DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
for
PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
and
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
for the
STEEL MAKING SEGMENT
of the
IRON AND STEEL MANUFACTURING
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Russell Train
Administrator
Robert L. Sansom
Assistant Administrator for Air 6 Water Programs
Allen Cywin
Director, Effluenr Guidelines Division
Edward L. Dulaney
Project Officer
January, 1974
Effluent Guidelines Division
Office of Air and Water Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
-------
-------
ABSTRACT
This document presents the findings of an extensive study of the raw
steel making operations of the iron and steel industry tor the purpose
of developing effluent limitations guidelines, Federal standards of
performance, and pretreatment standards for this segment ox the industry
to implement Sections 304, 306, and 307 of the "Act".
Effluent limitations guidelines contained herein set lorth the effluent
guality attainable through the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPCTCA) and the effluent quality
attainable through the application of the best available technology eco-
nomically achievable (BATEA) which must be achieved by existing point
sources by July 1, 1977, and July 1, 1983, respectively. Tne standards
of performance for new sources (NSPS) contained herein set forth the
effluent quality which is achievable through the application of the best
available demonstrated control technology, processes, operating methods,
or other alternatives.
Supporting data and rationale for development of the proposed effluent
limitations guidelines and standards of performance are contained in
this report.
Notice: These are tentative recommendations based upon information in
this report and are subject to change based upon comments received and
further internal review by EPA.
111
-------
CONTENTS
Section
I Conclusions 1
II Recommendations 3
Proposed BPCTCA Limitations
Proposed BATEA Limitations
Proposed NSPS Limitations
III Introduction 15
Methods Used to Develop Limitations
General Description of the Industry
General Description of the Operations
IV Industry Categorization 31
Description of the Operations 31
coke Making - By Product Operation
Coke Making - Beehive operation
Sintering Operations
Blast Furnace Operations
Steelmaking Operations
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Rationale for Categorization 80
Subcategorization 95
V Water Use and Waste Characterization 99
Coke Making - By Product Operation
Coke Making - Beehive Operation
Burden Preparation
Blast Furnace Operations
Steelmaking Operations
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
VI Selection of Pollutant Parameters 117
Board List of Pollutants
Rationale for Selection of Control Parameters
Selection of Critical Parameters by Operation
VII Control and Treatment Technology 125
Range of Technology and Current Practice
Coke Making - By Product Operation
Coke Making - Beehive Operation
Sintering Operation
Blast Furnace Operations
Basic Oxygen Furnace Operations - Semi-wet
v
-------
Page
Open Hearth Furnace Operations
Electric Arc Furnace Operations - Semi-wet
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Base Level of Treatment 177
VIII Cost, Energy, and Nonwater Quality Aspects 179
Costs
Base Level and Intermediate Technology 190
Energy and Nonwater Impact 196
Coke Making - By Product Operation
Coke Making - Beehive Operation
Sintering Operation
Blast Furnace - Iron
Blast Furnace - Ferromanganese
Basic Oxygen Furnace Operations
Open Hearth Furnace Operations
Electric Arc Furnace Operations
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Advanced Technology, Energy, and Nonwater Impact 226
Coke Making - By Product Operation
Coke Making - Beehive Operation
Sintering Operation
Blast Furnace - Iron
Blast Furnace - Ferromanganese
Basic Oxygen Furnace Operations
Open Hearth Furnace Operations
Electric Arc Furnace Operations
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Full Range of Technology in Use or Available 236
Basis of Cost Estimates 236
IX BPCTCA EFfluent Limitation Guidelines 241
Introduction 241
Rationale for selection of BPCTCA 242
Identification of BPCTCA 245
Coke Making - By Product Operation
Coke Making - Beehive Operation
Sintering Operation
Blast Furnace - Iron
Blast Furnace - Ferromanganese
Basic Oxygen Furnace Operations
Open Hearth Furnace Operations
Electric Arc Furnace Operations
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Treatment Models 285
Cost Effective Diagrams 286
VI
-------
Page
X BATEA Effluent Limitation Guidelines 287
Introducrion 287
Rationale for Selection of BATEA 288
Identification of BATEA 290
Coke Making - By Product Operation
Coke Making - Beehive Operation
Sintering Operation
Blast Furnace - Iron
Blast Furnace - Ferromanganese
Basic Oxygen Furnace Operations
Open Hearth Furnace Operations
Electric Arc Furnace Operations
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Treatment Models 348
Cost Effectiveness Diagrams 350
Cost to the Iron and Steel Industry 350
Economic Impact
XI New source Performance Standards (NSPS) 353
Introduction 353
By Product Coke Subcategory 353
Sintering Subcategory 355
Blast Furnace Subcategory 356
Steelmaking Subcategory 356
Vacuum Degassing Subcategory 357
Continuous Casting Sutcategory 357
XII Acknowledgements 359
XIII References 361
XIV Glossary 373
vn
-------
FIGURE
Number Title Page
1 Steel Product Manufacturing Flow Diagram 26
2 By-Product Recovery Process Flow Diagram 37
3 Light Oil Recovery & Refinery Process Flow 38
Diagram
4 Beehive Coke Plant - Type I - Internal 40
Quench Process Flow Diagram
5 Beehive Coke Plant - Type II - External 41
Quench Process Flow Diagram
6 Sintering Plant - Type I - Wet Process 43
Flow Diagram
7 Sintering Plant - Type II- Dry Process 44
Flow Diagram
8 Sintering Plant - Type III - Wet Process 45
Flow Diagram
9 Palletizing Plant - Type I- Cured Process 47
Flow Diagram
10 Pelletizing Plant - Type II- Uncured 48
Process Flow Diagram
11 Hot Briquetting Plant - Process Flow 50
Diagram
12 Blast Furnace - Type I - Primary Wet 54
Scrubber Process Flow Diagram
13 Blast Furnace - Type II-Primary and 55
Secondary Wet Scrubber Process Flow
Diagram
14 Blast Furnace - Type Ill-Primary Wet 56
W/Dry Secondary Process Flow Diagram
15 Ferro-Manganese Blast Furnace - Type 57
I-Primary Wet Scrubber Process Flow
Diagram
viii
-------
FIGURE
Page
16 Basic Oxygen Furnace - Type I - Dry 60
Process Flow Diagram
17 Basic Oxygen Furnace - Type II-OG - Wet 61
Process Flow Diagram
18 Basic Oxygen Furnace - Type III Semi-wet 62
Process Flow Diagram
19 Basic Oxygen Furnace - Type IV - Wet 63
Process Flow Diagram
20 Basic Oxygen Furnace - Type V - Low 64
Energy - Wet Process Flow Diagram
21 Open Hearth Furnace - Type I - Dry 67
Process Flow Diagram
22 Open Hearth Furnace - Type II - Wet and 68
Dry Process Flow Diagram
23 Open Hearth Furnace - Type III Wet 69
Process Flow Diagram
24 Electric Furnace - Type I - Semi-wet 72
Process Flow Diagram
25 Electric Furnace - Type II - Dry 73
Process Flow Diagram
26 Electric Furnace - Type III - Wet 74
Washer Process Flow Diagram
27 Electric Furnace Type IV - Wet Cyclone 76
Process Flow Diagram
28 Vacuum Degassing - Process Flow Diagram 77
29 Continuous Casting - Process Flow Diagram 79
30 Ingot Teeming - Process Flow Diagram 81
31 Slagging - Process Furnace Diagram 82
32 By-Product - Coke Plant - Wastewater 135
Treatment System Water Flow Diagram
33 By-Product - Coke Plant - Wastewater 136
Treatment System Water Flow Diagram
IX
-------
FIGURE
Page
34 By-Product - Coke Plant - Wastewater 137
Treatment System Water Flow Diagram
35 By-Product - Coke Plant - Wastewater 138
Treatment System Water Flow Diagram
36 Beehive - Coke Plant - Wastewater 140
Treatment System Water Flow Diagram
37 Beehive - Coke Plant - Wastewater 141
Treatment System Water Flow Diagram
38 Beehive - Coke Plant - Wastewater 142
Treatment System Water Flow Diagram
39 Sintering Plant - Wastewater Treatment 144
System Water Flow Diagram
40 Sintering Plant Wastewater Treatment 146
System Water Flow Diagram
41 Blast Furnace and Sinter Plant - Waste- 150
Water Treatment System Water Flow Diagram
42 Blast Furnace - Wastewater Treatment 151
System Water Flow Diagram
43 Blast Furnace - Wastewater Treatment 153
System Water Flow Diagram
44 Blast Furnace - Wastewater Treatment 154
System Water Flow Diagram
45 Blast Furnace - Wastewater Treatment 155
System Water Flow Diagram
46 Basic Oxygen Furnace - Waterwater 158
Treatment.System water Flow Diagram
47 Basic Oxygen Furnace - Wastewater Treatment 159
System Water Flow Diagram
48 Basic Oxygen Furnace - Wastewater Treatment 161
System Water Flow Diagram
x
-------
FIGURE
Page
49 Basic Oxygen Furnace - Wastewater Treatment 162
System Water Flow Diagram
50 Basic Oxygen Furnace - Wastewater Treatment 163
System Water Flow Diagram
51 Open Hearth Furnace - Wastewater Treatment 165
System Water Flow Diagram
52 Open Hearth Furnace - Wastewater Treatment 166
System Water Flow Diagram
53 Electric Furnace - Wastewater Treatment 168
System Water Flow Diagram
54 Electric Furnace - Wastewater Treatment 169
System Water Flow Diagram
55 Electric Furnace - Wastewater Treatment 170
System Water Flow Diagram
56 Electric Furnace - Wastewater Treatment 172
System Water Flow Diagram
57 Vacuum Degassing - Wastewater Treatment 173
System Water Flow Diagram
58 Vacuum Degassing and Continuous Casting 175
Wastewater Treatment System Water Flow
Diagram
59 Continuous Casting - Wastewater Treatment 176
System Water Flow Diagram
60 BPCTCA Model Alternative 1 - By-Product 249
Coke
60A BPCTCA Model Alternative 2 - By Product 250
Coke
61 BPCTCA Model - Beehive Coke 255
62 BPCTCA Model - Sintering 257
63 BPCTCA Model - Blast Furnace (Fe) 261
64 BPCTCA MODEL - Blast Furnace (Fe Mn) 265
65 BPCTCA MODEL - Basic Oxygen Furnace 268
(Semi-wet)
XI
-------
FIGURE
Page
66 BPCTCA MODEL - Basic Oxygen Furnace (wet) 270
67 BPCTCA MODEL - Open Hearth Furnace 273
68 BPCTCA MODEL - Electric Arc Furnace 276
(Semi-wet)
69 BPCTCA MODEL - Electric Arc Furnace (Wet) 278
70 BPCTCA MODE1 - Vacuum Degassing 281
71 BPCTCA MODEL - Continuous Casting 284
72A1 BATEA MODEL - Alternative 1 - By-Product 295
Coke
72A2 BATEA MODEL - Alternative 2 - By-Product 296
Coke
72B Model Cost Effectiveness Diagram - Alternative 297
2 - By-Product Coke
72C Model Cost Effectiveness Diagram - Alternative 298
1 - By-Product Coke
73A BATEA MODEL - Beehive Coke 304
73B Model Cost Effectiveness Diagram - Beehive 305
Coke
74A BATEA Model - Sintering 307
74B Model Cost Effectiveness Diagram - Sint€sring 308
75A BATEA MOdel - Blast Furnace (Fe) 313
75B Model Cost Effectiveness Diagram - Blast 314
Furnace (Fe)
76A BATEA Model - Blast Furnace (Fe Mn) 318
76B Model Cost Effectiveness Diagram - Blast 319
Furnace (Fe Mn)
77A BATEA Model - Basic Oxygen Furnace (Semi-Wet) 321
77B Model Cost Effectiveness Diagram - Basic 322
Oxygen Furnace (Semi-wet)
78A BATEA Model - Basic Oxygen Furnace (Wet) 325
-------
FIGURE
Page
78B Model Cost Effectivenesss Diagram - Basic 326
Oxygen Furnace (Wet)
79A BATEA Model - Open Hearth Furnace 329
79B Model Cost Effectiveness Diagram - Open 330
Hearth Furnace
80A BATEA Model - Electric Arc Furnace - Semi- 334
Wet
SOB Model Cost Effectiveness Diagram - Electric 335
Arc Furnace - Semi -Wet
81A BATEA Model - Electric Arc Furnace (Wet) 337
81B Model Cost Effectiveness Diagram - Electric 338
Arc Furnace (Wet)
82A BATEA Model - Vacuum Degassing 341
82B Model Cost Effectiveness Diagram - Vacuum 342
Degassing
83A BATEA Model - Continuous Casting 346
83B Model Cost Effectiveness Diagram - Continuous 347
Casting
Xlll
-------
Table
Number Title Page
1 United States Annual Steel Ingot Ton Production 18
2 Production Levels by Area 19
3 Product Classification by SIC Code (3312) 24
4 Subcategorization of the Steel Making Operations 95
of the Iron and Steel Industry
Tables 5-15 are not included in the Development
Document but are available in the EPA Library,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
16 Iron and Steel Making Operations Industrial 98
Categorization and Survey Requirements
17 Characteristics of By-Product Coke Plant Wastes - 102
Net Plant Raw Waste Load
18 Characteristics of Beehive Coke Plant Wastes - 102
Net Plant Raw Waste Load
19 Characteristics of Sintering Plant Wastes - 105
Net Plant Raw Waste Load
20 Characteristics of Fe-Blast Furnace Plant Wastes - 105
Net Plant Raw Waste Load
21 Characteristics of Fe-Mn Blast Furnace Plant Wastes - HO
Net Plant Raw Waste Load
22 Characteristics of EOF Steelmaking Plant Wastes - HO
Net Plant Raw Waste Load
23 Characteristics of Open Hearth Plant Wastes - HO
Net Plant Raw Waste Load
24 Characteristics of Electric Furnace Plant Wastes - 112
Net Plant Raw Waste Load
25 Characteristics of Degassing Plant Wastes - 112
Net Plant Raw Waste Load
26 Characteristics of Continuous Casting Plant Wastes - 112
Net Plant Raw Waste Load
xiv
-------
Number Title Page
27 Parameters - Coke Making By-Product and Beehive Operations 120
28 Parameters - Sintering Operation 120
29 Parameters - Blast Furnace and Fe and FeMn Operation 121
30 Parameters - Basic Oxygen, Open Hearth and Electric Arc 122
Furnaces Operations
31 Parameters - Vacuum Degassing Operation 123
32 Parameters - Continuous Casting 123
33 Wastewater Treatment Practices of Plants Visited 126
in Study
34 Plant Age and Size - Coke Making - By Product 84
35 Plant Age and Size - Coke Making - Beehive 85
36 Plant Age and Size - Burden Preparation - Sintering 86
37 Plant Age and Size - Iron Making - Fe Blast Furnace 87
38 Plant Age and Size - Iron Making - FeMn Blast Furnace 88
39 Plant Age and Size - Steel Making - Basic Oxygen Furnace 89
40 Plant Age and Size - Steel Making - Open Hearth Furnace 90
41 Plant Age and Size - Steel Making - Electric Furnace 91
42 Plant Age and Size - Vacuum Degassing 92
43 Plant Age and Size - Continuous Casting 93
44 Waste Effluent Treatment Costs - Coke Making 180
By-Product
45 Water Effluent Treatment Costs - Coke Making 181
Beehive
46 Water Effluent Treatment Costs - Burden Prepararion 182
Sintering
47 Water Effluent Treatment Costs - Iron Making - Fe Blast 183
Furnace
xv
-------
Number Title Page
48 Water Effluent Treatment Costs - Iron Making - Fe-Mn 184
Blast Furnace
49 Water Effleunt Treatment costs - Steelmaking - Basic 185
Oxygen
50 Water Effluent Treatment Costs - Steelmaking - Open 186
Hearth
51 Water Effluent Treatment Costs - Steelmaking - Electric 187
Furnace
52 Water Effluent Treatment Costs - Degassing 188
53 Water Effluent Treatment Costs - Continuous Casting 189
54 Control and Treatment Technology - By-Product Coke 191
55 Control and Treatment Technology - Beehive Coke 197
56 Control and Treatment Technology - Sintering 200
57 Control and Treatment Technology - Blast Furnace - 204
Fe and FeMn
58 Control and Treatment Technology - Basic Oxygen Furnace 211
Semi-Wet
59 Control and Treatment Technology - Basic Oxygen Furnace 213
Wet
60 Control and Treatment Technology - Open Hearth 217
61 Control and Treatment Technology - Electric Arc Furnace 221
(Semi-Wet)
62 Control and Treatment Technology - Electric Arc Furnace 223
(Wet)
63 Control and Treatment Technology - Vacuum Degassing 227
64 Control and Treatment Technology - Continuous Casting 230
BPOTCA
65 Effluent Limitations Guidelines - By-Product Coke 248
66 Effluent Limitations Guidelines - Beehive Coke 254
67 Effluent Limitations Guidelines - Sintering 256
xvi
-------
Number
Title
Page
68 Effluent Limitations Guidelines
69 Effluent Limitations Guidelines
70 Effluent Limitations Guidelines
(Semi-Wet)
71 Effluent Limitations Guidelines
(Wet)
72 Effluent Limitations Guidelines
(Semi-Wet)
- Blast Furnace (Fe)
- Blast Furnace (FeMn)
- Basic Oxygen Furnace
- Basci Oxygen Furnace
- Open Hearth Furnace
73 Effluent Limitations Guidelines - Electric Arc Furnace
Electric Arc Furnace
74 Effluent Limitations Guidelines
(Wet)
75 Effluent Limitations Guidelines
76 Effluent Limitations Guidelines
77 Effluent Limitations Guidelines
78 Effluent Limitations Guidelines
79 Effluent Limitations Guidelines
80 Effluent Limitations Guidelines
81 Effluent Limitations Guidelines
(FeMn)
82 Effluent Limitations Guidelines
(Semi-Wet)
83 Effluent Limitations Guidelines
(Wet)
260
264
267
269
272
275
277
- Vacuum Degassing 280
- Continuous Casting 283
- BATEA - By-Product Coke 294
- BATEA - Beehive Coke 303
- BATEA - Sintering 306
- BATEA - Blast Furnace (Fe) 312
- BATEA - Blast Furnace 317
- BATEA - Basic Oxygen Furnace320
- BATEA - Basic Oxygen Furnace324
84 Effluent Limitations Guidelines - BATEA - Open Hearth Furnace 328
BATEA - Electric Arc Furnace333
85 Effluent Limitations Guidelines
(Semi-Wet)
86 Effluent Limitations Guidelines
(Wet)
- BATEA - Electric Arc Furnace336
87 Effluent Limitations Guidelines - BATEA - Vacuum Degassing 340
xvn
-------
Number Title Page
88 Effluent Limitations Guidelines - BATEA - Continuous Casting 345
89 Iron and Steel Making Operations Project Total Costs for 351
Related Subcategories
90 Conversion Table 383
xvni
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
For the purpose of establishing effluent guidelines and standards of
performance for the raw steel making operations of the iron and sreel
industry, the industry was divided into subcategories as follows:
I By Product Coke Subcategory
II Beehive Coke Subcategory
III Sintering Subcategory
IV Blast Furnace (Iron) Subcategory
V Blast Furnace (Ferrcmanganese) Subcategory
VT
VTI
Basic Oxygen Furnace (Semi Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
Basic Oxygen Furnace (Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
VTII Open Hearth Furnace Subcategory
IX Electric Arc Furnace (Semi Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
X Electric Arc Furnace (Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
XI Vacuum Degassing Subcategory
XII Continuous Casting Subcategory
The selection of these subcategories was based upon distinct, difrerences
in type of products produced, production processes, raw materials used,
waste waters generated and control and treatment technologies employed.
Subsequent waste characterizations of individual plants substantiated
the validity of this subcategorization.
The waste characterizations of individual plants visited during this
study, and the guidelines developed as a result of the data collected,
relate only to the aqueous discharges from the facilities, excluding
non-contact cooling waters. consideration will be given at a later date
to proposing thermal discharge limitations on process and noncontact
cooling waters. Consideration will also be given at a later date to
proposing effluent limitations on the runoffs from stock piles, slag
pits and other fugitive waste sources.
-------
The effluent guidelines established in this study are nor dependent upon
the raw water intake quality. The limitations were derived by
determining the minimum flows, in volume per unit weight of product,
that can be achieved by good water conservation techniques and by
determining the effluent concentrations of the pollutant parameters that
can be achieved by treatment technology. The product of these is the
effluent limitations proposed.
The plant raw waste loads however, are, out of necessity, a net number
that reflects the pickup of contaminants across a production process in
a single pass. It was necessary to establish the raw waste load in this
manner in order to obtain a meaningful comparison of wastes generated
during production from a range of plants surveyed. Some plants utilized
once-through water systems, while many others used varying degrees of
reuse and/or recycle. Since the gross waste load to be treated
generally varied depending upon the extent of recycle used in the
system, the only way a meaningful raw waste load for a production
process could be determined was on a net basis.
As presented in Table 89, an initial capital investment o£ approximately
$144.9 million with annual capital and operating costs of $39.9 million
would be required by the industry to comply with the 1977 guidelines.
An additional capital investment of approximately $122.3 million with
added annual capital and operating costs of about $42.5 million would be
needed to comply with th 1983 guidelines. Costs may vary depending upon
such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, flow to be
treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives
exist, and the extent of preliminary modifications required to accept
the necessary control and treatment devices.
The subcategories listed previously and this report represent Phase I of
the study to establish effluent guidelines for the steel industry.
Additional work to be completed under Phase II of this program includes
the remainder of SIC Industry Nos. 3312, 3315, 3316, 3317, 3321, 3322,
and 3323 as outlined in the 1967 SIC Manual.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed effluent limitations guidelines for the iron and steel
industry representing the effluent quality obtainable by existing point
sources through the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPCTCA or Level I) for each industry
subcategory, are as follows:
I. By Product Coke Subcategory
BPCTCA Effluent Limitations
Units: kg pollutant per kkg of product
Ib pollutant per 1,000 Ib of product
or:
Pollutant_Parameter
*Cyanide (T)
Phenol
Ammonia
BOD5
Oil & Grease
Suspended Solids
PH
Maximum for any
One Day Period
Shall_Not_Exceed_
0.0438
0.0029
0.1825
0.2190
0.0219
0.0730
6.0 to 9.0
Maximum Average of
Daily Values for any
Period of 30
Consecutive Days
0.0219
0.0015
0.0912
0.1095
0.0109
0.0365
*Cyanide (T) : Total cyanide. Reference ASTM D2036-72.
-------
II. Beehive Coke Subcategory
or:
BPCTCA Ef fl\3ent_Limitations
Units: kg pollutant per kkg of product
Ib pollutant per 1,000 Ib of product
Pollutant Parameter
*Cyanide (T)
Phenol
Ammonia
BOD
Sulfide
Oil & Grease
Suspended Solids
PH
Maximum for any
One Day Period
Shall Not Exceed
Maximum Average of
Daily Values for any
Period of 30
Consecutive Days
No discharge of
process waste water
pollutants to
navigable waters
*Cyanide (T): Total cyanide. Reference ASTM D2036-72.
III. Sintering Subcategory
or:
BPCTCA Effluent Limitations
Units: kg pollutant per kkg of product
Ib pollutant per 1,000 Ib of proauc-c
Maximum for any
One Day Period
Shall Not Exceed
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
pH
0.0208
0.0042
Maximum Average of
Daily Values for any
Period of 30
Consecutive Days
0.0104
0.0021
6.0 to 9.0
-------
IV. Blast Furnace (iron) Subcategory
or:
Pollutant_Parameter
Suspended Solids
*Cyanide (T)
Phenol
Ammonia
PH
BPCTCA Effluent Limitations
Units: kg pollutant per kkg of product
Ib pollutant per 1,000 Ib of product
Maximum for any
One Day Period
Shall Not Exceed
0.0521
0.0156
0.0042
0.1303
Maximum Average of
Daily Values for any
Period of 30
Consecutive Days
0.0260
0.0078
0.0021
0.0651
6.0 to 9.0
V. Blast Furnace (Ferromanganese) Sutcategory
BPCTCA Effluent Limitations
Units: kg pollutant per kkg of product
or: Ib pollutant per 1,000 Ib of product
Pollutant_Parameter
Suspended Solids
*Cyanide (T)
Phenol
Ammonia
PH
Maximum for any
One Day Period
Shall Not Exceed
0.2086
0.0625
0.0083
0.4172
6.0 to 9.0
Maximum Average of
Daily Values for any
Period of 30
Consecutive Days
0.1043
0.0312
0.0042
0.2086
*Cyanides (T): Total cyanide. Reference ASTM D2036-72.
-------
VI.
Basic Oxygen Furnace (Semi Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
or:
Pollutant_Parameter
Suspended Solids
pH
BPCTCA Effluent Limitations
Units: kg pollutant per kkg of product
Ib pollutant per 1,000 Ib of product
Maximum for any
One Day Period
Shall Not Exceed
Maximum Average of
Daily Values for any
Period of 30
Consecutive Days
No discharge of
process waste water
pollutants to navigable waters
VII. Basic Oxygen Furnace (Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
BPCTCA Effluent Limitations
Units:
or:
kg pollutant per kkg of product
Ib pollutant per 1,000 Ib of product
Pollutant_Parameter
Suspended Solids
pH
Maximum for any
One Day Period
Shall Not Exceed
0.0208
Maximum Average of
Daily Values for any
Period of 30
^Consecutive Days
0.0104
6.0 to 9.0
-------
VIII. Open Hearth Furnace Sufccategory
BP_C_TCA_Effluent Limitations
Units: kg pollutant per kkg of product
or: Ib pollutant per 1,000 Ib of product
Pollutant_Parameter Shall
Maximum for any
One Day Period
Shall Not Exceed
Maximum Average of
Daily Values for any
Period of 30
Consecutive _Davrs
Suspended Solids
PH
0.0208
0.0104
6.0 to 9.0
IX. Electric Arc Furnace (Semi Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Suhcategory
BPCTCA Effluent Limitations
Units: kg pollutant per kkg of product
or: Ib pollutant per 1,000 Ib of product
Pollutant Parameter
Suspended Solids
pH
Maximum for any
One Day Period
Shall Not Exceed
Maximum Average of
Daily Values for any
Period of 30
Consecutive Days
No discharge of
process waste water
pollutants to navigable waters
X. Electric Arc Furnace (Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
BPCTCA_Effluent_Limitations
Units: kg pollutant per kkg of product
or: Ib pollutant per 1,000 Ib of product
Maximum for any
One Day Period
E2iiutant_Parameter Shall^Not Exceed
Suspended Solids
pH
0.0208
Maximum Average of
Daily Values for any
Period of 30
Consecutive_Day_s
0.0104
6.0 to 9.0
-------
XI. Vacuum Degassing Subcategory
BPCTCA_Effluent Limitations
Units: kg pollutant per kkg of product
or: Ib pollutant per 1,000 Ib of product
Maximum Average of
Maximum for any Daily Values for any
One Day Period Period of 30
Shall Not Exceed Consecutive Days
Suspended Solids 0.0104 0.0052
pH 6.0 to 9.0
XII. Continuous Casting Subcategory
BCPTCA Effluent Limitations
Units: kg pollutant per kkg of product
or: Ib pollutant per 1,000 Ib of product
Maximum Average of
Maximum for any Daily Values for any
One Day Period Period of 30
Pollutant_Parameter Shall^Not Exceed Consecutive__Day.s
Suspended solids 0.0521 0.0260
Oil & Grease 0.0156 0.0078
pH 6.0 to 9.0
-------
The proposed effluent guidelines representing the effluent quality
obtainable by existing point sources through the application of the best
available technology economically achievable (BATEA or Level II) for
each industry subcategory are as follows:
I. By Product Coke Subcategory
or;
*Cyanide (A)
Phenol
Ammonia
BOD5
Sulfide
Oil & Grease
Suspended solids
PH
BATEA Effluent Limitations
Units: kg pollutant per kkg of proauct
Ib pollutant per 1,000 Ib of product
Maximum for any
One Day Period
Shall Not Exceed
0.0002
0.0004
0.0083
0.0166
0.0003
0.0083
0.0083
0.0001
0.0002
0.0042
0.0083
0.0001
0.0042
0.0042
6.0 to 9.0
Maximum Average of
Daily Values for any
Period of 30
Consecutive Days
II. Beehive Coke Subcategory
BATEA Effluent ^Limitations
Units: kg pollutant per kkg of product
or: Ib pollutant per 1,000 Ib of product
Parameter
*Cyanide (A)
Phenol
Ammonia
BOD5
Sulfide
Oil & Grease
Suspended Solids
PH
Maximum for any
One Day Period
Shall Not Exceed
Maximum Average of
Daily Values for any
Period of 30
Consecutive Days
No discharge of
process waste water
pollutants to navigable waters
*Cyanide (A): Cyanide amenable to chlorination. Reference ASTM D 2036-72,
-------
III. Sintering Subcategory
BATEA Effluent Limitations
Units: kg pollutant per kkg of product
or: Ib pollutant per 1,000 Ib of product
Pollutant^Parameter
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Sulfide
Fluoride
PH
Maximum for any
One Day Period
Shall.Not Exceed
0.0104
0.0042
0.00012
0.0083
Maximum Average of
Daily Values for any
Period of 30
consecutj.ye_ Days
0.0052
0.0021
0.00006
0.0042
6.0 to 9.0
IV. Blast Furnace (Iron) Subcategory
BATEA Effluent limitations
Units:
or:
Pgllutant_Parameters
Suspended Solids
*Cyanide (A)
Phenol
Ammonia
Sulfide
Fluoride
PH
kg pollutant per kkg of product
Ib pollutant per 1,000 Ib of product
Maximum for any
One Day Period
Shall Not Exceed
0.0104
0.00026
0.00052
0.0104
0.00031
0.0208
Maximum Average of
Daily Values for any
Period of 30
Consecutive,Days
0.0052
0.00013
0.00026
0.0052
0.00016
0.0104
6.0 to 9.0
*Cyanide (A): Cyanides amenable to chlorination. Reference ASTM D2036-72
10
-------
V. Blast Furnace (Ferromanganese) Sutcategory
BATEA Eff,lue_nt _Limitations
Units: kg pollutant per kkg of product
or: Ib pollutant per 1,000 Ib of producr
Maximum for any
One Day Period
Shall Not Exceed
Maximum Average of
Daily Values for any
Period of 30
Consecutive Days
Pollutant_Parameter_
Suspended Solids
*Cyanide (A)
Phenol
Ammonia
Sulfide
Manganese
PH
*Cyanide (A): Cyanides amenable to chlorination. Reference D 2036 - 72.
0.0208
0.00052
0.00104
0.0208
0.00062
0.0104
0.0104
0.00026
0.00052
0.0104
0.00031
0.0052
6.0 to 9.0
VI. Basic Oxygen Furnace (Semi Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
BATEA Effluent Limitations
Units:
or:
kg pollutant per kkg of product
Ib pollutant per 1,000 Ib of product
Pollutant_Parameter
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
PH
Maximum for any
One Day Period
Shall Not Exceed
Maximum Average of
Daily Values for any
Period of 30
Consecutive Days
No discharge of
process waste water
pollutants to navigable waters
11
-------
VII. Basic Oxygen Furnace (Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Sutcategory
BATEA Ejf fluent^Limitations
Units: kg pollutant per kkg of product:
or: Ib pollutant per 1,000 Ib of product
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
pH
VIII. Open Hearth Furnace Subcategory
Maximum for any
One Day Period
Shall Not Exceed
0.0104
0.0083
6.0
Maximum Average of
Daily Values for any
Period of 30
Consecutive Days
0.0052
0.0042
to 9.0
BATEA Effluent Limitations
Units: kg pollutant per kkg of product
or: Ib pollutant per 1,000 Ib of product;
Pollutant Parameters
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
Nitrate (as NO3)
Zinc
pH
Maximum for any
One Day Period
Shall Not Exceed
Maximum Average of
Daily Values for any
Period of 30
Consecutive Days
0.0104
0.0083
0.0187
0.0021
0.0052
0.0042
0.0094
0.0010
6.0 to 9.0
IX. Electric Arc Furnace (Semi wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
BATEA Effluent Limitations
Units: kg pollutant per kkg of ^product
or: Ib pollutant per 1,000 Ib of product
Maximum for any
One Day Period
Shall Not Exceed
Maximum Average of
Daily Values for any
Period of 30
CQnsecutive_Days
Suspended Solids
Zinc
Fluoride
PH
No discharge of
process waste water
pollutants to navigable waters
12
-------
Electric Arc Furnace (Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
BATEA Effluent Limitations
Units: kg pollutant per kkg of product
or: Ib pollutant per 1,000 Ib of product
Pgllutant_Parameter
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
Zinc
PH
Maximum for any
One Day Period
Shall Ngtr Exceed
Maximum Average of
Daily Values for any
Period of 30
Consecutive Days
0.0104
0.0083
0.0021
0.0052
0.0042
0.0010
6.0 to 9.0
XI. Vacuum Degassing Subcategory
BATEA^Effluent^ Limitations
Units: kg pollutant per kkg of product
or: Ib pollutant per 1,000 Ib of product
Pollutant Parameter
Suspended Solids
Zinc
Manganese
Lead
Nitrate (as NO3)
pH
Maximum for any
One Day Period
Shall Not Exceed
0,
0,
0,
0,
0052
0010
0010
0001
0.0094
Maximum Average of
Daily Values for any
Period of 30
Consecutive Days
0.0026
0.0005
0.0005
0.00005
0.0047
6.0 to 9.0
XII. Continuous Casting Subcategory
or:
BATEA Effluent Limitations
Units: kg pollutant per kkg of product
Ib pollutant per 1,000 Ib of product
Maximum for any
One Day Period
Pollutant_Parameter Shall Not Exceed
Maximum Average of
Daily Values for any
Period of 30
Consecutive Days
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
PH
0.0104
0.0104
0.0052
0.0052
6.0 to 9.0
13
-------
The proposed effluent guidelines representing the effluent quality
attainable by new sources (NSPS or Level III) through the application of
the best available demonstrated control technology, (BADCT) processes,
operating methods or other alternatives for each industry sub-category
are as follows:
Same as BATEA for all categories.
14
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Authority
Section 301(b) of the Act requires the achievement by not later than
July 1, 1977, of effluent limitations for point sources, other than
publicly owned treatment works, which are based on the application of
the best practicable control technology currently available as defined
by the Administrator pursuant to Section 304(b) of the Act. Section
301(b) also requires the achievement by not later than July 1, 1983, of
effluent limitations for point sources, other than publicly owned
treatment works, which are based on the application of the best
available technology economically achieveable whicn will result in
reasonable further progress toward the national goal of eliminating the
discharge of all pollutants, as determined in accordance with
regulations issued by the Administrator pursuant to Section 304(b) to
the Act. section 306 of the Act requires the achievement by new sources
of a Federal standard of performance providing for the control of the
discharge of pollutants which reflects the greatest degree of effluent
reduction which the Administrator determines to be acheivable through
the application of the best available demonstrated control technology,
processes, operating methods, or other alternatives, including, where
practicable, a standard permitting no discharge of pollutants.
Section 304(b) of the Act requires the Administrator to publish within
one year of enactment of the Act, regulations providing guidelines for
effluent limitations setting forth the degree of practicable control
technology currently available and the degree of efiluent reduction
attainable through the application of the best control measures and
practices achievable including treatment techniques, process and pro-
cedure innovations, operation methods and other alternatives.
Section 306 of the Act requires the Administrator, within one year after
a category of sources is included in a list published pursuant to
Section 306 (b) (1) (A) of the Act, to propose regulations establishing
Federal standards of performances for new sources within such
categories. The Administrator published in the Federal Register of
January 16, 1973, a list of 27 source categories. Publication of the
list constituted announcement of the Administrator's intention of
establishing, under Section 306, standards of performance applicable to
new sources within the iron and steel industry which was included within
the list published January 16, 1973.
Summarv_pf Methods yse^for_Development ofthe Effluent
Limitations,Guidelines and Standards of_Performance
The effluent limitations guidelines and standards ot performance
proposed herein were developed in the following manner. The point
15
-------
source category was first studied for the purpose of determining whether
separate limitations and standards would be required for different
segments within a point source category. The analysis was based upon
raw material used, product produced, manufacturing process employed, and
other factors. The raw waste characteristics for each subcategory were
then identified. This included an analyses of (1) The source and volume
of water used in the process employed and the sources of waste and
wastewaters in the plant; and (2) the constituents (including thermal)
of all wastewaters including toxic constituents and other constituents
which result in taste, odor, and color in water. The constituents of
wastewaters which should be subject to effluent limitations guidelines
and standards of performance were identified.
The full range of control and treatment technologies existing within
each subcategory was identified. This included an identification of
each distinct control and treatment technology, including both inplant
and end-of-process technologies, which are existent or capable of being
designed for each subcategory. It also included an identification in
terms of the amount of constituents (including thermal) and the
chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of pollutants, of the
effluent level resulting from the application of each of the treatment
and control technologies. The problems, limitations and reliability of
each treatment and control technology and the required implementation
time was also identified. In addition, the non-water quality
environmental impact, such as the effects of the application of such
technologies upon other pollution problems, including air, solid waste,
noise and radiation were also identified. The energy requirements of
each of the control and treatment technologies were identified as well
as the cost of the application of such technologies.
The information, as outlined above, was then evaluated in order to
determine what levels of technology constituted the "best practicable
control technology currently available," "best available technology
economically achievable" and the "best available demonstrated control
technology, processes, operating methods, or other alternatives." In
identifying such technologies, various factors were considered. These
included the total cost of application of technology in relation to the
effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such explication, the
age of equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, the
engineering aspects of the application of various types of control
techniques, process changes, non-water quality environmental impact
(including energy requirements) and other factors.
The data for identification and analyses were derived from a number of
sources. These sources included EPA research information, EPA and State
environmental personnel, trade associations, published literature,
qualified technical consultation, and on-site visits including sampling
programs and interviews at steel plants throughout the United States
which were known to have above average waste treatment facilities. All
references used in developing the guidelines for effluent limitations
16
-------
and standards of performance for new sources reported herein are listed
in section XIII of this document.
Operating steel plants were visited and information and samples were
obtained on from one to five plants in each of the subcategones. Both
in-process and end-of-pipe data were obtained as a basis for determining
water use rates and capabilities and effluent loads. The permit
application data was of limited value for the purposes of tnis study
since most of this data is on outfalls serving more than one operation
and frequently was deficient in one or more of the components needed to
correlate the data. The following capital and operating cost data sheet
and test data sheets, e.g. EPA Form B, for raw waste, treated effluent,
and service water were given to the plants, at the time of the sampling
visit, for completion relative to the operation or operations studied at
a given plant. The plants were requested to return this information,
together with production data to the study contractor.
General_Description of the_Industry
Although the making of steel appears to be simple, many problems are
encountered when a great quantity of raw materials and resources are
brought together to ultimately produce steel. Steel mills may range
from comparatively small plants to completely integrated steel
complexes. Even the smallest of plants will generally represent a fair
sized industrial complex. Because of the wide product range, the
operations will vary with each facility. The steel oriented may fail to
realize that those unfamiliar with the steel industry may find it
difficult to comprehend the complexity of this giant operation.
It was not until the mid-fifties that the industry began to look at iron
and steelmaking as unit operations that required a better knowledge of
the kinetics of competing reactions. Since this initial change in
thinking, tha adoption of advanced technology has become a way of life
for the steel industry.
Approximately ninety-two per cent (92%) of the 1972 total United States
annual steel ingot production was produced by fifteen major steel
corporations. This total also represents 22.5% of the world total of
556,875,000 metric tons (625,000,000 ingot tons). Table 1 presents the
breakdown by corporation. The year of record for steel ingot production
was 1969 with 127,887,000 kkg (141,000,000 ingot tons) being produced.
Table 2 presents a breakdown by area of the major corporations and their
production levels of coke, iron, and steel. Approximately 59,000,000
kkg (65,000,000 tons), of coke, 75,000,000 kkg (83,000,000 tons) of
iron, and 121,000,000 kkg (134,000,000 tons) of steel were produced for
the year 1972.
Product Classification
17
-------
TABLE 1
United States Annual Steel Ingot Ton Production
Major Producers
1972
Metric Tons/Year Ingot Tons/Year
United States Steel
Bethlehem Steel
Republic Steel
National Steel
Armco Steel
Jones & Laughlin Steel
Inland Steel
Youngstown Sheet & Tube
Wheeling Pittsburgh
Kaiser
McLouth
Colorado Fuel & Iron
Sharon
Interlake
Alan Wood
31,750
19,960
9,980
9,520
7,710
7,280
6,800
5,440
3,540
2,720
1,819
1,360
1,360
907
907
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
35,000
22,000
11,000
10,500
8,500
8,000
7,500
6,000
3,900
3,000
2,000
1,500
1,500
1,000
1,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
18
-------
TABLE 2
Production Levels by Area
Metric Tons
(Metric Tons XI.102 = Short Tons)
Coke Iron Steel
PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA AREA
United States Steel
Duquesne 2,750,000 3,720,000
Edgar Thompson 858,000 1,600,000
Homestead 1,920,000 3,100,000
Clairton 7,150,000 492,000
Bethlehem Steel
Bethlehem 1,900,000 2,720,000 2,270,000
Johnstown 1,260,000 1,720,000 1,990,000
Jones & Laugh1in Steel
Aliquippa 1,520,000 2,420,000 2,980,000
Pittsburgh 1,800,000 844,000 1,270,000
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel
Monessen 563,000 951,000 1,450,000
Sharon
Roemer 939,000 1,360,000
Fairmont, W. Va. 215,000
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS & GARY, INDIANA
United States Steel
Gary 4,560,000 4,560,000 3,590,000
South Works, Chicago, II. 1,490,000 2,060,000
Bethlehem Steel
Burns Harbor N.A. 3,310,000 4,440,000
Inland Steel
Indiana Harbor 2,910,000 4,900,000 6,800,000
19
-------
TABLE 2 (Cont'd.)
Republic Steel
Chicago N.A. 1,090,000 1,810,000
Youngstown Sheet & Tube
East Chicago, Indiana 1,340,000 1,810,000 2,630,000
Interlake
Chicago 613,000 680,000 907,000
Toledo 546,000 740,000
YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO AREA
United States Steel
Youngstown 978,000 1,620,000
Armco Steel
Middletown, Ohio 281,000 800,000 1,420,000
Hamilton, Ohio 610,000 501,000 975,000
Republic Steel
Youngstown, Ohio 874,000 728,000
Warren, Ohio 430,000 1,640,000 1,810,000
Youngstown Sheet & Tube
Campbell 1,320,000 853,000 1,570,000
Brier Hill 330,000 573,000 1,040,000
BUFFALO, NEW YORK AREA
Bethlehem Steel
Lackawanna 2,050,000 4,490,000 5,970,000
National Steel
Hanna, Buffalo 272,000
Republic Steel
Buffalo 497,000 680,000
Donner-Hanna Coal
Buffalo 546,000 (Serves National & Republic)
20
-------
TABLE 2 (Cont'd.)
1,590,000
WHEELING, WEST VIRGINIA AREA
National Steel
Weirton
Wheeling-Pittsburgh
Wheeling
Steubenville, Ohio
DETROIT, MICHIGAN AREA
National Steel
Ecorse, Michigan
McLouth Steel
Trenton, Michigan
CLEVELAND, OHIO AREA
Republic Steel
Cleveland
Jones & Laughlin Steel
Cleveland
United States Steel
Lorain Works
MISCELLANEOUS AREAS
United States Steel
Fairless-Philadelphia 993,000
Fairfield-Alabama 2,270,000
Geneva-Provo, Utah 1,660,000
Baytown, Texas
National Steel
1,570,000 2,170,000 3,230,000
N.A.
1,400,000 2,090,000
1,620,000 2,400,000 3,260,000
1,660,000 1,810,000
1,890,000 2,450,000 3,180,000
1,750,000 2,190,000
1,210,000 1,870,000
2,160,000 3,300,000
1,880,000 3,060,000
1,780,000 2,060,000
500,000
Granite City-St. Louis, Mo."710,000 907,000 1,360,000
21
-------
TABLE 2 (Cont'd.)
Armco Steel
Ashland, Kentucky 1,040,000 1,440,000
Houston, Texas 365,000 550,000 700,000
Bethlehem Steel
Sparrows Point, Md. 3,010,000 5,560,000 7,420,000
Republic Steel
Gadsden, Alabama 464,000
Birmingham, Alabama 315,000 895,000 1,360,000
Massillon, Ohio 166,000 310,000
Canton, Ohio 290,000 800,000
Kaiser Steel
Fontana, California 1,360,000 2,070,000 2,720,000
CFSI Steel Corporation
Pueblo, Colorado 1,040,000 939,000 1,360,000
Roebling, N.J. 230,000
Alan Wood
Conshohocken, Pa. 525,000 544,000 907,000
Interlake
Erie, Pennsylvania 242,000 380,000
22
-------
The U. s. Bureau of Census, Census of Manufacturers classifies the steel
industry under Major Group 33 - Primary Metal Industries. This phase of
study covers the coking (excluding the technology related to coke plant
wastewater treatment by multiple effect evaporation) , blast furnace -
sinter plant, iron casting, steel manufacturing and steel casting
segments of SIC Industry No. 3312 as it pertains to the iron and carbon
steel industry. This includes all processes, subprocesses, and
alternate processes involved in the manufacture of intermediate or
finished products in the above categories. A detailed list of product
codes within the industry classification code 3312 is included in Table
3.
Anticipated Industry Growth
Steel in the United States is a $22.47 billion a year business. The
industry is third in the nation, behind the automotive ana petroluem
industries, in the value of its total shipments and, with 487,000
employees, is second only to the automotive industry in the number of
people who work for it. Over the decade since 1962, the steel industry
has grown 60% from sales of $14.0 to $22.47 billion.
In 1972 steel climbed back from its worst market in over a decade
showing a steady improvement in the early part of the year. Both raw
steel production and finished mill product shipments were up
substantially from 12-year lows reached late summer of 1971. As steel
demand improved, so did steel employment. The number of persons carried
on domestic steelmaker payrolls increased steadily during the first
quarter, after hitting a 32-year low in November, 1971. Just how fast
the economic position of the nation's steel industry improves, however,
depends to a large extent on one important imponderable: imports. In
the first two months of 1972, for instance, foreign steel accounted for
one-seventh of the nation's apparent steel consumption.
General Description of the Operations
Three basic steps are involved in the production of steel. First, coal
is converted to pure carbon, coke. Second, coke is then combined with
iron ore and limestone in a blast furnace to produce iron. Third, the
iron is purified into steel in either an open hearth, basic oxygen, or
electric furnace. Further refinements include degassing by subjecting
the steel to a high vacuum. Steel that is not cast into ingot molds can
be cast into a process called continuous casting. The flow of a typical
steel mill is shown in Figure 1.
Coke plants are operated as parts of integrated steel mills to supply
the coke necessary for the production cf iron in blast furnaces. Nearly
all coke plants today are byproduct plants, i.e., products such as coke
oven gas, coal tar, crude and refined light oils, ammonium sulfate,
anhydrous ammonia, ammonia liquor, and naphthalene are produced in
addition to coke. A very small portion of coke is also produced in the
23
-------
00
i
SH X! M
>vH -P -P
M o en tn
cu tn-P rd 3
> -H d H rrj
rH CU-H XI d
•H -rl
W enrH 4-1
d cu d en
^•r| CU 4-1 X! X!
O M en u 4-1
M (U M
•H > -d cu d
d d g -H
tJ1 O (tf
•rl D 'd
Cu d • cu
•«. O Cn 'd
- CU M d 3
rH cu rH c en
0 cu O en cu
d T3 0 M M
•H d rd rd id
M ret X)
3 d en
4-1 d "H - d
o 0 en cu
(d M *d 'd t*
M CU
o en -P >
rd en -H
cu d o x!
Cn O -P - cu
id M d to cu
Cn-H -H 4-1 X}
d cu
CU g rH Q) M
0 CU A O
>i M cu en
rH MH 4-> 4-1
•H en * O
M en en 3
g O (d -P O
•H rH M rd M
M rH U rH CU
Cu id en Cu 1
O >i
en M T) en X)
•P M d rd
d cu
tn
d
•H
CU
rd
g
•-
tn
cu
4-J
rd
rH
&4
M
0
en
y
M
O
rH
CU
CU
CO
d
•rl
CU
MHdCn^tno-PH H^ dcUrHen
•Hd CflrH CUrd-HCUrH
rdrH-HrH-drrj .H HdH-P-rH-d
dHtncudcu'dg -curdrHengd
rdotncurdrHci encu O rd
MO4-1 rHrdeT'CUCn4JdM vCn rH
en MendO dxidcno enddcu
-PMO OMd-H3-H MM &>-H O CU
dO d M CU O rH 4-J rH d *rH O 3 i — 1 M t
•H "d -H -H M M H -H -H H rH -H en
enOtnrd -H o - CU ^eneno
•HT~iryocu*t> Men cutn^ M->-
H MMTienen^ TS-P-d^MrH cuen
•HrHOrHrCirHrHCnMdCUrdCUOrHMrHX!
gTH^'Hg*HTHldO3(l)£(UtS(UOcl}iti
rti fd rrjrdO Ox! rd ,c| y iH
PS & p^ rt c5 Wco co co coco
4J
rH O
(U rd rH
CU rd
4-J M tn o
en M 0 4-> I -H
o o cu g
d co 3 M cu
•H co x 'd -d
rV! M O rH O
CU M O M rd
-d o & a. o g
rd !•? -HO
g rH C g M
H cu en cu cu MH
cu cu .-P > rd
••COCU4-1O OOrd
rd -H 4-1 CO 3 CU
CUrHCO "d CO (Ug^
CT>-H d O 4-i r-4 O -H en
Mgd-H M O OM Md
O-rl CU 3 UMHtQCUCU
UHtJi cu 'd'd drd>
d cu "d d o cu ^'d cu o
M-H-d (d CU M rHM(U>-
eoOrHrrjeogcQK* O.i rHCU>Ocflcu
rH rHgrH rHOrH O>'H CU,X
HrdO H rH 0) CU MOMC])i
CnOOOCncUCnU 4-iM rH - M
dM Md4-id **rd3 CU ' — 1 CO ^ M CU
•H tn-H-HCO-HCUCQrHMH CUrdrdMrd>
rH^r^ rH rH>4-!CU eOXJOCncU-PO
iHCOM » rH *rH-HCUri44-lgl5-H t> O
OcuOenotnOrdrHOtnO grHOrHcu
MrHSMMMMCUrHrd'dOMCU'OOrdM
X rd rd CU-HHrHHrdrdO O
i< ffl pQ fQmfflCQfQUUCJ CJ
24
-------
, — .
•
'd
-
-P
c
o
u
m
W
1-q
PQ
>5J
£H
blast furnaces
G
-H
CD
•d
rd
g
•»
c
CD
CO
•rl
CD
r-l
CD
tn
CD
•H
a
CO
CO
G
CD
O
CD
^
-H
43
CU
CU
42
G
•H
'd
Q)
0
rj
*d
o
^
si
v
CD
.*
O
O
rH
Q)
CD
-P
CO
G
-H
CD
'd
rd
g
«.
CO
Ti
0
CD
rX
•H
O4
co
•d
G
rd
CO
CD
rX
•H
o.
co
t>1
rH
CD
0
o
CD
H
rd
O
-rH
g
CD
43
O
G
•H
'd
Q)
o
3
•d
o
J-l
Pi
k
CD
0
u
to CD
CD T)
-P rd rH -P
(d g CD SH -H
rH CD O CD
& -P >i 43 CD
CO iH CO -P
»• » H CO rH CD CO
COUCDrHG CD> SH
Ti-PCDrH-HCDO O C
O CD -P -H -P 0 -rH
SH CO g CD CO CD tn
>- ^3 CO SH G CD
kCQ'dtnrdrHrO O *d
co el) G G g ' — I C ' — I rH i — i rd
SH CX, rd -rl -r-l rd rd (D g
CO rdrdrHgO CD to
r-H 42 43 C rH •• G 'H •• -P rH
H CO O O rH C7> 0 g HCO •• rH
•H tn SH SH CD C M CD CD rH-H
g CrH-HCD-H-H43 CD -d CDg
-rl rd SH -P rH O -PC CD
C7> U SH T) O CO rH •- cord -P tj>
G 3 3 CD OCQg COG
-H rO-PNCQrdSHCDO *d C -H
HHOO-rlAJG O4 r) GO Ti rH
rH (DSHSCSnrd-Prdm rd SH rH GrH
O CD Oj SH rd O O43 -HCD tdO
SH -P •P>£C43cordco C CD M
GCOCQCOrH O CDC O - -P COG
SH O rX CDCDrHCacO rH TJ O r)
O SH CO SH - tn CD -rl O rd -H > -P -rt CD CD CD G M O
-HCOOCO CD SH SH O rd -PCD-PCD3-H
CO CDI5-P--P-CQ3CD i-H - rd CD fd -P O to
,X CD -H CDCQCOCO^-P'dCDCliCnHrHHCOrH "^
SH (Ji G rH CD fi fi>HO ^CDCUQjMHCX COVH
OG'HCD43-rlG'HO3 VOGG rHCDCDO
l50fdCDCOMTHM|5SHMO>H^-ICDCCO4242I5
Oj4J-P -P -P -Prd CDCD-H-rl-rlOdD
cococo CO CO coH E-iEHt-ifHE-iEHE-iEH
rH
CO CD CO CD
1 CD CD -P G Ti
CD G OrH-PrH CD-H rdCO
-PrH-rirdCDCOCDCD grH
43 G CD CD 43 CD H
tnH CD SH4J C-P CO'd -HCO
•H (d "d 3 co -H to rd •• g -P
VnOrdM-l ->gHD
42 -H g GCDGtO CDtn3
g -P-rlTi-H CD COCDC-d
-P CD COCO COrd -P rH •• rH -p -H O
rd 43 -HrdCDrHg CD rdCDrHrHcQH5H
HCOO rHiHrHfOH 'd rHCDCD-H rHQj
MHrH (1) -H X) c O^-PO'dtn^tn OCrH OG
CXrH-r-icDGM'dcoiHGGcoG "-inO TJ (d
•rHOrH>O O rd-H -HCO-rHrHrHCUCO
MMCDOJHMiH'd-P r-HfrjrHCl, -HONAiG
•P 'd -HOfiiCOGrHCrHO -HSnO
cn-P CD rd4^oOrdOO***'cnGOVH
co O^rX^co*- MJn V-t43tocOrXrd|^ -H
G'd43tOOtOrXtOGId-rl G CUtTirH>
CDCD CDU-PSH>lOC MOM'd-HCOrHrHrQ
>HG-P COOOMrd ^OrHOCDM-rH&rdCDCD
OrH-Hrd>iO^H-H CO -H N-Ptn tnCDrH
O rHrHpUrHH COtr>CO CO-rHCOrHrH JJrH
CDCDOCQ)H-H>HCQrHfd'dMHCDCO JH
OIdrd-POO-P(H-POtnotno>G -P&,G
Or-HgcoOGco^-ird|SMISOI5rHrdCcoO-H-P
O-H(DCDrHOrHrd3OO
rH
CD
CD
4->
CO
»•
to
to
CD
H
g
rd
CD
CO
*fc
0^
G
•H
Q
rj
EH
rH
CD
CD
CO
^
CO
Jj
o
CT>
G
G
-H T3
G
CD rd
-d
fd G
g 0
M
CO -H
•• rH
H rH
Q) -rl ••
CD g CD
-P >
CO tn-H
G -P
•d -rl
G H
rd H
O
G M
O
V-f (H
-rH 0
- CO
to x
CT> SH
G 0
-H ^
CO
rd H
O (D
CD
rH -P
rH CO
CD
Jg
CO
rH
rH
•H
g
r-H
CD
CD
-P
CO
G
•iH
CD
Ti
rd
g
^
rH
CD
tn-P
•H C
to
•k
G G
O O
M SH
H H
O
g
0
O
o
rH
'd
G
rd
SH
rd
O
-
CO
H
CD
CD
43
rH
CD
CD
-P
CO
G
•H
CD
'd
rd
g
• 1
H
CD
CU
-P
to
'd
G
rd
G
O
•rH
V
to
O
SH
.jj
3
"Z
-
CD
to
-P
-H
g
"l
1
r-H
CD
CD
-P
to
CO
rH
rH
-rH
g
tn
G
•H
H
rH
0
SH
SH
O
CO
y
SH
O
G
•rl
CD
-------
Si
s
go
*
0
"<
3!
-------
beehive coke process which is also discussed in this report. A by-
product coke plant consists essentially of the ovens in which bituminous
coal is heated, out of contact with air, to drive off the volatile
components. The residue remaining in the ovens is coke; the volatile
components are recovered and processed in the by-product plant to
produce tar, light oils, and other materials of potential value,
including coke oven gas.
Molten iron for subsequent steelmaking operations is normally produced
in a blast furance. The blast furnace process consists essentially of
charging iron ore, limestone, and coke into the top of the furnace and
blowing heated air into the bottom. Combustion of the coke provides the
heat necessary to obtain the temperature at which the metallurgical
reducing reactions take place. The function of the limestone is to form
a slag, fluid at the furnace temperature, which combines with unwanted
impurities in the ore. One and eight tenths kkg of ore, 0.45 Jckg of
coke, 0.45 kkg of limestone and 3.2 kkg of air (2, 0.5, 0.5 and 3.5 tons
respectively) produce approximately 0.9 kkg of iron, 0.45 kkg of slag
and 4.5 kkg of blast furnace gas containing the fines of the burden
carried out by the blast (one ton of iron, 0.5 tons of slag and 5 tons
of gas). These fines are referred to as flue dust. Molten iron is
periodically withdrawn from the bottom of the furnace; the fluid slag
which floats on top of the iron is also periodically withdrawn from the
furnace. Blast furnace flue gas has considerable heating value and,
after cleaning, is burned to preheat the air blast to the furnace.
The blast furnace auxiliaries consist of the stoves in which the blast
is preheated, the dry dust catchers in which the bulk of the flue dust
is recovered, primary wet cleaners in which most of the remaining flue
dust is removed by washing with water, and secondary cleaners such as
electrostatic precipitators.
The principal steelmaking methods in use today are the Basic Oxygen
Furnace (EOF or BOP), the Open Hearth Furnace, and tne Electric Arc
Furnace. The steelmaking processes all basically refine the product of
the blast furnace blended with scrap or scrap alone, and alloying
elements to required analyses for particular purposes. Steel is any
alloy of iron containing less than 1.0% carbon. The steelmaking process
consists essentially of oxidizing constituents, particularly carbon,
down to specified low levels, and then adding various elements to
required amounts as determined by the grade of steel to be produced.
The basic raw materials for steelmaking are hot metal or pig iron, steel
scrap, limestone, burned lime, dolomite, fluorspar, iron ores, iron-
bearing materials such as pellets or mill scale.
The steelmaking processes produce fume, smoke, and waste gases as the
unwanted impurities are burned off and the process vaporizes or entrains
a portion of the molten steel into the off-gases. Other impurities
combine with the slag which floats on the surface of the £>ath and is
27
-------
separately withdrawn. Wastewater results from the steelmaking processes
when wet dust collection systems are used on the furnaces ana in the
slag handling operations.
Although declining in recent years, 30 percent of the steel produced in
the United States is still made in open hearth furnaces. Open hearth
furnaces, while similar in design, may vary widely in tonnage capacity.
The furnaces found in this country range in capacity from 9 to 545 kkg
(10 to 600 ton) per heat.
The steelmaking ingredients (iron, scrap, limestone, alloys, etc.) are
charged into the front of the furnace through movable doors. Flame to
"cook" the steel is supplied by liquid or gaseous fuel which is ignited
by hot air.
The molten steel is tapped from the furnace back when ordered
specifications have been obtained. In the standard furnai.ce, this occurs
8-10 hours after the first charge. Many furnaces use oxygen lances
which create a more intense heat and reduce charge-to-tap time. The
tap-to-tap time for the oxygen-lanced open hearth probably averages
about 8 hours, with about 10 hours being the average when oxygen is not
used.
The open hearth furnace allows the operator, in effect, to "cook" the
steel to required specifications. The nature of the furnace permits him
to continually sample the batch content and make necessary additions.
The major drawback of the process is the long time required to produce a
"heat". Many basic oxygen furnaces can produce eight times the steel of
a comparable open hearth over the same period of production time.
Since the introduction in the United States of the more productive basic
oxygen process, open hearth production has declined from a peak of 93
million kkg (102 million tons) in 1956 to 32 million kkg (35 million
tons) in 1971. The basic oxygen furnace steel production first equaled
that from open hearths in 1969. The basic oxygen furnace is now clearly
the major steelmaking process.
Vessels for the basic oxygen process are generally vertical cylinders
surmounted by a truncated cone. High-purity oxygen is supplied at high
pressure through a water-cooled tube mounted above the center of the
vessel. Scrap and molten iron are charged to the vessel and a flux is
added. The oxygen lance is lowered and oxygen is admitted. A violent
reaction occurs immediately and the resultant turbulence brings the
molten metal and the hot gases into intimate contact, causing the
impurities to burn off quickly. An oxygen blow of 18 to 22 minutes is
normally sufficient to refine the metal. Alloy additions are made and
the steel is ready to be tapped.
A basic oxygen furnace can produce 180 to 270 kkg (200 to 300 tons) or
more of steel per hour and allows very close control of steel quality.
28
-------
A major advantage of the process is the ability to handle a wide range
of raw materials. Scrap may be light or heavy, and the oxide charge may
be iron ore, sinter, pellets, or mill scale.
The annual production of steel in the United States by the basic oxygen
process has increased from about 545,000 kkg (600,000 tons) in 1957 to
58 million kkg (64 million tons) in 1971. It is anticipated that basic
oxygen production will continue to increase at the expense of open
hearth production.
The electric-arc furnace is uniquely adapted to the production of high-
quality steels; however, most of the production is carbon steel.
Practically all stainless steel is produced in electric-arc furnaces.
Electric furnaces range up to 9 meters (30 feet) in diameter and produce
from 1.8 to 365 kkg (2 to 400 tons) per cycle in 1.5 to 5 hours.
The cycle in electric furnace steelmaking consists of the scrap charge,
the meltdown, the hot metal charge, the molten-metal period, the boil,
the refining period, and the pour. The required heat is generated by an
electric arc passing from the electrodes to the charge in the furnace.
The refining process is similar to that of the open hearth, but more
precise control is possible in the electric furnace. Use of oxygen in
the electric furnace has been common practice for many years.
Electric-arc furnaces are to be found in almost every integrated steel
mill. Many mills operate only electric furnaces, using scrap as the raw
material. In most "cold shops" the electric-arc furnace is the sole
steelmaking process.
The annual production of steel in the electric-arc furnace has increased
from about 7.2 million kkg (8 million tons) in 1957 to some 19 million
kkg (21 million tons) in 1971. Although electric-arc furnaces have been
small in heat capacity as compared to open hearth or basic oxygen
furnaces, a trend towards larger furnaces has recently developed.
Electric-arc furnaces are the principal steelmaking process utilized by
the so-called mini steel plants which have been built since World War
II.
29
-------
SECTION IV
INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION
An evaluation of the steel making operations was necessary to determine
whether or not subcategorization would be required in order to prepare
an effluent limitations guideline or guidelines which would be broadly
applicable and yet representative and appropriate for the operations and
conditions to be controlled. Toward this end an understanding of the
operations was required.
Description of Operations to Make Raw steel
Coke^Manufiacturing
i
Coke manufacturing is performed as part of an integrated steel mill's
function to supply coke which is a basic raw material for the blast
furnace. There are two generally accepted methods for manufacturing
coke. These are known as the beehive process (nonrecovery) and the by-
product or chemical recovery process.
In the by-product method, air is excluded from the coking cnambers, and
the necessary heat for distillation is supplied from external combustion
of fuel gases in flues located within dividing walls between adjacent
ovens. Today the by-product process produces about ninety-nine (99)
percent of all metallurgical coke. Economic factors have changed the
traditional by-product plant operation. Although coke oven gas still
remains as a valuable by-product for internal use, the production of
light oils, ammonium sulfate and sodium phenolate are not usually
profitable.
In the beehive process, air is admitted to the ccking chamber in
controlled amounts for the purpose of burning the volatile products
distilled from the coal to generate heat for further distillation. The
beehive produces only coke and no successful attempts have been made to
recover the products of distillation.
Coke Making - By-Product Operation
The desire for a higher quality coke and the economic use of by-products
provided the initial impetus in the development of the by-product coke
oven.
A by-product coke plant consists essentially of the ovens in which
bituminous coal is heated, out of contact with air, to drive off the
volatile components. The residue remaining in the ovens is coke; the
volatile components are recovered and processed in the Joy-product plant
to produce tar, light oils, and other materials of potential value,
including coke oven gas. This process is accomplished in narrow.
31
-------
rectangular, silica brick ovens arranged side by side in groups called
batteries. Each coke oven is typically 45 centimeters wide, 4.5 meters
high, and 12 meters long (approximately 0.5 x 5 x 13 yards). Heat is
applied by burning gas in flues located between the walls of adjacent
ovens. About forty (40) percent of the gas produced by the coking
process is used to heat the coke ovens. The remaining gas is used as a
fuel in other mill operations.
Coal is charged through holes into the tops of the ovens from hopper
bottom cars which run on tracks over the top of the battery. During the
sixteen (16) to twenty-four (24) hour coking period, tne gases and
volatile materials distilled from the coal, escape through the ascension
pipes on the top of the ovens and pass into the collection main which
runs the length of the battery. At the end of the coking period, the
doors are removed from each end of an oven and the pushing machine
pushes the red hot coke into the quenching car. The quenching car moves
to the quenching tower where the coke is cooled by water sprays, and the
cooled coke is delivered to handling equipment for subsequent use. Much
of the quench water is evaporated in the quench tower. The remainder
flows to a settling basin where fine coke particles settle out and are
periodically removed. The clarified water is recycled to the quenching
tower. The settling basin may overflow if an excess or water is in the
system, resulting in a source of wastewater.
In the reduction of coal tc coke, the coal volatiles are collected
through pipes from each oven into a large gas main running the length of
the battery. These hot gases, which are withdrawn from -the main under
suction by exhausters, are given an initial cooling by spraying with
water which lowers the temperature and saturates the gas with water
vapor. This water is known as flushing liquor. This initial cooling
condenses a large portion of the tar in the raw gas. The condensed tar
and flushing liquor mixture flows down the suction main and is conveyed
to a decanter tank. The partially cooled gas, still under suction, then
passes through primary coolers where the temperature is further reduced
by indirect application of cooling water.
The condensate resulting from the cooling is pumped to the decanter and
mingled with the tar and flushing liquor from the collecting main. The
tar and liquor are separated by gravity, the lighter tar being pumped to
storage and a portion of the liquor being recirculated as flushing
liquor. The process actually produces water which originates from the
moisture in the coal. This excess liquid, called ammonia liquor, is
drawn off the decant tank and pumped to storage. The tar contains a
large proportion of the coal chemicals produced in the ovens.
The ammonia absorber normally follows the tar extractor, but this will
be discussed later in conjunction with the ammonia still and
dephenolizers.
32
-------
Following the ammonia absorber, the gas passes through the final coolers
in which water sprays dissolve soluble constituents and flush out the
insoluble naphthalene which is condensed at this point. The water flows
to the naphthalene sump where the naphthalene is recovered by skimming
and then to a cooling tower for recirculation through the final cooler.
A properly designed closed recirculation system should have little or no
discharged wastewater here, since the cooling tower evaporation balances
the moisture condensation from the gas. When other than a closed system
is used, final cooler water can be the largest source of contaminated
wastewater.
From the final coolers, the gas passes through the gas scrubbers in
which the crude light oils are removed by an absorbent generally known
as wash oil. The crude light oils contain the materials which are
further separated and recovered in the by-product plant. The gas then
goes to a gas holder for use in underfiring the coke ovens and a booster
pump which sends it to the other mill uses.
Following the gas scrubbers, the light oils are stripped from the wash
oil absorbent by steam distillation; the wash oil is cooled and
recirculated to the gas scrubbers. The vapors leaving the wash oil
still are condensed in the light oil condenser and then flow to the
light oil decanter where the light oil and condensed water are
separated. Indirect cooling is generally used in the wash oil cooler
and light oil condenser and no wastewaters are produced. The water
separated from the light oil in the decanter is a major source of
wastewater.
Two processes are used in the United States for ammonia recovery. They
are referred to as semi-direct and indirect. Approximately eighty-five
(85) percent of the ammonia produced in coke plants is recovered as
ammonium sulfate by the semi-direct process. The balance is produced as
concentrated ammonia liquor by the indirect process.
In the indirect ammonia recovery process, a portion of the ammonia is
dissolved in the flushing liquor. Additional ammonia is scrubbed from
the gas with water. An ammonia still is used to concentrate the ammonia
liquor for sale in this form.
In the semi-direct ammonia recovery process, the ammonia absorber, or
saturator, follows the tar extractor. Here the gas passes through a
dilute sulfuric acid solution in a closed system from which ammonium
sulfate is crystallized and dried for sale.
The ammonia still receives the excess ammonia liquor from which ammonia
and other volatile compounds are steam distilled. From the ±ree leg of
the ammonia still, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and
hydrogen cyanide are steam distilled and returned to the gas stream.
Milk of lime is added to the fixed leg of the ammonia still to decompose
ammonium salts; the liberated ammonia is steam distilled and also
33
-------
•returned to the gas stream. The ammonia liberated in the ammonia still
is recovered from the gas as additional ammonium sulfate in the
saturators.
Dephsnoli zers remove phenol from the ammonia liquor and recover it as
sodium phenolate. The two most generally employed methods to accomplish
phenol removal are liguid extraction and vapor recirculation.
a• Liguid_ Extract jgn
In this method, phenol is extracted from the ammonia liquor with a
selected solvent before the liquor goes to the ammonia stills.
Benzol or light oil have been found to be good solvents. A
substantial part of the phenol is then removed from the solvent by
distillation or by extraction with strong caustic solution.
The liquid extraction plant consists of two extraction vessels, one
for the removal of phenols from the ammonia liquor, and one for the
recovery of phenols from the solvent. Suitable means for providing
intimate contact between the solvent and the ammonia liquor is
incorporated in the first extractor. The benzol or light oil,
carrying the phenol in solution, is then treated in wasners with
caustic soda to recover the phenol as sodium phenolate. These units
are quite efficient, consistently removing and recovering from
ninety (90) to ninety-five (95) percent of the phenol from the
ammonia liquor.
b. Vagor^Recirculatign
This process utilizes the vapor pressure of phenol and operates in
conjunction with the ammonia still. The ammonia liquor first is
distilled in the free leg of the ammonia still in order to remove
the maximum quantities of the acidic gases, hydrogen suifide, carbon
dioxide, and hydrogen cyanide, but the minimum amount of phenol.
The ammonia liquor leaving the base of the "free leg" is then
transferred to the dephenolizing unit, where the phenols are
removed. The dephenolized liquor is returned to the "lime leg".
In the operation of the dephenolizing unit, the liquor is pumped
into the top of a dephenolizing tower consisting of two main
sections. In the upper section, it passes downward over wood
hurdles and meets a countercurrent flow of steam which vaporizes the
phenols.
The liquor from the base of the upper section returns to the lime
leg of the ammonia still. The phenol vapors and steam are carried
into the bottom of the tower and travel upward through steel
turnings where they meet a countercurrent flow of caustic soda which
extracts the phenols and forms sodium phenolate.
34
-------
This operation is conducted at 100°C. At this temperature, the
equilibrium of the phenol-sodium phenolate reaction is such that a
suitable balance between the utilization of sodium hydroxide and the
loss of phenol results in the conversion of about fifty (50) percent
of the available sodium hydroxide into sodium phenolate with a loss
of about five (5) percent of the phenol.
The coke oven gas is sometimes further purified following the light oil
scrubbers to remove hydrogen sulfide. The carbonate process is
sometimes used to recover elemental sulfur for sale. Some plants employ
no ammonia stills or saturators. The Keystone process recovers
anhydrous ammonia through absorption in a recycled solution of ammonium
phosphate. In a typical absorption cycle, lean forty (40) percent
phosphate solution is then rebelled in a distillation tower from which
the ammonia vapor is recovered and the lean phosphate solution is
separated for reuse. The nature of the Keystone operation is sucn that
additional light oils are recovered from the gas due to the fact that it
is cooled and compressed following the conventional light oil scrubbers.
The wastewater produced here would presumably be similar to those from
the conventional light oil decanter and agitator.
The crude coal tar is usually sold as produced. At some plants,
however, the tar is refined using a continuous type distillation unit
with multiple columns and reboilers. Ordinarily continuous distillation
results in four fractions: light oils, middle or creosote oils, heavy
oils, and anthracene oil which are cuts taken at progressively higher
temperatures. The light oils are agitated with sulfuric acid and
neutralized with caustic soda after the first crude fractionization and
then redistilled.
After naphthalene removal, the phenols and other tar acids are extracted
from the middle oil fraction with a caustic solution, neutralized and
then fractionally distilled. The wastewaters although small in volume
when compared with other coke plant waste sources do contain a variety
of organic compounds from process water uses in addition to the cooling
and condenser water found from distillation processes.
The most significant liquid wastes discharged from the coke plant are
excess ammonia liquor (varying from straight flushing liquor to still
waste), final cooling water overflow, light oil recovery wastes, and
indirect cooling water. In addition, small volumes of water may result
from coke wharf drainage, quench water overflow, and coal pile runoff.
The volume of ammonia liquor produced varied from 100 to 200 1/kkg (24
to 48 gal/ton) of coke at plants using the semi-direct ammonia recovery
process to 350 to 530 1/kkg (84 to 127 gal/ton) tor the indirect
process. As indicated above, only a few by-product coke plants utilize
the latter process.
35
-------
Indirect (non-contact) cooling water is not normally considered waste
but leaks in coils or tubes may contribute a significant source of
pollution.
Gas final cooler water is a potential source of highly toxic cyanogen
compounds. Cooling of coke oven gas in the final cooler condenses about
25 liters of water from the gas per kkg (6 gal/ton) of coke produced, in
addition to the spray water used in the direct cooling of the gas
stream. Flow volume discharged from a well-designed final cooler
recirculation system ranges from 40 to 85 1/kkg (10 to 20 gal/ton) of
coke produced.
Light oil recovery wastes will vary with the plant process. Condensed
steam from the stripping operations and cooling water constitute the
bulk of liquid wastes discharged. Flows may vary from 1,800 to 5,000
liters per kkg of coke (430 to 1,200 gal/ton) at plants which discharge
cooling water once-through to 150 1/kkg (36 gal/ton) of coke where
cooling water is recycled. Effluent from the light oil recovery plant
contains primarily phenol, cyanide, ammonia, and oil.
The quenching of coke requires about 1,800 liters of water per kkg of
coke (432 gal/ton) . Approximately 35 percent of tnis water is
evaporated by the hot coke and discharges from the quench tower as
steam. The remainder of the water flows to a settling basin for removal
of coke fines. The settled water may be recirculated or in some plants
is still permitted to overflow to the sewer. This effluent: will contain
trace amounts of phenol, cyanides, and solids but temperature is the
principal objectionable feature of the settled waste.
More specific details of the coke plant operations are saown on Figures
2 and 3.
The name beehive is derived from the fact that the original nonrecovery
ovens had an arched roof that closely resembled the typical old
fashioned beehive. The ovens are charged as soon as possible after the
previous charge is emptied in order to utilize the heat from the
previous charge to start the coking process. The oven is charged from
above; the coal pile inside the oven must be leveled to insure uniform
coking of the coal.
Coking proceeds from the top of the coal downward, so that coking time
depends mainly on the depth of the coal. The coking time will vary from
48 to 96 hours depending upon the type of coal charged and type of coke
required.
At the end of the coking cycle, the brickwork closing the door is torn
out, and the coke is quenched in the oven with water. After quenching,
the coke is drawn from the oven. The process is very dirty and
36
-------
>*
\l
p
^
t
pj
8
5?S i
fliS 3
||
1 jl
v * ,
51
o§oi!
f
01
3
-------
-------
generates smoke which discharges to the atmosphere when the brickwork
door is removed.
The beehive ovens were popular in the early nineteen hundreds, which was
prior to the existence of air pollution regulations. The gases were
simply . discharged into the atmosphere. The beehive coking industry
reached its maximum production in 1916 when more than 31 million Jtkg (34
million tons) of beehive coke were produced, this being two-tnirds (2/3)
of the total national coke production. A properly controlled beehive
oven will have very little water discharge. If water is net properly
regulated, the working area becomes quite sloppy. Therefore, it be-
hooves the operator to regulate the water to insure a good working
environment. In some instances, an impoundment lagoon is provided to
collect overflow water and settle out coke fines. Discharges from this
pond will contain phenol and cyanide.
More specific details of the beehive coke process are shown on Figures 4
and 5.
Sinterjnq^Subcat
The sintering plant as part of today's integrated steel mill has the
primary function of agglomerating and recycling fines back to the blast
furnace. Fines, consisting of iron bearing wastes such as mill scale
and dust from the basic oxygen furnace, open hearth and blast furnace
are blended with fine iron ore and limestone to make an agglomerate for
charging to the blast furnace.
The sintering is achieved by blending the various iron bearing
components and limestone with coke fines which act as a tuel. The
mixture is spread evenly on a moving down draft grate and ignited by a
gas fired ignition furnace over the bed. After ignition, the down draft
of air keeps the coke burning and as it burns, it quickly brings the bed
to fusion temperature. As the bed burns, the carbon dioxide is driven
from the limestone, and a large part of the sulfur, chloride and
fluoride is driven off with the gases. The oil in the mill scale is
vaporized and also removed with the gases.
The hot sinter is crushed as it is discharged from the sinter machine
and the crushed sinter is screened before it is air cooled on a sinter
cooler. After cooling, the sinter is sized in several size factions.
The sizing is necessary to meet the requirements of the blast furnace
operators that the feed to the blast furnace be closely sized at any one
time. The fines [below 0.6 cm (0.24 in.)] from the screening are
recycled to the beginning of the sinter process.
The sinter is very dusty and abrasive; therefore, each transfer must be
carefully hooded and dedusted. The submicron sized dust particles which
are collected are recycled to the beginning of the process.
39
-------
- IS
iiS!
-------
lisi?
•58|:
!^&
a
n
o
•L
~*T
fT-
»
-------
The areas of pollution in the sintering plant are the material handling
dust control equipment, the dust in the process gases and the
volatilized gases and oil in the process gases. The sulfur in the
process gas comes primarily from the fact that the coke fines have more
than twice the sulfur than found in larger coke. The chloride comes
from the blast furnace dust whereas the fluoride originates from the
fluorspar and the limestone used at the basic oxygen plant.
Some of the sinter plants built in the 1950's were equipped with wet
scrubbers, while others were equipped with cyclone type dust collectors.
Today's plants are generally equipped with fabric type dust filters to
minimize power costs and to avoid the problems inherent in disposing of
the scrubber effluents produced by wet dust control systems. A fabric
type filter requires about 15-20 cm (6 to 8 in.) water pressure drop to
meet emission requirements, while a high energy scrubber would require a
minimum of 152 cm (60 in.) water to achieve the same emission standards.
More specific details of the sintering operation are shown on Figures
6,7 and 8.
Pelletjzing Operation
Processing of steel plant wastes takes several forms depending on the
specific steel plant and its equipment. These forms can be identified
as follows:
1. Disposal - At several electric furnace operations, the
dust collected from the furnaces is wetted for ease
in handling and to insure that the dust does not cause
pollution after it is dumped. This is being done at
Babcock & Wilcox Company, Koppel Works.
2- Sinter_Plant^Feed - The dust from the basic oxygen
furnace or electric furnaces is wetted for ease of
handling and to insure a better and more permeable
sinter mix. This is being done at Bethlehem Steel
Company, Bethlehem Works.
3. 2Een_Hearth_Feed - If an open hearth is available, the
basic oxygen furnace and open hearth dust may be pellet-
ized and recycled to replace charge ore in the open
hearth. A plant to utilize this process is being
constructed at Bethlehem Steel Company, Sparrows Point
Works.
4- glast^Furna_qe Feed - All of the fine wastes from steel
plants may be recycled to the blast furnace by using a
cement binder and curing to insure a calcium silicate
bond which will withstand the blast furnace forces.
This process has been proven on a pilot scale but no
42
-------
-------
-------
?,,,, , ..L. ? I V I.......9
-------
plant is being planned at this time.
Processing plants for disposal, sinter plant feed and open hearth feed
are very similar and consist of a feed arrangement from the dust tight
bin to a rotating disc. A fine water spray is applied to the dust as it
rotates on the disc and as the pellets reach the desired size, they
automatically are discharged over the edge. The disc is hooded and
vented through a bag type dust collector. The product is discharged
into a truck or tote box for removal.
A plant for production of blast furnace feed would consist of a blending
and grinding system where the coarser waste material is ground fine
enough to pelletize (at least 50% minus 325 mesh). The ground material
and fine waste material are blended with a cement binder and the mixture
pelletized with a pelletizing disc in a size range from 0.95 to 1.5 cm
(0.4 to 0.6 in.). The pellets from the disc are distributed evenly on a
curing belt to a depth of atout 12 cm. The atmosphere of the curing
belt is controlled with the humidity near saturation and the temperature
gradually increasing from 20°C to 90°C in approximately three hours.
The partially cured pellets are then transferred to a curing bin where
they gain final strength in 24 hours. The pellets are screened at 0.6
cm with the fines being recycled through the process. This process
virtually eliminates all form of pollution by having no emission except
filtered air.
Mere specific details of the pelletizing process are shown on Figures 9
and 10.
Hot_Briguettirig Operation
A hot briquetting plant's primary function is to agglomerate steel plant
waste material and to make a briquette of sufficient strength to be a
satisfactory blast furnace charge. The steel plant wastes may include
mill scale, dust from the basic oxygen furnace, open heartn, electric
furnace, blast furnace and slag fines from reclamation plants, coke
breeze, limestone and pellets. Since hot briguetting plants only
process in-plant generated waste, they will be much smaller in size than
sintering plants.
The waste will be blended and pelletized to produce a reasonably uniform
1/2 x 1 centimeter diameter pellet for feeding into the fluid bed. The
cured pellets are mixed with the hot briquettes from the; nriquette press
and together they pass through a heat exchange drum where the pellets
are heated and the briquettes cooled. The heated pellets and cooled
briquettes are then separated in a vibrating screen. The preheated
pellets are then put into a fluid bed heater where they are heated to
approximately 900°C before discharge into the briquetting press. The
heat for the fluid bed heater is supplied by the oxidation of the
carbon, the iron and the magnetite in the waste material. The discharge
temperature is controlled by the amount of fluidizing air added to the
46
-------
0
I I I I
-------
$
i
i
o
-------
fluid bed. The hot gas cyclone is used to remove the not dust from the
air stream and to return the dust to the bottom of the fluid bed where
they are discharged to the briquette press.
One of the advantages of hot briquetting is that for a hot process, the
air quantity and temperature are kept to minimum. The maximum
temperature of the fluid bed is 980°C while the temperature o± the gases
from the cyclones is approximately 490°C.
Since only a small amount of coke is consumed to heat tne waste the
sulphur in the stack gas is very low. At the low temperature of the
waste (980°C) very little of the chloride or fluoride zn the blast
furnace dust and steelmaking dust will be driven off. The oil from the
mill scale will be volatilized and combusted in the fluid bed.
The first hot briquetting plant is in the design stage for Republic
Steel's South Chicago Plant. It should be completed in late 1974.
More specific details of the briquetting operation are shown on Figure
11.
Blast_Furnace_Operations
Virtually all iron made in the world today is produced in £>last furnaces
which reduce iron ore (iron oxide) to metallic iron. Iron ore,
limestone and coke are charged into the blast furnace. The coke is
burned to produce carbon monoxide gas which combines with the ore to
produce carbon dioxide gas and metallic iron. The burning coke also
supplies the heat to make the reaction proceed and to melt the metallic
iron once it is formed.
The solid raw materials are intermittently charged into the top of the
furnace. Hot air is blown into the bottom and liquid iron and slag are
drawn off from the bottom of the furnace several times each day. Blast
furnaces, depending on their size, will produce from a few hundred to in
excess of 6,000 kkg (6,600 tons) of iron per day.
The major impurity of most iron ore and coke is silica (silicon dioxide)
which has a very high melting point. Removal of this silica is
accomplished by the limestone in the furnace. At the nigh temperature
in the furnace, the lime combines with the silica to form a molten mass
of a low melting material called slag. The molten slag being lighter
than the molten iron, floats on the iron. All the iron leaves the
furnace, the floating slag is skimmed off.
There are a great variety of auxiliary operations associated with a
blast furnace. These include raw material storage and handling, air
compression and heating, gas cleaning, iron and slag handling and dust
handling.
49
-------
III
«
0
-------
The raw materials for a blast furnace are normally stored in a large
area adjacent to the furnace called the ore yard. The coke is normally
delivered directly to the furnace charging system from the railroad cars
used to ship the coke out of the coke plant. Several months supply of
raw materials are stored in the coke yard.
Approximately 3.5 kkg (3.8 tens) of air are blown through the furnace to
make one kkg (1.1 tons) of iron. This air must be compressed to three
(3) or four (4) atmospheres and heated to 800°C to 1,00000 before it is
injected into the bottom of the furnace. Large steam turbine driven
compressors are used for the compression. These turbines may be
backpressure, extracting, or condensing in design. If the steam is con-
densed, large volumes of cooling water are passed througn tne rurbine
condensers. The liguid wastes associated with nhis area would be very
similar to those found at utility power generating stations.
After compression, the air is passed through refractory filled vessels
called stoves for preheating prior to entering the furnace. Cleaned
blast furnace gas is used to preheat the refractory. Two stoves are
generally being heated with blast furnace gas while the third stove is
preheating the air prior to injection into the furnace. Water is used
at the stoves to cool the gas burners and associated equipment.
Because of the high furnace temperatures and the large furnace size, a
great deal of cooling water is associated with the operation of a blast
furnace. Most plants use once through cooling water, but in some water
shortage areas, recirculating cooling systems are used. As a general
rule, even in water plentiful areas, some degree of water reuse and
recycle is practiced.
The blast furnace proper has a great deal of water cooling associated
with it. However, on a blast furnace, the normal temperature rise is
very small by comparison to other processes. Rarely is the cooling
water temperature rise more than 5°C and frequently it is 1°C or less.
In order to conserve water, many plants will take a portion of the
cooling water from the furnace and use it in their gas cleaning
operations. Other than non-contact cooling water, tnere should be
virtually no wastewater discharges from the furnace proper.
The gases leaving the top of the furnace are hot, dust laden, and
traveling at high velocities. The gas consists primarily of a mixture
of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and water vapor. In
additon to these major components, there are trace amounts of other
gases, the most important of which is hydrogen cyanide. This gas is the
product of an unwanted reaction of the nitrogen in the air with the hot
coke in the furnace. Its concentration is influenced primarily by the
temperature of operation. A very hot furnace tends to produce more
cyanide than a cooler one. Since the furnace is run on a reducing
atmosphere, none of the normal oxides of nitrogen or sulfur are found.
Traces of hydrogen sulfide may be present. The gas is explosive and
51
-------
poisonous to the point of fatality on extended exposure mainly because
of its carbon monoxide content.
The first step in cleaning the gas so that it can be used as a fuel is
to pass it through a settling chamber called a dust catcher to settle
out the larger dust particles. This is a dry operation so no liquid
wastes result. Following the dust catcher, the gas is normally passed
through wet scrubbers and coolers. In some instances, all or part of
the gas is also passed through electrostatic precipitators for further
cleaning. It is the effluent from the gas scrubbers arid coolers that
constitute the major portion of the wastewater from the blast furnace
operations. After cleaning, the gas is burned in boilers to make steam
to drive the compressors and in the stoves to heat tne refractory that
heats the air going into the furnace.
The water from the gas cleaning operations is normally run to thickeners
where the settleable solid are removed. The sludge from the thickeners
is filtered and the recovered filter cake along with other fine iron
oxide particles, are sent to the sinter plant for agglomeration so that
they can be reused in the furnaces. The water removed from the sludge
in the filter is returned to the thickener.
A certain amount of phenol and nitrogen compounds are in the coke
delivered to the blast furnaces. The concentrations of these materials
in the coke are much nigher if the coke has been quenched at the coke
plant with one of the coke plant waste streams. These compounds
evaporate from the coke in the top of the furnace and come out of the
furnace with the top gas. A certain portion of them are transferred to
the water in the gas scrubbers.
There are two common processes for handling the slag which is drawn off
a furnace. These are air cooling and slag granulation. In the
granulation process, slag is usually run into a pit of water adjacent to
the furnace. High pressure streams of water disassociate the column of
liquid slag as it falls into the pit. This rapid, unrestricted cooling
causes the slag to expand and crack into small particles tiiat resemble
brown sand. This process generates a great deal of steam which passes
off into the atmosphere with a slight odor .of nydrogen sulfide.
Granulated slag is lighter than sand and some of the particles tend to
float. The use of this process has declined in recent years to some
extent because of the difficulty of keeping the floating slag particles
out of the receiving waterways and the problems of air pollution caused
by the steam plume.
In the air cooled slag process, the molten slag is poured into dry pits
in the ground for slow cooling. A limited amount of water is sprayed on
the hot slag to accelerate the cooling. The slag slowly solidifies into
one solid mass in the pit and is dug out with a power shovel. Most of
the water sprayed on the hot slag evaporates, but if the sprays are not
properly controlled, excess water is used and it drains from the pit as
52
-------
a contaminated liquid. The composition of the overflow from the slag
granulating operation and the drainage from the air cooling pits will be
similar except for concentration. The granulated effluent will be much
more dilute. The effluents from slag operations will contain reduced
compounds, normally sulfides.
Large volumes of water are required to operate a blast, furnace and its
associated equipment. A major portion of the water is used for the non-
contact cooling of the blast furnace hearth and shell, the stove burners
and to condense the steam used to drive the air compressors. This water
increases approximately 1-5°C in temperature; otherwise it is discharged
in essentially its original state.
A lesser portion of the water is used for contact cooling the blast
furnace gas and slag quenching as well as for blast furnace gas
cleaning. These waters contain settleable solids and traces of various
chemicals contained in the blast furnace gas stream and the slag. The
blast furnace gas scrubbing water represents the major portion of the
wastewater from the blast furnace area.
More specific details of the blast furnace operation are shown on
Figures 12,13,14 and 15.
Steelmaking^Operations
There are three primary methods in use today for the production of
steel, the electric arc furnace, the open hearth furnace and the basic
oxygen furnace.
The newest method, the basic oxygen furnace, was introduced in the early
fifties and is now rapidly replacing the older open hearth practice. In
1972 the basic oxygen process accounted for 56% of steel production, the
open hearth 26.3%, and the electric arc furnace 17.7%.
Each method generally uses the same type of basic raw materials to
produce the steel and also results in generally the same waste products
such as slag (fluxes), smoke, fume and waste gases.
The basic raw materials for the manufacture of steel are hot metal
(iron), scrap steel, limestone, burnt lime (CaO), fluorspar (CaF2),
dolomite (MgCO3 and CaCO3) and iron ores (oxides or iron). Other iron
bearing materials such as pellets and mill scale are used when
available. Alloying materials such as ferro manganese, ferro silicon,
etc., are used to finish the steel composition to required
specifications. These are added to the steel ladle and sometimes
directly in the furnace steel bath. The raw materials are shipped,
railroaded or trucked into the plant and are unloaded by means of chutes
and conveyor systems into storage bins. In some plants, they are
unloaded at an unloading station and mill cranes or special cars, charge
the raw materials into the furnaces.
53
-------
o
MM
*y a
o*g
m
p$
%u
Mh
-------
,,,,1 ?
-------
d.
|
IL
-------
-------
The waste products derived from the material handling systems are
generally airborne contaminants of dust, fumes, and smoke and do not
become waterborne until some type of wet dust collector system is
utilized.
All three furnace methods use pure oxygen and/or air to refine the hot
metal (iron) and other metallics into steel by oxidizing and removing
the elements present such as silicon, phosphorus, manganese and carbon.
Certain oxides such as silicon dioxide, manganese oxide, phosphorus
pentoxide and iron oxide are fluidized in the slag whicn floats on the
metal surface while oxides of carbon are emitted as gases.
S§sic_Ox_ygen_Furnace_ Operation
The basic oxygen furnace steelmaking process is a method of producing
steel in a pear shaped refractory lined open mouth furnace with a
mixture of hot metal, scrap and fluxes. Pure oxygen is injected at
supersonic velocities through water cooled copper tipped steel lance for
approximately 20 minutes with a total tap-to-tap cycle of approximately
45 minutes. As this process is exothermic (heat generating), a definite
percentage of steel scrap can be melted without use of external fuel
requirements. The general ratio is about 10% hot metal and 30/6 scrap.
The furnace is supported on trunnions mounted in bearings and is rotated
for tapping (pouring) of steel ladles and dumping the slag.
The waste products from this process are heat, airborne fluxes, slag,
carbon monoxide and dioxide gases and oxides of iron (FeOf Fe2O3, Fe304j
emitted as submicron dust. Also when the hot metal (iron) is poured
into ladles or the furnace, submicron iron oxide fume is released and
some of the carbon in the iron will precipitate out as graphite,
commonly called kish. All of these contaminants become airborne. Fumes
and smoke are again released when the steel is poured into steel holding
(teeming) ladles from the furnace. Approximately 2% of the ingot steel
production is ejected as dust.
The basic oxygen furnaces are always equipped with some type of gas
cleaning systems for containing and cooling the huge volumes of hot
gases (1,650°C) and submicrcn fume released.
Water is always used to quench the off-gases to temperatures where the
gas cleaning equipment can effectively handle them. Two main process
types of gas cleaning systems are used for the basic oxygen furnace,
precipitators and venturi scrubbers, but in each case the Hot gases are
quenched to a lower temperature. In the venturi scrubbers, the gases
are quenched and saturated to 80°C whereas for the precipitators the
gases are cooled to approximately 250°C.
As the main gas constituent released from the process is carbon
monoxide, it will burn outside of the furnace if allowed to come in
contact with air.
58
-------
The major gas cleaning systems in use today, purposely furnish air for
burning of this gas. An open hood just above the furnace mouth is
provided for the burning, and conveying of gases and fumes to the gas
cleaning system. The hoods themselves are made in severaj. different
geometric configurations (round, square, octagonal) and are eitner water
cooled or are waste heat steam generating boilers. A special type of
wet venturi scrubber and hood is sometimes used where the hood clamps
tightly over the furnace mouth and prevents the carbon monoxide gas from
burning. The gas is then either collected for fuel or curned at the
stack outlet.
If venturi scrubbers are used, the majority of the airborne contaminants
are mixed with water and discharged as an effluent. Generally, water
clarification equipment is provided for treatment of tais effluent.
In the case of precipitators, two approaches are used for quenching
(cooling) the gases. One is to have an exact heat balance between water
required and gas cooling; no effluent is discharged in this case as all
of the water is evaporated. The other approach is to pass the gas
through a water spray thus oversupplying the water which is discharged
as an effluent. This is commonly referred to as a spark box chamber
whereas the other is an evaporation chamber.
More specific details of the basic oxygen furnace are shown on Figures
16 through 20.
Qpen_Hearth^Furnace_Qperation
The open hearth furnace steelmaking process is an older method of
producing steel in a shallow rectangular refractory basin or hearth
enclosed by refractory lined walls and roof. The furnace front wall is
provided with water cooled lined doors for the means of charging raw
materails into the furnace. A plugged tap hole at the base of the wall
opposite to the doors is provided to drain the finished molted steel in-
to ladles. Open hearth furnaces can utilize an all-scrap steel charge
but generally are used with a 50-50 charge of hot metal and steel scrap.
Fuel in the form of oil, coke oven gas, natural gas, pitch, creosote,
tar, etc., is burned at one end of the hearth to provide heat for
melting of scrap and other process requirements and the type of fuel
utilized depends upon the plant economics and fuel availability. The
hot gases from refining process and combustion of fuel travels the
length of hearth above the raw materials charge and is conducted into a
flue downward to a regenerator brick chamber called cneckerwork or
checkers. These brick masses absorb heat and cool the waste gases to
650-750°C. The combustion system burners, checkers and flues are
duplicated at each end of furnace, which permits frequent and systematic
reversal of flows, flue gases and preheated air for combustion.
59
-------
-------
I ° I
i i I i i i i r i i i i i I
-------
-------
piJSItp
¥ liP
i(.-8i5,-f8ll
!|^.8S|
j!s5«!tlsg$
»jsr
J*!«
P-.-SS
?i
?j
rr
1
5f
in
t
ii
i\l ^^r~t^-
I!
N
i
i
ii
c ?
H
u c
II
So-
il!
^i
Bx
81
&
»i
11 t
*w
Iff
«*• 1-
;;s
,us
f !$!
„ 55!»5*
<*<:s;
ISSi
f « «d J a*
« ?!«o. j^
;« OJC""**;
2i!i""Bl
5 a Js *
• 8»? a
p
-------
-------
A system of valves in the flues effect the gas reversal so that heat
stored in checkers is used to preheat the incoming furnace combustion
air. In some plants, the gases leaving the checkers pass through waste
heat boilers which further reduce the waste gas temperature to 260-
315°C. sometimes pure oxygen is lanced over the bath to speed up the
oxidation (refining) cycle. The tap to tap time will vary from five to
8 hours with oxygen lancing as oppose to eight to 12 hours without
oxygen. Where the basin refactory material is composed of silica sand,
the furnace is described as an "Acid" Furnace and when the £>asin is
lined with dolomite or magnesite it is termed a "Basic" Furnace. The
"Basic" Open Hearth process is the method generally used in the United
States due to the Basic Process being able to remove phosphorus and
sulfur from iron and ores whereas "Acid" Furnace requires selected raw
materials that contain minimum amounts of these elements. Most ores
mined in the United States contain some amounts of phosphorus and
sulfur.
The open hearth cycle consists of several stages i.e., fettling,
charging, meltdown, hot metal addition, ore and lime boil, refining,
tapping, and delay. The period of time between tap and start (fettling)
is spent on normal repairs to the hearth and plugging the tap hole used
in the previous heat.
During the charging period, the solid raw materials such as pig iron,
iron ore, limestone, scrap iron and steel are dumped into the furnace by
special charging machines. The melting period begins wnen the first
scrap has been charged. The direction of the flame is then reversed
every 15-20 minutes. When the solid material has melted/ a charge of
hot metal is put into the furnace. This is normal procedure for a "hot-
metal" furnace but in the case of a "cold metal" furnace, solid
materials are added usually in two batch charges. The hot metal
addition is followed by the ore and lime boil, caused by oxidized gases
rising to surface of the melt.
Carbon monoxide is generated by oxidation of carbon and is called "ore
boil". When the carbon dioxide is released in calcination of the
limestone, the turbulence is called "lime boil". The refining period is
used to lower the steel phosphorus and sulfur content to specified
levels, eliminate carbon and allow time for proper conditioning of slag
and attainment of proper bath temperature. At the end of the working
period, the furnace is tapped at a tath temperature of approximately
1,650°C.
The waste products from the open hearth process are slag, oxides of iron
ejected as submicron dust and waste gases composed of air, carbon
dioxide, water vapor, oxides of sulfur and nitrogen (due to the nature
of certain fuels being burned) and oxides of zinc if quantities of
galvanized steel scrap are used. Fluorides may be emitted from open
hearth furnaces both as gaseous and particulate matter. In most
instances, the source of fluoride is fluorspar (CaF2) used during the
65
-------
final stage of the heat. Iron oxide fume (dust) is generated at the
rate of 12.5 kg/kkg (lb/1,000 It) of steel. The gas and dust generation
rate is fairly constant over the heat cycle except during oxygen
lancing.
The older shops did not have any type of gas cleaning equipment and the
fume and gases were ejected through the waste heat stacks.
Some of the newer shops are equipped with dust collection units and some
of the older shops have added collection systems. Two types again are
used, precipitators or venturi scrubbers. As the precipitators are
generally dry systems, no waterborne effluents are discnarged. The
venturi scrubbers do discharge an effluent and because of the presence
of sulphur oxides, the water is of acid nature.
More specific details of the open hearth process are shown on Figures
21,22 and 23.
Electric_Arc_Furnace_Qperation
The electric arc furnace steelmaking process is a method of producing
high quality and alloy steels in refractory lined cylindrical furnaces
utilizing a cold steel scrap charge and fluxes. Sometimes a portion of
hot metal will be charged or a lower grade of steel is produced in the
basic oxygen furnace or open hearth and then is alloyed in the electric
furnace. The latter is known as duplexing. The heat ror melting the
scrap charge, fluxes, etc., is furnished by passing an electric current
(arcing) through the scrap or steel bath by means of three (3)
triangularly spaced cylindrical carbon electrodes inserted through the
furnace roof.
The electrodes are consumable and oxidize at a rate of five to eight
kg/kkg (lb/1,000 lb) of steel. Larger tonnage furnaces have hinged
removal roofs for scrap addition while smaller furnaces are charged
through furnace doors. Furnaces range in size from 18 to 365 kkg (20 to
UOO ton) heats and 2 to 9 m (approximately 2 to 10 yds) in diameter.
The heat cycle time is generally four to five hours. Production of some
high quality steels requires the use of two different slags for the same
heat, referred to as oxidizing and reducing slags. The first slag is
removed from the furnace and new fluxes added for the second slag. The
period of a reducing slag requires a slight positive pressure be
maintained in furnace to prevent infiltration of air or further
oxidizing of steel. The heat cycle generally consists of charging,
meltdown, molten metal period, oxidizing, refining and tapping
(pouring). Pure oxygen is sometimes lanced across the bath to speed up
the oxidation cycle which in turn will reduce the electrical current
consumption.
The waste products from the process are smoke, slag, carbon monoxide and
Dioxide gases and mainly oxides of iron emitted as submicron fume.
66
-------
-------
-------
-------
Other waste contaminants such as zinc oxides from galvanized scrap will
be released dependent upon type and quality of scrap utilized. High oil
bearing scrap will yield heavy reddish-black smoxe as the oils are
burned off at start of meltdown cycle. Oxides of nitrogen and ozone are
released during the arcing of electrodes. Generally, 5 kg of dust/kkg
(lb/1,000 Ib) of steel is expected, but this may reach as high as 15
kg/kkg if inferior scrap is used. The waste products are airborne and
do not become waterborne unless some type of wet fume collector is used.
Three types of dust collectors are used—baghouses, scrubbers and dry
precipitators. In addition to the type of dust collectors, there are
generally four different means of exhausting the fume generated by the
electric furnaces:
1. Plant rooftop or furnace building extraction
2. Local fume hoods
3. Water cooled roof elbow
4. Fourth hole extraction
The plant roof top or building extraction requires the sealing up of the
shop buildings and installation of exhaust hoods in rooftop trusses for
exhausting the fume as generated by furnaces. A baghouse collector is
used for cleaning of the exhaust gases. This system requires huge
volumes of exhaust air [36,500 cubic meters (1,300,000 cu ft) per minute
for a shop consisting of five 45 kkg (50 ton) furnacesj and large
baghouse collectors, but the system is readily adaptable to electric
furnaces using the double slagging practice and does capture most
fugitive emissions from other furnace operations such as tapping,
slagging, etc.
The second type of furnace exhaust are local exhaust hoods fitted
adjacent to door openings, electrode openings and around junctures
between roof and furnace shell. A baghouse collector is used with this
type of exhaust as fume, smoke, and gases are captured as they bleed
through the furnace openings and enough cool air is drawn into system
that the hot gases are tempered. These systems are not effective when
hinged type furnace roofs are in an open position during scrap charging.
The third type and fourth type of furnace exhaust are similar except the
water cooled elbows are generally tightly fitted to the furnace roofs
and the hot gases are exhausted from furnace interior through the cooled
elbow. A combustion air space is left between the water cooled elbow
and the gas cleaning ductwork to provide for combustion air for any
carbon monoxide gases being emitted from furnaces.
The fourth hole constitutes a fourth refractory lined hole in the
furnace roof. A space is left between the fourth hole exhaust port and
the gas cleaning ductwork to again provide combustion air for carbon
monoxide gases being emitted from furnace. Both exhaust systems can be
used with all three types of dust collectors. If baghouses are used, a
70
-------
spray chamber is added to gas cleaning system to condition the gas
temperature to 135°C.
If precipitators are used, a spark box is added to rhe system to
condition gases generally to 260°C but if high energy venturi scrubbers
are used, the gases are quenched to their saturation temperature by
means of quenchers located near the furnaces. The spray chamber, spark
box and quenchers discharge a water effluent.
When the steel from any of the three steelmaking processes is tapped
(poured) into the steel holding ladles (teeming ladles), tne ladle of
steel is transported by crane or ladle transfer car to a teeming or
continuous casting area. Soiretimes the customer's specifications
require further treatment and alloying of the steel for which the steel
is then first transported to a vacuum degassing process area.
More specific details of the electric furnace process are snown on
Figures 24,25 and 26.
Vacuum Degassing Subcategory
In the vacuum degassing process, steel is further refined by subjecting
the molten steel to a high vacuum (low pressure). This process further
reduces hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen content, improves steel
cleanliness, allows production of very low carbon steel and enhances
mechanical properties of the steel. Vacuum degassing facilities fall
into three major categories:
1. Recirculating degassing, where metal is forced into a
refactory-lined degassing chamber by atmospneric pressure,
exposed to low pressure (vacuum) and then discharged from
chamber.
2. Stream degassing in which falling streams of molten metal are
exposed to a vacuum and then collected under vacuum in an ingot
mold or ladle.
3. Ladle degassing, where the teeming ladle is subsequently
positioned inside a degassing chamber where the metal is
exposed to vacuum and stirred by argon gas or electrical
induction.
The recirculatory systems are cf two types D-H (Dortmuna Harder) and the
R-H (Ruhrstal-Heraeus).
The R-H system is characterized by a continuous flow o± steel rhrough
the degassing vessel by means of two nozzles inserted in the teeming
ladle molten steel while the D-H system is characterized by a single
nozzle inserted in the molten steel. The R-H system degassing chamber
71
-------
-------
-------
-------
and ladle are stationary while the D-H system ladle oscillates up and
down.
A four or five stage steam jet ejector with barometric condenser is used
to draw the vacuum. A means of providing heat is furnished in the
process by electric carbon heating rods to replace heat loss in the
process or in some cases to raise the temperature of the steel bath.
Alloys are generally added during this process ana cycle rime is
approximately 25 to 30 minutes.
The waste products from vacuum degassing process are condensed steam and
waste with iron oxide fumes and CO gases entrained in the discharge
effluent.
More specific details of the vacuum degassing process are shown on
Figure 28.
Continuous Casting Subcateggry
Steel that is not teemed into ingot molds can be cast in a process known
as continuous casting. In the continuous casting process billets,
blooms, slabs and other shapes are cast directly from the teeming ladle
hot metal, thus eliminating the ingots, molds, mold preparation, soaking
pits and stripping facilities. In this process, the steel ladle is
suspended above a preheated covered steel refractory lined rectangular
container with several nozzles in the bottom called a "tundish". The
tundish regulates the flow of hot steel from teeming ladles to the
continuous casting molds by means of nozzle orifice size, ferrostatic
head or using stoppered nozzles to shut off the flow of steel.
When casting billets or blooms, several parallel casting molds are
served by one tundish. Each mold and its associated mechanical
equipment is called a "strand" and casting units are generally two,
four, or six strand machines.
The casting molds are water-cooled copper molds, chrome plated
conforming to the desired shape to be cast. To start the casting
process, a dummy bar is fed back into the strand and blocks the bottom
of the mold opening. As the hot steel flows through the tunaish nozzles
into the casting mold, a hard steel exterior shape forms from the
cooling with a molten steel center. The casting molds oscillate to
prevent sticking and help discharge the solidified product from the
mold. After the cast product is discharged from the molds, the cast
product enters a spray chamber where sprays further cool tne cast
product. After the spray section, the cast product is either cut off by
a shear or acetylene torch and product tipped to the horizontal for
discharge through the "run-out" table and stacker units or the product
is curved to the horizontal by means of bending rolls. After the prod-
uct is in a horizontal direction, it is re-straightened and then cut to
75
-------
i_]__t[ LJ-J ' LJ ' '
U I 0
0$
tir ^\
-------
ill
tf
3
(3
4.
-------
desired length. The curved type of machine reduces the height
requirements of the casting machine building.
Three water systems serve the casting machine; they include mold
cooling, machine cooling and spraying. Mold and macnine cooling are
performed in closed recycle systems whereas the spray water is an open
recycle system. The waste products from this process are iron oxide
scale, oil contaminants from machinery, heat and a limited amount of
gases from the acetylene torch cut off units. At the discharge zone of
the spray chamber, "pinch rolls" regulate the speed of discharge of cast
product from the molds. The casting strand contains other rolls called
"apron" rolls and "support" rolls which keep the cast product in proper
alignment.
More specific details of the continuous casting operation are shown on
Figure 29.
Ingot Casting Operation
The three steelmaking processes are housed in mill buildings and
generally the building interior is identified by three main aisles
called the charging aisle, furnace aisle, and the teeming aisle. The
teeming aisle consists of a long building aisle with elevated brick
lined platforms on one side where strings of flat bed railroad cars
called "drags" are stationed. A drag generally will consist of five or
six coupled cars.
On the bed of each car are stationed cast iron ingot molds and in turn
the molds are seated on flat cast iron plates called "stools". The
teeming aisle crane holds the ladle over each ingot mold. By means of a
ladle stopper rod, operated by personnel stationed on teeming platforms,
the steel is poured through a bottom ladle nozzle into the ingot mold.
When the mold is filled, the operator closes the stopper rod which
blocks the nozzle opening while the teeming crane shifts to next ingot
mold. After finishing pouring the steel, the teeming crane dumps any
slag remaining in the ladle and returns for another heat of steel.
The ingots are allowed to cool so a hard sheet forms and then drags are
routed to a mold stripper area where the ingot mold is separated from
the hot ingot by means of a special type stripper crane. The hot ingots
are then transported to soaking pits where they are reneated in
preparation for rolling in rolling mills. The ingot molds are
transported to a mold preparation area, where they are cooled, cleaned
and sprayed with an anti-sticking compound. During the teeming
operation, some materials are added to the steel such as aluminum or
lead shot. The aluminum acts as an oxidizing agent whereas lead is
added for freer machining type steels. The waste products from teeming
and mold cycle are contaminants that are airborne or have been spilled
and reach sewers via groundwater.
78
-------
u •
n
h U
2 0
U f
-------
More specific details of the ingot casting operation are shown on Figure
30.
Pig Gagting Operation
The molten iron from the blast furnace is generally used in the molten
state in basic oxygen, open hearth, and electric furnaces. Occasionally
due to equipment failures and production scheduling, it becomes
necessary to cast the surplus molten iron into pigs. This is done in
the pig machine.
Most pig machines consist of two strands of endless chains carrying a
series of parallel cast-iron molds or troughs with overlapping edges
which pass over a head and tail sprocket wheel. Molten iron is poured
into the mold near the tail sprocket, solidifies and is cooled by water
sprays as the chain rises to the head sprocket. As the cnain reverses
direction while passing over the head sprocket, the solid pig falls from
the mold into waiting railroad cars or trucks. On the return travel of
the chain, the molds are sprayed with a lime wash. This acts as a mold
release and prevents the molten iron from adhering to the cast iron
mold.
The lime wash used to coat the molds iray create a housekeeping problem
around the pig machine. Small volumes of water are used to wash down
the area and to clean the spray equipment. Water is also required to
cool the pigs. This water also washes off the surplus lime from the
molds. Some plants may divert this runoff to a small basin which is
periodically cleaned out. However, due to the small volume of water and
the intermittent nature of the pig operation, there is no overflow from
this pit.
Generally, most plants limit the water use in the area and do not have a
basin. Therefore, the water is controlled so as not to provide a poor
working area.
Slagging Operation
For all of the three steelmaking processes, slag is always generated.
The slag is generally deposited into ladles from the furnaces. These
ladles are transported to a slag dump where the slag is allowed to air
cool or is sprayed with water. The slag is then transported to a slag
processing plant where the steel scrap is reclaimed and the slag crushed
into a saleable product. The waste products from this process are
generally airborne dust and become waterborne when wet dust collecting
systems are added. When open hearth slag is wetted, hydrogen sulfide
will be emitted due to sulfur content of slag.
More specific details of the slagging operation are shown on Figure 31.
Rationale for Categorization - Fagtors Considered
80
-------
-------
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I ! I I I t
T)
2*
u
-------
With respect to identifying any relevant, discrete categories tor the
iron and steel industry, the following factors were considered in
determining industry sub-categories for the purpose of the application
of effluent limitation guidelines and standards of performance:
1. Manufacturing processes
2. Products
3. Waste water constituents
4. Gas cleaning equipment
5. Waste treatability
6. Size and age
7. Land availability
8. Aqueous waste loads
9. Process water usage
^fter considering all of these factors, was concluded that the iron and
steel industry is comprised of separate and distinct processes with
snough variability in product and waste to require categorizing into
nore than one giant unit operation. The individual processes, products,
and the waste water constituents comprise the most significant factors
Ln the categorization of this most complex industry. Process
descriptions are provided in this section of the report delineating the
detailed processes along with their products and sources of wastewaters.
The use of various gas cleaning equipment, particularly in the
isteelmaking categories, lends itself to a further subdivision into wet,
;3emi-wet, and dry subcategories. Gas cleaning is also discussed under
process descriptions. Waste treatability in itself is of such magnitude
•:hat in some industries, categorization might be based strictly on the
waste treatment process. However, with the categorization based
primarily on the process with its products and wastes, it is more
reasonable to treat each process waste treatment system under the
individual category or subcategory. Waste treatability is discussed at
Length under Section VII, control and Treatment Technology. Size and
c.ge of the plants has no direct bearing on the categorization. The
processes and treatment systems are similar regardless of the age and
sdze of the plant. Tables 34-43 provide, in addition to the plant size,
•t.he geographic location of the plant along with the age of the plant and
1.he treatment plant. It can be noted that neither the wastes nor the
•Treatment will vary in respect -to the age or size factor. The
forementioned tables should be tied back to the discussion in Sections
VII and VIII, related to raw waste loads, treatment systems and plant
effluents. Therefore, age and size in itself would not substantiate
industry categorization.
The number and type of pollutant parameters of significance varies with
the operation being conducted and the raw materials used. The waste
volumes and waste loads also vary with the operation. In order to
prepare effluent limitation that would adequately reflect these
variations in significant parameters and waste volumes the industry was
83
-------
0)
r-f
rH
OJ
-P
CO
d
H
-P
d !H
(ti (0
r-H (1)
P4 >H
fM
cn
o
CO
10
CM
^D
CTi
in
o
(N
tTi
d
Q)
e
Q)
n
EH
0) -P
N O
•H 2
CO 13
0
13 M
"3* d ft
co (0 I
w
m
D pa
1
fU
13
\
tr>
^
^4
o
rH
VD
**
CU
rH
13
13
•rH
S
U
•rH
-P
£
a
rH
4-)
<
O
O
O
•-H
0) -P
rH d
13 rH
•H -P
S f£
o
o
m
d
QJ
-P
!H
O
en
(D
tO
4J
fO
Q)
^
O
o
0
IT)
d
V_l
cu
w
fO
0)
-p
5q
O
-P
d
m
rH
ft
u
p
84
-------
-P
U)
£
H
-P
.0
g
O
k£3
O1
P
fi
0)
g
-P
tO
0)
in
m
w
N (U
•H >
t/> -H
X5
'd o
C 0)
-------
0)
r-l
H
(d
H
-P
fi
(d
rH
Pk
-P
0)
o
-*
(Ti
r-
(T\
,-1
-t
N 0)
•H 4->
U} C
•H
fd I
l
4J
4-) fd
O T5
O
a
o
-H
4J
id
o
o
o
o
oo
IT)
O
•H
QJ 4J
•H fi
•H 4J
a
4J rd
>H CU
O M
2 O
o
o
n
CM
en
0)
44
c! td
H iJ
(D
X! 4->
4-) fd
M 0)
O M
0)
4J
in
fd
d)
4J
d
PU
86
-------
0)
rH
rH
tO
-p
to H
•p
fi
0)
g
-p
to
0)
SH
EH
(Ti
IT)
cr\
O1
n
W
h}
to
CD
o
0) tO
N a
•rH S I
•d
c -p
to tn
(0
CD rH
Cnpq
(D
-P EM
(0 I
H
CM Cr>
•H
I
O
SH
0)
(0
-P
tn SH
tO
0)
a
H
-P
fO
LD
LT>
CTi
I
O
O
CTi
a
o
•H >i
•P tO
o »d
£5 "X.
'd en
O J4
PM
fi
O
•H
-P
tO
O
o
i-q
-P
(0
0
o
(N
CM
c
SH
0)
rj
-P
^_l
O
J
w
a)
^
fO
i_i]
-p
(0
CD
SH
O
o
o
LO
ro
C
SH
d)
rj
4-)
SH
O
2
o
o
m
ro
tn
CD
y
(0
J
4-)
tO
cu
SH
O
0
LD
(Ti
, — |
rH
10
SH
4-1
C
CD
U
^
U
•rl
4H
•H
U
(0
CM
0
0
in
rH
a
SH
OJ
r\ u}
4-> tO
3 X
O CD
0
-------
TS
0)
rH
H
H
G
rtj
-P
a
Q>
S
4J
rtJ
QJ
OO
rn
H
w
OJ
o
rd
0) C
N JH
•H 3
en fa
T3 -P
G to
rd rd
rH
H
-p
G
rd
O
•H
-P
O
rd
in
^r
en
•d tn
O
o
in
o
•H
4J
rrj
O
O
U
•rH
4-)
Tf
•rl
a
rd
rH
88
-------
0)
id
•P
en
H
-P
a n
id id
H Q)
ft >i
-P
a
6
-P
id
oo
a-\
en
<-3
O
\0
EH
en
n
W
w
OJ
o
id
c
(D 3
N PM
•rH
CO C
(U
id x
O
(D
tn u
<| -rH
cn
-P id
a pa
id
rH I
ft
tn
•H
A?
id
S
d)
(U
-P
CO
rH
-P
W rH
c! i
-P id
U T3
O
ft
00
CTi
in
CTi
(Ti
o
o
tn in
in
og
o
CO
CO
en
£
O
•r|
-P
id
u
o
o
•H
a) -p
i 1 C
*^ flJ
T3 rH
•H -P
S
S <
w
(!)
a id
M A
(U
x: -P
-P id
rl 0)
O JH
U
• r-|
QJ -P
rH C
T3 id
T3 i — 1
•H -P
s <
•p
c
id
•H
ft
«
89
-------
H
-P
d
i
-P 05
U T!
O
M
d
o
•H
-P
(tf
O
O
CN
IT)
tn
un
(Ti
H
I
CTi
rH
O
ro
ro
OJ
o
•H
-P
d
a)
13 H
•H -P
a <
13
•H
a
o
•H
-P
d
(0
-P
d
cfl
H
ftl
X
90
-------
CU
rd
-P
CO
G
-P
G ^
td (d
•H 0)
CTi
00
cr>
s
4->
fd
OJ
LE
CO
CD
O
(U C
N S-i
•H 3
CO fa
C -H
4-1
CD U
tn CD
4-)
W
T3
CU
H
H
fd
CO >H
G fd
H CU
>H
4-1
G
fd
H
ft
in
in
r-
<&
(Tl
cr>
tn
C
•rH
fd
g
CD
0)
4-1
CO
o
•H
4J
U
O
M
ft
G
O
•rH
4-1
rd
U
O
o
^
m
in
CU
rH
r^3
t3
•H
s
o
-rH
4J
G
rd
rH
4-1
ff,
£
rH
(U
r|
4-1
J-l
O
to
CU
rd
i_3
4J
rd
CU
)H
O
j;.
S-l
CU
4-1
3
O
CO
00
rd
X
CU
EH
G
SH
CD
r]
4-1
^3
O
CO
to
rd
X
CD
EH
G
fd
rH
ft
91
-------
o;
rH
rH
ti
-P
V)
G
H
Oi
-P
c
QJ
6
-P
rtf
«J
O
o
r-
CTl
cn
CN
LE
N
•rH
cn tr>
C
T3-H
C W
rtf cn
rti
H
4J
c!
o
•H >,
-P OJ
O 13
3 \
tJ Cn
O .X
SH ^
AJ
o
r^
CTi
CTl
H
o o o
m in o
m cr\ o
VD in rH
a
o
-H
-P
nj
o
o
0)
rH
O
•rl
rd
rH
4J
0)
X!
4J
3
O
CO
03
rtf
X
cu
EH
-P
C!
rtf
O
Q
92
-------
TJ
0)
-P
CO
c
H
-P
C
(0
Q)
en
rH
(Tl
rq
W
Q)
N
•H tr>
W £
•H
T3 -P
CJ CO
m (0
u
QJ
tn W
a)
-P
CO
a
H
-P
a
CTl
VD
CTi
C
O
U
a
o
•H >,
-P rd
O Tl °
3 < in
•d tP oo
O ^ CN
l_l l>
M ,X
ft
C
O °
•H --H
^J Q) -P
(TJ rH C
o "d
-------
subcategorized primarily along operational lines, wicii permatations
where necessary, as indicated in Table 4.
94
-------
TABLE 4
Sutcategorization
of the
Steel Making Operations
of the
Iron and Steel Industry
I. By Producr Coke Subcategory
II. Beehive Coke Subcategory
III. Sintering Subcategory
IV. Blast Furnace (Iron) Sutcategory
V. Blast Furnace (Ferromanganese) Subcategory
VI. Basic Oxygen Furnace (Semi Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
VII. Basic Oxygen Furnace (Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
VIII.Open Hearth Furnace Operation
IX. Electric Arc Furnace (Semi Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
X. Electric Arc Furnace (Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
XI. Vacuum Degassing Subcategory
XII. Continuous Casting Subcategory
*Air Pollution Control Methods
95
-------
Listings by the main succategories have been compiled for all steel-
making plants in the United States. They are presented in table form as
follows:
TABLE _SUBCATEGOEY
5. By-Product Coke Plants
6. Beehive Coke Plants
7. Sintering
8. Blast Furnace - Iron Making
9. Blast Furnace - Ferromanganese
10. Basic Oxygen Furnaces
11. Open Hearth Furnaces
12. Electric Arc Furnaces
13. Vacuum Degassing
14. Continuous Casting
The following sources were utilized to compile data on plants in each
subcategory:
a. Directory of the Iron and Steel Works of the World, 5th
Edition, Metal Bulletin Books Ltd., London, England.
b. AISI, Directory of the Iron and Steel Works of the U, S.
and Canada, 1970.
c. Directory of Iron and Steel Plants, 1971
d. Battelle Coke Report
e. Iron and Steel Engineer, December, 1969; January, 1973.
f. EPA Project R800625 (unpublished)
g. 33 Magazine, July and October, 1972; July, 1970
h. Keystone Coal Industry Manual.
Selection_of Candidate Plants for Visits
A survey of existing treatment facilities and their performance was
undertaken to develop a list.of best plants for consideration for plant
visits. Information was obtained from:
(a) The study contractors personnel
(b) State Environmental Agencies
(c) EPA Personnel
(d) Personal Contact
96
-------
(e) Literature Search
Since the steel industry is primarily situated in fifteen (15) states,
greatest contribution was obtained from state and EPA personnel located
in the following states:
a. Alabama b. California c. Colorado
d. Illinois e. Indiana f. Kentucky
g. Maryland h. Michigan i. Missouri
j. New York k. Ohio 1. Pennsylvania
m. Texas n. Utah o. West Virginia
Personal experiences and contacts provided information required to
assess plant processes and treatment technology. Although an extensive
literature search was conducted, the information was generally sketchy
and could not be relied upon solely without further investigation.
Upon completion of this plant survey, the findings were compiled and
preliminary candidate lists were prepared on those plants that were
considered by more than one source to be providing the best waste
treatment. These lists were submitted to the EPA by the study
contractor for concurrence on sites to be visited. The rationale for
plant selections in all the subcategories is presented in Table 15. In
several instances, last minute substitutions had to be made because of
the non-availability of the plant. In several other instances, while at
the plant an additional sub-category was sampled to provide a complete
study of several systems that were tied together, i.e., blast furnace-
sinter plant, continuous casting-degassing-BOF. Table 16 presents a
summary of the requirements for the study.
Tables five through fifteen are on file and available for perusal at the
library of the Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
(Reference No. EP - 03B - 000 - 001) .
97
-------
TABLE 16
IRON AND STEELMAKItlG OPERATIONS
INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIZATION AND
SURVEY REQUIREMENTS
Main Cateqory
I. Coke Making
II. Burden
Preparation
III. Iron Making
IV. Steelmaking
V. Degassing
VI. Continuous
Casting
VII. Fugitive
Runoffs
Subcategory
A. By-Product
3. Beehive
A. Sintering
B. Palletizing
C. Briquet ting
A. Blast Furnace
Iron
B. Blast Furnace
Ferro
Additives
A. Basic Oxygen
Furnace
B. Open Hearth
C. Electric
Furnace
-
-
A. Ingot Casting
B. Pig Casting
C. Coal Pile
D. Ore Pile
E. Stone file
F. Slagging
Number
Surveyed
4
3
3
**
**
5
1
5
2
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
Subcategory to be Investigated
Each of 4 types to preferably
have different production unit
operations
1 - Beehive type
3 - saiiw type*
-
-
5 - same type*
1 - FeMn only due to nonavail-
ability of other type ferro
alloy furnaces
2 - semi-wet type
3 - Wet type
2 - same type*
2 - semi-wet type
2 - wet type
1 - DH type
1 - RH type
1 - Billet Caster
1 - Slab Caster
.
-
-
-
-
1 - BF quench type
1 - BF spray cooled
1 - BOF spray cooled
NO, SAMPLES FACH LOCATION
Treated
Composite
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Cooling
Grab
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
I
1
I
i
I
I
1
I
1
I
*No major variations in production unit operations expected.
••No plants found operating as an integral part of an integrated steel mill.
98
-------
SECTION V
WATER USE AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
General
The waste water streams for the industry are described individually in
their respective sub-categories. Waste loads were developed by actual
plant sampling programs at selected exemplary plants on which EPA
concurred. Raw waste loads are established as net plant raw waste
loads. This is further defined as the contaminants attributable to the
process of concern. It is the total or gross process load minus the
contaminated load due to background (make-up). The basis tor plant
selection was primarily on their waste treatment practices. Therefore,
further rationale for selection of the plant sites is presented under
Section VII - Control and Treatment Technology.
Coke Making__ -_By-Product Operation
General process and water flow schematics of a typical by-product coke
plant and associated light oil recovery plant are presented on Figures 2
and 3.
Typical products from the carbonization of a metric ton of coal are as
follows:
Gas 336 cu. m. (12,000 cu ft)
Tar 38 1 (9.2 gal)
Ammonia 19 1 (4.6 gal)
Tar Acids 95 1 (23 gal)
Hydrogen Sulfide 21 1 (5 gal)
Light Oil 11 1 (2.6 gal)
Coke 636 kg (1,400 Ib)
Coke Breeze 95 kg (210 Ib)
Raw waste loads for by-product coke plants may vary due to the nature of
the process, water use systems, moisture and volatility of the coal, and
the carbonizing temperature of the ovens. Minimum and maximum values
for plant effluents in the study ranged from 167-18,800 1/jckg (40
4,150 gal/ton) coke produced.
The most significant liquid wastes produced from the coke plant process
are excess ammonia liquor, final cooling water overflow, light oil
recovery wastes, and indirect cooling water. In addition, small volumes
of water may result from coke wharf drainage, quench water overflow and
coal pile runoff.
The volume of ammonia liquor produced varies from 100 tc 170 I/kkg (24
to 41 gal/ton) of coke produced at plants using the semi-direct ammonia
99
-------
recovery process to 350 -co 500 1/kkg (84 to 127 gal/ton) for the
indirect process. This exces.s flushing liquor is the major single
source of contaminated water from coke making.
Indirect (noncontact) cooling water is not normally considered waste but
leaks in coils or tubes may contribute a significant source of
pollution.
Direct contact of the gas in the final cooler with sprays of water
dissolve any remaining soluble gas components and physically flush out
crystals of condensed naphthalene, which is then recovertd by skimming
or filtration. This final cooler water becomes so highly contaminated
that most plants must cool and recirculate this water. When a closed
recycle system is not used, this waste water may exceed the raw ammmonia
liquor as the source of high contaminant loads.
Condensed steam from the stripping operations and cooling water
constitute the bulk of liquid wastes discharged to the sewer. Light oil
recovery wastes will vary with the plant process. Flows may vary from
2,100 to 6,300 1/kkg (500 to 1,500 gal/ton) of cojce at plants which
discharge cooling once-through water to one 125 to 625 1/kx.g (30 to 150
gal/ton) where cooling water is recycled. Effluent from the light oil
recovery plant contains primarily phenol, cyanide, ammonia, and oil.
The quenching of coke requires about 2,100 liters of water per kkg of
coke (500 gal/ton). Approximately 35 percent of this water is
evaporated by the hot coke and discharges from the quench tower as
steam.
A delicate balance is struck in quenching. Most of the fire is
quenched, but enough heat should remain in the coke mass to evaporate
the water trapped within the coke lumps. Quench station runoffs are
collected in a settling basin where coke fines are recovered for other
mill uses. The clarified water is recirculated to the quench tower.
Evaporative losses, which are obviously quite high, are continuously
made up. Past practices have often disposed of contaminated waste
waters as make-up to quenching operations, but strong objections from an
air pollution standpoint have been voiced. Also, various studies
indicate that metal corrosion in the vicinity of quench stations using
contaminated make-up is accelerated to the point where replacement costs
should actually be charged against this method of eliminating
contaminated discharges. Further disadvantages accrue in the blast
furnace operations when coke quenched with contaminated waste water is
charged to the furnace, increasing the pollution potential of the gas
washer waters. Future quenching operations should utilize total recycle
of quench wastes, with only fresh water make-ups.
Coke wharf drainage and stock pile runoff constitute a minor but
nuisance type pollutant. These areas are generally trencaed and the
waste waters do not enter a receiving stream.
100
-------
Table 17 summarizes the net plant raw waste loads for the plants
studied. Raw waste loads are presented only for the critical parameters
which include ammonia, BOD5, cyanide, oil, phenol, sulfide, and
suspended solids.
Beehive Coke Subcategory
General process and water flow schematics of typical beehive coke plants
are presented on Figures 4 and 5. The beehive produces only coke and no
other by-products are recovered. Water is used only for coke quenching.
Raw waste loads for the beehive will vary due to coking rime, water use
systems, moisture and volatility of the coal, and carbonizing
temperature of the ovens. However, the raw waste is affected most by
the type of water use systems, that is once-through or recycle. Test
data indicated that with a recycle system, the net plant raw waste loads
after quenching are less than the recycled water tnat is used for
quenching. Minimum and maximum values for plant effluents in the study
ranged from 0 to 2,040 1/kkg (0 to 490 gal/ton) coke produced.
Table 18 summarizes the net plant raw waste loads for the plants
studied. Raw waste loads are presented only for the critical parameters
which include ammonia, BOD5, cyanide, phenol, and suspended solids.
Burden Prep_agation_OEeration
General process and water flow schematics of typical sintering,
pelletizing, and briquetting plants are presented on Figures 6,7,8,9,10
and 11. Only sintering plants were investigated in this study as no
pelletizing and briquetting plants are in operation at this time.
Several plants are due on line in 1974.
Raw wastes from the sintering process emanate from the material nandling
dust control equipment and the dust and volatized oil in the process
gases. Most plants built today have incorporated fabric type dust
collectors in this process. Therefore, newer plants generally have no
aqueous discharge from the sintering operation. However, an attempt was
made for this study to investigate several plants that utilized wet
scrubbers and generated waste water. Another problem that compounds the
issue is that the sintering wastewaters are generally tied in with the
blast furnace wastewaters for treatment. This will be discussed in more
detail in Section VII - Control and Treatment Technology.
The raw waste loads generated from the sintering operation are primarily
dependent on the type of fume collection system installed. The fume
collection systems are generally divided into two separate independent
exhaust systems. One exhaust system serves the hot sinter bed, ignition
furnace, sinter bed wind boxes, etc., while the other system serves as a
dedusting system for sinter crushes, sinter fines conveyors, raw
material, storage bins, feeders, etc.
101
-------
TABLE 17
Characteristics of By-Product
Coke Plant Wastes
Net Plant Raw Waste Load
Plants
Characteristics A
Flow, 1/kkg 580
Ammonia, mg/1 1900
BODs, mg/1 1550
Cyanide, mg/1 102
Oil and Grease, mg/1 —
Phenol, mg/1 450
Sulfide, mg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
B
530
1380
1280
110
240
350
629
36
154
7330
1120
91
101
910
197
421
19200
39
12
7.7
2.1
6.1
4.2
23
Concentrations are low due to the addition of the final
once-through cooler stream which contained significant
cyanide.
TABLE 18
Characteristics of Beehive
Coke Plant Wastes
Net Plant Raw Waste Load
Characteristics
Flow, 1/kkg
Ammonia, mg/1
BODs, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Phenol, mg/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
E
2040
0.33
3.00
0.002
0.011
Plants
F*
2040
0
0
0
0
29
513
0
0
0
0
722
*Unless a significant pick-up is found in a given constituent
in recycle systems, it is not possible to determine a
meaningful net raw waste load.
102
-------
The sinter bed fume collection and exhaust systems also rurnish the
necessary combustion air to maintain the coke burning which fuses the
sinter mix bed on the moving sinter grates. The ignition furnace
initially ignites the coke in the sinter bed and the combustion air
maintains the burning of the moving ted. The ignition furnaces are
fired by natural gas or fuel oils. The combustion air .is drawn down
through the sinter bed and hot gases and particulate are then exhausted.
Any heavy sinter fines materials falling through the sinter grates are
gravity settled in the wind box hoppers are discharged to the sinter
fines return conveyor for reprocessing. The combustion exnaust systems
require large quantities of air and generally dry electrostatic
precipitators are installed at the charge end of sinter machine to clean
the hot exhaust gas.
Table 19 summarizes the net plant raw waste loads for the plants
studied. Raw waste loads are presented only for the critical parameters
which include fluoride, oil, sulfide, and suspended solids.
Blast Furnace_0perations
General process and water flow schematics of typical blast furnace
operations are presented on Figures 12,13,14 and 15. The typical blast
furnace requires:
a. 2 kkg of ore,
b. 0.5 kkg of coke,
c. 0.5 kkg limestone,
d. 3.5 kkg of air,
to produce
e. 1.0 kkg iron,
f. 0.5 kkg slag, and
g. 5 kkg of blast furnace gas.
The blast furnace has two basic water uses, cooling water and gas washer
water. The blast furnace requires the continuous circulation of cooling
water through hollow plates built into the walls of the bosn and stack.
Without such cooling, a furnace wall would quickly bum through.
Furnace cooling water approximates 21,000 1/kkg (5,000 gal/ton). The
most significant parameter from this source is heat pick-up ranging from
2-8°C.
The principal waste waters result frcm the gas cleaning operation which
is performed for two basic reasons. The primary reason for cleaning the
103
-------
gas is to allow its use as a fuel. The other reason zs to prevent a
considerable air pollution problem which would otherwise result. Gas
washer water may range from 6,300-17,000 1/kkg (1,500 - 4,100 gal/ton)
depending upon the type of washer used. These waste waters contain
significant concentrations of cyanide, phenol, ammonia, sulfide, and
suspended solids. The waste waters from ferromanganese furnaces have
much higher concentrations of cyanides than do wash waters from iron
furnaces.
The suspended solids in blast furnace gaswasher water result from the
fines in the burden being carried out in the gas. The quantities depend
upon the operation of the furnace and the nature of the burden. Oils
can be vaporized and carried into the gas when metal turnings are part
of the charge. Phenols, cyanides, and ammonia originate in the coke and
are particularly high if the coke has been quenched with waste waters or
if the coke has not been completely coked. Cyanides are generated in
the blast furnace in the reducing atmosphere from carbon from the coke
and nitrogen from the air; cyanide formation is particularly high at the
higher temperatures of a ferromanganese furnace.
Table 20 summarizes the net plant raw waste loads for the iron making
blast furnaces studied. Table 21 presents comparable data for the
ferromanganese furnace. Raw waste loads are presented only for the
critical parameters which include ammonia, cyanide, oil, phenol, and
sulfide with manganese added to the ferromanganese furnace.
Steel^Making^ OEerations
The steelmaking process produces fume, smoke, and waste gases as the
unwanted impurities are burned off and the process vaporizes or entrains
a portion of the molten steel into the off -gases. Wastewater results
from the steelmaking processes when wet collection systems are used on
the furnaces. Spray cooling, quenching, or the use of wet washers
result in waste waters containing particulates from the gas stream. Dry
collection methods through the use of waste heat boilers, evaporation
chambers, and spark boxes do not produce waste water effluen-cs.
Basic_OxYgen Furnace Operation
General process and water flow schematics of typical basic oxygen
furnace operations are presented on Figures 16,17,18,19 and 20.
The basic oxygen furnace has four main plant water systems:
a. Oxygen Lance Cooling Water System
b. Furnace Trunnion Ring Cooling Water System
c,. Hood Cooling Water System
104
-------
TABLE 19
Characteristics of
Sintering Plant Wastes
Net Plant Raw Waste Loads
Plants
Characteristics H
Flow, 1/kkg 434
Suspended Solids, mg/1 4340
Oil and Grease, mg/1 504
Fluoride, mg/1 0.644
Sulfide, mg/1 188
1420
19500
457
-14.9
64.4
TABLE 20
Characteristics of
Fe-Blast Furnace Plant Wastes
Net Plant Raw Waste Loads
Characteristics
Plants
N
0
Flow, 1/kkg
Ammonia, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Phenol, mg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
Sulfide, mg/1
22500
1.41
1.44
0.578
1720
0.454
4.34
8050
3.91
C.C58
-0.643
651
0.044
38.8
14000
9.75
-0.241
0.530
307
2.16
0.448
13000
12.3
-0.231
0.0853
1170
-2.59
-1.14
105
-------
d. Fume collection Cooling Water System
The oxygen lance cooling water system is either a "once tnrougn" or a
"closed recirculating" system. The resultant aqueous discharge from the
"once through" system is heated cooling water, generally with a
differential temperature increase of ll-17°c. The water rate of these
systems range from 30-93 I/sec (7.9 - 25 gal/sec).
The aqueous discharges from the "closed system" is tne neated cooling
water used on the tube side of the shell and tube heater cnanges. This
cooling water can either be once through cr can be interconnected with
the hood cooling water system. Water rates and temperature rises are in
the same range as the "once through" system.
The furnace trunnion ring cooling water system is generally a "once
through" system with an aqueous discharge of heated water with a
differential temperature increase of 22°C. These cooling systems are
being added to existing shops in order to reduce the thermal stresses
and warping of the heavy fabricated steel plate trunnion rings. Water
rates range 13-26 I/sec (3.2 - 6.1 gal/sec) continuous rate.
The hood cooling water system depends upon the type of nood equipment
selected for the process. Basically, there are three types of hoods,
water cooled plate panel, water tube hood, or steam generating hood.
The hoods serve as combustion chambers as well as means for conveying
the combusted gases to the fume collection system. As tne pure oxygen
is blown above the molten iron bath, the carbon in the bath is oxidized
to carbon monoxide (CO) which is emitted from the furnace mouth. Since
the gases approximate temperatures of 1,540-1,590°C and come in contact.
with air above the furnace and at the hood mouths combustion will occur,
hence the CO gases are burned to CO2.
The water cooled plate panel hood cooling water system is generally a
recirculating type using induced draft cooling towers with cnemical
treatment. The water rates for these hoods vary from 320-950 i/sec (84
- 260 gal/sec) with water temperature increase of ll°c to 17°c. Make-up
water is added to the system to compensate for cooling tower biowdown,
evaporation loss and panel leakage. These systems operate under a
relatively low water pressure of 4 to 8 atmospheres. If good quality
and water quantity is available, "once through" cooling systems are
sometimes employed. Plate panel hoods are fabricated in independent
panels of sandwich construction for the water passageways and are
grouped together to form a hood. The panels are relatively loose-
fitting and therefore afford greater air leakages into the fume
collection systems.
The water tube hood is of gas-tight construction fabricated from heavy
v 'lied tubing. These hoods can be operated at higher water pressures
; temperatures than the plate panel hoods. The water cooling systems
u these hoods are generally "closed recirculating" usiny induced draft
106
-------
cooling towers or if operating at high pressures, evaporative coolers
and heat exchangers are used. The pressures vary from 8 atmospheres to
18 atmospheres. These types of hoods are used with the special type
fume collection system identified as "OG" or "OFF-GAS" system. In this
type of fume collection system, the hood is capped tightly on the
furnace mouth, thus preventing combustion cf CO gases. The aqueous
discharge from this system would be blcwdown, or heated cooling water if
"once through" cooling were used.
The steam generating hoods are high pressure waste heat boilers which
used the combustion heat for generating steam. These systems operate in
a range of 28 to 62 atmospheres steam. Only about 22% of the heat
generated is used in steam generation, but some plants have additional
economizer sections for greater heat transfer efficiency. The aqueous
discharge from the steam generator hood is boiler blowdown. Some plants
install steam accumulators to even out the cyclic steam production rate
while others condense the steam in air/water heat exchangers and
recirculate.
The type of fume collection system and hood cooling system selected is
not only dependent upon capital cost but also equated on other plant
characteristics such as operating costs, plant location, availability of
resources (power, water, etc.), and available pollution abatement
equipment (such as existing central water treatment facilities), etc.
The fume collection systems can range from a complete dry precipitator
to semi-wet to wet high energy venturi scrubber systems. Each
particular fume collection system has advantages in relation to the
plant characteristics.
The dry type precipitator system usually employs a steam generating hood
equipped with a refractory lined evaporation chamber. The aqueous
discharge from this fume collection system is zero except for hood
blowdown. As the hot gases (1,300°C) exit from the steam generating
hood, water sprays condition the gas temperature to 260°C at the
evaporative chamber outlet. The evaporation chamber (approximately 9 m
diameter x 18 m high) (approximately 10 x 20 yds) provides the required
retention time to allow the water sprays to evaporate and mix with the
hot gases and reduce the temperature. The precipitator system requires
a minimum of 100% excess air be introduced in the system to insure
minimum non-combusted CO carryover to precipitators. Generally, these
systems will yield a 1-2% CO content in the exhaust gases. Tne semi-wet
system employs a precipitator too, except the gases arc conditioned to
260°C by means of a spark box spray chamber. The spark box spray
chamber utilized an excessive spray water system. The retention time is
much less in the spark box. Therefore, in order to condition the gases
to the proper temperature, more water is sprayed into tne system than
can be evaporated. This results in an aqueous discharge from the spark
box. Generally, plate panel hoods with 200-300% excess air are employed
107
-------
with these systems. These systems are less capital cost than steam
generating with spray chambers.
The aqueous discharge is hot water ranging in temperature from 82-88°C
and containing suspended solids of iron oxides (Fe2o3f PeG) and fluxing
materials, lime, etc.
An alternate system to the spark-box spray or dry evaporation chamber
system is to install a wetted wall type evaporation chamber. A wetted
wall evaporation chamber contains no refractory lining, but uses a water
wetted steel surface as the heat resistant medium. These chambers
require large quantities of water to insure that the steel surfaces do
not become overheated.
The wet high energy venturi scrubber fume collection systems generally
use steam generating type hoods close coupled with a low energy fixed
orifice quencher. As the hot gases exit from the hood, me gases are
immediately quenched from 150°C to 83°C.
The gases are hotter exiting from the hood on a wet scrubber system
because the maximum excess air admitted to the system is approximately
50% versus the 100-200% for precipitator systems.
The reasons for this are to reduce hp consumption and still maintain a
minimum residual of CO in fume collection gases. Sometimes to further
reduce wet fume collection system horsepower requirements, large self-
contained cooling towers are added to the system to reduce the gas
temperatures further from 83°C saturated to 43°c saturated. As the
gases are saturated, the cooling is accomplished by strictly gas to
water contact and heat transfer.
The cooling towers are checker brick lined enclosed cylindrical steel
towers 9 m in diameter by 24-27 m high (approximately 10 by 28 yds). As
these cooling systems are installed on the clean gas side of the venturi
scrubbers, the cooling waters are recycled after passing tnrough remote
induced draft cooling towers with chemical treatment. Make-up water is
added to compensate for evaporation loss, blowdown, cooling tower drift,
etc.
These systems could be "once through" if quantities of clean water are
available.
An alternate wet system to the venturi scrubber system is the wet gas
washer and disintegration system. This system has a limited use due to
the large volume and horsepower required to operate tne disintegrator.
Disintegrators operate in the range of 154 to 1,820 cu-m/min (5,440 to
65,000 cu ft/min) at 450 kw which would require six to seven units for
an average 180 kkg (200 ton) basic oxygen furnace.
108
-------
The off gas system uses this similar quencher and venturi scrubber
similar to the open hood combustion type system. The OG system is a
sealed system for handling CO gases. The gases are either flared
(burned) at the outlet stack or stored for fuel purposes. The CO gas
heating value is 19,800 kg cal/ cu m (554 kg cal/cu ft).
Efficiency wise, it is more conducive to collect the CO and fire a
standard boiler (80% efficiency versus 22%) rather than the waste heat
steam generating hoods.
Table 22 summarizes the net plant raw waste loads for trie plants
studied. Raw waste loads are presented only for the critical parameters
which include fluoride and suspended solids.
Qpen^Hearth_Furnace_ Operation
General process and water flow schematics of open hearth operations are
presented on Figures 21,22 and 23.
The open hearth process has two plant water systems:
a. Furnace cooling
b. Fume collection water system
The furnace cooling water ssystems are generally limited to the furnace
doors. These systems are "once through" cooling systems with heated
aqueous discharges of 17-22°C differential temperature.
Either wet high energy venturi scrubber systems or ary precipitator
systems are installed on open hearth shops. The hot gases to the
precipitator systems are conditioned by either passing the gases through
evaporation chambers or through waste heat boilers, reducing the gas
temperature from 870°C to 260°C. Because the open hearth furnaces are
fired using many available fuels, nitrous oxides and sulfur oxides are
present in the waste gas streams.
The aqueous discharges from precipitators are zero except for any waste
heat boiler blowdown.
The aqueous discharges from the high energy venturi scrubber system are
scrubbing waters from the primary quenchers.
Table 23 summarizes the net plant raw waste loads for the plants
studied. Raw waste loads are presented only for the critical parameters
which include fluoride, nitrates, suspended solids, and zinc.
Electric^Arc^Furnace Operation
109
-------
TABLE 21
Characteristics of
Fe-Mn Blast Furnace Plant Wastes
Net Plant Raw Waste Loads
Plant
Characteristics Q
Flow, 1/kkg 32200
Ammonia, mg/1 114
Cyanide, mg/1 23.6
Phenol, mg/1 0.130
Suspended Solids, mg/1 5000
Sulfide, mg/1 -2.66
Manganese, mg/1 833
TABLE 22
Characteristics of
EOF Steelmaking Plant Wastes
Net Plant Raw Waste Loads
Characteristics R
Flow, 1/kkg 542
Fluoride, mg/1 -
Suspended solids, 321
mg/1
Plants
U
V
4270 2570 3040 1080
10.9 :-.36 2.76
180 3730 396 5330
TABLE 23
Characteristics of Open Hearth
Plant Wastes
Net Plant Raw Waste Loads
Characteristics
W
Plants
X
Flow (1/kkg)
Suspended solids, mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
Nitrate, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
2530
388
21.4
20.2
2.06
2290
3880
16.2
33.2
880
110
-------
General process and water flow schematics of electric furnace operations
are presented on Figures 24,25,26 and 27.
The electric furnace has two main plant water systems:
a. Electric Arc Furnace door, electrode ring, roof rang, cable and
transformer cooling water system.
b. Fume collection colling water system.
The Electric Arc Furnace cooling water systems for tne roof ring,
electrode ring, and door cooling is generally a "once through" system
but can be a "closed recirculating" system. The resultant aqueous
discharge from these cooling systems is heated cooling water, generally
with a temperature increase of 17-22°C.
The type of cooling water systems applied to the electric arc furnace
are dependent on furnace size. The smaller tonnage furnaces do not have
roof ring cooling, door cooling, etc. The type of fume collection and
hood exhaust system is not only dependent upon capital cost cut also
equated on other plant characteristics such as operating cost, plant
location, availability of resources (power and water), and available
pollution abatement facilities. The fume collection systems range from
a complete dry to semi-wet to wet high energy venturi scrubbers. Each
system has advantages in relation to plant characteristics.
The dry fume collection system consists of baghouses witn local exhaust
or plant rooftop exhaust hoods. The aqueous discharges from these
systems are zero. The local hoods are located at tne sources of fume
generation (door, electrode openings, etc.). Enough cooling air is
drawn into the hoods to temper the hot gases for a baghouse operation,
to approximately 135°C. The rooftop exhaust system exxiausts the entire
furnace shop.
The semi-wet system employs a spark box or spray chambex to condition
the hot gases for either a precipitator or baghouse. A spark box is
generally used with a precipitator system and a spray chamber for a
baghouse system. The spark box conditions the gases to 200°C while
spray chamber conditions gases to 135°C. The aqueous discharge from
these systems is controlled and treated with similar systems as used on
the spark box chamber on the basic oxygen furnaces. A water cooled
elbow is used as the exhaust ductwork and is directly connected to the
electric furnace roof. The aqueous discharge from the water cooled
elbow is heated cooling water. The systems are generally "once through"
with temperature differential of 17-22°C in cooling waters.
The wet high energy venturi scrubber fume collection systems use the
water cooled elbow for extracting the gases from the electric arc
furnace. Combustion air gaps are always left between the water cooled
elbow and fume collection ductwork to insure that all the CO gas burns
111
-------
TABLE 24
Characteristics of
Electric Furnace Plant Wastes
Net Plant Raw Waste Loads
Plants
Characteristics Y Z AA AB
Flow, 1/kkg 406 1.01 1250 751
Fluoride, mg/1 -28.7 - 14.8 11.3
Suspended Solids, 863 77.4% 2160 42800
Zincfmg/1 13 - 405 5637
TABLE 25
Characteristics of
Degassing Plant Wastes
Net Plant Raw Waste Loads
Plants
Characteristics AC AD
Flow, 1/kkg 3750 813
Suspended Solids, mg/1 23.2 70.7
Zinc, mg/1 2.01 7.76
Manganese, mg/1 5.72 13.3
Lead, mg/1 0.471 1.39
Nitrate, mg/1 25.3 3.03
TABLE 26
Characteristics of
Continuous Casting Plant Wastes
Net Plant Raw Waste Loads
Plants
Characteristics AE AF
Flow, 1/kkg 17100 6172
Suspended Solids, mg/1 7.87 74.0
Oil and Grease, mg/1 20.5 22.0
112
-------
to CO2 before entering the high energy venturi scrubber or any other
fume collection cleaning device. As the hot gases pass through the
scrubber, the gases are conditioned and cooled to 83°C. An aqueous
discharge is produced that is similar to the basic oxygen waste water.
Table 24 summarizes the net plant raw waste loads tor the plants
studied. Raw waste loads are presented only for the critical parameters
which include fluoride and suspended solids.
Vacuum Degassing 5ubcategory
A general process and water flow schematic of the typical vacuum
degassing operation is presented on Fiqure 28. The vacuum degassing
process has two main water systems:
a. Flange cooling water system
b. Barometric condenser cooling water system
The vacuum degassing flange cooling water systems are generally "once
through" cooling systems, with differential temperature increases of
14°C at an approximate cooling water rate of 12.5-25 I/sec (3-6.1
gal/sec). The RH and DH vacuum degassing vessels have removable flanged
roofs for installation of new refractory linings when relined. The
flange cooling water aids in preventing warping of these flanges.
The barometric condenser cooling water system is direct process contact
cooling where the water is used to condense the steam ejector exhausted
steam and gases that are emitted from the molten steel. The vacuum
produced in the degassing operation is by means of multi-stage steam jet
ejectors producing pressure down to 0.064 atmosphere. The degassing
operation removes hydrogen, carbon and oxygen as carbon monoxide plus
any volatile alloys in the steel and some iron oxide particulate. After
degassing, deoxidizers and/or alloys are added to the molten steel bath
to adjust chemistry to the steel specifications.
Table 25 summarizes the net plant raw waste loads for the plants
studied. Raw waste loads are presented only for the critical parameters
which include lead, nitrate, manganese, suspended solids, and zinc.
Continuous Casting Subcategory
A general process and water flow schematic of the typical continuous
casting operation is presented on Figure 29.
The continuous casting process has three main plant water systems:
a. Mold cooling water system
b. Machinery cooling water system
113
-------
c. Spray cooling water system
The mold cooling water system is generally a tignt "closed
recirculating" noncontact system using heat exchangers or evaporative
coolers as the cooling equipment. The cooling water ditferential
temperature rise is held to approximately 6°C to maintain minimum
differential thermal expansion of the mold. A surge tank is installed
in the systems for addition of potable water make-up and/or chemical
treatment.
The casting molds are copper material, chrome plated and perform the
function of solidifying a hard skin around the molten steel as it passes
through the mold into the final spray cooling section. There is no
blowdown for the closed system.
The machinery cooling water system is generally an "open recirculating"
noncontact system using induced draft cooling towers with chemical
treatment as cooling equipment. The cooling water differential rise
across the machinery is approximately 14°C. The coolxng side of the
heat exchangers of the mold cooling system is generally tied into the
machinery cooling water system.
The aqueous discharge from the machinery cooling water system is cooling
tower blowdown. The machinery cooling water system furnishes cooling
for the casting machinery (rolls, etc.) spray chamber cooling plate
panels, cut-off torch cooling, etc.
The spray cooling water system is a direct contact water spray cooling
of the cast product. As the cast product (slabs, blooms, or billets)
emerge from the molds, the waste sprays further cool and harden a
thicker skin of the cast product.
Table 26 summarizes the net plant raw waste loads for rhe plants
studied. Raw waste loads are presented only for the critical parameters
which include oil and suspended solids.
A general process schematic of the operation entailed in ingot casting
is presented on Figure 30. Generally, the only water usage associated
with ingot casting is the spray cooling of the ingot molds in the mold
preparation and cleaning area.
The hot molds are sprayed with water to cool them and at tne same time
knock off minor amounts of scale adhering to the mold surfaces. The
majority of the water used is evaporated in contacting the mold. Any
excess spray water, which is usually very minor, falls to the ground
where it generally evaporates or permeates into the ground. Since this
water is generally good quality mill water containing relatively heavy
114
-------
fractions of scale, which collects on the surface of the ground, its
permeation into the ground cannot be considered a source of pollution.
The excess spray water contacting the ground is generally so minor that
there is rarely, if ever, sufficient volume to cause an overland runoff
from the area. If a runoff problem were to exist from excessive
spraying of the molds, any potential pollution problems, wnich would be
confined to suspended scale particles, could be better resolved by
tightening up on spray water usage rather than by providing treatment
for the runoff.
Pi2_Casting
As in the case of ingot casting, the only water usage associated with
pig casting is for mold cooling.
As in the case of ingot casting, excess spray water is so minimal , that
there is rarely sufficient volume to run off from an area. Excess /spray
water falls to the ground where it either evaporates or permeates into
the ground. Since lime is used as a mold release agent in the pig
casting process, this minor excess water may be siigntly alkaline.
However, the excess water is of such small volume and alkalinity so
slight, that the pollution potential of this stream is negligible.
As in the case of ingot casting, where significant runoffs irom the pig
casting area occur, they could best te handled by tightening up on spray
water usage.
Slacjging
Hot blast furnace slag is usually dumped into a large pit, open at one
end, to enable removal after quenching and quenched and cooled to a
temperature at which it can be transported relatively safely to a final
disposal site or a slag processing plant.
During quenching of the slag, there is little or no actual runoff from
the site, the great majority of the water being evaporated. As the slag
temperature is lowered, however, some excess quench water will remain
unevaporated. The quench pits are normally graded so that this excess
water will collect in the bottom of the pit rather than run off overland
from the site. Once the cooled slag is removed for final disposal, the
pooled water laying in the bottom of the quench pit will remain and be
flashed off by the next hot slag charge.
However, during this period of slag cooling, some of the excess quench
water may permeate into the ground, thus constituting a subsurface
discharge.
Samples of pooled quench water after contact with the slag, indicate
that this is a highly alkaline (1,067 mg/1 M.O. Alkalinity) waste water,
115
-------
low in suspended matter, but high in dissolved solids probably in the
form of calcium and magnesium sulfates, sulfides, and sulfites (890 mg/1
SOU=, 499 mg/1 S-, and 1,560 mg/1 S03-). The main source of the
alkalinity is probably calcium carbonate leached out of the slag.
Although the actual amounts of undesirable contaminants permeating into
the ground is highly variable, depending upon the amount of excess
quench water used, the time any pooled water may be allowed to permeate,
and the general soil permeability at the quench site, certain conditions
might produce undesirable subsurface discharges.
These potentially undesirable discharges could be eliminated if these
quench pits were to have an impermeable lining such as concrete or some
other suitable material. Excess quench waters would then remain in the
quench pit until such time as they are evaporated by the next hot slag
charge. In fact, concrete-lined slag pits do exist at some plants where
the slag quench station is in the immediate vicinity of the blast
furnace. This is done in order to prevent soil removal during quench
pit cleaning and possible weakening of the blast furnace foundation.
116
-------
SECTION VI
SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
Introduction
The selection of the control parameters was accomplished by a three step
process. First a broad list of polluted parameters to be tested for was
established. Second, the list of anticipated control parameters and
procedures for check analyses of these critical parameters was
established. Thirdly, the data from the field sampling program was
evaluated to establish the need to deviate from the anticipated list
based on the field experience.
Broad List^of Pollutants
Prior to the initiation of the plant visiting and sampling phase of the
study it was necessary to establish the list of pollutant parameters
that was to be tested for in each type of waste source. These
parameters were selected primarily on the basis of a knowledge of the
materials used or generated in the operations and on the basis of
pollutants known to be present as indicated by previously reported
analyses. The purpose of the broad list was to identify those
pollutants present in a significant amount but not normally reported or
known to be present to such an extent. The parameters that may be
present in steel industry waste water streams are presented in table
form by operations as follows:
Table 27 - Coke Making Operations
Table 28 - Sintering Subcategorys
Table 29 - Blast Furnace Operations
Table 30 - steel Making Operations
Table 31 - Vacuum Degassing Subcategorys
Table 32 - Continuous Casting Subcategorys
Rationale^for Selection of.Contrgl^Parameters
On the basis of prior analyses and experience the major waste water
parameters that are generally considered of pollutional significance for
the raw steel making operations of the iron and steel industry include
ammonia, BOD5, cyanide, phenol, oil and grease, suspended solids and
heat. Other parameters, such as chloride, are present in significant
amounts but were not established as control parameters because their
presence in the effluent is not as significant and the cost of treatment
and technology for removal in these operations is considered to be
beyond the scope of best practicable or best available technology. In
addition, some parameters cannot be designated as control parameters
until sufficient data is made available on which to base effluent
117
-------
limitations or until sufficient data on treatment capabilities is
developed.
The concentration of iron appearing in the effluent is a function of the
chemical form in which it is present and on the pH and temperature of
the effluent. In the raw steel making operations the iron is present in
the very insoluable oxide form and on this basis soluble iron did not
need to be establised as a control parameter for these operations. The
suspended solids limitations places a limit on the iron present
insoluble form.
Standard raw waste loads and guidelines are developed only on the
critical parameters which were starred in the tables. Multiple analyses
of these anticipated control parameters was provided for to give added
accuracy to the data.
Select ion_of__Additional Control Parameters
The plant studies indicated that consideration should be given to
including additional parameters as control parameters in certain
subcategories because of the quantities found or likely to be present
and the pollutional significance of the material. These parameters are
enumerated in their respective subcategories and include sulfide,
fluoride, nitrate, zinc, lead, and manganese.
Selection of Critical Parameters by Operation
The rationale for selection of the major waste parameters for the steel
industry is given below. The rationale for selection of the major waste
parameters for the steel industry is given below.
The principal liquid wastes in coke making originate from the ammonia
liquor, coke quenching effluents, benzol plant decant waters and final
cooler waters. These waste streams contain phenols, cyanide, BOD5,
ammonia, sulfide, suspended solids, and oil.
Sintering_Subcategory
The dust produced from the sintering plant operation is frequently
recovered through the use of wet washers operating on the exhausts of
hoods and building ventilators. This wastewater is produced as a result
of air pollution abatement measures and occupational health and safety
precautions. These waste waters may contain significant amounts of
suspended matter, oil, sulfide, and fluoride. The source of these con-
taminants is dependent upon the variety of materials that are a part of
the sinter mix.
Iron_Making ^Operations
118
-------
The principal waste waters sources from the blast furnace operation are
waters used in washing the exit gases free of suspended matter and
noncontact cooling of the blast furnace hearth and shell. The gas is
also cleaned to allow its use as a fuel. In addition to furnace
operating conditions, a carryover in the coke may also result in
pollutants that were prevalent in the coke making waste waters.
Therefore, iron making blast furnace, waste waters may contain ammonia,
cyanide, phenol, suspended solids, and sulfide. The ferromanganese
furnace will contain manganese in addition to the normal parameters
inherent in the typical iron making furnace.
Steelmaking Operations
The waterborne wastes from the steelmaking operations result from
scrubbing of the gas stream with water to prevent air pollution and for
noncontact cooling. Hence, basic oxygen and electric furnace waste
waters may contain suspended solids and fluorides. Fluorspar, one of
the basic raw materials in steelmaking, is the source of fluorides. The
open hearth, due to the nature of its scrap mix will also contain zinc
and nitrates may result due to the huge volumes of excess air that is
used to provide better combustion.
Vacuum Degassing Subcategory
In the vacuum degassing process, steel is further refined by subjecting
the steel in the ladle to a high vacuum in an enclosed refractory lined
chamber. Steam jet ejectors with barometric condensers are used to draw
the vacuum. In the refining process certain alloys are added which may
be drawn into the gas stream. In addition, the system is purged with
nitrogen so as to have no residual CO. Therefore, the wastewater
products from this operation are condensed steam and waste water
containing suspended solids, zinc, manganese, lead, and nitrates.
Conti.nuou s_Cas_ting Subcategory
Wastewaters from the continuous casting operations result from washing
scale from the surface of the steel with spray water. Therefore,
continuous casting waste waters may contain significant quantities of
suspended matter and oil. The mold cooling and machine cooling systems
are usually closed systems and the water picks up only heat.
119
-------
TABLE 27
I. COKE MAKING - BY PRODUCT OPERATION
II. COKE MAKING - BEEHIVE OPERATION
PARAMETERS
Acidity (Free and Total) Nitrogen, Kjeldahl
Alkalinity (Pht. and M.O.) *Oil and Grease
*Ammonia *pH
Berylium *Phenol
*BOD5 Sulfate
Chloride *Sulfide
COD *Suspended Solids
Color Thiocyanate
*Cyanide, Total TOC
Dissolved Solids Total Solids
*Flow Turbidity
Heat T.O.N.
Mercury
TABLE 28
III. SINTERING OPERATION
PARAMETEFS
Acidity (Free and Total) Manganese
Alkalinity (Pht. and M.O.) Mercury
Aluminum *0il and Grease
Berylium *pH
Chloride Phosphorus, Total
COD Potassium
Color Sodium
Dissolved Solids Sulfate
*Flow *Sulfide
Fluoride *Suspended Solids
Hardness, Total TOC
Heat Total solids
Iron, Total T.O.N.
*Indicates parameters on which standard raw waste load
was developed.
120
-------
TABLE 29
IV. BLAST FURNACE - IRON MAKING OPERATION
V. BLAST FURNACE - FERROMANGANESE OPERATION
PARAMETERS
Acidity (Free and Total) Nitrate
Alkalinity (Pht. and M.O.) Nitrogen, Kjeldahl
Aluminum Oil and Grease
*Ammonia *pH
Berylium *Phenol
BOD5 Phosphorus, Total
Chloride Potassium
COD Sodium
*Cyanide, Total Sulfate
Dissolved Solids *Sulfide
Flow *Suspended Solids
Fluoride Thiocyanate
Hardness, Total TOC
Heat Total Solids
Iron, Total Color
**Manganese T.O.N.
*Indicates parameters on which standard raw waste load
was developed.
"""Indicates additional parameter on ferromanganese
furnace.
121
-------
TABLE 30
VI & VII. BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE OPERATION
VIII. OPEN HEARTH FURNACE OPERATION
IX S X. ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE OPERATION
PARAMETERS
Acidity (Free and Total) Mercury
Alkalinity (Pht. and M.O.) **Nitrate
Aluminum Oil and Grease
Color *pH
Copper Phosphorus, Total
Dissolved Solids Silica, Total
*Flow Sulfate
*Fluoride Sulfide
Hardness, Total Sulfite
Heat *Suspended Solids
Iron, Total Total Solids
Lead **Zinc
Manganese T.O.N.
*Indicates parameters on which standard raw waste load
was Developed.
**Indicates additional parameters on open hearth
steelmaking.
122
-------
TABLE 31
XI. VACUUM DEGASSING OPERATION
PARAMETERS
Acidity (Free and Total)
Alkalinity (Pht. and M.O.)
Aluminum
Color
Copper
Dissolved Solids
*Flow
Fluoride
Hardness, Total
Heat
Iron, Total
*Lead
*Manganese
Mercury
*Nitrate
Oil and Grease
*pH
Phosphorus, Total
Silica, Total
Sulfate
Sulfide
Sulfite
*Suspended Solids
Total Solids
*zinc
T.O.N.
TABLE 32
XII. CONTINUOUS CASTING OPERATION
Acidity (Free and Total)
Alkalinity (Pht. and M.O.)
Aluminum
Color
Copper
Dissolved Solids
*Flow
Hardness, Total
Heat
Iron, Total
Lead
Manganese
T.O.N.
PARAMETERS
Mercury
Nitrate
*Oil and Grease
*pH
Phosphorus, Total
Silica, Total
Sulfate
Sulfide
Sulfite
*Suspended Solids
Total Solids
Zinc
*Indicates parameter on which standard waste load was
developed.
123
-------
SECTION VII
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
introduction
Plant studies were conducted in each subcategory at plants that were
deemed to be the best relative to performance levels attained by their
treatment facilities. The plants visited were selected by the EPA from
the candidate plants listed in Table 15. Table 33 presents a brief
summary of treatment practices employed at all plants visited in this
study and shows the variability of treatment techniques employed in the
industry. Included in each subcategory are tables presenting the size,
location, and ages of the plants that were visited.
§0.3 Permutations of Treatment Technology and Current Practice as
Exemplified by. Plants Visited During the Study
In each subcategory, a discussion is presented on the full range of
technology employed within the industry followed by a discussion on the
treatment practices, effluent loads, and reduction benefits at the
plants that were visited. The effluent is stated in terms of gross
plant effluent waste load.
Coke _Ma king-By Product Operation
A variety of methods for treating coke plant wastes has been practiced
in the past, changing under the influence of economic conditions, and
increasing restrictions on effluent quality. The recovery of sodium
phenolate, ammonium sulfate or phosphate, and light oils has become
unprofitable for most coke plants in the face of competition ±rom other
industries, primarily petro-chemical. But at the same time, the need to
recover increasing amounts of these and other materials present in the
waste water has greatly increased if the plants expect to comply with
the effluent standards required to upgrade stream conditions. Processes
designed to recover percent quantities of pollutants may not be
effective in reducing waste loads to minute fractions of a pound per ton
of coke produced, or fractions of a milligram per liter of water
discharged.
Various degrees of treatment, usually in the form of by products
recovery, have been practiced at different coke plants. In addition,
other techniques will need to be developed and perfected to remove
objectionable parameters from wastes prior to discharge to streams. An
ultimate goal would be the total elimination of liquid wastes which have
contacted dirty gas streams, provided that no detrimental effects on air
or land use occur. A summary of the control and treatment technology
practiced for the by-product operations follows:
125
-------
m
cn
(D
O >i
•HI f^!
•P 3
0 -P
(0 in
P_l JUj
•H
-P
fi ^
QJ QJ
E -P
HJ -H
tO CO
QJ -H
t 1 ^>
EH
10
QJ
O
•H
-P
U
(0
rH
QJ d
4J ID
•p
(0
OJ
in
I
QJ
O
•H
-P
U
<0
rH
ft
1
rH
O
o
u
rH
(0
£|
•H
m
•d
c
to
cn
rH
QJ
•p
(0
U
QJ
•P
tn
tO
Jj
rH
O
-P
rj
tP
rH
•to
rH
O
3
1
QJ
rH
-P
C
QJ
>
rH
0
cn
rQ
d
fO
tT1
C
•H
ft
ft
•H
^-1
4J
cn
to
•H
C
O
g
tO
(0
•H
>
tf
QJ
4J
tO
QJ
•
g
tO
QJ
j_l
•P
cn
tn
G
•H
>
•H
QJ
U
QJ
^-1
0
H->
1
C
o
•rH
-p
m
fa
QJ
(0
QJ
tn
"d
3
rH
cn
T3
QJ
-P
tO
>
-H
H->
O
fC
fC
•H
>
rQ
QJ
•P
tO
QJ
4J
fa
0
3
tn
•H 0
> -p
•H
a; 4J
O d
OJ QJ
>H cn
O cn
i \ fa
to
OJ
-P
tn
to
&
S_l
i
rH
QJ
>
O
u
•H
rH
fO
•H
p*
0
g
to
Qj
•P
cn
to
*
m
•H O
M
(0 H
rH 10
O C
•H
'CJ (ij
C
fO
*
E E
QJ tO
•P QJ
Cn rH
>i-P
cn cn
•
ti
0
•H
•P
10
fa
O
ft
(0
>
QJ
QJ
•P
Q)
H
ft
g
0
u
M
O
IH
0"!
fj
•H
tC
o
d
OJ
^
tT1
Q)
»^
o
o
10
•rH
C
0
g
(0
*
^1
fa
QJ
>
O
0
QJ
-P
C
QJ
>
rH
O
cn
to
•H
rQ
QJ
-P
(0
QJ
rH
H->
M
O
3
D1
•H
rH
(0
•H
C
0
g
to
QJ
HJ
in
(0
15
Cj
0
^4
tO -P
•P C
•H QJ
d cn
(0
cn in
fa
O QJ
-P -P
10
QJ &
tn QJ
M -P
rO cn
JH fO
o &
cn
•H H
•tS-H
0
>i
X) -P
r*,
Tj tr>
QJ -H
0
H 'O
H d
O (0
U-4
fa
tn QJ
C rH
•H 0
H O
-P 0
H->
QJ H
10 fO
d
C3 FT4
(0
kk *
tn >i
d -P
•H -H
ft M
ft O
•H ,d
M "M
•P 3
10 tO
•
pj
O
•rH
4J
fO
M
O
ft
tO
(1)
QJ
•P
OJ
H
ft
g
0
O
J^
o
<4H
tn
d
•H
rd
O
d
QJ
jj
O1
QJ
v
0
O
^
Ju)
QJ
>
O
U
QJ
H->
d
QJ
>
H
O
cn
«.
tP
d
•H
rH
^
(0
4J
QJ
tO
•H
>
r^J
Q)
HJ
10
CD
-P
fa
0
3
cr
•H
rH
(0
-r-|
d
o
g
tO
QJ
H-)
W
10
!2
Q
1
QJ
H->
tn cn
d to
•H £
>
•rH —
QJ tn
0 d
QJ -rH
rH H
O
0 0
-P O
•
QJ H-> -P
tn u d
rH QJ QJ
tO rH g
ft -rH -P
O T3 tO
cn d QJ
•H -H M
'd "~^ -P
>1 rH -P
J3 QJ 3
H O
•X3 0 X!
QJ O -P
£ O -H
O ^
H H
H 10 >,
O d H
M-H -H H-l
m o
QJ
d tn-rH
ft O
ft rH t!
•H .d QJ
rH -P tn
•P 1 rH
in QJ to
O J2
(0 d o
•H O 10
d -H
O T5
g *
g E tn
to tu fa
QJ QJ
fd rH -P
d -P to
ro cn £
H
126
-------
W
u
H
u
cu
Q)
S CD
CD
I"
o
Ml
CD
O
rH
rH
0
M-f
v
tn
G
•H
rH
4J
4-)
CD
tn
rd
•H
>
rd
CD
4-1
in
j.)
CD
4J
rd
£
CD
4->
tn
rd
^
f~l
0
C
CD
P
Gr1
CD
rX
O
U
.
g
rd
CD
M
4-1
tn
tn
£|
•H
>
•H
CD
U
CD
SH
O
4-)
CD
tn
J_l
rd
r)
O
cn
•H
T3
CD
4-1
CD
rH
a,
g
o
o
T3
C
rd
d~>
C
•H
rH
4J
_p
CD
in
rd
•H
>
CD
rd
CD
M
4-1
in
1-1
CD
4-1
rd
u
CD
4-1
in
rd
^
_r]
O
C
CD
P
•
g
rd
CD
V-j
4->
in
tn
C
•H
•H
0)
U
CD
SH
O
CD
tn
^
rd
»C
U
in
•H
T!
in
^
o
CD
P
CJ1
rd
O
£5
•
CD
CD
CD
H
a
g
0
u
r^J
£
rd
tn
C
•H
rH
4-1
4J
CD
tn
rd
•rl
>
CD
4J
rd
CD
^l
4-J
cn
S-I
CD
4J
rd
[5
CD
4J
in
rd
^
tr\
O
C
CD
P
•
g
rd
CD
}_l
4-1
tn
tn
C
•H
>
•H
CD
U
CD
O
CD
tn
S-i
rd
rf-J
0
tn
-H
t)
in
rj
O
(D
p
CJ1
rd
O
£3
•
CD
tyrH C71 rH
CD
r^
O
U
U
>i
U
CD
r<
CD
r^
O
U
U
>i
O
CD
SH
a
o
•rH
w
O
rd
.. tn^
rd G
D|H
CD
CD
CD
P
ffl
H
H
H
CO
rd CD
4-i -H tn
cn > SH
rd rd
rQ CD U
4-i cn
.G rd -H
4-> CD T3
•H SH
£ -P >i
X!
CD G -O
G rd CD
•H ^
•§ M °
O CD rH
O 4-1 O
rd 4n
tn ^
M CD -
CD 4-) tn
4-1 in G
rd rd -H
^ ^ G
CD CD
4-1 T3 X
cn a) U
rd -H -H
•H
SH 4J
CD C
X! CD
SH G
u P
cn
4-1 CD
CD x!
5 4-1
O
-P
G T3
rd C
H rd
CD
SH U
CD rd
4J G
G SH
•H P
•a
rd
O g
4-1 CD
rd SH
P cn
tn
rd tn
O G
O -H
>
H -rl
rd CD
U U
•H CD
g SH
CD
A O
u -P
ffi
I G
rd £
rX O
rH tJ
cn rd £
rd 0
tn tn i—I
G .0
CD
U
rd CD 4->
G X -H
M U £
P-H
m ^ CD
4-> H
4J
tn
rd
O
O g
>H CD
^ CD
4J 4-)
rd rd
CD
4-)
tn
^O 4->
CD
C
•H C
tn
d c
O -.H
•H >
4-> -H
CD
H U
g 4-1 CD
O tn H rl
0 M -H
0) m o
tn 4-> 4-1
^-i rd T)
CD 13 C T3
4-J CD rd CD
rd 4J cn tn
cn
CD (0
•P ^
«• rd
in
rd
g-H
CD 4-1
4-i rd
in C
u
cn
•H
4-1
G >I-H in
rd tn M -H
H O
M
CD
-P
P!
U O
rd CD
CD C D
•H H -H H
O H m
H
£ cn
t! O -H
SH 4J
M CD -H
& CD > H •
4J C O O 0)
•H CD -n CO
g >; M rd rj
U CD g CD
CD & CD CD
•H O 4J O
O g -H 14-1
6 CD & CD
O 4-1 4-1 rH T3
O W -H CD
>i CD ,£ H
cn cn & & u
M -P >i
CD 4-1 ^ U
rd CD O 4-> >4
£ g -H
CD 4-> C H T3
4J rd O O G
tn CD -H £ rd
rd M 4J 4-i
^ 4J S-i p ^
O rd CD
g CD DJ |S
CD O >i O
4J (0 rtj >H 4-1
cn G rd
>i SH 4-1 tn
cn p • -rH G
tn C-H
C fO rH
CD 4-) -H cn o
X! cn G O
Xj rd CD rd U
P H ^
!H X! O 0 rd
U --H 4->
cn g x JS
O -P
4->
tn
P
rd 0 O
H & > X
a. o G -P
SH MH CD O Ti
0 SH 4-i H CD
4-i CD rd X! cn
G t) CD cn
•H C SH tn rd
CO P 4-1 -H O,
127
-------
I I
CD
U
•H
4J
O
rd
rl
CU
•p
c
fd
rH
O-i
CD
rrj
G
A
•P
•H
J5
13
CD
G
•rl
"I
O
o
CQ
M
CD
4->
rd
^
CD
•P
CQ
rd
J5
g
CD
4J
CQ
!>i
CQ
rH
CU
1
rl
U
CQ
4->
G
rd
rH
ft
M
CD
x^ 4->
G
13 -H
CO
4-)
G
O
U
tnt
G
•H
rl W
CD
•P
G
•H
co
o
-rH
r|
•P
rd
•rl
[>
13
CD
4->
fd
CD
•P
13
C
rd
CQ
rl
CD
G
CD
0
•H
A
•P
CD
0
rd
G
rl
rj
m
4->
CQ
rd
H
ft
X
-H
CO
g
O
M
m
U
o
rH
H
4J
G
0)
g
•P
rd
CD
j-l
4->
pLj
O
CQ
r;
•p
•H
Jj
13
CD
G
•H
n
g
5
o
CO
•H
>
O
rH
m
rl
CD
^
O
rl
CD
C
CD
_v
O
•rl
X!
EH
•
tn
C
•H
G
CD
rl
CD
•rl
MH
•rH
rl
rd
rH
O
•
G
O
•H
-p
rd
U
•H
4H
•rl
rl
rd
rH
U
rd
•rl
^
13
CD
4->
rd
CD
rH
4J
13
G
rd
U
O
rH
UH
rl
0)
O
g
CD
4->
CO
j>^
CO
rl
CD
•P
rd
*>
CD
,r{
4->
CD
rl
CD
,£
5
CO
13
G
0
ft
(ji
G
•rl
rH
-P
-P
CD
CO
G
•H
ti
CD
O
•P
CQ
G
CD
r|
4-1
CD
rl
fd
CO
^
o
H
4H
rl
CD
p>
o
•
c
g»
0
13
o
H
A
XI
4J
•H
£j
13
CD
H
U
r^l
o
CD
M
CQ
•H
0)
0 •
nrt
|:
£
-p
W r
cd
pq
H
13
CD
G
•H
X!
g
0
0
CD
rl
rd
CO
rl
CD
•P
id
|g
CD
4->
CQ
rd
U
g
CD
•P
CQ
>1
CO
CT
G
•H
G
rd
CD
rH
O
CO
fd
CJ
CD
U
rd
G
rl
rj
M-l
•p
CO
rd
rH
CQ
hfl
M
H
3
>;
fl ^
O
rl
H
^
{71
c
•rH
G
CD
y
U
•rl
f~j
4->
rd
•H
J>
^
CD
4J
CD
SH
-P
13
G
rd
CO
rH
CD
4->
rd
U
CD
-P
CO
fd
|5
4-)
G
rH
ft
J_|
CD
4-1
C
CQ
r^
4-)
•H
*
^
O
13
^
0
rH
rQ
r^
-P
•H
Jj
CD
rH
U
^KJ
U
CD
rH
'O
C
.
G
O
•H
4J
fd
G
•H
M
0
rH
(~|
U
CD
C
•H
H
rd
rH
rd
•
CD
rl
4-)
CO
tn
G
•H
£>
•H
CD
U
CD
rl
rd
O
4-)
T3
CD
_p
fd
CD
rl
•P
Q)
in
rd
CO
JH
CD
4-1
rd
U
CD
-P
CO
rd
5
g
CD
4-1
CQ
>1
CO
tn
G
•H
G
rd
CD
rH
O
CQ
rd
tn
H -n
CD fd
> g
O
CD
rlX
CD -P
G
CD CD
\Ji 1
r^H ••
U -rl
-rl £
4J
>1
CD 4->
^ -H
-P M
O
MH rl
0 -P
G rd
0
•H £*i
4-1 M
rl fd
O -P
ft-H
G
ft, fu
CO
• rd
tn
G O
•rH 4->
G
0) G
U O
•H 13
r]
-P G
rd o
•H rH
> £t
•
CD
CQ
rj
CD
rl
rl
0
m
13
CD
rH
O
K*I
U
CD
rl
13
fd
rl
0
0
tn
G
•H
H
O
O
D
rd
x;
tn
rj
0
rl
tG
-P
13
CD
CQ
CO
fd
ft
fd
• rH
£>
13
(D
4-1
rd
CD
SH
4-1
CO
rl
CD
rd
U
CD
4-1
CQ
rd
[5
g
CD
4J
CQ
t>1
CQ
fji
G
•H
G
m
CD
rH
o
CO
rd
CT1
CD
O
rd
G
rj
«H
•P
CQ
rH
PQ
S
G
O
13
O
rH
Q
r|
4-1
•H
J5
CD
rH
U
>-!
0
CD
rl
T)
G
fd
*.
tji
G
H
O
0
O
CD
>
•H
4J
rd
i_j
o
rQ
0
o
r)
pq
O
CQ
•d
G
rd
tn
C
•rl
X!
U
G
CD
3
G1
CD
O
O
13
C
tn
rd
rH
CO
^j
O
4-1
P^13
rd.
>
CD'
•1.
D"i
G
•rl
G
CD
X
0
•rl
,d
"*"'
Q)
CO
3
CO
•rl
G
O
13
*>
O
rH
pq
CD
CT>
rl
rd
^
O
CO
•H
rfj
CQ
rj
O
CD
CT1
(U
O
•
13
CD
rd
M
O
ft
rd
£>
CD
j>-i
H
CD •
4-* g
CD rd
H Q)
ft SH
g -P
O w
O
tn
CQ G
•rH -rH
£>
13 -H
G CD
rd U
CD
CO r4
j>-i
rd rd
SH
ft O
CO 4->
128
-------
CU
u
•H
4-1
O
rd
H
ft
4-1
C
(0
rH
ft
•d
CU
4->
fO
CU
^_l
4->
CU
SH
(0
to
M
CU
4-1
ro
|5
CU
4-1
to
rd
[5
g
CU
4->
to
>i
to
tji
G
•H
G
id
CU
r— |
U
CO
fO
Cn
CU
0
^ rd
C
"d SH
- rj
4J MH
G
0 4-1
U CO
-' tO
rH
(U ffl
O
rd
fi
rT
r-H
4-1
CO
10 O
pq
CU
fa
| pr i
£ O 1
O pq to
rH -H
Xi *d 13
c
XI rd to
4-> d
-H Cn o
5 G CU
•H 3
cu x! d1
H O rd
U G
>i 0) O
U 3 23
cu d1
^
CU •
rff y rri
G O CU
rd o 4-J
rO
- *d SH
Cn C O
G fO &
-H (0
rH Cn >
O tO CU
O rH
O to J^
H
CU rH CU
> 0 4->
-H MH cu
4J H
rd -d O)
SH CU g
O co o
Qj rj Q
rd
> to to
(U -H -H
•> G 'd
Cn £ G
C O i
^1 rH (0
0 pq rH
•H Cl,
Xl CO
4-) •
G >d
rd £ O
•H O O
K> "d xi
•
g
id
cu
M
4-)
CO
Cn
G
-H
>
•H
CU
O
CU
id
O
4-1
CU
en
M
rd
d
U
rd 1
•H CO
£> -H
•d
rrj
CU CO
4-1 3
rd O
CU CU
SH 3
4-> d1
tO
CO
rH O
CU &
4-1
rO
& •
CU CU
•P H
CO 0
tO >i
£ o
CU
CU
4-1 (U
CO 4-1
£*i CU
CO rH
Qj
Cng
G 0
-H O
G
rO >i
CU X!
H
O n3
CU
to 5
(0 O
Cnr—l
i — i
cu o
O MH
fO
G Cn
J_j £
rj .,_)
4-1 G
CU
1 i l^fl
CO O
rd -r)
rH XI
pq 4->
ft
•
£
rd
eu
rH
4-1
to
Cn
G
•H
>
-H
CU
U
CU
M
rd
0
CU
Cn
rH
rd
_c]
U
0)
o
rj
fi
p!
pTj
•P
W
td P
H
>.
CO
J_l
CU
•d 4-1
G rd
td ^
(U
Cn 4-1
G co
•H rd
C £
CU
U CU
•H rH
X! 0
4-1 O
U
td
-H tO
> rd
0
cu
-P •
rO to
CU rH
>H CU
•P XI
r)
to 3
1, | Cj
CU U
4J CO
to
£ CU
(U X!
4J 4J
CO
fO O
& -p
M (U
CU H
X) O
X! >i
3 U
rH CU
U JH
to
CU
•H 4J
5H CU
3 H
4J (i,
C g
CU O
> 0
1)
.0
1)
M
•d
aD
-)
i o
D
H
H
I)
"H
•
4-1
G
CU
g
4J
rd
Q)
5H
4-1
4-»
rj
0
XI
4-1
•H
u
CU
j^
4J
to
Cn
-H
>
•H
CU
o
CU
rd
o
4-1
'd
cu
tn
rd
X!
o
to
•H
"d w
o
1
ptH
s
M
^
o
C-)
•rH
w
FQ
H
1
rd
H
rj
Cn
rd
O
U
H
rd
O
•H
g
CU
XI
u
rd
•H
>
'd
eu
4->
rd
cu
4J
CO
^-1
CU
4J
id
|5
CU
4-1
to
rd
^
g
CU
4->
CO
^i
to
Cn
G
•H
£j
rd
0)
O
to
rd
O
A
to
rj
O
CU
d1
rd
O
2
•
CU
H
U
!>i
O
CU
^
cu
4->
(U
H
a
g
0 •
u g
rd
rO CU
rH
K"I 4-1
X! CO
•d en
cu c
IS -H
0 >
rH -H
rH CU
O O
>H CU
*
Cn tO
•H 0
rH 4-1
4-1
4-> CU
CU Cn
CO S-l
rd
-XI
G U
O CO
•rl -H
4-i 'd
•
- g
Cn id
G CU
•H M
G 4-1
CU CO
y
o en
•H C
X! -H
4-> >
•H
to cu
-rH U
> CU
rH
•d
O tO
-p
fO O
CU 4->
}_4
-P C
to o
>H 'd
cu &
-P 0
tO rH
£ rQ
CU
4-> XJ
to -P
rO -H
Is &
g cu
CU H
-P 0
CO >i
>i O
CO CU
M
en
f~\ »^1
•H X!
G
rd -d
CU CU
rH ^
0 O
rH
CO rH
rd O
O MH
CO
-
G
O
•H
4J
rO
O
•rH
m
•H
CO
to
tO
rH •
0 G
(d o
•H T3
K* &
o
'd ' — i
CU X!
-P
rO XI
(U 4->
< I ._j
-P &
to cu
SH H
CU O
ij ^J
rd O
£ CU
CU rH
4-1
Cfl >,
rd X!
'd
g cu
CU g:
-P 0
CO rH
>^rH
to O
UH
en
C -
-H Cn
G C
rd -H
CU C
rH CU
O rX
U
CO -H
rd xl
U -P
EH
H
129
-------
CD
O
•H
-P
O
tO
SH
^^
•
rrt
_
-P
Pi
O
L)
P!
0)
tn
&
O
b
•H
to
.td
oagula-
o •
i — i rd
rd CD
O SH
•H -P
g W
CD
43 tn
0 Pi
•H
rO >
•H -H
> CD
O
rd (D
CD SH
•4J
fd rd
CD
SH 0
-P -P
CO CD
SH tn
CD S-l
-P tO
td 43
& u
0) CO
4J -H
to T3
tO
Pi
g td
CD
4J -
co tn
Kl ft
tO -H
Pi
tn CD
fH ty^
•H U
Pi -H
td 43
CD -P
rH
O -
Pi
CO O
fd -H
U -P
ID
oagula-
a
u O
H
td Pi
o £
•H 0
g-d
CD 5
43 0
O rH
Q
ro
•H43
> -P
•H
"d is
CD
-P CD
rdH
CD U
SH >i
-P O
CD
CO S-<
j_l
CD >i
•P 42
td
Is 'd
CD (D
-P £
to o
(0 rH
O
£4-1
CD
CO tn g
K*I P! ro
CO -H CD
J-4 M
tn CD -P
P; ^; to
•H 0
Pi-rH tn
tO 43 Pi
CD -P -H
H >
0 *-H
Pi CD
woo
10 -H Q)
O -P M
J>
w
0)
o
fl
Sk
fe
fi
o3
s
a
CD
H
M
'd
P;
tO
tn
pi
-H
Pi
CD
U
•H
•P
•
tO g
•H tO
> CD
SH
"d -p
Q) CO
-P
rd tn
CD Pi
M *rS
•p >
•H
to CD
S-l U
CD CU
-M M
tO
& rO
CD
•P 0
to -P
tO
& c
Is
g o
CD T!
•P £
to O
£"n — 1
to 43
tn43
P! -P
-H -H
P! £
tO
CD 0)
rH rH
O 0
^i
to u
tO CD
U SH
12
i
rd
H
tTl Pi
td -H
O >
U -H
CD
rH U
rd CD
O S-l
g to
CD
43 O
U -P
<0 P!
> 0
"d
'd I?
CD O
4J H
(043
CD
M .fj
4J 4J
-H
CO ^
M
CD CD
-P rH
(0 U
>S »>S
CD U
-P CD
CO S-l
td
I? n3
Pi
g 1
rd
O T3 •
U CD co
15 S-l
rH O CD
rd rH -p
O rH (0
-H 0 &
CD -p
43 Pi co
U O tO
rd -P
•H rd CO
> -P CO
Pi CD
•d CD o
CD g O
-P -H S-l
fO T^ QJ
CD CD
S-) CO 4-1
-P O
•d
to p; CD
S-J td CT1
CD S-l
-P * rd
(0 pi 43
5OO
CD -H CO
-P -P -H
co to T!
(0 rH
£ d o
o d
g u
CD O 43
-P rH 4J
CO i
P! tn 0
tO (0 CD
CD g M
j— |
O ^rH
Pi tO
CO O -P
rd -H O
O -P -P
><
•
rd to -H
tn CD td
43 w
O O
-P fd ft
to
P! 4H -H
0 O "d
•H
-H S-l O •
"d O M-) g
*d 4-1 rd
trji -d CD
CD CD M
CD 43 > -P
S-l 4J O W
3 g
4-' G CD tn
tn -H s-i p;
•H -H
O CD 'd >
e 43 CJ 'H
(0 CD
TJ O U
Q) -P X CD
H P! S-l
•H -P (0
O P! -P (0
M CD
•P 3 Pi O
C H -H -P
O 4-1
D 4-1 ^d CD
CD CD tn
>i -P M
rH SH O fd
CD CD CD 43
CQ rH rH O
O O rH CO
rH O O -H
CJ O O T3
N
P!
o
•H
-P tn
id pi
U-rH
-H >
•H Q)
CO O
to CD
rd S-l
rH
D rd
td o
•H -P
CD
'd CT1
CD SH
4J rd
rd 43
CD U
SH to
•P-H
'd
CO
M ^1
CD 43
•P
fd 'd
£ CD
CD £
-P 0
CO rH
fd rH
& o
g1"
CD -
•P Pi
CO O
!>ipH
CO -p
td
tn u
P!-rH
>r_i Hi
P: -H
rd SH
CD rd •
rH H g
O O fo
CD
W Ti SH
rd C -P
O td w
-------
CU
0)
o
•rH
4J
0
frt
fu
SH
CM
-P
d
fd
rH
cu
cu
-p
fd
co
SH
4->
in
•H
g
0)
4-1
tn
>i
tn
QJ
U
K^
t>1
U
rt\
U)
SH
SH
0)
4-1
fd
i>
>
tn
d
•rH
d
fd
Q)
rH
o
tn
fd
tn
g
O
-- SH
m
17-*
U
d
•P &
d o
o rd
u £
— 0
rH
cu m
u
fd
d
t.
H
d
fa
o
H
ti ff\
H CQ
-P r<
D
CU
H
W
SH
fd
X!
U
tn
•rH
TT\
Tj
>1
X!
•d
cu
&
s
rH
rH
0
Mi
*T~1
tn
.-H
G
•H
rH
4-1
-P
CU
in
13
0)
-d
d
0)
-P •
X g
a) fd
OJ
Ti >H
d 4J
fd in
tn tn
d d
•H -H
d >
Q) -rH
IA f\\
tX W
U U
•H 0)
X! SH
-P
fd
fd
•H o
> -P
0)
tn
f—t
* P
fa g 0)
O fd SH
PQ o;
SH (U d
4-> 4J SH 3:
o tn O o
fd m i3
4-i tn SH X!
1 -H Q)
d
C Xi i>
O d tn CU
O £ 3 -P
O O in
in H SH fd
rHX! Xi &
(1) 4-»
H-) d £
fd o •d fd
£ -H CU >H
a; 4-i tn
4-i >H tn IH
in o fd o
fd ft ft
& 4J
fd SH d
tn CD (u
d --d g
•H in d 4-1
tn SH -H (d
tn Q) fd a)
fd H-i g SH
tn fd
3 H in
U o 'd d
fd o d xl
> D fd EH
bC
fl
•H
CQ
W
S3
tifl
0)
o u
1 <
2
o
Hi
>
H
«
1
d)
4-1
in
fd a) •
£ > g
SH 4-i a)
d) fd SH
-P SH 4J
tn o in
fd ft
u rd tn
> d
in
O ^-rH
3 d ^ »>
f f
tn o
T3 d 73
a) -H ^
d H o
•rH -P H
Xj 4-1 XI
g (U
O tn x!
O 4-1
fd -H
in -H s
SH >
0) Q)
-P T3 H
fd (U O
& 4-> >i
aj fd u
4-1 (U (U
in SH SH
fd 4J
& rd
fd d
tn d rd
d m
•H tn
tn in d
tn SH -H
fd 0) H
tnn-i o
Q) fd o
Q & 0
Q
1
X!
•d
-d
0)
-p
fd
0)
SH
4-1
in
SH
Q)
4-1
rd
&
(U
4J
tn
fd
&
§
UH
O
d
o
-rH
-p
SH
O
ft
tn
tn
d
•H
>
•H
(1)
U
0)
SH
td
O
4->
d
&
0
13
&
0
rH
X!
Xi
4->
•rH
&
Q)
H
U
>i
U
a;
SH
1
cu
4-1
tn
fd
tn s
d
•H
rH
O
0
u
SP
>
•H
4-1
fd
SH
0
ft
fd
>
Q)
0
4-1
-d
(U
-P
U
(U
•n
X!
3
in
in
•H
SH
(U
-P
fd
£
fd
0)
rH
O
>1
o
0)
SH
Q)
Xi
-p
•
Q)
in
3
cu
SH
0)
SH
O
in
fd
&
SH
CO
4J
tn
td
0
tn
S
O
0
d
•H
•p
d
0
u
a
0)
>
•H
4-1
fd
SH
o
ft
fd
>
(U
^
d
0
•rH
-p
fd
SH
-P
rH
•rH
MH
»,
tn
d
•H
rH
-P
-P
(1)
tn
fd
•H
>
•d
0)
4J
fd
(U
SH
-P
•d
d
fd
to
SH
0)
4->
fd
£
•
g
fd
-H
Q)
O
Q)
SH
fd
0
4-1
d
5
D
13
£
6
rH
X)
x:
-p
•rH
$
a)
rH
u
>1
o
a)
SH
•d
d
fd
tn
d
•H
H
O
O
U
131
-------
a. A first attempt at recovery usually practiced at older by-product
coke plants has been the stripping of ammonia trom the raw
ammoniacal liquor through the use of steam in an ammonia still.
Other volatile compounds, including hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen
cyanide, and carbon dioxide are simultaneously liberated from the
liquor and returned to the gas stream. In most cases, this causes
higher sulfide and cyanide levels elsewhere in the system, for
example the final coolers. The stripped liquor still contains
significant amounts of ammonium salts, the so called iixea ammonia.
b. By-products recovery systems usually contain dephenolization in some
form or other, although recently, many plants have abandoned efforts
to market their sodium phenolates. The most common dephenolization
techniques include vapor recirculation, where the steam leaving the
free leg of the ammonia still is scrubbed with a dilute caustic soda
solution to recover sodium phenolate. The steam recirculates and
the dephenolized liquors may be further treated in the ammonia
stills. The other most widely phenol recovery technique is a
liquid/liquid extraction using solvent such as benzoj. or light oil.
The phenol-carrying solvent is then extracted with caustic, the
sodium phenolate separates, and the solvent is reused in the
dephenolizer. The treated liquor is again available for discharge
or further treatment.
c. A third step in reducing waste discharges to the stream practiced by
most companies is the recycling of all quench station wastes,
eliminating liquid discharges from this source. Trie practice was
first made necessary by the use of contaminated water as quench
tower make-up, but should be continued, even where fresh water make-
ups are used.
d. Additional flow reductions are accomplished by closing up the final
cooler systems, passing these discharges over cooling towers or
through a spray pond for recycling. This practice significantly
decreases the discharge of cyanides and sulfides to the streams.
e. Since only about half of the ammonia from the still wastes can be
recovered in the free leg of an ammonia still, processors began to
add a milk of lime slurry ±o the dephenolized waste and passed- it
through a second leg of the ammonia still for additional steam
stripping. This effectively liberates most of the remaining fixed
ammonia to the gas stream for recovery in the absorber. The de-
ammoniated liquor is transferred to a settling pond to provide for
separation of solids.
f. Despite the above recovery techniques, residual concentrations of
contaminants may still be too high to be acceptable for discharge.
In recent years, these systems have been improved in a variety of
ways:
132
-------
1. The construction of in-plant biological treatment plants
utilizing large, aerated lagoons and bacterial cultures
specifically acclimated to break down phenols, cyanides and/or
ammonia into non-toxic products.
2. Provision of sufficient pre-treatment of by-product coke plant
wastes to render them acceptable for treatment in municipally-
owned sewage treatment plants.
3. Distillation and incineration of the total coke plant waste
load in carefully controlled combustion systems. No by-
products other than coke oven gases are recovered and no liquid
effluents are discharged.
4. Improved solvent extraction techniques for recovery of more
phenolics through the use of more selective solvents.
g. Additional research is continuing en new treatment methods and their
possible applications to coke plant wastes:
1. Development of improved biological systems. Systems currently
in use preferentially eliminate one or two of the objectionable
trace materials left after other treatment methods, while
tolerating fairly high concentrations of other pollutants. The
biological degradation of these materials is possible, also.
2. Oxidation using ozone, chlorine compounds or otner strong
oxidants is receiving considerable attention. Past efforts
have been disappointing when attempted on raw waste waters, but
are worth investigating as a polishing technique after gross
quantities are removed by more conventional methods.
3. Carbon absorption has been utilized to treat cnemical and
refinery wastes which are quite similar to by-product coke
plant wastes. The technique is widely used on large volume
flows, and should be considered potentially applicable to coke
plant problems.
Plarit Visits
Four by-product coke plants were visited in the study. Detailed
descriptions of the plant waste water treatment practices are presented
on individual drawings. Table 33 presents a summary of the plants
visited in respect to geographic location, daily production, plant age,
and age of the treatment facility. Brief descriptions and drawings of
the individual waste water treatment systems are presented.
Plant A - Figure 32
133
-------
Once-through system. Light oil and weak ammonia liquor waste waters are
treated with ammonia stills or free leg and proprietary solvent
extraction. Direct discharge of ammonium sulpnate crystallizer
effluent.
Normal gross plant effluent waste load is estimated at 650 I/Jckg of coke
(153 gal/ton) flow, and 0.61 kg ammonia, 0.042 kg BODS, 0.062 kg cyanide
and 0.00087 kg phenol per kkg (It/ 1,000 Ib) of coke produced.
Overall removals of ammonia, BODS, cyanide and phenol are 44.6%, 95.4%,
89.6%, and 99.6% respectively.
Plant_B_-_Ficjure_33
Once-through system. Light oil cooling and weak ammonia liquor waste
waters treated biologically (activated sludge) for removal of phenols.
Normal gross plant effluent waste load is estimated at 306 1/kkg of coke
(108 gal/ton) flow, (without dilution water), and 0.52 kg ammonia,
0.0102 kg BOD5, 0.0169kg cyanide, 0.0000288 kg phenol, 0.00113 kg oil
and grease, 0.074 kg suspended solids and 0.0000117 kg sulfide per kkg
(lb/1,000 Ib) of coke produced.
Overall removals of ammonia, BOD5, cyanide, phenol, oil and grease,
suspended solids, and sulfide are 28.8%, 98. 5%, 71.8%, 99.8%, 99.1%, 0%,
and 99.96%, respectively.
Weak ammonia liquor waste water treated in once-througn system with
dephenolizer followed by ammonia still operating on both free and fixed
legs followed by settling basins. Light oil waste water used as make-up
for coke quench station with closed recycle system. Normal gross plant
effluent waste load is estimated at 174 1/kkg of coke (41 gax/ton) flow
and 0.08 kg ammonia, 0.091 kg BOD5, 0.0215 kg cyanide, 0.037 kg phenol,
0.00316 kg oil and grease, 0.0174 kg suspended solids and 0.019 kg
sulfide per kkg (lb/1,000 Ib) of coke produced.
Overall net removals of ammonia, BODS, cyanide, phenol, oil and grease,
suspended solids, and sulfide are 92.9%, 47.7%, 18.4%, 73.4%, 80.2%,
74.4%, and 37.0%, respectively.
Plant_D_-_Fic[ure_35
Weak ammonia liquor waste water treated in once-through system with
desulfizer tower followed by dephenolizer followed by ammonia still
operating on both free and fixed legs. Non contact cooling water
blended with once-through treatment effluent.
134
-------
I O I Q
-------
< I ID I U I O I
_liiti_tilljlJlil)ltllJIJI_l_l]llllJ_lilil_]i.jlll II I I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I
-
1 '1
! It
\n
-------
aO hj^
§„?*
»-i ii r Q
1 .
si-'
IS
?!
SETTLING
0A.S>H
\
5
I J
"8
S^-
Oio
ffl .
5y A
^
»s
f,
k S
u
-------
-------
Normal gross plant effluent waste load is estimated at: 19,400 1/kkg of
coke (4,600 gal/ton) flow, (contains contaminated once-through cooling
water), and 0.035 kg ammonia, 0.096 kg BOD5, 0.156 kg cyanide, 0.0010 kg
phenol, 0.00038 kg oil and grease, 0.135 kg suspended solids, and 0.0288
kg sulfide per kkg (lb/1,000 Ib) of coke produced.
Overall removals of ammonia, BODS, cyanide, phenol, oil and grease,
suspended solids, and sulfide are 95.3%, 61.2%, OX, 99.1%, 99.5%, 76.6%,
and 64.4%, respectively.
Beehive Coke gubcategory
Wastewater treatment at beehive operations ranges from once through
water flow with no treatment provisions, once through systems with
settling basins to collect minute fines, and a complete recycle of water
to quench.
Plant Visits
Three beehive coke plants were visited in the study. Detailed
descriptions of the plant waste water treatment practices are presented
on individual drawings. Table 35 presents a summary of the plants
visited in respect to geographic location, daily production, plant age,
and age of the treatment facility. Brief descriptions and drawings of
the individual waste water treatment systems are presented.
Plant E - Figure 36
Coke quench waste water treated by once through system composed of
simple settling ponds.
Normal gross plant effluent waste load is estimated at 2,070 1/kkg of
coke (490 gal/ton) flow, and 0.00049 kg ammonia, 0.00202 kg BOD5 ,
0.0000081 kg cyanide, and 0.0000286 kg phenol per kkg (lb/1,000 Ib) of
coke produced.
Overall removals of ammonia BODS, cyanide, and phenol are 39.7%, 80%,
20.1%, and 12.6%, respectively.
Piant_F_-_Figure_37
Coke quench waste water recirculated and reused. No effluent waste
water. Make-up as required.
Normal gross effluent waste load is zero since there is no discharge.
Plant^G - Figure 38 Coke quench waste water recirculated and reused. No
effluent discharge. Make-up as required.
Normal gross effluent waste load is zero since there is no discharge.
139
-------
HI
d 0. 1
-------
moo
i i i i i i I i i i i i i i i i i I i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i I i
»
I 0
i «
•
V
I 8r
I s*
I It
* as
0 * 0
f!
U 2
-------
U I O I
'
i£:"
i2iM
!5«K
-------
Sintering_Subcategory
Treatment of sinter plant aqueous wastes primarily centers on two basic
systems dependent on the scrubbing system employed.
When scrubbers are used for the dedusting systems, the scrubber aqueous
discharges are either "once through" or "recycled" through a thickener.
The thickener underflow is decanted with centrifuges or vacuum filters
with the filtrates being returned to the thickeners and the filter cake
being returned to the sinter plant.
When high energy venturi scrubbers are used in place of precipitators
for the sinter bed exhaust system, the scrubber aqueous discharges are
treated in the same manner as the dedusting system, but may require
magnetic or chemical flocculaticn to increase the settling efficiencies.
Plant Visits
Four sintering plants were visited during the survey. However, the data
are not as complete as with other subcategories of the project. This is
due to several reasons, namely:
a. Tie in with other plant processes, such as the blast furnace. This
poses a problem in determining the effectiveness of the treatment
facility on the sinter plant portion of the waste waters.
b. The effluent of one plant was not sampled due to tne malfunctioning
of a portion of the treatment equipment.
c. Failure of one plant to provide information relative to costs and
daily production. Sampling was performed but the data could not be
correlated.
Detailed descriptions of the plant waste water treatment practices are
presented on individual drawings. Table 36 presents a summary of the
plants visited in respect to geographic location, daily production,
plant age, and age of the treatment facility. Brief descriptions and
individual wastewater treatment systems are presented.
g 39
Sinter plant scrubber waste waters are combined with blast furnace and
other steel making waste waters and treated via chemical coagulation and
thickening followed by discharge to the receiving stream.
No effluent sample was obtained due to a malfunction of the chemical
treatment system.
Plant_J_-_Figure_40
143
-------
-------
Gas scrubber water on a tight recycle system. Loop contains gas
scrubbers, thickener and cooling tower.
Normal gross plant effluent waste load is estimated at 486 1/kkg of
sinter (114 gal/ton) flow, and 0.000474 kg oil and grease, 0.00427 kg
suspended solids, 0.00403 kg fluoride, and 0.00511 kg sulfide per kkg
(lb/1,000 Ib) of sinter produced.
Overall removals for oil and grease and suspended solids are
approximately 100% and for sulfides are 94.5%.
Blast Furnace Operations
Several different treatment systems have been used throughout the years
to treat the waste water from blast furnace gas cleaning systems. Some
of these have been fairly successful; however, others are experimental
in nature and have yet to be resolved. They are listed here according
to the degree of treatment they provide. The basic treatment system was
designed for the removal of particulate matter and not for the removal
of the chemicals in the waste waters. The ultimate treatment system is
the one that not only removes the solids but also the cnemical from the
waste.
a. The simplest system for treating blast furnace gas wash water has
been a rectangular settling tank. Here the solids were allowed to
settle and the clarified overflow water discharged to the receiving
stream. The settled material is removed from an idle unit by a clam
shell bucket and trucked to landfill while material settles out in a
second unit. This is the simplest type of settling tank; however,
the handling of the wet sludge created many problems. These have
been replaced by more sophisticated equipment which pumps the
settled sludge to vacuum filters for further dewatering.
b. The rectangular settling tank has been replaced witn a circular
thickener or clarifier. The dirty water from the gas scrubber
enters in the center, the solids settle to the bottom, and the
clarified water overflows around the circumference of the tank. The
sludge is pumped from the bottom of the thickener to vacuum filters
where the solids are filtered from the water and the filtrate
returned to the thickener. The overflow water from the thickener is
discharged to the receiving stream as most of the solids have been
removed. Most all blast furnaces are equipped with this type of
system for the removal of suspended solids in the wash water. This
system, however, does not appreciably affect the chemical
composition of the water.
c. A few plants have modified the above system to discharge the
clarified overflow from the thickener back into the water intake for
the total plant water system. Here the water is diluted with
incoming fresh water and used throughout the various noncontact
145
-------
I I I ( I I I
J I J I I 1 ] I ] 1 ]
Q
«
J?
i«
I *
H!
!!!;
isiis
I
1
-------
cooling systems within the plant as well as for make-up water to the
blast furnace gas cleaning system. In these plants, the noncontact
cooling water is discharged at a point not near the plant intake.
Returning the clarified water from the thickener to the plant intake
dilutes the water and treats it by aeration in cooling towers, etc.,
in a noncontact cooling system of the plant. It is then discharged
in an area where it cannot be picked up by the water intake pumps.
This system makes no attempt to treat the chemical wastes other than
by dilution and aeration throughout the noncontact cooling system.
d. At least one plant is taking the thickener overflow from a once
through system and passing it through a continuous alkaline
chlorination system for the total destruction of cyanide and
phenols. The effluent from the alkaline chlorination treatment
system goes to a clarifier and sand filter prior to being returned
to the plant intake water system for recycle through the plant.
This treated effluent shows virtually complete elimination of
suspended solids, cyanide, phenol, and sulfide. Ammonia
concentrations are also reduced by 70 percent, and the treated
waters that are recycled to the plant intake are normally of higher
quality than the raw river water used as make-up. The blend of
treated and raw water is not only used as process water in the
sinter plant and blast furnace gas washer system, but also as
process water for merchant mills and blooming mills in other areas
of the manufacturing complex.
e. Recycle systems are also in use in some plants. Tne thickener
overflow is collected in a tank and returned to the gas cleaning
system without the benefit of a cooling tower to cool the water.
This system takes advantage of the surface cooling effect of the
thickener; however, it operates at a higher recirculation water
temperature than in other systems. The blowdown from this recycle
system is discharged to the local stream. The sludge is pumped to a
vacuum filter for further dewatering and recovery. There are only a
few plants operating with this type system.
f. The basic recycle system in use today uses a thickener to remove the
solids from the blast furnace gas wash water. The thickener
overflow goes into a tank and is pumped to a cooling tower where the
water is cooled and returned to the gas washer ±or reuse. The
system is also equipped with a vacuum filter to dewater the sludge
and the filtrate is returned to the thickener. The effluent from
the system is the blowdown from the cooling tower which is free of
settleable solids. This is discharged to the local streams. No
effort is made to treat the chemical composition of the wash water,
however, the aeration in the cooling tower tends to oxidize and re-
duce the chemical composition of these waters.
g. At least one steel company is using a bio-oxidation system for the
destruction of cyanide. Information available on this system is
147
-------
limited; however, the large volumes of water requiring treatment and
the sensitivity of bio-oxidation systems requires careful attention
to details of operation.
h. At least one blast furnace is operating a wash water recycle system
without a discharge to the receiving stream by discharging the
blowdown to the local sanitary authority for treatment in the sewage
treatment plant. This appears to be working out satisfactorily.
There is a question, however, whether the sewage treatment, plant is
effectively treating the chemical blowdown, or diluting the waste to
where it cannot be found. Few sewage treatment systems are designed
to handle this increased hydraulic loading. Any municipal treatment
system receiving the blowdown from a blast furnace gas wash water
system is likely to impose strict limitations on the volume and
composition of water that it can handle. Problems therefore develop
during periods of upset and equipment cleaning on how to handle the
extra waste water. Overloading the municipal treatment system could
cause undue problems for the municipality.
i. Another route to the disposal of the waste water from a blast
furnace gas wash water system is a complete recycle system with
thickeners, cooling towers, and vacuum filters with precise control
over the blowdown from the system. The blowdown is totally
evaporated by slag and coke quenching and in the EOF hood, cooling.
Several plants are doing this; however, not all blast furnaces have
the advantage of readily available coke quenching and EOF hood
cooling operations convenient to their site. This system therefore
may not apply to all blast furnaces. In addition, trace amounts of
chemicals are released into the atmosphere to become an air
pollution problem. The extent of this air pollution problem has not
been established.
j. slowdowns from recycle systems may be handled in ways other than by
discharge to receiving streams. Incineration of the blowdown is one
method of accomplishing this. This would be practical only if
surplus blast process gas fuel were available r.o operate the
incinerator. It would, however, oxidize or destroy the chemical
components of the waste. If the total evaporation of slag and coke
quenching is a satisfactory method for eliminating the dissolved
solids from recycle system, then evaporation using available waste
heat from the blast furnace could also be used.
A zero discharge from the gas wash water system could be
accomplished by demineralizing the blowdown and returning the
condensate to the system as demineralized makeup water. The
concentrated brine could be disposed of as a concentrated brine, it
could be taken to complete dryness, or it could be further
concentrated and the solids crystallized out and removed by filters
and disposed of in landfill. Incineration, demirieralization, and
evaporation by waste heat recovery have not been tried. However,
148
-------
these are ways of eliminating the blowdowns from these systems and
should be investigated.
k. There is presently being designed a recycle system for the blast
furnace gas wash water system that will have no blowdown other than
the moisture in the filter cake that leaves the system via the
vacuum filters. Preliminary tests and calculations have indicated
that such a system is possible. If this system is made to work, it
would be the ultimate way of operating a blast furnace recycle
system with no blowdown. However, this system would not be
applicable to all blast furnaces.
1. The ultimate disposal of blast furnace gas wash water is the
operation of a system with no blowdown to the receiving stream.
Several plants are operating in this manner, however, no one can be
applied to all mills.
Plant^Visits
Five iron making blast furnaces and one ferro-manganese blast furnace
were visited during the study. Detailed descriptions of the plant waste
water treatment practices are presented on individual drawings. Tables
37 and 38 present a summary of the plants visited in respect to
geographic location, daily production, plant age, and age of the
treatment facility. Brief descriptions and drawings of the individual
waste water treatment systems are presented.
Plant_L_-_Figure_4_1
Gas cleaning water on loose recirculation system with maximum blowdown.
Loop includes gas scrubber, thickener, alkaline chlorination unit, and
sand filter.
Normal gross plant effluent waste load is estimated at 23,000 i/kkg of
iron (5,400 gal/ton) flow, and 0.084 kg ammonia, 0.0005 kg cyanide,
0.0014 kg phenol, 1.1 kg suspended solids, and 0.0043 kg sulfide per kkg
(lb/1,000 Ib) of iron produced.
Overall removals of ammonia, cyanide, phenol, suspended solids, and
sulfide are 24.956, 98.5%, 90.1ft, 97.3%, and 96.1%, respectively.
Plant_M_-_Figure_42
Gas cleaning water on tight recycle system with minimal biowdown. Loop
includes scrubbers, thickener and cooling tower.
Normal gross plant effluent load is estimated at 525 1/kJcg of iron (123
gal/ton) flow, and 0.044 kg ammonia, 0.0087 kg cyanide, 0.0184 kg
phenol, 0.0436 kg suspended solids, and 0.00249 kg sulfide per kkg
(lb/1,000 Ib) of iron produced.
149
-------
-------
Hi
if
a
a
<3
£
; ji
;
D
ill
0
-------
Overall removals for ammonia, cyanide, phenol, suspend€;d solids, and
sulfide are 0%, 0%, 0%, 99.2%, and 0%, respectively.
Gas cleaning water on tight recycle system with minimal blowdown. Loop
includes scrubbers, thickener, and cooling tower.
Normal gross effluent waste load is estimated at 428 1/K.kg of iron
(gal/ton) flow, and 0.112 kg ammonia, 0.0078 kg cyanide, 0.000014U kg
phenol, 0.0164 kg suspended solids, and 0.00175 kg sulfide per kkg
(lb/1,000 Ib) of iron produced.
Overall removals for ammonia, cyanide, phenol, suspended solids, and
sulfide are 20.1%, 0.0%, 99.8%, 99.6%, and 0.0%, respectively.
Pi§.nt_Q_-_Fic[ure_4.4
Gas cooling and cleaning water on tight recycle system with minimal
blowdown. Loop includes gas coolers and scrubbers, thickeners, and
cooling towers.
Normal gross plant effluent waste load is estimated at 440 1/kkg of iron
(104 gal/ton) flow, and 0.0434 kg ammonia, 0.00469 kg cyanide, 0.0000044
kg phenol, 0.0199 kg suspended solids, and 0.00299 kg sulfide per kkg
(lb/1,000 Ib) of iron produced.
Overall removals of ammonia, cyanide, phenol, suspended solids, and
sulfide are 73.0%, 0.0%, 99.6%, 99.9%, and 0.0%, respectively.
Plant g - Figure 45
Once-through gas cooling system. Gas cleaning water on closed recycle
loop. Loop includes gas scrubber and thickener.
Normal gross effluent waste load is estimated at 24,000 1/kkg of
ferromanganese (5,700 gal/ton) flow, and 3.92 kg ammonia, 2.54 kg
cyanide, 0.144 kg manganese, 0.011 kg phenol, 1.78 kg suspended solids,
and 2.42 kg sulfide per kkg (lb/1,000 Ib) of ferromanganese produced.
Overall removals of ammonia, cyanide, phenol, suspended solids, and
sulfide are 0%, 0%, 0%, 99.2%, and 0% respectively.
Basic Oxygen Furnace Operation
The waste water produced is primarily the result of the fume collection
system employed. There is no discharge on the dry type precipitator
system and hence no waste water treatment is involved.
152
-------
I I I I I I I I I I
*
>••
IB
V»
£
«
r-
*
<*
•»'*.
«o'
3:
8J
II
<
I
-------
is
}{
S3
s a
!Ui
,
t's*
-------
• •
u S
i '
II
-------
The semi-wet system employs a precipitator and gas conditioning in a
spark box spray chamber. The spark box spray system utilizes an
excessive spray water system.
The basic type of water control treatment system applied to this aqueous
discharge is generally a steel or concrete rectangular settling tank
containing a motorized flight conveyor for removing the settled solids.
The water is allowed to settle some solids and then overflowed to the
plant sewers while the flight conveyor removes the settled solids for
truck disposal. Approximately 22-30% of the dust load ejected from the
furnaces is precipitated out in the spark box chamber and discharged to
the settling tank. These systems can be upgraded .by magnetic and
chemical flocculation systems, thus precipitating more of the submicron
iron oxide fines.
These systems can be arranged for a zero aqueous discharge by adding
make-up water and recycling the water back into the spark box spray
system.
An alternate system to the spark-box spray or dry evaporation chamber
system is to install a wetted wall type evaporation chamber. A wetted
wall evaporation chamber contains no refractory lining, but uses a water
wetted steel surface as the heat resistant medium. These chambers
require large quantities of water to insure that the steel surfaces do
not become overheated. The aqueous discharges from tnese systems are
generally discharged to a settling chamber, make-up water is added, with
chemical treatment and the water is recycled back to the evaporation
chamber system. These systems employ the same water treatment
techniques as the spark box discharges except the precipitated dust load
is somewhat less (10%) as these systems are a cross between the spark
box and dry evaporation chambers.
The wet high energy venturi scrubber fume collection systems generally
use steam generating type hoods close coupled with a low energy fixed
orifice quencher. As the hot gases exit from the hood, the gases are
immediately quenched from 150°c to 85°C saturation temperature.
The aqueous discharge from the scrubber fume collection system is from
the primary quencher with the effluent being discharged to thickeners.
Most systems have thickeners for settlement of solids. Flocculation
polymers systems are generally installed to aid settlement. The
overflow from the thickener is discharged to the plant sewers and the
underflow from the thickeners is passed through filters for decanting
with the filtrate being returned to the thickener while the filter cake
is sent to the sintering plant for recycling. These systems can become
recycling systems by adding make-up water to compensate for water
evaporation in the primary quencher.
The treated water is pumped into the venturi scrubber and recycled from
the venturi scrubber to the primary quencher.
156
-------
The thickener overflow produces an effluent of 30-50 mg/1 but can be
reduced further by means of pressure sand filters to 5 to 10 mg/1.
An alternate wet system to the venturi scrubber system is the wet gas
washer and disintegration system. This system has a limited use due to
the limited volume and horsepower required to operate the disintegrator.
Disintegrators operate in the range of 170 to 2000 cu m/min (6,050 to
70,600 cu ft min) at 448 kw which would require six to seven units for
an average 200 kkg (220 ton) EOF furnace.
The effluent from this system is discharged to a thickener and water is
recycled to gas washers.
The off gas system uses this similar quencher and venturi scrubber
similar to the open hood combustion type system. The aqueous discharges
from the off gas quenchers pass through a classifier, cyclone separator
and from there to a thickener where the thickener overflow is recycled
back to the scrubber system. The underflow is decanted by filters and
the filter cake is returned to the sintering plant.
Plant Visits
Five basic oxygen plants were visited in the study. Detailed
descriptions of the plant waste water treatment practices are presented
on individual drawings. Table 39 presents a summary of the plants
visited in respect to geographic location, daily production, plant age,
and age of the treatment facility. Brief descriptions and drawings of
the individual waste water treatment systems are presented.
Plant_R_-_Figure_46
This plant utilizes chemical coagulation, sedimentation, and complete
recycle to treat waste waters generated from their gas cleaning system.
There is zero aqueous discharge from the system.
Piant^S - Figure 47
This plant utilizes classification, thickening, and recycle with
blowdown (approximately 5%) to treat waste waters generated from their
gas cleaning system.
Gross plant effluent loads are 220 1/kkg of steel (52.2 gal/ton) flow,
and 0.00478 kg suspended solids per kkg (lb/1,000 Ib) of steel produced.
Overall percent removal of suspended solids associated with this system
is 99.4%.
Plant_T_-_Fi2ure_48
157
-------
-------
j >
M
i «-
E 5
S £
* 3
in ~
« 5 o
"?#
hit
<&
(*W* QLtP)
-^-
j
(H>et*> OffZP)
<]
-------
This plant utilizes classification, thickening, and recycle with
blowdown (approximately 25%) to treat waste waters generated in their
gas cleaning system.
Gross plant effluent loads are 915 1/kkg of steel (217 gal/ ton) flow,
and 0.064 kg suspended solids, and 0.0129 kg fluoride per kkg (lb/1,000
Ib) of steel produced.
Overall removal of suspended solids and fluoride associated with this
system is 99.34% and 59.2%, respectively.
This plant utilizes chemical coagulation and thickening, followed by
direct discharge of all waste waters generated by their gas cleaning
system.
Gross plant effluent loads are 3,060 1/kkg of steel (728 gai/ton) flow,
and 0.115 kg suspended solids, and 0.0114 kg fluoride per kkg (lb/1,000
Ib) of steel produced.
Overall removal of suspended solids and fluoride are 91% and 0.0%,
respectively.
Plant _V_-_Figure_50
This plant utilizes classification, chemical coagulation, thickening,
and recycle with blowdown (approximately 13%) to treat waste waters
generated in the gas cleaning system.
Gross plant effluent loads are 139 1/kkg of steel (33.3 gal/ton) flow,
and 0.0055 kg suspended solids and 0.00298 kg fluoride per kkg (lii/1,000
Ib) of steel produced.
Overall removal of suspended solids and fluoride amounted to 99.94% and
0%, respectively.
Open gear th_Furnace_Operati on
Either wet high energy venturi scrubber systems or dry precipitator
systems are installed on open hearth shops. The hot gases to the
precipitator systems are conditioned by either passing the gases through
evaporation chambers or through waste heat boilers, reducing the gas
temperature from 1600°F to 500°F. Because the open hearth furnaces are
fired using many available f*iels, nitrous oxides and sulfur oxides are
present in the waste gas streams.
The aqueous discharges from precipitators are zero except for any waste
heat boiler blowdown.
160
-------
-------
^
s
OJ
Jl
<3
-------
< « U o
i i I i i i i i I i i i i i i i i i i I i i i i i i i i i i I i i i i i i i i i i
H
o n
% v
a. K
M
5i?
0 }^
-------
The aqueous discharges from the high energy venturi scrubbers system is
scrubbing waters from the primary quenchers.
The aqueous discharges are treated the same as the BOF except pH
adjustment has to be added to adjust for the acidic wastes being
discharged.
Plant_yisits
Two open hearth shops were visited in the study. Detailed descriptions
of the plant waste water treatment practices are presented on individual
drawings. Table 40 presents a summary of the plants visited in respect
to geographic location, daily production, plant age, and age of the
treatment facility. Brief descriptions and drawings of tne waste water
treatment systems are presented.
Plant W -
This plant utilizes thickening and recycle with blowdown (approximately
16%) to treat waste waters generated in their gas cleaning system.
Gross plant effluent loads from the system are 216 1/kkg of steel (51.4
gal/ton) flow, and 0.0173 kg of suspended solids, 0.0316 kg fluoride,
0.00471 kg nitrate, and 0.0057 kg zinc per kkg (lb/1,000 Ib) of steel
produced.
Overall removals for suspended solids, fluoride, nitrate, and zinc are
98.27%, 42.37%, 91.28%, and 0.0%, respectively.
Plant X - Figure 52
This plant utilizes chemical coagulation, thickening, and recycle with
blowdown (approximately 21%) to treat waste waters generated in their
gas cleaning system.
Gross plant effluent loads from the system are 500 1/kkg of steel (120
gal/ton) flow, and 0.0256 kg suspended solids, 0.032 kg fluoride, 0.030
kg nitrate, and 0.595 kg zinc per kkg (lb/1,COO Ib). of steel produced.
Overall removals for suspended solids, fluoride, nitrate, ana zinc are
99.7%, 10%, 0.0%, and 70.47%, respectively.
Electric^Arc^Furnace Operation
The furnace collection systems range from a complete dry to semi-wet to
wet high energy venturi scrubbers.
The dry fume collection system consists of baghouses with local exhaust
or plant rooftop exhaust hoods. The aqueous discharges from these
systems are zero.
164
-------
-------
? I
« •• k. J
^ til 2 0
llli
-------
The semi-wet system employs a spark box or spray chamber to condition
the hot gases for either a precipitator or baghouse. A spark box is
generally used with a precipitator system and spray chamber for a
baghouse system. The spark box conditions the gases to 200°C while
spray chamber conditions gases to 135°C. The aqueous discharge from
these systems is controlled and treated with similar systems as used on
the spark box chamber on the basic oxygen furnace.
The wet high energy venturi scrubber fume collection systems use the
water cooled elbow for extracting the gases from the electric arc
furnace. Combustion air gaps are always left between the water cooled
elbow and fume collection ductwork to insure that all tne CO gas burns
to CO2 before entering the high energy venturi scrubber or any other
fume collection cleaning device. As the hot gases pass through the
scrubber, the gases are conditioned and cooled to 182°F saturation
temperature.
The aqueous discharge from the wet scrubber system is handled in the
same manner as the EOF.
Plant_Visits
Four electric furnace shops were visited in the study. Detailed
descriptions of the plant waste water treatment practices are presented
on individual drawings. Table 41 presents a summary of the plants
visited in respect to geographic location, daily production, plant age,
and age of the treatment facility. Brief descriptions and drawings of
the individual waste water treatment systems are presented.
Plant Y- Figure 53
This plant utilizes chemical coagulation, magnetic flocculation,
sedimentation, and total recycle to treat those waste waters generated
in the gas cleaning system.
The system has zero aqueous discharge.
The system effects 100% removal of fluoride and suspended solids.
Plant_Z_-_Fi2ure_54
This plant utilizes closely controlled moisture addition to their gas
cleaning system to produce a sludge of sufficient solids concentration
to allow direct solids disposal.
There is no aqueous discharge from the system.
The system effects 100% removal of suspended solids.
Plant _AA_-_Figure_j>5
167
-------
-------
!iB
*
?
«
-------
>C
i
f
v_^
sC
\l
-H
IP
r '•
Is
£w
I
tf
5?
**»s
X*
<* ••
^
A
*
It
3
«
£
M
»S
-------
This plant utilizes classification and clarification on a once-through
basis to treat waste waters generated in the gas cleaning system.
Gross plant effluent loads from the system are 1,220 1/kkg of steel (299
gal/ton) flow, and 0.0258 kg fluoride and 0.074 kg suspended solids per
kkg (lb/1,000 Ib) of steel processed.
Overall removals of fluoride and suspended solids observed are 0% and
97.3%, respectively.
Pi a_n_t_AB_ - ^ Figur e_ 5 6
This plant utilizes recycle with blowdown (approximately 6%), with
treatment of the blowdown via thickening and extended settling to treat
waste waters generated in the gas cleaning system.
Gross plant effluent loads are 680 1/kkg of steel (162 gal/ton) flow,
and 0.0081 kg fluoride, and 0.015 kg suspended solids per kkg (lb/1,000
lb) of steel processed.
Net overall removals of fluoride and suspended solids are 7.8% and
99.95%, respectively.
Vacuum Dergassing Operation
The condensed steam and heated cooling water is discharged from the
barometric condenser in a hot well. The water from the hot well is
either discharged or is routed into a combination water treatment system
that services other steelmaking facilities. The water rate for the
barometric condensers systems is approximately 85-175 I/sec (20 - 41
gal/sec) with temperature increases of 20-30°C. Inert gases, for
example argon, are injected for mixing of bath and nitrogen is used for
purging the system before breaking the vacuum.
Piant_Visit s
Two degassing plants were visited in the study. Detailed descriptions
of the plant waste water treatment practices are presented on individual
drawings. Table 42 presents a summary of the plants visited in respect
to geographic location, daily production, plant age, and age of the
treatment facility.
Plant_AC_-_Figure_57
Vacuum degasser waste water or tight recycle loop with minimal blowdown.
Loop contains cooling tower for heat dissipation.
Normal gross effluent waste load is estimated to be 67 1/kkg of steel
(16 gal/ton) flow, 10,900 Btu of heat per kkg (9,940 Btu/ton) and
0.00011 kg lead, 0.0012 kg manganese 0.0068 kg nitrate, 0.0035 kg
171
-------
I I I I I I I J
*
{
8
i!i
H * £
V- D
! i 8
t a
J*
66
(t*tfS 00 Z)
i. UQ
*|t
!*s
: U
:<
-------
.
« «•
I II
* 0 2
< 0
!Hi_
liiii
55
ji'"'
?f u?u;
M :s tl
Shis"
in*
°-l
o
9
2
Q
iL
f
in
of
ill
I
U
j
I
Mi
•"
sr
-------
suspended solids, and 0.0015 kg zinc per kkg (lb/ 1,000 ID) of steel
processed.
Overall removals of heat, lead, manganese, nitrate, suspended solids and
zinc are 72.4%, 93.4%, 92.9%, 94.6%, 96.0% and 79.4%, respectively.
Plant AD - Figure 58
Degasser waste water is on a moderately tight recycle loop with scale
pit, filter, and cooling tower.
Normal gross effluent waste load is estimated to be 46 1/kkg of steel
(10.9 gal/ton) flow, 220 Btu/kkg (182 Btu/ton) , and 0.0000046 kg lead,
0.000127 kg manganese, 0.0 kg nitrate, 0.00168 kg suspended solids, and
0.0000416 kg zinc per kkg (lb/1,000 Ib) of steel processed.
Overall removals of heat, lead, manganese, nitrate, suspended solids,
and zinc are 98.8%, 99.6%, 100%, 94.9%, 97.1% and 99.4% respectively.
Continuoug^Casting^Subcategorv
The spray water system water discharge is an open recirculating system
with make-up and blowdown using either settling chamber scale pits with
drag link conveyors or flat bed type filters for scale and oil removal.
The effluent from the scale pit or filtrate from the flat bed filters is
sometimes reduced in temperature by pumping through induced draft
cooling towers before recycling the waters back to the spray system.
Approximately 5-10% of the spray water is evaporated duiing the spray of
the cast product. The aqueous discharge from this system is blowdown.
Plant Visits
Two continuous casting plants were visited in the study. Detailed
descriptions of the plant waste water treatment practices are presented
on individual drawings. Table 43 presents a summary of the plants
visited in respect to geographic location, daily production, plant age,
and age of the treatment facility.
Caster waste water is on a moderately tight recycle loop. The loop
contains scale pit, filter, and cooling tower.
Normal gross plant effluent waste load is estimated to be 467 1/kkg of
steel (111 gal/ton) flow, and 0.0020/kg oil and grease, and 0.00202 kg
suspended solids per kkg (lb/1,000 Ib) of steel processed.
Overall removals of oil and grease and suspended solids are 99.4% and
98.7%, respectively.
-------
-------
-------
PI a nt_ AF_-_ Figure,58
Caster waste water is on a tight recycle system with minimal blowdown.
Recycle loop contains scale pit, filter, and cooling tower.
Normal gross effluent waste load is estimated to be 344 1/kkg (82.5
gal/ton) of steel flow, with less than 0.000172 kg oil and grease and
0.0127 kg suspended solids per kkg (lb/1.000 Ib) of steel produced.
Overall removals of oil and grease and suspended solids are 99.9% and
97.2%, respectively.
These results are summarized in Tables 44 through 53.
Bas_e Level^ of Treatment
In developing the technology, guidelines, and incremental costs
associated with the application of the technologies subsequently to be
selected and designated as one approach to the treatment or effluents to
achieve the BPCTCA, BATEA, and NSPS effluent qualities, it was necessary
to determine what base or minimum level of treatment was already in
existence for practically all plants within the industry in any given
sub-category. The different technology levels were cnen formulated in
an "add-on" fashion to these base levels. The various treatment models
(levels of treatment) and corresponding effluent volumes and
characteristics are listed in Tables 54 through 64. Since these tables
also list the corresponding costs for the average size plant these
tables are presented in Section VIII.
It was obvious from the plant visits that many of the plants in
existence today have treatment and control facilities with capabilities
that exceed the technologies chosen to be the base levels of treatment.
Even though many plants may be superior to the base technology it was
necessary, in order to be all inclusive of the industry as a whole, to
start at the base level of technology in the development of treatment
models and incremental costs.
177
-------
SECTION VIII
COST, ENERGY, AND NONWATER QUALITY ASPECTS
Introduction
This section will discuss the incremental costs incurred in applying the
different levels of pollution control technology. Tne analysis will
also describe energy requirements, nonwater quality aspects (including
sludge disposal, by-product recovery, etc.), and their techniques,
magnitude, and costs for each level of technology.
It must be remembered that some of the technology beyond the base level
may already be in use. Also many possible combinations and/or
permutations of various treatment methods are possible. Thus, not all
plants will be required to add all of the treatment capabilities or
incur all of the incremental costs indicated to bring the base level
facilities into compliance with the effluent limitations.
Costss
The water pollution control costs for the plants visited during the
study is presented in Tables 44 through 53. The urea-orient systems,
gross effluent loads and reduction benefits were described in Section
VII. The costs were estimated from data supplied by tne plants. The
results are summarized as follows:
By Product Coke
II Beehive Coke
III Sintering
IV Blast Furnace
(Iron)
Blast Furnace
(FeMn)
EOF (Semi Wet)
V
VI
VII BOF (Wet)
Plant
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
J
L
M
N
O
Q
R
U
S
T
unit weight of product
$/kkg
0.855
0.118
0.789
0.847
*0.074
*0.039
0.023
NA
1.033
0.122
0.172
1.022
4.220
0.160
0.161
0.176
** 0.052
j/ton
0?776
0.107
0.716
0.769
*0.068
*0.036
0.021
NA
0.937
0.111
0.156
0.927
3.830
0.145
0.146
0. 160
**0.047
Product
Coke
Coke
Coke
Coke
Coke
Coke
Coke
Sinter
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
FeMn
Steel
Steel
steel
steel
179
-------
H ^
o o o <
o o o <
CO O r-4-
80 o o o
o c o o
ON O f— CO l/N
vo o rn-q- ir\
^i -a- r-t co ir\
o O O O O
o o o o o
^D C\ r-t OJ CO
O O O O C
o o o o o
2.
f^ O O O O O CT>
III 1
1 t 1
r- *••* «H fN
1 r" r-, r- VO CM OS TJ
tr O m
(*. ^ <-* C-i CO ^D
3 vc JC (N m
o CN» *; • . o o o
6- O ' r-i O
-*. 0 fN ^ 1 111
,0 M) 1 I
\O m rsl r^ co O
** >•*! O N O O O
m«-(OOOOOO
tt
D
*i , o, ™ ^ ^ - <*, M
n »—) t~~ vo CN * 1 CD '-t <**
•-* \D •"* r-( M r^ vp
•H f^ ff> rH (N | 1-4
1 .-^l 1 1 U1 fN -D 1
CO U"l r-* "^OO (NO
»-iinco r*ooor~
•-t (N
•
r* vo
0 0
(N ^ • o d
m r-4 O.^£
•H n I o <*l c*
(N . . in |
rt f^ O o r-corNO
x * i i m VD i i
^r^TO or-no:
i? ion o o co •»
7 r^ fN r-l O o n <•*
'ooo oooo
rH
(N
vO
r- «>
„ (N H fN O r~ 0>
°r-(T»rH OOV>U)
gOr-ln OOOCS|
T 0. o' o' _ o* <^' o* o
CO
f»t r-
(-* r- «H o\ • «n n
r» m co i •-* oo M o
^in\o m r* H H IH
Oi
Ot
o •-* en f>» en
O> »-( en *tf \D CO **
ui co CN r- o rn m
^ooo' oodo
o
M
o r- r- *o m
in «? vO • * ..
CTi iD O CD r-4 2
3
** ^
vO r-
*H <*! r-4
Ot CO <"•» O -
n o» o M O
m . . ( .
-* --< o o o
n
Tl
O 0) ^ '
H « W
\ fl
r-4 W "? 1
& nj 01 a a ~)
x* -H »O r-* 11 C
c -^ o J -i * :
5 O »A C C *« (-
0«Q(fl fcrH^O,
'-* B Q >> x j: ^i -1
u< < m o uu. Ooi « •*
180
-------
I
t) O
H <-*
S w
H 03
«£
• S to
C H
;§3
OOOOO
CO Ch CV MD VO
L ,"N
1 cy
o o o o r—
p
§ f3 ^
rH H O O O O 0
g •
C".
O O O O C\i
5
"-~ OJ
J3 O rn
rH ^
-r O O O O o
rH ^
•3 , rn o -•
^ ' ro O 0 ^
O '"O O -:
< ) C > ~
l'-, ~- O
-^ r i ry o T
,,j -I Oj O
. H L — ( O ' - \
O C i O O v
"" °
''",«"* '• ^
' ' k J ^f I1 ^ "i"
•;
|
^:
^
(1
;=
<
\
1
1
l*
o
t^
I
5
t:
;^
r.
f.
rH
r-i
"^
, "i
'
;j
~
O O
V T «H
*f O -H O
CN 0 O O
• • • MJ
O <~l O O f*l
O O O 00
-------
f- tj
§3
o o o
o o o
Ol O
-------
to
o
S r* r-
r*l (T-
O O
1 1
•* r-
-i O
d d
o o o o o
o o o o
in co in CN * in r* t*
CN co r- ut u »-» d fN
r*i I-H m M in o^o
v> «•
o
o o o o o o r^
m OOOOO vD vO
* (N rH o f*i O in ^r
S rt -HO
^ f~- T CO f*l fN • •
M> CN ID CN fN O O
§
o coo +
CO O + *£>
o v o -c- r-i r-
O - » --t in
v tn o O -^ ff* -H
L.iC'rsjXfN • -
f 1 ^ H
g S . ?§GB S
c. (jw-2«Mo: H
g I S "H*'. a
f d s °""^d
j £ I 2iii^ 8 i
fc ?• g x \
g ^ < » V.
Q r
o
w
EH .
tQ
^ :
is ;
< ,1
K r
E"
*j
0. -
1
o ;
I!
< r
^
£
T r-
T i£ in co
^ 1 d co o
v^ i~t i t r^
r/ | 1 r-1
: 1 -~i **>
vr 0s T T I
*r . . . • r-
O
500( ( ( ( p;
^ in i rsi r-
3 ( ' CO O f"~ O CTi 1
"^ CN O *C «-* i CN
•^rorNOOOO'*!
H r-J -dd .00
f> O I 1 O 1 ^
H ^H CO
•-. T O ^
. in CN O **i ^
j r» • »-» m • r^
o • • o o
J fjt | fN O 1 d
- r* m
3 ifl fl* CO . CM
H (N O 0 T .H
^or- o'-o^nor-
3 in CN .00 -m
-in O • * O
f) O 1 O O 1 CO
i 5 3
in O vD CO
CTi CO • • • i— I
o o co m
5 co co r-- o
^o VD -nooojm
j m O C O \P
j Oi • • O O
— t O O O 1 O *H
1
1
-------
184
-------
o o o
o o o
CO CO vD
§O
O
I r-4 O r-t
' O < < I-* r4
O O O O O
o o o o o
r*l O Ol CO «*> O
O O O
O O O
c* o o
§
o
§r
s;
fcL
r
185
-------
85
^S
Z EC
s c
0 £ &
* 3
CC ^ DI H
— .^
•~i id
,'; .3
14 1)
a
£j ^J
Lj UJ
Is
(v
U,
3
F-
-}
0.
i~i vO
O*
O
H- " 1
•£ -f
-T r*i
8 2
o* o
§00000
o o o o o
ui i— < IN co vo co <•> in
Ch " rH 3 £ 0 0
4- •*-
o o o o o c *
o o o o o JT c +
r-- ^ o\ r^ >-
Ch rH .% O O
«. «.
CH
:: J
?• -• , "
[ -4 t- - : : | * < H
..! (0 '•!; t 'I l>. H
" C 0? IH>. g
^J , ( • . 1
i < .1 o i i ' . • ; v o o
M U W »
Q
O
EH
^
X
i-3
H.
f-1
«-.
0
t*;
$
u
o
^
€
1
^
^3
rH
E
a:
^
"51
rH
E
q
:"
(-1
rH.
E
1
"^N.
rH
~^s.
h
t-:
-1
• f'J O
(N O •_-, CO
1 1 1
r-l (N vD
to o
\£> O CO •
CN m
rH lA O
O • • TT
r* o r-
O 1 >H 1
tN I T}-
1 -31 tN O
I"- O VO rH
O O rH IM
•<*•
CO o
\
•H T3
rl 41 0
H «S 4)
•* O M Qj U
O 3 *^ W C
^ £ K W M
s
£
3:
?^)
p
fc
w
2T
<
U-
Ifi
S
o
CO
L"
<
r-\
t.
,o
E
p
rCl
rH
t£
g
•^
,0
rH
r-i
WJ
G
O
^
r-t
rH
bO
f^i
O
^
"s^-
G
O
S
, J
i }
, '
("»,
o
i-H
-«• o o i
rH fo co in
in CM (H vo
r-T jx rH
^ O O O O
*A O O O O*
'
O
f) ?H rH
I/I O o* C\J
cn H
n CO -H
u3 en in o
CO O 0| O rH
•H O* O 0 rH
O)
CO rH "^
-3" CM 1 0 ^0
rH (N Kf CO CN
m
fir/ L"i r^
' O O O O
moo o O
w
',)
'"' t.
^ a>
'-I TJ "V T
I O 1^ F
(t -J vJ n
>- fa! x f. u! w
186
-------
8
u o
< U
I'V
1.
o o o o o
o o o o o
O f} in **i «H
ra m in M ^ i w
< (N .-i m in
r-4
w- <*
O O O O j O
o o o o H o
^, in fi o> fN g T
I »
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
N * * » *• *
m m « n IN
ro •H M
r-4
O O O O O O
80 o o o o
in •-* \o CD O
i—i T/ ^ m in o
*f rH 0 ,-t f*.
ri
[.] S n:
•• I". • . (-
ri •• M. '-•,(•>
:- i < i > i • •:
'. : t ) • , '. . «i
»-1 O [i • .
-i i . "" (-1 . i
f: ;i « ! :'; ;: i:) L;
^ M -. U . i w) I.I ! •
•
O O
^
co w
187
-------
00
o o
01 r*
O O O j O
O O O r> O
in CD CD Si ~H
188
-------
ff1
c
•1-4
4J
U)
3
tn
3 H
O >
3
C
4-1
c
o
u
*
r2
(M
<
d
"~
H
3
o.
ffl
r-
TT C~i
rH O
1 1
CN CO
T O
*J I—*
0 0
go o o o
o o o o
\O oi fn -a1 0i
• &
o (N »r> M co i-i •
r*
*ft W
§000 o
o o o o
O CT* ^T CT» (N IN CO
.. . - J » T o
^ P-^^DU^O T — «
f*l (N «H M Ifl O O
(N
** **
R j
t'] -S (K
1 f*
^ ' I ^ > H
P -•- -" 2
tl -E • i i- H
o ° -Va .?
i.* I., t- .<
0 0 »* - 0
f • 1
i-J 1 < i P. • -I. O
• t (!.(...(.. ;: o
,1 it . f. ; ^^ 0 0
, -. (_) o , . i • (••• --*
MM! w v>
O
0
w
E-i
LO
>
<
K
H
Pu
H
g
W
O
cc
e
<
7 j
u
*-
H
,c
M
3
^
I
b
a
s
E
^
;H
b
a
^
E
5
rH
>
S3
5
,-H
-H
J
,O
i— ^
")
4.
O O
fN ^T
o* r-
1 1
. CD
O
o
O O r-
^* r- c*
*r d o
tn
•o
— . CJ -H
i* U1 »-»
o fl o !
*X Vj
•-t U T3
fa
S u*
U .-H w
'-•Hi
u, o rs
189
-------
VIII open Hearth
IX Electric Arc
(Semi-wet)
X Electric Arc (Wet)
XI Vacuum Degassing
XII Continuous Casting
V
W
X
Y
Z
AA
AB
AC
AD
AE
AF
0.326
0.083
0.345
0.106
0.046
0.507
0.985
0.051
0.215
0.487
1.620
0.296
0.075
0.313
0.096
0.042
0.460
0.894
0.046
0.195
0.442
1.470
steel
steel
steel
steel
steel
steel
steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
* Capital recovery cost only, operating cost not available
** Total operating cost less capital recovery
The results are summarized as follows:
Base Level and ^Intermediate Technglogy_f._EnergY, and Nonweiter Impact
The base levels of treatment and the energy requirements and nonwater
quality aspects associated with intermediate levels of treatment are
discussed below by subcategories.
By_Product_Coke
1. Base Level of Treatment: Phenol removal and free-leg ammonia
stripping of ammonia liquor in a once through system. Pond for
suspended solids removal. Once through noncontact primary cooler
effluent and tight final cooler recycle system with blowdown to
dephenolizer. Benzol waste to dephenolizer and pH neutratization by
addition of acid.
2. Additional energy requirements:
a. Treatment Alternative I:
Additional power will be required to improve the quality of the
effluent of the waste water treatment system used in fume cleaning
of the by-product coke process to meet the anticipated 1977
standards. The additional energy utilized will be 0.22 kwh/kkg
(0.20 kwh/ton) of coke produced. For the typcial 2,414 kkg/day
(2,660 ton/day) facility the additional power required will be 21.63
kw (29 hp). The additional operating cost for this addition will be
approximately $2,175.00.
b. Treatment Alternative II:
190
-------
g
w
ffl
to
w
>H O
woo
2 O W
O ^ EH
O f£
2 O
W CQ
O D
WWW
ft EH
O Q
EH Z
M EH W
rtj rt! H
S W rd
J « O
W EH O
W W
EH Q EH
^ Q
O W
« EH
O W
u 2
o
CJ
u
CQ
D
O
o
0)
4-1
W
id
S
d
rH
-H
O
•H
id
4->
G
0)
e
G
0
\J
rH
£>
G
W
,
4H
W
tn
G
rH
4J
rH
3
tfl
«
01
CMC
o id o)
•rH E 3
4J -H 4-1
id M *H
M ft 4-1
0) M
C T) C
d) C O
o id u
M
0)
,£
4-*
O C rH
id 0)
4-1 XI 4->
O H id
id S
a
g
H
•• to
4->
G
0>
*& £
C 0)
Id rH
|_^ .rH
3
&
0)
c
o
•rH
4J
id
4-> 0)
C g
0) -H
g E-r*
d)
g
H
M
G
to o
g -H
a) 4j
X) R -P
0 r^
1
r~1
CO
rH rH W
> u c
0) -rH 0)
!-q 4-i 3
•H 4-)
4-> rH -H
G U 4->
0) CO
3 rH C
rH O O
4-1 44 CJ
H
O
M
4-> *
C T!
0 0)
CJ >i
O
1-1 rH
o a
v^ c
*d W
C
id to
•a
•P O
c x
0) 4-1
e a)
—
o
o
CN
0> X
^
o -
G
O
g
^D
0)
1 4-1 U]
G ^ a (d Q)
to -P O 1 d) d) O>
dJC-rHCdJOJKrH
rH id 4-1 -H o x a
•H -P G Id C 0 A
3 w a) g oa)oc-H
ft" U Id 4-> 4-> .G -H T3
•S g .
O O tfl
TD • 4-1 M 'd
d) >i MH id
U M 4-1 O
>1-rH 4-) O W rH
rH 4-1 W d) 4-> •
0) U 3 -n 0) tn rH
"d id ^ X) w 3 -H
•rH in G 3 arH id
IS a-H W 3 W Cn
r-H|O
tji o o o m o o i
glrHincnmcNCNinvD
1
o
G m
rod) 1 Q O
K A 2 0 II -S W K
sftuojooow a
rH 1
.- -H V \
>i 0 3 £ S
1 H 0 U O
4-1 C Ol4-> C O rH rH
Ga>x)
d) -H CP 4-) 3 rH
rHrHrH-H CT'.CO.G
-PrH4-lrHO) 4JO-P
•H 4-1 rH - -H D -H
VH 4-> 0) •> n! co ^ S
-O W W W W M rH
3 T! o to id tn
tJld)t--HrH4Jd)C(lJ
•HdJMHOOrH-rHrH.
rHrHD'O'WldO'HU
4-1 N W rH >i >
id -H 13 41 O •-• U
•HidrHi-iojcaico)
C-HOOMOrH&rH
0 > C M T3 rH
4Jx:tdODM
-P 0
•H
^
5
w
-H Q)
-P tji
•rH rfj
•d 3
T3 rH
id to
O
4-1
m
O
•H
4J
0) -H
g rrj
•H rd
rH (d
Q* T3 ^
rH
•H
4->
Id
r-t
O
0)
M
0
(d
rH
tfl
.C
4-J
G
O
g
10
G
•rH
W
id
0)
id
w
>i
XJ
-d
d)
w
D
in
CN
1-1
c
3
O
d)
to
_3
•
^
" —
to
4-1
G
id
rH
a
0)
g
o
w
CN
.
o
rH M
0) -rH
rH Id
G w
O d)
•rH H
4-> -rH
•rH 3
'O D1
-d d)
(d rH
>1
^|
4J
to
3
•O
•H T3
0
C 0
•rH O
C
•
Oi
C G
H -H
H
d) 'd
M G
id id
o &
o ^ o in o
n rH H H m
in
rodil Q O
rn x! z o n <-s w
rH
d)
N
•rH
rH
O
c
d)
.c
a
d)
0
•P
c
S
o
u
•rH
rH
4-1
d)
g
o
rH
id
XJ
rH
N
•rH
i— 1
(0
4-1
to
M
O
1
0)
u
c
o
^
d)
4-1
id
£
M
d)
W
C
d)
T)
G
0
U
„
'd
c
o
a
tj1
c
•rH
rH
4-1
d)
W
O
4-1
r|
tn
3
o
£
4-1
2
rH
id
u
•H
to
>>
X
ft
i
H
d)
4-1
id
C
M
Q)
4-1
ft
rH
id
u
H
^
0)
u m i
fd
C MH
id 0
d) O
e a;
•rH rH
rH
T3
rQ 0)
T3 X
(d -H
IP
*•
^- o
< 4->
N— *
g
o id
E- CJ
4-1
W
n o w
0)
N
•H
rH
rH
4-1
i 3 .
Q) DI
C C
•> rH
rH 4-1
rH 4J
•H d)
-P W
tfl
O
id -P
•H
C M
O O
G 'H
c ^
?o Q'
^
vc
53
Oj
4J
O
0)
UH
O
0)
O
C
T!
(1)
-------
4J
C
o
o
w
H)
ra
Q
•0
u
3
•a
s
a.
PC.
O
O
o
m
D
w
o
o
Solid Waste
Generation
and Primary
Constituents
Environmental
Impact Other
Than
Water
Land
Requirements
Implementation
Time
Problems
and
Limitations
Status
and
Reliability
Resulting Ef-
fluent Levels
for Critical
Constituents
Treatment and/or Control
•i Methods Employed*
-^ z i • e i •
< i— i o id in c •—( o its to
~^ Id k N (X -r-t Id k N H
CMH-HO) .CCMH-HO)
WOrH4J 10 4-> O rH 4J
id -H a) id in id -H -H oi id to
4-1 tP k £ 4J fj, 14
c a) «*-r-t t3 4-> c
g 4J -a 3 3 0 6^-0330
Id -rH T3 i-l i-l 0> -H
w Is id to c 4-> w ~-- id in c -P
q o
4-1 4J
W M
d) T! t3 r-l C 0)
•r-i 3 tn -H 3 K
4-> o id 4-1 o id
Id Qj O> • 1C d 01 •
i-lgrHSH rH E r-i k
O O 0) -H O O 0) -H
> u k uv-iid
0 c
0) 0 0
8"
(d x x
'01
\o o o
rH O 1C O
1 (N M
rH -^ rH ~
in
10 4->
k c
id o
01 g
m
1
r-H
W 'U
C -P 0)
>,O4-> otMHid-Po c;
CD Cl W O - gctntp
MHrHOIrH«rHrH01gO tn-HOOlCC!
oo-Patnoog m tsj -H ^ -H -H
CinoikkWk 4j.HrH
kO4J^Wkfi4->Q) g^^'OCT'kC
pj4-)3u>>u-rHWX) w^idkux:
-PC I (1) .
id o ig 4->i>i gin.*,
4->k £ O usidtnk O4Jk
C'Otn-rH ok" iU-H -H« .Cftncj
•H id 4-> id -P k tr>-iH c k in • c .
(U-HidgkrO^Ci— IO)4H4-)C>HO OJg O
»CXkO3rH4JOrCO)id(UkO WQCO
Docutoi4-iD^ocuk^g4-lt7i nJin-iHo
i-il m
xj mfsincn moocy^
CJMO • • O • C O | CN C C • O O 1
g |rH OOfNOrHrHVO rHi— ICNlrHrHl— IU1VC
rH i-l
0 0
cm c in
^0) 1 Q O no) l Q O
ffi^ZOIl^WBC M.CZ.OII "awtfi
1 1 0>
id •- Ch i— i •»
•O c k u o>
•»-H O O 1 >i i-H N
CX-rH WrH^U idTj C-H
OOtfc4-) 'OldtJ'O1 UC4HOrHI
•r-l CidknJ4->3M -rHidO'CiCOrH
4JHOCO WO CP Ck-HO
id id -H -H \ c. >i k k OOi&i(d4J^;ci
kU4->kfcJok,C(y rHgo),i33 o)
0)T-l(dOCX3U4J4-) O'i~lrHfdO)QJ^
Id g N rH Id k Id -H rH C tT1 Pi
•OUid O UQJk iT3XrHkino
Id k' 4-> -H •» >-i 3 01 1C -rH -H 0) MH
0)4JC4-ICUrHrH H UH4JNO)
->3-HldOO>MHO H- tn-Hi-HC
03 in C &.-H 4J OJU- ^-HC-H-Ptd
OJ — X-ink-krHQ) ic Ecoiinid>
OkCidk-PCQ/id4-' co^do .*"* *& O
EH t7^ 0 QJ id i — 1 ONCtO kE~'O)gC'O -H £
tJi-iH k rH -H -H -rH -iH Jx, fl) 4-> g 0) "O X
u
0)
UH
MH
0)
c
•H
in
td
(u
VH
u
q
OJ
•a
o
c
•D
0)
-------
4-)
G
0
U
LO
W
03
K O D
W W CO
Q H
O
U
•P
o
3
t)
O
M
eu
i
>i
CQ
O
O
1
CO
to
o
o
(4
frj
0)
JJ
(/)
TJ
£
U
H
O
W
H
(8
P
C
Q)
d
C
O
VH
H
>
G
W
1
W
Cn
C
H
-P
| Resul
c.
0
•H
4J
(0
1 Ger.er
VH
0)
x:
P
o
4J
U
(0
o.
g
H
W
g
<1J
rH
ft
o
fL,
03
3
-P
rd
4J
CO
W
Level
4J
v
M
(0
n
• H
VH
O,
V
c:
rO
C
<0
s:
EH
•d
G
id
l_3
c
O
•H
4J
id
-P
G
tt)
g
0)
rH
t^
4)
c:
0)
3
4J
•H
1 Const
M
Q)
4J
It
[2
CO
4-
C
ID
g
0)
V-
•r-
£
CT
0)
CU
E
EH
ft
g
H
•d
C
-d
id
rH
id
o
•rH
-P
•H
VH
G O
tt)
£j Jl
rH 0
•rH
g
•rH
1?
•rH
rH
•H
XI
rfl
•H
!_^
0)
uents
4J
•H
I Const
mployed*
M
to
•a
o
,C
P
0)
S
^~ i
Ml Id rH
" g 10
VH U
w O in -iH co
*0 m o Cfi d) •
O M iO
x"~v
o
cu o
VH ^j*
U
id x
CN -
\0
rH O
rH ^
CO
VH
id
0)
>i
ro
1
H
.
QJ 'U
G -P CU
I>i 0 -P O *H (0 -P CJ
Cn C co O -H U) -H
o *d 10 o *d 3 -P
<44 H d) H • rH i-H 0) g O
oo-pftwuog id
G co o> VH VH co rH
4-1 X 0) 0) -P >i-P 0) ft ft
M O r^ V* [/) J-4 C 4^ Q)
(T^QJCO^OOOC 4*^ Q)
O.HJ3U5>0-rHCflrQ
g, * i g i i >i
JH H , ,co i^idcorH
M *d G *d CL) O VH * 0)3(1)
V3 -H -H O O •• -P (0 C 4J G
' tn -P -H D CO >, U -H -H .
^ 0 <0 4J -P VH Cn-rH G M co •
. .,—) ^ ^ Q (—4 4-^ O ,*~! CJ f^ C) M O
rp pQ O Ot W Oj O C CJ M |5 £ ~M D^
H| in
xj in CM ro en
tnlo . .0 . C O 1
gJHOOCNOHrHVO
,
o
G "I
no) ( Q o
2O, C VH
Id U -H U CJ CD
M -H rH CD 3 rH
0) tn id VH rH 0
id 0 VH IH 0
H 4-1 •» IW O .
•d O 3 G Q) g
,
^-, Cn 4.) VH -rH M-I co
ffl ro C 4J H
~^ 4-1 0) rH rH .C Q)
CO g 'H Id CJ1 H
O -H 4-1 M-l 4J 3 tj
CH 4-1 1C CO O >-
rH 0) HO >~ VH CJ
3 VJ C M .C <1J
. g -P Id D 4J rH
(5
4J
E
O
In
•P
O
<0
U)
CO
14H
O
ft
•H
x:
D-
•r-l
K
0)
rH
y
id
CM
x,
H
CO
rj
4J
C
0
S
CJ
r-
i
00
(1)
G
O
'"O
tt)
ja
c
id
u
0)
g
0
CO
•
CO
o
o
E
2
^.^
CQ
6
0
4-)
c
o
•H
•p
ft
o
c
(0
<
•
^
•H
(0
c
o
;"
o
o
rM
X
_
O
o
H
-P
10
K^
H
G
O
•
4J
G
,
distilla'
0)
>
o
10
_,^
C)
'd
c
10
^
4J
•H
rH
(0
£j
tJ1
CO
4->
(0
H
ft
Q)
>
U
m
0
I
2
CJ
3etarred
£
4->
10
ft
rH
rH
(0
14-1
0
-p i
O H
id id
ft 3
g tj1
•H
VH
CD -H
0)
rG G
S= 0
C
o
-p a
•H (C
rH M-l
o o
m
Q
O II
« co
1
c
o o
U 2
>1
rQ '
c
« o
T3-H
3 CO
rr 3
•H XJ
^H
•d u
c
id "d
0)
O rH
cn o
id VH
tr.4->
tt) •
ja -a
0)
C 4->
U rH
>|H
4-> 0
•H -P
•P
g 3
O &
VH
O ifl
0 0
O CO
•
01
0)
rH
ro
u
CO
•H
'd
T3
•H
3
CJ1
•rH
rH
•d
0)
4J
•H
g
3
14H
O
W
nsfer
n
i
a
c
o
•H
4J
id
u
•H
ft
ft
id
•
•H
id
0
o
W
CO
0)
c
0)
•H
4J
U
1)
<*-!
cr
c
•rH
CO
ro
0)
VH
U
c
(1)
•c
c
•H
•o
tu
I/I
•rH
193
-------
TABLE 54 (cont.)
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
STEEL INDUSTRY
By Product Coke Subcategory
Alternate I - Physical/Chemical
Treatment or Control Technologies
Identified under Item III of the
Scope of Work:
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Carbon Column Rental
Sludge Disposal
Energy & Power
Chemical
Steam Generation
TOTAL
A
4,482,074
192,729
448,207
156,872
BPCTCA
! B 1
168,460
7,299(2
28,077(2
5,896
BATEA
i c I
666,930
* 28,678
} 66,693
23,342
D(D
1,738,426
74,751
173,843
60,844
245,400
13,897
15,000
1,942
32,400
13,897
2,175
46,090
48,600
1,620
37,500
139,500
..
„
600
1,205,000
_
861,047
152,034
542,733
1,515,038
Effluent Quality: _.
Kaw
Effluent Constituents Waste
Parameters - units Load
Flow, gal/ton
Ammonia, Jtncj/l
Phenol, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
BOD5, mg/1
mg/1
_0il & Grease, mg/1
Suspended solids ,'mg/l
_PH
175
2,000
360
200
1,200
400
120
£0
6-9
175
1,000
90
300
25
20
50
6-9
Resulting Effluent Levels
175
125
30
150
10
15
50
6-9
100
10
0.5
0. 25
20
0.3
10
10
6-9
(1) Incremental to capital costs and depreciation for Level A
(2) Based on 6 year depreciation rate to allow for conversion to biological
for BATEA,
(3) "alue to be expected from typical treatment plant utilizing BPCTCA
treatment technolocrv
194
-------
TABLE 54 (cont.)
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
STEEL INDUSTRY
By Product Coke Subcategory
Alternate II - Biological
reatment or Control Technologies
Identified under Item III of the
Scope of Work:
ivestment
inual Costs:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Sludge Disposal
Energy & Power
Chemical
Steam Generation
TOTAL
fluent Quality: _.
J Raw
Affluent Constituents Waste
3arameters - units Load
Flow, gal/ton
175
jUrnnonia, mg/1
Phenol/ mq/1
Cyanide, mg/1
BODj- ,_ mg/1
Sulfide, mg/1
Oil & Grease/ mg/1
2000
360
200
1200
400
120
Suspended solids-, mg/1 90
pH 6-9
A
4,482,094
192,729
448,207
156,872
13,897
15,000
1,942
32,400
BPCTCA
B
' (440,610)(1)I
462,610
(18,946)(1)
19,892
(44,061)11)
46'261
16,191
14,127
31,500
68,406
48,600
BATEA
C
1 1
494,716
21,272
49,472
17,314
-
22,500
4,248
-
861,047
244,977
241,83ia)
114, 806
Resulting Effluent Levels
175
175
100
1000
125
10
0.5
90
20
0.25
300
100
20
25
1.0
(2)
20
10
JL'JL
10
50
50
10
6-9
6-9
6-9
(1) This assumes that neutralization has already been installed (222,000)
in preparation for meeting BPCTCA with physical-chemical treatment
(2) Value expected of typical treatment plant utilizing BPCTCA treatment
technology
195
-------
The additional energy utilized will be 3.12 kwh/Kkg (2.83 kwh/ton)
of coke produced. For the typical 2,414 kkg/day (2,660 ton/day)
facility, the additional power required will be 313.32 kw (420 hp).
The annual operating cost for this addition to the installation will
be approximately $31,500.00.
3. Non-Water Quality Aspects (Both Alternates):
a. Air Pollution: There are two potential types of emissions of
air pollution significance in a typical coke plant. These are
associated with the following major components or operations of
the by-products recovery equipment:
i tar collection from the flushing system
ii free NH3 recovery in an ammonia still
iii once through coke quenching with a sump for settling out
fines
iv once through final cooler
The two types of emissions are volatile (gaseous) materials and
suspended particulate matter. If a vapor recirculation or sol-
vent extraction facility for dephenolization xs added to the
system, significant reductions in both parameters are achieved.
b. Solid waste Disposal: A number of different solid wastes are
generated by treatment systems to upgrade the quality of the
effluent from by-product coke oven fume cleaning. Among these
are coke fines, tar sludges, dirty phenolates, blowdown sludge,
lime sludge and sludges from the aeration lagoon. The coke
fines are internally consumed through reuse in the mill and the
tar sludges are further refined (usually by outside
contractors) or are incinerated. The remaining solid waste
products can best be disposed of as landfill.
Beehive Coke
1. Base Level of Treatment: Once through system with settling of the
coke quench waters.
2. Additional Energy Requirements: Additional power will be necessary
when bringing the quality of the effluent of the water treatment
system used in the fume cleaning of the beehive coke making process
up to the anticipated standard for 1977. The additional energy
consumed will be 1.35 kwh/kkg (1.23 kwh/ton) of coke produced. For
the typical 662.5 kkg/day (730 tons/day) facility, the additional
power required will be 37.3 kw (50 hp). The annual cost for
operating this new installation will be approximately .$3,750.00.
196
-------
0)
X
o
u
0)
•H
0)
tt)
ffl
CQ
D
o
o
w
in
0) >i P
4J C M C
in o co -H 4J
CO M -r-
T3 r-l dl 4->
HO) CO
•H c; x) c
0 Q) C O
CO U fO C-
-H
(0 r-l
-P 0)
c: 43
0) 44
g O C rl
G 10 0)
o 4J x; 4J
M O EH CO
r-l (0 5
> ft
c g
W H
• to
4->
c
(1)
t3 g
C 0)
fO V4
*~
D1
0)
c
o
•H
4J
cfl
44 0)
C g
tt) -H
g EH
0)
ft
g
H
CO
CO 0
g -H
tt) 44
r— 1 *O (fl
X! C 4J
o CO-H
n g
P^ *H
b>-
.p
Wj
•rl
3_j
~
4J f(J *rH
rd Cl J3
-P (0 fd
CO "H
r~J
K
1 CQ
"4-1 rH i-H W
W Q) cfl 4J
> U C
tn 0) -H Q)
C rj 44 3
•H -rl 44
44 44 U -H
rH C U 44
30) to
W 3 H C
0) rH O O
« M-l 1 tt)
r-l 1 4-1
Q) Q) 3
> 0) rH
XJ H
r-l 0
•H ~ ft
CD 0)
43 !-i in
44 3 a)
44 > M
>l CO -H -rl
CQ C 43 cfl
-^ tn
- C
O -H
0 rH
0) CN 44
rH 44
u x a)
Cfl - W
O T3
CN 0 rH R
\rH O O
rH —14-1 ft
XI
44
C
g
g
H
i — i
cfl
g
M
0)
-P
tn cfl
•H O
BS H
^t
rH
rH U-l
Tj • Cfl O
tt) >| O
U CO H CD -H T) 'O
•H -H i) X! T3 CD tt) •
4-> 43 W O G rH in
U4-) 34-)-r-ICfl44cD
Cfl t3 CO rH tt) 4-) G
rHGG3fDrHQ)-H
&( -H -H s a o co w-i
ro cfi
-I o o o r_)
\ CN O O O o ^
tn • • • • in o |
gOOOrHCMOOVO
0
G i-O ft
ni tt) Q g
x z 43 o w 0) as
S U ft pq w EH ft
• •
13 in to
G a> >
0 C O
M-l >rH
tn
GDC
rH 0
-P 0 C
-P 0
0) 44 -H
10 U 4-1
0) U
rH rH 3
rH rH t3
Cfl O C)
-P O rH
CO
COO
M 44 2
.
44
G O -H G <
•HUSO)
^3 g T3
t! tt) 'O 44 O
cfl O tt) cfl 43
(0 M 0) -P
o ft ca M a)
2 in ftj-i s
CO
43
44
C
0
g
T
IN
0) G
M "H
tn 3
C 44 CO
•H cfl g .
M 44 rH 0) rH
tt) Cfl tt) g rH tt)
43 M ft <0 X! -P
tn tt) g (!) 0 G
•H ft Q) 4J >-l -H
as o 44 w ft >
G O
•H 1 44
CO
"^33 C
Q) 13 CO O
U G Q) -H
>,-H -H rH 4J
rH 44 -rl G
Q) O CO • 3 CD
13 rfl -H >i tT4-l
•H r-l X! i-l 0) 44
g ft44 44 & fO
01
3
0
tt) 0)
3 Cn
CJ1 M
cfl (0
43
O 0
rH CO
0) -H
N T3
0)
Ai
0 cfl
cs
to
1 • r-l
0) c CD 44 3
•H 5 M 0) -rl
U O -H g rH
>il3 3 cfl X)
u s cr M -H
CD O tt) CO H
M rH rH ft-H
X) 3
0) tH H D1
4-> CO 0) CO 0)
tt) 3 -P O
rH O Cfl -H 43
ft Q) IS 44 U
g 3 -H cfl
O O1 ft M A: M
CD co a)
rH 0) >
ftH O
to
to
0)
0)
>
-r-l
4-)
U
Q)
M-l
tn
C
•H
in
CO
(U
r-l
rj
C
r-l
0)
•"S
o
c
•H
(U
4-1
10
•H
Hi
-------
TABLE 55 (Cont.)
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
STEEL INDUSTRY
Beehive Coke Subcategory
Treatment or Control Technologies
Identified under Item III of the
Scope of Work:
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Sludge Disposal
Energy & Power
TOTAL
BPCTCA-BATEA
A B
$ 99,024 $ 50,510
4,258
2,170
9,902
5,051
3,466
1,770
4,200
3,750
$ 21,826 $ 12,741
Effluent Quality: _.
Kaw
Effluent Constituents Waste
Parameters - units Load
Flow, gal/ton
300
300
Resulting Effluent Levels
Suspended solids, mg/1
Airanon i a , mg/ 1
Cyanide, mg/1
BOD5, mg/1
400
0.35
0.004
3
25
0.20
0.003
1
0
0
0
0
Phenol, mg/1
pll
0.01
6-9
0.009
6-9
198
-------
3. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: In beehive coke ovens, the items of air
pollutional significance are gaseous emissions and suspended
particulate matter which include smoke, dust, hydrogen sulfide,
phenols and materials resulting from the destructive
distillation of coal. If the system is tightened up, some of
these contaminants can be washed out of the exhaust gases and
the solids can be processed and utilized in ways outlined in
the "Solid Waste Disposal" section.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Solid wastes will be generated by
processing the scrub water and reusing coke fines in the
system.
1. Base Level of Treatment: Once through system consisting of
treatment of waste water via a classifier and thickener with vacuum
filter for solids dewatering.
2. Additional Power Requirements: To meet the anticipated 1977
standard utilizing a wet system in cleaning the emissions from the
sinter process, modifications will be required to the waste water
treatment system. The additional energy consumed will be 0.68
kwh/kkg (0.62 kwh/ton) of sinter produced. For the typical 2,704
kkg/day (2,980 tons/day) sinter plant, 223.8 kw (300 hp) will have
to be added. The annual operating cost for the additional equipment
will be $22,500.00.
3. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: The main air pollution problem associated with
the sinter process will be suspended particulate matter.
Although the exhaust gases will be passed through a wash and
40% recycled, 0.1 kkg of particulate emission per kkg (lb/1,000
Ib) of exhaust gas will be emitted into the atmosphere.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: The solid waste from the waste system
will be internally consumed in the sinter process.
Blast Furnace
1. Base Level of Treatment: Once through system. Treatment system
utilizes thickener with polyelectrolyte addition and vacuum filter
for solids dewatering.
2. Additional Energy Requirements: To bring the quality of the
effluent of the water treatment system utilized in the fume
collection of the blast furnace (iron) process up to the anticipated
199
-------
TABLE
H Sj W
« EH W
tf < H
r4 S O
W EH O
W W
EH Q EH
c
•H
V4
a)
4-1
C
•ri
o
o
o
ffl
D
CO
o
o
w
u5
a; >, 41
4-> f, M G
cn o id a)
id -H g 3
S 4-1 -H 4-1
Id H -H
•a M p< 4-i
r-l fl) CO
H C tJ C
O Q) C 0
w o (d u
H
Id r4
4-1 0)
C -d
0) 4-1
6 O G r4
G id Q)
O 4-1 £ -P
M O EH (d
H id IS
> a
G E
W H
CO
c
0)
•a 6
G §
id i-i
r— I *H
3
0)
c
o
-H
4J
id
4J a)
rti ~i
c *iij
m
rt
H
cn
C
w o
S 4-1
rH T) Id
15 C -P
O id-H
V4 g
04 -H
rJ
-p
W .H
3 0 C
tn fl) -ri a)
G rH1 -P 3
•rl -H 4->
4-1 4-1 H -H
.H G O -P
30) cn
cn 3 M C
Q) rH O O
CU 4-4 44 CJ
^
o
4J *
C "O
O Q)
CJ >i
o
M rH
o a,
ro u
_1
id cn
rrj
4J 0
0) 4->
e a>
*•> S
n)
Q)
f*
*"*
^
H
•3 rH
0) (d
in E C
Ti 3 M
•H CO 0)
•H G -P
O O C
W O -rl
w
fl)
01
0) CO
4J =«= id
id o tn
rH 0
304-1
O H CO
•H \ 3
•» 4-i =*^ id
V4 M r4 Si
•H id • X
f< O, 0 CD
~
o
o
Q) IN
ll S>
o -
id o
o
rH IN
01 .
.c
4-1
C
O
E
00
rH
c t3 -a
o id a)
•H 0 >
•P H H 01
0 OH
3 4-> 03 Id
T? id cn o
0) 0) -rl -H
M x: -o g
0)
0 4n r-l .£2
Z 0 0 U
c
- C O 4-1 WO)
t) -ri -H in c H
0) -P id O .Q
O >i O H fl) -H id •
>1-r-l rH C X! U -P T3 g
rH4-)rH3 Iflldfld)
fl) O Id •) — 1 rG G rH fl) 4-1
'd id 3 G -P M fl) PI cn
isa3u>4Hoain
Hi O
\ 1— 1
ijij o m m o i
•
cn o
• ca || t £B
CO O CO fa 0-t
)H : CO
fl) £* M
•H tn i D -d
g 14-1 3 M 4-1 fl)
O -H 0 fl) H 13 rH
V4 CO M T3 -rl G O
44 CO X C 44 Id >i
id -P 3 HO
0) H | g fl)
en u a) - 3 (-I M
V4 O >-l 3 O
id JB G 0) O 0)
£ tn o S id -P 4->
03= fl) > G id
co O co id to •
•H M W .C H 4-1 r4
T3.C fl) 0 End, H fl)
4J C -P 3 -H C
CO fl) O M 4-1 fl)
3 M X S r-l fl) ^
OflJOO-C-P -U
fl) X! -rl H 4-1 C "O -rl
3 .Q i 4-1 -H fl) X
CT'34J (-1 >WH4-1
ft, V4 fl) O H
O 0 > H O -H 0
. 0) 4J O 4-1 4J 4-1 4-1
rH
-a H
a) id
to E G
'O 3 M
•H CO Q)
H C 4-1
O O G
W O -rl
0)
id o
H 0
3 o
0 H
•H \
• • 4-> 3£
M !-l H
•H Id •
f=C fe O
_
o
o
fl) IN
M ^
O -
id o
o
H IN
CO
4-1
CJ
O
g
CO
H
C 13 T
0 id n
•H O >
-PH ^
rcJ fd tr
C) d) -r-
M A rrj
O U-l
17 O J-s
i £
G -P 1
•H -rl !-l
S 3
>i 4-1
i — | rCj
H 0) -P
id ^ co
3 3 id
D U.Q
Hi
N
Cnl o in in
El CN -* 10
•
CO rj
' <* II
MOW
C
•H
H C
id o
^ U -H
<-rl -P
— g id
01 r-i
E,C 3
DUO
-P 0
M fl O
CO -rl 44
id s
fl) -P 0)
g Cup
id a) >.
W OH
x o
CO
" •"•T"~ J --— "" • "" -- - - - - — 1 •
1
tf>
0)
CO
U)
rd
tT^
4J
CO
3
id
•x
0)
•
cn
e
r~*
f?
t
4-1 §
id -P
a) co to
i-l >i 0) H
4-> CO > 01 Id
o -a >
Q) 4-1 )H -r-| 0
O G D.H g
c g u cn S
o
t—l
0 1
M CO
1 SB
b Cu
M
0)
C
fl)
O
H
^
+J
tn "
tn
a)
S
•r-l
4J
O
(1)
4-1
4-1
(1)
tr
•rl '
tn
id
d)
M
o
C
•rl
44
o
r-l
Q)
C
•H
T)
0)
4-1
cn
•H
r-3
200
-------
***•
Ccont .
V£>
in
W
i-3
m
<<
EH
CO
w
H
PS
x o
woo
2 O W
0 J EH
H O <
EH 2 0
rij K «
2 CJ D
WWW
ft EH
0 Q
EH 2
O 2 Si
2 W
^ EH W
v4 K O
WHO
W W
EH Q EH
W 2 r^C
3 0
Q
2 r-3 Q
Sow
« EH
2 EH rt!
02^
Pi 0 W
H CJ K
d
•H
r-l
0)
4-1
C
-H
o
o
w
u
m
co
CJ
O
o
w
s
CJ
in
QJ '„•, ^
4-1 r. M d
in o id D
0} M -H
O M ft 4-1
H (D tn
H C T3 C
O 0) C O
co O (d U
H
(d SH
4-1 0)
d £
0) -P
g O d M
d id d)
o 4-> x; 4-1
M O EH id
H id 2s
> a
G g
W H
• w
4-1
d
CD
'd g
id SH
I—I *H
&
01
d
o
•H
4J
4-1 CU
d g
CU -H
g EH
CU
a
g
H
«
(0 O
Problen
and
Limitatj
w
r>
4-1
•H
W rH
P 'd -H
-p d xi
id 10 (d
4-1 -H
W rH
0)
A
1 10
44 rH H W
W CU (0 -P
> U G
Cn CU -H CU
d 1-3 4-i p
•H -H 4-1
-P 4J M -H
rH d CJ 4-1
p 0> W
tn p s-i C
CU H 0 O
Pi 44 i
o
o ex
\ g
•d w
c
rri
4-1 O
G x:
01 4J
4-J S
rrt
(U
.^
|.
^
rH
"d "H
01 (d
to g d
•a P SH
•H tn 01
rH d 4J
0 O d
to U -ri
tn
Q)
o) tn
4-1 :*= Id
id o Cn
rH 0
P 0 4-1
o rH tn
•r-l \ P
»• 4-i ;**= id
M S4 rH £j
•H Id ' X
Id 4J
'd id id ' — i Or* •
cu cu 01 O -H 3 tn
i-l Xl SH 10 g o c
o tn o) c n
04-1 d-H X! o-H
2 O H-d O u 4-1
4->
d i
tn o id 4J
0) PUP
01 W C 4-> 4-1 X! tfl
rH 10 -H -H d 01 •
!>ij.4-JinudPrd
uondco'd'0
oidcuoo-HOio
a>
C C O O 1
IT, rH (N in U3
!
• 1
• <•« || 1 K
w o w &J ci
o) d
rH U
o -d o
KH rC n3 'd
O 4-1 L, < S
0) -H p H
a ^1 -Xi
01 S g-H H
U 0 0) o- 0) 4-1
x H 4J 73 d o
a) 44 tn o
M >VH -X C
^ cu w.,-1 o o
ffl > o -H -H
C. O in1-' £ 4-1
0) 4-1 (0
tn M XI • N
d
rH G 4-1 T! rH C
O O d d 0 id
co u -H id tn H
to
0)
01 to
4-i =«= i
« U 4-> 4-1 M
K 1 4-1
•H in to
Pi • P
•a 'O u >i g
in 01 C P iH
i rH o -H to IH w
fc id -H p tn
> 4J S-| 10 44 0)
^ o o o) cu tn o
g id ^ -H in o
w s-i a, o 4-> u ft
CO <7*
in o -01
CN rH 0 CN U3
•
CO O
• ^ II 1 K
CO O W EM CX
4-1
cxx: -P
0) tn c -
o PX: cu G
X 0 -P g 0
01 S4 -H 4-1 -H i
x; s id 4J(
CJ tn M N d
•" T3 C 4-> -H O
CU -H rH -H
g 4-1 rH CU Id 4->
01 id 4-1 g S-I 10
-P 01 -P -H 4J 4J
H S4 0) rH P G
4-i in 0) o>
10 ^ d S
(0 d fd c -H
S 0) O -T3
0> O > -H 1 0)
g T3 o 4-i h in
id s M id
w o ex S-i s-i *d
rH g 0) 0 C
. XI -H (d 4-1 id
Q
•u
cu
S-I
o
4-1
•H
d
o
XI
K
^1
rH S4 O
'd rH 0) 4-1 rH
01 Id .C rH
w g d 4-) in -H
13 3 S-i 0 1} 4H
•H W 0) -H T!
rH C 4J T3 rH el
o o d d o (d
W O -H Id U) H
in
tn D
01 in
-P =*= (0
id o rn
rH O
P 0 4-1
o rH in
•H \ P
.. 4J =tt CO
S4 S4 H X!
-H (0 • X
KC ft 0 0)
,-^
01 -
S4 0
O 0
(0 en
X
CN -
Nx. o
rH 0
1 CN
w
XI
4-1
d
i
oo
rH t
o
4-1
d 4J
w o d •
O -H Q) 10
SH -P g g
-H CU d -P 01
P 10 0) Id 4-1
D1 o 4-1 a) tn
01 rH -P SH >1
K o id 4-i tn
1
i -p x: i
rH 4-1 O O XI (X
(d (0 rH 01 P P
> S4 -H 4-1 W
o 4-i a. o CF»H
g in .* >I-P d H
0) C G 01 Cn -HP
S4OOrH04->rH44
g Id rH U Id
i cu "d u o o) u o
PUT} 01 10 G-nt04-l
t-o as
O • 1
rH PI o m ^o
•
W O
. 08 II 1 X
CO O W &4 Qj
4-1
QJ (d i
01 -H 4-1
o > (d
X 0)
0) H S-I
id -P
H o id
— g d
01 -H
CU P
4-1 1 rH
H PLJ id
W H T3
id id
-------
TABLE 56 (Cont.)
WATER EFFLUENT TREATiMENT COSTS
STEEL INDUSTRY
Sintering Subcategory
Treatment or Control Technologies
Identified under Item III of the
Scope of Work:
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Sludge Disposal
Energy & Power
Chemical
BPCTCA
BA'ITA
A 1 B C 1
$ 548,150 $ 26,621 $228,315
23,570 1,145 9,818
54,815 2,662 22,831
19,185 932 7,991
1 D "1
$294,224
12,652
29,422
10,298
E
$ 221,:
9,
22,
7,
12,450 675 7,050
2,000 713
14,775
1,360
TOTAL
. .3.^110,020 $_ 7,414 $ 48,403 $ 68,507 $ _40,
Effluent Quality:
•* Raw
Effluent Constituents Waste
Parameters - units Load
Resulting Effluent Levels
BPCTCA
Flowr qa I/ton
Susoended solids, n\g/l
Oil & grease, rag/1
Sulfide, mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
PH
250
8,000
600
200
30
8-10
250
40
45
65
30
8-10
250
20
45
65
30
8-10
' 50 1
50
10
20(1)
50(1)
6-9
50
25
10
0.3
20
6-9
50
10
3
0.
5_
6-
(1) Value that can be obtained utilizing BPCTCA treatment technology
202
-------
standard for 1977 the additional energy consumed will be 2.68
kwh/kkg (2.44 kwh/ton) of iron made. The additional power required
for the typical 2,995 kkg/day (3,300 tons/day) blast furnace
facility will be 335.7 kw (450 hp). The annual operating cost for
this additional consumption of power will be approximately
$33,750.00.
3. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: Although the blast furnace exhaust fumes will
be passed through a cleaning system and utilized in system
heating, pollution of air will still be generated. The problem
will arise from "slips" which are caused by arching of the
furnace charge. The arch breaks and the burden slips into the
void. This causes a rush of gas to the top of the furnace,
which develops abnormally high pressures which are greater than
the gas-cleaning equipment can handle. Bleeders are then
opened to release the pressure which results in a aense cloud
of dust being discharged to the atmosphere.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: There should be no problem in
disposing of the solid waste which will be generated. It can
be internally consumed in the sinter process plant.
Blast Furnace (.Ferromanganese)
1. Base Level of Treatment: Scrubber water on closed recycle system
with thickener and vacuum filters fcr solids dewatering. Gas cooler
water once through.
2. Additional Power Requirements: Additional electrically driven
equipment will have to be installed to bring the quality of the
effluent of the water treatment system used in the fume collection
of the ferro-manganese blast furnace iron making process up to the
anticipated standard for 1977. The additional energy consumed will
be 10.7 kwh/kkg (9.76 kwh/tcn) of iron produced. For the typical
744 kkg/day (820 tons/day) ferro-manganese blast furnace, the power
required will be 333.5 kw (547 hp). The annual cost for electrical
power to operate the new equipment will be $33/525.00.
3. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: The ferro-manganese blast furnace gas is more
difficult to clean. In fact, if uncontrolled, this process
could be one of the most prolific pollution producers of any of
the metallurgical processes.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Same as iron making blast furnace
(iron) .
203
-------
r-
m
u
ffl
c
o
0)
u
rd
c
rH
3
4-1
tn
rd
ffl
O
O
U
m
D
co
K
O
O
cu
4-1 C
tn o
rQ -H
rO
d M
H CU
H C
O CU
CO O
H
i i nl
Environment
Impact Otht
W
£
Proble:
Status
i tn
a cu
tn Q)
C rl
•rl
4J 4J
rH C
3 CU
tn 3
CU rH
« >4H
tfl
»>t 4-1
IH C
ffl 0)
6 3
••H 4-1
M -H
ft 4J
y)
13 C
C O
rO CJ
' Than
Water
- w
4-1
C
*
C T3
0 CU
CJ >i
o
O ft
*\ E
t3 W
C
rd (A
•d
P O
C .C
CU 4->
6 CU
4J S
ffl
Q) -
k4
E"
cu
•d
•H
X
o
c
o
H
[volatiles
Oi
M
U
rd
CN
\
r-H
,
O
E
00
rH
|
IN
i-H
tn
Remove
cu
tn
3
rH
•o
•H
. i
•H
4=
glm
CO
tn
«
•H
rH
0
tn
I
r*|
o
-P In
0
CU in
En CU 4-)
•U -P C
3 C fC
rH -r) rH
tn tn ft
^
lost throug
surface
evaporation
-~~
o
o
fN
X
»
O
O
rH
c
'd fd
cu
T3 - SH
suspen
solids
a mino
rH >i ft
SS remova
eff icienc
depends u
0 0
. . 0
^ tT1
c c
rd ri -H
0) H
rH E 4J
Q) >1-P
C rH CU
CU O W
U CU
•H >
£ • 0
H
rH
• rH
4-1
C
rd
i-H
ItH .
O tn
0)
C H
0-H
•H 4-1
4-> rd
rl rH
0 0
a >
on sludge
level s
filter
schedule.
i
II 1 K
co fa ft
Cn4-> H M
3
O
IH
id
4-1
1
cy
u
c
o
•
CU ft
id -P E
•rl rH -rl
> -H
4H O
•C 4->
3 'd
030)
E 0 -0
CJ id rd
Ll S (Tt
cu
nd o
X
o cu
r- rff
C T3
0 3
>H H
H tn
O
Water spray
volatiles t
'—
o
o
fN
d)
rH X
O
rd -
o
«* tn
t
o
E
M1
tN
1
CO
rH
I
CO 3
Remove
most si
i
C -H
•rl
rH
•d cu
0) CU
(fl 4->
D tn
o m
in rH
i
co 2
CO U
rl CU
cu tn
> >H
o id
x:
0) 0
rH W
U -H
u
cu -
rH )H
CU
•d o
rd 4-1
•• C71
< c
•H
0 rH
E-i O
O
. U
i^
CU 4J
4J C
C fO
•rl rH
tn a
atmosphere
tri
3
rH
ft
UH
pended
solids
much o
•rl
dustry.
Reliable
properly
in
CM
r-H
0
cu m
.£ E II
OH ;z co
,
^
H
C
o
c
o
•d
o
rH
JD
rH
(B
chemic,
i
1 O
rH U
(rt
load, ,
though
i
spared.
Sludge
level con-
O
i
Ol
I
a
tn
p;
o
•rl
JJ
centra-
| trols
m
cu
rn
increa;
| solids
i
r-t
M-t
rH
CU
o
tn
tn
0)
c
0)
u
CU
m
tn
C
•r)
in
(0
cu
M
O
c
•rl
UH
O
1-1
Q)
•O
iH
O
C
•H
TJ
CU
4-1
tn
•rH
204
-------
o
c_>
w
m
C
o
M
H
0)
u
m
k
3
fa
-P
w
id
pq
OJ
o
o
u
3
u
a
D
w
olid Waste
eneration
nd Primary
onstituents
W O id U
-t
id k
4J 0)
C 42
0) 4-1
g 0 C VI
c 0,
C g
H H
in
4->
C
01
13 g
a 01
id v
r-
O1
0)
c
o
•H
4J
rd
4J 0)
C g
Oi-H
g EH
0)
rH
g
H
tn
c
in o
g -H
0) 4->
•-i 13 id
.Q C 4J
0 fd-H
M g
ft -H
4J
in "^
3 rH
4J rrj -H
id fi XI
4-1 Id R)
i
0)
I in
y o> u c
tj> 0) -H 0)
C i^ -P 3
H -H 4->
4J -P M -H
rH C O 4->
30) W
W 3 k C
0) rH O O
1J 4-1 t|_| (J
rH
o
k
4J *
C T3
O 0)
U >•
o
k rH
o a
"x. £
'O W
c
(d tn
•a
4J O
c .c
0) -P
g (U
•P £
ra
0) .
EH
g 1 rH
0) O Id rH
Tl O . M N CVH
-H 4-> M-l -H 0) M-l
X rH 4-> T)
O a) k • a) id tn c
tr> a> -P tr> M id
CT34J Cfd4-> CrH
O 3 C (d 3 3 O
M iH -rH iH rH 0) -H O
H lQC/)fttO C4-1-P
0) •
C -H rH
M -iH Vl C d
TJ o - c o o a
u) c o> in -H ,c 4-i in
id'O-HCid4JUU
Ljrrtnfnijr-HP^rrtni
.. _. V ^ . . 5 O 1
k id 4-1 k
•HO) 0) • t7>
3k C & 0) C
tr1 4-1 >w £ u -H
0) O O 0) C 4-1 .
k ,c T3 k id id in
U4->S3Exlk-P
>i4JCOinkijioiin
g5e3™«2«o8
o in
•H 4J C W W
4-> C O 0) 4->
-------
TABLE 57 (Cent.)
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
STEEL INDUSTRY
Blast Furnace (Iron) Subcategory
Treatment or Control Technologies
Identified under Item III of the
Ccope of Work:
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Carbon Column Rental
Sludge Disposal
Energy & Power
Chemical
TOTAL
BPCTCA
BATEA
A 1
2,030,569
87,314
203,057
71,070
B !
1,476,673
63,497
147,667
51,683
1 C 1
413,033
17,761
41,303
14,456
184,900
97,893
43,500
58,500
-
33,750
-
320
8,625
24,589
561,334
296,597
291,954
;ff]uent Quality: ...
Kaw
Li'fluent Constituents Waste
Parameters - units Load
Flow, gal/ton
Ammonia, mq/1
Phenol, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Sulfide, mg/1
3900
10
1.0
2.0
20
Suspended solids, mg/1 1600
Fluoride, ma/1 5
PH
7-9
3900
10
1.0
2.0
4.0
50
7-9
Resulting Effluent Levels
125
125
15
(1)
50
40
(1)
6-9
125
10
0.5
0.25
0.3
10
20
6-9
(1) Value expected for typical treatment plant utilizing BPCTCA treatment
technology
206
-------
CD
in
CD
d
rd
tr
d
rd
o
M
M
CD
h
CD
U
id
c
!H
3
fo
to
rd
«
O
O
O
CD
D
O
U
w
U)
CD >1 4J
4J C M C
in o id cu
rd-H g 3
X 4-> -H 4J
rd M -H
rl tj A. IJ
U M M4 •*-*
H CD in
H c T} d
O 0) C O
10 O id U
H
rd M
4J CD
C JC
ill -L)
IJJ 4-*
g O C VH
C rd CD
O 4-J ,C 4*J
SH U EH id
H id 3t
> P<
C g
W H
• in
4->
C
CD
T3 g
G cu
id VH
HH -H
3
o
(D
P<
G
O
•H
4J
4J
M -H
3 rH
4J rrj -H
rrt r« n
'U >-t ***
4J (d Id
CO >pH
i— 1
CD
CJ
1 10
<*H rH rH W
H CD rd 4J
> 0 d
Cn CD -H CD
C t-5 -P 3
•H -H 4J
4J 4-1 H -r-l
rH C O 4J
3 CD W
10 3 M C
(1) H O O
« 14-1 14-1 U
.
r~i
o
i .
M
4-1 *
G T3
O CD
O r*1
0
M tH
Of*.
ft
\ g
-a w
c
rd to
t)
4-1 0
C .C
CD 4->
g CD
•p £
nj
a) .
tH
fr-
0)
.y i o
rd CD 4-1 •
D W • rH
3 d in o rH
in a) -rH in tn-H
CD rH CD <4H
4-> CD O 4-> Ti
rH 4-> rH O in C
•H O .Q V4 3 id
tui C t) ftS rH
CD
SH
id
CD
10 r4
CD CD
rH 0 A
•H 4-1 ft
4-) in
id 4-> O
•-* in g
O O 4->
> rH (d
'—
0
o
OJ
CD
JH x
u
id -
o
-* in
\ i—j
m — •
•
O
g
•<*
(N
00
rH
, ,
X id g M
1 C 0 rH o CD
W •H'O-HOrHM'OCrH
-H (DO4>i*-lCDa)-r-tO
TJ "O 10 rH •» X!rH O •
(D-dus-tmin^Or-i us-i
£>-r-)>1CDOa)3>iCD CD
iJlrH rHU4-l rHlHU4-lin4J
•H o O CD id PJ-H o CD id rd rd
Kintni-iS3-PinrH3Cr^
in O
•H 4->
X
4J • C
>, in o
C rH CD -H CD .
-H 4-1 >H 4-> rH g
W -H C O Q)
T3 3 3 CD >i4-l
Q) rQ QI 4J u «
W C CD 4J CD >,
D -H ee; id M in
rHl 0
\ O O O O O rH
Cr> o . o o CN vo i
glrHrHrHCNiHrHOO
rH
o
c
Oil m
CO £ 2 S3 II CK
co ft CJ 2 w S PJ
rH
CD
CD » g
rH 1 U >1
i-i u in a) rH
CD >i-rl C O '
rH CJ "O CD ft &1
o cu A; c
O in M U -H
rj CD -H . i-i
13 ^3 rC VH 4-1
W CD J3 4-1 CD 4J
rd in 3 -P CD
t7> O M X! rH 0)
rH O Cn-H
3 O 10 3 M-t -D
H O -H
X --H H g nj
4-1 CD SH Jd 3
Di 3 -P 3 O
CD (H 4-1 O 4J
O rd C 0) id
C X CD &> > T3
O U > M CD
to rd TD T3
•H 4-1 X C 'O
. T3 0 o id id
0)
,y i o
rd CD 4-1 •
U in rH
3 C 10 O -H
M Q) -H in cn-H
CD S-l H
M CD
rd S
0) O
in s-i 4J
0) CD CD
rH O X X Ol
-H 4-> Pj-P C
4-1 O) --H
rd 4J O M rH
rH in g 0) O
O O 4-1 > O
^> rH Id O U
^
o
o
(N
^
CD
Ij ..
W
u o
(d o
tN
1— 1 ~~'
B
o
g
•=r
CM
1
00
rH
i
1 Q) C -P
cm 3 5 3
CD O T3 1 0 XJ 1
O 'd i-l rrj CD Id CD
CWCDrHUSrH ^MH
oc>'d>i6(drd4-iid
UOrH-HUH -( -H rd O C O CD O -H
ffi-Prdg4->-HrH)-lD4J
in CD O 1
i U O CT i •
C d SH -H 4J in
•H -H 4J in 4-1 rd g
in CD 4-1 C VH CD CD
ra-P3rHCCDldrH4-l
i>i
Dpj-Htrcnidinow
O O
0 O O O <£> 1
rH ^J1 n CN m rH VO
rH
O
c
0) l m
co X 2 ffi II d W
co ft O 2 co a ft
SH
0)
•» tn O ,Q
< d -P XI
in -H . 3
C rd H rH -a H
•H CP O O d U
in o s-i id w
o in i-i u 4-i
rd O C --H
a) VH 0 VH VH
rH S-I CD CD O CD 3
O CD rH > £ 4-1 •
>ija u o ffi CD c g
O X! >i ft to Q) Q)
CD 3 U VH > 4J
n s-i CD CD x 0 w
U S-I 4-1 4-1 4-1 V4 >1
•n in id -H o in
CD CD S S d >W
Ul -H 4-1 5 (U
0 S-i rd VH * O Oir-l
rH3VH(DVH'O3U
rj4-iidrHO)>a)>i
d ft O S O X. u
CD CD O O rH rd (D
. > in u 4-1 m g s-i
•
X
Dl
•H
X
CO
rd
Q)
M
O
C
•H
<*H
O
rH
0)
T)
VH
O
T)
CD
I/)
•H
-------
O
o
S
03
<
EH
I—^
§
H
Q)
tn
0)
(0
Cn
C
(0
Vl
Vl
0)
U
rfl
fi
Vl
3
4J
tn
tfl
iH
CQ
U
a
D
CO
o
CD
QJ
4J
in
tO
S
a
rl
-H
0
to
H
(0
4J
C
ivironme
K
w
i^
w
Cn
C
rl
4J
rH
3
tn
QJ
K
C
o
•H
4J
/rt
Gener;
M
0)
A
o
o
tfl
a
H
tn
QJ
H
XI
o
Cu
4J
(0
4J
W
to
,—|
QJ
QJ
4->
C
1
nmar
c
(0
c
43
EH
•C
C!
10
jJJ
C
0
•rl
4J
Ifl
-P
C
QJ
g
0)
rH
g
H
t!
c
10
a
rH
tO
u
•H
4J
•H
Vl
J
QJ
•S
„
ional
Addit
TI
ncrease
H
0)
o
i-H
in
A
4J
C
0
g
*d*
CN
|
CO
1-1
^rj
tn
•H
a
4H
0
4->
Vl
tO
Dj
Hl
Mo
M lr— '
CO
CO
4-1
0)
4J
A
•P
^
^
CO
r^
•H
tn
id
QJ
*0
to
tn
0)
•a
sludg
forme
M
o
emand f
-o
0
o
(N
X
^
o
o
CM
cn
fi
•H
4J
tO
Vl
QJ
cu
o
^1
cn
hnolo
u
0)
4-1
in
o
0
cu
g
0)
4J
tn
in
^
QJ
0
0
o
in
tO
CT*
MH
0
•l-i
C
QJ
hlorins
0
>i
10
S
.
to
4J
to
0
u
0)
g
0
tn
to
0)
tn
3
in
CM
o
I
2
U
QJ
C
•H
f-^
10
^
(0
m
•H
^
C
SE
0
T)
0
H
Cf
durin
c
•rt
1
nS
N
•H
i-H
i to
neutr
a
ausing
rease i
o
Q)
•rl
3
u
4J
to
QJ
4-1
£
o
cr4->
Q)
cn
C
•H
(0
C
o
VI
•rl
o
M
M
(0
N
•H
rH
(0
-p
3
QJ
C
f k.
C
O
•H
4J
(0
C
•H
Vl
O
rH
A
10
XI
1
£j
3
in
<0
1-1
XI
o
II
w
•a
m
tw
c
0
•rl
•P
10
-P
H
•rl
IH
,v
c
0
•rl
tion.
c
ollutio
a
m
0
4J
c
Q)
g
rl
Q)
r\
4J
0
to
Q)
O
tO
C
m
t
•
£
O
•H
a.
Vl
o
tn
(0
(-•
6
X!
Vl
(0
c
Vl
0
rH
X!
U
o
V)
4-1
o
4J
C!
^
0
^
0
t-H
X!
in
g
4->
W
£*i
in
cn
I
W
0 M
•H QJ
4-1 S •
U 0 >i
3 O-rH
'a cu
o 13 a
Vl C 3
a Vl 4-1 H Cn
QJ 4-> -r) C -H
4-1 O 3 QJ (0 >i
W rH CT4J 4J Vl
QJ -H Q) 4-1 QJ Q)
4J acc; to -o >
in
tn
ai
C
a)
O
0)
U-l
UH
(U
cr
c
•H
W
10
0)
Vl
o
c
•H
o
Vl
T3
Vi
O
•D
(L)
208
-------
TABLE 57 (FeMn)(Cont.)
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
STEEL INDUSTRY
Blast Furnace (Ferromanganese) Subcategory
eatment or Control Technologies
dentified under Item III of the
cope of Work:
vestment
Tual Costs:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Carbon Column Rental
Sludge Disposal
Energy & Power
Chemical
?OTAL
A
962,971
41,407
96,297
33,703
BPCTCA
' B 1
1,725,624
74,202
172,562
60,396
BATEA
1 C '
320,946
13,800
32,095
11,233
432,400
136,875
9,750
15,000
10,297
33,525
1,985
_
5,325
28,537
333,032
352,967
523,390
:luent Quality:
Raw
Affluent Constituents Waste
•ararneters - units Load
Tlow, gal/ton
\mmonia, mg/1
Phenol, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Sulfide, mg/1
Suspended solids,
langanese, mg/1
7700
250
4.0
100
150
mg/1 5000
800
)H 9-12
200
1.0
100
120
100
16
8-10
Resulting Effluent Levels
250
200
4.0
30
30
(1)
100
16
Ti)
6-9
250
10
0.5
0.25
0.3
10
6-9
,'l) Value to be expected from typical treatment plant utilizing BPCTCA treat-
ment technology.
209
-------
Furnace Operation
Semi-Wet Systems
1. Base Level of Treatment: Once through system. Treatment of waste
waters via thickening with addition of polymer, and with a vacuum
filter for dewatering of solids.
2. Additional Energy Requirements: Additional power will be necessary
when bringing the quality of the effluent of the water treatment
system utilized in the fume collection of the BOF (semi-wet)
steelmaking process up to the anticipated standard for 1977. The
additional energy utilized will be 0.34 kwh/kkg (0.28 kwh/ton) of
steel produced. For the typical 4,429 kkg/day (4,880 tons/day) BOF
facility, the additional power required will be 62.66 Jew (84 hp) .
The annual operating cost for this additional insta.Llar.ion will be
approximately $6,300.00.
3. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: In the BOF (semi-wet) method of steelmaking,
the air pollution problem of primary significance will be
suspended particulate matter. Although the furnace exhaust
fumes will have been passed through a dust wash, 0.1 pound of
particulate emission per 1,000 pounds exhaust: gases will be
emitted into the atmosphere.
b. solid Waste Disposal: The solids waste that will be generated
by the fume collection system for the BOF (semi-wet) process of
steelmaking should present no problem. It can be internally
consumed in the sinter process plant.
Wet_Sv.stems
1. Base Level of Treatment: Once through system. Treatment system
includes classifier and thickener with vacuum filter for solids
dewatering.
2. Additional Energy Requirements: To bring the quality of the
effluent of the water treatment system utilized in the fume
collection of the BOF (wet) steel manufacturing process up to the
anticipated standard for 1977, additional energy will be necessary.
The additional energy consumed will be 0.44 kwh/kkg (0.40 kwh/ton)
of steel made. The additional power required for the typical 6,888
kkg/day (7,590 tons/day) BOF facility will be 125.3 kw (168 hp).
The annual operating cost for this additional consumption of power
will be approximately $12,600.00.
3. Non-Water Quality Aspects
210
-------
CO
in
W
H
4J
(U
S
•H
0)
(U
O
id
3
fri
G
(D
X
O
u
-H
01
id
m
o
o
w
EH
U
CQ
D
O
O
W
EH
0) >-l 4-
P C M C
01 O id 1)
(d -H g 3
S 4J -H 4->
fd M -H
O M ft 4-1
HO) 01
H C 'd C
O (L) C C
w o id u
,
I'd M
4J (U
c x:
QJ -P
e o c M
G Id 0.
0 4-1 ,G 4-1
H O E-i id
H (d 3
> ft
c g
W H
" -P
fl
\L>
•0 g
G d
^ -r
E
Q
c
o
•H
4J
(d
4J d
£ §
0) -H
g EH
0)
ft
g
H
01
C
w O
g -H
a) 4J
rH T) Id
J3 C 4->
O Id -H
H g
ft -H
I-H
4J
03 -H
3 r~^
4J T3 -H
0 C
tn a> -H a>
C rj 4J 3
•r! -H 4J
4-1 4J M -H
rH C CJ -P
3 O C C T3
C -P O id
O "-H O
U 01 g 4-1 rH
0) (U O
-P tJi4-> 3 -P
w M 01 fO id
3 3 >i 0) Q)
S 01 01 !H J3
0) D
01 • 4J
3 rH >, 01
(U H >1
>l (1) 4-> 01
rH 4-1 01
0) 01 3 'd
•d 'do
-rt C C O
3: -H -H o
CN
rHl rH
V\J |
do o o
Elm fNrH
W 1 ffi
W fa ft
O O 0) k
•H 4-i >; o 'd
M 4-1 Id 0)
Q) Id S O 4-1 H
g rH O C U
>, 3 rH M Id >1
rH U UH 3 (!) rH O
O u !H >H 4-i ft a)
ft 0 0) £ rH iH
rH > -P -H M
,0 M-I o m a) a)
4J S 4J -P
•H u - o - c id
S -H = rH 01 -H M
4-1 ,C >4H (H 01 4-1 •
rH Q) tP M 0) rH JH
C CnOrdrH4-lMH C
(1) Id M G -rH 0)
^ g^rj ^1 u-j rrj ^-| y
O 4J 0) rH U
-r-( iH | •• g H -rl -H
,r^ O Q) SH 3 O UH x<
H \ U 0) 3 ^'d 4-1
•d c s u o c
c o a) n5 i 01
rH Id •
•d H rH
0) (d W rH
0) g C H w in
-H 01 (U 3 'd
rH C -P G
o o c !H. id
W D-H O iH
01
G 3
0) G O
01 4-1 Id H .
a) 4J .c j: 01
J-l 10 4-1 4-1 g
-H I 0)
3 Q) C 0) 4J
O1 M O O 01
Q) O -H fi >i
« g -P 0 01
•73 C • ''O
Q) -H >, 0
U >i HO
-H G 01 4-1 tP
4J (0 4J rH 01
0 g G (1) 3 >i
id (d a) -d M
H >,H 4J G 0)
ft J3 ft 01 -rl >
0 0 1
Ml ffi
CO [r_i Pi
3
4-1 MO
ft rC 2
0) 4->
O
X 0 g •
0) 4-1 0) g
4-1 o •
i 01 tn
g rH 01 >, M
a) u 01 id
4-i >i >i s:
H D (d ft U
' a) M g w
01 M ft 3 -H
Id 01 ftT3
<1) 0 01 dl 01
g rH 01 H 3
fd <*-! (1) O O
W M O >i Q)
01 0 U 3
> H 0) D1
<4H
0)
c
•rH
n
Q)
4-1
01
-------
TAT;i,r 53. (cont.)
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
STEEL INDUSTRY
Basic 0:./gcn Furnace (f-emi-V7et Air Pollution Control Methods) Subcategory
Treatment or Control Technologies
Identified under Item III of the 3PCTCA-BATEA
Scope of Work: A [ "~lf ~l
Investment $ 533,820 .$ 187,540
Annual Costs:
Capital 22,954 8, 065
Depreciation 53,382 18,754
Operation & Maintenance 18,684 6,565
Sludge Disposal 7,984
Energy & Power 12,675 5,625
Chemical 47,906
TOTAL $ 163,585 $ 39,009
Effluent Quality: _
Kaw
Effluent Constituents Waste Resulting Effluent Levels
Parameters - units Load
Flow, gal/ton 430 430 0
Suspended solids,mg/1 250 50
Fluoride, mg/1 22 20
pH 10-12 10-12
212
-------
CT1
in
TABLE
CO
W
H
A
>i O
CO O O
2 O W
O rH EH
H O ft.
EH 2 O
ft, W PQ
K CJ D
WWW
O, EH
O Q
O 2 <
2 U
H g CO
tt EH W
.
X
o
•H
to
(0.
o
o
w
o
ra
D
co
O
o
w
Solid Waste |
Generation
and Primary [
Constituents^
-i
H
C Id CU
o 4-1 .e 4-1
Vl O EH id
•H 04
c g
W H
" V
-f-
c
cu
•a g
C cu
id n
rl ••-
E
0)
a;
c
o
•H
4->
(d
4-> 0)
C g
0) -H
Q)
rH
a*
H
to
c
CO O
g •••<
CU 4-1
H t) (d
.Q C -P
O (d "^
H E
Qj -r-l
m ~
h3
^j
« H
3 !J
-P TH*
id C -9
4J (t> ™
w •*
r-f
cu
Pf*
t-M
1 CO
MH rH rH tO
W CU id 4-1
> o c
tJi CU T) CU
C i-5 -P 3
•H -rl 4-1
4J -P H -H
rH C O 4-1
30) CO
CO 3 rl £
CU rH 0 O
OJ IH 1
i-H
CU
'd
•H
S
•Hi
\
oVc
gleo
w
consumed
internally
CO
cu
CU CO
4-> =tt (0
id o tj>
rH O
304-1
CJ rH CO
•H \ 3
•P =»= i
rH
0)
•O
•H
S
o
•*
W
w
•a
c
To A, add magnetic a
•
CQ
consumed j
internally
0)
4-> =»fc
id o
rH O
3 0
0 rH
•H \
-P =»=
VI rH
rd •
n, o
—
o
o
CN
X
•
o
o
(N
<
g
CD
4-1
H
>,
^
-d -P
cu to
CJ 3
•H T3
4-1 C
CJ -rl
id
rl C
ft-H
G)
0 1
CO >X)
1 rC
b a
or chemical polymer
f locculation
CO
cu
CO
id
en
4J
CO
3
id
A
X
CU
T!
O
O
tn
>i
VI
o
>
'Solid waste
consumed in-
ternally. Ad-
ditional
sludges from
neutralizatio
to landfill. |
CO
cu
cu co
4J =«*= id
id o cr>
rH O
3 0 -P
O rH CO
•H \ 3
.. 4-1 =«= id
rl VI rH X!
•H id • X
< CU 0 CU
--^
0
o
rvj
0) X
rl -
D 0
(d o
CN
rH •--
- to
X!
4-1
C
o
g
CO
rH
•a
CO 0)
•rl 4-1 CU
•d Id rH
CU rH VI CJ
> (d 4J >i
rH-H C 0
O rl CU CU
CO CD CJ rl
CO 4-1 C
-H id O >i
Q S O -D
c
•H
•o .-•a
CU >i O
O VI O
>1-rt 4J tjl
rH 4-1 CO
CU CJ 3 >i
•d rd -d ri
•H Vl C CU
s a-H >
(T»
Ul
O O |
in in vo
W 1 K
CO b QJ
g
CU 1
•P rd
To B, add thickener
overflow recycle sys
with blowdown; neutr
lization of blowdown
stream.
•
CJ
Cn
C
•rH
Ul
(0
U
C
•H
UH
O
-------
4J
G
O
O
en
in
W
ra
EH
W EH O
W W
EH Q EH
W 2 <
O Z
c
(U
Cr
X
o
u
-H
w
n)
m
X
O
w
g
CQ
CO
o
u
u
in
QJ >t 4->
4J C M C
M O id QJ
id-H 6 3
S 4-1 -H 4J
Id 1-1 -H
H QJ to
H C "0 C
O QJ C O
W O a
c g
W H
• M
c
QJ
•d g
G QJ
id >-i
r^ -H
•-5
,— *
Jj
QJ
K
G
0
•rH
4J
id
4-) QJ
G g
QJ -H
g El
0)
i-H
ft
g
H
W
G
to o
g -H
CJ 4J
rH 73 Id
X! G -P
0 itf -rH
^4 £
Pi -H
^
>i
4J
W -H
3 rH
4J T3 -rl
id G X!
4-> it! id
CO -H
rH
QJ
1 U)
M-l rH rH tO
W QJ id 4-1
> u c
!JI QJ -rH QJ
G iJ 4J 3
•H -rH 4J
4-> 4-1 M -H
rH G U -P
3d) w
en 3 U C
QJ rH O O
& IH iw U
rH
Q
4-1 *
c -d
O QJ
CJ >,
£1
•d w
frt U)
•P 0
G A
v -P
e Q)
•P S
/rt
lu
Lj
|T*
*~^
Q)
4J >irH O
in rH id 4-i •
Id T3 rH G rH
S -P,£!
go-H "dt-Htnido
•H-rH3CrdOnlrHM
,_q 4-> ty-i-H id to 5 QJ ft
i
C
0
u -d i -P
en c c c
G C fl -H ••* V
-H -rH >, W rH
rH rH S-| )H OJ rH
•d rH Q) Q) 4-1 -P Q)
QJ O QJ .G W W' U
W tH 4-1 4-> 3 Ifl' X
O 4-! 10 O T) *? OJ
H
\ cn
Cnm o i
g CN CM W3
CO 1 K
CO CM ft
rC -P
•P G
•H QJ
S g
-P
Cn id
g-SS
O rH 4-1 •
•d -p c
3 4J Q) O
O QJ g -H
rH tO -H 4->
XI rH rd
id N
•d -H •> -H
•d > C H
id o fd
4J -H M
- C -P 4->
O 0) (0 3
g rH <1J
0 4J 3 G
EH id en
Q) Id T3
HOC
QJ
4J >irH O
tn rH id -p •
Id T3 r-l C rH
S OJ Id O 10 rH
g C -H QJ -H
t> 3 M 4-1 Cnu-l
•H 10 QJ -H t) T3
H C 4J TJ 3 G
O O C T) rH Id
co U -H id in rH
in
QJ
0) in
4J =H= Id
id o en
rH 0
3 0 4J
U r-l in
•H \ 3
• * 4-1 3fe Id
M S-H H .G
•H id . X
d H w o u
rH QJ ft -~ QJ -H QJ
O 4-) in S-l 4J rH
C 10 rH 0) -H C tt
Xi Q) QJ 4J 3 OJ
u 4J QJ tn cr-P rH
ID C 4-1 Id QJ 4-1 rH
E-i 3 tn s M id id
-p
id
QJ -P
M C
G -P Q)
•H rH
£H ••• rH
-d QJ 4J 0)
QJ -P C U
in id Q) x
D 3 g QJ
CTi
0 1
rH in vo
co i a
CO fo ft
•d
0)
4J
id
•H 4J
-P G
CJ QJ
id g
-p
-d id
T3 QJ •
id M G
4-1 0
•rl
Q IT! -P
c id
0 -r( rH
EH g -P
3 H
rH -H
•
to
ft
Q)
4-1
to
Cn
c
•H
(1)
c
4-1
o
(U
tr>
G
•rH
tn
IB
Q)
M
u
c
0)
•o
c
•r4
QJ
4J
Ul
-------
TABLE 59 (Cont.)
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
STEEL INDUSTRY
I'asic Oxygen Furnace (ret Air Pollution Control Methods) Subcategory
reatment or Control Technologies
Identified under Item III of the
Scope of Work:
B
Cl
D
ivestment
mual Costs:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Sludge Disposal
Energy & Power
Chemical
TOTAL
$ 1,308,722 $ 27,058 $ 437,326 $ 363,251 $ 359,63C
56,275 1,163 18,805 15,619 15,465
130,872
2,706
45,805
947
43,732
15,306
36,325
12,713
35,965
12,587
"138,627
30,000 675
131,400
1,040
11,925 10,575
1,822 6,197
4,50C
2S
$ 401,579 $136,891 $ 91,590 $ 82,469 $ 68,544
fluent Quality: „
w 2 Raw
Effluent Constituents Waste
Parameters - units Load
Flow, gal/ton
600
Resulting Effluent Levels
BPCTCA BATEA
600
600
50
50
50
Suspended solids, mg/1 2,000
Fluoride, mg/1 30
pH 6-9
80 40 50 25 10
30 30 50(1) 20 5 '
6-9 6-9 6-9 6-9 6-9
(1) Value that can be obtained utilizing BPCTCA treatment technology
215
-------
a. Air Pollution: The air pollution problem of primary
significance in the EOF (wet) method of steelmaking will be
parti culate emissions. Although the furnace exnaust fumes will
be passed through a dust removing both, 0.1 kg of suspended
particulate matter per kkg (lb/1,000 Ib) of exhaust gases will
be emitted into the atmosphere.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: There should be no problem in disposing
of the solid waste generated by the fume collection system for
the EOF (wet) process for the manufacture of steel. It can be
internally consumed in the sinter process plant.
2E§S_M§S£i;fe_ Furnace Operation
1. Base Level of Treatment: Once through system. Water treatment
system includes a classifier and thickener with a vacuum filter for
solids dewatering.
2. Additional Energy Requirements: Additional power will be necessary
when bringing the quality of the effluent of the water treatment
system utilized in the fume collection of the open hearth
steelmaking process up to the anticipated standard for 1977. The
additional energy utilized will be 0.45 kwh/kkg (0.41 kwh/ton) of
steel produced. For the typical 6,716 kkg/day (7,400 tons/day) open
hearth facility, the additional power required will be 1^6 kw (169
hp) . The annual operating cost for this additionail installation
will be approximately $12,000.00.
3. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: In open hearth steel manufacturing, the air
pollution problem of primary significance will be suspended
particulate matter. Although the furnace exnaust fumes will
have been passed through a dust wash, 0.1 kkg of paxticulate
emission per kkg (lb/1,000 lt>) exhaust gases will be emitted
into the atmosphere.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: The solid waste that will be generated
by the fume collection system for the open hearth process of
steelmaking should present no problem. It can be internally
consumed in the sinter process plant.
Electric Arc Furnace Operation
Semi- Wet Systems
1. Base Level of Treatment: Complete recycle system. Water treatment
system includes a classifier and thickener with poly addition and
vacuum filter for solids dewatering.
216
-------
O
VD
W
IH
m
<
EH
W
H
JH O
WOO
2 O W
O ^ EH
H O rtj
rf « ffl
2 U D
WWW
ft, EH
O Q
*z *c
o
2 W
H g W
«EHW
W
K
W EH O
W W
EH Q EH
<, CJ
Q
2 rH1 Q
Sow
2 EH <
O 2 IH
ftl O W
H CJ 2
G
Q)
&
O
O
o
w
EH
ffl
D
W
O
O
I/I
o : i P
4-) C to f.
U) O n3 QJ
rO -H f; 3
S 4-1 -H 4J
rfl M -H
a >n ft, -P
HO) U)
H G 13 G
0 0) C O
W O rfl U
H
fO to
-P Q)
G A
tt) -P
g O G to
C tO
M U EH rfl
H rO IS
> 0.
G g
W H
•• 01
•P
C
0)
•a g
CH (I
fl3 V-
t— 1 "H
6
d
G
0
-rH
-P
ffl
-P 0)
C! f-
*-* Pi
0) -H
g EH
(11
W
Oi
H
r-*
Problems
and
Limitatioi
-P
-H
3 1j
-P 13 "I-\
rd G *2
•p rfl 3
w J
rH
o
1 01
tH rH rH W
W Q) (fl -P
> 0 C
Cn 0) -H 0)
C i-3 -P 3
•H -H -P
-P -P to -H
rH G U -P
3d) W
Ul 3 M C
a) rH o o
A iw <4H CJ
rH
O
H
-P *
C 03
O 0)
CJ >,
O
to rH
o a
\ g
13 W
G
rrj 01
•a
•P O
C .C
Q) 4J
g 0)
•P ^
ffl
(!) .
EH
0)
•p >1
01 rH
ftf Tj rH
IS (I) rd
g G
T) 3 to
•H Ul 0)
rH G -P
0 0 C
W U -H
0)
01
Q) 01
-P =*= ffl
ffl O tji
i-H 0
3 O 4J
U rH 01
•H \ 3
•• -p •«= (fl
to to rH .G
•H (0 • X
ft, ft, 0 (1)
^-*
•
o
o
0) CM
to X
o -
rfl o
o
H CM
01
-P
G
O
g
00
rH
C 13 rH
0 tfl O
•rl O to
-P rH -P
U G
3 -P O .
13 1
rH £>i
-P G to
C-H -P
0) H W
to 13 0) 3 H
M a) a; ng -rH
3 W 4-) C ffl
O 3 01 -H MH
\ o r-
OT C O LT> CM 1
g 1 oo CM ro CM ro
,
w i n
• 1 O C EC
W t, 2 ta a.
0) to
1 U (U SH
g 01 C 3: g 1 0
O rfl O 0) 3 0)
r4 rH : 01 3 V-l 4J
t*H U O CO)
- O rfl 0) rfl -P
Q) O r-l 4-) £* ^ 1 — 1 ffl
fji4J 0) rfl (i to
to G S 42 0 4->
rd to 4J -H 01 •
3 O t-l 13
01 rj1 O S 00)
3 4J - O *• 4-1 ' — I
0 >1 X rH 01 rH
QJ M M O^ W M 13 *H
3rrj(U3M(IJ(UlW
tfg-H O 0)4-lrHl3
<-HMHMl3rHUG
M -H .C C -H >i (fl
-^
(1)
4J >i
01 rH
rfl 13 rH
IS (U rfl
g C
13 3 V-l
•H w a)
rH C 4J
0 0 C
W U -H
0)
0)
01
a> 01
4-> =«= rfl
rfl o Cn
rH 0
304-1
• U rH 01
•H\ 3
.. 4J =«= ffl
to to -H si
•H ffl • X
i< fti o a)
«-^
•
o
o
0) CM
M-X
o -
rd o
0
rH CM
01
s
o
g
oo
rH
G 13 H rjj
O rfl O XI
•H O to
4J rH 4J 4->
U G 01
3 4J O ., to 3
13 rd U 01 0) g
a) a) o e
M ,C 4-J Cr ^,13
01 to rH 0)
O 4H 3 3 O <1)
s o g 01 a,1*-!
Si *~
rH >1
4J G rH
G -H -P
(1) rH 01 .
H 13 <1) 3 13
Vl (U (U *t3 O
3 01 4-1 G O
O 3 01 -rH tjl
o o in o |
LO CM ro CM ro
• 1
W co
• 1 O G 33
W fri 2 IS3 ft
D
4J --H
k 34-1
Q) XI V
C G
0) ^ rjv
iM rf rd
u ci e
•H rH
Xi g M rd
4-> 0) 0) U
4J C -H C
0 H Q) g O
4-1 ^ 0) -H
01 U .C 4-1
13 ffl -H U rfl
rfl I»H
m
•d
0)
•H
ffl
4-1
•H
g
tr
C
•H
01
10
0
c
•iH
13
01
•H
1-1
-------
0
o
o
vo
H
^
m
<
EH
,
w
2
id
(U
G
(U
Q.
O
O
O
U
n
D
w
o
o
tfl
Solid Waste
Generation
and Primary
Constituent
H
id V4
-p o
G XI
0) -P
g O G M
Environ
Impact
Tha
| Wate
• tn
4->
0)
•o g
G Oi
id ^
1-3 -H
tr
0)
«
G
0
-4J
id
4-> 0)
G g
0) -H
rH
o>
H
in
C
tn o
Probleir
and
Limitatd
4J
>r^
, |
.,_]
id
"^"*
nl
uj
1 W
M-l rH rH tfl
W Q) id -P
> O G
tn 0) -H 1)
C HH 4J 3
•H -H 4J
4J +J M -H
rH G U -P
3d) in
in 3 H G
0) rH 0 O
Cd M-l M-l O
Treatment and/or Control
. Methods Employed*
0) tJ rH
-P >i 0) rH
tn rH in -H
Id >d rH O M-l
Is (i) id ft *d
g C in G
T( 3 M -H 10
•H W 0) T3 rH
rH G 4-1
O O G M 0
tn o -H o -P
0) ®
•P id
rH O
3 O -P
O rH Ifl
•A \ 3
• • 4J =tt= rrJ
M M rH XI
•H id • X
H d
4-1 iH 4-> O 4J 0)
D G -H in G
3 4-> O g 3 vH
t) id u in o) g id
Q) Q) 0) X! 4J
M .C! 4J tP O TJ G
in ,-1 a) -H
O W 3 3 I! 0> id
2 0 g W ftM-l g
T3 >l
0) rH
in 4-)
3 to
3
^i ""0
H G
0) -H 'd
•d o
•H G O
S -H Cn
rHl
\| O O CPi
tfjo o m in i
g | in rH rH (N HI
•
en ,r,
• i oca
W fe 2 N ft
0) C
Same as Item (B) except
thickener overflow recycl
to scrubber system with
blowdown. A lime additio
to recycled water is
required from a process
standpoint.
0) TJ ,_)
4J >, 0) rH
U) rH tfl -H
(d "d rH O M-l
Is 0 id ft 'd
g G W G
*d 3 in -H fd
•H U 0) T) rH
•H G 4J
O O G VJ O
W O -H O 4->
in
0)
0) in
4-1 =«= id
id *"* HP
rH O
3 0 4J
U rH U)
•rH\ 3
.1 4J =«= id
M M rH XI
•H id • X
<| PL, 0 0)
in ^
M 0
O 0
fd n
X
CN -
\0
H O
1 CNJ
H "-'
to
£%
4J
G
O
g
CO
rH
« ™ rH (LI
0 0 o X! • (U
•H 5 rH a n3 g
4JO4Jft 4-10)310
3 ^j O • id 3 -H O -H
HI m 4) -H 4-> O <1)
^inMOlD-Htri B
rH
uj > 1 0)
in 4-1 o)
4-> 0) Ul 4-1 rj;)
CrH -H o) in o
C 0) Id rH 4J • O
-H a o 4-> c m tn
M H-> -H tn in o Q)
rdu)idg3Td 4-)j>i
O 4-1 QJ O rd O O^ W in
W id VH rG G Q) G id fl)
D>4JU-H2-HS>
rHl CTl
\|m o m i
tP CN (N ^ LD VO
n I
n
eni oca
co t, 2 N a
jj
Same as Item (C) excepi
blowdown treated through
lime precipitation of
fluoride and zinc?
neutralization, sedimen-
tation, and denitrifica-
tion.
0) T3 iH
4-1 >i 0) rH
W rH tfl -H
Id T3 rH O MH
15 O> Id fttJ
g G tfl G
T3 3 >H -H Id
•H W 0) T) rH
rH G -P
O O G V4 O
CO U -H O 4-1
tn
0)
0) tn
4-1 =tt id
id o tr*
iH O
3 0 4J
O rH tfl
•H \ 3
.. 4-> =*= Id
M M H XI
•H Id • X
G
O
g
CO
rH
tn Q
id ^
g 6
id 4-i
en H
^-^
in Q
id —
Q) g
-------
TABLE 60 (Cont.)
WATER EFFLUEIJT TREATMENT COSTS
STEEL INDUSTRY
Open Hearth Furnace Subcategory
^atment or Control Technologies
lentified under Item III of the
:ope of Work:
restment
.ual Costs:
lapital
'epreciation
Deration & Maintenance
ludge Disposal
Inergy & Power
'hemical
DTAL
A
$ 892,416
38,373
89,242
31,235
40,515
12,750
BPCTCA
I B C I
$ 27,203 $ 505,700
1,170
2,720
952
675
40,500
21,745
50,570
17,700
12,000
1,140
$ 212,115 $ 46,017 $ 103,155
BATEA
D
$ 1,567,347 $ 468,82
67,395 20,1€
156,735 46,8£
54,857
12,000
17,872
308,863 $ 90,97
luent Quality:
ffluent Constituents
arameters - units
.ow, gal/ton
ispended solids, mg/1
.uoride, mg/1 (•*•'
.trate, mg/1 d)
.nc, mg/1 d)
Raw
Waste
Load
600
2,000
20
35
400
3-7
600
80
20
35
220
3-7
Resulting Effluent Levels
600
50
20
35
200
3-7
BPCTCA
50
50
100
(2)
150
(2)
25
(2)
6-9
50
25
20
45
6-9
50
10
45
6-9
'A wide range in fluoride, nitrate, and zinc levels are found depending on types of
of raw materials used, fuels, and other operating conditions.
')Value to be expected from typical treatment plant utilizing BPCTCA treatment technology
219
-------
2. Additional Energy Requirements: No additional power will be
necessary when bringing the quality of the effluent from tne water
treatment system utilized in the fume collection of the electric
furnace (semi-wet) steelmaking process up to the anticipated
standard for 1977.
3. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: In the electric furnace (semi-wet) method of
steelmaking, the air pollution problem of primary significance
will be suspended particulate matter. Although the furnace
exhaust fumes will have been scrubbed, 0.1 kkg of particulate
emission per kkg(lb/ Ib) of exhaust gases will be emitted into
the atmosphere.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: The solid waste that will be generated
by the fume collection system for the electric furnace (semi-
wet) process of steelmaking should present no problem. It can
be internally consumed in the sinter process plant.
Wet_Sy§terns
1. Base Level of Treatment: Once through system. The water treatment
system is comprised of a classifier, thickener, and vacuum filter
for dewatering of solids.
2. Additional Power Requirements: To bring the quality of the effluent
of the water treatment system utilized in the fume collection of the
electric furnace (wet) steel manufacturing process up to the EPA
standard for 1977, additional energy will be necessary. The
additional energy consumed will be 0.92 kwh/kkg (0.83 Kwh/ton) of
steel made. The additional power required for the typical 1,652
kkg/day (1,820 tons/day) facility of this type will be 63 kw (84
hp). The annual operating cost for this additional consumption of
power will be approximately $6,300.00.
3. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: The air pollution problem of primary
significance in the electric furnace (wet) method of
steelmaking will be particulate emissions. Although the
furnace exhaust fumes will be passed through a dust removing
bath, 0.1 kg of suspended particulate matter per kkg(lb/1,000
Ib) of exhaust gases will be emitted into the atmosphere.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: There should be no problem in disposing
of the solid waste generated by the fume collection system for
the electric furnace (wet) process for the manufacture of
steel. It can be internally consumed in the sinter process
plant.
220
-------
< 35 PQ
K O tD
WWW
W
hH"
2 E-i <
o 2 i-q
P5 O W
H U K
O
t,
W
1
O
PQ
D
W
K
O
O
W
0)
01
id
3
t)
rH
-H
o
c/i
H
id
4-J
(D
6
o
M
H
>
C
W
1
4-1
W
tP
C
•rH
4J
3
01
Q)
K
O
Generati
M
OJ
-P
O
-p
o
id
a
g
H
01
g
0)
rH
Q
0
ft
01
3
4J
id
-p
w
01
rH
01
>
0)
hH1
-P
C
0)
3
rH
>
Ifl
g
•H
>H
ft
t>
C
id
C
id
.C
EH
•a
a
K
*3
c
0
•rl
-P
id
-p
fi
0)
g
0)
H
O
H
•a
c
nj
-a
id
rH
id
o
•H
-p
•r4
M
O
H
0
rH
0
-P
O
U
rt
O
\
c
id
-P
c
0)
g
4J
id
o>
£
4-
0)
Constitu
t-
4-
rc
^5
0
c
0)
£
£
•^
E
Q)
PJ
0)
E
£H
01
C
0
•H
-P
id
-P
•rl
g
•H
•H
•H
-H
rH
0)
01
4->
C
0)
3
4J
-H
-P
01
C
O
U
«
-a
01
o
rH
ft
g
w
01
•a
0
-P
S
>1 01
(S,
I—
o
.,
i.
-H
<
0)
U
id
CO
\
rH
01
4J
C
o
g
CN
c
o
•H
-P
O
3
0)
}_l
o
2
>i
rH
-P
C
0)
IH
3
0
i
^H 1
^M
glo
W
X
consumed
a;
-p
id
3
O
-P
id
ft
. .
o
o
rH
X
0
in
-P
id
0)
r^
MH
O
13
0)
U
•rH
4-1
O
Id
i—
internal
4fc
O
o
rH
*=
, — |
O
>1
id
J^
ft
w
•
•a
id
o
i-H
rH
01
u:
it
X
Q)
1
0)
6
-P
01
>i
01
4H
O
01
4J
C
id
rH >,rH
ft
0
L
in
01
X!
1
W
ft
A
u
3
g
01
0)
^
•H
3
0)
ft
•P
01
•H
x:
-P
•
01
u
£
(d
C
01
^
c
-H
id
g
4->
C
0)
i-H
rH
01
U
X
w
O-H
-H 0
,X 01 S
rH 0) O X
Id Id rH O
OirH M-l X!
01
c;
O
CJ
tP
M
r*
rj
01
-iH
Q
O
Q
4J
id
r<
4J
QJ
fd •
— i
4H
t ,
IH
^
O
M '
0)
D
X '
^
c
p
ri
X
o
rH
MH
01
id T3
w1
O
Q
-H
rj
Jx,
U
/ii
C
ft
id
_p
01
p
1
01
0) O
-p -p
H
H 01
H | £
M
6 3
3 0)
U H
>
-.i jj
cn id
r-J tj
O -P
^1 rH
»M _ __j
0)
-p
c
•rl
01
o
4->
0)
•O
3
01
r4
c!
01
^i
O
•rl
r+
. f~* JJ l_i u_i aJ u_i jj
t
iH
-H
rrt
(^
(0
H
o
01
01
(D
•H
-P
U
0)
MH
cn
C
•H
01
id
(D
r4
U
C
•H
O
01
•a
0)
.P
01
•H
-------
TABLE 61' (Cont. )
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
STEEL INDUSTRY
Electric Arc Furnace (Semi-wet Air Pollution Methods) Subcategory
Treatment or Control Technologies
Identified under Item III of the BPCTCA
Scope of Work: BATEA
Investment
Annual Costs:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power
Sludge Disposal
Chemical
TOTAL
$ 615,825
26,481
61,582
21,554
17,550
7,446
1,500
$ 136,113
Effluent Quality:
Effluent Constituents
Parameters - units
Flow, gal/ton
Raw
Waste
Load
100
Suspended solids,mg/1 2,000
Fluoride, mg/1
PH
25
6-9
Resulting Effluent Levels
222
-------
(N
VD
W
hH
pa
<:
EH
co
w
>( O
CO C5 O
sow
O i-q EH
H O
.p
W r-H
Ihii
4J rd -H
CO i — 1
(U
1 0)
l(H rH rH 01
W 0) rd 4J
> 0 C
O"1 (D *H O
C J 4J 3
•H -H 4J
4-> 4J M -H
rH C U 4J
30) 01
01 3 M C
Q) rH O O
fjc| VH IH o
H
O
M
4J *
c id
O (U
U >i
o
M rH
\g
•a w
C
nJ w
*O
4J 0
C £
0) 4J
6 0)
4J S
rO
0) .
6-4
01
0)
4J >i 01
w rH ra
rd T3 rH
£ a> rd -a
g C 0)
•H 01 0) 3
rH C -P
0 0 C M
CO O-H O
01
G O
rH
rH
•H
C
rH
Ol M
S -P S
C G
. rd O
W rH C M 01
OJ fi Q) 4J
tn 0) 4J G
J-J &4 ^ C f^ *
3 < rd -H rH >i
c
Q)
4->
C T3 <1)
•rH C g
rd rd -H
6 4J
(1) G
g U S
3 C 0
P K -H rji g rd T)
- 1
\ lO ' fTt
Olio O VD 1
g|rH w O .£
4J O 4J
0) rd 4J 1
rjr M d)
M rd M U
rd f-X QJ C
,C CU -H O
O 01 MH -
01 -H
•H ^3 01 •
T3 • 01 M
M rd Q)
01 0) rH C
3 rO O (1)
o xi A;
(U 3 3 U
3 M M -H
ft. 01 4J4J
*
M
M 0)
O 3 O 4J
_£ r-l .^ rrj .p
S 4J -H 01 0)
O >H rH T3
rH £ O rH 0)
MH O ^ 4^ *H rH
M rH Ol 44 O
(1) t+-| M 73 13 >f
r" M fl) d) G U
O 01 4J rH rd Q)
T3 rH O rH M •
QJ j^ M-i O J-t (D d)
C (1) 0 4J G
r^ M 3 4-J M 1^
U 0) 3 (U G 4J U
-H S U A; rd H -H
.£ O fd 11 r-4 -H XI
4J 01 > U 04 4-1 -P
01
(U
4J >. 01
0) rH rd
rd TJ rH
^ dJ rd TJ
g C 01
13 3 M 01
•H 01 0) 3
rH C 4->
0 0 C M
CO O -H O
01
0)
o> 01
4J =«*= rd
rd O tj1
rH O
304-1
O rH 01
•H \ 3
M M rH x;
-H rd • X
rH M •
0) a) -a o
01 4-> C O
£> Ol -H tP
O^
O O VD 1
lO fN rH VD
to" fiX
co fa tsj CL,
U M
•H (U
[ i g
4-1 QJ L>*
3 CrH
•Q D1 O
rd pi
^^ g
<< rH
M rd
0) U .
g C -rH C
0) 0) g 0
4-> ^1 01 -r-l
H 0 .G -P
•H U rd
01 £ rH
rd 4-> M 3
O O
0) .G \ U
g 4-1 T3 O
(0 -H C H
CO 3 rd 44
ffl
.
rH
rH
•rH
UH
•a
c
rH
01
01
a)
C
Q)
>
•H
4J
O
(U
m
4-1
CP
c
-H
01
rd
a>
M
o
c
•H
0)
•a
O
C
TJ
0)
01
•H
H4
223
-------
-P
f3
O
O
W
9
EH
§
CO
^^ r^i r-t
OS O W
H U«
CD
O
rd
M
3
O
•H
M
4J
U
0)
W
w
EH
U
CQ
D
CO
S
O
O
w
EH
w
0) >!-P
P C W C
in o id v
Solid Wa
Generati
and Prim
i Constitu
H
id M
4-1 0)
C 43
CD 4-1
g O C V4
C rd 0)
0 4J 43 4J
H U EH rd
H rd 13
> a
C g
W H
•- in
^J
c
0)
•0 g
c; o
rd V4
1-1 -H
3
Cr
C
o
•H
-P
rd
-P 0)
C g
<1) -H
g EH
CD
rH
CU
g
H
U)
f3
W O
g -H
0) 4J
rH -O rd
43 C -P
O rd-H
Cu *H
rJ
^
Ij
in "^
3 H
rrj (3 43
4-1 rd "5
rf) -rH
rH
cu
1 W
M-l rH rH W
W 0) rd 4->
> O C
tyt (U *H O
a hH 4J 3
•H -H 4->
4-1 4-1 M -H
rH G U -P
3 CD W
in 3 n C
CD rH O O
P4 HH <4-t O
* *
O
V-l
4-> *
C *C3
0 Q)
o >
o
r-l rH
^
•a w
id in
•a
4J O
(3 -C
CD 4->
£ o>
4J a
rd
0) .
£
to
0)
4J >i tn
in rH rrj
id 'O i — i
^5 Q) id ^
g fi , O
CD r-l O
><(D 4-1 CJi
rH 4-1 W
0) W 3 >i
nc3 n3 ^H
•H fi C 0
rHl
1^ 1
\ c^
Cn o in o i
g tin r^ rH VD
CO 1 C K
-P
H f3
X CD S
CD S 43 0
O 43 rd
m >-< o
g H 0 rH
-p >
H O O A
4J 4->
tn t-i -r-i
c CD
CD Q) H g
g Ai U 0)
rd O £>i 4-1
co -H u in
43 Q) 5s
4-) V( W
CJ
W
(U
•P 5s 01
•^ g a "S.1^
c ^ a 4-1 y c
•-H CO CJ -H QrH
Q)
a) 01
4-1 =»= rd
id o tin
rH O
3 O 4J
U rH 0)
•H \ 3
•H rd • X
ft, fO, O CD
_
O
Q) O
S-| ro
U
rd X
CN -
\0
rH O
1 CN
CO
4J
(3
i
CO
rH
^-^
01 <
rd -—
0) g
g Q)
rd 4J
CO H
C 1 0)
•H fD CO >irH
g P rH 43 .
5s O G ti rH rd 4J
rH w -H C rd >-i C
4J -H U 01 0)
M f3 0) (1) 43 C CD
0Uli — I-PM fl)^X
CJ3CiO4J4J-P6J
in o i
CN CN in *«D
CO 1 CM
rd
N •
4-1 -H C
d rH O
CD 43 Id -H
U 4J r4 -P
X -H 4J rd
Q) & 3 4J
Q) fi
° 0) £
4J CD o ai
4J 4-1
01 -r-l T3
S -a «
0) 0 rd
g ^ ^
rB ^ CD r3
10 0 g 0
rH -H -H
£t rH 4J
a
>i W
•H (0 .
TI3 H rH
CD id TJ IH
Wg G (U -r-l
TJ d) |J M to *4-t
•H --itn OJ 3 'D
rH IOC 4-> C
O rdO !3 M Id
C/l S U -H OH
in
0)
0) 01
4-J (tj
rHO
13^3 IJ
OrH CO
•H\ 3
..4J=tt= (Tj
(-1 r-|rH 43
•H rd • X
p^C P-1 rH
rH 43 .
4J - rH rd 4->
C 5s rd r-l C
C 0) r-l U 0) CO C 01 rH
W
cri
O |
rH IT) fyj VO
COI 53 K
-P
Oj 4-i 'O
CD o a)
U 4->
X 4-1 rt) CD
O C > M
CD-H 3
~ g 4J CO
Q -p u tn
rd rd CD
S cu (H
CD M 43 O.
-P -P 4J
H -H T3 •
H S C C
W id rd O
rd C C -H
0 S id -P
0) -H O C rd
£ 4-1 t!J *H r-i
rd -H ^ g 4J
CO 13 0 3 >H
T3 rH rH -H
rd 43 rd 4-1
M
U
Q)
M-l
(U
4J
U)
•H
IH
-------
TABLE 62 (Cont.)
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
STEEL INDUSTRY
Electric Arc Furnace (Wet Air Pollution Control Methods) Subcategory
atment or Control Technologies
entified under Item III of the
ope of Work:
estment
aal Costs:
apital
apreciation
peration & Maintenance
lergy & Power
ludge Disposal
lemical
)TAL
A
21,231
49,374
17,280
BPCTCA
B
BATCA
D
$ 493,740 $ 27,203 $ 194,820 $ 286,148 $ 230,025
1,170
8,377
2,720
952
19,482
6,819
12,304
28,615
10,015
9,890
23,003
8,050
12,450 675 5,625 7,500
1,500
11,716 416
4,200 720
7
$ 112,051 $ 9,717 $ 40,303 $ 59,570
$ 42,450
.uent Quality: Raw
ifluent Constituents Waste
.rameters - units Load
Resulting Effluent Levels
BPCTCA
BATEA
ow, qal/ton 240 240
spended solids, mq/1 3,500 100
uoride, mq/1 20 20
-ic, mq/1 20 16
6-9 ' 6-9
240 50 ' 50 ' 50
50 50 -25 10
20 75(1) 20 5
16 10U) 5 3
6-9 6-9 6-9 6-9
Value to be expected from typical treatment plant utilizing BPCTCA treatment technology
225
-------
Vacmam^De gas sing
1. Base Level of Treatment: Once through system. Treatment involves a
scale removal classifier.
2. Additional Energy Requirements: Additional power will be necessary
when bringing the quality of the effluent from the water treatment
system utilized in the barometric condensers for the vacuum
degassing process up to the anticipated standard for 1977. The
additional energy utilized will be 11.4 kwh/kkg (10.3 kwh per ton)
of steel produced. For the typical 472 kkg/day (520 tons/day)
vacuum degassing facility, the additional power required will be 224
kw (300 hp) . The annual operating cost for this additional power
consumption will be approximately $22,500.00.
3. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: Non- con den sable gases are vented to the
atmosphere during degassing.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: The solid waste that will be generated
by the creation of a vacuum for the degassing process should
present no problem. It can be internally consumed in the
sinter process plant.
1. Base Level of Treatment: Recycle system utilizing scale pit
settling, oil skimming, flat r>ed filtration and cooling towers.
2. Additional Energy Requirements: Additional power will not be
required to meet proposed standards for 1977 since the base level is
the BPCTCA treatment model.
3. Non -Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: Non-condensable gases and fumes are generated
during continuous casting operations but to a relatively minor
extent.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: The solid waste generated can be
consumed internally in the sinter plant.
MY. an c e d Technology, Energy and Nonwater Impact
The energy requirements and nonwater quality aspects associated with the
advanced treatment technology for each subcategory are discussed below.
By Product Coke
226
-------
W
ro
Vfj
W
h-1
m
EH
o;
>i O
woo
2 O W
0 ,q EH
H O rf
EH 2 O
3 U C3
WWW
ft EH
0 Q
O 2 §
2 W
H S W
t< EH W
rii rtj H
r5 K O
W EH O
W W
EH Q EH
2 r} Q
Sow
K EH
2 EH <<
O 2 r3
PS O W
H U K
Cn
C
-rl
tfl
tn
«
cn
0)
Q
O
o
W
u
a
D
to
o
o
W
t/1
0) >.-P
4J C M C
tfl O <0 0)
fO -rt g 3
3: 4j -ri .p
(0 V^ -r
t3 M ft -P
H a) tn
H c -d c
O 0) C O
W O (0 U
-H
(0 M
-P (!)
G XI
0) -P
E O C -tn
C rfl (1)
o -p x; -P
H O EH 10
rl ffl |£
> ft
G g
W H
" tn
-p
c
Q)
'd E
a, a)
to n
l~\ .,-
*-
O1
0)
K
G
o
•rl
4J
fO
•P U C
Cn 0) -ri (U
C rl -P 3
rt -H -P
4J -P rl -H
rH G U -P
3 i
o
IH rH
O ft
"\ f~
•d w
c
10 (0
-d
-P O
c x;
Q) 4J
£ d)
•n S
0) -
EH
^
rH
^'--H
0) (0
tfl g C
H3 3 rl
•H tn a)
rH G -P
0 0 C
W 0 -H
tn a)
tn M
10 (U
ft XI
0 ft
to -P to
<1) O
to MH g
tfl MH -P
O O (0
_
o
o
CM
0) X
M -
D 0
(d o
C^
) — 1 ^-^
W
Jj
-p
G
0
g
00
rH
1
-P rH
W rH 1 C •
3 o a) -H n
E rl rl (0
•P CO
to G O O H
0) O 2 -H
Cn U -P -P
M • U fO
3 a) -d 3 ai
w xi cu TJ .e
•
K*1
G rl
•H -P
rH W
m >,
•P O rl U
-P E 0) Q)
Q) 0) > SH
tn !H 0
to
ri tn T3 •
o >d i -H -P
•H = H G
ftrH XI 0 fO
g O cnw H
3 tn 3 ft
tfl O
M M « IH
0) O Xi In Q)
rH 4H -P OJ -P
nl ISC
U C 0) (U -H
W -rH U 10 W
in C
(0 O O O
. n = jj .u
>1
rH
•d H
a) ro
w g G
•d 3 rl
•ri tn a)
H C -P
O O G
W U -H
tn (u
tn rl
(0 0)
ft x;
O ft
tO 4J tO
<1J O
tfl IH g
(0 UH 4-)
O O (0
.
0
o
OJ
0) X
rl -
u o
10 O
CM
rH *"-^
tn
x;
-p
G
o
g
00
r-H
-P rH
U) rH
30 G
g rl 0
-P -rl -P
tn c o -P (0
tt) O 2 0 (U .
Cn U 3 xi T)
M • T3 nj
P a) TI QJ a o
CO XI 0) M -H H
•
^t
•H -P
rH 0)
T3 0) 3
0) (!) n3
tfl -P G
D to --H
o m en
o . o r- in i
in CM rH i— 1 rH in
1
m
W XI G O G DB
W ft S 2 t*3 ft
-P Cn
ft C
V -H
u to
x tn
0) (0 10 O
•H tr* -P
^ > Q)
rtj 'O C
— -d s
(U O O
g i— 1 -p fQ
(1J U S
-P >1rl 0
H t) 0) rH
0) S £>
tfl IH O
(0 4^ XI
S -P
0) O cn-ri
E rH C S •
10 l»H -rl M
W M rH 4J 0)
a) o -ri >
> O C 0)
• n ri rj ,0
g 1
>1 rH O -P
rH 10 rl (0 •
•O rH G 'H 0) rH
0) 10 0 IH O rH
to g G -ri tn -P -P -rt
TJ 3 M -P 03 MH
•rl 01 fl) -H -rl (U -P T3
HC-PTirHgCG
OOGTlO-rlfJlO
COU-rl,-H T3
EGtu'd'dC-p-Pri a)
OtPtncCtUfOoiO CMOI
CO g 3 10 -H Q O G to 2 3
in o^
in • in i
CM o in -^ in vo
1
m
to xi c o c w
w ft a 2 N Q,
(U 1
-P g 0) 1
Pfrl T^ It3
(Ui-H N
U U -H
X >l\-rl rH
Q)X! C XI 10
0 0 >H
^^Ti -r| rl -P
(H d) -P (U 3
^--P (0 (0 0)
(0 rH C C
E 0) 3 fO rH
CD ri Cn •» (d •
4J4J rfl .- G C C
H O C O -H O
01 U O -rl MH -rt
[/)-H -rl -P 4->
(0 ••. -p io 'd to
C C (0 U C O
0) 15 0 rH -rl (0 -rH
g 0 -rl 3 MH MH
3 rrj 4J O -rl •» -rl
W S -H O M G U
O T3 O -P O rB
rH T3 rH -rl -H rH
. XI ra MH C -P O
»
•0
• o
01 O
01 Cn
tt)
U >i
0 rl
rl 0)
ft>
in
to
0)
G
Q)
•H
-P
U
0)
<4H
UH
a)
cn
C
•rl
tn
(0
rl
(1)
•a
M
o
c
•rl
T)
(U
4J
Ul
•H
-------
•P
G
0
O
W
c
-rH
tn
tn
(0
tn
O
a
3
O
(0
o
o
W
u
a
D
w
Solid Waste
Generation
and Primary
Constituents
H
(fl M
-P 0)
C Si
O -P
e o c M
G (SO)
O -P A 4J
JH U EH TO
H (3 IS
> ft
C g
W H
• tn
4J
C
U C
Cn 0) -H i
o
k H
O ft
"\ &
'd w
G
n3 to
»d
-P O
G x;
0) -P
E <1)
•P S
tJ
0) -
(J •
EH
Solids
consumed
internally.
Additional
solids to
w CD
(T3 QJ
ft X!
0 ft
to -P tn
0) O
10 MH g
n) u-i -p
O O n3
' •
o
o
H
(1)
O
«3 -
O
•^ o
r>-
to
X!
4J
G
O
g
00
rH
1 C
-P H -H
tn rH .
30 G "d
g >H O t O
••H 4J Cn
H tn
•a a) 3 >i
0) 0) 13 M
in -P G a)
D tn -H >
o . in
g II-H o n ^- n
i
1
ro
W £1 G O C
W P< S 2 N
4J
ft
a)
u
X M )
0) 0 0)
^--P 3
U G W
*-* o tn
g Q)
g -P rH
0) 03 ft
•P (U
H (H fd
-P -H ' •
in > G
(OH O
(C G -H
0) C S -"-1
P -H 0 fl
W £ -P
M 0 H
0 H -H
• UH o n-~i
»
H
H
•H
IH
T3
a
r-H
1
«
ft
to
cn
•H
-P
U
0)
<*H
C
•H
to
rd
QJ
SH
U
C
•H
U-l
O
Q)
13
C
•rH
T!
0)
-P
in
-------
TABLE 63 (Cont.)
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
STEEL INDUSTRY
Vacuum Degassing Subcategory
reatment or Control Technologies
Identified under Item III of the
Scope of Work:
ivestment
inual Costs:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Sludge Disposal
Energy & Power
Chemical
BPCTCA
A I B ~
$ 259,774 $ 423,797
BATEA
| C ! D
$ 307,170 $ 60,008
TOTAL
11,170 18,224 13,208
25,977 42,379 30,717
9,092 14,832 10,750
2,581
6,000
2,100
36 31
22,500 2.9,250
2,250
753
$ 46,275 $ 97,935 $ 84,709 $
12,931
"fluent Quality: R •
Effluent Constituents Waste
Parameters - units Load
Flow, gal/ton
Suspended solids,mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Nitrate, mg/l(1)
Zinc, mg/1(2)
pH
560
200
3.0
20
80
30
5-10
560
100
2.5
15
80
20
6-9
Resulting Effluent Levels
25
50
2.0
(3)
10
(3)
175
(3)
15
(3)
_q(3)
6-9
25
25
0.5
45
6-9
25
10
0.3
45
6-9
(1) If nitrogen gas is used to purge system, nitrate concentrations can be
very high. If inert gases are used, nitrates are negligible
(2) Zinc concentration depends on type of scrap used in steelmaking process
(3) Value expected of typical treatment plant utilizing BPCTCA technology
229
-------
O
W
CQ
EH
CO
C
•rH
-P
in
id
O
in
3
o
3
C
•rH
4J
O
U
o
o
u
I
CQ
D
O
O
w
rH
QJ
-P G
in o
rd -r-l
S -P
"O M
rH (1)
H C
0 Q)
w o
H
rd rH
•P 0)
QJ 4J
g 0
c
O -P
rH U
H rd
K> Pi
C g
H H
CO
g
(U
i— 1
0
VH
P«
10
3
4->
id
-p
w
1 CO
MH rH
W Q)
>
Cn <1)
G >-3
•r)
•p -p
rH C
3 (1)
W 3
(U rH
PS MH
>1
VH
rd
e
•rH
V-l
Ai
TJ
G
rd
C
rd
x:
EH
•a
J
0
-H
-p
rd
4J
G
V
(11
U
e
H
13
G
id
13
£j
rd
i-H
id
U
•H
4-1
-H
rH
U
^
o
MH
•
o
4J
£
o
CJ
.^
0
rg
£
Jtment
'U
L
£
•"*
4->
G
3
4->
•H
-M
10
G
O
U
^
•Q)
4J
ra
w
4J
Q)
e
^~
•H
CL
s
Q)
•H
EH
CO
G
O
•H
-P
rd
4J
-H
e
-H
I-H
>1
4J
•H
i-H
•H
XI
id
•H
rH
CD
K
to
4J
C
3
•P
•H
•P
CO
G
o
CJ
*
QJ
a.
iM
CO
rM
Methoc
-
•a
CD
w g
T! 3
•rH in
rH C
0 0
CO U
1 — ' 1
\l
tno in
g|m rH
O
i2
co
CO O
'U
Q)
H
U
^1
U
x: a)
4J H
•rH
^ |5
0
0) MH
-P VH
in Q)
^i t*
in o
o •-
rH 4->
U -H
>i CX
u
Q) 0
« rH
m
o
. rft
t
r*l
r-l
i— T 13
Id rH |
COO)
rH U) M
0)
4-> I-H rH
C -H 0
•H O MH
4-1
a
0)
1 1 ^
•H 0
CU (D 4J
f")
13 4-1 rrj
rd in 0)
O 3 rH
rH g U
• i — ^
rO n3
O t3 >
O C 0
O rd S
O
(1) rH
. rH
>i id H
rH U -H
4-) CO 0
cn
j
^o
K
a
c
o
rH 'O
O
•H 4J -H
MH S
V-i
13 0) g
0) ^ 0)
X! O -P
4-) in
•P >i
rd cr> in
rH G
,
H rd
rd O VH
•H 0 DJ
*^» ri rn
Cn
C
•rH
0)
in
a;
u
O
M rH
ttO
13
rH
•H
3
XJ
4J
G W
(U 13
>-r)
(1) rH
rH O
Oi in
in
0)
-H
-P 0)
•rH ,Q
rH
•rl 4J
U W
rd 3
"•H p5
Jj
rd
C71
C
-H
P
g
•rl •
,y
C O
id £
in
a rd
3 S
,
13
Q)
C
•H
id
4->
G
•rl
id
g
13
0)
in g
13 £
•H in
rH C
0 0
co o
0)
c
o
2
.
o
o
rH
0)
tj k^
o
id -
O
^ o
\H
0
IT)
•-H
G 13
O id
•H O
4J rH
U
3 -P
13 rd
(0 Q)
rl £
0 G
2 -H
13
(U
3
in
K*1*H
•H JS
0) 4J
-a
-H C
S -H
0 0
i-H rH
O
(^)
co
CO O
4J
p4
0)
X XI
Q)
4->
< G
0)
6 g
01 4J
40 Id
H 0)
M
in 4J
id
C
0) £
E 0
id 13
co S
0
rH
. n
.
>irH
r-i rd
•H C
id o
C -rl
rH 4J
Q) -rl
| i rrj
G 13
•H rij
0)
X! C
rd
4-1 0)
in r-l
3 0
4-1
4J Qj
•H 0)
PJ v
,
' 4-)
VH Q)
4-1 rH
05 i-H
3 Q)
'O 0
G X
•H W
cn
I
vo
K
a
»
G
O
4J
id
rH
4J
rH
•H
MH
Q)
3
CO
CO
0)
rH
a,
O •
4J rH
i-H
in -H
•H TJ
rH C
0 rd
U) rH
13
rH
•P -H
C 3
0) X!
0) W T3
rH 13 C
OI-H ia
rH
o o a
4-> in 3
rH
id to
13 > <]J
G O -H
id g 4-1
0) -H
0) >H rH
rH -H
10 rH O
D -rl (0
CO O MH
•
rl
Q)
>
O
X!
id
Q)
X!
4J
CO
3
g
t
•a
0)
G
•H
rd
4J
G
•rl
fd
g
W
CO
0)
c
a)
-P
U
0)
MH
MH
0)
C
•r-1
W
id
0)
M
o
c
•H
O
Q)
C
•H
•a
a)
.P
in
•H
rH
-------
TABLE 64 (Cont.)
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
STEEL INDUSTRY
Continuous Casting Subcategory
reatment or Control Technologies
identified under Item III of the BPCTCA BATEA
Scope of Work: i 1 I I
.vestment
inual Costs:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Sludge Disposal
Energy & Power
1,980,816 99,170
85,175 4,264
TOTAL
198,081
69,328
9,917
3,470
730
36,975
9,000
390,289
26,651
fluent Quality: Raw-
Effluent Constituents Waste
Parameters - units Load
.Flow, gal/ton
4200
_0il & grease, mq/1
30
Suspended solids, mg/1 50
PH
6-9
125
15
50
6-9
Resulting Effluent Levels
125
10
10
6-9
231
-------
1. Additional energy requirements:
a. Treatment Alternative I:
To improve the quality of the waste water treatment systems effluent
from the anticipated 1977 standard to the anticipated 1983 standard,
additional power consuming equipment is necessary. The additional
power requirements will be 373 kw (500 hp) for the typical 2,414
kkg/day (2,660 ton/day) by-product coke making facility. The annual
operating cost for this additional equipment will be *37,500.0Q.
b. Treatment Alternative II:
Additional power will be necessary to improve the effluent water
discharges to meet anticipated 1983 standards. The additional power
consumption will be 2.02 kwh/kkg (1.83 kwh/ton) of steel produced.
The additional power requirements will be 223.8 kw (300 hp) for the
typical 2,424 kkg/day (2,600 ton/day) by-product coke making
facility. The annual operating cost due to this additional
equipment will be $22,500.00.
2. Non-Water Quality Aspects (Beth Alternates):
a. Air Pollution: Same as 1977
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Same as 1977
Coke^Making-Beehive^Operation
1. Additional Energy Requirements: No additional power will be required
to comply with the anticipated 1983 EPA standard.
2. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: Same as 1977
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Same as 1977
Sintering
!„ Additional Power Requirements: To improve the quality of the waste
water treatment system effluent from the anticipated 1977 standard
to the anticipated 1983 standard, additions will have to be made to
the system. The additional energy consumption will be 1.31 kwh/kkg
(1.18 kwh/ton) of sinter produced. For the typical 2,704 kkg/day
(2,980 tons/day) facility 147 kw (197 hp) will have to be added to
the system. The operating cost for this 147 kw (197 hp) will be
$14,755.00 per year.
2. Non-Water Quality Aspects
232
-------
a. Air Pollution: Same as 1977
b. Solid Waste Disposal: same as 1977
Blast_Furnace___(Iron^
1. Additional Power Requirements: To bring the quality of the effluent
of the waste water treatment system used in the dust cleaning of the
blast furnace (iron) making process from the anticipated standard
for 1977 to the anticipated standard for 1983, requires additional
electrical powered equipment. The additional energy consumption
will be 0.68 kwh/kkg (.62 kwh/ton) of iron produced. For the
typical 2,995 kkg/day (3,300 tons/day) blast furnace facility, the
additional power required will be 85.8 kw (115 hp). The annual
operating cost for the additional equipment will be approximately
$8,625.00.
2. Non-water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: Same as 1977
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Same as 1977
Blast Furnace^iFerromanganege^
1. Additional Power Requirements: Additional electrically powered
equipment will have to be added to the 1977 system to improve the
waste water treatment system effluent to meet the anticipated
standard for 1983. The additional energy consumed will be 1.71
kwh/kkg (1.55 kwh/ton) of iron produced. For the average 744
kkg/day (820 tons/day) facility, equipment driven by 53 kw (71 hp)
comprised the addition to the facility. The additional operating
cost will be approximately $5,325.00 per year.
2. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: Same as 1977
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Same as 1977
Bagic^Oxygen^Furnace; Operation
Semi-Wet_Systerns
1. Additional Power Requirements: No additional power will be
necessary to bring the water quality to meet the anticipated 1983
standard.
2. Non-Water Quality Aspects:
233
-------
a. Air Pollution: Same as 1977
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Same as 1977
Wet Systems
1. Additional Power Requirements: Additional equipment will be
required to improve the waste water system to the anticipated 1983
standard. The additional energy consumption will be 0.15 kwh/kkg
(.14 kwh/ton) of steel produced. For the typical 6,888 kkg/day
(7,590 tons/day) EOF wet facility, the additional power required
will be 105 kw (141 hp) . The annual operating cost ror the
consumption of this extra power will be approximately $1 0,5 75. 00.
2. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: The additional waste water equipment required
will not affect the quality of the exhaust gases released to
the atmosphere. The particulate emissions will be the same as
they were for 1977.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Same as 1977
1. Additional Power Requirements: Additional equipment will be
required to improve the quality of the wastewater treatment system
utilized in the fume collection of the open hearth steel
manufacturing process to the anticipated standard for 1983. The
additional energy consumption will be 0.45 kwh/kkg (0.39 kwh/ton) of
steel produced. For the typical 6,716 kkg/day (7,400 tons/day) open
hearth facility, the additional power required will be 119 kw (160
hp) . The annual operating cost for the consumption of this added
power will be approximately $12,000.00.
2. Non -Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: The additional waste water equipment required
will not affect the quality of the exhaust gases released to
the atmosphere. The particulate emissions will .be the same as
they were for 1977.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Same as 1977.
li§£tric_Arc_Furnaces
Semi -Wet Systems
1. Additional Power Requirements: No additional power requirements
over 1977.
234
-------
2. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: Same as 1977
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Same as 1977
Wet^Sygtems
1. Additional Power Requirements: Additional equipment will be
required to improve the quality of the effluent of the waste water
treatment system utilized in the fume collection of the electric
furnace (wet) steel manufacturing process to meet the anticipated
standard for 1983. The additional energy consumption will ce 0.98
kwh/kkg (0.89 kwh/ton) of steel produced. For the typical 1,652
kkg/day (1,820 tons/day) electric furnace (wet) facility, the
additional power required will be 75 kw (100 hp). The annual
operating cost for the consumption of this extra power will be
approximately $7,500.00.
2. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: The additional equipment required will not
affect the quality of the exhaust gases released to the
atmosphere. The particulate emissions will be the same as they
were at 1977.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Same as 1977
Vacuum_Degassing
1. Additional Power Requirements: To improve the quality of the waste
water treatment system effluent to the anticipated 1983 standard,
will require additional equipment. The additional power requirement
is 291 kw (390 hp). This equates to 15.9 kwh/kkg (14.4 kwh/ton) of
steel produced. The cost to operate this additional equipment will
be $29,250.00.
2. Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: Same as 1977
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Same as 1977
Continuous Casting Operation
1. Additional Power Requirements: Additional equipment will be
required to improve the water to meet the anticipated 1983 standard.
The additional energy consumption will be 2.2 kwh/kkg (2.0 kwh/ton)
of steel produced. The additonal power requirements will be 89.5 kw
(120 hp) for the typical 971 kkg/day (1070 ton/day) continuous
235
-------
casting facility. The annual operating cost due to the addition of
this equipment will be $9,000.
2, Non-Water Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: Same as 1977
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Same as 1977
Full Range of Technology in Use or_ Available to the Ste e 1^_ Indus try
The full range of technology in use or available to the steel industry
today is presented in Tables 54 to 64. In addition to presenting the
range of treatment methods available, these tables also describe for
each method:
1. Resulting effluent levels for critical constituents
2. Status and reliability
3. Problems and limitations
4. Implementation time
5. Land requirements
6. Environmental impacts other than water
7. Solid waste generation
Basis of Cost Estimates
Costs associated with the full range of treatment technology including
investment, capital depreciation, operating and maintenance, and energy
and power are presented on water effluent cost tables corresponding to
the appropriate category technology Tables 54 to 64.
Costs were developed as follows:
1. National annual production rate data was collected and tabulated
along with the number of plants in each subcategory.
From this, an "average" size plant was established.
2. Flow rates were established based on the data accumulated during
the survey portion of this study and from knowledge of what
flow reductions could be obtained with minor modifications.
The flow is here expressed in 1/kkg or gal/ton of product.
3. Then a treatment process model and flow diagram was developed
for each subcategory.
236
-------
This was based on knowledge of how most industries in a certain
subcategory handle their wastes, and on the flow rates established
by 1 and 2 above.
4, Finally, a quasi-detailed cost estimate was made on the developed
flow diagram.
Total annual costs in August, 1971 dollars were calculated on total
operating costs (including all chemicals, maintenance, labor, energy and
power) and the capital recovery costs. Capital recovery costs were then
subdivided into straight-line ten-year depreciation and the cost of
capital at a seven percent annual interest rate for ten years.
The capital recovery factor (CFR) is normally used in industry to help
allocate the initial investment and the interest to the total operating
cost of a facility. The CFR is equal to i plus i divided by a-1, where
a is equal to 1 + i to the power n. The CFR is multiplied by the
initial investment to obtain the annual capital recovery. That is:
(CFR) (P) = ACR. The annual depreciation is found by dividing the
initial investment by the depreciation period (n = 10 years). That is,
P/10 = annual depreciation. Then the annual cost of capitax has been
assumed to be the total annual capital recovery minus the annual
depreciation. That is, ACR - P/10 = annual cost of capital.
Construction costs are dependent upon many different variacle conditions
and in order to determine definitive costs the following parameters are
established as the basis of estimates. In addition, the cost estimates
as developed reflect only average costs.
a. The treatment facilities are contained within a "battery
limit" site location and are erected on a "green field"
site. Site clearance costs such as existing plant equip-
ment relocation, etc., are not included in cost estimates.
b. Equipment costs are based on specific effluent water
rates. A change in water flow rates will affect costs.
c. The treatment facilities are located in close proximity
to the steelmaking process area. Piping and other
utility costs for interconnecting utility runs between
the treatment facilities battery limits and process
equipment areas are not included in cost estimates.
d. Sales and use taxes or freight charges are not included
in cost estimates.
e. Land acquisition costs are not included in cost estimates.
f. Expansion of existing supporting utilities such as
sewage, river water pumping stations, increased boiler
237
-------
capacity are not included in cost estimates.
g. Potable water, fire lines and sewage lines to service
treatment facilities are not included in cost estimates.
h. Limited instrumentation has been included for pH and
fluoride control, but no automatic samplers, temperature
indicators, flow meters, recorders, etc., are included
in cost estimates.
j. The site conditions are based on:
1. No hardpan or rock excavation, blasting, etc.
2. No pilings or spread footing foundations for poor
soil conditions.
3. No well pointing.
4. No dams, channels, or site drainage required.
5. No cut and fill or grading of site.
6. No seeding or planting of grasses and only minor
site grubbing and small shrubs clearance; no tree
removal.
k. Controls buildings are prefabricated buildings, not
brick or block type.
1. No painting, pipe insulation, and steam or electric
heat tracing are included.
m. No special guardrails, buildings, lab test facilities,
signs, docks are included.
Other factors that affect costs but cannot be evaluated:
a. Geographic location in United States.
b. Metropolitan or rural areas.
c. Labor rates, local union rules, regulations, and
restrictions.
d. Manpower requirements.
e. Type of contract.
f. Weather conditions or season
g. Transportation of men, materials, and equipment.
h. Building code requirements.
238
-------
j. Safety requirements.
k. General business conditions.
The cost estimates do reflect an on-site "Battery Limit" treatment plant
with electrical sub-station and equipment for powering the facilities,
all necessary pumps, treatment plant interconnecting feed pipe lines,
chemical treatment facilities, foundations, structural steel, and
control house. Access roadways within battery limits area are included
in estimates based upon 3.65 cm (1.5 inch) thick bituminous wearing
course and 10 cm (4 inch) thick sub-base with sealer, binder, and gravel
surfacing. A. 9 gage chain link fence with three strand barb wire and
one truck gate was included for fencing in treatment facilities area.
The cost estimates also include a 15% contingency, 1031 contractor's
overhead and profit, and engineering fees of 15%.
239
-------
SECTION IX
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE
APPLICATION OF THE BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
Introduction
The effluent limitations which must be achieved July 1, 1977 are to
specify the effluent quality attainable through the application of the
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available. Best
Practicable Control Technology Currently Available is generally based
upon the average of the best existing performance by plants of various
sizes, ages and unit processes within the industrial subcategory. This
average is not based upon a broad range of plants within the steel
industry, but based upon performance levels achieved by plants purported
by the industry or by regulatory agencies to be equipped with the best
treatment facilities. Experience demonstrated that in some instances
these facilities were exemplary only in the control of a portion of the
waste parameters present. In those industrial categories where present
control and treatment practices are uniformly inadequate, a higher level
of control than any currently in place may be required if the technology
to achieve such higher level can be practicably applied by July 1, 1977.
Considerations must also be given to:
a. the size and age of equipment and facilities involved:
b. the processes employed:
c. non-water quality environmental impact (including energy
requirements) :
d. the engineering aspects of the application of various types of
control techniques:
e. process changes:
f. the total cost of application of technology in relation to the
effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such application:
Also, Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available emphasizes
treatment facilities at the end of a manufacturing process but includes
the control technologies within the process itself when the latter are
considered to be normal practice within an industry.
241
-------
A further consideration is the degree of economic and engineering
reliability which must be established for the technology to be
"currently available." As a result of demonstration projects, pilot
plants and general use, there must exist a high degree of confidence in
the engineering and economic practicability of the tecnnology at the
time of commencement of construction or installation of tne control
facilities.
Rationale_for_Selectjon^of^BPCTCA
The following paragraph summarized factors that were considered in
selecting the categorization, water use rates, level of treatment
technology, effluent concentrations attainable by the technology and
hence the establishment of the effluent limitations for BPCTCA.
Size and Age of Facilities and Land Availability Considerations:
As discussed in Section IV, the age and size of steal industry
facilities has little direct bearing on the quantity or quality of
wastewater generated. Thus, the ELG for a given subcategoiy of waste
source applies equally to all plants regardless of size or age. Land
availability for installation of add-on treatment facilities can
influence the type of technology utilized to meet the ELG's. This is
one of the considerations which can account for a range in the costs
that might be incurred.
Consideration of Processes Employed:
All plants in a given subcategory use the same or similar production
methods, giving similar discharges. There is no evidence that operation
of any current process or subprocess will substantially affect
capabilities to implement the best practicable control technology
currently available. At such time that new processes, such as direct
reduction, appear imminent for broad application the ELG's should be
amended to cover these new sources. No changes in process employed are
envisioned as necessary for implementation of this technology for plants
in any subcategory. The treatment technologies to acnieve BPCTCA are
end of process methods which can be added onto the existing treatment
facilities.
Consideration of Nonwater Quality Environmental Impact:
Impact of Proposed Limitations on Air Quanity:
The increased use of recycle systems and stripping columns have the
potential for increasing the loss of volatile substances to the
atmosphere. Recycle systems are so effective in reducing waste water
volumes and hence waste loads to and from treatment systems and in
reducing the size and cost of treatment systems that a tradeoff must be
accepted. Recycle systems requiring the use of cooling towers have con-
242
-------
tributed significantly to reductions of effluent loads while
contributing only minimally to air pollution problems. Stripper vapors
have been successfully recovered as usable byproducts or can be routed
to incinerators. Careful operation of either system can avoid or
minimize air pollution problems.
Impact of Proposed Limitations on Solid Waste Problems:
Consideration has also been given to the solid waste aspects of water
pollution controls. The processes for treating the waste waters from
this industry produce considerable volumes of sludges. Much of this
material is inert iron oxide which can be reused proficably. Other
sludges not suitable for reuse must be disposed of to landfills since
most of it is chemical precipitates which could be little reduced by
incineration. Being precipitates, they are by nature relatively
insoluble and non- hazardous substances requiring minimal custodial
care.
In order to ensure long-term protection of the environment from harmful
constituents, special consideration of disposal sites should be made.
All landfill sites should be selected so as to prevent horizontal and
vertical migration of these contaminants to ground or surface waters.
In cases where geologic conditions may not reasonably ensure this,
adequate mechanical precuations (e.g., impervious liners) should be
taken to ensure long-term protection to the environment. A program of
routine periodic sampling and analysis of leachates is advisable. Where
appropriate the location of solid hazardous materials disposal sites, if
any, should be permanently recorded in the appropriate office of legal
jurisdication.
Impact of Proposed Limitations on Energy Requirements:
The effects of water pollution control measures on energy requirements
has also been determined. The additional energy required in tne form of
electric power to achieve the effluent limitations proposed for BPCTCA
and BATEA amounts to less than 1.5% of the 51.6 billion kwh of
electrical energy used by the steel industry in 1972.
The enhancement to water quality management provided by tnese proposed
effluent limitations substantially outwieghs the impact on air, solid
waste, and energy requirements.
Consideration of the Engineering Aspects of the Application of Various
Types of Control Techniques:
The level of technology selected as the basis for BPCTCA limitations is
considered to be practicable in that the concepts are proven and are
currently available for implementation and may be readily applied as
"add-ons" to existing treatment facilities.
243
-------
Consideration of Process Changes:
No in-process changes will be required to achieve the BPCTCA limitations
although recycle water quality changes may occur as a result of efforts
to reduce effluent discharge rates. Many plants are employing recycle,
cascade uses, or treatment and recycle as a means to minimizing water
use and the volume of effluents discharged. The limitations are load
limitations (unit weight of pollutant discharged per unit weight of
product) only and not volume or concentration limitations. The
limitations can be achieved by extensive treatment o± large flows,
however, an evaluation of costs indicates that the limitations can
usually be achieved most economically by minimizing effluent volumes.
Consideration of Costs versus Effluent Reduction Benefits:
In consideration of the costs of implementing the BPCTCA limitations
relative to the benefits to be derived, the limitations were set at
values which would not result in excessive capital or operating costs to
the industry.
To accomplish this economic evaluation, it was necessary to establish
the treatment technologies that could be applied to each subcategory in
an add-on fashion, the effluent qualities attainable with each
technology, and the costs. In order to determine the added costs, it
was necessary to determine what treatment processes were already in
place and currently being utilized by most of the plants. This was
established as the base level cf treatment.
Treatment systems were then envisioned which, as add-ons to existing
facilities, would achieve significant waste load reductions. Capital
and operating costs for these systems were then developed for the
average size facility. The average size was determined cy dividing the
total industry production by the number of operating facilities. The
capital costs were developed from a quasi-detailed engineering estimate
of the cost of the components of each of the systems. The annual
operating cost for each of the facilities was determined t>y summing the
capital recovery (basis ton year straight line depreciation) and capital
use (basis 1% interest) charges, operating and maintenance costs,
chemical costs, and utility costs.
Cost effectiveness diagrams were then prepared to show the pollution
reduction benefits derived relative to the costs incurred. As expected,
the diagrams show an increasing cost for treatment per percent reduction
obtained as the percent of the initial pollutional load remaining
decreased. The BPCTCA limitations were set at the point where the costs
per percent pollutant reduction took a sharp break upward toward higher
costs per percent of pollutant removed. These cost effectiveness
diagrams are presented in Section X.
244
-------
The initial capital investment and annual expenditures required of the
industry to achieve BPCTCA were developed by multiplying the costs
(capital or annual) for the average size facility by the number of
facilities operating for each subcategory. These costs are summarized
in Table 89 in Section X.
After selection was made of the treatment technology to be designated as
one means to achieve the BPCTCA limitations for each subcategory, a
sketch of each treatment model was prepared. The sketch for each
subcategory is presented following the table presenting the BPCTCA
limitations for the subcategory.
Identif igatjon^gf ^Begt^ Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available - BPCTCA
Based on the information contained in Sections III through VIII ot this
report, a determination has been made that the quality of effluent
attainable through the application of the Best Practicable control
Technology Currently Available is as listed in Tables 65 through 76.
These tables set forth the ELG's for the following subcategories of the
steel industry:
I By Product Coke Subcategory
II Beehive coke Subcategory
III Sintering Subcategory
IV Blast Furnace (Iron) Subcategory
V Blast Furnace (Ferromanganese) Subcategory
VI Basic Oxygen Furnace (Semi Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
VII Basic Oxygen Furnace (Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
VIII Open Hearth Furnace Subcategory
IX Electric Arc Furnace (Semi Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
X Electric Arc Furnace (Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
XI Vacuum Degassing Subcategory
XII Continuous Casting Subcategory
245
-------
ELG's have not been set for Pelletizing and Briquetting Operations
because plants of this type were not found to be operating as an
integral part of any steel mill. These operations will be considered in
mining regulations to be proposed at a later date since they are
normally operated in conjunction with mining operations.
In establishing the subject guidelines, it should be noted that the
resulting limitations or standards are applicable to aqueous waste
discharge only, exclusive of non-contact cooling waters. In the section
of this report which discusses control and treatment technology ±or the
iron and steelmaking industry as a whole, a qualitative reference has
been given regarding "the environmental impact other than water" for the
subcategories investigated.
The effluent guidelines established herein take into account only those
aqueous consitituents considered to be major pollutants in each of the
subcategories investigated. In general, the critical parameters were
selected for each subcategory on the basis of those waste constituents
known to be generated in the specific manufacturing process and also
known to be present in sufficient quantity to Joe inimical to the
environment. Certain general parameters such as suspended solids
naturally include the oxides of iron and silica, however, these latter
specific constituents were not included as critical parameters, since
adequate removal of the general parameter (suspended solids) in turn
provides for adequate removal of the more specific parameters indicated.
This does not hold true when certain of the parameters are in the
dissolved state; however, in the case of iron oxides generated in the
iron and steelmaking processes, they are for themost part insoluble in
the relatively neutral effluents in which they are contained. The
absence of apparent less important parameters from the guidelines in no
way endorses unrestricted discharge of same.
The recommended effluent limitations guidelines resulting from this
study for BPCTCA are summarized in Tables 65 to 76. These tables also
list the control and treatment technology applicable or normally
utilized to reach the constituent levels indicated. These effluent
limitations proposed herein are by no means the absolute lowest values
attainable (except where no discharge of process waste water pollutants
is recommended) by the indicated technology, but moreover they represent
values which can be readily controlled around on a day by day .basis.
It should be noted that these effluent limitations represent values not
to be exceeded by any 30 continous day average. The maximum daily
effluent loads per unit of production should not exceed these values by
a factor of more than 2. In the absence of sufficient performance data
from the industry to establish these factors on a statistical basis, the
factor of 2 was chosen in consideration of the operating variations
allowed for in selecting the 30 continous day average limitations.
246
-------
Discussion BY Subcate*
ss:
At least one plant in the beehive, coke, sintering, clast furnace
(iron), EOF (semi-wet), EOF (wet) electric furnace (semi-wet), vacuum
degassing and continuous casting subcategories, are presently achieving
the effluent loads that are specified herein and are doing so by
achieving the flows on which these limitations are based. No plants in
the other subcategories are presently achieving the total effluent
quality proposed. However, each of the control techniques is presently
employed at individual plants to achieve BPCTCA effluent limitations for
specific contaminants listed. In each case where inadequate control was
found, corrective measurers could be applied to attain recommended
sources.
The rationale used for developing the EPCTCA effluent limitations
guidelines is summarized below for each of the subcategories. All
effluent limitations guidelines are presented on a "gross" basis since
for the most part, removals are relatively independent of initial
concentrations of contaminants. The ELG's are in kilograms of pollutant
per metric ron of product or in pounds of pollutant per 1,000 pounds of
product and in these terms only. The ELG's are not a limitation on
flow, type of technology to be utilized, or concentrations to be
achieved. These items are listed only to show the basis for the ELG's
and may be varied as the discharger desires so long as the ELG loads per
unit of production are met.
Coke Making By-Product Operation
Following is a summary of the factors used to establish the effluent
limitation guidelines applying to coke making by-product. As far as
possible, the stated limits are based upon performance levels attained
by the selected coke plants surveyed during this study. Where treatment
levels can be improved by application of additional currently available
control and treatment technology, the anticipated reduction of waste
loads was included in the estimates. Three of the four plants surveyed
were producing less than 733 1 of effluent/kkg (175 gal/ton) of coke
produced. The fourth plant was diluting their effluent with
contaminated final cooler water. Two of the four plants were disposing
of a portion of their wastes in coke quenching. Even if this practice
is discontinued, it can still be shown that the effluent can be reduced
to 733 1/kkg (175 gal/ton) by employing internal recycle followed by
minimal blowdown on the final cooler waters. This is summarized as
follows:
Waste ammonia liquor 104 1/kkg
Steam condensate 75 1/kkg
Benzol plant wastes 125 1/kkg
Final cooler blowdown 84 1/kkg
Barometric condenser effluent 342 1/kkg
TOTAL 730 1/kkg
25 gal/ton
18 gal/ton
30 gal/ton
20 gal/ton
_82 gal/ton
175 gal/ton
247
-------
in
ID
W
s
EH
CO
W
Z
H
1-3
W
Q
W
D
CP
CO
K
O 0)
Lj ^J
EH O
rij CJ
EH
H 4->
S U
H 3
.4 tJ
O
pH S"i
Z 04
W 1
p >l
|X4
tl >t
3 S
O
1 O
w
< EH
U <
EH CJ
U CQ
&4 D
CQ CO
(d
*-* Z
IT O
*-* EH EH
Q CO \
W O W-
f- 4-1
in SO
M O I -P
• rH Q) fl
O <4H SH T3 G
P., o a QJ -H
< -P -P
5? .j tn IH id tn
H 3 01 rH 0 g -1
EH EH rH Id -rH X
CO O tn
P3
I~*
r/v
n X! O 4-> 4J at
r^ -ri -r-i c tn
H • • tn g (D w >-,
. (H --^ tn a) 4J r-i
0 0) C O X! X r-|
"^ i 4-i • o ft u 0) • id
yv m trt Ti J_l rn p
/ 1 4-> ~sV,^S
•rl -H (I) rH (1) -rl O 4-> t! - 0) 01
4->4-> X! M-l ftrHSHinUG4J'OS-l
idwc ft MH oftr^uidinid
N O 0) 0) 4->O rHrHrH-H4-l
-Hld-rl rO C U >iO)(dS:
<1J Sid G S rH MHH-lMHS-rHH-J^CU
4J WUWSHO)-rHld-H
3 O-H S O W CM fOftOXlCTS-P
U1 rHrH O H >,C OOJG GT3 18 VH C -H
-H G rH £) SHO-H4JO30) H^idH
rH fQ XI O X! O -H -P -rl C O X >H -rH -P -rl
0)4J-rlC in -P IdrH ftOO IdrHrHU
id X-rl4->OS-l (LlSHXIld N r-l U C > 18 O 18
•rHO)-HIJId-HrH IQN3C rHrOld OtHl) CTi-P
Old G-riidO id-riod) ^CCO)
fMrOOrH4JO JrHSHg SH CTl » -rl C-HOtO
oc-riocu OX;-H 4Jinc Htntn O-POO
18 4J a)
(UCSHftaiO-rfNOJIUGO K4JU 0)-rH OUi8>
Sidt)OQco[i4-Hca'ao4-i ftwx ma rn uo
">i Q) T3 rH • (1) -H X)
U) " — C 4-J i — 1 U3 10 M T3 flJ
— 3 C id T3 id 0) C
4-1 c o a) o x; -H ts
«— ifc
CN
~*~*
i-M
CO \»
Z tn
0 G
H
EH
x;o ft3>!x;ins a>
tji4j rHr-i4-)!H oiy
. -H \ >H MH -H iO
H ld'Oft4-lSHtnOO
S >a>oo-PGO4J
M o UO)mc;OrHr-<
i-^ • ^SrXr^iHOiJid
^.^
< -^ CQ
O H J
EH —
U tno
fl| Jj^ Q
CQ >C4 O
N- .
fc— s^
X CQ
,j
en rHTI O WOtnCQ)4-'
1 XiO OC-rl CXISHC:
o (d SH o tn -ri o -rt a>
xtft MH «dGtaa>3g
VD O O 'O (D O G 4-J tT1 0)
SH 0) 0) 4-1 -H a) 0) S-l
cr* in tNinoi in ft,x Gtnin4-ift4JSHO
rH r-H rH(T,0 10 OOld-rHldOiCC:
CN O CTiOrH n 4->U4-)XlrH4-l'a(Ptn-rl
OOOrHOO tn 3gC
• • ... . O'WOSHlxgHJOPi
O O OOO O SO'HO)ty>MO)l8-HrH
ti tl (™i f\\ r~. f\\ \\ f*
r^ t-" %„* W (5 W t-" >-4
4J -H rH 0, O >H rt) O
a) rH o tn -P u
g C SH -rl fl)
CO
*r ri
ri Cj
H W
5
H rtl
u <
P4
EH
•a
•rl
m
u
*
,_,
0
G
OJ
X!
a
w
(d
•w
id
•H
c
0 IT
1 °
< CQ
0)
in
a
0)
SH
O
•O
G
id
rH
•H
O
tn
ti
rH
•H
O
CO
T3
0)
•a
0)
ft
tn
3
co
D3
ft
SH 0) U SH 'd -H nS G
aifttutniBOiT) 18
O< 4J C > -P O C H
in o id g s ft
in g Q) -ri >, oi o
id snx! (8 g4J in'tn
SH tn id C id C
tji-H rH -H tn 0) c tn -H
0 rH -rH XJ 4-> X! -r) 4-> XI
o
rH
[X4
•rl -H >
r-H tN
gta4->
O O O -rl O -H
0)
T3
•rl
C
id
id
-p
o
EH
248
-------
^SS"--
Ijrrrff
iiuiii:
5 sl^si
i*I"I *
S8SH&I
_- — - —
'.
$
\i
tf
III
Hi
55"
ho
<<0
Ml
\
1
1
1
1 D
%
1
1
1 r
r
_. J
,
'
h~e
— -<3D^
Q-
-
,-J
^B ^m ^•••^•Mi
1
— CS
___
4
|
^
'>
1
1
1
J
A
hn
U
1
~i
i
i
rl
^!
._!
r
3 '
'-N
^
^^
[ s->
\t" 1
*£.****<* i
JJ?rrr> i
???^28*:!
j1
„ 5 5 1
i «M ?
Io2*25? 2
is^!K%2
M
T r^ p
4 gig ?s
I SS2 P
I i2?5i If
,1 ^ T
5St 4 .
i; ^ -*-
*- f 1 1 IK
rS ' u S
t^IH!
1 §1 « 1 12
CH ^
i
Trr~-
1 i?; i
1 1 ?5 I
1 1 = 8 ?
II 4.1 •»
1 1 *^ v
III i
ii ' L
•U 4-
lUii g
j a 4
T
.z*?
.lljfl
f35^T
^stf* «
J*3*5
i
1
^
tj
?S
i§
^
30
?o
h
i
1
*>
01
il
12
8
in
V
^
1
_J
I
J
— H
!f
Ji
^ -
-liij
18 "ii
$
T
•
.1
_J
V
u
i f
0 •
4 8
-j>;S
??S
t'?:-1
^ k J •* M
ffc^g
!SH!
^3ol"
2--RhW
• •OjlL
IM"
I s
u
^^_ 2
Ir
S
o»)*rr/»»**
4.
w
1
1
1
1
i '
s ! t
IJ 4
^ 5
1 £
u_«_l L_
It
3
0
i
^™~
<•
r
r
o
^.
«
5
u.
IU
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
3
U f\
8(1
1
249
-------
FKOf*.
5
i
<0 -J
J-M
*>Q
W§
!•?
WATffl
S£ LEV
CTCA
Is*
ly Hi,
sin
Jr *
rV 1
rn
i 6 «|
L|J1
X
1 x
3 <*
%8
>Q »i
S;^
^s^^
r\ ViK
'RONMEMTAL.
STEEL /NL
y P&O&UCT (
ALTER.NA
&PCTCA
\ *
Ul
•*.
0
«
Mj
^
i
0
*
R
"«
N
0
T
-*
11 l?§2l
£J b^
250
-------
The ELG's were therefore established on an effluent flow basis of 730
1/kkg (175 gal/ton) of product and concentrations o£ the various
pollutant parameters achievable by the indicated treatment technologies.
Some by-products coke plants are required to install ana operate
desulfurization units for separate removal of hydrogen sulfide from coke
oven gas. The most common H2S recovery process consists of a chamber
where potash or soda ash slurry is used as a scrubbing medium for
absorbing hydrogen sulfide, which is in turn liberated £>y distillation
under vacuum. Up to 83 additional liters/kkg (20 gal/ton) of
contaminated condensate is produced per ton of coke. Tnis waste is
returned to the ammonia still for treatment, where its volume is
increased to 104 1/kkg (25 gal/ton) of coke by the addition of lime
slurry and further condensation of steam. Plants operating this type of
desulfurization equipment will generate up to 834 1/kkg (200 gal/ton) of
waste water, instead of the 730 1/kkg (175 gal/ton) shown above.
Phenol
All of the plants surveyed were treating for phenol reduction by either
solvent extraction or biological oxidation. One of the four plants was
using biological treatment and was obtaining less than 0.1 mg/1 phenol
in the final effluent. Another plant, using solvent extraction
techniques, was producing a dephenolizer effluent containing less than
0.5 mg/1 of phenol. However, this effluent was mixed with untreated
barometric condenser effluent to produce a final effluent containing
1.37 mg/1 of phenol. It became evident from review of the respective
plant flow sheets that the remainder of the plants surveyed could
accomplish similar reductions by treating their barometric condenser
effluent and by tightening up on the final cooling water discharge so as
to be able to route the blowdown through the treatment system thereby
avoiding unnecessary dilution or contamination of the final treated
effluent. The ELG for phenol was therefore based on 2 mg/1 at 730 1/kkg
(175 gal/ton) and the recommended control and treatment technologies for
accomplishing this are as shown in Table 65. This guideline should
apply to the BPCTCA standard since it should be readily attainable under
the constraints and definitions of the BPCTCA guidelines.
None of the plants surveyed were intentionally practicing cyanide
removal, except for the reduction coincidental to ammonia stripping,
phenol extraction or biological processes employed for ammonia and
phenol removals. Two of the plants were discharging relatively high
loads of cyanides, either as untreated crystallizer effluent or through
contamination of final cooling water discharges. The remaining two
plants were recycling such waste streams through treatment, and yielded
cyanide concentrations of 38 and 68 mg/1 in effluent flows of 450 and
170 1/kkg (108 and 41 gal/ton) respectively. These loads would be
equivalent to 23 and 16 mg/1 based on a 730 1/kkg (175 gal/ton) total
251
-------
effluent flow. The smaller of these two concentrations reflects the
load from a plant which currently disposes of a portion of the raw waste
load as quench water. This practice is not appicable to many areas
where air pollution problems must be considered, and this waste should
be routed to treatment instead. For this reason, a somewhat higher
cyanide load would be expected in this waste water discharge.
The technologies for accomplishing this level of treatment are shown in
Table 65.
Ammonia
Of the four by-product coke plants surveyed, only two were operating
both legs of their ammonia stills to achieve significant stripping of
the fixed ammonia waste loads. These plants discharged 471 and 138 mg/1
at flow rates of 171 1/kkg (41 gal/ton) and 217 i/kkg (52 gal/ton)
respectively. Equivalent to concentrations of 110 and 41 mg/1 based on
730 1/kkg (175 gal/ton) total effluent flow. Since more operating data
on performance of free and fixed stills was not available, the ELG for
ammonia has been conservatively set at 125 mg/1 based on 730 1/kkg (175
gal/ton) total effluent flow. By-product coke plants efficiently
operating free and fixed leg ammonia stills currenlty achieve this
limit.
BOD5
The four plants surveyed were discharging effluents containing 64, 23,
537 and 5 mg/1 BOD5 at discharge flow rates of 650, 450, 171 and 19,182
1/kkg (156, 108, 41 and 4,600 gal/ton) respectively. Basing these waste
loads on a uniform 730 1/kkg (175 gal/ton) discharge flow rate results
in concentrations of 57, 14, 126 and 131 mg/1 respectively. The lowest
concentration results from a biological oxidation treatment system. The
other three values are achieved by conventional physical/chemical
treatment systems. The ELG for BOD5 has been conservatively set at 150
mg/1 based on 730 1/kkg (175 gal/ton) total effluent flow. All four
plants surveyed are achieving this limit.
Oil and Grease
Oil and grease concentration data were collected at 3 of the 4 plants
surveyed. Despite relatively high raw waste loads (50 - 280 mg/1),
final effluent concentrations were reduced during treatment to 2.5, 18.7
and 0.02 mg/1 in discharge flow rates of 450, 171 and 19,182 1/kkg (108,
41 and 4,600 gal/ton) respectively. Basing these loads on a uniform 730
1/kkg (175 gal/ton) discharge flow rates results in concentrations too
low to accurately measure by the most readily available analytical
techniques. The ELG for for oil and grease has been conservatively set
at 15 mg/1 based on 730 1/kkg (175 gal/ton) total effluent flow. All
three plants for which oil and grease data are available <^re achieving
this limit.
252
-------
nded Solids
Data on suspended solids were collected at 3 of the 4 plants surveyed.
Discharges contined 163, 103 and 7 mg/1 suspended solids at. flow rates
of 450,171 and 19,182 1/kkg (108, m and 4,600 gal/ton) respectively. A
review of the data from the first plant listed above (the Bio-oxidation
Treatment System) revealed an abnormal discharge of suspended solids
during one of the four visits to the plant. Portions of the activated
sludge biomass were floating to the surface of the aeration loagoon and
were being carried out in the effluent. Under more normal operating
conditions during three other visits to the same plant, the average
concentration of suspended solids in the effluent was 80 mg/1. Using
this value, plus the other two plant's values above, and basing three
loads on a 730 1/kkg (175 gal/ton) discharges flow rate results in
equivalent concentrations of 49, 24 and 184 mg/1 respectively. The
plant discharging the 19,182 1/kkg (4600 gal/ton) total effluent at a
final concentration of only 7 mg/1 produced the highest solids load, due
to the discharge of most of that flow without treatment. The otner two
plants were practicing sedimentation, so their effluents provide the
basis for establishing an ELG for suspended solids of 50 mg/1 based on
730 1/kkg (175 gal/ton) total effluent flow. Two of the three plants
for which suspended solids data are available normally achieve this
limit.
Three of the four plants surveyed fell within the pH constraint range of
6.0 to 9.0 thus providing a basis for establishing this range as the
BPCTCA ELG. Any plant falling outside this range can readily remedy the
situation by applying appropriate neutralization procedures to the final
effluent.
Coke Making Beehive Operation
Currently, two of the three exemplary beehive operations surveyed
practice zero (0) agueous discharge. The recommended BPCTCA limitation
is therefore "no discharge of process waste water pollutants." The
control and treatment technology required would include provision for an
adequate settling basin, and a complete recycle of all water collected
from the process back to the process, with fresh water make-up as
required. The system reaches equilibrium with respect to critical
parameters, but provision must be made for periodic removal of settled
solids from the basin. Actual operating costs are modest.
Sintering Operation
The only direct contact process water used in the sintering plant is
water used for cooling and scrubbing off gases from the sintering
strand. As with steelmaking, there are wet and dry types of systems.
The sintering strand generally has two (2) independent exhaust systems,
253
-------
vo
W
9
£
w
w
H
Q
H
O
2
O
H
EH
H
H
A
EH
2
M
£3
b
H
|
*^!
U
EH
CJ
Oi
CQ
(U
0
u
(U
•H
x;
cu
cu
CQ
o
o
w
EH
<
U
P3
D
^-^
«^<
^-"
H
D tfl
W O
e
*c
fi
H CJ
: rH"
-i -*r"
H~i r-^
EH EH
Cj
0 O
W EH
W
2
O
H
EH
r^
EH
H
s
H
p-3
f£
CJ
EH
O
Pn
pa
2
O
EH
X
tT1!
w]
XII
m
•*>.
*
^4
0
s
o
K
CJ
w
EH
EH
2
W
TREATM
*
O id (8
2 S C
>
x
fl
a
2
rn
J «
2 W
0 EH
H U
)_l
U
a
S
^
w
18
EH
0) 18
TJ rH -H
•HOC
C fi O
(d cu E
>i X! J
I —
^
0
*
o
r^
CM
m
0
0
A
cu
w
w
13
•rH
tr
cu
M
Ul
id
iH
0)
4-1
1C!
ft
3
tn
-H
rH
0
O
U
4J
o
18
4J
fi
O
U
C
O
fi
rH
rH
id
in
Q
O
ffl
-P
U
Q)
ft
tn
o
M
XI
4J .
•H in
(U
g -P
3 0)
X! rH
•H 18
•H ft
•H
3 rH
tJ1 18
(U U
•H
aches
crit
cu o
!H -P
^— ^
}_|
CU
4J
18
S
(U
Ul
rd
CU
iH
tn
•0
C
rd
rH
•H
0
^
Ul
13
•H
rH
o
W
CU
13
CU
ft
tn
3
W
"\
^
0
M rH
ft fo
pounds per 1,000 pounds of coke produced.
luent per kkg of coke produced (100 gal/ton) .
^i
o
13
0
13
O
SH
ft
CU
^y
o
u
M4
o
c*
o
-p
u
•iH
M
4-1
0
g
k
cu
ft
W
g
J^
tT1
o
• r-l
«
m
MH
cu
Ul
cu
4->
-H
rH
p-
rH
•^
C
o
""3
Q)
tn
id
XI
SH
CU
4-1
•H
i-H
H
CU
ft
w
g
id
&>
rH
H
•H
2
(U
X!
•H
in
O
ft
rH
id
-P
u
Q)
rH
0)
n
•H
Ul
0)
O
iH
O
C
(1)
>
•H
Ul
rH
U
c
•H
rH
rH
18
>i
•H
iH
18
to
U]
cu
(U
fi
4J
0
U)
•H
•O
cu
4-1
tn
•iH
iH
>1
tn
O
rH
O
fi
X!
O
CU
4-1
CU
(8
•H
18
>
•
in
13
0
x;
4-)
cu
c
cu
g
-p
18
Q)
J_)
4-1
MH
O
Ul
C
o
•H
4->
id
4-)
3
p
CU
ft
Ul
fi
O
*H
•p
C
•H
n
6
o
u
o
rH
MH
to
rH
id
U
•H
e
0)
o
fd
13
C
id
rH
UH
O
-P
rH
•H
X!
fd
rH
•H
fd
>
(d
o
•H
4-1
fd
o
o
rH
in
id
in
0
4J
o
MH
O
D
in
c
O
tP
c
•H
•O
c
cu
a
cu
13
CU
e
o
in
>1
rH
(8
>
>1
where competing alternatives exist, and extent of pre-
e indicated control and treatment devices. Estimated to
13
CU
4J
U
CU
rH
Ul
>1
0
rH
0
c
X!
U
cu
4-1
4-1
C
CU
g
4->
id
cu
rH
4->
«.
13
CU
4J
id
cu
X!
4->
-p
ft
cu
u
fd
o
4-1
13
cu
k
-H
3
tT1
Q)
M
Ul
fi
O
-H
4-1
id
U
•H
MH
•H
•o
0
g
C
•H
10
•H
X
CU
>i
rH
(8
0
C
cu
(8
O
•H
Ul
CU
•rH
4->
•H
rH
•H
u
18
MH
cu
CO
0
-P
CU
O
XI
18
T)
CU
M
•H
3
D1
CU
!H
4-1
w
O
U
rH
(8
4-1
G
(U
g
*H
u
fi
-H
>>
rH
fi
0
cu
(8
fi
O
fd k >ix:
in
4J
tn
0
u
cu
X)
0
4-1
rd
c
g
•H
rH
in
4->
tn
0
O
«
4J
C
18
rH
ft
18
C
•H
A
-P
-rH
^
CU
13
•rH
c
(8
><
U
rH
(8
4-1
O
254
-------
^
xm
^
5l
mO
X.
UDY
e&
T*Y S
P5,
1*5*
15(5
2*3
t^^-^H 3
s>?^ >
^foSr^
G S o > vj 5r
(n
'(
255
-------
W
w
W
p7|
H
W
Q
H
D
O
W
2
O
M
EH
rtj
H
H (T)
S c
H -H
iJ n
(1)
EH -p
S3 C
W -rl
D W
fa X
0
1 O
W
< EH
U (S,
EH U
U CQ
(Xj £D
CQ CO
5 Ho
Q W \
W O (/>
0
•
<^>
EH O
S P
M rt! ^
w o tnl ^
W EH XI ^
X <=>
O>I ^
V^ _. .^ -^
_
CI
k^
[*)
r^
IH
- y
$
M
E~i
r .
t^<
^
W
s
t"J
*c
*fj
§
i*
KH1
0
EH
&
O
o
rfl rH
r-1 rti
3 g tn C -P
O -H ^H CO CT1 C
U C O -H -r-l C (PC
O -H i— 1 U) -H 3 O
•Hgtn -P-rHg ^HC
MH CJ -P > g 4-i
£ H QJ O -H MH H
i — J4-^O WM^ QJrH
Id -H >i ft U5 (d
U^O O (fl
•H 4-) — Q) M tn
6 Q) rH. M U Q) C
CJ i — 1 O C CJ id -P -H
.CU^-I OCMH -HTJ
U>,4J -i-l (Uh i-i3
U C -P X 3 iH
J^CJO ftDtn C CTiU
4JMUC M-H O OX
"s -P O -2 M 5 O 4J ^ >2i
r*jJ-p t3 UH Id W
JH tn n3 id c N -H ci
CJ -H d ^ -H T! -i-t O
C -P ^ -P i-H CJ i — i g -P
o Oc idtnM id QJ ^^ —
oc?o 3-H3 -P tnid
•HOOC -PHD1 3 >itn
JC -i-l i-IO rdOOl dJ W
En-P^QU 2tnM 2 O
4-> in
r-t %_^
tjl
^•^
H 5
TJ CJ
EH > -P C"
H o C C
M cn i— I tn i—i
< ~ S"
0 H vJ
CJ OiO
A^ ^ o
OQ t^ O
\^ r— 1
tTtSX
x m
° 5 'o 8
vo O
r^ tn -P
M1 rH ftAJ O
o CN x rd
i-H O -P -P
O O U) r-l C
O CJ O
0 0 S ft U
MH d)
O -P
id
-P g
* C-rl $H
U) O -P 1-H
d) i-H 4J tn i-H
rH t3 X W 10
^a oo) e
. .rH -rH M
• • — • W g T3 • O
TD C W O C W C
QJ o o n id QJ
U 4J ft O U O
O Id rH C W 0)
ft X U
C -P T) dJ 4-> -H
M in u c C A
dJ — dJ (d to dJ s
4J rH rH CJ g
C T3 MH . > -P tn
•rH d) d) MH -H Id d)
W U M O -P d) -H
3 Id rH 4->
MH fQ 4J >, n 4-i -H
r4 -H dJ T3 -rl
tn ft tn IH 4-> c o
^ d) -H i — i (d id
C >H 0 £1 Id MH
3 dJ ^ (d rH
O H-1 rH D"l O CJ
ft C ^H -H C rH 0}
•HO 1C -H 4J O
o tn C > -P C X!
o (d o o 4-1
rH n ^ «- P fli
i c* o irt *>
M tn tn O U d) O
ft,X rH 4J d) Id f3
tn ^ C u CJ -H T3
TJ d) -rH O jC T? d)
3 rH • -H -H
o 4-i rH tn tn >d 3
CJ O 4-1 .C d)
rH3^lX^tOO4-lrH
O rH rH 4-1 rH dJ
M-l -H dJ O rH 4-> 05
QJ CJ (d u tn d) tn
U W 4-1 Id O O
3tntncMH>,uo
TJ JH dJ CJ D^ (d
O dJ O g XI O rH
SH4->dJ4JUrHOld
ft-H C Id 3 O 4-1 4-1
i — i dJ tn C c
SH 4-> In £ 'd d)
4J o d O OJ M OJ
•H U) O CJ1 3 U
w d *H d 4-* tr d
o tn -H d dJ -H
MH T3 d T3 dJ (H
o 'd d) o c g ,>i
(U -P *H QJ 4-* CO rH
CtntnHJftidcc
4-.1 X3 ' — 14-1 T5 rH *H
3 4J 4-1 d)
U >H >t g Id rj
SH 4J 0 d) g 73 -H
d) rH O tn H-1 ~rl S
S d rH id ^ o
W
' EH
A
QJ
•d
c
0)
tn
w
d)
tn
id
CJ
M
C3
T3
C
i-H
•H
O
ft
dJ ft d) tn id 4J 4->
tn O dJ M 4-1 ?
tn g CJ -H >I.Q id in
g(OrH4-ifd COCn
ra>HX3idgo-HUC
M en (d c -P g -H
tn-H H -H tn -H rH 4-J
rHrH(ti'gtnOd)4J-H
W S <1 U U MH ft-P d)
256
-------
257
-------
the dedusting at discharge end of machine and combustion and exhaust
system for the sinter bed. Each one of these systems can either be wet
or dry as defined in the process flow diagrams types I, II, III, shown
as Fiquires 6, 7, and 8, respectively.
Generally the sinter bed exhaust systems are dry precipitation systems
with the dedusting exhaust systems split between wet and dry.
Three sintering plants were visited, but rwo of the three systems were
deleted from the comparison. These two systems were deleted due to the
intricate wastawater treatment system which was utilized which made
separate identification of unit raw waste and unit effluent loads from
the sintering operation obscure.
The third sintering plant had wet scrubber systems for both the
dedusting and sinter bed exhaust systems. The wastewater treatment
system was comprised of classifier and thickener with recirculation of a
portion of the thickener overflow with the difference going to blowdown.
The underflow was filtered through vacuum filters.
For the one plant considered under this study, the effluent flow was 475
1/kkg (114 gal/ton) of sinter produced. This value, however, represents
a blowdown equivalent to approximately 30% of the process recycle flow
of 1422 1/kkg (341 gal/ton). The 114 gal/ton effluent flow also
represents the total blowdown from this combined sinter plant - blast
furnace waste treatment and recycle facility. Therefore, the magnitude
of the effluent flow was considered inadequate, i.e. excessive, since
simply tightening up the recycle loop can reduce the effluent discharge
by more than 50 percent. In doing this, more attention may have to be
paid to control of heat buildup and scaling and/or corrosive conditions
in the recycle system. The ELG's were therefore established on the
basis of 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) of product and concentrations of the
various pollutant parameters achievable ty the indicaited treatment
technologies. This proposed 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) is identical to the
effluent flow limitations actually found (under this study) for the Open
Hearth and EOF gas scrubber recycle systems, thus the technology should
be readily transferable to a sinter plant since the type of recycle
system and many of the aqueous contaminants are identical. This
guideline should apply to the BPCTCA limitations since this value is
readily attainable under the constraints and definitions of tne BPCTCA
guidelines.
After reviewing the laboratory analyses, the critical parameters were
established as suspended solids, oils and grease, sulfides, fluoride,
and pH. However, cost considerations dictated that treatment systems
for sulfide and fluoride reduction could only be included in the BATEA
treatment models. The ELG's for BPCTCA were, therefore, established on
the basis of 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) of sinter produced and the
concentrations achievable by the applicable treatment technologies
indicated below.
258
-------
guspended Solids
The one plant studied showed less than 10 mg/1 total suspended solids in
the final effluent. This excellent reduction can be credited to the
presence of substantial oil in the raw waste which rends to act as a
mucilage on the suspended solids. This like phenomena has long been
known to be responsible for enhancing removal of fine suspended solids
in deep bed sand filters. The ELG for total suspended solids was,
however, based on 50 mg/1 at 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) to be consistent
with the ELG set for BPCTCA for this parameter for all other
subcategories, except one which could not achieve tnis concentration.
The technologies for achieving this are as shown in Table 67.
Oilman d Grease
Oil was found to be 1 mg/1 in the final effluent of the one plant
studied. It is felt a less restrictive ELG based on 10 mg/1 at 209 1/kkg
(50 gal/ton) should be adopted since only one plant was used in the
survey and for the reasons stated in the discussion under Coke Making By
Product Operations. The technologies for achieving this ELG are
presented in Table 67 and for the most part center around trie natural
adsorption to the suspended solids as previously discussed.
For the one plant studied, the pH was found to be 12.7 in the final
effluent, apparently due to the use of lime fluxing agents in the
sintering process. Although the presence of lime in the process water
enhances removal of fluorides, pH levels in this range would definitely
have to be classed as harmful and the utilization of cost effective
control technology judged to be inadequate . Therefore, the BPCTCA
permissible range for pH was set at 6.0-9.0. This range can be attained
by use of conventional, well-established neutralization techniques.
Su bcat eqpry
Waste treatment practices in blast furnace operations center primarily
around removal of suspended solids from the contaminated gas scrubber
waters. In past practice, little attention has been paid to treatment
for other aqueous pollutants in the discharge. Water conservation is
practiced in many plants by employing recycle systems. Taree of the
four plants surveyed were practicing tight recycle with minimum
blowdown. Discharges from these three plants were all under 521 1/kkg
(125 gal/ton) of iron produced. The ELG's were therefore established on
the basis of an effluent flow of 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton) of product and
concentrations of the various pollutant parameters achievable by the
indicated treatment technologies. The fourth plant surveyed was running
close to a once-through system and was judged inadequate with respect to
water conservation, since blast furnace recycle is a well established
art.
259
-------
W
en
*7
£~
, T
t— 1
W
Q
H
D^— *
.->
0 §
rn ^
2 H
o ""
£
EH U
(<£
51 t-l
H <
£H E-t
co O Gn
W ^ tt
X
s~^
fO
Vj
O
o
o
IS
u
W
EH
W
P^
~I!
u
3
C_i
r1
_
§
|
W
/
' q
o
•H
4-1
•rH
r(3
13
fO
M
0)
g
rH
O
ft
f^
4-1
•H
s
Cn
q
•H
q
CO
M
u
•H
xi
EH
*~^
tn
m
rH
00
p^
0
O
•
0
EH
CO
13
•i-l
q
rfl
^1
u
*
VD
*3*
CN
.
O
rH
[^
CN
•
O
A
O"1
q
• H
rH
O
o
u
tn
q
•rH
N
•H
i— 1
•H
4J
rj
ft
O
O
rH
CO
rH
U rH
>i Q)
0 S
CO O
« 4-1
A
^T
rH
CN
O
O
•
O
rH
O
q
fl)
A
Cu
Cn
x v
i
S-l
CO
ft
p
q
CO
3
rH
4-1
4-t
CO
in
n
0
. CO
O^ i — 1
1 A
O fO
• o
vc o
•H ft
in
VD 4-1
o in
o
o s
^-N
(V>
W
S3
tn
tfl
*— '
(0
•H
q
o s
G 0
g ffi rH
rin P^ [i(
*^-».
J_(
Q)
4J
(0
^
Cn
q
•H
rH
O
0
u
-p
o
(0
-P
q
o
u
q
o
q
rH
rH
(0
Cn
q
•H
13
u
•A
CO
* —
•£
0
4-J
rH
to
Cn
in
CN
rH
- —
13
(U
u
|3
13
O
ft
q
o
•H
4H
o
01
rH
A
-H
• W
— in
q O
• O ft
13 P
CO \H
U rH rH
3 to m
13 tn
0 4->
VH in u
ftCN CO
rH rH
q — 4-1
0 CO
rH ti rH
•rH CO
O 4J
4-1 3 -H
O U
o w
in S-l QJ
13 ft O
q 13
3 C
O O M
ft H O
•H q
o
O 44 Q)
0 O >
«• -H
rH tn 10
^ 3
1-1 X rH
0) O
ft n q
CO -H
w ft
•O rH
q 4-> rH
3 q to
O CO
ft 3 >i
rH rH
tH 4-1 -H
O M 1 Vl
CO (0
13 in
co in in
U t-l 0)
3 CO U
13 4J 0)
O -H q
t-l rH
ft 4->
CN O
G CN C
0 m
M in
•H q -H
0
4-1 13
O 13 CO
CO 4-1
q in in
o to -H
4-J X! rH
O t-l £>i
•H CO Cn
M P O
4J -H H
CO rH O
g q
rH A
W 01 U
CO ft CO
ft p
in
in g co
g fO rH
a ^ ft
M tn (0
Cn-rH rH
O rH -rH
rH i-l (0
•H -rH >
t3^ SI ^£
^-k s~* S-*
rH CN M
* — • — - -— *
S
0
rH
4-1
•.
in
rH
(0
O
•rH
g
01
A
O
T)
q
(0
13
q
(0
rH
4-1
O
>1
4-1
•H
rH
•H
&
fO
rH
•H
(0
>
id
«.
q
o
•H
4-1
CO
O
0
rH
.
in in
13 rd
O
A tn
i.l tj
CO O
S -P
u
4-> id
q 4-1
CO
g A
-P U
(0 3
co tn
-P q
o
4H
O Cn
q
in -H
q 13
o q
•H CO
(0
4-1
1 0 Cn
0) 4-i q
t-l -H
ftl3 4-1
CO W
4-1 4-1 -H
o m x
g CO
4-> -r-i
C -P >i
co tn rH
4J W rH
X (0
CO g
• M
13 tn o
c co q
CO U
•H (U
•> > M
4-1 co (d tn
•H CO Ol
4-1 tH -H
(04-14-1
q -H
i-l 13 rH
co q -H
4-i id u
i-i id
td 1-1 4-1
0
Cn VH 0)
q 4-) tn
-H q o
-POX:
CO U 4->
ft
E 13 CO
0 CO >
U -P O
(0 XI
01 U fO
VH -H
Oi 13 13
A q co
S -H S-l
•H
13 CO 3
co x: tr1
4-1 4-> CO
CJ rH
Q) 4J
rH ft U)
CO CO 4J
in o in
« 0
NO
tn O
0 -P
rH rH
O 13 (d
q co 4-1
.c M q
U -H 0)
Ol 3 g
4-1 tr co
CO rH
P ft-P r-l U
to co
-P "O
3
g CO
tH g
CO g
0< to
J_)
0 >i
in to
q >
o
•H ^>i
4J id
co g
q
•H in
XI 4-1
E tn
0 O
u u
*-^
^
*-^
q q
0) Ul -rH
g q
-P O >i
(d -H rH
co -p q
M ra o
•P U
•rH CO
*• 4-i VH
13 -H (d
CO 13
-P o q
to g 5
CO O
VH N Xl
4-1 t-i in
id
co q tn
XI 'H 4-1
g in
O -H O
4-) rH U
.
4-1
q
id
rH
ft
n3
c
•rH
A
4J
-^
Jj
CO
13
•rH
q
^1
u
rH
fl
_P
0
H
*
260
-------
Ssib
5
V V V V V V
«g
J V
§ *
Ul
-------
A survey of four iron producing blast furances resulted in t.ne following
recommendations for effluent standards:
Suspended_Solidg
The three plants surveyed and operating on a tight recycle were
experiencing suspended solids in their effluents ranging from 39 to 85
mg/1, whereas the plant operating close to cnce-through was achieving 11
mg/1 suspended solids in the final effluent. This could be expected
since higher TDS levels in recycle systems have been Joiown to inhibit
agglomeration and settling of suspended solids. The technology is well
established for reducing iron laden suspended solids to less than 50
mg/1. The majority of plants around the country are operating on a
once-through basis. The BPCTCA limitation for suspended solids has been
sstablished on the basis of 50 mg/1 at 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton) based on
the proposed use of known technology for reducing blast furnace
suspended solids to the indicated level. Three of the surveyed plants
were achieving the proposed effluent load directly and tne fourth plant,
producing the effluent containing 85 mg/1 of suspended solids, was also
achieving the proposed effluent load by virtue of further treatment of
the blowdown in the sinter plant waste treatment facility.
All of the plants surveyed were experiencing cyanides in their blowdown
of 19 mg/1 or less. No intentional treatment for cyanide removal was
being practiced since the blowdowns were being disposed of on site. The
one plant operating on a close to once-through basis was achieving 0.005
mg/1 cyanide in the final effluent by the use of alkaline chlorination.
The proposed BPCTCA limitation on cyanide is based on 15 mg/1 at 521
1/kkg (125 gal/ton). Three of the four plants surveyed are acnieving
this proposed effluent load directly. The fourth plant was exceeding
this load by 12% but the effluent was receiving further treatment in the
sinter plant waste treatment facility. The technology for accomplishing
this level of -treatment are shown in Table 68.
Phenol
Of the four plants surveyed, the effluent phenols ranged from 0.01 to
3.6 mg/1. The close to once-through plant was reducing pnenols via the
alkaline chlorination system. In the recycle systems, many plants were
experiencing reduction of phenols in the cooling tower as evidenced by
close examination of the analytical data in and out of the towers.
Further reduction of phenols was sometimes noted across the thickeners.
Much of the loss of phenol is inherent in the operation of a recycle
system. Further reductions could be readily accomplished by
discontinuing the use of green coke or coke quenched with water which is
contaminated with phenol in the blast furnace. Studies have shown that
the adsorbed phenols carry directly through to the blast furnace gas
scrubber waters. The proposed BPCTCA limitation for phenols is based on
262
-------
4 mg/1 at 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton). The technology for accomplishing the
proposed limitation is shown in Table 68. All four plants surveyed are
currently achieving the proposed BPCTCA effluent limitation for phenol.
Ammonia
The three plants surveyed employing tight recycle were experiencing
ammonia values in their blowdown ranging from 78 to 265 mg/1.
The one plant operating on a close to once-through basis was achieving
0.8 mg/1 ammonia in the final effluent - probably due to dilution
effects as well as oxidation of the ammonia by chlorine. The proposed
BPCTCA limitation for ammonia is based on 125 mg/1 at 521 i/kkg (125
gal/ton) . Table 68 is referred to for further identification of the
technology. Three of the plants surveyed are currently achieving the
proposed BPCTCA effluent limitation for ammonia. The average effluent
load of all four plants surveyed is less than the proposed load
limitation.
ES
Of the four plants surveyed, the pH of the effluents fell well within
the range of 6.0 - 9.0 which should be established at the BPCTCA
permissible range.
Blast Furnace Ferromanganese Operation
Only one operating ferro-manganese furnace was found for the survey.
The one plant surveyed was operating with a once-through system on the
gas cooler and with a totally closed recycle system on tne venturi
scrubber. The flow through the gas cooler was 5,700 gallons effluent
per ton of ferro-manganese produced. This flow would have to be
considered inadequate, i.e. excessive, since there is no reason
precluding running a recycle system identical to that of the iron
producing blast furnaces. Under the iron -producing blast furnace
recycle plants, the effluent flow was found to be 521 1/kkg (125
gal/ton) which was equivalent to a blowdown rate of 4.25$ of the recycle
rate. The proposed BPCTCA limitations are based on an effluent volume
of 1042 1/kkg (250 gal/ton) which is 4.25% of the total recycle flow
rate on the one ferromanganese blast furnace plant surveyed. The
ferromanganese furnace operates at a higher temperature than the blast
furnace producing iron and thus requires higher recycle and blowdown
rates.
Suspended Solids^ Cyanide^Phenol, Ammonia
The above indicated critical parameters are the same pollutants found in
iron producing blast furnaces. Because of the higher temperature
operation, however, the cyanide and ammonia loads produced are greater.
263
-------
r3
EH
cn
u
2
H
i-5
W
Q
H
O
O
H
H
s
EH
2
W
D
CM
U
H
CJ
PH
n
Q)
in
tt)
c
id
H
M
(U
0)
U
rH
3
-P
in
PQ
o
o
w
u
a
~ 2
•w O
"a w x
w o w-
EH U
M <
i/l O CH
W EH Wl
X
t/H
n
^,
0
o
o
EC
CJ
w
^
r
r-y
TREATMEt
t8
8
EH
8
r
c
0
4J
-H
T!
Ti
fd
M
at
g
^i
rH
O
ft
4-1
•H
M
CO
G
CO
^
U
•rl
EH
3
o
ro
ca
rH
ro
O
•
o
CO
l~^
rH
O
ro
•
rH
/^
^
si
4->
•H
3
CO
H
O
J>, CJ1
u c
CO -iH
rH rH
0
5-1 0
CO O 4->
-P C
id co co
3 > E
•H 4-1
M -P tn
CO id 3
C\ O rrj
3 ft id
w id
u > ffl
W CO ft
o
o
M1 CN
O
•
n\
1
0
1C
CN VD
^T 00
O O
O CN
• •
0 0
Cn
C
•H
rH
O
o
Cn U
M. 4J
U
CO -P
ft C
o
4J U
c
CO C
3 0
H C
4n
4-1 i— 1
CO rH
03
in
rH Cn
CO C
4-1 -H
•H rO
rH 3
r — i
CO U
•* X
0 0)
tn c
•H O
4->
Hi rH
4-i id
w Cn
tn o
4-1 CN
-rl -O
4-1 Q)
U
M 3
O "O
44 O
^_j
CO ft
3
rH (D
id in
> 0)
rjj
Q) ra
H Cn
X! C
rd ra
X! g
0 0
ft M --~
0) JH
4-1 4-1 CO
tn -P
O MH rrj
S O 3
tn
•O
•H
H
O
in
Q) EH
T3 CU
C T)
CJ -H
ft C
tn id
3 >,
co u
*
O
c
Q)
JS
ro
ffi
2
in
id
id
•iH
O
OJ
u
3
T)
O
£lf -— -
c
CO O
in -p
CO \
C, rH
fi3 fi5 d)
tj^ U"1 1 — i
C X!
re o -H
g m in
O CN in
d — O
M ft
co T!
4-1 CO rH
U rH
u-i 3 id
O 13
0 -P
in M o
TS ft CO
C rH
3 CO 4-1
O tn CO
ft co in
c
O rfl -P
0 iJ>-H
o c
- id in
rH g CO
0 0
M M rO
CO r-l
ft CO M
4H 0
in c
'O m
C O CO
3 >
0 Cn-H
ft r^i W
rX 3
M rH
0 M O
CO C
- ft-H
rrj
0) -P rH .
O C H W
3 co m -a
'OS O
o rH >,x:
0 >i
4-> M
m P
5 c in c
O -H 4J If
rH g W rH
4-1 -H O ft
rH O
- co . >,
-4-) W rH
HH in CO H
O -H U rrj
X -H g
>i CO > C
-P CO 0
•H in 'O C
rH CO
•H > -P CO
JQ -H C w
ra -P co id
rH IT) g
-H c -P x;
ra !H rrj U
> CO 0) -i-t
ra -P w x!
rH -P >
- id
C T) in
O Cn G CO
•H C Id -rH
-P-H 4-1
ra 4J rH -H
U CO O rH
0 ft !-l -H
rH g 4J CJ
0 G (d
in o 0 >t-i
id y
CO 0)
in M T3 in
fa,4-i -H co o XJ.-P x;
CO M g 4J 3 id 4->
a) id u o
w inw4-i ra^o-H a)
c co
id 4-)
fJl-H
C rH
Id
gro
o ^
M O
(H rH
CO
4-1 C
O
4-1
O T3
CO
c tn
O ra
-P X)
D rH
-H 01
CO CO
u g
CO 4-1
0)
-p }-)
O -P
q
4H
in o
•H
in
•a G
CO 0
-P -H
en 4J
•H id
rH -P
>i6
Cn M
-P C 0
XI U -H XI
u co id
3 rH C0
w co x; 13
0] 4J CO
n M
tn Oi 3
Cn 0 0) CT1
C H O CO
•H O O In
rrj c fO
ex: r-r
co o o id
ft 0) 4J 4-1
CO 4-1 C
•a -a co
4-1 CO g
G -H CO
CO CU M M
4-1 -H rH ft O 4J CT
CO rH O W Id CU
g G M CO rH
M X! 0 >i rH >,
i-t CO O M 4-> W rH
co ft co w id
ft 4-1 C >
o
c c
o o
•H
rH Cn Id
Cn-r4 rH
O rH -H
-H -H >
•r-t W rH <4H C
X! 4-1 4J -H 3
g W n3 O
o o co o x:
Q)
•a
•H
G
o
*
264
-------
265
-------
Since the one plant surveyed was judged to be inadequate with respect to
the application of good water conservation practice, the proposed BPCTCA
effluent limitations have been based on the loads that can be achieved
by a plant equipped with a recycle system producing an effluent of 1042
1/kkg (250 gal/ton) and equipped to neutralize the blowdown. A facility
so equipped should achieve the following concentrations:
Suspended Solids 100 mg/1
Cyanide 30 mg/1
Ammonia 200 mg/1
Phenol 4 mg/1
The proposed BPCTCA limitations have been based on these concentrations
at a flow of 1042 1/kkg (250 gal/ton). Since the one plant surveyed is
not equipped with a recycle system on the gas cooler or for
neutralization of the effluent, the surveyed plant does not presently
meet the proposed limitations.
EH
The pH of the plant surveyed fell within the range of 6.0 - 9.0 which
should be established as the BPCTCA permissible range.
Basic^OxYgen^Furnace^Operation
The only direct contact process water used in the EOF plant is the water
used for cooling and scrubbing the off gases from the furnaces. Two
methods which are employed and can result in an aqueous discharge are
the semi-wet gas cleaning and wet gas cleaning systems as defined in
Types II, III, IV and V on Figures 17 to 20, inclusive.
The two semi-wet systems surveyed had different types of waste water
treatment systems. The first system was comprised of a drag link
conveyor, settling tank, chemical flocculation and complete recycle pump
system to return the clarified treated effluent to the gas cleaning
system. Make-up water was added to compensate for the evaporative water
loss and the system had zero (0) aqueous discharge of blowdown. The
second semi-wet system was comprised of a thickener with polyelectrolyte
addition followed by direct discharge to the plant sewers on a "once-
through" basis.
Because of the nature of these semi-wet systems, direct blowdown is not
required when recycle is employed. The systems are kept in equilibrium
by water losses to the sludge and to entrainment carry-over into the hot
gas stream. Most new wet EOF systems are designed in this manner. The
BPCTCA limitations have therefore been established as "no discharge of
process waste water pollutants to navigable waters" from BOF shops
equipped with semi-wet air pollution control systems.
266
-------
o
r-
9
CO
u
J
w
Q
H
D
O
CO
O
H
EH
g
H
W
D
W
U
EH
O
03
x;
4-1
G
O
U
O
-H
4J
3
4J
(D
CO
Q)
U
3
fa
C
0)
0
o
•H
in
(0
03
K
O
O
W
EH
U
03
D
co
*—
>a
^M
C
D CO X
w ok/>
rH
CN
O
*
O
EH U
^ -
•*• *^J
H
-p
rd
^J
a)
rH
X!
rd
•H
rd
C
*-i _ —
K
a
Q)
s
•o
Q)
-H
;3
CT
0)
^t
to
rd
OJ
4J
rd
*>
makeup
,
rH
O
o
u
-p
u
rd
-P
C
0
u
c
o
c
rH
rH
rd
tn
G
-H
— \
O
rH
fa
rH
rH
•rH
44
13
C
rd
rH
^
O
OJ
in
3
Q)
rH
0
-p
sludge
^^
j_i
0)
4J
rd
|j
tn
C
•H
(d
U
rd
g
O
M
c
o >,
4J >H
rd fd
S C tn
0 -.H 4J C
rH g 10 -rH
V-< -rl O &
rH U 4J
- 1) -rH
tn M rH 5
• a res
4-1 DI
o c
•H o -P -H
g 4->
a) 4J 'd in
x: c a) -H
u a) -P x
4J rd Q)
•o x g
C 0) -H >,
4-1 rH
13 10 rH
•a c w rd
C rd
rd
rH -
4-1 tO .
MH in a)"
O -H O V
X -H M
>i 0) > rd
4J 0)
•H tn T3 x;
rH O O
-,H > 4J -rl
rd 4-1 0) 5
rH fd g
•rH C 4J 10
id JH rd Q)
> 0) 0) -rH
fd 4-> VH 4-i
rH 4-> -rH
^ rd rH
C T3 -rH
O tji C O
•H C rd rd
4-1 -.H 4H
rd 4-> rH
O 0) o 0)
O C5j VI U)
•H g 4-1 O
o c x;
O O 4J
o
rH 0) 0) 0
O XI 4-1 X!
i -P S rd fd
U CJ
i fd T3 -H -a
; 4H CD t! 0)
i 4J C r<
i X! U -rH -H
U W 3
3 rH 0) rj1
to O xl 0)
tn 4-> !H
a
O >i4J tn
i tn Q<4->
i tn o a; in
c; H u o
•H o o u
; -o c fd
ex: rH
0) U O rd
CX, Q) 4-1 4-1
tn r-H
rd C C
> - O O
i tj -H
>l Q) -P OJ
rd 4-> rd IH
g
4-1 4-1 -H S C
to T3 O rd
o
-------
J
IU
Q
uJ
UJ
1(1
<
0
U ill
I 2
« >-
111
a
3
£ "
•Ift-
1
id o
0 0
jOl
0H«»
* 5
268
-------
0
-p
~ EH
Q to
£8
EH EH
W O
W EH
(N
00
O
rH
CTl
O
W
W
2
M
h-3
W
Q
H
D
O
CO
2
O
M
EH
rij
EH
H
s
H
rH
EH
2
W
D
)_3
ftj
p4
H
|
<
U
EH
U
CM
CQ
— - i i i
1 — 1 Sj
O rn
M X
4-> J
C o
g 1
r )
C u
° EH
% 2
i— i S
O ?1
P_J t~J
M
*:
jj
0)
^s
Q)
U
C
S-l
3
q
d)
tn
r^1
o
u
•H
(d
m
CH
tO
»-}
J
CM
EH
O
CJ
U
•H
g
0)
f~1
u
x;
-P
•H
^
)-l
0)
C
Q)
y
U
-H
-P
"^
Q)
•H
M-l
-H
CO
•H
-P
• «.
C
0
-H
-P
id
rH
^3
U
U
O
rH
4-1
U
•H
-P
CD
C
tn
id
g
^
o
0)\
id
rH
u
CO
§
H
H
<
£-*
H
J£3
H
^ *-^
frj
0 <<
CJ O
W EH
EH U
rfj £j
CJ tf
m
D
w
»-»
CN
*"
H
\
tr
o
in
,— ^
— cq
rH |_^
OlO
X o
X o
Oi^v
X CQ
•*
o
rH
O
•
0
•a
c
id
0
-P
c
•5
o
1
rH
XI
rH
id
•H
r^
-H
g
-H
|5
Q)
rH
U
>1
D
0)
H
C
O
•H
-P
id
.p
c
(U
u
C
0
u
(4-1
o
CO
0)
rH
u
U
rH
O
J_j
-P
C
0
u
C
o
•H
-P
id
N
•H
rH
id
^
-P
OJ
2
o
CTl
1
O
VD
4-1
C
0)
3
rH
M-l
03
CO
S-l
0)
-P
-H
rH
CTl
O
CM
CO
-H
g
0)
4->
CO
en
4J
X!
Oi
•H
4J
5_j
o
M-l
Q)
rH
id
0)
rH
XI
id
X!
O
ft
-P
en
O
S
C
o
C
rH
rH
id
tn
C
-H
•a
rj
rH
U
X
0)
^^-v
C
O
4J
*\
rH
id
Oi
o
in
**^
rrj
0)
u
3
o
ft
rH
0)
4J
CO
M-l
0
tn
X
M
cu
ft
J_l
(1)
4-1
id
D1
C
•H
rH
0
0
0
4J
0
id
-p
C
o
U
CO
•O
•H
rH
O
w
•d
0)
•d
ftr-l
cu ft cu
ft -P
C O
--H J3
10
O 0) -P -H
i £71 d) ^f1
C >i O 0)
.• -H tn U 5-i
! T) O id
i G rH W
I 0) O O -P
ft G 4J CQ
0) JC O
TD O T3 U
01 Q)
m -P H rH
2 -H id
S -P 3 -P
., 2 c o1 c
03 i4J (1)
M id w >-i
id cu c u
> >H o c
en
3
en
W
269
-------
5
g
1
9 rr
•> ^»
3 T
? I
s
««t 5
11 8
*ISf
•si
!*
,««?,
| a r ft-u |
>.
f-^
-i In n
T ,
71 '
f-
T
1 /
./
./-'
-*
1
£
J
I*
l\
25
?P
o
I 7
]""
0
p
o >- 5
£tt«
5 >-3
S^u-
*o2
^5
i"y
2^5
o m
5
UJ
u
tf
CTCA
I*
tr
270
-------
The three EOF wet systems surveyed were generally of the same type and
included classifiers and thickeners with recirculation of a portion of
the clarified effluent. The blowdown rates were 138, 217, and 905 1/kkg
(33, 52, and 217 gal/ton) of steel produced, respectively, with the
latter system discharging at a blowdown rate equivalent to 65* of makeup
and 25% of the recirculation rate. The first two plants were
discharging at a rate equivalent to 5.2 and 11.5% of the recirculation
rate. The third plant should be able to reduce the effluent to a rate
equivalent to 7.5% of the recirculation rate or 271 1/kkg (65 gal/ton).
The average rate of discharge of the three plants would then be 209
1/kkg (50 gal/ton) and this rate and the concentrations of the various
pollutant parameters achievable by the indicated treatment technologies
has been established as the basis for the BPCTCA limitations proposed.
A review of the data collected from the survey resulted in the following
effluent guidelines:
The effluent suspended solids were 22, 40, and 70 mg/1, respectively,
for the three plants surveyed. The clarifier at the latter plant was
not equipped with skimming devices and a hose was being used to agitate
the surface to break up the foam, thus contributing to a nigh suspended
solids content in the effluent. Even when including this plant the
average suspended solids concentration of the three effluents is less
than 50 mg/1. As indicated under discussion of blast furnaces, the
technology is well established for reducing iron-laden suspended solids
to less than 50 mg/1 with the use of adequately designed and operated
clarifiers and/or chemical and/or magnetic flocculation. Therefore, the
BPCTCA limitation for suspended solids has been established on the basis
of 50 mg/1 at 50 gal/ton based on (1) known technology for achieving
same in a cost effective manner and (2) the fact that two of the plants
surveyed are currently achieving less than this effluent load.
2H
The pH of the three plants surveyed varied from 6.4 to 9.4. As with
previous subcategories, the BPCTCA permissible range for pH should be
set at 6.0 to 9.0, which can be readily accomplished by using
appropriate neutralization techniques.
Open Hearth Furnace Operation
As with the BOF furnaces, only contact process waters were surveyed,
sampled and analyzed. Again the only contact process water in the open
hearth is the water used for cooling and scrubbing the waste gases from
the furnaces. As a general rule, open hearths have ary precipitator
systems rather than scrubbers. Therefore, only two open hearth shops
were surveyed and each had a wet high energy venturi scrubber system as
defined in Types I, II, III shown on Figures 21, 22 and 23,
respectively. There are no semi -wet systems for open hearths.
271
-------
^•^ F-t
Q W
U O
EH O
EH EH
W O
W EH
CN
in
in
o
oo
o
kD
o
cn
j^
. i
GUIDEI
U3
§
H
EH
™i
H
s
H
rJ
EH
2
D
i-^
fa
H
1
rfj
O
EH
O
CU
CQ
»_,
^,
W
s
^
JlJ
rj
W
r_.
EH
2
M
2
g
83
Q)
O
C
H
3
(-^
M
id
K
C
0)
a
o
^*<
EH
c3
_
§
EH
§
U
U
•H
g
M
own to
oncent
•d u
4J
0)
rj
rH
IH
IH
0)
to
-P
•H
rH
ti cn
O o
•H CM
4-1
Id W
M -H
•H
eutral
system
2
4->
cn
•H
4-1
0
IH
0)
iH
(C
o
. Q)
O"l rH
1 A
O KJ
• .0
>£> O
H
ft
_[_!
CO
o
s
c
0
c
H
rH
(0
eluding
Q)
*-• '
^-^
C
0
4J
rH
(0
Cn
o
in
•a
0)
u
3 -~
•a w
O 0)
H 4J
a a
rH
(U tr>
v c
4J-H
OT rH
O
IH o
O U
cr>4J
.M O
4J
H C
Q) O
ft O
to
•O
•H
rH
O
to
•O
0)
na
c
0}
a
to
3
M-l
0) >H TJ S
X O (!)
U 4-1 lr>
4J (0 C
T3 C g-H
C Q) -H 4J
•H 4-1 Q)
X! W C H
a 0) 0) (0
H 4J S
- (!)
c 4J -a w
O rH C 0)
•H Id id -H
I i 11
U C O rH
O -H H -rl
a)
r8
to o "
Q)
in
0) O
I O 0) 4J X
• -P (H nj -P
U 0) U
>
i c o
i x -d -H xi
i u CD (3
I 3 4J 0)
i tn u x; *d
I (!) -P 0)
1 C rH H
O 0) 4J -H
i ra PJ 3
i cn d) tr
C >i U Q)
I -H t7> O H
! -d O W
I C rH tO
I 0) O O 4J
i a c 4-i w
Id)* O
i T3 O T3 U
! 0) 0)
0)
4-1 W rH
•rH (d
w g
I-P D 4J
° c cr c
m l4-> 0)
M (d tn t-i
0) Q) C O
> rH O C!
4J -H -H
>i 4J
id ^ (d >i
g -O U rH
Q) -H C
w 4J IH o
4-1 (d -H
to Q) >a g Id
K
a
272
-------
0
in
^M )"&~
.'-J
W
\i
u\ 0
*8
•i
ffi A
6 r
2 S
^
5 "
2»
oi
CTCA MOD6L
S
\\
of.
ro
273
-------
Each plant had similar wastewater treatment systems comprised of
classifiers, with thickeners with recirculation of a portion of the
thickener overflow. One system utilized vacuum filters for thickener
underflow while the other system used slurry pumps arid pumped the
thickener wastes to tank trucks for disposal. The blowdown rates for
the two plants were 213 1/kkg (51 gal/ton) and 492 1/kkg (118 gal/ton)
which were equivalent to 9.3% and 17.5% of the recycle rates,
respectively. These sysrems can be tightened as was indicated for the
EOF and therefore the BPCTCA limitations were established on the basis
of effluent volumes of 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) of product and the
concentrations of the process pollutant parameters achievable by the
indicated treatment technologies. This effluent volume is equivalent to
the average of the values that would be achieved by reducing blowdowns
to 7.5% of the recycle rates.
A review of the data collected resulted in the following effluent
guidelines:
Suspended solids
For the two plants surveyed, the effluent suspended solids were 80 and
52 mg/1. As with one of the EOF wet recycle systems surveyed, the
clarifier at the former plant was not equipped with skimming devices and
a hose was being used to agitate the surface to break up the form, thus
contributing to a high solids content in the effluent. Since suspended
solids concentrations of 50 mg/1 or less can readily be achieved by the
use of adequately designed and operated clarifiers, and/or chemical
and/or magnetic flocculation, the BPCTCA limitation for suspended solids
has been established on the basis of 50 mg/1 at 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton),
The technologies for achieving this effluent load are shown in Table 72.
EH
The pH was found to be 6.1 and 1.8-3.4, respectively, for the two plants
surveyed, with the latter plant being judged inadequate with respect to
proper control of pH. The pH range for BPCTCA limitations has been set
at 6.0 to 9.0. This range is readily attainable through the use of
neturalization techniques as previously discussed.
Electric Arc Furnace Operation
The electric arc furnace waste gas cleaning systems are similar in
nature to the EOF, i.e. they may be dry, semi-wet or wet systems as
defined in Types I, II, III, and IV shown on Figures 24 tnrough 27,
respectively. Four plants were surveyed, two semi-wet and two wet
systems.
The two semi-wet systems had similar wastewater treatment systems
comparised of a settling tank with drag link conveyor; one system was
recycled with no aqueous blowdown while the other system had closely
274
-------
T
Q 10
W O
EH CJ
m
r-
TABLE
CO
2
t_l
GUIDEL:
co
2
O
EH
r-^I
EH
H
S3
H
EH
2
W
D
r-4
\*4
1*4
U
1
rij
CJ
EH
CJ
PJ
CQ
in M «;
TD EH EH
O co o trl
.C W EH «|
-P *V^ 1
CD \
H r-
o
J^
-P ro
f-H ^-*
O in
U o
O
d ^^
0 ' o
•H 2:
4-1 a
3 g
rH S
0 H
Pj C_i
[T1
rH rj
•H H
< §
r1
•^ M
0) »
1
•r-l
g
0)
co
u
rd
C
En
U
rH
•31
lectric i
w
M-t
EH
ta
•§
EH
2
o
M
O
X^
13
C
id
i — 1
rd
U
•H
e
r&
V
fj
-P
•H
*5
»V
id
4-1
ettling
U CO
:TATIONS
M
JJ
— '
Cno
t< o
^4 o
X^ f—j
tn\
>1
* — '
0)
p
id
u
•H
o
2
1
|
CD
M
CD
4J
CD
rH
a
g
o
o
• ..
c
o
-H
4-1
id
rH
3
u
u
0
rH
44
agnetic
g
o
4-1
tn
4->
C
id
4-1
3
rH
rH
O
a
M
CD
4-1
id
CD
4-1
in
id
S
•
I
C
*5
o
T!
U
O
rH
X!
in
3
0
Q)
3
tr
rd
O
C
4-1
•H
0)
rH
CJ
u
tn
C
-rH
(exclud:
01
rH
O
4-1
id
CD
rH
ft
id
tn
•H
id
C
rH
CD
N
^^-^
1
c
o
u
rH
o
• *
rfj
CD
•rH
3
D1
Q)
rH
tn
m
n
CD
S
rolled
4J
*— ^
rH
CD
4-1
id
s
.
r^
O
CD
rH
u
^
o
CD
S-l
O
c
1
rH
c
0
CD
-d
3
rH
U)
•^
^
o
CD
in
3
CD
rH
O
4-1
0)
tn
-a
3
rH
in
4-1
CD
>Bl
lowdown
andfill
A rH
T!
-H
» (0
•o
-------
p [&::
••«~i
5 L
85 Ll
I LJ
t
(T
(T
ill
O
0
r'
!
s? 3
£ ' O
in x cr 0
N|j-
-s f
ei $
aiir D
o& 3
iirlS,
k
L
,/
j /
j /
T
l Su
, -J HI '
"1 3^ i
^- i
i >^
^T-1
1
t
r 4
+-\ll
' 5
K " > Ml '
(- (_< UJ .
ill
(0
(9
III
3
o
u
l«
jjja?
g a
UJ Ul
276
-------
W
i-q
§
2
H
^
W
Q
H
D
§
H
S
H
hH
EH
2
W
D
W
I
<
CJ
EH
CJ
fl,
m
13
O
4-1
W
s
4-1
c
O
u
c
O
•H
4-1
3
•H
rt!
4J
0)
0)
u
HJ
fH
3
fa
U
SH
U
••H
U
Q)
§
CJ
CO
, , ^
M- O
— H EH
c* v) -^
W O W
ro
in
r~
o
EH O
S rJ
M <
EH E- _
tO O t7< °°
CL] £H M 00
X °
^ 0
.___ Xs
/"
j -P
n
JH
0
S
o
££
a
CJ
w
EH
EH
2
W
S
PJ
"
rf«
"*
§
EH
• X
10
. T
CONTROI
r-1 A-i
IT! tJl
U -r) O
•rH 4J 4J C
g 0
0) - C -rH
x: c ;? -P
U O 0 (8
•rH <0 >H
x: 4-> £ 4J
4-> 18 0 C
•H rH rH 0)
S 3 X! 0
o q
r-l U rH O
Q) O itf O
C rH g
(U MH -rl 14H
^ CO
U U -H
-H -H g W
x: 4-> Q)
4-1 0) X! rH
\ C 4J U
H tP-rl >1
,4-i
(8 -d U C
rH C 01 O
U 18 rl U
(N
H
CO \
2 tn
2 e
M
EH
o
in
"3
EH
H
S
H
r-3
*«-^
< ~ CQ
CJ rH ^
EH •"
CJ tJ)O
CM X o
CQ X 0 •*
\rH O
CnV. rH
W CQ 0
rH1
— O
1 — __
o
-H
4J
(8
N
••H
Neutral
o
•
a\
i
o
•
vo
>\
M
Q)
a
4J 4J
C U
Q) 18
3 -P
rH C
I4H O
m u
0)
c
CO O
r< C
0)
4J rH
-rH rH
rH f8
en CJi
0 C
(N -H
•d
co 3
•rH rH
u
g X
0) <1)
4-1 ~
01 ^
>i C
tn o
4-1
4JH
X; (0
tr>tj>
*rH
> i
-P o
m
M-k_ ,
^^
0
IH T3
Q)
cu u
3 3
rH T3
18 O
> SH
a—
0) M
rH rH (1)
X) 0) -P
18 0) (8
X! -P S
o tn
^ tn
a<« c
o -H
4-1 rH
tn Cn O
o ,x o
S ^ U
0)
tn 4J
u to
? M a>
T3 0) U
O 4J 0)
^1 -H C
ft i-l
4-1 0) •
•H co t3 x;
rH CU O
•H > 4-> -H
XI --H C x!
(8 4J 0) S
rH (8 g
•H c 4J tn
(8 M (8 0)
> 0) 0) -H
(8 4-1 VH 4-1
rH 4-1 -rH
•> n3 -H in
(8 4-1 rH
u a; o _
O Oi M to
rH g 4J O
o c x;
tn u o -P
18 U
0) (U
W M T3 >
M a> at o
o x: 4J x!
4J S <8 f8
u u
(0 ^ -rH "O
iw 0) O3 0)
4-> C r<
X! O -H -H
U Q) 3
3 rH Q) tj1
w a) x; a)
in 4-1 in
c
o >I-P tn
tr> Gi4J
tn O (1) tn
•H (C
o n3
T3 0)
-P Q) g
C Ss tt)
CO
13
•H
•O
0)
•a
c
g
g 18 rH
>i Q) -P
18 4-1 (8
CO >-l 4H
4J 4-1 -H
tn T3
O <1J 0
(N
277
-------
ill
!<
ID I-
ICO
]
I §||—
t)
K
A
278
-------
regulated the furnace gas cooling water spray system so that only a
wetted sludge was discharged to the drag tank for subsequent disposal.
The recommended BPCTCA limitation for semi-wet systems has therefore
been recommended to be "no discharge of process waste water pollutants
to navigable waters." Both plants surveyed are currently achieving this
limitation.
The two wet systems surveyed had similar wastewater treatment, systems.
These plants were recycling untreated wastes at the races of 12,906 and
12,010 1/kkg (3,095 and 2,880 gal/ton) of product respectively. The two
plants were treating their blowdown streams which were ceing discharged
at the rates of 1,268 and 659 1/kkg (30U and 158 gal/ton), respectively.
The recycle rates are inadequate, i.e. excessive, in tnat tne electric
arc furnace wet gas cleaning system should be able to operate on the
same recycle flows as the BOF and open hearth furnace systems. The
average recycle rate on the five BOF (wet) and open hearth furnaces
surveyed was found to be 2,756 1/kkg (661 gal/ton). Further the systems
should be able to achieve blowdown rates equivalent to 7.5% of this
recycle rate or 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton). Since these systems can be made
essentially identical to the BOF and open hearth recycle systems for gas
scrubbing, the BPCTCA limitations were established on the basis of
effluent flows of 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) of product and concentrations
of the various pollutants parameters achievable by the indicated
treatment technologies. A review of the data collected from the survey
resulted in the following effluent guidelines:
Susgended_Solids
The two plants surveyed were achieving suspended solids concentrations
of 58 and 23 mg/1 in the treated blowdowns. Since the use of properly
designed and operated clarifiers, and/or chemical, and/or magnetic
flocculation can readily achieve suspended solids concentrations on this
type of waste of less than 50 mg/1, the BPCTCA limitation for suspended
solids has been established on the basis of 50 mg/1 in an effluent flow
of 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton). The two surveyed plants are currently
achieving lower concentrations on the average, although tne limitation
load is being exceeded due to the excessive blowdown rates.
EH
The two plants surveyed were both discharging effluents at a pH of 7.9.
This is well within the BPCTCA permissible pH range recommendation of
6.0 to 9.0.
Vacuum_Degassing_SubcategorY
The direct contact process water used in vacuum degassing is the cooling
water used for the steam-jet ejector barometric condensers. All vacuum
systems draw their vacuum through the use of steam ejectors. As the
water rate depends upon the steaming rate and the number of stages used
279
-------
w
a
w
rH1
w
Q
H
D
C3
CO
z
o
M
s
H
,-q
w
D
w
I
o
CJ
tn
c
•rH
to
tn
id
Cn
a)
Q
3
u
id
K
o
w
EH
CJ
CQ
D
10
T d
*- EH EH
Q CO *\
W O (/>
rH
in
•
o
EH CJ
H
^| o
x ^-
n
i>H
O
o
0
M
rj
W
p
5
^
s
N,
4-13 u
O rH
O O O (U
•H H rH
-P X! Cn-H
id c 4->
rH rH -H C
3 (3 rH 0)
Cn g O
(d -rl O M
O C O O
U -rl l*H
g -d
x: c rH
4-> x: id 0 4J
Cn -H
C <1J 4-) Cn
•rH rH It) C
•H U rH -H
4J >,4-l rH ^
4-1 U rH O O
0) 0) -H O rH
to SH m u m
CM
**"^
rH
W — .
2 Cn
0 g
H
EH
^
_
in
EH
H
S
H
»J
^^
rH
0)
ft
-P
-P U
c id
0) 4-1
3 C
rH 0
HH U
0) c
O
W C
rH
0) rH
4-1 rH
•rH fl
rH
Cn
0 -rH
i — i 'd
D
Bl rH
•rH O
gg
(U -^
4-1 --
W G
>i O
in 4J
•P rH
xl id
en tn
•H
4-> m
CM
o
d)
0) in
3 in
rH Id
id tn
0 > Q)
Ul 0) ^H
1 rH rH ID
0 X! <1> 4-1
. id 0) id
VD XJ 4J U
o tn
>H en
ft>*H C
O -rH
-P rH
in Cn O
0 M 0
S AS U
•H 4J
en
•d
> -d
-p tn C
tn a)
•H u Q)
X -rH rH
i aj > id
! -rl
Id 4-> 0)
H(CB
in
o c
ft (D
rH Id 0)
O QJ -rH
•P M 4-1
rH 4-> -H
Id rH
•d -H
tn C U
C H in
g 4J O
OCX!
U O 4-1
u
Q) a)
JH T3 >
0) id id
o
-H -a
(D -d 0)
-P C rH
U -H -H
(1) -P "U Q) 3
C i4-> in
m Cn O.-P
in o en O Q) in
•H C rH O O
in -H O u U
-d C >d C nj
TO 4-1 Id
in c >n
(D Q)
u g x;
ft
-d a)
-P Q) g
en IH ;
O 0) !
rH ft
tn
13
•H
0)
ft
tn
3
ft
rH 04
280
-------
M
•8!
ft
281
-------
in the steam ejector, the process flow rates can vary considerably. Two
degassing plants were surveyed and each had a waste water treatment
system which treated other steelmaking operation process waste waters as
well; i.e. one with a continuous casting water treatment system and the
other with EOF discharges. The water systems were recirculating with
blowdown. The blowdown rates varied from 58 to 67 1/Jckg (14 to 16
gal/ton) and represented from 2% to 5% of the process recycle rate,
respectively. The BPCTCA limitations were established on the basis of an
effluent flow of 104 1/kkg (25 gal/ton) of product and concentrations of
the various pollutant parameters achievable by the indicated treatment
technologies. The value of 104 1/kkg (25 gal/ton) has been set slightly
above the measured values to provide a margin of safety in the
interpretation of the data from the two rather complex joint treatment
facilities studied.
A review of the data collected resulted in the following effluent
guidelines:
For the two plants surveyed, the suspended solids in tne final effluent
were found to be 37 and 1077 mg/1, respectively. The latter plant was
judged inadeguate with respect to the application of cost effective
treatment technology for suspended solids removal, since the waste
waters were being recycled without treatment and the blowdown was being
discharged without treatment. The plant achieving the suspended solids
level of 37 mg/1 was using high rate pressure sand filtration on the
final effluent prior to discharge. The BPCTCA. limitation for suspended
solids is based on 50 mg/1 in 104 1/kkg (25 gal/ton) of product. An
alternate technology for removal of these critical parameters to the
indicated levels would be coagulation techniques. Table 75 is referred
to for a summary of indicated BPCTCA limitations and suggested
technologies.
EH
The pH of the two plants surveyed was found to vary between 6.2 and 7.7
which
to 9.0
is within the recommended BPCTCA permissible range for pH of 6.0
Continuous^Cas ting Su bcategorY
The only process waters used in the continuous casting operation are
direct contact cooling water sprays which cool the cast product as it
emerges from the molds. The water treatment methods used are either
recycle flat bed filtration for removal of suspended solids and oils or
scale pits with recirculating pumps. Both systems require blowdown.
The flat bed filters remove oil and suspended solids whereas the scale
pits may require ancilliary oil removal devices.
282
-------
U3
r-
W
EH
CO
W
"Z,
H
W
Q
n
D
O
.-.
2
O
H
EH
EH
H
s
M
hH
EH
^
D
H
1
CJ
EH
CJ
tn
C
-H
4J
W
U
in
o
3
c
-H
-p
c
O
U
A
O
O
W
<;
u
CQ
co
f~* ^
•* d
Q CO \
W O
-*~^
EH U 2
H
c c
o ^
u o
TJ
4-) 5
3 O
O rH
tT1 _Q
id C
^H O XI
T3 -H 4-J
4-> -H
X! 18 S
•H 4J ft 0)
15 SH -H O S
0) -r) O O
4-1 g MH rH 4->
ft -H T3 0) tn
A! 01 rH C
ci) in xi u -H
rH -P >,rH
id rH rd u O
U -H rH OI O
CO O fa K U
CN
CO \
!Z tn
0 g
rj
t~J
o in
in rH
EH
§ °
j W
1-1 1
< — CQ
EH ~-
U tno
PJ X o
m x o
^s. rH
x m
1-3
*"•'*'
o
vo
o oo
vo r--
CN O
o o
• •
0 0
tn tn
M CD
id
O!
ft tn
C
4-1 -H
C rH
Ol O
3 0
rH U
MH
MH 4-1
O) U
id
W 4-1
rH C
Oi O
4J O
•H
rH C4
O
CN C
CN
in rH
1
r-1
tn id
•H
g c
OJ-H
-P "d
tn 3
in o
X
4-> 0)
•rl C
4-1 O
-P
O H
MH a
tn
0)
rf in
rH CN
id H
d) 4->
rH U)
X! id
id u
O rH
U Q)
ft d)
Jj
4-1 W
tfl
O MH
s o
0)
X)
o
-p
I
in
S >> in c
o SH -p id
rH Id in rH
MH Cl O ft
•H U
- E id
U3 -H rH
r-i rH a c
o> -P -H
M o x
Oi-P -P
6 -H
0) M-l TJ 5
u
C rH
O rH
-P rd
• rH -P
-P rd U
tn tn 0)
Id rH
U in MH
cs 0)
rH rH >H
Q) •—
Q) -P
-P -P -H
in in
id in
MH U 0)
O o
i—I TI3
in CD
T3 0> )H
C -P 0
3 in c
u
T3
O 0)
-P tn
-p id c
C g-H
C 0) -H 4-1
rrj 4-1 4-> 10
X in -H
T! 0> W X
C 0)
rH C
• id
MH
O -
4J
>1 W
.p -H
•H X
rH 01
•H
rd 0)
rH >
•H -H
id -P
> rd
rd C
• >i
U) rH
0) rH
O Id
•H g
> fi
(1) O
'O C
-P 0)
C M
0) rd
rd O
0) -H
•P S
CO C 4-1 tJ W
0)
u
rH r-l C
Q) -H
ft ft
H
W -P rH
^ C id
3 3 >i
O rH rH
ftMH -H
H | it
H OJ rd
O tn
- !H 0)
-P 0) U
in -p oi
IT) -H C
U rH
4-1
o
c
o -H
J2 4J
-P id
OJU
g O
Oi O
t_l ^ j
-P U
(d
l_l_] t j )
o
id id -H
4J
tn-H -H
C O H
•H 5H -H
-P -P U
01 C3 id
ft O MH
g O
O CD
u "d in
Q) O
0) -P x!
rH (d -P
O) U
c o
X T3 -H XI
in o 0) id
rH CN
0) CN
ci) in
-P in
in c -H
o
MH T)
o t3 01
0) .p
C M in
O id -H
4-> XI rH
-H Q)
o ui o .c; 13
•rH 01 4-1 Q)
-P d rH H
(d O 01 4-1 -H
4-i tn ft 3
?i tn 01 tr
g c >i u 0)
M -H tn U !H
o) ti o id
ft d rH tn
01 O O 4J
M ft G 4-1
o oi x:
T3 U rO U
in 0) 01
O g -r) (d
en
o
0) rH O id 0) Q) 0)
g C C g >H g
rH £ -H >, 4J 0)
oiftoigidodu
ft -P O > rH O C
in o 4-> -H -H
in g o)
gldrHQJld
(8
H tn (d
tn-H rH
O H -H
X! 1) -H C
-H in -P MH O
W -P Id -H
K
ft
-H -H > 0 O rH 0 M
X S < ftU -P g (d
CN
283
-------
QI--
13OOW
r.s s/v/
-J 10 U
^ :iU.
6
m
m
284
-------
Two continuous casting plants were surveyed. One plant had a scale pit
with sand filters with blowdown while the other plant had flat bed
filters with blowdown. Both had cooling towers for cooling the spray
water before recycling to the caster. The blowdown varied between 342
and 463 1/kkg (82 and 111 gal/ton). The BPCTCA limitations were
therefore established on the basis of an effluent flow of 521 1/kkg
(125 gal/ton) of product and concentrations of the various pollutant
parameters achievable by the indicated treatment technologies. A review
of the data collected from the survey resulted in the following effluent
guidelines:
Suspended, Solids
The plant employing the flat bed filter system was achieving 4.4 mg/1
suspended solids in the treated effluent; whereas the plant utilizing
the pressure sand filters was obtaining only 37 mg/1 in the final
treated effluent. An apparent anomaly existed here, since deep bed sand
filters normally achieve higher quality effluents than flat bed filters.
It was later discovered that the plant using the pressure sand filters
was continually backwashing one of the dirty filters into the final
treated effluent. This plant was judged inadequate with respect to
applying good engineering design to alleviate the problem of
contaminating the treated effluent with filter backwash. By correcting
this problem, this plant should have no trouble obtaining low
concentrations of suspended solids in the filtrate. TO be consistent
with the BPCTCA limitations for suspended solids which has been
established for most of the other subcategories, however, the BPCTCA
limitation for suspended solids has been established on the basis of 50
mg/1 at 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton). Both plants surveyed are currently
operating well within this load limitation.
Oi1_and_Grease
The two plants surveyed were achieving excellent reductions in oil and
grease as an apparent result of removal in the filtering devices. The
two plants combined averaged less than 2.4 mg/1 oil in the final
effluent. However, to be consistent with the reasoning presented under
Coke Making-By Product the BPCTCA limitation for oil and grease has been
established on the basis of 15 mg/1 at 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton). Table
76 summarizes the indicated technology.
22
The pH for the two plants surveyed varied bewteen 6.8 and 7.7 which is
well within the recommended BPCTCA permissible range for pH of 6.0 to
9.0.
Treatment_Models
Treatment models of systems to achieve the effluent quality proposed for
each subcategory have been developed. Sketches of the BPCTCA models are
285
-------
presented in Figures 60 through 72A1. The development included not only
a determination that a treatment facility of the type developed for each
subcategory could achieve the effluent quality proposed cut it included
a determination of the capital investment and the total annual operating
costs for the average size facility. In all subcategories these models
are based on the combination of unit (waste treatment) operations in an
"add-on" fashion as required to control the significant waste
parameters. The unit operations were each selected as the least
expensive means to accomplish their particular function aind thus their
combination into a treatment model presents the least expensive method
of control for a given subcategory.
Alternate treatment methods could be only low insignificantly more
effective and would be more expensive. In only one subcategory, the By
Product Coke Subcategory, was an alternate developed to provide an
option for a high capital investment and high operating cost biological
system (as compared to the low capital investment and low operating cost
physical-chemical system) to achieve the BPCTCA limitation for 1977.
This alternate was developed because the multistage biological system,
which would be an add-on to the BPCTCA single stage biosystem, is the
most economical way to achieve the BA1EA limitations for 1983.
However, to achieve the BATEA limitations the alternate relies on
the use of treatment technology that has been developed only to the
pilot stage or as steps utilized individually, but not in the
combination required in this model on this type of waste on a full scale
basis. The effluent limitations have been established such that either
alternate can achieve the effluent qualities on which the BPCTCA and
BATEA limitations are based.
A cost analysis indicates that the limitations on by product coke
operations can most economically be achieved by applying alternate I to
achieve BPCTCA and alternate II to achieve BATEA. Costs were therefore
developed on the basis of depreciation of the BPCTCA system in 6 years
(1977 - 1983). This not only saves enough on annual operating costs
from the present to 1983 to more than offset the increased capital cost
incurred in converting from one control technology to the other in 1983
(switching from physical/chemical to biological means of control), but
it also minimizes the total costs during the interim period while other
possible alternates are evaluated and allows for flexibility in the
event that BATEA limitations are later revised to lower values or to no
discharge of process waste water pollutants to navigable waters.
Cost_Effeetiveness Diagrams
Figures 72B through 83B presented in section X show the pollutant
reduction achieved by each step of the treatment models discussed in
Tables 54 through 64 and the cumulative cost, including base level, to
achieve that reduction. The curves are discussed in more detail in
Section X.
286
-------
SECTION X
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH
THE APPLICATION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE
TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
Introduction
The effluent limitations which must be achieved by July 1, 1983 are to
specify the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the
application of the best available technology economically achievable.
Best available technology is not based upon an average of the best
performance within an industrial category, but is to be determined by
identifying the very best control and treatment technology employed by a
specific point source within the industrial category or subcategory, or
where it is readily transferable from one industry to another, such
technology may be identified as BATEA technology. A specific finding
must be made as to the availability of control measures and practices to
eliminate the discharge of pollutants, taking into account the cost of
such elimination.
Consideration must also be given to:
a. the size and age of equipment and facilities involved
b. the processes employed
c. nonwater quality environmental impact (including energy
requirements)
d. the engineering aspects of the application of various
types of control techniques
e. process changes
f. the cost of achieving the effluent reduction resulting from
application of BATEA technology
Best available technology assesses the availability in all cases of in-
process changes or controls which can be applied to reduce waste loads
as well as additional treatment techniques which can be applied at the
end of a production process. Those plant processes and control
technologies which at the pilot plant, semi-works, or other level, have
demonstrated both technological performances and economic viability at a
level sufficient to reasonably justify investing in such facilities may
be considered in assessing best available technology.
287
-------
Best available technology is the highest degree of control technology
that has been achieved or has been demonstrated to be capable of being
designed for plant scale operation up to and including "no discharge" of
pollutants. Although economic factors are considered in this
development, the costs for this level of control is intended to be the
top-of-the-line current technology subject to limitations imposed by
economic and engineering feasibility. However, this level may be
characterized by some technical risk with respect to performance and
with respect to certainty of costs. Therefore, the BATEA limitations
may necessitate some industrially sponsored development work prior to
its application.
Rationale_fgr_the Selection of BATEA
The following paragraphs summarize the factors that were considered in
selecting the categorization, water use rates, level of treatment
technology, effluent concentrations attainable by the technology, and
hence the establishment of the effluent limitations for BATEA.
Size and Age of Facilities and Land Availability Considerations:
As discussed in Section IV, the age and size of steel industry
facilities has little direct bearing on the quantity or quality of waste
water generated. Thus, the ELG for a given subcategory of waste source
applies equally to all plants regardless of size or age. Land
availability for installation of add-on treatment facilities can
influence the type of technology utilized to meet the ELG's. This is
one of the considerations which can account for a range in the costs
that might be incurred.
Consideration of Processes Employed:
All plants in a given subcategory use the same or similar production
methods, giving similar discharges. There is no evidence tnat operation
of any current process or subprocess will substantially affect
capabilities to implement the best available control technology
economically achievable. At such time that new processes, such as
direct reduction, appear imminent for broad application the ELG's should
be amended to cover these new sources. No process changes are
envisioned for implementation of this technology for plants in any
subcategory except Coke Making-By Product where the installation of a
recycle system will be required on the barometric condenser system in
order to achieve 417 1/kkg (100 gal/ton) of product on which the ELGs
are based. The treatment technologies to achieve BATEA assesses the
availability of in-process controls as well as control or additional
treatment techniques employed at the end of a production process.
Consideration of Nonwater Quality Environmental Impact:
Impact of Proposed Limitations on Air Quantity:
288
-------
The impact of BATEA limitaitons upon the non-water elements of the
environment has been considered. The increased use of recycle systems
and stripping columns have the potential for increasing the loss of
volatiles to the atmosphere. Recycle systems are so effective in
reducing waste water volumes and hence waste loads to and rrom treatment
systems and in reducing the size and cost of treatment systems that a
tradeoff must be accepted. Recycle systems requiring the use of cooling
towers have contributed significantly tc reductions of effluent loads
while contributing only minimally to air pollution problems. Stripper
vapors have been successfully recovered as usable by products or can be
routed to incinerators. Careful operation of either system can avoid or
minimize air pollution problems.
Impact of Proposed Limitations on Solid Waste Problems:
Consideration has also been given to the solid waste aspects of water
pollution controls. The processes for treating the waste waters from
this industry produce considerable volumes of sludges. Much of this
material is inert iron oxide which can be reused profitably. Other
sludges not suitable for reuse must be disposed of to landfills since
most of it is chemical precipitates which could be little reduced by
incineration. Being precipitates they are by nature relatively
insoluble and nonhazardous substances requiring minimal custodial care.
Impact of Proposed Limitations due to Hazardous Materials:
In order to ensure long-term protection of the environment from harmful
constituents, special consideration of disposal sites should be made.
All landfill sites should be selected so as to prevent horizontal and
vertical migration of these contaminants to ground or surface waters.
In cases where geologic conditions may not reasonably ensure this,
adequate mechanical precautions (e.g., impervious liners) should be
taken to ensure long-term protection to the environment. A program of
routine periodic sampling and analysis of leachates is advisable. Where
appropriate the location of solid hazardous materials disposal sites, if
any, should be permanently recorded in the appropriate office of legal
jurisdiction.
Impact of Proposed Limitations on Energy Requirements:
The effects of water pollution control measures on energy requirements
has also been determined. The additional energy required in the form of
electric power to achieve the effluent limitations proposed for BPCTCA
and BATEA amounts to less than 1.5% of the electrical energy used by the
steel industry in 1972.
The enhancement to water quality management provided by tnese proposed
effluent limitations substantially outweighs the impact on air, solid
waste, and energy requirements.
289
-------
Consideration of the Engineering Aspects of the Application of Various
Types of Control Techniques:
This level of technology is considered to be the best available and
economically achievable in that the concepts are proven and available
for implementation and may be readily applied through adaptation or as
add-ons to proposed BPCTCA treatment facilities.
Consideration of Process Changes:
No process changes are envisioned for implementation of this technology
for plants in any subcategory except By Product Coke where the
installation of a recycle system on the barometric condensers may be the
most feasible means to achieve the 417 1/kkg (100 gal/ton) flow on which
the ELGs are based. The treatment technologies to achieve BATEA
assesses the availability of in-process controls as well as control or
additional treatment techniques employed at the end of a production
process.
Consideration of Costs of Achieving the Effluent Reduction Resulting
from the Application of BATEA Technology:
The costs of implementing the BATEA limitations relative to the benefits
to be derived is pertinent but is expected to be higher per unit
reduction in waste load achieved as higher quality effluents are
produced. The overall impact of capital and operating costs relative to
the value of the products produced and gross revenues generated was
considered in establishing the BATEA limitations.
The technology evaluation, treatment facility costing, and calculation
of overall capital and operating costs, to the industry as described in
Section IX and which provided the basis for the development of the
BPCTCA limitations was also used to provide the basis for determining
the BATEA limitations, the costs therefore, and the acceptability of
those costs.
The initial capital investment and total annual expenditures required of
the industry to achieve BATEA limitations are summarized in Table 89.
After selection of the treatment technology to be designated as one
means to achieve the BATEA limitations for each subcategory was made, a
sketch of each treatment model was prepared. The sketch for each
subcategory is presented following the tables presenting tne BATEA
limitations for the subcategory.
Identification_gf_the Best_Available Technology Economically
Achievable_-_BATEA
Based on the information contained in Sections III through VIII ot this
report, a determination has been made that the quality of effluent
290
-------
attainable trhough the application of the Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable is as listed in Tables 77 through 88. These
tables set forth the ELG's for the following subcategoro.es of the steel
industry:
I - By Product coke Subcategory
II - Beehive Coke Subcategory
III - Sintering Subcategory
IV - Blast Furnace (Iron) Subcategory
V - Blast Furnace (Ferromanganese) Subcategory
VI - Basic Oxygen Furnace (Semi Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
VII - Basic Oxygen Furnace (Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
VIII - Open Hearth Furnace Subcategory
IX - Electric Arc Furnace (Semi Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
X - Electric Arc Furnace (Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
XI - Vacuum Degassing Subcategory
XII - Continuous Casting Subcategory
ELG's have not been set for Pelletizing and Briquetting operations
because plants of this type were not found to be operating as an
integral part of any integrated steel mill. These operations will be
considered in mining regulations to be proposed at a later date since
they are normally operated in conjunction with mining operations.
In establishing the subject guidelines, it should oe noted that the
resulting limitations or standards are applicable to aqueous waste
discharges only, exclusive of non-contact cooling waters. In the
section of this report which discusses control and treatment technology
for the iron and steelmaking industry as a whole, a qualitative
reference has been given regarding "the environmental impact other than
water" for the subcategories investigated.
The effluent guidelines established herein take into account only those
aqueous constituents considered to be major pollutants in each of the
subcategories investigated. In general, the critical parameters were
291
-------
selected for each subcategory on the basis of those waste constituents
known to be generated in tne specific manufacturing process and also
known to be present in sufficient quantity to be inimical to the
environment. Certain general parameters such as suspended solids
naturally include the oxides of iron and silica, however,, these later
specific constituents were not included as critical parameters, since
adequate removal of the general parameter (suspended solids) in turn
provides for adequate removal of the more specific parameters indicated.
This does not hold true when certain of the parameters are in the
dissolved state; however, in the case of iron oxides generated in the
iron and steelmaking processes, they are for the most part insoluble in
the relatively neutral effluents in which they are contained. The
absence of apparent less important parameters from the guidelines in no
way endorses unrestricted discharge of same.
The recommended effluent limitations guidelines resulting from this
study for BATEA limitations are summarized in Tables 77 to 88. These
tables also list the control and treatment technology applicable or
normally utilized to reach the constituent levels indicated. These
effluent limitations set herein are by no means the absolute lowest
values attainable (except where no discharge of process waste water
pollutants to navigable waters is recommended) by the indicated
technology, but moreover they represent values which can be readily
on a day by day basis.
It should be noted that these effluent limitations represent values not
to be exceeded by any 30 continuous day average. The maximum daily
effluent loads per unit of production should not exceed these values by
a factor of two as discussed in Section IX.
Cost vs Effluent Reduction Benefits:
Estimated total costs on a dollars per ton basis have been included for
each subcategory as a whole. These costs have been based on the
wastewaters emanating from a typical average size production facility
for each of the subcategories investigated. In arriving at these
effluent limitations guidelines, due consideration was given to keeping
the costs of implementing the new technology to a minimum.
Specifically, the effluent limitation guidelines were kept at values
which would not result in excessive capital or operating costs to the
industry. The capital and annual operating costs that would be required
of the industry to achieve BATEA was determined by a six step process
for each of the twelve subcategories. It was first determined what
treatment processes were already in place and currently Joeing utilized
by most of the plants. secondly, a hypothetical treatment system was
envisioned which, as an add-on to existing facilities would treat the
effluent sufficiently to meet BATEA ELG's. Thirdly, the average plant
size was determined by dividing the total industry production by the
number of operating facilities. Fourth, a quasi-detailed engineering
292
-------
estimate was prepared on the cost of the components and the total
capital cost of the add-on facilities for the average plant. Fifth, the
annual operating, maintenance, capital recovery (basis 10 years straight
line depreciation) and capital use (basis 7% interest) charges were
determined. And sixtn, the costs developed for the average facility
were multiplied by the total number of facilities to arrive at the total
capital and annual costs to the industry for each subcategory. The
results are summarized in Table 89.
BATEA_Effluent_Limitations Guidelines
The BATEA limitations have been established in accordance with the
policies and definitions set forth at the beginning of tnis section.
Further refinements of some of the technologies and the ELGs discussed
in the previous Section IX of this study will be required. The subject
BATEA limitations are summarized in Tables 77 to 88 along with their
projected costs and treatment technologies.
Discussion By Subcategories:
Plants in the beehive, and electric furnace semi-wet Subcategories are
presently achieving the effluent qualities that are specified nerein.
No plants in the other Subcategories are presently achieving the total
effluent quality proposed. However, each of the control techniques is
presently employed at individual plants or in other industries and are
considered to be technologies that are transferable to the treatment of
steel industry wastes.
The rationale used for developing BATEA effluent limitations guidelines
is summarized below for each of the major Subcategories. All effluent
limitations guidelines are presented on a "gross" basis since for the
most part, removals are relatively independent of initial concentrations
of contaminants. The ELGs are in kilograms of pollutant per metric ton
of product or in pounds of pollutant per thousand pounds of product and
in these terms only. The ELG's are not a limitation on flow, type of
technology to be utilized, or concentrations to be achieved. These
items are listed only to show the basis for the ELG's and may be varied
as the discharger desires so long as the ELG's per unit of production
are met.
BY_Product_ Coke Su bcategory
Following is a summary of the factors used to establish the effluent
limitation guidelines applying to coke making by-product. As far as
possible, the stated limits are based upon performance levels attained
by the coke plants surveyed during this study. Where treatment levels
can be improved by application of additional currently available control
and treatment technology, the anticipated reduction of waste loads was
included in the estimates. Flows at three of the four by product coke
293
-------
w
~ 7:
^r O
•— EH C-<
Q in \
W O v>
EH 0
S rJ
H ft.
EH EH
W O U
WEHg
\
v>
ro
^1
o
o
^4
O
!-?»
/-•
K
Q
EH
r_*
tr1
f-yf
j-4
a
r .
CH]
-^
F-J^
CO EH
M
!2 <^>
H
J I-!
W 0
Q «
H EH
D Z
O 0
CJ
CO
t-^
2 rjj
O A;
S o
l( ° N
EH 4J —
H n r-l
S3 W \
H rg Z tn
^o o e
rH H
E-1 ft ^
2 <
W s- EH
D « a
>-? S
fe H
li| >H H?
w P; ^
O < -» pQ
1 0 WrH ^
W EH —
PH , rd
0) W IH
D
k OJ rd
Q) rH —
N O
•H >i G
rH O O
rH O -H
rd M P
P rd G
• • W !H '3 O
in >i cu -H -H
p r4 r-H X P
rH U O O Id
ft O 0
CU U >l> -H
ft. rH '34-1
O U rH -H -H
H >1 f3 4H M
U U c rH rd
ft QJ -H 3 H
« ft1 44 03 U
A
f
\
in
oj in n
• - • o o
O O rH OJ O
O rH OJ
rH OJ OJ f^ rH
o o M< oo o
o o o o o
O O O O C5
o o o o o
c >i
0
•r-l
-p
(d
•3
•H
X
o
G
O H C
•rl Id O
P U-rH
rd -H P C
M Cn-rH O
•H 0 13 -H
rH rH 1j .P
O 0 rd id
G -H S-J
CU X! H P
Xi O rH
ft OJ C -H
OJ Ui id 44
13 id X
P P QJ
G W QJ *4
0 1 £J 3
13 -H in
G P X W
rd rH 4-> QJ
X3 3 -H in
f-c re & ft
^
0 0
rH rH
0
•
en
1
o
vo
OJ OJ
•cr M"
0 0
o o
o o
^)
QJ
p
id
tn •?
^^ f>
M
^ rji
c
)H -H
QJ rH
ft 0
o
•P 0
c
Q) P
3 U
rH rd
4H P
4H C
QJ O
u
w
M G
Q) O
P G
•H
rH rH
rH
r-- rd
H
T tjl
G
W -r-l
•H 13
3
g H
QJ CJ
P X
W QJ
tn
P G
X 0
dp
•rH \
4-1 rH
id
SH tn
o
44 O
o
Q) rH
r-j -^— '
rH
rd '13
> QJ
O
CU 3
rH 13
X! O
rd >H
X! ft
O
!H O
ft^
O
4J U
in
OU 4
M-H
2 0
<
QJ
13
-rH
G
I-J
>1
rH
O
C
QJ
X
_
ro
W
2;
w
rd
flj
• H
/-J
6
H
QJ
W
rr!
QJ
iH
O
cj rd
•a G
•r I Id
IT) ':)
D rH rH
O -J •-!
in
T3
•H
rH
•H
o
w
13
cu
13
G
QJ
ft
in
3
,
r ^
G
O
• P
13 \
Q) rH rH
U Id
rH tTl-r-l
X W
r-l ^ 3
Q) rH
ft k O
a) c
W ft-H
13
G P r-l
3 G rH
O C) ri)
D^ 3
rH >
M 4( rH
O ;M -H
O !H
id
13 W «
QJ 5H 0)
U CJ rj
3 -P U
13 -rl CJ
O rH G
M
ftr- ••->
rH O
CD •=." G
X
O G "5
U O •:!
4-i T3 i!
0 •) •>
o) -:-'
G '": ».
O .'< -.-•
P r-l
0 ,l .'
•H '11 • •
5-1 p ..)
P -rl r-
O l — ! C
6 '
5-1 /'
'r-! I1' " '
(U P. 1 !
D. ^
V:
M r' c7j
c: '
i'J ^
5-'i C • '•
til •- •- '
O -J - •
r-1 r^ r
•H 'r1 !
^ ^ v^ '
Q) O
XI X1
U)
0 -P
P >i (/i G
>-i 4-1 rd
•5 rO i/r rH
O C O ft
rH -H O
44 g 03
•H r-l
*• ' — ' id G
W CJ 4-1 -H
rH rH O X
rd ft4J P
U -H
• H 4H 13 |5
F; O Q)
o; -P in
X P id G
O G C -H
QJ -H -P
13 4-1 4.) in
G X 01 -H
id CJ uj X
^1, 0
C <± • >,
(rt G • r>i
. ,3 Cd 0) rH
1-1 QJ rH .
4H - U id 10
O -P -r-l £ 'O
U) > J< H
>i-H QJ O rd
4-1 X 15 G 13
•H QJ G
rH -P QJ Id
•H W G iH P
,Q QJ O (d to
id > g
rH -H 4-1 X
•H P d O rt'
id rd O -H rj
> C r-l X H
id M 4-1 £ o
0) p,
in - P i3 in CQ
rO G rH G Q)
O O rd rd -H X
X -H -P -P
4J p tji r-H -H -H
(1) rd G O r-t 5
G (J -H iH -H
0 4J 4-i U tr>
P rH Q) C Id G
G P4 O 44 -H
?> W g U >i
k ij O Ql rH
P 0 13 W ft
r.! « QJ O ti
a !H QJ 4-i X; O
r4 O >H fS -P O
P 4-> CJ O
U X ->H Q) 44
4-1 (d £ 13 > o
u 4H :.% O
13 -H X! -P
W ,G CU rd rH
G O'-P CU 3
O 3 O X 13 W
.-i M QJ -P OJ OJ
1 ,, rH M H
fj X QJ -P -H
-IJ u in ft 3 id
3 ,-r, OJ D1
h d >i u GJ w
J-J -r| C7> U M Id
11 ' * O rd
J, G rH W 'd
• J O O 4-1 0)
'-. pj G -P W H
O 0 X O iH
"O 0 'O O rd
!'; GO) 4-1
,_; 4J J_i H I m
•'j n) -H rj i C
-,1 r P 3 4Ji,H
-il 0 G D' P.
ri (-; Q) CU C) G
G g k H «
r-l >,P 0) (:)
. ~ 1-4 Id W r-l X)
rj QJ C U
: i .> M O G O
4.) .H -H >
>-t -t-1 d
• ' a -.-:.>( x
- r 13 U H
QJ H C r-l
-,-; co P '4H O O
(.- ;-' rt H \
- '•: c; T3 O '0
r; O ',-> C h G
C- rj P R
-------
\s\lll\
soyiiai*
| 42600. r v k.
295
-------
296
-------
KODEL COST EFFECTIVENESS
BV-PRODUCT COKE
ALTERNATE, n (BIOLOGICAL.)
*AHNUAL COSTS 'BASED ON TEN YEAK. CAPITAL GECOVESiY
+ /MT£/eEST XATE 7%
+ OPS&AT/HG COSTS /NO.UDE (.ABOK, CHEMICALS4UTILITIES
+ MAINTENANCE. COSTS BASED OA/ 3.5% OF CAPITAL COSTS
THIS GKAPH CANNOT BE USED FOK. /NTEKnEOIATE VALUES
8ASeo «/v 2^//v MA/GAY (2.660 TO*//O*Y) COKE
/°£& CEN T £EM OVED
297
-------
MODEL COST Ef^ECT/VEMESS D/AG&A.M.
BY-PRODUCT COKE SUBCATEGOGY
ALTFRMATZ I • (PHYS/CAL / CHEM/CAL)
*
ANNUAL COSTS *& AS ED OH TEN VEAK. CAPITAL ££COV£K.Y
y- OPERATING COSTS /MCLUOE LA&OG, C#£M/CALS &UT/L/T/CS
+ MA/MTE.NANCE COSTS SAS£D ON 3.5 to Of CAPITAL COSTS
THIS GGAPH CAMNOT BE USS.D FaK /HTEZMEDIATE VALUES
*CO$T BASSO ON 2.*4m M&OAV (166O
/oo
REMOVED
298
-------
plants surveyed together averaged 417 1/kkg (100 gal/ton) of coke
produced. The fourth plant was diluting their efiluent with
contaminated final cooler water. Two of the four plants were disposing
of a portion of their wastes in coke quenching. Even if tnis practice
is disallowed, it can still be shown that the effluent can be reduced to
417 1/kkg (100 gal/ton) by employing internal recycle followed by
minimal blowdown on such systems as the barometric condenser and final
cooler waters. This is summarized as follows:
Waste ammonia liquor 104 1/kkg 25 gal/ton
Steam condensate 75 1/kkg 18 gal/ton
Benzol plant waste 125 1/kkg 30 gal/ton
Final cooler blowdown 84 1/kkg 20 gal/ton
Barometric condenser blowdown _2_9 1/kkg 5 gal/ton
TOTAL 417 1/kkg 100 gal/ton
The ELG's were therefore based on total effluent flows of 417 1/kkg (100
gal/ton) of product and concentrations of the various pollutant
parameters achievable by the indicated treatment technologies.
By-products plants operating vacuum carbonate type desulfurization
equipment will generate an additional 104 1/kkg (25 gal/ton) of waste
water as discussed previously in Section IX, under rationale for BPCTCA.
The effluent flow from these plants would be 521 1/kkg (1^5 gal/ton) of
coke produced, rather than the 417 1/kkg (100 gal/ton) shown above.
Phenol
The ELG is based on 0.5 mg/1 at a 417 1/kkg (100 gal/ton) discharge flow
rate. The one single stage biological treatment system sampled was
achieving 0.0639 mg/1 on the average. The plant is achieving this only
on the diluted wastes and some of the wastes are not treated. The
dilution is required at this facility to prevent ammonia from
interfering with the biological activity. If the waste were first
treated in free and fixed stills for ammonia removal as recommended
herein, dilution would not be required for this purpose. The routing of
all plant process waste waters through a proposed multistage biological
treatment facility can be expected to reduce the phenol waste load to
well within the ELG recommended. Pilot plant sized multi-stage systems
have been tested on by products coke plant wastes, and additional
testing and scale-up continues. Full scale operating single-stage
plants have shown consistently excellent phenol removals to well within
the proposed ELG. Physical/chemical treatment methods involve alkaline
chlorination, followed by carbon adsorption. Both of these techniques
involve transfer of technology, the former from a full scale operating
blast furnace (iron) subcategory plant within the iron and steel
industry and from the metal plating industry; the latter from full-scale
waste water treatment plants in the petrochemical industry. Either of
the alternate treatment methods can achieve the proposed BATEA
limitations for phenols.
299
-------
None of the plants surveyed were intentionally practicing cyanide
removal, except for some small reduction coincidental to stripping,
extraction and/or biological processes employed for ammonia ana phenol
removals. All resulting levels of total cyanide in the final treated
effluent were found to be excessive due to unifo£mly_ inadequate
application of treatment technology specific to cyanide removal.
However, within the iron and steel industry, cyanide removal is
practiced by at least one operating plant in the blast furnace (iron)
subcategory, and by many plating and finishing plants which will be
surveyed as part of the Phase II study of this industry. In addition,
the nonferrous metals industry routinely performs treatment for cyanide
destruction as part of their operations. For these reasons, the ELG for
cyanides is set at 0.25 mg/1 based on a total effluent flow of 413 1/kkg
(100 gal/ton) of coke produced. This limit is currently achieved at
operating plants outside the Ey Product Coke subcategory by
physical/chemical treatment methods as described in the phenol
discussion above. The biological treatment of cyanides will require
development to improve on currently achievable cyanide levels from
operating single-stage plants. A multi-stage biological treatment
system, including a stage containing biomasses specifications for
cyanide removal, appears capable of reaching the proposed BATEA
limitation for by product coke plant wastes by tne time these
limitations become effective. The technologies for accomplishing this
level of treatment are shown in Table 77.
Ammonia
Two of the four plants surveyed were practicing ammonia removal with
free and fixed stills, however, the resulting effluents (without
dilution) were 115 and 417 mg/1, respectively, with tne latter plant
judged to be inadequate with respect to the capability of this
technology. Furthermore, it becomes apparent that improved removals of
phenol and especially cyanide by the technologies indicated above will
self result in reductions of ammonia in the final effluent. Therefore,
because of the inter-relationships of treating for phenol and cyanide,
ammonia, will as a side effect of these other treatments be further
reduced to less than 10 mg/1. The ELG based on 10 rng/1 at 417 1/kkg
(100 gal/ton) is further supported by a preponderance of bench scale and
pilot studies for the treatment technologies shown in Table 77. The
biological treatment alternate will require additional development of
the type described in the cyanide discussion above to insure compliance
with the BATEA limitation for ammonia. Most ammonia removal will occur
during stripping operations prior to bio-oxidation.
BOD5
One of the plants surveyed was achieving an effluent BOD5 of 5 mg/1,
however, this was the particular plant utilizing an excess amount of
300
-------
final cooler water as a dilutant. The plant employing the biological
system for phenol removal was achieving 23 mg/1 BOD5 in the final
effluent even though the use of other treatment methods for reducing the
other waste parameters (which contribute to BOD5J were not being
utilized. Knowing that the primary contributors to BOD5 are phenol,
ammonia, cyanide, and oil and grease, it can readily be deduced that the
utilization of treatments for reductions of these constituents will in
turn reduce the BOD5 in like proportion. Having accomplished the
removals of these BOD5 contributors, a conservative engineering
judgement for the remaining BOD5 would be 20 mg/1. The ELG for BOD5 is
therefore based on 20 mg/1 at discharge flows of 417 1/kkg (100 gal/ton)
based on the inter-relationships of the known contributors and their
proposed reduction. This proposed reduction can be further demonstrated
on a chemical/mathematical basis by those skilled in the art of
biological reactions.
Oil_and_ Grease
Two of the four plants surveyed were achieving less than 3 mg/1 O & G,
however, the one plant was doing so by dilution with contaminated final
cooler water. In view of the oxidation methods which will be required
for removal of the other listed pollutants, the O & G will be reduced to
<10 mg/1 in the oxidizing environment proposed. Auxiliary control
technologies may be utilized to achieve this level as indicated in Table
77. The ELG for oil and grease for BATEA has been based on 10 mg/1 in
consideration of the testing problems discussed in Section IX.
Sulfide
Only one of the four plants surveyed was achieving a substantial sulfide
reduction to 0.26 mg/1 and this was being accomplished concurrently with
biological oxidation of phenols. Another plant was achieving 1.5 mg/1
sulfide, but by dilution. Since sulfide represents an immediate oxygen
demand upon the receiving stream, and since technology exists for
effective and inexpensive oxidation of sulfides, the remaining plants
surveyed were judged to be uniformly inadequate with respect to the
application of treatment technology for sulfide reduction. Therefore,
the ELG for sulfide was based on 0.3 mg/1 at 417 1/kxg (100 gal/ton).
These values are achievable by direct oxidation with air, chemicals or
biological techniques. At least one of these indicated removal
techniques will be employed for reduction of certain of the other listed
by-product pollutants. An example of applying one of the possible
transferred technology methods of sulfide reduction would be
chlorination of raw sewage in transit through sewer lines which is
regularly practiced to reduce sulfide to 0.3 mg/1 and less. Reduction
to the indicated ELG level is further substantiated by a proliferation
of bench scale studies performed with the technologies indicated in
Table 77.
Suspended Solids
301
-------
None of the plants surveyed were achieving removal of suspended solids
to 10 mg/1 except the one using excess dilution water. Nevertheless,
there is an abundance of engineering knowhow and experience that
demonstrates that suspended solids can be reduced to 10 mg/1 in a cost
effective manner. Therefore, all plants were judged -co be uniformly
iJ2§.d§9U§.i:§ with respect to the application of treatment technology for
suspended solids removal. The ELG for total suspended solids was based
at 10 mg/1 at 417 1/kkg (100 gal/ton). Table 77 lists some of the
available technologies for readily achieving this level.
EH
Three of the four plants surveyed fall within the pH constraint range of
6.0 to 9.0 thus providing a basis for establishing this range as the
BPCTCA. Any plant falling outside this range can readily remedy the
situation by applying appropriate neutralization procedures to his final
effluent. No further tightening of the BPCTCA pH range is recommended
at this time. The ELG for 3ATEA remains at pH 6.0 to 9.0, and is
currently achieved by operating plants in this subcategory.
Beehive coke Subcategory
Currently, two of the three selected beehive coke operations surveyed
practice zero (0) aqueous discharge. The recommended BATEA guidelines
are therefore no discharge of process waste water pollutants to
navigable waters, as previously set for BPCTCA limits in this
subcategory. The control and treatment technology required would
include provision for an adequate settling basin, and a complete recycle
of all water collected from the process back to the process, with fresh
water make-up as required. The system reaches equilibrium with respect
to critical parameters, but prevision must be made for periodic removal
of settled solids from the basin. Actual operating costs are modest.
No problems are anticipated in implementing BATEA guidelines for the
Beehive coke subcategory.
Sintering Subcategory
The only direct contact process water used in the sintering plant is
water used for cooling and scrubbing off gases from tne sintering
strand. As with steelmaking, there are wet and dry types of systems.
The sintering strand generally has two (2) independent exnaust systems,
the dedusting at discharge end of the machine and the combustion and
exhaust system for the sinter bed. Each one of these systems can either
be wet or dry as defined in the process flow diagrams types I, II, III,
shown as Figures 6, 7, and 8 respectively.
Generally the sinter bed exhaust systems are dry precipitation systems
with the dedusting exhaust systems split between wet ana dry.
302
-------
o
u o
E-i CJ
O
V4
Q)
W
O
CO
r-
W
9
<;
EH
W
2
H
1H1
W
Q
H
D
O
CO
2
O
H
EH
EH
H
S
H
EH
2
W
D
fa
tnl
U
^
W
EH
CQ
O
O
o
2
K
U
w
EH
EH
W
EH
^«
CD
O
CJ
CJ
•H
X!
0)
CQ
r-^
§
EH
•JS
jj}
§
EH
2
O
CJ
co
2
O
M
EH
r^I
EH
H
s
H
^< 1— 1
O <
O H
W EH
EH "^
*c£ CQ
CJ
m
D
CO
*"~*
v—
rH
CP
w
w.
cu
u
o
o.
4-J
o
cu
^ PQ
rH r-1
^_^
Cno
X 0
t^ o
'^X i — |
tJ1 ^v.
x m
d
i-l
id
0
01
•H
•d
o
"
o
01
4-1
rd
4-1
r-J
rH
rH
O
CU
O
-U
rd
*j
Q)
01
rd
5
r^J
•r-l
tJlrH
G
•H
T3
O
O
u
CO
J (X
rt; W
CJ EH
H W
£§
P^ OH
U <
^
a)
TJ
•H
c
rd
U
*
rH
0
C
0)
rG
ft
n
2
U)
rd
rd
•H
C
O
q
1
in
Q
O
a
Q)
•d
-H
rH
3
Grease
•d
c
rd
rH
•H
0
d Solids
0)
Td
G
G)
Q
3
o
o
0
rH
Vl
0)
O4
M
TU
C
3
O
a
^
0
•*
•d
0)
O
*3
•a
o
04
a)
y
O
U
44
o
G •
O "U
4J O
o
0 J
4-4
O
CJ1
f^4
fM
S-4
Q)
cu
4-1
G
C)
3
rH
MH
4-1
0)
CO
V-4
Q)
4-1
•H
rH
1^-
rH
^T
j-1
o •.
,_.
r.'t f|
0 O
• rt +>
'5 X.
Q r- 1
.^
5 i C
4-1
•H
W
O
o
rrj
S-l
O
0
>
• H
t/1
r^
rH
o
G
•H
rH
rH
rd
>,
rH
•H
^
rd
m
Ul
o
o
0)
G
JJ
O
G
M
-H
7 J
~>
1 1
l/j
•H
- J
^~i
•
01
rrj
o
rd
O
e
P
G
Q)
G
4->
rd
(U
>4
4-1
4-1
o
W
G
O
• H
4-1
id
4J
rj
g
M
rj
A
r4
O
01
G
O
•H
4 j
rd
G
-,H
n
c-i
O
U
(!)
of land and chemicals, flow
>i
4-1
•H
rH
•H
A
rd
, — |
•H
rd
>
(3
S.
G
O
•H
4-1
rd
U
0
rH
01
rd
U)
V4
0
4->
0
rd
4-1
£.
CJ
3
rrj
G
O
CT1
G
•H
'O
i_!
(L<
P-<
C)
TJ
Q)
VI
p~,
4-1
0
J)
0
4J
X
(J
T3
G
rd
4J
Ul
•H
X
0)
to
CD
>
• H
4J
rd
G
rj
0)
4-1
rH
rd
tn
G
•H
4-1
O
O,
R
0
CJ
0)
M
O
G
[5
T3
0)
4->
CJ
0)
rH
0)
01
>1
f>
G
<- i
O
C
^
"D
CJ
4->
4-
G
'')
4J
trr.ent devices. Estimated
rd
o
M
4-1
T)
G
rd
i — i
O
M
•P
G
O
U
rd
0)
4->
rd
CJ
•H
r^J
G
•rH
1
rH
rH
(d
I:
H
O
G
G)
M
rd
,-G
U
•H
A
J:
M
(D
•H
4J
•r-l
H
•H
O
rd
4-1
CJ
Ul
o
,G
4-1
0)
>
O
,Q
rd
•d
O
M
-H
3
D'
(!)
Vi
CO
4J
n
O
o
, — ;
id
-|J
G
CJ
jf'-
o
,rj
N^
. ^
G
O
•)
*
M
(d
•d
c
'd
CJ
[H
CJ
ft
m
r;
t_n
a
^>,
rH
Oi
e
o
0
m
o
4->
r-\
"3
(!}
0)
!H
nl
01
01
rrj
a
rH
rH
rd
lJ
rQ
G
•H
G
fl)
CJ
A
o
>
n(
a
0
X.
" j
G
.J
u
G
-------
r-
t
tf
*
n
f
— \
1
3-
, ^*«j«(«< O
I
1
n
0
CJ
0
<
2
?r?r i
-OOlff n
flOf • ^
00 IM
o<
f -
0 f
s£;
°«>22o: ?
5o<»? 0
50>I3IJ
-------
738
Mooet. cosj- BF/*ecT' w*/ess
24,5*7
ANNUAL COSJ-S - BASSO o/V fff/V Y&Af* <=AF*tJ-AL.
y. iNTeatfr /R^e j»/0
•f- opeBA7/M& COSTS iMCLVotLABo
COST'S BASSO OA/3.Stf> Of CAPITAL COSTS
FOR /MTeKM£OlAT& VA.L.UCG
COST BASED OA/ ttS KK*lt>*y (tSO T6*//o+y)
too
305
-------
w o
EH U
O
•s.
O
l<
\
tn
w
H
r4
M
Q
H
D
O
CO
O
H
H
s
t-3 w
§
s
M
D
fa
W
W
EH
P4
tn
(U
4J
C
•H
O
o
w
EH
O
pa
en
r^ K
< W
U EH
M W
M §
S K
O <
o
o
en
vo
O
to
,^_%
ro
^*
c ^
o
i-^
o
*T*
O
W
EH
EH
W
^i
i
EH
*
ro
in o .
C-4 rH O
e^
H
M
^-*.
— CQ
0
< X 0
PQ X 0
^s. <"H
Cn^x
X ra
1 1
—
vo
CO rH O
in
3
QJ
£
0
en
1
o
«
VD
r^
^! tn
£j
M -H
Q) rH
a, o
o
4J U
QJ 4-1
3 U
rH id
l| J ^J
4H C
QJ O
U
W
n c;
QJ O
-P C
-rH
rH rH
rH
en (d
0
CN tn
C
Ul -H
•H -a
g3
0) U
•P X
01 QJ
r^l^^
CO --.
-P O
^! 4J
-H rH
4-> rd
tn
O o
MH in
•*^s
p
QJ O
rH M
Q pj
frj
Q V)
O Q)
VH 4-1
PJ C ---
•H M
4-1 01 O
W 4J
O 4H id
g; O 5
CO
T3
•H
C
QJ
PJ
01
3
CO
•a QJ
C t3
rd -H
4n
•H
O
3
CO
QJ
•H
0
rH
0)
rH
X!
• -r-l
'O • in
QJ ^~~ W
o c. o
3 0 CU
•a 4-)
O ^x. ( — 1
M rH rH
d rd ra
tr>
M 4J
tt) o O
4-> in QJ
C -— rH
•r\ >O 4-1
0) Q) Q) '
0 VH
•44 3
O 'U 4J
O -H
W M
•o PJ w
C 0
3 VH O
o G> ti
pj-p
K -H
O -H O
o M r;
o
rH 4H QJ
o >
M -H
OJ tn 01
PJ,* 3
,M rH
w u
•O r4 C
rt Q) -H
3 a
0 r-) .
PJ 4-1 rH 00
C rj 1}
54 O O
O 3 >,,c
rH H -P
- 4-1 -H Q)
•d lu M g
QJ QJ (d
U 0) 4-1
3 W vi C
t5 i-( 'li
O 0) 0 ^
M 4-1 Q) 4->
CJ-H C ro
r-H r;
M -P y;
QJ en O 4'
-pot;
O >!
4-1 M
id id
? c w
o -H P f:
rH G in -H
4H -rH O .C
r-H U 4J
- QJ -rH
01 *4 rH £
rH D. Id
id 4-i tn
U 4n O C
•H O 4-> -H
g 4J
Q) 4-1 ro in
,c a QJ -H
U (L> 4-1 X
4-1 (d QJ
•a x g
C (U -rH >1
Id 4-> r-H
13 W rH
•a a w id •
C rd g CO
id M rO
rH - • O rH
4-) 01 C i a> > rd 4-i
-P QJ 01
•H tn TJ A
rH QJ O <£
-H > -p -rH CJ
X! -H a x: EH
id -P QJ 5 o
rH rd g fi.
•H C 4-1 CO (H
rd S-( rd QJ
> (U QJ -H j;
itj 4-) J-| \ 1 4-J
r-H 4J -rH -rH
••id rHj >
C 13 -H
o tj> c; u tn
•H C rd id S
4-1 -H 4H -H
Id 4-1 rH >,
U QJ O QJ rH
O O, M W P<
•H ^ 4-1 0 g
o c f: o
CO O O 4-J O
rd U
(U QJ 4H
01 J j 13 > O
rH 0 QJ 0
O .C 4J £> 4J
O "" U 3
(d rd -rH 13 w
1 -I o T3 Q) C rH H
.^ U -H -H
O (I) 3 /d
3 rH QJ tjl
•Jl i'J X Q) 01
i/. 4J ^4 al
^
O :>i -P in fO
a. 4-> QJ
O QJ W rH
C .-H U O rH
-r-i O O O rd
5
306
-------
* {
V V V
L_
13OO
¥
CL. *0f>CTCA
DEL
!H*
wi?:
I-
-------
74 B
COS/"
- BASSO &f*J JEH YEAR. CAf/fAL
+ INJBR&SJ RAJS. 7%
-/- OPEIZAJING COSJ5 INCLUDE
4 MA/MJ-EMAMCE COSJ-S OASecs
THIS (J&AF>f-l CANNOT &£
* COST BASCO
3.5% of CAPIJAL CoSf5
2-104
(29BO T0H/DAY)
100
308
-------
Three sintering plants were visited, but two of the three systems were
deleted from the comparison. These two systems were deleted due to the
intricate wastewater treatment system which was utilized not only for
the sinter plant but for the blast furnace as well which maae separate
identification of unit raw waste and unit effluent loads from the
sintering operation obscure.
The last sintering plant had wet scrubber systems for both the dedusting
and sinter bed exhaust systems. The wastewater treatment system was
comprised of a classifier and thickener with recirculation of a portion
of the thickener overflow with the difference going to blowdown.
Underflow was filtered through vacuum filters.
For the one plant considered under this study, the flow was 475 1/kkg
(114 gal/ton) of sinter produced. This value, however, represents a
blowdown equivalent to approximately 33% of the process recycle flow of
341 gal/ton. Therefore, the magnitude of the effluent flow was
considered un_if.orm^y_ inadequate, since simply tightening up the recycle
loop can reduce the effluent discharge by more than 50 percent. In
doing this, more attention may have to be paid to control of heat
buildup and scaling and/or corrosive conditions in the recycle system.
The ELG's were therefore based on 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) of product and
concentrations of the various pollutant parameters achievable by the
indicated treatment technologies. This proposed 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton)
is identical to the effluent flow limitations actually found (under this
study) for the Open Hearth and EOF gas scrubber recycle systems, thus
the technology exchange to a sinter plant should be readily
transferable, since the type of recycle system and many of tne aqueous
contaminants are identical.
After reviewing the laboratory analyses, the critical parameters were
established as suspended solids, oils and grease, sulfides, fluoride, pH
and the resulting ELG's set as follows:
Susp_ended_Solids
The one plant studied showed 9 mg/1 total suspended solids in the final
effluent, although this concentration was found in the excessive flow of
475 1/kkg (114 gal/ton) discussed above. This concentration based on
209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) flows would be equivalent to 21 mg/1. This
excellent reduction can apparently be credited to the presence of
substantial oil in the raw waste which tends to act as a mucilage on the
suspended solids. Similar phenomena have long been known to be
responsible for enhancing removal of fine suspended solids in deep bed
sand filters. The ELG for total suspended solids was therefore based on
25 mg/1 at flows of 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) based on measured performance
values. The technologies for achieving this are as shown in Table 79.
Oil and Grease
309
-------
The one plant surveyed was discharging 1.0 mg/1 oil and grease at 475
1/kkg (114 gal/ton), which is equivalent to <3 mg/1 oil and grease on a
209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) basis. The ELG for oil and grease for BATEA has
been set at 10 mg/1 based on a total effluent flow of 209 1/kkg (50
gal/ton) of sintered product. Sampling and analysis techniques
currently available mitigate against lowering this standard at this
time.
Sulfide
Appreciable sulfide (11 mg/1) was found in the final effluent of the
plant surveyed. No reduction was being practiced and therefore this
plant was judged to be inadequate with respect to the application of
cost effective treatment technology available for sulfide removal.
Therefore, the ELG for sulfide was based on 0.3 mg/1 at 50 gal/ton based
on values achievable by chemical or air oxidation techniques as
described in the BATEA limitations discussed above for By Product Coke
plants.
Fluoride
For the one plant studied, fluoride was found to be present in the final
effluent at 8.5 mg/1. Since substantial At a flow of 475 1/kkg (114
gal/ton) , equivalent to 19 mg/1 F based on a discharge flow of 209 1/kkg
(50 gal/ton) . Since substantial fluoride may enter the sintering
process from the reuse of steelmaking fines, a standard should be set
for the final treated effluent even though in this particular instance
the fluoride level was down to values considered to be £>est available
treatment. The BATEA guideline is based on flows of 20 mg/1 at 209
1/kkg (50 gal/ton). These values represent the effluent quality
attainable through application of treatments including lime
precipitation of fluoride, followed by sedimentation for removal of
suspended matter. These technologies are currently practiced in a
number of raw water treating plants and are readily transferable to
wastewater treatment in the steel industry.
EH
For the one plant studied, the pH was found to be 12.7 in the final
effluent, apparently due to the use of lime fluxing agents in the
sintering process. Although the presence of lime in tiie process water
enhances removal of fluorides, pH levels in this range would definitely
have to be classed as detrimental. Appropriate neutralization
procedures would have to be applied to attain the pH range required by
BPCTCA limitations. No further tightening of the BPCTCA pH range is
recommended at this time. The ELG for BATEA remains at pH 6.0 to 9.0.
Blast Furnace,Jlron) Subcateggry
310
-------
Waste treatment practices in blast furnace (iron) plants center
primarily around removal of suspended solids from the contaminated gas
scrubber waters. In past practice, little attention is paid to
treatment for other aqueous pollutants in the discharge. Water
conservation is practiced in many plants by employing recycle systems.
Three of the four plants surveyed were practicing tight recycle with
minimum blowdown. Discharges from these three plants averaged
approximately 417 1/kkg (100 gal/ton) of iron produced. The ELG's for
BATEA were therefore established conservatively on tne basis of 521
1/kkg (125 gal/ton) of product and concentrations of the various
pollutant parameters achievable by the indicated treatment technologies.
All three blast furnace (iron) plants which practice recycle ao achieve
this recommended discharge flow. The fourth plant surveyed was running
close to a once-through system and was judged inadequate with respect to
water conservation, since blast furnace recycle is a well established
art.
Only one of the blast furnace (iron) plants surveyed was practicing
cyanide removal, via alkaline chlorination of the total discnarge flow,
yielding a cyanide concentration in the effluent of 0.005 mg/1 in a flow
of 22,520 1/kkg (5400 gal/ton) of iron produced. This same cyanide load
estimated on a 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton) flow from a recycle system is
equivalent to 0.216 mg/1. Therefore, the ELG for cyanide is set at 0.25
mg/1, based on a total discharge flow cf 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton) of iron
produced. conversion of the once-through system to a recycle system is
expected to increase chances for achievement of the BATEA limitation.
Phenol
Two of the three blast furnace (iron) recycle systems were attaining
very low phenol concentrations in their discharge flows, equivalent to
0.03 and 0.01 mg/1 based on flows of 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton). The once-
through system was attaining an equivalent concentration of 0.6 mg/1 at
521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton). Therefore, the ELG for phenol is set at 0.5
mg/1, based on a total discharge flow of 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton) of iron
produced, utilizing technology currently practiced in the blast furnace
(iron) subcategory.
Ammonia
None of the three blast furnace (iron) recycle systems surveyed were
attaining less than 75 mg/1 of ammonia in the effluent. Only the once-
through system, utilizing alkaline chlorination, attained low ammonia
levels of 0.84 mg/1 in 22,520 i/kkg (5400 gal/ton), equivalent to 36
mg/1 based on a flow of 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton). This system can be
upgraded by providing a recycle loop, improved alkaline chlorination
treatment of the blowdown, filtration and carbon adsorption to provide a
311
-------
Q t/)
W O
EH CJ
EH EH
W O
W EH
O!
CM
O
r~-
CM
o
X
o
CO
W
vJ
PQ
•5
EH
CO
PJ
Z
H
r^
W
Q
H
D
C3
2
o
M
£-4
ri^
EH
H
5^
H
^
EH
W
D
ff.
CL,
M
I
rt*
W
H
PQ
£
o
H
O
rd
C
SH
PH
4-1
tn
fO
1 — 1
CQ
^*
oi
o
o
W
f3\
U
CQ
C/3
^
o
H
EH
EH
H
S
H
l •]
r^
W
EH
PQ
ro
(J
O
O
K
O
W
EH
EH
Z
W
s:
EH
'-C
§
^
tfl
1-1
O
A
EH
?:
o
CJ
^-^
CNJ
*— '
rH
\
en
&
^^,
^ PQ
•*-*
tJiO
X 0
X O
V^ ,_)
CP\
f4
f
tn
a
•rH
rH
o
0
0
•• UH
tn o
rH 4-1
p) (^
a)
rtj g
O -P
EH (d
u a)
r-H ^H
05 EH
/
in
CM
o •
rH 0
ro
CM rH
LO O
O O
o o
o o
• •
fd
•H
£>
c
^5
O
O
rH
X}
JH
0)
0
EH
in
•
o
^o
CM
O
O
O
C
c
o
•H
4-1
rd
C
•H
SH
O
rH
U
0)
c
•rH
rH
(0
rH
r^
A
o
rH
CM
in
o
o
o
C
O
•H
4-1
rd
^4
-P
rH
•H
fri
a)
SH
rj
to
W
Q)
SH
ro
•
o
U3
rH
O
o
O
O
t
f^
O
•H
4J
Oj
^
o
tn
ra
rd
c
o
X!
rd
U
o
CM
^3*
O
rH
O
O
c
o
•H
-P
rd
M
•rH
rH
rd
J^
4-1
3
G)
C
j-rj
a
•N
0
•
en
1
o
•
vo
SH
O
Oi-P
o
C 4-1
4) fl
3 O
rH U
UH |
MH C
0) O
a
in
SH rH
01 rH
4-> rd
•H
rH tn
r^
CM -rH
CM 13
in 3
rH
tn u
•rH X
0)
g ,
a)
tn tH
t>i O
W -P
S.
-P rH
.C rd
\O< tT'
•H
4-> in
CM
M rH
o —
4_l
•a
Q) 0)
3 O
| j r-j
rd 13
> O --
SH •
0 a SH
rH CJ
X! 0 4-1
rd X rd
X3 O S
O U
SH en
CU MH C
O -rl
-P rH
W in o
O V O
S i; o
[TICAL
-y
CJ
m
T3
•H
H
0
W
\METE RS
S
TJ
CJ
T)
CJ
in
w
0)
c
rd
^•i
O
X
rH
O
C
CJ
Oi
fd
•H
c
o
P
^
n;
•d
'— I
Z
CD
s<
o
7J
,H
312
•
, —
c
• o
T) 4-J
CD X. rH
U rH H
3 rd d
T3 tn
0 -M
SH in O
OiCM 0)
rH rH
C — MH
O O -
SH 13 SH
•rH CJ
O 4J
<4H 3 -H
0 TJ
O W
W SH 0)
n a, o
C t)
3 C
O O VH
Oi SH O
•H C
O
0 44 Q)
0 O > •
rH -H (jl
tn tn "j
SH .^ 3 0
C) ^ rH ,d
ft O '->
S-l Ci OJ
yi Q) -H K
rQ p(
C rH 4J
3 4-1 rH C
0 C id cj
a a) ,1
3 >i-P
SH rH rH re)
O MH -H ti)
- 0) rd 4J
•d tn
u tn tn MH
U SH a) 0
3 0) U
'd 4-> (D to
0 -H C d
SH rH O
a -u -H
CM O 4 1
£ CM G "1
O m -P
•H c -H ;-;
O M
'W Tj '
o -d o e
CJ 4-1
fl UJ (.1 SH
O rd -H O
4-1 rQ ' — I
W
U S4 N C
•H d) tr> O
S4 4-1 O H
4-1 -H rH J 1
C) rH O r-J
F- rH C]
SH X. -H
SH O u .q
CJ Oi O ::
PJ 4-J O
tn u
w 6 fi
g rd rH I ;
id SH ,O r-H
S-J tT1 r-J Xl
t/l-rH rH '|H
O rH -rH I/.
"H i — ' '3 (f.
• H -j-j > O
\^t . -i f^i, Q
S
O 1
rH Q)
di QJ T3
-P >i SH
to H-H rd rH rd
'H O f: rH IT!
M -H rd C
O 4-1 4-1 g fd
•H q tn SH 4J
i: O f J O W
1) 4J C
d X <
U CJ -(DO
tn SH EH
T! t3 CJ rd CJ
a q u CM
rd id -H £! PQ
> U
tJ » S
x q to
'u a) cj a) tn
0 C -H C
W P 4-1 -H
>1 ,
4-1 > 01 rH rH
•H -H SH -H O,
rH -P 4-1 O g
•M fd rd O
T R T) «H U
rd SH C
rH GJ (d 0) 4H
•H 4-) tn o
Ij rH rH O
> rd O A H-l
rd SH 4-) -H
tj^ 4-1 3
•* n c Q) tn
r: -H o > a)
0 4-1 0 O rH
•H i dO
in O (D >
fl 0 P g rd
O r-l 0} fi
2 "° M
r: x: SH c o
-. 1 d -H -rHIX
•C' i C
D Q) rH Id
CU-H SH C
o r: o 4J
ro - 1 to c
H C, 0 rd
i J O SH rH
cu "d -r-i fd a,
'r, o 4-1
O S I U ^
•HOC
>( - 14H ^ --H
Sj ^j -H tn xj
-3 (!) T) 4-1
> 4-) o tn -H
i • g 4-1 5
r>i ^ * tn
r-l n >i O tn
L. '.-> SH 0 C
rd *H
W C) C; rH -P
Ti J") H rd tn
l ! f; -P -H
r. 0 H O X
O 4-1 .H 4J (!)
PQ
T)
O
a)
a
o
rd
O
-P
XI
(d
C
0)
t/i
a)
•a
•rH
C
fd
>i
U
*
-------
i
0
s
4
-------
MODEL COST EFFECTIVENESS
BLAST FU/ZNACE (tKON) SUBCATEGO/ZY
ANNUAL
COSTS -- BASED OM TEN YEAR.
+ /HTEKEST S?AT£ 7 °/*>
CAPITAL, &ECOVEKY
+ MAINTENANCE COSTS BASED ON 3. 5 % Of CAPITAL COSTS
THIS GKAPH CANNOT BE USED FOK. /KTER MEDIATE VALUES
*CA$T 0A«j> OM 299$ Xt<&/t>Ay (3300
1,141 >
too
314
-------
lower final ammonia concentration. Therefore, the ELG tor ammonia is
set at 10 mg/1, based on a discharge flow of 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton) of
iron produced, utilizing technology currently practiced in the blast
furnace (iron) subcategory modified by additional technology transferred
from the petrochemical industry.
Sulfur
None of the four plants surveyed was attaining adequate sulfide levels,
although the plant utilizing alkaline chlorination was discharging a
concentration of 0.043 mg/1 in the once-through system, equivalent to
1.86 mg/1 in 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton). The improvements to this system
described previously under Ammonia can serve to drive sulfide removals
significantly further. Therefore, the ELG for sulfide is set at 0.3
mg/1 based on a discharge flow of 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ ton) of iron
produced, utilizing the technology described above.
Suspended Solids
Only the once-through system was achieving acceptable suspended solids
concentrations in the effluent, although in terms of load, this system
was discharging excessive solids. An abundance of technology exists for
reducing suspended solids in a cost effective manner. For this reason,
and for insuring the efficient operation of the carbon adsorption
equipment referred to above, an ELG for suspended solids of 10 mg/1
based on a discharge flow of 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton) of iron is
proposed, utilizing existing technology for solids removal.
Fluoride
Since substantial quantities of fluoride may occur in certain raw
materials used in blast furnace (iron) operations, a limitation on this
parameter is desirable. All four operating plants surveyed showed
equivalent concentrations of fluoride ranging between 8.4 and 22.6 mg/1
based on discharge flows of 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton) . Even though these
plants show fluoride levels approaching BATEA, an ELG is set at 20 mg/1
based on a total discharge flow of 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton) of iron
produced to provide control over plants which may show higher raw waste
fluoride concentrations. The lime precipitation and sedimentation
treatment referred to above in discussing sintering plants is the
treatment technology of choice.
All four plants surveyed discharge effluents well within tne BATEA pH
range recommended elsewhere. In the event that lime precipitation of
fluorides is required, the effluent pH may have to be adjusted with acid
addition to remain within the desired 6.0 to 9.0 pH range.
Blast Furnace ^Ferromanganese) _ Subcategory
315
-------
Only one operating ferro-manganese furnace was found for the survey.
The one plant surveyed was operating on a close to once-through basis of
23,770 1/kkg (5700 gal/ton) of ferro-manganese produced. This flow
would have to be considered uniforrnly_ inadequate since tnere is no
reason precluding running a recycle system identical to that of the iron
producing blast furnaces, except that a blowdown rate of 1043 1/kkg (250
gal/ton) is recommended for the reasons discussed in section IX.
BATEA limitations proposed for the blast furnace (iron) subcategory are
applicable to blast furnace (ferromanganese) plants, except that the
higher flow rates do provide for discharge of twice the load from the
latter. All of the treatment and control technologies described above
for achieving blast furnace (iron) BATEA limitations are applicable to
blast furnace (ferromanganese) plants, with one exception. Raw waste
loads for ferromanganese operations indicate that fluoride loads are
relatively minor, and therefore do not require control. However, a high
load of manganese results from this process, and must be controlled by
the treatment technology. Since ir.ost of the manganese is in the
suspended solid form, it is effectively removed with the suspended
solids, as described above.
The ELG for all parameters to be controlled by application of BATEA for
blast furnace (ferromanganese) plants is summarized as follows: cyanide
0.25 mg/1; phenol 0.5 mg/1; ammonia 10 mg/1; sulfide 0.3 mg/1; suspended
solids 10 mg/1; and manganese 5 mg/1. All concentrations are based on a
total effluent flow of 1,043 1/kkg (250 gal/ton).
Basic Oxygen_Fu_rnaceOperation
The only direct contact process water used in the EOF plant is the water
used for cooling and scrubbing the off gases from the furnaces. Two
methods which are employed and can result in an aqueous discharge are
the semi-wet gas cleaning and wet gas cleaning systems as defined in
Types II, III, IV and V on Figures 17 through 20, inclusive.
B§sic_Oxy^en_Furnace (Semi Wet Air_Pollution Control
Met ho d s} § u be at ego r y
The two semi-wet systems surveyed had different types of wastewater
treatment systems. The first system was comprised of a drag link
conveyor, settling tank, chemical flocculation and complete recycle pump
system to return the clarified treated effluent to the gas cleaning
system. Make-up water was added to compensate for the evaporative water
loss and the system had zero (0) aqueous discharge of blowdown. The
second semi-wet system was comprised of a thickener with polyelectrolyte
addition followed by direct discharge to the plant sewers on a "once-
through" basis.
Because of the nature of these semi-wet systems, direct blowdown is not
required when recycle is employed. The systems are kept in equilibrium
316
-------
rr
EH
Q
H O
EH O
o
.H
rH
CO
w
9
*~N
EH
W
W
H
W
Q
H
D
W
O
H
~j
EH
H
s
H
^
EH
W
D
fr,
Cn
W
1
!<
W
rtl
CQ
0)
C
id
G
id
g
o
rH
CU
cu
o
rd
C
^4
iS
4-1
to
id
rH
CO
^
p^
o
o
w
u
PQ
p
10
W
O
_A_
co
2;
O
*f_4
V^
EH
^
H
*""*
W
EH
CQ
0
s
o
?:
K
o
w
EH
EH
W
EH
1
(•3
j
o
rj
^
CJ
OJ
^^
1
\
tr
^ a7
tno
« o
?*H O
tnX,
v^ (H
•X)
g
0)
4J
to
r>1
CO
CO O
3
rH 4-1
ft G
OJ
G
^
O
13
O
iH
&
in
o
CN
m
o
o
o
o
t
(^
0
•H
4->
id
G
•H
SH
0
rH
x;
u
0)
£j
•H
rH
id
y
rH
<2
o
^H
o
rH
O
o
•
c
0
•rH
4J
id
M
4->
rH
-.H
UH
o
3
tn
CO
cu
PI
n
o
rH
ro
o
o
o
o
•
G
O
•H
4J
ft
O
CO
13
rd
G
O
X!
Vl
id
O
in
CN
in
o
o
o
C
O
•H
4->
id
N
•H
rH
id
)H
4-1
Q)
G
K
ft
o
•
CTl
1
O
,0
tn
^
Vl
0)
a,
CO
^
0)
4-1
•H
H
ro
«^
O
•H
CO
g
Q)
4J
01
r>1
to
4->
x:
en
•H
4J
S_l
o
(U
iH
id
XI
p
ft
4-1
CO
rH
, — |
n3
tn
C
•rH
13
3
rH
O
cu
— *
„ — fc
G
0
-P
\
rH
id
tn
o
in
CN
* — •
13
0)
0
o
SH
ft
ru
CO
r-j
!-• b
-r -t
H - Q.I
C
o
-p
rH
id
tn
0
m
CN
* —
13
•H
CO
rH
U
G
•H
rH
rH
rd
>l
, — 1
•H
Vl
rd
CO
to
01
u
o
c
-p
o
G
CO
•H
13
CJ
4-1
CO
•rH
rH
^
tn
O
iH
O
c
_J^
u
OJ
4-1
0)
r-l
X!
rd
r-H
,_{
d
£>
rd
•>
G
O
•H
CJ
0
O
rH
CO
(d
M
r-l
O
+J
o
rd
4H
' •
'o
^3
m
c;
o
tn
cj
•rH
•^
v ;
r)
Pj
O
ro
«
j-
O
0)
X1
!u
rO
r ;
,^
n
4J
d
C
CJ
extent of pr
Estimated
't!
G
id
«.
4-1
CO
-rl
^
0)
CO
OJ
•rH
-P
rd
r:
v_(
OJ
4J
r-l
rd
tn
G
•rH
-P
OJ
QJ
g
0
o
o
^
n
^
>
13
o
4J
O
rj
j — I
(!)
M
^x,
r^i
O
r- 1
o
C
_f_J
o
1)
^ J
4J
C
9-
4-J
rri
O
M
4J
^
•d
o
4J
rl
OJ
^
p
'D
• ^
O
4->
CO
OJ
u
-H
£>
OJ
rO
4J
r^J
OJ
g
4-1
id
0
V4
4J
13
G
rd
rH
0
JL|
G
O
O
13
OJ
4-1
rd
U
-rl
•-a
G
-rH
tt)
x:
4J
4J
QJ
O
u
0
id
0
TJ
OJ
!H
•H
73
D4
0)
VI
(/I
J^
O
•rl
; J
rd
O
-rH
U4
-rH
T)
0
R
^"~1
}. J
r3
d
, ^
g
H
rH
rH
rH
rd
g
O
G
VH
id
x;
u
•H
r^
^5
tn
0)
-H
P
•rH
rH
•H
O
rd
MH
0)
CO
O
x;
4-1
0)
J>
o
•9
13
Q)
SH
•rH
3
D1
OJ
VH
CO
-P
CO
0
U
iH
rd
4J
G
OJ
g
0)
^
O
G
•rH
J>(
rH
C
O
<1)
M
id
G
*j
o
x:
CO
CO
4J
CO
O
U
rH
id
4-1
O
4-1
CA Standards
EH
U
Oi
P4
jTj
-P
•H
^
tn
C
•H
S^
rH
ft
g
O
U
4-(
O
4-)
rH
P
CO
0)
rd
en
id
13
(U
•H
rH
id
4J
tn
G
•H
C
(U
XI
cu
rd
x;
V|
o
X
•a
a
id
4J
c
id
rH
ft
id
£j
•H
A
4-1
-H
^5
tn
G
rH
4-1
tn
H
X
cu
O
rH
U,
P3
13
O
XI
4J
CD
CN
I
O
CN
Q
^
EH
0)
O
a
OJ
H
0)
14
a
o
•H
4J
nJ
r,
•H
M
O
r-l
x:
u
o
4-1
X!
rd
a
OJ
rd
to
o
T)
•H
d
u
317
-------
iu
>«
GUKE
u
i
318
-------
FIGURC
CO^T
BLAST PlWVJA.Ce
OK)
7%
ow
CBAPH CAVJUOT t* UStD FOB. IVJTKRMCDtATe
COST SAseo tf/v 7*/v ^vft/o*/ (620 re/v/oA/)
c
( BA.TKA)
«K3
IOO
PBRCfrOT
319
-------
CN
CO
ca
CO
U
H
W
Q
H
D
O
CO
2:
o
H
EH
H
W
D
i-J
PM
W
I
W
U)
T3
O
-P
a
-P
G
0
G
O
O
04
4J
0)
I
•H
0)
0)
O
(0
G
M
3
CM
G
0)
X
O
o
•H
CO
fO
CQ |
§
O
W
EH
U
P
CO
-" £-t
Q CO
U O
EH U
3*
W 0
W EH
o
Q)
o
o
0
7,
x
o
w
EH
EH
2
W
S
EH
g
EH
r^
O
EH
O
O
CN
*~*
rH
CO \
2 tr
0 g
H
EH
O
W -P
. w
(I) CO
0 4J
O G
r4 <0
a-p
EH 3
H 44 rH
S O rH
in 0
^ cu a
*^ *-* CQ
W rH J
EH 3 M
g (JIO
X 0
&n\<
54 CQ
VH
tr*
>H Vl
tO 0)
X! 4J
U tO
CO S
•H 0)
*d 4-i
CO
O (0
o
EH
U
in
(0
Q)
g
tfl
CO
1
Tj
3 tn
rH C
0 •*
X rH
tn-P
(0 G tO
G -H S
U)
13
•rl
rH
O
co
CRITICAL
PARAMETERS
Suspended
Fluoride
B
K rH
Dw tj
D
o
TS 4->
G W -P
a -H G •
X O .
rO 0) g •
C P
(0 CO tj
rH (1) O I
44 -H ,P
O 4J
> 4J
a.X
'-,
(_(
O
W
r:
i O
•rj
Jj
rj
G
•H
rl
7^
6
u
o>
rH
^Q
'H
en
co
O
a
a
o
T3
Q)
£
O
CO
^,
J_J
tO
J>
>1
(0
c
1.0
-p
CO
0
CJ
IT)
11)
V-i
4-'
^
T)
(D
-P
^
CJ
^-i
4J
(U
XI
c
P
**
b
rH
UH
4J
ffj
U
•(-^
4 )
-rH
Tl
O
cJ
^T
'..;
£
•H
fl
•c-t
rH
Cl
^-1
o.
t;^
0
d u
320
-------
r
J
•
o
1 I
in 4 a.
* 0 A
« 0 J"
^ * 1!
i
S '
1
1
1
_to *u
^^
«,«• * A
ffej
"""I c«*- -
1 * "*
T-J i* >
O tk. >
3SrS
>- •
1 1
* —
'$1
itjtJ
j. v \j i •
* J* M *5
i|2^
til*«
5*^
i >TO
3. »*
lit V
<
f~
r*
dl
3
a
—
f
^
•
^ 1—
0 T
/
i
1
£ A
** t
*r ? I
I
321
-------
F\GUEE
MODEL CO«JT
BASIC C>XYG.EN
CS*Ml-*llT *"» POLLUTION COfslTSoi- METHODS) .
COST^- BASED OU T6.K) YftAE CAPITAL KftCOVtRV
+ IUT6R.EST BATE 7V»
+ OPEBKTHOd COSTS (UCLUDlklG L«SOK,CHEM>ClvLS * UTIUTIt«7
+ MA.I»JTEtO*,K)Ce CO«iT^ RA«tD OU ^.S y« OF CAPITAL COST<>
THIS GgftyPM CAyMUOT BE USED FOB |toTERMfeOI^T6
BASSO OM v^/9 **«>lt>*y (vtfflo re>/v/oAy) Bof
too
PKBCKkJT
322
-------
by water losses to the sludge and to entrainmer.t carry-over into the hot
gas stream. Most new wet EOF systems are designed in this manner.
Therefore, the BATEA for this operation has been established as no dis-
charge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable waters. This
requirement had previously been set as BPCTCA limitations for this
subcategory.
Basic_gx^gen_Furnace (Wet_Air_£gllutiori_Control_Methodsj Sujgcateggry
The three EOF wet systems surveyed were generally of the same type and
included classifiers and thickeners with recirculation of a portion of
the clarifier effluent. The blowdcwn rates were 33, 52, and 217 gallons
per ton of steel produced, respectively, with the latter system
discharging in excess of the blowdown normally required for recycle
systems of this type. The ELG's were therefore established on the basis
of discharge flows of 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) of product and
concentrations of the various pollutant parameters achievable by the
indicated treatment technologies. A review of the data collected from
the survey resulted in the following effluent guidelines;
Solids
The effluent suspended solids were 22, UO, and 71 mg/1, respectively,
for the three plants surveyed. The first two of these concentrations
are equivalent to 23 and 26 mg/1 at the recommended flow of 209 1/kkg
(50 gal/ton), so the ELG for suspended solids is set at 25 mg/1 based on
a total discharge flow of 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton). As indicated under
discussion of blast furnaces, the technology is well established for
reducing iron-laden suspended solids to less than 25 mg/1 with the use
of chemical and/ or magnetic flocculation. This technology is currently
utilized within this subcategory.
Fluoride
Fluoride was only measured at one of the three EOF wet systems surveyed
and was found to be 14 mg/1, equivalent to 63 mg/1 based on a total
discharge flow of 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton). As discussed under sinter
plants, fluoride is a normal by-product of steelmaking where fluoride-
containing fluxes are employed and as a result shows up in the sinter
plant effluent and blast furnace effluent due to the recycle and reuse
of steelmaking fines. The BATEA guideline for fluoride has been based
on 20 mg/1 at 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) for the reasons discussed above in
the sintering subcategory. This value represents the effluent quality
attainable by the application of the best available method of treatment
for removal of fluorides, i.e. lime precipitation followed by
sedimentation for particulate removal. This technology is currently
practiced in a number of raw water treating plants and is readily
transferable to wastewater treatment in the steel industry.
EH
323
-------
00
W
ii
en
w
2
H
t-3
W
Q
H
D
CD
en
ra
o
H
EH
E~*
M
**4
H
ET*
*3
w
D
fn
EM
W
1
f£
W
EH
«
•""^ X-'
•o- O
•— En EH
a co \
w o
EH CJ
M *£
E-H H
en o tr
W EH X
-"• X
w \
o
5 C~
CU
2 n
•H >^j
O ^
£ 3
o °
u §
e u
§ g
*H
4-1 r.
^ ^2
"-* M
rH H
O
P^J tj
fo
X 0
t4 o
^\ rH
tn\.
»4 CQ
i-^
CN
in
o
o
•
0
~
tn
£j
•H
rH
4-1
CU
to
CU
£>
O
in
04
g
•H
M
O
G
0
•H
4-1
13
>H
P
rH
•H
4H
CO
cr.
CN
O
•
c
CO
CN
ra
o
•
o
.
M
CU
^\
O.4J
G
o
•H
4J
PJ
rH
3
tn
rd
N
•H
rH
cd
M
4-1
3
-
en
•P
tn
•H
4J
H
O
UH
Q)
rH
(3
>
O ^x " — 1
3 .M rH
TlJ Tj fTj
O tr>
M -M
OiO U
in 0)
r — 1 ^ — ' ( — 1
0) 4H
(1) ^3 CD
4-1 O J-l
tn o
3 4-1
4n -J -H
0 0
!>4 CO
10 [li CJ
T! o
C rH 'd
3 (U
O (U ^4
04 U O
10 G
o
O 44 QJ
O O >
1 — { -rH
tn to
CU "V rH
04" o
;^ j4
tO ii) -H
^ O4
G rH
3 -P rH
O a :d
0. rj
^3 L>i
M rH r 1
O 1M -H
'-n M
13 0) rd
0) tn
U tn in
D S-4 ij
T! O U
O P CL)
M -r-t G
Clj i — 1
P
rH Cl-1 O
0! O G
CD rxi
4-1 W
CO G -H
O
L!-J 'CJ
o -d o
CJ P
o id -r-i
4-1 X! rH
U W >!
M 4J 0
4-1 -rH rH
(1) rH O
g G
M G.I 'u
co a i1
a P
tn
tl g (V
g >ti >-'
f 'H X<
<_( jji rj
^.^j r-\
O rH H
1-1 r-l rj
•H -rH >
O 1
rH CJ
44 M T3 en
ad) 'd
rd -,H (3 C
u P P £-. ro
-r^ C I/I M P
g o u o tn
O 4J G
.G X eC
U CD -0)0
10 M EH
"tJ T3 d) ^5 CJ
C G U Oi
rd id -H ,G ca
> 0
•d - cu -H ,<-;
G P T3 X! -P
rd to IS -H
rH -H -P ^
X G en
IH (U d) QJ tJ1
0 g -H G
to -P 4-1 •<-)
^ O r3 -H >i
4-1 > 0) rH H
-rH -H ^4 -H Oj
rH P P U g
•H rd rd O
X! G TJ MH U
rd M G
rH CU rj a) 44
•H -P en O
r3 rH rH O
> rd O .G -P
rd M -P rH
tn 4-i 3
- G C 0) to
G -r4 O > 01
O -P U O k
•HO) X!
4-i a "d id rd
rd g C)
u o 4-> 'd o)
o u (d a) rd
rH U M
. 0) -H -H T3
co to k "d 3 CU
TJ rd CU G D1 rH
0 .G -H 0) rH
G tn |5 VH (3
4J Vl 0) 4-I
o o 73 4! i/i ui
£ 4J CU P -P G
o 4-i tn -H
•P cd U 4-1 O
G 44 Q) a U G
CJ rH i GO
M tn O c) >
4-1 G O -P g 't!
O rH CD ,G
4-t O *d !H
o tn c cu o m
G J! V4 G O
CO -H U -H -Hbx
G 'd cu 3 rd
o G 4J tr >, q
-.4 CU Q) rH id
p a 4-i M G
cJ CU G O -P
4) rd cu to G
3 g G CD rd
g m 4-1 O M rH
Ms: (d -H rd Di
CJ % CU -P
a y M ro G id
w 4-1 O 5
M -HOG
0 >i - 4H .c; -H
>H rd -rH CO Ji
01 rd OJ "d 4-J
G > 4-i O in -H
0 rd g -P S
-H >i cj tn
4-) rd M >i O tn
rd g P In O G
G (3 -H
•H tn 0) G rH 4->
.O 4-1 XI -H rd w
g W g P -rH
O O O -rH O X
U O 4J rH 4-' CU
cu
324
O
,H
-------
1 (D--
9 i
3
U
0 J
I-*
r"?"1
?g| -*oJH Hg] j
L_«J
•~\
j
D
O
« J
i-f
(D (C
FIGUR
(0
r
• (P O
I U
325
-------
MODEL
A/a POLLUTION co\~f*&i- METHODS)
ANNUAL cosj-s - BASEO O
THIS
COSJ5 INCLUDE. LABo^) CHE MICALS ^^7/^.//7££
COSTS BASSO OH 3.5%
-------
The pH of the three plants surveyed varied from 6.4 to 9.4. As with
previous subcategories, the BATEA standards for pH are the same as
BPCTCA limits for this parameter. If excess lime is used in the
fluoride precipitation step, the effluent pH may have to be adjusted
with acid to remain in the desired 6.0 to 9.0 pH range.
Open Hearth Furnace Subcategory
As with the EOF furnaces, only contact process waters were surveyed,
sampled and analyzed. Again -he only contact process water in the open
hearth is the water used for cooling and scrubbing the waste gases from
the furnaces. As a general rule, open hearths have dry precipitator
systems rather than scrubbers. Therefore, only two open hearth shops
were surveyed and each had a wet high energy venturi scrubber system as
defined in Types I, II, III shown on Figures 21, 22, and 23,
respectively. There are no semi-wet systems for open hearths.
Each plant had a similar wastewater treatment system comprised of
classifiers, with thickeners with recirculation of a portion of the
thickener overflow. One system utilized vacuum filters for thickener
underflow while the other system used slurry pumps and pumped the
thickener wastes to tank trucks for disposal. The blowdown rates varied
between 213 1/kkg (51 gal/ton) and 492 1/kkg (118 gal/ton) but the
latter represented a 22% blowdown and the former about 9/4.
These systems can be tightened as was indicated for the EOF and
therefore the ELG's were established on the basis of 209 1/kkg (50
gal/ton) of product and concentrations of the process pollutant
parameters achievable by the indicated treatment technologies.
A review of the data collected resulted in the following effluent
guidelines:
Suspended Soljds
For the two plants surveyed, the effluent suspended solids were 80 and
52 mg/1. As with the similarly operated EOF wet recycle systems, less
than 25 mg/1 suspended solids can readily be achieved and therefore the
two open hearth plants surveyed were judged uniformly inadequate respect
to achieving this level.
Similar to the EOF wet system, the BATEA ELG for suspended solids has
been based on 25 mg/1 at 209 1/kkg (5C gal/ton) based on the use of
conventionally available coagulation and/or filtration techniques as
indicated in Table 84. This technology is currently utilized in other
iron and steel industry subcategcries for attaining the proposed BATEA
limitations, and should achieve similar results in the open hearth
subcategory.
Fluoride
327
-------
n m
M o
EH u
n <
H EH
W O
W E-H
O
EH
W
W
W
fH
O
O
CO
r3
O
H
EH
H
H
s
H
r-3
EH
2
W
P
t_3
CM
PM
W
1
f£
PJ
H
rij
ffl
f__^
PI
^
r o
o
o
^r*
F)
W
^
P
5
W
F-i
IT^
r,-]
V
cu
u
13
C
r-l
3
fa
-P
H
(3
0)
a
G
0)
ft
O
l-M
^
wj
o
"
£-*
o
CJ
Ti
G
(3
in
.G
4-1
•rH
IS
4-1
G
i
-P
(3
Q)
rH
4-1
C
£
0
Q)
g
•rl
rH
tP
C
•rH
in
3
-P
G
0)
g
4-1
fl3
0)
rH
4-1
G
S
O
V
6
rH
ra
o
tN
f\J
^J*
0
0
•
O
W
0)
t)
•H
^
0
3
i-l
MH
0
C
o
•H
-P
13
4-J
•H
ft
•rH
U
0 0
g
4-J (1)
iH VH
3
in in
0) T)
M -H
rH
(3 O
W
in
(3 13
(1)
M »d
rl G
3 0)
0 ft
o in
0 3
in
o 'd
•rH Q)
4-J >
0 O
3 rl
•d P,
01 G
O -H
i O
0) -P
X.
4-> rH
x; (3
en en
•rH
4-1 0
in
o
MH ^
0) U
3 3
rH T3
(3 O
> VH •
ft —
0) v.
rH rH O
X! 0) 4-1
QJ
b
328
-------
ii
0
0
<
u
u
t
?*
HI tU
1C H-
IOIO A ill
2 0.
in 0
03
IL Q
4 2
3 5
as
LJ^J
—
— \
1
c
i
<
, —
i
i
~i
n '
I1
.jL.
(
in
j
r
- *
— i
L I
t°P
*-|
s u
1--.T-I
t
329
-------
MODEL COST B/=FEaAf*H CANNOT BE USED ro* tMre&we OIA TS
/)//
7611126
670, ISO
too
330
-------
The two plants surveyed showed fluoride levels in their final effluents
of 65 and 148 mg/1. No reduction was being practiced and the plants
were judged uni£ormly_ inadequate with respect to the application of cost
effective treatment technology available for fluoride removal. The ELG
for fluoride is based on 20 mg/1 at 209 1/kkg ' (50 gal/ton) for the
reasons discussed above in the sintering suocategory. This value
represents the best available method of treatment for removal of
fluorides. The technology for achieving this is shown in Table 34.
Nitrate
For the two plants surveyed, nitrate was found to be 22 ajid 303 mg/1 in
the respective final effluents. The latter plant was judged to be
inadequate with respect to employing treatment techniques for removal of
the gross level of nitrate measured. This high level can probably be
attributed to the type and quantity of combustion fuel used in the
burners. The BATEA guideline for nitrate has been based on 45 mg/1 at
209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton). The technology employed for nitrate removal
usually encompasses anaerobic denitrification and since the removal
efficiency of this technique is highly temperature-dependent, the rather
liberal ELG of 45 mg/1 was selected to provide sufficient flexibility
for seasonal temperature changes. Anerobic denitrification to less than
this level has been recently practiced in treatment of domestic sewage
where regulatory agencies have required it. Lower nitrate values could
be achieved for these BATEA guidelines, however, the costs for obtaining
same would not be cost effective in relation to the minor improvements
gained.
Zinc
For the two plants surveyed, the effluent zinc concentrations were
measured at 26 and 1210 mg/1. No reduction was being practiced and the
plants were judged unif_ormjLy_ inadequate with respect to the application
of cost effective treatment technology available for zinc removal.
These high levels can probably be attributed to the type ana amount of
scrap charged to the furnaces. The BATEA guideline for zinc is based on
5 mg/1 at 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton). This limit is based upon best
available technology, as extensively practiced by. the metal finishing
industry for zinc removal. More effective removal of particulate matter
consistent with the required reduction in suspended solids should effect
the further reduction in this parameter to the 5 rng/1 concentration on
which the BATEA ELG is based.
EH
The pH was found to be 6.1 and 1.8-3.4, respectively, for tne two plants
surveyed, with the latter plant being judged inadequate with respect to
proper control of pH. The pH range for BATEA has been set at 6.0 to
9.0. The ranges are readily attainable through the use of suitable
331
-------
chemicals and closer control of neutralization techniques as previously
discussed.
Other
Although significant levels of sulfides did not appear in the effluent
analyses, these effluents should be monitored to determine ix a sulfide
limitation should be applied, i.e. 0.3 mg/1 in 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton)
due to the many high sulfur fuels such as No. 6 fuel oil that may be
used for firing open hearth furnaces.
Electric^Arc^Furnace^Ogeration
The electric arc furnace waste gas cleaning systems are similar in
nature to the EOF, i.e. they may be dry, semi-wet or wet systems as
defined in Types I, II, III, and IV shown on Figures 24 tnrough 27.
Four plants were surveyed, two semi-wet and two wet systems.
Electric_Arc_ Furnace j[Senii_Wet Air _Pollution^ Control
The two semi-wet systems had similar wastewater treatment systems
comprised of a settling tank with drag link conveyor; one system was
recycled with no aqueous blowdown while the other system had closely
regulated the furnace gas cooling water spray system so tnat only a
wetted sludge was discharged to the drag tank for subsequent disposal.
Therefore, the BATEA for semi-wet systems has been estctblised as "no
discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable waters", as
previously set for BOCTCA limitations in this subcategory.
El§ctric_Arc_Furnace __ (Wet^Air^Pcllutign^Control J^e_thods) __ Subca-cegory
The two wet systems surveyed had similar wastewater treatment systems.
Both plants were recirculating waste waters without treatment at the
rate of 12,500 1/kkg (3000 gal/ton) and treating blowdowns of 6 and 10%,
respectively. since these systems can be made essentially identical to
the EOF and open hearth recycle systems for gas scrubbing, the ELG's
were established on the basis of 209 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) or product and
concentrations of the various pollutants parameters achievable by the
indicated treatment technologies. A review of the data collected from
the survey resulted in the following effluent guidelines:
Susgended_Solids, Fluor ide^ ZinCj^and pH
All of the above indicated critical parameters are likewise found in the
open hearth subcategory. Since the treatment technology for their
reduction is the same, the ELG's for these parameters have been based on
the same values established for the open hearth. These limitations and
the corresponding technologies for achieving same are given in Table 86.
332
-------
0)
T)
O
4J
- o
o w
w o
EH U
W
O
0)
N
in
00
W
!_}
«
Sj
EH
tn
W
H
v-1
w
Q
H
D
O
tn
£3
O
H
EH
FdJ
EH
H
s
H
t_3
EH
W
D
fj4
fn
W
1
^
W
EH
<;
«
-•J L:
C »VJ
O rn
U 0
C 0
o 2
•H ^
£ g
H W
rH e-1
s g
M a
•tH ^J
4J
(1)
1
•H
g
Q)
— ^
Q)
U
rd
G
in
rTl
0
^
f£
O
•H
^
4J
U
0)
rH
W
s
a
EH
| "^
O
"Z.
o
u
<
U
EH
O
PJ
PQ
01
rd
0)
i
D*
tn
p^
O
H
EH
rtj
EH
H
s
H
£H t-3
pj
O <
0 H
W EH
EH f£t
ft. CQ
O
03
3
CO
. — V
CM
^-*
i—l
X^
tr
g
a
1 -H
o -d H
tO 4-1 3 O
01 rH O
0) 01 O O
,U 4J X
O C tt) 4J
^ rd ^-- O
Q14-I rd
3 01 -P
W rH M CJ
O rH (I) O
O 4J O
Q) a, rd 1
tn 5 G
— S"
•H KH
DI O
^: o
S^ j
DI\
« PQ
MM 0
rd CD (1) «
JG -P rH
U rd XI rH
01 ^ rd rH r-*
•H OJ Di rd ^
"134-1-^ O
Ul > tn-p
O rd rd G rd
S S G -H S
W
T3
•rH
rH
O
tn
CRITICAL
PARAMETERS
Suspended
Fluoride
U £
c o
•rH tQ rH
r>3 0- £14
< w
D. G rd -d
O O
>H 3 >,^
O rH rH 4J
MH -H C)
-UH M i=
TJ O rd
CJ 01 4J
C) W W C
3 M Q) CD
T3 Gl O fi
O 4-- a) JJ
M -H C (d
PtrH • 0
«
01
<4H a; a Q) &
O L* -H 4J
•H
rd -H ^
P > 0) rH
•H -rl ^ -H Dl
rH P 4-) o c:
rj td -H
X! C Ti 4H >i
rrj M U rH
rH a) rd id O X! O
rd M 4J
fji P 4-1
- C C ry O
C -rH O >
O 4J O O 4J
•HO) XJ •-!
rd f^ OJ 01
O 0 4J T) 0)
O U rd Q) i-l
H O M
CJ -H -H rd
t/1 M ^ 3
rd CJ C tJ1 01
.C,' -H 0) rd
MS >-i
M QJ ^
O -d ,C 01 (U
|) O -p 4J rH
O 4-) Ul rH
r'j O P O rd
m a ft o 4J
(U 01
333
-------
a.
r
(
r
. .
2
i!>
Of
a
2t-0
r-
if
U
> u
2 _j
Ul a)
334
-------
F/&(j*e. &°8
COST ErrecT/veHESS O/A&RA.M
COSTS ' BASED
8*seo
/»&&
7%
COSJS INCUJOB LABOX, CHEMICALS
COSJ-S BASSO OH ^.5% Of CAP/TAL COSTS
useo pt>
(
V
«r
0
Q
v-/
in
0
(BAT&A)
(8PCJ-CA)
(BASE.
40
IOO
335
-------
o
5
" EH
Q c/l
W O
^
EH EH
W O
H EH
O
I--
a\
co
O
cn
H
Z
M
W
Q
H
D
0
cn
!3
0
H
EH
r^<
EH
H
5j
H
1-^
EH
W
D
fa
fa
W
1
C.
3 g
H 1
2 1
^ y
^
4->
(D
Q)
U
id
t.
rj
fa
U
^
,ej*
O
•rH
-P
U
CU
rH
W
l-M
t^*
ixJ
o
K
EH
Z
0
o
T3
q
id
in
x:
4-1
•H
*j
P
(U
g
-p
id
cu
)4
-p
c
^5
o
•d
o
rH
03
C/D
!^
o
H
EH
*N
EH
M
S
H
^H M
fft
O ft,
o w
W EH
EH <
< m
CJ
ra
cn
**"^
OJ
^•^ *
M
^s.
Cr
g
in
0)
*-^.
— CQ
>~H (JJ
*-^
t7»o
X o
X o
"\ < — (
(j)\^
X CQ
CNJ
in
o
o
•
o
j;
•rH
rH
4J
4-)
o
in
rrj
d)
£>
O
g
•H
0
G
O
•H
P
id
4J
rH
•H
44
G
0
•H
•P
id
! {
3
tn
id
O
u
4J
•H
CD
g
•rH
1 — |
tn
G
•H
W
p
4->
C
cu
P
id
cu
^_i
4-1
C
*j
o
T3
O
rH
«
O
CN
CN
^P
0
O
•
o
10
cu
•d
•H.
S-l
O
^J
rH
4-1
4-1
O
O
•H
4J
id
-P
-rH
a
•H
U
(U
a
o
4J
rH
3
in tn
CD T3
M -H
rH
id o
cn
cn
CD
3 0)
U ft
o in
O 3
in
G
0 T3
•H CU rH
P > id
o o >
^i
cu g a)
«-H S4
in
o
rH
0
0
•
0
p
c
tt)
3
i-H
144
44
cu
cn
)-i
cu
P
•H
O a>
•H O
P CM
rd
N cn
•H -H
rH
id 6
^4 CU
P 4J
3 co
CD >i
2 w
4J
^
rfn
•H
4-1
^j
O
M-l
cu
3
rH
0 >
CT1 CU
rH
1 X!
rj
0 ,Q
• O
CO I-)
Q4
P
W
o
>:
rH
rH
m
tn
G
•H
3
O
X
0)
^^
G
O
4->
r-t
Cn
o
^
^ ^
t) M
CU CU
0 P
3 id
T3 5
o
a c
•r)
rH rH
0) O
CU O
4-1 O
cn
4J
44 U
o a
P
tn C
;< o
,x u
I
Vf *"*
i O
a, G
«; w
U EH
H hi
M >-;
H fi,
oi rd
u <
O
cn
T)
0)
•a
G
cu
cu
cn
3
on
Q)
•d
•H
M
O
3
U
G
•H
O
i—!
fa
. ^ in
'd c o
cu o a.
O 4)
3 ^ rH
rd r-l l-H
0 Id Id
M tn
Ctt 4-*
O U
rH ID O
O —' i-l
(U 4-1
4J T3 CU
UV G) V4
o
44 3 W
o 'd -H
o
i cn
4 CD
c
! T3
O Q)
a< cu i.,
P O
o W G
o
O 44 CU
rH O >
•I-l
M tn in
(!) J^ 3
O
cn M G
'd O -.H
G 04
3 • rH .
O P r-l 10
O, G n) T3
CU O
O I
i-i cu
4 j V-t rd
0< cu
in 4-1 rrj .
rH 0 g
rd "H
CJ T) P
•H G cn
fi C) W
(U P
X!
"d
CO
G
3
O CU •
cn
'd TJ
T3 - 0)
G -P t)
id co
rH -H 4J
X G
O g
CO 4->
>i CU rtf
4J > 0)
rH 4-1 P
•iH Id
rd M G
rH CU rd
rd rH rH
> rd O
rd !H
- G G
C -rl O
0 P U
V-t f *
o in
G
cU O
M H
rd O
.G CQ
U
•H x!
,G P
S -H
cn
cu tn
-H G
P -H
O rH rH 4J
". U-1 &-.( f^
'D ttl rd
O 01 P
O 'n ui G
3 !H 0) Q)
T-! 0 u e
O P CJ -J
!-i O G id
P.rH CD
rH CTl O P
O o G
CD Oi 44
P CO 0
10 f-.' -rH
0 CO
4-i *d G
cu 6
-L-) -H
co P
H id
H P
4-1 ,-. „
«J R 0)
O O -P
O U <3
rH U
(U -H
W 'H rd
rj O G
.G -rH
W 5
VH CU
O TJ £
P CU P
0 P
id U P
44 cu a
rH 0)
x; o u
u w o
3 id
CO >1
tn O
G O 4J
O rH
O 'd
tn fi CU
U g
rd O
44 O
(U 44
01 O
O
,G 4J
P rH
3
o> in
> cu
o U
rd Id
T3 cn
i e
C. JJ o QJ
; i -H .-H &,
C) rH O
CU
p 6
rj 4-1
>i id
•H .C O >, - 4 I
Si O I) M +-' C'
'0 o id U
I' :- 'LI -H >i (1)
[: rj rH 4J rt V4 V-
'"-• ' •'•5 c i"
',- iH , < H CO (!) ;,'
_. . 4 -,-| O 4J rQ -H
r-i iH t fj; (/) [j
•H . I ,-• O O O -H
t.' ';*, < u u 4-i I-H
^3
>i G
rH Id
G
O P
G
cu id
S-4 rH
id a,
G id
o c
,G -H
cn -iH
p s
o tn
O G
rH i)
rd CO
P -.H
O X
4-1 0)
336
-------
V f
SO 0
3 e»
llirN HU
o-r-8
O
0
s
rf
u
-I 0
ill 111
IT t-
& ID
WE~
KY
DE:!
Ik
C
> ID
2 -I
U) ill
J
I yp\
CH
-
;--^
*
/
n?
UJ
> "•
°^
0 t
_i ***
go
^Sh»
<
Ul
f
r
337
-------
&IB
MOOSL COST
ASC
COSJ'S » BASSO
•+
TW/S
Y£4ff CAflfAL
7%
cosjs INO.UOS. LABOR, CHEMICALS f usuries
-i- MAIMTE.NANCE cosj-s SASEO ON 3.s'/»°f CAPITAL COSTS
USSO ro*/*JTS*.M6DIAJ& VALUES
C'&lO
loo
338
-------
Although the effluent analyses from the two plants surveyed indicated no
significant amount of zinc present, an effluent guideline similar to
that established for the open hearth has been recommended since
galvanized scrap can be an even greater proportion of tne charge to an
electric furnace than to an open hearth furnace.
Vacuum_De3assing_Subcategory
The direct contact process water used in vacuum degassing is the cooling
water used for the steam-jet ejector barometric condensers. All vacuum
systems draw their vacuum through the use of steam ejectors. As the
water rate depends upon the steaming rate and the number of stages used
in the steam ejector, the process flow rates can vary considerably. Two
degassing plants were surveyed and each had a water treatment system
which treated other steelmaking operation proces waste waters as well;
i.e. one with a continuous casting water treatment system and the other
with BOF discharges. The water systems were recirculating The blowdown
rates varied from 45.5 1/kkg (10.9 gal/ton) to 66.7 1/kkg (16.0 gal/ton)
and) and represented from 2% to 5% of the process recycle rate,
respectively. The ELG's were established on the basis of 104 1/kxg (25
gal/ton) of product and concentrations of the various pollutant
parameters achievable by the indicated treatment technologies. The
value of 104 1/kkg (25 gal/ton) has been set somewhat higher than the
measured values to compensate for the anticipated increased flows that
would be achieved if the systems were joined with otner steelmaking
processes in which more heat is generated.
A review of the data collected resulted in the following effluent
guidelines:
Zinc
Zinc was measured at 0.9 and 416 mg/1, respectively, at the two plants
surveyed. The latter plant was judged inadeguate with respect to the
application of cost effective treatment technology for zinc removal.
The latter plant also displayed a very high level of effluent suspended
solids (1077 mg/1) which would account for the high zinc concentration
if most of the zinc is in the particulate form. As indicated under the
subcategory for open hearths, the BATEA guideline is cased on 5 mg/1
measured in 104 1/kkg (25 gal/ton) in this instance. Discussion of the
removal techniques will be deferred to the section dealing with
suspended solids.
For the two plants surveyed, the effluent manganese concentrations were
measured at 2.8 and 340 mg/1. The latter plant was judged inadequate
with respect to the application of cost effective treatment tecnnology
for manganese removal. The BATEA guideline for manganese is cased on 5
mg/1 measured in 104 1/kkg (25 gal/ton). Discussion of the removal
339
-------
r-
oo
H
»J
W
Q
H
£D
O
EH
H
s
H
w
W
H
EH
tn
C
•rH
tn
tn
rd
tj>
(1)
Q
3
U
rd
O
O
w
s
^^ ?*
EH U
rC
w O tr
W EH X
\
ro
r*
0
' O
I^H
K
u
w
EH
EH
f^4
w
^
EH
f£
w
PH
EH
tS
^_H*
o
«
£-*
J2
o
o
,—,,
CN
*— •*
rH
CO ^^x.
IS tr
O g
H
EH
flj
EH
H
s
H
l_l
f£ fj*
win ,4
^ tn o
CO X 0
X o
xPctT
1-3
<
1
r~^- — -
T)
G
in
f~j
-p
•rH
4J
G
OJ
g
rd
OJ
S-l
•P C
O
C -H
S P
O rO
13 S-l
S P
O rH
rH -H
PH MH
^ — —
•
m
m
CM m m o
CN CN m
UD m m o
CN O O O
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
10
•=r
^r
•
o
CN
cn
o
/v
•^ v~-
U G
•H O
.Q -H
0 -P
S-i 3 tn
1
o
»
\_o
t — .
o
o
o
N
4J
G
01
,_(
M-I
M-I
0)
tn
s>i tn
Q) G
P -H
•H 13
rH 3
rH
•31 O
o X
rH OJ
in
.,_) , ,
G
g 0
<1) 4->
P \
10 r-l
^ frj
tn tn
,
P in S-i
,G OJ 4->
(1) O
CD p fd
rH W -P
o G
rd M-i O
.a o a
O 1
S4 tn G
Gi^. O
,'-4 G
P
11 M rH
Or i H
t j i i
1C PI fd
tn
•rH
o
t/i
:TICAL
IMSTERS
r-1 F-t,
K, K
U r<
pended i
c
tn c
3 -rH
ganese
d
G rd
rd o)
o
Ti
OJ
p
rd
SH
•rH
340
rf-3
O
tn
tn
fd
en
(D
rd
rH
0)
0)
p
tn
M-4
0
in
13
f^
3
O
P.
O
o
o
rH
S-l
0)
d
U!
13
G
3
0
O-i
S-l
c
•*
13
0)
u:
tn
(J
tn
U
-d
rH
O
c
4J
in
IM
C
G
O
4-)
O
•H
M
4->
^
^
^ 1
.j
C-*
in
r_
J
,-1
*--!
Q
rH
•r-l
s-;
C
O
\
rH
rd
tn
in
CN
—
13
(U
in
tn
td
tn
d)
13
rH
llj
CL)
4J
U
MH
O
tn
l^
X
S-i
0)
ft
p
G
d)
3
rH
4-i
M J
OJ
fQ
--I
Q
4J
-H
rH
^"
O
rH
£
0
r^'
ti)
tn
d
.J
S-l
' ;
1 J
•H
1 i
^
1)
CU
'j
r
^ ^
, l
r-i
. — i
rj
^
ssible
0
a
rH
rH
rd
P
U
0)
1 — 1
M-(
0)
'S-l
-P
•H
tn
OJ
o
ro
S-i
0
G
CU
>
•H
tn
3
I — 1
O
fjj
-H
i — t
rH
fi3
;>
r H
•H
S-t
(u
10
r"l
OJ
CJi
o
c
-IJ
o
c
CO
-H
6
4J
Tj
•rH
r— 1
*h>,
C"1
Q
--- :
a
', .
'J
"J
-,_'•
r>;
\ \
< 'j
--t
•~t
"i
,s
. "
•
CO
'O
o
£^
'p
OJ
g
p
(Tj
0)
g
p
fd
0)
S-l
p
'IH
0
w
f_H(
O
•rH
: j
fd
p
-i
e
IH
.1)
PJ
M
O
;;.
^
O
-H
1
,d
r^
H
•"-\
J
L)
O
rH
in
r-l
fd
u
•H
OJ
A
O
13
G
id
*X3
C
fd
rH
M-I
O
^
p
•H
rH
•H
X!
rd
rH
•H
rd
>
rd
».
£
0
•H
4->
fd
o
O
rH
in
fd
in
S4
0
-p
o
rd
MH
^
U
3
U)
q
o
Cn
c;
•H
13
G
OJ
D.
OJ
13
0)
1 ',
o
in
^*t
i4
,3
>
^>1
•d
£-^
W
p
tn
o
U
I
OJ
S-l
a
M-I
0
P
c
OJ
p
X
OJ
13
G
rd
<.
4J
tn
•rH
X
OJ
tn
0)
>
•H
P
rd
G
SH
OJ
P
i — \
rd
en
G
•H
4-1
n)
a
g
o
u
0)
M
Q)
_£j
V
13
(D
-P
O
0)
rH
(
to
^1
tn
0
i — I
q
_r^
O
01
p
p
G
0)
g
P
rd
CU
SH
P
*«
13
OJ
p
rd
0)
SH
P
OJ
j3
O
P
Estimated
,
tn
o
u
•H
>
OJ
13
P
G
OJ
g
4-1
rd
Q)
SH
4J
13
G
fd
rH
O
S-l
P
G
O
U
13
(D
P
rd
U
•H
13
G
•H
Q)
£j
P
4-1
a
Q)
0
0
id
o
P
13
a)
SH
-rH
3
tJ1
CD
SH
in
G
0
H
4J
id
U
•H
'H
r(
13
O
r-
>i
S-l
n3
G
H
g
H
r-i
>1
rH
rd
G
0
0)
SH
id
r-|
u
•H
r^
^
tn
(D
•H
p
•H
rH
•rH
0
rd
MH
CD
tn
O
P
OJ
>
o
rd
rr}
OJ
SH
•H
3
tr
OJ
SH
in
4J
tn
o
u
r-l
rd
4->
G
0)
fc;
(D
O
G
•H
>i
"G
0
OJ
S(
rd
G
>
0
f-j
"to
tn
P
in
o
u
rH
fd
P
O
p
. standards.
<
u
EH
O
f^t
P3
r^
4-1
•H
|5
pi
G
•H
>1
rH
Oj
g
O
o
MH
O
4->
rH
3
in
Q)
SH
rd
U)
rd
13
OJ
rH
rH
fd
-P
t/>
G
•rH
G
Q)
OJ
X!
(D
>
id
-Cni
M
O
\
13
! '
rO
4>
G
I'J
rH
0.
id
G
•H
x;
P
rH
^
en
r^
rH
4-1
tn
r-l
X
(D
31
-------
f
I
1
341
-------
8Z8
MODEL COST EFfECT/VENfSS
VACUUM DEGASSING
ANNUAL COST * 8ASED OA/ T£M YEAR CAPITAL.
+ IfSTEGSST XATE 7%
y- OPERATING COSTS /NCLUDE. JLASOK,CH£MICALS < UTfLITfES
+ MAINTENANCE COSTS BASED OH 3.5% OF CAPITAL COSTS
THIS GGAPH CANNOT BE USED ^O/S. /NTER.MEO/ATE VALUES
* COST eAseo o* *su xxe-> te>Ay (Si
IOO
342
-------
techniques will be deferred to the section dealing with suspended
solids.
Lead
The two plants surveyed showed lead concentrations of less than 0.1 and
32 mg/1, respectively, in their final effluents. The latter plant was
judged inadequate with respect to the application of cost effective
treatment technology for lead removal. The BATEA guideline for lead is
based on 0.5 mg/1 measured in 104 1/kkg (25 gal/ton) . Discussion of the
removal techniques will be deferred to the section dealing with
suspended solids.
Suspended^Solids
For the two plants surveyed, the suspended solids in the final effluent
were found to be 37 and 1077 mg/1, respectively. The latter plant was
judged inadequate with respect to the application of cost effective
treatment technology for suspended solids removal. The plant achieving
the suspended solids level of 37 mg/1 was also the plant obtaining low
values for zinc, manganese and lead at 0.9, 2.8 and 0.1, respectively.
This plant was using high rate pressure sand filtration on the final
effluent prior to discharge. Furthermore, the effluent from the sand
filter was actually achieving 75% of all the above constituent levels
reported, but these levels were adjusted upward to compensate for
removal of the other process waters not related to vacuum degassing.
The BATEA guidelines for suspended solids is based on 25 mg/1 measured
in 104 1/kkg (25 gal/ton). It should be noted that a plant using sand
filtration can readily achieve these levels and furthermore this
technology also removes the zinc, manganese, and leaa to BATEA
guidelines previously recommended. An alternate technology for removal
of these critical parameters to the indicated levels would be
coagulation techniques. Table 87 is referred to for a summary of
indicated ELG's and suggested technologies.
Nitrate
For the two plants surveyed, nitrate was found to be 0 and 1940 mg/1,
respectively. The latter plant was judged inadequate with respect to
the application of cost effective treatment technology for nitrate
removal. For the reasons previously established for the open hearth,
the ELG for nitrate should be based on 45 mg/1 at 104 1/x.K.g (25 gal/ton)
in this case. The technology for achieving this level is shown in Table
87 and is discussed in detail under the open hearth subcategory.
The pH of the two plants surveyed was found to vary between 6.2 and 7.7
which is within the recommended BPCTCA range of 6.0 to 9.0. The BATEA
guideline for pH remains at this level, as for all other subcategories.
343
-------
It should be noted that many of the aforementioned critical parameters
observed in the final effluent are the apparent result of various
alloying agents being added to the steel during the steelmaking process.
The nitrates found may be coming from nitrogen gas which is commonly
used for blanketing to insure no explosions take place.
CQntinuous^Casting^SuJbcateggry
The only process waters used in the continuous casting process are
direct contact cooling water sprays which cool the cast product as it
emerges from the molds. The water treatment methods used are either
recycle flat bed filtration for removal of suspended solids and oils or
scale pits with recirculating pumps. Both systems require blowdown.
The flat bed filters remove oil and suspended solids whereas the scale
pits may require ancilliary oil removal devices.
Two continuous casting plants were surveyed. One plant nad a scale pit
with sand filters with blowdown while the other plant had flat bed
filters with blowdown. Both had cooling towers for cooling the spray
water before recycling to the caster. The blowdown varied between 342
1/kkg (82 gal/ton) and 463 1/kkg (111 gal/ton). Tne ELG's were
therefore established on the basis of 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton) of product
and concentrations of the various pollutant parameters achievable by the
indicated treatment technologies. A review of the data collected from
the survey resulted in the following effluent guidelines:
Su s p_en d e d_S olids
The plant employing the flat bed filter system was achieving 4.4 mg/1
suspended solids in the treated effluent; whereas the plant utilizing
the pressure sand filters was obtaining only 37 mg/1 in the final
treated effluent. An apparent anomaly existed here, since deep ned sand
filters normally achieve higher quality of effluents than flat bed
filters. It was later discovered that the plant using the pressure sand
filters was continually backwashing one of the dirty filters into the
final treated effluent. This plant was judged inadequate with respect
to applying good engineering design to alleviate the problem of
contaminating the treated effluent with filter backwasn. By correcting
this problem, this plant should have no trouble obtaining 10 mg/1 or
less suspended solids in the filtrate. Since the flat, bed system was
already achieving less than this value, the BATEA ELG for suspended
solids has been based on 10 mg/1 at 521 1/kkg (125 gal/ton).
Oil^and_Grease
The two plants surveyed were achieving excellent reductions in oil and
grease as an apparent result of removal in the filtering devices. The
two plants combined averaged less than 2.4 mg/1 oil in the final
effluent. However, the BATEA for oil and grease has been based on 10
mg/1 at 520 1/kkg (125 gal/ton) for the reasons indicated above for the
344
-------
CO
CO
U
GUIDELINES
O
H
EH
H
s
M
EH
Z
H
D
PM
W
W
EH
pa
u
in
3
o
3
G
-rl
G
O
O
<*
O
O
W
<
u
W
- EH
Q CO
U O
E-i U
S .J
H <
EH H
W O
W EH
CN
CO
ID
O
CM
in
r-
o
5
*^,
e>
o
z
M
w
"
-
rt
w
s
EH
s
fT
EH
o3
CONTROL
i
£
O
•O
O
rH
A
4H
•• 0
in
3 G
rH 0
Q< -H
4J
< id
U M
EH 4-)
O rH
ft -H
« h
i
cs
rH
W X
J3 O"1
o g
H
EH
*£
r~"^^
o o
rH rH
EH
% °.
H c*
o
CQ $40
« 0
*^x ' — 1
Cn^^x
$4 CO
i3
1
O
•
^D
fM (N
in m
O 0
o o
• •
o o
tr>
C
0) O
a o
u
0) O
3 id
rH -P
1] | r+
IH O
in C
•rH
w ts
system i
) (exclu
c
4-1 0
\"tn\
•rl rH
-P id
1^1
O m
<4-l CN
rH
a) ^
rH -P
id in
t> id
u
Q)
i i
(—1 r-l
^3 -P
O W
in •
Qj'H . —
0 H
4-> Q)
in CP4-i
O M rd
SI jV !5
•H 0)
rH W
O rd
CO 0)
•d Tf
di rd
O.
in rH
3 -H
W O
O
d. Cu
-H
W
W
O
o,
. rH 4J
4-> (0 U
in Cn 0)
(d rH
U in IH
4J 4-1 -H
in in
•H
G
3
O
OrUH 0)
O
o
o tj> in
o _s4 3
r-l ^ H
O
M M G
CD (D -rl
a a
in 4-1
T) G
G <1)
3 3
O .-H
P^IH
IH
M oj
O
w
- -i
4-1 O
W 4-1
ra -,H
O rl
rH M
rd ^a
o
>t.C
rH 4-1
•rH 0!
iH ti
rd
in 4-J
W G
O I
r-l QJ
IH Vi rd
a o
in 4H rj
rH O H
nj -H
U 4-1 4-1
•H G in
6 0) W
0) 4-1
,-G "N
U 0) .
in
T! ro QJ
ceo
id rd -H
>
T5 •• QJ
G 4J TJ
rd in
, X G
MH i O rd
-P > QJ
•H -rl iH
rH -P -P
•rH rd
X! G T3
rH OJ rd
•rH P
AJ rH rH
rd O
M
en P
- G a
G -H O
O 4-1 O
•H Q)
&.nrj
f= 0)
OOP
O a r)
rH O
CJ -,H
in in rd
05
4-1
rd
M
>i id
rH rtJ
rH G
rj id
E P
i-i co
o
0) O
S-i EH
r3 O
U
-H £
,C 4J
CJ tP
--H a
4-) -H
-rH >1
.H rH
-H Oi
U 6
d O
4-1 CJ
d) M-l
01 0
O
x: -p
4-1 rH
3
0) W
> 0)
O M
•3
rd in
0) rd
H
-H n3
C rrt
O
iH
MS VH id
SH "J 4-)
4J CJ 4J 4-> G
U 4-1 CO -H
(13 O -P O
*H O O, U G
rH CJ
U i
o
u a
4-1
r-l 01
O 01
CD in
4-1
M
0
IH
O '3
O
!" 'Jl
O id
P .Q
D 1|
H O
•I -U
'-' -r-t
M rH
f,
M
!H O
O 4J
in
c -H
o
>i
DI O
O 4-!
O '0
in
TJ C
1) O
4J -H
in -M
•H n3
H 4-1
3
>i e
Cn in
Cn
G r, iH
•H U rl
Tj 111 3
1-1 4-1 O1
C ','J
Oi -*-> '-<
C> C
'0 C! '/)
-i-' O
a o
(J
Cl) 4'
Xl (3
P U
.H
V M-)
> -tj
-H
'•o
>i a
H rd
rt
o -d
C
CD (C
iH rH
C rrj
6 C
f. -H
10 J5
4J
m -rl
4J S
' r' ,H 4->
.0 i- .fl rd
M Ci rd C
T. H rH -H
C r-l -H ,D
rH r-l r3 f,
H -r-" > O
X S", < U
'-' H
«
O C
in
0 O
CJ -P
O C"
U C
•r-l
rH 4-1
(1 U)
4J -H
O X
4J
-------
Jl
S3
r
dl"
II
«
«
tfg
!5
->«f
ID III
ss
lU
01
D
\
MODE
P8
US
Aft
^''
5 -»3
i u) o
T IU D
2
0
o
346
-------
83 8
KOQSL COST £-FF£CT/V£N£SS
ANNUAL COSTS ABASED O/V TEN YEAR. CAPITAL &ECOVEKY
COSTS' / A/ C !.(/££ LABO^CHeM/CALS 'f UTILITIES
COSTS S*S£O 0M J.S^> Of CAPITAL COSTS
QfSAPH C AH MOT B£ US8D fOg. /NTEKMeOIATE. VALUES
COST SAS60 OM 91 «
,9+O
310, Z 89
tfl
DC
^
xj
>J
O
8
too
PER. C£NT /e £~A1O VED
347
-------
By Product coke subcategory. Table 88 summarizes trie indicated
technology.
EH
The pH for the two plants surveyed varied between 6.8 and 7.7 which is
within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 established as the BPCTCA guideline. No
further tightening of the BOCTCA guideline is recommended at tnis time.
Treatment, Models
Treatment models of systems to achieve the effluent quality proposed for
each subcategory have been developed. Sketches of the BATEA models are
presented in Figures 72A through 83A. The development included not only
a determination that a treatment facility of the type developed for each
subcategory could achieve the effluent quality proposed but it included
a determination of the capital investment and the total annual operating
costs for the average size facility. In all subcategories, these models
are based on the combination of process changes and unit (waste
treatment) operations in an "add-on" fashion as required to control the
significant waste parameters. The process changes and the unit
operations were each selected as the least expensive means to accomplish
their particular function and thus their combination into a treatment
model presents the least expensive method for control for a given
subcategory.
Alternate treatment methods could be insignificantly more effective and
would be more expensive. In only one subcategory. Coke Maxing-By
Product, was an alternate developed to provide an option for high
capital investment and low operating cost as compared to the low capital
investment high operating costs that are inherent in tne basic treatment
model. However, the alternate relies on the use of treatment technology
that has been developed only to the pilot stage or as steps utilized
individually, but not in the combination required in this model on this
type of waste on a full scale basis. Therefore, the effluent limitation
and treatment costs have been developed via the basic treatment model
rather than the alternate.
Cost^Effeetiveness Diagrams
Cost effectiveness diagrams (Figures 72B through 83B) have been included
to show the costs of waste reduction in relation to the percent
reduction achieved by the various treatment models presented in Tables
54 through 64. These treatment models are combinations of the "least
cost" process changes and unit (waste treatment) operations to achieve a
given effluent quality. Alternate models could be developed and costed
out but they would by definition be more costly and not significantly
more effective.
348
-------
The cost effectiveness diagrams must be intrepreted with caution in that
they can be misleading in at least twc ways. While percent reduction is
plotted, the real objective is tc achieve the effluent quality
attainable with the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available or the best available technology
economically achievable. Some industrial wastes contain very high
concentrations of pollutants and a treatment system wnich achieves a 95
percent reduction may still produce an effluent with a high
concentration of the pollutant remaining, i.e. a concentration that can
be further reduced at an economically acceptable cost. However,
economics has dicated that the application of some treatment
technologies be deferred until 1983 and that some high concentrations of
pollutants, representing a low percentage of the initial load, be
tolerated in the interim.
As an example of the significance ci concentration rather than percent
reduction as a factor to be considered in determining whether the
additional treatment costs can be justified by the added treatment
achieved, Figure 76 B presents a good example. While the recycle system
(Model B) reduced the effluent volume and effluent load, the effect is
to concentrate the cyanides such that the cyanide concentration in the
blowdowr. stream to discharge is 30 mg/1. This is a concentration that
can readily be reduced by treatment technology in a cost effective
manner. Therefore treatment of this blowdown stream has been proposed
as BATEA.
The cost effectiveness diagrams can also be misleading in that the added
cost to get from one model to the next cannot be attributed in part to
each of the reductions that occur. Figure 72B is a good example. The
costs to get from Model B to Model C(BATEA) is primarily associated with
the chlorination to reduce the cyanide concentration and adsorption of
the chlorinated organics with some small part of the cost for sulfide
reduction and neutralization. However, reductions in the other
parameters occur as a side effect of the treatment steps added. Though
the reduction in phenol is small and may not justify further
expenditures for this purpose, in actuality none of the added cost is
attributable to this. The diagram shows a great percentage reduction in
suspended solids but this is actually a small reduction in a parameter
that is not present to a great extent to begin with. And the reduction
is not primarily to achieve solids reduction for effluent quality
purposes but to prevent plugging of the carbon adsorption system that
follows.
The regulations proposed herein apply only to the process waste waters
of the raw steel making operations. The Phase II study of the forming
and finishing operations as well as the foundry industry is underway and
is expected to be completed in the spring of 1974. This phase will
consider thermal limitations on the process and noncontact cooling
waters of all operations in the industry.
349
-------
The costs and methods for fugitive runoff controls for tne raw steel
making operations have already been developed but action on this has
been deferred until the total water pollution control costs for all
operations has been developed.
Costto the Iron_and Steel_Industry
Table 89 presents a summary of projected capital and annual operating
costs to the integrated mills of the steel industry as a whole to
achieve the effluent quality proposed herein for BPCTCA and BATEA for
the steel making operations.
The Total annual costs (including amortization) for tne BPCTCA and
BATEA regulations proposed herein are estimated at $82.3 million or
0.37% of the 1972 gross revenue of the sreel industry. This is an
addition to the $127 million annual capital amortization ana operating
costs, (0.56% of 1972 gross revenue) which we estimate tne industry is
already spending on these operations. The toral estimated costs for
water pollution control will be available only after the Phase II study
is completed. However, the preliminary estimate is that the additional
annual costs (including amortization) for the remaining xorming and
finishing operations, for thermal limitations, and for fugitive runoff
controls will be approximately three to four times those proposed herein
for the steel making operations or $295 million per year. Toral annual
costs (including amortization) for water pollution controls after 1983,
including operation and amortization of existing facilities, are
estimated at %551 million or 2.45% of the 1972 gross revenue. Of this
amount, 377 million (or 1.68%) will be incremental to tne current rate
of expenditures.
As presented in the table, an initial capital investment of
approximately $144.9 million with annual capital and operating costs of
$39.9 million would be required by the industry to achieve BPCTCA
guidelines. An additional capital investment of approximately $122.3
million and a total annual capital amortization and operating cost of
$82.3 million would be needed to achieve BATEA guidelines. Costs may
vary depending upon such factors as location, availability of land and
chemicals, flow to be treated, treatment technology selected where
competing alternatives exist, and the extent or preliminary
modifications required to accept the necessary control and treatment
devices.
The operating costs (including amortization) for air pollution
controls for the steel industry, as presented in the Council on
Environmental Quality report of March, 1972 titled "Economic Impact of
Pollution Control - A Summary of Recent Studies" shows costs building up
to $693 million dollars per year for 1976. This is equivalent to 3.,08%
of the 1972 gross revenue of the industry.
350
-------
W
W
H
«
O
o
to H
2 EH
0 <
H CJ
EH CQ
<5 D
K W
W
CM Q
O W
EH
O <
en 2 i-H1
CO H H
« «
W <
I-H S cd
CQ iJ O
< W Pu
EH W
EH to
W EH
to
0 0
Z vj
S
1-3
2 3
O EH
g 0
H EH
EH
CJ
W
^
§
m
&
r — 1
id
•H
4-1
• rH
C
H
<
H
EH
3
CQ
rH
id
4-1
,-* -H
rH ft
^ nj
>H CJ
«
EH rH
co id
D 3
Q C
s c
H <:
O
EH
CO
EH
tO rH
O id
CJ -H
4-)
•rH
C
H
rH
id
4-1
•H
fiC ft
O id
EH CJ
CJ
ft rH
CQ rc)
3
c
c
<
M
Q)
X!
g
3
2
rH
id
3
c
C
^f
^
CN
r-
cn
rH
4-1
C
t—\ C)
id g
4-1 4-1
•rH in
ft 01
id >
CJ C
H
4-1
tn
0
o
tr>
t> C
a -H
id 4J
id
H
cu
ft
o
-p
c
rH 0)
id g
-p -p
•rl W
ft CO
id >
CJ C
H
4-1
in
O
CJ
tn
T3 C
C -H
id 4-1
id
Vi
CJ
ft
o
in
-P
4H C
o id
rH
ft
W
C
C 0
0 -P
•rH
4-> 4-1
Ufi
\J
3
tJ w
o c
H O
ft -rH
i-H
rH
•rH
j5
>1
!H
0
tn
Q)
P
id
u
XI
3
cn
c
c
o
CN 0
ro
r~
^
rH
VO
*-*,
CN
O O
O O
O O
CO 00
ro ro
in
^
ro
CN
O O
O O
O O
00 CN
rH in
rH rH
^
rH
rH
0 0
0 0
O O
•* CO
ro ro
o
0
rH
vo ro
vo
' CN CO
TT o
VO
4-1
tn U
C 3
•H T3 0)
X. O >
id VH -.H
S ft X!
i 0)
,* CQ CQ
O
O
o o o
O O 0
o o o
in vo ro
\S> CO VO
r- o en
«. ^
rH CO
CN
O O O
C O O
o o o
VC rH Cn
T CN CM
r- o vo
•V ^
O CN
•^
o o o
0 O O
o o o
•» »• *.
o M1 r~
ro rH r-
in T rH
». ^ ^
rH o in
o
rH
o o o
o o o
o o o
^ *. ^
in en en
ro vo in
ro rH o
^ «.
0 rH
CN
vo oo ro
kD
in rH en
VO CN O
00
c
a
O CD
Pn fo
C
O 1 1
•H
4-1 CU 0)
id o u
JH id id
id G C
ft tn tn VH VH
(DC C 3 3
k -H -rH h ft,
CU VH ^
CU id 4J 4-1
C -P S-tn in
cue id ro
T3 -H C rH rH
tn W O CQ m
3 M
CQ H
o
o
0
o
h.
0
en
ro
o
o
o
^
in
r~
CO
h.
rH
O
O
0
*.
o
en
ro
o
rH
CO
r^
rH
^— »
4->
Q)
5
1
tn-H
c e
•rH Q)
^ co
(d ^>'
g
rH t.
0) O
Q) CQ
•P
to
O O O
00 0
o o o
m r— o en
r^ ro co
rH 00 CN
vo r- CN
o o o
o o o
o o o
vo o o r-
co en r-
CN CN CO
^ ^
in CN
o o o
0 O O
o o o
in in o vo
en vo r-~
oo vo r-
^ *. •*
P~- CN rH
0 O O
o o o
o o o
^ ^ ^
•y vo o o
CO -^ O
co r-- M1
^
ro
r— in CN co
rH
rH in CN ro
r~ ro rH in
«* rH
^^
-p
0)
"» S
4J— 1 —
0) 4-1 -rH 4-1
S Q) 6 0)
^ > Q) S
— tn ~—
&4 -—
O K 64 Pn
CQ O W W
0
O
O
oo
o
en
CO
o
o
o
r~
en
CN
^
in
0
o
o
^
o
en
CN
».
CN
rH
O
O
o
K
o
^r
CO
^
CN
en
CN
in
in
tn
C
•H
tn
tn
id
tn
0)
Q
0
o
o
CN
VO
in
"3"
O
o
o
VO
CN
CN .
^
rH
O
O
vo
T
o
co
rH
tn
C
•rH
-P
tn
id
CJ
tn
3
O
3
C
•H
4-1
C
O
CJ
o
o
o
r-
rH
ro
CN
CN
rH
O
O
O
00
ro
ro
*
CN
CO
O
O
o
CN
en
CO
*.
-a-
M-
rH
o
o
o
^
in
en
00
^
en
ro
^
<
EH
0
EH
>i
4->
•H
rH >1
•H 4-1
U -H
Id i-l
4-1 -H
\ 0
4-1 id
W 44
O \
U -P
W
rH O
id o
3
fi -p
c w
Id rH
X X
w tn
-P -P
C c
id id
rH rH
•• ft ft
in
ft4H 4H
•rH O O
x:
tn M M
fi CU CO
O XI X)
•H g g
4J 3 3
id 2 C!
CO II II
SH
tnn-i
Cn C C
C-H CU
•H4J g
*-p frt r i
j> "J 4-*
O >H tn
rH 0) CU
rH ft >
o o c
4H -H
+
>1 rH
XI rH Id
id 4J
T3 -P -A
0) -rH ft
C ft id
•H id U
g u
VH rH
CU rH Id
4-1 Id -H
CU 3 4-1
T3 C -H
C C
in < M
4-1
en '-«'->
o id xi
^^
rH
•-'
id
u
•rH
tn
O
rH
0
1
*ri
XI
0)
tn
id
4-1
in
i
•rH
-P
rH
3
g
id
O
-p
tn
c
•H
x:
u
4J
•H
s
in
>i
X)
•o
CU
>
CU
•H
X!
U
id
w
•H
<
W
EH
<
m
CO
u
c
•H
in
<
CJ
EH
CJ
CM
CQ
M
O
4H
O
O
O
«.
"31
ro
^D
o
H
•CO-
CO
Xi •
-P >i
-P
CO -rH
•ri H
3 -H
rH U
tj id
C 44
•rH
-P
4-> C
O CU
C g
4-1
in id
CO CU
O M
Q 4-1
^^
CN
•—'
351
-------
The total annual costs (including amortization) for air and water
pollution controls for all operations of the stell industry is thus
estimated at 1.24 billion per year after 1983 or 5.54% of gross revenues
for 1972. This includes the 292 million or 1.3% of gross revenues for
1972 which it is estimated that the industry is currently spending
annually for air and water pollution controls.
Economic_lm2sct
The economic impact of these proposed BPCTCA and BATLA Limitations
is discussed in a report titled Economic Analysis of the ££Op_gsed
Efflueni Guidelines for the Integrated Iron and Steel Inriustry_ (January
1974) which was prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency by A.
T. Kearney and Company, Inc., Chicago, Illinois.
352
-------
SECTION XI
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION
OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Introduction
The Best Available Demonstrated control Technology (BADCT) is to be
achieved by "New Sources". "New Sources" has been defined as any source
the construction of which is commenced after the publication of the
proposed regulations. The BADCT technology is that level which can be
achieved by adding to the BATEA technology improved production processes
and/or treatment techniques. For purposes of developing tne BPCTCA and
BATEA technologies and limitations, the industry was divided into the
following subcategories :
I By Product Coke Subcategory
II Beehive Coke Subcategory
III Sintering Subcategory
IV Blast Furnace (Iron) Subcategory
V Blast Furnace (Ferromanganese) Subcategory
VI Basic Oxygen Furnace (Semi Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
VII Basic Oxygen Furnace (Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
VIII Open Hearth Furnace Subcategory
IX Electric Arc Furnace (Semi Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
X Electric Arc Furnace (Wet Air Pollution
Control Methods) Subcategory
XI Vacuum Degassing Subcategory
XII Continuous casting Subcategory
product Coke Subcategory
In by-product coke making, the process wastewater resulting from the
production of coke is 80 to 165 liters/kkg (19 to 40 gal/ton) of coke
produced. This water is actually produced as a result of coking the
353
-------
coal, and represents the water present in the raw coal which was placed
in the ovens. This water leaves the ovens in the gas and is condensed
out of the gas at two points in the system, the primary cooler and the
final cooler. Approximately 75% of the total volume comes out in the
primary cooler and is called ammonia liquor. The remaining 25* comes
out into the final cooler and is generally referred to as final cooler
drains.
Water in excess of this approximately 104 1/kkg (25 gal/ton) wnicii shows
up in the effluent from a coke plant is added to the system to aid in
processing of the coke or the by-products. Other sources of water in
coke plant wastes are coke quenching tower overflow (or Slowdown), coke
wharf drains, steam condensed in the ammonia stills, cooling tower, and
boiler blowdowns, cooling system leaks, general washwater used in the
coke plant area, and dilution water used to lower pollutant
concentrations for biological treatment.
Any process which brings about the pyrolytic decomposition of coal will
of necessity have 80 to 165 liters/kkg (19 to 40 gal/ton) of highly
contaminated liquid to dispose of. The coke wharf and quenching water-
can be eliminated by dry coke quenching which is presently being
practiced in other countries or simply by routing the wharf drains to
the quench tower as make-up water, and not allowing any overflow from
the quench tower. Operating a quench tower with no overflow may
generate some heat and corrosion problems, but these can be eliminated
with conventional designs.
If no liquid discharge is to be achieved from modern coke plants, a
means of total disposal must be found for the 80 to 165 liters/kkg (19
to HO gal/ton) of liquid which of necessity is produced. All of the
wastes in this water, with the possible exception of suspended solids,
are subject to pyrolytic decomposition. A rough estimate shows that
about 126,000 kilogram calories per metric tor. of coke produced would be
required to dispose of this waste. This is a negligible percentage of
the fuel value of the tar and gas generated in the production of a ton
of coke.
However, there is reason to believe that unless very sophisticated means
were used to pyrolytically dispose of this water, serious air pollution
problems would result. The effluent gases from less than optimum
incineration of this water could be expected to contain high
concentrations of NOX, SOX, and some particulate matter. If a simple
incinerator with a wet scrubber were used, the basic pollutants would
simply be transferred back to another water stream possibly of larger
volume than the original.
Since the pollutants in the liquid stream are essentially volatile,
evaporation of the liquid to dryness would result in much the same
problems as incineration. In fact, examination of numerous other points
of disposal of this stream within an integrated steel mill all yield the
354
-------
same answer. While total pyrolytic decomposition of this small stream
of waste to innocuous gases would be the most desirable metnod of dis-
posal, present technology does not make this possible on a proven full-
scale basis.
For the above reasons, NSPS limitations cannot be set at "no liquid
discharge" until such time as technology becomes available for the total
conversion of this waste stream into non-polluting substances.
Therefore, the NSPS guidelines shall te the same as the BATEA guidelines
for by products coke subcategory. Refer to Section X.
Sintering^Subcateggry
Burden preparation in an integrated steel mill generally takes the form
of a sinter plant. The purpose of this plant is to recover fine raw
materials and to agglomerate them into larger size pieces so that they
can be charged into the blast furnace. In the manufacture of coke,
fines are generated which must be screened out of the coke before it can
be used in the blast furnace. The fines serve as the fuel for the
sinter plant. The blast furnaces and steelmaking processes generate
sizable quantities of fine dust which is high in iron content. It is
this dust which is agglomerated in a sinter or pellet plant so that it
can be recharged to the blast furnace.
It is possible to build a sinter plant with no liquid discnarge. In
fact, in past years, most sinter plants had no liquid discharge. As the
requirements of higher air standards took effect, it became apparent
that the conventional dry dust collection methods employed in older
sinter plants were not adequate. In order to meet these higher
standards, wet scrubbing of the dust laden gases came into being and
thus a liquid discharge was generated.
This now becomes a situation of compromise and technology advancement.
In order to achieve a "no liquid discharge" level for a sinter or pellet
plant, the requirements of air quality and level of technology of dry
dust collection must become coincidental. So long as air quality
standards are such that they can only be met by wet scrubbing methods,
there will be a liquid discharge from sinter plants. To simply abandon
this practice of recovering valuable fines for reuse would be both
costly to the industry and wasteful of natural resources. Since BATEA
guidelines discussed in section X represent the best available
technology, this level must also be set for NSPS until such time as the
technology of dry dust collection advances to the point where it can be
used to achieve the required air quality standards.
NSPS Discharge Standard - Refer to BATEA for the sintering
Subcategory
Bl§.§t_Furnace_J.Irgn) and_Blast_Furnace (Ferromanganese) Subcategprieg
355
-------
The primary liquid discharge from a blast furnace is made up of two
parts, non-contact cooling water, and process water from gas cleaning
operations. The non-contact cooling water should contain only heat, and
no other pollutants contributed by the process. The heat adaed to the
cooling water must be rejected to the environment in order ior the
process to operate. It can be rejected either to local streams or lakes
by a once through cooling system or to the air by means of a cooling
tower. Designs to achieve either means of rejection are quite standard
and do not require further discussion.
The process water which is used to clean and cool the olast furnace top
gas by direct contact with the gas becomes quite contaminated with
suspended solids, cyanides, phenol, ammonia, and sulfides.
Modern blast furnace practice has shown that this gas cleaning and
cooling water can be recycled. Normally the water would be put through
settling chambers to remove the suspended solids and over a cooling
tower to remove the heat.
While much effort has been expended to close these systems up completely
and thereby produce a zero liquid discharge, it has not oeen clearly
demonstrated that these systems can operate without some blowdown. For
this reason, no additional reductions in pollutant loads from those
described as BATEA limitations is proposed for NSPS, in either of the
two blast furnace suDcategories. Flews for ferromanganese operations
remain at twice the recommended level for iron making furnaces. A
detailed description or appropriate ELG for both subcategories is found
in Section X.
NSPS Discharge Standard - Refer to BATEA for the Two Blast Furnace
Subcategories
Steelmaking_Operations
As is the case with the sinter plant, the liquid discharge exclusive of
non-contact cooling water for all of the conventional steelmaking
processes, open hearths, oxygen processes, electric furnaces, results
from gas cleaning operations. Early gas cleaning systems on steelmaking
processes were of the dry type, but the need to meet higher air quality
standards has resulted in a shift on newer installations to wet cleaning
methods. So long as the technology of dry gas cleaning lags behind the
requirements for gas cleanliness, liquid discharges from steelmaking
will continue. For this reason, no additional reductions in flow or
pollutant loads from any steel making subcategory is proposed at this
time as a new source performance standard. A detailed description of
appropriate ELG's for all five steel making subcategories is found in
Section X.
NSPS Discharge Standard - Refer to BATEA for the Five Steel Making
Subcategories
356
-------
Vacuum Degassing Subcategory
This relatively new steel process removes dissolved gases from the
molten metal to improve its quality. Exclusive of non-contact cooling
water, the liquid discharge from this process results from the
condensation of steam used in the steam jet ejectors which pull the
vacuum. High capacity ejectors capable of pulling a significant vacuum
are used.
All of the removed gases plus any particulate matter which results from
the violent boiling which occurs when the vacuum is drawn, come in
contact with the water. This results in particulate and dissolved
contamination of the condensate. which is produced in each of the
interstage condensers. Substitution of another type of vacuum producing
equipment does not seem practical at this time. No further reductions
in recommended BATEA limitations are proposed.
NSPS Discharge Standard - Refer to BATEA for Vacuum Degassing
Subcategory
Co n ti nuo u s_ Cas t in g_ Su beat egor y
Tha continuous casting process in addition to non-contact cooling water,
uses considerable quantities of contact cooling water. This water
becomes contaminated primarily with small particles of iron oxide
(suspended solids) and also picks up some small amount of oil and grease
from the lubricants used on the equipment. Occasionally if there is a
hydraulic leak, some hydraulic fluid will also get into this water.
This contact cooling water is a basic part of this new process, and
methods for materially reducing either the volume or the level of
contamination are not available at this time. No furtner reductions in
recommended BATEA limitations are proposed.
NSPS Discharge Standard - Refer to BATEA for Continuous Casting
Subcategory.
357
-------
SECTION XII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared by the EPA on the basis of an industry study
performed by the Cyrus Wm. Rice Division of NUS corporation under
Contract #68-01-1507. The RICE operations are basea in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.
The preparation and writing of this document was accomplished oy Mr.
Edward L. Dulaney, Project Officer, EPA, and through the efiorts of Mr.
Thomas J. Centi Project Manager, Mr. Wayne M. Neeley, Mr. Patrick C.
Falvey, Mr. David F. Peck, and Mr. Joseph C. Troy who prepared the
orginal Rice study report to the EPA.
Field and sampling programs were conducted under the leadership of Mr.
Donald J. Motz, Mr. Joseph A. Boros, and Mr. John D. Robins.
Laboratory and analytical services were conducted under the guidance of
Mr. Paul Goldstein and Miss Ellen C. Gonter.
The many excellent Figures contained within were provided by the RICE
drafting room under the supervision of Mr. Albert M. FinKe. The work
associated with the calculations of raw waste loads, effluent loads, and
costs associated with treatment levels is attributed to Mr. William C.
Porzio, Mr. Michael E. Hurst, and Mr. David A. Crosbie.
The excellent guidance provided by Mr. Walter J. Hunt, Chief, Effluent
Guidelines Development Branch, OAWP, Environmental Protection Agency is
acknowledged with grateful appreciation.
The cooperation of the individual steel companies who offered their
plants for survey and contributed pertinent data is gratefully
appreciated. The operations and the plants visited were the property of
the following companies: Jones & Laughlin Steel corporation, Bethlehem
Steel Corporation, Inland Steel Company, Donner Hanna Coke Corporation,
Interlake, Inc., Wisconsin Steel Division of International Harvester
Company, Jewell Smokeless Coal Corporation, Carpentertown coal and Coke
company, Armco steel Corporation, National Steel Corporation, United
States Steel corporation, and Kaiser Steel corporation.
The assistance of steel industry consultants, namely Ramseyer and
Miller, Ferro-Tech Industries, and Deci Corporation was utilized in
several areas of the project.
Acknowledgement and appreciation is also given to Dr. Chester Rhines for
technical assistance, to Ms. Kit Krickenberger for invaluable support in
coordinating the preparation and reproduction of this report, to Ms. Kay
Starr, Ms. Nancy Zrubek and Ms. Chris Miller of the EGD secretarial
359
-------
staff, Mrs. Minnie C. Harold, for library assistance and to Mrs. Carol
lannuzzi, Mrs. Pat Nigro, and Mrs. Mary Lou Simpson, of the RICE
Division for their efforts in the typing of drafts, necessary revisions,
and final preparation of the original Rice effluent guidelines document
and revisions.
360
-------
SECTION XIII
REFERENCES
1. Abson, J. W. , and Todhunter, K. H. , "Factors Affecting the
Biological Treatment of Carbonization Effluents",
The Gas World - Coking, pp. 61-72 (April 4, 1959) .
2. Adema, D., "The Largest Oxidation Ditch in the World for the
Treatment of Industrial Wastes", Proceedings of the 22nd Industrial
Wastes Conference, Purdue
University, 1967.
3. AIME, "Mitsubishi Smokeless Operation Technology",
Cleveland Ohio (April, 1973) .
**• AISI, "Blast Furnace and Raw Steel Production",
(December, 1972) .
5. Allegheny Ludlum, "Allegheny Ludlum to Use New Vacuum
Melting Technique", Iron^and^Steel Engineer, 46, p. 141
(September, 1969) .
6. American Iron and Steel Institute, "Annual Statistical
Reprot, 1971". Washington, D. C. (1972).
7. American Iron and Steel Institute, Dirgctory^gf _Iron^and
S^gel^ffg-gkS-Qf _thf United States and Canada , American
Iron and Steel Institute, New York (1970) .
8. American Schack Co., Inc., "Rhode-Reining Evaporative
Blast Furance Cooling", Pittsburgh, Pa. (March, 1973).
9. Arden, T.V. , "The Purification of Coke-Oven Liquors
by Ion Exchange and Activated Carbon", in The Tr earment
of^Trade^Waste .Wat eg '_ancM:he Prevent ion^of Riyer^Pollu-
tion, ed. Peter Issac, London (1957) .
10. Armour, F. K. , and Henderson, H. H. , "Steel and the
Environment: Today", AISI, New York, New York (May,
1972) .
11. Ashmore, A. G. , catchpole, J. R. , and Cooper, R. L. ,
"The Biological Treatment of coke Oven Effluents by
the Packed Tower Process", The Coke Oven Manager *_s
Yearbook, pp. 103-125 (1970) .
12. Astier, J. E. , "Prer eduction: Is It the Total Answer?",
Of -Metals (March, 1973) .
361
-------
13. Barker, John F. , and Pett.it, Grant A., "Use and Reuse
of Water in Specific Plant Operations of the Armco Steel
Corporation" , Annual Water_Conferencef Engineering
Society of Western Pennsylvania^ 2 8th, pp. 125-130 (1967)
14. Barnes, T. M. , et al, "Evaluation of Process Alterna-
tives to Improve Control of Air Pollution from Produc-
tion of Coke", Battelle Memorial Institute (January 31,
1970) .
15. Barritt, D. T. , and Robinson, V., "Coke Ovens Retro-
spect: Prospect", The^Coke^Qyen^Manager^s Yearbook,
pp. 504-557 (1961).
16. Battelle Memorial Institute, "Final Report on Evalua-
tion of Process Alternatives to Improve Control of Air
Pollution From Production of Coke", Battelle _Memoriai
Institute, January 31, 1970) .
17. Beckman, W. J. , Avendt, R. J. , Mulligan, T. J. , and
Kehrberger, G. J. , "Combined Carbon Oxidation Nitri-
fication" , Journa l_of ^the Water^Pollution Control
Federation, 44, October 10, 1972, p. 1916.
18. Bennett, K. W. , "Pollution Control - Is Steel Meeting
The Challenge?", Iron_A2e, p. 95 (November 21, 1968) .
19. Bernardin, F. E. , "Cyanide Detoxification Using Ad-
sorption and Catalytic Oxidation en Granular Activated
Carbon" , Jogrnal_gf ^the^Water Pollution Control Fed-
I5., 2, February, 1973, p. 221.
20. Bethlehem steel, "Pollution Control: Bethlehem Meets tne
Challenge", Be thlehem_Revi ew , p. 9 (November, 1966) .
21. Bethlehem Steel, "Pollution Control: Bethlehem Steps
Up the Pace", Bethlehem Review, pp. 9-10 (February, 1969) .
22. Black, H. H. , McDermott, G. N., Henderson, C. , Moore,
W. A., and Pohren, H. R. , "Industrial Wastes Guide",
Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University (May 15-17,
1951) .
23. Bramer, Henry C. and Gadd, William L. , "Magnetic Floc-
culation of Steel Mill Waste Water s" , Proceedings f_
I nd us t r i al_ Wa s te Conference fr_Purdu_e University , 2 5th ,
ppT 154-165"" (1970) .
24. Brinn, D. G. , "The Continuous Casting of Steel: A
Survey and Bibliography of Literature During 1971",
362
-------
British_Steel_Corgoration Research Report^ Strip Mills
Division, pp. 1-34.
25. Brinn, D. G. , "The Continuous Casting of Steel: A
Survey and Bibliography of Lit&rature Published During
1970", British^ Steel,, Corporation _ Research Report, Strip
Mills Division, pp. 1-36.
26. Brinn, D. G. , and Doris, R. L. , "Basic Oxygen Steel-
making: A Bibliography of Published Literature",
Britigh Steel corporation gesearch. Report, Section 7,
pp. 25-287
27. Brough, John F. , and Voges, Thomas F., "Basic Oxygen
Process Water Treatment" , PrgS§gdingsx_Industrial Waste
Conference^ Purdue_UniyersitY^_2^th> pp. 762-769
(1969)". ~
28. Brough, John R. , and Voges, Thomas F. , "Water Supply
and Wastewater Disposal for a Steel Mill", Water_and
Wastes_Engi.neerin2x_7 , No. 1, pp. A25-A27 (1970).
29. Bu sine ss_Week , "Steelmakers Loosen Their Ties to Coke",
(December 16, 1972).
30. Calgon Corporation Application Bulletin, "Calgon
Cyanide Destruction System", (1971).
31. Cartwright, W. F. , "The Economic Survival of the Blast
Furnace", IIS I, Tokyo, Japan (September, 1970) .
32. Cartwright, W. F., "Research Might Help to Solve
Coking Industry Problems", Gas_Wor 1 d^_ 1 6 4 , p. 497
(November 12, 1966) .
33. Caruso, S. C. , McMichael, F. C. , and Samples, W. R. ,
"AISI Water Resources Fellowship Review", American
Iron and_Steel Institute, Pitts bur gh^egior.al Technical
_Oc tober _1§2_ IJLZi ' pp. 277-293 (1971).
34. Catchpole, J. R. , "The Treatment and Disposal of Ef-
fluents in the Gas and coke Industry", Air_and_Water
Pollution_:m_th^_Ir^:)n_ and_ Steel Industry , Iron __ and
I^§§1 _IS§t i t u t e_ Sp_ec i a 1_R e^ort_ # 1 9 6 1 , pp. 219-225
(1958).
35. Cave, R. W. , "Effluent Disposal in an Integrated Worxs",
Management, of Water in_ the Iron_and_Steel_Industryx
Iron_and_Steel_Institute Special^ Report, #12 8 , pp. 124-130
7l970) .
363
-------
36. Chemic a l_Eng.ineer x_7 6 , "Electric Arc Furnace",
pp7 82-85 (August 11, 1969) .
37. Chen, Kenneth Y. , "Kinetics of Oxidation of Aqueous
Sulfide by 02", Environmental Science _and^Tgchno.lpgy_,
6, p. 529 (June,~1972) .
38. Cook, G. W. , "The Extent of Water Pollution in an
Iron and Steel Works and Steps Taken Towards Its
Prevent ion " , Air_andj-Water_Pollutign_ir the Irpn^and
Steel _Indugtry;f_..l£on_and Steel_Institute^Sgecial
PP- 177-186 (1958).
39. Cooper, R. L. , "Methods of Approach to coke Oven Ef-
fluent Problems", Airland Water^Pollution^in^the, Iron
and_ Steel_lndustr YJi.-.l£2a^gQ^ Stgel Jnstitut e^Special
~~pp. 198-202 (1958) .
40. Cooper, R. L. , "Recent Developments Affecting the Coke
Oven Effluent Problem", The Coke Oven Managers^ Year book,
pp. 135-153 (1964).
41. Cooper, R. L. , arid Catchpole, J. P., "Biological Treat-
ment of Phenolic Wastes", Management of Water in the
Iron and Steel Industry^ Iron anJ_ Steel Institute
Iii£ial_Re20rt_|128, pp. 97-102 (1970) .
42. Cooper, R. L. , and Catchpole, J. R. , "The Biological
Treatment of Coke Oven Effluents", The Coke Oven, Mana-
3§El§_I§arbook , pp. 146-177 (1967).
43. Council on Environmental Quality, "A Study of the
Economic Impact on the Steel Industry of the Costs of
Meeting Federal Air and Water Pollution Abatement
Requirements, Parts I, II, and III", Washington, D. C.,
(July 27, 1972) .
44. Connard, John M, , "Electrolytic Destruction of Cyanide
Residues", Met al_F_ini£hing , p. 54 (May, 1961) .'
45. Dailey, W. H. , "Steelmaking with Metallized Pellets",
AIME, Atlantic City, New Jersey (April, 1968) .
46. Davis, W. R. , "Control of Stream Pollution at the Beth-
lehem Plant", Iron and^Steel Engineer, 45, pp. 135-140
(November, 1968) .
47. Decaigny, Roger A., "Blast Furnace Gas Washer Removes
Cyanides, Ammonia, Iron, and Phenol", Proceedings^ _ 25th
Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue^UniversitY , pp.
364
-------
512-517 (1970) .
48. Deily, R. L. , "Q- BOP -Commentary" , Institute for Iron
and Steel Studies (July, 1972) .
49. Deily, R. L. , "Q-BOP: From Blow to Go In 90 Days",
Of -Metals * (March, 1972) .
50. Deily, R. L. , "Q-BOP: Year II", Journ a l_o f_Metals ,
(March, 1973) .
51. Directory of _ Iron and_ Steel Plants, Steel Publications,
Inc., 1971.
5 2 . Direct orY_of_the_lron^and^ Steel, Works of the World ,
Metal Bulletins Books, Ltd., London, 5th edition.
53. Dodge, B. F. , and Zabban, W. , "Disposal of Plating
Room Wastes III, Cyanide wastes: Treatment with
Hypochlorites and Removal of Cyanates", Plating.
p. 561 (June, 1951) .
54. Dupont Application Bulletin, "Treating Cyanide, Zinc,
and Cadmium Rinse Waters with 'Kastone' Peroxygen
Compound" (1970) .
55. Easton, John K. , "Electorlytic Decomposition of
Concentrated Cyanide Plating Wastes", National
Cash Register Company.
56. Edgar, W. D. , and Muller, J. M. , "The Status of Coke
Oven Pollution Control", AIME, Cleveland, Ohio (April,
1973) .
57. Eisenhauer, Hugh R. , "The Ozonation of Phenolic Wastes",
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation ,
p. 1887 (November, 1968) .
58. Environmental Protection Agency, "Bibliography of Water
Quality Research Reports", Water Pollution Control Re-
search series^ Of f ice^of_Research__and Monitoring , Wash-
ington, D. C. , pp. 1-40 (March, 1972)".
59. Environmental Protection Agency, "Biological Removal of
Carbon and Nitrogen Compounds from coke Plant Wastes",
Office of Research and _ Monitoring , Washington, D. C.
(February, 1973) .
60. Environmental Protection Agency, "Industry Profile Study
on Blast Furnace and Basic Steel Products", C.__W. Rice
365
-------
Division - NUS Corporation t'cr EPA, Washington, D. C,
(December, 1971) .
61. Environmental Protection Agency, "Pollution Control 01
Blast Furnace Gas Scrubbers Through Recirculation",
Office of Research and Monitoring, Washington, D. C.
(Project No. 12010EDY).
62. Environmental Protection Agency, "Water Pollution Con-
trol Practices in the Carbon and Allied Steel Industries",
EPA, Washington, D. C. (September 1, 1972).
63. Environmental Protection Agency, "Water Pollution Con-
trol Practices in the Carbon and Alloy Steel Industries",
Progress Reports for the Months of September and Octo-
ber, 1972 (Project No. R800625).
64. Environmental_Steel, The Council on Economic Priorities
65. Finney, C. S., DeSieghardt, w. C., and Harris, H. E.,
"Coke Making in the U. S. - Past, Present, and Future",
li§§t_Furnace_and_Steel_Plant, (November, 1967).
66. Fisher, C. W., Hepner, R. D., and Tallon, G. R., "Coke
Plant Effluent Treatment Investigations", Blast Furnace
and_Steel_Plant (May, 1970) .
67. Glasgow, John A., and Smith, W. D., "Basic Oxygen
Furnace Steelmaking", American Iron and Steel_lnstitute
Yearbookf 1963, pp. 65-89 (1963) .
68. Gordon, C.K., and Droughton, T. A., "Continuous Coding
Process", AISE, Chicago, Illinois (April, 1973).
69. Hawsom, D. W. R., "Bottom Blown Open Hearths?", 33
Magazine, p. 30, (August, 1972).
70. Howard, J. C., "Possible Steelmaking Furnaces of the
Future", Iron and Steel lEngland), p. 389 (September,
1967) .
71. Inland Steel, "New Treatment Plant Helps Harbor Works
Achieve Clean Water", Inland_Now, No. 2, pp. 10-11 (1970).
72. Iron_Ag;e, "Will SIP Add New ZIP to Tired Open Hearths?",
p. 27 (August 31, 1972).
73. Iron and Steel Engineer, "Armco Unveils Butler Facility11,
pp. 104-106~ (November, 1969).
366
-------
7£*« Iron and Steel Enqineer/ 46 , "BOF Facility and Combina-
tion Mill in Full Operation~at Bethlehem", pp. 88-94
(August, 1969) .
75. Iron_an(i gteel Engineer, "Annual Review of Developments
In The Iron and Steel Industry During 1972", p. Dl
(January, 1973) .
76. Iron and Steel Eng;inerer Yearbook,, 1970, "Developments in
the Iron and Steel Industry During 1969", pp. 66-111
(1970) .
77- Iron_and_§teel Engineer Yearbook^ _1971 , "Developments in
the Iron and Steel Industry During 1970", pp. 19-75
(1971).
78. Jablin, Richard, "Environmental control at Alan Wood:
Technical Problems, Regulations, and New Processes",
lron_and_Steel_En2ineerx_£8, pp. 58-65 (July, 1971) .
79. J.2iirnal_of _M§£§i§ r "New Coke Oven Emission Control System
Demonstrated", (March, 1973).
80. Kemmetmueller , R. , "Dry Coke Quenching - Proved, Profit-
able, Pollution Free Quenching Technology", AISE, Chicago,
Illinois (April, 1973) .
81. Keystone Coal, "Keystone Coal Industry Manual", (1972).
82. Kostenbader, Paul D. , and Flecksteiner, John W. , "Bio-
logical Oxidation of Coke Plant Weak Ammonia Liquor",
Water^Pollution^Control^Fedgraticn Journal,, 41 ,
pp. 199-207 (February, 1969) .
83. Leidner, R. N. , "Waste Water Treatment for the Burns
Harbor Plant of Bethlehem Steel Corporation", Joujrnal_of
Water, Pollution, Contr_gl_Federation, 41, No. 5, Part 1,
pp. 796-807 (1969) .
84. Leidner, R. N., and Nebolsine, Ross, "Wastewater Treat-
ment Facilities at Burns Harbor", Procgedings^ Industrial
Was te_Conferencej_Purdue yniyersi^Y, 22nd , pp . 631-645
(1967) .
85. Leroy, P. J. , "Oxygen Bottom Blowing by the LWS Process",
l£2H £Q.d §teel E£2iD§§£» F- 51 (October, 1972) .
86. Lovgren, C. A., "Forces of Economic Change - Steex
U. S. A.", AIME, Counci 1 o f Economi cs (February, 1968)
367
-------
87. Ludberg, James E. , and Nicks, Donald G. , "Phenols and
Thiocyanate Removed from Coke Plant Effluents", Water
and_Sewage__Wor ks ^11 £ , pp. 10-13 (November, 1969) .
88 • !!_£:§22.z IQ.§ • "Bottom-Blown Steel Processes Now Number
Three: Q-BOF, LWS, and SIP", p. 34 (September, 1972).
89. M_Ma2§.z.in_ e , "Continuous Casting Found-Up", p. 54
(JulyT 1970) .
90- 33_Mag_ajzine , "Electric Arc .Round-Up" (July through
October, 1972) .
, "Waste Material Recycling Processes Promise
Yield Increases, Anti-Pollution Benefits", (September,
1972) .
92. H_Mac[azine, "World-Wide Vacuum Degassing Round-Up"
(December! 1972) .
93. Mahan, W. M. , "Prereduction - State of the Art", (In-
formal Paper) , Steel Bar Mills Association, Las Vegas,
Nevada (April, 1971) .
94. Maloy, J. , "Developments in cokemaking Plant", Proceedings
gf_Coke_in_Ironmaking_ConferenceA^
London, pp. 89-97 (December, 1969) .
95. Mansfield, V., "Peabody Continuous Coking Process" ,,
Blast_Furnace_and_Ste_el_Plant , p. 254 (April, 1970) .
96. Markowitz , J. , Pittsburgh Post Gazette Business Editor,
"Report on 1973 AISI Meeting", (May 23, 1973) .
97. Marting, D. G. , and Balch, G. E. , "Charging Preheated
Coal to Coke Ovens Blast Furnace^and_St eel^Plant ,
p. 326 (May, 1970) .""
98. McManus, G. , "That Blue Sky on Steelmaking ' s Horizon",
Iron_Ag.e, (December 2, 1971) .
99. McMichael, Francis C. , Maruhnich, Edward D. , and Samples,
William R. , "Recycle Water Quality From A Blast Furnace",
Jour na 1 o f _the_Water_gpllutipn_ Control Federationj. 43 ,
pp7 595r603 (1971) .
100. McMorris, C. E. , "Inland's Experience in Reducing Cya-
nides and Phenols in the Plant Water Outfall", Blast
Furnace and Steel Plant, pp. 43-47 (January, 1968) .
368
-------
101. Muller, J. M. , and Coventry, F. L. , "Disposal of Coke
Plant Waste in the Sanitary Water System", Blast Furnaqe
and_Steel_Plant, pp. 400-406 (May, 1968) .
102. National Atlas of the United States, p. 97 (1970).
103. Nebolsine, Ross, "Steel Plant Waste Water Treatment
and Reuse", Iron _and_S teal Engineer^ _ 44, pp. 122-135
(March, 1967)".
104. Nilles, P. E. , "Steelmaking by Oxygen Bottom Blowing",
AISE, Pittsburgh, Pa. (September, 1972) .
105. Patton, R. S., "Hooded Coke Quenching System for Air
Quality Control", AISE, Chicago, Illinois (April, 1973).
106. Pilsner, Frank, "Smokeless Pushing at Ford", AIME,
Cleveland, Ohio (April, 1973) .
107. Plumer, F. J., "Armco's Blast Furnace Water Treatment
System Cures Pollution", Iron and Steel Engineer, 45
pp. 124-126 (1969) .
108. Potter, N. M., and Hunt, J. W. , "The Biological Treat-
ment of Coke Oven Effluents", Ai r ^ a nd _ Wa t er ^ Po 1 1 u t i on
in £ij§_ ! £2S_§:Il4_S t ee 1 _I nd u st r^j _ Iron_and_ Steel_Instit.ute
_ #J61 , pp7 207-218(1958).
109. Raddant, R. D. , Obrzut, J. J., Korbin, C. L. , "Pollution
The Steel industry Cleans Up", l£On_Acje, p. 107
(September 15, 1966) .
110. Roe, Arthur C. , "Continuous Casting: Its Changing Role
In Steelmaking", American, Iron and_Steel Institute
Yearboo^i-ll6- 3 f pp. 153-169~(1963) .
111. Scholey, R. , "The Present Situation Regarding Pre-
Reduced Iron and Cokemaking Technology", I I SI,
London, England, p. 71 (1972) .
112. Shilling, Spencer, "World Steelmaking Trends", Bureau
of International,, De La Recu]oer atign , New York (1971) .
113. Sims, C. E. , and Hoffman, A. 0., "The Future of Electric
Furnace Melting", AIME, El ectr i c^Fur nac e Proceedings,
(1972).
114. smith, John M. , Masse, A. N. , Feige, W. A., and
Kamphake, L. J., "Nitrogen Removal From Municipal
Waste Water by Columnar Denitrification", Environmental
369
-------
S£ience_anj3_Tj;chnoloc[y_ • £» P* 260 (March 3, 1972) .
115. Speer, E. B. , "other Speer Thoughts on steel Outlook",
Iron_Age (March 29, 1973) .
116. S t eel _Time s_i_123 , "Coke in the Iron and Steel Industry
New Methods in Conventional Processes", pp. 551-556
(October 21, 1966) .
117. Steel_Time s , "Production and Use of Prereduced Iron
Ores", Summary of International Conference at Evian,
p. 753 (June 30, 1967), p. 161 (August 11, 1967).
118. Stone, J. K. , "World Growths of Basic Oxygen Steel
Plants", Iron and Steel^Engineer, p. Ill (December,
1969) .
119. Stove, Ralph, and Schmidt, Carter, "A Survey of indus-
trial Waste Treatment Costs and Charges", Proceedings
of the_23rd Indus-brial Waste_Conf 6renceJL_Purdue
University? pp. 19-63 "(1968)".
120. Talbott, John A., "Building a Pollution-Free Steel
Plant", Mechanical_Engineerx_^3, No. 1, pp. 25-30
(January, 1971) .
121. Tenenbaum, M. , and Luerssen, F. W. , "Energy and the
U. S. Steel Industry", IISI, Toronto, Canada (1971).
122. Thring, M. W. , "The Next Generation in Steelmaking",
p. 4U6 (October, 1968) ,
p.25(February, 1969), p. 123 (April, 1969).
123. Toureene, Kendall W. , "Waste Water Neutralization",
lI§st_Furnace_and_Sreel_Planti_5_9, No. 2, pp. 86-90
(February, 1971) .
124. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Census_of _Manufactur er s , 1967, Washington, D. C.
125. U. S. Department of Commerce, "world Iron -Ore Pellet
and Direct Iron Capacity", February, 1973.
126. U. S. Department of the Interior, "The cost of. clean
Water", Volume III - Industrial Wastes, Profile No. 1,
Blast Furnace and Steel Mills, FWPCA, Washington,
D. C. (September 28, 1967).
127. United States Steel, The_Making^ShaEingx and_ Treating
of Steel, Harold E. McGannon ed., Herlicek and Hill,
370
-------
Pittsburgh, 8th edition (1964).
128. Vayssiere, P., Rovanet, J., Berthet, A., Roederer,
C., Trentini, B., "The IRSJD Continuous Steelmaking
Process", (May, 1968).
129. Wall Street Journal, «'U. S. Steel Converting 3 New
Gary Furnaces to Q-BOF System", (March 14, 1972).
130. Wallace, De Yarman, "Blast Furnace Gas dasher Water
Recycle System", Irgn and^Steel Engineer_Yearbook,
pp. 231-235 (1970).
131. Water_and_Sewage_Worksx_113, "Bethlehem Steel's Burns
Harbor Wastewater Treatment Plant", pp. 468-470
(December, 1966).
132. Water_and_Wastes_Engineeringi_7, "Armco's Pollution
Control Facility Wins ASCE Award", No. 5, pp. C-12
(May, 1970) .
133. Weirton Steel,.Employees Bulletin,, 36, "Progress in
Continuing In Weirton Steel's Water Pollution Abate-
ment Program", No. 2, pp. 3-7 (1968) .
134. Wilson, T. E., and Newton, D., "Brewery Wastes As A
Carbon Source For Denitrification at Tampa, Florida",
Presented at the 28th Annual Purdue Industrial Waste
Conference, 1973.
135. Work, M., "The FMC Coke Process", Journal_of_Metals,
p. 635 (May, 1966) .
136. Worner, H. W., Baker, F. H., Lassam, I. H., and
Siddons, R., "WORCRA (Continuous) Steelmaking",
Journal of Metals, p. 50 (June, 1969).
137. Wylie, W., Pittsburgh Press Business Editor, "Report
on 1973 AISI Meeting", (May 27, 1973).
138. Zabban, Walter, and Jewett, H. W., "The Treatment of
Fluoride Wastes", Engineering^Bulletin^of Purdue
University^Proceedings gf the 22nd Industrial Waste
Q2Q£l£§Q£Sx_ i2.6_2 » P • 706.
139. Cousins, W. G. and Mindler, A. B., "Tertiary Treatment of
Weak Ammonia Liquor", JWPCF, 44, 4 607-618 (April, 1972).
140. Grosick, H. A., "Ammonia Disposal - Coke Plants,"
Blast Furnace and Steel Plant, pp. 217-221 (April, 1971).
371
-------
141. Hall, D. A. and Nellis, G. R., "Phenolic Effluents Treatment",
Che2dcal_Trade_Journal (Brit.)f 156, p. 786, (1965).
142. Labine, R. A., "Unusual Refinery Unit Produces Phenol-Free
Wastewater", Chemical^Engineering, 66, 17, 114, (1959).
372
-------
SECTION XIV
GLOSSARY
Aci d Fur n ac e
A furnace lined with acid brick as contrasted to one lined with basic
brick. In this instance the terms acid and basic are in the same
relationship as the acid anhydride and basic anhydride that are found in
aqueous chemistry. The most common acid brick is silica crick or chrome
brick.
Air_Cooled_Slag
Slag which is cooled slowly in large pits in the ground. Light water
sprays are generally used tc accelerate the cooling over that which
would occur in air alone. The finished slag is generally gray in color
and looks like a sponge.
Alloying Materials
Additives to steelmaking processes producing alloy steel.
Ammonia Liquor
Primarily water condensed from the coke oven gas, an aqueous solution of
ammonium salts of which there are two kinds-free and fixed. Tne free
salts are those which are decomposed on boiling to liberate ammonia.
The fixed salts are those which require boiling with an alkali such as
lime to liberate the ammonia.
Ammoni a _ S ti11
The free ammonia still is simply a steam stripping operation where
ammonia gas is removed from ammonia liquor. The fixed still is similar
except lime is added to the liquor to force the combined ammonia out of
its compounds so it can be steam stripped also.
Ammonia_ Stil1_Waste
Treated effluent from an ammonia still.
Apron Rollg
Rolls used in the casting strand for keeping cast products aligned.
Bas_ic_ Brick
A brick made of a material which is a basic anhydride such as MgO or
mixed MgO plus CaO. See acid furnace.
373
-------
Basic^Furnace
A furnace in which the refractory material is composed of dolomite or
magnesite.
Basic^Oxygen^Steelmaking
The basic oxygen process is carried cut in a basic lined furnace which
is shaped like a pear. High pressure oxygen is blown vertically
downward on the surface of the molten iron through a water cooled lance.
Battery
A group of coke ovens arranged side by side.
Blast^Furnace
A large, tall conical shaped furnace used to reduce iron ore to iron.
Bosh
The bottom section of a blast furnace. The section between the hearth
and the stack.
An agglomeration of steel plant waste material of sufficient strength to
be a satisfactory blast furnace charge.
lYZ £^2^ uct_ Coke_P r oc_e_ss
Process in which coal is carbonized in the absence of air to permit
recovery of the volatile compounds and produce coke.
Burden
Solid feed stack to a blast furnace.
Carbon_Steel
Steel which owes its properties chiefly to various percentages of carbon
without substantial amounts of other alloying elements. Steel is
classified as carbon steel when no minimum content of elements other
than carbon is specified or required to obtain a desired alloying
effect.
Charge
374
-------
The minimum combination of skip or bucket loads of material which
together provide the balanced complement necessary to produce hot metal
of the desired specification.
Checker
A regenerator brick chamber which is used to absorb hear, and cool the
waste gases to 650-750°C.
Cinder
Another name for slag.
Clarification
The process of removing undissclved materials from a liquid,
specifically either by settling or filtration.
Closed_Hood
A system in which the hot gases from the basic oxygen furnace are not
allowed to burn in the hood with outside air infiltration. These hoods
cap the furnace mouth.
Coke
The carbon residue left when the volatile matter is driven off of coal
by high temperature distillation.
coke_Breeze
Small particles of coke; these are usually used in the coJce plants as
boiler feed or screened for domestic trade.
Coke_Wharf
The place where coke is discharged from quench cars prior to screening.
Cold_Metal_Furnace
A furnace that is usually charged with two batches of solid material.
C2Dii2u2^s_Ca sting
A new process for solidifying liquid steel in place o± pouring it into
ingot molds. In this process the solidified steel is in the form of
cast blooms, billets, or slabs. This eliminates the need for soaking
pits and primary rolling.
Creosote
375
-------
Distillate from tar.
Deghenolizer
A. facility in which phenol is removed from the ammonia liquor and
recovers it as sodium phenolate; this is usually accomplished by liquid
extraction and vapor recirculation.
Double, Slagging
Process in which the first oxidizing slag is removed and replaced with a
white, lime finishing slag.
Flat bed railroad cars. A drag will generally consist of five or six
coupled cars.
Duplexing
An operation in which a lower grade of steel is produced in the basic
oxygen furnace or open hearth and is then alloyed in the electric
furnace.
Dustcatcher
A part of the blast furnace through which the major portion of the dust
is removed by mechanical separation.
Electric^. Furnace
A furnace in which scrap iron, scrap steel, and other solid ferrous
materials are melted and converted to finished steel. Liquid iron is
rarely used in an electric furnace.
Electrostatic_Precipitator
A gas cleaning device using the principle of placing an electrical
charge on a solid particle which is then attracted to an oppositely
charged collector plate. The collector plates are intermittently rapped
o discharge the collected dust to a hopper below.
Evaporation _ Chamber
A method used for cooling gases to the precipitators in which an exact
heat balance is maintained between water required and gas cooling; no
effluent is discharged in this case as all of the water is evaporated.
Fettl ing
376
-------
The period of time between tap and start.
Final cooler
A hurdle packed tower that cools the coke oven gas by direct contact.
The gas must be cooled to 30°C for recovery of light oil.
Flushing Liquor
Water recycled in the collecting main for the purpose of cooling the gas
as it leaves the ovens.
Flux
Material added to a fusion process for the purpose of removing
impurities from the hot metal.
Fourth.. Hole
A fourth refractory lined hole in the roof of the electric furnace which
serves as an exhaust port.
Free Leg
A portion of the ammonia still from which ammonia, hydrogen sulfide,
carbon dioxide, and hydrogen cyanide are steam distilled and returned to
the gas stream.
FugitiveEmisgions
Emissions that care expelled to the atmosphere in an uncontrolled
manner.
Granulated,Slag
A product made by dumping liquid blast furnace slag past a high pressure
water jet and allowing it to fall into a pit of water. The material
looks like light tan sand.
Hot_Blast
The heated air stream blown into the bottom of a blast furnace.
Temperatures are in the range of 550°C to 1COO°C, and pressures are in
the range of 2 to 4.5 atmospheres.
Hot Metal
Melted, liquid iron or steel. Generally refers to the liquid metal
discharge from blast furnaces.
377
-------
Hot_Metal_Furnace
A furnace that is initially charged with solid materials followed
second charge of melted liquid.
Ingot
by
A large block shaped steel casting. Ingots are intermediates from which
other steel products are made. An ingot is usually the first solid form
the steel takes after it is made in a furnace.
Ingot Mold
A mold in which ingots are cast. Molds may be circular, square, or
rectangular in shape, with walls of various thickness. Some molds are
of larger cross section at the bottom, others are larger at the top.
Iron
The product made by the reduction of iron ore. Iron in the steel mill
sense is impure and contains up to 4% dissolved carbon along with other
impurities. See steel.
Iron_Ore
The raw material from which iron is made.
with impurities such as silica.
Kish
It is primarily iron oxide
A graphite formed on hot metal following tapping.
Light_Oil
A clear yellow-brown oil with a specific gravity of about 0.889. It
contains varying amounts of coal-gas products with boiling points from
about 40°c to 200°C and from which benzene, toluene, xyiene and solvent
napthas are recovered.
Lime_Boil
The turbulence created by the
calcination of the limestone.
release of carbon dioxide in the
Lime Leg The fixed leg of the ammonia still to which milk of lime is
added to decompose ammonium salts; the liberated ammonia is steam
distilled and returned to the gas stream.
Meltdown
378
-------
The melting of the scrap and other solid metallic elements of the
charge.
Mill Scale
The iron oxide scale which breaks off of heated steel as it passes
through a rolling mill. The outside of the piece of steel is generally
completely coated with scale as a result of being heated in an oxidizing
atmosphere.
Molten Metal ^Period
The period of time during the electric furnace steelmaking cycle when
fluxes are added to furnace molten bath for forming the slag.
Qpen_Hearth _Furnace
A furnace used for making steel. It has a large flat saucer shaped
hearth to hold the melted steel. Flames play over top of tne steel and
melt is primarily by radiation.
A 4.5 meter to 6 meter square, rectangular or circular cross sectional
shaped conduit, open at both ends, which is used in the BOF steelmaking
process for the combustion and conveyance of hot gases, fume, etc.,
which are generated in the basic oxygen furnace to the waste gas
collection system.
Ore _Boil
The generation of carbon monoxide by the oxidation of carbon.
Oxidizing Slags
Fluxing agents that are used to remove certain oxides such as silicon
dioxide, manganese oxide, phosphorus pentoxide and iron oxide from the
hot metal.
Pelletizing
The processing of dust from the steel furnaces into a pellet of uniform
size and weight for recycle.
Pig Iron
Impure iron cast into the form of small blocks that weigh about 30
kilograms each. The blocks are called pits.
Pinch Rolls
379
-------
Rolls used to regulate the speed of discharge of cast product from the
molds.
Pitch
Distillate from tar.
The transfer of molten metal from the ladle into ingot molds or other
types of molds; for example, in castings.
Quenching
A process of rapid cooling from an elevated temperature; by contact with
liquids, gases, or solids.
Quench Tower
The station at which the incandescent coke in the coke car is sprayed
with water to prevent combustion. Quenching of coke requires about 500
gallons of water per ton of coke.
Reducing Slag
Used in the electric furnace following the slagging off of an oxidizing
slag to minimize the loss of alloys by oxidation.
Refining Oxidation cycle for transforming hot metal (iron) and other
metallics into steel by removing elements present such as silicon,
phosphorus, manganese and carbon.
Runner
A channel through which molren metal or slag is passed from one
receptacle to another; in a casting mold, the portion of the gate
assembly that connects the downgate or sprue with the casting.
Runout
Escape of molten metal from a furnace, mold or melting crucible.
A product resulting from the action of a flux on the nonmetallic
constituents of a processed ore, or on the oxidized metallic
constituents that are undesirable. Usually slags consist of
combinations of acid oxides with basic oxides, and neutral oxides are
added to aid fusibility.
380
-------
Spark Box
A solids and water collection zone in a basic oxygen furnace hood.
Steel
Refined iron. Typical blast furnace iron has the following composition:
Carbon - 3 to 4.5%; Silicon - 1 to 3%; Sulfur - 0.04 to 0.2*; Phosphorus
0.1 to 1.0%; Manganese - 0.2 tc 2.0%. The refining process
(steelmaking) reduces the concentration of these elements in the metal.
A common steel 1020 has the following composition: Carbon - 0.18 to
0.23%; Manganese - 0.3 to 0.6%; Phosphorus - less than 0.04%; Sulfur -
less than 0.05%.
Steel_Ladle
A vessel for receiving and handling liquid steel. It is made with a
steel shell, lined with refractories.
Stools
Flat cast iron plates upon which the ingot molds are seated.
Stoves
Large refractory filled vessels in which the air to be blown into the
bottom of a blast furnace is preheated.
Strand
A term applied to each mold and its associated mechanical equipment.
Support_Rolls
Rolls used in the casting strand for keeping cast products aligned.
A hole approximately fifteen (15) centimeters in diameter located in the
hearth brickwork of the furnace that permits flow of the molten steel to
the ladle.
Tapging
Transfer of hot metal from a furnace to a steel ladle.
Period of time after a heat is poured and the other necessary cycles are
performed to produce another heat for pouring.
381
-------
Tar
The organic matter separating by condensation from the gas in the
collector mains. It is a black, viscous liquid, a little heavier than
water. From it the following general classes of compounds may be
recovered: pyrites, tar acids, naphthalene, creosote oil and pitch.
Teeming
Casting of steel into ingots.
Tun dish
A preheated covered steel refractory lined rectangular container with
several nozzles in the bottom which is used to regulate the flow of hot
steel from the teeming ladles.
A process for removing dissolved gases from liquid steel by subjecting
it to a vacuum.
Venturi gcrubbe_r
A wet type collector that uses the throat for intermixing of the dust
and water particles. The intermixing is accomplished by rapid
contraction and expansion of the air stream and a high degree of
turbulence.
Wash_0il
A petroleum solvent used as an extract ant in the coke plant.
Waste Heat Boiler
Boiler system which utilizes the hot gases from the checkers as a source
of heat.
Water Tube Hgod
Consists of steel tubes, four (4) centimeters to five (5) centimeters
laid parallel to each other and joined together by means of steel ribs
continuously welded. This type hood is used in the basic oxygen
steelmaking process for the combustion and conveyance of hot gases to
the waste gas collection system.
We t _ Scrubbe r s
Venturi or orifice plate units used to bring water into intimate contact
with dirty gas for the purpose of its removal from the gas stream.
382
-------
TABLE
METRIC UNITS
CONVERSION TABLE
MULTIPLY (ENGLISH UNITS)
ENGLISH UNIT ABBREVIATION
acre ac
acre-feet aeft
British Thermal
Unit BTU
British Thermal BTU/lb
Unit/pound
cubic feet/minute cfm
cubic feet/second cfs
cubic feet cu ft
cubic feet cu ft
cubic inches cu in
degree Fahrenheit °F
feet ft
gallon gal
gallon/minute gpm
horsepower hp
inches in
inches of mercury in Hg
pounds Ib
million gallons/day mgd
mile mi
pound/square inch psig
(gauge)
square feet sq ft
square inches sq in
tons (short) ton
yard yd
by TO OBTAIN (METRIC UNITS)
CONVERSION ABBREVIATION METRIC UNIT
0.405
1233.5
0. 252
0.555
0.028
1.7
0.028
28.32
16.39
0.555(°F-32)*
0.3048
3.785
0.0631
0.7457
2.54
0.03342
0.454
3,785
1.609
(0.06805 psig +l)*atm
0.0929
6.452
0.907
0.9144
ha hectares
cu m cubic meters
kg cal kilogram-calories
kg cal/kg kilogram calories/
kilogram
cu m/min cubic meters/minute
cu m/min cubic meters/minute
cu m cubic meters
1 liters
cu cm cubic centimeters
°C degree Centigrade
m meters
1 liters
I/sec liters/second
kw killowatts
cm centimeters
atm atmospheres
kg kilograms
cu m/day cubic meters/day
km kilometer
atmospheres
(absolute)
sq m square meters
sq cm square centimeters
kkg metric tons
(1000 kilograms)
m meters
* Actual conversion, not a multiplier
383
-------
..,--. r ,rion Agency
TTi -'-" ' '-n- --
230 sou-
------- |