-------
TABLE II-5
REVISED STEEL INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZAHOH
PAGE 2
3. Flat
a. Hot Scrip and Sheet (Carbon and Specialty)
b. Plate - Carbon
c. Plate - Specialty
4. Pipe and Tub*
H. Salt Bath Deicaling
1. Oxidizing
a. Batch Sheet/Plate
b. Pitch Rod/Wire/Bar
c. Bat
-------
TABLE II-5
REVISED STEEL IKDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIIATIOH
PACE 3
J. Cold Foraing
1. Cold Rolling
a. Recirculation - Single Stand
b. Recirculation - Multi Stand
c. Combination
d. Direct Application - Single Stand
e. Direct Application - Hulti Stand
2. Pipe and Tube
a. Water
b. Oil EauUion
K. Alkaline Cleaning
1. Batch
2. Continuous
L. Hot Coat ing«
1. Galvanizing, Terne 6 Other
2. FUM Scrubber
112
-------
tABU II-6
CROSS REFERENCE OF REVISES STEEL INDUSTRY
SUBCATECORIZATI0S TO PRIOR SUBCATECORIZATIOH
Revised Subcategorigation
A. Cokemaking
1. By-Product
a. Iron & Steel - Biologic*!
b. Iron & Steel - Physical Chemical
c. Herchant - Biologic«l
d. Merchant - Physical Chemical
2. Beehive
B. Sintering
C. Blast Furnace
1. Iron
2. Ferromanganeat (BPT only)
D. Steelmaking
1. BOF
a. Semi-vet
b. Wet - Open Combustion
c. Wet - Suppressed Combustion
2. Open Hearth - Wet
3. EAF
a. Semi-wet
b. Wet
E. Vacuum Degassing
F. Continuous Casting
Prior Subcategoriiation
(1974 and 1976 Regulations)
A. By-Product Coke
B. Beehive Coke
Remarks
C. Sintering
D. Blast Furnace - Iron
E. Blast Furnace - FeSta
F. BOF - Se*i-wct
C. BOF - Wet
H. Open Hearth - Wet
I. EAF - Semi-«et
J. EAF - Wei
K. Vacuum Degas*ing
L. Continuous Casting
Segment Addej
Segment Added
Segment Added
Segment Added
C. Hot Forming
1. Primary
a. Carbon and Specialty vo/scarfers
b. Caibon and Specialty u/scsrfcr*
M. Hot Formir.g - Primary
1. Carbon wo/scarfers
2. Carbon Wacarfers
3. Specialty
Segments
Changed
113
-------
TABLE 11-6
CROSS UFERENCE OF REVISED STEEL INDUSTRY
SCBCATKCORIZATIOM TO FRIOtl SUBCATECORIZATIOH
PACE 2
"1
Reviled Subcategorization
2. Section
a. Carboa
b. Specialty
3. rut
a. Hot Strip and Sheet
b. Plate - Carbon
c. Plate - Specialty
4. ripe and Tub*
H. Scale Removal
1. Oxidizing
a. Batch Sheet/Plate
' b. Batch Rod/Wire/Bar
c. Batch Pipe/Tube
d. Contiououa
2. Reducing
a. Batch
b. Continuoua
I. Acid Pickling
1. Sulfuric Acid
a. Rod, Hire and Coil
b. Bar, Billet and Bloom
c. Strip, Sheet and Plate
d. Pipe, Tube and Other Product!
e. Fume Scrubber
2. Hydrochloric Acid
a. Rod, Wire and Coil
b. Strip, Sheet and Plate
c. Pipe, Tube and Other Product?
d. Fuae Scrubber
e. Acid Regeneration
Prior Subcategorization
(1974 and 1976 Regulation*)
It. 801 Forming - Section
1. Carbon
2. Specialty
'0. Hot Forming - Flat
1. Hot Strip * Sheet
2. Plate
P. Hot Forming - Pipe and Tube
I. laolated
2. Integrated
X. Scale Removal
a. Kolene
b. Hydride
Remark!
Segment
Changed
Segment!
Changed
Segment a
Changed
Q. Pickling - Sulfuric Acid -
Batch and Continuoua
a. Batch - (pent liquor, Segment!
no rinaea Changed
b. Continuoua - Neutralization
(liquor)
c. Continuoua - Neutralization
(R, FHS)
d. Continuous - Acid Recovery
(new facilitiee)
R. Pickling - Hydrochloric Acid -
Batch and Continuoua
a. Concentrate! -
nonregenerat ive
b. Regeneration
c. Riniei
d. Fume hood (crubbera
Segaenta
Changed
114
-------
.1-
TABLE II-6
CROSS REFERENCE OF REVISED STEEL INDUSTRY
SUBCATEGORIZATION TO PRIOR SUBCATECORIZATION
PACE 3
Revived Subcategoritatioo
3. Combination Acid
a. Rod, Wire and Coil
b. Bar, Billet and Bloom
c. Cont. - Strip, Sheet and Plate
d. Batch - Strip, Sheet and Plata
e. Pipe, Tube and Other Producta
f. Fume Scrubber
J. Cold Forming
1. Cold Rolling
a. Recirculation - Single Stand
b. Recirculation - Hulti Stand
c. Combination
d. Direct Application - Single Stand
e. Direct Application - Multi Stand
2. Pipe and Tube
a. Water
b. Oil emulsion
K. Alkaline Cleaning
a. Batch
b. Continuou*
L. Hot Coating*
1. Galvanizing, Terne & Other
2. FUM Scrubber
Prior Subcategorization
(1974 and 1976 Regulation*)
W. Combination Acid Pickling
. (Batch and Continuous)
Subcategory
a. Continuou*
b. Batch - Pipe and Tije
c. Batch - other
S. Cold Rolling
a. Recirculation
b. Combination
c. Direct Application
Reaark*
Segment*
Changed
Segment*
Added
Segment Addec
Segment Addcc
Z. Continuou* Alkaline Cleaning
T. Hot Coating* - Galvanizing
a. Galvanizing
b. Fum* acrubber
Subdivision
Added
Segment*
Changed
115
-------
TABU 11-7
MtIP HASTE CMSUTIOK COS TO IUTU FOILOTIO* CQRCOt
IKOH AHP STBEL
BFT (tofla/yr)
Subcateftorr
A.
B.
C.
D.
I.
T.
C.
H.
Cokeawkiaf
1. Iroa 4 Sec*l
2. Merchant
Sinter inj
Iroaatakinf
Statlmakief
t. *or
a. Seai-Wet
b. Wet Suppraaaed
c. Hat Opea
2. Open learta, - Hat
3. Electric Fttraace
a. Seau-Uet
b. Hat
Vacuum Defaaaiae,
Contittuoua Caatiae.
Hot Faniaa.
1. Friaary
a. Carbon a/Scarfer
b. Carboa vo/Scarfer
c. Spec. »/Scurfar
d. Spec. vo/icarttr
2. Sectioa
a. Carboa
b. Specialty
3. flat
a. Carbon KS4S
b. Spec. HS4S
c. Carbon Flita
d. Spec. Plate
4. Fipe 4 Tube
a. Carboa
b. Specialty
Salt Bath Deacaliaf.
J. Oxidiiiat
a. Batch Saeet/Plate
b. Batch lod/vire
c. Batch Pipe/T»be
d. Cootlnuova
2. leducint
a. Batch
b. Cont onove
•a. of
Flanta
11
11
16
43
9
5
13
4
3
*
33
42
30
30
5
12
52
20
30
1
11
3
25
t
5
3
2
7
4
2
BAT (coat/
rr)
Model Ma. of Model to. of
Plant Subcatttory flant • Plant Subcatecor* Flanta
1,239
546
165,940
119,465
too
7,550
65,260
30,3*0
1,500
19,270
to
4OO
80,262
20,718
19,738
6,498
16,577
4,578
38,479
4,883
16,979
5.342
759
2,479
380
440
540
420
160
60
38,409
6,006
2,655,040
5,136,993
7,200
37,750
822,380
121,440
4,500
115,620
2,640
16,800
2,407,8(0
621,540
98,690
77,976
862,004
131,360
1,154,370
34,181
186,769
26,710
18,975
19,«32
1,900
1,320
1,080
2,940
640
120
Z8 •
9 *
13 *
39 550
•
S 70
13 200
* 265
3
6 42
31 40
25 40
30
29
S
11
48
17
30
7
11
5
25
B
3
3
2
7
4
2
*
*
a
21,450
-
350
2,400
1,040
-
252
1,240
1,000
_
.
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
*
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8
<
1
2
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
7
2
2
0
2
7
1
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
fttl (toot An)
Modal
Plant 8ubcal«lory
1,314
292
165,940
120,015
800
7,620
63,460
30,625
1,500
19,310
120
440
80,262.(jJ
20,7ie;{:
19738
6,498U)
16,377',
6,578a)
38.479" >
•88J
16,979"}
?,34Jl
759
2,479(1)
380
440
540
420
160
60
10,512
2,336
165,940
240,030
0
7,620
'63,460
1
f
•*•
r^~
\
\
_
0
19,310
0
3,080
160,524
41,436
0
12,996
116,039
6,578
76,938
0
16,979
0
_
j
i
739 j
|._
!
0
440 ;
0
420 j
160 !
0
i •-/
; /
116
-------
TAIL! II-7
SOLID MASTt CEXZtAlIO* DUt TO HATH POLLUTION
IKOK AMD STUL l«X»T»T
TUX 2
IP? (tont/vr)
Subcateiory
I. Acid Pickliat
1. Sulfuric
• . S/S/7 Brat
b. I/H/C Km
c. 1/8/B Neut
d. p/t M«t
e. S/S/P AO:;:
f. «/a/c AO:;J
». B/./B AU"'
h. P/t AC11'
2* Hydrochloric
«. S/S/P Kent
b. R/W/C Reut
c. P/T Haul
d. S/S/P At
3. Co*blB«tioa
t. Batch S/S/P
ft. Conttauoua S/S/P
c. t/tf/C
d. B/B/B
• - P/T
J. Cold Foraiiag
1. Cold (ollios
a. ftnfla Stead Kecire
b. Multi Stud Bacirc
c. Coe*inailoo
d. Single Stead DA
«. Multi Stud QA
2. CP - Pip* t Tub*
a. Water
t>. Oil
t. Alkaline Cleaning
1. Ketch
2. Coot inuott*
L. lot Costing
1. C-tlvaniriaf
e. S/S'M vo/PS
b. S/S/'H «/fS
c. w/r »o/rs
d. HP/F WPS
2. Terue
e. S/S/H «o/n
b. S/S/K WPS
3. Othtt
d. S/I/H M/PS
b. S/.l/M WPS
c. UP, r IK/PS
d. UP/P WPS
TOTALS
(1)1 Beaed upon current pract
(2)t Perrou* aulfate cryttel
- t No liait it toBA/vtanderda
* > Sludie ertaeret ioo at thi
lk>. ot
23
16
IS"
17
2
5
0
1
21
7
2
4
9
14
9
3
11
13
21
10
9
10
9
19
22
22
11
12
10
t
1
3
"
4
0
2
0
icta of POTV
diapoaal
etc being pr
• level it ai
SAT (tona/yr)
Modal No. ot Hodel • Mo. of
74,780
16,260
22,720
13,360
13,440
2,340
4,680
1,360
83,280
3,640
3,140
41,440
3,080
27,640
8,120
4,360
4,740
40
700
9,300
340
1,600
140
420
20
260
1,380
1,640
440
320
240
340
960
1,220
80
100
diichergea.
oeulgatcd for
aieul and it
1,719,940
260,150
340,600
227,120
26,680
11,700
0
1,560
1,790,860
25,480
6,280
165,760
45,720
386,960
73,080
13,680
52,140
520
14,700
93,000
3,060
16,900
1,260
7,980
440
5,720
24,840
19,680
4,400
3,120
240
1,020
3,840
0
160
0
19,963,367
thia tubdivia
ine lud*d In th
23
16
15
17
2
5
0
1
21
7
2
4
9
14
9
3
11
13
21
10
9
10
9
19
22
22
14
11 *
9
6 *
1
3 •
3
0 *
2
0 •
ion.
• KPT Ml>.j4»* ••
4
18
3
9
0
0
0
0
3
8
1
0
0
i
6
1
8
3
3
0
0
0
2
0
9
9
2
• 1
7
• 7
1
• 0
0
• 0
4
; o
27,952
PSES (ton./yr)
Plant
74,780
16,260
22,720
13,360
.
.
.
-
85,280
3,640
3,140
3,080
27,640
8,120
4,360
4,740
40
700
9,300
340
1,800
.
1,320
_
-
1,380
1,640
440
520
240
340
960
1,220
60
100
Subeatee.ory
299,120
292,680
68,160
120,240
.
.
_
-
255,840
29,120
3,140
0
27,640
64.960
4,560
37,920
120
2, IOC
0
0
0
_
0
_
-
2,760
1,640
3,060
3,640
240
0
0
0
320
f
2,162,«7
117
4
-------
t
tl
U
S3 «
a i
o -
is
O JC
I si
*-> >*
a. M
M &
" s^ °*
~ *« i
2 cyi
3 go
" c*
£2
s •**
& ?
W Jtf
C •
- 1
"** c*
O *•
C
*£
t.
O
«a
«
«
V)
o o o o o o
o to •» co ** •?
49 CM « CM CM *i
CM
O *> <£ -tf* 4 •* ^ >f
(M »•• & « <# CM t£ «0
O CM M> O « O CO
'
•0 10 — fM 0 -,— 0
gg g 0 ,gg g
o o o o o o o
* 5* g g g g £j
VD CM w CM ^ o MS
en M
o o o o lopo
o o o o o 5 o
iC CO
O **••**• w . .
O -^ CM « i-t W « CM
< M U O
§o
o
* 0
£ §
s
s's" «" g"
W 0 ^
0 — 0 t-
'§ ° §
O O^ O
See p
fM O1*
CM m Irt
O O O O O O
§000 o o
o o o o o
•MO to to O r*
r- .-. ,» tr» o -«
O O *M IM 0
b t*
« W f
•M «t «**
m u «
(A u V>
•-. « •*- >^
> -— O —
= * • =s
J 0 J J "
»>,>. V «. Cull
c b • 0.0.0 .a.
•- J WU01W -^* Owl
0 'Z ^ ^ ^ . « ^^
£ - ~
0-
§000
i
1 5
CM
O O O O
•a to
-------
Jf
* 8
*88
O" O -» "O
o * w «*
< 2 r- f%
.5 o M «o
O M
S« •-«
« M
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I
I t 1 1 I
$
g
« CXM
iSo
" >- O O O (
> O O O <
g g g g g
O -»
SM <
*n <
O r4 * ^
V V V •• S3 Q
X*K3<
33 MS
« « M> « — O
3 3 C M3
119
-------
88
II
O O O I O
° ° ° °
88888 '8
O O Vr« •* «•
f>4 f4 <« Ot O
-4 M? t* *•
ll§
2S 8*52
I i I i i
8 ' 8
i i I I i
' B ' 2 <9
| 8 8
O O O « O
l§ II
t> O p P O
2X222
o o o o o
8*
RRS
S3 8'SSS
SK
•g-OBl* J!
« c o * c a
..
C
M M « u (O "
C (A « M •« —
2 5^.55- ...S3
2 S-|?S .5- 5- S S M
fl SiSSi fc 5-3 ° *.2 -S
. p. p-
>5
M VI ««•>•>
MM fa
-^ a. a.
M 5 5
: 5
s -
120
-------
<
»
UJ
(A
0
Z
CO
o
CO
5
k
u
5
a
Ul
h-
z
fw
0
Z
Z
X
o
2
? 2
?«
« o
>• < 5
01 z •£ >.
K (E < *
LU
QC
O
121
-------
o
z
** UI
0 ""?
° 5:2
i
4 s
T "ui10
hiw ^ _J
£D
A
T
\
(
r ~ ~~
in
K 5
* 8
»
S =
s! z
61 TI
u
1
X
cc
I
1
•~!8
3
CD
in
W!
U>
5
UI
1
a.
i-E
5s
C^
^u
3X
$i
J
~j
>- in
C _J
n Z
j
MILLS
L
ftMLESS
PE PRODUCTS j
REI
J
in
i i
CL
G. lin
_ if-
- -Jo
cc
UI i>
O -3
ft
f_
h
^ i
uj 8
o e
< 3
)
]
1
§'
5>
O
O
ai
J
it
t,
;
5
c
•
1
ofc J
UI 3 i— 1
-J a
-1 0 ,
o a ^
a. a. •
S5
y ^ -i
•% i
r^ T
, _i
^2
*|i
in
T_
III l-
1 —
— a>
in co l~
-1 UI
— U -J
o
t- '
§
«»
5-
"a
____»
_ ,
1
in
i '
'
I
5
•
>
J
t
E
1
c
5
C
>
^
i
*1
tf
i
u
(-
u
h
V
«.
C
u
(.
Q
£
C
u
i
i
u
^_
)
J
E
' c
> i
. i
) i
> :
>
i
1
5
-in
?l
f
u
1-
(t
5D (INTE
cc
Q
O
QC
n
...
A
U
3
U
:
j
z
vt
f-
o o
w,s
2 o
0 ?
cc °-
1- O
o o
J- z
1
2
i
1
t !
r— J
FORGING
_jf .
Ss
o to
LU h-
11
•- o
UI O.
JL
in
z
o
in
ox
X
UJ
t
MACHINING
3N AGENCY |
UD»
PROTECTK
NDUSTRY SI
f FORMING
J 0
< -> X
t- UI
Z UI
UI 1-
2
-------
I
i
1
»
a
0
iie
>-
EC
I
]
c
1
a.
»-
3
o
u
o2
r<>
3
O
i
-Z
X
:a>
a
k
i
k
e>
Ul
«•*
>
*§
il
££
L
1
u
j
I
i
6
u
o
X
1
«r
a
<
a
*
c
01
i
.j
x
o.
£
tn
)
i
j
.
rs!
.2
a.
L
j i
i
o
u
1 1
i i
Z
J
i
r
ti
»•
i
4
«
C
1
^
J
4
1
J
r
t
i
t
ii
t
•
i
_^
^
b
r
:
«
(
t
o-
i
t-
u
J
1- »- K)
"° So z
!s 8* s v^z |
1 f* ' ^"l rt 2 5 * —
t 41 '4 4 A'pSgSui.
r 1 T 1 T s >"5
i r w l » f? o
i IS « i s £ §!*
5 Hfc 5 < ^£3
' -i - z w K §
| S2I
s ^ —
i 1
z |
£
5
0 J
fc 5
J Z
I z« <
II ssi
i
»
Ul
z
"^ o
UJ
__ i_ Q
• s S
0 <
z o
3 U
1 1
1
^
1
< 4ji
" -J*^
' |3
1
i
i «
aa
1 -4(4
1
'il
1
1
M
1
1
&
1
1
1
: 1
!
!
f i
! j
1
12:
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION III
REMAND ISSUES ON PRIOR REGULATIONS
Introduction
After reviewing the 1974 (Phase I) and 1976 (Phase II) regulations for ||
the steel industry, the Court of Appeals ordered EPA to reconsider
several matters. This section provides a summary of the Agency's
evaluation and response to the "remand issues". The respective
subcategory reports provide the Agency's responses to subcategory
specific remand issues.
1. Site-Specific Costs
In its challenge to the Phase I regulation, the industry asserted
that EPA's cost estimates did not include allowances for "site-
specific" costs. The industry submitted no data showing the \'$
magnitude of site-specific costs. The Agency responded that it '"™
included all costs which could be reasonably estimated and that
it believed its estimates were sufficiently generous to cover
site-specific costs. On this basis, the court rejected this
challenge to the regulation. American Iron and Steel Institute
v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1027 (3d Cir. 1975), modified i_n part, 560 F.2d
589 (3d Cir. 1977), cert, den. 98 S. Ct 1467 (1978).
In the Phase II proceedings, however, evidence of the possible
magnitude of "site-specific" cost was presented.4 On this basis,
the court ordered EPA to reevaluate its cost estimates in light
of site-specific costs. In particular, the court ordered EPA to
include these costs, or analyze the generosity of its estimates
by comparing model cost estimates with actual reported costs, or !?|
explain why such an analysis could not be done. iy
S
In response to the court's decisions, the Agency reevaluated its l ^
cost estimates for Phase I and Phase II operations. First, the
Agency included in its estimates many "site-specific" costs which
were not included in prior estimates.5 In the Agency's view, it
has included all "site-specific costs" that can be reasonably and
accurately estimated without detailed site-specific studies. The
4This evidence consisted of the plant-by-plant compliance estimates
for facilities located in the Mahoning Valley region of Eastern Ohio.
5These newly added cost items include: land acquisition costs, site
clearance costs, utility connections, and miscellaneous utility
requirements. (Reference is made to Section VII)
12:
Preceding page blank
-------
remaining "site-specific" costs not included are so highly
variable and inherently site-specific that reasonably accurate
estimates would require an evaluation of the factors as they
apply to each operation. It should be noted that studies
commissioned by AISI, itself, also exclude site-specific costs.
For example, in Arthur D, Lictle's Steel and the Environment - A
Cost Itnpact Analysis, site-specific costs and land acquisition
costs were excluded ". . .because detailed site-specific studies
would be required."
Second, the Agency included in its cost estimates allowances for
unforeseen expenses. The model-based cost estimates for each
subcategory include a 15% contingency fee.*
Third, the Agency has based its cost estimates on many
conservative assumptions. For instance, in most subcategories,
the Agency's cost estimates are based upon individual treatment
of wastewaters from all operations within each subcategory at
each plant site. In fact, however, the industry has installed
and will continue to install less costly "central treatment"
systems to treat combined waste streams from several
subcategories. Additionally, EPA's model based estimates reflect
off the shelf parts and costs for "outside" engineering and
construction services.7 In fact, however, the industry often uses
"in-house" engineering and construction resources, and improves
wastewater quality by "gerrymandering' existing treatment systems
and upgrading operating and maintenance practices. The Agency's
cost estimates reflect treatment in place as of 1976 and
treatment to have been installed by January 1978 [based upon
survey (DCP) responses); and facilities in place as of July 1,
1981. Tiie Agency updated the status of the industry from January
1978 to July 1981 from personal knowledge of Agency experts on
the industry; NPDES records; and, in some cases, telephone
surveys.
Fourth, EPA has compared its model-based cost estimates to the
costs reported by the industry. This comparison shows that the
Agency's estimates are sufficiently generous to reflect all
costs, including "site-specific" costs. Model-based estimates
cannot be expected to precisely reflect the costs incurred or to
be incurred by each individual plant. Variations of greater than
i.50% would not be considered outside normal confidence levels.
For example, in Steel and the Environment - A Cost Impact
Analysis, a study t/ Arthur D. Little, Inc., commissioned by the
AISI, the authors irJUcated that cost estimates were within ± 50%
•This contingency fee was also included in previous cost estimates
7The model estimates include 15% for engineering services.
12C
-------
for individual process steps and t 85% for individual plants.'
Often, variations from model estimates cannot be explained. The
validity of model estimates, therefore, should be judged by the
ability to depict actual costs for subcategories of the industry
for the industry, as a whole where several treatment systems are
evaluated collectively.
The Agency's comparison of model-based cost estimates and costs
reported by industry involved two complimentary analyses. First,
the Agency compared actual reported treatment costs (including
all site-specific costs) to the model cost estimates for the
treatment components in place at the reporting plants. These
comparisions include costs for all plants for which sufficiently
detailed cost information were provided, taking into account the
level of treatment in place. To generate valid comparisons, the
model cost estimate was scaled to the actual production of the
reporting plant by the application of the accepted engineering
"six-tenths" factor. The Agency scaled production of the model
to actual production of the reporting plant because, in its view,
this produces the most reliable cost comparison. Another
possible method of comparison would be to scale the f1 ow of the
model to the actual flow of the reporting plant. This method of
scaling would overstate treatment costs because costs are highly
dependent on flow volume (higher flows require larger and more
costly treatment systems) and many plants in the industry use and
discharge more water than necessary. Also, flow data are not
available for all plants while production data are available for
most operations and plants in the industry. This comparative
analysis is summarized below for those subcategories where the
Agency was able to obtain reliable subcategory-specific costs
from the industry.
I .
•See pages B-64 and B-65 of Steel and the Environment - A Cost Impact
Analysis which AISI submitted to EPA during the Phase II ruiemaking.
-------
Treatment In Place v. Model Estimates for Same Treatment
Subpart Actual
(process) Cost
(SxlO-*)
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Cokemaking
Sintering
Ironmaking
Steelmaking
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Hot Forming
Total
56.05
6.43
110.12
37.61
2.19
29.38
78.87
320.65
EPA
Model
Estimate
(SxlO-*)
54.24
10.53
123.39
42.32
2.32
23.00
107.46
363.26
Actual as %
of Model
103
61
89
89
94
128
73
88.3
This summary shows that actual reported costs for the industry
(including all site-specific costs) represent about 88% of the
model estimates for the same treatment components. On this
basis, the Agency concludes that its model estimates are
sufficiently generous to reflect site-specific costs.
In the second comparison of reported costs and model estimates,
the Agency compared the reported costs (including all
site-specific costs) of plants meeting BPT (or BAT) to the model
estimates for the BPT (or BAT) treatment system. This
methodology, vhich the Agency presented in its brief in the Phase
II proceedings, demonstrates that the effluent limitations and
standards can be achieved with treatment systems comparable to
the Agency's treatment models at costs comparable to the Agency's
estimated costs. This comparison, which also is based upon
scaling of production by the "six-tenths factor," is summarized
below:
12C
-------
SUMMARY
Complying Plant Costs v, Model Compliance Estimates
Subcategory Actual
(process) Costs
($x10-*)
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Cokemaking
Sintering
Ironmaking
Steelmaking
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Hot Forming
40.71
5.92
33.16
37.61
2.08
19.36
77.64
Model
Estimate
($xlO-«)
40.60
6.35
51.97
47.74
2.48
18.61
106.22
Actual as %
of Model
100
93
64
79
84
104
73
Total
216.48
273.97
79.0
Again, this summary shows that total reported costs (including
all site-specific costs) for plants meeting required effluent
levels is about 79% of model estimates. On this basis, EPA
likewise concludes that its model-based cost estimates are
sufficiently generous to reflect site-specific costs.
As .noted in the subcategory reports for many of the Phase II
operations, central treatment of wastewaters from finishing
operations is common in the steel industry. The cost data
reported by the industry for these central treatment systems are
often not directly usable for the purpose of verifying the
Agency's cost estimates for individual subcategory treatment
systems. As noted earlier, the Agency considered co-treatment of
wastewaters at plants within subcateogries, but did not consider
co-treatment or central treatment across subcategories in
developing cost estimates. To determine the impact of the
extensive amount of central treatment in the industry on the
Agency's ability to accurately estimate costs, the Agency
compared actual industry central treatment costs with the
Agency's model based cost estimates for the respective
subcategories included in the industry's central treatment
systems. This comparison is shown below.
\
-------
1.
ACTUAL COSTS vs. EPA CO-TREATMENT ESTIMATES
PLANT
0112B
0112H
0432K
0/96 &
0796A
0868A
0868A
0176
0460A
0612
0728
Section)
SUBCATEGORIES
Hot Forming (Primary, Secti
Pickling (HC1, Combination)
Pickling, Scale Removal, Alkaline
Cleaning
Vacuum Degassing, Continuous
Casting, Hot Forming (Primary,
Section, Pipe and Tube),
Pickling (H,S04), Cold Rolling
Cold Rolling, Pickling
(HC1, H,S04), Hot Coating,
Alkaline Cleaning
Hot Forming (Primary, Section)
Hot Forming (Primary and Section),
Cold Rolling (Direct Application),
Cold Worked Pipe and Tube, Pickling
(HC1, H*S04, Combination), Scale
Removal, Alkaline Cleaning
Hot Forming (Primary, Section)
Hot Coating (Galvanizing),
Pickling (HC1)
Hot Forming (Pipe and Tube),
Pickling (H,S04), Hot Coating
(Galvanizing)
ACTUAL COST
$ 2,578,000
746,000
9,350
16,770,000
4,857,000
303,000
TOTAL
3,060,000
340,000
1,645,000
198,000
31,432,000
MODEL COST
$ 5,133,000
882,000
1,374,000
15,793,000
5,235,000
2,317,000
5,587,000
1,017,000
3,914,000
437,000
41,689,000
These data clearly indicate that in total, the Agency's estimates
for separate subcategory-specific treatment systems far exceed
those costs reported by the industry for central treatment. Of
particular interest are the data reported for plants 0796-0796A,
a central treatment facility that achieves the BAT limitations
for the operations included in the central treatment facility.
The Agency's estimate is within six percent of the actual cost
reported by the company. This system includes several miles of
retrofitted wastewater collection and distribution piping not
likely to be included in most central treatment systems. Based
upon the above, the Agency concludes that its separate
subcategory-specific cost estimates for the Phase II operations
are sufficiently generous to include those site specific costs
likely to be incurred for most central treatment facilities, and
may be overly generous in depicting potential costs for steel
finishing operations as a whole.
Another approach to judging the sufficiency of the Agency's model
estimates, to account for "site-specific" costs, is to determine
the adequacy of the Agency's cost estimates for several steel
mills located in the Mahoning Valley of Ohio. Studies of these
plants completed in 1977 included cost estimates for compliance
with the previously promulgated and proposed Phase I and Phase II
130
-------
/
/
requirements. These eight plants were among the oldest in the
country. Estimated compliance costs were furnished by the owners
of the plants, based upon actual site inspections and engineering
studies, aT;5 were verfied by the Agency's engineering contractor.
The tables summarizing those studies, which were part of the
record of * he Phase II rulemaking, are reproduced as Tables III-l
through III-3. Table III-l summarizes the estimated compliance
costs for the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Corporation Brier Hill,
Campbell, and Struthers Works. Column II shows YS&T's estimate
of BAT compliance costs, totaling $54,106,000, including all
site-specific costs.* The Agency's contractor estimates,
$51,214,000, is shown in Column 12. In Columns #3 and 14, the
Agency's contractor scaled the flow and production of the BAT
cost model to the actual flow and production of the mills
involved, yielding cost estimates of $53,218,000 and $60,568,000,
respectively. By either method of scaling, the Agency's estimate
is representative of YS&T's estimate which includes site-specific
costs. In fact, the estimate scaled by production (the method I
now used for all cost estimates) more than accounted for the
significant "site-specific" costs the industry claimed the model
could not reflect.10
Analyses of estimated compliance costs for facilities owned by
United States Steel Corporation and Republic Steel Corporation
yield similar results. Table III-2 shows that U.S. Steel's
$33,110,000 BAT estimate (including $13,145,000 site costs) for
its McDonald Mills and Ohio Works plants is within 4% of EPA's
model estimate of $34,389,000 (scaled by production). Similarly,
Table II1-3 shows that Republic Steel's BPT estimate of
$70,099,000 (including $15,590,000 site costs) for its Warren,
Youngstown, and Niles plants is within 4% of the Agency's model
estimated cost of $72,640,000 for physical/chemical treatment
(scaled by production) and within 5% of the Agency's model
estimate of $73,486,000 for biological treatment (scaled by
production).
*Column 15 reflects the judgment of the Agency's contractor that
YS&T's $54,106,000 estimate (Column II) included "site-specific" costs
of $18,176,000.
l°Columns 16 and |7 add site-specific costs to model estimates scaled
by flow and production, yielding $71,394,000 and $78,744,000,
respectively. If accurate estimation required addition of
"site-specific" costs to model estimates, &s industry claimed, then
YS&T's compliance costs would be overstated by $17,288,000 (scaled by
flow) or $24,638,000 (scaled by production).
131
-------
As a final comparison, the Agency has compared its model Cost*1
estimate for a blast furnace wastewater treatment facility
against that prepared by an engineering company as comissioned by
one of its clients. This company costs the BAT-2 system (as
identified in the 1979 draft development document) for blast
furnaces and supplied its costs estimate to the Agency in its
comments to the October 1979 draft development document. The
company's cost and flow basis is compared below to the estimate
made by the Agency. Both estimates are based upon the same model
size ironmaking operation.
EPA Estimate Company Estimate
Flow 50 gal/ton 100 gal/ton
Capital $2.49 million $3.94 million
If both estimates are costed on the same flow basis (100 gal/ton)
the costs are as follows:
EPA Estimate Company Estimate
$3.78 million $3.94 million
These data show that the Agency's estimate is within 4.1% of the
estimate made by the engineering firm. This comparison further
substantiates the reasonableness and accuracy of the Agency's
cost models and costing methodology.
In summary, EPA has thoroughly reevaluated its model cost
estimates in light of "site-specific" costs. It has added
additional site costs to the models (see Section Vin; included
contingency fees in the models; used conservative cost
assumptions; compared reported costs for treatment in place to
model estimates for similar treatment; compared reported costs
for compliance and model estimates for compliance; and, compared
plant-by-plant compliance estimates with model-based cost
estimates. Based upon the above, the Agency concludes that its
cost estimates are sufficiently generous to reflect
"site-specific" costs and other compliance costs likely to be
incurred by the industry.
2. The Impact of Plant Age on the Cost or Feasibility of
Retrofitting Control Facilities
The industry challenged both the 1974 and 1976 regulations on the
basis that the Agency had failed to adequately consider the
impact of plant age. In the Phase I decision, the Court held
"Volume 3, Draft Development Document for Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Point Source Category; the Agency 440/l-79/024a, October
1979.
132
-------
that while the Agency had adequately considered the impact of age
on wastewater characteristics and treatability, it had failed to
adequately consider the impact of age on the "cost or feasibility
of retrofitting" controls.
In the Phase II proceedings, the Agency strenuously argued that
plant age was not a meaningful criteria in the steel industry
because plants are continually rebuilt and modernized. In
response to this argument, the Court stated:
"Were we writing on a clean slate, we might find this argument
convincing. But since the facts in this case cannot be properly
distinguished from the facts in the earlier case we must reject
EPA's contention ... We note, however, that we have not dismissed
the EPA's resolution of the retrofit question on the merits. We
merely require that the Agency reexamine the relevance of age
specifically as it bears on retrofit." 568 F.2d at 299-300.
In light of these decisions, the Agency has throughly examined
the impact of plant "age" on the "cost or feasibility" of
retrofitting controls. First, in the basic Data Collection
Portfolio (DCP) sent to owners or operators of all "steelmaking"
operations and about 85% of "forming and finishing" operations,
the Agency solicited information on the "age" of plants
(including the first year of on-site production and the dates of
major rebuilds and .modernizations); and, the "age" of treatment
facilities in place. Next, the Agency sent Detailed Data
Collection Portfolios (D-DCPs) for a selected number of plants,
asking owners of these plants, among other things, for a detailed
report of the costs of treatment in place and the portion of
those costs attributable to "retrofitting" controls. Finally,
the Agency and its engineering consultant evaluated these data to
determine wiiether plant "age" affected the "cost or feasibility
of retrofit', ng" and, if so, whether altered subcategorization or
relaxed reqi rements for "older" plants are warranted.
The Agency's evaluation of all available data confirms its
earlier conclusion that plant "age" does not significantly affect
the "cost or feasibility of retrofitting" pollution controls to
existing production facilities in the steel industry. In the
first place, plant "ac;^" is not a particularly meaningful
criteria in the industry. "Age" is extremely difficult to
define. Judcing from the first "car of on-site production, the
industry, as a whole, is "o)d." But, production facilities are
continually rebuilt and modernized, some on periodic "campaign"
schedules. Moreover, "campaign" schedules for operations in
different subcategories, or even for operations within the same
process (e.g., coke batteries) are different. Complicating this
further is the fact that integrated mills contain many processes
of different "ages" with different dates of first on-site
production and different rebuild schedules.
-------
Therefore, the year of first on-site production does not
represent the true plant "age." For instance, at the "oldest"
(1901) cokemaking facility (based upon first year of production),
the "oldest': active battery dates from 1968. At several "old"
plants (based upon first year of production), the "oldest" active
batteries range between 1953 and 1973 and the "newest" active
batteries date between 1967 and 1980.
The "age" of coke plants, therefore, changes dramatically with
the criteria for determining "age." Based upon the "oldest"
active battery, 7.4% of the plants date from 1920 or before; 5.9%
date between 1921- 1940; 65.5% date between 1941-1960; and 20.8%
date between 1961 and the present. Based on "newest" active
battery, 4.4% of the plants date from 1920 or before, 40.2% date
between 1941-1960, and the "age" of most (55.2%) of the plants is
between 1960 and the present. Depending en the criteria
selected, the age of a particular cokemaking plant, or the
cokemaking industry as a whole, can vary significantly.
In the ironmaking subcategory, the date of first on-site
production ranges between 1883 and 1974. However, most blast
furnaces undergo major rebuilds every 9 or 10 years. Therefore,
the age when determined by the last year of major rebuild would
be significantly less than that based upon the first year of
production.
Among most of the other subcategories, the situation is similar.
Table 111-4 summarizes, by subcategory, the "age" of plants in
the steel industry. In each case, the "age" of plants is
difficult to define because production facilities are
periodically rebuilt and modernized. In many of the remaining
subcategories and subdivisions, such as electric arc furnaces,
"age" is not relevant because all plants are of essentially the
same vintage.
Modernization of production facilities provides an impetus fcr
construction or modernization of treatment facilities. Thus, the
Agency concluded that because of the continual rebuilding and
modernization of production tacilities, plant "age" is not a
meaningful factor in the steel industry. This conclusion is
supported by studies commissioned by the industry. For example,
in Steel and the Environment - A Cogt Impact Analysis, which AISI
submitted to EPA in its comments on the 1976 rulemaking, Arthur
D. Little, Inc. concluded (at page 464) that:
"In the iron and steel industry it is difficult to define the age
of a plant because many of the unit operations were installed at
different times and also are periodically rebuilt on different
schedules. Thus, by definition, the age of steel facilities
should offer only limited benefits as a means of categorizing
plants for purposes of standard setting or impact analysis."
134
-------
Despite the Jifficulty of defining plant "age," the Agency did
not terminate its analysis of the impact of "age" on the "cost or
feasibility" of retrofitting controls. On the contrary, the
Agency selected determinants of "age" and then analyzed the
impact on the "cost or feasibility" of retrofitting.
With regard to the "feasibility" of retrofitting, the evidence is
conclusive: Plant "age" does not affect the "ease" or
"feasibility" of retrofitting pollution controls. Table IH-5
shows that, in all subcategories, some of the "oldest" facilities
(based on first year of on-site production) have among the
"newest" and most efficient wastewater treatment systems. The
characteristics and treatability of wastewaters from plants of
all ages within each subcategory are similar. Moreover, the
Agency found that treatment systems applied to wastewaters within
each subcategory produced similar effluent loads, and that the
same effluent limitations can be met regardless of the age of the
plant. Among coke plants, for example, the oldest by-product
plant (0024B) was retrofitted with, water pollution control
facilities as recently as 1977. Moreover, Plant 0863A, which is
one of the oldest coke plants (first year of production in 1912),
retrofitted pollution control facilities. This treatment
facility produces an effluent which is among the best observed in
the industry. In fact, the Agency has used this treatment
facility as a model and has established the BAT limitations based
upon the performance of this plant. Clearly, age has no affect
on the feasibility of retrofitting pollution control equipment.
The Agency did find, however, that the "ease" or "feasibility" of
retrofitting and, to seme extent, the cost of retrofitting one of
its model treatment technologies (cascade rinse systems for acid
pickling and hot coating operations) is significantly different
for new sources vs. existing sources of any age. Accordingly,
the Agency selected this technology as the basis for new source
performance standards and pretreatment standards for new sources
and did not use this technology to establish limitations and
standards for existing sources. The factor? considered by the
Agency in making this determination are set out in the Acid
Pickling subcategory report.
With regard to the cost of retrofitting, the impact of plant
"age" is more difficult to ascertain. Costs attributable to
retrofitting pollution control facilities were reported for only
15% of the plants for which responses to Agency questionnaires
were received. For those plants where "retrofit" costs were
reported, retrofit costs of less than 6% of pollution control
costs were reported for 73% of the plants. On the basis of these
Survey responses, the Agency concludes that "age" of plants does
not have a significant impact on the cost of retrofitting
pollution controls on an industry wide basis.
The Agency's examination of the Mahoning Valley plants also
supports the conclusion that "age" of plants does not
significantly impact the "cost or feasibility" of retrofitting.
135 t.
-------
This examination, discussed above in regard to "site-specific"
costs, showed that, for eight of the oldest plants in the
country, the industry's estimated compliance costs do not vary
significantly from the agency's model cost estimates.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Agency concludes that plant
"age" does not significantly affect the "cost or feasibility" of
retrofitting water pollution controls. However, even assuming
that "age" does significantly impact the "cost or feasibility" of
retrofitting, the Agency concludes that altered subcategorization
or relaxed requirements within subcategories for "older" plants
are not warranted. "Older" steel facilities are responsible for
as much water pollution as "newer" facilities. Thus, even if it
could be shown that plant "age" did affect the "cost or
feasibility" of retrofitting controls, the Agency would not alter
its subcategorization or provide relaxed effluent limitations or
standards within subcategories for "older" plants as control of
the discharge of pollutants from those plants justify the
expenditures of reasonable additional costs.
Based upon the above, the Agency finds that both old and newer
production facilities within each subcategory generate similar
raw wastewater pollutant loadings; that pollution control
facilities can be and have been retrofitted to both old and newer
production facilities without substantial retrofit costs; that
these pollution control facilities can and are achieving the same
effluent quality; and., that further subcategorization or further
segmentation within each subcategory on the basis of age is not
appropriate.
3. The Impact of the Regulation on Consumptive Water Loss
In the 1974 BPT and BAT regulation for the steeimaking segment,
many of the Agency's model treatment systems include partial
recycle of wastewaters. Some of these model systems included
evaporative cooling towers to insure that the temperature of
recycled wastewater not reach excessive levels for process use.*2
CF&I Steel Corporation, located in Pueblo, Colorado, claimed that
cooling through evaporative means would cause additional
consumptive water losses which would be inconsistent with state
law and would aggravate water scarcity in arid and semi-arid
regions of tne country. The Court held that to the extent that
the regulations were inconsistent with state law, the Supremacy
Clause of the U.S. Constitution required that federal law and
»*The treatment models that included evaporative cooling towers were
the BPT and BAT models in the cokemaking, blast furnace, steeimaking,
vacuum degassing, and continuous casting subcategories. Although
there are other available means of temperature equalization (such as
lagoons and nonevaporative coolers), only cooling towers were included
in those treatment models.
136
-------
»JThe treatment models that included evaporative cooling towers were
the BAT models in the hot forming subcategories.
regulations prevail. The Court agreed with CF&I, however, in |
holding that the Agency had failed to adequately consider the j
impact of the regulation on water sources in arid and semi-arid j
regions. j
The 1976 regulation for the forming and finishing segment also t
included treatment models with evaporative cooling towers.»» In *
its response to CPU's comments, the Agency stated: |
•'
"A means to dissipate heat is frequently a necessity if a recycle j
system is to be employed. The evaporation of water in cooling j
towers or from ponds is the most commonly employed means to
accomplish this. However, fin-tube heat exchangers can be used 5
to achieve cooling without evaporation of water. Such systems
are used in the petroleum processing and electric utility ;
industries. I
v
The Agency also feels that recognition of the evaporation of
water in recycle systems (and hence loss of availability to
potential downstream users) should be balanced with recognition ,
that evaporation also occurs in onCe-through systems, when the ;
heated discharge causes evaporation in the stream. This is not
an obvious phenomenon, since if occurs downstream of the
discharge point, but to the downstream user it is as real as with
consumptive in-plant usage. Assuming that the stream eventually j
gets back to temperature equilibrium with its environment, it
will get there primarily by evaporation, i.e., with just as
certain a loss of water. Additionally, the use of a recycle •
system permits lessening the intake flow requirements." 41 FR ;
12990. I
In addition, in its brief the Agency argued that, because of
current evaporative losses, the itr.pact of the regulations was not
as severe as claimed by CF&I, and that the water scarcity issue
was pertinent only in arid and semi-arid regions of the country.
The Court, however, held:
"...Since EPA may have proceeded under a mistaken assumption of
fact as to the water loss attributable to the interim final
[Phase II] regulations, the matter will be remanded to the Agency
for further consideration of whether fin-tube heat exchangers or
dry type cooling towers may be employed despite any fouling or
scaling problems - assuming that cooling systems of some kind
will be employed in order to meet the effluent limitations
prescribed in the regulations.
Also, the Agency may not decline to estimate the water loss due
to the interim final regulations as accurately as possible on the
137 ^ „
N
-------
%-J
grounds that, whatever the cost in water consumption, the
specified effluent limitations are justified. In order to insure
that the Agency completes a sufficiently specific and definite
study of the water consumption problem on re;nand, the Agency must
address the question of how often the various cooling systems
will be employed, or present reasons why it cannot make such an
assessment."
In light of these decisions, the Agency has evaluated the
"consumptive water loss" issue in the context of this regulation.
Several of the underlying modsl -treatment systems include recycle
of wastewaters with evaporative cooling systems. Although
cooling can be accomplished by several means (i.e.,lagoons, spray
ponds, dry cooling towers), the model treatment systems are based
upon evaporative cooling towers, which are the most commonly
used, least space intensive, and among the least costly means of
cooling wastewaters. Additionally, evaporative cooling towers
have the highest water consumption rates. Thus, the Agency's
estimates of water loss are conservative and overstate actual
water loss. In evaluating possible consumptive water losses,
however, the Agency has also analyzed the effects of several
cooling mechanisms other than evaporative cooling towers.
On the average, the steel industry currently uses 5.7 billion
gallons of process water per day. Not all of the process water
requires cooling. A breakdown of this water usage by subcategory
is given in Table III-6. Large volumes of this process water are
currently recycled through cooling towers, cooling ponds, and
spray ponds as 'shown below:
Cooling Device*
(1) Cooling Tower
(wet-mechanical draft)
(2) Cooling ponds
(3) Spray ponds
Approximate
Evaporation Rate
2.0%
1.7%
2.0%
% Utilization
75%
20%
5%
_,* The Agency does not expect any significant use of dry
cooling towers in the steel industry.
Based upon the foregoing, the Agency estimates that evaporative
losses from currently installed recycle/cool ing systems, and from
once-through discharges of heated water is about 16.0 MGD or 0.3%
of total industry process water usage. The Agency estimates that
nearly 50% ot this consumption results from the once-through
discharge of heated wastewater and run-of-the-river cooling.
Assuming that the relative utilization rate of the various
cooling mechanisms remains the same, the Agency estimates that
total evaporative water losses will be 19.8 MGD or 0.3% of
process water usage at the BPT level, and 20.2 MGD or 0.4% of
process water usage at the BAT level when fully implemented.
13C
-------
The Important factor for regulatory purposes, however, is not the
ahove gross water losses, but the additional or net water loss
attributable to compliance with the regulation. This analysis
indicates that net water losses attributable to compliance with
the regulation will be 3.8 MGD or less than 0.1% of process water
usage at the BPT level and 4.2 MGD or 0.1% of process water usage
at the BAT level, including water consumed at the BPT level.
This analysis is detailed for those subcategories, where recycle
and cooling systems are envisioned, in Table III-7 and is
summarized below•
Flow per Day
(MGD)
Total process water used 5744
Present water consumption1 16.0
Gross water consumption S> BPT 19.8
Net water consumption & BPT 3.8
Gross water consumption 3> BAT2 20.2
Net water consumption a) BAT2 4.2
% of Total
100.0
0.
0.
0.07
0.4
0.07
1 As of January 1, 1978.
2 This total includes the water consumed at BPT.
Assuming that cooling towers will be installed at all plants
requiring additional cooling (rather than current utilization
devices), the net water losses attributable to compliance with
the regulation would be 5.7 MGD or 0.1% of total process water
usage at the BPT level and 6.0 MGD or 0.1% of process water usage
at the BAT level. For purposes of estimating consumptive water
losses on a subcategory basis, the Agency made the conservative
assumption that evaporative cooling towers would be used in all
cases where a cooling device of some kind was deemed necessary.
12454
In the Agency's view, the water consumption attributable to
compliance with the regulation is not significant when compared
to the benefits derived from the use of recycle systems. The use
of recycle systems at the BPT, BAT, and PSES levels will result
in a 70% reduction in the total process water usage of the
industry. This reduction will prevent 4.0 billion gallons of
water per day from being contaminated in steel manufacturing
processes. Moreover, recycle systems permit a redjction in the
load of pollutants by over 11 million tons per year at the BAT
level (including 131,500 tons/year of toxic organic and toxic
inorganic pollutants). Finally, it is significant to note that
the use of recycle systems is often the least costly means to
reduce pollution. On a nation-wide basis, therefore, EPA
concludes that the environmental and economic benefits of recycle
systems justify the evaporative water losses attributable to
cooling mechanisms.
139
-------
;«.•*•*§
In addition, the Agency evaluated the water consumption issue as
it relates to plants in arid and semi-arid legions. The Agency
surveyed the four major steel plants i- considers to be in arid
or se^i-arid regions of the country. Those plants are as
follows.
0196A CF&I Steel Corporation
Pueblo, Colorado
0448A Kaiser Steel Corporation
Fontana, California
0492A Lone Star Steel Comp*. .,
Lone Star, Texas
0864A United States Steel Corporation
Provo, Utah
The Agency finds that most of the recycle and evaporative cooling
systems included in the model treatment systems which are the
bases for the promulgated limitations and standards have been
installed-at those plants. Thus, these plants are already
incurring most, if not all, of the consumptive water losses
associated with compliance with the regulation. Hence, the
incremental impact of the regulation on water consumption at
steel plants located in arid or semi-arid regions is either
minimal or nonexistant.
Despite the significant benefits and relatively small evaporative
losses from recycle/cooling ystems, CF&I of Pueblo, Colorado,
claims that recycle/cooling systems will cause severe problems by
compounding the water scarcity problems in the arid and semi-arid
regions of the country. Therefore, this company suggests that
required effluent levels be based on once-through systems or less
stringent recycle rates in arid or semi-arid areas.
The Agency believes this proposal to be deficient in several
respects. First, discharging the heated waste*aters once-through
would not conserve a significant amount of water. For example,
for an average sized steel mill with a 100 MGD process flow,
discharging wastewaters once-through would only conserve 0.4 MGD
or 0.4% of the total process water flow, a very small water
savings. The savings is small because even in a once-through
system, a certain amount of water is evaporated (the evaporation
will occur in the receiving body of water as the temperature of
the heated wastewaters approaches the equilibrium temperature of
the receiving stream or lake). In this case, the evaporation
rate is approximately one-half of the evaporation rate of a
cooling tower. However, while a small water savings is achieved,
certain disadvantages result, some of which are outlined below:
a. A heated discharge (potentially up to 150°) which may cause
localized environmental damage will be allowed to enter a
receiving water.
140
-------
b. The once-through system will allow a significantly higher
pollutant load to enter the receiving water.
c. The once-through system will require additional water to be
taken from the water supply to meet the water requirements
of the steelmaking operations.
While the use of recycle/cooling systems now results in some
additional evaporative water losses in arid and semi-arid
regions, the Agency believes that here, too, the benefits of
recycle systems justify these losses. The Agency considered
establishing alternative limitations for facilities located in
arid and semi-arid regions, but concluded that alternative
limitations and, thus, separate subcategories are not
appropriate.
With respect to fouling and scaling of wet cooling towers, the Agency
believes that the only operation at which this could possibly be a
problem is blast furnace recirculation systems. The industry,
however, has not indicated it has had no significant fouling or
scaling problems with these systems.
5
-------
s
I i
a i
I I
m t*>
R S
I I I
S S R
3
< M *
IP
4
cT
§ §
Si £
i
§ § § § §
w IA m ** ^
«O r-» r* —• r-
O C* IA .* £ *£
« 8
Q f* «0 ^ •«
§§§§§§
h. 0. k h.
« o. .o a «
- 5 s 5 2 iS
0^*0
X * U
142
-------
4
* iJ
•-aft
I I | |§
s c ?^ «^«7
• P *• *\ -4
— 3 - IK «
I § 1 §§ I
•t * * • » *
MM «B W M .*
— M 2 * w\ Z
O 4> *•* A *0 «•
* » *
Rn IN
M O
•• •* •*
*c w
^^
r«
1 88
? ?3
m rt
§ §§
» WN Q
t* r-H i
« * 5s
» *
•M (A
5
§
•*
M»
1*.
f*
•S
I
S
**l
a
8 S I 8S S i
•a.
-I
!- - D
» O «f O
88
8
W
SJ
-o
:•:
15
S^:
143
i
-------
r 8
*>*
s:
- !
u U
» 8
6 U
•^cTo" *T rCeCooT *^ •* — O »* 4 ^ «cn
« r\ «N «•% Q ft •» Q« •* «rt o t»- — o <£ V ^ lft «• ^ V^v <
I ^ — -« « * -T«
« 4
> O * O O *** —
§299 9
ft 2 Sc fi
o o o o
«r\ ^ ^s
;§§ §
9 O O I
SO I
f^. 4
** P
si
§ i § §
o o o «-
i i is
O r* i»» ts. M o
X
8
ac x •• •• -^
S !!
— e
C •• ••— i. C * —
» C C — 3 • u 9t
• • « •* X O
j»j:j:MjjS JS£ M
U Ikl tb Z A 3
I .
e
61
C * — «_
* u M e «- v
— — o « * .-
fc. « — — W M
>* O •. — O
St m . ^ S. o
IS
-c
c o.
^ «a
«j
144
-------
o
w
O »
0»j
C.S
t Hi
** K J
*• O « t* w
«-t f* *• o
O — — O O
o o o o o
00 O O
o o o o o
9
? -
M •• C
CMC*" _
— c — j< e v
8« • — A O M
* s 1 :
^ «-
V £
o o
« 5
145
-------
p-
u
O 0*1
r£| 2
O*|
**!
2
S»i
_
-------
I
TABLE III-5
EXAMPLES OP PLANTS THAT HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE
ABILITY TO RETROFIT rOLLCTICTt COHTROL EOUIPHEHT BY SUBCATECOBY
Subcategory
A. Cokeaakinf.
B. Sintering
C. Irwmaking
Plant
Reference
Code
012 A
024A
024B
112A
272
396A
432B
464C
464E
S84F
Aad Other*
060B
060F
112B
112C
44 BA
548C
584 C
864A
868A
920F
946A
060B
112A
320
396A
396C
426
432A
432B
5B4C
584 D
And Other*
Plant Age*
(Ye«r)
1920
1916
1901
1920
1919
1906-1955
1919-1961
1925-1973
1914-1970
1923-1971
1958
1957
1950
1948
1943
1959
1959
1944
1941
1944
1939
1942
1941
1920-1947
1907-1909
1903-1905
19S8
1910-1919
1900-1966
1956-1961
1904-1911
Treatment
(Year)
1977
1953-1977
1S69-1977
1977
1957-1977
1972
1930-1972
1971
1914-1977
1977
1968
1975
1970
1960
1971
1965
1965
1962
1954
1973
J972
1958
1948
1976
1929
1929
1979
1951
1930
1965
1953
147
-------
TABLE III-5
EXAMPLES OP PLAKTS THAT HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE
ABILITY TO RETROFIT POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPKEItr BT S0BCATECORY
PACE 2
Subcategory
D. Steelaaking
1. Basic Oxygen rurn«c«
2. Open Hearth
3. Electric Furnace
E. Vacuum Defeating
P. Continuous Casting
C. Hot Forming
1. Hot Forming - Primary
Plant
Reference
Code
432C
684C
684 T
724P
060
112A
492A
864A
74 8C
060P
432C
52 8A
612
B8A
496
084 A
432A
476A
584
652
780
020B
060D
0601
0880
112
112A
112B
176
.88 A
IS6B
248C
320
And Other*
Plant Age*
(Year)
1961
1970
1966
1966
1952
1957
1953
1944
i952
1951
1959
1949
1936
1963-1968
1965
1970-1975
1969
1969
1968
1968
1966-1975
1948
1910
1941
1959
1907
1930
1928
I9J7
1959
1940
1962
1936
Treatment Age
(Year)
1964
1971
1976
1976
1970
1971
1966
1962
1967
1968
1964
1954
1971
1971
1971
1975
1974
1977
1970
1971
1975
197J
1959
1958
1971
1979
1970
1970
1965
1970
1946
1975
1952
148
-------
TABLE III-S
EXAMPLES OF PLANTS THAT HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE
ABILITY TO RETROFIT POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT BY SOBCATECORY
PACE 3
Subcategory
2. Hot Forcing - Section
3. Hot Forming - Flat
•. Plat*
b. Hot Strip I Sheet
4. Pipe and Tube
Plant
Reference
Code
060C
060P
0601
06GK
068D
112
112A
112F
136B
316
112C
424
44 8A
490
860B
020B
396D
432A
476A
684F
8560
856P
060C
060F
060R
432A
476A
54 8A
652A
728
856N
8S6Q
And Others
Plant Age*
(Year)
1913
1942
1956
1920
1962
1907
1937
1922
1908
1959
1902
1970
1943
1918
1936
1953
1960
1957
1915
1937
1938
1929
1913
1950
1930-1%7
1957-1958
1930
1945-1960
1954
1929
1930
1930
Treatment Age
(Year)
1920-1975
1965
1958
1955
1971
1954-1979
1971-1977
1947-1978
1959-1969
1966
1964
1971-1978
1948
1948-1977
1967
1971
1970
19/4
1977
1969
1980
1966
1948
1971
1961
1974
1977
1969
1962
1952
1961
1963
149
-------
TABLE III-5
EXAMPLES Of PUNTS THAT HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE
ABILITY TO RETROFIT POLLUTION CONTROL EQOIPMEKT BY SUBCATECORY
PACE 4
Subcategorv
a. Scale Reaoval
I. Acid Pickling
1. Sulforic Acid
2. Hydrochloric Acid
3. Conbi nation Acid
PUnt
Reference
Code
0601
088A
256L
424
284A
176
256K
248B
020B
048P
060D
06 OH
088A
088D
112
!12C
2<>6F
35.A
And Other*
02oc
112B
176
320
384A
3960
432C
44 8A
SWA
And Other*
020B
088A
112A
112H
256P
2H4A
584 n
860F
And Other*
PUnt Age*
(Ye«r)
1970
1962
1962
1971
1957
1941
1956
1950
1954
1944
1957
1970
1936
1962
1922
1926
1953
1958
1946
1936
1961
1936
1932
1967
1952
1954
1962
1947
1952
1926
1940
1953
1957
1940
1962
Treatment Age
(Ye«r)
1972
1969
1969
1978
197'.
1965
1971
1978
1974
1969
1968
1977
1969
1971
1977
1977
1975
1964
1977
1971
1956
1955
1970
1969
1964
1970
1967
1974
1969
f>77
.951
J975
1971
1970
1977
150
-------
TABLE III-5
EXAMPLES OF PLANTS THAT HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE
ABILITY TO RETROFIT POLLOTIOH CONTROL EQUIPMENT BY SUBCATECORY
PAGE 5
Subcategory
J. Cold Forming
K. Alkaline Cleaning
L. Hot Coating
Plant
Reference
Code
020C
060
112A
112B
176
396D
432B
44 8 A
58'A
684 D
And Other*
112A
1121
240B
256N
1B4A
432A
44 8A
476A
548A
580A
And Other*
112B
112C
3B4A
44 6 A
460A
476A
492A
580A
584C
640
Plant Age*
(Year)
1951
1936
1947
1936
1921
1938
1937
1952
1948
1939
1936
1927
1938
1956
1968
1940
1959
1960
1957
1962
1962
1922
1968
1967
1932
1930
1962
1962
1956
1936
Treatment Age
(Year)
1975
1967
1971
1971
1963
1959
1966
1969
1971
1970
1971-1977
1950-1977
1968
1973
1970
1970
1969
1977
1967
1967
1971
1973
1970
1970
1968
1977
1976
1967
1965
1961
* Where rangea of agea are lilted, thia ahowa that theaa are Bultiple facilities on
ait* that vary in age aa indicated.
-------
ZA>U XII-6
WATB8 USAGE IM THE STEEL IKDUSTRY
f
Subeategory
A. Cokeaaking
B. Sintering
C. Irooaaking
D. Sieclacking
E. Vacuuv Degaating
F. Cootinuoui Catting
C. Hot Forcing
H. Salt Bath Defeating
I. Acid Pickling
J. Cold Forming
K. Alkaline Cleaning
L. Hot Coating
Total Procete
Hater U««ge (KCP)
Water Recycled Over
Cooling Syate*a
at BFT (MCD)
Water Recycled Over
Cooling Syttnn
at BAT (MCD)
5,744.2
1012.5
1032.4
(1) Flow not included aa part of the total proceta vatcr flow.
152
-------
f*
••4
M
M
M
*J
3
hi
^^
>•
OS
fM
tn
•a
i
•-i
j
w
S
M
hi
P
Z
»•«
>•"*
tn
M
U
W
>•
(A
O
Z
**
-1
Z
X
o
1-
o
1
M
>•
0)
ee
£
•<
a
b.
O
en
3
hi
>
i
5
8
S-
•* •
hi
« • X
c o.—
5 .-
".25
W «* A
•( C
S"8
•*
- •
• ex
C O U "
o •»* > c ^*-
•^ «. O B Q
MO. • <}
1 § 5 £ 5
3 S*°-
3
—
«
B ^»
O T3 O
"* •» O
•- •* X
IK O. « *^
« B CL
« 3 ••* H
«• » o ft.
» C •- BQ
<3|
^
w
«
•^
« e
COM
O '« 4U ** -"•
••« M > C Q
« 0. 0 4» V
••* 8 • S
•O 3 H W v^
3M ft- fa
c pa ft.
6
^
0
u
z
e
•• o
e u — «
w «* —
•1 •* Qj
w • e
* X 3
A« *)
I
>
w
O
a(
«
4
(/
J3
M
O> O Irt 00 •«
o n o> « n
— •» «s in o
— «M
•
•
>s
f*
•
c
o o> «r> «n| . ,
•
•*
e
§
U
T>
C
*O ON ^ O O «
-* r* -* CO
O s
U
«
fa
41
N
•M
3
j;
O* -~ O -» -* W
*& f+ r* *t Q 'ft
O -^ O r» *o >
•
w
fa
o
Ml t?
? Z
M ••« «
C •- 0
••* • ^
• n y
; ° *
M M M •• «
C C V 3 «
•^ -^ a o o
JA M 3 JC
a s § .s -
S C 3 - X
J« O u C —
o M m o c
u >-> > o o
< J tj b! C
153
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION IV
INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION
To develop the regulation it was necessary for the Agency to determine
whether different effluent limitations and standards should be
developed for distinct segments or subcategories of< the steel
industry. The Agency's subcatecjorization of the industry included an
examination of the same factors and rationale described in the
Agency's previous studies. Those factors are:
1. Manufacturing processes and equipment
2. Raw materials
3. Final products
4. Wastewater characteristics
5. Wastewater treatment methods
6. Size and age of facilities
7. Geographic location
6. Process water usage and discharge rates
9. Costs and economic impacts
For this regulation, the Agency has adopted a revised
subcategorization of the industry to more accurately reflect
production operations and to simplify the use of the regulation. The
Agency found that the manufacturing process is the most significant
factor and divided the industry into 12 main process subcategories on
this basis. Section IV of each subcategory report contains a detail*d
discussion of the factors considered and the rationale for selecting
and subdividing the subcategor it-s. The Agency determined that
process-based subcategorization is warranted in many cases because the
wastewaters of the various processes contain different pollutants
requiring treatment by different control systems (e.g., phenols by
biological systems in cokemaking). However, in some cases, the
wastewaters of different processes were found to have similar
characteristics. In those instances, the Agency determined that
subcategorization was appropriate because the process water usage and
discharge flow rates varied significantly, thus affecting estimates of
treatment system costs and pollutant discharges. The twelve
subcategories of the steel industry are as follows:
Preceding page blank
-------
A. Cokemaking
B. Sintering
C. Ironmaking
D. Steelmaking
E. Vacuum Degassing
F. Continuous Casting
G. Hot Forming
H. Salth Bath Descaling
I. Acid Pickling
J. Cold Forming
K. Alkaline Cleaning
L. Hot Coating
The subcategories of the steel industry are defined below. Also
discussed are any subdivisions and segments within the main
subcategories and the rationale for the subdivision and segmentation.
Subcategory A: Cokemaking
Cokemaking operations involve the production of coke in by-product or
beehive ovens. The production of metallurgical coke is an essential
part of the steel industry, since coke is one of the basic raw
materials necessary for the operation of ironr.aking blast furnaces.
Significant variations exist in the quantity and quality of waste
generated between the old beehive ovens and the newer by-product
ovens. In order to prepare effluent limitations and standards that
would adequately reflect these variations, a subdivision of the
Cokemaking subcategory was necessary. The first subdivision is
By-Product Cokemaking, a method employed by 99 percent of the coke
plants in the U.S. In by-product ovens, coke oven gas, light oil,
ammonium sulfate and sodium phenolate are recovered rather than
allowed to escape to the atmosphere. This subdivision has been
further segmented to reflect the slightly different wastewater volume
generation rates between coke plants located at integrated steel
plants and at merchant coke plants. Within both segments, there are
further distinctions based upon type of treatment (physical/chemical
and biological), type of ammonia recovery process utilized (semi-
direct vs. indirect) and an added allowance for plants employing wet
desulfurization systems.
Beehive Cokemaking is the other subdivision in the Cokemaking
subcategory. This process is only found in one percent of the U.S.
Cokemaking operations. In beehive ovens no effort is made to recover
volatile materials generated by the process so there is no wastewater
generated from gas cleaning as in the by-product plants. The
wastewater results from the direct spraying of water on the hot coke
to stop the coking process.
Subcategory B: Sintering
Sintering operations involve the production of an agglomerate which is
then reused as a feed material in iron and Steelmaking processes.
156
__-
_./
-------
This agglomerate or "sinter" is made up of large quantities of >
particulate matter (fines, mill scale, flue dust) which have been
generated by blast furnaces, open hearth furnaces, and basic oxygen
furnaces, and scale recovered from hot forming operations.
Wastewaters are generated in sintering operations as a result of the :
scrubbing of dusts and gases produced in the sintering process. j
Quenching and cooling of the sinter, practiced- at some plants,
generates additional wastewaters. The Agency determined that model
plant effluent flow rates can be achieved at sinter plants with wet
air pollution controls on all parts of the sintering operation. Since
there are no significant variations in wastewater quality from these
operations, the Agency did not subdivide sintering operations on the
basis of the type of wet air pollution control system used or the part
of the sintering operation controlled by wet air pollution control
systems.
Subcategory C: Ironmaking
Ironmaking operations involve the conversion of iron bearing
materials, limestone, and coke into molten iron in a reducing
atmosphere in a tall cylindrical furnace. The gases produced as a
result of this combustion are a valuable heat source but require
cleaning prior to reuse. Blast furnace wastewaters are generated as a
result of the scrubbing and cooling of these off-gases. Both pig-iron
and ferromanganese can be produced in blast furnace operations.
Because the wastewaters produced at these two types of operations vary
significantly, different BPT limitations were promulgated. However,
BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS were promulgated only for ironmaking blast
furnaces since no ferromanganese furnaces are in operation or
scheduled for operation and ferroalloy production has shifted to
electric furnaces.
Subcategory D: Steelmaking
Steelmaking operations involve the production of steel in basic
oxygen, open hearth, and electric arc furnaces. These furnaces
receive iron produced in blast furnaces along with scrap metal and
fluxing materials. During Steelmaking, large quantities of fume,
smoke, and waste gases are generated which require cleaning prior to
emission to the atmosphere. Steelmaking wastewaters are generated as
a result of some of the gas cleaning operations.
Each of the three types of furnaces operates differently. These
differences result in significant variations in wastewater volume,
pollutant loads generated, and wastewater characteristics. In order
to develop effluent limitations that would adequately .reflect these
variations, the Agency determined that subdivision of the Steelmaking
subcategory into the following three subdivisions is appropriate:
Basic Oxygen Furnace; Open Hearth Furnace; and Electric Arc Furnace.
The Agency also determined that further segmentation of the BOF and
EAF subdivisions is appropriate because of differences in the methods
used to clean and condition furnace gases.
157
-------
Three different scrubbing systems, each of which could result in a
wastewater discharge, are presently used to clean waste gases from
basic oxygen furnaces: semi-wet; wet-suppressed combustion; and
wet-open combustion. Water is used in semi-wet systems to cool and
condition furnace gases to optimize the performance of the
electrostatic precipitators or baghouses that are relied upon to clean
the gases. These systems are characterized by wastewaters containing
relatively small quantities of particulate matter having a large
particle size. Wet systems result in much higher raw wastewater
pollutant loadings due to the increased amount of water used. In an
open combustion system, 90 percent of the particulates are of a
submicron size, because combustion is more complete. By comparison,
suppressed combustion systems generate larger particles, of which only
30-40 percent are of submicron size. Since much of the heavier
particulate matter remains in the furnace, the suspended solids
loadings in the wastewaters from suppressed combustion systems are
much lower.
Both semi-wet and wet systems are used at electric furnaces wnile only
wet systems are used at open hearth furnaces. The subdivision of the
Steelmaking subcategory takes the wastewater flow and quality
differences into account.
Subcategory E: Vacuum Degassing
Vacuum degassing is the process whereby molten steel is subjected to a
vacuum in order to remove gaseous impurities. It is advantageous to
remove hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen from the molten steel as these
gases can impart undesirable qualities to certain grades of steel.
The vacuum is most commonly produced through the use of steam
ejectors. The venturi action of the steam in the ejector throat and
the condensation of the steam combine to produce the vaccum. The
particle laden steam corning from the steam ejectors is condensed in
barometric condensers, thus producing a wastewater which requires
treatment.
The industry uses various types of degassers and degasses steels
containing a variety of different components. However, the Agency has
determined these variations do not affect the quantity or quality of
wastewaters produced in the vacuum degassing operations to the extent
that further subdivision of this subcategory is warranted.
Subcategory F: Continuous Casting
The continuous casting process is used to produce semi-finished steel
directly from molten steel. The molten steel from the Steelmaking
operation is ladeled into a tundish from where it is continuously cast
into water cooled copper molds of the desired shapes. After leaving
the copper mold, the semi-solidified steel is sprayed with water for
further cooling solidifications. In addition to cooling, the water
sprays also serve to remove scale and other impurities frosr, the steel
surface. The water that directly cools the steel and guide rollers
irc
\
-x
-------
contains participates and roller lubricating oils, and must be treated
prior to discharge.
Although there are three types of continuous casters in use, they only
differ in physical orientation. When the Agency analyzed these and
other factors relating to the continuous casting subcategory, it found
no significant variations in the quantity or quality of wastewaters
generated. Therefore, the Agency determined that further subdivision
of the Continuous Casting subcategory is not appropriate.
Subcategory G: Hot Forming
Hot forming is the steel forming process in which hot steel is
transformed in size and shape through a series of forming steps to
ultimately produce semi-finished and finished steel products. Feed
materials may be ingots, continuous caster billets, or blooms and
slabs from primary hot forming mills (as feed to hot forming section
or hot forming flat mills). The steel products consist of many types
of cross-sections, sizes and lengths. Four different types of hot
forming mills are used to produce the many types of hot formed steel
products. The four types of mills (primary, section, flat, and pipe
and tube) are the bases for the principal subdivisions of the Hot
Forming subcategory. Variations in flow rates and configurations
among these subdivisions were the most important factors in making
these subdivisions. The Agency found that further segmentation is
necessary to reflect variations due to product shape, type of steel,
and process used.
Wastewaters result from several sources in hot forming operations.
The hot steel is reduced in size by a number of rolling steps where
contact cooling water is continuously sprayed over the rolls and hot
steel product to cool the steel rolls and the flush away scale as it
is broken off from the surface. Scarfing is used at some mills to
remove imperfections in order to improve the quality of steel
surfaces. Scarfing generates large quantities of fume, smoke, and
waste gases which require scrubbing. Scrubbing of these fumes
generates additional wastewater.
The Agency found variations in the quantity of wastewaters generated
in the four subdivisions of the Hot Forming subcategory. The quality
and treatability of hot forming wastewaters is not significantly
different.
The Primary mill subdivision has been split into two segments: (1)
carbon and specialty mills without scarfing, and (2) carbon and
specialty mills with scarfing. The use of scarfing equipment results
in an additional applied process flow of 1100 gal/ton.
The Section mill subdivision has also been separated into two
segments, carbon and specialty steels. On the average, 1900 gal/ton
more water is used on carbon section mills. For this reason, the
Agency determined that it is appropriate to further divide the section
mill subdivision into carbon and specialty mill segments.
\ •
Y
-------
The Flat mill subdivision has been split into three segments: (1) hot
strip and sheet (both carbon and specialty), (2) plate (carbon) and
(3) plate (specialty). As with section mills, carbon and specialty
plate operations differ significantly in several areas. About 1900
gal/ton more water is used in carbon flat plate operations than in
specialty flat plate operations. Also, carbon plate mills are about
three times as large as specialty plate mills. While no differences
were noted between carbon and specialty hot strip and sheet
operations, hot strip operations in general require 3900 gal/ton more
water than do plate operations. That difference resulted in the hot
strip and sheet segment in the hot forming flat subdivision.
TH;w;We Agency determined that the distinction between isolated and
integrated operations in the Hot Worked Pipe and Tube subdivision made
in the prior regulation is not appropriate. This former segment was
deleted.
Subcategory H: Salt Bath Descaling
Salt bath descaling is the operation in which specialty steel products
are processed in molten salt solutions for scale removal. Two types
of scale removal operations are in use: oxidizing and reducing. The
oxidizing process uses highly oxidizing salt baths which react far
more aggressively with the $cale than with base netal. This chemical
action causes surface scale to crack so that subsequent pickling
operations are more effective in removing the scale. Reducing baths
depend upon the strong reducing properties of sodium hydride to
accomplish the same purpose. During that operation most scale forming
oxides are reduced to base metal.
Flow rates and wastewater characteristics differ between the two types
of operations. Wastewaters from reducing operations can contain
quantities of cyanide not contained in wastewaters from oxidizing
operations. Wastewaters from oxidizing operations contain large
amounts of hexavalent chromium, which are not usually found in
reducing bath wastewaters. In order to develop effluent limitations
that would adequately reflect these variations, the Agency determined
that subdivision of the scale removal subcategory into oxidizing and
reducing operations is appropriate.
The Agency has also concluded that the method of operation, i.e.,
batch or continuous, significantly affects w&ter use requirements.
Hence, it has segmented both subdivisions. In addition, because of
variations in water use rates, related to the type of product being
processed in batch oxidizing operations, the Agency has segmented this
subdivision further to reflect these differences.
Subcategory I: Acid Pickling
Acid pickling is the process of chemically removing oxides and scale
from the surface of the steel by the action of water solutions of
inorganic acids. The three major wastewater sources associated with
acid pickling operations are spent pickle liquor, rinse waters, and
160
-------
n !
the water used to scrub acid vapors and mists. These wastewaters
contain free acids and ferrous salts in addition to other organic and
inorganic impurities. Most carbon steels are pickled in strifuric or
hydrochloric acids. Most stainless and alloy steels are pickled in a
mixture of nitric and hydrofluoric acids. Since wastewater
characteristics are dependent on the acid used, the Agency has
established three primary subdivisions of this subcategory; i.e.,
sulfuric, hydrochloric, and combination acid pickling operations.
The Agency has concluded that, within each of the three acid pickling
subdivisions, further segmentation, primarily on the basis of product
type rather than on wastewater source or treatment technique, is
appropriate. Additionally, segments have been established in each
subdivision to separa ely limit the discharges from scrubbers.
The Sulfuric Acid Pickling subdivision has been further separated into I
five segments, four of which reflect the different water use rates j
associated with product groupings and one reflective of the water use , I
rate in fume scrubbers. Since water use in a fume scrubber is not j
related to the tonnage of product pickled, limitations and standards !
for this segment have been established on the basis of kg/day rather !-
than kg/kkg of product. I
!
The Hydrochloric Acid Pickling subdivision was further separated into ,
five segments, three of which reflect the different water use rates 1
associated with product groupings, and the other two reflective of <
water use rates on fume scrubbers. In this subdivision, scrubbers are 1
used for fume collection over the pickling baths and for fume j
collection at the acid regeneration plant absorber vents. The <
differences in water use rates are reflected in the further 1
segmentation. Limitations and standards in both fume scrubber
segments are established on tne basis of kg/day.
The Combination Acid Pickling subdivision was further separated into
six segments, five of which reflect the different water use rates
associated with product groupings, and the other based upon the water
use rate in fume scrubbers. As above, limitations and standards in
the fume scrubber segment have been established on the basis of
kg/day.
Subcategory J: Cold Forming
The Cold Forming subcategory is separated into two subdivisions: Cold
Rolling and Cold Worked Pipe and Tube. The Agency concluded that
subdivision is appropriate because of the differences in equipment
used to form flat sheets and tubular shapes, and because of
differences in rolling solution characteristics, wastewater flow rates
and treatment and disposal methods.
Cold rolling is used to reduce the thickness of a steel product, which
produces a smooth dense surface and develops controlled mechanical
properties in the metal. An oil-water emulsion lubricant is sprayed
on the material as it enters the work rolls of a cold rolling mill.
161
-------
and the material is usually coated with oil prior to recoiling after
it has passed through the mill. The oil prevents rust while the
material is in transit or in storage. It must be removed before the
material can be further processed or formed. Oil from the oil water
emulsion lubricant is the major pollutant load in wastewaters
resulting from this operation.
In the Cold Rolling subdivision three methods of oil application are
used. The methods are direct application, recirculation, and
combinations of the two. Because recycle rate is dependent upon the
oil application system, flow rates vary for the three systems. These
differences in flow rates make further segmentation of the Cold
Rolling subdivision appropriate. Within the recirculation and direct
application segments, the number of rolling stands used affects the
watvr use rate. This is reflected in separate limitations within
these segments based upon whether a mill has a single stand or whether
the mill has multiple stands.
In the Pipe and Tube subdivision of the Cold Forming subcategory, cold
flat steel strips are formed into hollow cylindrical products.
Wastewaters are generated as a result of continuous flushing with
water or soluble oil lubricating solutions, resulting in significant
differences in the quantity and quality of wastewaters generated by
these methods. Therefore, the Agency determined that further
separation of the Pipe and Tube subdivision into water type operations
and oil solution type operations, is warranted.
Subcategory K: Alkaline Cleaning
Alkaline cleaning baths are used to remove mineral and animal fats and
oils from steel. The cleaning baths used are not very aggressive and j
therefore do not generate many pollutants. The alkaline cleaning j
solution is usually a dispersion of chemicals such as carbonates, j
alkaline silicates, and phosphates in water. The cleaning bath itself !
and the rinse water used are the two sources of wastewaters in the
alkaline cleaning process. Both continuous and batch operations are <
used by the industry. The Agency, after further review of available :
wastewater flow data, has concluded that significant differences in '. . .
the quantity of wastewaters generated at batch and continuous
operations should be reflected in the limitations and standards for '
alkaline cleaning operations. Therefore, the Alkaline Cleaning ;~
subcategory has been subdivided into batch and continuous operations. . —
Subcategory L: Hot Coating
Hot coating processes involve the immersion of clean steel into baths
of molten metal for the purpose of depositing a thin layer of the
metal onto the steel surface. These metal coatings can impart such
desirable qualities as corrosion resistance or a decorative appearance
to the steel. Hot coating processes can be carried out in continuous
or batch operations. The physical configuration of the product being
coated usually determines the method of coating to be used. J
1C2
-------
The Hot Coating subcategory has been divided into three subdivisions
based upon the type of coating used. Galvanizing is a zinc coating
operation. Terne coating consists of a lead and tin coating of five
or six parts lead to one part tin. Other metal coatings can include
aluminum, hot dipped tin, or mixtures of these and other metals.
These operations generate different polutants due to the variety of
metals used.
However, the control technologies, except for hexavalent chromium
reduction required for galvanizing lines with chrornate passivating
dips, are the same for all hot coating operations. The lime
precipitation and clarification process will adequately control each
of the toxic metals. There is a considerable difference in the water
use rates based upon the type of product coated. Therefore the Agency
has concluded that further separation of the galvanizing, and terne
and other coatings subdivisions into two segments based upon product
type is warranted. These segments are the strip, sheet, and
miscellaneous products segment and the wire product and fasteners
segment. The Agency has also provided a segment for fume scrubbers T
applicable to any hot coating operation with fume scrubcors. '
\
\
/ •
163
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION V
SELECTION OF REGULATED POLLUTANTS
Introduction
Three types of pollutants were considered for regulation in the steel
industry: conventional pollutants, nonconventional pollutants, and
toxic pollutants. To determine the presence and level of these
pollutants in steel industry wastewaters, the Agency conducted
extensive monitoring at several representative plants in the industry.
Average wastewater concentrations of each pollutant were determined
for each subcategory. These concentrations, in conjunction with the
waste loading, formed the basis for determining whether a particular
pollutant was considered for regulation.
Development of Regulated Pollutants
The concentration data were reviewed for 141 pollutants; 130 toxic, 8
nontoxic noncorrventional, and 3 conventional. These values ranged
from "not detected" to 71,000 mg/1 (ppm). The concentration values
were reviewed and each pollutant was assigned to one of four
categories.
1. Not Detected - Reserved for any pollutant which was not detected
during industry-wide plant sampling.
2. Environmentally Insignificant - Pollutants detected at levels of ]
0.010 mg/1 (10 ppb) or less in industry-wide sampling; or, i
pollutants not normally occurring in wastewaters from these [
sources.
3. Not Treatable - Pollutants detected at levels greater than 10 ppb
but at levels below the trea"ability level determined for that $
pollutant. f|
4. Regulation Considered - Any pollutant detected at a level greater
than the corresponding treatability level was considered for
regulation.
The results of the categorization are presented in Table V-l, Of the
141 pollutants initially considered, 60 (50 toxics and 10 others) have
been considered for regulation. In order to further analyze the
source of these pollutants, their presence by subcategory was
tabulated. Table V-2 lists pollutants appearing in the twelve
subcategories at levels greater than treatability. The physical
properties, toxic effects in humans and aquatic life, and behavior in
POTWs of these 60 pollutants are discussed in Appendix D to this
document. In compiling this material, particular weight was given to
«
Preceding page blank
-------
documents generated by the Criteria and Standards, and Monitoring and
Data Support Divisions of EPA.
Regulated Pollutants •
Most of the toxic pollutants (29) are found in two subcategories: Cold
Forming and Cokemaking. In order to avoid costly analytical work,
four organic pollutants (benzene, naphthalene, benzo-a-pyrene and
tetrachloroethylene) are limited and serve as indicator pollutants.
Other toxic pollutants known to be present in wastewaters in
significant quantities are also limited.
The list of pollutants directly limited by the regulation is found in
Table V-3. This list consists of 16 pollutants; 9 toxic, 4 nontoxic
nonconventional, and 3 conventional. Table V-4 lists the pollutants
limited in each subcategory.
166
J
-------
TABLE V-l
DEVELOPMENT OP REGULATED POLLUTANT LIST
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
;1
Ho. Pollutant
001 Acen«phthene
002 Acrolein
003 Acrylonitrile
004 Bcntene
005 Beniidine
006 Carbon tetrachloridt
007 Chlorobenten*
008 1,2,4-trichlorobeniene
009 Bexachlorobensenc
010 l,2-dichlorocthan«
Oil l,I,l-tnchloro«th«ne
012 Rexaehloreihane
013 1,1-dichlnrocthane
014 l,I,2-trichloro«thane
01) 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethanc
016 Chloroethane
01? bii(chloroM(hyl)ether
018 bii(2-chloro«chyl)«ther
019 2-chloroethyl »inyl ether
020 2-chloroniphth«len«
021 2,4,6-trichlorophcnol
022 P«rtchloro»et«cre»c>l
023 Chlorofora
024 2-chloroph*nol
02} l,2-dich>orot>enxen*
026 ItJ-dichlorobenr»n«
027 1,4-dichlorobenicnc
028 3,3'-dichlorob*niidin»
029 1,1-dichloroethylen*
030 l,2-tr«n«-dichloroethyl*o«
031 2,4-dichlorophcnol
032 l,2-dichloroprop«n*
033 I,2-dichloropropylene
034 2,4-diacihyl phenol
03} 2,4-dinitrotoluene
036 2,6-dinH rocoluenc
037 tt2-diphenylhydraiinc
038 E(hylb«nzcn«
039 Pluoranlhcn*
040 4-chlorpphenyl phcnyl cthtr
041 4'broaopheny1 phcnyl ether
042 bi»(2-chloroi«opropyl) ether
043 bit(2-chloroethoxy) •ethane
044 Kethylene chloride
Hot Environmentally.
Detected Inaigniftcant
Not
...
^
Regulat ion
Considered
Jt
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
167
-------
TABLE V-l
DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATED POLLUTANT LIST
IRON ft STEEL INDUSTRY 1
PACEJ ";;
1
i
Hot Environment ally. Not ... Regulation ;
Bo. Pollutant Detected Iniitnificant Treatable Considered
04} Methyl chloride X
046 Methyl broeude X
047 bro»o(or» X
048 DichlorobroBoaethane -
049 Trichlorofluoroewthane X . ,,.
050 Dichlorodifluoroaethane X - - ~ <
051 Chlorodibio»o»ethane X 1
052 Hcxachlorobutadiene X - - - '
053 Hcxachlorocyclopentadiene X - '
054 Itophorone ~ ~ X • ;
055 Naphthalene X
056 Nitrobvnxene - X -
057 2-nitrophenol - X -
058 4-nitrophenol - X
059 2,4-dinitropQenol - X -
060 4,6-dinitro-o-cretol - X
061 N-nitroiodiaetbylaaine X - ~
062 N-nitroiodiphenyla»ine X
063 N-nitruiodi-n-propylaoiine X -
064 Pentachlotopiienol - X
065 Phenol - X
066 bi«(2-ethylhexyl)phth«late - X
067 Butyl bcniyl phthalate - X
068 Di-n-butyl phthalate - X
069 Di-n-oclyJ phthalate - X
070 Diethyl phthalate - X
071 Diacthyl phthalate - X
072 Benxo(a)anthracene - X
073 Benzo(a)pyr*ne - X
074 3,4-bcr.zof luoranthene ~ X • -
075 B«nio(k)(luor«nth«n» - X -
076 Chrysene - X
077 Acenaphthylen* - X
078 Anthracene - X
079 benio(£hi)perylene - X «
080 Fluorene - X
081 Phenathrene - X
062 Dibento(a,h)anthracene X -
083 lnd«no(I,2,3>cd)pyrene -X -
OS* Pyrene - X
085 Tetrachloroethyiene - X
086 Toluene - X
087 Tr ichlorethylene •• - X
088 Vinyl chloride X -
089 Aldrin X
\
-------
TABU V-l
DEVELOPMENT Of RZGULATED FOLUJTAMT LIST
IRON fc STEEL INDUSTRY
PACE 3
No.
090
091
092
093
094
093
096
097
098
099
100
101
102
103
104
10S
106
107
108
109
110
111
!12
113
114
115
116
117
113
119
130
121
123
124
125
126
127
126
129
Pollutant
DUUrin
Chlordane
4,4'-6DT
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDD
a-endotul fan-Alpha
b-*ndo*ul fan-Bet a
Eadoeulfan eulfete
Eodr in
Endrio aldehyde
Heptachlor
tUptachlor epoxide
a-BHC-Alpha
b-BKC-B«ta
r-BHC-CaMM
(-BHC-Delta
PCS- 1242
PCB-12J4
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
Toxepbene
Ant l Bony
Ar««nic
A*be*tof
Beryllium
Cadaiua
Cntcmiam
Copp«r
Cyaotde
Mercury
Nickel
S«l«niua
Sil>«r
Th«l liu»
Zinc
2, 3,7,8- t«tt«ch lord ibtnto-
Not
Detected
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
Iniignific«nt
X
X
Not
Regulat ion
Con»id«r«d
X
X
X
X
X
t
X
X
X
X
130
p-dioxin
Xyteoe
169
/-=**-•-nitiflflfl- ' rfffr
-------
TABLE V-l
DEVELOPMENT Of REGULATED fOLLUTAKT LIST
IRON » STEEL INDUSTRY
PACE 4
Hot Environment ally. Not ... Regulation
Ho. Pollutant Detected Insignificant Treatable Considered
Alusunua - X
Aasonia ~ X
Dissolved Iron - X
Fluoride - X
lUxavalent Chromiis - X
Oil and Create - X
pH ... x
Phenol (AAAP) - X
Chlorine Residual - X
Total Suspended Solids - X
Xl Indicates heeding which applies to pollutant.
-I Indicate* heading which doe> t.^t apply to pollutant.
(1) Pollutent* detected at Utels of 0.01 «g/l or let* for pollutants not no really
occur ing in we*i*««tcr irca the*e lource*.
(2) Concentration of pollutant found at level* below tr*at«bility.
However, pollutant load cculd be reduced by recycle.
170
-------
7 P
1 gs
o
II
~l I I t I I I I I
ill
^:
551
s-J-,,-,-
as
•*• ^i i i i i i i *
'1
s 3
•i —
** v
si
11
^
i^
ll
l l l I l
»- 1111 >
i t i i i i i
t I I I * I • t l * lltltlHllll«M lt*Klt#IM(
1
s •
« ! It
-- ^*%* — — » j
OC*%A*. «S%*
— * i JS O v %%99 VK » v
* w c i. iT ^ — ro.'&as •" 6 x «»2 c
• •— •*—;—« c o — — •• * * 5«a. j* *
1 !
h
-------
I
ft « IKMMMIMMI i IMI MIMI i IMMI » M
3
i!
— c MIIMKMMKMIIMI I I M I I I M M I I M
M M M M M I M M I I IMI I IN* t IMMI IN
•*• ~| MMMMMIMMIKIMt I IMMI IMMI IM
II
• I MMMMMMMMMMMMI I (MIMI IMI IM
. S
t I IMMIMMI I I M » I I I I I I M M t IM
I I IMMIMIMI IM* I 1(1 I IMMffK
I"
- IIIMMIMMIIIMI I I I I I M I M I I
- SI
* -j MMMMMIMMMMMMI I I t M I I t M I I l<
ill
ll — — —••-'
MM) I IMI IMI I M M IM* f < I M M M t M
ll i
V •> O
8-r-nTi •—••»•••• %, t — *- — c c
c - 6 * - t c * — c -cow
-*»f«cj&.cr>**>— w» B b » o
— «v».Ct*«iu— — *e— 5 • » 3
.a
K *>
M
* -S
JS —
c •
• **
•^ 0
*• 9
II
n
o *
tl
r«
172
-------
f
(
j
X
TABLE V-3
REGULATED POLLUTANT LIST
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
4 Benzene
55 Naphthalene
73 Benzo(a)pyrene
85 Tetrachloroethylene
119 Chrottiua
121 Cyanide
122 Lead
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
Anaemia
Oil & Crease
PH
Phenol (4AAP)
Chlorine Residual
Total Suspended Solids
Hexavalent Chromiuo
173
-------
M I M I 4 I M * I M I
i
1*
3-
i
I
*• o J
-»«•**
...I
i * « I*MIK tllMIIMI
JE:
i t t t i
I I I M I I M I
I M K t M M
I I I f • K M t M M'MMMKMI
t * K I I I MtM
: I
^ -2 .
« j= 5
5 :
3 2
5
t .
* c
c b 4 o ^ -,
xt o o o o
174
-------
SI I I I I I I M
5I
13
• 51 I I I I I I I I I I I M M < I M I
3ul
I I M H I I H
I I I I M
2.
> I I I I
• • • • •
1 I M M I
2fJ
*5*
in
K * **'*"
3
»-
•
ft
n »•
gS
II
TA»U V-4
Kcuuno ton
IKON t SntL I
PACE i
• •Si
• — •
• -
9f 0 V
5li
•••'*•••»• •..«,,„,
••'••<••«• •••«•,«,
, *
1 - 3 '
! f * ' 1
?=x «%^76
£S£5 S3at-
«
a
1
.
8^3?!- _ .-S5 ^SJI
iiiiusji jiitiiii
issi=5~5~
K
.I
H
is
•
• s
ll
; y
i:
• o
fa **
i ft«Uct*4 for
• Vo( *«!icitd
M 1
175
'/' i
\
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION VI
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
A. Introduction
This section describes in-plant and end-of-pipe wastewater
treatment technologies currently in use or available for use in
the steel industry. The technology descriptions are grouped as
follows: recycle; suspended solids removal; oil removal; toxic
metal pollutant removal; toxic organic pollutant removal;
advanced technologies; and, zero discharge technologies. The
application and performance; advantages and limitations;
reliability; maintainability; and demonstration status of each
technology are presented. The treatment processes include both
technologies presently demonstrated within the steel industry,
and those demonstrated in other industries with similar
wastewaters.
B. End of Pipe Treatment
Recycle Systems
Recycle is both an in-plant and end of pipe treatment operation
used to reduce the volume of wastewater discharged. Wastewater
reuse reduces the discharge flow and the pollutant load
discharged from the process.
Application and Performance
Recycle is included in the model treatment systems for nine of
the twelve steel industry subcategories. The Agency estimates
that the use of these recycle systems can result in a 68.5%
reduction in process water discharges at the BF-T level and a 63%
reduction at the BAT level. To achieve these reductions, high
degrees of recycle demonstrated in the industry have been
included in model treatment systems as shown below:
177
Preceding page blank
j
-------
Subcategory
Cokemaking (Barometric Condenser)
Sintering
Ironmaking
Steelmaking
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Hot Forming
Acid Pickling (fume scrubber)
Hot Coating (fume scrubber)
BAT
Recycle Rate (%1
95
92
98
96-100
98
99
60-77
95-98
f5
Higher rates of recycle are demonstrated in these and other
subcategories. For example, rates of recycle up to 99% are
common for hot forming operations.
At high recycle rates, two problems can be encountered. First,
if the wastewater is contaminated, a build-up of dissolved solids
in the recycled water can cause plugging and corrosion. This
problem can be avoided by providing sufficient treatment of the
wastewater prior to recycle, by adding chemicals that inhibit
scaling or corrosion, and by having sufficient blowdown to limit
the build-up of dissolved solids and other pollutants. The
second problem that can occur is excessive heat build-up in the
recycled water. If the temperature of the water to be recycled
is too high for its intended purpose, it must be cooled prior to
recycle. The most common method of reducing the heat load of
recycled water in the steel industry is with mechanical draft
cooling towers. Mechanical draft evaporative cooling systems are
capable of handling the wide range of operating conditions
encountered in the steel industry. Cooling towers are included
in the model treatment systems for four of the eight
subcategories (cokemaking final cooler and barometric condenser
recycle systems, ironmaking, vacuum degassing, and continuous
casting) where recycle systems are considered. Heat accumulation
in the other subcategory recycle systems is not detrimental to
the operation.
Advantages and Limitations
As discussed above, recycle systems can achieve significant
pollutant load reductions at relatively low cost. The system is
controlled by simple instrumentation and relatively little
operator attention xs required.
A potential limitation on the use of recycle systems is plugging
and scaling. However, based upon the industry's response to
basic and detailed questionnaires, the Agency believes that with
proper attention and maintenance, plugging and scaling should not
presen'; a significant problem with achieving the recycle rates
used as a basis for this regulation.
178
i *
-------
Operational Factors
1. Reliability
The reliability of recycle systems is high, although proper
monitoring and control are required for high rate systems.
Chemical aids are often used in the recycle loops to
maintain optimum operating conditions.
2. Maintainability
i
Most recycle systems include only simple pump stations and
piping. These components require very little attention
aside from routine maintenance. However, for those recycle
systems associated with wet air pollution control devices,
higher maintenance costs are incurred to chemically control
the recycled water to remove suspended and dissolved
constituents and to prevent fouling and scaling.
Demonstration Status
Recycle systems are well demonstrated in the steel industry as
we.1! as in numerous other industral applications. Full scale
recycle systems have been used in the steel industry for many
years. The recycle rates used to develop effluent limitations
and standards for each subcategory are demonstrated on a full
scale basis in the industry.
Suspended Solids Removal
Many types of suspended solids removal devices are in use in the
steel industry including clarifiers, thickeners, inclined plate
separators, settling lagoons, and filtration (mixed or single
media; pressure or gravity). Three broad categories that
encompass virtually all methods of suspended solids removal are
reviewed: (1) settling lagoons, (2) clarification which includes
clarifiers, thickeners, and inclined plate separators and (3)
filtration.
). Settling Lagoon (or Basin)
Settling (sedimentation) is a process which removes solid ]
particles from a liquid matrix by gravitational force. The f
operation reduces the velocity of the wastewater stream in a |
large volume tank or lagoon so that gravitational settling !
can occur. Because of the large wastewater volumes involved j
in the steel industry, lagoons are generally large, on the f
order of 0.1 to 10 acres of surface area, typically with a |
standard working depth of 7 to 10 feet. The industry has
found lagoons up to 400 acres.
Long retention times are generally required for f
sedimentation. Accumulated sludge is removed either f
•• 1
-------
periodically or continuously and either manually or
mechanically. But because simple sedimentation may require
an excessively large settling area, and because high
retention times (days as compared with hours) are usually
required to effectively treat the wastewater, the addition
of settling aidr such as alum or polymeric flocculants is
often used.
Sedimentation is often preceded by chemical precipitation
and coagulation. Chemical precipitation converts dissolved
pollutants to solid form, while coagulation enhances
settling by gathering together suspended precipitates into
larger, faster settling particles.
Application and Performance
Settling lagoons are used to treat wastewaters from all
steel industry subcategories. Most are terminal treatment
lagoons which serve as a final treatment step prior to
discharge. Often these lagoons are a main component in
central treatment systems and are used to settle out
suspended solids from several process waste streams.
A properly operated sedimentation system is capable of
efficiently removing suspended soMds (including metal
hydroxides), and other impurities from wastewaters. The
performance of the lagoon depends primarily on overflow rate
and a variety of other factors, including the density and
particle size of the solids, the effective charge of the
suspended particles, and the types of chemicals used for
pretreatment, if any.
Advantages and Limitations
The major advantage of suspended solids removal by
sedimentation is the simplicity of the process. The major
problem with simple settling is the long retention time
necessary to achieve a high degree of suspended solids
removal, especially if the specific gravity of the suspended
matter is close to that of water. Retention time is v
directly related to lagoon volume. Thus, long retention N
time means large area requirements not available at some
steel plants. Another limitation is that dissolved or
soluble pollutants are not removed by sedimentation.
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: Sedimentation is a highly reliable
technology for removing suspended solids. Sufficient
retention time and regular sludge removal are important
factors affecting the reliability of all settling
systems. The proper control of pH, chemical
180
\
-------
1
precipitation, and coagulation or flocculation are
additional factors which affect settling efficiencies.
b. Maintainability: Little maintenance is required for
lagoons other than periodic sludge removal.
Demonstration Status
Based upon the survey of the industry through questionnaires
and sampling surveys, the Agency estimates that there are
over 140 settling lagoons in use at 39 steel plant sites.
Hence, settling lagoons are well demonstrated in the steel
industry.
2. Clarifiers
Clarifiers are another type of sedimentation device widely
used in the steel industry. The chief benefits of
Clarifiers over lagoons are that Clarifiers are less land
intensive and provide for centralized sludge collection.
Suspended SOI ids removal efficiencies are generally in the
same range as that for settling lagoons. Conventional
Clarifiers consist of a circula- or rectangular tank with
either a mechanical sludoe collecting device or with a
sloping funnel-shaped bottom designed for sludge collection.
In alternative clarifier designs, inclined plates or tubes
may be placed in the clarifier tank to increase the
effective settling area and thus increase the capacity of
the clarifier. As with settling lagoons, chemical aids are
often added prior to clarification to enhance suspended
solids removal.
Appl i cat, ion and Performance
The application of clarification is very similar to that
described above for settling lagoons. Clarifiers are used
to treat wastewaters from every subcategory for suspended
solids removal. Performance data are presented in Appendix
A.
The Agency statistically analyzed long-term data for several
clarification systems. The Agency calculated the mean,
standard deviation and other common statistical values, as
well as the 30-day average and daily maximum performance
standards. A 30-day average concentration was calculated
based upon a 95 percentile value while the daily maximum
concentration was calculated with a 99 percentile value.
The methods used to determine these values are explained in
Appendix A.
Based upon the data presented above, and other data
presented in the subcategory reports, the Agency concludes
181
-------
that a 30-day average concentration of 30 mg/1 TSS and a
daily maximum concentration of 70 mg/1 TSS or less are
attainable with clarifiers for most steel industry
wastewaters. Biological treatment of cokemaking wastewaters
produces low density suspended solids that are difficult to
settle. Higher concentrations have been used in developing
the limitations for this subcategory.
Advantages and Limitations
Clarification is more effective for removing suspended
solids than simple settling lagoons, requires less area, and
provides for centralized sludge collection. However, the
cost of installing and maintaining clarifiers is greater
than the costs associated with simple settling lagoons.
Inclined plate and slant tube settlers have removal
efficiencies similar to conventional clarifiers, but have a
greater capacity per unit area.
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: Similar to lagoon systems with proper
control and maintenance. Clarifiers can achieve
consistently low concentrations of solids and other
pollutants in the wastewater.
Those advanced clarifiers using slanted tubes or
inclined plates may require prescreening of the
wastewater in order to eliminate any materials which
could potentially clog the system.
b. Maintainability: The systems u«s*d for chemical
pretreatment and sludge dragout must be maintained on a
regular basis. Routine maintenance of mechanical parts
is also necessary.
Demonstration Status
Clarifiers are used extensively to treat wastewaters from
all subcategories of the steel industry. While the design
may vary slightly depending on the wastewaters being treated
(i.e., steelmaking vs. pickling), all systems operate in a
similar manner.
3. Filtration
Filtration is another common method used to remove suspended
solids, oil and grease, and toxic metals from steel industry
wastewaters. Several types of filters and filter media are
used in the industry and all work by similar mechanisms.
Filters may be pressure or gravity type; single, dual, or
-------
f -
mixed media; and the media can be sand, diatomaceous earth,
walnut shells or some other material.
A filter may use a single media such as sand. However, by
using dual or mixed (multiple) m<*dia, higher flow rates and
efficiencies can be achieved. The dual media filter usually
consists of a fine bed of sand under a coarser bed of
another media. The coarse media removes most of the
influent solids, while the fine sand performs final
polishing.
In the steel industry, several considerations are important
when filter systems are designed. While either pressure or
gravity systems may be used, the pressure systems are more
common and provide some advantages, including smaller land
area requirements.
For typical steel industry applications, filter rates arc in
the range of 6 gpm per square foot to perhaps 18 gpm per
square foot. The efficiency of suspended solids removal is
dependent upon the filtration rate, the filter media and the
particle size. A knowledge of particle density, size
distribution, and chemical composition is useful when
selecting a filter design rate and media.
Filter media must be selected in conjunction with the filter
design rate. The size and depth of the media is a primary
consideration and other important factors are the chemical
composition, sphericity, and hardness of the media chosen.
The presence of relatively large amounts of oil in the
wastewater to be filtered also affects the selection cf the
appropriate media.
During the filtration process, suspended solids and oils
accumulate in the bed and reduce the ability of the
wastewater to flow through the media. To function properly,
all filters are backwashed. The method of backwashing and
the design of backwash systems is *n integral part of any
deep-bed filtration system. Solids penetrate deeply into
the bed and must be adequately removed during the
backwashing cycle or problems may develop within the
filtration system. Occasionally, auxiliary means are
employed to aid filter cleaning. Water jets used just below
the surface of the expanded bed will aid solids and oil
removals. Also, air can be used to augment the cleaning
action of the backwash water to "scour" the bed free of
solids and oils.
Filter system operation may be manual or automatic. The
filter backwash cycle may be on a timed basis, a pressure
drop basis with a terminal value which triggers backwash, or
on a suspended solids carryover basis from turbidity
183
-------
monitoring of the outlet stream.
well demonstrated.
Application and Performance
Each of these methods is
In wastewater treatment plants, filters are often employed
for finel treatment following clarification, sedimentation
or other similar operations. Filtration thus has potential
application in nearly all industrial plants. Chemical
additives which enhance the upstream treatment equipment may
or may not be compatible with or enhance the filtration
process. Normal operating flow rates for various types of
filters are as follows:
Slow Sand
Rapid Sand
High Rate Mixed Media
2.04-5.30 1/sq m/hr
40.7i-51.48 1/sq m/hr
81.48-122.22 1/sq m/hr
Suspended solids are commonly removed from wastewater
streams by filtering through a deep 0.3-0.9 m (1-3 feet)
granular filter bed. The porous media bed can be designed
to remove practically all suspended particles. Even
colloidal suspensions (roughly 1 to 100 microns) are
adsorbed on the surface of the media grains as they pass in
close proximity in the narrow bed passages.
Data gathered from short-term sampling visits show that
filter plants in all subcateg
-------
b. Nalntalnability: Deep bed filters may be operated with
either manual or automatic backwashing. In either
case, they must be periodically inspected for media
retention, partial plugging and particulate leakage.
pemonstratiQn Status
Filtration is one of the more common treatment methods used
for steel industry wastewatet;- especially in the hot forming
subcategory. This technology is used to treat a variety of
wastewaters with similar results. Its ability to reduce the
amount of solids, oils and metals in the wastewater is well
demonstrated with both short and long-term data in the steel
industry.
Oil Removal
Oils and greases are removed from process wastewaters by several
methods in the, steel industry including oil skimming, filtration,
and air flotation. Also, ultraf iltration is used at one cold
rolling plant to remove oils. Oils may also be incidentally
removed through other treatment processes such as clarification.
The source of these oils is usually lubricants and preservative
coatings used in the various steelmaking and finishing
operations.
As a general matter, the most effective first step in oil removal
is to prevent the oil from .•nixing with the large volume
wastewater flows by segregating the sumps in all cellars and by
appropriate maintenance of the lubrication and greasing systems.
If the segregation is accomplished, more efficient removals of
the oils ar.d greases from wastewaters can be accomplished. The
oil removal equipment used in the steel industry is described
below.
1 . Skimming
Pollutants with a specific gravity less than water will
often float unassisted to the surface of the wasfcewater
Skimming is used tc remove these floating wastes. Skimming
normally takes place in a tank designed to allow the
floating debris to rise and remain on the surface, while the
liquid flows to an outlet located below the floating layer.
Skimming devices are there! 01 e suited to the removal of
nonemulsif ied oils from untreated wastewatfrrs. Corroion
skimming mechanisms include the rotating drum type, which
oil from the surface of the water as the drum
A doctor blade ^crapes oil from the drum and
it in a trough for disposal or reuse. The water
is allowed to flow under the rotating drum. An
baffle is usually ins:alled after the drum; this
picks up
rotates.
collects
portion
underflow
oil which
is pulled
has the advantage of retaining any floating
escapes the drum skimmer. The belt type skxmmer
-------
vertically through the water, collecting oil which is then
scraped off from the belt surface and collected in a storage
tank. The industry also uses rope and belt skimmers of
various design that function in the same fashion. Gravity
separators, such as the API type, use overflow and underflow
baffles to skim a layer of floating oil from the surface of
the wastewater. An overflow-underflow baffle allows a small
amount of wastewater (the oil portion) to flow over into a
trough for disposition or reuse while most of the water
flows underneath the baffle. This is followed by an
overflow baffle, which is set at a height relative to the
first baffle such that only the oil bearing portion will
flow over the first baffle during normal plant operation. A
diffusion device, such as a vertical slot baffle, aids in
creating a uniform flow through the system and increasing
oil removal efficiency.
Application and Performance
Skimming may be used on any wastewater containing pollutants
which float to the surface. It is commonly used to remove
free oil, grease, and soaps. Skimming is always used with
air flotation and often with clarification to improve
removal of both settling and floating materials.
The removal efficiency of a skimmer is a function of the
density of the material to be floated and the retention time
of the wastewater in the tank. The retention time required
to allow phase separation and subsequent skimming varies
from 1 to 15 minutes, depending upon wastewater
characteristics.
API or other gravity-type separators tend to be more
suitable for use where the amount of surface oil flowing
through the system is fairly high and consistent. Drum and
belt type skimmers are suitable where oil can be allowed to
collect in a treatment device for periodic or continuous
removal. Data for various oil skimming operations are
presented in Appendix A.
Advantages and Limitations
Skimming as pretreatment is effective in removing naturally
floating waste material. It also improves the performance
of subsequent downstream treatments.
Many pollutants, particularly dispersed or emulsified oil,
will not float "naturally" but require additional treatment.
Therefore, skimming alone may not remove all the pollutants
capable of being removed by air flotation or other more
sophisticated technologies.
106
-------
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: Because of its simplicity, skimming is a
very reliable technique. During cold weather, heating
is usually required for the belt-type skimmers.
b. Maintainability: The skimming mechanism requires
periodic lubrication, adjustment, and replacement of
worn parts.
Demonstration Status
Skimming is a common method used to remove floating oil in
many industrial categories, including the steel industry.
Skimming is used extensively to treat wastewaters from hot
forming, continuous casting, and cold forming operations.
2. Filtration
As explained above, filtration is also used to remove oils
and greases from steel industry wastewaters. The mechanism
for removing oils is very similar to the solids removal
mechanism. The oils and greases, either floating or
emulsified types, are directed into the filter where they
are adsorbed on the filter media. Significant oil
reductions can be achieved with filtration, and problems
with the oils are not experienced unless high concentrations
of oils are allowed to reach the filter bed. When this
occurs the bed can be "blinded" and must be backwashed
immediately. If too much oil is in the filter wastewater,
frequent backwashing is necessary which makes the use of the
technology unworkable. Therefore, proper pretreatment is
essential for the proper operations of filtration equipment.
Application and Performance
The discussion presented above for filtration systems
applies here as well. The filter will reduce oil from
moderate levels down to extremely low levels. Long-term
data for eight filtration systems demonstrate that an oil
and grease performance standard as low as 3.5 mg/1 can be
readily attained on a 30-day average basis and 10 mg/1 oil
and grease can be readily attained on a daily maximum basis.
However, because of problems with obtaining consistent
analytical results in the range of 5 mg/1, the Agency has
decided to establish only a maximum effluent limitation and
standard based upon a daily maximum concentration of 10 mg/1
for hot forming operations and other operations with similar
wastewaters.
Operational Factors and Demonstrated Status
See prior discussion on filtration.
187
-------
3. Flotation
Flotation is a process which causes particles such as metal
hydroxides or oils to float to the surface of a tank where
they are concentrated and removed. Gas bubbles are released
in the wastewater and attach to the solid particles, which
increase their buoyancy and causes them to float. In
principle, this process is the opposite of sedimentation.
Flotation is used primarily in the treatment of wastewaters
that carry finely divided suspended solids or oil. Solids
having a specific gravity only slightly greater than 1.0,
which require abnormally long sedimentation times, may be
removed by flotation.
This process may be performed in several ways: foam,
dispersed air, dissolved air, gravity, and vacuum flotation
are the most commonly used techniques. Chemical additives
are often used to enhance the performance of the flotation
process. For example, acid and chemical aids are often used
to break oil emulsions in cold rolling wastewaters. The
emulsions are part of rolling solutions used in the process.
Emulsion breaking is necessary for proper treatment of most
cold rolling wastewaters by flotation.
The principal difference between types of flotation
techniques is the method of generating the minute gas
bubbles (usually air) needed to float the "oil. Chemicals
may be used to improve the' efficiency of any of the basic
methods. The different flotation techniques and the method
of bubble generation for each process are described below.
Froth .Flotation: Froth flotation is based upon the
differences in the physiochemical properties of various
particles. Wetability and surface properties affect
particle affinity to gas bubbles. In froth flotation, air
is blown through the solution containing flotation reagents.
The particles with water repellent surfaces stick to air
bubbles and are brought to the surface. A mineralized froth
layer, with mineral particles attached to air bubbles, is
formed. Particles of other minerals which are readily
wetted by watrr do not stick to air bubbles and remain in
suspension.
Dispersed Air Flotation: In dispersed air flotation, gas
bubbles are generated by introducing the air by mechanical
agitation . with impellers or by forcing air through .porous
media. Dispersed air flotation is used mainly in the
metallurgical industry.
Dissolved Air Flotation: In dissolved air flotation,
bubbles are produced as a result of the release of air from
a supersaturated solution under relatively high pressure.
ice
-------
There are two types of contact between the gas bubbles and
particles. The first involves the entrapment of rising gas
bubbles in the flocculated particles as they increase in
size. The bond between the bubble and particle is one of
physical capture only. This is the predominant type of
contact. The second type of contact is one of adhesion.
Adhesion results from the intermolecular attraction exerted
at the interface between the solid particle and gaseous
bubble.
Vacuum Flotation: This process consists of saturating the
wastewater with air, either directly in an aeration tank or
by permitting air to enter the suction of a pump. A partial
vacuum causes the dissolved air to come out of solution as
minute bubbles. The bubbles attach to solid particles and
form a scum blanket on the surface, which is normally
removed by a skimming mechanism. Grit and other heavy
solids which settle to the bottom are generally raked to a
central sludge pump for removal. A typical vacuum flotation
unit consists of a covered cylindrical tank in which a
partial vacuum is maintained. The tank is equipped with
scum and sludge removal mechanisms. The floating material
is continuously swept to the tank periphery, automatically
discharged into a scum trough, and removed from the unit by
a pump alpo under partial vacuum.
Application and Performance
Flotation is commonly used to treat cokemaking and cold
forming wastewaters. Gas (hydrogen) flotation is used at
several cokemaking operations to control oil levels.
Dissolved air flotation is used extensively to treat cold
rolling wastewaters. The flotation process is used after
emulsion breaking and prior to final settling. Data for
three steel industry flotation units are presented below.
Performance of Flotation Units
Oil & Grease (mq/1)
Plant In Out
0684F (cokemaking) 93 45
0684F (cold rolling) NA 7.3
0060B 41,140 98
Advantages and Limitations
The advantages of the flotation process include the high
levels of solids and oil separation which are achieved in
many applications; relatively low energy requirements; and,
the capability to adjust air flow to meet the varying
requirements of treating different types of wastewaters.
The limitations of flotation are that it often requires
189
-------
addition of chemicals to enhance process performance; it
requires properly trained and attentive operators; and it
generates large quantities of solid wastes.
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: The reliability of a flotation system is
normally high and is governed by proper operation of
the sludge collector mechanism and by the motors and
pumps used for aeration.
b. Maintainability: Maintenance of the scraper blades
used to remove the floated material is critical for
proper operations. Routine maintenance is required on
the pumps and motors. The sludge collector mechanism
is subject to possible corrosion or breakage and may
require periodic replacement.
Demonstration Status
Flotation is extensively demonstrated in the steel industry,
particularly for the treatment of cokemaking and cold
rolling wastewaters.
4. Ultrafiltration
Ultrafiltration (UF) includes the use of pressure and
semipermeable polymeric membranes to separate emulsified or
colloidal materials suspended in a liquid phase. The
membrane of an ultrafiltration unit forms a molecular screen
which retains molecular particles based upon their
differences in size, shape, and chemical structure. The
membrane permits passage of solvents and lower molecular
weight molecules. At present, Ultrafiltration systems are
used to remove materials with molecular weights in the range
of 1,000 to 100,000 and particles of comparable or larger
sizes.
In. the Ultrafiltration process, the wastewater is pumped
through a tubular membrane unit. Water and some low
molecular weight materials pass through the membrane under
the applied pressure of 10 to 100 psig. Emulsified oil
droplets and suspended particles are retained, concentrated,
and removed continuously. In contrast to ordinary
filtration, retained materials are washed off the membrane
filter rather than held by it.
Application and Performance
Ultrafiltration has potential application in cold rolling
operations for separating oils and residual solids from the
process wastes. Because of the ability to remove emulsified
oils with little or no pretreatment, Ultrafiltration is well
190
.X
-------
suited for many of the wastewaters generated at cold rolling
mills. Also, some organic compounds of suitable molecular
weight may be bound in the oily wastes which are removed.
Hence, ultrafiltration could prove to be an effective means
to achieve toxic organic pollutant removal for the cold
rolling subdivision.
The following test data depict ultrafiltration performance
for the treatment of cold rolling wastewaters at one plant:
UHrafiltration Performance
Feed (mg/1) Permeate (mg/1)
Oil (freon extractable) 82,210 140
TSS 2,220 199
Chromium 6.5 1.2
Copper 7.5 0.07
2-chlorophenol 35.5 ND
2-nitrophenol 70.0 0.02
When the concentration of pollutants in the wastewater is
high (as above) the ultrafiltration unit alone may not
adequately treat the wastewater. Additional treatment may
be required prior to discharge.
Advantages and Limitations
Ultrafiltration is an attractive alternative to chemical
treatment in certain applications because of lower
installation and operating costs, high oil and suspended
solids removal, and little required pretreatment. It places
a positive barrier between pollutants and effluent which
reduces the possibility of extensive pollutant discharge due
to operator error or upset in settling and skimming systems.
Another possible application is recovering alkaline values
from alkaline cleaning solutions.
A limitation on the use of ultrafiltration for treating
wastewaters is its narrow temperature range (18 to 30
degrees C) for satisfactory operation. Membrane life is
decreased with higher temperatures, but flux increases at
elevated temperatures. Therefore, the surface area
requirements are a function of temperature and become a
tradeoff between initial costs and replacement costs for the
membrane. Ultrafiltration is not suitable for certain
solutions. Strong oxidizing agents, solvents, and other
organic compounds can dissolve the membrane. Fouling is
sometimes a problem, although the high velocity of the
wastewater normally creates enough turbulence to keep
fouling at a minimum. Large solids particles are also
sometimes capable c: puncturing the membrane and must be
191
-------
removed by gravity settling or filtration prior to
ultrafiltration.
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: The reliability of ultrafiltration
systems is dependent upon the proper filtration,
settling or other treatment of incoming wastewaters to
prevent damage to the membrane. Pilot studies should
be completed for each application to determine
necessary pretreatment steps and the specific membrane
to be used.
b. Maintainability: A limited amount of regular
maintenance is required for the pumping system. In
addition, membranes must be periodically changed. - The
maintenance associated with membrane plugging can be
reduced by selecting a membrane with optimum physical
characteristics and providing sufficient velocity of
the wastewater. It is necessary to pass a detergent
solution through the system at regular intervals to
remove an oil and grease film which accumulates on the
membrane. With proper maintenance membrane life can be
greater than twelve months.
Demonstration Status
The ultrafiltration process is well developed and
commercially available for treatment of wastewater or
recovery of certain high molecular weight liquid and solid
contaminants. Over TOO units are presently in operation in
the United States. Ultrafiltration is demonstrated in the
steel industry in the cold forming subcategory.
Metals Removal
Steel industry wastewaters contain significant levels of toxic
metal pollutants including chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc
and others. These pollutants are generally removed by chemical
precipitation and sedimentation or filtration. Most can be
effectively removed by precipitating metal hydroxides or
carbonates through reactions with lime, sodium hydroxide, or
sodium carbonate. Sodium sulfide, ferrous sulfide, or sodium
bisulfite can also be used to precipitate metals as sulfide
compounds with low solubilities.
Hexavalent chromium is generally present in galvanizing and
oxidizing salt bath descaling wastewaters. Reduction of this
pollutant to the trivalent form is required if precipitation as
the hydroxide is to be achieved. Where sulfide precipitation is
used, hexavalent chromium can be reduced directly by the sulfide.
Chromium reduction using sulfur dioxide or sodium bisulfite or by
192
„ ' 1
-------
n
electrochemical techniques may be necessary, however, when
hydroxides are precipitated.
Details on various metal removal technologies are presented below
with typical treatability levels where data are available.
1. Chemical Precipitation
Dissolved toxic metal ions and certain anicns may be
chemically precipitated and removed by physical means such
as sedimentation, filtration, or centrifugation. Several
reagents are commonly used to effect this precipitation.
a. Alkaline compounds such as lime or sodium hydroxide may
be used to precipitate many toxic metal ions as metal
hydroxides. Lime also may precipitate phosphates as
insoluble calcium phosphate and fluorides as calcium
fluoride.
b. Both soluble sulfides such as hydrogen sulfide or
sodium sulfide and insoluble sulfides such as ferrous
sulfide may be used to precipitate many heavy metal
ions as insoluble metal sulfides.
c. Carbonate precipitates may be used to remove metals
either by direct precipitation using a carbonate
reagent such as calcium carbonate or by converting
hydroxides into carbonates using carbon dioxide.
These treatment chemicals may be added to a flash mixer or
rapid mix tank, a presettling tank, or directly to a
clarifier or other settling device. Coagulating agents may
be added to facilitate settling. After the solids have been
removed, a final pH adjustment may be required to reduce the
high pH created by the alkaline treatment chemicals.
Chemical precipitation as a mechanism for removing metals
from wastewater is a complex process made up of at least two
steps: precipitation of the unwanted metals and removal of
the precipitate. A small amount of metal will remain
dissolved in the wastewater after complete precipitation.
The amount of residual dissolved metal depends on the
treatment chemicals used, the solubility of the metal and
co-precipitation effects. The effectiveness of this method
of removirir; any specific metal depends on the fraction of
the specific metal in the raw waste (and hence in the
precipitate) and the effectiveness of suspended solids
removal.
Application and Performance
Chemical precipitation is used extensively in the steel
industry for precipitation of dissolved metals including
193
-------
aluminum, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,
cobalt, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum,
nickel, tin, and zinc. The process is also applicable to
any substance that can be transformed into an insoluble form
such as fluorides, phosphates, soaps, sulfides, and others.
Chemical precipitation is simple and effective.
The performance of chemical precipitation depends on several
variables; the most important are:
a. Maintenance of an alkaline pH throughout the
precipitation reaction and subsequent settling.
b. Addition of a sufficient excess of treatment ions to
drive the precipitation reaction to completion.
c. Addition of an adequate supply of sacrifleal ions (such
as iron or aluminum) to ensure precipitation and
removal of specific target ions.
d. Effective removal of precipitated solids (see
appropriate technologies discussed under "Solids
Removal").
A discussion of the performance of some of the chemical
precipitation technologies used in the steel industry is
presented below.
Lime Precipitation - Sedimentation Performance
Lime is sometimes used in conjunction with sedimentation
technology to precipitate metals. Numerous examples of this
technology are demonstrated in the steel industry, mostly
for treatment of steel finishing wastewaters. Data for one
plant and the median effluent concentration of long term
averages for several plants using this technology are shown
below. Plant 0584E has a lime precipitation/sedimentation
treatment system which treats wastewaters from several
finishing operations, including electroplating which is not
covered as part of the steel industry category. The median
data for the other plants were used to establish the
effluent limitation for carbon steel finishing operations
and are review in Appendix A of this volume.
194
-------
Lime Precipitation - Sedimentation Performance
Pollutant
Concentration of Pollutants
(mq/1)
Median
Performance*
Dissolved Iron
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Tin
Zinc
TSS
PH
Plant 0584E
In Out
0.25
4.4
Out
4.4
0.11
322
2.9-6.8
0.01
0.054
—
-
-
0.0
0.02
4.5
7.0-7.4
<0.02
0.03
0.04
0.10
0.15
—
0.06
25
6.0-9.
0
*See Appendix A
Lime Precipitation - Filtration Performance
A metals removal technology that is used in the steel
industry similar to the lime/sedimentation system includes
lime precipitation and filtration. These systems accomplish
better solids and oil removal and also achieves slightly
better control of the effluent concentration of the metallic
elements. Data for two plants that employ lime
precipitation/filtration technology are shown below.
Pickling and galvanizing wastewaters are treated at plant
0612, while pickling, galvanizing and alkaline cleaning
wastewaters are treated at plant 01121. The median effluent
concentrations of long term average for several plants which
were used to establish the effluent limitations for
filtration systems are also presented below. These effluent
data are more thoroughly, reviewed in Appendix A of this
volume. Pilot plant data for steelmaking wastewaters are
also presented in Appendix A.
195
1
-------
-~—
Lime Precipitation - Filtration Performance
Concentration of
(mq/1)
Pollutants
Pollutant
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
TSS
PH
Plant 0612
Plant 01121
Out
Out
1 .60
0.60
2.400
0.60
285.00
350.00
2.9-
3.9
0.04
0.08
0. 18
0.02
0.12
11.00
8.3-
8.5
0.12
0.17
C.19
0.08
18.00
199.00
5.2-
5.6
0.03
0.02
<0. 10
0.03
0.13
1.00
7.3-
7.7
Median
Performance*
Out
0.03
0.03
0.06
0.04
0.10
9.8
6.0
9.0
*See Appendix A
Sulfide Precipitation
Most metal sulfides are less soluble than hydroxides and the
precipitates are frequently more dependably removed from
water. Solubilities for selected metal hydroxides and
sulfide precipitates are shown below:
Theoretical Solubilities of Hydroxides and Sulfides
of Heavy Metals in Pure Water
Metal
Cadmium(Cd+2)
Chromium (Cr*J)
Copper (Cu+2)
Iron (Fe+z)
Lead (Pb+2)
Nickel (Ni+z)
Silver (Ag+2)
Tin (Sn+2)
Solubility of Metal, mq/1
As hydroxide
2.3
8.4
2.2
8.9
2.1
6.9
13.0
1 .1
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
10-*
10-*
10-z
io-»
io-°
io-j
io-°
io-«
As sulfide
6.7 x ID-*0
No precipitate
5.8 x 10-»«
3.4 x 10-*
3.8 x 10-'
6.9 x 10-«
7.4 x 10-»2
2.3 x 10~7
Sulfide treatment has not been used in the steel industry on
a full-scale basis. However, it has been used in other
manufacturing process (e.g. electroplating) to remove metals
from wastewaters with similar characteristics and pollutants
to those of the steel industry.
In assessing whether this technology is transferable for use
in steel industry, the Agency consulted numerous references;
contacted sulfide precipitation equipment manufacturers, and
gathered data from operating sulfide precipitation systems.
The wastewaters treated by these sulfide precipitation
systems were contaminated with many of the same toxic metals
196
-------
found in steel industry wastewaters and at similar
concentrations. Accordingly, the Agency concluded that a
transfer of the effectiveness of this technology is
possible. However, as noted above there are no full scale
systems currently in use in the steel industry.
Data for several sulfide/filtration systems are shown below.
Sulfide Precipitation/Filtration Performance
Concentration of Pollutants (mq/1)
Pollutant
Chromium
Iron
Nickel
Zinc
TSS
PH
Data Set II
In Out
Data Set ft2
2.0
85.0
0.6
27.0
320
2.9
0.04
0.10
4.6
8.2
In
2.4
108
0.68
33.9
Out
0.60
<0. 1
7.7 7.4
Another benefit of the sulfide precipitation technology is
che ability to precipitate hexavalent chromium (Cr+»)
without prior reduction to the trivalent state as is
required in the hydroxide process. When ferrous sulfide is
used as the precipitant, iron and sulfide act as reducing
agents for the hexavalent chromium according to the
reaction:
Cr04= + FeS «• 4H,0-»Cr(OH)3 + Fe(OH), * S * 20H-
In this reaction, the sludge produced consists mainly of
ferric hydroxides, chromic hydroxides and various metallic
sulfides. Some excess hydroxyl ions are generated in this
process, possibly requiring a downward pre-adjustment of pH.
Advantages and Limitations
Chemical precipitation is an effective technique for
removing many pollutants from industrial wastewaters. It
operates at ambient conditions and is well suited to
automatic control. The use of chemical precipitation may be
limited due to interference of chelating agents, chemical
interferences from mixing wastewaters and treatment
chemicals, and potentially hazardous situations involved
with the storage and handling of those chericals. Lime is
usually added as a slurry when used in hydroxide
precipitation. The slurry must be well mixed and the
addition lines periodically checked to prevent fouling. In
addition, hydroxide precipitation usually makes recovery of
the precipitated metals difficult, because of the
heterogeneous nature of most hydroxide sludges. As shown
m
^S",
1
197
-------
above, lime precipitation of steel industry finishing
wastewaters can produce effluent quality similar to that
shown for sulfide precipitation.
The low solubility of most metal sulfides, allow for high
metal removal efficiencies. Also, the sulfide process has
the ability to remove chromates and dichromates without
preliminary reduction of the chromium to the trivalent
state. Sulfide precipitation can be used to precipitate
metals complexed with most coit.plexing agents. However,
Sulfids precipitation can be used to care must be taken to
maintain the pH of the solution at approximately 10 in order
to prevent the generation of toxic sulfide gas during this
process. For this reason ventilation of the treatment tanks
may be a necessary precaution in most installations. The
use of ferrous sulfide reduces or virtually eliminates the
problem of hydrogen sulfide evolution. As with hydroxide
precipitation, excess sulfide ion must be present to drive
the precipitation reaction to completion. Since the sulfide
ion itself is toxic, sulfide addition must be carefully
controlled to maximize heavy metals precipitation with a
minimum of excess sulfide to avoid the necessity of post
treatment. Where excess sulfide is present, aeration of the
effluent stream can aid in oxidizing residual sulfide to the
less harmful sodium sulfate (Na2S04). The cost of sulfide
precipitants is high' in comparison with hydroxide
precipitants, and disposal of metallic sulfide sludges may
pose problems. An essential element in effective sulfide
precipitation is the removal of precipitated solids from the
wastewater and proper disposal in an appropriate site.
Sulfide precipitation will also generate a higher volume of
sludge than hydroxide precipitation, resulting in higher
disposal and dewatering costs. This is especially true when
ferrous sulfide is used as the precipitant.
Sulfide precipitation may be used as a final tratement step
after hydroxide precipitation-sedimentation. This treatment
configuration may provide the better treatment effectiveness
of sulfide precipitation while minimizing the variability
caused by changes in raw waste and reducing the amount of
sulfide precipitant required.
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: The reliability of alkaline chemical
precipitation is high, although proper monitoring and
control are necessary. Sulfide precipitation systems
provide similar reliability.
b. Maintainability: The major maintenance needs involve
periodic upkeep of monitoring equipment, automatic
feeding equipment, mixing equipment, and other
hardware. Removal of accumulated sludge is necessary
193
-------
for the efficient operation of
precipitation-sedimentation systems.
Demonstration Status
Chemical precipitation of metal hydroxides is a classic
wastewater treatment technology used throughout the steel
industry. Chemical precipitation of metals in the carbonate
form alone has been found to be feasible and, is used in
commercial application to permit metals recovery and water
reuse. Full scale commercial sulfide precipitation units
are in operation at numerous installations, however, none
are presently installed in the steel industry.
2. Filtration (for Metal Removal)
As discussed previously, filtration is a proven technology
for the control of suspended solids and oil and grease. The
filtration mechanism which reduces the concentrations of the
suspended solids and oils also treats the metallic elements
present in particulate form. To determine the treatability
levels for metals using filtration the Agency compiled all
available data for such systems. Data for seventeen
filtration systems were averaged to develop the treated
effluent concentrations. The average treated effluent
concentrations and the proposed monthly average
concentration for five toxic metals are shown below:
Metal Removal with Filtration Systems
Monthly Average Daily Maximum
Pollutant Concentration (mg/1) Concentration (mg/1)
Chromium 0.04 0.12
Copper 0.04 0.12
Lead 0.08 0.24
Nickel 0.05 0.16
Zinc 0.08 0.24
For purposes of developing effluent limitations, the Agency
is using 30 day average concentrations of 0.10 mg/1 and
daily maximum concentrations of 0.30 mg/1 for each toxic
metal except zinc. For zinc, the Agency is using a 30 day
average concentration of 0.15 mg/1 and daily maximum
concentration of 0.45 mg/1, since the performance standard
for zinc was greater than 0.10 mg/1. The Agency rounded the
zinc performance standard to 0.15 mg/1. Reference is made
to Appendix A for development of toxic metals effluent
concentrations.
199
-------
Advantages and Limitations
See prior discussion on filtration systems.
Operational Factors and Demonstration Status
See prior discussion on filtration systems.
Organic Removal
Thirty-three organic toxic pollutants were detected in steel
industry wastewaters above treatability levels. Because some of
these pollutants are present in significant levels, the Agency
considered two demonstrated treatment alternatives for these
pollutants in several subcategories: carbon adsorption and
biological treatment (activated sludge). These technologies are
discussed separately below.
1. Carbon Adsorption
The use of activated carbon for removal of dissolved
organics from water and wastewater has been demonstrated and
is one of the most efficient organic removal processes"
available. Activated carbon has also been shown to be an
effective adsorbent for many toxic metals, including
mercury. This process is reversible, thus allowing
activated carbon to be regenerated and reused by the
application of heat and steam or solvent. Regeneration of
carbon which has adsorbed significant metals, however, may
be difficult.
The term activated carbon applies to any amorphous form of
carbon that has been specially treated to give high
adsorption capacities. Typical raw materials include coal,
wood, coconut shells, petroleum base residues and char from
sewage sludge pyrolysis. A carefully controlled process of
dehydration, carbonization, and oxidation yields a product
which is called activated carbon. This material has a high
capacity for adsorption due primarily to the large surface
• area available for adsorption (500- 1500 square meters/gram)
which result from a large number of internal pores. Pore
sizes generally range in radius from 10-100 angstroms.
Activated carbon removes contaminants from water by the
process of adsorption (the attraction and accumulation of
one substance on the surface of another). Activated carbon
preferentially adsorbs organic compounds and, because of
this selectivity, is particularly effective in removing
toxic organic pollutants from wastewaters.
Carbon adsorption requires pretreatment (usually filtration)
to remove excess suspended solids, oils, and greases.
Suspended solids in the influent should be less than 50 mg/1
200
-------
to minimize backwash requirements. A downflow carbon bed
can handle much higher levels (up to 2000 mg/1), but
frequent backwashing is required. Backwashing more than two
or three times a day is not desirable. Oil and grease
should be less than about 15 mg/1. A high level of dissolved
inorganic material in the influent may cause problems with
thermal carbon reactivation (i.e., scaling and loss of
activity) unless appropriate preventive steps are taken.
Such steps might include pH control, softening, or the use
of an acid wash on the carbon prior to reactivation.
Activated carbon is available in both powdered and granular
form. Powdered carbon is less expensive per unit weight and
may have slightly higher adsorption capacity but it is more
difficult to handle and to regenerate.
Application and Performance
Activated carbon has been used in a variety of applications
involving the removal of objectional organics from
wastewater streams. One of the more frequent uses is to
reduce the concentration of oxygen demanding substances in
POTW effluents. It is also used to remove specific organic
contaminants in the wastewaters of various manufacturing
operations such as petroleum refining. There are two full
scale activated carbon systems in use in the steel industry
for treating cokemaking wastewaters.
Tests performed on single compound systems indicate that
processing with activated carbon can achieve residual levels
on the order of 1 microgram per liter for many of the toxic
organic pollutants. Compounds which respond well to
adsorption include carbon tetrachloride, chlorinated
benzenes, chlorinated ethanes, chlorinated phenols,
haloethers, phenols, nitrophenols, DDT and metabolites,
pesticides, polynuclear aromatics and PCB's. Plant scale
systems treating a mixture of many organic compounds must be
carefully designed to optimize certain critical factors.
Factors which affect overall adsorption of mixed solutes
include relative molecular size, the relative adsorptive
affinities, and the relative concentration of the solutes.
Data indicate that column treatment with granular carbon
provides for better removal of organics than clarifier
contact treatment with powdered carbon.
Data from two activated carbon column systems used in the
steel industry and EPA treatability data for carbon
adsorption systems were combined to develop performance
standards for carbon column systems. The average
concentration values attainable with carbon adsorption
systems are shown in Table VI-1 for those toxic organics
201
-------
found above treatability levels in steel industry
wastewaters.
Advantages and Limitations
The major benefits of carbon treatment include applicability
to a wide variety of organics, and a high removal
efficiency. The system is not sensitive to fairly wide
variations in concentration and flow rates. The system is
compact, and recovery of adsorbed materials is sometimes
practical. However, the destruction of adsorbed compounds
often occurs during thermal regeneration. If carbon cannot
be thermally desorbed, it must be disposed of along with any
adsorbed pollutants. When thermal regeneration is used,
capital and operating costs are generally economical when
carbon usage exceeds about 1,000 Ib/day. Carbon does not
efficiently remove low molecular weight or highly soluble
organic compounds.
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: This system is very reliable with proper
pretreatment and proper operation and maintenance.
b. Maintainability: This system requires periodic
regeneration or replacement of spent carbon and is
dependent upon raw waste load and process efficiency.
Demonstration Status
Carbon adsorption systems have been demonstrated to be
practical and economical for the reduction of COD, BOD and
related pollutants in secondary municipal and industrial
wastewaters; for the removal of toxic or refractory organics
from isolated industrial wastewaters; for the removal and
recovery of certain organics from wastewaters; and for the
removal, at times with recovery, of selected inorganic
chemicals from aqueous wastes. Carbon adsorption is
considered a viable and economic process for organic waste
streams containing up to 1 to 5 percent of refractory or
toxic organics. It also has been used to remove toxic
inorganic pollutants such as metals.
Granular carbon adsorption is demonstrated on a full scale
basis at tow plants in the cokemaking subcategory and one
blast furnace and sintering operation. Additionally, a
powered carbon addition study has been piloted for
biological treatment of cokemaking wasterwaters.
2. Biological Oxidation
Biological treatment is another method of reducing the
concentration of ammonia-n, cyanide, phenols (4AAP) and
202
-------
toxic organic pollutants from process wastewaters.
Biological systems, both single and two-stage, have been
used effectively to treat sanitary wastewaters. The
activated sludge system is well demonstrated in the steel
industry, although other systems including rotating
biological disks have also been studied.
In the activated sludge process, wastewater is stablized
biologically in a reactor under aerobic conditions. The
aerobic environment is achieved by the use of diffused or
mechanical aeration. After the wastewater is treated in the
reactor, the resulting biological mass is separated from the
liquid in a settling tank. A portion of the settled
biological solids is recycled and the remaining mass is
wasted. The level at which the biological mass should be
maintained in the system depends upon the desired treatment
efficiency, the particular pollutants that are to be removed
and other considerations related to growth kinetics.
The activated sludge system generally is sensitive to
fluctuations in hydraulic and pollutant loadings,
temperature and certain pollutants. Temperature not only
influences the metabolic activities of the microbiological
population, but also has an effect on such factors as gas
transfer rates and the settling characteristics of the
biological solids. Some pollutants are extremely toxic to
the microorganisms in the system, such as ammonia at high
concentrations and tocix metals. Therefore, sufficient
equalization and pretreatment must be installed ahead of the
biological reactor so that high levels of toxic pollutants
do not enter the system and "kill" the microorganism
population. If the biological conditions in an activated
sludge plant are upset, it can be a matter of days or weeks
before biological activity returns to normal.
Application and Performance
Although a great deal of information is available on the
performance of activated sludge units in controlling
phenolic compounds, cyanides, ammonia, and BOD, limited
long-term data are available regarding toxic pollutants
other than phenolic compounds, cyanides, and ammonia. Only
lately has there been an emphasis upon the performance of
the activated sludge units on the toxic organic pollutants.
Originally, advanced levels of treatment using a biological
system were expected to involve multiple stages for
accomplishing selective degradation of pollutants in series,
e.g., phenolic compounds and cyanide removal, nitrification,
and dentrification. The Agency sampled the wastewaters of
two well operated biological plants in the cokemaking
subcategory. Both of these plants achieved good removals of
toxic pollutants with organic removal averaging better than
203
-------
90% and completely eliminating phenolic compounds,
naphthalene, and xylene. The monitoring data for one of
these plants were used to develop performance standards for
ammonia-N, cyanide, phenols (4AAP), and toxic organic
pollutants for biological oxidation systems. These
standards are shown in Table VI-1 for those toxic pollutants
found in the steel industry wastewaters above treatability
levels.
Advantages and Limitations
The activated sludge system achieves significant reductions
of most toxic organic pollutants at significantly less
capital and operating costs than for carbon adsorption.
Also, consistent efflut-nt quality can be maintained if
sufficient pretreatment is practiced and shock loadings of
specific pollutants are eliminated. The temperature, pH and
oxygen levels in the system must be maintained within
certain ranges or fluctuating removal efficiencies of some
pollutants will occur.
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: Thj.s system is very reliable with proper
pretreatment and proper operation and maintenance.
b. Maintainability: As long as adequate pretreatment is
practiced, high effluent quality can be maintained. If
the system is upset, the operation can be brought under
control by seeding with biological floe or POTW
sludges.
Demonstration Status
Activated sludge systems are well demonstrated in the steel
industry. Biological oxidation systems are installed at
eighteen cokemaking operations.
Advanced Technologies
The Agency considered other advanced treatment technologies as
possible alternative treatment systems. Ion exchange and reverse
osmosis were considered because of their treatment effectiveness
and because, in certain applications, they allow the recovery of
certain process material.
1. Ion Exchange
Ion exchange is a process in which ions, held by
electrostatic forces to charged functional groups on the
surface of the ion exchange resin, are exchanged for ions of
similar charge from the solution in which the resin is
immersed. This is classified as an absorption process
204
-------
because the exchange occurs on the surface of the resin, and
the exchanging ion must undergo a phase transfer from
solution phase to solid phase. Thus, ionic contaminants in
a wastewater can be exchanged for the harmless ions of the
resin.
Low exchange systems used to treat wastewaters are always
proceeded by filters to remove suspended matter which could
foul the low exchange resin. The wastewater then passes
through a cation exchanger which contains tjhe ion exchange
resin. The exchanger retains metallic impurities such as
copper, iron, and trivalent chromium. The wastewater is
then passed through the anion exchanger which has a
different resin. Hexavalent chromium, for example, is
retained in this stage. If the wastewater is not
effectively treated in one pass through it may be passed
through another series of exchangers. Many ion exchange
systems are equipped with more than one set of exchangers
for this reason.
The other major portion of the ion exchange process is the
regeneration of the resin, which holds impurities removed
from the wastewater. Metal ions such as nickel are removed
by an acid cation exchange resin, which is regenerated with
hydrochloric or sulfuric acid, replacing the metal ion with
one or more hydrogen ions. Anions such as dichromate are
removed by a basic anion exchange resin, which is
regenerated with sodium hydroxide, replacing the anion with
one or more hydroxyl ions. The three principal methods used
by industry for regenerating the spent resins are:
a. Replacement Service: A regeneration service replaces
the spent resin with regenerated resin, and regenerates
the spent resin at itc own facility. The service then
treats and disposes of the spent regenerant.
b. In-Place Regeneration: Some establishments may find it
less expensive to conduct on-site regeneration. The
spent resin column is shut down for perhaps an hour,
and the spent resin is regenerated. This results in
one or more waste streams which must be treated in an
appropriate manner. Regeneration is performed as the
resins require it, usually every few months.
c. Cyclic Regeneration: In this process, the regeneration
of the spent .resins takes place within the ion exchange
unit itself in alternating cycles with the ion removal
process. A regeneration permits operation with a very
small quantity of resin and with fairly concentrated
solutions, resulting in a very compact system. Again,
this process varies according to application, but the
regeneration cycle generally begins with caustic being
pumped through the anion exchanger, which carries out
205
-------
hexavalent chromium, for example, as sodium dichromate.
The sodium dichromate stream then passes through a
cation exchanger, converting the sodium dichromate to
chromic acid. After being concentrated by evaporation
or other means, the chromic acid can be returned to the
process line. Meanwhile, the cation exchanger is
regenerated with sulfuric acid, resulting in a waste
acid stream containing the metallic impurities removed
earlier. Flushing the exchangers with water completes
the cycle. Thus, the wastewater is purified and, in
this example, chromic acid is recovered. The ion
exchangers, with newly regenerated resin, then enter
the ion removal cycle again.
Application and Performance
The list of pollutants for which the ion exchange system has
proven effective includes, among others, aluminum, arsenic,
cadmium, chromium (hexavalent and trivalent), copper,
cyanide, gold, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, selenium,
silver, tin, and zinc. Thus, it can be applied at a wide
variety of industrial concerns. Because of the heavy
concentrations of metals in metal finishing wastewaters, ion
exchange is used extensively in that industry. As an
end-of-pipe treatment, ion exchange is certainly feasible,
but its greatest value is in recovery applications. It is
commonly used as an integrated treatment to recover rinse
water and process chemicals. At some electroplating
facilities ion exchange is used to concentrate and purify
plating baths.
Ion exchange is highly efficient at recovering metal bearing
solutions. Recovery of chromium, nickel, phosphate
solutions, and sulfuric acid from anodizing is commercially
viable. A chromic acid recovery efficiency of 99.5 percent
has been demonstrated. Ion exchange systems are reported to
be installed at three pickling operations, however, none of
these systems were sampled during this study. Data for two
plants in the coil coating category are shown below.
206 \
-------
Ion Exchange Performance
Pollutant
All Values
mg/1
Al
Cd
Cr*»
Cr*«
Cu
CN
Au
Fe
Pb
Mn
Ni
Ag
S04
Sn
Zn
Plant
Prior to
Purifi-
cation
5.6
5.7
3.1
7.1
4.5
9.8
—
7.4
-
4.4
6.2
1.5
-
1.7
14.8
A
After
Purifi-
cation
0.20
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.09
0.04
-
0.01
_
0.00
0.00
0.00
-
0.00
0.40
Plant B
Prior to After
Purifi- Purifi-
cation cation
43.0
3.40
2.30
1.70
60
10
210.00
1.10
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.01
2.00
0.10
Advantages and Limitations
Ion exchange is a versatile technology applicable to a great
many situations. This flexibility, along with its compact
exchange an effective
However, the resins in
limiting factor. The
generally placed in the
its use in certain
nature and performance, makes ion
method of wastewater treatment.
these systems can prove to be a
thermal limits of the anion resins
vicinity of 60°C, could prevent
situations. Similarly, nitric acid, chromic acid, and
hydrogen peroxide can all damage the resins as will iron,
manganese, and copper when present with sufficient
concentrations of dissolved oxygen. Removal of a particular
trace contaminant may be uneconomical because of the
presence of other ionic species that are preferentially
removed. The regeneration of the resins presents its own
problems. The cost of the regenerative chemicals can be
high. In addition, the wastewater streams originating from
the regeneration process are extremely high in pollutant
cncentrations, although low in volume. These must be
further processed for proper disposal.
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: With the exception of occasional clogging
or fouling of the resins, ion exchange is a highly
dependable technology.
207
ii
-------
b. Maintainability: Only the normal maintenance of pumps,
valves, piping and other hardware used in the
regeneration process is usually encountered.
Demonstration Status
All of the applications mentioned in this section are
available for commercial use, and industry sources estimate
the number of units currently in the field at well over 120.
The research and development in ion exchange is focusing on
improving the quality and efficiency of the resins, rather
than new applications. Ion exchange is used in at least
three different plants in the steel industry. Also, ion
exchange is used in a variety of other metal finishing
operations.
2. Reverse Osmosis
Reverse osmosis (RO) is an operation in which pressure is
applied to a solution on the outside of a semi-permeable
membrane causing a permeate to diffuse through the membrane
leaving behind concentrated higher molecular weight
compounds. The concentrate can be further treated or
returned to the original operatiDn for continued use, while
the permeate water can be recycled for use as clean water.
There are three basic configurations used in commercially
available RO modules: tubular, sprial-wound, and hollow
fiber. All of these operate on the principle described
above, the major difference being their mechanical and
structural design characteristics.
The tubular membrane module has a porous tube with a
cellulose acetate membrane-lining. A common tubular module
consists of a length of 2.5 cm (1 inch) diameter tube wound
on a supporting spool and encased in a plastic shroud. Feed
water is driven into the tube under pressures varying from
40-55 atm (600-800 psi). The permeate passes through the
walls of the tube and is collected in a manifold while the
concentrate is drained off at the end of the tube. A less
widely used tubular RO module has a straight tube contained
in a housing, and is operated under the same conditions.
Spiral-wound membranes consist of a porous backing
sandwiched between two cellulose acetate membrane sheets and
bonded along three edges. The fourth edge of the composite
sheet is attached to a large permeate collector tube. A
spacer screen is then placed on top of the membrane sandwich
and the entire stack is rolled around the centrally locateu
tubular permeate collector. The rolled up package is
inserted into a pipe able to withstand the high operating
pressures employed in this process, up to 55 atm (800 psi).
When the system is operating, the pressurized product water
-------
permeates the membrane and flows through the backing
material to the central collector tube. The concentrate is
drained off at the end of the container pipe and can be
reprocessed or sent to further treatment facilities.
The hollow fiber membrane configuration is made up of a
bundle of poly amide fibers of approximately 0.0075 cm (0.003
in.) OD and 0.0043 cm (0.0017 in.) ID. A commonly used
hollow fiber module contains several hundred thousand of the
fibers placed in a long tube, wrapped around a flow screen,
and rolled into a spiral. The fibers are bent in a U-shape
and their ends are supported by an epoxy bond. The hollow
fiber unit is operated under 27 atm (400 psi), the feed
water being dispersed from the center of the module through
a porous distributor tube. The permeate flows through the
membrane to the hollow interiors of the fibers and is
collected at the ends of the fibers.
The hollow fiber and spiral-wound modules have a distinct
advantage over the tubular system in that they contain a
very large membrane surface area in a relatively small
volume. However, these membranes types are much more
susceptible to fouling than the tubular system, which has a
larger flow channel. This characteristic also makes the
tubular membrane easier to clean and regenerate than either
the spiral-wound or hollow fiber modules.
Application and Performance
At a number of metal processing plants, the overflow from
the first rinse in a countercurrent setup is directed to a
reverse osmosis unit, where it is separated into two
streams. The concentrated stream contains dragged out
chemicals and is returned to the bath to replace the loss of
solution due to evaporation and dragout. The dilute stream
(the permeate) is routed to the last rinse tank to provide
water for the rinsing operation. The rinse flows from the
last tank to the first tank and the cycle is complete.
The closed-loop system described above may be supplemented
by the addition of a vacuum evaporator after the RO unit in
order to further reduce the volume of reverse osmosis
concentrate. The evaporated vapor can be condensed and
returned to the last rinse tank or sent on for further
treatment.
The largest application of reverse osmosis systems is
the recovery of nickel and other metal solutions. It has
been shown that RO can generally be applied to most acid
metal baths with a high degree of performance, providing
that the membrane unit is not overtaxed. The limitations
most critical are the allowable pH range and maximum
operating pressure for each particular configuration.
209
-------
Adequate prefiltration is also essential. Only three
membrane types are readily available in commercial RO units.
For the purpose of calculating performance predictions of
this technology, a rejection rate of 98 percent was assumed
for dissolved salts, with 95 percent permeate recovery.
Advantages and Limitations
The major advantage of reverse osmosis for treating
wastewaters is the ability to concentrate dilute solutions
for recovery of salts and chemicals with low power
requirements. No latent heat of vaporization or fusion is
required for effecting separations; the main energy
requirement is for a high pressure pump. RO requires
relatively little floor space for compact, high capactiy
units, and exhibits high recovery and rejection rates for a
number of typical process solutions. A limitation of the j
reverse osmosis process is the limited temperature range for •-
satisfactory operation. For cellulose acetate systems, the
preferred limits are 18 to 30°C (65 to 85°F); higher
temperatures will increase the rate of membrane hydrolysis
and reduce system life, while lower temperatures will result
in decreased fluxes with no damage to the membrane. Another
limitation is the Inability to handle certain solutions.
Strong oxidizing agents, strong acidic or basic solutions,
solvents, and other organic compounds can cause dissolution
of the membrane. Poor rejection of some compounds such as
borates and low molecular weight organics is another
problem. Fouling of membranes by failures, and fouling of
membranes by wastewaters with high levels of suspended
solids can be a problem. A final limitation is the
inability to treat or achieve high concentration with some
solutions. Some concentrated solutions may have initial
osmotic pressures which are so high that they either exceed
available operating pressures or are uneconomical to treat.
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: RO systems are reliable provided the
proper precautions are taken to minimize the chances of
fouling or degrading the membrane. Sufficient testing
of the wastewater stream prior to application of an RO
system will provide the information needed to insure a
successful application.
b. Maintainability: Membrane life is estimated to fall
between 6 months and 3 years, depending upon the use of
the system. Down time for flushing or cleaning is on
the order of two hours as often as once each week; a
substantial portion of maintenance time must be spent
on cleaning any prefilters installed ahead of the
reverse osmosis unit.
210
-------
Demonstration Status
There are presently at least one hundred reverse osmosis
wastewater applications in a variety of industries. In
addition to these, thirty to forty units are used to provide
pure process water for several industries. Despite the many
types and configurations of membranes, only the spiral-wound
cellulose acetate membrane has had widespread success in
commercial applications. There are no known RO units
presently in operation in the steel 'industry to treat
wastewaters.
Zero Discharge Technologies
Zero discharge of process wastewater is achieved in several
subcategories of the steel industry. The most commmonly used
method is to treat the wastewater sufficiently so it can be
completely reused in the originating process or to control water
application in semi-wet air pollution control systems so that no
discharge results. This method is used principally in
steelmaking.
Another potential means to achieve zero discharge is by the use
of evaporation technology. Evaporation systems concentrate the
wastewater constituents and produce a distillate quality water
that can be recycled to the process. Although this technology is
very costly and energy intensive, it may be the only method
available to attain zero discharge in many steel industry
subcategories.
Evaporation
Evaporation is a concentration process. Water is evaporated from
a solution, increasing the concentration of solute- in the
remaining solution. If the resulting water vapor is condensed
back to liquid water, the evaporation-condensation process is
called distillation. However evaporation is used in this report
to describe both processes. Both atmospheric and vacuum
evaporation are commonly used in industry today. Atmospheric
evaporation could be accomplished simply by boiling the liquid.
However, to aid evaporation, heated liquid is sprayed on an
evaporation surface, and air is blowr, over the surface and
subsequently released to the atmosphere. Thus, evaporation
occurs by humidification of the air stream, similar to a drying
process. Equipment for carrying out atmospheric evaporation is
quite similar for most applications. The major element is
generally a packed column with an accumulator bottom.
Accumulated wastewater is pumped from the base of the column,
through a heat exchanger, and back into the top of the column,
where it is sprayed into the packing. At the same time, air
drawn upward through the packing by a fan is heated as it
contacts the hot liquid. The liquid partially vaporizes and
211
-------
humidifies the air stream. The fan then blows the hot, humid air
to the outside atmosphere.
Another form of atmospheric evaporator also works on the air
humidification principle, but the evaporated water is recovered
for reuse by condensation. These air humidification techniques
operate well below the boiling point of water and can use waste
process heat to supply some of the energy required.
In vacuum evaporation, the evaporation pressure is lowered to
cause the liquid to boil at reduced temperature. All of the
water vapor is condensed and, to maintain the vacuum condition,
noncondensible gases (air in particular) are removed by a vacuum
pump. Vacuum evaporation may be either single or double effect.
In double effect evaporation, two evaporators are used, and the
water vapor from the first evaporator (which may be heated by
steam) is used to supply heat to the second evaporator. As it
supplies heat, the water vapor from the first evaporator
condenses. Approximately equal quantities of wastewater are
evaporated in each unit; thus, the double effect system
evaporates twice the amount of water that a single effect system
does, at nearly the same energy cost. The double effect
technique is therB«odynamically possible because the second
evaporator is maintained at Icwer pressure (high vacuum) and,
therefore, lower evaporation temperature. Another means of
increasing energy efficiency is vapor recompression (thermal or
mechanical), which enables heat to be transferred from the
condensing water vapor to the evaporating wastewater. Vacuum
evaporation equipment may be classified as sumberged tube or
climbing film evaporation units.
In the most commonly used submerged tube evaporator, the heating
and condensing coil are contained in a single vessel to reduce
capital cost. The vacuum in the vessel is maintained by an
ejector-type pump, which creates the required vacuum by the flow
of the condenser cooling water through a venturi. Wastewater
accumulates in the bottom of the vessel, and is evaporated by
means of submerged steam coils. The resulting water vapor
condenses as it contacts the condensing coils in the top of the
vessel. The condensate then drips off the condensing coils into
a collection trough that carries it out of the vessel.
Concentrate is also removed from the bottom of the vessel.
The major elements of the climbing film evaporator are the
evaporator, separator, condenser, and vacuum pump. Wastewater is
"drawn" into the system by the vacuum so that a constant liquid
level is maintained in the separator. Liquid enters the
steam-jacketed evaporator tubes, and part of it evaporates sov
that a mixture of vapor and liquid enters the separator. The
design of the separator is such that the liquid is continuously
circulated from the separator to the evaporator. The vapor
entering the separator flows out through a mesh entrainment
separator to the condenser, where it is condensed as it flows
212
-------
down through the condenser tubes. The condensate, along with any
entrained air, is pumped out of the bottom of the condenser by a
liquid ring vacuum pump. The liquid seal provided by the
condensate keeps the vacuum in the system from being broken.
Application and Performance
Both atmospheric and vacuum evaporation are used in many
industrial plants, mainly for the concentration and recovery of
process solutions. Many of these evaporators also recover water
for rinsing. Evaporation has also been used to recover phosphate
metal cleaning solutions.
Advantages and Limitations
Advantages of the evaporation process are that it permits
recovery of a wide variety of process chemicals, and it is
applicable for concentration or removal of compounds which cannot
be accomplished by other means. The major disadvantage is that
the evaporation process consumes relatively large amounts of
energy. However, the recovery of waste heat from many industrial
processes (e.g., diesel generators, incinerators, boilers and
furnaces) should be considered as a source of this heat for a
totally integrated evaporation system. Also, in some cases solar
heating could be inexpensively and effectively applied to
evaporation units. For some applications, pretreatment may be
required to remove suspended solids or bacteria which tend to
cause fouling in the condenser or evaporator. The buildup of
scale on the evaporator surfaces reduces the heat transfer
efficiency and may present a maintenance problem or increase
operating cost. However, it has been demonstrated that fouling
of the heat transfer surfaces can be avoided or minimized for
certain dissolved solids by precipitate deposition. In addition,
low temperature differences in the evaporator will eliminate
nucleate boiling and supersaturation effects. Steam distillable
impurities in the process stream are carried over with the
product water and must be handled by pre or post-treatment.
Operational Factors
1. Reliability: Proper maintenance will ensure a high degree
of reliability for the system. Wthout such attention, rapid
fouling or deterioration of vacuum seals may occur,
especially when handling corrosive liquids.
2. Maintainability: Operating parameters can be automatically
controlled. Pretreatment may be required, as well as
periodic cleaning of the system. Regular replacement of
seals, especially in a corrosive environment, may be
necessary.
213
-------
Demonstration Status
Evaporation is a fully developed, commercially available
wastewater treatment technology. It is used extensively to
recover plating chemicals in the electroplating industry and a
pilot scale unit has been used in connection with phosphating of
aluminum. Evaporation technology is not used in steel industry
applications for wastewater treatment.
C. In-Plant Controls and Process Modifications
In-plant technology is used in the steel industry to reduce or
eliminate the pollutant load requiring end-of-pipe treatment and
thereby improve the efficiency of existing wastewater treatment
systems or to reduce the requirements of new treatment
facilities. In-plant technologies demonstrated in the steel
industry includes alternate rinsing procedures, water
conservation, reduction of dragout, automatic controls, good
housekeeping practices, recycle of untreated process waters and
process modifications.
1. In-Process Treatment and Controls
In-process treatment and controls apply to both existing and
new installations and include existing technologies and
operating practices. The data received from the industry
indicates that water conservation practices are widely used
in many subcategories. Within any particular subcategory
process wastewater can vary substantially. In many cases,
these variations are directly related to in-process water
conservation and control measures. Although the effluent
limitations and standards do not regulate flow, they are
based upon model flow rates demonstrated in the respective
subcategories.
While effective control ovsr operating practices is one
method of in-plant control, others are more complex and
require greater expenditures of capital. One of these is
the installation of cascade rinsing (counter-current)
rinsing systems. Cascade rinsing is a demonstrated
in-process control for pickling and hot coating operations
and may be implemented at other processes that use
conventional rinsing techniques.
Another in-process control is the recycle of process water.
In several steel industry processes, wastewaters are
recycled "in- plant" even prior to treatment. For example,
in the cold rolling process, oil emulsions can be collected
and returned to the mill in recirculation systems thereby
reducing the volumes of wastewater discharged. This control
method may not necessarily be used in all processes because
of the product quality or recycle system problems that may
be encountered.
214
-------
Other simple in-process controls that can affect discharge
quality include good housekeeping practices and automatic
equipment. For example, if tight control over the process
is maintained and spills are controlled, excessive "dumps"
of waste solutions can be averted. Also, automatic controls
can be installed that control applied water rates to insure
that water is applied only when a mill is actually
operating. For mills or lines that are not operated
continuously the volume of watar that can be conserved with
this practice can be significant.
2. Process Substitutions
There are several instances in the steel industry where
process substitutions can be used to effectively control
wastewater discharges. One is a cold rolling operations
where mills can be designed to operate either in a
once-through or recycle mode. If those mills with
once-through systems operated in a recycle mode, oil usage
would be reduced and savings could be achieved since a
smaller treatment system would be required.
Another area where in-process substitutions can achieve
significant reductions in wastewater flows and pollutant
loads is by selecting dry air pollution control systems over
wet systems.
•» *.
L
-------
TABLE VI-1
TOXIC ORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS
ACHIEVABLE BY TREATMENT
Achievable Concentration(pg/l)
No. Priority Pollutant
003 Acryl emit rile
004 Benzene
009 Rexachlorobencene
011 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
021 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
022 Parachlorometacretol
023 Chloroform
024 2-Chlorophenol
034 2,4-Dimethylphenol
035 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
036 2,6-Dinitrotoluene
038 Ethylbenzene
039 Fluoranthene
054 Isophorone
055 Naphthalene
057 2-Nitrophenol
060 4,6-Dinitro-o-cre«ol
064 Pentachlorophenol
065 Phenol
066-071 Phthalatet, Total
072 Benzo(a)anthracene
073 Ben£o(a)pyrene
076 Chrysene
077 Acenaphthylene
078 Anthracene
080 Fluorene
084 Pyrene
085 Tetrachlorethylene
086 Toluene
130 Xylene
Carbon Adaorption
200
50
1
100
25
50
20
50
25
50
50
50
10
50
25
25
25
50
50
100
10
1
5
10
1
10
10
50
50
10
Biological Oxidation
100
50
*
*
50
*
200
50
5
50
100
25
5
noo
5
100
25
*
25
200
5
5
10
10
1
5
10
100
50
100
(1)
* No significant removal over influent level.
(1) Two-stage activated aludge lyatem.
216
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION VII
DEVELOPMENT OF COST ESTIMATES
Introduction
This section reviews the Agency's methodology for'developing cost
estimates for the alternative water pollution control systems
considered for each subcategory. The economic impacts due to these
costs and to other factors affecting the steel industry are reviewed
in the above references report.
Basis of Cost Estimates
Costs developed for. the various levels of treatment (i.e., 3PT, BAT,
NSPS and Pretreatment) are presented in detail in each subcategory
report of the Development Document. Model costs include investment,
capital depreciation, land rental interest, operating and maintenance,
and energy. The costs for BPT and BAT are summarized and presented in
Sections VIII and IX of this report. Costs for PSES are presented in
Section XII. Only model costs are presented for NSPS and PSNS while
total industry costs are presented for the other levels of control.
The Agency did not include estimates of capacity addition in this
report. However, estimates of capacity additions, retirements, and
reworks are included in Economic Analysis of Effluent Guidelines -
Integrated Iron and Steel Industry.
The Agency developed model wastewater treatment systems and cost
estimates for those systems. Industry-wide costs to comply with this
regulation were determined from application of the costs for the
selected model treatment systems to each plant taking into account
treatment in place as of a reference date. For each subcategory, the
model costs were developed as follows:
1. National annual production and capacity data for each subdivision
or segment along with the number of plants in each subdivision
were determined. From these data, an "average" plant size was
established for each subdivision.
2. For finishing operations, where more than one mill or line of the
same operation exists at one plant site, the capacities of these
mills or lines were summed to develop a site size and costs for
one wastewater treatment facility were developed as noted below.
This manner of sizing model plants more accurately represents
actual wastewater treatment practices in the industry.
Wastewaters from all cold mills at a given site are usually
treated in central treatment systems. By using site sizes, where
appropriate, wastewater treatment within subcategories was more
accurately reflected in the cost estimates.
217
L
-------
S. If different product types or steel types within a subcategory
were found to have different average sizes, separate cost models
were developed to more accurately define the costs for these
groupings.
4. Applied model process flow rates were established based upon data
obtained from questionnaires and accumulated during field
sampling visits. The model flows are expressed in 1/kkg or
gal/ton of product.
5. A treatment process model and flow diagram was developed for each
subcategory based upon appropriate subcategory treatment systems
and effluent flow rates representative of the application of
established water pollution control practices.
6. Finally, a detailed cost estimate was made on the basis of each
alternative treatment system. All cost estimated were developed
in July 1978 dollars.
Total annual costs were developed by summing the operating costs
(including those for chemicals, maintenance, labor, and energy) and
capital recovery costs. Capital recovery costs were calculated using
a capital recovery factor (CRF) derived specifically for the steel
industry. Separate CRF's were derived for capital investments and for
land costs. An explanation of the derivation of these factors is
provided below.
The purpose of a capital recovery factor is to annualize capital
investment costs over the useful life of an asset. Annualizing
capital investment costs using a capital recovery factor procedure
should be distinguished from using a depreciation schedule to
calculate depreciation expense for accounting purposes. The purpose
of a depreciation schedule is to match the historic cost or book value
of an investment with accounting revenues occurring over the useful
life of the asset. A capital recovery factor indicates the magnitude
of a series of periodic cash flows which, over the useful life of the
asset, will have a discounted present value equal to the discounted
present value of the investment. The discounted present value of an
investment is generally not the same as its book value due to the
impact of investment tax credits, tax-deductible non-cash expenses
such as depreciation, and tax-deductible investment-related expenses
such as interest and property taxes.
Assumption Underlying Capital Recovery Factors
For purposes of this study, it was assumed that pollution control
capital expenditures would be financed 20 percent by non-tax exempt
corporate debt and 80 percent by tax-exempt industrial revenue bonds.
The interest rate on the corporate debt was determined by adding a
premium of 2.7 percent to the inflation rate assumed for the period
1981-1982. The tax-exempt interest rate was assumed to be two-thirds
of the non-exempt interest rate. A marginal income tax rate of 50.1
percent was assumed, based on a marginal federal rate of 46 percent
218
-------
and a tax-deductible average state tax rate of 7.55 percent. An
investment tax credit of 10 percent and the five-year "capital
recovery" tax depreciation factors were assumed to apply to
investments in pollution control equipment associated with steel mill
equipment. A property tax rate of 2.38 percent of net book value was
also assumed, based on 14-year straightline depreciation for book §
purposes. • I
I
The capital recovery factor used by the Agency in this report is
different from and more appropriate than that used in the Lecember
1980 Development Document. This formula is more appropriate as it
accounts for the tax effects of the industry's investment in capital.
Calculation of Capital Recovery Factors
Given the assumption listed above, the Q.4 percent inflation rate
projection for 1981 implies a weighted average interest rate on
pollution control debt of 8.91 percent:
(9.4 + 2.7)* .2 + .67*(9.4 + 2.7)* .8 « 8.91%
Using the discount rate to calculate the present value of a $1.0
million investment in pollution control equipment yields an estimated
present value of -$351,020. Annualizing this outlay over a 14-year
period at the assumed rate of interest results in a level annual
payment of $44,854 after taxes, which implies an outlay of $89,889
before taxes. Normalizing the before-tax outlay by the initial
investment of $1.0 million results in the capital recovery factor for
pollution control equipment of 0.0899.
The calculation of an annualized charge for land is slightly diferent
because land does not qualify for an investment tax credit and is not
a depreciable wasting asset. Instead, land investments are
characterized by capital appreciation which is recovered at the and of
the investment period. For purposes of this study, the Agency assumed
that property taxes would be based on an assessed value rising at the
average rate of inflation over the period, and that a recovery or
reversion of the appreciated land would occur at the end of the
14-year period. Based upon this assumption, a $1.0 million investment
in land financed at the weighted average interest rate used for
pollution control equipment would have a present value of -$247,340.
Recovery of this cost over a 14-year period would require receiving an
annual rent after-tax of $31,660 per year. This corresponds to a
before-tax imputed rental of $63,340. Normalizing this imputed rental
by the initial investment of $1.0 million yields the required capital
recovery factor for land of 0.0634.
Basis for Direct Costs
Construction costs are highly variable and in order to determine these
costs in a consistent manner, the following parameters were
established as the basis of estimates. The cost estimates reflect
average costs. .
219
-------
N
! 1. The treatment facilities are contained within a "battery limit
| site location and are erected on a "green field" site. Site
j clearance costs have been estimated based upon average site
| conditions with no allowances for equipment relocation.
] Equipment relocation costs could not be included because
1 equipment relocation is highly site specific and in fact not
i required at most facilities.
2. Equipment costs for most components are based upon specific
effluent water rates and pollutant loads. A change in water flow
rates will affect costs. For vacuum filters, costs are based on
the square feet (ft2) of surface area of the filter which is a
function of the amount of solid waste to be dewatered. Costs for
rinse reduction technology (i.e., cascade rinse) is based upon
production capacity. For these two components, costs are
affected more by these variables than by flow.
3. The treatment facilities are assumed to be located in reasonable
proximity to the wastewater source. Piping and other utility
costs for interconnecting utility runs from the production
facility to the battery limits of the treatment facility are
based upon a linear distance estimate of 2500 feet. TI.e Agency
considers 2500 ft to be generous for most applications. The cost
of return piping is included in recycle system costs.
4. Land acquisition costs are included in the cost estimates
prepared for this study. An average land cost of $38,000/acre
(1978 dollars) is used to estimate land cost requirements for the
model treatment components. Total land costs were then adjusted
to represent an annual charge to be incurred over the life or the
treatment system by applying the land cost capital recovery
factor explained above.
5. Costs for all nessary instrumentation to operate the model
wastewater treatment facilities have been included in the
Agency's cost estimates, including pH and ORP control, flow
meters, level controls, and various vacuum instruments, as
appropriate.
6.. The Agency's cost estimates include costs for standard safety
items including fencing, walkways, guard rails, telephone
service, showers, and lighting.
7. The Agency's cost estimates are based upon delivered prices of
the water pollution control equipment and related items, thus
freight charges are included in the Agency's cost estimates. i
However, because of the highly variable nature of sales and use j
taxes imposed by state, regional, country, and local governments, 1
the Agency did not include such taxes in its cost estimates. • {
I
8. Control and treatment system buildings are prefabricated !
buildings; not of brick or block construction. ]
220 j
i
-------
In general, the cost estimates reflect an on-site installed cost for a
treatment plant with electrical substation and equipment for powering
the facilities, all necessary pumps, essential controls and
instrumentations, treatment plant interconnecting feed pipe lines,
chemical feed and treatment facilities, foundations, structural steel,
and a control house. Access roadways within battery limits are
included in estimates based upon 3.65 cm (1.5 inch) thick bituminous
wearing course and 10 cm (4 inch) thick sub-base with sealer, binder,
and gravel surfacing. A nine gauge chain link fence with three strand
barb wire and one truck gate were included for fencing. The cost
estimates also include a 15% contingency fee, 10% contractor's
overhead and profit allowance, and engineering fees of 15%.
Sources of cost data for wastewater treatment system components and
other direct cost items include vendor quotations and cost manuals
commonly used for estimating construction costs. These manuals
include:
b -
The Richardson Rapid System, Process Plant
Estimating Standards; 1978-1979 Edition;
Engineering Services, Inc.
Building Construction Cost Data; 1978; Robert
Company, Inc.
Contruction
Richardson
Snow Means
Basis for Indirect Costs
In addition to developing estimates for individual treatment
components, the Agency has also included indirect costs in its total
cost estimates for water pollution control equipment. Indirert costs
cover such items as engineering expenses, taxes and insurance,
contractor's fees and overheads and other miscellaneous expenses.
Normally, these indirect costs are represented by three broad expense
categories: engineering, overhead and profit, and contingencies.
Cost manuals, vendor quotes and actual installation costs generally
show a range for total indirect costs of between 15% and 40% of total
direct costs The Agency's estimates contain indirect cost factors
which total 45% of the total direct costs. The factors used by the
Agency and an example of how they are applied to direct costs are
shown below:
Incremental
Cost.5 ($)
Total Cost ($)
Total Direct Cost
Contingency a> 15%
Overhead and Profit a> 10%
Engineering 3) 15%
Total Indirect Costs
1,OOC,000 1,000,000
150,000 1,150,000
115,000 1,265,100
189,750 1,454,750
454,750 (45.5% of direct costs)
Cost comparisons made between the Agency's estimates and actual
installation costs have demonstrated that the Agency's methodology,
221
-------
including its method of applying indirect costs, is proper and can be
used to accurately estimate industry-wide costs.
BPT, BAT. NSPS, PSES and PSNS Cost Estimates
Two cost estimates were made for this study for the BPT, BAT and PSES
levels of treatment. The first deals with the capital costs for the
systems already installed and the second accounts for the capital
costs for the treatment components still required at each of these
levels. Additionally, both in-place and required annual costs were
calculated and these costs are included in all cost summaries
presented in this document.
Because DCP responses were received from all major steel operations
and almost all minor steel facilities, the data base on installed
treatment components (as of January 1, 1978)^ was fairly complete.
Additionally, the Agency updated the information to July 1, 1981,
based upon personal knowledge of EPA Staff, NPDES records, and conjtact
with the industry during the. public comment period on the proposed
regulation. Using this data base, a plant-by-plant inventory was
completed which tabulated the treatment components presently installed
and those components which are required to bring the systems up to the
BPT, BAT and PSES treatment levels. Hence, an estimate of capital
cost requirements was made for each plant and subcategory by scaling
individual plants to the developed treatment model and factoring costs
based upon production by the "six-tenth factor". By this method, the
Agency estimated the expenditures already made by the steel industry.
These data were summarized earlier in Section II and are also
summarized in' each subcategory report.
For NSPS and PSNS, total industry costs have not been presented in
this report since predictions of future expansion in the industry were
not made as part of this study.
222
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION VIII
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE
THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF THE BEST PRACTICABLE
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
Introduction
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) is
generally based upon the average of the best existing performances at
plants of various sizes, ages, and unit processes within the
industrial subcategory. This average is not based upon a broad range
of mills within the subcategory, but is based upon performance levels
achieved at plants known to be equipped with the best wastewater
treatment facilities.
The Agency also considered the following factors:
1. Tho size and age of equipment and facilities involved.
2. The processes employed.
3. Non-water quality environmental impacts (including sludge
generation and energy requirements).
4. The engineering-aspects of the applications of various types of
control techniques.
5. Process changes.
6. The total cost of application of technology in relation to the
effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such application.
BPT emphasizes treatment facilities at the end of a manufacturing
process but can also include control technologies within the process
itself when they are considered to be normal practice within the
industry.
The Agency also considered the degree of economic and engineering
reliability in order to determine whether a technology is "currently
available." As a result of demonstrations, projects, pilot plants and
general use, the Agency must have a high degree of confidence in the
engineering and economic practicability of the technology at th< time
of commencement of construction or installation of the c^.itrol
facilities.
223
-------
Identification of BPT
For the most part, the proposed BPT limitations are the same as those
contained in prior steel industry water pollution control regulations.
The Agency proposed less stringent limitations where the prior
limitations were not being achieved in the industry, or more recent
and complete data indicated the prior limitations were not appropriate
because of changes in subcategorization or the absence of specific
limited pollutants in the respective wastewaters.
The major changes between the proposed BPT limitations
contained in the prior regulation are summarized below:
and those
Subcategory
A. Cokemaking
B. Sintering
D. Steelmaking
H. Scale Removal
I. Acid Pickling
J. Cold Rolling
Change; Prior Regulations co Proposed Regulation
The suspended solids limitation for coke-
making operations was increased.
All of the limitations for sintering opera-
tions were increased based upon increased
model treatment system flow rates.
Segments were added for BOF wet-suppressed
combustion operations.
For scale removal operations, the dissolved
chromium limitations were changed to total
chromium limitations; and, for Kolene®
operations, the cyanide limitations were
deleted.
For combination acid pickling operations,
limitations for dissolved chromium and nickel
were changed to total chromium and total
nickel.
Separate zero discharge limitations for cold
worked pipe and tube operations were proposed.
These operations had been included in the
subdivision for hot worked pipe and tube
operations in prior regulations.
K. Alkaline Cleaning
L. Hot Coating
Limitations for dissolved iron, dissolved
chromium, and dissolved nickel were deleted
for alkaline cleaning operations.
Separr-te limitations were proposed for
galvai izing hot coating operations of wire
products and fasteners and all hot coating
operations using metals other than zinc and
terne metal. These operations were not
regulated separately in the prior regulation.
224
-------
Other than the changes noted above, the Agency proposed the same BPT
limitations that were contained in the prior regulations, even though
in many instances, more stringent limitations might be justified. The
Agency chose this course of action for the following reasons:
1. The technological bases of the prior regulations were upheld
by the Court in A IS I-1 and AISI-II and the- Agency believes f|
the limitations and standards are appropriate. ||
«l
2. For virtually every subcategory, the Agency proposed BAT and ,|?
BCT limitations more stringent than the proposed BPT .fss
limitations. Thus, upon promulgation, the BAT and BCT
limitations would become the operative limitations for NPDES
permits and, in most cases, the BPT limitations would have
little or no impact on the permitting process.
Based upon comments received on the proposed regulation, the Agency
has made some substantial changes to the BPT limitations from tnose
that were proposed, particularly for the forming and finishing
operations. In some cases, more stringent BPT limitations were
promulgated. In other cases, leas stringent BPT limitations were
promulgated. For the basic steelmaking operations, most of the
proposed BPT limitations were promulgated. In all cases, however, the
Agency used the same basic model treatment technologies to develop the
proposed BPT limitations as were used to develop the final BPT
limitations.
The public comments caused the Agency to re-examine the subdivision of
each subcategory, in terms of whether or not model treatment system
flows based upon product type or operating mode are appropriate,
whether or not in-process of end-of-pipe flow reduction systems are
appropriate, and, the performance of the model treatment systems in
achieving the desired effluent quality. For the basic steelmaking
operations, the response to public comments did not cause the Agency
to substantially alter its conclusions regarding the appropriateness
of the proposed BAY limitations. Thus, upon promulgation of more .-,
stringent BAT limitations for these operations, the Agency saw no J
reason to alter the proposed BPT limitations except where public s
comments provided compelling evidence that they are too stringent. m
For many of the forming and finishing operations, the response to .«S
public comments caused the Agency to substantially alter the sf
subdivision of the subcategories, change model treatment system flow
rates and, reevaluate the performance of the model treatment systems.
Also, the Agency found that substantial flow reduction systems
included in many of the BAT alternatives are not warranted. Thus, for
these operations, the Agency believes that revised BPT limitations are
appropriate. Alternatively, the Agency could have promulgated the
proposed BPT limitations and more stringent BAT limitations, but chose
not to do so because no additional technology would bs required to
achieve the more stringent BAT limitations; and, the Regulation would
be confusing and not in accordance with the Agency's policy of
co-treatment of compatible wastewaters.
-------
The Agency revised the BPT limitations for the forming and finishing
operations for the following reasons:
1. Based upon data and comments received on the proposed
regulation, the Agency decided not to promulgate more
stringent BAT limitations in several subcategories (Hot
Forming, Salt Bath Descaling (formerly Scale Removal), Cold
Rolling, Acid Pickling, Alkaline Cleaning, and part of Hot
Coating). Because additional wastewater treatment
technology beyond that used to develop the BPT limitations
would not be required, the Agency believes it is appropriate
to limit those toxic pollutants found in the wastewaters
from the respective subcategories at the BPT level.
2. In some cases, the Agency's response to comments involved a
complete reevaluation of the new and previously available
data for particular subcategories. For some operations, the
data demonstrate that the model treatment technologies
perform substantially better than indicated by data used to
develop the prior regulations (Hot Forming, Acid Pickling,
Hot Coating). In the absence of more stringent BAT
limitations for these operations, the Agency believes it is
appropriate that the BPT limitations are based upon these
data. For other operations, the Agency found the
subdivision of certain subcategories contained in the
proposed regulation is not appropriate (Salt Bath Descaling
(formerly Scale Removal), Acid Pickling, Cold Forming,
Alkaline Cleaning). Revised subdivision of these
subcategories based upon product-related process water
requirements or mode of operation was provided.
3. The selection of limited pollutants was modified in several
instances to facilitate co-treatment of compatible
wastewaters not possible with the proposed BPT limitations;
(Salt Bath Descaling (formerly Scale Removal), Acid
Pickling, Cold Rolliing, hot Coating).
The bases for all of these changes is set out in detail in the
subcategory reports presented in the development document. A summary
is provided below:
Subcategcry Change-Proposed Regulation to Final Regulation
A. Cokemaking The suspended solids limitations were
increased further based upon additional
data. A separate segment was provided
for merchant cokemaking operations.
B. Sintering All of the sintering limitations were
increased further based upon an increase
in the model treatment system flow rate.
D. Steelmaking The Open hearth Semi-Wet segment was deleted.
226
-------
Hot Forming
Less stringent limitations were promulgated
for BOF Wet-Open Combustion and Wet Electric
Arc Furnace operations based upon changes in
respective model treatment system flow rates.
The limitations for all hot forming operations
were revised to reflect actual performance
of the model treatment system.
H. Salt Bath Descaling The Salt Bath Descaling subcategory (formerly
Scale Removal) was subdivided differently to
take into account product-related process
water requirements and modes of operation
(batch and continuus). Performance data
submitted by the industry were used as a
basis for the limitations.
I. Acid Pickling
J. Cold Forming
k. Alkaline Cleaning
L. Hot Coating
The Acid Pickling subcategory was treated in
the same fashion as the Scale Removal
Subcategory. Fume scrubber operations
are limited separately on a daily mass basis
not related to production rate.
Separate limitations were promulgated for
Single Stand Recirculation and Direct
Application Cold Rolling Mills. Limitations
for two toxic organic pollutants were
promulgated for all cold rolling operations.
The Alkaline Cleaning subcategory has been
subdivided to take into account higher
process water requirements for both batch
and continuous operations.
Limitations for the Hot Coating subcate-
gory were made consistent with those for
acid pickling and cold rolling operations to
facilitate co-treatment.
Development of BPT Limitations
Model Treatment Systems
As noted above, the Agency used the same model treatment systems to
develop the promulgated BPT limitations as were used to develop the
prior and proposed BPT limitations. These technologies are installed
throughout the industry and are well demonstrated. The model
treatment systems are described in detail in the subcategory reports
of this development document.
227
-------
Model Treatment System Flow Rates
The Agency's approach to developing the BPT limitations based upon the
model treatment systems includes specification of a model treatment
system effluent flow rate and performance standards for the limited
pollutants. The model treatment system flow rates have either been
retained from the proposed or prior regulations; or, in several cases
revised based upon some of the factors noted above. The Agency has
established model treatment system effluent flow rates based upon the
best performing plants in each subcategory rather than upon averages
of all plants or upon statistically derived flows because, to a large
extent, flow rates are within the control of the operator.
For the basic steelmaking operations where recycle of air pollution
control system wastewaters or process wastewaters is an integral part
of the model treatment systems, the "average of the best" blowdown
rates or recycle rates formed the basis for the model treatment system
effluent flow rates used to develop the BPT limitations. The hot
forming operations were evaluated in much the same fashion in that the
primary scale pit recycle rates and thus the model treatment system
effluent flow rate for each subcategory were determined from the
average of the best or most appropriate recycle rates.
For the other finishing operations, the Agency used two approaches for
developing the model treatment system effluent flow rates. Production
weighted flow rates were developed by product for Salt Bath Descaling
and Acid Pickling operations. As noted above, the Agency
substantially revised the subdivision of these subcategories to take
into account product related rinsewater flow requirements. In doing
so, the Agency believes that production weighted flows are appropriate
because it could not develop discreet groups of the best plants in
each segment. Thus, the production weighted flow provides the best
measure of a model plant. For Cold Rolling, Alkaline Cleaning, and
Hot Coating operations, the average of the best discharge flows were
used to establish the model BPT effluent flow rates. The Agency
believes the "average of the best" flows for these operations are
appropriate because it could identify the best plants. In any event,
in all but a few cases, the production weighted average flow rates for
these operations are about the same as, or less than, the "average of
the best" flow rates.
The development of the respective model treatment system flow rates is
set out in detail in each subcategory report.
Model Treatment System Effluent Quality
The Agency used the model treatment system effluent flow rates and
performance standards for the limited pollutants to develop the BPT
limitations. The development of the performance standards for the
limited pollutants is presented in Appendix A. In several cases,
particularly in the forming and finishing operations, the Agency used
data from central treatment facilities that treat compatible
wastewaters to establish and demonstrate compliance with the BPT
228
-------
limitations. The Agency believes use of central treatment plant data
for these purposes is appropriate because it is consistent with the
manner in which the Agency structured the Regulation with respect to
co-treatment of compatible wastewaters and is consistent with current
treatment practices in the industry.
BPT Effluent Limitations
Table 1-2 summarizes the 1974 and 1976 BPT limitations, along with the
changes that have been made and the requirements of the promulgated
regulation. Where no changes are noted, the limi'tations are the same
as the original limitations. The guidelines are based on mass
limitations in kilograms per 1000 kilograms (lbs/1000 Ibs) except for
fume scrubbers at acid pickling and hot coating operations where the
limitations are in kg per day. As noted earlier, these mass
limitations do not require the attainment of any particular discharge
flow or effluent concentration. There are virtually an infinite
number of combinations of flow and concentration that can be used to
achieve the appropriate limitations. This is illustrated in Figure
VIII-1 which shows the BPT limitation for suspended solids for the
Blast Furnace subcategory. Also shown on this figure, are the
relative positions of the sampled plants, some of which are in
compliance and some of which did not achieve the limitations. As
shown by this diagram, those plants that do not presently achieve the
discharge limitation could do so by reducing either discharge flow or
effluent concentration, or a combination of the two.
Costs to Achieve the BPT Limitations
Based upon the cost estimates developed by the Agency, the
industry-wide investment costs to achieve full compliance with the BPT j
limitations is approximately $1.7 billion (in July 1, 1978 dollars).
The Agency estimates that as of July 1, 1981, about $0.21 billion of j
this amount remained to be spent by the industry. The total annual
cost associated with the BPT regulation is about $0.20 billion. A
breakdown of these BPT costs by subcategory is presented in Table
VIII-1. The Agency believes that the effluent reduction benefits j
resulting from compliance with the BPT limitations justify the !
associated costs. >
These costs are different than~ those presented in the Draft
Development Document. As noted earlier, the Agency updated the status
of the industry with respect to the installation of pollution control
facilities from January 1978 to July 1981. Also, the installed and
required costs for production facilities shut down during the mid to
late 1970's were deleted. These facilities were included in the data
base for the proposed regulation. The above estimates do not include
costs for treatment facilities installed by the industry which are not
required to achieve the BPT limitations or for facilities installed
which provide treatment more stringent than required to achieve the
BPT and BAT limitations (e.g. cascade rinse and acid recovery systems
for acid pickling operations; high rate recycle for hot forming
operations). ;
229
I
-------
TABLE VIII-1
BPT COST SUMMARY
IROH AND STEEL INDUSTRY
Subcategory/Subdivision
A. Cokemaking
1. US - Biological
2. l&S - Physical-Chemical
3. Merchant - Biological
4. Merchant - Physical-Chemical
5. Beehive
*Cokemaking Total
B. Sintering
C. Ironmaking
D. Steelmaking
1. BOF: Semi-Wet
2. BOF: Wet-SC
3. BOF: Wet-OC
4. Open Hearth
5. EAF: Semi-Wet
6. EAF: Wet
*Steelmaking Total
E. Vacuum Degassing
F. Continuous Casting
G. Hot Forming
1. Primary C w/s
2. Primary C wo/s
3. Primary 3 w/8
4. Primary S wo/s
5. Section Carbon
6. Section Spec
7. Flat C HS&S
8. Flat S HS&S
9. Flat C Plate
10. Flat S Plate
11. Pipe & Tube-Carbon
12. Pipe & Tube-Spec
*Hot Forming Total
Capital
Annual
In-place
96.98
1.84
19.43
2.69
0.78
121.72
58.82
412.34
2.70
15.81
57.20
17.78
0.79
14.48
108.76
20.43
59.55
76.45
34.15
6.74
6.49
88.95
13.28
102.04
5.05
13.66
3.01
12.76
3.68
366.26
Required
41.50
3.70
2.45
0.00
0.00
47.65
5.07
22.40
1.61
0.00
1.42
0.00
0.22
0.00
3.25
7.47
4.84
20.78
9.85
0.00
0.76
19.05
4.17
23.26
0.14
6.49
0.18
9.35
0.00
94.03
In-Place
25.45
0.55
4.08
0.59
0.13
30.80
12.10
52.53
0.41
4.22
13.30
3.75
0.13
2.82
24.63
2.99
8.62
-29.62
-5.29
-0.75
-0.15
-0.96
-0.15
-4.83
0.23
-1.23
0.07
1.42
0.27
Required
9.51
0.88
0.54
0.00
0.00
10.93
1.34
2.74
0.24
0.00
0.34
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.61
1.11
0.76
2.66
1.32
0.00
0.00
2.48
0.30
3.06
0.02
0.87
0.02
1.23
0.00
-40.99
11.98
230
-------
TABIE VHI-1
EPT COST SUMMARY
IRON AN0 STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 2
Subcategory/Subdivision
H. Salt Bath Descaling
1. Oxidizing - B S/P
2. Oxidizing - B R/W/B
3. Oxidizing - B P/T
4. Oxidizing - Conl
5. Reducing - Batch
6. Reducing - Conl
*Salt Bach Descaling Total
I. Acid Pickling
1. Sulfuric-R/W/C-Neut
2. Sulfuric-S/S/?-Neut
3. Sulfuric-B/B/B-Neut
4. Sulfuric-P/T/0-Neut
5. Sulfuric-S/S/P Au
6. Sulfuric-R/W/C Au
7. Sulfuric-B/B/B Au
8. Sulfuric-P/T Au
9. Hydrochloric-R/V'C
10. Hydrochloric-S/S/V
11. Hydrochloric-P/T
12. Hydrochloric-S/S/P Ar
13. Combination-R/W/C
14. Conbination-B S/S/P
15. Coobination-C S/S/P
16. Coobination-B/B/B
17. Coobinalion-P/T
*Acid Pickling Total
Cold Forming
1. CR-Recirc Single
2. CR-Recirc Multi
CR-Combination
CR-DA Singla
CR-DA Multi
CW Pipe&Tube Water
CW Pipe & Tube Oil
*Cold Forming Total
In-place
0.58
0.86
0.76
1.53
0.61
0.20
4.54
Capital
144.65
0.20
0.02
0.00
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.38
5.38
In-Place
0.08
0.13
0.11
0.23
0.09
J).Q3
0.67
Annual
51.16
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
o.qo
0.05
0.51
1.86
0.00
0.42
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
1.65
0.10
0.00
0.14
0.03
0.08
0.00
0.44
3.37
13.13
2.93
1.92
0.54
0.58
0.00
0.12
0.75
22.87
0.19
-4.87
1.54
0.74
'6.54
0.20
0.61
0.13
1.23
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
1.46
0.01
O.C.
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.08
3.05
28.98
5.87
3.62
0.95
231
-------
NOTES: Co*L* are in million* of 7/1/78 dollar*.
Basia: Facilities in-place as of 7/1/81.
21L
Industry Total 1,491.49 205.96 168.73 35.27
!
TABLE VIII-1
BPT COST SUMMARY
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
PACE 3
Capital Annual
Subcategory/Subdivision In-place Required In-Place Required ! »
; j
K. All-aline Cleaning ' •
1. Batch 1.67 0.31 0.21 0.04 {X
2. Continuoua 10.01 0.27 1.39 0.04 |
*Alk«line Cleaning Total 11.68 0.58 1.60 0.08 j
"t
1. Hot Coating |
1. Calv. SS wo/a 9.87 1.47 1.48 0.26 {
2. Calv. SS w/a 9.80 0.44 1.55 0.08
3. Calv. Wire wo/a 5.44 0.66 0.69 0.10 1 /
4. Calv. Wire w/s 1.10 0.66 0.17 0.10 ',
5. Terne wo/a 0.52 0.05 0.07 0.01 >
6. Terne w/a 1.32 0.32 0.20 0.05 i
7. Other SS wo/a 0.73 1.00 0.11 0.16 . !
8. Other SS w/s - !
9. Other Wire wo/s 0.31 0.00 0.04 0.00 j
10. Other Wire w/s , 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00
*Hot Coating Total 29.83
Total 1,367.56
Confidential Plants 39.83
Costs for Component* Installed
Beyond BPT 84.10 0.00 11.TJ^ 0.00
I
-------
FIGURE Vlll-l
POTENTIAL FOR ACHIEVING
AN EFFLUENT LIMITATION
800
480 H
e 400
o
S80-
.§ 800
3 too
u.
jg £00
I I8°
O
100 H
so
EXAMPLE
SUBCATEOORY! IRONMAKINO
POLLUTANT: TSS XT THE BPT LEVEL
(PLANT
(PLAN? N)
(PLANT
•(PLANT tt)
IO SO SO 4O 6O «O TO SO 90 IOO IIO
TSS EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION (mg/l)
-r*-
I2O ISO ITO
: SOLID LINE REPRESENTS TBS LIMIT OP 0.02i kfl/kkg(IM/tOOO lb«)
NOTE: PLANTS ABOVE THE SOLID LINE DO NOT MEET TBS LIMITATIONS.
HOWEVER, THEY COULD ATTAIN THE APPROPRIATE LOAD BY EITHER
REDUCING THEIR PLOW Oft EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION AS SHOWN
BY THE DASHED ARROWS OR ANT COMBINATION OF THE TWO.
233
-------
GENERAL
SECTION IX
AFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH
THE APPLICATION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
Introduction
The effluent limitations which must be achieved by July 1, 1984 are to
specify the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the
application of the best available technology economically achievable.
Best available technology is not based upon an "average of the best"
performance within an industrial category, but is determined by
identifying the best control and treatment technology used by a
specific point source within the industrial subcategory. Also, where
a technology is readily transferable from one industry to another,
such technology may be identified as BAT technology.
Consideration was also given to:
1. The size and age of equipment and facilities involved.
2. The processes employed.
3. Non-water quality environmental impact (including energy
requirements).
4. The engineering aspects of the application of various types of
control techniques.
5. Process changes.
6. The cost of achieving the effluent reduction resulting from
application of BAT technology.
Best available technology may be the highest degree of control
technology that has been achieved or has been demonstrated to be
capable of being designed for plant scale operation up to and
including "no discharge" of pollutants. Although economic factors are
considered in the development, the level of control is intended to be
the top-of-the-line current technology, subject to limitations imposed
by economic and engineering feasibility. However, this level may be
characterized by some technical risk with respect to performance and
with respect to certainty of costs.
235
Preceding page blank
-------
Development of. BAT Effluent Limitations j
Model Treatment Systems
The Agency considered from two to five BAT alternative treatment
systems for each of the twelve steel industry subcategories. These j
alternatives are designed to oe compatible with the BPT model j
treatment systems in each subcategory from the standpoint of j
retrofitting the necessary water pollution control facilities. For \
those operations where BAT limitations more stringent than the i
respective BPT limitations have been promulgated, the required water f
pollution control facilities can be installed / without significant
retrofit costs. For most subcategories (Sintering, Ironmaking,
Steelmaking, Vacuum Degassing, and Continuous Casting), flows
amounting to only a few percent of the model BPT treatment system flow
rates require treatment in the BAT model treatment systems. For
cokemaking operations, additional biological treatment compatible with
the BPT model biological treatment system is the model BAT technology.
The BAT alternative treatment systems are reviewed in detail in the
respective subcategory reports of the development documents.
Model Treatment System Flow Rates
The Agency's selection of model BAT flow rates is highly subcategory
specific. In every case the Agency sought to determine the best flow
rate that could be achieved on a subcategory wide basis. In some
cases, the model BAT flow rates for the alternative treatment systems
are significantly more restrictive than the respective model BPT flow
rates. However, for most forming and finishing operations, where more
stringent BAT limitations were not promulgated, the model BAT flow
rates are the same as the model BPT flow rates. The Agency considered
zero discharge alternatives based upon evaporative technologies in all
subcategories. These technologies were rejected because of energy and
cost considerations.
A summary of the model BPT and BAT effluent flow rates for those
operations where more stringent BAT limitations were promulgated is
presented below:
Model BPT Model BAT
Subcateqory Flow Rate Flow Rate
A. Cokemaking
Iron and Steel 225 gal/ton 153 gal/ton
Merchant 240 170
b. Sintering 120 120 j
C. Ironmaking 125 70
D. Steelmaking
BOF, semi-wet 0 0
EOF, wet-supp. comb. 50 50
236
-------
BOF, wet-open comb. 110 110
Open Hearth, wet 110 110
EAF, semi-wet 0 0
EAF, wet 110 110
E. Vacuum Degassing 25 25
F. Continuous Casting 125 25
L. Hot Coating
. Fume Scrubbers 100 gpm 15gpm
The lower BAT model flow rates for cokemaking operations are based
upon recycle of barometric condenser cooling water, or replacement of
the barometric condenser with a surface condensor. The ironmaking BAT
model flow was set at 70 gal/ton based upon demonstrated performance
at plants in this subcategory. The BAT model flow rate for continuous
casting operations was set at 25 gal/ton based upon widespread
demonstration of flows of 25 gal/ton and less in that subcategory.
Finally, the hot coating fume scrubber BAT model flow of 15 gpm is
based upon recycle of fume scrubber wastewaters, a common practice in
the industry. The Agency did not set more restrictive BAT model flow
rates for the other operations listed above because it does not have
sufficient information and data at this time to demonstrate that more
restrictive flow rates are achievable on a subcategory-wide basis.
Reference is made to the respective subcategory reports for additional
information on the selection of the BAT model treatment system flow
rates.
Model Treatment System Effluent Quality
The performance standards for the model BAT treatment systems were
determined in the same .fashion as described in Section VIII for the
BPT limitations. Where more stringent BAT limitations were
promulgated, the Agency based the limitations upon the best performing
representative plant or plants in the subcategory; upon pilot scale
demonstration studies at plants within the subcategory; or upon pilot
scale demonstration studies at plants with similar, more highly
contaminated wastewaters. In all cases, however, the BAT limitations
are achieved on a full scale basis in the industry.
Summary of_ Changes From Proposed Regulation
Based upon comments on the proposed regulation, the Agency made
several changes in promulgating the final BAT effluent limitations.
For the most part, BAT effluent limitations more stringent than the
BPT limitations were promulgated for the basic steelmaking operations
and BAT limitations no more stringent than the BPT limittaions were
promulgated for the forming and finishing operations. These changes
are summarized below:
237
-------
Subcateqory
A. Cokemaking
B. Sintering
C. Ironmaking
D. Steelmaking
E. Vacuum Degassing
F. Continuous Casting
G. Hot Forming
H. Salt Bath Descaling
Changes from Proposed to Promulgated Regulation
While the model BAT treatment systems have
not changed substantially, slightly less
stringent limitations for all pollutants
were promulgated based upon analysis
of additional data received for the best
treatment facilities.
The selected model technology was changed
from alkaline chlorination to filtration.
Limitations for ammonia-N, total
cyanide, and phenols (4AAP) were provided
for sintering operations with wastewaters
that ate co-treated with ironmaking
wastewaters.
Less stringent ammonia-N limitations
were promulgated on the basis of comments
and data received on the proposed limit-
ations.
The selected mode' technology was changed
to delete post filtration of the lime
precipitation effluent. Slightly less
stringent limitations for lead and zinc
were promulgated and the limitations
for chromium were deleted.
The model treatment technology was
changed to lime precipitation and
sedimentation from filtration.
Less stringent limitations for
lead and zinc were promulgated
and the limitation for chromium was
deleted. The limitations for these
operations are now consistent with
those for Steelmaking operations.
High rate recycle of hot forming
wastewaters was not selected as the
model BAT treatment technology.
Thus, BAT limitations for hot
forming operations were not
promulgated.
Filtration of the BPT model
treatment system effluent was
not selected as the model BAT
treatment system. Thus, BAT
limitations no more stringent
than the BPT limitations were
promulgated.
23G
-------
I. Acid Pickling
J. Cold Forming
K. Alkaline Cleaning
L. Hot Coating
Cascade rinsing of acid pickling
rinsewaters was not selected as
the BAT model treatment system. Thus,
BAT limitations no more stringent than
the BPT limitations were promulgated.
BAT limitations no more stringent than
the BPT limitations were promulgated.
BAT limitations wete not proposed
and not promulgated.
Cascade rinsing of hot coating
rinsewaters was not selected as the
model BAT treatment technology.
BAT limitations no more stringent
than the BPT limitations were
promulgated for those hot coating
operations without fume scrubbers.
More stringent BAT limitations were
promulgated for those hot coating
operations with fume scrubbers.
Best Available Technology Effluent Limitations and Associated Costs
..*
Based upon the information contained in Sections II through VI11 of
this report and upon data presented in the respective subcategory
reports, various treatment systems were considered for the BAT level
of treatment. A short description of the model BAT treatment systems
is presented in Table 1-15. The BAT effluent limitations are
summarized in Table 1-4. The costs associated with the model BAT
systems are summarized in Table IX-14 by subcategory. As with the BPT
effluent limitations, the Agency has concluded that the effluent
reduction benefits associated with the selected BAT limitations
justify the costs and non-water quality environmental impacts,
including energy consumption, water consumption, air pollution, and
solid waste generation.
Co-Treatment with Non-Steel Industry Finishing frastewaters
The steel
coated with
This regulation contains
hot coating processes (i.e.
baths of zinc, terne metal,
does not include specific
industry produces a number of finished products that are
various metals for protective or decorative purposes.
effluent limitations and standards for the
, coating of steel by immersion in molten
or other metals). However, the regulation
limitations for cadmium, copper, chromium,
nickel, tin, and zinc electroplating operations found at many steel
plants. It is common practice in the industry to co-treat wastewaters
from these operations with wastewaters from acid pickling, cold
rolling, alkaline cleaning, and hot coating operations. Often,
pretreatment of wastestreams with high levels of cyanide or a
particular metal is practiced prior to final neutralization and
settling (i.e., reduction of hexavalent chromium; separate
-------
neutralization and settling for zinc). The model BPT and BAT
treatment systems for steel industry finishing operations are
installed at many co-treatment plants and, effluent data from some of
the co-treatment systems were considered in developing the limitations
and standards in this regulation.
Application of the limitations and standards contained in this
regulation to plants with electroplating operations without any
allowance for those operations will present problems, both to permit
writers and to the industry. The following guidance is provided to
permit writers to develop plant specific NPDES permit conditions for
these facilities:
a. Treatment Plants with BPT/BAT Treatment Facilities In-Place
1) Determine the plant specific BPT/BAT effluent
limitations for those steel industry finishing
operations included in this regulation. Compare the
mass loadings to current performance of the treatment
facility in question for periods of relatively high
production.
2) If the applicable effluent limitations fcr the steel
operations included in this regulation are determined
not to be achievable considering appropriate historical
performance data, alternate BAT limitations should be
developed for those plants with well operated treatment
facilities. These treatment facilities should include
all of the BPT/BAT treatment components and not include
a substantial amount of cooling waters, surface runoff,
or process wastewaters from hot forming or any of the
basic steelmaking operations. These alternate mass
effluent limitations should be based upon the current
performance of the treatment facility on a concen-
tration basis, and treatment system flow rates which
take into account those finishing operations included
in this regulation and flows from the electroplating
operations. In some cases, in-process flow reduction
including recycle of fume scrubbers, reduction in
rinsewater flows, etc., may ce required to further
reduce the discharge from current levels. In general,
the concentrations determined from actual performance
data should be in the immediate range of those
concentrations presented in the Development Document
used to develop the BPT and BAT effluent limitations.
b. Treatment Plants Without BPT/BAT Treatment Facilities In-
Place
1) Determine the plant specific BPT/BAT effluent
limitations for those steel industry finishing
operations included in this regulation.
2) Determine an allowance for the electroplating
operations based upon the process flow rates from those
operations (after appropriate flow minimization steps
are implemented i.e., fume scrubber recycle), and the
240
' W
e>.
m
'&
•&
I
-------
• performance data presented in the Development Document
; for similar co-treatment systems.
i
i Technical assistance for permit writers may be obtained from the
i Effluent Guidelines Division for developing limitations for treatment
| systems that treat wastewaters from operations covered by this J
regulation and wastewaters from other operations. '•
} • i-
I »
ii
241
-------
TABLE IX-1
BAT COST SUMMARY
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
Capital
Subcategory/Subdi vision
A. Cokeauking
1. US - Biological
2. US - Physical-Chemical
3. Merchant - Biological
4. Merchant - Physical-Chemical
•Cokemaking Total
B. Sintering
C* Ironmaking
D. SCeelmaking
1. BOF: Semi-Wet
2. BOF.' Wet-SC
3. BOF: Wet-OC
4. Open Hearth
S. EAF: Semi-Wet
6. EAF: Wet
*Steelm*king Total
E. Vacuum Degassing
F. Continuous Casting
L. Bot Coating
1. Galv. SS wo/s
2. Galv. SS w/s
3. Galv. Wire wo/s
4. Galv. Wire w/s
5. Terne wo/s
6. Terne w/s
7. Other SS wo/s
8. Other SS w/s
9. Other Wire wo/s
10. Other Wire w/s
*Hot Coating Total
Total
Confidential Plants
Industry Total
In- pi ace
4.83
3.74
0.39
2.16
11.12
0.51
7.63
-
1.20
0.56
0.33
-
0.46
2.55
0.20
0.82
-
0.31
-
0.04
-
0.00
-
-
-
0.10
0.45
23.28
0.80
24.08
Required
28.62
0.00
4.33
0.00
32.95
5.51
23.20
-
0.34
5.32
1.44
-
1.09
8.19
2.82
2.23
-
0.32
-
0.03
-
0.16
-
-
-
0.00
0.51
75.41
1.94
77.35
Annual
la-Place
0.92
1.62
0.07
0.98
3.59
0.05
2.27
-
0.16
0.08
0.05
-
0.06
0.35
0.03
0.11
~
0.04
-
0.01
-
0.00
-
-
_
0.00
0.05
6.45
0.18
6.63
Required
6.96
0.00
0.94
0.00
7.90
0.74
6.77
-
0.06
0.78
0.23
-
0.17
1.24
0.39
0.31
-
0.04
-
0.00
-
0.02
-
-
_
0.00
0.06
17.41
0.43
17.84
NOTES: Costs are in Billions of 7/1/78 dollars.
Basis: Facilities in-place as of 7/1/81.
: BAT limitations equal to BPT are being promulgated in the
other subcalegories/aubdivisions. There is no additional
costs in these subcategories/subdivisions.
242
-------
ZF-
|
• s
K K
5=
8s
o
&
&
7 R 5
£ "5^
** MOW
1
IS
V • *
en IB tj
K K
il
f :
5 S
I £-5
I O h.
K K
K K
XX KM
K K K K K
i
C -* •
Q «
> *•
X O
Si
2 i B
•s. s s
•S ° S £•
8. g.
a) m I
> >
IS s
s & I-
•J k (ti W1
243
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION X
BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
Introduction
The 1977 Amendments added Section 301(b)(2)(E) to the Act,
establishing "best conventional pollutant control technology" (BCT)
for discharges of conventional pollutants from existing industrial
point sources. Conventional pollutants are those defined in Section
304(a)(4) [biochemical oxygen demanding pollutants (BOB$), total
suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, and pH], and any additional
pollutants defined by the Administrator as "conventional" (oil and
grease, 44 FR 44501, July 30, 1979).
BCT is not an additional limitation but replaces BAT for the control
of conventional pollutants. In addition to other factors specified in
Section 304{b)(4)(B), the Act requires that BCT limitations be
assessed in light of a two part "cost-reasonableness" test. American
Paper Institute v. EPA, 660 F. 2d 954 (4th Cir. 1981). The first test
compares the cost for private industry to reduce its conventional
pollutants with the costs at publicly owned treatment works for
similar levels of reduction in their discharge of these pollutants.
The second test examines the cost-effectiveness of additional
industrial treatment beyond BPT. EPA must find that limitations are
"reasonable" under both tests before establisning them as BCT. In no
case may BAT be less stringent than BPT.
Because of the remand in American Paper Institute v. EPA (No. 79-115),
the regulation does not contain BCT limitations except for those
operations for which the BAT limitations are not more stringent than
the respective BPT limitations.
245
Preceding page blank
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION XI
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE
APPLICATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Introduction
NSPS are to specify the degree of effluent reduction achievable
through the application of the best available demonstrated control
technology, processes, operating methods, or other alternatives,
including, where applicable, a standard requiring no discharge of
pollutants.
For new source plants, a zero discharge of pollutants limit was sought
for each subcategory. There are several facilities in some
subcategories that demonstrate zero discharge. However, the Agency
determined that for most of these subcategories zero discharge is not
attainable for all new sources without the use of costly evaporative
technologies. For these wastewater operations, treatment systems at
lowest achievable flow rates have been considered.
Because new plants can be designed with water conservation and
innovative technology in mind, costs can be minimized by treating the
lowest possible wastewater flows. No considerations had to be given
to the "add-on" approach that was characteristic of the BPT and BAT
systems and therefore the NSPS Alternatives consider the most
efficient treatment components and systems. NSPS systems are
generally the same as the BAT systems; however, in some subcategories,
alternate treatment components are included.
Identification of NSPS
The alternative treatment systems considered for NSPS are the same as
the alternatives considered for BAT with minor exceptions. However,
as noted above, in many subcategories lower discharge flows are
considered for NSPS. Since the criteria for NSPS is to consider only
the very best systems, the lowest demonstrated flow could be used to
develop NSPS standards. Table XI-I lists the treatment systems used
as models for NSPS. The standards associated with the model NSPS
systems are summarized in Table 1-15. Additional details on the
development of NSPS are provided in the individual subcategory
reports. All of the NSPS are demonstrated in the steel industry.
NSPS Costs
The Agency did not estimate the number of new source plants to be
built. However, the Agency did consider the potential economic
impacts of NSPS in Economic Analysis of Effluent Guidelines -
247
Preceding page blank
-------
Integrated Iron and Steel Industry. Model costs for the NSPS systems
are detailed in the individual subcategory reports.
24C
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION XII
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR PLANTS DISCHARGING
TO PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS
Introduction
The industry discharges untreated or partially treated wastewaters to
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) from operations in nearly every
subcategory. Table XII-1 lists all plants which reported discharges
to POTWs. In the individual subcategory reports, two classes of
discharges to POTWs were addressed: existing sources and new sources. jj
Also, the national pretreatment standards developed for indirect j
discharges fall into two separate groups: prohibited discharges, )
covering all POTW users, and categorical standards applying to j
specific industrial subcategories.
As was done for BAT, BCT and NSPS, various alternative treatment
systems were considered for pretreatment standards. Up to six j
alternatives were considered for each subcategory. f
National Pretreatment Standards I
The Agency has developed national standards that apply to all POTW j
discharges. For detailed information on the Agency's approach to
Pretreatment Standards refer to 46 FR 9404 et seq, "General
Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution,
(January 28, 1981). See also 47 FR 4518 (February 1, 1982). In
particular, Part 403, Section 403.5 et. seq. describes national
standards, prohibited discharges and categorical standards, POTW
pretreatment programs, and a national pretreatment strategy. j
1
Categorical Pretreatment Standards
The Agency based the categorical pretreatment standards for the steel
industry on the minimization of pass through of toxic pollutants at
POTWs. For each subcategory, the Agency compared the removal rates
for each toxic pollutant limited by the PSES to the removal rate for
that pollutant at well operated POTWs. The POTW removal rates were
determined through an extensive study conducted by the Agency at over
forty POTWs. The POTW removal rates are presented below:
Toxic Pollutant POTW Removal Rate
Cadmium 38%
Chromium 65%
Copper 58%
Lead ' 48%
Nickel 19%
249
I
a
-------
Silver 66%
Zinc 65%
Cyanide 52%
As shown in the respective subcategory reports, the pretreatment
alternatives selected by the Agency in all cases provide for
significantly more removal of toxic pollutants than would occur if
steel industry wastewaters were discharged to POTWs untreated. Thus,
the pass through of these pollutants at POTWs will be minimized.
Except for the Cokemaking subcategory, all selected PSES and PSNS
alternatives are the same as the respective BAT and NSPS alternatives.
For cokemaking operations, the Agency's selected PSES alternative is
based upon the same physical/chemical pretreatment the industry
provides for its on-site coke plant biological treatment systems.
The PSES and PSNS are set out in Tables 1-8 and 1-6, respectively.
The associated industry-wide PSES costs are presented in Table XI1-14.
PSNS model treatment system costs are presented in the respective
subcategory reports.
250
-------
TABLE Xll-l
LIST OF PLANTS WITH INDIRECT DISCHARGES TO POTW SYSTEMS
PLANT
00208
0020C
0024A
0048D
0048F
0060
00606
0060H
00601
0060L
0060M
0060R
OQ60S
0068
0088
00886
OII2F
01 120
01121
01368
OI36C
OI76C
OI76D
0180
0212
0248A
O256A
0256K
0256N
OZ64
O264A
0264 C
0264D
0280B
0320
0380
0384A
0396A
0396C
0396D
0432B
0432E
0432 J
0432L
251
-------
TABLE Xll-l
LIST OF POTW (XSCHAR6ER8
PAGE 2
0440A
0444
0448A
0460A
O4608
0460C
0460F
04600
O460H
O464B
0464C
0526
O548B
0580
05808
0560C
0580 E
0580F
05800
05848
0636
064OA
06408
0648
06 56 A
06728
0684 H
0684 K
0684 Z
0696A
0740A
0760
0776C
07T60
0776J
0792A
0792C
0810
0856F
0860H
0884E
0936
0946A
0948B
0948C
TOTAL
(90 SUM)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
18
1
X
2
X
X
2
0
X
1
0
X
X
X
K
X
7
X
X
X
6
X
*
X.
X
X
X
X
9
X
X
3
X
1
X
X
2
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
29
X
X
X
X
X
X
9
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x;
X
X
X
18
X
3
X
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
16
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X.
X
X
20
252
-------
TABLE XII-2
PJtETREATWKT COST SUMMARY
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
Subcategory/Subdivision
A. Cok«tMking
1. US - Planes
2. Merchant - Plants
*Coke*aking Total
B. Sintering
C. Ironauking
D. SteelBaking
1. BOF: Seat-Wet
2. BOPi Wet-SC
3. BOF: Wet-OC
4. Open Hearth
5. EAT: Srai-Wet
6. EAT: Wet
*Steelauking Total
E. Vacuum1 Degassing
F. Continuous Canting
C. Hot Forning
1. Primary C w/s
2. Primary C wo/s
3. Primary S «/s
4. Primary S wo/s
5. Section Carbon
6. Section Spec
7. Plat C HS&S
8. Plat S HS&S
9. Flat C Plate
10. Flat S Plate
11. Pipe & Tube*Carbon
li. Pipe & Tube-Spec
•Hot Forming Total
Capital
In-placc Required
28.21
2.66
30.87
3.23
13.21
3.06
5.73
2.90
11.69
9.01
3.93
5.6*
0.67
11.47
0.05
3.39
2.81
1.16
7.52
7.41
14.93
0.36
0.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.34
0.43
0.00
0.30
2.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
In-Place
7.04
0.?6
7.60
0.78
2.26
0.82
1.30
0.55
2.67
1.34
-1.08
-0.29
-0.08
0.00
-0.01
-0.33
0.07
0.14
Annual
Required
1.12
1.45
2.57
0,05
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.04
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
29.12
3.39
-1.58
0.27
253
I /
-------
TABU XI1-2
PRmtZATKEKT COST SUMMARY
IROM AXO STEEL IKDUSTRY
PACE 2
SubcattKorT/Subdivision.
H. Salt Bath Descaling
1. Oxidizing - B S/P
2. Oxidizing - B R/W/B
3. Oxidizing - B P/T
4. Oxidizing - Cont
5. Reducing - Batch
6. Reducing - Cont
*S«H Bath Descaling Total
I. Acid Pickling
1. Sulfuric-R/U/C-Heut
2. Sulfuric-S/S/P-Neut
3. Sulfuric-B/B/6-Neut
4. Sulfuric-P/T/0-Neut
5. Sulfuric-S/S/P Au
6. Sulfuric-R/W/C Au
7. SuHuric-8/B/B Au
8. Sulfuric-P/T Au
9. Hydrochlorir-R/W/C
10. Hydrochloric-S/S/P
11. Hydrochloric-P/T
12. Hydrochloric-S/S/P Ar
13. Co»bination-R/W/C
14. Coebination-B S/S/P
IS. Covbination-C S/S/tf
16. Coobination-B/B/B
17. Cocbination-P/T
•Acid Pickling Total
J. Cold Foraing
1. CR-Rftcirc Single
2. CR-Recirc Hulti
J. Cft-Co«biuation
4. CR-DA Single
5. CR-DA Multi
6. CW Pipe&Tube Water
7. CW PipeiTubc Oil
•Cold Forming Total
Capital
In-place
0.0?
0.09
0.04
0.20
3.05
1.11
0.53
1.42
1.18
1.74
0.01
1.28
11.03
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.09
0.20
0.72
0.08
1.00
3.82
1.44
1.18
0.64
3.52 .
0.02
0.02
1.93
0.33
0.11
0.85
13.86
0.03
0.03
Annual
In-Place
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
1.05
0.80
0.23
0.41
0.40
1.59
0.00
0.39
0.00
0.15
0.07
5.09
0.00
0.00
Required
0.03
0.11
0.01
0.15
1.16
0.79
0.42
0.20
0.75
0.01
0.00
0.48
0.12
0.03
0.21
4.17
0.00
0.00
254
-------
TABLE XI1-2
PUTREAiHEirr COST SOTtoARY
IKON AND STEEL 1NDUSTIY
PACE 3
Subcatetory/Subdiviaion
K. Alkaline Cleaning
1. Batch
2. Continuous
*AHc«Hn« Cleaning Total
L. Mot Coating
1. Calv. SS wo/e
2. Calv. SS »/e
3. Calv. Wir« wo/»
4. Calv. Wire «/a
5. Ttrn« wo/a
6. Tern* «/•
7. Other SS wo/a
8. Other SS w/e
9. Other Wire vo/a
10. Other Wire w/a
•Hot Coating Total
Total
Confidential Planta
Coata for Coaponente tnatalled
Beyond PSES
Induatry Total
Capital
Annual
In-place
0.00
0.47
0.47
0.27
0.14
0.92
1.24
0.01
0.07
NOTES: Coata in aillions of 7/1/76 dollars.
Basin Facilitiea ir.-place aa of 7/1/81.
255
0.00
0.75
0.00
0.37
0.70
0.0)
0.43
In-Plaee
0.00
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.13
0.18
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.0}
0.11
0.01
0.06
2.6S
111.57
2.14
18. 27
131.98
2.30
36.89
4.02
_ 0.00
40.91
0.38
18.64
0.70
2.75
22.09
0.33
7.77
0.85
0.00
8.62
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION XIII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The field sampling and analysis for this project and the initial
drafts of this report were prepared under Contracts No. 68-01-4730 and
68-01-5827 by the Cyrus Wm. Rice Division of NUS Corporation. Th*-
final report has been revised substantially by and at the direction of
EPA personnel
The preparation and writing of the initial drafts of this document was
accomplished through the efforts of Mr. Thomas J. Centi, Project
Manager, Mr. J. Steven Paquette, Deputy Project Manager, Mr. Joseph
A. Boros Mr. Patrick C. Falvey, Mr. Edward D. Maruhnich, Mr. Wayne
M. Neeley, Mr. William D. Wall, Mr. David E. Soltis, Mr. Michael C.
Runatz, Ms. Debra M. Wroblewski, Ms. Joan 0. Knapp, and Mr. Joseph J.
Tarantino.
The Cyrus W. Rice Field and sampling programs were conducted under the
leadership of Mr. Richard C. Rice, Mr. Robert J. Ondof and Mr. Matthew
J. Walsh. Laboratory and analytical servies were conducted under the
guidance of Miss C. Ellen Gonter, Mrs. Linda A. Deans and Mr. Gary A.
Burns. The drawings contained within and general engineering services
were provided by the RICE drafting room under the supervision of Mr.
Albert M. Finke. Computer services and data analysis were conducted
under the supervision of Mr. Henry K. Hess.
The project was conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency, Mr.
Ernst P. Hall, P.E. Chief, Metals and Machinery Branch, OWWH, Mr.
Edward L. Dulaney, P.E., Senior Project Officer; Mr. Gary A. Amendoia,
P.E., Senior Iron and Steel Specialist, Mr. Terry N. Oda, National
Steel Industry Expert, Messers. Sidney C. Jackson, Dwight Hlustick,
Michael Hart, John k'lliams, Dr. Robert W. Hardy, and Dennis Ruddy,
Assistant Project Officers, and Messers. J. Daniel Berry and Barry
Malter, Office of General Counsel. The contributions of
Mr.
Walter J. Hunt, former Branch Chief, are also acknowledged.
The cooperation of the American Iron and Steel Institute, and more
specifically, the individual steel companies whose plants were sampled
and who submitted detailed information in response to questionnaires,
is gratefully appreciated. The operations and plants visited were the
property of the following companies: Jones & Laughlin Steel
Corporation, Armco Inc., Ford Motor Company, Lone Star Steel
Corporation, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Inland Steel Company, Donner
Hanna Coke Corporation, Interlake, Inc., Wisconsin Ste?l Division of
Envirodyne Company, Jewell Smokeless Coal Corporation, National Steel
Corporation, United States Steel Corporation, Kaiser Steel
Corporation, Shenango, Inc., Koppers Company, Eastmet Corporation,
Northwestern Steel and Wire Company, CF&I Steel Corporation, Allegheny
257
frececfing page Wank
-------
Ludlum Steel Corporation, Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation,
Republic Steel Corporation, Lukens Steel Company, Laclede Steel
Company, Plymouth Tube Co., The Stanley Steel Division, Youngstown
Sheet & Tube Co., McLouth Steel Corp., Carpenter Technology, Universal
Cyclops, Joslyn Steel, Crucible Inc., Babcock & Wilcox Company,
Washington Steel, and Jessop Steel.
Acknowledgement and appreciation is also givenf to the secretarial
staff of the RICE Division, of NUS (Ms. Rane Wagner, Ms. Donna Guter
and Ms. Lee Lewis) and to the word processing staff of the Effluent
Guidelines Division (Ms. Kaye Storey, Ms. Pearl Smith, Ms. Carol Swann
and Ms. Glenda Clarke) for their efforts in the typing of drafts,
necessary revisions, and preparation of this effluent guidelines
document.
258
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION XIV
REFERENCES
1. Adams, C.E., Jr., "Treatment of a High Strength Phenolic and
Ammonia Wastestream By Single and Multi-Stage Activated Sludge
Processes", Proceedings of the 29th Industrial Waste Conference,
Purdue University, pp. 617-630 (1974~T~.
2. Adams, C.E., Stein, R.M., Eckenfelder, W.W., Jr., "Treatment of
Two Coke Plant Wastewaters to Meet Guideline Criteria",
Proceedings of the 29th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue
University, pp. 864-880 (1974).
3. American Iron and Steel Institute, "Annual Statistical Report,
1976". Washington, D.C.
4. American Iron and Steel Institute, Directory of_ Iron and Steel
Works of the United States and Canada, American Iron and Steel
Institute, New York (1976).
5. Anthony, M.T., "Future of the Steel Industry In The West", Iron
and Steel Engineer, pp. 54-55 (September, 1974).
6. "Armco's Innovative Electric Furnace Practice", Journal o_f
Metals, pp. 43-44 (November, 1974).
7. Atkins, P.F., Jr., Scherger, D.A., Barnes, R.A. and Evans, F.L.
Ill, "Ammonia Removal By Physical Chemical Treatment", Water
Pollution Control Federation, Journal, 45 (11), pp. 2372-2388
(November, 1973).
8. Balden, A.R. and Scholl, E.L., "The Treatment of Industrial
Wastewaters for Reuse, Closing the Cycle", Proceedings of_ the
28th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, pp. 874-880
TT9T3).
9. Becker, A.P., Lachajcztk, T.M., "Review of Water Usage in the
Iron and Steel Industry: Blast Furnace and Hot Forming
Subcategories" Presented at the U.S. EPA Symposium on Iron and
Steel Pollution Abatement Technology, October 1981.
10. Beckman, W.J., Avendt, R.J., Mulligan, T.J. and Kehrberger, G.J.,
"Combined Carbon Oxidation Nitrification," Journal of. the Water
Pollution Control Federation, 44, October 10, 1972, p. 1916.
11. Bennett, K.W., "Mini-Midi Mills Show Larger Amount of Clout",
Iron Age, 213 (15), pp. MP-9-MP-38 (October 11, 1976).
259
B?Pi
^
-------
12. Bernardin, F.E., "Cyanide Detoxification Using Adsorption and
Catalytic Oxidation on Granular Activated Carbon," Journal of the
Water Pollution Control Federation^ 45, 2, February, 1973, p.
221 .
13. Black, H.H., McDermott, G.N., Henderson, C., Moore W.A. and
Pohren, H.R., "Industrial Wastes Guide", -Industrial Waste
Conference, Purdue University (May 15-17, 1956).
14. Borland, C.C. and Cruse, C.L., "Direct Reduction - How Is Quality
Measured?", Ironmakinq Proceedings, The Metallurgical Society of
A.I.M.E.. Toronto, 34. pp. 206-215 (1975).
15. Brinn, D.G. and Doris, R.L., "Basic Oxygen Steelmaking: A
Bibliography of Published Literature", British Steel Corporation
Research Report, Section 7, pp. 25-28.
16. Brough, John R. and Voges, Thomas F., "Basic Oxygen Process Water
Treatment", Proceedings, Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue
University. 24th, pp. 762-769 (1969).
17. Burns and Roe, Draft Development Document, Electric Power
Industry, November 1974.
18. Burns & McDonald, Evaluation of Wet Versus Dry Cooling Systems,
January, 1974.
19. Calgon Corporation Application Bulletin, "Calgon Cyanide
Destruction System", (1971).
20. Carson, James, E., Atmospheric Impacts of Evaporative Cooling
Systems, ANL/ES-53.
21. Cartwright, W.F., "Research Might Help to Solve Coking Industry
Problems, Gas World, 164, p. 497 (November 12, 1966).
22. Catchpole, J.R., "The Treatment and Disposal of Effluents in the
Gas and Coke Industry", Air and Water Pollution in the Iron and
Steel Industry, Iron and Steel Institute Special Report No.
1961. pp. 219-225 (1958).
23. Chen, Kenneth Y., "Kinetics of Oxidation of Aqueous Sulfide by
02", Environmental Science and Technology, 6_, p. 529 (June,
1972).
24. Cheremisnoff, P.N., "Biological Wastewater Treatment", Pollution
Engineering, '8 (9), pp. 32-38 (September, 1976).
25. Cheremisinoff, P.N., Perna, A.J. and Sevaszek, E.R., "Controlling
Organic Pollutants In Industrial Wastewaters", Industrial Wastes,
2J. (5), pp. 26-35 (September-October, 1975).
260
-------
26. "Clean System Quenches Coke", Iron Age. 211 (14), p. 25 (April
5, 1973).
27. "Controlling Quenching Emissions", Iron and Steel Engineer, 53
(12), p. 21 (December, 1976).
28. Cook, W.R. and Rankin, L.V., "Polymers Solve Waste Water
Problems", Iron and Steel Engineer, pp. 43-46 (May, 1974).
29. Cooper, R.L., "Methods of Approach to Coke Oven Effluent
Problems", Air and Water Pollution in the Iron and Steel
Industry, Iron and Steel Institute Special Report NQ^ 61, pp.
198-202 (19587.
30. Cooper, R.L. and Catchpole, J.R., "The Biological Treatment of
Coke Oven Effluents", The Coke Oven Manager's Yearbook, pp.
146-177 (1967).
31. Cooper, R.L. and Catchpole, J.R., "Biological Treatment of
Phenolic Wastes", Management of Water jji the Iron and Steel
Institute Special Report No. 128, pp. 97-102 (1970).
32. Cousins, W.G. and Mindler, A.B., "Tertiary Treatment of Weak
Ammonia Liquor", JWPCF. 44, 4 607-618 (April, 1972).
33. Cruver, J.E. and Nusbaum, I., "Application of Reverse Osmosis to
Wastewater Treatment," Journal WPCF, Volume 45, No. 2, February,
1974.
34. Davis, R.F., Jr. and Cekela, V.W., Jr., "Pipeline Charging
Preheated Coal to Coke Ovens", Ironmaking Proceedings, The
Metallurgical Socitry of A.I.M.E., Toronto, 34, pp. 339-349
(1975).
35. Decaigny, Roger A., "Blast Furnace Gas Washer Removes Cyanides,
Ammonia, Iron, and Phenol", Proceedings, 25th Industrial Waste
Conference, Purdue University, pp. 512-517 (1970).
35. DeFalco, A.J., "Biological Treatment of Coke Plant Waste", Iron
and Steel Engineer, pp. 39-41 (June, 1976).
37. DeJohn, P.B., Adams, A.D., "Treatment of Oil Refinery Wastewaters
with Granular and Powdered Activated Carbon", Purdue Industrial
Waste Conference.
S8. Directory of Iron and Steel Plants, Steel Publications, Inc..
39. Directory of_ the Iron and Steel Works of. the World, Metal
Bulletins Books, Ltd., London, 5th edition.
40. Donovan, E.J., Jr., Treatment of Wastewater for Steel Cold
Finishing Mills, Water and Wastes Engineering, November, 1970.
261
-------
41. DuMond, T.C., "Mag-Coke Creates Big Stir in Desulfurization",
Iron Age, 211 (24), pp. 75-77 (June 14, 1973).
42. Dunlap, R.W. and McMichael, F.C., "Reducing Coke Plant Effluent",
Environmental Science and Technology, 10 (7), pp. 654-657 (July,
1976).
43. Duvel, W.A. and Helfgott, T., "Removal of Wastewater Organics by
Reverse Osmosis," Journal WPCF, Volume 47, No. 1_, January, 1975.
44. Edgar, W.D. and Muller, J.M., "The Status of Coke Oven Pollution
Control", AIME, Cleveland, Ohio (April, 1973).
45. Effect of Geographical Variation on Performance of Recirculating
Cooling Ponds, EPA-660/2-74-085.
46. Eisenhauer, Hugh R., "The Ozonation of Phenolic Wastes", Journal
of the Water Pollution Control Federation, p. 1887 (November,
1968).
47. Elder, R.G., "Zinc Control in a Blast Furnace Gas Wash Water
Recircuiation System", Presented at the U.S. EPA Symposium on
Iron and Steel Pollution Abatement Technology for 1981, October
1981 .
48. Elliott, J.F., "Direct Reduction of Iron Ores - Processes and
Products", Ironmaking Proceedings, The Metallurgical Society of
A.I.M.E., Toronto, 34, pp. 216-227 (1975).
49. Environmental Protection Agency, "Analytical Methods for the
Verification Phase of the BAT Review", Office of_ Water, and
Hazardous Materials (June, 1977).
50. Environmental Protection Agency, "Biological Removal of Carbon
and Nitrogen Compounds from Coke Plant Wastes", Office of
Research and Monitoring, Washington, D.C. (April, 1973).
51. Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Development Document for
Effluent Limitations and Guidelines and Standards of Performance,
Alloy and Stainless Steel Industry, Datagraphics, _I_n.c_._ (January,
1974).
52. Environmental Protection Agency, "Industry Profile Study on Blast
Furnace and Basic Steel Products ," C.W. Rice Division -NUS
Corporation for EPA, Washington, D.C. (December, 1971).
53. Environmental Protection Agency, "Pollution Control of Blast
Furnace Gas Scrubbers Through Recircuiation". Office of Research
and Monitoring, Washington, D.C. (Project No. 12010EDY).
54. Environmental Protection Agency, "Sampling and Analysis
Procedures for Screening of Industrial Effluents for Priority
262
-------
Pollutants", Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio (March, 1977 revised April, 1977).
j
55. Environmental Protection Agency, "Steel Making Segment of the !
Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category", Office of )
Water and Hazardous Materials, Washington, D.C. (June, 1974). j
56. Environmental Protection Agency, "Water Pollution Control |
Practices in the Carbon and Alloy Steel Industries", EPA, j
Washington, D.C. (September 1, 1972). ||
i I
57. Environmental Protection Agency, "Water Pollution Control ;
Practices in the Carbon and Alloy Steel Industries", Progress !
Reports for the Months of September and October, 1972 (Project
No. R800625). j
58. Environmental Steel, The Council of_ Economic Priorities. }
59. Fair, G.M., Geyer, I.C., Okum, D.P., Water and Wastewater '
Engineering, Volume J_, Water Spray and Wastewater Removal. '•
60. Flynn, B.P., "A Model for the Powdered Activated Carbon -
Activated Sludge Treatment System; Purdue Industrial Waste
Conference.
61. Foltz, V.W., Thompson, R.J., "Armco Develops Cold Mill Waste Oil
Treatment Process", Water and Wastes Engineering, March 1970.
62. Ford, D.L., "Putting Activated Carbon in Perspective in 1983
Guidelines," National Conference on Treatment and Disposal of
Industrial Waste Waters and Residues, April 26-28, 1977.
63. Ford, D.L., Elton, Richard L., "Removal of Oil and Grease From
Industrial Wastewaters", Chemical Engineering, Oct. 17, 1977.
64. Fraust, C.L., "Modifying A Conventional Chemical Waste Treatment
Plant to Handle Fluoride and Ammonia Wastes", Plating and Surface
Finishing, p. 1048-1052 (November, 1975.)
65. Gelb, B.A., "The Cost of Complying with Federal Water Pollution
Law", Industrial Water Engineering, 12 (6), pp. 6-9 (December,
1975 - January, 1976).
66. George, H.D. and Boardman, E.B., "IMS - Grangcold Pelletizing
System For Steel Mill Waste Material", Iron and Steel Engineer,
pp. 60-64 (November, 1973).
67. Goldstein, M., "2. Economics of Treating Cyanide Wastes",
Pollutlon Engineering, pp. 36-38 (March, 1976).
86. Gordon, C.K., "Continuous Coking Process", Iron and Steel
Engineer, pp. 125-130 (September, 1973).
263
-------
69. Gordon, C.K. and Droughton, T.A., "Continuous Coking Process",
AISE, Chicago, Illinois (April, 1973).
70. Gould, J.P. and Weber, W.J,, Jr., "Oxidation of Phenols by
Ozone", Water Pollution Control Federation, Journal, £8(1), pp.
47-60 (January, 1976).
71. Grieve, C.G., Stenstron, M.K., "Powdered Carbon Improves
Activated Sludge Treatment, Hydrocarbon Processing, October,
1977.
72. Grosick, H.A., "Ammonia Disposal - Coke Plants", Blast Furnace
and Steel Plant, pp. 217-221 (April, 1971).
73. Haqer, D.G., "Waste Treatment Advances: Waste Water Treatment
Via Activated Carbon," Chemical Engineering Progress, 72 (10),
pp. 57-60 (October, 1976).
74. Hall, S.A., Brantner, K.A., Kubarewicz, J.W., Sullivan, M.D.,
"Pilot Evaluation of Alkaline Chlorination Alternatives for Blast
Furnace Treatment", presented at the U.S. EPA Symposium on Iron
and Steel Pollution Abatement Technology for 1981, October 1981.
75. Hall, D.A. and Nellis, G.R., "Phenolic Effluents Treatment,"
Chemical Trade Journal (Brit.), 156, p. 786 (1965).
76. Hansen, L.G., Oleson, K.A., "Comparison of Evaporative Losses in
Various Cooling Water Systems," American Power Conference, April
21-23, 1970.
77. Harold, D.S., "Development of a Deduing Process for Recycling
Millscale", Presented at the U.S. EPA Symposium on Iron and Steel
Pollution Abatement Technology, October 1981.
78. Hoffman, D.C., "Oxidation of Cyanides Adsorbed on Granular
Activated Carbon", Plating, 60, pp. 157-161 (February, 1973).
75. Hutton, W.C. and LaRocca, S.A., "Biological Treatment of
Concentrated Ammonia Wastewaters," Water Pollution Control
Federation, Journal, 47 (5), p. 989-997 (May, 1975).
80. lammartino, N.R., "Formed Coke: A 1980's Boom for the World's
Steelmakers?", Chemical Engineering, 83 (27), pp. 30-36
(December 20, 1976).
81. "Annual Review of Developments In The Iron and Steel Industry
During 1977," Iron and Steel Engineer, p. Dl (February, 1978).
82. Jola, M., "Destruction of Cyanides by the Cyan-Cat Process,"
Plating and Surface Finishing, pp. 42-44 (September, 1976).
26-1
-------
83. Kemmetmueller, R., "Dry Coke Quenching - Proved, Profitable,
Pollution - Free", Iron and Steel Engineer, pp. 71-78 (October,
1973). •
84. Kiang, ¥., "Liquid Waste Disposal System", Chemical Engineering j
Progress, 72 (1), pp. 71-77 (January, 1976). |
85. Kibbel, W.H., "Peroxide Treatment For Industrial Waste Problems", [
Industrial Water Engineering, pp. 6-11 (August/September, 1976). '
86. Kolflat, T.D., Aschoff, A.F., Baschiere, R.S., "Cooling Towers
Versus Cooling Ponds - A State of the Art Review", presented at
ANS meeting, San Francisco, California, November 4, 1977.
87. Kohlmann, H.J., Hot stein, H., "Minimizing Water Blow downs from
selected steel plant processes", presented at the U.S. EPA
Symposium on Iron and Steel Pollution Abatement Technology for
1981, October 1981.
88. Knopp, P.V., Gifchel, W.B., Zimpro, Inc., "Wastewater Treatment
with Powdered Activated Carbon Regenerated with Wet Air
Oxidation.", Purdue Industrial Waste Conference.
89. Kostenbader, Paul D., and Flecksteinet, John W., "Biological
Oxidation of Coke Plant Weak Ammonia Liquor", Water Pollution
Control Federation, Journal, 41. pp. 199-207 (February, 1969).
90. Kremen, S.S., "Reverse Osmosis Makes High Quality Water Now",
Environmental Science and Technology, 9_ (4), pp. 314- 318 (April,
1975).
91. Kreye, W.C., King, P.H. and Randall, C.W., "Biological Treatment
of High Thiosulfate Industrial Wastewater,"Proceedings o|_ the
28th Industrial Waste Conference. Purdue University, pp. 537-545
(1973).
92. Kreye, W.C., King, P.H. and Randall, C.W., "Kinetic Parameters
and Operation Problems in the Biological Oxidation of High
Thiosulfate Industrial Wastewaters", Proceedings of the 29th
Industrial Waste Conference. Purdue University, pp. 410-419
(1974).
93. Labine, R.A., "Unusual Refinery Unit Produces Phenol- Free
Wastewater", Chemical Engineering, 66, 17, 114 (1959).
94. Lanouette, K. H., "Heavy Metals Removal," Chemical Engineering,
October 17, 1977.
95. Lanyon, R. Lue-Hing, C. "Reduction of Wastes Discharged from
Steel Mills in Metropolitan Chicago through local ordinance
enforcement", Presented at the U.S. EPA SYmposium on Iron and
Steel Pollution abatement Technology for 1981, October 1981.
265
-------
96. Lawson, C.T., Hovious, J.C., "Realistic Performance Criteria for
Activated Carbon Treatment of Wastewater from the Manufacturer of
Organic Chemicals and Plastics", Union Carbide Corp., Feb. 14,
1977.
97. Laufhuette, D., "Hydrogen Sulfide/Ammonia Removal From Coke Oven
Gas", I^ronmaking Proceedings, The Metallurgical Society of
A.I.M.E.. Atlantic City, 33., pp. 142-155 (1974).
98. Linsky, B., Littlepage, J., Johannes, A., Nekooi, R. and
Lincoln, P., "Dry Coke Quenching, Air Pollution and Energy: a
Status Report", Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association,
25 (9), pp. 918-924 (September, 1975TT
99. Lisanti, A.F., "Ultrafiltration Oil Reclamation Process," Iron
and Steel Engineer, (March, 1977).
100. Ludberg, James E., and Nicks, Donald G., "Phenols and Thiocyanate
Removed from Coke Plant Effluents", Water and Sewage Worksf 116,
pp. 10-13 (November, 1969).
101. Makridakas, S., Wheelwright, S., "Interactive Forecasting,
Holden-Day Inc., San Francisco, Cal., 1978.
102. Maloy, J., "Developments in Cokemaking Plant", Proceedings of_
Coke in Ironmaking Conference, Iron and Steel Institute, London,
pp. 89-97 (December, 1969).
103. Marting, D.G. and Balch, G.E., "Charging Preheated Coal to Coke
Ovens", Blast Furnace and Steel Plant, p. 326 (May, 1970).
104. Maruyama, T. et al., "Metal Removed by Physical and Chemical
Treatment Process," Journal WPCF, Volume 47, No. 5, (May, 1975).
105. McBride, T.J. and Taylor, D.M., "Joint Municipal-Industrial
Wastewater Treatment Based on Pilot Plant Studies," Proceedings
of the 28th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, pp.
832-840 (1973T
106. McKee, J.E. and Wolfe, H.W., "Water Quality Criteria", Second
Edition, State Water Quality Control Board, Sacramento,
California, Publication No. 3-A.
107. McManus, G.J., "Mini Mill Approaches Continuous Steelmaking",
Iron Age, 211 (16), pp. 62-63 (April 19, 1973).
108. McManus, G.J., "One-Step Steelmaking Takes Another Step Toward
Reality", Iron Age, p. 41 (May 10, 1973).
109. McManus, G.J., "U.S. Examines Soviet Dry Coke Quenching", Iron
Age, pp. 47-48 (May 31, 1973).
26G
-------
110. McMichael, Francis C., Maruhnich, Edward D., and Samples, William
R., "Recycle Water Quality From a Blast Furnace", Journal of the
Water Pollution Control Federation, £3, pp. 595-603 (19?"lT7
111. McMorris, C.E., "Inland's Experience in Reducing Cyanides and
Phenols in the Plant Water Outfall", Blast Furnace and Steel
Plant, pp. 43-47 (January, 1968).
112. McMorris, C.E., "Inland's Preheat - Pipeline Charged Coke Oven
Battery", Ironmaking Proceedings^ The Metallurgical Society of
A.I.M.E.. Toronto, pp. 330-338 (1975).
113. Medwith, B.W., Lefei Hoce, J.F., "Single-stage Biological
Treatment of Coke Plant Wastewaters with a Hybrid Suspended
Growth-fixed firm Reactor", presented at the 36th Purdue
Industrial Waste Conference, May 1981.
114. Minor, P.S., "Organic Chemical Industry's Waste Waters"
Environmental Science and Technology, § (7), pp. 620-625 (July,
1974).
115. "More Pollution Control", Iron Age, 217 (22), p. 11 (May 31,
1976).
116. Muller, J.M. and Coventry, F.L., "Disposal of Coke Plant Waste in
the Sanitary Water System," Blast Furnace and Steel Plant, pp.
400-406 (May, 1968).
117. Nasco, A.C. and Schroeder, J.W., "A New Method of Treating Coke
Plant Waste Waters", Ironmaking Proceedings, The Metallurgical
Society of A.I.M.E., Atlantic City. 33, pp. 121-141 (1974).
118. Nemec, F.A., "How Much Environmental Protection -What Should Be
The Federal Role?", Iron and Steel Engineer, 53 (10), pp. 35-37
(October, 1976).
119. Negmeth, R.L., Wxsniewski, L.D., "Minimizing Recycled Water
Slowdown from Blast Furnace Gas Cleaning Systems", presented at
the U.S. EPA Symposium on Iron and Steel Pollution Abatement
Technology for 1981, October 1981.
120, Nilles, P.E. and Dauby, P.H., "Control of the OBM/Q-BOP Process",
Iron and Steel Engineer, pp. 42-47 (March, 1976).
121. Osantowski, R., Geinpolos, A., Rollinger, G. "Physical/Chemical
Treatment of Coke Plant Wastewater", U.S. EPA 600/S2-ED-107
April 1981.
122. Patterson, J.W., et al, "Heavy Metal Treatment via Carbonate
Precipitation," 30th Ind. Wastes Conf., Purdue Univ., pg. 132
(May, 1975).
267
-------
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131 .
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
Patton, R.S., "Hooded Coke Quenching System For Air Quality
Control", Ironmakinq Proceedings, The Metallurgical Society of.
A.I.M.E. . Atlantic City, 33., pp. 209-219 (1974).
Pearce, A.S. and Punt, S.E., "Biological Treatment of Liquid
Toxic Wastes-Part 1", Effluent and Water Treatment Journal. 15,
pp. 32-39 (January, 1975T
Pearce, A.S. and Punt, S.E., "Biological Treatment of Liquid
Toxic Wastes-Conclusion," Effluent and Water Treatment Journal,
15, pp. 87-95 (February, 1975).
Pearce, J., "Q-BOP Facility Planning and Economics," Iron and
Steel Engineer, pp. 27-37 (March, 1976).
Pearce, J., "Q-BOP Steelmaking Developments,
Engineer, pp. 29-38 (February, 1975).
Iron and Steel
Pengidore, D.A., "Application of Deep Bed Filtration to Improve
Slab Caster Recirculated Spray Water", Iron and Steel Engineer,
52. (7), pp. 42-45 (July, 1975).
Perry, J.H., Chemical Engineering Handbook, 4th edition.
"Pollution Control at Inland, A Long, Hard, and Costly Climb", 33_
Magazine, Tj (6), pp. 80-81 (June, 1974).
Potter, N.M. and Hunt, J.W., "The Biological Treatment of Coke
Oven Effluents", Air and Water Pollution in the Iron and Steel
Industry, Special Report No^ 61, pp. 207-218 (1958).
Price, J.G., Berg, T.A. and Stratman, J., "Coke Oven Pushing
Emissions Control and Continuous Wet Coke Quenching," Ironmaking
Proceedings, The Metallurgical Society of A.I.M.E.T Atlantic
City. 33. pp. 220-232 (1974).
"Process Design Manual for Carbon
Technology Transfer, (October, 1973).
Adsorption," U.S. EPA
Raef, S.F., Characklis, W.G., Kessick, M.A. ami Ward, O.H., "Fate
of Cyanide and Related Compounds in Industrial Waste Treatment",
Proceedings of the 29th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue
University, pp. 832-840 (1974).
Research on Dry Type Cooling Towers for Thermal Electric
Generation - Part I, Environmental Protection Agency,
16130EE511/70.
Rexnord, Inc., Environmental Research Center", Treatment of Steel
Plant Wastewaters to BATEA levels using Mobile Treatment Units",
prepared for U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, June 26,1979.
268
-------
136.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
Rizzo, J.L., "Granular Carbon for Wastewater Treatment," Water
and Sewage Works, Volume 118, pp. 238-240, (April, 1971).
Rosfjord, R.E., Trattner, R.E. and Cheremisinoff, P.N., "Phenols
- A Water Pollution Control Assessment,"Water and Sewage Works,
123 (3), pp. 96-99 (March, 1976).
Rouse, J.V., "Removal of Heavy Metals from Industrial Effluents,"
Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division.., V 102, No.
EE5, (October, 1976).
Savage, E.S., "Deep-Bed Filtration of Steel Mill
Date of publication unknown.
Effluents."
Scott, Murray C., Sulfex (TM) - "A New Process Technology for the
Removal of Heavy Metals from Waste Streams - Presented at the
1977 Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, (May, 1977).
Scott, M.C., "Sulfide Process Removes Metals, Produces Disposable
Sludge,"Industrial Wastes - Pgs. 34-39, (July- August, 1979).
Skubak, J., NewfeJd, R.D., "A Mass Balance Model for Rinsewater
in 'a Continuous Strip Halogen Electrolytic Tinning Operation for
use in Evaluting Wastewater Treatment and Recovery Alternatives",
presented at the U.S. EPA Symposium on Iron and Steel Pollution
Abatement Technology for 1981, October 1981.
144. Smith, John M., Masse, A.N., Feige, W.A. and Kamphake, L.J.,
"Nitrogen Removal From Municipal Waste Water by Columnar
Denitrification", Environmental Science and Technology, 6, p.
260 (March 3, 1972T
145. "Coke in the Iron and Steel Industry New Methods in Conventional
Processes" Steel Times, 193, pp. 551-556 (October 21, 1966).
146. Sugeno, T., Shimokawa, K. and Tsuruoka, K., "Nuclear Steelmaking
in Japan", Iron and Steel Engineer, 53 (11), pp. 40- 47
(November, 1976).
147; Symons, C.R., "Treatment of Cold Mill Wastewater by Ultra-High
Rate Filtration," ."ournal of the Water Pollution Control
Federation. (November, 1971).
148. Technical and Economic Evaluation of Cooling Systems Slowdown
Control Technologies, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, EPA-660/2-73-026.
149. Terril, M.E., Neufeld, R.D., "Investigation of Reverse Osmosis
for the Treatment of Recycled Blast-Furnace scrubber Water",
presented at the U.S. EPA Symposium ib Iron and Steel Pollution
Abatement Technology for 1981, October 1981.
A
1
269
-------
150. Traubert, P.M., "Weirton Steel Div. - Brown's Island Coke Plant",
Iron and Steel Engineer, 5_4 (1 ), pp. 61-64 (January, 1977).
151. U.S. Department of the Interior, "The Cost of Clean Water",
Volume III - Industrial Wastes, Profile No. K
152. United States Steel, The Making, Shaping, and Treating of_ Steel,
Harold E. McGannon ed., Harlicek and Hill, Pittsburgh, 9th
Edition, (1971).
«
153. Voelker, F.C., Jr., "A Contemporary Survey of Coke-Oven Air
Emissions Abatement", Iron and Steel Engineer, pp. 57-64
(February, 1975).
154. Voice, E.W. and Ridigion, J.M., "Changes In Ironmaking Technology
In Relation To the Availability of Coking Coals", Ironmaking and
Steelmakinq (Quarterly), pp. 2-7 (1974).
155. Wahl, J.R., Hayes, T.C., et al, "Ultra:iltration For Today's Oily
Wastewaters: A Survey of Current Ultrafiltration Systems."
Presented at the 34th Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference.
(May, 1979).
156. Wagener, D., "Characteristics of High - Capacity Coke Ovens",
Iron and Steel Engineer, pp. 35-41 (October, 1974).
157. Wallace, De Yarman, "Blast Furnace Gas Washer Water Recycle
System," Iron and Steel Engineer Yearbook, pp. 231-235 (1970).
158. "Waste Water Treatment Facility at U.S. Steel's Fairfield Works",
Iron and Steel Engineer, p. 65 (June, 1976). ,
159. "Weirton Steel Gets It All Together at New Coke Plant on Brown's I
Island," 33 Magazine, 11 (1), pp. 27-30 (January, 1973).
160. Wilson, L.W., Bucchianeri, B.A., Tracy, K.D., "Assessment of the
Biological Treatment of coke-Plant Wastewaters with addition of
Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC)", presented at the US.S EPA
Symposium on Iron and Steel Pollution Abatement Technology for
1/81, October 1981.
161. Woodson, R.D., "Cooling Towers," Scientific American. 224(5).
70-78, (May, 1971).
162. Woodson, R.D., "Cooling Alternatives for Power Plants," paper
presented to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, (November
30, 1972).
163. "World-Wide Oxygen Steelmaking Capacity - 1974", Iron and Steel
Engineer, p. 90 (April, 1975).
164. "Worldwide Oxygen Steelmaking Capacity - 1975", Iroj-i and Steel
Engineer, p. 89 (April, 1976).
27 C.
-------
165. "World Steel Statistics - 1975",
57-58 (August, 1976).
Iron and Steel Engineer pp.
166. Zabban, Walter and Jewett, H.W., "The Treatment of Fluoride
Wastes," Engineering Bu1 letin of Purdue University, Proceedings
of the 22nd Industrial Waste Conference, 196?, p. 706.
167. Zahka, Pinto, S.D., Abcor, Inc. Ultrafiltration of Cleaner Baths
Using Abcor Tuoular Membranes.
"M
V
y^
-'I
^3
-------
VOLUME I
APPENDIX A
STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY AND DATA ANALYSIS
Introduction
Statistical Methodology
This section1 provides an overview of the statistical methodology used
by the Agency to develop effluent limitations for the steel industry.
The methodology consists essentially of determining long term average
pollutant discharges expected fro® well designed and operated
treatment systems, and multiplying these long term averages by
variability factors designed to allow for random fluctuations in
treatment system performance. The resulting products yield daily
maximum and 30-day average concentrations for each pollutant. The
daily maximum and 30-day average concentrations were then multipled by
an appropriate conversion factor and the respective treatment system
model effluent flow rate to determine mass limitations. A general
description of the methods employed to derive long term averages,
variability factors, and the resulting concentrations follows. The
development of the model treatment system flow rates are presented in
each subcategory report.
Determination of Long Term Average
For each wastewater treatment facility, an average pollutant
concentration was calculated from the daily observations. The median
of the plant averages for a pollutant was then used as the long term
average for the industry. The long term average was determined for
each pollutant to be limited and used to obtain the corresponding
limitations for that pollutant.
The long term average (LTA) is defined as the expected discharge
concentration (in mg/1) of a pollutant from a well designed,
maintained, and operated treatment system. The long-term average is
not a limitation, but rather a design value which the treatment system
should be designed to attain over the long term.
Determination of Variability Factors
Fluctuations in the pollutant concentrations discharged occur at well
designed and properly operated treatment systems. These fluctuations
may reflect temporary imbalances in the treatment systes caused by
fluctuations in flow, raw waste load of a particular pollutant,
chemical feed, mixing flows within tanks, or a variety of other
factors.
273
Preceding page blank
-------
Allowance for the day-to-day variability in the concentration of a
pollutant discharged from a well designed and operated treatment
system is accounted for in the standards by the use of a "variability
factor." Under certain assumptions discussed below, application of a
variability factor allows the calculation of an upper bound for the
concentration of a particular pollutant. On the average a specified
percent of the randomly observed daily values from treatment systems
discharging this pollutant at a known mean concentration would be
expected to fall below this bound. The 99th percentile for the daily
maximum value is a commonly used and accepted level in the steel and
other industrial categories. Also, this percentile has been chosen to
provide a balance between appropriate considerations of day-to-day
variation in a properly operating plant and the necessity to insure
that a plant is operating properly.
The derivation of the variability factor for plants with more than 10
but less than 100 observations is based upon the assumption that the
daily pollutant concentrations follow a lognormal distribution. This
assumption is supported by plots of the empirical distribution
function of observed concentrations for various pollutants (Figures
A-l to A-4). The plots of these data on lognormal probability paper
approximated straight lines as would be expected of data that is
lognormally distributed. It is also assumed that monitoring at a
given plant was conducted responsibly and in such a way that resulting
measurements can be considered independent and amenable to standard
statistical procedures. A final assumption is that treatment
facilities and monitoring techniques had remained substantially
constant throughout the monitoring period.
The daily maximum variability factor is estimated by the equation
(derived in Appendix XII-A1 of the Development Document for
Electroplating Pretreatment Standards, EPA 440/1-79/003, August,
1979),
In (VF) * Z(Sigma) - .5(Sigma)z (1)
where
VF is the variability factor
Z is 2.33, which is the 99th percentile for the standard normal
distribution, and
Sigma is the standard deviation of the natural logarithm of the
concentrations.
For plants with 100 or more observations for a pollutant, there are
enough data to use nonparametric statistics to calculate the daily
maximum variability factor. For these cases, the variability factor
was calculated by dividing the empirical 99th percentile by the
pollutant average. The empirical 99th percentile is that observation
whose percentile is nearest 0.99.
274
-------
The estimated single-day variability factor for each pollutant
discharged from a well designed and operated plant was calculated in
the following manner:
1. For each plant with 10 or more but less than TOO observations,
Sigma was calculated according to the standard statistical
formula14and was then substituted into Equation (1) to find the
VF.
2. For those plants with over 100 observations, the VF was estimated
directly by dividing the 99th percentile of the observed sample
values by their average.
3. The medir.n of the plant variability factors was then calculated
for each pollutant.
The variability factor for the average of a random sample of 30 daily
observations about the mean value of a pollutant discharged from a
well designed and operated treatment system was obtained by use of the
Central Limit Theorem. This theorem states that the average of a
sufficiently large sample of independent and identically distributed
observations from any of a large class of population distributions
will be approximately normally distributed. This approximation
improves as the size of the sample, n, increases. It is generally
accepted that a sample size of 25 or 30 is sufficient for the normal
distribution to adequately approximate the distribution of the sample
average. For many populations, sample sizes as small as 10 to 15 are
sufficient.
The 30-day average variability factor, VF*, allows the calculation of
an upper bound for the concentration of a particular pollutant. Under
the same assumptions stated above, it would be expected that 95
percent of the randomly observed 30-day average values from a
treatment system discharging the pollutant at a known mean
concentration will fall below this bound. Thus, a well operated plant
would be expected, on the average, to incur approximately one
violation of the 30-day average limitation during a 20 month period.
The 95th percentile was chosen in a manner analogous to that explained
previously in the discussion of the daily variability factor.
»ME(xi - x)*/(n-l )]»'*
where
x_i is the In of observation i
x is the average of observations
n is the number of observations
275
-------
The 30-day average variability factor was estimated by the following
equation (based on the Central Limit Theorem and previous
assumptions),
(VF*> « 1.0 * 7. (S*/A) (2)
where
VF* is the 30-day average variability factor;
Z is 1.64, which is the 95th percentile of the standard normal
distribution;
S* is the estimated standard deviation of the 30-day averages,
obtained by dividing the estimated standard deviation of the
daily pollutant concentrations by the square root of 30;
and,
A is the average pollutant concentration.
In the case of biological treatment of cokemaking wastewaters, the
Agency determined that , the general assumption of statistical
independence between successive observations, which is a basis "of the
general formula, is not valid. The other assumptions underlying the
application of the Central Limits Theorem valid. An analysis of the
data for the biological treatment system at Plant 0868A indicated that
sample measurements made over a number of succesive days are not
independent. As a result, the Agency modified its method for
calculating the 30-day average concentrations to account for this
correlation. It should bo noted that the Agency did not find
correlations of any significance between successive sample
measurements made at physical-chemical treatment systems used to treat
other steel industry wastewaters.
The application of the Central Limit Theorem to the effluent data from
biological treatment of cokemaking wastewaters remains valid. Thus,
the variability factors, VF*, for the 30-day average concentrations
are calculated using equation (2) above. However, to account for the
statistical dependence of the effluent data, the correlation
(Covariance) terms are included in the calculation of the standard
deviation of the 30-day averages, S*, as shown in Table A-51.
The effect of the dependency of the effluent data is to increase the
standard deviation, and, thus, increase the 30-day average
concentrations. The 30-day average concentration bases for total
suspended solids, ammonia-N and total cyanide for the BAT (biological)
limitations and NSPS for the cokemaking subcategory were calculated on
this basis. The phenols (4AAP) concentration was determined using the
original method since the Agency determined that the dependency of the
effluent data for phenols (4AAP) are not significant.
276
-------
Determination of Limitations
Daily maximum and 30-day average concentrations (L and L*,
respectively) were calculated for each pollutant from the long term
average (LTA), the daily variability factor (VF), and the 30-day
average variability factor (VF*) for that polluant by the following
equations:
L - VF X LTA (3)
L* « VF* x LTA (4)
The above concentrations were multiplied by the effluent flow
(gal/ton) developed for each treatment subcategory and an appropriate
conversion factor to obtain mass limitations and standards in units of
kg/1,000 kg of product.
The daily maximum limitation calculated for each pollutant is a value
which is not to be exceeded on any one day by a plant discharging that
pollutant. The 30-day average maximum limitation is a value which is
not to be exceeded by the average of up to 30 consecutive single-day
observations for the regulated pollutant. Long term data analyses are
presented in Tables A-2 through A-50.
Analysis of Data From Filtration and Clarification Treatment Systems
The observations used to derive daily maximum and 30-day average con-
centrations include both long term data obtained from the D-DCPs and \
agency requests, and short term data obtained through sampling visits.
Engineering judgment15 was used to delete 'some data from the long term
data sets analyzed;. Generally those data deleted indicate possible
upsets, lack of proper operation of treatment facilities, or bypasses.
These values typically could be considered effluent violations under
the NPDES permit system. The number of observations deleted for each
pollutant is identified in Tables A-9 to A-50. Table A-l presents a
key to the long-term data summaries for all plants included in the
analyses. A discussion of the analyses for filtration and for
clarification treatment systems follows.
Filtration Treatment System
Table A-2 presents average concentrations and variability factors for
total suspended solids for those plants1* with long term effluent data
for filtration treatment systems. Detailed descriptive statistics for
all relevant pollutants sampled at these plants are presented in
15The Agency's justification for using engineering judgment to delete
values from monitoring data sets was upheld in U.S. Steel Corp. v.
Train, 556 F.2d 822 (7th Cir. 1977).
16Plant 920N was not included in this long term data analysis. Visits
to this plant by EPA personnel have demonstrated that the treatment
system was not properly operated. j
277
-------
Tables A-9 to A-18. The median of the long term averages is
multiplied by the apporpriate median variability factor to obtain the
daily maximum and 30-day average concentrations for TSS as presented
in Table A-2. Table A-3 presents, in a similar manner, averages,
variability factors and daily maximum and 30-day average con-
centations for oil and grease.
The average concentrations for five toxic metals (chromium, copper,
lead, nickel and zinc) calculated from long and short term data are
presented with the respective medians in Table A-4. Variability
factors, presented in Table A-5, were calculated for those plants
having long term toxic metals data. The median daily maximum
variability factors for the metals range "from 2.0 to 4.5 and the
30-day variability factor for all of the toxic metals is 1.2. These
values are similar to those obtained for TSS and oil and grease, in
which case the daily maximum variability factors are 3.9 and 4.2 for
TSS, and oil and grease, respectively; and the 30-day average
variability factor is 1.3 for both pollutants. Since these
variability factors were calculated from a larger data base, the
Agency decided to use the average of these to represent the
variability of the toxic metals. Therefore, variability factors of
4.0 and 1.3 were used to obtain the daily maximum and 30-day average
concentrations, respectively. The results are presented in Table A-5.
The daily maximum and 30-day average concentrations were rounded up to
0.3 and 0.1 mg/1, respectively, for all toxic metals except zinc. For
zinc the daily maximum and 30-day average concentrations were rounded
to 0.45 and 0.15 mg/1, respectively. These values were used to
calculate the toxic metals mass limitations for filtration systems,
where applicable.
Clarification/Sedimentation Treatment System
Tables A-6 and A-7 present the average concentrations of long term
data, the variability factors and the calculations used to derive the
daily maximum and 30-day average concentrations for TSS and oil and
grease, respectively. The long term effluent data and the resultant
concentrations apply to clarifacation/sedimentation wastewater
treatment systems. Detailed descriptive statistics of these plants
are presented in Tables A-18 to A-37 and A-50. For Plants 0112,
0684F, and 0684H, long term data were provided for several parallel
treatment systems in one central treatment facility. In these
situations the data from the clarifier providing the best treatment
were used.
Screening and verification data were used to calculate the average
concentrations for toxic metals removal by clarification treatment
systems treating wastewaters from carbon steel operations. These |
average concentrations are presented in Table A-8. Variability ]
factors of 3.0 and 1.2 were used to calculate the daily maximum and ]
30-day average concentrations (shown in Table A-8), respectively, for j
all the metals. The above variability factors were based upon: j
270
-------
1. the variability factors for TSS and oil and grease in Tables A-6
and A-7; and,
2. the variability factors17 derived from toxic metals discharged
from clarification treatment systems in .the electroplating
category.
The daily maximum and 30-day average concentrations were rounded to
0.3 and 0.1 mg/1, respectively for chromium, copper, and zinc, and
0.45 and 0.2 mg/i for nickel, and 0.30 and 0.15 mg/1 for lead. These
concentrations were used to establish the toxic metals mass
limitations for all forming and finishing operations, with the
exception of combination acid pickling and salt bath descaling
operations.
For combination acid pickling and salt bath descaling operations, both
of which process speciality steels, the Agency relied on long term
effluent data from a clarification treatment facility located at Plant
0060B. This treatment facility treated wastewaters from both of these
specialty steel operations. The descriptive statistical data are
presented in Table A-34. The daily maximum and the 30-day average
concentrations used to establish the mass effluent limitations for
chromium are 1.0 mg/1 and 0.4 mg/1, respectively; and for nickel 0.7
mg/1 and 0.3 mg/1, respectively.
17Daily maximum variability factors presented in the "Development
Document for Electro- plating Pretreatment Standards"; are: Cu - 3.2,
Cr - 3.9, Ni - 2.9, Zn - 3.0, Pb - 2.9.
279
-------
TABLE A-l
KEY TO LONG-TERM DATA SUMMARIES
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
Table No.
A-9
A-10
A-ll
A-U
A-l 3
A-14
A-l 5
A-16
A-l 7
A-18
A-19
A-20
A-21
A-22
A-23
A-24
t 25
,.-26
A-27
A-28
A-29
A-30
A-31
A-32
A-33
A-34
A-35
A-36
A-37
A-38
A-39
A-40
A-41
A-42
A-43
A-44
A-45
A-46
A-47
A-48
A-49
A-50
Reference Code
0112B-SA
0112C-011
0112C-122
0112C-334
OU2C-617
OU2I-5A
0384A-JE
0384A-4L
0684H-EF
06B4F-4I
0112-5B
0112A-5A
0112H-5A
0320-5A
0384A-5E
0384A-5F
0584A-5F
0584B-5F
0684F-5B
0684F-5E
0684H-5C
0856N-5B
0860B
0920C->A
0060B
0060B
0860B
0584E
0856D
08603
0012A-5F
0060A
0868A
0684 F
0684 F
0060
0060
0060
06)2
0612
0612
0948C
Subcategory
Treatment
Hoi Fonsing
Hoi Forming
Hot Forming
Hoi Forming
Hoi Forming
Pickling/Al. Cleaning
Cent. Casting
Conl. Casting
Pipe & Tube
Hoi Forming
Ironmaking
Sintering
Comb. Acid Pickling
Hot Forming
Ironmaking
Steelmaking (BOF)
Hot Forming
Hot Forming
Ironmaking
Ironmaking
Ironmaking
Hot Forming
Ironmaking
Cold Rolling
Comb. Acid Pickling
Comb. Acid Pickling
Forming & Finishing
Mile. Finishing Operations
Forming & Finishing
Ironmaking
CokemaUing
Cokemaking
Cokemaking
Cokemaking
Cold Rolling
Sintering
Sintering
Sintering
Steelmaking - EAF
Sleelmaking - EAF
Steelmaking - EAF
Misc. Finishing Operations
Filtration
Filtration
Filtration
Filtration
Filtration
Filtration
Filtration
Filtration
Filtration
Lagoons/Filtration
Polymer/Clarifier
Thickener
C1arifier/Lagoons
Lagoona
Thickener
Thickener/Clarifier
Settling Basin
Lagoons
Clarifier
Clarifier
Clarifier
Settling Basin
Clarifier
Clarifier
Lirae/Lagoons
Lioe/Clarifier
Chem. Addition/Clarifiers
Chem. Addition/Clarifiers
Chem. Addition/Clarifiers
A. Chlorination/Filtration
Single-Stage Biological
Single-stage Biological
2-Slage Biological
Phys-Chem (Carbon Columns)
Cat Flotation
Filtration (Pilot)
Lime/Clarifier (Pilot)
Lime/Clar/Filter (Pilot)
Filter (Pilot)
Hydroxide/Clarifier (Pilot)
Lime/Filter (Pilot)
Chem. Addition/Clarifierfc
2CO
-------
TABLE A-2
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
FILTRATION SYSTEMS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Plata
0112C-33A
0112I-5A
0112C-617
0684H-EF
OI12C-01I
0112B-5A
0384A-4L
0112C-122
0384A-3E
0684F-4I
Average (pg/1)
2.3
3.6
4.8
6.0
8.9
10.6
10.8
13.3
17.4
22.2
Variability Factor*
rage Maxioua*
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
Median Value* 9.8 1.3
30-Day Average Concentration Baei* • (9.8 mg/1) (1.3) • 12.7 ng/l
Daily MaxiouB Concentration Ba«it • (9.8 ag/1) (3.9) " 38.2 ag/1
Note: For the purpoae* of developing effluent limitation* and itandarda,
the following value* were uaed for total *u*pended tolid*.
Average -15 «g/l
Maxima* - 40 og/l
* For plant* with »ore than 100 observational
99th Percentile
Daily Variability Factor •
Average
281
6.8
8.9
5.4
5.3
3.5
2.3
3.0
4.0
2.5
3.7
3.9
-------
TABU A-3
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
FILTRATION SYSTEMS
Oil. AND CIEASE
Plant
0112B-SA
0112C-334
0112C-617
0112C-122
0684H-EF
0112C-OI1
0384A-4L
Average (•>/!)
1.1
1.3
1.3
2.0
3.4
6.7
6.7
Variability Pactora
raee Maxinua*
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.2
2.9
5.3
4.5
5.3
3.8
5.1
3.4
Median Value* 2.0 1.3
30-Day Avtt«|« Concentration Kati* • (2.0 •»/!) (1.3) » 2.6 •»/!
Daily Haxi«m Conccntratioa B««i* • (2.0 aj/l) (4.5) • 9.0 •»/!
4.5
Not*: A atxiaua valu* of 10 •»/! haa been u»«d to develop
effluent liatitatioa* and atandardi for oil and greaae.
* For planta with more than 100 obaervatiooat
99th Percentile
Daily Variability Factor •
Average
2C2
-------
TABLE A-4
DATA ANALYSIS
FILTRATION SYSTEMS
RECgLATED METALLIC POLLUTANTS
PUnt
A. Chroaiu*
OI12I-5A
0684 F-41
0684H
0584E
0496
0612
MEDIAN
NIB her of
ple Pointi
61
II
3
3
3
3
Average
(mg/1)
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
B. Copper
0584F
0684 F-41
0684H
0612
0496
0112I-5A
08688
MEDIAN
3
11
3
3
3
60
3
0.015
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.05
O.OS
0.25
•-.03
C. U«d
0684P-4I
0684H
0496
01121
0612
0868B
MEDIAN
11
3
3
3
3
3
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.18
0.32
0.06
-------
TABLE A-4
DATA ANALYSIS
PILTKATION SYSTEMS
RCGDLATCD METALLIC POLLOUURS
PACE 2
ef
0684 H
0612
0496
OU2I-5A
0684F-*I
3
3
3
27
11
MEDIAN
0.02
0.025
O.C4
0.07
0.09
O.Oi
E. line
06&4H
OSME
0496
0112I-5A
0612
0684 P
0868B
3
3
3
>8
3
43
3
MEDIAN
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.10
0.12
0.39
1.6
0.10
2S4
-------
TA»t* A-5
DERIVATION Of VARIABILITY FACTORS AlfO PROPOSED LIMITS
FILTRATION SYSTEMS
REGULATED MBTALLIC POLLUTANTS
Parameter
A. Qiromivam
0112I-SA
0684F-*I
MEDIAN
B. Copper
0112I-5A
0684 f-4 1
MEDIAN
C.
0684 F-* I
ibility Fcetor*
No. of
Staple Point*
61
a
60
tl
n
27
11
58
45
Averai
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Variability Factor*
t* MaitiwJ*
2.9
3.6
3.3
5.1
2.7
3.9
2.0
3.3
5.6
4.5
3.0
4.2
D. Nicktl
0112I-5A
06S4F-4I
MEDIAN
E. Zinc
01..T-5A
U684P-4I
VDIAN
Hotct n** for «ll regulated cietal*
A»«r*gc Variability Factor • 1.3
Kaxiamai Variability Factor • 4.0
1.2
3.6
285
\
-------
TABLE A-)
DERIVATION OF V AS LABILITY FACTORS AMD PROPOSED LIMIT*
flLTXATIOtt SYSTEMS
REGULATED METALLIC fOLLutAXTS
PACE 2
Derivation ef Concentration Value*
A. ChroeniB*
30-Day Average Concentration B**(*
Daily Maxima Concentration Batii
B. Copper
}0-D*jr Average Concentration B*»i*
Daily MaxiauB Concentration Baiii
C. Lead
30-Day Average Concentration Bail*
Daily KaiiauB Concentration Baat*
D Nickel
30-Day Average Concentration Baila
Daily KaxiiiuB Concentration Baaia
(O.OJK1.J, • 0.0*
(0.03X4.0) • 0.12
(0.03)U.3) • 0.0*
(C.03X4.0) • O.U
<0.06)(!.3) • O.OC
(0.06X4.0) - 0.24
(0.04XJ.3) . O.OJ
(0.04X4.0) - 0.16
C. Zinc
30-Day Average Concentration Batia
Daily KaxiBua Concentration Be«ti
(0.10X1.3)
(0.10)(4.0>
0.13
" 0.40
Hotel For th« purpoae* of developing effluent limitation*
and *Candarda, the following value* were uaed for all •••tali except tinci
* • 0.10 •«/!
Maxiaua - 0.30 ag/1
For line, the following valuci have been oaedl
Average » 0.15 »R/1
H«xiauB » 0.4) ag/l
All concentraticm value* «re in mgjl.
1
•J
".**
-------
TABLE A-6
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
CLARIFICATION/SEDIMENTATION SYSTEMS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Nuaber
of
SMkpie
Pointa
853
102
291
49
24
151
97
74
24
380
98
195
101
383
101
17
175
528
Average Variability
(mt/l) Average
5.2 1.1
8.9 1.1
9.9 1.3
11.7
14.5
15.8
16.1
19.0
23.1
24.5
24.6
25.0
25.4
26.7
32.1
33.1
35.7
45.5
.2
.2
.2
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.2
.2
.2
.2
.0
Factor*
Maximum*
2.3
2.3
4.0
3.2
5.3
2.3
2.8
5.4
2.5
2.4
2.3
3.1
1.8
2.5
3.2
3.4
2.5
3.6
Plant
0584E
08608
0112-5B
0112H-5A
0060B
0320-5A
0384A-5F
0684R-5C
0060B
0684F-5B
0584B-5F
0920G-5A
0584A-5F
0384A-5E
0856N-5B
0856D
0112A-SA
0684F-5E
Median Value* 23.8 1.2
30-Day Average Concentration Baaia • (23.8 •*/!) (1.2) - 28.6 mg/1
Daily Maxi*u» Concentration Baaia • (23.8 »g/l) (2.7) • 64.3 mg/1
2.7
Note: For the purpoaea of developing effluent Imitation* and standards,
the following valuea were used for total suspended solids:
Average • 30 ng/1
Ma*i»ia • 70 »g/l
*: For plants vith aiore than 100 observation*:
Daily Variability Factor - 99th Perctntile
' * Average
287
-------
TABLE A-7
CLARIFICATION/OIL SKIMMING SYSTEMS
OIL AND GREASE
Plant
0320-5A
0584 E
0684F-5E
OS56D
0860B
OS84A-SF
0856N-5B
0584B-5F
MEDIAN VALUES
Ifisiber of
Staple Point«
35
853
5
17
260
98
103
58
Average
(ng/1)
0.1
1.6
2.8
4.0
4.8
5.9
7.0
8.4
4.4
Variability Factors
rage Maximum*
1.2
1.2
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.2
1.2
4.0
3.7
"2.3
1.7
3.3
6.7
2.0
2.9
3.1
30-Day Average Concentration Baaia "(4.4 mg/l)(1.2). • 5.3 ng/1
Daily Maxima*. Concentration Basia " (4.4 ng/l)(3.1) • i3.6 mg/1
Rote: For the purpoaea of developing effluent limitations and standards,
the following valuea were used for oil and grease:
Average • 10 mg/1
Maxiaim • 30 »g/1
* For plants with more than 100 observations:
99th Percentile
Average
Daily Variability Factor -
238
-------
TABLE A-8
DATA ANALYSIS
CLARIFICATION/SEDIMENTATION SYSTEMS
REGULATE' METALLIC POLLUTANTS
Plant
A. Chromium
0856D
0948C
NN-2
04 76 A
0528
0584E
0948C
0396A
0920E
0424-01
MEDIAN
Subeategory
Forming & Finishing Wastes
Pickling
Galvanizing
Pickling
Pickling
Finishing Wastes
Finishing Wastes
Pickling
Galvanizing
Pickling
30-Day Average Concentration Basis • (0.04 mg/1)(1.2)
Daily Maximum Concentration Basis - (0.04 rag/l)(3.0)
B. Copper
0948C
0476A
OS28
0920E
0424-01
0396A
MEDIAN
Pickling
Pickling
Pickling
Galvanizing
Pickling
Pickling
30-Day Average Concentration Basis • (0.04 mg/l)(1.2)
Daily Maximum Concentration Basis " (0.04 mg/l)(3.0)
C. Lead
0856D
0948C
04 76 A
0528
0396A
0920E
MEDIAN
Forming & Finishing Wastes
Pickling
Pickling
Pickling
Pickling
Galvanizing
30-Day Average Concentration Basis
Daily Maximum Concentration Basis
(0.10 mg/l)(1.2)
(0.10 mg/l)(3.0)
Number of
Sample Points
17
3
3
3
3
853
236
3
3
3
0.05 rng/1
0.12 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
0.12 mg/1
17
3
3
3
3
3
0.12 mg/1
0.30 mg/1
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.08
0.27
1.32
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.08
0.17
0.04
0.02
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.57
0.60
0.10
289
L .
-------
TABLE A-8
DATA ANALYSIS
CLARIFICATION/SEDIMENTATION SYSTEMS
REGULATED METALLIC POLLUTANTS
PAGE 2
Number of Average
Plant Subeategory Sample Point* «y/l
D. Nickel
0948C Pickling 3 0.03
0476A Pickling . 3 0.03
0528 Pickling 3 0.03
0396A Pickling 3 0.27
0424-01 Pickling 3 2.50
0920E Galvanizing 3 2.90
MEDIAN 0.15
30-Day Average Concentration Baai* • (0.15 mg/l)(1.2) • 0.18 mg/1
Daily Maxima Concentration Bacii • (0.15 ag/l)(3.0) • 0.45 mg/l
E. Zinc
0528 Pickling 3 0.02
0424-01 Pickling 3 0.035
0584E Finishing Waate* 853 0.04
0476A Pickling 3 0.05
0948C Finishing Wastes 236 0.05
0948C Pickling 3 0.07
0856D Forming & Finishing Wastes 17 0.13
0396A Pickling 3 0.24
0920E Galvanizing 3 6.7
MEDIAN 0.05
30-Day Average Concentration Basis • (0.05 mg/DO.2) • 0.06 og/1
Daily Maxinum Concentration Basis • (0.05 mg/l)(3.0) • 0.15 mg/l
Note: For the purposes of developing effluent limitations and standards,
the following values were used:
For chromium, copper and zinc:
Average • 0.10 og/1
Maximum - 0.30 mg/1
For nickel:
Average " 0.20 mg/1
Maximum • 0.60 mg/1
For lead:
Average "0.15 mg/1
Maximum • 0.45 mg/1
290
„.-- x-
r
-------
x <•
— . c
f, <
s :
O>
w? «•»
>o
o
M
«
II
CO
PI
«M
O
g
M
V
s
o
C b
O O
•H C u
3.2 S
c e
"* O
< B •-
IA U *J
I O •
m ht b
— o .-
o a u.
i-> 3 b
On « H
b
U
•Q > u
U .- >>
^3 t3 >•* 4^
« -o io '—.
•V b "» ••<
C «) •-< XI
« -D b •
*J C « -^
• « > b
X X jr x
4J t-« 4J •-*
C *H C •-«
O « O «
X Q z a
o
CL.
B TIi, tr.
to tn > >
291
-------
w
xl
Ml
*"*l
s
<
i
l-r ". -.
>| en in
O in
V • •
ml r» *o
> k*
^ V
v «
B J3
A 0
O
U"t ^1
-H (M
x^ *->
t, -o -^ ^*
« U JO •<-<
•0 « « J3
C T? -H «
« C fc- —^
u eg to tj
« *j > tt
x" x"
« x a x
0 ^ Q ^
o a o a
«n o >
292
-------
x3
r«
n «
k>
I
»T «N
•»
o
I
I
a.
o
§
.7 o t«
p*l • •
>l •* m
II s
M
e
SB
1 O
U to.
CM
— O
0 Si
•4 ••
X
fc*
a
V
4J
gj
•"• 3
CU t/>
e
o
•
*j
•*4
b*
•*
*4
IB
^
U
JB
0
^^
^
•^
^
•I
tl
•a
^
g
5
U
O
0
r*
v
1
g
•*•
W
I
T»
^
c
^
U
o
1
o
~
GO
g
•**
^2
"O
^>
^
c
a
"
^
^—
*
Q
-
| ^
OQ
4J
U
X
A*
^
v
U
x
«
o
s
1
3*
>
hi
o
J
X
_-J
JO
U
«
X
U
a
-
>
5
c
X
S
o
B**
^
«
c
ex
U
o
U.
"
«
293
-------
f.
o o
a
s
I
:
SI ". 1
<^ «M
V > X
T3 « u >%
•O -H
c -a — ID
« C U-H
4J as (3 b
o
8
c
a
£.
u
V
u
o
j:
u
• H
3
e -o
-------
?
«""•
,§
is
•n «
I
of -
a
3
1
IT •• •"
BUl • •
>1 »A «*
II
II
.51 •: i
XI O O
5
O
8
3 E I>
I O «
4 O U O
AJ >p4 U 4J
« U • U
.£ • IU •
> -H IH
V > X
•D —I •-
U « « U
tt U > «
" >. *
« X « >,
o a o a
fi O t*i O
a
U
O
295
-------
U •H
•O
g§
JO A
o o
41 T) »> 4J X
«4 13 **4 4J
(I T) r-. .-.
•O b T3 .*4 **
• TJ « CO .0
P I- -O .- O
o « e u —
.r4 4J r a bl
> X " X
: ?^5-
^> O B o r
o f> Q c-< a
JO
o
c
«
JC
o
Iv
» ^^ 6 *o
I 1-1 B T». (V
'•-» to in > >
296
-------
K
xS
•
I
<
u
I
•
5
S
<
§
B
*K
•-4
•f*
•0
o
M
AJ
Tirt
.
«
o
to? Ox
„• "*
v —en
— . 3 U O OT
(u CO H . 0. H
V
t~<
• •4
u V
C 00
v a
U b
H
£
AJ
O»
01
1
£*
•*
«
g
•^
"I 5
^^ H
-^^ ^
^* O
•o
g
• ~«
^ S ° fe S
•*< O *J o X
A> .^ O *J *J
• «J « 0
•C — • «•" « V
4J « °> X O
«l -D 41 " X g
.-« -0 — u
•1 p4 .£
• -0 » « J» J
C C 73 -4 a
O • C h .rf •
• H *J « (t hi 4J
« " • > > S
> X X -.
t. a x a x o-
a> o -- o p-t
• 1 "4 1 .M U
.0 o a o a o
O ("^ O f*i O b
<*1
•^ U CO > > «
297
-------
rf 2 2
»f -: -:
w
M
52
i l
a
o
Ml *»
II
II
to i—
o > • >
*• >• XX
W • « X «• X
« • Q — Q —
^: A l .ft i .H
co o a o «
«o> -"="°
•— "* m~tn > >
298
-------
EPA-440/1-82-024 Vol.1 pt.2
MAR 3 1
O I-
-I o
a
in O
•« • •
oil "> •*
II
i!
o o
• •
—. O
CI O O
XI « -
gb
C O b
• * O 4J O
*•* -M u *J
u
.« a it* «
^J > .^ U-
V 41 > >.
w "D ftl " >v
o
8
co a. v
" «
C u
a x>
— 3
e t> — «
• C V. —
u a K b
O) *J > «
^ « c/) > >
299
U.S. Environmental Protection
Region 5, Library
60604-3590'
-------
ff/IR 3 f
M
o
g
_-_
— . 3 V.
0. « H
o> -«
ta —
H o
o "c o
B « e
1 >> —
•< u N
£
o
300
-------
r:1 »"''-'> If'"''Vv '*
i84
r> ff
hi
8 «** CM c* w »*
>[ « J J J J
g
CM O
o S «
odd
vc
d
CM
§
MAR "^ 1 IQRH
I ' *~ T ' *, * * ' •
CO',;,-Li-Vi '- c'••'!".•'','
75
< M
H IN
M • •a
l\c
3* I
>| sr w> o
•-" > O O «"> O O
S <
<
9
a
••«
K O>
« O vO
X •* 0 <"> .» 0
> « O 0 O c"l 0
•-« X -*
•«4
M
O
~* O CM CM
c o o 0 0
144
Oo -~
ua rl
• O *^
O 4) **4 4 '> < Q
O *-* u ^ •** **^
*J 41 01 41 > X
41 —« ^- -O u *J >N
mm n u J3 •*«
Sec *o « « jo
0 O C T) "- B9
.*.-,.* •> c u —
*J 4J 4J U >
«
4J
800 «
c w
X^ ft)
• u u
•r* C
w a o
g .u
B ffg .
« — ._ u
«> «-i N «0
V U ** u
4J V hi •-- U
C 00 «l T) £ •
w a u — •-
U U « o (0 *O
p «l J 0 C
£ < 2 « 'S ?
<0 LI •*•
•** * 8 c P
u a 8 o c
0» h, 0 0
c o
• H ^ U AJ
• e $25
T5 O O w
t«* *M B rM fil
> S JH ^
O
~ f • • U
« ft) "4 O
§11 OO.C •"
j: T) P
•HMD «
*J f* fi
• tl 0 . 0
> u B —
hi e e S "
H • W « »-»
f , 0
O ^ M —
« tl >
g.. ,, .j
^ * « e ,u
01 *J B B
e -O .-, £ £
f 41 «M tU O.
*J W M
V 41 « CO
V > J= W
(i *j ^^ Q
O« «i ti.
a c £ u z
O u u
f .- .- C C
• ^ • u
> > -o -u
U «J ftO 41
0 OJ *J C *-»
*j n « -^ »-•
C «O C M 3
« O •- .-4 «
^- ecu
a o « « w
« *j >
K- 41 C •-• 13
O -C O «B C
t*. H U 00 BJ
•• •*
* t
301
L. .
-------
i;
Cl 10
u
I
a s
a I
<«7 o^
K| .
n\ CM
xl tr
•I! 5
a
<*
c
tf jj
in *
CM 1
— o
O Kl
•« ••
Li
O
M
ft»
u «
• J^
CM US
X
*«
0
1
o
"l
*u
o
u
X
*»4
*2
^
u
•a
x
Q
O
1 "^
DM
O
o
e
«
u
O
0
X
*S
c
.— •
a.
o
CM
*
302
L. ..
-------
P.
r»
<
a S
in
o
o
o
o
21 2
0
vO
o
o
i
o
§
8 S
CM 4J u
O CO P
O "
«• C
V V
« -O
*+ a
fi. W
OT
12
.* C w O
« °vi a u
V ^ **4 4 IM •
W V > »^ .( ,
U U t> > X
V tl 73 «l U X
"S U TJ ^ — •"
•O T3 U 73 -*4 ^^
(0 u .O —I
• « *O « a J*
G C C T3 —4 «
O O 0} C U *r4
> > X X
v. u » x • x
u v o — a —
« a i .*4 i ..<
4* -o o « o as
O O CO Q c*l Q
c
7L
303
-------
*.§
j
en
a -
N <
SI
•o c
— o
o O
< CO
|T\ « •*•*
O« N CM
•a • • •
u| in O O
r^
II =
«y *T n
IN - -
o
o
o
o
4J 0)
.2 "ti
«l TJ
g§
u CO U
e u «
r^ 3 Wl
b CO H
•v K a £>
c "a •* n
m c u •"
•3 X tg X
O *^ PJ *•*
o'a o's
e
JC
S
o
c
c.
o
h.
en b
H w
— cs e.
304
-------
5*
in" •«
o
o
I
<
10
z
X
I
o
-» O «M
•p • • •
OT[ f- O CM
I,«
00 —1
O
. O «->
K
«J ON O
XI o c
I d. o
o o
O "
to c
01 U
c u
<0 -D
•- 3
B. (O
b
V
B
.0
O
g
C
«
£
4J
u
b
O
1. -0 .* ~> U
9 U JS •*•< '^
•D « "0 J3 >
C T> T4 «
• C k. .J «
4J O 0) W. U
"," ^" «
«j x « >s a
s
U
•a
o
B.
305
-------
I
a 2
X
OS
ir\
«M
•II
o
rn
.0
o
§
1 O m
oo
n
tu « «
x o
u >. a
•o nj w .a
c -o .H «
« C W >*4
o «
M C
V V
X >. M
« >, O >, CL
o ~ es -i
| ._ | ._! k,
o « o « o
>
306
-------
•»
, t
>. c
ail co
—I IA
•O ON
3 5
a §
M
o
c
<
§
'«
c
X
>
I
s?
o
§
5"<
h
U. jJ u
u-( 9 C
I S u
< — J«
~* w u
QO V •*
cn u -c
O en H
O C O b «
•« O u O jC
«J .r« U 4J U
B 1-1 «) U
«'> x1*" o
•Q Q; «J X B
TJ .H u
T3 *-4 -H X
t. «o — ^« *J
•O «J « J3 >
C T3 "^ «
tg c b — •
u a a w u
•> u > « e
O -" C —
I .* I .* Vi
c a o a o
ci o o o u.
307
-------
of J
3
3
sr o»
2 « ,n
>o
o
O —
•» o
Ifc"
>
M
C
b. B
m C
t a
< u.
s u
in o
o x
•• ••
>s
t*
s,
V
U «
C u
OJ .0
— « 3
O. M
C
• *4
«
«
A
M
C
• •4
4J
«
CO
„
u
c
0*
£
•-4
•a
ti
«j
«
*4
V
•0
«
•
•
w
c
«
3
O
a.
«
b
u
•a
CO ^«
CO •*«
H 0
g
•f4
fcl
>
h
V
•>
£i
O
^
s^
CO
•
g
41
•
">
«
T3
•o
u
«
1
4>
•
X
<•
o
1
o
ro
[
CO
c
o
44
<•
*>
4*
•o
^3
U
•1
•o
c
«
u
*
X
«
o
I T
(O
w
o
*J
u
«
IM
X
4J
•*4
v^
•3
•*4
b>
«
>
X
*
o
1
o
M
f
3b
>
U
o
4J
U
V
*M
>>
4J
• >4
" <
«
M
5
^
X
• pi
ig
a
3 •«
Ui
>
O
§
C
«
JB
u
•1
u
£
*J
>F4
«t
•
W
C
JJ
a.
u
o
h.
«
308
-------
iy
«n
2
§
oi?
it
O
o
II 2
c
•
X
n. a
iTt C 0)
t O C
IO It, O
u a u
c v «
« .2 u
f-i 3 b
o. en 1-1
M •->
M -H
H 0
C C O K
• * O U O
4J >.* O *>
a u (9 u
.^ n «« «
V -D ^ •-» •
•O U *O "^ '
ca M ^ •
•> -o a «
c c •*> •*
o « c k. •
a >, a x a.
O ^- Q —
I .H I .^ V*
o a o B -o
— e •&• i*<
—r U (A > >
309
-------
X C
?:
o «
I
Ol «
to
>•
a
CO
I
X
i
'I
«
xl
3
o
3
°l
C O u
o « o
U. B —
SB t.
O «
vO V. —
O I-" O
X
I.
O **
M C
0* V
«'> x1**
^3 t) *• X
73 -f** &J
T3 *-«.-•
V. -O .-. —
•O « « 'jD
C 13 •" •
« C I. —
XX "
« x «e x ft
•?••:?= u
o « o *» o
n ci o C (^
~ B -^ U.
%^ (/!«>>
310
-------
I
o> CM
o o
8
8
O
-* IN CM •»
-. •» O
>o -^ r^ •* o O
o o o> o » o
~» ft -O O O O
s
o
0
04
o
0
g
o
CO
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
•o
C I-
k> •» «
in j< —
CO O •
«o i« ^4
o « o
o «
M C
V U
u H
• a
£
u
•x b •-• f-i
§u «l O
5. JH C
£ O ••< £
o o z C
311
-------
I
-
•a . .
«af o r»
o
•
o
8
00
8
CO
— o
tv.
W O
• •
.-. 5 X
I « _4 -O —
I 73 fc. ^ --*
2" s
* P «
^ M «-•
O I- O
tec
V V
g^ s
-131-
0. 00 (-.
•o « « jj
C -D — <•
• > • >
> W X >,
i- «.' a x « x
•> • a H- a -«
2U3 I — I •«
O O «J O «
O «^i C «n Q
O
U.
« n *> —•
312
-------
• CM C4 *O C4 O
>l J J — ~ J
n? ri
• O O O
s
10
•s
ZT -? -
>l m <«
CO O 3 «o
IN p
el o -« o 5 «
xl — o o o o
o
c"i
§b
COM
• •4 O *J O
in '.* -H
I •> o
oo c
V V
it m a
CUM
O
H
n it a
.M -O " -^
8— o
c c c
e • « o
I 5- £ i
41 r-i ** ^4
•-> V tl V
•I ^3 -O •V
•O
o
g
o
JC
SC C C C T3 ••- «
O O O « C W -•
U3 ^1 JO A
o o o o
O — O f
s s s s
o
b.
«^ ^^ <^ *«r (AC/3
313
-------
s
?r«i •* f* ft
....
-.„_,.
O> 8 O
« • • .
m O O O
<0 r» O -•
• • * *
— CM O O
m
>J
«C
S 5
i «<
a 2
3 1
u
I
*
*•*
£
»•
2
<
i
j
M
i
"5
o
, - 0 S -
51 ...»
| r« 1- O O
o •
O 9B 09
S.C
« tt
- 3 fl
J8
o
s
§ R S -
— 5^0
« — X
t- o t>
I .^ u
"S u »"> x"" 5
UK T> • u X •
« — -O — »"
MO ^ — — JC
•5"° i "2 3 ^ —
EC C T) — »
O • C w —• •
*4 n • *4 ^ V C
> > X ™ X ""
h U « X « X Ck
« • o •« a —
J3 jO O 0 O « O
^^ m m > >
314
t ffl mill ii iiimiMLDf ULL i _T i TflflMlfhMifii_i
-------
r . .
d d d
a
s
o
•»
~ d
co r —
O — »M
3 •«
d d
<« I"
d d
c| o i^ o o —
xl — -» d d d
e u
•* V
Jt —.
I
8b
c ° S
>* O 4J O
.-. • <*i a
'I 5."
O
s
» II •
o e
t> o
au
e
ti «
u B
u « £
C y «
• .0 •
—.- .e
'iO — •-
c
«
f-t
0.
O • O O
> u.
> >
315
-------
.
«of •»
Tl «•>
«T ~
*A
*+
32
j
S 5
i S
9 i
2 1
7
M
B
*i-
I Qf **
O V b
C*4 w* •
ON 0 —
0 O O
>v
u
£c
• «
*j a
w « u
c " «
<• A «
-. 3 b
B. U> H
•
• H
:
p-«
c
<
§
'K
•
x
>
fprf
•H4
•
O
II ^ i&
U b
£l
£
««
o>
-1 ° °"
XI •
21 £
K'
>
•*
i
.51 ° -
x| r« « j
^« b
5 s
V^ JB
*X. °
» 0
«4 O
ft • I "•
0 5
* O m c b e
£«> 0 e O b •
M »- 5 «J o je
*~ «J «4 O ** **
• <-> « u
•^ • %• • •
> >«4 «« b
« > >• O
•0 • w X •
•O •*• «J
W •• — £
b V *** ** ^
n b J3 -*• -^
•0 • « * >
S*3 -^ •
C w" •
w • « b w
• u > « C
• > •
>% >% *-•
<• >* 9 >* Q*
O " 0 -»
M 1 ••* t ••* b
C O • O « O
* r> O n O •>
w
a
^ S VxZC0
o. H > «
316
rnvtmr
-------
«
n*
5
X C
i:
o
d
a
s
I
o
s
M
C
•p o
col — o o
O O
CM N0
ci «n o o
.»!•..
X « O O
6C
o
•s &
3 J
•B '* *-.
o ja *
8 B.a
o u ->
&c
« •>
w <• fi
C u •
• £ v
— 3k-
o. cn H
• -
S "I
f O
ti en
O -x
•*~
• V
• CO
«
§ C b
- ^g2 g
*^ W .«• U M
M « w « u
« "> x""
JS
o
§
C
«
jr
w -a •»• •« w
—• ^-~
B "
8 j<
• c -o — •
u « C k- *-*
3 w • a u
— • u > •
u H T»
o B T*U :>•
317
- -mmul. 'iiW
.' /
-------
•
•H
5
I
<"•» n
O O
-.OO
en
•» Z
o «
S i
s I
I
u
'£
•o
'u i>
< V
S'-Z
•^
•r. U
" 1
SG
to — *^
O ^ *»
S 8-9
O O _J
O u
00 C
e o
« J3
fa
o. «
•»
o
in
II a
O —«
K| •
«
•o
c
u
«
o
u
o
u
>v
w
—
«
h
>
X
«
o
1
o
0
u
u
>»
"
«
«
^
X
fll
o
o
1
c
f
V
o
•c
'!
«
c
J^,
a
o
d.
• es O 0 Tfc, U.
'•*-> Z W W > >
318
-------
J
•I
2 »
?> «
U
*
•*«
?
**
]
M
4
>
"5
c
s
••4
*M
Addition, Clari
•
u
s~|
see
Plant i
Subc*t*|oryl
Treatment i
|
Kl . m n <- u
« «o . • o
X — o o — u
• u
« u
w • 1
•e '
3 -
2 ?
•r, « c w
o * <5 »o « o c o w
jt IN M r4 • *^ -^ O M O .
H Q *> .^ U W
S « w « u
•«4 • *«M « «M «
V 5 > "« >N
b V T3 *** fc*
J< ^J *^ .^
|l--* W tj "* —•
H « « U JD --4
M ^3 « « .a
m » C *o — •
>* M * C U *M
• C Ad « « U
— • *J > *
•4 ^ • >
« C — X >s
• V O *>,«>*
n H u d -- o •-«
4> U U I .#•» I «,*
CWB « T5 O • O «
« O 9 *> —• f"k Q rt O
*j **- wo
s «a 0 I- u
^ 5 u *• ^ — «
^- r-t w C ^ B -o
o •* & — ~ • ^«. u.
a>ouN " w w > >
*
•e
*
u
>
i
Tl
k
•*
m
t
ft
!
w
1)
s
o
s
^
B
•
C
M
•
W
O
•
c
bl
r»
>
C
o.
b
O
hi
•
319
-------
*n
S S 8 S 2 8 8
MTooddood
>•
•X.
a
A
>f> -j
-» o
<—
> « C b
«l O C O U
«. —. .- o *J O
O
8
C u *
• it «
•-• 3 "
O. VI f
S.
U
« c
u —
*» •»•
tl
w
o
B
—. —• c.
>» M
• C
C ««
4, o
e k
O — O ~
I .^ I ..-
O 1 O ••
r> O <^> O
B -o
B •<&*• Ib
to wi > >
o
u.
320
-------
Sff
I
CO * O g
*^ -^ O O
tnf —dod
O
o
•o -a f oo
o
o
tM
m
o
o
ng
pick
I
X
o:
•
1
§
G
*£
q
jC
,^
«
_
«
'£
u
g
*^
<
•
u
c
u
a
4
V
t-
tl • 0
> m •
0*
X • P4
CO 00 •
X eo *r»
.5 *^ **!
X 1*- W
o •
• o
«J
^
«
*J 4»
c C
« O
u
3 Wl
—i W •-•
O (A •«•
CU H O
•*4
CO *j
O 0 — W
• • • V
0 O O &
o
ff
• t4
,c
•
'c
01 ^ «-l -^
rM v^ ^ *M
O O O X
£
*-»
«
3 ?
o •-
b *J
V «
9r^
go.
Z X CO
w
8U
0
b tl
••*
n
BM
-.
X -
• M
C
4J 'r*
tl >H
e g
i S|
i o ^ **
b ^ C /-.
L3 J M ^
m
•
^^
s
'M*
**.
T3
V>
I
gw
COW
•HOMO
.^ fl Urf «
> .-1 «
X " X
« X « X
0 — Q -4
1 -.4 1 ..4
o q o «
f*l CJ *^ O
6 ^
B -0». U.
in in > >
ti
£
a!
£
•J
OX
OX
1
U
>
•
•
8
•f
i.
i
9
1
«
;
c
§
c
•
j
4
<
'
1
.
*:
(
4
1
II
4
321
-------
s 5
i
s M j _• -• ^ « j
^«
«i
*» C
2*
8 5
b «o <*» r«*
£ r» N r> 8 8 8
< MI o o o d d o
« «
•o — o o o . •»
t*\ •-* •&
o — o o o S
m\ -a ~ -a ta o o
«|
h.
o •
g — fM —
i O ^" ^^ ^^
w - - - - co
• c> e « > x o
' — — -o • w X •
i V "D «^ 44
I b b ^9 *»4 *^ M
— 1
0 4
._ TJ -«
C — O
ecu
« V C
x j: ••*
U C IM
•- U <• C U .-.
u 3 u • « v.
• — • u > «
::
o o
SX w X
««• Q ^*
^« I ••* I .^
< O • O 1
c
r<4
D.
O
322
-------
cof f-
o
»w »^
S o
•g-o
0 •-"
»7 §
- «
co -.
•II
g
o
tc
0
§^s
O «
M C
tl II
" S
w « O
C V •»
V JS 3 k<
o. in H
o
H
-o ~
-H O
C! C
% f
o K
•o -o -o
•O tl V tl
Cl *-4 i-t r-«
V -O -O 13
•o
V • OB
§C C C
o o 5
« o « «
> 3 r- 5
o! v L u
0 01 « «
o o o o
1
C I-
.2 §2 S
AJ .^ U U
V u 4 u
.^ IB »*- n
V > **
•a v u >.
•O .- * >«
O ^"o ^i
S9 o a
DC-Id
o
8
*~* ^ *~* *~r m tn
32:
-------
s
a 2
«
¥
u
I
«
R
^4
m "»
|
ily Mixi»tn Analysi*
•
o
j
•
•a
°3
0
Jfl
8.2
•g"
° 8»
U M
O «
0 X--
0
• O *^ *^ *A
^ S g r.
«of 2 o o o
* —
•p • o «n r-»
i>| ••« .A ^ r*
O O*
, o m
m « o •
v in • m • • "> u e
<| — M O N C «•
« •
u u
t ;
&. <
0 f
• o •
•^ O ^ • 9*
K in . — o
<» in «o o
X |
•S . . 2
• O«M^«0«n Cb e
ft r-i — w» .^ «kl U
•0 _« Ij X •
•o — > •-< j:
T> • • jo 'a
e -o — «
• C u .« •
44 a a u w
oj " « ^ 5 •
•S X X M
4 • x « x o.
>«
324
i^5iMw -' - -
-------
0 8
£
*
*^4
m m
t-> >•
I I
z
t < 5
i < B
"* P •"
a 2 |
2s
B S
i • •
S °
•
u
o o
0<3
W ••«
U IB
•a «
o c*
80* 4*
t •
OIQIN
»••*••
w>
f s
C u «
• J3 tl
_i 3 b
0. M H
• CMf^CMCMOCMO
. d ~ •*. s. *! °. °
in™ •« « o O o CM o
*e>e m>o co o x> • • o o o
«][ <" — CM O -<
-H «
l-V CM O « O —
ui o r- o . . . —
>|«O***OfnO w
<^r-rMO — «— c
ti
• u
TJ b
« tl
U O.
O
e £
«j
tfi • O*
— ^ o o o • e\
X 0 ^ • «M • • • —
£OCMf»«O
n — — o — «^ -< b i
t*
JB
w fc
O 9
« <
IA l>4 1
i- .«- • *• «
tl tl > — X <
«l 41 O -0 •> kJ X
• 10 • b *
O. O C 4J -0 • « J3
O. — O C C -D .- «
^* O.^ •*JU*J«l«b*
t-rt O.U >«C«4^>«
u »tija tib^xx -
— O V b Q. u«l MXltX
BH C X Q. J3 »J — Q — Q —
4J «^s^ tlO. O JO *-• 1 •- » 1 .^4 1
C 1 »^-^». O w B *O
OMBX^Vu^ -«CMO B "***• *•*
B.H>>«
i
!
i
:
:
1
•
M
b
•1
>
<
b
»
)
4
4
•
fr
!
I
3
9
=
|
^
V
>
s
5 -
•4
' t
i !
"• 1
- 1
' f
i
1
'
325
-------
o o
*4 O
m
f
c
o
.0
-S g
-V
e T
V *—'
•tj — 03 .
Suf . . ^
>| m « —
»T = =
o
-»
8
•f & f3
O O «**
S
•O O
ou
O "
00 C
V V
* «
A V
3 *-
tf j H
*J
c
c
3
^-«
o
&.
«
§
V
•o
'c
o
o
c
V
K
CO
en
H
X
44
O
•
2
^*
S
I
c
O C O b
— .,, O " O
M
B
*J • «« ^ fei
« u « o
•* n «*- «
> .- <«
v > x
•O V w X
•o « «
C -0 —
• c w
x >,
It X «
>
U
V
2
O
8
o
JK
M
'»
32G
-------
8 2
m
M
12
00 O O • f» O • 10 O • O
t4O O O f^ O »rt O •" O *** ^* O
•I • «tOO~*OOOOO*»OO
4 o ^*
i!~°ggd§ddSSdes
> C -* «A
i O O f* ^ . »*• _ <«W> *O
—I •
«-• *J
e o
o O u
&*»
e
v
"
«
u
J5
- D
to
" H
4J « £1
c u •
•S 15
•C 8
O b
S 3
U ^4 »M
£ -•
V
•g.
o
o j:
^ *j tj u
a* JZ ••* —•
O Q. 8C 3t
* <• I f
•* Z C4 -*
327
-------
III
T_ - -a * «
- J - - -
i § 1 8 8
»T c5
s ° 8
v\ !•**•*
<*! A O O O O
« o
r«. —« \ r\ **
XI CM — — O O
XI O 0000
JC
u
o
i
WJ
»-»
in
S
<
g
r^
f 5
< u
!-•
«
O
VI
u*
*
«
o
4J
c
V
«
V
H
Ifrf
0 J5
•0
o
f.
w
C
«
A.
"o
a.
vj 4 r- r»
« S
« u *
AJ • H
• " X
^ • j:
• £ u
£ U «
u £ O
JT S* L.
^ « —
-. *>. J= V
x £ u e
J= «J • V
w O U 3
.5 .8 S o
a a H »-
»*.
S
iloroethyte
.*•
u
••«
u
H
T»
V
4J
«f
^|
•o
I
•
>
u
«
•
J3
O
-
c
•I*
tl
w
•
d
8
«
.!
44
:entra
g
u
l«t
<
u
o
z
^
T>
in
I
e
o
• •4
4
>
4)
t3
•O
u
•
T3
C
0
11
X
«
O
1
o
<*>
in
u
§0
«
44 •
^ X
tl *J
"O *••
•o •"-
ki J3
• •
^O .-4
C >•
«> >
•
X
X «
— o
• •• 1
» o
O <-i
B Tb.
u> >
14
O
u
X
u
A
•
8
>
X
«
O
V
>
£
o
S
*"*
c
«
j:
V
x:
4>
"5
«
c
«
a.
w
o
ik
*
328
-------
I
Si
. c
p
*~ _.»<*< o o o <*>
oriooooooo
«0
«f — — ddddddo
ti|_r>_o — OOO —
i
>J «| •
«
Q
C| OOOOOOOOO
o
f.
° s - «
c;
•
-0
fi
o ^
• TJ
• a>
V
— t
§ c
e
s
-J
*> c • > >-
•& c -*
O U) tk.
X
u
O '
||:
a. m i
I
_ I
W *^ « ft» b
CS — ^. £ J=
I- O U K U
I
j< 10 o
.0 — i —. i .
o < o «o
«-l £1 t*x
tn ce > >.
\
.
'i
-------
1
s
a 2
I t>
p «
s ^-.^.SPJ^SSS
7 •> 1*1 to w O ••* O O O
car «^o**oooooo
«
CO
• tn«oo-*oooo
cat 4««OOO
<|SN — dddddd
*
oo — «no>n
Kl.O --"^CMO
O
CIOO • O — O O O O
£l^~ — dddddd
o
••4 _
a. • o
O CM_«M»<«Mevi«M
I*
«
•
§
•
e
I
c
O C O U
•-• C u O
c
«l V
u R
«j • a
c u «
« i t>
f 3 h
O. « H
O -o
._
•0 b
S
••*••• x
O u. u
13 1-1 — —
— O B «l
c c C j< -o o
• « t. u • c
£ 6 Z JS N
8
XI —. —
<• ^> >
mono h.
in u> > >
330
-------
is
en *
tri
O %
w
O
M
«t
C 3
« .0
eu M
x*.
s
••«
O-
^
H
•
**
f*
IN
U
c
X
O 0 . O O 0 •
-••" — odd ^
jj
j^
O
IM
0 •
.0
• o
•
•
5
(•4 Of »*4 IM «**
V M
.« e
« "^
id «
.a
•• »
*
fi
w w
e c
v •
n ^
• —
V —
M O
H 0-
U • •
ij rj « S
•^ -^ •>« .*•
>• k- — C •
o r e 8
Ift — 3 ti ti LI
« — — X- f .C
t-.Ou.uEo
•
S
*•
*
«•
<
V
c
X
tf\
^
o
c
•^
m
I
B
O
.;
*
"D
IM
^
C
•
^
_
c
1 .
o
-
S
«r«
>
TJ
O
U
^
c
•
*
^
**
o
«
U
O
w
C!
^
_^
12
*
>
x
o
1
o
1
«V5"
o
2
*M
£
£
«
w
«
*
^
^M
2
1 ^3
>
•**
W
«
>
h
«
£
a
S
c
m
f.
w
«
^
II
£
.
c
*
o.
la
O
-
*
331
-------
i
a 2
si rf 2 2 3 2 2 2
O M
U
$ t* S O O O —
«T o o o o o o
% - - - -
•n . . . ~i i . CO
«f •» •- O O O O CM
5jl|mO>fMONO •
•irt >l • • • • • • f»
s*
9
o o
JC|-*»0O OO«*
C -O •" 1
m G f ••• m
W * « U w
• U > • C
• > «
o « o
c-i o c-i
O B T*.T».
Z «n w > >
332
-------
fi
— .»<•> o
Of -
O -"
d o
8 S
o o
; i
C '~
b 4J
9 O
I
§
*«*
K
«
H
"V o -a o «n
•b[ • » • •
>!««•»»>«
C S •*
O O —
doc
o o
H . —•
•In •
JC m O
'I!
o
o
O
d
O
o
O
d
i
b.'
>
«
s
-*-
*J
«
>
W
*
S
o
8
2 -:
* i
«> «n
o >^
^.
• r>
• in
v
— i
S c t. c
O C O b •
~ .* 5 u o j=
^«. U *«4 U W *A
•c * *j n u
• --. « <*• « «
> .- — u
C «. > >. O
— -o « u x c
Sx
— o
** 41
-
S
« x • >» a.
O — Q —
I —• I — U
o o o « o
n o *n o u.
BTU.^'
n u> > >
333
-------
r
•« C*4 <*t «^
I
•e o — o o o o
n'ddddodd
i/M r?
— o
• '1-4
M O.
C —
•- • u
J< *>
a*
— *. a
*£> LI ~4
o
II
to
<0
o
d
o
d
O CM
d d
CO
CN
d
-I!
o
d
o —
d d
2
o
§
0 C 0 W
— O "
o
*• u *-*
*> * u
«* > >. o
•o u u >» a
TJ irl." j:
B 1. ^> — —
n u > • c
xx —
• x « x a.
a — o —
i ._ i ._ b
o « o « o
<^ o n o bi
-------
£1
O —«
o o o — o — o
O O O O O ~ O
00
c
s 1
i
S
u
J
O
V
. B
U. 1
u
o • —
oo u a
-T " V
e>
o o ff« «*>
r» O — O
>O O CO CO
O O tT* NO O CO O
d d d — d oo d
_. eo
M 04
> O -» O O
) O — O •"!
d d -« •» d — d
o o o
o o S o o o o
o o d — o — d
O
o
•o
in
o
8
• u
c o
C w >, O
•o •_- -; a
TI •- — £
— u tr> C
>> jr — i
O U < O O.
M _•
.s;
•o •> o
e -o •-•
«s c k-
« v
• ^
o •
o
O 01 . . . ..
*<§ S2SS£
— «~< B Tl U. U.
^^ ^ to cn > >
335
-------
TABLE A-51
STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE 30-DAY AVERAGES
S* " [ Var (Jn)]l/2
where, Var (Xn) «
n-1
[ n + 2 £ (n-k) rk ]
N-1
(Xj - *) (Xj + k - *) / (N-k)
336
-------
FIGURE A-1
LOG-PROBABILITY PLOT
PLANT OII2C-334
FILTRATION
3U
m
'X
i
*» *
- 5
7 A
X
o •»
5 3
*" 5
z c
w
tj
X
o
u
w -» JL
O.7
/> M
O.4
01
5 1
>
/
0
vl
/
3 1
s
/
{
\
g 3
*
/
•
O 4
/
a s
/
Q C
/
J^
0 T
/
/
0 1
/
/'
0 «
/
I/"
a I
*/
/
/
O 9
/
y
fl 3
or cascavATic*3 s CCNCSM^ATICM SHOWN
(416 OBSERVATIONS)
337
-------
FIGURE A-Z
LOG-PROBABILITY PLOT
PLANT OII2C-334
FILTRATION
*
«
*
rt 9
1
9 1
i
0
3 2
/
a :
/
10 «
^
0 !
* j
_x
f
o «
/
r
0 ?
^
o «
^
O 1
^
'
3 S
y^
/
f
O 1
x
X' "*"
X"
X
X
^
i
fl »"
or cesEav»Tio»«s is COHCENTRATCM SHOWH
(714 OBSERVATIONS]
338
-------
FIGURE A-3
LOG-PROBABILITY PLOT
PLANT 0684H-5C
CLARIFIER
«n
^»zo
C
9
0
tZ in
« n
," 0
z •»
UJ 7
O c
z c
8.
3
M
H
1
xf
s
S 1
^
s~
0 I
^
^
3 a
. x
>^
*~
3 3
s
^
0 *
X"
0 !
X
0 6
A ^
X
0 TI
XI
0 8
^
X^
o a
X
S 9
X
X
0 9
X
^
i
!
i
5 9.
PEHCENT OF CSSEHVATICNS S CONCENTRATION SHOWN
(73 OBSERVATIONS)
33
-------
i JRE A-4
LOG-PROBABILITY PLOT
PLANT 0684H-5C
CLARIFIER
TO
«/•»
An
X,
F
*"* ift
* '°
o *
5 2
GC '
H- jt
Z '
>*i 4
8A
*
<
z 3
3 2
1
1
^
X
s n
.
3 I
k^
S 2
_s^
S*
D 2
^^
0 4
^
0 S
X*
0 6
X
o n
x^ *
0 8
X
0 8
X
a 9
/
0 9
i
t
1
^X"
S/r
!
1
1
3 9<
PERCENT OF CBScHVATlONS S CONCENTRATION SHOWN
(7S OBSERVATIONS)
340
-------
VOLUME I
APPENDIX B
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
3-41
-------
S31ii88ii!55S5 i ! r i
I
i
8
»•
S
8
i
i i
5 §'
M
>
O
a
*
r*
8
S2
o
*
I
- « * 2
r* o • 0< •« ^ 2i S5 «* ££ KU 4U
Preceding page Wank
-------
§2 i 5 5 ! i 5 « 2 *
1
>» 1
I \ »
*| § i
- i 5 i
4k 1 *A
i !
s i
2!
§ !
§
U
&
w
z wt
3
*.
*s,
X
8-
u u
f*
I
3
w ^
O —
— •- «
01 —
I1
. , . . SB
i O * O —an
I ? ? S 2 8?
c»
82 *
». o ^ — —
>.*• 5* U* «x S*
i o o o «
S3 2 S 2 «
22 5a ^ p 3
aar M a o o — at M
xx >** 3 o * o -* 5 -^
M*
s5
' o
V
O
-» «
i;
o
I 58
&
o
*• W -4
<* -~
^ S
ItMGIO'O SKI
UNoroKO
oio i>toimi«i
IMOO
» » « a
S -
f% rt n r 0k
•N «. « — O
S S
- p
« ». »• x I 3
* s* " S*
5 » i
55 S t ||
u * *- •- u O
3 V* O ** —
»- «D -* * 0 *
»*-««. *- V
w«. < e z « I
« <
*• M
* V
*5 -5
5 5
« &
M M
S S
VI U
ss ^r
-. -< * *
« 4 OO
3-f.
-------
I!
8 =
8 5 8
»rtftO—oobvo — o *i z <"i Z o — o r* $ 6 * 5
Q«]lr<»tAnilfniQ>->r* r» O *» O ft d O «• w •• f» £
«*u«>«-»*r<^rf»O'r » ** * »^«» — — « A o o «
§"* ~ « y < ofi wj
2 5 •* o
Bow*
* O M «
« »- «. M W X
tfi ^ a — M • a -i
M 4 M O O »- U«W
« us M* a w — x vt z A. w
2S>«zrx>
O a 2«S °— ° 2 c,
O w«J OB 5» * M * Ml «A — MZ ^«
O O O O
XX MX Z«C X •* >• *> *• *» * —tat
«3 <3 * r 3 3 •• »• •« a &. « «.
»• wi oz wz o* —- ** zz ID -
)u5ttO«o«a
— > « a » » vu
-*« MB — ar wz
w« s— u« a —
«z <• «• 3 v>
M.C)*h>-«kOik *. Q
SO •- D w O «.« •*. » OO
— O 5 O * O* Q<« -4 <
5** Q 5» a— i-— >-» *•-< »-i >•« >-3 * i
1 «M 4> B *• >5 BO. BU BZ B& -< U
V"
\
28
O O W •.
O O
34:
-------
v y
s
5
|
,_
ft.
MI
9
I
Ml
i
5
I
I
=
juS
IS
5
X,
i
8 =
3*
*2
85
on
uw
*2
I |f I
8
; 5s =5
- * ?
Z X *
5 ° s
w - -i
S !8 "8
» « a •»-
IX •'•' _••
1 19 -ix O -;
t o w > o O
3 ^ 3 u « •
2
«T
^
3
3
0
u u
- 0
S Z
5 S
* §
85 o j
!i II
z
5
3
i
2
1
22
H
M
*^
Z
z
3*
3
Mi
3?"
i
4
•>
M
i
« •
55
^
«»
3'
3
5
•
!
- 4
M «
1 I
5 =
^
1- |
HH §§
!i i|
MX Z f
•i
3
5
2
r«
S
8
tf
i
» »•
•% «rt
.* i*
55
« «
^
ft
r
s !-
*.«»«<
S 3 3
MM*
! I i
;
8 8 |S
5 u
5 I ^
?? 8 S
* * "5 * -* *•*
* * 5 g * v
**** XX j j
o o .- *. — •
S2 is 5S
3
«.
n
o
5
s
a
S
3 §8
o
8 -
28
o o - •• o z
s s s
883
346
-------
*» I M M
OM IwOM
5« i > t ••
3
5 =
3
Ik
3
3 3
X
8 =
gs
* r» - o - o^o IM o ft o o -»o
S«» O — O « •• ^| •- ^ o • O O *•* O
« * j* * o o o « -n oo o ao
w «- z p « p
»- < ^ i *. *
* X % « 5 5 * -
O .A P O — OO—t
w z ^ r op x -- >
v o * o p O MM »
>3 » 3 -» -* — OO — :
OO 3Q — — X — - Z«
•>• «*< r< j«
U —U ft O «• O — O «O XX — U O U — <.
o ^ o — a *. * w! o
* U O D > -*
to U O — «*
M COM
10 So ** ** «« "o xx S;
X W I
- O I
^ O I
o & o
O O O
34"
-------
s : i i !
1
x
1
^
z
*
*
0
S ! S
•• 1 •
at i n
8 I °.
Ml 1 *•
5 ! °.
* \
3 i f% n ••
M i O OX *•
1
n
« n
« o
0 O
8 =
^ S- 5. S-
O 10 ** O « «> «•»— O»-— !*»•-
A * n tftfr*rt M^O^O^O^
*- Zv z« I - -iv * at- ana* ac
I §§
>- >Z >- X OX -- U» 0« u>
— a. —S —• —a. 08 >> o>- —«- -* < --< --«^ zo >-o i^^ M
o g o O IB o« •> ^ es -/ e 4 a ^ K>- * * ac
»s« 4 XX «w 3 w 3 -J 3 — 3 *** < O MM MM w
— ^-«-«.«
2322 = "
o«« o o 5 w*
o ^ o o o -* i -*
-------
i i 2 8
3
3.
* - t
s. «• r
3 °. 3
» 3
.— .— .*
u
n
n
8
z
5
&
3
«
QC
O.
*• e> o *-
« 0> fl ~
» tf> «P r-
X ». ^_ — *
z
5 5 i -
«.' 3 « 5
« "• Sr Z
Z 7 Z or O
9 \ 9 « •* x 2
i o 60 z « 53
*g *X iir MW»
o *•
S S
i
« 5
S «-
2 ™S j
0 « B
r» o o
r- r- •
§
». *" °°
i« ^ X
* §§ si
-* o> ea z it
IV ^ t* «i •»
s
A
7 Z
* r
*
aj
0
S
5
tr
0
c g
a o
a at
•B •
•A O
01 *0
*- >. *-
Z
ft,
>• a. u a.
z
8 r
f. "5
§M at y
^, - v
— Ot -J w*
.
¥
W O
at
vt
"•
I
or
y> IB
-i •<
• O
wt
0
V
« r«
a v
80
•0
u
J
U4
IM -J
Irt
I
^
i/l uri
— at
5S
•< «. o
-»""*•=-"—J-
-------
8
*•
SSS I I i
i i 2 i ?
? 2 i y
8
5
I
X
*«
j
Ml
M
^
o
X
£
*"
3
w
5
2
0
o
o
I £
•»
5
*
"*
?
15
§ §
f* W
o o
-
X ff» X (0
•« a * »jt
IS 15
B« o v
j ^
w- S I
«1 w
Z Z
5 5
D 3
«/* a u> —
e O « X
§ |
> >
O O
•
X O X •
< V < 0
a. o *. —
80 I •
a» oo*
_* ^
^ - 2«
Iff Wt
z x
5 5
3./1 0
« Ml <
u
ss ;s
3
S S 3
O
-
a
•
X — n « — — «
« » - o - - *-•
a o a* •
tej x — x >• x
M ^ MM te-W «*^ X J « <
•- *- ^- 4 » •• < •- a OL
"^ J S j 3 8
3 j <3 uj o ^
m oc a z z
«>2 2S f^ f < »« « "*
!fl^ o^ Ow o2 5o zz
->3 a— ox ox «U AU UO Ikta.
n
si
5*
O -1
«»
S
8
*
o o
a <
o ••
z x
— u
S S
^
•• • Z tfl ft
O f- « ^ f»
5 rf) • n n
^ — O * rt
^
* < X X > -•
a. & — O xv
>• ^ N- <
x x * i
* & U OM
8 8 w °«
-. - 0 T « B
OB O w «A T —
US W^ >2 a*
•-. r ^x «u« otz
ox Q ai 50 56
ft 3 « 3 ft u *K
O O o ».
350
-------
1
I
§3 i S ? i g !
si .
Hi =
!l §
tUK
a
8
- 3
3-
M
?5
zS
i
-
*
55
5o
-* o
.
I
II
l/» ««
aa
^
*
o
J_, .
& S B
S S S
§- §S §5
Si I; Is
« •
5
o
-._«»«
g 8 5 5 S
8- S S 8 S
A. Z A. A. a. £
§! I is §s §«
t* x o w — at
^° Sw *"*~ ^z v **
I. II 11 3S II
u o •> «. a
8
1
5
*- O
S2
s
o
M »
S §
5 i
s s
* * -^ M
a! ss
•
•
-
^
tA
j
Z
O
u
I
>
8,
•K
2
5
ss
V X
u —
s
o
-x -
Ml •
* u
s ~
i 5
ss 51
« •- i
uZ O-
« »*
o o
351
•Hr»ii
-------
f«
a
I - *
S i o
— — o
o
o
u
n
O
o
o-
§!
a <
z *
a >•
8 =
^ W
<«
o
o
w
&
u
o
Or •
5
COBPOS*
I960
ga
O
i
w
Z Z
V •*
t*
> u
0
tat
tft
w 0
5i
a —
*
l"
tA
2*
0
««
IA
Z Z
a «
3 ^S
5° >°
•« O
— X « Z
a D
M
3 X
*- &
& D a
0 TJ
5? 53
S
(A «- «
^ Ok • -
B £
!> z
o a
S
w
*- _i a
— XV
M > O
02: *- *•
<0 Z «
0 40
«9 a *A
S
u
— z M
Z D
2 u
K 3
o r
So S
U 'J •• •-
L> *• XX
; co«P»Nir
I 17(4
z a
3
U
Z
a
z jr
c o
V
Z
Ss
*•«
—
-
-»
ES
3?.
OMFANT
t 5373
w"
o
r
-* z
* o
a: —
Z —
o
*
z
s°
0
*
0
wi O
o
u
z
o.
o a
p»
o
«r
^
z
i5
u
-*
M
g^
a -*
Z (X
uo
4 • U
O O O
352
-»*"-•
-------
i !
! 3
i B
3
o
I !
o S o
in
f*
r
JT
•>
a r*
i
w
s;
«
;*
n
S*
-£
u* v»
O -J
g
V
z n —
5 a»
— « j
»- o -* —
v* **
" o3
40 4 "
.
*• r»
5 .
u u
Ji -Z
-4 4
- •
t
St
a
0
— ot
_< <
0
>^«
s
- 0
a.
at
O
Vt 2
11
Q
•«
a
0
u
1
-
!s
«*
g
« —
M>
y*
3
Z d
o
S
-3
a.
a
u
4
r o
X »
c «
— o
tfl rft
^:
VI
0 w
4 X
z
.«
X
^2
0
a z
M ac
ft «
• •*
>
Z *•
* X
od |§
o -<
*
o
-
z
«
$
a
r — r •
z— ro —* oo or
Sxo r» rz z* *»
< *•« Cu< O— Oat *o
4 O
-^ o
It « O
o o o o o o o
'i 3
•"- • if i-linin-ilTirii- tfn
-------
8
3 « =
o
u
;• s
§•
8 2
!H
5 .
8-
* t S « «? S S *> « S S S
g" 2"
5 S >J ?5 i» i* *3 »3
o
S 2
* *i
X » O
=1 =C SS
5- o- 8" I" 5a 8* 8" ?•• =• =" S
2 2 8 S
O O *i »- •^•7*5« ZXUOM MKW<
X — «• _ •- DO 30 3- 3 << « ^
•« y *•« i« —u - -» — o " - •»« oo oo or «-.
utM M^i uu M Ow —o^ UO X«' Z^ ZOI ZH •• ^*> a« • ~ M-rf MOT MM* £> U^ •-*- »•• %^
. _ _.. _, -.- ~- a. u,
-------
2s I i r g
2 8 i g
Si?
5! -
« i 2
W t «r
£ i s
-
£ ' «
3!
*. i
- i
- s
°. *
3 3
z
S
5« SS ; 5 g s »•„_.._ *
MH V5* !j! i !;i I HI.!.! i
o o
OT V* •*
-* r -x r — •< — * — r M «
MO «*o >* > *. >» »• «.
w *w — •* —
*- •- O .O O *
v* vt O
« ir * —
i § 2 I i^ 5
*- *-r3 3 3 — o r
S«w*-p ft * ».' »« >£ •* 3 —*-
5 Ip «i «r •< - u«Q / -
MO -i tf»S IA^ ft* *-£ 5 •.
o r -
» x o
355
-------
S !
*;
S 1
X
3
Si - io - S.
U t f* O ••» ••••»•»« —
1 — X » — — -
8 =
5.
§ I ;
,8
5x r 6 — ^ ~ " ™ x * — o a M«
•, ft u — * M * at ^»wyw "* -* O
m ^ '•D ao a « oo M» « Jl * 5 * r >• O o « « 3 * — •»< IM
* »« > 5 • 4 w^ <« 3w * — * n » 5 «« CM. »-»• *- u ou or
>X * •• J - ^ — i* — — — *ny "^ -• O * t3« XM *X w> ww w 9 4 J
«w« QD QO ••£ * ™ XT «D * * O* O ^ «X O« w«« -* — WM • Q
Ox 22 6- wa. - * C£ «w -» «o MO nC M*A M*X MO wx 1¥
s s
o o o
356
-------
Ss 1 8 i i 5 y
?8!!?88!
s ,' -
8
3 3. 3
3 8 3
3
3
5
S
Si x 5
P « S : 2 82 S" "2 " t
22-- or t" r* ** o
;* »
s «»
5
8 =
* — 2 — »• » V
— — » o
• • c
O 4 0« 8 Z
*» it & ufl
V*
(2 S2 =8
•*> O O o m x. o
to —» o» o2 ••
5 S - I
5 g S
U U Jt ••
O 4 ^ • M «~ *- M O
I §5 is 12 -^ r „.- ^3 ri s
o Mo I — ^ «* * M « — -a «o *
^ •• m r
8* 5** -*X * •* 9f »•* '^ *• •*'
M O * O O T \ fl *t ** ** * *t *~ ^ '
357
HiHIBiWKMHMHBMlHiHMWBi
-^ _ _ J
r
mam
-------
S ! i ? i ?
ft*
9
m
I
5
3
w
s
•c
I
«•
2
3
M
J
3
§
u
!H
z *
I
-
^
*. »•
lr
u u
•> »-
5 s
i i
5r» « O
V 3V
— 3 •- o
U O 0 •
3 r»
z «
! u « —
— ~
I I
• • o
z ?
•- O -* 3
33 3«
3 ;
8
•• <0 o »«> n o •» 41 **
n n — o »» <0
§= :s 5 s e s 53
|° s- * " - ~- |-
3 £ z o
V> * 4 u
o *
£4TU» X •• «1
-------
8
I;
S3
8 8 B
8 8 V B
8888
II a
a
5
I":
o?
52
u —
,3 2
3 z
a 3
5 S
a 2
!H
«r
f»
o
.2
5
^
|
* *
•
ii i
o
**
-
;»
5
• K
|5
#«
n
!
5-
!
u
«n
£5
7 !
«•*
i
h
X w
< Z
3 w
IE 1
5. «
^ n
« «
3
M M»
tf Z *
£ 5i
& « a.
iS 5S
L cx>«»ORAr
•06 ;•
**
t^ ^
••
^
4
£
So
<^ O
a ^
w w
15
~ ^ M r> ft m M«^ «M
«« *• o ft ?• 5 »«o i*
S !? S " ° Z " P'- °
O O A p ~ o MCA •
• • » i « » « v aA a
5 3
- §5 i i jJ §S i Si §2
5-2 if
U . • * 31
- § 5 5 *t s 5 8
• u« — ^ Z ^ «g
fS i 88 S SS s~ ii ?3 5S
M »• *»< •* M 4 cV »ttfMW«tM>3^
C* 2i? ^^ * *• *3 ** * -* v>
• 3 * O OO — w«^ M -* ww ^ w 5 —
-3 ^^ ^.. « x , 3. S3 ^2 JM
5? .
-«C I f^
u a «
I O O
35'J
-------
i
I •
3 I
s s
IV
k»
J
I
*
-J
«
! i ? 2 i i 2
v y i i 8
3
3
3
O M
n «
O O
I I
^ o *» 5 X * * »» flk ^ r» £ *•
5 3 i ; ;
» o o o
§* *
» S „ '
r "t .2 g '.
5 • o -* « <
S5 5« 51 25 ^5 *
"if iS *X «^3 **^ ^
^ » * «
gr\ M V ^ O O * ^ * «P 5 < w«
-- -I --> -> •> ->« ->» -»-
§o « rf* »• o
r ^? js
* " 8" 8" »°
. s, z H» s | =
; ^2 ;g r? §3 a -«
- »« -8 ?J -- -I 5=
4 O « Q -• ^ -* — f -
ftX * - * -— - J- 5 ^
X O— * ^ • — -• > -*« ^ •*
* «. « «- ^ * -j
sc ?» 55 r? ;j Is
IB 06 •>• ii -> > SI
5S
-• O
u^*—*,
|ti|.|ri,
-------
2 S X
S 8 5
».»•>.
^ .^ .*
• « tt
i I i
5s i f 2
! 8 i i » i r
§i .
3
2
. -, -f
3 £ 2
8. 3 3
5. 3 5
5-:- 4 a
* * It v
u *• a o
• • u u
u
3
o O ft
§ 5 5 5
* « * «
a o * « vo *<0
3 -- ir- — — — •- — -r-v'--—
4 O *£•* a n «• ** n
-------
S ! -
*- I M
2 : ;
s i 3
— I M
.- i 5
?! I
k. I *
X
3
S
3
3
3*
3
5
o!
a
3
s !
ii
8 =
o o
s s s
88 II"
*.*»». (J •• * « M
* * * M ft ft —
* m • «» « • «*•«—* • n *» * *§-•*•«"• "•
2^ pv OM» o o - £*t ^ ^popo*-it w
o £ * £ o o •> *• ~ • • »O« * •• o - o - «** •
« o « » at rf» oftoOw 1 * •- f* « «n •• **9~ ^
3» 5* 5^ * D* » _* _• «•• _• - --« ^ O • o
..,t--§:8
M W < W ^ »-
rS l^ft "*w ¥— «— *u 50
w x — «••• * w vu
M 5 _,0 UM 3 «»«•.« • -•
(5 5?
X5 S
a -
S ri *±
I i
s I. I.
o o i •• i -< z» * ^» «*- — y» * OM — * MX — & Jt •- zx * r »• o *-o
ZZ O O C» - O •** OO OX OO 5 * * ^ ^ O * < M* •#»" «« ** w M MM
— — *$«• -* * ^5 ,« "S ^ ^ o S >». SM « O *« *. « Z « ^ * * »« Kft « ft
s s
362
-------
3 z = = = z s
|
S!
s s s
• i- rt *
•
$
Itffl II
lllCXH
— *
§!
•- z
s
—
*
* X
', .
X
«• M *-
M» -rf M «•
28 AS
iS ^^
•
|= S
S 5
= : j;
ii S3
W
S
ss
55
y:
!
W 9
st
O —
K fc
M
SI
<•
55
-•
5»
i
i
*»
O
22
52
j
5
^
O
m m
M« IM
tf»
>
32
M
J
O
z ar
O at
w
5
i:
JfX
M
•1
^ ••
- o
25
B
i
I
2 ?
« o
15
oi rot
«*
2
5
~
28
«. O X
5
0
363
-------
^
5
3
3
u
•V
!H
»-
X
•c
^
B»
X
& >•
i —
i* u
-
Z X
28
a. u
2s z
ss s
_ Ji <
8
*- O « I*
3 ?*
0 C
s
a a
•- »~ w*
O O O i
*w w Z
u o •
tft
o
•
rt
O
11
1
u
w
M (*
23
U •
< *•
•
•V
o
coot*
«
X
2§
•* 4«
.
2 S S S
s c s i
• t» »» H
«••.!.«.
55 5
I 1 \ I
?5 $5 •»" — —
•"3 f* «« xx
oo <; ^^ jj
•a mm oo »M
m
-------
8 f 5 5 2 5 i S
ii I i
o
3
So
n
•> o o
n ft r«
*9 IP *•* t+
S 2 2 r
• * o rt
S £ S
8 =
>
5
•*
•>
O O
if
53
X X
w
U
^ 4
w %
v»
4
tt >
0-
«"
§^
>• V
•M a
• «rt
5-
o
w
«5
O *
2?
«k W
§«
—
o
*
^
0«
^3
y
j*
j
M •»
»• U
Wl
4
O j
if
25
»•
V
«
1 =
W
Jf
M
•
•«
«n M
4
5S
^
z
1=
u
w
M
« *
** w»
2§
k>
2
<
a O
Sw
u
w
r*
w* «
* o
t» O
§s
|2
!
o
M M
W ^
»
«^ »«
S3
^u
5*
|
it
§2
o>.
a
£
S
<*
V
o
*"* ^
sr
*•
>
» ^
o *
-
*»
ft.
A
.A O
VO
v« o
s *.
w
(3
Z
— M
3
U
?**
fg
* J
1$
I"
5
v
w
3 ^
4
w
r
__
55
s!
*
».
z
* «•
A. 4
8
(j
•^
1—
»»
f"
II
j
',
«.. ;
— •« >
•»
o
a
S '
Z
ii !
S S
365
-------
NV
CO
SUHC
». I
3
x u ~
S !
1 =
5
8 =
*•--«* * • 9 •
" s" !""§"**
ys 'i ^ f2 Is • • * I5 I2 8s is s1
•- -< «
— °
a tj *"
! -- Q
S || S g S
w ^
S ~ °
5 2 I " S
5 ^ a ¥t o
£ 5*3 j; ^ ^
2 °t T— XM 3 ».^ •-
— « <3 c a * -• « —
<*• *O VH V° WM aK —— M< Z£ vrftt ¥^n V* ***O O*
»» *u *•. tu io -- oo !o uu ao So »•- a* »>
3C-6
-------
s
S
5 5 5 * S S
X S S * S S
i i 2 8 i i i
i
5 !
i
*•
O
3
•v »
8 =
S S
i: s: i:
I I S
u u u
! 5 ?
ix it r«i
u o *j (.1 u -J
si as 55
« «n < w» « V*
«t »• Ml »• ¥» •
2; a*; ss
2 8
55
*• v
4 *
5
8 5
j2
w
„
II
O w
• 0
» * *»
O W *"»
5 MA
VI
is £i
8 u
-4
*
52 If
OM XX
« o • a
« n
v *
O
u
f
It
0
p
V* • ••
IS i
ess
o *t n
2 5 85
Ml
< • X — Z
» y o o o
— „;
»• -
; s
"3 ;3
-« a < o
Si 5 »
-5 i »
*. u I •»
i^
367
\
-------
i m i
5 3 5
« u o
? i
4 I
§;
* «
8 =
n~**O*«tf»*OO**i'**O«*fi|f
ss °
•« * * «
jr — MM
: 8
«
5^3
i- :• ^
— M ta* 0
5 x iS • «
V
o
Mil
o
w
w
M
V*
* *
52
*- -*
«< t*
^
«
p.
3
«.
5i
!!
00
uu
J
S S !
E <
«•
-t M
*• ^ ¥1 1
« -* -* 1
k 33 :
* i :
S5 -* !
* * O O f
44 -- J 1
I S
• >
n « « » «
-1 «. OB
1 w
M
;^ t_
M W»
; r «.
«A Z M
l« ^ t
» W _* « 4
K Wt Jf ^ —
1* M O <* ^ O
{§ i; si
•• w
*<» •
— )
>
M « £
o a
M »
^ M
*
*A »
S l
- 0 -
ss ;
%
*
» j
^
*
- *.
J U
.«
^5
S
o ^
u X
vj
!
In
x <
£2
Z
o
M —
0
.4
wt
M 4
IS
u o •> » a
3f>8
-/ * V
-------
u
«
•»
*»
»•
X
i
u
* *
B£
^
S
w
M
S
M
4
J
§
y
z
5"
&
•^
X
«
a. i*
W If
X W
28
•. \J
\
1
IV* «i ttt
:;8;sss888
i —
3
3
•
5
»
M
_•
-.3
u?
* - n n
« - •> o
> 8
2 r 3
»- •<
i ? i
£ « o
88 |
w 5
•p tft t» viMn«r« i»«o •
o *
? ! « *. -
« • O M
o — •» •*
-* M U X *-
S 2 i - o St "
•• -*a*.x «M «j •- «r
* »^ i" *«• ^ «***-,
OOw * — * 3 i D » «J « * 4
*-•- •)» « O4 M* M« 5 O O X4k
«MHf •-*• * — * Z •* — M4 « ** ft O •"
X > «««* X ^ * 0 XX X* ft XX l«t
«. a z
V • « * O T •
* • » » O O O
O 0 0 A o M A
M M •» «» •»
M W O «M O W M
^ »• Z V I M k-
«J
«
**
3
•
«fc OW
& w» o * 3 ^ ^ - „
MZ •• -^ O •- «" (J •» *
xx»— t -* * o r j
O O Z-rf Z*» « -* • — « C
=^ 2S 15 ;r SIS H II
< < < •
ct « o
•• "* «
• • »
m
-------
s
3
r 8
1
1
3
.*
9
§
M»
3
I
g
=.
= a
=. 5.
3 3833
3 S
I 1 5
§c
s
. . .is
0 T ^ *
f* »* W to «•
... 8 2 I ==
3 S 5 J
< — O O S 4 "* 1
r |g °S S -S ~X iS 53 85 li |± gi gS 82 §2
s: = s;;??2
3 • « o f* a 1C a Y •* « » -• • »~ 6« »• s « .*
5 .3 -f =2
s= r- §1 s!
S m m - i +
m 5 £ ° 8 «-
•o « • - 3 --
- - ww u3 - — »S * * ~
I -- r. »! ?| °z :- si s: :
> Co —o — *5 sr— •»*« «'3 5- » —
U -? is i; vj *s is ii
5k «S £^ Cw »5 «- &x »'
n
?3 5!
!8
S 8
-------
I
s!
8
c
I
^
w
&
_i
Ml
3 !
— I
ft I
s
i 3-
3 o
S 8
o
1
*
s
V.
55
&*- s= 1
- — ;
^ •- C
<• < s
53 s: <
5 S
1
-. -5
3 « O O
li H
:: |s s
i -
rs &s *2
< u
r 5 •
? vt ^~
0 * X » •
S S 2
z
Hi It I:
-»" ^ w
• « S
SP-* r j
•« o -* o i
* — / w « «
O > O * '
». *» * 3 & • •
- Q « * » « *»
* 5 - V H 1-1 n
X
» o
i i 5 5 5 is US
I 1 2
5 £ - s i r, r.
'3 <-* « % ^ 3T — — vt « JC
nil M • — Q XX O — •««
•n « * C P * * >B f » 1 *
• * O« * « O« Vtf OM O —
s
s
s?
V *
si
371
-------
««OOM*.UX
i i i i i i i i
X I o •
I ! I ! ! I I I I I
SlOOOOOOOQO
>•>•>•
^ •* .«
* * *
I ! i
V * 1 M O O
SB > > I X
8 § 8 ! 8 5 !
3
3 i
3' = 3~ S = 2
3 3 3
S i
8!
*
(
j
4
1
i
)
1
J
i
,i
g
o
ft
*4
w
f»-
2
X +
t
c
•»*»
»
5
8 =
w w
O
O
*
V
2 J
I"
O
•»
3
X O
i-
IE »
»• *
* *
»
»- &
*
It
I!
l\
s
i
*
o
* —
>
o
*
3
X O
i-
B *••
>• r
* •
a 1 o
S « » * n » - - » o O « *>r- n
»A«d»r***> O¥» u- a O* •*
«* **«*••• u» r< ^ — »- »
» * — «- n f» o O nt|« r»*-*«»i»
O M ** « 4
» « — M •- 5 •.
o o •*».*. * »
- ^* M*, « - if >j| i Jl .- g*. o»
> > ^ u o c M
HH«.c — w 5 w •
a a x « w ^i M — • 3
*- 4 ^ M«M*»3^
54%Xfc •*-M*« O
^ J > MM 0 * « O «• «
* 4 a * ~ «< £ x MMO *- *J o
*«Z X S 22 *Bg*»-^-.\j •« * «
wo OO - * - » 0 n 5 .5 -S « « •*-* f »-M < -
«« ^ *- j« D 3 if IS o - •« * wo - - - S *n« •- -
» m + ~* o— ox — o v» — -A tt «r» —•. » wi p
XX * * *• f *• * aX ^«M «- * — Jt p -* »« * D ^ v» «#•-
— — — — ^ 3 J O — «• i*f -» m •*> «
-------
<•
«
•4
»UJ»T INVCMfOtt
WOCATICOHIft DC
•i
M
X
S
§
*•
J «
4 •*
I
%
*^
S
W U
2S
£3
255 I
m m m O
III *
SI* a
o o o z
•.*.«. a
ai
13 W ~.
5 s ">3
* o •.
3« •>• •>
_. <, , 3 •
5 o -'-*"-
J ••» '. 5 •:
- - 5
• f *» 1« n-«3*V«^
>• » — » w * •• * * * * * « *
! : s I
5« s» 5l S 5 ^5 5 5 i 8 S
S S a j : - S
3*O* ? f ** ?
5 ' * s' i 5i !• * « ' I
9 - a • 9 II if e K xi 5
X M O ^ UJTOOoOX O Oo«*
»• »^ O O «I • •• OO O J ••» *••• — — 88
5* >s :2 sd 55 sS ;; ;; is 13
ua» • « • u a ••
^ = I
o e 4
* i i
? - 5 3
5 *t M
• r* * O
9 U M -
- 5 * S
a *. S «
U O U •
: s x : 2
«k "
u «•
• u —
M* |M « *.
a « «« — «
9f 8 S * |5
•* ^ OO 0 O * * 0
MM «« «« KO * —
•. o i — ->
373
-------
V «* ( M mf m m m
O * t »» » »» ^ *•
**•»•»
SO O M •* •*
I I ^ »•>•
8
*
w
3 I
* I
t -.
= 3333-^
2 3 S
Si
o « PI « *
5 5 = S S
2
* »
o o — o « *o o «r
* - o • »- »• O ** *- »
t s I .s : « =s s: ?
gig ! E E
^_ M » Si »I r« zs S >• z« 8-< I < °I "I X
••a •- z — •• oo o* o — ov oo w — A o «to oo o
o o o o o —
S S 1 S S
33333
o o o a o * * *
* « O •* - J k
*-*£ fOv«»2 « »I
ijF * *•» ir * «o c_"- * • • aw «rt
!§ !i !s !- !- S S S 5 ?2 S5 3. ^8 Si
M » wll m r MO •>? O ** O * C >• O *- O •. W - — * * 2*» — •
••M ••»• MK MO ** 2 —«« —« —« — •* »«4 — xx oo ox * :
» j *-*J •- ^ *• « *~O Z*l X** X'V Z4 XO 'X ** •* ^ * * V'
•• u *i«* «•«. ^»* «u 55 5 • So 5 •* Sw «w ww ou — o o«
!8
\ v
-------
1 I
»
II
§
u
•4
2 M*
5
*•».
L
8-
O O
5
.
s
•A
i: °;
0
* 3*
|
4.J
<
„ ^
a «
o •
cc • *
•|§Sj5|"«|f5
»» — ^ — — «*••••»••
u • •
X i £„ ,» .. i- ?r ¥.. , « - ..
8 6 * ** ** 1* -* -1 -2 2 v.5 S<
• 4«wV V "M
£J»^?«« *"
-5o«i5«~ »£
« u "jr 5 X j ?_««•"
* I « r - - < — : ^ ~ <• » * « < _
8 oa «" »« » • ><•«• -^~«>ii«"
w«*w«— *— — — r >•- M» jr«o5u«
>; !£ 22 Si Si i2 25 S3 2: X» S5 ;2
1
£•
f
Is
»
9
si
52
:
8"
r
o
r*
!S
-------
S
1
Ss i 5 8 t i « «
; 2 S 8 8 5 I
^
f»
x ! «"
O I •» —
ml = i x
£ 1 8 j -.
"" ! 2 13
3111 *
- i
U 1
»
s ,
; !
§ i
5
8 • «
: 8
— » O
8
_s < "«
5= * **
!
3 8 §
NL > M
I- O U
i .S ,,
«. » - > so
SB si 1$
4
<•« » r*
s «: 5
M
» V
• c*6 **
s ! i
— * o
^» *.
r = 1
* 0 — -
* - « 3 —
6 — « z w >
* 0 X - -* *
So • » o o
5 2
X
» -> * «
« 4 4 ^
o o & *
• - . § .0
ft i M : M I s
" :* • 5 -5 -3 £
?X re Z - 3? -1 oo
§§ SS gS 55 JS =S Si
*.«. w- BU ii ifc 5 »> «2
3 8
^
S
S
S
«!
o -< »» * *
* * - ** »
a a2 s *
" -- - 1*
•- > 5 ^
Z V* fc ^
i ° 8 5
-* S -* °
ii ^* t* i
•^ ** Q O « *
m m O -• M irt
a =i is 55
„ «. <»
-------
i Jf 2
i I ? 8
* - •- * w rf* ««t 1
API v ^ ^ »• *•* * ft •* o
8 — - - *
~« I?** * * •* •* * f *"* •* *
~ 5 60 *->« - - OQ i — i •*
^ t *2 «AM -«• lAjf »-x -r
5
I
:§
D -
377
-------
*
2
B § ! i S
5
»»
w
&
.4
M
M
|
i
3
i
§
o
(J
••
ft*
5
ft,
^_
1^
| =
£ = I
S - n m o o
* s s? 1 55$
i *
: H h 2 : :i
1 M*
« M
1 - I ! ! i
; « s* * • 5
M W *> 9 ^•rfWMM
c^ j ID 5< •" •• 5
•• * •** >• • oo o a >•
a o oo O• «l
O *^
Sfi
« i
3 3
3 3
\ \
X
|s :
«
•E W
» *
M O *
8*" ^ •
« 59
* •* o m
2 3
s! 5 1
r r /
3< 8< r*
i ft, U » M >
" • 1
M U I
« S t S
5 < 8 •.
O «/* w
2: s; 5!
ss rS =§
n 8« 1
s s? 5
" 1
• S -*
4 —
O -•
? :
H *
a 0
X
•• ^ « o
55 s!
» • * —
55 X5
3
1 • o
!I s
«l HI
w > •-
ft
8
^ X
s ji
i s-
• *• «h
l\
i V
;s
-/ o
378
-------
i ! 8
•! 5
i j 8
3
3
3 s =
3 3
8 =
•- «
< «r
i
«
*,
8S
*
.
Is
U
•i
w
Is
•S
.
Is
O * f
f S
* "i
ft JO
S 83
« o a
o
o
h
u
*
r •
:§ ; :
.01 F.
*
•»
O
379
-------
3
S
I
= i i
8
t~
X
M
^
X
•»
_«
ft
w
w
W
v»
S
i
«• i
^ i
— i
m i
3 i
W 1
»- i
« >
1
§
5
4
5
ft
*•*
jr
«
85
o
§
- r
>
o
1!
« i
§2
• z
H
o •»*»-»
- * - e o *
22 ** 2 ' ** 2
A l-» ^2 *
<*
« *• * « M 4 <
ft *. > ft —4 O
•
I s ! '. i §
^-^%*> g •- • >
4 I Z * » —
S" §- *? Z i ->^ Ol2
-* * » «t 32 * "* ** OO
i-i -» ^ » •• » O -' ^ *
£s H H; ss H 51
KI *
: S3
• — 0
o «* •*
o
5 -i
•
I
V *
o ^
I &!
; Is
CO«FO**UOM
IMS*
~2
«tf
tM
u
^5
£
1^
M
3
ItMl
*OI4I
MOI|*CO4M>3
M ft •>
Cf •» O
M • —
O 5 ^
0 jf to
•- « • x
5S 22
ft
8
O
n •* i*
s lj
41
X w *
•• M ft
fc.
S2 ti
i* i'
a *» O O
I; I;
§«
85
8
°«
-* ft
w
w
*
*
M
1 5
o£
M# «^
1 =
o o o
o o o
-------
! S g
w w» ^ — ^
M* Ml W O Q **
>• »- » Z X »»
5! ,
5 ! 2
s i 8 i
— i 3
.. I 5
2! I
:i 5
§
j
ft to
8 =
3
u
O
5
. - B ,
3 3 3 «*
? ? ? I
<+ j + * 4 « « r x
•.Kft.A-ft.ft.ftOO
•* * »
s« 5 I s -
« ^» « zr i
* D So **
o o* - ••
«—-
oo oo oo no r * -* ^
»a 5» ™J^ 5» 3» Irr ^ ^ HZ "i ^"* ** * fc
ii IE 22 il 15 II II !H II Si Si ii ii II II II
o o
381
-------
5
3
1
I
1 i
I
1
« s
_ -> o>
I" £ 5
"". 1J M
= 3- «
» 3. !•
**. J o
3 • »
t> O «
«
3
. - o
- -. J
3 - -
!
7 IS
& *•
8 =
H H ! ! IHI 1 i = i i M
*rf
!SSZ2 = S5:::|££S"
•. o z
o » »
\
382
\ ^ -X
-------
i i
3C3
!
i
*
M>
|
3
^
•*
•»
!
^
•
§
L*
! s
1 «
§
4
I
5
S
».
M
!l
? i
«• t
* l
f
"* I
S i
ft * 1
8= !
U W 1
I
i
1 •>••<• M
W • •> O M
to* & f m ^
?
•
O *•
*• ••
• •
3r
•> *•
• * -• -•
- sli yg o2 = =
> O *» ¥* 44 MM* %. »
5! £E 55 §r 5:
, : r
i i i !
s s s
•• •» HI
i
„
fff!!!!82
9
3
•b
Irf
S
SSR^SSJSX
e*!5;l>*-
f _ •" • • • 9C« -
• • 4>
£ w
- I o *
« 2. 8« - i -. 2X 2,
*" i" 2" "" " U 3 2*
° 0 •- m H
S J 5 t " °
5 o s ! s ; y»
rs|!»f?c3
8 3 »„ * »t " s? S*
¥B 3- .2 83 :2 jr. 83 S*
IAO — 1^ M4 44 MM Vw O «W Ml
ra Ss ;l 55 oi »: 5u H
?'*r'/';i
^$* ti
-ss|
^
.Jj
iii
i
fl
Sll
'.^3
1
?|
;ti
*'a
"3|
m
s^M
3
-------
a
to
i i
»-
z
z a> >- o
•< — z TT
a. CD < en
z T a. in
z z z o
z z
Cc IX
384
-------
SSiloooSoSSoo
ooe irzz>z>->-zz
(A f/> (A I/I
ui u o o o ui ui
>- >- z z z >• >-
^ !
Qt I
S I
Ul 1
O UJ O
-j or oc cc at
a < Z3 a. ^ o
i_i a CD co >
* Z I •- X
—i or i/> ui ui x
4 UJ 44 < UJ
-
< < *- O
3 31 u. X
_ -
O uj or uj
<
U CO
tt •-
uj at
<
u.
o
<
>• a.
z
4
i
(J
4
UJ "•>
m r
3 a.
o a
a -J
uj X
* a.
4
U m
•-. m
cr 10
S= a
u.
O
z
4
i
UJ
CO
o
O O
UJ 4
O O
2 U
Z
O
Ul
> r>
— O
0 V
tj
UJ
UJ
3
CE
a
a
a
z
a: 4
u> _
3 ui
Z
O
U)
> o
a to
**
UJ
UJ
in Z
Z
3
CE
a
o
o
u
z
a
UJ
ui cr
3 O
U>
0
o»
*~
z
4 4
a. a.
O
Ul
CO
O 4
I
Q a.
z ->
-* o
t- 4
4 -*
Ul —
I X
U)
""
t_
3
a 4
0 0-
a
a.
_j
Ul
UJ
Ul
O Q
Z Z
4 4
_t _J
UJ UJ
3 3
0
d
4
a.
r
tr
CO
f-
c —
B 0.
385
-------
I
g£
i
z
UJ
Z
Z
•i
_J
a.
M
UJ
BE
3
Ul
3
"^
W
~
3 1 U
3
^
a
0
u
0
„
n
S
o
3 -•
u
|
M i
:
»;
z «*
z
a.
"V
1
a. >-
u u
01
n
z
'5
£
i
Ul Ul
_J _l
Z Z
ttt Ul
o m
(A (A
S
&
*-
a
z z
(A VI
tA (A
uJ Ul
Z Z
ii
»
**
a.
z
&
S5
a a.
z z
Ul Ul
*i
S S
« CO
Z (A
ui Z
ID <
3 J
Ul -1
*- O
0
*
S
5
&
Ul Ul
_f _J
> >
Ct QE
O O
5S
1"
u
55
JT
i
§
u
z z
_l _l
Ul W
Ul Ul
g
d
^5
z
.J
88
*- ^
S3
X X
u u
Ul Ul
o
to
ft
s
5
tt.
^ J
Ul Ul
to ui
35
Ok
n
*
»••
z
<
*5
2
?s
w »-
i?
Ul
CD O
30
Ul Z
«
•V
*
S
1
a
oo
^ ^
Uf Ul
u. u.
Z Z
< <
00
n
9
V
-3
5
1
8
!ic>-
< -•
•- a
•- ac
io
O ui u.
< a I o
386
-------
o
o
s
a
• v
i ii
3
i i
o
5
o
5
n
o
Ul
o
a
u
M
Ul
Ul fr-
z *A
5
a
X,
z
<
a. >*
ftp,
is ss
in n < (o
>« iS
— o
o u
Ul
— QC -1
B
a
z
Ul
l/>
O O <
ac in u
or n
UJ O
5S
ORATION OF
MO 6
ae
sx
ui a
QC O
or •
S S
ID O»
-J W1 «
V -J
z —
< X
O ui
O UJ
(A (A
UJ
-J Z
vA O X Z
a — *- z
- I -0
z o
8°
Ul
tr <
o
z
Ul
Ul
i- tr
(A UJ
WRIGHT
WORCES
t- t-
to to
(0 (0
1"
H U|
< M
ae
O Z
a. —
O O Z O
u < o <
u u u
(J — (A —
(A I •• X
COMPANY
asoi
CD
a r
Z 0
bi
S
z z
YOUNGS
YOUNGS
£
§
SC
ae
O
a
t/t
-i a
CAMPBEl
STRUTHC
O
in
§
t/t
s
-« z
em EH v
YOUNGSl
CM
t/l Z
ae
HARBQf
1C AGO
z o
a r*
r v *- »
MA 0
-STRUtHERS
OH 4
ae
O
X
(A
3 UJ UJ Z
C Z 0>»-
Q Q. 3
r ac S a
> 13 U Ul
387
-------
in
BUZ
30-
O I- -- -
- s
O X
5 5
SO
-i
U O
< UJ
i 2 i
-, _ — »- < Ul
u z o •-
w> o o o * <
uizZZOQui
o**«Mza»woo
_j_l-l — -iUZZ
XXX3CZX MM
»-(JUU«ttUII-t-
< — — — ooz<<
B«.0.0.^^..SS
»* o o o p o <
o a
X X
^- *- ui
a z z z o
O Z — — — uj
Z — * * X O
— X * < * _
o o
ZZ
388
-------
VOLUME I
APPENDIX C
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARIES
38'J
-------
o
Q.
bJCO N
GZ
OUJ
LU
e>
s
MISCELLANEOUS
PROCESS
WASTES
WASTE
AMMONIA
LIQUOR
BENZOL
PLANT
WASTES
FINAL
OOLER
BLOWDOWN
CRYSTALLIZER 1
BLOWOOWN J
391
Preceding page blank
-------
i m
c/)£
lil tO
X.CM
&W
oaz
1
n
«A <
S cc
s F
i
i^ *^
, i
)lO
to i
J1 CO
HO.
1°
o
z
CT
i
ui to N
^ -1 u.
1*2
z ""
tr
kr
Tri
S 8*7
ce »ir> o
ft— Z r~ ^I
|g£o
9o§S
«oo 3 ••
l§i
"- 5
Sc?<» '
§S5|
Is^g
O CC UJ <
3t-> a: x
CO V5 CL O
' , »,
— /
Cn!
«o:l_ ,=
N
«t>- , !T-
Hg I
s^ •!_. '
3S -\
j)
.«rS
CT u 1 o
•a >•! <
—^ 3
Air — 'BIOLOGICAL
REACTOR
Sludge
i S-
t iJP
t f s
f* , O _j
i B^ wd
CCK "•-»-
' U. V) **• CO
l".i:r
— j
2«o
s?s —
SQ.J
&
t
J
1
1 1 " 1
« III
IOW 0
si ls«
si 3^
i • ^§3
• in o a. *
1-0- £
< 10 5
m^ •* 1
m< a. _n-">
sll |!s
*5 J 0)°- ¥
CINAL
COOLER
RI nwnnww
h-li— fa . *
$c & 5^«
•SS»£
1 Blowdown replaces u" to 50GPT A
of dilution woter. T
— — — -^Encess blowdown lo
quench station
R -Free Still and Small Equalization To
prior to still not included in cost estin
» Basin for pushing scrubber water is c<
! ru oort of the air collation reaulati
(0 i
a. o
SZS 1
Son
§ * \
cc
UJ z
J 0
* '" < ?
CC CD
U
t
1
• 1
1
— '— — 1
1
1
1
i
i
!
i
392
-------
SUBCATECORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATECOtY:
:
By-Product Cokemaking
Iron an«< Steel Plants
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 4700
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 365
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAH HASTE FLOWS
Model PUnl
15 Direct Dischargers
13 To Quenching Operations
8 Indirect Dischargers
3 Zero Dischargers
39 Active Plants
0.8 MCD
11.6 MOD
9.9 MOD
6.1 MGD
0.8 MOD
28.2 HGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10"3)
Investment
Annuj1
$/Ton of Production
Biological
Physical-Chenical
Biological
Physical-Chemical
Biological
Physical-Chemical
PSES-l
4021
-
1049
-
0.61
-
PSES-2
BPT
5232
4117
1379
1063
0.80
0.62
PSES-3
BAT-1
141 »
37i6
327
1557
0.19
0.91
PSES-4
BAT- 2
1927
4274
398
1831
0.23
1.07
PSES-5
BAT- 3
1988
-
623
-
0.36
-
PSES-6
BAT-4
1672
3919
359
1583
0.21
0.92
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (CPT)
pH (SU)
Anaonia-N
Oil and Crease
Phenolic Compounds (4-AAP)
Sulfide
Vhiocyanale
Total Suspended Solids
3 Acrylonitrile
4 Benzene*
21 2,4,6,-Trichlorophenol
22 Parachloroaetacresol
23 Chloroform*
RAW PSES-l PSES-2 PSES-3 PSES-4 PSES-5
WASTE BPT BAT-1 BAT-2 BAT-3
162
7-10
600
75
300
150
480
50
1.2
35
0.1
0.6
0.3
103
6-9
(75)60
225(1)(2) 15j(l)(3) 15J(1
6-9 6-9 6-9
(97)75 (15)7 (15)7
(25)15 (11.6)8 (10)5 (8)4
(50)36
50
180
(120)100
0.25
10
0.05
0.15
0.2
(1.6)0.5 (0.05)0.02 (0.05)0.02
1 0.4 0.4
2 0.3 0.3
(80)66 (80)66 (20)15
0.05 0.02 0.02
0.3 (0.05)0.04 (0.05)0.04
0.02 0.005 0.005
0.05 0.005 0.005
0.2 0.2 0.1
)(4) 153(1)
6-9
(10)5
(5)2
(0.025)0.01
0.3
0.2
(20)15
0.01
(0.04)0.03
<0.005
<0.005
0.05
PSES-6
BAT-40'
0
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
393
-------
SVBCATECORY SUHKARY DATA
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING
PACE 2
UASTEUATER
CHARACTERISTICS
34
35
36
38
39
54
55
60
64
65
66-71
72
73
76
77
80
84
86
114
115
121
125
128
130
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Ethylbenzeoe*
Fluoranlhen**
Isophorone
Naphthalene*
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol*
Total Phthalatee*
Benxo (a) Anthracene
Benio (a) Pyrene*
Chrysene*
Acenaphthylene*
Fluorene*
Pyren«*
Toluene*
Ant imony*
Artenic
Cyanide*
Selenium*
Zinc*
Xylene*
RAW
WASTE
5
0.2
O.I
3
0.8
O.S
10
0.12
0.12
27S
5
0.3
0.1
0.4
3.5
0.6
0.6
25
0.2
2
50
0.2
0.2
12
PSES-1
1
0.1
0.05
0.3
0.2
0.3
5
0.08
0.08
30
2
0.2
0.05
0.2
1.0
0.2
0.2
5
0.1
1
(20)16
0.2
0.2
3
PSES-2
BIT
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.05 (0
0.01
0.01
0.3
1
0.05
0.05 (0
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.4
(23)5
0.1
0.1
0.2
PSES-3
BAT-1
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.01
.01)0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.2
0.01
.02)0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.1
0.4
(3)2.5
0.1
0.1
0.02
FSES-4
BAT-2
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.01
(0.01)0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.2
0.01
(0.02)0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.25
(3)2.5
0.05
0.05
0.02
PSES-5
BAT-3
<0.005
0.005
0.005
0.02
0.01
0.005
(0.01)<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.1
0.005
(0.01)0.005
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.25
(2.5)2
0.05
0.05
0.01
PSES-6
BAT-4
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
Mote*! All concentrations are in »g/l unless otherwise noted.
: BAT and PSES-3 through PSES-6 com are incremental over BPT/PSES-2 coitt.
t Values in parentheses represent the concenrrations used to develop the
limitations/standards for the various levels of treatment. All other values
represent long ten* average values or ptedicted average performance levels.
* Toxic pollutant found in all rev waste sample* analyzed.
(1) Plow includes up to 50 CPT of dilution water to optimize conditions for bio-oxidation.
Part of this dilution water e>ay be replsced with blovdown* from air pollution control
scrubbers froai pushing operations.
(2) For physical-chemical plants, flow basis is 175 CPT, and limitations are as foltowai
Ammonia-N 125 mg/1; Oil t Crease 15 mg/l| Phenolic Compounds 2 mg/l| TSS 100 Bg/1)
and Cyanides 30 ny/l.
(3) For physical-chemical plants, flow basis is 103 CPT, and limitations are as follows:
Ammonia-N 75 mx/1; Phenolic Compounds 0.1 mg/1 Beniene 0.05 mg/l| Naphthalene 0.01 mg/ll
and Benco(a)pyrene 0.02 mf/l.
(4) For physical-chemical plants, flow basis is 103 CPT. and limitation' are as follows!
Amnonia-N 15 mg/1; Phenolic Compouads 0.05 mg/1; Benxene 0.05 mg/lf Naphthalene 0.01 mg/1;
and Benxo(a)pyrene 0.02 •«/!.
(5) For physical-chemical plants, this alternative is BAT-3.
394
-------
IZJ
SUBCATECORY SUKttRY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATECORY:
By-Product CokemaVing
Merchant Coke Producer*
MODEL SIZE (TPD):
OPER. DAYS/YEAR 1
TURKS/DAY I
ALL
OTHERS
1690
365
3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant
Indirect Discharger 0.2 MOD
All Other* 0.3 MOD
7 Direct Di*ch«rger« 2.1 HOT
2 To Quenching Operation* 0.6 MOT
8 Indirect Diacharger* 1.3 MOT
2 Zero Discharger* C.3 MOD
19 Active Plant* 4.3 HGD
MODEL COSTS (SXlp"3)
Inve*uunt
Indirect Discharger*
Other Discharg*r*-Biolcgical
Other Di*charger*-Phy*ical-Che*ucal
Annul1
Indirect Diacharger*
Other Di*charger*-Biological
Other Di*ch*rg<>r*-Phy*ic*l-Ch««ucal
5/Ton of Production
'indirect Discharger*
Other Di*charger*-Biological
Other Disch*rger»-Phy»ic*l-Chc«ic*l
PSES-1
PSNS-1
1630
336
1.00
BPT
BCT
PSES-2
PSNS-2
2180
3097
2455
442
688
538
1.32
1.12
0.8?
BAT-1
PSES-3
PSHS-3
506
721
2104
99.0
152
907
0.29
0.25
1.47
BAT-3
PSES-5
PSNS-5
672
959
169
271
0.50
0.44
BAT-4
PSES-6
PSNS-6
610
870
2225
112
170
«22
0.33
0.28
1.49
Invettaenl
Annua1
J/Ton of Production
1.59
1.64
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow CCPT)
pH (SU)
AoBonia-N
Oil and Cr*a*e
Phenolic Coapound* (4AAP)
Sulfides
Thioc'/anat«s
Total Su«p«n2.0
(1.6)0.5 (0.05)0.02 (0.05)0.02 (0.025)0.01
1 0.4 0.4 0.3
2 0.3 0.3 0.2
50 (140)100 (140)66 (140)66
(20)15
(20)15
39:
t
-------
7?
; »
SUBCATECORY SUMMARY DATA
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKINC
PA3F 2
UASTEUATER
CHARACTERISTICS
3
4
21
22
23
34
35
36
38
39
54
55
60
64
65
66-71
72
73
76
77
80
84
86
114
115
121
125
128
130
Acrylonitrile
Benzene*
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Parachloromeiacresol
Chloroform*
2, 4-Dimelhyl phenol
2,4-Dinilrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Elhylbenzene*
Fluoranthene*
Isophorone
Naphthalene*
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
Pent ach loi ophenol
Phenol*
Total Phthalates*
Benzo (a) Anthracene
Benzo (a) Pyrene*
Chrysene*
Acenaphihylene*
Fluorene*
Pyrene*
Toluene*
Antimony*
Arsenic*
Cyanide*
Seleniua*
Zinc*
Xylene*
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/l
: BAT, PSES-3 through PSES-6 and
; Value* in parentheses represeni
RAW
WASTE
1.2
35
0.1
0.6
0.3
5
0.2
0.1
3
0.8
0.5
30
0.12
0.12
275
5
0.3
0.1
0.4
3.5
0.6
0.6
25
0.2
2
50
0.2
0.2
12
BPT BAT-1 BAT-2 BAT-3
BCT NSPS-1 NSPS-2 HSPS-3
PSES-1 PSES-2 PSES-3 PSES-4 PSES-5
PSNS-1 PSNS-2 PSNS-3 PSNS-4 PSNS-5
0.25
10
0.05
0.15
0.2
1
0.1
0.05
0.8
0.2
0.3
5
0.08
0.08
30
2
0.2
C.05
0.2
1
0.2
0.2
5
0.1
1
(20)16
0.2
0.2
3
0.05
0.3
0.02
0.05
0.2
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.05
O.I
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.3
1
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.1
0.3
0.!
0.4
(23)5
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.02
(0.05)0.04
0.005
0.005
0.2
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.01
(0,0550.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.2
0.01
(0.05)0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.1
0.4
(5.5)2,75
0.1
0.1
0.02
0.02
(0.05)0.04
0.005
0.005
0.1
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.01
(0.05)0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.2
0.01
(0.05)0.01
0.01
0.02
0.0?
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.25
(5.0)2.75
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.01
(0.03)0.02
<0.005
<0.005
0.05
<0.005
0.005
0.005
0.02
0.01
0.005
(0.03X0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.1
0.005
(0.03)0.005
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.25
(5.0)2
0.05
0.05
0.01
1
i
I
BAT-4 '
PSES-6 ',
psws-6 ;
i
-
^ i \
-
-
- ;
-
i
• *
'
„
i
-
_
!
• i
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- ;
-
'
-
-
;
limitations/standards for the various levels of treatment. All other values
represent long ten) average values or predicted average performance level*.
Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste sample*.
Limit for oil and greaie i* based upon 10 »g/l (maxi
only).
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AMD TREATMENT COSTS
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKINC SDBCATEQORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
StJECATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TOHS/TEAR)
Flw (MOD)
nia (M)
Oil and Greace
Phenolic Compound* (4AAP)
Sulfide
Thiocyanate
Total Cyanide*
Total Suspended Solid*
Total Toxic Hetalt
Total Organic*
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY*2'
Investment
RAW
HASTE
25,1
22,947.7
2.858.5
11,473.9
5,736.9
18,358. 3
1,912.2
1,912.2
99.5
4,535.9
_*
-
BPT/BCT
33.3
3,796. S
404.9
25.3
50.7
101.2
253.1
3,846.2
35.4
137.7
168.6
41.61
BAT-1
22.7
242.0
152.1
0.6
13.8
10.4
95.0
2,623.5
24.2
24.7
44.1
11.49
BAT-2
22.7
242.0
152.1
0.6
13.8
10.4
86.4
518.7
13.8
21.2
62.0
14.22
BAT-3
22.7
172.9
69.2
0.3
10.4
6.9
69.2
518.7
13.5
11.3
64.2
20.71
BAT-4
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
54
12
.6
.77
INDIRECT ( POTWJDIS CHARGERS
SDBCATEGO8Y LOAD SOMMARY
(TOKS/YEAR)
Flov (MOD)
aia (N)
Oil and Create
Phenolic Compound* (4AAP)
Sulfide
Thiocyaaate
Total Cyanide*
Total Suspended Solid*
Total Toxic Metal*
Total Organic* '
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
Investment
Annual
(3)
RAW
WASTE
7.4
6,759.1
844.9
3,379.5
1,689.8
5,407.2
563.3
563.3
29.3
1,336.0
-
PSES-1
4.8
434.4
108.6
260.6
361.9
1,303.0
115.8
723.9
10.8
208.1
45.8
10.17
PSES-2
10.3
1,167.3
124.5
7.7
15.6
31.2
77.8
1,182.3
10.9
42.3
52.7
13.10
PSES-3
7.1
74.6
46.9
0.2
4.3
3.2
29.3
809.8
7.4
7.7
13.7
3.61
PSES-4
7.1
74.6
46.9
0.2
4.3
3.2
26.7
159.9
4.3
6.6
18.5
3.73
PSES-5
7.1
53.3
21.3
0.1
3.2
2.2
21.3
159.9
4.1
3.4
19.1
5.74
PSES-6
0
_
.
-
-
-
-
-
.
16.3
3.39
(1) Individual phenolic compound* (e.g., 2,4-Dinitrophenol, Pentachlorophenol) are not included
in Toxic Organic*.
(2) Two confidential plant* have been excluded frov co*t* *hovn.
(3) The co*t iwnary total* do not include one confidential plant.
397
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
IRON AND STEEL PLANTS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flov (MOD)
Amonia (N)
Oil and Grease
Phenolic Compounds (4AAP)
Sulfide
Thiocyanale
Tolal Cyanides
Total Suspended Solids
Tolal Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
(IX10'6)
Investment
Annual
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Amnonia (N)
Oil and Grease
Phenolic Compounds (AAAP)
Sulfide
Thiocyanate
Total Cyanides
Tolal Suspended Solids
Tolal Toxic Metals
Tolal Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
Investment
Annua1
(2)
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
RAW
HASTE
22.1
20,200.5
2,525.1
10,100.3
5,050.1
16,160.5
1,683.3
1,683.3
87.6
3,992.9
INDIRECT
RAW
KASTE
6.1
5,562.7
695.3
2,781.3
1,390.7
4,450.1
463.6
463.6
24.1
1099.6
-
BPT/BCT
29.6
3,380.1
360.5
22.5
45.1
90.1
225.3
3,424.0
31.5
122.6
144.0
36.39
BAT-1
20.1
214.5
134.8
0.6
12.2
9.2
84.2
2,325.1
21.4
21.9
37.2
9.50
BAT-2
20.1
214.5
134.8
0.6
12.2
9.2
76.6
459.7
12.2
18.8
53.0
11.87
BAT-3
20.1
153.2
61.3
0.3
9.2
6.1
61.3
459.7
12.0
10.0
54.9
17.69
BAT-4
0
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
46.2
10.64
(POTW) DISCHARGERS
PSES-1
3-9
353.7
88.4
212.2
294.7
1,061.0
94.3
589.5
8.8
169.5
35.7
8.17
PSES-2
8.5
965.7
103.0
6.4
12.9
25.8
64.4
978.6
9.0
35.0
39.7
10.46
PSES-3
5.8
61.3
38.5
0.2
3.5
2.6
24.1
665.1
6.1
6.3
10.7
2.48
PSES-4
5.8
61.3
38.5
0.2
3.5
2.6
21.9
131.3
3.5
5.4
14.6
3.02
PSES-5 PSES-6
5.8 0
43.8
17.5
0.1
2.6
1.8
17.5
131.3
3.4
2.8
15.1 12.7
4.73 2.73
(1) Individual phenolic compounds (e.g.. 2.4-Dinitrophenol, Pcntachlorophenol) are not included
in Toxic Organics.
(2) One confidential plant, has been excluded from costs shown.
398
-------
r
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
BY-PRODUCT COKEKAKING SUBCATECORY
KERCRAKT PLANTS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TOMS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Ammonia (N)
Oil «nd Create
Phenolic Compounds (4AAP)
Sulfide
Thiocyanate
Total Cyanidea
Total Suspended Solida
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organica1'
SDBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~*)
Invea taunt
Annual
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flo* (MOD)
Amaonia (N)
Oil and Create
Phenolic Compounds (4AAP)
Sulfide
Thiocyanate
Total Cyanides
Total Suspended Solida
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
(2)
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
(3)
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
RAW
WASTE
3.0
2,747.2
343.4
1,373.6
686.8
2,197.8
228.9
228.9
11.9
543.0
—
INDIRECT
RAW
WASTE
1.3
1,196.4
149.6
598.2
299.1
957.1
99.7
99.7
5.2
236.4
-
BPT/BCT
3.7
416.7
44.4
2.8
5.6
11.1
27.8
422.2
3.9
15.1
24.6
5.22
BAT-1
2.6
27.5
17.3
<0.1
1.6
1.2
10.8
298.4
2.8
2.8
6.9
1.99
BAT-2
2.6
27.5
17.3
<0.1
1.6
1.2
9.8
59.0
1.6
2.4
9.0
2.35
BAT-3
2.6
19.7
7.9
<0.05
1.2
0.8
7.9
59.0
1.5
1.3
9.3
3.02
BAT-4
0
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
8.4
2.13
(POTW) DISCHARGERS
PSES-1
0.9
30.7
20.2
48.4
67.2
242.0
21.5
134.4
2.0
38.6
10.1
2.00
PSES-2
1.8
201.6
21.5
1.3
2.7
5.4
13.4
203.7
1.9
7.3
13.0
2.64
PSES-3
1.3
13.3
8.4
<0.1
0.8
0.6
5.2
144.7
1.3
1.4
3.0
0.59
PSES-4
1.3
13.3
8.4
<0.05
0.8
0.6
4.8
28.6
0.8
1.2
3.9
0.71
PSES-5 PSES-6
1.3 0
9.5
3.8
<0.05
0.6
0.4
3.8
28.6
0.7
0.6
4.0 3.6
1.01 0.66
(1) Individual phenolic compound! (e.g., 2,4-Dinitroph«nol, Pentachlorophenol) are not included
in Toxic Organica.
(2) One confidential plant has been excluded from costs shown.
(3) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
-------
to
S3
II
10
Ul
UJ
cr
o
a.
8-
oo
LJQ.
a
co
en -
.to
HO.
OL co
CD 2
L,
401
Preceding
Page blank
-------
SUBCATECORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATECORY: Sintering
ITT, SAT, PSES MODEL SIZE (TFD): 4000
DSPS, PSNS MODEL SIZE (TFD) : 7000
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 365
TURHS/DAY : 3
RAH WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant J.8 MOD
15 Direct Discharger. 87.6 MCD
1 Indirect Discharger 5.8 MCD
1 Zero Discharger 5.8 MCD
17 Active Plants 99.2 MCD
MODEL COSTS (SX10~*>
Investment
Annua 1
$/Ton of Production
_^
MODEL COSTS ($X10 )
Investaient
Annua 1
S/Ton of Production
UASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (CPT)
pH (SU)
Aanonia (N)
Fluoride
Oil and Crease
Phenols (4AAP)
Residual Chlorine (Max. Only)
Total Suspended Solids
39 Fluoranthene
65 Phenol*
76 Chrysene
84 Pyrene*
118 Cadmium*
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
121 Cyanide (Total)*
122 Lead
124 Nickel*
128 Zinc*
. BAT and PSES— 2 throuKh PSES~6 c
i Values in parentheses represent
levels o£ treatment. All other
BPT BAT-1 BAT-2
PSES-1 PSES-2 PSES-3
3615 401 316
1430 54.0 42.4
0.98 0.037 0.029
HSPS-1 NSPS-2
BAT-3 BAT-4
PSES-4 PSES-5
647 3127
151 473
0.10 0.32
NSPS-3 NSPS-4
PSNS-1 PSHS-2 PSHS-3 PSNS-4 PSNS-5
4822 $362 5219
2299 1399 1380
0.90 0.55 0.54
BAT-1 BAT-2
BPT HSPS-1 NSPS-2
RAW PSES-1 PSES-2 PSES-3
WASTE PSNS-1 PSNS-2 PSKS-3
1460 120 120 120
6-12 6-9 6-9 6-9
6777
6 25 20 20
240 (10)7 (5***)3.5 (10)7
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
-
6100 (50)39 (15)10 (25)22
0.10 0.1 0.1 O.I
0.03 0.05 0.05 0.05
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.7 0.6 0.2 0.15
0.1 0.03 0.02 0.02
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.15 0.12 (0.25)0.02 (0.25)0.02
0.1 0.02 0.01 0.015
1 0.5 (0.3)0.18 (0.3)0.04
the concentrations used to develop the llmita
values represent long term average values or
5594 8524
1462 1842
0.57 0.72
ZAT-3 BAT-4
KSPS-3 NSPS-4
PSES-4 PSES-5
PSNS-4 PSNS-5
120 120
6-9 6-9
(10**)6 (10**)6
20 20
(10)7 (5***)3.5
(0.1**)0.015 (0.1**>0.015
(0.5**)0.05 (0.5**)0.03
(25)22 (15)10
0.1 0.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
0.15 0.15
0.02 0.02
(1**)0.03 (1**)0.03
(0.25)0.02 (0.25)0.02
0.015 0.01
(0.3)0.04 (0.3)0.01
BAT-5
PSES-6
4936
1016
0.70
HSPS-5
PSNS-6
11,459
2799
1.10
BAT-S
HSPS-5
PSES-4
PSNS-6
0
.
-
.
-
_
-
-
_
.
_
_
_
_
.
_
.
_
-
t ions/standards for the various
predicted average performance
levels.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples.
** When co-treated unh ironaaking wastewaters. These values are based upon the selected BAT alternative in the
Ironmaking Subcategory.
un 10 me/1 (maximum onlv).
40;
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
StHTERIKC SUBCATECORY
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
a (N)
Cyanide (Total)
Fluoride
Oil and Grease
Phenols (4AAP)
Residual Chlorine
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metjls
Totf.l Organics
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
DIRECT DISCHARCERS
RAW
WASTE
93.4
853.8
28.5
853.8
34,153.3
28.5
BPT
7.2
65.8
2.2
274.1
76.8
2.2
BAT-1
7.2
65.8
2.2
219.3
38.4
2.2
BAT-2
7.2
65.8
2.2
219.3
76.8
2.2
868,064.2 427.6 109.7 241.2
298.8 14.0 4.8 2.8
17.1 1.3 1.3 1.3
(SX10"6)
Investment
Annual
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Aavonia (N)
Cyanide (Total)
Fluoride
Oil and Grease
Phenols (4A.-.P)
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
Inves tnent
Annual
(1) The raw waste load
are included in the
discharge, it does
waste loads.
(2) Individual phenolic
are not included in
_
~
INDIRECT
RAW
WASTE
5.8
53.4
1.8
53.4
2,134.6
1.8
54,254.0
18.7
1.1
_
and BPT cost contributions
direct discharger data.
not contribute to BAT cost
63.89 6.02 4.98
22.00 0.79 0.64
(POTW) DISCHARCERS
PSES-1 PSES-2 PSES-3
0.5 0.5 0.5
4.4 4.4 4.4
0.1 0.1 0.1
18.3 14.6 14.6
5.1 2.6 5.1
0.1 0.1 0.1
28.5 7.3 16.1
0.9 0.3 0.2
0.09 0.09 0.09
3.23 0.36 0.28
1.28 0.048 0.038
of the zero discharge operation
As this plant has no wastewater
s or to the BPT and BAT effluent
compounds (e.g., 2,4-dinil rophenol, pentachlorophenol)
tolM organics.
8AT-3
7.2
65.8
0.3
219.3
76.8
0.2
0.5
241.2
2.8
1.3
10.33
2.29
0.5
4.4
0.02
14.6
5.1
0.01
16.1
0.2
0.09
0.58
0.14
BAT-4
7.2
65.8
0.3
219.3
38.4
0.2
0.5
109.7
2.4
0.3
47.86
7.15
BAT-5
2.79
0.42
74.80
15.40
PSES-5 PSES-6
0.5 0
4.4
0.02
14.6
2.6
0.01
7.3
0.2
0.02
4.99
1.04
403
L.
-------
I
CC
<
% u
< o
Z O
— z
Ul
Ul
O
O
o
4
Q.
LO
0
405
Preceding page blank
-------
SVBCATECORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 COLLARS
SUBCATECORY! Iron-iking
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant
39 Direct Di>ch
MODEL COSTS ($X10'3)
Investment
Annual . .
(with Sinter Plant)"'
(without Sinter Plant)
S/Ton of Production . .
(with Sinter Plant)
(without Sinter Plant)
Investment
Annua1
trr
PSES-l
9542
972
2248
0.44
1.03
HSPS-1
PSHS-1
9542
BAT-1
PSES-2
172
24.2
24.2
0.011
0.011
HSPS-2
PSNS-2
9714
BAT-2
PSES-3
286
38.2
38.2
0.017
0.017
KSPS-3
PSNS-3
9828
BAT-3
PSES-4
384
BAT-4
PSES-5
784
BAT-5
PSES-6
3149
9926
10,326
BAT-4
PSES-7
4408
58.9
58.9
0.027
0.027
NSPS-4
P5HS-4
234
234
0.11
0.11
NSPS-5
PSNS-5
5*1
541
0.25
0.25
KSPS-4
PSSS-6
900
900
0.41
0.41
NSPS-7
PSNS-7
12,691 13,950
(with Sinter Plant)* '
(without Sinter Plant)
972
2248
996
2272
1010
2286
1031
2306
1206
2482
1512
2788
1872
3148
$/Ton of Production , ^
(with Sinter Plant)
(without Sinter Plant)
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
9
31
34
39
65
73
76
84
114
115
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
128
Flow (CPT)
pH (SU)
Anioonia (N)
Fluoride
Phenols (4AAP)
Residual Chlorine (Max
Total Suspended Solids
Hexachlorobenzene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2, 4-Dimethyl phenol
Fluoranthene
Phenol*
Benzo (a) pyrene
Chrysene
Pyrene*
Antimony
Arsenic*
Cadmium*
Chromium*
Copper*
Cyanide (Total)*
Lead
Nickel*
Selenium
Zinc*
Notes: All concentrations
* Cost for the BAT— 1 i« — -> — —
RAW
WASTE
3200
6-9
20
15
3
. Only)
1900
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.08
0.65
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.25
12
5
0.5
0.06
20
are in mg/1 unless
0.44
1.03
BIT
MSPS-1
PSES-l
PSNS-1
125
6-9
(103)60
45
(4)2.3
-
(50)42
0.01
0.03
0.15
0.08
2.1
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.05
o.:
0.2
0.03
(15)4
0.5
0.1
0.01
0.7
0.45
:.04
BAT-1
KSPS-2
PSES-2
PSSS-2
0
-
0.46
1.04
BAT-2
NSPS-3
PSES-3
PSNS-3
70
6-9
(103)65
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
40
(4)2.3
-
(15)10
0.01
0.03
0.15
0.08
2.1
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.03
(5)4
(0.25)0.1
-
-
0.015
0.01
(0.3)0.18
otherwise noted.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used to
standards for the various levels of treatment.
average values or p
redicted average p
erformance
All other
levels.
C.47
1.05
BAT-3
NSPS-4
PSES-4
PSNS-4
70
6-9
(103)45
20
(4)2.3
-
(25)22
0.01
0.03
0.15
0.08
2.1
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.01
0.15
0.02
(5)4
(0.25)0.08
0.015
0.01
(0.3)0.08
0.55
1.13
BAT-4
HSPS-5
PSES-5
PSNS-5
70
6-9
(10)6
20
(0.1)0.015
(0.5)0.05
(25)22
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.08
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.01
0.15
0.02
(1)0.03
(0.25)0.08
0.015
0.01
(0.3)0.08
0.69
1.27
BAT- 5
SSPS-6
PSES-6
PSKS-6
70
6-9
(10)6
20
(0.1)0.015
(0.5)0.05
(15)10
C.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.05
0.01
0.15
0.02
(1)0.03
(0.25)0.08
0.01
0.01
(0.3)0.02
0.85
1.44
BAT-6
HSPS-?
PSES-7
PSNS-7
0
_
-
-
-
-
-
—
.
_
_
_
-
-
_
_
-
_
.
_
-
_
_
_
-
develop the limitations/
values represent long tern
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples.
(1) Wastewaters from ironmaking operations are disposed of by evaporation on slag.
(2) Credits for recovery of ironmaking wastewater sludges are included.
406
-------
SUMURY OF EFFLUEHT LOADINGS AND TREATMEHT COSTS
. SUBCATECORY
DIRECT DISCHARGEES
SOBCATECORY LOAD SDtMAJtY
(TOSS/YEAR)
Floy (MUD)
Aaaxroia (M)
Cyanide (Total)
Fluoride
Phenol t (4AAP)
Residual Chlorine
Total Suspended Solid*
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organiea
SOBCATECORY COST SUMMARY* 3>
($XIO~*)
Investswnt
Annual
RAW
KASTE
825.6
25,147. 2
13,088.3
18,860.4
3,772.1
-
2,388,979.8
33,382.8
201.2
_
~
•FT BAT-1
29.2 0
2.672.8 -
178.2
2,004.6 -
102.5
-
1.871.0 -
77.)
7.1
434,74 7.28
55.27'*' 1.02
BAT-2
16.4
1.621.5
99.8
997.8
57.4
-
249.5
18.1
4.0
11.28
1.49
BAT-3
16.4
1,621.5
99.8
498.9
57.4
.
548.8
11.4
4.0
14.80
2.26
(AT-4
16.4
J49.7
0.7
498.9
0.4
1.-4.
548.8
11.4
4.0
30.84
9.04
IHPIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
FlcM (MOD)
As»onia (N)
Cyanide (Total)
Fluoride
Phenol • (4AAP)
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics1 '
SOBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~*>
lnvest»ent
Annual
(1) The raw waste load and BPT
are included in the direct
RAW
BASTE
38.4
1,169.6
701.8
877.2
175.4
111,115.3
1,552.7
9.4
..
cost contribution! of
discharger data. As
KES-1 FSES-2
1.5 0
137.1
9.1
102.8
5.3
95.9
4.0
0.4
12.92 0.23
2.13* ' 0.033
th« xero discharge
FSES-3
0.8
83.2
5.1
51.2
2.9
12.8
0.9
0.2
0.39
0.052
operations
PSES-4
0.8
83.2
5.1
25.6
2.9
28.1
0.6
0.2
0.45
0.064
PSES-5
0.8
7.7
0.04
25.6
0.02
28.1
0.6
0.2
0.95
0.30
these plants hev* no wastewster
discharge, they do not contribute to BAT costs or to the EPT and BAT effluent
waste loads.
(2) Individual phenolic compounds (e.g., 2,4-dinilrcpheaol, pentaehlorophenol)
are not included in total organics.
(3) The cost susaury totals do not include confidential plants.
(4> A credit for recovery of sludges in sinter plants has been applied for those
irorasaking operations which have sintering operations on-site or available
for use.
BAT-5
16.4
149.7
0.7
498.9
0.4
1.2
249.5
9.7
1.2
123.09
21.03
FSES-«
0.8
7.7
0.04
25.6
0.02
12.8
0.5
0.06
4.15
0.71
BAT-6
0
171.64
35.06
FSES-7
5.97
1.22
407
-------
1
Ul
O
m
o
Q.
O
0
ro
10
i
1—
i
a.
I
~J .
UJ
o
0
OT
Ul
OT
<*•
r^
o
m
N
5
m
v*
£
CD
X
<
o
<
cc.
o
II
Preceding page blank
-------
z
o
CO
UJ
CC
Q.
H Q
Ul O
$S
u; i-
o.-c
< ui
X
o
o
(O
<
o
o
0.
H
o
o
z
<
UJ
a
o
fit!
c o ^ uj
1 S S - v>
Q. — » > Q.
410
-------
CO
CD
i>
8§
zs
uj s
a. =>
o
-------
I- >
Ul OC
z
-------
* CT
i 4
51
o
2
-------
UJ CC
UJ 5
o o
< <0
Is
U. UJ
o
o o
£E UJ
t- 2
O H
Ul <
_1 U
UJ K
O
O
00
<
_l
0.
UJ
I
411
-------
SUBCATECORY StMUKT DATA
BASIS 7/1/7B POUAK5
SUBCATECORY: Staelaaking
I B«»ic Oxygen Furnace
I Semi-Wei
HAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 1.9 MCD
8 Direct Diichargert 15.3 MOD
0 Indirect Diicharger 0.0 MOD
1 Zero Discharger 0.0 MOD
9 Active Plant* 15.3 MOD
MODEL SIZE (TPD)t 5300
OPEK. DATS/YEAR : 365
TU8BS/DAT t 3
MODEL COSTS ($X)0'3)
Investment
Annual
S/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
BPT/BCT
BAT/PSES
590
100
0.052
Flow (GPT)
pH (SD)
Fluoride
Total Suspended Solidt
120 Copper*
122 Lead*
123 Mercury
128 Zinc*
Motet: All concentrationa are in ng/1 unle*a otherviee noted.
: NSPS and PSNS are reserved.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waate aaatple*.
415
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY:
:
:
Steelmaking
Basic Oxygen Furnace
Vet-Suppressed Combustion
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 7400
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 365
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 7.4 MGD
v 5 Direct Dischargers 37.0 MGD
1 Indirect Discharger 7.4 MGD
6 Active Plan1.: 44.4 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment.
Annua1
S/Ton of Production
Investment
Annual %
$/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Fluoride
Total Suspended Solids
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper*
122 Lead*
124 Nickel*
126 Silver
128 Zinc*
RAW
WASTE
1000
7-12
15
720
0.06
0.6
0.15
8
0.3
0.02
6.8
BPT
PSES-1
3170
846
0.31
PSNS-1
3122
836
0.31
BPT
PSES-1
PSNS-1
50
6-9
15
BAT-1
PSES-2
247
33.0
0.012
NSPS-1
PSKS-2
3417
879
0.33
BAT-1
NSPS-1
PSES-2
PSSS-2
50
6-9
15
(50)36 (15)10
0.01
0.1
0.15
0.5 (0.
0.3
0.02
0.7 (0.
0.01
0.1
0.1
BAT-2
PSES-3
308
42.9
0.016
NSPS-2
PSNS-3
3478
889
0.33
BAT-:
NSPS-2
PSES-3
PSNS-3
50
6-9
15
(25)22
0.01
0.05
0.05
BAT-3
PSES-4
4082
817
0.30
NSPS-3
PSNS-4
7204
1653
0.61
BAT-3
NSPS-3
PSES-i
PSNS-4
0
-
-
-
_
-
-
5)0.4 (0.3)0.2
0.25
0.02
0.15
0.02
-
-
5)0.4 (0.45)0.4
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT and PSES-2 through PSES-4 costs are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the limitations/standards for the various levels
of treatment. All other values represent long term average
values or predicted average performance levels.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw vaste samples.
416
-------
SUBCATEGOF.Y SUMMARY DATA
BASIS V/l/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: Steelmaking
: Basic Oxygen Furnace
i Wet-Open Combustion
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 9100
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 365
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 10.0 MCD
13 Direct Dischargers 130.1 MGD
1 Indirect Discharger 10.0 MGD
14 Active Plants 140.1 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (CPT)
pH (SU)
Fluoride
Total Suspended Solids
23
115
118
119
120
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
Notes
Chloroform
Arsenic*
Cadmium
Chromium*
Copper*
Lead*
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc*
: All conceni
: BAT ar. : PS1
RAW
WASTE
1,100
8-11
20
4,200
0.05
0.06
0.4
5.2
1
3.9
0.02
0.4
0.02
0.08
0.03
14
BPT
PSES-1
4,738
1,102
0.33
PSNS-1
4,617
1,076
0.32
BPT
PSES-1
PSNS-1
110
6-9
20
(50)38
0.05
0.06
0.01
0.1
0.15
0.5 (0
0.001
0.3
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.7 (0
BAT-1
PSES-2
539
74.8
0.023
NSPS-1
PSNS-2
5,277
1,177
0.36
BAT-1
NSPS-1
PSES-2
PSNS-2
110
6-9
20
(15)10
0.05
0.06
0.01
0.1
0.1
.5)0.4 (0
0.001
0.25
0.02
0.01
0.03
.5)0.4 (0.
BAT-2
PSES-3
474
69.6
0.021
NSPS-2
PSNS-3
5,212
1,172
0.35
BAT-2
NSPS-2
PSES-3
PSNS-3
110
6-9
20
(25)22
0.05
0.06
0.01
0.05
0.05
.3)0.2
0.001
0.15
0.02
0.01
0.03
45)0.4
BAT-3
PSES-4
7,549
1,774
0.53
NSPS-3
PSNS-4
12,166
2,850
0.86
BAT-3
NSPS-3
PSES-4
PSNS-4
0
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
PSES-2 through PSES-4 costs art; incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the limitations/standards for the various levels
of treatment. All other values represent long tern average
values or predicted average performance levels.
Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples.
417
-------
StmCATECOtT SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATECORY:
Steeloaking
Open Hearth
Wet
MODEL SIZE (17D): 6700
OPER. DAYS/TEAR : 365
TORUS/DAT I 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 11.4 HGD
4 Direct Discharger! 45.6 MOD
0 Indirect Discharger 0 0 MGD
4 Active Plant* 45.6 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($XIO~3)
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
BPT
PSES-1
4531
957
0.39
BAT-1
PSES-2
521
70.8
0.029
BAT-2
PSES-3
452
72.1
0.029
BAT-3
PSES-4
6336
1404
0.57
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flou
pH (SU)
Fluoride
Totul Suspended Solids
120 Copper*
122 Lead*
126 Zinc*
RAW
WASTE
1700
3-7
150
1700
1.4
2.8
140
BPT
BAT-1 BAT-2
PSES-1 PSES-2 PSES-3
110
6-9
140
(50)40
0.05
1.5
4.4
110 110
6-9 6-9
140 20
(15)10 (25)22
0.4 0.05
(0.35)0.3 (0.3)0.2
(5.0)4.4 (0.45)0.4
BAT-3
PSES-4
0
-
-
-
_
_
-
Notes: All concentrations are in ng/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT and PSES-2 through PSES-4 costs are incremental over BPT and PSES-1 costs.
t NSPS and PSNS are reserved.
t Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the limitations/standards for the various levels
of treataent. All other values represent long Lerm average
values or predicted average performance levels.
* Toxic pollutant found in all rav waste staple*.
418
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY:
Steelmaking
Electric Arc Furnace
Semi-Wet
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 3100
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 365
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant
2 Direct Dischargers
0 Indirect Discharger
1 Zero Discharge
3 Active Plants
0.5 MGD
0.9 MGD
0 MGD
0.5 MGD
1.4 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
BPT/BCT
BAT/PSES
368
79.2
0.070
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Fluoride
Total Suspended Solids
120 Copper*
122 Lead*
128 Zinc*
RAW
WASTE
150
6-9
30
2200
2.4
33
120
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: NSPS and PSNS are reserved.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples.
419
i
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASflS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: Steelmaking
: Electric Arc Furnace
: Wet
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 1800
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 365
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 3.8 HOT
6 Direct Dischargers 22.7 MGD
1 Indirect Discharger 3.8 MOD
7 Active Plants 26.5 MOD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Annual
S/Ton of Production
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Fluoride
Total Suspended Solids
39 Fluoranthene
58 4-Nitrophenol
66 Pentachlorophenol
114 Antimony*
115 Arsenic*
118 Cadmium*
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
122 Lead*
124 Nickel*
126 Silver*
128 Zinc*
RAW
WASTE
2100
6-9
40
3400
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.7
1.2
3.3
4.3
1.3
23
O.OS
0.06
100
BPT
PSES-1
2268
596
0.91
PSNS-1
2268
596
0.91
BPT
PSES-t
PSNS-1
110
6-9
35
(50)47
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.7
0.01
1.5
2
0.15
1.5
0.05
0.06
20
BAT-1
PSES-2
162
21.5
0.033
KSPS-1
PSNS-2
2430
617
0.94
BAT-1
NSPS-1
PSES-2
PSNS-2
110
6-9
35
BAT-2
PSES-3
242
35.5
0.054
NSPS-2
PSNS-3
2510
631
0.96
BAT-2
NSPS-2
PSES-3
PSNS-3
110
6-9
20
BAT-3
PSES-4
2782
512
0.78
NSPS-3
PSNS-4
5049
1107
1.69
BAT-3
NSPS-3
PSES-4
PSNS-4
0
_
.
(15)10 (25)27.
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.7
0 01
l.'j
1.5
c 15
(1)0.95 (0
O.OS
0.06
(20)19 (0.
O.C2
0.01
0.01
0.5
0.01
0.1
1.3
0.1
.3)0.2
0.05
0.06
45)0.4
_
_
_
_
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT and PSES-2 through PSES-4 costs are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the limitations/standards for the various levels
of treatment. All other v&lues represent long term average
values or predicted average Derfo<-mance levels.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw uaste samples.
420
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SOBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR) _
Flow (MGD)
Fluoride
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SDBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
(1)
Investment
Annual
RAW
WASTE
252.1
16,894.6
1,121,727.4
20,887.2
11.3
BPT
18.9
1,130.6
1,119.1
116.0
1.1
BAT-1
18.9
1,130.6
239.4
95.4
1.1
BAT-2
18.9
564.9
636.6
29.7
1.1
112.00
26.28
11.00
1.51
10.74
1.58
BAT-3
156.60
34.87
INDIRECT (POTV) DISCHARGERS
SOBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY RAW
(TOSS/YEAR) WASTE PSES-1 PSES-2 PSES-3 PSES-4
Flow (MGD) 21.2 1.6 1.6 1.6 0
Fluoride 704.2 49.6 49.6 45.0
Total Suspended Solids 91,715.8 92.4 23.8 52.5
Total Toxic Metals 1,333.2 11.7 10.0 2.8
Total Organics 1.0 0.09 0.09 0.09
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
(SX10"6)
Investment - 11.16 0.00 0.55 0.00
Annual - ' 2.79 0.00 0.071 0.00
(1) The cost suamary totals do not include confidential plants.
421
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUEOT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE - SEMI-WET
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY RAW
(TONS/YEAR) WASTE BPT
Flow (MGD) 15.3 0
Fluoride 232.5
Total Suspended Solids 8,717.4
Total Toxic Metals 52.1
Total Organics
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY(1)
($X10"6)
Investment - 4.31
Annual - 0.65
Note: There are no indirect dischargers in this segment.
(1) The cost sura&ary totals do not include confidential plants.
422
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AH9 TREATMENT COSTS
STEELMAKING SUBCATECORY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE - WET-SUPPRESSED COH8USTIOH
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Fluoride
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organic*
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investaent
Annual
RAW
WASTE
37.0
645.2
40,571.7
897.6
BPT
1.8
42.3
101.4
5.0
BAT-1
1.8
42.3
28.2
3.6
BAT-2
1.8
42.3
62.0
2.5
BAT-3
0
-
15.81
4.22
1.23
0.16
1.54
0.21
20.36
4.08
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TOSS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Fluoride
Total Suspended Solid*
Total '.oxic Metals
Total Organic*
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
RAW
WASTE
7.4
169.0
8,114.3
179.5
PSES-1
0.4
8.5
20.3
1.0
PSES-2
0.4
8.5
5.6
0.7
psrr-s
0.4
8.5
12.4
0.5
PSES-4
0
-
3.06
0.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
423
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
STEELMAKINC SUBCATEGORY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE - WET-OPEN COMBUSTION
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
FIou (MCD)
Fluoride
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organic*
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
(SX10"6)
Investment
Annual
(1)
RAW
WASTE
130.1
BPT
13.0
3,963.7 396.4
832,369.1 753.1
4,976.4 37.3
9.9 1.0
58.62
13.64
BAT-1
13.0
396.4
198.2
27.4
1.0
6.69
0.93
BAT-2
13.0
396.4
436.0
19.4
1.0
5.88
0.86
BAT-3
0
93.59
22.00
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TON'S/YEAR)
Flow (MCD)
Fluoride
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
(SX10"6)
Investment
Annual
RAW
WASTE
10.0
304.9
64,028.4
382.8
0.8
PSES-1
1.0
30.5
57.9
2.9
0.08
5.37
1.25
PSES-2
1.0
30.5
15.2
2.1
0.08
O.OC
0.00
PSES-3
1.0
30.5
33.5
1.5
0.08
0.37
0.048
PSES-4
0
O.OC
0.00
(1) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
STEELKAKINC SUBCATECORY
OPEN DEARTH - WET
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MOD)
Fluoride
Total Suspended Solidt
Tola! Toxic Metal*
Total Organic! •
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Arnu«l
RAW
WASTE
45.6
BPT
2.9
10,407.9 628.6
117,956.5 179.6
10,005.5 25.7
17.78
3.75
BAT-1
2.9
628.6
44.9
21.3
BAT-2
2.9
89.8
98.8
2.9
BAT-3
0
2.05
0.28
1.77
0.28
24.89
5.52
Note: There are no indirect dischargers in this subdivision.
425
y
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
STEELMAKING SUBGATECORY
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE - SEMI-WET
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MCD)
Fluoride
Tola! Suspended Solid*
Total Toxic Metal*
Total Organic!
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
;$X10"6)
Investment.
Annual
RAW
WASTE
1.4
63.7
4,674.0
330.2
BPT
1.00
0.22
Note; There are no indirect dischargers in this segment.
426
-------
SUMMARY or EFFLi-Eirr LOADINGS AMD TREATMENT COSTS
STEELMAKINC SUBCATECORY
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE - WET
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SOTCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flew (HOT)
Fluoride
Total SuspendedSolid*
Total Toxic Metal*
Total Organic!
RAW
WASTE
22.7
1.381.6
117,438.7
4,625.4
1.4
BPT
1.2
63.3
85. 0
47.0
0.07
BAT-1
J.2
63.3
18.1
43.1
0.07
BAT-2
1.2
36.2
39.8
4.9
0.07
BAT-3
0
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
Investment
Annual
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TOK5/YEAR)
Flow (MOD)
Fluoride
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metal*
Total Organic*
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
<$X10~*>
Investment
Annual
-
IKDIRECT
RAW
WASTE
3.8
230.3
15,573.1
770.9
0.2
14.48
3.80
1.03
0.14
(POTW) DISCHARGERS
gSjM.,
0.2
10.6
14.2
7.8
0.01
PSES-2
0.2
10.6
3.0
7,2
0.0!
2.73
0.72
0.00
0.00
1.55
0.23
PSES-3
6.0
6,f>
0.8
0.01
0.18
0.023
17.76
3.27
0.00
0.22
427
-------
— «0
tO
CO 0>
< -I
O Ul
Ul O
0 O
=> H
=> z
Ul
CE
O
O
CM
Q.
Ul
O
O
u
X CO
0.0.
429
Preceding page blank
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS Hint DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: Vacuum Degassing
: Carbon and Specialty
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 1200
OFER. DAYS/YEAR : 363
TURNS/DAY i 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 1.7 MOD
31 Direct Dischargers 52.1 MOD
0 Indirect Dischargers 3.0 MOD
2 Zero Dischargers 3.4 MGD
33 Active Plants 55.5 KCD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Inves tment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
Investment
Annual
S/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Manganese
Total Suspended Solids
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
122 Lead*
124 Nickel
128 Zinc*
RAW
WASTE
1400
6-9
5
60
0.5
0.3
1
0.1
6
BPT BAT-1
PSES-1 PSES-2
1116 32.0
166 4.3
0.38 0.0098
SSPS-1 NSPS-2
PSHS-l PSNS-2
1116 1148
166 171
0.38 0.39
BPT BAT-1
NSPS-1 NSPS-2
PSES-1 PSES-2
PSNS-1 PSNS-2
25 25
6-9 6-9
5 5
(50)34 (15)10
BAT-2
PSES-3
124
17.3
0.039
HSPS-3
PSKS-3
1240
184
0.42
BAT-2
NSPS-3
PSES-3
PSNS-3
25
6-9
1
(25)22
ZAT-3
PSES-4
1479
201
0.46
HSPS-4
PSNS-4
2595
368
0.84
BAT-3
HSPS-4
PSES-4
PSNS-4
0
0.5 0.5 0.1
0.1 0.1 0.1
0.7 (0.7)0.7 (0.3)0.2
0.1 0.1 0.1
4.5 (4/5)4.5 (0.45)0.4
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT, PSES-2 and PSES-4 costs are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the limitations/standards for the various levels
of treatment. All other values represent long term average
values or predicted average performance levels.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples.
L
430
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
(1)
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Manganese
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
(2)
RAW
HASTE
55.4
BPT
0.9
422.2 7.1
5,066.0 48.2
667.0 8.4
27.90
4.10
BAT-1
0.9
7.1
14.2
8.4
0.78
0.10
BAT-2
0.9
1.4
31.2
1.3
3.03
0.42
BAT-3
0
36.00
4.90
Note: There are no indirect dischargers in this subcategory.
(1) The raw waste load and BPT cost contributions of the zero discharge operations are
included in fiis data. However, as these plants have no wastewater discharges, they
do not contribute to RAT costs or to the BPT and BAT effluent waste lozds.
(2) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
L
431
-------
n
tr
to
to to
< UJ O)
o to _j
0- UJ
tO p Q
z
o
0
u
UJ
oc
o
o
433
Preceding page blank
-------
fi-
1 i
H- CO
°«d
CO
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: Continuous Cueing
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 1400
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 365
TURKS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 4.8 MGD
25 Direct Discharger* 119.0 MGD
7 Indirect Dischargers 33.3 MGD
17 Zero Dischargers 80.9 MGD
49 Active Plants 233.2 MGD
MODLI. COSTS ($X10~3)
BPT
PSES-1
BAT-1
PSES--2
BAT-2
PSES-3
BAT-3
PSES-4
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
WASTE WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Plow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
RAW
WASTE
2304
356
0.70
BPT
PSES-1
35.4
4.8
0.0094
HSPS-1
PSKS-1
3442
499
0.98
BAT-1
KSPS-1
PSES-2
PSNS-1
124
17.3
0.034
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
3566
516
1.01
BAT-2
NSPS-2
PSES-3
PSNS-2
1581
219
0.43
KSPS-3
PSMS-3
5023
718
1.40
BAT-3
RSPS-3
PSES-4
PSNS-3
3400 125 25 25
6-9 6-9 6-9 6-9
25 (15)10 (5**)I.O (10)4.4
60 (50)40 (15)9.8 (25)22
0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65
0.11 0.11 0.11 0.1
0.08 0.08 (0.1)0.08 (0.3)0.08
0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
0.7 0.7 (0.7)0.7 (0.45)0.4
Holes: All concentrations are in Eg/1 unless otherwise noted.
i BAT and PSES-2 through PSES-4 costs are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the limitations/standards for the various levels
of treatment. All other values represent long term
average values or predicted average performance levels.
"Limit for oil and grease is based upon 10 rag/1 (maximum only).
435
L
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATECORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
(1)
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Tolal Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
(2)
RAW
WASTE
199.9
7,611.8
18,268.2
493.2
BPT
4.4
66.6
266.5
10.8
64.39
9.38
0.88
0.12
BAT-2
0.9
5.9
29.3
1.7
3.05
0.42
BAT-3
0
39.75
5.50
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
RAW
WASTE
33.3
1,268.6
3,044.7
82.2
PSES-l
1.2
18.7
74.6
3.0
PSES-2
0.2
0.7
3.7
0.6
PSES-3
0.2
1.6
8.2
0.5
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investnent
Annual
8.90
1.33
0.14
0.02
0.77
0.09
8.54
1.18
(1) The raw waste load and BPT cost contributions of the zero discharge operations are
included in the direct discharger data. As these plants have no wastewater discharges,
they do not contribute to BAT costs or to the BPT and BAT effluent waste loads.
(2) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
436
I
-------
CO
UJ
IS
cc
<
5
5
O
w
eo
(- OJ
or; H
Z^S
CD ;=
UJ
CC
I-
go o o o o o o
v o K> . Q. Q. >.
*o — c ~Z
— W) O —
O (/) Z
z
o
UJ
m
o:
Q.
437
-------
(0
o>o>ot
OK
u a.
oo oo ooo o
OO OO OOO N
io«r — c«i
CM.IO IOf> WfO~ IO
§ S
IT
CL
u
UJ
<
_l
CO
UJ
a.
438
-------
SUBCATECORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/76 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORYs Hoi Forming
< All Subdivisions
RAW WASTE PLOWS
227 Direct Dischargers
18 Indirect Dischsrgers
9 Zero Dischargers
262 Active Plants
WASTE WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
3,594.6 MCO
294.5 MOT
85.2 HOT
3,976.3 MOD
pH (SU)
Oil and Creese
Total Suspended Solids
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
RAW
WASTE
BAT-1
BPT
BCT
PSES-1
BAT-2
KSPS-1
PSES-2
PSNS-1
HSPS-2
PSES-3
PSNS-2
6-9 6-9
30-130 (5**)2.0
790-3300 (15)9.8
6-9
(5*")2.0
(15)9.8
<0.05-12
0.3-20
<0.05-11
0.8-20
0.6-5.4
0.001 (0.10)0.001
0.011 0.011
0.007 (0.10)0.007
0.006 0.006
0.049 (0.15)0.049
Notes: All concentrations arc in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
s Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the limitations (or the various levels of
treataent. All other values represent long tens
average values or predicted average performance levels.
**Limil for oil and grease is based upon 10 mg/l (maximum only).
431
-------
SimcATECORY SUMMARY DATA
EASIS 111 IT. DOLLARS
SUBCATECORYt Hot forming
t Primary
I Carbon With Scarfan
HODCL SIZE Cm): 7400
OPCII. DAYS/YEAS : 260
> 3
HAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Pl.nl 25.2 HCD
JO Direct Bitcharger* 7S4.8 HCD
2 Indirect Ditcharger* SO.] HCD
12 Acliv* Plann (05.1 HCD
MODEL COSTS ($Xlp'3)
Investment
Annual
S/Ton of Production
BPT
»CT
PSES-l
4863
-498
-0.36
IAT-1
fSES-2
SAT- 2
10132
1934
1.01
WM-1
PSltS-1
5568
-SS6
UASTEUATER
CHARACTERISTICS
flow (CPT)
pH (SU)
Oil and Grata*
Total Suspended Solid*
119 Chroauua
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
RAW
WASTE
»PT
»CT
PSE5-I
3400 1326 140
6-9 6-9 6-9
56 (5«)2.0 (5«)2.0
3000 (15)9.8 (15)9.8
1.3 0.001 (0.10)0.001
S.7 0.011 0.011
6.S 0.007 (0.1010.007
S.7 0.006 0.006
3.1 0.049 (0.15)0.049
BAT-2
KSPS-2
P«S-3
PSHS-2
MottfI All concentration* are in •£/! ualeaa otherviee noted.
1 BAT, PSU-2 and PSCS-3 coda art incremental over BPT/PSES-) coati.
I Valuea in parentheaet repreaent the concentration* uaed
to develop the 1 i«utationa/aiandardt for the vanou* level*
of treatment. All other value* repreient loot term averaft
value* or predicted averAge perfonaance level*.
**Lietit for oil and greaie ia baaed vpon 10 •(/! (•axil
only).
440
-------
1
DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 POUAK5
SUBCATlCOtY; Hoi forcing
I Primary
I Carbon Without Scarfen
HAW WASTt FU)MS __
Model Plant 1.7 HO)
30 Direct Dtachargera 2(2.2 MCD
2 Indirect Di«ch«rger« 17.5 MCC
1 Zero OUcharger S.7 HCD
33 Active Plaata 288.4 HO.
MOKL SJZt (T?D)i 3*00
OfIt. DAYS/YEA*. I 240
TURNS/DAY I 3
MQDtL COSTS
Invetlvent
Ann we 1
I/Ton of Production
MT-1
rSE5-
1240
1M
0.19
IAT-2
MI7
0.89
2S61
4&
0.05
itsrs-j
fSKS-2
6816
746
0.76
UASTTWATJH
CHAIlACTtSISTICS
Flow (CPT)
pH (SU)
Oil p«a4e4 Solid!
119 Chroeuw
120 Copper
122 Le*d
124 Nickel
128 Ztnc
BPT
(AW tCT
UASIt PSES-1
2300 897
t-9 6-9
»5 (5«*)2.0
2200 (15)9.8
1.9 0.001
11 0.011
7.5 0.007
4.6 0.006
4.0 0.049
»AT-1
XSPS-1
pses-2
PSKS-l
90
6-9
(5«*)2.0
(15)9.8
(0.10)0.001
0.011
(0.10)0.007
O.OO4
(0.15)0.049
1AT-2
HSPS-2
P-.CS-3
FSHS-2
0
_
-
-
fc
-
-
.
-
Koteti All concentration* ere in •$/! unleea otherwite noted.
! (AT. PSES-} «nil for oil and (reaie ii baaed upon 10 Bf/1 (eomvja only).
441
L-1
-------
SOT CATEGORY SIMtUtY DAT*
BASIS 7/1/78 PQtlAjtS
SWCATZGOM: Hoi forcing
I Primary
I Spacialty With Scarfara
»w HASTE nom
Ho4al Mint 6.3 HCD
5 biract Diachargart 31.* MOD
0 Indirect Diachargara 0.0 HCO
5 Active Mania 31.4 HCD
MOOD. SIZE (TTO)t 1850
OTCI. nm.'TCAt I 260
I 1
MOPtl COSTS (IXIO*3)
Itmtimml
Annual
l/Toa ol Producttoo
UASTtUATtl
guRACTtllSTICS
(crr>
Oil and Craaaa
Total Suapandad Selida
IAU
WASTE
3*00 132* 140
6-« *-» »-»
H (5««)2.0 (5»«)2.0
3000 (!})«.* US>«.t
1022
111
0.31
UT-1
mrc-i
nu-2
fSW-l
4243
703
1.46
iAT-J
itsrs-2
rsu-3
f5»i-2
2610
27. (
0.0*
lit Chroatu
120 Coprtr
122 Ua4
124 Rickal
I2S Zinc
12
20
:.§
12
4.1
0.001 (0.10)0.001
0.001 0.001
0.007 (0.10)0.007
0.006 O.OOt
0.04* (0.12)0.04*
IBI'S-2
rsiis-2
U32
Nol«*l AM conctntral iona ar« in •«/! imlcaa othcrwii* noted.
i 1AT, rstS-2 and rtES-3 co«l« ara incraawntal over tPT/MtS-1 coat*.
I Valuai in ktranthaaaa rapraaant in* coneanlrationa utad
la davalo^ lha liaitalioni/itandardi lor tha varioua Savala
of Iraaiatant. All othar valuaa rapraaant long lan§ avaraga
valuaa or pradictad avaraga parformanca la*ala.
••Limit for oil and graata ia baaad upon 10 «i/l (MH
only).
442
-------
swtutt SAT*
»AMS 7/1/76
SUICATEOOIT: Hoi fcr»i«t
1 trim**}
Without Scarfara
tizi cm»i 1100
Mtt/TCAt I 2W
TVUS/MT : 3
SAW WASTI
Mod<
11
I
1
14
il Plant
Direct Ditcharfert
Indirect. Ditcharaara
Zaro Ditcharger
Active Maait
2.1 NCO
30.4 NO>
i.i HO)
2.t HCD
31.7 HO)
MOPtL COSTS (SKIP'3)
Annual
(/Ton cf Production
BSM-l MSPt-2
1«04 4073
13* 484
0.4} I. Si
MT-J
UASTZUATC*
CHAKACTItlSTlCS
(CPT)
pH (S»)
Oil <»4 Cre.i.
Ton! Suip«n
11* ChrovtuB
120 Copper
172 L««d
124 Miek«l
12( Zinc
HASTg
2300 ««7
«i (J»«)J.O
2200
<0.05
0.3
-O.Oi
I]
l.t
BM-l
MtS-2
PSKS-1
0.001 (0.10)0.001
0.011 0.011
0.007 (0.10)0.007
0.00* O.OOt
0.049 (O.I5)0.(X»
Hoteal All concentration* are tn aig/l uftleaa olnerviae ^oted.
I (AT, PSES-2 and PStt-1 coata arc iKcraawntal over BfT,f-t£t-l c»ata.
I Value* in parentheee* reprevetit th* cooca«tration* vied
to develop the ItautatlotM/atandardi for the varioui laveli
of treatoent. All other velvet rerretent lout ten* averata
••Licit for oil and fraata it baled «po« 10 »j'l (auxiiwB owl;).
-------
SJJSCATECOM SUMMARY DATA
tASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: Hot Forcing
: Section
! Carbon
MODEL SIZE (TTD): »50
C?E». DAIS/TEAS : 260
TURKS/DAT : 3
HAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Flint
48 Direct Discharger*
7 Indirect Dischargers
4 Zero Discharge*
59 Active Fltnts
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Annual
S/Ton of Production
15.6 MS
744.6 MO>
104.9 tea
61. s tica
»i?.7 tea
MT
BCT
3S85
267
0.34
BAT-2
FSES-3
1350
1.70
MSPS-1
FSNS-1
327
0.41
vsrs-2
rsns-2
9894
1411
1.78
VASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flov (OPT)
PR (SO)
Oil and Crease
Total Suspended Solids
119 Chroaiua
ISO Copper
112 Lead
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
HASTE
in
*CT
PSI5-1
5100 11*2 200
6-9 t-9 6-9
38 (5**)I.O (5**)2.0
990 (1529.8 (15)9.8
0.*
1.9
0.4
1.3
5.4
0.001 (0.10)0.001
0.011 0.011
0.007 (0.10)0.007
0.006 0.006
O.O49 (0.15)0.049
BAT-I
KSPS-2
PSES-3
PSSS-2
Notes:
All concentrations are in v$/l mless otb*rvise noted-
BAT, PSES-2 and PSES-3 costs ar* iacresttctal over BPT/PSES-1 coats.
Values in parentheses r*prea«at ts* coocaat rat ions used
to develop the lisiitatxaes/staadards for -h« »«riou« levels
of treatstent. All otber x>al«c« represent lefts terv average
values or predicted av«ra$« s*«r£orstance levels.
fo
nd gr
10 «»
i only).
444
-------
r r
i !
i i
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA'
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATECORY: Hoc Forming
; Seccioo
: Specialty
MODEL SIZE (IPD):
OPEB.
TURNS/DAT
1200
260
3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 3.8 MOT
17 Direct Dischargers 65.3 MGD
1 Indirect Dischargers 3.8 MOD
3 Zero Dischargers 11.5 KGD
21 Active Plants 80.6 HCD
MODEL COSTS (JXIO'3)
Investment
Annual
S/Ton of Production
HASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (OPT)
PH (SU)
Oil and Crease
Total Suspended Solids
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
RAW
WA3TE
BPT
BCT
PSES-1
1525
94.0
0.30
BPT
BCT
PSES-1
BAT-1
PSES-2
815
117
0.38
BAT-1
NSPS-1
PSES-2
PSNS-1
BAT-2
PSES-3
3297
518
1.66
BAT-2
KSPS-2
PSES-3
PSSS-2
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
1891
150
0.48
KSPS-2
PSNS-2
*372
550
1.76
3200 1344 130
6-9 6-9 6-9
60 (5**)2.0 (5**)2.0
1600 (15)9.8 (15)9.8
0.8
2.9
3.2
6.3
1.4
0.001 (0.10)0.001
0.011 O.Cll
0.007 (0.10)0.007
0.006 0.006
0.049 (0.15)0.049
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT, PSES-2 and PSES-3 costs are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the limitations/standards for the various levels
of treatment. All other values represent long term average
values or predicted average performance levels.
**Linit for oil and grease is baaed upon 10 ag/1 (oaxii
only).
I „_
445
-------
SUBCATECORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: Hot Forming
: Flat
: Carbon Hot Strip tnd Sheet
KOi>EL SIZE (TPD): 7250
OPEJ. DAYS/YEAR I 260
T'JrtNS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 46.4 MGD
30 Direct Dischargers 1392.0 MGD
2 Indirect Dischargers 92.8 MGD
32 Active Plants 1484.8 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10"3)
Investment
Annual
S/Ton of Production
UASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Oil and Crease
Total Suspended Solids
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
RAW
WASTE
BPT
BCT
PSES-1
6589
270
0.14
BPT
BCT
PSES-1
BAT-1
PSES-2
3941
617
0.33
BAT-1
NSPS-1
PSES-2
PSNS-1
BAT- 2
PSES-3
182S3
3504
1.86
BAT-2
NSPS-2
PSES-3
PSNS-2
NSPS-l
PSNS-1
8314
585
0.31
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
22625
3472
1.84
6400 2560 260
6-9 6-9 6-9
30 (5**)2.0 (5**)2.0
790 (15)9.8 (15)9.8
1.8 0.001 (0.10)0.001
0.4 0.011 0.011
0.7 0.007 (0.10)0.007
0.8 0.006 0.006
1.3 0.049 (0.15)0.049
Notes: All concentrations are in ng/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT, PSES-2 and PSES-3 costs are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 coats.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the limitations/standards for the various levels
of treatment.. All other values represent long tens average
values or predicted average performance levels.
**Limit for oil and grease is baaed upon 10 mg/1 (maxiauai only).
L.
-------
SOBCATECORY SDWUSY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
smCATECOtY: Bot fortune
I Flit
i Specialty Rot Strip and Sheet
MODEL SIZE (TFD):
OPER. DAYS/TEAK I
TURNS/DAY J
900
260
3
1AH HASTE riOVS
Model Plmt 5.8 H0>
7 Direct DUchargen 40.3 ma
0 Indirect Discharger* 0.0 MOD
7 Active FUati 40.3 MCD
COSTS (mo'3)
In«*nent
A*M*1
S/ToB) of Production
BPT
BCT
fSES-1
1871
174
0.74
BAT-1
PSES-2
1000
148
0.6)
SAT-J
FSES-3
4053
666
2.85
KSPS-1
PSKS-1
2318
246
1.05
RS?S-2
PSMS-2
5371
764
3.26
UftSTEUATER
CgAlACTEMSTICS
RAW
HASTE
BPT
BCT
PSES-1
Floi. (CFT)
p8 (SO)
Oil *o4 CrcaM
Totcl SiMpmdcd Solid*
11» Chronioi
120 Copper
122 U*d
124 Nickel
12* Zioc
6400 2560 260
6-9 6-9 6-9
30 <5**>2.0 <5**)2.0
790 (15)9.8 (15)9.8
1.9
0.3
<0.05
3.4
0.6
0.001 (0.10)0.001
0.011 0.011
0.007 (0.10)0.007
0.006 0.006
0.049 (0.15)0.049
BAT-2
KSPS-2
PSES-3
PSKS-2
All cooeenirelion* «r« in •(/! onl*** otber*i*e noted.
BAT, PSCS-2 and PSES-3 co*t* ere incrowntal o*er BPT/PSES-1 cod*.
Value* in perenthett* r*pre*eni toe concentration* u*ed
to develop the liait*tion*/*taadard* for tb* variou* level*
of treataent. All other value* represent too* ten averate
value* or predicted aver*(* performance level*.
for oil and grea*e i* baled upoo 13 •*./! duxinua only).
447
-------
SUBCATECORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: Rot Forming
I Flat
> Specialty Plate
MODEL SIZE (TPD):
OPER. DAYS/YEAR :
TURNS/DAY :
1000
260
3
RAH WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 1.5 HCD
5 Direct Dischargers 7.5 MCD
0 Indirect Dischargers 0.0 MCD
5 Active Plants 7.5 MCD
MODEL COSTS (jX10~3)
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
BPT
BCT
PSES-
1112
53.6
0.20
BAT-1
P5ES-2
642
91.5
0.35
BAT-2
PSES-3
2588
370
1.62
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
1343
90.9
0.35
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
3289
370
1.42
UASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (OPT)
pH (SU)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
BPT
RAW BCT
WASTE PSES-1
1500 600
6-9 6-9
130 (5**)2.0
3400 (15)9.8
2.9 0.001
5.1 0.011
11 0.007
20 0.006
1.9 0.049
BAT-1
NSPS-1
PSES-2
PSNS-1
60
6-9
(5**)2.0
(15)9.8
(0.10)0.001
0.011
(0.10)0.007
0.006
(0.15)0.049
BAT-2
NSPS-2
PSES-3
PSNS-2
0
Notes: All concentrations are in ng/l unless otherwise noted.
: BAT, PSES-2 and PSES-3 costs are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the limitations/standards for the various levels
of treatment. All other values represent long term average
values or predicted average performance levels.
**l»irait for oil and grease is baaed on 10 mg/1 (maximum only).
-------
SUBCATECOSY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATECORY: Hoc Forming
I Flat
t Carbon Plate
MODEL SIZE (TPD):
OFER. DAYS/YEAK :
TURKS/DAY ;
11 SO
260
3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Kodel Plant 10.7 MCD
11 Direct Discharger! 117.8 MCD
1 Indirect Discharge™ 10.7 MCD
12 Active Plant! 128.5 MGD
HODEL COSTS (SXIO"3)
Investment
Annual
S/Ton of Production
BPT
BCT
PSES-1
2619
63.8
0.08
BAT-2
PSES-3
KSPS-1
PSNS-1
UASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (CPT)
pH (SU)
Oil and Crease
Total Suspended Solids
119 Chromiua
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
PAW
WASTE
BPT
BCT
PSES-1
BAT-1
NSPS-1
PSES-2
PSNS-1
3400 1360 140
6-9 t>-9 6-9
56 (5**)2.0 C5«)2.0
1500 (15)9.6 (15)9.8
1.3
4.9
2.1
3.9
1.8
0.001 (0.10)0.001
0.011 0.011
0.007 (0.10)0.007
0.006 0.006
0.049 (0.15)0.049
Motesi All concentrations are in ng/1 unlest otherwise noted.
: BAT, PSES-2 and PSES-3 costs are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 rosts.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the Imitations/standards for the various levels
of treatment. All other values represent long tern average
values or predicted average performance levels.
"Limit for oil and grease is bssed upon 10 ng/1 (Baxiousi only).
44')
-------
SUBCATECORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/7B DOLLARS
8UBCATECOKY: Hoc Porminj
> Pip* and Tub*
I Carbon
MODEL SIZE (TH>>>
OPER. DAYS/YEAH :
TOMS/DAY :
900
260
3
RAW WASTE TUNS
Model Pilot 5.C HCD
25 Direct Ditch*rt*rt 124.2 HCD
1 Indirect Ditch*r|*rt . 5.0 MCD
26 Active Plant* 129.2 HCD
MODEL COSTS (SXIO'1)
InvettMnt
Annual
S/Ton of Production
VASTEUATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Plow
pH (SU)
Oil *nd Great*
Total Suspended Solid*
119 ChroeUuB
120 Copper
122 Le*d
124 Nick*l
US Zinc
RAW
WASTE
BAT-1
PSES-2
676
95.8
0.41
BAT-1
MSPS-1
PSES-2
PSNS-1
BAT-2
PSES-3
3470
562
2.40
BAT-2
NSPS-2
P8ES- 1
PSNS-2
RSPS-1
PSKS-1
U71
241
1.03
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
4664
7M
3.02
357.0 1270 220
6-9 6-9 6-9
56 (5**)2.0 (5**)2.0
1500 (15)9.a (15)9.8
2.9
5.1
11
20
1.9
0.001 (0.10)0.001
0.011 C.011
0.007 (0.10)0.007
0.006 0.006
0.049 (0.15)0.049
Motet! All concentration* *r« in •*./! unleu othervii* notid.
I BAT, PSES-2 *nd PSES-3 cetti *r< increMnt*! over BFT/fSES-l eo*t*.
I V*lu** in p*renthe*e* repretcnt the concentration* u**d
to develop the li>it*tion*/*t*nd*rd* for the vtriout levtlt
of trtttMDt. All othtr value* represent long ten *v«rtf«
value* or predicted *vera(* performance level*.
•*Li»it for oil and (real* ie bated upon 10 •»/! (atximm only).
450
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATECORY: Hoc Forming
: Pipe and Tube
: Specialty
MODEL SIZE CTPD):
OPER. DAYS/YEAX ':
TURNS/DAY :
500
260
3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plane 2.8 HGD
8 Direct Discharger! 22.1 HGD
0 Indirect Dischargers 0.0 HCD
8 Active Planta 22.1 HCD
HODEL COSTS (SX10'3)
Investment
Annual
5/Ion of Production
UASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Oil and Creaae
Total Suspended Solid*
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
RAW
WASTE
BPT
»CT
PSES-1
1264
125
0.95
BPT
BCT
PSES-1
BAT-1
PSES-2
642
91.5
0.70
BAT-1
NSPS-1
PSES-2
PSNS-1
BAT- 2
PSES-3
2911
440
3.38
BAT- 2
NSPS-2
PSES-3
PSNS-2
HSPS-1
PSNS-1
1544
167
1.29
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
3814
516
3.97
552D 1270 220
6-9 6-9 6-9
56 (5**)2.0 (5**)2.0
1500 (15)9.8 (15)9.8
0.2
0.9
2.1
1.3
1.7
0.001 (0.10)0.001
0.011 0.011
0.001 (0.10)0.007
0.006 0.006
0.049 (0.15)0.049
Notes: All concentration* are in mg/1 unletc otherwise noted.
I BAT, PSES-2 and PSES-3 costs are increments! over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
I Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the limitations/standards for the various levels
of treatment. All other values represent long ttrm average
values or predicted average performance levels.
••Limit for oil and grease is based upon 10 «g/l (maximum only).
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HOT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
(SX10~6)
Investment
Annual
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
(3)
(3)
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
(I)
(2)
RAW
WASTE
BPT/BCT BAT-1
3,679.9
BAT-2
1,418.5 145.2
174,540.2 3,077.6 314.5
5,878,201.0 15,081.0 1,540.8
49,460.4 113.9 11.6
460.28
-29.03
279.24 1,454.59
42.86 267.05
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
RAW
WASTE
294.5
13,776.7
444,155.8
3,504.5
PSES-1 PSES-2 PSES-3
124.7 11.9
355.2 25.7
1,337.6 125.6
9.2
32.50
-1.30
0.9
23.10
3.68
108.61
19.26
(1) The raw waste load and BPT cost contribution* of the zero discharge operations are
included in the direct discharger data. As these plants have no wastewater discharges,
they do not contribute to BAT costs or to the BPT and BAT effluent waste loads.
(2) Rav waste loads for zero discharge plants have been included in these totals.
(3) The cost sunsaary totals do not include confidential plants.
•552
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HOT FORMING - PRIMARY
CARBON WITH SCARFERS
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
n
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR) _
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Create
To Ml Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
Investment
Annual
RAW
WASTE
754.8
45,857.4
2,456,647.6
18,261.1
BPT/BCT
294.4
638.7
3,129.8
23.6
BAT-1
31.1
67.4
330.4
2.5
BAT-2
0
-
97.23
-26.94
61.21
9.65
271.62
52.49
INDIRECT (POTV) DISCHARGERS
SOBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Great*
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investoenl
Annual
RAW
WASTE
50.3
3,057.2
163,776.5
1,217.4
PSES-1
19.6
42.6
208.7
1.6
PSES-2
2.1
4.5
22.0
0.2
PSES-3
0
-
4.36
-1.03
3.10
0.47
12.28
2.34
453
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TRF.ATMENT COSTS
HOT FORMING - PRIMARY
CARBOH WITHOUT SCARFERS
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
(1)
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MOD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solido
Total Toxic Metal•
Total Organict
StmCATECORY COST SUMMARY
(SKIP"*)
Investoent
Annual
(2)
O)
RAW
WASTE
270.9
24,985.1
646,674.2
8,524.3
BPT/BCT BAT-!
102.3 10.3
221.9 22.3
1,087.2 109.1
8.2 0.8
44.00
-3.97
25.10
3.63
BAT-2
0
120.77
20.60
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TOSS/YEAR) __
Flow (MOT)
Oil and Crease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organic*
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
(3)
Investment
Annual
RAW
WASTE
17.5
1,611.9
41,720.9
550.0
PSES-l
6.8
14.8
72.5
0.6
J.64
-0.29
PSES-2
0.7
1.5
7.3
0.05
2.82
0.42
PSZS-3
14.50
2.49
(!) The raw waste load and BPT cost contributions of the zero discharge operations are
included in the direct discharger data. As these plants have no vasteuater discharges,
they do not contribute to BAT costs or to the SPT and BAT effluent waste loads.
(2) Raw waste loads for zero discharge plants have been included in these totals.
(3) The cost sunnary totals do not include confidential plants.
454
-------
K-T!" ?^S
iliinTfuaJrVif-
SIM1ARY OF EFFLUENT LOADIKCS AMD TREATMENT COSTS
HOT FORMING - PRIMARY
SPECIALTY WITH SCARPERS
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flo*. (HOD)
Oil and Greii*
Told Su*p«nded Solid*
Total Toxic Meltls
Total Organic*
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
(SX10"6)
Invettaenl
Annual
RAW
WASTE
31.5
1,910.7
102,360.3
1,736.7
BPT/BCT
12.3
26.6
130.4
1.0
BAT-1
1.3
2.8
13.8
0.1
BAT-2
0
-
6.74
-0.75
4.72
0.67
25.22
4.18
Hot*: There ar* no indirect (PuTW) diicharger* in thi*
455
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUEOT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HOT FORMIMC - PRIMARY
SPECIALTY WITHOUT SCARTERS
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MOD)
Oil and Crea»e
Tol»l Suipcnded Solid*
Total Toxic Metal*
Total Organics
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
(SX10"6)
Investment
Annual
(3)
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
RAV<2>
UASTE
(1)
33.1
3,054.1
79,050.2
546.2
25.7
125.9
1.0
2.6
12.6
0.1
7.25
-0.15
3.02
0.36
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
BAT-2
16.41
2.42
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MOD)
Oil and Create
Total Suspended Solidi
Total Toxic Metal*
Total Organic*
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
(SX10"6J
Inveitaenl
Annual
(3)
RAW
WASTE
5.5
509.0
13,175.0
91.0
PSES-1
2.2
4.7
22.9
0.2
0.97
-0.03
PSES-2
0.2
0.5
2.3
0.02
PSES-3
0
0.14
5.44
0.67
(1) The raw watte load and BPT cost contribution* of the zero discharge operation are
included in the direct discharger data. A* thit plant ha* no wasteualer discharge,
it doe* not contribute to BAT cost* or to the BPT and BAT effluent «a*le loads.
(2) Raw uasle load* for tero discharge plant* have been included in the*e totals.
(3) The coat summary total* do not include confidential plant*.
-------
SUMMAIY or IFFLUEKT LOADINGS ABO TRZATMEST COSTS
HOT rORMINC - SECTION
CARBOK
n
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUHKARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MCD)
Oil and Crcut
Total Suspended Solid*
Total Toxic Metal*
Total Organic!
SUBCATECORY COST SVMMARY
(5X10"6)
Invest. *>ent
Annual
(3)
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
(I)
RAW<2)
KASTt
808.9
33,346.2
868,756.9
8, 247. 4
BPT/8CT
313.4
680.4
3,334.1
25.2
108.01
1.52
58.53
6.80
319.92
58.25
INDIRECT (POTV) DISQUICIRS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUJWARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (HCD)
Oil and Crease
Total Suspended Solid*
Total Toxic Metal*
Total Organic*
SUBCATECORY COST SOWARY
RAW
WASTE
4.488.9
116.948.0
805.8
Inv**laenl
Annual
PSES-1
52.0
197.3
563.8
3.3
14.12
0.18
PSES-2
4.3
9.3
45.4
0.3
10.05
1.55
PSES-3
0
43.61
7.90
(1) The raw vatte load *id SPT cot I. conlritniltcn! of lh« z«ro di«ch*r(* oprration* are
included in the direct dt»cnirger data. At these plant* have no waitewater ditchargei,
they d-> not contribute to BAT c->»t» or to the BPT ind BAT effluent wane loads.
(2) Raw wane load* for zern discntrge plant* have been included in th«»e total*.
(3) The cod suimarjr total* do nol ncludc confidential plant*.
-------
r- „-.,-,
SUMMARY OF EFFLCEST LOADINGS AMD TREATMENT COSTS
HOT FORMING - SECTION
SPECIALTY
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MCD)
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
(2)
(1)
RAW
HASTE
76.8
BPT/BCT
27.4
BAT-1
2.7
BAT-2
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORT COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annual
(3)
4,999.2
133,312.5
1,216.5
59.5
291.5
2.2
17.44
0.14
5.8
28.2
0.2
6.26
0.87
41.54
6.56
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAS)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annua1
RAW
WASTE
3.8
250.0
6,665.6
60.8
(3)
PSES-1
1.6
3.5
17.2
0.1
0.05
-0.01
PSES-2
0.2
0.3
1.7
0.01
0.05
0.01
PSES-3
0.39
0.06
(1) The raw waste load and BPT cost contributions of the zero discharge operations are
included in the direct discharger data. As these plants have no uastewater discharges,
they do not contribute to BAT costs or to the EFT and BAT effluent waste loads.
(2) Raw waste loads for the zero discharge plants have been included in these totals.
(3) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
458
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AMD TREATMENT COSTS
HOT FORMING - FLAT
HOT STRIP AND SHEET - CARBON
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
(SXIO"6)
Investment
Annual
RAW
HASTE
1,392.0
45,305.4
1,193,042.8
7,550.9
BPT/BCT BAT-1
556.8
1,208.1
5,919.9
44.7
125.29
-1.78
56.6
122.7
601.2
4.5
86.06
13.91
BAT-2
483.37
95.79
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TON'S/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
RAW
WASTE
92.8
3,020.4
79,536.2
503.4
PSES-1
37.1
80.5
394.7
3.0
3.39
-0.33
PSES-2
3.8
8.2
40.1
0.3
5.09
0.80
PSES-3
0
23.57
4.53
459
-------
r
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATHENT COSTS
HOT FORMING - FLAT
HOT STRIP AND SHEET - SPECIALTY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS /YEAR) _
Flew (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
(1)
Investae'l
Annual
RAW
WASTE
40.3
1,312.3
34,557.1
271.2
35.0 3.6
171.5 17.4
1.3 0.1
5.19
0.25
5.40
0.80
22.58
3.71
Note: There are no indirect (POTW) discharges in this segment.
(1) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
^fa in - "*^
400
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AMD TREATMENT COSTS
HOT FORMING - FLAT
PLATE - CARBON
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SDBCATEGORY LOAD SUHKARY
(TOMS/YEAR)
Flow (MCD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxi: Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
(SX10"6)
Investment
Annual
RAH
HASTE
117.8
7,157.5
191,718.1
1,789.4
102.2
501.0
3.8
20.15
-0.36
10.5
51.6
0.4
11.72
1.76
BAT-2
58.97
8.03
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TOSS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Melals
Total Organics
SOBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
(SXiO"6)
Investment
Annual
RAH
HASTE
10.7
650.7
17,428.9
162.7
PSES-1
4.3
9.3
45.6
0.3
2.81
0.07
PSES-2
0.4
1.0
4.7
0.04
PSES-3
1.49
0.22
6.27
0.86
461
L~
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HOT FORMING - FLAT
PLATE - SPECIALTY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
(1)
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
(SX10"6)
Investment
Annual
(2)
RAW
WASTE
7.5
1,057.8
27,665.0
332.8
BPT/BCT BAT-1
3.0
6.5
31.9
0.2
3.19
0.10
0.3
0.7
3.2
0.02
2.11
0.30
BAT-2
8.28
1.18
Mote: There are no indirect (POTW) dischargers in this segment.
(1) The raw waste load and BPT cost contributions of the zero discharge operation are
included in the direct discharger data. As this plant has no waslewater discharge,
it does not contribute to BAT costs or to the BPT and BAT effluent waste loads.
(2) The cost susnary totals do not include confidential plants.
462
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HOT FORMING - PIPE AND TUBE
CARBON
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
(1)
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS /YEAR) _
Flow (MCD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solid*
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
(2)
Investment
Annua 1
RAW
WASTE
124.2
4,716.1
122,617.6
835.4
BPT/BCT BAT-1
28.6 5.0
62.0
303.8
2.3
22.11
2.64
10.7
52.6
0.4
13.38
1.87
BAT-2
0
72.59
11.81
INDIRECT (POTU) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
(2)
RAW
WASTE
5.0
188.6
4,904.7
33.4
PSES-1
1.1
2.5
12.2
0.09
1.16
0.14
PSES-2
0.2
0.4
2.1
0.02
0.50
0.07
PSES-3
0
2.55
0.41
(1) The raw waste load and BPT cost contributions of the zero discharge operation are
included in the direct discharger data. As this plant has no waslewater discharge,
it does not contribute to BAT costs or to the BPT and BAT effluent waste loads.
(2) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
463
..AJ.—
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HOT FORMING - PIPE AND TUBE
SPECIALTY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MOD)
Oil and Create
Tolal Suspended Solids
Tolal Toxic MeLati
Total Organics
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment.
Annual
(1)
RAW
WASTE
22.1
838.4
21,798.7
148.5
BPT/BCT BAT-1
5.1
11.0
54.0
0.4
3.68
0.27
BAT-2
0.9
1.9
9.4
0.07
1.73
0.24
13.32
2.03
Note: There are no indirect (POTW) discharger* in this segnent.
(1) The cost suanary total* do not include confidential plants.
-------
<
rj
1
m
(ft
tfi
O.
i*
t
)
a.
_ -V
i 1
J ^
i i
CQ
i
1
^™
\a
\
I
8.
1
£
a
i I
"
ui ±
o N
H £
<
at
u
Ik
3
d
O -I
5 =
o
O)
OOO o
Crjo >o
465
-------
i
r
OC
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: Salt Bath Descaling
: Oxidizing
l Batch-Sheet/Plate
MODEL SIZE (TPD)s 60
OPER. DAYS/YEAS : 260
TtnWS/DAY t 2
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant
5 Direct Discharger*
0 Indirect Dischargers
5 Active Plant*
MODEL COSTS (SXIO"3)
0.04 MOD
0.2 MOD
0 HCD
0.2 MOD
BPT/BCT BAT-1 BAT-2
HSPS-1 NSPS-2 NSPS-3
PSES-1 PSES-2 PSES-3
PSNS-1 PSNS-2 PSNS-3
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (CPT)
pH (SU)
Chromium (Hexavalent)
Total Suspended Solid*
23 Chloroform
11A Antimony
US Arsenic*
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
123 Mercury
124 Nickel
125 Selenium*
127 Thallium
128 Zinc
RAW
WASTE
364
53.9
3.46
50.9
6.8
0.44
BPT/BCT BAT-1
NSPS-1 NSPS-2
PSES-1 PSES-2
PSKS-1 PSHS-2
700 700 700
11-13 6-9 6-9
200 0.05 0.05
500 (30)23.8 (15)9.8
0.04 0.04 0.04
0.2 0.1 0.1
0.024 0.024 0.024
240 (0.4)0.28 (0.1)0.03
1 0.04 0.03
0.015 0.015 0.015
7 (0.3)0.25 (0.1)0.04
0.024 0.024 0.024
0.12 0.12 0.12
0.1 0.06 0.06
1984
285
18.27
BAT-2
NSPS-3
PSES-3
PSNS-3
Note*: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT, NSPS.PSES and PSNS costs are incremental over
BPT/NSPS-1/PSES-l/PSNS-l costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used
to develop the linitations/standards for the various levels
of treatment. All other values represent long term average
values or predicted average performance levels.
*Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples.
4C7
-------
SUBCATECORY SUWARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SOBCATEGORY: Salt Bath Descaling
I Oxidizing
i Batch - Rod/Wire/Bar
MODEL SIZE (TPD)t 115
OPE*. DAYS/YEAR : 260
TURKS'DAY I 2
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 0.05 HCO
3 Direct Discharger* 0.1 MGD
1 Indirect Diicharger* 0.05 HCD
4 Active Plants 0.2 HCD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Inves latent
Annual
$/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (OPT)
pH (SU)
Chroaiu* (Hexavalent)
Total Suspended Solids
23 Chloroform
114 Antioony
115 Arsenic*
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
123 Mercury
124 Nickel
125 Scleniua*
12? Thallium
12S Zinc
BPT/BCT BAT-1
BSPS-1 NSPS-2
PSES-1 PSES-2
PSNS-1 PSNS-2
387
57.4
1.92
54.9
7.2
0.24
BPT/BCT BAT-1
NSPS-1 NSPS-2
RAW PSES-1 PSES-2
WASTE psw3-i psNs-2
420 420 420
11-13 6-9 6-9
200 0.05 0.05
500 (30)23.8 (15)9.8
0.04 0.04 0.04
0.2 O.I 0.1
0.024 0.024 0.024
240 (0.4)0.28 (0.1)0.03
1 0.04 0.03
0.015 0.015 0.015
7 (0.3)0.25 (0.1?0.04
0.024 0.024 0.024
0.12 0.12 0.12
0.1 0.06 0.06
BAT-2
NSPS-3
PSES-3
PSKS-3
2042
298
9.97
BAT-2
NSPS-3
PSES-3
PSKS-3
Notesi All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT, NSPS, P?ES and PSNS costs are incremental over
BPT/NSPS-1/PSES-1/PSSS-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used to
develop the limitations/standards for the various levels of
treataent. All other values represent long tens average
values or predicted average performance levels.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste saapies.
468
-------
SUBCATZCOft* SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/ .78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY:
I
Sell Bath Defecting
Oxidising
Batch - Pip* and Tub*
RAW WASTE FIOWS
Model Pint 0.06 HCD
2 Direct Discharger* 0.1 MCD
0 Indirect Dischargers 0 HCD
2 Active PUnti 0.1 HCD
HODEL COSTS
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Floy (CPT)
pB (SU)
Chroaiua (Hexavalent)
Total Suspended Solids
23 Chloroform
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic*
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
123 Mercury
124 Nickel
125 Selenium*
127 Thallium
128 Zinc
RAW
WASTE
435
64.3
7.07
MODEL SIZE (TPD)s 35
QVr,».. DAYS/YEAR : 260
TOMS/DAY t 2
•PT/BCT BAT-J
HSPS-1 NSPS-2
PSES-1 PSES-2
PSNS-l PSNS-2
62.5
8.2
0.90
BPT/BCT BAT-1
HSPS-1 NSPS-2
PSES-1 PSES-2
PSKS-1 PSNS-2
1700 1700 1700
11-13 6-9 6-9
200 0.05 0.0?.
500 (30)23.8 (15)9.6
0.04 0.04 0.04
0.2 0.1 0.1
0.024 0.024 0.024
240 (0.4)0.28 (0.1)0.03
1 0.04 0.03
0.015 0.015 0.015
7 (0.3)0.25 (0.1)0.04
0.024 0.024 0.024
0.12 0.12 0.12
0.1 0.06 0.06
BAT-2
HSPS-3
PSES-3
PSKS-3
2278
337
37.03
BAT-2
HSPS-3
PSES-3
PSNS-3
Notes: All concentrations sre in Bg/l unless otherwise noted.
: BAT, NSPS, PSES, end PSNS costs ere incremental over
BPT/NSPS-1/PSES-l/PSHS-l costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used to
develop the limitations/standards for the various levels of
treatment. All other values represent long lens average
values or predicted average performance levels.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples.
4fi'J
-------
SUBCATtCDfcY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUB CAT! GORY:
i
I
Sail B«lh De»c*lin(
Oxiditint
Continuous
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 140
OPCR. DAYS/YEA! s 260
TURKS /DAY t 2
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model PUnt 0.05 HCD
7 Direct Diichargcra 0.3 MCD
1 Indirect Diicharger* 0.05 HCD
8 Active Plants 0.4 MO
MODEL COSTS <$X10~3)
Invettaent
Annu*I
J/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flo- (CPT)
pH (SU)
Chroniua (Hexavalenl)
Total Suspended Solid*
23
114
115
119
120
123
124
125
U7
128
Chloroform
Antimony
Ar*enic*
ChrooiuB*
Copper*
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium*
Thai 1 iua
Zinc
RAW
WASTE
BPT/BCT
NSPS-1
P5ES-1
PSWS-1
375
55.7
1.53
BAT-1
HSPS-2
PSES-2
PSNS-2
53.6
7.0
0.19
BAT- 2
WPS-3
PSES-3
PSBS-3
2042
294
S.13
BPT/»CT
MSPS-1
PSES-I
PSSS-1
BAT-1
HSPS-2
PSES-2
PSNS-2
3JO 330 330
11-13 6-9 6-9
200 0.05 0.05
500 (30)23.8 (15)9.8
0.04 0.04 0.04
0.2 0.1 0.1
0.024 0.024 0.024
240 (0.4)0.28 (0.1)0.03
1 0.04 0.03
0.015 0.015 0,015
7 (0.3)0.25 (0.1)0.04
0.024 0.024 0.024
0.12 0.12 0.12
0.1 0.04 0.06
BAT-2
SSPS-3
PSES-3
PSHS-3
Note*: All concentration* art in •;/! unle** othervic* noted.
» BAT, PSES, PSKS jnd SSPS co*t* are incresenlal over
BPT/PSES-1/PSNS-l/SSPS-l CO*tf.
: Value* in p*renlhe*e* represent the concentration* u*ed to
develop the limitations/standard* for the variou* level* of
treatment. All other value* repre»ent long term average
value* or predicted average perfo.i»,jnce level*.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw «a«te faaple*.
-------
SUBCATECORY SUMMARY DATA
BASH 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATECORY I S«H bath Descaling
t Reducing
t Batch
MODEL SUE (TTD)l 1)0
OPER. DAYS/YEAR I 260
TOWS/DAY t 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plaat 0.04 MCD
4 Direct Dischargers 0.2 HCD
1 Indirect Discharger* 0.04 HCD
5 Active Plants 0.2 MOD
MODEL COSTS OXIO'3)
Invest»ent
Annut1
S/Ton of Production
VASTCWATEt
CHARACTERISTICS
Pic* (CPT)
pH (SI!)
Chroaiua (Hexavalent)
Iron (Di»folv*d)
Total Suspended Solids
114 Antimony*
118 Cadviu*
119 Chro»iu«*
120 Copper*
121 Cyanide
122 Lead*
124 Nickel*
12) Seleniua*
126 Silver
12$ Zinc*
RAW
WASTE
32}
11-12
0.26
12.4
420
BIT/BCT
HSPS-1
PSES-1
PSrS-1
291
41. 5
1.23
BPT/BCT
NSPS-1
PSCS-!
PSHS-I
325
6-9
0.0)
1
(30)23.8
BAT-1
KSPS-2
PSES-2
PSKS-2
39.6
i.2
0.15
BAT-1
KSPS-2
PSCS-2
PSSS-2
32S
6-9
0.05
0.5
(15)9.8
BAT-2
HSP5-3
PSES-3
PS KS -3
1552
215
6.36
BAT-2
HSPS-3
PSES-3
PSHS-3
0
.
.
_
-
0.48 0.1 0.1
0.042 0.042 0.042
5.6 (0.4)0.28 (0.1)0.03
0.4 0.04 0.03
0.038 (0.25)0.038 (0.?5)O.J38
0.45
3
0.028
0.06
0.092
0.1
(0.3)0.25
01.018
0.06
0.06
0.06
(0. DO. €4
0.018
0.06
0.06
Hotel! Alt concentrations are in »»/! unlcia otherwise noted.
> BAT, PSES.PSNS and NSPS coata arc incrmentjl over
BPT/PSES-1/PSKS-l/KSPS-l cola.
t Value* in parentheses represent the concentrations used to
develop the 1iautations/standard* for the various level* of
treataent. All other values represent Ion; term average
values or predicted averate performance levels.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw uaste saaples.
471
-------
SUBCATECORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SOBCATEGORY:
Salt Bath Descaling
Reducing
Continuous
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 20
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 260
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 0.04 MOD
2 Direct Dischargers 0.08 MOD
0 Indirect Dischargers 0 MGD
2 Active Plants 0.08 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Chromium (Hexavalent)
Iron (Dissolved)
Total Suspended Solids
114 Antimony*
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
121 Cyanide
122 Lead*
124 Nickel*
125 Selenium*
126 Silver
128 Zinc*
RAW
WASTE
1820
11-12
0.26
12.4
420
0.48
0.042
5.6
0.4
0.038
0.45
3
0.018
0.06
0.92
BPT/BCT
NSPS-1
PSES-1
PSNS-1
354
48.8
9.38
BPT/BCT
NSPS-1
PSES-1
PSNS-1
1820
6-9
0.05
1
(30)23.8
0.1
0.042
(0.4)0.28
0.04
BAT-1
NSPS-2
PSES-2
PSNS-2
36.2
4.9
0.94
BAT-1
NSPS-2
PSES-2
PSNS-2
1820
6-9
0.05
0.5
(15)9.8
0.1
0.042
(0.1)0.03
0.03
BAT- 2
NSPS-3
PSES-3
PSNS-3
1582
212
40.77
BAT-2
NSPS-3
PSES-3
PSNS-3
0
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
(0.25)0.038 (0.25)0.038
0.1
(0.3)0.25
0.018
0.06
0.06
0.06
(0.1)0.04
0.018
0.06
0.06
-
-
-
-
-
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS costs are incremental over
BPT/NSPS-1/PSES-l/PSNS-l costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used to
develop the limitations/standards for various levels of
treatment. All other values represent long term average
values or predicted average performance levels.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples.
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
SALT BATH DESCALING SUBCATECORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
RAW
WASTE
1.0
BPT/BCT BAT-1 BAT-2
1.0 1.0 0
Dissolved Iron
Total Suspended Solids
Total Cyanide
Total Toxic Xetals
Total Organics
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
($X10'6)
Investment
Annual
(2)
3.3
429.
(1)
161.
(1)
0.3
21.4
(1)
0.8
(1)
4.92
0.73
0.1
8.9
(1)
0.4
0.92
0.11
35.23
5.05
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATECORY LGA9 SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Total Suspended Solids
Total Cyanide
Total Toxic Xetals
Total Organics
SUBCATECORY
($X10~6)
UMMARY
Investment
Annual
RAW
HASTE
0.1
0.6
70.6
(1)
30.0
(1)
PSES-1
0.1
(1)
3.5
(1)
0.1
(1)
PSES-2
0.1
(1)
1.4
(1)
(1)
(1)
PSES-3
0
_
-
-
-
-
1.19
0.18
0.26
0.04
9.52
1.37
(1) Load is less than 0.05 tons/year.
(2) Cost Sunury totals do not include confidential plants.
473
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
SALT BATH DESCALING SOBCATEGORY - OXIDIZIHG
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TOSS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
(2)
RAW
WASTE
0.8
319.0
158. 5
(1)
BPT/BCT
0.8
15.2
0.6
(1)
BAT-1
0.8
6.3
0.3
(1)
BAT-2
0
-
0.61
0.72
0.09
27.07
3.95
INDIRECT (POTV) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
(SX10"6)
Investment
Annual
RAW
HASTE
0.1
51.3
25.5
(1)
PSES-l
0.1
2.4
0.1
(1)
PSES-2
0.1
1.0
(1)
(1)
PSES-3
0
-
1.08
0.16
0.24
0.04
8.90
1.29
(1) Load is less than 0.05 tons/year.
(2) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
474
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
SALT BATH DESCALING SUBCATEGORY - REDUCING
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Total Suspended Solids
Total Cyanioe
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organic*
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Total Suspended Solids
Total Cyanide
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organic*
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annual
RAW
WASTE
0.2
3.3
110.2
(1)
2.7
BPT/BCT
0.2
0.3
6.2
(1)
0.2
BAT- 1
0.2
0.1
2.6
(1)
0.1
BAT- 2
0
_
-
-
-
-
INDIRECT
RAW
WASTE
0.04
0.6
19.3
(1)
0.5
0.81
0.12
(POTW)
PSES-1
0.04
(n
1.1
(I)
(1)
0.20
0.02
DISCHARGERS
PSES-2
0.04
(1)
0.4
(1)
(1)
8.16
1.10
0.11
0.02
0.02
0.002
0.62
0.08
(1) Load is less than 0.05 tons/year.
475
-------
V
cr
CO
*_J
U Ul
UJ
"
r!
il
•> I1.
Ul
1 ?
£
£
§
I
e
f
1
[I
§ "•
1 "
IO
1
V
tr
I
I
»*£
2^
t
§
EVAPORAT
T
•*
—
477
Preceding page blank
-------
SDBCATECORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: Sulfuric Acid Pickling
: Strip/Sheet/Plate
t Heutralitation and Acid Recovery
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 1660
0?ER. DAYS/YEAR : 320
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAM WASTE TU)VS
Rinses and Concentrates
Model Plant
23 Direct Dischargers
1 Plant Hauling All Wastes
2 Acid Recovery Plants
30 Active Plants
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
0.3 MCD
6.9 MCD
0.3 MCD
0.6 MCD
9.0 MCD
Fume Scrubbers (Additional Flow)
Model Plant
14 Direct Dischargers
0.19 MCD
2.7 MCD
n L Mrn
0 Plants Hauling All Wastes 0 MCD
0 Acid Recovery Plants 0 MCD
16 Active Plants 3.1 MCD
BPT/BCT BAT-l
PSES-1 PSES-2
Investment
Neutralisation
Acid Recovery
Annual
Neutralisation
Acid Recovery
S/Ton of Production
Neutralization
Acid Recovery
1545
3048
1060
567
1.99
1.07
Investment
Annual
S/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER BPT/BCT
CHARACTERISTICS
115
118
119
!20
122
124
126
128
Xate
Flow (CPT)
pH (SU)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Crease
Total Suspended Solids
Arsenic*
Cadmium
Chromium*
Copper*
Lead*
Nickel*
Silver
Zinc*
t BAT and PSES-2 through
Conc
20
15
6-9
1
(10)4.
4
(30)23.8
0.
0.
0.
0.
(0.15)0.
0.
0.
(0. !<0.
1
04
04
04
1
15
04
06
BAT-2
PSES-3
703
88.4
0.17
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
2060
1119
2.11
Total
9.6
1 6
0.3
0.6
12.1
BAT-2/PSES-3
NSPS-2 /PSNS-2
Conc 6
Rinse
40
FS<»
15
Flow
MCD
MCD
MCD
MCD
MCD
BAT-3
PSES-4
2969
441
0.83
NSPS-3
PSNS-3
4326
1472
2.77
BAT-3/PSES-4
NSPS-3 /PSNS-3
0
6-9
0.
(5**)2
(15)9.
0.
0.
0.
0.
(0.1)0.
0.
0.
(0.1)0.
5
8
1
04
03
03
06
04
04
06
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
t DAl ana rsc.3—£ tnrougn rito—«» co»is are incr*-»eni.«i over or* ^rac-a-i co*i».
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used ;o develop the limita-
tions/standards for the various levels of treatment. All other values represent
long term average values or predicted average performance levels.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples.
** Limit for oil and grease is based upon 10 sig/1 (maximum only).
Concentration is less than 0.01 mg/1.
;i) Flow in gallon per minute (CPM).
.2) Zero discharge of process wastewater pollutants can be achieved with acid recovery sysle
478
^-..^. .^^^-L-^-a^^^i^A^^i^
-------
nnCATECORY SDtMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATECORYl Solfuric Acid Pickling
i Rod/Wire/Coil
I N«ulrali«*tion and Acid Recovery
MODEL SIZE (TPD)t 370
OPER. MYS/YEAlt s 260
TURNS/DAY > 3
RAH WASTE FLOWS
Riniti and Concentrate*
Model Flint
16 Direct Di*charger*
1ft Indirect Di*ch*rgera
2 Plant* Heulinf All Uaale*
5 Acid Recovery Plente
41 Active Plent*
«
MODEL COSTS (JXIO J)
InvcetMnt
Neutral itet ion
Acid Recovery
Annual
Heutraliiation
Acid Recovery
S/Ton of Production
Neutralisation
Acid Recovery
Inveeteieni
Annual
S/Ton of Production
WASTE WATE«
CHARACTERISTICS
no. (CPT)
pH (SU)
Di**olved Iron
Oil and Cree*e
Total Suspended Solida
115 Arienic*
tit Cadniua
119 ChroaiiuD*
1 20 Copper*
122 Lead*
124 Nickel*
126 Silver
128 Zinc*
Noteit All concentretion* are
1 BAT and PSES-2 through
1 Valuei in parentheses
FUM Scrubber* (Additional Flow)
0.10 HOT Model Pleat 0.19 MCO
1.7 MOT 2 Direct Diachargere 0.4 HCD
1.9 HOD 2 Indirect Diachargere 0.4 HCD
0.2 HCD 0 Plant* Hauling All Viite* 0 HCD
0.5 HCD 0 Acid Recovery Flint* 0 MO)
4.3 HCD 4 Active Plant* 0.8 MCO
BPT/BCT BAT-1
FSES-1 PSES-2
1026 133
1092
32) 16.8
170
3.38 0.17
1.77
NSPS-1
PSKS-1
1033
324
3.37
BPT/»CT BAT-l/PSIS-2
RAW WASTE PSES-I NSPS-1 fTSKS-l
(1) (1) CODC * (1) Conc * (1)
Cone Rin*e PS " 'total1 Rin«e FS " Rine* PS
20 260 US 207 280 IS SO IS
g/l unle** otherwise noted.
PSCS-4 roit* are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 coet*.
represent the concentration* u*ed to develop the limta-
total Flow
2.1
2.3
0.2
O.S
S.I
BAT-2
FSES-3
173
-
22.1
-
0.23
"
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
1073
329
3.42
BAT-2/PSES-3
HCD
HCD
MCO
HCD
HCD
BAT-3
PSES-4
1715
-
239
-
2.48
—
KSPS-3
PSKS-3
261 S
S46
S.68
BAT-3/PSES-4
NSPS-.2/PSKS-2 KSPS-3 'PSNS-3
Conc 4 ...
Rinie PS
SO IS
6-9
0.5
(5**)2.0
(15)9.8
0.1
0.02
0.03
0.03
(0.1)0 06
0.04
0.02
(0.1)0.06
0
-
*
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
tion*/*tandard» for the variou* leveli of treatetent. All other value* represent
long lent average value* or predicted average oerforunc* leveli.
* Toxic pollutant found in all rev vvtt* g/l.
(1) Flow in gallon per ainute (CPM).
(2) Zero diich*rge of proem vailevalcr pollutenl* can be echieved vith acid recovery *yatc«*.
-------
SUBCATSGOtY SUMMARY DAT*
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: Sulfuric Acid Pickling MODEL SIZE (TPD):
: Bar/Billet/Bloom OPER. DAYS/YEAR :
i Neutralization and Acid Recovery TURNS/DAY :
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 0.06
15 Direct Dischargers 1.0
3 Indirect Dischargers 0.2
4 Plants Hauling All Uasles 0.3
0 Acid Recovery Plants 0
22 Active Plants 1.5
MODEL COSTS (SXIO"3)
Investment
Neutralization
Acid Recovery
Annual
Neutralization
Acid Recovery
$/Ton of Production
Neutralization
Acid Recovery
Investment
Annaul
S/Ton of Prcduc on
WASTE WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Crease
Total Suspended Solids
115 Arsenic*
118 Cadnium
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
122 Lead*
124 Nickel*
126 Silver
128 Zinc*
Fume Scrubbers 'liditional Flow)
MCO Model Plant 0.19 MCD
KCD 2 Direct Dischargers 0.2 MCD
MCD 0 Indirect Dischargers 0 MCD
MGO C Plants Hauling All Wastes 0 MCD
MCO 0 Acid Recovery Plants 0 MCD
MCD 2 Active Plants 0.2 MCD
BPT/BCT BAT-1
PSES-1 PSES-2
1122 259
1744
AO7 32.5
283
2.17 0.17
1.51
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
1293
428
2.29
»PT/ECT{2> BAT-l/PSES-2
RAW WASTE PSES-1 NSPS-1 /PSNS-1
(1) (1) C°K * (1) Conc & (1)
Conc Rinse FS '"Total1" Rinse FS v ' Rinse FS l"
20 70 135 180 90 27 30 15
-------
SUBCATCCORY SUHMARY DATA
8AS1S 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATCGOIYi Sulfuric Acid Pickling
I Pipe/Tube/Other
I Heutralitation and Acid Recovery
MOKL SIZE (TPO)t 220
OPER. DAYS/TEAR t 260
TUCKS/DAY I 3
RAW WAS« nous
Rinses and Concentrates
Kodel Flsnl 0.11 MOD
9 Indirect Dischargers 1.0 HCD
4 Plants Hauling All Wastes 0.4 HCD
1 Acid Recovery Plenl 0.1 MCD
31 Active PUnis J.4 HCD
HODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Invesusenl
Neutralisation
Acid Recovery
Annual
Neutralisation
Acid Recovery
f/Ton of Production
Neutralisation
Acid Recovery
Investment
Annual
I/Ton of Production
WASTE WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
•lo» (CPT)
pH BAT-l /PSES-2
RAW WASTE PStS-1 NSPS-l'PSKS-i
... / . , Cone 4 ... Cone 4 ( . .
Cone Rinse fS "'Totel ' Rinse PS l" Rinse rs
20 480 13} 211 VX> 1} 70 1}
3
8.79
1AT-3/PSES-4
NSPS-3 /PSNS-3
0
•
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
t BAT and PSES-2 through PSEi-4 costs are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
1 Values in parentheses represent
tiont/stsa<
Concentration is less thsn 0.01 •*/
1.
(1) Flow in gallon per sunule (CPU).
f.2) Ztro discharge of process waotewater pollutants can be echieved with acid recovery syste
481
*•
-------
SOBCtTZGOftT SUMMIT DAT*
tASIt Hint DOLLARS
SDBCATCCORYi Hydrochloric Acid Pickling
I Strip/Sheet/Plate
I Neutralisation tmd Acid Regeneration
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Rini«» end Concentretea
Model PUnt 1.13 MCD
21 Direct DUchargera 21.6 HOD
3 Indirect Dieehargere 3.4 HCD
4 Acid Regeneretion Pleats 4.} MCD
28 Activ* PUnti 31.S MCD
MODEL SIZE (TPD)l 4020
Oftl. DAYS/YEAI t 320
TVMS/DAY I 3
TUB* Scrubbtn (Addition*! flox)
Model Pint 0.19 MCD
20 Direct DUcherrer* 3.8 MCD
2 Indirect Diicherger* 0.4 MCD
4 Acid te|*»eralion Pleat* 0.8 MCD
26 Active Pleat* 5.0 MCD
Totil Ploi.
27.4
3.8
J.3
34.5
MCD
MCD
MCD
MCD
MODEL COSTS ($X10'3)
Inve»unnl
Neulrelixetion
Acid Regeneration
Annual
Neulrtliieliofi
Acid Regeneration
$/Ton of Production
Heutralisalion
Acid Regeneration
2231
50J7
1734
-765
1.35
-0.5»
BAT-1
PtES-2
1447
1592
181
202
0.14
0.1*
1608
1770
202
225
0.16
0.17
4204
4645
667
751
0.52
0.58
Invei latent
Annual
)/Ton of Production
NSPS-3
P»HS-3
5»46
2322
1.80
432
-------
SUB CATEGORY SUWUKY DATA
HYDROCHLORIC ACID PICKLING
STRIP/SKEET/FLATE
PACE 2
UASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flew (CPT)
(Naturalization)
Flew (CPT)
(Acid Regeneration)
pH (SO)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Great*
Total Suspended Solida
114 Antimony*
115 Arsenic*
US Cadmium
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
122 Lead*
124 Nickel*
12S Zinc*
RAW MAS ft
BPT/BCT
fSKX-l
Cone
10
10
-------
fWCAYlOOtY SWWAir DAT*
tnnt points
SClCATf.CO«Tl Hvdrockloric Acid Mckliac
I tad/Uire/Coil
t *e*trallaalto*
SAU WASTE rUHIS
Rinee* and Concentrate* foaw Scrubber* (Additional rl
Model riant 0.04 l*» Model riant
7 Direct Di*cn*rger» 0.3 HC& 4 Direct Di*chart*r*
1 Indirect fiitchargera 0*4 HCS> ) Indirect ritcnarger*
11 Active riant* 0.7 teat 7 Active riant*
irr/»CT
Hooei COSTS ($iio~J) rsts-.i
tava*uaenl 717
Annual 1*0
• /Ton of 7ro*ucli«i t.O*
Imeitaenl
Annual
»/Ton of rrodoction
uAsnuATti trt'nct
CHAtACTEtmiCt IAU UAVTT. riK-l
( » \ (\\ Cone 4 f . v
Cone «in«e FS Total »i«»e rS
riov (err) to 4*0 135 itt 4*0 15
pR (SB) C. O»
lltiat/itaivdardt for IH* v*r'«*» l«v«lt of tr««td»»flt. All ?tKer val«*e* -eprt
long terv average valur* or vredicted average performance level*.
e Tonic noltutant found in all rev *a*te *a*tple*.
VML\. SIZC
0>% WQ> 1») HC&
Oaft KCD 1.0 NCD
1.4 NCZ> I.I HCP
IAT-1 UT-J IAT-3
ntt-i rsts-s rs«-4
32.4 7».0 l*)2
4.1 10.2 274
O.It 0.44 11.47
mrt-i tsrs-2 gars-3
rsiK-i rs»s-2 rs«-3
73* 714 2t3»
1*3 l«« 452
7.t2 t.OI l*.32
UT-1AMM-2 UT-2/MIS-3 »AT-3^rJU-4
irsM-i/MW-i KS»!-2/rs»s-} wrs-j/rsm-s
c«« • (1) Cont • (1)
III me r« »in*« n *
•0 15 40 13 0
*-* »-»
1 0.2
(10)4.4 (5*»)3.5
(30)23.1 (15)*. II
O.t 0.1
0.1 O.I
0.01 0.01
0.04 0.03
0.04 0.03
(0.15)0.1 (0.1)0.04
C.I5 0.04
(o.t)o.o* io.no.ot
•*ent
(1) rio» in talloo >er Binute (cn<).
-------
SWCATCOOCY so*urr MTA
MSIt 7/1/7> POUAtt
IWCATECOtYl Hydrochloric AcU
I Pipe/Tub*
I »*utralit.itoe,
HOOT.. *ne CTTOM r.o
Cm. MYf/YtA* I 2*0
TUWS/DAY I )
HAH HAST* rvom
Iintt« and Concentrate!
Hod«; Plant
2 Direct Ditchargtrt
1 Indirect Ditcharger
1 Active Plant!
KOMI COSTS miO'*)
In vet latent
Annual
t/Ton of Production
Invetleient
Annual
(/Too of Production
(Additional fle»)
0.11 HCD
O.I HCO
0.1 HCD
0.) HCD
Hod<
I
0
I
il PUtt
Direct Oiacbarger
Indirect Ditcharten
Active/ Pint
IPT/ICT
m*-i
12}
174
t.o*
0.1* HCD
0.2 HCD
0 HCD
0.2 HCD
1AT-1
m«-2
)*.«
J.I
O.U
mrt-i
vsn-i
PSKi-2
75*
H5
J.77
Tat*I riofc
0.4 HCD
0.1 HCD
0.5 HCD
UT-)
ftrt-i
2M2
1J.2J
WAmUATtt
CHAtACVtlltSTICS
RAW
VAST!
(It 1 1
114
11)
us
11*
120
122
124
12»
riax (CPT)
pH (SO)
Dittolved Iron
Oil and Create
Total Sutpendad Soltda
Ant IOOA**
Artenic*
Cadmint
ChroenuBJ*
Copper*
Lead*
Nickel*
Itnc*
reew
10
2.0
(15). .1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.0)
0.0)
(0.1)0.04
0.64
(o.no.ot
0
«.
•
-
.
•
-
•
.
.
-
•
Notett All concent rat iona are in e>g/l unleea wlwrvia* noted.
I (AT and FSL1-2 throvgh KtS-4 coatt are iacrewntal aver aTTAMU-1 coeta.
I Vtluea in ptrenlheaee repretent the coacentralioftt vaed ta drvelo* the livila-
liont'ilanetrdt for Ike variout levelt of tr*«'ewnt. *1! other veluee repre«e*t
long :er* average velvet or predicted average perforvja*£a levelt.
Toxic pollutant fowk4 i* all rev vaste •agk9lee.
L«'il (or oil an4 greeae tt bated upon 10 atgyi (saK
Cjn.entrtlion it lt» than 0.01
Flov in gallon per atiovt« (CPH).
only).
-------
DA-A
»AS1» 7/J/7*
SO»CATZGO*Yi CoBfciution Acid Picklia*
I k«tch Slrlp/IM*t/Pl*l«
tin,c. «d Co«.«r.l..
Hod«l PUnl 0.07 NO)
* Direct Dne»*rfcr« 0.* HCS
0 Indirect Dl>ch«rf«rt 0 HCD
1 Plant M*in»«
flo>. (cm 20 440
pH (51)) <1-2.J !.»-».
Ditiolvcd Iron 20,000 170
riuorid* 4100 170
Oil end tr»««t 2.1 4.*
Tol«l kuif**4*t falidt 140 t)
til. AnliBony* NA O.btt
.IS C.t>«r« 170 1.2
2 l**« 4600 )7
:• Zinc* 11 0.7
tloni/il«n411ut«flt found in all r«» •.••it BMplfft.
k* LIMI; for oil •*•< tr<«*« t* b«t«d u»o« 10 •(/! (•<
'«* H^l *n*!vt*tf.
mccL sixt (m»i
OPtl. MYS/YIM t
TV»Ht/MY 1
rmt Serutb«r« (Aitditkonil Plou) J««
Ko4»l PUnl O.l« 'IU>
* Dirvtl »i»cK«r,»r» |.j MC9 1,7
0 lndir«ct Di»cK«rt*ri 0 IKS 0
0 PUnti H*ulln| All Wtitc* 0 MS» . 0.)
* Acn»« Pl«Bti 1.1 HCD 1.1
»/T/»CT MT-i UT-2
PSMil P»«-2 . P5W-1
«07 M.O •'.*
lit ».•> 11.4
4.H o.ia 0.2*
Wrt-l MPf-2
ttM'l P"*»'2
T,J 7^
ito iti
4.*I 4.74
»PT/»CT IAT-I/PSM-? MT-2/P1C*-)
«Asn nrs-j_ wtp*-i/»tir*-i K5PS-:^t»s-2
( 1 ) ( 1 ) C01K * ( 1 ) C^>*K * ( 1 ) C0ni: * (!)
Pt '"TOI.J"' lint* Pf '" «in.f rt " dim* P» '"
in II) 4M 15 *0 15 60 1)
t 'I-J 'l-«.l *-« *-» *-»
>•»•< t70 1 1 O.J
1*00 uoo t) n i)
4.4 10 (10)4.4 (10)4.4 M«)J
It 37 (XD23.I ()0)2).l (li)».»
o.* 0.4* o.i o.i e.i
o.oi c.oi o.oi o.oi o.ii
I.I 41 (0.4)0.2* (04)0.2* (0.1)0.0)
t.») ].* t'.Oi 0.04 0.0)
0.0) 0.04 f'.O. 0.04 O.t>*
1.* *l (0.1)0.2) (0.3IO.J4 (0.1)0.04
c.:> o.ti o.o* c.04 o.o*
itwni. All <•< h«r **l«*< r.prmnt
p,t(orm.nc. ).«!..
• itmm onlr>.
liO
2M>
Pl«
MCB
MO.
HCD
rxa>
AATO
Pit* -4
1)74
21*
J.J*
wri-J
.•»$»«-)
2272
)**
».»7
iAT-)/r»r»-*
mp«-)/Ptn-t
0
-
.
.
•
m
.
,
-
-
.
'
-------
{*'"*"&"'
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: Combination Acid Pickling
: Batch Strip/Sheel/Plate
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Rinses and Concentrates
Model Plant 0.07 MCD
9 Direct Dischargers 0.6 MGD
0 Indirect Dischargers 0 MCD
1 Plant Hauling All Wastes 0.1 MGD
10 Active Plants 0.7 MGD
MODEL COSTS (SXIO"3)
Inves tmunt
Annual
$/Ton of Production
Investment
Annua 1
S/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
114 Antimony*
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
122 Leao
124 Nickel*
128 Zinc*
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1
: BAT and PSES-2 through PSES-4 c
: Values in parentheses represent
tions/standards for the various
MODEL SUE (T?D);
OPER. DAYS /YEAR :
TURNS /DAY :
Fume Scrubbers (Additional
Model Plant
6 Direct Dischargers
0 Indirect Dischargers
Flow)
0.19 MCD
1.1 MCD
0 MGD
0 Plants Hauling All Wastes 0 MGD
Conc
20
RAW
Rinse
440
6 Active Plants
BPT/BCT
PSES-1
807
188
4.82
BPT/BCT
WASTE PSES-1
(1) (1) Conc &
FS l 'total ' Rinse FS
135 183 460 15
-------
SUBCATECORY SUMMARY DATA
_ BASIS 7/1/78 DOLU>llQ
SUBCATECORY: C«,bi
combination Acid Pickling
Continuous Strip/Sheet/Plate
HAW WASTE FLOWS
Rinses and Concent ran
Model Plant
14 Direct Dischargers
1 Indirect Discharger
IS Active Plants
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Annual
S/Ton of Production
Investment
AnruaI
S/Ton of Production
VAST3 WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (CPT)
pH Tota,
1480 135
1-9-8.2 <]-3
1*0 560
170 1800
4.6
93
0.069
37
1.2
37
0}
. /
4.6
16
0.6
0.01
1.1
0.63
0.03
1.6
0.29
760
170 15
6-9
OC
• J
15
(5**)2
(15)9.8
0.1
0.01
(0.1)0.03
0.03
0.03
(0.1)0.04
BAT-3 /PSES-*
JJSPS-3/PSIS-2
0
-
0.06
* Toxic pollutant found in ail rav waste sample*.
** Licit for oil and grease is based upon 10 ng/1 (uxi
Concentration is less than 0.01 Mg/1.
,O\ Not analzed.
Not analyzed.
*1) Flow in gallon per ninute (CPU).
only).
-------
C"
n
SU3CATECORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: Combination Acid Pickling
: Rod/Wire/Coil
MODEL SIZE (TPD):
OPER. DAYS/YEAR :
TURNS/DAY :
270
260
3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Rinses and Concentrates
Model Plant
9 Direct Dischargers
8 Indirect bischargers
17 Active Plants
MODEL COSTS (SXIO*3)
Investment
Annual
S/Ton of Production
Investment
Annual
S/Ton of Production
WASTE WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
114 Antimony*
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
122 Lead
124 Nickel*
128 Zinc*
Notes: All concentrations are
: BAT and PSES-2 through
: Values in parentheses
Fume Scrubbers (Additional Flew)
0.14 MGD Model Plant 0.19 MO
1.2 MCD 5 Direct Dischargers 1.0 MGD
1.1 MCD 5 Indirect Dischargers 1.0 MCD
2.3 MGD 10 Active Plants 2.0 MCD
BPT/BCT BAT-1
PSES-1 PSES-2
977 97.2
256 12.2
3.65 0.17
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
930
248
3.53
BPT/BCT BAT-1 /PSES-2
RAW WASTE PSES-1 NSPS-1 /PSNS-1
(1) (1) Conc * (1) Ct>nc & (1)
Cone Rinse FS Total Rinse FS Rinse FS
20 490 135 231 510 15 70 15
-------
,y.
SUBCATECORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATECORY: Combination Acid Pickling
: Bar/Billel/Bloom
MODEL SIZE (TPD):
OPER. DAYS/YEAR :
TURNS/DAY :
60
240
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant
3 Direct Dischargers
1 Indirect Discharger
I Plant Hauling All Wastes
5 Active Plants
MODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
Investment
Annual
S/Ton of Production
WASTE WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
PH (SU)
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
114 Antimony*
118 Cadmijm
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
122 Lead
124 Nickel*
128 Zinc*
Notes: All concentrations are
: BAT and PSES-2 through
: Values in parentheses
Fuve Scrubbers (Additional Flow)
0.01 MOD Model Plant 0.19 MCD
0.04 MOD 1 Direct Discharger 0.2 MCD
0.01 MCD 0 Indirect Dischargers 0 MCD
0.01 MCD 0 Plants Hauling All Wastes 0 MCD
0.06 MCD 1 Active Plant 0.2 MCD
BPT/BCT BAT-1
PSES-1 PSES-2
669 21.6
164 2.8
10.51 0.18
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
672
164
10.51
BPT/BCT BAT-1 /PSES-2
RAW WASTE PSES-1 NSPS-1 /PSKS-1
(1) (1) C°nC & (1) C°nc & (11
Cone Rinse FS l 'Total Rinse FS v ".inse FS
20 210 135 145 230 15 40 15
-------
SUBCATECORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGHRY: Combination Acid Pickling
: Pipe/Tube
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 0.05 MCD
11 Direct Dischargers 0.5 MCD
8 Indirect Dischargers 0.4 MCD
1 Plant Hauling All Wastes 0.05 MGD
20 Active Plants 0.95 MCD
MODEL COSTS (SXIO"3)
Investment
Annual
5/Ton of Production
Investment
Annual
S/Ton of Production
..•ASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (GPT)
pH (SU)
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Oil and Crease
Total Suspended Solids
114 Antimony*
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium*
'.20 Copper*
\22 Lead
124 Nickel*
'28 Zinc*
:otes: All concentrntions are in mg/1
. BAT and PSES-2 throuRh PSES— 4 c
: Values in parentheses represent
tions/slandards for the various
MODEL SIZE (TPD):
OPER. DAYS/YEAR :
TURNS /DAY !
Fume Scrubbers (Additional Flow)
Model Plant
3 Direct
Dischargers
3 Indirect Dischargers
Conc
20
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
ACID PICKLING - ALL SUBDIVISIONS
ALL PRODUCTS
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGt»
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
RAW(1>(2)
HASTE
72.5
277,873.5
18,512.6
1,070.8
8,688.1
6,384.5
BPT/BCT
58.4
75.8
302.4
342.1
1,803.7
48.4
BAT-1
9.8
12.6
44.7
56.1
303.9
8.0
BAT-2
9.8
6.4
44.7
26.6
125.2
4.9
BAT-3
0
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annua1
(3)
150.06
54.22
64.62
7.93
76.91
9.56
362.69
55.32
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
RAW
WASTE
14.2
45,495.0
5,035.1
192.4
1,554.2
1,053.9
PSES-1
10.7
13.1
45.5
58.1
314.3
8.1
PSES-2
2.1
2.5
8.5
10.8
58.7
1.4
PSES-3
2.1
1.3
8.5
4.7
24.1
0.9
PSES-4
0
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($xio'6;
Investment
Annual
(3)
24.88
9.26
5.48
0.68
7.15
0.91
63.20
9.04
(1) Raw waste loads for the plants which haul all wastes have been included in these totals.
(2) Raw waste loads fo. the acid recovery plants have been included in these totals.
(3) The cost summery totals do not include confidential plants.
491
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
SULFURIC ACID PICKLING SUBCATEGORY
STRIP/SHEET/PLATE; NEUTRALIZATION AND ACID RECOVERY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Toiai Toxic Metals
Total Organics
RAW
WASTE
(1K2)
10.5
78,438.0
224.1
3,501.7
434.9
BPT/BCT
7.8
10.4
45.7
247.0
5.9
BAT-1
1.8
2.4
10.7
58.1
1.4
BAT-2
1.8
1.2
4.9
23.9
1.0
BAT-3
0
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annua1
(3)
26.71
14.91
13.52
1.69
15.90
2.00
67.16
9.98
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
RAW
WASTE
1.6
PSES-1
1.2
PSES-2
0.3
PSES-3
0.3
PSES-4
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Crease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
11,843.8
33.8
528.7
65.7
1.6
7.3
39.4
0.9 •
0.4
1.8
9.8
0.2
0.2
0.8
4.0
0.2
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
(SX10~6)
Investment
Annual
2.55
1.59
0.90
0.11
1.06
0.13
4.47
0.66
(1) Raw waste loads for the plants which haul all wastes have been included in these totals.
(2) Raw waste loads for the acid recovery plant? have been included in these totals.
(3) The cost suraaary totals do not include confidential plants.
492
1
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
SULFURIC ACID PICKLING SUBCATECORY
ROD/WIRE/COIL; NEUTRALIZATION AND ACID RECOVERY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YFAR)
Flow (MCD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Crease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
RAW(1)(2)
WASTE
2.8
8,419.0
33.1
360.8
49.9
TPT/BCT
2.2
2.4
10.6
57.3
1.3
BAT-1
0.3
0.4
1.6
8.8
0.2
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10'6)
Investment
Annual
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MCD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
(3)
-
INDIRECT
RAW
WASTE
2.2
6,845.5
26.9
293.4
40.6
17.23
4.08
2.08
0.26
(POTW) DISCHARGERS
PSES-1
1.9
2.1
9.1
49.3
1.1
PSES-2
0.4
0.4
1.8
9.7
0.2
BAT-2
0.3
0.2
0.7
3.6
0.1
2.70
0.34
PSES-3
0.4
0.2
0.8
4.0
0.1
26.75
3.73
PSFS-4
SUBC YTEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10'6)
(3)
Investment
Annual
6.87
2.21
1.19
0.15
1.55
0.20
15.56
2.17
(1) Rau wcsle loads for the plants which haul all wastes have been included in these totals.
(2) Rau waste loads for r.he acid recovery plants have been included in these totals.
(3) The cost suomary totals do not include confidential plants.
493
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
SULFURIC ACID PICKLING SUBCATEGORV
BAR/BILLET/BLOOM! NEUTRALIZATION AND ACID RECOVERY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved iron
Oil and Grease
Tolal Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Tolal Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
(?X10"6)
Investment
Annual
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solid.*)
Total Toxic Metals
Tolal Organics
(3)
1.6
6,854.1
17.6
298.8
38.6
BPT/BCT
1.0
1.1
4.8
26.2
0.6
BAT-1
0.4
0.4
1.8
9.5
0.2
9.88
2.93
3.34
0.42
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
RAW
WASTE
0.2
822.5
2.1
35.8
4.6
PSES-1
0.2
0.2
0.9
5.0
0.1
PSES-2
0.06
0.1
0.3
1.7
(2)
BAT-2
0.4
0.2
0.8
3.9
0.1
3.93
0.50
PSES-3
0.06
(2)
0.1
0.7
(2)
BAT-3
0
24.38
3.45
PSES-4
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
1.71
0.65
0.46
0.06
0.54
0.07
3.35
0.48
(1) Raw waste loads for the planls which haul all wastes have been included in these totals.
(2) Load is less than or equal to 0.05 ton/year.
(3) The cosl summary lolals do nol include confidential planls.
494
J
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
SULFURIC ACID PICKLING SUBCATEGORY
PIPE/TUBE/OTHER; NEUTRALIZATION AND ACID RECOVERY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organic*
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annua1
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YfcAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Greane
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organic*
RAW
WASTE
3.0
7,819.2
39.1
358.4
47.6
BPT/BCT
2.0
2.2
9.8
52.8
1.2
BAT-1
0.3
0.4
1.6
8.4
0.2
BAT-2
0.3
0.2
0.7
3.5
0.1
(3)
8.74
2.11
1.39
0.17
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
1.2
3,083.8
15.4
141.3
18.8
PSES-2
0.2
0.2
0.8
4.1
0.1
SUBCATECORY COfT SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annua1
(3)
2.05
0.60
0.29
0.04
BAT-3
0
2.12
0.27
29.08
4.12
PSES-3
0.2
0.1
0.3
1.7
0.1
PSES-4
0.44
0.06
6.04
0.86
(1) Raw waste loads for the plants which haul all wastes have been included in these totals.
(2) Raw waste loads for the acid recovery plants have been included in these totals.
(3) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
495
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HYDROCHLORIC ACID PICKLING SUBCATEGORY
STRIP/SHEET/PLATE: NEUTRALIZATION AND ACID REGENERATION
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10'6)
Investment
Annual
32.6
161,273.1
479.5
2,260.5
2,027.7
BPT/ECT
29.1
36.8
170.8
923.9
23.3
52.46
19.46
39.22
4.76
BAT-2
4.5
3.0
12.1
59.:
2.6
43.45
5.33
111.88
17.63
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YtAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metal*
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
(SX10"6)
Investment
Annual
RAW
WASTE
3.8
18,603.0
55.3
261.4
233.9
PSES-1
3.4
4.6
20.1
108.7
2.7
1.76
1.60
496
PSES-2
0.5
0.7
3.1
16.7
0.4
1.86
0.23
PSES-3
0.5
0.4
1.4
6.9
0.3
PSES-4
2.07
0.26
5.41
0.86
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HYDROCHLORIC ACID PICKLING SUBCATEGORY
ROD/WIRE/COIL! NEUTRALIZATION
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
DIRECT
RAW
WASTE
1.1
1,414.2
11.8
35.4
15.9
DISCHARGERS
BPT/BCT
0.4
0.4
1.9
10.2
0.3
BAT-1
0.1
0.1
0.6
3.2
0.1
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6) .
Investment
Annual
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YSAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
3.86
0.78
0.18
0.02
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
RAW
WASTE
0.9
1,218.5
10.2
30.5
13.7
PSES-1
0.4
0.4
2.0
10.8
0.3
PSES-2
0.1
0.1
0.5
2.8
0.1
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
(1)
4.70
1.15
0.25
0.03
(1) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
497
BAT-2
0.1
0.1
0.3
1.3
0.1
BAT-3
0.51
0.06
10.92
1.55
PSES-3
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.1
0.1
PSES-4
0.62
0.08
15.04
2.13
m
Ps
&
&
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HYDROCHLORIC ACID PICKLING SUBCATEGORY
PIPE/TUBE: NEUTRALIZATION
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Tcxic Metals
Total Organics
RAW
WASTE
0.4
545.2
4.5
13.6
6.1
BPT/BCT
0.2
0.3
1.2
6.4
0.2
BA7-1
0.05
(1)
0.2
1.2
(1)
BAT-2
0.05
(1)
1.0
0.5
(1)
BAT-3
0
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investiient
Annual
(2)
0.96
0.21
0.07
0.009
0.13
0.02
2.80
0.38
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MCD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
RAW
WASTE
0.1
146.1
1.2
3.6
1.6
PSES-l
0.1
0.1
0.5
2.9
0.1
PSES-2
0.01
(1)
0.1
0.3
(1)
PSES-3
0.01
(1)
(I)
0.1
(1)
PSES-4
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
(SX10"6)
Investment
Annual
0.03
0.006
0.001
0.0002
(1) Load is less than or equal to 0.05 ton/year.
(2) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
0.003
0.0003
0.06
0.008
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AKD TREATMENT COSTS
COMBINATION ACID PICKLING SUBCATECORY
BATCH STRIP/SHEET/PLATE: NEUTRALIZATION
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
RAW<»
WASTE
1.9
1,349.3
2,819.5
20.1
74.5
226.8
BPT/BCT
0.8
0.8
12.2
3.6
19.4
0.6
BAT-1
0.2
0.2
3.4
1.0
5.4
0.2
BAT-2
0.2
0.1
3.4
0.5
2.2
0.1
BAT-3
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
(SXIO"6)
(2)
Investment
Annual
3.21
0.74
0.42
0.05
0.68
0.09
12.16
1.66
(1) Raw waste loads for the plants which haul all wastes have b«en included in these totals.
(2) The cost sumary totals do not include confidential plants.
Note: There are no POTW dischargers in this segnent.
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS ADD TREATMENT COSTS
COMBINATION ACID PICKLING SUBCATEGORY
CONTINUOUS STRIP/SHEET/PLATE; NEUTRALIZATION
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MCD)
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~S
Investment
Annual
RAW
HASTE
15.1
9,089.0
10,502.9
202.0
1,615.8
3,026.4
-
INDIRECT
RAW
WASTE
1.1
657.6
759.8
14.6
116.9
219.0
-
BPT/BCT
:z.9
17.2
258.0
75.7
409.3
13.2
17.57
6.56
BAT-1
1.7
2.3
34.2
10.0
54.3
1.8
3.14
0.39
BAT- 2
1.7
1.1
34.2
4.6
22.4
0.7
5.36
0.68
BAT-3
0
-
41.09
7.02
(POTW) DISCHARGERS
PSES-1
0.9
1.2
18.5
5.4
29.3
0.9
0.35
0.12
PSES-2
0.1
0.2
2.5
0.7
3.9
0.1
0.04
0.005
PSES-3
0.1
0.1
2.5
0.3
1.6
(1)
0.07
0.008
PSES-4
0
-
0.50
0.09
(1) Load is less than or equal to 0.05 ton/year.
son
-------
sww»w*
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
COMBINATION ACID PICKLING SUBCATEGORY
ROD/WIRE/COIL: NEUTRALIZATION
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
2.2
1,775.2
2,878.7
24.0
117.5
421.9
BPT/3CT
1.3
1.5
21.9
6.4
34.8
1.2
BAT-1
0.3
0.3
4.5
1.3
7.2
0.2
BAT-2
0.3
0.2
4.5
0.6
3.0
0.1
BAT-3
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
Investment
Annual
5.84
1.55
0.99
0.12
1.44
0.18
3.14
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR) _
Flow (MGD)
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
RAW
WASTE
2.1
PSES-1
1.2
PSES-2
0.3
PSES-3
0.3
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
1,664.7
2,699.4
22.5
110.2
395.6
1.3
19.7
5.8
31.2
1.0
0.3
4.2
1.2
6.7
0.2
0.1
4.2
0.6
2.6
0.1
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
3.20
0.87
0.41
0.05
0.59
0.08
7.08
1.00
501
-------
r
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
COMBINATION ACID PICKLING SUBCATECORY
BAR/BILLET/BLOOH; NEUTRALIZATION
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS /YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Oil and Crease
Total Suspended Sol:' as
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
DIRECT
RAW(1)
WASTE
0.2
181.4
460.3
2.7
6.8
17.8
-
DISCHARGERS
BPT/BCT
0.06
0.1
1.0
0.3
1.6
0.1
-
BAT-1
0.03
12)
0.5
0.1
0.7
'2>
-
BAT-2
0.03
(2)
0.5
0.1
0.3
(2)
BAT-3
SimCATECORY COST SUMMARY
<$X10~6)
(3)
Investment
Annua1
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MCD)
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Oil and Crease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
-
INDIRECT
RAW
WASTE
0.01
10.0
25.4
0.1
0.4
1.0
0.60
0.20
0.06
0.008
(POTW) DISCHARGERS
PSES-1
0.01
(2)
0.2
0.1
0.4
(2)
PSES-2
0.002
(2)
(2)
(2)
0.1
(2)
0.16
0.02
PSES-3
0.002
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
4.54
0.62
PSES-4
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
0.56
0.18
0.04
O.C05
0.10
0.01
2.72
0.37
(1) Raw waste loads for the plants which haul all wastes have been included in these totals.
(2) Load is less than or «qual to 0.05 ton/year.
(3) The cost summary totuxs do not include confidential plants.
502
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
COMBINATION ACID PICKLING SUBCATEGORY
PIPE/TUBE: NEUTRALIZATION
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
RAW(1)
I'ASTE BPT/BCT
1.1
0.6
BAT-1
0.1
715.8
1,851.2
12.3
38.3
70.9
0.6
9.3
2.7
14.8
0.5
0.1
2.1
0.6
3.4
0.1
BAT-2
0.1
0.1
2.1
0.3
1.4
(2)
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X1Q"6)
(3)
Investment
Annual
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONL'/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
-
INDIRECT
RAW
WASTE
1.0
599.5
1,550.5
10.3
32.0
59.4
3.00
0.69
0.21
0.03
(POTW) DISCHARGERS
PSES-1
0.4
0.5
7.1
2.1
11.2
0.4
PSES-2
0.1
0.1
1.8
0.5
2.9
0.1
0.53
0.07
PSES-3
0.1
0.1
1.8
0.2
1.2
(2)
14.84
2.04
PSES-4
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
(3)
1.10
0.28
0.04
0.005
0.11
0.01
2.97
0.41
(1) Raw waste loads for the plants which haul all wastes have been included in these totals.
(2) Load is less than or equal to 0.05 ton/year.
(3) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
503
t
-------
o
_J
i
II
^
505
Preceding page blank
-------
\
-LL
cr
CO
ll
O
Z 2
< UJ
z
—
>
z
1C
a.
o
m
<
m
CL
CD
506
-------
^ tr
_
z go
o
o
Q.
Q.
O.
to
en
co
a.
co
UJ
CO
a.
ui
o
K
|§
II
1
111
507
-------
SUBCATECORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/76 DOLLARS
SUBCATECORY:
Cold Formis*
Cold Rollins
: ReeircuUtion
HODEt SIZE (TPD):
OPER. DAYS/YEAR :
TURNS/DAY «
SINGLE
STAND
450
348
3
MULTI
STAND
2400
348
3
Single Stand^
Model Plant
13 Direct Di»eh»rger»
3 Indirect Ditcharger*
10
26
Contract Htuled
Active Pl»nt»
Multi Stand
Model Plant
21 Direct Diacharger»
3 Indirect Ditchargera
3 Contract Hauled
27 Active Plant*
0.002 MCD
0.03 MCD
0.006 MCD
0.02 MOD
0.06 MCD
0.06 MCD
1.3 MCD
0.2'MGD
0.2 MCD
1.7 MCD
BPT/BCT
PSES-1
BAT-3
PSES-4
Inveitaent
Single St«nd
Multi Stand
Annual
Single Stand
Multi Stand
S/Ton of Production
Single Stand
Multi Stand
208
494
29.9
55.0
0.19
0.066
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
8.0
49.5
1.3
6.7
0.008
0.008
NSPS-2
psrs-2
184
1142
24.2
147
0.15
0.18
NSPS-3
PSHS-3
538
1946
75.0
291
0.48
0.35
NSPS-4
PSNS-4
Inveitoent
Single Stand
Multi Stand
Annual
Single Stand
Multi Stan
-------
SUBCATECORY SUMMARY DATA
COLD FORMING-RECIRCULATION
PAGE 2
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
1
11
13
23
39
55
60
65
72
76
77
78
80
81
84
85
86
87
114
115
118
119
120
122
124
128
Flow (GPT) Single Stand
Flow (GPT) Multi Stand
pH (SU)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Acenaphlhene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
Chloroform
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
Phenol
Benzo (a) Anthracene
Chrysene
Acenaphlhylene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Telrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichlorocthylene
Ant imony*
Arsenic*
Cadmium*
Chromium*
Copper*
Lead*
Nickel*
Zinc*
Notes: All concentrations are
{ BAT and PSES-2 through
RAW
WASTE
5 f5'
25 [10:
6-9
14700
1013
0.055
0.063
0.011
0.037
0.27
1.5 (0
0.063
0.17
0.16
0.11
0.14
0.14
3.5
0.91
0.30
C.036 (0.
0.012
0.009
0.031
0.26
0.11
2.5
7.1
2.9
3.3
3.7
IlPT/BCT
NSPS-1
PSES-1
PSNS-1
5 K
25 [lO]
6-9
(10)7
(30)16
0.01
0.063
0.011
0.002
0.01
.1***)0.012 (0
0.063
0.093
0.005
0.001
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.005
15***)0.035 (0.
0.004
0.002
0.031
0.1
0.016
(0.4)0.28
0.1
(0.15)0.1
(0.3)0.2
(0.1)0.06
BAT-1
NSPS-2
PSES-2
PSNS-2
5 K)
25 [10
6-9
(5**)2.0
(15)9.8
0.01
0.063
0.011
0.002
0.01
.1***)0.012
0.025
0.093
0.005
0.001
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.005
15***)0.035
0.004
0.002
0.031
0.05
0.016
(0.1)0.03
0.03
(0.1)0.06
(0.1)0.04
(0.1)0.06
BAT-2
NSPS-3
PSES-3
PSNS-3
5 M
], 25 DO:
6-9
(5**)2.0
(15)9.8
0.01
0.063
0.011
0.002
0.01
(0.02)0.012
0.025
0.05
0.005
0.001
0.01
0.01
0.01
0,01
0.005
(0.15***)0.035
0.004
0.002
0.031
0.05
0.016
(0.1)0.03
0.03
(0.1)0.06
(0.1)0.04
(0.1)0.06
BAT-3
NSPS-4
PSES-4
PSNS-4
0
0
_
-
-
_
_
_
_
_
-
_
_
_
-
_
-
_
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
PSES-4 costs are
incremental over BPT/PSES-1
costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used to develop the
limitations/standards for various levels of treatment. All other values
represent long tern average values or predicted average performance levels.
: Values in brackets represent NSPS/PSNS flows.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste sanplcs.
** Limit for oil and grease is based upon 10 mg/1 (maximum only).
*** Maximum limit only.
PSNS/NSPS flow
SO1)
-------
SUBCATECORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATECORY: Cold *oning
: Cold Rolling
: Combination
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 4800
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 348
TORNS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 1.4 MGD
10 Direct Discharger! 14.0 MGD
0 Indirect Dischargers 0.0 MOD
10 Active Plants 14.0 MGD
MODEL COSTS ($X10"3)
Investment
Annual
$/Ton o£ Production
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (CPT)
pH (SU)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
39 Fluoranthene
55 Naphthalene
78 Anthracene
80 Fluorene
61 Phenanthrene
84 Pyrene
85 Tetrachlorothylene
115 Arsenic*
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
122 Lead
124 Nickel*
128 Zinc*
RAW
WASTE
300 [130]
6-9
1481
843
0.071
4 (0
0.18
0.98
5.1
0.05
0.02 (0.
0.16
0.03
0.89
0.1
0.21
0.15
BPT/BCT
PSES-1
1540
299
0.18
RSPS-1
PSNS-1
1182
202
0.12
BPT/BCT
NSPS-1
PSES-1
PSNS-1
300 [l30
6-9
(10)7
(30)16
0.01
.1***)0.012 (0
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.005
15***)0.02 (C.
0.1
(0.4)0.03
0.1
(0.15)0.1
(0.3)0.2
(0.1)0.06
BAT-1
PSES-2
S61
77.9
0.047
HSPS-2
PSNS-2
1652
266
0.16
BAT-1
BSPS-2
PSES-2
PSNS-2
300 [130j
6-9
(5**)2.0
(15)9.8
0.01
.1***)0.012 (0
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.005
15***)0.02 (0.
0.05
(0.1)0.03
0.03
(0.1)0.06
(0.1)0.04
(0.1)0.06
BAT-2
PSES-3
3988
553
0.33
HSPS-3
PSNS-3
3731
533
0.32
BAT-2
NSPS-3
PSES-3
PSNS-3
300 [130|
6-9
(5**)2.0
(15)9.8
0.01
.1***)0.012
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.005
15***)0.02
0.05
(0.1)0.03
0.03
(0.1)0.06
(0.1)0.04
(0.1)0.06
BAT-3
PSES-4
12298
2470
1.48
NSPS-4
PSNS-4
6920
1386
0.83
BAT-3
NSPS-4
PSES-4
PSNS-4
0
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless othervise noted.
: BAT and PSES-2 through PSES-4 are incremental over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used to develop
the limitations/standards for various levels of treatment. All other
values represent long term average values or predicted average performance levels.
: Values in brackets represent NSPS/PSNS flows.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples.
** Limit for oil and grease is based upon 10 ng/1 (maximum only).
*** Maximum limit only
NSPS/P3NS flow
510
-------
SU8CATECORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATECORY: Cold Forming
t Cold Rolling
: Direct Application
SINGLE MULTI
STAKD STASP
HODEL SIZE (TTO): 2000 2700
OPER. DAYS/TEAR : 348 348
TURNS/DAY : 3 3
HAW WASTE FLOWS
Sin»l« Stand
Model Plant 0.2 HOT
9 Direct Diachargera 1.8 MCD
0 Indirect Diichargert 0 MCD
1 Contract Hauled 0.2 MCD
10 Active Plant! 2.0 MCD
Multi Stand
Model Plant 1.1 MCD
10 Direct DUchargere 11.0 MCD
0 Indirect Diachargera 0.0 MCD
1 Contract Hauled 1.1 NOD
11 Active Planta 12.1 MCD
MODEL COSTS
Invealaenl
Single Stand
Multi Stand
Annual
Single Stand
Multi Stand
I'Ton oi Production
Single Stand
Hulli Stand
BPT/BCT
PSES-1
714
1216
102
206
0.15
0.22
BAT-1
PSES-2
153
539
20.1
75.3
0.029
0.080
BAT-2
PSES-3
2057
3367
26*
468
0.38
0.50
8AT-3
PSES-4
2633
7887
461
1842
0.66
1.96
Inveetaent
Single Stand
Multi Stand
Annual
Single Stand
Hul'.i Stand
$/Ton of Production
Single Stand
Hulti Stand
0.09
0.20
0.10
0.27
HSFS-3
PSNS-3
1456
3983
194
557
0.28
0.59
HSPS-4
PSNS-4
2014
7670
290
1548
0.42
1.65
Sll
J
-------
SUBCATECORY NUMMARY DATA
COLD FORMING-DIRECT APPLICATION
PAGE 2
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS
6
11
55
78
85
86
115
117
119
120
122
124
128
Flow (GPT) Single Stand
Flow (GPT) Multi Stand
pH CSU)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,1, 1-Trichloroe thane
Naplhalene
Anthracene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Arsenic
Beryllium
Chroaium
Copper*
Lead
Nickel*
Zinc
RAW
WASTE
90 [25]
400 [2901
6-9
1215
135
0.007
0.043
4.4 (0.
0.014
0.02 (0.1
0.69
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.17
BPT/BCT BAT-1
NSPS-1 NSPS-2
PSES-1 PSES-2
PSKS-1 PSNS-2
90 t
400 t
6-9
(10)7
(30)16
0.007
0.043
1***)0.012
0.01
!5: 90 125]
190 400 K903
6-9
(5**)2.0
(15)9.8
0.007
0.043
(0.1***)0.012 (0.
0.01
BAT-2 BAT-3
NSPS-3 NSPS-4
PSES-3 PSES-4
PSNS-3 PSNS-4
90 t
400 \
6-9
(5**)2.0
(15)9.8
0.007
0.043
1***)0.012
0.01
IS) 0
!90J 0
-
-
-
_
.
-
5**-*)0.02 (0.15***}0.02 (0.15***)0.02
0.004
0.02
0.006
(0.4)0.04
0.1
0.39 (0.15)0.1
0.2
0.098
(0.3)0.2
(0.1)0.06
0.004
0.02
0.006
(0.1)0.03
0.03
(0.1)0.06
(0.1)0.04
(0.1)0.06
0.004
0.02
0.006
(0.1)0.03
0.03
(0.1)0.06
(0.1)0.04
(0.1)0.06
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
Note.*: All concentrations are in «g/l unless otherwise noted.
: BPT and PSES-2 through PSES-4 ire increnenlal over BPT/PSES-1 costs.
I Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used to develop
the proposed liailations/standards. All other value* represent long
lent average values or predicted average performt'.ce levels.
: Values in brackets represent NSPS/PSNS flows.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste sanples analyzed.
** Licit for ail and greaiie is based upon 10 ng/1 (uxiaiusj only).
*** Maximum limit only.
NSPS/PSNS flow
«1
ii
si
-------
SUBCATECORY SUMMARY PATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBGATECORY:
Cold Fonaing
Cold Worked Pipe «nd Tube
Uting Water
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 500
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 260
TURNS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 1.5 MOD
9 Direct Dischargers 13.3 MGD
2 Indirect Dischargers 3.0 MGD
4 Zero Dischargers 5.9 MOD
15 Active Plants 22.2 MGD
MODEL COSTS (SX10"3)
Investsrent
Annua1
S/Ton of Production
WASTE WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (CPT)
pH (SU)
Oil anJ Grease
Total Suspended Solids
120 Copper
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
RAW
WASTE
2960
6-9
65
25
0.07
0.025
0.23
Note: All concentrations are in ng/1 unless otherwise noted.
513
-------
SOBCATEGOKY SOMURY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SOBCATECORYt
I
I
Cold Forming
Cold Uorktd Pip* tat Tub*
Ueing Oil
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 270
OPER. DATS/YEAR I 260
TURNS/DAY i 3
RAW HASTE FLOWS
Motel Plant
1 Direct Ditcharger
0 Indirect Diacharger*
IS Plant* Hauling U«tt«
Solution*
2 Z*ro Di*ch*rg*r*
1 Khar Di*ch*rger
19 active Pl*nt*
1.3 MGD
1.3 MGO
0.0 MGO
19.3 HCD
2.6 NCD
1.3 HCD
24. 5 MCD
COSTS ($X10~3)
InvestMnt
Annual
S/Ton of Production
UASTEUATER
CHARACTERISTICS
FlOH (CPT)
pH (SU)
Oil and Cr**a*
Total Su*p*n
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLtEKT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
COLD FORMING SUBCATEGORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
(1)
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Crease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metala
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
(SX10'6)
Investment
Annual
(2)
73.3
2,742,937.8
44,570.5
320.6
356.9
28.1
285.8
653.0
21.4
4.1
28.1
81.7
400.0
9.8
4.0
34.86 12.98
4.57 1.84
BAT-2
28.1
81.7
400.0
9.8
3.8
113.95
15.-.4
BAT-3
268.31
53.4S
INDIRECT (POrW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MOD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
(?X10"6)
Investment
Annual
(2)
RAW
WASTE
3.2
4,194.9
355.0
11.4
8.1
PSES-1 PSES-2
0.2 0.2
1.9
4.4
0.3
0.2
0.15
0.02
0.6
2.7
0.2
0.2
0.09
0.01
PSES-3
C.2
0.6
2.7
0.2
0.2
1.99
0.26
3.89
0.57
(1) The raw waste load and BPT cost contributions of the zero discharge operations are
included in the direct discharger data. As these plants have no wastewater discharges,
they do not contribute to BAT costs or to the BPT and BAT effluent waste loa
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUEOT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
COLD FORMING SUBCATECORY
COLD ROLLING
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
(1)
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organic*
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
(SX10"6)
Investment
Annual
(2)
RAW
WASTE
29.6
86,942.3
22,502.3
93.7
336.5
BPT/BCT BAT-1
28.1
285.8
653.0
21.4
4.1
27.71
3.64
28.1
81.7
400.0
9.8
4.0
12.98
1.84
BAT-2
28.1
81.7
400.0
9.8
3.8
113.95
15.44
BAT-3
0
268.31
53.48
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMhARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and C.-ease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metal*
Total Organic*
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
(SX10"fe)
Investment
Annual
(2)
RAW
WASTE
0.2
3,986.2
274.7
5.4
2.1
PSES-1
0.2
1.9
4.4
0.3
0.2
0.06
o.ooa
PSES-2
0.2
0.6
2.7
0.2
0.2
0.09
0.01
PSES-3
0.2
0.6
2.7
0.2
0.2
1.99
0.26
3.89
0.57
(1) The raw waste load and BPT cost contributions of the rero discharge operations
(contract haul) are included in the direct discharger data. As these plants have
no uastewater discharges, they do not contribute to BAT costs or to the BPT and BAT
effluent waste loads.
(2) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS ASD TREATMENT COSTS
COLD FORMING SU3CATECORY
COLD WORKED PIPE AND T>JBE
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR) _
Flow (MCD)
Oil and Greaie
Total Suspended Solid*
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
(1)
Investment
Annual
RAW
WASTE
43.7
2,655,995.5
27,068.2
226.9
20.4
BPT/BCT
BAT
7.15
0.93
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MCD)
Oil and Greaie
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxic Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
UX10"6)
Investment
Annual
RAW
WASTE
1.0
208.7
80.3
1.0
PSES
0.09
0.01
(1) The cost sunaary totals do not include confidential plants.
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADIKCS AND TREATMENT COSTS
COLD FORMING SUBCATECORY
COLD ROLLING - RECIRCULATION, SINGLE STAND
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR) _
Flow (MOD)
<2>
RAW
HASTE
0.05
BPT/BCT BAT-1
0.03 0.03
BAT-2
0.03
BAT-3
Oil and Crease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
:sxio'6) _
Investment
Annua 1
76.1
1.5
0.6
0.3
0.7
(1)
(1)
1.10
0.16
0.1
0.4
(1)
(1)
0.10
0.02
0.1
0.4
(1)
(1)
2.32
0.31
6.80
0.95
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
RAW
WASTE
PSES-1 PSES-2 PSES-3
PSES-4
Flow (MCD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
(SXIO"6)
Investment
Annua1
0.007
144.1
9.9
0.2
0.1
0.007 0.007
0.)
0.2
(1)
(1)
0.03
0.005
(1)
0.1
(1)
(1)
0.02
0.003
0.007
(1)
0.1
(1)
(1)
0.42
0.06
1.22
0.17
(1) Load is less than or equal to 0.05 ton/year.
(2) Raw waste loads fot contract haul plants have been included in these
totals.
-------
i!
If
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
COLD FORMING SUBCATECORY
COLD ROLLING - RECIRCULATIOK. KULTI STAMP
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS /YEAR)
Flow (MCD)
Oil «nd Crease
Total Suspended Solidi
Total Toxic Metal*
Total Organic*
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6>
Investment
Annual
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MCD)
Oil and Crease
Total Suspended Solida
Total Toxic Metal*
Total Organic*
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
(SX10'6)
Investment
Annual
RAW<»
WASTE
1.4
30,736.6
2,118.1
41.6
15.7
-
INDIRECT
RAW
WASTE
0.2
3,842.1
264.8
5.?
2.0
-
BPT/BCT
1.3
12.8
29.3
1.7
0.7
$.83
0.40
BAT-1
1.3
3.7
17.9
0.6
0.6
0.97
0.13
BAT-2
1.3
3.7
17.9
0.6
0.5
22.32
2.87
BAT-3
0
-
3*. 04
5.68
(POTW) DISCHARGERS
PSES-1
0.2
1.8
4.2
0.2
0.1
0.03
0.003
PSES-2
0.2
0.5
2.6
0.1
0.1
0.07
0.009
PSES-3
0.2
0.5
2.6
0.1
0.1
1.57
0.20
PSES-4
0
-
2.67
0.40
(1) Raw waste loads for contract haul plant* have b«en included
in these totals.
-------
Jf
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUHHARY
(TONS /YEAR)
Flow (MOD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organic*
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
(SX10"6)
Investment
Annual
RAW
WASTE
14.4
30,966.6
17,626.5
32.2
217.5
f
BPT/BCT
14.4
146.4
334.5
10.2
1.6
7.57
1.29
BAT-1
14.4
41.8
204.9
4.6
1.6
5.80
0.81
Note: There are no indirect dischargers in this segment.
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
COLD FORMING SIWCATECORY
COLD ROLLING - COMBINATION I j
! 1
BAT-2 BAT-3
14.4 0
41.8
204.9
4.6
1.6
41.25 127.19
5.72 25.55
520
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
COLD FORMING SUBCATEGORY
COLD ROLLING - DIRECT APPLICATION SINGLE STAND
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MGD)
Oil and Grease
Tolal Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Tolal Organic*
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
<$xi
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
COLD FORMING SUBCAPiCORY
COLD ROLLING - DIRECT APPLICATION. MULTI STAND
SUBCAT CORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MOD)
Oil and Crease
Total Suspended Solid*
Tolal Toxic Metals
Total Organic*
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
(SX10"6)
Investment
Annua 1
DIRECT
RAW")
WASTE
11.9
20,958
2,328.
16.0
89.2
-
DISCHARGERS
BPT/BCT
10.8
.9 109.8
8 250.9
8.3
1.5
9.19
1.21
BAT-1
10.8
31.4
153.7
3.9
1.5
5.19
0.72
BAT-2 BAT-3
10.8 0
31.4
153.7
3.9
1.5
32.41 75.92
4.50 17.73
Note: There are no indirect dischargers in this segment.
(1) Raw was'.e loads for contract haul plants have been included in these totals.
522
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
COLD FORMING SUBCATECORY
COLD WORKED PIPE AND TUBE - USING WATER
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MOD)
Oil and Crease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxic Organic!
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
AnnuaI
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flew (MCD)
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Tc'.al Toxic Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
RAW
WASTE
19.2
1,356.7
521.8
6.8
BPT/BCT
BAT
4.06
0.53
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
RAW
WASTE
3.0
208.7
80,3
1.0
PSES
0.09
0.01
523
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
COLD FORMING SUBCATEGORY
COLD WORKED PIPE AND TUBE - USING OIL
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
*
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY RAW BPT/BCT
(TONS/YEAR) WASTE BAT £!
i
Flow (MCD) 24.5 0
Oil and Grease 2,654,638.8
Total Suspended Solids 26,546.4
Total Toxic Metals 220.1
Total Organics 20.4
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
($X!0~6)
Investment - 3.09
Annual - 0.40
Note: There are no indirect dischargers in this subdivision.
(1) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
-------
ce
2
UJ
ffi
(A
7t> UJ
^og
z 5 s
<
*
_i
<
00 Z
UJ
2
111
cc
o
m
a.
CD
Si
I,
&*
8S
CM 1^1
Q
K
Ul
<
_l
O
(J
J
frj
?, •-. '
J
-------
o
UJ
,,
Ul
CO
Q.
V>
s
5
UJ
Q
O
I-
z
LJ
LU
cc
526
,-
-------
StraCATECORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATECORYJ Alkaline Cleaning
I Bitch
MODEL SIZE (TPD): ISO
OPER. DAYS/YEAR I 250
TURKS/DAY 1 2
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Plant 0.04 MOT
22 Direct Dischargers 0.8 HOT
9 Indirect Discharger* 0.3 MGD
31 Active Plant* 1.1 MCO
HODEL COSTS ($X10~3)
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
Investment
Annual
$/Ton cf Production
WASTEVATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Flow (OT) NSPS only
Flow (OPT)
pH (SU>
Diaiolved Iron,
Oil and Grease
(1)
Total Suspended Solid*
36 2(6-Dinilrololu*ne
39 Fluoranthene
84 Pyrene
114 Antimony
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Seleniua
128 Zinc*
(1)
RAW
WASTE
50
250
7-11
0.38
13
10
0.016
0.017
0.11
0.048
0.085
0.019
0.038
0.013
0.07
0.12
BPT/
BCT
381
49.8
1.33
BPT/
BCT
250
6-9
0.38
(10)4.4
(30)23.8
0.016
0.017
0.011
0.048
0.04
0.019
0.038
0.013
0.07
0.06
BAT-1
37.6
5.0
0.13
KSPS
237
30.7
0.82
BAT-1
NSPS
50
25
6-9
0.38
(5**)2
(15)9.8
0.016
0.01
0.005
0.048
0.03
0.019
0.038
0.013
0.07
0.0«
BAT-2
840
108
2.88
BAT-2
0
-
_
.
-
_
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
Not*it All concentrations are in nx/1 unle** otherwise noted.
t BAT costs are incremental ,ver BPT costs.
I Value* in parentheses reprerent the concentration* used
to develop the limitations/standards for the various levels
of treatment. All other values represent long term average
values or predicted average performance levels.
* Toxic pollutant found in all rax waste samples.
•* Limit for oil and grease is based upon 10 mg/1 (maxii
only).
(1) The BPT and BCT total suspended solids and oil and grease limitations for alkaline
cleaning operations are applicable when alkaline cleaning uastewater* are co-treated
with wastevaters from other steel finishing operations.
r>27
M
k
-------
SUBCATECORY SCKUET DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBGATECORY:
Alkaline Cleaning
Continuou*
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Model Flint O.S MCD
22 Direct Discharger* 11.6 MCD
9 Indirect Discharger* 4.7 MCD
31 Active Plant! 16.3 MCD
MODEL SIZE (TPD): 1500
OPER. DAYS/YEAR : 250
TURNS/DAY : 2
MODEL COSTS (SXlp"3)
BPT/BCT BAT-1
BAT-2
InveitBent
Annual
$/Ton of Production
Investment
Annual
$/Ton of Production
WASTE WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
(CPT) NSPS only
Flow (CPT)
pH (SU)
Dis«olved Iron. .
Oil and Cre**«U'
Total Suspended Solid*
36 2,6-Dinitrotolu*n*
39 Fluoranthene
84 Pyrene
114 Antimony
119 Chromium
121 Cyanide
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc*
(1)
RAH
UASTE
SO
350
7-11
0.38
13
10
0.016
0.017
0.011
0.0*8
0.085
0.01*
0.038
0.013
0.07
0.12
832
US
0.31
BPT/BCT
3SO
6-9
0.38
(10)4.4 (5*
367
46.1
0.12
NSPS
553
73.8
0.20
»AT-1
NSPS
50
35
6-9
0.38
*)2
(30)23.8 (15)9.8
0.016
0.017
O.OU
0.048
0.04
0.019
0.038
0.013
0.07
0.06
0.016
0.01
0.005
0.048
0.03
0.019
0.038
0.013
0.07
0.06
BAT-2
Notei: All concentration* are in *n/\ unlea* otherviae noted.
I BAT co»t» are incremental over BPT coat*.
: Value* in parenthe*** represent the concentration* u*ed
to develop the liBitat>on*/*t*ndard* for ih* variou* level*
of treatment. All other value* repreceat lone ten* average
values or predicted average performance level*.
•Toxic pollutant found in all raw uaate *a*ple*.
**Limit for oil and great* is baled upon 10 wat'l (max
only).
(1) The BPT and BCT total suspended *olid* and oil and greaae limitations for alkaline
cleaning cperation* arf applicable when alkaline cleaning wastevaters are co-treated
with wastewater* from other Heel finishing operation*.
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUEHT LOADINGS ATO TREATMENT COSTS
ALKALIHE CLEANING SUBCATECORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flo*. (MGO)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Create
Tot*l Suspended Solid*
Total Toxic Metal*
Total Organic*
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
($X10~6)
Investment
Annual
(2)
RAW
HASTE
12.4
4.9 4.9 0.5
167.8 56.8 2.6
129.1 307.2 12.6
4.8 3.4 0.3
0.9 0.9 0.1
12.26
1.68
7.61
0.96
BAT-2
57.72
8.10
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MCD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Create
Total Suspended Solid*
Total Toxic Metal*
Total Organic*
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
(SX1.0"*)
Investment
Annual
5.5
1.9
68.7
52.8
1.9
0.3
PSES
(3)
(1) Total Organic* load include* total cyanide.
(2) The coat summary total* do not include
confidential plant*.
(3) General Pretreatnent Regulation* apply, 40 CFR Part 403.
\
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
ALKALINE CLEANING SUBCATEGORY
BATCH
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MCD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Crease
Total Suspended Solid*
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organics
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
($X10"6)
Investment
Annual
(2)
RAW
WASTE
0.8
0.3
11.2
8.6
0.3
0.1
BPT/BCT BAT^l
0.8 0.08
0.3
3.8
20.5
0.2
0.1
1.98
0.26
(1)
0.2
0.8
(1)
(1)
0.46
0.06
10.35
1.32
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MCD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organic*
SUBCATECORY COST SUMMARY
(JXlO^j
Investment
Annual
RAW
WASTE
0.4
0.1
4.6
3.5
0.1
(1)
(1) Load is less than or equal to 0.05 ton/year.
(2) The cost summary totals do not include
confidential plants.
(3) Total Organics load includes i.otal cyanide.
(4) General Pretreatment Regulations apply, 40 CFR part 403.
53.')
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
ALKALINE CLEANING SUBCATECORY
CONTINUOUS
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flo* (MCD)
Dissolved Iron
Oil «nd Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Me£al»
Total Organics
SUBCATEGORY COST SUMMARY
(SXIO"6)
Investment
Annual
(2)
RAW
WASTE
11.6
4.6
156.6
120.5
4.5
0.8
BPT/BCT BAT-1
BAT-2
11.6
4.6
53.0
286.7
3.2
0.8
10.28
1.42
1.2
0.5
2.4
11.8
0.3
0.1
7.15
0.90
47.37
6.78
INDIRECT (POTW) DISCHARGERS
SUBCATEGORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MCD)
RAW
WASTE
4.7
PSES
(3)
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Toxic Metals
Total Org*nics
S13CATEGORY COST SUMMARY
(SXIO'6)
Investment
Annual
1.8
64.1
49.3
1.8
0.3
(1) Total organics load includes total cyanide.
(2) The cost summary totals do not include confidential plants.
(3) General Pretreatmenl Regulation? apply, »0 CFR part 403.
-------
HOT COATING / GALVANIZING
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
BPT/BCT/PSES-I/
NSPS-I/PSKS-I
BAT-2/ PSES-3/
NSPS-3/PSNS-3
SOLIDS
HOT COATING RINSE WATER FLO* RATES (OPT)
PRODUCT
Strip /Shttt a
MIK. Products
Wir» Product!
a Fosttntrt
BPT/BCT/PSES-162 .,,
600
2400
ALL OTHER MODELS121
ISO
600
(IIFumt »crubt>«» fk» ol BPT/BCT/PSES-l/NSPS-l/PSNS-l: lOO gpm/(crut>b*r
(2)Fum« icrubb*r 'low at all othf «xxJel»: 15 gpm/tcrubb*r
533
Preceding page blank
-------
BPT/BCT/PSES-I/
NSPS-I/PSNS-I
rOOjs>m
HOT COATING/TERNE a OTHER METALS
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
BAT-l/PSES-2
IS»pm-
FUME
SCRUBBER
SLOWDOWN
RINSE
WATER
7
3AT-2/ PSES-3/
ISPS -3 /PSNS-3
IS jpm-
FUME
SCRUBBER
SLOWDOWN
RINSE
REDUCTION
7
— •
| POLYMER]
1 , r
EQUALIZATION C>
3
o
'ANK REACTION
TANK
?[ LIME)
q
EQUALIZATION C»
3
0
TANK
T
VACUUM
FILTER
' toSolit
]
r
., 1
I^CLARIFIER J |
i * 1 1
VACUUM
FILTER
Sfllidt
1
ash^" ' •>
—{ FILTERj— ^
NSPS-Z/PSES- 1
BAT-3/PSES-4
NSPS-4/PSNS-4
',fS«V,V!!!
^•1 EVAPORATION \— i
Uc.
HOT COATING RINSE WATER FLOW RATES (GPTI
PRODUCT
Strip/Sheet a
Misc. Products
Wire Products
a Fosterers
BAT/BCT/PSES'I ft 2 / . ..
BAT" I/NSPS~I/PSNS"I
600
2400
ALL OTHER MODELS^
150
600
(I) Fume scrubbtr flow al BPT/BCT/PSES - I/NSPS' I/PSNS'I 15 qpm/jcrubMr
12) fumt »crubt«r oi all other models 15 qpm/»crubber
S34
-------
5L1CATTCOBT SlWHAgY DATA
1ASIS 7/1'78
SUVCATEGOtY:
Hot Costing - Cslvanltlnff.
Script Sheet and Miscellaa*ous Products
MODEL SIZE 'TPD): 800
OPER. DAYS/YtAi : 260
TURKS/DAY : 3
RAW WASTE FLOWS
ftlnses
Model Plant 0.5 .ICO
25 Direct Dischargers 12.0 MCD
5 Zero Dischargers 0.1 MCD
33 Active Plants 13.5 HCt>
MODEL COST (SX:0~3)
Investment
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants with Scrubbers
Annual
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With Scrubbers
$/T?n cf Production
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants with Scrubbers
Investment
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With Scrubbers
Annual
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants With p -rubbers
$/Ton of Production
Plants Without Scrubbers
Plants with Scrubbers
WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS Ko
Hot. (CPT) oOO
pH (SU) 2-9
Dissolved Iron ... 16
Oil and Crease 60
Total Suspended Solids 120
115 An«nic* 0.2
119 Chromium 7
120 Copper* O.t
122 Lead 0.6
124 Nickel 1
128 Zinc* 120
Notes: All concentrations are la m
i SAT and PSES-2 through PSES
Fuase Scrubbers (Additional Plow)
Model Plant 0.3 MCD
11 Direct iriachjrgers 3.2 MCD
1 Zero Dischargers >0.03 MCD
13 Active Plant. 3.5 MCD
HT/BCT IAT-1
P5ES-1 PSES-2
739
94) S9.1
120
154 8.3
0.58
0.7* 0.04
XSPS-I
PSSS-1
7)9
94)
120
154
0.5t
0.74
HSPS-I
PSSS-I
RAW WASTE PSES-1 PSES-2
Scrub w, Scrub BPT'SCT BAT-I
<» 600(1) 600(2>
2-» 6-9 6-9
1C 1 I
0.6 (0.02)0.01 (0.02)0.01
45 (10)4.4 (10)4.4
100 (30)23.1 (30)23.8
0.12 1.1 0.1
4 0.04 0.04
O.J 0.04 0.04
0.4 (0.15)0.1 (0.15)0.1
0.4 0.15 0.15
«0 (0.1)0.06 (0.1)0.06
g/l unless otherwise noted.
Total flow
IS. 2 MCD
1.7 MCD
O.I MCD
17.0 MCD
SAT-2
PSES-)
40<
491
51. «
63.3
0.25
0.30
KSPS-2 NSPS-)
PSNS-2 PSK3-)
822 942
951 1095
128 14)
152 170
0.61 0.69
0.7) 0.8:
XSPS-)
PSXS-)
SSPS-2 P5ES-3
PJ'IS-2 I«T-J
150(J> 150(!)
6-9 6-9
1 0.5
(0.02)0.01 (0.02)0.01
(10)4.4 (5**)2
(30)21.8 (15)9.8
0.1 0.1
0.04 0.0)
0.04 0.0)
(0.15)0.1 (0.1)0.06
0.15 0.04
(0.1)0.06 (0.1)0.06
BAT -3
PSES-4
2593
2864
402
452
1.9)
2.17
NSPS-4
PSNS-4
3127
3467
493
559
2.)7
2.69
NSPS-4
PSNS-4
PSES-4
JAT-3
0
-
.
.
-
.
-
-
-
-
*
1 lautai lons/ttandards (or the various levelt of treatment. All other
values represent long term
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw
** Limit for oil and grease is H*»e
galvanizing line.
each galvanizing ;ine.
(3) Limitat ions/»t*nd»rd« apply C.A
averages or predicted average performance levels.
wattewater samples.
d upon !0 mg/'. Emaiimua only).
P P
ly to plants discharging wasf^waters from a chrof
scrubber ,«rv.r,g each
Spa per scru er serving
Bate rinsing ttep.
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGO1Y: Hot. Coating - Galvanising
> Wire Producta and Fastenera
RAW WASTE FLCUS
Rinses Fume Scrubbers (Additional Flow)
Model Plant 0.24 MCD Model Plant 0.3 MCD
14 Indirect Dischargera 3.4 MCD 7 Indirect Dischargers 2.0 MCO
1 Zero Discharger 0 MCD 0 Zero Dischargera 0 MCD
30 Active Plants 7.0 MCD 13 Active Plants 3.7 MCD
- BPT/8CT BAT-1
MODEL COST (SX10 > PSES-I PSES-2
InvestssetA
Plann without Scrubbera 557
Plants With Scrubbera 724 59.1
Annual
Planta Without Scrubbera 83.9
Plants With Scrubbers 113 8.3
$/Ton of Production
Plants Without Scrubbers 3.23
Plants With Scrubbera 4.35 0.32
NSPS-1
PSNS-I
Investaent
Planta without Scrubbera 557
Plants With Scrubbers 724
Annual
Plants Without Scrubbers 83.9
Plants With Scrubbers 113
$/Ton of Production
Plants Without Scrubbers 3.23
Plants With Scrubbers 4.35
MSPS-1
PSNS-1
VASTEWATEt MU WASTE PSES-1 PSES-2
CHARACTERISTICS No Scrub W/Scrub BPT/SCT BAT-1
Flow (CPT) 2400 U) 2400(1> :400(2)
pfl (SO) 3-9 3-9 6-9 6-9
Dissolved Iron ... 10 5 1 1
Heiavalent Chromium11' 0.2 O.I (0.02)0.01 (0.02)0.01
Oil and Crease 25 15 (10)4. 4 C0)t.4
Total Suspended Solids 80 50 (30)23.8 (30)23.8
115 Arsenic 0.25 0.15 0.1 0.1
119 Chromium* 2 1 0.04 0.04
120 Copper* 0.8 0.4 0.04 0.04
122 Lea4* 2 1 (0.15)0.1 (0.15)0.1
124 Nickel* 0.5 0.2 0.15 0.15
128 Zinc* 10 5 (0.1)0.06 (0.1)0.06
Notes: All concentrations are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
: Values in parentheses represent the concentrations used to develop
limitations/standards for the various l«rvels of treatment. All other valuea
represent long term averages or predicted average performance levels.
MODEL SIZE (TPD)l
OPER. DAYS/YEAR I
TURNS /DAY I
Total Flow
5.3 MCD
5.4 MCD
0 MCD
10.7 MCO
BAT- 2
PSES-1
85.5
205
11.1
27.3
0.43
I.Oi
HSPS-2 NSPS-3
PSNS-2 PSNS-3
421 471
383 694
65.0 71.5
92.6 107
2.50 2.75
3.56 4.12
NSPS-3
PSNS-3
HSPS-2 PSES-3
PSNS-2 BAT-2
600 600(J>
6-9 6-9
1 0.3
(0.02)0.01 (0.02)0.01
(10)4.4 (5**>2
(30)23.8 (15)9.8
O.I O.I
0.04 0.03
0.04 0.03
(0.15)0.1 (0.1)0.06
0.15 0.04
(0.1)0.06 (0.1)0.06
too
260
3
BAT-3
PSES-4
1982
2363
283
157
10.88
13.73
NSPS-4
PSNS-4
2367
2832
344
437
13.23
16.81
NSPS-4
PSNS-4
PSES-4
BAT-3
0
.
„
_
_
-
.
.
.
_
_
-
: PStS-1 /BPT/BCT is the selected BAT for those operations without fume scrubbers.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw wastewater samples.
** Limit for oil and grease is based upon 10 mg/1 (maximum only).
(1) Additional limitations for fume scrubbers are provided, bised upon 100 gpm per
(2) Additional limitations for fume scrubber slowdowns are provided, baaed upon 15
eac*i galvanizing line.
(3) Limitations/standards apply only to plants discharging wastewaters from a chrom
scrubber serving each
gp* per scrubber serving
ate rinsing step.
330
-i
-------
SfBCATTCORY StVWSY DAW
BASIS 7/1/76 DOLLARS
I All Products
RAW WASTE rT-OWS
Rinse*
Model Planl 0.22
4 Direct Discharger* 0.9
1 Indnect Discharger 0.2
5 Active Plant* 1.1
MODEL COST (JXIO"J)
Plant* Without Scrubber*
Plant* With Scrubber*
Annual
Plant* Without Scrubber*
Plant* With Scrubber*
$/Ton of Production
Plant* Without Scrubber*
Plant* With Scrubber*
Investment
Planl* Without Scrubber*
Plant* With Scrubber*
Annual
Plant* Without Scrubber*
Plant* With Scrubber*
Plant* Without Scrubber*
Planl* With Scrubber*
WASTE WATFK
CHARACTERISTICS
ri.n. (KPT)
pH (Sl'>
Dissolved Iron
Oil and Crease
T in
Total Suspended Solid*
115 Ar«enir
118 Cadnion*
119 Chroai .m*
120 Copper
122 Lead*
124 Nickel*
128 Zinc*
Notes: All concentrations jre
: BAT and pif.S-2 through
: Values in parentheses
1 iiBitalions/sundar Is
Fune Scrubber* (Additional
HCO Model Planl
"JX> 3 Direct Discharger*
MCD 0 Indirect Discharger*
MCD 3 Active Plant*
BPT/BCT
477
557
70.1
64.3
0.74
0.89
NSPS-1
PSNS-I
477
557
70.1
84.3
0.74
0.89
NSPS-1
PSNS-!
RAW WASTE PSfS-I
No Scrub W'Scrub BPT/BCT
600 ll> 600 ' "
2-8 2-8 6-9
40 25 1
)0 20 (10)4.4
1 ? 0 . *}
75 50 (30)21.8
0.15 O.I 0.1
0.1 0.2 O.I
5 1 0.04
0.6 0.. 0.04
1.2 0.8 (0,15)0.1 (0
1 0.6 0.15
1.5 I (0.1)0.06 (
in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
MODEL SITE
OPER. DAYS
TURNS /DAY
Flow) Total Mo*
0.14 MCD
0.4 MCD 1.3 MCD
0 MCD O.J MCS
P. 4 .1CD 1.5 MCD
BAT-l
PSES-2
.
53.8
.
7.4
-
0.08S
NSPS-2
PSVS-2
452
545
65.1
80.5
0.69
0.45
.
PSES-2 NSPS-2
BAT-l PSSS-J
fMI(» .50(J>
6-9 6-»
1 I
(10)4.4 (10)4.4 («•
0.5 0.5
(10)23.8 (30>:i.» (1
O.I 0.1
0.1 n.l
0.04 0.04
0 . 04 0 . a*
.15)0.1 (0.15)0.1 (f).
0.15 0. 1)
0.1)0.06 (O.DO.C6 (0.
f TPD) :
:
BAT- 2
PSES-3
178
242
;;.6
31.4
0.24
0.33
V?PS-3
PSN'S-3
499
602
'!.2
M.O
0.75
0.93
NSPS-3
PSSS-J
PSES-3
BAT-2
150(2)
6-9
0.5
• ) ?
C.I
5">.8
". 1
0.15
0. Tl
0.01
'.1 0. 06
365
260
3
BAT- 3
PSES-4
2030
2260
286
328
3.0I
3.46
NSPS-4
PS\'S-4
2351
2620
335
3S4
3.53
4.35
HSPS-4
PSXS-4
PSES-4
BAT- 3
0
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
.
.
-
PSf.S-4 cc»t» are incremental over BPT'PSES-1 co*ts.
represent the concentration* used to develop
f IT the various levels of treatment. All
other value*
represent long tern averse* or predicted average performance levels.
: PS£S-1/BPT/SCT is l he
selected RAT for thc-se operations without
rum* scrubber*.
* Toxic pollutant found-in all raw waslevaler samples.
** Litait for oil and grease >* bafed upon 10 BR./1 (naxiiBua only).
(1) Additional Imitations for f
-------
SUBCATECORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATECORY: Hot Coating - Other Metallic Coatings
l Strip, Sheet and Hiscellaneoua Products
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Rinses Fume Scrubbers (Additional Flow)
Model Plant 0.3 MCD Model Plant 0.1 MCD
0 Indirect Dischargers 0 MCD 0 Indirect Dischargers 0 MCD
4 Active Plants 0.9 MCD 0 Active Plants 0 MCD
BPT/BCT BAT-1
MODEL COST (SX10~J) PfES-1 PSES-2
Investment
Plants Without Scrubbers 571
Plants With Scrubbers 660 53.8
Annual
Plants Without Scrubbers 85.5
Plants With Scrubbers 106 7.4
$/Ton of Production
Plants without Scrubbers 0.69
Plants With Scrubbers O.H2 0.06
NSPS-l
MODEL COST (SXIOM PSNS-1
Investment
Plants Without Scrubbers 371
Plants With Scrubbers 660
Annual
Plants Without Scrubbers 89.5
Plants With Scrubbers 106
$/Ton of Production
Plants Without Scrubbers 0.69
Plants With Scrubbers 0.82
NSPS-1
PSNS-1
WASTEWATER RAW WASTE PSES-1 PSES-2
CHARACTERISTICS No Scrub W/Scrub BPT/BCT BAT-1
Flow (CPT) 600 (l) 600
6-»
1
1
(10)4.4
0.5
(30)23.8
0.1
0.04
0.04
0.04
(0.15)0.1
0.15
(0.1)0.06
BAT-2
PSES-3
234
339
30.1
43.6
0.23
0.34
US PS- 3
PS Its- 3
624
790
94.3
120
0.73
0.92
KSPS-3
PSKS-3
PSES-3
BAT- 2
150(2>
»-*
0.1
0.1
(5**>2
0.1
(15)9.8
0.1
0.03
0.03
0.03
(O.DO.C4
0.04
(0.1)0.06
BAT- 3
PSES-4
2232
2605
323
383
2.48
2.95
NSPS-4
PSNS-4
2620
3055
387
460
2.98
3.54
NSPS-4
PSNS-4
PSES-4
BAT- 3
0
-
_
-
-
_
-
—
_
.
.
_
.
-
: PSES-1/BPT/BCT is the selected BAT for those operations without fusw scrubbers.
* Toxic pollutant found in all rew watlewater samples analyzed.
** Lieut for oil and gresse is based upon 10 mg/1 (maximum only).
(1) Additional limitations for fua* scrubbers are provided, bssed upon 100 gpm per
scrubber serving
esch
coat ing 1 in*.
(2) Additional limitaliont for fuae scrubber blowdovo* are provided, baavd upon 15 gp« per acrubb«r s*r»ii*«: each
co*itL'iS line.
538
-------
\
SUBCATECORY SWKARY DATA
BASIS 7/1 HS DOLLARS
SUBCA'tWRYl Hot Coaling - Oth*r Metallic Coating!
/
RAW WASTE FLOWS
Rinse! Fume Scrubbers (Additional Flow)
Model Plan- 0.04 HCO Model Plant 0.14 MOT
2 Direct Dilchargeri 0.07 MCD 0 Direct Dilchargeri 0 MCD
6 Active Plant! 0.21 MCD 0 Active Plant! 0 MCD
8W/BCT BAT-1
MODEL COST (SX10°> PSES-! PSES-2
Xnvectwent
Plant! Without Scrubber! 22)
Plants With Scrubber! 404 53.8
Annual
Plant* Without Scrubber! 31.4
Plant! With Scrubbers 57. 9 7.4
S/Ton of Production
Plant! without Scrubber! 8.0)
Plant! With Scrubber! 14.8) 1.90
KSPS-1
PSW-1
Inveataent
Plant! Without Scrubber! 22)
Plant: With Scrubber! 404
Annual
Plant! Without Scrubber! 31.4
Plant! With Scrubber! )7.9
5/Ton of Production
Plant! Without Scrubber! 8.0)
Plant! With Scrubbers 14. 8)
XSPS-l
PSSS-1
WASTEWATER RAW WASTE PSES-1 PSES-2
CHARACTERISTICS Ho Scrub W/Scrub BPT/BCT HAT-I
Flow (CPT) 2400 (1) 2400* " 2400(2)
pH (SU) 3-9 3-9 6-9 6-9
Aluaimm 20 ) 1 1
Dissolved Iron 30 8 1 1
Oil and C real e 30 1) (10)4.4 (10)-. 4
Tin 2 I 0.5 0.5
Total Suspended Solid! 2)0 7) (30)23.8 (30)23.8
11) Arienic 0.2 0.1 O.I 0.1
118 Cadmus 0.2 0.1 0.04 0.04
119 Chro»iu»* 0.2 O.I 0.04 0.04
UO Copper* 0.3 0.1 0.04 0.04
122 Lead* 0.6 0.2 (0.15)0.1 (0.15)0.1
124 Nickel* 0.4 0.2 0.1) 0.15
128 Zinc* 1 0.5 (0.1)0.06 (0.1)0.06
Notes! All concentration! are in »g/ 1 unle!! otherwise noted.
: Value! in parenLhe!e! represent Lhe concentration! used to develop the
1 imitations/standards for the various levels of treatment. AH other value!
represent long tern averages or predicted average performance levels.
OPEK. DATS/TtAR : ZOO
TURKS /DAY : 2
Total Flow
0.07 MCD
0.14 MGO
0.21 MCD
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
161
335
22.8
48.6
).85
12.46
NSPS-2
PSNS-2
600<"
6-9
1
I
(10)4.4
0.5
(30)23.8
O.I
0.04
0.04
0.04
(0.15)0.1
0.15
(0,1)0.06
BAT-2
PSES-3
20.8
91.8
2.9
12.4
0.74
3.18
NSPS-3
PSXS 3
176
368
24.9
52.8
6.38
13.54
KSPS-3
PSNS-3
PSES-3
BAT-2
600<2)
6-9
0.1
0.5
:)**)2
0.1
( IS)*. 8
0.1
0.03
0.03
0.03
(0.1)0.06
0.04
(0.1)0.06
SAT-;
PS!3-4
104)
ms
137
205
35. !3
52.56
SSPS-4
PSSS-4
1200
is:-.
159
145
40. 77
62. §2
NSPS-4
PSK3-.
PSES-4
BAT- 3
0
-
.
.
-
.
-
_
_
-
-
_
_
-
: PSEE-1 /SPT/BCT ii the selected &AT for tho*e operations without fuae scrubbers.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waslewater staples.
** Limit for oil and grease is based upon 10 ••,/! (naxTBUM! onlv).
(1) Additional 1 inflation! for fime scrubbers are provided, based upon 100 gp« per
scrubber serving
each
coating line.
(2) Additional Imitations for fuaie scrubber blowdowns are provided, based uoon 15 gpsi per scrubber serving each
coating line.
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HOT COATING-ALL. SUBDIVISIONS
ALL PRODUCTS
SUBCATT.CORY COST SUMMARY
($xio"fci(r
Investment
Annual
SUBCATECORY LOAD SUMMARY
(TONS/YEAR)
Flow (MCD)
A1 tit. i nun
Dissolved Iron
Hexavalenl Chromium
Oil and Grease
Tin
Total Suspended Solid.
Total Toxic Metals
Total Organic*
S'JBCATECORY COST SUMMARY