18
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
EXTRUSION PRESS SCRUBBER LIQUOR
RAW WASTEWATER
Analytical
Quantification
Level
to
u>
00
Pollutant
1. acenaphthene
2. acroletn
3. acrylonltrile
4. benzene
5. benzidine
6. carbon tetrachloride
7. chlorobenzene
8. 1,2,4-trtchlorobenzene
9. hexacblorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. bis(chloromethyl)ether
18. bis(chloroethyl)ether
19- 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
23. chloroform
24. 2-chlorophenol
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
31. 2,4-dichlorophenol
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropene
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
38. ethylbenzene
39. fluoranthene
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND-
0.010
Number of Times Observed
j.n Samples! (mg/1)
0.011-
0.100
"OTTOT^
1.000 1.000+
-------
Table V-18 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
EXTRUSION PRESS SCRUBBER LIQUOR
RAW WASTEWATER
ho
Pollutant
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41, 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
44. methylene chloride
45. methyl chloride (chloromethane)
46. methyl bromide (bromomethane)
47. broraoform (tribroraomethane)
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. trichlorofluororaethane
50. dichlorodifluoromethane
51. chlorodibroraomethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. isophorone
55. naphthalene
56. nitrobenzene
57. 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60 - 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodimethylaraine
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylarnine
64- pentachlorophenol
65. phenol
66- bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
69- di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
72. benzo(a)anthracene
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
75. benzo(k)fluoranthene
76. chrysene
77. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (a)
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/1)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0-010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0-010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0-010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0-010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyze<
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
ND- 0.011- OTTOT^"
0.010 (Kl 00 1.000 1.000+
-------
Table V-18 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC TOLLUTANTS
EXTRUSION PRESS SCRUBBER LIQUOR
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
79. benzo(ghi)perylene
80. fluorene
81. phenanthrene (a)
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno (1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
84. pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
87. trichloroethylene
88. vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
89- aldrin
90. dieldrin
91- chlordane
92. 4,4'-DDT
93- 4,4'-DDE
94. 4,4'-DDD
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
97. endosulfan sulfate
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
104. gamma-BHC
105. delta-BHC
106. PCB-1242 (b)
107. PCB-1254 (b)
108. PCB-1221 (b)
109. PCB-1232 (b)
110. PCB-1248 (c)
111. PCB-1260 (c)
112. PCB-1016 (c)
113. toxaphene
114. antimony
115. arsenic
116. asbestos
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/1)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0-010
0.005
0.005
0-005
0.005
0.005
0-005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0-005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0-005
0-005
0-005
0.005
0-005
0.005
0.005
0.100
o.oio
10 MFL
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
0
-
-
0
1
1
0
Number Number of Times Observed
of in Samples (me/1)
Samples ND- 0.011- 0.101-
Analyzed 0.010 0.1-00 1.000 1.000+
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
0
-
-
0
3 2 1
3 3
0
-------
Table V-18 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
EXTRUSION PRESS SCRUBBER LIQUOR
RAW WASTEWATER
ro
Pollutant
117. beryllium
118. cadmium
119. chromium (total)
120. copper
121. cyanide (total)
122. lead
123. mercury
124. nickel
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
128. zinc
129. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/1)
0.010
0.002
0.005
0.009
0.100
0.020
0.0001
0.005
0.01
0.02
0.100
0.050
0.005
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
Number
in
ND- 0.
0.010 0.
3
3
3
1
2
3
3
2
3
2
of Times Observed
Samples (mg/1)
011-
100
2
3
1
1
1
3
0.101-
1.000 1.000+
(a), (b), (c) Reported together.
-------
Table V-19
SAMPLING DATA
EXTRUSION PRESS SCRUBBER LIQUOR
RAW WASTEWATER
Js
ro
Pollutant
Toxic Pollutants
114. antimony
115. arsenic
116. cadmium
119. chromium
120. copper
121. cyanide
122. lead
123. mercury
125. selenium
127. thallium
128. zinc
tlon conventional
alkalinity
aluminum
calcium
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
dissolved solids
magnesium
phenols (total; by 4-AAP method)
sulEate
total organic carbon (TOG)
Conventional
oil and grease
suspended solids
pll (standard units)
Stream
Code
W-7
W-7
W-7
W-7
W-7
W-7
W-7
W-7
W-7
W-7
W-7
W-7
W-7
W-7
W-7
W-7
W-7
W-7
W-7
W-7
W-7
W-7
W-7
Sample
Type
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
Source
0.003
<0.005
<0.001
0.004
0.010
0.030
0.009
<0.002
0.015
<0.001
0.03
170
0.06
55
12
3
19
1.0
81
0
6.6
<1
7. 7
Concentrations (mR/1)
Day 1
0.005
0.003
<0.001
0.006
0.056
0.020
0.059
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.001
0.05
200
0.40
30
16
400
17
0.011
72
2
5.6
3
8.4
Day 2
0.002
<0.005
<0.001
0.002
0.005
0.022
0.010
< 0.0002
0.021
<0.001
0.05
190
5.7
31
100
240
19
0.012
86
8
6.9
6
8.3
Day 3
0.013
<0.005
0.001
0.005
0.012
0.013
0.006
0.0002
0.005
0.012
0.04
220
0.30
30
7.9
430
16
0.012
80
15
9.3
5
8.1
Average
0.007
<0.004
<0.001
0.004
0.024
0.018
0.025
<0.0002
<0.010
<0.005
0.05
203
2.1
30
41
360
17
0.012
79
8
7.3
5
-------
Table V-20
EXTRUSION DUMMY BLOCK CONTACT COOLING WATER
Plant
1
2
3
Water Use
1/kkg gal/ton
2,072
2,172
*
497.0
521.0
*
Percent
Recycle
0
0
0
Wastewater
1/kkg gal /ton
2,072
2,172
*
497.0
521.0
*
*Data not available
Statistical Summary
Mean
Sample:
2,122
509.0
2 of 3 plants
2,122 509.0
2 of 3 plants
243
-------
Table V-21
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
EXTRUSION DUMMY BLOCK CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
1. acenaphthene
2. acrolein
3. acrylonitrile
4. benzene
5. benzidine
6. carbon tetrachloride
7. chlorobenzene
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,l-dlchloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. bis(chloromethy1)ether
18. bis(chloroethyl)ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
23. chloroform
24. 2-chlorophenol
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1 ,3-dichlorpbenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
31. 2,4-d ichTorophe no1
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropene
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
35. 2,4-dinttrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37 . 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
38. ethylbenzene
39 - fluoranthene
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/1)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
ND-
0.010
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
in Sam]
07011
0.100
1
0.101—
1.000
1.000+
-------
Table V-21 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
EXTRUSION DUMMY BLOCK CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
N>
*-
in
Pollutant
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy)roethane
44. methylene chloride
45. methyl chloride (chloromethane)
46. methyl bromide (bromomethane)
47. broraoforra (tribromomethane)
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. trichlorofluoromethane
50. dichlorodifluoromethane
51. chlorodibromomethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. isophorone
55. naphthalene
56. nitrobenzene
57. 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
64. pentachlorophenol
65. phenol
66. bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalace
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
72. benzo(a)anthracene
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74 * benzo(b)fluoranthene
75. benzo(k)fluoranthene
76. chrysene
7 7. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (a)
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(n.R/1)
0.010
o.oio
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
ND- 0.011- U.lOl-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
Table V-21 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
EXTRUSION DUMMY BLOCK CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
79. benzo(ghi)pcrylene
80. fluorene
81. phenanthrene (a)
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno (1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
84. pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
87. trichloroethylene
88. vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
89. aldrin
KJ 90. dieldrin
*• 91. chlordane
<* 92. 4,4'-DDT
93. 4,4'-DDE
94. 4,4'-ODD
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
97. endosulfan sulfate
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxlde
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
104. gamma-BHC
105. delta-BHC
106. PCB-1242 (b)
107. PCB-1254 (b)
108. PCB-1221 (b)
109. PCB-1232 (b)
110. PCB-1248 (c)
111. PCB-1260 (c)
112. PCB-1016 (c)
113. toxaphene
114. antimony
115. arsenic
116. asbestos
Analytical
Quantification
Level
Gng/1)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.100
0.010
10 MFL
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
1
1
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
-
-
1
-
-
1
1
1
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
1
1
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
-
-
1
-
-
1
1
1
0
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (me/1)
ND- 0.011- O.lOl-
0. 010 0 . 100 1 . 000 1 . 000+
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
Table V-21 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
EXTRUSION DUMMY BLOCK CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
117. beryllium
118, cadmium
119. chromium (total)
120. copper
121. cyanide (total)
122. lead
123. mercury
124, nickel
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
128. zinc
129. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/1)
0.010
0.002
0.005
0.009
0.100
0.020
0.0001
0.005
0.01
0.02
0.100
0.050
0.005
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
Number
in
ND- 0.
0.010 0.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
of Times Observed
Samples (ma/1)
Oil- 0.101-
100 1.000 1.000-V-
(a), (b), (c) Reported together.
-------
Table V-22
SAMPLING DATA
EXTRUSION DUMMY BLOCK COOLING
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Toxic Pollutantg
23. chloroform
Ngnconyentional
alkalinity
aluminum
calcium
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
dissolved solids
nj magnesium
00 phenols (total; by 4-AAP method)
sulfate
total organic carbon (TOG)
Conventional
oil and grease
suspended solids
pH (standard units)
Stream
Code
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
L-4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
L-4
L-4
L-4
Source
0.100
<0.5
9
<5
2.24
2.8
Concentrations (mg/1)
<2
Day __! Day Z
0.080
32
<0.5
10
<5
50
2.1
0.002
72
2.40
74
<2
7.8
Day 3 Average
0.080
32
<0.5
10
<5
50
2.1
0. 002
72
2.40
74
<2
-------
Table V-23
DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SPENT LUBRICANT
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
*Data not available.
Statistical Summary
Minimum
Max imum
Mean
Median
Sample:
Nonzero Mean
Sample:
Water Use
1 /kkg gal/ton
*
*
1.410
Percent
Recycle
100
100
*
*
*
Wastewater
1/kkg gal/ton
0
0
1.300
1.954
0
8.147
3.392
2.710
0
1.954
0.8135
0.6500
4 of 66 plants
6.784 1.627
2 of 66 plants
Note: Table does not include 61 plants which provided insuffi-
cient information to calculate water use and wastewater
values.
249
-------
Table V-24
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SPENT EMULSION
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Water Use
1/kkg gal/ton
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
1,072,000
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
257,100
*
*
*
*
Percent
Recycle
*
P
P
P
P
* 1
99 P 1
0 1,072
*
*
*
*
*
Wastewater
1/kkg
0
3.377
11.72
26.18
260.6
,084
,113
,000 257
*
*
*
*
*
gal/ton
0
0.8100
2.810
6.279
62.50
260.0
267.0
,100
*
*
*
*
it
*Data not available.
P Periodic discharge.
Statistical Summary
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Sample:
Nonzero Mean
Sample:
Nonzero Mean with Recycle
Sample:
0 0
1,072,000 257,100
134,300 32,210
143.4 34.39
8 of 13 plants
153,500 36,810
7 of 13 plants
416.5 99.90
6 of 13 plants
250
-------
Table V-25
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SPENT EMULSION
RAW WASTEWATER
to
Pollutant
1. acenaphthene
2. acrolein
3. acrylonitrlle
4, benzene
5. benzldine
6. carbon tetrachloride
7. chlorobenzene
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. bis(chloromethyl)ether
18. bis(chloroethyl)ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
23. chloroform
24. 2-chlorophenol
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3*-dichlorobenzidine
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
31. 2,4- dTchToropheno1
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropene
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2"diphenylhydrazine
38. ethylbenzene
39. fluoranthene
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/1)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed^
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
Number
of
Sample's
Analyzed
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mfi/1)
ND- 0.011- 0.101-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
I
-------
Table V-25 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SPENT EMULSION
RAW WASTEWATER
Analytical
Quantification
Level
10
Ui
to
Pollutant
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
43. bis (2-chloroethoxy)methane
44. methylene chloride
45. methyl chloride (chloromethane)
46. methyl bromide (bromoraethane)
47. bromoform (trlbromomethane)
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. trichlorofluoromethane
50. dichlorodifluororoethane
51. chlorodibroroomethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. isophorone
55. naphthalene
56, nitrobenzene
57. 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodiraethylamine
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylaroine
64. pentachlorophenol
65. phenol
66. bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
72. benzo(a)anthracene
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
75. benzo(k)fluoranthene
76. chrysene
77. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (a)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0,010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
~NTP0.011- 0.101-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
-------
Table V-25 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SPENT EMULSION
RAW WASTEWATER
to
Pollutant
79. benzo(ghi)perylene
80. fluorene
81. phenanthrene (a)
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno (1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
84- pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
87. trtchloroethylene
88. vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
89. aldrin
90. dieldrin
91. chlordane
92. 4,4'-DDT
93. 4,4*-DDE
94. 4,4'-ODD
95. alpha-endosulfan
96- beta-endosulfan
97- endosulfan sulfate
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
104. gamma-BHC
105. delta-BHC
106. PCB-1242 (b)
107. PCB-1254 (b)
108. PCB-1221 (b)
109. PCB-1232 (b)
110. PCB-1248 (c)
111. PCB-1260 (c)
112. PCB-1016 (c)
113. toxaphene
114. antimony
115. arsenic
116. asbestos
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mfi/1)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0,005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.100
0.010
10 MFL
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
1
1
-
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
-
-
1
-
-
1
0
0
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
1
1
-
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
-
-
1
-
-
1
0
0
0
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
ND- 0.011- 0.101-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
Table V-25 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SPENT EMULSION
RAW WASTEWATER
10
Oi
Pollutant
117. beryllium
118. cadmium
119- chroroiura (total)
120. copper
121. cyanide (total)
122. lead
123. mercury
Z24. nickel
125. selenium
126. silver
127- thallium
128. zinc
129. 2,3,7,8-teCrachZorodibenao-p-dioxin
Analytical
Quantification
Level
0.010
0.002
0.005
0.009
0.100
0.020
0. 0001
0.005
0.01
0.02
0.100
0.050
0.005
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number o £ Times Ob s erved
in Samples (mg/1)
ND- 0.011- O.lOl-
0.010 0. 100 1 . 000 1 - 000+
(a), (b), (c) Reported together.
-------
Table V-26
SAMPLING DATA
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SPENT EMULSION
RAW WASTEWATER
ho
Ln
Pollutant:
Toxic Pollutants
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
24. 2-chlorophenol
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
54. Isophorone
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
68. dl-n-butyl phthalate
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
Conventional
oil and grease
Stream
Code
S-2
S-2
S-2
S-2
S-2
S-2
S-2
S-2
Sample
-l£2£_
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Source
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ft
ND
*
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
0.028
0.130
0.077
0.071
0.039
0.034
0.023
0.023
Average
0.028
0.130
0.077
0.071
0.039
0.034
0.023
0.023
S-2
51,540
51,540
-------
Table V-27
SAWING SPENT LUBRICANT
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Water Use
1/kkg aal/ton
0.1250
*
*
*
0.3450
*
*
*
Percent
Recycle
0
*
*
*
0
*
*
*
*
*
*
Wastewater
1/kkg gal/ton
0
0.4586
0.6671
1.167
1.438
6.379
19.14
*
0
0.0110
0.1600
0.2800
0.3450
1.530
4,590
*
*
*
*
*
*Sufficient data not available to calculate these values.
Statistical Summary
Minimum
Max imum
Mean
Median
Sample:
Nonzero Mean
Sample:
0 0
19.14 4.590
4.119 0.9880
1.167 0.2800
7 of 12 plants
4.807 1.153
6 of 12 plants
256
-------
Table V-28
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
DECREASING SPENT SOLVENTS
RAW WASTEWATER
ho
Ui
-J
Pollutant
1. acenaphthene
2. acrolein
3. acrylonitrile
4. benzene
5. benzidine
6. carbon tetrachloride
7. chlorobenzene
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. bis(chloromethyl)ether
18. bis(chloroethyl)ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
23. chloroform
24. 2-chlorophenol
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dlchlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3'"dichlorobenzidine
29. 1^1-dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
31. 2,4-dichlorophenol
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropene
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
38. ethylbenzene
39. fluoranthene
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(n»g/l)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
ND- 0.011- 0.101-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
Table V-28 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
DECREASING SPENT SOLVENTS
RAW WASTEWATER
Analytical
Quantification
Level
to
Ln
CO
Pollutant
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
44. methylene chloride
45. methyl chloride (chloromethane)
46. methyl bromide (bromomethane)
47. bromoform (tribromomethane)
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. trichlorofluoromethane
50. dichlorodifluoromethane
51. chlorodibromomethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53 - hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. isophorone
55 - naphthalene
56. nitrobenzene
57. 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylaraine
64. pentachlorophenol
65. phenol
66. bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
69- di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
72. benzo(a)anthracene
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
75. benzo(k)fluoranthene
76. chrysene
77. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (a)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
o.olo
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (rog/1)
— 0.101-
0.010 0.100
1.000
1.000+
-------
Table V-28 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
DECREASING SPENT SOLVENTS
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
79. benzo(ghi)perylene
80. fluorene
81. phenanthrene (a)
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno (1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
84. pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
87. trichloroethylene
88. vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
89. aldrin
90. dleldrin
91. chlordane
92. 4,4'-DDT
K 93. 4,4'-DDE
\o 94. 4,4'-DDD
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
97. endosulfan sulfate
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
104. gamma-BHC
105. delta-BHC
106. PCB-1242 (b)
107. PCB-1254 (b)
108. PCB-1221 (b)
109. PCB-1232 (b)
110. PCB-1248 (c)
111. PCB-1260 (c)
112. PCB-1016 (c)
113. toxaphene
114. antimony
115. arsenic
116. asbestos
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(ma/I)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.100
0.010
10 MFL
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
1
1
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
-
-
1
-
-
1
1
0
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
1
1
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
-
-
1
-
-
1
1
0
0
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (me/1)
ND- 0.011- 0.101-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
Table V-28 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
DECREASING SPENT SOLVENTS
RAW WASTEWATER
to
ON
O
Pollutant
117. beryllium
118. cadmium
119. chromium (total)
120. copper
121. cyanide (total)
122. lead
123. mercury
124. nickel
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
128. zinc
129. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(a), (b), (c) Reported together.
Analytical
Quant i ficat ion
Level
(«g/D
0.010
0.002
0.005
0.009
0.100
0.020
0.0001
0.005
0.01
0.02
0.100
0.050
0.005
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
Number
in
ND- 0.
0.010 0.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
of Times Observed
Samples (me/1)
Oil- 0.101-
100 1.000 1.
1
1
ooo-f-
1
-------
Table V-29
SAMPLING DATA
DECREASING SPENT SOLVENTS
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Toxic Pollutants
• 66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
85. tetrachloroethylene
91. chlordane
95. alpha -endosul fan
96. beta-endosulfan
102. alpha-BHC
104. gamma-BHC
120. copper
£> 121. cyanide
"-1 122. lead
123. mercury
128. zinc
Nonconventional
aluminum
calcium
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
magnesium
phenols (total; by 4-AAP method)
total organic carbon (TOG)
Stream
Code
B-2
B-2
B-2
B-2
B-2
B-2
B-2
B-2
B-2
B-2
B-2
B-2
B-2
B-2
B-2
B-2
B-2
B-2
Sample
Type
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Source
0.01
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
**
ND
ND
ND
ND
35
Concentrations
Day 1 Day 2 Daj
*
500,000.000
**
**
**
**
**
2
0. 004
0.02
0.0005
0.06
0.1
<5
330
<0.1
0.072
143
(mg/1)
' r^3 Average
*
500,000.000
**
**
**
**
**
2
0.004
0.02
0.0005
0.06
0.1
<5
330
<0.1
0.072
143
Conventional
oil and grease
suspended solids
B-2
B-2
138
2,180
23
2,180
23
-------
Table V-30
ANNEALING ATMOSPHERE SCRUBBER LIQUOR
Plant
Water Use
1/kkg gal/ton
6,171
1,480
Percent
Recycle
99.6
Wastewater
1/kkg gal/ton
26.35
6.320
262
-------
Table V-31
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ANNEALING ATMOSPHERE SCRUBBER LIQUOR
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
1. acenaphthene
2. acrolein
3. acrylonitrile
4. benzene
5. benzidine
6. carbon tetrachloride
7. chlorobenzene
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. bis(chloromethyl)ether
18. bis(chloroethyl)ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
23- chloroform
24. 2-chlorophenol
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. S^'-dichlorobenzidine
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
31. 2,4-dichTorophenol
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-di.chloropropene
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
35- 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37 - 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
38. ethylbenzene
39 - fluoranehene
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/1)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
o.oio
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
~ND^0.011- 0.101-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
-------
Table V-31 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ANNEALING ATMOSPHERE SCRUBBER LIQUOR
RAW WASTEWATER
ro
Pollutant
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
44. methylene chloride
45. methyl chloride (chloromethane)
46. methyl bromide (bromomethane)
47. bromoform (tribroraomethane)
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. tr ichlorof luorontethane
50. dichlorodifluoromethane
51. chlorodlbromoraethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. isophorone
55. naphthalene
56. nitrobenzene
57. 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59- 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
64. pentachlorophenol
65. phenol
66. bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
72. benzo(a)anthracene
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
75. benzo(k)fluoranthene
76. chrysene
7 7. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (a)
Analytical
Qua n 1 1 fie a t ion
Level
(n.R/1)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (me/1)
~HB^ 0.011- 0.101-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
-------
Table V-31 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ANNEALING ATMOSPHERE SCRUBBER LIQUOR
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
79. benzo(ghi)perylene
80. fluorene
81. phenanthrene (a)
82. dlbenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno (1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
84. pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
87. trichloroethylene
88. vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
89. aldrin
90. dieldrin
£J 91. chlordane
S 92. 4,4'-DDT
93. 4,4'-DDE
94. 4,4'-DDD
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
97. endosulfan sulfate
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
104. gamma-BHC
105. delta-BHC
106. PCB-1242 (b)
107. PCB-1254 (b)
108. PCB-1221 (b)
109. PCB-1232 (b)
110. PCB-1248 (c)
111. PCB-1260 (c)
112. PCB-1016 (c)
113. toxaphene
114. antimony
115. arsenic
116. asbestos
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/1)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.100
0.010
10 MFL
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
1
1
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
_
_
1
-
-
1
0
1
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
1
1
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
-
-
1
-
-
1
0
1
0
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (roe/1)
ND- 0.011- 0.101-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
Table V-31 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ANNEALING ATMOSPHERE SCRUBBER LIQUOR
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
117. beryllium
118. cadmium
119. chromium (total)
120. copper
121. cyanide (total)
122. lead
123. mercury
124. nickel
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
128. zinc
129. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(m*/l)
0.010
0.002
0.005
0.009
0.100
0.020
0. 0001
0.005
0.01
0.02
0.100
0.050
0.005
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
Number
in
ND- 0.
0.010 0.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
of Times Observed
Samples
011-
100
1
1
1
(me/1)
0.101-
1.000 1.000+
1
(a), (b), (c) Reported together.
-------
Table V-32
SAMPLING DATA
ANNEALING ATMOSPHERE SCRUBBER LIQUOR
RAW WASTEWATER
to
Pollutant
Toxic Pollutants
119. chromium
120. copper
122. lead
123. mercury
128. zinc
Nonconventiona1
alkalinity
aluminum
calcium
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
dissolved solids
magnesium
phenols (total; by 4-AAP method)
total organic carbon (TOC)
Convent ional
suspended solids
pH (standard units)
Stream
Code
N-7
N-7
N-7
N-7
N-7
N-7
N-7
N-7
N-7
N-7
N-7
N-7
N-7
N-7
N-7
Sample
Type
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Source
<0.001
0.008
0.010
0.0091
<0.010
<0.5
28
5
4.39
2.7
<0.002
7.1
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day 1 Day 2 Day^3
0.016
0.021
0.016
0.0087
0.220
110
<0.5
76
18
18
11.41
0.008
7
4
6.2
Average
0.016
0.021
0.016
0.0087
0.220
110
<0.5
76
18
18
11.41
0.008
7
4
-------
Table V-33
ROLLING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Statistical Summary
Minimum
Max imum
Mean
Median
Sample:
Nonzero
Mean
Sample:
Water Use
1/kkg gal/ton
9.974
16.20
*
506.0
620.0
*
*
12,700
34,800
9.974
52,950
145,100
41.59
145,100 34,800
33,810 8,109
2,347 563.0
6 of 9 plants
33,810
8,109
6 of 9 plants
Percent
Recycle
100
100
0
*
0
0
0
0
*
*
Wastewater
1/kkg gal/ton
0
0
4.800
354.4
506.0
620.0
*
*
*
*
0 0
2,585 620.0
1,032 247.5
748.8 179.6
6 of 9 plants
1,548
371.3
4 of 9 plants
Note: This table includes data from one plant which discharges
from two rolling heat treatment operations.
268
-------
Table V-34
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ROLLING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTCWATER
VC
Pollutant
1, acenaphthene
2. acrolein
3. acrylonitrile
4. benzene
5. benzidine
6. carbon tetrachloride
7. chlorobenzene
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. bis(chlororaethyl)ether
18. bts(chloroethyl)ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
23. chloroform
24. 2-chlorophenol
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3'-dlchlorobenzidtne
29. 1, l~dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
31. 2,4-dichlorophenol
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropene
34. 2,4-dlmethylphenol
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2 ,6-dini.trotoIuene
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
38. ethylbenzene
39. fluoranthene
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/1)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
5
9
9
9
5
9
9
5
5
9
9
5
9
9
9
9
9
5
9
5
5
5
9
5
5
5
5
5
9
9
5
9
9
5
5
5
5
9
5
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
~ND^ 0.011- ?TTOT~
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
-------
Table V-36 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ROLLING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
to
-j
o
Pollutant
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-broroophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
44. ntechylene chloride
45. methyl chloride (chloromethane)
46. methyl bromide (bromomethane)
47. bromoform (tribrorooraethane)
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. trichlorofluoromethane
50. dichlorodifluoromethane
51 - chlorpdibromomethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. isophorone
55. naphthalene
56. nitrobenzene
57. 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
64. pentachlorophenol
65. phenol
66. bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
72. benzo(a)anthracene
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
75. benzo(k)fluoranthene
76. chrysene
77. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (a)
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/1)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
5
5
5
5
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (rag/1)
~Ki5^~~o~7urr: o. ior^~~ —
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
-------
Table V-34 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ROLLING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
79. benzo(ghi)perylene
80. fluorene
81. phenanthrene (a)
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno (1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
84. pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
87. trichloroethylene
88. vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
89. aldrin
90. dieldrin
91. chlordane
92. 4,4'-DDT
93. 4)4'-DDE
94. 4,4'-ODD
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
97. endosulfan sulfate
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
104. gamraa-BHC
105. delta-BHC
106. PCB-1242 (b)
107. PCB-1254 (b)
108. PCB-1221 (b)
109. PCB-1232 (b)
110. PCB-1248 (c)
111. PCB-1260 (c)
112. PCB-1016 (c)
113. toxaphene
114. antimony
115, arsenic
116. asbestos
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mR/1)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
o.oio
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.100
0.010
10 MFL
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
3
3
-
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
-
-
-
3
-
-
3
3
3
0
Number
of.
Samples
Analyzed
5
5
-
5
5
5
9
9
9
9
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
-
-
-
5
-
-
5
5
5
0
'Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
ND- 0.011- 0.101-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
5
5
5
5
5
8 1
9
9
9
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2 3
-------
Table V-34 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
ROLLING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
to
-j
to
Pollutant
117.' beryllium
118. cadmium
119. chromium (total)
120. copper
121. cyanide (total)
122. lead
123. mercury
124. nickel
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
128. zinc
129- 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Analytical
Quantification
Level
0,010
0.002
0.005
0.009
0.100
0.020
0. 0001
0.005
0.01
0.02
0.100
0.050
0.005
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/l)
ND-
0.010
5
5
4
2
5
1
5
3
5
4
5
4
0.011-
0.100
1
2
2
2
0.101-
1.000 1.000+
1
1
1
1
1
(a), (b) , (c) Reported together.
-------
Table V-35
SAMPLING DATA
ROLLING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
to
-^i
OJ
Toxic Pollutants
4. benzene
11. 1,1,1-trxchloroethane
23. chloroform
44. methylene chloride
48. dichlorobroraomethane
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
85. tetrachloroethylene
87. trichloroethylene
Stream
Code
D-10
D-ll
U-5
D-10
D-ll
U-5
D-10
D-ll
U-5
D-10
D-ll
U-5
D-10
D-ll
U-5
D-10
D-ll
U-5
D-10
D-ll
U-5
D-10
D-ll
U-5
D-10
D-ll
U-5
D-10
D-ll
U-5
D-10
D-ll
U-5
Sample
Type
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
3
6
6
3
6
6
3
6
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
Concentrations (mg/1)
Source
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
*
0.020
0.020
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
*
•ft
ND
Day 1
ND
ND
*
ND
0.039
ND
*
0.038
ND
*
*
0.400
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
*
0.015
*
*
ND
ND
ND
*
0.010
*
ND
0.011
ND
ND
*
ND
Day 2
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
*
0.010
ND
*
0.010
*
ND
*
ND
*
ND
0.010
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 3
ND
0.001
ND
ND
0.002
ND
0.005
0.012
ND
0.110
0.095
*
ND
0.002
ND
*
*
ND
*
ND
0.003
ND
ND
0.002
ND
Average
0.001
*
0.014
0.002
0.020
0.037
0.035
0.133
0.001
*
*
0.015
*
*
o.oio
*
0.010
*
0.007
0.001
-------
Table V-35 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
ROLLING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
115. argentc
118. cadmium
119. chromium
120. copper
M 121. cyanide
-j
122. lead
123. mercury
124. nickel
126. silver
128. zinc
Noncgnventional
alkalinity
Stream
Code
D-10
D-ll
U-5
D-10
D-ll
U-5
D-10
D-ll
U-5
D-10
D-ll
U-5
D-10
D-ll
U-5
D-10
D-ll
U-5
D-10
D-ll
U-5
D-10
D-ll
U-5
D-10
D-ll
U-5
D-10
D-ll
U-5
D-10
D-ll
U-5
Source
<0.010
<0.010
<0.002
-------
Table V-35 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
ROLLING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
aluminum
calcium
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
dissolved solids
magnesium
phenols (total; by 4-AAP method)
sulfate
total organic carbon (TOC)
Conventional
oil and grease
suspended solids
pH (standard units)
Stream
_C_qd e_
D-10
D-ll
U-5
D-10
D-ll
U-5
D-10
D-ll
U-5
D-10
D-ll
U-5
D-10
D-ll
U-5
D-10
D-ll
U-5
D-10
D-ll
U-5
D-10
D-ll
U-5
D-10
D-ll
U-5
D-10
D-ll
U-5
D-10
D-ll
U-5
Source
0.2
0.2
38
38
58.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
12
12
7.44
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day 1
0.4
<0.2
51
41
93.4
<5
7
<5
412
334
610
20
11
18.9
0.011
0.01
0.009
70
2
3.8
13
12
<5
2
3
37
7.1
8.1
Day 2 Day^_3 Average
0.4
<0.2
51
41
90.3 85.4 89.7
<5
7
11 11 <9
412
334
580 550 580
20
11
20.8 21.1 20.3
0.011
0.01
0.006 0.009 0.008
70
110 110 110
2
3.5 3.4 3.6
13
12
<5 6 <5
2
3
2 4.6 15
6.8 7.4
8.2 7.5
7
-------
Table V-36
EXTRUSION PRESS HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
Water Use
1/kkg
*
*
1,924
76.30
80.05
833.9
113.0
116.7
433.6
554.5
*
*
1,768
26,600
2,522
2,668
2,831
3,185
*
5,670
10,760
16,700
21,890
25,850
28,690
*
*
*
*
*
gal /ton
*
*
461.5
18.30
19.20
200.0
27.10
28.00
104.0
133.0
*
*
424.0
6,380
605.0
640.0
679.0
764.0
*
1,360
2,580
4,076
5,250
6,200
6,880
*
*
*
*
*
Percent
Recycle
100
100
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*
0
0
92
0
0
0
0
0
*
0
0
0
0
0
*
0
*
*
0
Wastewater
1/kkg
0
0
0
65.46
68.80
81.35
96.73
100.1
433.6
554.5
1,057
1,447
1,768
2,218
2,522
2,668
2,831
3,185
3,536
5,670
10,760
16,700
21,890
25,850
28,690
*
*
*
*
*
gal /ton
0
0
0
15.70
16.50
19.51
23.20
24.00
104.0
133.0
253.4
347.0
424.0
532.0
605.0
640.0
679.0
764.0
848.0
1,360
2,580
4,076
5,250
6,200
6,880
*
*
*
*
*
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15t
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
*Data not available.
tCombtnation of two presses.
Statistical Summary
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Sample:
Nonzero
Mean
Sample:
Note:
76.30 18.30
28,690 6,880
7,676 1,841
2,596 622.5
20 of 29 plants
7,676 1,841
20 of 29 plants
0 0
28,690 6,880
5,299 1,271
1,768 424.0
25 of 29 plants
6,021 1,444
22 of 29 plants
This table includes data from one plant which discharges
from two extrusion press heat treatment operations.
276
-------
Table V-37
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
EXTRUSION PRESS HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
1. acenaphthene
2. acrolein
3. acrylonitrile
4. benzene
5. benzidine
6. carbon tetrachloride
7. chlo robenzene
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9, Uexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
M 13.1,1-dichloroethane
^J 14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. bis(chloromethyl)ether
18. bis(chloroethyl)ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
23. chloroform
24. 2-chlorophenol
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28, 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
31. 2,4-dichTorophenol
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropene
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
35 . 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazlne
38. ethylbenzene
39. fluoranthene
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/1)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
o£
Streams
Analyzed
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Number
o£
Samples
Analyzed
8
9
9
9
8
9
9
8
8
9
9
8
9
9
9
9
9
8
9
8
8
8
9
8
8
8
8
9
9
8
9
9
8
8
8
8
9
8
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
— ~
0.010 0 . 1 00
1 . 000
1 . 000+
-------
Table V-37 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
EXTRUSION PRESS HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
CO
•-J
00
Pollutant
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
44. raethylene chloride
45. methyl chloride (chloromethane)
46- methyl bromide (broraomethane)
47. bromoform (tribromoroethane)
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. trichlorofluoromethane
50. dichlorodifluoromethane
51 - chlorodibromomethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. isophorone
55. naphthalene
56. nitrobenzene
57. 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60, 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
64. pentachlorophenol
65. phenol
66. bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. cfi-n-butyl phthalate
69- di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
72 - benzo(a)anthracene
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
75. benzo(k)fluoranthene
76. chrysene
77 - acenaphthylene
78- anthracene (a)
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/1)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
o.oio
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0,010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
ND- 0.011- 0.101-
0.010 0-100 1,000 1.000+
S
8
8
8
333
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
7 1
8
8
8
8
8
8
7 1
431
5 2 1
5 3
7 1
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
-------
Table V-37 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
EXTRUSION PRESS'HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
79. benzo(ghi)perylene
80. fluorene
81. phenanthrene (a)
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno (1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
84. pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
87. trichloroethylene
88. vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
89. aldrin
90. dieldrin
91. chlordane
92. 4,4'-DDT
93. 4,4'-DDE
94. 4,4'-ODD
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
97. endosulfan sulfate
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
104. gamma-BHC
105. delta-BHC
106. PCB-1242 (b)
107. PCB-1254 (b)
108. PCB-1221 (b)
109. PCB-1232 (b)
110. PCB-1248 (c)
111. PCB-1260 (c)
112. PCB-1016 (c)
113. toxaphene
114. antimony
115. arsenic
116. asbestos
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(fflg/D
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
o.oio
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.100
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
6
6
-
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
-
-
-
6
-
-
6
6
6
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
8
8
-
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
-
-
-
8
-
-
8
8
8
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (me/I)
ND- 0.011- U.lOl-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
8
8
7 1
8
8
8
7 1
7 1
7 1
7 1
7 1
7 1
6 2
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
10 MFL
-------
Table V-37 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
EXTRUSION PRESS HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
117. beryllium
118. cadmium
119. chromium (total)
120. copper
121. cyanide (total)
122. lead
123. mercury
124. nickel
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
128. zinc
129. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Analytical
Quantification
Level
0.010
0.002
0.005
0.009
0.100
0.020
0.0001
0.005
0.01
0.02
0.100
0.050
0.005
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
5
5
5
5
6
5
5
5
6
6
6
5
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
7
7
7
7
8
7
7
7
8
8
8
7
0
Number
in
ND- 0.
0.010 0.
7
7
7
1
5
3
4
5
8
7
8
4
of Times Observed
Samples (rag/I)
on- o.ioi-
100 1.000 1.000+
6
3
4
3
2
1
3
00
(a), (b), (c) Reported together
-------
Table V-38
SAMPLING DATA
EXTRUSION PRESS HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Tgxlc_ Pollutants
4. benzene
23. chloroform
24. 2-chlorophenol
00
30. 1,2-trans-dlchloroethylene
44. methylene chloride
58. 4-nitrophenol
65. phenol
Stream
Code
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
Source
ND
*
*
*
*
0.004
0.032
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.563
0.563
0.563
0.563
0.015
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
*
ft
j,
ND
Concentrations. .(mg/jL)
Day 1
*
ND
*
*
0.014
ND
0.018
*
*
*
0.023
ND
0.020
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
A
0.013
ND
ND
0.011
<0.290
0.110
0.049
0.800
0.028
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.006
Day 2 Day 3 Average
ND *
* * *
*
*
0.014
0.021 0,020
0.011 * 0.004
*
*
0.023
0.020
ND ND
ND
ND ND *
•ft
0.013
0.110 0.061
<0.550 <0.175 <0.338
0.110
0.049
O.SOO
0.028
ND 0.017 0.009
ND 2.700 2.700
0.006
-------
Table V-38 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
EXTRUSION PRESS HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
to
69. dl-n-octyl phthalate
91. chlordane
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
Stream
Code
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
Source
0.025
*
*
*
*
0.008
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
*
*
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Concentrations (nig/1)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 1 Day 2
ND
0.190 0.035
*
0.032
*
ND
ND
0.130 0.026
*
*
*
ND
ND
0.022 0.013
*
*
*
ND
ND
ND 0.011
ND
*
*
ND
**
ND ND
ND
0.0140
0.010
ND
ND
ND ND
ND
0.500
**
ND
**
ND ND
ND
**
0.200
ND
Day 3 Average
0.085 0.103
*
0.032
*
0.046 0.067
*
*
*
0.015 0.017
*
*
*
ND 0.011
*
*
**
ND
0.0140
0.010
ND
0.500
**
**
ND
**
0.200
-------
Table V-38 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
EXTRUSION PRESS HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
97. endosulfan sulfate
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
to
00
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxtde
102. alpha-BHC
115. arsenic
Stream
Code
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
Sample
Type
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
2
C on c en t ra tln s
Source
ND
**
**
**
**
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
**
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
**
**
**
**
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
Day 1 Day 2
ND
ND ND
A*
0.200
ND
ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND
0.200
ND
0.011
ND ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
**
ND ND
0.200
ND
ND
ND
0.100
ND ND
0.100
ND
**
ND
ND
ND ND
ND
**
A*
ND
<0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.010
Day 3 Average
HD
**
0.200
ND
0.200
0.011
ND
**
ND
0.200
0.100
ND
0.100
**
ND
**
**
<0-01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.010
-------
Table V-38 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
EXTRUSION PRESS HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
118. cadmium
119. chromium
120. copper
to 121. cyanide
oo J
122. lead
123. mercury
124. nickel
126. silver
Stream
Code
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
Sample
Type
2
2
6
2
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
2
2
6
2
1
2
2
6
2
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
2
2
6
2
2
Source
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.001
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.001
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
0.027
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0042
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
0.079
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.009
<0.020
<0,020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
0,05
Concentrations (gg/_l)_
ay I Day 2 '
<0.002 <0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
0.003
0.010 <0.005
<0. 005
<0.005
<0.005
0.002
0.040 0.030
<0.009
0.100
0.040
0.024
<0.001
0.012 0.006
0.001
0.029
0.004
0.0042
0 . 040 0 . 040
0.020
<0.020
<0.020
0.021
0.030 0.030
0.0005
0.0004
0.0002
<0.0002
0.040 <0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.017
<0.02
<0.020 <0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
0.07
Day 3 Average
<0.002 <0-002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
0.003
<0.005 <0.007
<0.005
<0.002
<0.005
0.002
0.030 0.033
<0.009
0.100
0.040
0.024
<0.001
0.014 0.011
0.001
0.029
0.004
0.0042
<0.020 <0.033
0.020
<0.020
<0.020
0.021
0.030 0.030
0.0005
0.0004
0.0002
<0. 0002
<0.005 <0.017
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.017
<0.02
<0.020 <0.020
<0.020
<0-020
<0.020
0.07
-------
Table V-38 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
EXTRUSION PRESS HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
127. thallium
1*0
CO
128. zinc
Nonconventio_na_l
alkalinity
aluminum
calcium
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Stream
Code
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
V-5
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
Samp le
Type
Source
<0.100
<0.100
<0.100
<0.100
<0.100
<0.001
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.50
Concentrations (me/1)
<0.090
cO.090
<0.090
<0.090
<0.090
0.09
<5.000
<5.000
<5.000
<5.000
<5.000
9.8
<1
<0.100
<0.100
<0.100
<0.100
<0.100
0.010
0.050
<0.050
<0-050
0.050
0.05
140
410
280
450
320
<0.100
0.300
<0.100
0.200
0.200
2.1
0.680
< 3.500
3-1
ND
<5.000
3.4
<5
218
<5
76
74
4
<0.100
<0.050
<0.100
<0.050
140
125
180
1.700
0.300
0.220
<2.800
0.800
<3.900
127
295
Average
<0.100
<0.100
<0.100
<0.100
<0.100
0.010
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.050
0.05
140
238
280
450
320
<0.900
0.467
<0.100
0.200
0.200
2.1
0.450
<3.400
3.1
<5.000
3.4
<5
213
<5
76
74
4
-------
Table V-38 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
EXTRUSION PRESS HF.AT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
magnesium
phenols (total; by 4-AAF method)
M
sulfate
total organic carbon (TOC)
Conventional
oil and grease
suspended solids
pH (standard units)
Stream
Code
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G~6
V-5
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
V-5
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
V-5
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
V-5
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
2
2
6
1
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
2
6
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
6
2
2
1
2
1
I
1
Source
<0.100
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
63
.062
4.7
16
7.55
Day I Day 2 Day 3
0.110 0.080
0.200 0.200 0.300
0.300
0.500
-------
Table V-39
EXTRUSION SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
Plant
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Water Use
1/kkg gal/ton
161,800
9,631
1,268
41,420
39,690
2,635
41,690
3,394
5,003
8,547
7,130
10,730
15,680
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
4,962
38
2
9
9
10
1
2
1
2
3
1
,800
,310
304.0
,933
,520
632.0
,000
814.0
,200
,050
,710
,573
,760
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
,190
*Data not available.
Statistical Summary
Minimum
Max imum
Mean
Median
Sample:
Nonzero
Mean
Sample:
1,268
161,800
25,250
9,089
304.0
38,800
6,057
2,180
14 of 27 plants
25,250 6,057
14 of 27 plants
Percent
Recycle
100
100
91
100
0
99
80
0
87
0
0
0
0
0
0
*
*
0
0
0
0
*
*
0
*
0
*
Wastewater
1/kkg
0
0
0
0
181.0
879.7
1,993
2,635
3,056
3,381
5,003
6,421
7,130
10,730
15,680
30,020
44,150
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
gal/ton
0
0
0
0
43.40
211.0
478.0
632.0
733.0
811.0
1,200
1,540
1,710
2,573
3,760
7,200
10,590
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0 0
44,150 10,590
7,901 1,895
3,056 733.0
17 of 27 plants
10,330 2,478
13 of 27 plants
287
-------
Table V-40
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
EXTRUSION SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
to
00
00
Pollutant
1. acenaphthene
2. acroleln
3. acrylonitrtle
4. benzene
5. benzidine
6. carbon tetrachloride
7. chlorobenzene
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. bis(chlororoethyl)ether
18. bis(chloroethyl)ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
23. chloroform
24. 2-chlorophenol
25. 1,2 -dIchlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidtne
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dlchloroethylene
31. 2,4-dlchlorophenol
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropene
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2-dlphenylhydrazine
38. ethylbenzene
39. f luoranthene
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/1)
0.010
0.010
0,010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
3
5
5
5
3
5
5
3
3
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
3
5
5
3
3
3
3
5
3
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
~ND= OTOTIT—0.101-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
-------
Table V-40 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
EXTRUSION SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAVJ WASTEWATER
to
00
vo
Pollutant
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
44. methylene chloride
45. methyl chloride (chloromethane)
46. methyl bromide (bromomethane)
47. bromoform (tribromomethane)
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. trichlorofluoromethane
50. dichlorodifluororaethane
51. chlorodibromomethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. isophorone
55. naphthalene
56. nitrobenzene
57. 2-nltrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
64. pentachlorophenol
65. phenol
66. bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
72. benzo(a)anthracene
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
75. benzo(k)fluoranthene
76. chrysene
77. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (a)
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/1)
0.010
0.010
0,010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0,010
0.010
0.010
0,010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0,010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0,010
0.010
0.010
0,010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0,010
0,010
0,010
0.010
0,010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
ND- 0.011- 0.101-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
3
3
3
3
3 1 1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
-------
Table V-40 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
EXTRUSION SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING -WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
to
U9
O
Pollutant
7 9. benzo(ght)perylene
80. fluorene
81. phenanthrene (a)
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno (l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
84. pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylenc
86. toluene
87. trtchloroethylene
88. vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
89. aldrin
90. dieldrin
91. chlordane
92. 4,4'-DDT
93. 4,4'-DDE
94. 4,4'-DDD
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
97. endosulfan sulfate
98. endrin
99- endrin aldehyde
i.00. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
104. gamraa-BHC
105. delta-BHC
106. PCB-1242 (b)
107. PCB-1254 (b)
108. PCB-1221 (b)
109. PCB-1232 (b)
110. PCB-1248 (c)
111. PCB-1260 (c)
112. PCB-1016 (c)
113. toxaphene
114. antimony
115. arsenic
116. asbestos
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(n*/D
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0,005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.100
0.010
10 MFL
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
3
3
-
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
-
-
-
3
-
-
3
2
4
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
3
3
-
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
-
-
-
3
-
-
3
4
6
0
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
ND- 0.011- 0.101-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3 1
4 2
-------
Table V-40 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
EXTRUSION SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
117. beryllium
118. cadmium
119. chromium (total)
120. copper
121. cyanide (total)
122. lead
123. mercury
124. nickel
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
128- zinc
129. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodIbenzo-p-dioxin
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/1)
0.010
0.002
0.005
0.009
0.100
0.020
0.0001
0.005
0.01
0.02
0.100
0.050
0.005
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
4
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
4
4
6
0
Number
in
ND- U.
0.010 0.
6
6
4
2
3
5
6
4
2
4
4
of Times Observed
Samples (mg/1)
011-
100
1
4
3
1
2
1
6
0.101-
1.000 1.
1
000+
1
(a), (b), (c) Reported together.
-------
Table V-41
SAMPLING DATA
EXTRUSION SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
ro
V£>
N3
Toxic Pollutants
4. benzene
11. 1,1,1-trlchloroethane
2 3. chloroform
44. methylene chloride
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
86. toluene
114. antimony
115. arsenic
118. cadmium
119. chromium
120. copper
Stream
Code
N-2
R-5
V-6
N-2
R-5
V-6
N-2
R-5
V-6
N-2
R-5
V-6
N-2
R-5
V-6
N-2
R-5
V-6
V-6
W-4
N-2
R-5
V-6
N-2
R-5
V-6
W-4
N-2
R-5
V-6
W-4
N-2
R-5
V-6
W-4
Source
ND
ND
0.004
ND
ND
ND
*
0.040
ND
ND
*
0.015
ND
*
0.008
ND
ND
0.002
<0. 001
0.003
<0.0002
0. 0037
<0.005
<0.005
<0.0005
<0.0005
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.004
0.008
0.010
0.027
0.010
Concentrations (mg/I)
Day I Day 2
ND ND
ND
0.005
ND ND
ND
0.002
ND ND
ND
0.002
* *
0.010
0.021
*
*
0.008
ND ND
ND
0.005
0.002
0.032 <0.001
< 0.0002
0.0032
<0.005
0.020 <0.005
<0.0005
0.0011
0.002
<0.001 <0.001
0.018
5.100
0.005
0.004 0.006
0.015
0.013
0.024
0.008 0.001
Pay 3 Average
ND
0.005
ND
0.002
ND
0.002
0.630 0.210
0.010
0.021
*
•*
0.008
ND
0.005
0.002
0.009 <0.014
<0.0002
0.0032
<0.005
0.018 <0.014
<0.0005
0.0011
0.002
<0.001 <0.001
0.018
5.100
0.005
0.003 0.004
0.015
0.013
0.024
0.060 0.023
-------
Table V-41 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
EXTRUSION SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
121. cyanide
122. lead
123. mercury
124. nickel
125. selenium
127. thallium
128. zinc
Nonconyent_ional
alkalinity
aluminum
calcittra
Stream
Code
N-2
R-5
V-6
W-4
N-2
R-5
V-6
W-4
N-2
R-5
V-6
W-4
N-2
R-5
V-6
W-4
V-6
W-4
V-6
W-4
N-2
R-5
V-6
W-4
N-2
R-5
V-6
W-4
N-2
R-5
V-6
W-4
N-2
R-5
V-6
W-4
Source
0.0042
0.030
0.010
<0.001
0.079
0.009
0.0041
0.0007
<0.0002
<0.002
<0.001
<0.001
0.009
0.060
0.020
0.015
<0.001
<0.001
<0.010
0.053
0.50
0.03
170
<0.500
<0.500
0.09
0.06
28
60
9.8
55
Concentrations (ma/1)
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
<0.02
<0.02
0.010
0.015 0.013 0.020
0.012
0.004
0.003
0.004 0.004 0.008
0.009
< 0.0001
<0,0002
<0.002 <0.002 <0.002
<0.001
0.018
0.038
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001
0.24
<0.005 <0.005 0.013
<0.001
<0.001 <0.001 0.002
0.038
0.038
0.08
0.03 0.03 0.03
Average
<0.02
<0.02
0.010
0.016
0.012
0.004
0.003
0.005
0.009
<0.0001
<0.0002
<0.002
<0.001
0.018
0.038
<0.001
0.24
<0.008
<0.001
<0.001
0.038
0.038
0.08
0.03
110
34
280
150
<0.500
0.540
0.20
0.24
38
58
78
29
160
160
0.58
54
1.4
31
110
34
280
160
<0.500
0.540
0.20
0.7
38
58
78
38
-------
Table V-41 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
EXTRUSION SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
magnesium
phenols (total; by 4-AAP method)
sulfate
total dissolved solids
total organic carbon (TOC)
Conventional
oil and grease
suspended solids
pH (standard units)
Stream
Code
N-2
R-5
V-6
W-4
N-2
R-5
V-6
W-4
N-2
R-5
V-6
W-4
N-2
R-5
V-6
W-4
N-2
R-5
V-6
tf-4
N-2
R-5
V-6
W-4
N-2
V-6
W-4
N-2
R-5
V-6
W-4
N-2
R-5
V-6
W-4
Source
12
4.39
22.1
63
19
ND
0.062
1.0
81
3
2.7
4.7
0
<5
16
6.6
<2
7.1
7.3
7.7
Concent rat ions (ing/1)
Day 1
7
20
4
3.8
5.3
24.5
50
24
0.014
0.007
0.130
0.088
7
120
43
86
160
580
390
320
1.8
2.7
28
5
68
5.8
4.0
<2
<2
11
11
7.3
7.3
7.2
Day 2 Day 3 AveTage
7
20
4
7.5 3.9 5.1
5.3
24.5
50
28 18 23
0.014
0.007
0.130
0.010 0.013 0.037
7
120
43
77 92 85
160
580
390
240 400 320
1.8
2.7
28
10 6 7
14 41
5.8
1.5 4.8 3.4
<2
<2
11
<1 <1 <4
7.3 7.2
7.3
7.7
-------
Table V-42
FORGING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
Water Use
Plant 1/kkg gal/ton
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
*Data not
833.9
1,151
2,956
2,502
3,235
4,169
21,120
32,230
*
*
*
*
available,
200.0
276.0
709.0
600.0
776.0
1,000
5,065
7,730
*
*
*
*
t
Statistical Summary
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Sample:
Nonzero
Mean
Sample:
833.9
32,230
8,524
3,096
8 of 12
8,524
8 of 12
200.0
7,730
2,045
742.5
plants
2,045
plants
Percent
Recycle
0
0
*
0
0
0
0
0
*
0
*
0
Wastewater
1/kkg
0
1,109
2,148
2,502
3,235
3,752
21,120
32,230
32,320
*
*
*
gal /ton
0
266.0
515.2
600.0
776.0
900
5,065
7,730
7,752
*
*
*
0 0
32,320 7,752
10,940 2,623
3,235 776.0
9 of 12 plants
12,300 2,951
8 of 12 plants
295
-------
Table V-43
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
FORGING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
ro
Pollutant
1. acenaphthene
2. acroleln
3. acrylonitrile
4. benzene
5. benzidine
6. carbon tetrachloride
7. chlorobenzene
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dtchloroethane
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. bis(chloromethyl)ether
18. bis(chloroethyl)ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
23. chloroform
24. 2-chlorophenol
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26, 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidlne
29- 1,1-dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
31. 2,4-dichTorophenol
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropene
34. 2,4-d imethylphenol
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
38. ethylbenzene
39. fluoranthene
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/1)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
6
5
5
5
6
5
5
6
6
5
5
6
5
5
5
5
5
6
5
6
6
6
5
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
6
5
5
6
6
6
6
5
6
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
HND= 0.011- 0.101-
o.oio oaoo i .000 i .000+
-------
Table V-43 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
FORGING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Analytical
Quantification
Level
NJ
Pollutant
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy)metUane
44. methylene chloride
45. methyl chloride (chlororoethane)
46. methyl bromide (bromomethane)
47. bromoform (tribrotnoraethane)
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. trichlorofluoromethane
50. dichlorodifluoromethane
51- chlorodibromomethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. isophorone
55. naphthalene
56. nitrobenzene
57. 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. 2 ,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodiraethylamine
62. N-nitrosodiphenylaraine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
64. pentachlorophenol
65. phenol
66. bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
69- di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
72. benzo(a)anthracene
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
75. benzo(k)fluoranthene
76. chrysene
77- acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (a)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0,010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0,010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0,010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
ND- 0.011-07101- ~
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
6
6
6
6
4 1
5
5
4 1
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4 1 1
6
6
6
-------
Table V-43 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
FORGING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
to
Oo
Pollutant
79. benzo(ghi)perylene
80. fluorene
81. phenanthrene (a)
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno (l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
84. pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
87. trichloroethylene
88. vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
89. aldrin
90. dieldrin
91. chlordane
92. 4,4'-DDT
93. 4,4*-DDE
94. 4,4'-ODD
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
97. endosulfan sulfate
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
104. gamma-BHC
105. delta-BHC
106. PCB-1242 (b)
107. PCB-1254 (b)
108. PCB-1221 (b)
109. PCB-1232 (b)
110. PCB-1248 (c)
111. PCB-1260 (c)
112. PCB-1016 (c)
113. toxaphene
114. antimony
115. arsenic
116. asbestos
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(niR/D
0,010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.100
0.010
10 MFL
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
4
4
-
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
-
-
-
4
-
-
4
5
8
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
6
6
-
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
-
-
-
4
-
-
4
11
12
0
Number of Times Observed
In Samples (mg/1)
ND- 0.011- U.101-
0. 010 0. 100 1 . 000 1 . OOOf
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
10 1
11 1
-------
Table V-43 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
FORGING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
to
\£>
Pollutant
117. beryllium
118. cadmium
119. chromium (total)
120. copper
121. cyanide (total)
122. lead
123. mercury
124. nickel
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
128. zinc
129- 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(a), (b), (c) Reported together.
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(ms/1)
0.010
0.002
0.005
0.009
0.100
0.020
0.0001
0.005
0.01
0.02
0,100
0.050
0.005
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
5
5
5
8
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
7
7
7
12
0
Number
in
ND- 0.
0.010 0.
12
11
4
2
6
6
12
11
7
7
5
of Times
Samples (m
Observed
8/D
Oil- 0.101-
100 1.000 1.
1
4
9
4
1
2
9
2
1
1
2
000+
2
6
1
1
-------
Table V-44
SAMPLING DATA
FORGING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Stream
Code
OJ
O
O
Toxic Pollutants
23. chloroform
44. methylene chloride
47. bromoform
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
114. antimony
115. arsenic
118. cadmium
J-3
Q-3
R-4
J-3
Q-3
R-4
J-3
Q-3
R-4
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
A-2
W-8
W-9
W-10
W-ll
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
W-8
W-9
W-10
W-ll
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
W-8
W-9
W-10
W-ll
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,2,2
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
122
i , t-*t.
I
6
1
1
1
1
Source
0.019
ND
0.040
ND
<0.010
<0.005
ND
ND
ND
0.200
ND
<0.010
<0.005
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
<0.01
<0.01
0.0028
0.0037
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.002
<0.01
<0.0005
<0.0005
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Concentrations.(mg/1)
Day 1 Day 2
0.016 *
ND
ND
0.015 -*
*
*
ND ND
ND
ND
0.890
* *
0.010 *
0.050
-------
Table V-44 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
FORGING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEUATER
Pollutant
119. chromium
120. copper
121. cyanide
122. lead
123. mercury
Stream
Code
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
W-8
W-9
W-10
W-ll
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
M-8
W-9
W-10
W-ll
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
W-8
W-9
W-10
W-ll
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
W-8
W-9
W-10
W-ll
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
W-8
W-9
W-10
W-ll
Sample
Type
1
1,2,
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
1,2,
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1,2,
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
1,2,
1
6
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Source
<0.005
<0.03
0.004
<0.0001
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.01
0.03
0.026
0.01
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
30
30
30
30
<0.02
< 0.050
0.006
<0.001
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.0006
<0.0004
<0.0001
0.0007
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day 1 Day 2
0.007
0.05 0.13
72
46
0.012 0.002
0.006
0.014
0.030
0.1
<0.02 0.07
0.07
0.38
0.039 0.019
0.08
0.07
0.005
<0.001
0.002 <0.002
<0.02
<0.02
15 19
2.2
530
15
0.06
<0.05 <0.05
ND
17
0.007 0.032
0.019
0.046
0.005
0.0005
<0.0004 <0.0002
<0.0001
<0. 00005
<0.0002 <0.002
<0.0002
<0.0002
< 0.0002
Day 3 Average
0.007
0.13 0.01
72
46
0.004 0.006
0.006
0.014
0.030
0.1
0.06 <0.05
0.07
0.38
0.019 0.026
0.08
0.07
0.005
<0.001
0.006 <0.003
<0.02
<0.02
18 17
2.2
530
15
0.06
<0.05 <0.05
17
0.250 0.096
0.019
0.046
0.005
0.0005
<0.0002 <0.0003
<0.0001
< 0.00005
<0.002 <0.001
<0.0002
<0.0002
< 0.0002
-------
Table V-44 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
FORGING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
124. nickel
125. selenium
127. thallium
128. zinc
Nonconventiooal
alkalinity
aluminum
S t ream
Code
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
W-8
W-9
W-10
W-ll
A-2
W-8
W-9
W-10
W-ll
A-2
W-8
W-9
W-10
W-ll
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
W-8
W-9
W-10
W-ll
Sample
Type
1
122
1 > *•» *•
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
122
* y *- > *-
1
6
1
1
1
1
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
W-8
W-9
W-10
W-ll
A-2
J-3
C-3
R-4
W-8
W-9
W-10
W-ll
1
1,2,2
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
122
L » *•, *•
1
6
1
1
1
1
Scmrce
<0.005
<0.02
<0.001
<0.001
0,060
0.060
0.060
0.060
<0.01
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
<0.001
<0.00i
<0.001
<0.001
0.06
0.04
<0.01
0.053
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
117
170
170
170
170
<0.09
<0.1
<0.5
<0.5
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
Day 1 Day 2
<0.005
<0.02 <0.02
0.006
<0.008
0.018 <0.001
<0.001
0.006
0.004
<0.01
<0.005 0.007
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.002
-------
Table V-44 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
FORGING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
calcium
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
O dissolved solids
CO
magnesium
phenols (total; by 4-AAP method)
Stream
Code
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
W-8
W-9
W-10
W-ll
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
W-8
W-9
W-10
W-ll
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
W-8
W-9
W-19
W-ll
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
W-8
W-9
W-10
W-ll
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
W-8
W-9
W-10
W-ll
Sample
Typ
1
1,2,
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
1,2,
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
1,2,
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
1,2,
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
1,2,
1
6
1
1
1
1
e
2
2
2
2
2
Source
39
ND
61
60
55
55
55
5.5
12
12
12
12
177
3
3
3
3
8.7
ND
12.2
22.1
19
19
19
19
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day 1
49
40
77
80
22
14
7.
28
18
6
6
56
79
96
3,300
80
188
206
1,370
720
690
1,200
4,400
360
8.
13
35
30.
11
9.
0.
15
0.
1.
<0.
0.
12.
0.
0.
0.
Day 2
36
22
0
<5
15
202
660
1
12
5
13
7
40
019
6 0.01
002
003
0 23.0
17
01
01
Day 3 Average
49
37 38
77
80
2.3 15
14
7.0
28
18
<5 <5
6
56
16 37
96
3,300
80
188
2,723 1,044
1,370
720
380 580
1,200
4,400
360
8.1
12 12
35
30.5
16 13
9.7
0.40
15
0.019
0.8
<0.002
0.003
0.098 11.7
0.17
0.01
0.01
-------
Table V-44 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
FORGING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
sulfate
total organic carbon (TOG)
Conventionaj.
oil and grease
suspended solids
pH (standard units)
Stream
Code
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
W-8
W-9
W-10
W-ll
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
W-8
W-9
W-10
W-ll
Sample
Type
1
1,2,2
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
122
•*•»'•»*•
1
6
1
1
1
1
Source
Concentrations (mg/1)
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
W-8
W-9
W-10
W-ll
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
W-8
W-9
W-10
W-ll
J-3
C-3
R-4
W-8
W-9
W-10
W-ll
81
81
81
81
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
14
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
Day 1 pay 2
70
30 30
330
190
30 290
670
110
70
14
<1 4
3.4
3.4
40 56
10
1,200
30
14
4
<5
7 248
* 96
7.3
5.1
3.1
4
34 21
7
240
8 15
6
17
4
7.8 7.5
8.2
7.9 7.9
7.7 7.4
8.4
9.6
Day 3 Average
70
30 30
330
190
86 135
670
110
70
14
1 <2
3.4
3.4
11 36
10
1,200
30
14
5 5
<5
<5 <87
22 39
7.3
5.1
3.1
4
12 22
7
240
3 9
6
17
4
7.8
8.2
7.9
7.8
-------
Table V-45
DRAWING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Water Use Percent
1/kkg gal/ton Recycle
3,220 95
28.60 0
119.0 0
221.0 0
720.0 0
* *
tjf *Jf
* 87.5
t£g "jU
"& *&*
St St
Wastewater
1/kkg gal/ton
*Data not available.
Statistical Summary
Minimum 119.2 28.6
Maximum 13,430 3,220
Mean 3,593 861.7
Median 921.4 221.0
Sample: 5 of 11 plants
Nonzero 3,593 861.7
Mean
Sample: 5 of 11 plants
0
119.2
328.1
921.4
3,002
27,850
*
*
*
0
28.60
78.70
221.0
720.0
6,680
*
*
*
0 0
27,850 6,680
5,370 1,288
624.8 149.9
6 of 11 plants
6,446 1,546
5 of 11 plants
305
-------
Table V-46
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
DRAWING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
1. acenaphthene
2. acrolein
3. acrylonitrile
4. benzene
5. benzidine
6. carbon tetrachloride
7. chlorobenzene
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
15. 1,1, 2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. bis(chloromethyl)ether
18. bis(chloroethy1)ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
23. chloroform
24. 2-chlorophenol
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
29- 1,1-dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dichloiroethylene
31 - 2,4-dichlorophenol
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropene
34. 2,4-diraethylphenol
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2 ,6-dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
38. ethylbenzene
39- fluoranthene
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mR/1)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
O'.OIO
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Number
in
ND- 0.
0.010 0.
4
6
6
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
of Times Observed
Samples (mg/1)
Oil- 0.101-
100 1.000 1.000+
2
1 1
1 1
-------
Table V-46 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
DRAWING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
U)
O
Pollutant
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
44. methylene chloride
45. methyl chloride (chloromethane)
46. methyl bromide (bromoroethane)
47. bromoform (tribromoraethane)
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. trichlorofluoromethane
50. dichlorodifluororaethane
51. chlorodibromoraethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. isophorone
55. naphthalene
56. nitrobenzene
57. 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodiroethylaraine
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
64.• pencachlorophenol
65. phenol
66. bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phchalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
72. benzo(a)anthracene
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
75. benzo(k)fluoranthene
76. chrysene
7 7. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (a)
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/1)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
ND- 0.011- 0.101-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
6
6
6
6
2121
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4 2
3 2 1
6
4 1 1
6
411
4 2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
-------
Table V-46 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
DRAWING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
79. benzo(ghi)perylene
80. fluorene
81. phenanthrene (a)
82.' dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno (1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
84. pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
87. trichloroethylene
88. vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
89. aldrin
90. dieldrin
91. chlordane
92. 4,4'-DDT
93. 4,4'-DDE
94. 4,4'-ODD
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
97. endosulfan sulfate
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
104. gamraa-BHC
105. delta-BHC
106. PCB-1242 (b)
107. PCB-1254 (b)
108. PCB-1221 (b)
109. PC8-1232 (b)
110. PCB-1248 (c)
1H. PCB-1260 (c)
112. PCB-1016 (c)
113. toxaphene
114. antimony
115. arsenic
116. asbestos
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mR/D
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
o.bio
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.100
0.010
10 MFL
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
2
2
-
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
-
-
-
2
-
-
2
4
4
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
6
6
-
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
-
-
-
4
-
-
4
12
12
0
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (me/1)
ND- U.U11- U.101-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
6
6
6
6
6
5 1
2 3 1
5 1
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
11 1
921
-------
Table V-46 (Continued)
FREQUENCY Of OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
DRAWING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
UAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
117. beryllium
118. cadmium
119. chromium (total)
120. copper
121. cyanide (total)
122. lead
123. mercury
124. nickel
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
128. zinc
129. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Analyti at I
QuantiH c--tt:ion
Levo 1.
_(mg/I)
0.010
0.0(>.>
O.oo ;
0.00'j
0. 100
Q.G20
0.OOdl
o, oo r>
0.01
0.02
0. 100
0.050
0.005
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
0
Number of Times Observed
In Samples (ing/l)
ND-
0.010
12
12
10
3
3
6
10
10
9
8
12
3
0.011-
0.100
2
9
6
5
2
2
3
4
3
0.101-
1.000
1
6
1.000+
3
(a), (b), (c) Reported together.
-------
Table V-47
SAMPLING DATA
DRAWING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
ic^ Pollutants
1. acenaphthene
4. benzene
11. 1,1,1 -tr ichloroethane
23. chloroform
38. ethylbenzene
44. methylene chloride
65. phenol
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl phthalate)
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
87 , trichloroethylene
Stream
Code
E-4
V-4
E-4
V-4
E-4
V-4
E-4
V-4
E-4
V-4
E-4
V-4
E-4
V-4
E-4
V-4
E-4
V-4
E-4
V-4
E-4
V-4
E-4
V-4
E-4
V-4
E-4
V-4
Sample
Type
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Concentrations (mg/1)
Source - _ _
*
ND
ND
0.004
ND
ND
<0.100
ND
ND
ND
0.017
0.015
*
ND
*
0.008
*
ND
*•
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.002
ND
ND
Day 1
ND
ND
6.300
0.064 '
ND
0.010
35.000
0.005
ND
ND
92.00
0.056
ND
0.021
0.840
ND
0.990
ND
0.470
ND
ND
ND
12.000
ND
0.95
0.014
1.300
ND
Day 2
ND
0.018
0.007
0.008
0.003
0.007
0.030
ND
ND
0.007
0.170
0.010
ND
ND
0.036
0.002
ND
0.017
ND
0.033
ND
0.011
ND
ND
*
0.041
ND
ND
Day 3 Average
0.012 0.012
ND 0.018
ND
0.007
ND
0.006
*
ND
ND
0.004
0.120
0.008
0.031
ND
0.048
0.002
*
ND
ND
ND
0.050
ND
*
ND
ND
0.029
*
ND
3.154
0.026
0.003
0.008
11.677
0.005
0.006
30.763
0.025
0.031
0.021
0.308
0.002
0.495
0.017
0.470
0.033
0.050
0.011
6.000
0.475
0.028
0.650
-------
Table V-47 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
DRAWING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Stream
114. antimony
115. arsenic
118. cadmium
119. chromium
120. copper
121. cyanide
122. lead
123. mercury
124. nickel
E-4
V-4
W-2
W-3
E-4
V-4
W-2
W-3
E-4
V-4
W-2
W-3
E-4
V-4
W-2
W-3
E-4
V-4
W-2
W-3
E-4
V-4
W-2
W-3
E-4
V-4
W-2
W-3
E-4
V-4
W-2
W-3
E-4
V-4
W-2
W-3
Sample
Source
<0.100
<0.001
0.003
0.003
<0.01
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.002
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.005
<0.001
0.004
0.004
<0.009
0.027
0.010
0.010
0.0042
0.030
0.030
<0.020
0.079
0.009
0.009
0.004
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0-0002
<0.005
0.009
0.060
0.060
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day I
<0.200
<0.001
0.002
0.004
<0.01
<0.005
<0.005
0.006
<0.002
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.005
0.002
0.003
0.013
0.020
0.012
0.018
0.070
1.3
0.0042
0.017
0.042
<0.020
<0.001
0.047
0.042
0.02
-------
Table V-47 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
DRAWING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Stream
Concentrations
125- selenium
126. silver
127. zinc
Ngn c gnventional
alkalinity
aluminum
calcium
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
dissolved solids
E-4
V-4
W-2
W-3
E-4
V-4
W-2
W-3
E-4
V-4
W-2
W-3
E-4
V-4
W-2
W-3
E-4
V-4
W-2
W-3
E-4
V-4
W-2
W-3
E-4
V-4
W-2
W-3
E-4
V-4
W-2
W-3
Source
<0.01
0.020
0.015
0.015
<0.02
0.05
0.02
0.02
<0.050
0.50
0.03
0.03
170
170
<0.09
0.09
0.06
0.06
68
9.8
55
55
<5
<1
12
12
Day 1
<0.01
0.031
0.051
<0.005
<0.04
0.05
0.04
0.05
<0.050
0.02
0.21
0.32
Pay 2
<0.01
0.007
0.017
<0.005
<0.02
<0.001
<0.001
0.02
<0.050
0.04
0.19
0.11
Pay 3
<0.01
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.02
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.050
0.04
0.22
0.40
Average
<0.01
<0.014
<0.024
<0.005
<0.03
<0.02
<0.01
<0.02
<0-050
0.03
0.21
0.28
79,
I,
1,
5,
340
280
140
250
<0.295
0.10
0.92
2.6
35
860
35
66
600
12
900
200
005
400
680
680
400
280
240
240
<0.845
0.21
0.97
0.32
22
78
34
56
98,400
32
1,500
1,000
8,326
420
780
730
370
280
250
250
<0.395
0.12
0.96
2.6
36
76
59
36
97,700
32
1,900
1,100
13,500
410
780
740
370
280
210
250
<0.512
0.14
0.95
1.8
31
338
43
53
91,900
25
1,800
1,100
8,944
410
750
720
-------
Table V-47 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
DRAWING SOLUTION HEAT TREATMENT CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW VASTEWATER
Pollutant
magnesium
CO
h-1
u>
phenolics (total by 4-AAP method)
sulfate
total organic carbon (TOC)
Conventional
oil and grease
suspended solids
pll (standard units)
Stream
Code
E-4
V-4
W-2
W-3
E-4
V-4
W-2
W-3
E-4
V-4
W-2
W-3
E-4
V-4
W-2
W-3
Sample
Type
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
E-4
V-4
W-2
W-3
E-4
V-4
W-2
W-3
E-4
V-4
W-2
W-3
Source
3.8
63
19
19
0.062
1.00
1.00
81
81
1
4.7
0
0
16
6.6
6.6
7.3
7.7
7.7
Day 1
26
60
51
21
0.005
0.009
0.150
0.800
400
32
98
100
20,000
14
660
450
17
350
150
21
12
98
57
7.9
7.3
Day 2
<9.05
55
36
4.4
0.007
0.400
0.720
280
23
100
100
20,300
8.2
•690
110
18
6.3
370
120
19
13
93
39
8.2
7.5
Day 3
30
54
33
27
0.005
0.025
0.300
0.900
298
29
97
85
18,400
28
900
500
26
8.0
120
120
17
7
87
50
8.4
7.4
Average
<22
56
40
17
0.005
0.014
0.283
0.807
326
28
98
95
19,600
17
750
350
20
7.2
280
130
19
11
93
49
1.7
7.7
-------
Table V-48
CLEANING OR ETCHING BATH
Water Use
1/kkg gal/ton
*
*
*
*
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
*Data not available.
**Not applicable.
Statistical Summary
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Sample:
Nonzero Mean
Sample:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Percent
Recycle
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Wastewater
1/kkg gal/ton
0
1.430
5.816
8.406
9.498
28.35
192.4
346.4
446.5
800.5
0
0.3430
1.395
2.016
2.278
6.800
46.15
83.08
107.1
192.0
0 0
800,5 192
183.9 44.12
18.92 4.539
10 of 8 plants
204.4 49.02
9 of 8 plants
Note: This table includes only plants that discharge or haul
away the baths and provided enough data for calculation of
the wastewater value.
Note: This table includes data from two plants which have both
cleaning and etch line bath discharges.
314
-------
Table V-49
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
CLEANING OR ETCHING BATH
RAW WASTEWATER
to
H»
Ui
Pollutant
1. acenaphchene
2. acrolein
3. acrylonltrile
4, benzene
5. benzldine
6. carbon tetrachloride
7. chlorobenzene
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. bis(chloromethyl)ether
18. bis(chloroethyl)ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
23. chloroform
24. 2-chlorophenol
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
31. 2,4-dichTorophenol
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropene
34. 2,4-dimethyIphenol
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
38. ethylbenzene
39 - fluoranthene
Analytical
Quantification
Level
OUR/I)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0,010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0,010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
6
4
4
4
6
4
4
6
6
4
4
6
4
4
4
4
4
6
4
6
6
6
4
6
6
6
6
6
4
4
6
4
4
6
6
6
6
4
6
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
6
4
4
4
6
4
4
6
6
4
4
6
4
4
4
4
4
6
4
6
6
6
4
6
6
6
6
6
4
4
6
4
4
6
6
6
6
4
6
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
ND- 0.011- 0.101-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
6
4
4
4
6
4
4
6
6
4
4
6
4
4
4
4
4
6
4
6
6
5 1
3 1
6
6
6
6
6
4
4
6
4
4
5 1
6
6
6
4
5 1
-------
Table V-49 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
CLEANING OR ETCHING BATH
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
43. bis (2-chloroethoxy)methane
44. methylene chloride
45. methyl chloride (chloromethane)
46. methyl bromide (bromomethane)
47. bromoform (tribroraomethane)
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. trichlorofluoromethane
50. dichlorodifluoromethane
51. chlorodibromoraethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
J^ 53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
oi 54. isophorone
55. naphthalene
56. nitrobenzene
57. 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
62. N-nltrosodiphenylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
64. pentachlorophenol
65. phenol
66. bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
72. benzo(a)anthracene
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
75. benzo(k)fluoranthene
76. chrysene
77. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (a)
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/1)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
6
6
6
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
6
6
6
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
ND- 0.011- 0.101-
0. 010 0. 100 1 . 000 1 . 000+
6
6
6
6
1 3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4 1 I
6
6
6
6
5 1
3 3
3 3
6
4 2
5 1
5 1
5 1
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
-------
Table V-49 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
CLEANING OR ETCHING BATH
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
79. benzo(ghi)perylene
80. fluorene
81. phenanthrene (a)
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno (l,2,3-c>d)pyrene
84. pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
87. trichloroethylene
88, vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
89. aldrin
90. dieldrin
91* chlordane
92. 4,4'-DDT
93. 4,4*-DOE
94. 4,4'-DDD
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
97. endosulfan sulfate
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
104. garama-BHC
105. delta-BHC
106. PCB-1242 (b)
107. PCB-1254 (b)
108. PCB-1221 (b)
109. PCB-1232 (b)
110. PCB-1248 (c)
111. PCB-1260 (c)
112. PCB-1016 (c)
113. toxaphene
114, antimony
115. arsenic
116. asbestos
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(•«/!)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.100
0.010
10 MFL
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
6
6
-
6
6
6
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
-
-
-
6
-
-
6
4
4
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
6
6
-
6
6
6
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
-
-
-
6
-
-
6
4
4
0
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (me/1)
ND- O.OH- U.1U1-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
3 1
-------
Table V-49 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
CLEANING OR ETCHING BATH
RAW WASTEWATER
00
Pollutant
117. beryllium
118. cadmium
119. chromium (total)
120. copper
121. cyanide (total)
122. lead
123. mercury
124. nickel
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
128. zinc
129. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(a), (b), (c) Reported together.
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(np/D
0.010
0.002
0.005
0.009
0.100
0.020
0. 0001
0.005
0.01
0.02
0.100
0.050
0.005
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
3
3
3
3
6
3
3
3
6
4
4
3
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
3
3
3
3
6
3
3
3
6
4
4
3
0
Number
in
ND- 0.
0.010 0.
3
1
1
2
2
1
6
4
4
1
of Times Observed
Samples
011-
100
1
1
2
1
1
<«R/D
0.101-
1 . 000 1 .
1
2
1
1
2
000+
1
1
2
2
-------
Table V-50
SAMPLING DATA
CLEANING OR ETCHING BATH
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Toxic: Pollutants
22. parachlorometa crcsol
23, chloroform
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
U>
39. fluoranthene
44. methylene chloride
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
64. pentachlorophenol
Code
A-6
A-7
B-ll
B-12
C-10
C-ll
B-ll
B-12
C-10
C-ll
A-6
A-7
B-ll
B-12
C-10
C-ll
A-6
A-7
B-ll
B-12
C-10
C-ll
B-ll
B-12
C-10
C-ll
A-6
A-7
B-ll
B-12
C-10
C-ll
A-6
A-7
U-ll
B-12
C-10
C-ll
Sample
Source
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.010
0.010
0.055
0.055
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.220
0.220
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
W>
ND
Concentrations
"Day 2
0.021
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
*
*
*
0.020
ND
ND
*
*
ND
0,034
*
ND
0.002
0.018
ND
ND
0.062
*
0.039
0.015
Z.900
ND
0.146
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
0.012
ND
ND
0.021
*
*
*
0.020
*
*
0.034
*
0.002
0.018
0.062
A
0.039
0,015
2.900
0.146
*
*
0.012
-------
Table V-50 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
CLEANING OR ETCHING BATH
RAW WASTEWATER
Stream
Concentrations
Pollutant
65. phenol
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
68. dl-n-butyl phthalate
ro
O
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
A-6
A-7
B-H
B-12
C-10
C-ll
A-6
A-7
B-ll
B-12
C-10
C-ll
A-6
A-7
B-ll
B-12
C-10
C-ll
A-6
A-7
B-ll
B-12
C-10
C-ll
A-6
A-7
B-ll
B-12
C-10
C-ll
A-6
A-7
B-ll
B-12
C-10
C-ll
Source
NO
ND
0.200
0.200
*
*
*
*
0.076
0.076
*
*
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
*
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 1 Day^ 2
0.0160
0.035
ND
0.0160
ND
ND
0.033
O.C25
0.009
*
0.021
ND
0.032
0.012
0.003
*
*
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.050
ND
ND
*
ND
*
0.036
ND
ND
ND
0.013
ND
ND
Day 3 Average
0.0160
0.035
0.0160
0.033
0.025
0.009
*
0.021
0.032
0.012
0,003
*
*
*
0.050
*
*
0.036
0.013
-------
Table V-50 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
CLEANING OR ETCHING BATH
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
99. endrin aldehyde
115. arsenic
116. cadmium
u> 119. chromium
t-»
120. copper
121. cyanide
122. lead
123. mercury
124. nickel
128. zinc
Stream
Code
A-6
A-7
B-ll
B-12
C-10
C-ll
B-ll
B-12
C-10
C-ll
B-ll
C-10
C-ll
B-ll
C-1.0
C-ll
B-ll
C-10
C-ll
A-6
A-7
B-ll
B-12
C-10
C-ll
B-ll
C-10
C-ll
B-ll
C-10
C-ll
B-ll
C-10
C-ll
8-11
C-10
C-ll
Coucentratious
Source
ND
ND
ND
ND
**
**
<0.010
<0.010
<0.020
<0.020
ND
<0.002
<0.002
ND
0.007
0.007
ND
0.020
0.02000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.030
0.030
ND
0.0004
0.0004
ND
0.030
0.030
ND
0.200
0.200
Day 1 -Day 2
ND
ND
ND
**
0.0052
0.14
<0.01
0.01
<0.02
0.050
0.005
3.000
0.020
0.400
10.00
20
20
<5.00
0.408
0.082
0.196
0.003
0.054
<0.001
2.000
0.400
90.0
0.0004
0.001
0.020
0.100
0.500
<3.000
0.500
0.900
OO.OO
Day 3 Average
**
**
0.0052
0.14
<0.01
0.01
<0.02
0.050
0.005
3.000
0.020
0.400
10.00
20
20
<5.00
0.408
0.082
0.196
0.003
0.054
<0.001
2.000
0.400
90.0
0.0004
0.001
0.020
0.100
0.500
O.OOO
0.500
0.900
OO.OO
-------
Table V-50 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
CLEANING OR ETCHING BATH
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Nonconventional
aluminum
calcium
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
10
to
dissolved solids
magnesium
phenols (total; by 4-AAP method)
sulfate
Stream
Code
B-ll
B-12
C-10
C-ll
B-ll
B-12
C-10
C-ll
A-6
A-7
B-ll
B-12
C-10
C-ll
A-6
A-7
B-ll
B-12
C-10
B-ll
B-12
C-10
C-ll
A-6
A-7
B-ll
B-12
C-10
C-ll
A-6
A-7
B-ll
B-12
12
12
8.00
8.00
82.0
82.0
<5.000
<5.000
4.6
4.6
Day_i Day 2
2,200
2 , 000
30
70,000
18
<0.03
36
<2,500
3,780
207
1
17
1.0
9,270
83,856
284,000
27,619
43,647
27,620
980
0.06
5.9
<50
0.039
0.174
0.005
0.040
<0.001
0.197
213.0
<10.0
10
200
Day 3 Average
2,200
2,000
30
70,000
18
<0.03
36
<2,500
3,780
207
1
17
1.0
9,270
83,856
284,000
27,619
43,647
27,620
980
0.06
5.9
<50
0.039
0.174
0.005
0.040
<0.001
0.197
213.0
<10.0
10
200
-------
T.ible V-50 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
CLEANING OR ETCHING BATH
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
total organic carbon (TOG)
Conventional
oil and grease
suspended solids
pH (standard units)
Stream
Code
A-6
B-ll
B-12
C-10
C-ll
A-6
A-7
B-ll
B-12
C-10
C-ll
A-6
A-7
B-ll
B-12
C-10
C-ll
B-ll
B-12
Sample
Type
1
1
I
1
1
Source
9.000
35.00
35.00
<1.000
<1.000
<1.000
<1.000
138
138
<1.00
<1.00
Concentrations (tag/1)
Day i2 Day 3
100
7
12
12
11
11
166
279
27
73
9
348
0.5
11.4
100
7
12
12
11
11
166
279
27
73
9
348
-------
Table V-51
CLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE
Water Use
Plant 1/kkg gal/ton
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
21
15
8
5
9
141
1
3
1
2
1
2
50
5
10
16
41
23
75
89
250
,180
,800
*
*
,339
102.1
*
400.3
500.3
,003
,727
,600
,063
,490
,313
,377
,780
,224
*
,030
,212
*
,670
*
,120
,690
*
,520
*
*
*
,430
,350
,200
5,
3,
2,
1,
2>
33,
12,
1,
2,
3,
10,
5,
18,
21,
60,
080
790
*
*
000
24.49
*
96.00
120.0
200
333
970
255.0
837.0
315.0
570.0
427.0
533.3
*
000
250
*
560
*
865
000
*
640
*
*
*
090
430
000
*Data not available.
Statistical Summary
Minimum 102.1 24.49
Maximum 250,000 60,000
Mean 32,380 7,766
Median 9,033 2,167
Sample:
24 of 30 plants
Percent
Recycle
*
*
*
*
*
0
*
0
0
*
94.3
99.6
0
*
0
*
0
*
*
90.0
0
*
0
*
0
50.0
*
0
*
*
*
0
0
0
Wastewater
1/kkg
1.430
2.635
14.48
61.00
80.05
102.1
178.0
333.6
500.3
500.3
558.3
600.0
938.1
1,163
1,313
1,591
1,780
2,110
2,330
5,003
5,212
5,683
10,670
14,480
16,120
20,850
23,350
23,520
36,390
43,950
63,920
75,430
89,350
125,100
gal/ton
0.3430
0.6320
3.472
14.63
19.20
24.49
42.70
80.00
120.0
120.0
133.3
143.9
225.0
279.0
315.0
381.6
427.0
506.0
558.8
1,200
1,250
1,363
2,560
3,473
3,865
5,000
5,600
5,640
8,727
10,540
15,330
18,090
21,430
30,000
1.430 0.3430
125,100 30,000
16,860 4,043
1,945 467.0
34 of 30 plants
Note: This table includes data from four plants which have both
cleaning and etch line rinse discharges.
324
-------
Table V-52
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
CLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE
RAW WASTEWATER
Analytical
Quantification
Level
ro
Ln
Pollutant
1. acenaphthene
2. acrolein
3. acrylonitrtle
4. benzene
5. benzidine
6. carbon tetrachlorlde
7. chlorobenzene
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexacblorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethatie
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. bis(chloromethyl)ether
18. bis(chloroethyl)ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
21. 2,4,6-trlchlorophenol
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
23. chloroform
24. 2-chlorophenol
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzeoe
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobeozene
28. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dlchloroethylene
31. 2,4-BTchTorophenol
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropene
34. 2,4-dimethyIphenol
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
38. ethylbenzene
39. fluoranthene
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
,20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
36
42
42
42
36
42
42
36
36
42
42
36
42
42
42
42
42
36
42
36
36
36
42
36
36
36
36
36
42
42
36
42
42
36
36
36
36
42
36
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (me/1)
ND- 0.011- O.lOl-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
35 1
42
42
36 6
36
42
42
36
36
42
42
36
42
42
42
42
42
36
42
36
36
36
18 23 1
36
36
36
36
36
42
41 1
36
42
42
35 1
36
36
36
42
36
-------
Table V-52 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
CLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE
RAW WASTEWATER
Follutant
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
44. methylene chloride
45. methyl chloride (chloromethane)
46. methyl bromide (bromomethane)
47. bromoform (tribromornethane)
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. trichlorofluororaethane
50. dichlorodifluororoethane
51. chlorodibrotnomethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. isophorone
55. naphthalene
56 b nitrobenzene
57. 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitco-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodinethylamine
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
64. pentachlorophenol
65. phenol
66. bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalafe
72. benzo(a)anthracene
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
75- benzo(k)fluoranthene
76. chrysene
77. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (a)
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/1)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
O.Olo
O.oin
0.010
O.Olo
O.Oln
0.01'!
0.010
0.010
O.Olo
O.Oln
O.olo
0. Ol'l
0.010
Number
of
Streams
A_nerly_zj5d
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed.
36
36
36
36
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
Number
in
ND- 0.
0.010 0.
36
36
36
36
20
42
42
42
42
42
42
40
36
36
35
35
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
34
28
35
34
34
33
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
of Times Observed
Samples (mg/1)
Oil- 0.101-
100 1.000 1.000+
8 11 3
2
1
I
2
8
1
2
2
3
-------
Table V-52 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC I'OLLUTANTS
CLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
79. benzo(ghi)perylene
80. fluorene
81. phenanthrene (a)
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno (1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
84. pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylene
86, toluene
87. trichloroethylene
88. vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
89. aldrin
90. dleldrin
J^ 91. chlordane
£J 92. 4,4'-DDT
93. 4,4'-DDE
94. 4,4'-DDD
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
97, endosulfan sulfate
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
104. gamma-BHC
105. delta-BHC
106. PCB-1242 (b)
107. PCB-1254 (b)
108. PCB-1221 (b)
109. PCB-1232 (b)
110. PCB-1248 (c)
111. PCB-1260 (c)
112. PCB-1016 (c)
113. toxaphene
114. antimony
115. arsenic
116. asbestos
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/1)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0,005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.100
0.010
10 MFL
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
20
20
-
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
-
-
-
19
-
-
19
9
18
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
36
36
-
36
36
36
42
42
42
42
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
-
-
-
27
-
-
27
12
33
0
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (me/1)
ND- 0.011- 0.101-
0.010 0 . 100 1 . 000 1 .000+
36
36
36
36
36
42
42
42
42
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
26 1
26 1
27
12
22 8 3
-------
Table V-52 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
CLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE
RAW WASTEWATER
u
h:
GO
Pollutant
117. beryllium
118. cadmium
119. chromium (total)
120. copper
121. cyanide (total)
122. lead
123. mercury
124. nickel
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
128. zinc
129. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(a), (b) , (c) Reported together.
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/1)
0.010
0.002
0.005
0.009
0.100
0.020
0.0001
0.005
0.01
0.02
0.100
0.050
0.005
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
17
17
17
17
19
17
17
17
9
9
9
17
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
31
31
31
31
35
31
31
31
12
12
12
31
0
Number
in
ND- 0.
0.010 0.
30
25
5
2
31
9
30
22
12
12
12
2
of Times Observed
Samples (mg/1)
Oil- 0
100 1
5
7
5
4
9
1
5
9
.101-
.000 1.
1
1
6
14
6
3
7
000+
13
10
7
1
13
-------
Table V-53
SAMPLING DATA
CLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE
RAW UASTEWATER
Pollutant
1. acenaphthene
VO
4. benzene
Stream
Code
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
7
3
6
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Source
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
*
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.029
0.029
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Concentrations
T
(fflK/1)
Average^
*
*
ND
ND
ND
*
0.017
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
*
0.033
ND
0.042
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.043
0.031
ND
*
0.042
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
A
ND
ND
0.019
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
0.017
*
*
0.043
*
0.016
0.033
*
0.034
-------
Table V-53 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
CLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE
RAW UASTEWATER
Pollutant
23. chloroform
30. I,2-tran£-di-chloroethylene
Stream
Code
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
K.-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
Concentirations
Source
0.052
0.052
*
0.055
0.055
0.020
0.020
*
0.066
0.066
0.066
0.045
0.045
0.100
0.100
0.040
0.040
ND
0.040
0.-040
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ay_J^
0.024
0.019
*
*
*
*
*
0.069
0.029
0.071
0.044
*
0.057
ND
0.025
*
ND
ND
0.020
0.020
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.110
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 2
0.011
0.011
0.110
0.057
0.030
*
0.067
0.030
*
ND
0.030
0.020
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 3
*
0.017
*
*
0.100
0.020
*
*
0.030
0.020
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Average
0.024
0.019
*
*
*
0.004
0.009
0.060
0.029
0.064
0.037
*
0.075
0.025
*
*
0.027
0.020
*
0.110
*
-------
Table V-53 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
CLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
34. 2,4-diraethyIphenol
to
UJ
44. methylene chloride
Stream
Code
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
11-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
Source
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
*
0.013
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.130
0.130
*
0.220
0.220
*
*
0.017
1
1
1
1
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
*
100
100
100
300
300
Day 1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.019
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.150
0.510
0.020
0.018
*
*
*
0.150
0.-120
0.318
0.873
0.040
0.940
0.030
*
ND
ND
*
*
*
Day 2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.058
6.100
1.300
0.017
0.034
0.840
ND
*
*
*
*
Day 3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.520
0.280
0.120
0.038
2.200
ND
ND
*
*
*
Average
0.019
0.150
0.510
0.020
0.018
*
0.260
0.113
2.123
0.120
0.809
0.445
0.037
1.327
0.030
*
*
*
*
*
-------
Table V-53 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
CLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
51. chlorodibromomethane
54. isophorone
Stream
Code
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
Sample
Tvoe
Concentrations^ (mg/1)
Source
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
*
ND
ND
ND
0.020
0.020
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0,011
0.011
0.011
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Da'
! — -.
*
X
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.160
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
0.020
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
0.020
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Average
*
*
*
*
*
0.013
0.160
*
-------
Table V-53 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
CLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
55. naphthalene
to
U)
U)
65. phenol
Stream
Code
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
Sample
Type
Source
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day 1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.050
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
0.012
ND
*
ND
ND
0.063
ND
ND
ND
*
**
**
ND
ND
*
*
ND
Day 2
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
**
*
ND
ND
Day 3
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Average
*
0.050
0.012
*
*
0.063
*
**
**
#
*
-------
Table V-53 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
CLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant,
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
Stream
Code
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
•Concentrations
Source
0.200
0.200
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.065
0.065
0.065
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
*
*
*
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 1
*
0.041
*
*
*
A
0.0/8
0.089
0.098
0.020
*
0.021
*
ND
*
*
ND
A
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.066
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
**
*
*
ND
ND
ND
Day 2 D_ay_ 3 Average
0.032 0.019
*
*
* *
* *
* ND
* *
* *
ND ND
ND ND
ND
ND
* *
ND *
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
*
0.041
*
*
*
*
0.078
0.047
0.098
0.010
*
0.007
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.066
*
*
*
**
*
*
-------
Table V-53 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
CLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
68. di-n-butyl phthlate
Ln
69. dl-n-octyl phthalate
Stream
Code
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
U-4
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
Sample
Type
Source
0.076
0.076
*
ND
ND
*
*
ft
*
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
ft
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Concentrations (rcg/1)
Average
Day 1
*
*
*
ft
ND
*
ND
0.033
0.068
*
*
*
*
ND
ND
ft
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.038
ft
ND
0.029
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 2
ND
*
ft
*
*
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 3
*
*
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
ft
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.017
0.068
*
ft
*
*
*
0.038
*
0,029
-------
Table V-53 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
GLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
70. diethyl phthalate
CJ
106. PCB-1242 (a)
107. PCB-1254 (a)
108. PCB-1221 (a)
Stream
Code
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
Source
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
*
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Concentrations (mg/1.)
Day I
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
0.011
0.022
ND
0.013
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
**
**
ND
**
**
**
**
0.016
ND
**
**
**
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Dag 3 Average
*
* 0.006
0.022
*
0.013
* *
* *
ND
ND
ND
ND
**
**
**
**
**
**
0.016
**
**
**
ND
ND
ND
ND
-------
Table V-53 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
CLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
109. PCB-1232 (b)
110. PCB-1248 (b)
111. PCB-1260 (b)
112. PCB-1016 (b)
u>
--J
115.
arsenic
Stream
Code
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
K-2
K.-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
A-3
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
11-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
Source
0.130
0.400
0.610
0.610
0.290
0.290
0.200
1.100
1.100
**
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
<0.010
<0.010
<0.020
<0.020
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
-------
Table V-53 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
CLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
117. berylli
u>
w
oo
118. cadmium
Stream
_gode
A-3
B-5
C-7
D-3
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
A-3
B-5
C-7
D-3
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
Source
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.020
<0.020
<0.0005
<0.0005
<0.0005
<0.0005
<0.0005
<0.0017
<0.0017
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0. 002
<0.002
<0.010
<0.010
<0.0005
<0.0005
<0.0005
<0.0005
<0.0005
<0.0005
<0.0005
Concentrations (mg/1)
Pay 1
<0.001
0.200
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.020
<0.001
<0.001
<0.020
<0.020
<0.0005
<0.0005
<0.0005
< 0.0005
<0.0005
0.0038
0.0038
<0.002
0.200
<0.002
0.009
0.010
<0.040
0.008
0.003
<0.010
<0.010
<0.0028
< 0,0005
<0.0005
<0.0005
<0.0005
0.027
0.0035
Pay 2
<0.001
<0. 001
<0.020
<0.020
<0. 0005
0.0025
0.0067
<0.0005
0.030
0.030
-------
Table V-53 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
CLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
119. chromium
120. copper
Stream
Code
A-3
B-5
C-7
D-3
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
A-3
B-5
C-7
D-3
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
Sample
Type
Source
<0.005
0.007
<0.005
<0.005
-------
Table V-53 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
CLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
121. cyanide
u>
**•
o
122. lead
Stream
Code
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
A-3
B-5
C-7
D-3
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
Source
Concentration^ (mg/1)
ND
<0.020
0.030
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.050
<0.050
0.014
0.014
0.010
0.010
0.006
<0.001
<0.001
Pay 1
0.007
0.009
<0.001
<0.001
0.003
0.007
0.002
0.033
<0.001
<0.001
0.010
<0.001
<0.02
<0.02
<0.020
<0.020
<0.02
0.00028
<0.02
0.020
7.0
<0.020
0.200
0.500
<0.300
0.200
0.4
<0.050
<0.050
0.03
0.030
0,020
0.012
1.6
7.9
0.013
Day 2
0.021
<0.001
0.001
0.008
0.001
<0.02
<0.02
0.00059
<0.02
0.800
0.800
<0.050
<0.050
0.021
1.1
11
0.05
Day 3
0.042
0.008
0.001
<0.02
<0.02
0.00002
0.03
<0.050
<0.050
0.025
2.2
11
0.01
Average
0.007
0.009
<0.001
<0.001
0.003
0.007
0.002
0.032
<0.001
<0.001
0.009
<0.001
<0.02
<0.02
<0.020
<0.020
<0.02
0.00030
<0.02
0.020
7.0
<0.020
0.200
0.650
<0.300
0.500
0.4
<0.050
<0.050
0.03
0.025
0.020
0.012
1.6
10
0.02
-------
Table V-53 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
CLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
123. mercury
UJ
-p-
124. nickel
Stream
Code
A-3
B-5
C-7
D-3
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
M-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
A~3
B-5
C-7
D-3
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
K-2
1C-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
Sample
Tvoe
Concentrations
Source
0.0006
0.0004
0.0006
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
<0.0004
<0.0004
0.0073
0.0073
0.0091
0.0091
<0.0001
0.0007
0.0007
<0,. 005
0.030
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
-------
Table V-53 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
CLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
128. zinc
K>
Nonconvent ional
alkalinity
Stream
Code
A-3
B-5
C-7
D-3
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
Source
0.060
0.200
<0.050
<0.050
0.100
0.100
0.100
<0.020
<0.020
0.053
0.053
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
0.053
0.053
Concentrations _Qng/_l)
107
107
107
96
96
150
170
170
Day 1
0.100
410
0,070
3.0
0.5
3.0
0.200
6.0
0.080
0.020
0.11
0.053
0.068
0.098
10
48
36
68
70
6
0
0
0
530
0
3,500
110
40
0
40
310
90
60
12
110
Pay 2
0.5
0.400
0.120
0.040
0.053
6.6
51
6.8
86
205
0
0
20
0
0
<10
130
16
160
Day 3
0.150
<0.020
<0.01
10
46
3.8
0
0
0
<10
130
66
83
Average
0.100
410
0.070
3.0
0.5
3.0
0.300
6.0
0.117
<0.027
0.11
<0.04
0.068
0.098
9
48
16
77
138
6
0
0
0
530
0
3,500
55
30
0
13
310
90
110
31
118
-------
Table V-53 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
CLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
aluminum
U)
•P-
U)
calcium
Stream
Code
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
Sample
Type
Concentr at ions
Source
<0.09
<0.09
2
2
0.2
0.2
<0.09
<0.09
<0.09
<0.09
<0.5
<0.5
<0. 5
<0. 5
<0.5
39
39
12
12
38
38
68
52
52
52
ND
28
28
61
60
60
1
1
1
Day 1
<0.01
110
,200
,200
1.4
110
100
330
200
130
9.8
9.7
270
56.5
170
40
7.1
94
,300
54
42
8.1
0.34
<0.03
31
20
16
0.14
0.6
3.2
56
38
1.4
10
11
24
38
48
54
49
Day 2
1.0
150
750
300
16
13
350
130
51
64
56
31
0.9
<0.03
0.2
66
38
1.5
10
57
66
60
Day 3
450
16
280
120
100
640
43
0.08
38
0.7
9
62
48
52
Average
<0.6
130
1,200
1,200
1.4
110
100
510
200
215
13
13
300
56.5
140
40
7.1
82
668
51
37
4.5
0.34
<0-03
31
20
16
<0-08
0.6
1.7
61
38
1.2
10
10
24
38
56
56
54
-------
Table V-53 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
CLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
dissolved solids
Stream
Code
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-5
H-6
K.-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
Sample
Type
Source
<5
<5
<5
<5
5
5
<5
<5
5
5
Concentrations^ (rog/1)
173
173
173
164
164
346
Day i
5
12
<5
230
<5
35
5,
2,
2,
18,
1,
2,
75
184
12
<5
8
23
20
10
243
36
14
392
20
160
601
20
972
206
053
760
530
720
649
505
386
157
770
160
660
250
650
430
660
Pay 2
357
28
7
8
27
7
127
251
20
162
772
4,430
1,809
469
445
1,647
690
450
3,660
560
Day 3
89
10
20
9
20
82
8
378
210
550
580
2,410
980
Average
5
12
<5
230
<5
35
75
210
20
<6
9
23
20
9
243
36
54
242
16
161
687
20
5,972
206
2,053
760
3,480
18,720
1,229
487
403
1,005
770
470
660
250
560
2,830
730
-------
Table V-53 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
CLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
magnesium
Lo
*-
Ln
phenols (total; by 4-AAP
method)
Stream
Code
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
Source
Concentrations (mg,/jL)
4.39
4.39
Day 1
6.8
0.33
0.19
0.09
4.8
17
9.9
0.4
18.0
0.3
8.0
9.2
r.o
3.47
2.59
4.87
10.33
13.6
38.2
22.9
0.008
0.003
0.012
0.039
0.013
0.011
0.014
0.009
0.004
<0.001
0.007
0.004
0.003
0.01
0.008
0.066
0.012
0.026
Day 2
6.0
2.2
0.02
<0.02
11.0
9.6
0.5
2.50
14.0
34.4
21.5
0.015
0.009
0.031
0.008
0.008
0.005
0.006
0.004
0.008
0.009
0.004
0.003
Day 3
1.0
10.0
<0.01
2.62
17.5
39.0
19.1
0.012
<0.001
<0.001
0.006
0.012
0.002
Average
6.4
1.3
0.19
0.09
4.8
17
9.9
0.4
18.0
<0.2
9.5
9.6
<0.5
3.47
2.57
4.87
10.33
15.0
37.2
21.2
0.012
0.006
0.012
0.039
0.013
0.011
0.014
0.017
0.006
0.005
<0.004
<0 . 004
0.003
0.01
0.008
0.008
0.029
0.008
0.010
-------
Table V-53 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
CLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
sulfate
total organic carbon (TOG)
Stream
Code
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-5
H-6
K.-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
Source
Concentrations (rog/1)
67
9
9
35
6
6
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.7
Pay 1
30
30
1
<25
40
,263
70
39
130
30
30
40
60
11
250
40
60
35
150
170
3
7
109
5
45
51
10
<1
8
8
13
6
184
16
1.5
30
3.7
•Pay 2
50
50
<25
130
20
50
39
280
9
48
150
138
5
7
6
14
7.4
1.8
53
9.2
Day 3
50
50
70
460
53
17
190
21
<1
7
2.8
0.67
13
3.3
Average
40
40
1
<25
40
1,263
70
<38
130
80
25
50
56
11
330
40
60
32
72
170
3
7
109
5
45
70
8
<4
<5
10
13
5
184
16
1.3
32
5.4
-------
Table V-53 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
CLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Conventional
oil and grease
suspended solids
Stream
Code
A-3
A-4
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
Q-2
R-6
R-7
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-5
H-6
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
Concentrations
Source
<5
138
<1
13
13
<2
<2
<2
<2
Day 1
4
2
16
11
5
47
76
16
14
10
15
5
53
10
<5
14
<5
2
310
1
90
23
120
200
363
49
13
249
<2
622
52
19
352
3,640
250
Day 2
22
18
13
7
6
7
<5
<5
105
146
300
298
48
151
49
512
188
2,140
230
Day 3
31
7
3
5
17
<5
6
13
170
10
1
494
360
2,230
160
Average
4
2
16
11
5
47
43
17
14
8
8
5
22
<11
<5
42
<55
2
310
1
90
23
120
223
331
49
58
100
<2
543
52
19
300
2,670
210
-------
Pollutant
pH (standard units)
Stream
Code
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
K-2
K-3
L-5
L-6
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
R-7
Table V-53 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
CLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE
RAW WASTEWATCR
Sample
Source
7.1
7.1
6.3
Concentrations (mg/1)
2£2_i
8
6
6.9
11.8
2.2
3.5
11.2
9.8
2.5
11.3
2.5
3.6
9.4
8.1
5.7
9.2
Day 2
4
10.8
11.6
2.5
11.7
2.1
9.1
8.9
7.7
Day 3
3.3
11.2
10.5
2.2
10.8
2.0
9.4
7.3
Average
8
6
6.9
11.8
2.2
4
11.1
10.6
2.4
11.3
2.5
2.6
9.3
8.1
7.3
8.1
6.3
00
(a), (b) Reported together
-------
Table V-54
CLEANING OR ETCHING SCRUBBER LIQUOR
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
6
1/kkg
*
47,780
*
*
*
Water Use
gal/ton
*
*
11,460
*
*
*
Percent
Recycle
0
*
Wastewater
1/kkg gal/ton
*Data not available
Statistical Summary
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Sample:
1,880
1,985
47,780
451.0
476.0
11,460
*
*
*
1,880 451.0
47,780 11,460
17,220 4,129
1,985 476.0
3 of 6 plants
349
-------
Table V-55
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
CLEANING OR ETCHING SCRUBBER LIQUOR
RAW WASTEWATER
u>
Ui
o
Pollutant
1. aceoaphthene
2. acrolein
3. acrylonitrile
4. benzene
5- benzidlne
6. carbon Cetrachloride
7. chlorobenzene
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
10, 1,2-dichloroethane
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. bis(chloromethyl)ether
18. bis(chloroethyl)ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
21. 2,4,6-trIchlorophenol
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
23- chloroform
24. 2-chlorophenol
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dtchlorobenzene
28. 3,3'~dichlorobenzidine
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
30. 1-, 2-trans -dichloroethylene
31. 2,4-dIchlorophenol
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropene
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2-dlphenylhydrazine
38. etliylbenzene
39. fluoranthene
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mR/l)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0,010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0,0]0
O.OTO
0.010
0.010
0.010
0. 01 0
0.010
0. 0! 0
o.o 10
0.010
0.010
O.Ol.'i
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
ND- 0.011- 0.101-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1-000+
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
Table V-55 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
CLEANING OR ETCHING SCRUBBER LIQUOR
RAW WASTEWATER
Analytical
Quantification
Level
Ln
Pollutant
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroiscpropyl)ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
44. methylene chloride
45. methyl chloride (chloromethane)
46. methyl bromide (bromomethane)
47. brornoform (tribroinomethane)
48, dichlorobromometViane
49. trichlorofluoromethane
50. dichlorodifluoromethane
51. chlorodibromomethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopt-mtadiene
54. isophorone
55. naphthalene
56. nitrobenzene
57. 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6--dinitro--o*-cresol
61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
62. N-nitrosodiphenylarnine
63. N~nitrosodi-n~propylamine
64. pentachlorophenol
65. phenol
66. his (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
72. benzo(a)anthracene
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)£luoranthene
75. benzo(k)fluoranthene
76. chrysene
77. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (a)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
oC
Streams
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
Number
of .
Samples
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
ND- 0.011- O.lOl-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
Table V-55 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
CLEANING OR ETCHING SCRUBBER LIQUOR
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
79- benzo(ghi)perylene
80. fluorene
81. phenanthrene (a)
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno (1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
8/4. pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
87. trichloroethylene
88. vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
89- aldrin
90. dleldrin
91. chlocdane
92. 4,4'-DDT
93. 4,4'-DDE
94. 4,4*-ODD
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
97. endosulfan sulfate
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
102. atpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
104. gamroa-BHC
105. delta-BHC
106. PCB-1242 (b)
107. PCB-1254 (b)
108. PCB-1221 (b)
109. PCB-1232 (b)
110. PCB-1248 (c)
111. PCB-1260 (c)
112. PCB-1016 (c)
113. toxaphene
114, antimony
115. arsenic
116. asbestos
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/1)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.100
0.010
10 MFL
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
1
1
-
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
-
-
1
-
-
1
1
1
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
1
1
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
-
-
1
-
-
1
1
1
0
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (me/1)
ND- 0.011- 0.101-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000-t-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
Table V-55 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
CLEAHIHG OR ETCHING SCRUBBER LIQUOR
RAW WASTEWATER
to
in
to
Pollutant
117. beryllium
118. cadmium
119. chromium (total)
120. copper
121. cyanide (total)
122. lead
123. mercury
124. nickel'
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
128. zinc
129. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(a), (b), (c) Reported together.
Analytical
Quant if icat ion
Level
0.010
0.002
0.005
0.009
0.100
0.020
0.0001
0.005
0.01
0.02
0.100
0.050
0.005
Number Number
oil of
Streams Samples
Analyzed Analyzed
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
~Nl> 0.011- 0.101-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
-------
Table V-56
SAMPLING DATA
CLEANING OR ETCHING SCRUBBER LIQUOR
RAW WASTEWATER
in
Pollutant
Toxic Pollutants
44. methylene chloride
120. copper
124. mercury
Nonconyent Ignaj^
alkalinity
aluminum
calcium
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
dissolved solids
magnesium
phenols (total; by 4-AAP method)
sulfate
total organic carbon (TOG)
Conventional
oil and grease
suspended solids
pH (standard units)
Stream
Code
Co
-o
C-.R
-O
C-8
C-8
C-3
C-8
C-8
C-8
C-8
C-8
C-8
C-8
C-8
C-8
C-8
Sample
Type
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
Concentrations (mg/1)
Source Day 1 Day 2. Day 3
0.220 0.014
0.020 0.010
0.0004 0.0003
110
2 5.1
12 27
<5 <5
159
4.6 5.2
0.016
40
<1 <1
13
<1 12
8.1 8.1
Average
0.014
0.010
0.0003
110
5.1
27
<5
159
5.2
0.016
40
<1
13
12
-------
Table V-57
FORGING SCRUBBER LIQUOR
Plant
1
2
3
4
Water Use
1/kkg gal/ton
*
*
5,937
*
*
*
1,424
Percent
Recycle
P
P
0
*
Wastewater
1/kkg gal/ton
28.85
159.7
4,453
*Data not available
P Periodic discharge
Statistical Summary
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Sample:
6.920
38.31
1,068
28.85 6.920
4,453 1,068
1,547 371,1
159.7 38.31
3 of 4 plants
355
-------
Table V-58
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
FORGING SCRUBBER LIQUOR
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
I. acenaphthene
2. acrolein
3. acrylonitrile
4. benzene
5- benzidine
6. carbon tetrachloride
7. chlorobenzene
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
11. 1,1,1-trlchloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dtchloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. bis(chloromethyl)ether
18. bis(chloroethyl)ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
23. chloroform
24. 2-chlorophenol
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
29- 1,1-dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
31. 2,4-dichlorophenol
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropene
34. 2,4-dImethylphenol
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
38. ethylbenzene
39. f1uoranthene
Analytical
Quant i f icat ion
Level
(mK/1)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
o.oio
0.010
0.010
0-010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0,010
0,010
0.010
0.010
Numbe r
o£
Streams
Analvzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
]
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (ma/1)
ND- 0.011- 0.101-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
Table V-58 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
FORGING SCRUBBER LIQUOR
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
40- 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl. ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
44. methylene chloride
45. methyl chloride (chlororaethane)
46. methyl bromide (bromomethane)
47- bromoform (tribroraomethane)
48- dichlorobromomethane
49. trichlorofluorontethane
50. dichlorodifluoromethane
51. chlorodibromomethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. isophorone
55. naphthalene
56. ni trobenzene
57. 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59- 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodiroethylamine
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
64. pentachlorophenol
65. phenol
66. bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. di-n-bntyl phthalate
69- di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
72. benzo(a)anthracene
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
75- benzo(k)fluoranthene
76. chrysene
77. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (a)
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/1)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0,010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
ND- 0.011- 0.101-
0,010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
Table V-53 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
FORGING SCRUBBER LIQUOR
RAW WASTEWATER
L/i
00
Pgllutant
79- benzo(ghi)perylene
80. fluorene
81. phenanthrene (a)
82. dibenzo(a,h)anchracene
83. indeno (1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
84. pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
87. trichloroethylene
88. vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
89. aldrin
90. dieldrin
91. chlordane
92. 4,4'-DDT
93. 4,4'-UDE
94. 4,4'-ODD
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
97. endosulfan sulfate
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxlde
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
104. gamma-BHC
105. delta-BHC
106. PCB-1242 (b)
107. PCB-1254 (b)
108. PCB-1221 (b)
109. PCB-1232 (b)
110. PCB-1248 (c)
111. PCB-1260 (c)
112. PCB-1016 (c)
113. toxaphene
114. antimony
115. arsenic
116. asbestos
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/1)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.100
0.010
10 MFL
Number
of.
Streams
Analyzed
1
I
-
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
-
-
1
-
-
1
1
1
0
Number
of
Sa copies
Analyzed
1
I
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
-
-
1
-
-
1
1
1
0
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (me/1)
ML)- O.Wii- (J.IOL-
0.010 0-100 1.000 1.000+
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
Table V-58 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
FORGING SCRUBBER LIQUOR
RAW WASTEWATER
Analytical
Quantification
Level
Pollutant:
117. beryllium
118. cadmium
119. chromium (total)
120. copper
121. cyanide (total)
122. lead
123. mercury
124, nickel
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
128. zinc
129. 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
0.010
0.002
0.005
0.009
0.100
0.020
0.0001
0. 005
0.01
0.02
0.100
0.050
0.005
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
TUP u.oii- 0.181-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
vo
(a), (b), (c) Reported together.
-------
Table V-59
SAMPLING DATA
FORGING SCRUBBER LIQUOR
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Toxic Pollutants
39. fluoranthene
44. methylene chloride
62. N-nitrosodiphenylaroine
66. bis {2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
7 2. benzo(a)anthracene
76. chrysene
78. anthracene (a)
81. phenanthrene (a)
84. pyrene
120. copper
122. lead
123. mercury
128. zinc
Nonconventional
alkalinity
aluminum
calcium
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
dissolved solids
magnesium
Stream
Code
A-5
A- 5
A-5
A-5
A-5
A-5
A-5
A-5
A-5
A-5
A-5
A^5
A-5
A-5
A-5
A-5
A-5
A-5
Sample
Type
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Source
ND
0.130
ND
0.200
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.010
<0.20
0. 0006
0.060
<0.09
39
8
8.7
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day 1 -Pay 2 Day 3
0.018
0.950
0.017
0.075
0.019
0.019
0.028
0.021
0.010
2.000
0.0005
0.300
110
0.5
59
349
388
10.4
Average
0.018
0.950
0.017
0.075
0.019
0.019
0.028
0.021
0.010
2.000
0.0005
0.300
110
0.5
59
349
388
10.4
-------
Table V-59 (Continued)
PoUiJtant
phenols (total; by 4-AAP method)
sulfate
total organic carbon (TOG)
C o nvent iona1
oil and grease
suspended solids
SAMPLING DATA
FORGING SCRUBBER IJQUOR
RAW WASTEWATER
Stream
Code
A-5
A-5
A-5
A-5
A-5
Sample
1
1
1
1
1
Concentrations (mg/1)
Source Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
0.067
95
9 98
162
<1 2
Average
0.067
95
98
162
2
OS
(a) Reported together.
-------
Table V-60
DIRECT CHILL CASTING CONTACT COOLING WATER
(ALUMINUM FORMING PLANTS)
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Water
l/_kkg
2,
82,
105,
86,
82,
30,
37,
31,
73,
31,
3,
14,
35,
36,
177,
70,
62,
72,
43,
3,
5,
9,
9,
23,
28,
35,
52,
58,
91,
*
*
743
*
*
*
*
*
8.339
050
000
430
640
908.9
670
530
340
392.8
*
*
800
440
819
090
320
980
900
880
960
130
360
394
*
041
*
089
506
060
390
500
540
370
310
Use
gal/ton
19
25
20
19
7
9
7
17
7
3
8
8
42
17
15
17
10
1
2
2
5
6
8
12
14
21
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
9
,
,
,
9
9
*
*
I
J
,
j
9
t
)
9
*
)
*
,
,
,
j
9
9
,
658.0
2.000
680
190
730
820
218.0
355
000
516
94.20
700
540
916.0
380
470
870
670
000
100
300
400
814.0
209
180
280
530
810
514
600
000
900
Percent
Recycle
100
100
50
97
100
100
100
100**
100
99
99
100
99
0
98
97
99
0
*
*
97
98
0
93
94
97
99
96
96
94
92
0
*
0
*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Wastewater
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
2,
2,
3,
4,
5,
5,
9,
9,
16,
28,
35,
52,
58,
91,
1/kk
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
120.
150.
250.
313.
392.
496.
514.
612.
629.
779.
963.
113
167
483
534
955
397
753
002
003
041
337
089
506
590
390
500
540
370
310
g gal/ton
2989
3252
4169
4169
9
1
2
4
8
2
5
9
6
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
29.
36.
60.
75.
94.
119.
123.
147.
151.
187.
231.
267.
280.
355.
368.
469.
575.
660.
720.
960.
1,209
1,280
2,180
2,280
3,980
6,810
8,514
12,600
14,000
21,900
0717
0780
1000
1000
00
00
00
16
20
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
4
0
0
362
-------
Table V-60 (Continued)
DIRECT CHILL CASTING CONTACT COOLING WATER
(ALUMINUM FORMING PLANTS)
Plant
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
Water Use
1/kkg gal/ton
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
50,030
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
12,000
*
Percent
Recycle
98
96
*
*
0
0
*
0
*
0
*
*
100
*
*
0
90
*
Wastewater
1/kkg gal/ton
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
#
*
*Data not available.
**Percent recycle value reported by plant; no recycle flow data
given.
Statistical Summary
Minimum 8.339 2.000
Maximum 177,900 42,670
Mean 43,900 10,530
Median 35,500 8,514
Sample: 33 of 61 plants
0 0
91,310 21,900
7,822 1,876
629.6 151.0
43 of 61 plants
363
-------
Table V-61
DIRECT CHILL CASTING CONTACT COOLING WATER
(PRIMARY ALUMINUM PLANTS)
Water Use
1/kkg
*
*
*
1,113
54,790
254.3
34,120
2,535
24,350
28,440
142,700
46,910
138,300
6,504
7,088
117,000
18,260
10,330
12,080
12,180
12,530
30,440
20,580
20,700
31,700
52,490
60,460
gal/ton
*
*
*
267.0
13,140
61.0
8,184
608.0
5,840
6,822
34,220
11,250
33,180
1,560
1,700
28,060
4,380
2,477
2,898
2,920
3,006
7,300
4,936
4,964
7,604
12,590
14,500
Percent
Recycle
100
100
100
97
99
0
99
82
98
95
98
94
98
0
1
93
53
0
0
0
0
53
20
0
0
0
2
Wastewater
1/kkg
0
0
0
33.36
125.1
254.3
437.8
446.1
487.8
1,422
2,218
3,040
3,319
6,504
7,021
8,118
8,635
10,320
12,080
12,180
12,530
14,360
16,470
20,700
31,700
52,490
59,290
gal/ton
0
0
0
8.000
30.00
61.00
105.0
107.0
117.0
341.0
532.0
729.0
796.0
1,560
1,684
1,947
2,071
2,475
2,898
2,920
3,006
3,445
3,949
4,964
7,604
12,590
14,220
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Statistical Summary
Minimum 0 0
Maximum 142,700 34,220
Mean 36,910 8,853
Median 22,520 5,402
Sample: 24 of 27 plants
0 0
59,290 14,220
10,520 2,524
6,504 1,560
27 of 27 plants
364
-------
Table V-62
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
DIRECT CHILL CASTING CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Analytical
Quantification
Level
Pollutant
1. acenaphthene
2. acrolein
3. acrylonltrile
4. benzene
5. benzidine
6. carbon tetrachlorlde
7. chlorobenzene
8. 1,2,4-trtchlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dtchloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. bis(chloromethyl)ether
18. bis(chloroethyl)ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
21, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. p-chloro-ra-cresol
23. chloroform
24. 2-chlorophenol
25. 1,2-dlchlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
31. 2,4-dichlorophenol
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropene
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dlnltrotoluene
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazlne
38. ethylbenzene
39. fluoranthene
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0..010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
20
23
23
23
20
23
23
20
20
23
23
20
23
23
23
23
23
20
23
20
20
20
23
20
20
20
20
20
23
23
20
23
23
20
20
20
20
23
20
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
ND- 0.011- 0.101-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
18 2
23
23
22 1
20
23
23
20
20
23
23
20
23
23
23
23
23
20
23
20
20
20
12 10 1
19 1
20
20
20
20
23
23
20
23
23
20
20
20
20
23
20
-------
Table V-62 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
DIRECT CHILL CASTING CONTACT COOLING WATER '
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-broraophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy)raethane
44. methylene chloride
45. methyl chloride (chlororaethane)
46. methyl bromide (bromomethane)
47. bromoform (tribrorooraethaae)
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. trichlorofluoromethane
50. dichlorodifluoromethane
51. chlorodibromomethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. isophorone
55. naphthalene
56. nitrobenzene
57. 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59- 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61, N-nitrosodimethylamine
52. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylaraine
64. pentachlorophenol
65. phenol
66. bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
72. benzo(a)anthracene
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
75. benzo(k)fluoranthene
76. chrysene
77. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (a)
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/1)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
O.Oin
0.010
O.OiO
0.01 n
O.Otn
O.OiO
O.O"1
O.o: :
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
20
20
20
20
2:i
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Number
in
ND- 0.
0.010 0.
20
20
20
20
10
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
20
20
18
20
20
20
20
19
19
20
18
20
20
17
11
15
12
18
17
19
20
20
20
20
20
19
18
of Times Observed
Samples (mg/1)
Oil- 0.101-
100 1.000 1.000+
5 8
2
1
1
2
2 1
5 4
1 4
8
1 1
2 1
1
1
2
-------
Table V-62 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
DIRECT CHILL CASTING CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
79. benzo(ghi)perylene
80. fluorene
81. phenanthrene (a)
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno (1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
84. pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
87. trichloroethylene
88. vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
89. aldrin
90. dieldrin
91. chlordane
92. 4,4'-DDT
93. 4,4'-DDE
94. 4,4'-DDD
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
97. endosulfan sulfate
98, endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxlde
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
104. gamma-BHC
10.5. deita-BHC
106. PCB-1242 (b)
107. PCB-1254 (b)
108. PCB-1221 (b)
109. PCB-1232 (b)
110. PCB-1248 (c)
HI. PCI3-1260 (c)
112. PCB-1016 (c)
113. toxaphene
114. antimony
115. arsenic
116. asbestos
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(n>g/l)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.100
0.010
10 MFL
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
12
12
-
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
-
-
-
12
-
-
12
7
12
0
Number
of .
Samples
Analyzed
20
20
-
20
20
20
23
23
23
23
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
-
-
-
16
-
-
16
11
20
0
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
ND- 0.011- O.lOl-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
20
18 2
20
20
20
23
23
23
23
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
14 2
14 2
16
11
20
-------
Table V-62 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
DIRECT CHILL CASTING CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTKWATER
Pollutant
117. beryllium
118. cadmium
119. chromium (total)
120. copper
121. cyanide (total)
122. lead
123. mercury
124. nickel
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
128. zinc
129. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/1)
0.010
0.002
0.005
0.009
0.100
0.020
0.0001
0.005
0.01
0.02
0.100
0.050
0.005
Number
of
Streams
Analjrzgd
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
7
7
7
12
0
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
11
11
11
20
0
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
ND-
0.010
20
19
18
9
20
10
19
19
11
11
11
6
(7. 011 -
0.100
1
1
11
10
1
1
0.101-
1.000
1.000+
00
(a), (b), (c) Reported together.
-------
Table V-63
SAMPLING DATA
DIRECT CHILL CASTING CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Toxic Pollutants
1. acenaphthene
4. benzene
NO
23. chloroform
Stream
Code
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
Source
ND
*
*
ND
ND
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.023
0.023
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
0.020
*
*
2.012
0.012
0.066
0.066
0.100
0.040
ND
0.040
*
^gncentrat-ions (mg/1)
Day 1
ND
0.440
0.280
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
0.013
ND
*
*
*
ND
ND
ND
*
*
0.065
0.066
0.036
0.012
0.014
0.027
*
*
NF
*
ND
Day 2
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
*
*
ND
ND
0.072
0.019
0.012
ND
ND
ND
Day 3 Average
0.440
ND 0. 280
ND
ND
ND
*
* *
0.013
* *
*
A *
ND *
ND
*
A
0.065
0.150 0.096
0.036
0.015 0.015
0.014
* 0.013
A
* *
* *
*
-------
Table V-63 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
DIRECT CHILL CASTING CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
24. 2-chlorophenol
44. methylene chloride
54. isophorone
Stream
Code
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
1-1
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
Source
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
0.017
0.170
0.024
0.024
1.100
1.100
ND
ND
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.011
0.011
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day 1
ND
ND
ND
0.012
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.230
*
0.013
0.185
0.040
0.150
0.110
*
*
*
*
0.470
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 2
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.058
0.084
0.140
*
*
*
0.035
ND
ND
ND
Day 3 Average
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.393
0.160
0.034
*
*
0.023
ND
ND
ND
0.
0.
*
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
•A
*
*
0.
0.
012
230
155
185
095
150
095
235
029
-------
Table V-63 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
DIRECT CHILL CASTING CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Stream
Code
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
Source
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day I
ND
ND
0.042
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.053
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND-
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.044
ND
ND
ND
Day 3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.057
ND
ND
ND
Average
0.042
0.053
0.051
-------
Table V-63 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
DIRECT CHILL CASTING CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
65. phenol
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
LJ
-j
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
Stream
Code
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
Source
ND
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
*
0.025
0.025
0.065
0.065
ND
ND
*
*
*
ND
*
*
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Concentrations (mg/lj
Day 1
ND
0.056
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
0.050
*
0.500
ND
0.046
0.064
0.140
0.023
*
0.280
0.066
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.020
0.037
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.230
0.130
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 2 Day 3 Average
0.056
ND ND
ND ND *
0.050
* * *
0.500
ND ND
0.046
0.064
ND ND 0. 140
0.023
*
0.280
0.200 0.180 0.149
A * •*
* * *
0.037
* ND *
0.230
0.340 0.600 0.360
ND ND
ND ND
-------
Table V-63 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
DIRECT CHILL CASTING CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
68. cli-n-butyl phthalate
69. di-n-o^tyl phthalate
u?
70. diethyl phthalate
Stream
Code
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
Sample
Type
Source
*
*
*
*
*
*
A
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
*
ND
ND
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Average
ND
0.043
0.055 0.013 *
0.011
ND
0.029
0.015 0.022 0.022
ND
ND
* ND ND
ND
ND * *
ND
ND
ND ND ND
ND
ND
0.094
ND 0. 120 ND
ND
ND
ND ND ND
ND
* ND ND
ND
0.073
0.110 ND ND
*
0.012
ND
* ND ND
ND
ND
ND ND ND
ND
>v *• *
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
*
*
0.
0.
*
o.
0.
*
o.
*
*
043
023
Oil
029
020
094
120
073
110
012
-------
Table V-63 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
DIRECT CHILL CASTING CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WA3TEWATER
Pollutant
71. dimethyl phthaiate
77, acenaphthylene
U)
78. anthracene (a)
81. phenanthrene (a)
Stream
Code
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
Sample
2
2
3
1
6
2
3
7
6
3
1
3
2
2
3
1
6
2
3
7
6
3
1
3
2
2
3
1
6
2
3
7
6
3
1
3
Soarce
ND
*
*
ND
ND
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
*
*
*
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 1
ND
ND
0.053
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
4
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
*
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day 1
ND
ND
ND
*
0.012
ND
ND
ND
0.130
ND
ND
ND
Day 5
ND
ND
ND
*
*
ND
ND
ND
0.148
ND
ND
ND
Average
0,053
*
*
*
*
0.006
0.139
*
*
-------
Table V-63 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
DIRECT CHILL CASTING CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
80. fluorene
91. chlordane
Ul
SI
Ui
106. PCB-1242 (b)
107. PCB-1254 (b)
108. PCB-1221 (b)
Stream
Code
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
Sample
Type
Source
ND
*
*
ND
ND
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
**
**
**
**
**
**
ft*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
**
**
88.000
**
**
0.015
0.015
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day I ' Day 2
ND
ND
ND 0. 024
ND
ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND ND
**
0.0075
0. 0056
**
**
ND
**
ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND ND
ft*
0.032
0.025
ND
ft*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND ND
Pay 3 Average
0.023 0.024
ND
ND
ND
ft*
0.0075
0.0056
**
**
**
ND
ND
ft*
0.032
0.025
**
ND
ND
-------
Table V-63 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
DIRECT CHILI, CASTING CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
109. PCB-1232 (c)
110. PCB-1248 (c)
111. PCB-1260 (c)
112. PCB-1016 (c)
118. cadmium
119. chromium
Stream
Code
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
Source
**
**
**
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
<0.002
<0. 002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.0005
< 0.0005
0.0011
<0. 0005
0.002
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.0001
<0.001
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day 1
**
0.032
0.027
ND
**
**
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
0.0011
0. 0008
<0.0005
0.020
0.002
0.007
<0.005
<0. 005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.001
<0.001
0.002
1.600
0.002
Day 2 Day 3 Average
**
0.032
0.027
**
*•*
ND ND
ND ND
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002 <0.002 <0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002 <0.002 <0.002
0.0011
0.0008
0.0026 <0.0005 <0.0012
0.020
0.002 <0.001 <0.002
0.007
<0.005
<0.005 <0.005 <0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005 <0.005 <0.005
<0.001
<0.001
0.053 0.004 0.020
1.600
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001
-------
Table V-63 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
DIRECT CHILI. CASTING CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
120. copper
122. lead
123. mercury
Stream
Code
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
Source
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.008
0.004
0.001
0.013
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
0.014
0.010
0.002
<0.001
0.010
0.0006
0.0004
0.0004
0.0006
0.0006
0.0004
0.0004
0.0073
0.0091
<0.0001
<0.0007
0.005
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day 1
0.010
0.010
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
0.020
0.020
0.004
0.007
0.030
0.015
0.012
0.020
0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
0.100
0.090
0.021
0.014
0.002
0.006
0.012
0.0005
0.0005
0. 0004
0.020
<0.0001
0.0002
<0.0001
0.0076
0.003
< 0.0001
<0.001
0.002
Day 2
0.010
0.020
0.020
0.016
<0.020
0.090
0.006
0.007
0. 0008
0.0002
<0.0004
0.002
Day 3
0.010
0.020
0.019
0.011
<0.020
0.090
0.004
0.011
0. 0004
0.005
<0.0001
0.002
Average
0.010
0.010
<0.010
<0.009
<0. 009
0.020
0.020
0.004
0.007
0.023
0.015
0.013
0.020
0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
0.100
0.090
0.021
0.014
0.004
0.006
0.010
0. 0005
0. 0005
0. 0005
0.020
<0.0001
0.0002
<0.002
0.0076
0.003
<0. 0002
<0. 001
0.002
-------
Table V-63 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
DIRECT CHILL CASTING CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
124. nickel
128. zinc
OJ
•*j
00
Nonconventional
alkalinity
Stream
Code
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
Source
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.016
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.100
0.100
0.053
<0.010
<0.010
0.053
ND
Concentrations (rog/1)
107
Day 1
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.001
<0. 001
<0.001
<0.001
0.020
0.100
0.100
0.100
<0.050
<0.050
0.200
0.300
<0.010
0.370
<0.010
1.0
0.220
Day 2
<0.005
<0.005
<0.001
0.003
0.100
0.300
<0.010
0.240
Day 3
<0.005
<0. 005
<0. 001
<0.003
0.100
0.200
<0.010
0.140
Average
<0. 005
<0.005
<0. 005
<0.005
<0. 005
<0.005
<0. 005
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0. 001
<0.009
0.100
0.100
0.100
<0. 050
<0.050
0.200
0.270
<0.010
0.370
<0.010
1.0
0.200
140
90
90
140
130
97
100
41
70
28
160
64
84
130
134
22
69
76
150
150
22
82
140
90
83
140
137
97
128
41
70
24
160
72
-------
Table V-63 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
DIRECT CHILL CASTING CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Nonconventional
aluminum
UJ
-J
calcium
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Stream
Code
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
Sample
Source
0.200
<0.09
<0.09
<0.09
<0.09
<0.09
<0.09
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.500
38
68
68
<5
<5
52
52
9
28
0.300
60
<5
<5
<5
5
<5
.Concentrations (mg/1)
Day 1
0.7
<0.295
<0.295
0.200
0.2
0.9
0.700
<0.5
<0.050
0.88
<0.100
55
77
73
2.8
2.8
56
56
13
30
101
80
13.2
62
281
236
<5
12
419
374
24
82
24
396
14
Day 2
<0.245
2
0.800
0.97
<0.100
72
0.63
69
106
86.9
350
312
32
25
Day 3
<0-195
2
0.700
0.97
<0.100
77
0.42
78
107
150
373
343
39
33
Average
0.7
<0.295
<0.245
0.200
1
0.9
0.733
<0.5
<0. 050
0.94
<0.100
55
77
74
2.8
1.3
56
68
13
30
105
80
83
62
281
320
<5
12
419
343
24
82
32
396
24
-------
Table V-63 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
DIRECT CHILL CASTING CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
dissolved solids
magnesium
00
o
phenols (total; by 4-AAP method)
btream
Code
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
Source
Concentrations (icg/1)
173
173
12
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.6
2.24
4.39
0.08
22.1
bay 1
236
327
336
255
224
237
246
150
230
810
790
830
14
3.7
3.6
0.12
0.200
4.2
4.5
3.07
7.97
40
2.61
16.9
0.01
0.003
0.004
<0.001
0.002
0.014
0.032
0.004
0.077
0.006
0.117
0.018
Day 2
385
220
273
860
820
3.6
0.210
5.6
41
14.9
0.005
0.016
0.012
0.027
Day 3 Average
236
327
372 364
255
222
237
272 264
150
230
810 827
790
810 820
14
3.7
3.6 3,6
0. 12
0.160 0.190
4.2
5.8 5.3
3.07
7.97
39 40
2.61
16.9 16.2
0.01
0.003
0.014 0.008
<0.001
0.002
0.014
0.011 0.020
0.004
0.077
0.009
0.117
0.022
-------
Table V-63 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
DIRECT CHILL CASTING CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
sulfate
u>
00
total organic carbon (TOC)
Conventional
oil and grease
Stream
Code
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
Sample
Type
2
2
1
1
6
2
1
6
6
2
1
1
2
2
3
1
6
1
3
7
6
3
1
3
Source
2.8
2.7
2
<5
Day 1
50
90
130
10
10
31
42
9
40
24
230
370
25
150
136
1
5
93
38
5.9
19
5.6
13
2.8
Day 2
no
10
18
21
340
119
76
4
3.3
Day 3
90
10
20
23
350
153
74
4
5.1
Average
50
90
110
10
10
31
27
9
40
23
230
353
25
150
136
1
5
93
63
5. 9
19
5
13
3.7
27
137
226
5
7
50
65
19
103
15
198
<5
236
10
155
32
7
181
15
140
8
59
27
137
214
5
11
50
120
19
68
10
198
<24
-------
Table V-63 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
DIRECT CHILL CASTING CONTACT COOLING WATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
suspended solids
pH (standard units)
u*
00
to
Stream
Code
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
Sample
Type
Source
Concentrations (mg/1)
<2
<2
5
7.55
7.55
7.1
Day 1
37
44
26
6
164
113
7
3
14
220
4
7.9
7
6.8
7.6
7.5
7.2
7.8
7.4
7.1
7.8
7.9
6
Day 2
45
135
14
5
7.5
7.9
7.45
7.4
7.9
8.4
Day 3
40
149
19
7
7.0
7.55
6.9
8.1
Average
37
44
37
6
164
132
7
3
16
220
5
(a), (b), (c) Reported together.
Note: Stream N-3 treated by oil separation.
-------
Table V-64
CONTINUOUS ROD CASTING CONTACT COOLING WATER
Plant
1
2
3
Water Use
1/kkg gal/ton
0
1,042
0
250
*
Percent
Recycle
Dry
0
P
Wastewater
1/kkg gal/ton
0
1,042
*
0
250.0
^Sufficient data not available to calculate these values.
P Total recycle with periodic discharge.
Statistical Summary
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Sample:
Nonzero
Mean
Sample:
0
042
521.3
521.3
0
250.0
125.0
125.0
2 of 3 plants
1.042
250.0
1 of 3 plants
0 0
1,042 250.0
521.3 125.0
521.3 125.0
2 of 3 plants
1,042 250.0
1 of 3 plants
383
-------
Table V-65
CONTINUOUS ROD CASTING SPENT LUBRICANT
Water
1/kkg
*
Use
gal/ton
*
*
*
Percent
Recycle
100
100 (P)
*
Wastewater
1/kkg gal/ton
0
*
*
0
*
*
Plant
1
2
3
*Su£ficient data not available to calculate these values.
P Periodic discharge.
384
-------
Table V-66
CONTINUOUS SHEET CASTING SPENT LUBRICANT
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
Water Use
1/kkg gal/ton
*
1.220
*
Percent
Recycle
100
* (P)
* (P)
* (P)
* (P)
Wastewater
1/kkg gal/ton
0
0.2440
0.6400
*
*
^Sufficient data not available to calculate these values.
P Periodic discharge.
Statistical Summary
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Sample:
668
229
017
0
0.6400
0.2947
0.2440
3 of 5 plants
Note: An additional 7 continuous sheet casting plants did not
mention a lubricant; but one is probably used.
385
-------
Table V-67
DEGASSING SCRUBBER LIQUOR (PRIMARY ALUMINUM PLANTS)
Water Use
1/kkg gal/ton
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
*Data not available or not applicable.
-W^B^^V— ^^
*
1,854
3,344
3,127
36,010
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
444.
802.
750.
8,637
*
*
*
*
*
*
7
0
0
Percent
Recycle
*
91
15
0
8
*
*
*
*
*
*
Wastewater
1/kkg
68.38
169.9
2,844
3,127
33,310
*
*
*
*
*
*
gal/ton
16.40
40.76
682.0
750.0
7,990
*
*
*
*
*
*
Statistical Summary
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Sample:
1,854
36,010
11,080
3,235
444.7
8,637
2,658
776.0
4 of 11 plants
68.38 16.40
33,310 7,990
7,905 1,896
2,844 682
5 of 11 plants
Note: Insufficient information is available to calculate water
use and wastewater values for the aluminum forming plant
with this waste stream.
386
-------
Table V-68
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
DEGASSING SCRUBBER LIQUOR
RAW WASTEWATER
Analytical
Quantification
Level
Us
00
Pollutant
1. acenaphthene
2- acrolein
3- acrylonitrile
4. benzene
5- benzidtne
6. carbon tetrachlorlde
7. chlorobenzene
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobeazene
9. hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
11. 1,1,1-trichloroetlmne
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1,lf2-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,?,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. bis (chloroinethyl)ether
18. bis(chloroethyl)ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. p-chloro-ra-cresol
23. chloroform
24. 2-chlorophenol
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobcnzene
28. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
29- 1,1-dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
31- 2,4-dicETorophenol
32. 1,2~dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dlchloropropene
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
38. ethylbenzene
39- fluoranthene
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0,010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
ND- 0.011- 0.101-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
3
3
3
3
3
3 -
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2 1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
-------
Table V-68 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
DEGASSING SCRUBBER LIQWOR
RAW WASTEWATER
LJ
00
00
Pollutant
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-broraophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
44. methylene chloride
45. methyl chloride (chlororaethane)
46. methyl bromide (bromoraethane)
47. broraoform (tribromoraethane)
48. dich1orobroraomethane
49. trichlorofluoromethane
50. dichlorodifluoromethane
51. chlorodibromomethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. isophorone
55. naphthalene
56. nitrobenzene
57. 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
64. pentachlorophenol
65. phenol
66. bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
69. ' di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethy1 phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
72. benzo(a)anthracene
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
75. benzo(k)fluoranthene
76. chrysene
77. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (a)
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(rag/1)
o.oio
0.010
O.oin
O.OLD
0.010
O.OIO
0.010
O.Oin
O.OIO
O.Oin
0.010
O.Oin
0.010
0.0!'!
0. 0' '»
O.OH)
0.010
O.oin
O.OIO
0.010
0.010
0.010
O.OEO
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Number o£ Times Observed
in Samples (mg/1)
ND- 0.011- 0.101-
0.010 0-100 1.000 1.000+
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
-------
Tablo V-68 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF1 TOXIC POLLUTANTS
DEGASSING SCRUBBER LIQUOR
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
79. benzo(ghi)perylene
80. fluorene
81. phenanthrene (a)
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno (1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
84. pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
87. trichtoroethyleiie
88. vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
89. aldrin
90. dieldrin
w 91. chlordane
00 92. 4,4'-DDT
*° 93. 4,4'-DDE
94. 4,4'-DOD
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
97. endosulfan sulfate
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
104. gamma-BHC
105. delta-BHC
106. PCB-1242 (b)
107. PCB-1254 (b)
108. PCB-1221 (b)
109. PCB-1232 (b)
110. PCB-1248 (c)
111. PCB-1260 (c)
112. PCB-1016 (c)
113. toxaphene
114. antimony
115. arsenic
116. asbestos
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(mg/1)
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.100
0.010
10 MFL
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
1
1
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
-
-
1
-
-
1
1
1
0
Number
of.
Samples
Analyzed
3
3
-
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
-
-
-
3
-
-
3
3
3
0
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (ms/1)
ND- O.OU- 0.101-
0.010 0.100 1.000 1.000+
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
-------
Table V-68 (Continued)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
DEGASSING SCRUBBER LTQUOR
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
117. beryllium
118. cadmium
119. chromium (total)
120. copper
121. cyanide (total)
122. lead
123. mercury
124. nickel
125, selenium
126. silver
127. tballium
128. zinc
129. 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Analytical
Quantification
Level
-------
Table V-69
SAMPLING DATA
DEGASSING SCRUBBER LIQUOR
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Tqxic_Pollutants
23. chloroform
118. cadmium
119. chromium
120. copper
122. lead
124. nickel
128. zinc
Noriconventiona.1
alkalinity
aluminum
calcium
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
dissolved solids
magnesium
phenols (total; by 4-AAP method)
sulfate
total organic carbon (TOG)
Conventional
oil and grease
suspended solids
pH (standard units)
Stream
Code
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
Sample
Type
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
1
3
1
Concentrations (mg/1)*
Source Day 1
0.04 *
<0.0005 0.011
<0.0001 0.09
0.01 0.25
<0.001 0.45
<0.001 0.023
0.053 1.3
44
<0.5 10
60 35
92
530
22.1 12.3
0.21
100
7.3
<5
102
7.8
Day 2
<0.02
0.0014
0.022
0.025
0.09
0.008
0.22
89
<0.5
51
31
410
16.7
0.011
140
5
<5
10
7.2
Day 3
0.02
0.0008
0.014
0.017
0.019
<0.001
0.13
91
<0.5
52
24
420
19.6
0.009
140
4.8
<5
<2
7.2
Average
<0.01
0.004
0.04
0.097
0.19
<0.011
0.6
75
<4
46
49
450
16.2
0.08
130
6
<5
<38
-------
Table V-70
SAMPLING DATA
ADDITIONAL WASTEWATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Toxlc_Ppllutantg
1. acenaphthene
4. benzene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
OJ
23. chloroform
24. 2-chlorophenol
Stream
Code
D-6
F-4
D-6
D-8
F-4
F-8
J-4
R-8
V-7
B-9
C-2
D-6
F-5
F-8
N-4
N-5
B-9
C-2
C-5
D-6
D-8
F-4
F-5
F-8
L-3
L-4
N-4
N-5
R-8
C-2
D-6
D-8
F-5
Source
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
0.004
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.055
0.055
0.020
0.02
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.1
0.1
0.04
0.04
0.040
ND
ND
ND
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day 1
ND
*
ND
ND
0.016
ND
*
*
0.005
*
1.800
*
ND
ND
ND
*
0.013
*
0.520
0.013"
*
0.042
0.017
0.017
*
0.080
A
0.040
*
0.620
0.013
*
ND
Day 2
0.790
*
ND
0.057
*
ND
0.004
0.015
ND
*
*
ND
0.015
0.011
*
0.066
0.072
ND
*
0.030
ND
ND
ND
*
Day 3
ND
*
*
*
*
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
*
0.012
0.022
*
0.014
0.02
ND
*
0.030
0.020
ND
ND
0.015
Average
0.790
*
*
*
0.016
0.029
*
*
0.005
0.008
1.800
*
*
*
*
*
0.013
*
0.520
0.015
*
0.042
0.032
0.036
*
0.080
*
0.033
0.010
0.620
0.013
*
0.008
-------
Table V-70 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
ADDITIONAL WASTEWATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
38. ethylbenzene
39. fluoranthene
44. methylene chloride
OJ
vo
OJ
55. naphthalene
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
Stream
Code
B-9
C-5
D-6
D-8
J-4
L-3
B-9
J-4
R-8
J-5
B-9
C-2
C-5
D-6
D-8
F-4
F-5
F-8
J-4
J-5
L-3
N-4
R-7
R-8
V-7
D-6
L-3
N-4
N-5
J-5
B-9
C-2
C-5
F-5
J-5
Sample
Type
3
1
3
3
1
2
Source
ND
HD
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.220
0.220
A
*
0.024
0.024
0.024
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
*
0.015
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
C°ncentrations (mg/1)
Day 1
ND
*
0.018
0.018
0.002
*
ND
ND
A
0.028
0.017
0.092
2.100
*
A
0,233
0.051
0.079
0.050
*
A
A
A
A
0.030
ND
A
ND
0.170
0.025
ND
10.000
A
ND
0.012
Day 2
0.020
ND
HD
ND
A
A
0.018
ND
A
0.012
A
0.018
2.000
0.510
ND
0.250
ND
*
*
ND
0.016
ND
*
ND
*
ND
ND
0.100
Day 3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.016
0.620
0.093
0.103
0.014
0.012
ND
ND
A
0.090
A
ND
A
A
0.045
*
ND
Average
0.020
A
0.018
0.018
0.002
*
*
0.018
*
0.014
0.015
0.092
2.100
0.207
0.037
0.233
0.718
0.295
0.032
0.087
A
*
*
0.045
0.023
*
*
A
0.170
0.008
0.045
10.000
A
*
0.056
-------
Table V-70 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
ADDITIONAL WASTEWATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamtne
64. pentachlorophenol
65. phenol
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
vo
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. 3,4-benzo-fluoranthene (a)
75. benzo(a)-fluoranthene (a)
76. chrysene
Stream
Code
J-5
C-2
B-9
D-6
D-8
V-7
C-2
D-6
F-5
J-4
J-5
L-3
N-4
R-8
V-7
Sample
Type
3
1
3
3
3
2
1
1
3
1
3
2
3
3
2
Concentrations (mg/1)
Source
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.008
Day I
ND
5.200
0.036
ND
ND
0.260
1.500
350.000
ND
0.072
0.020
*
ND
0.008
Day 2
0.200
*
*
ND
0.140
640.000
*
ND
0.038
0.020
*
ND
0.008
Day 3
ND
ND
*
*
*
*
0.016
0.020
*
*
Average
0.200
5.200
0.018
*
*
0.200
1.500
495 . 000
*
*
0.042
0.020
*
*
0.008
J-5
ND
0.031
0.010
B-9
D-6
D-8
F-4
F-5
F-8
J-5
J-5
J-5
J-5
D-6
F-5
F-8
J-5
N-4
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.041
*
ND
ND
ND
*
*
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
*
*
*
0.250
0.027
0.015
0.023
*
ND
*
0.030
ND
*
*
*
*
ND
0.022
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.014
ND
ND
*
ND
*
0.024
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
A
*
*
0.012
*
*
*
0.136
0.027
0.015
0.023
*
0.014
*
0.030
*
-------
Table V-70 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
ADDITIONAL WASTEWATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
7 7. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (b)
81. phenanthrene (b)
80. fluorene
84. pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylene
U>
vo
86, toluene
87. trtchloroethylene
89. aldrin
95. alpha-endosulfan
97. endosulfan sulfate
Stream
Code
F-4
L-3
J-5
F-4
F-5
F-8
N-5
J-5
Sample
Type
1
2
D-6
D-8
F^4
F-5
F-8
J-4
V-7
D-6
F-5
F-8
J-4
L-3
N-4
N-5
R-8
J-5
C-2
B-9
C-2
B-9
C-2
D-8
F-4
F-5
F-8
1
3
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
3
2
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
3
Source
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.002
ND
ft
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day i.
*
*
0.067
*
*
0.013
*
0.048
*
ND
A
ND
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
*
0.020
*
0.011
ND
0.028
ND
0.016
**•
**
**
**
Day 2
*
*
ND
ND
*
*
ND
*
ND
ND
0.002
ND
0.036
0.037
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.015
ND
**
bay 3
ND
*
*
ND
ND
*
*
*
*
*
*
ND
ND
*
*
*
*
*
*
A*
ND
Average
*
*
0.022
*
*
0.013
*
0.024
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.002
*
0.036
0.037
*
*
*
*
0.010
0.005
0.011
**
0.028
**
0.016
**
**
**
ft*
-------
Table V-70 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
ADDITIONAL WASTEUATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
to
102. alpha-BUG
105. delta-BHC
115. arsenic
117. beryllium
118. cadmium
119. chromium
120. copper
Stream
_Cgd_e_
B-9
C-2
C-5
D-6
C-2
L-3
R-8
V-7
R-8
V-7
B-9
J-5
N-4
R-8
V-7
C-2
J-4
J-5
L-l
N-4
R-8
V-7
B-9
C-2
D-8
J-4
J-5
L-2
L-3
N-4
N-5
R-8
V-7
Source
ND
**
**
**
ND
<0.0002
0.0037
<0.005
0.0017
<0.001
<0.010
<0.0005
<0.0005
<0.001
0.007
<0.03
<0.03
<0.001
<0. 001
<0.001
<0.001
0.02
<0.009
<0.03
<0.03
0.01
0.01
0.008
0.008
0.01
0.027
Day 1
ND
0.018
**
**
0.011
0. 0004
0.036
<0.005
0.0075
<0.001
0.006
0.180
<0.0005
0.0075
0.002
0.05
0.140
1,050
0.03
0.01
1.9
0.054
0.02
0.3
0.010
15
2,000
0.006
0.011
0.017
0.005
4
5.5
Day 2
**•
<0. 0002
0.028
0.014
<0.0005
0.001
0.180
0.0013
0.0096
0.001
0.370
875
0.009
2
0.028
0.02
<0.009
2.7
2,260
0.004
0.018
4.7
1.8
Day 3
ND
<0. 0002
0.024
<0.0005
0.180
<0.0005
0.0096
770
0.008
1.6
0.02
2,270
0.01
0.015
3.6
Average
**
0.018
**
**
0.011
<0.0003
0.029
<0.010
<0.0028
<0.001
0.006
0.180
<0.0008
0.0089
0.002
0.05
0.255
898
0.03
0.01
2
0.041
0.02
0.3
<0.010
9
2,180
0.006
0.01
0.017
0.005
4
3.7
-------
Table V-70 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
ADDITIONAL WASTEWATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
121. cyanide
122. lead
123. mercury
124. nickel
125. selenium
128. zinc
Stream
Code
B-9
D-6
D-8
F-8
J-4
J-5
R-8
C-2
J-4
J-5
L-2
L-3
N-4
N-5
R-8
V-7
B-9
C-5
D-8
F-4
F-5
F-8
L-2
L-3
N-4
N-5
J-4
J-5
R-8
V-7
V-7
C-2
J-4
J-5
L-2
N-4
N-5
R-8
V-7
Sample
Type
Source
ND
ND
0.03
<0.05
<0.05
0.014
0.014
0.01
0.01
<0.001
0.079
0.0004
0.0006
0.0006
0.0006
0.0006
0.0073
0.0073
0.0091
0.0091
<0.020
<0.020
<0.001
0.009
0.020
0.2
<0.04
<0.04
0.053
<0.01
<0.01
0.053
0.50
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day I
0.051
0.001
<0.001
0.001
0.004
0.069
0.02
0.3
0.05
4.0
0.023
0.009
0.015
0.005
0.11
0.50
0.0006
0.0003
0.0007
0.0005
0.0005
0.0002
0.012
0.0065
0.0093
0.0082
<0.02
2.5
0.039
0.048
0.017
0.400
0.620
1,950
0.66
0.13
0.038
5.5
1.8
Day 2
0.046
0.006
<0.001
<0.001
0.002
0.027 .
0.24
1
2.8
0.006
0.015
1.7
0.18
0.003
0.001
0.0003
0.0001
0.009
0.011
0.07
2.7
0.03
0.022
<0.005
4.8
2,000
0.14
7.1
7.0
Pay 3
0.031
<0.001
0.002
<0.001
0.003
0.028
<0.02
2.9
0.004
0.034
1.5
0.0006
<0. 0001
0.0023
0.007
2.6
0.02
2,000
0.13
6.8
Average
0.043
<0.003
<0. 001
<0.001
0.003
0.041
<0.09
0.3
1
3.2
0.023
0.006
0.021
0.005
1.1
0.34
0.001
0.0003
0.001
0. 0005
<0.0003
0. 0002
0.012
0.006
0.009
0.0082
<0.05
2.6
0.03
0.035
<0.011
0.400
2.7
1,980
0.66
0.13
0.038
6.5
4.4
-------
Table V-70 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
ADDITIONAL WASTEWATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Nonconventional
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
00
phenols (total; by 4-AAP method)
Stream
Code
B-9
C-2
C-5
D-6
D-8
F-5
F-8
J-4
J-5
L-2
L-3
N-4
N-5
R-8
V-17
B-9
C-2
C-5
D-6
D-8
F-5
F-8
J-4
J-5
L-2
L-3
L-4
N-4
N-5
R-8
V-7
Source
82
<5
<5
5
5
<5
<5
5
5
Concentrationsi (mg/1)
62.000
Day 1
60
19,800
30
17
71
53
24
1,190
289
22
28
17
35
440
1,300
0.108
2.77
0.005
0.003
0.006
<0.001
0.005
0.012
0.001
0.012
0.114
0.002
0.015
0.025
0.062
0.380
Day 2
67
13
56
12
14
296
260
31
19
274
840
0.092
0.009
0.003
0.001
0.002
0.015
0.005
0.099
0.012
0.034
0.250
Day 3
73
13
51
10
17
238
42
26
212
0.142
0.011
0.024
0.006
0.003
0.006
0.102
0.012
0.010
Average
67
19,800
30
14
59
25
18
743
262
22
34
21
35
309
1,070
0.114
2.77
0.005
0.008
0.011
<0.003
0.003
0.011
0.003
0.012
0.105
0.002
0.013
0.025
0.035
0.315
-------
Table V-70 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
ADDITIONAL WASTEWATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
total organic carbon (TOC)
Stream
Code
B-9
C-2
C-5
D-6
D-8
F-4
F-5
F-8
J-4
J-5
L-2
L-3
L-4
N-4
N-5
R-8
V-7
Source
35
Concentrations ^mg/JL)
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.7
4.7
Day 1
22
9,360
11
8
24
2
5
9
350
76
5.9
5.3
2.40
4.4
16
15
900
Day 2
23
20
24
9
4
34
71
10
5.7
14
250
Day 3
24
7
25
1
3
79
16
7.6
9.5
Average
23
9,360
11
12
24
2
5
5
192
75
5.9
10
2.40
5.9
16
13
580
Conventional
oil and grease
B-9
C-2
C-5
D-6
D-8
F-4
F-5
F-8
J-4
J-5
L-2
L-3
L-4
N-4
R-8
V-7
<5
16
17
,060
137
13
360
8
12
24
223
182
12
<5
74
10
43
440
16
13
420
15
21
40
86
<5
160
25
7
340
7
35
<5
9
35
19
6,060
137
11
370
8
9
15
122
86
12
<32
74
<8
79
440
-------
Table V-70 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
ADDITIONAL WASTEWATER
RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
suspended solids
O
O
pH (standard units)
Stream
Code
B-9
C-2
C-5
D-6
D-8
F-5
F-8
J-4
J-5
L-2
N-4
R-8
V-7
B-9
C-2
C-5
D-6
D-8
F-4
F-5
F-8
J-4
J-5
L-2
L-3
N-4
N-5
R-8
Source
138
Concentrations (mg/1)
14
14
<2
<2
7.55
7.55
7.55
7.1
7.1
Day I
16
2,612
8
3
17
<1
<1
1,540
547
55
<2
470
29
7.64
6.9
8.2
8.0
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.6
6.2
3.6
7.7
7.1
7.4
7.2
7.5
Day 2
18
<1
17
5
7
2,670
422
3
410
39
8.1
8.0
8.0
7.3
7.7
1.5
7.4
7.1
7.2
8.0
Day 3
13
4
20
5
<1
380
4
360
7.86
11.2
7.6
7.48
7.4
3.4
7.4
7.0
7.3
8.4
Average
16
2,612
8
<3
18
<4
<3
2,110
450
55
<3
410
34
(a), (b) Reported together.
Note: Only detected values are reported on this table. The additional wastewater streams sampled are B-9, C-2,
C-5, D-6, D-8, F-4, F-5, F-8, J-4, J-5, L-2, L-3, L-4, N-4, N-5, R-8, and V-7.
-------
Table V-71
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT B
TREATED WASTEUATER
Pollutant
Toxic Pollutants
1. acenaphthene
7. chlorobenzene
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
23. chloroform
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
34. 2,4-dimethlyphenol
38. ethylbenzene
44. methlycne chloride
55. naphthalene
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
65. phenol
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
Stream
Code
B-7
B-8
B-7
B-8
B-7
B-8
B-7
B-8
B-7
B-8
B-7
B-8
B-7
B-8
B-7
B-8
B-7
B-8
B-7
B-8
B-7
8-8
B-7
B-8
B-7
B-8
B-7
B-8
Sample
Type
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Concentrations (mg/1)
Source
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
*
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
<0.010
<0.010
ND
ND
ND
ND
<0.010
<0.010
A
*
*
•ft
Day 1
ND
0.010
ND
0.033
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.017
0.097
0.840
2.300
3.900
3.200
<0.030
0.026
0.067
0.320
ND
0.110
ND
ND
10.000
8.000
1.000
0.022
0.280
0.012
Day 2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
0.053
0.570
0.480
0.850
1.100
*
*
0.155
0.420
ND
0.033
ND
ND
12.000
10.000
0.500
*
ND
0.012
Day 3
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.200
ND
1.500
ND
1.700
0.028
0.280
0.110
ND
ND
0.029
0.021
3.290
0.310
ND
0.056
ND
18.000
1.600
11.000
0.950
ND
ND
0.015
Average^
0.010
0.033
3.200
1.500
0.572
0.059
0.563
0.963
2.375
2.150
<0.020
0.016
1.171
0.350
0.066
18.000
7.867
9.667
0.817
0.011
0.280
0.013
-------
Table V-71 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT B
TREATED WASTEWATER
O
ro
Pollutant
70. diethyl phthalate
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
87. trichloroethylene
89. aldrin
93. 4,4'-DDE
95. alpha-endosulfan
97. endosulfan sulfate
99. endrin aldehyde
101. heptachlor epoxide
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
105- delta-BHC
106. PCB-1242 (a)
107. PCB-1254 (a)
108. PCB-1221 (a)
Stream
Code
B-7
B-8
B-7
B-8
B-7
B-8
B-7
B-8
B-7
B-8
B-7
B-8
B-7
B-8
B-7
B-8
B-7
B-8
B-7
B-8
B-7
B-8
B-7
B-8
B-7
B-8
B-7
B-8
Source
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
**
**
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
**
**
ND
ND
•&•£
**
0. 00001
0.00001
**
**
Day 1
0.330
0.011
0.052
0.011
*
ND
0.021
ND
**
ND
0.006
**
**
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.015
**
0.006
ND
ND
ND
0.015
**
0-200
**
Concentrations
Day 2 Da:
ND
0.015
0.040
0.065
*
*
0.064
0.042
**•
ND
ND
ND
0.0055
ND
0.0065
ND
**
ND
ND
ND
**
**
0.014
ND
ND
ND
0.085
**
(mg/1)
y 3
ND
ND
7.700
0.300
0.038
*
ND
ND
0.010
ND
0.015
**
**
ND
0.0067
ND
0.0089
ND
ND
ND
0.024
**
ND
**
ND
ND
0.039
**
Average
0.330
0.013
2.597
0.125
0.013
*
0.043
0.042
0.003
0.011
**
0.0018
0.0066
0.0045
0.015
**
0.010
**
0.014
**
0.015
**
0.108
**
-------
Table V-71 (Continued)
Pollutant
109-
110.
111.
112.
115.
118.
119-
^ 120.
o
u>
122.
123.
124.
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
arsenic
cadmium
chromium
copper
lead
mercury
nickel
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
128. zinc
Nonconventional
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
phenols (total; by 4-AAP method)
total organic carbon (TOG)
SAMPLING
PLANT B
TREATED WASTEWATER
Stream
Code
B-7
B-8
B-7
B-8
B-10
B-8
B-10
B-8
B-10
B-8
B-10
B-8
B-10
B-8
B-8
B-10
B-8
B-10
B-7
B-8
B-7
B-8
B-7
B-8
Sample
Type
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Source
**
**
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
82
82
35
35
Day 1
0.250
ft*
<0.01
<0.01
0.400
<0.002
0.400
0.100
70
0.01
50
0.02
20
0.003
<0.005
20
<0.05
50
7,980
2,700
16.7
4,960
1,250
.Concentrations (mg/1)
Day 2
0. 160
ftft
<0.01
<0.01
<0.002
0.100
<0.009
0.03
0.001
0.02
<0.05
5,850
2,540
21.7
17.5
4,050
971
Day 3
0.660
**
<0.01
<0.01
<0.002
<0.005
<0.009
<0.02
0.0002
<0.005
<0.05
78,320
2,070
27.1
13.5
26,270
839
Average
0.357
ft*
<0.01
<0.01
0.400
<0.002
0.400
<0.068
70
<0.01
50
<0.02
20
0.001
<0.01
20
<0.05
50
30,720
2,440
21.8
15.5
11,760
1,020
-------
Pollutant
Conventional
oil and grease
suspended solids
pH (standard units)
(a), (b) Reported together.
Table V-71 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT B
TREATED WASTEWATER
Stream
Code
B-7
B-8
B-7
B-8
B-7
B-8
Sample
Type Source
1
1
2 138
2 138
1
1
TTay T
95
22
1,262
26
8.04
7.85
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day Z
1,540
52
791
19
7.6
7.6
Day 3
38,180
267
5,676
13
8.1
8.2
Average
13,270
114
2,576
19
JS
O
-fs
-------
Table V-72
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT C
TREATED WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Toxic Pollutants
23. chloroform
44. raethylene chloride
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
65. phenol
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
102. alpha-BHC
106. PCB-1242 (a)
107. PCB-1254 (a)
108. PCB-1221 (a)
109. PCB-1232 (b)
110. PCB-1248 (b)
111. PCB-1260 (b)
112. PCB-1016 (b)
119. chroralura
120. copper
123. mercury
Nonconyentlonal
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
phenols (total; by 4-AAP method)
total organic carbon (TOC)
C onven11on a1
oil and grease
total suspended solids
Stream
Code
C-9
C-9
C-9
C-9
C-9
C-9
C-9
Sample
Type
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Concentrations (mg/1)
Source
0.055
0.220
ND
ND
*
**
**
Day 1
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Day 2 Day 3 Average
066 0.066
630
800
820
130
00012
0.006
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
630
800
820
130
00012
006
C-9
0.008
0.008
C-9
C-9
C-9
C-9
C-9
C-9
C-9
C-9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.007 0.009
0.02 0.02
0.0004 0.002
<5 2,520
1.65
<1 850
98
<1 46
0.
0.
0.
2,520
1.
850
98
46
009
02
002
65
(a), (b) Reported together.
-------
Table V-73
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT D
TREATED WASTEWATER
O
CT*
Pollutant
Toxic Pollutants
1. acenaphthene
4. benzene
21. 2,4,6-trlchlorophenol
23. •chloroform
30. 1,2-trans^-dlchloroethylene
44. methylene chloride
54. isophorone
Stream
Code
D-4
D-9a
D-14
D-15
D-4
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-4
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-4
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-4
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-4
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-4
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
Source
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
*
*
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 1
*
0.030
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
*
ND
ND
ND.
0.014
*
ND
ND
0.010
*
0.011
0.012
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.010
*
ND
0.150
0.140
0.010
ND
ND
ND
0.030
Day 2
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
*
ND
*
0.011
0.037
0.015
*
ND
*
ND
ND
0.010
0.048
0.780
0.110
*
ND
ND
ND
Day 3
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
0.016
*
*
ND
*
*
0.500
*
0.028
*
*
*
ND
0.450
0.150
1.100
0.440
ND
0.014
ND
Average
*
0.030
*
*
*
0.005
*
*
0.014
*
•*
0.170
0.004
0.025
0.014
*
*
*
0.157
0.066
0.940
0.130
0.193
0.010
0.014
0.030
-------
Table V-73 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT D
TREATED WASTEWATER
•P-
O
Po Hut ant
64. pentachlorophenol
65. phenol
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. dl-n-butyl phthalate
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
Stream
Code
D-4
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-4
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-4
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-4
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-4
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-4
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-4
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
Sample
Type
3
6
3
6
3
3
6
3
6
3
3
6
3
6
3
3
6
3
6
3
3
6
3
6
3
3
6
3
6
3
3
6
3
6
3
Concentrations^mg/1)
Source
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
ND
HD
ND
ND
ND
*
*
*
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
ft
*
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 1
ND
0. 13
*
ND
ND
0.042
ND
*
ND
0.040
0.023
0.057
*
0.130
0.150
*
ND
*
0.049
0.270
0.017
ND
*
0.022
O.pl6
ND
ND
ND
0.026
0.140
ND
ND
0.026
ND
*
Day 2
*
ft
*
0.027
*
*
*
*
0.010
ND
ft
*
*
*
*
ND
ND
ND
*
0.043
*
Day 3
ft
ND
ND
*
ft
0.015
*
ft
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ft
ft
ft
Average
*
0.013
*
*
0.023
*
0.018
0.008
0.057
*
0.130
0.053
*
*
0.049
0.090
0.006
*
0.022
0.005
0.026
0.140
ft
0.023
*
-------
Table V-73 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT D
TREATED WASTEWATER
Pollutant
87. trichloroethylene
115. arsenic
119. chromium
o
00
120. copper
121. cyanide
122. lead
Stream
Code
D-4
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-4
D-9
D-13*
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-4
D-9
D-13*
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-4
D-9
D-13*
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-4
D-9
D-13*
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-4
D-9
D-13*
D-14
D-15
D-16
Sample
Type
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
1
3
6
3
3
6
1
3
6
3
3
6
1
3
6
3
1
6
1
1
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
3
Source
*
*
*
*
*
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day 1
0.024
ND
0.025
0.150
0.080
<0.001
0.040
0.750
<0.010
ND
<0.010
1.000
ND
ND
ND
2.000
0.010
ND
ND
ND
0.020
0.005
0.006
0.004
0.015
0.002
0.004
<0.020
ND
ND
0.030
Day 2
0.073
0.039
*
0.045
<0.001
<0.010
<0.010
0.800
0.020
0.700
0.010
<0.009
0.010
0.001
<0.001
0.002
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
Day 3
0.053
0.033
0.020
<0. 001
<0.010
<0.010
1.000
0.040
2.000
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.001
0.029
0.001
0.040
<0.020
0.020
Average
0.050
0.032
0.075
0.048
<0.001
0.040
0.750
<0.010
<0.010
0.933
0.030
1.567
0.010
<0.010
0.013
0.002
0.006
0.004
<0.015
0.002
0.002
<0.027
<0.020
<0.023
-------
Table V-73 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT D
TREATED WASTEWATER
Pollutant
123. mercury
128. zinc
o
VO
Nonconventional
alkalinity
aluminum
calcium
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
magnesium
Stream
Code
D-4
D-9
D-13*
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-4
D-9
D-13*
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-15
D-4
D-9
D-13*
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-4
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-4
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-4
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
Source
0.0006
0.0006
0.0006
0.0006
0.0006
0.0006
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
38
38
38
38
38
Concentrations (mg/1)
12
12
12
12
12
rr
0. 0006
ND
ND
ND
0.060
0.090
ND
ND
ND
0.100
Day 2
<0.010
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.060
<0.050
<0.050
Day 3
0.0003
<0.0007
0.0005
0.060
<0.050
0.070
Average
0.004
< 0.0004
0.020
0.070
<0. 050
<0.073
0.380
0.380
4.0
170.0
ND
8.3
6.0
53.0
7.3
*
50.0
64.0
73
59
32
903
79
16.0
21.0
13.0
32.0
24.0
2.0
0.100
4.0
56.0
52.0
110.0
44
22
90
14.0
13.0
59.0
2.0
<0.090
4.0
56.0
46.0
89.0
52
28
86
14.0
13.0
37.0
2.7
170.0
<0.095
8.3
4.7
55.0
7.3
32.7
50.0
87.7
56
59
27
903
85
14.7
21.0
13.0
32.0
40.0
-------
Table V-73 (Continued)
Pollutant
phenols (total; by 4-AAP method)
sulfate
total organic carbon (TOG)
Conventional
oil and grease
suspended solids
pH (standard units)
Stream
Code
D-4
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-9
D-15
D-4
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-4
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-4
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-4
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT D
TREATED WASTEWATER
Source
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day 1
0.414
<0.001
0.547
15.6
0.015
3.366
1.284
29
31
12
381
36
15
16
14
36
66
43
13
3
93
119
6.8
2.1
7.2
6.7
5.9
Day 2
0.072
0.001
1.34
4
3
66
21
10
72
44
<1
1,100
8.4
2.4
7.8
6.5
7.4
Day 3
0.110
0.477
0.01
21
17
48
5
7
54
51
12
215
8.2
2.8
7.1
7.8
Average
0.199
<0.00i
0.347
15.6
0.46
3.366
1.284
18
31
11
381
50
14
16
10
36
64
46
13
<5
93
478
^Stream D-13 was analyzed for metals only.
aRaw waste is from nonscope operations.
^Influent to central treatment system stream—some contributing streams are partially treated.
-------
Table V-74
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT E
TREATED WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Toxic Pollutants
1. acenaphthene
4. benzene
5. benzldine
7. chlorobenzene
13. 1,1-dlchloroethane
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
Stream
Code
E-6*
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
3
2
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
Source
ft
*
*
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ft
*
ft
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Concentra tIons (mg/1)
Day 1
ND
0.055
*
250.000
ND
ND
ft
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.058
0.020
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.013
ND
ND
ND
ND
ft
0.013
Day 2
ND
ND
ND
0.011
0.011
ft
ND
0.026
0.016
ND
ND
ft
ND
ND
ND
ft
ft
ft
*
ND
*
Day 3
ND
ND
ND
*
*
ND
ND
0.016
0.033
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ft
ND
ND
*
ND
Average
0.055
ft
250.000
0.006
*
ft
0.006
*
0.021
0.025
*
*
0.058
0.020
*
0.004
ft
*
ft
0.007
-------
Table V-74 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT E
TREATED WASTEWATER
Pollutant
to
23. chloroform
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
38. ethyIbenzene
. methylene chloride
54. isophorone
Stream
Code
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
Source
*
*
*
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.017
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Concentrations (mg/1)
Pay 1
0.010
0.032
0.020
0.035
0.012
ND
0.850
0.360
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.013
*
ND
*
*
0.130
1.700
0.052
0.089
ND
NO
0.280
ND
ND
Day 2
0.010
0.023
*
ND
ND
ND
NO
0.021
ND
ND
0.044
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.140
0.474
0.076
ND
0.170
ND
Day 3
*
0.045
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.060
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
0.130
0.130
0.100
ND
ND
0.222
Average
0.007
0.032
0.020
0.034
*
0.850
0.360
0-021
0.060
0.044
*
0.013
*
*
0.090
0.130
1.700
0.219
0.088
0.280
0.170
0.222
-------
Table V-74 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT E
TREATED WASTEWATER
Pollutant
55. naphthalene
56. nitrobenzene
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
65. phenol
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
Stream
Code
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
Source
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
#
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day I
ND
0.017
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.032
0.011
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
A
0.390
0.044
0.056
*
*
0.390
0.049
ND
0.019
Day 2
*
ND
ND
ND
0.025
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
0.083
ND
ND
ND
*
*
ND
*
ND
*
*
Day J Average
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
0.091
*
*
ND
0.019
0,013
ND
ND
ND
*
*
0.017
*
0.025
0.016
0.006
0.083
0.091
*
*
A
0.006
0.390
0.044
0.035
*
*
0.390
0.049
*
0.006
-------
Table V-74 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT E
TREATED WASTEWATER
•e-
t-*
JS
Pollutant
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
72. benzo(a)anthracene
78. anthracene (a)
81. phenanthrene (a)
80. fluorene
84. pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylene
Stream
Code
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
Sample
Type
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
Concentrations (mg/1)
Source
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
*
*
*
*
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 1
*
0.720
0.065
0.056
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.021
0.014
*
0.011
Day 2
0.023
ND
ND
ND
0.010
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
0.119
*
*
0.050
ND
*
ND
*
*
*
*
Day 3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.011
ND
ND
0,100
ND
ND
0.035
ND
ND
*
ND
*
*
Average
0.012
0.720
0.065
0.056
0.010
*
0.011
0.119
0.050
*
0.050
0.035
*
*
*
0.021
0.014
*
0.004
-------
Table V-74 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT E
TREATED WASTEWATER
Pollutant
86. toluene
87. trichloroethylene
in
91,
98.
chlordane
endrin
106.
1,07.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
(b)
(b)
(b)
(c)
(c)
(c)
(c)
118. cadmium
Stream
Code
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
^E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
Source
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
**
**
**
**
**
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
Day 1 " Day 2
ND ND
0.013
*
0.031 *
* ND
ND ND
0.012
*
ND *
ND *
*ft
ND
**
**
ft*
ND
**
ND
**
**
0.016
ft*
0.006
**
**
0.027
0.0053
**
<0.002 <0.002
<0.002
0.005
<0.002 <0.002
<0.002 <0.002
- Day 3 Average
ND
0.013
*
ND 0.016
ND *
ND
0.012
*
* *
* ft
**
**
ft*
**
**
**
**
0.016
**
0.006
ft*
**
0.027
0.0053
**
<0.002 <0.002
<0.002
0.005
<0.002 <0.002
<0.002 <0.002
-------
Table V-74 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT E
TREATED WASTEWATER
Stream
Pollutant
119. chromium
120. copper
121. cyanide
122. lead
123. mercury
124. nickel
128. zinc
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
Sample
Type
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
1
2
2
1
1
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
Source
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
0.0004
0. 0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day 1
0.070
0.010
0.020
0.090
<0. 005
<0.009
0.050
<0.009
0.200
<0.009
0.002
0.006
0.003
0.034
0.004
<0.020
0.050
0.030
0.020
<0.020
0. 0009
<0.010
0. 0006
0.0006
0. 0006
0.020
0.010
0.040
<0.005
<0.005
<0.050
0.100
0.200
0.200
<0.050
Day 2
0.060
0.060
<0.005
<0.009
0.300
0. 100
<0.001
0.006
0.003
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
0. 0004
0.0022
0. 0008
0.006
<0.005
<0.005
<0.050
0.200
<0.050
Day 3
0.040
0.020
<0.005
<0.009
0.060
<0.009
<0.001
0.006
0.-003
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
0.0011
0.0005
0. 0006
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.050
0.100
<0.050
Average
0.057
0.010
0.020
0.057
<0. 005
<0.009
0.050
<0. 009
0.187
<0.039
<0.001
0.006
0.003
0.015
0.003
<0.020
0.050
0.030
<0.020
<0.020
0. 0008
<0.010
0. 0006
0.0011
0.0007
<0.010
0.010
0.040
<0.005
<0.005
<0. 050
0.100
0.200
0.167
<0.050
-------
Table V-74 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT E
TREATED WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Nonconventional
alkalinity
aluminum
calcium
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
magnesium
phenols (total; by 4-AAP method)
Stream
Code
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
Sample
Type
Source
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
<0.090
<0.090
<0.090
<0.090
<0.090
68
68
68
68
68
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day 1
26
240.0
12.0
ND
ND
<0.145
4.7
7.6
20
0.100
320.0
28.0
43.0
50
51
68
9,890
828
270
84
22.0
9.7
14.0
5.8
5.2
0.008
0.217
0.213
0.009
0.011
Da^
28
ND
ND
<0.195
10
<0.090
370.0
48
51
17
346
103
23.0
6.1
5.4
0.007
Day 3
76
ND
ND
<0.195
6
<0.090
320.0
47
50
22
395
93
18.0
4.9
5.4
0.010
0.006
0.008
Average
43
240.0
12.0
<0. 178
4.7
7.6
12
<0.093
336.7
28.0
43.0
48
51
36
9,890
828
337
93
21.0
9.7
14.0
5.6
5.3
0.008
0.217
0.213
0.008
0.010
-------
Table V-74 (Continued,
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT E
TREATED WASTEWATER
Pollutant
sulfate
oo
total organic carbon (TOG)
Conventional
oil and grease
suspended solids
pH (standard units)
Stream
.Code
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
Sample
Type
Source
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
<0. 001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Day 1
790
<0.025
ND
ND
22
3,130
262
166
27
9
3,320
42
189
35
10
137.0
12
121
24
6.7
5.5
4.8
Day 2
848
ND
ND
8
180
34
20
227
31
1
140
24
7.5
6.2
7.0
Day 3
788
ND
ND
7
152
27
18
15
1
89
24
7.0
6.5
7.3
Average
809
<0.025
12
3,130
262
166
29
16
3,320
42
208
27
4
137.0
12
117
24
(a), (t>) , (c) Reported together.
aRaw waste is from nonscope operations.
-------
Table V-75
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT H
TREATED WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Toxic Pollutants
4. benzene
23. chloroform
44. methylene chloride
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
93. 4,4'-DDE
106. PCB-1242 (a)
107. PCB-1254 (a)
108. PB-1221 (a)
109. PCB-1232 (b)
.110. PCB-1248 (b)
111. PCB-1260 (b)
112. PCB-1016 (b)
121. cyanide
122. lead
123. mercury
128. zinc
Nonconventional
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
phenols (total; by 4-AAP method)
total organic carbon (TOG)
Stream
Code
H-3
H-3
H-3
H-3
H-3
H-3
H-3
H-3
H-3
Sample
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
3
3
Concentrations (mg/1)
Source
0.023
0.066
1.100
ND
*
*
*
ND
**
Day 1
ft
0.023
0.205
ft
0.011
*
ft
ft*
ft*
Day 2^ Uay 3 Average
ND * *
0.028 0.017
0.031 0.034
ND ND
0-022 *
ft *
ND ND
0.
0.
*
0.
*
*
**
A*
023
090
Oil
H-3
**•
**•
H-3
H-3
H-3
H-3
H-3
H-3
H-3
1
3
3
3
3
1
3
0.
<0.02 0.
0.0004 0.
0.1 0.
222
0.
47
025
07
0003
2
014
0.
0-
0.
0.
179
0.
44
005
05
0003
2
01
0.
0.
0.
0.
96
0.
25
Oil
03
0003
1
017
0.
o.
0.
0.
166
0.
39
014
05
0003
2
01
-------
Table V-75 (ContJ.nued)
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT H
TREATED WASTEWATER
ro
o
Pollutant
Conventional
oil and grease
suspended solids
pH (standard units)
(a), (b) Reported together.
aOil samples analyzed for oil and grease only,
Stream
Code
H-3
H-?a
H-8a
H-3
H-3
H-7
H-8
Sample
Type Source
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
Day 1
131
69
154
54
7.4
7.3
7.3
Concentrations (mg/1
Day 2 Pay 3
59 168
72 38
7
)
Average
119
69
154
55
-------
Table V-76
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT J
TREATED WASTEWATER
ro
Pollutant
Toxic Pollutants
44. methylene chloride
58. 4-nitrophenol
66, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
78. anthracene (a)
81. phenanthrene (a)
87. trichloroethylene
115. arsenic
118. cadmium
119. chromium
120. copper
121. cyanide
122. lead
123. mercury
124. nickel
128. zinc
Nonconventional
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
phenols (total; by 4-AAP method)
total organic carbon (TOG)
Stream
Code
J-6
J-6
J-6
J-6
J-6
J-6
J-6
J-6
J-6
J-6
J-6
J-6
J-6
J-6
J-6
J-6
J-6
J-6
J-6
Sample
Type
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Concentrations (mg/1)
Source
ND
ND
ND
0.041
ND
ND
ND
<0.010
<0.010
<0.030
0.030
ND
<0.050
<0.0004
<0.020
0.040
5
<1
Day 1
*
0.045
0.140
0.031
0.019
*
*
<0.010
0.180
870
2,000
0.018
0.650
<0.0002
2.100
1,950
297
0.001
77
Day 2
0.021
ND
0.160
0.018
0.016
ND
*
<0.010
0.190
735
2,530
0.034
1.200
0. 0002
2.500
1,200
289
0.004
66
Day 3
0.018
0.024
ND
ND
ND
0.010
0.190
770
2,190
0.023
1.200
<0.0002
2.600
2,200
255
0.002
79
Average
0.011
0.
0.
0.
0.
*
*
<0.
0.
792
2,240
0.
1.
<0.
2.
1,780
280
0.
74
032
108
025
018
010
187
025
017
0002
400
002
-------
Table V-76 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT J
TREATED WASTEWATEK
Pollutant
C on ye n tiona1
150. oil and grease
152. suspended soltds
159. pH (standard units)
(a) Reported together.
Stream
Code
J-6
J-6
J-6
Sample
Type
Source
14
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day 1
18
354
3.6
Day 2
15
1,070
3.5
Day 3
13
704
4.1
Average
15
709
ro
ro
-------
Table V-77
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT K
TREATED WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Toxic Pollutants
4. benzene
23. chloroform
44. methylene chloride
48. dichlorobromomethane
55. naphthalene
65. phenol
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
119. chromium
120. copper
124. nickel
128. zinc
Stream
Code
K-4
K-5
K-4
K-5
K-5
K-4
K-5
K-4
K-5
K-4
K-5
K-4
K-5
K-4
K-5
K-4
K-5
K-4
K-5
K-4
K-5
K-4
K-5
Sample
_Ty_pe
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3,2,2
3
3,2,2
3
322
•*»*•» ^
3
3,2,2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
Concentrations (mg/1)
Source
0.019
0.029
0.045
0.045
1.300
1.300
0.016
0.016
<0.03
<0.03
<0.02
<0.02
<0.020
<0.020
<0.02
<0.02
Day 1
*
*
0.018
0.024
0.650
0.970
0.011
*
0.016
0.015
0.013
*
*
0.035
*
*
0.920
0.120
<0.020
0.110
Day 2
0.051
0.015
0.037
0.021
0.860
1.800
*
*
*
*
*
ft
0.011
0.120
<0.020
0.020
<0.020
Day 3
*
*•
0.043
0.035
1.400
0.360
*
*
0.041
*
*
*
1.400
0.050
0.090
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
0.060
0.020
Average
0.017
0.005
0.033
0.027
0.970
1.040
0.004
*
0.016
0.008
0.013
*
0.014
0.012
*
0.004
1.160
0.085
0.105
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
0.085
<0.020
-------
Table V-77 (Continued,
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT K
TREATED WASTEWATER
NJ
-P*
Pollutant
Nonconventlonal
alkalinity
aluminum
calcium
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
dissolved solids
magnesium
phenols (total; by 4-AAP method)
sulfate
total organic carbon (TOC)
Conventional
oil and grease
suspended solids
pH (standard units)
Stream
Code
K-4
K-5
K-4
K-5
K-4
K-5
K-4
K-5
K-4
K-5
K-4
K-5
K-4
K-5
K-4
K-5
K-4
K-5
K-4
K-5
K-4
K-5
K-4
K-5
Sample
Type
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
1
1
3
2
3
2
1
1
3
2
i
i
Concentrations (mg/1)
Source
0.096
0.096
<0.10
<0.10
5
5
0.164
0.164
<0.010
<0.010
6
6
3
3
13
13
Day 1
118.0
120.0
34.0
13-0
22-0
52
674.0
760.0
6.00
0.004
0.012
15.0
70.0
24
11
8
18
150
8.6
9.3
Day 2
107.0
12.0
24.0
22
737.0
6.20
0.006
0.016
64.0
13
8
7
11
5.7
7.0
Day 3
76.0
81.0
57.0
15.0
29.0
61
22
742.0
677.0
6.60
0.008
0.011
21.0
52.0
20
9
3
8
181
10
6.7
7.3
Average
97.0
102.7
45.5
13.3
25.0
57
22
708.0
724.7
6.27
0.006
0.013
18.0
62.0
22
11
6
11
166
11
-------
Table V-7S
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT L
TREATED WASTEWATER
Ui
Pollutant
Toxic Pollutants
44. methylene chloride
55. naphthalene
66. bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
119. chromium
123. mercury
Hooconventional
aluminum
calcium
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
magnesium
phenols (total; by 4-AAP method)
total organic carbon (TOC)
Conventional
oil and grease
suspended solids
pH (standard units)
Stream
Code
L-8
L-7*
L-8
L-7*
L-8
L-7*
L-8
L-7*
L-8
L-7*
L-8
L-8
L-8
L-8
L-8
L-8
L-8
L-8
L-8
L-8
L-8
L-8
Sample
Type
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Concentrations (mg/1)
Source Day 1
ND 0.090
ND
*
ND <5.000
ND *
<5.000
ND
<5.000
ND
<5.000
ND
<0.001 0.110
0.0073 0.0022
<0.5 0.77
9.0 120
<5 37
2.24 8.23
0.017
2.8 6.1
<5
<2 <2
7.9
ND
0.050
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.090
0.014
5.8
221
28
0.34
0.004
12
<5
<2
11.4
Day 3
0.090
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.080
< 0.0001
2.4
104
24
4.56
0.005
11
276
11
10.1
Average
0.090
0.017
<5.000
*
<5.000
<5.000
<5.000
0.093
<0.005
3.0
148
30
4.38
0.009
10
<95
<5
*Stream L-7 was not analyzed for volatile organics and metals. Sludge sample.
-------
Table V-79
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT P
TREATED WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Toxic Pollutants
44. methylene chloride
55- naphthalene
57. 2-nitrophenol
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
65. phenol
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
78. anthracene (a)
81. phenanthrene (a)
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
115. arsenic
118. cadmium
119. chromium
120. copper
121. cyanide
122., lead
124. nickel
128. zinc
Stream
Code
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-8
P-7
P-8
P-7
P-8
P-7
P-8
P-7
P-8
P-7
P-8
P-7
P-8
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
Sample
Type
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Concentrations (mg/1)
Source
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0011
< 0.0005
0.002
0.009
0.002
<0.001
<0.01
Day 1
0.310
0.380
0.100
ND
0.110
ND
0.020
ND
0.100
45-500
*
<41.000
0.010
ND
0.020
ND
0.01
0.003
0.008
0.06
0.32
0.21
0-082
0.42
Day 2
0.070
0.230
0.150
0.030
0.020
ND
ND
0.230
0.030
0.015
< 0.0041
0.007
0.07
1.4
0.4
0.105
0.83
Day 3
0.260
0.020
0.020
ND
0.090
ND
ND
0.070
0.010
0,0086
<0.0005
0.009
0.066
0.09
0.071
0.018
0.24
Average
0.213
0.210
0.090
0.070
0.043
0.100
45.500
*
<41 . 000
0.103
0.020
0.01
<0.003
0.008
0.07
0.6
0.2
0.068
0.50
-------
Table V-79 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT P
TREATED WASTEWATER
NJ
Pollutant
Nonconventional
aluminum
calcium
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
magnesium
phenols (total; by 4-AAP method)
total organic carbon (TOC)
Conventional
oil and grease
suspended solids
Stream
Code
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
Sample
Type
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Concentrations (mg/1)
Source Day 1
<0. 5 4.1
96 27
<5 3,200
26 11
0.323
2 950
27
5 153
IJay 2
1.035
39
13,100
16
0.234
1,790
52
187
Day 3
1.3
22
1,910
11
0.313
881
18
63
Average
2.1
29
6,070
13
0.
1,207
32
134
290
(a) Reported together.
-------
Table V-80
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT Q
TREATED WASTEWATER
ho
00
Pollutant
To;_xic_ Pollutants
44. methylene chloride
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
115. arsenic
117. beryllium
118. cadmium
119. chromium
120. copper
122. lead
123. mercury
124. nickel
128. zinc
Noncpnyentional
alkalinity
aluminum
Scream
Code
Q-4
Q-4
Q-5a
Q-4
Q-5
Q-4
Q-5
Q-4
Q-5
Q-4
Q-5
Q-4
Q-5
Q-4
Q-5
Q-4
Q-5
Q-4
Q-5
Q-4
Q-5
Q-4
Q-4
Q-5
Sample
1
3
6
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
3
1
Source
*
*
*
0.0028
0.0028
<0.0005
<0.0005
<0.0005
<0.0005
0.004
0.004
0.026
0.026
0.006
0.006
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.01
<0.01
<0. 5
<0. 5
Day 1
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
0.
17
3
8
1.
0.
0.
0.
43
9.
320
450
72
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day 2
030 *
*
030
13 0.088
018
018 0.0067
0005
0029 0.0017
0008
000 1.2
34
10
5.2
8
002 0.0015
0006
054 0.013
001
24
8
77
240
Day 3 Average
* 0.010
*
0.69
0.019
0.0022
2.9
16
9.5
<0.0004
0.04
40
78
390
*
0.030
0.30
0.018
0.015
<0.0005
0.0023
0.0008
2.0
0.34
14
3
8
1.8
<0.001
0.0006
0.04
<0.001
36
9.8
158
360
72
-------
Table V-80 (Continued)
ro
so
Pollutant
calcium
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
dissolved solids
magnesium
sulfate
phenols (total; by 4-AAP method)
total organic carbons (TOG)
Conventional
oil and grease
suspended solids
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT Q
TREATED WASTEWATER
Stream
Code
Q-4
Q-5
Q-4
Q-4
Q-4
Q-5
Q-4
Q-4
Q-4
Q-4
Q-4
Sample
_?-?££-.-.
3
1
•>
j
3
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
Source Day 1
61 76
61 60
55
1,050
12.2 21.9
12.2 15.9
140
0.024
1.4
8
2,460-
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day 2
70
16
570
18
68
0. 004
0.74
1,010
Day 3
94
25
650
27.6
84
0.009
1.7
1,360
Average
80
60
32
760
23
15-
97
0.
1.
8
1,610
9
012
3
aSludge sample.
-------
Table V-81
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT U
TREATED WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Toxic Pollutants
]. acenaphthene
2. acroleln
5. benzidine
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
44. methylene chloride
55. naphthalene
65. phenol
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Stream
Code
Sample
Type
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10a
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
Source
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
*
*
*
^Concent rat Ions (mg /1)
ay 1
ND
ND
0.060
ND
ND
ND
0. 40
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
0.160
ND
ND
0.020
*
*
*
ND
0.070
0.050
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
0.140
ND
300.000
Day 2
ND
ND
0.140
ND
ND
0.020
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.120
ND
*
0.030
*
*
*
ND
0.200
0.030
ND
0.050
ND
0.020
ND
0.080
Day 3
ND
ND
0.140
ND
ND
0.050
ND
ND
0.020
ND
*
0.140
ND
*
0.030
0.050
*
*
ND
0.120
0.070
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
0.080
Average
0.113
0.037
0.020
*
0.140
*
0.027
0.017
*
*
0.130
0.050
0.050
0.007
0.140
0.080
300.000
-------
Table V-8I (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT U
TREATED WASTEWATER
Pollutant
68. dl-n-butyl phthalate
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
78. anthracene (a)
81. phenanthrene (a)
SO. Eluorene
84. pyrene
85. tetr*chloroethylene
86. toluene
118. cadmium
Stream
__Co_de_
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
Sample
Type
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
Source
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day 1
0.030
0.180
0.020
90.000
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.020
0.120
ND
53.000
ND
<0.180
<0.120
<110.000
ND
0.030
ND
ND
ND
*
*
ND
ND
*
*
ND
0.020
0.040
0.002
0.029
0.003
0.440
Day 2
*
0.090
0.080
ND
ND
0.020
A
ND
0.030
*
<0.230
<0.140
ND
ND
0.020
ND
ND
*
ND
0.020
>v
ND
0.050
0.040
0.002
0.030
0.011
Day 3
*
0.040
0.150
ND
ND
0.030
*
0.070
ND
ND
<0.110
<0.170
ND
ND
ND
*
0.020
ND
ND
*
A
ND
0.050
0.050
<0.001
0.022
0.012
Average
0.010
0.103
0.083
90.000
0.025
0.007
0.095
0.030
53.000
*
<0.173
<0.143
<110.000
0.030
0.020
*
0.010
*
0.007
*
0.040
0.043
<0.002
0.027
0.009
0.440
-------
Table V-81 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT U
TREATED WASTEWATER
Pollutant
u>
to
119. chromium
120. copper
122. lead
123. mercury
124. nickel
128. zinc
Nonconventional
alkalinity
aluminum
calcium
Stream
Code
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
Sample
Type
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
Source
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.016
ND
ND
ND
ND
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day 1
<0.001
0.042
0.002
8.6
0.011
0.680
0.340
13.00
0.006
7.090
4.300
4.900
0.003
0.002
0.003
0.006
0.013
0.088
0.067
3.520
0.230
0.510
11.000
12.00
Day 2
<0.001
0.169
0.005
0.011
1.160
0.430
0.006
20.600
8.400
0.003
0.005
0.003
0.005
0.089
0.032
0.240
0.800
0.680
Day 3
<0.001
0.064
0.005
0.014
0.640
0.420
0.008
15.200
7.800
0.003
0.002
0.002
<0.001
0.049
0.047
0.300
0.650
0.540
Average
<0.001
0.092
0.004
8.6
0.012
0.827
0.397
13.00
0.007
14.297
6.833
4.900
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.006
<0. 006
0.075
0.049
3.520
0.257
0.653
4.073
12.00
59.00
<0.100
23.00
2.000
1,322
143.0
59.60
92.20
417.0
66.00
<0.100
25.00
2.000
148.0
89-40
89.00
82.00
<0.100
13.00
2.000
138.0
98.00
88.80
69.00
<0.100
20.33
2.000
1,322
143.0
82.33
90.00
417.0
-------
Pollutant
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
dissolved solids
magnesium
sulfate
4J. phenols (total; by 4-AAP method)
total organic carbon (TOC)
Conventional
oil and grease
suspended solids
pH (standard units)
(a) Reported together.
a Oil sample.
U-3
Table V-81 (Continued)
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT U
TREATED WASTEWATER
Stream
Code
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-3
U-8
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
Sample
Type
1
3
1
4
1
1
3
1
4
1
1
1
4
1
3
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
4
Source Day 1
11
4,860
1,210
880,000
830.0
16.40
12.70
13.30
47.00
360
0.010
0.043
2.7
2.8
470
228
7,200
5
4,000
1,340
938,000
3.8
1,369
490
2,750
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day 2
18
2,940
981
830.0
13.30
12.70
11.50
350
0.021
0.135
3.3
470
265
25
46,700
1,150
11
6,050
498
Day 3
108
1,700
4,070
840.0
18.00
11.80
12.70
400
0.020
0.081
5.6
244
129
4,490
3,120
1,250
139
4,110
392
Average
46
3,170
2,087
880,000
833.3
15.90
12.40
12.50
47.00
370
0.017
0.086
3.9
395
207
7,200
1,507
17,940
1,250
938,000
51
3,843
460
2,750
7.0
-------
Tflble V-82
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT V
TREATED WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Toxic Pollutants
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
44. methylene chloride
65. phenol
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
78. anthracene (a)
81. phenanthrene (a)
86. toluene
115. arsenic
It8. cadmium
119. chromium
120. copper
122. lead
124. nickel
128. zinc
Non conve ntional
alkalinity
aluminum
calcium
chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Stream
Code
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
Sample
Type Source
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Day 1
ND
0.031
1.600
0.008
ND
ND
0.001
ND
<0.005
<0.001
0.005
0.027
<0.001
0.004
0.06
270
6.1
68
120
Concentrations (mg/1)
Day_2
0.006
0. 007
0.920
0.002
0.001
0.002
ND
0.004
0.085
0.002
0.004
0.027
0.004
0.006
0.08
250
3.8
67
44
Day 3
0.007
01006
0.540
0.001
ND
ND
ND
0.004
<0.005
0.001
0.006
0.07
0.003
0.005
0.35
250
2.2
81
150
Average
0.007
0.015
1.020
0.004
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.004
<0.032
<0.001
0.005
0.04
<0.003
0.005
0.16
260
4.0
72
105
-------
Table V-82 (Continued)
Lo
in
Pollutant
dissolved solids
magnesium
phenols (total; by 4-AAP method)
sulfate
total organic carbon (TOC)
Conventional
oil and grease
suspended solids
SAMPLING DATA
PLANT V
TREATED WASTEWATER
Stream
Code
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
V-8
Sample
Type So
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
Concentrations (mg/1)
urce Day 1
830
53
2.400
210
42
15
36
Day 2
950
50
1.800
220
42
11
36
Day 3
660
62
0.440
91
63
15
33
Average
810
55
1.547
174
49
14
35
(a) Reported together.
-------
-------
Section VI
SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
The Agency has studied aluminum forming wastewaters to determine
the presence or absence of toxic, conventional and selected non-
conventional pollutants. The toxic pollutants and nonconven-
tional pollutants are subject to BAT effluent limitations and
guidelines. Conventional pollutants are considered in establish-
ing BPT, BCT, and NSPS limitations.
One hundred and twenty-nine toxic pollutants (known as the 129
priority pollutants) were studied pursuant to the requirements of
the Clean Water Act of 1977 (CWA). These pollutant parameters,
which are listed in Table VI-1, are members of the 65 pollutants
and classes of toxic pollutants referred to as Table 1 in Section
307(a)(1) of the CWA.
From the original list of 129 pollutants, three pollutants have
been deleted in two separate amendments to 40 CFR Subchapter N,
Part 401. Dichlorodifluoromethane and trichlorofluoromethane
were deleted first (46 FR 2266, January 8, 1981) followed by the
deletion of bis-(chloromethyl) ether (46 FR 10723, February 4,
1981). The Agency has concluded that deleting these compounds
will not compromise adequate control over their discharge into
the aquatic environment and that no adverse effects on the
aquatic environment or on human health will occur as a result of
deleting them from the list of toxic pollutants.
Past studies by EPA and others have identified many nontoxic pol-
lutant parameters useful in characterizing industrial wastewaters
and in evaluating treatment process removal efficiencies. Cer-
tain of these and other parameters may also be selected as reli-
able indicators of the presence of specific toxic pollutants.
For these reasons, a number of nontoxic pollutants were also
studied for the aluminum forming category.
Congress has defined the criteria for the selection of conven-
tional pollutants (43 FR 32857 January 11, 1980). These criteria
are:
1. Generally those pollutants that are naturally occurring,
biodegradable; oxygen-demanding materials, and solids that have
characteristics similar to naturally occuring, biodegradable sub-
stances; or,
2. Include those classes of pollutants that traditionally have
been the primary focus of wastewater control.
437
-------
The conventional pollutants considered (total suspended solids,
oil and grease, and pH) traditionally have been studied to char-
acterize industrial wastewaters. These parameters are especially
useful in evaluating the effectiveness of wastewater treatment
processes.
Several nonconventional pollutants were considered. These
included aluminum, chemical oxygen demand (COD), phenols (total),
and total organic carbon (TOG). In addition, calcium, magnesium,
alkalinity, total dissolved solids and sulfate were measured to
provide data to evaluate the cost of chemical precipitation and
sedimentation treatment of certain wastewater streams. Of these
pollutants, only aluminum was considered for regulation in
establishing effluent limitations guidelines, since it is the
metal being processed and is found in significant concentration
in all wastewater streams.
RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
A pollutant that was never detected, or that was never found
above its analytical quantification level, was eliminated from
consideration. The analytical quantification level for a pollu-
tant is the minimum concentration at which that pollutant can be
reliably measured. For the toxic pollutants in this study, the
analytical quantification levels are: 0.005 mg/1 for pesticides,
PCB's, chromium, and nickel; 0.010 mg/1 for the remaining organic
toxic pollutants and cyanide, arsenic, beryllium, and selenium;
10 million fibers per liter (10 MFL) for asbestos; 0.020 mg/1 for
lead and silver; 0.009 mg/1 for copper; 0.002 mg/1 for cadmium;
and 0.0001 mg/1 for mercury.
The pesticide TCDD (2,3,7,8-tetrachloridibenzo-p-dioxin) was not
analyzed for because a standard sample was unavailable to the
analytical laboratories. Samples collected by the Agency's con-
tractor were not analyzed for asbestos. Data on asbestos content
are available for a very small number of samples relevant to this
study as a result of the first phase of a screening program for
asbestos in a wide range of industrial categories. Of these
samples, only a few appear to contain asbestos at analytically
significant levels. A verification sampling plan has not been
developed at this time.
Pollutants which were detected below levels considered achievable
by specific available treatment methods were also eliminated from
further consideration. For the toxic metals, the chemical
precipitation, sedimentation, and filtration technology treata-
bility values, which are presented in Section VII (Table VII-21,
438
-------
p. 748 ), were used. For the toxic organic pollutants detected
above their analytical quantification level, treatability levels
for activated carbon technology were used. These treatability
values represent the most stringent treatment options considered
for pollutant removal. This allows for the most conservative
pollutant exclusion based on pollutants detected below treatable
levels.
Waste streams in the aluminum forming category have been grouped
together into core and ancillary waste streams in the subcate-
gorization scheme, which has been described in Section IV. The
pollutant exclusion procedure was applied for the following:
(1) Rolling With Neat Oils Core Waste Streams
(2) Rolling With Emulsions Core Waste Streams
(3) Extrusion Core Waste Streams
(4) Forging Core Waste Streams
(5) Drawing With Neat Oils Core Waste Streams
(6) Drawing With Emulsions Or Soaps Core Waste Streams
(7) Ancillary Waste Streams
Toxic pollutants remaining after the application of the exclusion
process were then selected for further consideration in estab-
lishing specific regulations.
DESCRIPTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
The following discussion addresses the pollutant parameters
detected above their analytical quantification level in any
sample of aluminum forming wastewater. The description of each
pollutant provides the following information: the source of the
pollutant; whether it is a naturally occuring element, processed
metal, or manufactured compound; general physical properties and
the form of the pollutant; toxic effects of the pollutant in
humans and other animals; and behavior of the pollutant in a POTW
at concentrations that might be expected from industrial
discharges.
Acenaphthene (1). Acenaphthene (1,2-dihydroacenaphthylene, or
1,8-ethylene-naphthalene) is a polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
(PAH) with molecular weight of 154 and a formula of Ci2HiQ.
Acenaphthene occurs in coal tar produced during high temperature
coking of coal. It has been detected in cigarette smoke and
gasoline exhaust condensates.
The pure compound is a white c
solid at room tempera-
ture with a melting range of 95 C to 97°C and a boiling range of
278°C to 280°C. Its vapor pressure at room temperature is less
than 0.02 mm Hg. Acenaphthene is slightly soluble in water (100
439
-------
mg/1), but even more soluble in organic solvents such as ethanol,
toluene, and chloroform. Acenaphthene can be oxidized by oxygen
or ozone in the presence of certain catalysts. It is stable
under laboratory conditions.
Acenaphthene is used as a dye intermediate, in the manufacture of
some plastics, and as an insecticide and fungicide.
So little research has been performed on acenaphthene that its
mammalian and human health effects are virtually unknown. The
water quality criterion of 0.02 mg/1 is recommended to prevent
the adverse effects on humans due to the organoleptic properties
of acenaphthene in water.
No detailed study of acenaphthene behavior in a POTW is avail-
able. However, it has been demonstratd that none of the organic
toxic pollutants studied so far can be broken down by biological
treatment processes as readily as fatty acids, carbohydrates, or
proteins. Many of the toxic pollutants have been investigated,
at least in laboratory-scale studies, at concentrations higher
than those expected to be contained by most municipal waste -
waters. General observations relating molecular structure to
ease of degradation have been developed for all of the toxic
organic pollutants.
The conclusion reached by study of the limited data is that bio-
logical treatment produces little or no degradation of acenaph-
thene. No evidence is available for drawing conclusions about
its possible toxic or inhibitory effect on POTW operation.
Its water solubility would allow acenaphthene present in the
influent to pass through a POTW into the effluent. The hydrocar-
bon character of this compound makes it sufficiently hydrophobic
that adsorption onto suspended solids and retention in the sludge
may also be a significant route for removal of acenaphthene from
the POTW.
Acenaphthene has been demonstrated to affect the growth of plants
through improper nuclear division and polyploidal chromosome
number. However, it is not expected that land application o£
sewage sludge containing acenaphthene at the low concentrations
which are to be expectd in a POTW sludge would result in any
adverse effects on animals ingesting plants grown in such soil.
Benzene (4). Benzene (CgHg) is a clear, colorless liquid
obtained mainly from petroleum feedstocks by several different
processes. Some is recovered from light oil obtained from coal
carbonization gases. It boils at 80 C and has a vapor pressure
of 100 mm Hg at 26°C. It is slightly soluble in water (1.8 g/1
at 25°C) and it dissolves in hydrocarbon solvents. Annual U.S.
production is three to four million tons.
440
-------
Most of the benzene used in the U.S. goes into chemical manufac-
ture. About half of that is converted to ethylbenzene which is
used to make styrene. Some benzene is used in motor fuels.
Benzene is harmful to human health according to numerous pub-
lished studies. Most studies relate effects of inhaled benzene
vapors. These effects include nausea, loss of muscle coordina-
tion, and excitement, followed by depression and coma. Death is
usually the result of respiratory or cardiac failure. Two spe-
cific blood disorders are related to benzene exposure. One of
these, acute myelogenous leukemia, represents a carcinogenic
effect of benzene. However, most human exposure data is based on
exposure in occupational settings and benzene carcinogenisis is
not considered to be firmly established.
Oral administration of benzene to laboratory animals produced
leukopenia, a reduction in mumber of leukocytes in the blood.
Subcutaneous injection of benzene-oil solutions has produced sug-
gestive, but not conclusive, evidence of benzene carcinogenisis.
Benzene demonstrated teratogenic effects in laboratory animals,
and mutagenic effects in humans and other animals.
For maximum protection of human health from the potential carcin-
ogenic effects of exposure to benzene through ingestion of water
and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water concentra-
tion is zero. Concentrations of benzene estimated to result in
additional lifetime cancer risk at levels of 10"', 10~°, and
10-5 are 0.00015 mg/1, 0.0015 mg/1, and 0.015 mg/1,
respectively.
Some studies have been reported regarding the behavior of benzene
in a POTW. Biochemical oxidation of benzene under laboratory
conditions, at concentrations of 3 to 10 mg/1, produced 24, 27,
24, and 20 percent degradation in 5, 10, 15, and 20 days, respec-
tively, using unacclimated seed cultures in fresh water. Degra-
dation of 58, 67, 76, and 80 percent was produced in the same
time periods using acclimated seed cultures. Other studies pro-
duced similar results. Based on these data and general conclu-
sions relating molecular structure to biochemical oxidation, it
is expected that biological treatment in a POTW will remove ben-
zene readily from the water. Other reports indicate that most
benzene entering a POTW is removed to the sludge and that influ-
ent concentrations of 1 g/1 inhibit sludge digestion. There is
no information about possible effects of benzene on crops grown
in soils amended with sludge containing benzene.
Carbon Tetrachloride (6). Carbon tetrachloride (CC14), also
called tetrachloromethane, is a colorless liquid produced primar-
ily by the chlorination of hydrocarbons - particularly methane.
441
-------
Carbon tetrachlortde boils at 77°C and has a vapor pressure of 90
mm Hg at 20°C. It is slightly soluble in water (0.8 gm/1 at
25°C) and soluble in many organic solvents. Approximately
one-third of a million tons is produced annually in the U.S.
Carbon tetrachloride, which was displaced by perchloroethylene as
a dry cleaning agent in the 1930's, is used principally as an
intermediate for production of chlorofluoromethanes for refriger-
ants, aerosols, and blowing agents. It is also used as a grain
fumigant.
Carbon tetrachloride produces a variety of toxic effects in
humans. Ingestion of relatively large quantities - greater than
five grams - has frequently proved fatal. Symptoms are burning
sensation in the mouth, esophagus, and stomach, followed by
abdominal pains, nausea, diarrhea, dizziness, abnormal pulse, and
coma. When death does not occur immediately, liver and kidney
damage are usually found. Symptoms of chronic poisoning are not
as well defined. General fatigue, headache, and anxiety have
been observed, accompanied by digestive tract and kidney dis-
comfort or pain.
Data concerning teratogenicity and mutagenicity of carbon tetra-
chloride are scarce and inconclusive. However, carbon tetrachlo-
ride has been demonstrated to be carcinogenic in laboratory
animals. The liver was the target organ.
For maximum protection of human health from the potential carcin-
ogenic effects of exposure to carbon tetrachloride through inges-
tion of water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient
water concentration of zero. Concentrations of carbon tetrachlo-
ride estimated to result in additional lifetime cancer risk at
risk levels of 10'7, 10'6, and 10"5 are 0.000026 mg/1,
0.00026 mg/1, and 0.0026 mg/1, respectively.
Data on the behavior of carbon tetrachloride in a POTW are not
available. Many of the toxic organic pollutants have been inves-
tigated, at least in laboratory-scale studies, at concentrations
higher than those expected to be found in most municipal waste*
waters. General observations have been developed relating
molecular structure to ease of degradation for all of the toxic
organic pollutants. The conclusion reached by study of the
limited data is that biological treatment produces a moderate
degree of removal of carbon tetrachloride in a POTW. No informa-
tion was found regarding the possible interference of carbon
tetrachloride with treatment processes. Based on the water
solubility of carbon tetrachloride, and the vapor pressure of
this compound, it is expected that some of the undegraded carbon
tetrachloride will pass through to the POTW effluent and some
will be volatilized in aerobic processes.
442
-------
Chlorobenzene (7). Chlorobenzene (C^H^Cl), also called mono-
chlorobenzene is a clear, colorless, liquid manufactured by the
liquid phase chlorination of benzene over a catalyst. It boils
at 132°C and has a vapor pressure of 12.5 mm Hg at 25°C. It is
almost insoluble in water (0.5 g/1 at 30 C), but dissolves in
hydrocarbon solvents. U.S. annual production is near 150,000
tons.
Principal uses of Chlorobenzene are as a solvent and as an inter-
mediate for dyes and pesticides. Formerly it was used as an
intermediate for DDT production, but elimination of production of
that compound reduced annual U.S. production requirements for
Chlorobenzene by half.
Data on the threat to human health posed by Chlorobenzene are
limited in number. Laboratory animals, administered large doses
of Chlorobenzene subcutaneously, died as a result of central
nervous system depression. At slightly lower dose rates, animals
died of liver or kidney damage. Metabolic disturbances occurred
also. At even lower dose rates of orally administered chloroben-
zene similar effects were observed, but some animals survived
longer than at higher dose rates. No studies have been reported
regarding evaluation of the teratogenic, mutagenic, or carcino-
genic potential of Chlorobenzene.
For the prevention of adverse effects due to the organoleptic
properties of Chlorobenzene in water the recommended criterion is
0.020 rag/1.
Only limited data are available on which to base conclusions
about the behavior of Chlorobenzene in a POTW. Laboratory
studies of the biochemical oxidation of Chlorobenzene have been
carried out at concentrations greater than those expected to
normally be present in POTW influent. Results showed the extent
of degradation to be 25, 28, and 44 percent after 5, 10, and 20
days, respectively. In another, similar study using a phenol-
adapted culture 4 percent degradation was observed after 3 hours
with a solution containing 80 mg/1. On the basis of these
results and general conclusions about the relationship of molec-
ular structure to biochemical oxidation, it is concluded that
Chlorobenzene remaining intact is expected to volatilize from the
POTW in aeration processes. The estimated half-life of chloro-
benzene in water based on water solubility, vapor pressure and
molecular weight is 5.8 hours.
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (11). 1,1,1-Trichloroethane is one of the
two possible trichlorethanes. It is manufactured by hydrochlori-
nating vinyl chloride to 1,1-dichloroethane which is then chlori-
nated to the desired product. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane is a liquid
at room temperature with a vapor pressure of 96 mm Hg at 20°C and
a boiling point of 74°C. Its formula is CC13CH3. It is
443
-------
slightly soluble in water (0.48 g/1) and is very soluble in
organic solvents. U.S. annual production is greater than one-
third of a million tons.
1,1,1-Trichloroethane is used as an industrial solvent and
degreasing agent.
Most human toxicity data for 1,1,1-trichloroethane relates to
inhalation and dermal exposure routes. Limited data are avail-
able for determining toxicity of ingested 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
and those data are all for the compound itself, not solutions in
water. No data are available regarding its toxicity to fish and
aquatic organisms. For the protection of human health from the
toxic properties of 1,1,1-trichloroethane ingested through the
comsumption of water and fish, the ambient water criterion is
15.7 mg/1. The criterion is based on bioassays for possible
carcinogenicity.
No detailed study of 1,1,1-trichloroethane behavior in a POTW is
available. However, it has been demonstrated that none of the
toxic organic pollutants of this type can be broken down by bio-
logical treatment processes as readily as fatty acids, carbohy-
drates, or proteins.
Biochemical oxidation of many of the toxic organic pollutants has
been investigated, at least in laboratory scale studies, at con-
centrations higher than commonly expected in municipal waste-
water. General observations relating molecular structure to ease
of degradation have been developed for all of these pollutants.
The conclusion reached by study of the limited data is that
biological treatment produces a moderate degree of degradation of
1,1,1-trichloroethane. No evidence is available for drawing con-
clusions about its possible toxic or inhibitory effect on POTW
operation. However, for degradation to occur, a fairly constant
input of the compound would be necessary.
Its water solubility would allow 1,1,1-trichloroethane, present
in the influent and not biodegradable, to pass through a POTW
into the effluent. One factor which has received some attention,
but no detailed study, is the volatilization of the lower molecu-
lar weight organics from a POTW. If 1,1,1-trichloroethane is not
biodegraded, it will volatilize during aeration processes in the
POTW.
1,1-Dichloroethane (13) . 1,1-Dichloroethane, also called ethyli-
dene dichloride and ethylidene chloride, is a colorless liquid
manufactured by reacting hydrogen chloride with vinyl chloride in
1,1-dichloroethane solution in the presence of a catalyst. How-
ever, it is reportedly not manufactured commercially in the U.S.
444
-------
1,1-Dichloroethane boils at 57°C and has a vapor pressure of 182
mm Hg at 20°C. It is slightly soluble in water (5.5 g/1 at 20°C)
and very soluble in organic solvents.
1,1-Dichloroethane is used as an extractant for heat-sensitive
substances and as a solvent for rubber and silicone grease.
1,1-Dichloroethane is less toxic than its isomer (1,2-dichloro-
ethane) , but its use as an anesthetic has been discontinued
because of marked excitation of the heart. It causes central
nervous system depression in humans. There are insufficient data
to derive water quality criteria for 1,1-dichloroethane.
Data on the behavior of 1,1-dichloroethane in a POTW are not
available. Many of the toxic organic pollutants have been
investigated, at least in laboratory scale studies, at concen-
trations higher than those expected to be contained by most
municipal wastewaters. General observations have been developed
relating molecular structure to ease of degradation for all of
the toxic organic pollutants. The conclusion reached by study of
the limited data is that biological treatment produces only a
moderate removal of 1,1-dichloroethane in a POTW by degradation.
The high vapor pressure of 1,1-dichloroethane is expected to
result in volatilization of some of the compound from aerobic
processes in a POTW. Its water solubility will result in some of
the 1,1-dichloroethane which enters the POTW leaving in the
effluent from the POTW.
1,1,2-Trichloroethane (14). 1,1,2-Trichloroethane is one of the
two possible trichloroethanes and is sometimes called ethane tri-
chloride or vinyl trichloride. It is used as a solvent for fats,
oils, waxes, and resins, in the manufacture of 1,1-dichloro-
ethylene, and as an intermediate in organic synthesis.
1,1,2-Trichloroethane is a clear, colorless liquid at room tem-
perature with a vapor pressure of 16.7 mm Hg at 20 C, and a boil-
ing point of 113°C. It is insoluble in water and very soluble in
organic solvents. The formula is CHC12CH2C1.
Human toxicity data for 1,1,2-trichloroethane does not appear in
the literature. The compound does produce liver and kidney dam-
age in laboratory animals after intraperitoneal administration.
No literature data was found concerning teratogenicity or muta-
genicity of 1,1,2-trichloroethane. However, mice treated with
1,1,2-trichloroethane showed increased incidence of hepatocellu-
lar carcinoma. Although bioconcentration factors are not avail-
able for 1,1,2-trichloroethane in fish and other freshwater
aquatic organisms, it is concluded on the basis of octanol-water
partition coefficients that bioconcentration does occur.
445
-------
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential
carcinogenic effects of exposure to 1,1,2-trichloroethane through
ingestion of water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambi-
ent water concentration is zero. Concentrations of this compound
estimated to result in additional lifetime cancer risks at risk
levels of 10-', 10'°, and 10"5 are Q.00006 mg/1, 0.0006
mg/1, and 0.006 mg/1, respectively. If contaminated aquatic
organisms alone are consumed, excluding the consumption of water,
the water concentration should be less than 0.418 mg/1 to keep
the increased lifetime cancer risk below 10~->. Available data
show that adverse effects on aquatic life occur at concentrations
higher than those cited for human health risks.
No detailed study of 1,1,2-trichloroethane behavior in a POTW is
available. However, it is reported that small amounts are formed
by chlorination processes and that this compound persists in the
environment (greater than two years) and it is not biologically
degraded. This information is not completely consistant with the
conclusions based on laboratory scale biochemical oxidation
studies and relating molecular structure to ease of degradation.
That study concluded that biological treatment in a POTW will
produce moderate removal of 1,1,2-trichloroethane.
The lack of water solubility and the relatively high vapor
pressure may lead to removal of this compound from a POTW by
volatilization.
2,4,6-Trichlorpphenol (21). 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
(Cl^Cfcl^OH, abbreviated here to 2,4,6-TCP) is a colorless,
crystalline solid at room temperature. It is prepared by the
direct chlorination of phenol. 2,4,6-TCP melts at 68°C and is
slightly soluble in water (0.8 gm/1 at 25°C). This phenol does
not produce a color with 4-aminoantipyrene, and therefore does
not contribute to the nonconventional pollutant parameter "Total
Phenols." No data were found on production volumes.
2,4,6-TCP is used as a fungicide, bactericide, glue and wood pre-
servative, and for antimildew treatment. It is also used for the
manufacture of 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol and pentachlorophenol.
No data were found on human toxicity effects of 2,4,6-TCP.
Reports of studies with laboratory animals indicate that
2,4,6-TCP produced convulsions when injected interperitoneally.
Body temperature was elevated also. The compound also produced
inhibition of ATP production in isolated rat liver mitochondria,
increased mutation rates in one strain of bacteria, and produced
a genetic change in rats. No studies on teratogenicity were
found. Results of a test for carcinogenicity were inconclusive.
446
-------
For the prevention of adverse effects due to the organoleptic
properties of 2,4,6-trichlorophenol in water, the water quality
criterion is 0.100 mg/1.
Although no data were found regarding the behavior of 2,4,6-TCP
in a POTW, studies of the biochemical oxidation of the compound
have been made at laboratory scale at concentrations higher than
those normally expected in municipal wastewaters. Biochemical
oxidation of 2,4,6-TCP at 100 mg/1 produced 23 percent degrada-
tion using a phenol-adapted acclimated seed culture. Based on
these results, biological treatment in a POTW is expected to pro-
duce a moderate degree of degradation. Another study indicates
that 2,4,6-TCP may be produced in a POTW by chlorination of
phenol during normal chlorination treatment.
Para-chloro-meta-cresol (22). Para-chloro-meta-cresol
(CICyHgOH) is thought to be a 4-chloro-3-methyl~phenol
(4-chloro-meta-cresol, or 2-chloro-5-hydroxy-toluene), but is
also used by some authorities to refer to 6-chloro-3-methyl-
phenol (6-chloro-meta-cresol, or 4-chloro-3-hydroxy-toluene),
depending on whether the chlorine is considered to be para to the
methyl or to the hydroxy group. It is assumed for the purposes
of this document that the subject compound is 2-chloro-5-hydroxy-
toluene. This compound is a colorless crystalline solid melting
at 66 to 68°C. It is slightly soluble in water (3.8 gm/1) and
soluble in organic solvents. This phenol reacts with 4-amino-
antipyrene to give a colored product and therefore contributes to
the nonconventional pollutant parameter designated "Total
Phenols." No information on manufacturing methods or volumes
produced was found.
Para-chloro-meta cresol (abbreviated here as PCMC) is marketed as
a microbicide, and was proposed as an antiseptic and disinfectant
more than 40 years ago. It is used in glues, gums, paints, inks,
textiles, and leather goods. PCMC was found in raw wastewaters
from the die casting quench operation from one subcategory of
foundry operations.
Although no human toxicity data are available for PCMC, studies
on laboratory animals have demonstrated that this compound is
toxic when administered subcutaneously and intravenously. Death
was preceded by severe muscle tremors. At high dosages kidney
damage occurred. On the other hand, an unspecified isomer of
chlorocresol, presumed to be PCMC, is used at a concentration of
0.15 percent to preserve muicous heparin, a natural product
administered intravenously as an anticoagulant. The report does
not indicate the total amount of PCMC typically received. No
information was found regarding possible teratogenicity, or
carcinogenicity of PCMC.
447
-------
Two reports indicate that PCMC undergoes degradation in biochemi-
cal oxidation treatments carried out at concentrations higher
than are expected to be encountered in POTW influents. One study
showed 50 percent degradation in 3.5 hours when a phenol-adapted
acclimated seed culture was used with a solution of 60 mg/1 PCMC.
The other study showed 100 percent degradation of a 20 mg/1 solu-
tion of PCMC in two weeks in an aerobic activated sludge test
system. No degradation of PCMC occurred under anaerobic con-
ditions .
Chloroform (23). Chloroform also called trichloromethane, is a
colorless liquid manufactured commercially by chlorination of
methane. Careful control of conditions maximizes chloroform pro-
duction, but other products must be separated. Chloroform boils
at 61°C and has a vapor pressure of 200 mm Hg at 25°C. It is
slightly soluble in water (8.22 g/1 at 20°C) and readily soluble
in organic solvents.
Chloroform is used as a solvent and to manufacture refrigerants,
Pharmaceuticals, plastics, and anesthetics. It is seldom used as
an anesthetic.
Toxic effects of chloroform on humans include central nervous
system depression, gastrointestinal irritation, liver and kidney
damage and possible cardiac sensitization to adrenalin. Carcino-
genicity has been demonstrated for chloroform on laboratory
animals.
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential
carcinogenic effects of exposure to chloroform through ingestion
of water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water
concentration is zero. Concentrations of chloroform estimated to
result in additional lifetime cancer risks at the levels of
10-/, iQ-6^ and iQ-5 were 0.000021 mg/1, 0.00021 mg/1, and
0.0021 mg/1, respectively.
No data are available regarding the behavior of chloroform in a
POTW. However, the biochemical oxidation of this compound was
studied in one laboratory scale study at concentrations higher
than those expected to be contained by most municipal waste-
waters. After 5, 10, and 20 days no degradation of chloroform
was observed. The conclusion reached is that biological treat-
ment produces little or no removal by degradation of chloroform
in a POTW.
The high vapor pressure of chloroform is expected to result in
volatilization of the compound from aerobic treatment steps in a
448
-------
POTW. Remaining chloroform is expected to pass through into the
POTW effluent.
2-Chlorophenol (24). 2-Chlorophenol (C1C6H40H), also called
ortho-chlorophenol, is a colorless liquid at room temperature,
manufactured by direct chlorination of phenol followed by distil-
lation to separate it from the other principal product, 4-chloro-
phenol. 2-Chlorophenol solidifies below 7°C and boils at 176°C.
It is soluble in water (28.5 gm/1 at 20°C) and soluble in several
types of organic solvents. This phenol gives a strong color with
4-aminoantipyrene and therefore contributes to the nonconven-
tional pollutant parameter "Total Phenols." Production statis-
tics could not be found. 2-Chlorophenol is used almost
exclusively as a chemical intermediate in the production of
pesticides and dyes. Production of some phenolic resins uses
2-chlorophenol.
Very few data are available on which to determine the toxic
effects of 2-chlorophenol on humans. The compound is more toxic
to laboratory mammals when administered orally than when adminis-
tered subcutaneously or intravenously. This affect is attributed
to the fact that the compound is almost completely in the un-ion-
ized state at the low pH of the stomach and hence is more readily
absorbed into the body. Initial symptoms are restlessness and
increased respiration rate, followed by motor weakness and con-
vulsions induced by noise or touch. Coma follows. Following
lethal doses, kidney, liver, and intestinal damage were observed.
No studies were found which addressed the teratogenicity or
mutagenicity of 2-chlorophenol. Studies of 2-chlorophenol as a
promoter of carcinogenic activity of other carcinogens were
conducted by dermal application. Results do not bear a deter-
minable relationship to results of oral administration studies.
For the prevention of adverse effects due to the organoleptic
properties of 2-chlorophenol in water, the criterion is 0.0003
mg/1.
Data on the behavior of 2-chlorophenol in a POTW are not avail-
able. However, laboratory scale studies have been conducted at
concentrations higher than those expected to be found in munici-
pal wastewaters. At 1 mg/1 of 2-chlorophenol, an acclimated
culture produced 100 percent degradation by biochemical oxidation
after 15 days. Another study showed 45, 70, and 79 percent
degradation by biochemical oxidation after 5, 10, and 20 days,
respectively. The conclusion reached by the study of these
limited data, and general observations on all toxic organic
pollutants relating molecular structure to ease of biochemcial
oxidation, is that 2-chlorophenol is removed to a high degree or
449
-------
completely by biological treatment in a POTW. Undegraded
2-chlorophenol is expected to pass through a POTW into the efflu-
ent because of the water solubility. Some 2-chlorophenol is also
expected to be generated by chlorination treatments of POTW
effluents containing phenol,
1,1-Dichloroethylene (29). 1,1-Dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE), also
called vinylidene chloride, is a clear colorless liquid manufac-
tured by dehydrochlorination of 1,1,2-trichloroethane. 1,1-DCE
has the formula CC12CH2- It has a boiling point of 32°C, and
a vapor pressure of 591 mm Hg at 25°C. 1,1-DCE is slightly solu-
ble in water (2.5 mg/1) and is soluble in many organic solvents.
U.S. production is in the range of hundreds of thousands of tons
annually.
1,1-DCE is used as a chemical intermediate and for copolymer
coatings or films. It may enter the wastewater of an industrial
facility as the result of decomposition of 1,1,1-trichloro-
ethylene used in degreasing operations, or by migration from
vinylidene chloride copolymers exposed to the process water.
Human toxicity of 1,1-DCE has not been demonstrated; however, it
is a suspected human carcinogen. Mammalian toxicity studies have
focused on the liver and kidney damage produced by 1,1-DCE.
Various changes occur in those organs in rats and mice ingesting
1,1-DCE.
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential
carcinogenic effects of exposure to 1,1-dichloroethylene through
ingestion of water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambi-
ent water concentration is zero. The concentration of 1,1-DCE
estimated to result in an additional lifetime cancer risk of 1 in
100,000 is 0.0013 mg/1.
Under laboratory conditions, dichloroethylenes have been shown to
be toxic to fish. The primary effect of acute toxicity of the
dichloroethylenes is depression of the central nervous system.
The octanol/water partition coefficident of 1,1-DCE indicates it
should not accumulate significantly in animals.
The behavior of 1,1-DCE in a POTW has not been studied. However,
its very high vapor pressure is expected to result in release of
significant percentages of this material to the atmosphere in any
treatment involving aeration. Degradation of dichloroethylene in
air is reported to occur, with a half-life of eight weeks.
Biochemical oxidation of many of the toxic organic pollutants has
been investigated in laboratory scale studies at concentrations
higher than would normally be expected in municipal wastewaters.
General observations relating molecular structure to ease of
450
-------
degradation have been developed for all of these pollutants. The
conclusion reached by study of the limited data is that biologi-
cal treatment produces little or no degradation of 1,1-dichloro-
ethylene. No evidence is available for drawing conclusions about
the possible toxic or inhibitory effect of 1,1-DCE on POTW opera-
tion. Because of water solubility, 1,1-DCE which is not volatil-
ized or degraded is expected to pass through a POTW. Very little
1,1-DCE is expected to be found in sludge from a POTW.
1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene (30). 1,2-Dichloroethylene (1,2-
trans-DCE) is a clear, colorless liquid with the formula
CHC1CHC1. 1,2-trans-DCE is produced in mixture with the cis-
isomer by chlorination of acetylene. The cis-isomer has dis-
tinctly different physical properties. Industrially, the mixture
is used rather than the separate isomers. 1,2-trans-DCE has a
boiling point of 48°C, and a vapor pressure of 234 mm Hg at 25°C.
The principal use of 1,2-dichloroethylene (mixed isomers) is to
produce vinyl chloride. It is used as a lead scavenger in gaso-
line, general solvent, and for synthesis of various other organic
chemicals. When it is used as a solvent, 1,2-trans-DCE can enter
wastewater streams.
Although 1,2-trans-PCE is thought to produce fatty degeneration
of mammalian liver, there are insufficient data on which to base
any ambient water criterion.
In the reported toxicity test of 1,2-trans-DCE on aquatic life,
the compound appeared to be about half as toxic as the other
dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE) on the toxic pollutants list.
The behavior of 1,2-trans-DCE in a POTW has not been studied.
However, its high vapor pressure is expected to result in release
of a significant percentage of this compound to the atmosphere in
any treatment involving aeration. Degradation of the dichloro-
ethylenes in air is reported to occur, with a half-life of eight
weeks.
Biochemical oxidation of many of the toxic organic pollutants has
been investigated in laboratory scale studies at concentrations
higher than would normally be expected in municipal wastewaters.
General observations relating molecular structure to ease of
degradation have been developed for all of these pollutants. The
conclusion reached by the study of the limited data is that
biochemical oxidation produces little or no degradation of
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene. No evidence is available for drawing
conclusions about the possible toxic or inhibitory effect of
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene on POTW operation. It is expected
that its low molecular weight and degree of water solubility will
451
-------
result in 1,2-trans-DCE passing through a POTW to the effluent if
it is not degraded or volatilized. Very little 1,2-trans-DCE is
expected to be found in sludge from a POTW.
2,4-Dimethylphenol (34). 2,4-Dimethylphenol (2,4-DMP), also
called 2,4-xylenol, is a colorless, crystalline solid at room
temperature (25°C), but melts at 27°C to 28°C. 2,4-DMP is
slightly soluble in water and, as a weak acid, is soluble in
alkaline solutions. Its vapor pressure is less than 1 mm Hg at
room temperature.
2,4-DMP is a natural product, occurring in coal and petroleum
sources. It is used commercially as an intermediate for manufac-
ture of pesticides, dye stuffs, plastics and resins, and surfac-
tants. It is found in the water runoff from asphalt surfaces.
It can find its way into the wastewater of a manufacturing plant
from any of several adventitious sources.
Analytical procedures specific to this compound are used for its
identification and quantification in wastewaters. This compound
does not contribute to "Total Phenols" determined by the
4-aminoantipyrene method.
Three methylphenol isomers (cresols) and six dimethylphenol
isomers (xylenols) generally occur together in natural products,
industrial processes, commercial products, and phenolic wastes.
Therefore, data are not available for human exposure to 2,4-DMP
alone. In addition to this, most mammalian tests for toxicity of
individual dimethylphenol isomers have been conducted with
isomers other than 2,4-DMP.
In general, the mixtures of phenol, methylphenols, and dimethyl-
phenols contain compounds which produced acute poisoning in
laboratory animals. Symptoms were difficult breathing, rapid
muscular spasms, disturbance of motor coordination, and asym-
metrical body position. In a 1977 National Academy of Science
publication the conclusion was reached that, "In view of the
relative paucity of data on the mutagenicity, carcinogenic!ty,
teratogenicity, and long term oral toxicity of 2,4-dimethyl-
phenol, estimates of the effects of chronic oral exposure at low
levels cannot be made with any confidence." No ambient water
quality criterion can be set at this time. In order to protect
public health, exposure to this compound should be minimized as
soon as possible.
Toxicity data for fish and freshwater aquatic life are limited;
however, in reported studies of 2,4-dimethylphenol at concen-
trations as high as 2 mg/1 no adverse effects were observed.
452
-------
The behavior of 2,4-DMP in a POTW has not been studied. As a
weak acid, its behavior may be somewhat dependent on the pH of
the influent to the POTW. However, over the normal limited range
of POTW pH, little effect of pH would be expected.
Biological degradability of 2,4-DMP as determined in one study,
showed 94.5 percent removal based on chemical oxygen demand
(COD). Thus, substantial removal is expected for this compound.
Another study determined that persistance of 2,4-DMP in the envi-
ronment is low, and thus any of the compound which remained in
the sludge or passed through the POTW into the effluent would be
degraded within moderate length of time (estimated as two months
in the report) .
2 ,4-Dinltrotoluene (35) . 2 ,4-Dinitrotoluene [ (l^^C^HACH^] , a
yellow crystalline compound, is manufactured as a coproduct with
the 2,6-isomer by nitration of nitrotoluene. It melts at 71°C.
2 ,4-Dinitrotoluene is insoluble in water (0.27 g/1 at 22°C) and
soluble in a number of organic solvents. Production data for the
2,4-isomer alone are not available. The 2,4-and 2,6-isomers are
manufactured in an 80:20 or 65:35 ratio, depending on the process
used. Annual U.S. commercial production is about 150 thousand
tons of the two isomers. Unspecified amounts are produced by the
U.S. government and further nitrated to trinitrotoluene (TNT) for
military use. The major use of the dinitrotoluene mixture is for
production of toluene diisocyanate used to make polyur ethanes.
Another use is in production of dyestuffs.
The toxic effect of 2 ,4-dinitrotoluene in humans is primarily
methemoglobinemia (a blood condition hindering oxygen transport
by the blood). Symptoms depend on severity of the disease, but
include cyanosis, dizziness, pain in joints, headache, and loss
of appetite in workers inhaling the compound. Laboratory animals
fed oral doses of 2 ,4-dinitrotoluene exhibited many of the same
symptoms. Aside from the effects in red blood cells, effects are
observed in the nervous system and testes.
Chronic exposure to 2 ,4-dinitrotoluene may produce liver damage
and reversible anemia. No data were found on teratogenicity of
this compound. Mutagenic data are limited and are regarded as
confusing. Data resulting from studies of carcinogenicity of
2 ,4-dinitrotoluene point to a need for further testing for this
property.
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential
carcinogenic effects of exposure to 2 ,4-dinitrotoluene through
ingestion of water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambi-
ent water concentration is zero. Concentrations of 2,4-
dinitrotoluene estimated to result in additional lifetime cancer
453
-------
risk at risk levels of 1CT7, 10'6, and 1Q5 are 0.0074 mg/1,
0.074 mg/1, and 0.740 mg/1, respectively.
Data on the behavior of 2,4-dinitrotoluene in a POTW are not
available. However, biochemical oxidation of 2,4-dinitrophenol
was investigated on a laboratory scale. At 100 mg/1 of 2,4-
dinitrotoluene, a concentration considerably higher than that
expected in municipal wastewaters, biochemical oxidation by an
acclimated, phenol-adapted seed culture produced 52 percent
degradation in three hours. Based on this limited information
and general observations relating molecular structure to ease of
degradation for all the toxic organic pollutants, it was con-
cluded that biological treatment in a POTW removes 2,4-dinitro-
toluene to a high degree or completely. No information is
available regarding possible interference by 2,4-dinitrotoluene
in POTW treatment processes, or on the possible detrimental
effect on sludge used to ammend soils in which food crops are
grown.
Ethylbenzene (38). Ethylbenzene is a colorless, flammable liquid
manufactured commercially from benzene and ethylene. Approxi-
mately half of the benzene used in the U.S. goes into the manu-
facture of more than three million tons of ethylbenzene annually.
Ethylbenzene boils at 136°C and has a vapor pressure of 7 mm Hg
at 20°C. It is slightly soluble in water (0.14 g/1 at 15°C) and
is very soluble in organic solvents.
About 98 percent of the ethylbenzene produced in the IKS. goes
into the production of styrene, much of which is used in the
plastics and synthetic rubber industries. Ethylbenzene is a con-
stituent of xylene mixtures used as diluents in the paint indus-
try, agricultural insecticide sprays, and gasoline blends.
Although humans are exposed to ethylbenzene from a variety of
sources in the environment, little information on effects of
ethylbenzene in man or animals is available. Inhalation can
irritate eyes, affect the respiratory tract, or cause vertigo.
In laboratory animals ethylbenzene exhibited low toxicity. There
are no data available on teratogenicity, mutagenicity, or car-
cinogenicity of ethylbenzene.
Criteria are based on data derived from inhalation exposure
limits. For the protection of human health from the toxic prop-
erties of ethylbenzene ingested through water and contaminated
aquatic organisms, the ambient water quality criterion is 1.1
mg/1.
454
-------
The behavior of ethylbenzene in a POTW has not been studied in
detail. Laboratory scale studies of the biochemical oxidation of
ethylbenzene at concentrations greater than would normally be
found in municipal wastewaters have demonstrated varying degrees
of degradation. In one study with phenol-acclimated seed
cultures, 27 percent degradation was observed in a half day at
250 mg/1 ethylbenzene. Another study at unspecified conditions
showed 32, 38, and 45 percent degradation after 5, 10, and 20
days, respectively. Based on these results and general observa-
tions relating molecular structure of degradation, the conclu-
sion is reached that biological treatment produces only mod-
erate removal of ethylbenzene in a POTW by degradation.
Other studies suggest that most of the ethybenzene entering a
POTW is removed from the aqueous stream to the sludge. The
ethylbenzene contained in the sludge removed from the POTW may
volatilize.
Fluoranthene (39) * Fluoranthene (1 ,2-benzacenaphthene) is one of
the compounds called polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). A
pale yellow solid at room temperature, it melts at 111 C and has
a negligible vapor pressure at 25°C. Water solubility is low
(0.2 mg/1). Its molecular formula is
Fluoranthene, along with many other PAH's, is found throughout
the environment. It is produced by pyrolytic processing of
organic raw materials, such as coal and petroleum, at high tem-
perature (coking processes). It occurs naturally as a product of
plant biosyntheses. Cigarette smoke contains fluoranthene.
Although it is not used as the pure compound in industry, it has
been found at relatively higher concentrations (0.002 mg/1) than
most other PAH's in at least one industrial effluent. Further-
more, in a 1977 EPA survey to determine levels of PAH in U.S.
drinking water supplies, none of the 110 samples analyzed showed
any PAH other than fluoranthene.
Experiments with laboratory animals indicate that fluoranthene
presents a relatively low degree of toxic potential from acute
exposure, including oral administration. Where death occurred,
no information was reported concerning target organs or specific
cause of death.
There is no eptdemiological evidence to prove that PAH in
general, and fluoranthene, in particular, present in drinking
water are related to the development of cancer. The only studies
directed toward determining carcinogenicity of fluoranthene have
been skin tests on laboratory animals. Results of these tests
show that fluoranthene has no activity as a complete carcinogen
(i.e., an agent which produces cancer when applied by itself),
455
-------
but exhibits significant cocarcinogenicity (i.e., in combination
with a carcinogen, it increases the carcinogenic activity).
Based on the limited animal study data, and following an estab-
lished procedure» the ambient water quality criterion for fluor-
anthene alone (not in combination with other PAH) is determined
to be 200 mg/1 for the protection of human health from its toxic
properties.
There are no data on the chronic effects of fluoranthene on
freshwater organisms. One saltwater invertebrate shows chronic
toxicity at concentrations below 0.016 mg/1. For some fresh-
water fish species the concentrations producing acute toxicity
are substantially higher, but data are very limited.
Results of studies of the behavior of fluoranthene in conven-
tional sewage treatment processes found in a POTW have been
published. Removal of fluoranthene during primary sedimentation
was found to be 62 to 66 percent (from an initial value of
0.00323 to 0.04435 mg/1 to a final value of 0.00122 to 0.0146
mg/1), and the removal was 91 to 99 percent (final values of
0.00028 to 0.00026 mg/1) after biological purification with
activated sludge processes.
A review was made of data on biochemical oxidation of many of the
toxic organic pollutants investigated in laboratory scale studies
at concentrations higher than would normally be expected in
municipal wastewaters. General observations relating molecular
structure to ease of degradation have been developed for all of
these pollutants. The conclusion reached by study of the limited
data is that biological treatment produces little or no degrada-
tion of fluoranthene. The same study, however, concludes that
fluoranthene would be readily removed by filtration and oil-water
separation and other methods which rely on water insolubility, or
adsorption on other particulate surfaces. This latter conclusion
is supported by the previously cited study showing significant
removal by primary sedimentation.
No studies were found to give data on either the possible inter-
ference of fluoranthene with POTW operation, or the persistance
of fluoranthene in sludges or POTW effluent waters. Several
studies have documented the ubiquity of fluoranthene in the envi-
ronment and it cannot be readily determined if this results from
persistence of anthropogenic fluoranthene or the replacement of
degraded fluoranthene by natural processes such as biosynthesis
in plants.
Methylene Chloride (44). Methylene chloride, also called dichlo-
romethane (CH2C12)> is a colorless liquid manufactured by
456
-------
chlorination of methane or methyl chloride followed by separation
from the higher chlorinated methanes formed as coproducts.
Methylene chloride boils at 40°C, and has a vapor pressure of 362
mm Hg at 20°C. It is slightly soluble in water (20 g/1 at 20°C)S
and very soluble in organic solvents. U.S. annual production is
about 250,000 tons.
Methylene chloride is a common industrial solvent found in
insecticides, metal cleaners, paint, and paint and varnish
removers.
Methylene chloride is not generally regarded as highly toxic to
humans. Most human toxicity data are for exposure by inhalation.
Inhaled methylene chloride acts as a central nervous system
depressant. There is also evidence that the compound causes
heart failure when large amounts are inhaled.
Methylene chloride does produce mutation in tests for this
effect. In addition, a bioassay recognized for its extremely
high sensitivity to strong and weak carcinogens produced results
which were marginally significant. Thus potential carcinogenic
effects of methylene chloride are not confirmed or denied, but
are under continuous study. Difficulty in conducting and inter-
preting the test results from the low boiling point (40°C) of
methylene chloride which increases the difficulty of maintaining
the compound in growth media during incubation at 37 C; and from
the difficulty of removing all impurities, some of which might
themselves be carcinogenic.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
methylene chloride ingested through water and contaminated
aquatic organisms, the ambient water criterion is 0.002 mg/1.
The behavior of methylene chloride in a POTW has not been studied
in any detail. However, the biochemical oxidation of this com-
pound was studied in one laboratory scale study at concentrations
higher than those expected to be contained by most municipal
wastewaters. After five days no degradation of methylene chlo-
ride was observed. The conclusion reached is that biological
treatment produces little or no removal by degradation of
methylene chloride in a POTW.
The high vapor pressure of methylene chloride is expected to
result in volatilization of the compound from aerobic treatment
steps in a POTW. It has been reported that methylene chloride
inhibits anerobic processes in a POTW. Methylene chloride that
is not volatilized in the POTW is expected to pass through into
the effluent.
457
-------
Isophorone (54). Isophorone is an industrial chemical produced
at a level of tens of millions of pounds annually in the U.S.
The chemical name for isophorone is 3,5,5-trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-
1-one and it is also known as trimethyl cyclohexanone and
isoacetophorone. The formula is 0^5(0113)30. Normally,
it is produced as the gamma isomer; technical grades contain
about 3 percent of the beta isomer (3,5,5-trimethyl-3-cyclohexen-
1-one). The pure gamma isomer is a water-white liquid, with
vapor pressure less than 1 mm Hg at room temperature, and a
boiling point of 215.2 C. It has a camphor- or peppermint-like
odor and yellows upon standing. It is slightly soluble (12 mg/1)
in water and dissolves in fats and oils.
Isophorone is synthesized from acetone and is used commercially
as a solvent or cosolvent for finishes, lacquers, polyvinyl and
nitrocellulose resins, pesticides, herbicides, fats, oils, and
gums. It is also used as a chemical feedstock.
Because isophorone is an industrially used solvent, most toxicity
data are for inhalation exposure. Oral administration to labora-
tory animals in two different studies revealed no acute or
chronic effects during 90 days, and no hematological or patholog-
ical abnormalities were reported. Apparently, no studies have
been completed on the carcinogenicity of isophorone.
Isophorone does undergo bioconcentration in the lipids of aquatic
organisms and fish.
Based on subacute data, the ambient water quality criterion for
isophorone ingested through consumption of water and fish is set
at 460 mg/1 for the protection of human health from its toxic
properties.
Studies of the effects of isophorone on fish and aquatic organ-
isms reveal relatively low toxicity, compared to some other toxic
pollutants.
The behavior of isophorone in a POTW has not been studied. How-
ever, the biochemical oxidation of many of the toxic organic
pollutants has been investigated in laboratory scale studies at
concentrations higher than would normally be expected in munici-
pal wastewaters. General observations relating molecular struc-
ture to ease of degradation have been developed for all of these
pollutants. The conclusion reached by the study of the limited
data is that biochemical treatment in a POTW produces moderate
removal of isophorone. This conclusion is consistent with the
findings of an experimental study of microbiological degradation
of isophorone which showed about 45 percent oxidation in 15 to 20
days in domestic wastewater, but only 9 percent in salt water.
458
-------
No data were found on the persistence of isophorone in sewage
sludge.
Naphthalene (55). Naphthalene is an aromatic hydrocarbon with
two orthocondensed benzene rings and a molecular formula of
ClO^S- As such it is properly classed as a polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH). Pure naphthalene is a white crystal-
line solid melting at 80°C. For a solid, it has a relatively
high vapor pressure (0.05 mm Hg at 20 C), and moderate water
solubility (19 mg/1 at 20 C). Napthalene is the most abundant
single component of coal tar. Production is more than a third of
a million tons annually in the U.S. About three fourths of the
production is used as feedstock for phthalic anhydride manufac-
ture. Most of the remaining production goes into manufacture of
insecticide, dyestuffs, pigments, and pharmaceuticals. Chlori-
nated and partially hydrogenated naphthalenes are used in some
solvent mixtures. Naphthalene is also used as a moth repellent.
Naphthalene, ingested by humans, has reportedly caused vision
loss (cataracts), hemolytic anemia, and occasionally, renal dis-
ease. These effects of naphthalene ingestion are confirmed by
studies on laboratory animals. No carcinogenicity studies are
available which can be used to demonstrate carcinogenic activity
for naphthalene. Naphthalene does bioconcentrate in aquatic
organisms.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
naphthalene ingested through water and through contaminated
aquatic organisms, the ambient water criterion is determined to
be 143 mg/1.
Only a limited number of studies have been conducted to determine
the effects of naphthalene on aquatic organisms. The data from
those studies show only moderate toxicity.
Naphthalene has been detected in sewage plant effluents at con-
centrations up to 0.022 mg/1 in studies carried out by the U.S.
EPA. Influent levels were not reported. The behavior of naph-
thalene in a POTW has not been studied. However, recent studies
have determined that naphthalene will accumulate in sediments at
100 times the concentration in overlying water. These results
suggest that naphthalene will be readily removed by primary and
secondary settling in a POTW, if it is not biologically degraded.
Biochemical oxidation of many of the toxic organic pollutants has
been investigated in laboratory scale studies at concentrations
higher than would normally be expected in municipal wastewaters.
General observations relating molecular structure to ease of
459
-------
degradation have been developed for all of these pollutants. The
conclusion reached by study of the limited data is that biologi-
cal treatment produces a high removal by degradation of naphthal-
ene. One recent study has shown that microorganisms can degrade
naphthalene, first to a dihydro compound, and ultimately to
carbon dioxide and water.
4-Nitrophenol (58). 4-Nitrophenol (N02C6H40H), also called
paranitrophenol, is a colorless to yellowish crystalline solid
manufactured commercially by hydrolysis of 4-chloro-nitrobenzene
with aqueous sodium hydroxide. 4-Nitrophenol melts at 114 C.
Vapor pressure is not cited in the usual sources. 4-Nitrophenol
is slightly soluble in water (15 g/1 at 25°C) and soluble in
organic solvents. This phenol does not react to give a color
with 4-aminoantipyrene, and therefore does not contribute to the
nonconventional pollutant parameter "Total Phenols." U.S. annual
production is about 20,000 tons.
Paranitrophenol is used to prepare phenetidine, acetaphenetidine,
azo and sulfur dyes, photochemicals, and pesticides.
The toxic effects of 4-nitrophenol on humans have not been exten-
sively studied. Data from experiments with laboratory animals
indicate that exposure to this compound results in methmoglobi-
nemia (a metabolic disorder of blood), shortness of breath, and
stimulation followed by depression. Other studies indicate that
the compound acts directly on cell membranes, and inhibits cer-
tain enzyme systems in vitro. No information regarding potential
teratogenicity was found. Available data indicate that this
compound does not pose a mutagentc hazard to humans. Very
limited data for 4-nitrophenol do not reveal potential
carcinogenic effects, although the compound has been selected by
the national cancer institute for testing under the Carcinogenic
Bioassay Program.
No U.S. standards for exposure to 4-nitrophenol in ambient water
have been established.
Data on the behavior of 4-nitrophenol in a POTW are not avail-
able. However, laboratory scale studies have been conducted at
concentrations higher than those expected to be found in munici-
pal wastewaters. Biochemical oxidation using adapted cultures
from various sources produced 95 percent degradation in three to
six days in one study. Similar results were reported for other
studies. Based on these data, and on general observations
relating molecular structure to ease of biological oxidation, it
is concluded that complete or nearly complete removal of
4-nitrophenol occurs during biological treatment in a POTW.
460
-------
2,4.-Dinitrophenol (59). 2,4-Dinitrophenol [(NO ) C H OH], a
yellow crystalline solid, is manufactured commercially by
hydrolysis of 2,4-dinitro-l-chlorobenzene with sodium hydroxide.
2,4-Dinitrophenol sublimes at 114°C. Vapor pressure is not cited
in usual sources. It is slightly soluble in water (7.0 g/1 at
25°C) and soluble in organic solvents. This phenol does not
react with 4-aminoantipyrene and therefore does not contribute to
the nonconventional pollutant parameter "Total Phenols." U.S.
annual production is about 500 tons.
2,4-Dinitrophenol is used to manufacture sulfur and azo dyes,
photochemicals, explosives, and pesticides.
The toxic effects of 2,4-dinitrophenol in humans is generally
attributed to their ability to uncouple oxidative phosphoryla-
tion. In brief, this means that sufficient 2,4-dinitrophenol
short-circuits cell metabolism by preventing utilization of
energy provided by respiration and glycolysis. Specific symp-
toms are gastrointestinal disturbances, weakness, dizziness,
headache, and loss of weight. More acute poisoning includes
symptoms such as: burning thirst, agitation, irregular breath-
ing, and abnormally high fever. This compound also inhibits
other enzyme systems; and acts directly on the cell membrane,
inhibiting chloride permeability. Ingestion of 2,4-dinitrophenol
also causes cataracts in humans.
Based on available data it appears unlikely that 2,4-dinitro-
phenol poses a teratogenic hazard to humans. Results of studies
of mutagenic activity of this compound are inconclusive as far as
humans are concerned. Available data suggest that 2,4-dinitro-
phenol does not possess carcinogenic properties.
To protect human health from the adverse effects of 2,4-dinitro-
phenol ingested in contaminated water and fish, the suggested
water quality criterion is 0.0686 mg/1 .
Data on the behavior of 2,4-dinitrophenol in a POTW are not
available. However, laboratory scale studies have been conducted
at concentrations higher than those expected to be found in
municipal wastewaters. Biochemical oxidation using a phenol-
adapted seed culture produced 92 percent degradation in 3.5
hours. Similar results were reported for other studies. Based
on these data, and on general observations relating molecular
structure to ease of biological oxidation, it is concluded that
complete or nearly complete removal of 2,4-dinitrophenol occurs
during biological treatment in a POTW.
N-nitrsodiphenylamine (62). N-nitrosodiphenylamine
also called nitrous diphenylamide, is a
461
-------
yellow crystalline solid manufactured by nitrosation of diphenyl-
amine. It melts at 66 C and is insoluble in water, but soluble
in several organic solvents other than hydrocarbons. Production
in the U.S. has approached 1,500 tons per year. The compound is
used as a retarder for rubber vulcanization and as a pesticide
for control of scorch (a fungus disease of plants).
N-nitroso compounds are acutely toxic to every animal species
tested and are also poisonous to humans. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
toxicity in adult rats lies in the mid range of the values for 60
N-nitroso compounds tested. Liver damage is the principal toxic
effect. N-nitrosodiphenylamine, unlike many other N-nitroso-
amines, does not show mutagenic activity. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
has been reported by several investigations to be non-carcino-
genic. However, the compound is capable of trans-nitrosation and
could thereby convert other amines to carcinogenic N-nitroso-
amines. Sixty-seven of 87 N-nitrosoamines studied were reported
to have carcinogenic activity. No water quality criterion have
been proposed for N-nitrosodiphenylamine.
No data are available on the behavior of N-nitrosodiphenylamine
in a POTW. Biochemical oxidation of many of the toxic organic
pollutants have been investigated, at least in labgratory scale
studies, at concentrations higher than those expected to be con-
tained in most municipal wastewaters. General observations have
been developed relating molecular structure to ease of degrada-
tion for all the toxic organic pollutants. The conclusion
reached by study of the limited data is that biological treatment
produces little or no removal of N-nitrosodiphenylaraine in a
POTW, No information is available regarding possible interfer-
ence by N-nitrosodiphenylamine in POTW processes, or on the
possible detrimental effect on sludge used to amend soils in
which crops are grown. However, no interference or detrimental
effects are expected because N-nitroso compounds are widely dis-
tributed in the soil and water environment, at low concentra-
tions, as a result of microbial action on nitrates and
nitrosatable compounds.
Pentachlorophenol (64). Pentachlorophenol (CfcC^OH) is a
white crystalline solid produced commercially by chlorination of
phenol or polychlorophenols. U.S. annual production is in excess
of 20,000 tons. Pentachlorophenol melts at 190°C and is slightly
soluble in water (14 mg/1). Pentachlorophenol is not detected by
the 4-amino antipyrene method.
Pentachlorophenol is a bactericide and fungicide and is used for
preservation of wood and wood products. It is competitive with
creosote in that application. It is also used as a preservative
462
-------
in glues, starches, and photographic papers.
algicide and herbicide.
It is an effective
Although data are available on the human toxicity effects of pen-
tachlorophenol, interpretation of data is frequently uncertain.
Occupational exposure observations must be examined carefully
because exposure to pentachlorophenol is frequently accompanied
by exposure to other wood preservatives. Additionally, experi-
mental results and occupational exposure observations must be
examined carefully to make sure that observed effects are pro-
duced by the pentachlorophenol itself and not by the by-products
which usually contaminate pentachlorophenol.
Acute and chronic toxic effects of pentachlorophenol in humans
are similar; muscle weakness, headache, loss of appetite,
abdominal pain, weight loss, and irritation of skin, eyes, and
respiratory tract. Available literature indicates that penta-
chlorophenol does not accumulate in body tissues to any signifi-
cant extent. Studies on laboratory animals of distribution of
the compound in body tissues showed the highest levels of penta-
chlorophenol in liver, kidney, and intestine, while the lowest
levels were in brain, fat, muscle, and bone.
Toxic effects of pentachlorophenol in aquatic organisms are much
greater at pH 6 where this weak acid is predominantly in the
undissociated form than at pH 9 where the ionic form predomi-
nates. Similar results were observed in mammals where oral
lethal doses of pentachlorophenol were lower when the compound
was administered in hydrocarbon solvents (un-ionized form) than
when it was administered as the sodium salt (ionized form) in
water.
There appear to be no significant teratogenic, mutagenic, or car-
cinogenic effects of pentachlorophenol.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
pentachlorophenol ingested through water and through contaminated
aquatic organisms, the ambient water quality criterion is deter-
mined to be 0.140 mg/1.
Only limited data are available for reaching conclusions about
the behavior of pentachlorophenol in a POTW. Pentachlorophenol
has been found in the influent to a POTW. In a study of one POTW
the mean removal was 59 percent over a seven day period. Trickl-
ing filters removed 44 percent at the influent pentachlorophenol,
suggesting that biological degradation occurs. The same report
compared removal of pentachlorophenol at the same plant and two
additional POTW facilities on a later date and obtained values of
463
-------
4.4, 19.5 and 28.6 percent removal, the last value being for the
plant which was 59 percent removal in the original study. Influ-
ent concentrations of pentachlorophenol ranged from 0.0014 to
0.0046 mg/1. Other studies, including the general review of data
relating molecular structure to biological oxidation, indicate
that pentachlorophenol is not removed by biological treatment
processes in a POTW. Anaerobic digestion processes are inhibited
by 0.4 mg/1 pentachlorophenol.
The low water solubility and low volatility of pentachlorophenol
lead to the expectation that most of the compound will remain in
the sludge in a POTW. The effect on plants grown on land treated
with pentachlorophenol-containing sludge is unpredictable.
Laboratory studies show that this compound affects crop germina-
tion at 5.4 mg/1. However, photodecomposition of pentachloro-
phenol occurs in sunlight. The effects of the various breakdown
products which may remain in the soil was not found in the liter-
ture.
Phenol (65). Phenol, also called hydroxybenzene and carbolic
acid, is a clear, colorless, hygroscopic, deliquescent, crystal-
line solid at room temperature. Its melting point is 43°C and
its vapor pressure at room temperature is 0.35 mm Hg. It is very
soluble in water (67 gm/1 at 16°C) and can be dissolved in ben-
zene, oils, and petroleum solids. Its formula is C6H50H.
Although a small percent of the annual production of phenol is
derived from coal tar as a naturally occuring product, most of
the phenol is synthesized. Two of the methods are fusion of ben-
zene sulfonate with sodium hydroxide, and oxidation of cumene
followed by cleavage with a catalyst. Annual production in the
U.S. is in excess of one million tons. Phenol is generated dur-
ing distillation of wood and the microbiological decomposition of
organic matter in the mammalian intestinal tract.
Phenol is used as a disinfectant, in the manufacture of resins,
dyestuffs, and in pharmaceuticals, and in the photo processing
industry. In this discussion, phenol is the specific compound
which is separated by methylene chloride extraction of an
acidified sample and identified and quantified by GC/MS. Phenol
also contributes to the "Total Phenols," discussed elsewhere
which are determined by the 4-AAP colorimetric method.
Phenol exhibits acute and sub-acute toxicity in humans and
laboratory animals. Acute oral doses of phenol in humans cause
sudden collapse and unconsciousness by its action on the central
nervous system. Death occurs by respiratory arrest. Sub-acute
464
-------
oral doses in mammals are rapidly absorbed and quickly distri-
buted to various organs, then cleared from the body by urinary
excretion and metabolism. Long term exposure by drinking phenol
contaminated water has resulted in statistically significant
increase in reported cases of diarrhea, mouth sores, and burning
of the mouth. In laboratory animals, long term oral administra-
tion at low levels produced slight liver and kidney damage. No
reports were found regarding carcinogenicity of phenol adminis-
tered orally - all carcinogenicity studies were skin test.
For the protection of human health from phenol ingested through
water and through contaminated aquatic organisms, the concen-
tration in water should not exceed 3.4 mg/1.
Fish and other aquatic organisms demonstrated a wide range of
sensitivities to phenol concentration. However, acute toxicity
values were at moderate levels when compared to other toxic
organic pollutants.
Data have been developed on the behavior of phenol in a POTW.
Phenol is biodegradable by biota present in a POTW. The ability
of a POTW to treat phenol-bearing influents depends upon acclima-
tion of the biota and the constancy of the phenol concentration.
It appears that an induction period is required to build up the
population of organisms which can degrade phenol. Too large a
concentration will result in upset or pass though in the POTW,
but the specific level causing upset depends on the immediate
past history of phenol concentrations in the influent. Phenol
levels as high as 200 mg/1 have been treated with 95 percent
removal in a POTW, but more or less continuous presence of phenol
is necessary to maintain the population of microorganisms that
degrade phenol.
Phenol which is not degraded is expected to pass through the POTW
because of its very high water solubility. However, in a POTW
where chlorination is practiced for disinfection of the POTW
effluent, chlorination of phenol may occur. The products of that
reaction may be toxic pollutants.
The EPA has developed data on influent and effluent concentra-
tions of total phenols in a study of 103 POTW facilities. How-
ever, the analytical procedure was the 4-AAP method mentioned
earlier and not the GC/MS method specifically for phenol.
Discussion of the study, which of course includes phenol, is
presented under the pollutant heading "Total Phenols."
Phthalate Esters (66-71). Phthalic acid, or 1,2-benzene-
dicarboxylic acid, is one of three isomeric benzenedicarboxylic
acids produced by the chemical industry. The other two isomeric
465
-------
forms are called isophthalic and terephthalic acids. The formula
for all three acids is C6H4(COOH)2- Some esters of
phthalic acid are designated as toxic pollutants. They will be
discussed as a group here, and specific properties of individual
phthalate esters will be discussed afterwards.
Phthalic acid esters are manufactured in the U.S. at an annual
rate in excess of one billion pounds. They are used as plasti-
cizers - primarily in the production of polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
resins. The most widely used phthalate plasticizer is bis
(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (66) which accounts for nearly one-third
of the phthalate esters produced. This particular ester is com-
monly referred to as dioctyl phthalate (DOP) and should not be
confused with one of the less used esters, di-n-octyl phthalate
(69), which is also used as a plasticizer. In addition to these
two isomeric dioctyl phthalates, four other esters, also used
primarily as plasticizers, are designated as toxic pollutants.
They are: butyl benzyl phthalate (67), di-n-butyl phthalate
(68), diethyl phthalate (70), and dimethyl phthalate (71).
Industrially, phthalate esters are prepared from phthalic anhy-
dride and the specific alcohol to form the ester. Some evidence
is available suggesting that phthalic acid esters also may be
synthesized by certain plant and animal tissues. The extent to
which this occurs in nature is not known.
Phthalate esters used as plasticizers can be present in concen-
trations up to 60 percent of the total weight of the PVC plastic.
The plasticizer is not linked by primary chemical bonds to the
PVC resin. Rather, it is locked into the structure of intermesh-
ing polymer molecules and held by van der Waals forces. The
result is that the plasticizer is easily extracted. Plasticizers
are responsible for the odor associated with new plastic toys or
flexible sheet that has been contained in a sealed package.
Although the phthalate esters are not soluble or are only very
slightly soluble in water, they do migrate into aqueous solutions
placed in contact with the plastic. Thus, industrial facilities
with tank linings, wire and cable coverings, tubing, and sheet
flooring of PVC are expected to discharge some phthalate esters
in their raw waste. In addition to their use as plasticizers,
phthalate esters are used in lubricating oils and pesticide car-
riers. These also can contribute to industrial discharge of
phthalate esters.
From the accumulated data on acute toxicity in animals, phtha-
late esters may be considered as having a rather low order of
toxicity. Human toxicity data are limited. It is thought that
466
-------
the toxic effects of the esters is most likely due to one of the
metabolic products, in particular the monoester. Oral acute tox-
icity in animals is greater for the lower molecular weight esters
than for the higher molecular weight esters.
Orally administered phthalate esters generally produced enlarging
of liver and kidney, and atrophy of testes in laboratory animals.
Specific esters produced enlargement of heart and brain, spleen-
itis, and degeneration of central nervous system tissue.
Subacute doses administered orally to laboratory animals produced
some decrease in growth and degeneration of the testes. Chronic
studies in animals showed similar effects to those found in acute
and subacute studies, but to a much lower degree. The same
organs were enlarged, but pathological changes were not usually
detected.
A recent study of several phthalic esters produced suggestive but
not conclusive evidence that dimethyl and diethyl phthalates have
a cancer liability. Only four of the six toxic pollutant esters
were included in the study. Phthalate esters do bioconcentrate
in fish. The factors, weighted for relative consumption of
various aquatic and marine food groups, are used to calculate
ambient water quality criteria for four phthalate esters. The
values are included in the discussion of the specific esters.
Studies of toxicity of phthalate esters in freshwater and salt
water organisms are scarce. A chronic toxicity test with bis (2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate showed that significant reproductive
impairment occurred at 0.003 mg/1 in the freshwater crustacean,
Daphnia magna. In acute toxicity studies, saltwater fish and
organisms showed sensitivity differences of up to eight-fold to
butyl benzyl, diethyl, and dimethyl phthalates. This suggests
that each ester must be evaluated individually for toxic effects.
The behavior of phthalate esters in a POTW has not been studied.
However, the biochemical oxidation of many of the toxic organic
pollutants has been investigated in laboratory scale studies at
concentrations higher than would normally be expected in munici-
pal wastewaters. Three of the phthalate esters were studed.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was found to be degraded slightly or
not at all and its removal by biological treatment in a POTW is
expected to be slight or zero. Di-n-butyl phthalate and diethyl
phthalate were degraded to a moderate degree and their removal by
biological treatment in a POTW is expected to occur to a moderate
degree. Using these data and other observations relating molecu-
lar structure to ease of biochemical degradation of other toxic
organic pollutants, the conclusion was reached that butyl benzyl
467
-------
phthalate and dimethyl phthalate would be removed in a POTW to a
moderate degree by biological treatment. On the same basis, it
was concluded that di-n-octyl phthalate would be removed to a
slight degree or not at all. An EPA study of seven POTW facili-
ties revealed that for all but di-n-octyl phthalate, which was
not studied, removals ranged from 62 to 87 percent.
No information was found on possible interference with POTW oper-
ation or the possible effects on sludge by the phthalate esters.
The water insoluble phthalate esters - butyl benzyl and di-n-
octyl phthalate - would tend to remain in sludge, whereas the
other four toxic pollutant phthalate esters with water solubili-
ties ranging from 50 mg/1 to 4.5 mg/1 would probably pass through
into the POTW effluent.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (66). In addition to the general
remarks and discussion on phthalate esters, specific information
on bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate is provided. Little information
is available about the physical properties of bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate. It is a liquid boiling at 387°C at 5mm Hg and is
insoluble in water. Its formula is C6H4(COOC8Hi7)2-
This toxic pollutant constitutes about one-third of the phthalate
ester production in the U.S. It is commonly referred to as
dioctyl phthalate, or OOP, in the plastics industry where it is
the most extensively used compound for the plasticization of
polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate has been
approved by the FDA for use in plastics in contact with food.
Therefore, it may be found in wastewaters coming in contact with
discarded plastic food wrappers as well as the PVC films and
shapes normally found in industrial plants. This toxic pollutant
is also a commonly used organic diffusion pump oil, where its low
vapor pressure is an advantage.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate ingested through water and through
contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water quality criter-
ion is determined to be 15 mg/1. If contaminated aquatic organ-
isms alone are consumed, excluding the consumption of water, the
ambient water criteria is determined to be 50 mg/1.
Although the behavior of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in a POTW
has not been studied, biochemical oxidation of this toxic pollu-
tant has been studied on a laboratory scale at concentrations
higher than would normally be expected in municipal wastewater.
In fresh water with a non-acclimated seed culture no biochemical
oxidation was observed after 5, 10, and 20 days. However, with
an acclimated seed culture, biological oxidation occured to the
extents of 13, 0, 6, and 23 percent of theoretical after 5, 10,
468
-------
15 and 20 days, respectively. Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
concentrations were 3 to 10 mg/1. Little or no removal of
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate by biological treatment in a POTW is
expected.
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate (67). In addition to the general remarks
and discussion on phthalate esters, specific information on butyl
benzyl phthalate is provided. No information was found on the
physical properties o£ this compound.
Butyl benzyl phthalate is used as a plasticizer for PVC. Two
special applications differentiate it from other phthalate
esters. It is approved by the U.S. FDA for food contact in
wrappers and containers; and it is the industry standard for
plasticization of vinyl flooring because it provides stain
resistance.
No ambient water quality criterion is proposed for butyl benzyl
phthalate.
Butyl benzyl phthalate removal in a POTW by biological treatment
is expected to occur to a moderate degree.
Di-n-butyl Phthalate (68). In addition to the general remarks
and discussion on phthalate esters, specific information on di-
n-butyl phthalate (DBP) is provided. DBP is a colorless, oil
liquid, boiling at 340 C. Its water solubility at room tempera-
ture is reported to be 0.4 g/1 and 4.5 g/1 in two different chem-
istry handbooks. The formula for DBP, C6H4(COOC4H9>2
is the same as for its isomer, di-isobutyl phthalate. DBP
production is 1 to 2 percent of total U.S. phthalate ester
production.
Dibutyl phthalate is used to a limited extent as a plasticizer
for polyvinyl chloride (PVC). It is not approved for contact
with food. It is used in liquid lipsticks and as a diluent for
polysulfide dental impression materials. DBP is used as a plas-
ticizer for nitrocellulose in making gun powder, and as a fuel in
solid propellants for rockets. Further uses are insecticides,
safety glass manufacture, textile lubricating agents, printing
inks, adhesives, paper coatings, and resin solvents.
For protection of human health from the toxic properties of
dibutyl phthalate ingested through water and through contami-
nated aquatic organisms, the ambient water quality criterion is
determined to be 34 mg/1. If contaminated aquatic organisms
alone are consumed, excluding the consumption of water, the
ambient water criterion is 154 mg/1.
469
-------
Although the behavior of di-n-butyl phthalate in a POTW has not
been studied, biochemical oxidation of this toxic pollutant has
been studied on a laboratory scale at concentrations higher than
would normally be expected in municipal wastewaters. Biochemical
oxidation of 35, 43, and 45 percent of theoretical oxidation were
obtained after 5, 10, and 20 days, respectively, using sewage
microorganisms as an unacclimated seed culture.
Biological treatment in a POTW is expected to remove di-n-butyl
phthalate to a moderate degree.
Di-n-octyl phthalate (69). In addition to the general remarks
and discussion on phthalate esters, specific information on
di-n-octyl phthalate is provided. Di-n-octyl phthalate is not to
be confused with the isomeric bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate which
is commonly referred to in the plastics industry as DOP. Di-n-
octyl phthalate is a liquid which boils at 220°C at 5 mm Hg. It
is insoluble in water. Its molecular formula is CfiH4-
(COOC8Hi7)2- Its production constitutes about 1 percent of
all phthalate ester production in the U.S.
Industrially, di-n-octyl phthalate is used to plasticize poly-
vinyl chloride (PVC) resins.
No ambient water quality criterion is proposed for di-n-octyl
phthalate.
Biological treatment in a POTW is expected to lead to little or
no removal of di-n-octyl phthalate.
Diethyl phthalate (70). In addition to the general remarks and
discussion on phthalate esters, specific information on diethyl
phthalate is provided. Diethyl phthalate, or DEP, is a colorless
liquid boiling at 296 C, and is insoluble in water. Its molecu-
lar formula is C6H4(COOC2H5)2- Production of diethyl
phthalate constitutes about 1.5 percent of phthalate ester
production in the U.S.
Diethyl phthalate is approved for use in plastic food containers
by the U.S. FDA. In addition to its use as a polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) plasticizer, DEP is used to plasticize cellulose nitrate
for gun powder, to dilute polysulfide dental impression materi-
als, and as an accelerator for dyeing triacetate fibers. An
additional use which would contribute to its wide distribution in
the environment is as an approved special denaturant for ethyl
alcohol. The alcohol-containing products for which DEP is an
approved denaturant include a wide range of personal care items
such as bath preparations, bay rum, colognes, hair preparations,
470
-------
face and hand creams, perfumes and toilet soaps. Additionally,
this denaturant is approved for use in biocides, cleaning solu-
tions, disinfectants, insecticides, fungicides, and room deoder-
ants which have ethyl alcohol as part of the formulation. It is
expected, therefore, that people and buildings would have some
surface loading of this toxic pollutant which would find its way
into raw wastewaters.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
diethyl phthalate ingested through water and through contaminated
aquatic organisms, the ambient water quality criterion is deter-
mined to be 350 mg/1. If contaminated aquatic organisms alone
are consumed, excluding the consumption of water, the ambient
water criterion is 1,800 mg/1.
Although the behavior of diethyl phthalate in a POTW has not been
studied, biochemical oxidation of this toxic pollutant has been
studied on a laboratory scale at concentrations higher than would
normally be expected in municipal wastewaters. Biochemical oxi-
dation of 79, 84, and 89 percent of theoretical was observed
after 5, 15, and 20 days respectively. Biological treatment in a
POTW is expected to lead to a moderate degree of removal of
diethyl phthalate.
Dimethyl Phthalate (71). In addition to the general remarks and
discussion on phthalate esters, specific information on dimethyl
phthalate (DMP) is provided. DMP has the lowest molecular weight
of the phthalate esters - M.W. * 194 compared to M.W. of 391 for
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. DMP has a boiling point of 282°C.
It is a colorless liquid, soluble in water to the extent of 5
mg/1. Its molecular formula is C6H4(C))CH3>2-
Dimethyl phthalate production in the U.S. is just under one per-
cent of total phthalate ester production. DMP is used to some
extent as a plasticizer in cellulosics; however, its principal
specific use is for dispersion of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF).
PVDF is resistant to most chemicals and finds use as electrical
insulation, chemical process equipment (particularly pipe), and
as a case for long-life finishes for exterior metal siding. Coil
coating techniques are used to apply PVDF dispersions to aluminum
or galvanized steel siding.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
dimethyl phthalate ingested through water and through contami-
nated aquatic organisms, the ambient water criterion is deter-
mined to be 313 mg/1. If contaminated aquatic organisms alone
are consumed, excluding the consumption of water, the ambient
water criterion is 2,900 mg/1.
471
-------
Based on limited data and observations relating molecular struc-
ture to ease of biochemical degradation of other toxic organic
pollutants, it is expected that dimethyl phthalate will be bio-
chemically oxidized to a lesser extent than domestic sewage by
biological treatment in a POTW.
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (72-84). The polynuclear aro-
matic hydrocarbons (PAH) selected as toxic pollutants are a group
of 13 compounds consisting of substituted and unsubstituted poly-
cyclic aromatic rings. The general class of PAH includes hetero-
cyclics, but none of those were selected as toxic pollutants.
PAH are formed as the result of incomplete combustion when
organic compounds are burned with insufficient oxygen. PAH are
found in coke oven emissions, vehicular emissions, and volatile
products of oil and gas burning. The compounds chosen as toxic
pollutants are listed with their structural formula and melting
point (m.p.). All are insoluble in water.
72 Benzo(a)anthracene (1,2-benzanthracene)
m.p
73 Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-benzopyrene)
74 3,4-Benzofluoranthene
76 Chrysene (1,2-benzphenanthrene)
77 Acenaphthylene
162°C
m.p. 176°C
m.p. 168°C
75 Benzo(k)fluoranthene (11,12-benzofluoranthene)
m.p. 217°C
m.p. 255°C
m.p. 92°C
472
-------
78 Anthracene
82
83
m.p. 216°C
7,9 Benzo(ghi)perylene (1,12-benzoperylene)
m.p. not reported
m.p. 116°C
m.p. 101°C
80 Fluorene (alpha-diphenylenemethane)
81 Phenanthrene
Dtbenzo(a,h)anthracene (1,2,5,6
dibenzoanthracene)
m.p. 269°C
Indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene
(2,3-o-phenylenepyrene)
84 Pyrene
m.p. not available
m.p. 156°C
Some of these toxic pollutants have commercial or industrial
uses. Benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, anthracene,
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and pyrene are all used as antioxidants.
Chrysene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, fluorene, phenanthrene, and
pyrene are all used for synthesis of dyestuffs or other organic
chemicals. 3,4-Benzofluoranthrene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo-
(ghi)perylene, and indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene have no known indus-
trial uses, according to the results of a recent literature
search.
Several of the PAH toxic pollutants are found in smoked meats, in
smoke flavoring mixtures, in vegetable oils, and in coffee. Con-
473
-------
sequently, they are also found in many drinking water supplies.
The wide distribution of these pollutants in complex mixtures
with the many other PAHs which have not been designated as toxic
pollutants results in exposures by humans that cannot be associ-
ated with specific individual compounds.
The screening and verification analysis procedures used for the
toxic organic pollutants are based on gas chromatography (GC).
Three pairs of the PAH have identical elution times on the column
specified in the protocol, which means that the parameters of the
pair are not differentiated. For these three pairs [anthracene
(78) - phenanthrene (81); 3,4-benzofluoranthene (74) - benzo(k)-
flupranthene (75); and benzo(a)anthracene (72) - chrysene (76)]
results are obtained and reported as "either-or." Either both
are present in the combined concentration reported, or one is
present in the concentration reported.
There are no studies to document the possible carcinogenic risks
to humans by direct ingestion. Air pollution studies indicate an
excess of lung cancer mortality among workers exposed to large
amounts of PAH containing materials such as coal gas, tars, and
coke-oven emissions. However, no definite proof exists that the
PAH present in these materials are responsible for the cancers
observed.
Animal studies have demonstrated the toxicity of PAH by oral and
dermal administration. The carcinogenicity of PAH has been
traced to formation of PAH metabolites which, in turn, lead to
tumor formation. Because the levels of PAH which induce cancer
are very low, little work has been done on other health hazards
resulting from exposure. It has been established in animal
studies that tissue damage and systemic toxicity can result from
exposure to non-carcinogenic PAH compounds.
Because there were no studies available regarding chronic oral
exposures to PAH mixtures, proposed water quality criteria were
derived using data on exposure to a single compound. Two studies
were selected, one involving benzo(a)pyrene ingestion and one
involving dibenzo(a,h)anthracene ingestion. Both are known
animal carcinogens.
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential
carcinogenic effects of expsure to polynuclear aromatic hydrocar-
bons (PAH) through ingestion of water and contaminated aquatic
organisms, the ambient water concentration is zero. Concentra-
tions of PAH estimated to result in additional risk of 1 in
100,000 were derived by the EPA and the Agency is considering
setting criteria at an interim target risk level in the range of
10~', 10~6, or 10~5 with corresponding criteria of
0.000000097 mg/1, 0.00000097 mg/1, and 0.0000097 mg/1,
respectively.
474
-------
No standard toxicity tests have been reported for freshwater or
saltwater organisms and any of the 13 PAH discussed here.
The behavior of PAH in a POTW has received only a limited amount
of study. It is reported that up to 90 percent of PAH entering a
POTW will be retained in the sludge generated by conventional
sewage treatment processes. Some of the PAH can inhibit bac-
terial growth when they are present at concentrations as low as
0.018 mg/1. Biological treatment in activated sludge units has
been shown to reduce the concentration of phenanthrene and
anthracene to some extent; however, a study of biochemical oxi-
dation of fluorene on a laboratory scale showed no degradation
after 5, 10, and 20 days. On the basis of that study and studies
of other toxic organic pollutants, some general observations were
made relating molecular structure to ease of degradation. Those
observations lead to the conclusion that the 13 PAH selected to
represent that group as toxic pollutants will be removed only
slightly or not at all by biological treatment methods in a POTW.
Based on their water insolubility and tendency to attach to sedi-
ment particles very little pass through of PAH to POTW effluent
is expected.
No data are available at this time to support any conclusions
about contamination of land by PAH on which sewage sludge con-
taining PAH is spread.
Tetrachlproethylene (85). Tetrachloroethylene (CC12CC12),
also called perchloroethylene and PCE, is a colorless, nonflam-
mable liquid produced mainly by two methods - chlorination and
pyrolysis of ethane and propane, and oxychlorination of dichloro-
ethane. U.S. annual production exceeds 300,000 tons. PCE boils
at 121°C and has a vapor pressure of 19 mm Hg at 20°C. It is
insoluble in water but soluble in organic solvents.
Approximately two-thirds of the U.S. production of PCE is used
for dry cleaning. Textile processing and metal degreasing, in
equal amounts consume about one-quarter of the U.S. production.
The principal toxic effect of PCE on humans is central nervous
system depression when the compound is inhaled. Headache,
fatigue, sleepiness, dizziness, and sensations of intoxication
are reported. Severity of effects increases with vapor concen-
tration. High integrated exposure (concentration times duration)
produces kidney and liver damage. Very limited data on PCE
ingested by laboratory animals indicate liver damage occurs when
PCE is administered by that route. PCE tends to distribute to
fat in mammalian bodies.
One report found in the literature suggests, but does not con-
clude, that PCE is teratogenic. PCE has been demonstrated to be
a liver carcinogen in B6C3-F1 mice.
475.
-------
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential
carcinogenic effects of exposure to tetrachlorethylene through
ingestion of water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambi-
ent water concentration is zero. Concentrations of tetrachloro-
ethylene estimated to result in additional lifetime cancer risk
levels of ID'/, iQ-6^ and iQ-5 are Q.000020 mg/1, 0.00020
mg/1, and 0.0020 mg/1, respectively.
No data were found regarding the behavior of PGE in a POTW. Many
of the toxic organic pollutants have been investigated, at least
in laboratory scale studies, at concentrations higher than those
expected to be contained by most municipal wastewaters. General
observations have been developed relating molecular structure to
ease of degradation for all of the toxic organic pollutants. The
conclusions reached by the study of the limited data is that
bioloigical treatment produces a moderate removal of PCE in a POTW
by degradation. No information was found to indicate that PCE
accumulates in the sludge, but some PCE is expected to be
adsorbed onto settling particles. Some PCE is expected to be
volatilized in aerobic treatment processes and little, if any, is
expected to pass through into the effluent from the POTW.
Toluene (86). Toluene is a clear, colorless liquid with a
benzene-like odor. It is a naturally occuring compound derived
primarily from petroleum or petrochemical processes. Some
toluene is obtained from the manufacture of metallurgical coke.
Toluene is also referred to as totuol, methylbenzene, methacide,
and phenylmethane. It is an aromatic hydrocarbon with the
formula C6H5CH3. it boils at 111 C and has a vapor pres-
sure of 30 mm Hg at room temperature. The water solubility of
toluene is 535 mg/1, and it is miscible with a variety of organic
solvents. Annual production of toluene in the U.S. is greater
than two million metric tons. Approximately two-thirds of the
toluene is converted to benzene and the remaining 30 percent is
divided approximately equally into chemical manufacture, and use
as a paint solvent and aviation gasoline additive. An esti-
mated 5,000 metric tons is discharged to the environment anually
as a constituent in wastewater.
Most data on the effects of toluene in human and other mammals
have been based on inhalation exposure or dermal contact studies.
There appear to be no reports of oral administration of toluene
to human subjects. A long term toxicity study on female rats
revealed no adverse effects on growth, mortality, appearance and
behavior, organ to body weight ratios, blood-urea nitrogen
levels, bone marrow counts, peripheral blood counts, or morphol-
ogy of major organs. The effects of inhaled toluene on the cen-
tral nervous system, both at high and low concentrations, have
been studied in humans and animals. However, ingested toluene is
expected to be handled differently by the body because it is
absorbed more slowly and must first pass through the liver before
476
-------
reaching the nervous system. Toluene is extensively and rapidly
metabolized in the liver. One of the principal metabolic prod-
ucts of toluene is benzoic acid, which itself seems to have
little potential to produce tissue injury.
Toluene does not appear to be teratogenic in laboratory animals
or man. Nor is there any conclusive evidence that toluene is
mutagenic. Toluene has not been demonstrated to be positive in
any 15: vitro mutagenicity or carcinogenicity bioassay system, nor
to be carcinogenic in animals or man.
Toluene has been found in fish caught in harbor waters in the
vicinity of petroleum and petrochemical plants. Bioconcentration
studies have not been conducted, but bioconcentration factors
have been calculated on the basis of the octanol-water partition
coefficient.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
toluene ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic
organisms, the ambient water criterion is determined to be 14.3
mg/1. If contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consumed
excluding the consumption of water, the ambient water criterion
is 424 mg/1. Available data show that the adverse effects on
aquatic life occur at concentrations as low as 5 mg/1.
Acute toxicity tests have been conducted with toluene and a
variety of freshwater fish and Daphnia magna. The latter appears
to be significantly more resistant than fish. No test results
have been reported for the chronic effects of toluene on
freshwater fish or invertebrate species.
No detailed study of toluene behavior in a POTW is available.
However, the biochemical oxidation of many of the toxic pollu-
tants has been investigated in laboratory scale studies at
concentrations greater than those expected to be contained by
most municipal wastewaters. At toluene concentrations ranging
from 3 to 250 mg/1 biochemical oxidation proceeded to 50 percent
of theoretical or greater. The time period varied from a few
hours to 20 days depending on whether or not the seed culture was
acclimated. Phenol adapted acclimated seed cultures gave the
most rapid and extensive biochemical oxidation.
Based on study of the limited data, it is expected that toluene
will be biochemically oxidized to a lesser extent than domestic
sewage by biological treatment in a POTW. The volatility and
relatively low water solubility of toluene lead to the expecta-
tion that aeration processes will remove significant quantities
of toluene from the POTW. The EPA studied toluene removal in
seven POTW facilities. The removals ranged from 40 to 100
percent. Sludge concentrations of toluene ranged from 54 x
10-3 to 1.85 mg/1.
477
-------
Trichloroethylene (87). Trichloroethylene (1,1,2-trichloroethyl-
ene or TCE) is a clear, colorless liquid boiling at 87°C. It has
a vapor pressure of 77 mm Hg at room temperature and is slightly
soluble in water (1 gm/1). U.S. production is greater than 0.25
million metric tons annually. It is produced from tetrachloro-
ethane by treatment with lime in the presence of water.
TCE is used for vapor phase degreasing of metal parts, cleaning
and drying electronic components, as a solvent for paints, as a
refrigerant, for extraction of oils, fats, and waxes, and for dry
cleaning. Its widespread use and relatively high volatility
result in detectable levels in many parts of the environment.
Data on the effects produced by ingested TCE are limited. Most
studies have been directed at inhalation exposure. Nervous sys-
tem disorders and liver damage are frequent results of inhalation
exposure. In the short term exposures, TCE acts as a central
nervous system depressant - it was used as an anesthetic before
its other long term effects were defined.
TCE has been shown to induce transformation in a highly sensitive
in vitro Fischer rat embryo cell system (F1706) that is used for
identifying carcinogens. Severe and persistent toxicity to the
liver was recently demonstrated when TCE was shown to produce
carcinoma of the liver in mouse strain B6C3F1. One systematic
study of TCE exposure and the incidence of human cancer was based
on 518 men exposed to TCE. The authors of that study concluded
that although the cancer risk to man cannot be ruled out, expo-
sure to low levels of TCE probably does not present a very
serious and general cancer hazard.
TCE is bioconcentrated in aquatic species, making the consumption
of such species by humans a significant source of TCE. For the
protection of human health from the potential carcinogenic
effects of exposure to trichloroethylene through ingestion of
water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water con-
centration is zero. Concentrations of trichloroethylene esti-
mated to result in additional lifetime cancer risks of 10"'}
ID'6, and 10-5 are 2.7 x 10'4 mg/1, 2.7 x 10"3 tng/1, and
2.7 x 10"2 mg/1, respectively. If contaminated aquatic organ-
isms alone are consumed, excluding the consumption of water, the
water concentration should be less than 0.807 mg/1 to keep the
additional lifetime cancer risk below 10"-*.
Only a very limited amount of data on the effects of TCE on
freshwater aquatic life are available. One species of fish (fat-
head minnows) showed a loss of equilibrium at concentrations
below those resulting in lethal effects.
The behavior of trichloroethylene in a POTW has not been studied.
However, in laboratory scale studies of toxic organic pollutants,
478
-------
TCE was subjected to biochemical oxidation conditions. After 5,
10, and 20 days no biochemical oxidation occurred. On the basis
of this study and general observations relating molecular struc-
ture to ease of degradation, the conclusion is reached that TGE
would undergo no removal by biological treatment in a POTW. The
volatility and relatively low water solubility of TCE is expected
to result in volatilization of some of the TCE in aeration steps
in a POTW.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (106 - 112). Polychlorinated biphenyls
(Ci2HionCln,Hig-nCln where n can range from 1 to 10),
designated PCB s, are chlorinated derivatives of biphenyls. The
commercial products are complex mixtures of chlorobiphenyls, but
are no longer produced in the U.S. The mixtures produced for-
merly were characterized by the percentage chlorination. Direct
chlorination of biphenyl was used to produce mixtures containing
from 21 to 70 percent chlorine. Seven of these mixtures have
been selected as toxic pollutants:
Toxic
Pollu-
tant
No.
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
Name
Percent
Chlorine
Arochlor
1242
1254
1221
1232
1248
1260
1016
42
54
20.5-21.5
31.4-32.5
48
60
41
Range (°C)
Distilla-
tion
325-366
365-390
275-320
290-325
340-375
385-420
323-356
Pour
Point (°C)
•19
10
1
•35.5
7
31
Water
Solubility
240
12
<200
54
2.7
225-250
The arochlors 1221, 1232, 1016, 1242, and 1248 are colorless,
oily liquids; 1254 is a viscous liquid; 1260 is a sticky resin at
room temperature. Total annual U.S. production of PCB's averaged
about 20,000 tons in 1972 to 1974.
Prior to 1971, PCB's were used in several applications including
plasticizers, heat transfer liquids, hydraulic fluids, lubri-
cants, vacuum pump and compressor fluids, and capacitor and
transformer oils. After 1970, when PCB use was restricted to
closed systems, the latter two uses were the only commercial
applications.
The toxic effects of PCB's ingested by humans have been reported
to range from acne-like skin eruptions and pigmentation of the
skin to numbness of limbs, hearing and vision problems, and
spasms. Interpretation of results is complicated by the fact
that the very highly toxic polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF's)
are found in many commercial PCB mixtures. Photochemical and
479
-------
thermal decomposition appear to accelerate the transformation of
PCB's to PCDF's. Thus the specific effects of PCB's may be
masked by the effects of PCDF's. However, if PCDF's are fre-
quently present to some extent in any PCB mixture, then their
effects may be properly included in the effects of PCB mixtures.
Studies of effects of PCB's in laboratory animals indicate that
liver and kidney damage, large weight losses, eye discharges, and
interference with some metabolic processes occur frequently.
Teratogenic effects of PCB's in laboratory animals have been
observed, but are rare. Growth retardations during gestation,
and reproductive failure are more common effects observed in
studies of PCB teratogenicity. Carcinogenic effects of PCB's
have been studied in laboratory animals with results interpreted
as positive. Specific reference has been made to liver cancer in
rats in the discussion of water quality criterion formulation.
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential
carcinogenic effects of exposure to PCB's through ingestion of
water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water con-
centration should be zero. Concentrations of PCB's estimated to
result in additional lifetime cancer risk at risk levels of
10-', 10-6, and iQ-5 are 0.0000000026 mg/1, 0.000000026
mg/1, and 0.00000026 mg/1, respectively.
The behavior of PCB's in a POTW has received limited study. Most
PCB's will be removed with sludge. One study showed removals of
82 to 89 percent, depending on suspended solid removal. The
PCB's adsorb onto suspended sediments and other particulates. In
laboratory scale experiments with PCB 1221, 81 percent was
removed by degradation in an activated sludge system in 47 hours.
Biodegradation can form polychlorinated dibenzofurans which are
more toxic than PCB's (as noted earlier). PCB's at concentra-
tions of 0.1 to 1,000 mg/1 inhibit or enhance bacterial growth
rates, depending on the bacterial culture and the percentage
chlorine in the PCB. Thus, activated sludge may be inhibited by
PCB's. Based on studies of bioaccumulation of PCB's in food
crops grown on soils amended with PCB-containing sludge, the U.S.
FDA has recommended a limit of 10 mg PCB/kg dry weight of sludge
used for application to soils bearing food crops.
Antimony (114). Antimony (chemical name - stibium, symbol Sb),
classified as a non-metal or metalloid, is a silvery white, brit-
tle crystalline solid. Antimony is found in small ore bodies
throughout the world. Principal ores are oxides of mixed anti-
mony valences, and an oxysulfide ore. Complex ores with metals
are important because the antimony is recovered as a by-product.
Antimony melts at 631°C, and is a poor conductor of electricity
and heat.
480
-------
Annual U.S. consumption of primary antimony ranges from 10,000 to
20,000 tons. About half is consumed in metal products - mostly
antimonial lead for lead acid storage batteries, and about half
in non-metal products. A principal compound is antimony trioxide
which is used as a flame retardant in fabrics, and as an opaci-
fier in glass, ceramics, and enamels. Several antimony compounds
are used as catalysts in organic chemicals synthesis, as fluori-
nating agents (the antimony fluoride), as pigments, and in fire-
works. Semiconductor applications are economically significant.
Essentially no information on antimony-induced human health
effects has been derived from community epidemiology studies.
The available data are in literature relating effects observed
with therapeutic or medicinal uses of antimony compounds and
industrial exposure studies. Large therapeutic doses of anti-
monial compounds, usually used to treat schistisomiasis, have
caused severe nausea, vomiting, convulsions, irregular heart
action, liver damage, and skin rashes. Studies of acute
industrial antimony poisoning have revealed loss of appetite,
diarrhea, headache, and dizziness in addition to the symptoms
found in studies of therapeutic doses of antimony.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
antimony ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic
organisms the ambient water criterion is determined to be 0.146
mg/1. If contaminated aquatic organisms are consumed, excluding
the consumption of water, the ambient water criterion is deter-
mined to be 45 mg/1. Available data show that adverse effects on
aquatic life occur at concentrations higher than those cited for
human health risks.
Very little information is available regarding the behavior of
antimony in a POTW. The limited solubility of most antimony
compounds expected in a POTW, i.e., the oxides and sulfides, sug-
gests that at least part of the antimony entering a POTW will be
precipitated and incorporated into the sludge. However, some
antimony is expected to remain dissolved and pass through the
POTW into the effluent. Antimony compounds remaining in the
sludge under anaerobic conditions may be connected to stibine
(SbH3), a very soluble and very toxic compound. There are no
data to show antimony inhibits any POTW processes. Antimony is
not known to be essential to the growth of plants, and has been
reported to be moderately toxic. Therefore, sludge containing
large amounts of antimony could be detrimental to plants if it is
applied in large amounts to cropland.
Arsenic (115). Arsenic (chemical symbol As), is classified as a
non-metal or metalloid. Elemental arsenic normally exists in the
alpha-crystalline metallic form which is steel gray and brittle,
and in the beta form which is dark gray and amorphous. Arsenic
sublimes at 615°C. Arsenic is widely distributed throughout the
481
-------
world in a large number of minerals. The most important commer-
cial source of arsenic is as a by-product from treatment of
copper, lead, cobalt, and gold ores. Arsenic is usually marketed
as the trioxide (As203). Annual U.S. production of the tri-
oxide approaches 40,000 tons.
The principal use of arsenic is in agricultural chemicals (herbi-
cides) for controlling weeds in cotton fields. Arsenicals have
various applications in medicinal and vetrinary use, as wood
preservatives, and in semiconductors.
The effects of arsenic in humans were known by the ancient Greeks
and Romans. The principal toxic effects are gastrointestinal
disturbances. Breakdown of red blood cells occurs. Symptoms of
acute poisoning include vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain,
lassitude, dizziness, and headache. Longer exposure produced
dry, falling hair, brittle, loose nails, eczema, and exfoliation.
Arsenicals also exhibit teratogenic and mutagenic effects in
humans. Oral administration of arsenic compounds has been
associated clinically with skin cancer for nearly one hundred
years. Since 1888 numerous studies have linked occupational
exposure and therapeutic administration of arsenic compounds to
increased incidence of respiratory and skin cancer.
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential
carcinogenic effects of exposure to arsenic through ingestion of
water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water con-
centration is zero. Concentrations of arsenic estimated to
result in additional lifetime cancer risk levels of 10"',
10"6, and 10-5 are 2.2 x 10-' mg/1, 2.2 x 10'6 mg/1, and
2.2 x 10"5 rag/l, respectively. If contaminated aquatic organ-
isms alone are consumed, excluding the consumption of water, the
water concentration should be less than 1.75 x 10"^ to keep the
increased lifetime cancer risk below 10"^. Available data show
that adverse effects on aquatic life occur at concentrations
higher than those cited for human health risks.
A few studies have been made regarding the behavior of arsenic in
a POTW. One EPA survey of nine POTW facilities reported influent
concentrations ranging from 0.0005 to 0.693 mg/1; effluents from
three a POTW having biological treatment contained 0.0004 to 0.01
mg/1; two POTW facilities showed arsenic removal efficiencies of
50 and 71 percent in biological treatment. Inhibition of treat-
ment processes by sodium arsenate is reported to occur at 0.1
mg/1 in activated sludge, and 1.6 mg/1 in anaerobic digestion
processes. In another study based on data from 60 POTW facili-
ties, arsenic in sludge ranged from 1.6 to 65.6 mg/kg and the
median value was 7.8 mg/kg. Arsenic in sludge spread on cropland
may be taken up by plants grown on that land. Edible plants can
take up arsenic, but normally their growth is inhibited before
the plants are ready for harvest.
482
-------
Beryllium (117). Beryllium is a dark gray metal of the alkaline
earth family. It is relatively rare, but because of its unique
properties finds widespread use as an alloying element, espe-
cially for hardening copper which is used in springs, electrical
contacts, and non-sparking tools. World production is reported
to be in the range of 250 tons annually. However, much more
reaches the environment as emissions from coal burning opera-
tions. Analysis of coal indicates an average beryllium content
of 3 ppm and 0.1 to 1.0 percent in coal ash or fly ash.
The principal ores are beryl (3BeO.Al203«6Si02) and
bertrandite [Be4Si207(OH>2J. Only two industrial
facilities produce beryllium in the U.S. because of limited
demand and the highly toxic character. About two-thirds of the
annual production goes into alloys, 20 percent into heat sinks,
and 10 percent into beryllium oxide (BeO) ceramic products.
Beryllium has a specific gravity of 1.846, making it the lightest
metal with a high melting point (1,350°C). Beryllium alloys are
corrosion resistant, but the metal corrodes in aqueous environ-
ments. Most common beryllium compounds are soluble in water, at
least to the extent necessary to produce a toxic concentration of
be ry11ium ions.
Most data on toxicity of beryllium is for inhalation of beryllium
oxide dust. Some studies on orally administered beryllium in
laboratory animals have been reported. Despite the large number
of studies implicating beryllium as a carcinogen, there is no
recorded instance of cancer being produced by ingestion. How-
ever, a recently convened panel of uninvolved experts concluded
that epidemiologic evidence is suggestive that beryllium is a
carcinogen in man.
In the aquatic environment beryllium is chronically toxic to
aquatic organisms at 0.0053 mg/1. Water softness has a large
effect on beryllium toxicity to fish. In soft water, beryllium
is reportedly 100 times as toxic as in hard water.
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential
carcinogenic effects of exposure to beryllium through ingestion
of water and contaminated aquatic organisms the ambient water
concentration is zero. Concentrations of beryllium estimated to
result in additional lifetime cancer risk levels of 10"',
lO-o, and iQ-5 are 0.00000068 mg/1, 0.0000068 mg/1, and
0.000068 mg/1, respectively. If contaminated aquatic organisms
alone are consumed excluding the consumption of water, the con-
centration should be less than 0.00117 mg/1 to keep the increased
lifetime cancer risk below 10"->.
Information on the behavior of beryllium in a POTW is scarce.
Because beryllium hydroxide is insoluble in water, most beryllium
483
-------
entering a POTW will probably be in the form of suspended solids.
As a result most of the beryllium will settle and be removed with
sludge. However, beryllium has been shown to inhibit several
enzyme systems, to interfere with DNA metabolism in liver, and to
induce chromosomal and mitotic abnormalities. This intereference
in cellular processes may extend to interfere with biological
treatment processes. The concentration and effects of beryllium
in sludge which could be applied to cropland has not been
studied.
Cadmium (118). Cadmium is a relatively rare metallic element
that is seldom found in sufficient quantities in a pure state to
warrant mining or extraction from the earth's surface. It is
found in trace amounts of about 1 ppm throughout the earth's
crust. Cadmium is, however, a valuable by-product of zinc pro-
duction.
Cadmium is used primarily as an electroplated metal, and is found
as an impurity in the secondary refining of zinc, lead, and
copper.
Cadmium is an extremely dangerous cumulative toxicant, causing
progressive chronic poisoning in mammals, fish, and probably
other organisms. The metal is not excreted.
Toxic effects of cadmium on man have been reported from through-
out the world. Cadmium may be a factor in the development of
such human pathological conditions as kidney disease, testicular
tumors, hypertension, arteriosclerosis, growth inhibition,
chronic disease of old age, and cancer. Cadmium is normally
ingested by humans through food and water as well as by breathing
air contaminated by cadmium dust. Cadmium is cumulative in the
liver, kidney, pancreas, and thyroid of humans and other animals.
A severe bone and kidney syndrome known as itai-itai disease has
been documented in Japan as caused by cadmium ingestion via
drinking water and contaminated irrigation water. Ingestion of
as little as 0.6 mg/day has produced the disease. Cadmium acts
synergistically with other metals. Copper and zinc substantially
increase its toxicity.
Cadmium is concentrated by marine organisms, particularly
molluscs, which accumulate cadmium in calcareous tissues and in
the viscera. A concentration factor of 1,000 for cadmium in fish
muscle has been reported, as have concentration factors of 3,000
in marine plants and up to 29,600 in certain marine animals. The
eggs and larvae of fish are apparently more sensitive than adult
fish to poisoning by cadmium, and crustaceans appear to be more
sensitive than fish eggs and larvae.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
cadmium ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic
484
-------
organisms, the ambient water criterion is determined to be 0.010
mg/1. Available data show that adverse effects on aquatic life
occur at concentrations in the same range as those cited for
human health, and they are highly dependent on water hardness.
Cadmium is not destroyed when it is introduced into a POTW, and
will either pass through to the POTW effluent or be incorporated
into the POTW sludge. In addition, it can interfere with the
POTW treatment process.
In a study of 189 POTW facilities, 75 percent of the primary
plants, 57 percent of the trickling filter plants, 66 percent of
the activated sludge plants, and 62 percent of the biological
plants allowed over 90 percent of the influent cadmium to pass
through to the POTW effluent. Only two of the 189 POTW facili-
ties allowed less than 20 percent pass-through, and none less
than 10 percent pass-through. POTW effluent concentrations
ranged from 0.001 to 1.97 mg/1 (mean 0.028 mg/1, standard
deviation 0.167 mg/1).
Cadmium not passed through the POTW will be retained in the
sludge where it is likely to build up in concentration. Cadmium
contamination of sewage sludge limits its use on land since it
increases the level of cadmium in the soil. Data show that
cadmium can be incorporated into crops, including vegetables and
grains, from contaminated soils. Since the crops themselves show
no adverse effects from soils with levels up to 100 mg/kg cad-
mium, these contaminated crops could have a significant impact on
human health. Two Federal agencies have already recognized the
potential adverse human health effects posed by the use of sludge
on cropland. The FDA recommends that sludge containing over 30
mg/kg of cadmium should not be used on agricultural land. Sewage
sludge contains 3 to 300 mg/kg (dry basis) of cadmium mean = 10
mg/kg; median » 16 mg/kg. The USDA also recommends placing
limits on the total cadmium from sludge that may be applied to
land.
Chromium (119). Chromium is an elemental metal usually found as
a chromite (FeO.Cr203). The metal is normally produced by
reducing the oxide with aluminum. A significant proportion of
the chromium used is in the form of compounds such as sodium
dichromate (Na2Cr04>, and chromic acid (Cr03) - both are
hexavalent chromium compounds.
Chromium is found as an alloying component of many steels and its
compounds are used in electroplating baths, and as corrosion
inhibitors for closed water circulation systems.
The two chromium forms most frequently found in industry waste-
waters are hexavalent and trivalent chromium. Hexavalent chro-
mium is the form used for metal treatments. Some of it is
485
-------
reduced to trivalent chromium as part of the process reaction.
The raw wastewater containing both valence states is usually
treated first to reduce remaining hexavalent to trivalent chro-
mium, and second to precipitate the trivalent form as the hydrox-
ide. The hexavalent form is not removed by lime treatment.
Chromium, in its various valence states, is hazardous to man. It
can produce lung tumors when inhaled, and induces skin sensitiza-
tions. Large doses of chromates have corrosive effects on the
intestinal tract and can cause inflammation of the kidneys.
Hexavalent chromium is a known human carcinogen. Levels of chro-
mate ions that show no effect in man appear to be so low as to
prohibit determination, to date.
The toxicity of chromium salts to fish and other aquatic life
varies widely with the species, temperature, pH, valence of the
chromium, and synergistic or antagonistic effects, especially the
effect of water hardness. Studies have shown that trivalent
chromium is more toxic to fish of some types than is hexavalent
chromium. Hexavalent chromium retards growth of one fish species
at 0.0002 mg/1. Fish food organisms and other lower forms of
aquatic life are extremely sensitive to chromium. Therefore,
both hexavalent and trivalent chromium must be considered harmful
to particular fish or organisms.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
chromium (except hexavalent chromium) ingested through water and
contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water quality crite-
rion is 170 mg/1. If contaminated aquatic organisms alone are
consumed, excluding the consumption of water, the ambient water
criterion for trivalent chromium is 3,443 mg/1. The ambient
water quality criterion for hexavalent chromium is recommended to
be identical to the existing drinking water standard for total
chromium which is 0.050 mg/1.
Chromium is not destroyed when treated by a POTW (although the
oxidation state may change), and will either pass through to the
POTW effluent or be incorporated into the POTW sludge. Both oxi-
dation states can cause POTW treatment inhibition and can also
limit the usefulness of municipal sludge.
Influent concentrations of chromium to POTW facilities have been
observed by EPA to range from 0.005 to 14.0 mg/1, with a median
concentration of 0.1 mg/1. The efficiencies for removal of chro-
mium by the activated sludge process can vary greatly, depending
on chromium concentration in the influent, and other operating
conditions at the POTW. Chelation of chromium by organic matter
and dissolution due to the presence of carbonates can cause
deviations from the predicted behavior in treatment systems.
486
-------
The systematic presence of chromium compounds will halt nitrifi-
cation in a POTW for short periods, and most of the chromium will
be retained in the sludge solids. Hexavalent chromium has been
reported to severely affect the nitrification process, but tri-
valent chromium has little or no toxicity to activated sludge,
except at high concentrations. The presence of iron, copper, and
low pH will increase the toxicity of chromium in a POTW by
releasing the chromium into solution to be ingested by micro-
organisms in the POTW.
The amount of chromium which passes through to the POTW effluent
depends on the type of treatment processes used by the POTW. In
a study of 240 POTW facilities, 56 percent of the primary plants
allowed more than 80 percent pass-through to POTW effluent. More
advanced treatment results in less pass-through. POTW effluent
concentrations ranged from 0.003 to 3.2 mg/1 total chromium (mean
« 0.197, standard deviation = 0.48), and from 0.002 to 0.1 mg/1
hexavalent chromium (mean - 0.017, standard deviation - 0.020).
Chromium not passed through the POTW will be retained in the
sludge, where it is likely to build up in concentration. Sludge
concentrations of total chromium of over 20,000 mg/kg (dry basis)
have been observed. Disposal of sludges containing very high
concentrations of trivalent chromium can potentially cause prob-
lems in uncontrolled landfills. Incineration, or similar
destructive oxidation processes, can produce hexavalent chromium
from lower valence states. Hexavalent chromium is potentially
more toxic than trivalent chromium. In cases where high rates of
chrome sludge application on land are used, distinct growth
inhibition and plant tissue uptake have been noted.
Pretreatment of discharges substantially reduces the concentra-
tion of chromium in sludge. In Buffalo, New York, pretreatment
of electroplating waste resulted in a decrease in chromium con-
centrations in POTW sludge from 2,510 to 1,040 mg/kg. A similar
reduction occurred in Grand Rapids, Michigan, POTW facilities
where the chromium concentration in sludge decreased from 11,000
to 2,700 mg/kg when pretreatment was made a requirement.
Copper (120). Copper is a metallic element that sometimes is
found free, as the native metal, and is also found in minerals
such as cuprite (Cu20), malachite [CuC03.Cu(OH)2], azurite
[2CuC03.Cu(OH)2], chalcopyrite (CuFeS2), and bornite
(Cu5Fe§4). Copper is obtained from these ores by smelting,
leaching, and electrolysis. It is used in the plating, electri-
cal, plumbing, and heating equipment industries, as well as in
insecticides and fungicides.
Traces of copper are found in all forms of plant and animal life,
and the metal is an essential trace element for nutrition.
Copper is not considered to be a cumulative systemic poison for
487
-------
humans as tt is readily excreted by the body, but it can cause
symptoms of gastroenteritis, with nausea and intestinal irrita-
tions, as relatively low dosages. The limiting factor in domes-
tic water supplies is taste. To prevent this adverse organolep-
tic effect of copper in water, a criterion of 1 mg/1 has been
established.
The toxicity of copper to aquatic organisms varies significantly,
not only with the species, but also with the physical and chemi-
cal characteristics of the water, including temperature, hard-
ness, turbidity, and carbon dioxide content. In hard water, the
toxicity of copper salts may be reduced by the precipitation of
copper carbonate or other insoluble compounds. The sulfates of
copper and zinc, and of copper and calcium are synergistic in
their toxic effect on fish.
Relatively high concentrations of copper may be tolerated by
adult fish for short periods of time; the critical effect of
copper appears to be its higher toxicity to young or juvenile
fish. Concentrations of 0.02 to 0.03 mg/1 have proved fatal to
some common fish species. In general the salmonoids are very
sensitive and the sunfishes are less sensitive to copper.
The recommended criterion to protect freshwater aquatic life is
0.0056 mg/1 as a 24-hour average, and 0.012 mg/1 maximum concen-
tration at a hardness of 50 mg/1 CaC03. For total recoverable
copper the criterion to protect freshwater aquatic life is 0.0056
mg/1 as a 24-hour average.
Copper salts cause undesirable color reactions in the food indus-
try and cause pitting when deposited on some other metals such as
aluminum and galvanized steel. To control undesirable taste and
odor quality of ambient water due to the organoleptic properties
of copper, the estimated level is 1.0 mg/1 for total recoverable
copper.
Irrigation water containing more than minute quantities of copper
can be detrimental to certain crops. Copper appears in all
soils, and its concentration ranges from 10 to 80 ppm. In soils,
copper occurs in association with hydrous oxides of manganese and
iron, and also as soluble and insoluble complexes with organic
matter. Copper is essential to the life of plants, and the
normal range of concentration in plant tissue is from 5 to 20
ppm. Copper concentrations in plants normally do not build up to
high levels when toxicity occurs. For example, the concentra-
tions of copper in snapbean leaves and pods was less than 50 and
20 mg/kg, respectively, under conditions of severe copper toxic-
ity. Even under conditions of copper toxicity, most of the
excess copper accumulates in the roots; very little is moved to
the aerial part of the plant.
488
-------
Copper is not destroyed when treated by a POTW, and will either
pass through to the POTW effluent or be retained in the POTW
sludge. It can interfere with the POTW treatment processes and
can limit the usefulness of municipal sludge.
The influent concentration of copper to a POTW has been observed
by the EPA to range from 0.01 to 1.97 mg/1, with a median concen-
tration of 0.12 mg/1. The copper that is removed from the
influent stream of a POTW is absorbed on the sludge or appears in
the sludge as the hydroxide of the metal. Bench scale pilot
studies have shown that from about 25 percent to 75 percent of
the copper passing through the activated sludge process remains
in solution in the final effluent. Four-hour slug dosages of
copper sulfate in concentrations exceeding 50 mg/1 were reported
to have severe effects on the removal efficiency of an unaccli-
mated system, with the system returning to normal in about 100
hours. Slug dosages of copper in the form of copper cyanide were
observed to have much more severe effects on the activated sludge
system, but the total system returned to normal in 24 hours.
In a recent study of 268 POTW facilities, the median pass-through
was over 80 percent for primary plants and 40 to 50 percent for
trickling filter, activated sludge, and biological treatment
plants. POTW effluent concentrations of copper ranged from 0.003
to 1.8 mg/1 (mean 0.126, standard deviation 0.242).
Copper which does not pass through the POTW will be retained in
the sludge where it will build up in concentration. The presence
of excessive levels of copper in sludge may limit its use on
cropland. Sewage sludge contains up to 16,000 mg/kg of copper,
with 730 mg/kg as the mean value. These concentrations are
significantly greater than those normally found in soil, which
usually range from 18 to 80 mg/kg. Experimental data indicate
that when dried sludge is spread over tillable land, the copper
tends to remain in place down to the depth of the tillage, except
for copper which is taken up by plants grown in the soil. Recent
investigation has shown that the extractable copper content of
sludge-treated soil decreased with time, which suggests a rever-
sion of copper to less soluble forms was occurring.
Cyanide (121). Cyanides are among the most toxic of pollutants
commonly observed in industrial wastewaters. Introduction of
cyanide into industrial processes is usually by dissolution of
potassium cyanide (KCN) or sodium cyanide (NaCN) in process
waters. However, hydrogen cyanide (HCN) formed when the above
salts are dissolved in water, is probably the most acutely lethal
compound.
The relationship of pH to hydrogen cyanide formation is very
important. As pH is lowered to below 7, more than 99 percent of
the cyanide is present as HCN and less than 1 percent as cyanide
489
-------
ions. Thus, at neutral pH, that of most living organisms, the
more toxic form of cyanide prevails.
Cyanide ions combine with numerous heavy metal ions to form com-
plexes. The complexes are in equilibrium with HCN. Thus, the
stability of the metal-cyanide complex and the pH determine the
concentration of HCN. Stability o£ the metal-cyanide anion com-
plexes is extremely variable. Those formed with zinc, copper,
and cadmium are not stable - they rapidly dissociate, with pro-
duction of HCN, in near neutral or acid waters. Some of the com-
plexes are extremely stable. Cobaltocyanide is very resistant to
acid distillation in the laboratory. Iron cyanide complexes are
also stable, but undergo photodecomposition to give HCN upon
exposure to sunlight. Synergistic effects have been demonstrated
for the metal cyanide complexes making zinc, copper, and cadmium
cyanides more toxic than an equal concentration of sodium
cyanide.
The toxic mechanism of cyanide is essentially an inhibition of
oxygen metabolism, i.e., rendering the tissues incapable of
exchanging oxygen. The cyanogen compounds are true noncumulative
protoplasmic poisons. They arrest the activity of all forms of
animal life. Cyanide shows a very specific type of toxic action.
It inhibits the cytochrome oxidase system. This system is the
one which facilitates electron transfer from reduced metabolites
to molecular oxygen. The human body can convert cyanide to a
non-toxic thiocyanate and eliminate it. However, if the quantity
of cyanide ingested is too great at one time, the inhibition of
oxygen utilization proves fatal before the detoxifying reaction
reduces the cyanide concentration to a safe level.
Cyanides are more toxic to fish than to lower forms of aquatic
organisms such as midge larvae, crustaceans, and mussels. Toxic-
ity to fish is a function of chemical form and concentration, and
is influenced by the rate of metabolism (temperature), the level
of dissolved oxygen, and pH. In laboratory studies free cyanide
concentrations ranging from 0.05 to 0.14 mg/1 have been proven to
be fatal to sensitive fish species including trout, bluegill, and
fathead minnows. Levels above 0.2 mg/1 are rapidly fatal to most
fish species. Long term sublethal concentrations of cyanide as
low as 0.01 mg/1 have been shown to affect the ability of fish to
function normally, e.g., reproduce, grow, and swim.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
cyanide ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic
organisms, the ambient water quality criterion is determined to
be 0.200 mg/1.
Persistence of cyanide in water is highly variable and depends
upon the chemical form of cyanide in the water, the concentration
of cyanide, and the nature of other constituents. Cyanide may be
490
-------
destroyed by strong oxidizing agents such as permanganate and
chlorine. Chlorine is commonly used to oxidize strong cyanide
solutions. Carbon dioxide and nitrogen are the products of com-
plete oxidation. But if the reaction is not complete, the very
toxic compound, cyanogen chloride, may remain in the treatment
system and subsequently be released to the environment. Partial
chlorination may occur as part of a POTW treatment, or during the
disinfection treatment of surface water for drinking water prep-
aration.
Cyanides can interfere with treatment processes in a POTW, or
pass through to ambient waters. At low concentrations and with
acclimated microflora, cyanide may be decomposed by microorga-
nisms in anaerobic and aerobic environments or waste treatment
systems. However, data indicate that much of the cyanide intro-
duced passes through to the POTW effluent. The mean pass-through
of 14 biological plants was 71 percent. In a recent study of 41
POTW facilities the effluent concentrations ranged from 0.002 to
100 mg/1 (mean - 2.518, standard deviation - 15.6). Cyanide also
enhances the toxicity of metals commonly found in POTW effluents,
including the toxic pollutants cadmium, zinc, and copper.
Data for Grand Rapids, Michigan, showed a significant decline in
cyanide concentrations downstream from the POTW after pretreat-
ment regulations were put in force. Concentrations fell from
0.66 mg/1 before, to 0.01 mg/1 after pretreatment was required.
Lead (122). Lead is a soft, malleable, ductile, blueish-gray,
metallic element, usually obtained from the mineral galena (lead
sulfide, PbS), anglesite (lead sulfate, PbS04>, or cerussite
(lead carbonate, PbC03). Because it is usually associated with
minerals of zinc, silver, copper, gold, cadmium, antimony, and
arsenic, special purification methods are frequently used before
and after extraction of the metal from the ore concentrate by
sme It ing.
Lead is widely used for its corrosion resistance, sound and
vibration absorption, low melting point (solders), and relatively
high imperviousness to various forms of radiation. Small amounts
of copper, antimony and other metals can be alloyed with lead to
achieve greater hardness, stiffness, or corrosion resistance than
is afforded by the pure metal. Lead compounds are used in glazes
and paints. About one third of U.S. lead consumption goes into
storage batteries. About half of U.S. lead consumption is from
secondary lead recovery. U.S. consumption of lead is in the
range of one million tons annually.
Lead ingested by humans produces a variety of toxic effects
including impaired reproductive ability, disturbances in blood
chemistry, neurological disorders, kidney damage, and adverse
cardiovascular effects. Exposure to lead in the diet results in
491
-------
permanent increase in lead levels in the body. Most of the lead
entering the body eventually becomes localized in the bones where
it accumulates. Lead is a carcinogen or cocarcinogen in some
species of experimental animals. Lead is teratogenic in experi-
mental animals. Mutagenicity data are not available for lead.
The ambient water quality criterion for lead is recommended to be
identical to the existng drinking water standard which is 0.050
mg/1. Available data show that adverse effects on aquatic life
occur at concentrations as low as 7.5 x 10"4 mg/1 of total
recoverable lead as a 24-hour average with a water hardness of 50
mg/1 as CaC03.
Lead is not destroyed in a POTW, but is passed through to the
effluent or retained in the POTW sludge; it can interfere with
POTW treatment processes and can limit the usefulness of POTW
sludge for application to agricultural croplands. Threshold con-
centration for inhibition of the activated sludge process is 0.1
mg/1, and for the nitrification process is 0.5 mg/1. In a study
of 214 POTW facilities, median pass through values were over 80
percent for primary plants and over 60 percent for trickling
filter, activated sludge, and biological process plants. Lead
concentration in POTW effluents ranged from 0.003 to 1.8 mg/1
(mean = 0.106 mg/1, standard deviation - 0.222).
Application of lead-containing sludge to cropland should not lead
to uptake by crops under most conditions because normally lead is
strongly bound by soil. However, under the unusual condition of
low pH (less than 5.5) and low concentrations of labile phos-
phorus, lead solubility is increased and plants can accumulate
lead.
Mercury (123). Mercury is an elemental metal rarely found in
nature as the free metal. Mercury is unique among metals as it
remains a liquid down to about 39 degrees below zero. It is
relatively inert chemically and is insoluble in water. The
principal ore is cinnabar (HgS).
Mercury is used industrially as the metal and as mercurous and
mercuric salts and compounds. Mercury is used in several types
of batteries. Mercury released to the aqueous environment is
subject to biomethylation - conversion to the extremely toxic
methyl mercury.
Mercury can be introduced into the body through the skin and the
respiratory system as the elemental vapor. Mercuric salts are
highly toxic to humans and can be absorbed through the gastro-
intestinal tract. Fatal doses can vary from 1 to 30 grams.
Chronic toxicity of methyl mercury is evidenced primarily by
neurological symptoms. Some mercuric salts cause death by kidney
failure.
492
-------
Mercuric salts are extremely toxic to fish and other aquatic
life. Mercuric chloride is more lethal than copper, hexavalent
chromium, zinc, nickel, and lead towards fish and aquatic life.
In the food cycle, algae containing mercury up to 100 times the
concentration in the surrounding sea water are eaten by fish
which further concentrate the mercury. Predators that eat the
fish in turn concentrate the mercury even further.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
mercury ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic
organisms the ambient water criterion is determined to be 0.0002
mg/1.
Mercury is not destroyed when treated by a POTW, and will either
pass through to the POTW effluent or be incorporated into the
POTW sludge. At low concentrations it may reduce POTW removal
efficiencies, and at high concentrations it may upset the POTW
operation.
The influent concentrations of mercury to a POTW have been
observed by the EPA to range from 0.002 to 0.24 mg/1, with a
median concentration of 0.001 mg/1. Mercury has been reported in
the literature to have inhibiting effects upon an activated
sludge POTW at levels as low as 0.1 mg/1. At 5 mg/1 of mercury,
losses of COD removal efficiency of 14 to 40 percent have been
reported, while at 10 mg/1 loss of removal of 59 percent has been
reported. Upset of an activated sludge POTW is reported in the
literature to occur near 200 mg/1. The anaerobic digestion pro-
cess is much less affected by the presence of mercury, with
inhibitory effects being reported at 1,365 mg/1.
In a study of 22 POTW facilities having secondary treatment, the
range of removal of mercury from the influent to the POTW ranged
from 4 to 99 percent with median removal of 41 percent. Thus
significant pass through of mercury may occur.
In sludges, mercury content may be high if industrial sources of
mercury contamination are present. Little is known about the
form in which mercury occurs in sludge. Mercury may undergo
biological methylation in sediments, but no methylation has been
observed in soils, mud, or sewage sludge.
The mercury content of soils not receiving additions of POTW
sewage sludge lie in the range from 0.01 to 0.5 mg/kg. In soils
receiving POTW sludges for protracted periods, the concentration
of mercury has been observed to approach 1.0 mg/kg. In the soil,
mercury enters into reactions with the exchange complex of clay
and organic fractions, forming both ionic and covalent bonds.
Chemical and microbiological degradation of mercurials can take
place side by side in the soil, and the products - ionic or
molecular - are retained by organic matter and clay or may be
493
-------
volatilized if gaseous. Because of the high affinity between
mercury and the solid soil surfaces, mercury persists in the
upper layer of the soil.
Mercury can enter plants through the roots, it can readily move
to other parts of the plant, and it has been reported to cause
injury to plants. In many plants mercury concentrations range
from 0.01 to 0.20 mg/kg, but when plants are supplied with high
levels of mercury, these concentrations can exceed 0.5 mg/kg.
Bioconcentration occurs in animals ingesting mercury in food.
Nickel (124). Nickel is seldom found in nature as the pure ele-
mental metal. It is a relatively plentiful element and is widely
distributed throughout the earth s crust. It occurs in marine
organisms and is found in the oceans. The chief commercial ores
for nickel are pentlandite [ (Fe,Ni)9Sg] > and a lateritic ore
consisting of hydrated nickel-iron-magnesium silicate.
Nickel has many and varied uses. It is used in alloys and as the
pure metal. Nickel salts are used for electroplating baths.
The toxicity of nickel to man is thought to be very low, and sys-
temic poisoning of human beings by nickel or nickel salts is
almost unknown. In non-human mammals nickel acts to inhibit
insulin release, depress growth, and reduce cholesterol. A high
incidence of cancer of the lung and nose has been reported in
humans engaged in the refining of nickel.
Nickel salts can kill fish at very low concentrations. However,
nickel has been found to be less toxic to some fish than copper,
zinc, and iron. Nickel is present in coastal and open ocean
water at concentrations in the range of 0.0001 to 0.006 mg/1
although the most common values are 0.002 to 0.003 mg/1. Marine
animals contain up to 0.4 mg/1 and marine plants contain up to 3
mg/1. Higher nickel concentrations have been reported to cause
reduction in photosynthetic activity of the giant kelp. A low
concentration was found to kill oyster eggs.
For the protection of human health based on the toxic properties
of nickel ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic
organisms, the ambient water criterion is determined to be 0.0134
mg/1. If contaminated aquatic organisms are consumed, excluding
consumption of water, the ambient water criterion is determined
to be 0.100 mg/1. Available data show that adverse effects on
aquatic life occur for total recoverable nickel concentrations as
low as 0.0071 mg/1 as a 24-hour average.
Nickel is not destroyed when treated in a POTW, but will either
pass through to the POTW effluent or be retained in the POTW
sludge. It can interfere with POTW treatment processes and can
also limit the usefulness of municipal sludge.
494
-------
Nickel salts have caused inhibition of the biochemical oxidation
of sewage in a POTW. In a pilot plant, slug doses of nickel
significantly reduced normal treatment efficiencies for a few
hours, but the plant acclimated itself somewhat to the slug dos-
age and appeared to achieve normal treatment efficiencies within
40 hours. It has been reported that the anaerobic digestion pro-
cess is inhibited only by high concentrations of nickel, while a
low concentration of nickel inhibits the nitrification process.
The influent concentration of nickel to a POTW has been observed
by the EPA to range from 0.01 to 3.19 mg/1, with a median of 0.33
mg/1. In a study of 190 POTW facilities, nickel pass-through was
greater than 90 percent for 82 percent of the primary plants.
Median pass-through for trickling filter, activated sludge, and
biological process plants was greater than 80 percent. POTW
effluent concentrations ranged from 0.002 to 40 mg/1 (mean *
0.410, standard deviation • 3.279).
Nickel not passed through the POTW will be incorporated into the
sludge. In a recent two-year study of eight cities, four of the
cities had median nickel concentrations of over 350 mg/kg, and
two were over 1 ,000 mg/kg. The maximum nickel concentration
observed was 4,010 mg/kg.
Nickel is found in nearly all soils, plants, and waters. Nickel
has no known essential function in plants. In soils, nickel
typically is found in the range from 10 to 100 mg/kg. Various
environerantal exposures to nickel appear to correlate with
increased incidence of tumors in man. For example, cancer in the
maxillary antrum of snuff users may result from using plant
materials grown on soil high in nickel.
Nickel toxicity may develop in plants from application of sewage
sludge on acid soils. Nickel has caused reduction of yields for
a variety of crops including oats, mustard, turnips, and cabbage.
In one study nickel decreased the yields of oats significantly at
100 mg/kg.
Whether nickel exerts a toxic effect on plants depends on several
soil factors, the amount of nickel applied, and the contents of
other metals in the sludge. Unlike copper and zinc, which are
more available from inorganic sources than from sludge, nickel
uptake by plants seems to be promoted by the presence of the
organic matter in sludge. Soil treatments, such as liming,
reduce the solubility of nickel. Toxicity of nickel to plants is
enhanced in acidic soils.
Selenium (125). Selenium (chemical symbol Se) is a non-metallic
element existing in several allotropic forms. Gray selenium,
which has a metallic appearance, is the stable form at ordinary
temperatures and melts at 220°C. Selenium is a major component
495
-------
of 38 minerals and a minor component of 37 others found in
various parts of the world. Most selenium is obtained as a
by-product of precious metals recovery from electrolytic copper
refinery slimes. U.S. annual production at one time reached one
million pounds.
Principal uses of selenium are in semi-conductors, pigments,
decoloring of glass, zerography, and metallurgy. It also is used
to produce ruby glass used in signal lights. Several selenium
compounds are important oxidizing agents in the synthesis of
organic chemicals and drug products.
While results of some studies suggest that selenium may be an
essential element in human nutrition, the toxic effects of
selenium in humans are well established. Lassitude, loss of
hair, discoloration and loss of fingernails are symptoms of
selenium poisoning. In a fatal case of ingestion of a larger
dose of selenium acid, peripheral vascular collapse, pulmonary
edema, and coma occurred. Selenium produces mutagenic and tera-
togenic effects, but it has not been established as exhibiting
carcinogenic activity.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
selenium ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic
organisms, the ambient water criterion is determined to be 0.010
mg/1, i.e., the same as the drinking water standard. Available
data show that adverse effects on aquatic life occur at concen-
trations higher than that cited for human toxicity.
Very few data are available regarding the behavior of selenium in
a POTW. One EPA survey of 103 POTW facilities revealed one POTW
using biological treatment and having selenium in the influent.
Influent concentration was 0.0025 mg/1, effluent concentration
was 0.0016 mg/1, giving a removal of 37 percent. It is not known
to be inhibitory to POTW processes. In another study, sludge
from POTW facilities in 16 cities was found to contain from 1.8
to 8.7 mg/kg selenium, compared to 0.01 to 2 mg/kg in untreated
soil. These concentrations of selenium in sludge present a
potential hazard for humans or other mammals eating crops grown
on soil treated with selenium-containing sludge.
Silver (126). Silver is a soft, lustrous, white metal that is
insoluble in water and alkali. In nature, silver is found in the
elemental state (native silver) and combined in ores such as
argentite (Ag2S), horn silver (AgCl), proustite (Ag3AsS3),
and pyrargyrite (Ag3SbS3). Silver is used extensively in
several industries, among them electroplating.
Metallic silver is not considered to be toxic, but most of its
salts are toxic to a large number of organisms. Upon ingestion
496
-------
by humans, many silver salts are absorbed in the circulatory sys-
tem and deposited in various body tissues, resulting in general-
ized or sometimes localized gray pigmentation of the skin and
mucous membranes known as argyria. There is no known method for
removing silver from the tissues once it is deposited, and the
effect is cumulative.
Silver is recognized as a bactericide and doses from 0.000001 to
0.0005 mg/1 have been reported as sufficient to sterilize water.
The criterion for ambient water to protect human health from the
toxic properties of silver ingested through water and through
contaminated aquatic organisms is 0,010 mg/1.
The chronic toxic effects of silver on the aquatic environment
have not been given as much attention as many other heavy metals.
Data from existing literature support the fact that silver is
very toxic to aquatic organisms. Despite the fact that silver is
nearly the most toxic of the heavy metals, there are insufficient
data to adequately evaluate even the effects of hardness on
silver toxicity. There are no data available on the toxicity of
different forms of silver.
There is no available literature on the incidental removal of
silver by a POTV. An incidental removal of about 50 percent is
assumed as being representative. This is the highest average
incidental removal of any metal for which data are available.
(Copper has been indicated to have a median incidental removal
rate of 49 percent.)
Bioaccumulation and concentration of silver from sewage sludge
has not been studied to any great degree. There is some indica-
tion that silver could be bioaccumulated in mushrooms to the
extent that there could be adverse physiological effects on
humans if they consumed large quantities of mushrooms grown in
silver enriched soil. The effect, however, would tend to be
unpleasant rather than fatal.
There is little summary data available on the quantity of silver
discharged to a POTW. Presumably there would be a tendency to
limit its discharge from a manufacturing facility because of its
high intrinsic value.
Thallium (127). Thallium (Tl) is a soft, silver-white, dense,
malleable metal. Five major minerals contain 15 to 85 percent
thallium, but they are not of commercial importance because the
metal is produced in sufficient quantity as a by-product of lead-
zinc smelting of sulfide ores. Thallium melts at 304°C. U.S.
annual production of thallium and its compounds is estimated to
be 1,500 pounds.
Industrial uses of thallium include the manufacture of alloys,
electronic devices and special glass. Thallium catalysts are
used for industrial organic syntheses.
497
-------
Acute thallium poisoning in humans has been widely described.
Gastrointestinal pains and diarrhea are followed by abnormal
sensation in the legs and arms, dizziness, and, later, loss of
hair. The central nervous system is also affected. Somnolence,
delerlum or coma may occur. Studies on the teratogenicity of
thallium appear inconclusive; no studies on mutagenicity were
found; and no published reports on carcinogenicity of thallium
were found.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
thallium ingested through water and contaminated aquatic
organisms, the ambient water criterion is 0.004 mg/1.
No reports were found regarding the behavior of thallium in a
POTW. It will not be degraded, therefore It must pass through to
the effluent or be removed with the sludge. However, since the
sulfide (TlS) is very insoluble, if appreciable sulfide is
present dissolved thallium in the influent to a POTW may be pre-
cipitated into the sludge. Subsequent use of sludge bearing
thallium compounds as a soil amendment to crop bearing soils may
result in uptake of this element by food plants. Several leafy
garden crops (cabbage, lettuce, leek, and endive) exhibit rela-
tively higher concentrations of thallium than other foods such as
meat.
Zinc (128). Zinc occurs abundantly in the earth's crust, con-
centrated in ores. It is readily refined into the pure, stable,
silver-white metal. In addition to Its use in alloys, zinc is
used as a protective coating on steel. It is applied by hot dip-
ing (i.e., dipping the steel in molten zinc) or by electroplat-
ing.
Zinc can have an adverse effect on man and animals at high con-
centrations. Zinc at concentrations in excess of 5 mg/1 causes
an undesirable taste which persists through conventional treat-
ment. For the prevention of adverse effects due to these organo-
leptic properties of zinc, 5 mg/1 was adopted for the ambient
water criterion. Available data show that adverse effects on
aquatic life occur at concentrations as low as 0.047 mg/1 as a
24-hour average.
Toxic concentrations of zinc compounds cause adverse changes in
the morphology and physiology of fish. Lethal concentrations in
the range of O.I mg/1 have been reported. Acutely toxic concen-
trations induce cellular breakdown of the gills, and possibly the
clogging of the gills with mucous. Chronically toxic concentra-
tions of zinc compounds cause general enfeeblement and widespread
histological changes to many organs, but not to gills. Abnormal
swimming behavior has been reported at 0.04 mg/1. Growth and
maturation are retarded by zinc. It has been observed that the
effects of zinc poisoning may not become apparent immediately, so
that fish removed from zinc-contaminated water may die as long as
48 hours after removal.
498
-------
In general, salmonoids are most sensitive to elemental zinc in
soft water; the rainbow trout is the most sensitive in hard
waters. A complex relationship exists between zinc concentra-
tion, dissolved zinc concentration, pH, temperature, and calcium
and magnesium concentration. Prediction of harmful effects has
been less than reliable and controlled studies have not been
extensively documented.
The major concern with zinc compounds in marine waters is not
with acute lethal effects, but rather with the long-term sub-
lethal effects of the metallic compounds and complexes. Zinc
accumulates in some marine species, and marine animals contain
zinc in the range of 6 to 1,500 mg/kg. From the point of view of
acute lethal effects, invertebrate marine animals seem to be the
most sensitive organism tested.
Toxicities of zinc in nutrient solutions have been demonstrated
for a number of plants. A variety of fresh water plants tested
manifested harmful symptoms at concentrations of 0.030 to 21.6
mg/1. Zinc sulfate has also been found to be lethal to many
plants and it could impair agricultural uses of the water.
Zinc is not destroyed when treated by a POTW, but will either
pass through to the POTW effluent or be retained in the POTW
sludge. It can interfere with treatment processes in the POTW
and can also limit the usefulness of municipal sludge.
In slug doses, and particularly in the presence of copper, dis-
solved zinc can interfere with or seriously disrupt the operation
of POTW biological processes by reducing overall removal effi-
ciencies, largely as a result of the toxicity of the metal to
biological organisms. However, zinc solids in the form of
hydroxides or sulfides do not appear to interfere with biological
treatment processes, on the basis of available data. Such solids
accumulate in the sludge.
The influent concentrations of zinc to a POTW has been observed
by the EPA to range from 0.017 to 3.91 mg/1, with a median con-
centration of 0.33 mg/1. Primary treatment is not efficient in
removing zinc; however, the microbial floe of secondary treatment
readily adsorbs zinc.
In a study of 258 POTW facilities, the median pass-through values
were 70 to 88 percent for primary plants, 50 to 60 percent for
trickling filter and biological process plants, and 30 to 40 per-
cent for activated process plants. POTW effluent concentrations
of zinc ranged from 0.003 to 3.6 mg/1 (mean = 0.330, standard
deviation - 0.464).
The zinc which does not pass through the POTW is retained in the
sludge. The presence of zinc in sludge may limit its use on
499
-------
cropland. Sewage sludge contains 72 to over 30,000 mg/kg of
zinc, with 3,366 mg/kg as the mean value. These concentrations
are significantly greater than those normally found in soil,
which range from 0 to 195 mg/kg, with 94 mg/kg being a common
level. Therefore, application of sewage sludge to soil will
generally increase the concentration of zinc in the soil. Zinc
can be toxic to plants, depending upon soil pH. Lettuce, toma-
toes, turnips, mustard, kale, and beets are especially sensitive
to zinc contamination.
Aluminum. Aluminum, a nonconventional pollutant, is an abundant
silvery white metal comprising 8.1 percent of the earth's crust,
but never found in a free state. The principal ore for aluminum
is bauxite from which alumina (A1203) is extracted. Aluminum
metal is produced by electrolysis of the alumina in the cryolite
bath.
Aluminum metal is relatively corrosion resistant because it forms
a protective oxide film on the surface which prevents corrosion
under many conditions. Electrolytic action of other metals in
contact with aluminum and strong acids and alkalis can break down
the oxide layer causing rapid corrosion to occur.
Aluminum is light, malleable, ductile, possesses high thermal and
electrical conductivity, and is non-magnetic. It can be formed,
machined or cast. Aluminum is used in the construction, trans-
portation, and container industries and competes with iron and
steel in these markets.
There are no reported adverse physiological effects on man from
low concentrations of aluminum in drinking water, however, large
concentrations of aluminum in the human body are alledged to
cause changes in behavior. Salts of aluminum are used as coagu-
lants in water treatment, and in limited quantities do not have
any adverse effects on POTW operations. Some aluminum salts are
soluble, however, mildly alkaline conditions cause precipitation
of aluminum as hydroxide. The precipitation of aluminum hydrox-
ide can have an adverse effect on rooted aquatics and inverte-
brate benthos.
Oil and Grease.
tant parameter.
components are:
Oil and grease are taken together as one pollu-
This is a conventional pollutant and some of its
1. Light Hydrocarbons - These include light fuels such as
gasoline, kerosene, and jet fuel, and miscellaneous solvents used
for industrial processing, degreasing, or cleaning purposes. The
presence of these light hydrocarbons may make the removal of
other heavier oil wastes more difficult.
2. Heavy Hydrocarbons, Fuels, and Tars - These include the
crude oils, diesel oils, //6 fuel oil, residual oils, slop oils,
and in some cases, asphalt and road tar.
500
-------
3. Lubricants and Cutting Fluids - These generally fall
into two classes: non-emulsifiable oils such as lubricating oils
and greases and emulsifiable oils such as water soluble oils,
rolling oils, cutting oils, and drawing compounds. Emulsifiable
oils may contain fat, soap, or various other additives.
4. Vegetable and Animal Fats and Oils - These originate
primarily from processing of foods and natural products.
These compounds can settle or float and may exist as solids or
liquids depending upon factors such as method of use, production
process, and temperature of water.
Oil and grease even in small quantities cause troublesome taste
and odor problems. Scum lines from these agents are produced on
water treatment basin walls and other containers. Fish and water
fowl are adversely affected by oils in their habitat. Oil emul-
sions may adhere to the gills of fish causing suffocation, and
the flesh of fish is tainted when microorganisms that were
exposed to waste oil are eaten. Deposition of oil in the bottom
sediments of water can serve to inhibit normal benthic growth.
Oil and grease exhibit an oxygen demand.
Many of the toxic organic pollutants will be found distributed
between the oil phase and the aqueous phase in industrial waste-
waters. The presence of phenols, PCS's, PAH's, and almost any
other organic pollutant in the oil and grease make characteriza-
tion of this parameter almost impossible. However, all of these
other organics add to the objectionable nature of the oil and
grease.
Levels of oil and grease which are toxic to aquatic organisms
vary greatly, depending on the type and the species susceptibil-
ity. However, it has been reported that crude oil in concentra-
tions as low as 0.3 mg/1 is extremely toxic to freshwater fish.
It has been recommended that public water supply sources be
essentially free from oil and grease.
Oil and grease in quantities of 100 1/sq km show up as a sheen on
the surface of a body of water. The presence of oil slicks
decreases the aesthetic value of a waterway.
Oil and grease is compatible with a POTW activated sludge process
in limited quantity. However, slug loadings or high concentra-
tions of oil and grease interfere with biological treatment
processes. The oils coat surfaces and solid particles, prevent-
ing access of oxygen, and sealing in some microorganisms. Land
spreading of POTW sludge containing oil and grease uncontaminated
by toxic pollutants is not expected to affect crops grown on the
treated land, or animals eating those crops.
501
-------
pH. Although not a specific pollutant, pH is related to the
acidity or alkalinity of a wastewater stream. It is not, how-
ever, a measure of either. The term pH is used to describe the
hydrogen ion concentration (or activity) present in a given solu-
tion. Values for pH range from 0 to 14, and these numbers are
the negative logarithms of the hydrogen ion concentrations. A pH
of 7 indicates neutrality. Solutions with a pH above 7 are alka-
line, while those solutions with a pH below 7 are acidic. The
relationship of pH and acidity and alkalinity is not necessarily
linear or direct. Knowledge of the water pH is useful in deter-
mining necessary measures for corrosion control, sanitation, and
disinfection. Its value is also necessary in the treatment of
industrial wastewaters to determine amounts of chemicals required
to remove pollutants and to measure their effectiveness. Removal
of pollutants, especially dissolved solids is affected by the pH
of the wastewater.
Waters with a pH below 6.0 are corrosive to water works struc-
tures, distribution lines, and household plumbing fixtures and
can thus add constituents to drinking water such as iron, copper,
zinc, cadmium, and lead. The hydrogen ion concentration can
affect the taste of the water, and at a low pH water tastes sour.
The bactericidal effect of chlorine is weakened as the pH
increases, and it is advantageous to keep the pH close to 7.0.
This is significant for providing safe drinking water.
Extremes of pH or rapid pH changes can exert stress conditions or
kill aquatic life outright. Even moderate changes from accept-
able criteria limits of pH are deleterious to some species.
The relative toxicity to aquatic life of many materials is
increased by changes in the water pH. For example, metallocya-
nide complexes can increase a thousand-fold in toxicity with a
drop of 1.5 pH units.
Because of the universal nature of pH and its effect on water
Duality and treatment, it is selected as a pollutant parameter
or many industry categories. A neutral pH range (approximately
6 to 9) is generally desired because either extreme beyond this
range has a deleterious effect on receiving waters or the pollu-
tant nature of other wastewater constituents.
Pretreatment for regulation of pH is covered by the "General Pre-
treatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution,"
40 CFR 403.5. This section prohibits the discharge to a POTW of
"pollutants which will cause corrosive structural damage to the
POTW but in no case discharges with pH lower than 5.0 unless the
works is specially designed to accommodate such discharges."
Total Suspended Solids (TSS). Suspended solids include both
organic and inorganic materials. The inorganic compounds include
sand, silt, and clay. The organic fraction Includes such materi-
als as grease, oil, tar, and animal and vegetable waste products.
502
-------
These solids may settle out rapidly, and bottom deposits are
often a mixture of both organic and inorganic solids. Solids may
be suspended in water for a time and then settle to the bed of
the stream or lake. These solids discharged with man's wastes
may be inert, slowly biodegradable materials, or rapidly decom-
posable substances. While in suspension suspended solids
increase the turbidity of the water, reduce light penetration,
and impair the photosynthetic activity of aquatic plants.
Suspended solids in water interfere with many industrial pro-
cesses and cause foaming in boilers and incrustations on equip-
ment exposed to such water, especially as the temperature rises.
They are undesirable in process water used in the manufacture of
steel, in the textile industry, in laundries, in dyeing, and in
cooling systems.
Solids in suspension are aesthetically displeasing. When they
settle to form sludge deposits on the stream or lake bed, they
are often damaging to the life in the water. Solids, when trans-
formed to sludge deposit, may do a variety of damaging things,
including blanketing the stream or lake bed and thereby destroy-
ing the living spaces for those benthic organisms that would
otherwise occupy the habitat. When of an organic nature, solids
use a portion or all of the dissolved oxygen available in the
area. Organic materials also serve as a food source for
sludgeworms and associated organisms.
Disregarding any toxic effect attributable to substances leached
out by water, suspended solids may kill fish and shellfish by
causing abrasive injuries and by clogging the gills and respira-
tory passages of various aquatic fauna. Indirectly, suspended
solids are inimical to aquatic life because they screen out
light, and they promote and maintain the development of noxious
conditions through oxygen depletion. This results in the killing
of fish and fish food organisms. Suspended solids also reduce
the recreational value of the water.
Total suspended solids is a traditional pollutant which is com-
patible with a well-run POTW. This pollutant with the exception
of those components which are described elsewhere in this sec-
tion, e.g., heavy metal components, does not interfere with the
operation of a POTW. However, since a considerable portion of
the innocuous TSS may be inseparably bound to the constituents
which do interfere with POTW operation, or produce unusable
sludge, or subsequently dissolve to produce unacceptable POTW
effluent, TSS may be considered a toxic waste.
503
-------
POLLUTANT SELECTION FOR CORE WASTE STREAMS
The pollutant selection procedure was performed for the following
core groups of waste streams to select those toxic pollutants
that would be considered for establishing regulations for these
core wastewater stream groups:
Rolling with Neat Oils Core Waste Streams
Rolling with Emulsions Gore Waste Streams
Extrusion Core Waste Streams
Forging Core Waste Streams
Drawing with Neat Oils Core Waste Streams
Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps Core Waste Streams
Rolling with Neat Oils Core Waste Streams
The following waste streams will receive a pollutant discharge
allocation in the core of the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory:
Roll Grinding Spent Emulsion
Annealing Furnace Atmosphere Scrubber Liquor
Sawing Spent Lubricant
Miscellaneous Nondescript Wastewater Sources
The annealing furnace atmosphere scrubber liquor waste stream had
no toxic pollutants detected above the level considered achiev-
able by specific available treatment methods. No specific
pollutant data were considered for the miscellaneous nondescript
wastewater sources. The Agency did not sample the roll grinding
spent emulsion and sawing spent lubricant. However, the charac-
teristics of these wastes are determined to be the same as the
rolling spent emulsion. All three processes, rolling, roll
grinding and sawing, require a lubricant to prevent excess wear
on the metal against metal surfaces and to aid by cooling the
surfaces. Since the properties of the lubricants required are
similar between these three processes, the formulations for each
ought to be similar, therefore, the characteristics o£ one are
transferable to another.
Pollutants Never Detected. The toxic pollutants listed below
were not detected in any samples from these wastewater streams;
therefore, they were not selected for consideration in
establishing regulations for these wastewater streams.
3. acrylonitrile
5. benzidine
6. carbon tetrachloride
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
504
-------
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. DELETED
18. bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
24. 2-chlorophenol
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
31. 2,4-dichlorophenol
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropylene
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
45. methyl chloride
46. methyl bromide
47. bromoform
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. DELETED
50. DELETED
51. chlorodibromomethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54, isophorone
56. nitrobenzene
57, 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61, N-nitrosodimethylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
7 5. benzo(k)fluoranthene
79. benzo(ghi)perylene
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
505
-------
88. vinyl chloride
89. aldrtn
90. dieldrin
94. 4,4'-DDD
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
104. gamma-BHC
105. delta-BHC
113. toxaphene
116. asbestos
129. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Pollutants Never Found Above Their Analytical Quantification
Level.The toxic pollutants listed below were never found above
their analytical quantification level in any samples from these
wastewater streams; therefore, they were not selected for consid-
eration in establishing regulations for these wastewater streams.
11. 1jl,1-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
64. pentachlorophenol
72. benzo(a)anthracene
92. 4,4-DDT
114. antimony
117. beryllium
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
Pollutants Detected Below Levels Achievable by Treatment. The
toxic pollutants below were found above their analytical quanti-
fication level only at & concentration below the concentration
considered achievable by specific available treatment methods;
therefore, they were not selected for consideration in establish-
ing regulations for these wastewater streams. The pollutants are
individually discussed following the list.
2. acrolein
4. benzene
7. chlorobenzene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
23. chloroform
44. methylene chloride
115. arsenic
118. cadmium
123. mercury
506
-------
Acrolein was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 2 of 8 samples; however, it was not found above the level
considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.100 mg/1).
Benzene was detected above its analytical quantification level in
1 of 6 samples; however, it was not found above the level consid-
ered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.05 mg/1).
Chlorobenzene was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 8 samples; however, it was not found above the
level considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.025
mg/1).
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol was detected above its analytical quantifi-
cation level in 1 of 9 samples; however, it was not found above
the level considered achievable by specific treatment methods
(0.025 mg/1).
Chloroform was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 2 of 8 samples; however, it was not found above the level
considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.1 mg/1).
Methylene chloride was found above its analytical quantification
level in 5 of & samples, with values ranging from 0.360 to 1.300
mg/1. This pollutant is not attributable to specific materials
or processes associated with rolling with neat oils; however, it
is a common solvent used in analytical laboratories, and is not
expected to be present in raw wastewaters at concentrations above
the level considered achievable by specific available treatment
methods (0.100 mg/1).
Arsenic was detected above its analytical quantification level in
4 of 9 samples; however, it was not found above the level
considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.34 mg/1).
Cadmium was detected above its analytical quantification level in
5 of 9 samples; however, it was only found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.049 mg/1) in
2 of 9 samples and in 2 of 5 sources. Both of these sources were
at a single plant.
Mercury was detected above its analytical quantification level in
3 of 9 samples; however, it was not found above the level
considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.036 mg/1).
Pollutants Detected in a Small Number of Sources. The toxic
pollutants listed below were found above their analytical
quantification level at only a small number of sources within the
category and are uniquely related to only those sources; there-
fore, they were not selected for consideration in establishing
507
-------
regulations for these wastewater streams. The pollutants are
Individually discussed following the list.
30. 1,2-trans_-dichloroethylene
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
76. chrysene
77. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (a)
81. phenanthrene (a)
85. tetrachloroethylene
87. trichloroethylene
91. chlordane
93. 4,4'-DDE
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
102. alpha-BHC
103, beta-BHC
124. nickel
(a) Reported together
1,2-trans-Pichloroethylene was detected above its analytical
quantification level in 1 of 8 samples and in 1 of 4 sources.
Butyl benzyl phthalate was detected above its analytical
quantification level in 1 of 9 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Dimethyl phthalate was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 1 of 9 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Chrysene was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 9 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Acenaphthylene was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 9 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Anthracene and phenanthrene are not cleanly separated by the
analytical protocol employed in this study; thus, they are
reported together. The sum of these pollutants was reported at
values greater than their analytical quantification level in 2 of
9 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Tetrachloroethylene was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 5 of 8 samples; however, it was only found above
the level considered achievable by specific treatment methods
(0.05 mg/1) in 3 of 8 samples and in 1 of 4 sources.
Trichloroethylene was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 1 of 8 samples and in 1 of 4 sources.
508
-------
Chlordane was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
4,4'-DDE was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1' of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Alpha-endosulfan was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Beta-endosulfan was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Alpha-BHC was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Beta-BHC was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Nickel was detected above its analytical quantification level in
6 of 9 samples; however, it was only found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.22 mg/1) in 1
of 9 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Pollutants Selected for Consideration in Establishing Regulations
for the Rolling with Neat Oils Core Waste Streams. The toxic
pollutants listed below are those not eliminated from considera-
tion for any of the reasons listed above; therefore, each was
selected for consideration in establishing regulations for these
wastewater streams. The pollutants are individually discussed
following the list.
1. acenaphthene
38. ethylbenzene
39. fluoranthene
55. naphthalene
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
65. phenol
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
80. fluorene
84. pyrene
86. toluene
97. endosulfan sulfate
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
509
-------
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
119.
120.
121.
122.
128.
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
chromium
copper
cyanide
lead
zinc
(a)
(a)
(a)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(a), (b) Reported together
Acenaphthene was detected above its analytical quantification
level and above the level considered achievable by specific
treatment methods (0.010 mg/1) in 2 of 9 samples and in 2 of 6
sources.
Ethylbenzene was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 5 of 8 samples and above the level considered achievable
by specific treatment methods (0.050 mg/1) in 2 of 8 samples and
in 2 of 4 sources.
Fluoranthene was detected above its analytical quantification
level and above the level considered achievable by specific
treatment methods (0.010 mg/1) in 3 of 9 samples and in 2 of 6
sources.
Naphthalene was detected above its analytical quantification
level and above the level considered achievable by specific
treatment methods (0.050 mg/1) in 2 of 9 samples and in 2 of 6
sources.
N-nitrosodiphenylamine was detected above its analytical
quantification level in 3 of 9 samples and in 2 of 6 sources.
Phenol was detected above its analytical quantification level and
above the level considered achievable by specific treatment
methods (0.050 mg/1) in 3 of 10 samples and in 3 of 6 sources.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was found above its analytical
quantification level in 5 of 9 samples. The maximum concentra-
tion observed was 2.900 mg/1.
Di-n-butyl phthalate was found above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 4 of 9 samples, ranging from 0.330 to 19.000 mg/1.
510
-------
Diethyl phthalate was found above its analytical quantification
level in 4 of 9 samples. Values ranged from 0.220 to 3.100 mg/1.
Fluorene was detected above its analytical quantification level
and above the level considered achievable by specific treatment
methods (0.010 mg/1) in 5 of 9 samples and in 4 of 6 sources.
Pyrene was detected above its analytical quantification level and
above the level considered achievable by specific treatment
methods (0.010 mg/1) in 4 of 9 samples and in 3 of 6 sources.
Toluene was detected above its analytical quantification level in
5 of 8 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.050 mg/1) in 3 of 8 samples and in
2 of 4 sources.
Endosulfan sulfate was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 2 of 7 samples and in 2 of 5 sources.
Endrin was detected above its analytical quantification level in
2 of 7 samples and in 2 of 5 sources.
Endrin aldehyde was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 2 of 7 samples and in 2 of 5 sources.
The seven organic toxic pollutant PCB's (polychlorinated
biphenyls) are not cleanly separated by the analytical protocol
employed in this study; thus, they are reported in two groups.
Each of the two PCS groups was reported present above its
analytical quantification level in 3 of 7 samples and in 3 of 5
sources at one plant.
Chromium was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 8 of 9 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.007 mg/1) in 3 of 9 samples and in
3 of 5 sources.
Copper was detected above its analytical quantification level in
8 of 9 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.39 mg/1) in 5 of 9 samples and in 4
of 5 sources.
Cyanide was detected above its analytical quantification level in
8 of 10 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.047 mg/1) in 6 of 10 samples and in
3 of 6 sources.
Lead was detected above its analytical quantification level in 8
of 9 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.08 mg/1) in 6 of 9 samples and in 4
of 5 sources.
511
-------
Zinc was detected above its analytical quantification level in 8
of 9 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.23 mg/1) in 6 of 9 samples and in 4
of 5 sources.
Rolling with Emulsions Core Waste Streams
The following waste streams will receive a pollutant discharge
allocation in the core of the Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory:
Rolling with Emulsions Spent Emulsions
Roll Grinding Spent Emulsions
Sawing Spent Lubricants
Miscellaneous Nondescript Wastewater Sources
No specific pollutant data were considered for the miscellaneous
nondescript wastewater sources. Due to a lack of data, the
rolling with emulsions spent emulsions, the roll grinding spent
emulsion, and the sawing spent lubricant are considered to be
similar. The same pollutant selection is considered equally
applicable to both of these waste streams. As discussed previ-
ously, the Agency did not sample the roll grinding spent emulsion
and sawing spent lubricant. However, the characteristics of
these wastes are determined to be the same as the rolling spent
emulsion, therefore, the characteristics of rolling spent emul-
sions are transferable to the roll grinding spent emulsion and
the sawing spent emulsion.
Pollutants Never Detected. The toxic pollutants listed below
were not detected in any samples from these wastewater streams;
therefore, they were not selected for consideration in estab-
lishing regulations for these wastewater streams.
3. acrylonitrile
5. benzidine
6. carbon tetrachloride
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. DELETED
18. bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
24. 2-chlorophenol
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
512
-------
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidtne
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
31. 2,4-dichlorophenol
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropylene
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2-diphenylhydraztne
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
45. methyl chloride
46. methyl bromide
47. bromoform
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. DELETED
50. DELETED
51. chlorodibromomethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. isophorone
56. nitrobenzene
57. 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
75. benzo(k)fluoranthene
79. benzo(ghi)perylene
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
88. vinyl chloride
89. aldrin
90. dieldrin
94. 4,4'-ODD
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
104. gamma-BHC
105. delta-BHC
113. toxaphene
116. asbestos
129. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
513
-------
Pollutants Never Found Above Their Analytical Quantification
Level.The toxic pollutants listed below were never found above
their analytical quantification level in any samples from these
wastewater streams; therefore, they were not selected for consid-
eration in establishing regulations for these wastewater streams.
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
64. pentachlorophenol
72. benzo(a)anthracene
92. 4,4-DDT
114. antimony
117. beryllium
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
Pollutants Detected Below Levels Achievable by Treatment. The
toxic pollutants below were found above their analytical quanti-
fication level only at a concentration below the concentration
considered achievable by specific available treatment methods;
therefore, they were not selected for consideration in establish-
ing regulations for these wastewater streams. The pollutants are
individually discussed following the list.
2. acrolein
4. benzene
7. chlorobenzene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
23. chloroform
44. methylene chloride
115. arsenic
118. cadmium
123. mercury
Acrolein was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 2 of 8 samples; however, it was not found above the level
considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.100 mg/1).
Benzene was detected above its analytical quantification level in
1 of 6 samples; however, it was not found above the level
considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.05 mg/1).
Chlorobenzene was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 8 samples; however, it was not found above the
level considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.025
mg/1).
514
-------
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol was detected above its analytical quantifi-
cation level in 1 of 9 samples; however, it was not found above
the level considered achievable by specific treatment methods
(0.025 mg/1).
i
Chloroform was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 2 of 8 samples; however, it was not found above the level
considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.1 mg/1).
Methylene chloride was found above its analytical quantification
level in 5 of 8 samples, with values ranging from 0.360 to 1.300
mg/1. This pollutant is not attributable to specific materials
or processes associated with rolling with emulsions; however, it
is a common solvent used in analytical laboratories, and is not
expected to be present in raw wastewaters at concentrations above
the level considered achievable by specific available treatment
methods (0.100 mg/1).
Arsenic was detected above its analytical quantification level in
4 of 9 samples; however, it was not found above the level
considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.34 mg/1).
Cadmium was not detected above its analytical quantification
level in 5 of 9 samples; however, it was only found above the
level considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.049
mg/1) in 2 of 9 samples and in 2 of 5 sources. Both of these
sources were at a single plant.
Mercury was detected above its analytical quantification level in
3 of 9 samples; however, it was not found above the level
considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.036 mg/1).
Pollutants Detected in a Small Number of Sources. The toxic
pollutants listed below were found above their analytical
quantification level at only a small number of sources within the
category and are uniquely related to only those sources; there-
fore, they were not selected for consideration in establishing
regulations for these wastewater streams. The pollutants are
individually discussed following the list.
30- 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
76. chrysene
7 7. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (a)
81. phenanthrene (a)
85. tetrachloroethylene
87. trichloroethylene
91. chlordane
515
-------
93. 4,4'-DDE
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
124. nickel
(a) Reported together
1,2-trans-Dlchloroethylene was detected above its analytical
quantification level in 1 of 8 samples and in 1 of 4 sources.
Butyl benzyl phthalate was detected above its analytical
quantification level in 1 of 9 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Dimethyl phthalate was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 1 of 9 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Chrysene was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 9 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Acenaphthylene was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 9 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Anthracene and phenanthrene are not cleanly separated by the
analytical protocol employed in this study; thus, they are
reported together. The sum of these pollutants was reported at
values greater than their analytical quantification level in 2 of
9 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Tetrachloroethylene was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 5 of 8 samples; however, it was only found above
the level considered achievable by specific treatment methods
(0.05 mg/1) in 3 of 8 samples and in 1 of 4 sources.
Trichloroethylene was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 1 of 8 samples and in 1 of 4 sources.
Chlordane was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
4,4'-DDE was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Alpha-endosulfan was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Beta-endosulfan was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
516
-------
Alpha-BHC was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Beta-BHC was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Nickel was detected above its analytical quantification level in
6 of 9 samples; however, it was only found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.22 mg/1) in 1
of 9 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Pollutants Selected for Consideration in Establishing Regulations
for the Rolling with Emulsions Core Waste Streams. The toxic
pollutants listed below are those not eliminated from considera-
tion for any of the reasons listed above; therefore, each was
selected for consideration in establishing regulations for these
wastewater streams. The pollutants are individually discussed
following the list.
1.
38.
39.
55.
62.
65.
66.
68.
70.
80.
84.
86.
97.
98.
99.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
119.
120.
121.
122.
128.
acenaphthene
ethylbenzene
fluoranthene
naphthalene
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
phenol
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
fluorene
pyrene
toluene
endosulfan sulfate
endrin
endrin aldehyde
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
chromium
copper
cyanide
lead
zinc
(a)
(a)
(a)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(a), (b) Reported together
517
-------
Acenaphthene was detected above its analytical quantification
level and above the level considered achievable by specific
treatment methods (0.010 mg/1) in 2 of 9 samples and in 2 of 6
sources.
Ethylbenzene was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 5 of 8 samples and above the level considered achievable
by specific treatment methods (0.050 mg/1) in 2 of 8 samples and
in 2 of 4 sources.
Fluoranthene was detected above its analytical quantification
level and above the level considered achievable by specific
treatment methods (0.010 mg/1) in 3 of 9 samples and in 2 of 6
sources.
Naphthalene was detected above its analytical quantification
level and above the level considered achievable by specific
treatment methods (0.050 mg/1) in 2 of 9 samples and in 2 of 6
sources.
N-nitrosodiphenylamine was detected above its analytical quanti-
fication level in 3 of 9 samples and in 2 of 6 sources.
Phenol was detected above its analytical quantification level and
above the level considered achievable by specific treatment
methods (0.050 mg/1) in 3 of 10 samples and in 3 of 6 sources.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was found above its analytical
quantification level in 5 of 9 samples. The maximum concentra-
tion observed was 2.900 mg/1.
Di-n-butyl phthalate was found above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 4 of 9 samples, ranging from 0.330 to 19.000 mg/1.
Diethyl phthalate was found above its analytical quantification
level in 4 of 9 samples. Values ranged from 0.220 to 3.100 mg/1.
Fluorene was detected above its analytical quantification level
and above the level considered achievable by specific treatment
methods (0.010 mg/1) in 5 of 9 samples and in 4 of 6 sources.
Pyrene was detected above its analytical quantification level and
above the level considered achievable by specific treatment
methods (0.010 mg/1) in 4 of 9 samples and in 3 of 6 sources.
Toluene was detected above its analytical quantification level in
5 of 8 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.050 mg/1) in 3 of 8 samples and in
2 of 4 sources.
518
-------
Endosulfan sulfate was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 2 of 7 samples and in 2 of 5 sources.
Endrin was detected above its analytical quantification level in
2 of 7 samples and in 2 of 5 sources.
Endrin aldehyde was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 2 of 7 samples and in 2 of 5 sources.
The seven organic toxic pollutant PCB's (polychlorinated
biphenyls) are not cleanly separated by the analytical protocol
employed in this study; thus, they are reported in two groups,
Each of the two PCB groups was reported present above its
analytical quantification level in 3 of 7 samples and in 3 of 5
sources at one plant.
Chromium was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 8 of 9 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.007 mg/1) in 3 of 9 samples and in
3 of 5 sources.
Copper was detected above its analytical quantification level in
8 of 9 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.39 mg/1) in 5 of 9 samples and in 4
of 5 sources.
Cyanide was detected above its analytical quantification level in
8 of 10 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.047 mg/1) in 6 of 10 samples and in
3 of 6 sources.
Lead was detected above its analytical quantification level in 8
of 9 samples and above the level considered achievable by spe-
cific treatment methods (0.08 mg/1) in 6 of 9 samples and in 4 of
5 sources.
Zinc was detected above its analytical quantification level in 8
of 9 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.23 mg/1) in 6 of 9 samples and in 4
of 5 sources.
Extrusion Core Waste Streams
The following waste streams will receive a pollutant discharge
allocation in the core of the Extrusion Subcategory:
Extrusion Die Cleaning Bath
Extrusion Die Cleaning Rinse
Extrusion Die Cleaning or Press Scrubber Liquor
Sawing Spent Lubricant
Miscellaneous Nondescript Wastewater Sources
519
-------
No specific pollutant data were considered for the miscellaneous
nondescript wastewater sources. For the extrusion die cleaning
or press scrubber liquor, no toxic metals were detected above
their analytical quantification level and above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific available treatment methods. Due
to a lack of data, the toxic organics in the extrusion die clean-
ing or press scrubber liquor and the cleaning or etching scrubber
liquor are considered to be similar. The same pollutant selec-
tion is considered equally applicable to both of these waste
streams. As will be discussed in the section on pollutant selec-
tion for ancillary waste streams, no toxic organics were selected
for consideration in establishing regulations for the cleaning or
etching scrubber liquor wastewater stream. Due to a lack of
data, the extrusion die cleaning bath and the cleaning or etching
bath are considered to be similar. The same pollutant selection
is considered equally applicable to both of these waste streams.
As will be discussed in the section on pollutant selection for
ancillary waste streams, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide,
lead, nickel, and zinc were selected for consideration in estab-
lishing regulations for the cleaning or etching bath wastewater
stream. As discussed previously, the Agency did not sample the
sawing spent emulsion. The characteristics of this waste are
determined to be the same as the rolling spent emulsion, there-
fore, the characteristics of rolling spent emulsions are trans-
ferable to the sawing spent emulsion,
Pollutants Never Detected. The toxic pollutants listed below
were not detected in any samples from these wastewater streams;
therefore, they were not selected for consideration in estab-
lishing regulations for these wastewater streams,
3. acrylonitrile
5, benzidine
6. carbon tetrachloride
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. DELETED
18. bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
24. 2-chlorophenol
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
520
-------
29. 1,1-dichloroethylerie
31. 2,4-dichlorophenol
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropylene
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
35. *2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
45. methyl chloride
46. methyl bromide
47. bromoform
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. DELETED
50. DELETED
51. chlorodibromomethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. isophorone
56. nitrobenzene
57. 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
7 3. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
75. benzo(k)fluoranthene
79. benzo(ghi)perylene
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
88. vinyl chloride
89. aldrin
90. dieldrin
94. 4,4!-DDD
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
104. gamma-BHC
105. delta-BHC
113. toxaphene
116. asbestos
129. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
521
-------
Pollutants Never Found Above Their Analytical Quantification
Level.The toxic pollutants listed below were never found above
their analytical quantification level in any samples from these
wastewater streams; therefore, they were not selected for consid-
eration in establishing regulations for these wastewater streams.
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
64. pentachlorophenol
72. benzo(a)anthracene
92. 4,4-DDT
117. beryllium
126. silver
Pollutants Detected Below Levels Achievable by Treatment. The
toxic pollutants below were found above their analytical quanti-
fication level only at a concentration below the concentration
considered achievable by specific available treatment methods;
therefore, they were not selected for consideration in establish-
ing regulations for these wastewater streams. The pollutants are
individually discussed following the list.
2. acrolein
4. benzene
7. chlorobenzene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
23. chloroform
44. methylene chloride
114. antimony
115. arsenic
118. cadmium
123. mercury
Acrolein was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 2 of 8 samples; however, it was not found above the level
considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.100 mg/1).
Benzene was detected above its analytical quantification level in
2 of 8 samples; however, it was not found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.05 mg/1).
Chlorobenzene was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 8 samples; however, it was not found above the
level considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.025
mg/1).
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol was detected above its analytical quantifi-
cation level in 1 of 9 samples; however, it was not found above
the level considered achievable by specific treatment methods
(0.025 mg/1).
522
-------
Chloroform was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 2 of 8 samples; however, it was not found above the level
considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.1 mg/1).
Methylene chloride was found above its analytical quantification
level in 7 of 10 samples, with values ranging from 0.021 to 1.300
mg/1. This pollutant is not attributable to specific materials
or processes associated with extrusion; however, it is a common
solvent used in analytical laboratories, and is not expected to
be present in raw wastewaters at concentrations above the level
considered achievable by specific available treatment methods
(0.100 mg/1).
Antimony was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 3 of 5 samples; however, it was not found above the level
considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.034 mg/1).
Arsenic was detected above its analytical quantification level in
7 of 14 samples; however, it was not found above the level
considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.34 mg/1).
Cadmium was detected above its analytical quantification level in
8 of 14 samples; however, it was only found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.049 mg/1) in
2 of 14 samples and in 2 of 8 sources. Both of these sources
were at a single plant.
Mercury was detected above its analytical quantification level in
4 of 14 samples; however, it was not found above the level
considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.036 mg/1).
Pollutants Detected in a Small Number of Sources. The toxic
pollutants listed below were found above their analytical
quantification level at only a small number of sources within the
category and are uniquely related to only those sources; there-
fore, they were not selected for consideration in establishing
regulations for these wastewater streams. The pollutants are
individually discussed following the list.
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
76. chrysene
7 7. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (a)
81. phenanthrene (a)
85. tetrachloroethylene
87. trichloroethylene
91. chlordane
93. 4,4'-DDE
523
-------
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
124. nickel
125. selenium
127. thallium
(a) Reported together
1)2-trans-Dichloroethylene was detected above its analytical
quant ification level in 1 of 8 samples and in 1 of 4 sources.
Butyl benzyl phthalate was detected above its analytical
quantification level in 1 of 9 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Dimethyl phthalate was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 1 of 9 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Chrysene was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 9 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Acenaphthylene was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 9 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Anthracene and phenanthrene are not cleanly separated by the
analytical protocol employed in this study; thus, they are
reported together. The sum of these pollutants was reported at
values greater than their analytical quantification level in 2 of
9 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Tetrachloroethylene was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 5 of 8 samples; however, it was only found above
the level considered achievable by specific treatment methods
(0.05 mg/1) in 3 of 8 samples and in 1 of 4 sources.
Trichloroethylene was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 1 of 8 samples and in 1 of 4 sources.
Chlordane was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
4,4'-DDE was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Alpha-endosulfan was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Beta-endosulfan was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
524
-------
Alpha-BHC was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Beta-BHC was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Nickel was detected above its analytical quantification level in
9 of 14 samples; however, it was only found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.22 mg/1) in 1
of 14 samples and in 1 of 8 sources.
Selenium was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 5 samples; however, it was only found above the level
considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.007 mg/1)
in 1 of 5 samples and in 1 of 3 sources.
Thallium was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 2 of 5 samples; however, it was only found above the level
considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.34 mg/1)
in 1 of 5 samples and in 1 of 3 sources.
Pollutants Selected for Consideration in Establishing Regulations
for the Extrusion Core Waste Streams. The toxic pollutants
listed below are those not eliminated from consideration for any
of the reasons listed above; therefore, each was selected for
consideration in establishing regulations for these wastewater
streams. The pollutants are individually discussed following the
list.
1. acenaphthene
38. ethylbenzene
39. fluoranthene
55. naphthalene
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
65. phenol
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
80. fluorene
84. pyrene
86. toluene
97. endosulfan sulfate
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
106. PCB-1242 (a)
107. PCB-1254 (a)
108. PCB-1221 (a)
109. PCB-1232 (b)
110. PCB-1248 (b)
111. PCB-1260 (b)
525
-------
112.
119.
120.
121.
122.
128.
PCB-1016
chromium
copper
cyanide
lead
zinc
(b)
(a), (b) Reported together
Acenaphthene was detected above its analytical quantification
level and above the level considered achievable by specific
treatment methods (0.010 mg/1) in 2 of 9 samples and in 2 of 6
sources.
Ethylbenzene was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 5 of 8 samples and above the level considered achievable
by specific treatment methods (0.050 mg/1) in 2 of 8 samples and
in 2 of 4 sources.
Fluoranthene was detected above its analytical quantification
level and above the level considered achievable by specific
treatment methods (0.010 mg/1) in 3 of 9 samples and in 2 of 6
sources.
Naphthalene was detected above its analytical quantification
level and above the level considered achievable by specific
treatment methods (0.050 mg/1) in 2 of 9 samples and in 2 of 6
sources.
N-nitrosodiphenylamine was detected above its analytical
quantification level in 3 of 9 samples and in 2 of 6 sources.
Phenol was detected above its analytical quantification level and
above the level considered achievable by specific treatment
methods (0.050 mg/1) in 3 of 10 samples and in 3 of 6 sources.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was found above its analytical
quantification level in 7 of 11 samples. The maximum concentra-
tion observed was 2.900 mg/1.
Di-n-butyl phthalate was found above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 4 of 9 samples, ranging from 0.330 to 19.000 mg/1.
Diethyl phthalate was found above its analytical quantification
level in 4 of 9 samples. Values ranged from 0.220 to 3.100 mg/1.
Fluorene was detected above its analytical quantification level
and above the level considered achievable by specific treatment
methods (0.010 mg/1) in 5 of 9 samples and in 4 of 6 sources.
526
-------
Pyrene was detected above its analytical quantification level and
above the level considered achievable by specific treatment
methods (0.010 mg/1) in 4 of 9 samples and in 3 of 6 sources.
Toluene was detected above its analytical quantification level in
6 of 10 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.050 mg/1) in 3 of 10 samples and in
2 of 6 sources.
Endosulfan sulfate was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 2 of 7 samples and in 2 of 5 sources.
Endrin was detected above its analytical quantification level in
2 of 7 samples and in 2 of 5 sources.
Endrin aldehyde was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 2 of 7 samples and in 2 of 5 sources.
The seven organic toxic pollutant PCB's (polychlorinated
biphenyls) are not cleanly separated by the analytical protocol
employed in this study; thus, they are reported in two groups.
Each of the two PCB groups was reported present above its
analytical quantification level in 3 of 7 samples and in 3 of 5
sources at one plant.
Chromium was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 13 of 14 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.007 mg/1) in 5 of 14 samples and in
5 of 8 sources.
Copper was detected above its analytical quantification level in
13 of 14 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.39 mg/1) in 7 of 14 samples and in
5 of 8 sources.
Cyanide was detected above its analytical quantification level in
13 of 15 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.047 mg/1) in 6 of 15 samples and in
3 of 9 sources.
Lead was detected above its analytical quantification level in 13
of 14 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.08 mg/1) in 11 of 14 samples and in
7 of 8 sources.
Zinc was detected above its analytical quantification level in 13
of 14 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.23 mg/1) in 9 of 14 samples and in
5 of 8 sources.
527
-------
Forging Core Waste Streams
The following waste streams will receive a pollutant discharge
allocation in the core of the Forging Subcategory:
Sawing Spent Lubricant
Miscellaneous Nondescript Wastewater Sources
No specific pollutant data were considered for the miscellaneous
nondescript wastewater sources. As discussed previously, the
Agency did not sample the sawing spent emulsion. The character-
istics of this waste are determined to be the same as the rolling
spent emulsion, therefore, the characteristics of rolling spent
emulsions are transferable to the sawing spent emulsion.
Pollutants Never Detected. The toxic pollutants listed below
were not detected in any samples from these wastewater streams;
therefore, they were not selected for consideration in estab-
lishing regulations for these wastewater streams.
3. acrylonitrile
5. benzidine
6. carbon tetrachloride
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. DELETED
18. bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
24. 2-chlorophenol
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3!-dichlorobenz idine
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
31. 2,4-dichlorophenol
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropylene
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
528
-------
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
45. methyl chloride
46. methyl bromide
47. bromoform
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. DELETED
50. DELETED
51. chlorodibromomethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. isophorone
56. nitrobenzene
57. 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
75. benzo(k)fluoranthene
79. benzo(ghi)perylene
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
89. vinyl chloride
90. aldrin
91. dieldrin
95. 4,4'-DDD
101. heptachlor
102. heptachlor epoxide
105. gamma-BHC
106. delta-BHC
114. toxaphene
117. asbestos
129. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenoz-p-dioxin
Pollutants Never Found Above Their Analytical Quantification
Level.The toxic pollutants listed below were never found above
their analytical quantification level in any samples from these
wastewater streams; therefore, they were not selected for consid-
eration in establishing regulations for these wastewater streams,
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
64. pentachlorophenol
72. benzo(a)anthracene
92. 4,4-DDT
114. antimony
529
-------
117.
125.
126.
127.
beryllium
selenium
silver
thallium
Pollutants Detected Below Levels Achievable by Treatment. The
toxic pollutants below were found above their analytical quanti-
fication level only at a concentration below the concentration
considered achievable by specific available treatment methods;
therefore, they were not selected for consideration in establish-
ing regulations for these wastewater streams. The pollutants are
individually discussed following the list.
2. acrolein
4. . benzene
7. chlorobenzene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
23. chloroform
44. methylene chloride
115. arsenic
118. cadmium
123. mercury
Acrolein was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 2 of 8 samples; however, it was not found above the level
considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.100 mg/1).
Benzene was detected above its analytical quantification level in
1 of 6 samples; however, it was not found above the level
considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.05 mg/1).
Chlorobenzene was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 8 samples; however, it was not found above the
level considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.025
mg/1).
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol was detected above its analytical
quantification level in 1 of 9 samples; however, it was not found
above the level considered achievable by specific treatment
methods (0.025 mg/1).
Chloroform was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 2 of 8 samples; however, it was not found above the level
considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.1 mg/1).
Methylene chloride was found above its analytical quantification
level in 5 of 8 samples, with values ranging from 0.360 to 1.300
mg/1. This pollutant is not attributable to specific materials
or processes associated with forging; however, it -is a common
solvent used in analytical laboratories, and is not expected to
530
-------
be present in raw wastewaters at concentrations above the level
considered achievable by specific available treatment methods
(0.100 mg/1).
Arsenic was detected above its analytical quantification level in
4 of 9 samples; however, it was not found above the level
considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.34 mg/1).
Cadmium was detected above its analytical quantification level in
5 of 9 samples; however, it was only found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.049 mg/1) in
2 of 9 samples and in 2 of 5 sources. Both of these sources were
at a single plant.
Mercury was detected above its analytical quantification level in
3 of 9 samples; however, it was not found above the level
considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.036 mg/1).
Pollutants Detected in a Small Number of Sources. The toxic
pollutants listed below were found above their analytical
quantification level at only a small number of sources within the
category and are uniquely related to only those sources; there-
fore, they were not selected for consideration in establishing
regulations for these wastewater streams. The pollutants are
individually discussed following the list.
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
76. chrysene
77. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (a)
81. phenanthrene (a)
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. trichloroethylene
91. chlordane
93. 4,4'-DDE
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
124. nickel
(a) Reported together
1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene was detected above its analytical
quantification level in 1 of 8 samples and in 1 of 4 sources.
531
-------
Butyl benzyl phthalate was detected above its analytical
quantification level in 1 of 9 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Dimethyl phthalate was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 1 of 9 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Chrysene was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 9 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Acenaphthylene was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 9 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Anthracene and phenanthrene are not cleanly separated by the
analytical protocol employed in this study; thus, they are
reported together. The sum of these pollutants was reported at
values greater than their analytical quantification level in 2 of
9 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Tetrachloroethylene was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 5 of 8 samples; however, it was only found above
the level considered achievable by specific treatment methods
(0.05 mg/1) in 3 of 8 samples and in 1 of 4 sources.
Trichloroethylene was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 1 of 8 samples and in 1 of 4 sources.
Chlordane was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
4,4'-DDE was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Alpha-endosulfan was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Beta-endosulfan was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Alpha-BHC was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Beta-BHC was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Nickel was detected above its analytical quantification level in
6 of 9 samples; however, it was only found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.22 mg/1) in 1
of 9 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
532
-------
Pollutants Selected for Consideration In Establishing Regulations
for the Forging Core Waste Streams. The toxic pollutants listed
below are those not eliminated from consideration for any of the
reasons listed above; therefore, each was selected for
consideration in establishing regulations for these wastewater
streams. The pollutants are individually discussed following the
list..
1.
38.
39.
55.
62.
65.
66.
68.
70.
80.
84.
86.
97.
98.
99.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
119.
120.
121.
122.
128.
acenaphthene
ethylbenzene
fluoranthene
naphthalene
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
phenol
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
fluorene
pyrene
toluene
endosulfan sulfate
endrin
endrin aldehyde
**. A «. -i A / n /
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
chromium
copper
cyanide
lead
zinc
(a)
(a)
(a)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(a), (b) Reported together
Acenaphthene was detected above its analytical quantification
level and above the level considered achievable by specific
treatment methods (0.010 mg/1) in 2 of 9 samples and in 2 of 6
sources.
Ethylbenzene was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 5 of 8 samples and above the level considered achievable
by specific treatment methods (0.050 mg/1) in 2 of 8 samples and
in 2 of 4 sources.
Fluoranthene was detected above its analytical quantification
level and above the level considered achievable by specific
treatment methods (0.010 mg/1) in 3 of 9 samples and in 2 of 6
sources.
533
-------
Naphthalene was detected above its analytical quantification
level and above the level considered achievable by specific
treatment methods (0.050 mg/1) in 2 o£ 9 samples and in 2 of 6
sources.
N-nitrosodiphenylamine was detected above its analytical
quantification level in 3 of 9 samples and in 2 of 6 sources.
Phenol was detected above its analytical quantification level and
above the level considered achievable by specific treatment
methods (0.050 mg/1) in 3 of 10 samples and in 3 of 6 sources.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was found above its analytical
quantification level in 5 of 9 samples. The maximum concentra-
tion observed was 2.900 mg/1.
Di-n-butyl phthalate was found above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 4 of 9 samples, ranging from 0.330 to 19.000 mg/1.
Diethyl phthalate was found above its analytical quantification
level in 4 of 9 samples. Values ranged from 0.220 to 3.100 mg/1.
Fluorene was detected above its analytical quantification level
and above the level considered achievable by specific treatment
methods (0.010 mg/1) in 5 of 9 samples and in 4 of 6 sources.
Pyrene was detected above its analytical quantification level and
above the level considered achievable by specific treatment
methods (0.010 mg/1) in 4 of 9 samples and in 3 of 6 sources.
Toluene was detected above its analytical quantification level in
5 of 8 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.050 mg/l) in 3 of 8 samples and in
2 of 4 sources.
Endosulfan sulfate was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 2 of 7 samples and in 2 of 5 sources.
Endrin was detected above its analytical quantification level in
2 of 7 samples and in 2 of 5 sources.
Endrin aldehyde was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 2 of 7 samples and in 2 of 5 sources.
The seven organic toxic pollutant PCB's (polychlorinated
biphenyls) are not cleanly separated by the analytical protocol
employed in this study; thus, they are reported in two groups.
Each of the two PCB groups was reported present above its
analytical quantification level in 3 of 7 samples and in 3 of 5
sources at one plant.
534
-------
Chromium was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 8 of 9 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.007 mg/1) in 3 of 9 samples and in
3 of 5 sources.
Copper was detected above its analytical quantification level in
8 of 9 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.39 mg/1) in 5 of 9 samples and in 4
of 5 sources.
Cyanide was detected above its analytical quantification level in
8 of 10 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.047 mg/1) in 6 of 10 samples and in
3 of 6 sources.
Lead was detected above its analytical quantification level in 8
of 9 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.08 mg/1) in 6 of 9 samples and in 4
of 5 sources.
Zinc was detected above its analytical quantification level in 8
of 9 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.23 mg/1) in 6 of 9 samples and in 4
of 5 sources.
Drawing with Neat Oils Core Waste Streams
The following waste streams will receive a pollutant discharge
allocation in the core of the Drawing with Neat Oils Subcategory:
Sawing Spent Lubricants
Miscellaneous Nondescript Wastewater Sources
No specific pollutant data were considered for the miscellaneous
nondescript wastewater sources. As discussed previously, the
Agency did not sample the sawing spent emulsion. The character-
istics of this waste are determined to be the same as the rolling
spent emulsion, therefore, the characteristics of rolling spent
emulsions are transferable to the sawing spent emulsion.
Pollutants Never Detected. The toxic pollutants listed below
were not detected in any samples from these wastewater streams;
therefore, they were not selected for consideration in estab-
lishing regulations for these wastewater streams.
3. acrylonitrile
5. benzidine
6. carbon tetrachloride
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
535
-------
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. DELETED
18. bts(2-chloroethyl) ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
24. 2-chlorophenol
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
29. 1,1-dlchloroethylene
31. 2,4-dichlorophenol
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33, 1,3-dichloropropylene
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36, 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37, 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41, 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42, bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
43, bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
45. methyl chloride
46, methyl bromide
47. bromoform
48. dichlorobromomethane
49, DELETED
50. DELETED
51. chlorodibromomethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53, hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. isophorone
56. nitrobenzene
57. 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)£luoranthene
75. benzo(k)fluoranthene
79. benzo(ghi)perylene
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
536
-------
83. indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
88. vinyl chloride
89. aldrin
90. dieldrin
94. 4,4'-ODD
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
104. gamma-BHC
105. delta-BHC
113. toxaphene
116. asbestos
129. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Pollutants Never Found Above Their Analytical Quantification
Level. The toxic pollutants listed below were never found above
their analytical quantification level in any samples from these
wastewater streams; therefore, they were not selected for consid-
eration in establishing regulations for these wastewater streams.
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
64. pentachlorophenol
72. benzo(a)anthracene
92. 4,4-DDT
114. antimony
117. beryllium
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
Pollutants Detected Below Levels Achievable by Treatment. The
toxic pollutants below were found above their analytical quanti-
fication level only at a concentration below the concentration
considered achievable by specific available treatment methods;
therefore, they were not selected for consideration in establish-
ing regulations for these wastewater streams. The pollutants are
individually discussed following the list.
2. acrolein
4. benzene
7. chlorobenzene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
23. chloroform
44. methylene chloride
115. arsenic
118. cadmium
123. mercury
Acrolein was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 2 of 8 samples; however, it was not found above the level
considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.100 mg/1).
537
-------
Benzene was detected above its analytical quantification level in
1 of 6 samples; however, it was not found above the level
considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.05 mg/1).
Chlorobenzene was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 8 samples; however, it was not found above the
level considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.025
mg/1).
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol was detected above its analytical quantifi-
cation level in 1 of 9 samples; however, it was not found above
the level considered achievable by specific treatment methods
(0.025 mg/1).
Chloroform was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 2 of 8 samples; however, it was not found above the level
considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.1 mg/1).
Methylene chloride was found above its analytical quantification
level in 5 of 8 samples, with values ranging from 0.360 to 1.300
mg/1. This pollutant is not attributable to specific materials
or processes associated with drawing with neat oils; however, it
is a common solvent used in analytical laboratories, and is not
expected to be present in raw wastewaters at concentrations above
the level considered achievable by specific available treatment
methods (0.100 mg/1).
Arsenic was detected above its analytical quantification level in
4 of 9 samples; however, it was not found above the level
considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.34 mg/1).
Cadmium was detected above its analytical quantification level in
5 of 9 samples; however, it was only found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.049 mg/1) in
2 of 9 samples and in 2 of 5 sources. Both of these sources were
at a single plant.
Mercury was detected above its analytical quantification level in
3 of 9 samples; however, it was not found above the level
considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.036 mg/1).
Pollutants Detected In a Small Number of Sources. The toxic
pollutants listed below were found above their analytical
quantification level at only a small number of sources within the
category and are uniquely related to only those sources; there-
fore, they were not selected for consideration in establishing
regulations for these wastewater streams. The pollutants are
individually discussed following the list.
538
-------
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
76. chrysene
77. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (a)
81. phenanthrene (a)
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. trichloroethylene
91. chlordane
93. 4,4'-DDE
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
124. nickel
(a) Reported together
1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene was detected above its analytical
quantification level in 1 of 8 samples and in 1 of 4 sources.
Butyl benzyl phthalate was detected above its analytical
quantification level in 1 of 9 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Dimethyl phthalate was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 1 of 9 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Chrysene was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 9 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Acenaphthylene was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 9 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Anthracene and phenanthrene are not cleanly separated by the
analytical protocol employed in this study; thus, they are
reported together. The sum of these pollutants was reported at
values greater than their analytical quantification level in 2 of
9 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Tetrachloroethylene was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 5 of 8 samples; however, it was only found above
the level considered achievable by specific treatment methods
(0.05 mg/1) in 3 of 8 samples and in 1 of 4 sources.
Trichloroethylene was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 1 of 8 samples and in 1 of 4 sources.
Chlordane was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
539
-------
4,4'-DDE was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Alpha-endosulfan was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Beta-endosulfan was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Alpha-BHC was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Beta-BHC was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Nickel was detected above its analytical quantification level in
6 of 9 samples; however, it was only found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.22 mg/1) in 1
of 9 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Pollutants Selected for Consideration in Establishing Regulations
for the Drawing with Neat Oils Core Waste Streams.The toxic
pollutants listed below are those not eliminated from considera-
tion for any of the reasons listed above; therefore, each was
selected for consideration in establishing regulations for these
wastewater streams. The pollutants are individually discussed
following the list.
1. acenaphthene
38. ethylbenzene
39. fluoranthene
55. naphthalene
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
65. phenol
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
80. fluorene
84. pyrene
86. toluene
97. endosulfan sulfate
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
106. PCB-1242 (a)
107. PCB-1254 (a)
108. PCB-1221 (a)
109. PCB-1232 (b)
110. PCB-1248 (b)
111, PGB-1260 (b)
112. PCB-1016 (b)
540
-------
119.
120.
121.
122.
128.
chromium
copper
cyanide
lead
zinc
(a), (b) Reported together
Acenaphthene was detected above its analytical quantification
level and above the level considered achievable by specific
treatment methods (0.010 mg/1) in 2 of 9 samples and in 2 of 6
sources.
Ethylbenzene was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 5 of 8 samples and above the level considered achievable
by specific treatment methods (0.050 mg/1) in 2 of 8 samples and
in 2 of 4 sources.
Fluoranthene was detected above its analytical quantification
level and above the level considered achievable by specific
treatment methods (0.010 mg/1) in 3 of 9 samples and in 2 of 6
sources.
Naphthalene was detected above its analytical quantification
level and above the level considered achievable by specific
treatment methods (0.050 mg/1) in 2 of 9 samples and in 2 of 6
sources.
N-nitrosodiphenylamine was detected above its analytical
quantification level in 3 of 9 samples and in 2 of 6 sources.
Phenol was detected above its analytical quantification level and
above the level considered achievable by specific treatment
methods (0.050 mg/1) in 3 of 10 samples and in 3 of 6 sources.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was found above its analytical
quantification level in 5 of 9 samples. The maximum concentra-
tion observed was 2.900 mg/1.
Di-n-butyl phthalate was found above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 4 of 9 samples, ranging from 0.330 to 19.000 mg/1.
Diethyl phthalate was found above its analytical quantification
level in 4 of 9 samples. Values ranged from 0.220 to 3.100 mg/1.
Fluorene was detected above its analytical quantification level
and above the level considered achievable by specific treatment
methods (0.010 mg/1) in 5 of 9 samples and in 4 of 6 sources.
541
-------
Pyrene was detected above its analytical quantification level and
above the level considered achievable by specific treatment
methods (0,010 mg/1) in 4 of 9 samples and in 3 of 6 sources.
Toluene was detected above its analytical quantification level in
5 of 8 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.050 mg/1) in 3 of 8 samples and in
2 of 4 sources.
Endosulfan sulfate was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 2 of 7 samples and in 2 of 5 sources.
Endrin was detected above its analytical quantification level in
2 of 7 samples and in 2 of 5 sources.
Endrin aldehyde was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 2 of 7 samples and in 2 of 5 sources.
The seven organic toxic pollutant PCB's (polychlorinated
biphenyls) are not cleanly separated by the analytical protocol
employed in this study; thus, they are reported in two groups.
Each of the two PCB groups was reported present above its
analytical quantification level in 3 of 7 samples and in 3 of 5
sources at one plant.
Chromium was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 8 of 9 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.007 mg/1) in 3 of 9 samples and in
3 of 5 sources.
Copper was detected above its analytical quantification level in
8 of 9 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.39 mg/1) in 5 of 9 samples and in 4
of 5 sources.
Cyanide was detected above its analytical quantification level in
8 of 10 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.047 mg/1) in 6 of 10 samples and in
3 of 6 sources.
Lead was detected above its analytical quantification level in 8
of 9 samples and above the level considered achievable by spe-
cific treatment methods (0.08 mg/1) in 6 of 9 samples and in 4 of
5 sources.
Zinc was detected above its analytical quantification level in 8
of 9 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.23 mg/1) in 6 of 9 samples and in 4
of 5 sources.
542
-------
Drawing With Emulsions or Soaps Core Waste Streams
The following waste streams will receive a pollutant discharge
allocation in the core of the Drawing With Emulsions or Soaps
Subcateogry:
Drawing With Emulsions or Soaps Spent Lubricants
Sawing Spent Lubricants
Miscellaneous Non-Descript Wastewater Sources
No specific pollutant data were considered for the miscellaneous
non-descript wastewater sources. Drawing with emulsions or soaps
spent lubricants were only sampled at one facility; however, the
volatile organics and toxic metals were not analyzed in that
sample. As discussed previously, the Agency did not sample the
sawing spent emulsion. The characteristics of this waste are
determined to be the same as the rolling spent emulsion, there-
fore, the characteristics of rolling spent emulsions are trans-
ferable to the sawing spent emulsion. Due to a lack of data for
volatile organics and toxic metals in the drawing with emulsions
or soaps spent lubricants, the data used in the selection process
was for the rolling with emulsions spent emulsions and drawing
with emulsions or soaps spent lubricants wastewater streams
combined together.
Pollutants Never Detected. The toxic pollutants listed below
were not detected in any samples from these wastewater streams;
therefore, they were not selected for consideration in estab-
lishing regulations for these wastewater streams.
3. acrylonitrile
5. benzidine
6. carbon tetrachloride
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. DELETED
18. bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
29. 1 ,1-dichloroethylene
31. 2,4-dichlorophenol
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropylene
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
543
-------
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
45. methyl chloride
46. methyl bromide
47. bromoform
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. DELETED
50. DELETED
51. chlorodibromomethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
56. nitrobenzene
57. 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
75. benzo(k)fluoranthene
79. benzo(ghi)perylene
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
88. vinyl chloride
89. aldrtn
90. dieldrin
94. 4,4'-DDD
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
104. gamma-BHC
105. delta-BHC
113. toxaphene
116. asbestos
129. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenenzo-p-dioxin
Pollutants Never Found Above Their Analytical Quantification
Leve1.The toxic pollutantslisted below were never found above
their analytical quantification level in any samples from these
wastewater streams; therefore, they were not selected for consid
eration in establishing regulations for these wastewater streams
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
64. pentachlorophenol
72. benzo(a)anthracene
92. 4,4-DDT
114. antimony
544
-------
117.
125.
126.
127.
beryllium
selenium
silver
thallium
Pollutants Detected Below Levels Achievable by Treatment. The
toxic pollutants below were found above their analytical
quantification level only at a concentration below the con-
centratio considered achievable by specific available treatment
methods; therefore, they were not selected for consideration in
establishing regulations for these wastewater streams. The pol-
lutants are individually discussed following the list.
2. acrolein
4. benzene
7. chlorobenzene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
23. chloroform
44. methylene chloride
115. arsenic
118. cadmium
123. mercury
Acrolein was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 2 of 8 samples; however, it was not found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.100 mg/1).
Benzene was detected above its analytical quantification level in
1 of 6 samples; however, it was not found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.005 mg/1).
Chlorobenzene was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 8 samples; however, it was not found above the
level considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.025
mg/1).
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol was detected above its analytical quantifi-
cation level in 1 of 10 samples; however, it was not found above
the level considered achievable by specific treatment methods
(0.025 mg/1).
Chloroform was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 2 of 8 samples; however, it was not found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.1 mg/1).
Methylene chloride was found above its analytical quantification
level in 5 of 8 samples, with values ranging from 0.360 to 1.300
mg/1. This pollutant is not attributable to specific materials
or processes associated with continuous casting; however, it is a
545.
-------
common solvent used in analytical laboratories, and is not
expected to be present in raw wastewaters at concentrations above
the level considered achievable by specific available treatment
methods (0.100 mg/1).
Arsenic was detected above its analytical quantification level in
4 of 9 samples; however, it was not found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.34 mg/1).
Cadmium was detected above its analytical quantification level in
5 of 9 samples; however, it was only found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.049 mg/1) in
2 of 9 samples and in 2 of 5 sources. Both of these sources were
at a single plant.
Mercury was detected above its analytical quantification level in
3 of 9 samples; however, it was not found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.036 mg/1).
Pollutants Detected in a Small Number of Sources. The toxic pol-
lutants listed below were found above their analytical quantifi-
cation level at only a small number of sources within the cate-
gory and are uniquely related to only those sources; therefore,
they were not selected for consideration in establishing regula-
tions for these wastewater streams. The pollutants are individu-
ally discussed following the list.
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
24. 2-chlorophenol
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2-dlphenyl hydrazine
54. isophorone
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
76. chrysene
77. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (a)
81. phenanthrene (a)
85. tetrachloroethylene
87. trichloroethylene
91. chlordane
93. 4,4*-DDE
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
124. nickel
(a) Reported together
-------
p-Chloro-m-cresol was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 1 of 10 samples and in 1 of 7 sources.
2-Chlorophenol was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 10 samples and in 1 of 7 sources.
f
1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene was detected above its analytical
quantification level in 1 of 8 samples and in 1 of 4 sources.
2,4-Dinitrotoluene was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 1 of 10 samples and in 1 of 7 sources.
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine was detected above its analytical quanti-
fication level in 1 of 10 samples and in 1 of 7 sources.
Isosphorone was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 10 samples and in 1 of 7 sources.
Butyl benzyl phthalate was detected above its analytical quanti-
fication level in 1 of 10 samples and in 1 of 7 sources.
Di-n-octyl phthalate was detected above its analytical quantifi-
cation level in 1 of 10 samples and in 1 of 7 sources.
Dimethyl phthalate was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 1 of 10 samples and in 1 of 7 sources.
Chrysene was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 10 samples and in 1 of 7 sources.
Acenaphthylene was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 10 samples and in 1 of 7 sources.
Anthracene and phenanthrene are not cleanly separated by the ana-
lytical protocol employed in this study; thus, they are reported
together. The sum of these pollutants was reported at values
greater than their analytical quantification level in 2 of 10
samples and in 1 of 7 sources.
Tetrachloroethylene was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 5 of 8 samples; however, it was only found above
the level considered achievable by specific treatment methods
(0.05 mg/1) in 3 of 8 samples and in 1 of 4 sources.
Trichloroethylene was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 1 of 8 samples and in 1 of 4 sources.
Chlordane was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 8 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
e
-------
4,4'-DDE was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 8 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Alpha-endosulfan was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 8 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Beta-endosulfan was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 8 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Alpha-BHC was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 8 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Beta-BHC was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 8 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Nickel was detected above its analytical quantification level in
6 of 9 samples; however, it was only found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.22 mg/1) in 1
of 9 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Pollutants Selected for Consideration in Establishing Regulations
for the Drawing With Emulsions or Soaps Core Waste Streams.The
toxic pollutants listed below are those not eliminated from con-
sideration for any of the reasons listed above; therefore, each
was selected for consideration in establishing regulations for
these wastewater streams. The pollutants are individually
discussed following the list.
1.
38.
39.
55.
62.
65.
66.
68.
70.
80.
84.
86.
97.
98.
99.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
acenaphthene
ethylbenzene
fluoranthene
naphthalene
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
phenol
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
fluorene
pyrene
toluene
endosulfan sulfate
endrin
endrin aldehyde
PCB-1242 (a)
PCB-1254 (a)
PCB-1221 (a)
(b)
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
(b)
(b)
(b)
548
-------
119.
120.
121.
122.
128.
chromium
copper
cyanide
lead
zinc
(a), (b) Reported together
Acenaphthene was detected above its analytical quantification
level and above the level considered achievable by specific
treatment methods (0.010 mg/1) in 2 of 10 samples and in 2 of 7
sources.
Ethylbenzene was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 5 of 8 samples and above the level considered achievable
by specific treatment methods (0.050 mg/1) in 2 of 8 samples and
in 2 of 4 sources.
Fluoranthene was detected above its analytical quantification
level and above the level considered achievable by specific
treatment methods (0.010 mg/1) in 3 of 10 samples and in 2 of 7
sources.
Naphthalene was detected above its analytical quantification
level and above the level considered achievable by specific
treatment methods (0.050 mg/1) in 2 of 10 samples and in 2 of 7
sources.
N-nitrosodiphenylamine was detected above its analytical
quantification level in 3 of 10 samples and in 2 of 7 sources.
Phenol was detected above its analytical quantification level and
above the level considered achievable by specific treatment
methods (0.050 mg/1) in 3 of 11 samples and in 3 of 7 sources.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was found above its analytical
quantification level in 6 of 10 samples. The maximum concentra-
tion observed was 2.900 mg/1.
Di-n-butyl phthalate was found above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 5 of 10 samples, ranging from 0.034 to 19.000 mg/1.
Diethyl phthalate was found above its analytical quantification
level in 4 of 10 samples. Values ranged from 0.220 to 3.100
mg/1.
Fluorene was detected above its analytical quantification level
and above the level considered achievable by specific treatment
methods (0.010 mg/1) in 5 of 10 samples and in 4 of 7 sources.
549
-------
Pyrene was detected above its analytical quantification level and
above the level considered achievable by specific treatment
methods (0.010 mg/1) in 4 of 10 samples and in 3 of 7 sources.
Toluene was detected above its analytical quantification level in
5 of 8 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.050 mg/1) in 3 of 8 samples and in
2 of 4 sources.
Endosulfan sulfate was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 2 of 8 samples and in 2 of 6 sources.
Endrin was detected above its analytical quantification level in
2 of 8 samples and in 2 of 6 sources.
Endrin aldehyde was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 2 of 8 samples and in 2 of 6 sources,
The seven organic toxic pollutant PCB's (polychlorinated
biphenyls) are not cleanly separated by the analytical protocol
employed in this study; thus, they are reported in two groups.
Each of the two PCB groups was reported present above its ana-
lytical quantification level in 3 of 8 samples and in 3 of 6
sources at one plant.
Chromium was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 8 of 9 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.007 mg/1) in 3 of 9 samples and in
3 of 5 sources.
Copper was detected above its analytical quantification level in
8 of 9 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.39 mg/1) in 5 of 9 samples and in 4
of 5 sources.
Cyanide was detected above its analytical quantification level in
8 of 10 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.047 mg/1) in 6 of 10 samples and in
3 of 6 sources.
Lead was detected above its analytical quantification level in 8
of 9 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.08 mg/1) in 6 of 9 samples and in 4
of 5 sources.
Zinc was detected above its analytical quantification level in 8
of 9 samples and above the level considered achievable by spe-
cific treatment methods (0.23 mg/1) in 6 of 9 samples and in 4 of
5 sources.
550
-------
POLLUTANT SELECTION FOR ANCILLARY WASTE STREAMS
The pollutant selection procedure was performed for the following
ancillary operations to select those toxic pollutants that would
be considered for establishing regulations for these wastewater
streams:
Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling Water
Continuous Rod Casting Contact Cooling Water
Continuous Sheet Casting Spent Lubricants
Continuous Rod Casting Spent Lubricants
Forging Scrubber Liquor
Solution and Press Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor
Degassing Scrubber Liquor
Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling Water
Continuous Rod Casting Contact Cooling Water
The Agency did not sample the continuous rod casting contact
cooling water waste stream. The characteristics of this waste
stream are determined to be the same as the direct chill casting
contact cooling water. Both casting processes use water to cool
the aluminum as it is cast, and since the alumium that water
contacts is essentially the same in both processes, the charac-
teristics of one are transferable to the other.
Pollutants Never Detected. The toxic pollutants listed below
were not detected in any samples from these wastewater streams;
therefore, they were not selected for consideration in estab-
lishing regulations for these wastewater streams.
2. acrolein
3. acrylonitrile
5. benzidine
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. DELETED
18. bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
551
-------
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3'-dlchlorobenzidtne
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dlchloroethylene
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33, 1,3-dichloropropylene
35. 2,4-dtnttrotoluene
36. 2,6-dtnitrotoluene
37, 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
38, ethylbenzene
40, 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41, 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
43, bis(2-chloroethyoxy) methane
45. methyl chloride
46, methyl bromide
47, bromoform
49. DELETED
50. DELETED
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
56. nitrobenzene
58. 4-nitrophenol
61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
73, benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
7 5. benzo(k)fluoranthene
79. benzo(ghi)perylene
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
88. vinyl chloride
98. endrin
113. toxaphene
116. asbestos
129. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Pollutants Never Found Above Their Analytical Quantification
Level.The toxic pollutants listed below were never found above
their analytical quantification level in any samples from these
wastewater streams; therefore, they were not selected for consid-
eration in establishing regulations for these wastewater streams.
6. carbon tetrachloride
7. chlorobenzene
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
14, 1,1,2-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
552
-------
31. 2,4-dichlorophenol
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
39. fluoranthene
48. dichlorobromomethane
51. chlorodtbromomethane
5 5. naphthalene
57. 2-nttrophenol
64. pentachlorophenol
7 2. benzo(a)anthracene
76. chrysene
84. pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
87. trichloroethylene
89. aldrtn
90. dieldrin
92. 4,4'-DDT
93. 4,4'-DDE
94. 4,4'-DDD
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
97. endosulfan sulfate
99. endrin aldehyde
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
104. gamma-BHC
105. delta-BHC
114. antimony
115. arsenic
117. beryllium
121. cyanide
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
Pollutants Detected Below Levels Achievable by Treatment. The
toxic pollutants listed below were found above their analytical
quantification level only at a concentration below the concen-
tration considered achievable by specific available treatment
methods; therefore, they were not selected for consideration in
establishing regulations for these wastewater streams. The pol-
lutants are individually discussed following the list.
4. benzene
24. 2-chlorophenol
44. methylene chloride
65. phenol
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
553
-------
Pollutants Detected In a Small Number of Sources. The toxic pol-
lutants listed below were found above their analytical quantifi-
cation level at only a small number of sources within the cate-
gory and are uniquely related to only those sources; therefore,
they were not selected for consideration in establishing regula-
tions for these wastewater streams. The pollutants are individu-
ally discussed following the list.
1.
23.
54.
59.
60.
62.
71.
77,
78.
80.
81.
91.
106.
107,
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
119.
acenaphthene
chloroform
isophorone
2,4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
dimethyl phthalate
acenaphthylene
anthracene (a)
fluorene
phenanthrene (a)
chlordane
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCS-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
chromium
(b)
(b)
(b)
(c)
(c)
(c)
(c)
(a),(b)(c) Reported together
Acenaphthene was reported present above its analytical quantifi-
cation level in 2 of 20 samples and in 2 of 12 sources. Both
sources containing measurable amounts of acenaphthene were at the
sample plant.
Chloroform was found above its analytical quantification level in
11 of 23 samples, with values ranging from 0.012 to 0.15 mg/1.
Only one of the reported values is above the level considered
achievable by specific available treatment of 0,1 mg/1.
Isophorone was reported above its analytical quantification level
in 2 of 20 samples and in 1 of 12 sources,
2,4-Dinitrophenol was reported at a concentration above its ana-
lytical quantification level in only 1 of 20 sampels and in 1 of
12 sources. The observed concentration was 0.042 mg/1. The
level considered achievable by specific available treatment
methods is 0,025 mg/1.
556
-------
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol was reported at a concentration above its
analytical quantification level in only 1 of 20 samples and 1 of
12 sources. The observed concentration was 0.053 mg/1. The
level considered achievable by specific available treatment
methods is 0.025 mg/1.
•
N-nitrosodiphenylamine was reported at concentrations above its
analytical quantification level in only 2 of 20 samples and in 1
of 12 sources. The values observed were 0.044 and 0.057 mg/1.
Dimethyl phthalate was reported at a concentration greater than
its analytical quantification level in only 1 of 20 samples and
in 1 of 12 sources. The observed concentration was 0.053 mg/1.
Acenaphthylene was reported at a concentration greater than its
analytical quantification level in 1 of 20 samples and in 1 of 12
sources. The observed concentration was 0.012 mg/1.
Anthracene and phenanthrene are not cleanly separated by the ana-
lytical protocol employed in this study; thus, they are reported
together. The sum of these pollutants was reported at values
greater than their analytical quantification level in just 2 of
20 samples and in 1 of 12 sources.
Fluorene was reported present above its analytical quantification
level in 2 of 20 samples and in 1 of 12 sources.
Chlordane was reported present above its analtyical quantifica-
tion level in 2 of 16 samples and in 2 of 12 sources. Both
reported concentrations of chlordane came from sources at one
plant, and were above the level considered achievable by specific
available treatment methods.
The seven organic toxic pollutant PCB's (polychlorinated
biphenyls) are not cleanly separated by the analytical protocol
employed in this study; thus they are reported in two groups.
Each of the two PCB groups.was reported present above its ana-
lytical quantificaiton level in 2 of 16 samples and in 2 of 12
sources. The reported values all were for sources at one plant.
Chromium was reported present above its analytical concentration
level in 6 of 20 samples an in 4 of 12 sources. Only one sample
contained chromium at a level greater than that considered
achievable by specific available treatment methods (0.07 mg/1).
Pollutants Selected for Consideration in Establishing Regulations
for the Direct Chill Casting and Continuous Rod Casting Contact
Cooling Water Waste Streams.The toxic pollutants listed below
are those not eliminated from consideration for any of the rea-
sons listed above; therefore, each was selected for considera-
tion in establishing regulations for these wastewater streams.
The pollutants are individually discussed following the list.
557
-------
122. lead
128. zinc
Lead was found above its analytical quantification level in 15 of
20 samples. Values ranged from 0.021 to 0.100 mg/1. Four of the
values were above the level considered achievable by specific
treatment (0.08 mg/1).
Zinc was found above its analytical quantification level in 14 of
20 samples. Values ranged from 0.1 to 1.0 mg/1. Five of the
sample values were above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment of 0.23 mg/1.
Continuous Sheet Casting Spent Lubricants
Continuous Rod Casting Spent Lubricants
The Agency did not sample the continuous rod casting or continu-
ous sheet casting spent lubricant. The characteristics of these
wastes are determined to be the same as the rolling spent emul-
sion. Rolling and continuous casting of rod or sheet, require a
lubricant to prevent excess wear on the metal against metal sur-
faces and to aid by cooling the surfaces. Since the properties
of the lubricants required are similar between these processes,
the formulations for each ought to be similar, therefore the
characteristics of one are transferable to another.
Pollutants Never Detected. The toxic pollutants listed below
were not detected in any samples from these wastewater streams;
therefore, they were not selected for consideration in estab-
lishing regulations for these wastewater streams.
3. acrylonitrile
5. benzidine
6. carbon tetrachloride
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. DELETED
18. bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
24. 2-chlorophenol
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
558
-------
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3*-dichlorobenzidtne
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
31. 2,4-dichlorophenol
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropylene
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
45. methyl chloride
46, methyl bromide
47. bromoform
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. DELETED
50. DELETED
51. chlorodibromomethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. isophorone
56. nitrobenzene
57. 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
7 5. benzo(k)fluoranthene
79. benzo(ghi)perylene
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
88. vinyl chloride
89. aldrin
90. dieldrin
94. 4,4!-DDD
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
104. gamma-BHC
105. delta-BHC
113. toxaphene
116. asbestos
129. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
559
-------
Pollutants Never Found Above Their Analytical Quantification
Level. The toxic pollutants listed below were never found above
their analytical quantification level in any samples from these
wastewater streams; therefore, they were not selected for consid-
eration in establishing regulations for these wastewater streams.
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
64. pentachlorophenol
72. benzo(a)anthracene
92. 4,4-DDT
114. antimony
117. beryllium
125. selenium
126. silver
127. 'thallium
Pollutants Detected Below Levels Achievable by Treatment. The
toxic pollutants below were found above their analytical quanti-
fication level only at a concentration below the concentration
considered achievable by specific available treatment methods;
therefore, they were not selected for consideration in establish-
ing regulations for these wastewater streams. The pollutants are
individually discussed following the list.
2. acrolein
4. benzene
7. chlorobenzene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
23. chloroform
44. methylene chloride
115. arsenic
118. cadmium
123. mercury
Acrolein was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 2 of 8 samples; however, it was not found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.100 mg/1).
Benzene was detected above its analytical quantification level in
1 of 6 samples; however, it was not found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.005 mg/1).
Chlorobenzene was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 8 samples; however, it was not found above the
level considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.025
mg/1).
560
-------
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol was detected above its analytical quantifi-
cation level in 1 of 9 samples; however, it was not found above
the level considered achievable by specific treatment methods
(0.025 mg/1).
Chloroform was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 2 of 8 samples; however, it was not found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.1 mg/1).
Methylene chloride was found above its analytical quantification
level in 5 of 8 samples, with values ranging from 0.360 to 1.300
mg/1. This pollutant is not attributable to specific materials
or processes associated with continuous casting; however, it is a
common solvent used in analytical laboratories, and is not
expected to be present in raw wastewaters at concentrations above
the level considered achievable by specific available treatment
methods (0.100 mg/1).
Arsenic was detected above its analytical quantification level in
4 of 9 samples; however, it was not found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.34 mg/1).
Cadmium was detected above its analytical quantification level in
5 of 9 samles; however, it was only found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.049 mg/1) in
2 of 9 samples and in 2 of 5 sources. Both of these sources were
at a single plant.
Mercury was detected above its analytical quantification level in
3 of 9 samples; however, it was not found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.036 mg/1).
Pollutants Detected in a Small Number of Sources. The toxic pol-
lutants listed below were found above their analytical quantifi-
cation level at only a small number of sources within the cate-
gory and are uniquely related to only those sources; therefore,
they were not selected for consideration in establishing regula-
tions for these wastewater streams. The pollutants are individu-
ally discussed following the list.
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
76. chrysene
77. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (a)
81. phenanthrene (a)
85. tetrachloroethylene
87. trichloroethylene
91. chlordane
561
-------
93. 4,4'-DDE
95, alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
124. nickel
(a) Reported together
1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene was detected above its analytical
quantification level in 1 of 8 samples and in 1 of 4 sources.
Butyl benzyl phthalate was detected above its analytical
quantification level in 1 of 9 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Dimethyl phthalate was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 1 of 9 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Chrysene was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 9 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Acenaphthylene was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 9 samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Anthracene and phenanthrene are not cleanly separated by the ana-
lytical protocol employed in this study; thus, they are reported
together. The sum of these pollutants was reported at values
greater than their analytical quantification level in 2 of 9
samples and in 1 of 6 sources.
Tetrachloroethylene was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 5 of 8 samples; however, it was only found above
the level considered achievable by specific treatment methods
(0.05 mg/1) in 3 of 8 samples and in 1 of 4 sources.
Trichloroethylene was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 1 of 8 samples and in 1 of 4 sources.
Chlordane was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
4,4!-DDE was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Alpha-endosulfan was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Beta-endosulfan was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
562
-------
Alpha-BHC was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Beta-BHC was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1( of 7 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Nickel was detected above its analytical quantification level in
6 of 9 samples; however, it was only found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.22 mg/1) in 1
of 9 samples and in 1 of 5 sources.
Pollutants Selected for Consideration in Establishing Regulations
for the Continuous Sheet Casting and Continuous Rod Casting Spent
Lubricants Waste Streams.The toxic pollutants listed below are
those not eliminated from consideration for any of the reasons
listed above; therefore, each was selected for consideration in
establishing regulations for these wastewater streams. The pol-
lutants are individually discussed following the list.
1.
38.
39.
55.
62.
65.
66.
68.
70.
80.
84.
86.
97.
98.
99.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
119.
120.
121.
122.
128.
acenaphthene
ethylbenzene
fluoranthene
naphthalene
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
phenol
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
fluorene
pyrene
toluene
endosulfan sulfate
endrin
endrin aldehyde
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
chromium
copper
cyanide
lead
zinc
(a)
(a)
(a)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(a), (b) Reported together
563
-------
Acenaphthene was detected above its analytical quantification
level and above the level considered achievable by specific
treatment methods (0.010 mg/1) in 2 of 9 samples and in 2 of 6
sources.
Ethylbenzene was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 5 of 8 samples and above the level considered achievable
by specific treatment methods (0.050 mg/1) in 2 of 8 samples and
in 2 of 4 sources.
Fluoranthene was detected above its analytical quantification
level and above the level considered achievable by specific
treatment methods (0.010 mg/1) in 3 of 9 samples and in 2 of 6
sources.
Naphthalene was detected above its analytical quantification
level and above the level considered achievable by specific
treatment methods (0.050 mg/1) in 2 of 9 samples and in 2 of 6
sources.
N-nitrosodiphenylamine was detected above its analytical
quantification level in 3 of 9 samples and in 2 of 6 sources.
Phenol was detected above its analytical quantification level and
above the level considered achievable by specific treatment
methods (0.050 mg/1) in 3 of 10 samples and in 3 of 6 sources.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was found above its analytical
quantification level in 5 of 9 samples. The maximum concentra-
tion observed was 2.900 mg/1,
Di-n-butyl phthalate was found above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 4 of 9 samples, ranging from 0.330 to 19.000 mg/1.
Diethyl phthalate was found above its analytical quantification
level in 4 of 9 samples. Values ranged from 0.220 to 3.100 mg/1.
Fluorene was detected above its analytical quantification level
and above the level considered achievable by specific treatment
methods (0.010 mg/1) in 5 of 9 samples and in 4 of 6 sources.
Pyrene was detected above its analytical quantification level and
above the level considered achievable by specific treatment
methods (0.010 mg/1) in 4 of 9 samples and in 3 of 6 sources.
Toluene was detected above its analytical quantification level in
5 of 8 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.050 mg/1) in 3 of 8 samples and in
2 of 4 sources.
564
-------
Endosulfan sulfate was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 2 of 7 samples and in 2 of 5 sources.
Endrin was detected above its analytical quantification level in
2 of 7 samples and in 2 of 5 sources.
Endrin aldehyde was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 2 of 7 samples and in 2 of 5 sources.
The seven organic toxic pollutant PCB's (polychlorinated
biphenyls) are not cleanly separated by the analytical protocol
employed in this study; thus, they are reported in two groups.
Each of the two PCB groups was reported present above its ana-
lytical quantification level in 3 of 7 samples and in 3 of 5
sources at one plant.
Chromium was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 8 of 9 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.007 mg/1) in 3 of 9 samples and in
3 of 5 sources.
Copper was detected above its analytical quantification level in
8 of 9 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.39 mg/1) in 5 of 9 samples and in 4
of 5 sources.
Cyanide was detected above its analytical quantification level in
8 of 10 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.047 mg/1) in 6 of 10 samples and in
3 of 6 sources.
Lead was detected above its analytical quantification level in 8
of 9 samples and above the level considered achievable by
specific treatment methods (0.08 mg/1) in 6 of 9 samples and in 4
of 5 sources.
Zinc was detected above its analytical quantification level in 8
of 9 samples and above the level considered achievable by spe-
cific treatment methods (0.23 mg/1) in 6 of 9 samples and in 4 of
5 sources.
Forging Scrubber Liquor
Pollutants Never Detected. The toxic pollutants listed below
were not detected in any samples from this wastewater stream;
therefore, they were not selected for consideration in estab-
lishing regulations for this wastewater stream.
2. acrolein
3. acrylonitrile
4. benzene
565
-------
5. benzidine
7. chlorobenzene
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dtchloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. DELETED
18. bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
21.• 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
24. 2-chlorophenol
25. 1,2-dtchlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3!-dichlorobenzidine
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
31. 2,4-dichlorophenol
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropylene
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
38. ethylbenzene
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
45. methyl chloride
46. methyl bromide
47. bromoform
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. DELETED
50. DELETED
51. chlorodibromomethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. isophorone
56. nitrobenzene
57. 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
566
-------
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
75. benzo(k)fluoranthene
7 7. acenaphthylene
79. benzo(ght)perylene
80. fluorene
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
87. trichloroethylene
88. vinyl chloride
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
102. alpha-BHC
104. gamma-BHC
113. toxaphene
116. asbestos
129. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Pollutants Never Found Above Their Analytical Quantification
Leve1.The toxic pollutants listed below were never found above
their analytical quantification level in any samples from this
wastewater stream; therefore, they were not selected for consid-
eration in establishing regulations for this wastewater stream.
1. acenaphthene
6. carbon tetrachloride
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
23. chloroform
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
55. naphthalene
64. pentachlorophenol
65. phenol
70. diethyl phthalate
89. aldrin
90. dieldrin
91. chlordane
92. 4,4'-DDT
93. 4,4'-DDE
94. 4,4'-ODD
97. endosulfan sulfate
103. beta-BHC
567
-------
105.
106.
107.
108.
109,
110.
111.
112.
114.
115.
117.
118.
119.
121.
124.
125.
126.
127.
delta-BHC
PBC-1242
PBC-1254
PBC-1221
PBC-1232
PBC-1248
PBC-1260
PBC-1016
antimony
arsenic
beryllium
cadmium
chromium
cyanide
nickel
selenium
silver
thallium
(a)
(a)
(a)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(a),(b) Reported together
Pollutants Detected Below Levels Achievable by Treatment. The
toxic pollutants listed below were found above their analytical
quantification level only at a concentration below the concen-
tration considered achievable by specific available treatment
methods; therefore, they were not selected for consideration in
establishing regulations for this wastewater stream. The pol-
lutants are individually discussed following the list.
44. methylene chloride
120. copper
123. mercury
The presence of methylene chloride in this wastewater sample at
the high level observed (0.95 mg/1) is assumed to be due to sam-
ple contamination, since methylene chloride is used by the ana-
lytical laboratory to extract the non-volatile organics from the
sample, and is not expected to be present in raw wastewaters at
concentrations above the level considered achievable by specific
available treatment methods (0.100 mg/1).
Copper was measured at a concentration of 0.010 mg/1 in the one
sample collected. This value is only slightly greater than the
values for its analytical quantification level (0.009 mg/1), and
less than the level considered achievable by available treatment
methods (0.39 mg/1). In addition, the source water at the same
plant also contained copper at 0.010 mg/1.
Mercury was reported at 0.0005 mg/1 in the only sample collected;
the level considered achievable by specific available treatment
is 0.036 mg/1. Moreover, the source water at the same plant con-
tained mercury at 0.0006 mg/1.
568
-------
Pollutants Detected Below Source Water Concentrations. The toxic
pollutants listed below were found above their analytical quanti-
fication level solely as a result of their presence in the intake
water to the production process; therefore, they were not
selected for consideration in establishing regulations for this
wastewater stream. The pollutants are individually discussed
following the list.
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was present at a concentration of
0.075 mg/1 in the one sample collected, A sample of source water
collected at the sampled plant contained this pollutant at a con-
centration of 0.200 mg/1. The origin of this pollutant at this
plant seems to be the source water.
Pollutants Selected for Consideration in Establishing Regulations
for the Foreing Scrubber Liquor Waste Stream.The toxic pollu-
tants listed below are those not eliminated from consideration
for any of the reasons listed above; therefore, each was selected
for consideration in establishing regulations for this wastewater
stream. The pollutants are individually discussed following the
list.
39. fluoranthene
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
72. benzo(a)anthracene
76. chrysene
78. anthracene (a)
81. phenanthrene (a)
84. pyrene
122. lead
128. zinc
(a) Reported together
Fluoranthene was found at a concentration of 0.018 mg/1 in the
waste stream sample. For fluoranthene, this exceeds both its
analytical quantification level of 0.010 mg/1, and the level con-
sidered achievable by specific available treatment methods, which
is also 0.010 mg/1.
N-nitrosodiphenylamine was found above the levels for both its
proposed water quality criterion and its analytical quantifica-
tion level as well as the level considered attainable by specific
available treatment methods. The observed pollutant concentra-
tion was 0.017 mg/1.
Benzo(a)anthracene was found present in the sample at 0.019 mg/1.
This exceeds both its analytical quantification level, and the
level considered achievable by specific available treatment
methods.
569
-------
Chrysene was detected at a level of 0.019 mg/1 in the only sample
collected from this waste stream. The analytical quantification
level for chrysene is 0.010 mg/1, and the level considered
achievable by specific available treatment is 0.010 mg/1. The
concentration of chrysene exceeds this level.
The combined concentration of anthracene and phenanthrene in this
waste stream was found to be 0.028 mg/1. This exceeds the ana-
lytical quantification level and treatability level, both of
which are 0.010 mg/1.
Pyrene was found at a concentration of 0.021 mg/1 in the waste
stream sample, which is above the analytical quantification level
of 0.010 mg/1 for pyrene. This concentration is also above the
treatability level (0.010 mg/1).
Lead was present in the sample at a concentration of 2.00 mg/1.
This exceeds the analytical quantification level and the level
considered achievable by available treatment methods (0.020 mg/1
and 0.08 mg/1, respectively) for lead.
Zinc was found in the sample at a concentration of 0.300 mg/1
which exceeds the concentration considered achievable by avail-
able treatment technologies (0.23 mg/1).
Solution and Press Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water
Pollutants Never Detected. The toxic pollutants listed below
were not detected in any samples from thess wastewater streams;
therefore, they were not selected for consideration in estab-
lishing regulations for these wastewater streams.
2. acrolein
3. acrylonitrile
5. benzidine
7. chlorobenzene
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. DELETED
18. bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
570
-------
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
31. 2,4-dichlorophenol
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropylene
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
39. fluoranthene
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
43. bis(2-chloroethyoxy) methane
45. methyl chloride
46. methyl bromide
49. DELETED
50. DELETED
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. isophorone
55. naphthalene
56. nitrobenzene
57. 2-nitrophenol
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
64. pentachlorophenol
72. benzo(a)anthracene
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
75, benzo(k)fluoranthene
79. benzo(ghi)perylene
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
88. vinyl chloride
113. toxaphene
116. asbestos
129. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Pollutants Never Found Above Their Analytical Quantification
Leve1.The toxic pollutants listed below were never found above
their analytical quantification level in any samples from this
wastewater stream; therefore, they were not selected for consid-
eration in establishing regulations for these wastewater streams
6. carbon tetrachloride
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
51. chlorodibromomethane
571
-------
62. N-nitrosodtphenylamine
76. chrysene
7 7. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (a)
80. fluorene
81. phenanthrene (a)
84. pyrene
89. aldrin
90. dieldrin
91. chlordane
92. 4,4'-DDT
93. 4,4!-DDE
94. 4,4!-DDD
102. alpha-BHC
103.. beta-BHC
104. gamma-BHC
105. delta-BHC
106. PCB-1242 (b)
107. PCB-1254 (b)
108. PCB-1221 (b)
109. PCB-1232 (c)
110. PCB-1248 (c)
111. PCB-1260 (c)
112. PCB-1016 (c)
117. beryllium
(a), (b), (c) Reported together
Pollutants Detected Below Levels Achievable by Treatment. The
toxic pollutants listed below were found above their analytical
quantification level only at a concentration below the concen-
tration considered achievable by specific available treatment
methods; therefore, they were not selected for consideration in
establishing regulations for this wastewater stream. The pol-
lutants are individually discussed following the list.
44. methylene chloride
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
115. arsenic
118. cadmium
120. copper
123. mercury
124. nickel
127. thallium
Methylene chloride was found in concentrations above both its
analytical quantification level and its treatability level in 9
of 34 samples taken. However, since methylene chloride is
normally used in the laboratory to extract nonvolatile organics
from the sample, and there is no process or material in the waste
stream to which the pollutant may be attributed, the sample was
572
-------
assumed to have been contaminated. Methylene chloride is not
expected to be present in raw wastewaters at concentrations above
the level considered achievable by specific available treatment
methods.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was found above its analytical
quantification level in 13 of 28 samples. This pollutant is not
attributable to specific materials or processes associated with
heat treatment press or solution contact cooling operations, and
is not expected to be present in raw wastewaters at concentra-
tions above the level considered achievable by specific available
treatment mehtods (0.010 mg/1).
Arsenic was detected above its analytical quantification level in
16 of 43 samples; however, it was not found above the .level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.34 mg/1).
Cadmium was detected above its analytical quantification level in
14 of 42 samples; however, it was not found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.049 mg/1).
Copper was detected above its analytical quantification level in
38 of 42 samples; however, it was not found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.39 mg/1).
Mercury was detected above its analytical quantification level in
16 of 42 samples; however, it was not found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.036 mg/1).
Nickel was detected above its analytical quantification level in
18 of 42 samples; however, it was not found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.22 mg/1).
Thallium was detected above its analytical quantification level
in seven of thirty-six samples; however, it was not found above
the level considered achievable by specific treatment methods
(0.34 mg/1).
Pollutants Detected in a Small Number of Sources. The toxic pol-
lutants listed below were found above their analytical quantifi-
cation level at only a small number of sources within the cate-
gory and are uniquely related to only those sources; therefore,
they were not selected for consideration in establishing regula-
tions for this wastewater stream. The pollutants are individu-
ally discussed following the list.
1. acenaphthene
4. benzene
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethylene
23. chloroform
24. 2-chlorophenol
573
-------
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
38, e thylbenzene
47. bromoform
48. dichlorobromomethane
58. 4-nitrophenol
65. phenol
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
87. trichloroethylene
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. b«ta-endosulfan
97. endosulfan sulfate
98. endrtn
99. endrtn aldehyde
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxtde
114. antimony
126. silver
128. zinc
Acenaphthene was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 2 of 28 samples and in 2 of 18 sources.
Benzene was detected above its analytical quantification level in
8 of 34 samples; however, it was only found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.05 to 0.100
mg/1) in 2 of 34 samples and in 2 of 17 sources.
1,1,1-Trichloroethylene was detected above its analytical quanti-
fication level in 7 of 34 samples; however, it was only found
above the level considered achievable by specific treatment
methods (<0,022 mg/1) in 1 of 34 samples and in 1 of 17 sources.
Chloroform was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 14 of 34 samples; however, it was only found above the level
considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.01 mg/1)
in 1 of 34 samples and in 2 of 17 sources.
2-Chlorophenol was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 28 samples and in 1 of 18 sources.
1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene was detected above its analytical
quantification level in 1 of 34 samples and in 1 of 17 sources.
Ethylbenzene was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 2 of 34 samples and in 1 of 17 sources.
574
-------
Bromoform was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 34 samples and in 1 of 17 sources.
Dichlorodibromomethane was detected above its analytical quanti-
fication level in 1 of 34 samples and in 1 of 17 sources.
i
4-Nitrophenol was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 28 samples and in 1 of 18 sources.
Phenol was detected above its analytical quantification level in
4 of 28 samples; however, it was only found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.05 mg/1) in 1
of 28 samples and in 1 of 18 sources.
Butyl benzyl phthalate was detected above its analytical quanti-
fication level in 3 of 28 samples and in 1 of 18 sources.
Di-n-butyl phthalate was detected above its analytical quanti-
fication level in 6 of 28 samples; however, it was only found
above the level considered achievable by specific treatment
methods (0.025 mg/1) in 1 of 28 samples and in 1 of 18 sources.
Di-n-octyl phthalate was detected above its analytical quantifi-
cation level in 7 of 34 samples; however, it was only found above
the level considered achievable by specific treatment methods
(<0.022 mg/1) in 1 of 34 samples and in 1 of 17 sources.
Di-n-octyl phthalate was detected above its analytical quantifi-
cation level in 2 of 28 samples and in 2 of 18 sources.
Diethyl phthalate was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 3 of 28 samples and in 3 of 18 sources.
Dimethyl phthalate was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 3 of 28 samples and in 3 of 18 sources.
Tetrachloroethylene was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 3 of 34 samples and in 2 of 17 sources.
Toluene was detected above its analytical quantification level in
5 of 34 samples; however, it was only found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.05 mg/1) in 1
of 34 samples and in 1 of 17 sources.
Trichloroethylene was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 2 of 34 samples and in 2 of 17 sources.
Alpha-endosulfan was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 24 samples and in 1 of 18 sources.
575
-------
Beta-endosulfan was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 24 samples and in 1 of 18 sources.
Endosulfan sulfate was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 1 of 24 samples and in 1 of 18 sources.
Endrin was detected above its analytical quantification level in
1 of 24 samples and in 1 of 18 sources.
Endrin aldehyde was detected above its analytical quantification
level in 1 of 24 samples and in 1 of 18 sources.
Heptachlor was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 24 samples and in 1 of 18 sources.
Heptachlor epoxide was detected above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 2 of 24 samples and in 2 of 18 sources.
Antimony was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 11 of 36 samples; however, it was only found above the level
considered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.034 mg/1)
in 1 of 36 samples and in 1 of 20 sources.
Silver was detected above its analytical quantification level in
6 of 36 samples; however, it was only found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.07 mg/1) in 1
of 36 samples and in 1 of 20 sources.
Zinc was detected above its analytical quantification level in 31
of 42 samples; however, it was only found above the level con-
sidered achievable by specific treatment methods (0.23 mg/1) in 3
of 42 samples and in 2 of 24 sources.
Pollutants Selected for Consideration in Establishing Regulations
for the Solution and Press Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water
Waste Stream.The toxic pollutants listed below are those not
eliminated from consideration for any of the reasons listed
above; therefore, each was selected for consideration in estab-
lishing regulations for this wastewater stream. The pollutants
are individually discussed following the list.
119. chromium
121. cyanide
122. lead
125. selenium
Chromium was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 35 of 42 samples and was found above the level considered
achievable by specific treatment methods (0.07 mg/1) in 6 of 42
samples.
576
-------
Cyanide was detected above its analytical quantification level in
32 of 43 samples and was found above the level considered achiev-
able by specific treatment methods (0.047 mg/1) in 9 of 43
samples.
Lead was detected above its analytical quantification level in 29
of 42 samples and was found above the level considered achievable
by specific treatment methods (0.08 mg/1) in 5 of 42 samples.
Selenium was detected above its analytical quantification level
in 7 of 36 samples and was found above the level considered
achievable by specific treatment methods (0.007 mg/1) in 5 of 36
samples.
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Pollutants Never Detected. The toxic pollutants listed below
were not detected in any samples from this wastewater stream;
therefore, they were not selected for consideration in estab-
lishing regulations for this wastewater stream.
2. acrolein
3. acrylonitrile
5. benzidine
7. chlorobenzene
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. DELETED
18. bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropylene
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
577
-------
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
45. methyl chloride
46. methyl bromide
47. bromoform
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. DELETED
50. DELETED
51. chlorodibromomethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
55. naphthalene
56. nitrobenzene
58. 4-nitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
75. benzo(k)fluroanthene
79. benzo(ghi)perylene
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
86. toluene
87. trichloroethylene
88. vinyl chloride
89. aldrin
113. toxaphene
116. asbestos
129. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Pollutants Never Found Above Their Analytical Quantification
Level.The toxic pollutants listed below were never found above
their analytical quantification level in any samples from this
wastewater stream; therefore, they were not selected for consid-
eration in establishing regulations for this wastewater stream.
1. acenaphthene
4. benzene
6. carbon tetrachloride
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
24. 2-chlorphenol
31. 2,4-dichlorophenol
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
38. ethylbenzene
54. isophorone
57. 2-nitrophenol
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
72. benzo(a)anthracene
73. benzo(a)pyrene
76. chrysene
7 7. acenaphthylene
578
-------
78. anthracene (a)
80. fluorene
81 . phenanthrene (a)
84. pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylene
90. dieldrin
91. chlordane
92. 4,4'-DDT
93. 4, 4 '-DDE
94. 4,4'DDD
95. alpha -endosul fan
96 . beta-endosul fan
97. endosul fan sulfate
98. endrin
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
104. gamma -BHC
105. delta-BHC
106. PCB-1242
107. PCB-1254
108. PCB-1221
109. PCB-1232
110. PCB-1248
111. PCB-1260
112. PCB-1016
114. antimony
117. beryllium
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
(b)
(b)
(b)
(c)
(c)
(c)
(c)
(c) Reported together
Pollutants Detected Below Levels Achievable by Treatment. The
toxic pollutants listed below were found above their analytical
quantification level only at a concentration below the concen-
tration considered achievable by specific available treatment
methods; therefore, they were not selected for consideration in
establishing regulations for this wastewater stream. The pol-
lutants are individually discussed following the list.
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
23. chloroform
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
44. methylene chloride
65. phenol
71. dimethyl phthalate
115. arsenic
123. mercury
579
-------
p-Chloro-m-cresol was reported present above it analytical quan-
tification level in one of six samples. The observed value,
0.021 mg/1, is less than that of 0.05 mg/1, which is considered
achievable by specific available treatment methods.
Chloroform was reported present above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in one of four samples. The observed value of 0.020
mg/1 is less than the concentration of 0.1 mg/1, which is con-
sidered achievable by specific available treatment methods. In
addition, the concentration of chloroform in the source water is
higher than in the waste stream, indicating that the chloroform
did not originate at the sampled plant.
2,4-Dimethylphenol was reported present above its analytical
quantification level in one of six samples. The observed value
was 0.034 mg/1; the level considered achievable by specific
treatment methods is 0.05 mg/1.
Methylene chloride was reported present above its analytical
quantification level in two of four samples. The reported con-
centrations were 0.015 and 0.039 mg/1; the level considered
achievable by treatment is 0.1 mg/1. Both wastewater samples
were measurable concentrations of methylene chloride were col-
lected at the same plant; at that plant, a concentration of 0.220
mg/1 methylene chloride was reported for the source water.
Phenol was reported present above its analytical quantification
level in three of six samples. The maximum value reported was
0.035 mg/1; the level considered achievable by specific available
treatment is 0.05 mg/1.
Dimethyl phthalate was reported present above its analytical
quantification level in only one of six samples. The reported
concentration was 0.013 mg/1, whereas the concentration con-
sidered attainable by specific available treatment methods is
0.025 mg/1.
Arsenic was reported present above its analytical quantification
level in two of four samples. The maximum value reported was
0.14 mg/1; the level considered achievable by specific available
treatment is 0.34 mg/1.
Mercury was reported present above its analytical quantification
level in all three samples. The maximum value reported was 0.020
mg/1, whereas a concentration of 0.036 mg/1 is considered achiev-
able by specific treatment methods.
Pollutants Detected Below Source Water Concentrations. The toxic
pollutants listed below were found above their analytical quanti-
fication level solely as a result of their presence in the intake
water to the production process; therefore, they were not
580
-------
selected for consideration in establishing regulation for this
wastewater stream. The pollutants are individually discussed
following the list.
66t. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was detected above its analytical
quantification level in four of six samples. The two higher
values reported were 0.025 and 0.033 mg/1; these two samples were
collected from the same plant, for which a concentration of 0.200
mg/1 of this pollutant was measured in the source water. The
other reported values were 0.021 and 0.009 mg/1.
Di-n-butyl phthalate was reported present above its analytical
quantification level in three of six samples. Two of the samples
containing this pollutant came from the same plant; the concen-
trations of pollutant in the wastewaters were less than its con-
centration in the plant!s source water. The other reported value
was 0.003 mg/1.
Pollutants Detected in a Small Number of Sources. The toxic pol-
lutants listed below were found above their analytical quantifi-
cation level at only a small number of sources within the cate-
gory and are uniquely related to only those sources; therefore,
they were not selected for consideration in establishing regula-
tions for this wastewater stream. The pollutants are individu-
ally discussed following the list.
39. fluoranthene
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
64. pentachlorophenol
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
99. endrin aldehyde
Fluoranthene was reported above its analytical quantification
level in two of six samples and in two of six sources.
2,4-Dinitrophenol was reported present in two of six samples and
in two of six sources.
Pentachlorphenol was reported present above its analytical quan-
tification level in one of six samples and in one of six sources.
The observed value was 0.012 mg/1; the value considered achieva-
ble by treatment is 0.010 mg/1.
Di-n-octyl phthalate was reported present above its analytical
quantification level in one of six samples and in one of six
sources.
581
-------
Diethyl phthalate was reported present above its analytical quan-
tification level in one of six samples and in one of six sources.
Endrin aldehyde was reported present above its analytical quanti-
fication level in one of six samples and in one of six sources.
Pollutants Selected for Consideration in Establishing Regulations
for the Cleaning or Etching Bath Waste Stream.The toxic
pollutants listed below are those not eliminated from considera-
tion for any of the reasons listed above; therefore, each was
selected for consideration in establishing regulations for this
wastewater stream. The pollutants are individually discussed
following the list.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
124.
128.
cadmium
chromium
copper
cyanide
lead
nickel
zinc
Cadmium was reported above its analytical quantification level in
all three samples collected. The cadmium concentrations observed
were 0.005, 0.050, and 3.000 mg/1. Two of the three concentra-
tions are above the level of 0.049 mg/1, which is considered
achievable by specific available treatment methods.
Chromium was reported above its analytical quantification level
in all three samples collected. The chromium concentrations
observed were 0.020, 0.400, and 10.00 mg/1. Two of the three
concentrations are above the level of 0.07 mg/1, which is con-
sidered achievable by specific available treatment methods.
Copper was reported present above its analytical quantification
level in all three samples collected. The range of concentra-
tions observed was from approximately 5 to 20 mg/1. The level of
copper considered achievable by specific available treatment
methods is 0.39 mg/1.
Cyanide was reported present above its analytical quantification
level in five of six samples. Four of the values were above the
level of cyanide considered achievable by specific available
treatment methods (0.047 mg/1).
Lead was reported present above its analytical quantification
level in all three samples collected. The reported lead concen-
trations ranged from 0.400 to 90.0 mg/1. A lead concentration of
0.08 mg/1 is considered achievable by specific available treat-
ment methods.
582
-------
Nickel was reported present above its analytical quantification
level in all three samples collected. The range of concentra-
tions observed was from 0.100 to approximately 3 mg/1. A nickel
concentration of 0.22 mg/1 is considered achievable by specific
available treatment methods.
Zinc was reported present above its analytical quantification
level in all three samples collected. The concentrations of zinc
reported ranged from 0.500 to approximately 30 mg/1. The concen-
tration of zinc considered achievable by specific available
treatment methods is 0.23 mg/1.
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Pollutants Never Detected. The toxic pollutants listed below
were not detected in any samples from this wastewater stream;
therefore, they were not selected for consideration in estab-
lishing regulations for this wastewater stream.
2. acrolein
3. acrylonitrile
5. benzidine
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. DELETED
18. bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropylene
34. 2.4-dimethylphenol
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chlorisopropyl) ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
45. methyl chloride
46. methyl bromide
47. bromoform
583
-------
49. DELETED
50. DELETED
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
56. nitrobenzene
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
62 N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
72. benzo(a)anthracene
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
75. • benzo(k)fluoranthene
79. benzo(ghi)perylene
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno (1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
88. vinyl chloride
113. toxaphene
116. asbestos
129. 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Pollutants Never Found Above Their Analytical Quantification
Level.The toxic pollutants listed below were never found above
their analytical quantification level in any samples from this
wastewater stream; therefore, they were not selected for con-
sideration in establishing regulations for this wastewater
stream.
6. carbon tetrachloride
7, chlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
24. 2-chlorophenol
31. 2,4-dichlorophenol
38. ethylbenzene
39. fluoranthene
48. dichlorobromethane
64. pentachlorophenol
71. dimethyl phthalate
76. chrysene
7 7. acenaphthy1ene
78. anthracene (a)
80. fluorene
81. phenathrene,(a)
84. pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
584
-------
87. trichloroethylene
89. aldrin
90. dieldrin
91. chlordane
92. 4,4!-DDT
93. 4,4'-DDE
94. 4,4!DDD
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
97. endosulfan sulfate
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
104. gamma-BHC
105. delta-BHC
114. antimony
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
(a) Reported together
Pollutants Detected Below Levels Achievable By Treatment. The
toxic pollutants listed below were found above their analytical
quantification level only at a concentration below the concen-
tration considered achievable by specific available treatment
methods ; therefore, they were not selected for consideration in
establishing regulations for this wastewater stream. The pol-
lutants are individually discussed following the list.
4. benzene
23. chloroform
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
44. methylene chloride
51. chlorodibromomethane
54. isophorone
70. diethyl phthalate
114. arsenic
121. cyanide
123. mercury
Benzene was found above its analytical quantification level in 6
of 42 samples. The maximum concentration observed was 0.043
mg/1. The level considered achievable by specific available
treatment methods is 0.05 mg/1; none of the samples was above
this level.
585
-------
Chloroform was found above its analytical quantification level in
24 of 42 samples. The maximum concentration observed was 0.11
mg/1. The level considered achievable by specific available
treatment methods is 0.1 mg/1; only one of the samples was above
this level.
2,4-Dimethylphenol was found above its analytical quantification
level in only one of 36 samples. The concentration observed was
0.019 mg/1. The level considered achievable by specific avail-
able treatment methods is 0.05 mg/1; the detected value was not
above this level. Chlorodibromomethane was found above its ana-
lytical quantification level in 2 of 42 samples. The maximum
concentration observed was 0.02 mg/1. This is below the concen-
tration considered achievable with available treatment methods
(0.1 mg/1).
Methylene chloride was measured above its analytical level in 22
of 42 samples. The maximum concentration observed was 6.1 mg/1.
This pollutant was also found above its analytical quantification
level in 10 of 20 source water samples with the highest concen-
tration at 1.3 mg/1. Methylene chloride was also measured above
its analytical quantification level in most of the volatiles
blank samples, the highest concentration observed being 20.6
mg/1. These observations indicated the probability that either
the samples were contaminated, or that the source water was the
major source of methylene chloride, or both. Methylene chloride
is not expected to be present in raw wastewaters at concentra-
tions above the level considered achievable by specific available
treatment methods (0.100 mg/1).
Isophorone was found above its analytical quantification level in
only 1 of 36 samples. The concentration observed was 0.16 mg/1.
The level considered achievable by specific available treatment
methods is 0.05 mg/1; the observed value was not above this
level.
Diethyl phthalate was found above its analytical quantification
level in 3 of 36 samples. The maximum concentration observed was
0.22 mg/1. The level considered achievable by specific available
treatment methods is 0.025 mg/1; none of the samples were above
this level. In addition, this pollutant is a plasticizer found
in many plastic products used in manufacturing plants and is not
considered to be attributable to specific materials or processing
in the cleaning or etching rinse operation.
Arsenic was found above its analytical quantification level in 16
of 33 samples. The maximum concentration observed was 0.28 mg/1.
The level of arsenic considered achievable by specific available
treatment methods is 0.34 mg/1; none of the samples were above
this level.
586
-------
Cyanide was measured above its analytical quantification level in
18 of 35 samples. The maximum concentration observed was 0.042
mg/1. None of the samples exceeded the concentration considered
achievable with available treatment technologies (0.047 mg/1).
Mercury was found above its analytical quantification level in 15
of 31 samples. The maximum concentration observed was 0.021
mg/1. The level considered achievable by specific available
treatment methods is 0.36 mg/1.
Pollutants Detected In A Small Number of Sources. The toxic pol-
lutants listed below were found above their analytical quanti-
fication level at only a small number of sources within the cate-
gory and are uniquely related to only those sources; therefore,
they were not selected for consideration in establishing regula-
tions for this wastewater stream. The pollutants are individu-
ally discussed following the list.
1.
30.
55.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
117.
118.
acenaphthene
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
naphthalene
phenol
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
PCB-1242 (b)
(b)
(b)
(c)
(c)
(c)
(c)
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
beryllium
cadmium
(a), (b) Reported together
Acenaphthene was found above its analytical quantification level
in 1 of 36 samples and in one of 20 sources. The concentration
observed was 0.017 mg/1. The level considered achievable by
specific available treatment methods is 0.01 mg/1.
1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene was found above its analytical quan-
tification level in only 1 of 42 samples and 1 of 20 sources. The
only measurable concentration observed was 0.11 mg/1. The level
considered achievable by specific available treatment methods is
0.1 mg/1.
587
-------
Naphthalene was measured above Its analytical quantification
level in only 1 of 36 samples and in 1 of 20 sources. The con-
centration observed was equal to the treatability level (0.05
mg/1).
Phenol was found above its analytical quantification level in 2
of 36 samples. The maximum concentration observed was 0.063
mg/1. The level considered achievable by specific available
treatment methods is 0.05 mg/1; only one of the observed values
was above this level.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was measured above its analytical
quantification level in 8 of 36 samples and in 6 of 20 sources.
The highest concentration observed was 0.098 mg/1. This compound
is a plasticizer found in many plastic materials used in manufac-
turing plants and is not considered to be attributable to spe-
cific materials or processing in the cleaning or etching rinse
operation.
Butyl benzyl phthalate was found above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 1 of 36 samples and in 1 of 20 sources. The only
measurable concentration observed was 0.066 mg/1. The level con-
sidered achievable by specific available treatment methods is
0.01 mg/1; only one sample that level. In addition, this pollu-
tant is a plasticizer found in many plastic products used in man-
ufacturing plants and is not considered to be attributable to
specific materials or processing in the cleaning or etching rinse
operation.
Di-n-butyl phthalate was found above its analytical quantifica-
tion level in 2 of 36 samples and in 2 of 20 sources. The maxi-
mum concentration observed was 0.068 mg/1. The level considered
achievable by specific available treatment methods is 0.025 mg/1;
both observed values were above this level; however, this pollu-
tant is a plasticizer found in many plastic products used in man-
ufacturing plants and is not considered to be attributable to
specific materials or processing in the cleaning or etching rinse
operation.
Di-n-octyl phthalate was measured above its analytical quantifi-
cation level in 2 of 36 samples and in 2 of 20 sources. The
highest concentration observed was 0.038 mg/1. This compound is
a plasticizer found in many plastic materials used in manufactur-
ing plants, and is not considered to be point source specific.
PCB-1242, PCB-1254, and PCB-1221 were measured above their ana-
lytical quantification level in only one of 27 samples and in one
of 19 sources. The concentration of ths sample was 0.016 mg/1.
PCB-1232, PCB-1248, PCB-1260, and PCB-1016 were measured above
their analytical quantification level in only 1 of 27 samples and
in 1 of 19 sources. The concentration measured was 0.02 mg/1.
5.88
-------
Beryllium was found above its analytical quantification level in
7 of 31 samples and in 4 of 14 sources. The maximum concentra-
tion observed was 0.200 mg/1. The level considered achievable by
specific available treatment methods is 0.20 mg/1.
Cadmium was measured above its analytical quantification level in
14 of 31 samples and in 8 of 17 sources. The highest concentra-
tion observed was 0.2 mg/1. Of the 31 samples, only one sample
exceeded a cadmium concentration of 0.049 mg/1, which is con-
sidered achievable by specific available treatment methods.
Pollutants Selected For Consideration In Establishing Regulations
For The Cleaning Or Etching Rinse Waste Stream.The toxic pollu-
tants listed below are those not eliminated from consideration
for any of the reasons listed above; therefore, each was selected
for consideration in establishing regulations for this wastewater
stream. The pollutants are individually discussed following the
list.
119.
120.
122.
124.
128.
chromium
copper
lead
nickel
zinc
Chromium was measured above its analytical quantification level
in 30 of 31 samples and 16 of 17 sources. The highest concen-
tration observed was 280 mg/1. Of the 31 samples, 20 samples
contained chromium in excess of 0.07 mg/1, which is considered
achievable by specific available treatment methods.
Copper was measured above its analytical quantification level in
all 31 samples collected and in all 17 sources. The highest con-
centration observed was 480 mg/1. The concentration of copper in
16 samples exceeded 0.39 mg/1, which is considered achievable by
specific available treatment methods.
Lead was measured above its analytical quantification level in 23
of 31 samples and in 13 of 31 sources. The highest concentration
observed was 11 mg/1. The concentration of lead in 13 samples
exceeded 0.08 mg/1, which is considered achievable by specific
available treatment methods.
Zinc was measured above its analytical quantification level in 29
of 31 samples and in all sources. The highest concentration
observed was 410 mg/1. The concentration of zinc in 17 samples
exceeded 0.23 mg/1, which is considered achievable by specific
available treatment methods.
589
-------
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor
Pollutants Never Detected. The toxic pollutants listed below
were not detected in any samples from this wastewater stream;
therefore, they were not selected for consideration in estab-
lishing regulations for this wastewater stream.
1. acenaphthene
2. acrolein
3. acrylonitrile
4. benzene
5. benzidine
6. carbon tetrachloride
7. chlorobenzene
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9.. hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
11. 1,1,1•trichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichlorethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. DELETED
18. bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
24. 2-chlorophenol
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
31. 2,4-dichlorophenol
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropylene
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
38. ethylbenzene
39. fluoranthene
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
590
-------
45. methyl chloride
46. methyl bromide
47. bromoform
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. DELETED
50. DELETED
51. chlorodibromomethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. isophorone
5 5. naphtha1ene
56. nitrobenzene
57. 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
64. pentachlorophenol
65. phenol
66. bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
72. benzo(a)anthracene
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
75. benzo(k)fluoranthene
76. chrysene
7 7. acenaphthylene
7 8. anthracene (a)
79. benzo(ghi)perylene
80. fluorene
81. phenanthrene (a)
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
84. pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. touene
87. trichloroethylene
88. vinyl chloride
89. aldrin
91. chlordane
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. endosulfan sulfate
98. endrin
103. beta-BHC
105. delta-BHC
591
-------
113. toxaphene
116. asbestos
129. 2,3,7,8^tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxln
(a) Reported together
Pollutants Never Found Above Their Analytical Quantification
Level.The toxic pollutants listed below were never found above
their analytical quantification level in any samples from this
wastewater stream; therefore, they were not selected for consid-
eration in establishing regulations for this wastewater stream.
23. chloroform
90. dieldrin
92. 4,4!-DDT
93. 4,4'-DDE
94. 4,4'-ODD
96. beta-endosulfan
99. endrin aldehyde
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
102. alpha-BHC
104. gamma-BHC
106. PCB-1242 (a)
107. PCB-1254 (a)
108. PCB-1221 (a)
109. PCB-1232 (b)
110. PCB-1248 (b)
111. PCB-1260 (b)
112. PCB-1016 (b)
114. antimony
115. arsenic
117. beryllium
118. cadmium
119. chromium
121. cyanide
122. lead
124. nickel
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
128. zinc
(a),(b) Reported together
Pollutants Detected Below Levels Achievable By Treatment. The
toxic pollutants listed below were found above their analytical
quantification level only at a concentration below the concen-
tration considered achievable by specific available treatment
592
-------
methods; therefore, they were not selected for consideration in
establishing regulations for this wastewater stream. The pol-
lutants are individually discussed following the list.
44. methylene chloride
120. copper
123. mercury
Methylene chloride was reported present at 0.014 mg/1 in the sin-
gle sample collected. The observed value is less than both the
concentration observed in the source water (0.220 mg/1), and the
level considered achievable by specific available treatment
methods (0.1 mg/1).
Copper was measured at a concentration of 0.010 mg/1 in the sin-
gle sample collected. The observed copper concentration is less
than both the copper concentration observed in the source water
(0.020 mg/1), and the copper concentration considered achievable
by specific available treatment methods (0.39 mg/1).
Mercury was reported at a concentration of 0.0003 mg/1 in the one
sample collected. The observed wastewater mercury concentration
is less than both the concentration observed in the source water
(0.0004 mg/1), and the concentration considered achievable by
specific available treatment methods (0.036 mg/1).
Pollutants Selected for Consideration in Establishing Regulations
for the Cleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor Waste StreamTNo
pollutants were selected for consideration in establishing regu-
lations for this wastewater stream.
Degassing Scrubber Liquor
Pollutants Never Detected. The toxic pollutants listed below
were not detected in any samples from this wastewater stream;
therefore, they were not selected for consideration in estab-
lishing regulations for this wastewater stream.
1. acenaphthene
2. acrolein
3. acrylonitrile
4. benzene
5. benzidine
6. carbon tetrachloride
7. chlorobenzene
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
593
-------
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. DELETED
18. bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
24. 2-chlorophenol
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3!-dichlorobenzidine
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
31. 2,4-dichlorophenol
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropylene
34. 2.4-dimethylphenol
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2-diphenyIhydraz ine
38. ethylbenzene
39. fluoranthene
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chlorisopropyl) ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
45. methyl chloride
46. methyl bromide
47. bromoform
49. DELETED
50. DELETED
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. isophorone
5 5. naphthalene
56. nitrobenzene
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
62 N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
64. pentachlorophenol
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
72, benzb(a)anthracene
594
-------
73. benzo(a)pyrene
74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
7 5. benzo(k)fluoranthene
76. chrysene
77. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene (a)
79. benzo(ght)perylene
80. fluorene
81. phenathrene.(a)
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
84. pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylene
86. toluene
88. vinyl chloride
89. aldrin
90. dieldrin
91. chlordane
92. 4,4'-DDT
93. 4,4'-DDE
94. 4,4!ODD
95. alpha-endosulfan
96. beta-endosulfan
97. endosulfan sulfate
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
100, heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
102. alpha-BHC
103. beta-BHC
104. gamma-BHC
105. delta-BHC
106. PCB-1242 (b)
107. PCB-1254 (b)
108. PCB-1221 (b)
109. PCB-1232 (c)
110. PCB-1248 (c)
111. PCB-1260 (c)
112. PCB-1016 (c)
113. toxaphene
116. asbestos
129. 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(a), (b), (c) Reported together
Pollutants Never Found Above Their Analytical Quantification
Level.The toxic pollutants listed below were never found above
their analytical quantification level in any samples from this
wastewater stream; therefore, they were not selected for con-
sideration in establishing regulations.
595
-------
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
44. methylene chloride
48. dichlorobromomethane
51. chlorodibromomethane
65. phenol
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
87. trichloroethylene
114. antimony
115. arsenic
117. beryllium
121. cyanide
123. mercury
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
Pollutants Detected Below Levels Achievable By Treatment. The
toxic pollutants listed below were found above their analytical
quantification level only at a concentration below the concen-
tration considered achievable by specific available treatment
methods; therefore, they were not selected for consideration in
establishing regulations for this wastewater stream. The pol-
lutants are individually discussed following the list.
23. chloroform
118, cadmium
119. chromium
120. copper
124. nickel
Chloroform was found above Its analytical quantification level in
one of three samples; the measured concentration was 0.020 mg/1.
The observed value is below the level of 0.1 mg/1 that is con-
sidered achievable by specific available treatment methods,
Cadmium was found above its analytical quantification level in
three samples. The maximum measured value was 0.011 mg/1, which
is below the level of 0.049 mg/1 that is considered achievable by
specific available treatment methods.
Chromium was measured above its analytical quantification level
in all three samples. The maximum concentration was 0.009 mg/1,
The level considered achievable by specific available treatment
methods is 0.07 mg/1; only one of the samples was above that
level.
Copper was found above its analytical quantification level in all
three samples. The maximum measured value was 0.250 mg/1, which
596
-------
is below the level of 0.39 mg/1 that is considered achievable by
specific available treatment methods.
Nickel was found above its analytical quantification level in two
of three samples. The maximum measured value was 0.023 mg/1,
which is below the level of 0.22 mg/1 that is considered achiev-
able by specific available treatment methods.
Pollutants Selected For Consideration In Establishing Regulations
For The Degassing Scrubber Liquor Waste Stream.The toxic pollu-
tants listed below are those not eliminated from consideration
for any of the reasons listed above; therefore, each was selected
for consideration in establishing regulations for this wastewater
stream. The pollutants are individually discussed following the
list.
122. lead
128. zinc
Lead was measured above its analytical quantification level in
all three samples; the observed concentrations were 0.019, 0.09
and 0.45 mg/1. The level considered achievable by specific
available treatment methods for lead is 0.08 mg/1.
Zinc was measured at concentrations above its analytical quanti-
fication level in all three samples collected from this waste-
water stream. The concentrations of zinc observed were 0.13,
0.22, and 1.3 mg/1. The proposed water quality criterion for
zinc is 0.047 mg/1. A level of zinc of 0.23 mg/1 is considered
achievable by specific available treatment methods.
597
-------
Table Vl-1
LIST OF 129 TOXIC POLLUTANTS
Compound Name
1. acenaphthene
2. acrolein
3. acrylonitrile
4. benzene
5. benzidene
6. carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane)
Chlorinated benzenes (other than dichlorobenzenes)
7. chlorobenzene
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
Chlorinated ethanes (including 1,2-dichloroethane
1,1,1-trichloroethane and hexachloroethane)
10. 1.2-dichloroethane
11. 1,1,1-trichlorethane
12. hexachlorethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
Chloroalkyl ethers (chloromethyl, chloroethyl and
mixed ethers)
17. bis (chloromethyl) ether
18. bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)
Chlorinated naphthalene
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
598
-------
Table VI-1 (Continued)
LIST OF 129 TOXIC POLLUTANTS
Chlorinated phenols (other than those listed elsewhere;
includes trichlorophenols and chlorinated cresols)
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. parachlorometa cresol
23. chloroform (trichloromethane)
24. 2-chlorophenol
Dichlorobenzenes
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
Dichlorobenzidine
28. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
Dichloroethylenes (1.1-dichloroethylene and
1,2-dichloroethylene)
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
31. 2,4-dichlorophenol
Dichloropropane and dichloropropene
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,2-dichloropropylene (1,3-dichloropropene)
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
Dinitrotoluene
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
38. ethylbenzene
3 9. fluoranthene
599
-------
Table VI-1 (Continued)
LIST OF 129 TOXIC POLLUTANTS
Haloethers (other than those listed elsewhere)
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bls(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
43. bis(2-choroethoxy) methane
Halomethanes (other than those listed elsewhere)
44. methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
45. methyl chloride (chloromethane)
46. methyl bromide (bromomethane)
47. bromoform (tribromomethane)
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. trichlorofluoromethane
50. dichlorodifluoromethane
51. chlorodibromomethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54, isophorone
55. naphthalene
56, nitrobenzene
Nitrophenols (Including 2,4-dinitrophenol and dinitrocresol)
57, 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
Nitrosamines
61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
64. pentachlorophenol
65. phenol
600
-------
Table VI-1 (Continued)
LIST OF 129 TOXIC POLLUTANTS
Phthalate esters
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
benzo (a)anthracene (1,2-benzanthracene)
benzo (a)pyrene (3,4-benzopyrene)
3,4-benzofluoranthene
benzo(k)fluoranthane (11,12-benzofluoranthene)
chrysene
acenaphthylene
anthracene
benzo(ghi)perylene (1,11-benzoperylene)
fluorene
p he nant hr e ne
dibenzo (a,h)anthracene (1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene)
indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene (w,e,-o-phenylenepyrene)
pyrene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
trichloroethylene
vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
Pesticides and metabolites
89. aldrin
90. dieldrin
91. chlordane (technical mixture and metabolites)
DDT and metabolites
92. 4,4'-DDT
93. 4)4'-DDE(p)p'DDX)
94. 4,4I-DDD(p,pITDE)
601
-------
Table VI-1 (Continued)
LIST OF 129 TOXIC POLLUTANTS
Polychlorlnated biphenyls (PCB's)
Endosulfan and metabolites
95. a-endosulfan-Alpha
96. b-endosulfan-Beta
97. endosulfan sulfate
Endrin and metabolites
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor and metabolles
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
Hexachlorocyclohexane (all isomers)
a-BHC-Alpha
b-BHC-Beta
r-BHC (lindane)-Gamma
g-BHC-Delta
PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)
PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)
Metals and Cyanide, and Asbestos
114. antimony
115. arsenic
116. asbestos (Fibrous)
117. beryllium
118. cadmium
119. chromium (Total)
120. copper
121. cyanide (Total)
602
-------
Table VI-1 (Continued)
LIST OF 129 TOXIC POLLUTANTS
Metals and Cyanide, and Asbestos (Cont.)
122. lead
123. mercury
124. nickel
125. selenium
126. silver
127. thallium
128. zinc
Other
113. toxaphene
129. 2,3,7,8-tetra chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
603
-------
-------
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 aluminum forming industrial point source
category. Included are discussions of individual end-of-pipe
treatment technologies and in-plant technologies. These treat-
ment 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 aluminum forming facilities. Each description
includes a functional description and discussions of application
and performance, advantages and limitations, operational factors
(reliability, maintainability, solid waste aspects), and demon-
stration status. The treatment processes described include both
technologies presently demonstrated within the aluminum forming
category, and technologies demonstrated in treatment of similar
wastes in other industries.
Aluminum forming wastewater streams characteristically contain
significant levels of toxic inorganics. Cadmium, chromium,
copper, cyanide, lead, nickel, selenium, and zinc are found in
aluminum forming wastewater streams at substantial concentra-
tions. These toxic inorganic pollutants constitute the most
significant wastewater pollutants in this category.
In general, these pollutants are removed by oil removal (skim-
ming, emulsion breaking, and flotation), chemical precipitation
and sedimentation, or filtration. Most of them may be effec-
tively removed by precipitation of metal hydroxides or carbonates
utilizing the reaction with lime, sodium hydroxide, or sodium
carbonate. For some, improved removals are provided by the use
of sodium sulfide or ferrous sulfide to precipitate the pollu-
tants as sulfide compounds with very low solubilities.
Discussion of end-of-pipe treatment technologies is divided into
three parts: the major technologies; the effectiveness of major
technologies; and minor end-of-pipe technologies.
605
-------
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 technol-
ogies are: chemical reduction of hexavalent chromium, chemical
precipitation of dissolved metals, cyanide precipitation, granu-
lar bed filtration, pressure filtration settling of suspended
solids, skimming of oil, chemical emulsion breaking, and thermal
emulsion breaking. In practice, precipitation of metals and
settling of the resulting precipitates is often a unified
two-step operation. Suspended solids originally present in raw
wastewaters are not appreciably affected by the precipitation
operation and are removed with the precipitated metals in the
settling operations. Settling operations can be evaluated
independently of hydroxide or other chemical precipitation
operations, but hydroxide and other chemical precipitation
operations can only be evaluated in combination with a solids
removal operation.
Chemical Reduction of Chromium
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 metabisulf ite, 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 pro-
vides a good example of the chemical reduction process. Reduc-
tion using other reagents is chemically similar. The reactions
involved may be illustrated as follows:
3S02 + 3H20
3H2S03 + 2HaCr04
Cr2 (804)3 + 5H20
The above reactions are favored by low pH. A pH of from 2 to 3
is normal for situations requiring complete reduction. At pH
levels above 5, the reduction rate is slow. Oxidizing agents
such as dissolved oxygen and ferric iron interfere with the
reduction process by consuming the reducing agent.
A typical treatment consists of 45 minutes retention in a
reaction tank. The reaction tank has an electronic recorder-
controller device to control process conditions with respect to
606
-------
pH and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP). Gaseous sulfur
dioxide is metered to the reaction tank to maintain the ORP
within the range of 250 to 300 millivolts. Sulfuric acid is
added to maintain a pH level of from 1.8 to 2.0. The reaction
tank is equipped with a propeller agitator designed to provide
approximately one turnover per minute. Figure VII-1 shows a
continuous chromium reduction system.
Application and Performance. Chromium reduction is used in
aluminum forming for treating rinses of chromic acid etching
solutions used for high-magnesium aluminum. Cooling tower blow-
down may also contain chromium as a biocide in waste streams.
Electroplating and coil coating operations, frequently found
on-site with aluminum forming operations', are sometimes a source
of chromium-bearing wastewaters. A study of an operational waste
treatment facility chemically reducing hexavalent chromium has
shown that a 99.7 percent reduction efficiency is easily
achieved. Reduction followed by chemical precipitation can
achieve final concentrations of 0.05 mg/1, and concentrations of
0.01 mg/1 are considered to be attainable by properly maintained
and operated equipment.
Advantages and Limitations. The major advantage of chemical
reduction to reduce hexavalent chromium is that it is a fully
proven technology based on many years of experience. Operation
at ambient conditions results in low energy consumption, and the
process, especially when using sulfur dioxide, is well suited to
automatic control. Furthermore, the equipment is readily obtain-
able from many suppliers, and operation is straightforward.
One limitation of chemical reduction of hexavalent chromium is
that for high concentrations of chromium, the cost of treatment
chemicals may be prohibitive. When this situation occurs, other
treatment techniques are likely to be more economical. Chemical
interference by oxidizing agents is possible in the treatment of
mixed wastes, and the treatment itself may introduce pollutants
if not properly controlled. Storage and handling of sulfur
dioxide is somewhat hazardous.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Maintenance consists of
periodic removal of sludge, the frequency of which is a function
of the input concentrations of detrimental constituents.
Solid Waste Aspects: Pretreatment to eliminate substances which
will interfere with the process may often be necessary. This
process produces trivalent chromium which can be controlled by
further treatment. There may, however, be small amounts of
sludge collected due to minor shifts in the solubility of the
contaminants. This sludge can be processed by the main sludge
treatment equipment.
607
-------
Demonstration Status. The reduction of chromium waste by sulfur
dioxide or sodium bisulfite is a classic process and is used by
numerous plants which have hexavalent chromium compounds in
wastewaters from operations such as electroplating and coil coat-
ing. Two aluminum forming plants report the use of chromium
reduction to treat non-aluminum forming wastewaters.
Chemical Precipitation
Dissolved toxic metal ions and certain anions may be chemically
precipitated for removal by physical means such as sedimentation,
filtration, or centrifugation. Several reagents are commonly
used to effect this precipitation.
1. Alkaline compounds such as lime or sodium hydroxide may
be used to precipitate many toxic metal ions as metal
hydroxides. Lime also may precipitate phosphates as
insoluble calcium phosphate and fluorides as calcium
fluoride.
2. Both "soluble" sulfides such as hydrogen sulfide or
sodium sulfide and "insoluble" sulfides such as ferrous
sulfide may be used to precipitate many heavy metal ions
as insoluble metal sulfides.
3. Ferrous sulfate, zinc sulfate, or both (as is required)
may be used to precipitate cyanide as a ferro or zinc
ferricyanide complex.
4. Carbonate precipitates may be used to remove metals
either by direct precipitation using a carbonate
reagent such as calcium carbonate or by converting
hydroxides into carbonates using carbon dioxide.
These treatment chemicals may be added to a flash mixer or rapid
mix tank, to a presettling tank, or directly to a clarifier or
other settling device. Because metal hydroxides tend to be col-
loidal in nature, coagulating agents may also be added to facili-
tate 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 - precipi-
tation of the unwanted metals and removal of the precipitate.
Some small amount of metal will remain dissolved in the waste-
water after complete precipitation. The amount of residual
dissolved metal depends on the treatment chemicals used and
related factors. The effectiveness of this method of removing
any specific metal depends on the fraction of the specific metal
608
-------
in the raw waste (and hence in the precipitate) and the effec-
tiveness of suspended solids removal. In specific instances, a
sacrificial ion such as iron or aluminum may be added to aid in
the precipitation process and reduce the fraction of a specific
metal in the precipitate.
Application and Performance. Chemical precipitation is used in
aluminum forming for precipitation of dissolved metals. It can
be used to remove metal ions such as aluminum, antimony, arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, manga-
nese, mercury, molybdenum, tin, and zinc. The process is also
applicable to any substance that can be transformed into an
insoluble form such as fluorides, phosphates, soaps, sulfides,
and others. Because it is simple and effective, chemical precip-
itation is extensively used for industrial waste treatment.
The performance of chemical precipitation depends on several
variables. The most important factors affecting precipitation
effectiveness are:
1. Maintenance of an alklaine 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 sacrificial ions
(such as iron or aluminum) to ensure precipitation and
removal of specific target ions; and
4. Effective removal of precipitated solids (see
appropriate technologies discussed under "Solids
Removal").
Control of pH. Irrespective of the solids removal technology
employed, proper control of pH is absolutely essential for favor-
able performance of precipitation-sedimentation technologies.
This is clearly illustrated by solubility curves for selected
metals hydroxides and sulfides shown in Figure VII-2, and by
plotting effluent zinc concentrations against pH as shown in
Figure VII-3. Figure VII-3 was obtained from Development Docu-
ment 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
three 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).
609
-------
This treatment system uses lime precipitation (pH adjustment)
followed by coagulant addition and sedimentation. Samples were
taken before (in) and after (out) the treatment system. The best
treatment for removal of copper and zinc was achieved on day one,
when the pH was maintained at a satisfactory level. The poorest
treatment was found on the second day, when the pH slipped to an
unacceptably low level and intermediate values were achieved on
the third day, when pH values were less than desirable but in
between the first and second days.
Sodium hydroxide is used by one facility (plant 439) for pH
adjustment and chemical precipitation, followed by settling
(sedimentation and a polishing lagoon) of precipitated solids.
Samples were taken prior to caustic addition and following the
polishing laeoon. Flow through the system is approximately
22,700 1/hr (6,000 gal/hr). Metals removal data for this system
are presented in Table VII-2.
These data 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 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, polyelec-
trolyte 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 3,500
mg/1. Effluent pH was maintained at approximately 8, lime addi-
tion 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 effectively 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. The data were obtained from three sources:
610
-------
Summary Report, Control and Treatment Technology for
the Metal Finishing Industry: Sulfide Precipitation,
USEPA, EPA No. 625/8/80-003, 1979.
Industry Finishing, Vol. 35, No. 11, November, 1979.
Electroplating sampling data from plant 27045.
In all cases except iron, effluent concentrations are below 0.1
mg/1 and in many cases below 0.04 mg/1 for the three plants
studied.
Sampling data from several chlorine-caustic manufacturing plants
using sulfide precipitation demonstrate effluent mercury concen-
trations varying between 0.009 and 0.03 mg/1. As shown in Figure
VII-2, the solubilities of PbS and Ag2S are lower at alkaline
pH levels than either the corresponding hydroxides or other sul-
fide compounds. This implies that removal performance for lead
and silver sulfides should be comparable to or better than that
for the heavy metal hydroxides. Bench scale tests on several
types of metal finishing and manufacturing wastewater indicate
that metals removal to levels of less than 0.05 mg/1 and in some
cases less than 0.01 mg/1 are common in systems using sulfide
precipitation followed by clarification. Some of the bench scale
data, particularly in the case of lead, do not support such low
effluent concentrations. However, lead is consistently removed
to very low levels (less than 0.02 mg/1) in systems using
hydroxide and carbonate precipitation and sedimentation.
Of particular interest is the ability of sulfide to precipitate
hexavalent chromium (Cr+6) without prior reduction to the tri-
valent state as is required in the hydroxide process. When fer-
rous sulfide is used as the precipitant, iron and sulfide act as
reducing agents for the hexavalent chromium according to the
reaction:
CrOs + FeS + 3H20
Fe(OH>3 + Cr(OH>3 + S
The sludge produced in this reaction consists mainly of ferric
hydroxides, chromic hydroxides, and various metallic sulfides.
Some excess hydroxyl ions are generated in this process, possibly
requiring a downward readjustment of pH.
Based on the available data, Table VII-6 shows the minimum relia-
bly attainable effluent concentrations for sulfide precipitation-
sedimentation systems. These values are used to calculate
performance predictions of sulfide precipitation-sedimentation
systems. Table VII-6 is based on two reports:
611
-------
1.
2.
Summary Report, Control and Treatment Technology for the
Metal Finishing Industry: Sulflde Precipitation, USEPA,
EPA No. 625/8/80-003
stry:
, 1979.
Addendum to Development Document for Effluent Limita-
tions Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards,
Major Inorganic Products Segment of Inorganics Point
Source Category, USEPA., EPA Contract No. EPA/68-Q1-
3281 (Task 7), June, 1978.
Carbonate precipitation is sometimes used to precipitate metals,
especially where precipitated metals values are to be recovered.
The solubility of most metal carbonates is intermediate between
hydroxide and sulfide solubilities; in addition, carbonates form
easily filtered precipitates.
Carbonate ions appear to be particularly useful in precipitating
lead and antimony. Sodium carbonate has been observed being
added at treatment to improve lead precipitation and removal in
some industrial plants. The lead hydroxide and lead carbonate
solubility curves displayed in Figure VII-4 ("Heavy Metals
Removal," by Kenneth Lanovette, Chemical Engineering/Deskbook
Issue, Oct. 17, 1977) explain this phenomenon.
Co-precipitation with Iron - The presence of substantial quanti-
ties 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 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 prac-
ticed for many years incidentally when iron was a substantial
constituent of raw wastewater and intentionally when iron salts
were added as a coagulant aid. Aluminum or mixed iron-aluminum
salt also have been used.
Co-precipitation using large amounts of ferrous iron salts is
known as ferrite co-precipitation because magnetic iron oxide or
ferrite is formed. The addition of ferrous salts (sulfate) is
followed by alkali precipitation and air oxidation. The resul-
tant 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. The data are
from:
1. Sources and Treatment of Wastewater in the Nonferrous
Metals Industry, USEPA, EPA No. 600/2-80-074, 1980.
612
-------
Advantages and Limitations
Chemical precipitation has proven to be an effective technique
for removing many pollutants from industrial wastewater. It
operates at ambient conditions and is well suited to automatic
control. The use of chemical precipitation may be limited
because of interference by chelating agents, because of possible
chemical interference of mixed wastewaters and treatment chemi-
cals, or because of the potentially hazardous situation involved
with the storage and handling of those chemicals. Lime is usu-
ally added as a slurry when used in hydroxide precipitation. The
slurry must be kept well mixed and the addition lines periodi-
cally checked to prevent blocking of the lines, which may result
from a buildup of solids. Also, hydroxide precipitation usually
makes recovery of the precipitated metals difficult, because of
the heterogeneous nature of most hydroxide sludges.
The major advantage of the sulfide precipitation process is that
the extremely low solubility of most metal sulfides promotes very
high metal removal efficiencies; the sulfide process also has the
ability to remove chromates and dichromates without preliminary
reduction of the chromium to its trivalent state. In addition,
sulfide can precipitate metals complexed with most complexing
agents. The process demands care; however, in maintaining the pH
of the solution at approximately 10 in order to prevent the gen-
eration of toxic hydrogen sulfide gas. For this reason, ventila-
tion 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 efflu-
ent stream can aid in oxidizing residual sulfide to the less
harmful sodium sulfate (Na2S04). The cost of sulfide precip-
itants is high in comparison with hydroxide precipitants, and
disposal of metallic sulfide sludges may pose problems. An
essential element in effective sulfide precipitation is the
removal of precipitated solids from the wastewater and proper
disposal in an appropriate site. Sulfide precipitation will also
generate a higher volume of sludge than hydroxide precipitation,
resulting in higher disposal and dewatering costs. This is
especially true when ferrous sulfide is used as the precipitant.
Sulfide precipitation may be used as a polishing treatment after
hydroxide precipitation-sedimentation. This treatment configura-
tion may provide the better treatment effectiveness of sulfide
613
-------
precipitation while minimizing the variability caused by changes
in raw waste and reducing the amount of sulfide precipitant
required.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Alkaline chemical precipita-
tion is highly reliable, although proper monitoring and control
are required. Sulfide precipitation systems provide similar
reliability,
Maintainability: The major maintenance needs involve periodic
upkeep of monitoring equipment, automatic feeding equipment,
mixing equipment, and other hardware. Removal of accumulated
sludge is necessary for efficient operation of precipitation-
sedimentation systems.
Solid Waste Aspects: Solids which precipitate out are removed in
a subsequent treatment step. Ultimately, these solids require
proper disposal.
Demonstration Status. Chemical precipitation of metal hydroxides
is a classic waste treatment technology used by most industrial
waste treatment systems. Chemical precipitation of metals in the
carbonate form alone has been found to be feasible and is commer-
cially 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.
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 expo-
sure 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 ferrocya-
nide or ferro and ferricyanide complexes.
Adequate removal of the precipitated cyanide requires that the pH
must be kept at 9.0 and an appropriate detention time be main-
tained. A study has shown that the formation of the complex is
very dependent on pH. At pH's of 8 and 10 the residual cyanide
concentrations measured are twice those of the same reaction car-
ried out at a pH of 9. Removal efficiencies also depend heavily
on the retention time allowed. The formation of the complexes
614
-------
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 cya-
nide showed that 98 percent of the cyanide was complexed 10
minutes after the addition of ferrous sulfate at twice the theo-
retical amount necessary. Interference from other metal ions,
such as cadmium, might result in the need for longer retention
times.
Table VII-8 presents data from three coil coating plants. Plant
1057 also does aluminum forming. A fourth plant was visited for
the purpose of observing plant testing of the cyanide precipita-
tion system. Specific data from this facility are not included
because: (1) the pH was usually well below the optimum level of
9.0; (2) the historical treatment data were not obtained using
the standard cyanide analysis procedure; and (3) matched input-
output data were not made available by the plant. Scanning the
available data indicates that the raw waste CN level was in the
range of 25.0; the pH 7.5; and treated CN level was from 0.1 to
0.2.
The concentrations are those of the stream entering and leaving
the treatment system. Plant 1057 allowed a 27 minute retention
time for the formation of the complex. The retention time for
the other plants is not known. The data suggest that over a wide
range of cyanide concentration in the raw waste, the concentra-
tion of cyanide can be reduced in the effluent stream to under
0.15 mg/1.
Application and Performance. Cyanide precipitation can be used
when cyanide destruction is not feasible because of the presence
of cyanide complexes which are difficult to destroy. Effluent
concentrations of cyanide well below 0.15 mg/1 are possible.
Advantages and Limitations. Cyanide precipitation is an inexpen-
sive method of treating cyanide. Problems may occur when metal
ions interfere with the formation of the complexes.
Demonstration Status. Although no plants currently use cyanide
precipitation to treat aluminum forming wastewaters, it is used
in at least six coil coating plants, two of which have both
aluminum forming and aluminum coil coating operations.
Granular Bed Filtration
Filtration occurs in nature as the surface ground waters are
cleansed by sand. Silica sand, anthracite coal, and garnet are
615
-------
common filter media used in water treatment plants. These are
usually supported by gravel. The media may be used singly or in
combination. The multi-media filters may be arranged to maintain
relatively distinct layers by virtue of balancing the forces of
gravity, flow, and buoyancy on the individual particles. This is
accomplished by selecting appropriate filter flow rates (gpm/sq-
f t) , 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 fre-
quent 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 (Figure VII-5a), but dual (Figure VII-5d) and mixed (multi-
ple) media (Figure VII-5e) filters allow higher flow rates and
efficiencies. The dual media filter usually consists of a fine
bed of sand under a coarser bed of anthracite coal. The coarse
coal removes most of the influent solids, while the fine sand
performs a polishing function. At the end of the backwash, the
fine sand settles to the bottom because it is denser than the
coal, and the filter is ready for normal operation. The mixed
media filter operates on the same principle, with the finer,
denser media at the bottom and the coarser, less dense media at
the top. The usual arrangement is garnet at the bottom (outlet
end) of the bed, sand in the middle, and anthracite coal at the
top. Some mixing of these layers occurs and is, in fact,
desirable.
The flow pattern is usually top-to-bottom, but other patterns are
sometimes used. Upflow filters (Figure VII-5b) are sometimes
used, and in a horizontal filter the flow is horizontal. In a
biflow filter (Figure Vll-5c), 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 lowers filtration
efficiency. The biflow design is an attempt to overcome this
problem.
616
-------
The classic granular bed filter operates by gravity flow; how-
ever, 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-6 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 per-
mits gravity upflow of the backwash, with the stored filtrate
serving as backwash. Addition of the indicated coagulant and
polyelectrolyte usually results in a substantial improvement in
filter performance.
Auxiliary filter cleaning is sometimes employed in the upper few
inches of filter beds. This is conventionally referred to as
surface wash and is accomplished by water jets just below the
surface of the expanded bed during the backwash cycle. These
jets enhance the scouring action in the bed by increasing the
agitation.
An important feature for successful 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 veloc-
ity head during the filter or backwash cycle will result in bed
upset and the need for major repairs.
Several standard approaches are employed for filter underdrains.
The simplest one consists of a parallel porous pipe imbedded
under a layer of coarse gravel and manifolded to a header pipe
for effluent removal. Other approaches to the underdrain system
are known as the Leopold and Wheeler filter bottoms. Both of
these incorporate false concrete bottoms with specific porosity
configurations to provide drainage and velocity head dissipation.
Filter system operation may be manual or automatic. The filter
backwash cycle may be on a timed basis, a pressure drop 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.
Application and Performance. Wastewater treatment plants often
use granular bed filters for polishing after clarification, sedi-
mentation, or other similar operations. Granular bed filtration
thus has potential application to nearly all industrial plants.
617
-------
Chemical additives which enhance the upstream treatment equipment
may or may not be compatible with or enhance the filtration pro-
cess. Normal operation flow rates for various types of filters
are as follows:
Slow Sand
Rapid Sand
High Rate Mixed Media
2.04 - 5.30 1/sq m-hr
40.74 - 51.48 1/sq m-hr
81.48 - 122.22 1/sq m-hr
Suspended solids are commonly removed from wastewater streams by
filtering through a deep 0.3 to 0.9 m (1 to 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 preliminary treatment 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 ini-
tial and operating costs, reduced land requirements over other
methods to achieve the same level of solids removal, and elimina-
tion of chemical additions to the discharge stream. However, the
filter may require preliminary treatment if the solids level is
high (over 100 mg/1). Operator training must be somewhat exten-
sive 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 relia-
bility. 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 peri-
odically inspected for media attrition, partial plugging, and
leakage. Where backwashing is not used, collected solids must be
removed by shoveling, and filter media must be at least partially
replaced.
Solid Waste Aspects: Filter backwash is generally recycled
within the wastewater treatment system, so that the solids ulti-
mately 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
618
-------
disposed of in a suitable landfill. In either of these situa-
tions there is a solids disposal problem similar to that of
clarifiers.
Demonstration Status. Deep bed filters are in common use in
municipal treatment plants. Their use in polishing industrial
clarifier effluent is increasing, and the technology is proven
and conventional. Granular bed filtration is used in many
manufacturing plants. As noted previously, however, little data
is available characterizing the effectiveness of filters
presently in use within the aluminum forming industry.
Pressure Filtration
Pressure filtration works by pumping the liquid through a filter
material which is impenetrable to the solid phase. The positive
pressure exerted by the feed pumps or other mechanical means pro-
vides the pressure differential which is the principal driving
force. Figure VII-7 represents the operation of one type of
pressure filter.
A typical pressure filtration unit consists of a number of plates
or trays which are held rigidly in a frame to ensure alignment
and which are pressed together between a fixed end and a travel-
ing end. On the surface of each plate is mounted a filter made
of cloth or a synthetic fiber. The feed stream is pumped into
the unit and passes through holes in the trays along the length
of the press until the cavities or chambers between the trays are
completely filled. The solids are then entrapped, and a cake
begins to form on the surface of the filter material. The water
passes through the fibers, and the solids are retained.
At the bottom of the trays are drainage ports. The filtrate is
collected and discharged to a common drain. As the filter medium
becomes coated with sludge, the flow of filtrate through the
filter drops sharply, indicating that the capacity of the filter
has been exhausted. The unit must then be cleaned of the sludge.
After the cleaning or replacement of the filter media, the unit
is again ready for operation.
Application and Performance. Pressure filtration is used in
aluminum forming for sludge dewatering and also for direct
removal of precipitated and other suspended solids from waste-
water.
Because dewatering is such a common operation in treatment sys-
tems, pressure filtration is a technique which can be found in
many industries concerned with removing solids from their waste
stream.
619
-------
In a typical pressure filter, chemically preconditioned sludge
detained in the unit for one to three hours under pressures vary-
ing from 5 to 13 atmospheres exhibited a final dry solids content
between 25 and 50 percent.
Advantages and Limitations. The pressures which may be applied
to a sludge for removal of water by filter presses that are
currently available range from 5 to 13 atmospheres. As a result,
pressure filtration may reduce the amount of chemical pretreat-
ment required for sludge dewatering. Sludge retained in the form
of the filter cake has a higher percentage of solids than that
from a 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 of without further dewatering. The amount of sludge is
increased by the use of filter precoat materials (usually dia-
tomaceous 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 auto-
mation. 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
aluminum forming wastewater necessitate proper disposal.
620
-------
Demonstration Status. Pressure filtration is a commonly used
technology in many commercial applications. One aluminum forming
plant uses pressure filtration for sludge dewatering.
Settling
Settling is a process which removes solid particles from a liquid
matrix by gravitational force. This is done by reducing the
velocity of the feed stream in a large volume tank or lagoon so
that gravitational settling can occur. Figure VII-8 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 ho 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 periodi-
cally or continuously and either manually or mechanically.
Simple settling, however, may require excessively large catch-
ments, 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 collect-
ing 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 sludge
stream is often recirculated to the inlet, promoting formation of
a denser sludge.
621
-------
Application and Performance. Settling and clarification are used
in the aluminum forming category to remove precipitated metals.
Settling can be used to remove most suspended solids in a partic-
ular 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 precip-
itates, settling is of particular use in those industries associ-
ated 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 pre-
cipitated materials effectively removed by settling include
aluminum, iron, manganese, cobalt, antimony, beryllium,
molybdenum, fluoride, phosphate, and many others.
A properly operated settling system can efficiently remove sus-
pended solids, precipitated metal hydroxides, and other impuri-
ties 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 floccu-
lant 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 reac-
tion time in order for effective set-up and settling to occur.
Plant personel 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.
Advantages and Limitations* The major advantage of simple set-
tling is its simplicity as demonstrated by the gravitational
settling of solid particular waste in a holding tank or lagoon.
The major problem with simple settling is the long retention time
necessary to achieve an acceptable effluent, especially if the
specific gravity of the suspended matter is close to that of
water. Some materials cannot be effectively removed by simple
settling alone.
622
-------
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 lamellar 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 con-
trol 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 prescreening of the waste in order
to eliminate any fibrous materials which could potentially clog
the system. Some installations are especially vulnerable to
shock loadings, as by storm water runoff, but proper system
design will prevent this.
Maintainability: When clarifiers or other advanced settling
devices are used, the associated system utilized for chemical
pretreatment and sludge dragout must be maintained on a regular
basis. Routine maintenance of mechanical parts is also neces-
sary. 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. Twenty-nine aluminum forming plants use
sedimentation or clarification.
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 material to rise and remain
623
-------
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 (Figure VII-9), such as the API type, utilize
overflow and underflow baffles to skim a floating oil layer from
the surface of the wastewater. An overflow-underflow baffle
allows a small amount of wastewater (the oil portion) to flow
over into a trough for disposition or reuse while the majority of
the water flows underneath the baffle. This is followed by an
overflow baffle, which is set at a height relative to the first
baffle such that only the oil bearing portion will flow over the
first baffle during normal plant operation. A diffusion device,
such as a vertical slot baffle, aids in creating a uniform flow
through the system and increasing oil removal efficiency.
Application and Performance. 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 minues, 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
continuous and substantial. Drum and belt type skimmers are
applicable to waste streams which evidence smaller amounts of
floating oil and where surges of floating oil are not a problem.
Using an API separator system in conjunction with a drum type
skimmer would be a very effective method of removing floating
contaminants from non-emulsified oily waste streams. Sampling
data shown in Table VII-11 illustrate the capabilities of the
technology with both extremely high and moderate oil influent
levels.
624
-------
This data is intended to be illustrative of the very high level
of oil and grease removals attainable in a simple two stage oil
removal system. Based on the performance of installations in a
variety of manufacturing plants and permit requirements that are
constantly achieved, it is determined that effluent oil levels
may be reliably reduced below 10 mg/1 with moderate influent
concentrations. Very high concentrations of oil such as the 22
percent shown in Table VII-11 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 com-
pounds tend to be removed in standard wastewater treatment equip-
ment. Oil separation not only removes oil but also organics that
are more soluble in oil than in water. Clarification removes
organic solids directly and probably removes dissolved organics
by adsorption on inorganic solids.
The source of these organic pollutants is not always known with
certainty, although in metal forming operations they seem to
derive mainly from various process lubricants. They are also
sometimes present in the plant water supply, as additives to
proprietary formulations of cleaners, or due to leaching from
plastic liners and other materials.
High molecular weight organics in particular are much more solu-
ble in organic solvents than in water. Thus they are much more
concentrated in the oil phase that is skimmed than in the waste-
water. The ratio of solubilities of a compound in oil and water
phases is called the partition coefficient. The logarithm of the
partition coefficients for 15 polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
(PAH) compounds in octanol and water are:
PAH Priority Pollutant
1. Acenaphthene
30. Fluoranthene
7 2. Benzo(a)anthracene
73. Benzo(a)pyrene
74. 3,4-Benzofluoranthene
75. Benzo(k)fluoranthene
76. Chrysene
7 7. Acenaphthylene
78. Anthracene
79. Benzo(ghi)perylene
80. Fluorene
81. Phenanthrene
82. Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. Indeno(l,2,3,cd)pyrene
84. Pyrene
Log Octanol/Water
Partition Coefficient
4.33
5.33
5.61
6.04
6.57
6.84
5.61
4.07
4.45
7.23
4.18
4.46
5.97
7.66
5.32
625
-------
A study of toxic organic compounds commonly found in metal form-
ing operations waste streams indicated that incidental removal of
these compounds often occurs as a result of oil removal or clari-
fication processes. When all organics analyses from visited
plants are considered, removal of organic compounds by other
waste treatment technologies often appears to be marginal in most
cases. 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 more
subject to analytical variation, while higher values indicate a
significant presence of a given compound. When these factors are
taken into account, the data indicate that most clarification and
oil removal treatment systems remove significant amounts of the
organic compounds present in the raw waste. The API oil-water
separation system performed notably in this regard, as shown in
Table VII-12.
The unit operation most applicable to removal of trace toxic
organics is adsorption, and chemical oxidation is another possi-
bility. Biological degradation is not generally applicable
because the organics are not present in sufficient concentration
to sustain a biomass and because most of the organics are
resistant to biodegradation.
Advantages and Limitations. Skimming as a pretreatment is effec-
tive 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 tech-
nologies .
Operational Factors. Reliability: Because of its simplicity,
skimming is a very reliable technique.
Maintainability: The skimming mechanism requires periodic
lubrication, adjustment, and replacement of worn parts.
Solid Waste Aspects: The collected layer of debris must be
disposed of by contractor removal, landfill, or incineration.
Because relatively large quantities of water are present in the
collected wastes, incineration is not always a viable disposal
method.
Demonstration Status. Skimming is a common operation utilized
extensively by industrial waste treatment systems.
626
-------
Chemical Emulsion Breaking
Chemical treatment is often used to break stable oil-in-water
(0-W) emulsions. An 0-W emulsion consists of oil dispersed in
water, stabilized by electrical charges and emulsifying agents.
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 usu-
ally 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-10.
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
sufactants have rather long polar molecules. One end of the
molecule is particularly soluble in water (e.g., carboxyl, sul-
fate, 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 0-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.
Treatment of spent 0-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 chem-
icals, dosage and sequence of addition, pH, mechanical shear and
agitation, heat, and retention time.
Chemicals, e.g., polymers, alum, ferric chloride, and organic
emulsion breakers, break emulsions by neutralizing repulsive
charges between particles, precipitating or salting out emul-
sifying agents, or altering the interfacial film between the
627
-------
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 0-W emulsions. Once the charges
have been neutralized or the interfacial film broken, the small
oil droplets and suspended solids wil 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.
pH plays an important role in emulsion breaking, especially if
cationic inorganic chemicals, such as alum, are used as coagu-
lants. A depressed pH in the range of 2 to 4 keeps the aluminum
ion in its most positive state where it can function most effec-
tively 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 aluminum 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 0-W emulsions. Proper chemical
feed and dispersion is required for effective results. Mixing
also causes collisions which help break the emulsion, and sub-
sequently helps to agglomerate droplets.
In all emulsions, the mix of two immiscible liquids has a spe-
cific gravity very close to that of water. Heating lowers the
viscosity and increases the apparent specific gravity differen-
tial between oil and water. Heating also increases the frequency
of droplet collisions, which helps to rupture the interfacial
film.
Oil and grease and suspended solids performance data are shown in
Table VII-13. Data were obtained from sampling at operating
plants and a review of the current literature. This type of
treatment is proven to be reliable and is considered the current
state-of-the-art for aluminum forming emulsified oily waste-
waters.
Advantages and Limitations. Advantages gained from the use of
chemicals for breaking 0-W emulsions are the high removal effi-
ciency potential and the possibility of reclaiming the oily
628
-------
waste. Disadvantages are corrosion problems associated with
acid-alum systems, skilled operator requirements for batch treat-
ment, chemical sludges produced, and poor cost-effectiveness for
low oil concentrations.
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 recov-
ered oil has a sufficiently low percentage of water, it may be
burned for its fuel value or processed and reused.
Demonstration Status. Sixteen plants in the aluminum forming
category currently break emulsions with chemicals. Eight plants
chemically break spent rolling oil emulsions with chemicals, one
plant breaks its rolling and drawing emulsions, one plant breaks
its rolling oils and degreasing solvent, one plant breaks its
direct chill casting contact cooling water, scrubber liquor, and
sawing oil, and one plant breaks its direct chill casting contact
cooling water and extrusion press heat treatment contact cooling
water.
Thermal Emulsion Breaking
Dispersed oil droplets in a spent emulsion can be destabilized by
the application of heat to the waste. One type of technology
commonly used in the metals and mechanical products industries is
the evaporation-decantation-condensation process, also called
thermal emulsion breaking (TEB), which separates the emulsion
waste into distilled water, oils and other floating materials,
and sludge. Raw waste is fed to a main reaction chamber. Warm
air is passed over a large revolving drum which is partially sub-
merged in the waste. Some water evaporates from the surface of
the drum and is carried upward through a filter and a condensing
unit. The condensed water is discharged or reused as process
makeup, while the air is reheated and returned to the evaporation
stage. As the water evaporates in the main chamber, oil concen-
tration increases. This enhances agglomeration and gravity sepa-
ration of oils. The separated oils and other floating materials
flow over a weir into a decanting chamber. A rotating drum
skimmer picks up oil from the surface of the decanting chamber
and discharges it for possible reprocessing or contractor
removal. Meanwhile, oily water is being drawn from the bottom of
629
-------
the decanting chamber, reheated, and sent back into the main con-
veyorized chamber. Solids which settle out in the main chamber
are removed by a conveyor belt. This conveyor belt, called a
flight scraper, moves slowly so as not to interfere with the
'settling of suspended solids.
Application and Performance. Thermal emulsion breaking technol-
ogy can be applied to the treatment of spent emulsions in the
aluminum forming category.
The performance of a thermal emulsion breaker is dependent
primarily on the characteristics of the raw waste and proper
maintenance and functioning of the process components. Some
emulsions may contain volatile compounds which could escape with
the distilled water. In systems where the water is recycled back
to process; however, this problem is essentially elminated.
Experience in at least two copper forming plants has shown that
trace organics or other contaminants found in the condensed water
will not adversely affect the lubricants when this water is used
for process emulsions. In one copper forming plant, typical oil
and grease level in the condensed water was 1 mg/1.
Advantages and Limitations. Advantages of the thermal emulsion
breaking process include high percentages of oil removal (at
least 99 percent in most cases), the separation of floating oil
from settleable sludge solids, and the production of distilled
water which is available for process reuse. In addition, no
chemicals are required and the operation is automated, factors
which reduce operating costs. Disadvantages of the process are
the energy requirement for water evaporation and, if intermit-
tently operated, the necessary installation of a large storage
tank.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Thermal emulsion breaking is
a very reliable process for the treatment of emulsified oil
wastes.
Maintainability: The thermal emulsion breaking process requires
minimal routine maintenance of the process components, and peri-
odic disposal of the sludge and oil.
Solid Waste Aspects: The thermal emulsion breaking process
generates sludge which must be properly disposed of.
Demonstration Status. Thermal emulsion breaking is used in
metals and mechanical products industries. It is a proven method
of effectively treating emulsified wastes.
630
-------
MAJOR TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS
The performance of individual treatment technologies was pre-
sented above. Performance of operating systems is discussed
here. Two different systems are considerred: L&S (hydroxide
precipitation and sedimentation or lime and settle) and LSStF
(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 regu-
lating pollutants. Evaluation of the LScS and the LSStF systems is
carried out on the assumption that chemical reduction of chro-
mium, cyanide precipitation, oil skimming, and emulsion breaking
are installed and operating properly where appropriate.
LSiS Performance - Combined Metals Data Base
Before proposal, chemical analysis data were collected of raw
waste (treatment influent) and treated waste (treatment effluent)
from 55 plants (126 data days) sampled by EPA (or its contractor)
using EPA sampling and chemical analysis protocols. These data
are the data base for determining the effectiveness of LStS tech-
nology. Each of these plants belongs to at least one of the
following industry categories: aluminum forming, battery
manufacturing, coil coating, copper forming, electroplating and
porcelain enameling. All of the plants employ pH adjustment and
hydroxide precipitation using lime or caustic, followed by
settling (tank, lagoon or clarifier) for solids removal. Most
also add a coagulant or flocculant prior to solids removal.
An analysis of this data was presented in the development docu-
ments for the proposed regulations for coil coating and porcelain
enameling (January 1981). In response to the proposal, some
commenters claimed that it was inappropriate to use data from
some categories for regulation of other categories. In response
to these comments, the Agency reanalyzed the data. An analysis
of variance was applied to the data for the 126 days of sampling
to test the hypothesis of homogeneous plant mean raw and treated
effluent levels across categories by pollutant. This analysis is
described in the report, "A Statistical Analysis of the Combined
Metals Industries Effluent Data" which is in the administrative
record supporting this rulemaking. The main conclusion drawn
from the analysis of variance is that, with the exception of
electroplating, the categories are generally homogeneous with
regard to mean pollutant concentrations in both raw and treated
effluent. That is, when data from electroplating facilities are
included in the analysis, the hypothesis of homogeneity across
categories is rejected. When the electroplating data are removed
from the analysis the conclusion changes substantially and the
hypothesis of homogeneity across categories is not rejected. On
631
-------
the basis of this analysis, the electroplating data were removed
from the data base used to determine limitations. Cases that
appeared to be marginally different were not unexpected (such as
copper in copper forming and lead in lead battery manufacturing)
and were accommodated in developing limitations by using the
larger values obtained from the marginally different category to
characterize the entire data set.
The statistical analysis provides support for the technical engi-
neering judgement that electroplating wastewaters are different
from most metal processing wastewater. These differences may be
further explained by differences in the constituents and relative
amounts of pollutants in the raw wastewaters. Therefore, the
wastewater data derived from plants that only electroplate are
not used in developing limitations for the aluminum forming
category.
After removing the electroplating data, data from 21 plants and
52 days of sampling remained.
For the purpose of developing treatment effectiveness, certain
additional data were deleted from the data base before examina-
tion for homogeneity. These deletions were made to ensure that
the data reflect properly operated treatment systems and actual
pollutant removal. The following criteria were used in making
these deletions:
Plants where malfunctioning processes or treatment
systems at time of sampling were identified.
Data days where pH was less than 7.0 or TSS was greater
than 50 mg/1. (This is a prima facie indication of poor
operation.)
Data points where the raw value was too low to assure
actual pollutant removal occurred (i.e., less than 0.1
mg/1 of pollutant in raw waste).
Collectively, these selection criteria ensure that the data are
from properly operating lime and settle treatment facilities.
The remaining data are displayed graphically in Figures VII-11 to
VII-19. This common or combined metals data base provides a more
sound and usable basis for estimating treatment effectiveness and
statistical variability of lime and settle technology than the
available data from any one category.
One-Day Effluent Values
The basic assumption underlying the determination of treatment
effectiveness is that the data for a particular pollutant are
632
-------
lognormally distributed by plant. The lognormal has been found
to provide a satisfactory fit to plant effluent data in a number
of effluent guidelines categories. In the case of the combined
metal categories data base, there are too few data from any one
plant to verify formally the lognormal assumption. Thus, we
assumed measurements of each pollutant from a particular plant,
denoted by X, follow a lognormal distribution with a log mean y
and log variance cr^. The mean, variance, and 99th percentile
of X are then:
mean of X =* E(X) « exp( U+ a 2/2)
variance of X = V(X) = exp(2 u+a2) [exp(a2) - 1]
99th percentile = X.gg = exp( U + 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 dis-
tribution with mean y and variance a2. Using the basic
assumption of log normality the actual treatment effectiveness
was determined using a lognormal distribution that, in a sense,
approximates the distribution of an average of the plants in the
data base, i.e., an "average plant" distribution. The notion of
an "average plant" distribution is not a strict statistical con-
cept but is used here to determine limits that would represent
the performance capability of an average of the plants in the
data base.
This "average plant" distribution for a particular pollutant was
developed as follows: the log mean was determined by taking the
average of all the observations for the pollutant across plants.
The log variance was determined by the pooled within plant
variance. This is the weighted average of the plant variances.
Thus, the log mean represents the average of all the data for the
pollutant and the log variance represents the average of the
plant log variances or average plant variability for the
pollutant.
The one-day effluent values were determined as follows:
Let X-H = the jth observation on a particular pollutant at
plant 1 where
Then
where
i — 1 , . . . , I
j - 1, . . ., Ji
I - total number of plants
-L " number of observations at plant i
= In Xtj
In means the natural logarithm.
633
-------
Then
where
y - log mean over all plants
I J^
1=1 j-i yij/n
n - total number of observations
I
- £ Ji
and V(y) = pooled log variance
(Ji-1)
where Si2 » log variance at plant i
- £
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)4»n(0 .5V(y) )
99th percentile -
= exp[y + 2.33/V(y)]
where
-------
not reflect pollutant removal or proper treatment, the effluent
copper data from the copper forming plants were statistically
significantly greater than the copper data from the other plants.
Thus, copper effluent values shown in Table VII-14 are based only
on the copper effluent data from the copper forming plants. That
is, the log mean for copper is the mean of the logs of all copper
values from the copper forming plants only and the log variance
is the pooled log variance of the copper forming plant data only.
In the case of cadmium, after excluding the electroplating data
and data that did not reflect removal or proper treatment, there
were insufficient data to estimate the log variance for cadmium.
The variance used to determine the values shown in Table 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 administra-
tive record for this rulemaking.
Average Effluent Values
Average effluent values that form the basis for the monthly
limitations were developed in a manner consistent with the method
used to develop one-day treatment effectiveness in that the log-
normal 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 distribu-
tion of daily measurements. The approach used for the 10 mea-
surements values was employed previously for the electroplating
category (see "Development Document for Existing Sources
Pretreatment Standards for the Electroplating Point Source
Category," EPA 440/1-79/003, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., August, 1979). That is, the distri-
bution 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 approxi-
mation was verified in a computer simulation study. 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
635
-------
measurements for a particular pollutant, denoted by X, follow a
lognormal distribution with log mean and log variance denoted by
y andcr2^ respectively. Let XIQ denote the mean of 10
consecutive measurements. The following relationships then hold
assuming the daily measurements are independent:
mean of XIQ - E(XIQ) - E(X)
variance of XIQ = V(XIQ) - V(X) * 10.
Where E(X) and V(X) are the mean and_variance of X, respectively,
defined above. We then assume that X^Q follows a lognormal
distribution with log mean V 10 and log standard deviation
a 210« The mean and variance of X}Q are then
0.5a21Q)
V(X10) = exp(2y10 +
Now, V 10 anc* a^10 can ke derived in terms of y and a2 as
+ 0.51n[l + (exp(a2 - 1)/N]
(exp(o2) - 1)/N].
Therefore, V IQ and o2io can be estimated using the above
relationships and the estimates of y 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
= exp(y10 + 2.33 S10)
where y^o anc* alO are the estimates of
respectively.
30 Sample Average:
°10i
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
636
-------
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
determination of 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. The monthly limitations based
on 10 consecutive measurements were determined using the log-
normal approximation described above because 10 measurements
were, in this case, considered too small, a number for use of the
Central Limit Theorem.
30 Sample Average Calculation
The formulas for the 30 sample average were based on an applica-
tion of the Central Limit Theorem. According to the Theorem, the
average of 30 observations drawn from the distribution of daily
measurements, denoted by X3o, is approximately normally dis-
tributed. The mean and variance of X3o are
mean of X3Q = E(X30) - E(X)
variance of X3Q - V(X3o) = V(X) T 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
A99) - EA(X) + 2.33/VA(X) * 30
where E(X) = exp(y)i|m(0.5V(y) )
and VA(X) = exp(2y)[i|m(2V(y)) - i/m {fn-2x V(y) } ].
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
ZT5T
Application
In response to the proposed coil coating and porcelain enameling
regulations, the Agency received comments pointing out that per-
mits 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 is based on the average of 30 samples.
637
-------
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 10 samples per month or slightly greater than
twice weekly. The 99th percentiles of the distribution of
averages of 10 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 10-day average is
about 80 percent of the difference between one and 30-day
values). Hence, the 10-day average provides a reasonable basis
for a monthly average and is typical of the sampling frequency
required by existing permits.
The monthly average is to be achieved in all permits and pre-
treatment standards regardless of the number of samples required
to be analyzed and averaged by the permit or the pretreatment
authority.
Additional Pollutants
A number of other pollutant parameters were considered with
regard to the performance of lime and settle treatment systems in
removing them from industrial wastewater. Performance data for
these parameters is not readily available, so data available to
the Agency in other categories has been selectively used to
determine the long-term average performance of lime and settle
technology for each pollutant. These data indicate that the
concentrations shown in Table VII-15 are reliably attainable with
hydroxide precipitation and settling. The precipitation of
silver appears to be accomplished by alkaline chloride precipi-
tation and adequate chloride ions must be available for this
reaction to occur.
In establishing which data were suitable for use in Table VII-15
two factors were heavily weighed: (1) the nature of the waste-
water; and (2) the range of pollutants or pollutant matrix in the
raw wastewater. These data have been selected from processes
that generate dissolved metals in the wastewater and which are
generally free from complexing agents. The pollutant matrix was
evaluated by comparing the concentrations of pollutants found in
the raw wastewaters with the range of pollutants in the raw
wastewaters of the combined metals data set. These data are
displayed in Tables 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. 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.
638
-------
Antimony (Sb) - The achievable performance for antimony is based
on data from a battery and secondary lead plant. Both EPA sam-
pling 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.
Arsenic (As) - The achievable performance of 0.5 mg/1 for arsenic
is based on permit data from two nonferrous metals manufacturing
plants. The untreated wastewater matrix shown in Table VII-17 is
comparable with the combined data set matrix.
Beryllium (Be) - The treatability of beryllium is transferred
from the nonferrous metals manufacturing industry. The 0.3 per-
formance is achieved at a beryllium plant with the comparable
untreated wastewater matrix shown in Table VII-17.
Mercury (Hg) - The 0.06 mg/1 treatability of mercury is based on
data from four battery plants. The untreated wastewater matrix
at these plants was considered in the combined metals data set.
Selenium (Se) - The 0.30 mg/1 treatability of selenium is based
on recent permit data from one of the nonferrous metals manufac-
turing plants also used for antimony performance. The untreated
wastewater matrix for this plant is shown in Table VII-17.
Silver (Ag) - The treatability of silver is based on a 0.1 mg/1
treatability estimate from the inorganic chemicals industry.
Additional data supporting a treatability as stringent or more
stringent than 0.1 mg/1 is also available from seven nonferrous
metals manufacturing plants. The untreated wastewater matrix for
these plants is comparable and summarized in Table VII-17.
Thallium (Th) - The 0.50 mg/1 treatability for thallium is trans-
ferred 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 1.11 mg/1 treatability of aluminum is based
on the mean performance of one aluminum forming plant and one
coil coating plant. Both of the plants are from categories con-
sidered in the combined metals data set, assuring untreated
wastewater matrix comparability.
Cobalt (Co) - The 0.05 mg/1 treatability is based on nearly com-
plete 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 considered in the combined metals data
base, assuring untreated wastewater matrix comparability.
639
-------
Fluoride (F) - The 14.5 mg/1 treatabtlity of fluoride is based on
the mean performance of an electronics and electrical component
manufacturing plant. The untreated wastewater matrix for this
plant shown in Table VII-17 is comparable to the combined metals
data set.
LSStF 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
pressure filtration, while Plant B uses a rapid sand filter.
Raw waste data was collected only occasionally at each facility
and the raw waste data is presented as an indication of the
nature of the wastewater treated. Data from Plant A was received
as a statistical summary and is presented as received. Raw
laboratory data was collected at Plant B and reviewed for spuri-
ous points and discrepancies. The method of 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 four months (103 data days) taken
immediately before the smelter was closed. It has been arranged
similarily to Plants A and B for comparison and use.
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 o£ the raw waste of
plants A and B is high while that for Plant C is low. This
results, for plants A and B, in co-precipitation of toxic metals
with iron. Precipitation using high-calcium lime for pH control
yields the results shown in Table VII-20. Plant operating per-
sonnel indicate that this chemical treatment combination (some-
times with polymer assisted coagulation) generally produces
better and more consistent metals removal than other combinations
of sacrificial metal ions and alkalis.
640
-------
The LS&F performance data presented here are based on systems
that provide polishing filtration after effective L&S treatment.
As previously shown, L&S treatment is equally applicable to
wastewaters from the five categories because of the homogene-
ity 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 the LS&F data based on porcelain
enameling and nonferrous smelting and refining is directly
applicable to the aluminum forming, copper forming, battery
manufacturing, coil coating, and metal molding and casting
categories, as well as to the porcelain enameling and nonferrous
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
metals data base. The mean variability factor for eight pollu-
tants (excluding cadmium because of the small number of data
points) was determined and is used to estimate one day, 10-day,
and 30-day values. (The variability factor is the ratio of the
value of concern to the mean: the average variability factors
are: one day maximum - 4.100; ten-day average - 1.821; and
30-day average - 1.618.) For values not calculated from the com-
mon data base as previously discussed, the mean value for pollu-
tants shown in Table VII-15 were multiplied by the variability
factors to derive the value to obtain the one, ten- and 30-day
values. These are tabulated in Table VII-21.
LS&F 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 collec-
tion period. No specific information was available on those
variables. To sort out high values probably caused by method-
ological factors from random statistical variability, or data
noise, the Plant B data were analyzed. For each of the 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 1,300) were eliminated by this
method.
641
-------
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 pol-
lutants were compared to the total set of values for the corre-
sponding pollutants. Any day on which the pollutant concentra-
tion exceeded the minimum value selected from raw wastewater
concentrations for that pollutant was discarded. Forty-five days
of data were eliminated by that procedure. Forty-three days of
data in common were eliminated by either procedures. Since
common engineering practice (mean plus 3 sigma) and logic
(treated waste should be less than raw waste) seem to coincide,
the data base with the 51 spurious data days eliminated is the
basis for all further analysis. Range, mean, standard deviation
and mean plus two standard deviations are shown in Tables VII-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 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 were 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 LSStF. The zinc data were analyzed for com-
pliance with the one-day and 30-day values in Table VII-21; no
zinc value of the 103 data points exceeded the one-day zinc value
of 1.02 mg/1. The 103 data points were separated into blocks of
30 points and averaged. Each of the three 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 concentra-
tions of the combined metals data base (Table VII-16), further
supporting the conclusion that Plant C wastewater data is
compatible with similar data from plants A and B.
Concentration values for regulatory use are displayed in Table
VII-21. Mean one-day, ten-day, and 30-day values for LScS 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.
642
-------
LSStF mean values for Cd, Cr, Ni, Zn, and Fe are derived from
plants A, B, and C as discussed above. One, ten, and 30-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 LSStF values are calculated using the
long-term average or mean and the appropriate variability
factors. Mean values for LSStF for pollutants not already discus-
sed are derived by reducing the LStS mean by one-third. The one-
third reduction was established after examining the percent
reduction in concentrations going from LScS to LS&F data for Cd,
Cr, Ni, Zn, and Fe. The average reduction is 0.3338 or one-
third.
Copper levels achieved at plants A and B may be lower than gener-
ally achievable because of the high iron content and low copper
content of the raw wastewaters. Therefore, the mean concentra-
tion value achieved is not used; LSSeF mean used is derived from
the LStS technology.
LStS cyanide mean levels shown in Table VII-8 are ratioed to one-
day, ten-day, and 30-day values using mean variability factors.
LSStF mean cyanide is calculated by applying the ratios of
removals for L&S and LSStF as discussed previously for LSSeF metals
limitations. The cyanide performance was arrived at by using the
average metal variability factors. The treatment method used
here is cyanide precipitation. Because cyanide precipitation is
limited by the same physical processes as the metal precipita-
tion, it is expected that the variabilities will be similar.
Therefore, the average of the metal variability factors has been
used as a basis for calculating the cyanide one-day, ten-day, and
30-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 ten-day average of 4.33, 30-day average of 3.36 mg/1; a one-
day maximum of 8.88. These calculated values more than amply
support the classic values of 10 and 15, respectively, which are
used for LSStF.
Although iron was reduced in some LSStF operations, some facili-
ties using that treatment introduce iron compounds to aid
settling. Therefore, the one-day, ten-day, and 30-day values for
iron at LSStF were held at the L&S level so as to not unduly
penalize the operations which use the relatively less objection-
able iron compounds to enhance removals of toxic metals.
643
-------
MINOR TECHNOLOGIES
Several other treatment technologies were considered for possible
application in BPT or BAT. These technologies are presented here
with a full discussion for most of them. A few are described
only briefly because o£ limited technical development.
Carbon Adsorption
The use of activated carbon to remove dissolved organics from
water and wastewater is a long demonstrated technology. It is
one of the most efficient organic removal processes available.
This sorption process is reversible, allowing activated carbon to
be regenerated for reuse by the application of heat and steam or
solvent. Activated carbon has also proved to be an effective
adsorbent for many toxic metals, including mercury. Regeneration
of carbon which has adsorbed significant metals; however, may be
difficult.
The term activated carbon applies to any amorphous form of carbon
that has been specially treated to give high adsorption capaci-
ties. 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 1,500
m-^/gm, 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 sub-
stance on the surface of another. Activated carbon preferen-
tially adsorbs organic compunds over other species and, because
of this selectivity, is particularly effective in removing
organic compounds from aqueous solution.
Carbon adsorption requires preliminary treatment 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 2,000 mg/1), but requires frequent backwashing. Backwash-
ing 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.
644
-------
Activated carbon is available in both powdered and granular form.
A flow diagram of activated carbon treatment and regeneration is
shown in Figure VII-20. A schematic of an individual adsorption
column is shown in Figure VII-21. Powdered carbon is less expen-
sive per unit weight and may have slightly higher adsorption
capacity, but it is more difficult to handle and to regenerate.
Application and Performance. Isotherm tests have indicated that
activated carbon is very effective in adsorbing 65 percent of the
toxic organic pollutants and is reasonably effective for another
22 percent. Specifically, activated carbon is very effective in
removing 2,4-dimethylphenol, fluoranthene, isophorone, naphthal-
ene, all phthalates, and phenanthrene. Activated carbon is
reasonably effective on 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
1,1-dichloroethane, phenol, and toluene.
Table VII-22 summarizes the treatability effectiveness for most
of the toxic organic pollutants by activated carbon as compiled
by .EPA. Table VII-23 summarizes classes of organic compounds
together with samples of organics that are readily adsorbed on
carbon. Table VII-24 lists the effectiveness of activated carbon
in removing seven toxic organic pollutants from actual manufac-
turing process wastewater streams in the nonferrous metals
industries and foundry industries that are very similar to
aluminum forming wastewater streams.
Advantages and Limitations. The major benefits of carbon treat-
ment 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 concentra-
tion 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 regenerated,
it must be disposed of along with any adsorbed pollutants. The
capital and operating costs of thermal regeneration are rela-
tively high. Cost surveys show that thermal regeneration is
generally economical when carbon usage exceeds about 1,000
Ibs/day. Carbon cannot remove low molecular weight or highly
soluble organics. It also has a low tolerance for suspended
solids, which must be removed in most systems 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.
645
-------
Solid Waste Aspects: Solid waste from this process is contami-
nated activated carbon that requires disposal. Carbon that
undergoes regeneration reduces the solid waste problem by
reducing the frequency of carbon replacement.
Demonstration Status. Carbon adsorption systems have been demon-
strated to be practical and economical in reducing COD, BOD, and
related parameters in secondary municipal and industrial waste-
waters; in removing toxic or refractory organics from isolated
industrial wastewaters; in removing and recovering certain
organics from wastewaters; and in the removing, and sometimes
recovering, of selected inorganic chemicals from aqueous wastes.
Carbon adsorption is a viable and economic process for organic
waste streams containing up to 1 to 5 percent of refractory or
toxic organics. Its applicability for removal of inorganics such
as metals has also been demonstrated.
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 releas-
ing 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-22 shows
one type of flotation system.
Flotation is used primarily in the treatment of wastewater
streams that carry heavy loads of finely divided suspended solids
or oil. Solids having a specific gravity only slightly greater
than 1.0, which would require abnormally long sedimentation
times, may be removed in much less time by flotation.
This process may be performed in several ways: foam, dispersed
air, dissolved air, gravity, and vacuum flotation are the most
commonly used techniques. Chemical additives are often used to
enhance the performance of the flotation process.
The principal difference among types of flotation is the method
of generating the minute gas bubbles (usually air) in a suspen-
sion of water and small particles. Chemicals may be used to
improve the efficiency with any of the basic methods. The fol-
lowing 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 ability of the particles to attach
themselves to gas bubbles in an aqueous medium. In froth flota-
tion, air is blown through the solution containing flotation
646
-------
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 read-
ily 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 agi-
tation with impellers or by forcing air through porous media.
Dispersed air flotation is used mainly in the metallurgical
industry.
Dissolved Air Flotation - In dissolved air flotation, bubbles are
produced by releasing air from a superstaturated 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 entrap-
ment 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 the gase-
ous bubble.
Vacuum Flotation - This process consists of saturating the waste-
water with air either directly in an aeration tank, or by permit-
ting 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 parti-
cles 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 con-
sists 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. 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 grav-
ity only slightly greater than 1.0, which would require abnor-
mally long sedimentation times, may be removed in much less time
by flotation.
647
-------
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 reten-
tion period of 20 to 30 minutes is adequate for separation and
concent rat ion.
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 possi-
ble corrosion or breakage and may require periodic replacement.
Solid Waste Aspects: Chemicals are commonly used to aid the
flotation process by creating a surface or a structure that can
easily adsorb or entrap air bubbles. Inorganic chemicals, such
as the aluminum and ferric salts, and activated silica, can bind
the particulate matter together and create a structure that can
entrap air bubbles. Various organic chemicals can change the
nature of either the air-liquid interface or the solid-liquid
interface, or both. These compounds usually collect on the
interface to bring about the desired changes. The added chemi-
cals 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. Dissolved air flotation technology is
used by can manufacturing plants to remove oil and grease in the
wastewater from can wash lines. It is not currently used to
treat aluminum forming wastewaters.
Centrifugation
Centrifugation is the application of centrifugal force to sepa-
rate 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
648
-------
found between the insoluble solids and the liquid in which they
are contained. As a waste treatment procedure, centrifugation is
most often applied to dewatering of sludges. One type of centri-
fuge is shown in Figure VII-23.
There are three common types of centrifuges: the disc, basket,
and conveyor type. All three operate by removing solids under
the influence of centrifugal force. The fundamental difference
between the three types is the method by which solids are col-
lected 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 con-
ical discs. Suspended particles are collected and discharged
continuously through small orifices in the bowl wall. The clar-
ified 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 col-
lect at the bowl wall while clarified effluent overflows the lip
ring at the top. Since the basket centrifuge does not have pro-
vision for continuous discharge of collected cake, operation
requires interruption of the feed for cake discharge for a minute
or two in a 10 to 30 minute overall cycle.
The third type of centrifuge commonly used in sludge dewatering
is the conveyor type. Sludge is fed through a stationary feed
pipe into a rotating bowl in which the solids are settled out
against the bowl wall by centrifugal force. From the bowl wall,
they are moved by a screw to the end of the machine, at which
point they are discharged. The liquid effluent is discharged
through ports after passing the length of the bowl under cen-
trifugal force.
Application and Performance. Virtually all industrial waste
treatment systems producing sludge can use centrifugation to
dewater it. Centrifugation is currently being used by a wide
range of industrial concerns.
The performance of sludge dewatering by centrifugation depends on
the feed rate, the rotational velocity of the drum, and the
sludge composition and concentration. Assuming proper design and
operation, the solids content of the sludge can be increased to
20 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
649
-------
inexpensive. The area required for a centrifuge system instal-
lation 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 pro-
viding sturdy foundations and soundproofing because of the vibra-
tion and noise that result from centrifuge operation. Adequate
electrical power must also be provided since large motors are
required. The major difficulty encountered in the operation of
centrifuges has been the disposal of the concentrate which is
relatively high in suspended, non-settling solids.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Centrifugation is highly
reliable with proper control of factors such as sludge feed, con-
sistency, 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 pro-
cess 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.
Coalescing
The basic principle of coalescence involves the preferential
wetting of a coalescing medium by oil droplets which accumulate
on the medium and then rise to the surface of the solution as
they combine to form larger particles. The most important
requirements for coalescing media are wettability for oil and
large surface area. Monofilament line is sometimes used as a
coalescing medium.
650
-------
Coalescing stages may be integrated with a wide variety of grav-
ity oil separation devices, and some systems may incorporate
several coalescing stages. In general, a preliminary oil skim-
ming step is desirable to avoid overloading the coalescer.
One commercially marketed system for oily waste treatment com-
bines coalescing with inclined plant 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 plants. They then migrate upward to a guide rib that directs
the oil to the oil collection chamber, from which oil is dis-
charged for reuse or disposal.
The oily water continues on through another cylinder containing
replaceable filter cartridges that remove suspended particles
from the waste. From there the wastewater enters a final cylin-
der 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 that 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 1,000 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 sim-
plicity, coalescing provides generally high reliability and low
capital and operating costs. Coalescing is not generally effec-
tive in removing soluble or chemically stabilized emulsified
oils. To avoid plugging, coalescers must be protected by pre-
treatment from the 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 coalesc-
ing substrate (monofilament, etc.) is inert in the process and
therefore not subject to frequent regeneration or replacement
requirements. Large loads or inadequate preliminary treatment;
however, may result in plugging or bypass of coalescing stages.
651
-------
Maintainability: Maintenance requirements are generally limited
to replacement of the coalescing medium on an infrequent basis.
Solid Waste Aspects:
this process.
No appreciable solid waste is generated by
Demonstration Status. Coalescing has been fully demonstrated in
industries generating oily wastewater, although none are known to
be in use at any aluminum forming facility.
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 proced-
ure can be illustrated by the following two step chemical reac-
tion:
1. Cl2 + NaCN + 2NaOH —•** NaCNO + 2NaCl + H20
2. 3C12 + 6NaOH + 2NaCNO —^ 2NaHC03 + N2 + 6NaCl + 2H20
The reaction presented as equation (2) for the oxidation of cya-
nate is the final step in the oxidation of cyanide. A complete
system for the alkaline chlorination of cyanide is shown in
Figure VII-24.
The alkaline chlorination process oxidizes cyanides to carbon
dioxide and nitrogen. The equipment often consists of an equali-
zation tank followed by two reaction tanks, although the reaction
can be carried out in a single tank. Each tank has an electronic
recorder-controller to maintain required conditions with respect
to pH and oxidation reduction potential (ORP). In the first
reaction tank, conditions are adjusted to oxidize cyanides to
cyanates. To effect the reaction, chlorine is metered to the
reaction tank as required to maintain the ORP in the range of 350
to 400 millivolts, and 50 percent aqueous caustic soda is added
to maintain a pH range of 9.5 to 10. In the second reaction
tank, conditions are maintained to oxidize cyanate to carbon
dioxide and nitrogen. The desirable ORP and pH for this reaction
are 600 millivolts and a pH of 8.0. Each of the reaction tanks
is equipped with a propeller agitator designed to provide approx-
imately one turnover per minute. Treatment by the batch process
is accomplished by using two tanks, one for collection of water
over a specified time period, and one tank for the treatment of
an accumulated batch. If dumps of concentrated wastes are fre-
quent, another tank may be required to equalize the flow to the
treatment tank. When the holding tank is full, the liquid is
transferred to the reaction tank for treatment. After treatment,
the supernatant is discharged and the sludges are collected for
removal and ultimate disposal.
652
-------
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 of free cyanide that are nondetectable. The
process is potentially applicable to aluminum forming facilities
where cyanide is a component in conversion coating formulations
or is added as a corrosion inhibitor in heat treatment opera-
tions.
Advantages and Limitations. Some advantages of chlorine oxidaton
for handling process effluents are operation at ambient tempera-
ture, suitability for automatic control, and low cost. Disadvan-
tages 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. If organic com-
pounds are present, toxic chlorinated organics may be generated.
Alkaline chlorination is not effective in treating metallocyanide
complexes, such as the ferrocyanide.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Chlorine oxidation is highly
reliable with proper monitoring and control, and proper pretreat-
ment to control interfering substances.
Maintainability: Maintenance consists of periodic removal of
sludge and recalibration of instruments.
Solid Waste Aspects: There is no solid waste problem associated
with chlorine oxidation.
Demonstration Status. The oxidation of cyanide wastes by chlo-
rine is a widely used process in plants using cyanide in cleaning
and metal processing baths.
Cyanide Oxidation by Ozone
Ozone is a highly reactive oxidizing agent which is approximately
10 times more soluble than oxygen on a weight basis in water.
Ozone may be produced by several methods, but the silent electri-
cal 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-25.
Application and Performance* Ozonation has been applied commer-
cially to oxidize cyanides, phenolic chemicals, and organometal
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.
653
-------
Oxidation of cyanide to cyanate is illustrated below:
CM' + 03
CNO- + 02
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 cya-
nides 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 prod-
ucts 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 reduc-
ing 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 with 03 beyond the cyanate form.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Ozone oxidation is highly
reliable with proper monitoring and control, and proper prelimi-
nary treatment to control interfering substances.
Maintainability: Maintenance consists of periodic removal of
sludge, and periodic renewal of filters and desiccators required
for the input of clean dry air; filter life is a function of
input concentrations of detrimental constituents.
Solid Waste Aspects: Preliminary treatment to eliminate sub-
stances which will interfere with the process may be necessary.
Dewatering of sludge generated in the ozone oxidation process or
in an "in-line" process may be desirable prior to disposal.
Cyanide Oxidation by Ozone with UV Radiation
One of the modifications of the ozonation process is the simulta-
neous application of ultraviolet light and ozone for the treat-
ment of wastewater, including treatment of halogenated organics.
The combined action of these two forms produces reactions by
photolysis, photosens itization, hydroxylation, oxygenation, and
oxidation. The process is unique because several reactions and
reaction species are active simultaneously.
654
-------
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-26 shows a three-stage UV-ozone system. A
system to, treat mixed cyanides requires preliminary treatment
that involves chemical coagulation, sedimentation, clarification,
equalization, and pH adjustment.
Application and Performance. The ozone-UV radiation process was
developed primarily for cyanide treatment in the electroplating
and color photo-processing areas. It has been successfully
applied to mixed cyanides and organics from organic chemicals
manufacturing processes. The process is particularly useful for
treatment of complexed cyanides such as ferricyanide, copper
cyanide, and nickel cyanide, that are resistant to ozone.
Demonstration Status. 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 aluminum forming plants to destroy cyanide
present in waste streams from some conversion coating and heat
treatment operations.
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°C to 54°C (120°F to 130°F) and the pH is
adjusted to 10.5 to 11.8. Formalin (37 percent formaldehyde) is
added while the tank is vigorously agitated. After two to five
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
655
-------
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 concentrations 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 com-
pletely oxidized to the less toxic cyanate state. In addition,
the metals precipitate and settle quickly, and they may be recov-
erable 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 aluminum forming
plants use oxidation by hydrogen peroxide.
Evaporation
Evaporation is a concentration process. Water is evaporated from
a solution, increasing the concentration of solute in the remain-
ing solution. If the resulting water va^or is condensed back to
liquid water, the evaporation-condensation process is called dis-
tillation. However, to be consistent with industry terminology,
evaporation is used in this report to describe both processes.
Both atmospheric and vacuum evaporation are commonly used in
industry today. Specific evaporation techniques are shown in
Figure VII-27 and discussed below.
Atmospheric evaporation could be accomplished simply by boiling
the liquid. To aid evaporation, heated liquid is sprayed on an
evaporation surface, and air is blown over the surface and subse-
quently released to the atmosphere. Thus, evaporation occurs by
humidification of the air stream, similar to a drying process.
Equipment for carrying out atmospheric evaporation is quite
similar for most applications. The major element is generally a
packed column with an accumulator bottom. Accumulated wastewater
is pumped from the base of the column, through a heat exchanger,
and back into the top of the column, where it is sprayed into the
packing. At the same time, air drawn upward through the packing
by a fan is heated as it contacts the hot liquid. The liquid
partially vaporizes and humidifies the air stream. The fan then
blows the hot, humid air to the outside atmosphere. A scrubber
is often unnecessary because the packed column itself acts as a
scrubber.
Another form of atmospheric evaporator also works on the air
humidification principle, but the evaporated water is recovered
for reuse by condensation. These air humidification techniques
operate well below the boiling point of water and can utilize
waste process heat to supply the energy required.
656
-------
In vacuum evaporation, the evaporation pressure is lowered to
cause the liquid to boil at reduced temperatures. All of the
water vapor is condensed and, to maintain the vacuum condition,
noncondensible gases (air in particular) are removed by a vacuum
pump. Vacuum evaporation may be either single or double effect.
In double effect evaporation, two evaporators are used, and the
water vapor from the first evaporator (which may be heated by
steam) is used to supply heat to the second evaporator. As it
supplies heat, the water vapor from the first evaporator con-
denses. Approximately equal quantities of wastewater are evapo-
rated in each unit; thus, the double effect system evaporates
twice the amount of water that a single effect system does, at
nearly the same cost in energy but with added capital cost and
complexity. The double effect technique is thermodynamically
possible because the second evaporator is maintained at lower
pressure (higher vacuum) and, therefore, lower evaporation tem-
perature. Another means of increasing energy efficiency is vapor
recompression (thermal or mechanical), which enables heat to be
transferred from the condensing water vapor to the evaporating
wastewater. Vacuum evaporation equipment may be classified as
submerged tube or climbing film evaporation units.
In the most commonly used submerged tube evaporator, the heating
and condensing coil are contained in a single vessel to reduce
capital cost. The vacuum in the vessel is maintained by an
eductor-type pump, which creates the required vacuum by the flow
of the condenser cooling water through a venturi. Wastewater
accumulates in the bottom of the vessel, and it is evaporated by
means of submerged steam coils. The resulting water vapor con-
denses 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. Con-
centrate is removed from the bottom of the vessel.
The major elements of the climbing film evaporator are the evapo-
rator, 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.
657
-------
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 con-
densate may also contain organic brighteners and antifearning
agents. These can be removed with an activated carbon bed, if
necessary. Samples from one plant showed 1.900 mg/1 zinc in the
feed, 4,570 mg/1 in the concentrate, and 0.4 mg/1 in the condens-
ate. Another plant had 416 mg/1 copper in the feed and 21,800
mg/1 in the concentrate. Chromium analysis for that plant indi-
cated 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 pro-
cess 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.
The recovery of waste heat from many industrial processes (e.g.,
diesel generators, incinerators, boilers, and furnaces) should be
considered as a source of this heat for a totally integrated
evaporation system. Also, in some cases solar heating could be
inexpensively and effectively applied to evaporation units. For
some applications, preliminary treatment 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. 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
preliminary or post treatment.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Proper maintenance will
ensure a high degree of reliability for the system. Without such
attention, rapid fouling or deterioration of vacuum seals may
occur, especially when handling corrosive liquids.
658
-------
Maintainability: Operating parameters can be automatically
controlled. Preliminary treatment 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, com-
mercially available wastewater treatment system. It is used
extensively to recover plating chemicals in the electroplating
industry and a pilot scale unit has been used in connection with
phosphating of aluminum. Proven performance in silver recovery
indicates that evaporation could be a useful treatment operation
for the photographic industry, as well as for metal finishing.
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 densify 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-28 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 com-
pact 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 1 to 2 percent solids
concentration can usually be gravity thickened to 6 to 10 per-
cent; chemical sludges can be thickened to 4 to 6 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.
659
-------
Operational Factors. Reliability: Reliability is high with
proper design and operation. A gravity thickener is designed on
the basis of square feet per pound of solids per day, in which
the required surface area is related to the solids entering and
leaving the unit. Thickener area requirements are also expressed
in terms of mass loading, kilograms of solids per square meter
per 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 dispo-
sal, incineration, or drying. The clear effluent may be recircu-
lated in part, or it may be subjected to further treatment prior
to discharge.
Demonstration Status. Gravity sludge thickeners are used
throughout industry to reduce sludge 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.
Ion Exchange
Ion exchange is a process in which ions, held by electrostatic
forces to charged functional groups on the surface of the ion
exchange resin, are exchanged for ions of similar charge from the
solution in which the resin is immersed. This is classified as a
sorption process because the exchange occurs on the surface of
the resin, and the exchanging ion must undergo a phase transfer
from solution phase to solid phase. Thus, ionic contaminants in
a waste stream can be exchanged for the harmless ions of the
resin.
Although the precise technique may vary slightly according to the
application involved, a generalized process description follows.
The wastewater stream being treated passes through a filter to
remove any solids, then flows through a cation exchanger which
contains the ion exchange resin. Here, metallic impurities such
as copper, iron, and trivalent chromium are retained. The stream
then passes through the anion exchanger and its assocaited resin.
Hexavalent chromium (in the form of chromate or dichromate), for
example, is retained in this stage. If one pass does not reduce
the contaminant levels sufficiencly, 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.
660
-------
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-29. 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 dichro-
mate are removed by a basic anion exchange resin, which is regen-
erated with sodium hydroxide, replacing the anion with one or
more hydroxyl ions. The three principal methods employed by
industry for regenerating the spent resin are:
(A) Replacement Service: A regeneration service replaces
the spent resin with regenerated resin, and regenerates
the spent resin at its own facility. The service then
has the problem of treating and disposing of the spent
regenerant.
(B) In-Place Regeneration: Some establishments may find it
less expensive to do their own regeneration. The spent
resin column is shut down for perhaps an hour, and the
spent resin is regenerated. This results in one or
more waste streams which must be treated in an appro-
priate 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 appli-
cation, 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 impuri-
ties removed earlier. Flushing the exchangers with
water completes the cycle. Thus, the wastewater is
purified and, in this example, chromic acid is recov-
ered. The ion exchangers, with newly regenerated
resin, then enter the ion removal cycle again.
661
-------
Application and Performance. The list of pollutants for which
the ion exchange system has proven effective includes aluminum,
arsenic, cadmium, chromium (hexavalent and trivalent), copper,
cyanide, gold, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, selenium, silver,
tin, zinc, and others. 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 util-
ize ion exchange in several ways. As an end-of-pipe treatment,
ion exchange is certainly feasible, but its greatest value is in
recovery applications. It is commonly used as an integrated
treatment to recover rinse water and process chemicals. Some
electroplating facilities use ion exchange to concentrate and
purify plating baths. Also, many industrial concerns, including
a number of aluminum forming plants, 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 are displayed in Table VII-25.
Advantages and Limitations. Ion exchange is a versatile technol-
ogy applicable to a great many situations. This 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
60°C, could prevent its use in certain situations. Similarly,
nitric acid, chromic acid, and hydrogen peroxide can all damage
the resins, as will iron, manganese, and copper when present with
sufficient concentrations of dissolved oxygen. Removal of a par-
ticular 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.
Operational Factors. Reliability: With the exception of occa-
sional clogging or fouling of the resins, ion exchange has proved
to be a highly dependable technology.
Maintainability: Only the normal maintenance of pumps, valves,
piping, and other hardware used in the regeneration process is
required.
Solid Waste Aspects: Few, if any, solids accumulate within the
ion exchangers, and those which do appear are removed by the
662
-------
regeneration process. Proper prior treatment and planning can
eliminate solid buildup problems altogether. The brine resulting
from regeneration of the ion exchange resin most usually must be
treated to remove metals before discharge. This can generate
solid waste.
Demonstration Status. All of the ion exchange applications
discussed in this section are in commercial use, and industry
sources estimate the number of ion exchange units currently in
the field at well over 120. The research and development in ion
exchange is focusing on improving the quality and efficiency of
the resins, rather than new applications. Work is also being
done on a continuous regeneration process whereby the resins are
contained on a fluid- transfusible belt. The belt passes through
a compartmented tank with ion exchange, washing, and regeneration
sections. The resins are therefore continually used and
regenerated. No such system, however, has been reported beyond
the pilot stage.
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
operation, 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
aluminum forming, coil coating, porcelain enameling, copper
fabrication, and any other industrial plants where dilute metal
wastewater streams are generated. Its present use is limited to
one electroplating plant.
Peat Adsorption
Peat moss is a complex natural organic material containing lignin
and cellulose as major constituents. These constituents, partic-
ularly 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.
663
-------
Peat adsorption is a "polishing" process which can achieve very
low effluent concentrations for several pollutants. If the con-
centrations 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
aluminum forming plantsfor removal of residual dissolved metals
from clarifier effluent. Peat moss may be used to treat waste-
waters 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-26 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 capac-
ity to accept wide variations of wastewater composition.
Limitations include the cost of purchasing, storing, and dispos-
ing of the peat moss; the necessity for regular replacement of
the peat may lead to high operation and maintenance costs. Also,
the pH adjustment must be altered according to the composition of
the waste stream.
Operational Factors. Reliability: The question of long-term
reliability is not yet fully answered. Although the manufacturer
reports it to be a highly reliable system, operating experience
is needed to verify the claim.
Maintainability: The peat moss used in this process soon
exhausts its capacity to adsorb pollutants. At that time, the
kiers must be opened, the peat removed, and fresh peat placed
inside. Although this procedure is easily and quickly accom-
plished, it must be done at regular intervals, or the system's
efficiency drops drastically.
664
-------
Solid Waste Aspects: After removal from the kier, the spent peat
must be eliminated. If incineration is used, precautions should
be taken to ensure 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 aluminum forming wastewater
will in general preclude incineration of peat used in treating
these wastes.
Demonstration Status. Only three facilities currently use
commercial adsorption systems in the United States - a textile
manufacturer, a newsprint facility, and a metal reclamation firm.
No data have been reported showing the use of peat adsorption in
aluminum forming plants.
Membrane Filtration
Membrane filtration is a treatment system for removing precipi-
tated metals from a wastewater stream. It must therefore be
preceded by those treatment techniques which will properly pre-
pare 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 o£ a proprietary chemical reagent which causes the pre-
cipitate to be non-gelatinous, easily dewatered, and highly
stable. The resulting mixture of pretreated wastewater and
reagent is continuously recirculated through a filter module and
back into a recirculation tank. The filter module contains tubu-
lar membranes. While the reagent-metal hydroxide precipitate
mixture flows through the inside of the tubes, the water and any
dissolved salts permeate the membrane. When the recirculating
slurry reaches a concentration of 10 to 15 percent solids, it is
pumped out of the system as sludge.
Application and Performance. Membrane filtration appears to be
applicable to any wastewater or process water containing metal
ions which can be precipitated using hydroxide, sulfide, or car-
bonate precipitation. It could function as the primary treatment
system, but also might find application as a polishing treatment
(after precipitation and settling) to ensure continued compliance
with metals limitations. Membrane filtration systems are being
used in a number of industrial applications, particularly in the
metal finishing area. They have also been used for heavy metals
removal in the metal fabrication industry and the paper industry.
The permeate is claimed by one manufacturer to contain less than
the effluent concentrations shown in Table VII-27, regardless of
the influent concentrations. These claims have been largely sub-
stantiated by the analysis of water samples at various plants in
various industries.
665
-------
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 sud-
den variation of pollutant input rates; however, the effective-
ness of the membrane filtration system can be limited by clogging
of the filters. Because pH changes in the waste stream greatly
intensify clogging problems, the pH must be carefully monitored
and controlled. Clogging can force the shutdown of the system
and may interfere with production. In addition, relatively high
capital cost of this system may limit its use.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Membrane filtration has been
shown to be a very reliable system, provided that the pH is
strictly controlled. Improper pH can result in the clogging of
the membrane. Also, surges in the flow rate of the waste stream
must be controlled in order to prevent solids from passing
through the filter and into the effluent.
Maintainability: The membrane filters must be regularly moni-
tored, 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 hydro-
chloric acid for six 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 to a landfill 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 waste-
waters. Bench scale and pilot studies are being run in an
attempt to expand the list of pollutants for which this system is
known to be effective. Although there are no data on the use of
membrane filtration in aluminum forming plants, the concept has
been successfully demonstrated using coil coating plant waste-
water.
666
-------
Reverse Osmosis
The process of osmosis involves the passage of a liquid through a
semipermeable membrane from a dilute to a more concentrated solu-
tion. Reverse osmosis (RO) is an operation in which pressure is
applied to the more concentrated solution, forcing the permeate
to diffuse through the membrane and into the more dilute solu-
tion. This filtering action produces a concentrate and a perme-
ate on opposite sides of the membrane. The concentrate can then
be further treated or returned to the original production opera-
tion for continued use, while the permeate water can be recycled
for use as clean water. Figure VII-30 depicts a reverse osmosis
system.
As illustrated in Figure VII-31, there are three basic configura-
tions 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 to 800
psi). The permeate passes through the walls of the tube and is
collected in a manifold while the concentrate is drained off at
the end of the tube. A less widely used tubular RO module uses a
straight tube contained in a housing, under the same operating
conditions.
Spiral-wound membranes consist of a porous backing sandwiched
between two cellulose acetate membrane sheets and bonded along
three edges. The fourth edge of the composite sheet is attached
to a large permeate collector tube. A spacer screen is then
placed on top of the membrane sandwich and the entire stack is
rolled around the centrally located tubular permeate collector.
The rolled up package is inserted into a pipe able to withstand
the high operating pressures employed in this process, up to 55
atm (800 psi) with the spiral-wound module. When the system is
operating, the pressurized product water permeates the membrane
and flows through the backing material to the central collector
tube. The concentrate is drained off at the end of the container
pipe and can be reprocessed or sent to further treatment facili-
ties.
The hollow fiber membrane configuration is made up of a bundle of
polyamide fibers of approximately 0.0075 cm (0.003 in.) OD and
0.043 cm (0.0017 in.) ID. A commonly used hollow fiber module
contains several hundred thousand of the fibers placed in a long
667
-------
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 col-
lected 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. How-
ever, these two membrane types are much more susceptible to foul-
ing than the tubular system, which has a larger flow channel.
This characteristic also makes the tubular membrane much easier
to clean and regenerate than either the spiral-wound or hollow
fiber modules. One manufacturer claims that their helical
tubular module can be physically wiped clean by passing a soft
porous polyurethane plug under pressure through the module.
Application and Performance. In a number of metal processing
plants, the overflow from the first rinse in a countercurrent
setup is directed to a reverse osmosis unit, where it is sepa-
rated into two streams. The concentrated stream contains dragged
out chemicals and is returned to the bath to replace the loss of
solution due to evaporation and dragout. The dilute stream (the
permeate) is routed to the last rinse tank to provide water for
the rinsing operation. The rinse flows from the last tank to the
first tank and the cycle is complete.
The closed-loop system described above may be supplemented by the
addition of a vacuum evaporator after the RO unit in order to
further reduce the volume of reverse osmosis concentrate. The
evaporated vapor can be condensed and returned to the last rinse
tank or sent on for further treatment.
The largest application has been for the recovery of nickel solu-
tions. It has been shown that RO can generally be applied to
most acid metal baths with a high degree of performance, provid-
ing that the membrane unit is not overtaxed. The limitations
most critical here are the allowable pH range and maximum operat-
ing 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.
668
-------
Advantages and Limitations. The major advantage of reverse osmo-
sis tor handling process effluents is its ability to concentrate
dilute solutions for recovery of salts and chemicals with low
power requirements. No latent heat of vaporization or fusion is
required for effecting separations; the main energy requirement
is for a high pressure pump. It requires relatively little floor
space for compact, high capacity units, and it exhibits good
recovery and rejection rates for a number of typical process
solutions. A limitation of the reverse osmosis process for
treatment of process effluents is its limited temperature range
for satisfactory operation. For cellulose acetate systems, the
preferred limits are 18°C to 30°C (65°F to 85°F); higher tempera-
tures will increase the rate of membrane hydrolysis aad 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 organ-
ics is another problem. Fouling of membranes by slightly soluble
components in solution or colloids has caused failures, and foul-
ing of membranes by feed waters with high levels of suspended
solids can be a problem. A final limitation is inability to
treat or achieve high concentration with some solutions. Some
concentrated solutions may have initial 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. Down
time for flushing or cleaning is on the order of two hours as
often as once each week; a substantial portion of maintenance
time must be spent on cleaning any prefilters installed ahead of
the reverse osmosis unit.
Solid Waste Aspects: In a closed loop system utilizing RO there
is a constant recycle of permeate 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.
669
-------
Ultrafiltration
Ultraftltratton (UF) ts a process which uses semipermeable poly-
mertc membranes to separate emulsified or collotdal materials
suspended tn a liquid phase by pressurizing the liquid so that it
permeates the membrane. The membrane o£ an ultrafilter 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 ultraftlter 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 ultrafiltratton process, the feed solution is pumped
through a tubular membrane unit. Water and some low molecular
weight materials pass through the membrane under the applied
pressure of 10 to 100 psig. Emulsified oil droplets and sus-
pended particles are retained, concentrated, and removed continu-
ously. In contrast to ordinary filtration, retained materials
are washed off the membrane filter rather than held by it.
Figures VII-33 and VII-34 represent the ultrafiltratton process.
Application and Performance. Ultrafiltration has potential
application to aluminum forming plants for separation of oils and
residual solids from a variety of waste streams. In treating
aluminum 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 oper-
ating units range from a few hundred gallons a week to 50,000
gallons per day. Concentration of oily emulsions to 60 percent
oil or more are possible. Oil concentrates of 40 percent or more
are generally suitable for incineration, and the permeate can be
treated further and in some cases recycled back to the process.
In this way, it is possible to eliminate contractor removal costb
for oil from some oily waste streams.
Table VII-28 indicates ultraftltration 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 high TSS level is unusual for this
technology and ultrafiltration is assumed to reduce the TSS level
by one-third after mixed media filtration.
672
-------
The permeate or effluent from the ultrafiltration unit is nor-
mally of a quality that can be reused in industrial applications
or discharged directly. The concentrate from the ultrafiltration
unit can be disposed of as any oily or solid waste.
Advantages and Limitations. Ultrafiltration is sometimes an
attractive alternative to chemical treatment because of lower
capital equipment, installation, and operating costs, very high
oil and suspended solids removal, and little required pretreat-
ment. 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 the process.
A limitation of ultrafiltration for treatment of process
effluents is its narrow temperature range (18°C to 30°C) for
satisfactory operation. Membrane life decreases with higher
temperatures, but flux increases at elevated temperatures.
Therefore, surface area requirements are a function of tempera-
ture and become a tradeoff between initial costs and replacement
costs for the membrane. In addition, ultrafiltration cannot
handle certain solutions. Strong oxidizing agents, solvents, and
other organic compounds can dissolve the membrane. Fouling is
sometimes a problem, although the high velocity of the wastewater
normally creates enough turbulence to keep fouling at a minimum.
Large solids particles can sometimes puncture the membrane and
must be removed by gravity settling or filtration prior to the
ultrafiltration unit.
Operational Factors. Reliability: The reliaiblity of an ultra-
filtration system is dependent on the proper filtration, set-
tling, 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. It is advisable to remove any
free, floating oil prior to ultrafiltration. Although free oil
can be processed, membrane performance may deteriorate.
Maintainability: A limited amount of regular maintenance is
required for the pumping system. In addition, membranes must be
periodically changed. Maintenance associated with membrane
plugging can be reduced by selection of a membrane with optimum
physical characteristics and sufficient velocity of the waste
stream. It is often necesary to occasionally pass a detergent
solution through the system to remove an oil and grease film
which accumulates on the membrane. With proper maintenance,
membrane life can be greater than 12 months.
673
-------
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 applica-
tions within the aluminum forming category, the ultrafilter would
remove concentrated oily wastes which can be recovered for reuse
or used as a fuel.
Demonstration Status. The Ultrafiltration process is well devel-
oped and commercially available for treatment of wastewater or
recovery of certain high molecular weight liquid and solid con-
taminants. Currently, one plant in the aluminum forming category
uses Ultrafiltration, This plant ultrafilters its spent rolling
oils. Ultrafiltration is well suited for highly concentrated
emulsions, for example, rolling and drawing oils, although it is
not suitable for free oil.
Vacuum Filtration
In wastewater treatment plants, sludge dewatering by vacuum fil-
tration generally uses cylindrical drum filters. These drums
have a filter medium which may be cloth made of natural or syn-
thetic 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 thorugh the drum fabric 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-35.
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 clari-
fier sludge before vacuum filtering. Often a precoat is used to
inhibit filter blinding.
The function of vacuum filtration is to reduce the water content
of sludge, so that the solids content increases from about 5
percent to between 20 and 30 percent, depending on the waste
characteristics.
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 pro-
visions for sound and vibration protection need be made. The
674
-------
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 facil-
ities. 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 approx-
imately 25 years, and then were replaced with larger units.
Original vacuum filters at Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota now
have over 28 years of continuous service, and Chicago has some
units with similar or greater service life.
Maintainability: Maintenance consists of the cleaning or
replacement of the filter media, drainage grids, drainage piping,
filter pans, and other parts of the equipment. Experience in a
number of vacuum filter plants indicates that maintenance
consumes approximately 5 to 15 percent of the total time. If
carbonate buildup or other problems are unusually severe, mainte-
nance time may be as high as 20 percent. For this reason, it is
desirable to maintain one or more spare units.
If intermittent operation is used, the filter equipment should be
drained and washed each time it is taken out of service. An
allowance for this wash time must be made in filtering schedules.
Solid Waste Aspects: Vacuum filters generate a solid cake which
is usually trucked directly to landfill. All of the metals
extracted from the plant wastewater are concentrated in the
filter cake as hydroxides, oxides, sulfides, or other salts.
Demonstration Status. Vacuum filtration has been widely used for
a fully proven, conventional technology for
many years. It is
sludge dewatering.
IN-PLANT TECHNOLOGY
Nine aluminum forming plants report its use.
The intent of in-plant technology for the aluminum forming point
source category is to reduce or eliminate the wa.ste load requir-
ing end-of-pipe treatment and thereby improve the efficiency of
an existing wastewater treatment system or reduce the require-
ments of a new treatment system. In-plant technology involves
improved rinsing, water conservation, process bath conservation,
reduction of dragout, automatic controls, good housekeeping
practices, recovery and reuse of process solutions, process
modification, and waste treatment.
Process Water Recycle
Recycling of process water is the practice of recirculating water
to be used again for the same purpose. An example of recycling
675
-------
process water is the return of casting contact cooling water to
the casting process after the water passes through a cooling
tower. Two types of recycle are possible—recycle with a bleed
stream (blowdown) and total recycle. Total recycle may be pro-
hibited by the presence of dissolved solids. Dissolved solids
(e.g., sulfates and chlorides) entering a totally recycled waste
stream may precipitate, forming scale if the solubility limits of
the dissolved solids are exceeded. A bleed stream may be neces-
sary to prevent maintenance problems (pipe plugging or scaling,
etc.) that would be created by the precipitation of dissolved
solids. While the volume of bleed required is a function of the
amount of dissolved solids in the waste stream, 4 or 5 percent
bleed is a common value for a variety of process waste streams in
the aluminum forming category. The recycle of process water is
currently practiced where it is cost effective, where it is
necessary due to water shortage, or where the local permitting
authority has required it. Recycle, as compared to the once-
through use of process water, is an effective method of conserv-
ing water.
Application and Performance. Required hardware necessary for
recycle is highly site-specific, Basic items include pumps and
piping. Additional materials are necessary if water treatment
occurs before the water is recycled. These items will be dis-
cussed separately with each unit process. Chemicals may be
necessary to control scale buildup, slime, and corrosion prob-
lems, especially with recycled cooling water. Maintenance and
energy use are limited to that required by the pumps, and solid
waste generation is dependent on the type of treatment system in
place.
Recycling through cooling towers is the most common practice.
One type of application is shown in Figure VII-36. Direct chill
casting cooling water is recycled through a cooling tower with a
blowdown discharge.
A cooling tower is a device which cools water by bringing the
water into contact with air. The water and air flows are
directed in such a way as to provide maximum heat transfer. The
heat is transferred to air primarily by evaporation (about 75
percent), while the remainder is removed by sensible heat trans-
fer.
Factors influencing the rate of heat transfer and, ultimately,
the temperature range of the tower, include water surface area,
tower packing and configuration, air flow, and packing height. A
large water surface area promotes evaporation, and sensible heat
transfer rates are lower in proportion to the water surface area
provided. Packing (an internal latticework contact area) is
often used to produce small droplets of water which evaporate
more easily, thus increasing the total surface area per unit of
throughput. For a given water flow, increasing the air flow
increases the amount of heat removed by maintaining higher
676
-------
thermodynamic potentials. The packing height in the tower should
be high enough so that the air leaving the tower is close to
saturation.
A mechanical-draft cooling tower consists of the following major
components:
(1) Inlet-water distributor
(2) Packing
(3) Air fans
(4) Inlet-air louvers
(5) Drift or carryover eliminators
(6) Cooled water storage basin.
Advantages and Limitations. Recycle offers economic as well as
environmental advantages. Water consumption is reduced and
wastewater handling facilities (pumps, pipes, clarifiers, etc.)
can thus be sized for smaller flows. By concentrating the pollu-
tants in a much smaller volume (the bleed stream), greater
removal efficiencies can be attained by any applied treatment
technologies. Recycle may require some treatment such as
sedimentation or cooling of water before it is reused.
The ultimate benefit of recycling process water is the reduction
in total wastewater discharge and the associated advantages of
lower flow streams. A potential problem is the buildup of dis-
solved solids which could result in scaling. Scaling can usually
be controlled by depressing the pH and increasing the bleed flow.
Operational Factors. Reliability and Maintainability: Although
the principal construction material in mechanical-draft towers is
wood, other materials are used extensively. For long life and
minimum maintenance, wood is generally pressure-treated with a
preservative. Although the tower structure is usually made of
treated redwood, a reasonable amount of treated fir has been used
in recent years. Sheathing and louvers are generally made of
asbestos cement, and the fan stacks of fiberglass. There is a
trend to use fire-resistant extracted PVC as fill which, at
little or no increase in cost, offers the advantage of permanent
fire-resistant properties.
The major disadvantages of wood are its susceptibility to decay
and fire. Steel construction is occasionally used, but not to
any great extent. Concrete may be used but has relatively high
construction labor costs, although it does offer the advantage of
fire protection.
677
-------
Various chemical additives are used in cooling water systems to
control scale, slime, and corrosion. The chemical additives
needed depend on the character of the make-up water. All addi-
tives have definite limitations and cannot eliminate the need for
blowdown. Care should be taken in selecting nontoxic or readily
degraded additives, if possible.
S6lid Waste Aspects: The only solid waste associated with cool-
ing towers may be removed scale.
Demonstration Status. Many different types of streams in the
aluminum forming category are currently recycled. The degree of
recycle-of these streams is 50 percent or more, most commonly in
the 96 to 100 percent range as shown in the water use and waste-
water tables in Section V. Recycling process waters is a viable
option for many aluminum forming process wastewaters as shown by
the current practices in the industry. This can be seen by
examining the amount of recycle in place for two major streams.
The direct chill casting contact cooling water stream is repre-
sentative of cooling water streams. Of the 61 plants with this
stream, 21 recycle more than 96 percent of the flow used, four
recycle between 90 and 95 percent of the flow used, and two
plants recycle less than 90 percent of the flow. The remainder
of the plants with direct chill casting either did not recycle
the cooling water used, or did not supply enough data to calcu-
late the amount recycled. Several of the plants recycling the
cooling water stream use cooling towers and in-line oil skimming
devices.
All of the plants that use hot rolling oil emulsions and that
gave enough information to calculate discharge rates reported
using recycle of the emulsion with either a bleed stream or peri-
odic discharge. The recycled flow would often pass through
in-line filters to prevent the buildup of solids. Settling tanks
and oil skimming devices were also used to separate spent and
tramp oils from the emulsion.
Other aluminum forming wastewaters may also be recycled in vary-
ing degrees, depending on the required quality of water necessary
for a specific operation. Scrubber waters from casting, forging,
etch lines, and annealing operations can be recycled because of
the low water quality necessary as make-up water. Forging solu-
tion heat treatment contact cooling waters can be recycled in a
manner similar to that used in direct chill casting contact cool-
ing water. Extrusion die cleaning rinses can be recycled with
minimal difficulty in a manner similar to cleaning or etching
practices.
Process Water Reuse
Reuse of process water is the practice of recirculating water
678
-------
used in one production process for subsequent use in a different
production process. An example is the reuse of the rinse water
which follows caustic extrusion die cleaning as make-up water for
the caustic cleaning solution.
Application and Performance and Demonstration Status. Reuse
applications in the aluminum forming category are varied. Some
plants reuse extrusion die cleaning rinse water as make-up water
for the extrusion die cleaning bath. One plant reuses extrusion
press heat treatment contact cooling water and direct chill cast-
ing contact cooling water as noncontact cooling water following
passage through a cooling tower and an oil skimming device.
Primary aluminum plant(s) reuse the contact cooling water from
direct chill casting in their reduction scrubbers.
Neat oil rolling, emulsion rolling, drawing, and forging solution
heat treatment contact cooling waters have potential as reuse
streams in a manner similar to that used for the direct chill
casting contact cooling water in the primary aluminum industry.
Water may be reused as cleaning or etching rinses following
caustic and acidic baths, as casting cooling water, heat
treatment solution contact cooling water, or die cleaning rinses.
Advantages and Limitations. Advantages of reuse are similar to
the advantages of recycle. Water consumption is reduced and
wastewater treatment facilities can be sized for smaller flows.
Also, in areas where water shortages occur, reuse is an effective
means of conserving water.
Operational Factors. The hardware necessary for reuse of process
wastewaters varies, depending on the specific application. The
basic elements include pumps and piping. Chemical addition is
not usually warranted, unless treatment is required prior to
reuse. Maintenance and energy use are limited to that required
by the pumps. Solid waste generated is dependent upon the type
of treatment used and will be discussed separately with each unit
process.
Countercurrent Cascade Rinsing
Rinsing is used to dilute the concentration of contaminants
adhering to the surface of a workpiece to an acceptable level
before the workpiece passes on to the next step in the cleaning
or etching operation. The amount of water required to dilute the
rinse solution depends on the quantity of chemical drag-in from
the upstream rinse or cleaning or etching tank, the allowable
concentration of chemicals in the rinse water, and the contacting
efficiency between the workpiece and the water.
Process variations such as countercurrent cascade rinsing may
cause a decrease in process water use. This technique reduces
water use by multiple stage rinsing with a water flow counter to
the movement of the workpiece. Clean water contacts the aluminum
in the last rinse stage. The water, somewhat more contaminated,
679
-------
Is routed stage by stage up the rinsing line. After use in the
first rinse stage, the contaminated water is discharged to
treatment.
As an example, Figure VII-37 illustrates three rinsing opera-
tions, each designed to remove the residual acid in the water on
the surface of a workpiece. In Figure VII-37a the piece is
dipped into one tank with continuously flowing water. In this
case, the acid on the surface of the workpiece is essentially
diluted to the required level.
In Figure Vll-37b, the first step towards countercurrent opera-
tion is taken with the addition of a second tank. The workpiece
is now moving in a direction opposite to the rinse water. The
piece is rinsed with fresh makeup water prior to moving down the
assembly line. However, the fresh water from this final rinse
tank is directed to a second tank, where it meets the incoming,
more-contaminated workpiece. Fresh makeup water is used to give
a final rinse to the article before it moves out of the rinsing
section, but the slightly contaminated water is reused to clean
the article just coming into the rinsing section. By increasing
the number of stages, as shown in Figure VII-37c, further water
reduction can be achieved. Theoretically, the amount of water
required is the amount of acid being removed by single-stage
requirements divided by the highest tolerable concentration in
the outgoing rinsewater. This theoretical reduction of water by
a countercurrent multistage operation is shown in the curve graph
in Figure VII-38. The actual flow reduction obtained is a
function of the dragout and the type of contact occurring in the
tanks. If reasonably good contact is maintained major reductions
in water use are possible.
Application and Performance. As mentioned above, rinse water
requirements and the benefits of countercurrent rinsing may be
influenced by the volume of solution dragout carried into each
rinse stage by the 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 -
x VD
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 is the number of rinse stages employed.
VD is the dragout carried into each rinse stage, expressed
as a flow.
680
-------
For a multi-stage rinse, the total volume of rinse wastewater is
equal to n times Vr while for a countercurrent rinse the total
volume of wastewater discharge equals Vr.
To calculate the benefits of countercurrent rinsing for aluminum
forming, it can be assumed that a two-stage countercurrent
cascade rinse is installed after the cleaning or etching
operations. The mass of aluminum in one square meter of sheet
that is 6 mm (0.006 m) in thickness can be calculated using the
density of aluminum, 2.64 kkg/nH (165 Ibs/cu ft), as follows:
= (0.006 m) x (2.64 kkg/m3) _ 0.016 kkg/m2 of sheet
Using the mean cleaning or etching rinse water use from Table
V-51 (p. 324), Vr can then be calculated as follows:
- /0.016 kke \ x[32,380 1 | = 518.1 1/m2 of sheet
\ m2"/ \ kkg/
Drag-out is solution which remains on the surface of material
being rinsed when it is removed from process baths or rinses.
Without specific plant data available to determine drag-out, an
estimate of rinse water 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 aluminum 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 one square meter of sheet will be:
Vr -
VD - (0.015 mm)
' __ — - \
1 m/mm l
,TOTO /
x (1000 l/m3)
0.015 l/m2 of sheet
1/n =
Let r - Co, then r
Cf
VD
For single stage rinsing n = 1, therefore r - Vr
VD
and r - 518.1 - 34,540
0.015
For a 2-stage countercurrent cascade rinse to obtain the same r,
that is the same product cleanliness,
681
-------
Vr - r 1/2f therefore Vr
VD VD
185.8
But VD - 0.015 l/m2 of sheet,
therefore for 2-stage countercurrent cascade rinsing Vr is:
Vr - 185.8 x 0.015 - 2.79 l/m2 of sheet
In this theoretical calculation, a flow reduction of 99.5
percent can be achieved. The actual numbers may vary depending
on efficiency of squeegees or air knives, and the rinse ratio
desired.
Advantages and Limitations. Significant flow reductions can be
achieved by the addition of only one additional stage in the
rinsing operation, as discussed above. As shown in Figure VII-38
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 oper-
ating conditions. With higher costs for water and waste treat-
ment, 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. Many other factors will affect the economics of
countercurrent cascade rinsing; an evaluation must be done for
each individual plant.
Operational Factors. 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, counter-
current cascade rinsing is usually quite economical. If, on the
other hand, pumps and level controls must be used, then another
method, 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 suffi-
cient to provide agitation. This necessitates either careful
baffling of the tanks or additional mechanical agitation.
Demonstration Status. 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 treat-
ment systems (through smaller systems) for direct dischargers and
to reduce sewer costs for indirect dischargers.
682
-------
Countercurrent cascade rinsing is currently practiced at two
aluminum forming plants. In addition, although not strictly
countercurrent rinsing, two plants reuse the rinse water follow-
ing one etch bath for the rinse of a preceding bath. Based on
plant visits to 22 aluminum forming sites, the Agency believes
that there is enough available floorspace for the installation of
countercurrent cascade rinsing technology at existing sources.
Regeneration of Chemical Baths
Regeneration of chemicals 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.
Application and Performance. Chemical bath regeneration is
applicable to recover and reuse chemicals associated with caustic
cleaning or etching baths, sulfuric acid etching, conversion
coating or anodizing baths, chromic acid etching, conversion
coating or anodizing 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 prop-
erties 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.
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
reused in the make-up of fresh bath rather than treated and
discharged.
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.
Advantages and Limitations. The advantages of bath regeneration
are:(I)it results in zero discharge of the chemical bath
water; (2) the cleaning or etching 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.
Operational Factors. Reliability and Maintainability: 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.
683
-------
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 mate-
rial into the ultrafiltration membrane.
Solid Waste Aspects: Regeneration of caustic detergent chromic
acid and sulfuric acid baths results in the formation of precipi-
tates. These precipitates are collected, dewatered, if neces-
sary, and then disposed of as solid wastes. The aluminum sulfate
precipitate resulting from sulfuric acid baths may be commer-
cially marketable. The solid waste aspects of wastewater treat-
ment sludges similar to regeneration sludges are discussed in
detail in Section VIII (p. 781 ).
Demonstration Status. Fifteen aluminum forming plants achieve
zero discharge through chemical bath regeneration. These plants
achieve this by periodically supplementing the caustic and acid
baths. 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 molecu-
lar weight liquids and solid contaminants. EPA is not aware of
any aluminum forming plants that have applied ultrafiltration for
the purpose of regenerating bath materials. There are two alumi-
num forming plants using ultrafiltration to recover spent
lubricant. Performance data for these two systems is shown in
Table VII-28. Since alkaline cleaning baths are used to remove
these lubricants from the aluminum surface prior to further
processing, it is reasonable to assume that ultrafiltration will
be equally applicable for separating these same lubricants from
alkaline cleaning baths.
Process Water Use Reduction
Process water use reduction is the decrease in the amount of pro-
cess water used as an influent to a production process per unit
of production. Section V discuses water use in detail for each
aluminum forming operation. A range of water use values taken
from the data collection portfolios is presented for each opera-
tion. The range of values indicates that some plants use process
water more efficiently than others for the same operation.
Therefore, some plants can curb their water use; in some cases it
may be as simple as turning down a few valves.
Noncontact cooling water may replace contact cooling water in
some applications; air cooling may also be an alternative to
contact cooling water. Conversion to dry air pollution control
equipment, discussed further on in this section, is another way
to reduce water use.
684
-------
Wastewater Segregation
Application and Performance. The segregation of process waste
streams is a valuable control techology and may reduce treatment
costs. Individual process waste streams may exhibit very differ-
ent chemical characteristics, and separating the streams may
permit applying the most effective method of treatment or dispo-
sal to each stream. Relatively clean waters, such as annealing
atmosphere scrubber liquor, should be kept segregated from con-
taminated streams. Dissimilar streams should not be combined,
e.g., an oily stream such as direct chill casting contact cooling
water should not be combined with a non-oily stream such as
cleaning or etching scrubber liquors. Segregation should be
based on the type of treatment to be performed for a given
pollutant, avoiding oversizing of equipment for treating flows
unnecessarily.
Consider two waste streams, one high in chromium and other dis-
solved solids; the other, a noncontact cooling water without
chromium. Significant advantages exist in segregating these two
waste streams. If the combined waste streams are being treated
to reduce chromium, the resulting high treatment cost will be
impractical. Also, if chromium removal by lime precipitation is
being practiced, reduced removal efficiencies will result from
combining the waste streams due to dilution of chromium
concentration. In addition, recycle of the noncontact cooling
water will be made difficult by mixing the relatively pure
noncontact cooling water with the high dissolved solids stream.
Many combinations of waste streams exist throughout the aluminum
forming industry where segregation affords distinct advantages.
Equipment necessary for wastewater segregation may include
piping, curbing, and possibly pumping. Chemicals are not needed
and maintenance and energy use is limited to the pumps.
Advantages* The segregation of stormwater runoff from process-
related streams can eliminate Overloading of sewer and treatment
facilities. Some plants located lower than the surrounding ter-
rain have built flood control dams at higher elevations to mini-
mize the passage of stormwater runoff onto plant property. The
use of curbing is an excellent control practice for minimizing
the commingling of runoff with process wastewaters. Also, reten-
tion ponds should be lined to minimize infiltration of spring
water during periods of local flooding and exfiltration of the
wastewaters to a nearby aquifer.
Lubricating Oil and Deoiling Solvent Recovery
Application and Performance. 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
aluminum fines and other contaminants, and the useful life of the
685
-------
specific oil in its application. Usually, this involves continu-
ous recirculation of the oil, with losses in the recycle loop
from evaporation, oil carried off by the aluminum, and minor
loses 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
be tween eyele s.
Reuse of oil from spent emulsions used in aluminum 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 opera-
tion is either sent to treatment or, if of a high enough quality,
it can be recycled and used to make up fresh emulsion.
Advantages. Some plants collect and recycle rolling oils via
mist eliminators. In the rolling process, oils 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.
Demonstration Status and Operational Factors. Using organic sol-
vents to deoil or degrease aluminum is usually performed prior to
sale or subsequent operations such as coating. Recycling the
spent solvent can be economically attractive along with its envi-
ronmental advantages. Some plants (seven out of 30) are known to
use distillation units to reclaim spent solvent for recycling.
Sludges are normally disposed of by contractor hauling, although
some plants may incinerate this waste. Of the 30 plants cur-
rently performing aluminum degreasing with organic solvents, two
plants are known to discharge part of their spent solvent and oil
mixtures to a POTW.
Dry Air Pollution Control Devices
Application and Performance. The use of dry air pollution con-
trol devices would allow the elimination of waste streams with
high pollution potentials. The choice of air pollution control
686
-------
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 fol-
lowing factors are found: (1) the particle size is predominantly
under 20 microns, (2) flammable particles or gases are to be
treated at 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, corrosiveness, 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.
Melting prior to casting requires wet air pollution control only
when chlorine gas is present in the offgases. Dry air pollution
control methods with inert gas or salt furnace fluxing have been
demonstrated in the industry. It is possible to perform all the
metal treatment tasks of removing hydrogen, non-metallic inclu-
sions, and undesirable trace elements and meet the most stringent
quality requirements without furnace fluxing, using only in-line
metal treatment units. To achieve this, the molten aluminum is
treated in the transfer system between the furnace and casting
units by flowing the metal through a region of very fine, dense,
mixed-gas bubbles generated by a spinning rotor or nozzle. No
process wastewater is generated in this operation. A schematic
diagram depicting the spinning nozzle refining principle is shown
in Figure VII-39. Another similar alternate degassing method is
to replace the chlorine-rich degassing agent with a mixture of
inert gases and a much lower proportion of chlorine. The tech-
nique provides adequate degassing while permitting dry scrubbing.
Scrubbers must be used in forging because of the potential fire
hazard of baghouses used in this capacity. The oily mist gener-
ated in this operation is highly flammable and also tends to plug
and bind fabric filters, reducing their efficiency.
Caustic etch and extrusion die cleaning wet air pollution control
is necessary due to the corrosive nature of the gases.
687
-------
Advantages and Limitations. Proper application of a dry control
device can result in particulate removal efficiencies greater
than 99 percent by weight for fabric filters, elecrtrostatic pre-
cipitators, 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 con-
taminant removed, collection efficiencies ususally approach 99
percent for particles and gases.
Demonstration Status. The aluminum forming industry reports the
use of dry air pollution controls for degassing and forging.
Good Housekeeping
Good housekeeping and proper equipment maintenance are necessary
factors in reducing wastewater loads to treatment systems. Con-
trol of accidental spills of oils, process chemicals, and waste-
water from washdown and filter cleaning or removal can aid in
abating or maintaining the segregation of wastewater streams.
Curbed areas should be used to contain or 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 facili-
ties 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 aluminum 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.
688
-------
SULFURIC SULFUR
ACID DIOXIDE
LIME OR CAUSTIC
pH CONTROLLER
CO RAW WASTE
(HEX AVAL EN T CHROMIUM)
r
ORP CONTROLLER
(TRIVALENT CHROMIUM)
REACTION TANK
PRECIPITATION TANK
pH CONTROLLER
-••-TO CLARIFIER
(CHROMIUM
HYDROXIDE)
Figure VII-1
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM REDUCTION WITH SULFUR DIOXIDE
-------
10'
10
10'
10
,0
-3
o 10
z
o
-6
-7
1Q
'0-
10"
10
-10
10
-11
10
-12
10-
(OH)
Cd(OH)2 -
PbS
-13 I I I l I I I I J I
2 1 4 5 to 7 • 91011 1213
pH
Figure VII-2
COMPARATIVE SOLUBILITIES OF METAL HYDROXIDES
AND SULFIDE AS A FUNCTION OF pH
690
-------
a
4
"j
0
I
z
0
h
<5
j
ft
H
Z
Id
U
Z
0
U
U
z
N 2
Z
D
U.
b.
O
<
U
>
o
o
o
o
o
o o
o
«fi E
0 <
I f\ OQ
' 0 °
8°
on ^ J
O
0
o
< 3 «~7 ~6 ~
-------
0.40
0.30
-1
o"
X
0* 0.20
U
J
0.10
k
s.o
CAUSTIC SODA
SODA ASH AND
CAUSTIC SODA
8.5
10.0
10.9
PH
Figure VII-4
LEAD SOLUBILITY IN THREE ALKALIES
692
-------
INFL
• J
(a)
FINE/
30-40 in-* •.'•;;&
..'•';•;
UNOERORAIN
CHAMBER — '
EFFLUENT]
(b)
JENT
^
6- 10 ft-*
DEPTH
W::>-'
COARSE
/-OVERFLOW
/ TROUGH
— r ™"
t n p n r> rT r
:F!ME.';V'.V--:'
*•>'.' *. ' » '. *'•
• .-' ''"• "-.'. • '-•'
V;;;*;§AND;:::'
;•. ,{ COARSE'
t
X-6RIT TO
RETAIN ,-*
SAND ^CJ
STRAINER -\
EFFLUENT
4-6ft y
DEPTH -^
S'
.'.;.' FINE",'.:-
'.>: SA'VO'/'/V
" ' * * • * * *
• '/.COARSE;-/
^tf--
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT V INFLUENT UNDERORAIN \
UNDERDRA,N\ CHAMBER -i
CHAMBER — 1
INFLUENT
INFLUENT
(d)
COARSE MEDIA-
INTERMIX ZONE-
FINER MEDIA-
FINEST MEDIA-
A THRACITE'
30-40in
1
(e)
COARSE MEDIA —
FINER MEDIA— J-
FINEST MEDIA-
ANTHRACITE
v'.\c'pAL/;;.;-.
/:';.;;'3ANo;; :'•:
\
T
1
1
I
UNDERDRAIN
CHAMBER —'
EFFLUENT
\-6ARNET SANO
UNDERDRAIN - 'EFFLUENT
CHAMBER—*
Figure VII-5
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.
693
-------
OQ
c
4
(D
i
ON
-------
PERFORATED
BACKING PLATE
FABRIC
FILTER MEDIUM
SOLID
RECTANGULAR
END PLATE
INLET
SLUDGE
FABRIC
FILTER MEDIUM
ENTRAPPED SOLIDS
FILTERED LIQUID OUTLET
PLATES AND FRAMES ARE
PRESSED TOGETHER DURING
.FILTRATION CYCLE
RECTANGULAR
METAL PLATE
RECTANGULAR FRAME
Figure VII-7
PRESSURE FILTRATION
695
-------
SEDIMENTATION BASIN
INLET ZONE
INLET LIQUID
BAFFLES TO MAINTAIN
QUIESCENT CONDITIONS
OUTLET ZONE
SETTLING PARTICLE
. TRAJECTORY .
OUTLET UQU1D
BELT-TYPE SOLIDS COLLECTION
MECHANISM
»
SETTLED PARTICLES COLLECTED
AND PERIODICALLY REMOVED
CIRCULAR CLAR1FIER
INLET LIQUID
.CIRCULAR BAFFLE
ANNULAR OVERFLOW WEIR
SETTLING ZONE
•
.. • . t .
INLET ZONE — -
• ' 'Y V •
•.• . .V.« *
I/ .•]:!• I-/.' T'.-o.
**V'>*f ....'.'..'
r 1
— *
•
/
'
1 1
^ •
•
• .
*•'
'.'7-
X*. •-L-.1 -L
• . • '. ><
* « */; LIQU'ID
*. "/". FLOW .
•^//I'Aji.?
•*
*
»J
• ^
REVOLVING COLLECTION
MECHANISM
SETTLED PARTICLES
COLLECTED AND PERIODICALLY
REMOVED
SLUDGE DRAWOFF
Figure VII-8
REPRESENTATIVE TYPES OF SEDIMENTATION
696
-------
SEPARATOR CHANNEL
GATEWAY PIER
SLOT FOR
CHANNEL GATE
FOREBAY
SLUDGE COLLECTING
HOPPER -
DIFFUSION DEVICE
(VERTICAL-SLOT BAFFLE)
FLIGHT SCRAPER
CHAIN SPROCKET
ROTATABLE OIL
SKIMMING PIPE
FLIGHT SCRAPER
CHAIN
WOOD FLIGHTS
WATER
LEVEL
FLOW
OIL RETENTION
BAFFLE
SLUDGE-COLLECTING HOPPER
DISCHARGE WITH LEAD PIPE.
SLUDGE PUMP*
SUCTION PIPE
EFFLUENT FLUME
>-EFFLUENT
WEIR AND
WALL
EFFLUENT
SEWER
Figure VII-9
GRAVITY OIL/WATER SEPARATOR
-------
CO
EMULSIFIED
OIL
ALUM
POLYMER
RAPID MIX
TANK
TO GRAVITY
SEPERATION
OR
TO AIR FLOTATION
Figure VII-10
FLOW DIAGRAM FOR EMULSION BREAKING WITH CHEMICALS
-------
1.0
e»
•S 0.1
CO
u
c
o
CJ
3=
UJ
E .
1 0.01
•a
«3
0.001
Tfcv
©
fe
0.01
Data points with a raw waste concentration
less than 0.1 nig/I were not included in
treatment effectiveness calculations.
0.1
1.0
Cadmium Raw Waste Concentration (mg/I)
10
100
(N urn her of observations = 2)
FIGURE VII-11
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
CADMIUM
-------
10
1.0
»
o
c
o
CJ
*-*
c
O)
-<>-
-0-
o
o
UJ
•a
01
©
0.1
-e-
E
o
b>
O
_£L
-®
•<^
()
0
-<»-
e
0.01
0.1
1.0 10
Chromium Raw Waste Concentration (mg/1)
100 1000
(Number of observations = 26)
FIGURE VII-12
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
CHROMIUM
-------
TCU
Copper Treated Effluent Concentration (mg/l)
so
o
X
5
rn
rs 2 e
o co 2
•v m m
•O o
m = <
= 3 =
m
^i
*n
m
m
z
m
o
•a
at
-------
1.0
o
+5
e
c
u
o
CJ
•*-•
(U
UJ
*-•
oa
•»-•
(B
0.1
0.01
0.001
©
()
0.01
0.1
1.0
Lead Raw Waste Concentration (mg/l)
10
100
(Number of observations = 23)
FIGORE VII -14
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
LEAD
-------
10
tS)
E —~
c "Si
2 E
*- —
E <=
+3 O
*= '*3
o> m
o E
c ?i
o E
O
LO
E'~ a
-, -^
3 O
< 2
X ©
0.1
.01
0.1
1.0 10
© Nickel Raw Waste Concentration (mg/I)
x Aluminum Raw Waste Concentration {mg/I)
100
(Number of observations ~ 13)
(Number of observations = 5)
1000
FIGURE VII-15
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
NICKEL AND ALUMINUM
-------
Zinc Treated Effluent Concentration (mg/I)
o
X
5
m
a
m
rs
e n
2 C
N W »
_ m ~
>
H
O
|
P9
O
Nl
©
SL
f?)
©
©
1 !
o
-------
10
0.1
©
TST
^
~^-
©
©
©
©
©
^
©
©I
ur
0.01
0.1
1.0
10
Iron Raw Waste Concentration (my/I)
100 1000
(Number of observations = 29)
FIGURE VII-17
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
IRON
-------
1.0
§ 0.1
*«j
E
o
CJ
8 0.01
0.001
0.1
1.0 10
Manganese Raw Waste Concentration (mg/l)
100 1000
(Number of observations =10)
FIGORE VII-13
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
MANGANESE
-------
IUUU
o>
— 100
o
+-•
E
c
w
e
o
•*-•
O)
=>
£
-o
at
£
o>
^ 10
12
i n
(
<
rf
*M
)
<
r
i
^
<
>
>
©
©
^
©
P)
t
/
(5
©
7r
Ek
§
® ©
®.
r>
/A
9 c
(
)
[>
©
©
) ©
©
@,
A
©
©
fJl
•-"
1.0
10
100
TSS Raw Waste Concentration (mg/l)
1000
10,000
(Number of observations -
FIGURE VII-19
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
TSS
-------
FILTER
ADSORPTION
COLUMN
INFLUENT
WASTEWATER
REGENERATED CARBON SLURRY
"
FINES
REMOVAL
SCREEN
o
CO
REGENERATED
CARBON
SLURRY TANKS
TERTIARY
»> TREATED
EFFLUENT
DEWATERING
SCREEN
CARBON
STORAGE
REGENERATION
FURNACE
FINES TO
WASTE
Figure VII-20
FLOW DIAGRAM OF ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION WITH REGENERATION
-------
FLANGE
WASTE WATER
WASH WATER
SURFACE WASH
MANIFOLD
BACKWASH
*- BACKWASH
REPLACEMENT CARBON
CARBON REMOVAL PORT
TREATED WATER
SUPPORT PLATE
Figure VII-21
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION COLUMN
709
-------
OILY WATER
INFLUENT
WATER
DISCHARGE
OVERFLOW
SHUTOFF
VALVE
EXCESS
AIR OUT
LEVEL
CONTROLLER
TO SLUDGE
TANK "
Figure VII-22
DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION
710
-------
CONVEYOR DRIVE
DRYING
LIQUID
OUTLET
CYCLOGEAR
"it."
i SLUDGE
DISCHARGE
CONVEYOR BOWL REGULATING IMPELLER
RING
Figure VII-23
CENTRIFUGATION
711
-------
RAW WASTE
CAUSTIC
SODA
PH
CONTROLLER
r
i
00
ORP CONTROLLERS
\
WATER
CONTAINING
CYANATE
CHLORINE
REACTION TANK
CIRCULATrNG
PUMP
£
CHLORINATOR
CAUSTIC
SODA
00
PH
CONTROLLER
TREATED
WASTE
REACTION TANK
Figure VII-24
TREATMENT OF CYANIDE WASTE BY ALKALINE CHLORINATION
-------
CONTROLS
OZONE
GENERATOR
ffl
DF
A
?Y AIR
^ n
CD U
RAW WASTE
OZONE
REACTION
TANK
HX*
TREATED
WASTE
Figure VII-25
TYPICAL OZONE PLANT FOR WASTE TREATMENT
713
-------
MIXER
WASTEWATER
FEED TANK
1
FIF
ST
SE
ST
T
SI
C
i
i
(A
H
*ST §
AGE j
D
V.
•
(A
H
:OND 5
AGE j
D
in
h.
-URD J
FAGE ^
3
1*°
[PUMP
1
1
TREATED WATER
C
C
||
C
II
' _ EXHAUST
=3
.
:
2
3
c
i
C
GAS
TEMPERATURE
CONTROL
PH MONITORING
TEMPERATURE
CONTROL
PH MONITORING
TEMPERATURE
CONTROL
PH MONITORING
OZONE
OZONE
GENERATOR
Figure VII-26
UV/OZONATION
714
-------
EXHAUST
CONDENSER
WATER VAPOR
PACKED TOWER
EVAPORATOR
WASTEWATER
EVAPORATOR
STEAM
VAPOR-LIQUID
MIXTURE
X^
HEAT
EXCHANGER
STEAM
STEAM
CONDENSATE
CONCENTRATE
ATMOSPHERIC EVAPORATOR
STEAM
CONDENSATE
WASTEWATER
VACUUM PUMP
•-CONCENTRATE
CLIMBING FILM EVAPORATOR
VACUUM LINE
CONDENSATE
WASTEWATER
CONCENTRATE
VACUUM
PUMP
HOT VAPOR
STEAM
COOLING
WATER
STEAM
WASTE
WATER
FEED
,"> ,
STEAM
CONDENSATE
CONCENTRATE
CONDEN-
SATE
STEAM
CONDENSATE
COOLING
WATER
CONOENSATE
i VACULJM PUMP
*-EXHAUST
ACCUMULATOR
CONDENSATE
FOR REUSE
SUBMERGED TUBE EVAPORATOR
CONCENTRATE FOR REUSE
DOUBLE-EFFECT EVAPORATOR
Figure VII-27
TYPES OF EVAPORATION EQUIPMENT
-------
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
TURNTABLE
BASE
HANDRAIL
r
INFLUENT P-
WEIR
STILTS
CENTER SCRAPER
SQUEEGEE
SLUDGE PIPE
Figure VII-28
GRAVITY THICKENING
716
-------
WASTE WATER CONTAINING
DISSOLVED METALS OR
OTHER IONS
/T
REGENERANT
'SOLUTION
•D1VERTER VALVE
-DISTRIBUTOR
-SUPPORT
REGENERANT TO REUSE,
TREATMENT, OR DISPOSAL
DJVERTER VALVE
METAL-FREE WATER
FOR REUSE OR DISCHARGE
Figure VII-29
ION EXCHANGE WITH REGENERATION
717
-------
MACROMOLECULES
AND SOLIDS
ft MOST
MEMBRANE
450 PSI
WATER
PERMEATE
, MEMBRANE CROSS SECTION.
/I IN TUBULAR, HOLLOW FIBER,
// OR SPIRAL-WOUND CONFIGURATION
ONCENTRATE
(SALTS)
O SALTS OR SOLIDS
• WATER MOLECULES
Figure VII-30
SIMPLIFIED REVERSE OSMOSIS SCHEMATIC
718
-------
PERMEATE
TUBE
ADHESIVE BOUND
SPIRAL MODULE
PERMEATE
FUOW
FEED
CONCENTRATE
FLOW
BACKING MATERIAL
MESH SPACER
M EMBRANE
SPIRAL MEMBRANE MODULE
POROUS SUPPORT TUBE
WITH MEMBRANE
PRODUCT WATER
PERMEATE FLOW
c.BB»° BRACKISH
WATER
FEED FLOW
:;-Sv" wyw v7»:\
D o • • «D • o; o v
o . o 0 - o o
(
- °D o O i, i
a°c a" S a °J
e o o „«
Mj,='
u-'T'q-u^-u-.-V-u^
I < tr * ' *^i t
PRODUCT WATER
BRINE
CONCENTRATE
FLOW
TUBULAR REVERSE OSMOSIS MODULE
OPEN ENDS
OF FIBERS
EPOXY
TUBE SHEET
POROUS
BACK-UP DISC
SNAP
RING
CONCENTRATE
OUTLET
••O" RING
SEAL ^
-END PLATE
POROUS FEED
DISTRIBUTOR TUBE
PERMEATE
END PLATE
HOLLOW FIBER MODULE
Figure VII-31
REVERSE OSMOSIS MEMBRANE CONFIGURATIONS
719
-------
A
fr
3—ri
TT
h
n
ii
] n
ii
i
!
!
n
1 II
n
=try
i
A
JL___
6-!N. VITR1FIE
•r-d
if
1
i
1
],
] ||
H
D PIPE LAID
=b-Tr
r
C
WITH PLASTIC JOINTS
] 'I
II
il
II
It
II
II
] |l
lob !!
r
il
•f— SPLASH BOX
\rJL
X ~ .
d
P^
1
Ly
1 '
1 |
1 1
H
{!
n
v n
II
II
II
JJU-
C
r
>s
'
j Li
-L i
r
\ i
S J 1
Q. to 1
Ezl
u 5|
- zl
C U I
- o
L > rl
w 3|
I
) 1
I
1
I
1
i
L
r
\
[
C
r<
H
i i
\
r
,J U
i?
J
]
.__Jk
"~ir
i
1
1
i
|!
.
6-IN. FLANGED
^^"SHEAR GATE
\"
w
1
|
|
3
•Ml
" : : — L
E3
PLAN
s— 6-IN. FINE SAND
-LJ L.
[
E
[
1
A
t
> — Z-IN. PLANK
WALK
3-IN. FINE GRAVEL
3-IN. MEDIUM GRAVEL
3 TO 6 IN. COARSE GRAVEL
PIPE COLUMN FOR
GLASS-OVER
3-IN. MEDIUM GRAVEL
6-IN. UNDERDRAIN LAID-
WITH OPEN JOINTS
SECTION A-A
Figure VII-32
SLUDGE DRYING BED
720
-------
ULTRAFILTRATION
MACROMOLECULES
P * 10-50 PSI
MEMBRANE;
*
WATER SALTS
•MEMBRANE
PERMEATE
O« • • *Q ' ° * * *O»»°. *«•*
• o9 9 • 9 o • »o 9 9 , o «
FEED Q O0«*», O CONCENTR
• * • * • o .. . o •_ * *o • •
o • o
• •
. . ° .o
• • •
t
O OIL PARTICLES
• DISSOLVED SALTS AND LOW-MOLECULAR-WEIGHT ORGANICS
Figure VII-33
SIMPLIFIED ULTRAFILTRATION FLOW SCHEMATIC
721
-------
CONCENTRATE
CIRCULATION LOOP
SPENT FREE
AND
EMULSIFIED
OIL
FREE OIL
SEPARATION
i
PROCESS
TANK
PERMEATE
1
MEMBRANE
MODULES
CONCENTRATE (WITHDRAWN
AFTER EACH BATCH)
Figure VII-34
FLOW DIAGRAM FOR A BATCH TREATMENT ULTRAFILTRATION SYSTEM
-------
FABRIC OR WIRE
FILTER MEDIA
STRETCHED OVER
REVOLVING DRUM
ROLLER
SOLIDS SCRAPED
OFF FILTER MEDIA
DIRECTION OF ROTATION
STEEL
CYLINDRICAL
FRAME
LIQUID FORCE
THROUGH
MEDIA BY
MEANS OF
VACUUM
SOLIDS COLLECTION
HOPPER
INLET LIQUID
TO BE
FILTERED
-TROUGH
FILTERED LIQUID
Figure VII-35
VACUUM FILTRATION
723
-------
EVAPORATION
CONTACT COOLING
WATER
COOLING
TOWER
SLOWDOWN
DISCHARGE
RECYCLED FLOW
MAKE-UP WATER
Figure VII-36
FLOW DIAGRAM FOR RECYCLING WITH A COOLING TOWER
724
-------
SINGLE RINSE
OUTGOING WATER
WORK MOVEMENT
INCOMING WATER
DOUBLE COUNTERFLOW
RINSE
OUTGOING WATER
WORK
--"MOVEMENT
INCOMING WATER
~~i f
. 1 *
EP
_J-~— 4
, i
*_ ^ ^
V
TRIPLE COUNTERFLOW
RINSE
WORK MOVEMENT
.__^n r^ — *__, -*—-».
* i * t |= INCOMING
^ 1 i^l *
/r^ t^- — -—4 •
V ! +
J L_j
J x
• J-
F
J
. -^ — — 1
L__j
it 1 1 1
r— WATER
1
OUTGOING WATER
Figure VII-37
COUNTER CURRENT RINSING (TANKS)
725
-------
1000 i—
Rinse Stages
Figure VII-38
EFFECT OF ADDED RINSE STAGES ON WATER USE
726
-------
GAS
DROSS
MOLTEN ALUMINUM
INERT
SPARGING GAS
IN IN
METAL (TO CASTING)
W
SPINNING NOZZLES
Figure VII-39
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF SPINNING NOZZLE ALUMINUM REFINING PROCESS
-------
Table VII-1
pH CONTROL EFFECT ON METALS REMOVAL
Day 1
In Out
Day 2
In Out
Day 3
In Out
pH Range
(mg/1)
TSS
Copper
Zinc
2.4-3.4 8.5-8.7 1.0-3.0 5.0-6.0 2.0-5.0 6.5-8.1
39
312
250
8
0.22
0.31
16
120
32.5
19
5.12
25.0
16
107
43.8
7
0.66
0.66
728
-------
Table VII-2
EFFECTIVENESS OF SODIUM HYDROXIDE FOR METALS REMOVAL
Day 1
In Out
Day 2
In Out
Day 3
In Out
pH Range
(mg/1)
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mn
Ni
Zn
TSS
2.1-2.9
0.097
0.063
9.24
1.0
0.11
0.077
0.054
9.0-9.3
0.0
0.018
0.76
0.11
0.06
0.011
0.0
13
2.0-2.4
0.057
0.078
15.5
1.36
0.12
0.036
0.12
8.7-9.1
0.005
0.014
0.92
0.13
0.044
0.009
0.0
11
2.0-2.4
0.068
0.053
9.41
1.45
0.11
0.069
0.19
8.6-9.1
0.005
0.019
0.95
0.11
0.044
0.011
0.037
11
729
-------
Table VII-3
EFFECTIVENESS OF LIME AND SODIUM HYDROXIDE
FOR METALS REMOVAL
Day 1
In Out
Day 2
In Out
Day 3
In Out
pH Range
(mg/1)
Al
Co
Cu
Fe
Mn
Ni
Se
Ti
Zn
TSS 4
9.2-9.6
37.3
3.92
0.65
137
175
6.86
28.6
143
18.5
,390
8.3-9.8
0.35
0.0
0.003
0.49
0.12
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.027
9 3
9.2
38.1
4.65
0.63
110
205
5.84
30.2
125
16.2
,595
7.6-8.1
0.35
0.0
0.003
0.57
0.012
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.044
13 2
9.6
29.9
4.37
0.72
208
245
5.63
27.4
115
17.0
,805
7.8-8.2
0.35
0.0
0.003
0.58
0.12
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.01
13
730
-------
Table VII-4
THEORETICAL SOLUBILITIES OF HYDROXIDES AND SULFIDES
OF SELECTED METALS IN PURE WATER
Metal
Cadmium (Cd++)
Chromium (Cr+++)
Cobalt (Co++)
Copper (Cu++)
Iron (Fe++)
Lead (Pb++)
Manganese (Mn-H-)
Mercury (Hg++)
Nickel (Ni-H-)
Silver (Ag+)
Tin (Sn++)
Zinc (Zn++)
Solubility of Metal Ion, mg/1
As Hydroxide
2.3 x 10-5
8.4 x 1(T4
2.2 x 10'1
2.2 x 1C-2
8.9 x 10-1
2.1
1.2
3.9 x 10'4
6.9 x 10-3
13.3
1.1 x 10~4
1.1
As Carbonate
1.0 x lO-4
7.0 x 10-3
3.9 x ID'2
1.9 x 10-1
2.1 x 10-1
7.0 x ID'4
As Sulfide
6.7 x 10-10
No precipitate
1.0 x 10-8
5.8 x 10-18
3.4 x 10-5
3.8 x 10-9
2.1 x 10-3
9.0 x 10-20
6.9 x 10-8
7.4 x 10-12
3.8 x 10-8
2.3 x 10-7
731
-------
Table VII-5
SAMPLING DATA FROM SULFIDE PRECIPITATION-SEDIMENTATION SYSTEMS
OJ
Lime, FeS,
Polyele ct roly t e,
Settle, Filter
Lime, FeS,
Polyelectrolyte,
Settle, Filter
NaOH, Ferric Chloride,
Na2S, Clarify (1 Stage)
Treatment
pH
(mg/1)
Cr+6
Cr
Cu
Fe
Ni
Zn
In
5.0-6.8
25.6
32.3
--
0.52
--
39.5
Out
8-9
<0.014
<0.04
--
0.10
--
<0.07
In
7.7
0.022
2.4
--
108
0.68
33.9
Out In
7.38
<0.020 11.45
<0.1 18.35
0.029
0.6
<0.1
<0.1 0.060
Out
<.005
<.005
0.003
-_
--
0.009
-------
Table VII-6
SULFIDE PRECIPITATION-SEDIMENTATION PERFORMANCE
Parameter
Cd
Cr (Total)
Cu
Pb
Hg
Ni
Ag
Zn
Treated Effluent (mg/1)
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.01
733
-------
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/1)
0.001
0.008
0.010
0.016
<0.010
0.007
0.200
0.06
0.100
0.010
734
-------
Table VII-8
CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL CYANIDE (mg/1)
Plant
1057
Method
FeS04
33056
FeS04
12052
In
2.57
2.42
3.28
0.14
0.16
0.46
0.12
Mean
Out
0.024
0.015
0.032
0.09
0.09
0.14
0.06
0.07
733
-------
Plant ID //
06097
13924
18538
30172
36048
Mean
Table VII-9
MULTIMEDIA FILTER PERFORMANCE
TSS Effluent Concentration, mg/1
0.0, 0.0, 0.5
1.8, 2.2, 5.6, 4.0, 4.0, 3.0, 2.2, 2.8
3.0, 2.0, 5.6, 3.6, 2.4, 3.4
1.0
1.4, 7.0, 1.0
2.1, 2.6, 1.5
2.61
736
-------
LO
--J
Table VII-10
PERFORMANCE OF SELECTED SETTLING SYSTEMS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION (mg/1)
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
Day 1
In
54
1,100
451
284
170
• --
4,390
182
295
Out
6
9
17
6
1
—
9
13
10
Day
In
56
1,900
--
242
50
1,662
3,595
118
42
2
Out
6
12
--
10
1
16
12
14
10
Day 3
In
50
1,620
--
502
_- ' -
1,298
2,805
174
153
Out
5
5
---
14
,--
4
13
23
8
-------
Table VII-11
SKIMMING PERFORMANCE
Plant Skimmer Type
06058 API
06058 Belt
Oil St Grease (mg/1)
In Out
224,669
19.4
17.9
8.3
738
-------
Table VII-12
TRACE ORGANIC REMOVAL BY SKIMMING
API PLUS BELT SKIMMERS
(From Plant 06058)
Oil & Grease
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Naphthalene
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Anthracene - phenanthrene
Toluene
Influent
(mg/1)
225,000
.023
.013
2.31
59.0
11.0
.005
.019
16.4
.02
Effluent
(mg/1)
14.6
.007
.012
.004
.182
.027
.002
.002
.014
.012
739
-------
Table VIl-13
CHEMICAL EMULSION BREAKING EFFICIENCIES
Parameter
O&G
TSS
OScG
TSS
O&G
TSS
OSeG
Concentration (mg/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
121
59
140
52
27
18
187
153
63
80
Reference
Sampling data*
Sampling data+
Sampling data**
Katnick and Pavilcius, 1978++
*0il and grease and total suspended solids were taken as grab
samples before and after batch emulsion breaking treatment which
used alum and polymer on emulsified rolling oil wastewater.
+0il 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.
740
-------
Table VII-14
COMBINED METALS, DATA EFFLUENT VALUES (mg/1)
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Ni
Zn
Fe
Mn
TSS
Mean
0.079
0.08
0.58
0.12
0.57
0.30
0.41
0.21
12.0
One-Day
Max.
0.32
0.42
1.90
0.15
1.41
1.33
1.23
0.43
41.0
10-Day Avg.
Max.
0.15
0.17
1.00
0.13
1.00
0.56
0.63
0.34
20.0
30 -Day Avg.
Max.
0.13
0.12
0.73
0.12
0.75
0.41
0.51
0.27
15.5
741
-------
Table VII-15
L&S PERFORMANCE
ADDITIONAL POLLUTANTS
Pollutant Average Performance (mg/1)
Sb 0.7
As 0.51
Be 0.30
Hg 0.06
Se 0.30
Ag 0.10
Th 0.50
Al 1.11
Co 0.05
F 14.5
742
-------
Table VII-16
COMBINED METALS DATA SET - UNTREATED WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Ni
Zn
Fe
Mn
TSS
Mln. Cone, (mg/1)
4.6
Max. Cone, (mg/1)
3.83
116
108
29.2
27.5
337.
263
5.98
4,390
743
-------
Table VII-17
MAXIMUM POLLUTANT LEVEL IN UNTREATED WASTEWATER
ADDITIONAL POLLUTANTS
(mg/1)
Pollutant
As
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Ni
Ag
Zn
F
Fe
OScG
TSS
As & Se
4.2
--
<0.1
0.18
33.2
6.5
--
.-
3.62
--
--
16.9
352
Be
10.24
Ag
8.60
1.24
0.35
0.12
646
796
0.23
110.5
11.4
100
4.7
1,512
16
587.8
22.8
2.2
5.35
0.69
760
2.8
5.6
744
-------
Table VII-18
PRECIPITATION-SETTLING-FILTRATION (LS&F.) PERFORMANCE
PLANT A
Parameters
No. Points
For 1979-Treated Wastewater
Cr
Cu
Ni
Zn
Fe
47
12
47
47
Range mg/1
0.015
0.01
0.08
0.08
0.13
0.03
0.64
0.53
Mean +
Std. Dev.
0.045 + 0.029
0.019 + 0.006
0.22 + 0.13
0.17 + 0.09
Mean + 2
Std. Dev.
0.10
0.03
0.48
0.35
For 1978-Treated Wastewater
Cr
Cu
Ni
Zn
Fe
47
28
47
47
21
Raw Waste
Cr
Cu
Ni
Zn
Fe
0.01
0.005
0.10
0.08
0.26
32.0
0.08
1.65
33.2
10.0
- 0.07
- 0.055
- 0.92
- 2.35
- 1.1
- 72.0
- 0.45
- 20.0
- 32.0
- 95.0
0.06 + 0.10
0.016 +0.010
0.20 + 0.14
0.23 + 0.34
0.49 + 0.18
0.26
0.04
0.48
0.91
0.85
-------
Table VII-19
PRECIPITATION-SETTLING-FILTRATION (LSStF) PERFORMANCE
PLANT B
-J
*-
ON
Parameters No .
Points
Range mg/1
Mean +
Std. Dev.
For 1979-Treated Vastewater
Cr
Cu
Ni
Zn
Fe
TSS
175
176
175
175
174
2
0.0
0.0
0.01
0.01
0.01
1.00
- 0.40
- 0.22
-1.49
- 0.66
- 2.40
-1.00
0.068
0 .024
0.219
0.054
0.303
-1- 0.075
+ 0.021
+ 0.234
+ 0.064
+ 0.398
For 1978-Treated Vastewater
Cr
Cu
Ni
Zn
Fe
Total 1974-1979-Treated
Cr 1,
Cu 1,
Ni 1,
Zn 1,
Fe 1,
Raw Vaste
Cr
Cu
Ni
Zn
Fe
TSS
144
143
143
131
144
Vastewater
288
290
287
273
287
3
3
3
2
3
2 17
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.80
0.09
1.61
2.35
3.13
7
- 0.70
- 0.23
- 1.03
- 0.24
- 1.76
- 0.56
- 0.23
- 1.88
- 0.66
- 3.15
9.15
0.27
4.89
3.39
- 35.9
- 446
0.059
0.017
0.147
0.037
0.200
0.038
0.011
0.184
0.035
0.402
5.90
0.17
3.33
22.4
+ 0.088
+ 0.020
+ 0.142
+ 0.034
+ 0.223
+ 0.055
+ 0.016
+ 0.211
+ 0.045
+ 0.509
Mean + 2
Std. Dev.
0.22
0.07
0.69
0.18
1.10
0.24
0.06
0.43
0.11
0.47
0.15
0.04
0.60
0.13
1.42
-------
Table VII-20
PRECIPITATION-SETTLING-FILTRATION (LS&F) PERFORMANCE
PLANT C
•^J
•^1
Parameters No.
For Treated Wastewater
Cd
Zn
TSS
pH
Points
103
103
103
103
Range
0.010 -
0.039 -
0.100 -
7.1
mg/1
0.500
0.899
5.00
7.9
Mean +
Std. Dev.
0.049 + 0.049
0.290 + 0.131
1.244 + 1.043
9.2*
Mean + 2
Std. Dev.
0.147
0.552
3.33
For UnTreated Wastewater
Cd
Zn
Fe
TSS
pH
103
103
3
103
103
0.039 -
0.949 -
0.107 -
0.80 -
6.8
2.319
29.8
0.46
19.6
8.2
0.542 + 0.381
11.009 + 6.933
0.255
5.616 + 2.896
7.6*
1.304
24.956
11.408
*pH value is median of 103 values.
-------
00
Table VII-21
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS (mg/1)
LScS Technology System
LSfcF Technology System
Pollutant
Parameter
114 Sb
115 As
117 Be
118 Cd
119 Cr
120 Cu
121 CN
122 Pb
123 Hg
124 Ni
125 Se
126 Ag
127 Th
128 Zn
Al
Co
F
Fe
Mn
P
O&G
TSS
Mean
0.70
0.51
0.30
0.079
0,080
0.58
0.07
0.12
0.06
0.57
0.3
0.1
0.50
0.30
1.11
0.05
14.5
0.41
0.21
4.08
12.0
One-
Day
Max.
2.87
2.09
1.23
0.32
0.42
1.90
0.29
0.15
0.25
1.41
1.23
0.41
2.05
1.33
4.55
0.21
59.5
1.23
0.43
16.7
20.0
41.0
10-
Day
Avg.
1.27
0.86
0.51
0.15
0.17
1.00
0.12
0.13
0.10
1.00
0.55
0.17
0.84
0.56
1.86
0.09
26.4
0.63
0.34
6.83
12.0
20.0
30-
Day
Avg.
1.13
0.83
0.49
0.13
0.12
0.73
0.11
0.12
0.10
0.75
0.49
0.16
0.81
0.41
1.80
0.08
23.5
0.51
0.27
6.60
10.0
15.5
Mean
0.034
0.34
0.20
0.049
0.07
0.39
0.047
0.08
0.036
0.22
0.007
0.07
0.34
0.23
0.74
0.05
9.46
0.28
0.14
2.72
2.6
One-
Day
Max.
0.14
1.39
0.82
0.20
0.37
1.28
0.20
0.10
0.15
0.55
0.03
0.29
1.40
1.02
3.03
0.21
38.8
1.23
0.30
11.2
10.0
15.0
10-
Day
Avg.
0.06
0.57
0.34
0.08
0.15
0.61
0.08
0.09
0.06
0.37
0.01
0.12
0.57
0.42
1.24
0.09
15.8
0.63
0.23
4.6
10.0
12.0
30-
Day
Avg.
0.06
0.55
0.32
0.08
0.10
0.49
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.29
0.01
0.10
0.55
0.31
1.20
0.08
15.3
0.51
0.19
4.4
10.0
10.0
-------
Table VII-22
TREATABILITY RATING OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS UTILIZING
CARBON ADSORPTION
Priority ftjllutant
•Removal Rating
1. acenaphthene R
2. acrolein L
3. acrylonitrile L
4. benzene H
5. benzidine H
6. carbon tetrachloride H
(tetrachloromethane)
7. chlorobenzene ( B
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene H
9. hexachlorobenzene . H
10. l,2-3ichloroethane M
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane M
12. hexachloroethane H
13. 1,1-dichloroethane «
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane M
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane H .
16. chloroethane L
17. bis(chloronethyl)ether
IB. bis(2-chloroethyl)ether H
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether L
(mixed)
20. 2-chloronaphthalene R
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol H
22. paraehlorcmeta cresol H
23. chloroform (trichloromethane) L
24. 2-chlorophenol H
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene R
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene R
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene H
28. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine R
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene L
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene L
31. 2,4-dichlorophenol H
32. 1,2-dichloropropane M
33. 1,2-dichloroprtipylene . M
(1,3,-dichloropropenfcj
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol H
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene H
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene H
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine H
38. ethylbenzene M
39. fluoranthene H
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether H
41. 4-branophenyl phenyl ether B
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether H
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane M
44. methylene chloride L
(dichlorome thane)
45. methyl chloride (chloramethane) L
46. methyl bromide (bromomethane) L
47. bronoform (tribrorarethane) R
48. dichlorobrorcne thane K
Priority tellutant
*teipval Rating
49. trichlorofluoromethane «
50. dichlorcdifluorcmBthane L
51. .colored ibtmnane thane M
52. hexachlorobutadiene K
S3. nexachlorocyclopentadiene H
54. isophorone H
55. naphthalene H
56. nitrobenzene H
57. 2-nitrophenol H
58. ;4-riitrophenol H
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol H
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol 8
61. N-nitrosodirethylamine M
62. J*-nitrosadiphenylamine H
63. K-nitroecdi-n-propylamine H
64. pentaehloropnenol H
65. phenol ' . H
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate H
67. butyl benzyl phthalate B
68, di-n-butyl phthalate H
69. di-n-octyl phthalate H
70. diethyj phthalate R
71.- dimethyl phthalate H
72. 1,2-benzanthraoene (benzo H
(a)anthracene)
73. ben2o(a)pyrene (3,4-benao- H
pyrene)
74* 3,4-benzofluoranthene H
(benzo(b)fluoranthene)
75. 11,12-benzofluOranthene R
(benzo(k)flooranthene)
76. chrysene H
77. acensphthylene H
78. anthracene R
79* 1,12-benzoperylene (benzo B
, (ghi)-perylene)
80. fluorene H
81.' phenanthrene R
82. 1,2,5,6-dibenzathracene R
(dlbenzD (a,h) anthracene)
83- indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene H
(2,3-o-phenylene pyrene)
84*. pyrene
85. tetrachloroethylene M
86. toluftne M
87. trichloroethylene L
88. vinyl chloride L
{chloroethylene)
106. PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242) R
107..PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254) H
108, PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221) H
109, PCB-1332 (Arochlor 1232) H
no. PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248) R
Ul. KB-1260 (Arochlor 1260) H
112. PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016) H
* NCTTE: Explanation of Raioval RAtings
CategoryH (high removal)
adsorbs at levels > 100 mg/g carbon at C, - 10 mg/1
adsorbs at levels T 100 mg/g carbon at rf < 1.0 mg/1 .
Category H (moderate removal)
adsorbs at levels >_ 100 mg/g carbon at C. - 10 mg/1
adsorbs at levels <" 100 mg/g carbon at C« < 1.0 mg/1
Category L (low rmoval)
adsorbs at levels < 100 mg/g carbon at C. » 10 «g/l
adsorbs at levels < 10 mg/g carbon at Cf < 1.0 mg/1
C, • final oonoentrations of priority pollutant at equilibria
749
-------
Table VII-23
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
Examplea of Chemical^Class
benzene, toluene, xylene
naphthalene, anthracene
bephenyls
chlorobenzene, polychlorinated
biphenyls, aldrin, endrin,
toxaphene, DDT
phenol, cresol, resorcenol
and polyphenyls
trichlorophenol, pentachloro-
phenol
gasoline, kerosine
carbon tetrachloride,
perchloroethylene
tar acids, benzole 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.
750
-------
Table VII-24
ACTIVATED CARBON PERFORMANCE
Type of
Industry Pollutant Parameter
NFM Fluoranthene
Foundries N-nitrosodiphenylamine
NFM Benzo(a)anthracene
NFM Chrysene
NFM Anthracene
NFM Phenanthrene
NFM Pyrene
Mean Pollutant Levels
ufi/1
In
Out
55
250
13
160
43
46
130
13
190
0.7
3.8
6.6
4.6
11
751
-------
Table VII-25
ION EXCHANGE PERFORMANCE
(All Values mg/1)
Plant A
Parameter
Al
Cd
Cr+3
Cr+6
Cu
CN
Au
Fe
Pb
Mn
Ni
Ag
S04
Sn
Zn
Prior to
Purifica-
tion
5.6
5.7
3.1
7,1
4.5
9.8
-_
7.4
--
4.4
6.2
1.5
--
1.7
14.8
After
Purifica-
tion
0.20
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.09
0.04
--
0.01
--
0.00
0.00
0.00
--
0.00
0.40
Plant B
Prior to
Purifica-
tion
43.0
3.40
2.30
1.70
1.60
9.10
210.00
1.10
After
Purifica-
tion
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.01
2.00
0.10
752
-------
Table VII-26
PEAT ADSORPTION PERFORMANCE
Pollutant
Cr+6
Cu
CN
Pb
Hg
Ni
Ag
Sb
Zn
Influent (mg/1)
35,000
250
36.0
20.0
1.0
2.5
1.0
2.5
1.5
Effluent (mg/1)
0.04
0.24
0.7
0.025
0.02
0.07
0.05
0.9
0.25
753
-------
Table VII-27
MEMBRANE FILTRATION SYSTEM EFFLUENT
Specific
Metal
Al
Cr,(+6)
Cr (T)
Cu
Fe
Pb
CN
Ni
Zn
TSS
Manufacturer1 s
Guarantee
0.5
0.02
0.03
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.02
0.1
0.1
— _
Plant 19066
In Out
0.46 0.01
4.13 0.018
18.8 0.043
288 0.3
0.652 0.01
<0.005 <0.005
9.56 0.017
2.09 0.046
632 0.1
Plant 31022
In Out
5.25 <0.005
98.4 0.057
8.00 0.222
21.1 0.263
0.288 0.01
<0.005 <0.005
194 0.352
5.00 0.051
13.0 8.0
Predicted
Perfor-
mance
0.05
0.20
0.30
0.05
0.02
0.40
0.10
1.0
-------
Table VII-28
ULTRAFILTRATION PERFORMANCE
Parameter
Oil (freon
extractable)
COD
TSS
Total Solids
Feed (mg/1)
95
1,540
1,230
8,920
791
1,262
5,676
1,380
2,900
Permeate (mg/1)
22*
52*
4
148
19*
26*
13*
13
296
*From samples at aluminum forming Plant B
755
-------
-------
SECTION VIII
COSTS, ENERGY, AND NONWATER QUALITY ASPECTS
Cost information for the suggested treatment models (selected in
Sections IX and X) is presented in the following discussion.
Several levels of effluent reduction are presented for each waste
stream in every subcategory.
Capital and annual costs corresponding to alternative treatment
levels have been determined for each plant in the aluminum form-
ing category that reported wastewater discharge. Nonwater qual-
ity aspects composed of sludge handling and disposal are also
discussed. Energy costs associated with each control and treat-
ment option are discussed as well. A separate analysis of the
economic impact of the alternatives for effluent limitations and
guidelines on the industry will be published in a separate
document.
BASIS FOR COST ESTIMATION
Sources of Cost Data
Capital and annual cost data for the selected treatment processes
were collected from four sources: (1) literature, (2) data col-
lection portfolios, (3) equipment manufacturers, and (4) in-house
design projects. The majority of the cost information was
obtained from literature sources. Many of the literature sources
cited obtained their costs from surveys of actual design proj-
ects. For example, Black St Veatch prepared a cost manual that
used design and construction cost data from 76 separate projects
as a basis for establishing average construction costs. Data
collection portfolios completed by companies in the aluminum
forming category contained a limited amount of chemical and unit
process cost information. Most of the dcp's did not include
treatment plant capital and annual cost information, and reported
information was for the entire treatment plant. Therefore,
little data from the data collection portfolios was applicable
for the determination of individual unit process costs. Addi-
tional data was obtained from equipment manufacturers and design
projects performed by Sverdrup Se Parcel and Associates.
Determination of Costs
To determine capital and annual costs for the selected treatment
technologies, cost data from all sources were plotted on a graph
of capital or annual costs versus a design parameter (usually
flow). These data were usually spread over a range of flows.
Unit process cost data gathered from all sources include a vari-
ety of auxiliary equipment, basic construction materials, and
757
-------
geographical locations. A single line was fitted to the data
points thus arriving at a final cost curve closely representing
an average of all the cost references for a unit process. Since
the cost estimates presented in this section must be applicable
to treatment needs in varying circumstances and geographic loca-
tions, this approach was felt to be the best for determining
national treatment costs. For consistency in determining costs,
accuracy in reading the final cost curves, and in order to pre-
sent all cost relationships concisely, equations were developed
to represent the final cost curves. Capital and annual cost
equations are listed in Table VIII-1.
All cost information was standardized by backdating or updating
the costs to first quarter 1978. Two indices were used:
(1) EPA - Standard Treatment Plant index and (2) EPA - Large City
Advanced Treatment (LCAT) index. The national average, rather
than an index value for a particular city, was used for the EPA-
LCAT index. The national average was used because the regional
differential of the supporting cost data was dampened by averag-
ing the cost data.
Capital. All capital cost equations include:
(1) Major and auxiliary equipment
(2) Piping and pumping
(3) Shipping
(4) Sitework
(5) Installation
(6) Contractors' fees
(7) Electrical and instrumentation
(8) Enclosure
(9) Yard piping
(10) Engineering
(11) Contingency
Items (1) through (7) are included to the extent that they are
provided for in each source in the literature. In cases where a
certain item(s) is missing, an estimate is made in order to aver-
age the cost values. Enclosure costs are estimated separately
and are included only for those technologies' performances deemed
subject to weather conditions. Contingencies and engineering are
assumed to be 15 and 10 percent, respectively, of the installed
equipment cost. Yard piping is estimated at 10 percent of the
installed equipment cost.
The cost of land has not been considered in the cost estimates.
Based on engineering visits at 22 aluminum forming plants, it is
believed that most wastewater treatment and supporting facilities
can be constructed in existing buildings or on land currently
owned by the plants. Also, the plant wastewater flows in the
aluminum forming category are low (majority of plants less than
50,000 gpd); thus, land requirements are small for most plants.
758
-------
For new plants, the amount of land necessary to house the waste-
water treatment system is assumed to be insignificant relative to
other capital costs. This is particularly true since the plant
design would optimize the space available.
The nonwater quality aspects associated with capital costs
include sludge handling for precipitation and skimming systems
generating large quantities. Capital investment is required only
for systems generating greater than 140,000 gallons per year in
order to dewater the sludge prior to hauling. This is based on
economic assessment of the break point for sludge hauling and
landfilling. The 140,000 gallon per year volume is the volume at
which contract hauling at a cost of thirty cents per gallon (dis-
cussed later in this section) would equal the investment costs
for a vacuum filtration system. Investment includes costs for
vacuum filtration and holding tanks. See the cost calculation
example for further detail.
Annual. All annual cost equations include:
Operation and maintenance labor
Operation and maintenance materials
Energy
Chemicals
Operation and maintenance labor requirements for each unit pro-
cess were recorded from all data sources in terms of manhours per
year. A labor rate of 20 dollars per manhour, including fringe
benefits and plant overhead, was used to convert the manhour
requirements into an annual cost.
Operation and maintenance material costs account for the replace-
ment, repair, and routine maintenance of all equipment associated
with each unit process. Material costs were developed solely
from data reported in the literature.
Electrical energy requirements for process equipment were tabu-
lated in terms of kilowatt-hours per year. The cost of electric-
ity used is 4.0 cents per kilowatt-hour, based on the average
value of electricity costs as reported in the aluminum forming
category data collection portfolios. Fuel oil and natural gas
costs used were also obtained from the data collection portfol-
ios. The average fuel oil cost was 26 cents per therm and the
average natural gas cost was 22 cents per therm.
Chemicals used in the treatment processes presented in this sec-
tion are sulfuric acid and caustic for pH adjustment, hydrated
lime for heavy metals precipitation, sulfur dioxide for hexaval-
ent chromium reduction, and alum and polymer for emulsion break-
ing.
759
-------
Although not included in the annual cost equations, amortization,
depreciation, and sludge disposal are considered in the plant-by-
plant cost analysis. See the example which follows in this
section.
Capital costs are amortized over a 10-year period at 12 percent
interest. The corresponding capital recovery factor is 0.177.
The annual cost of depreciation was calculated on a straight line
basis over a 10-year period.
Many of the unit processes chosen as treatment technologies pro-
duce a residue or sludge that must be discarded. Sludge disposal
costs presented in this section are based on charges made by
private contractors for sludge hauling services. Costs for haul-
ing vary with a number of factors including quantity of sludge to
be hauled, distance to disposal site, disposal method used by the
contractor, and variation in landfill policy from state to state.
Costs for contractor hauling of sludges are based on data col-
lected in the development of effluent guidelines for the paint
industry in which 511 plants reported contractor hauling
information.
A cost of 30 cents per gallon was used for the paint guideline
development as a sludge hauling and landfilling cost and is used
in this report. This value is conservative since many sludges
hauled in the paint industry are considered hazardous wastes and
require more expensive landfilling facilities relative to
landfill facilities required for nonhazardous wastes.
Cost Data Reliability
To check the validity of the capital cost data, the capital costs
developed for this guideline were compared to capital costs
reported in the data collection portfolios. As stated earlier,
the cost information reported in the data collection portfolios
was for treatment systems rather than individual unit processes
and therefore was not used to develop costs for existing treat-
ment facilities in the aluminum forming category.
Nineteen plants reported treatment system capital cost informa-
tion. The total reported capital cost for all 19 facilities is
equal to $3,600,000. The sum of the costs developed as deter-
mined for the 19 treatment systems is equal to $4,300,000.
Therefore, although variations at individual plants were
occasionally much greater, the overall difference of capital
costs was 19 percent, with these cost estimates being on the
conservative side. Detailed design parameters (i.e., retention
times, chemical dosages, etc.) for the data collection portfolio
treatment systems were seldom reported. Therefore, the costs
760
-------
developed in this section are based on one set of design param-
eters which may differ from the design parameters actually used
at the 19 plants which reported cost information. This could
result in large variances at individual facilities, but the
effect of the possible design differences is dampened when a
large number of facilities are considered as is indicated by the
19 percent difference in costs for the 19 treatment systems
studied.
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES AND RELATED COSTS
Costs have been determined for the following wastewater treatment
and sludge disposal technologies to be used in the various treat-
ment alternatives:
Skimming
Chemical emulsion breaking
Dissolved air flotation
Thermal emulsion breaking
- Multimedia filtration
pH adjustment
- Lime and settle (LStS)
Hexavalent chromium reduction
Cyanide oxidation
Cyanide precipitation
Activated carbon adsorption
Vacuum filtration
Contractor hauling
Countercurrent cascade rinsing
Regeneration of chemical baths
Costs have also been determined for the following items which
relate to the operation of a treatment plant:
Flow equalization
Pumping
Holding tank
Recycle
Monitoring
A discussion of the design parameters used and major and auxili-
ary equipment associated with each treatment technology and
related items is contained below.
Skimming
Skimming is included as* a wastewater treatment option to remove
free oils commonly found in aluminum forming plants. The equip-
ment used as the basis for developing capital and annual costs
for skimming are as follows:
761
-------
Gravity separation basin
Oil skimmer
Bottom sludge scraper
It is assumed that the oil to be removed has a specific gravity
of 0.85 and a temperature of 20 C. Sludge quantities, in terms
of gallons of sludge per 1,000 gallons of wastewater generated,
are tabulated in Table VIII-2, based on sampling data. The basis
for energy requirements is the use of a 1/2-HP motor for skimming
based on 100 gal/hr of oil.
Chemical Emulsion Breaking
Alum and polymer addition to wastewater aids in the separation of
oil from water, as discussed in Section VII (p. 627). To deter-
mine the capital and annual costs, 400 mg/1 of alum and 10 mg/1
of polymer are assumed to be added to waste streams containing
such emulsified oils as spent rolling emulsions. The equipment
included in the capital and annual costs are as follows:
Chemical feed system
1. Storage units
2. Dilution tanks
3. Conveyors and chemical feed lines
4. Chemical feed pumps
Rapid mix tank (detention time, 5 minutes)
1. Tank
2. Mixer
3. Motor drive unit
Skimming
1. Gravity separation basin
2. Surface skimmer
3. Bottom sludge scraper
Costs were derived based on a composite of various systems which
included the above equipment. Alum and polymer costs were
obtained from vendors: dry alum at $0.15 per pound and polymer
at $3.00 per pound. Energy requirements were also composited
from various literature sources to be included in the annual
costs.
762
-------
Dissolved Air Flotation
Dissolved air flotation (DAF) can be used by itself, in conjunc-
tion with gravity separation for the removal of free oil, or also
in conjunction with coagulant and flocculant addition to increase
oil removal efficiency. The capital and annual cost equations in
Table VIII-1 provide costs only for the dissolved air flotation
unit; other systems, such as flocculant addition, may be added in
separately.
The equipment used to develop capital and annual costs for the
DAF system is as follows:
Flotation unit
Surface skimmer
Bottom sludge scraper
Pressurization unit
Recycle pump
Electrical and instrumentation
Concrete pad, 1 ft. thick
Basic assumptions include a hydraulic loading of 2 GPM/ft^ and
a recycle ratio of 30 percent. All costs and energy requirements
were derived as composites of various sytems presented in the
literature. Energy requirements are estimated to range from
54,000 Kw-hr/yr at 30,000 GPD to 35,000,000 Kw-hr/yr at 10 MOD.
Below 30,000 GPD flowrate, energy requirements are considered to
be constant.
Thermal Emulsion Breaking
Thermal emulsion breaking is used to treat spent emulsion wastes
potentially yielding a salable oil by-product. The system and
its components which were costed for this technology is described
in detail in Section VII, Standard "off the shelf thermal emul-
sion breaking systems were costed. The Agency believes that
custom design to account for site specific requirements might
significantly reduce the overall cost. A separate boiler was
costed for heat supply to the unit. Equipment sizing was based
on continuous operation. Influent oil concentration was assumed
to be 5 percent and the effluent, 80 percent. For economic
assessment purposes, a credit of $0.20 per gallon of treated oil
was assumed.
In determining annual costs, the energy requirements were calcu-
lated using 1.5 pounds of steam per pound of water evaporated.
In practice, low-grade waste heat may be available to support the
thermal emulsion breaking process. To be conservative; however,
capital and annual costs include the boiler operation. The usage
of energy was found to range from 8,500 therms/year at 150 GPD to
680,000 therms/year at 12,000 GPD.
763
-------
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
gravel, coarse anthracite coal, and fine sand. The equipment
used to determine capital and annual costs are as follows:
Filter tank and media
Surface wash system
Backwash system
Valves
- Piping
Controls
Electrical system
The filters were sized based on a hydraulic loading rate of 4
gpm/ft;r, and pumps were sized based on a backwash rate of 16
gpm/ft*. All costs and energy requirements were derived as a
composite of a variety of literature sources and vendor contacts.
Energy requirements for the filtration operation are estimated to
range from 300 Kw-hr/yr at 1,000 GPD to 300,000 Kw-hr/yr at 10
MGD. Energy requirements are constant between 1,000 GPD and
10,000 GPD.
pH Adjustment
The adjustment of pH is particularly important for treatment of
wastewater streams such as cleaning or etching streams. Sulfuric
acid and caustic are used as the chemical agents for addition to
the wastewater stream. The following equipment are used in
determining capital and annual costs:
Chemical feed system
Bulk storage tank
Dry tank
Mixer
Flow regulator
Concrete tank (detention time, 15 minutes)
Mixing equipment
Instrumentation
Sump pump
764
-------
Operating costs are based on the following assumptions:
Sulfuric acid dose rate of 0.5 pound per 1,000 gallons of
wastewater.
Caustic dose rate of 0.5, 5, and 20 pounds per 1,000
gallons of wastewater.
Caustic (NaOH) cost of $175 per ton for 50 percent
solution (Chemical Marketing Reporter).
Sulfuric acid cost of $41 per ton for 63 percent
solution (Chemical Marketing Reporter).
Labor and energy costs were assumed to be equal for all alkali
and acid dose rates. Energy requirements on a system basis are
linear from 10,000 GPD to 500,000 GPD at 660 Kw-hr/yr and
increase to 14,000 Kwhr/yr at 10 MGD.
Lime and Settle (L&S)
Quicklime (CaO) or hydrated lime [Ca(OH>2] can be used to
precipitate heavy metals. Hydrated lime is commonly used for
wastewaters with low lime requirements since the use of slakers,
required for quickline usage, is practical only for large-volume
application of lime. Wastewater sampling data were analyzed to
determine lime dosage requirements and sludge production for
those waste streams in the aluminum forming category that contain
heavy metals selected as pollutants. The results of this analy-
sis are tabulated in Table VIII-3. Due to the low lime dosage
requirements in this industry, hydrated lime is used for costing.
The pH of waste streams treated with lime precipitation may
require readjustment before discharge. Sulfuric acid is used to
adjust the pH to an acceptable discharge level (pH 6 to 9).
Thus, hydrated lime, sulfuric acid storage and feed systems, and
a clarifier are included in the lime and settle capital and
annual costs. Optional treatment systems which have been costed
separately and which may be used in conjunction with the above
lime and settle systems are a polymer feed system and floccula-
tor.
The following equipment were included in the determination of
capital and annual costs based on continuous operation:
Lime feed system
Storage units
Dilution tanks
Feed pumps
765
-------
- Clarifler (hydraulic loading rate of 0.5
Acid neutralization system
Storage units
Mixer
-- Flow regulator
Instrumentation
Other annual cost bases are as follows:
Lime dosage rates include 200 mg/1 and 2,000 mg/1.
Hydrated lime cost of $35.75 per ton (Chemical Marketing
Reporter).
The lime dosage was selected based on raw wastewater characteris-
tics. Those waste streams with low contaminant levels required
200 mg/1 of lime. Those with higher contaminant levels required
2,000 mg/1. The lime dosages used for each waste stream are
summarized in Table VIII-3.
Cost equations are presented for both of the above lime dosage
rates. All cost equations and energy requirements for lime and
settle were based on composited values of various systems.
Energy requirements which were found to vary with flowrate are
estimated to range from 2,000 Kw-hr/yr at 1 GPM to 225,000
Kw-hr/yr at 10,000 GPM.
Hexavalent Chromium Reduction
Chromium present in aluminum forming wastewaters is considered to
be in the hexavalent state. The addition of sulfur dioxide at
low pH values reduces hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium,
which forms a precipitate. The equipment included in the capital
and annual costs are as follows:
1 •»
Reaction vessel (detention time^ 45 minutes)
Sulfuric acid storage and feed system
Sulfonator
Oxidation reduction potential meter
Associated pressure regulator and appurtenances
This system has been costed both on a. continuous and batch basis.
The composite-based capital cost equations presented in Table
VI1I-1 include batch operation for flows greater than 0.2 gpm and
less than 20 gpm. Above 20 gpm, the system is continuous.
766
-------
Operation and maintenance costs include labor, chemicals, and
repair parts. The labor rate used is $20.00 per manhour; it is
estimated that supply and labor costs contribute equally to the
O&M cost.
Energy requirements include electricity for pumps, mixers, and
monitors. The combined energy requirement for this equipment was
determined to be constant over the range of flowrates at 9,480
Kw-hr/yr.
Cyanide Oxidation
In this technology, cyanide is destroyed by reaction with sodium
hypochlorite under alkaline conditions. A complete system for
this operation includes reactors, sensors, controls, mixers, and
chemical feed equipment. Control of both pH and chlorine concen-
tration [through oxidation reduction potential (ORP)] is impor-
tant for effective treatment.
Capital costs for cyanide oxidation as shown in Table VIII-1
include reaction tanks, reagent storage, mixers, sensors, and
controls necessary for operation. Costs are estimated for both
batch and continuous systems, with the operating mode selected on
a least cost basis. Specific costing assumptions are as follows:
For both continuous and batch treatment, the cyanide oxidation
tank is sized as an above-ground cylindrical tank with a reten-
tion time of four hours based on the process flow. Cyanide
oxidation is normally done on a batch basis; therefore, two iden-
tical tanks are employed. Cyanide is removed by the addition of
sodium hypochlorite with sodium hydroxide added to maintain the
proper pH level. A 60-day supply of sodium hypochlorite is
stored in an in-ground covered concrete tank, 0.3 m (1 ft) thick.
A 90-day supply of sodium hydroxide also is stored in an
in-ground covered concrete tank, 0.3 m (1 ft) thick.
Mixer power requirements for both continuous and batch treatment
are based on 2 horsepower for every 11,355 liters (3,000 gal) of
tank volume. The mixer is assumed to be operational 25 percent
of the time that the treatment system is operating.
A continuous control system is costed for the continuous treat-
ment alternative. This system includes:
2 immersion pH probes and transmitters
2 immersion ORP probes and transmitters
- 2 pH and ORP monitors
2 2-pen recorders
2 slow process controllers
2 proportional sodium hypochlorite pumps
767
-------
2 proportional sodium hydroxide pumps
2 mixers
3 transfer pumps
1 maintenance kit
2 liquid level controllers and alarms and miscellaneous
electrical equipment and piping
A complete manual control system is costed for the batch treat-
ment alternative. This system includes:
2 pH probes and monitors
1 mixer
1 liquid level controller and horn
1 proportional sodium hypochlorite pump
1 on-off sodium hydroxide pump and PVC piping from the
chemical storage tanks
Operation and maintenance costs for cyanide oxidation include
labor requirements to operate and maintain the system, electric
power for mixers, pumps, controls, and treatment chemicals.
Labor requirements for operation are substantially higher for
batch treatment than for continuous operation. Maintenance labor
requirements for continuous treatment are fixed at 150 manhours
per year for flow rates below 23,000 gph and thereafter increase
according to:
Labor - .00273 x (Flow - 23,000) + 150
Maintenance labor requirements for batch treatment are assumed to
be negligible.
Annual costs for treatment chemicals are determined from cyanide
concentration, acidity, and flow rates of the raw waste stream
according to:
Ibs sodium hypochlorite
Cyanide Precipitation
62.96 x Ibs CN
In this wastewater treatment technology, cyanide is reacted with
ferrous sulfate at pH 9.0 to form a variety of precipitates that
may best be represented as Fe^FeCNg^ (Prussian Blue).
This system, which closely resembles a conventional chemical pre-
cipitation operation, includes chemical feed equipment for sodium
hydroxide and ferrous sulfate addition, a reaction vessel, agita-
tor, control system, clari^fier, and pumps.
Costs are estimated for both batch and continuous systems with
the operating mode selected on a least cost basis. This decision
is a direct function of flowrate. Capital costs are composed of
768
-------
five subsystem costs: (1) FeSC>4 feed system, (2) NaOH feed
system, (3) reaction vessel with agitator, (4) clarifier, and
(5) recycle pump. These subsystems include the following equip-
ment:
(1) Ferrous sulfate feed system
ferrous sulfate steel storage hoppers with dust
collectors (largest hopper size is 6,000 ft3; 15
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
(2a) Caustic feed system (less than 200 Ib/day usage)
volumetric feeder
mixing tank with mixer (24-hour detention, 10
percent solution)
feed tank with mixer (24-hour detention)
dual-head metering pumps
instrumentation and controls
(2b) Caustic feed system (greater than 200 Ib/day usage)
storage tanks (15 days, FRP tanks)
dual-head metering pumps including standby pump
instrumentation and controls
(3) Reaction tank (5 minutes detention time, stainless
steel, agitator mounting, agitator, concrete slab)
(4) Clarifier [based on 700 GPD/ft2; to include a
steel or concrete vessel (depending on flow rate),
support structure, sludge scraper assembly and
drive unit]
(5) Recycle pumps (for sludge and/or supernatant)
Operation and maintenance costs for cyanide precipitation include
labor requirements to operate and maintain the system, electric
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 criteria are
used in establishing O&M costs:
769
-------
(1) Ferrous sulfate feed system
maintenance materials - 3 percent of manufactured
equipment cost
labor for chemical unloading
--5 hrs/50,000 Ib for bulk handling
--8 hrs/16,000 Ib for bag feeding to the hopper
--routine inspection and adjustment of feeders is
10 min/feeder/shift
maintenance labor
--8 hrs/yr for liquid metering pumps
--24 hrs/yr for solid feeders and solution tank
power [function of instrumentation and control,
metering pump HP and volumetric feeder (bag feed-
ing) ]
(2) Caustic feed system
- maintenance materials - 3 percent of manufactured
equipment cost (excluding storage tank cost)
labor/unloading
--dry NaOH - 8 hrs/16,000 Ib
--liquid 50 percent NaOH - 5 hrs/50,000 Ib
labor operation (dry NaOH only) - 10 min/day/feeder
labor operation for metering pump - 15 min/day
annual maintenance - 8 hrs
power [includes metering pump HP, instrumentation
and control, volumetric feeder (dry NaOH)]
(3) 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
(4) Reaction vessel with agitator
maintenance materials - 2 percent of equipment cost
labor
--15 min/mixer/day routine OStM
--4 hrs/mixer/6 mos - oil changes
--8 hrs/yr - draining, inspection, cleaning
power - based on horsepower requirements for
agitator
770
-------
(5) Recycle pump
maintenance materials - percent of manufactured
equipment cost variable with flowrate
50 ft TDK; motor efficiency of 90 percent and pump
efficiency of 85 percent
Annual costs for treatment chemicals are determined from cyanide
concentration, pH, metals concentrations, and flowrate of the raw
waste stream.
Activated Carbon Adsorption
Activated carbon is used primarily for the removal of organic
compounds from wastewater. The capital and annual costs for this
process are based on a system using granular activated carbon
(GAG) in a series of downflow contacting columns. Separate cost
equations are presented for GAG contacting units and GAG replace-
ment.
Two methods of replacing spent carbon were considered:
(1) thermal regeneration of spent carbon and (2) replacement of
spent carbon with new carbon and disposal of spent carbon.
Thermal regeneration of spent activated carbon is economically
practical only at relatively large carbon exhaustion rates.
Simply replacing spent carbon with new carbon is more practical
than thermal regeneration for plants with low carbon usage.
An economic analysis was performed to determine the carbon usage
rate at which thermal regeneration of spent carbon becomes prac-
tical. It was determined that thermal regenerating facilities
are practical above a carbon usage of 400,000 Ibs per year.
Carbon exhaustion rates for all waste streams are presented in
Table VIII-4. Data from the literature were analyzed to
determine a relationship between TOG concentration and carbon
exhaustion rate. These data were applied to sampling data to
obtain the carbon exhaustion rates shown in Table VIII-4.
A 30-minute empty-bed contact time was used to size the downflow
contacting units. The activated carbon used in the columns was
assumed to have a bulk density of 26 pounds per cubic foot and
cost 53 cents per pound. Included in the capital for a carbon
contacting system are carbon contacting columns, initial carbon
fill, carbon inventory and storage backwash system, and waste-
water pumping.
Thermal regeneration is assumed to be accomplished with multiple
hearth furnaces at a loading rate of 40 pounds of carbon per
square foot of hearth area per day. Activated carbon thermal
regeneration facilities include a multiple hearth furnace, spent
771
-------
carbon storage and dewatering equipment, quench tank, screw con-
veyors, and regenerated carbon refining and storage tanks.
Energy requirements for activated carbon systems are two-fold:
heating for thermal regeneration (above 400,000 Ibs carbon used
per year) and electricity. The Btu requirements for heating
range from 1 x 1010 Btu/yr at 400,000 Ibs carbon to 2.1 x
Btu/yr at 30 x 10° Ibs carbon. Electrical requirements
are from 250,000 Kw-hr/yr at 200,000 Ibs carbon up to 1.5 x 106
Kw-hr/yr at 30 x 10° Ibs carbon.
Vacuum Filtration
Vacuum filtration is a technology utilized in sludge dewatering.
This system is included in the wastewater treatment train depend-
ing on the amount of sludge generated from precipitation systems.
Per the discussion presented in the costing example, vacuum fil-
tration is costed if sludge generation exceeds 140,000 gallons
per year. Below this value, it is not economically attractive to
dewater the sludge prior to disposal.
Capital costs are based on the area of filter required, or a
solids loading rate of 4 pounds per hour per square foot, and an
operating period of six hours per day. The equipment included in
the vacuum filtration unit are as follows:
Motor and drive
Auxiliaries
Piping and ductwork
Instrumentation
- Electrical
Insulation
- Paint
Accessories
Vacuum system
A minimum capital cost based on flow rate of $66,000 is assumed.
Annual costs were developed in terms of the amount of sludge to
be dewatered. The assumed influent suspended solids concentra-
tion is 7 percent and the effluent, 30 percent. Energy require-
ments are based on filter size and flow rate, as in the case of
capital costs. These are estimated to range from 45,000 Kw-hr/yr
for 100 ft2 filter area to 268,000 Kw-hr/yr for 960 ft2.
Contractor Hauling
As stated previously, information obtained from 511 plants in an
EPA Effluent Guidelines Division study of the paint industry was
used to determine contractor hauling costs. Costs in the paint
study ranged from 1 cent to over 50 cents per gallon. A value of
772
-------
30 cents per gallon, selected as a reasonable estimate in the
paint study, was used in the development of the aluminum forming
guidelines to determine the disposal cost of sludge and waste-
water by contractor hauling.
Countercurrent Cascade Rinsing
Countercurrent cascade rinsing is a technique used to reduce
wastewater flows from rinsing operations. This technology has
been described in detail in Section VII (p. 679).
Capital costs are based on the number of tanks required to
achieve a required flow reduction and pumping if water cannot be
moved between the tanks by gravity flow. Each tank is assumed to
be a rectangular tank, 15 feet by 5 feet, which is 8 feet deep.
Capital cost estimating for countercurrent cascade rinsing
systems is highly site-specific. Tank sizing, in particular
cross-sectional area, may be determined by or limited by the
cross-sectional area of the workpiece. No piping costs are
included since it is assumed that pumping will not be necessary
since final rinse stage tanks can be easily raised or variable
height overflow weirs can be installed in a single large tank to
allow gravity flow of the rinse water. No retrofit land costs
are included. Based on plant visits to 22 aluminum forming
sites, the Agency believes that there is enough floor space for
installation of countercurrent cascade rinsing operations at
existing plants.
The capital expenditure involved in installing countercurrent
cascade rinsing technology will be in part offset by reduced
water use and sewer fees and the overall reduction in the size of
the required waste treatment system, which is designed on the
basis of volumetric flowrate.
There are no significant operation and maintenance costs associ-
ated with tanks so the annual cost estimates include only annual
depreciation and amortization.
Regeneration of Chemical Baths
Bath regeneration is used to recover or replenish the bath chemi-
cals, reduce contaminant levels in the bath, and to achieve zero
discharge. As discussed in Section VII (p. 683), regeneration of
chromic acid and sulfuric acid baths is accomplished through
periodic addition of solid chromic acid or sulfuric acid. Salts
formed in the bath constantly precipitate and must be drawn off
the bottom of the tank. In general, there are no additional
capital costs required for equipment to regenerate these types of
baths. Removal of settled precipitates is accomplished by exist-
ing pumping equipment used for emptying the bath in plants not
currently regenerating baths. Chemical costs associated with
regeneration were costs for replenishing chromic acid and
sulfuric acid.
773
-------
For caustic baths, addition o£ lime and elevation of the bath
temperature is required for regeneration. The Agency assumed
that plants have sufficient waste heat available to elevate the
bath temperature. Chemical costs associated with regeneration of
caustic baths were costs for lime.
The capital expenditures required for recovering and reusing
alkaline cleaning bath chemicals was the cost of an ultrafiltra-
tion system. Membrane life was assumed to be one year as a
result of discussions with equipment manufacturers. The cost of
the membranes was assumed to be $100 per membrane. One hour per
week was used for maintenance labor. Alkaline cleaning chemicals
were assumed to cost $0,50 per pound. In addition, the ultrafil-
ter was assumed to be washed with a cleaner, one time each week.
The cleaner cost was assumed to be $2.00 per pound.
In considering the costs discussed above associated with regener-
ation, EPA concluded that the costs incurred will be offset by
decreased chemicals cost through recovery, reduced water use and
sewer fees, the overall reduction in the size of the required
treatment system, and the reduced labor requirements for main-
taining the baths.
Flow Equalization
Flow equalization is used in order to minimize potentially wide
fluctuations in raw wastewater flow and characteristics. Equali-
zation has been included in the costs associated with each treat-
ment option presented.
The equipment included in the capital and annual costs is an
equalization tank with associated mixing equipment. The deten-
tion time assumed is four hours. For this technology, capital
and annual costs were derived by compositing various system costs
from the literature. Energy requirements are expected to range
from 2,500 Kw-hr/yr at 1 gpm to 300,000 Kw-hr/yr at 10,000 gpm.
Pump ina
The cost of pumping raw wastewater to a treatment plant was con-
sidered, as was the cost for a dry well enclosure of the pumping
facility. Costs for wet wells have not been considered since the
equalization basin for treatment plant operation can function as
a wet well. The pump station electrical requirements are based
on a total dynamic head of 30 feet and a pumping efficiency of 65
percent. These requirements are estimated to range from 54
Kw-hr/yr for 1,000 gpd to 550,000 Kw-hr/yr for 10 MGD flowrate.
774
-------
Holding Tank
The cost of holding tanks has been considered for the storage of
sludges removed from skimming, dissolved air flotation, and lime
and settle operations. The equations can also be used for the
storage of dewatered sludge cake. Allowances are made for stor-
age of two weeks of sludge production to a minimum of 150 gallons
for sludges requiring contractor hauling.
Recycle of Cooling Water
As discussed in Section VII (p. 675), direct chill casting
contact cooling water is commonly recycled at rates of 96 percent
or greater. For those plants that do not recycle direct chill
casting contact cooling water, the cost of recycle has been
determined. Recycle capital costs include a cooling tower, a
pump station, and piping. The capital costs for a cooling tower
assume the use of a mechanical draft tower. The sizing of the
tower is based on a temperature range of 25 F, an approach of
10°F, and a wet bulb temperature of 70°F. The cooling tower
equipment include the following:
Cooling tower
Basin
Handling and setting (installation)
- Piping
Concrete foundations and footings
Instrumentation
Plant mechanical draft system
Accessories
A minimum cost is assumed to be $62,000. Energy requirements are
a function of the fan size and horsepower required, depending on
recirculation ratio. These requirements are estimated to range
from 14,600 Kw-hr/yr at 0.1 MGD to 1,460,000 Kw-hr/yr at 10 MGD.
To account for recycle piping requirements, costs have been
determined for 1,000 feet of installed force main. Capital costs
for recycle piping include the following:
Concrete-lined ductile iron pipe
3, 4, 8, 12, 16, or 24 inch pipe diameters
- 0, 10, 20, or 40 ft. static heads
3 feet per second water velocity
775
-------
- Pipe fittings
3 gate valves
1 standard tee
4 long sweep elbows
Installation with excavation and backfill (below ground)
Energy requirements for pumping are the same as those given above
in the pumping discussion.
Enclosures
The cost of an enclosure is included in the capital cost equa-
tions for all unit processes except skimmming, equalization, lime
and settle (lime and sulfuric acid storage and chemical feed sys-
tems are enclosed) and the cooling tower associated with recycle
since the performance of these unit processes is not typically
affected by inclement weather. The cost of enclosure includes
the following:
- Roofing
Insulation
Sitework
Masonary
Glass
- Plumbing
- HVAC and electrical
The total capital cost is calculated by determining the required
area to be enclosed and applying $30 per square foot.
Cost Calculation Example
Capital and annual costs for each of the treatment alternatives
presented in Sections X and XII can be estimated both from the
cost equations in Table VIII-1 and, depending on the alternative,
from the data on oily sludge production, lime dosage and lime
sludge production, and carbon exhaustion rate shown in Tables
VIII-2 through VIII-4. Once the wastewater flows are determined,
the costs associated with a treatment alternative are calculated
systematically using the following steps.
1.
2.
Determine capital and annual costs for each of the
treatment processes in the alternative using Table
VIII-1.
Determine capital and operating costs for pumping,
equalization, and monitoring using Table VIII-1.
776
-------
3. Calculate daily production, if any, of oily sludge and
lime sludge from Tables VIII-2 and VTII-3. Determine
the costs associated with the disposal of these residues
using Table VIII-1.
4. Determine total capital and annual costs for the alter-
native by summing up all cost data obtained in Steps 1
through 3. The annual cost so determined does not
include amortization and depreciation of capital invest-
ment. Obtain the total annual cost by including 17.7
percent and 10 percent of the capital cost for amortiza-
tion and depreciation, respectively.
As described previously, capital and operating costs associated
with the lime and settle (L&S) and activated carbon processes are
influenced by the lime dosage and carbon replacement require-
ments, respectively. Therefore, Tables VIII-3 and VIII-4 should
be consulted first to determine lime dosage for the particular
wastewater stream under consideration or to evaluate the economic
choice between thermal regeneration and throwaway of spent carbon
for the activated carbon process.
Disposal of lime sludge is based on vacuum filtration, with the
resulting cake hauled by contractor or contractor-hauling of
undewatered liquid sludge. The economic choice between these two
methods depends upon the quantity of sludge requiring disposal,
with the dividing line being approximately 140,000 gallons per
year. Direct contractor-hauling of liquid sludge is less expen-
sive for smaller sludge quantities, while the opposite is true
for greater sludge quantities. The cost components for the
former are holding tank capital cost (minimum capacity, 150
gallons) and contractor-hauling cost, while those for the latter
are holding tank capital cost (both for liquid sludge and cake),
vacuum filtration cost, and contractor-hauling cost for cake.
The cost components for oily sludge disposal are holding tank
capital cost (minimum capacity, 150 gallons) and contractor-
hauling cost.
The cost calculating procedures described above are illustrated
for a plant in the Forging Subcategory with the following condi-
tions:
Wastewater source: Forging solution heat treatment contact
cooling water
Operating time: 24 hours per day, 7 days per week,
52 weeks per year
Wastewater flow: 200 gallons per minute
Treatment alternative: BPT consisting of (1) cyanide
oxidation, (2) chromium reduction,
(3) skimming, and (4) lime and
settle (see Figure IX-4)
777
-------
Step 1:
Determine the capital and annual costs of the three treatment
processes shown above using appropriate equations in Table
VIII-1. For example, the capital cost (C) of chromium reduction
for a flow (x) of 200 gpm can be calculated as:
C = antilog [-0.0248(log 200)3 + O.lOSQog 200)2 +
0.213(log 200) + 4.10] + 384.8(200)0.0?
= antilog (4.86) + 13,390
= 86,000
The forging solution heat treatment contact cooling water stream
requires 2,000 mg/1 lime dosage for precipitation (Table VIII-3)
use cost equations for lime and settle corresponding to this
dosage. A summary of Step 1 costs is shown below.
Cyanide oxidation
Chromium reduction
Skimming
Lime and settle
Subtotal
Capital ($)
166,000
86,000
55,000
221,000
528,000
Annual ($/yr)
17,000
10,000
10,000
63,000
100,000
Step 2:
Capital and annual costs are calculated for flow equalization,
pumping, and monitoring. By using the appropriate equations in
Table VIII-1, the following costs are obtained for flow equaliza-
tion and pumping. Monitoring costs are constant at a capital
cost of $8,000 and an annual cost of $5,000.
Flow equalization
Pump ing
Monitoring
Subtotal
Capital ($)
103,000
31,000
8,000
142,000
Annual ($/yr)
10,000
14,000
5,000
T97DOO
Step 3:
(a) Determine daily production of oil skimmings (oily sludge)
using data in Table VIII-2, required holding tank capacity, and
associated disposal costs from Table VIII-1.
Oil Skimmings =
0.07 gallons skimmings x 200 gallons x 1,440 min = 20 gallons
17000 gallonsmin day day
As discussed previously, holding tanks are sized for two weeks'
sludge production, or a minimum of 150 gallons holding tank
capacity. Required holding tank capacity is:
20 gallons x 7 days x 2 weeks = 280 gallons
day week
778
-------
The capital cost (holding tank) and annual cost (contractor haul
ing) for the disposal of oily sludge are then calculated as:
i
Oil skimmings disposal
Capital ($)
2,100
Annual ($/yr)
2.200
(b) Determine daily production of lime sludge using data in
Table VIII-3, then determine whether the sludge should be
dewatered by vacuum filtration prior to disposal.
Lime sludge =*
6 gallons sludge x 200 gallons x 1,440 minutes = 1,700 gallons
l7000 gallons min day day
At 365 days per year operation, this quantity corresponds to an
annual lime sludge production of 620,000 gallons. Therefore,
vacuum filtration and cake hauling is more cost-effective than
liquid sludge hauling.
To estimate the required size of vacuum filters and the volume of
filter cake, lime sludge from the settling tank and the filter
cake are assumed to contain 7 percent and 30 percent solids,
respectively, and have a specific gravity of 1.0.
Vacuum filter area required must be determined before the capital
cost equation for vacuum filtration in Table VIII-1 can be used.
At 7 percent solids, 6 hours of operation per day and a 4
Ibs/hour/sq ft loading rate, one square foot of vacuum filter
area can dewater 40 gallons of sludge per day. The vacuum filter
area requirement for this example is presented below:
1,700 gallons x 1
day 40 gallons/day/sq ft
Daily production of filter cake is
- 43 sq ft
1,700 gallons x 7% solids • 400 gallons
day 30% solids day
Two storage tanks are required for vacuum filtration, one to
store the daily clarifier underflow to facilitate a controlled
flow into the vacuum filter, and the other to store the dewatered
sludge. Therefore, a 1,700-gallon storage tank is required to
store daily clarifier underflow. The filter cake storage tank is
sized as follows:
400 gallons x 7 days x 2 weeks = 5,600 gallons
day week
779
-------
Now, using the values of required vacuum filter area (43 sq ft),
storage tanks (1,700 gallons for sludge and 5,600 gallons for
cake), and daily volume of filter cake (400 gallons per day), the
capital and annual costs associated with lime sludge disposal are
calculated from Table VIII-1.
Vacuum filtration
Sludge storage
Cake storage
Cake contractor hauling
Subtotal
Capital ($)
112,000
6,600
15,600
1347200
Annual ($/yr)
31,000
43,000
74,000
Step 4:
Add costs obtained from Steps 1, 2, and 3 to arrive at total
capital and annual costs for the BPT alternative for the forging
solution heat treatment contact cooling water waste stream:
1. Cyanide oxidation,
Chromium reduction,
Skimming, Lime and
settle
2. Flow equalization,
Pumping, Monitoring
3. Oil skimmings disposal
Lime sludge disposal
Total
Amortization (17.7 percent
of capital cost)
Depreciation (10.0 percent
of capital cost)
Grand Total
Capital ($)
528,000
142,000
2,100
134,200
806,300
806,300
Annual ($/yr)
100,000
29,000
2,200
74,000
205,200
142,700
80,600
428,500
NONWATER QUALITY ASPECTS OF POLLUTION CONTROL
The elimination or reduction of one form of pollution may
aggravate 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 proposal was circulated to and reviewed by EPA personnel
responsible for nonwater quality environmental programs. While
780
-------
it is difficult to balance pollution problems against each other
and against energy utilization, EPA is proposing regulations
which it believes best serve often competing national goals.
The following are the nonwater quality environmental impacts
(including energy requirements) associated with the proposed
regulations:
Air Pollution
Imposition of BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS will not create any
substantial air pollution problems.
Imposition of BPT and BAT limitations and NSPS, PSES, and PSNS
will not create any substantial air pollution problems. The
technologies used as the basis for this regulation precipitate
pollutants found in wastewater which are then settled or filtered
from the discharged wastewater. These technologies do not emit
pollutants into the air.
Solid Waste
EPA estimates that aluminum forming facilities generated 43 mil-
lion kg (95 million Ib) of solid wastes (wet basis) in 1977 as a
result of wastewater treatment in place. These wastes were com-
prised of treatment system sludges containing toxic metals,
including chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc and spent
lubricants.
EPA estimates that the proposed BPT and PSES will contribute an
additional 124 million kg (187 million Ib) per year of solid
wastes. Proposed BAT will increase these wastes by approximately
2 million (4 million Ib) per year. These sludges will necessar-
ily contain additional quantities (and concentrations) of toxic
metal pollutants.
The Agency examined the solid wastes that would be generated at
aluminum forming plants by the suggeested treatment technologies
and believes they are not hazardous under §3001 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. This judgment is made based on
the recommended technology of lime precipitation. By the addi-
tion 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 EP
toxicity test. See 40 CFR §261.24 (45 FR 33084 (May 19, 1980)).
Thus, the Agency believes that the aluminum forming wastewater
sludges will similarly not be found toxic if the recommended
technology is applied. Since the aluminum forming solid wastes
are not believed to be hazardous, no estimates were made of costs
for disposing of hazardous wastes in accordance with RCRA
781
-------
requirements. The Agency requests comments on its judgment of
the wastewater sludges generated by treatment of aluminum forming
wastewaters. In addition, the Agency specifically requests cost
information if there is reason to believe these sludges would be
classified as hazardous.
Although it is the Agency's view that solid wastes generated as a
result of these guidelines are not expected to be classified as
hazardous under the regulations implementing subtitle C of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), generators of
these wastes must test the waste to determine if the wastes meet
any of the characteristics of hazardous waste (see 40 CFR
§262.11, 45 FR at 12732-12733 (February 26, 1980)). The Agency
may also list these sludges as hazardous pursuant to 40 CFR
§261.11 (45 FR at 33121 (May 19, 1980), as amended at 45 FR 76624
•(November 19, 1980)).
If these wastes are identified as hazardous, they will come
within the scope of RCRA's "cradle to grave" hazardous waste man-
agement program, requiring regulation from the point of genera-
tion to point of final disposition. EPA's generator standards
would require generators of hazardous aluminum forming wastes to
meet containerization, labeling, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements; if aluminum formers dispose of hazardous wastes
off-site, they would have to prepare a manifest which would track
the movement of the wastes from the generator's premises to a
permitted off-site treatment, storage, or disposal facility. See
40 CFR §262.20 (45 FR 33142 (May 19, 1980), as amended at 45 FR
86973 (December 31, 1980)). The transporter regulations require
transporters of hazardous wastes to comply with the manifest sys-
tem to assure that the wastes are delivered to a permitted facil-
ity. See 40 CFR §263.20 (45 FR 33151 (May 19, 1980), as amended
at 45 FR 86973 (December 31, 1980)). Finally, RCRA regulations
establish standards for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities allowed to receive such wastes. See 40 CFR
Part 464 (46 FR 2802 (January 12, 1981), 47 FR 32274 (July 26,
1982)).
Even if these wastes are not identified as hazardous, they still
must be disposed of in compliance with the subtitle D open dump-
ing standards, implementing §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, as discussed previously in this section.
Consumptive Water Loss
Treatment and control technologies that require extensive
recycling and reuse of water may require cooling mechanisms.
Evaporative cooling mechanisms can cause water loss and
782
-------
contribute to water scarcity problems--a primary concern in arid
and semi-arid regions. While this regulation assumes some water
reuse the overall amount of reuse is low (below 50 percent) and
the quantity of water involved is not significant. The Agency
concludes that the consumptive water loss is insignificant and
that the pollution reduction benefits of recycle technologies
outweigh their impact on consumptive water loss.
Energy Requirements
EPA estimates that the achievement of proposed BPT effluent
limitations will result in a net increase in electrical energy
consumption of approximately 65 million kilowatt-hours per year.
The BAT technology should not substantially increase the energy
requirements of BPT because reducing the flow reduces the pumping
requirements, the agitation requirement for mixing wastewater,
and other volume related energy requirements. Therefore, the
proposed BAT limitations are assumed to require an equivalent
energy consumption to that of the BPT limitations. To achieve
the proposed BPT and BAT effluent limitations, a typical direct
discharger will increase total energy consumption by less than 1
percent of the energy consumed for production purposes.
The Agency estimates that proposed PSES will result in a net
increase in electrical energy consumption of approximately 50
million kilowatt-hours per year. To achieve proposed PSES, a
typical existing indirect discharger will increase energy con-
sumption by less than 1 percent of the total energy consumed for
production purposes.
The Agency believes that the only additional energy required for
the addition of a filtration step would be for wastewater pump-
ing. It is estimated that NSPS and PSNS would require an
additional amount of energy approximately equal to 10 percent
greater than the energy requirements for existing sources.
783
-------
Table VIII-1
COST EQUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDED TREATMENT AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
00
*-
Unit Process
Skimming (Gravity oil- C
in-water separation)
A
Dissolved air flotation C
C
A
Thermal emulsion
breaking
Acid pH adjustment
C
A
Caustic pH adjustment C
C
A
Equation
antilog E0.0415 (log x)3 - 0.00829 (log x)2
+ 0.051 (log x) + 4.16]
antilog [0.00478 (log x)3 + 0.0766 (log x)2
+ 0.0125 (log x) + 3.52]
antilog [0.0369 (log x)3 - 0.0461 (log x)2
- 0.00537 (log x) + 4.77] + 1,620 0
antilog [0.0369 (log x)3 - 0.0461 (log x)2
- 0.00537 (log x) + 4.77] + 40. 5x 0
antilog [0.0711 (log x)3 - 0.329 (log x)2
+ 0.551 (log x) + 4.05]
antilog [-0.0313 (log x)3 + 0.1900 (log x)2
+ 0.8264 (log x) + 5.159J
antilog [-0.0351 (log x)3 + 0.1438 (log x)2
+ 0.6535 (log x) + 4.697] - 72 x (days/wk)
(wk/yr)
- 0.375 (log x)2
33,900 x- + 3,600rt
33 900 xO-2^-> + 527 x^
antilog [0.0755 (log x)3
+ 1.20 (log x) + 3.24]
C
C
A
- antilog [0.034 (log x)3 - 0.167 (log x)2
+ 0.461 (log x) + 4.071 + 3,645
antilog [0.034 (log x)3 - 0.167 (log
+ 0.461 (log x) + 4.07] + 526,5 x°-°
antilog [-0.0345 (log x)-3 + 0.167 (log x)2
+ 0.194 (log x) + 3.65]
Applicability
1 < x < 1,000
1 < x < 1,000
7 < x < 40
40 < x < 1,000
7 < x < 1,000
0.1 < x < 8
0.1 < x < 8
7 < x < 20
20 < x < 1,000
7 < x < 1,000
5 < x < 20
20 < x < 1,000
5 < x < 1,000
-------
Table VIII-1 (Continued)
COST EQUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDED TREATMENT AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
00
Ln
Unit Process
Chemical emulsion
breaking
Multimedia filtration
Lime and settle [LStS]
200 mg/1 lime dosage
2,000 mg/1 lime dosage
Hex avalent chromium
reduction
/"• <•_
A =
C
C
A
C
C
A
C
C
A
C
C
A
Equation
antilog [0.0373 (log x)3 - 0.181 (log x)2
+ 0.323 (log x) +4.603 + antilog
[-0.00854 (log x)3 + 0.125 (log x)2
+ 0.0403 (log x) + 3.621
antilog [0.0272 (log x)3 + 0.0321 (log x)2
+ 0.180 (log x) + 4.04]
6,800 x°-598 + i 620
6^00 X0-598 + 182 xO-89
antilog [-0.0157 (log x)3 + 0.183 (log x)2
- 0.0297 (log x) + 3.38]
antilo
+ 0.25
[0.0033 (log x)3 + 0.0365 (log x)2
(log x) + 4.45]0+ 7,290
antilog [0.0033 (log x)3 + 0.0365 (log_x)2
+ 0.256 (log x) + 4.45] ± 1,012.5 X0.562
antilog [0.00402 (log x)3 + 0.0114 (log x)2
+ 0.275 (log x) + 4.06]
antilog [-0.00236 (log x)3 + 0.0645 (log x):
+ 0.281 (log x) + 4.49] + 7,290
antilog [-0.00236 (log x)3 + 0.0645 (log x)'
+ 0.281 (log x) + 4.493 + 1,012.5 x0-66*
antilog [0.00720 (log x)3 + 0.0450 (log x)2
+ 0.249 (log x) + 4.083
antilog [-0.0248 (log x)3 + 0.108 (log x)2
+ 0.213 (log x) + 4.10] + 2,835
antilog [-0.0248 (log x)3 + 0.108^(102 x)2
+ 0.213 (log x) + 4.10] + 384.8 x°-67
-------
Table VIII-1 (Continued)
COST EQUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDED TREATMENT AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
Unit Process
Activated carbon
adsorption
GAG contacting
GAG replacement
oo throwaway system
GAG thermal regenera-
tion
Vacuum filtration
C
C
A
A
Equation
antilog [-0.0255 (log x)3 + 0.211 (log x)2
- 0.00279 (log x) + 4.65] + 2,633
antilog [-0.0255 (log x)3 + 0.211 (log x)2
- 0.00279 (log x) + 4.65] + 405 x°-805
7,000
antilog [-0.00286 (log x)3 + 0.0996 (log x)2
+ 0.0834 (log x) + 3.37]
A = 580 p
C
C
A
C
C
A
- antilog [-3.383 (log p)3 + 26.93
- 70.38 (log p) + 66.281 + 203.9
= antilog [0.0564 (log p)3 - 0.446
p) + 4.41] + 203.9 p(
+ 1.40
8,450
o
p)
42.4 p
antilog [-0.05707 (lo
- 1.15 (log v) + 5.57
v)3 + 0.595 (log v)2
+ 4,455
antilog [-0.05707 (log v)J + 0.595^flog v)2
= 1.15 (log v) + 5.57] + 141.8 v0-76
antilog [0.0203 (log v)3 - 0.0736 (log v)2
+ 0.215 (log v) + 4.25]
Applicability
4 < x < 10
10 < x < 1,000
4 < x < 70
70 < x < 1,000
0.2 < p < 400
400 < p < 1,000
1,000 < p < 2,000
400 < p < 2,000
10 < v < 90
90 < v < 1,000
10 < v < 1,000
-------
Table VIII-1 (Continued)
COST EQUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDED TREATMENT AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
Unit Process
Recycle
00
Holding tank
Pumping
Equalization
C
C
C
A
A
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
C
A
Equation
antilog [0.00780 (log x)3 + 0.00444 (log x)2
+ 0.0425 (log x) + 4.96] + 1,013
antilog [0.00780 (log x)3 + 0.00444 (log x)2
+ 0.0425 (log x) + 4.961 + 56.7 X0-56I
antilog [-0.118 (log x)3 + 1.58 I^9g-.x)2
- 6.04 (log x) + 12.433 + 56.7 x0-55!
antilog [0.0443 (log x)3 - 0.203 (log x)2
+ 0.477 (log x) + 3.731
antilog [-0.122 (log x)3 + 1.58 (log x)2
- 5.83 (log x) + 11.1]
antilog [0.135 (log g)3 - 1.12 (flog g)2
+ 3.67 (log g) - 1.21] + 25.7 gp-o54
antilog [0.150 (log g)3 - 2.32 dps g)2
+ 12.44 (log g) - 17.97] + 25.7 gO-654
antilog [-0.0135 (log x)3 + 0.119 (log x)2
+ 0.0654 (log x) + 3.861+ 1,013
antilog [-0.0135 (log x)3 + 0.119n(lpg x)2
+ 0.0654r(loa x) + 3.86].+ 56.7 x°;55r
antilog [-O.fflll (log xP + 0.280 flog x)2
- 0.977 (log x) -1- 5.47] + 56.7 x° *K1
antilog [0.00589 (log x)3 + 0.00446 (log x)2
+ 0.0528 (log x) + 3.941
antilog [0.0347 (log x)3 - 0.
+ 0.489 (log x) + 3.56]
185 (log x)2
8,000 x
antilog [-0.0118 (log x)3 + 0.15 (log x)2
+ 0.00665 (log x) + 3.34]
Applicability
10 < x < 200
200 < x < 1,000
,000 < x < 5,000
10 < x < 1,000
1,000 < x < 5,000
150 < g < 20,000
20,000 < g < 1,000,000
1 < x < 200
200 < x < 1,000
1,000 < x < 5,000
1 < x < 1,000
,000 < x < 5,000
1 < x < 1,000
1 < x < 1,000
-------
00
00
Table VIII-1 (Continued)
COST EQUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDED TREATMENT AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
Unit Process
Cyanide oxidation
Contractor hauling
Monitoring
C
A
Equation
C - antilog [0.00323 (log x)3 + 0.0220 (log x)2
C
A
+ 0.0672 (log x) + 4.611
x)3
0.964 (log x)2
antilog [-0.131 (log
- 1.69 (log x) + 5.60] .
antilog [0.0145 (log x)3 + 0.0805 (log
+ 0.0363 (log x) + 3.54]
A - 109 s
8,000
5,000
Applicability
0.1 < x < 10
10 < x < 300
15 < x < 200
1 < x < 2,000
1 < x < 2,000
C ~ total capital cost (dollars)
A = annual cost, not including amortization and depreciation (dollars/year)
x - wastewater flow (gallons/minute)
s • sludge production rate (gallons/day)
p = carbon exhaustion rate (1,000 pounds/year)
v = vacuum filter area (sq. ft.)
g = holding tank capacity (gallons)
-------
Table VIII-2
OILY SLUDGE PRODUCTION ASSOCIATED WITH ALUMINUM FORMING
Operation
Direct chill casting
Continuous casting
Extrusion
contact cooling
heat treatment contact
cooling
dummy block contact
cooling
die cleaning
Hot rolling oil
Etch line
acid rinse
deoxidant dip
deoxidant rinse
caustic rinse
water rinse
leveler rinse
scrubber
detergent rinse
Forging heat treatment
contact cooling
Forging scrubber
Drawing oil
Drawing heat treatment
contact cooling
Cold rolling oil
Cold rolling heat treat-
ment contact cooling
Foil rolling oil
Oily Sludge
Production
(gal/1,000 gal)
0.2
0.2
0.07
0.08
0.14
Site-specific
0.07
0.32
Site-specific
Site-specific
Site-specific
789
-------
Table VIII-3
LIME DOSAGE REQUIREMENTS AND LIME SLUDGE PRODUCTION
ASSOCIATED WITH ALUMINUM FORMING
Operation
Direct chill casting
Continuous casting
Extrusion
contact cooling
- heat treatment contact
cooling
dummy block contact
cooling
die cleaning
Hot rolling oil
Etch line
acid rinse
deoxidant dip
deoxidant rinse
caustic rinse
water rinse
leveler rinse
scrubber
de t ergent rins e
Forging heat treatment
contact cooling
Forging scrubber
Drawing oil
Drawing heat treatment contact
cooling
Cold rolling oil
Cold rolling heat treatment
contact cooling
Foil rolling oil
Lime
Dosage
(ms/1)
Lime Sludge
Production
(gal/1,000 gal)
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
200
200
2,000
2,000
2,000
46
38
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
6
6
38
38
38
790
-------
Table VIII-4
CARBON EXHAUSTION RATES ASSOCIATED WITH ALUMINUM FORMING
Operation
Direct chill casting
Continuous casting
Extrusion
contact cooling
heat treatment contact
cooling
dummy block contact
cooling
die cleaning
Hot rolling oil
Etch line
acid rinse
deoxidant dip
deoxidant rinse
caustic rinse
water rinse
leveler rinse
scrubber
detergent rinse
Forging heat treatment
contact cooling
Forging scrubber
Drawing oil
Drawing heat treatment
contact cooling
Cold rolling oil
Cold rolling heat treat-
ment contact cooling
Foil rolling oil
Carbon
Exhaustion Rate
(Ibs carbon/
1,000 gal)
0.5
10
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
5
10
0.5
10
0.3
10
791
-------
-------
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)(a)(A). BPT reflects
the existing performance by plants of various sizes, ages, and
manufacturing processes within the aluminum forming category, as
well as the established performance of the recommended BPT sys-
tems. Particular consideration is given to the treatment already
in place at plants within the data base.
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 facil-
ities involved, the manufacturing processes employed, nonwater
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 uni-
formly inadequate, BPT may be transferred from a different sub-
category or category. Limitations based on transfer of technol-
ogy are supported by a rationale concluding that the technology
is, indeed, transferrable, and a reasonable prediction that it
will be capable of achieving the prescribed effluent limits (see
Tanner's Council of America v. Train, 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 aluminum forming category to identify the
manufacturing processes used and wastewaters generated during
aluminum 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 sub-
categorize the operations and determine what constitutes an
appropriate BPT. Some of the key considerations used in sub-
categorization are listed below:
The deformation or shaping operation performed on
aluminum (rolling, extruding, drawing, and forging) is
used as the primary basis for subcategorization.
Surface cleaning is necessary to remove oil and dirt
before, between, and after deformation or shaping
operations.
793
-------
Surface treatment to remove oxides may be performed in
conjunction with cleaning.
Surface treatment to remove metal or achieve specific
surface conditions is sometimes required.
Heat treatment to achieve desired metallurgical proper-
ties may generate wastewater.
Casting is included here as a regulatory convenience.
Some of the factors which must be considered in establishing
effluent limitations based on BPT have already been discussed.
The age of equipment and facilities, processes employed, and raw
materials were taken into account in subcategorization and 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 forming operations. On examining each of
these forming operations, several additional or subsidiary
processes were identified. To organize the principal forming
process and subsidiary processes into a workable matrix for the
purpose of regulation, the primary forming process and subsidiary
operations usually associated with it at plants throughout the
industry have been grouped together in what is known as a core.
Additional subsidiary processes which may or may not be present
at a facility with a given core are called ancillary operations.
The basis of regulation at any facility is the set of core
operations plus those ancillary operations actually found at the
specific facility.
In making technical assessments of data, reviewing manufacturing
processes, and assessing wastewater treatment technology options,
both indirect and direct dischargers have been considered as a
single group. An examination of plants and processes did not
indicate any process differences based on the type of discharge,
whether it be direct or indirect. Hence, BPT is described in
substantial detail for direct discharge subcategories, even
though there may be no direct discharge plants in that subcate-
gory.
The Agency usually establishes wastewater limitations in terms of
mass rather than concentration. This approach prevents the use
of dilution as a treatment method (except for controlling pH).
The production normalized wastewater flow (1/kkg) is a link
between the production operations and the effluent limitations.
The pollutant discharge attributable to each operation can be
calculated from the normalized flow and effluent concentration
achievable by the treatment technology and summed to derive an
appropriate limitation for each subcategory.
794
-------
Wastewater produced by the deformation operations contains sig-
nificant concentrations of oil and grease, suspended solids,
toxic metals, and aluminum. Surface cleaning produces a rinse
water in which significant concentrations of oil and grease,
suspended solids, toxic metals, and aluminum are found. The
other surface treatment wastewaters have similar characteristics.
Wastewater from anodizing and conversion coating, which are con-
sidered as cleaning or etching operations, also contains chromium
and cyanide. Contact cooling water is associated with some
methods of casting and heat treatment and contains significant
concentrations of oil and grease, suspended solids, toxic metals,
aluminum, and cyanide.
BPT for the aluminum forming category is based upon common treat-
.ment of combined streams within each subcategory. Sixty-five
percent of the aluminum forming plants with treatment treat com-
bined waste streams in a common treatment system. The BPT treat-
ment is similar throughout the category to the extent that oil
and grease, suspended solids, and metals removal are required
within each subcategory. The general treatment scheme for BPT is
to apply oil skimming technology to remove oil and grease, fol-
lowed or combined with lime and settle technology to remove
metals and solids from the combined wastewaters. Separate pre-
liminary treatment steps for chromium reduction, emulsion break-
ing, and cyanide removal are utilized when required. The BPT
effluent concentrations are based on the performance of chemical
precipitation and sedimentation (lime and settle) when applied to
a broad range of metal-bearing wastewaters. The basis for lime
and settle performance is set forth in substantial detail in
Section VII, The BPT treatment train varies somewhat between
subcategories to take into account treatment of hexavalent
chromium, cyanide, and emulsified oils.
For each of the subcategories, a specific approach was followed
for the development of BPT mass limitations. To account for pro-
duction and flow variability from plant to plant, a unit of
production or production normalizing parameter (PNP) was deter-
mined for each waste stream which could then be related to the
flow from the process to determine a production normalized flow.
Selection of the PNP for each process element is discussed in
Section IV. Each process within the subcategory was then
analyzed to determine (1) whether or not operations included
generated wastewater, (2) specific flow rates generated, and
(3) the specific production normalized flows for each process.
This analysis is discussed in general in Section V and summarized
for the core operations in each subcategory and for the ancillary
operations.
Normalized flows were analyzed to determine which flow was to be
used as part of the basis for BPT mass limitations. The selected
flow (sometimes referred to as a BPT regulatory flow or BPT flow)
795
-------
reflects the water use controls which are common practices within
the industry. The BPT normalized flow is based on the average of
all applicable data. Plants with normalized flows above the
average may have to implement some method of flow reduction to
achieve the BPT limitations. In most cases, this will involve
improving housekeeping practices, better maintenance to limit
water leakage, or reducing excess flow by turning down a flow
valve. It is not believed that these modifications would incur
any costs for the plants.
The general assumption was made 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 varied 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.
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,
a common treatment system for each subcategory is reasonable in
terms of cost and effectiveness. Both treatment in place at
aluminum forming plants and treatment in other categories having
similar wastewaters were evaluated.
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. The controls or in-process tech-
nologies recommended under BPT include only those measures which
are commonly practiced within the category or subcategory and
which reduce flows to meet the production normalized flow for
each operation.
For the development of effluent limitations, mass loadings were
calculated for each operation within each subcategory. This
calculation was made on a process-by-process basis, primarily
because plants in this category may perform one or more of the
ancillary operations in conjunction with the core operations
present. The mass loadings (milligrams of pollutant per metric
ton of production unit - mg/kkg) were calculated by multiplying
the BPT normalized flow (1/kkg) by the concentration achievable
using the BPT treatment system (mg/1) for each pollutant
parameter to be regulated under BPT.
796
-------
Regulated Pollutant Parameters
Pollutant parameters are selected for regulation in the aluminum
forming subcategories because of their frequent presence at high
concentrations in untreated wastewaters. Total suspended solids,
oil and grease, pH, chromium, zinc, aluminum, and cyanide have
been selected for regulation in each subcategory.
Total suspended solids, in addition to being present at high
levels in raw wastewater from aluminum forming operations, is an
important control parameter for metals removal in chemical
precipitation and settling treatment systems. The metals are
precipitated as insoluble metal hydroxides, and effective solids
removal is required in order to ensure reduced levels of toxic
metals in the treatment system effluent. Total suspended solids
are also 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 aluminum
forming operations (i.e., rolling with emulsions, roll grinding,
continuous rod casting, and drawing with emulsions) generate
emulsified wastewater streams which may be discharged. As seen
in Section V, several waste streams have high levels of oil and
grease as a conventional pollutant. As will be discussed in
detail in Section X, the organic pollutants considered for regu-
lation in Section VI are soluble in the oil and grease fraction
and are found associated with the concentrated oily wastes. Data
across oil and grease treatment at sampled aluminum forming
plants show that effectively removing the oil also removes 97
percent of the toxic organics (see Table X-21, p. 748).
The importance of pH control is documented in Section VII
(p. 609 ), and its importance in metals removal technology cannot
be over emphasized. Even small excursions from the optimum pH
level can result in less than optimum functioning of the system
and inability to achieve specified results. The optimum operat-
ing level is usually found to be pH 8.7 to 9.3. To allow a
reasonable operating margin above this level and preclude the
need for final pH adjustment, the effluent pH is specified to be
within the range of 7.5 to 10 rather than the more normal 6.0 to
9.0.
Hexavalent chromium is not regulated specifically since it is
included in total chromium. Only the trivalent form is removed
by the lime and settle technology. Therefore, the hexavalent
form must be reduced in order to meet the limitation on total
chromium in each subcategory. Chromium is found at high levels
in wastewaters from anodizing and conversion coating operations.
797
-------
Zinc has been selected for regulation under BPT since it and
chromium are the predominant toxic metals present in aluminum
forming wastewaters. The Agency believes that when these param-
eters are controlled with the application of chemical precipita-
tion and sedimentation, control of the other toxic metals is
assured.
Aluminum has been selected for regulation under BPT since it is
the metal being processed and is found at high levels in all of
the contact wastewater streams.
Cyanide was found in two solution heat treatment contact cooling
water streams, one associated with a forging operation and the
other a rolling operation. Cyanide was also found in one extru-
sion press heat treatment contact cooling water stream. Industry
comments state that cyanide is not used in aluminum forming;
however, the source of cyanide could be a corrosion inhibitor
used in heat treatment operations. Since such corrosion inhibi-
tors are not unique to these three plants, cyanide is selected
for regulation. Cyanide is also found at high levels in
conversion coating wastewaters.
The wastewaters generated during coil coating of aluminum are
relatively similar to the wastewaters generated in aluminum
forming in that both wastewaters contain oil and grease, sus-
pended solids, toxic metals, aluminum, and sometimes cyanide.
Concentrations of pollutants may vary somewhat. For instance,
toxic metals and aluminum concentrations tend to be slightly
higher in coil coating wastewaters; however, in terms of treat-
ability, the characteristics of the wastewaters from aluminum
coil coating and aluminum forming are essentially similar, and
the same treatment should be equally effective when properly
applied to either. Seventeen aluminum forming plants reported
that they also do aluminum coil coating. Aluminum coil coating
is a subcategory of the coil coating point source category. To
simplify compliance with two regulations at these 17 plants, mass
limitations have been established for both categories based on
the application of the same treatment. Permissible discharge
would be calculated by simply adding the masses that may be
discharged for each category. In addition, the same pollutants
are limited for both aluminum coil coating and aluminum forming,
thus making it easier for plants to co-treat wastewaters from
these processes.
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
The primary operation in this subcategory is rolling aluminum in
a rolling mill using neat oil as a lubricant. Other subsidiary
798
-------
production operations in this subcategory include roll grinding,
annealing, stationary casting, homogenizing, artificial aging,
degreasing, sawing, continuous sheet casting, solution heat
treatment, and cleaning or etching. These unit operations were
listed in Section IV (p. 139 ), along with the waste streams
generated by these operations and the production normalizing
parameters. Table IX-1 lists these production operations, sepa-
rating them into core and ancillary operations, and identifies
the production normalized wastewater flows generated from each.
The core allowance for the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory
without an annealing furnace scrubber is 16.58 1/kkg (3.976
gal/ton). This one allowance represents the sum of the individ-
ual allowances for the core waste streams which have a discharge
allowance. These streams are roll grinding spent emulsion,
sawing spent lubricant and miscellaneous nondescript wastewater
sources. The core allowance for the Rolling with Neat Oils
Subcategory with an annealing scrubber is 42.93 1/kkg (10.30
gal/ton). This one allowance represents the sum of the individ-
ual allowances for the core waste streams listed above plus the
wastewater discharge allowance for the annealing scrubber liquor.
The following paragraphs discuss these operations and wastewater
discharge allowances.
Core Operations
Rolling with Neat Oils. The mineral oil (kerosene) based lubri-
cants used in neat oil rolling are recycled with sediment removal
or filtration. After extended use, the rolling oils are periodi-
cally disposed of by reclamation or incineration. None of the 50
plants rolling aluminum with neat oils reported any discharge of
these oils to surface waters or publicly owned treatment works
(POTW). For this reason, the production operation has been
assigned a zero wastewater discharge allowance.
Roll Grinding. Seven facilities that perform emulsion roll
grinding were contacted; one did not supply enough information to
characterize the water use or discharge, and two achieved zero
discharge through complete recycle of the roll grinding emul-
sions. The remaining four plants provided information about
their water use or wastewater generation related to roll grind-
ing. One of these four plants does not recycle the wastewater
stream at all, resulting in a very large flow. Therefore, the
BPT discharge flow for this stream is 8.770 1/kkg (2.103 gal/ton)
of aluminum rolled, based on the mean normalized flow of the
three plants which do recycle this wastewater.
Annealing. As discussed in Section III (p. 100 ), the annealing
operation does not use process water. The annealing operation
has been included in the core of all six subcategories, because
it is not specifically associated with any of the major forming
799
-------
processes (rolling, extruding, forging, drawing); it is a dry
operation and it can be found at plants throughout the category.
One o£ the plants surveyed in this study anneals aluminum which
is rolled with neat oils and derives the inert gas atmosphere
used in its annealing process from furnace off gases. Because of
the sulfur content of furnace fuels, the off gases require
cleaning with wet scrubbers to remove contaminants. The scrubber
used involves a large flow of water with more than 99 percent
recycle of the normalized flow and conversely less than 1 percent
blowdown. The blowdown at this plant is 26.35 1/kkg (6.320
gal/ton). Since the Agency believes that this scrubber is neces-
sary to the operation of the annealing furnace, an allowance has
been included as part of the core of the Rolling with Neat Oils
Subcategory. Other plants import cleaned gases or burn natural
gas to provide an inert atmosphere. These plants do not need any
air pollution control devices, therefore, the Agency has estab-
lished two core limitations for the Rolling with Neat Oils
Subcategory, Because most plants do not have an annealing
scrubber liquor flow, separate allowances will be established for
core waste streams without an annealing furnace scrubber and for
core waste streams with an annealing furnace scrubber.
The annealing scrubber liquor allowance has been included in the
core to maintain consistency in the regulation. For the other
five subcategories, all annealing operations are performed using
no process water and annealing has been assigned a zero pollutant
allowance and is included in the core.
Stationary Casting. In stationary casting, molten aluminum is
poured into specific shapes for rolling and further processing.
It was observed that in 14 plants, this is done without the use
of any contact cooling water. The aluminum is allowed to air
cool and solidify. Frequently, the stationary molds are inter-
nally cooled with noncontact cooling water. In some plants, a
small amount of water or mist is applied to the top of the sta-
tionary cast aluminum to promote more rapid solidification and
allow earlier handling. When properly controlled, this does not
result in the discharge of any wastewater. Therefore, stationary
casting is included in the core of the Rolling with Neat Oils
Subcategory with no wastewater discharge allowance.
Homogenizing. Homogenizing is a type of heat treatment to con-
trol physical properties of the aluminum which frequently follows
casting. One plant uses a water mist to aid final cooling after
homogenizing; however, the water flow is very small and appears
to be unnecessary. Since homogenizing is a zero discharge
process, it is included in the core of the Rolling with Neat Oils
Subcategory with no wastewater discharge allowance.
800
-------
Artificial Aging. Artificial aging is a type of heat treatment
to control physical properties of the aluminum. Because the pro-
cess is a zero discharge process, it is included in the core of
the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory with no wastewater
discharge allowance.
Degreasing. Thirty-four plants with solvent degreasing opera-
tions were surveyed, and only two indicated having process waste-
water streams associated with the operation. One facility uses a
water rinse after solvent degreasing, while the second discharges
solvent recovery sludge to the facility's oil treatment system.
Because 32 plants practice solvent degreasing without wastewater
discharge, the Agency believes zero discharge of wastewater is an
appropriate discharge allowance.
If degreasing spent solvents are combined with any other aluminum
forming wastewaters and discharged, then that discharge could be
a hazardous waste and may become subject to the requirements of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (see 45 FR
33066). Disposal of the combined discharge would be difficult
and costly to achieve under the RCRA requirements. Spent
degreasing solvents which are used in the aluminum forming
category have been listed as hazardous wastes from nonspecific
sources (45 FR 33123).
Sawing. Although the sawing operation is assumed to be present
at all facilities, only 12 plants provided any information. Some
of these plants reported using a neat oil for lubrication,
although emulsified lubricants are also used. One plant reported
no oils disposal due to evaporation and carryover. Six other
plants supplied data which were used to calculate a mean value of
4.807 1/kkg (1.153 gal/ton) of aluminum rolled for the BPT dis-
charge flow for this stream.
Miscellaneous Nondescript Wastewater Sources. Comments submitted
by industry on the draft development document contended that the
Agency had not considered all of the wastewater sources in the
aluminum forming category. Some of these sources, which include
ingot scalping, extrusion press leakage, maintenance shop waste-
waters, ana miscellaneous cleanup wastewaters, were observed
during site visits and sampling visits at some facilities and are
from low flow or intermittent flow operations. Accordingly, a
small allowance of 3.0 1/kkg (0.72 gal/ton) of aluminum processed
through the core operations is being established for miscellane-
ous nondescript wastewater streams. If additional flow and
production data are provided by industry, the allowance may be
reevaluated.
801
-------
Ancillary Operations
Continuous Sheet Casting. Contact cooling water as such is not
normally used in continuous casting of aluminum sheet; however,
lubricants may be required in the associated smoothing roller.
Fourteen plants with continuous sheet or strip casting were sur-
veyed; seven reported no lubricants used, two claimed to achieve
100 percent recycle of lubricants without disposal, two indicated
periodic disposal of recycle material was necessary, and three
provided insufficient data. For the two plants reporting dis-
posal of the lubricant, the mean normalized discharge flow is
1.843 1/kkg (0.442 gal/ton) of aluminum cast; this is the BPT
wastewater discharge flow for the stream.
Solution Heat Treatment. Section V contains data taken from
dcp's on the wastewater flow from solution and press heat
treatment quenching. It has been determined that the amount of
water used does not vary significantly between subcategories;
therefore, the data are grouped, and the mean normalized flow of
7,705 1/kkg (1,848 gal/ton) of aluminum quenched following
solution heat treatment is the BPT discharge flow.
Of the 89 heat treatment quenching processes surveyed, 52 report
no recycle of quench water, 25 recycle varying amounts of quench
water, and 12 claimed no discharge of this wastewater stream by
practicing total recycle. It is possible that the plants report-
ing no discharge of cooling water inadvertently failed to mention
necessary periodic blowdown of the cooling tower to prevent
solids accumulation. Since no technology for avoiding the
buildup of solids in completely recycled cooling water is known
to be applied in this industry, only nonzero wastewater values
were used as a data base for selecting the BPT discharge flow.
This includes plants that vary from no recycle to 99 percent
recycle.
Cleaning or Etching. Cleaning or etching functions are performed
in approximately 20 percent of the rolling with neat oils facil-
ities. Wastewaters are or may be produced from three segments of
cleaning or etching operations. These are from process baths,
which are usually batch dumped; product rinsing; and air pollu-
tion control scrubbing. The characteristics of the cleaning or
etching processes for aluminum are quite similar in all of the
aluminum forming subcategories. Cleaning or etching is performed
for the same purpose, irrespective of the subcategory in which it
occurs. Additionally, the chemical characteristics of the rinse
waters generated by cleaning or etching processes are similar,
irrespective of the subcategory in which the operation is con-
ducted. On this basis, it is concluded that the operations are
similar, and they may properly be considered as a single
operation which occurs as an ancillary operation in all
subcategories.
802
-------
The ancillary operation of cleaning or etching shall include all
surface treatment operations, including chemical or electrochemi-
cal anodizing and conversion coating when performed as an inte-
gral part of the aluminum forming process. A cleaning or etching
operation is defined by the cleaning or etching baths. Multiple
baths would be considered multiple cleaning or etching operations
with a separate limitation for each. Multiple rinses following a
single bath will be regulated by a single limitation.
Process Baths. Of the 34 plants reporting cleaning or
etching operations, three indicated that the chemical
baths used for cleaning or etching of formed aluminum
products are discharged continuously into the wastwater
from the rinsing operation; 12 plants indicated that the
process baths are discharged periodically in a batch
discharge mode; and 14 operate indefinitely without
discharge by adding make-up chemicals and water to
offset the dragout loss from processing. The remaining
five plants supplied no information about discharges
from cleaning or etching baths.
While it is assumed that the majority of plants dispose
of the chemical bath by a solid waste contractor or
eliminate the bath in other ways, some plants do in fact
treat and discharge their process baths. For BPT, it is
assumed that the process baths will be periodically
discharged to treatment by bleeding them over a long
period of time to achieve an equal distribution of flow.
Based on data from nine plants, a mean normalized dis-
charge flow of 204.4 1/kkg (49.02 gal/ton) of aluminum
etched is the wastewater discharge flow allowed for this
stream.
Product Rinses. A summary of water use, wastewater
generation, and number of rinses in product rinses is
presented in Table V-51 (p. 324 ). This shows that some
plants discharge very small volumes of wastewater even
though their water use is substantial. These data have
been restructured in Table IX-2 to show the wastewater
generated in 1/kkg on an off-mass basis (off-mass is the
mass of product processed through a cleaning or etching
line multiplied by the number of times that mass is
processed through the line.). It should be noted that no
plants reported zero discharge of rinse wastewater. For
the purpose of establishing BPT limitations, data from
34 plants were averaged on a per-rinse-operation basis.
The mean normalized wastewater flow per rinsing
operation is 16,860 1/kkg (4,044 gal/ton) of aluminum
rinsed, which is the BPT discharge flow for this
stream.
803
-------
Air Pollution Control Scrubbers. Six plants surveyed
reported using wet air pollution control devices on
cleaning or etching operations. Data were available to
calculate normalized wastewater flows from three of the
six plants, and the mean wastewater flow is 17,220 1/kkg
(4,129 gal/ton) of aluminum cleaned or etched.
Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BPT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they have been
selected. The pollutants selected for regulation under. BPT are
chromium (total), cyanide (total), zinc, aluminum, oil and
grease, TSS, and pH. The toxic organic pollutants, cadmium,
copper, lead, nickel, and selenium, listed in Section VI are not
regulated under BPT for the reasons explained in Section X
(p. 891).
Table IX-3 lists the pollutants considered for regulation associ-
ated with each wastewater stream in the Rolling with Neat Oils
Subcategory and the corresponding maximum and minimum concentra-
tions detected for each pollutant.
Treatment Train
The BPT treatment train for the Rolling with Neat Oils
Subcategory consists of preliminary treatment when necessary,
specifically emulsion breaking and skimming, hexavalent chromium
reduction, and cyanide precipitation. The effluent from prelimi-
nary treatment is combined with other wastewaters for central
treatment by skimming and lime and settle. Sawing spent lubri-
cants, roll grinding spent emulsions, and casting spent lubri-
cants require emulsion breaking and skimming, and may require
hexavalent chromium reduction prior to combined treatment by
skimming and lime and settle. Solution heat treatment contact
cooling water may require cyanide precipitation, while cleaning
or etching wastewaters may require chromium reduction in addition
to cyanide precipitation. Following the preliminary treatment,
these wastewaters are then treated by skimming and lime and
settle. This treatment train is presented in Figure IX-1.
Cyanide precipitation is practiced on coil coating wastewaters at
six plants, two of which have both aluminum forming and aluminum
coil coating operations. Although it is not currently practiced
on aluminum forming wastewaters, the technology is applicable to
wastewaters where cyanide and metallocyanide complexes are
present. These include, heat treatment contact cooling water
streams and cleaning or etching (conversion coating) wastewater
streams which are subject to the aluminum forming regulation.
804
-------
The process, which is described in detail in Section VII
(p. 614), involves the addition of ferrous sulfate heptahydrate
and pH adjustment chemicals to the raw wastewater in a rapid mix
tank. The resulting sludge is settled in a clarifier or other
settling device, and the treated water is routed to downstream
processing. Advantages of the cyanide precipitation process over
the conventional oxidation route are reported to include better
removal of complexed cyanide and significant cost savings.
Technology transfer of cyanide precipitation is justified because
existing treatment in the aluminum forming category is uniformly
inadequate since no plants are currently treating wastewaters
from aluminum forming with any cyanide removal technology. In
addition, as discussed previously in this section, the waste-
waters generated during coil coating of aluminum are similar to
the wastewaters generated in aluminum forming. Data available to
the Agency, discussed in Section VII (p. 615 ) and presented in
Table VII-8 (p. 735 ), indicate that the application of cyanide
precipitation technology can achieve the cyanide treatment effec-
tiveness concentration presented in Table VII-21 (p. 748), even
over a wide range of cyanide concentration in the raw waste.
Effluent Limitations
Table VII-21 (p. 748 ), presents the treatment effectiveness
corresponding to the BPT treatment train for pollutant parameters
considered in the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory. Effluent
concentrations (one day maximum and ten day average values) are
multiplied by the normalized discharge flows summarized in Table
IX-1 to calculate the mass of pollutants allowed to be discharged
per mass of product. The results of these calculations are shown
in Table IX-4.
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-3 (p. 914 ), the applica-
tion of BPT to the total subcategory will remove approximately
1,725,611.3 kg/yr of pollutants. As shown in Table X-l,
(p. 912 ), the corresponding capital and annual costs (first
quarter 1978 dollars) for this removal are $8,537,400 and
$4,907,700 per year, respectively. As shown in Table X-9
(p. 926 ), the application of BPT to direct dischargers only,
will remove approximately 1.448,032.2 kg/yr of pollutants. As
shown in Table X-2 (p. 913 ), the corresponding capital and
annual costs (first quarter 1978 dollars) for this removal are
$5,934,200 and $3,460,200 per year, respectively. The Agency
believes that these pollutant removals justify the costs incurred
by plants in the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory.
805
-------
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
The primary operation in this subcategory is rolling aluminum in
a rolling mill using emulsified oil as a lubricant. Other sub-
sidiary production operations in the subcategory include roll
grinding, annealing, stationary casting, homogenizing, artificial
aging, degreasing, sawing, direct chill casting, solution heat
treatment, and cleaning or etching. These unit operations were
tabulated with the waste streams generated and production normal-
ized parameters in Section IV (p. 142 ). Table IX-5 lists these
production operations, separating them into core and ancillary
operations, and identifies the production normalized wastewater
flows generated from each. The core allowance for the Rolling
with Emulsions Subcategory is 91.09 1/kkg (21.85 gal/ton). This
one allowance represents the sum of the individual allowances for
the core waste streams which have a discharge allowance. These
streams are rolling with emulsions spent emulsions, roll grinding
spent emulsions, sawing spent lubricant and miscellaneous non-
descript wastewater sources. The following paragraphs discuss
these operations and wastewater discharge flows.
Core Operations
Rolling with Emulsions. The oil in water emulsion used as a
lubricant in many rolling operations is frequently discharged to
surface waters or a POTW. All of the 29 plants in this subcate-
gory recycle their emulsions. Five plants report recycle with a
continuous bleed, and the remaining plants dump their emulsions
periodically.
In selecting the BPT discharge flow appropriate for spent rolling
emulsions, a number of variables were analyzed for their effect
on the wastewater generated:
Degree of recycle,
- Method of rolling.
Degree of reduction.
- Product type.
Annual production.
The data presented in Table V-4 (p. 203 ) show the production
normalized volume of spent lubricant which is discharged by the
plants in the Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory. The median
value is extremely small in comparison to the discharge flows
from the plants with higher production normalized discharges.
Therefore, the BPT discharge flow is based on the normalized mean
806
-------
of all available data for spent rolling emulsions and is 74.51
1/kkg (17.87 gal/ton).
Recycle rates at plants with a bleed discharge varied from 85 to
99 percent. The remaining plants discharge periodically, imply-
ing recycle, but in most cases percent recycle values cannot be
assigned. Neither the degree of recycle nor the mode of dis-
charge significantly affected the normalized wastewater flow
distributions.
Although most of the cold rolling operations surveyed use neat
oil lubricants, a few plants indicated the use of emulsions for
cold rolling operations. Analysis of the data showed that cold
rolling with emulsions results in discharge values comparable to
those associated with hot rolling processes. Normalized dis-
charge flows vary from plant to plant; especially high values
were noted at one plant for both their cold rolling and hot roll-
ing operations. The data suggest; however, that cold rolling
with emulsions (to either sheet or foil) results in a discharge
comparable to that associated with the hot rolling of ingot to
plate. Therefore, the Agency is not distinguishing between cold
rolling emulsions and hot rolling emulsions to establish the BPT
normalized discharge flow.
Roll Grinding. Roll grinding is associated with virtually all
rolling operations and is, therefore, included in the core of the
Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory. This operation was described
previously in the discussion of rolling with neat oils. Roll
grinding operations and wastewater discharges are similar
throughout the industry; therefore, the same BPT technology and
normalized flow is applied to roll grinding in both rolling
subcategories.
Annealing. Annealing is a type of heat treatment which is often
associated with aluminum forming operations. The basic operation
is dry, although water can be used to clean furnace off gases.
In the Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory, no annealing operation
uses water for scrubbing; therefore, this stream is assigned a
zero discharge allowance and is included in the core for
regulatory convenience.
Stationary Casting. Stationary casting is designed as a zero
discharge operation. The operation is similar throughout the
aluminum forming category, and no discharge of process wastewater
was ever reported. Therefore, stationary casting is included in
the core of the Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory with no
wastewater discharge allowance. For a more detailed discussion,
refer to the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory description.
807
-------
Treatment Train
The BPT treatment train for the Rolling with Emulsions Subcate-
gory consists of preliminary treatment when necessary, specific-
ally emulsion breaking and skimming, hexavalent chromium reduc-
tion, and cyanide precipitation. The effluent from preliminary
treatment is combined with other wastewaters for central treat-
ment by skimming and lime and settle. Sawing spent lubricant,
roll grinding spent emulsions, and casting spent lubricants
require emulsion breaking and skimming, and may require hexa-
valent chromium reduction prior to combined treatment by skimming
and lime and settle. Solution heat treatment contact cooling
water may require cyanide precipitation, while cleaning or etch-
ing wastewaters may require chromium reduction in addition to
cyanide precipitation. Following the preliminary treatment,
these wastewaters are then treated by skimming and lime and
settle. These treatment technologies are discussed in more
detail in the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory description.
This treatment train is presented in Figure IX-2.
Effluent Limitations
Table VII-21 (p. 748 ) presents the treatment effectiveness
corresponding to the BPT treatment train for pollutant parameters
considered in the Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory. Effluent
concentrations (one day maximum and ten day average values) are
multiplied by the normalized discharge flows summarized in Table
IX-5 to calculate the mass of pollutants allowed to be discharged
per mass of product. The results of these calculations are shown
in Table IX-7.
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-4 (p. 916 ), the applica-
tion of BPT to the total subcategory will remove approximately
12,300,340.3 kg/yr of pollutants. As shown in Table X-l
(p. 912 ), the corresponding capital and annual costs (first
quarter 1978 dollars) for this removal are $9,230,500 and
$5,421,000 per year, respectively. As shown in Table X-10
(p. 928 ), the application of BPT to direct dischargers only,
will remove approximately 10,730,699.0 kg/yr of pollutants. As
shown in Table X-2 (p. 913 ), the corresponding capital and
annual costs (first quarter 1978 dollars) for this removal are
$8,297,900 and $4,908,400 per year, respectively. The Agency
believes that these pollutant removals justify the costs incurred
by plants in the Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory.
810
-------
EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
The primary operation in this subcategory is extrusion, including
file cleaning and dummy block cooling operations. Other subsidi-
ary production operations in the subcategory include annealing,
stationary casting, homogenizing, artificial aging, degreasing,
sawing, direct chill casting, solution and press heat treatment,
cleaning or etching, and degassing. These unit operations were
tabulated with the waste streams generated and production
normalized parameters in Section IV (p. 144 ). Table IX-8 lists
these production operations, separating them into core and
ancillary operations, and identifies the production normalized
wastewater flows generated from each. The core allowance for the
Extrusion Subcategory is 323.7 1/kkg (77.64 gal/ton). This one
allowance represents the sum of the individual allowances for the
core waste streams which have a discharge allowance. These
streams are extrusion die cleaning bath, rinse and scrubber
liquor, sawing spent lubricant, and miscellaneous non-descript
wastewater sources. The following paragraphs discuss these
operations and wastewater discharge flows.
Core Operations
Extrusion Die Cleaning Bath and Rinse. The cleaning of extrusion
dies by immersion in caustic solutions is described in Section
III (p. 91 ). Although most of the plants contacted discharge
the caustic bath (with or without treatment) to surface waters or
a POTW, the solution is hauled from at least four plants by an
outside contractor. Ten plants reported discharge rates as shown
in Table V-10 (p. 222 ). One plant reported no discharge of the
die cleaning bath, and 27 plants did not report enough data to
calculate a normalized discharge flow.
The volume of caustic required will depend on the intricacy of
the die orifice, the temperature of extrusion, the lubricant
used, and many other factors. Sufficient data are not available
to investigate these possibilities. Furthermore, it is likely
that the effect of individual plant practices (e.g., dumping
prior to saturation) may mask the effect of these factors.
Therefore, the mean normalized discharge flow, 14.78 1/kkg (3.546
gal/ton) of aluminum extruded, based on all 10 plants that dis-
charge die cleaning baths, has been chosen as the basis for BPT
limitations.
As discussed in Section V (Table V-ll, p. 223 ), the wastewater
flows for extrusion die cleaning rinses are available for 10 of
the 37 plants known to have die cleaning operations. Of the 10
811
-------
plants, one reports no discharge of die cleaning rinse water,
The normalized mean of the other nine is 25.62 1/kkg (6.145
gal/ton).
Although many factors could influence the amount of water needed
for rinsing the dies, it appears that individual plant practices
are the most significant factor. Frequently, the dies are simply
hosed off, and the quantity of water used is not carefully con-
trolled. It is anticipated that plants discharging volumes
greater than the mean will be able to reduce the volume of water
discharged by applying tighter controls on the water used to
rinse the dies.
The normalized discharge flow for the BPT limitations of the com-
bined bath and rinse streams is the summation of the two means,
14.78 1/kkg and 25.62 1/kkg, which is 40.40 1/kkg (9.690
gal/ton).
Extrusion Die Cleaning Scrubber. A wet scrubber can be used to
control caustic fumes from the die cleaning bath. Although only
two of the 38 plants with die cleaning baths reported scrubbers,
it is believed that most employ wet scrubbers. The two plants
supplied enough information to calculate a normalized discharge
flow, 275.6 1/kkg (66.08 gal/ton). This value will be used as
the BPT wastewater discharge flow.
Two plants reported the use of wet scrubbers at the extrusion
presses to remove caustic fumes. These fumes occur as a result
of cleaning aluminum from extrusion presses between operations.
These extrusion press scrubbers will be considered to be die
cleaning scrubbers for the purpose of this regulation and will
have the same wastewater discharge allowance.
Dummy Block Cooling. Of the 163 plants that practice extrusion,
only three report discharge of a dummy block contact cooling
stream. Air cooling of the dummy blocks is used for cooling by
the vast majority of extrusion plants. For this reason, dummy
block contact cooling has been classified as a zero pollutant
allowance stream.
Annealing. Annealing is a type of heat treatment which is often
associated with aluminum forming operations. The basic operation
is dry, although water can be used to clean furnace off gases.
In the Extrusion Subcategory, no annealing operation uses water
for scrubbing; therefore, this stream is assigned a zero dis-
charge allowance and is included in the core for regulatory
convenience.
812
-------
Stationary Casting. Stationary casting is associated with most
of the aluminum forming subcategories and is designated as a zero
discharge operation. The operation is similar throughout the
industry and was never found to generate a wastewater stream.
Therefore, stationary casting is included in the core of the
Extrusion Subcategory with no wastewater discharge allowance.
For a more detailed description, refer to the discussion of
stationary casting operations associated with the Rolling with
Neat Oils Subcategory.
Homogenizing. Homogenizing is a heat treatment process that
frequently follows casting. For the reasons discussed previ-
ously, it has been assigned a zero discharge allowance and is,
therefore, included as a core stream in this Subcategory.
Homogenization operations are similar throughout the industry.
For a more detailed description of the operation, refer to the
Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory discussion.
Artificial Aging. Artificial aging, a common heat treatment,
does not generate process wastewater. Therefore, artificial
aging is included in the core of the Extrusion Subcategory as a
regulatory convenience.
Decreasing. All of the extrusion plants surveyed which reported
having degreasing operations indicated that those operations
generated no wastewater discharge; therefore, this stream has no
wastewater discharge allowance. Degreasing operations are
similar in all subcategories of the industry. For a more
detailed description of the operation, refer to the Rolling with
Neat Oils Subcategory description.
Sawing. Because sawing is associated with extrusion operations,
it has been included in the core of the Extrusion Subcategory.
On the basis of available data, sawing operations and lubricant
discharge practices appear to be similar throughout the aluminum
forming category. For a description of the normalized discharge
flow associated with sawing, refer to the Rolling with Neat Oils
Subcategory description.
Miscellaneous Nondescript Wastewater Sources. An allowance for
miscellaneous wastewater sources is included in the core of each
Subcategory. A description of this allowance and the BPT dis-
charge flow designated for these miscellaneous wastewater sources
was presented in the discussion of the Rolling with Neat Oils
Subcategory.
Ancillary Operations
Direct Chill Casting. At 44 of the 163 plants surveyed in the
Extrusion Subcategory, aluminum is cast by the direct chill
813
-------
method before extrusion. In addition, rolling with emulsions
plants and primary aluminum reduction plants frequently use
direct chill casting. See the Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory
for a discussion of how the BPT discharge flow was determined.
Solution and Press Heat Treatment. Solution heat treatment is
practiced by plants in all of the aluminum forming subcategories.
Solution heat treatment involves water quenching of the heated
metal and results in substantial water use requirements. Press
heat treatment is a water spray operation which cools the metal
immediately after extrusion. Water use for all heat treatment
contact cooling operations show the similarity in water use
requirements among solution and press heat treatment and the
various subcategories. Due to this similarity, the water use
data were combined and analyzed as a single data set. The
solution heat treatment operation and the normalized discharge
flow for the associated wastewater stream are described in
conjunction with the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory.
Cleaning or Etching. Wastewater streams associated with cleaning
or etching operations may include chemical baths, rinse water,
and air pollution control scrubbers. Refer to the Rolling with
Neat Oils section for a description of these wastewater streams
and the associated discharge flows.
Degassing. In remelting aluminum prior to casting or continuous
casting, it is sometimes necessary to remove significant amounts
of magnesium or dissolved gases through the addition of chlorine
to the molten metal mass. When this is performed to remove mag-
nesium, it is called demagging and is a common refining practice
in the secondary aluminum industry. In the aluminum forming
industry, chlorine or inert gases are used to remove dissolved
gases in a similar operation called degassing, which does not
change the metal content of the melt. Demagging is subject to
the secondary aluminum effluent limitations, while degassing is
considered part of aluminum forming.
Only one aluminum forming plant employs a wet scrubber for their
degassing operation, and no data are available to calculate that
discharge flow. Therefore, the BPT discharge flow for degassing
scrubber liquor blowdown is based on the mean normalized flow
from primary aluminum plants using degassing scrubbers, since
degassing processes and scrubber liquor wastewater characteris-
tics are similar for these industries.
Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BPT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they have been
814
-------
selected. The pollutants selected for regulation under BPT are
chromium (total), cyanide (total), zinc, aluminum, oil and
grease, TSS, and pH. The toxic organic pollutants, cadmium,
copper, lead, nickel, and selenium, listed in Section VI are not
regulated under BPT for the reasons explained in Section X
(p. 891 ).
Table IX-9 lists the pollutants considered for regulation associ-
ated with each wastewater stream in the Extrusion Subcategory and
the corresponding maximum and minimum concentrations detected for
each pollutant.
Treatment Train
The BPT treatment train for the Extrusion Subcategory consists of
preliminary treatment when necessary, specifically emulsion
breaking and skimming, hexavalent chromium reduction, and cyanide
precipitation. The effluent from preliminary treatment is com-
bined with other wastewaters for central treatment by skimming
and lime and settle. Sawing spent lubricants require emulsion
breaking and skimming and may require hexavalent chromium reduc-
tion prior to combined treatment by skimming and lime and settle.
Solution and press heat treatment contact cooling water may
require cyanide precipitation, while cleaning or etching and die
cleaning wastewaters may require chromium reduction in addition
to cyanide precipitation. Following the preliminary treatment,
these wastewaters are then treated by skimming and lime and
settle. These treatment technologies are discussed in the Roll-
ing with Neat Oils section. This treatment train is presented in
Figure IX-3.
Effluent Limitations
Table Vll-21 (p. 748 ) presents the treatment effectiveness
corresponding to the BPT treatment train for pollutant
parameters considered in the Extrusion Subcategory. Effluent
concentrations (one day maximum and ten day average values) are
multiplied by the normalized discharge flows summarized in Table
1X-8 to calculate the mass of pollutants allowed to be discharged
per mass of product. The results of these calculations are shown
in Table IX-10.
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 (p. 918 ), the applica-
tion of BPT to the total Subcategory will remove approximately
815
-------
4,526,545.1 kg/yr of pollutants. As shown in Table X-l
(p. 912 ), the corresponding capital and annual costs (first
quarter 1978 dollars) for this removal are $22,716,300 and
$10,178,400 per year, respectively. As shown in Table X-ll
(p. 930 ), the application of BPT to direct dischargers only,
will remove approximately 2.762,974.0 kg/yr of pollutants. As
shown in Table X-2 (p. 913 ), the corresponding capital and
annual costs (first quarter 1978 dollars) for this removal are
$12,044,300 and $5,280,100 per year, respectively. The Agency
believes that these pollutant removals justify the costs incurred
by plants in the Extrusion Subcategory.
FORGING SUBCATEGORY
There are no direct discharging facilities which use forging
processes to form aluminum. Consequently, the Agency is
excluding the Forging Subcategory from this regulation for
direct dischargers. The discussion which follows is presented
for consistency and completeness. In addition, this discussion
forms the basis for pretreatment standards for the Forging
Subcategory presented in Section XII.
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
The production operations that may be present at a forging plant
include forging, annealing, artificial aging, degreasing, sawing,
forging scrubbing, solution heat treatment, and cleaning or etch-
ing. These unit operations were tabulated with the waste streams
fenerated and production normalizing parameters in Section IV
p. 147 )• Table IX-11 lists these production operations, sepa-
rating them into core and ancillary operations, and identifies
the production normalized wastewater flows generated from each.
The core allowance for the Forging Subcategory is 7.807 1/kkg
(1.873 gal/ ton). This one allowance represents the sum of the
individual allowances for the core waste streams which have a
discharge allowance. These streams are sawing spent lubricant
and miscellaneous non-descript wastewater sources. The following
paragraphs discuss these operations and wastewater discharge
flows.
Gore Operations
Forging. As discussed in Section III (p. 91 ), the forging
process itself does not use any process water; therefore, forging
is assigned a zero discharge allowance and is included in the
core for regulatory convenience.
Annealing. Annealing is a type of heat treatment which is often
associated with all aluminum forming operations. The basic oper-
ation is dry, although water can be used to clean furnace off
816
-------
gases. In the Forging Subcategory, no annealing operation uses
water for scrubbing; therefore, this stream is assigned a zero
discharge allowance and is included in the core for regulatory
convenience.
Artificial Aging. Artificial aging, a common heat treatment,
does not generate wastewater. Therefore, artificial aging is
included in the core of the Forging Subcategory as a regulatory
convenience.
Decreasing. All plants reporting degreasing operations indicated
that no wastewater is discharged; therefore, this stream has no
wastewater discharge allowance. Degreasing operations are simi-
lar in all subcategories of the industry. For a more detailed
description of the operation, refer to the Rolling with Neat Oils
section.
Sawing. Because sawing can be associated with forging opera-
tions, it has been included in the core of the Forging Subcate-
gory. On the basis of available data, sawing operations and
lubricant discharge practices appear to be similar throughout the
aluminum forming category. For a description of the normalized
discharge flow associated with sawing, refer to the previous
discussion in the Rolling with Neat Oils section.
Miscellaneous Nondescript Wastewater Sources. An allowance for
miscellaneous wastewater sources is included in the core of each
subcategory. A description of this allowance and the BPT dis-
charge flow designated for these miscellaneous wastwater sources
was presented previously in the discussion of the Rolling with
Neat Oils Subcategory.
Ancillary Operations
Forging Scrubbing. Particulates and smoke are generated from the
partial combustion of oil-based lubricants used in the forging
process. Of the 16 forging plants surveyed, three indicated that
wet scrubbers are used to control the emissions associated with
this process, and three indicated that dry air pollution control
devices are employed. The mean normalized discharge flow from
three wet scrubbers, 1,547 1/kkg (371.0 gal/ton), has been
selected as the BPT discharge flow for the forging scrubber
liquor stream.
Solution Heat Treatment. Solution heat treatment is practiced by
plants in all of the aluminum forming subcategories. Solution
heat treatment involves water quenching of the hot metal and
results in substantial water use requirements. Due to the simi-
larity in water use requirements among the various subcategories,
817
-------
the water use data were combined and analyzed as a single data
set. The solution heat treatment operation and the BPT normal-
ized discharge flow for the associated wastewater stream are
described in conjunction with the Rolling with Neat Oils
Subcategory.
Cleaning or Etching. Wastewater streams associated with cleaning
or etching operations may include chemical baths, rinse water,
and air pollution control scrubbers. Refer to the Rolling with
Neat Oils section for a description of these wastewater streams
and the associated BPT discharge flows.
Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BPT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they have been
selected. The pollutants selected for regulation under BPT are
chromium (total), cyanide (total), zinc, aluminum, oil and
grease, TSS, and pH. The toxic organic pollutants, cadmium,
copper, lead, nickel, and selenium, listed in Section VI are not
regulated under BPT for the reasons explained in Section X
(p. 891 ).
Table IX-12 lists the pollutants considered for regulation asso-
ciated with each wastewater stream in the Forging Subcategory and
the corresponding maximum and minimum concentrations detected for
each pollutant.
Treatment Train
The BPT treatment train for the Forging Subcategory consists of
preliminary treatment when necessary, specifically emulsion
breaking and skimming, hexavalent chromium reduction, and cyanide
precipitation. The effluent from preliminary treatment is com-
bined with other wastewaters for central treatment by skimming
and lime and settle. Sawing spent lubricants require emulsion
breaking and skimming and may require hexavalent chromium
reduction prior to combined treatment by skimming and lime and
settle. Solution heat treatment contact cooling water may
require cyanide precipitation, while cleaning or etching and
forging scrubber wastewaters may require chromium reduction in
addition to cyanide precipitation. Following the preliminary
treatment, these wastewaters are then treated by skimming and
lime and settle. These treatment processes are discussed in the
Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory description. The treatment
train is presented in Figure IX-4.
818
-------
Effluent Limitations
Table VII-21 (p. 748 ) presents the treatment effectiveness of
BPT treatment train for pollutant parameters considered in the
Forging Subcategory. Effluent concentrations (one day maximum
and ten day average values) are multiplied by the normalized
discharge flows summarized in Table IX-11 to calculate the mass
of pollutants allowed to be discharged per mass of product. The
results of these calculations are shown in Table IX-13.
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 (p. 920 ), the applica-
tion of BPT to the total subcategory will remove approximately
767,120.6 kg/yr of pollutants. As shown in Table X-l (p. 912 )}
the corresponding capital and annual costs (first quarter 1978-
dollars) for this removal are $3,420,000 and $1,677,400 per year,
respectively. The Agency believes that this pollutant removal
justifies the costs incurred by plants in the Forging Subcate-
gory.
DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
The primary operation in this subcategory is drawing aluminum
using neat oil as a lubricant. Other subsidiary production oper-
ations in this subcategory include annealing, stationary casting,
homogenizing, artificial aging, degreasing, sawing, swaging,
continuous rod casting, solution heat treatment, and cleaning or
etching. These unit operations were tabulated with the waste
streams generated and production normalizing parameters in Sec-
tion IV (p. 149 ). Table IX-14 lists these production operations,
separating them into core and ancillary operations, and identi-
fies the production normalized wastewater flows generated from
each. The core allowance for the Drawing with Neat Oils
Subcategory is 7.807 1/kkg (1.873 gal/ton). This one allowance
represents the sum of the individual allowances for the core
waste streams which have a discharge allowance. These streams
are sawing spent lubricants and miscellaneous nondescript
wastewater sources. The following paragraphs discuss these
operations and wastewater discharge flows.
Core Operations
Drawing with Neat Oils. Of the 64 plants using neat oils as
drawing lubricants, none were found to discharge this oil either
directly or indirectly. The most common practice appears to be
819
-------
filtration and recycle. Frequently, carryover is the only method
of disposal, but in other cases the oil is periodically disposed
of either to a contractor or an incinerator. A number of tele-
phone contacts with industry and trade associations confirmed
this information. Because no plants are known to be discharging
drawing neat oils to receiving waters or a POTW, the stream has
been assigned a zero discharge allowance.
Annealing. Annealing is a type of heat treatment which is often
associated with aluminum forming operations. The basic operation
is dry, although water can be used to clean furnace off gases.
In the Drawing with Neat Oils Subcategory, no annealing operation
uses water for scrubbing; therefore, this stream is assigned a
zero discharge allowance and is included in the core for regula-
tory convenience.
Stationary Casting. Stationary casting is associated with most
of the aluminum forming subcategories and is designed as a zero
discharge process. The operation is similar throughout the
industry and was never found to generate a wastewater stream.
Therefore, stationary casting is included in the core of the
Drawing with Neat Oils Subcategory with no wastewater discharge
allowance. For a more detailed description, refer to the
discussion of stationary casting operations associated with the
Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory.
Homogenizing. Homogenizing is a heat treatment process that
frequently follows casting. For the reasons discussed previ-
ously, it has been assigned a zero discharge allowance and is,
therefore, included as a core stream in this subcategory.
Homogenization operations are similar throughout the industry.
For a more detailed description of the operation, refer to the
Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory discussion.
Artificial Aging, Artificial aging, a common heat treatment,
does not generate wastewater. Therefore, artificial aging is
included in the core of the Drawing with Neat Oils Subcategory as
a regulatory convenience.
Degreasing. All plants in this subcategory reporting degreasing
operations indicated that no wastewater is discharged; therefore,
this stream has no wastewater discharge allowance. Degreasing
operations are similar in all subcategories of the industry. For
a more detailed description of the operation, refer to the
Rolling with Neat Oils section.
Sawing. Because sawing is typically associated with drawing
operations, it has been included in the core of the Drawing with
Neat Oils Subcategory. On the basis of available data, sawing
operations and lubricant discharge practices appear to be similar
throughout the aluminum forming category. For a description of
the normalized discharge flow associated with sawing, refer to
the previous discussion in the Rolling with Neat Oils section.
820
-------
Swaging. Swaging operations point the end of tube or wire to
prepare it for drawing. Although swaging may require lubricants,
no plant was found to discharge wastewater from this operation.
Therefore, zero discharge of wastewater is considered
appropriate.
Miscellaneous Nondescript Wastewater Sources. An allowance for
miscellaneous wastewater sources is included in the core of each
subcategory. A description of this allowance and the BPT dis-
charge flow designated for these miscellaneous wastewater sources
was presented previously in the discussion of the Rolling with
Neat Oils Subcategory.
Ancillary Operations
Continuous Rod Casting Cooling. A method of casting rod in prep-
aration for drawing is continuous casting. A stream of water is
circulated through the casting wheel to cool the molten aluminum
as it is cast. This water is in theory noncontact cooling water;
however, many of the plant personnel contacted have indicated
that it is impossible to prevent the water from coming into con-
tact with the product. Only one of the aluminum forming plants
surveyed supplied sufficient information to calculate a produc-
tion normalized flow. The BPT normalized flow, 1,042 1/kkg (249.9
gal/ton) of aluminum cast is based on these data.
Data obtained from dcp's for primary aluminum plants were subse-
quently considered. Two plants provided sufficient information
to calculate a discharge flow. One plant reported a production
normalized discharge flow of 415 1/kkg and the other 11.3 1/kkg.
Both of the primary aluminum plants employ a high degree of
recycle (>99 percent). The former plant uses approximately the
same amount of water as the single aluminum forming plant. The
latter plant uses approximately 40 times as much water as the
other two plants. There is no apparent reason to believe that
the casting operations at these three plants are different and
that they would require significantly differing amounts of water.
As such, the Agency believes that the primary aluminum data
support the selection of the BPT normalized flow based on the
aluminum forming data.
Continuous Rod Casting Lubricant. An emulsion is used as a
lubricant for rolling of aluminum rod, part of the rod casting
process, and not to be confused with the Rolling with Emulsions
Subcategory. Of the three plants with continuous rod casting
operations, one reported 100 percent recycle of their lubricants
without discharge, and two plants periodically dispose of this
waste stream with contractor hauling. Neither of these two
plants reported sufficient information to calculate a discharge
821
-------
flow. The Agency has transferred the normalized discharge flow
for continuous sheet casting lubricant, 1.843 1/kkg (0.442
gal/ton) of aluminum cast to apply to continous rod casting. The
Agency believes these processes are similar and the amount of
lubricant required per pound of sheet that is cast ought to be
the same as the lubricant used per pound of rod produced.
Solution Heat Treatment. Solution heat treatment is practiced by
plants in all of the aluminum forming subcategories. Solution
heat treating involves water quenching of the heated metal and
results in substantial water use requirements. Due to the simi-
larity in water use requirements among the various subcategories,
the water use data were combined and analyzed as a single data
set. The solution heat treatment operation and the BPT normal-
ized data flow for the associated wastewater stream are described
in conjunction with the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory.
Cleaning or Etching. Wastewater streams associated with cleaning
or etching operations may include chemical baths, rinse water,
and air pollution control scrubbers. Refer to the Rolling with
Neat Oils section for a description of these wastewater streams
and the associated BPT discharge flows.
Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BPT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they have been
selected. The pollutants selected for regulation under BPT are
chromium (total), cyanide (total), zinc, aluminum, oil and
grease, TSS, and pH. The toxic organic pollutants, cadmium,
copper, lead, nickel, and selenium, listed in Section VI are not
regulated under BPT for the reasons explained in Section X
(p. 891 ).
Table IX-15 lists the pollutants considered for regulation
associated with each wastewater stream in the Drawing with Neat
Oils Subcategory and the corresponding maximum and minimum
concentrations detected for each pollutant.
Treatment Train
The BPT treatment train for the Drawing with Neat Oils
Subcategory consists of preliminary treatment when necessary,
specifically emulsion breaking and skimming, hexavalent chromium
reduction, and cyanide precipitation. The effluent from prelimi-
nary treatment is combined with other wastewaters for central
treatment by skimming and lime and settle. Sawing spent lubri-
cants require emulsion breaking and skimming and may require
hexavalent chromium reduction prior to combined treatment by
822
-------
skimming and lime and settle. Solution heat treatment contact
cooling water may require cyanide precipitation, while cleaning
or etching wastewaters may require chromium reduction in addition
to cyanide precipitation. Following the preliminary treatment,
these wastewaters are then treated by skimming and lime and
settle. These treatment processes are discussed in more detail
in the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory description. The
treatment train is presented in Figure IX-5.
Effluent Limitations
Table VII-21 (p.748 ) presents the treatment effectiveness of the
BPT treatment train for pollutant parameters considered in the
Drawing with Neat Oils Subcategory. Effluent concentrations (one
day maximum and ten day average values) are multiplied by the
normalized discharge flows summarized in Table IX-14 to calculate
the mass of pollutants allowed to be discharged per mass of
product. The results of these calculations are shown in Table
IX-16.
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 (p. 922 ), the applica-
tion of BPT to the total subcategory will remove approximately
756,582.6 kg/yr of pollutants. As shown in Table X-l (p. 912 ),
the corresponding capital and annual costs (first quarter 1978
dollars) for this removal are $2,691,000 and $1,280,400 per year,
respectively. As shown in Table X-12 (p. 932 ), the application
of BPT to direct dischargers only, will remove approximately
536,194.5 kg/yr of pollutants. As shown in Table X-2 (p. 913 ),
the corresponding capital and annual costs (first quarter 1978
dollars) for this removal are $1,707,300 and $778,700 per year,
respectively. The Agency believes that these pollutant removals
justify the costs incurred by plants in the Drawing with Neat
Oils Subcategory.
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGQRY
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
The primary operation in this subcategory is drawing aluminum
using emulsified oil or soap as a lubricant. Other subsidiary
production operations in this subcategory include annealing,
stationary casting, homogenizing, artificial aging, degreasing,
sawing, continuous rod casting, solution heat treatment, and
cleaning or etching. These unit operations were tabulated with
the waste streams generated and production normalizing parameters
in Section IV (p. 151). Table IX-17 lists these production
823
-------
operations, separating them into core and ancillary operations,
and identifies the production normalized wastewater flows
generated from each. The core allowance for the Drawing with
Emulsions or Soaps Subcategory is 424.3 1/kkg (101.8 gal/ton).
This one allowance represents the sum of the individual
allowances for the core waste streams which have a discharge
allowance. These streams are drawing with emulsions or soaps
spent lubricants, sawing spent lubricants and miscellaneous
non-descript wastewater sources. The following paragraphs
discuss these operations and wastewater discharge flows.
Gore Operations
Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps. Of the 13 plants which use
emulsions or soap solutions for drawing, eight provided enough
data to calculate normalized discharge flows. Table IX-18 shows
the wide range of values. The following factors were considered
in an attempt to account for this variation: surface area of the
product and type of lubricant.
Analysis of the data has shown that variation in water use is
related to differences in the dimension of wire being drawn. The
amount of lubricant required for drawing a given length of wire
is roughly the same for fine and coarse wire. Since the weight
of finer wire is less, the corresponding production figures will
be lower. As a result, the wastewater factors calculated as flow
per unit production will be higher for lubricants used in fine
wire drawing than in drawing of coarse wire.
Comparison of Table V-24 (p. 250 ) and Table IX-18 shows that
plant 8 does not recycle its soap solutions, while plant 6 does
recycle soap solutions. This partially explains the extremely
large wastewater flow of plant 8 and is the reason for
eliminating plant 8's flow from the mean flow calculation. A
comparison of wastewater from plant 6 using soap as a lubricant
and wastewater from other plants using emulsions shows that the
type of lubricant does not seem to influence the lubricant
normalized discharge flow.
The mean normalized discharge flow of the six plants that recycle
and discharge drawing emulsions has been chosen as the basis of
BPT, 416.5 1/kkg (99.89 gal/ton) of aluminum drawn.
Annealing. Annealing is a type of heat treatment which is often
associated with all aluminum forming operations. The basic oper-
ation is dry, although water can be used to clean furnace off
gases. In the Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps Subcategory, no
annealing operation uses water for scrubbing; therefore, this
stream is assigned a zero discharge allowance and is included as
a core stream for regulatory convenience.
824
-------
Stationary Casting. Stationary casting is associated with most
of the aluminum forming subcategories and is designed as a zero
discharge operation. The operation is similar throughout the
industry and was never found to generate a wastewater stream.
Stationary casting is, therefore, included in the core of the
Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps Subcategory with no wastewater
discharge allowance. For a further description, refer to the
discussion of stationary casting operations associated with the
Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory.
Homogenizing. Homogenizing is a heat treatment process that
frequently follows casting. For the reasons discussed previ-
ously, it has been assigned a zero discharge allowance and is,
therefore, included as a core stream in this subcategory.
Homogenization operations are similar throughout the industry.
For a more detailed description of the operation, refer to the
Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory discussion.
Artificial Aging. Artificial aging, a common heat treatment,
does not generate wastewater. Therefore, artificial aging is
included in the core of the Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps
Subcategory as a regulatory convenience.
Decreasing. All plants surveyed in this subcategory reporting
degreasing operations indicated that no wastewater is discharged;
therefore, this stream has no wastewater discharge allowance.
Degreasing operations are similar in all subcategories of the
industry. For a more detailed description of the operation,
refer to the Rolling with Neat Oils section.
Sawing. Because sawing is typically associated with drawing
operations, it has been included in the core of the Drawing with
Emulsions or Soaps Subcategory. On the basis of available data,
sawing operations and lubricant discharge practices appear to be
similar throughout the aluminum forming category. For a
description of the normalized discharge flow associated with
sawing, refer to the previous discussion under Rolling with Neat
Oils.
Swaging. Swaging operations point the end of tube or wire to
prepare it for drawing. Although swaging may require lubricants,
no plant was found to discharge wastewater from this operation.
Therefore, zero discharge of wastewater is considered
appropriate.
Miscellaneous Nondescript Wastewater Sources. An allowance for
miscellaneous wastewater sources isincluded in the core of each
subcategory. A description of this allowance and the BPT dis-
charge flow designated for these miscellaneous wastwater sources
825
-------
was presented in the discussion of the Rolling with Neat Oils
Subcategory.
Ancillary Operations
Continuous Rod Casting Cooling. Rod casting forms the metal in
preparation for rolling or drawing. In the process, cooling
water is circulated through the casting wheel and often contacts
the molten metal. As discussed in the Drawing with Neat Oils
section, only one plant supplied sufficient information to
calculate a normalized flow which is designated the BPT dis-
charge flow of 1,042 1/kkg (249.9 gal/ton) of aluminum cast.
Continuous Rod Casting Lubricant. Part of the rod casting pro-
cess involves rolling the cast aluminum with an emulsion as a
lubricant. Of the three plants with continuous rod casting oper-
ations , one reported 100 percent recycle of lubricants, and two
plants periodically dispose of this waste stream with contractor
hauling. As discussed in the Drawing with Neat Oils section, it
is assumed that the discharge flow.is equal to that of continuous
sheet casting lubricant, 1.843 1/kkg (0.442 gal/ton) of aluminum
cast.
Solution Heat Treatment. Solution heat treatment is practiced by
plants in all of the aluminum forming subcategories. Solution
heat treating involves water quenching of the heated metal and
results in substantial water use requirements. Due to the simi-
larity in water use requirements among the various subcategories,
the water use data were combined and analyzed as a single data
set. The solution heat treatment operation and the BPT normal-
ized data flow for the associated wastewater stream are described
in conjunction with the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory.
Cleaning or Etching. Wastewater streams associated with cleaning
or etching operations may include chemical baths, rinse water,
and air pollution control scrubbers. Refer to the Rolling with
Neat Oils section for a description of these wastewater streams
and the associated BPT discharge flows.
Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BPT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they have been
selected. The pollutants selected for regulation under BPT are
chromium (total), cyanide (total), zinc, aluminum, oil and
grease, TSS, and pH. The toxic organic pollutants, cadmium,
copper, lead, nickel, and selenium, listed in Section VI are not
regulated under BPT for the reasons explained in Section X
(p. 891 )-
826
-------
Table IX-19 lists the pollutants considered for regulation asso-
ciated with each wastewater stream in the Drawing with Emulsions
or Soaps Subcategory and the corresponding maximum and minimum
concentrations detected for each pollutant.
Treatment Train
The BPT treatment train for the Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps
Subcategory consists of preliminary treatment when necessary,
specifically emulsion breaking and skimming, hexavalent chromium
reduction, and cyanide precipitation. The effluent from prelimi-
nary treatment is combined with other wastewaters for central
treatment by skimming and lime and settle. Sawing spent lubri-
cants require emulsion breaking and skimming and may require
hexavalent chromium reduction prior to combined treatment by
skimming and lime and settle. Solution heat treatment contact
cooling water may require cyanide precipitation, while cleaning
or etching wastewaters may require chromium reduction in addition
to cyanide precipitation. Following the preliminary treatment,
these wastewaters are then treated by skimming and lime and
settle. Descriptions of these wastewater treatments can be found
in the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory description. The
treatment train is presented in Figure IX-6.
Effluent Limitations
Table VII-21 (p. 743 ) presents the treatment effectiveness of
the BPT treatment train for pollutant parameters considered in
the Drawing with Emulsions Subcategory. Effluent concentrations
(one day maximum and ten day average values) are multiplied by
the normalized discharge flows summarized in Table IX-17 to
calculate the mass of pollutants allowed to be discharged per
mass of product. The results of these calculations are shown in
Table IX-20.
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
benefits in Section X. As shown in Table X-8 (p. 924 ), the
application of BPT to the total Subcategory will remove
approximately 134,342.9 kg/yr of pollutants. As shown in Table
X-l (p. 912 ), the corresponding capital and annual costs (first
quarter 1978 dollars) for this removal are $637,400 and $306,400
per year, respectively. As shown in Table X-13 (p. 934 ), the
application of BPT to direct dischargers only, will remove
approximately 53,036.9 kg/yr of pollutants. As shown in Table
X-2 (p. 913 ), the corresponding capital and annual costs (first
827
-------
quarter 1978 dollars) for this removal are $305,200 and $133,900
per year, respectively. The Agency believes that these pollutant
removals justify the costs incurred by plants in the Drawing with
Emulsions or Soaps Subcategory.
APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS IN PERMITS
The purpose of these limitations (and standards) is to form a
uniform material basis for regulating wastewater effluent from
the aluminum forming category. For direct dischargers, this is
accomplished through NPDES permits. Since the aluminum forming
category is regulated on an individual waste stream "building-
block" approach, two examples of applying these limitations to
determine the allowable discharge from aluminum forming
facilities are included.
Example 1
Plant X forms aluminum using an extrusion process and operates
250 days per year. The total plant production is 50,000
off-kkg/yr. All of the aluminum is degassed and cast by the
direct chill method; 70 percent of the aluminum is solution heat
treated; and 50 percent of the aluminum is etched with caustic.
The plant has a degassing scrubber, and the etch" line consists of
a single bath followed by a two-stage rinse. Table IX-21
illustrates the calculation of the allowable BPT discharge of
TSS.
The daily production from the extrusion operation would equal
50,000 kkg/yr divided by 250 days/yr to get 200 kkg/day. This
production rate is then multiplied by the extrusion core limita-
tion (mg/kkg) to get the daily discharge limit for the core at
Plant X. Two hundred kkg/day is also used to multiply with the
limitation of direct chill casting, since 100 percent of the
direct chill casting product is extruded. To determine the mass
of aluminum that is processed through solution heat treatment the
mass of aluminum extruded (200 kkg/day) is multiplied by 70
percent to achieve a production rate of 140 kkg/day. The same
procedure is followed for the cleaning or etching operation and
the sum of the daily limits for the individual operations becomes
the plant limit.
Example 2
Plant Y, which operates 300 days per year, forms 10,000 off-
kkg/yr of aluminum sheet by rolling with emulsions and also forms
2,000 off-kkg/yr of aluminum by drawing with emulsions. All of
the rolled aluminum is cast by the direct chill method; all of
the drawn aluminum is cast by the continuous rod casting method;
70 percent of the rolled aluminum is solution heat treated; 30
percent of the rolled aluminum is etched with caustic; and 5
percent of the drawn aluminum is etched with caustic. The etch
828
-------
line consists of a caustic bath followed by a single-stage rinse
followed by a detergent bath followed by a second single-stage
rinse. Table IX-22 illustrates the calculation of the allowable
BPT discharge of zinc.
The first step in determining the daily limits for Plant Y is to
put the production in terms of kkg/day. The plant produces
10,000 off-kkg/yr of aluminum sheet, all of which is cast on-site
by direct chill casting. Thus, the daily production for direct
chill casting is 10,000 kkg/yr divided by 300 days/yr or 33.3
kkg/day. Following the casting operation the aluminum ingot is
heated then processed through the rolling mill to produce plate
and removed to cool. The aluminum plate is then returned to the
rolling mill and processed once more to produce sheet, thus the
same off mass of aluminum undergoes two process cycles. The pro-
duction parameter used to obtain the daily limit from the rolling
process is two times the production of the direct chill casting
process or 66.6 kkg/day. The production and daily limits are
shown on Table IX-22 for all of the operations performed at Plant
Y.
829
-------
Table IX-1
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
00
LO
o
Operation
Core
Rolling with neat oils
Roll grinding
Stationary casting
Homogenizing
Artificial aging
Degreasing
Sawing
Miscellaneous nonde-
script wastewater
sources
Annealing
Waste Stream
Spent lubricant
Spent emulsion
None
None
None
Spent solvents
Spent lubricant
Various
Total core without
an annealing fur-
nace scrubber
Atmosphere scrub-
ber liquor
Total core with an
annealing furnace
scrubber
Normalized BPT
Discharge
1/kkg (gpt)
0
8.770
0
0
0
0
4.807
16.58
26.35
42.93
(0)
(2.103)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1.153)
(0.720)
(3.976)
(6.320)
(10.30)
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of aluminum rolled
with neat oil
Mass of aluminum rolled
with neat oil
Mass of aluminum rolled
with neat oil
Mass of aluminum rolled
with neat oil
-------
Table IX-1 (Continued)
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - ROLLING WITH' NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
oo
Operation
Ancillary
Continuous sheet
casting
Solution heat treatment
Cleaning or etching
Waste Stream
Spent lubricant
Contact cooling
water
Bath
Rinse
Scrubber liquor
Normalized BPT
Discharge
1/kkg
1.843
7,705
204.4
16,860
17,220
(0.442)
(1,848)
(49.02)
(4,044)
(4,130)
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of aluminum cas t
by continuous methods
Mass of aluminum
quenched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
-------
Table IX-2
COMPARISON OF WASTEWATER DISCHARGE RATES FROM
CLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE STREAMS
Bath Waatewater Per Stage Cleaning or Etching Baths Associated Product
Stages 1/kkg gal /ton Acid Caustic Detergent Other Coil Extrusion Forging Drawn other
1 1 1.430 0.3/430 XX X
2 1 2.635 0.6320 X X
3 1 14.48 3.472 X X
41 61.00 14.63 X X X
5 1 80.05 19.20 XX XXX
6 1 102.1 24.49 XX X
7 1 178.0 42.70 X X
8 1 333.6 80.00 X X
9 1 500.3 120.0 XX X
10 2 500.3 120.0 XX X
11 1 558.3 133.3 X X
12 1 600.0 143.9 X X
13 1 938.1 225.0 XX X
oo 14 2 1,163 279.0 XX X
ft 15 2 1,313 315.0 XX XX
16 2 1,591 381.6 XX X
17 4 1,780 427.0 XX X
18 3 2,110 506.0 XX X
19 1 2,330 558.8 X X
20 1 5,003 1,200 X X
21 2 5,212 1,250 XX X
22 2 5,683 1,363 XX X
23 2 10,670 2,560 XX X
24 1 14,480 3,473 X X
25 2 16,120 3,865 XX X
26 3 20,850 5,000 XX X X
27 1 23,350 5,600 X X
28 4 23,520 5,640 X X X X X
29 3 36,390 8,727 X X
30 1 43,950 10,540 X X
31 1 63,920 15,330 X X
32 2 75,430 , 18,090 XX X
33 1 89,350 21,430 X X
34 2 125,100 30,000 XXX X
Note: This table includes data from four plants which have both cleaning and etch line rinse dischargers.
-------
Table IX-3
CONCENTRATION RANGE OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR
BPT REGULATION IN CORE AND ANCILLARY WASTE STREAMS -
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
CO
OJ
Lo
Waste Stream
Roll Grinding Spent
Emulsions^
Sawing Spent LubricantsA
Annealing Atmosphere
Scrubber Liquor
Continuous Sheet Casting
Spent Lubr leant sA
Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Cleaning or Etching
Cadmium
(mg/D
<0. 0002
<0. 0002
-
<0.0002
<0.0005
0.005
<0.0005
.
- 0.180
- 0.180
--
- 0.180
- 0.012
- 3.000
- 0.200
-.
Total Chromium
(mg/1)
<0. 001
<0.001
0.
<0.001
0.002
0.020
0.007
-
- 1
- 1
016
- 1
- 72
- 10
- 280
--
Copper
(mg/1)
ND - 7.40
ND - 7.40
0. 021
ND - 7.40
0.001 - 0.38
<5.00 - 20
0.0011 - 480
0.01
Total Cyanide
0.016
0.016
0.016
<0.001
<0.001
0. 00002
- 2.5
- 2.5
- 2.5
- 530
- 0.408
- 0.042
—
Lead
(mg/1)
<0.002 - 56.90
<0.002
0
<0. 002
ND
0. 400
0.01
.-
- 56.90
.016
- 56.90
- 17
- 90.0
- 11 ,
--
Nickel
(mg/1)
<0.001 - 0.214
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.001
<0. 001
- 0.214
- 0.214
- 0.040
- <3.00(
- 160
Scrubber Liquor
ND - Not Detected.
AThese streams were assumed to be similar to Rolling with Emulsions Spent Emulsions.
-------
Table IX-3 (Continued)
CONCENTRATION RANGE OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR
BPT REGULATION IN CORE AND ANCILLARY WASTE STREAMS
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
00
UJ
-fc-
Waste Stream
Roll Grinding Spent
Emu la ions A
Sawing Spent Lubricants"
Annealing Atmosphere
Scrubber Liquor
Continuous Sheet Casting
Spent Lubricants*
Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Cleaning or Etching
Zinc
(«8/D
<0.005 - 5
<0.005 - 5
0.220
<0.005 - 5
<0,010 - 5.2
0,500 - <30.00
<0.01 - 410
Aluminum Oil and Grease TSS
(mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
20 - 350 1,277 - 802,000 0.540 - 3,910
20 - 350 1,277 - 802,000 0.540 - 3,910
<0.5 --- 4
20 - 350 1,277 - 802,000 0.540 - 3,910
<0.1 - 9 1.5 - 370 <1 - 240
30 - 70,000 7-100 9 - 348
<0.01 - 1,300 2 - 146 <1 - 3,640
5.1 13 12
PH
(units)
6.9 - 7.1
6.9 - 7.1
6.2
6.9 - 7.1
7-9.6
.5 - 11.4
2.1 - 11.8
8.1
Scrubber Liquor
ND - Not Detected.
AThese streams were assumed to be similar to Rolling with Emulsions Spent Emulsions.
-------
Chemical Addition
00
Sawing_Spen t_Lubr_i ca nts
_G rindin&
_
Spent Emulsions
ContlnuousSheet
____
Casting Spent Lubricants
Removal of
Oil and Grease
| Chemical Addition Chemical Addition
Chemical Addition
Cyanide
Precipitation
Chemical
Precipitation
__
Etching Rinse
Removal of
Oil and Grease
Rolling Solution
Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling Water
Miscellaneous Wastewater
Chemical Addition
Cleaning 0£Jitchin^ Scrubber Liquor^
Annealing _Furnace__Atniosphere
Scrubber Liquor
Figure IX-1
BPT TREATMENT TRAIN FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
-------
Table IX-4
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams Without An Annealing
Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) o£ aluminum rolled with neat oils
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper
121 Cyanide
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Oil St Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
5.31
6.96
31.50
4.81
2.49
23.38
19.90
22.05
75.44
331.60
679.78
2.49
2.82
16.58
1.99
2.16
16.58
9.95
9.28
30.84
198.96
331.60
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams With An Annealing
Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with neat oils
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper
121 Cyanide
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
EH
13.74
18.03
81.57
12.45
6.44
60.53
51.52
57.10
195.33
858.60
1,760.13
6.44
7.30
42.93
5.15
5.58
42.93
25.76
24.04
79.85
515.16
858.60
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
836
-------
Table IX-4 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Continuous Sheet Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118 Cadmium 0.59 0.28
119 Chromium 0.77 0.31
120 Copper 3.50 1.84
121 Cyanide 0.53 0.22
122 Lead 0.28 0.24
124 Nickel 2.60 1.84
125 Selenium 2.21 1.11
128 Zinc 2.45 1.03
Aluminum 8.39 3.43
Oil & Grease 36.86 22.12
Total Suspended 75.56 36.86
Solids
pjl Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
2,465.60
3,236.10
14,639.50
2,234.45
1,155.75
10,864.05
9,246.00
10,247.65
35,057.75
154,100.00
315,905.00
pH Within the range of 7.5
1,155.75
1,309.85
7,705.00
924.60
1,001.65
7,705.00
4,623.00
4,314.80
14,331.30
92,460.00
154,100.00
to 10.0 at all times.
837
-------
Table IX-4 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
mg /kkg ( Ib /b i 1 1 ion
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
Ibs) of aluminum
65.41
85.85
388.36
59.28
30.66
288.20
245.28
271.85
930.02
4,088.00
8,380.40
pH Within the range of 7 .
Maximum for
Monthly Average
cleaned or etched
30.66
34.75
204.40
24.53
26.57
204.40
122.64
114.46
380.18
2,452.80
4,088.00
5 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day
mg/kkg
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper
121 Cyanide
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
(Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum
5, -3 9-5^20
7,081.20
32,034.00
4,889.40
2,529.00
23,772.60
20,232.00
22,423.80
76,713.00
Oil Sc Grease 337,200.00
Total Suspended 691,260.00
Solids
pH
Within the range of 7 .
Maximum for
Monthly Average
cleaned or etched
2,529.00
2,866.20
16,860.00
2,023.20
2,191.80
16,860.00
10,116.00
9,441.60
31,359.60
202,320.00
337,200.00
5 to 10.0 at all times.
838
-------
Table IX-4 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil St Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
PH
5,510.40
7,232.40
32,718.00
4,993.80
2,583.00
24,280.20
20,664.00
22,902.60
78,351.00
344,400.00
706,020.00
Within the range of 7.5
2,583.00
2,927.40
17,220.00
2,066.40
2,238.60
17,220.00
10,332.00
9,643.20
32,029.20
206,640.00
344,400.00
to 10.0 at all times.
839
-------
Table IX-5
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
CO
JS
O
Operation
Core
Rolling with emulsions
Roll grinding
Annealing
Stationary casting
Homogenizing
Artificial aging
Degreasing
Sawing
Miscellaneous nonde-
script wastewater
sources
Ancillary
Direct chill casting
Solution heat treatment
Cleaning or etching
Waste Stream
Spent emulsion
Spent emulsion
None
None
None
None
None
Spent lubricant
Various
Normalized BPT
Discharge
1/kkg (gpt)
74.51
8.770
0
0
0
0
0
4.807
(17.87)
(2.103)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1.153)
Total Core 91.09
Contact cooling
water
Contact cooling
water
Bath
Rinse
1,999
7,705
204.4
16,860
(0.720)
(21.85)
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of aluminum rolled
with emulsions
Mass of aluminum rolled
with emulsions
Mass of aluminum rolled
with emulsions
Mass of aluminum rolled
with emulsions
Scrubber Liquor 17,220
(479.4) Mass of aluminum cast
by direct chill
method
(1,848) Mass of aluminum
quenched
(49.02) Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
(4,044) Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
(4,130) Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
-------
Table IX-6
CONCENTRATION RANGE OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR
BPT REGULATION IN CORE AND ANCILLARY WASTE STREAMS
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
00
-IS
Waste Stream
Rolling Spent Emulsions
Roll Grinding Spent
EmuIsions*
Sawing Spent Lubricants*
Direct Chill Casting
Contact Cooling
Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Cleaning or Etching
Scrubber Liquor
Cadmium
(mg/1)
<0.0002
<0. 0002
<0.0002
<(K0005
<0.0005
0.005
< 0,0005
- 0.180
- 0.180
- 0.180
- 0.020
- 0.012
- 3.000
- 0.200
___
Total Chromium
(mg/1)
<0. 001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.002
0.020
0.007
- 1
- 1
- 1
- 1.6
- 72
- 10.00
- 280
___
Copper
(mg/1)
ND
ND
ND
0.004
0.001
<5.00
0.0011
0
- 7.40
- 7.40
- 7.40
- 0.030
- 0.38
- 20
- 480
.01
Total
(mg
0.016
0.016
0.016
<0.001
<0.001
0. 00002
Cyanide
A)
-2.5
- 2.5
- 2.5
—
- 530
- 0.408
- 0.042
Lead
(mg/1)
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
0.002
ND
0.400
0.01
- 56.90
- 56.90
- 56.90
- 0.100
- 17
- 90.0
- 11
Nickel
(mg/1)
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.001
<0.001
- 0.214
- 0.214
- 0.214,
- 0.020
- 0.040
- <3.000
- 160
ND - Not Detected.
streams were assumed to be similar to Rolling with Emulsions Spent Emulsions.
-------
Table IX-6 (Continued)
CONCENTRATION RANGE OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR
BPT REGULATION IN CORE AND ANCILLARY WASTE STREAMS -
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
00
•t-
to
Waste Stream
Rolling Spent Emulsions
Roll Grinding Spent
Emulsions*
Sawing Spent Lubricants*
Direct Chill Casting
Contact Cooling
Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Cleaning or Etching
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
0.
<0
Zinc
(mg/l)
005 - 5
005
005
010
010
500
.01
-
- 5
- 5
- 1.0
-5.2
- <30.00
- 410
-_
Aluminum
(mg/1)
20 - 350
20 - 350
20 - 350
<0.050 - 2
<0. 1-9
30 - 70,000
<0.01 - 1,300
5.1
Oil and Grease
(mg/1)
1,277 -
1,277 -
1,277 -
<5 -
1.5 -
7 -
2 -
13
802,000
802,000
802,000
236
370
100
146
TSS
(ms/D
0.540 - 3,910
0.540 - 3.910
0.540 - 3,910
<1 - 220
<1 - 240
9 - 348
<1 - 3,640
12
(units )
6.9 - 7.1
6.9 -
6.9 -
6 -
7 -
.5 -
2.1 -
8.
7.1
7.1
8.4
9.6
11.4
11.8
1
Scrubber Liquor
ND - Not Detected.
AThess streams were assumed to be similar to Rolling with Emulsions Spent Emulsions.
-------
Chemical Addition
Emulsions
^-A-A^AA-Aj
Emulsion
Breaking
06
Oil
Skimming
Removal of
Olj^and Greaae
Chemical Addition Chemical Addition
Chemical Addition
_
Etching Bath
CleanIng or
Etching Rinse
Ok
00 Rolling Solution Heajjrreatment
Contact Cooling Water
Direct Chill
Casting Con ta ct Cool ing^ Wa
Miscellaneous Wastewater
Etching Scrubber Liquor
Figure IX-2
BPT TREATMENT TRAIN FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
-------
Table IX-7
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Rolling With Emulsions - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with emulsions
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil St Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
29.15
38.26
173.07
26.42
13.66
128.44
109.31
121.15
414.46
1,821.80
3,734.69
pH Within the range of 7.
Direct Chill
Casting - Contact
13.66
15.49
91.09
10.93
11.84
91.09
54.65
51.01
169.43
1,093.08
1,821.80
5 to 10.0 at all times.
Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by direct chill methods
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil St Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
639.68
839.58
3,798.10
579.71
299.85
2,818.59
2,398.80
2,658.67
9,095.45
39,980.00
81,959.00
pH Within the range of 7.5
299.85
339.83
1,999.00
239.88
259.87
1,999.00
1,199.40
1,119.44
3,718.14
23,988.00
39,980.00
to 10.0 at all times.
844
-------
Table IX-7 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil Si Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
PH
2,465.60
3,236.10
14,639.50
2,234.45
1,155.75
10,864.05
9,246.00
10,247.65
35,057.75
154,100.00
315,905.00
Within the range of 7.5
1,155.75
1,309.85
7,705.00
924.60
1,001.65
7,705.00
4,623.00
4,314.80
14,331.30
92,460.00
154,100.00
to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease 4
Total Suspended 8
Solids
pH Within
65.41
85.85
388.36
59.28
30.66
288.20
245.28
271.85
930.02
,088.00
,380.40
the range of 7.5
30.66
34.75
204.40
24.53
26.57
204.40
122.64
114.46
380.18
2,452.80
4,088.00
to 10.0 at all times.
845
-------
Table IX-7 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil St Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
5,395.20
7,081.20
32,034.00
4,889.40
2,529.00
23,772.60
20,232.00
22,423.80
76,713.00
337,200.00
691,260.00
pH Within the range of 7.5
2,529.00
2,866.20
16,860.00
2,023.20
2,191.80
16,860.00
10,116.00
9,441.60
31,359.60
202,320.00
337,200,00
to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil St Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
5,510.40
7,232.40
32,718.00
4,993.80
2,583.00
24,280.20
20,664.00
22,902.60
78,351.00
344,400.00
706,020.00
pH Within the range of 7.5
2,583.00
2,927.40
17,220.00
2,066.40
2,238.60
17,220.00
10,332.00
9,643.20
32,029.20
206,640.00
344,400.00
to 10.0 at all times.
846
-------
00
-p-
Operation
Core
Table IX-8
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Extrusion
Annealing
Stationary casting
Homogenizing
Artificial aging
Degreasing
Sawing
Miscellaneous nonde-
script wastewater
sources
Ancillary
Direct chill casting
Solution and press heat
treatment
Cleaning or etching
Waste Stream
Die cleaning bath
and rinse
Die cleaning
scrubber liquor
Dummy block cooling
None
None
None
None
Spent solvent
Spent lubricant
Various
Total Core
Degassing
Contact cooling
water
Contact cooling
water
Bath
Rinse
Scrubber liquor
Scrubber liquor
Normalized BPT
Discharge
40.40
275.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.807
(9.690)
(66.08)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1.153
323.7
1,999
7,705
204.4
16,860
17,220
29.19
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of aluminum
extruded
Mass of aluminum
extruded
(1.153) Mass of aluminum
extruded
(0.720) Mass of aluminum
extruded
(77.64)
(479.4)
(1,848)
(49.02)
(4,044)
(4,130)
(70)
Mass of aluminum cast
by direct chill
method
Mass of aluminum
quenched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
degassed
-------
Table IX-9
CONCENTRATION RANGE OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR
BPT REGULATION IN CORE AND ANCILLARY WASTE STREAMS -
EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
00
-^
00
Cadmium
(rng/1)
0.005
< 0.0005
< 0.0002
< 0.0005
<0.0005
0.005
< 0.0005
- 3.000
- 0.200
—
- 0.180
- 0.020
- 0.012
- 3.000
- 0.200
.--
Total Chromium
(mR/1)
0.020
0.007
<0.001
<0.001
0.002
0.020
0.007
- 10.00
- 280
—
- 1
- 1.6
- 72
- 10.00
- 280
___
Copper Total Cyanide
<5.00
0.0011
0
ND
0.004
0.001
<5.00
0.0011
0
- 20 <0.001 - 0.408
- 480 0.00002 - 0.042
.01
- 7.40 0.016 - 2.5
- 0.030
- 0.38 <0.001 - 530
- 20 <0.001 - 0.408
- 480 0.00002 - 0.042
.01
Lead
jng/1)
.400
0.01
<0.002
0.002
ND
0.400
0.01
- 90.0
- 11
™
- 56.90
- 0.100
- 17
- 90.0
- 11
___
Nickel
l?g/U
0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.001
<0.001
- <3.000
- 160
---
- 0.214
- 0.020
- 0.040
- O.OOO
- 160
---
Waste Stream
Extrusion Die Cleaning
BathA
Extrusion Die Cleaning
Rinse8
Extrusion Die Cleaning
Scrubber Liquor^
Sawing Spent Lubricants"
Direct Chill Casting
Contact Cooling
Solution and Press Heat
Treatment Contact Cooling
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Cleaning or Etching
Scrubber Liquor
Degassing Scrubber Liquor 0.0008 - 0.011 0.014 - 0.09
0.017 - 0.25
0.019 - 0.45
<0.001 - 0.023
ND - Not Detected
stream was assumed to be similar to the Cleaning or Etching Bath.
stream was assumed to be similar to the Cleaning or Etching Rinse.
stream was assumed to be similar to the Cleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor,
stream was assumed to be similar to the Rolling With Emulsions Spent Emulsions.
-------
Table IX-9 (Continued)
CONCENTRATION RANGE OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR
BPT REGULATION IN CORE AND ANCILLARY WASTE STREAMS -
EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Waste Stream
Extrusion Die Cleaning
Bath4
Extrusion Die Cleaning
Rinse8
Extrusion Die Cleaning
Scrubber Liquor^
Sawing Spent Lubricants^
Direct Chill Casting
Contact Cooling
Solution and Press Heat
Treatment Contact Cooling
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Cleaning or Etching
Zinc
0.500 - OO.OO
<0.01
<0.005
<0.010
<0.010
0.500
<0.01
- 410
- 5
- 1.0
- 5.2
- OO.OO
- 410
___
Aluminum
(mg/1)
30 -
<0.01 -
5.1
20 -
<0.050 -
<0.100 -
30 -
<0.01 -
5.1
70,000
1,300
350
2
9
70,000
1,300
Oil and Grease
(niR/D
7 -
2 -
13
1,277 -
<5 -
1.5 -
7 -
2 -
13
100
146
802,000
236
370
100
146
TSS
(mg/1)
9 - 348
<1 - 3,640
12
0.540 - 3,910
<1 - 220
<1 - 240
9 - 348
<1 - 3,640
12
.5
2.1
6.9
6
7
.5
2.1
pH
(units)
- 11.4
- 11.8
8.1
- 7.1
- 8.4
- 9.6
- 11.4
- 11.8
8.1
Scrubber Liquor
Degassing Scrubber Liquor
0.13 - 1.3
<0. 5 - 10
<5
<2 - 102
7.2 - 7.8
ND - Not Detected
AThis stream was assumed to be similar to the Cleaning or Etching Bath.
BThis stream was assumed to be similar to the Cleaning.or Etching Rinse.
cThis stream was assumed to be similar to the Cleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor.
stream was assumed to be similar to the Rolling With Emulsions Spent Emulsions
-------
Chemical Addition
00
Ln
O
Emulsion
Breaking
DIure^ct_ChilJ_Cas_ting_ J, Cooling
Contact Cooling Water^ Tower
Oil and Grease
Chemical Addition
Chemical Addition Chemical Addition
Cyanide
Precipitation
Cleaning or ^
Etching Rinse
Die Cleaning
Bath and Rinse
Extrusion Press Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling Water
Extrusion Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling Water
Degassing Scrubber
Miscellaneous Wastewater
Clean ing, __or_ Etc h In g Sc r ubb_er_L i qu o r
Die Cleaning Scruhber Liquor
Press Scrubber Liouor
Figure IX-3
BPT TREATMENT TRAIN FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
-------
Table IX-10
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Extrusion - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum extruded
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum 1
Oil & Grease 6
Total Suspended 13
Solids
pH Within
103.58
135.95
615.03
93.87
48.56
456.42
388.44
430.52
,472.84
,474.00
,271.70
the range
48.55
55.03
323.70
38.84
42.08
323.70
194.22
181.27
602.08
3,884.40
6,474.00
of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times.
Direct Chill Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
639.68
839.58
3,798.10
579.71
299.85
2,818.59
2,398.80
2,658.67
9,095.45
39,980.00
81,959.00
pH Within the range of 7.5
Maximum for
Monthly Average
direct chill methods
299.85
339.83
1,999.00
239.88
259.87
1,999.00
1,199.40
1,119.44
3,718.14
23,988.00
39,980.00
to 10.0 at all times.
851
-------
Table IX-10 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Solution and Press Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
2,465.60
3,236.10
14,639.50
2,234.45
1,155.75
10,864.05
9,246.00
10,247.65
35,057.75
154,100.00
315,905.00
pH Within the range of 7.5
1,155.75
1,309.85
7,705.00
924.60
1,001.65
7,705.00
4,623.00
4,314.80
14,331.30
92,460.00
154,100.00
to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
mg/kkg (Ib/billion
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
Ibs) of aluminum
65.41
85.85
388.36
59.28
30.66
288.20
245.28
271.85
930.02
4,088.00
8,380.40
pH Within the range of 7.
Maximum for
Monthly Average
cleaned or etched
30.66
34.75
204.40
24.53
26.57
204.40
122.64
114.46
380.18
2,452.80
4,088.00
5 to 10.0 at all times.
852
-------
Table IX-10 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper
121 Cyanide
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Oil St Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
El
5,395.20
7,081.20
32,034.00
4,889.40
2,529.00
23,772.60
20,232.00
22,423.80
76,713.00
337,200.00
691,260.00
2,529.00
2,866.20
16,860.00
2,023.20
2,191.80
16,860.00
10,116.00
9,441.60
31,359.60
202,320.00
337,200.00
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil Sc Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
5,510.40
7,232.40
32,718.00
4,993.80
2,583.00
24,280.20 .
20,664.00
22,902.60
78,351.00
344,400.00
706,020.00
pH Within the range of 7.5
2,583.00
2,927.40
17,220.00
2,066.40
2,238.60
17,220.00
10,332.00
9,643.20
32,029.20
206,640.00
344,400.00
to 10.0 at all times.
853
-------
Table IX-10 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Degassing - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum degassed
118 Cadmium 9.34 4.38
119 Chromium 12.26 4.96
120 Copper 55.46 29.19
121 Cyanide 8.47 3.50
122 Lead 4.38 3.79
124 Nickel 41.16 29.19
125 Selenium 35.03 17.51
128 Zinc 38.82 16.35
Aluminum 132.81 54.29
Oil & Grease 583.80 350.28
Total Suspended 1,196.79 583.80
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
854
-------
Table IX-11
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - FORGING SUBCATEGORY
CO
Ui
Operation
Core
Forging
Annealing
Artificial aging
Degreasing
Sawing
Miscellaneous nonde-
script wastewater
sources
Ancillary
Forging
Solution heat treatment
Cleaning or etching
Waste Stream
None
None
None
Spent solvent
Spent lubricant
Various
Total Core
Normalized BPT
Discharge
0
0
0
0
4.807
7.807
Scrubber liquor 1,547
Contact cooling 7,705
water
Bath 204.4
Rinse 16,860
Scrubber liquor 17,220
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1.153)
(0.720)
(1.873)
(371.0)
(1,848)
(49.02)
(4,044)
(4,130)
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of aluminum forged
Mass of aluminum forged
Mass of aluminum forged
Mass of aluminum
quenched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
-------
Table IX-12
CONCENTRATION RANGE OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR
BPT REGULATION IN CORE AND ANCILLARY WASTE STREAMS -
FORGING SUBCATEGORY
oo
Ui
Waste Stream
Sawing Spent Lubricants*
Forging Scrubber Liquor
Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Cleaning or Etching
Scrubber Liquor
Cadmium
jmg/1)
<0.0005 - 0.012
0.005 - 3.000
<0.0005 - 0.200
Total Chromium
(an/I)
Copper
<0.0002 - 0.180 <0.001 - 1
0.002 - 72
0.020 - 10.00
0.007 - 280
Total Cyanide
Nickel
ND - 7.40 0.016 - 2.5
0.010
0.001 - 0.38 <0.001 - 530
<5.00 - 20 <0.001 - 0.408
0.0011 - 480 0.00002 - 0.042
0.01
<0.002 - 56.90 <0.001 - 0.214
2.000
ND - 17 <0.001 - 0.040
0.400 - 90.0 0.001 - <3.000
0.01 - 11 <0.001 - 160
ND -Not Detected.
AThis stream was assumed to be similar to Rolling with Emulsions Spent Emulsions
-------
Table IX-12 (Continued)
CONCENTRATION RANGE OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR
BPT REGULATION IN CORE AND ANCILLARY WASTE STREAMS
FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Zinc
OO
U1
-J
Waste Stream
Sawing Spent Lubricants^
Forging Scrubber Liquor
Solution Heat Treatmen.t
Contact Cooling
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Cleaning or Etching
fa
<0.005
-------
Chemical Addition
00
Ln
00
Sawing Spent Lubricants .
Emu 1 s Ion
Breaking
1*1
Oil
Skimming
Removal of
Oil and Grease
Cleaning or
Etching ""
Etching Rinse
Chemical Addition Chemical Addition
^.p_I' Heat Trea_tment
Contact Cooling Water
Forging Sc.rubber Liquor
Miscellaneous Wastewater
1 g or Etrliing Scrubber I.iquor
Figure IX-4
BPT TREATMENT TRAIN FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
-------
Table IX-13
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Forging - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum forged
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil &t Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
2.50
3.28
14.83
2.26
1.17
11.01
9.37
10.38
35.52
156.14
320.09
1.17
1.33
7.81
0.94
1.01
7.81
4.68
4.37
14.52
93.68
156.14
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Forging - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum forged
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil Sc Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
495.04
649.74
2,939.30
448.63
232.05
2,181.27
1,856.40
2,057.51
7,038.85
30,940.00
63,427.00
pH Within the range of 7.5
232.05
262.99
1,547.00
185.64
201.11
1,547.00
928.20
866.32
2,877.42
18,564.00
30,940.00
to 10.0 at all times.
859
-------
Table IX-13 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
118 Cadmium 2,465.60 1,155.75
119 Chromium 3,236.10 1,309.85
120 Copper 14,639.50 7,705.00
121 Cyanide 2,234.45 924.60
122 Lead 1,155.75 1,001.65
124 Nickel 10,864.05 7,705.00
125 Selenium 9,246.00 4,623.00
128 Zinc 10,247.65 4,314.80
Aluminum 35,057.75 14,331.30
Oil & Grease 154,100.00 92,460.00
Total Suspended 315,905.00 154,100.00
Solids
gH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease 4
Total Suspended 8
Solids
pH Within
65.41
85.85
388.36
59.28
30.66
288.20
245.28
271.85
930.02
,088.00
,380.40
the range of 7.5
30.66
34.75
204.40
24.53
26.57
204.40
122.64
114.46
380.18
2,452.80
4,088.00
to 10.0 at all times.
860
-------
Table IX-13 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/blllion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil St Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
PH
5,395.20
7,081.20
32,034.00
4,889.40
2,529.00
23,772.60
20,232.00
22,423.80
76,713.00
337,200.00
691,260.00
Within the range of 7.5
2,529.00
2,866.20
16,860.00
2,023.20
2,191.80
16,860.00
10,116.00
9,441.60
31,359.60
202,320.00
337,200.00
to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil Sc Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
5,510.40
7,232.40
32,718.00
4,993.80
2,583.00
24,280.20
20,664.00
22,902.60
78,351.00
344,400.00
706,020.00
pH Within the range of 7.5
2,583.00
2,927.40
17,220.00
2,066.40
2,238.60
17,220.00
10,332.00
9,643.20
32,029.20
206,640.00
344,400.00
to 10.0 at all times.
861
-------
Table IX-14
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
00
CTi
NJ
Operation
Core
Drawing with neat oils
Annealing
Stationary casting
Homogenizing
Artificial aging
Degreasing
Sawing
Swaging
Miscellaneous nonde-
script wastewater
sources
Ancillary
Continous rod casting
Solution heat treatment
Cleaning or etching
Waste Stream
Spent oils
None
None
None
None
Spent solvent
Spent lubricant
None
Various
Total Core
Contact cooling
water
Spent lubricant
Contact cooling
water
Bath
Rinse
Normalized BPT
Discharge
1/kkg (gpt)
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.807
7.807
1,042
1.843
7,705
204.4
16,860
Scrubber liquor 17,220
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1.153)
(0)
(0.720)
(1.873)
(249.9)
(0.442)
(1,848)
(49.02)
(4,044)
(4,130)
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of aluminum drawn
with neat oils
Mass of aluminum drawn
with neat oils
Mass of rod cast by
continuous method
Mass of rod cast by
cont tnuous method
Mass of aluminum
quenched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
-------
Table IX-15
CONCENTRATION RANGE OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR
BPT REGULATION IN CORE AND ANCILLARY WASTE STREAMS -
DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Oo
C*
Co
Wqsitejitrgaip
Sawing Spent Lubricants*
Continuous Rod Casting
Contact Cooling2
Continuous Rod Casting
Spent Lubricants*
Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Cleaning or Etching
Scrubber Liquor
Cadmium
(mg/1)
<0.0002 - 0.180
<0.0005 - 0.020
<0.0002 - 0.180
<0.001 - 0.012
0.005 - 3.000
<0.0005 - 0.200
Total Chromium
(mg/l)
<0. 001
<0. 001
<0.001
0.002
0.020
0.007
- 1
- 1.6
- 1
- 72
- 10.00
- 280
___
Copper
(*g/D
ND
0.004
ND •
0.001
<5.00
0.0011
0
- 7.40
- 0.030
- 7.40
- 0.38
- 20
- 480
.01
Total Cyanide
(n.R/1)
0.016
0.016
<0.001
<0.001
0. 00002
-2.5
- 2.5
- 530
- 0.408
- 0.042
Lead
(mg/D
<0. 002
0.002
<0. 002
ND
0.400
0.01
- 56.90
- 0.100
- 56.90
- 17
- 90.0
- 11
Nickel
(mg/1)
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.001
<0.001
- 0.214
- 0-020
- 0.214
- 0.040
- <3-000
- 160
ND * Not Detected.
*These streams were assumed to be similar to Rolling with Emulsions Spent Emulsions.
BThis stream was assumed to be similar to Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling.
-------
Table IX-15 (Continued)
CONCENTRATION RANGE OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR
BPT REGULATION IN CORE AND ANCILLARY WASTE STREAMS
DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
00
ON
Waste Stream
Sawing Spent Lubricants*
Continuous Rod Casting
Contact Cooling"
Continuous Rod Casting
Spent Lubricants"
Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Cleaning or Etching
Zinc
<0.005 - 5
<0.010 -
<0.005 -
-------
Cheaical Addition
00
ON
Ln
Sawing Spent Lubricants
Continuous Rod Casting
Emulsion
Breaking
Spent Lubricants
Oil and Grease
Chemical Addition
Chemical. Addition Chemical Addition
Chemical
Precipitation
Sedimentation
Cyanide
Precipitation'
Etching Rinse
Removal of
Oil and
Grease
Drawing Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling Water
Sludge to
Disposal
Continuous Rod Casting
Contact Cooling Water
Sludge
Dewatering
Miscellaneous Wastewater
Chemical Addition
Cl_eanitig_or Etching Scrubber Liquor
Figure IX-5
BPT TREATMENT TRAIN FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
-------
Table IX-16
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Drawing With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
mg /kkg ( Ib /b i 1 1 ion
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil St Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
Maximum for
Any One Day
Ibs) of aluminum drawn
2.50
3.28
14.83
2.26
1.17
11.01
9.37
10.38
35.52
156.14
320.09
pH Within the range of 7.5 to
Maximum for
Monthly Average
with neat oils
1.17
1.33
7.81
0.94
1.01
7.81
4.68
4.37
14.52
93.68
156.14
10.0 at all times.
Continuous Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
333.44
437.64
1,979.80
302.18
156.30
1,469.22
1,250.40
1,385.86
4,741.10
20,840.00
42,722.00
pH Within the range of 7.5
156.30
177.14
1,042.00
125.04
135.46
1,042.00
625.20
583.52
1,938.12
12,504.00
20,840.00
to 10.0 at all times.
866
-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper
121 Cyanide
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
PH
0.59
0.77
3.50
0.53
0.28
2.60
2.21
2.45
8.39
36.86
75.56
0.28
0.31
1.84
0.22
0.24
1.84
1.11
1.03
3.43
22.12
36.86
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
2,465.60
3,236.10
14,639.50
2,234.45
1,155.75
10,864.05
9,246.00
10,247.65
35,057.75
154,100.00
315,905.00
pH Within the range
1,155.75
1,309.85
7,705.00
924.60
1,001.65
7,705.00
4,623.00
4,314.80
14,331.30
92,460.00
154,100.00
of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times.
867
I
-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
mg/kkg (Ib/billion
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
Ibs) of aluminum
65.41
85.85
388.36
59.28
30.66
288.20
245.28
271.85
930.02
4,088.00
8,380.40
pH Within the range of 7.
Maximum for
Monthly Average
cleaned or etched
30.66
34.75
204.40
24.53
26.57
204.40
122.64
114.46
380.18
2,452.80
4,088.00
5 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil St Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
5,395.20
7,081.20
32,034.00
4,889.40
2,529.00
23,772.60
20,232.00
22,423.80
76,713.00
337,200.00
691,260.00
pH Within the range of 7.5
2,529.00
2,866.20
16,860.00
2,023.20
2,191.80
16,860.00
10,116.00
9,441.60
31,359.60
202,320.00
337,200.00
to 10.0 at all times.
868
-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 5,510.40 2,583.00
119 Chromium 7,232.40 2,927.40
120 Copper 32,718.00 17,220.00
121 Cyanide 4,993.80 2,066.40
122 Lead 2,583.00 2,238.60
124 Nickel 24,280.20 17,220.00
125 Selenium 20,664.00 10,332.00
128 Zinc 22,902.60 9,643.20
Aluminum 78,351.00 32,029.20
Oil & Grease 344,400.00 206,640.00
Total Suspended 706,020.00 344,400.00
Solids
p_H Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
869
-------
Table IX-17
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
00
^J
o
Operation
Core
Drawing with emulsions
or soaps
Annealing
Stationary casting
Homogenizing
Artificial aging
Degreasing
Sawing
Swaging
Miscellaneous nonde-
script wastewater
sources
Ancillary
Continuous rod casting
Solution heat treatment
Cleaning or etching
Waste Stream
None
None
None
None
Spent solvent
Spent lubricant
None
Various
Total Core
Contact cooling
water
Spent lubricant
Contact cooling
water
Bath
Rinse
Scrubber liquor
Normalized BPT
Discharge
Spent lubricants 416.5
0
0
0
0
0
4.807
424.3
1,042
1.843
7,705
204.4
16,860
17,220
(99.89)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1.153)
(0)
(0.720)
(101.8)
(249.9)
(0.442)
(1,848)
(49.02)
(4,044)
(4,130)
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of aluminum drawn
with emulsions or
soaps
Mass of aluminum drawn
with emulsions or
soaps
Mass of aluminum drawn
with emulsions or
soaps
Mass of rod cast by
cont inuous method s
Mass of rod cast by
cont inuous method s
Mass of aluminum
quenched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
-------
Table IX-18
COMPARISON OF WASTEWATER DISCHARGE RATES
FROM DRAWING EMULSION AND SOAP STREAMS
Order of
Plant Wastewater Increasing Lubricant
Number (gal/ ton) (1/kkg) Production Type
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0
0.
2.
6.
62.
260.
267.
257,100
*
*
*
*
0
8100 3.377
810 11.72
279 26.18
50 260.6
0 1,084
0 1,113
1,072,000
*
*
*
*
8
10
6
9
3
2
5
1
4
*
*
7
Emulsion
Emulsion
Emulsion
Emulsion
Emulsion
Soap
Emulsion
Soap
Emulsion
Emulsion
Emulsion
Soap and
Emulsion
Product
Type
Tube
Wire
Wire
Wire
Wire
Wire
Wire
Wire
Wire
Wire
Wire
Wire
13
Soap
Wire
*Sufficient data not available to calculate these values
871
-------
Table IX-19
CONCENTRATION RANGE OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR
BPT REGULATION IN CORE AND ANCILLARY WASTE STREAMS -
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
00
Waste Stream
Drawing Spent Emulsions
or Soaps*
Sawing Spent Lubricants*
Continuous Rod Casting
Contact Cooling8
Continuous Rod Casting
Spent Lubricants*
Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Cleaning or Etching
Scrubber Liquor
Cadmium
(mg/1)
Total Chromium
(mg/1)
<0.0002 - 0.180 <0.001 - 1
<0.0002 - 0.180
<0.0005 - 0.020
<0.0002 - 0.180
<0.0005 - 0.012
0.005 - 3.000
<0.0005 - 0.200
<0.001 - 1
-------
Table IX-19 (Continued)
CONCENTRATION RANGE OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR
BPT REGULATION IN CORE AND ANCILLARY WASTE STREAMS
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Waste Stream
Drawing Spent Emulsions
or Soaps*
Sawing Spent Lubricants*
Continuous Rod Casting
Contact Cooling8
oo Continuous Rod Casting
^ Spent Lubricants*
Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Cleaning or Etching
Zinc
(mg/1)
<0.005 - 5
<0.005
<0.010
<0.005
<0.010
0.500
<0.01
-
- 5
- 1.0
- 5
-5.2
- <30.00
- 410
.,
Aluminum
(mg/1)
20 -
20 -
<0.050 -
20 -
<0.1 -
30 -
<0.01 -
5.1
350
350
2
350
9
70,000
1,300
Oil and Grease
(mg/1)
1,277 -
1,277 -
<5 -
1,277 -
1.5 -
7 -
2 -
13
802,000
802,000
236
802,000
370
100
146
TSS
(mg/1)
0.540 - 3,910
0.540 - 3,910
<1 - 220
0.540 - 3,910
<1 - 240
9 - 348
<1 - 3,640
12
PH
(units)
6.9 - 7.1
6.9 -
6 -
6.9 -
7 -
5 -
2.1 -
8.1
7.1
8.4
7.1
9.6
11.4
11.8
Scrubber Liquor
ND - Not Detected.
"These streams were assumed to be similar to Rolling with Emulsions Spent Emulsions.
BThis stream was assumed to be similar to Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling.
-------
Chemical Addition
Sawinj> Spent _T,uhricants
-.. -^ , . ,_.^
. ._._
Spent i.uhricnnts
Drawing Spent Emulsions
Emulsion
Breaking
Oil
Skimming
Remove
/al of
Oil and Grease
00
Chemical Addition Chemical Addition
Chemical Addition
_Ciean tug or
Etching Rinse
Drawing Sglution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling Water
Continuous Rod Casting
Contact Cooling Water
Miscellaneous Wastewater
fiA.^O^XXA
Oil
Skimming
j
I
Removal of
Grease
^.A^AlA/'v^A^-^
Chemical
Precipitation
O«
^V^vxv^ *->^
Sedimentation
Recycle
Sludge
Sludge
pewaterlng
Chemical Addition
CleanIng or Etching Scrubber Ljquor .
PM
Adjustment
Sludge to
Disposal
Figure IX-6
BPT TREATMENT TRAIN FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
-------
Table IX-20
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS
OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Drawing With Emulsions or Soaps - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
(Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum drawn with emulsions or soaps
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
135.78
178.21
806.17
123.05
63.65
598.26
509.16
564.32
1,930.57
8,486.00
17,396.30
pH Within the range of 7.5
63.65
72.13
424.30
50.92
55.16
424.30
254.58
237.61
789.20
5,091.60
8,486.00
to 10.0 at all times.
Continuous Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil Si Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
PH
333.44
437.64
1,979.80
302.18
156.30
1,469.22
1,250.40
1,385.86
4,741.10
20,840.00
42,722.00
Within the range of 7.5
156.30
177.14
1,042.00
125.04
135.46
1,042.00
625.20
583.52
1,938.12
12,504.00
20,840.00
to 10.0 at all times.
875
-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS
OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil Sc Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
pH Within
0.59
0.77
3.50
0.53
0.28
2.60
2.21
2.45
8.39
36.86
75.56
the range of 7.5
0.28
0.31
1.84
0.22
0.24
1.84
1.11
1.03
3.43
22.12
36.86
to 10.0 at all times.
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
pH
2,465.60
3,236.10
14,639.50
2,234.45
1,155.75
10,864.05
9,246.00
10,247.65
35,057.75
154,100.00
315,905.00
Within the range of 7.5
1,155.75
1,309.85
7,705.00
924.60
1,001.65
7,705.00
4,623.00
4,314.80
14,331.30
92,460.00
154,100.00
to 10.0 at all times.
876
-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS
OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
m%/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil Sc Grease 4
Total Suspended 8
Solids
pH Within
65.41
85.85
388.36
59.28
30.66
288.20
245.28
271.85
930.02
,088.00
,380.40
the range of 7 . 5
30.66
34.75
204.40
24.53
26.57
204.40
122.64
114.46
380.18
2,452.80
4,088.00
to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
(Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
pH
5,395.20
7,081.20
32,034.00
4,889.40
2,529.00
23,772.60
20,232.00
22,423.80
76,713.00
337,200.00
691,260.00
Within the range of 7.5
2,529.00
2,866.20
16,860.00
2,023.20
2,191.80
16,860.00
10,116.00
9,441.60
31, 359. .60
202,320.00
337,200.00
to 10.0 at all times.
877
-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS
OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil Sc Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
5,510.40
7,232.40
32,718.00
4,993.80
2,583.00
24,280.20
20,664.00
22,902.60
78,351.00
344,400.00
706,020.00
pH Within the range
2,583.00
2,927.40
17,220.00
2,066.40
2,238.60
17,220.00
10,332.00
9,643.20
32,029.20
206,640.00
344,400.00
of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times.
878
-------
Table IX-21
ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE CALCULATIONS FOR PLANT X IN EXAMPLE 1
00
Waste Stream
Average
Daily
Production
(kkg/day)
BPT
Regulatory
One-Day
Maximum
TSS Discharge
(mg/kkg)*
BPT BPT
Regulatory Allowable
10-Day One-Day
Average Maximum
TSS Discharge TSS Discharge
(mg/kkg)* (mg/day)
Total
BPT
Allowable
10-Day
Average
TSS Discharge
(mg/day)
Extrusion Core
Direct Chill Casting
Contact Cooling Water
Degassing Scrubber Liquor
Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling Water
Etch Line Bath
Etch Line Rinse
200
200
200
140
100
100
13,271.70
81,959.00
1,196.79
315,905.00
8,380.40
691,260.00
6,474.00
39,980.00
583.80
154,100.00
4,088.00
337,200.00
2,654,340
16,391,800
239,360
44,226,700
838,040
69,126,000
1,294,800
7,996,000
116,760
21,574,000
408,800
33,720,000
133,476,240** 65,110,360**
or 133.5 kg/day or 65.1 kg/day
*These values are taken from Table IX-10.
**Allowable discharge concentrations (mg/1) can be calculated by dividing these values by the
plant's daily process water discharge (gal).
-------
Table IX-22
ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE CALCULATIONS FOR PLANT Y IN EXAMPLE 2
Waste Stream
Rolling with Emulsions
Core
Drawing with Emulsions
or Soaps Core
Direct Chill Casting
Contact Cooling Water
CO
CO
0 Continuous Rod Casting
Contact Cooling Water
Continuous Rod Casting
Spent Lubricant
Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling Water
Etch Line Bath
Etch Line Rinse
Average
Daily
Production
(kkg/day)
66.6
6.7
33.3
6.7
6.7
23.3
20.6
20.6
BPT
Regulatory
One-Day
Maximum
Zn Discharge
(mg/kkg)*
121.15
564.32
2,658.67
1,385.86
2.45
10,247.65
271.85
22,423.80
BPT
Regulatory
10-Day
Average
Zn Discharge
(mg/kkg)*
51.01
237.61
1,119.44
583.52
1.03
4,314.80
114.46
9,441.60
BPT
Allowable
One-Day
Maximum
Zn Discharge
(rag /day)
8,070
3,780
88,530
9,290
20
238,770
5,600
461,930
BPT
Allowable
10-Day
Average
Zn Discharge
(mg/day)
3,400
1,590
37,280
3,910
10
100,530
2,360
194,500
Total
*These values are taken from Table IX-7 and Table IX-20.
815,990** 343,580**
or 0.8 kg/day or 0.3 kg/day
**Allowable discharge concentrations (mg/1) can be calculated by dividing these values by the
plant's daily process water discharge (gal).
-------
SECTION X
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
The effluent limitations which must be achieved by July 1, 1984
are based on the best control and treatment technology employed
by a specific point source within the industrial category or sub-
category, or by another industry where it is readily transfer-
able. Emphasis is placed on additional treatment techniques
applied at the end of the treatment systems currently employed
for BPT, as well as improvements in reagent control, process con-
trol, and treatment technology optimization.
The factors considered in assessing best available technology
economically achievable (BAT) include the age of equipment and
facilities involved, the process employed, process changes, non-
water quality environmental impacts (including energy require-
ments), and the costs of application of such technology. BAT
technology represents the best existing economically achievable
performance of plants of various ages, sizes, processes, or other
characteristics. Those categories whose existing performance is
uniformly inadequate may require a transfer of BAT from a differ-
ent subcategory or category. BAT may include process changes or
internal controls, even when these are not common industry
practice. This level of technology also considers those plant
processes and control and treatment technologies which at pilot
plant and other levels have demonstrated both technological per-
formance and economic viability at a level sufficient to justify
investigation.
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO BAT
In pursuing this second round of effluent regulations, the Agency
reviewed a wide range of technology options and evaluated the
available possibilities to ensure that the most effective and
beneficial technologies were used as the basis of BAT. To accom-
plish this, the Agency elected to examine at least three signifi-
cant technology alternatives which could be applied to aluminum
forming as BAT options and which would represent substantial
progress toward prevention of polluting the environment above and
beyond progress achievable by BPT. The statutory assessment of
BAT considers costs, but does not require a balancing of costs
against effluent reduction benefits [see Weyerhaeuser v. Costle,
11 ERG 2149 (D.C. Cir. 1978)]; however, in assessing the proposed
BAT, the Agency has given substantial weight to the reasonable-
ness of costs.
Under these guidelines, six levels of BAT were evaluated for the
category. Option 1 is BPT treatment. Option 2 is BPT treatment
881
-------
plus flow reduction and in-plant controls. Options 3, 4, 5, and
6 provide additional levels of treatment. Options 1, 2, 3, 4,
and 5 technologies are, in general, equally applicable to all the
subcategories of the aluminum forming category, while Option 6 is
applicable to one subcategory (forging). Each treatment produces
similar concentrations of pollutants in the the effluent from all
subcategories. Mass limitations derived from these options may
vary; however, because of the impact of different production
normalized wastewater discharge flows.
Options 1, 2, and 3 are based on the chemical emulsion breaking
technology from the BPT technology train, whereas Options 4, 5,
and 6 are based on thermal emulsion breaking.
In summary form, the treatment technologies considered for alumi-
num forming are:
Option 1 (Figure X-l) is based on:
Oil skimming,
Lime and settle (chemical precipitation of metals
followed by sedimentation), and
pH adjustment; and, where required,
Cyanide removal,
Hexavalent chromium reduction, and
Chemical emulsion breaking.
(This option is equivalent to the technology on which
BPT is based.)
Option 2 (Figure X-2) is based on:
Option 1, plus process wastewater flow reduction by
the following methods:
Heat treatment contact cooling water recycle through
cooling towers.
Continuous rod casting contact cooling water
recycle.
Air pollution control scrubber liquor recycle.
Hauling or regeneration of spent cleaning or
etching baths.
882
-------
Counter-current cascade rinsing or other water effi-
cient methods applied to cleaning or etching and
extrusion die cleaning rinses.
Alternative fluxing or in-line refining methods,
neither of which require wet air pollution control,
for degassing aluminum melts.
Option 3 (Figure X-3) is based on:
Option 2, plus multimedia filtration at the end
of the Option 2 treatment train.
Option 4 (Figure X-4) is based on:
Option 1 plus process wastewater flow reduction by the
following methods:
Thermal emulsion breaking or contractor hauling for
concentrated emuls ions.
Heat treatment contact cooling water recycle through
cooling towers.
Continuous rod casting contact cooling water
recycle.
Air pollution control scrubber liquor recycle.
Hauling or regeneration of spent cleaning or etching
baths.
Countercurrent cascade rinsing or other water effi-
cient methods applied to cleaning or etching and
extrusion die cleaning rinses.
Alternative fluxing or in-line refining methods,
which do not require wet air pollution control, for
degassing aluminum melts.
* Option 5 (Figure X-5) is based on:
Option 4, plus multimedia filtration at the end of
the Option 4 treatment train.
Option 6 (Figure X-6) is based on:
Option 5, plus granular activated carbon treatment
as a preliminary treatment step to remove toxic
organics.
OPTION 1
Option 1 represents the BPT end-of-pipe treatment technology.
This treatment train consists of preliminary treatment when
necessary of emulsion breaking and skimming, hexavalent chromium
reduction, and cyanide removal. The effluent from preliminary
treatment is combined with other wastewaters for central treat-
ment by skimming and lime and settle.
883
-------
OPTION 2
Option 2 builds upon the BPT end-of-pipe treatment technologies
of skimming, lime and settle with preliminary treatment to reduce
chromium, remove cyanide and break emulsions. Flow reduction
measures, based on in-process changes, are the mechanisms for
reducing pollutant discharges at Option 2. Flow reduction
measures eliminate some wastewater streams and concentrate the
pollutants in others. Treatment of a more concentrated stream
allows a greater net removal of pollutants and economies of
treating a reduced flow. Methods for reducing process wastewater
generation or discharge include:
Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water Recycle Through Cooling
Towers. The cooling and recycle of heat treatment contact cool-
ing water is practiced by 15 plants. The function of heat treat-
ment contact cooling water is to remove heat quickly from the
aluminum. Therefore, the principal requirements of the water are
that it be cool and not contain dissolved solids at a level that
would cause water marks or other surface imperfections. There is
sufficient industry experience to assure the success of this
technology using cooling towers or heat exchangers. Although
four plants have reported that they do not discharge any quench
water by reason of continued recycle, some blowdown or periodic
cleaning is likely to be needed to prevent a buildup of dissolved
and suspended solids.
Scrubber Liquor Recycle. The recycle of scrubber liquor from
cleaning or etching process baths is practiced by two plants, on
forging scrubbers at two plants, and by one plant for its anneal-
ing scrubber. The scrubber water picks up particulates and fumes
from the air. Scrubbers have relatively low water quality
requirements for efficient operation, accordingly, recycle of
scrubber liquor is appropriate for aluminum forming operations.
A blowdown or periodic cleaning is necessary to prevent the
buildup of dissolved and suspended solids.
Zero Discharge of Cleaning or Etching Chemical Baths Through
Contract Hauling or Bath Regeneration. The Agency has selected
contract hauling as the basis for achieving zero discharge from
cleaning or etching chemical baths; however, as discussed in
Section VII (p. 683), there are technical advantages to regen-
erating these baths and as discussed in Section VIII (p. 773 ),
chemical bath regeneration is likely to be a lower cost option
than contract hauling and in many instances the value of the
regenerated material will offset the cost of regenerative
treatment.
884
-------
Fifteen aluminum forming plants achieve zero discharge through
chemical bath regeneration. These plants achieve this by peri-
odically supplementing the caustic and acid baths. 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 in
Section VII (p. 683 ).
Countercurrent Cascade Rinsing Applied to Cleaning or Etching
and Die Cleaning Rinses. Countercurrent cascade rinsing is a
mechanism commonly encountered in electroplating and other metal
processing operations (Section VII, p. 679 ). The cleanest water
is used for final rinsing of an item, preceded by rinse stages
using water with progressively more contaminants to partially
rinse the item. Clean make-up water is added to the final rinse,
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 Countercurrent cascade rinsing process substantially improves
efficiencies of water use for rinsing. For example, the use of a
two-stage Countercurrent rinse can reduce water usage to approx-
imately one-tenth- of that needed for a single-stage rinse to
achieve the same level of product cleanliness. Similarly, a
three-stage Countercurrent rinse would reduce water usage to
approximately one-thirtieth. Countercurrent cascade rinsing is
practiced at two aluminum forming plants. In addition, although
not strictly Countercurrent rinsing, two plants reuse the rinse
water following one cleaning or etching bath for the rinse of a
preceding bath.
Alternative Fluxing Methods. There are a number of alternatives
available to replace systems requiring wet scrubbers for degas-
sing operations (melting furnace air pollution control). Among
the alternatives are fluxes not requiring wet air pollution con-
trol and in-line refining methods that eliminate the need for
fluxing. All aluminum forming plants but one have adopted the
alternative fluxing methods and thereby eliminated their
scrubbers.
OPTION 3
Option 3 builds upon the technical requirements of Option 2 by
adding conventional mixed-media filtration after the Option 2
technology train and the in-process flow reduction controls.
Option 3 differs from Option 5 only in the type of emulsion
treatment it is based on. Option 3 is based on.the chemical
emulsion breaking technology, which does not achieve zero
discharge.
885
-------
OPTION 4
Option 4 builds upon the technologies established for Option 2.
Thermal emulsion breaking is the principal mechanism for reducing
pollutant discharges at Option 4.
Thermal Emulsion Breaking or Contractor Hauling to Achieve Zero
Discharge of Concentrated Emulsions. The Agency has noted that
recycle or contractor hauling of several waste streams (e.g.,
continuous rod casting lubricant, rolling emulsions, roll grind-
ing emulsions, drawing emulsions, and saw oils) are common prac-
tices. Organics were found to be constituents of these wastes.
Contractor hauling eliminated potential wastewater discharges,
obviated the need for organics removal (granular activated
carbon), and was the most cost-effective approach for many
plants. It was, therefore, the method suggested and included in
the cost estimate for most of these waste streams.
Thermal emulsion breaking also eliminates any discharge from the
concentrated emulsion waste streams by concentrating the oil and
distilling the water. The water can then be reused in the
process. EPA is aware of one application of thermal emulsion
breaking in this category. In addition, it is being used at four
copper forming plants to treat their emulsified lubricants. The
processes performed and lubricants used in copper forming are
similar to those in aluminum forming, and as such the thermal
emulsion breaking technology is applicable to the aluminum
forming concentrated emulsion waste streams.
Thermal emulsion breaking does not eliminate contractor hauling
of spent lubricants, but it does reduce the volume of waste to be
disposed of, an important consideration in the face of the rising
disposal costs under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Two aluminum forming plants reported achieving zero discharge of
their emulsified wastes through treatment. One plant treats
their emulsion with chemical emulsion breaking, followed by
ultrafiltration, with the concentrate being recycled back through
chemical emulsion breaking, and the filtrate is clarified and
reused elsewhere in the plant. The second plant applies gravity
separation to their emulsions and skims the oil, which is further
processed and used as fuel. The water fraction, which still
contains 0.1 percent oil, is sprayed onto a field.
OPTION 5
Option 5 builds upon the technical requirements of Option 4 by
adding conventional mixed-media filtration. The filter suggested
is of the gravity, mixed-media type, although other filters, such
as rapid sand or pressure filters would perform equally well.
886
-------
OPTION 6
Option 6 builds upon the technical requirements of Option 5.
Option 6 complements the other technologies by applying granular
activated carbon (GAG) to waste streams for which toxic organics
were selected. By applying granular activated carbon as a
preliminary treatment step rather than end-of-pipe treatment for
waste streams where organics were found at significant levels,
treatment efficiency is improved, and total treatment costs are
reduced.
BAT OPTION SELECTION
A draft technical development document was circulated for limited
review by industry and environmental groups. As a result of com-
ments received, the Agency carefully considered various technol-
ogy options to determine their technological and economic feasi-
bility in light of their beneficial characteristics.
The Agency originally considered three options for BAT. They
represented a combination of in-process changes via flow reduc-
tion and alternate fluxing or in-line refining methods, two
add-on treatment technologies, granular media filtration and
granular activated carbon, and an oil recovery technology, ther-
mal emulsion breaking (Options 4, 5, and 6). EPA recognized that
rapidly escalating energy prices during the last decade resulted
in higher costs associated with technologies like thermal emul-
sion breaking. As a result, the Agency introduced two additional
options which utilized chemical emulsion breaking instead of
thermal emulsion breaking as lower cost alternatives (Options 2
and 3).
Industry Cost and Environmental Benefits of the Various Treatment
Options
As a means of evaluating the economic achievability of each of
these options, the Agency developed estimates of the compliance
costs and benefits. An estimate of capital and annual costs for
the six BAT options was prepared for each subcategory as an aid
in choosing the best BAT option. The cost estimates for the
total subcategory are presented in Table X-l. The cost estimates
for 49 of 58 direct dischargers only are presented in Table X-2.
All costs are based on January 1978 dollars.
The cost methodology has been described in detail in Section
VIII. For most treatment technologies, standard cost literature
sources were used for module capital and annual costs. Data from
several sources were combined to yield average or typical costs
as a function of flow or other characteristic design parameters.
In a small number of modules, the technical literature was
887
-------
reviewed to identify the key design criteria, which were then
used as a basis for vendor contacts. The resulting costs for
individual pieces of equipment were combined to yield module
costs. In either case, the cost data were coupled with flow data
from each plant to establish system costs for each facility.
A cost estimate was made for each option for each facility. For
some facilities the cost estimate for Option 2 was lower than the
cost estimate for Option 1. This occurs because the cost for
installing a treatment system plus retrofit for flow reduction is
lower than the cost for installing a treatment system sized to
handle the plant's unreduced flow. Since it is assumed that any
given plant will install the least costly option, the Option 1
cost estimate was set equal to the Option 2 cost for those cases
where the original estimate indicates that the Option 1 cost
would be greater than the Option 2 cost.
The total costs presented in Tables X-l and X-2 represent esti-
mates which were revised to consider plants which reported dis-
charge flow from anodizing and conversion coating operations, and
the treatment technology required for those wastewater streams
which were not considered to be in-scope waste streams when the
original cost estimates were prepared. In addition, the annual
cost estimates were adjusted by subtracting 10 percent of the
capital cost from the annual cost. This was done because an
error in the original costing methodology double-counted the
value for amortization.
Pollutant reduction benefit estimates were calculated for each
option for each subcategory. The benefits that the treatment
technologies can achieve are presented in Tables X-3 through X-8.
The benefits that the treatment technologies will achieve for
direct dischargers are presented in Tables X-9 through X-13. The
benefits that the treatment technologies can achieve for a
"normal plant" in each subcategory are presented in Tables X-14
through X-19.
The first step in the calculation of the benefit estimates is the
calculation of production noralized raw waste values (mg/kkg) for
each pollutant in each waste stream. These values, along with
calculated raw waste concentrations, are presented in Table X-20.
The raw waste values were calculated using one of three methods.
When analytical concentration data (mg/1) and sampled production
normalized flow values (1/kkg) were available for a given waste
stream, individual raw waste values for each sample were calcu-
lated and averaged. This method allows for the retention of any
relationship between concentration, flow, and production. When
sampled production normalized flows were not available for a
given waste stream, an average concentration was calculated for
each pollutant, and the average raw waste normalized flow taken
888
-------
from the dcp information for that waste stream was used to cal-
culate the raw waste. When no analytical values were available
for a given waste stream, the raw waste values for a stream of
similar water quality was used. The raw waste concentrations
(mg/1) in Table X-20 were calculated by dividing the raw waste
values (mg/kkg) by the average raw waste production normalized
flow (1/kkg).
The total flow (1/yr) for each option for each subcategory was
calculated by summing individual flow values for each waste
stream in the subcategory for each option. The individual flow
values were calculated by multiplying the total production asso-
ciated with each waste stream in each subcategory (kkg/yr) by the
appropriate production normalized flow (1/kkg) for each waste
stream for each option.
The raw waste mass values (kg/yr) for each pollutant in each sub-
category were calculated by summing individual raw waste masses
for each waste stream in the subcategory. The individual raw
waste mass values were calculated by multiplying the total pro-
duction associated with each waste stream in each subcategory
(kkg/yr) by the raw waste value (mg/kkg) for each pollutant in
each waste stream.
The mass discharged (kg/yr) for each pollutant for each option
for each subcategory was calculated by multiplying the total flow
(1/yr) for those waste streams which enter the central treatment
system, by the treatment effectiveness concentration (mg/1)
(Table VII-21, p.748 ) for each pollutant for the appropriate
option.
The total mass removed (kg/yr) for each pollutant for each option
for each subcategory was calculated by subtracting the total mass
discharged (kg/yr) from the total raw mass (kg/yr).
Total treatment performance values for each subcategory were
calculated by using the total production (kkg/yr) of all plants
in the subcategory for each waste stream. Treatment performance
values for direct dischargers in each subcategory were calculated
by using the total production (kkg/yr) of all direct dischargers
in the subcategory for each waste stream. Treatment performance
values for "normal plants" in each subcategory were calculated by
dividing the total treatment performance values for the subcate-
gory by the number of plants in that subcategory.
Selected Option for BAT
The Agency evaluated the compliance costs and benefits presented
in Tables X-l through X-19 to select a final option as BAT. All
of the options (2 through 6) provided additional pollutant reduc-
tion beyond that provided by BPT.
889
-------
EPA has selected Option 2 as the basis for proposed BAT effluent
limitations. This option was selected because it provides pro-
tection of the environment consistent with proven operation of
in-process controls and treatment effectiveness. The reduction
of pollutants in the effluent, especially toxic metals, is sub-
stantial and economically achievable thus resulting in a minimal
impact on the industry.
Option 2 builds upon the technologies established for BPT. Flow
reduction measures are the principal mechanisms for reducing
pollutant discharges at Option 2. Flow reduction measures result
in eliminating some wastewater streams and concentrating the
pollutants in others. Treatment of a more concentrated stream
allows a greater net removal of pollutants and may reduce the
cost of treatment by reducing the flow and hence the size of the
treatment equipment.
All of the flow reduction technologies or control methods are
presently employed in at least one aluminum forming plant. The
application of technologies such as countercurrent cascade
rinsing to cleaning or etching lines is not expected to cause
serious interruptions in production since these operations tend
to be used intermittently allowing process changes to be
scheduled.
Option 3 includes the addition of a polishing filter, which is
known to be in use at one aluminum forming plant, to Option 2.
Considering the amount of pollutants that filtration can remove
from aluminum forming wastewaters, EPA is continuing to consider
the possible requirement of filtration. The incremental mass of
toxic pollutants removed by going from Option 2 to Option 3 is
4,200 kg/yr for the entire category, the removals from the
individual subcategories are shown on Tables X-3 through X-8.
Filters are estimated to cost the category $7.3 million in
capital and $2.0 million annually. Although Option 2 has been
selected as the basis for BAT at proposal the Agency may elect to
promulgate BAT on the basis of Option 3.
The Agency decided not to propose BAT based on Options 4 and 5
because of the extremely high cost associated with retrofitting
thermal emulsion breaking technology into existing aluminum form-
ing plants, and the small difference in pollutant reduction
benefits achieved over either Option 2 or Option 3. In addition,
thermal emulsion breaking has high energy requirements and with
the rapid escalation of energy costs over the last decade is a
relatively high cost technology.
Option 6 is applicable only to the forging subcategory because
the forging scrubber liquors may contain significant concentra-
tions of organics from the volatilization of forging lubricants.
890
-------
Activated carbon was eliminated from consideration early in the
decision process due to the high cost associated with its
application and the minimal incremental removals achieved.
REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
The raw wastewater concentrations from individual operations and
the subcategory as a whole were examined to select those
pollutant parameters found at frequencies and concentrations
warranting regulation. Several toxic metals and aluminum were
selected for regulation in each subcategory.
Many of the toxic organic compounds were detected above their
level of quantification in wastewaters containing oils or emul-
sions. Organic compounds are known to be insoluble or slightly
soluble in water and highly soluble in oil and, as a result of
the normal mixing processes during wastewater treatment, equilib-
rium distribution of pollutants between the wastewater and oil
should occur readily. Then by applying oil removal processes
(i.e., oil-water separation or emulsion breaking), the organic
pollutant levels are reduced.
The laboratory procedure of extracting a compound from organic
and aqueous phases is analogous to the removal of nonpolar
organic pollutants by oil skimming during wastewater treatment.
Work on extraction of toxic organic pollutants, using the hydro-
carbon solvent hexane, has demonstrated extractions ranging from
88 to 97 percent for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons when using
a one-part hexane to 100-parts wastewater matrix. Addition of
ionizable inorganic compounds enhances the extraction of pollu-
tants by hexane. Equilibrium distribution of the pollutants is
achieved by two minutes of shaking.
Extraction of pollutants by oil removal treatment processes
varies in effectiveness with the relative solubilities of the
pollutant. The chemical nature of the process produces a pollu-
tant concentration in the effluent (water), which is a function
of the influent (oil and water) concentration of the pollutant.
In some cases, the water resulting from the oil treatment process
contains organics at concentration levels which are treatable by
GAG.
For aluminum forming wastewaters, effective oil removal technol-
ogy (such as oil skimming or emulsion breaking) is capable of
removing approximately 97 percent of the total toxic organics
(TTO) from the raw waste. As shown in Table X-21, the achievable
TTO concentration is approximately 0.690 mg/1. The influent and
891
-------
effluent concentrations presented for each pollutant were taken
from the data presented in Section V for several plants with
effective oil removal technologies in place. In calculating the
concentrations, if only one day's sampling datum was available,
that value was used; if two day's sampling data were available,
the higher of the values was used; and, if three day's sampling
data were available, the mean or the median value was used,
whichever was higher. The Agency assumes that the 0-690 mg/1
value is an appropriate basis for effluent limitations, since the
highest values were used in the calculation.
In addition to the pollutants listed in Table X-21, several other
toxic organic pollutants are considered. These include p-chloro-
m-cresol (022) , 2-chlorophenol (024) , 2,4-dinitrotoluene (035),
1,2-diphenylhydrazine (037), fluoranthene (039), isophorone
(054), benzo(a)pyrene (072) , 3,4-benzofluoranthene (074),
benzo(k)fluoroanthene (075), chrysene (076), acenaphthylene
(077) , benzo(ghi)perylene (079) , dibenzo(a,h)anthracene (082),
indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene (083), vinyl chloride (088), and endrin
aldehyde (099). This list includes all the polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds and several toxic organics found in
drawing spent emulsions not found in rolling spent emulsions.
These compounds are included because the Agency believes that any
of the PAH's and these other compounds can be substituted for one
another to serve as pressure building compounds in the formula-
tions of the emulsified lubricants.
The total toxic organic benefit estimate values (kg/yr) presented
in Tables X-3 through X-19 are calculated by multiplying the oil
and grease mass (kg/yr) by 0.0015. From the data presented in
Section V, it has been determined that the sum of the concentra-
tions of the toxic organics in any given sample is on the average
equal to 0.15 percent of the oil and grease concentration in that
sample.
Since effective oil and grease removal can remove 97 percent of
the TTO, no TTO limitation will be set at BAT because the Agency
believes that the oil and grease removals under the BPT limita-
tions should provide adequate removal of toxic organics.
As discussed in Section VII (p. 609 ), maintaining the correct pH
in the treatment system is important to assure adequate removal
of toxic metals. The Agency believes that by maintaining the
correct pH range for removal of chromium, zinc, and aluminum,
adequate removal of the other toxic metals, cadmium, copper,
lead, nickel, and selenium, should be assured. The Agency
believes that the mechanism and the chemistry of toxic metals
removal in a chemical precipitation and sedimentation (lime and
settle) system are the same for all of the toxic metals. This
theoretical analysis is supported empirically by performance data
892
-------
of lime and settle systems collected by the Agency. The theoret-
ical background for toxic metals removal as well as the perfor-
mance data have been presented in Section VII (p. 631 and p.748 ,
respectively). Since chromium, zinc, and aluminum are present at
the highest concentrations in raw wastewater streams, these
pollutants have been selected to be used to ensure adequate
removal of the other toxic metals listed above.
Effluent pH should be maintained within the range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times. This pH range applies to the clarifier effluent
and is specified to ensure optimal removal of the vast majority
of the toxic metals. The Agency recognizes that this effluent
may be subsequently commingled with other nonscope waste streams
(i.e., noncontact cooling water) which might effectively lower
the pH to below 7.5. This may be accounted for in individual
NPDES permits.
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Discharge Flows
Table X-22 lists the BAT wastewater discharge flows for core and
ancillary streams that received an allowance under BPT. The flow
allowances for BAT for core operations are identical to those of
BPT.
Ancillary streams with a BAT discharge allowance are from contin-
uous sheet casting, solution heat treatment contact cooling, and
cleaning or etching rinses and scrubbers.
The BAT wastewater discharge flow for the solution heat treatment
contact cooling water (heat treatment quench) stream is 2,037
1/kkg (488.5 gal/ton). Of the 89 heat treatment quench opera-
tions surveyed, 18 reported recycle of this stream. Eight of
these appear to achieve zero discharge of this wastewater stream
by practicing total recycle. It is likely, however, that the
plants reporting no discharge failed to mention periodic dis-
charge, such as occasional blowdown or discharge with annual
cleaning of the cooling tower. Because no technology for avoid-
ing the buildup of solids in completely recycled cooling water is
known to be applied in this industry, only nonzero discharge
values were used as a basis for the BAT discharge flow. The BAT
discharge flow for the solution heat treatment contact cooling
water stream is the mean of four plants using recycle for which
sufficient data are available on both normalized discharge flow
and water use flow (i.e., the percent recycle). The normalized
discharge flows for these plants ranged from 881 to 3,059 1/kkg
(211 to 733 gal/ton), with a mean of 2,037 1/kkg (488.5 gal/ton),
which is selected as the BAT discharge flow.
893
-------
The BAT wastewater discharge flows for cleaning or etching oper-
ations are 1,686 1/kkg (404.4 gal/ton) for cleaning or etching
rinses and 1,933 1/kkg (463.5 gal/ton) of aluminum etched for
cleaning or etching scrubber liquor. No BAT discharge allowance
is given to the cleaning or etching bath based upon hauling or
regeneration of bath solutions, as discussed in the Option 2
description.
The BAT wastewater discharge flow for the cleaning or etching
rinse is based upon flow reduction using two-stage countercurrent
cascade rinsing or other suitable rinsing techniques. As shown
in a theoretical calculation presented in Section VII (p. 681 ),
the reduction in the flow that is achievable with two-stage
countercurrent cascade rinsing can be 99.5 percent. For the
aluminum forming category the BAT flow allowance will be based on
90 percent recycle. The allowance is per bath and related rinse
operation; therefore, plants which have more than one cleaning or
etching bath are given an allowance for the rinse that follows
each. Fourteen of the 26 plants throughout all of the subcatego-
ries meet the BAT flow without further flow reduction. Eleven of
these 14 plants use recirculating or spray rinsing techniques or
a combination of the two. Hot water rinses or treatment of
recirculating rinse water are used by four of the 11 plants.
Stagnant rinsing is used by three plants which meet the BAT
discharge flow, as well as two which do not.
Most of the plants with discharge flows higher than the BAT
allowance are forging plants. Five utilize once-through overflow
rinsing, two use stagnant rinsing, and two reuse rinse water from
one rinse operation for another. Two-stage countercurrent
cascade rinsing is used by one plant which could meet the BAT
discharge flow by adding a third countercurrent cascade rinsing
stage combined with a slight reduction in the rinse ratio. By
using two-stage countercurrent cascade rinsing, with an expected
90 percent reduction in rinse water use, 20 of 26 plants can meet
the BAT discharge flow. The other six plants would need to add
additional countercurrent cascade rinsing stages, reduce their
rinse ratio, or use other more efficient rinsing techniques to
conserve water.
Two of the four plants with wet air pollution control devices on
cleaning or etching operations use water recycle. Again, the BAT
wastewater discharge flow for the cleaning or etching scrubber
liquor stream is 1,933 1/kkg (463.5 gal/ton), which is based on
the mean normalized discharge flow of the plants using recycle.
The BAT discharge for continuous sheet casting spent lubricants
is identical to that of BPT [1.843 1/kkg (0.442 gpt)]. This is
based upon recycle of this stream.
894
-------
Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BAT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they have been
selected. The pollutants selected for regulation under BAT are
chromium (total), cyanide (total), zinc, and aluminum. The
organic pollutants, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and selenium,
listed in Section VI are not regulated under BAT. As discussed
previously, oil removal and the limitation placed on oil and
grease should result in reduction in the amount of organic
pollutants which are discharged, and by achieving the zinc and
chromium limitations, the other metals listed above should also
be removed.
Treatment Train
EPA has selected Option 2 as the basis for BAT in this subcate-
gory. Again, this option uses the same technology as BPT, with
the addition of measures to reduce or eliminate the flows from
selected waste streams. The end-of-pipe treatment configuration
is shown in Figure X-2. The combination of in-process control
and technology significantly increases the removals of pollutants
over that achieved by BPT and at a reasonable cost.
Effluent Limitations
Table VII-21 (p. 748 ) presents the treatment effectiveness
corresponding to the BAT treatment train for pollutant parameters
considered in the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory. Effluent
concentrations (one day maximum and ten day average values) are
multiplied by the normalized discharge flows summarized in Table
X-22 to calculate the mass of pollutants allowed to be discharged
per mass of product. The results of these calculations are shown
in Table X-23.
Benefits
In establishing BAT, EPA considered the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievability. As shown in Table X-3 the application of BAT to
the total subcategory will remove approximately 1,790,870.2 kg/yr
of pollutants. As shown in Table X-l the corresponding capital
and annual costs (first quarter 1978 dollars) for this removal
are $12,036,500 and $6,105,800 per year, respectively. As shown
in Table X-9 the application of BAT to direct dischargers only,
will remove approximately 1,511,558.8 kg/yr of pollutants. As
shown in Table X-2 the corresponding capital and annual costs
(first quarter 1978 dollars) for this removal are $9,263,400 and
$4,610,500 per year, respectively.
895
-------
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Discharge Flows
Table X-24 lists the BAT wastewater discharge flows for core and
ancillary streams that received an allowance under BPT. The flow
allowances for the core operations are identical to BPT.
Ancillary streams with a BAT discharge allowance are from solu-
tion heat treatment contact cooling, cleaning or etching rinses
and scrubbers, and direct chill casting contact cooling. The BAT
wastewater discharge flow for the solution treatment contact
cooling water stream is 2,037 1/kkg (488.5 gal/ton), as discussed
for the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory of this section. The
.BAT wastewater discharge flows for cleaning or etching operations
are 1,686 1/kkg (404.4 gal/ton) for the cleaning or etching rinse
and 1,933 1/kkg (463.5 gal/ton) for cleaning or etching scrubber
liquor. No BAT discharge allowance is given to the cleaning or
etching bath based upon hauling or regeneration of the bath
solutions. Refer to the discussion for the Rolling with Neat
Oils Subcategory of this section.
The BAT wastewater discharge flow for direct chill casting opera-
tions is 1,999 1/kkg (479.4 gal/ton). This is the same as the
BPT discharge flow and is based upon the average of plants that
recycle this stream.
Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BAT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they have been
selected. The pollutants selected for regulation under BAT are
chromium (total), cyanide (total), feinc, and aluminum. The
organic pollutants, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and selenium,
listed in Section VI are not regulated under BAT. As discussed
previously, oil removal and the limitation placed on oil and
grease should result in reduction in the amount of organic
pollutants which are discharged, and by achieving the zinc and
chromium limitations, the other metals listed above should also
be removed.
Treatment Train
EPA has selected Option 2 as the basis for BAT in this subcate-
gory. Again, this option uses the same technology as BPT, with
the addition of measures to reduce or eliminate the flows from
selected waste streams. The end-of-pipe treatment configuration
is shown in Figure X-2. The combination of in-process control
and technology significantly increases the removals of pollutants
over that achieved by BPT and at a reasonable cost.
896
-------
Effluent Limitations
Table VII-21 (p. 748 ) presents the treatment effectiveness
corresponding to the BAT treatment train for pollutant parameters
considered in the Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory. Effluent
concentrations (one day maximum and ten day average values) are
multiplied by the normalized discharge flows summarized in Table
X-24 to calculate the mass of pollutants allowed to be discharged
per mass of product. The results of these calculations are shown
in Table X-25.
Benefits
In establishing BAT, EPA considered the cost o£ treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievability. As shown in Table X-4 the application of BAT to
the total subcategory will remove approximately 12,338,901.1
kg/yr of pollutants. As shown in Table X-l the corresponding
capital and annual costs (first quarter 1978 dollars) for this
removal are $12,377,200 and $6,256,000 per year, respectively.
As shown in Table X-10 the application of BAT to direct
dischargers only, will remove approximately 10,762,880.8 kg/yr of
pollutants. As shown in Table X-2 the corresponding capital and
annual costs (first quarter 1978 dollars) for this removal are
$11,316,200 and $5,975,000 per year, respectively.
EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Discharge Flows
Table X-26 lists the BAT wastewater discharge flows for core and
ancillary streams that received an allowance under BPT. The core
allocation for BAT is less than BPT due to flow reduction applied
to the die cleaning waste streams. Flow reduction is accomp-
lished by countercurrent cascade rinsing applied to the die
cleaning rinse stream.
The BAT wastewater discharge flow for the die cleaning bath and
rinse stream is 14.78 1/kkg (3.544 gal/ton). This normalized
discharge flow is based upon zero allowance for the die cleaning
rinse using flow reduction by countercurrent cascade rinsing and
total reuse of the reduced rinse flow as make-up to the die
cleaning bath. The allowance for the die cleaning bath contribu-
tion is the same as the die cleaning bath BPT allowance. Three
plants currently practice total reuse of die cleaning rinse water
from bath make-up. Because the average amount of die cleaning
rinse discharge, 26.52 1/kkg (6.354 gal/ton), is greater than the
average die cleaning bath water use, 17.58 1/kkg (4.212 gal/ton),
rinse water flow reduction may be required at BAT. Countercur-
rent cascade rinsing is the suggested technology to achieve the
flow reduction.
897
-------
The BAT wastewater discharge flow for the die cleaning scrubber
liquor stream is 275.5 1/kkg (66.08 gal/ton), which is the same
as the BPT flow. The BAT discharge flow for the miscellaneous
nondescript wastewater sources stream is 3.0 1/kkg (0.719
gal/ton).
Ancillary streams with a BAT discharge allowance are from solu-
tion and press heat treatment, direct chill casting contact cool-
ing, and cleaning or etching rinses and scrubbers.
The BAT wastewater discharge flow for the solution and press heat
treatment contact cooling water stream is 2,037 1/kkg (488.5
gal/ton), as discussed in the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory
of this section.
The BAT wastewater discharge flows for cleaning or etching opera-
tions are 1,686 1/kkg (404.9 gal/ton) for cleaning or etching
rinses and 1,933 1/kkg (463.5 gal/ton) for cleaning or etching
scrubber liquor. Refer to the discussion for the Rolling with
Neat Oils Subcategory of this section. No BAT discharge allow-
ance is given to the cleaning or etching bath based upon hauling
or regeneration of the bath solutions, as discussed in the
Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory of this section.
The BAT wastewater discharge flow for direct chill casting con-
tact cooling is 1,999 1/kkg (479.4 gal/ton). This is the same as
the BPT discharge flow and is based upon the average of plants
that recycle this stream.
The degassing scrubber liquor stream is zero allowance at BAT.
Application of the alternative fluxing and in-line refining
methods discussed in Section VII (p. 687 ), eliminate the need
for wet air pollution controls associated with degassing of
aluminum melts prior to casting. Because this technology is
currently available and in use at most aluminum forming plants
with casting operations, dry air pollution control has been
identified as the BAT control.
Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BAT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they have been
selected. The pollutants selected for regulation under BAT are
chromium (total), cyanide (total), zinc, and aluminum. The
organic pollutants, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and selenium,
listed in Section VI are not regulated under BAT. As discussed
previously, oil removal and the limitation placed on oil and
grease should result in reduction in the amount of organic
pollutants which are discharged, and by achieving the zinc and
chromium limitations, the other metals listed above should also
be removed.
898
-------
Treatment Train
EPA has selected Option 2 as the basis for BAT in this subcate-
gory. Again, this option uses the same technology as BPT, with
the addition of measures to reduce or eliminate the flows from
selected waste streams. The end-of-pipe treatment configuration
is shown in Figure X-2. The combination of in-process control
and technology significantly increases the removals of pollutants
over that achieved by BPT and at a reasonable cost.
Effluent Limitations
Table VII-21 (p. 748 ) presents the treatment effectiveness
corresponding to the BAT treatment train for pollutant parameters
considered in the Extrusion Subcategory. Effluent concentrations
(one day maximum and ten day average values) are multiplied by
the normalized discharge flows summarized in Table X-26 to
calculate the mass of pollutants allowed to be discharged per
mass of product. The results of these calculations are shown in
Table X-27.
Benefits
In establishing BAT, EPA considered the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievability. As shown in Table X-5 the application of BAT to
the total subcategory will remove approximately 4,784,401.0 kg/yr
of pollutants. As shown in Table X-l the corresponding capital
and annual costs (first quarter 1978 dollars) for this removal
are $24,919,800 and $11,275,700 per year, respectively. As shown
in Table X-ll the application of BAT to direct dischargers only,
will remove approximately 2,935,838.2 kg/yr of pollutants. As
shown in Table X-2 the corresponding capital and annual costs
(first quarter 1978 dollars) for this removal are $13,236,800 and
$5,731,100 per year, respectively.
FORGING SUBCATEGORY
There are no direct discharging facilities which use forging pro-
cesses to form aluminum. Consequently, the Agency is excluding
the Forging Subcategory from regulation under BPT and BAT. The
discussion which follows is presented for consistency and
completeness.
Discharge Flows
Table X-28 lists the BAT wastewater discharge flows for core and
ancillary streams that received an allowance under BPT. The pro-
duction normalized discharge flow for the core under BAT is equal
to the core discharge flow under BPT.
-899
-------
Ancillary streams with a BAT discharge allowance are from forg-
ing scrubbers, solution heat treatment contact cooling, and
cleaning or etching rinses and scrubbers. The BAT wastewater
discharge flow for the forging scrubber liquor stream is 94.31
1/kkg (22.65 gal/ton). Three aluminum forming plants with dry
air pollution control systems use baghouses or afterburners.
Because of high operating and maintenance costs and fire hazards
associated with the baghouses, dry air pollution control systems
have not been selected for BAT. Of the three plants using wet
scrubbers, two recirculate the scrubber water with periodic dis-
charge, while one plant does not recirculate and discharges con-
tinuously. The BAT discharge flow is the average of the flows
for the two plants with recirculating scrubbers.
The BAT wastewater discharge flow for the solution heat treatment
contact cooling water stream is 2,037 1/kkg (488.5 gal/ton), as
discussed in the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory of this
section.
The BAT wastewater discharge flows for cleaning or etching opera-
tions are 1,686 1/kkg (404.4 gal/ton) for the cleaning or etching
rinse and 1,933 1/kkg (463.5 gal/ton) for cleaning or etching
scrubber liquor. No BAT discharge allowance is given to the
cleaning or etching bath based upon hauling or regeneration of
bath solution. Refer to the discussion for the Rolling with Neat
Oils Subcategory of this section.
Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BAT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they have been
selected. The pollutants selected for regulation under BAT are
chromium (total), cyanide (total), zinc, and aluminum. The
organic pollutants, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and selenium,
listed in Section VI are not regulated under BAT. As previously
discussed, oil removal and the limitation placed on oil and
grease should result in reduction in the amount of organic
pollutants which are discharged, and by achieving the zinc and
chromium limitations, the other metals listed above should also
be removed.
Treatment Train
EPA has selected Option 2 as the basis for BAT in this subcate-
gory. Again, this option uses the same technology as BPT, with
the addition of measures to reduce or eliminate the flows from
selected waste streams. The end-of-pipe treatment configuration
is shown in Figure X-2. The combination of in-process control
and technology significantly increases the removals of pollutants
over that achieved by BPT and at a reasonable cost.
900
-------
EPA considered applying Option 6 in this subcategory to control
toxic organics. The Option 6 treatment train consists of Option
5, with the addition of skimming and granulated activated carbon
(GAG) technologies for the forging air pollution control scrubber
stream (see Figure X-6). The GAG effluent is directed to the
lime and settle process.
As an alternative to Option 6, granular carbon filtration, EPA
evaluated oil and grease as a means of providing satisfactory
control of the toxic organics. As discussed earlier in this
section, the Agency has decided to select an oil and grease
limitation based upon BPT in order to control the oil-soluble
organics found in aluminum forming wastewaters. Rather than
setting specific numeric limitations for toxic organic pollu-
tants, significant control is expected to be achieved by control
of oil and grease. Option 6 was rejected because it did not pre-
sent a reduction in the toxic organic levels significant enough
to warrant the increased costs.
Effluent Limitations
Table VTI-21 (p. 748 ) presents the treatment effectiveness
corresponding to the BAT treatment train for pollutant parameters
considered in the Forging Subcategory. Effluent concentrations
(one day maximum and ten day average values) are multiplied by
the normalized discharge flows summarized in Table X-28 to
calculate the mass of pollutants allowed to be discharged per
mass of product. The results of these calculations are shown in
Table X-29.
Benefits
*
In establishing BAT, EPA considered the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievability. As shown in Table X-6 the application of BAT to
the total subcategory will remove approximately 794,745.9 kg/yr
of pollutants. As shown in Table X-l the corresponding capital
and annual costs (first quarter 1978 dollars) for this removal
are $3,619,100 and $1,732,600 per year, respectively.
DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Discharge Flows
Table X-30 lists the BAT wastewater discharge flows for core and
ancillary streams that received an allowance under BPT. The BAT
discharge flow from the core is the same as the BPT discharge
flow.
901
-------
Ancillary streams with a BAT discharge allowance are from contin-
uous rod casting, solution heat treatment contact cooling, and
cleaning or etching rinses and scrubbers.
The continuous rod casting contact cooling stream is reduced
under BAT to 104.3 1/kkg (25.00 gal/ton) of aluminum cast, with
the application of recycle. This discharge flow is a reduction
of the BPT discharge flow based upon recycle. One aluminum
forming plant reported recycle with only periodic discharge of
the continuous rod casting cooling stream. Seventeen aluminum
forming plants and nine primary aluminum forming plants, which
recycle a similar type of cooling stream from direct chill cast-
ing, reported recycle rates o£ 92 to nearly 100 percent. There-
fore, the Agency believes that reducing the flow based on the
application of recycle is appropriate for this waste stream.
The BAT wastewater discharge flow for the solution heat treatment
contact cooling water stream is 2,037 1/kkg (488.5 gal/ton), as
discussed in the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory of this
section.
The BAT wastewater discharge flows for cleaning or etching opera-
tions are 1,686 1/kkg (404.4 gal/ton) for the cleaning or etching
rinse and 1,933 1/kkg (463.5 gal/ton) for the cleaning or etching
scrubber liquor. No BAT discharge allowance is given to the
cleaning or etching bath based upon hauling or regeneration of
bath solution. Refer to the discussion for the Rolling with Neat
Oils Subcategory of this section.
Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BAT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they have been
selected. The pollutants selected for regulation under BAT are
chromium (total), cyanide (total), zinc, and aluminum. The
organic pollutants, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and selenium,
listed in Section VI are not regulated under BAT. As discussed
previously, oil removal and the limitation placed on oil and
grease should result in reduction in the amount of organic
pollutants which are discharged, and by achieving the zinc and
chromium limitations, the other metals listed above should also
be removed.
Treatment Train
EPA has selected Option 2 as the basis for BAT in this subcate-
gory. Again, this option uses the same technology as BPT, with
902
-------
the addition of measures to reduce or eliminate the flows from
selected waste streams. The end-of-pipe treatment configuration
is shown in Figure X-2. The combination of in-process control
and technology significantly increases the removals of pollutants
over that achieved by BPT and at a reasonable cost.
Effluent Limitations
Table VII-21 (p. 748 ) presents the treatment effectiveness
corresponding to the BAT treatment train for pollutant parameters
considered in the Drawing with Neat Oils Subcategory. Effluent
concentrations (one day maximum and ten day average values) are
multiplied by the normalized discharge flows summarized in Table
X-30 to calculate the mass of pollutants allowed to be discharged
per mass of product. The results of these calculations are shown
in Table X-31.
Benefits
In establishing BAT, EPA considered the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievability. As shown in Table X-7 the application of BAT to
the total subcategory will remove approximately 788,995.7 kg/yr
of pollutants. As shown in Table X-l the corresponding capital
and annual costs (first quarter 1978 dollars) for this removal
are $2,793,800 and $1,291,400 per year, respectively. As shown
in Table X-12 the application of BAT to direct dischargers only,
will remove approximately 559,481.0 kg/yr of pollutants. As
shown in Table X-2 the corresponding capital and annual costs
(first quarter 1978 dollars) for this removal are $1,716,200 and
$783,600 per year, respectively.
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Discharge Flows
Table X-32 lists the BAT wastewater discharge flows for core and
ancillary streams that received an allowance under BPT. The BAT
discharge flow for the core of this subcategory is equal to the
BPT discharge flow.
Ancillary streams with a BAT discharge allowance are from contin-
uous rod casting, solution heat treatment contact cooling, and
cleaning or etching rinses and scrubbers.
903
-------
The BAT wastewater discharge flow for the solution heat treatment
contact cooling water stream is 2,037 1/kkg (488.5 gal/ton), as
discussed in the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory of this
section.
The BAT wastewater discharge flows for cleaning or etching opera-
tions are 1,686 1/kkg (404.4 gal/ton) for the cleaning or etching
rinse and 1,933 1/kkg (463.5 gal/ton) for cleaning or etching
scrubber liquor. No BAT discharge allowance is given to the
cleaning or etching bath based upon hauling or regeneration of
bath solution. Refer to the discussion for the Rolling with Neat
Oils Subcategory of this section.
Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BAT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they have been
selected. The pollutants selected for regulation under BAT are
chromium (total), cyanide (total), zinc, and aluminum. The
organic pollutants, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and selenium,
listed in Section VI are not regulated under BAT. As discussed
previously, oil removal and the limitation placed on oil and
grease should result in reduction in the amount of organic
pollutants which are discharged, and by achieving the zinc and
chromium limitations, the other metals listed above should also
be removed.
Treatment Train
EPA has selected Option 2 as the basis for BAT in this subcate-
gory. Again, this option uses the same technology as BPT, with
the addition of measures to reduce or eliminate the flows from
selected waste streams. The end-of-pipe treatment configuration
is shown in Figure X-2. The combination of in-process control
and technology significantly increases the removals of pollutants
over that achieved by BPT and at a reasonable cost.
Effluent Limitations
Table VII-21 (p. 748 ) presents the treatment effectiveness
corresponding to the BAT treatment train for pollutant parameters
considered in the Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps Subcategory.
Effluent concentrations (one day maximum and ten day average
values) are multiplied by the normalized discharge flows
summarized in Table X-32 to calculate the mass of pollutants
allowed to be discharged per mass of product. The results of
these calculations are shown in Table X-33.
904
-------
Benefits
In establishing BAT, EPA considered the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievability. As shown in Table X-8 the application of BAT to
the total subcategory will remove approximately 140,583.4 kg/yr
of pollutants. As shown in Table X-l the corresponding capital
and annual costs (first quarter 1978 dollars) for this removal
are $637,400 and $306,400 per year, respectively. As shown in
Table X-13 the application of BAT to direct dischargers only,
will remove approximately 57,501.6 kg/yr of pollutants. As shown
in Table X-2 the corresponding capital and annual costs (first
quarter 1978 dollars) for this removal are $305,200 and $133,900
per year, respectively.
905
-------
Chemical Addition
Sawing Spent Lubricant^ -
(Rolling^ and Drawing Spejit EmuisJLi)n^s)^_.
(Rod & Slieet_Cast^ng Spent Lubricants)^ .
Emulsion
Breaking
, „ Qt 1^*oa
hemical.Addltion Chemical .Addition
Chemical Addition
Bath and Rinse
_ ^Df:e Cj
Bath and
Sol|ition and I'rgss Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling Water
Sludge to
Disposal
Recycle 4
Miscellaneous Wastewater
Chemical
Addition
Sludge Dewstering
(Coiitinuoii_s_Ro<;l_Cast_ing _Contac_t_ Cooling, Wajier)
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber
(PressScruhbt?r
NOTE: ( ) indicates waste streams not associated with all subcategories
Figure X-l
BAT TREATMENT TRAIN FOR OPTION 1
-------
Chemical Addition
CleanIng_or Etching Rinse -
. . _. _ . „ _ .___ p
Drawing Spen^e _EnujJ,_sIons^)
(Rod and Sheet Casting ,,
Spent Lubricants) ,
Removal of
Greas_e
| Chemical Addition Chemical Addition
Chemical.Addition
lHA6- Cleaning
Bath and Rinse)
Contact Cooling Water
Recycle
His c e 11 a n e u s Hastewater
-5.Plle re Scrubber Liquor)
Solution and Press Heat
Treatment Contact
Cooling Water
Recycle <
(Direct Chill and Continuous Rod Castin
Cleaning QJ^ Etcjiing Scrubber Liquor^
(Die Cleaning Scrubber Liquo^r)
_Sj:ruJjbj^r__Ljiqjj£r)
NOTE: ( ) indicates waste streams not associated with all subcategories.
Figure X-2
BAT TREATMENT TRAIN FOR OPTION 2
-------
Chemical Addition
Q
00
-------
r
Thermal Emulsion Breaking
Cleaning or Rtclilng Rinse
vo
o
VO
Sawing Spent Lubricants
— . -- . — _^ --- a ---- _ ----- . _^— . -- _^
Jater to Reuse
(Rod and Sheet Casting Spent Lubricants) ^
Clirmlc.i.1. Addition Chemical Addition
0)It> C.l.eanhtg
Pa tit ain
Cool IHR Water
Rrcyc.Ie
ChJll .iml Continu
flout set CimUnp, Water
Rec yc 1 e
Hiscpllancous Wnstewater
(Degassing Scrubber _Llfl_iior)_^ fc
Cleaning »_r Etclring Scrubber l,if|uor
Rcrtibhcr f,t(|»or)
SnltiHnn .in.1 Press Kent \ C.^"J l"K
Treatraptit Cotitacf ..... A "Wer
(Press Srrtibbrc T..i((«or)
NOTE: ( ) indicates waste streams not associated with all subcategories.
Figure X-4
BAT TREATMENT TRAIN FOR OPTION 4
-------
Thermal Emulsion Breaking
(Rolling and Draw ing Sp en t Emu 1 s ion s_)_ fc
Sawing .jSpent^Lubrleant9
to Reuse
(Rod and Shee^ Casting Spent Lubricants)^ ^
Cln:nil<:nl Addition Cltetiilrn I. Addition
Cli-jin FD(', nr j'ltHliitg Rinse;
(IHi- Clc.-inhig
"
so
M
O
Ilolnl hni jimt I'rcsfi llcnl \
Ti nil infill Cunt tirl |\
Coul Inp, Uvil ri
Hcrycle •<
Chill iiml Ciitithinmifj Rod C
(Aiinc;i I ln|>
ci' Al mci:;|iht'l e ncrnl>ln'r I, I<|IUM )
iiif, in ftlrhJiif' Scftil'ln-r
(file ClL'jiiiliiu Striil.l>ci l.('|U«i)
(I'ress Scmhlit'i Mi|ii<>r)
NOTE: ( ) indicates waste streams not associated with all subcategories
Figure X-5
BAT TREATMENT TRAIN FOR OPTION 5
-------
Thermal Emulsion Breaking
Sawing Spent Lubricants _
„ Water to Reuse
Sludge to
Disposal
Removal of
Oil and
Grease
riii!in I <•.,-! J Addition
Clc.-inliif; nr t;i;rhlnf; Rlitsc
IP
(,'hromtnm
Rednr t. Ion
Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling Water
enIt A Coo I in;.
ET ^ Tnwrv
Ad
1
Removal of
Oil and
Grease
Cleaning_pr Etching
Scrubber Liquor
I'"
Ad.fiifllmi
Bnckwnsh
r;i.
Figure X-6
BAT TREATMENT TRAIN FOR OPTION 6
-------
Table X-l
CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COST ESTIMATES FOR BAT OPTIONS
TOTAL SUBCATEGORY
Op_tJ_on
Rolling With Neat Oils
Capital
Annual
Rolling With Emulsions
Capital
Annual
Extrus ion
Capital
Annual
Forging
Capitol
Annua L
Drawing With Neat Oils
Capital
Annual
Drawing With Emulsions
or -Soaps
Capital
Annual
8,537,400
4,907,700
9,230,500
5,421,000
22,716,300
10,178,400
3,420,000
1,677,400
2,691,100
1,280,400
637,400
306,400
12,036,500
6,105,800
12,377,200
6,256,000
24,919,800
11,275,700
3,619,100
1,732,600
2,793,800
1,291,400
637,400
306 , 400
•-^l' 1- J.UU J
13,958,000
6,580,100
14,516,900
7,051,200
26,946,700
11,872,100
3,961,600
1,824,200
3,030,000
1,355,900
647,100
315,700
ypcion n
29,302,200
9,897,400
53,634,500
15,646,400
24,066,200
11,160,700
3,563,000
1,717,500
2,895,900
1,315,500
837,000
354,500
Option 5 Option 6
- — ~~^ - -1_ *
31,263,600
10,267,800
55,796,300 --II
16, 121 800
26,b05,70Q
12,060,300
3,905,400 3,937,200
1,809,300 1,858; 900
3,381,000
1,495 000
873,700
363,900
-------
Table X-2
CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COST ESTIMATES FOR BAT OPTIONS
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
Subcategory
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Op tion[4
Option 5
Rolling With Neat Oils
Capital
Annual
Rolling With Emulsions
Capital
Annual
Extrusion
Capital
Annual
Drawing With Neat Oils
Capital
Annual
Drawing With Emulsions
or Soaps
Capital
Annual
5,934,200
3,460,200
8,297,900
4,908,400
12,044,300
5,280,100
1,707,300
778,700
305,200
133,900
9,263,400
4,610,500
11,316,200
5,975,000
13,236,800
5,731,100
1,716,200
783,600
305,200
133,900
10,745,700
4,974,900
13,302,600
6,461,900
14,306,500
6,100,900
1,867,600
823,800
330,300
140,100
26,119,400
8,292,400
52,408,400
14,996,900
12,688,900
5,297,700
1,874,400
821,800
469,700
165,700
27,601,600
8,556,800
54,390,800
15,484,200
14,226,700
5,988,500
2,274,800
977,100
494,800
172,000
-------
Table X-3
TOTAL TREATMENT PERFORMANCE*
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Flow (I'/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. . Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Raw Waste
5.176 x 109
(kg/yr)
15.5
7,061.9
3,003.0
37.1
1,989.3
524.6
5,907.2
339,867.6
1,087,360.4
385,870.0
1,631.0
18,501.5
20,169.6
1,473,230.4
1,833,267.6
Option
5.176 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
o.o
6,775.4
951.0
0.0
1,546.1
0.0
4,832.9
332,440.0
1,042,742.8
334,759.0
1,564.1
14,105.4
15,669.5
1,377,501.8
1,725,611.3
1
109
Discharged
(kg/yr)
15.5
286.5
2,052.0
37.1
443.2
524.6
1,074.3
7,427.5
44,617.6
51,111.0
66.9
4,396.1
4,500.1
95,728.6
107,656.2
Option
961.3 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
6,991.0
2,482.8
0.0
i 1,869. 6
38. 7
5,641.7
3^5,432.3
1,069,700.9
367,108.6
1,604.6
17,023.8
18,628.4
1,436,809.5
1,790,870.2
2
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
15.5
70.7
520.2
37.1
119.7
485.9
265.5
4,435.1
17,659.5
18,671.3
26.5
1,477.5
1; 541.1
36,420.8
42,397.0
Sludge
16,383,700
16,791,910
*The data tabulated represent performance of technology applied to all aluminum forming plants
in the subcategory.
-------
Table X-3 (Continued)
TOTAL TREATMENT PERFORMANCE*
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
I--1
Ui
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Orgaoics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Option
961.3 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
6,999.9
2,651.0
0.0
1,905.0
333.4
5,703.6
335,759.9
1,069,700.9
375,428.3
1,604.6
17,592.9
19,197.5
1,445,129.2
1,800,086.6
3
106
Discharged
(kj?/yr)
15.5
62.0
351.9
37.1
84.3
191.3
203.5
4,107.6
17,659.5
10,441.7
26.5
908.5
972.1
28,101.2
33,180.9
Option
904.3 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.2
6,995.6
2,515.9
0.1
1,876,. 4
63.9
5,658.7
335,495.6
1,070,270.6
367,792.2
1,605.4
17,110.7
18,716.2
1,438,062.8
1,792,274.6
4
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
15.4
66.3
487.0
37.1
112.9
460.7
248.5
4,371.9
17,089.8
18,077.8
25.6
1,390.8
1,453.5
35,167.6
40,993.0
Option
904.3 x
Removed
(ke/yr)
0.2
7,004.0
2,673.2
0.1
1,909.5
343,8
5,716.7
335,802.0
1,070,270.6
375,57.6.4
1,605.4
17,647.4
19,252.9
1,445,847.0
1,800,901.9
5
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
15.3
58.0
329.7
37.0
79.8
180.8
190.5
4,065.5
17,089.8
10,293.6
25.6
854.1
916.7
27,383.4
32,365.6
Sludge
16,855,940
16,801,430
16,861,490
*The data tabulated represent performance of technology applied to all aluminum forming plants
in the subcategory. i
Note: Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium + Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organics + Total Toxic Metals + Cyanide
Total Conventionals - Oil and Grease + TSS
Total Pollutants - Total Toxics + Total Conventionals + Aluminum
-------
Table X-4
TOTAL TREATMENT PERFORMANCE*
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organlcs
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventlonals
Total Pollutants
Raw Waste
32.31 x 109
(kg/yr)
61.0
4,856.7
4,350.9
250.1
15,147.7
671.7
9,493.0
279,025.6
7,877,285.4
4,339,260.1
11,815.9
34,581.0
46,647.0
12,216,545.5
12,216,545.5
Option
9.935 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
1.4
4,086.5
182.5
1.9
13,986.4
16.8
6,605.2
266,764.3
7,777,001.3
4,220,028.5
11,665.5
24,878.8
36,546.2
11,997,029.8
12,300,340.3
1
109
Discharged
(kg/yr)
59.6
770.2
4,168,5
248.2
1,161.3
654.9
2,887.9
12,261.2
100,284.0
119,231.6
150.4
9,702.4
10,101.0
219,515.6
241,877.8
Option
8.030 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
1.4
4,217.1
205.8
1.9
14,182.2
16.8
7,094.6
268,575.0
7,793,313.3
4,239,603.0
11,690.0
25,717.9
37,409.8
12,032,916.3
12,338,901.1
2
109
Discharged
(kg/yr)
59.6
639.6
4,145.2
248.2
965.5
654.9
2,398.5
10,450.6
83,972.0
99,657.2
126.0
8,863.3
9,237.5
183,629.2
203,317.3
Sludge
67,766,350
68,004,860
*The data tabulated represent performance of technology applied to all aluminum forming plants
in the subcategory.
-------
Table X-4 (Continued)
TOTAL TREATMENT PERFORMANCE*
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Option
8.030 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
2.2
4,297.1
1,229.7
2.6
14,501.9
26.8
7,654.2
271,533.1
7,793,313.3
4,314,757.3
11,690.0
27,711.9
39,404.5
12,108,070.6
12,419,008.2
3
109
Discharged
(kR/yr)
58.8
559.6
3,121.2
247.5
645.8
645.0
1,838.8
7,492.4
83,972.0
24,503.0
126.0
6,869.2
7,242.7
108,475.0
123,210.1
Option
7.673 x
Removed
(ke/yr)
3.5
4,245.7
236.4
3.8
14,225.0
32.5
7,201.7
268,971.5
7,796,885.6
4,243,889.7
11,695.3
25,944.8
37,643.9
12,040,775.3
12,347,390.7
4
109
Discharged
(kR/yr)
57.5
611.0
4,114.5
246.3
922.7
639.2
2,291.4
10,054.1
80,399.9
95,370.4
120.6
8,636.3
9,003.2
175,770.3
194,827.6
Option
7.673 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
3.6
4,322.0
1,369.1
3.8
14,530.5
32.8
7,736,3
271,797.6
7,796,885.6
4,315,686.0
11,695.3
27,994.3
39,693.4
12,112,571.6
12,424,062.6
5
109
Discharged
(kg/yr)
57.4
534.7
2,981.9
246-2
617.2
638.9
1,756.7
7,228.0
80,399-9
23,574-1
120.6
6,586.8
6,953.6
103,974.0
118,155.6
Sludge
68,482,400
68,057,960
68,515,120
*The data tabulated represent performance of technology applied to all aluminum forming plants
in the subcategory.
Note: Total Toxic Metala - Cadmium + Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organics + Total Toxic Metals 4- Cyanide
Total Conventionals - Oil and Grease + TSS
Total Pollutants - Total Toxics + Total Conventionals + Aluminum
-------
Table X-5
TOTAL TREATMENT PERFORMANCE*
EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
00
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Raw Waste
20.33 x 10?
(kg/yr)
88.8
146,666.4
13,894.6
1,607.2
4,511.8
6,437.7
19,463.3
1,983,121.1
635,094,8
2,105,473.8
952.7
191,062.6
193,622.5
2,740,568.6
4,917,312.2
Option
15.59 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
145,505.3
5,466.4
636.6
2,748.7
470.0
15,109.4
1,961,520.3
475,981.2
1,918,393.2
714.0
169,299.8
170,650.4
2,394,374.4
4,526,545.1
1
109
Discharged
(kg/yr)
88.8
1,161.0
8,428.2
970.6
1,763.0
5,967.7
4,353.9
21,600.9
159,113.7
187,080.6
238.7
21,762.6
22,971.9
346,194.3
390,767.1
Option
4.522 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
146,343.2
11,540.7
1,331.2
4,005.4
4,134.9
18,251.2
1,973,145.2
580,710.1
2,044,068.0
871.1
184,275.4
186,477.7
2,624,778.1
4,784,401.0
2
109
Discharged
(kg/yr)
88.8
323.2
2,353.9
276.0
506.2
2,302.7
1,212.0
9,975.8
54,384.7
61,405.9
81.6
6,786.8
7,144.4
115,790.6
132,910.8
Sludge
69,002,630
70,743,780
*The data tabulated represent performance of technology applied to all aluminum forming plants
in the aubcategory.
-------
Table X-5 (Continued)
TOTAL TREATMENT PERFORMANCE*
EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Option
3
4.522 x 109
Removed Discharged
(kg/yr) (kg_/y_r)
1.0
146,383.7
12,308.3
1,414.4
4,167.1
5,549.0
18,534.1
1,974,640.0
580,710.1
2,082,044.0
871.1
186,943.2
189,228.7
2,662,754.1
4,826,622.8
87.9
282.7
1,586.4
192.8
344. 7
888.8
929.2
8,481.1
54,384.7
23,429.8
81.6
4,119.7
4,394.1
77,814,5
90,689.7
Option
4.515 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
146,343.8
11,544.8
1,331.5
4,006.3
4,139.0
18,253.4
1,973,153.0
580,781,1
2,044,153.2
871.2
184,287.3
186,490.0
2,624,934.3
4,784,577.3
4
109
Discharged
(kg/yr)
88.8
322.7
2,349.9
275.6
505.4
2,298.8
1,209.9
9,968.1
54,313.8
61,320.6
81.5
6,775.5
7,132.6
115,634.4
132,735.1
Option
5
4.515 x 109
Removed Discharged
(kg/yr) (kg/yr)
1.1
146,384.1
12,311.0
1,414.7
4,167.7
5,550.4
18,535.7
1,974,645.3
580,781.1
2,082,062.5
871.2
186,950.0
189,235.9
2,662,843.6
4,826,724.8
87.8
282.3
1,583.6
192.5
344.2
887.3
927.6
8,475.9
54,313.8
23,411.4
81.5
4,112.8
4,386.8
77,725.2
90,587.9
Sludge
71,041,690
70,745,010
71,042,400
*The data tabulated represent performance of technology applied to all aluminum forming plants
in the subcategory.
Note: Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium 4- Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organics + Total Toxic Metals + Cyanide
Total Conventionals - Oil and Grease + TSS
Total Pollutants - Total Toxics + Total Conventionals + Aluminum
-------
Table X-6
TOTAL TREATMENT PERFORMANCE*
FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant Raw Wasje
Flow (1/yr) 2.201 x 10?
(kg/yr)
118, Cadmium 13.1
119. Chromium 4,335.8
120. Copper 3,558.4
121. Cyanide 40.5
122. Lead 1,575.1
124. Nickel 592.7
128. Zinc 7,381.8
Aluminum 442,413.5
Oil and Grease 46,220.3
TSS 320,218.8
Total Toxic
Organics 84.4
Total Toxic Metals 17,456.9
Total Toxics 17,581.8
Total Conventlonals 366,439.1
Total Pollutants 826,434.4
Sludge
Option
2.201 x
Removed
(kR/yr)
0.0
4,231.3
2,792.4
0.0
1,400.5
0.0
6,990.2
436,392.9
21,503.9
293,777.1
32.3
15,414.4
15,446,7
315,281.0
767,120.6
14,001,
1
109
Discharged
(kg/yr)
13.1
104.4
766.0
40.5
174.6
592.7
391.6
6,020.6
24,716.4
26,441.7
52.2
2.042.4
2,135.1
51,158.1
59,313.8
910
Option
285.6 x
Removed
0.0
4,321.0
3,442.1
19.5
1,534.9
487.3
7,326.3
437,636.5
32,707.7
307,221.5
49.1
17,111.6
17,180.2
339,929.2
794,745.9
2
106
Discharged
(kR/yrT
13.1
14.8
116.1
21.0
40.1
105.4
55.5
4,777,0
13,512,6
12,997.2
35.4
345,0
401.4
26,509.8
31,688.2
Option
285.6 x 1
Removed
4.1
4,322.9
3,477.3
23.7
1 , 542. 3
552.0
7,339.3
437, 704. 9
32,707.7
308,959.6
49.1
17,237.9
17,310.7
341,667.3
796,682.9
3
LO*
Discharged
(kR/yr)
9.0
12. 9
81.1
16.8
32. 7
40. 7
42.5
4, 708. 5
13,512.6
11,259.2
35.4
218.9
271.1
24,771.8
29,751.4
14,189,570
14,203,250
*The data tabulated represent performance o£ technology applied to all aluminum forming plants
in the subeategdry.
-------
Table X-6 (Continued)
TOTAL TREATMENT PERFORMANCE*
FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Option
285.3 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
4,321.0
3,442.3
19.5
1,535.0
487.4
7,326.4
437,636.8
32,710.2
307,224.6
49.1
17,112,1
17,180,7
339,934.8
794,752,3
4
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
13.1
14.8
116.0
21.0
40.1
105.3
55,4
4,776.7
13,510.1
12,994.2
35,4
344.7
401.1
26,504.3
31,682.1
Option
285.3 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
4.1
4,322.9
3,477.4
23.8
1,542.4
552,0
7,339.4
437,705.1
32,710,2
308,960.2
49.1
17,238.2
17,311.1
341,670.4
796,686.6
5
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
9.0
12.9
81.0
16.7
32.7
40.6
42.4
4,708.3
13,510.1
11,258.6
35.4
218.6
270.7
24,768.7
29,747.7
Option
285.3 x
Removed
Ikg/yr)
4.1
4,322.9
3,477.4
23.8
1,542.4
552.0
7,339.4
437,705.1
32,710.2
308,960.2
64.2
17,238.2
17,326.2
341,670.4
796,701.7
6
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
9.0
12.9
81.0
16.7
32.7
40.6
42.4
4,708.3
13,510.1
11,258.6
20.3
218.6
255.6
24,768.7
29,732.6
Sludge
14,189,620
14,203,280
14,203,280
*The data tabulated represent performance of technology applied to all aluminum forming plants
in the subcategory.
Note: Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium + Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organics + Total Toxic Metals + Cyanide
Total Conventionals - Oil and Grease + TSS
Total Pollutants - Total Toxics + Total Conventionals + Aluminum
-------
Table X-7
TOTAL TREATMENT PERFORMANCE*
DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
K)
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Raw Waste
2.446 x
(kg/yr)
13.0
8,041.3
3,383.2
79.0
1,403.2
569,7
7,089.6
419,098.0
69,120.7
312,573.5
103.7
20,500.0
20,682.7
381,694.2
821,474.9
Option
2.446 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
7,913.2
2,445.9
32.5
1,194.1
0.0
6,609.2
413,012.3
42,114.2
283,198.0
63.2
18,162.4
18,258.1
325,312.2
756,582.6
1
109
Discharged
(kR/yr)
13.0
128.1
937.3
46.5
209.0
569.7
480.5
6,085.7
27,006.4
29,375.4
40.5
2,337.6
2,424.6
56,381.8
64,892.1
Option
375.1 x
Removed
(kfi/yr)
0.0
8,018.8
3,212.2
53.2
1,352.7
410.0
7,005.5
414,479.1
55,327.4
299,053.8
83.0
19,999.2
20,135.4
354,381.2
788,995.7
2
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
13.0
22.4
171.0
25.8
50.5
159.8
84.0
4,619.0
13,793.3
13,519.7
20.7
500.7
547.2
27,313.0
32,479.2
Sludge
13,422,830
13,642,080
*The data tabulated represent performance of technology applied to all aluminum forming plants
in the subcategory.
-------
Table X-7 (Continued)
TOTAL TREATMENT PERFORMANCE*
DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Plow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Option
375.1 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.4
8,021.7
3,265.5
58.5
1,363.9
508.0
7,025.1
414,582.7
55,327.4
301,688.3
83.0
20,184.6
20,326.1
357,015,7
791,924.5
3
10^
Discharged
(kR/yr)
12.6
19.6
117.7
20.5
39.2
61.7
64.5
4,515.3
13,793.3
10,885.2
20.7
315.3
356.5
24,678.5
29,550.3
Option
373.6 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
8,019.0
3,213.1
53.2
1,352.8
410.8
7,005.9
414,480.7
55,342.1
299,071.5
83.0
20,001.6
20,137.8
354,413.6
789,032.1
4
ID6
Discharged
(ks/yr)
13.0
22.3
170.2
25.8
50.4
158.9
83.7
4,617.3
13,778.6
13,502.1
20.7
498.5
545.0
27,280.7
32,443.0
Option
373.6 x
Removed
(ks/yr)
0.5
8,021.7
3,266.0
58.5
1,364.1
508.4
7,025.4
414,583.8
55,342.1
301,692.2
83.0
20,186.1
20,327.6
357,034.3
791,945.7
5
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
12.6
19.6
117.2
20.4
39.2
61.4
64.1
4,514.3
13,778.6
10,881.4
20.7
314.1
355.2
24,660.0
29,529.5
Sludge
13,662,720
13,642,330
13,662,870
*The data tabulated represent performance of technology applied to all aluminum forming plants
in the subcategory.
Note: Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium + Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organics + Total Toxic Metals + Cyanide
Total Conventionals - Oil and Grease + TSS
Total Pollutants - Total Toxics + Total Conventionals + Aluminum
-------
Table X-8
TOTAL TREATMENT PERFORMANCE*
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxic
Total Conventionala
Total Pollutants
Raw Waste
413,5 x
(kg/yr)
1.2
683.2
200.8
3.2
134.0
36.0
390.2
21,837.2
94,671.5
26,352.1
142.0
1,445.4
1,590.6
121,023.6
144,451.4
Option
413.5 x
Removed
(kR/yr)
0.0
653.8
121.7
0.0
88.6
0.0
332.1
21,216.5
90,405.7
21,388.9
135.6
1,196.2
1,331.8
111,794.6
134,342.9
1
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
1.2
29.4
79.1
3.2
45.3
36.0
58.3
620.8
4,265.8
4,963.1
6.4
249.3
258.9
9,228.9
10,108.6
Option
110.7 x
Removed
(kR/yr)
0.0
675.0
163.8
0.0
120.3
18.8
358.5
21,498.5
93,048.6
24,560.3
139.6
1,336.4
1,476.0
117,608.9
140,583.4
2
106
Discharged
(kR/yr)
1.2
8.3
37.0
3.2
13.6
17.3
31.8
338.8
1,623.0
1,791.7
2.4
109.2
114.8
3,414.7
3,868.3
Sludge
1,168,030
1,206,920
*The data tabulated represent performance of technology applied to all aluminum forming plants
in the subcategory.
-------
Table X-8 (Continued)
TOTAL TREATMENT PERFORMANCE*
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Option
110.7 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
675.9
168.3
0.1
124.6
25.3
365.9
21,537.7
93,048.6
25,555.3
139.6
1,360.0
1,499.7
118,603.9
141,641.3
3
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
1.2
7.3
32.5
3.1
9.4
10.7
24.3
299.6
1,623.0
796.8
2.4
85.4
90.9
2,419.8
2,810.3
Sludge
1,213,400
Option
90.32 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.1
676.4
168.9
0.0
122.8
20.4
364,6
21,521,2
93,252,6
24,805.1
139.9
1,353.2
1,493.1
118,057.7
141,072.0
4
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
1.1
6.8
31.9
3.2
11.1
15.6
25.6
316.2
1,418.9
1,547.0
2.1
92.1
97.4
2,965.9
3,379.5
1,210,000
Option
90.32 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.1
677.3
172.1
0.2
126.3
26.2
370.6
21,552.8
93,252.6
25,608.3
139.9
1,372.6
1,512.7
118,860.9
141,926.4
5
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
1.1
5.9
28.7
3.0
7.7
9.8
19.7
284.4
1,418.9
743.7
2.1
72.9
78.0
2,162.6
2,525.0
1,215,250
*The data tabulated represent performance of technology applied to all aluminum forming plants
in the subcategory.
Note: Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium + Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organics + Total Toxic Metals + Cyanide
Total Conventional - Oil and Grease + TSS
Total Pollutants - Total Toxics + Total Conventionals + Aluminum
-------
CO
•o
V
-g- 00 fO OO
OOQA r- m oo m •* vo
in oo oo fi ^i
cO CO m
«
o
m
rt
e M
o w
*t c
u a
« s tJ
. o J> 3
tn 1-11-1 >»-i
X O X X Cr-4
O-H O O O O
H CE-iH OO-
(0
•-H OOr-l ^H r-ll-l
« M « aj o) «
4J O AJ 4J *J 4J
O O O O O
H HHHH
f
H
C
41 O
60
-------
Table X-9 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - DIRECT DISCHARGERS
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
K>
-J
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124, Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventlonals
Total Pollutants
Option
917.9 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
6,816.8
2,623.6
0.0
1,704.2
333.3
5,668.5
334,492.0
821,196.8
346,271.2
1,231.8
17,146.4
18,378.2
1,167,468.0
1,520,338.2
3
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
14.7
58.9
335.0
36.0
80.9
185.2
193.6
4,075.6
17,226.0
10,329,0
25.8
868.3
930.1
27,555.0
32,560.7
Option
875.1 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
6,811.8
2,488.5
0.0
1,675.6
63.2
5,622.4
334,228.1
821,625.4
338,873.3
1,232.4
16,661.5
17,893.9
1,160,498.7
1,512,620.7
4
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
14.7
63.9
470.1
36.0
109.4
455.3
239.7
4,339.5
16,797.4
17,726.8
25.2
1,353.1
1,414.3
34,524.2
40,278.0
Option
875.1 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
6,819.8
2,640.3
0.0
1,707.6
342.8
5,678.3
334,523.7
821,625.4
346,382.6
1,232.4
" 17,188.8
18,421.2
1,168,008.0
1,520,952.9
5
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
14.7
55.9
318.3
36.0
77.4
175.7
183.8
4,043.9
16,797.4
10,217.6
25.2
825.8
887.0
27,015.0
31,945.9
Sludge
Note:
15,426,950
15,372,900
Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium -f Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organics -f Total Toxic Metals + Cyanide
Total Conventional - Oil and Grease 4- TSS
Total Pollutants - Total Toxics + Total Conventionals + Aluminum
15,431,190
-------
I
X
0)
«
H
co w
HH
W CO
I-H CO
Q ^i
O
I M
O
5
O H
O T4
~* a
00 t-l«OCMO
^ O^ O^OO ^
t-l CM^OOOCM
vDOO
O
m
O
en
CO
o
fT
eo\oo i-i
. O
OO
O CO OOOQO
O ^H PH
00
00 H
h >
*"^i
£ eel
o,
ra"
o
N*
O
O
oT
m
•noooo
00
gp
JS
ffJ
H
o«
o
CMOOCO
\o «o
oo
OD
tt Jj a} (0 a] (0
AJ O *J *J 4-> U
O O O O O
H "
60
so
H
00 O» O r-> M -* CO
^-t 1-1 CM M CM CM cst
928
-------
Table X-10 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - DIRECT DISCHARGERS
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
to
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organica
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Option
7.336 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
3,574.1
893.0
0.0
12,417.1
0.0
6,692.2
234,673.1
6,724,504.8
3,843,190.3
10,086.8
23,576.4
33,663.2
10,567,695.1
10,836,031.4
3
109
Discharged
(ka/yr)
52.5
511.4
2,852.0
225.7
589.8
573.2
1,680.4
6,761.9
76,519.2
22,191.4
114.8
6,259.3
6,599.8
98,710.6
112,072.3
Option
7.032 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
3,525.4
0.0
0.0
12,161.4
0.0
6,272.1
232,307.8
6,727,548.9
3,778,165.5
10,091.3
21,958.9
32,050.2
10,505,714.4
10,770,072.4
4
109
Discharged
(kR/yr)
52.5
560.1
3,745.1
225.7
845.5
573.2
2,100.5
9,127.3
73,475.1
87,216.1
110.2
7,876.9
8,212.8
160,691.2
178,031.3
Option
7.032 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
3,595.4
1,011.8
0.0
12,441.5
0.0
6,762.2
234,898.4
6,727,548.9
3,843,981.7
10,091.3
23,810.9
33,902.2
10,571,530.6
10,840,331.2
5
10»
Discharged
(kg/yr)
52.5
490.1
2,733.3
225.7
565.4
573.2
1,610.4
6,536.6
73,475.1
21,399.9
110.2
6,024.9
6,360.8
94,875.0
107,772.4
Sludge
Note:
59,697,730
59,306,530
Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium + Chromium + Copper + Lead -f Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organics + Total Toxic Metals + Cyanide
Total Conventionals - Oil and Grease + TSS
Total Pollutants - Total Toxics + Total Conventionals + Aluminum
59,726,360
-------
r
Table X-ll
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - DIRECT DISCHARGERS
EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
•
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxtc
Organtea
Total Toxtc Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventional
Total Pollutants
Raw Waste
13.15 x 109
(kg/yr)
45.2
65,281.3
7,500.7
693.7
2,694.0
3,764.8
10,937.3
1,129,189.0
375,028.2
1,425,786.9
562.5
90,223.3
91,479.5
1,800,815.1
3,021,483.6
Option
10.32 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
64,514.2
1,932.4
16.0
1,528.9
0.0
8,060.9
1,114,834.9
269,691.4
1,301,990.8
404.5
76,036.4
76,456.9
1,571,682.2
2,762,974.0
1*
109
Discharged
(kg/yr)
45.2
767.0
5,568.3
677.7
1,165.1
3,764.8
2,876.4
14,354.1
105,336,8
123,796.1
158.0
14,186.8
15,022.5
229,132.9
258,509.5
Option 2
2.807 x 109
Removed Discharged
(kg/yr) (kg/yr)
0.0
65,076.3
6,007.6
507.8
2,372.0
2,304.5
10,168.7
1,122,633.9
339, 952. 9
1,386,304.6
509.9
85,929.1
86,946.8
1,726,257.5
2,935,838.2
45.2
204.9
1,493.1
185.9
321,9
1,460.2
768.5
6,555.0
35,075.3
39,482.3
52.6
4,293.8
4,532.3
74,557.6
85,644.9
Sludge
*0ptlon 1 la BAT-BPT
40,036,230
41,199,710
-------
Table X-ll (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - DIRECT DISCHARGERS
EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
10
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventlonals
Total Pollutants
Option
3
2.807 x 10*
Removed Discharged
(kg/yr) (kR/yr)
0.0
65,102.0
6,494.3
566. 7
2,474.5
3,201.2
10,348.1
1,123,581.8
339,952.9
1,410,385.6
509.9
87,620.1
88,696.7
1,750,338.5
2,962,617.0
45.2
179.3
1,006.4
127.0
219.5
563.6
589.2
5,607.2
35,075.3
15,401.3
52.6
2,603.2
2,782.8
50,476.6
58,866.6
Option
4
2.804 x 109
Removed Discharged
(kg/yr) (kg/yr)
0.0
65,076.6
6,009.4
508.0
2,372.4
2,306.4
10,169.7
1,122,637.5
339,985.1
1,386,343.2
510.0
85,934.5
86,952.5
1,726,328.3
2,935,918.3
45.2
204.7
1,491.3
185.6
321.6
1,458.4
767.6
6,551.5
35,043.2
39,443.7
52.6
4,288.8
4,527.0
74,486.9
85,565.4
Option
5
2.804 x 109
Removed Discharged
(kg/yr) (kR/yr)
0.0
65, 102. .2
6,495.6
566.9
2,474.8
3,201.9
10,348.8
1,123,584.2
339,985.1
1,410,393.9
510.0
87,623.3
88,700.2
1,750,379.0
2,962,663.4
45.2
179.1
1,005.1
126.8
219.2
562.9
588.5
5,604.8
35,043.2
15,393.0
52.6
2,600.0
2,779-4
50,436.2
58,820.4
Sludge
Note:
41,308,840
41,200,270
Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium 4- Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxica - Total Toxic Organics + Total Toxic Metals -f Cyanide
Total Conventlonals - Oil and Grease + TSS
Total Pollutants - Total Toxics + Total Conventional^ + Aluminum
41,389,170
-------
Table X-12
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - DIRECT DISCHARGERS
DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Lo
NJ
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chroratum
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventional
Total Pollutants
Raw, Waste
1.770 x 109
(kg/yr)
9.4
2,626.5
2,484.8
19.0
1,019.8
417.2
5,106.8
306,418.4
38,901.4
226,144.6
58.4
11,664.5
11,741.9
265,046.0
583,206.3
Option
1.770 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
2,534.7
1,812.4
0.0
869.5
0.0
4,762.3
301.972.9
19,326.8
204,886.9
29.0
9,978.9
10,007.9
224,213.7
536,194.5
1*
109
Discharged
(kg/yr)
9.4
91.9
672.4
19.0
150.2
417.2
344.6
4,445.5
19,574.5
21,257.7
29.4
1,685.7
1,734.1
40,832.2
47,011.8
Option
268.8 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
2,610.6
2,363.1
0.0
983.5
303.8
5,047.1
303,026.9
28,821.9
216,280.9
43.2
11,308.1
11,351.3
245,102.8
559,481.0
2
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
9.4
15,9
121.7
19.0
36.3
113.5
59.7
3,391.6
10,079.5
9,863.7
15.1
356.5
390.6
19,943.2
23,725.4
Sludge
*0ption 1 is BAT-BPT
9,712,050
9,866,490
-------
Table X-12 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - DIRECT DISCHARGERS
DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
10
OJ
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Option
268.8 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
2,612.6
2,401.0
4.0
991.4
373.4
5,061.0
303,100.5
28,821.9
218,151.9
43.2
11,439.4
11,486.6
246,973.8
561,560.9
3
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
9.4
13.9
83.8
15.0
28.3
43.8
45.8
3,317.9
10,079.5
7,992.7
15.1
225.0
255.1
18,072.2
21,645.2
Option
268.4 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
2,610.7
2,363.4
0.0
983.5
304.0
5,047.2
303,027.4
28,826.6
216,286.6
43.2
11,308.8
11,352.0
245,113.2
559,492.6
4
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
9.4
15.9
121.4
19.0
36.3
113.2
59.6
3,391.0
10,074.8
9,858.0
15.1
355.8
389.9
19,932.8
23,713.7
Option
268.4 x
Removed
-------
Table X-13
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - DIRECT DISCHARGERS
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant Ray Waste
Flow (1/yr) 271.3 x 106
(kg/yr)
118. Cadmium 0.4
119. Chromium 480.8
120. Copper 21.9
121. Cyanide 1.8
122. Lead 36.9
124. Nickel 6.2
128. Zinc 28.6
Aluminum 289.8
Oil and Grease 51,542.6
TSS 6,926.7
Total Toxic
OrganIcs 77.3
Total Toxic Metala 574.8
Total Toxics 653.9
Total Conventional 58,469.3
Total Pollutants 59,413.0
Option
271.3 x
Removed
(kE/yr)
0.0
459.1
0.0
0.0
4.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
48,829.4
3,670.9
73.2
463.4
536.6
52,500.3
53,036.9
1*
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.4
21.7
21.9
1.8
32.6
6.2
28.6
289.8
2,713.2
3,255.8
4.1
111.4
117.3
5,969.0
6,376.1
Option
79.62 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
474.4
0.0
0.0
27.3
0.0
4.7
201.4
50,746.4
5,971.3
76.1
506.4
582.5
56,717.7
57,501.6
2
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.4
6.4
21.9
1.8
9.6
6.2
23.9
88.4
796.2
955.4
1.2
68.4
71.4
1,751.6
1,911.4
Sludge
*Optlon 1 Is BAT-OPT
267,560
294,800
-------
Table X-13 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - DIRECT DISCHARGERS
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Ui
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Option 3
79.62 x 1
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
475.2
0.0
0.0
30.5
0.0
10.3
230.9
50,746.4
6,719.7
76.1
516.0
592.1
57,466.1
58,289.1
LO*
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.4
5.6
21.9
1.8
6.4
6.2
18.3
58.9
796.2
207.0
1.2
58.8
61.8
1,003.2
1,123.9
Option
68.97 x
Removed
(ka/yr)
0.0
475.3
0.0
0.0
28.6
0.0
7.9
213.3
50,852.9
6,099.1
76.3
511.8
588.1
56,952.0
57,753.4
4
10*
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.4
5.5
21.9
1.8
8.3
6.2
20.7
76.6
689.7
827.7
1.0
63.0
65.8
1,517.4
1,659.8
Option
68.97 x 1
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
476.0
0.0
0.0
31.4
0.0
12.7
238.8
50,852.9
6,747.4
76.3
52Q.1
596.4
57,600.3
58,435.5
5
LO*
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.4
4.8
21.9
1.8
5.5
6.2
15-9
51.0
689.7
179.3
1.0
54.7
57.5
869.0
977.5
Sludge
Note:
299,470
296,360
Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium -f Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organics + Total Toxic Metals 4- Cyanide
Total Conventionals - Oil and Grease + TSS
Total Pollutants - Total Toxics + Total Conventionals + Aluminum
300,400
-------
Table X-14
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - NORMAL PLANT
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
UJ
CT>
Raw Waste
103.5 x
(kg/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventionals
Total Pollutants
0.3
141.2
60.1
0.7
39.8
10.5
118.1
6,797.4
21,747.2
7,717.4
32.6
370.0
403.3
29,464.6
36,665.1
Option
103.5 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
135.5
19.0
0.0
30.9
0.0
96.7
6,648.8
20,854.9
6,695.2
31.3
282.1
313.4
27,550.0
34,512.2
1*
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.3
5.7
41.0
0.7
8.9
10.5
21.5
148.6
892.4
1,022.2
1.3
87,9
90.0
1,914.6
2,153.1
Option
19.2 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
139.8
49.7
0.0
37.4
0.8
112.8
6,708.6
21,394.0
7,342.2
32.1
340.5
372.6
28,736.2
35,817.4
2
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.3
1.4
10.4
0.7
2.4
9.7
5.3
88.7
353.2
375.2
0.5
29.6
30.8
728.4
847.9
Sludge
*0ption 1 is BAT-BPT
327,670
335,840
-------
Table X-14 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - NORMAL PLANT
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
OJ
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Option
19.2 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
140.0
53.0
0.0
38.1
6.7
114.1
6,715.2
21,394.0
7,508.6
32.1
351.9
383.9
28,902.6
36,001.7
3
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.3
1.2
7.0
0.7
1.7
3.8
4.1
82.2
353.2
208.8
0.5
18.2
19.4
562.0
663.6
Option
18.1 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
139.9
50.3
0.0
37.5
1.3
113.2
6,709.9
21,405.4
7,355.8
32.1
342.2
374.3
28,761.3
35,845.5
4
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.3
1.3
9.7
0.7
2.3
9.2
5.0
87.4
341.8
361.6
0.5
27.8
29.1
703.4
819.9
Option
18.1 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
140.1
53.5
0.0
38.2
6.9
114.3
6,716.0
21,405.4
7,511.5
32.1
352.9
385.1
28,916.9
36,018.0
5
lO^
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.3
1.2
6.6
0.7
1.6
3.6
3.8
81.3
341.8
205.9
0.5
17.1
18.3
547.7
647.3
Sludge
Note;
337,120
336,030
Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium + Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organics + Total Toxic Metals + Cyanide
Total Conventionals - Oil and Grease + TSS
Total Pollutants - Total Toxics + Total Conventionals + Aluminum
337,230
-------
Table X-15
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - NORMAL PLANT
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
LO
Oo
Pollutant Raw Waste
Flow (1/yr) 1.1 x 109
(kg/yr)
118. Cadmium 2.1
119. Chromium 167.5
120. Copper 150.0
121. Cyanide 8.6
122. Lead 522.3
124. Nickel 23.2
128. Zinc 327.3
Aluminum 9,621.6
Oil and Grease 271,630.5
TSS 149,629.7
Total Toxic
Organica 407.4
Total Toxic Metals 1,192.4
Total Toxics 1,608.4
Total Conventional 421,260.2
Total Pollutants 432,490.2
Option
342.6 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
140.9
6.3
0.1
482.3
0.6
227.8
9,198.8
268,172.5
145,518.2
402.3
857.9
1,260.2
413,690.7
424,149.7
1*
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
2.1
26.6
143.7
8.6
40.0
22.6
99.6
422.8
3,458.1
4.114.4
5.2
334.6
348.3
7,569.5
8,340.6
Option
276.9 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
145.4
7.1
0.1
489.0
0.6
244.6
9,261.2
268,734.9
146,193.2
403.1
886.8
1,290.0
414,928.1
425,479.3
2
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
2.1
22.1
142,9
8.6
33.3
22.6
82.7
360.4
2,895.6
3,436.5
4.3
305.6
318.5
6,332.0
7,010.9
Sludge
*Optlon 1 Is BAT-BPT
2,336,770
2,345,260
-------
Table X-15 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - NORMAL PLANT
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Option
276.9 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.1
148.2
42.4
0,1
500.1
0.9
263.9
9,363.2
268,734.9
148,784.7
403.1
955.6
1,358.8
417,519.7
428,241.7
3
106
Discharged
(kR/yr)
2.0
19.3
107.6
8.5
22.3
22,2
63.4
258.4
2,895.6
844.9
4.3
236.9
249.7
3,740.5
4,248.6
Option
264.6 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0,1
146.4
8.2
0.1
490.5
1.1
248.3
9,274.9
268,858.1
146,341.0
403.3
894.6
1,298.1
415,199.1
425,772.1
4
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
2.0
21.1
141.9
8.5
31,8
22.0
79.0
346,7
2,772.4
3,288.6
4.2
297.8
310.5
6,061.0
6,718.2
Option
264.6 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.1
149.0
47.2
0.1
501.1
1.1
266.8
9,372.3
268,858.1
148,816.8
403.3
965.3
1,368.7
417,674.9
428,416.0
5
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
2.0
18.4
102.8
8.5
21.3
22.0
60.6
249-2
2,772.4
812.9
4.2
227.1
239.8
3,585,3
4,074.3
Sludge
Note:
2,361,460
2,346,820
Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium + Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organics + Total Toxic Metals + Cyanide
Total Conventionals - Oil and Grease + TSS
Total Pollutants - Total Toxics + Total Conventionals + Aluminum
2,362,590
-------
Table X-16
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - NORMAL PLANT
EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
OrganIcs
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Raw Waste
124.7 x 106
(kg/yr)
0.5
899.8
85.2
9.9
27.7
35.9
119.4
12,166.4
3,896.3
12,917.0
5.8
1,168.5
1,184.2
16,813.3
30,163.9
Option
95.6 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
892,7
33.5
3.9
16.9
2.9
92.7
12,033.9
2,920.1
11,769.3
4.4
1,038.6
1,046.9
14,689.4
2-7,770,2
1*
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.5
7.1
51.7
6.0
10.8
36.6
26.7
132.5
976.2
1,147.7
1.5
133.5
140.9
2,123.9
2,397.3
Option
27.7 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
897.8
70.8
8.2
24.6
25.4
112.0
12,105.2
3,562,6
12,540.3
5.3
1,130.5
1,144.0
16,102.9
29,352.2
2
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.5
2.0
14.4
1.7
3.1
14,1
7.4
61.2
333.6
376.7
0.5
41.6
43.8
710.4
815.4
Sludge
*0ption 1 is BAT-BPT
423,330
434,010
-------
Table X-16 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - NORMAL PLANT
EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Option
27.7 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
898.1
75.5
8.7
25.6
34.0
113.7
12,114.4
3,562.6
12,773.3
5.3
1,146.9
1,160.9
16,335.9
29,611.2
3
10*
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.5
1.7
9.7
1.2
2.1
5.5
5.7
52.0
333.6
143.7
0.5
25.3
27.0
477.4
556.4
Option
27.7 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
897.8
70.8
8.2
24.6
25.4
112.0
12,105.2
3,563.1
12,540.8
5.3
1,130.6
1^144.1
16,103.9
29,353.2
4
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.5
2.0
14.4
1.7
3.1
14.1
7.4
61.2
333.2
376.2
0.5
41.6
43.8
709.4
814,3
Option
27.7 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
o.o
898.1
75.5
8.7
25.6
34.1
113.7
12,114.4
3,563.1
12,773.4
5.3
1,146.9
1,161.0
16,336.5
29,611.8
5
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.5
1.7
9.7
1.2
2.1
5.4
5.7
52.0
333.2
143.6
0.5
25-2
26.9
476.8
555.8
Sludge
Note:
435,840
434,020
Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium -f Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organics 4- Total Toxic Metala + Cyanide
Total Conventionals - Oil and Grease + TSS
Total Pollutants - Total Toxics + Total Conventionals + Aluminum
435,850
-------
Table X-17
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - NORMAL PLANT
FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant Raw Waste
Flow (1/yr) 137.6 x 10*
(kg/yr)
118. Cadmium 0.8
119. Chromium 271.0
120. Copper 222.4
121. Cyanide 2.5
122. Lead 98.4
124. Nickel 37.0
128. Zinc 461.4
Aluminum 27,650.8
Oil and Grease 2,888.8
TSS 20,013.7
Total Toxic
Organics 5.2
Total Toxic Metals 1,091.0
Total Toxics 1,098.7
Total Conventionals 22,902.5
Total Pollutants 51,652.0
Option
137.6 x
Removed
jka/yr)
0.0
264.5
174.5
0.0
87.5
0.0
436.9
27,274.6
1,344.0
18,361.1
2.0
963.4
965.4
19,705.1
47,945.0
1*
106
Discharged
(kR/vr)
0.8
6.5
47.9
2.5
10.9
37.0
24.5
376.3
1,544.8
1,652.6
3.2
127.7
133.4
3,197.5
3,707.1
Option
17.9 x
Removed
0.0
270.1
215.1
1.2
95.9
30.5
457.9
27,352.3
2,044.2
19,201.3
3.1
1,069.5
1,073.8
21,245.6
49,671.6
2
106
Discharged
(kg/yrj
0.8
0.9
7.3
1.3
2.5
6.6
3.5
298.6
844,5
812.3
2.2
21.6
25.0
1,656,8
1,980.5
Option
17.9 x
Removed
0.3
270.2
217.3
1.5
96.4
34.5
458.7
27,356.6
2,044.2
19,310.0
3.1
1,077.4
1,081.9
21,354.2
49,792.7
3
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.6
0.8
5.1
1.1
2.0
2.5
2.7
294.3
844.5
703.7
2.2
13.7
16.9
1,548.2
1,859.4
Sludge
*0ption 1 Is BAT-BPT
875,120
886,850
887,710
-------
Table X-17 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - NORMAL PLANT
FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Option
17.8 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
270. 1
215.1
1.2
95.9
30.5
457.9
27,352.3
2,044.4
19,201.5
3.1
1,069.5
1,073.8
21,245.9
49,672.0
4
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.8
0.9
7.3
1.3
2.5
6.6
3.5
298.5
844.4
812.1
2.2
21.5
25.0
1,656.5
1,980.1
Option
17.8 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.3
270.2
217.3
1.5
96.4
34.5
458.7
27,356.6
2,044.4
19,310.0
3.1
1,077.4
1,081.9
21,354.4
49,792.9
5
10*
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.6
0.8
5.1
1.0
2.0
2.5
2.7
294.3
844.4
703,7
2.2
13.7
16.9
1,548.4
1,859.2
Option
17.8 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.3
270.2
217.3
1.5
96.4
34.5
458.7
27,356.6
2,044.4
19,310.0
4.0
1,077.4
1,082.8
21,354.4
49,793.8
6
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.6
0.8
5.1
1.0
2.0
2.5
2.7
294.3
844.4
703.7
1.3
13.7
16.0
1,548.4
1,858.3
Sludge
Note:
886,850
887,710
Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium + Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organics + Total Toxic Metals + Cyanide
Total Conventionals - Oil and Grease + TSS
Total Pollutants - Total Toxics + Total Conventionals + Aluminum
887,710
-------
Table X-18
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - NORMAL PLANT
DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant Raw .Waste
Flow (1/yr) 37.1 x 106
(ke/yr)
118. Cadmium 0.2
119. Chromium 121.8
120. Copper 51.3
121. Cyanide 1.2
122. Lead 21.3
124. Nickel 8.6
128. Zinc 107.4
Aluminum 6,350.0
Oil and Grease 1,047.3
TSS 4,736.0
Total Toxic
Organics 1.6
Total Toxic Metals 311.8
Total Toxics 314.6
Total Conventionals 5,783.3
Total Pollutants 12,447.9
Option
37.1 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
119.9
37.1
0.5
18.1
0.0
100.1
6,257.8
638.1
4,290.9
1.0
275.2
276.6
4,929.0
11,463.4
1*
10^
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.2
1.9
14.2
0.7
3.2
8.6
7.3
92.2
409.2
445.1
0.6
35.4
36.7
854.3
983.2
Option
5.7 x
Removed
(ke/yr)
0.0
121.5
48.7
0.8
20.5
6.2
106.1
6,280.0
838.3
4,531.1
1.3
303.0
305.1
5,369.4
11,954.5
2
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.2
0.3
2.6
0.4
0.8
2.4
1.3
70.0
209.0
204.8
0.3
7.6
8.3
413.8
492.1
Sludge
*0ption 1 is BAT-BPT
203,440
206,700
-------
Table X-18 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - NORMAL PLANT
DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
-EN
Ln
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Option
5.7 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
121.5
49.5
0.9
20.7
7.7
106.4
6,281.6
838.3
4,571.0
1.3
305.8
308.0
5,409.3
11,998.9
3
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
.0.2
0.3
1.8
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.0
68.4
209.0
164.9
0.3
4.8
5.4
373.9
447.7
Option
5. 7 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
121,5
48.7
0.8
20.5
6.2
106.2
6,280.0
838.5
4,531.4
1.3
303.1
305.1
5,369.9
11,955.0
4
10^
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.2
0.3
2.6
0.4
0.8
2.4
1.3
70.0
208.8
204.6
0.3
7.6
8.3
413.3
491.6
Option
5.7 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
121.5
49.5
0.9
20.7
7.7
106.4
6,281.6
838.5
4,571.1
1.3
305.9
308.0
5,409.6
11,999.2
5
106
Discharged
(ks/yr)
0.2
0.3
1.8
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.0
68.4
208.8
164.9
0.3
4.8
5.4
373.6
447.4
Sludge
Note:
207,010
206,700
Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium + Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organics + Total Toxic Metals + Cyanide
Total Conventionals - Oil and Grease + TSS
Total Pollutants - Total Toxics + Total Conventionals + Aluminum
207,010
-------
Table X-19
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - NORMAL PLANT
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant Raw Waste
Flpw (1/yr) 31.8 x 106
(kg/yr)
118. Cadmium 0.1
119. Chromium 52.6
120. Copper 15.4
121. Cyanide 0.2
122. Lead 10.3
124. Nickel 2.8
128. Zinc 30.0
Aluminum 1,679.8
Oil and Grease 7,282.4
TSS 2,027.1
Total Toxic
Organics 10.9
Total Toxic Metals 111.2
Total Toxics 122.3
Total Conventionals 9,309.5
Total Pollutants 11,111.7
Option
31.8 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
50.3
9.4
0.0
6.8
0.0
25.5
1,632.0
6,954.3
1,645.3
10.4
92.0
102.4
8,599.6
10,334.1
1*
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.1
2.7
6.1
0.2
3.5
2.8
4.5
47.8
328.1
381.8
0.5
19.2
19.9
709.9
777.6
Option
8.5 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
51.9
12.6
0.0
9.3
1.4
27.6
1,653.7
7,157.6
1,889.3
10.7
102.8
113.5
9,046.8
10,814.1
2
106
Dis charged
(kg/yr)
0.1
0.6
2.8
0.2
1.0
1.3
2.4
26.1
124.8
137.8
0.2
8.4
8.8
262.7
297.6
Sludge
*0ptlon 1 is BAT-BPT
89,850
92,840
-------
Table X-19 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - NORMAL PLANT
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventionala
Total Pollutants
Option
8.5 x
Removed
(kg/vr)
0.0
52.0
12.9
0.0
9.6
1.9
28.1
1,656.7
7,157.6
1,965.8
10.7
104.6
115.4
9,123.4
10,895.5
3
10^
Discharged
(ks/yr)
0.1
0.6
2.5
0.2
0.7
0.8
1.9
23.0
124.8
61.3
0.2
6.6
7.0
186.1
216.2
Option
6.9 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
52,0
13.0
0.0
9.4
1.6
28.0
1,655.5
7,173.3
1,908.1
10.8
104.1
114.9
9,081.4
10,851.7
4
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.0
0.5
2.5
0.2
0.9
1.2
2.0
24.3
109.1
119.0
0.2
7.1
7.5
228.1
260.0
Option
6.9 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
52.1
13.2
0.0
9.7
2.0
28.5
1,657.9
7,173.3
1,969.9
10.8
105.6
116.4
9,143.1
10,917,4
5
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.0
0.5
2.2
0.2
0.6
0.8
1.5
21.9
109.1
57.2
0.2
5.6
6,0
166.4
194.2
Sludge
Note:
93,330
93,080
Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium + Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organics + Total Toxic Metals + Cyanide
Total Conventional - Oil and Grease + TSS
Total Pollutants - Total Toxics + Total Conventionals + Aluminum
93,480
-------
Table X-20
PRODUCTION NORMALIZED RAW WASTE VALUES AND CONCENTRATIONS
FOR ALUMINUM FORMING WASTEWATER STREAMS
Pollutant
Cfulm I. urn
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Aluminum
Oi1 and Grease
TSS
Rolling With Neat Oils
Core Waste Streams
ittiout^ Annealing
-P*
CO
mj-/kkg
0.7
3.5
36.7
0.5
193.6
3.9
34.8
1,211.0
237,100.0
27,110.0
mg/1
0.042
0.211
2.214
0.030
11.677
0.235
2.099
73.040
14,300.362
1,635.103
Rolling With Neat Oils
Core Waste Streams
With Annealing
Rolling With Emulsions
Core Waste Streams
mgVkkg IBS/i mg/kkg
1,
237,
27,
0.
3.
36.
0.
193.
3.
36.
211.
100.
145.
7
6
9
5
7
9
7
0
0
2
0,
0.
0.
0.
4.
0.
0.
28.
5,522.
632.
016
084
860
012
512
091
855
209
944
313
3,
22,
1,617,
456,
11.
100.
637.
12.
263.
105.
750.
511.
100.
110.
6
6
7
5
6
9
8
0
0
0
mg/1
0.
1.
7.
0.
35.
1.
8.
247.
17,752.
5,007.
127
104
001
137
828
163
242
129
772
246
Pollutant
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Extrusion
Corp Waste Streams
Forging
Core Waste Streams
Drawing With Neat Oils
Core Waste Streams
44.3
3,917.3
6,766.3
7.8
1,401.7
2,163.4
5,556.3
759,889.0
89,215.0
21,980.0
0.137
12.102
20.903
0.024
4.330
6.683
17.165
2,347.510
275.610
67.902
ig/kkg
0.3
1.2
13.0
0.2
68-. 6
1.4
12.3
429.0
84,100.0
9,610.0
BB/l
0.038
0.154
1.665
0.026
8.787
0.179
1.576
54.951
10,772.384
1,230.947
mg/kkg
0.3
1.2
13-0
0.2
68.6
1.4
12.3
429.0
84,100.0
9,610.0
ttg/1
0.038
0.154
1.665
0.026
8.787
0.179
1.576
54.951
10,772.384
1,230.947
-------
Table X-20 (Continued)
PRODUCTION NORMALIZED RAW WASTE VALUES AND CONCENTRATIONS
FOR ALUMINUM FORMING WASTEWATER STREAMS
Pollutant
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Drawing With Emulsions
or Soaps
Core Waste Streams
-&£*&
4.1
20.3
215.0
2.7
1,128.6
22.6
203.3
7,079.0
1,764,100.0
158,610.0
mg/1
0.010
0.48
0.507
0.006
2.660
0.053
0.479
16.684
4,157.671
373.816
Continuous Sheet Casting
Spent Lubricant
sa/^
32,
3,
is
0.1
0.5
5.0
0.1
26.3
0.5
4.7
164.0
300.0
690.0
mg/1
0.054
0.271
2.713
0.054
14.270
0.271
2.550
88.985
17,525.773
2,002.170
Solution Heat Treatment
Contact, Cooling
mg/kkg
8.3
14,200.0
486.0
49.9
247.0
167.0
694.0
3,280.0
206,000.0
86 , 300 . 0
56/1
0.001
1.843
0.063
0.006
0.032
0.022
0.090
0.426
26.736
11.201
Pollutant
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Ringe
Cleaning or Etching
Scrubber Liquor
mg/kkg
218.0
19,800.0
34,100.0
25.3
6,640.0
10,900.0
28,000.0
3,790,000.0
5,210.0
30,700.0
mg/1
1.067
96.869
166.830
0.124
32.485
53.327
136.986
18,542.074
25.489
150.196
mg/kkg
24.4
26,700.0
33,600.0
248.0
20,600.0
324.0
112,000.0
4,600,000.0
200,000.0
5,810,000.0
mil
0.001
1.584
1.993
0.015
1.222
0.019
6.643
272.835
11.862
344.603
0.0
0.0
172.0
155.0
344.0
0.0
0.0
87,800.0
224,000.0
207,000.0
0.000
0.000
0.010
0.009
0.020
0.000
0.000
5.099
13.008
12.021
-------
Table X-20 (Continued)
PRODUCTION NORMALIZED RAW WASTE VALUES AND CONCENTRATIONS
FOR ALUMINUM FORMING WASTEWATER STREAMS
Pollutant
CaHmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil nnd Grease
TSS
Direct Chill Casting
Contact Cooling Water
•naMa
2.2
61.6
121.0
50.6
382.0
0.3
1,060.0
9,880.0
355,000.0
664,000.0
nia/1
0.001
0.031
0.061
0.025
0.191
0.000
0.530
4.942
177.589
332.166
Degassing
0.0
0.0
2.9
40,9
0.0
4.1
5.8
tng/1
Forging^Scnruhber Liquor
0.000 0.0
0.000 0.0
0.099 15.5
1.401 17.0
0.000 3,090.0
0.140 0.0
0.199 464.0
774.0
251,000.0
3,090.0
0.000
0.000
0.010
0.011
1.997
0.000
0.300
0.500
162.250
1.997
Ui
o
Pollutant
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Aluminum
OlL anH Crease
TSS
Continuous Rod Casting
Contact Cooling Water
Continuous Rod Casting
Spent Lubricant
mg/kkg
2.2
141.0
10.4
9.2
25.0
0.8
206.0
418.0
76,900.0
58,200.0
0.002
0.135
0.010
0.009
0.024
0.001
0.198
0.401
73.800
55.854
rog/kkg
0.
0.
5.
0.
26.
0.
4.
164.
32,300.
3,690.
1
5
0
1
3
5
7
0
0
0
M/l
0.
0.
2.
0.
14.
0.
2.
88.
17,525.
2,002.
054
271
713
054
270
271
550
985
773
170
-------
Table X-21
TTO - EVALUATION OF OIL TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
ON TOXICS REMOVAL
Influent Effluent
Concentration Concentration
Pollutant Parameter (mg/1) (mg/1)
001 acenaphthene 5.7 ND
038 ethylbenzene 0.089 0.01
055 naphthalene 0.75 0.23
062 N-nitrosodiphenylamine 1.5 0.091
065 phenol 0.18 0.04
066 bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 1.25 0.01
068 di-n-butyl phthalate 1.27 0.019
078/081 anthracene/phenanthrene 2.0 0.1
080 fluorene 0.76 0.035
084 pyrene 0.075 0.01
085 tetrachloroethylene 4.2 0.1
086 toluene 0.16 0.02
087 trichloroethylene 4.8 0.01
097 endosulfan sulfate 0.012 ND
098 endrin 0.066 0.005
107 PCB-1254 (a) 1.1 0.005
110 PCB-1248 (b) 1.8 0.005
(mg/1) 25.7 0.690
a: PBC-1242, PCB-1254, PCB-1221, PCB-1232 reported together.
b: PBC-1248, PCB-1260, PCB-1016 reported together.
951
-------
Table X-22
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
VD
Ln
ro
Operation
Core
Rolling with neat oils
Roll grinding
Stationary casting
Homogenizing
Artificial aging
Degreasing
Sawing
Miscellaneous nonde-
script wastewater
sources
Annealing
Waste Stream
Spent lubricant
Spent emulsion
None
None
None
Spent solvents
Spent lubricant
Various
Total core without
an annealing fur-
nace scrubber
Atmosphere scrub-
ber liquor
Total core with an
annealing furnace
scrubber
Normalized BAT
Discharge
1/kkg (gpt)
0
8.770
0
0
0
0
4.807
16.58
26.35
42.93
(0)
(2.103)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1.153)
(0.720)
(3.976)
(6.320)
(10.30)
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of aluminum rolled
with neat oil
Mass of aluminum rolled
with neat oil
Mass of aluminum rolled
with neat oil
Mass of aluminum rolled
with neat oil
-------
Table X-22 (Continued)
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Ln
U)
Operation
Ancillary
Waste Stream
Spent lubricant
Continuous sheet
casting
Solution heat treatment Contact cooling
water
Cleaning or etching Bath
Rinse
Scrubber liquor
Normalized BAT
Discharge
1/kkg (gpt)
Production Normalizing
Parameter
1.843 (0.442) Mass of aluminum cast
by continuous methods
2,037 (488.5) Mass of aluminum
quenched
0 (0) Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
1,686 (404.4) Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
1,933 (463.5) Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
-------
Table X-23
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams Without An Annealing
Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with neat oils
118 Cadmium 5.31 2.49
119 Chromium 6.96 2.82
120 Copper 31.50 16.58
121 Cyanide 4.81 1.99
122 Lead 2.49 2.16
124 Nickel 23.38 16.58
125 Selenium 19.90 9.95
128 Zinc 22.05 9.28
Aluminum 75.44 . 30.84
Oil & Grease 331.60 198.96
Total Suspended 679.78 331.60
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams With An Annealing
Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant or Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with neat oils
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil St Grease
Total Suspended 1
Solids
pH Within
13.74
18.03
81.57
12.45
6.44
60.53
51.52
57.10
195.33
858.60
,760.13
the range of 7.5
6.44
7.30
42.93
5.15
5.58
42.93
25.76
24.04
79.85
515.16
858.60
to 10.0 at all times.
954
-------
Table X-23 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Continuous Sheet Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
pH Within
0.59
0.77
3.50
0.53
0.28
2.60
2.21
2.45
8.39
36.86
75.56
the range of 7.5
0.28
0.31
1.84
0.22
0.24
1.84
1.11
1.03
3.43
22.12
36.86
to 10.0 at all times.
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil Sc Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
651.84
855.54
3,870.30
590.73
305.55
2,872.17
2,444.40
2,709.21
9,268.35
40,740.00
83,517.00
pH Within the range of 7.5
305.55
346.29
2,037.00
244.44
264.81
2,037.00
1,222.20
1,140.72
3,788.82
24,444.00
40,740.00
_
to 10.0 at all times.
955
-------
Table X-23 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
pH Within
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
the range of 7.5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
539.52
708.12
3,203.40
488.94
252.90
2,377.26
2,023.20
2,242.38
7,671.30
33,720.00
69,126.00
pH Within the range of 7.5
252.90
286.62
1,686.00
202.32
219.18
1,686.00
1,011.60
944.16
3,135.96
20,232.00
33,720.00
to 10.0 at all times.
956
-------
Table X-23 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billlon Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
618.56
811.86
3,672.70
560.57
289.95
2,725.53
2,319.60
2,570.89
8,795.15
38,660.00
79,253.00
pH Within the range of 7 . 5
289.95
328.61
1,933.00
231.96
251.29
1,933.00
1,159.80
1,082.48
3,595.38
23,196.00
38,660.00
to 10.0 at all times.
957
-------
Table X-24
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Operation
Core
Rolling with emulsions
Roll grinding
Annealing
Stationary casting
Homogenizing
Artificial aging
^o Degreasing
oo Sawing
Miscellaneous nonde-
script wastewater
sources
Ancillary
Direct chill casting
Solution heat treatment
Cleaning or etching
Waste Stream
Spent emulsion
Spent emulsion
None
None
None
None
None
Spent lubricant
Various
Normalized BAT
Discharge
1/kkg (gpt)
74.51
8.770
0
0
0
0
0
4.807
(17.87)
(2.103)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1.153)
Total Core 91.09
Contact cooling 1,999
water
Contact cooling 2,037
water
Bath 0
Rinse 1,686
Scrubber Liquor 1,933
(0.720)
(21.85)
(479.4)
(488.5)
(0)
(404.4)
(463.5)
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of aluminum rolled
with emulsions
Mass of aluminum rolled
with emulsions
Mass of aluminum rolled
with emulsions
Mass of aluminum rolled
with emulsions
Mass of aluminum cast
by direct chill
method
Mass of aluminum
quenched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
-------
Table X-25
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Rolling With Emulsions - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with emulsions
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease 1
Total Suspended 3
Solids
pH Within
29.15
38.26
173.07
26.42
13.66
128.44
109.31
121.15
414.46
,821.80
,734.69
the range of 7.5
13.66
15.49
91.09
10.93
11.84
91.09
54.65
51.01
169.43
1,093.08
1,821.80
to 10.0 at all times.
Direct Chill Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by direct chill methods
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil St Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
639.68
839.58
3,798.10
579.71
299.85
2,818.59
2,398.80
2,658.67
9,095.45
39,980.00
81,959.00
pH Within the range of 7.5
299.85
339.83
1,999.00
239.88
259.87
1,999.00
1,199.40
1,119.44
3,718.14
23,988.00
39,980.00
to 10.0 at all times.
959
-------
Table X-25 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
C opper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
651.84
855.54
3,870.30
590.73
305.55
2,872.17
2,444.40
2,709.21
9,268.35
40,740.00
83,517.00
pH Within the range of 7.5
305.55
346.29
2,037.00
244.44
264.81
2,037.00
1,222.20
• 1,140.72
3,788.82
24,444.00
40,740.00
to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 0.00 0.00
119 Chromium 0.00 0.00
120 Copper 0.00 0.00
121 Cyanide 0.00 0.00
122 Lead 0.00 0.00
124 Nickel 0.00 0.00
125 Selenium 0.00 0.00
128 Zinc 0.00 0.00
Aluminum 0.00 0.00
Oil & Grease 0.00 0.00
Total Suspended 0.00 0.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
960
-------
Table X-25 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 539.52 252.90
119 Chromium 708.12 286.62
120 Copper 3,203 .40 1,686 .00
121 Cyanide 488.94 202.32
122 Lead 252.90 219.18
124 Nickel 2,377.26 1,686.00
125 Selenium 2,023.20 1,011.60
128 Zinc 2,242.38 944.16
Aluminum 7,671.30 3,135.96
Oil Sc Grease 33,720.00 20,232.00
Total Suspended 69,126.00 33,720.00
Solids
£H Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 618.56 289.95
119 Chromium 811.86 328.61
120 Copper 3,672.70 1,933.00
121 Cyanide 560.57 231.96
122 Lead 289.95 251.29
124 Nickel 2,725.53 1,933.00
125 Selenium 2,319.60 1,159.80
128 Zinc 2,570 .89 1,082.48
Aluminum 8,795.15 3,595.38
Oil & Grease 38,660.00 23,196.00
Total Suspended 79,253.00 38,660.00
Solids
p_H Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
961
-------
Table X-26
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Operation
Core
Extrusion
Annealing
Stationary casting
Homogenizing
Artificial aging
Degreasing
Sawing
Miscellaneous nonde-
script wastewater
sources
Ancillary
Direct chill casting
Solution and press heat
treatment
Cleaning or etching
Waste Stream
Die cleaning bath
and rinse
Die cleaning
scrubber liquor
Dummy block cooling
None
None
None
None
Spent solvent
Spent lubricant
Various
Total Core
Normalized BAT
Discharge
1/kkg (gpt)
Production Normalizing
Parameter
14.78
275.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.807
298.1
Degassing
Contact cooling 1,999
water
Contact cooling 2,037
water
Bath 0
Rinse 1,686
Scrubber liquor 1,933
Scrubber liquor 0
Mass of aluminum
extruded
Mass of aluminum
extruded
(3.544)
(66.08)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1.153) Mass of aluminum
extruded
(0.720) Mass of aluminum
extruded
(71.50)
(479.4)
(488.5)
(0)
(404.4)
(463.5)
(0)
Mass of aluminum cast
by direct chill
method
Mass of aluminum
quenched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
degassed
-------
Table X-27
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Extrusion - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum extruded
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum 1
Oil & Grease 5
Total Suspended 12
Solids
pH Within
95.39
125.20
566.39
86.45
44.72
420.32
357.72
396.47
,356.36
,962.00
,222.10
the range of 7 . 5
44.72
50.68
298.10
35.77
38.75
298.10
178.86
166.94
554.47
3,577.20
5,962.00
to 10.0 at all times.
Direct Chill Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
639.68
839.58
3,798.10
579.71
299.85
2,818.59
2,398.80
2,658.67
9,095.45
39,980.00
81,959.00
pH Within the range of 7.5
Maximum for
Monthly Average
direct chill methods
299.85
339.83
1,999.00
239.88
259.87
1,999.00
1,199.40
1,119.44
3,718.14
23,988.00
39,980.00
to 10.0 at all times.
963
-------
Table X-27 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Solution and Press Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
PH
651.84
855.54
3,870.30
590.73
305.55
2,872.17
2,444.40
2,709.21
9,268.35
40,740.00
83,517.00
Within the range of 7.5
305.55
346.29
2,037.00
244.44
264.81
2,037.00
1,222.20
1,140.72
3,788.82
24,444.00
40,740.00
to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
mg /kkg ( Ib /b i 1 1 ion
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil Se Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
Ibs) of aluminum
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
pH Within the range of 7 .
Maximum for
Monthly Average
cleaned or etched
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5 to 10.0 at all times.
964
-------
Table X-27 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 539.52 252.90
119 Chromium 708.12 286.62
120 Copper 3,203.40 1,686.00
121 Cyanide 488.94 202.32
122 Lead 252.90 219.18
124 Nickel 2,377.26 1,686.00
125 Selenium 2,023.20 1,011.60
128 Zinc 2,242.38 944.16
Aluminum 7,671.30 3,135.96
Oil & Grease 33,720.00 20,232.00
Total Suspended 69,126.00 33,720.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 618.56 289.95
119 Chromium 811.86 328.61
120 Copper 3,672.70 1,933.00
121 Cyanide 560.57 231.96
122 Lead 289.95 251.29
124 Nickel 2,725.53 1,933.00
125 Selenium 2,319.60 1,159.80
128 Zinc 2,570.89 1,082.48
Aluminum 8,795.15 3,595.38
Oil fe Grease 38,660.00 23,196.00
Total Suspended 79,253.00 38,660.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
965
-------
Table X-27 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Degassing - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum degassed
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper
121 Cyanide
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
0.00
0.00
0.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
966
-------
Table X-28
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Operation
Core
Forging
Annealing
Artificial aging
Degreasing
Sawing
Miscellaneous nonde-
script wastewater
sources
Ancillary
Forging
Solution heat treatment
Cleaning or etching
Waste Stream
None
None
None
Spent solvent
Spent lubricant
Various
Total Core
Scrubber liquor
Contact cooling
water
Bath
Rinse
Scrubber liquor
Normalized BAT
Discharge
1/fckg (gpt)
0
0
0
0
4.807
7.807
94.31
2,037
0
1,686
1,933
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1.153)
(0.720)
(1.873)
(22.65)
(488.5)
(0)
(404.4)
(463.5)
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of aluminum forged
Mass of aluminum forged
Mass of aluminum forged
Mass of aluminum
quenched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
-------
Table X-29
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Forging - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum forged
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil St Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
_PH
2.50
3.28
14.83
2.26
1.17
11.01
9.37
10.38
35.52
156.14
320.09
1.17
1.33
7.81
0.94
1.01
7.81
4.68
4.37
14.52
93.68
156.14
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Forging - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum forged
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease 1
Total Suspended 3
Solids
pH Within
30.18
39.61
179.19
27.35
14.15
132.98
113.17
125.43
429.11
,886.20
,866.71
the range of 7.5
14.15
16.03
94.31
11.32
12.26
94.31
56.59
52.81
175.42
1,131.72
1,886.20
to 10.0 at all times.
968
-------
Table X-29 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil St Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
651.84
855.54
3,870.30
590.73
305.55
2,872.17
2,444.40
2,709.21
9,268.35
40,740.00
83,517.00
pH Within the range of 7.5
305.55
346.29
2,037.00
244.44
264.81
2,037.00
1,222.20
1,140.72
3,788.82
24,444.00
40,740.00
to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
.Pollutant or Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs)
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
of aluminum
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
pH Within the range of 7.
Maximum for
Monthly Average
cleaned or etched
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5 to 10.0 at all times.
969
-------
Table X-29 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 539.52 252.90
119 Chromium 708.12 286.62
120 Copper 3,203.40 1,686.00
121 Cyanide 488.94 202.32
122 Lead 252.90 219.18
124 Nickel 2,377.26 1,686.00
125 Selenium 2,023.20 1,011.60
128 Zinc 2,242.38 944.16
Aluminum 7,671.30 3,135 .96
Oil & Grease 33,720.00 20,232.00
Total Suspended 69,126.00 33,720.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
mg/kkg (Ib /billion
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
Ibs) of aluminum
618.56
811.86
3,672.70
560.57
289.95
2,725.53
2,319.60
2,570.89
8,795.15
38,660.00
79,253.00
pH Within the range of 7.
Maximum for
Monthly Average
cleaned or etched
289.95
328.61
1,933.00
231.96
251.29
1,933.00
1,159.80
1,082.48
3,595.38
23,196.00
38,660.00
5 to 10.0 at all times.
970
-------
Table X-30
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Operation
Core
Drawing with neat oils
Annealing
Stationary casting
Homogeniz ing
Artificial aging
Degreasing
Sawing
Swaging
Miscellaneous nonde-
script wastewater
sources
Ancillary
Continous rod casting
Solution heat treatment
Cleaning or etching
Waste Stream
Spent oils
None
None
None
None
Spent solvent
Spent lubricant
None
Various
Total Core
Contact cooling
water
Spent lubricant
Contact cooling
water
Bath
Rinse
Scrubber liquor
Normalized BAT
Discharge
1/kkg (gpt)
Production Normalizing
Parameter
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.807
0
3
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1.153)
(0)
(0.720)
7.807
104.2
1.843
2,037
0
1,686
1,933
(1.873)
(24.99)
(0.442)
(488.5)
(0)
(404.4)
(463.5)
Mass of aluminum drawn
with neat oils
Mass of aluminum drawn
with neat oils
Mass of rod cast by
continuous method
Mass of rod cast by
continuous method
Mass of aluminum
quenched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
-------
Table X-31
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Drawing With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum drawn with neat oils
118 Cadmium 2.50 1.17
119 Chromium 3.28 1.33
120 Copper 14.83 7.81
121 Cyanide 2.26 0.94
122 Lead 1.17 1.01
124 Nickel 11.01 7.81
125 Selenium 9.37 4.68
128 Zinc 10.38 4.37
Aluminum 35.52 14.52
Oil & Grease 156.14 93.68
Total Suspended 320.09 156.14
Solids
p_H Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Continuous Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs)
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil Sc Grease 2
Total Suspended 4
Solids
pH Within
Maximum for
Monthly Average
of aluminum cast by continuous methods
33.34
43.76
197.98
30.22
15.63
146.92
125.04
138.59
474.11
,084.00
,272.20
the range of 7.5
15.63
17.71
104.20
12.50
13.55
104.20
62.52
58.35
193.81
1,250.40
2,084.00
to 10.0 at all times.
972
-------
Table X-31 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/blllion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
pH Within
0.59
0.77
3.50
0.53
0.28
2.60
2.21
2.45
8.39
36.86
75.56
the range of 7.5
0.28
0.31
1.84
0.22
0.24
1.84
1.11
1.03
3.43
22.12
36.86
to 10.0 at all times.
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil St Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
651.84
855.54
3,870.30
590.73
305.55
2,872.17
2,444.40
2,709.21
9,268.35
40,740.00
83,517.00
pH Within the range of 7.5
305.55
346.29
2,037.00
244.44
264.81
2,037.00
1,222.20
1,140.72
3,788.82
24,444.00
40,740.00
to 10.0 at all times.
973
-------
Table X-31 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper
121 Cyanide
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
pH __
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum
Cadmium 539.52
Chromium 708.12
Copper 3,203.40
Cyanide 488.94
Lead 252.90
Nickel 2,377.26
Selenium 2,023.20
Zinc 2,242.38
Aluminum 7,671.30
Oil & Grease 33,720.00
Total Suspended 69,126.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7
Maximum for
Monthly Average
cleaned or etched
252.90
286.62
1,686.00
202.32
219.18
1,686.00
1,011.60
944.16
3,135.96
20,232.00
33,720.00
.5 to 10.0 at all times.
974
-------
Table X-31 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium1
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
PH
618.56
811.86
3,672.70
560.57
289.95
2,725.53
2,319.60
2,570.89
8,795.15
38,660.00
79,253.00
Within the range of 7.5
289.95
328.61
1,933.00
231.96
251.29
1,933.00
1,159.80
1,082.48
3,595.38
23,196.00
38,660.00
to 10.0 at all times.
975
-------
Table X-32
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Operation
Core
Drawing with emulsions
or soaps
Annealing
Stationary casting
Homogenizing
Artificial aging
Degreasing
Sawing
Swaging
Miscellaneous nonde-
script wastewater
sources
Ancillary
Continuous rod casting
Solution heat treatment
Cleaning or etching
Waste Stream
None
None
None
None
Spent solvent
Spent lubricant
None
Various
Total Core
Contact cooling
water
Spent lubricant
Contact cooling
water
Bath
Rinse
Scrubber liquor
Normalized BAT
Discharge
l/kk_g (gpt)
Spent lubricants 416.5
0
0
0
0
0
4.807
424.3
104.2
1.843
2,037
0
1,686
1,933
(99.89)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1.153)
(0)
(0.720)
(101.8)
(24.99)
(0.442)
(488.5)
(0)
(404.4)
(463.5)
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of aluminum drawn
with emulsions or
soaps
Mass of aluminum drawn
with emulsions or
soaps
Mass of aluminum drawn
with emulsions or
soaps
Mass of rod cast by
continuous methods
Mass of rod cast by
continuous methods
Mass of aluminum
quenched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
-------
Table X-33
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS
OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Drawing With Emulsions or Soaps - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum drawn with emulsions or soaps
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil St Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
135.78
178.21
806.17
123.05
63.65
598.26
509.16
564.32
1,930.57
8,486.00
17,396.30
pH Within the range of 7.5
63.65
72.13
424.30
50.92
55.16
424.30
254.58
237.61
789.20
5,091.60
8,486.00
to 10.0 at all times.
Continuous Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease 2
Total Suspended 4
Solids
pH Within
33.34
43.76
197.98
30.22
15.63
146.93
125.04
138.59
474.11
,084.00
,272.20
the range of 7.5
15.63
17.71
104.20
12.50
13.55
104.20
62.52
58.35
193.81
1,250.40
2,084.00
to 10.0 at all times.
977
-------
Table X-33 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS
OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/blllion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118 Cadmium 0.59 0.28
119 Chromium 0.77 0.31
120 Copper 3.50 1.84
121 Cyanide 0.53 0.22
122 Lead 0.28 0.24
124 Nickel 2.60 1.84
125 Selenium 2.21 1.11
128 Zinc 2.45 1.03
Aluminum 8.39 3.43
Oil & Grease 36.86 22.12
Total Suspended 75.56 36.86
Solids
pjl Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
651.84
855.54
3,870.30
590.73
305.55
2,872.17
2,444.40
2,709.21
9,268.35
40,740.00
83,517.00
pH Within the range of 7 . 5
305.55
346.29
2,037.00
244.44
264.81
2,037.00
1,222.20
1,140.72
3,788.82
24,444.00
40,740.00
to 10.0 at all times.
978
-------
Table X-33 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS
OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/blllion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 0.00 0.00
119 Chromium 0.00 0.00
120 Copper 0.00 0.00
121 Cyanide 0.00 0.00
122 Lead 0.00 0.00
124 Nickel 0.00 0.00
125 Selenium 0.00 0.00
128 Zinc 0.00 0.00
Aluminum 0.00 0.00
Oil & Grease 0.00 0.00
Total Suspended 0.00 0.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
PH
539.52
708.12
3,203.40
488.94
252.90
2,377.26
2,023.20
2,242.38
7,671.30
33,720.00
69,126.00
Within the range of 7.5
252.90
286.62
1,686.00
202.32
219.18
1,686.00
1,011.60
944.16
3,135.96
20,232.00
33,720.00
to 10.0 at all times.
979
-------
Table X-33 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS
OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for " Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
618.56
811.86
3,672.70
560.57
289.95
2,725.53
2,319.60
2,570.89
8,795.15
38,660.00
79,253.00
pH Within the range of 7.5
289.95
328.61
1,933.00
231.96
251.29
1,933.00
1,159.80
1,082.48
3,595.38
23,196.00
38,660.00
to 10.0 at all times.
980
-------
SECTION XI
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The basis for new source performance standards (NSPS) under
Section 306 of the Clean Water Act is the best available demon-
strated technology (BDT). New plants have the opportunity to
design the best and most efficient production processes and
wastewater treatment technologies. Therefore, BDT includes pro-
cess changes, in-plant controls (including elimination of waste-
water streams), operating procedure changes, and end-of-pipe
treatment technologies to reduce pollution to the maximum extent
possible. This section describes the control technology for
treatment of wastewater from new sources and presents mass dis-
charge limitations of regulated pollutants for NSPS, based on the
described control technology.
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO NSPS
All wastewater reduction and process changes applicable to a new
source have been considered previously for the BAT options. For
this reason, five options were considered as the basis for NSPS,
all identical to BAT options in Section X. Due to high costs and
low environmental benefits, BAT Option 6 was not considered for
NSPS. The five options are summarized below and presented in
greater detail in Section X.
In summary form, the treatment technologies considered for new
aluminum forming facilities are:
NSPS Option 1 is based on:
Oil skimming,
Lime and settle (chemical precipitation of metals),
followed by sedimentation), and
pH adjustment; and, where required,
Cyanide removal,
Hexavalent chromium reduction, and
Chemical emulsion breaking.
NSPS Option 2 is based on:
NSPS Option 1, plus process wastewater flow minimiza-
tion by the following methods:
981
-------
Heat treatment contact cooling water recycle through
cooling towers.
Continuous rod casting contact cooling water
recycle.
Air pollution control scrubber liquor recycle.
- Hauling or regeneration of spent cleaning or etching
baths.
Countercurrent cascade rinsing or other water
efficient methods applied to cleaning or etching and
extrusion die cleaning rinses.
Alternative fluxing or in-line refining methods,
neither of which require wet air pollution control,
for degassing aluminum melts.
NSPS Option 3 is based on:
NSPS Option 2, plus multimedia filtration at the end
of the NSPS Option 2 treatment train.
NSPS Option 4 is based on:
NSPS Option 2 plus thermal emulsion breaking or
contractor hauling for concentrated emulsions.
NSPS Option 5 is based on:
NSPS Option 4, plus multimedia filtration at the end of
the NSPS Option 4 treatment train.
A more detailed discussion of these options and their appli-
cability with each of the six subcategories is presented in
Section X.
NSFS OPTION SELECTION
A draft development document was circulated for limited review by
industry and environmental groups. As a result of comments
received, EPA carefully considered various options to determine
their technological and economic feasibility in light of their
beneficial characteristics.
EPA is proposing that the best available demonstrated technology
for all six subcategories in the aluminum forming category be
equivalent to BAT technology with the addition of filtration
prior to discharge (NSPS Option 3). As discussed in Sections IX
and X, these technologies are currently used at plants within
this point source category. The Agency recognizes that new
sources have the opportunity to implement more advanced levels of
treatment without incurring the costs of retrofit equipment, the
costs of partial or complete shutdown to install new equipment
and to start up and stabilize the treatment system as existing
982
-------
systems would have to do. Specifically, the design of new plants
can be based on recycle of contact cooling water through cooling
towers, recycle of air pollution control scrubber liquor or the
use of dry air pollution control equipment, regeneration of
cleaning or etching baths, and use of countercurrent cascade
rinsing. New plants also have the opportunity to consider alter-
nate fluxing or in-line refining methods during the preliminary
design of the facility.
The data relied upon for selection of NSPS were primarily the
data developed for existing sources which included costs on a
plant-by-plant basis along with retrofit costs where applicable.
The Agency believes that compliance costs could be lower for new
sources than the cost estimates for equivalent existing sources,
because production processes can be designed on the basis of
lower flows and there will be no costs associated with retrofit-
ting the in-process controls. Therefore, new sources regardless
of whether they are plants with major modifications or greenfield
sites, will have costs that are not greater than the costs that
existing sources would incur in achieving equivalent pollutant
discharge reduction. Based on this the Agency believes that the
selected NSPS (NSPS Option 3) is appropriate for both greenfield
sites and existing sites undergoing major modifications (e.g., a
primary aluminum plant which installs a rolling operation).
Costs and Environmental Benefits of Treatment Options
Costs for an individual new source can be estimated using the
methods described in Section VIII. The Agency has not estimated
total costs for the category or subcategories since it is not
known how many new aluminum forming plants will be built. Esti-
mates of treatment performance for an individual "normal plant"
in each subcategory are presented in Tables X-14 through X-19
(pp. 936 through 947 ).
REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
The Agency has no reason to believe that the pollutants that will
be found in significant quantities in processes within new
sources will be any different than with existing sources. Conse-
quently, pollutants selected for regulation, in accordance with
the rationale of Section VI, are the same ones for each subcate-
gory that were selected for BAT plus TSS, oil and grease, and pH.
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The regulatory production normalized flows for NSPS (NSPS Option
3) are the same as the production normalized flows for the
selected BAT option (Option 2). Production normalized flows for
983
-------
NSPS Options 4 and 5 are based on the flow reduction controls of
NSPS Option 2 plus zero discharge of all emulsified wastewater
streams based on the application of thermal emulsion breaking.
,NSPS Options 1, 2, and 4 are based on the treatment effectiveness
values for lime and settle technology, as presented in Table
VII-21 (p. 748 ). NSPS Options 3 and 5 are based on the treat-
ment effectiveness values for lime, settle, and filter technol-
ogy, as presented in Table VII-21 (p. 743 ). The mass of pollu-
tant allowed to be discharged per mass of product is calculated
by multiplying the appropriate treatment effectiveness value (one
day maximum and ten day average values) (mg/1) by the production
normalized flows (1/kkg). When these calculations are performed,
the mass-based NSPS can be derived for the selected option (NSPS
Option 3). These values are presented for each of the six
subcategories in Tables XI-1 through XI-6.
984
-------
Table XI-1
NSPS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams Without An Annealing
Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mft/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with neat oils
118 Cadmium 3.32 1.33
119 Chromium 6.13 2.49
120 Copper 21.22 10.11
121 Cyanide 3.32 1.33
122 Lead 1.66 1.49
124 Nickel 9.12 6.14
125 Selenium 0.50 0,17
128 Zinc 16.91 6.96
Aluminum 50.24 20.56
Oil & Grease 165.80 165.80
Total Suspended 248.70 182.38
Solids
j>H Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams With An Annealing
Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with neat oils
118 Cadmium 8.59 3.43
119 Chromium 15.88 6.44
120 Copper 54.95 26.19
121 Cyanide 8.59 3.43
122 Lead 4.29 3.86
124 Nickel 23.61 15.88
125 Selenium 1.29 0.43
128 Zinc 43.79 18.03
Aluminum 130.08 53.23
Oil & Grease 429.30 429.30
Total Suspended 643.95 472.23
Solids
^H Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
985
-------
Table XI-1 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Continuous Sheet Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
pH Within
0.37
0.68
2.36
0.37
0.18
1.01
0.06
1.88
5.58
18,43
27.65
the range of 7 *
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact
- — • - TTi ii
by continuous methods
0.15
0.28
1.12
0.15
0.17
0.68
0.02
0.77
2.29
18.43
20.27
5 to 10.0 at all times.
Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil St Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
407.40
753.69
2,607.36
407.40
203.70
1,120.35
61.11
2,077.74
6,172.11
20,370.00
30,555.00
pH Within the range of 7.5
162.96
305.55
1,242.57
162.96
183.33
753.69
20.37
855.54
2,525.88
20,370.00
22,407.00
to 10.0 at all times.
986
-------
Table XI-1 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned
118 Cadmium
1 19 Chromium
120 Copper
121 Cyanide
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
pH Within
Cleaning
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
the range of 7.5 to 10
or Etching - Rinse
or etched
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.0 at all times.
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
mg/kkg (Ib/billion
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Ibs) of aluminum
337.20
623.82
2,158.08
337.20
168.60
927.30
50.58
1,719.72
5,108.58
Oil & Grease 16,860.00
Total Suspended
Solids
25,290.00
pH Within the range of 7.
cleaned or etched
134.88
252.90
1,028.46
134.88
151.74
623.82
16.86
708.12
2,090.64
16,860.00
18,546.00
5 to 10.0 at all times.
987
-------
Table XI-1 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil Se Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
386.60
715.21
2,474.24
386.60
193.30
1,063.15
57.99
1,971.66
5,856.99
19,330.00
28,995.00
pH Within the range of 7.5
154.64
289.95
1,179.13
154.64
173.97
715.21
19.33
811.86
2,396.92
19,330.00
21,263.00
to 10.0 at all times.
988
-------
Table XI-2
NSPS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Rolling With Emulsions - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with emulsions
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil SE Grease
Total Suspended 1
Solids
pH Within
18.22
33.70
116.60
18.22
9.11
50.10
2.73
92.91
276.00
910.90
,366.35
the range of 7.5
7.29
13.66
55.56
7.29
8.20
33.70
0.91
38.26
112.95
' 910.90
1,001.99
to 10.0 at all times.
Direct Chill Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by direct chill methods
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil St Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
399.80
739.63
2,558.72
399.80
199.90
1,099.45
59.97
2,038.98
6,056.97
19,990.00
29,985.00
pH Within the range of 7.5
159.92
299.85
1,219.39
159.92
179.91
739.63
19.99
839.58
2,478.76
19,990.00
21,989.00
to 10.0 at all times.
989
-------
Table XI-2 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
PH
407.40
753.69
2,607.36
407.40
203.70
1,120.35
61.11
2,077.74
6,172.11
20,370.00
30,555.00
Within the range of
Cleaning or Etching
162.96
305.55
1,242.57
162.96
183.33
753.69
20.37
855.54
2,525.88
20,370.00
22,407.00
7.5 to 10.0 at all times.
- Bath
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs)
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil Se Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
of aluminum
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
pH Within the range of 7.
cleaned or etched
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5 to 10.0 at all times.
990
-------
Table XI-2 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billlon Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 337.20 134.88
119 Chromium 623.82 252.90
120 Copper 2,158.08 1,028.46
121 Cyanide 337.20 134.88
122 Lead 168.60 151.74
124 Nickel 927.30 623.82
125 Selenium 50.58 16.86
128 Zinc 1,719.72 708.12
Aluminum 5,108.58 2,090.64
Oil & Grease 16,860.00 16,860.00
Total Suspended 25,290.00 18,546.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
mg/kkg (Ib/billion
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil St Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
Ibs) of aluminum
386.60
715.21
2,474.24
386.60
193.30
1,063.15
57.99
1,971.66
5,856.99
19,330.00
28,995.00
pH Within the range of 7.
cleaned or etched
154.64
289.95
1,179.13
154.64
173.97
715.21
19.33
811.86
2,396.92
19,330.00
21,263.00
5 to 10.0 at all times.
991
-------
Table XI-3
NSPS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Extrusion - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum extruded
118 Cadmium 59.62 23.85
119 Chromium 110.30 44.72
120 Copper 381.57 181.84
121 Cyanide 59.62 23.85
122 Lead 29.81 26.83
124 Nickel 163.96 110.30
125 Selenium 8.94 2.98
128 Zinc 304.06 125.20
Aluminum 903.24 369.64
Oil & Grease 2,981.00 2,981.00
Total Suspended 4,471.50 3,279.10
Solids
pjl Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Direct Chill Casting - Contact Cooling Water
• Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil Se Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
399.80
739.63
2,558.72
399.80
199.90
1,099.45
59.97
2,038.98
6,056.97
19,990.00
29,985.00
pH Within the range of 7.5
direct chill methods
159.92
299.85
1,219.39
159.92
179.91
739.63
19.99
839.58
2,478.76
19,990.00
21,989.00
to 10.0 at all times.
992
-------
Table XI-3 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Solution and Press Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil Se Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
pH
407.40
753.69
2,607.36
407.40
203.70
1,120.35
61.11
2,077.74
6,172.11
20,370.00
30,555.00
Within the range of
Cleaning or Etching
162.96
305.55
1,242.57
162.96
183.33
753.69
20.37
855.54
2,525.88
20,370.00
22,407.00
7.5 to 10.0 at all times.
- Bath
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
mg/kkg (Ib/billion
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
Ibs) of aluminum cleaned
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10
or etched
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.0 at all times.
993
-------
Table XI-3 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 337.20 134.88
119 Chromium 623.82 252.90
120 Copper 2,158.08 1,028.46
121 Cyanide 337.20 134.88
122 Lead 168.60 151.74
124 Nickel 927.30 623.82
125 Selenium 50.58 16.86
128 Zinc 1,719.72 708.12
Aluminum 5,108.58 2,090.64
Oil & Grease 16,860.00 16,860.00
Total Suspended 25,290.00 18,546.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
• — — T • — ~ - — — ^— ^^— ^.
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum
Cadmium 386.60
Chromium 715.21
Copper 2,474.24
Cyanide 386.60
Lead 193.30
Nickel 1,063.15
Selenium 57.99
Zinc 1,971.66
Aluminum 5,856.99
Oil & Grease 19,330.00
Total Suspended 28,995.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7 .
cleaned or etched
154.64
289.95
1,179.13
154.64
173.97
715.21
19.33
811.86
2,396.92
19,330.00
21,263.00
5 to 10.0 at all times.
994
-------
Table XI-3 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Degassing - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum degassed
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper
121 Cyanide
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
995
-------
Table XI-4
NSPS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Forging - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum forged
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
pH Within
1.56
2.89
9.99
1.56
0.78
4.29
0.23
7.96
23.66
78.07
117.11
the range of 7 . 5
0.62
1.17
4.76
0.62
0.70
2.89
0.08
3.28
9.68
78.07
85.88
to 10.0 at all times.
Forging - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum forged
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended 1
Solids
pH Within
18.86
34.89
120.72
18.86
9.43
51.87
2.83
96.20
285.76
943.10
,414.65
the range of 7.5
7.54
14.15
57.53
7.54
8.49
34.89
0.94
39.61
116.94
943.10
1,037.41
to 10.0 at all times.
996
-------
Table XI-4 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
PH
407.40
753.69
2,607.36
407.40
203.70
1,120.35
61.11
2,077.74
6,172.11
20,370.00
30,555.00
Within the range of 7.5
162.96
305.55
1,242.57
162.96
183.33
753.69
20.37
855.54
2,525.88
20,370.00
22,407.00
to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 0.00 0.00
119 Chromium 0.00 0.00
120 Copper 0.00 0.00
121 Cyanide 0.00 0.00
122 Lead 0.00 0.00
124 Nickel 0.00 0.00
125 Selenium 0.00 0.00
128 Zinc 0.00 0.00
Aluminum 0.00 0.00
Oil & Grease 0.00 0.00
Total Suspended 0.00 0.00
Solids
pjl Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
997
-------
Table XI-4 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper
121 Cyanide
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Oil SE Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
PH
337.20
623.82
2,158.08
337.20
168.60
927.30
50.58
1,719.72
5,108.58
16,860,00
25,290.00
134.88
252.90
1,028.46
134.88
151.74
623.82
16.86
708.12
2,090.64
16,860.00
18,546.00
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum
Cadmium 386.60
Chromium 715.21
Copper 2,474.24
Cyanide 386.60
Lead 193.30
Nickel 1,063.15
Selenium 57.99
Zinc 1,971.66
Aluminum 5,856.99
Oil Sc Grease 19,330.00
Total Suspended 28,995.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.
cleaned or etched
154.64
289.95
1,179.13
154.64
173.97
715.21
19.33
811.86
2,396.92
19,330.00
21,263.00
5 to 10.0 at all times.
998
-------
Table XI-5
NSPS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Drawing With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
mg/kkg (Ib/billion
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil Sc Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
Ibs) of aluminum drawn
1.56
2.89
9.99
1.56
0.78
4.29
0.23
7.96
23.66
78.07
117.11
pH Within the range of 7.5 to
with neat oils
0.62
1.17
4.76
0.62
0.70
2.89
0.08
3.28
9.68
78.07
85.88
10.0 at all times.
Continuous Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease 1 ,
Total Suspended 1,
Solids
pH Within
20.84
38.56
133.38
20.84
10.42
57.31
3.13
106.28
315.73
042.00
563.00
the range of 7.5
8.34
15.63
63.56
8.34
9.38
38.55
1.04
43.76
129.21
1,042.00
1,146.20
to 10.0 at all times.
999
-------
Table XI-5 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118 Cadmium 0.37 0.15
119 Chromium 0.68 0.28
120 Copper 2.36 1.12
121 Cyanide 0.37 0.15
122 Lead 0.18 0.17
124 Nickel 1.01 0.68
125 Selenium 0.06 0.02
128 Zinc 1.88 0.77
Aluminum 5.58 2.29
Oil & Grease 18.43 18.43
Total Suspended 27.65 20.27
Solids
j>3 Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
407.40
753.69
2,607.36
407.40
203.70
1,120.35
61.11
2,077.74
6,172.11
20,370.00
30,555.00
pH Within the range of 7.5
162.96
305.55
1,242.57
162.96
183.33
753.69
20.37
855.54
2,525.88
20,370.00
22,407.00
to 10.0 at all times.
1000
-------
Table XI-5 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
mg /kkg ( Ib /b i 1 1 ion
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil Sc Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
Ibs) of aluminum
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
pH Within the range of 7.
cleaned or etched
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum
Cadmium 337.20
Chromium 623.82
Copper 2,158.08
Cyanide 337.20
Lead 168.60
Nickel 927.30
Selenium 50.58
Zinc 1,719.72
Aluminum 5,108.58
Oil St Grease 16,860.00
Total Suspended 25,290.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7 .
cleaned or etched
134.88
252.90
1,028.46
134.88
151.74
623.82
16.86
708.12
2,090.64
16,860.00
18,546.00
5 to 10.0 at all times.
1001
-------
Table XI-5 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
386.60
715.21
2,474.24
386.60
193.30
1,063.15
57.99
1,971.66
5,856.99
19,330.00
28,995.00
pH Within the range of 7.5
154,64
289.95
1,179.13
154.64
173.97
715.21
19.33
811.86
2,396.92
19,330.00
21,263.00
to 10.0 at all times.
1002
-------
I
Table XI-6
NSPS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS
OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Drawing With Emulsions or Soaps - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum drawn with emulsions or soaps
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil St Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
pH
84.86
156.99
543.10
84.86
42.43
233.37
12.73
432.79
1,285.63
4,243.00
6,364.50
Within the range of 7.5
33.94
63.65
258.82
33.94
38.19
156.99
4.24
178.21
526.13
4,243.00
4,667.30
to 10.0 at all times.
Continuous Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil Sc Grease 1
Total Suspended 1
Solids
pH Within
20.84
38.56
133.38
20.84
10.42
57.31
3.13
106.28
315.73
,042.00
,563.00
the range of 7.5
8.34
15.63
63.56
8.34
9.38
38.55
1.04
43.76
129.21
1,042.00
1,146.20
to 10.0 at all times.
1003
-------
Table XI-6 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS
OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkfi (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper
121 Cyanide
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
0.37
0.68
2.36
0.37
0.18
1.01
0.06
1.88
5.58
18.43
27.65
0.15
0.28
1.12
0.15
0.17
0.68
0.02
0.77
2.29
18.43
20.27
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
pH
407.40
753.69
2,607.36
407.40
203.70
1,120.35
61.11
2,077.74
6,172.11
20,370.00
30,555.00
Within the range of 7 . 5
162.96
305.55
1,242.57
162.96
183.33
753.69
20.37
855.54
2,525.88
20,370.00
22,407.00
to 10.0 at all times.
1004
-------
Table XI-6 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS
OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/blllion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
pH Within
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
the range of 7.5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billlon Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil St Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
PH
337.20
623.82
2,158.08
337.20
168.60
927.30
50.58
1,719.72
5,108.58
16,860.00
25,290.00
Within the range of 7.5
134.88
252.90
1,028.46
134.88
151.74
623.82
16.86
708.12
2,090.64
16,860.00
18,546.00
to 10.0 at all times.
1005
-------
Table XI-6 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS
OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended
Solids
386.60
715.21
2,474.24
386.60
193.30
1,063.15
57.99
1,971.66
5,856.99
19,330.00
28,995.00
pH Within the range of 7 . 5
154.64
289.95
1,179.13
154.64
173.97
715.21
19.33
811.86
2,396.92
19,330.00
21,263.00
to 10.0 at all times.
1006
-------
SECTION XII
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
Section 307 (b) of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to promulgate
pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES), which must be
achieved within three years of promulgation. PSES are designed
to prevent the discharge of pollutants which pass through, inter-
fere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of
publicly owned treatment works (POTW). The Clean Water Act of
1977 adds a new dimension by requiring pretreatment for pollu-
tants, such as heavy metals, that limit POTW sludge management
alternatives, including the beneficial use of sludges on agricul-
tural lands. The legislative history of the 1977 Act indicates
that pretreatment standards are to be technology based, analogous
to the best available technology for removal of toxic pollutants.
Section 307(c) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment
standards for new sources (PSNS) at the same time that it promul-
gates NSPS. New indirect discharge facilities, like new direct
discharge facilities, have the opportunity to incorporate the
best available demonstrated technologies, including process
changes, in-plant controls, and end-of-pipe treatment tech-
nologies, and to use plant site selection to ensure adequate
treatment system installation.
General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of
Pollution were published in the Federal Register, Vol. 43, No.
123, Monday, June 26, 1978. These regulations describe the
Agency's overall policy for establishing and enforcing pretreat-
ment standards for new and existing users of a POTW and deline-
ate the responsibilities and deadlines applicable to each party
in this effort. In addition, 40 CFR Part 403, Section 403.5 (b),
outlines prohibited discharges which apply to all users of a
POTW.
This section describes the treatment and control technology for
pretreatment of process wastewaters from existing sources and new
sources, and presents mass discharge limitations of regulated
pollutants for existing and new sources, based on the described
control technology.
DISCHARGE OF ALUMINUM FORMING WASTEWATERS TO A POTW
There are 66 plants in the aluminum forming industry which dis-
charge to a POTW. The plants that may be affected by pretreat-
ment standards represent about 24 percent of the aluminum forming
plants.
1007
-------
Pretreatment standards are established to ensure removal of
pollutants which interfere with, pass through, or are otherwise
incompatible with a POTW. A determination of which pollutants
may pass through or be incompatible with POTW operations, and
thus be subject to pretreatment standards, depends on the level
of treatment employed by the POTW. In general, more pollutants
will pass through or interfere with a POTW employing primary
treatment (usually physical separation by settling) than one
which has installed secondary treatment (settling plus biological
treatment).
Many of the pollutants contained in aluminum forming wastewaters
are not biodegradable and are, therefore, ineffectively treated
by such systems. Furthermore, these pollutants have been known
to pass through or interfere with the normal operations of these
systems. Problems associated with the uncontrolled release of
pollutant parameters identified in aluminum forming process
wastewaters to POTW were discussed in Section VI. The discussion
covered pass-through, interference, and sludge useability.
The Agency based the selection of pretreatment standards for the
aluminum forming category on the minimization of pass-through of
toxic pollutants at POTW. For each subcategory, the Agency com-
pared removal rates for each toxic pollutant limited by the pre-
treatment options to the removal rate for that pollutant at well
operated POTW. The POTW removal rates were determined through a
study conducted by the Agency at over 40 POTW and a statistical
analysis of the data. (See Fate of Priority Pollutants in
Publicly Owned Treatment Works, EPA 440/1-80-301, October, 1980;
and Determining National Removal Credits for Selected Pollutants
for Publicly Owned Treatment Works, EPA 440/82-008, September,
1982.) The POTW removal rates are presented below:
PSES Option 2 Removal
Toxic Pollutant POTW Removal Rate Rate
Chromium 65% 99.8%
Copper 58% 85.4%
Cyanide 52% 87.8%
Lead 48% 93.7%
Nickel 19% 66.9%
Zinc 65% 96.2%
TTO 61 - 96% 50 - 100%
The pretreatment options selected provide for significantly more
removal of toxic pollutants than would occur if aluminum forming
wastewaters were discharged untreated to POTW. Thus pretreatment
standards will control the discharge of toxic pollutants to POTW
and prevent pass through.
1008
-------
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO PRETREATMENT
The pretreatment options for existing sources and new sources are
identical to the options considered for BAT. Pretreatment
Options 4, 5, and 6 have high costs and high energy requirements
and achieve only a small incremental removal of primarily toxic
organics over removals achieved by pretreatment Options 2 and 3.
The principle difference in pollutant removal achievable by
Options 4, 5, and 6 over Options 2 and 3 are toxic organics. As
shown in Section X (Table X-21, p. 951 ), oil removal to the BPT
level can achieve a 97 percent reduction in toxic organic pollu-
tants. Therefore, Options 4, 5, and 6 were not further consid-
ered for PSES. There is no reason to believe that the levels of
toxic organics discharged from new sources will be any different
than from existing sources. Thus, Options 4, 5, and 6 were not
further considered for PSNS.
Treatment technologies and controls employed for the pretreatment
options are:
Pretreatment Option 1 is based on:
Oil skimming;
Lime and settle, and where required;
Chromium reduction.
Cyanide removal, and
Chemical emulsion breaking.
Pretreatment Option 2 is based on:
All of Pretreatment Option 1, plus
Hauling or regeneration of cleaning or etching baths,
resulting in a zero discharge of pollutants.
Countercurrent rinsing of cleaning or etching rinses to
reduce normalized discharge flows.
Alternative fluxing methods (e.g., dry air pollution
control and in-line refining) to eliminate the dis-
charge from degassing operations.
Recycling of heat treatment contact cooling water
streams through cooling towers to reduce their
normalized discharge flow.
1009
-------
Recycling of air pollution control system streams asso-
ciated with cleaning or etching and forging operations
to reduce their their normalized discharge flows.
Use of extrusion die cleaning rinse for bath make-up
water.
Pretreatment Option 3 is based on:
All of Pretreatment Option 2, plus multimedia
filtration.
FSES AND PSNS OPTION SELECTION
In the aluminum forming category, the Agency has concluded that
the pollutants that would be regulated, primarily toxic metals
under these proposed standards, pass through a POTW. The average
percentage of these pollutants removed by a well-operated POTW
meeting secondary treatment requirements nationwide is about 50
percent (ranging from 20 to 65 percent), whereas the percentage
that can be removed by an aluminum forming direct discharger
applying the best available technology economically achievable is
expected to be about 98 percent (ranging from 67 to 100 percent).
Accordingly, these pollutants pass through a POTW. Pass-through
and concentration in POTW sludges are discussed in detail in
Section VI for each toxic pollutant (organics and metals) that
was considered for regulation under pretreatment standards.
Pretreatment Option 2 is selected as the regulatory approach for
pretreatment standards for existing sources on the basis that it
achieves effective removal of toxic pollutants at a reasonable
cost. In addition, as discussed above, a well-operated POTW can
achieve removal of the pollutants that are discharged after the
application of Pretreatment Option 2 technology. As summarized
above in this section and in more detail in Section X, the basis
of Pretreatment Option 2 (BAT Option 2) is reduction or elimina-
tion of flow for many of the waste streams associated with
aluminum forming operations.
Pretreatment Option 3 is selected as the regulatory approach for
pretreatment standards for new sources on the basis that new
sources can implement more advanced levels of treatment without
incurring the retrofit costs that would be required for existing
sources. Pretreatment Option 3 achieves effective removal of
toxic pollutants at a reasonable cost. As summarized above in
this section and in more detail in Section X, the basis of
Pretreatment Option 3 (BAT Option 3) is reduction or elimination
of flow for many of the waste streams associated with aluminum
forming operations and the application of filtration technology
prior to final discharge.
1010
-------
The data relied upon for selection of PSNS were primarily the
data developed for existing sources which included costs on a
plant-by-plant basis along with retrofit costs where applicable.
The Agency believes that compliance costs could be lower for new
sources than the cost estimates for equivalent existing sources,
because production processes can be designed on the basis of
lower flows and there will be no costs associated with retrofit-
ting the in-process controls. Therefore, new sources regardless
of whether they are plants with major modifications or greenfield
sites, will have costs that are not greater than the costs that
existing sources would incur in achieving equivalent pollutant
discharge reduction. Based on this the Agency believes that the
selected PSNS (Pretreatment Option 3) is appropriate for both
greenfield sites and existing sites undergoing major modifica-
tions (e.g., a primary aluminum plant which installs a rolling
operation).
For existing sources, the Agency is continuing to consider
Pretreatment Option 3, the addition of a polishing filter as a
basis for pretreatment standards since a more effective removal
of toxic pollutants could be achieved. The technological and
economic feasibility of this option will be studied further,
comments are sought on this option and will be considered prior
to promulgation. EPA may promulgate PSES based on options which
include flow reduction plus filtration.
Costs and Environmental Benefits of Treatment Options
As a means of evaluating the economic achievability of each of
these options, the Agency developed estimates of the compliance
costs and benefits. Estimates of capital and annual costs for
the six pretreatment options were prepared for each subcategory
as an aid in choosing the best pretreatment option. The cost
estimates for 54 of 66 indirect dischargers are presented in
Table XII-1.
The cost methodology has been described in detail in Sections
VIII and X, The benefit methodology has been described in detail
in Section X. The pollutant reduction benefit estimates for all
six subcategories are presented in Tables XII-2 through XII-7.
REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
The same pollutants have been selected for regulation under the
pretreatment standards for each of the six subcategories. The
toxic metals selected are chromium (total), cyanide (total), and
zinc. Aluminum is not limited because aluminum in its hydroxide
form is used by POTW as a flocculant to aid in the settling and
removal of suspended solids. Therefore, aluminum in limited
quantities, does not pass through or interfere with a POTW;
1011
-------
rather it is a necessary aid to its operation. TSS is not
regulated since it is adequately handled by a POTW and will not
interfere with their operation.
Toxic organic pollutants found in aluminum forming wastewaters
may pass through a POTW; therefore, the Agency proposes to estab-
lish a pretreatment limitation on the discharge of total toxic
organics (TTO) to a POTW. This limitation is based on the efflu-
ent concentrations presented in Table X-21 (p. 951 ) and discussed
in Section X under Regulated Pollutant Parameters (p. 891 ). This
limitation is achievable by treatment technologies that effec-
tively remove oil and grease. Analysis of toxic organics is
costly and requires delicate and sensitive equipment. Therefore,
the Agency proposes to establish as an alternative to monitoring
for total toxic organics an oil and grease limit for which the
analysis is much less costly and frequently can be done at the
plant.
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
Mass-based limitations, which are the only method used for desig-
nating pretreatment standards, are set forth below. Regulation
on the basis of concentration only is not appropriate because it
will not adequately control the amount of toxic pollutants
released, since a plant can achieve a concentration-based
standard by dilution of its wastewater without actually removing
any pollutant mass. Therefore, the Agency is not proposing
concentration-based pretreatment standards (40 CFR Part 403.6).
The regulatory production normalized flows for PSES and PSNS are
equivalent to BAT Option 2 flows. Production normalized flows
for Pretreatment Options 4 and 5 are based on the flow reduction
controls of BAT Option 2 plus thermal emulsion breaking to
achieve zero discharge of all emulsified wastewater streams.
Pretreatment Options 1, 2, and 4 are based on the treatment
effectiveness values for lime and settle technology, as presented
in Table VII-21 (p. 748 ). Pretreatment Options 3 and 5 are based
on the treatment effectiveness values for lime, settle, and
filter technology, as presented in Table VII-21 (p. 748 ). The
mass of pollutant allowed to be discharged per mass of product is
calculated by multiplying the appropriate effectiveness value
(one day maximum and ten day average values) (mg/1) by the pro-
duction normalized flow (1/kkg). When these calculations are
performed, the mass-based PSES and PSNS can be derived for the
selected options (Pretreatment Options 2 and 3, respectively).
The PSES values are presented for each of the six subcategories
in Tables XII-8 through XII-13. The PSNS values are presented
for each of the six subcategories in Tables XII-14 through
XII-19. Mass-based PSES for the other option which may be
1012
-------
considered for promulgation can be calculated in the same manner,
The Agency recognizes that very few of the 66 indirect dis-
chargers currently have BAT level treatment-in-place. Therefore,
it is anticipated that plants will require three years to be in
compliance with the pretreatment standards.
1013
-------
Table XII-1
CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COST ESTIMATES FOR BAT OPTIONS
INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
Subcategory
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
Option 6
Rolling with Neat Oils
Capital
Annual
Rolling with Emulsions
Capital
Annual
Extrusion
Capital
Annual
Forging
Capital
Annual
Drawing with Neat Oils
Capital
Annual
Drawing with Emulsions or
Soaps
Capital
Annual
2,603,200
1,447,500
932,600
512,600
10,672,000
4,898,300
3,420,000
1,677,400
983,800
501,700
332,200
172,500
2,773,100
1,495,300
1,061,000
551,000
11,683,000
5,544,600
3,619,100
1,732,600
1,077,600
507,800
332,200
172,500
3,212,300
1,605,200
1,213,400
589,300
12,640,200
5,771,200
3,961,600
1,824,200
1,162,400
532,100
343,800
175,600
3,182,800
1,605,000
1,226,100
722,100
11,377,300
5,863,000
3,563,000
1,717,500
1,021,500
493,700
367,300
188,800
3,662,000
1,711,000
1,378,500
775,500
12,379,000
6,071,800
3,905,400
1,809,300
1,106,200
517,900
378,900
191,900
-
-
-
3,937,200
1,858,900
-
-
-------
Table XII-2
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
o
M
Ui
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Raw Waste
110.9 x
(kg/yr)
0.6
185.1
32.6
1.0
142.0
4.9
33.9
910.4
172,645.5
20,546.8
259.0
399.1
659.1
193,192.3
194,761.8
Option
110.9 x
Removed
(ka/yr)
0.0
176.2
0.0
0.0
128.7
0.0
0.6
787.2
171,536.3
19,215.8
257.3
305.5
562.8
190,752.1
192,102.1
1
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.6
8.9
32.6
1.0
13.3
4.9
33.3
123.1
1,109.2
1,331.0
1.7
93.6
96.3
2,440.2
2,659.6
Option
38.04 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
182.0
10.5
0.0
137.4
0.0
22.5
868.1
172,265.1
20,090.3
258.4
352.4
610.8
192,355.4
193,834.3
2
10*
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.6
3.0
22.1
1.0
4.6
4.9
11.4
42.2
380.4
456.5
0.6
46.6
48.2
836.9
927.3
Sludge
979,440
990,160
-------
Table XII-2 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventional
Total Pollutants
Option
38.04 x
Removed
(kR/yr)
0.0
182.4
17.7
0.0
138.9
0.0
25.1
882.2
172,265.1
20,447.9
258.4
364.1
622.5
192,713.0
194,217.7
3
106
Discharged
(kR/yr)
0.6
2.7
14.8
1.0
3.0
4.9
8.7
28.1
380.4
98.9
0.6
34.7
36.3
479.3
543.7
Option
28.30 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
182.8
16.1
0.0
138.6
0.0
25.4
878.9
172,362.5
20,207.1
258.5
362.9
621.4
192,569.6
194,069.9
4
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.6
2.3
16.4
1.0
3.4
4.9
8.5
31.4
283.0
339.7
0.4
36.1
37.5
622.7
691.6
Option
28,30 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
183.1
21.5
0.0
139.7
o.o
27.4
889.4
172,362.5
20,473.2
258.5
371.7
630.2
192,835.7
194,355.3
5
106
Discharged
(kR/yr)
0.6
2.0
11.0
1.0
2,3
4.9
6.5
20.9
283.0
73.6
0.4
27.3
28.7
356.6
406,2
Sludge
Note:
992,450
991,630
Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium -I- Chromium + Copper 4- Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organica + Total Toxic Metals + Cyanide
Total Conwntionala - Oil and Gr«as« + TSS
Total Pollutants * Total Toxics + Total Conventional + Aluminum
993,340
-------
Table XII-3
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventional
Total Pollutants
Raw Waste
2.696 x
(kg/yr)
4.9
739.8
406.9
20.5
1,122.7
65.5
886.2
30,568.2
571,803.8
331,656.5
857.7
3,226.0
4,104.2
903,460.3
938,132.7
Option
972.9 x
Removed
(kfi/yr)
0.0
665.4
0.0
0.0
1,010.3
0.0
607.4
29,315.7
561,944.9
319,981.0
842.9
2,283.1
3,126.0
881,925.9
914,367.6
1
10^
Discharged
(kg/yr)
4.9
74.4
406.9
20.5
112.4
65.5
278.9
1,252.5
9,858.9
11,675.4
14.8
943.0
978.3
21,534.3
23,765.1
Option
665.4 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
687.0
23.3
0.0
1,042.6
0.0
688.1
29,614.3
564,635.1
323,209.3
847.0
2,441.0
3,288.0
887,844.4
920,746.7
2
106
Discharged
(kR/yr)
4.9
52.8
383.6
20.5
80.1
65.5
198.2
953.9
7,168.7
8,447.2
10.8
785,1
816.4
15,615,9
17,386,2
Sludge
5,259,360
5,298,860
-------
Table XII-3 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
o
M
00
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Option
665.4 x
Removed
-------
PC!
^
O
prf
M
O -H
O 1-1
Of
0)
o
S CO
-* U"liH t"«
r^oo O*r-
COCO O 00
M
M
X
0)
rt
H
M
Q
w o
S H
M O
PQ
I ED
CO
£50
HM I—'
OoJ
fag
PH
H
W
O en r-i tn en e*l i-i en CO i-* <-i
ON CM CO »rt
X
CO
e oc
01
I^-CNCM o (n
fH t*^ i^ r** O^
A *» «h •%
CO 00-* t-H
X
.^
rn
in
oc
o m \p CM r^
r-
m
com i-i i-i m I-H
q)
C 03
O 4J
^ C
E W 0)
co C w
U cj w 0) 3
•H m -H-i-i ^ i-i
X O X X Ct-i
O-rl O O O O
H C HH CJCU
05
i-l OOt-l r-t r-l i-l
CO J^ Ql <0 OJ OJ
•U O W 4J *J 4J
O O O O O
H HHH EH
00
3
r-l
CO
CO CTv O i-t
-------
Table XII-4 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
o
ro
o
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119, Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organtcs
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Option
1.164 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
78,151.4
2,716.3
847.7
978.4
1,417.0
5,334.1
489,309.7
146,905.3
572,447.3
220.4
88,597.2
89,665.3
719,382.6
1,298,357.6
3
109
Discharged
(kR/yr)
22.0
73.9
413.9
51.4
88.4
232.4
242.9
1,776.2
13,093.5
5,086.1
19.6
1,073.5
1,144.5
18,179.6
21,100.3
Option
1.162 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
78,140.9
2,516.6
823.5
936.3
1,048.3
5,260.7
489,920.7
146,922.1
562,569.3
220.4
87,902.8
88,946.7
709,491.4
1,287,358.8
4
109
Discharged
(kg/yr)
22.0
84.4
613.6
75.6
130.4
601.1
316.4
2,165.2
13,076.7
14,994.1
19.6
1,767.9
1,863.1
28,070.8
32,099.1
Option
1.162 x
Removed
(kR/yr)
0.0
78,151.5
2,716.9
847.8
978.5
1,417.3
5,334.5
489,310.9
146.922.1
572,481.7
220.4
88,598.7
89,666.9
719,403,8
1,298,381.6
5
10*
Discharged
(kR/yr)
22.0
73.8
413.2
51.3
88.3
232.0
242.5
1,775.0
13,076.7
5,081.8
19.6
1,071.8
1,142.7
18,158.5
21,076.2
Sludge
Note:
18,381,220
18,331,680
Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium + Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organics + Total Toxic Metals 4- Cyanide
Total Conventionals - Oil and Grease + TSS
Total Pollutants - Total Toxics + Total Conventionals + Aluminum
18,381,390
-------
Table XII-5
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122, Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organica
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Sludge
Raw.Waste'
2.166 x 109
(kg/yr)
12.9
4,282.9
3,515.1
40.1
1,555.2
585.4
7,292,8
437,108.0
45,262.6
316,272.2
82.7
17,244.3
17,367.1
361,534.8
816,009.9
Option
2.166 x
Removed
(kg/vr)
0.0
4,180.4
2,763.5
0.0
1,383.8
0.0
6,908.6
431,169.6
20,932.9
290,255.9
31.4
15,236.3
15,267.7
311,188.8
757,626.1
1
109
Discharged
(kg/yr)
12.9
102.4
751.6
40.1
171.4
585.4
384.2
5,938.3
24,329.7
26,016.3
51.3
2,007.9
2,099.3
50,346.0
58,383.6
Option
279.8 x
Removed
0.0
4,268.5
3,401.6
19.5
1,515.8
482.6
7,238.7
432,390.9
31,935.5
303,459.0
47.9
16,907.2
16,974.6.
335,394.5
784,760.0
2
106
Discharged
CkR/yr)
12.9
14.4
113.4
20.6
39.3
102.8
54.1
4,717.1
13,327.1
12,813.2
34.8
336.9
392.3
26,140.3
31,249.7
13,832,780
14,017,230
Option
279.8 x 1
Removed
(kg/yr)
4.1
4,270.3
3,435.9
23.6
1,523.0
545.7
7,251.3
432,457.6
31,935.5
305,154.2
47.9
17,030.3
17,101.8
337,089.7
786,649.1
14,030,
3
tO&
Discharged
(kg/yr)
8.8
12.6
79.2
16.5
32.1
39.7
41.5
4,650.3
13,327.1
11,118.0
34.8
213-9
265.2
24,445-1
29,360.6
570
-------
Table XII-5 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
FORGING SUBCATEGORY
o
ro
Ni
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Option
279.5 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
4,268.5
3,401.8
19.5
1,515.9
482.7
7,238.8
432,391.2
31,937.9
303,461.9
47.9
16,907.7
16,975.1
335,399.8
784,766.1
4
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
12.9
14.4
113.3
20.6
39.3
102.7
54.0
4,716.8
13,324.7
12,810.3
34,8
336.6
392.0
26,135.0
31,243.8
Option
279.5 x
Removed
(ka/yr)
4.1
4,270.3
3,436.0
23.7
1,523.1
545.7
7,251.4
432,457.8
31,937.9
305,154.8
47.9
17,030.6
17,102.2
337,092.7
786,652.7
5
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
8.8
12.6
79.1
16.4
32.1
39.6
41.4
4,650.1
13,324.7
11,117.4
34.8
213.6
264.8
24,442.1
29,357.0
Option
279.5 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
4.1
4,270.3
3,436.0
23.7
1,523.1
545.7
7,251.4
432,457.8
31,937.9
305,154.8
62.7
17,030.6
17,117.0
337,092.7
786,667.5
6
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
8.8
12.6
79.1
16.4
32.1
39.6
41.4
4,650.1
13,324.7
11,117.4
20.0
213.6
250.0
24,442.1
29,342.2
Sludge
Note:
14.017,280
14,030,600
Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium + Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel 4- Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organics + Total Toxtc Metals + Cyanide
Total Conventionals - Oil and Grease + TSS
Total Pollutants - Total Toxics + Total Conventionals + Aluminum
14,030,600
-------
£ M
(ON--
2 o
X
00
OCM f>
cO rH 00 n O CM
eno r-^ ey*
CMCOCM GO
coco.*.*
00 OS
o
o
CO
f*r
VO
H
X
0)
03
H
•o
01/-N
ecu
«
o
X
-a-
u-llOCOOO
CM^-
rH rt
o
o
CMOO fO i-l CO -* CM *n
o
0-
*U r*
» ffl «H-H rt-rt W
OU J2=C^ '--
w
a r-<
l-l ,«
ce Co
\j O W
01 i-l C
to a u
o o w a 3
•^ 10 T*1-t >!-!
X O X X CrH
O*rl O O O 0
H C HHO ft.
a
f-l OBfd-lfH r-4
8) Wi
-------
Table XII-6 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Option 3
79.78 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.4
5,212.3
793.7
54.5
330.8
125.9
1,809.3
102,340.1
10,045.9
74,759.7
15.1
8,272.4
8,342.0
84,805.6
195,487.7
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
2.8
4.0
24.2
4.5
8.6
12.5
13.1
1,084.6
3,228.1
2,605.7
4.8
65.2
74.5
5,833.8
6,992.9
Option
79.61 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
5,211.7
783.0
53.2
328.5
106.1
1,805.4
102,319.3
10,047.7
74,227.7
15.1
8,234.7
8,303,0
84,275.4
194,897.7
4
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
3.2
4.5
34.9
5.8
10.9
32.3
17.0
1,105.4
3,226.3
3,137.8
4.8
102.8
113.4
6,364.1
7,582.9
Option
79.61 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.5
5,212,3
793.8
54,5
330.8
126.0
1,809.3
102,340.2
10,047.7
74,760.2
15.1
8,272.7
8,342.3
84,807.9
195,490.4
5
10*
Discharged
(kg/yr)
2.8
4.0
24.1
4.5
8.6
12.5
13.0
1,084.5
3,226.3
2,605.2
4.8
65.0
74.3
5,831.5
6,990.3
Sludge
Note:
3,393,250
3,389,080
Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium + Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organics + Total Toxic Metals + Cyanide
Total Conventionals - Oil and Grease + TSS
Total Pollutants - Total Toxics + Total Conventionals + Aluminum
3,393,270
-------
Table XII-7
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
o
NJ
Ui
Pollutant Raw Waste
Flow (1/yr) 134.7 x 106
(kg/yr)
118. Cadmium 0.7
119. Chromium 202.0
120. Copper 175.1
121. Cyanide 1.4
122. Lead 77.1
124. Nickel 29.4
128. Zinc 358.0
Aluminum 21,421.7
Oil and Grease 11,793.2
TSS 16,608.0
Total Toxic
Organics 17.7
Total Toxic Metals 842.3
Total Toxics 861.4
Total Conventionals 28,401.2
Total Pollutants 50,684.3
Option
134.7 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
194.7
121.7
0.0
65.2
0.0
330.7
21,099.1
10,316.0
14,991.1
15.5
712.3
727.8
25,307.1
47,134.0
1
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.7
7.3
53.4
1.4
11.8
29.4
27.4
322.6
1,477.2
1,616.9
2.2
130.0
133.6
3,094.1
3,550.3
Option
23.56 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
200.6
163.8
0.0
73.9
18.8
352.4
21,179.7
11,041.9
15,862.1
16.6
809,5
826.1
26,904.0
48,909.8
2
1.06
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.7
1.5
11.3
1.4
3.1
10.7
5.6
242.0
751.4
745,9
1.1
32.9
35.4
1,497.3
1,774.7
Sludge
726,980
738,630
-------
Table XII-7 (Continued)
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
M
O
NJ
Ch
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Option
23.56 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
200.7
167.4
0.1
74.7
25.3
353.7
21,186.6
11,041.9
16,037.8
16.6
821.8
838.5
27,079.7
49,104.8
3
106
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.7
1.3
7.7
1.3
2.4
4.1
4.3
235.1
751.4
570.2
1.1
20.5
22.9
1,321.6
1,579.6
Option
21.30 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
200.7
165.1
0.0
74.2
20.0
353.1
21,182.2
11,064.5
15,889.3
16.6
813.1
829.7
26,953.8
48,965.7
4
10^
Discharged
(kg/yr}
0.7
1.3
10.0
1.4
2.8
9.4
4.9
239.5
728.7
718.7
1.1
29.1
31.6
1,447.4
1,718.5
Option
21.30 x
Removed
(kg/yr)
0,0
200.9
168.3
0.2
74. '9
25.8
354.3
21,188.3
.11,064.5
16,043.6
16.6
824.2
841.0
27,108.1
49,137,4
5
10^
Discharged
.. (kg/yr)
0.7
1.1
6.8
1.2
2.2
3.6
3.8
233.4
728.7
564.3
1.1
18.2
20.5
1,293.0
1,546.9
Sludge
Note:
739, 990
739,010
Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium 4- Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organics + Total Toxic Metals + Cyanide
Total Conventionals - Oil and Grease + TSS
Total Pollutants - Total Toxics + Total Conventionals + Aluminum
740,220
-------
Table XII-8
PSES FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams Without An Annealing
Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with neat oils
118 Cadmium 5.31 2.49
119 Chromium 6.96 2.82
120 Copper 31.50 16.58
121 Cyanide 4.81 1.99
122 Lead 2.49 2.16
124 Nickel 23.38 16.58
125 Selenium 19.90 9.95
128 Zinc 22.05 9.28
Aluminum 75.44 30.84
Total Toxic Organics 11.44
(TTO)
Oil & Grease* 331.60 198.96
Total Suspended 679.78 331.60
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams With An Annealing
Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billlon Ibs) of aluminum rolled with neat oils
118 Cadmium 13.74 6.44
119 Chromium 18.03 7.30
120 Copper 81.57 42.93
121 Cyanide 12.45 5.15
122 Lead 6.44 5.58
124 Nickel 60.53 42.93
125 Selenium 51.52 25.76
128 Zinc 57.10 24.04
Aluminum 195.33 79.85
Total Toxic Organics 29.62
(TTO)
Oil & Grease* 858.60 515.16
Total Suspended 1,760.13 858.60
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1027
-------
Table XII-8 (Continued)
PSES FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Continuous Sheet Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118 Cadmium 0.59 0.28
119 Chromium 0.77 0.31
120 Copper 3.50 1.84
121 Cyanide 0.53 0.22
122 Lead 0.28 0.24
124 Nickel 2.60 1.84
125 Selenium 2.21 1.11
128 Zinc 2.45 1.03
Aluminum 8.39 3.43
Total Toxic Organics 1.27
(TTO)
Oil & Grease* 36.86 22.12
Total Suspended 75.56 36.86
Solids
p_H Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum~~~
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
118 Cadmium 651.84 305.55
119 Chromium 855.54 346.29
120 Copper 3,870.30 2,037.00
121 Cyanide 590.73 244.44
122 Lead 305.55 264.81
124 Nickel 2,872.17 2,037.00
125 Selenium 2,444.40 1,222.20
128 Zinc 2,709.21 1,140.72
Aluminum 9,268.35 3,788.82
Total Toxic 1,405.53
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 40,740.00 24,444.00
Total Suspended 83,517.00 40,740.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1028
-------
Table XII-8 (Continued)
PSES FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/blllion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 0.00 0.00
119 Chromium 0.00 0.00
120 Copper 0.00 0.00
121 Cyanide 0.00 0.00
122 Lead 0.00 0.00
124 Nickel 0.00 0.00
125 Selenium 0.00 0.00
128 Zinc 0.00 0.00
Aluminum 0.00 0.00
Total Toxic Organics 0.00
(TTO)
Oil & Grease* 0.00 0.00
Total Suspended 0.00 0.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 539.52 252.90
119 Chromium 708.12 286.62
120 Copper 3,203.40 1,686.00
121 Cyanide 488.94 202.32
122 Lead 252.90 219.18
124 Nickel 2,377.26 1,686.00
125 Selenium 2,023.20 1,011.60
128 Zinc 2,242.38 944.16
Aluminum 7,671.30 3,135.96
Total Toxic 1,163.34
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 33,720.00 20,232.00
Total Suspended 69,126.00 33,720.00
Solids
p_H Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1029
-------
Table XII-8 (Continued)
PSES FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 618.56 289.95
119 Chromium 811.86 328.61
120 Copper 3,672.70 1,933.00
121 Cyanide 560.57 231.96
122 Lead 289.95 251.29
124 Nickel 2,725.53 1,933.00
125 Selenium 2,319.60 1,159.80
128 Zinc 2,570.89 1,082.48
Aluminum 8,795.15 3,595.38
Total Toxic 1,333.77
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 38,660.00 23,196.00
Total Suspended 79,253.00 38,660.00
Solids
2M Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
^Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1030
-------
Table XII-9
PSES FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Rolling With Emulsions - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with emulsions
118 Cadmium 29.15 13.66
119 Chromium 38.26 15.49
120 Copper 173.07 91.09
121 Cyanide 26.42 10.93
122 Lead 13.66 11.84
124 Nickel 128.44 91.09
125 Selenium 109.31 54.65
128 Zinc 121.15 51.01
Aluminum 414.46 169.43
Total Toxic Organics 62.85
(TTO)
Oil Se Grease* 1,821.80 1,093.08
Total Suspended 3,734.69 1,821.80
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Direct Chill Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by direct chill methods
118 Cadmium 639.68 299.85
119 Chromium 839.58 339.83
120 Copper 3,798.10 1,999.00
121 Cyanide 579.71 239.88
122 Lead 299.85 259.87
124 Nickel 2,818.59 1,999.00
125 Selenium 2,398.80 1,199.40
128 Zinc 2,658.67 1,119.44
Aluminum 9,095.45 3,718.14
Total Toxic 1,379.31
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 39,980.00 23,988.00
Total Suspended 81,959.00 39,980.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
103L
-------
Table XII-9 (Continued)
PSES FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
.g/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
m^,. .._,
118 Cadmium 651.84
119 Chromium 855.54
120 Copper 3,870.30
121 Cyanide 590.73
122 Lead 305.55
124 Nickel 2,872.17
125 Selenium 2,444.40
128 Zinc 2,709.21
Aluminum 9,268.35
Total Toxic 1,405.53
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 40,740.00 24,444.00
Total Suspended 83,517.00 40,740.00
Solids
oH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
305.55
346.29
2,037.00
244.44
264.81
2,037.00
1,220.20
1,140.72
3,788.82
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 0.00 0.00
119 Chromium 0.00 0.00
120 Copper 0.00 0.00
121 Cyanide 0.00 0.00
122 Lead 0.00 0.00
124 Nickel 0.00 0.00
125 Selenium 0.00 0.00
128 Zinc 0.00 0.00
Aluminum 0.00 0.00
Total Toxic Organics 0.00
(TTO)
Oil Sc Grease* 0.00 0.00
Total Suspended 0.00 0.00
Solids
p_H „ Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1032
-------
Table XII-9 (Continued)
PSES FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 539.52 252.90
119 Chromium 708.12 286.62
120 Copper 3,203.40 1,686.00
121 Cyanide 488.94 202.32
122 Lead 252.90 219.18
124 Nickel 2,377.26 1,686.00
125 Selenium 2,023.20 1,011.60
128 Zinc 2,242.38 944.16
Aluminum 7,671.30 3,135.96
Total Toxic 1,163.34
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 33,720.00 20,232.00
Total Suspended 69,126.00 33,720.00
Solids
pjl Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 618.56 289.95
119 Chromium 811.86 328.61
120 Copper 3,672.70 1,933.00
121 Cyanide 560.57 231.96
122 Lead 289.95 251.29
124 Nickel 2,725.53 1,933.00
125 Selenium 2,319.60 1,159.80
128 Zinc 2,570.89 1,082.48
Aluminum 8,795.15 3,595.38
Total Toxic 1,333.77
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 38,660.00 23,196.00
Total Suspended 79,253.00 38,660.00
Solids
pH Within the range o£ 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1033
-------
Table XII-10
PSES FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Extrusion - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum extruded
118 Cadmium 95.39 44.72
119 Chromium 125.20 50.68
120 Copper 566.39 298.10
121 Cyanide 86.45 35.77
122 Lead 44.72 38.75
124 Nickel 420.32 298.10
125 Selenium 357.72 178.86
128 Zinc 396.47 166.94
Aluminum 1,356.36 554.47
Total Toxic 205.69
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 5,962.00 3,577.20
Total Suspended 12,222.10 5,962.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Direct Chill Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/lckg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by direct chill methods
118 Cadmium 639.68 299.85
119 Chromium 839.58 339.83
120 Copper 3,798.10 1,999.00
121 Cyanide 579.71 239.88
122 Lead 299.85 259.87
124 Nickel 2,818.59 1,999.00
125 Selenium 2,398.80 1,199.40
128 Zinc 2,658.67 1,119.44
Aluminum 9,095.45 3,718.14
Total Toxic 1,379.31
Organics (TTO)
Oil Sc Grease* 39,980.00 23,988.00
Total Suspended 81,959.00 39,980.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1034
-------
Table XII-10 (Continued)
PSES FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Solution and Press Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil St Grease*
Total Suspended
Solids
651.84
855.54
3,870.30
590.73
305.55
2,872.17
2,444.40
2,709.21
9,268.35
1,405.53
40,740.00
83,517.00
pH Within the range of 7 . 5
305.55
346.29
2,037.00
244.44
264.81
2,037.00
1,222.20
1,140.72
3,788.82
-
24,444.00
40,740.00
to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 0.00 0.00
119 Chromium 0.00 0.00
120 Copper 0.00 0.00
121 Cyanide 0.00 0.00
122 Lead 0.00 0.00
124 Nickel 0.00 0.00
125 Selenium 0.00 0.00
128 Zinc 0.00 0.00
Aluminum 0.00 0.00
Total Toxic Organics 0.00
(TTO)
Oil & Grease* 0.00 0.00
Total Suspended 0.00 0.00
Solids
gH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
L035
-------
Table XII-10 (Continued)
PSES FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 539.52 252.90
119 Chromium 708.12 286.62
120 Copper 3,203.40 1,686.00
121 Cyanide 488.94 202.32
122 Lead 252.90 219.18
124 Nickel 2,377.26 1,686.00
125 Selenium 2,023.20 1,011.60
128 Zinc 2,242.38 944.16
Aluminum 7,671.30 3,135.96
Total Toxic 1,163.34
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 33,720.00 20,232.00
Total Suspended 69,126.00 33,720.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 618.56 289.95
119 Chromium 811.86 328.61
120 Copper 3,672.70 1,933.00
121 Cyanide 560.57 231.96
122 Lead 289.95 251.29
124 Nickel 2,725.53 1,933.00
125 Selenium 2,319.60 1,159.80
128 Zinc 2,570.89 1,082.48
Aluminum 8,795.15 3,595.38
Total Toxic 1,333.77
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 38,660.00 23,196.00
Total Suspended 79,253.00 38,660.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1036
-------
Table XII-10 (Continued)
PSES FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Degassing - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billlon Ibs) of aluminum degassed
118 Cadmium 0.00 0.00
119 Chromium 0.00 0.00
120 Copper 0.00 0.00
121 Cyanide 0.00 0.00
122 Lead 0.00 0.00
124 Nickel 0.00 0.00
125 Selenium 0.00 0.00
128 Zinc 0.00 0.00
Aluminum 0.00 0.00
Total Toxic Organics 0.00
(TTO)
Oil & Grease* 0.00 0.00
Total Suspended 0.00 0.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1037
-------
Table XII-11
PSES FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Forging - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum forged
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
2
3
14
2
1
11
9
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Total Toxic Organics
(TTO)
Oil 8e Grease*
Total Suspended
Solids
pH Within the
50
28
83
26
17
01
37
10.38
35.52
5.39
156.14
320.09
1.17
1.33
7.81
0.94
1.01
7.81
4.68
4.37
14.52
93.68
156.14
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Forging - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum forged
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
Total Suspended
Solids
30.18
39.61
179.19
27.35
14.15
132.98
113.17
125.43
429.11
65.07
1,886.20
3,866.71
14.15
16.03
94.31
11.32
12.26
94.31
56.59
52.81
175.42
1,131.72
1,886.20
PH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
L038
-------
Table XII-11 (Continued)
PSES FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/bil1ion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
Total Suspended
Solids
651.84
855.54
3,870.30
590.73
305.55
2,872.17
2,444.40
2,709.21
9,268.35
1,405.53
40,740.00
83,517.00
pH Within the range of 7.5
305.55
346.29
2,037.00
244.44
264.81
2,037.00
1,222.20
1,140.72
3,788.82
-
24,444.00
40,740.00
to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 0.00 0.00
119 Chromium 0.00 0.00
120 Copper 0.00 0.00
121 Cyanide 0.00 0.00
122 Lead 0.00 0.00
124 Nickel 0.00 0.00
125 Selenium 0.00 0.00
128 Zinc 0.00 0.00
Aluminum 0.00 0.00
Total Toxic Organics 0.00
(TTO)
Oil & Grease* 0.00 0.00
Total Suspended 0.00 0.00
Solids
£H Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1039
-------
Table XII-11 (Continued)
PSES FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 539.52 252.90
119 Chromium 708.12 286.62
120 Copper 3,203.40 1,686.00
121 Cyanide 488.94 202.32
122 Lead 252.90 219.18 I
124 Nickel 2,377.26 1,686.00 I
125 Selenium 2,023.20 1,011.60
128 Zinc 2,242.38 944.16
Aluminum 7,671.30 3,135.96
Total Toxic 1,163.34
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 33,720.00 20,232.00
Total Suspended 69,126.00 33,720.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 618.56 289.95
119 Chromium 811.86 328.61
120 Copper 3,672.70 1,933.00
121 Cyanide 560.57 231.96
122 Lead 289.95 251.29
124 Nickel 2,725.53 1,933.00
125 Selenium 2,319.60 1,159.80
128 Zinc 2,570.89 1,082.48
Aluminum 8,795.15 3,595.38
Total Toxic 1,333.77
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 38,660.00 23,196.00
Total Suspended 79,253.00 38,660.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times.
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1040
-------
Table XII-12
PSES FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Drawing With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billlon Ibs) of aluminum drawn with neat oils
118 Cadmium 2.50 1.17
119 Chromium 3.28 1.33 -
120 Copper 14.83 7.81
121 Cyanide 2.26 0.94
122 Lead 1.17 1.01
124 Nickel 11.01 7.81
125 Selenium 9.37 4.68
128 Zinc 10.38 4.37
Aluminum 35.52 14.52
Total Toxic Organics 5.39
(TTO)
Oil & Grease* 156.14 93.68
Total Suspended 320.09 156.14
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Continuous Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118 Cadmium 33.34 15.63
119 Chromium 43.76 17.71
120 Copper 197.98 104.20
121 Cyanide 30.22 12.50
122 Lead 15.63 13.55
124 Nickel 146.92 104.20
125 Selenium 125.04 65.52
128 Zinc 138.59 58.35
Aluminum 474.11 193.81
Total Toxic 71.90
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 2,084.00 1,250.40
Total Suspended 4,272.20 2,084.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1041
-------
Table XII-12 (Continued)
PSES FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118 Cadmium 0.59 0.28
119 Chromium 0.77 0.31
120 Copper 3.50 1.84
121 Cyanide 0.53 0.22
122 Lead 0.28 0.24
124 Nickel 2.60 1.84
125 Selenium 2.21 1.11
128 Zinc 2.45 1.03
Aluminum 8.39 3.43
Total Toxic Organics 1.27
(TTO)
Oil & Grease* 36.86 22.12
Total Suspended 75.56 36.86
Solids
I>H Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
118 Cadmium 651.84 305.55
119 Chromium 855.54 346.29
120 Copper 3,870.30 2,037.00
121 Cyanide 590.73 244.44
122 Lead 305.55 264.81
124 Nickel 2,872.17 2,037.00
125 Selenium 2,440.40 1,220.20
128 Zinc 2,709.21 1,140.72
Aluminum 9,268.35 3,788.82
Total Toxic 1,405.53
Organics (TTO)
Oil Sc Grease* 40,740.00 24,444.00
Total Suspended 83,517.00 40,740.00
Solids
gH Within the range of 7,5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1042
-------
Table XII-12 (Continued)
PSES FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 0.00 0.00
119 Chromium 0.00 0.00
120 Copper 0.00 0.00
121 Cyanide 0.00 0.00
122 Lead 0.00 0.00
124 Nickel 0.00 0.00
125 Selenium 0.00 0.00
128 Zinc 0.00 0.00
Aluminum 0.00 0.00
Total Toxic Organics 0.00
(TTO)
Oil & Grease* 0.00 0.00
Total Suspended 0.00 0.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 539.52 252.90
119 Chromium 708.12 286.62
120 Copper 3,203.40 1,686.00
121 Cyanide 488.94 202.32
122 Lead 252.90 219.18
124 Nickel 2,377.26 1,686.00
125 Selenium 2,023.20 1,011.60
128 Zinc 2,242.38 944.16
Aluminum 7,671.30 3,135.96
Total Toxic 1,163.34
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 33,720.00 20,232.00
Total Suspended 69,126.00 33,720.00
Solids
gH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1043
-------
Table XII-12 (Continued)
PSES FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 618.56 289.95
119 Chromium 811.86 328.61
120 Copper 3,672.70 1,933.00
121 Cyanide 560.57 231.96
122 Lead 289.95 251.29
124 Nickel 2,725.53 1,933.00
125 Selenium 2,319.60 1,159.80
128 Zinc 2,570.89 1,082.48
Aluminum 8,795.15 3,595.38
Total Toxic 1,333.77
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 38,660.00 23,196.00
Total Suspended 79,253.00 38,660.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1044
-------
Table XII-13
PSES FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Drawing With Emulsions or Soaps - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum drawn with emulsions or soaps
118 Cadmium
118
119
120
121
122
124
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Aluminum
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
Total Suspended
Solids
135.78
135.78
178.21
806.17
123.05
63.65
598.26
564.32
1,930.57
292.77
8,486.00
17,396.30
th emulsions or soaps
63.65
72.13
424.30
50.92
55.16
424.30
237.61
789.20
5,091.60
8,486.00
-E5-
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Continuous Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118 Cadmium 33.34
119 Chromium 43.76
120 Copper 197.98
121 Cyanide 30.22
122 Lead 15.63
124 Nickel 146.92
128 Zinc 138.59
Aluminum 474.11
Total Toxic 71.90
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 2,084.00
Total Suspended 4,272.20
Solids
15.63
17.71
104.20
12.50
13.55
104.20
58.35
193.81
1,250.40
2,084.00
pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
J045
-------
Table XII-13 (Continued)
PSES MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS
OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/bllllon Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118 Cadmium 0.59 0.28
119 Chromium 0.77 0.31
120 Copper 3.50 1.84
121 Cyanide 0.53 0.22
122 Lead 0.28 0.24
124 Nickel 2.60 1.84
128 Zinc 2.45 1.03
Aluminum 8.39 3.43
Total Toxic Organics 1.27
(TTO)
Oil & Grease* 36.86 22.12
Total Suspended 75.56 36.86
Solids
I>H Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant orMaximum for™—Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
118 Cadmium 651.84 305.55
119 Chromium 855.54 346.29
120 Copper 3,870.30 2,037.00
121 Cyanide 590.73 244.44
122 Lead 305.55 264.81
124 Nickel 2,872.17 2,037.00
128 Zinc 2,709.21 1,140.72
Aluminum 9,268.35 3,788.82
Total Toxic 1,405.53
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 40,740.00 24,444.00
Total Suspended 83,517.00 40,740.00
Solids
gH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1046
-------
Table XII-13 (Continued)
PSES MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS
OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maxxmum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 0.00
119 Chromium 0.00
120 Copper 0.00
121 Cyanide 0.00
122 Lead 0.00
124 Nickel 0.00
128 Zinc 0.00
Aluminum 0.00
Total Toxic Organics 0.00
(TTO)
Oil & Grease* 0.00
Total Suspended 0.00
Solids
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
_pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 539.52
119 Chromium 708.12
120 Copper 3,203.40
121 Cyanide 488.94
122 Lead 252.9
124 Nickel 2,377.26
128 Zinc 2,242.38
Aluminum 7,671.30
Total Toxic 1,163.34
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 33,720.00
Total Suspended 69,126.00
Solids
252.90
286.62
1,686.00
202.32
219.18
1,686.00
944.16
3,135.96
20,232.00
33,720.00
PH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1047
-------
Table XII-13 (Continued)
PSES MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS
OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 618.56 289.95
119 Chromium 811.86 328.61
120 Copper 3,672.70 1,933.00
121 Cyanide 560.57 231.96
122 Lead 289.95 251.29
124 Nickel 2,725.53 1,933.00
128 Zinc 2,570.89 1,082.48
Aluminum 8,795.15 3,595.38
Total Toxic 1,333.77
Organics (TTO)
Oil Sc Grease* 38,660.00 23,196.00
Total Suspended 79,253.00 38,660.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1048
-------
Table XII-14
PSNS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams Without An Annealing
Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum~
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with neat oils
118 Cadmium 3.32 1.33
119 Chromium 6.13 2.49
120 Copper 21.22 10.11
121 Cyanide 3.32 1.33
122 Lead 1.66 1.49
124 Nickel 9.12 6.13
125 Selenium 0.50 0.17
128 Zinc 16.91 6.96
Aluminum 50.24 20.56
Total Toxic Organics 11.44
(TTO)
Oil & Grease* 165.80 165.80
Total Suspended 248.70 182.38
Solids
p_H Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams With An Annealing
Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with neat oils
118 Cadmium 8.59 3.43
119 Chromium 15.88 6.44
120 Copper 54.95 26.19
121 Cyanide 8.59 3.43
122 Lead 4.29 3.86
124 Nickel 23.61 15.88
125 Selenium 1.29 0.43
128 Zinc 43.79 18,03
Aluminum 130.08 53.23
Total Toxic Organics 29.62
(TTO)
Oil & Grease* 429.30 429.30
Total Suspended 643.95 472.23
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
1049
-------
Table XII-14 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Continuous Sheet Casting - Spent Lubricant
"' Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118 Cadmium 0.37 0.15
119 Chromium 0.68 0.28
120 Copper 2.36 1.12
121 Cyanide 0.37 0.15
122 Lead 0.18 0.17
124 Nickel 1.01 0.68
125 Selenium 0.06 0.02
128 Zinc 1.88 0.77
Aluminum 5.58 2.29
Total Toxic Organics 1.27
(TTO)
Oil St Grease* 18.43 18.43
Total Suspended 27.65 20.27
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Pay for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
118 Cadmium 407.40 162.96
119 Chromium 753.69 305.55
120 Copper 2,607.36 1,242.57
121 Cyanide 407.40 162.96
122 Lead 203.70 183.33
124 Nickel 1,120.35 753.69
125 Selenium 61.11 20.37
128 Zinc 2,077.74 855.54
Aluminum 6,172.11 2,525.88
Total Toxic 1,405.53
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 20,370.00 20,370.00
Total Suspended 30,555.00 22,407.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1050
-------
Table XII-14 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/blllion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 0.00 0.00
119 Chromium 0.00 0.00
120 Copper 0.00 0.00
121 Cyanide 0.00 0.00
122 Lead 0.00 0.00
124 Nickel 0.00 O.QO
125 Selenium 0.00 0.00
128 Zinc 0.00 0.00
Aluminum 0.00 0.00
Total Toxic Organics 0.00
(TTO)
Oil & Grease* 0.00 0.00
Total Suspended 0.00 0.00
Solids
p_H Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 337.20 134.88
119 Chromium 623.82 252.90
120 Copper 2,158.08 1,028.46
121 Cyanide 337.20 134.88
122 Lead 168.60 151.74
124 Nickel 927.30 623.82
125 Selenium 50.58 16.86
128 Zinc 1,719.72 708.12
Aluminum 5,108.58 2,090.64
Total Toxic 1,163.64
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 16,860.00 16,860.00
Total Suspended 25,290.00 18,546.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1051
-------
Table XII-14 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 386.60
119 Chromium 715.21
120 Copper 2,474.24
121 Cyanide 386.60
122 Lead 193
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc 1
Aluminum 5
Total Toxic 1
Organics (TTO)
Oil Sc Grease* 19
Total Suspended 28
Solids
pH Within the
1,063
57
,971
,856
,333
30
15
99
66
99
77
154.64
289.95
179.13
154.64
173
715
19
811
97
21
33
86
330.00
995.00
2,396.92
19,330.00
21,263.00
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit
for TTO.
- oil and grease may be substituted
.1052
-------
Table XII-15
PSNS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Rolling With Emulsions - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Pay
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum rolled with emulsions
118 Cadmium 18.22
119 Chromium 33.70
120 Copper 116.60
121 Cyanide 18.22
122 Lead 9.11
124 Nickel 50.10
125 Selenium 2.73
128 Zinc 92.91
Aluminum 276.00
Total Toxic Organics 62.85
(TTO)
Oil Sc Grease* 910.90
Total Suspended 1,366.35
Solids
PH
7.29
13.66
55.56
7.29
8.20
33.70
0.91
38.26
112.95
910.90
1,001.99
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Direct Chill Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by direct chill methods
118 Cadmium 399.80 159.92
119 Chromium 739.63 299.85
120 Copper 2,558.72 1,219.39
121 Cyanide 399.80 159.92
122 Lead 199.90 179.91
124 Nickel 1,099.45 739.63
125 Selenium 59.97 19.99
128 Zinc 2,038.98 839
Aluminum 6,056.97
Total Toxic 1,379.31
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 19,990.00
Total Suspended 29,985.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
58
2,478.76
19,990.00
21,989.00
1053
-------
Table XII-15 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper
121 Cyanide
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Total Toxic
407.40
753.69
2,607.36
407.40
203.70
1,120.35
61.11
2,077.74
6,172.11
1,405.53
162.96
305.55
1,242.57
162.96
183.33
753.69
20.37
855.54
2,525.88
-
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
Total Suspended
Solids
PH
20,370.00
30,555.00
Within the range of
Cleaning or Etching
20,370.00
22,407.00
7.5 to 10.0 at all times.
- Bath
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 0.00 0.00
119 Chromium 0.00 0.00
120 Copper 0.00 0.00
121 Cyanide 0.00 0.00
122 Lead 0.00 0.00
124 Nickel 0.00 0.00
125 Selenium 0.00 0.00
128 Zinc 0.00 0.00
Aluminum 0.00 0.00
Total Toxic Organics 0.00
(TTO)
Oil St Grease* 0.00 0.00
Total Suspended 0.00 0.00
Solids
p_H Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1354
-------
Table XII-15* (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Pay for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 337.20 134.88
119 Chromium 623.82 252.90
120 Copper 2,158.08 1,028.46
121 Cyanide 337.20 134.88
122 Lead 168.60 151.74
124 Nickel 927.30 623.82
125 Selenium 50.58 16.86
128 Zinc 1,719.72 708.12
Aluminum 5,108.58 2,090.64
Total Toxic 1,163.64
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 16,860.00 16,860.00
Total Suspended 25,290.00 18,546.00
Solids
p_H Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 386.60 154.64
119 Chromium 715.21 289.95
120 Copper 2,474.24 1,179.13
121 Cyanide 386.60 154.64
122 Lead 193.30 173.97
124 Nickel 1,063.15 715.21
125 Selenium 57.99 19.33
128 Zinc 1,971.66 811.86
Aluminum 5,856.99 2,396.92
Total Toxic 1,333.77
Organics (TTO)
Oil Sc Grease* 19,330.00 19,330.00
Total Suspended 28,995.00 21,263.00
Solids
p_H Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1055
-------
Table XII-16
PSNS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Extrusion - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum extruded
118 Cadmium 59.62
119 Chromium 110.30
120 Copper 381.57
121 Cyanide 59.62
122 Lead 29.81
124 Nickel 163.96
125 Selenium 8.94
128 Zinc 304.06
Aluminum 903.24
Total Toxic 205.69
Organics (TTO)
Oil Sc Grease* 2,981.00
Total Suspended 4,471.50
Solids
23.85
44.7-2
181.84
23.85
26.83
110.30
2.98
125.20
369.64
2,981.00
3,279.10
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Direct Chill Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by direct chill methods
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil St Grease*
Total Suspended
Solids
399.80
739.63
2,558.72
399.80
199.90
1,099.45
59.97
2,038.98
6,056.97
1,379.31
19,990.00
29,985.00
159.92
299.85
,219.39
159.92
179.91
739.63
19.99
839.58
,478.76
19,990.00
21,989.00
pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1056
-------
Table XII-16 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Solution and Press Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) o£ aluminum quenched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil St Grease*
Total Suspended
Solids
407.40
753.69
2,607.36
407.40
203.70
1,120.35
61.11
2,077.74
6,172.11
1,405.53
20,370.00
30,555.00
162.96
305.55
1,242.57
162.96
183.33
753.69
20.37
855.54
2,525.88
20,370.00
22,407.00
_pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 0.00 0.00
119 Chromium 0.00 0.00
120 Copper 0.00 0.00
121 Cyanide 0.00 0.00
122 Lead 0.00 0.00
124 Nickel 0.00 0.00
125 Selenium 0.00 0.00
128 Zinc 0.00 0.00
Aluminum 0.00 0.00
Total Toxic Organics 0.00
(TTO)
Oil & Grease* 0.00 0.00
Total Suspended 0.00 0.00
Solids
p_H Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO,
1057
-------
Table XII-16 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 337.20
119 Chromium 623.82
120 Copper 2,158.08
121 Cyanide 337.20
122 Lead 168.60
124 Nickel 927.30
125 Selenium 50.58
128 Zinc 1,719.72
Aluminum 5,108.58
Total Toxic 1,163.64
Organics (TTO)
Oil Sc Grease* 16,860.00
Total Suspended 25,290.00
Solids
pH
134.88
252.90
1,028.46
134.88
151.74
623.82
16.86
708.12
2,090.64
16,860.00
18,546.00
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil St Grease*
Total Suspended
Solids
386.60
715.21
2,474.24
386.60
193.30
1,063.15
57.99
1,971.66
5,856.99
1,333.77
19,330.00
28,995.00
154.64
289.95
1,179.13
154.64
173.97
715.21
19.33
811.86
2,396.92
19,330.00
21,263.00
pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.Q at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1058
-------
Table XII-16 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Degassing - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum degassed
118 Cadmium
0.00
119 Chromium
120 Copper
121 Cyanide
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Total Toxic Organics
(TTO)
Oil & Grease*
Total Suspended
Solids
pH __ __ Within the
00
00
00
00
00
00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
range of 7 . 5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit
for TTO.
- oil and grease may be substituted
1059
-------
Table XII-17
PSNS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Forging - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum forged
118 Cadmium 1.56 0.62
119 Chromium 2.89 1.17
120 Copper 9.99 4.76
121 Cyanide 1.56 0.62
122 Lead 0.78 0.70
124 Nickel 4,29 2.89
125 Selenium 0.23 0.08
128 Zinc 7.96 3.28
Aluminum 23.66 9.68
Total Toxic Organics 5.39
(TTO)
Oil & Grease* 78.07 78.07
Total Suspended 117.11 85.88
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Forging - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum forged
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil Se Grease*
Total Suspended
Solids
18.86
34.89
120.72
18.86
9.43
51.87
2.83
96.20
285.76
65.07
943.10
1,414.65
7.54
14.15
57.53
7.54
8.49
34.89
0.94
39.61
116.94
943.10
1,037.41
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1060
-------
Table XII-17 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil Se Grease*
Total Suspended
Solids
407.40
753.69
2,607.36
407.40
203.70
1,120.35
61.11
2,077.74
6,172.11
1,405.53
20,370.00
30,555.00
pH Within the range of
Cleaning or Etching
162.96
305.55
1,242.57
162.96
183.33
753.69
20.37
855.54
2,525.88
-
20,370.00
22,407.00
7.5 to 10.0 at all times.
- Bath
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
m
g/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium 0.00 0.00
Chromium 0.00 0.00
Copper 0.00 0.00
Cyanide 0.00 0.00
Lead 0.00 0.00
Nickel 0.00 0.00
Selenium 0.00 0.00
Zinc 0.00 0.00
Aluminum 0.00 0.00
Total Toxic Organics 0.00
(TTO)
Oil & Grease* 0.00 0.00
Total Suspended 0.00 0.00
Solids
p_H Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
;.o6i
-------
Table XII-17 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium 337.20 134.88
Chromium 623.82 252.90
Copper 2,158.08 1,028.46
Cyanide 337.20 134.88
Lead 168.60 151.74
Nickel 927.30 623.82
Selenium 50.58 16.86
Zinc 1,719.72 708.12
Aluminum 5,108.58 2,090.64
Total Toxic 1,163.64
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 16,860.00 16,860.00
Total Suspended 25,290.00 18,546.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
Total Suspended
Solids
386.60
715.21
2,474.24
386.60
193.30
1,063.15
57.99
1,971.66
5,856.99
1,333.77
19,330.00
28,995.00
154.64
289.95
1,179.13
154.64
173.97
715.21
19.33
811.86
2,396.92
19,330.00
21,263.00
pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1062
-------
Table XII-18
PSNS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Drawing With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/bllllon Ibs) of aluminum drawn with neat oils
118 Cadmium 1.56 0.62
119 Chromium 2.89 1.17
120 Copper 9.99 4.76
121 Cyanide 1.56 0.62
122 Lead 0.78 0.70
124 Nickel 4.29 2.89
125 Selenium 0.23 0.08
128 Zinc 7.96 3.28
Aluminum 23.66 9.68
Total Toxic Organics 5.39
(TTO)
Oil & Grease* 78.07 78.07
Total Suspended 117.11 85.88
Solids
p_H Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Continuous Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118 Cadmium 20.84 8.34
119 Chromium 38.55 15.63
120 Copper 133.38 63.56
121 Cyanide 20.84 8.34
122 Lead 10.42 9.38
124 Nickel 57.31 38.55
125 Selenium 3.13 1.04
128 Zinc 106.28 43.76
Aluminum 315.73 129.21
Total Toxic 71.90
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 1,042.00 1,042,00
Total Suspended 1,563.00 1,146.20
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1063
-------
Table XII-18 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118 Cadmium 0.37 0.15
119 Chromium 0.68 0.28
120 Copper 2.36 1.12
121 Cyanide 0.37 0.15
122 Lead 0.18 0.17
124 Nickel 1.01 0.68
125 Selenium 0.06 0.02
128 Zinc 1.88 0.77
Aluminum 5.58 2.29
Total Toxic Organics 1.27
(TTO)
Oil & Grease* 18.43 18.43
Total Suspended 27.65 20.27
Solids
p_H Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum
Pollutant Property Any One Day for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
118 Cadmium 407.40 162.96
119 Chromium 753.69 305.55
120 Copper 2,607.36 1,242.57
121 Cyanide 407.40 162.96
122 Lead 203.70 183.33
124 Nickel 1,120.35 753.69
125 Selenium 61.11 20.37
128 Zinc 2,077.74 855.54
Aluminum 6,172.11 2,525.88
Total Toxic 1,405.53
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 20,370.00 20,370.00
Total Suspended 30,555.00 22,407.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1064
-------
Table XII-18 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 0.00
119 Chromium 0.00
120 Copper 0.00
121 Cyanide 0.00
122 Lead 0.00
124 Nickel 0.00
125 Selenium 0.00
128 Zinc 0.00
Aluminum 0.00
Total Toxic Organics 0.00
(TTO)
Oil 8c Grease* 0.00
Total Suspended 0.00
Solids
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 337.20 134.88
119 Chromium 623.82 252.90
120 Copper 2,158.08 1,028.46
121 Cyanide 337.20 134.88
122 Lead 168.60 151.74
124 Nickel 927.30 623.82
125 Selenium 50.58 16.86
128 Zinc 1,719.72 708.12
Aluminum 5,108.58 2,090.64
Total Toxic 1,163.64
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 16,860.00 16,860.00
Total Suspended 25,290.00 18,546.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1065
-------
Table XII-18 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 386.60 154.64
119 Chromium 715.21 289.95
120 Copper 2,474.24 1,179.13
121 Cyanide 386.60 154.64
122 Lead 193.30 173.97
124 Nickel 1,063.15 715.21
125 Selenium 57.99 19.33
128 Zinc 1,971.66 811.86
Aluminum 5,856.99 2,396.92
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 19,330.00 19,330.00
Total Suspended 28,995.00 21,263.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1,333.77
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1066
-------
Table XII-19
PSNS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Drawing With Emulsions or Soaps - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum drawn with emulsions or soaps
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil St Grease*
Total Suspended
Solids
84.86
156.99
543.10
84.86
42.43
233.37
12.73
432.79
1,285.63
292.77
4,243.00
6,364.50
33.94
63.65
258.82
33.94
38.19
156.99
4.24
178.21
526.13
4,243.00
4,667.30
_pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times.
Continuous Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil Sc Grease*
Total Suspended
Solids
20.84
38.55
133.38
20.84
10.42
57.31
3
106
315
13
28
.73
71.90
042
563
00
00
8.34
15.63
63.56
8.34
9.38
38.55
1.04
43.76
129.21
1,042.00
1,146.20
PH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1067
-------
Table XII-19 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118 Cadmium 0.37 0.15
119 Chromium 0.68 0.28
120 Copper 2.36 1.12
121 Cyanide 0.37 0.15
122 Lead 0.18 0.17
124 Nickel 1.01 0.68
125 Selenium 0.06 0.02
128 Zinc 1.88 0.77
Aluminum 5.58 2.29
Total Toxic Organics 1.27
(TTO)
Oil & Grease* 18.43 18.43
Total Suspended 27.65 20.27
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum quenched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease*
Total Suspended
Solids
407.40
753.69
2,607.36
407.40
203.70
1,120.35
61.11
2,077.74
6,172.11
1,405.53
20,370.00
30,555.00
162.96
305.55
1,242.57
162.96
183.33
753.69
20.37
855.54
2,525.88
20,370.00
22,407.00
pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1068
-------
Table XII-19 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg_(lb/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium
0.00
0.00
119 Chromium 0.00 0.00
120 Copper 0.00 0.00
121 Cyanide 0.00 0.00
122 Lead 0.00 0.00
124 Nickel 0.00 0.00
125 Selenium 0.00 0.00
128 Zinc 0.00 0.00
Aluminum 0.00 0.00
Total Toxic Organics 0.00
(TTO)
Oil Se Grease* 0.00 0.00
Total Suspended 0.00 0.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Total Toxic
Organics (TTO)
Oil St Grease*
Total Suspended
Solids
337.20
623.82
2,158.08
337.20
168.60
927.30
50.58
1,719.72
5,108.58
134.88
252.90
1,028.46
134.88
151
623
16
708
74
82
86
12
1,163.64
16,860.00
25,290.00
2,090.64
16,860.00
18,546.00
pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1069
-------
Table XII-19 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Maximum
for Monthly Average
mg/kkg (Ib/billion Ibs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 386.60 154.64
119 Chromium 715.21 289.95
120 Copper 2,474.24 1,179.13
121 Cyanide 386.60 154.64
122 Lead 193.30 173.97
124 Nickel 1,063.15 715.21
125 Selenium 57.99 19.33
128 Zinc 1,971.66 811.86
Aluminum 5,856.99 2,396.92
Total Toxic 1,333.77
Organics (TTO)
Oil & Grease* 19,330.00 19,330.00
Total Suspended 28,995.00 21,263.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
1070
-------
SECTION XIII
BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
The 1977 amendments to the Clean Water Act added Section
301(b) (2)(E), establishing "best conventional pollutant control
technology" (BCT) for discharge of conventional pollutants from
existing industrial point sources. Biological oxygen-demanding
pollutants (6005), total suspended solids (TSS), fecal coli-
form, oil and grease (O&G), and pH are considered by EPA to be
conventional pollutants (see 44 FR 50732).
BCT is not an additional limitation but replaces BAT for the con-
trol of conventional pollutants. In addition to other factors
specified in Section 304(b) (4) (B), the Act requires that BCT lim-
itations be assessed in light of a two part "cost-reasonableness"
test (American Paper Institute v. EPA, 660 F.2d 954 (4th Cir.
1981)). The first test compares the cost for private industry to
reduce its conventional pollutants with the costs to publicly
owned treatment works for similar levels of reduction in their
discharge of these pollutants. The second test examines the
cost-effectiveness of additional industrial treatment beyond BPT.
EPA must find that limitations are "reasonable" under both tests
before establishing them as BCT. In no case may BCT be less
stringent than BPT.
On October 29, 1982, the Agency proposed a revised BCT method-
ology. EPA is deferring proposal of BCT limitations for the
aluminum forming category until the revised methodology can be
applied to the technologies available for the control of con-
ventional pollutants in the aluminum forming category.
1071
-------
-------
SECTION XIV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The initial drafts of this document were prepared by Sverdrup &
Parcel and Associates under Contract No. 68-01-4408. The docu-
ment has been checked and revised at the specific direction of
EPA personnel by Radian Corporation under Contract No.
68-01-6529.
The field sampling programs were conducted under the leadership
of Garry Aronberg of Sverdrup St Parcel. Preparation and writing
of the initial drafts of this document were accomplished by
Donald Washington, Project Manager, Garry Aronberg, Claudia
O'Leary, Anthony Tawa, Charles Amelotti, and Jeff Carlton of
Sverdrup & Parcel. James Sherman, Program Manager, Mark Hereth,
Project Director, Michael Zapkin, Aluminum Forming Task Leader,
Ronald Dickson, Marc Papai, Robert Curtis, John Collins, and
Thomas Grome contributed in specific assignments in the final
preparation of this document.
The project was conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency,
Ernst P. Hall, Chief, Metals & Machinery Branch. The technical
project officer is Janet K. Goodwin, previous technical project
officers include Carl Kassebaum, and Stewart Colton. The
projects legal advisor is Jill Weller; previous legal advisors
who contributed to this project include Ellen Maldonado, Mike
Dworkin, Richard Shechter, and Daniel Glama. The economic
project officer is Joseph Yance; previous economic project
officers include John Atamen, Emily Hartnell, and William
Webster. Contributions from the Monitoring Sc Data Support
Division came from Eleanor Zimmerman; prevous work was done by
Richard Silver, and Alexandra Tarnay.
The cooperation of the Aluminum Association, Inc., their tech-
nical committee, and the individual aluminum forming companies
whose plants were sampled and who submitted detailed information
in response to questionnaires is gratefully appreciated.
Acknowledgement and appreciation is also given to the secretarial
staff of Radian Corporation (Nancy Reid, Sandra Moore, Deborah
Dodd, Faith Dick, and Pamela Amshey) and to the word processing
staff of the Effluent Guidelines Division (Kaye Storey, Pearl
Smith, Carol Swann, and Glenda Clarke) for their efforts in the
typing of drafts, necessary revisions, and preparation of this
effluent guidelines document.
1073
-------
-------
SECTION XV
REFERENCES
Adin, A., Baumann, E. R. , Cleasby, J. L. , 1979, "The Application
of Filtration Theory to Pilot-Plant Design," Journal of the Amer-
ican Water Works Association, January.
Alloid Colloids, Inc. brochure.
Aluminum Association, The Story of Aluminum.
Aluminum Company of Canada, LTD, 1961, Handbook of Aluminum, 2nd
ed., Montreal.
American Cyanamid Company brochure.
American Society for Metals, 1964, Heat Treating, Cleaning, and
Finishing, Metals Handbook, 8th ed., Vol. 2, OH.
American Society for Metals, 1967, Aluminum, Volume III, Fabrica-
tion and Finishing, ed. Van Horn, K. R., Metals Park, OH.
American Society for Metals, 1970, Forging and Casting, Metals
Handbook, 8th ed., Vol. 5, OH.
Amstead, B. H., Ostwald, P. F., Begeman, M. L. , 1977, Manufactur-
ing Processes, 7th ed., John Wiley & Sons, NY.
API, 1969, Manual on Disposal of Refinery Wastes: Volume on
Liquid Wastes, 1st ed. , American Petroleum Institute, Washington,
D.C.
Argo and Wesner, 1976, "AWT Energy Needs a Prime Concern," Water
and Wastes Engineering, 13:5:24.
Banerji and O'Conner, 1977, "Designing More Energy Efficient
Wastewater Treatment Plants," Civil Engineering ASCE, 47:7:76.
Bansal, I. K., 1977, "Reverse Osmosis and Ultrafiltration of Oily
and Pulping Effluents," Industrial Wastes, May/June.
Barnard, J. L., Eckenfelder, W. W. Jr., 1971, Treatment Cost
Relationships for Industrial Waste Treatment, Technical Report
#23, Vanderbilt University.
Bauer, D., 1976, "Treatment of Oily Wastes—Oil Recovery Pro-
grams," Presented at 31st Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Confer-
ence.
Basselievre, E. B., Schwartz, M., 1976, The Treatment of Indus-
trial Wastes, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY.
1075
-------
Betz Labs brochure.
Brody, M. A., Lumpkins, R. J., 1977, "Performance of Dual Media
Filters," Chemical Engineering Progress, April.
Burns and Roe, 1979, Draft Technical Report for the Paint Indus-
try.
Carborundum, 1977, "Dissolved Air Flotation Systems," December.
Catalytic, Inc., 1979, Treatment Catalogue for the Catalytic Com-
puter Model.
Chemical Engineering, 1979, "Love Canal Aftermath: Learning from
a Tragedy," Chemical Engineering, October 22.
Chemical Marketing Reporter, March 17, 1978.
Cheremisinoff, P. N., Ellerbusch, F., 1978, Carbon Adsorption
Handbook, Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, MI.
Chieu, J. H. , Gloyna, E. F., Schechter, R. S., 1975, "Coalescence
of Emulsified Oily Wastewater by Fibrous Beds," Presented at the
30th Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference.
Clark, J. W., Viessman, W., Hammer, M. S., 1977, Water Supply and
Pollution Control, IEP-A Dun-Donnelley Publisher, New York, NY.
Gulp and Gulp, 1974, New Concepts in Water Purification, Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Gulp, R. L., Wesner, G. M., Gulp, G. L., 1978, Handbook of
Advanced Wastewater Treatment, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New
York, NY.
Davies, B. T., Vose, R. W. , 1977, "Custom Designs Cut Effluent
Treatment Costs, Case Histories at Chevron, U.S.A., Inc.," Purdue
Industrial Waste Conference, p. 1035.
Dearborn Chemical Division brochure.
Denyo, D. J., ed., 1978, Unit Operations for Treatment of Hazard-
ous Wastes.
Dickey, 1970, "Managing Waste Heat with the Water Cooling Tower,"
Marley Co.
Dugas, R. S., Reed, P. E., 1977, "Successful Pretreatment and
Deep Well Injection of Chemical Plant Wastewater," Presented at
32nd Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference.
1076
-------
Dynatech RID Company, 1969, A Survey of Alternate Methods for
Cooling Condenser Discharge Water, Large-Scale Heat Rejection
Equipment, EPA Project No" 16130DH3.
Eckenfelder, W. W. Jr., O'Connor, D. J., 1961, Biological Waste
Treatment, Pergamon Press, NY.
Envirodyne, "Dissolved Air Flotation Sc Solids Settling - Model
Jupitor - 7,000."
Environmental Quality Systems, Inc., 1973, Technical and Economic
Review of Advanced Waste Treatment Processes.
Federal Register, 43FR2150gff.
Federal Register, 44FRl5926£f.
Federal Register, 44FR28716£f.
Federal Register, 44FR43660ff.
Federal Register, 44FR56628ff.
Ford, D. L., Elton, R. L., 1977, "Removal of Oil and Grease from
Industrial Wastewaters," Chemical Engineering, October 17, p. 49.
Gloyna, E. F., Ford, D. L., 1974, Cited by Osamor, F. A., Ahlert,
R. C., 1978, in Oil Water Separation: State-of-the-Art, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,Cincinnati, OH, PB-280 755.
Gross, A. C., 1979, "The Market for Water Management Chemicals,"
Environmental Science & Technology, 13:9:1050.
Guthrie, K. M., 1969, "Capital Cost Estimating," Chemical Engi-
neering, March 24.
Hagan and Roberts, 1976, "Energy Requirements for Wastewater
Treatment Plants, Part 2," Water and Sewage Works, 124:12:52.
Hager, D. G., 1974, "Industrial Wastewater Treatment by GAG,"
Industrial Water Engineering, 11:1:18.
Hammer, M. J., 1975, Water and Wastewater Technology, John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
Hawley, Gessner G., rev., The Condensed Chemical Dictionary, 9th
ed.
Hercules brochure.
1077
-------
Hockenbury, M. R. , Loven, A. W. , 1977, "Treating Metal Forging
and Processing Wastewater," Industrial Wastes, 23:3:45.
Howes, Robert and Kent, Robert, 1970, Hazardous Chemicals
Handling and Disposal, Noyes Data Corp., Park Ridge, NJ.
Hsiung, K. Y., Mueller, H. M. , Conley, W. R. , 1974, "Physical-
Chemical Treatment for Oily Waste," Presented at WWEMA Industrial
Water Pollution Conference and Exposition, Detroit, MI, Cited by
Osamor, F. A., Ahlert, R. C., 1978, Oil/Water Separation: State-
of-the-Art, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
PB-280 755.
Hutchins, R. A., 1975, "Thermal Regeneration Costs," Chemical
Engineering Prog., 71:5:80.
Industrial Water Engineering» 1970, "Cooling Towers - Special
Report," May.
Infilco Degremont, Inc., 1974, "Sediflotor Clarifier," Company
Brochure DB830, September.
Jones, H. R., 1971, Environmental Control in the Organic and
Petrochemical Industries, Noyes Data Corp., Park Ridge, NJ.
Journal of Metal Finishing: "Guidelines for Wastewater Treat-
ment," September and October, 1977.
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc., 1954, "Kaiser Aluminum
Rod, Bar, and Wire," Chicago, IL.
Katnick, K. E., Pavilcius, A. M., 1978, "A Novel Chemical
Approach for the Treatment of Oily Wastewaters," Presented at
33rd Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference.
Kirk-Othmer, Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 2nd ed., 1963,
Interscience Publishers, New York, NY.
Koon, J. H., Adams, C. E. Jr., Eckenfelder, W. W., 1973,
"Analysis of National Industrial Water Pollution Control Costs,"
Associated Water and Air Resources Engineers, Inc.
Krockta, H., Lucas, R. L., 1972, "Information Required for the
Selection and Performance Evaluation of Wet Scrubbers," Journal
of the Air Pollution Control Association, June.
Kumar, J. I., Clesceri, N. L., 1973, "Phosphorus Removal from
Wastewaters: A Cost Analysis," Water Si Sewage Works, 120:3:82.
]078
-------
Lacey, R. E., 1972, "Membrane Separation Processes," Chemical
Engineering, Sept. 4.
Lange, Norbert, Adolph, 1973, Handbook of Chemistry, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Lee, E. L. , Schwab, R. E, , 1978, "Treatment of Oily Machinery
Waste,11 Presented at 33rd Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Con-
ference .
Light Metal Age, 1976, "A New Russian Water-Based Emulsion for
Cold-Rolling Aluminum," October.
Light Metal Age, 1978, "SCAL's 'Jumbo 3C1 - A Big Step Forward in
Continuous Casting of Aluminum Sheet," April, pp. 6-12.
"Lime for Water and Wastewater Treatment: Engineering Data,"
BIF, Providence, Ref. No. 1.21-24.
Lin, Y. G., Lawson, J. R.s 1973, "Treatment of Oily and Metal
Containing Wastewater," Pollution Engineering, November.
Lopez, C. X., Johnston, R., 1977, "industrial Wastewater Recy-
cling with Ultrafiltration and Reverse Osmosis," Presented at the
32nd Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference.
Lund, H. F., ed., 1971, Industrial Pollution Control Handbook,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY.
Luthy, R. G., Selleck, R. E., Galloway, 1978, "Removal of Emulsi-
fied Oil with Organic Coagulants and Dissolved Air Flotation,"
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 50:2:331.
Maeder, E. G., 1975, "The D&I Can: How & Why it Does More with
Less Metal," Modern Metals, August, pp. 55-62.
Mastrovich, I. D., 1975, "Aluminum Can Manufacture," Lubrication,
Vol. 61, Texaco, Inc., April-June, pp. 17-36.
McKee, J. E. and Wolf, H. W., ed., 1963, Water Quality Criteria,
2nd ed., The Resources Agency of California, State Water Quality
Control Board, Publication No. 3-A.
McKinney, R. E., 1962, Microbiology for Sanitary Engineers,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., NY.
Met-Pro brochure.
Mono-Scour brochure.
1079
-------
Myansnikov, I. N., Butseva, L. N., Gandurina, L. B., 1979, "The
Effectiveness of Flotation Treatments with Flocculants Applied to
Oil Wastewaters," Presented at USEPA Treatment of Oil Containing
Wastewaters, April 18 to 19, 1979, Cincinnati, OH.
National Commission on Water Quality, 1976, Water Pollution
Abatement Technology: Capabilities and Cost, PB-250 690-03.
Nebolsine, R., 1970, "New Methods for Treatment of Wastewater
Streams," Presented at 25th Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Con-
ference .
NTIS, 1974S Cost of Dissolved Air Flotation Thickening of Waste
Activated Sludge at Municipal Sewage Treatment PlantsV
PB-226-582,
Osamor, F. A., Ahlert, R. C., 1978, Oily Water Separation:
State-of-the-Art, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH, EPA-600/2-78-069.
Patterson, James W., Wastewater Treatment Technology.
Patterson, J. W., 1976, "Technology and Economics of Industrial
Pollution Abatement," Illinois Institute for Environmental Qual-
ity, Document No. 76/22.
Peoples, R. F., Krishnan, P., Simonsen, R. N., 1972, "Nonbiologi-
cal Treatment of Refinery Wastewater," Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation, November.
Personal communication with Dave Baldwin of Tenco Hydro, Inc.
Personal communication with Jeff Busse of Envirex.
Personal communication with Envirodyne sales representative.
Personal communication with Goad, Larry and Company.
Personal communication with Kerry Kovacs of Komline-Sanderson.
Personal communication with Don Montroy of the Brenco Corporation
representing AFL Industries.
Personal communication with Jack Walters of Infilco-Degremont,
Inc.
Personal communication with Leon Zeigler of Air-o-Flow.
Pielkenroad Separator Company brochure.
1080
-------
Quinn, R. , Hendershaw, W. K.., 1976, "A Comparison of Current
Membrane Systems Used in Ultrafiltration and Reverse Osmosis,"
Industrial Water Engineering.
Raiford, P. K., 1975, "The Properzi Process for Continuous Cast
and Rolled Rod," Light Metal Age, December, pp. 16-22.
Redhair, M. L., 1977, "Degassing and Filtering Methods," Light
Metal Age, December, p. 22.
Regan, P. C., 1971, "Recent Developments in the Hazelett Process
for Continuous Casting of Aluminum Sheet and Rod," Light Metal
Age, April, pp. 10-15.
Richardson Engineering Services, Inc., 1980, General Construction
Estimating Standards, Solana Beach, CA.
Rizzo, J. L., Shephard, A. R., 1977a, "Treating Industrial Waste-
water with Activated Carbon," Chemical Engineering, January 3,
p. 95.
Rizzo, J. L., Shephard, A. R., 1977b, "Treating Industrial Waste-
water with Activated Carbon," Chemical Engineering, September 3.
Robert Snow Means Company, Inc., 1979, Building Construction
Cost Data 1979, Robert Snow Means Company, Inc., Duxbury, MA.
Roberts, K. L., Weeter, D. W., Ball, R. 0., 1978, "Dissolved Air
Flotation Performance," 33rd Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Con-
ference, p. 194.
Sabadell, J. E., ed., 1973, Traces of Heavy Metals in Water
Removal Processes and Monitoring, USEPA, 902/9-74-001.
Sawyer, C. N., McCarty, P. L., 1967, Chemistry for Sanitary
Engineering, McGraw-Hill Book Co., NY.
Sax, N. Irving, , Dangerous Properties of Industrial
Materials, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY.
Sax, N. Irving, 1974, Industrial Pollution, Van Nostrand Reinhold
Co., New York, NY.
Sebastian, F. P., Lachtman, D. W., Kominek, E., Lash, L., 1979,
"Treatment of Oil Wastes Through Chemical, Mechanical, and Ther-
mal Methods," Symposium: Treatment of Oil-Containing Wastewater,
April 18-19, Cincinnati, OH.
1081
-------
Seiden and Patel, Mathematical Model of Tertiary Treatment by
Lime Addition, TWRC-14.
Smith, J. E., 1977, "Inventory of Energy Use in Wastewater Sludge
Treatment and Disposal," Industrial Water Engineering, 14:4:20.
Smith, R., 1968, "Cost of Conventional and Advanced Treatment of
Wastewater," Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
40:9:1546.
Sonksen, M. K., Sittig, M. F., Maziarz, E F., 1978, "Treatment of
Oily Wastes by Ultrafiltration/Reverse Osmosis - A Case History,"
Presented at 33rd Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference.
Spatz, D. D., 1974, "Methods of Water Purification," Presented to
the American Association of Nephrology Nurses and Technicians of
the NSAIO-AANNT Joint Conference, Seattle, Washington, April
1972, Revised July 1974.
Steel, E. W., 1960, Water Supply and Sewerage, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., New York, NY.
Stephens. W. E., Vassily, G., 1971, "The Hunter Process of Strip
Casting, ' Light Metal Age, April, pp. 6-8.
Strier, M. P., 1978, "Treatability of Organic Priority Pollutants
- Part C - Their Estimated (30-Day Average) Treated Effluent Con-
centration - A Molecular Engineering Approach," Report to Robert
B. Schaffer, Director, EPA Effluent Guidelines Division, July 11;
and "Treatability of Organic Priority Pollutants - Part D - The
Pesticides - Their Estimated (30~Day Average) Treated Effluent
Concentration," December 26.
Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc., 1977, Study of Selected
Pollutant Parameters in Publicly 0^n?^ Treatment Works, Draft re-
port submitted to EPA-Effluent Guidelines Division, February.
Symons, J. M., 1978, Interim Treatment Guide for Controlling
Organic Contaminants in Drinking Water Using Granular Activated
Carbon, Water Supply Research Division, Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, OH.
Szekely, A. G., 1976, "The Removal of Solid Particles from Molten
Aluminum in the Spinning Nozzle Inert Flotation Process,"
Metallurgical Transactions B, Volume 7B, June.
Tabakin, R. B., Trattner, R., Cheremisinoff, P. N., 1978a,
"Oil/Water Separation Technology: The Options Available - Part
1," Water and Sewage Works, Vol. 125, No. 8, August.
1082
-------
Tabakin, R. B., Trattner, R., Cheremisinoff, P. N., 1978b,
"Oil/Water Separation Technology: The Options Available - Part
2," Water and Sewage Works, Vol. 125, No. 8, August.
Thompson, C. S., 1972, "Cost and Operating Factors for Treatment
of Oily Waste Water," Oil and Gas Journal, 70:47:53.
Throup, W. M., 1976, "Why Industrial Wastewater Pretreatment?"
Industrial Wastes, July/August, p. 32.
U.S. Department of Interior, FWPCA, 1967, Industrial Waste
Profile No. 5 Petroleum Refining, Vol. III.
U.S. Department of Interior, 1968a, Cost of Wastewater Treatment
Processes, TWRC-6.
U.S. Department of Interior, 1968b, Preliminary Design and
Simulation of Conventional Wastewater Renovation Systems Using
the Digital Computer, USDI-WP-20-9.
U.S. Department of Interior, 1969, Appraisal of Granular Carbon
Contacting, Report No. TWRC-12.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971a, Estimating Costs and
Manpower Requirements for Conventional Wastewater Treatment
Facilities, Water Pollution Control Research Series, 17090 DAN,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971b, Experimental
Evaluation of Fibrous Bed Coalescers for Separating Oil-Water
Emulsions, 12050 DRC» November.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973a, Capital and
Operating Costs of Pollution Control Equipment Module - Vol. II,
EPA-R5-73-023b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973b, Electrical Power
Consumption for Municipal Wastewater Treatment, EPA-R2-73-281.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973c, Estimating Staffing
for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities, EPA-68-01-0328.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973d, Process Design
Manual for Carbon Adsorption, EPA-625/l-71-002*u
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974a, Development Document
for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Petroleum Refining Point Source Category^
EPA-440/l-74-014a, April.
1083
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974b, Development Document
for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source'
Category, EPA-440/l-74-014a, April.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, I974c, Flow Equalization,
EPA-625/4-74-006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974d, Policy Statement on
Acceptable Methods of Utilization or Disposal or Sludges,
Washington, D.C..
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974e, Development Document
for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Secondary Aluminum Subcategory of the Aluminum
Segment of the Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Point Source
Category, EPA-440/l-74-019e.
U.S, Environmental Protection Agency, 1974g, "Wastewater
Filtration-Design Considerations," EPA Technology Transfer
Seminar Publication, July.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975a, A Guide to the
Selection of Cost-Effective Wastewater Treatment System,
EPA-430/9-75-002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975b, Costs of Wastewater
Treatment by Land Application, EPA-430/9-75-003, June.
U.S: Environmental Protection Agency, 1975c, Evaluation of Land
Application Systems, EPA-430/9-75-001, March.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975d, Lime Use in
Wastewater Treatment Design and Cost Data, EPA-600/2-75-038.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975e, Process Design
Manual for Suspended Solids Removal, EPA-625/l-75-003a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976a, Cost Estimating
Manual--Combined Sewer Overflow Storage and Treatment,
EPA-600/2-76-286.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976b, Land Treatment of
Municipal Wastewater Effluents. Design Factors - I, EPA Tech-
nology Transfer Seminar Publication.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976c, Land Treatment of
Municipal Wastewater Effluents. Design Factors - II, EPA Tech-
nology Transfer Seminar Publication.
1084
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1976d, Land Treatment of
Municipal Wastewater Effuents. Case Histories, EPA Technology
Transfer Seminar Publication.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976e, Supplement for
Pretreatment to the Interim Final Development Document for the
Secondary Aluminum Segment of the Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing
Point Source Category7 EPA-440/l-76-018c.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977a, Controlling
Pollution from the Manufacturing and Coating of Metal "Products -
Vol. 2, Solvent Metal Cleaning Air Pollution Control,
Environmental Research Information Center, Technology Transfer,
May.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977b, Controlling
Pollution from the Manufacturing and Coating of Metal Products:
Water Pollution Control, EPA Technology Transfer Seminar
Publication, May, EPA-625/3-77-009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977c, Draft Development
Document for Interim Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards for the Miscellaneous Nonferrous
Metals Segment, EPA-440/1-76/Q67.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977d, State-of-the-Art of
Small Water Treatment Systems, Office of Water Supply.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977e, Supplement for
Pretreatment to the Development Document for the Petroleum
Refining Industry Existing Point Source Category, March.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978a, Analysis of
Operation and Maintenance Costs for Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Systems, EPA-430/9-77-015.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978b, Construction Costs
for Municipal Wastewater Conveyance System: 1973-1977,
EPA-430/9-77-014.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978c, Construction Costs
for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants: 1973*1977,
EPA-430/9-77-013.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978d, Development Document
for Proposed Existing Source Pretreatment Standards for the
Electroplating Point Source Category, EPA-44U/1-78/085, February.
1085
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978e, Estimating Costs for
Water Treatment as a Function of Size and Treatment Plant
Efficiency, EPA-60Q/2-78/182.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978f, Innovative and
Alternative Technology Assessment Manual, EPA-430/9-78-009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978g, Process Design
Manual for Municipal Sludge Landfills, EPA Technology Transfer,
EPA-625/1-78-010, SW-705, October.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978h, Revised Economic
Impact Analysis of Proposed Regulations on Organic Contamination
Drinking Water, Office of Drinking Water.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979a, Dissolved Air
Flotation of Gulf Shrimp Cannery Wastewater, EPA-600/2-79-061.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979b, Draft Development
Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source
Category, Vol. Ill, EPA-44Q/l-79-024a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979c, Draft Development
Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
the Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Point Source Category,
EPA-440/l-79/019a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979d, Process Design
Manual for Sludge Treatment and Disposal, EPA-625/I-79-011,
September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979e, Technical Study
Report BATEA - NSFS - PSES - PSNS Major Nonferrous Metals,
Contract Nos. 68-01-3289, 68-01-4906.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979f, Environmental
Pollution Control Alternatives: Economics of Wastewater
Treatment Alternatives for the Electroplating Industry, EPA
Technology Transfer, EPA-625/5-79-016, June.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980, Draft Development
Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
the Aluminum Forming Point Source Category, EPA 440/l-80/Q73-a,
September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1981a, Development Document
for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
the Porcelain Enameling Point Source Category, EPA 440/1-81/
072-b, January.
1036
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 19815, Development Document
for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
the Coil Coating Point Source Category, EPA 440/1-81/071-b,
January.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1982, Development Document
for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
the Metal Finishing Point Source Category, EPA 440/1-82/091-b,
August.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1977, Process Design
Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater,
EPA-625/1-77-008, October.
Verschueren and Karel, 1972, Handbook of Environmental Data on
Organic Chemicals, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY.
Wahl, J. R., Hayes, T. C., Kleper, M. H., Pinto, S. D., 1979,
"Ultrafiltration for Today's Oily Wastewaters: A Survey of
Current Ultrafiltration Systems, Presented at 34th Annual Purdue
Industrial Waste Conference.
Water Pollution Control Federation, 1977, MOP/8: Wastewater
Treatment Plant Design, WPCF, Washington, D.C.
Wyatt, M. J., White, P. E. Jr., 1975, Sludge Processing,
Transportation, and Disposal/Resource Recovery: A Planning
Perspective, Report No. EPA-WA-75-R024, December.
Zievers, J. F., Grain, R. A., Barclay, F. G., 1968, "Waste
Treatment in Metal Finishing: U.S. and European Practices,"
Cited by Technology and Economics of Industrial Pollution
Abatement, Illinois Institute for Environmental Quality, Document
No.76/22. as well as other pollutants including halogenated
organics.
1087
-------
-------
SECTION XVI
GLOSSARY
This section is an alphabetical listing of technical terms (with
definitions) used in this document which may not be familiar to
the reader.
4-AAP Colorimetric Method
An analytical method for total phenols and total phenolic com-
pounds that involves reaction with the color developing agent
4-aminoantipyrine.
Acid Dip
Using any acid for the purpose of cleaning any material. Some
methods of acid cleaning are pickling and oxidizing.
Acidity
The quantitative capacity of aqueous solutions to react with
hydroxyl ions. Measured by titration with a standard solution of
a base to a specified end point. Usually expressed as milligrams
per liter of calcium carbonate.
The Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 as
amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 92-500).
Aging
A change in the properties of certain metals and alloys that
occurs at ambient or moderately elevated temperatures after hot
working or heat treatment (quench aging in ferrous alloys,
natural or artificial aging in ferrous and nonferrous alloys) or
after a cold working operation (strain aging). The change in
properties is often due to a phase change (precipitation), but
never involves a change in chemical composition of the metal or
alloy.
Alkaline Cleaning
A proces where dirt, mineral and animal fats, and oils are
removed from the metal surface by exposure to solutions at high
temperatures containing alkaline compounds, such as caustic soda,
soda ash, alkaline silicates, and alkaline phosphates.
1089
-------
Alkalinity
The capacity of water to neutralize acids, a property imparted by
the water's content of carbonates, bicarbonates, hydroxides, and
occasionally borates, silicates, and phosphates. It is measured
by titration with a standardized acid to a specified end point,
and is usually reported in milligrams per liter of calcium
carbonate.
Amortization
The allocation of a cost or account according to a specified
schedule, based on the principal, interest and period of cost
allocation.
Analytical Quantification Level
The minimum concentration at which quantification of a specified
pollutant can be reliably measured.
Ancillary Operations
Operations that discharge significant amounts of pollutants and
wastewater flows that may or may not be present at any one
facility belonging to the subcategory.
Annealing
A generic term describing a metals treatment process that is used
primarily to soften metallic materials, but also to simultane-
ously produce desired changes in other properties or in micro-
structure. The purpose of such changes may be, but is not
confined to, improvement of machinability, facilitation of cold
work, improvement of mechanical or electrical properties, and/or
increase in stability of dimensions. Annealing consists of heat-
ing and cooling the metal at varying rates to achieve the desired
properties,
Backvashing
The operation of cleaning a filter or column by reversing the
flow of liquid through it and washing out matter previously
trapped.
Batch Treatment
A waste treatment method where wastewater is collected over a
period of time and then treated prior to discharge. Treatment is
not continuous, but collection may be continuous.
1090
-------
Bench Scale Pilot Studies
Experiments providing data concerning the treatability of a
wastewater stream or the efficiency of a treatment process con-
ducted using laboratory-size equipment.
Best Available Demonstrated Technology (BADT)
Treatment technology upon new source performance standards as
defined by Section 306 of the Act.
Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
Level of technology applicable to toxic and nonconventional pol-
lutants on which effluent limitations are established. These
limitations are to be achieved by July 1, 1984 by industrial dis-
charges to surface waters as defined by Section 301(b)(2) (C) of
the Act.
Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
Level of technology applicable to conventional pollutant effluent
limitations to be achieved by July 1, 1984 for industrial dis-
charges to surface waters as defined in Section 301(b)(2)(E) of
the act.
Best Management Practices (BMP)
Regulations intended to control the release of toxic and hazard-
ous pollutants from plant runoff, spillage, leaks, solid waste
disposal, and drainage from raw material storage.
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (B£T)
Level of technology applicable to effluent limitations to have
been achieved by July 1, 1977 (originally) for industrial dis-
charges to surface waters as defined by Section 301(b)(l)(A) of
the Act.
Billet
A long slender cast product used as raw material in subsequent
forming operations.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
The quantity of oxygen used in the biochemical oxidation of
organic matter under specified conditions for a specified time.
1091
-------
Blovdown
The minimum discharge of circulating water for the purpose of
discharging dissolved solids or other contaminants contained in
the water, the further buildup of which would cause concentration
in amounts exceeding limits established by best engineering
practice.
Catalyst
An agent that (1) reduces the energy required for activating a
chemical reaction and (2) is not consumed by that reaction.
Chelation
The formation of coordinate covalent bonds between a central
metal ion and a liquid that contains two or more sites for com-
bination with the metal ion.
Chemical Finishing
Producing a desired finish on the surface of a metallic product
by immersing the workpiece in a chemical bath.
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
A measure of the oxygen-consuming capacity of the organic and
inorganic matter present in the water or wastewater.
Cleaning (see etching)
Cold Rolling
An operation that produces aluminum sheet with a thickness
between 6.25 cm and 0.015 cm (0.249 to 0.006 inches) by passing
the aluminum through a set of rolls. The process is an exo-
thermic process and causes strain-hardening of the product.
Colloid
Suspended solids whose diameter may vary between less than one
micron and fifteen microns.
Composite Samples
A series of samples collected over a period of time but combined
into a single sample for analysis. The individual samples can be
taken after a specified amount of time has passed (time compo-
sited) , or after a specified volume of water has passed the sam-
pling point (flow composited). The sample can be automatically
collected and composited by a sampler or can be manually
collected and combined.
1092
-------
Consent Decree (Settlement Agreement)
Agreement between EPA and various environmental groups, as insti-
tuted by the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, directing EPA to study and promulgate regulations for
the toxic pollutants (NRDC, Inc. v. Train, 8 ERG 2120 (D.D.C.
1976), modified March 9, 1979, 12 ERG 1833, 1841).
Contact Water
Any water or oil that comes into direct contact with the alumi-
num, whether it is raw material, intermediate product, waste
product, or finished product.
Continuous Casting
A casting process that produces sheet, rod, or other long shapes
by solidifying the metal while it is being poured through an
open-ended mold using little or no contact cooling water. Thus,
no restrictions are placed on the length of the product and it is
not necessary to stop the process to remove the cast product.
Continuous Treatment
Treatment of waste streams operating without interruption as
opposed to batch treatment. Sometimes referred to as flow-
through treatment.
Contractor Removal
Disposal of oils, spent solutions, or sludge by a commercial
firm.
Conventional Pollutants
Constitutents of wastewater as determined by Section 304(a)(4) of
the Act, including but not limited to pollutants classified as
biological-oxygen-demanding, oil and grease, suspended solids,
fecal coliforms, and pH.
Conversion Coating
A coating produced by chemical or electrochemical treatment of a
metallic surface that gives a surface layer containing a compound
of the metal. For example, chromate coatings on zinc and cad-
mium, oxide coatings on steel.
Cooling Tower
A hollow, vertical structure with internal baffles designed to
break up falling water so that it is cooled by upward-flowing air
and the evaporation of water.
1093
-------
Core Stream
A waste stream generated by operations that always occur within a
particular subcategory.
Counter Current Rinsing
A staged process that employs recycled, often untreated water as
a rinsing medium to clean metal products. Water flow is opposite
to product flow such that the most contaminated water encounters
incoming product first.
Data Collection Portfolio (dcp)
The questionnaire used in the survey of the aluminum forming
industry.
Degassing
The removal of dissolved hydrogen from the molten aluminum prior
to casting. This process also helps to remove oxides and
impurities from the melt.
Deoxidizing
The removal of any oxide film (such as aluminum oxide) from a
metal.
Desmutting
A process that removes a residual silt (smut) by immersing the
product in an acid solution, usually nitric acid.
Direct Chill Casting
A method of casting where the molten aluminum is poured into a
water-cooled mold. The base of this mold is the top of a
hydraulic cylinder that lowers the aluminum first through the
mold and then through a water spray and bath to cause solidifica-
tion. The vertical distance of the drop limits the length of the
ingot. This process is also known as semi-continuous casting.
Direct Discharger
Any point source that discharges to a surface water.
Dragout
The solution that adheres to the objects removed from a bath or
rinse, more precisely defined as that solution which is carried
past the edge of the tank.
1D94
-------
Drawing
Pulling the metal through a die or succession of dies to reduce
the metal's diameter or alter its shape.
Drying Beds
Areas for dewatering of sludge by evaporation and seepage.
Effluent
Discharge from a point source.
Effluent Limitation
Any standard (including schedules of compliance) established by a
state or EPA on quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemi-
cal, physical, biological, and other constituents that are dis-
charged from point sources into navigable waters, the waters of
the contiguous zone, or the ocean.
Electrochemical Finishing
Producing a desired finish on the surface of a metallic product
by immersing the workpiece in an electrolyte bath through which
direct current is passed.
Electroplating
The production of a thin coating of one metal on another by elec-
trodeposition.
Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP)
A gas cleaning device that induces an electrical charge on a
solid particle which is then attracted to an oppositely charged
collector plate. The collector plates are intermittently
vibrated to discharge the collected dust to a hopper.
Emulsifying Agent
A material that increases the stability of a dispersion of one
liquid in another.
Emulsions
Stable dispersions of two immiscible liquids.
1095
-------
End-of-Pipe Treatment
The reduction of pollutants by wastewater treatment prior to dis-
charge or reuse.
Etching
The removal of surface imperfections, oxides, and scratches by
chemical action. Etching can also provide surface roughness.
Etching Line (cleaning line)
A series of baths and rinses designed to produce a desired sur-
face finish on a workpiece.
Eutectic Temperature
The lowest temperature at which a solution (in this case, the
solution is molten aluminum and various alloying materials)
remains completely liquid.
Extrusion
A process in which high pressures are applied to a billet of
aluminum, forcing the aluminum to flow through a die orifice.
Finishing
The coating or polishing of a metal surface.
Fluxes
Substances added to molten metal to help remove impurities and
prevent excessive oxidation, or promote the fusing of the metals.
Foil Rolling
A process which produces aluminum foil less than 0.006 inches
thick. Foil is usually produced by cold rolling.
Forging
A process that exerts pressure on die or rolls surrounding heated
aluminum stock forcing the stock to take the shape of the dies.
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy (GC/MS)
Chemical analytical instrumentation used for quantitative organic
analysis.
1096
-------
Grab Sample
A single smample of wastewater taken without regard to time or
flow.
Heat Treatment
A process that changes the physical properties of the metal, such
as strength, ductility, and malleability by controlling the rate
of cooling.
Homogenizing
Holding solidified aluminum at high temperature to eliminate or
decrease chemical segregation by diffusion.
Hot Rolling
The process in which aluminum is heated to between 400°C and
495°C and passed through a set of rolls which reduces the thick-
ness of the metal to a plate 6.3 mm (0.25 inches) thick or more.
Hot rolling does not strain-harden the aluminum.
Indirect Discharger
Any point source that discharges to a publicly owned treatment
works.
Inductively-Coupled Argon Plasma Spectrophotometer (ICAP)
A laboratory device used for the analysis of metals.
Ingot
A large, block-shaped casting produced by various methods.
Ingots are intermediate products from which other products are
made.
In-Process Control Technology
Any procedure or equipment used to conserve chemicals and water
throughout the production operations, resulting in a reduction of
the wastewater volume.
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
Effluent limitations for new industrial point sources as defined
by Section 306 of the Act.
1097
-------
Nonconventlonal Pollutant
Parameters selected for use in performance standards that have
not been previously designated as either conventional or toxic
pollutants.
Non-Water Quality Environmental Impact
The ecological impact as a result of solid, air, or thermal pol-
lution due to the application of various wastewater technologies
to achieve the effluent guidelines limitations. Also associated
with the non-water quality aspect is the energy impact of waste-
water treatment.
NPDES Permits
Permits issued by EPA or an approved state program under the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System.
Off-Gases
Gases, vapors, and fumes produced as a result of an aluminum
forming operation.
Oil and Grease (O&G)
Any material that is extracted by freon from an acidified sample
and that is not volatilized during the analysis, such as hydro-
carbons, fatty acids, soaps, fats, waxes, and oils,
The pH is the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion activity of
a solution.
Pickling
The process of removing scale, oxide, or foreign matter from the
surface of metal by immersing it in a bath containing a suitable
chemical reagent that will attack the oxide or scale, but will
not act appreciably upon the metal during the period of pickling
Frequently it is necessary to immerse the metal in a detergent
solution or to degrease it before pickling.
Plate
A flat, extended, rigid body of aluminum having a thickness
greater than or equal to 6.3 mm (0.25 inches).
1098
-------
Pollutant Parameters
Those constituents of wastewater determined to be detrimental
and, therefore, requiring control.
Priority Pollutants
Those pollutants included in Table 2 of Committee Print number
95-30 of the "Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the
House o£ Representatives," subject to the Act.
Process Water
Water used in a production process that contacts the product, raw
materials, or reagents.
Production Normalizing Parameter (PNP)
The unit of production specified in the regulations used to
determine the mass of pollution a production facility may
discharge.
PSES
Pretreatment standards (effluent regulations) for existing
sources.
PSNS
Pretreatment standards (effluent regulations) for new sources.
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)
A waste treatment facility that is owned by a state or
municipality.
Recycle
Returning treated or untreated wastewater to the production pro-
cess from which it originated for use as process water.
Reduction
A reaction in which there is a decrease in valence resulting from
a gain in electrons.
Reuse
The use of treated or untreated process wastewater in a different
production process.
1099
-------
Reverberatory Furnaces
Rectangular furnaces in which the fuel is burned above the metal
and the heat reflects off the walls and into the metal.
Rinsing
A process in which water is used to wash etching and cleaning
chemicals from the surface of metal.
Rod
An intermediate aluminum product having a solid, round cross sec-
tion 9.5 mm (3/8 inches) or more in diameter.
Rolling
A forming process that reduces the thickness of a workpiece by
passing it between a pair of lubricated steel rollers.
Scrubber Liquor
The untreated wastewater stream produced by wet scrubbers clean-
ing gases produced by aluminum forming operations.
Seal Water
A water curtain used as a barrier between the annealing furnance
atmosphere and the outside atmosphere.
Semi-Fabricated Products
Intermediate products that are the final product of one process
and the raw material for a second process.
Stationary Casting
A process in which the molten aluminum is poured into molds and
allowed to air-cool. It is often used to recycle in-house scrap.
Strain-Hardening (see work-hardening)
Subcategorization
The process of segmentation of an industry into groups of plants
for which uniform effluent limitations can be established.
1100
-------
Surface Water
Any visible stream or body of water, natural or man-made. This
does not include bodies of water whose sole purpose is wastewater
retention or the removal of pollutants, such as holding ponds or
lagoons.
Surfactants
Surface active chemicals that tend to lower the surface tension
between liquids.
Swaging
A process in which a solid point is formed at the end of a tube,
rod, or bar by the repeated blows of one or more pairs of oppos-
ing dies. It is often the initial step in the drawing process.
Total Dissolved Solids (IDS)
Organic and inorganic molecules and ions that are in true solu-
tion in the water or wastewater.
Total Organic Carbon (TOG)
A measure of the organic contaminants in a wastewater. The TOG
analysis does not measure as much of the organics as the COD or
BOD tests, but is much quicker than these tests.
Total Recycle
The complete reuse of a stream, with makeup water added for
evaporation losses. There is no blowdown stream from a totally
recycled flow and the process water is not periodically or con-
tinuously discharged.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Solids in suspension in water, wastewater, or treated effluent.
Also known as suspended solids.
Tubing Blank
A sample taken by passing one gallon of distilled water through a
composite sampling device before initiation of actual wastewater
sampling.
1101
-------
Volatile Substances
Materials that are readily vaporizable at relatively low
temperatures.
Wastewater Discharge Factor
The ratio between water discharged from a production process and
the mass of product of that production process. Recycle water is
not included,
Water Use Factor
The total amount of contact water or oil entering a process
divided by the amount of aluminum product produced by this pro-
cess. The amount of water involved includes the recycle and
makeup water.
Wet Scrubbers
Air pollution control devices used for removing pollutants as the
gas passes through the spray.
Wire
A slender strand of aluminum with a diameter less than 9.5 mm
(3/8 inches).
Work-Hardening
An increase in hardness and strength and a loss of ductility that
occurs in the workplace as a result of passing through cold form-
ing or cold working operations. Also known as strain-hardening.
Zero Discharger
Any industrial or municipal facility that does not discharge
wastewater.
U0"2
*U,S. GOVHUMffl! FRIKTHRJ OF2ICE s 1982 0-381-085/U85
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Washington DC 20460
------- |