-------
-------
TABLE 27
Plant Age and
Iron Making - Fe Blast Furnaces
PO
o
Plant
L
M
N
0
Location
Northern
Great Lakes
Production
kkg/day
2200
Plant Installed Treatment Plant Installed
Year Year
1941-1945
1971
Northern
Great Lakes
Central
Pacific
Southern
Texas
Northeastern
3175
1950
1500
N/A
1941-1945
1941-1945
1900
1959
1969
~— —
-------
lit
-------
-------
Li 1 I L l-l 1 I I I I ! t I
I I I-I-.1 I J. I...I.
-------
-a/fe
-------
The semiwet system employs a precipitator and gas conditioning in
a spark box spray chamber. The spark box spray system utilizes
an excessive spray water system.
The basic type of water control treatment system applied to this
aqueous discharge is generally a steel or concrete rectangular
settling tank containing a motorized flight conveyor for removing
the settled solids. The water is allowed to settle some solids
and then overflowed to the plant sewers while the flight conveyor
removes the settled solids for truck disposal. Approximately 22-
3036 of the dust load ejected from the furnaces is precipitated
out in the spark box chamber and discharged to the settling tank.
These systems can be upgraded by magnetic and chemical
zlocculation systems, thus precipitating more of the submicron
iron oxide fines.
These systems can be arranged for a zero aqueous discharge by
adding make-up water and recycling the water back into the spark
box -spray system.
An alternate system to the spark-box spray or dry evaporation
chamber system is to install a wetted wall type evaporation
chamber. A wetted wall evaporation chamber contains no re-
fractory lining, but uses a water wetted steel surface as the
heat resistant medium. These chambers require large quantities
of water to insure that the steel surfaces do not become
overheated. The aqueous discharges from these systems are
generally discharged to a settling chamber, make-up water is
added with chemical treatment, and the water is recycled back to
the evaporation chamber system. These systems employ the same
water treatment techniques as the spark box discharges except the
precipitated dust load is somewhat less (10X) as these systems
are a cross between the spark box and dry evaporation chambers.
The wet high energy venturi scrubber fume collection systems
generally use steam generating type hoods close coupled with a
low energy fixed orifice quencher. As the hot gases exit from
the hood, the gases are immediately quenched from 150°C to 85°C
saturation temperature.
The aqueous discharge from the scrubber fume collection system is
from the primary quencher with the effluent being discharged to
thickeners. Most systems have thickeners for settlement of
solids. Flocculation polymers systems are generally installed to
aid settlement. The overflow from the thickener is discharged to
the plant sewers and the underflow from the thickeners is passed
through filters for decanting with the filtrate being returned to
the thickener while the filter cake is sent to the sintering
plant for recycling. These systems can become recycling systems
by adding make-up water to compensate for water evaporation in
the primary quencher.
The treated water is pumped into the venturi scrubber and
recycled from the venturi scrubber to the primary quencher.
217
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
TABLE 29
Plant Age and Size
Steel Making - Basic Oxygen Furnaces
Plant Location Production Plant Installed Treatment Plant Installed
R Middle
Atlantic
S Middle
Atlantic
ro T Middle
01 Atlantic
U Northern
Great Lakes
V Middle
Atlantic
kkg/day
5300
5760
7217
2690
9880
Year
1967
1968
1966
1959
1967
Year
1967
1968
1966
1960 &
1967
-------
Jfnt(toaaqi'ti) Noa-comcT
DOttCT TO /tlttX
tUBUCfO D/tAlT FHH
r~
r*
5-2-7J FI&U/3E 4t
-------
Si
-------
The aqueous discharges are -treated the same as the EOF except pH
adjustment has to be added to adjust for the acidic wastes being
discharged.
Plant Visits
Two open hearth shops were visited in the study. Detailed
descriptions of the plant waste water treatment practices are
presented on individual drawings. Table 30 presents a summary of
the plants visited in respect to geographic location, daily
production, plant age, and age of the treatment facility. Brief
descriptions and drawings of the waste water treatment systems
are presented,
Plant W - Figure 51
This plant utilizes thickening and recycle with blowdown
(approximately 16%) to treat waste waters generated in its gas
cleaning system.
Gross plant effluent loads from the system are 214 1/kkg of steel
(51,4 gal/ton) flow, and 0.0173 kg of suspended solids, 0.0316 kg
fluoride, 0.00471 kg nitrate, and 0.0057 kg zinc per kkg
(lb/1,000 Ib) of steel produced.
Overall removals for suspended solids, fluoride, nitrate, and
zinc are 98.27%, 42.37%, 91,28%, and 0.0%, respectively.
Plant X - Figure 52
This plant utilizes chemical coagulation, thickening, and recycle
with blowdown (approximately 21%) to treat waste waters generated
in its gas cleaning system.
Gross plant effluent loads from the system are 500 1/kkg of steel
(120 gal/ton) flow, and 0.0256 kg suspended solids, 0.032 kg
fluoride, 0.149 kg nitrate, and 0.595 kg zinc per kkg (lb/1,OCO
Ib) of steel produced.
Overall removals for suspended solids, fluoride, nitrate, and
zinc are 99,7%, 10%, 0.0%, and 70.47%, respectively.
Electric Arc Furnace Operation
The furnace collection systems range from completely dry to
semiwet to wet, high energy, venturi scrubbers.
The dry fume collection system consists of baghouses with local
exhaust or plant rooftop exhaust hoods. The aqueous discharges
from these systems are zero.
The semiwet system employs a spark box or spray chamber to
condition the hot gases for either a precipitator or baghouse. A
spark box is generally used with a precipitator system, and a
spray chamber with a baghouse system. The spark box conditions
231
-------
the gases to 200°C while the spray chamber conditions them to
135°C. The aqueous discharge from these systems is controlled
and treated with similar systems are used on the spark box
chamber on the basic oxygen furnace.
The wet high energy venturi scrubber fume collection systems use
the water cooled elbow for extracting the gases from the electric
arc furnace. Combustion air gaps are always left between the
water cooled elbow and fume collection ductwork to insure that
all the CO gas burns to CO2 before entering the high energy
venturi scrubber or any other fume collection cleaning device.
As the hot gases pass through the scrubber, the gases are
conditioned and cooled to 182°F saturation temperature.
The aqueous discharge from the wet scrubber system is handled in
the same manner as the EOF.
Plant Visits
Four electric furnace shops were visited in the study. Detailed
descriptions of the plant waste water treatment practices are
presented on individual drawings. Table 31 presents a summary of
the plants visited in respect to geographic location, daily
production, plant age, and age of the treatment facility. Brief
descriptions and drawings of the individual waste water treatment
systems are presented.
giant Y - Figure 53
This plant utilizes chemical coagulation, magnetic flocculation,
sedimentation, and total recycle to treat those waste waters
generated in the gas cleaning system.
The system has zero aqueous discharge.
The system effects 100X removal of fluoride and suspended solids.
Plant Z * Figure 54
This plant utilizes closely controlled moisture addition to their
gas cleaning system to produce a sludge of sufficient solids
concentration to allow direct solids disposal.
There is no aqueous discharge from the system.
The system effects 100% removal of suspended solids.
Plant AA - Figure 55
This plant utilizes classification and clarification on a once-
through basis to treat waste waters generated in the gas cleaning
system.
232
-------
-------
-------
f 7
S*
\l
' t
n
^
iiiii
-------
-------
Em/meuuaau.
S-rua-r
mu
S-8-73
-------
-------
-------
TABLE 30
Plant Age and Siae
Steel Making - Open Hearth Furnaces (IV-B)
Plant Location Production Plant Installed Treatment Plant Installed
kkg/day Year Year
W Middle 9150 1952 1968
Atlantic
X Middle. 3330 1949-1955 1970
Atlantic
ro
•&•
CO
-------
TABLE 31
Plant Age and Size
Steel Making - Electric Furnaces
Plant
PO
43.
AA
AB
Location
Middle
Atlantic
Northern
Great Lakes
Southern
Texas
Southern
Texas
Production
kkg/day
1810
1340
740
1451
Plant Installed Treatment Plant Installed
Year Year
1955
1967
1967
1971
1969
1968
1967
1971
-------
Gross plant effluent loads from the system are 1,250 1/kkg of
steel (299 gal/ton) flow, and 0.0258 kg fluoride and 0.074 kg
suspended solids per kkg (lb/1,000 lb) of steel processed.
Overall removals of fluoride and suspended solids observed are OX
and 97.3X, respectively.
Plant AB - Figure 56
This plant utilizes recycle with blowdown (approximately 6%),
with treatment of the blowdown via thickening and extended
settling to treat waste waters generated in the gas cleaning
system.
Gross plant effluent loads are 680 1/kkg of steel (162 gal/ton)
flow, and 0.0081 kg fluoride, and 0.015 kg suspended solids per
kkg (lb/1,000 lb) of steel processed.
Net overall removals of fluoride and suspended solids are 7.856
and 99.95%, respectively.
Vacuum Degassing Operation
The condensed steam and heated cooling water is discharged from
the barometric condenser in a hot well. The water from the hot
well is either discharged or is routed into a combination water
treatment system that services other steelmaking facilities. The
water rate for the barometric condensers systems is approximately
85-175 I/sec (20 - 41 gal/sec) with temperature increases of 20-
30°C. Inert gases, for example argon, are injected for mixing of
the molten steel bath and nitrogen is used for purging the system
before breaking the vacuum. The latter practice can result in
high nitrate concentrations in the waste waters.
Plant Visits
Two degassing plants were visited in the study. Detailed
descriptions of the plant waste water treatment practices are
presented on individual drawings. Table 32 presents a summary of
the plants visited in respect to geographic location, daily
production, plant age, and age of the treatment facility.
Plant AC - Figure 57
Vacuum degasser waste water or tight recycle loop with minimal
blowdown. Loop contains cooling tower for heat dissipation.
Normal gross effluent waste load is estimated to be 67 1/kkg of
steel (16 gal/ton) flow, 10,900 Btu of heat per kkg (9,940
Btu/ton) and 0.00011 kg lead, 0.0012 kg manganese 0.0068 kg
nitrate, 0.0035 kg suspended solids, and 0.0015 kg zinc per kkg
(lb/1,000 lb) of steel processed.
245
-------
Overall removals of heat, lead, manganese, nitrate, suspended
solids and zinc are 72.4%, 93.4%, 92.9%, 94.6%, 96.0% and 79.4%,
respectively.
Plant AD - Figure 58
Degasser waste water is on a moderately tight recycle loop with
scale pit, filter, and cooling tower-
Normal gross effluent waste load is estimated to be 46 1/kkg of
steel (10.9 gal/ton) flow, and 0.0000046 kg lead, 0.000127 kg
manganese, 0.0 kg nitrate, 0.00168 kg suspended solids, and
0.0000416 kg zinc per kkg (lb/1,000 lb) of steel processed.
Overall removals of heat, lead, manganese, nitrate, suspended
solids, and zinc are 98.8%, 99.6%, 100%, 94.9%, 97.1% and 99.4%',
respectively.
Continuous Casting Subcategory
The spray water system water discharge is an open recirculating
system with make-up and blowdown using either settling chamber
scale pits with drag link conveyors or flat bed type filters for
scale and oil removal. The effluent from the scale pit or
filtrate from the flat bed filters is sometimes reduced in
temperature by pumping it through induced draft cooling towers
before recycling the waters back to the spray system.
Approximately 5-10% of the spray water is evaporated during the
spray of the cast product. The aqueous discharge from this
system is blowdown.
Plant Visits
Two continuous casting plants were visited in the study.
Detailed descriptions of the plant waste water treatment prac-
tices are presented on individual drawings. Table 33 presents a
summary of the plants visited in respect to geographic location,
daily production, plant age, and age of the treatment facility.
Plant AE - Figure 59
Caster waste water is on a moderately tight recycle loop. The
loop contains scale pit, filter, and cooling tower.
Normal gross plant effluent waste load is estimated to be 463
1/kkg of steel (111 gal/ton) flow, and 0.0020/kg oil and grease,
and 0.00202 kg suspended solids per kkg (lb/1,000 lb) of steel
processed.
Overall removals of oil and grease and suspended solids are 99.4%
and 98.7%, respectively,
Plant AF - Figure 58
246
-------
jr ODD 'off/ 'a
I*
«WfV '«*!•
i WV*P 0»/ **rt
'"«// f * 'ft''
?*
*;
X
> OOf(-DD(^
9011-ootiy
-------
. Vi
IM5
5l£;
if ?•
iMi
o
o
0
r
z
®
O
IP
fit
?
i? .
0
O
Mil
•*f S a
is i
t
> S* i> 5
~1 82'jf
isi* i|
& == f!
oi gs £•
*> a ! 9?
r ")
p o
t 2
-------
isr
-------
-------
I
*»
m
-------
-------
TABLE 32
Plant Age and Size
Vacuum Degassing
Plant Location Production Plant Installed Treatment Plant Installed
kkg/day Year Year
AC Middle 5950 1970 1970
Atlantic
AD Southern 1000 1971 1971
ro
en
en
-------
TABLE 33
Plant Age and Size
Continuous Casting
Plant Location Production Plant Installed Treatment Plant Installed
kkg/day Year Year
AE Middle 2850 1969 1970
Atlantic
AF Southern 1450 1971 1971
Texas
ro
en
-------
Caster waste water is on a tight recycle system with minimal
blowdown. Recycle loop contains scale pit, filter, and cooling
tower.
Normal gross effluent waste load is estimated to be 344 1/kkg
(82,5 gal/ton) of steel flow, with less than 0.000172 kg oil and
grease and 0.0127 kg suspended solids per kkg (lb/1.000 Ib) of
steel produced.
Overall removals of oil and grease and suspended solids are 99.9X
and 97.2%, respectively.
These results are summarized in Tables 34 through 43.
Base Level of Treatment
In developing the technology, guidelines, and incremental costs
associated with the application of the technologies subsequently
to be selected and designated as one approach to the treatment of
effluents to achieve the BPCTCA, BATEA, and NSPS effluent
qualities, it was necessary to determine what base or minimum
level of treatment was already in existence for practically all
plants within the industry in any given sub-category. The
different technology levels were then formulated in an "add-on"
fashion to these base levels. The various treatment models
(levels of treatment) and corresponding effluent volumes and
characteristics are listed in Tables 44 through 54. Since these
tables also list the corresponding costs for the average size
plant, these tables are presented in Section VIII.
It was obvious from the plant visits that many of the plants in
existence today have treatment and control facilities with
capabilities that exceed the technologies chosen to be the base
levels of treatment. Even though many plants may be superior to
the base technology it was necessary, in order to be all-
inclusive of the industry as a whole, to start at the base level
of technology in the development of treatment models and
incremental costs.
257
-------
-------
SECTION VIII
COST, ENERGY, AND NONWATER QUALITY ASPECTS
Introduction
This section will discuss the incremental costs incurred in
applying the different levels of pollution control technology.
The analysis will also describe energy requirements, nonwater
quality aspects (including sludge disposal/ by-product recovery,
etc.), and their techniques, magnitude, and costs for each level
of technology.
It must be remembered that some of the technology beyond the base
level may already be in use. Also, many possible combinations
and/or permutations of various treatment methods are possible.
Thus, not all plants will be required to add all of the treatment
capabilities or incur all of the incremental costs indicated to
bring the base level facilities into compliance with the effluent
limitations.
Costs
The water pollution control costs for the plants visited during
the study is presented in Tables 34 through 43. The treatment
systems, gross effluent loads, and reduction benefits were
described in Section VII. The costs were estimated from data
supplied by the plants. The results are summarized as follows:
Subcategorv
By-Product Coke
II Beehive Coke
III Sintering
IV Blast Furnace
(Iron)
V Blast Furnace
(FeMn)
VI EOF (Semiwet)
VII EOF (Wet)
VIII Open Hearth
Plant
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
J
L
M
N
O
Q
R
U
s
T
V
W
X
Cost per unit weight of product
0.855
0.118
0.789
0.847
*0.074
*0.039
0.023
*0.085
1.033
*0.122
0.172
1.022
4.220
0.160
*0.161
0.176
**0.052
0.326
0.083
0.345
$/ton
0.776
0.107
0.716
0.769
*0.068
*0.036
0.021
*0.077
0.937
0.156
0.927
3.830
0.145
*0.146
0.160
**0.047
0.296
0.075
0.313
Product
Coke
Coke
Coke
Coke
Coke
Coke
Coke
Sinter
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
FeMn
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
steel
Steel
259
-------
IX Electric Arc
(Semi-Wet)
X Electric Arc (Wet)
XI Vacuum Degassing
XII Continuous Casting
Z
AA
AB
AC
AD
AE
AF
0.106
0,046
0.507
0.985
0.051
0.215
0.487
1,620
0.096
0.042
0.460
0.894
0.046
0.195
0.442
1.470
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
steel
* Capital recovery cost only, operating cost not available
** Total operating cost less capital recovery
Base Level and Intermediate Technology, Energy and
Nonwater Impact
The base levels of treatment and the energy requirements and
nonwater quality aspects associated with intermediate levels of
treatment are discussed below by subcategories.
By-Product Coke
1. Base Level of Treatment: Phenol removal and free-leg ammonia
stripping of ammonia liquor in a once-through system. Pond
for suspended solids removal, Once-through noncontact
primary cooler effluent and tight final cooler recycle system
with blowdown to dephenolizer. Benzol waste to dephenolizer
and pH neutralization by addition of acid,
2. Additional energy requirements:
a. Treatment Alternative I:
Additional power will be required to improve the quality of
the effluent of the waste water treatment system used in fume
cleaning of the by-product coke process to meet the
anticipated 1977 standards. The additional energy utilized
will be 0-22 kwh/kkg (0.20 kwh/ton) of coke produced. For
the typcial 2,414 kkg/day (2,660 ton/day) facility the
additional power required will be 21,63 kw (29 hp), The
additional operating cost for this addition will be
approximately $2,175,00,
b. Treatment Alternative II:
The additional energy utilized will be 3.12 kwh/kkg (2.83
kwh/ton) of coke produced. For the typical 2,414 kkg/day
(2,660 ton/day) facility, the additional power required will
be 313.32 kw (420 hp). The annual operating cost for this
addition to the installation will be approximately
$31,500.00.
260
-------
34
TABLE
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
Coke Making - By-Products
I-A
PLANT
XNITIAL IKVESTKEm
MMUAL COSTS i
COST OF CAPITAL
DEPRECIATION
OPER C KAIHT
ENERGY • fOHtH
TOTAL
9/TOK
9/1000 GAL TRT
A
9 2,352,200
99,700
235,200
140,300
966,100
9 1,441,300
0.776
5.59
B
$ 699,100
29,600
69,900
46,100
28,200
9 173, BOO
0.107
O.B43
C
9 4,000,000
169,500
400,000
137,700
848,300
5 1,555,400
0.716
19.4
D
9 2,000,000
64, BOO
200,000
174,100
4,400
$ 463,300
0.769
19.6*
RANGE
0.107 - 0.776
0.843 - 19.6
AVERAGE NET PLANT RAW WASTE LOAD
PARAMETERS
Flow (gal AON)
Amnonia
B005
Cyanide
Phenol
Oil t Grease
Suspended Solids
Sulfide
Ib/TON
139
2.20
1.79
0.118
0.519
-
-
-
ma/1
-
1900
1550
102
450
-
-
-
Ib/TON
127
1.46
1.35
0.120
0,374
0.254
0.0381
0.665
M/l
-
1360
1280
110
350
240
36
629
Ib/TON
37
2.26
0.346
0.0382
0.279
0.0314
0.130
0.0606
M/l
-
7330
1120
91
910
101
421
197
Ib/TON
4600
1.49
0.456
0.293
0.232
0.083
O.B80
0.161
ma/1
-
39
12
7.7
6.1
2.1
23
4.2
1WTQN
U/l
1VTOH
37 - 46.00
1.46 - 2.26
0,346 - 1.79
0.0282 - 0.293
0.232 - 0.519
0.0314 - 0.254'
0.0381 - O.BBO
0.0606 - 0.665
M/l
-
39 - 7330
12 - 1550
7.7 - 110
6.1 - 910
2.1 - 240
23 - 421
4.2 - 629
PARAMETERS
Flow (gal/TON)
.Aonxmla
B0b5
Cyanide
pH
Phenol
Oil C GteaM
Sulfide
Suspended Solid*
Ib/TOl)
153
1.22
3.0816
0.123
-
0.00174
-
•
BS/1
-
956
64.1
96.4
8.5
1.37
-
-
AVERAGE GROSS PLANT EFFLUENT HASTE LOAD
1VTOK
.08
..04
1.0204
1.0339
-
1.0000575
1.00225
1.000234
).147
me/1
-
il&O
22.7
37.7 .
7.5
0.0639
2.5
0.26
163
Ib/TOlf
41
0.159
0.181
0.0230
-
0.0741
0.00632
0.0382
0.0348
ms/1
-
471
537
68
9.5-11.6
219
18.7
113
103
iD/TOH
1600
0.07
0.192
3.311
-
0.002
0.000768
0.0576
0.269
nw/1
-
1.6
5
8.1
7.5
0.0521
0.02
l.S
7.0
Ib/TOK
WI/1
Ib/TON
41 - 4600
0.07 - 1.23
0.0204 - 0.192
0.0230 - 0.311
-
0.0000575 - 0.0741
0.000768 - 0.00632
0.000234 - O.OS76
0.0349 - 0.269
BHt/1
_
1.8 - 1160
5 - 537
8.1 - 96.4
7.5 - 11.8
0.0521 - 219
0.02 - 10.7
0.26 - 113
7.0 - 163
HOTEt B»ad on the actual volume treated 39.3 gal/TON
-------
35
TABLE
HATER. EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
Colee Making - Beehive
I-B
N>
O*
to
tTAHT -
XMITIAL IHVESTKBNT
MIHUAI. COSTS i
COST OP CAPITA!.
DEPRECIATION
OPER 6 HAIHT
ENERGY fi FCMBB
TOTAL
I/TOM
1/1000 GAL TRT
B
9 4,000
170
400
24,100
0
$ 24,670
0.0676
0.138
t
$ 7,500
320
750
12,000
0
$ 13,070
0.0356
0.0731
G
$ 19,500
830
1,950
l',200
680
$ 4,660
0.0207
0.169
RANGE
"
0.0207 - 0.0676
0.0731 - 0.169
AVERAGE HE* PLANT RAW WASTE LOAD
PARAMETERS
Flow (g«l/TOM)
Aftnonii
BODj
Cyanide
Phenol
Suspended Solids
Ib/TON
190
1.00134
).0122
1.0000092
1.0000449
BUt/1
-
0.33
3.0
0.002
0.01
IVTOlf
490
0
0
0
0
0.12
, «*A
-
6
0
0
0
29
IbfTOS
123
0 -
0
0
0
0.74
M/l
-
0
0
i 0
0
722
1WTON
nm/1
1VTQH
ma/1
1VTOH
123 -.490
0 - 0.00134
0 - 0.0132
0 - 0.0000082
0 - 0.0000449
0.12 - 0.74
M/l
-
0 - 0.33
0-3.0
0 - 0.002
0 - 0.01
29 - 723
*VEB»fiB ennsn ptui-p errrjiFMT WSSTK iftin
PARAMETERS
Flow (9«1/TOH)
tanonia
BOD5
Cyanid*
pH
Phenol
8u»p*ndad Solid*
Ib/TOll
190
1.00098
), 00408
1.0000163
-
1.0000571
M47
M/l
0.24
1.00
0.00404
7.1
0.0140
36.01
ih/TOM
0
.0
0
0
0
0
•4/1
u
0
0
0
0
ID/TON
0
0
0
0
0
0
w/r
0
0
0
0
0
Ib/TON
B«/l
Ib/TOB
IM/1
Ib/TOM
0 - 490
0 - 0.00098
0 - 0.0040B
0 - 0.0000163
0 - 0.0000571
0 - 0.147
B8/1
0 - 0.24
0 - 1,0
0 - 0.00404
0 - 0.0140
0 - 36.01
-------
TABLE «
HATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
Burden Preparation - Sintering
Il-A
FLAHT
INITIAL INVESTMENT
JWNUAL COSTS I
COST Of CAPITAL
DEPRECIATION
OPER fi HAIHT
ENERGY * POWER
TOTAL
*/TOM
f/1000 GAL TUT
M
N/A
N/A
^
$ 500,000
21,200
50,000
H/A
H/A
$ 71,200+
0.0770+
0.226*
'
RAlfQE
AVERAGE HET PLAHT RAW HASTE LOAD
PARAMETERS
Flow (gal/TON)
Fluor id«
Oil t Grea>*
Suirtde
SuBpendad Solid*
Ib/TON
104
0.000554
0,437
0.163
3,76
M/l
-
0.644
504
188
4340
Ib/TON
341
-0.042S
1.30
0,193
55.4
•8/1
-
-14.9
457
64.4
19500
Ib/TON
•ft/1
JJ3/T08
U/l
Ib/TOK
M/l
Ib/TOH
104 -.341
-0.0423 - 0.000554
0.437 - 1.3
0.163 - 0.1B3
3.76 - 55,4
M/l
-
-14.9 - 0.644
457 - 504
64.4 - IBB
4340 - 19500
S3
CT>
LO
AVERAGE GROSS PLANT EFFLUENT WASTE LOAD
PARAMETERS
Flow
Fluoride
Oil G Grea>B
PH
Sulflde
Suspended Solid!
U/TOII
NO F
TO/1
ow data
9.6
Ib/TON
114
0.008055
0.000947
0.01022
O.OOB53
mg/1
8.5
i.o
12.6
10.8
9
Ib/TON
B2/1
Ib/TOH
DK/1
Ib/TON
BUf/1
Ib/TOH
Off/1
-------
TABljE 37
MATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
Iron Making - Fe Blast Furnace
TUT CONTROL TECH
INITIAL INVESTMENT
ANNUAL COSTS)
COST 07 CAPITAL
DEPRECIATION
OPER ft HUNT
BKERCY * POHEX
TOTAL
*/TOH
9/1000 GAL TRT
L
$ 3,650,000
154,700
365,000
120,600
180,900
$ 821,200
0.937
0.174
M
5 1,000,000
42,400
100,000
N/R
N/A
$ 142,400+
0.111+
0.0576+
H
$ 641,300
27,200
64,100
26,000
3,300
$ 122,600
0.156
0.0467
o
$ 3,275,000
138,800
327,500
95,200
Jnel.
$ 561,500
0.927
0.297
RAlfOE
0.111+ - 0.937
0.0467 - 0.29?
AVERAGE NET PLAHT HAW WASTE LOAD
PARAMETERS
Plow (gal/TOH)
Ammonia
Cyanide
Fluoride
phenol
Sulfide
Suspended Solids
Ib/TOH
5400
0.0636
0.0647
0.0205
0.0260
0.195
77.6
BK/1
-
1.41
1.44
0.454
0.578
4.34
1720
Ib/TOH
1930
0.0628
0.0138
-0.00071
•0.0104
0.623
10,5
BW/1
-
3.9
0.858
-0.044
-0.643
38.8
651
Ib/TOH
3350
0.272
•0.00602
0.0604
0.014B
-0.0125
8.57
me/1
-
9.75
-0.241
2.16
0.530
-0.448
307
lb/TOM
3123
-0.321
-0.00602
-0.0673
0.00222
-0.0296
30.3
ma/1
-
12.3
-0.231
-2.59
0.0853
-1.14
1170
1WTOH
ma/l
Ib/TOH
1930 .- 5400
0.0628 - 0.321
.-0.00672 - 0.0647
-0.0673 - 0.0604
-0.0104 - 0.0260
-0.0296 - 0.62?
9.57 - 77.6
ut/1
-
1.41 - 12.3
-0.241 - 1.44
-2.59 - 2.16
-0.643 - 0.578
-1.14 - 38. B
307 - 1720
.AVERAGE GROSS PLANT EFFLDENT
PARAMETERS
Plow (sal/TOH)
Aanonia
Cyan Ida
Pluorld*
PH
Phenol
Sulfide
Suspended Solid a
ib/TOH
24000
0.168
0.00100
0..0980
0.00280
0.00860
2.20
n«/l
0.843
0.005
0.49
7.7
0.014
0.043
11
lb/TOM
L23
J.0799
3.0174
J.0236
3.00368
>,00497
1.0871
W/l.
78
17
23
7.6
3.59
4.85
85
Ib/TOH
101
0.223
0.0157
0.00874
0.0000288
0.00050
0.0327
M/l
265
18.6
10.4
7.2
0.034
4.16
38.8
Ib/TOH*
L04
3. 0867
3.00937
0.0191
3.0000087
0.00598
3.0399
M/l»
100
10. 8
22
7.7
0.01
6.9
46
Ib/TOH
Wt/1
Ib/TOH
101 - 24,000
3.0799 - 0.223
3.001 - 0.0174
3.00874 - 0.0980
3.0000087 - 0.00368
0.00350 - 0.00860
3.0327 - 2.2
n*/l
0.843 - 265
0.005 ' 18.6
0.49 - 23
7.2 - 7,8
0.010 - 3.59
0.043 - 6.9
11 - 85
* HOTEi Ttti* i* discharged to coX« quench and alag' quenchers and BOP hood spray, but not to a receiving streaa.
-------
TABU!
WATER ECThUISHT TUKATMKNT COSTS
Icon Malting - Fc-Mn Blast Furnace
III-B
PLAMT
XliiriAI* II«"t'E37!'EliT
„,.._ r, r....^.^
i:;;?oi' i. FCV.-SR
S/TCH
S/1000 GAL TUT
O
$ 2,215,000
93,900
221,500
406,300
90,200
$ 811, 900
3.83
0.495
Ri-.-ii?;
AVERAGE NET PLANTRAW WASTE LOAD
PnPJ,VTE?3
Flow (gal/TGIi)
Arjaonia
Cyanide
Manganese
Phnnol
Sulfide
Suspended Solids
1L/TG,:
7730
7.35
1.S2
55.0
0.00336
-0.171
322
mg/i
114
23.6
833
0.130
-2.66
5000
Ib/TON
aw/1
Ib/TON
OK/1
Ib/fON
»K/1
Ib/TOM
Bg /I
1W70S ; r.,r/l
no
01
en
AVERAGE GROSS PLANT EFFLUENT WASTE LOAD
?ps;y~~";-Z
Flow (ijil/TCSI)
Ar.~.or.ia
Cyan id.
B.n,aM,S.
,h
f-Str.ol
Salfide
SUBFer,lei rolid,
lb/TQ;;
5700
7.83
5, OS
0.267
0.0319
4.G4
2,56
rog/1
165
107
6. OS
8,7
0.46
102
54
Ib/TOS
niH/1
Ib/TON
E1R/1
Ib/TON
wt/1
ab/Toa
IT1R/1
lb/TOM
ce/1
-------
TABIB 39
WftTER EFFLUEHT TREATMENT COSTS
Steelmaking - Dasic Oxygen
t-LA'JT
i:;iriAL, nr.'F^Ti-ssT •
cc:r y CAPITA*
lr^L '
S/TOS
5/10QO GAL TRT
K
$ 400,000
16,900
395>000
INCL.
$ 451,900
0.145
1.11
S
5 1,730,000
73,300
72,200
52,800
5 371,300
0.160
0.157
U
$ 1,108,000
46,900
N/A
N/A
$ 157,700
0.146
0.200+
V
$ 5,382,000
227,600
411,300
IHCL.
$ 1,177,100
0.296+
1.14+
T'
H/A
B/A
$ 7,aoo
128,800
$136,600
0,0470
0.0-6S
KA::U£
0.0470+ - 0.296
0.0765+ - 1.14
AVERAGE NET PLAHTRAW WASTBLCAD
?.:..- ;--:-';;:-j
riow (gal/TOti)
Fluoride
Suspended Solids
IVTO:: «»/!
130
-
0.343
-
-
321
Ib/TCfl
1020
-
1.53
HE/1
.-
100
Ib/'ION
728
0.0143
2.40
mg/i
2.36
396
Ib/TOM
259
0.00596
11.5
ma/1
2.76
5330
lb/TOH
615
0.0560
19.1
mf;/l
-
10.9
3730
lb/TCi; • 2,;:V;
130 - 10^0
0.00596 - 0.0560
0,348 - 19.1
-
^•36 . 10.9
180 - 5!»30
ro
01
o>
fiVKRAGB .GROSS PLflKT EFTHIBMT WflSTK LOAD
?A?^s::?.5
Flowigal/TOS)
Fluoride
FK
Suspended Solids
Ib/TCi:
Wo Disch
"S/l
-rga
Ib/TON
52.2
-
0.00956
msA
-
9.3
22
Ib/TON
728
0.0227
0.230
mp/1
3.75
12.
38
lb/70H
33
-
o.ono
..mg/l
-
6^4
40
Ib/TON
217
0.0257
0.127
mr/1
14.5
9.4
70.5
Ib/TGJI
0-72B
1,02 27-0 ,0257
0.00956-0.230
KT/1
3.7>H,5
6.4-12
22-:o.5
-------
TABIE 40
WATBK EFFUii.Jli' TREATMENT COSTS
St«eleaking - Open Hflarth
IV-B
PL/,! IT
:-,-:: v CAMTAL
;!.5:J; ^;:->R
•;V;AI
S/TOH
5/1000 GAL TP.T
H
$ 974,000
41,300
97,400
7,600+
120,600
$ *74/jriOt
0.07-1'')*
0.123*
X
$ 1.925,000
01,600
J.92,500
138,500
6,200
S 410,000
0.313
0.569
?;,::>'?;
0.07-tfit- 0.313
0.123+- 0.569
AVKIUCE Mf.T PLANT HAW WASTE LOAD
--;.'•;,•'• " '•".
Plow (yal/TC-:;)
Fluoride
ro
2] llltrata
Suspended Solids
Zinc
• it/7i:i
607
0.108
0.102
1.96
0.0104
IT.? /I
-
21.4
20.2
389
2.06
Ib/TOH
S50
0.0742
0.152
17. 8
4.03
B1K/1
16.2
33.2
3880
BSD
Ib/'i'O'i
";!/ 1
Ib/TON
JOR/1
Ib/TON
mff/1
lb/TCK • cg'i
550 - 607
0.0742 - Q.IOB 16.2 - 21.4
0.102 - 0.152 20.2 - 33.2
1.96 - 17.8 3S8 - 3?80
0,0104 - 4.03 2.06 - 860
AVERAGE GROSS PLANT EFFLUENT WASTE LOAD
O' " ' VT -^
Flow (qal/TCS)
Fluoride
Nitrate
FH
Suafer.ded Solids
Zi.in
ib/pio;i
51,4
0.0632
0.00942
0.0345
0.0113
Bg/1
Ili8
22
3.4-1.8
80
26. S
Ib/TON
118
0.0639
0.298
0.0514.
1.19
Dig /I
65
303
6.1
52
1210
lb/TOi'i
mR/1
ID/TON
aiR/1
Ib/TOB
mg/1
IO/TO:I
51,4-ne
0.0532-0.0639
0. 00942-0. 2MJ
0.0345-0.0511
0.0113-1,19
rr/1
65- lW
22-303
53-80
26.5-1310
-------
41
TAJ1LE
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
Steelmaking - Electric
IV-C
PIJWIT
ISI71AL i:,"/E.3T:-SIT
C'," CF CAPITAL
c?~j i r'-Ai.vr
t::i?.jY i FQ«"2R
TVTAi.
S/TCIJ
S/looo GAL TRT
It
$ 341,000
14,500
5,600
15,800
S 70,000
0.0961
0.986
1
9 133,300
5,700
3,100
600
$ 22,700
0.0420
172
AA
$ 336,500
14,300
fl9,200
INCL.
$ 137,400
0.460
1.54
AB.
$ 1,250,000
53,000
343,900
$ 521,900
0.694
4.96
ru:;,—
0.0420 - 0.694
0.986 - 172
AVERAGE NET PIAI1T RAW WASTE LOAD
-^-:.v.-- •-••
Flow (sal/TCIi)
Fluoride
Suspended Solids
ib/Tc::
97.4
-0.0233
0.700
BK/1
-
-20.7
863
Ib/TOH
0.243
-
1.57
ms/1
-
-
77. 4i
Ib/TOil
299
0.0369
5.38
np./l
-
14.8
2160
Ib/TOK
ieo
0.0169
64.2
fflR/1
-
11.3
42,800
Ib/TOK
DlK/1
lb/TC;i
0.243 - 299
-0.0233 - 0.0369
0.700 - 64.2
"^ /i,
.
-28.7 - 14.8
863 - 77.4%
ro
CTt
CO
AVERAGE GROSS PIAHT KFFUfENT WASTE LOAD
FA.V-:-2.^f5
Flow (Gal/TCK)
Fluoridu
f!l
Suspended Solids
Ib/TOi;
No
ff.£/l
• i
Rischir-nc
Ib/TOK
Ko
Dig/1
Cischargp
i- —
ib/Toa
299
0,0515
Q.W4
«g/l
20,7
7,9
58
Ib/TOK
162
0,0162
0,0310
psA
12
7.9
23
Ib/TON
W/l
Ib/TOII
0 - 299
0-0.0515
OrO.144
BS/1 .
0-20.7
0-58
-------
43
TABLE
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
Continuous Casting
VI
PLANT
I:;:T:AL ::,7L:':-2J(T
cc:: or CA?:TAL
S/IGK
S/1000 GAL TRT
AE
$ 2,314,000
97,900
176,900
ItlCL
$ 506,200
0.442
0.108
Af
9 2,062,600
87,200
567,400
INCL
$ 860,900
1.47
.999
.
SAA'u-:
0.442 - 1.47
K108 - 0.999
AVERAGE NET PLAHT RAW HASTE LOAD
Flow (g a I/TOM)
Oil and Graasa
Suspended Solids
lb/Tc;:
4110
0.703
0.270
r.s/I
20.9
7.87
Ib/TON
1480
0.270
0.909
BW/1
22.0
74.0
Ib/TON
mil
Ib/TON
BK/1
lb/TOH
BW/1
lb/TO;.' ; =5/1-'
1480 - 4110
0.270 - 0.703
0.270 - 0.909
20.5 - 22.0
7.87 - 74.0
PO
*vj
o
TrJ" \.'-"' ~L';' ^
Flow (gal/TON)
Oil c Gccaso
PH
Cu»s-«irfJii-J coll'U
Xb/iO::
111
0.00402
0.00403
as/1
4.35
6.0
4.30
ID/TON
82. 5
0.000344
(;.r)^r>rt
AVERAGE GROSS PLANT EFFLUENT WASTE LOAD
tns/1
<0.5
'.7-6.0
37
Ib/TON
iw/1
Ib/TON
BK/1
Ib/TON
PlR/1
lb/TO!I
82.5-111
<0. 000344 - 0.00402
0.00403- 0.0254
ce/1
CO.5-4.35
6.8-7.7
4.36-37
-------
3. Non-Water Quality Aspects (Both Alternates);
a. Air Pollution: There are two potential types of
emissions of air pollution significance in a typical
coke plant. These are associated with the following
major components or operations of the by-products
recovery equipment:
i tar collection from the flushing system
ii free NH3 recovery in an ammonia still
iii once-through coke quenching with a sump for
settling out fines
iv once-through final cooler.
The two types of emissions are volatile (gaseous)
materials and suspended particulate matter. If a vapor
recirculation or solvent extraction facility for
dephenolization is added to the system, significant
reductions in both parameters are achieved.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: A number of different solid
wastes are generated by treatment systems to upgrade the
quality of the effluent from by-product coke oven fume
cleaning. Among these are coke fines, tar sludges,
dirty phenolates, blowdown sludge, lime sludge and
sludges from the aeration lagoon. The coke fines are
internally consumed through reuse in the mill, and the
tar sludges are further refined (usually by outside
contractors) or are incinerated. The remaining solid
waste products can best be disposed of as landfill.
Beehive Coke
1. Base Level of Treatment: Once-through system with settling
of the coke quench waters.
2. Additional Energy Requirements: Additional/power will be
necessary when bringing the quality of the effluent of the
water treatment system used in the fume cleaning of the
beehive coke making process up to the anticipated standard
for 1977. The additional energy consumed will be 1.35
kwh/kkg (1.23 kwh/ton) of coke produced. For the typical
662.5 kkg/day (730 tons/day) facility, the additional power
required will be 37.3 kw (50 hp). The annual cost for
Operating this new installation will be approximately
$3,750.00.
3. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: In beehive coke ovens, the items of air
pollutional significance are gaseous emissions and
suspended particulate matter which include smoke, dust.
271
-------
TABLE 44
IRON AND STEELMAKING OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
FOR RELATED CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Pv-Product Coke
Treatment and/or Control
Methods Employed*
A. Ammonia liquor treat-
ment'via free still only;
dephenolizer; settling
pond for solids; light oiA
recovered for sale to out-*
side contractors; quench
water recycles with no
blowdown; final cooler
water recycles with blow-
down to dephenolizer;
crystalizer barometric
condenser water once-
through to settling pond.
Alternate I - Physical/
Chemical
B. To (A) , add lime and
steam to fixed leg of
ammonia still; neutralize
prior to settling.
Resulting Ef-
fluent Levels
for Critical
Constituents
mg/1
NH3 TOM
Phenol 5
CN" 90
BOD,. 300
S= 3 25
O&G 20
SS 50
pH 6-9
NH, 125
PhSnol 2
CN~ 30
BOD,. 150
SS3 ^ 1 ft
10
O&G 15
SS 50
pH 6-9
Status
and
Reliability
Widely
practiced in
industry.
Subject to
upsets from
slug loads.
Fair.
Used by
some plants
in industry.
Good.
Problems
and
Limitations
Requires
constant
attention
to main-
tenance &
housekeep-
ing. Heatec
discharges
Same as in
(A) . Lime
addition
requires
care in
handling.
Implementation
TJime
6 months
6 months
Land
Requirements
1 acre
(200' x 200')
1 acre
(200' x 200')
Environmental
Impact Other
Than
Water
Quenching
with contamin-
ated water,
releases
volatiles to
air.
Volatile
compounds
released to
air.
Solid waste
Generation
and Primary
Constituents
Coke fines
are use-able
in plant.
Solids to
landfill.
Same as in
(A), with
additional
sludge from
lime
addition.
* Listed in order of increasing effectiveness
ro
•xi
ro
-------
TABLE 44 (cont.)
IROU AND STEELMAKING OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
FOR RELATED CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY; Py-Product Coke
Treatment and/or Control
Methods Employed*
C. To (B) , add aeration;
aggressive chemical oxida-
tion? neutralization;
break point chlorination;
clarification and/or
filtration; carbon adsorp-
tion. Recycle crysta-1-
lizer effluent through
final cooler water recycle
system.
Alternate II - Biological
B. To (A) , add lime and
steam to fixed leg of
ammonia still; abandon
denhenolizer; neutralize;
add single stage bio-
oxidation for phenol
removal.
Resulting Ef-
fluent Levels
for Critical
Constituents
mg/1
NH 10
Phenol 0.5
CN~ 0.25
BOD,. 20
S~ 0.3
O&G 10
SS 10
pH 6-9
NH-, 125
Phenol 1
CN" 20
BOD_ 100
S= 3 1.0
O&G 10
SS 50
pH 6-9
Status
and
Reliability
Chemical
oxidation
practiced at
some blast
furnace (iron
plants;
other tech-
nology from
chemical.
refining &
water treat-
ment indus-
tries. Very
good.
Used by some
some plants
in industry.
Good,
Problems
and
Limitations
Part of
technology
untested on
coke plant
i wastes.
Very close
control of
intermediate
steps must
be practiced
Same as in
(A) . Lime
addition
requires
care in
handling.
Implementation
Time
1-3 years
6 months
Land-
Requirements
1-1/2 acre
(2001 x 400')
1 acre
(200' x 200')
Environmental
Impact Otherx
Than
Water
Volatile
compounds
released to
air.
Volatile
compounds
released to
air.
Solid Waste
Generation
and Primary
Constituents
Same as {A)y
with
additional
sludge from
neutraliza-
tion steps.
Same as in
(A) ,with
additional
sludge from
neutraliza-
tion steps.
* Listed in order of increasing effectiveness
-------
TABLE 44 (cont.)
IRON AND STEELMAKING OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
FOR RELATED CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
:ATEGORY/SUBCATEGORYI By-product coke
Treatment and/or Control
Methods Employed*
C. To (B) r add aeration;
multistage biological
treatment ; neutraliz ation ?
and filtration; recycle
crystallizer effluent-
through final cooler water
r.ecycle system.
D. As an option to (A) , (B) ,
and (C) above, distillation
of all partly detarred
gases and liquids by con-
trolled combustion. No
liquid discharges.
Resulting Ef-
fluent Levels
for Critical
Constituents
NH., 10
Phenol 0 . 5
CN~ 0.25
BODq 20
S~ * 0.3
O&G 10
SS 10
pH 6-9
NH, 0
Phenol 0
CN~ 0
BOD,. 0
S= D 0
O&G 0
SS 0
pH
Status
and
Reliability
Sincrle-r stage
biological
oxidation
practiced at
some coke *
plants;
other tech-
nology from
chemical.
refining &
water treat-
ment indus-
tries. Very
good.
Used at some
coke plants.
Effective -
elimination
of waste
load from
water , but
transfers
load to air.
Problems
and
Limitations'
Part of
technology
untested on
coke plant
wastes.
Very close
control of
in termed! ate
steps must
be practiced
Can be done
only at
plants
where impact
on air qual-
ity can be
tolerated.
Of limited
application
Implementation
Time
1-3 years
.
8-12 months
Land
Rect ui rement s
1-1/2 acre
(200* x 400')
1/2 acre
(100' x 200')
Environmental
Impact Other
Than
Water
Volatile
compounds
released to
air.
High impact
on air
quality.
Solid Waste
Generation
and Primary
Constituents
Same as (A),
with forma-
tion of
biological
sludges
added.
Formation
of ashes.
* Listed in order of increasing effectiveness
-------
TABLE 44 (cont.}
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
STEEL INDUSTRY
By Product Coke Subcategory
Alternate I - Physical/Chemical
Treatment or Control Technologies
Identified under Item III of the
Scope of Work:
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation 6 Maintenance
Carbon Column Rental
Sludge Disposal
Energy & Power
Chemical
Steam Generation
TOTAL
A
4,482,074
192,729
448,207
156,872
BPCTCA
1 B I
168,460
7,299C2'
28,077(2'
5,896
BATEA
I c 1
666,930
1 28,678
1 66,693
23,342
1,738,426
74,751
173,843
60,844
245,400
13,897
15,000
1,942
32,400
13,897
2,175
46,090
. 48,600
1,620
37,500
139,500
_
i ^ ]
1 600
1,205,000
_
861,047
152,034
542,733
1,515,038
Effluent Quality: • R
Effluent Constituents Waste
Parameters - units Load
Flow, gal/ton
Ammonia, rug/1
Phenol,_mg/l
Cyanide, mg/1
BODg, mg/1
Sulfide, mg/1
Oil & Grease, mg/1
175
2,000
360
200
1,200
400
120
Suspended solids;mg/l 90
6-9
175
1,000
90
300
25
20
50
6-9
Resulting Effluent Levels
175
125
30
150
10
15
50
6-9
100
10
0.5
0.25
20
0.3
10
10
6-9
(1) Incremental to capital costs and depreciation for Level A
(2) Based on 6 year depreciation rate to allow for conversion to biological
fQ1T BATIjA.
(3) Value to foe expected from typical treatment plant utilizing BPCTCA
treatment technolociv
275
-------
TABLE 4A (cont.)
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
STEEL INDUSTRY
By Product Coke Subcategory
Alternate II - Biological
Treatment or Control Technologies
Identified under Item III of the
Scope of Work:
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Sludge Disposal
Energy & Power
Chemical
Steam Generation
TOTAL
Effluent Quality: _ ,.
j\aw
Effluent Constituents Waste
Parameters - units Load
jrlow, gal/ton
175
j mg/1.
Phenol, mg/1
BOD,., mg/1
S_ulfide, mg/1
Oil & Greasej, jng/1
Suspended, solids-, mg/1 90
2000
360
200
1200
400
120
6-9
A
4,482,094
192,729
448,207
156,872
13,897
15,000
1,942
32,400
BPCTCA
B
' (440, 610)'1'!
462,610
(18,946}(1)
19,892
I44,061~j!l)"
46^261
16,191
14.127
31,500
68,406
48,600
BATEA
C
1 1
494,716
21,272
49,472
17,314
-
22,500
4,248
-
861,047
244,977
241,831fl)
114,806
Resulting Effluent Levels
175
175
100
1000
125
10
0.5
90
20
0.25
300
100
20
25
1.0
(2)
20
10
10
50
50
10
6-9
6-9
6-9
(1) This assumes that neutralization has already been installed ($22,000)
in preparation for meeting BPCTCA with physical-chemical treatment
(2) Value expected o-f typical treatment plant utilizing BPCTCA treatment
technology
276
-------
TABLE 45
IRON AND STEELMAKING OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
FOR RELATED CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY! Beehive Coke
Treatment and/or Control
Methods Employed*
A. Install settling pond
to collect coke fines.
No reduction in flows.
B. Complete recycle - no
aqueous blowdown. Make-
up water required.
Critical parameters
reach equilibrium
Resulting Ef-
fluent Levels
for Critical
Constituents
mg/i
NH, 0.20
CN- 0.003
Phenol 0.009
BODc 1 . 0
SS 25
Temp 80 °C
pH 6-9
Zero aqueous
discharge
Status
and
Reliability
Practiced
in this
industry.
Must be
periodically
cleaned of
settled
fines.
Widely
practiced in
this indus-
try.
Requires
attention to
prevent
leaks or
overloads
Problems
and
Limitations
High thermal
load
Higher
operating
temperatures
Steam
problems in
winter.
Implementation
Time
1 month
2-4 months
Land
Requirements
1/2 acre
(100'x 200')
for settling
pond
No additional
space com-
pared with
treatment
Method A
Environmental
Impact Other
Than
Water
By their very
nature, bee-
hives pollute
air
Same as
treatment
Method A
Solid waste
Generation
and Primary
Constituents
Coke fines ,
which can be
reused
Same as
treatment
Method A
* Listed in order of increasing effectiveness
-------
TABLE 45 (Cont.)
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
STKEL INDUSTRY
Beehive Coke Subcategory
Treatment or Control Technologies
Identified under Item III of the
Scope of Work:
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Sludge Disposal
Energy & Power
BPCTCA-BATEA
A ' i 1
S 99,024 $ 50,510
TOTAL
4,258
9,902
3,466
2,170
5,051
1,770
4,200
3,750
S 21,826
S 12,741
Effluent Quality: R
• Effluent Constituents Waste
Parameters - units Load
Flow, gal/ton
juspended solids ,mg/l
_ Anunon i_a , mg/ 1
Cyanide, mg/1
mg/1
jPhenol , mg/1
PH
300
400
0.35
0.004
0.01
6-9
300
25
0.20
O.OQ3
0.009
6-9
Resulting Effluent Levels
278
-------
hydrogen sulfide, phenols and materials resulting from
the destructive distillation of coal. If the system is
tightened up, some of these contaminants can be washed
out of the exhaust gases and the solids can be processed
and utilized in ways outlined in the "Solid Waste
Disposal" section.
b. Solid Waste Disposal; solid wastes will be generated by
processing the scrub water and reusing coke fines in the
system.
Sintering
1. Base Level of Treatment: Once-through system consisting of
treatment of waste water via a classifier and thickener with
vacuum filter for solids dewatering.
2. Additional Power Requirements: To meet the anticipated 1977
standard utilizing a wet system in cleaning the emissions
from the sinter process, modifications will be required to
the waste water treatment system. The additional energy
consumed will be 0,68 kwh/kkg (0.62 kwh/ton) of sinter
produced. For the typical 2,704 kkg/day (2,980 tons/day)
sinter plant, 223.8 kw (300 hp) will have to be added. The
annual operating cost for the additional equipment will be
$22,500.00,
3. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: The main air pollution problem asso-
ciated with the sinter process will be suspended
particulate matter. Although the exhaust gases will be
passed through a wash and 40% recycled, 0.1 kkg of
particulate emission per kkg (lb/1,000 Ib) of exhaust
gas will be emitted into the atmosphere.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: The solid waste from the waste
system will be internally consumed in the sinter
process*
Blast Furnace (Iron)
1. Base Level of Treatment: Once-through system. Treatment
system utilizes thickener with polyelectrolyte addition and
vacuum filter for solids dewatering.
2. Additional Energy Requirements: To bring the quality of the
effluent of the water treatment system utilized in the fume
collection of the blast furnace (iron) process up to the
anticipated standard for 1977 the additional energy consumed
will be 2.68 kwh/kkg (2.44 kwh/ton) of iron made. The
additional power required for the typical 2,995 kkg/day
(3,300 tons/day) blast furnace facility will be 335.7 kw (450
hp). The annual operating cost for this additional
consumption of power will be approximately $33,750.00.
279
-------
TABLE 46
IRON AND STEELMAKING OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
FOR RELATED .CATEGORIES AND'SUBCATEGORIES
CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Sintering
Treatment and/or Control
Methods Employed*
A. Aqueous discharge from
scrubber through classifier
to thickener "once- through"
Overflow to sewer, under-
flow through vacuum filters
to Sinter Plant or land
filled, filtrate recycled
to thickener.
B. Same as Item (A)
except with chemical
polymer flocculation in
thickener.
Resulting Ef-
fluent Levels
for Critical
Constituents
mg/1
S.S. 40
O&G 45
S= 65
F 30
pH 8-10
S.S. 20
O&G 45
S~ 65
F~ 30
pH 8-10
Status
and
Reliability
Widely
practiced ,
usually in
conjunction
with blast
furnace
operations .
Dependable
System.
Usually in-
cluded with
blast fur-
nace treat-
ment system.
Improves
solids
removal
problems
and
Limitations
No reduction
of heat load
or dissolved
chemicals
No reduction
of heat load
sr dissolved
:hemicals.
Implementation
Time
18 months
18 months
Land
Requirements
1 acre
(200'x200'>
1 acre
<200'x200')
Environmental
Impact Other
Than
Water
Air:
Par ticu late
0.1*/1000#
exhaust gasse
Air:
Particulate
0. IS/1000*
exhaust gasse
Solid Waste ]
Generation j
and Primary
Constituents
Solids
cons umed
internally
Solids
consumed
internally
* Listed in order of increasing effectiveness
ro
Co
o
-------
TABLE 46 Tcont;).
IRON AND STEELMAKING OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
FOR RELATED CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY:
Sintering
Treatment and/or Control
Methods Employed*
C. Same as (B) except
thickener overflow recycled
to scrubber system with
blowdown. ' Oil skimmer
added to thickener. Add
neutralization of blowdown.
D. Same as Item (C) except
blowdown treated through
improved settling with
aeration, lime treatment
for F~, neutralization.
and sedimentation.
E. Same as Item (D) except
additonal F~ removal via
activated alumina treat-
ment.
Resulting Ef-
fluent Levels
for Critical
Constituents
mq/i
S.S. 50
O&G" 10
S" 20
F 50
PH 6-9
S.S. 25
O&G 10
S= 0.3
F- 20
pH 6-9
S.S. 10
O&G 3
S" 0.3
F- 5
pH 6-9
Status
and
Reliability
Recycle
increases
certain
constituent
concentra-
tions but
reduces
loads .
S" & F-
r.emovals
practiced ir
other indus-
tries suc-
cessfully.
Process must
be monitored
F~ removal
demonstrat-
ed on pilot
scale; tech-
nology sub-
ject to
scaling up
to full
size.
Problems
and
Limitations
Ho reduction
of heat load,
Increase in
Dissolved
chemical
concentra-
tions.
Requires
close atten-
tion to
treatment
systems .
Requires
close
attention to
treatment
systems.
Implementation
Time
18 months
18 months
18 months
1 Land
Requirements
1 acre
(200'x200M
1-1/2 acre
(200'x300')
1-1/2 acre
(200'x300')
Environmental
Impact other
Than
Water
Air:
Particulate
0. It/10001
exhaust gases
Air:
Particulate
0.1#/1000#
exhaust gases
Air:
Particulates
0.1#/1000I
exhaust gases
Solid Waste
Generation I
and Primary 1
Constituents'
Solids
consumed
internally
Solids
consumed
internally.
and other
solids to
landfill
Solids
consumed
internally,
and other
solids to
landfill
* Listed in order of increasing effectiveness
ro
CO
-------
TABLE 46 (Cont.)
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
STEEL INDUSTRY
Sintering Sub-category
Treatment or Control Technologies
Identified under Item III of the
Scope'of Work:
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Sludge Disposal
Energy & Power
Chemical
TOTAL
Effluent Quality:
* Raw
Effluent Constituents Waste
Parameters - units Load
Flow,_qal/ton
Jjusoended solids,
Oil s qrease,_ mg/1
_Sulflde,
, Fj.uorj.de, mq/1
PH
250
&j OQQ
600
2.QO._ .
3_Q __
8-10
BPCTCA
BAT" A
A B C 1
$ 548,150 $ 26,621 $228,315
23,570 1,145 9,818
54,815 Z.,662 22,831
19,185 932 7,991
1 D 1 E
?294,224 $ 221,270
12,652 9,510
29,422 22,127
10,298 7,745
825
12,450 675 7,050
2,000 713
14,775
1,360 57
S 110,020 S 7.414 S 48,403
$ 68,507 $ .40,264
Resulting Effluent Levels
BPCTCA
1 ' 1
250 250 50
40 20 50
1 45 45 10
65 65 20(1)
30 30 50tlJ
8-10 8-10 6-9
50 50
25 10
10 3
0.3 0.3
20 5
6-9 6-9
(1) Value that can be obtained utilizing BPCTCA treatment technology
282
-------
TABLE 47
IRON AND STEELMAKIHG OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
FOR RELATED CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Blast Furnace (iron)
Treatment: and/or Control
Methods Employed*
A. Once-through - solids
removed via thickener and
vacuum filter. Polymer
added to improve settling.
B. To A, add recycle over
cooling tower, discharge
blow down only.
Resulting Ef-
fluent Levels
for Critical
Constituents
C G CfJ
CN~ 2 . 0
Phenol 1.0
NH, 10
S- 4
F"~ 5
pH 7-9
SS 50
CN~ 15
Phenol 4
NH. 125
S- 6
F- 40
pH 6-9
Status
and
Reliability
Widely used,
SS removal
efficiency
depends up-
on sludge
level &
filter
schedule .
Used in
steel in-
dustry.
Reliable if
properly
spared.
Sludge
level con-
trols
solids
overflow.
Problems
and
Limitations
Removes
suspended
solids , and
a minor
portion of
volatiles.
Removes
most sus-
pended
solids plus.
much of
chemical-
load, al-
though con-
centrations
increase.
Imp lemen t ation
Time
12-18 mo.
18-24 mo.
Land
Requirements
1/2 acre
(100' x 200')
3/4 acre
(ISO1 x 200')
Environmental
Impact Other
Than
Water
Volatiles
lost through
surface
evaporation
tfater spray &
rolatiles to
atmosphere
Solid Waste
Generation
and Primary
Constituents
Iron oxide.
s ludge to
sinter
plant or'
landfill
Iron oxide
sludge to
sinter
plant
* Listed in order of increasing effectiveness
PO
CO
CO
-------
TABLE 47 (Cont.)
IRON AND STEELMAKING OPERATIONS
CONTROL.AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
FOR RELATED CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Blast Furnace (Iron)
Treatment and/or Control
Methods Employed*
C. To Bf add treatment of
blowdown via alkaline
chlorination; precipitation
of fluorides' with lime;
neutralization, filtration
and carbon adsorption.
Resulting Ef-
fluent Levels
for Critical
Constituents
mg/1
SS 10
CN- 0.25
Phenol 0 . 5
NH, 10
S~J 0.3
F~ 20
pH 6-9
Status
and
Reliability
Alkaline
chlorination
used at
some plants.
Carbon
adsorption
used in
other
industries.
Treatments
subject to
equipment
failures.
Problems
and
Limitations
May require
batch treat-
ment of
blowdown to
assure per-
formance.
High
operating
costs.
Implementation
Time
18-24 mo.
Land
Requirements
3/4 acre
(ISO1 x 200'}
Environmental
Impact Other
Than
Water
Increased
demand for
chlorine.
causing
increase in
pollution
from chlorine
production &
power supply.
Solid Waste
Generation
and Primary
Constituents
Iron oxide
sludge to
Sinter
Plant.
Sludge from
neutraliza-
tion step
to landfill,
* Listed in order of increasing effectiveness
CP
-------
TABLE 47 (Cont.)
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
STEEL INDUSTRY
Blast Furnace (Iron) Subcategory
Treatment or Control Technologies
Identified under Item III of the
Ecope of Work:
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Carbon Column Rental
Sludge Disposal
Energy & Power
Chemical
TOTAL
BPCTCA
BATEA
A
2,030,569
87,314
203,057
71,070
1 B 1
1,476,673
63,497
147,667
51,683
1 C 1
413,033
17,761
41,303
14,456
184,900
97,893
43,500
58,500
-
33,750
-
320
8,625
24,589
561,334
296,597
291,954
Flow, gal/ton
.Ammoniat mq/1
Phenol, _mg/l_
Cyanide , mg/1
Sulfide, mg/1
:ff.luent Quality:
Li fluent Constituents Waste
Parameters - units Load
3900
10
1.0
2.0
20
Suspended solids, mg/1 JJ?J30_
Fluoride, mg/1 _5
PJL
7-9
3900
10
1.0
2.0
4.0
50
7-9
Resulting Effluent Levels
125
125
15
(1)
50
40
(1)
6-9
125
10
0.5
0.25
0.3
10
20
6-9
(1) Value expected for typical treatment plant utilizing BPCTCA treatment
technology
285
-------
TABLE 47 (FeMn)
IRON AMD STESLMAK1NG OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
FOR RELATED CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Blast Furnace (Ferromanganese)
Treatment and/or Control
Methods Employed*
A. Once thru gas cooler
discharge; closed recycle
of Venturi scrubber dis-
charge through thickener.
and vacuum filter. Polymer
added to aid settling.
B. closed recycle of
Venturi scrubber as in A;
separate recycle of gas
cooler water over cooling
tower, with pH control.
Slowdown to sewer, and to
makeup for Venturi scrubber
recycle system.
Resulting Ef-
fluent Levels
for Critical
Constituents
mg/1
SS 100
Phenol 1.0
CN~ 100
NH, 200
S~J 120
Mn 16
pH 8-10
SS 100
Phenol 4
CN~ 30
KH, 200
S- 30
Mn 16
pH 6-9
Status
and
Reliability
Used in this
industry.
Requires
attention to
recycle
system.
Used in the
past in this
industry. Re
quires con-
stant
attention to
separate re-
cycle
systems .
Problems
and
Limitations
High dis-
solved
solids in
recycled
water;pick-
up of vola-
tiles from
scrubber
recycled
water in
gas cooler
water.
High concen-
trations of
•dissolved
material due
to recycl-
ing; blowdown
loads are
reduced, but
concentra-
tions are
high.
Implementation
Time
18-24 mo.
'18-24 mo.
Land
Requirements
3/4 acre
(150* x 200')
1 acre
(200* x 200')
Env ironmen tal
Impact Other
Than
Water
i/olatileS are
lost to
atmosphere
/olatiles are
Lost to
atmosphere
aver the
cooling tower.
Solid Waste
Generation
and Primary
Constituents
Filter cake
not reuse-
able "in
process.
Must go to
landfill.
Filter cake
not reuse-
able in
process.
Must go to
landfill.
* Listed in order of increasing effectiveness
CO
-------
TABLE 47 (Fe-Mn) (cont.)
IRON AND STEELMAKING OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
FOR RELATED CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Blast Furnace (Ferromanganese),
Treatment and/or Control
-. Methods Employed*
C. Same as in B, with treat-
ment of gas cooler system
blowdown via alkaline
chlorination ; neutraliza-
tion; filtration; and
carbon adsorption.
Resulting Ef-
fluent Levels
for Critical
Constituents
mg/1
ss lo
Phenol 0.5
CN" 0.25
NH3 10
S= 0.3
Mn 5
pH 6-9
Status
and
Reliability
Part of
technology
used at some
iron making
blast fur-
naces; other
systems
tested on
pilot scale.
Requires
attention to
details.
Very good.
problems
and
Limitations
High
operating
costs . May
require
batch treat-
ment of
blovdown to
assure
performance.
Implementation
Time
18-24 months
Land
Requirements
1 acre
(200* x 200')
Environmental
Impact Other
Than
Water
Increased
demand for
chlorine,
causing in-
crease in
pollution
from chlorine
production
and power
supply.
solid Waste
Generation
and Primary
Constituents
Additional
sludges
formed
during
neutraliza-
tion.
* Listed in order of increasing effectiveness
PO
CO
-------
TABLE 47 (FeMn)(Cont.}
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
STEEL INDUSTRY
Blast Furnace (Ferromanganese) Subcategory
Treatment or Control Technologies
Identified under Item III of the
Scope of Work:
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Carbon Column Rental
Sludge Disposal
Energy & Power
Chemical
TOTAL
BPCTCA
BATEA
A
962,971
41,407
96,297
33,703
1 B 1
1,725,624
74,202
172,562
60,396
1 c 1
320,946
13,800
32,095
11,233
432,400
136,875
9,750
15,000
10,297
33,525
1,985
-
5,325
28,537
333,032
352,967
523,390
Effluent Quality:
Effluent Constituents Waste
Parameters - units Load
Flow, gal/ton
7700
5500
Ammonia, mg/1
Phenol , mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Sulfide, mg/1
Suspended solids ,
Manganese, mg/1
PH
250
4.0
100
150
mg/1 5000
800
9-12
200
1.0
100
120
100
16
8-10
Resulting Effluent Levels
250
200
4.0
30
30
(1)
100
16
UT
6-9
250
10
0.5
0.25
0.3
10
6-9
(1) Value to be expected from typical treatment plant utilising BPCTCA treat-
ment technology.
288
-------
3. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: Although the blast furnace exhaust fumes
will be passed through a cleaning system and utilized in
system heating, pollution of air will still be
generated. The problem will arise from "slips" which
are caused by arching of the furnace charge. The arch
breaks and the burden slips into the void. This causes
a rush of gas to the top of the furnace, which develops
abnormally high pressures which are greater than the
gas-cleaning equipment can handle. Bleeders are then
opened to release the pressure which results in a dense
cloud of dust being discharged to the atmosphere.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: There should be no problem in
disposing of the solid waste which will be generated.
It can be internally consumed in the sinter process
plant.
Blast Furnace (Ferromancranese)
1. Base Level of Treatment: Scrubber water on closed recycle
system with thickener and vacuum filters for solids
dewatering. Gas cooler water once-through.
2. Additional Power Requirements: Additional electrically
driven equipment will have to be installed to bring the
quality of the effluent of the water treatment system used in
the fume collection of the ferro-manganese blast furnace iron
making process up to the anticipated standard for 1977. The
additional energy consumed will be 10.7 kwh/kkg (9.76
kwh/ton) of iron produced. For the typical 744 kkg/day (820
tons/day) ferro-manganese blast furnace, the power required
will be 333.5 kw (547 hp). The annual cost for electrical
power to operate the new equipment will be $33,525.00.
3. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: The ferro-manganese blast furnace gas is
more difficult to clean. In fact, if uncontrolled, this
process could be one of the most prolific pollution
producers of any of the metallurgical processes.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Same as iron making blast furnace
(iron) .
Basic Qgygen Furnace Operation
Semi-Wet systems
1. Base Level of Treatment: Once-through system. Treatment of
waste waters via thickening with addition of polymer, and
with a vacuum filter for dewatering of solids.
289
-------
2. Additional Energy Requirements: Additional power will be
necessary when bringing the quality of the effluent of the
water treatment system utilized in the fume collection of the
BOF (semiwet) steelmaking process up to the anticipated
standard for 1977. The additional energy utilized will be
0.34 kwh/kkg (0.28 kwh/ton) of steel produced. For the
typical 4,429 kkg/day (4,880 tons/day) BOF facility, the
additional power required will be 62.66 kw (84 hp). The
annual operating cost for this additional installation will
be approximately $6,300.00.
3. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: In the BOF (semiwet) method of steel-
making, the, air pollution problem of primary signifi-
cance will be suspended particulate matter. Although
the furnace exhaust fumes will have been passed through
a dust wash, 0.1 pound of particulate emission per 1,000
pounds of exhaust gases will be emitted into the
atmosphere.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: The solid waste that will be
generated by the fume collection system for the BOF
(semiwet) process of steelmaking should present no
problem. It can be internally consumed in the sinter
process plant.
Wet Systems
1. Base Level of Treatment: Once-through system. Treatment
system includes classifier and thickener with vacuum filter
for solids dewatering.
2. Additional Energy Requirements: To bring the quality of the
effluent of the water treatment system utilized in the fume
collection of the BOF (wet) steel manufacturing process up to
the anticipated standard for 1977, additional energy will be
necessary. The additional energy consumed will be 0. U 4
kwh/kkg (0.40 kwh/ton) of steel made. The additional power
required for the typical 6,888 kkg/day (7,590 tons/day) BOF
facility will be 125.3 kw (168 hp). The annual operating
cost for this additional consumption of power will be
approximately $12,600.00.
3. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: The air pollution problem of primary
significance in the BOF (wet) method of steelmaking will
be particulate emissions.- Although the furnace exhaust
fumes will be passed through a dust removing bath, 0.1
kg of suspended particulate matter per kkg (lb/1,000 Ib)
of exhaust gases will be emitted into the atmosphere,
b. Solid Waste Disposal: There should be no problem in
disposing of the solid waste generated by the fume
290
-------
TABLE
IRON AND STEELMAKING OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
FOR RELATED CATEGORIES AND SOBCATEGORIES
CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Basic Oxygen Furnace (Semi-Wetl
Treatment and/or Control
.- Methods Employed*
A. Thickener with polymer
and/or magnetic flocculatior
"once-through"; overflow to
sewer, underflow thru
vacuum filters, filter cake
recycled to sinter plant or
landfill filtrate recycled
to thickener.
B. Same as Item A except
overflow recycled to
process spray system thru
recycle pump system. No
aqueous di scharge .
Resulting Ef-
fluent Levels
for Critical
Constituents
mq/1
SS 50
F- 20
PH 10-12
SS 0
P~ 0
PH
Status
and
Reliability
Widely used
in steel
industry.
Good system,
Practiced
by many
plants in
steel
industry.
Very good.
Problems
and
Limitations
Must control
surges to
system; no
reduction of
heat load.
Requires
more atten-
tion than
once- through
systems.
Implementation
Time
15 mo.
15 mo.
Land
Requirements
1/4 acre
(1001 x 100')
1/4 acre
(100' x 100')
Environmental
Impact Other
Than
Water
Air: Particu-
late
0.1#/1000#
exhaust gases
Air:
Particulate
0.1#/1000#
exhaust gases
Solid Waste
Generation
and Primary
Constituents
Solids
consumed
internally
or used as
landfill.
Solids
consumed
internally
or used as
landfill.
* Listed in order of increasing effectiveness
-------
TABLE 49
CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Basic Oxygen Furnace (Wet)
Treatment and/or control
Methods Employed*
Fume Collection System with '.
A. Aqueous -discharge from
primary scrubber to
classifier to thickener.
"Once-thru", overflow
to sewer, underflow
thru vacuum filters,
filter, cake recycled to
sinter plant or land-
filled, filtrate re-
cycled to thickener.
B. To A, add magnetic and/
or chemical polymer
flocculation
C. To B, add thickener
overflow recycle system
with blowdown; neutra-
lization of blowdown
stream.
Resulting Ef-
fluent Levels
for Critical
Constituents
toiler Hoods
mg/1
SS 80
F 30
pH 6-9
SS 40
F- 30
pH 6-9
SS 50
F~ 50
pH 6-9
Status
and
Reliability
Widely
practiced
in industry;
good
Widely
practiced
in industry;
very good
Widely
practiced in
industry ;
very good
Problems
and
Limitations
No re due tier
of heat loac
must contro]
surges
Same as
Item A
dissolved
aaterial is
concentrated
ay recycle
Implementation
Time
18 months
18 months
18 months
Land
Requirements
1 acre
(200'x 200')
1 acre
(200'x 200')
1 acre
(200'x 200')
Environmental
Impact Other
Than
Water
Air:
Particulate
0.1#/1000#
exhaust gases
Air:
Particulate
0.1#/10004
exhaust gases
Air:
Particulate
0.1*71000*
exhaust gases
Solid Waste
Generation
and Primary
Constituents
Solid waste
consumed
internally
Solid waste
consumed
internally
Solid waste
consumed in-
ternally. Ad-
ditional
sludges from
neutralizatic
to landfill.
* Listed in order of increasing effectiveness
ro
ID
CO
-------
TABLE 49 (Cont.)
IRON AND STEELMAKING OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
FOR RELATED CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORYs Basic Oxygen Furnace [Wet)
Treatment and/or Control
Methods Employed*
D. To C» add blowdown
treatment via settling with
coagulation; lime treatment
and neutralization.
E. To D, add activated
alumina treatment;
filtration.
Resulting Ef-
fluent Levels
for Critical
Constituents
mg/1
SS 25
F- 20
pH 6-9
SS 10
F~ 5
pH 6-9
-
Status
and
Reliability
Used in con-
trolling
steel and
other in-
dustry
Bastes;
excellent.
:'Used in
water treat-
ment;
excellent
Problems
and
Limitations
Lime addi-
tion re-
quires care
in handling;
adds to
solids
wastes gen-
eration
problem.
Technology
untested on
steel plant
wastes;
requires
attention to
all preced-
ing steps.
Implementation
Time
18 mo.
18 months
Land
Requir erne n t s
1-1/2 acre
(200' x 300')
1-1/2 acre
(200'x 300')
Environmental
Impact Other
Than
Water
Air:
P articulate
0.1#/1000#
exhaust gases
Air:
P articulate
0.1*/1000#
exhaust gases
Solid Waste
Generation
and Primary
Constituents
Solid waste
consumed
internally;
additional
sludges to
landfill.
Solid waste
consumed
internally;
additional
sludges to
landfill.
* Listed in order of increasing effectiveness
-------
TABLE 49 (Cont.)
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
STEEL INDUSTRY
Liasic Oxygen Furnace (vret Air Pollubion Control Methods) Subcategory
BPCTCA B.sT^A
Treatment or Control Technologies
Identified under Item III of the
Scope of Work:
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Sludge Disposal
Energy & Power
Chemical •
A
B
D
S 1,308.722 $ 27,058 $ 437,326 $ 363,251 $ 359,630
56,275 1,163 18,805 15,619 15,465
130,872
2,706
45,805
947
43,732
15,306
36,325
12,713
35,963
12,587.
138,627 1,040
30,000 675 11,925 10,575
131,400 1,822 6,197
4,500
29
TOTAL
Effluent Quality:
Raw
Effluent Constituents Waste
Parameters - units Load
$ 401,579 $136,891 $ 91,590 $ 82,469 $ 68,544
Resulting Effluent Levels
BPCTCA BATEA
Flow, gal/ton
600
600
600
50
50
50
Suspended solids, mg/1 2,000 80 40
Fluoride, mq/1 30 30 30
PH 6-9 6-9 6-9
50 25 10
50C1) 20 5
6-9 6-9 6-9
(1) Value that can be obtained utilizing BPCTCA treatment technology
295
-------
TABLE 50
IRON AND STEELMAKING OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
FOR RELATED CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Open Hearth
Treatment and/or Control
Methods Employed*
A. Aqueous discharge from
primary quencher to clas-
sifier to thickener, " once
through" overflow to sewer
underflow through vacuum
filters, filter cake re-
cycled to sinter plant or
landfilled. Filtrate
returned to thickener-
B_. Same as Item (A) but
with thickener magnetic
and /or chemical
f locculation
Resulting Ef-
fluent Levels
for Critical
Constituents
mg/1
S.S. 80
F- 20
N03 35
Zn 220
pH 3-7
S.S. 50
F- 20
NO3~ 35
Zn 200
pH 3-7
Status
and
Reliability
Currently
used in
steel
industry;
fair
Currently
used in
steel
industry ;
good.
Problems
and
Limitations
No reduction
of heat load;
must control
surges.
No reduction
of heat load
riust control
surges;
polymer
feed must be
maintained
Implementation
Time
18 months
18 months
Land
Requirements
1 acre
£200'x200')
1 acre
(200'x200')
Environmental
Impact Other
Than
Water
Air:
P articulate
O.lfr/10001
exhaust gasse
Air:
Particulate
Q.W1000*
exhaust gasse,
Solid Waste
Generation
and Primary
Constituents
Solid Waste
consumed
internally
I
Solid Waste
consumed
internally
Listed in order of increasing effectiveness
-------
TABLE 50 (Cont.)
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
STEEL INDUSTRY
Treatment or Control Technologies
Identified under Item III of the
Scope of Work:
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital
Depreciation
Op'eration & Maintenance
Sludge Disposal
Energy & Power
Chemical
Open Hearth Furnace Subcategory
BPCTCA
TOTAL
31,235
BATEA
?
A
892 f
38,
89,
416
373
242
1 B
S 27,
1,
2,
203
170
720
C
$ 505,
21,
50,
700
745
570
1 D
$ 1,567,
67,
156,
1
347
395
735
]
$ 468
20
46
,822
,160
,882
952 _ 17,700
54,857
$ 212,3.15 $ 46,017 $ 103,155
16,408
40,515
12,750 675 12,000
40,500 1,140
4
12,000 7,500
17,872 28
308,863 $ 90,978
Effluent Quality:
Effluent Constituents
Parameters - units
Flow, gal/ton
Suspended solids, mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
CD
Nitrate,
Zinc,
PJL
Waste
Load
600
20
35
400
3-7
600
Resulting Effluent Levels
BPCTCA
600
50
50
50
80
20
35
220
3-7
50
20
35
200
3-7
50
100 <2)
150(2)
25t2)
6-9
25
20
45
5
6-9
10
5
45
3
6-9
'1'A wide ranqe in fluoride, nitrate, and zinc levels are found depending on types of
of raw materials used, fuels, and other operating conditions.
(2)value to be expected from typical treatment plant utilizing BPCTCA treatment technology
299
-------
TABLE
51
IRON AND STEELMAKING OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
FOR RELATED CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Electric Arc Furnace (Semi-Wet)
Treatment and/or Control
Methods Employed*
A. Discharge from spark box
or flame trap to classifier
to thickener; overflow
recycled to spark box or
flame trap; underflow
through vacuum filters.
filtrate returns to
thickener; sludge to sinter
or landfill.
Resulting Ef-
fluent Levels
for Critical
Constituents
SS 0
F~ 0
pH
Status
and
Reliability
Currently
practiced
by steel
plants of
this type.
Excellent
Problems
and
Limitations
No reduction
of heat
load. Spray
system re-
quires much
maintenance'.
Implementation
Time
12 months
Land
Requirements
1/8 acre
(501 x 100')
Environmental
Impact Other
Than
Water
Air:
Parti cul ate
0.1#/1000#
exhaust gases
Solid Waste
Generation
and Primary
Constituents
Solids
consumed
internally
or used as
landfill.
* Listed in order of increasing effectiveness
CO
o
o
-------
TABLE 51 (Cont.)
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
STEEL INDUSTRY
Electric Arc Furnace (Semi-wet Air Pollution Methods) Subcategory
Treatment or Control Technologies
Identified under Item III of the BPCTCA
Scope of Work: BATEA
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital
'Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power
Sludge Disposal
Chemical
$ 615,825
26,481
61,582
21,554
17,550
7,446
1,500
TOTAL
$ 136,113
Effluent Quality:
Effluent Constituents
Parameters - units
Flow, gal/ton
Waste
Load
100
Suspended solids,mg/1 2,000
Fluoride, mg/1
PH
25
6-9
Resulting Effluent Levels
301
-------
TABLE
52
IRON AND STEELMAKING OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
FOR RELATED CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY,: Electric Arc Furnace (Wet)
Treatment and/or Control
Methods Employed*
A. Aqueous discharge from
scrubber' & separator
thru classifier to a
thickener. "Once-thru"
thickener overflow to
sewer, underflow thru
vacuum filters, filter
cake recycled to sinter
plant or landfilled.
filtrate recycled to
thickener.
B. Same as Item (A) but
with thickener magnetic
and/or chemical polymer
f locculation.
Resulting Ef-
fluent Levels
for Critical
Constituents
SS 100
F~ 20
Zn 16
pH 6-9
SS 50
F~ 20
Zn 16
pH 6-9
Status
and
Reliability
Used in o-~
steel
industry;
good. Mini-s
mum mainten-
ance and
downtime.
Used- in
steel
industry;
good.
problems
and
Limitations
No reduc-
tion of
heat load .
must control
surges. Most
EAF plants
have no
sinter
plants near-
by.
Same as
item (A)
Implementation
Time
18 months
18 months
Land
Requirements
1 acre
{2001 x 200')
1 acre
(200'.x 200')
Environmental
Impact Other
Than
Water
Air:
Particulate
O.lf/lOOOf
exhaust gases
Air:
Particulate
0.1#/1000#
exhaust gases
Solid Waste •
Generation :
and Primary |
Constituents'
Solid wastes
consumed
internally
or used as
landfill.
\
Solid wastes
consumed
internally
or used as
landfill.
* Listed in order o£ increasing effectiveness
CO
o
-------
TABLE 52 (cont.)
IRON AND STEELMAKING OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
FOR RELATED CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Electric Arc Furnace (Wet)
Treatment and/or Control
Methods Employed*
C. Same as Item B except
thickener overflow
recycled to scrubber
system with blowdown.
D. Same as Item C except
blowdown treated with
lime addition, neutraliza-
tion, and sedimentation.
E. Same as Item D, except
additional treatment of
blowdown with activated
alumina and pressure
filtration.
Resulting Ef-
fluent Levels
for Critical
Constituents
mg/1
SS 50
F- 75
Zn 10
pH 6-9
SS 25
F- 20
Zn 5
pH 6-9
SS 10
F" 5
Zn 3
pH 6-9
Status
and
Reliability
Widely used
in steel
industry.
Very good.
Currently in
use by some
plants in
other" indus-
tries ;
technically
transferable.
Excellent.
Used in
water'
treatment
industry;
technically
transferable
Excellent.
.,
Problems
and
Limitations
Same as
Item (A)
Same as
Item (A)
Same as
Item (A)
Implementation
Time
18 months
18 months
18 months
Land
Requirements
1 acre
(200'x 200')
1-1/2 acre
(200' x 300']
1-1/2 acre
(200'-x 300")
Environmental"
Impact Other
Than
Water
Air:
Particulate
o.i#/iooo#
exhaust gases
Air:
Particulate
0.1#/1000#
exhaust gases
A'ir:
Particulate
0.1#/100#
exhaust gases
Solid Waste
Generation
and Primary
Constituents
Solid wastes
consumed
internally
or used as
landfill.
Solid wastes
consumed
internally
or used as
landfill.
Solid
wastes
consumed
internally
or used as
landfill.
* Listed in order of increasing effectiveness
CO
o
CO
-------
TABLE 52 (Cont.)
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
STEEL INDUSTRY
Electric Arc Furnace (Wet Air Pollution Control Methods) Subcategory
Treatment or Control Technologies
Identified under Item III of the
Scope of Work:
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power
Sludge Disposal
Chemical
TOTAL
A
21,231
49,374
17,280
BPCTCA
D
$ 493,740 $ 27,203 5 194,820 $ 286,148 $ 230,025
1,170
2,720
952
12,304
19,482
6,819
28,615
10,015
9,890
23,003
8,050
12,450 675 5,625
. 11.716
4,200 .
7,500
416
720
1,500
7
$ 112,051 $ 9,717 $ 40,303
$ 59,570
$ 42,450
Effluent Quality: R •
Effluent Constituents Waste
Parameters - units Load
Resulting .Effluent Levels
BPCTCA
BATEA
Flow, aal/ton
Suspended Golids, ma/1
Fluoride, mq/1
.2 inc. mq/1
DH
240 240
3,500 100
20 20
20 16
6-9 6-9
240 50 ' 50 ' 50
50 50 -25 10
20 75(1) 20 5
16 10(1) 5 3
6-9 6-9 6-9 6-9
(1) Value to be expected from typical treatment plant1 utilizing BPCTCA treatment technology
304
-------
Although .the furnace exhaust fumes will have been
scrubbed, 0,1 kkg of particulate emission per kkg(lb/
lb). of exhaust gases will be emitted into the
atmosphere.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: The solid waste that will be
generated by the fume collection system for the electric
furnace (semiwet) process of steelmaking should present
no problem. It can be internally consumed in the sinter
process plant.
Wet Systems
1. Base Level of Treatment: Once-through system. The water
treatment system is comprised of a classifier, thickener, and
vacuum filter for dewatering of solids,
2. Additional Power Requirements: To bring the quality of the
effluent of the water treatment system utilized in the fume
collection of the electric furnace (wet) steel manufacturing
process up to the EPA standard for 1977, additional energy
will be necessary. The additional energy consumed will be
0.92 kwh/kkg (0.83 kwh/ton) of steel made. The additional
power required for the typical 1,652 kkg/day (1,820 tons/day)
facility of this type will be 63 kw (84 hp). The annual
operating cost for this additional consumption of power will
be approximately $6,300.00.
3. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: The air pollution problem of primary
significance in the electric furnace (wet) method of
steelmaking will be particulate emissions. Although the
furnace exhaust fumes will be passed through a dust
removing bath, 0.1 kg of suspended particulate matter
per kkg(lb/1fOOO lb) of exhaust gases will be emitted
into the atmosphere.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: There should be no problem in
disposing of the solid waste generated by the fume
collection system for the electric furnace (wet) process
for the manufacture of steel. It can be internally
consumed in the sinter process plant.
Vacuum Degassing
1, Base Level of Treatment: Once-through
involves a scale removal classifier.
system.
Treatment
Additional Energy Requirements: Additional power will be
necessary when bringing the quality of the effluent from the
water treatment system utilized in the barometric condensers
for the vacuum degassing process up to the anticipated
standard for 1977. The additional energy utilized will be
11.4 kwh/kkg (10.3 kwh per ton) of steel produced. For the
305
-------
typical 472 kkg/day (520 tons/day) vacuum degassing facility,
the additional power required will be 224 kw (300 hp). The
annual operating cost for this additional power consumption
will be approximately $22,500.00.
3. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: Non-condensable gases are vented to the
atmosphere during degassing.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: The solid waste that will be
generated by the creation of a vacuum for the degassing
process should present no problem. It can be internally
consumed in the sinter process plant.
Continuous Casting
1. Base Level of Treatment: Recycle system utilizing scale pit
settling, oil skimming, flat bed filtration and cooling
towers.
2. Additional Energy Requirements: Additional power will not be
required to meet proposed standards for 1977 since the base
level is the BPCTCA treatment model.
3. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: Non-condensable gases and fumes are
generated during continuous casting operations but to a
relatively minor extent.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: The solid waste generated can be
consumed internally in the sinter plant.
Advanced Technology, Energy and Nonwater Impact
The energy requirements and nonwater quality aspects associated
with the advanced treatment technology for each subcategory are
discussed below.
By-product Coke
1. Additional energy requirements:
a. Treatment Alternative I:
To improve the quality of the waste water treatment systems
effluent from the anticipated 1977 standard to the
anticipated 1983 standard, additional power consuming
equipment is necessary. The additional power requirements
will be 373 kw (SCO hp) for the typical 2,414 kkg/day (2,660
ton/day) by-product coke making facility. The annual
operating cost for this additional equipment will be
$37,500.00.
306
-------
TABLE 53
IRON AND STEELMAKING OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
FOR RELATED CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Vacuum Degassing
Treatment and/or Control
Methods Employed*
A. Scale sump or settling
basin for solids removal.
"Once- through"- overflow
to sewer. Solids recycled
to Sinter plant.
B. Same as Item (A) except
overflow recycled via
cooling tower to degassing
unit with blowdown to
sewer .
C. Same as Item (B) except
blowdown is treated by lime
addition; coagulation/
flocculation; anaerobic de-
nitrification ; neutraliza-
tion; and final
clarification.
'
i
Resulting Ef-
fluent Levels
for Critical
Constituents
mg/1
SS 100
Pb 2.5
Mn 15
N03" 80
Zn 20
pH 6-9
SS 50
Pb 2.0
Mn 10
N03- 175
Zn 15
pH 6-9
SS 25
Pb. 0.5
Mn 5
N03~ 45
Zn 5
pH 6-9
Status
and
Reliability
Used in
steel
industry .
Used in
steel
industry.
Some treat-
ment methods
used in this
and related
industries .
Denitrifi-
cation is
not neces-
sary where
N- is not
used in the
process.
Very good.
Problems
and
Limitations
Surges must
ae controll-
ad. No re-
luction in
leat load.
Surges must
be controll-
ed. No
reduction
in heat
load.
Surges must
be controll-
ed. No
reduction
in heat
load.
Denitrifi-
cation
untested on
steel plant
wastes.
Implementation
Time
18 months
18 months
18 months
Land
Requirements
1 acre
(20Q'x200')
1 acre
(200'x 200')
1/2 apre
(100' x 200'
Environmental
Impact Other
Than
Water
Gases pass
off to
atmosphere
Gases pass
off to
atmosphere
Gases pass
off to
atmosphere
Solid Waste
Generation
and Primary
Constituents
Solids
consumed
internally
Solids
consumed
internally.
Solids
consumed
internally.
Additional
solids from
lime treat-
ment to
landfill.
* Listed in order of increasing effectiveness
CO
o
-------
TABLE 53 (cent.)
IRON AND STEELMAKING OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
FOR RELATED CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Vacuum Degassing
Treatment and/or Control
. Methods Employed*
D. Same as Item (C) except
for final treatment of
blowdown via pressure
filtration.
Resulting Ef-
fluent Levels
for Critical
Constituents
mg/1
SS 10
Pb 0.3
Mn 3
NO 3- 45
Zn 3
pH 6-9
Status
and
Reliability
Used in
steel
industry.
Very good.
Problems
and
Limitations
Surges must
be controll-
ed. No
reduction ir
heat load.
Implementation
Time
18 months
Land
Requirements
1/4 acre
(100' x 100')
Environmental
Impact Other
Than
Water
Gases pass
off to
atmosphere
Solid Waste
Generation
and Primary
Constituents
Solids
consumed
internally.
Additional
solids to
landfill.
* Listed in order of increasing effectiveness
to
o
00
-------
TABLE 53 (Cont.)
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
STEEL INDUSTRY
Vacuum Degassing Subcategory
Treatment or Control Technologies
Identified under Item III of the
Scope of Work:
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Sludge Disposal
Energy & Power
Chemical
BFCTCA
A
S 259,774 $ 423,797
EATEA
CI D
$ 307,170 $ 60,008
TOTAL
11,170 18,224 13,208
25,977 42,379 30,717
9,092 14,832 10,750
2,581
6,000
2,100
36 31
22,500 2,9,250
2,250
753
$ 46,275 $ 97,935 $ 84,709
S 12,931
Effluent Quality: R
Effluent Constituents Waste
Parameters - units Load
_F_lg_w, gal/ton
Suspended^ solids,mg/l
Lead, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Nitrate, mg/1* }
Zinc,
pH
560
200
3.0
20
80
30
5-10
560
100
2.5
15
80
20
6-9
Resulting Effluent Levels
25
50
2.0
(3)
10
(3)
175
(3)
15
(3)
_q(3)
6-9
25
.2.5
Q_. 5
45
6-9
25
10
0.3
45
6-9
(1) If nitrogen gas is used to purge system, nitrate concentrations can be
very high. If inert gases are used, nitrates are negligible
(2) Zinc concentration depends on type of scrap used in steelmaking process
(3) Value expected of typical treatment plant utilizing BPCTCA technology
309
-------
TABLE 54
IRON AND STEELMAKING OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
FOR RELATED CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Continuous Casting
Treatment and/or Control
•. Methods Employe^*.
A. Recycle system with
scale pit; overflow recyclec
via flat bed filter to
cooling tower to caster
spray system with blowdown
to sewer. Oil skimming at
scale pit surface.
B. Same as Item A except
blowdown treatment by
pressure filtration.
Resulting Ef-
fluent Levels
for Critical
Constituents
SS 50
0 & G 15
pH 6*9
SS 10
0 & G 10
pH 6*7.9
Status
and
Reliability
Used in
this. indus-
try. Good.
Scale and
oil removal
facilities
must be
maintained.
Widely used
in this
industry.
Excellent.
Scale and
oil removal
facilities
must be
maintained.
Problems
and
Limitations
No reduction
in heat
load. Pit
must be kept
clean to
prevent
solids build
up and
washover.
No reduction
in heat load
Pit must be
kept clean
to prevent
solids build
up and
washover.
Implementation
Time
12 mo.
15 mo.
Land
Requirements
1/8 acre
(50'x 100')
1/4 acre
(1001 x 100'
Environmental
Impact Other
Than
Water
None
None
Solid Waste
Generation
and Primary
Constituents
Solids
consumed
internally.
Oil sold
for re-
processing
or
incinerated.
Solids
consumed
internally.
Additional
solids to
landfill.
* Listed in order of increasing effectiveness
CO
o
-------
TABLE 54 (Cont.)
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
STEEL INDUSTRY
Continuous Casting Subcategory
Treatment or Control Technologies
Identified under Item III of the
Scope of Work:
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Sludge Disposal
Energy & Power
BPCTCA
BATEA
TOTAL
1,980,816
85,175
198,081
69,328
j |
99,170
4,264
9,917
3,470
730
36,975
9,000
" " ---
390,289
26,651
Effluent Quality: Raw
Effluent Constituents Waste
Parameters - units Load
F_lowj, gal/ton
4200
30
^ & gjrease, ing/l,
Suspended_solldsf mg/1 50 _
pH 6-9
125
15
50
6-9
Resulting Effluent Levels
125
10
10
6-9
311
-------
b. Treatment Alternative II:
Additional power will be necessary to improve the effluent
water discharges to meet anticipated 1983 standards. The
additional power consumption will be 2.02 kwh/kkg (1.83
kwh/ton) of steel produced. The additional power
requirements will be 223.8 kw (300 hp) for the typical 2,424
kkg/day (2,600 ton/day) by-product coke making facility. The
annual operating cost due to this additional equipment will
be $22,500.00.
2. Non-water Quality Aspects (Both Alternates);
a. Air Pollution: Same as 1977
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Same as 1977
Beehive Coke
1. Additional Energy Requirements: No additional power will be
required to comply with the anticipated 1983 EPA standard.
2. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: Same as 1977
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Same as 1977
Sintering
1. Additional Power Requirements: To improve the quality of the
waste water treatment system effluent from the anticipated
1977 standard to the anticipated 1983 standard, additions
will have to be made to the system. The additional energy
consumption will be 1.31 'kwh/kkg (1.18 kwh/ton) of sinter
produced. For the typical 2,704 kkg/day (2,980 tons/day)
facility 147 kw (197 hp) will have to be added to the system.
The operating cost for this 147 kw (197 hp) will be
$14,755.00 per year.
2. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: Same as 1977
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Same as 1977
Blast Furnace jflron)
1. Additional Power Requirements: To bring the quality of the
effluent of the waste water treatment system used in the dust
cleaning of the blast furnace (iron) making process from the
anticipated standard for 1977 to the anticipated standard for
1983, requires additional electrical powered equipment. The
additional energy consumption will be 0.68 kwh/kkg (.62
kwh/ton) of iron produced. For the typical 2,995 kkg/day
312
-------
(3,300 tons/day) blast furnace facility, the additional power
required will be 85.8 kw (115 hp). The annual operating cost
for the additional equipment will be approximately $8,625.00.
2. Non-water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: Same as 1977
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Same as 1977
Blast Furnace (Ferromanaanese)
1. Additional Power Requirements: Additional electrically
powered equipment will have to be added to the 1977 system to
improve the waste water treatment system effluent to meet the
anticipated standard for 1983. The additional energy
consumed will be 1.71 kwh/kkg (1.55 kwh/ton) of iron
produced. For the average 744 kkg/day (820 tons/day)
facility, the additional power required will be 53 kw (71
hp). The additional operating cost will be approximately
$5,325.00 per year.
2. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a* Air Pollution: Same as 1977
b. solid Waste Disposal: Same as 1977
Basic Oxygen Furnace Operation
Semi-Wet Systems
1. Additional Power Requirements: No additional power will be
necessary to bring the water quality to meet the anticipated
1983 standard.
2. Non-Water Quality Aspects:
a. Air Pollution: Same as 1977
b. Solid waste Disposal: Same as 1977
Wet Systems
1. Additional Power Requirements: Additional equipment will be
required to improve the waste water system to the anticipated
1983 standard. The additional energy consumption will be
0.15 kwh/kkg (.14 kwh/ton) of steel produced. For the
typical 6,888 kkg/day (7,590 tons/day) EOF wet facility, the
additional power required will be 105 kw (141 hp). The
annual operating cost for the consumption of this extra power
will be approximately $10,575.00.
2. Non-Water Quality Aspects
313
-------
a. Air Pollution: The additional waste water equipment
required will not affect the quality of the exhaust
gases released to the atmosphere. The particulate
emissions will be the same as they were for 1977.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Same as 1977
Open Hearth Furnace
1. Additional Power Requirements: Additional equipment will be
required to improve the quality of the wastewater treatment
system utilized in the fume collection of the open hearth
steel manufacturing process to the anticipated standard for
1983. The additional energy consumption will be 0.45 kwh/kkg
(0.39 kwh/ton) of steel produced. For the typical 6,716
kkg/day (7,400 tons/day) open hearth facility, the additional
power required will be 119 kw (160 hp) . The annual operating
cost for the consumption of this added power will be
approximately $12,000.00.
2. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: The additional waste water equipment
required will not affect the quality of the exhaust
gases released to the atmosphere. The particulate
emissions will be the same as they were for 1977.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Same as 1977,
Electric Arc Furnaces
Semi-Wet Systems
1. Additional Power Requirements: No additional power
requirements over 1977.
2. Non~Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: Same as 1977
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Same as 1977
Wet Systems
1. Additional Power Requirements: Additional equipment will be
required to improve the quality of the effluent of the waste
water treatment system utilized in the fume collection of the
electric furnace (wet) steel manufacturing process to meet
the anticipated standard for 1983. The additional energy
consumption will be 0.98 kwh/kkg (0.89 kwh/ton) of steel
produced. For the typical 1,652 kkg/day (1,820 tons/day)
electric furnace (wet) facility, the additional power
required will be 75 kw (100 hp). The annual operating cost
for the consumption of this extra power will be approximately
$7,500.00.
314
-------
2. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: The additional equipment required will
not affect the quality of the exhaust gases released to
the atmosphere. The particulate emissions will be the
same as they were at 1977.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Same as 1977
Vacuum Degassing
1. Additional Power Requirements: To improve the quality of the
waste water treatment system effluent to the anticipated 1983
standard, will require additional equipment. The additional
power requirement is 291 kw (395 hp) or 15.9 kwh/kkg (14.4
kwh/ton) of steel produced. The cost to operate this
additional equipment will be $29,250.00.
2. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: Same as 1977
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Same as 1977
Continuous Casting Operation
1. Additional Power Requirements: Additional equipment will be
required to improve the water to meet the anticipated 1983
standard. The additional energy consumption will be 2.2
kwh/kkg (2.0 kwh/ton) of stee.1 produced. The additonal power
requirements will be 89.5 kw (120 hp) for the typical 971
kkg/day (1070 ton/day) continuous casting facility. The
annual operating cost due to the addition of this equipment
will be $9,000.
2. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: Same as 1977
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Same as 1977
Full Range of Technology in Use or Available to the
Steel Industry
The full range of technology in use or available to the steel
industry today is presented in Tables 44 to 54. In addition to
presenting the range of treatment methods available, these tables
also describe for each method:
1. Resulting effluent levels for critical constituents
2. Status and reliability
3. Problems and limitations
315
-------
4. Implementation time
5. Land requirements
6. Environmental impacts other than water
7. Solid waste generation
Basis of Cost Estimates
Costs associated with the full range of treatment technology
including investment, capital depreciation, operating and
maintenance, and energy and power, are presented on water
effluent cost tables corresponding to the appropriate category
technology in Tables^44 to 54. *
Costs were developed as follows:
1. -National annual production rate data was collected and
tabulated along with the number of plants in each
subcategory. From this, an "average" size plant was
established.
2. Flow rates were established based on the data accumulated
during the survey portion of this study and from knowledge of
what flow reductions could be obtained with minor
modifications. The flow is here expressed in 1/kkg or
gal/ton of product,
3. Then a treatment process model and flow diagram was developed
for each subcategory.
This was based on knowledge of how most industries in a
certain subcategory handle their wastes, and on the flow
rates established by 1 and 2 above.
4. Finally, a quasi-detailed cost estimate was made on the basis
of the developed flow diagram.
Total annual costs in August, 1971, dollars were developed by
adding to the total operating costs (including all chemicals,
maintenance, labor, energy and power) the capital recovery
costs. Capital recovery costs consist of the depreciation and
interest charges based on a ten year straight line depreciation
and on a 7X interest rate, respectively.
The capital recovery factor (CRF) is normally used in industry to
help allocate the initial investment and the interest to the
total operating cost of a facility^ The CFR is equal to i plus i
divided by a-1, where a is equal to 1 + i to the power n. The
CFR is multiplied by the initial investment to obtain the annual
capital recovery. That is: (CFR) (P) = ACR. The annual
depreciation is found by dividing the initial investment by the
depreciation period (n = 10 years). That is, P/10 = annual
depreciation. Then the annual cost of capital has been assumed
316
-------
to be the total annual capital recovery minus the annual
depreciation. That is, ACR - P/10 = annual cost of capital.
Construction costs are dependent upon many different variable
conditions and in order to determine definitive costs the
following parameters were established as the basis of estimates.
In addition, the cost estimates as developed reflect only average
costs.
a. The treatment facilities are contained within a "battery
limit" site location and are erected on a "green field"
site. Site clearance costs such as existing plant equip-
ment relocation, etc., are not included in cost estimates*
b. Equipment costs are based on specific effluent water
rates. A change in water flow rates will affect costs,
c. The treatment facilities are located in close proximity
to the steelmaking process area. Piping and other
utility costs for interconnecting utility runs between
the treatment facilities1 battery limits and process
equipment areas are not included in cost estimates.
d. Sales and use taxes or freight charges are not included
in cost estimates.
e. Land acquisition costs are not included in cost estimates.
f. Expansion of existing supporting utilities such as
sewage, river water pumping stations, and increased boiler
capacity are not included in cost estimates.
g. Potable water, fire lines and sewage lines to service
treatment facilities are not included in cost estimates.
h. Limited instrumentation has been included for pH and
fluoride control, but no automatic samplers, temperature
indicators, flow meters, recorders, etc., are included
in cost estimates.
j. The site conditions are based on:
1. No hardpan or rock excavation, blasting, etc.
2. No pilings or spread footing foundations for poor
soil conditions,
3. No well pointing.
4, No dams, channels, or site drainage required.
5. No cut and fill or grading of site.
6, No seeding or planting of grasses and only minor
site grubbing and small shrubs clearance; no tree
removal,
k. controls buildings are prefabricated buildings, not
brick or block type.
317
-------
1. No painting, pipe insulation, and steam or electric
heat tracing are included.
m. No special guardrails, buildings, lab test facilities,
signs, or docks are included.
Other factors that affect costs but cannot be evaluated:
a. Geographic location in United States.
b. Metropolitan or rural areas.
c. Labor rates, local union rules, regulations, and
restrictions.
d. Manpower requirements.
e. Type of contract.
f. Weather conditions or season.
g. Transportation of men, materials, and equipment.
h. Building code requirements.
j. Safety requirements.
k. General business conditions.
The cost estimates do reflect an on-site "Battery Limit" treat-*
ment plant with electrical sub-station and equipment for powering
the facilities, all necessary pumps, treatment plant
interconnecting feed pipe lines, chemical treatment facilities,
foundations, structural steel, and control house. Access
roadways within battery limits area are included in estimates
based upon 3.65 cm (1.5 inch) thick bituminous wearing course and
10 cm (4 inch) thick sub-base with sealer, binder, and gravel
surfacing. A 9 gage chain link fence with three strand barb wire
and one truck gate was included for fencing in treatment
facilities area.
The cost estimates also include a 1556 contingency, 10%
contractor's overhead and profit, and engineering fees of 15%.
318
-------
SECTION IX
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE
APPLICATION OF THE BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
Introduction
The effluent limitations which must be achieved by July 1, 1977,
are to specify the effluent quality attainable through the
application of the Best Practicable control Technology Currently
Available. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently
Available is generally based upon the average of the best
existing performance by plants of various srize the, ages and
unit processes within the industrial subcategory. This average
is not based upon a broad range of plants within the steel
industry, but based upon performance levels achieved by plants
purported by the industry or by regulatory agencies to be
equipped with the best treatment facilities. Experience
demonstrated that in some instances these facilities were
exemplary only in the control of a portion of the waste
parameters present. In those industrial categories where present
control and treatment practices are uniformly inadequate, a
higher level of control than any currently in place may be
required if the technology to achieve such higher level can be
practicably applied by July 1, 1977.
Considerations must also be given to:
a. the size and age of equipment and facilities involved
b. the processes employed
c. non-water quality environmental impact (including energy
requirements)
d. the engineering aspects of the application of various
types of control techniques
e. process changes
f. the total cost of application of technology in relation
to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such
application.
Also, Best Practicable control Technology Currently Available
emphasrize the treatment facilities at the end of a manufacturing
process but includes the control technologies within the process
itself when the latter are considered to be normal practice
within an industry.
319
-------
A further consideration is the degree of economic and engineering
reliability which must be established for the technology to be
"currently available." As a result of demonstration projects,
pilot plants and general use, there must exist a high degree of
confidence in the engineering and economic practicability of the
technology at the time of commencement of construction or
installation of the control facilities.
Rationale for Selection of BPCTCA
The following paragraphs summarize the factors that were
considered in selecting the categorization, water use rates,
level of treatment technology, effluent concentrations attainable
by the technology, and hence, in the establishment of the
effluent limitations^ for BPCTCA,
Size and Age of Facilities and Land Availability Considerations:
As - discussed in Section IV, the age and size of steel industry
facilities has little direct bearing on the quantity or quality
of wastewater generated. Thus, the ELG for a given subcategory
of waste source applies equally to all plants regardless of size
or age. Land availability for installation of add-ron treatment
facilities can influence the type of technology utilized to meet
the ELG's. This is one of the considerations which can account
for a range in the, costs that might be incurred.
Consideration of Processes Employed:
All plants in a given subcategory use the same or similar
production methods, giving similar discharges; There is no
evidence that operation of any current process or subprocess will
substantially affect capabilities to implement the best
practicable control technology currently available. At such time
that new processes, such as direct reduction, appear imminent for
broad application the ELG's should be amended to cover these new
sources. No changes in processes employed are envisioned as
necessary for implementation of this technology for plants in any
subcategory. The treatment technologies to achieve BPCTCA are
end of process methods which can be added onto the existing
treatment facilities.
Consideration of Nonwater Quality Environmental Impact:
Impact Of Proposed Limitations on Air Quality:
The increased use of recycle systems and stripping columns have
the potential for increasing the loss of volatile substances to
the atmosphere. Recycle systems are so effective in reducing
waste water volumes, and hence waste loads to and from treatment
systems, and in reducing the size and cost of treatment systems
that a tradeoff must be accepted. Recycle systems requiring the
use of cooling towers have contributed significantly to
reductions of effluent loads while contributing only minimally to
air pollution problems. Stripper vapors have been successfully
320
-------
recovered as usable byproducts or can be routed to incinerators.
Careful operation of either system can avoid or minimize air
pollution problems.
Impact of Proposed Limitations on Solid Waste Problems:
Consideration has also been given to the solid waste aspects of
water pollution controls* The processes for treating the waste
waters from this industry produce considerable volumes of
sludges. Much of this material is inert iron oxide which can be
reused profitably. Other sludges not suitable for reuse must be
disposed of in landfills since they are composed chiefly of
chemical precipitates which could be little reduced by
incineration. Being precipitates, they are by nature relatively
insoluble and non- hazardous substances requiring minimal
custodial care.
In order to ensure long-term protection of the environment from
harmful constituents, special consideration of disposal sites
should be made. All landfill sites should be selected so as to
prevent horizontal and vertical migration of these contaminants
to ground or surface waters. In cases where geologic conditions
may not reasonably ensure this, adequate mechanical precautions
(e.g., impervious liners) should be taken to ensure long-term
protection to the environment, A program of routine periodic
sampling and analysis of leachates is advisable. Where
appropriate the location of solid hazardous materials disposal
sites, if any, should be permanently recorded in the appropriate
office of legal jurisdiction.
Impact of Proposed limitations on Energy Requirements:
The effects of water pollution control measures on energy
requirements has also been determined. The additional energy
required in the form of electric power to achieve the effluent
limitations proposed for BPCTCA and BATEA amounts to less than
1.5% of the 51,6 billion kwh of electrical energy used by the
steel industry in 1972.
The enhancement to water quality management provided by these
proposed effluent limitations substantially outweighs the impact
on air, solid waste, and energy requirements.
Consideration of the Engineering Aspects of the Application of
Various Types of Control Techniques:
The level of technology selected as the basis for BPCTCA
limitations is considered to be practicable in that the concepts
are proven and are currently available for implementation and may
be readily applied as "add-ons" to existing treatment facilities.
Consideration of Process Changes:
No in-process changes will be required to achieve the BPCTCA
limitations although recycle water quality changes may occur as a
321
-------
result of efforts to reduce effluent discharge rates. Many
plants are employing recycle, cascade uses, or treatment and
recycle as a means of minimizing water use and the volume of
effluents discharged. The limitations are load limitations (unit
weight of pollutant discharged per unit weight of product) only
and not volume or concentration limitations. The limitations can
be achieved by extensive treatment of large flows; however, an
evaluation of costs indicates that the limitations can usually be
achieved most economically by minimizing effluent volumes.
Consideration of Costs versus Effluent Reduction Benefits:
In consideration of the costs of implementing the BPCTCA
limitations relative to the benefits to be derived, the
limitations were set at values which would not result in
excessive capital or operating costs to the industry.
To accomplish this economic evaluation, it was necessary to
establish the treatment technologies that could be applied to
each subcategory in an add-on fashion, the effluent qualities
attainable with each technology, and the costs. In order to
determine the added costs, it was necessary to determine what
treatment processes were already in place and currently being
utilized by most of the plants. This was established as the base
level of treatment.
Treatment systems were then envisioned which, as add-ons to
existing facilities, would achieve significant waste load
reductions. Capital and operating costs for these systems were
then developed for the average size facility. The average size
was determined by dividing the total industry production by the
number of operating facilities. The capital costs were developed
from a quasi-detailed engineering estimate of the cost of the
components of each of the systems* The annual operating cost for
each of the facilities was determined by summing the capital
recovery (basis ten year straight line depreciation) and capital
use (basis 1% interest) charges, operating and maintenance costs,
chemical costs, and utility costs.
Cost effectiveness diagrams were then prepared to show the
pollution reduction benefits derived relative to the costs
incurred. As expected, the diagrams show an increasing cost for
treatment per percent reduction obtained as the percent of the
initial pollutional load r emaining deere ased. The BPCTCA
limitations were set at the point where the costs per percent
pollutant reduction took a sharp break upward toward higher costs
per percent of pollutant removed. These cost effectiveness
diagrams are presented in Section X.
The initial capital investment and annual expenditures required
of the industry to achieve BPCTCA were developed by multiplying
the costs (capital or annual) for the average size facility by
the number of facilities operating for each subcategory. These
costs are summarized in Table 79 in Section X.
322
-------
After selection was made of the treatment technology to be
designated as one means to achieve the BPCTCA limitations for
each subcategory, a sketch of each treatment model was prepared.
The sketch for each subcategory is presented following the table
presenting the BPCTCA limitations for the subcategory.
Identification of Best Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available - BPCTCA
Based on the information contained in Sections III through VIII
of this report, a determination has been made that the quality of
effluent attainable through the application of the Best
Practicable Control Technology Currently Available is as listed
in Tables 55 through 66. These tables set forth the ELG's for
the following subcategories of the steel industry:
I By-Product Coke Subcategory
II Beehive Coke Subcategory
III Sintering Subcategory
IV Blast Furnace (Iron) Subcategory
V Blast Furnace (Ferromanganese) Subcategory
VI Basic Oxygen Furnace (Semiwet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
VII Basic Oxygen Furnace (Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
VIII Open Hearth Furnace Subcategory
IX Electric Arc Furnace (Semiwet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
X Electric Arc Furnace (Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
XI Vacuum Degassing Subcategory
XII Continuous Casting Subcategory
ELG's have not been set for Pelletizing and Briquetting
Operations because plants of this type were not found to be
operating as an integral part of any steel mill. These
operations will be considered in mining regulations to be
proposed at a later date since they are normally operated in
conjunction with mining operations.
In establishing the subject guidelines, it should be noted that
the resulting limitations or standards are applicable to aqueous
waste discharge only, exclusive of non-contact cooling waters.
In the section of this report which discusses control and
323
-------
specific contaminants listed. In each case where inadequate
control was found, corrective measures could be applied to attain
recommended sources.
The rationale used for developing the BPCTCA effluent limitations
guidelines is summarized below for each of the subcategories.
All effluent limitations guidelines are presented on a "gross"
basis since for the most part, removals are relatively
independent of initial concentrations of contaminants. The ELG's
are in kilograms of pollutant per metric ton of product or in
pounds of pollutant per 1,000 pounds of product and in these
terms only. The ELG's are not a limitation on flow, type of
technology to be utilized, or concentrations to be achieved.
These items are listed only to show the basis for the ELG's and
may be varied as the discharger desires so long as the ELG loads
per unit of production are met.
Bv-Product Coke Operation
Following is a summary of the factors used to establish the
effluent limitations guidelines applying to the by-product coke
operation.. As far as possible, the stated limits are based upon
performance levels attained by the selected coke plants surveyed
during this study. Where treatment levels can be improved by
application of additional, currently available control and
treatment technology, the anticipated reduction of waste loads
was included in the estimates. Three of the four plants surveyed
were producing less than 730 1 of effluent/kkg (175 gal/ton) of
coke produced. The fourth plant was diluting their effluent with
contaminated final cooler water. Two of the four plants were
disposing of a portion of their wastes in coke quenching. Even
if this practice is discontinued, it can still be shown by
analysis of the plants surveyed, the data presented by Black,
McDermott, et al (Reference 22), and by employing internal
recycle followed by minimal blowdown on the final cooler waters,
that the effluent can be reduced to 730 1/kkg (175 gal/ton).
This is summarized- as follows:
Waste ammonia liquor 104 1/kkg 25 gal/ton
Steam condensate, lime slurry 75 1/kkg 18 gal/ton
Benzol plant wastes 125 1/kkg 30 gal/ton
Final cooler blowdown 84 1/kkg 20 gal/ton
Barometric condenser effluent 342 1/kkg 82 gal/ton
TOTAL 730 1/kkg "?75 gal/ton
The ELG's were therefore established on an effluent flow basis of
730 1/kkg (175 gal/ton) of product and concentrations of the
various pollutant parameters achievable by the indicated
treatment technologies.
Some by-product coke plants are required to install and operate
desulfurization units for separate removal of hydrogen sulfide
from coke oven gas. The most common H£S recovery process
consists of a chamber where potash or soda ash slurry is used as
a scrubbing medium for absorbing hydrogen sulfide, which is in
325
-------
AMMOkMA «000-V«
CO
ro
TO JkMMOUIUM
^MJOUIHJ
I
I PIKKD!
i AMMOMIA,
"Tn
III I
I I L.
J riKJAL.
1 *1 COOLftB
_L
I 1 ^orrMMK U- -i
WATftR
EOOUIMtt
TOWVK
CrffTU.UMH.1 • — •" — ^^ ™ '
r WUMAMY"!
ceouftK h— — - — ••••
L±OtiM.J
-TT-J.^,1
— -J
— -^ EFFVUkUT
»U (MOU^TItT
W* I
•PCTCA MOD«U
BO
-------
f
V)-J
XU
"»Q
^
^
Hi
>»*
«*
«V
^
1
1
1
X
Six
s ^
v§
'ROMMeuTAL **or£cr/av
STSfL (NQUSTAY STVO
y PffOOtscf COKE. SUBCATG
AL7t*.HATm /***.
&PCTCA MQOfL.
* ^
*
Ul
3
O
%
fo -2.5-73 \ r/&v*e
I
,1
• r-jv."
I?§21
[Q.u*»|
328
-------
turn liberated by distillation under vacuum. Up to 83 additional
liters/kkg (20 gal/ton) of contaminated condensate is produced
per ton of coke. This waste is returned to the ammonia still for
treatment, where its volume is increased to 104 1/kkg (25
gal/ton) of coke by the addition of lime slurry and further
condensation of steam. Plants operating this type of
desulfurization equipment will generate up to 834 1/kkg (200
gal/ton) of waste water, instead of the 730 1/kkg (175 gal/ton)
shown above.
By-product coke plants using the indirect rather than the
semidirect ammonia recovery process produce 375.4 1/kkg (90
gallons per ton) more weak ammonia liquor than the semidirect
system on which the guidelines above were based. This increase
in WAL volume is partially offset by reductions in other waste
sources. These reductions are related to the absence of final
coolers and of barometer condensers associated with the operation
of crystalizers. The provision added to Section 420.12 of the
regulation allows for a 30 percent increase in waste loads
corresponding to an increase in waste water volume from 730 to
938 1/kkg (175 to 225 gallons per ton).
Phenol
All of the plants surveyed were treating for phenol reduction by
either solvent extraction or biological oxidation. One of the
four plants was using biological treatment and was obtaining less
than 0,1 mg/1 phenol in the final effluent. Another plant, using
solvent extraction techniques, was producing a dephenolizer
effluent containing less than 0.5 mg/1 of phenol. However, this
effluent was mixed with untreated barometric condenser effluent
to produce a final effluent containing 1.37 mg/1 of phenol. It
became evident from review of the respective plant flow sheets
that the remainder of the plants surveyed could accomplish
similar reductions by treating their barometric condenser
effluent and by tightening up on the final cooling water
discharge so as to be able to route the blowdown through the
treatment system, thereby avoiding unnecessary dilution or
contamination of the final treated effluent. The ELG for phenol
was therefore based on 2 mg/1 at 730 1/kkg (175 gal/ton)' and the
recommended control and treatment technologies for accomplishing
this are as shown in Table 55. This guideline should apply to
the BPCTCA standard since it should be readily attainable under
the constraints and definitions of the BPCTCA guidelines.
None of the plants surveyed were intentionally practicing cyanide
removal, except for the reduction coincidental to ammonia
stripping, phenol extraction or biological processes employed for
ammonia and phenol removals. Two of the plants were discharging
relatively high loads of cyanides, either as untreated
crystallizer effluent or through contamination of final cooling
water discharges. The remaining two plants were recycling such
waste streams through treatment, and yielded cyanide
329
-------
concentrations of 38 and 68 mg/1 in effluent flows of 450 and 170
1/kkg (108 and 41 gal/ton), respectively. These loads would be
equivalent to 23 and 16 mg/1 based on a 730 1/kkg (175 gal/ton)
total effluent flow. The smaller of these two concentrations
reflects the load from a plant which currently disposes of a
portion of the raw waste load as quench water. This practice is
not applicable to many areas where air pollution problems must be
considered, and this waste should be routed to treatment instead*
For this reason, a somewhat higher cyanide load would be expected
in this waste water discharge.
The technologies for accomplishing this level of treatment are
shown in Table 55.
Ammonia
Of the four by-product coke plants surveyed, only two were
operating both legs of their ammonia stills to achieve
significant stripping of the fixed ammonia waste loads. These
plants discharged 471 and 138 mg/1 at flow rates of 171 1/kkg (41
gal/ton) and 217 1/kkg (52 gal/ton), respectively, which are
equivalent to concentrations of 110 and 41 mg/1 based on 730
1/kkg (175 gal/ton) total effluent flow. since these surveys
were completed, additional data has been acquired from a
by-product coke plant utilizing a well designed, properly
operated, free and fixed leg ammonia still. Normal operations at
this plant consistently yield effluents containing less than 100
mg/1, and at times approach a zero NH3*N concentration. The ELG
for ammonia nitrogen has been conservatively set at 125 mg/1
based on a 730 1/kkg (175 gal./ton) total effluent flow. Actual
plants operating free and fixed leg ammonia stills are achieving
this limitation.
Oil and Grease
Oil and grease concentration data were collected at 3 of the 4
plants surveyed. Despite relatively high raw waste loads (50 -
280 mg/1), final effluent concentrations were reduced during
treatment to 2.5, 18.7 and 0*02 mg/1 in discharge flow rates of
450, 171 and 19,182 1/kkg (108, 41 and 4,600 gal/ton),
respectively. Basing these loads on a uniform 730 1/kkg (175
gal/ton) discharge flow rate results in concentrations too low to
accurately measure by the most readily available analytical
techniques. The ELG for oil and grease has been conservatively
set at 15 mg/1 based on 730 1/kkg (175 gal/ton) total effluent
flow. All three plants for which oil and grease data are
available are achieving this limit.
Suspended Solids
Data on suspended solids were collected at 3 of the 4 plants
surveyed. Discharges contained 163, 103 and 7 mg/1 suspended
solids at flow rates of 450,171 and 19,182 1/kkg (108, 41 and
4,600 gal/ton), respectively, A review of the data from the
330
-------
first plant listed above (the Bio-oxidation Treatment System)
revealed an abnormal discharge of suspended solids during one of
the four visits to the plant. Portions of the activated sludge
biomass were floating to the surface of the aeration loagoon and
were being carried out in the effluent. Under more normal
operating conditions during three other visits to the same plant,
the average concentration of suspended solids in the effluent was
80 mg/1. Using this value, plus the values from the other two
plants above, and basing these loads on a 730 1/kkg (175
gal/ton) discharge flow rate results in equivalent concentrations
of 49, 24, and 184 mg/1, respectively. The plant discharging the
19,182 1/kkg (4600 gal/ton) total effluent at a final
concentration of only 7 mg/1 produced the highest solids load,
due to the discharge of most of that flow without treatment. The
other two plants were practicing sedimentation, so their
effluents provide the basis for establishing an ELG for suspended
solids of 50 mg/1 based on 730 1/kkg (175 gal/ton) total effluent
flow. Two of the three plants for which suspended solids data
are available normally achieve this limit.
J2H
Three of the four plants surveyed fell within the pH constraint
range of 6.0 to 9.0, thus providing a basis for establishing this
range as the BPCTCA ELG. Any plant falling outside this range
can readily remedy the situation by applying appropriate
neutralization procedures "to- the final effluent.
Beehive Coke operation
Currently, two of the three exemplary beehive operations surveyed
practice zero (0) aqueous discharge. The BPCTCA limitation is
therefore "no discharge of process waste water pollutants." The
control and treatment technology required would include provision
for an adequate settling basin, and a complete recycle of all
water collected from the process back to the process, with fresh
water make-up as required. The system reaches equilibrium with
respect to critical parameters, but' provision must be made for
periodic removal of settled solids from the basin. Actual
operating costs are modest.
Sintering Operation
The only direct contact process water used in the sintering plant
is water used for cooling and scrubbing off gases from the
sintering strand. As with steelmaking, there are wet and dry
types of systems. The sintering strand generally has two (2)
independent exhaust systems, the dedusting system at the dis-
charge end of the machine, and the combustion and exhaust system
for the sinter bed. Each one of these systems can either be wet
or dry as defined in the process flow diagrams types I, II, III,
shown as Figures 6, 7, and 8, respectively.
331
-------
CRITICAL
PARAMETERS
*Cyanidefp
Phenol
Ammonia (as NH3)
BOD 5
Oil ,anc* grease
Suspended Solids
PH
Flow
^
r
to
CO
1X3
TABLE 56
BPCTCA - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
SUBCATEGORY Beehive Coke
BPCTCA LIMITATIONS
Kg/KKg(1)
(LB/10QO LB)
mq/1
(2)
CONTROL & TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
(3)
ESTIMATED
TOTAL COST
(4)
No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to
navigable waters (excluding
all non contact cooling
water)
Settling basin; complete recycle I
with no aqueous blowdown - make- 1
up water as required. System >0.0527
reaches equilibrium with respect j
to critical parameters. j
0.0478
(1) Kilograms per metric ton of coke produced or pounds per 1,000 pounds of coke produced.
(2) Milligrams per liter based on 417 liters effluent per kkg of coke produced (100 gal/ton).
(3) Available technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
combinations permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may vary some depending on such factors as location/ availability of land and chemicals, flow
to be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of pre-
liminary modifications required to accept the indicated control and treatment devices. Estimated total
costs shown are only incremental costs required above those facilities which are normally existing
within a plant.
* Total cvanide
-------
'll^JJi^*'
I- V > -t O 0
°*m.5
I
m
-s
IA
0>
-------
TABLE 57
BPCTCA - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
SUBCATEGORY Sintering
BPCTCA LIMITATIONS
CRITICAL
PARAMETERS
Kg/KKg(1)
(LB/1000 LS)
(2)
CONTROL & TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
(3)
ESTIMATED
TOTAL COST
CKgS/TON
CO
CO
Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
PH
Flow:
0.0104
0.0021
50
10
6,0-9.0
Thickener with chemical floccula-
tion; tight recycle with minimal
blowdown to control cycles of
concentration
Natural adsorption to settling
solids in thickener; provision
required for surface skimming
Neutralization
Most probable value for tight system is 209 liters effluent
per kkg of sinter produced (50 gal/ton)(excluding all non
contact cooling water).
0.0565
0.0513
(1) Kilograms per metric ton of sinter produced or pounds per 1000 pounds of sinter produced.
(2) Milligrams per liter based on 209 liters effluent per kkg of sinter produced (50 gal/ton).
(3) Available technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
combinations or permutations of treatment methods,
(4) Costs may vary some depending on such factors as location, availability of* land and chemicals,
flow to be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of
preliminary modifications required to accept the indicated control and treatment devices. Estimated
total costs shown are only incremental costs required above those facilities which are normally
existing within a plant.
-------
9££
-------
Generally the sinter bed exhaust systems are dry precipitation
systems with the dedusting exhaust systems split between wet and
dry.
Three sintering plants were visited, but two of the three systems
were deleted from the comparison. These two systems were deleted
because the intricate wastewater treatment system utilized made
separate identification of unit raw waste and unit effluent loads
from the sintering operation virtually impossible.
The third sintering plant had wet scrubber systems for both the
dedusting and sinter bed exhaust systems. The wastewater
treatment system was composed of a classifier and a thickener; a
portion of the thickener overflow was recirculated and the rest
went to blowdown. The underflow was filtered through vacuum
filters.
For the one plant considered under this study, the effluent flow
was 475 1/kkg (114 gal/ton) of sinter produced. This value,
however, represents a blowdown equivalent to approximately 30% of
the process recycle flow of 1422 1/kkg (341 gal/ton). The 114
gal/ton effluent flow also represents the total blowdown from
this combined sinter plant * blast furnace waste treatment and
recycle facility. Therefore, the magnitude of the effluent flow
was considered inadequate* i.e., excessive, since simply
tightening up the recycle loop can reduce the effluent discharge
by more than 50 percent. In doing this, more attention may have
to be paid to control of heat buildup and scaling and/or
corrosive conditions in the recycle system. The ELG's were
therefore established on the basis of 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) of
product and concentrations of the various pollutant parameters
achievable by the indicated treatment technologies. Thi s
proposed 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) is identical to the effluent flow
limitations actually found (under this study) for the Open Hearth
and EOF gas scrubber recycle systems; thus the technology should
be readily transferable to a sinter plant since the type of
recycle system and many of the aqueous contaminants are
identical. This guideline should apply to the BPCTCA limitations
since this value is readily attainable under the constraints and
definitions of the BPCTCA guidelines.
After reviewing the laboratory analyses, the critical parameters
were established as suspended solids, oils and grease, sulfides,
fluoride, and pH. However, cost considerations dictated that
treatment systems for sulfide and fluoride reduction could only
be included in the BATEA treatment models. The ELG's for BPCTCA
were, therefore, established on the basis of 209 1/kkg (50
gal/ton) of sinter produced and the concentrations achievable by
the applicable treatment technologies indicated below.
Suspended Solids
The one plant studied showed less than 10 mg/1 total suspended
solids in the final effluent. This excellent reduction can be
credited to the presence of substantial oil in the raw waste
336
-------
which tends to act as a mucilage on the suspended solids,
Similar phenomena have long been known to be responsible for
enhancing removal of fine suspended solids in deep bed sand
filters. The ELG for total suspended solids was, however, based
on 50 mg/1 at 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) to be consistent with the
ELG set for BPCTCA for this parameter for all other
subcategories , except one which could not achieve thi s
concentration. The technologies for achieving this are as shown
in Table 57.
Oil and Grease
Oil was found to be 1 mg/1 in the final effluent o£ the one plant
studied. It is felt a less restrictive ELG based on 10 mg/1 at
209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton)v should be adopted since only one plant was
used in the survey and for the reasons stated in the discussion
under By- Product Coke Operations. The technologies for
achieving this ELG are presented in Table 57 and for the most
part Center around the natural adsorption to the suspended solids
as previously discussed.
For the one plant studied, the pH was found to be 12.7 in the
final effluent, apparently due to the use of lime fluxing agents
in the sintering process. Although the presence of lime in the
process water enhances removal of fluorides, pH levels in this
range would definitely have to be classed as harmful and the
utilization of cost effective control technology judged to be
inadequate . Therefore, the BPCTCA permissible range for pH was
set at 6 . 0-9 , 0 . This range can be attained by use of
conventional, well-established neutralization techniques.
Blast Furnace (Iron) Subcategorv
Waste treatment practices in blast furnace operations center
primarily around removal of suspended solids from the con-
taminated gas scrubber waters. In past practice, little
attention has been paid to treatment for other aqueous pollutants
in the discharge. Water conservation is practiced in many plants
by employing recycle systems. Three of the four plants surveyed
were practicing tight recycle with minimum blowdown. Discharges
from these three plants were all under 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton) of
iron produced. The ELG"s were therefore established on the basis
of an effluent flow of 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton) of product and
concentrations of the various pollutant parameters achievable by
the indicated treatment technologies. The fourth plant surveyed
was running close to a once-through system and was judged
inadequate with respect to water conservation, since blast
furnace recycle is a well established art.
A survey of four iron producing blast furances resulted in the
following recommendations for effluent standards:
Suspended solids
337
-------
TABLE 58
BPCTCA - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
SUBCATEGORY Blast Furnace (Iron)
BPCTCA LIMITATIONS
CRITICAL
PARAMETERS
Suspended Solids
*CyanideT
Phenol
Ammonia (as
PH
Flow:
(2)
CONTROL & TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
(3)
Kg/KKglJ-J
(LB/1000 L.B)
0.0260
0.0078
0.0021
0.0651
6.0-9.0
Most probable value for tight system is 522 liters effluent per kkg
of iron produced (125 gal/ton) {excluding all non contact cooling water)
ESTIMATEDv*'
TOTAL COST
CKg$/TON
50
15
4
125
Thickening with polymer addition
Vacuum filtration of thickener
sludge
>- Recycle loop utilizing cooling
tower
0.271
0.246
CO
o:
cc
(1) Kilograms per metric ton of iron produced or pounds per 1,000 pounds of iron produced.
(2) Milligrams per liter based on 522 liters effluent per kkg of iron produced (125 gal/ton).
(3) Available technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may vary some depending on such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, flow
to be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of pre-
liminary modifications required to accept the indicated control and treatment devices. Estimated total
costs shown are only incremental costs required above those facilities which are normally existing
within a plant.
* Total cyanide
-------
I
*.
* <*
-J O
•u 1>
(n U
< 1L
«
-------
The three plants surveyed and operating on a tight recycle were
experiencing suspended solids in their effluents ranging from 39
to 85 mg/1, whereas the plant operating close to once-through was
achieving 11 mg/1 suspended solids in the final effluent. This
could be expected since higher TDS levels in recycle systems have
been known to inhibit agglomeration and settling of suspended
solids. The technology is well established for reducing iron
laden suspended solids to less than 50 mg/1. The majority of
plants around the country are operating on a once-through basis.
The BPCTCA limitation for suspended solids has been established
on the basis of 50 mg/1 at 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton) based on the
proposed use of known technology for reducing blast furnace
suspended solids to the indicated level. Three of the surveyed
plants were achieving the effluent load directly and the fourth
plant, producing the effluent containing 85 mg/1 of suspended
solids, was also achieving the effluent load by virtue of further
treatment of the blowdown in the sinter plant waste treatment
facility.
Cyanide
All of the plants surveyed were experiencing cyanides in their
blowdown of 19 mg/1 or less. No intentional treatment for
cyanide removal was being practiced since the blowdowns were
being disposed of on site. The one plant operating on a close to
once-through basis was achieving 0.005 mg/1 cyanide in the final
effluent by the use of alkaline chlorination. The BPCTCA
limitation on cyanide is based on 15 mg/1 at 521 1/kkg (125
gal/ton). Three of the four plants surveyed are achieving this
effluent load directly. The fourth plant was exceeding this load
by 1236 but the effluent was receiving further treatment in the
sinter plant waste treatment facility. The technology for
accomplishing this level of treatment is shown in Table 58.
Phenol
Of the four plants surveyed, the effluent phenols ranged from
0.01 to 3.6 mg/1. The close to once-through plant was reducing
phenols via the alkaline chlorination system. In the recycle
systems, many plants were experiencing reduction of phenols in
the cooling tower as evidenced by close examination of the
analytical data in and out of the towers. Further reduction of
phenols was sometimes noted across the thickeners. Much of the
loss of phenol is inherent in the operation of a recycle system.
Further reductions could be readily accomplished by discontinuing
the use of green coke or coke quenched with water which is
contaminated with phenol in the blast furnace. Studies have
shown that the adsorbed phenols carry directly through to the
blast furnace gas scrubber waters. The BPCTCA limitation for
phenols is based on 4 mg/1 at 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton). The
technology for accomplishing the limitation is shown in Table 58.
All four plants surveyed are currently achieving the BPCTCA
effluent limitation for phenol.
Ammonia
340
-------
The three plants surveyed employing tight recycle were
experiencing ammonia values in their blowdown ranging from 78 to
265 mg/1.
The one plant operating on a close to once-through basis was
achieving 0.8 mg/1 ammonia in the final effluent - probably due
to dilution effects as well as oxidation of the ammonia by
chlorine. The BPCTCA limitation for ammonia is based on 125 mg/1
at 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton). Table 58 is referred to for further
identification of the technology. Three of the plants surveyed
are currently achieving the BPCTCA effluent limitation for
ammonia. The average effluent load of all four plants surveyed
is less than the load limitation.
EH
Of the four plants surveyed, the pH of the effluents fell well
within the range of 6.0 - 9.0 which is established as the BPCTCA
permissible range.
Blast Furnace (Ferromanqanese) Operation
Only one operating ferro-manganese furnace was found for the
survey. The one plant surveyed was operating with a once-through
system on the gas cooler and with a totally closed recycle system
on the venturi scrubber. The flow through the gas cooler was
5,700 gallons effluent per ton of ferro-manganese produced. This
flow would have to be considered inadequate, i.e. excessive,
since there is no reason precluding running a recycle system
identical to that of the iron producing blast furnaces. Under
the iron producing blast furnace recycle plants, the effluent
flow was found to be 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton) which was equivalent
to a blowdown rate of 4.25% of the recycle rate. The BPCTCA
limitations are based on an effluent volume of 1042 1/kkg (250
gal/ton) which is 4.25% of the total recycle flow rate on the one
ferromanganese blast furnace plant surveyed. The ferromanganese
furnace operates at a higher temperature than the blast furnace
producing iron and thus may require higher recycle and blowdown
rates.
Suspended Solids, Cyanide, Phenol, Ammonia
The above indicated critical parameters are the same pollutants
found in iron producing blast furnaces. Because of the higher
temperature operation, however, the cyanide and ammonia loads
produced are greater.
Since the one plant surveyed was judged to be inadequate with
respect to the application of good water conservation practice,
the BPCTCA effluent limitations have been based on the loads
that can be achieved by a plant equipped with a neutralized
recycle system producing an effluent of 1042 1/kkg (250 gal/ton).
A facility so equipped should achieve the following
concentrations:
341
-------
TABLE 59
BPCTCA - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
SUBCATEGORY Blast Furnace (Ferromanganese)
BPCTCA LIMITATIONS
CO
CRITICAL
PARAMETERS
Suspended solids
*Cyanide-
Phenol
Ammonia (as
PH
Flow:
Kg/KKgtlJ
(LB/100Q LB)
0.1043
0.0312
0.0042
0.2086
(2)
100
30
4
200
6.0-9.0
CONTROL & TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
(3)
Thickener with polymer additon
Vacuum filtration of thickener
underflow
Scrubber water recycle with
evaporative cooling
pH adjustment
ESTIMATED<4)
TOTAL COST
CKg$/TON
1.30
Most probable, value for tight system is 1043 liters effluent per kkg
of ferromanganese produced (250 gal/ton)(excluding all non contact cooling
water)
1.18
(1) Kilograms per metric ton of ferromanganese produced, or pounds per 1,000 pounds of, ferromanganese produced.
(2) Milligrams per liter based on 1043 liters effluent per kkg of ferromanganese produced (250 gal/ton).
(3) Available technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may vary some depending on such factors as location, availability oftland and chemicals, flow to
be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary
modifications requried to accept the indicated control .and treatment devices. Estimated total costs
shown are only incremental required above those facilities which are normally existing within a plant.
*Total cyanide
-------
-------
Suspended Solids 100 mg/1
Cyanide 150 mg/1
Ammonia 500 mg/1
Phenol 20 mg/1
The BPCTCA limitations have been based on these concentrations
at a flow of 1042 1/kkg (250 gal/ton) . Since the one plant
surveyed is not equipped with a recycle system on the gas cooler
or for neutralization of the effluent, the surveyed plant does
not presently meet the limitations.
The pH of the plant surveyed fell within the range of 6.0 - 9.0
which is established as the BPCTCA permissible range.
Basic Oxygen Furnace Operation
The only direct contact process water used in the EOF plant is
the water used for cooling and scrubbing the off gases from the
furnaces. Two methods which are employed and can result in an
aqueous discharge are the semiwet gas cleaning and wet gas
cleaning systems as defined in Types II, III, IV and V on Figures
17 to 20, inclusive.
The two semiwet systems surveyed had different types of waste
water treatment systems. The first system was composed of a drag
link conveyor, settling tank, chemical flocculation and complete
recycle pump system to return the clarified treated effluent to
the gas cleaning system. Make-up water was added to compensate
for the evaporative water loss and the system had zero (0)
aqueous discharge of blowdown. The second semiwet system was
composed of a thickener with polyelectrolyte addition followed by
direct discharge to the plant sewers on a "once-through" basis.
Because of the nature of these semiwet systems, direct blowdown
is not required when recycle is employed. The systems are kept
in equilibrium by water losses to the sludge and by entrainment
carry-over into the hot gas stream. Most new wet EOF systems are
designed in this manner. The BPCTCA limitations have therefore
been established as "no discharge of process waste water
pollutants to navigable waters" from BOF shops equipped with
semiwet air pollution control systems.
The three BOF wet systems surveyed were generally of the same
type and included classifiers and thickeners with recirculation
of a portion of the clarified effluent. The blowdown rates were
138, 217, and 905 1/kkg (33, 52, and 217 gal/ton) of steal
produced, respectively, with the latter system discharging at a
blowdown rate equivalent to 65% of makeup and 25% of the
recirculation rate. The first two plants were discharging at a
rate equivalent to 5.2 and 11.5% of the recirculation rate. The
third plant should be able to reduce the effluent to a rate
equivalent to 7.5% of the recirculation rate or 271 1/kkg (65
gal/ton) . The average rate of discharge of the three plants
344
-------
TABLE
60
BPCTCA - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
SUBCATEGORY Basic Oxygen Furnace (Semi-Wet Air Pollution Control Methods)
.CRITICAL
PARAMETERS
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
PH
Flow
BPCTCA LIMITATIONS
Kg/KKg
(LB/1000 LB)
(2)
No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to
navigable waters {exclud-
ing all non contact cool-
ing water)
CONTROL & TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
(3)
Settling tank with chemical and/or
magnetic flocculation; complete
recycle with no aqueous blowdown -
makeup water as required; wet
sludge to reuse or landfill
ESTIMATED
TOTAL COST
^ '
0.0241
0.0219
CO
-^
tr
(1) Kilograms per metric ton of steel produced or pounds per 1000 pound of steel produced.
(2) Milligrams per liter based on 209 liters effluent per kkg of steel produced (50 gal/ton).
(3) Available technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may vary some depending on such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, flow to
be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary
modifications required to accept the indicated control and treatment devices. Estimated total costs
shown are only incrementa1 costs required above those facilities which are nromally existing within a
plant.
-------
FLUORIDE M •»•)/*
SUSP. SOLIDS WO-wj/e
pw: to-it
00
4=*
O1
TO
I VACUUM I
FIL.TM r«—
-1±M"
I
J
FLUORIDE.
SUSP. SOU DS
BASE LEVEL SYSTEM
BPCTCA 4 SA.TEA MODEL
ENVIRON MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ST£EL INDUSTRY STUDY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE CS6MI-WET)
BPCTCA MODEL
FI4URE
-------
TABLE 61
BPCTCA - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
SUBCATEGORY Basic Oxygen Furnace (Wet Air Pollution Control Methods)
CO
BPCTCA LIMITATIONS
.CRITICAL
PARAMETERS
Suspended Solids
PH
Flow:
Kg/KKg(1)
(LB/1000 LB)
0.0104
mg/1
(2)
50
6.0-9.0
CONTROL & TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
(3)
ESTIMATED
TOTAL COST
CKq $/TON
Classifier/thickener with chemical
and/or magnetic flocculation; tight
recycle with minimal blowdown to
control cycles of concentration
Neutralization
Most probable value for tight system is 209 liters effluent
per kkg of steel produced (50 gal/ton)(excluding all non
contact cooling water)
0.091
0.082
(1) Kilograms per metric ton of steel produced or pounds per 1000 pounds of steel produced.
(2) Milligrams per liter based on 209 liters effluent per kkg of steel produced (50 gal/ton).
(3) Available technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may vary some depending on such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, flow to be
treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary
modifications required to accept the indicated control and treatment devices. Estimated total costs shown
are only incremental costs required above those facilities which are normally existing within a plant.
-------
5
s
\ ^-|n .% ^
lu\ .
1 1°;
^ ^ ,
frf V" I3^l"*
*§'*
"5
iM
i' i
W -
l*?"*i
i LVJ-
'T
/ ^
'tJ
?B
J O
j!
M
A
«
»Sl«s
5^?<
ig2"3
iz*55
348
-------
would then be 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) and this rate and the
concentrations of the various pollutant parameters achievable by
the indicated treatment technologies have been established as the
basis for the BPCTCA limitations . A review of the data
collected from the survey resulted in the following effluent
guidelines:
Suspended Solids
The effluent suspended solids were 22, 40, and 70 mg/1,
respectively, for the three plants surveyed. The clarifier at
the latter plant was not equipped with skimming devices and a
hose was being used to agitate the surface to break up the foam,
thus contributing to a high suspended solids content in the
effluent. Even when including this plant the average suspended
solids concentration of the three effluents is less than 50 mg/1.
As indicated under discussion of blast furnaces, the technology
is well established for reducing iron-laden suspended solids to
less than 50 mg/1 with the use of adequately designed and
operated clarifier s and/or chemical and/or magnetic f locculation.
Therefore, the BPCTCA limitation for suspended solids has been
established on the basis of 50 mg/1 at 50 gal/ton based on (1)
known technology for achieving same in a cost effective manner
and (2) the fact that two of the plants surveyed are currently
achieving less than this effluent load.
The pH of the three plants surveyed varied from 6.4 to 9.4. As
with previous subcategories , the BPCTCA permissible range for pH
is set at 6.0 to 9.0, which can be readily accomplished by using
appropriate neutralization techniques,
Open Hearth Furnace Operation
As with the EOF furnaces, only contact process waters were
surveyed, sampled and analyzed. Again the only contact process
water in the open hearth is the water used for cooling and
scrubbing the waste gases from the furnaces. As a general rule,
open hearths have dry precipitator systems rather than scrubbers .
Therefore, only two open hearth shops were surveyed and each had
a wet high energy venturi scrubber system as defined in Types I,
II, III shown on Figures 21, 22 and 23, respectively. There are
no semiwet systems for open hearths.
Each plant had similar wastewater treatment systems composed of
classifiers, with thickeners with recirculation of a portion of
the thickener overflow. One system utilized vacuum filters for
thickener underflow while the other system used slurry pumps and
pumped the thickener wastes to tank trucks for disposal. The
blowdown rates for the two plants were 213 1/kkg (51 gal/ton) and
492 1/kkg (118 gal/ton) which were equivalent to 9.3% and 17.5%
of the recycle rates, respectively. These systems can be
tightened as was indicated for the EOF and therefore the BPCTCA
limitations were established on the basis of effluent volumes of
349
-------
TABLE 62
BPCTCA - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
SUBCATEGORY Open Hearth Furnace
BPCTCA LIMITATIONS
.CRITICAL
PARAMETERS
Suspended Solids
pH
Flow
Kg/KKg(r)
(LB/10QQ LB)
0.0104
(2)
50
6.0-9.0
CONTROL & TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
(3)
Classifier/thickener with chemical
and/or magnetic flocculation;
tight recycle with minimal blow-
down to control cycles of
concentrations
Neutralization
Ml
ESTIMATED* '
TOTAL COST
CKg$/TON
0.0608
0.0552
Most probable value for tight system is 209 liters effluent
per kkg of steel produced (50 gal/ton)(excluding all non
contact cooling water)
CO
en
o
(1) Kilograms per metric ton of steel produced or pounds per 1000 pounds of steel produced.
(2) Milligrams per liter based on 209 liters effluent per kkg of steel produced (50 gal/ton).
(3) Available technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may very some depending on such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, flow to be
treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary
modifications required to accept the indicated control and treatment devices. Estimated total costs shown
are only incremental costs required above those facilities which are normally existing within a plant.
-------
0
J
r AVJ
i
D
i
1 .
H
I
I
s
\'
\\
iii 2
iS
itjoovTiEY
PUKtJAKK
CTCA
5:?
t *
If I
3
0
351
-------
209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) of product and the concentrations of the
process pollutant parameters achievable by the indicated
treatment technologies. This effluent volume is equivalent to
the average of the values that would be achieved by reducing
blowdowns to 7.5% of the recycle rates.
A review of the data collected resulted in the following effluent
guidelines;
Suspended solids
For the two plants surveyed, the effluent suspended solids were
80 and 52 mg/1. As with one of the BOF wet recycle systems
surveyed, the clarifier at the former plant was not equipped with
skimming devices and a hose was being used to agitate the surface
to break up the foam, thus contributing to a high solids content
in the effluent. Since suspended solids concentrations of 50
mg/1 or less can readily be achieved by the use of adequately
designed and operated clarifier s, and/ or chemical and/or magnetic
flocculation, the BPCTCA limitation for suspended solids has been
established on the basis of 50 mg/1 at 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) .
The technologies for achieving this effluent load are shown in
Table 62.
The pH was found to be 6.1 and 1.8-3.4, respectively, for the two
plants surveyed, with the latter plant being judged inadequate
with respect to proper control of pH. The pH range for BPCTCA
limitations has been set at 6.0 to 9.0. This range is readily
attainable through the use of neturalization techniques as
previously discussed.
Electric Arc Furnace Operation
The electric arc furnace waste gas cleaning systems are similar
in nature to the BOF, i.e., they may be dry, semiwet or wet
systems as defined in Types I, II, III, and IV shown on Figures
24 through 27, respectively. Four plants were surveyed, two
semiwet and two wet systems.
The two semiwet systems had similar wastewater treatment systems
composed of a settling tank with drag link conveyor; one system
was recycled with no aqueous blowdown while the other system had
closely regulated the furnace gas cooling water spray system so
that only a wetted sludge was discharged to the drag tank for
subsequent disposal. The BPCTCA limitation for semiwet systems
is therefore "no discharge of process waste water pollutants to
navigable waters," Both plants surveyed are currently achieving
this limitation.
The two wet systems surveyed had similar wastewater treatment
systems. These plants were recycling untreated wastes at the
rates of 12,906 and 12,010 1/kkg (3,095 and 2,880 gal/ton) of
product respectively. The two plants were treating their
352
-------
TABLE 63
BPCTCA - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
SUBCATEGORY Electric Arc Furnace (Semi-Wet Air Pollution Control Methods)
BPCTCA LIMITATIONS
CO
en
OJ
CRITICAL
PARAMETERS
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
Zinc
PH
Flow
Kg/KKg
(LB/1000
(1)
(2)
CONTROL & TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
(3)
ESTIMATED
TOTAL COST
(4)
T/TON
No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to
navigable waters {excluding
all non contact cooling
water}
Zero (0)
Settling tank with chemical and/or
magnetic flocculation; complete re-
cycle with no aqueous blowdown -
makeup water as required; or con-
trolled wetting of gases to form
sludge only - no recycle or
blowdown; wet sludge to reuse or
landfill
(1) Kilograms per metric ton of steel produced, or pounds per 1000 pounds of steel.produced.
(2) Milligrams per liter based on 209 liters effluent per kkg of steel produced (50 gal/ton).
(3) Available technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may vary some depending on such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, flow to
be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary
modifications required to accept the indicated control and treatment devices. Estimated total costs
shown are only incremental costs required above those facilities which \are normally existing within a
plant.
-------
r
£ '
I>I I
\l Ih
LJJ
k i?
i I S5
• r* ••
If *
* / o
mgtf-o
N|ti-
-§ f
8* :
9^' ?
25-3
l"-*^0-"-!
J-,
?j
f
/
-T
t
r i
°r S
{
UyiUO
354
-------
TABLE 64
BPCTCA - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
SUBCATEGORY Electric Arc Furnace (Wet Air Pollution Control Methods)
BPCTCA LIMITATIONS
.CRITICAL
PARAMETERS
Suspended Solids
PH
Plow
Kg/KKg{1)
(LB/1000 LB)
0.0104
(2)
50
6.0-9.0
CONTROL & TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
£3)
Classifier/thickener with chemical
and/or magnetic flocculation; tight
recycle with minimal blowdown to
control cycles of concentration
Neutralization
ESTIMATED*4'
TOTAL COST
CKg$/TON
0.083
.0753
Most probable value for tight system is 209 liters effluent per
kkg of steel produced (50 gal/ton)(excluding all non contact
cooling water)
OJ
tr
en
(1) Kilograms per metric ton of steel produced, or pounds per 1000 pounds of steel produced.
(2) Milligrams per liter based on 209 liters effluent per kkg of steel produced (50 gal/ton).
(3) Available technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may vary some depending on such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, flow to
be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary
modifications required to accept the indicated control and treatment devices. Estimated total costs
shown are only incremental costs required above those facilities which are normally existing within a
plant.
-------
99£
S*
fj.
ft
IP tf
S I
irfrt
V
•9
ntr'' ^
H n 1 r i
*>>£nr
>i 10 y 11
-* * r T
r IP>*S
oSj^
«5;5J
*4s
3g?
<*
!
A
Y
tl_
;?
0$
-Iff
«
IP
.H I
i M r i
L!J
i
U
—
i
~
r
POLY
•UC1KH.YTC
-------
blowdown .streams which were being discharged at the rates of
1,268 and 659 1/kkg (304 and 158 gal/ton), respectively. The
recycle rates are inadequate, i.e. , excessive, in that the
electric arc furnace wet gas cleaning system should be able to
operate on the same recycle flows as the EOF and open hearth
furnace systems. The average recycle rate on the five EOF (wet)
and open hearth furnaces surveyed was found to be 2,756 1/kkg
(661 gal/ton) . Further the systems should be able to achieve
blowdown rates equivalent to 7.5% of this recycle rate or 209
1/kkg (50 gal/ton) . Since these systems can be made essentially
identical to the EOF and open hearth recycle systems for gas
scrubbing, the BPCTCA limitations were established on the basis
of effluent flows of 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) of product and
concentrations of the various pollutant parameters achievable by
the indicated treatment technologies. A review of the data
collected from the survey resulted in the following effluent
guidelines:
Suspended Solids
The two plants surveyed were achieving suspended solids
concentrations of 58 and 23 mg/1 in the treated blowdowns. Since
the use of properly designed and operated clarifiers, and/or
chemical, and/ or magnetic flocculation can readily achieve
suspended solids concentrations on this type of waste of less
than 50 mg/1, the BPCTCA limitation for suspended solids has been
established on the basis of 50 mg/1 in an effluent flow of 209
1/kkg • (50 gal/ton) . The two , surveyed plants are currently
achieving lower concentrations on the average , although the
limitation load is being exceeded due to the excessive blowdown
rates,
The two plants surveyed were both discharging effluents at a pH
of 7,9. This is well within the BPCTCA permissible pH range of
6.0 to 9.0.
Vacuum Degassing Subcategorv
The direct contact process water used in vacuum degassing is the
cooling water used for the steam-jet ejector barometric
condensers. All vacuum systems draw their vacuum through the use
of steam ejectors. As the water rate depends upon the steaming
rate and the number of stages used in the steam ejector, the
process flow rates can vary considerably. Two degassing plants
were surveyed and each had a waste water treatment system which
treated other steelmaking operation process waste waters as well,
i.e., one with a continuous casting water treatment system and
the other with EOF dis charges . The wat er sy stems wer e
recirculating with blowdown. The blowdown rates varied from 58
to 67 1/kkg (14 to 16 gal/ton) and represented from 2% to 5% of
the process recycle rate, respectively. The BPGTCA limitations
were established on the basis of .an effluent flow of 104 1/kkg
(25 gal/ton) of product and concentrations of the various
357
-------
TABLE 65
BPCTCA - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
SUBCATEGORY Vacuum Degassing
BPCTCA LIMITATIONS
CRITICAL
PARAMETERS
Kg/KKg(1>
(LB/10QO LB)
mg/1
(2)
CONTROL & TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
(3)
ESTIMATED
TOTAL COST
^Kg5/TON
00
Suspended Solids
PH
Flow
0.0052
50
6.0-9.0
Settling via classifier; tight
recycle with minimal blowdown;
cooling over a
cooling tower for entire recycle
flow
Most probable value for tight system is 104 liters effluent per
kfcg of steel degassed (25 gal/ton)(excluding all non contact
cooling water)
0.568
0.516
(1) Kilograms per metric ton of steel degassed or pounds per 1000 pounds of steel degassed.
(2) Milligrams per liter based on 104 liters effluent per'kkg of steel degassed (25 gal/ton).
(3) Available technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may vary some depending on such factors as location, availability of' land and chemicals, flow to
be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary
modifications required to accept the indicated control and treatment devices. Estimated total costs
shown are only i nc r emen t a1 costs required above those facilities which are normally existing within a
plant.
-------
a
E
-------
pollutant parameters achievable by the indicated treatment
technologies. The value of 104 1/kkg (25 gal/ton) has been set
slightly above the measured values to provide a margin of safety
in the interpretation of the data from the two rather complex
joint treatment facilities studied.
A review of the data collected resulted in the following effluent
guidelines:
Suspended Solids
For the two plants surveyed, the suspended solids in the final
effluent were found to be 37 and 1077 mg/1, respectively. The
latter plant was judged inadequate with respect to the
application of cost effective treatment technology for suspended
solids removal, since the waste waters were being recycled
without treatment and the blowdown was being discharged without
treatment. The plant achieving the suspended solids level of 37
mg/1 was using high rate pressure sand filtration on the final
effluent prior to discharge. The BPCTCA limitation for suspended
solids is based on 50 mg/1 in 104 1/kkg (25 gal/ton) of product.
An alternate technology for removal o£ these critical parameters
to the indicated levels would be coagulation techniques. Table
65 is referred to for a summary of indicated BPCTCA limitations
and suggested technologies.
The pH of the two plants surveyed was found to vary between 6.2
and 7,7 which is within the BPCTCA permissible range for pH of
6.0 to 9.0.
Continuous Casting Subcatecrory
The only process waters used in the continuous casting operation
are direct contact cooling water sprays which cool the cast
product as it emerges from the molds. The water treatment
methods used are either recycle flat bed filtration for removal
of suspended solids and oils or scale pits with recirculating
pumps. Both systems require blowdown. The flat bed filters
remove oil and suspended solids whereas the scale pits may
require ancilliary oil removal devices.
Two continuous casting plants were surveyed. One plant had a
scale pit with sand filters with blowdown while the other plant
had flat bed filters with blowdown. Both had cooling towers for
cooling the spray water before recycling to the caster. The
blowdown varied between 342 and 463 1/kkg (82 and 111 gal/ ton) ,
The BPCTCA limitations were therefore established on the basis of
an effluent flow of 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton) of product and the
concentrations of the various pollutant parameters achievable by
the indicated treatment technologies. A review of the data
collected from the survey resulted in the following effluent
guidelines:
360
-------
TABLE 66
BPCTCA - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
SUBCATEGORY Continuous Casting
BPCTCA LIMITATIONS
CRITICAL
PARAMETERS
Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
pH
Flow
Kg/KKg
(D
(LB/100Q LB)
0.0260
0.0078
mg/1
(2)
50
15
6.0-9.0
CONTROL & TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
(3)
Scale pit with dragout conveyor
Oil skimmer
Flatbed filtration
Recycle loop with blowdown and
cooling tower
ESTIMATED**'
TOTAL COST
CKg$./TON
Zero (0)
Most probable value for tight system is 522 liters effluent per kkg
of steel cast (125 gal/ton){excluding all non contact cooling water)
(1) Kilograms per metric ton of steel cast, or pounds per 1000 pounds of steel cast.
(2) Milligrams per liter based on 522 liters effluent per kkg of steel cast (125 gal/ton).
(3) Available technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all
possible combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may vary some depending on such factors as location, availability of-land and chemicals, flow to be
treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary
modifications required to accept the indicated control and treatment devices. Estimated total costs shown
are only incremental costs required above those facilities which are normally existing within a plant.
-------
13QOW
-133J.S-
35VS
SQifOS V
si ysf3&&f 7/0
m
*•
r
L
A ""• I
t
|
os sanos
T
I
f?'
2*?.tVAV
.-J
:—^
v *
eg
\o
CO
A
T
O-
-------
Suspended Solids
The plant employing the flat bed filter system was achieving 4.4
mg/1 suspended solids in the treated effluent, whereas the plant
utilizing the pressure sand filters was obtaining only 37 mg/1 in
the final treated effluent. An apparent anomaly existed here,
since deep bed sand filters normally achieve higher quality
effluents than flat bed filters, it was later discovered that
the plant using the pressure sand filters was continually back-
washing one of the dirty filters into the final treated effluent.
This plant was judged inadequate with respect to applying good
engineering design to alleviate the problem of contaminating the
treated effluent with filter backwash. By correcting this
problem, this plant should have no trouble obtaining low
concentrations of suspended solids in the filtrate. To be
consistent with the BPCTCA limitations for suspended solids which
have been established for most of the other subcategories,
however, the BPCTCA limitation for suspended solids has been
established on the basis of 50 mg/1 at 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton).
Both plants surveyed are currently operating well within this
load limitation.
Oil and Grease
The two plants surveyed were achieving excellent reductions in
oil and grease as an apparent result of removal in the filtering
devices. The two plants combined averaged less than 2.4 mg/1 oil
in the final effluent. However, to be consistent with the
reasoning presented under By-Product Coke Operation, BPCTCA
limitation for oil and grease has been established on the basis
of 15 mg/1 at 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton). Table 66 summarizes the
indicated technology.
EH
The pH for the two plants surveyed varied bewteen 6.8 and 7.7
which is well within the BPCTCA permissible range for pH of 6.0
to 9.0.
Treatment Models
Treatment models of systems to achieve the effluent quality for
each subcategory have been developed. Sketches of the BPCTCA
models are presented in Figures 60 through 72A1, The development
included not only a determination that a treatment facility of
the type developed for each subcategory could achieve the
effluent quality proposed but it included a determination of the
capital investment and the total annual operating costs for the
average size facility. In all subcategories these models are
based on the combination of unit (waste treatment) operations in
an "add-on" fashion as required to control the significant waste
parameters. The unit operations were each selected as the least
expensive means to accomplish their particular function and thus
their combination into a treatment model presents the least
expensive method of control for a given subcategory.
363
-------
Alternate treatment methods could be only insignificantly
more effective and would be more expensive. In only one
subcategory, the Ey-Product Coke Subcategory, was an alternate
developed to provide an option for a high capital investment and
high operating cost biological system (as compared to the low
capital investment and low operating cost physical-chemical
system) to achieve the BPCTCA limitation for 1977. This
alternate was developed because the multistage biological system,
which would be an add-on to the BPCTCA single stage biosystem, is
the most economical way to achieve the BATEA limitations for
1983.
However, to achieve the BATEA limitations the alternate
relies on the use of treatment technology that has been developed
only to the pilot stage or as steps utilized individually, but
not in the combination required in this model on this type of
waste on a full scale basis. The effluent limitations have been
established such that either alternate can achieve the effluent
qualities on which the BPCTCA and BATEA limitations are basedi
A cost analysis indicates that the limitations on by-product
coke operations can most economically be achieved by applying
alternate I to achieve BPCTCA and alternate XI to achieve BATEA.
Costs were therefore developed on the basis of. depreciation of
the BPCTCA system in 6 years (1977 - 1983). This not only saves
enough on annual operating costs from the present to 1983 to more
than offset the increased capital cost incurred in converting
from one control technology to the other in 1983 (switching from
physical/chemical to biological means of control), but it also
minimrize the the total costs during the interim period while
other possible alternates are evaluated and allows for
flexibility in the event that BATEA limitations are later revised
to lower values or to no discharge of process waste water
pollutants to navigable waters.
Cost Effectiveness Diagrams
Figures 72B through 83B presented in Section X show the pollutant
reduction achieved by each step of the treatment models discussed
in Tables 44 through 54 and the cumulative cost, including base
level, to achieve that reduction. The curves are discussed in
more detail in Section X.
364
-------
SECTION X
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH
THE APPLICATION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE
TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
Introduction
The effluent limitations which must be achieved by July 1, 1983,
are to specify the degree of effluent reduction attainable
through the application of the best available technology
economically achievable. Best available technology is not based
upon an average of the best performance within an industrial
category, but is to be determined by identifying the very best
control and treatment technology employed by a specific point
source within the industrial category or subcategory, or where it
i s readily transferable from one industry to another, such
technology may be identified as BATEA technology. A specific
finding must be made as to the availability of control measures
and practices to eliminate the discharge of pollutants, taking
into account the cost of such elimination.
Consideration must also be given to:
a, the size and age of equipment and facilities involved
b. the processes employed
c. nonwater quality environmental impact (including energy
requirements)
d. the engineering aspects of the application of various
types of control techniques
e. process changes
f. the cost of achieving the effluent reduction resulting from
application of BATEA technology.
Best available technology assesses the availability in all cases
of in-process changes or controls which can be applied to reduce
waste loads as well as additional treatment techniques which can
be applied at the end of a production process. Those plant
processes and control technologies which at the pilot plant,
semi-works, or other level, have demonstrated both technological
performance and economic viability at a level sufficient to
reasonably justify investing in such facilities, may be
considered in assessing best available technology.
Best available technology is the highest degree of control
technology that has been achieved or has been demonstrated to be
capable of being designed for plant scale operation up to and
365
-------
including "no discharge" of pollutants. This level of control is
intended to be the top-of-the-line current technology subject to
limitations imposed by economic and engineering feasibility.
However, this level may be characterized by some technical risk
with respect to performance and with respect to certainty of
costs. Therefore, the BATEA limitations may necessitate some
industrially sponsored development work prior to its application.
Rationale for the Selection of BATEA
The following paragraphs summarize the factors that were
considered in selecting the categorization, water use rates,
level of treatment technology, effluent concentrations attainable
by the technology, and hence the establishment of the effluent
limitations for BATEA,
Size and Age of Facilities and Land Availability Considerations:
As discussed in Section IV, the age and size of steel industry
facilities has little direct bearing on the quantity or quality
of waste water generated. Thus, the ELG for a given subcategory
of waste source applies equally to all plants regardless of size
or age. Land availability for installation of add-on treatment
facilities can influence the type of technology utilized to meet
the ELG's. This is one of the considerations which can account
for a range in the costs that might be incurred.
Consideration of Processes Employed:
All plants in a given subcategory use the same or similar
production methods, giving similar discharges. There is no
evidence that operation of any current process or subprocess will
substantially affect capabilities to implement the best available
control "technology economically achievable. At such time that
new processes, such as direct reduction, appear imminent for
broad application the ELG's should be amended to cover these new
sources. No process changes are envisioned for implementation of
this technology for plants in any subcategory except By-Product
Coke where the installation of a recycle system will be required
on the barometric condenser system in order to achieve 417 1/kkg
(100 gal/ton) of product on which the ELGs are based. The
treatment technologies to achieve BATEA assesses the availability
of in-process controls as well as control or additional treatment
techniques employed at the end of a production process.
Consideration of Nonwater Quality Environmental Impact:
Impact of Proposed Limitations on Air Quantity:
The impact of BATEA limitaitons upon the nonwater elements of the
environment has been considered. , The increased use of recycle
systems and stripping columns have the potential for increasing
the loss of volatiles to the atmosphere. Recycle systems are so
effective in reducing waste water volumes and hence waste loads
to and from treatment systems and in reducing the size and cost
366
-------
of treatment systems that a tradeoff must be accepted. Recycle
systems requiring the use of cooling towers have contributed
significantly to reductions of effluent loads while contributing
only minimally to air pollution problems. Stripper vapors have
been successfully recovered as usable by-products or can be
routed to incinerators. Careful operation of either system can
avoid or minimize air pollution problems.
Impact of Proposed Limitations on Solid Waste problems:
Consideration has also been given to the solid waste aspects of
water pollution controls. The processes for treating the waste
waters from this industry produce considerable volumes of sludge.
Much of this material is inert iron oxide which can be reused
profitably. Other .sludges not suitable for reuse must be
disposed of in landfills since they are composed chiefly of
chemical precipitates which could be little reduced by
incineration. Being precipitates they are by nature relatively
insoluble and nonhazardous substances requiring minimal custodial
care.
Impact of Proposed Limitations due to Hazardous Materials:
In order to ensure long-term protection of the environment from
harmful constituents, special consideration of disposal sites
should be made. All landfill sites should be selected so as to
prevent horizontal and vertical migration of these contaminants
to ground or surface waters. In cases where geologic conditions
may not reasonably ensure this, adequate mechanical precautions
(e.g., impervious liners) should be taken to ensure long-term
protection to the environment. A program of routine periodic
sampling and analysis of leachates is advisable. Where
appropriate the location of solid hazardous materials disposal
sites, if any, should be permanently recorded in the appropriate
office of legal jurisdiction.
Impact of Proposed Limitations on Energy Requirements:
The effects of water pollution control measures on energy
requirements has also been determined. The additional energy
required in the form of electric power to achieve the effluent
limitations for BPCTCA and BATEA amounts to less than 1.5X of the
electrical energy used by the steel industry in 1972.
The enhancement to water quality management provided by these
effluent limitations substantially outweighs the impact on air,
solid waste, and energy requirements.
Consideration of the Engineering Aspects of
Various Types of Control Techniques:
the Application of
This level of technology is considered to be the best available
and economically achievable in that the concepts are proven and
available for implementation and may be readily applied through
adaptation or as add-ons to BPCTCA treatment facilities.
367
-------
Consideration of Process Changes:
No process changes are envisioned for implementation of this
technology for plants in any subcategory except By-Product Coke
where the installation of a recycle system on the barometric
condensers may be the most feasible means to achieve the 417
1/kkg (100 gal/ton) flow on which the ELGs are based. The
treatment technologies to achieve BATEA assesses the availability
of in-process controls as well as control or additional treatment
techniques employed at the end of a production process.
Consideration of Costs of Achieving the Effluent Reduction
Resulting from the Application of BATEA Technology:
The costs of implementing the BATEA limitations relative to the
benefits to be derived is pertinent but is expected to be higher
per unit reduction in waste load achieved as higher quality
effluents are produced. The overall impact of capital and
operating costs relative to the value of the products produced
and gross revenues generated was considered in establishing the
BATEA limitations.
The technology evaluation, treatment facility costing, and
calculation of overall capital and operating costs to the
industry as described in Section IX and which provided the basis
for the development of the BPCTCA limitations, was also used to
provide the basis for determining the BATEA limitations, the
costs therefore, and the acceptability of those costs.
The initial capital investment and total annual expenditures
required of the industry to achieve BATEA limitations are
summarized in Table 79.
After selection of the treatment technology to be designated as
one means to achieve the BATEA limitations for each, subcategory
was made, a sketch of each treatment model was prepared. The
sketch for each subcategory is presented following the tables
presenting the BATEA limitations for the subcategory.
Identification of the Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable - BATEA
Based on the information contained in Sections III through VIII
of this report, a determination has been made that the quality of
effluent attainable through the application of the Best Available
Technology Economically Achievable is as listed in Tables 67
through 78. These tables set forth the ELG's for the following
subcategories of the steel industry:
I - By-Product Coke Subcategory
II - Beehive coke Subcategory
III - Sintering Subcategory
368
-------
IV - Blast Furnace (Iron) Subcategory
V - Blast Furnace (Ferromanganese) Subcategory
VI - Basic Oxygen Furnace (Semiwet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
VII - Basic Oxygen Furnace (Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
VIII - Open Hearth Furnace Subcategory
IX - Electric Arc Furnace (Semiwet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
X * Electric Arc Furnace (Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
XI - Vacuum Degassing Subcategory
XII - Continuous Casting Subcategory
ELG's have not been set for Pelletizing and Briquetting
operations because plants of this type were not found to be
operating as an integral part of any integrated steel mill.
These operations will be considered in mining regulations to be
proposed at a later date since they are normally operated in
conjunction with mining operations.
In establishing the subject guidelines, it should be noted that
the resulting limitations or standards are applicable to aqueous
waste discharges only, exclusive of non-contact cooling waters.
In the section of this report which discusses control and
treatment technology for the iron and steelmaking industry as a
whole, a qualitative reference has been given regarding "the
environmental impact other than water" for the subcategories
investigated.
The effluent guidelines established herein take into account only
those aqueous constituents considered to be major pollutants in
each of the subcategories investigated. In general, the critical
parameters were selected for each subcategory on the basis of
those waste constituents known to be generated in the specific
manufacturing process and also known to be present in sufficient
quantity to be inimical to the environment. Certain general
parameters such as suspended solids naturally include the oxides
of iron and silica; however, these later specific constituents
were not included as critical parameters, since adequate removal
of the general parameter (suspended solids) in turn provides for
adequate removal of the more specific parameters indicated. This
does not hold true when certain of the parameters are in the
dissolved state; however, in the case of iron oxides generated in
the iron and steelmaking processes, they are for the most part
insoluble in the relatively neutral effluents in which they are
369
-------
contained* The absence of less important parameters from the
guidelines in no way endorses unrestricted discharge of same.
The effluent limitations guidelines resulting from this study for
BATEA limitations are summarized in Tables 67 to 78. These
tables also list the control and treatment technology applicable
or normally utilized to reach the constituent levels indicated.
These' effluent limitations set herein are by no means the
absolutely lowest values attainable (except where no discharge of
process waste water pollutants to navigable waters is
recommended) by the indicated technology, but moreover they
represent values which can be readily controlled around on a day
by day basis.
It should be noted that these effluent limitations represent
values not to be exceeded by any 30 consecutive day average. The
maximum daily effluent loads per unit of production should not
exceed these values by a factor of three as discussed in Section
IX.
Cost vs Effluent Reduction Benefits:
Estimated total costs on a dollars per ton basis have been
included for each subcategory as a whole. These costs have been
based on the wastewaters emanating from a typical average size
production facility for each of the subcategories investigated.
In arriving at these effluent limitations guidelines, due
consideration was given to keeping the costs of implementing the
new technology to a minimum. Specifically, the effluent
limitation guidelines were kept at values which would not result
in excessive capital or operating costs to the industry. The
capital and annual operating costs that would be required of the
industry to achieve BATEA were determined by a six step process
for each of the twelve subcategories. It was first determined
what treatment processes were already in place and currently
being utilized by most of the plants. Second, a hypothetical
treatment system was envisioned which, as an add-on to existing
facilities, would treat the effluent sufficiently to meet BATEA
ELG's. Third, the average plant size was determined by dividing
the total industry production by the number of operating
facilities. Fourth, a quasi-detailed engineering estimate was
prepared on the cost of the components and the total capital cost
of the add-on facilities for the average plant. Fifth, the
annual operating, maintenance, capital recovery (basis 10 years
straight line depreciation) and capital use (basis 1% interest)
charges were determined. And sixth, the costs developed for the
average facility were multipXie-d by the total number of
facilities to arrive at the total capital and annual costs to the
industry for each subcategory. The results are summarized in
Table 79.
370
-------
TABLE 67
BATEA - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
SUBCATEGORY By Product Coke
BATEA LIMITATIONS
CRITICAL
PARAMETERS
*Cyanide,
£\
Phenol
Ammonia (as NH.,)
BOD-
Sulfide
Oil and Grease
Suspended Soilids
PH
(LB/1000 LB)
0.00010
0.00021
0.0042
0.0083
0.00012
0.0042
0.0042
6.0-9.0
mg/1
(2)
0.25
ols
10
20
0.3
10
10
CONTROL & TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
(3)
BPCTCA plus:
Recycle crystallizer effluent to
final cooler recycla system
Sulfiue oxidation (aeration)
Clarification
Abandon dephenolization
Multi-stage biological oxidation
with methanol addition
ESTIMATED
TOTAL COST
(4)
0.405
Pressure filtration
m^
Most probable value for tight system is 417 liters effluent per kkg
of coke produced (100 gal/ton) (excluding all non contact cooling water)
0,367
(1) Kilograms per metric ton of coko produced, or pounds per 1000 pounds of coke produced.
(2) Mi lU.rjivi.ns par liter b-?.= icl on 417 liters effluent per kkg of coke produced (100 gal/ton).
(?) •"•-.-.?>._;."'..7;Vs G r.-•-.;-iiior-.c••-,">• listed is neb necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all
oc3c;.V>i:- c:o.-ojinatior;3 or ~-erinu tat ions of treatment methods.
(4) Co:j!;s may vary 301.;^ dGper-.-ing on such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, flow to be
treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary
raodific-r-tions required to accept the indicated control and treatment devices. Estimated total costs shown
are only ir.crerr.or.ta-1 costs required above those facilities which are nornally existing within a plant
and/or have been installed as a result of complying with BPCTCA standards.
*Cyanides amenable to chlorination. Reference ASTM D 2036-72 Method B.
-------
.J
372
-------
-------
72 B
fi\ODEL COST EFFECTIVENESS
&y-PKOOUCT COKE
ZT (BfOLOG/CAL)
•*•
'ANNUAL COSTS 'BASED ON TEN VGA*. CAPITAL
+ /NTEK6.ST XATE 7%
+ OP£&ATWG COSTS /NCLUPE 4.A3OG,CHEMICALS4UTILITIES
+ MAMTE.HANCS. COSTS & AS ED ON 3,5% Of* CAPITAL COSTS
THIS G&APH CANNOT B£ US£O FOR /NTEZMEQtATE VALUES
BASED ON af/^ KK6/DAY (2.&&O
COKL
REMOVED
374
-------
72 C
MODEL COST £F?eCT/VEfit£S5
Qv—jy/pQoi/cT" CQK£
ALTFRMAT& 1- (Wrf/CAL / CHEM/CAL)
'ANNUAL COSTS *&Aseo ON TEN YEA*. CAPITAL &E<:OV£KY
+ OPERATING COSTS WCWOE LA&OG, CHEWCAL*
•f- MAIHT& NANCE COSTS &AS£D ON 3.5% OF CAPITAL COSTS
^ THIS G8APH CANNOT SB. USE.O tt*e fNTE*WEDIAT£ VALUES
BASED OA/ £**;4 KK
(BATC.A)
/OO
375
-------
BATEA Effluent. Limitations Guidelines
The BATEA limitations have been established in accordance with
the policies and definitions set forth at the beginning of this
section. Further refinements of some of the technologies and the
ELGs discussed in the previous Section (IX) of this study will be
required. The subject BATEA limitations are summarized in Tables
67 to 78 along with their projected costs and treatment
technologies.
Discussion By Subcategories:
Plants in the beehive coke and the electric arc furnace (semiwet)
subcategories are presently achieving the effluent qualities that
are specified herein. No plants in the other subcategories are
presently achieving the total effluent quality required.
However, each of the control techniques is presently employed at
individual plants or in other industries and is considered to be
technology that is transferable to the treatment of steel
industry wastes.
The rationale used for developing BATEA effluent limitations
guidelines is summarized below for each of the major
subcategories. All effluent limitations guidelines are presented
on a "gross" basis since for the most part, removals are
relatively independent of initial concentrations of contaminants.
The ELGs are in kilograms of pollutant per metric ton of product
or in pounds of pollutant per thousand pounds of product and in
these terms only- The ELG's are not a limitation on flow, type
of technology to be utilized, or concentrations to be achieved.
These items are listed only to show the basis for the ELG's and
may be varied as the discharger desires so long as the ELG's per
unit of production are met.
By-Product Coke Subcateaorv
Following is a summary of the factors used to establish the
effluent limitations guidelines applying to by-product coke
making. As far as possible, the stated limits are based upon
performance levels attained by the coke plants surveyed during
this study. where treatment levels can be improved by
application of additional currently available control and
treatment technology, the anticipated reduction of waste loads
was included in the estimates. Flows at three of the four
by-product coke plants surveyed together averaged 417 1/kkg (100
gal/ton) of coke produced. The fourth plant was diluting their
effluent with contaminated final cooler water. Two of the four
plants were disposing of a portion of their wastes in coke
quenching. Even if this practice' is disallowed, it can still be
shown by analysis of the plants surveyed, the data presented by
Black, McDermott, et el (Reference 22), and by employing internal
recycle followed by minimal blpwdown on such systems as the
barometric condenser and final cooler waters, that the effluent
can be reduced to 417 1/kkg (100 gal/ton). This is summarized as
follows:
376
-------
Waste ammonia liquor 104 1/kkg 25 gal/ton
Steam condensate, lime slurry 75 1/kkg 18 gal/ton
Benzol plant waste 125 1/kkg 30 gal/ton
Final cooler blowdown 84 1/kkg 20 gal/ton
Barometric condenser blowdown 29 1/kkg 7 gal/ton
TOTAL 417 1/kkg 100 gal/ton
The ELG's were therefore based on the total effluent flows of 417
1/kkg (100 gal/ton) of product and the concentrations of the
various pollutant parameters achievable by the indicated
treatment technologies.
By-products plants operating vacuum carbonate type
desulfurization equipment will generate an additional 104 1/kkg
(25 gal/ton) of waste water as discussed previously in Section
IX, under the rationale for BPCTCA. The effluent flow from these
plants would be 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton) of coke produced, rather
than the 417 1/kkg (100 gal/ton) shown above.
By-product coke plants using the indirect rather than the
simidirect ammonia recovery process produce 375.4 1/kkg (90
gallons per ton) more weak ammonia liquor than the semidirect
system on which the guidelines above were based. This increase
in wAL volume is partially offset by reductions in other waste
sources. These reductions are related to the absence of final
coolers and of barometer condensers associated with the operation
of crystalizers. The provision added to Section 420.12 of the
regulation allows for a 30 percent increase in waste loads
corresponding to an increase in waste water volume from 730 to
938 1/kkg (175 to 225 gallons per ton). The provisions added to
Sections 420.13 and 420.15 allow for a 70 percent increase in
waste loads corresponding to an increase in waste water volume
from 417 to 709 1/kkg (100 to 170 gallons per ton). The
reduction in waste volume from BPCTCA to BATEA of 730 to 417
1/kkg (175 to 100 gallons per ton) on the semidirect systems is
accomplished by cooling and recycling the barometric condenser
waters. Since the indirect ammonia systems use less barometric
concenser water the opportunities for reduction here are less and
the reduction in waste water volume from BPCTCA to BATEA is less
for the indirect ammonia plants, i.e., from 938 1/kkg to 709
1/kkg (225 gallons per ton to 170 gallons per ton).
Approximately 15 percent of the by-product coke plants use the
indirect ammonia recovery process.
Phenol
The ELG is based on 0.5 mg/1 at a 417 1/kkg (100 gal/ton)
discharge flow rate. The one single-stage biological treatment
system sampled was achieving 0.0639 mg/1 on the average. The
plant is achieving this only on the diluted wastes and some of
the wastes are not treated. The dilution is required at this
facility to prevent ammonia from interfering with the biological
activity. If the waste were first treated in free and fixed
stills for ammonia removal as recommended herein, dilution would
not be required for this purpose. The routing of all plant
377
-------
process waste waters through a proposed multi-stage biological
treatment facility can be expected to reduce the phenol waste
load to well within the ELG recommended. Pilot plant sized
multi-stage systems have been tested on by-product coke plant
wastes, and additional testing and scale-up continues. Full
scale operating single-stage plants have shown consistently
excellent phenol removals to well within the ELG.
Physical/chemical treatment methods involve alkaline
chlorination, followed by carbon adsorption. Both of these
techniques involve transfer of technology, the former from a full
scale operating blast furnace (iron) subcategory plant within the
iron and steel industry and from the metal plating industry; the
latter from full-scale waste water treatment plants in the
petrochemical industry. Either of the alternate treatment
methods can achieve the BATEA limitations for phenols.
Cyanide
None of the plants surveyed were intentionally practicing cyanide
removal, except for some small reduction coincidental to
stripping, extraction and/or biological processes employed for
ammonia and phenol removals. All resulting levels of total
cyanide in the final treated effluent were found to be excessive
due to uniformly inadequate application of treatment technology
specific to cyanide removal. However, within the iron and steel
industry, cyanide removal is practiced by at least one operating
plant in the blast furnace (iron) subcategory, and by many
plating and finishing plants which will be surveyed as part of
the Phase II study of this industry. In addition, the nonferrous
metals industry routinely performs treatment for cyanide
destruction as part of their operations. For these reasons, the
ELG for cyanides is set at 0.25 mg/1 based on a total effluent
flow of 413 1/kkg (100 gal/ton) of coke produced. This limit is
currently achieved at operating plants outside the By-product
Coke subcategory by physical/chemical treatment methods as
described in the phenol discussion above. The biological
treatment of cyanides will require development to improve on
currently achievable cyanide levels from operating single-stage
plants* A multi-stage biological treatment system, including a
cyanide removal stage, appears capable of reaching the BATEA
limitation for by-product coke plant wastes by the time these
limitations become effective. The technologies for accomplishing
this level of treatment are shown in Table 67.
Ammonia
Two of the four plants surveyed were practicing ammonia removal
with free and fixed stills; however, the resulting effluents
(without dilution) were 115 and 417 mg/1, respectively, with the
latter plant judged to be inadequate with respect to the
capability of this technology. Furthermore, it becomes apparent
that improved removals of phenol and especially cyanide by the
technologies indicated above will result in reductions of ammonia
in the final effluent. Therefore, because of the inter-
relationships of treating for phenol and cyanide, ammonia will,
378
-------
as a side, effect of these other treatments, be further reduced to
less than 10 rog/1. The ELG based on 10 mg/1 at 417 1/kkg (100
gal/ton) is further supported by a preponderance of bench scale
and pilot studies for the treatment technologies shown in Table
67. The biological treatment alternate will require additional
development of the type described in the cyanide discussion above
to insure compliance with the BATEA limitation for ammonia. Most
ammonia removal will occur during stripping operations prior to
bio-oxidation.
Oil and Grease
Two of the four plants surveyed were achieving less than 3 mg/1 o
& G; however, the one plant was doing so by dilution with
contaminated final cooler water * In view of the oxidation
methods which will be required for removal of the other listed
pollutants, the O & G will be reduced to less than 10 mg/1 in the
oxidizing environment proposed. Auxiliary control technologies
may be utilized to achieve this level as indicated in Table 67.
The ELG for oil and grease for BATEA has been based on 10 mg/1 in
consideration of the testing problems discussed in Section IX.
Sulfide
Only one of the four plants surveyed was achieving a substantial
sulfide reduction to 0.26 mg/1 and this was being accomplished
concurrently with biological oxidation of phenols. Another plant
was achieving 1.5 mg/1 sulfide, but by dilution. Since sulfide
represents an immediate oxygen demand upon the receiving stream,
and since technology exists for effective and inexpensive
oxidation of sulfides, the remaining plants surveyed were judged
to be uniformly inadequate with respect to the application of
treatment technology for sulfide reduction. Therefore, the ELG
for sulfide was based on 0.3 mg/1 at 417 1/kkg (100 gal/ton).
These values are achievable by direct oxidation with air,
chemicals or biological techniques. At least one of these
indicated removal techniques will be employed for reduction of
certain of the other listed by-product pollutants. An example of
applying one of the possible transferred technology methods of
sulfide reduction would be chlorination of raw sewage in transit
through sewer lines which is regularly practiced to reduce
sulfide to 0.3 mg/1 and less. Reduction to the indicated ELG
level is further substantiated by a proliferation of bench scale
studies performed with the technologies indicated in Table 67.
Suspended Solids
Only one of the plants surveyed was producing a treated effluent
containing 25 mg/1 of suspended solids or less. Nevertheless,
there is an abundance of engineering knowhow and experience that
demonstrates that suspended solids can be reduced to 25 mg/1 in a
cost effective manner. Therefore, the surveyed plants were
judged to be uniformly inadequate with respect to the application
of treatment technology for suspended solids removal. The ELG
for total suspended solids was based on 25 mg/1 at 417 1/kkg (100
379
-------
gal/ton) , Table 67 lists some of the available technologies for
readily achieving this level.
Three of the four plants surveyed fall within the pH constraint
range of 6.0 to 9.0 thus providing a basis for establishing this
range as the BPCTCA. Any plant falling outside this range can
readily remedy the situation by applying appropriate
neutralization procedures to his final effluent. No further
tightening of the BPCTCA pH range is recommended at this time.
The ELG for BATEA remains at pH 6.0 to 9.0, and is currently
achieved by operating plants in this subcategory.
Beehive Coke Subcategorv
Currently, two of the three selected beehive coke operations
surveyed practice zero (0) aqueous discharge. The BATEA
guidelines are therefore no discharge of process waste water
pollutants to navigable waters, as previously set for BPCTCA
limits in this subcategory. The control and treatment technology
required would include provision for an adequate settling basin,
and a complete recycle of all water collected from the process
back to the process, with fresh water make-up as required. The
system reaches equilibrium with respect to critical parameters,
but provision must be made for periodic removal of settled solids
from the basin. Actual operating costs are modest. No problems
are anticipated in implementing BATEA guidelines for the Beehive
Coke subcategory.
Sintering Subcategory
The only direct contact process water used in the sintering plant
is water used for cooling and scrubbing off gases from the
sintering strand. As with steelrnaking, there are wet and dry
types of systems. The sintering strand generally has two (2)
independent exhaust systems, the dedusting system at the dis-
charge end of the machine, and the combustion and exhaust system
for the sinter bed. Each one of these systems can either be wet
or dry as defined in the process flow diagrams types I, II, III,
shown as Figures 6, 7, and 8, respectively.
Generally the sinter bed exhaust systems are dry precipitation
systems with the dedusting exhaust systems split between wet and
dry.
Three sintering plants were visited, but two of the three systems
were deleted from the comparison. These two systems were deleted
due to the intricate wastewater treatment system which was
utilized not only for the sinter plant but for the blast furnace
as well, thus making separate identification of unit raw waste
and unit effluent loads from the sintering operation virtually
impossible.
380
-------
TABLE 68
BATEA - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
SUBCATEGORY Beehive Coke
00
CRITICAL
PARAMETERS
*CyanideA
Phenol
Ammonia (as
BOD 5
Sulfide
Oil and Grease
Suspended Solids
BATEA LIMITATIONS
Kg/KKg
(1)
(LB/IOOQ LB)
(2)
CONTROL & TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
(3)
No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to
navigable waters (exclu-
ding all non-contact
cooling water)
Same as BPCTCA
ESTIMATED14'
TOTAL COST
CKg5/TON
Zero (0)
Flow
(1) Kilograms per metric ton of coke produced, or pounds per 1000
pounds of coke produced.
(2) Milligrams per liter based on 417 liters effluent per kkg of
coke -oreduced (100 gal/ton).
(3) Available technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it
reflect all possible combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may vary some depending on such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, tlow
to be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of pre-
liminary modifications' required to accept the indicated control and treatment devices. Estimated .
total costs shown are only incremental costs required above those facilities which are normally
existing within a plant arid/or have been installed as a result of complying with BPCTCA Standards.
*Cyanides amenable to chlorination. Reference ASTM D 2036-72 Method B.
-------
zee
9<* 0
3 d C
So r
0«»§3
o&jiq
-------
733
MODEL.
'ANNUAL COSTS « BASEO
COSTS
COSTS BA9*G> O*/3.SY» O* CAPITAL COSTS
/w/s GHAPH CANNOT em usmo FQ* /HTixMeo/Ar*. VALUSC
BASED ON &&£- KKG,DAY ~* *& TOAy/C^y ) COKF PL
383
-------
TABLE 69
BATEA - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
SUBCATEGORY Sintering ____
EATER LIMITATIONS
to
00
•p-
CRITICAL
PARAMETERS,
Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
Sulfide
Fluoride
pH
Flow
Kg/KKg*1'
(LB/1000 LB)
0.0053
0.0021
0.00006
0.0042
6.0-9.0
mg/1
(2)
25
10
0,3
.20
CONTROL & TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
(3)
(Implemented under BPCTCA Standards) I
Slowdown treatment using lime
precipitation of fluorides
Neutralization
ESTIMATED 14;
TOTAL COST
CKg$/TON
Most probable value for tight system is 209 liters effluent per kkg
of sinter produced (50 gal/ton)(excluding all non contact cooling
water)
0.0694 0.0630
(1) Kilograms per metric ton of sinter produced, or pounds per 1000 pounds of sinter produced.
(2) Milligrams'per liter based on 209 liters effluent per kkg of sinter producedfSO gal/ton).
(3) Available technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may vary sor:<.& depending on such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, flow to
be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary
Modifications required to accept the indicated control and treatment devices. Estimated total costs
shown are only incremental costs required above those facilities which are normally existing within a
clant and/or have been installed as a result of complying with BPCTCA standards.
-------
Q\
Ik T") *
$:Mi
* n\ r-n.
5* <
53t?
*$*
oQ>*o
8s5a
n
d.1":*
?3|
^5*
Cl
ftl
•n-ftifliop-n
^*£Spt
I SS*I
OlA
"I
o o
in vi
0>th
5-
Jrn
iK
§£
rnr-
r**
I
-J
f
-------
98C
$Jsc>3
NO
73OO/V
-------
The last sintering plant had wet scrubber systems for both the
dedusting and sinter bed exhaust systems. The wastewater
treatment system was composed of a classifier and a thickener; a
portion of the thickener overflow was recirculated and the rest
went to blowdown. Underflow was filtered through vacuum filters.
For the one plant considered under this study, the flow was 475
1/kkg (114 gal/ton) of sinter produced. This value, however,
represents a blowdown equivalent to approximately 33% of the
process recycle flow of 341 gal/ton. Therefore, the magnitude of
the effluent flow was considered uniformly inadequate . since
simply tightening up the recycle loop can reduce the effluent
discharge by more than 50 percent. In doing this, more attention
may have to be paid to control of heat buildup and scaling and/or
corrosive conditions in the recycle system. The ELG's were
therefore based on 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) of product and the
concentrations of the various pollutant parameters achievable by
the indicated treatment technologies. This 209 1/kkg (50
gal/ton) is identical to the effluent flow limitations actually
found (under this study) for the Open Hearth and EOF gas scrubber
recycle systems. Thus the technology should be readily
transferable to a sinter plant, since the type of recycle system
and many of the aqueous contaminants are identical.
After reviewing the laboratory analyses, the critical parameters
were established as suspended solids, oils and grease, sulfides,
fluoride, pH and the resulting ELG's were set as follows:
Suspended Solids
The one plant studied showed 9 mg/1 total suspended solids in the
final effluent, although this concentration was found in the
excessive flow of 475 1/kkg (114 gal/ton) discussed above. This
concentration based on a 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) flow would be
equivalent to 21 mg/1. This excellent reduction can apparently
be credited to the presence of substantial oil in the raw waste
which tends to act as a mucilage on the suspended solids.
Similar phenomena have long been known to be responsible for
enhancing removal of fine suspended solids in deep bed sand
filters. The ELG for total suspended solids was therefore based
on 25 mg/1 at flows of 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) based on measured
performance values. The technologies for achieving this are as
shown in Table 69.
Oil and Grease
The one plant surveyed was discharging 1.0 mg/1 oil and grease at
475 1/kkg (114 gal/ton), which is equivalent to less than 3 mg/1
oil and grease on a 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) basis. The ELG for
oil and grease for BATEA has been set at 10 mg/1 based on a total
effluent flow of 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) of sintered product.
Sampling and analysis techniques currently available mitigate
against lowering this standard at this time.
Sulfide
387
-------
Appreciable sulfide (11 mg/1) was found in the final effluent of
the plant surveyed. No reduction Was being practiced and
therefore this plant was judged to be inadequate with respect to
the application of cost effective treatment technology available
for sulfide removal. Therefore, the ELG for sulfide was based on
0.3 mg/1 at 50 gal/ton based on values achievable by chemical or
air oxidation techniques as described in the BATEA limitations
discussed above for By- Product Coke plants.
Fluoride
For the one plant studied, fluoride was found to be present in
the final effluent at 8.5 mg/1 at a flow of 475 1/kkg (114
gal/ton) . This fluoride load is equivalent to 19 mg/1 F based on
a discharge flow of 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) . Since substantial
fluoride may enter the sintering process from the reuse of
steelmaking fines, a standard should be set for the final treated
effluent even though in this particular instance the fluoride
level was down to values considered to be best available
treatment. The BATEA guideline is based on a concentration of 20
mg/1 at 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) . These values represent the
effluent quality attainable through application of treatments
including lime precipitation of fluoride , followed by
sedimentation for removal of suspended matter. These
technologies are currently practiced in a number of raw water
treating plants and are readily transferable to wastewater
treatment in the steel industry.
For the one plant studied, the pH was found to be 12.7 in the
final effluent, apparently due to the use of lime fluxing agents
in the sintering process. Although the presence of lime in the
process water enhances removal of fluorides, pH levels in this
range would definitely have to be classed as detrimental .
Appropriate neutralization procedures would have to be applied to
attain the pH range required by BPCTCA limitations. No further
tightening of the BPCTCA pH range is recommended at this time.
The ELG for BATEA remains at pH 6.0 to 9.0.
Blast Furnace (Iron) Subcategorv
Waste treatment practices in blast furnace (iron) plants center
primarily around removal of suspended solids from the con-
taminated gas scrubber waters. In past practice, little
attention was paid to treatment for other aqueous pollutants in
the discharge. Water conservation is practiced in many plants by
employing recycle systems.
Three of the four plants surveyed were practicing tight recycle
with minimum blowdown. Discharges from these three plants
averaged approximately 417 1/kkg (100 gal/ton) of iron produced.
The ELG's for BATEA were therefore established conservatively on
the basis of 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton) of product and the
concentrations of the various pollutant parameters achievable by
388
-------
TABLE 70
BATEA - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
SUBCATEGORY Blast Furnace (Iron)
BATEA LIMITATIONS
oo
vo
CRITICAL
PARAMETERS
Suspended Solids
*Cyanide ^
Phenol
Ammonia
Sulfide
r'luoride
pH
Flow
Kg/KKg'1'
(LB/1000 LSI
mg/1
(2)
CONTROL & TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
(3)
ESTIMATED
TOTAL COST
(4)
0.0052
0.00013
0.00026
0.0052
0.00016
0.0104
6.0 - 9.0
10 BPCTCA plus:
0.25 Treatment of cooling
0.5 Tower blowdown via:
10 > Alkaline chlorination
0.3 Pressure Filtration
.20 Carbon adsorption.
pH neutralization
Most probable value for tight system is 522 liters effluent per
kkg of coke produced (125 gal/ton) (excluding all non-^-contact
cooling water.)
0.267
0.242
(1) Kilograms per metric ton of iron produced, or pounds per 1000 pounds of iron produced.
(2) Milligrams per liter based on 522 liters effluent per kkg of iron produced (125 gal/ton).
(3) Available technology listed in not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all
possible combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may vary some depending on such factors as location*, availability of land and chemicals, flow
to be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of pre-
liminary modifications required to accept the indicated control and treatment devices. Estimated
total costs shown are only incremental costs required above those facilities which are normally
existing within a plant and/or have been installed as a result of complying with BPCTCA Standards.
*Cyanides amenable to chlorination. Reference ASTM D 2036-72 Method B.
-------
06€
* s
I I
E?
ifs
2 — $ .
'«5i
Ss§
V|
? "
I 3
!
2"
Sr
rtf
-------
7*8
MODEL COST EfFECTfVEMESS
BLAST FURNACE (t*ON) S(J8CATE6O£Y
ANNUAL. COST?*BASED 0M TEN YEAR CAPITAL
7°/o
^MAINTENANCE COSTS BASED ON 3.5'%OF CAPITAL COSTS
THIS GRAPH CANNOT BE t/SEO FO& //VT£GMEDIATE VALUES
-T 3ASEP ON 2.^95- KKGh/D/AV (3^oo TO^/DAY) P^oDuC^ O'V
(BAT£A)
a
(BPCTCA)
100
391
-------
the indicated treatment technologies. All three blast furnace
(iron) plants which practice recycle do achieve this recommended
discharge flow. The fourth plant surveyed was running close to a
once-through system and was judged inadequate with respect to
water conservation, since blast furnace recycle is a well
established art.
Cyanide
Only one of the blast furnace (iron) plants surveyed was
practicing cyanide removal; it was done by alkaline chlorination
of the total discharge flow, yielding a cyanide concentration in
the effluent of 0.005 mg/1 in a flow of 22,520 1/kkg (5400
gal/ton) of iron produced. This same cyanide load estimated on a
521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton) flow from a recycle system is equivalent
to 0.216 mg/1. Therefore, the ELG for cyanide is set at 0.25
mg/1, based on a total discharge flow of 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton)
of iron produced. Conversion of the once-through system to a
recycle system is expected to increase chances for achievement of
the -BATEA limitation.
Phenol
Two of the three blast furnace (iron) recycle systems were
attaining very low phenol concentrations in their discharge
flows, equivalent to 0.03 and 0.01 mg/1 based on flows of 521
1/kkg (125 gal/ton). The once-through system was attaining an
equivalent concentration of 0.6 mg/1 at 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton).
Therefore, the ELG for phenol is set at 0.5 mg/1, based on a
total discharge flow of 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton) of iron produced,
utilizing technology currently practiced in the blast furnace
(iron) subcategory.
Ammonia
None of the three blast furnace (iron) recycle systems surveyed
were attaining less than 75 mg/1 of ammonia in the effluent.
Only the once^through system, utilizing alkaline chlorination,
attained low ammonia levels of 0.84;mg/l in 22,520 1/kkg (5400
gal/ton), equivalent to 36 mg/1 based on a flow of 521 1/kkg (125
gal/ton). This system can be upgraded by providing a recycle
loop, alkaline chlorination treatment of the blowdown,
filtration, and carbon adsorption to provide a lower final
ammonia concentration. Therefore, the ELG for ammonia is set at
10 mg/1, based on a discharge flow of 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton) of
iron produced, utilizing technology currently practiced in the
blast furnace (iron) subcategory modified by additional
technology transferred from the petrochemical industry.
Sulfur
None of the four plants surveyed was attaining adequate sulfide
levels, although the plant utilizing alkaline chlorination was
discharging a concentration of 0.043 mg/1 in the once-through
system, equivalent to 1.86 mg/1 in 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton). The
392
-------
improvements to this system described previously under Ammonia
can serve to drive sulfide removals significantly further.
Therefore, the ELG for sulfide is set at 0.3 mg/1 based on a
discharge flow of 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton) of iron produced,
utilizing the technology described above.
suspended Solids
Only the once-through system was achieving acceptable suspended
solids concentrations in the effluent, although in terms of load,
this system was discharging excessive solids. An abundance of
technology exists for reducing suspended solids in a cost
effective manner. For this reason, the ELG for suspended solids
was based on 25 mg/1 at a discharge flow of 521 1/kkg (125
gal/ton) of iron utilizing existing technology for solids
removal.
Fluoride
Since substantial quantities of fluoride may occur in certain raw
materials used in blast furnace (iron) operations, a limitation
on this parameter is desirable. All four operating plants
surveyed showed equivalent concentrations of fluoride ranging
between 8.4 and 22.6 mg/1 based on discharge flows of 521 1/kkg
(125 gal/ton). Even though these plants show fluoride levels
approaching BATEA, an ELG is set at 20 mg/1 based on a total
discharge flow of 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton) of iron produced to
provide control over plants which may show higher raw waste
fluoride concentrations. The lime precipitation and
sedimentation treatment referred to above in discussing sintering
plants is the treatment technology of choice.
£H
All four plants surveyed discharge effluents well within the
BATEA pH range noted elsewhere. In the event that lime
precipitation of fluorides is required, the effluent pH may have
to be adjusted with acid addition to remain within the desired
6.0 to 9.0 pH range.
Blast Furnace (Ferromanaanese) Subcatecrorv
Only one operating ferro-manganese furnace was found for the
survey. The one plant surveyed was operating on a close to once-
through basis of 23,770 1/kkg (5700 gal/ton) of ferro-manganese
produced. This flow would have to be considered uniformly
inadequate since there is no reason precluding running a recycle
system identical to that of the iron producing blast furnaces,
except that a blowdown rate of 1043 1/kkg (250 gal/ton) is
required for the reasons discussed in section IX.
BATEA limitations for the blast furnace (iron) subcategory are
applicable to blast furnace (ferromanganese) plants, except that
the higher flow rates do provide for discharge of twice the load
from the latter. All of the treatment and control technologies
393
-------
TABLE 71
BATEA - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
SUBCATEGORY Blast Furnace (Ferromanganese)
BATEA LIMITATIONS
CRITICAL ,
PARAMETERS
Suspended Solids
*Cyanide A
Phenol
Ammonia (as
Sulfide
Manganese
pH
Flow :
Kg/KKgV1'
(LB/100Q LB)
0.0104
0.00026
0.00052
0.0104
0.00031
0.0052
mg/1
(2)
10
0.25
0.5
10
0.3
5
6.0 ~ 9.0
CONTROL S TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
BPCTCA plus:
Treatment of system
blowdown via:
Alkaline chlorination.
Pressure filtration.
Carbon adsorption.
pH neutralization
(3)
ESTIMATED*41
TOTAL COST
(Kg$/TON
Most probable value for tight system is 1043 liters per kkg
of.. ferromanganese produced (250 gal/ton) (excluding all
non-contact cooling water).
1.927
1.74S
(1) Kilogr;-:r.s p'er metric ton of ferromanganese produced or pounds per 1000 pounds of ferromanganese
produced.
(2) Milligrams per liter based on 1043 liters per kkg of ferromanganese produced (250 gal/ton).
(3) Available technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
ccrr,binations or permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may vary sorr.e depending on such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, flow
to be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of pre-
liminary modifications required to accept the indicated control and treatment devices. Estimated
total costs shown are only incremental costs required above those facilities which are normally
existing within a plant and/or have been installed as a "result of complying with BPCTCA Standards.
*Cyanides amenable to chlorination. Reference ASTM D 2036-72 Method B.
-------
CYANfOE
MANGANESE
PHEN OL
SULFIOE.
SUSP. SOt-IDS
PH
PHENOL
SULFIQE
SUSP. SOUOS
&ATSA
SYSTSM j &PCTCA
MOOEL.
ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL. INQVSTKY STUDY
BLAST FUKNAC
BATE A WOO EL.
/O-Z.1-73
76A
-------
FIGURE -7G.B
"*•
MODEL CO^T
BLAST
DIA,<*KA.M
COSTS - BAAfeD OtO T6M V&A.E CAPtTAU
IUT6RE«JT BATe 7%
OP5RAHKJG CO^TS ItJCLUDWJG LA&Ot tCUEMtCAAS,.* UTILITIES
MMWT6WAWC6 CO^T^ BA,SfcD OW ^ 'A OF CAPITAL COSTS
CEAPM CfcUtJOT BE U«»eo FOR. lVJTERWeD\AT&
(BA.T6A)
(6PCTCA)
v
uevei.)
too
396
-------
L
' •
' — '
L
j
<
.i *
*~*r 1
f -
u
•
{ ,
r o
•— — ®T
— Viv-
A&T
5!
V *
» 1
'v<
^?
S£~«
t * T ft
i§ ?
Hi1
1 5
390
-------
7S-&
MODEL COST EFFECTIVENESS O/ACK.AM
BLAST FURNACE (/SON) SV8CATEGQ&Y
ANNUAL COST**&ASED OK TEN Y£A& CAPITAL
+ /NTEKEST STATE 7 °/*>
+ OPEK.AT/NG COST5 INCLUDE. LAQO.
+ MAtNT£NANC£ COSTS BASED ON 3.5^ OF CAPITAL COSTS
THIS 6KAPH CANNOT BE C/5EO FOR //VT££M£DIATE VALUES
OM 2_qC)£- XK&/QAY (3^00 TO^/DAY) PRoDuC.^:C
(BATSA)
(8PCTCA)
(BASE
LEVEL)
100
AZMOVEO
391
-------
the indicated treatment technologies. All three blast furnace
(iron) plants which practice recycle do achieve this recommended
discharge flow. The fourth plant surveyed was running close to a
once-through system and was judged inadequate with respect to
water conservation, since blast furnace recycle is a well
established art.
Cyanide
Only one of the blast furnace (iron) plants surveyed was
practicing cyanide removal; it was done by alkaline chlorination
of the total discharge flow, yielding a cyanide concentration in
the effluent of 0.005 mg/1 in a flow of 22,520 1/kkg (5400
gal/ton) of iron produced. This same cyanide load estimated on a
521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton) flow from a recycle system is equivalent
to 0*216 mg/1. Therefore, the ELG for cyanide is set at 0.25
mg/1, based on a total discharge flow of 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton)
of iron produced. Conversion of the once-through system to a
recycle system is expected to increase chances for achievement of
the -BATEA limitation.
Phenol
Two of the three blast furnace (iron) recycle systems were
attaining very low phenol concentrations in their discharge
flows, equivalent to 0.03 and 0.01 mg/1 based on flows of 521
1/kkg (125 gal/ton). The once-through system was attaining an
equivalent concentration of 0.6 mg/1 at 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton).
Therefore, the ELG for phenol is set at 0.5 mg/1, based on a
total discharge flow of 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton) of iron produced,
utilizing technology currently practiced in the blast furnace
(iron) subcategory.
Ammonia
None of the three blast furnace (iron) recycle systems surveyed
were attaining less than 75 mg/1 of ammonia in the effluent.
Only the once-through system, utilizing alkaline chlorination,
attained low ammonia levels of 0.84 mg/1 in 22,520 1/kkg (5400
gal/ton), equivalent to 36 mg/1 based on a flow of 521 1/kkg (125
gal/ton), This system can be upgraded by providing a recycle
loop, alkaline chlorination treatment of the blowdown,
filtration, and carbon adsorption to provide a lower final
ammonia concentration. Therefore, the ELG for ammonia is set at
10 mg/lf based on a discharge flow of 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton) of
iron produced, utilizing technology currently practiced in the
blast furnace (iron) subcategory modified by additional
technology transferred from the petrochemical industry.
Sulfur
None of the four plants surveyed was attaining adequate sulfide
levels, although the plant utilizing alkaline chlorination was
discharging a concentration of 0.043 mg/1 in the once-through
system, equivalent to 1.86 mg/1 in 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton). The
392
-------
improvements to this system described previously under Ammonia
can serve to drive sulfide removals significantly further.
Therefore, the ELG for sulfide is set at 0.3 mg/1 based on a
discharge flow of 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton) of iron produced,
utilizing the technology described above.
Suspended Solids
Only the once— through system was achieving acceptable suspended
solids concentrations in the effluent, although in terms of load,
this system was discharging excessive solids. An abundance of
technology exists for reducing suspended solids in a cost
effective manner. For this reason, the ELG for suspended solids
was based on 25 mg/1 at a discharge flow of 521 1/kkg (125
gal/ton) of iron utilizing existing technology for solids
removal .
Fluoride
Since substantial quantities of fluoride may occur in certain raw
materials used in blast furnace (iron) operations, a limitation
on this parameter is desirable. All four operating plants
surveyed showed equivalent concentrations of fluoride ranging
between 8.4 and 22.6 mg/1 based on discharge flows of 521 1/kkg
(125 gal/ton) . Even though these plants -show fluoride levels
approaching BATEA, an ELG is set at 20 mg/1 based on a total
discharge flow of 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton) of iron produced to
provide control over plants which may show higher raw waste
fluoride concentrations. The lime precipitation and
sedimentation treatment referred to above in discussing sintering
plants is the treatment technology of choice.
All four plants surveyed discharge effluents well within the
BATEA pH range noted elsewhere. In the event that lime
precipitation of fluorides is required, the effluent pH may have
to be adjusted with acid addition to remain within the desired
6.0 to 9.0 pH range.
Blast Furnace JFerromanganese) Subcateaorv
Only one operating f erro-manganese furnace was found for the
survey. The one plant surveyed was operating on a close to once-
through basis of 23,770 1/kkg (5700 gal/ton) of ferro-manganese
produced. This flow would have to be considered uniformly
inadequate since there is no reason precluding running a recycle
system identical to that of the iron producing blast furnaces,
except that a blowdown rate of 1043 1/kkg (250 gal/ton) is
required for the reasons discussed in section IX.
BATEA limitations for the blast furnace (iron) subcategory are
applicable to blast furnace (ferromanganese) plants, except that
the higher flow rates do provide for discharge of twice the load
from the latter. All of the treatment and control technologies
393
-------
TABLE 71
BATEA - EFFLUENT.LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
SUBCATEGORY Blast Furnace (Ferromanganesel
CRITICAL
PARAMETERS
Suspended Solids
*Cyanide A
Phenol
Ammonia (as NH3)
js Sulfide
Manganese
Flow:
BATEA
LIMITATIONS
Kg/KKgU1 ,,*
(LB/1000 LB) mq/11*/
0.0104
0.00026
0.00052
0.0104
0.00031
0.0052
10
0.25
0.5
10
0.3
5
6.0 - 9.0
CONTROL S TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY(3)
•N
BPCTCA plus:
Treatment of system
blowdown via:
Alkaline chlorination. />-
Pressure filtration.
Carbon adsorption.
pH neutralization
ESTIMATEDv*'
TOTAL COST
CKgg/TON
Most probable value for tight system is 1043 liters per Jckg
of ferromangauese produced (250 gal/ton) (excluding all
non-contact cooling water) .
1.927
(1) Kilogr-?.rr.s per metric ton of ferromanganese produced or pounds per 1000 pounds of ferromanganese
produced.
(2) Milligraios per liter based on 1043 liters per kkg of ferromanganese produced (250 gal/ton).
(3) Available technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
ccir.binations or permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs r:,3y vary some depending en such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, flow
to be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of pre-
liminary modifications required to accept the indicated control and treatment devices. Estimated
total costs shown are only incremental costs required above those facilities which are normally
existing within a plant and/or have been installed as a "result of complying with BPCTCA Standards.
*Cyanides atnenable to chlorination. Reference ASTM D 2036-72 Method B.
-------
I
SCRUBBER.
r
I
PROCESS
COOLER
L
+T-- —
/ L~ SOL IDS TO
I DISPOSAL
/ v
' [-0>.-J
• pc
\EL£CT
-!
I
•>LY
VOLYT
c
_ VACUUM
FILTER.
COOLING
TOMER
i
/<—
L-
~~AMMQNIA 250 w9//
CYANIDE /OO *y/g
PHENOL 4.0 M/T
SULFfDE /SO mj//
SUSP. SOLIDS 3000 «,/C
/»w Wl
I i PHENOL **-O.S'»ySjt
O O SULFIDE. ~tO.3>*g/t
._ i j 5iXS/? SOL/OS ^ZS,*^
*— — ' ' ptt 6-9
^•iOW /O43J&J
"1
1 lV/*T£ye
c/rK
r^"""^ r-,
i/A/e i .— COLORING \ AC/O
\ 1 ! i
I rS i A
i^i W ' Y J
f
9
f
P
3(z
,
\
I i i | =L J.I _ 1 I
^^ "^^
r0^^ '
i \, o-.'* r - — -
1 ENWR.QN MENTAL PKQT
,T tTF-e-t /Nni/cTf?^
BLAST Fuff/wce-FERROMAf*.
.... &AS£ LEVEL SYSTSMJ BPCTCA MOQGL BATEA A1OO
'
'
PKESSVRE
FILTEK.
'
•
ACTIVATED
CAK80M
'
'
ACTION AGENC
f STUDY
-,AN£se st/actrff
EL
/0-Z1-73 \ FI&
uee 76*
Y
*l
-------
FIGURE •?<£&
CO-4T feFFBCTIVftUB^
OW T6KJ V&A.E CAPITAL
lUTERE'iT 15A.T6 "7%
+ MMUT6UAWC6 COST'S
CAUUOT &&
o/V
OF CA.PCTAL
FOB.
KK<3,jo4Y
10
too
396
-------
described above for achieving blast furnace (iron) BATEA
limitations are applicable to blast furnace (ferromanganese)
plants, with one exception. Raw waste loads for ferromanganese
operations indicate that fluoride loads are relatively minor, and
therefore do not require control. However, a high load of
manganese results from this process, and must be controlled by
the treatment technology. Since most of the manganese is in the
suspended solid form, it is effectively removed with the
suspended solids, as described above.
The ELG for all parameters to be controlled by application of
BATEA for blast furnace (ferromanganese) plants is summarized as
follows: cyanide 0.25 mg/1; phenol 0.5 mg/1; ammonia 10 mg/1;
sulfide 0,3 mg/1; suspended solids 25 mg/1; and manganese 5 mg/1.
All concentrations are based on a total effluent flow of 1,043
1/kkg (250 gal/ton).
Basic Oxygen Furnace Operation
The .only direct contact process water used in the EOF plant is
the water used for cooling and scrubbing the off-gases from the
furnaces. Two methods which are employed and can result in an
aqueous discharge are the semiwet gas cleaning and wet gas
cleaning systems as defined in Types II, III, IV and V on Figures
17 through 20, inclusive.
Basic Oxygen Furnace (Semiwet Air Pollution Control
Methods) Subcategpry
The two semiwet systems surveyed had different types of
wastewater treatment systems. The first system was composed of a
drag link conveyor, settling tank, chemical flocculation and
complete recycle pump system to return the clarified treated
effluent to the gas cleaning system. Make-up water was added to
compensate for the evaporative water loss and the system had zero
(0) aqueous discharge of blowdown. The second semiwet system was
composed of a thickener with polyelectrolyte addition followed by
direct discharge to the plant sewers on a "once-through" basis.
Because of the nature of these semiwet systems, direct blowdown
is not required when recycle is employed. The systems are kept
in equilibrium by water losses to the sludge and to entrainment
carry-over into the hot gas stream. Most new wet BOF systems are
designed in this manner. Therefore, the BATEA for this operation
has been established as no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters. This requirement had previously
been set as BPCTCA limitations for this subcategory.
Basic Oxvaen Furnace (wet Air Pollution Control Methods)
Subcategorv
The three BOF wet systems surveyed were generally of the same
type and included classifiers and thickeners with recirculation
of a portion of the clarifier effluent. The blowdown rates were
33, 52, and 217 gallons per ton of steel produced, respectively.
397
-------
FIGURE
MODBL CO^T
OU
tt*COVt«.Y
7%
MWWTfeUA.MCfc
OW ».
COST BASED ON *fVSL<) KK&/DAY
VAJ.U*!
TOW/DAr) BOF
100
AGO
-------
TABLE 73
BATEA - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
SUBCATEGORY Basic Oxygen Furnace (Wet Air Pollution Control Methods)
CRITICAL
PARAMETERS
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
PH
Flow
BATEA LIMITATIONS
Kg/KKgC1J
ILB/IOOO LB)
(2)
0.0052
0.0042
25
20
CONTROL fi TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
(3)
Slowdown treatment with sand
filtration or improved settling
with coagulation
Slowdown treatment using lime
precipitation of fluorides.
ESTIMATED
TOTAL COST
(4)
$/TON
f
0.0328 0.0298
6.0 - 9.0 Neutralization 1
Most probable value foir tight system is 209 liters effluent per \
kkg of steel produced (50 gal/ton) (excluding all non-contact ^)
cooling water).
(1) Kilograms per metric ton of steel produced or pounds per 1000 pounds of steel produced.
(2) Milligrams per liter based on 209 liters effluent per kkg of steel produced (50 gal/ton).
(3) Available technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may vary some depending on such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, flow
to be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of pre-
liminary modifications required to accept the indicated control and treatment devices. Estimated
total costs shown are only incremental costs; required above those facilities which are normally
existing within a plant, and/or have been installed as a result of complying with BPCTCA standards.
-------
i ~
402
-------
7A&
twer A/& POLLUTION COMT&OL METHODS)
'ANNUAL COSTS * BASEO o* TSN YSAK CAPITAL K&COVS&Y
COSTS INCLUOS. LA8Q*j CHEM/CALS
COSTS BASSO OM 3-S% Of=- CAPITAL COSTS
THIS G#At*H c4/v/vorag USED FOX. INJSIS.MSOIATS
ST BASED GAJ 6$$a KKG,/DAV
403
-------
with the latter system discharging in excess of the blowdown
normally required for recycle systems of this type. The ELG's
were therefore established on the basis of discharge flows of 209
1/kkg (50 gal/ton) of product and the concentrations of the
various pollutant parameters achievable by the indicated
treatment technologies. A review of the data collected from the
survey resulted in the following effluent guidelines:
Suspended Solids
The effluent suspended solids were 22, 40, and 71 mg/1,
respectively, for the three plants surveyed. The first two of
these concentrations are equivalent to 23 and 26 mg/1 at the
recommended flow of 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) , so the ELG for
suspended solids is set at 25 mg/1 based on a total discharge
f low of 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) . As indicated under discussion of
blast furnaces, the technology is well established for reducing
iron-laden suspended solids to less than 25 mg/1 with the use of
chemical and/ or magnetic flocculation, This technology is
currently utilized within this subcategory.
Fluoride
Fluoride was only measured at one of the three EOF wet systems
surveyed and was found to be 14 mg/1, equivalent to 63 mg/1 based
on a total discharge flow of 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) . As
discussed under sinter plants, fluoride is a normal by-product
of steelmaking where fluoride-containing fluxes are employed and
as a result shows up in the sinter plant effluent and blast
furnace effluent due to the recycle and reuse of steelmaking
fines. The BATEA guideline for fluoride has been based on 20
mg/1 at 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) for the reasons discussed above in
the sintering subcategory. This value represents the effluent
quality attainable by the application of the best available
method of treatment for removal of fluorides, i.e., lime
precipitation followed by sedimentation for particulate removal.
This technology is currently practiced in a number of raw water
treating plants and is readily transferable to wastewater
treatment in the steel industry,
The pH of the three plants surveyed varied from 6. 4 to 9.1*. As
with previous subcategories , the BATEA standards for pH are the
same as BPCTCA limits for this parameter. If excess lime is used
in the fluoride precipitation step, the effluent pH may have to
be adjusted with acid to remain in the desired 6.0 to 9*0 pH
range.
Open Hearth Furnace Subcateaorv
As with the EOF furnaces, only contact process waters were
surveyed, sampled and analyzed. Again the only contact process
water in the open hearth is the water used for cooling and
scrubbing the waste gases from the furnaces. As a general rule,
404
-------
open hearths have dry precipitator systems rather than scrubbers.
Therefore, only two open hearth shops were surveyed and each had
a wet high energy venturi scrubber system as defined in Types I,
II, III shown on Figures 21, 22, and 23, respectively. There are
no semiwet systems for open hearths.
Each plant had a similar wastewater treatment system composed of
classifiers and thickeners; a portion of the thickener overflow
was recirculated. One system utilized vacuum filters for
thickener underflow while the other system used slurry pumps and
pumped the thickener wastes to tank trucks for disposal. The
blowdown rates varied between 213 1/kkg (51 gal/ton), and 492
1/kkg (118 gal/ton) but the latter represented a 22* blowdown and
the former about 9%.
These systems can be tightened as was indicated for the EOF and
therefore the ELG's were established on the basis of 209 1/kkg
(50 gal/ton) of product and the concentrations of the process
pollutant parameters achievable by the indicated treatment
technologies.
A review of the data collected resulted in the following effluent
guidelines:
Suspended Solids
For the two plants surveyed, the effluent suspended solids were
80 and 52 mg/1. As with the similarly operated EOF wet recycle
systems, less than 25 mg/1 suspended solids can readily be
achieved and therefore the two open hearth plants surveyed were
judged uniformly inadequate with respect to achieving this level.
Similar to the BO*1 wet system, the BATEA ELG for suspended solids
has been based on 25 mg/1 at 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) based on the
use of conventionally available coagulation and/or filtration
techniques as indicated in Table 84. This technology is
currently utilized in other iron and steel industry subcategories
for attaining the BATEA limitations, and should achieve similar
results in the open hearth subcategory.
Fluoride
The two plants surveyed showed fluoride levels in their final
effluents of 65 and 148 mg/1. No reduction was being practiced
and the plants were judged uniformly inadequate with respect to
the application of cost effective treatment technology available
for fluoride removal. The ELG for fluoride is based on 20 mg/1
at 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) for the reasons discussed above in the
sintering subcategory. This value represents the best available
method of treatment for removal of fluorides. The technology for
achieving this is shown in Table 74.
Nitrate
405
-------
TABLE 74
BATEA - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
SUBCATEGORY Open Hearth Furnace
BATEA LIMITATIONS
CRITICAL
PARAMETERS
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
*- Nitrate (as
o
Zinc
pH
Flow
(LB/10QO LS)
0.0052
0.0042
0.0094
0.0010
mg/1
(2)
25
20
45
6.0 - 9.0
ESTIMATED
TOTAL COST
(4)
CONTROL & TREATMENT TECHNOLOGYv '
Slowdown treatment with sand
filtration or improved settling
with coagulation
Slowdown treatment using lime
precipitation of fluorides
Anaerobic denitrification
Reduction occurs as a result of
improved suspended solids removal
Neutralization
S/TON
0.126
0.114
Most probable value for tight system is 209 liters effluent per
JOcg of steel produced (50 gal/ton)(excluding all non-contact
cooling water).
(1) Kilograms per metric ton of steel produced, or pounds per 1000 pounds of steel produced.
(2) Milligrams per liter based on 209 liters effluent per kkg of steel produced {50 gal/ton).
(3) Available technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may varv some depending on such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, flow
to be treated", treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent_of pre-
liminary modifications required to accept the indicated control- and treatment devices. Estimated
total costs shown are only incremental costs required above those facilities which are normally
existing within a plant and/or have been installed as a result of complying with 3PCTCA standards.
-------
vi
5 fi Z~ _
* c
'1
^--zT
T^
o
!*
^..-^M..
IfMHSSj
«t«tgsi
•»
a
y
iiiii
c
]
&'
E!
^
^i»
, _ _,_fBy—
<[ 11 D-
*L^i
*
LiS>
t
i
~~ "*
~ ~ ~1
r^
^ i *
1 & 1
.jL , 2
s 1
3 a
I---*-!
»w%-J
— Dg
H
i
i
LT- J
1 Hf-H
iLA J
» . , ^ 1
I -T—^1
1 ih— 1
^1 L-J 1
•>a \
N I
, .]
J
i!i «
/ is
ClTk'V
§tS2
1 — v «a?»
~/°^
__/
i
•• 1 1^
1 1
1
- 1
X
J
^
[
"""1
^_
t •
ird— '
.
--\
_ \
- / ° n
- -/
--i I i
Mt L-- 3
j S
-— »
L-
•d
§9
w
*
ill
M
V
«
£
^••k
,
'
,,
!-*•
tf
i
n
§
&
&
•**!
j]
Sf '
§S
Afl
I
I
1
1
1
1
»*
-
f
J
|
i
i
t
f
i
f
i
i
1
fi
Q
ir
jS ill
ftCTlOW Afl
RV ^TUOy
Cfc SUBC*'
oo*u
K t- < s
!•$»<
s 5 2
P ~ T '
E * t *
E jK 5
^ t HI
Q *
S 2
*•• "
i §
p
8
O
it
^
r*
A
2
l
'2«*
L._l^_.-^
407
-------
MOOSL COST
&M H
COST'S
ON T*N
Cjp/fjL
+. MAtNT&t^ANCft COSTS BASSO OH 3.S*/, O* CAPITAL COSTS
THIS &*APH CANMQT B& USSD FOR INfS^MSOlATS VALVffS
-BASED «M 6"?'6 KK<% (7V-OA "ToN/O/lx) o'H Sf/o P
we*)
too
408
-------
For the two plants surveyed, nitrate was found to be 22 and 303
mg/1 in the respective final effluents. The latter plant was
judged to be inadequate with respect to employing treatment
techniques1 for removal of the gross level of nitrate measured.
This high level can probably be attributed to the type and
quantity of combustion fuel used in the burners. The BATEA
guideline for nitrate has been based on 45 mg/1 at 209 1/kkg (50
gal/ton) . The technology employed for nitrate removal usually
encompasses anaerobic denitrif ication and since the removal
efficiency of this technique is highly temperature-dependent, the
rather liberal ELG of 45 mg/1 was selected to provide sufficient
flexibility for Seasonal temperature changes. Anerobic
denitrif ication to less than this level has been recently
practiced in treatment of domestic sewage where regulatory
agencies have required it. Lower nitrate values could be
achieved for these BATEA guidelines; however, the costs for
obtaining same would not be cost effective in relation to the
minor improvements gained.
For the two plants surveyed, the effluent zinc concentrations
were measuied at 26 and 1210 mg/1. No reduction was being
practiced and the plants were judged uniformly inadequate with
respect to the application of cost effective treatment technology
available for zinc removal. These high levels can probably be
attributed to the type and amount of scrap charged to the
furnaces. The BATEA guideline for zinc is based on 5 mg/1 at 209
1/kkg (50 gal/ton) . This limit is based upon best available
technology, as extensively practiced by the metal finishing
industry for zinc removal. More effective removal of particulate
matter consistent with the required reduction in suspended solids
should effect the further reduction in this parameter to the 5
mg/1 concentration on which the BATEA ELG is based.
The pH was found to be 6.1 and 1.8-3.4, respectively, for the two
plants surveyed, with the latter plant being judged inadequate
with respect to proper control of pH, The pH range for BATEA has
been set at 6.0 to 9.0. The ranges are readily attainable
through the use of suitable chemicals and closer control of
neutralization techniques as previously discussed.
Other
Although significant levels of sulfides did not appear in the
effluent analyses, these effluents should be monitored to
determine if a sulfide limitation should be applied, i.e.^ 0.3
mg/1 in 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) due £o the many high sulfur fuels
such as No. 6 fuel oil that may be used for firing open hearth
furnaces.
Electric Arc Furnace Operation
409
-------
The electric arc furnace waste gas cleaning systems are similar
in nature to the EOF, i.e., they may be dry, semiwet or wet sys-
tems as defined in Types I, II, III, and IV shown on Figures 24
through 27. Four plants were surveyed, two semiwet and two wet
systems.
Electric Arc Furnace (gemiwet Air Pollution Control
Methods) subcateaorv
The two semiwet systems had similar wastewater treatment systems
composed of a settling tank with drag link conveyor; one system
was recycled with no aqueous blowdown while the other system had
closely regulated the furnace gas cooling water spray system so
that only a wetted sludge was discharged to the drag tank for
subsequent disposal. Therefore, the BATEA for semiwet systems
has been establised as "no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters", as previously set for BPCTCA
limitations in this subcategory,
Electric Arc Furnace (Wet Air Pollution Control Methods)
Subcategorv
The two wet systems surveyed had similar wastewater treatment
systems. Both plants were recirculating waste waters without
treatment at the rate of 12,500 1/kkg (3000 gal/ton) and treating
blowdowns of 6 and 1.0$, respectively. Since these systems can be
made essentially identical to the EOF and open hearth recycle
systems for gas scrubbing, the ELG's were established on the
basis of 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) of product and the concentrations
of the various pollutants parameters achievable by the indicated
treatment technologies. A review of the data collected from the
survey resulted in the following effluent guidelines:
Suspended solids. Fluoride. Zinc, and pH
All of the above indicated critical parameters are likewise found
in the open hearth subcategory. Since the treatment technology
for their reduction is the same, the ELG's for these parameters
have been based on the same values established for the open
hearth. These limitations and the corresponding technologies for
achieving same are given in Table 76.
Although the effluent analyses from the two plants surveyed
indicated no significant amount of zinc present, an effluent
guideline similar to that established for the open hearth has
been required since galvanized scrap can be an even greater
proportion of the charge to an electric furnace than of that to
an open hearth furnace.
Vacuum Degassing Subcateaorv
The direct contact process water used in vacuum degassing is the
cooling water used for the steam-jet ejector barometric
condensers. All vacuum systems draw their vacuum through the use
of steam ejectors. As the water rate depends upon the steaming
410
-------
TABLE 75
BATEA - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
SUBCATEGORY Electric Arc Furnace (Semi-wet Air Pollution Control Methods)
BATEA LIMITATIONS
CRITICAL
PARAMETERS
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
2inc
pH
Flow
Kg/KKg
(1)
(LB/1000 LB)
(2)
CONTROL & TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
(3)
ESTIMATEDl
TOTAL COST
5/TOM
No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to
navigable waters (exclud-
ing all non-contact cooling
water)
Same as BPCTCA
Zero (0)
(1) Kilogran'.s per metric ton of steel produced, or pounds per 1000 pounds of steel produced.
(2) Milligrams*per liter based on 209 liters effluent per kkg of steel produced (50 gal/ton).
(3) Available technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may vary some depending on such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, flow
to be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of pre^
lirrdnary modifications required to accept the indicated control and treatment devices. Estimated
total costs shown are only incremental costs required above those facilities which are normally
existing within a plant and/or 'have installed as a result of complying with BPCTCA standards.
-------
5 n
s c
hi
•"i
««l
tU
ABC
-------
COS? GP*ecr/V£M£SS
AltC.
CffSTS - BASSO
CAPITAL
?%
OPE* AT/MO c
-------
TABLE 76
BATEA - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
SUBCATEGORY Electric Arc Furnace (Wet Air Pollution Control Methods)
BATEA LIMITATIONS
CRITICAL
PARAMETERS.
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
Zinc
PH.
Flow
Kg/KKg
(1)
(LB/IQOQ LB)
0.0052
0.0042
0.0010
(2)
25
20
6.0 - 9.0
CONTROL & TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
(3)
ESTIMATED
TOTAL COST
(4)
Slowdown treatment with sand
filtration or improved settling
with coagulation
Slowdown treatment using lime
precipitation of fluorides
Reduction occurs as a result of
improved suspended solids
removal
Neutralization
5/TON
G.09SS
.0897
Most probable value for tight system is 209 liters effluent
per kkg of steel produced (50 gal/ton)(excluding all
non-contact cooling water)
(1) Kilograms per metric ton of steel produced, or pounds per 1000 pounds of steel produced.
(2) Milligrams per liter based on 209 leters effluent- per kkg of steel produced (50 gal/ton).
(3) Available technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does is reflect all possible
combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may vary some depending on such factors as location, availability or land and chemicals, flow
to be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extend of ore-
limir.ary modifications required to accept the indicated control and treatment devices. Estimated
total costs shown are only incremental costs required above those facilities which are normally
existing within a plant and/or have been installed as a result of complying with BPCTCA standards.
-------
01
E 5
HI ^
b> .
2?
z?W
0
0
J
-------
4*3
MQD9L COST
-SHOP
too
416
-------
rate and the number of stages used in the steam ejector, the
process flow rates can vary considerably. Two degassing plants
were surveyed and each had a water treatment system which treated
other steelmaking operation proces waste waters as well, i.e.*
one was treating continuous casting process waters, and the
other, BOF discharges. The blowdown rates varied from 45.5 1/kkg
(10,9 gal/ton) to 66.7 1/kkg (16,0 gal/ton) and) and represented
from 256 to 5% of the process recycle rate, respectively. The
ELG's were established on the basis of 104 1/kkg (25 gal/ton) of
product and concentrations of the various pollutant parameters
achievable by the indicated treatment technologies. The value of
104 1/kkg (25 gal/ton) has been set somewhat higher than the
measured values to compensate for the anticipated increased flows
that would be achieved if the systems were joined with other
steelmaking processes in which more heat is generated.
A review of the data collected resulted in the following effluent
guidelines:
Zinc
Zinc was measured at 0.9 and 416 mg/1, respectively, at the two
plants surveyed. The latter plant was judged inadequate with
respect to the application of cost effective treatment technology
for zinc removal. The latter plant also displayed a very high
level of effluent suspended solids {1077 mg/1) which would
account for the high zinc concentration if most of the zinc is in
the particulate form. As indicated under the subcategory for
open hearths, the BATEA guideline is based on 5 mg/1 measured in
104 1/kkg (25 gal/ton) in this instance. Discussion of the
removal techniques will be deferred to the section dealing with
suspended solids.
Manganese
For the two plants surveyed, the effluent manganese con-
centrations were measured at 2.8 and 340 mg/1* The latter plant
was judged inadequate with respect to the application of cost
effective treatment technology for manganese removal. The BATEA
guideline for manganese is based on 5 mg/1 measured in 104 1/kkg
(25 gal/ton). Discussion of the removal techniques will be
deferred to the section dealing with suspended solids.
Lead
The two plants surveyed showed lead concentrations of less than
0.1 and 32 mg/1, respectively, in their final effluents. The
latter plant was judged inadequate with respect to the
application of cost effective treatment technology for lead
removal. The BATEA guideline for lead is based on 0.5 mg/1
measured in 104 1/kkg (25 gal/ton). Discussion of the removal
techniques will be deferred to the section dealing with suspended
solids.
Suspended Solids
417
-------
TABLE 77
BATEA - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
SUBCATEGORY Vacuum Degassing
BATEA LIMITATIONS
CRITICAL
PARAMETERS
Suspended Solids
Zinc
Manganese
Lead
-P. Nitrate (as NO3)
CD
PH
Flow
Kg/KXglJJ
(LB/1000 LB)
0.0026
0.00052
0.00052
0.00005
0.0047
6.0 - 9.0
CONTROL & TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
(3)
ESTIMATED
TOTAL COST
'
25
5
5
0.5
45
Blowdown treatment with
coagulation/clarification
Blowdown treatment with anaerobic
denitrification, (or substitution
of another gas for .blanketing
instead of nitrogen)
Neutralization
0.492
0.446
Most probable value for tight system is 104 liters effluent
per kkg of steel degassed (25 gal/ton) (excluding
all non-contact cooling water)
CD
(2)
(3)
(4)
Kilograms per metric ton of steel degassed, or pounds per 1000 pounds of steel degassed.
Milligrams par liter based on 104 liters effluent per kkg of steel degassed (25 gal/ton).
Available technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it Reflect all possible
combinations or permutations of treatment'methods.
Costs may vary some depending on such factors as location, availability o± land and chemicals, flow
to be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of pre-
liminary modifications required to accept the indicated control and treatment devices. Estimated
total costs shown are only incremental costs required above those facilities which are normally
existing within a plant and/or have been installed as a result of complying with BPCTCA. standards.
-------
f/iw
- axvw
-------
8Z0
MQOEL COST
VACUUM
* ANNUAL COST , BASED OA/ TEN VEAG CAPITAL XSCOVEGY
* INTEREST &A7E 7%
+ OPERATING COSTS /NCLUQE LA6OetCH£MICALS * UT/UTIES
+ MAINTENANCE COSTS BASEO ON 3.SV* OF CAPITAL COSTS
. THIS GKAPH CANNOT 3E US£Q FOG. /NTE8.M£QtATE VALUES
'COST BASFO «/V *]*72 KKGt/PAY (&ZQ 7"O/V//3AY) VD
241,850~
2X8,9/9
(BATEA}
420
-------
For the two plants surveyed, the suspended solids in the final
effluent were found to be 37 and 1077 mg/1, respectively. The
latter plant was judged inadequate with respect to the
application of cost effective treatment technology for suspended
solids removal. The plant achieving the suspended solids level
of 37 mg/1 was also the plant obtaining low values for zinc,
manganese and lead at 0*9, 2.8 and 0.1, respectively. This plant
was using high rate pres sure sand f iltration on the final
effluent prior to discharge. Furthermore, the effluent from the
sand filter was actually achieving 75% of all the above
constituent levels reported, but these levels were adjusted
upward to compensate for removal of the other process waters not
related to vacuum degassing. The BATEA guidelines for suspended
solids is based on 25 mg/1 measured in 10*1 1/kkg (25 gal/ton) .
It should be noted that a plant using sand filtration can readily
achieve these levels a^id furthermore this technology also removes
the zinc, manganese, and lead to the BATEA guidelines required
herein. An alternate technology for removal of these critical
parameters to the indicated levels would be coagulation
techniques. Table 77 is referred to for a summary of indicated
ELG's'and suggested technologies.
Nitrate
For the two plants surveyed, nitrate was found to be 0 and 1940
mg/1, respectively. The latter plant was judged inadequate with
respect to the application of cost effective treatment technology
for nitrate removal. For the reasons previously established for
the open hearth, the ELG for nitrate is based on 45 mg/1 at 104
1/kkg (25 gal/ton) in this case. The technology for achieving
this level is shown in Table 77 and is discussed in detail under
the open hearth subcategory.
EH
The pH of the two plants surveyed was found to vary between 6.2
and 7.7 which is within the required BPCTCA range of 6.0 to 9.0.
The BATEA guideline for pH remains at this level, as for all
other subcategories.
It should be noted that many of the aforementioned critical
parameters observed in the final effluent are the apparent result
of various alloying agents being added to the steel during the
steelmaking process. The nitrates found may be coming from
nitrogen gas which is commonly used for blanketing to insure no
explosions take place.
Continuous Casting Subcategorv
The only process waters used in the . continuous casting process
are direct contact cooling water sprays which cool the cast
product as it emerges from the molds. The water treatment
methods used are either recycle flat bed filtration for removal
of suspended solids and oils or scale pits with recirculating
pumps. Both systems require blowdown. The flat bed filters
421
-------
TABLE 78
BATEA - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
SUBCATEGORY Continuous Casting
CRITICAL
PARAMETERS
Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
PH
Flow:
•e*
PO
BATEA LIMITATIONS
rog/1
(2)
10
10
CONTROL & TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
BPCTCA plus:
Filtration of blowdown.
(3)
ESTIMATED
TOTAL COST
(4)
(LB/1000 LB)_
0.0052
0.0052
6.0 - 9.0
Most probable .value for tight system is 522 liters effluent per
kkg of steel cast (125 gal/ton) (excluding all non-contact cooling
water) .
0.0752
5/TON
0.0682
(!) Kilograms per metric ton of steel cast, or pounds per 1000 pounds of steel cast.
(2) Milligrams per liter based on 522 liters effluent per k'kg of steel cast (125 gal/ton)
(3) Available technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may vary some depending on such factors as .location, availability of land and chemicals, flow
to be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of pre-
liminary modifications required to accept the indicated control and treatment devices. Estimated
total costs shown are only incremental costs required above those facilities which are normally
existing within a pland and/or"have been installed as a result of complying with BPCTCA Standards.
-------
ezi?
c
HI
5
1
3?
55
fff
"8
J) NORMAL.
J) MAXIMUM
! 11
I*
sis
I I
-------
83 S
MODEL COST &FECTtveN£SS
CAST/M6 SVACATZ6OKY
'ANNUAL COSTS » BASED OAS TKN YSAR CAPITAL
THIS GGAPH
'COST BASED
COSTf
COSTS 3ASSO C7/V JS% OF CAP/TAL COSTS
CAMNOT BE USED PO& tNTEGM€OIAT£. VALUES
<$-}! KK<5i/DAY (^070 TOV/My) CC
424
-------
remove oil and suspended solids whereas
require ancilliary oil removal devices.
the scale pits may
Two continuous casting plants were surveyed. One plant had a
scale pit with sand filters with blowdown while the other plant
had flat bed filters with blowdown. Both had cooling towers for
cooling the spray water before recycling to the caster. The
blowdown varied between 342 1/kkg (82 gal/ton) and 463 1/kkg (111
gal/ton). The ELG's were therefore established on the basis of
521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton) of product and the concentrations of the
various pollutant parameters achievable by the indicated
treatment technologies. A review of the data collected from the
survey resulted in the following effluent guidelines:
Suspended Solids
The plant employing the flat bed filter system was achieving 4.4
mg/1 suspended solids in the treated effluent; whereas the plant
utilizing the pressure sand filters was obtaining only 37 mg/1 in
the final treated effluent. An apparent anomaly existed here,
since deep bed sand filters normally achieve higher quality of
effluents than flat bed filters. It was later discovered that
the plant using the pressure sand filters was continually back*
washing one of the dirty filters into the final treated effluent.
This plant was judged inadequate with respect to applying good
engineering design to alleviate the problem of contaminating the
treated effluent with filter backwash. By correcting this
problem, this plant should have no trouble obtaining 10 mg/1 or
less suspended solids in the filtrate, since the flat bed system
was already achieving less than this value, the BATEA ELG for
suspended solids has been based on 10 mg/1 at 521 1/kkg (125
gal/ton) .
Oil and Grease
The two plants surveyed were achieving excellent reductions in
oil and grease as an apparent result of removal in the filtering
devices. The two plants combined averaged less than 2.4 mg/1 oil
in the final effluent. However, the BATEA for oil and grease has
been based on 10 mg/1 at 520 1/kkg (125 gal/ton) for the reasons
indicated above for the By-Product Coke subcategory. Table 78
summarizes the indicated technology.
The pH for the two plants surveyed varied between 6.8 and 7.7
which is within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 established as the BPCTCA
guideline. No further tightening of the BPCTCA guideline is
recommended at this time.
Treatment Models
Treatment models of systems to achieve the effluent quality for
each subcategory have been developed. Sketches of the BATEA
models are presented in Figures 72A through 83A. The development
425
-------
included not only a determination that a treatment facility of
the type developed for each subcategory could achieve the
effluent quality required but also a determination of the capital
investment and the total annual operating costs for the average
size facility. In all subcategories, these models are based on
the use of unit (waste treatment) operations in an "add-on"
fashion as required to control the significant waste parameters.
The process changes and the unit operations were each selected as
the least expensive means to accomplish their particular function
and thus their combination into a treatment model presents the
least expensive method for control for a given subcategory.
Alternate treatment methods could be insignificantly more
effective and would be more expensive. In only one subcategory,
By-product Coke , was an alternate developed to provide an option
for high capital investment and low operating cost as compared to
the low capital investment high operating costs that are inherent
in the basic treatment model. However, the alternate relies on
the use of treatment technology that has been developed only to
the pilot stage or as steps utilized individually, but not in the
combination required in this model on this type of waste on a
full scale basis. Therefore, the effluent limitation and
treatment costs have been developed via the basic treatment model
rather than the alternate.
Cost Effectiveness Diagrams
Cost effectiveness diagrams (Figures 72B through 83B) have been
included to show the costs of waste reduction in relation to the
percent reduction achieved by the various treatment models
presented in Tables UU through 54, These treatment models are
combinations of the "least cost" process changes and unit (waste
treatment) operations to achieve a given effluent quality.
Alternate models could be developed and costed out but they would
by definition be more costly and not significantly more
effective.
The cost effectiveness diagrams must be intrepreted with caution
in that they can be misleading in at least two ways. While
percent reduction is plotted, the real objective is to achieve
the effluent quality attainable with the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available or the best
available technology economically achievable. Some industrial
wastes contain very high concentrations of pollutants and a
treatment system which achieves a 95 percent reduction may still
produce an effluent with a high concentration of the pollutant
remaining, i.e. a concentration that can be further reduced at an
economically acceptable cost. However, economics has dictated
that the application of some treatment technologies be deferred
until 1983 and that some high concentrations of pollutants,
representing a low percentage of the initial load, be tolerated
in the interim.
As an example of the significance of concentration rather than
percent reduction as a factor to be considered in determining
426
-------
whether the additional treatment costs can be justified by the
added treatment achieved, Figure 76 B presents a good example.
While the recycle system (Model B) reduced the effluent volume
and effluent load, the effect is to concentrate the cyanides such
that the cyanide concentration in the blowdown stream to
discharge is 30 mg/1. This is a concentration that can readily
be reduced by treatment technology in a cost effective manner.
Therefore treatment of this blowdown stream has been required for
BATEA.
The cost effectiveness diagrams can also be misleading in that
the added cost to get from one model to the next cannot be
attributed in part to each of the reductions that occur. Figure
72B is a good example. The costs to get from Model B to Model
C(BATEA) is primarily associated with the chlorination to reduce
the cyanide concentration and adsorption of the chlorinated
organics with some small part of the cost for sulfide reduction
and neutralization. However, reductions in the other parameters
occur as a side effect of the treatment steps added. Though the
reduction in phenol is small and may not justify further
expenditures for this purpose, in actuality none of the added
cost is attributable to this. The diagram shows a great
percentage reduction in suspended solids but this is actually a
small reduction in a parameter that is not present to a great
extent to begin with. And the reduction is not primarily to
achieve solids reduction for effluent quality purposes but to
prevent plugging of the carbon adsorption system that follows.
The regulations herein apply only to the process waste waters of
the raw steel making operations. The Phase II study of the
forming and finishing operations as well as the foundry industry
is underway and is expected to be completed in the spring of
1974. This phase will consider thermal limitations on the
process and noncontact cooling waters of all operations in the
industry.
The costs and methods for fugitive runoff controls for the raw
steel making operations have already been developed but action on
this has been deferred until the total water pollution control
costs for all operations has been developed.
Cost to the Iron and Steel Industry
Table 79 presents a summary of projected capital and annual
operating costs to the integrated mills of the steel industry as
a whole to achieve the effluent quality required herein for
BPCTCA and BATEA for the steel making operations.
The Total annual costs (including amortization) for the
BPCTCA and BATEA regulations herein are estimated at $82.3
million or 0.37% of the 1972 gross revenue of the steel industry.
This is an addition to the $127 million annual capital
amortization and operating costs, (0.56% of 1972 gross revenue)
which it is estimated the industry is already spending on these
427
-------
ro
CO
TABLE 79
IRON AND STEELMAKING OPERATIONS
PROJECT TOTAL COSTS FOR RELATED EUBCATEGORIES
Sub category
Coke Making
By Product
Beehive
1972 Annual
Production
(millions of tons)
64.2
0.8
Burden Preparation
Sintering 6.5
Iron Making
Blast Furnace - Fe 82.1
Blast Furnace - FeiMn 0.9
Steelmaking
BOF (Semi-wet) 17.8
EOF (wet) 47.1
OH (wet) 13.5
EF(s emi-wet) 1.2
EF (wet) 5.3
Degassing 5.5
Continuous Casting 18.0
TOTAL
COSTS TO INDUSTRY
(1)
BPCTCA
BATEA
of
Plants
66
3
68
3
10
17
5
8
29
46
(Annual Capital
and
Operating Cost
10,034,000
38,000
335,000
20,169,000
1,059,000
390,000
3,884,000
746,000
0
400,000
2,840,000
0
39,895,0*00
Initial i
Capital
Investment
11,118,000
152,000
1,530,000
100,414,000
5,177,000
1,875,000
7,895,000
2,665,000
0
1,776,000
12,290,000
0
144,892,000
J Annual Capital
and
Operating Cost
23,538,000 (2)
38,000
746,000
40,021,000
2,762,000
390,000
5,286,000
2,290,000
0
877,000
5,297,000
1,226,000
82,471,000
Initial \
Capital
Investment
61,732,000
0
1,765,000
28,086,000
1,620,000
0
6,175,000
7,837,000
0
2,289,000
8,908,000
4,562,000
122,974,000
(1) Costs determined by following relationships:
(a) Annual capital + operating = Number of plants x annual cost/facility
(b) Initial capital investment = number of plants x 1st cost/facility
(2) Does not include the $10,034,000 for BPCTCA since BATEA is achieved by switching to a multi-stage biological
treatment facility.
-------
operations. The total estimated costs for water pollution
control will be available only after the Phase II study is
completed. However, the preliminary estimate is that the
additional annual costs (including amortization) for the
remaining forming and finishing operations, for thermal
limitations, and for fugitive runoff controls will be
approximately three to four times those proposed herein for the
steel making operations or $295 million per year. Total annual
costs (including amortization) for water pollution controls after
1983, including operation and amortization of existing
facilities, are estimated at $551 million or 2.45% of the 1972
gross revenue, of this amount, $377 million (or 1.68%) will be
incremental to the current rate of expenditures.
As presented in the table, an initial capital investment of
approximately $144.9 million with annual capital and operating
costs of $39.9 million would be required by the industry to
achieve BPCTCA guidelines. An additional capital investment of
approximately $122.3 million and a total annual capital
amortization and operating cost of $82.3 million would be needed
to achieve BATEA guidelines, costs may vary depending upon such
factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, flow to
be treated, treatment technology selected where competing
alternatives exist, and the extent of preliminary modifications
required to accept the necessary control and treatment devices.
The operating costs (including amortization) for air pollution
controls for the steel industry, as presented in the Council on
Environmental Quality report of March, 1972 titled "Economic
Impact of Pollution Control - A Summary of Recent studies" shows
costs building up to $693 million dollars per year for 1976.
This is equivalent to 3.08% of the 1972 gross revenue of the
industry.
The total annual costs (including amortization) for air and water
pollution controls for all operations of the steel industry is
thus estimated at 1.24 billion per year after 1983 or 5.54% of
gross revenues for 1972. This includes the 292 million or 1.3%
of gross revenues for 1972 which it is estimated that the
industry is currently spending annually for air and water
pollution controls.
Economic. Impact
The economic impact of these BPCTCA and BATEA Limitations is
discussed in a report titled Economic Analysis of the Proposed
Effluent Guidelines for the Integrated Iron and Steel Industry
(January 1974) which was prepared for the Environmental
Protection Agency by A. T. Kearney and Company, Inc., Chicago,
Illinois.
429
-------
-------
SECTION XI
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION
OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Introduction
The effluent limitations which must be achieved by new sources,
i.e., any source, the construction of which is started after
publication of new source performance standard regulations., are
to specify the degree of effluent reduction achievable through
the application of the best available demonstrated control
technology (BADCT), processes, operating methods, or other
alternatives, including, where practicable, a standard permitting
no discharge of pollutants.
For purposes of developing the BPCTCA and BATEA technologies and
limitations, the industry was divided into the following
subcategories:
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
XI
XII
By-Product Coke Subcat-egory
Beehive Coke Subcategory
Sintering Subcategory
Blast Furnace (Iron) Subcategory
Blast Furnace (Ferromanganese) Subcategory
Basic Oxygen Furnace (Semiwet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
Basic Oxygen Furnace (Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
Open Hearth Furnace Subcategory
Electric Arc Furnace (Semiwet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
Electric Arc Furnace (Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
Vacuum Degassing Subcategory
Continuous casting Subcategory
Bv Product Coke Subcategory
In by-product coke making, the process wastewater resulting from
the production of coke is 80 to 165 liters/kkg (19 to UO gal/ton)
of coke produced. This water is actually produced as a result of
coking the coal, and represents the water present in the raw coal
431
-------
which was placed in the ovens. This water leaves the ovens in
the gas and is condensed out of the gas at two points in the
system, the primary cooler and the final cooler. Approximately
75X of the total volume comes out in the primary cooler and is
called ammonia liquor. The remaining 25% comes out into the
final cooler and is generally referred to as final cooler drains.
Water in excess of this approximately 104 1/kkg (25 gal/ton)
which shows up in the effluent from a coke plant is added to the
system to aid in processing of the coke or the by-products.
Other sources of water in coke plant wastes are coke quenching
tower overflow (or blowdown), coke wharf drains, steam condensed
in the ammonia stills, cooling tower, and boiler blowdowns,
cooling system leaks, general washwater used in the coke plant
area, and dilution water used to lower , pollutant concentrations
for biological treatment.
Any process which brings about the pyrolytic decomposition of
coal will of necessity have 80 to 165 liters/kkg (19 to 40
gal/ton) of highly contaminated liquid to dispose of. The coke
wharf and quenching water can be eliminated by dry coke quenching
which is presently being practiced in other countries or simply
by routing the wharf drains to the quench tower as make-up water,
and not allowing any overflow from the quench tower. Operating a
quench tower with no overflow may generate some heat and
corrosion problems, but these can be eliminated with conventional
designs*
If no liquid discharge is to be achieved from modern coke plants,
a means of total disposal must be found fox the 80 to 165
liters/kkg (19 to 40 gal/ton) of liquid which of necessity is
produced. All of the wastes in this 'water, with the possible
exception of suspended solids, are subject to pyrolytic de-
composition. A rough estimate shows that about 126,000 kilogram
calories per metric ton of coke .produced would be required to
dispose of this waste. This is a negligible percentage of the
fuel value of the tar and gas generated in the production of a
ton of coke.
However, there is reason to believe that unless very sophis-
ticated means were used to pyrolytically dispose of this water,
serious air pollution problems would result. The effluent gases
from less than optimum incineration of this water could be
expected to contain high concentrations of NOX, SOX, and some
particulate matter. If a simple incinerator with a wet scrubber
were used, the basic pollutants would simply be transferred back
to another water stream, possibly of larger volume than the
original.
Since the pollutants in the liquid stream are essentially
volatile, evaporation of the liquid to dryness would result in
much the same problems as incineration. In fact, examination of
numerous other points of disposal of this stream within an
integrated steel mill all yield the same answer. While total
pyrolytic decomposition of this small stream of waste to
432
-------
innocuous gases would be the most desirable method of disposal,
present technology does not make this possible on a proven full-
scale basis,
For the above reasons, NSPS limitations cannot be set at "no
liquid discharge" until such time as technology becomes available
for the total conversion of this waste stream into non-*-polluting
substances. Therefore, the NSPS guidelines shall be the same as
the BATEA guidelines for the by-product coke subcategory. Refer
to Section X.
Sintering Subcategory
Burden preparation in an integrated steel mill generally takes
the form of a sinter plant. The purpose of this plant is to
recover fine raw materials and to agglomerate them into larger
size pieces so that they can be charged into the blast furnace.
In the manufacture of coke, fines are generated which must be
screened out of the coke before it can be used in the blast
furnace. The fines serve as the fuel for the sinter plant. The
blast furnaces and steelmaking processes generate sizable
quantities of fine dust which is high in iron content. It is
this dust which is agglomerated in a sinter or pellet plant so
that it can be recharged to the blast furnace.
It is possible to build a sinter plant with no liquid discharge.
In fact, in past years, most sinter plants had no liquid
discharge. As the requirements of higher air standards took
effect, it became apparent that the conventional dry dust
collection methods employed in older sinter plants were not
adequate. In order to meet these higher standards, wet scrubbing
of the dust laden gases came into being and thus a liquid
discharge was generated.
This now becomes a situation of compromise and technology ad-
vancement. In order to achieve a "no liquid discharge" level for,
a sinter or pellet plant, the requirements of air quality and
level of technology of dry dust collection must become
coincidental. So long as air quality standards are such that
they can only be met by wet scrubbing methods, there will be a
liquid discharge from sinter plants. To simply abandon this
practice of recovering valuable fines for reuse would be both
costly to the industry and wasteful of natural resources. Since
BATEA guidelines discussed in Section X represent the best
available technology, this level must also be set for NSPS until
such time as the technology of dry dust collection advances to
the point where it can be used to achieve the required air
quality standards.
NSPS Discharge standard - Refer to BATEA for the Sintering
Subcategory
Blast Furnace (Iron) and Blast Furnace (Ferrpmanganesel
subcategories
433
-------
The primary liquid discharge from a blast furnace is made up of
two parts: non-contact cooling water, and process water from gas
cleaning operations. The non-contact cooling water should
contain only heat, and no other pollutants contributed by the
process. The heat added to the cooling water must be rejected to
the environment in order for the process to operate. It can be
rejected either to local streams or lakes by a once through
cooling system or to the air by means of a cooling tower.
Designs to achieve either means of rejection are quite standard
and do not require further discussion.
The process water which is used to clean and cool the blast
furnace top gas by direct contact with the gas becomes quite
contaminated with suspended solids, cyanides, phenol, ammonia,
and sulfides.
Modern blast furnace practice has shown that this gas cleaning
and cooling water can be recycled. Normally the water would be
put through settling chambers to remove the suspended solids and
over a cooling tower to remove the heat.
While much effort has been expended to close these systems up
completely and thereby produce a zero liquid discharge, it has
not been clearly demonstrated that these systems can operate
without some blowdown. For this reason, no additional reductions
in pollutant loads from those described as BATEA limitations is
proposed for NSPS in either of the two blast furnace
subcategories. Flows for ferromanganese operations remain at
twice the recommended level for iron making furnaces. A detailed
description or appropriate ELG for both subcategories is found in
section x.
NSPS Discharge Standard - Refer to BATEA for the Two Blast
Furnace subcategories
Steelmakincf operations
As is the case with the sinter plant, the liquid discharge
exclusive of non-contact cooling water for all of the conven-
tional steelmaking processes—open hearth, basic oxygen, and
electric furnace—results from gas cleaning operations. Early
gas cleaning systems on steelmaking processes were of the dry
type, but the need to meet higher air quality standards has
resulted in a shift on newer installations to wet cleaning
methods. So long as the technology of dry gas cleaning lags
behind the requirements for gas cleanliness, liquid discharges
from steelmaking will continue. For this reason, no additional
reductions in flow or pollutant loads from any steel making
subcategory is required at this time as a new source performance
standard. A detailed description of appropriate ELG's for all
five steel making subcategories is found in Section X. However,
in consideration of the nature of the biological denitrification
process, and that it has been demonstrated full scale only on
municipal wastes and other types of industrial wastes, but not on
434
-------
steel industry wastes, the nitrate limitation has been deleted
from the NSPS for the open hearth subcategory.
NSPS Discharge Standard - Refer to BATEA for the Five Steel
Making Subcategories
Vacuum Degassing Subcategory
This relatively new steel process removes dissolved gases from
the molten metal to improve its quality. Exclusive of non-
contact cooling water, the liquid discharge from this process
results from the condensation of steam used in the steam jet
ejectors which pull the vacuum. High capacity ejectors capable
of pulling a significant vacuum are used.
All of the removed gases plus any particulate matter which
results from the violent boiling which occurs when the vacuum is
drawn, come in contact with the water, Thi s results in
particulate and dissolved contamination of the condensate which
is produced in each of the interstage condensers. Substitution
of another type of vacuum producing equipment does not seem
practical at this time. No further reductions in the BATEA
limitations are required. However, the nitrate limitation for
BATEA for vacuum degassing operations shall not apply for the
NSPS for the reasons cited under "Steelmaking Operations" above.
NSPS Discharge Standard - Refer to BATEA for Vacuum Degassing
Subcategory
Continuous Casting Subcatecrorv
The continuous casting process, in addition to non-contact
cooling water, uses considerable quantities of contact cooling
water. This water becomes contaminated primarily with small
particles of iron oxide (suspended solids) and also picks up some
small amount of oil and grease from the lubricants used on the
equipment. Occasionally if there is a hydraulic leak, some
hydraulic fluid will also get into this water. This contact
cooling water is a basic part of this new process, and methods
for materially reducing either the volume or the level of
contamination are not available at this time. No further
reductions in the BATEA limitations are required.
NSPS Discharge standard *
Casting Subcategory.
Refer to BATEA for Continuous
435
-------
-------
SECTION XII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared by the EPA on the basis of an industry
study performed by the Cyrus Wm. Rice Division of NUS Corporation
under Contract #68-01-1507. The RICE operations are based in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The preparation and writing of this document was accomplished by
Mr. Edward L. Dulaney, Project Officer, EPA, and through the
efforts of Mr. Thomas J. Centi, Project Manager, Mr. Wayne M.
Neeley, Mr. Patrick C. Falvey, Mr. David F. Peck, and Mr. Joseph
C. Troy who prepared the orginal Rice study report to the EPA.
Field and sampling programs were conducted under the leadership
of Mr. Donald J. Motz, Mr. Joseph A. Boros, and Mr. John D.
Robins.
Laboratory and analytical services were conducted under the
guidance of Mr. Paul Goldstein and Miss C. Ellen Gonter.
The many excellent Figures contained within were provided by the
RICE drafting room under the supervision of Mr. Albert M. Finke.
The work associated with the calculations of raw waste loads,
effluent loads, and costs associated with treatment levels is
attributed to Mr. William C. Porzio, Mr. Michael E. Hurst, and
Mr. David A. Crosbie.
The excellent guidance provided by Mr. Walter J. Hunt, Chief,
Effluent Guidelines Development Branch, OAWP, Environmental
Protection Agency is acknowledged with grateful appreciation.
The cooperation of the individual steel companies who offered
their plants for survey and contributed pertinent data is
gratefully appreciated. The operations and the plants visited
were the property of the following companies: Jones & Laughlin
Steel Corporation, Bethlehem Steel corporation, Inland Steel
Company, Donner Hanna Coke Corporation, Interlake, Inc.,
Wisconsin Steel Division of International Harvester Company,
Jewell Smokeless Coal corporation, Carpentertown Coal and Coke
Company, Armco Steel Corporation, National Steel Corporation,
United States Steel Corporation, and Kaiser Steel Corporation.
The assistance of steel industry consultants, namely Ramseyer and
Miller, Ferro-Tech Industries, and Deci corporation, was utilized
in several areas of the project.
Acknowledgement and appreciation is also given to Dr. Chester
Rhines for technical assistance, to Ms. Kit Krickenberger for
invaluable support in coordinating the preparation and
reproduction of this report, to Ms. Kay Starr, Ms. Nancy Zrubek,
Ms. Brenda Holmone and Ms. Chris Miller of the EGD secretarial
staff, Mrs. Minnie C. Harold, for library assistance and to Mrs.
437
-------
Carol lannuzzi, Mrs. Pat Nigro, and Mrs. Mary Lou Simpson, of the
RICE Division for their efforts in the typing of drafts,
necessary revisions, and final preparation of the original Rice
effluent guidelines document and revisions.
438
-------
SECTION XIII
REFERENCES
1. Abson, J- W. , and Todhunter, K. H., "Factors Affecting the
Biological Treatment of Carbonization Effluents",
The Gas World -^Coking, pp. 61-72 (April 4, 1959).
2. Adema, D., "The Largest Oxidation Ditch in the World for the
Treatment of Industrial Wastes", Proceedings of the 22nd
Industrial Wastes conference, Purdue
University, 1967.
3. AIME, "Mitsubishi Smokeless Operation Technology",
Cleveland Ohio (April, 1973).
*• AISI• "Blast Furnace and Raw Steel Production",
(December, 1972).
5. Allegheny Ludlum, "Allegheny Ludlum to Use New Vacuum
Melting Technique", Iron and Steel Engineer, 46, p. 1U1
(September, 1969).
6. American Iron and Steel Institute, "Annual Statistical
Report, 1971". Washington, D. C. (1972).
7. American Iron and Steel Institute, Directory of Iron and
Steel Works of the United States and Canada, American
Iron and Steel Institute, New York (1970).
8. American Schack Co., Inc., "Rhode-Reining Evaporative
Blast Furance Cooling", Pittsburgh, Pa, (March, 1973).
9. Arden, T.V., "The Purification of Coke-Oven Liquors
by ion Exchange and Activated Carbon", in The Treatment
of Trade Waste Water and the Prevention of River Pollu-
tion . ed. Peter Issac, London (1957).
10. Armour, F. K., and Henderson, H. H., "Steel and the
Environment: Today", AISI, New York, New York (May,
1972) .
11. Ashmore, A. G., catchpole, J. R., and Cooper, R. L.,
"The Biological Treatment of Coke Oven Effluents by
the Packed Tower Process", The coke Oven Manager's
Yearbook, pp. 103-125 (1970).
12. Astier, J. E., "Prereduction: Is It the Total Answer?",
Journal of Metals (March, 1973).
13. Barker, John F., and Pettit, Grant A., "Use and Reuse
of Water in Specific Plant Operations of the Armco Steel
Corporation", Annual Water Conference* Engineering
Society of Western Pennsylvania, 28th. pp. 125-130 (1967).
439
-------
14. Barnes, T. M., et al, "Evaluation of Process Alterna-
tives to Improve Control of Air Pollution from Produc-
tion of coke", Battelle Memorial Institute (January 31,
1970) .
15. Barritt, D, T., and Robinson, V., "Coke Ovens Retro-
spect: Prospect", The coke Oven Manager's Yearbook,
pp, 504-557 (1961) -
16. Battelle Memorial Institute, "Final Report on Evalua-
tion of Process Alternatives to Improve Control of Air
Pollution From Production of coke", Battelle Memorial
Institute. January 31, 1970).
17. Beckman, w. J., Avendt, R. J., Mulligan, T. J., and
Kehrberger, G. J., "combined Carbon Oxidation Nitri-
fication", Jour^aj. of the Hater Pollution Control
Federation• 447 October 10, 1972, p. 1916.
18. Bennett, K. W., "Pollution Control - Is Steel Meeting
The Challenge?", Iron Acre, p. 95 (November 21, 1968).
19. Bernardin, F. E., "Cyanide Detoxification Using Ad-
sorption and catalytic Oxidation on Granular Activated
Carbon", Journal of the Water Pollution Control Fed-
eration^ 45, 2, February, 1973, p, 221.
20. Bethlehem steel, "Pollution Control: Bethlehem Meets the
Challenge", Bethlehem Review, p. 9 (November, 1966),
21. Bethlehem Steel, "Pollution Control: Bethlehem Steps
Up the Pace", Bethlehem Review, pp. 9-10 (February, 1969).
22. Black, H. H., McDermott,,G. N., Henderson, C., Moore,
W. A., and pohren, H. R., "Industrial Wastes Guide",
Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University (May 15-17,
1956).
23. Bramer, Henry C, and Gadd, William L., "Magnetic Floc-
culation of Steel Mill Waste Waters", Proceedings^
Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, 25th,
pp. 154-165 (1970).
24. Brinn, D. G,, "The Continuous Casting of steel: A
Survey and Bibliography of Literature During 1971",
British Steel Corporation Research Report, Strip Mills
Division, pp. 1-34.
25. Brinn, D. G,, "The Continuous tasting of steel: A
Survey and Bibliography of Literature Published During
1970", British steel Corporation Research Report, Strip
Mills Division, pp. 1*36.
26. Brinn, D. G., and Doris, R. L., "Basic Oxygen Steel-
making: A Bibliography of Published Literature",
440
-------
British steel Corporation Research Report. Section 7,
pp. 25-28.
27. Brough, John R., and Voges, Thomas F., "Basic Oxygen
Process Water Treatment", Proceedings, Industrial Waste
Conference. Purdue University. 24th, pp. 762-769
71969) .
28. Brough, John R., and Voges, Thomas F., "Water Supply
and Wastewater Disposal for a steel .Mill11', Water and
Wastes Engineering, 1. No. 1, pp. A25-A27 (1970).
29, Business Week. "Steelmakers Loosen Their Ties to coke",
(December 16, 1972).
30, Calgon Corporation Application Bulletin, "Calgon
Cyanide Destruction System'1, (1971) .
31, Cartwright, W. F., "The Economic Survival of the Blast
Furnace", IISI. Tokyo, Japan (September, 1970).
32. Cartwright, W. F., "Research Might Help to Solve
Coking Industry Problems", Gas World, 16U, p. 497
(November 12, 1966).
33. Caruso, S. C. , McMichael, F. C., and Samples, W, R.,
"AISI Water Resources Fellowship Review", American
Iron and Steel Institute Pittsburgh Regional Technical
Meeting. October 28, 1971, pp. 277-293 (1971),
34. Catchpole, J. R., "The Treatment and Disposal of Ef-
fluents in the Gas and Coke Industry", Air and water
Pollution in the Iron and steel Industry, .Iron arid
Steel Institute Special"Report »1?61, pp. 219^225
(1958) .
35. Cave, R. W., "Effluent Disposal in an Integrated Works",
Management of Water in the Iron and Steel Industry,
Iron and Steel Institute Special Report *128, pp. 12U-130
(1970) .
36. Chemical Engineer. 76, "Electric Arc Furnace",
pp. 82-85 (August 11, 1969).
37. Chen, Kenneth Y., "Kinetics of Oxidation of Aqueous
Sulfide by O2", Environmental Science and Technology,
6, p. 529 (June, 1972).
38. Cook, G. W., "The Extent of Water Pollution in an
Iron and steel Works and Steps Taken Towards Its
Prevention", Air and Water Pollution in the Iron and
Steel Industry, Iron and Steel Institute Special "
Report #61, pp. 177-186 (1958).
39. Cooper, R. L., "Methods of Approach to Coke Oven Ef-
441
-------
fluent Problems", Air and Water Pollution in the Iron
and Steel Industry., Iron and Steel Institute Special
i61r pp. 198-202 (1958).
40. Cooper, R. L, , "Recent Developments Affecting the coke
Oven Effluent Problem", The Coke oven Managers' Yearbook,
pp. 135-153 (1964) .
41. Cooper, R. L. , and Catchpole, J. R, , "Biological Treat-
ment of Phenolic Wastes", Management, of _Water_in_the
Iron and Steel Industry, Iron and Steel Institute
Special Report #128, pp. 97-102 (1970) .
42, Cooper, R. L. , and Catchpole, J. R. , "The Biological
Treatment of Coke Oven Effluents", The Coke Oven Mana-
_q_erls Yearbook, pp. 146^177 (1967) .
43, Council on Environmental Quality, "A Study of the
Economic Impact on the Steel Industry of the Costs of
Meeting Federal Air and Water Pollution Abatement
Requirements, Parts I, II, and III", Washington, D. C, ,
(July 27, 1972) „
44. Connard, John M. , "Electrolytic Destruction of Cyanide
Residues", Metal Finishing, p. 54 (May, 1961) .
Dailey, W. H. , "Steelmaking with Metallized Pellets",
, Atlantic City, New Jersey (April, 1968).
45.
46, Davis, W. R. , "Control of Stream Pollution at the Beth-
lehem Plant", Iron, and Steel .Engineer, 45, pp. 135-140
(November, 1968) .
47. Decaigny, Roger A,, "Blast Furnace Gas Washer Removes
Cyanides, Ammonia, Iron, and Phenol", Proceedings^ 25th
Industrial Waste Conference. Purdue University , pp.
512-517 (1970) ,
48, Deily, R. L. , "Q-BOP-Commentary" , Institute for Iron
and Steel Studies (July, 1972).
49. Deily, R. L., "Q-BOP: From Blow to Go In 90 Days",
Journal of Metals , (March, 1972) .
50. Deily, R. L, , "Q-BOP: Year II", Journal of Metals,
(March, 1973) ,
51. Directory of Iron and Steel Plants. Steel Publications,
Inc., 1971.
5 2 . Directory of the_lron and Steel works of the World ,
Metal Bulletins Books, Ltd., London, 5th edition.
53. Dodge, B. F-, and zabban, W. , "Disposal of Plating
Room wastes III, Cyanide Wastes: Treatment with
442
-------
Hyp.ochlorites and Removal of Cyanates", Plating.
p. 561 (June, 1951).
54. Dupont Application Bulletin, "Treating Cyanide, Zinc,
and Cadmium Rinse Waters with 'Kastone1 Peroxygen
Compound" (1970).
55. Easton, John K., "Electorlytic Decomposition of
Concentrated Cyanide Plating Wastes", National
Cash Register Company,
56. Edgar, W. D,, and Muller, J. M., "The Status of Coke
Oven Pollution Control", AIME, Cleveland, Ohio (April,
1973) .
57. Eisenhauer, Hugh R., "The Ozonation of Phenolic Wastes",
Journal of the. Water Pollution Control Federation,
p. 1887 (November, 1968).
58, Environmental Protection Agency, "Bibliography of Water
Quality Research Reports", Water Pollution Control Re^
search Series, Office of Research and Monitoring. Wash-
ington, D. C., pp. 1-40 (March, 1972).
59. Environmental Protection Agency, "Biological Removal of
Carbon and Nitrogen Compounds from Coke Plant Wastes",
Office of Research and Monitoring, Washington, D. C.
(February, 1973).
60. Environmental Protection Agency, "Industry Profile Study
on Blast Furnace and Basic Steel Products", C. W. Rice
Division - NUS Corporation for EPA, Washington, D. C.
(December, 1971).
61. Environmental Protection Agency, "Pollution Control of
Blast Furnace Gas Scrubbers Through Recirculation",
Office of Research and Monitoring* Washington, D. C.
(Project No. 12010EDY).
62. Environmental Protection Agency, "Water Pollution Con*
trol Practices in the Carbon and Alloy Steel Industries",
EPA, Washington, D. C. (September 1, 1972).
63. Environmental Protection Agency, "Water Pollution Con-
trol Practices in the Carbon and Alloy Steel Industries",
Progress Reports for the Months of September and Octo-
ber, 1972 (Project No. R800625).
64. Environmental Steel. The Council on Economic Priorities
65. Finney, C. S., Desieghardt, W. C., and Harris, H. E.,
"Coke Making in the U. S. - Past/ Present, and Future",
Blast Furnace and Steel Plant, (November, 1967).
66. Fisher, C. W., Hepner, R. D., and Tallon, G, R-, "Coke
443
-------
Plant Effluent Treatment.Investigations", Blast Furnace
and Steel_Plant (May, 1970) .
67. Glasgow, John A., and Smith, W. D,, "Basic Oxygen
Furnace steelmaking", American Iron and steel Institute
Yearbook^ 1963, pp. 65-89 (1963).
68. Gordon, C.K., and Droughton, T. A., "Continuous Coking
Process", AISE, Chicago, Illinois (April, 1973).
69. Hawsom, D. W. R., "Bottom Blown Open Hearths?", 33
Magazine, p. 30, (August, 1972).
70- Howard, J. C., "Possible steelmaking Furnaces of the
Future", Iron and'Steel (England) , p. 389 (September,
1967).
71. Inland Steel, "New Treatment Plant Helps Harbor Works
Achieve Clean Water", Inland Now, No. 2, pp. 10-11 (1970).
72. iron^Age, "Will SIP Add New ZIP to Tired Open Hearths?",
p. 27 (August 31, 1972).
73. Iron.and Steel Engineer, "Armco Unveils Butler Facility",
pp. 104-106 (November, 1969).
7I*. Iron and Steel Engineer* 46, "EOF Facility and Combina-
tion Mill in Full Operation at Bethlehem", pp. 88*94
(August, 1969) .
75. Iron and steel Engineer, "Annual Review of Developments
In The Iron and steel Industry During 1972", p. Dl
(January, 1973).
76. Iron and Steel Engineer Yearbook, 1970. "Developments in
the Iron and Steel Industry During 1969", pp. 66-111
(1970) .
77. Iron and Steel Engineer Yearbook, 1971. "Developments in
the Iron and Steel Industry During 1970", pp. 19-75
(1971) .
78. Jablin, Richard, "Environmental Control at Alan Wood:
Technical Problems, Regulations, and New Processes",
Iron and__Steel Engineer*__48, pp. 58-65 (July, 1971) .
79. Journal of Metals, "New Coke Oven Emission Control System
Demonstrated", (March, 1973).
80. Kemmetmueller, R., "Dry Coke Quenching - Proved, Profit-
able, Pollution Free Quenching Technology", AISE, Chicago,
Illinois (April, 1973).
81. Keystone Coal, "Keystone Coal Industry Manual", (1972).
444
-------
82. Kostenbader, Paul D. , and Flecksteiner, John W., "Bio-
logical Oxidation of Coke Plant Weak Ammonia Liquor",
Water Pollution Control Federation Journal, 41,
pp. 199-207 (February, 1969).
83. Leidner, R. N. , "Waste Water Treatment for the Burns
Harbor Plant of Bethlehem Steel Corporation", Journal, of
Water Pollution Control Federation, 41, No. 5, Part 1,
pp. 796-807 (1969) .
84. Leidner, R. N,, and Nebolsine, Ross, "Wastewater Treat-
ment Facilities at Burns Harbor"r Proceedings, Industrial
Waste Conference, Purdue University, 22nd. pp. 631*645
(1967) .
85. Leroy, P. J., "Oxygen Bottom Blowing by the LWS Process",
Iron and Steel Engineer, p. 51 (Oc#ober, 1972). , , - _
86. Lovgren, C. A., "Forces of Economic change - Steel
U. S. A.", AIME, Council of Economics (February, 1968).
87. Ludberg, James E., and Nicks, Donald G., "Phenols and
Thiocyanate Removed from Coke Plant Effluents", Water
and Sewage Works, 116, pp. 10-13 (November,-1969). ~~
88. 33 Magazine. "Bottom-Blown Steel Processes Now Number
Three: Q-BOF, LWS, and SIP", p. 34 (September, 1972),
89• 33 Magazine, "Continuous Casting Round-Up", p. 54
(July, 1970) .
90. 33 Magazine. "Electric Arc Round^Up" (July through
October, 1972). .
91. 33 Magazine. "Waste Material Recycling Processes Promise
Yield Increases, Anti-Pollution Benefits", (September,
1972). -. • -
92• 33 Magazine, "World-Wide Vacuum Degassing Round-Up"
(December, 1972).
93. Mahan, W. M., "Prereduction - State of the Art", (In-
formal Paper), steel Bar Mills Association, Las Vegas,
Nevada (April, 1971).
94. Maloy, J., "Developments in Cokemaking Plant", Proceedings
of Coke in Ironmaking Conference. Iron and Steel Institute,
London, pp. 89-97 (December, 1969).
95. Mansfield, V., "Peabody Continuous Coking Process",
Blast Furnace and Steel Plant, p. 254 (April, 1970).
96. Markowitz, J., Pittsburgh Post Gazette Business Editor,
"Report on 1973 AISI Meeting", (May 23, 1973).
445
-------
97. Marting, D. G., and Balch, G. E., "Charging Preheated
Coal to Coke Ovens Blast Furnace and Steel Plant.
p. 326 (May, 1970).
98. McManus, G., "That Blue Sky on Steelmaking's Horizon",
Iron Age, (December 2, 1971).
99. McMichael, Francis C., Maruhnich, Edward D., and Samples,
William R., "Recycle Water Quality From A Blast Furnace",
Journal of.. the Water Pollution control Federation* 43,
pp. 595-603 (1971).
100, McMorris, C. E., "Inland's Experience in Reducing Cya-
nides and Phenols in the Plant Water Outfall", Blast
Furnace and Steel Plant, pp. 43-47 (January, 1968).
101. Muller, J. M., and Coventry, F. L., "Disposal of coke
Plant Waste in the Sanitary Water System", Blast Furnace
and Steel giant, pp. 400-406 (May, 1968).
102. National Atlas of the United States, p. 97 (1970).
103. Nebolsine, Ross, "Steel plant Waste Water Treatment
and Reuse", Iron and Steel Engineer. 44, pp. 122-135
(March, 1967).
104, Nilles, P. E., "Steelmaking by Oxygen Bottom Blowing",
AISE, Pittsburgh, Pa. (September, 1972).
105. Patton, R, S., "Hooded coke Quenching System for Air
Quality Control", AISE. Chicago, Illinois (April, 1973),
106. Pilsner, Frank, "Smokeless Pushing at Ford", AIMS.
Cleveland, Ohio (April, 1973).
107, Plumer, F* J., "Armco's Blast Furnace Water Treatment
System Cures Pollution", Iron and Steel Engineer. 45
pp. 124-126 (1969).
108. Potter, N. M., and Hunt, J. W., "The Biological Treat-
ment of Coke Oven Effluents11, Air and Water Pollution
in the Iron and Steel Indus-try. Iron and Steel Institute
Special Report #61, pp. 207-218 (1958).
109, Raddant, R. D,,, Oforzut, J, J., Korfcin, C, L,, "Pollution
The Steel industry Cleans Up", Iron foge* p- 107
(September 15, 1966).
110. Roe, Arthur C., "Continuous casting: Its Changing Role
In Steelmaking11, Americas Iron and steel Institute
Yearbook. 1963. pp, 153^169 (1963).
111. Scholey, R., "The Present Situation Regarding Pre-
Reduced Iron and cokemaking Technology", IISI,
London, England, p. 71 (1972).
446
-------
112* Shilling, Spencer, "World Steelmaking Trends", Bureau
of international De La Recuperation. New York (1971) ,
113. Sims, C. E., and Hoffman, A. O., "The Future of Electric
Furnace Melting", AIME, Electric Furnace Proceedings,.
(1972) .
114. Smith, John M. , Masse, A. N., Feige, W. A., and
Kamphake, L. J. , "Nitrogen Removal From Municipal
Waste Water by Columnar Denitrif ication" , Environmental
Science and_ Technology , 6, p. 260 (March 37 1972).
115. Speer, E. B. , "Other Speer Thoughts on steel Outlook",
Age (March 29, 1973).
116. Steel Times. 193. "Coke in the Iron and Steel Industry
New Methods in' Conventional Processes", pp. 551-556
(October 21, 1966) .
117- Steel Times. "Production and Use of Prereduced Iron
Ores", Summary of International Conference at Evian,
p. 753 (June 30, 1967), p. 161 (August 11, 1967).
118. Stone, J. K. , "World Growths of Basic Oxygen Steel
Plants", Iron and Steel Engineer, p. Ill (December,
1969) .
119. Stove, Ralph, and Schmidt, carter, "A Survey of Indus-
trial Waste Treatment Costs and Charges", Proceedings
of the 23rd Industrial Waste Conference. Purdue
University, pp. 49-63 (1968) .
120. Talbott, John A., "Building a Pollution^Free Steel
Plant", Mechanical Engineer, 93, No. 1, pp. 25-30
(January, 1971) .
121. Tenenbaum, M., and Luerssen, F. W. , "Energy and the
U. S. Steel Industry", IjSI, Toronto, Canada (1971).
122. Thring, M. W. , "The Next Generation in Steelmaking",
Iron and Steel jEngland) . p. 446 (October, 1968) ,
p. 25 (February, 1969) , p. 123 (April, 1969) .
123. Toureene, Kendall W. , "Waste water Neutralization",
Blast Furnace and Steel Plant. 59 , No. 2 , pp . 86-90
(February, 1971).
124. U. S. Department of commerce. Bureau of the Census,
Census of Manufacturers. 1967, Washington, D. C.
125. U. S. Department of Commerce, "World Iron-Ore Pellet
and Direct Iron Capacity", February, 1973.
126. U. S. Department of the interior, "The Cost of Clean
Water", volume III - Industrial Wastes, Profile No. 1,
447
-------
Blast Furnace and Steel Mills, FWPCA, Washington,
D. C. (September 28, 1967),
127. United States Steel, The Making. Shaping, and Treating
of Steel. Harold E. McGannon ed., Herlicek and Hill,
Pittsburgh, 8th edition (1964).
128. Vayssiere, P., Rovanet, J., Berthet, A., Roederer,
C., Trentini, B., "The IRSID continuous Steelmaking
Process", (May, 1968).
129. Wall Street Journal, "U. S, Steel Converting 3 New
Gary Furnaces to Q-BOF System", (March 14, 1972).
130. Wallace, De Yarman, "Blast Furnace Gas Washer Water
Recycle System", Iron and Steel Engineer Yearbook,
pp. 231-235 (1970T-
131, . Water and Sewage Works, 113, "Bethlehem Steel's Burns
Harbor Wastewater treatment Plant", pp. 468-470
(December, 1966).
132. Water and Wastes Engineering* 7, "Armco's Pollution
Control Facility Wins ASCE Award", No. 5, pp. C-12
(May, 1970) .
133, weirton Steel Employees Bulletin. 36. "Progress in
continuing In Weirton Steel's Water Pollution Abate-
ment Program", No. 2, pp. 3-7 (1968).
134. Wilson, T. E., and Newton, D., "Brewery Wastes As A
Carbon Source For Denitrification at Tampa, Florida",
Presented at the 28th Annual Purdue Industrial waste
Conference, 1973.
135. Work, M., "The FMC Coke Process", Journal of Metals*
p. 635 (May, 1966).
136. Worner, H. W,, Baker, F. H., Lassam, I. H., and
Siddons, R., "WORCRA (Continuous) Steelmaking",
Journal of Metals, p, 50 (June, 1969)„
»j
137. Wylie, W., Pittsburgh Press Business Editor, "Report
on 1973 AISI Meeting", (May 27, 1973).
138. Zabban, Walter, and Jewett, H. W., "The Treatment of
Fluoride Wastes", Engineering Bulletin of Purdue
University, Proceedings of the 22nd Industrial Waste
Conference, 1967, p. 7067
139. Cousins, W. G. and Mindler, A, B,, "Tertiary Treatment of
Weak Ammonia Liquor", JWPCF. 44, 4 607-618 (April, 1972).
140. Grosick, H. A., "Ammonia Disposal - coke Plants,"
Bj.agt^Furnacg_and steel Plant, pp. 217-221 (April, 1971) .
448
-------
141. Hall, D. A. and Nellis, G. R., "Phenolic Effluents Treatment",
Chemical Trade. Jpurnaj. (Brit.)* 156, p. 786, (1965).
142. Labine, R. A,, "Unusual Refinery Unit Produces Phenol-Free
wastewater", chemical.Engineering, 66, 17, 114, (1959) .
143. McKee, J.E. and Wolfe, H.W., "Water Quality Criteria",
second edition. State Water Quality Control Board, Sacramento,
California, Publication No. 3^-A.
449
-------
-------
SECTION XIV
GLOSSARY
Acid Furnace
A furnace lined with acid brick as contrasted to one lined with
basic brick. In this instance the terms acid and basic are in
the same relationship as the acid anhydride and basic anhydride
that are found in aqueous chemistry. The most common acid brick
is silica brick or chrome brick.
Air Cooled Slag
Slag which is cooled slowly in large pits in the ground. Light
water sprays are generally used to accelerate the cooling over
that which would occur in air alone. The finished slag is
generally gray in color and looks like a sponge.
Alloying Materials
Additives to steelmaking processes producing alloy steel.
Ammonia Liquor
Primarily water condensed from the coke oven gas, an aqueous
solution of ammonium salts of which there are two kinds: free and
fixed. The free salts are, those which are decomposed on boiling
to liberate ammonia. The fixed salts are those which require
boiling with an alkali such as lime to liberate the ammonia.
Ammonia Still
The free ammonia still is simply a steam stripping operation
where ammonia gas is removed from ammonia liquor. The fixed
still is similar except lime is added to the liquor to force the.
combined ammonia out of its compounds so it can be steam stripped
also.
Ammonia still Waste
Treated effluent from an ammonia still.
Apron Rolls
Rolls used in the casting strand for keeping cast products
aligned.
Basic Brick
A brick made of a material which is a basic anhydride such as Mgo
or mixed MgO plus CaO. See acid furnace.
Basic Furnace
451
-------
A furnace in which the refractory material is composed of
dolomite or magnesite.
Basic Oxygen Steelmakincr
The basic oxygen process is carried out in a basic lined furnace
which is shaped like a pear- High pressure oxygen is blown
vertically downward on the surface of the molten iron through a
water cooled lance.
Battery
A group of coke ovens arranged Side by side.
Blast Furnace
A large, tall, conical-shaped furnace used to reduce iron ore to
iron.
Bosh
The bottom section of a blast furnace. The section between the
hearth and the stack.
Briquette
An agglomeration of steel plant waste material of sufficient
strength to be a satisfactory blast furnace charge.
By-Product Coke Process
Process in which coal is carbonized in the absence of air to
permit recovery of the volatile compounds and to produce coke.
Burden
Solid feed stack to a blast furnace.
Carbon Steel
Steel which owes its properties chiefly to various percentages of
carbon without substantial amounts of other alloying elements.
Steel is classified as carbon steel when no minimum content of
elements other than carbon is specified or required to obtain a
desired alloying effect.
Charge
The minimum combination of skip or bucket loads of material which
together provide the balanced complement necessary to produce hot
metal of the desired specification.
Checker
452
-------
A regenerator brick chamber which is used to absorb heat and cool
the waste gases to 650-750°C.
Cinder
Another name for slag,
Clarification
The process of removing undissolved materials from a liquid,
specifically either by settling or filtration.
Closed Hood
A system in which the, hot gases from the basic oxygen furnace are
not allowed to burn in the hood with outside air infiltration.
These hoods cap the furnace mouth.
Coke
The carbon residue left when the volatile matter is driven off of
coal by high temperature distillation.
Coke Breeze
Small particles of coke; these are usually used in the coke
plants as boiler feed or screened for domestic trade.
coke Wharf
The place where coke is discharged from quench cars prior to
screening.
Cold Metal Furnace
A furnace that is usually charged with two batches of solid
material.
Continuous casting
A new process for solidifying liquid steel in place of pouring it
into ingot molds. In this process the solidified steel is in the
form of cast blooms, billets, or slabs. This eliminates the need
for soaking pits and primary rolling.
Creosote
Distillate from tar.
Cyanide
Total cyanide as determined by the test procedure specified in 40
CFR Part 136 (Federal Register Vol. 38, no. 199, October 16,
1973) .
453
-------
Cyanide A
Cyanides amendable to chlorination as described in "1972 Annual
Book of ASTM Standards" 1972: Standard D 2036-72, Method B, p
553.
Dephenolizer
A facility in which phenol is removed from the ammonia liquor and
recovers it as sodium phenolate; this is usually accomplished by
liquid extraction and vapor recirculation.
Double Slagging
Process in which the first oxidizing slag is removed and replaced
with a white, lime- finishing slag.
££338
Flat bed railroad cars. A drag will generally consist of five or
six coupled cars.
An operation in which a lower grade of steel is produced in the
basic oxygen furnace or open hearth and is then alloyed in the
electric furnace.
A part of the blast furnace through which the major portion of
the dust is removed by mechanical separation.
Electric Furnace
A furnace in which scrap iron, scrap steel, and other solid
ferrous materials are melted and converted to finished steel.
Liquid iron is rarely used in an electric furnace.
Electrostatic Precipitator
A gas cleaning device using the principle of placing an elec-
trical charge on a solid particle which is then attracted to an
oppositely charged collector plate. The collector plates are
intermittently rapped to discharge the collected dust to a hopper
below.
Evaporation Chamber
A method used for cooling gases to the precipitators in which an
exact heat balance is maintained between water required and gas
cooled; no effluent is discharged in this case as all of the
water is evaporated*
454
-------
Fettling
The period of time between tap and start.
Final Cooler
A hurdle packed tower that cools the coke oven gas by direct
contact. The gas must be cooled to 30°c for recovery of light
oil.
Flushing Liquor
Water recycled in the collecting main for the purpose of cooling
the gas as it leaves the ovens.
Flux
Material added to a fusion process for the purpose of removing
impurities from the hot metal.
Fourth Hole
A fourth refractory lined hole in the roof of the electric
furnace which serves as an exhaust port.
Free Leg
A portion of the ammonia still from which ammonia, hydrogen
sulfide, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen cyanide are steam distilled
and returned to the gas stream.
Fugitive Emissions
Emissions that are expelled to the atmosphere in an uncontrolled
manner.
Granulated Slag
A product made by dumping liquid blast furnace slag past a high
pressure water jet and allowing it to fall into a pit of water.
The material looks like light tan sand.
Hot Blast
The heated air stream blown into the bottom of a blast furnace.
Temperatures are in the range of 550°C to 1000°cf and pressures
are in the range of 2 to 4,5 atmospheres.
Hot Metal
Melted, liquid iron or steel. Generally refers to the liquid
metal discharge from blast furnaces.
Hot Metal Furnace
455
-------
A furnace that is initially charged with solid materials followed
by a second charge of melted liquid.
Ingot
A large block-shaped steel casting. Ingots are intermediates
from which other steel products are made. An ingot is usually
the first solid form the steel takes after it is made in a
furnace,
Ingot Mold
A mold in which ingots are cast. Molds may be circular, square,
or rectangular in shape, with walls of various thickness. Some
molds are of larger cross section at the bottom, others are
larger at the top.
The product made by the reduction of iron ore. Iron in the steel
mill sense is impure and contains up to 4% dissolved carbon along
with other impurities. See steel.
Iron Ore
The raw material from which iron is made. It is primarily iron
oxide with impurities such as silica.
Kish
A graphite formed on hot metal following tapping.
A clear yellow-brown oil with a specific gravity of about 0.889.
It contains varying amounts of coal-gas products with boiling
points from about 40°C to 200°C and from which benzene, toluene,
xylene and solvent napthas are recovered.
Lime Boil
The turbulence created by the release of carbon dioxide in the
calcination of the limestone.
Lime Leg
The fixed leg of the ammonia still to which milk of lime is added
to decompose ammonium salts; the liberated ammonia is steam
distilled and returned to the gas stream.
Meltdown
The melting of the scrap and other solid metallic elements of the
charge.
456
-------
Mill Scale
The iron oxide scale which breaks off of heated steel as it
passes through a rolling mill. The outside of the piece of steel
is generally completely coated with scale as a result of being
heated in an oxidizing atmosphere.
MQlten.Metal Period
The period of time during the electric furnace steelmaking cycle
when fluxes are added to furnace molten bath for forming the
slag.
Open Hearth Furnace
A furnace used for making steel. It has a large flat saucer
shaped hearth to hold the melted steel. Flames play over top of
the steel and melt is primarily by radiation.
Open Plate Panel Hood
A U.5 meter to 6 meter square, rectangular or circular cross
sectional shaped conduit, open at both ends, which is used in the
EOF steelmaking process for the combustion and conveyance of hot
gases, fume, etc., which are generated in the basic oxygen
furnace, to the waste gas collection system.
Ore Boil
The generation of carbon monoxide by the oxidation of carbon.
Oxidizing Slags
Fluxing agents that are used to remove certain oxides such as
silicon dioxide, manganese oxide, phosphorus pentoxide and iron
oxide from the hot metal.
Pelletizinq
The processing of dust from the steel furnaces into a pellet of
uniform size and weight for recycle.
Pig Iron
Impure iron cast into the form of small blocks that weigh about
30 kilograms each. The blocks are called pits.
Pinch Rolls
Rolls used to regulate the speed of discharge of cast product
from the molds.
Distillate from tar.
457
-------
Pouring
The transfer of molten metal from the ladle into ingot molds or
other types of molds; for example, in castings.
Quenching
A process of rapid cooling from an elevated temperature by
contact with liquids, gases, or solids.
Quench Tower
The station at which the incandescent coke in the coke car is
sprayed with water to prevent combustion* Quenching of coke
requires about 500 gallons of water per ton of coke.
Reducing Slag
Used in the electric furnace following the slagging off of an
oxidizing slag to minimize the loss of alloys by oxidation.
Refining
Oxidation cycle for transforming hot metal (iron) and other
metallics into steel by removing elements present such as
silicon, phosphorus, manganese and carbon.
Runner
A channel through which molten metal or slag is passed from one
receptacle to another; in a casting mold, the portion of the gate
assembly that connects the downgate or sprue with the casting.
Runout
Escape of molten metal from a furnace, mold or melting crucible.
Slag
A product resulting from the action of a flux on the nonmetallic
constituents of a processed ore, or on the oxidized metallic
constituents that are undesirable. Usually slags consist of
combinations of acid oxides with basic oxides, and neutral oxides
are added to aid fusibility.
Spark Box
A solids and water collection zone in a basic oxygen furnace
hood.
Refined iron. Typical blast furnace iron has the following
composition: Carbon - 3 to 4.5%; Silicon - 1 to 3%; sulfur -
0.04 to 0.2%; Phosphorus - 0.1 to 1.0%; Manganese - 0.2 to 2.0%.
458
-------
The refining process (steelmaking) reduces the concentration of
these elements in the metal. A common steel 1020 has the
following composition: Carbon - 0.18 to 0.23%; Manganese - 0.3
to 0.6%; Phosphorus - less than 0.04%; Sulfur - less than 0.05%.
Steel Ladle
A vessel for receiving and handling liquid steel. It is made
with a steel shell, lined with refractories.
Stools
Flat cast iron plates upon which the ingot molds are seated.
Stoves
Large refractory filled vessels in which the air to be blown into
the bottom of a blast furnace is preheated.
Strand
A term applied to each mold and its associated mechanical
equipment,
Support Rolls
Rolls used in the casting strand for keeping cast products
aligned.
Tap Hole
A hole approximately fifteen (15) centimeters in diameter located
in the hearth brickwork of the furnace that permits flow of the
molten steel to the ladle.
Tapping
Transfer of hot metal from a furnace to a steel ladle.
Tap to Tap
Period of time after a heat is poured and the other necessary
cycles are performed to produce another heat for pouring.
Tar
The organic matter separated by condensation from the gas in the
collector mains. It is a black, viscous liquid, a little heavier
than water. From it the following general classes of compounds
may be recovered: pyrites, tar acids, naphthalene, creosote oil
and pitch.
Teeming
Casting of steel into ingots.
459
-------
Tundijgh
A preheated, covered, steel, refractory-lined, rectangular con-
tainer with several nozzles in the bottom which is used to
regulate the flow of hot steel from the teeming ladles.
Vacuum. Degassing
A process for removing dissolved gases from liquid steel by
subjecting it to a vacuum,
Venturi Scrubber
A wet type collector that uses the throat for intermixing of the
dust and water particles. The intermixing is accomplished by
rapid contraction and expansion of the air stream and a high
degree of turbulence.
WasnrQil
A petroleum solvent used as an extractant in the coke plant.
Waste Heat Boiler
Boiler system which utilrize the the hot gases from the checkers
as a source of heat,
Hater Tube Hood
Consists of steel tubes, four (4) to five (5) centimeters in
diameter, laid parallel to each other and joined together by
means of steel ribs continuously welded. This type hood is used
in the basic oxygen steelmaking process for the combustion and
conveyance of hot gases to the waste gas collection system.
Wet Scrubbers
Venturi or orifice plate units used to bring water into intimate
contact with dirty gas for the purpose of removing pollutants
from the gas stream.
460
-------
TABLE 80
KETRIC UNITS
CONVERSION TABLE
MULTIPLY (ENGLISH UNITS)
ENGLISH UNIT ABBREVIATION
acre ac
acre-feet ac ft
British Thermal
Unit BTU
British Thermal BTU/lb
Unit/pound
cubic feet/minute cfm
cubic feet/second cfs
cubic feet cu ft
cubic feet cu ft
cubic inches cu in
degree Fahrenheit °F
feet ft
gallon gal
gallon/minute gpro
horsepower hp
inches in
inches of mercury in Hg
pounds Ib
million gallons/day mgd
mile mi
pound/square inch psig
(gauge)
square feet sq ft
square inches sqin
tons (short) ton
yard yd
by TO OBTAIN (METRIC UNITS)
CONVERSION ABBREVIATION METRIC UNIT
0.405
1233.5
0.252
0.555
0.028
1.7
0.028
28.32
16.39
0.555(°F-32)*
0.3048
3.785
0.0631
0.7457
2.54
0.03342
0.454
3,785
1.609
(0.06805 psig +l)*atm
0.0929
6.452 '
0.907
0.9144
ha hectares
cu m cubic meters
kg cal kilogram-calories
kg cal/kg kilogram calories/
kilogram
cu m/min cubic meters/minute
cu m/min cubic meters/minute
cu m cubic meters
1 liters
cu cm cubic centimeters
°C degree Centigrade
m meters
1 liters
I/sec liters/second
kw killowatts
cm centimeters
atm atmospheres
kg kilograms
cu m/day cubic meters/day
km kilometer
atmospheres
(absolute)
sqm- square meters
sq cm square centimeters
kkg . metric tons
(1000 kilograms)
m meters
* Actual conversion, not a multiplier
461
-------
-------