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
b |