Technology Transfer EPA 625/10-80-001
Environmental
Regulations
Technology
The
August 1 980
U.S.
5,
77 West 12th Ftoqr
1L
This report was prepared jointly by
Effluent Guidelines Division
Office of Water Planning and Standards
Office of Water and Waste Management
Washington DC 20460
and
Center for Environmental Research Information
Office of Research Program Management
Office of Research and Development
Cincinnati OH 45268
-------
Nickel plating bath
MrS.
-------
Contents 1- Overview , 1
2. Water Pollution Control Regulations 2
The Clean Water Act 3
Applications to Eiectroplaters Discharging Directlyto Waterways 5
National Pretreatment Standards for Indirect Dischargers ........ 6
General Pretreatment Regulations 6
Important Aspects for Eiectroplaters ................. 7
Variance Application 7
Removal Allowances 8
Specific Pretreatment Standards for Eiectroplaters. 9
3. Water Pollution Control Technologies ...,..,,.......,. 11
Selecting a System 11
Resource Recovery and Pollutant Load Reduction Modifications .... 12
Conventional Wastewater Treatment 13
Alternative Methods of Treatment..........,...,,,.,..,..... 14
Cost Implications of Direct Wastewater Discharge. ...,...,,,,.. 15
4, Water Pollution Control Case Histories .....,..,..,,.. 16
Case History 1. Economic Evaluation of Evaporator Installation. .. 16
Case History 2. Automated Direct Drag-out Recovery. 18
Case History 3. Stream Segregation to Enhance Conventional Treat-
ment System Performance 19
Case History 4. Sulfide Precipitation. 20
Case History 5. Ion Exchange for Selective Heavy Metal Removal... 22
5. Solid Waste Management 25
Hazardous Waste Regulations 25
Identification of Hazardous Wastes ....,....,.,... 25
Requirements for Hazardous Waste Generators 27
Requirements for Storage and Disposal Facilities 28
Reduction of Sludge Volume and Disposal Cost 29
Effects of Pollutant and Wastewater Load Reduction 30
Effects of Treatment Techniques 30
Effects of Sludge Dewatering. 31
6, Financing Alternatives ...................................... 35
Income Tax Provisions 35
Small Business Administration Loans , 35
SBA-Guaranteed Pollution Control Revenue Bonds 35
Other Sources 36
7. Consolidated Permit Program ,,....,,............ 37
8. Contacts 38
Regulatory Information 38
Financial Assistance Information 38
EPA Regional Offices 39
References 41
HI
-------
Illustrations Figures
1, Electroplating Industry Conventional Wastewater Treatment, ..... 13
2. Annual Sewer Fee as a Function of Flowrate , 15
3. Evaporative Recovery System: (a) Closed-Loop and (b) Open-Loop. .. 17
4. Cost Versus Feed Rate for Open-Loop Evaporator System 18
5. Automated Direct Drag-out Recovery 18
6. Percentage of Drag-out Recovery with Rinse-and-Recycle System. .. 19
7. Treatment System With Waste Stream Segregation . 20
8. Treatment System With Sulfide Precipitation 21
9. Continuous Treatment System 23
10. Generator Obligations Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act , , . 27
11. Annual Cost for Sludge Disposal 29
12, Sludge Generation Rates for Three Treatment Systems. 30
13. Sludge Volume Versus Solids Concentration 31
14. Recessed Plate Filter Press and Auxiliary Equipment Needed for
Sludge Dewatering 32
15. Annual Sludge Disposal Cost for Filter Press Dewatering System . ,., 33
16. Return on Investment from Recessed Plate Filter Installation..... 34
Tables
1. Summary of Legislative Activities , 3
2. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available Effluent
Limitations (Suspended Indefinitely): Subparts A and D-F........ 4
3. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available Effluent
Limitations (Suspended Indefinitely): Subpart B. .. 5
4. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available Effluent
Limitations (Suspended indefinitely): Subparts A, B, and D-F 6
5. EPA Classification of Electroplating Industry. . , 6
6. Pretreatrnent Standards for Existing Sources: Subparts A, B, and
D-H 8
7, Pretreatrnent Standards for Existing Sources: Alternative 1—Sub-
parts A, B, and D-H 9
8. Pretreatrnent Standards for Existing Sources: Alternative 2—Sub-
parts A, B, and D-H 10
9. Economic Evaluation for Evaporator Installation................ 16
10. Permit Requirements and Treated Effluent Quality: Waste Stream
Segregation 20
11. State Requirements and Treated Effluent Quality: Sulfide Precipita-
tion 22
12. Permit Requirements and Treated Effluent Quality: Ion Exchange.... 24
13. Toxic Waste Limits Set by EPA's Extraction Procedure 26
IV
-------
1. Overview
The enactment of a series of laws
by the U.S. Congress has confronted
the electroplating industry with
a multitude of pollution control
requirements for wastewater and
solid residues. The Congress
assigned the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) the
responsibility for preparing the
detailed regulations and establishing
the administrative procedures for
carrying out the laws,
Because the water pollution and
solid waste laws were passed at
different times, EPA's schedule
for implementing pollution
control requirements differs for each
of these areas. Therefore, electro-
platers must keep informed of
new and changing regulations, as
integrated compliance will reduce
pollution control and treatment costs.
This report is intended to provide
the electroplating industry with
a summary of the laws and EPA
regulatory activities, and of
regulations and technologies that
can affect electroplaters* decisions
for wastewater pollution control
and solid waste handling and
disposal. The regulations recently
promulgated by EPA are presented
and water pollution control
technologies and case histories of
installations are discussed. Processes
are described only to provide
some guidance for selecting pollution
control systems. The report also
includes information on the current
status of sludge disposal regulations,
technologies and operating
techniques that can reduce
sludge disposal costs, and financial
assistance available through
federally sponsored programs.
Chrome plating bath
-------
2. Water Pollution
Control Regulations
The regulations to be applied
to electroplaters result from a
complex series of events, involving
an extensive effort by both the
government and the electroplating
industry. Many platers have been
confused by the complexity of
the regulatory process, and their
confusion is understandable.
It is hoped that this section will
clarify the essential features
of the regulations,
Table 1 summarizes environmental
legislative activities that have
dealt with water pollution control.
With the enactment of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(FWPCA) as amended in 1972
(Public Law 92-500), the Federal
Government became responsible
for a wide range of regulations
related to water pollution control.
Although the average manufacturer
may not be concerned with the
full scope of this complex bill, of key
importance are those parts of the
law relating to the discharge
of industrial wastewater to
waterways8 or municipal systems.
For industries discharging waste-
water to waterways (direct dis-
chargers), the most far-reaching
feature of the 1972 FWPCA
amendments was the requirement
that all such industries install a
base level of pollution control
technology by July 1, 1977, and a
more stringent level by July 1, 1983
(later amended to 1984). The
base level was called Best Practicable
Control Technology Currently
Available (BPCTCA), or simply
BPT. The more stringent level
was termed the Best Available Tech-
nology Economically Achievable
(BATEA), and is usually referred
to as BAT. In addition, special
standards known as New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS)
were to be established for new plants.
"The language of the legislation refers to
"discharge to navigable waters."
Although the BPT and BAT standards
were intended for national com-
pliance, regardless of location,
they are actually minimum standards.
If the BPT pollution control
techniques applied by all sources
discharging to waterways are
inadequate to meet the established
water quality standards for a
stream, both EPA and the State
are required to impose even
stricter pollution control require-
ments. In all cases, the State
is authorized to impose requirements
more stringent than the Federal
guidelines.
The National Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) et al. sued EPA
for not fulfilling its obligation
under the 1972 FWPCA amend-
ments, and in 1976 EPA agreed
to concentrate attention on
potentially toxic substances using
technology-based standards. The
agreement, called the NRDC Consent
Decree or the Settlement Agreement,
required as much control of
toxic pollutants as technologically
feasible by including toxic substances
in the standards to be issued
for individual industries.
The NRDC Consent Decree com-
mitted EPA to a schedule for
developing BAT effluent limits for
21 major industries—including
electroplating—covering 65 recog-
nized classes of toxic substances.
EPA has further classified these
65 categories into 129 specific
substances.
In 1977 the provisions of the
NRDC Consent Decree and other
changes were incorporated
in further amendments to the
FWPCA. These amendments,
known as the Clean Water Act of
1977 (Public Law 95-217),
included increased emphasis on the
control of toxic pollutants and
specific provisions for the control
of industrial wastes discharged
to publicly owned treatment
works (POTW's). (Plants dis-
charging into POTW's are often
referred to as indirect dischargers.)
-------
Table 1.
Summary of Legislative Activities
Year
Legislation
Effect
1972,
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA)
Amendments (Public Law 92-500)
1976,
Required all industries discharging waste into waterways and municipal systems to
install a base level of pollution control technology (BPT) by July 1, 1977, Required
BAT by 1 983 (later revised to 1984—see Clean Water Act). Required new source
performance standards.
Established National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program.
Required self-monitoring by plants discharging to navigable waters. Established
Federal control over municipal treatment plants.
Electroplating regulations were proposed under the act, but were suspended shortly
thereafter.
Committed EPA to schedule for developing BAT effluent limitations for 21 major in~
dustries covering 65 recognized toxic substance classes (1 29 specific com-
pounds).
The Clean Water Act incorporated these parameters.
Established controls for disposal of all solid wastes. Defined hazardous solid wastes.
Established tests to determine if waste is hazardous.
Established standards for solid waste generators, storage facilities, and disposal
sites. Required manifest system for transportation of hazardous wastes.
Regulations under the act were promulgated on May 19, 1980.
Amended FWPCA. Revised deadlines established under FWPCA.
Defined classes of pollutants as toxic, conventional, and nonconventionel. Placed
major emphasis on the toxic compounds associated with the NRDC Consent
Decree.
Linked pretreatment standards to BAT guidelines for toxics. Authorized publicly
owned treatment works to relax pretreatment standards under certain conditions.
Placed 1-year moratorium on industrial cost recovery.
Most electroplating regulations were promulgated under the act on September 7,
1979, The rest are scheduled for mid-1981,
Toxic Substances Control Act (Public Law 94- Can require extensive testing of chemicals by manufacturers. Can require premsrket
469} notification to EPA of all new chemicals or mixtures. Can require maintenance of
records.
Can delay manufacture or marketing of new chemical products pending generation
of sufficient environmental information, C0n ban or restrict chemical marketing.
Note.—Earlier legislation included: 1956, Federal Water Pollution Control Act; 1965, Water Quality Act; 1966, Clean Water Restoration Act; 1970,
Water Quality Improvement Act.
1977.
National Resource Defense Council (NRDC)
Consent Decree (NRDC et al. vs. Train!
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(Public Law 94-580}
Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-217}
The Clean Water Act
The goals of the Clean Water Act
of 1977 were identical to those
originally defined in the 1972
FWPCA amendments, which
called for:
• Eliminating the discharge of
pollutants to waterways by 1985
• Providing for fishable, swim-
mable waters by 1983
» Eliminating the hazards of toxic
compounds
The three levels of control—BPT,
BAT, and NSPS—were retained, but
many changes were made. For
example, the Clean Water Act:
® Defined three classes of
pollutants—toxic, conventional,
and nonconventional.
• Revised deadlines.
» Required EPA to address the
65 classes of pollutants (129
specific substances) for both
direct and indirect dischargers,
• Authorized POTW's to relax
pretreatment standards if it could
be shown that no detrimental
effects on the POTWs treatment
levels would result.
The Clean Water Act identifies the
same 65 compounds that were
associated with the NRDC Consent
Decree, These toxic pollutants
are subject to effluent limits
that result from applying BAT regu-
lations. BAT is to be installed no
later than July 1, 1984, by industries
directly discharging to waterways.
For all other toxic substances
subsequently added to the list,
plants must comply with BAT limits
no later than 3 years after the limit
is established. Regulations, or
effluent limits, for direct dischargers
are expected to be determined by
EPA during 1980 to allow industries
time to install the appropriate
technologies; however, it is unlikely
that the BAT regulations for
electroplating will be promulgated
before mid-1981.
-------
Table 2,
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available Effluent Limitations3 (Suspended Indefinitely11): Subparts A
and D-F
Effluent
Pollutant jib/106 ft2/operation):
Nickel
Chromium:
Total
Cr+6 . , .....
Cyanide:
Total , ....
Amenable ..,.,.,..,.,,,...
Cadmium ....... ,,,.»..
Iron ....
Tin
pH
Subpart
Daily
maximum
32 7
32.7
32 7
3 3
32 7
32.7
3.3
1 308
. . . 1 9.2
32 7
65 4
65 4
654
1,308
60-9 5
A
30- d
average
16 4
164
164
1 6
16 4
164
1 6
654
9 6
164
32 7
32 7
32 7
654
8 0-9 5
Subpart
Daily
maximum
18 4
18 4
184
1 8
184
184
1 8
738
8 8
(«)
36 8
36 8
36 8
738
6 0-9 5
Effluen
D
30-d
average
9 2
9 2
9 2
9 2
92
9 2
9 2
369
44
,d.
184
184
18 4
369
6 0-9 5
t limits
Subpart
Daily
maximum
164
16 4
164
1 6
164
164
1 6
646
9 8
(d)
32 8
32 8
32 8
646
6 0-9 5
£
30-d
average
3 2
8 2
8 2
0 82
8 2
8 2
0 82
323
4 9
rt
164
164
164
323
6 0-9 5
Subpart
Daily
maximum
24 6
24 6
24 6
2 4
24 6
24 6
3 8
984
14 8
rt
49 2
49 2
49 2
984
B 0-9 5
F
30-d
average
12 3
12 3
12 3
1 2
123
12 3
1 9
492
7 4
,d>
24 6
24 6
24 6
492
6 0-9 5
"Plants employing more than 11 persons, discharging more than 2.061 gal/hfrom metal finishing processes, or having a production rate greater than
52.7 ft2/h per employee.
Although these regulations were suspended and are not in effect, they may be used by permit writers as guidance.
cDescribed in Table 5.
dNot applicable.
SOURCES: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Effluent Guidelines and Standards; Electroplating Point Source Category; Pretreatment Standards
for Existing Sources," Federal Register 44(1 75):52590-52629, Sept. 7, 1979. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Effluent Guidelines and
Standards, Electroplating Point Source Category, Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources," Federal Register 44{191 ):56330-56333, Oct. 1, 1979,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Effluent Guidelines and Standards, Electroplating Point Source Category, Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources; Correction," Federal Register 45f59):19245-19246, Mar. 25, 1980.
The control of pollutants defined as
conventional beyond BPT was
made subject to a cost-to-benefit
analysis to determine if any
additional reduction was warranted.
The conventional pollutants
are biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD), total suspended solids
fTSS), oil and grease, and pH.
This part of the !aw reflected
Congress' feeling that BPT might be
sufficient for these pollutants.
Nonconventional pollutants are all
pollutants that are neither con-
ventional nor toxic.
Another change from the 1972
FWPCA amendments is the
innovative technology extension
covered in Section 301 (k) of the
Clean Water Act. Congress,
wishing to encourage wastewater
reuse and recycling as well as
other innovations, provided an
opportunity for temporary relief from
some guidelines to facilities
interested in pursuing innovative
control techniques. Thus, Section
301 (k) permits an extension
of the BAT requirements for both
direct and indirect discharging
industrial sources using innovative
technologies. The extension
can be granted until July 1, 1987,
if the technology will achieve
significantly greater effluent
reduction than BAT at a similar cost,
or if it will allow compliance
with existing requirements at
significantly reduced costs. In either
case, the system must have potential
for industrywide application.
Guidelines governing the extension,
although not yet established,
will include the application
mechanism and general require-
ments for identifying when a
technology is considered innovative.
The National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
permit has been the heart of the
regulation and enforcement system
since the passage of the 1972
FWPCA amendments, and it
continues in that role under the
Clean Water Act. Under NPDES
provisions, each point source dis-
charging into a waterway must
-------
apply for a permit either through
the State (if the State has an
EPA-approved permit program) or
through EPA, A manufacturer or
municipality must obtain a permit
detailing the pollutants that
may be discharged, a schedule
for compliance, monitoring
and reporting requirements, and the
period (not to exceed 5 years)
for which the permit applies,
The Federal Government has authority
to ensure compliance with the
conditions of the permit, if viola-
tions of State-issued permits are
not followed by appropriate
enforcement action, EPA can initiate
its own action after 30 days' notice,
The law further states that any
person who willfully or negligently
violates any permit condition
shall be punished by a fine of not
more than $25,000, by imprisonment
for not more than 8 months, or
by both. In this case, "person" is
interpreted to mean any responsible
corporate officer.
To provide regulatory officials
with sufficient information for
establishing effluent standards, and
to maintain information on the
amounts of pollutants being
discharged, the law allows EPA to
require that a manufacturing facility
monitor its own wastes in a manner
to be specified by EPA, The
manufacturer must keep adequate
records, to be provided to EPA
on request or on an established
schedule. Self-monitoring plays
an important part in the implementa-
tion of controls on manufacturers.
EPA also has the right, on presenta-
tion of appropriate credentials,
to visit any manufacturing site,
to examine records, to check
sampling and monitoring equipment,
and to take any samples required
for checking the results sub-
mitted by the manufacturer. The
information gathered becomes
public, unless trade secrets
or proprietary information would
be revealed in the process, In
cases of this kind, provisions are
made to allow access only to regula-
Table 3,
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available Effluent Limitations8
(Suspended Indefinitely15): Subpart Bc
Effluent characteristic
Pollutant (lb/1 Oe ft2/operat!on):
Silver,
Gold
Cyanide:
Tata! . , . , , , , , .
Chromium;
Total
Cr+s ...
indium. ,»,.,,..»-....»,,.»...,,.»».,*,*,.„.*.....
pH ,
Effluent
Daily
3.3
. . ... 3.3
3.3
32.7
32.7
3,3
3,3
3.3
3.3
..... 3.3
3.3
3.3
65,4
1 ,308
6.0-9.5
limits
30-d
average
1.6
1.6
1.6
16.4
16.4
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.6
32.7
654
6.0-9.5
aPlants employing more than 11 persons, discharging more than 2,081 gal/h from metal finishing
processes, or having a production rate greater than 52,.7 ft2/h per employee,
bAlthough these regulations were suspended and are not in effect, they may be used by permit
writers as guidance.
eDescribed in Table 5.
SOURCES: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Effluent Guidelines and Standards; Electro-
plating Point Source Category; Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources," Federal fisgister
44f175):52590-52629, Sept. 7, 1979. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Effluent Guidelines
and Standards, Electroplating Paint Source Category, Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources," Federal Register 44(191 ):56330-56333, Oct. 1, 1979. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, "Effluent Guidelines and Standards, Electroplating Point Source Category, Pretreatment
Standards for Existing Sources; Correction," federal Register 45(59): 19245-19246, Mar. 25,1980,
tory officials, (By law, however,
effluent data cannot be considered
proprietary.) Several State and
local governments also have
many of the foregoing authorities,
Applications to Electro-
Discharging
Directly to Waterways
The pretreatment regulations
published on September 7, 1979,1
included effluent guidelines
representing EPA's best estimate
of BPT for direct dischargers, but
footnotes to the relevant sections
indicated that these regulations
have been suspended indefinitely.
The published BPT values (Tables 2
through 4), therefore, are not
enforceable until EPA repromulgates
the direct discharge sections.
Lacking national regulations
for direct dischargers, permit writers
will use their own best judgment
in issuing permits to plants in
the industry subparts1 shown in
Table 5. Many permit writers,
however, will use one of the
following as guidance:
• The national pretreatment
standards for indirect dischargers
(discussed in the next subsection)
• The suspended BPT regulations
(Tables 2 through 4)
BAT regulations are in preparation,
but are not expected to be pro-
mulgated until 1981,
-------
Tal>ie 4, National Pretreatment
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available Effluent Limitations8 Standards for Indirect
(Suspended Indefinitely"): Subparts A, B, and D-FC Dischargers
The Clean Water Act directed
EPA to set pretreatment requirements
for untreated industry wastewaters
suspected of containing toxic
pollutants in significant amounts.
EPA was also directed to include
provisions for considering the
amount of pollutants removed by
POTW's. In response to this
directive, EPA has issued two sets
of regulations that apply to elec-
troplaters:
« General pretreatment regula-
tions2'3 set forth the general
administrative requirements for
POTW's, States, and the
involved industries. They outline
how the regulations will take
into account (through removal
allowances) pollutants removed
by the POTW.
• Pretreatment standards for
electroplated -4~6 set specific
levels that electroplaters
must meet,
Effluent
characteristic
Cyanide (lb/106 ft2/
operation):
Amenable. . . .
Total
pH , ....
Subparts
A and B
Daily 30-d
maximum average
3.3 1.6
327 164
6 0-9 0 6 0-9 0
Effluent limits
Subparts
D and F
Daily 30-d
maximum average
1.8 0,92
184 92
6 0-9 0 6 0-9 0
Subpart E
Daily 30-d
maximum average
1 .6 0.82
164 82
6 0-9 0 6 0-9 0
"Plants employing less than 11 persons, discharging less than 2,061 gal/h from metal finishing
processes, or having a production rate less than 52.7 ft^/h per employee.
bAlthough these regulations were suspended and are not in effect, they may be used by permit writers
as guidance.
"Described in Table 5.
SOURCES: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Effluent Guidelines and Standards; Electro-
plating Point Source Category; Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources," Federal Register
44(175):52590-52629, Sept. 7, 1979. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Effluent Guidelines
and Standards, Electroplating Point Source Category, Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources," Federal Register 44C\9t):5633Q-$6333, Oct. 1, 1979. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, "Effluent Guidelines and Standards, Electroplating Point Source Category, Pretreatment
Standards for Existing Sources; Corrections," Federal Register 45(59):! 9245-19246, Mar. 25,1980.
Table B.
EPA Classification of Electroplating industry
Subpart
Description
Electroplating of common metals (Al, Cd, Cu, Cr, Fe, Ni, Sn, Pb, Zn, and any combina-
tion}
Electroplating of precious metals (Au, In, Pt, Rh, and Agj
Electroplating of specialty metals
Anodizing (anodizing, acid cleaning, and alkaline cleaning)
Coatings (coloring, chromating, phosphating, stripping, immersion plating, acid
cleaning, and alkaline cleaning)
Chemical etching and milling (chemical milling, etching, bright dipping, acid clean-
ing, and alkaline cleaning)
Electroless plating
Printed circuit board manufacturing
B
C
D
E
Note.—Subparts A, B, and C may involve stripping, coloring, phosphating, acid cleaning, and
alkaline cleaning.
SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Effluent Guidelines and Standards; Electroplat-
ing Point Source Category; Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources," Federal Register
44(175):52590-52629, Sept. 7. 1979.
General Pretreatment Regulations
General pretreatment regulations
apply to all industrial pollutants
introduced in any way into a POTW.
These regulations were promulgated
on June 26, 197S,2 went into
effect 60 days later, and were modi-
fied and clarified on October 29,
1979.3 They were intended to:
• Prevent the introduction into
a POTW of pollutants that will
interfere with its operation,
» Prevent the introduction into
a POTW of pollutants that will
pass through or otherwise
be incompatible with the
treatment works.
» Improve opportunities to recycle
and reclaim municipal and
industrial wastewaters and
sludges.
6
-------
In this context, inhibition or dis-
ruption of a POTW's sewer system,
treatment processes, or operations
constitutes "interference" if it
contributes to a violation of any
requirements of the POTW's
NPDES permit. The term includes
interference with the POTW's ability
to dispose of its sewage sludge.
The general pretreatment regu-
lations specify responsibilities
to EPA, the States, POTW's,
and industrial dischargers to
POTW's; they also detail require-
ments for obtaining removal
allowances,
Important Aspects for Electroplaters.
Industries discharging to munici-
palities are required to do one of
the following:
• Meet the specific pretreatment
limits set by EPA for the industry,
» Obtain a more lenient requirement
through a removal allowance,
which must be obtained for
the industry by the municipality,
• In special cases, where qualified,
obtain a "fundamentally
different" variance,
The plater who meets the specific
pretreatment guidelines for
electroplaters need not be concerned
with the second or third items.
Variance Application, In some cases,
information that may affect an
industry's pretreatment standards
will not have been considered
when the standards were developed.
If it is believed that a particular
situation is fundamentally different
from that considered in devel-
oping the standards, a variance may
be requested. Requests will
be approved only if:
• Factors relating to the industrial
user are fundamentally different
from those considered by EPA
in establishing the standard,
and these factors greatly
increase cost.
» The factors existed before
EPA promulgated the standard.
Rinse for nonbrass metals
A request for a variance and
supporting evidence must be sub-
mitted in writing to the NPDES
State director or to EPA's Enforce-
ment Division Director within 90
days after promulgation. If the
request for variance is rejected,
there are provisions for appeal to
the EPA Administrator; if it is
approved, a new discharge limit
will be imposed. General pretreat-
ment regulations are expected
to be amended by August 1980,
after which time the 90-day
time limit will apply.
Three aspects of the variance
application approach should be
stressed:
» Some control will still be required,
• The variance will be given
only for a set period of time and
must be renewed. Renewal
will not be automatic.
• If the variance is denied,
the original 3-year time limit
for compliance still holds.
-------
Removal Allowances. The removal
allowance offers the most likely
approach to obtaining relief
from the pretreatment requirements.
By this mechanism EPA exercises
its authority under the Clean Water
Act to consider the removal of
pollutants by the PQTW.
The removal allowance plan
states that, under specified condi-
tions, a POTW may revise a plant's
discharge limits for a pollutant
if it can be shown that the POTW
is removing an amount of pollutant
equal to the amount of the revision.
The revision must be applied for
by the municipality and basically
requires a demonstration, through
actual data, that the pollutant
is being removed. The concentration
limit would be revised by:
v
Y =
Table 6.
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources: Subparts A, B, and D-Ha
1 -r
where
Y= revised discharge limit
x — concentration required by
specific standards for electro-
platers
r= demonstrated removal fraction
For example, if the data show
60 percent POTW removal of a
specific pollutant (by the EPA-
specified sampling methods), a pol-
lutant with an initial requirement of
2 mg/l would be revised to:
1 -0.6
= 5 mg/l
EPA specifies that the influent and
effluent data taken over the municipal
treatment system shall be derived
from a minimum of 12 samples
taken at approximately equal
intervals throughout the year. Where
composite sampling is appropriate,
the time intervals between samples
for the composite cannot exceed
2 hours, and the minimum sampling
period must be 24 hours. Flow
proportioning is required, and
the effluent samples must be taken
over a time span equal to the
time the influent was retained in
the municipal system after it
was sampled.
Pollutant
Plants discharging <10,000 gal/d:
Lead , ... , . . .
Plants discharging >10,OOO gal/d (Alternative 1bJ;
Cyanide total ........ , . „ ,
Nickel
Chromium . , , , , . . ,
Zinc .,,.,,,,,,..»,,,,,.,,,,..,,,„.,,,,,.,,,
Lead .... . , , , ...
Cadmium , , , , . , . ....
Silver0
All metals ,.,«.,...
Pretreatment
standard (mg/l)
Daily
maximum
50
0.6
1 2
1,9
4 5
4 1
7,0
4.2
0 6
12
1 2
.... 105
4-d
average
2.7
0.4
0.7
1.0
2.7
2.6
4,0
2.6
0.4
0.7
0.7
6,8
"Described in Table 5.
bMass-based standards,
'Applies only to Subpart B.
SOURCES: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Effluent Guidelines and Standards; Electro-
plating Point Source Category; Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources," Federal Register
44(175):52590-52629, Sept. 7, 1979. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Effluent
Guidelines and Standards, Electroplating Point Source Category, Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources," Federal Register 44{191):56330-56333, Oct.1, 1979, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, "Effluent Guidelines and Standards, Electroplating Point Source Category, Pre-
treatment Standards for Existing Sources; Correction," Federal Register 45(59):19245-19246,
Mar. 25, 1980. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Electroplating Point Source Category,
Effluent Guidelines and Standards, Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources," federal Register,
in preparation, 1980.
When sampling is for pollutants,
such as cyanide, that cannot be
held for long periods before
analysis, grab samples can be used.
Consistent removal (r in the
foregoing equation) is to be that
level of removal demonstrated by
averaging the lowest 50 percent
of the removals measured by
12 or more samples. (This require-
ment is a change from the initial
regulations.)
To prevent dischargers from meeting
required concentrations by
dilution with nonregulated water,
the regulations require that the
concentration at which the dis-
charger is regulated be corrected
for this dilution. Thus,
Y =
X-F
where
X = the specified requirement for
the pollutant
F = the flow of regulated waste-
water
F, = the combined flow of un-
regulated and regulated water
Similarly, the regulated value based
on a consistent removal will be
reduced for a facility that bypasses
its treatment system when dis-
charging to a municipality, to account
-------
for the bypassing. The value
is reduced by multiplying by:
8,760 - Z
8,760
where
8,760 = number of hours in a year
Z = number of hours treatment
system bypassed per year
Certain conditions must be met
before a municipality can receive a
removal allowance for its industrial
users. Of major importance, the
removal allowance must not cause
the municipality to violate its
NPDES permit, or the disposal
of the municipal sludge must
not be impaired.
Before the general pretreatment
regulations were revised (on
October 29, 1979), it was also
specified that the municipality apply-
ing for a removal allowance must
have an approved pretreatment
program. It is likely, however,
that many municipalities will be
unable to comply with this require-
ment in time for industries to
meet their deadlines; therefore,
the revised regulations provide for
a conditional removal allowance
for plants discharging to municipali-
ties that intend to have pretreatment
programs.
Specific Pretreatment Standards
for Electroplaters
EPA promulgated pretreatment
standards for electroplaters
on September 7, 1979.1 Corrections
were printed on October 1, 1979,4
and March 25, 1980,5 and further
corrections will be in print shortly,6
The industry was categorized to
determine whether any of the
categories (subpatts) should have
pretreatment standards different
from the others. The regulations apply
to all subparts (listed in Table 5).
Table 7.
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources:3 Alternative 1b—Subparts A, B,
and D-HG
Pretreatment standard*1 (lb/106 ftz/operation)
Pollutant
Silver
Nickel
Subparts
A and D-G
Daiiy 4-d
maximum average
(") (1
1S.2 8
36 21 .5
32,8 20.5
55.9 32
33.6 20.9
4.7 3.3
9,6 5,9
84 54 7
Subpart
Daily
maximum
9.6
15.2
36
32.8
55,9
33.6
4.7
9.8
84
B
4-d
average
5.9
8
21.5
20.5
32
20.9
3.3
5.9
54.7
Subpart
Daily
maximum
rt
13.7
82.1
74.8
127.6
76.6
10.8
21.9
191,5
H
4-d
average
(1
18.2
49.4
46.9
73.1
47.5
7,4
13.3
124.7
"Plants discharging more than 10,000 gal/d.
bMass-based standards. Equivalent to and may apply in place of standards shown in Table 6 on
agreement between source and receiving POTW.
Described in Table 5.
dNot applicable.
SOURCES: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Effluent Guidelines and Standards, Electro-
plating Point Source Category, Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources," Federal Register
44(191 );56330-56333, Oct. 1, 1979. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Effluent Guidelines
and Standards, Electroplating Point Source Category, Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources; Correction," Federal Register 45(59):19245-19246, Mar. 25, 1980. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, "Electroplating Point Source Category, Effluent Guidelines and Standards.
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources," Federal Register, in preparation, 1980,
Table 6 gives the concentration-
based limits for existing electroplat-
ing facilities,*5 More lenient
standards were adopted for plants
discharging less than 10,000 gal/d
(38,000 l/d). For plants discharging
more than 10,000 gal/d (38,000
l/d), two alternative sets of
standards can be adopted on
agreement between the POTW
and the industrial user.
Alternative 1 is mass-based
limits (Table 7} that relate the
allowable discharge of a pollutant
to the quantity of work processed
in terms of surface area and the
number of plating operations per-
formed. A plating operation is defined
as any step in metal finishing that
is followed by a rinsing step.
An electroplater using Alternative 1
is eligible for POTW removal
credits. Credit also can be taken
for any significant levels of the
regulated pollutants in the intake
water.
Although EPA may specify more stringent
pretreatment requirements in future, the new
level is not directly tied to BAT for direct
dischargers because other conditions (such as
lack of space) will be part of the pretreat-
ment evaluation.
-------
Table 8.
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources:8 Alternative 2b—Subparts A, B,
and D-HC
Pretreatment standard
Effluent
characteristic
Daily
maximum
4-d
average
Pollutant (mg/l):
Cyanide, total
Lead
Cadmium
Total suspended solids.
pH.
1.9 1.0
0.6 0.4
1,2 0.7
20.0 13.4
7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0
"Plants discharging more than 10,000 gal/d.
Simplified standards. An optional control program that may be selected by the source with
concurrence of the control authority. Requires the absence of strong chelating agents, reduction of
hexavalent chromium, and neutralization with CaO or Ca(OH)2.
"Described in Table 5,
SOURCES: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Effluent Guidelines and Standards, Electro-
plating Point Source Category, Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources," Federal Register
44(191):56330-56333, Oct. 1, 1979. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Effluent Guidelines
and Standards, Electroplating Point Source Category, Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources;
Correction," Federal Register 45(59):1 9245-1 9246, Mar. 25, 1980. U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, "Electroplating Point Source Category, Effluent Guidelines and Standards,
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources," Federal Register, in preparation, 1980.
Alternative 2 (Table 8) is designed
to minimize the cost of monitoring
the wastewater discharge. This
standard replaces the limits
on the level of copper, nickel,
chromium, zinc, and total metals
by limits on TSS and pH, Users
of this alternative must reduce
hexavalent chromium to its trivalent
state and must neutralize the
wastewater with lime [CaO or
CajOH)2], Plants using strong
chelating agents in processing are
not allowed to use this standard
because control of pH does not
necessarily precipitate heavy
metals in the presence of strong
chelates.
10
-------
3. Water Pollution
Control Technologies
Selecting a System
To select a wastewater treatment
system for compliance with water
pollution control regulations,
the following factors should be
considered:
» The system's reliability to
remove pollutants to the levels
specified in the discharge permit
• The initial cost to install the
system
• The day-to-day costs of operating
the system (labor, utility,
treatment reagents, and sludge
disposal costs)
An additional factor is whether
the system can be modified to
comply with any future regulations
calling for increased pollutant
removal efficiencies.
The procedure for selecting a
treatment process entails the follow-
ing general tasks:
• Performing field investigations
to define the waste stream
parameters (flow rate, pollutant
types, wastewater variability)
• Developing conceptual models of
proposed treatment processes
based on the field investigation
» Conducting bench-scale
treatability studies on wastewater
samples to simulate the pro-
posed processes
» Using results of the treatability
studies to assess the ability
of the proposed systems to
meet discharge requirements
» Using data from the treatability
study assessment to determine
design parameters needed
to specify a full-size system
» Estimating the cost to install
and operate the proposed system,
based on the design parameters
needed for adequate pollutant
removal and on vendor quotations
for the equipment specified
The major influences on the
investment needed for a wastewater
treatment system are:
• Unit operations required,
for example, chromium reduction,
cyanide oxidation, and neu-
tralization
• Volumetric flow of wastewater,
which determines the size
requirements of the different
processing units
Most waste streams generated in
the electroplating industry can
be treated by simple alkali neutraliza-
tion to adjust the wastewater pH
and thereby reduce the solubility of
the dissolved metals. This step
must be followed by solids separation
to remove the suspended solids
and precipitated metals. Additional
treatment steps are typically
required for plants employing
chromium or cyanide plating
processes or plating solutions con-
taining strong chelating compounds,
Waste streams from these oper-
ations must be treated before they
are mixed with the combined
wastewater streams that feed the
central alkali precipitation process.
Once a specified treatment
system is installed, many of the
operating costs, such as labor
requirements and electrical
consumption, are fixed. Costs for
treatment chemicals and solid
waste disposal vary, however, and
depend primarily on the mass
flow of pollutants and the flow
rate of wastewater. Consequently,
before a treatment system is
selected, it is important to evaluate
options available for reducing
the volume of wastewater and for
reducing or eliminating the entry
of pollutants into the wastewater.
Incorporating waste-reduction
modifications in the plating
process can significantly reduce the
investment for treatment system
installation and can reduce
operating cost after installation. If
installing a recovery process
reduces the investment needed for
treatment hardware, in some cases
the saving will make the invest-
ment in the recovery process
cost effective.
11
-------
Resource Recovery and
Pollutant Load Reduction
Modifications
Pollution control legislation has
affected industry by increasing
the economic penalty associated
with inefficient use of raw materials.
In the plating industry, for example,
loss of a raw material in the
wastewater can result in three
distinct cost items: replacement
of the material, removal of the
material from the wastewater before
discharge, and disposal of the
residue. Similar cost items exist
for process water: replacement
of water (no longer inexpensive
to purchase) used in processing,
processing the water in the waste-
water treatment system, and
processing the water by the POTW
after discharge into a sewer system.
In response to the increased
cost of raw material losses, plating
shops are modifying their processes
to reduce these losses as well
as water consumption. Recent years
also have seen the cost-effective
application of various separation
processes that reclaim plating
chemicals from rinse waters,
enabling both the raw material and
the water to be reused.
The impact of resource recovery
and pollutant load reduction
modifications on waste treatment
and solid waste disposal costs must
be measured if these modifications
are to be evaluated. Cost of
sophisticated treatment necessary
for electroplating wastewater and of
residue disposal often provides
a significant economic incentive
for resource recovery.
Case History 1 in Section 4 high-
lights the significance of the
foregoing cost factors. If the
evaporator installation were justified
only by the value of the chromium
recovered, the investment would
appear to result in a significant
loss. If reduced pollution control
costs were included, a net profit
would result, but the investment
still would not be very lucrative.
Use of rapid write-off techniques
allowed for pollution control
equipment, however, would result in
a payback of just under 3 years,
a rate acceptable for most companies.
Section 6 describes in detail
some tax benefits and Federal
programs that facilitate pollution-
control-oriented capital projects.
Modifications for reducing the
pollutant or wastewater loading
on a treatment facility range
from using flow restrictors to
eliminate excess dilution in rinse
tanks to installing recovery units,
such as reverse osmosis and
evaporation, to separate plating
chemicals from rinse water for
recycle to the plating bath. Actions
that can minimize wastewater
volume include:
• Implementing rigorous house-
keeping practices to locate
and repair water leaks quickly
• Employing multiple counterflow
rinse tanks to reduce rinse
water use substantially
• Employing spray rinses to
minimize rinse water use
« Using conductivity cells to avoid
excess dilution in the rinse tanks
• Installing flow regulators
to minimize water use
• Reusing contaminated rinse water
and treated wastewater where
feasible
Steps to minimize pollutant
loading include:
• Implementing a rigorous house-
keeping program to locate
and repair leaks around process
baths, replacing faulty insula-
tion on plating racks to prevent
excessive solution drag-out,
installing drip trays where needed,
and so forth
• Using spray rinses or air knives
to minimize solution drag-out
from plating baths
• Recycling rinse water to
plating bath to compensate for
surface evaporation losses (see
Section 4, Case History 2)
• Using spent process solutions
as wastewater treatment
reagents (acid and alkaline
cleaning baths are obvious ex-
amples)
• Using minimum process bath
chemical concentrations
• Installing recovery processes to
reclaim plating chemicals from
rinse waters for recycle to the
plating bath
• Using process bath purification
to control the level of impurities
and prolong the bath's service life
Closed-loop chemical recovery
from a rinse stream (as shown in
Case History 1) can often provide the
solution to handling wastes that
are difficult or expensive to
treat. Applying a closed-loop recovery
system to a plating operation
eliminates the need to treat the
rinse water normally associated with
that step.
In the case of rinse streams
requiring pretreatment (for example,
cyanide or chromium) or rinses
containing pollutants not effectively
removed by conventional end-of-pipe
technology (for example, some
types of complexed metals),
installing a closed-loop system
to recycle the rinse may reduce the
investment needed to comply
with the effluent quality limitations.
A small-volume purge stream will
result from closed-loop operation,
but treatment or disposal of this
stream should not be a major
expense.
EPA has funded research into
assessing the effectiveness of
methods for recovering plating
materials for reuse in the plating
process. Reports from this research
are available in the following
subject areas:
® General7"12
• Evaporation13-14
• Reverse osmosis15-19
• Electrodialysis20'21
12
-------
Chrome wasle
ALIC)
SO
Wastewater
discharge
CLARIFICATION
Solid waste
disposal
CYANIDE
OXIDATION
S = sulfonator
C = chlorinator
ORP = oxidation reduction potential
Figure 1,
Electroplating Industry Conventional Wastewater Treatment
Conventional Wastewater
Treatment
The pollutant discharge levels called
for in the pretreatment regulations
were based on the performance
of numerous electroplating
wastewater treatment systems
observed by EPA contractors. Most
plating shops employ a conventional
wastewater treatment process
to remove pollutants from the
discharge.
Conventional wastewater treatment
in the electroplating industry
consists of the following unit
processes (Figure 1):
» Chromium reduction (if needed)
of segregated chromium waste
streams to reduce the chromium
from its hexavalent form
to the trivalent state, which then
can be precipitated as chromium
hydroxide by alkali neutrali-
zation
Cyanide oxidation (if needed)
of segregated cyanide-bearing
waste streams to oxidize the
toxic cyanides to harmless carbon
and nitrogen compounds
Neutralization of the combined
metal-bearing wastewaters, acid/
alkali wastewaters, strong
chemical dumps, and the effluent
from the cyanide and chromium
treatment systems to adjust
the pH within acceptable
discharge limits and precipitate
the dissolved heavy metals
as metal hydroxides
Clarification where flocculating/
coagulating chemicals are added
to promote the initial settling
of the precipitated metal
hydroxides
• Gravity thickening over extended
time to increase solids content
of sludge before disposal
These unit processes provide
effective, reliable treatment for many
electroplating waste streams. That
is not to say, however, that such
treatment is suitable for all appli-
cations or that the "normal" design
parameters (retention time, reagent
dosage, and so forth) will provide
effective pollutant removal from
every individual plater's waste-
water discharge, Treatabiltty
studies are needed to assess the
applicability of a treatment
process to a specific wastewater.
Case History 3, in Section 4,
discusses a system that employs
conventional treatment, but
uses stream segregation to achieve
the pollutant levels called for
in the discharge permit.
13
-------
Alternative Methods of
Treatment
Several alternative treatment
processes have been developed to
overcome the problems encountered
in treating many waste streams
in the conventional manner.
The most attention has been given
the frequent inability of the
hydroxide neutralization/metal
precipitation process to reduce
the solubility of dissolved metals to
the low levels required for discharge
of the waste stream. The problem
arises because many plating
wastewaters contain compounds
that interact with dissolved metals
and interfere with their precipitation
as metal hydroxides. Such com-
pounds as ammonia, phosphates,
tartrates, and EDTAC are commonly
used in plating operations and
consequently find their way
into the wastewater. These com-
pounds, called chelates, combine
with the dissolved metal ion to form
a complexed ion that is relatively
soluble in neutral or slightly
alkaline solutions.
The means of overcoming the
solubilizing effects of chelating
agents can be grouped under two
categories:
« Precipitation/removal of the
metal from solution by a method
that, unlike hydroxide pre-
cipitation, is relatively immune
to the chelating effects of these
compounds
• Pretreatment of the wastewater
to free the metal ion from the
chelating agents
The first category includes such
processes as sulfide precipitation,
water-insoluble starch xanthate
(ISX) precipitation, and ion exchange.
Sulfide precipitation, which
precipitates metals as sulfides
instead of hydroxides, has been
found capable of achieving low
levels of metal solubility in
highly chelated waste streams. The
process has been proven as an
alternative to hydroxide precipitation
or as a method for further reducing
the dissolved metal concentra-
tion in the effluent from a hydroxide
precipitation system. (See Section 4,
Case History 4.)
ISX precipitation can remove
heavy metal cations from waste-
waters. The ISX acts as an ion
exchange material that removes
heavy metal ions and replaces
them with sodium or magnesium
ions. Currently it is applied as an
alternative to hydroxide precipitation
or to "polish" treated wastewater
to lower the residual metal con-
centration. Because it is insoluble
in water and its precipitation
reaction rate is rapid, ISX is
used either as a slurry with the
stream to be treated or as a precoat
on a filter. The waste stream is then
passed through the filter cake.
Ion exchange, using resins that
have a strong selectivity for heavy
metal ions (as opposed to the
calcium and sodium ions normally
present in the wastewater), has
been proven effective in lowering the
metal concentration in the waste-
water discharge. (See Section 4,
Case History 5.)
Pretreatment of complexed
waste streams usually involves
segregating the waste streams and
either raising the pH to a highly
alkaline level (high pH lime treat-
ment) or lowering it to an acidic
condition. At these extreme
pH conditions, the metal complex
often dissociates, freeing the metal
ion, A suitable nontoxic soluble
cation (e.g., calcium) then can
be used to tie up the complex so
that it does not recombine with
the metal when the pH is readjusted.
This type of treatment will require
high reagent dosage, but has
been proven effective for treating
many complexed wastewaters.
In some cases, segregating a
difficult-to-treat waste stream,
precipitating the dissolved
metal at the ideal pH, separating the
precipitated solids, then diluting
this stream with the rest of the
wastewater before discharge
will reduce the concentration of the
metal to a level acceptable for
discharge. Lowering the volume
of the segregated waste stream can
keep costs at a minimum and
improve effectiveness.
Another frequent problem in waste-
water treatment is that metal
discharge requirements are not
being met, even though the level of
dissolved metals in the effluent
is low. In cases of this kind, the
solids separation component of the
process is allowing too much
suspended matter, including
precipitated metals, to pass into
the discharge. This condition can
result from overloading the clarifiers,
ineffective conditioning (coagulation
or flocculation) of the clarifier
feed, or poor pH control. Modifica-
tions that can correct the problem
include;
• Improved effectiveness of
the conditioning system to
produce a more settleable particle
• More reliable pH control
* Reduced volumetric load on
the clarifier
« Use of a solids removal polishing
device, such as a sand or mixed
media filter, to lower the
clarifier overflow turbidity level
Other wastewater treatment devel-
opments have included substitute
processes for chromium reduction
(electrochemical reduction is
an example), cyanide oxidation
(ozonation has been used, for
example), and others.
cEthyienediaminetetraacetic acid.
14
-------
Several treatment choices are
available to the plater, and proper
process selection and design will
ensure that the system can
meet the current discharge require-
ments, EPA has funded research
into assessing the cost and effective-
ness of many applicable wastewater
treatment techniques. Reports
are available as follows:
General7'12-22'24
Integrated treatment25-26
Sulfide precipitation27-28
Cyanide waste treatment29"31
Other32'35
Cost Implications of
Direct Wastewater
Discharge
Satisfying the pretreatment
requirements for discharge to a
POTW often can result in a waste
stream suitable for direct discharge
to receiving waters. The advent
of POTW's using advanced
treatment processes has brought
significant increases in the sewer
fees charged to industrial firms
using the public system. If an outfall
is available, it might be possible
to reduce cost by avoiding the
system. Assuming the wastewater
BOD level is acceptable for
discharge, it is not likely that any
of the residual pollutants will be
removed in the POTW,
i-
w
o
u
z
20
15
10
Legend:
$2/1,000 gal sewei fee
$1/1,000 gal sewer Fee
$0.50/1,000 gal sewer fee
0 600 1,200 1,800 2,400 3,000
DISCHARGE RATE (gal/h)
Note.-—Based on operating time of 3,000 h/yr. Costs in 1979 dollars.
Figure 2.
Annual Sewer Fee as a Function of Flow Rate
Figure 2 presents the annual sewer
fee levied against a firm as a function
of its discharge rate over a range
of typical rate structures. This
fee represents the incentive to
consider direct discharge despite
the more stringent sampling
and reporting requirements
associated with the practice,
15
-------
4. Water Pollution
Control Case Histories
Case History 1, Economic
Evaluation of Evaporator
Installation
The Phillips Plating Company,
Phillips, Wisconsin, installed a
75-gal/h (280-l/h) rising film
evaporator to concentrate the
chromium plating bath drag-out in
the rinse stream for recycle to the
plating bath. Installation of the
closed-loop recovery system reduced
the addition of anhydrous chromic
acid (Cr03) to the plating solution
by approximately 4 ib/h (1.8 kg/h).
The total cost to install the recovery
system was approximately $60,000.
(All costs are in 1979 dollars.)
Table 9 breaks down the operating
costs associated with the system
and the savings achieved by
installing the unit.
Considering only the saving in
plating chemicals, the investment
would appear to lose approximately
$9,000/yr. If the analysis includes
the savings in treatment chemicals
(Phillips uses a Sulfex1* insoluble
sulfide treatment system) and
solid waste disposal charges
(based on disposal at 25 percent
solids by weight at a cost of
$0.19/gal of sludge), the saving is
an additional $28,400/yr. With
this added saving, the system
would pay for itself in just under
4 years. Taking advantage of
the investment tax credit and the
rapid write-off depreciation
allowance for pollution control
equipment, it was possible to reduce
the investment payback to under
3 years, a most acceptable in-
vestment rate of return. The situation
at Phillips Plating highlights
the need to consider these three
factors in evaluating chemical
recovery modifications.
The major operating cost for the
recovery system is the cost of
energy used to supply steam to the
unit. In a closed-loop system of
the kind shown in Figure 3a, the rinse
Table 9.
Economic Evaluation for Evaporator Installation
Item
Amount
Installed cost for 75-gal/h evaporator ($/yr)
Annual costs at 6,000 h/yr ($/yr):
Depreciation (10-yr life) ,
Taxes and insurance
Maintenance . ,...,....,..,.
Labor (J4 h/shift at $6/h)
Utilities:
Steam (at $3.50/106 Btu)
Electricity.
Genera! plant overhead
Total annual cost
Annual savings ($/yr):
Replacement Cr03
Waste treatment reagents .
Sludge disposal
Total annual savings, ,
Net savings after tax ($) ,
Payback after tax (yr) .»...„.,...,,,.....,,....
Payback if 5% investment tax credit and 5-yr rapid write-off are used (yr)
60,000
6,000
600
3,600
2,250
15,000
600
2,600
30,650
21,600
23,000
5,400
50,000
10,000
3.8
2.6
Note.—Costs in 1979 dollars.
16
-------
(a)
Drag-in
Drag-out (2 gal/h)
To process
(b)
Drag-in
Product flow
and drag-out
To waste
treatment
Concentrate to
plating baths
Figure 3.
Evaporative Recovery Systems; (a) Closed Loop and (b) Open Loop
17
-------
rate, which equals the evaporative
duty, must be sufficient to provide
adequate rinsing. If Phillips
were to use an open-loop recovery
system in the first two rinse
tanks (Figure 3b) and were to use
the final rinse tank to ensure adequate
rinsing, the plant could still
achieve significant drag-out recovery.
This approach would significantly
reduce the steam costs and
also would require a smaller, less
expensive evaporator. Figure 4
combines the annual fixed and
variable operating costs for
different evaporator feed rates
and compares the resulting annual
costs with the saving the plant
would realize from recovered
chromium and lower pollution
control costs.
Case History 2. Automated
Direct Drag-out Recovery
The Gillette Company, Safety
Razor Division, in Boston, installed
an automated direct drag-out
i—
en
o
u
(X
O
(3
>
<
If)
50
40
30
20
10
Legpnd:
I gross annual saving from
resource recovery and
reduced pollution control
costs
I annual costs (fixed plus
variable operating costs}
L I
25 50
EVAPORATOR FEED RATES (gal/h)
Note.—Costs in 1979 dollars.
75
Figure 4.
Cost Versus Feed Rate for Open-Loop Evaporator System
Workpiece
Reverse osmosis
water makeup
Note.—UC— level indicator control
Concentrated
rinse sump
Figure i.
Automated Direct Drag-out Recovery
18
-------
recovery system that recovered
85 percent of the nickel drag-out
from three barrel-plating tanks.
The system (Figure 5) employs
four countercurrent tanks to provide
both rinsing of the parts and a
source of solution makeup in the
plating tanks. The drag-out recovery
system allows closed-loop
operation of the nickel plating
bath; all rinse water is recycled to
the plating bath with no flows to
waste treatment.
Level control probes in the three
plating tanks control the addition of
concentrated rinse to make up
for surface evaporation losses
from that tank, A level control in the
concentrated rinse water sump
controls the addition of fresh
makeup water in the last rinse tank.
To minimize the buildup of
impurities in the system, the makeup
water is purified by a compact
reverse osmosis water purification
unit. The system installed at
Gillette included the reverse osmosis
unit, the three chemical transfer
pumps, the concentrated rinse
sump (operating on the U-tube
principle}, a control panel, and the
necessary control loops. The total
cost was $8,500.
Three factors determine the
percentage of drag-out that can be
recovered when this approach
is used;
® The surface evaporation rate
from the plating tank, which deter-
mines the amount of rinse
water that can be recycled
• The ratio of the drag-out
volume to the volume of rinse
water recycled to the plating bath
» The number of countercurrent
rinses used for recovery
Figure 6 shows the percentage of
drag-out that can be reclaimed
in terms of these factors.
O
IE
Q
O
O
Ul
100
80
60
40
20
Legend:
2 counterflow rinse tanks
Jn recovery use
[ 1 counterflow rinse tank
in recovery use
_L
4 6
RECYCLE RINSE RATIO'
10
3gal/h recycle rinse •*• gai/h drag-out Recycle rinse flow = surface evaporation from bath.
Figure 6,
Percentage of Drag-out Recovery With Rinse-arid-Recycle System
History 3.
To
Conventional Treatment
System Performance
The Medford Plastics Company,
Medford, Wisconsin, is engaged
in plating copper, nickel, and
chromium on plastic components.
The plant recently installed
the wastewater treatment system
shown in Figure 7.
During the treatability studies
conducted before a system was
selected, it became obvious that the
nickel concentration could not be
reduced in a common treatment
system to the level required
by the discharge permit It was
proposed to segregate the
electroless nickel plating rinse flow
from the rest of the wastewater.
A system was evaluated for
precipitating the nickel at a high pH,
clarifying the suspended solids, then
mixing the nickel rinse effluent
with the balance of the wastewater
before discharge. Testing indi-
cated that this approach should
provide a total effluent nickel
concentration below the permit
specifications.
Table 10 shows that the treated
discharge achieves the removal levels
called for in the discharge permit
When the system was first installed,
however, the discharge consistently
exceeded the nickel level re-
quirement. To correct this problem,
the plant cut the flow to the
19
-------
Copper/chrome rinses
(15 gal/min
Nickel rinses
Collection Chrome pH
tank reduction adjustment
(pH = 8)
pH
adjustment
(pH=11)
Dumpster
Sludge filter press
Underflow
sump
Figure 7.
Treatment System With Waste Stream Segregation
Table 10.
Permit Requirements and Treated Effluent Quality: Waste Stream Segregation
Effluent
characteristic
Chromium (Ib/d):
Total . . , - , ,
Hexavalerst . . . . , .......
Nickel (ppm), ...... ...... .......
Copper {pprn} . ...
pH
Permit
requirements3
8 8
. . . 0 22
0 02
, . . . 13
017
60-9 5
Treated
effluent
<0 1
0 13
0004
0 16
0.06
9 3
"Monthly average of daily values.
nickel treatment system in half
by further counterflowing the
rinses. The increased retention time
in the treatment system and the
greater dilution achieved when the
nickel wastewater was mixed
with the copper-chrome wastewater
eliminated the problem.
History 4, Sulfide
Precipitation
Holly Carburetor, a Division of
Colt Industries, in Paris, Tennessee,
manufactures carburetors for major
auto makers and as replacement
parts. Part of the wastewater
from the plant results from surface
treatment of parts used in assembling
the carburetors. This waste
stream contains varying concen-
trations of iron, zinc, and chromium
(hexavalent and trivalent); it is
treated by The Permutit Company's
Sulfex™ treatment system. The
system was installed as an EPA
demonstration project funded under
a grant made to the National
Association of Metal Finishers.
Figure 8 shows the equipment com-
ponents of a treatment system
using sulfide precipitation,
The Sulfex™ system precipitates
metals as sulfides instead of
hydroxides. Because metal
sulfides are considerably less soluble
than hydroxides, lower metal
concentrations can be achieved
20
-------
JL _______
p—F""""-"" "™" •
Signal
to start
polymer
and FeS
pumps
Dump
sump
Legend:
pHC= pH controller
pHA = low-pH aiarm
RC = recycle control
MFM= magnetic flow meter
FC= flow counter
Vs = surge volume in
second-stage neutraiizer
N/C= normally closed
Filtrate to
second-stage
neutralizer
Sludge filter
press
Figure 8.
Treatment Process With Sulfide Precipitation
21
-------
in the effluent Table 11 compares
Holly Carburetor's effluent quality
with the city treatment system
discharge requirements, showing
the system to be effective in removing
the metals to the required levels.
Two distinct sulfide precipitation
processes (insoluble and soluble)
are being used to treat waste-
waters containing heavy metals.
The system at Holly Carburetor is
known as insoluble sulfide pre-
cipitation (ISP), in which ferrous
sulfide is the sulfide source.
Ferrous suifide is relatively insoluble
in water; consequently, the level
of dissolved sulfide in the waste-
water is kept at a minimum. The
main advantage of ISP over the
soluble sulfide approach is that there
is no detectable H2S odor associated
with the process.
Soluble sulfide precipitation (SSP)
uses a water-soluble reagent,
such as sodium hydrosulfide (NaHS)
or sodium sulfide |Na2S). SSP
has been applied to treat complexed
metal finishing wastewaters and
has achieved lower metal con-
centrations compared with treatment
by hydroxide precipitation.
Most of the equipment components
of both ISP and SSP systems
are common to hydroxide systems.
Consequently, these processes
offer a means of modifying an
existing hydroxide system to
improve metal removal capability.
Case History 5. Ion
Exchange for Selective
Heavy Metal Removal
The Hurd Lock and Manufacturing
Company, Greensville, Tennessee,
employs a combination treatment
system using batch treatment
of wastewater collected in four
different treatment sumps. The
wastewater collected in each sump
is processed separately through
the system shown in Figure 9.
The continuous treatment system for
Table 11,
State Requirements and Treated Effluent Quality: Sulfide Precipitation
Pollutant (mg/l)
Tennessee guidelines
for indirect
discharge
Treated
effluent
Zinc .........
Hexavalent chromium ,
Total chromium
Copper
5.0
0.05
5.0
5.0
0.015
0.02
0.10
"Below detectable limits.
Cyanide process bath, with double-effect evaporators at left
each batch employs the following
steps:
• Chromium reduction (not
always required)
• Neutralization (the pH set-point
adjusted to achieve maximum
metal removal for each waste
processed)
• Flocculation (with polymer
addition)
• Pressure filtration (with diato-
maceous earth precoat)
• Ion exchange polishing
The ion exchange polishing step
reduces the concentration of
metals to the level required for
discharge. Table 12 presents the
discharge quality and the require-
ments set forth in the permit.
The system was required to meet the
same level of metal concentration
as that called for in the effluent
discharged from the city's treatment
system. The plant was allowed
to exceed the chemical oxygen
demand (COD) level allowed
22
-------
City water
Chromium reduction
(1,000 gal)
I 1 Es€3^si?ISi;|
1} f J Neutralization F
£p isi (660 gal) (!
fi M ^mmmam^mm&mmmmmmmi^mmmammmmmmm
I I /ft. I
Chrome Nickel Chrome Zinc
rinse tank floor pit
Landfill
ION EXCHANGE POLISHING
"Waste from each sump is processed separately from that of the others.
City sewer
24-h holding tank
Figure 9,
Continuous Treatment System
23
-------
Table 12.
Permit Requirements and Treated Effluent Quality: Ion Exchange
Treated effluent
Effluent
characteristic
Permit
requirements
Chrome
floor
Chrome
rinses
Nickel
rinses
pH
Color units
Pollutant (mg/l):
Total suspended solids,
COD
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper ,
Iron ,
Lead
Nickel
Zinc ,
6.5-8.5
12
15
20
0.01
0.05
0,05
0.50
0.05
0.10
0.10
11.0
0
928
<0.005
<0.02
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.02
11.0
0
210
<0.005
<0.02
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0,05
<0.02
6.9
0
217
<0.005
<0.02
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.02
Zinc
pit
11.6
0
500
<0.005
<0.02
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.02
for discharge because this pollutant
could be effectively reduced
by subsequent treatment. Table 12
shows that all metal level require-
ments were met.
The resin used in the ion-exchange
columns selectively removes
heavy metals from the waste, but
allows alkali and alkaline earth
cations to pass through, A two-stage
ion exchange treatment achieved
best results. The first stage
uses a hydrogen ion resin; the
second stage uses a sodium ion
resin. The plant shifted from caustic
soda to lime for neutralization,
because the resin proved more
selective for heavy metal in the
presence of calcium ions.
24
-------
5, Solid Waste
Management
Hazardous Waste
Regulations
EPA has promulgated regulations
designed to manage and control
the country's hazardous wastes
from generation to final disposal,
These regulations are a result
of a directive to EPA by Congress
in the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976
(Public Law 94-580), Congressional
concern was prompted by the
large quantities of solid wastes
being generated. Some solid waste
problems result from meeting
requirements of Federal and State
laws, some from processes
themselves, and others from generally
inadequate and environmentally
unsound practices used in the
disposal or handling of wastes.
The RCRA regulations differ from
those concerned with air and water
pollution in that air and water
regulations vary according to the
specific industry (for example,
electroplating) to which they are
directed, whereas all industries
that generate, store, haul, or
dispose of hazardous waste must
comply with the same set of rules.
Most electroplating facilities will
be considered generators of
hazardous waste and may be con-
sidered storage or disposal
facilities. The procedures to deter-
mine if wastes are hazardous
and the requirements for generators,
storers, and disposers of hazardous
wastes follow.
Identification of Hazardous Wastes
Under the regulations, promulgated
in May 198G,36 solid wastes
include all substances destined for
disposal and not already regulated
by the Clean Water Act or the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
EPA has developed the following
list of characteristics as criteria
for determining which solid
wastes must be classified as
hazardous:
Ignitability
Corrosivity
Reactivity
Toxicity of leachates
Radioactivity
Infectiousness
Phytotoxicity (toxicity to plants)
Teratogenicity and mutagenicity
(ability to cause mutations)
A waste possessing one or more
of these traits will be declared
hazardous. The following electro-
plating wastes are assumed to
be hazardous unless proved
otherwise:
• Wastewater treatment sludges
(toxic)
• Spent plating bath solutions
(reactive and toxic)
• Sludges from the bottom of
plating baths (reactive and toxic)
• Spent stripping and cleaning
bath solutions (reactive and toxic)
The corrosivity criterion is used
to determine if these materials can
extract toxic contaminants from
other wastes or make them soluble.
A material is corrosive if it has
a pH below 2 or above 12.5, or if it
corrodes steel (following a test
developed by the National Associa-
tion of Corrosion Engineers).
Reactive wastes have one or more
of the following tendencies:
• To autopolymerize
• To create a vigorous reaction
with air or water
« To exhibit thermal instability
with regard to shock or to the
generation of toxic gases
• To explode
The final characteristic, toxicity,
is the one of most importance
to electroplaters. If disposed
of improperly, toxic wastes may
25
-------
Small centrifuge
release toxic materials in sufficient
amounts to pose a substantial hazard
to human health or to the environ-
ment. EPA has designed a leaching
test (called the Extraction Pro-
cedure) to measure the amount
of toxic materials that can be
extracted from the waste at a pH of 5,
during a 24-hour period, with
constant stirring. If the extract
obtained from the test exceeds set
limits for certain contaminants, the
waste will be considered hazardous.
Eight metals are among the 14
materials selected as toxic; several
of these metals are commonly
used in electroplating. Table 13
lists the specific metals with the
standard for each. Other materials
may be added to the list in the future.
Table 13.
Toxic Waste Limits Set by EPA's Extraction Procedure
Pollutant
Extract level
(mg/l)
Arsenic. , .
Barium . ..
Cadmium .
Chromium
Lead
Mercury ,.
Selenium .
Silver ....
5.0
100.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
0.2
1.0
5.0
SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Hazardous Waste Management System:
Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste," Pt, 3, Federal Register 45(98):33084-33133,
May 19, 1980.
26
-------
Does the
waste pass
the EPA
hazard tests
or is it known
to be non-
hazardous?
I
YES
Common
disposal
YESd
NO
s< 2,220 Ib
of waste
produced
a month?
RCRA
ieensed
disposal;
Site selection
Security
Inspection
Records
Financing
Monitoring
Closure requirements
Training
Emergency
Process standards
"An appeal is available (see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste System: Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste, Pt. 3, Federal Register 45(98):33084-33133, May 19, 1980),
Figure 10.
Generator Obligations Under the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act
Requirements for Hazardous
Waste Generators
Producers of hazardous waste are
considered generators under the
regulations. It is a generator's
responsibility to determine if the
waste is hazardous by conducting
EPA-specified tests, or the generator
may simply declare the waste
hazardous. If the waste is known to
be nonhazardous, testing is not
necessary; however, the generator is
responsible for the accuracy of
that determination.
Generators of hazardous wastes
are responsible for notifying EPA
of their activities, using appro-
priate containers, labeling the
containers, and ensuring proper
disposal (Figure 10). The law also
requires generators who produce and
dispose of more than 2,200 Ib
(1,000 kg) of hazardous waste per
month, with certain exceptions, to
use a manifest system to ensure
proper transport and disposal.
The manifest records the movement
of hazardous wastes from the
27
-------
Recessed plate filter press
generator's premises to an
authorized off-site treatment,
storage, or disposal facility. The
manifest, signed by the generator,
transporter, and disposer, is an
official record that all Department
of Transportation (DOT) and EPA
requirements have been met.
The generator must maintain original
copies for 3 years, and must
report to EPA if the manifest is
not returned in 45 days.
Exception reports are required,
listing any unreturned manifests.
Annual reports, documenting
shipments of all hazardous
wastes originating during the
report year, also are required.
In general, all information submitted
by a generator is available to
the public to the extent authorized
by the Freedom of Information
Act and EPA regulations associated
with that act,
Requirements for Storage and
Disposal Facilities
When wastes are stored on site
for 90 days or longer, the generator
falls under an additional set
of regulations designed to control
owners and operators of hazardous
waste storage and disposal
facilities. The standards for storage,
promulgated in May 1980,37
are intended to prevent the re-
lease of hazardous waste from
storage areas into the environment.
Hazardous wastes must be stored
in tanks and containers that meet
specifications established by
EPA for the storage of flammable
and combustible liquids. Beyond
these specifications, materials
compatible with the hazardous waste
must be used to construct or to
line the containers.
Storage areas must have a continuous
base impervious to the material
being stored and must be designed
for spill containment with either
dikes or trenches, which require
daily visual inspection. Throughout
the storage period, records
must be maintained showing the
28
-------
identity and location of all stored
hazardous wastes. Site selection
requirements apply, and leachate
monitoring may be required.
Obviously, it is an economic
advantage not to be classified
as a storage facility.
As stated earlier, these standards
only apply to those who store
hazardous wastes for 90 days or
more. For shorter durations,
no recordkeeping is required,
Reduction of Slydge
Volume and Disposal Cost
The treatment of electroplating
wastewater, as required by the
national pretreatment standards, will
result in two streams:
» An effluent that must comply
with regulations for acceptable
pollutant discharge
• A residue (sludge) containing a
high concentration of the
substances identified by the
pretreatment regulations for
removal from the discharge
Because electroplating wastewater
treatment systems commonly
remove many of the metals regulated,
most of these sludges will be
considered hazardous, Many other
electroplating shop wastes will
also be considered hazardous.
EPA estimated recently that
90 percent of the sites accepting
hazardous waste do not comply
with present and proposed regula-
tions governing hazardous
waste disposal. Upgrading a site
to comply with the regulations will
significantly increase the cost of
operating the site, and this cost
increase will be passed on to the
generator of the waste.
100
75
O
o
O
a.
<
<
50
25
Legend:
disposal cost at $0.30/gal
I disposal cost at $0.10/gal
J_
_L
_L
0 25 50 75
SLUDGE VOLUME (gai/h)
Note.—Based on operating time of 3,000 h/yr. Costs in 1979 dollars.
100
Figure 11,
Annual Cost for Sludge Disposal
The cost to dispose of waste
treatment sludge depends on the
volume of sludge to be disposed of,
the unit cost to transport the
sludge to a licensed disposal site,
and the fee charged by the disposal
site to accept the sludge. Because
the last two factors are not likely
to be under the control of the
sludge generator, reductions in
disposal cost derive primarily from
reduction of the volume of waste
generated.
Sludge disposal cost in a particular
area is determined by the level
of controls governing disposal
in that region. Many States
already have established rigorous
control procedures, and disposal
costs range from $0.10/gal
to $0.75/ga! for metal-bearing
waste sludge; most costs are between
$0.15/gal and $0.25/gal. As
RCRA is implemented nationally,
inexpensive sludge disposal will
become a thing of the past.
Figure 11 shows the annual disposal
cost in terms of sludge disposal
rate (volume) and cost per gallon.
29
-------
Sludge generation rates and disposal
costs can be reduced by:
* Reducing the mass of pollutant
entering the waste treatment
system
» Reducing the wastewater
volume entering the treatment
system
» Using wastewater treatment
techniques that generate
minimum quantities of sludge
• Reducing sludge volume by
mechanical dewatering
To evaluate sludge volume
reduction alternatives, the plant
must first define its present
and future disposal cost factors.
Typically, disposal sites accepting
metal hydroxide sludge base
their charges on the volume of
sludge. In some cases, the site will
have one rate structure for liquid
sludges and one for nonflowing
sludges. As a rule, the hauling
cost is directly related to the
sludge volume or weight
Effects of Pollutant and
Wastewater Load Reduction
Reduction of pollutant and waste-
water loading on the waste
treatment system will have the
added benefit of reducing sludge
volume. This reduction is part
of the three-pronged benefit
of implementing recovery and
recycle techniques. For plants in
areas where sludge disposal is
expensive, the cost effectiveness
of modifications to reduce water use
or pollutant loading will be enhanced.
Although the effect of reducing
wastewater flow is not usually as
great as the effect of reducing
the level of heavy metal pollutants in
the wastewater, the volume of
wastewater processed does
influence sludge generation. The
water volume treated, because of
the high pH of most wastewater
discharges, affects the consumption
rate of the alkali neutralizing
agent (caustic, lime) and water
40
1 30
03
in
a
_j
° 20
§
(9
a
10
Legend
T ~ pH insoluble sulfide precipitation
IHBBI hydroxide neutralization/
clarification with insoluble
sulfide polishing
hydroxide neutralization/
clarification
500 1,000 1,500 2,000
WASTEWATER FLOW RATE (gsl/h)
2.500
Note.—"Wastewater contains 30 ppm Fe
demand equals 3 times the stoichiometric requirements.
40 ppm Ni+2, 30 ppm Zn"*"2. Sulfide reagent
Figure 12.
Sludge Generation Rates for Three Treatment Systems
conditioning agents (ferric chloride,
aluminum chloride), which
are frequently fed at a rate dependent
on the wastewater flow rate.
These chemicals frequently
contribute to the quantity of sludge
generated. In the case of lime,
some part normally remains
insoluble and adds to the sludge
volume. Conditioners such as
ferric and aluminum chloride
are converted to insoluble hydroxides
during treatment and end up in
the sludge.
The effect on sludge volume
attributed to reducing plating
chemical loss is easier to determine
than the effect of wastewater
flow. As an example, discharges
of 1 Ib (0,45 kg) of chromic acid
anhydride to the wastewater will
result in the precipitation of
approximately 1 Ib (0.45 kg) of
chromium hydroxide in the pH
adjustment operations. This amount
of chromium hydroxide will add
approximately 6 gal (23 I) of
volume to the clarifier underflow,
based on an underflow solids
concentration of 2 percent by weight.
Similar relationships exist for
the other metals used in plating
operations.
Effects of Treatment Techniques
Because of the high cost of
electroplating sludge disposal, the
treatability studies conducted
during the evaluation of the
different treatment alternatives
should address sludge generation
factors and the dewatering
properties of the resultant sludge.
Many of the newly developed
treatment techniques marketed
today offer improved pollutant
30
-------
removal capabilities compared with
the capabilities of conventional
treatment, but they also result in
significantly more sludge for
disposal. For example, insoluble
sylfide precipitation can reduce
the metal concentration in many
waste streams to lower levels
than can hydroxide precipitation,
ISP uses ferrous sulfide as the
source of the sulfide ion. The ferrous
ions liberated as a result of
precipitating the metals as sulfides
are then converted to ferrous
hydroxide and add to the sludge
volume,
Figure 12 compares the sludge
generation rates of an insoluble
sulfide precipitation system
and an insoluble sulfide polishing
system with a conventional hydrox-
ide system using sodium hydroxide
as the neutralizing agent, over a
range of flow rates. Using the
sulfide process as a polishing
system to reduce the concentration
of metals in the effluent after
a conventional hydroxide precipita-
tion/clarification sequence will
achieve the same degree of metal
removal as sulfide precipitation,
but compared with the hydroxide
process, will increase the volume of
sludge generated only slightly,
The trade-off, however, is that
a polishing system will require
additional hardware and have a
higher initial cost. The saving in
sludge disposal fees and reagent
cost must justify the added
expense if the polishing system
is to be chosen.
Within an existing treatment
process, the choice of reagents
can affect sludge quantities
generated. Lime and caustic soda
are the two alkali neutralizing
agents used most frequently,
The advantages of lime include lower
cost per unit of neutralizing
capacity, sludge that settles and
dewaters more readily, and the
ability to reduce metals to lower
levels in some applications
(primarily because of the complex-
o
1,000
500
400
300
200
100
50
40
30
20
10
1
_L
J_
_L
5 10 15 20 25 30
SLUDGE SOLIDS CONCENTRATION (% by Weight)
35
Figure 13.
Sludge Volume Versus Solids Concentration
breaking capabilities of the
calcium ions). Lime has disadvan-
tages, however, in that it requires
a higher investment in the reagent
feed system, takes longer to
react in the wastewater, and (accord-
ing to one study) produces three
to six times the bulk of sludge
produced by caustic soda neutraliza-
tion. An effective analysis will
identify the relative merits of
the different reagents to be used.
Effects of Sludge .Dewatering
Although sludge generation rates
can be reduced significantly
by the methods outlined earlier,
some residue will always result
from wastewater treatment The cost
to dispose of this residue will
primarily depend on the sludge
volume. The volume of dilute
sludge withdrawn from the clarifier
underflow can be reduced signifi-
cantly through mechanical
dewatering techniques. Figure 13
31
-------
shows the volume reduction that can
be achieved by dewatering clarifier
underflows to different concen-
tration levels.
Mechanical dewatering devices
that have been used successfully
to concentrate metal hydroxide
sludge include vacuum, pressure,
and compression filters and
centrifuges.
Vacuum filters dewater sludge
by applying a vacuum on one side
of a water-permeable membrane,
which has a sludge layer or
suspension on the other side.
In response to the pressure gradient,
the water passes through the
membrane. Rotary-drum and
vacuum-belt filter methods employ
this principle. Vacuum filters
perform best with feed solids
concentrations above 3 percent
by weight; sludge containing lower
feed solids concentrations
should be thickened before
vacuum filtration. Good filtration
rates and trouble-free cake
release from the filter media usually
are realized with a sludge that is
not too sticky or too compressible,
Precoat rotary vacuum filtration
can be used for dilute or otherwise
hard-to-filter sludges. The precoat
material represents an additional
cost and adds to the quantity
of solids for disposal, but precoat
filtration often yields a higher
solids concentration than conven-
tional vacuum filtration.
Pressure filters pressurize the
sludge and bring it in contact with a
water-permeable membrane. Re-
cessed plate filter presses use
this method to dewater sludge. They
can achieve high solids content
because of the large pressure
gradient they can apply across the
sludge cake. Commercial units are
designed that have operating
pressure limits as high as 225 Ib/in2
gauge (1,654 kPa). As do vacuum
filters, filter presses work best
with sludges that have good
filtration characteristics and are not
too sticky or too compressible.
Filter presses are effective in
Filter press
Filtrate to clarifier
Air supply (100 Ib/in2 g)
X.
Clarifier underflow 1
Diaphragm
pump
Dumpster
Filter
feed
sump
Figure 14.
Recessed Plate Filter Press and Auxiliary Equipment Needed for Sludge
Dewatering
dewatering feed streams that are
very dilute or subject to wide
variations in feed solid concentra-
tion. For small applications, filter
presses usually represent the
least capital investment for sludge
dewatering.
Compression filters dewater the
sludge by squeezing it between
water-permeable membranes. They
have been proven effective mainly
for dewatering highly compressible
sludges characterized by large,
delicate particle floes typically
associated with polyelectrolyte con-
ditioning. The compression filterwas
developed to provide a device
that overcomes the difficulty of
applying filtration techniques
to dewater this type of sludge.
The filters are produced by a number
of manufacturers and consist of a
series of belts and rollers that
gradually increase the compressive
force applied to the sludge cake.
Compression filters consume
less energy than vacuum filters or
centrifuges, but are more sophisti-
cated mechanically. Consequently,
the relatively high cost of the
smaller units makes them unattractive
for concentrating the lower
sludge volumes typical of the
plating industry.
Centrifuges dewater sludge in
a manner similar to gravity thick-
eners, but they create an apparent
gravity thousands of times more
powerful than normal by rapidly
rotating the sludge. The increased
gravity greatly accelerates the
settling process and magnifies the
compaction effect. This dewatering
mechanism makes centrifuges
most suitable for compressible
sludges, which settle well. Use of the
units usually necessitates condi-
tioning of the feed stream with
a polyelectrolyte to increase
32
-------
settling ability. Basket centrifuges
are used most frequently for
electroplating sludge dewatering,
They are attractive because of
their compact size and automated
operation.
Plants use dewatering devices
for one of two reasons:
• To make sludge suitable for
disposal at a local site that
will only accept nonflowing
sludges
« To achieve a net reduction in
sludge disposal costs despite the
operating cost associated with
the dewatering equipment
The high cost of sludge disposal
will justify dewatering equipment
for all but generators of very small
sludge volumes.
Consider, for example, the installation
of a recessed plate filter (Figure 14)
to dewater a dilute clarifier under-
flow from 3 percent solids by
weight to 20 percent solids by
weight. Figure 15 compares the
05
o
u
if)
o
0-
w
C3
Q
3
3
Z
<
100 r-
80
60
40
20
legend:
•+:-?- 3% solids (disposal only)
l^BBB 20% solids (disposal plus
filter press annual costs)
20% solids (disposal only)
100 200 300 400
CLARIFIER UNDERFLOW (gal/h)
500
600
4,800 h/yr operation, $0.10/gal sludge disposal. 3% solids by weight clarifier
underflow. Costs in 1979 dollars.
Figure 15.
Annual Sludge Disposal Cost for Filter Press Dewatering System
Single-stage cyanide oxidation, neutralization-fiocculation, and settling tank with automatic sludge collector
33
-------
X
<
<
(_
z
100
75
50
25
sludge disposal at $0,20/ga!
sludye disposal at $0.10/gal
sludge disposal at $0,05/gal
_L
50 100 150
CLARIFIES UNDERFLOW (gal/h)
200
250
"Assumes 48% income tax rate.
Note,—4,800 h/yr operation. Sludge dewatered from 3% to 20% solids by weight. Costs
in 1979 dollars.
Figure 16.
Return on Investment From Recessed Plate Filter Installation
disposal alone. Even with its costs
included, the filter press reduces
annual disposal costs at underflow
rates exceeding 15 gal/h (57 l/h).
Figure 16 shows the return on
investment resulting from installation
of a filter press as a function
of clarifier underflow rate over a
range of sludge disposal costs.
For a plant disposing of its sludge at
$0.10/gal, the investment has
a reasonable rate of return at 50 gal/h
(190 l/h). For a plant incurring
a disposal cost of $0.25/gal, the
installation of a filter press would
be favorable above 25 gal/h (95 l/h).
Thus, mechanical dewatering is
usually cost effective, except
for plants generating very small
siudge volumes—less than 50 gal/h
(190 l/h}. RCRA will probably
require that sludges be dewatered
before land application. The
facility that accepts the wastes,
therefore, will be likely to have some
means of dewatering dilute
sludge. Plants generating small
sludge volumes may find it most
cost effective to use the dewatering
capabilities of a central disposal site.
annual costs of sludge disposal,
at $0.10/gal of sludge, for the
two concentrations. The figure
shows two curves for sludge
disposal at 20 percent solids by
weight: cost including filter press
operation plus dewatered sludge
disposal and cost for sludge
34
-------
6. Financing
Alternatives
The Federal Government has
established tax incentives and has
made financing alternatives
available to ease the burden of
compliance with environmental
regulations.
income Tax Provisions
Two available tax treatments
permit a company to pay lower
income taxes. The first alternative
is the investment tax credit (ITC),
a direct credit against current
income taxes. Under this alternative,
the company is allowed to take an
ITC of 10 percent but cannot
exceed the total tax liability,
or $25,000 plus 50 percent of the
tax liability in excess of $25,000,
whichever is less. Any depreciation
schedule approved by the Internal
Revenue Service can be used
in conjunction with the ITC;
however, the equipment must be
depreciable and have a life
expectancy of at least 3 years,
Questions on other applicable
restrictions can be directed to the
contacts listed in Section 8,
The second tax alternative involves
special rapid amortization of
pollution control facilities. It
applies to facilities for water or
atmospheric pollution control or
abatement that were in operation
before January 1, 1969, and that
conform to applicable State
and Federal regulations. Relatively
new plants in operation before
1976 can rapidly amortize only
a part of the investment. The rapid
amortization provision allows
a company to depreciate the total
investment costs over a 60-month
period; however, the useful life
of the equipment cannot be
greater than 15 years. With this
tax alternative, half of the ITC, or
5 percent, also can be claimed
against taxes, if the equipment
has a useful life of at least 5 years.
Smal!
Administration Loans
Various Federal financial assistance
programs exist to help small
businesses with pollution control
costs. These loans come under the
Small Business Administration
(S8A) Economic Injury Loan Program
and are intended for companies
likely to suffer economic injuries
without them. Loans have averaged
$125,000; roughly 25 percent
have gone to electroplaters to date,
The loans offer an attractive
interest rate of 7% percent and may
extend for up to 30 years. Participat-
ing arid guaranteed loans are
available with SBA and commercial
lending institutions, but higher
interest rates apply.
To be eligible for an SBA loan, a
company must be an existing small
business and meet several other
requirements, For example, the
firm must have been turned down
by a bank. The rejection may be
made in any of a number of ways,
for example, setting too high an
interest rate or too short a payback
period. The firm also must receive
certification from EPA that the
equipment is necessary and
adequate, and it must demonstrate
that regulatory requirements
will cause serious economic injury.
SBA-Guaranteed Pollution
Control Revenue Bonds
Revenue bond financing is used
extensively by large businesses to
supply funds for pollution control
facilities. SBA-guaranteed bonds
are issued to obtain the most
advantageous interest rate and
repayment terms possible for small
businesses. The small business
using this alternative applies
35
-------
for a loan from a State or local
authority having the right to issue
bonds. SBA guarantees payment
and the State then issues the bonds
through an underwriter. The State
or local authority becomes the
nominal owner of the property,
which can be conveyed to the
business under a lease or under a
lease-purchase agreement Many
of the requirements for this
form of funding are similar to
those for SBA loans.
Other Sources
Other, less direct forms of funding
are available for financing pollution
control facilities.
The Economic Development
Administration (EDA) finances
the growth of business in redevelop-
ment areas. EDA loans, however,
are typically large (they averaged
$1.5 million in 1977) and are
oriented toward large businesses
not covered by SBA programs.
Although not specifically covered
by EDA, pollution control equipment
may be eligible for this financing
in certain circumstances.
EDA also has funding available
to assist States and local areas
threatened with economic displace-
ment because of such matters
as environmental requirements
placed on local industry. With this
EDA funding, the State or local
municipality owns the treatment
facility and leases it to a group of
industrial users. This centralized
treatment concept is expected
to be heavily funded in the near
future and is particularly applicable
to electroplaters.
The Farmers Home Administration
(FmHA) is authorized to provide
business and industry loans to rural
areas; however, the financing
of pollution control equipment
represents only a small part of the
loan program. As a rule, FmHA
encourages borrowers of less than
$400,000 to use the SBA.
36
-------
7, Consolidated Permit
Program
EPA has consolidated its permit
programs, wherever feasible, to
eliminate gaps and overlaps
among the programs, to ensure
consistency of regulatory approaches,
and to provide uniform procedures
to the regulated community. The
permit application procedures
were published in May 1980,38 and
include the following five programs:
® The Hazardous Waste Manage-
ment programs under RCRA
• The Underground Injection
Control program under the Safe
Drinking Water Act
» The National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System under the
Clean Water Act
» The Dredge or Fill program
under the Clean Water Act, as
this program Is operated by
States with approval by EPA
« The Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program
under the Clean Air Act, where
this program is operated by
EPA (procedures not applicable
to State-issued PSD permits)
The first and third programs are of
most interest to electroplaters;
however, the same basic application
form can be used for permits
under any of the programs. The
consolidated form collects gen-
eral information that applies
to all programs; this form is
supplemented by a form unique
to the specific program. Although
there are exclusions under each
program, heavy penalties are
imposed for failure to apply for a
permit when one is required. The
appropriate EPA Regional Office
can determine whether a permit
is required in a given situation.
The consolidation effort is limited
because some programs are operated
by the State rather than by the
EPA Regional Offices. One permit
may be required by the State
and another by EPA. The appropriate
Regional Office can supply
information about where to apply.
Cationic rinse tanks
37
-------
8. Contacts
A number of local and Federal
representatives may be consulted
on matters related to regulations or
financial assistance. These contacts
are listed in the paragraphs that
follow, with details of how they can
be reached. It should be borne
in mind that names of persons are
current and subject to change.
Addresses and telephone numbers,
however, will remain valid.
Regulatory Information
All contacts for regulatory infor-
mation should be addressed at:
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington DC 20460
Names of persons to be consulted
on a given subject area appear with
the appropriate office numbers
and are followed by the telephone
numbers at which they can be
reached.
Water
Requests for information on
water regulations should be
addressed to:
Jeffrey D. Denit (WH-552)
(202) 426-2576
Solid Wastes
The appropriate contact for solid
waste regulatory information
will depend on the subject area.
Hazardous Waste Criteria—
Identification and Listing
Alan Corson (WH-565)
(202) 755-9187
Standards for Generators of
Hazardous Wastes
Harry Trask (WH-563)
(202) 755-9150
Standards for Transporters of
Hazardous Wastes
Harry Trask (WH-563)
(202) 755-9150
Standards for Treatment of
Hazardous Wastes
Steve tingle (WH-565)
(202) 755-9200
Permit Regulations for Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal
Arthur Glazer (WH-563)
(202) 755-9150
Guidelines for State Hazardous
Waste Programs
Dan Derkics (WH-563)
(202) 755-9150
Financial Assistance
Information
EPA Headquarters
For general information on financial
assistance, the contact is:
Frances Desselle
Financial Assistance Coordinator
Office of Analysis and Evaluation
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 745 E.T. (WH-586)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington DC 20460
The telephone number for this
contact is: (202) 426-7874,
Farmers Home Administration
Questions relating to FmHA business
and industry loans for rural areas
should be directed to:
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Room 5314
14th St. and Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington DC 20250
38
-------
Small Business Administration
Region
Region IV
information on SBA-guaranteed
bonds can be obtained from:
Earl L Chambers
Director
Office of Special Guarantees
Small Business Administration
1441 L Street, N.W.
Washington DC 20416
This office can be reached by
telephone at: (202) 235-2900.
Economic Development Admin-
istration
Information on the various kinds
of EDA funding can be obtained from:
Daryl Bladen
Deputy Director of Public Works
or
Joseph Rosenblum
(202) 377-5265
EPA Regional Offices
Addresses are given in the following
paragraphs for the 10 EPA regions.
Hours of operation are also included,
as well as the names and tele-
phone numbers of regional
administrators and financial assist-
ance officers.
Region I
The region is composed of
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
and Vermont,
Administrator
William R. Adams, Jr.
(617) 223-7210
Financial Assistance Coordinator
Ted Landry
Enforcement Division
{617) 223-5061
Address
Room 2203
J.F.K, Federal Building
Boston MA 02203
Hours
8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The region is composed of
New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico,
and the Virgin Islands,
Administrator
Charles S. Warren
(212) 264-2525
Financial Assistance Coordinator
Gerald DeGaetano
Permits Administration Branch
Enforcement Division
(212) 264-4711
Address
Room 1009
26 Federal Plaza
New York NY 10007
Hours
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Region HI
The region is composed of
Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
West Virginia, the District of
Columbia, and Virginia.
Administrator
Jack Schramm
(215) 597-9814
Financial Assistance Coordinator
Bob Gunter
FRC Liaison Officer
(215) 597-2763
Address
Curtis Building
Sixth and Walnut Sts,
Philadelphia PA 19106
Hours
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The region is composed of
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, and Tennessee.
Administrator
Rebecca W. Hanmer
(404) 881-4727
Financial Assistance Coordinator
John Hurlebaus
Supervisor
Grants Analysis
Program Support Branch
Grants Administrative Support
Section
(404) 881-4491
Address
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta GA 30308
Hours
8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
Region V
The region is composed of
Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin,
Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio.
Administrator
John McGuire
(312) 353-2000
Financial Assistance Coordinator
Arnold Leder
Chief
Water Branch
(312) 353-2904
Address
230 S. Dearborn St.
Chicago IL 60604
Hours
8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
Region VI
The region is composed of
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, and Texas.
Administrator
Adelene Harrison
(214) 767-2600
39
-------
Financial Assistance Coordinator
Jan Horn
Enforcement Division
(214) 729-2760
Address
First International Building
1201 Elm St.
Dallas TX 75270
Hours
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Region VII
The region is composed of
Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and
Iowa.
Administrator
Kathleen Q. Camin
(816) 374-5493
Financial Assistance Coordinator
Paul Walker
Chief
Engineering Branch
Water Division
(816) 374-2725
Address
1735 Baltimore St.
Kansas City MO 64108
Hours
7:15 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Region V11I
The region is composed of
Colorado, Wyoming, Montana,
North Dakota, South Dakota, and
Utah.
Administrator
Roger L Williams
(303) 837-3895
Financial Assistance Coordinator
Gerald Burke
Office of Grants
Water Division
(303) 327-4579
Address
1860 Lincoln St.
Denver CO 80203
Hours
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Region IX
The region is composed of
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada,
American Samoa, Guam, and the
Trust Territories.
Administrator
Paul de Falco, Jr.
(415) 556-2320
Financial Assistance Coordinator
Linda Powell
Permits Branch
Enforcement Division
(415) 556-3450
Address
215 Fremont St.
San Francisco CA 94105
Hours
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Region X
The region is composed of
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and
Washington.
Administrator
Donald P. Dubois
(206)442-1220
Financial Assistance Coordinator
Dan Bodien
Special Technical Advisor
Enforcement Division
(206)442-1352
Address
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle WA 98101
Hours
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
40
-------
References
1 U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. "Effluent Guidelines and
Standards; Electroplating Point
Source Category; Pretreat-
ment Standards for Existing
Sources," Federal Register
44(175):52590-52629, Sept 7,
1979.
2U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. "General Pretreatment
Regulations for Existing and
New Sources of Pollution."
Federal Register 43f123):27736-
27773, June 26, 1978.
3 U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. "General Pretreatment
Regulations for Existing and
New Sources of Pollution."
Federal Register 44(210):62260-
62275, Oct. 29, 1979.
4U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. "Effluent Guidelines and
Standards; Electroplating Point
Source Category; Pretreat-
ment Standards for Existing
Sources," Federal fteyister
44(191):56330-56333, Oct. 1,
1979,
5U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. "Effluent Guidelines and
Standards; Electroplating Point
Source Category; Pretreat-
ment Standards for Existing
Sources; Correction." Federal
Register 45(59): 19245-19246,
Mar. 25, 1980,
6 U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. "Electroplating Point
Source Category, Effluent Guide-
lines and Standards, Pretreatment
Standards for Existing Sources."
Federal Register, in preparation,
1980.
7U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and American Electro-
platers' Society, Inc. (cosponsorsj.
Annual Conference on Advanced
Pollution Control for the Metal
Finishing Industry fist). Held at
Lake Buena Vista, Florida on Jan-
uary 17-19, J978, EPA 600/8-78-
010. NTIS No. Pb 282-443.
May 1978.
8U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and American Electro-
platers' Society, Inc. (cosponsors).
Proceedings of a Conference
on Advanced Pollution Control for
the Metal Finishing Industry (2nd)
Held at Kissimmee, FL on
February 5-7, 1979, EPA 600/8-
79-014. NTIS No. Pb 297-453.
June 1979.
9U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water and
Hazardous Materials, Effluent
Guidelines Division, Development
Document for Proposed Existing
Source Pretreatment Standards
for the Electroplating Point
Source Category, EPA 440/1 -78-
085. Feb. 1978.
10U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Environmental Pollution
Control Alternatives: Economics of
Wastewater Treatment Alterna-
tives for the Electroplating
Industry, EPA 625/5-79-016.
June 1979. (Prepared by Centec
Corporation)
11 U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory. Advanced
Treatment Approaches for Metal
Finishing Wastewaters, Part 1.
EPA 600/J-77-056a. NTIS
No. Pb 277-147. Oct. 1977.
12U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory. Advanced
Treatment Approaches for Metal
Finishing Wastewaters, Part 2.
EPA 60Q/J-77-056b, NTIS
No. Pb 277-148. Nov. 1977.
13U,S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Control Technology
for the Metal Finishing Industry;
Evaporators. EPA 625/8-79-002.
June 1979. (Prepared by Centec
Corporation)
41
-------
14U,S, Environmental Protection
Agency. "Evaporative Recovery
of Chromium Plating Rinse
Waters," Project No, S803781-1.
Feb. 1977. (Prepared by Advance
Plating Company and Corning
Glass Works)
15U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Treatment of Electro-
plating Wastes by Reverse
Osmosis. EPA 600/2-76-261.
NTIS No, Pb 265-393, Sept, 1976,
(Prepared by American Electro-
platers' Society)
16U,S, Environmental Protection
Agency, FBI Reverse Osmosis
Membrane for Chromium Plating
Rinse Water, EPA 600/2-78-040.
NTIS No, Pb 280-944. Mar. 1978.
(Prepared by American Electro-
platers' Society)
17U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Reverse Osmosis Field
Test: Treatment of Watts
Nickel Rinse Waters. EPA 600/2-
77-039. NTIS No. Pb 266-919.
Feb. 1977. (Prepared by Abcor,
Inc.)
18U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Reverse Osmosis Field
Test: Treatment of Copper Cyanide
Rinse Waters. EPA 600/2-77-1 70.
NTIS No. Pb 272-473. Feb. 1977.
(Prepared by Abcor, Inc.)
19U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. New Membranes for
Treating Metal Finishing Effluents
by Reverse Osmosis. EPA 600/
2-76-197. NTIS No, Pb 265-363,
Oct. 1976. (Prepared by Midwest
Research Institute)
20U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Electrodialysis for Closed
Loop Control of Cyanide Rinse
Waters. EPA 600/2-77-161.
NTIS No. Pb 272-688. Aug. 1977.
(Prepared by International
Hydronics Corporation)
21 U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Investigation of Treating
Electroplaters Cyanide Waste by
Electrodialysis. EPA R2-73-287.
NTIS No. Pb 231-263. Dec. 1973.
(Prepared by RAI Research
Corporation)
22U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Technology
Transfer. In-Process Pollution
Abatement Vol. 1, Upgrading
Metal-Finishing Facilities to
Reduce Pollution. EPA 625/3-73-
002. NTIS No. Pb 260-546,
July 1973.
23U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Waste Treatment:
Upgrading Metal-Finishing
Facilities To Reduce Pollution.
NTIS No. Pb 226-963. July 1973,
(Prepared by Lancy Laboratories)
24U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Controlling Pollution
From the Manufacturing and Coat-
ing of Metal Products: Water
Pollution Control. EPA 625/3-73-
009, May 1977. (Prepared by
Centec Corporation)
25U.S, Environmental Protection
Agency. Wastewater Treatment
and Reuse in a Metal Finishing
Job Shop. NTIS No, Pb 234-476,
July 1974. (Prepared by S. K.
Williams and Company)
26U.S, Environmental Protection
Agency. Chemical Treatment of
Plating Waste for Removal
of Heavy Metals, EPA R2-73-044.
NTIS No. Pb 227-363. May 1973.
(Prepared by Beaton and Corbin
Manufacturing Company)
27U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Treatment of Metal
Finishing Wastes by Sulfide Pre-
cipitation. Unpublished report,
(Prepared by Perrnutit Company)
28U,S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Treatment of Metal
Finishing Wastes by Sulfide Pre-
cipitation. EPA 600/2-77-049,
NTIS No. Pb 267-284. Feb. 1977,
(Prepared by Metal Finishers'
Foundation)
29U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. An Investigation of
Techniques for Removal of Cyanide
From Electroplating Wastes.
EPA WQO-12010-EIE-11/71.
NTIS No, Pb 208-210. Nov. 1971,
(Prepared by Battelle Columbus
Laboratories)
30U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Treatment of Complex
Cyanide Compounds for Reuse
or Disposal. EPA R2-73-269.
NTIS No, Pb 222-794, June 1973.
(Prepared by Berkey Film
Processing of New England)
31 U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Ozone Treatment of
Cyanide-Bearing Plating Waste.
EPA 600/2-77-104. NTIS No.
Pb 271-015. June 1977. (Prepared
by Sealectro Corporation)
32U,S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Removal of Heavy Metals
From Industrial Wastewater
Using Insoluble Starch Xanthate.
EPA 600/2-78-085. NTIS No.
Pb 283-792. May 1978. (Prepared
by U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Research Service)
33U.S, Environmental Protection
Agency. An Investigation of
Techniques for Removal of
Chromium From Electroplating
Wastes. NTIS No. Pb 215-614,
Mar, 1971, (Prepared by Battelle
Memorial Laboratories)
34U.S, Environmental Protection
Agency. Electrolytic Treatment of
Job Shop Metal Finishing
Wastewater. EPA 600/2-75-028.
NTIS No, Pb 246-560, Sept. 1975,
(Prepared by New England
Plating Company)
35U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Removal of Chromium
from Plating Rinse Water Using
Activated Carbon. EPA 600/2-75-
055. NTIS No. Pb 243-370,
June 1975. (Prepared by Battelle
Memorial Institute)
42
-------
36U.S, Environmental Protection 37U,S. Environmental Protection 38U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, "Hazardous Waste Agency. "Standards Applicable Agency, "Consolidated Permit
Management System; Identification to Owners and Operators of Application Forms for EPA Pro-
and Listing of Hazardous Waste," Hazardous Waste Treatment, grams." Federal Register 45(98):
Pt 3. Federal Register 45(98): Storage, and Disposal Facilities." 33290-33588, May 19, 1980.
33084-33133, May 19, 1980, Federal Register 45(98):33154-
33258, May 19, 1980,
43
-------
This industrial awareness report was prepared by the Centec Corporation,
Fort Lauderdale FL and Reston VA, EPA thanks the following organizations
for providing information and technical review: American Electroplaters'
Society; Gillette Company, Safety Razor Division, Boston MA; Holly
Carburetor, a Division of Colt Industries, Paris TN; Hurd Lock and Manufac-
turing Company, Greensviile TN; Medford Plastics Company, Medford Wl;
and Phillips Plating Company, Phillips Wl. Aqualogic* Inc., Bethany CT,
provided photographs.
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and approved for publication. The process alternatives, trade names, or
commercial products are only examples and are not endorsed or recom-
mended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Other alternatives
may exist or may be developed that are applicable to the electroplating
industry.
COVER PHOTOGRAPH: Nickel plating bath.
44
* 660-868 8/80
------- |