United States	Industrial Technology Division	EPA 440/1-86/019
Environmental Protection	WH-552	September 1986
Agency	Washington, DC 20460
Water
wEPA Development	Final
Document for
Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards
for the Nonferrous Metals
Forming and Metal Powders
Point Source Category
Volume III

-------
440186019
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
for
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
for the
NONFERROUS METALS FORMING AND METAL POWDERS
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
VOLUME III
Lee M. Thomas
Administrator
Lawrence J. Jensen
Assistant Administrator for Water
William A. Whittington
Director
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
$ © ri
wffiy
PRO^0
Devereaux Barnes, Acting Director
Industrial Technology Division
Ernst P. Hall, P.E., Chief
Metals Industries Branch
Janet K. Goodwin
Technical Project Officer
September 1986
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Industrial Technology Division
Washington, D.C. 20460

-------
This document is divided into three volumes. Volume I contains Sections
I through IV. Volume II contains Sections V and VI. Volume III contains
Sections VII through XVI.
SECTION I	SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
SECTION II	RECOMMENDATIONS
SECTION III	INTRODUCTION
SECTION IV	INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION
SECTION V	WATER USE AND WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
SECTION VI	SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
SECTION VII	CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
SECTION VIII	COST OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND CONTROL
SECTION IX	BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
SECTION X	BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
SECTION XI	NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
SECTION XII	PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
SECTION XIII	BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
SECTION XIV	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
SECTION XV	GLOSSARY
SECTION XVI	REFERENCES

-------
CONTENTS
Section
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
Page
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS	1
Methodology
Technology Basis for Limitations
and Standards
RECOMMENDATIONS	7
BPT and BAT Mass Limitations
New Source Performance Standards
Pretreatment Standards for Existing
and New Sources
INTRODUCTION	319
Legal Authority
Data Collection and Utilization
Description of the Nonferrous
Metals Forming Category
Description of Nonferrous Metals
Forming Processes
INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION	385
Evaluation and Selection of
Subcategorization Factors
Production Normalizing Parameter
Select ion
Description of Subcategories
WATER USE AND WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 413
Data Sources
Water Use and Wastewater Characteristics
SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS	1119
Rationale for Selection of Pollutant
Parameters
Description of Pollutant Parameters
Pollutant Selection by Subcategory
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY	1311
End-of-Pipe Treatment Technologies
Major Technologies
Major Technology Effectiveness
Minor Technologies
In-Process Pollution Control Techniques
i

-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Section	Page
VIII	COST OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND CONTROL 1461
Summary of Cost Estimates
Cost Estimation Methodology
Cost Estimates for Individual Treatment
Technologies
Compliance Cost Estimation
Nonwater Quality Aspects
IX	BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY	1553
CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
Technical Approach to BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming Subcategory
Magnesium Forming Subcategory
Nickel-Cobalt Forming Subcategory
Precious Metals Forming Subcategory
Refractory Metals Forming Subcategory
Titanium Forming Subcategory
Uranium Forming Subcategory
Zinc Forming Subcategory
Zirconium Hafnium Forming Subcategory
Metal Powders Subcategory
Application of Regulation in Permits
X	BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY 1757
ACHIEVABLE
Technical Approach to BAT
BAT Option Selection
Regulated Pollutant Parameters
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming Subcategory
Magnesium Forming Subcategory
Nickel-Cobalt Forming Subcategory
Precious Metals Forming Subcategory
Refractory Metals Forming Subcategory
Titanium Forming Subcategory
Uranium Forming Subcategory
Zinc Forming Subcategory
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming Subcategory
Metals Powders Subcategory
XI	NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS	1915
Technical Approach to NSPS
NSPS Option Selection
Regulated Pollutant Parameter
New Source Performance Standards
ii

-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Section	Page
XII	PRETREATMENT STANDARDS	2013
Introduction of Nonferrous Metals
Forming Wastewater into POTW
Technical Approach to Pretreatment
PSES and PSNS Option Selection
Regulated Pollutant Parameters
Pretreatment Standards
XIII	BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL	2187
TECHNOLOGY
XIV	ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS	2189
XV	GLOSSARY	2191
XVI	REFERENCES	2211
iii

-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
III-l
II1-2
III-3
III-4
IV-1
V-l
V-2
V-3
V-4
V-5
V-6
V-7
V-8
Title	Page
Metal Types Not Formed on a	356
Commercial Scale, or for which
Forming Operations Generate No
Wastewater
Metal Types Covered Under the	357
Nonferrous Metals Forming
Category
Years Since Nonferrous Forming	358
Operations Began at Plant
Nonferrous Metal Production by	359
Product Formed in 1981
Number of Plants Discharging	411
Nonferrous Metals Forming
Wastewater, By Subcategory
Number of Samples Per Waste	478
Stream, By Subcategory
Sample Analysis Laboratories	483
Nonpriority Pollutants Analyzed	484
for During Sampling Effort
Supporting This Regulation
Results of Chemical Analyses of	486
Sampled Lead and Nickel Extrusion
Press and Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling Water
Results of Chemical Analyses of	487
Sampled Lead, Nickel, and
Precious Metals Rolling Spent
Emulsions
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Rolling Spent	488
Emulsions
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Rolling Spent	489
Emulsions Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Rolling Spent	492
Soap Solutions
v

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
V-9
V-10
V-ll
V-12
V-13
V-14
V-15
V-16
V-17
V-18
V-19
V-20
V-21
Title	Page
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Rolling Spent	493
Neat Oils
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Drawing Spent	494
Emulsions
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Drawing Spent	495
Soap Solutions
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Drawing Spent	496
Soap Solutions Raw Wastewater
Characteristics
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Extrusion Press	497
or Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling Water
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Extrusion Press	498
Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water Raw Wastewater
Characteristies
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Extrusion Press	501
Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Swaging Spent	502
Emulsions
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Continuous Strip 503
Casting Contact Cooling Water
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Continuous Strip	504
Casting Contact Cooling Water
Raw Wastewater Characteristics
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Semi-Continuous	506
Ingot Casting Contact Cooling
Water
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Semi-Continuous	507
Ingot Casting Contact Cooling
Water Raw Wastewater Characteristics
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Shot Casting Con- 510
tact Cooling Water
vi

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table	Title	Page
V-22	Lead-Tin-Bismuth Shot Casting	511
Contact Cooling Water Raw
Wastewater
V-23	Lead-Tin-Bismuth Shot Forming Wet	514
Air Pollution Control Blowdown
V-24	Lead-Tin-Bismuth Alkaline Cleaning 515
Spent Baths
V-25	Lead-Tin-Bismuth Alkaline Cleaning 516
Spent Baths Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
V-26	Lead-Tin-Bismuth Alkaline Cleaning 519
Rinse
V-27	Lead-Tin-Bismuth Alkaline Cleaning 520
Rinse Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
V-28	Magnesium Rolling Spent Emulsions	524
V-29	Magnesium Forging Spent Lubricants 525
V-30	Magnesium Forging Contact Cooling	526
Water
V-31	Magnesium Forging Equipment Cleaning 527
Wastewater
V-32	Magnesium Direct Chill Casting Con- 528
tact Cooling Water
V-33	Magnesium Surface Treatment Spent	529
Baths
V-34	Magnesium Surface Treatment Spent	530
Baths Raw Wastewater Sampling Data
V-35	Magnesium Surface Treatment Rinse	535
V-36	Magnesium Surface Treatment Rinse	536
Raw Wastewater Sampling Data
vi i

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table	Title	Page
V-37	Magnesium Sawing or Grinding Spent	548
Emulsions
V-38	Magnesium Wet Air Pollution Control 549
Blowdown
V-39	Magnesium Wet Air Pollution Control 550
Blowdown Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
V-40	Nickel-Cobalt Rolling Spent Neat	552
Oils
V-41	Nickel-Cobalt Rolling Spent Emulsions 553
V-42	Nickel-Cobalt Rolling Spent Emulsions 554
Raw Wastewater Sampling Data
V-43	Nickel-Cobalt Rolling Contact Cooling 558
Water
V-44	Nickel-Cobalt Rolling Contact Cooling 559
Water Raw Wastewater Sampling Data
V-45	Nickel-Cobalt Tube Reducing Spent	566
Lubricants
V-46	Nickel-Cobalt Tube Reducing Spent	567
Lubricants Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
V-47	Nickel-Cobalt Drawing Spent Neat	570
Oi Is
V-48	Nickel-Cobalt Drawing Spent Emulsions 571
V-49	Nickel-Cobalt Drawing Spent Emulsions 572
Raw Wastewater Sampling Data
V-50	Nickel-Cobalt Extrusion Spent	574
Lubr icants
V-51	Nickel-Cobalt Extrusion Press and	575
Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water
vi i i

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table	Title	Page
V-52	Nickel-Cobalt Extrusion Press and	576
Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
V-53	Nickel-Cobalt Extrusion Press	579
Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
V-5 4	Nickel-Cobalt Extrusion Press	580
Hydraulic Fluid Leakage Raw
Wastewater Sampling Data
V-55	Nickel-Cobalt Forging Spent	584
Lubricants
V-56	Nickel-Cobalt Forging Contact	585
Cooling Water
V-57	Nickel-Cobalt Forging Contact	586
Cooling Water Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
V-58	Nickel-Cobalt Forging Equipment	590
Cleaning Wastewater
V-59	Nickel-Cobalt Forging Press	591
Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
V-60	Nickel-Cobalt Forging Press	592
Hydraulic Fluid Leakage Raw
Wastewater Sampling Data
V-61	Nickel-Cobalt Metal Powder	595
Production Atomization
Wastewater
V-62	Nickel-Cobalt Metal Powder	596
Production Atomization
Wastewater Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
V-63	Nickel-Cobalt Stationary Casting	601
Contact Cooling Water
V-64	Nickel-Cobalt Vacuum Melting	602
Steam Condensate
IX

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table	Title	Page
V-65	Nickel-Cobalt Vacuum Melting	603
Steam Condensate Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
V-66	Nickel-Cobalt Annealing and	606
Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling Water
V-67	Nickel-Cobalt Annealing and	607
Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling Water Raw
Wastewater Sampling Data
V-68	Nickel-Cobalt Surface Treatment	611
Spent Baths
V-69	Nickel-Cobalt Surface Treatment	612
Spent Baths Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
V-70	Nickel-Cobalt Surface Treatment	620
Rinse
V-71	Nickel-Cobalt Surface Treatment	621
Rinse Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
V-72	Nickel-Cobalt Ammonia Rinse	635
V-73	Nickel-Cobalt Ammonia Rinse Raw	636
Wastewater Sampling Data
V-74	Nickel-Cobalt Alkaline Cleaning	639
Spent Baths
V-75	Nickel-Cobalt Alkaline Cleaning	640
Spent Baths Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
V-76	Nickel-Cobalt Alkaline Cleaning	646
Rinse
V-77	Nickel-Cobalt Alkaline Cleaning	647
Rinse Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
V-78	Nickel-Cobalt Molten Salt Rinse	654
V-79	Nickel-Cobalt Molten Salt Rinse	655
Raw Wastewater Sampling Data
x

-------
Table
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Title
Page
V-80	Nickel-Cobalt Sawing or Grinding	661
Spent Emulsions
V-81	Nickel-Cobalt Sawing or Grinding	662
Spent Emulsions Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
V-82	Nickel-Cobalt Sawing or Grinding	685
Rinse
V-83	Nickel-Cobalt Steam Cleaning	686
Condensate
V-84	Nickel-Cobalt Hydrostatic Tube	687
Testing and Ultrasonic Testing
Wastewater
V-85	Nickel-Cobalt Dye Penetrant Testing 688
Wastewater
V-86	Nickel-Cobalt Dye Penetrant Testing 689
Wastewater Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
V-87	Nickel-Cobalt Wet Air Pollution	691
Control Blowdown
V-88	Nickel-Cobalt Wet Air Pollution	692
Control Blowdown Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
V-89	Nickel-Cobalt Electrocoating Rinse 697
V-90	Precious Metals Rolling Spent Neat 698
Oils
V-91	Precious Metals Rolling Spent	699
Emulsions
V-92	Precious Metals Rolling Spent	700
Emulsions Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
V-93	Precious Metals Drawing Spent	705
Neat Oils
V-94	Precious Metals Drawing Spent	706
Emulsions
XI

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table	Title	Page
V-95	Precious Metals Drawing Spent	707
Emulsions Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
V-96	Precious Metals Drawing Spent Soap 710
Solutions
V-97	Precious Metals Metal Powder	711
Production Atomization
Wastewater
V-98	Precious Metals Direct Chill Casting 712
Contact Cooling
V-99	Precious Metals Shot Casting Contact 713
Cooling Water
V-100	Precious Metals Shot Casting Contact 714
Cooling Water Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
V-101	Precious Metals Stationary Casting 717
Contact Cooling Water
V-102	Precious Metals Semi-Continuous and 718
Continuous Casting Contact Cooling
Water
V-103	Precious Metals Semi-Continuous and 719
Continuous Casting Contact Cooling
Water Raw Wastewater Sampling Data
V-104	Precious Metals Heat Treatment Con- 723
tact Cooling Water
V-105	Precious Metals Surface Treatment	724
Spent Baths
V-106	Precious Metals Surface Treatment	725
Rinse
V-107	Precious Metals Surface Treatment	726
Rinse Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
V-108	Precious Metals Alkaline Cleaning	732
Spent Baths
xi i

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
V-109
V-110
V-lll
V-112
V-113
V-114
V-115
V-116
V-117
V-118
V-119
V-120
V-121
V-122
V-123
Title
Pa9e
Precious Metals Alkaline Cleaning	733
Rinse
Precious Metals Alkaline Cleaning	734
Prebonding Wastewater
Precious Metals Alkaline Cleaning	735
Prebonding Wastewater Raw
Wastewater Sampling Data
Precious Metals Tumbling or	740
Burnishing Wastewater
Precious Metals Tumbling or	741
Burnishing Wastewater Raw
Wastewater Sampling Data
Precious Metals Sawing or Grinding 745
Spent Neat Oils
Precious Metals Sawing or Grinding 746
Spent Emulsions
Precious Metals Sawing or Grinding 747
Spent Emulsions Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Precious Metals Pressure Bonding	750
Contact Cooling Water
Precious Metals Pressure Bonding	751
Contact Cooling Water Raw
Wastewater Sampling Data
Precious Metals Wet Air Pollution	754
Control Blowdown
Refractory Metals Rolling Spent	755
Neat Oils and Graphite-Based
Lubricants
Refractory Metals Rolling Spent	756
Emulsions
Refractory Metals Drawing Spent	757
Lubricants
Refractory Metals Extrusion Spent	758
Lubr icants
xi i i

-------
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Title	Page
Refractory Metals Extrusion Press	759
Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Refractory Metals Extrusion Press	760
Hydraulic Fluid Leakage Raw
Wastewater Sampling Data
Refractory Metals Forging Spent	762
Lubricants
Refractory Metals Forging Contact	763
Cooling Water
Refractory Metals Metal Powder	764
Production Wastewater
Refractory Metals Metal Powder	765
Production Floor Wash Wastewater
Refractory Metals Metal Powder	766
Pressing Spent Lubricants
Refractory Metals Surface Treatment 767
Spent Baths
Refractory Metals Surface Treatment 768
Spent Baths Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Refractory Metals Surface Treatment 771
Rinse
Refractory Metals Surface Treatment 772
Rinse Raw Wastewater Sampling Data
Refractory Metals Alkaline Cleaning 778
Spent Baths
Refractory Metals Alkaline Cleaning 779
Spent Baths Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
Refractory Metals Alkaline Cleaning 781
Rinse
Refractory Metals Molten Salt Rinse 782
Refractory Metals Molten Salt Rinse 783
Raw Wastewater Sampling Data
xiv

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
V-140
V-141
V-142
V-143
V-144
V-145
V-146
V-147
V-148
V-149
V-150
V-151
V-152
V-153
Title
Page
Refractory Metals Tumbling or	789
Burnishing Wastewater
Refractory Metals Tumbling or	790
Burnishing Wastewater Raw
Wastewater Sampling Data
Refractory Metals Sawing or Grinding 796
Spent Neat Oils
Refractory Metals Sawing or Grinding 797
Spent Emulsions
Refractory Metals Sawing or Grinding 798
Spent Emulsions Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Refractory Metals Sawing or Grinding 800
Contact Cooling Water
Refractory Metals Sawing or Grinding 801
Contact Cooling Water Raw
Wastewater Sampling Data
Refractory Metals Sawing or Grinding 805
Rinse
Refractory Metals Dye Penetrant	806
Testing Wastewater
Refractory Metals Dye Penetrant	807
Testing Wastewater Raw
Wastewater Sampling Data
Refractory Metals Equipment Cleaning 810
Wastewater
Refractory Metals Equipment Cleaning 811
Wastewater Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
Refractory Metals Miscellaneous	813
Wastewater Sources
Refractory Metals Wet Air Pollution 814
Control Blowdown
xv

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table	Title	Page
V-154	Refractory Metals Wet Air Pollution 815
Control Blowdown Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
V-155	Titanium Rolling Spent Neat Oils	819
V-156	Titanium Rolling Contact Cooling	820
Water
V-157
Titan]
Lum Drawing Spent Neat Oils
821
V-158
Titan]
Lum Extrusion
Spent
Neat Oils
822
V-159
Titan]
Lum Extrusion
Spent
Emulsions
823
V-160
Titan;
Lum Extrusion
Press
Hydraulic
824

Flu]
Ld Leakage



V-161	Titanium Extrusion Press Hydraulic 825
Fluid Leakage Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
V-162	Titanium Forging Spent Lubricants 826
V-163	Titanium Forging Contact Cooling	827
Water
V-164	Titanium Forging Equipment Cleaning 828
Wastewater
V-165	Titanium Forging Press Hydraulic	829
Fluid Leakage
V-166	Titanium Tube Reducing Spent	830
Lubricants
V-167	Titanium Tube Reducing Spent	831
Lubricants Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
V-168	Titanium Heat Treatment Contact	832
Cooling Water
V-169	Titanium Heat Treatment Contact	833
Cooling Water Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
V-170	Titanium Surface Treatment Spent	836
Baths
xvi

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table	Title	Page
V-171	Titanium Surface Treatment Spent	837
Baths Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
V-172	Titanium Surface Treatment Rinse	841
V-173	Titanium Surface Treatment Rinse	842
Raw Wastewater Sampling Data
V-174	Titanium Alkaline Cleaning Spent	847
Baths
V-175	Titanium Alkaline Cleaning Spent	848
Baths Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
V-176	Titanium Alkaline Cleaning Rinse	850
V-177	Titanium Alkaline Cleaning Rinse	851
Raw Wastewater Sampling Data
V-178	Titanium Molten Salt Rinse	853
V-179	Titanium Tumbling Wastewater	854
V-180	Titanium Tumbling Wastewater Raw	855
Wastewater Sampling Data
V-181	Titanium Sawing or Grinding Spent	858
Neat Oils
V-182	Titanium Sawing or Grinding Spent	859
Emulsions
V-183	Titanium Sawing or Grinding Spent	860
Emulsions Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
V-184	Titanium Sawing or Grinding Contact 865
Cooling Water
V-185	Titanium Sawing or Grinding Contact 866
Cooling Water Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
V-186	Titanium Dye Penetrant Testing	867
Wastewater
xvii

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table	Title	Page
V-187	Titanium Hydrotesting Wastewater	868
V-188	Titanium Wet Air Pollution Control 869
Blowdown
V-189	Titanium Wet Air Pollution Control 870
Blowdown Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
V-190	Uranium Extrusion Spent Lubricants 873
V-191	Uranium Extrusion Tool Contact	874
Cooling Water
V-192	Uranium Forging Spent Lubricants	875
V-193	Uranium Heat Treatment Contact	876
Cooling Water
V-194	Uranium Heat Treatment Contact	877
Cooling Water Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
V-195	Uranium Surface Treatment Spent	884
Baths
V-196	Uranium Surface Treatment Spent	885
Baths Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
V-197	Uranium Surface Treatment Rinse	888
V-198	Uranium Surface Treatment Rinse	889
Raw Wastewater Sampling Data
V-199	Uranium Sawing or Grinding Spent	894
Emulsions
V-200	Uranium Sawing or Grinding Spent	895
Emulsions Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
V-201	Uranium Sawing or Grinding Contact 898
Cooling Water
V-202	Uranium Sawing or Grinding Rinse	899
V-203	Uranium Area Cleaning Washwater	900
XVlll

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table	Title	Page
V-204	Uranium Area Cleaning Washwater	901
Raw Wastewater Sampling Data
V-205	Uranium Wet Air Pollution Control	908
Blowdown
V-206	Uranium Wet Air Pollution Control	909
Blowdown Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
V-207	Uranium Drum Washwater	911
V-208	Uranium Drum Washwater Raw	913
Wastewater Sampling Data
V-209	Uranium Laundry Washwater	917
V-210	Uranium Laundry Washwater Raw	918
Wastewater Sampling Data
V-211	Zinc Rolling Spent Neat Oils	921
V-212	Zinc Rolling Spent Emulsions	922
V-213	Zinc Rolling Contact Cooling	923
Water
V-214	Zinc Drawing Spent Emulsions	924
V-215	Zinc Direct Chill Casting	925
Contact Cooling Water
V-216	Zinc Stationary Casting Contact	926
Cooling Water
V-217	Zinc Heat Treatment Contact	927
Cooling Water
V-218	Zinc Surface Treatment Spent	928
Baths
V-219	Zinc Surface Treatment Rinse	929
V-220	Zinc Surface Treatment Rinse	930
Raw Wastewater Sampling
Data
xix

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table	Title	Page
V-221	Zinc Alkaline Cleaning Spent	935
Baths
V-222	Zinc Alkaline Cleaning Rinse	936
V-223	Zinc Alkaline Cleaning Rinse	937
Raw Wastewater Sampling Data
V-224	Zinc Sawing or Grinding Spent	942
Emulsions
V-225	Zinc Electrocoating Rinse	943
V-226	Zirconium-Hafnium Rolling Spent	944
Neat Oils
V-221	Zirconium-Hafnium Drawing Spent	945
Lubr icants
V-228	Zirconium-Hafnium Extrusion Spent	946
Lubr icants
V-229	Zirconium-Hafnium Extrusion Press	947
Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
V-230	Zirconium-Hafnium Extrusion Press	948
Hydraulic Fluid Leakage Raw
Wastewater Sampling Data
V-231	Zirconium-Hafnium Swaging Spent	949
Neat Oils
V-232	Zirconium-Hafnium Tube Reducing	950
Spent Lubricants
V-233	Zirconium-Hafnium Heat Treatment	951
Contact Cooling Water
V-234	Zirconium-Hafnium Heat Treatment	952
Contact Cooling Water Raw
Wastewater Sampling Data
V-235	Zirconium-Hafnium Surface Treatment 955
Spent Baths
V-236	Zirconium-Hafnium Surface Treatment 956
Spent Baths Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
xx

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table	Title	Page
V-237	Zirconium-Hafnium Surface Treatment 962
Rinse
V-238	Zirconium-Hafnium Alkaline Cleaning 963
Spent Baths
V-239	Zirconium-Hafnium Alkaline Cleaning 964
Rinse
V-240	Zirconium-Hafnium Molten Salt Rinse 965
V-241	Zirconium-Hafnium Sawing or Grinding 966
Spent Neat Oils
V-242	Zirconium-Hafnium Sawing or Grinding 967
Spent Emulsions
V-243	Zirconium-Hafnium Sawing or Grinding 968
Contact Cooling Water
V-244	Zirconium-Hafnium Sawing or Grinding 969
Rinse
V-245	Zirconium-Hafnium Inspection and	970
Testing Wastewater
V-246	Zirconium-Hafnium Inspection and	971
Testing Wastewater Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
V-247	Zirconium-Hafnium Degreasing Spent 974
Solvents
V-248	Zirconium-Hafnium Degreasing Rinse 975
V-249	Zirconium-Hafnium Wet Air Pollution 976
Control Blowdown
V-250	Metal Powders Metal Powder Production 977
Atomization Wastewater
V-251	Metal Powders Metal Powder Production 978
Atomization Wastewater Raw
Wastewater Sampling Data
V-252	Metal Powders Tumbling, Burnishing or 980
Cleaning Wastewater
xxi

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
V-253
V-254
V-255
V-256
V-257
V-258
V-259
V-260
V-261
V-262
V-263
V-264
V-265
V-266
Title
Page
Metal Powders Tumbling, Burnishing or 982
Cleaning Wastewater Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Metal Powders Sawing or Grinding	987
Spent Neat Oils
Metal Powders Sawing or Grinding	988
Spent Emulsions
Metal Powders Sawing or Grinding	989
Spent Emulsions Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Metal Powders Sawing or Grinding	993
Contact Cooling Water
Metal Powders Sawing or Grinding	994
Contact Cooling Water Raw
Wastewater Sampling Data
Metal Powders Sizing Spent Neat	995
Oils
Metal Powders Sizing Spent Emulsions 996
Metal Powders Steam Treatment Wet	997
Air Pollution Control Blowdown
Metal Powders Steam Treatment Wet	998
Air Pollution Control Blowdown
Raw Wastewater Sampling Data
Metal Powders Oil-Resin	1001
Impregnation Spent Neat Oils
Metal Powders Hot Pressing Contact 1002
Cooling Water
Metal Powders Hot Pressing Contact 1003
Cooling Water Raw Wastewater
Sampling Data
Metal Powders Mixing Wet Air	1004
Pollution Control Blowdown
xxi i

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table	Title	Page
V-267	Metal Powders Mixing Wet Air	1005
Pollution Control Blowdown
Raw Wastewater Sampling Data
V-268	Wastewater Treatment Performance	1006
Data - Plant A
V-269	Wastewater Treatment Performance	1009
Data - Plant B
V-270	Wastewater Treatment Performance	1013
Data - Plant D
V-271	Wastewater Treatment Performance	1017
Data - Plant E
V-272	Wastewater Treatment Performance	1025
Data - Plant F
V-273	Wastewater Treatment Performance	1032
Data - Plant I
V-274	Wastewater Treatment Performance	1038
Data - Plant J
V-275	Wastewater Treatment Performance	1041
Data - Plant M
V-276	Wastewater Treatment Performance	1051
Data - Plant Q
V-277	Wastewater Treatment Performance	1060
Data - Plant R
V-278	Wastewater Treatment Performance	1062
Data - Plant S
V-279	Wastewater Treatment Performance	1064
Data - Plant T
V-280	Wastewater Treatment Performance	1065
Data - Plant U
V-281	Wastewater Treatment Performance	1072
Data - Plant V
V-282	Wastewater Treatment Performance	1080
Data - Plant W
xxiii

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table	Title	Page
V-283	Wastewater Treatment Performance	1084
Data - Plant X
V-284	Wastewater Treatment Performance	1089
Data - Plant Y
V-285	Wastewater Treatment Performance	1094
Data - Plant Z
VI—1	List of 129 Priority Pollutants	1245
VI-2	Analytical Quantification and	1251
Treatment Effectiveness Values
VI-3	Priority Pollutant Disposition	1255
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Subcategory
VI-4	Priority Pollutant Disposition	1259
Magnesium Forming Subcategory
VI-5	Priority Pollutant Disposition	1263
Nickel-Cobalt Forming Subcategory
VI-6	Priority Pollutant Disposition	1273
Precious Metals Forming
Subcategory
VI-7	Priority Pollutant Disposition	1280
Refractory Metals Forming
Subcategory
VI-8	Priority Pollutant Disposition	1287
Titanium Forming Subcategory
VI-9	Priority Pollutant Disposition	1294
Uranium Forming Subcategory
VI-10	Priority Pollutant Disposition	1298
Zinc Forming Subcategory
VI-11	Priority Pollutant Disposition	1302
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Subcategory
VI-12	Priority Pollutant Disposition	1306
Metal Powders Subcategory
xxiv

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table	Title	Page
VII-1	pH Control Effect on Metals	1400
Removal
VII-2	Effectiveness of Sodium Hydroxide 1400
for Metals Removal
VII-3	Effectiveness of Lime and Sodium	1401
Hydroxide for Metals Removal
VII-4	Theoretical Solubilities of	1401
Hydroxides and Sulfide of
Selected Metals in Pure Water
VII-5	Sampling Data From Sulfide	1402
Precipitat ion-Sedimentat ion
Systems
VIII-6	Sulfide Precipitation-Sedimentation 1403
Performance
VII-7	Ferrite Co-Precipitation Performance 1404
VIX-8	Concentration of Total Cyanide	1404
VII-9	Multimedia Filter Performance	1405
VII-10	Performance of Selected Settling	1405
Systems
VII-11	Skimming Performance	1406
VII-12	Selected Partition Coefficients	1407
VII-13	Trace Organic Removal by Skimming	1408
VII-14	Combined Metals Data Effluent	1408
Values
VII-15	L & S Performance Additional	1409
Pollutants
VII-16	Combined Metals Data Set -	1409
Untreated Wastewater
VII-17	Maximum Pollutant Level in	1410
Untreated Wastewater Additional
Pollutants
xxv

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table	Title	Page
VII-18	Precipitation-Settling-Filtration 1411
(LS&F) Performance Plant A
VII-19	Precipitation-Settling-Filtration 1412
(LS&F) Performance Plant B
VII-20	Precipitation-Settling-Filtration 1413
(LS&F) Performance Plant C
Vll-21	Summary of Treatment Effectiveness 1414
VI1-22	Summary of Treatment Effectiveness 1415
for Selected Nonconventional
Pollutants
VII-23	Treatability Rating of Priority	1416
Pollutants
VII-24	Classes of Organic Compounds	1417
Adsorbed on Carbon
VII-25	Activated Carbon Performance	1418
(Mercury)
VI1-26	Ion Exchange Performance	1418
VII-27	Membrane Filtration System	1419
Effluent
VII-28	Peat Adsorption Performance	1419
VI1-29	Ultrafiltration Performance	1420
VII-30	Chemical Emulsion Breaking	1421
Efficiencies
VIII-1	BPT Costs of Compliance for	1508
the Nonferrous Metals
Forming Category
VIII-2	BAT Costs of Compliance for the	1509
Nonferrous Metals Forming
Category
VIII-3	PSES Costs of Compliance for the	1510
Nonferrous Metals Forming
Category
xxvi

-------
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Page
1511
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1528
1529
1530
1626
1627
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Title
Nonferrous Metals Forming Category
Cost Equations for Recommended
Treatment and Control Technologies
Components of Total Capital
Investment
Components of Total Annualized
Investment
Wastewater Sampling Frequency
Pollutant Parameter Important to
Treatment System Design
Sludge to Influent Flow Ratios
Key to Cost Curves and Equations
Cost Equations Used in Cost Curve
Method
Number of Plants for Which Costs
Were Scaled From Similar Plants
Flow Reduction Recycle Ratio and
Association Cost Assumptions
Segregation Cost Basis
Nonferrous Metals Forming Solid
Waste Generation
Nonferrous Metals Forming Energy
Consumpt ion
Potential Preliminary Treatment
Requirements Lead-Tin-Bismuth
Forming Subcategory
Potential Preliminary Treatment
Requirements Magnesium Forming
Subcategory
xxvii

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table	Title	Page
IX-3	Potential Preliminary Treatment	1628
Requ
Forming Subcategory
IX-4	Potential Preliminary Treatment	1630
Requ
IX-5	Potent
Requ
rements Nickel-Cobalt
rements Precious Metals
Forming Subcategory
al Preliminary Treatment	1631
rements Refractory Metals
Forming Subcategory
IX-6	Potential Preliminary Treatment	1633
Requirements Titanium Forming
Subcategory
IX-7	Potential Preliminary Treatment	1635
Requirements Uranium Forming
Subcategory
IX-8	Potential Preliminary Treatment	1636
Requirements Zinc Forming
Subcategory
IX-9	Potential Preliminary Treatment	1637
Requirements Zirconium-Hafnium
Forming Subcategory
IX-10	Potential Preliminary Treatment	1638
Requirements Metal Powders
Subcategory
IX-11	BPT Regulatory Flows for Production 1639
Operations - Lead-Tin-Bismuth
Forming Subcategory
IX-12	Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming Subcategory 1641
BPT Effluent Limitations
IX-13	BPT Regulatory Flows for Production 1648
Operations - Magnesium Forming
Subcategory
IX-14	Magnesium Forming Subcategory BPT 1649
Effluent Limitations
xxviii

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table	Title	Page
IX-15	BPT Regulatory Flows for Production 1653
Operations - Nickel-Cobalt
Forming Subcategory
IX-16	Nickel-Cobalt Forming Subcategory 1656
BPT Effluent Limitations
IX-17	BPT Regulatory Flows for Production 1670
Operations - Precious Metals
Forming Subcategory
IX-18	Precious Metals Forming Subcategory 1672
BPT Effluent Limitations
IX-19	BPT Regulatory Flows for Production 1682
Operations - Refractory Metals
Forming Subcategory
IX-20	Refractory Metals Forming Subcate- 1684
gory BPT Effluent Limitations
IX-21	BPT Regulatory Flows for Production 1701
Operations - Titanium Forming
Subcategory
IX-22	Titanium Forming Subcategory BPT	1703
Effluent Limitations
IX-23	BPT Regulatory Flows for Production 1715
Operations - Uranium Forming
IX-24	Uranium Forming Subcategory BPT	1717
Effluent Limitations
IX-25	BPT Regulatory Flows for Production 1724
Operations - Zinc Forming
Subcategory
IX-26	Zinc Forming Subcategory BPT	1725
Effluent Limitations
IX-27	BPT Regulatory Flows for Production 1731
Operations - Zirconium-Hafnium
Forming Subcategory
IX-28	Zirconium-Hafnium Forming Subcate- 1733
gory BPT Effluent Limitations
xxix

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table	Title	Page
IX-29	BPT Regulatory Flows for Production 1741
Operations - Metal Powders
Subcategory
IX-30	Metal Powders Subcategory BPT	1742
Effluent Limitations
IX-31	Allowable Discharge Calculations for 1748
Refractory Metals Forming Plant X
in Example 1 (Nickel)
IX-32	Allowable Discharge Calculations for 1749
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming Plant Y
in Example 2 (Total Suspended
Solids)
IX-33	Allowable Discharge Calculations for 1751
Nickel-Cobalt and Titanium Forming
Plant Z in Example 3 (Nickel)
IX-34	Allowable Discharge Calculations for 1753
Nickel-Cobalt and Titanium Forming
Plant Z in Example 3 (Cyanide)
X-l	Capital and Annual Cost Estimates 1794
for BAT (PSES) Total Subcategory
X-2	Capital and Annual Cost Estimates 1795
for BAT Direct Dischargers
X-3	Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1796
Reduction Benefit Estimates Lead-
Tin-Bismuth Forming Subcategory
Total Subcategory
X-4	Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1797
Reduction Benefit Estimates
Magnesium Forming Subcategory
Total Subcategory
X-5	Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1798
Reduction Benefit Estimates
Nickel-Cobalt Forming Subcategory
Total Subcategory
XXX

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table	Title	Page
X-6	Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1799
Reduction Benefit Estimates Precious
Metals Forming Subcategory Total
Subcategory
X-7	Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1800
Reduction Benefit Estimates
Refractory Metals Forming
Subcategory Total Subcategory
X-8	Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1801
Reduction Benefit Estimates
Titanium Forming Subcategory Total
Subcategory
X-9	Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1802
Reduction Benefit Estimates
Uranium Forming Subcategory Total
Subcategory
X-10	Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1803
Reduction Benefit Estimates Zinc
Forming Subcategory Total
Subcategory
X-ll	Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1804
Reduction Benefit Estimates
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Subcategory Total Subcategory
X-12	Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1805
Reduction Benefit Estimates Metal
Powders Subcategory Total
Subcategory
X-13	Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1806
Reduction Benefit Estimates Lead-
Tin-Bismuth Forming Subcategory
Direct Dischargers
X-14	Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1807
Reduction Benefit Estimates
Magnesium Forming Subcategory
Direct Dischargers
xxxi

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
X-15
X-16
X-17
X-18
X-19
X-20
X-21
X-22
X-23
X-24
Title
Page
¦r
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1808
Reduction Benefit Estimates Nickel-
Cobalt Forming Subcategory Direct
Dischargers
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1809
Reduction Benefit Estimates
Precious Metals Forming Subcategory
Direct Dischargers
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1810
Reduction Benefit Estimates
Refractory Metals Forming
Subcategory Direct Dischargers
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1811
Reduction Benefit Estimates
Titanium Forming Subcategory
Direct Dischargers
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1812
Reduction Benefit Estimates Uranium
Forming Subcategory Direct
Dischargers
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1813
Reduction Benefit Estimates Zinc
Forming Subcategory
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1814
Reduction Estimates Zirconium-
Hafnium Forming Direct Dischargers
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 1815
Reduction Estimates Metal Powders
Subcategory Direct Dischargers
Options Selected as the Technology 1816
Basis for BAT
BAT Regulatory Flows for the Produc- 1817
tion Operations - Lead-Tin-Bismuth
Forming Subcategory
xxxii

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table	Ti tie	Page
X-25	Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming Subcategory 1819
BAT Effluent Limitations
X-26	BAT Regulatory Flows for the Produc- 1824
tion Operations - Magnesium Forming
Subcategory
X-27	Magnesium Forming Subcategory BAT 1825
Effluent Limitations
X-28	BAT Regulatory Flows for the Produc- 1829
tion Operations - Nickel-Cobalt
Forming Subcategory
X-29	Nickel-Cobalt Forming Subcategory 1832
BAT Effluent Limitations
X-30	BAT Regulatory Flows for the	1845
Production Operations - Precious
Metal Forming Subcategory
X-31	Precious Metals Forming Subcategory 1847
BAT Effluent Limitations
X-32	BAT Regulatory Flows for the	1856
Production Operations - Refractory
Metals Forming Subcategory
X-33	Refractory Metals Forming Subcate- 1858
gory BAT Effluent Limitations
X-34	BAT Regulatory Flows for the	1869
Production Operations -
Titanium Forming Subcategory
X-35	Titanium Forming Subcategory BAT	1871
Effluent Limitations
X-36	BAT Regulatory Flows for the	1882
Production Operations - Uranium
Forming Subcategory
xxxiii

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table	Title	Page
X-37	Uranium Forming Subcategory BAT	1884
Effluent Limitations
X-38	BAT Regulatory Flows for the	1889
Production Operations - Zinc
Forming Subcategory
X-39	Zinc Forming Subcategory BAT	1890
Effluent Limitations
X-40	BAT Regulatory Flows for the	1896
Production Operations -
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Subcategory
X-41	Zirconium-Hafnium Forming	1898
Subcategory BAT Effluent
Limitations
X-42	BAT Regulatory Flows for the	1906
Production Operations - Metal
Powders Subcategory
X-43	Metal Powders Subcategory BAT	1907
Effluent Limitations
XI-1	Options Selected as the Bases	1919
for NSPS
XI-2	Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming Subcategory 1920
New Source Performance Standards
XI-3	Magnesium Forming Subcategory New 1927
Source Performance Standards
XI-4	Nickel-Cobalt Forming Subcategory 1931
New Source Performance Standards
XI-5	Precious Metals Forming Subcategory 1946
New Source Performance Standards
XI-6	Refractory Metals Forming Subcate- 1956
gory New Source Performance Standards
XI-7	Titanium Forming Subcategory New	1973
Source Performance Standards
xxxiv

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table	Title	Page
XI-8	Uranium Forming Subcategory New	1986
Source Performance Standards
XI-9	Zinc Forming Subcategory New	1993
Source Performance Standards
XI-10	Zirconium-Hafnium Forming Subcate- 1999
gory New Source Performance Standards
XI-11	Metal Powders Subcategory New Source 2006
Performance Standards
XII-1	POTW Removals of the Toxic Pollu- 2019
tants Found in Nonferrous Metals
Forming Wastewater
XII-2	Pollutant Removal Percentages for 2021
BAT or PSES Model Technology By
Subcategory
XII-3	Option Selected as the Model	2022
Technology Basis for PSES and
PSNS
XII-4	Capital and Annual Cost Estimates 2023
for PSES Options Indirect
Dischargers
XII-5	Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 2025
Reduction Benefit Estimates Lead-
Tin-Bismuth Forming Subcategory
Indirect Dischargers
XII-6	Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 2026
Reduction Benefit Estimates Magnesium
Forming Subcategory Indirect
Dischargers
XII-7	Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 2027
Reduction Benefit Estimates Nickel-
Cobalt Forming Subcategory Indirect
Dischargers
xxxv

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
XI1-8
XI1-9
XII-10
XII-11
XII-12
XI1-13
XI1-14
XII-15
XI1-16
XI1-17
Title	Page
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 2028
Reduction Benefit Estimates Precious
Metals Forming Subcategory Indirect
Dischargers
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 2029
Reduction Benefit Estimates Refractory
Metals Forming Subcategory Indirect
Dischargers
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 2030
Reduction Benefit Estimates Titanium
Forming Subcategory Indirect
Dischargers
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 2031
Reduction Benefit Estimates
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming Subcategory
Indirect Dischargers
Nonferrous Metals Forming Pollutant 2032
Reduction Benefit Estimates Metal
Powders Subcategory Indirect
Dischargers
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming Subcategory 2033
Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources
Magnesium Forming Subcategory	2038
Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources
Nickel-Cobalt Forming Subcategory 2042
Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources
Precious Metals Forming Subcategory 2055
Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources
Refractory Metals Forming Subcate- 2064
gory Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources
xxxvi

-------
Table
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Title
XI1-18
XI1-19
XI1-20
XII-21
XI1-22
XII-23
XI1-24
XII-25
XII-26
XI1-27
XII-28
Titanium Forming Subcategory	2075
Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources
Uranium Forming Subcategory	2085
Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources
Zinc Forming Subcategory Pretreat- 2091
ment Standards for Existing Sources
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming Subcate- 2097
gory Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources
Metal Powders Subcategory Pretreat- 2105
ment Standards for Existing Sources
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming Subcategory 2110
Pretreatment Standards for
New Sources
Magnesium Forming Subcategory	2115
Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources
Nickel-Cobalt Forming Subcategory 2119
Pretreatment Standards for
New Sources
Precious Metals Forming Subcategory 2132
Pretreatment Standards for
New Sources
Refractory Metals Forming Subcate- 2141
gory Pretreatment Standards for
New Sources
Titanium Forming Subcategory	2152
Pretreatment Standards for
New Sources
xxxvi i

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
XI1-29
XI1-30
XI1-31
XII-32
Title
Page
Uranium Forming Subcategory	2162
Pretreatment Standards for
New Sources
Zinc Forming Subcategory Pretreat- 2168
ment Standards for New Sources
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming Subcate- 2174
gory Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources
Metal Powders Subcategory Pretreat- 2182
ment Standards for New Sources
xxxvi i i

-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title	Page
III-l	Geographical Distribution of Nonferrous 360
Forming Plants
III-2	Sequence of Nonferrous Metals Forming	361
Operations
III-3	Common Rolling Mill Configurations	362
II1-4	Reversing Hot Strip Mill	363
III-5	4-High Cold Rolling Mill	364
II1-6	Tube Drawing	365
III-7	Hydraulic Draw Bench	366
III-8	Direct Extrusion	367
II1-9	Extrusion Press	368
II1-10	Extrusion Tooling and Setup	369
III-ll	Forging	370
II1-12	Ring Rolling	371
111-13	Impacting	372
111-14	Some Clad Configurations	373
111-15	Atomizat ion	374
111-16	Powder Metallurgy Die Compaction	375
I11-17	Direct Chill Casting	376
II1-18	Direct Chill (D.C.) Casting Unit	377
111-19	Continuous Sheet Casting	378
111-20	Continuous Strip Casting	379
II1-21	Shot Casting	380
I11-22	Roller Hearth Annealing Furnace	381
111-23	Bulk Pickling Tank	382
111-24	Continuous Pickling Line	383
xxxix

-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure
Title




Page
111-25
Vapor Degreaser



384
V-l
Wastewater
Sources
at
Plant
A
1098
V-2
Wastewater
Sources
at
Plant
B
1099
V-3
Wastewater
Sources
at
Plant
C
1100
V-4
Wastewater
Sources
at
Plant
D
1101
V-5
Wastewater
Sources
at
Plant
E
1102
V-6
Wastewater
Sources
at
Plant
F
1103
V-7
Wastewater
Sources
at
Plant
G
1104
V-8
Wastewater
Sources
at
Plant
I
1105
V-9
Wastewater
Sources
at
Plant
J
1106
V-10
Wastewater
Sources
at
Plant
K
1107
V-ll
Wastewater
Sources
at
Plant
L
1108
V-12
Wastewater
Sources
at
Plant
M
1109
V-13
Wastewater
Sources
at
Plant
N
1110
V-l 4
Wastewater
Sources
at
Plant
0
1111
V-l 5
Wastewater
Sources
at
Plant
P
1112
V-16
Wastewater
Sources
at
Plant
Q
1113
V-17
Wastewater
Sources
at
Plant
R
1114
V-18
Wastewater
Sources
at
Plant
S
1115
V-l 9
Wastewater
Sources
at
Plant
T
1116
V-20
Wastewater
Sources
at
Plant
V
1117
V-21
Wastewater
Sources
at
Plant
z
1118

-------
ire
•1
-2
¦3
¦4
•5
¦6
¦7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Title
Comparative Solubilities of Metal
Hydroxides and Sulfide as a
Function of pH
Lead Solubility in Three Alkalies
Effluent Zinc Concentrations vs.
Minimum Effluent pH
Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation
Effectiveness - Cadmium
Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation
Effectiveness - Chromium
Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation
Effectiveness - Copper
Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation
Effectiveness - Lead
Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation
Effectiveness - Nickel and Aluminum
Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation
Effectiveness - Zinc
Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation
Effectiveness - Iron
Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation
Effectiveness - Manganese
Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation
Effectiveness - TSS
Hexavalent Chromium Reduction with
Sulfur Dioxide
Granular Bed Filtration
Pressure Filtration
Representative Types of Sedimentation
Activated Carbon Adsorption Column
Centrifugation
xli

-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Title	Page
VII-19 Treatment of Cyanide Waste by Alkaline	1440
Chlorination
VII-20 Typical Ozone Plant for Waste Treatment	1441
VII-21 UV/Ozonation	1442
VII-22 Types of Evaporation Equipment	1443
VII-23 Dissolved Air Flotation	1444
VII-24 Gravity Thickening	1445
VII-25 Ion Exchange with Regeneration	1446
VII-26 Simplified Reverse Osmosis Schematic	1447
VII-27 Reverse Osmosis Membrane Configurations	1448
VII-28 Sludge Drying Bed	1449
VII-29 Simplified Ultrafiltration Flow	1450
Schematic
VII-30 Vacuum Filtration	1451
VII-31 Flow Diagram for Emulsion Breaking with	1452
Chemicals
VII-32 Filter Configurations	1453
VII-33 Gravity Oil/Water Separator	1454
VII-34 Flow Diagram for a Batch Treatment	1455
Ultrafiltration System
VII-35 Flow Diagram of Activated Carbon	1456
Adsorption with Regeneration
VII-36 Flow Diagram for Recycling with a	1457
Coolint Tower
VII-37 Countercurrent Rinsing (Tanks)	1458
VII-38 Effect of Added Rinse Stages on Water	1459
Use
xlii

-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure	Title	Page
VIII-1	General Logic Diagram of Computer	1531
Cost Model
VIII-2	Logic Diagram of Module Design	1532
Procedure
VIII-3	Logic Diagram of the Cost	1533
Estimation Routine
VIII-4	Capital Cost of a Spray Rinsing	1534
System
VIII-5	Capital and Annual Costs of Aerated 1535
Rectangular Fiberglass Tanks
VIII-6	Capital and Annual Costs of Centri- 1536
fugal Pumps
VIII-7	Capital and Annual Costs of Cooling 1537
Towers and Holding Tank
VIII-8	Capital and Annual Costs of Holding 1538
Tanks and Recycle Piping
VIII-9	Capital and Annual Costs of	1539
Equalization
VIII-10	Capital and Annual Costs of Cyanide 1540
Precipitation
VIII-11	Capital and Annual Costs of Chromium 1541
Reduct ion
VIII-12	Capital Costs of Iron Coprecipitat ion 1542
VIII-13	Annual Costs of Iron Coprecipitation 1543
VIII-14	Capital and Annual Costs of Chemical 1544
Emulsion Breaking
VIII-15	Capital and Annual Costs of Ammonia 1545
Steam Stripping
VIII-16	Capital and Annual Costs of Chemical 1546
Precipitation
VIII-17	Capital Costs f<">r Carbon Steel Vacuum 1547
Filters
xliii

-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure	Title	Page
VIII-18	Capital Costs for Stainless Steel 1548
Vacuum Filters
VIII-19	Annual Costs for Vacuum Filters	1549
VIII-20	Capital and Annual Costs for Multi- 1550
media and Cartridge Filtration
VIII-21	Annual Costs for Contract Hauling 1551
XI-1	BPT Treatment Train for the Non-	1755
ferrous Metals Forming Category
X-l	BAT Option 1 and 2 Treatment Train 1912
for the Nonferrous Metals Forming
Category
X-2	BAT Option 3 Treatment Train for	1913
the Nonferrous Metals Forming
Category
xliv

-------
SECTION VII
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
This section describes the treatment techniques currently used or
available to remove or recover wastewater pollutants normally
generated by the nonferrous metals forming and metal powders
industrial point source category (hereafter referred to as
nonferrous metals forming). Included are discussions of
individual end-of-pipe treatment technologies and in-plant
technologies. These treatment technologies are widely used
in many	industrial categories,	and	data	and
information to support their effectiveness has been drawn
from a similarly wide range of sources and data bases.
END-OF-PIPE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Individual recovery and treatment technologies are described
which are used or are suitable for use in treating wastewater
discharges from nonferrous metals forming plants. Each
description includes a functional description and discussion of
application and performance, advantages and limitations,
operational factors (reliability, maintainability,	solid
waste aspects), and demonstration status. The treatment
processes described include both technologies presently
demonstrated within the category,	and	technologies
demonstrated in treatment of similar wastes in other industries.
Nonferrous metals forming wastewaters characteristically may be
acid or alkaline; may contain substantial levels of
dissolved or particulate metals including cadmium, chromium,
copper, lead, nickel, silver, and zinc; may contain
substantial levels of cyanide, ammonia and fluoride; may contain
only small or trace amounts of toxic organics; and are generally
free from strong chelating agents. The toxic inorganic
pollutants constitute the most significant wastewater pollutants
in this category. Oils and emulsions are also present in waste
streams emanating from forming operations using neat and
emulsified oil lubricants. Ammonia is present in wastewater
discharges associated with some surface treatment operations.
In general, these pollutants are removed by oil
removal (skimming and emulsion breaking), ammonia steam
stripping, hexavalent chromium reduction, chemical precipitation
and sedimentation or filtration. Most of them may be effectively
removed by precipitation of metal hydroxides or carbonates
utilizing the reaction with lime, sodium hydroxide, or sodium
carbonate. For some, improved removals are provided by the use
of sodium sulfide or ferrous sulfide to precipitate the
pollutants as sulfide compounds with very low solubilities.
1311

-------
Discussion of end-of-pipe treatment technologies is divided into
three parts: the major technologies; the effectiveness of major
technologies; and minor end-of-pipe technologies.
MAJOR TECHNOLOGIES
In Sections IX, X, XI, and XII the rationale for selecting
treatment systems is discussed. The individual technologies used
in the system are described here. The major end-of-pipe
technologies for treating nonferrous metals forming wastewaters
are: (1) chemical reduction of chromium, (2) chemical
precipitation, (3) cyanide precipitation, (4) granular bed
filtration, (5) pressure filtration, (6) settling, and (7)
skimming.	In practice, precipitation of metals and settling
of the resulting precipitates is often a unified two-step
operation.	Suspended solids originally present in raw
wastewaters are not appreciably affected by the precipitation
operation and are removed with the precipitated metals in
the settling operations. Settling operations can be evaluated
independently of hydroxide or other chemical precipitation
operations, but hydroxide and other chemical precipitation
operations can only be evaluated in combination with a
solids removal operation.
1. Chemical Reduction of Chromium
Description of the Process. Reduction is a chemical reaction in
which electrons are transferred to the chemical being reduced
from the chemical initiating the transfer (the reducing agent).
Sulfur dioxide, sodium bisulfite, sodium metabisulfite, and
fjerrous sulfate form strong reducing agents in aqueous solution
and are often used in industrial waste treatment facilities for
the reduction of hexavalent chromium to the trivalent form. The
reduction allows removal of chromium from solution in conjunction
with other metallic salts by alkaline precipitation. Hexavalent
chromium is not precipitated as the hydroxide.
Gaseous sulfur dioxide is a widely used reducing agent and
provides a good example of the chemical reduction process.
Reduction using other reagents is chemically similar. The
reactions involved may be illustrated as follows:
3 S02 + 3 H20 	> 3 H2S03
3 H2S03 +
3H2S032 H2Cr04 	> Cr2 (S04)3 + 5 H20
The above reaction is favored by low pH. A pH of from 2 to 3 is
normal for situations requiring complete reduction. At pH levels
above 5, the reduction rate is slow. Oxidizing agents such as
dissolved oxygen and ferric iron interfere with the reduction
process by consuming the reducing agent.
1312

-------
A typical treatment consists of 45 minutes r; ention
reaction tank. The reaction tank has an electronic recorder-
controller device to control process conditions with respect to
pH and oxidation reduction potential (ORP). Gaseous sulfur
dioxide is metered to the reaction tank to maintain the ORP
within the range of 250 to 300 millivolts. Sulfuric acid is
added to maintain a pH level of from 1.8 to 2.0. The reaction
tank is equipped with a propeller agitator designed to provide
approximately one turnover per minute. Figure VII-13 shows a
continuous chromium reduction system.
Application and Performance. Chromium reduction is used in
nonferrous metals forming for treating chromium containing
wastewaters such as surface treatment baths and rinses. A study
of an operational waste treatment facility chemically reducing
hexavalent chromium has shown that a 99.7 percent reduction
efficiency is easily achieved. Final concentrations of 0.05
mg/1 are readily attained, and concentrations of 0.01
mg/1 are considered to be attainable by properly maintained and
operated equipment.
Advantages and Limitations. The major advantage of chemical
reduction to reduce hexavalent chromium is that it is a fully
proven technology based on many years of experience. Operation
at ambient conditions results in minimal energy consumption, and
the process, especially when using sulfur dioxide, is well suited
to automatic control. Furthermore, the equipment is readily
obtainable from many suppliers, and operation is straightforward.
One limitation of chemical reduction of hexavalent chromium is
that for high concentrations of chromium, the cost of treatment
chemicals may be prohibitive. When this situation occurs, other
treatment techniques are likely to be more economical. Chemical
interference by oxidizing agents is possible in the treatment of
mixed wastes, and the treatment itself may introduce pollutants
if not properly controlled. Storage and handling of sulfur
dioxide is somewhat hazardous.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Maintenance consists of
periodic removal of sludge, the frequency of removal depends on
the input concentrations of detrimental constituents.
Solid Waste Aspects: Pretreatment to eliminate substances which
will interfere with the process may often be necessary. This
process produces trivalent chromium which can be controlled by
further treatment. However, small amounts of sludge may be
collected as the result of minor shifts in the solubility of the
contaminants. This sludge can be processed by the main sludge
treatment equipment.
Demonst rat ion Status. The reduction of chromium waste by sulfur
dioxide or sodium bisulfite is a classic process and is used by
numerous plants which have hexavalent chromium compounds in
wastewaters from operations such as electroplating conversion
1313

-------
coating and noncontact cooling. Six nonferrous metals forming
plants reported the use of hexavalent chromium reduction to treat
chromium containing wastewaters.
2. Chemical Precipitation
Dissolved toxic metal ions and certain anions may be chemically
precipitated for removal by physical means such as sedimentation,
filtration, or centrifugation. Several reagents are commonly
used to effect this precipitation:
1)	Alkaline compounds such as lime or sodium hydroxide may be
used to precipitate many toxic metal ions as metal hydroxides.
Lime also may precipitate phosphates as insoluble calcium
phosphate, fluorides as calcium fluoride, and arsenic as calcium
arsenate.
2)	Both "soluble" sulfides such as hydrogen sulfide or sodium
sulfide and "insoluble" sulfides such as ferrous sulfide may be
used to precipitate many heavy metal ions as metal sulfides.
3)	Ferrous sulfate, zinc sulfate or both (as is required) may be
used to precipitate cyanide as a ferro or zinc ferricyanide
complex.
4)	Carbonate precipitates may be used to remove metals either by
direct precipitation using a carbonate reagent such as calcium
carbonate or by converting hydroxides into carbonates using
carbon dioxide.
These treatment chemicals may be added to a flash mixer or rapid
mix tank, to a presettling tank, or directly to a clarifier or
other settling device. Because metal hydroxides tend to be col-
loidal in nature, coagulating agents may also be added to faci-
litate settling. After the solids have been removed, final pH
adjustment may be required to reduce the high pH created by the
alkaline treatment chemicals.
Chemical precipitation as a mechanism for removing metals from
wastewater is a complex process of at least two steps - pre-
cipitation of the unwanted metals and removal of the precipitate.
Some very small amount of metal will remain dissolved in the
wastewater after precipitation is complete. The amount of
residual dissolved metal depends on the treatment chemicals
used and related factors. The effectiveness of this method of
removing any specific metal depends on the fraction of the
specific metal in the raw waste (and hence in the
precipitate) and the effectiveness of suspended solids
removal. In specific instances, a sacrifical ion such as iron
or aluminum may be added to aid in the removal of toxic
metals by co-precipitation.
Application and Performance. Chemical precipitation is used in
nonferrous metals forming for precipitation of dissolved metals.
It can be used to remove metal ions such as antimony,
1314

-------
arsenic, beryllium,	cadmium, chromium, copper, lead,
mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, zinc, alumi.^m, cobai*
columbium, gold, hafnium, iron, manganese, molybdenum,
tantalum, tin, tungsten, vanadium and zirconium. The process
is also applicable to any substance that can be
transformed into an insoluble form such as fluorides, phosphates,
soaps, sulfides and others. Because it is simple and effective,
chemical precipitation is extensively used for industrial waste
treatment.
The performance of chemical precipitation depends on several
variables. The more important factors affecting precipitation
effectiveness are:
1.	Maintenance of an appropriate (usually alkaline) pH throughout
the precipitation reaction and subsequent settling;
2.	Addition of a sufficient excess of treatment ions to drive the
precipitation reaction to completion;
3.	Addition of an adequate supply of sacrifical ions (such as
iron or aluminum) to ensure precipitation and removal of
specific target ions; and
4.	Effective removal of precipitated solids (see appropriate
solids removal technologies).
Control of pH. Irrespective of the solids removal technology
employed, proper control of pH is absolutely essential for
favorable	performance	of	precipitation-sedimentation
technologies. This is clearly illustrated by solubility curves
for selected metals hydroxides and sulfides shown in Figure VII-1
and by plotting effluent zinc concentrations against pH as
shown in Figure VII-3. Figure VII-3 was obtained from
Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitat ions
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Zinc
Segment of Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Point Source
Category, U.S. E.P.A., EPA 440/1-74/033, November, 1974. Figure
VII-3 was plotted from the sampling data from several facilities
with metal finishing operations. It is partially illustrated by
data obtained from 3 consecutive days of sampling at one metal
processing plant (47432) as displayed in Table VII-1. Flow
through this system is approximately 49,263 1/hr (13,000
gal/hr).
This treatment system uses lime precipitation (pH adjustment)
followed by coagulant addition and sedimentation. Samples were
taken before (in) and after (out) the treatment system. The best
treatment for removal of copper and zinc was achieved on day one,
when the pH was maintained at a satisfactory level. The poorest
treatment was found on the second day, when the pH slipped to an
unacceptably low level; intermediate values were achieved on the
third day, when pH values were lees than desirable but in between
those for the first and second days.
1315

-------
Sodium hydroxide is used by another facility (plant 439) for
pH adjustment and chemical precipitation, followed by
settling (sedimentation and a polishing lagoon) of precipitated
solids. Samples were taken prior to caustic addition and
following the polishing lagoon. Flow through the system is
approximately 22,700 1/hr (6,000 gal/hr). These data displayed
in Table VII-2 indicate that the system was operated
efficiently. Effluent pH was controlled within the range of 8.6
to 9.3, and, while raw waste loadings were not unusually high,
most toxic metals were removed to very low concentrations.
Lime and sodium hydroxide (combined) are sometimes used to
precipitate metals. Data developed from plant 40063, a facility
with a metal bearing wastewater, exemplify efficient operation of
a chemical precipitation and settling system. Table VII-3 shows
sampling data from this system, which uses lime and sodium
hydroxide for pH adjustment, chemical precipitation,
polyelectrolyte flocculant addition, and sedimentation. Samples
were taken of the raw waste influent to the system and of the
clarifier effluent. Flow through the system is approximately
19,000 1/hr (5,000 gal/hr).
At this plant, effluent TSS levels were below 15 mg/1 on each
day, despite average raw waste TSS concentrations of over 3500
mg/1. Effluent pH was maintained at approximately 8, lime
addition was sufficient to precipitate the dissolved metal ions,
and the flocculant addition and clarifier retention served to
remove effectively the precipitated solids.
Sulfide precipitation is sometimes used to precipitate metals
resulting in improved metals removals. Most metal sulfides are
less soluble than hydroxides, and the precipitates are frequently
more dependably removed from water. Solubilities for selected
metal hydroxide, carbonate and sulfide precipitates are shown in
Table VII-4.	(Source: Lange's Handbook of Chemistry).
Sulfide precipitation is particularly effective in removing
specific metals such as silver and mercury. Sampling data
from three industrial plants using sulfide precipitation
appear in Table Vll-5. In all cases except iron, effluent
concentrations are below 0.1 mg/1 and in many cases below
0.01 mg/1 for the three plants studied.
Sampling data from several chlorine-caustic manufacturing plants
using sulfide precipitation demonstrate effluent mercury
concentrations varying between 0.009 and 0.03 mg/1. As shown in
Figure VII-1, the solubilities of PbS and Ag2S are lower
at alkaline pH levels than either the corresponding hydroxides
or other sulfide compounds. This implies that removal
performance for lead and silver sulfides should be comparable to
or better than that for the metal hydroxides. Bench scale tests
on several types of metal finishing and manufacturing
wastewater indicate that metals removal to levels of less than
0.05 mg/1 and in some cases less than 0.01 mg/1 are common
in systems using sulfide precipitation followed by clarification.
1316

-------
Some of the bench scale data, particularly in the case of lead,
do not support such low effluent concentrat i ons. However,,
lead is consistently removed to very low levels (less than
0.02 mg/1) in systems using hydroxide and carbonate
precipitation and sedimentation.
Of particular interest is the ability of sulfide to precipitate
hexavalent chromium (Cr+6) without prior reduction to the tri-
valent state as is required in the hydroxide process. When
ferrous sulfide is used as the precipitant, iron and sulfide act
as reducing agents for the hexavalent chromium according to the
reaction:
Cr03 + FeS + 3H20 	> Fe(OH)3 + Cr(OH)3 + S
The sludge produced in this reaction consists mainly of ferric
hydroxides, chromic hydroxides, and various metallic sulfides.
Some excess hydroxyl ions are generated in this process, possibly
requiring a downward re-adjustment of pH.
Based on the available data, Table VII-6 shows the minimum
reliably attainable effluent concentrations for sulfide
precipitation-sedimentation systems. These values are used to
calculate performance predictions of sulfide precipitation-
sedimentation systems.
Carbonate precipitation is sometimes used to precipitate metals,
especially where precipitated metals values are to be recovered.
The solubility of most metal carbonates is intermediate between
hydroxide and sulfide solubilities; in addition, carbonates form
easily filtered precipitates.
Carbonate ions appear to be particularly useful in precipitating
lead and antimony. Sodium carbonate has been observed being
added at treatment to improve lead precipitation and removal in
some industrial plants. The lead hydroxide and lead carbonate
solubility curves displayed in Figure VII-2	("Heavy Metals
Removal,"	by	Kenneth	Lanovette,	Chemical
Engineering/Deskbook Issue, October 17, 1977) explain this
phenomenon.
Co-precipitation With Iron. The presence of substantial
quantites of iron in metal bearing wastewaters before treatment
has been shown to improve the removal of toxic metals. In some
cases this iron is an integral part of the industrial wastewater;
in other cases iron is deliberately added as a preliminary
treatment or first step of treatment. The iron functions to
improve toxic metal removal by three mechanisms: the iron co-
precipitates with toxic metals forming a stable precipitate
which desolubilizes the toxic metal; the iron improves the
settleability of the precipitate; and the large amount of iron
reduces the fraction of toxic metal in the precipitate. Co-
precipitation with iron has been practiced for many years
incidentally when iron was a substantial consitutent of raw
wastewater and intentionally when iron salts were added as a
1317

-------
coagulant aid. Aluminum or mixed iron-aluminum salt also have
been used. The addition of iron for co-precipitation to aid in
toxic metals removal is considered a routine part of
state-of-the-art lime and settle technology which should be
implemented as required to achieve optimal removal of toxic
metals.
Co-precipitation using large amounts of ferrous iron salts is
known as ferrite co-precipitation because magnetic iron oxide or
ferrite is formed. The addition of ferrous salts (sulfate) is
followed by alkali precipitation and air oxidation. The
resultant precipitate is easily removed by filtration and may be
removed magnetically. Data illustrating the performance of
ferrite co-precipitation is shown in Table VII-7.
Advantages and Limitations. Chemical precipitation has proved to
be an effective technique for removing many pollutants from
industrial wastewater. It operates at ambient conditions and is
well suited to automatic control. The use of chemical
precipitation may be limited because of interference by chelating
agents, because of possible chemical interference with mixed
wastewaters and treatment chemicals, or because of the
potentially hazardous situation involved with the storage and
handling of those chemicals. Nonferrous metals forming
wastewaters do not normally contain chelating agents or
complex pollutant matrix formations which would interfere with or
limit the use of chemical precipitation. Lime is usually
added as a slurry when used in hydroxide precipitation. The
slurry must be kept well mixed and the addition lines
periodically checked to prevent blocking of the lines, which may
result from a buildup of solids. Also, lime precipitation
usually makes recovery of the precipitated metals
difficult, because of the heterogeneous nature of most lime
sludges.
The major advantage of the sulfide precipitation process is that
the extremely low solubility of most metal sulfides promotes very
high metal removal efficiencies; the sulfide process also has the
ability to remove chromates and dichromates without preliminary
reduction of the chromium to its trivalent state. In addition,
sulfide can precipitate metals complexed with most complexing
agents. The process demands care, however, in maintaining the pH
of the solution at approximately 10 in order to restrict the gen-
eration of toxic hydrogen sulfide gas. For this reason,
ventilation of the treatment tanks may be a necessary precaution
in most installations. The use of insoluble sulfides reduces the
problem of hydrogen sulfide evolution. As with hydroxide
precipitation, excess sulfide ion must be present to drive the
precipitation reaction to completion. Since the sulfide ion
itself is toxic, sulfide addition must be carefully controlled to
maximize heavy metals precipitation with a minimum of excess
sulfide to avoid the necessity of post treatment. At very high
excess sulfide levels and high pH, soluble mercury-sulfide
compounds may also be formed. Where excess sulfide is present,
aeration of the effluent stream can aid in oxidizing residual
1318

-------
sulfide to the less harmful sodium sulfate (Na2SC>4)< ". e
cost of sulfide precipitants is high in cc .arisori
hydroxide precipitants, and disposal of metallic sulfide sludges
may pose problems.	An essential element in effective
sulfide precipitation is the removal of precipitated solids
from the wastewater and proper disposal in an appropriate
site. Sulfide precipitation will also generate a higher volume
of sludge than hydroxide precipitation, resulting in
higher disposal and dewatering costs. This is especially true
when ferrous sulfide is used as the precipitant.
Sulfide precipitation may be used as a polishing treatment after
hydroxide precipitation-sedimentation.	This	treatment
configuration may provide the better treatment effectiveness of
sulfide precipitation while minimizing the variability caused by
changes in raw waste and reducing the amount of sulfide
precipitant required. Sulfide is also effective as a
pretreatment technology before lime and settle to remove specific
pollutants such as chromium.
Operational Factors~ • Reliability:	Alkaline chemical
precipitation is highly reliable, although proper monitoring and
control are required. Sulfide precipitation systems provide
similar reliability.
Maintainability: The major maintenance needs involve periodic
upkeep of monitoring equipment, automatic feeding equipment,
mixing equipment, and other hardware. Removal of accumulated
sludge is necessary for efficient operation of precipitation-
sedimentation systems.
Solid Waste Aspects: Solids which precipitate out are removed in
a subsequent treatment step. Ultimately, these solids require
proper disposal.
Demonstration Status. Chemical precipitation of metal hydroxides
is a classic waste treatment technology used by most industrial
waste treatment systems. Chemical precipitation of some metals,
in particular lead and antimony, in the carbonate form has
been found to be feasible and is commercially used to permit
metals recovery and water reuse. Full scale commercial
sulfide precipitation units are in operation at numerous
installations. As noted earlier, sedimentation to remove
precipitates is discussed separately.
Use in Nonferrous Metals Forming Plants~ Forty-six nonferrous
metals forming plants currently operate chemical precipitation
(lime or caustic systems). The quality of treatment provided,
however, is variable. A review of collected data and on-site
observations reveals that control of system parameters is often
poor. Where precipitates are removed by clarification,
retention times are likely to be short and cleaning and
maintenance questionable. Similarly, pH control is frequently
inadequate. As a result of these factors, effluent performance
1319

-------
at nonferrous metals forming plants nominally practicing the
same wastewater treatment is observed to vary widely.
3. Cyanide Precipitation
Cyanide precipitation, although a method for treating cyanide in
wastewaters, does not destroy cyanide. The cyanide is retained
in the sludge that is formed. Reports indicate that during
exposure to sunlight, the cyanide complexes can break down and
form free cyanide. For this reason, the sludge from this
treatment method must be disposed of carefully.
Cyanide may be precipitated and settled out of wastewaters by the
addition of zinc sulfate or ferrous sulfate. In the presence of
iron, cyanide will form extremely stable cyanide complexes. The
addition of zinc sulfate or ferrous sulfate forms zinc
ferrocyanide or ferro and ferricyanide complexes.
Adequate removal of the precipitated cyanide requires that the pH
must be kept at 9.0 and an appropriate retention time be
maintained. A study has shown that the formation of the complex
is very dependent on pH. At a pH of either 8 or 10, the residual
cyanide concentration measured is twice that of the same reaction
carried out at a pH of 9. Removal efficiencies also depend
heavily on the retention time allowed. The formation of the
complexes takes place rather slowly. Depending upon the excess
amount of zinc sulfate or ferrous sulfate added, at least a 30
minute retention time should be allowed for the formation of the
cyanide complex before continuing on to the clarification stage.
One experiment with an initial concentration of 10 mg/1 of
cyanide showed that 98 percent of the cyanide was complexed ten
minutes after the addition of ferrous sulfate at twice the
theoretical amount necessary. Interference from other metal
ions, such as cadmium, might result in the need for longer
retention times.
Table VII-8 presents cyanide precipitation data from three
coil coating plants. A fourth plant was visited for the
purpose of observing plant testing of the cyanide precipitation
system. Specific data from this facility are not included
because: (1) the pH was usually well below the optimum level of
9.0; (2) the historical treatment data were not obtained using
the standard cyanide analysis procedure; and (3) matched input-
output data were not made available by the plant. Scanning the
available data indicates that the raw waste CN level was in the
range of 25.0; the pH 7.5; and treated CN level was from 0.1 to
0.2.
The concentrations shown on Table VII-8 are those of the stream
entering and leaving the treatment system. Plant 1057
allowed a 27-minute retention time for the formation of the
complex. The retention time for the other plants is not
known. The data suggest that over a wide range of cyanide
1320

-------
concentration in the raw waste, the concentration of
cyanide can be reduced in the effluent stream to unuc 0.15 rr-
Application and Performance. Cyanide precipitation can be used
when cyanide destruction is not feasible because of the presence
of cyanide complexes which are difficult to destroy. Effluent
concentrations of cyanide well below 0.15 mg/1 are possible.
Advantages and Limitations. Cyanide precipitation is an
inexpensive method of treating cyanide. Problems may occur when
metal ions interfere with the formation of the complexes.
4. Granular Bed Filtration
Filtration occurs in nature as the surface and ground
waters are cleansed by sand. Silica sand, anthracite coal, and
garnet are common filter media used in water treatment
plants. These are usually supported by gravel. The media may be
used singly or in combination. The multimedia filters may be
arranged to maintain relatively distinct layers by virtue of
balancing the forces of gravity, flow, and buoyancy on the
individual particles. This is accomplished by selecting
appropriate filter flow rates (gpm/sq-ft), media grain size, and
density.
Granular bed filters may be classified in terms of filtration
rate, filter media, flow pattern, or method of pressurization.
Traditional rate classifications are slow sand, rapid sand, and
high rate mixed media. In the slow sand filter, flux or
hydraulic loading is relatively low, and removal of collected
solids to clean the filter is therefore relatively infrequent.
The filter is often cleaned by scraping off the inlet face (top)
of the sand bed. In the higher rate filters, cleaning is
frequent and is accomplished by a periodic backwash, opposite to
the direction of normal flow.
A filter may use a single medium such as sand or diatomaceous
earth, but dual and mixed (multiple) media filters allow higher
flow rates and efficiencies. Figure VII-32 shows five different
filter configurations. The dual media filter usually consists
of a fine bed of sand under a coarser bed of anthracite coal.
The coarse coal removes most of the influent solids, while the
fine sand performs a polishing function. At the end of the
backwash, the fine sand settles to the bottom because it is
denser than the coal, and the filter is ready for normal
operation. The mixed media filter operates on the same
principle, with the finer, denser media at the bottom and the
coarser, less dense media at the top. The usual arrangement is
garnet at the bottom (outlet end) of the bed, sand in the middle,
and anthracite coal at the top. Some mixing of these layers
occurs and is, in fact, desirable.
The flow pattern is usually top-to-bottom, but other patterns are
sometimes used. Upflow filters are sometimes used, and in a
horizontal filter the flow is horizontal. In a biflow filter,
1321

-------
the influent enters both the top and the bottom and exits
laterally. The advantage of an upflow filter is that with an
upflow backwash, the particles of a single filter medium are
distributed and maintained in the desired coarse-to-fine (bottom-
to-top) arrangement. The disadvantage is that the bed tends to
become fluidized, which ruins filtration efficiency. The biflow
design is an attempt to overcome this problem.
The classic granular bed filter operates by gravity flow;
however, pressure filters are fairly widely used. They permit
higher solids loadings before cleaning and are advantageous when
the filter effluent must be pressurized for further downstream
treatment. In addition, pressure filter systems are often less
costly for low to moderate flow rates.
Figure VII-14 depicts a high rate, dual media, gravity downflow
granular bed filter, with self-stored backwash. Both filtrate
and backwash are piped around the bed in an arrangement that
permits gravity upflow of the backwash, with the stored
filtrate serving as backwash. Addition of the indicated
coagulant and polyelectrolyte usually results in a substantial
improvement in filter performance.
Auxilliary filter cleaning is sometimes employed in the upper few
inches of filter beds. This is conventionally referred to as
surface wash and is accomplished by water jets just below the
surface of the expanded bed during the backwash cycle. These
jets enhance the scouring action in the bed by increasing the
agitation.
An important feature for successful filtration and backwashing is
the underdrain. This is the support structure for the bed. The
underdrain provides an area for collection of the filtered water
without clogging from either the filtered solids or the media
grains. In addition, the underdrain prevents loss of the media
with the water, and during the backwash cycle it provides even
flow distribution over the bed. Failure to dissipate the
velocity head during the filter or backwash cycle will result in
bed upset and the need for major repairs.
Several standard approaches are employed for filter underdrains.
The simplest one consists of a parallel porous pipe imbedded
under a layer of coarse gravel and attached via a manifold to a
header pipe for effluent removal. Other approaches to the
underdrain system are known as the Leopold and Wheeler filter
bottoms. Both of these incorporate false concrete bottoms
with specific porosity configurations to provide drainage and
velocity head dissipation.
Filter system operation may be manual or automatic. The filter
backwash cycle may be on a timed basis, a pressure drop basis
with a terminal value which triggers backwash, or a solids carry-
over basis from turbidity monitoring of the outlet stream. All
of these schemes have been used successfully.
1322

-------
Application and Performance. Wastewater treatment plants often
use granular bed filters for polishing after clarification,
sedimentation, or other similar operations. Granular bed
filtration thus has potential application to nearly all
industrial plants. Chemical additives which enhance the upstream
treatment equipment may or may hot be compatible with or enhance
the filtration process. Normal operating flow rates for various
types of filters are:
Slow Sand	2.04 - 5.30 1/sq m-hr
Rapid Sand	40.74 - 51.48 1/sq m-hr
High Rate Mixed Media 81.48 - 122.22 1/sq m-hr
Suspended solids are commonly removed from wastewater streams by
filtering through a deep 0.3-0.9 m (1-3 feet) granular filter
bed. The porous bed formed by the granular media can be designed
to remove practically all suspended particles. Even colloidal
suspensions (roughly 1 to 100 microns) are adsorbed on the
surface of the media grains as they pass in close proximity in
the narrow bed passages.
Properly operated filters following some pretreatment to reduce
suspended solids below 200 mg/1 should produce water with less
than 10 mg/1 TSS. For example, multimedia filters produced the
effluent qualities shown in Table VII-9.
Advantages and Limitations. The principal advantages of granular
Ee3 filtration are its comparatively (to other filters) low
initial and operating costs, reduced land requirements over other
methods to achieve the same level of solids removal, and
elimination of chemical additions to the discharge stream.
However, the filter may require pretreatment if the solids level
is high (over 100 mg/1). Operator training must be somewhat
extensive due to the controls and periodic backwashing involved,
and backwash must be stored and dewatered for economical
disposal.
Operational Factors. Reliability: The recent improvements in
filter technology have significantly improved filtration
reliability. Control systems, improved designs, and good
operating procedures have made filtration a highly reliable
method of water treatment.
Maintainability: Deep bed filters may be operated with either
manual or automatic backwash. In either case, they must be
periodically inspected for media attrition, partial plugging, and
leakage. Where backwashing is not used, collected solids must be
removed by shoveling, and filter media must be at least partially
replaced.
Solid Waste Aspects: Filter backwash is generally recycled
within the wastewater treatment system, so that the solids
1323

-------
ultimately appear in the clarifier sludge stream for subsequent
dewatering. Alternatively, the backwash stream may be dewatered
directly or, if there is no backwash, the collected solids may be
disposed of in a suitable landfill. In either of these
situations there is a solids disposal problem similar to that of
clarifiers.
Demonstration Status. Deep bed filters are in common use in
municipal treatment plants. Their use in polishing industrial
clarifier effluent is increasing, and the technology is proven
and conventional. As noted previously, however, little
data is available characterizing the effectiveness of filters
presently in use within the industry. One nonferrous metals
forming plant has granular media filtration in place.
5. Pressure Filtration
Pressure filtration works by pumping the liquid through a filter
material which is impenetrable to the solid phase. The positive
pressure exerted by the feed pumps or other mechanical means
provides the pressure differential which is the principal driving
force. Figure VII-15 ) represents the operation of one type of
pressure filter.
A typical pressure filtration unit consists of a number of plates
or trays which are held rigidly in a frame to ensure alignment
and which are pressed together between a fixed end and a
traveling end. On the surface of each plate, a filter made of
cloth or synthetic fiber is mounted. The feed stream is pumped
into the unit and passes through holes in the trays along the
length of the press until the cavities or chambers between the
trays are completely filled. The solids are then entrapped, and
a cake begins to form on the surface of the filter material. The
water passes through the fibers, and the solids are retained.
At the bottom of the trays are drainage ports. The filtrate is
collected and discharged to a common drain. As the filter medium
becomes coated with sludge, the flow of filtrate through the
filter drops sharply, indicating that the capacity of the filter
has been exhausted. The unit must then be cleaned of the sludge.
After the cleaning or replacement of the filter media, the unit
is again ready for operation.
Application and Performance. Pressure filtration is used in
nonferrous metals forming plants for sludge dewatering and also
for direct removal of precipitated and other suspended
solids from wastewater. Because dewatering is such a common
operation in treatment systems, pressure filtration is a
technique which can be found in many industries concerned with
removing solids from their waste stream.
In a typical pressure filter, chemically preconditioned sludge
detained in the unit for one to three hours under pressures
varying from 5 to 13 atmospheres exhibited final solids content
between 25 and 50 percent.
1324

-------
Advantages and Limitations. The pressures which may be applied
to a sludge for removal of water by filter presses that are
currently available range from 5 to 13 atmospheres. As a result,
pressure filtration may reduce the amount of chemical
pretreatment required for sludge dewatering. Sludge retained in
the form of the filter cake has a higher percentage of solids
than that from centrifuge or vacuum filter. Thus, it can be
easily accommodated by materials handling systems.
As a primary solids removal technique, pressure filtration
requires less space than clarification and is well suited to
streams with high solids loadings. The sludge produced may be
disposed without further dewatering, but the amount of sludge is
increased by the use of filter precoat materials (usually
diatomaceous earth). Also, cloth pressure filters often do not
achieve as high a degree of effluent clarification as clarifiers
or granular media filters.
Two disadvantages associated with pressure filtration in the past
have been the short life of the filter cloths and lack of
automation. New synthetic fibers have largely offset the first
of these problems. Also, units with automatic feeding and
pressing cycles are now available.
For larger operations, the relatively high space requirements, as
compared to those of a centrifuge, could be prohibitive in some
situations.
Operational Factors. Reliability: With proper pretreatment,
design, and control, pressure filtration is a highly dependable
system.
Maintainability: Maintenance consists of periodic cleaning or
replacement of the filter media, drainage grids, drainage piping,
filter pans, and other parts of the system. If the removal of
the sludge cake is not automated, additional time is required for
this operation.
Solid Waste Aspects: Because it is generally drier than other
types of sludges, the filter sludge cake can be handled with
relative ease. The accumulated sludge may be disposed by any of
the accepted procedures depending on its chemical composition.
The levels of toxic metals present in sludge from treating
nonferrous metals forming wastewater necessitate proper disposal.
Demonstration Status. Pressure filtration is a commonly used
technology in a great many commercial applications.
6. Settling
Settling is a process which removes solid particles from a liquid
matrix by gravitational force. This is done by reducing the
velocity of the feed stream in a large volume tank or lagoon so
1325

-------
that gravitational settling can occur. Figure VII-16 shows two
typical settling devices.
Settling is often preceded by chemical precipitation which
converts dissolved pollutants to solid form and by coagulation
which enhances settling by coagulating suspended precipitates
into larger, faster settling particles.
If no chemical pretreatment is used, the wastewater is fed into a
tank or lagoon where it loses velocity and the suspended solids
are allowed to settle out. Long retention times are generally
required. Accumulated sludge can be collected either
periodically or continuously and either manually or mechanically.
Simple settling, however, may require excessively large
catchments, and long retention times (days as compared with
hours) to achieve high removal efficiencies. Because of this,
addition of settling aids such as alum or polymeric flocculants
is often economically attractive.
In practice, chemical precipitation often precedes settling, and
inorganic coagulants or polyelectrolytic flocculants are usually
added as well. Common coagulants include sodium sulfate, sodium
aluminate, ferrous or ferric sulfate, and ferric chloride.
Organic polyelectrolytes vary in structure, but all usually form
larger floe particles than coagulants used alone.
Following this pretreatment, the wastewater can be fed into a
holding tank or lagoon for settling, but is more often piped into
a clarifier for the same purpose. A clarifier reduces space
requirements, reduces retention time, and increases solids
removal efficiency. Conventional clarifiers generally consist of
a circular or rectangular tank with a mechanical sludge
collecting device or with a sloping funnel-shaped bottom designed
for sludge collection. In advanced settling devices, inclined
plates, slanted tubes, or a lamellar network may be included
within the clarifier tank in order to increase the effective
settling area, increasing capacity. A fraction of the sludge
stream is often recirculated to the inlet, promoting formation of
a denser sludge.
Settling is based on the ability of gravity (Newton's Law) to
cause small particles to fall or settle (Stokes1 Law) through the
fluid they are suspended in. Presuming that the factors
affecting chemical precipitation are controlled to achieve a
readily settleable precipitate, the principal factors controlling
settling are the particle characteristics and the upflow rate of
the suspending fluid. When the effective settling area is great
enough to allow settling, any increase in the effective settling
area will produce no increase in solids removal.
Therefore, if a plant has installed equipment that provides the
appropriate overflow rate, the precipitated metals in the
effluent can be effectively removed. The number of settling
devices operated in series or in parallel by a facility is not
important with regard to suspended solids removal; rather it
1326

-------
is important that the settling devices provide sufficient
effective settling area.
Another important facet of sedimentation theory is that
diminishing removal of suspended solids is achieved for a unit
increase in the effective settling area. Generally, it has been
found that suspended solids removal performance varies with the
effective up-flow rate. Qualitatively the performance increases
asymptotically to a maximum level beyond which a decrease in up-
flow rate provides incrementally insignificant increases in
removal. This maximum level is dictated by particle size
distribution, density characteristic of the particles and the
water matrix, chemicals used for precipitation and pH at
which precipitation occurs.
Application and Performance. Settling or clarification is used
in the nonferrous metals forming category to remove
precipitated metals. Settling can be used to remove most
suspended solids in a particular waste stream; thus it is
used extensively by many different industrial waste treatment
facilities. Because most metal ion pollutants are readily
converted to solid metal hydroxide precipitates, settling is
of particular use in those industries associated with metal
production, metal finishing, metal working, and any other
industry with high concentrations of metal ions in their
wastewaters.	In addition to toxic metals, suitably
precipitated materials effectively removed by settling include
aluminum, iron, manganese, cobalt, molybdenum, fluoride,
phosphate, and many others.
A properly operating settling system can efficiently remove
suspended solids, precipitated metal hydroxides, and other
impurities from wastewater. The performance of the process
depends on a variety of factors, including the density and
particle size of the solids, the effective charge on the
suspended particles, and the types of chemicals used in
pretreatment. The site of flocculant or coagulant addition also
may significantly influence the effectiveness of clarification.
If the flocculant is subjected to too much mixing before entering
the clarifier, the complexes may be sheared and the settling
effectiveness diminished. At the same time, the flocculant must
have sufficient mixing and reaction time in order for effective
set-up and settling to occur. Plant personnel have observed that
the line or trough leading into the clarifier is often the most
efficient site for flocculant addition. The performance of
simple settling is a function of the retention time, particle
size and density, and the surface area of the basin.
The data displayed in Table VII-10 indicate suspended solids
removal efficiencies in settling systems.	The mean
effluent TSS concentration obtained by the plants shown in Table
VII-10 is 10.1 mg/1. Influent concentrations averaged 838 mg/1.
The maximum effluent TSS value reported is 23 mg/1. These plants
all use alkaline pH adjustment to precipitate metal hydroxides,
and most add a coagulant or flocculant prior to settling.
1327

-------
Advantages and Limitations. The major advantage of simple
settling is its simplicity as demonstrated by the gravitational
settling of solid particulate waste in a holding tank or lagoon.
The major problem with simple settling is the long retention time
necessary to achieve complete settling, especially if the
specific gravity of the suspended matter is close to that of
water. Some materials cannot be practically removed by simple
settling alone.
Settling performed in a clarifier is effective in removing slow-
settling suspended matter in a shorter time and in less space
than a simple settling system. Also, effluent quality is often
better from a clarifier. The cost of installing and maintaining
a clarifier, however, is substantially greater than the costs
associated with simple settling.
Inclined plate, slant tube, and lamella settlers have even higher
removal efficiencies than conventional clarifiers, and greater
capacities per unit area are possible. Installed costs for these
advanced clarification systems are claimed to be one half the
cost of conventional systems of similar capacity.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Settling can be a highly
reliable technology for removing suspended solids. Sufficient
retention time and regular sludge removal are important factors
affecting the reliability of all settling systems. Proper
control of pH adjustment, chemical precipitation, and coagulant
or flocculant addition are additional factors affecting settling
efficiencies in systems (frequently clarifiers) where these
methods are used.
Those advanced settlers using slanted tubes, inclined plates, or
a lamellar network may require pre-screening of the waste in
order to eliminate any fibrous materials which could potentially
clog the system. Some installations are especially vulnerable to
shock loadings, as from storm water runoff, but proper system
design will prevent this.
Maintainability: When clarifiers or other advanced settling
devices are used, the associated system utilized for chemical
pretreatment and sludge dragout must be maintained on a regular
basis. Routine maintenance of mechanical parts is also
necessary. Lagoons require little maintenance other than
periodic sludge removal.
Demonstration Status. Settling represents the typical method of
solids removal and is employed extensively in industrial waste
treatment. The advanced clarifiers are just beginning to appear
in significant numbers in commercial applications. Seventy-five
nonferrous metals forming plants currently operate sedimentation
or clarification systems.
1328

-------
7. Skimming
Pollutants with a specific gravity less than water will often
float unassisted to the surface of the wastewater. Skimming
removes these floating wastes. Skimming normally takes place in
a tank designed to allow the floating debris to rise and remain
on the surface, while the liquid flows to an outlet located below
the floating layer. Skimming devices are therefore suited to the
removal of non-emulsified oils from raw waste streams. Common
skimming mechanisms include the rotating drum type, which picks
up oil from the surface of the water as it rotates. A doctor
blade scrapes oil from the drum and collects it in a trough for
disposal or reuse. The water portion is allowed to flow under
the rotating drum. Occasionally, an underflow baffle is
installed after the drum; this has the advantage of retaining any
floating oil which escapes the drum skimmer. The belt type
skimmer is pulled vertically through the water, collecting oil
which is scraped off from the surface and collected in a drum.
Gravity separators (see Figure VII-33), such as the API type,
utilize overflow and underflow baffles to skim a floating oil
layer from the surface of the wastewater. An overflow-
underflow baffle allows a small amount of wastewater (the oil
portion) to flow over into a trough for disposal or reuse while
the majority of the water flows underneath the baffle. This
is followed by an overflow baffle, which is set at a height
relative to the first baffle such that only the oil bearing
portion will flow over the first baffle during normal plant
operation. A diffusion device, such as a vertical slot
baffle, aids in creating a uniform flow through the system and in
increasing oil removal efficiency.
Application and Performance.	Oil skimming is used in
nonferrous metals forming plants to remove free oil used as a
forming lubricant. Another source of oil is lubricants for
drive mechanisms and other machinery contacted by process water.
Skimming is applicable to any waste stream containing
pollutants which float to the surface. It is commonly used to
remove free oil, grease, and soaps. Skimming is often used in
conjunction with air flotation or clarification in order to
increase its effectiveness.
The removal efficiency of a skimmer is partly a function of the
retention time of the water in the tank. Larger, more buoyant
particles require less retention time than smaller particles.
Thus, the efficiency also depends on the composition of the waste
stream. The retention time required to allow phase separation
and subsequent skimming varies from 1 to 15 minutes, depending on
the wastewater characteristics.
API or other gravity-type separators tend to be more suitable for
use where the amount of surface oil flowing through the system is
consistently significant. Drum and belt type skimmers are
applicable to waste streams which evidence smaller amounts of
floating oil and where surges of floating oil are not a problem.
Using an API separator system in conjunction with a drum type
1329

-------
skimmer is a very effective method of removing floating
contaminants from nonemulsified oily waste streams. Sampling
data shown in Table VII-11 illustrate the capabilities of the
technology with both extremely high and moderate oil influent
levels.
These data are intended to be illustrative of the very high level
of oil and grease removals attainable in a simple two-step oil
removal system. Based on the performance of installations in a
variety of manufacturing plants and permit requirements that are
consistently achieved, it has been determined that effluent oil
levels may be reliably reduced below 10 mg/1 with moderate
influent concentrations. Very high concentrations of oil such
as the 22 percent shown above may require two-step treatment to
achieve this level.
Skimming which removes oil may also be used to remove base levels
of organics. Plant sampling data show that many organic
compounds tend to be removed in standard wastewater treatment
equipment. Oil separation not only removes oil but also organics
that are more soluble in oil than in water. Clarification
removes organic solids directly and probably removes dissolved
organics by adsorption on inorganic solids.
The source of these organic pollutants is not always known with
certainty, although in metal forming operations they seem to
derive mainly from various process lubricants. They are also
sometimes present in the plant water supply, as additives to
proprietary formulations of cleaners, or as the result of
leaching from plastic lines and other materials.
High molecular weight organics in particular are much more
soluble in organic solvents than in water. Thus they are much
more concentrated in the oil phase that is skimmed than in the
wastewater. The ratio of solubilities of a compound in oil and
water phases is called the partition coefficient. The logarithm
of the partition coefficients for selected polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbon (PAH) and other toxic organic compounds in octanol
and water are shown in Table VII-12.
A review of priority organic compounds commonly found in metal
forming operation waste streams indicated that incidental removal
of these compounds often occurs as a result of oil removal or
clarification processes. When all organics analyses from visited
plants are considered, removal of organic compounds by other
waste treatment technologies appears to be marginal in many
cases. However, when only raw waste concentrations of 0.05 mg/1
or greater are considered, incidental organics removal becomes
much more apparent. Lower values, those less than 0.05 mg/1,
are much more subject to analytical variation, while higher
values indicate a significant presence of a given compound. When
these factors are taken into account, analysis data indicate that
most clarification and oil removal treatment systems remove
significant amounts of the toxic organic compounds present in the
1330

-------
raw waste. The API oil-water separation system performed notably
in this regard, as shown in Table VII-13.
Data from five plant days demonstrate removal of organics by the
combined oil skimming and settling operations performed on coil
coating wastewaters. Days were chosen where treatment system
influent and effluent analyses provided paired data points for
oil and grease and the organics present. All organics found at
quantifiable levels on those days were included. Further, only
those days were chosen where oil and grease raw wastewater
concentrations exceeded 10 mg/1 and where there was reduction in
oil and grease going through the treatment system. All plant
sampling days which met the above criteria are included below.
The conclusion is that when oil and grease are removed, organics
also are removed.
Percent Removal
Plant-Day	Oil & Grease	Organics
1054-3
95.9
98. 2
13029-2
98. 3
78.0
13029-3
95.1
77 .0
38053-1
96 .8
81.3
38053-2
98 . 5
86. 3
Mean
96 .9
84.2
The unit operation most applicable to removal of trace priority
organics is adsorption, and chemical oxidation is another
possibility. Biological degradation is not generally applicable
because the organics are not present in sufficient concentration
to sustain a biomass and because most of the organics are
resistant to biodegradation.
Advantages and Limitat ions. Skimming as a pretreatment is
effective in removing naturally floating waste material. It also
improves the performance of subsequent downstream treatments.
Many pollutants, particularly dispersed or emulsified oil, will
not float "naturally" but require additional treatments. There-
fore, skimming alone may not remove all the pollutants capable of
being removed by air flotation or other more sophisticated
technologies.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Because of its simplicity,
skimming is a very reliable technique.
Maintainability: The skimming mechanism requires periodic
lubrication, adjustment, and replacement of worn parts.
Solid Waste Aspects: The collected layer of debris must be
disposed of by contractor removal, landfill, or incineration.
Because relatively large quantities of water are present in the
1331

-------
collected wastes, incineration is not always a viable disposal
method.
Demonstration Status. Skimming is a common operation utilized
extensively by industrial waste treatment systems. Oil skimming
is used in 30 nonferrous metals forming plants.
8. Chemical Emulsion Breaking
Chemical treatment is often used to break stable oil-in-water (0-
W) emulsions. An 0-W emulsion consists of oil dispersed in
water, stabilized by electrical charges and emulsifying agent. A
stable emulsion will not separate or break down without some form
of treatment.
Once an emulsion is broken, the difference in specific gravities
allows the oil to float to the surface of the water. Solids
usually form a layer between the oil and water, since some oil is
retained in the solids. The longer the retention time, the more
complete and distinct the separation between the oil, solids, and
water will be. Often other methods of gravity differential
separation, such as air flotation or rotational separation (e.g.,
centrifugation), are used to enhance and speed separation. A
schematic flow diagram of one type of application is shown in
Figure VII-31.
The major equipment required for chemical emulsion breaking
includes: reaction chambers with agitators, chemical storage
tanks, chemical feed systems, pumps, and piping.
Emulsifiers may be used in the plant to aid in stabilizing or
forming emulsions. Emulsifiers are surface-active agents which
alter the characteristics of the oil and water interface. These
surfactants have rather long polar molecules. One end of the
molecule is particularly soluble in water (e.g., carboxyl,
sulfate, hydroxyl, or sulfonate groups) and the other end is
readily soluble in oils (an organic group which varies greatly
with the different surfactant type). Thus, the surfactant
emulsifies or suspends the organic material (oil) in water.
Emulsifiers also lower the surface tension of the 0-W emulsion as
a result of solvation and ionic complexing. These emulsions must
be destabilized in the treatment system.
Application and Performance. Emulsion breaking is applicable to
waste streams containing emulsified oils or lubricants such as
rolling and drawing emulsions. Typical chemical emulsion
breaking efficiencies are given in Table VII-30.
Treatment of spent 0-W emulsions involves the use of chemicals to
break the emulsion followed by gravity differential separation.
Factors to be considered for breaking emulsions are type of
chemicals, dosage and sequence of addition, pH, mechanical shear
and agitation, heat, and retention time.
1332

-------
Polymers, alum, ferric chloride, and organic emulsion breakers
break emulsions by neutralizing repulsive charges between
particles, precipitating or salting out emulsifying agents, or
altering the interfacial film between the oil and water so it is
readily broken. Reactive cations (e.g., H(+1), Al(+3), Pe(+3),
and cationic polymers) are particularly effective in breaking
dilute 0-W emulsions. Once the charges have been neutralized or
the interfacial film broken, the small oil droplets and suspended
solids will be adsorbed on the surface of the floe that is
formed, or break out and float to the top. Various types of
emulsion-breaking chemicals are used for the various types of
oils.
If more than one chemical is required, the sequence of addition
can make quite a difference in both breaking efficiency and
chemical dosages.
Wastewater pH plays an important role in emulsion breaking,
especially if cationic inorganic chemicals, such as alum, are
used as coagulants. A depressed pH in the range of 2 to 4 keeps
the aluminum ion in its most positive state where it can function
most effectively for charge neutralization. After some of the
oil is broken free and skimmed, raising the pH into the 6 to 8
range with lime or caustic will cause the aluminum to hydrolyze
and precipitate as alumium hydroxide. This floe entraps or
adsorbs destabilized oil droplets which can then be separated
from the water phase. Cationic polymers can break emulsions over
a wider pH range and thus avoid acid corrosion and the additional
sludge generated from neutralization; however, an inorganic
flocculant is usually required to supplement the polymer emulsion
breaker's adsorptive properties.
Mixing is important in breaking 0-W emulsions. Proper chemical
feed and dispersion is required for effective results. Mixing
also causes collisions which help break the emulsion, and
subsequently helps to agglomerate droplets.
In all emulsions, the mix of two immiscible liquids has a
specific gravity very close to that of water. Heating lowers the
viscosity and increases the apparent specific gravity
differential between oil and water. Heating also increases the
frequency of droplet collisions, which helps to rupture the
interfacial film.
Chemical emulsion breaking can be used with oil skimming to
achieve the treatment effectiveness concentrations that oil
skimming alone will achieve for non-emulsified streams. This
type of treatment is proven to be reliable and is considered
state-of-the-art for nonferrous metals forming emulsified oily
wastewaters.
Advantages and Limitations. Advantages gained from the use of
chemicals for breaking 0-W emulsions are the high removal
efficiency potential and the possibility of reclaiming the oily
waste. Disadvantages are corrosion problems associated with
1333

-------
acid-alum systems, skilled operator requirements for batch
treatment, and chemical sludges produced.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Chemical emulsion breaking is
a very reliable process. The main control parameters, pH and
temperature, are fairly easy to control.
Maintainability: Maintenance is required on pumps, motors, and
valves, as well as periodic cleaning of the treatment tank to
remove any accumulated solids. Energy use is limited to mixers
and pumps.
Solid Waste Aspects: The surface oil and oily sludge produced
are usually hauled away by a licensed contractor. If the
recovered oil has a sufficiently low percentage of water, it may
be burned for its fuel value or processed and reused.
Demonstration Status. Twelve plants in the nonferrous metals
forming category currently break emulsions with chemicals.
MAJOR TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS
The performance of individual treatment technologies was
presented above. Performance of operating systems is discussed
here. Two different systems are considered: L&S (hydroxide
precipitation and sedimentation or lime and settle) and LS&F
(hydroxide precipitation, sedimentation, and filtration or lime,
settle, and filter). Subsequently, an analysis of effectiveness
of such systems is made to develop one-day maximum, and ten-day
and thirty-day average concentration levels to be used in
regulating pollutants. Evaluation of the L&S and the LS&F
systems is carried out on the assumption that chemical reduction
of chromium, cyanide precipitation, and oil removal are installed
and operating properly where appropriate.
L&S Performance — Combined Metals Data Base
A data base known as the "combined metals data base" (CMDB) was
used to determine treatment effectiveness of lime and settle
treatment for certain pollutants. The CMDB was developed over
several years and has been used in a number of regulations.
During the development of coil coating and other categorical
effluent limitations and standards, chemical analysis data were
collected of raw wastewater (treatment influent) and treated
wastewater (treatment effluent) from 55 plants (126 data days)
sampled by EPA (or its contractor) using EPA sampling and
chemical analysis protocols. These data are the initial data
base for determining the effectiveness of L&S technology in
treating nine pollutants. Each of the plants in the initial data
base belongs to at least one of the following industry
categories: aluminum forming, battery manufacturing, coil coating
(including canmaking), copper forming, electroplating and
porcelain enameling. All of the plants employ pH adjustment and
hydroxide precipitation using lime or caustic, followed by
Stokes' law settling (tank, lagoon or clarifier) for solids
1334

-------
removal. An analysis of this data was presented in the
development documents for the proposed regulations for coil
coating and porcelain enameling (January 1981). Prior to
analyzing the data, some values were deleted from the data base.
These deletions were made to ensure that the data reflect
properly operated treatment systems. The following criteria were
used in making these deletions:
Plants where malfunctioning processes or treatment systems at
the time of sampling were identified.
- Data days where pH was less than 7.0 for extended periods
of time or TSS was greater than 50 mg/1 (these are prima
facie indications of poor operation).
In response to the coil coating and porcelain enameling
proposals, some commenters claimed that it was inappropriate to
use data from some categories for regulation of other categories.
In response to these comments, the Agency reanalyzed the data.
An analysis of variance was applied to the data for the 126 days
of sampling to test the hypothesis of homogeneous plant mean raw
and treated effluent levels across categories by pollutant. This
analysis is described in the report "A Statistical Analysis of
the Combined Metals Industries Effluent Data" which is in the
administrative record supporting this rulemaking. Homogeneity is
the absence of statistically discernable differences among the
categories, while heterogeneity is the opposite, i.e., the
presence of statistically discernable differences. The main
conclusion drawn from the analysis of variance is that, with the
exception of electroplating, the categories included in the data
base are generally homogeneous with regard to mean pollutant
concentrations in both raw and treated effluent. That is, when
data from electroplating facilities are included in the analysis,
the hypothesis of homogeneity across categories is rejected.
When the electroplating data are removed from the analysis the
conclusion changes substantially and the hypothesis of
homogeneity across categories is not rejected. On the basis of
this analysis, the electroplating data were removed from the data
base used to determine limitations for the coil coating, and
porcelain enameling, copper forming, aluminum forming,
battery manufacturing, nonferrous metals manufacturing,
canmaking, and nonferrous metals forming regulations.
The statistical analysis provides support for the technical
engineering judgment that electroplating wastewaters are
sufficiently different from the wastewaters of other industrial
categories in the data base to warrant removal of electroplating
data from the data base used to determine treatment
effectiveness.
For the purpose of determining treatment effectiveness,
additional data were deleted from the data base. These deletions
were made, almost exclusively, in cases where effluent data
points were associated with low influent values. This was done
in two steps. First, effluent values measured on the same day as
1335

-------
influent values that were less than or equal to 0.1 mg/1 were
deleted. Second, the remaining data were screened for cases in
which all influent values at a plant were low although slightly
above the 0.1 mg/1 value. These data were deleted not as
individual data points but as plant clusters of data that were
consistently low and thus not relevent to assessing treatment. A
few data points were also deleted where malfunctions not
previously identified were recognized. The data basic to the
CMDB are displayed graphically in Figures VII-4 to 12.
After all deletions, 148 data points from 19 plants remained.
These data were used to determine the concentration basis of
limitations derived from the CMDB used for this regulation.
The CMDB was reviewed following its use in a number of proposed
regulations. Comments pointed out a few errors in the data,
and the Agency's review identified a few transcription errors
and some data points that were appropriate for inclusion
in the data that had not been used previously because of
errors in data record identification numbers. Documents in
the record of this rulemaking identify all the changes, the
reasons for the changes, and the effect of these changes on the
data base. Other comments on the CMDB asserted that the data
base was too small and that the statistical methods used were
overly complex. Responses to specific comments regarding the
application of the CMDB to the nonferrous metals forming category
are included in the record of this rulemaking. The Agency
believes that the data base is adequate to determine effluent
concentrations achievable with lime and settle
treatment. The statistical methods employed in the analysis are
well known and appropriate statistical references are provided in
the documents in the record that describe the analysis.
The revised data base was reexamined for homogeneity. The
earlier conclusions were unchanged. The categories show good
overall homogeneity with respect to concentrations of the nine
pollutants in both raw and treated wastewaters with the exception
of electroplating.
Certain effluent data associated with low influent values
were deleted, and then the remaining data were fit to a
lognormal distribution to determine treatment effectiveness
values. The deletion of data was done in two steps. First,
effluent values measured on the same day as influent values that
were less than or equal to 0.1 mg/1 were deleted. Second, the
remaining data were screened for cases in which all influent
values at a plant were low although slightly above the 0.1 mg/1
value. These data were deleted not as individual data
points but as plant clusters of data that were consistently low
and thus not relevant to assessing treatment. The revised
combined metals data base used for this regulation
consists of 162 data points from 18 plants.
1336

-------
One-day Effluent Values
The concentrations determined from the CMDB used to establish
limitations and standards at proposal were also used to establish
final limitations and standards. The basic assumption underlying
the determination of treatment effectiveness is that the
data for a particular pollutant are lognormally distributed by
plant. The lognormal has been found to provide a satisfactory
fit to plant effluent data in a number of effluent guidelines
categories and there was no evidence that the lognormal was not
suitable in the case of the CMDB. Thus, we assumed measurements
of each pollutant from a particular plant, denoted by X, were
assumed to follow a lognormal distribution with log mean "y" and
log variancea2. The mean, variance and 99th percentile
of X are then:
2 ,
mean of X = E(X) = exp (y + a /2)
variance of X = V(X) = exp (2y + a2) [exp(a2) - 1]
99th percentile = X.99 = exp (y + 2.33a)
where exp is e, the base of the natural logarithm. The term
lognormal is used because the logarithm of X has a normal
distribution with mean y and variance a2. Using the
basic assumption of lognormality the actual treatment
effectiveness was determined using a lognormal distribution
that, in a sense, approximates the distribution of an average
of the plants in the data base, i.e., an "average plant"
distribution. The notion of an "average plant" distribution
is not a strict statistical concept but is used here to
determine limits that would represent the performance capability
of an average of the plants in the data base.
This "average plant" distribution for a particular pollutant was
developed as follows: the log mean was determined by taking the
average of all the observations for the pollutant across plants.
The log variance was determined by the pooled within-plant
variance. This is the weighted average of the plant variances.
Thus, the log mean represents the average of all the data for the
pollutant and the log variance represents the average of the
plant log variances or average plant variability for the
pollutant.
The one day effluent values were determined as follows:
Let Xij = the jth observation on a particular pollutant at plant
i where
1 — 1, ..., I
j — 1, ..., Ji
I = total number of plants
1337

-------
Ji = number of observations at plant i.
Then yij = In Xij
where In means the natural logarithm.
Then y = log mean over all plants
I	Ji
= 1	E yij/n,
i=l j=l
where n = total number of observations
I
* Ji
i=l
and V(y) = pooled log variance
I
Z (Ji - 1) Si2
i = 1
I
Z (Ji - 1)
i = 1
where Si2 = log variance at plant i
Jj	- 2
z (yij ~ yi) /(Ji - i)
jj = i
yi = log mean at plant i.
Thus, y and V(y) are the log mean and log variance, respectively,
of the lognormal distribution used to determine the treatment
effectiveness. The estimated mean and 99th percentile of this
distribution form the basis for the long term average and daily
maximum effluent limitations, respectively. The estimates are
mean = E(X) = exp(y) Yn (0.5V(y))
99th percentile = X.gg = exp [y + 2.33 /V(y) ]
where H' ( .) is a Bessel function and exp is e, the base of the
natural logarithms (See Aitchison, J. and J.A.C. Brown, The
Lognormal Distribution, Cambridge University Press, 1963). In
cases where zeros were present in the data, a generalized form of
1338

-------
the lognormal, known as the delta distribution was used (See
Aitchison and Brown, op. cit., Chapter 9).
For certain pollutants, this approach was modified slightly to
ensure that well-operated lime and settle plants in all CMDB
categories would achieve the pollutant concentration values
calculated from the CMDB. For instance, after excluding the
electroplating data and other data that did not reflect pollutant
removal or proper treatment, the effluent copper data from the
copper forming plants were statistically significantly greater
than the copper data from the other plants. This indicated that
copper forming plants might have difficulty achieving an effluent
concentration value calculated from copper data from all CMDB
categories. Thus, copper effluent values shown in Table VII-14
(page ) are based only on the copper effluent data from the
copper forming plants. That is, the log mean for copper is the
mean of the logs of all copper values from the copper forming
plants only and the log variance is the pooled log variance of
the copper forming plant data only. A similar situation occurred
in the case of lead. That is, after excluding the electroplating
data, the effluent lead data from battery manufacturing were
significantly greater than the other categories. This indicated
that battery manufacturing plants might have difficulty achieving
a lead concentration calculated from all the CMDB categories.
The lead values proposed were therefore based on the battery
manufacturing lead data only. Comments on the proposed battery
manufacturing regulation objected to this procedure and asserted
that the lead concentration values were too low. Following
proposal, the Agency obtained additional lead effluent data from
a battery manufacturing facility with well-operated lime and
settle treatment. These data were combined with the proposal
lead data and analyzed to determine the final treatment
effectiveness concentrations. The mean lead concentration is
unchanged at 0.12 mg/1 but the final one-day maximum and monthly
10-day average maximum increased to 0.42 and 0.20 mg/1,
respectively. A complete discussion of the lead data and
analysis is contained in a memorandum in the record of this
rulemak ing.
In the case of cadmium, after excluding the electroplating data
and data that did not reflect removal or proper treatment, there
were insufficient data to estimate the log variance for cadmium.
The variance used to determine the values shown in Table VII-14
for cadmium was estimated by pooling the within-plant variances
for all the other metals. Thus, the cadmium variability is the
average of the plant variability averaged over all the other
metals. The log mean for cadmium is the mean of the logs of the
cadmium observations only. A complete discussion of the data and
calculations for all the metals is contained in the
administrative record for this rulemaking.
Average Effluent Values
Average effluent values that form the basis for the monthly
limitations were developed in a manner consistent with the method
1339

-------
used to develop one-day treatment effectiveness in that the
lognormal distribution used for the one-day effluent values was
also used as the basis for the average values. That is, we
assume a number of consecutive measurements are drawn from the
distribution of daily measurements. The average of ten
measurements taken during a month was used as the basis for the
monthly average limitations. The approach used for the 10
measurements values was employed previously in regulations for
other categories and was proposed for the nonferrous metals
forming category. That is, the distribution of the average of 10
samples from a lognormal was approximated by another
lognormal distribution. Although the approximation is not
precise theoretically, there is empirical evidence based on
effluent data from a number of categories that the lognormal
is an adequate approximation for the distribution of small
samples. In the course of previous work the approximation
was verified in a computer simulation study (see "Development
Document for Existing Sources Pretreatment Standards for the
Electroplating Point Source Category", EPA 440/1-79/003,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., August
1979). We also note that the average values were developed
assuming independence of the observations although no
particular sampling scheme was assumed.
Ten-Sample Average
The formulas for the 10-sample limitations were derived on the
basis of simple relationships between the mean and variance of
the distributions of the daily pollutant measurements and the
average of 10 measurements. We assume the daily concentration
measurements for a particular pollutant, denoted by X, follow a
lognormal distribution with log mean and log variance denoted by
y and a , respectivey. Let X^q denote the mean of
10 consecutive measurements. The following relationships then
hold assuming the daily measurements are independent:
mean of X^q = E(X10) = E(x)
variance of X]_q = V(X10) = v(x) 10-
Where E(X) and V(X) are the mean and variance of X, respectively,
defined above. We then assume that X^q follows a
lognormal distribution with log mean ^io and log standard
deviation a2.The mean and variance of X^q are then
E (X, _) = exp (y1n + 0. 5a2-, n)
V(X10) = exp (2y10 + a21Q [exp (a210) - 1]
L]_ 0' -	U,3U 10J
2
'10 + a 10	VU"10'
Now, y1Q and	can be derived in terms of y and a2 as
1^10 = y + cr2/2 - 0.5 In [1 + exp (a2 - 1)/N]
1340

-------
g210 = 1 n i 1 + (exp(a2) - 1/N]
^ 2
Therefore, lJio and ° 10 can be estimated using the
above relationships and the estimates of y and a2 obtained
for the underlying lognormal distribution. The 10-sample
limitation value was determined by the estimate of the
approximate 99th percentile of the distribution of the 10-sample
average given by
X10 ^ " 99 • exp (*uio + 2 . 33- , q ) .
Where fi ^ g and	are the estimates of u ^ q and n ,
respectively.
Thirty-Sample Average
Monthly average values based on the average of 30 daily
measurements were also calculated. These are included because
monthly limitations based on 30 samples have been used in the
past and for comparison with the 10-sample values. The average
values based on 30 measurements are determined on the basis of a
statistical result known as the Central Limit Theorem. This
Theorem states that, under general and nonrestrictive
assumptions, the distribution of a sum of a number of random
variables, say n, is approximated by the normal distribution.
The approximation improves as the number of variables, n,
increases. The Theorem is quite general in that no particular
distributional form is assumed for the distribution of the
individual variables. In most applications (as in approximating
the distribution of 30-day averages) the Theorem is used to
approximate the distribution of the average of n observations of
a random variable. The result makes it possible to compute
approximate probability statements about the average in a wide
range of cases. For instance, it is possible to compute a value
below which a specified percentage (e.g., 99 percent) of the
averages of n observations are likely to fall. Most textbooks
state that 25 or 30 observations are sufficient for the
approximation to be valid. In applying the Theorem to the
distribution of the 30-day average effluent values, we
approximate the distribution of the average of 30 observations
drawn from the distribution of daily measurements and use the
estimated 99th percentile of this distribution.
Thirty-Sample Average Calculation
The formulas for the 30-sample average were based on an
application of the Central Limit Theorem. According to the
Theorem, the average of 30 observations drawn from the
distribution of daily measurements, denoted by X30/
is approximately normally distributed. The mean and variance
of X30 are:
1341

-------
mean of X30 = E(X3q) = E(X)
variance of X30 = V(X3g) = V(X)/30.
The 30-sample average value was determined by the estimate of
the approximate 99th percentile of the distribution of the
30-sample average given by
X3cf( • 99) = E?X) = 2.33 /V(X) 30
where
E (X) = exp(y) Vn (0.5V9y))
A
and V(X) = exp(2y) [^n(2v(y)) - n (n-2/n-] ) V(y)].
/V	A
The formulas for E(X) and V(X) are estimates of E(X) and V(X),
respectively, given in Aitchison, J. and J.A.C. Brown, The
Loqnormal Distribution, Cambridge University Press, 1963, paqe
45.
Application
In response to the proposed coil coating and porcelain enameling
regulations, the Agency received comments pointing out that
permits usually required less than 30 samples to be taken during
a month while the monthly average used as the basis for permits
and pretreatment requirements usually is based on the average of
30 samples.
In applying the treatment effectiveness values to regulations we
have considered the comments, examined the sampling frequency
required by many permits and considered the change in values of
averages depending on the number of consecutive sampling days in
the averages. The most common frequency of sampling required in
permits is about ten samples per month or slightly greater than
twice weekly. The 99th percentiles of the distribution of
averages of ten consecutive sampling days are not substantially
different from the 99th percentile of the distribution's 30-day
average. (Compared to the one-day maximum, the ten-day average
is about 80 percent of the difference between one- and 30-day
values). Hence the ten-day average provides a reasonable basis
for a monthly average limitation and is typical of the sampling
frequency required by existing permits.
The monthly average limitation is to be achieved in all permits
and pretreatment standards regardless of the number of samples
required to be analyzed and averaged by the permit or the
pretreatment authority.
Additional Pollutants
Twenty-three additional pollutant parameters were evaluated to
determine the performance of lime and settle treatment systems
1342

-------
in removing them from industrial wastewater. Performance data
for these parameters is not a part of the CMDB so other data
available to the Agency from categories not included in the CMDB
has been used to determine the long-term average performance
of lime and settle technology for each pollutant. These data
indicate that the concentrations shown in Table VII-15
are reliably attainable with hydroxide precipitation and
settling. Treatment effectiveness values were calculated by
multiplying the mean performance from Table VII-15 by the
appropriate variability factor. (The variability factor is
the ratio of the value of concern to the mean). The pooled
variability factors are: one-day maximum - 4.100; ten-day
average - 1.821; and 30-day average - 1.618 these one-, ten-, and
thirty-day values are tabulated in Table VII-21.
In establishing which data were suitable for use in Table VII-14
two factors were heavily weighed: (1) the nature of the
wastewater; and (2) the range of pollutants or pollutant matrix
in the raw wastewater. These data have been selected from
processes that generate dissolved metals in the wastewater and
which are generally free from complexing agents. The pollutant
matrix was evaluated by comparing the concentrations of
pollutants found in the raw wastewaters with the range of
pollutants in the raw wastewaters of the combined metals data
set. These data are displayed in Tables VII-16 and VII-17
and indicate that there is sufficient similarity in the
raw wastes to logically assume transferability of the treated
pollutant concentrations to the combined metals data base.
Nonferrous metals forming wastewaters also were compared to the
wastewaters from plants in categories from which treatment
effectiveness values were calculated. The available data on
these added pollutants do not allow homogeneity analysis as was
performed on the combined metals data base. The data source for
each added pollutant is discussed separately.
Antimony (Sb) - The treatment effectiveness concentration for
antimony is based on data from a battery and secondary
lead plant. Both EPA sampling data and recent permit data
(1978-1982) confirm the achievability of 0.7 mg/1 in the
battery manufacturing wastewater matrix included in the combined
data set. The untreated wastewater matrix shown in Table VII-17
is comparable with the untreated wastewater from the combined
metals data set.
Arsenic (As) - The treatment effectiveness concentration of
0.5 mg/1 for arsenic is based on permit data from two
nonferrous metals manufacturing plants.	The untreated
wastewater matrix shown in Table VII-17 is comparable with the
combined data set matrix.
Beryllium (Be) - The treatment effectiveness of beryllium is
transferred from the nonferrous metals manufacturing industry.
The 0.3 mg/1 performance is achieved at a beryllium plant with
the comparable untreated wastewater matrix shown in Table VII-
17 .
1343

-------
Mercury (Hg) - The 0.06 mg/1 treatment effectiveness
concentration of mercury is based on data from four battery
plants. The untreated wastewater matrix at these plants was
considered in the combined metals data set.
Selenium (Se) - The 0.30 mg/1 treatment effectiveness
concentration of selenium is based on recent permit data
from one of the nonferrous metals manufacturing plants also
used for arsenic performance. The untreated wastewater
matrix for this plant is shown in Table VII-17.
Silver (Ag) - The treatment effectiveness concentration of 0.1
mg/1 for silver is based on an estimate from the inorganic
chemicals industry. Additional data supporting a treatability as
stringent or more stringent than 0.1 mg/1 is also available
from seven nonferrous metals manufacturing plants. The untreated
wastewater matrix for these plants is comparable and summarized
in Table VII-17.
Thallium (Tl) - The 0.50 mg/1 treatment effectiveness
concentration for thallium is transferred from the inorganic
chemicals industry. Although no untreated wastewater data are
available to verify comparability with the combined metals
data set plants, no other sources of data for thallium
treatability could be identified.
Aluminum (A1) - The 2.24 mg/1 treatment effectiveness
concentration of aluminum is based on the mean performance of
three aluminum forming plants and one coil coating plant. These
plants are from categories included in the combined metals data
set, assuring untreated wastewater matrix comparability.
Barium (Ba) - The treatment effectiveness concentration for
barium (0.42 mg/1) is based on data from one nonferrous metals
forming plant. The untreated wastewater matrix shown in Table
VII-17 is comparable with the combined metals data base.
Boron (B) - The treatment effectiveness concentration of 0.36
mg/1 for boron is based on data from a nonferrous metals plant.
The untreated wastewater matrix shown in Table VII-17 is
comparable with the combined metals data base.
Cesium (Cs) - The treatment effectiveness concentration for
cesium (0.124 mg/1) is based on the performance achievable for
sodium using ion exchange technology. This transfer of
performance is technically justiciable because of the similarity
of the chemical and physical behavior of these monovalent atoms.
Cobalt (Co) - The 0.05 mg/1 treatment effectiveness
concentration is based on nearly complete removal of cobalt at a
porcelain enameling plant with a mean untreated wastewater
cobalt concentration of 4.31 mg/1. In this case, the analytical
detection using aspiration techniques for this pollutant is
used as the basis of the treatability. Porcelain enameling was
1344

-------
considered in the combined metals data base, assuring
untreated wastewater matrix comparability.
Columbium (Cb) - Data collected at two refractory metals forming
plants indicate that lime and settle reduces columbium to below
the level of detection (using x-ray fluorescence analytical
methods) when an operating pH of eight is maintained. Another
sampled lime and settle treatment system is operated at a higher
pH, from 10.5 to 11.5, effluent concentrations of columbium from
this system are significantly higher. Therefore, the data
indicate that if the treatment system is operated at a pH near 8,
columbium should be removed to below the level of detection. The
level of detection (0.12 mg/1) is used as the one-day maximum
concentration for lime and settle treatment effectiveness. No
long-term, 10-day, and 30-day average treatment effectiveness
values are established since it is impossible to determine
precisely what concentrations are achievable. The untreated
wastewater matrix show in Table VII-17 is comparable with the
combined metals data base.
Fluoride (F) - The 14.5 mg/1 treatment effectiveness
concentration of fluoride is based on the mean performance
(216 samples) of an electronics manufacturing plant. The
untreated wastewater matrix for this plant shown in Table VII-17
is comparable to the combined metals data set. The fluoride
level in the electronics wastewater (760 mg/1) is
significantly greater than the fluoride level in raw nonferrous
metals forming wastewater leading to the conclusion that the
nonferrous metals forming wastewater should be no more difficult
to treat for fluoride removal than the electronics wastewater.
The fluoride level in the CMDB - electroplating data ranges from
1.29 to 70.0 mg/1. Fluoride concentrations in some waste
streams, such a hydrofluoric acid surface treatment baths, the
combined raw waste concentrations that mix concentrated fluoride
wastewaters with dilute wastewaters range from 5.3 to 117 mg/1.
leading to the conclusion that the nonferrous metals forming
wastewater should be no more difficult to treat to
remove fluoride than electronics wastewater.
Gallium (Ga) - The treatment effectiveness concentration of
gallium is assumed to be the same as the level for chromium
(0.084 mg/1) for the reasons discussed below for indium. The
Agency requested data on the treatability of gallium and
solicited comment on the assumption that the achievable
performance for gallium should be similar received disputing this
claim.
Germanium (Ge) - The treatment effectiveness concentration of
germanium is assumed to be the same as the level for chromium
(0.084 mg/1) for the reasons discussed for indium (see below).
The Agency requested data on the treatability of germanium and
solicited comment on the assumption that the achievable
performance for germanium should be similar to that of chromium.
No comments were received disputing this claim.
1345

-------
Gold (Au) - The treatment effectiveness concentration for gold is
based on the performance achieved for paladium using ion
exchange. This transfer of performance is technically
justifiable because of the similarity of the physical and
chemical behavior of these precious metals.
Hafnium (Hf) - The treatment effectiveness concentration for
hafnium 7.28 mg/1 is based on the transfer of performance data
for zirconium. The Agency believes that since the water
chemistry for zirconium and hafnium is similiar, hafnium can be
removed to the same levels as zirconium.
Indium (In) - The treatment effectiveness concentration for
indium is assumed to be the same as the level for chromium (0.084
mg/1). Lacking any treated effluent data for indium, a
comparison was made between the theoretical solubilities of
indium and the metals in the combined Metals Data Base: cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc. The theoretical
solubility of indium (2.5 x 10 ') is more similar to the
theoretical solubility of chromium (1.64 x 10~° mg/1) than it
is to the theoretical solubilities of cadmium, copper, lead,
nickel or zinc. _7The theoretical solubilities of these metals
range from 20 x 10 ^ to 2.2 x 10 ^ mg/1. This comparison
is further supported by the fact that indium and chromium both
form hydroxides in the trivalent state. Cadmium, copper, lead,
nickel and zinc all form divalent hydroxides.
Magnesium (Mg) - Data collected at a magnesium forming plant
indicate that lime and settle reduces magnesium to below the
level of detection. The level of detection (0.1 mg/1) is used as
the one-day maximum concentration for lime and settle treatment
effectiveness. No long-term, 10-day, and 30-day average
treatment effectiveness values are established since it is
impossible to determine precisely what concentrations are
achievable.
Molybdenum (Mo) - The 1.83 mg/1 treatment effectiveness
concentration is based on data from a nonferrous metals
manufacturing and forming, plant which uses coprecipitation of
molybdenum with iron. The treatment effectiveness concentration
of 1.83 mg/1 is achievable with iron coprecipitation and lime and
settle treatment. The untreated wastewater matrix show in Table
VII-17 is comparable with the combined metals data base.
Phosphorus (P) - The 4.08 mg/1 treatment effectiveness
concentration of phosphorus is based on the mean of 44
samples including 19 samples from the Combined Metals Data Base
and 25 samples from the electroplating data base. Inclusion
of electroplating data with the combined metals data was
considered appropriate, since the removal mechanism for
phosphorus is a precipitation reaction with calcium rather than
hydroxide.
Platinum (Pt) - The treatment effectiveness concentration for
platinum is based on the performance achieved for pathadium using
1346

-------
ion exchange. This transfer of performance is technically
justifiable because of the similarity of the physical and
chemical behavior of the these precious metals.
Radium 226 (Ra 226) - The treatment effectiveness concentration
of 6.17 picocuries per liter for radium 226 is based on data from
one facility in the uranium subcategory of the Ore Mining and
Dressing category which practices barium chloride coprecipitation
in conjunction with lime and settle treatment. The untreated
wastewater matrix shown in Table VII-17 is comparable with the
combined metals data base.
Rhenium (Re) - The treatment effectiveness concentration for
rhenium (1.83 mg/1) is based on the performance achieved for
molybdenum at a nonferrous metals manufacturing and forming
plant. This transfer of performance is technically justifiable
because of the similarity of the physical and chemical behavior
of these compounds.
Rubidium (Rb) - The treatment effectiveness concentration for
rubidium (0.124 mg/1) is based on the performance achievable for
sodium using ion exchange technology. This transfer of
performance is technically justifiable because of the similarity
of the chemical and physical behavior of these monvalent atoms.
Tantalum (Ta) - As with columbium, data collected at two
refractory metals forming plants indicate that lime and settle
reduces tantalum to below the level of detection (using x-ray
fluorescence analytical methods) when an operating pH of eight is
maintained. Another sampled lime and settle treatment system is
operated at a higher pH, from 10.5 to 11.5. Effluent
concentrations of tantalum from this system are significantly
higher. Therefore, the data indicate that if the treatment
system is operated at a pH near 8, tantalum should be removed to
below the level of detection. The level of detection (0.45 mg/1)
is used as the one-day maximum concentration for lime and settle
treatment effectiveness. No long-term, 10-day, and 30-day
average treatment effectiveness values are established since it
is impossible to determine precisely what concentrations are
achievable. The untreated wastewater matrix shown in Table VII-
17 is comparable with the combined metals data base.
Tin (Sn) - The treatment effectiveness concentration of 1.07 mg/1
for tin is based on data from one metal finishing tin plant. The
untreated wastewater matrix shown in Table VII-17 is comparable
with the combined metals data base.
Titanium (Ti) - The 0.19 mg/1 treatment effectiveness
concentration is based on the mean performance of four nonferrous
metals forming plants. A total of 9 samples were included in the
calculation of the mean performance. The untreated wastewater
matrix shown in Table VII-17 is comparable with the combined
metals data base.
1347

-------
Tungsten (W) - The 1.29 mg/1 treatment effectiveness
concentration (using x-ray fluorescene analytical methods) is
based on data collected from the refractory metals forming plant
where an operation pH of 10.5 to 11.5 was used. The data
indicate that maintaining the pH within this range achieves
significantly better removal of tungsten than a pH near 8.
Therefore, refractory metals forming plants that treat
wastewaters containing both columbium, tantalum and tungsten or
other metals that precipitate at a higher pH may need to use a
two-stage lime and settle to remove all of these metals. The
untreated wastewater matrix shown in Table VII-17 is comparable
with the combined metals data base.
Uranium (U) - The 4.00 mg/1 treatment effectiveness concentration
(using fluorometry analytical methods) is based on the
performance of one uranium forming plant. The untreated
wastewater matrix shown in Table VII-17 is comparable with the
combined metals data base.
Vanadium (V) - Data collected at two nonferrous metals forming
plants indicate that lime and settle reduces vanadium to below
the detection limit. The level of detection (0.10 mg/1) is used
as the one-day maximum concentration for lime and settle
treatment effectiveness. No long-term, 10-day, or 30-day average
treatment effectiveness values are established since it is
impossible to determine precisely what concentrations are
achievable. The untreated wastewater matrix shown in Table VII-
17 is comparable with the combined metals data base.
Zirconium (Zr) - The zirconium treatment effectiveness of 7.28
mg/1 is based on the mean performance of two nonferrous metals
forming plants with lime and settle treatment. One plant forms
zirconium and the other plant forms refractory metals. The
untreated wastewater matrix shown in Table VII-17 is comparable
with the combined metals data base.
LS&F Performance
Tables VI1-18 and VI1-19 show long term data from two plants
which have well operated precipitation-settling treatment
followed by filtration. The wastewaters from both plants
contain pollutants from metals processing and finishing
operations (multi-category). Both plants reduce hexavalent
chromium before neutralizing and precipitating metals with lime.
A clarifier is used to remove much of the solids load and a
filter is used to "polish" or complete removal of suspended
solids. Plant A uses a pressure filter, while Plant B uses a
rapid sand filter.
Raw wastewater data was collected only occasionally at each
facility and the raw wastewater data is presented as an
indication of the nature of the wastewater treated. Data from
plant A was received as a statistical summary and is presented as
received. Raw laboratory data was collected at Plant B and
reviewed for spurious points and discrepancies. The method of
1348

-------
treating the data base is discussed below under lime, settle, and
filter treatment effectiveness.
Table VII-20 shows long-term data for zinc and cadmium removal
at Plant C, a primary zinc smelter, which operates a LS&F system.
This data represents about 4 months (103 data days) taken
immediately before the smelter was closed. It has been
arranged similarily to the data from Plants A and B for
comparison and use.
These data are presented to demonstrate the performance of
precipitation-settling-filtration (LS&F) technology under actual
operating conditions and over a long period of time.
It should be noted that the iron content of the raw wastewater of
Plants A and B is high while that for Plant C is low. This
results, for Plants A and B, in co-precipitation of toxic metals
with iron. Precipitation using high-calcium lime for pH control
yields the results shown above. Plant operating personnel
indicate that this chemical treatment combination (sometimes with
polymer assisted coagulation) generally produces better and more
consistent metals removal than other combinations of sacrificial
metal ions and alkalis.
The LS&F performance data presented here are based on systems
that provide polishing filtration after effective L&S treatment.
We have previously shown that L&S treatment is equally applicable
to wastewaters from the five CMDB categories because of
the homogeneity of its raw and treated wastewaters, and
other factors. Because of the similarity of the wastewaters
after L&S treatment, the Agency believes these wastewaters
are equally amenable to treatment using polishing filters
added to the L&S treatment system. The Agency concludes that
LS&F data based on porcelain enameling and nonferrous metals
manufacturing is directly applicable to the aluminum forming,
copper forming, battery manufacturing, coil coating,
nonferrous metals forming and metal molding and casting
categories, and the canmaking subcategory as well as it is to
porcelain enameling and nonferrous metals manufacturing smelting
and refining.
Analysis of Treatment System Effectiveness
Data are presented in Table VII-14 showing the mean, one-day,
10-day and 30-day values for nine pollutants examined in the L&S
combined metals data base. The pooled variability factor for
seven metal pollutants (excluding cadmium because of the small
number of data points) was determined and is used to estimate
one-day, 10-day and 30-day values. (The variability factor is
the ratio of the value of concern to the mean: the pooled
variability factors are: one-day maximum - 4.100; ten-day
average - 1.821; and 30-day average - 1.618.) For values not
calculated from the CMDB as previously discussed, the mean value
for pollutants shown in Table VII-15 were multiplied by the
1349

-------
variability factors to derive the value to obtain the one-, ten-
and 30-day values. These are tabulated in Table VII-21.
The treatment effectiveness for sulfide precipitation and
filtration has been calculated similarly. Long term average
values shown in Table VII-6 have been multiplied by the
appropriate variability factor to estimate one-day maximum, and
ten-day and 30-day average values. Variability factors
developed in the combined metals data base were used because the
raw wastewaters are identical and the treatment methods are
similar as both use chemical precipitation and solids removal to
control metals.
LS&F technology data are presented in Tables VII-18 and VII-19.
These data represent two operating plants (A and B) in which the
technology has been installed and operated for some years. Plant
A data was received as a statistical summary and is presented
without change. Plant B data was received as raw laboratory
analysis data. Discussions with plant personnel indicated that
operating experiments and changes in materials and reagents and
occasional operating errors had occurred during the data
collection period. No specific information was available on
those variables. To sort out high values probably caused by
methodological factors from random statistical variability, or
data noise, the Plant B data were analyzed. For each of four
pollutants (chromium, nickel, zinc, and iron), the mean and
standard deviation (sigma) were calculated for the entire data
set. A data day was removed from the complete data set when any
individual pollutant concentration for that day exceeded the sum
of the mean plus three sigma for that pollutant. Fifty-one data
days (from a total of about 1300) were eliminated by this method.
Another approach was also used as a check on the above method of
eliminating certain high values. The minimum values of raw
wastewater concentrations from Plant B for the same four
pollutants were compared to the total set of values for the
corresponding pollutants. Any day on which the treated
wastewater pollutant concentration exceeded the minimum value
selected from raw wastewater concentrations for that pollutant
was discarded. Forty-five days of data were eliminated by that
procedure. Forty-three days of data in common were eliminated by
either procedure. Since common engineering practice (mean plus
3 sigma) and logic (treated wastewater concentrations should be
less than raw wastewater concentrations) seem to coincide, the
data base with the 51 spurious data days eliminated is the basis
for all further analysis. Range, mean plus standard deviation
and mean plus two standard deviations are shown in Tables VII-18
and VII-19 for Cr, Cu, Ni, Zn and Fe.
The Plant B data were separated into 1979, 1978, and total
data base (six years) segments. With the statistical analysis
from Plant A for 1978 and 1979, this in effect created five data
sets in which there is some overlap between the individual
years and total data sets from Plant B. By comparing these five
parts, it is apparent that they are quite similar and all appear
1350

-------
to be from the same family of numbers. The largest mean
found among the five data sets for each pollutant was selected as
the long-term mean for LS&F technology and is used as the
LS&F mean in Table VII-21.
Plant C data was used as a basis for cadmium removal performance
and as a check on the zinc values derived from Plants A and B.
The cadmium data is displayed in Table VII-20 and is
incorporated into Table VII-21 for LS&F. The zinc data was
analyzed for compliance with the 1-day and 30-day values in Table
VII-21; no zinc value of the 103 data points exceeded the 1-day
zinc value of 1.02 mg/1. The 103 data points were separated into
blocks of 30 points and averaged. Each of the 3 full 30-day
averages was less than the Table VII-21 value of 0.31 mg/1.
Additionally the Plant C raw wastewater pollutant concentrations
(Table VII-20) are well within the range of raw wastewater
concentrations of the combined metals data base (Table VII-16),
further supporting the conclusion that Plant C wastewater data is
comparable to similar data from Plants A and B.
Concentration values for regulatory use are displayed in Table
VII-21. Mean one-day, ten-day and 30-day values for L&S for
nine pollutants were taken from Table VII-14; the remaining L&S
values were developed using the mean values in Table VII-15 and
the mean variability factors discussed above.
LS&F mean values for Cd, Cr, Ni, Zn, and Fe are derived
from Plants A, B, and C as discussed above. One-, ten- and
thirty-day values are derived by applying the variability
factor developed from the pooled data base for the specific
pollutant to the mean for that pollutant. Other LS&F values
are calculated using the long term average or mean and the
appropriate variability factors.
Mean values for LS&F for pollutants not already discussed are
derived by reducing the L&S mean by one-third. The one-third
reduction was established after examining the percent reduction
in concentrations going from L&S to LS&F data for Cd, Cr, Ni, Zn,
and Fe. The average reduction is 0.3338 or one-third.
Variability factors for these additional pollutants are identical
to the variabilities established for L&S treatment of these
pollutants (using the variance from the pooled metals data base
or the mean of other pollutant variances if a pollutant-specific
variance is not available). Since filtration is a non-
preferential technology with regard to metals treated, and
furthermore, is being used to polish relatively clean wastewater
(wastewater after lime and settle treatment), EPA believes it is
reasonable to assume that these additional pollutants will be
removed at the same average rate.
Copper levels achieved at Plants A and B may be lower than
generally achievable because of the high iron content and low
copper content of the raw wastewaters. Therefore, the mean
concentration value from Plants A and B achieved is not used; the
LS&F mean for copper is derived from the L&S technology.
1351

-------
Uranium levels achieved by L&S treatment showed substantially
less variability than the nine parameters included in the CMDB.
The standard approach to the derivation of LS&F treatment
effectiveness concentrations results in one-day, 10-day and 30-
day values for LS&F treatment that are greater than the
corresponding values for L&S treatment. Therefore, the LS&F
values for uranium are derived by reducing the L&S long term,
one-day, 10-day and 30-day values by one-third to derive the
corresponding LS&F values.
L&S cyanide mean levels shown in Table VII-8 are ratioed to one-
day, ten-day and 30-day values using mean variability factors.
LS&F mean cyanide is calculated by applying the ratios of
L&S and LS&F removals as discussed previously for LS&F metals
limitations. The cyanide performance was arrived at by using the
average metal variability factors. The treatment method used
here is cyanide precipitation. Because cyanide precipitation is
limited by the same physical processes as the metal
precipitation, it is expected that the variabilities will be
similar. Therefore, the average of the metal variability factors
has been used as a basis for calculating the cyanide one-day,
ten-day and thirty-day average treatment effectiveness values.
The filter performance for removing TSS as shown in Table VII-9
yields a mean effluent concentration of 2.61 mg/1 and calculates
to a 10-day average of 4.33, 30-day average of 3.36 mg/1 and a
one-day maximum of 8.88. These calculated values more than
amply support the classic thirty-day and one-day values of 10
mg/1 and 15 mg/1, respectively, which are used for LS&F.
Although iron concentrations were reduced with the
application of a filter to the lime and settle system, some
facilities using that treatment introduce iron compounds to aid
settling. Therefore, the one-day, ten-day and 30-day values
for iron at LS&F were held at the L&S level so as to not unduly
penalize the operations which use the relatively less
objectionable iron compounds to enhance removals of toxic
metals.
The removal of additional fluoride by adding polishing filtration
is suspect because lime and settle treatment removes calcium
fluoride to a level near its solubility. The one available data
point appears to question the ability of filters to achieve high
removals of additional fluoride. The fluoride levels
demonstrated for L&S are used as the treatment effectiveness for
LS&F.
MINOR TECHNOLOGIES
Several other treatment technologies were considered for possible
application in this category. These technologies are presented
here.
1352

-------
9. Carbon Adsorption
The use of activated carbon to remove dissolved organics from
water and wastewater is a long demonstrated technology. It is
one of the most efficient organic removal processes available.
This sorption process is reversible, allowing activated carbon to
be regenerated for reuse by the application of heat and steam or
solvent. Activated carbon has also proved to be an effective
adsorbent for many toxic metals, including mercury. Regeneration
of carbon which has adsorbed significant amounts of metals,
however, may be difficult.
The term activated carbon applies to any amorphous form of carbon
that has been specially treated to give high adsorption
capacities. Typical raw materials include coal, wood, coconut
shells, petroleum base residues, and char from sewage sludge
pyrolysis. A carefully controlled process of dehydration,
carbonization, and oxidation yields a product which is called
activated carbon. This material has a high capacity for
adsorption due primarily to the large surface area available for
adsorption, 500 to 1500 irr/sq m resulting from a large number
of internal pores. Pore sizes generally range from 10 to
100 angstroms in radius.
Activated carbon removes contaminants from water by the process
of adsorption, or the attraction and accumulation of one
substance on the surface of another. Activated carbon
preferentially adsorbs organic compounds and, because of this
selectivity, is particularly effective in removing organic
compounds from aqueous solution.
Carbon adsorption requires pretreatment to remove excess
suspended solids, oils, and greases. Suspended solids in the
influent should be less than 50 mg/1 to minimize backwash
requirements; a downflow carbon bed can handle much higher levels
(up to 2000 mg/1) but requires frequent backwashing. Backwashing
more than two or three times a day is not desirable; at 50 mg/1
suspended solids, one backwash will suffice. Oil and grease
should be less than about 10 mg/1. A high level of dissolved
inorganic material in the influent may cause problems with
thermal carbon reactivation (i.e., scaling and loss of activity)
unless appropriate preventive steps are taken. Such steps might
include pH control, softening, or the use of an acid wash on the
carbon prior to reactivation.
Activated carbon is available in both powdered and granular form.
An adsorption column packed with granular activated carbon is
shown in Figure VII-17. A flow diagram of an activated carbon
adsorption system, with regeneration, is shown in Figure VII-
35. Powdered carbon is less expensive per unit weight and
may have slightly higher adsorption capacity, but it is more
difficult to handle and to regenerate.
Application and Performance. Carbon adsorption is used to remove
mercury from wastewaters. The removal rate is influenced by the
1353

-------
mercury level in the influent to the adsorption unit. In Table
VII-25 removal levels found at three manufacturing facilities are
listed.
In the aggregate these data indicate that very low effluent
levels could be attained from any raw waste by use of multiple
adsorption stages. This is characteristic of adsorption
processes.
Isotherm tests have indicated that activated carbon is very
effective in adsorbing 65 percent of the organic priority
pollutants and is reasonably effective for another 22 percent.
Specifically, for the organics of particular interest, activated
carbon was very effective in removing 2,4-dimethylphenol,
fluoranthene, isophorone, naphthalene, all phthalates, and
phenanthrene.	It was reasonably effective on 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, phenol, and toluene. Table
VII-23 summarizes the treatment effectiveness for most of the
organic priority pollutants by activated carbon as compiled
by EPA. Table VII-24 summarizes classes of organic compounds
together with examples of organics that are readily adsorbed on
carbon.
Advantages and Limitations. The major benefits of carbon
treatment include applicability to a wide variety of organics and
high removal efficiency. Inorganics such as cyanide, chromium,
and mercury are also removed effectively. Variations in
concentration and flow rate are well tolerated. The system is
compact, and recovery of adsorbed materials is sometimes
practical. However, destruction of adsorbed compounds often
occurs during thermal regeneration. If carbon cannot be
thermally desorbed, it must be disposed of along with any
adsorbed pollutants. The capital and operating costs of thermal
regeneration are relatively high. Cost surveys show that thermal
regeneration is generally economical when carbon use exceeds
about 1,000 lb/day. Carbon cannot remove low molecular weight or
highly soluble organics. It also has a low tolerance for
suspended solids, which must be removed to at least 50 mg/1 in
the influent water.
Operational Factors. Reliability: This system should be very
reliable with upstream protection and proper operation and
maintenance procedures.
Maintainability: This system requires periodic regeneration or
replacement of spent carbon and is dependent upon raw waste load
and process efficiency.
Solid Waste Aspects: Solid waste from this process is
contaminated activated carbon that requires disposal. Carbon
which undergoes regeneration reduces the solid waste
problem by reducing the frequency of carbon replacement.
Demonstration Status. Carbon adsorption systems have been
demonstrated to be practical and economical in reducing COD, BOD,
1354

-------
and related parameters in secondary municipal and industrial
wastewaters; in removing toxic or refractory organics from
isolated industrial wastewaters; in removing and recovering
certain organics from wastewaters; and in removing and some times
recovering selected inorganic chemicals from aqueous wastes.
Carbon adsorption is a viable and economic process for organic
waste streams containing up to 1 to 5 percent of refractory or
toxic organics. Its applicability for removal of inorganics such
as metals has also been demonstrated.
10 . Centrifugation
Centrifugation is the application of centrifugal force to
separate solids and liquids in a liquid-solid mixture or to
effect concentration of the solids. The application of
centrifugal force is effective because of the density
differential normally found between the insoluble solids and the
liquid in which they are contained. As a waste treatment
procedure, centrifugation is applied to dewatering of sludges.
One type of centrifuge is shown in Figure VII-18.
There are three common types of centrifuges; disc, basket, and
conveyor. All three operate by removing solids under the
influence of centrifugal force. The fundamental difference among
the three types is the method by which solids are collected in
and discharged from the bowl.
In the disc centrifuge, the sludge feed is distributed between
narrow channels that are present as spaces between stacked
conical discs. Suspended particles are collected and discharged
continuously through small orifices in the bowl wall. The
clarified effluent is discharged through an overflow weir.
A second type of centrifuge which is useful in dewatering sludges
is the basket centrifuge. In this type of centrifuge, sludge
feed is introduced at the bottom of the basket, and solids
collect at the bowl wall while clarified effluent overflows the
lip ring at the top. Since the basket centrifuge does not have
provision for continuous discharge of collected cake, operation
requires interruption of the feed for cake discharge for a minute
or two in a 10- to 30-minute overall cycle.
The third type of centrifuge commonly used in sludge dewatering
is the conveyor type. Sludge is fed through a stationary feed
pipe into a rotating bowl in which the solids are settled out
against the bowl wall by centrifugal force. From the bowl wall,
the solids are moved by a screw to the end of the machine, at
which point they are discharged. The liquid effluent is
discharged through ports after passing the length of the bowl
under centrifugal force.
Application and Performance. Virtually all industrial waste
treatment systems producing sludge can use centrifugation to
dewater it. Centrifugation is currently being used by a wide
range of industrial concerns.
1355

-------
The performance of sludge dewatering by centrifugation depends on
the feed rate, the rotational velocity of the drum, and the
sludge composition and concentration. Assuming proper design and
operation, the solids content of the sludge can be increased to
20 to 35 percent.
Advantages and Limitations. Sludge dewatering centrifuges have
minimal space requirements and show a high degree of effluent
clarification. The operation is simple, clean, and relatively
inexpensive. The area required for a centrifuge system
installation is less than that required for a filter system or
sludge drying bed of equal capacity, and the initial cost is
lower.
Centrifuges have a high power cost that partially offsets the low
initial cost. Special consideration must also be given to
providing sturdy foundations and soundproofing because of the
vibration and noise that result from centrifuge operation.
Adequate electrical power must also be provided since large
motors are required. The major difficulty encountered in the
operation of centrifuges has been the disposal of the concentrate
which is relatively high in suspended, nonsettling solids.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Centrifugation is highly
reliable with proper control of factors such as sludge feed,
consistency, and temperature. Pretreatment such as grit removal
and coagulant addition may be necessary, depending on the
composition of the sludge and on the type of centrifuge employed.
Maintainability: Maintenance consists of periodic lubrication,
cleaning, and inspection. The frequency and degree of inspection
required varies depending on the type of sludge solids being
dewatered and the maintenance service conditions. If the sludge
is abrasive, it is recommended that the first inspection of the
rotating assembly be made after approximately 1,000 hours of
operation. If the sludge is not abrasive or corrosive, then the
initial inspection might be delayed. Centrifuges not equipped
with a continuous sludge discharge system require periodic
shutdowns for manual sludge cake removal.
Solid Waste Aspects: Sludge dewatered in the centrifugation
process may be disposed of by landfill. The clarified effluent
(centrate), if high in dissolved or suspended solids, may require
further treatment prior to discharge.
Demonstration Status. Centrifugation is currently used in a
great many commercial applications to dewater sludge. Work is
underway to improve the efficiency, increase the capacity, and
lower the costs associated with centrifugation.
11. Coalescing
The basic principle of coalescence involves the preferential
wetting of a coalescing medium by oil droplets which accumulate
1356

-------
on the medium and then rise to the surface of the solution as
they combine to form larger particles. The most important
requirements for coalescing media are wettability for oil and
large surface area. Monofilament line is sometimes used as a
coalescing medium.
Coalescing stages may be integrated with a wide variety of
gravity oil separation devices, and some systems may incorporate
several coalescing stages. In general, a preliminary oil
skimming step is desirable to avoid overloading the coalescer.
One commercially marketed system for oily waste treatment
combines coalescing with inclined plate separation and
filtration. In this system, the oily wastes flow into an
inclined plate settler. This unit consists of a stack of
inclined baffle plates in a cylindrical container with an oil
collection chamber at the top. The oil droplets rise and impinge
upon the undersides of the plates. They then migrate upward to a
guide rib which directs the oil to the oil collection chamber,
from which oil is discharged for reuse or disposal.
The oily water continues on through another cylinder containing
replaceable filter cartridges, which remove suspended particles
from the waste. From there the wastewater enters a final
cylinder in which the coalescing material is housed. As the oily
water passes through the many small, irregular, continuous
passages in the coalescing material, the oil droplets coalesce
and rise to an oil collection chamber.
Application and Performance. Coalescing is used to treat oily
wastes which do not separate readily in simple gravity systems.
The three-stage system described above has achieved effluent
concentrations of 10 to 15 mg/1 oil and grease from raw waste
concentrations of 1000 mg/1 or more.
Advantages and Limitations. Coalescing allows removal of oil
droplets too finely dispersed for conventional gravity
separation-skimming technology. It also can significantly reduce
the residence times (and therefore separator volumes) required to
achieve separation of oil from some wastes. Because of its
simplicity, coalescing provides generally high reliability and
low capital and operating costs. Coalescing is not generally
effective in removing soluble or chemically stabilized emulsified
oils. To avoid plugging, coalescers must be protected by
pretreatment from very high concentrations of free oil and grease
and suspended solids. Frequent replacement of prefilters may be
necessary when raw waste oil concentrations are high.
Operational Factors. Reliability.	Coalescing is inherently
highly reliable since there are no moving parts, and the
coalescing substrate (monofilament,	etc.) is inert in the
process and therefore not subject	to frequent regeneration or
replacement requirements. Large	loads or inadequate
pretreatment, however, may result	in plugging or bypass of
coalescing stages.
1357

-------
Maintainability: Maintenance requirements are generally limited
to replacement of the coalescing medium on an infrequent basis.
Solid Waste Aspects: No appreciable solid waste is generated by
this process.
Demonstration Status. Coalescing has been fully demonstrated in
industries generating oily wastewater, although no
nonferrous metals forming plants specifically reported their use.
12. Cyanide Oxidation by Chlorine
Cyanide oxidation using chlorine is widely used in industrial
waste treatment to oxidize cyanide. Chlorine can be utilized in
either the elemental or hypochlorite forms. This classic
procedure can be illustrated by the following two step chemical
reaction:
1.	CI2 + NaCN + 2NaOH 	> NaCNO + 2NaCl + H20
2.	3C12 + 6NaOH + 2NaCN0 	> 2NaHC03 + N32 + 6NaCl +
2H20
The reaction presented as Equation 2 for the oxidation of cyanate
is the final step in the oxidation of cyanide. A complete system
for the alkaline chlorination of cyanide is shown in Figure VII-
19.
The alkaline chlorination process oxidizes cyanides to carbon
dioxide and nitrogen. The equipment often consists of an
equalization tank followed by two reaction tanks, although the
reaction can be carried out in a single tank. Each tank has an
electronic recorder-controller to maintain required conditions
with respect to pH and oxidation reduction potential (ORP). In
the first reaction tank, conditions are adjusted to oxidize
cyanides to cyanates. To effect the reaction, chlorine is
metered to the reaction tank as required to maintain the ORP in
the range of 350 to 400 millivolts, and 50 percent aqueous
caustic soda is added to maintain a pH range of 9.5 to 10. In
the second reaction tank, conditions are maintained to oxidize
cyanate to carbon dioxide and nitrogen. The desirable ORP and pH
for this reaction are 600 millivolts and a pH of 8.0. Each of
the reaction tanks is equipped with a propeller agitator designed
to provide approximately one turnover per minute. Treatment by
the batch process is accomplished by using two tanks, one for
collection of water over a specified time period, and one for the
treatment of an accumulated batch. If dumps of concentrated
wastes are frequent, another tank may be required to equalize the
flow to the treatment tank. When the holding tank is full, the
liquid is transferred to the reaction tank for treatment. After
treatment, the supernatant is discharged and the sludges are
collected for removal and ultimate disposal.
1358

-------
Application and Performance. The oxidation of cyanide waste by
chlorine is a classic process and is found in most industrial
plants using cyanide. This process is capable of achieving
effluent levels that are nondetectable. The process is
potentially applicable to nonferrous metals forming facilities
where cyanide is a component in wastewater.
Advantages and Limitations. Some advantages of chlorine
oxidation for handling process effluents are operation at ambient
temperature, suitability for automatic control, and low cost.
Disadvantages include the need for careful pH control, possible
chemical interference in the treatment of mixed wastes, and the
potential hazard of storing and handling chlorine gas.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Chlorine oxidation is highly
reliable with proper monitoring and control and proper
pretreatment to control interfering substances.
Maintainability: Maintenance consists of periodic removal of
sludge and recalibration of instruments.
Solid Waste Aspects: There is no solid waste problem associated
with chlorine oxidation.
Demonstration Status. The oxidation of cyanide wastes by
chlorine is a widely used process in plants using cyanide in
cleaning and metal processing baths. Alkaline chlorination is
also used for cyanide treatment in a number of inorganic chemical
facilities producing hydroganic acid and various metal cyanides.
One nonferrous metals forming plant is currently using this
technology to treat process wastewaters.
13. Cyanide Oxidation By Ozone
Ozone is a highly reactive oxidizing agent which is approximately
ten times more soluble than oxygen on a weight basis in water.
Ozone may be produced by several methods, but the silent
electrical discharge method is predominant in the field. The
silent electrical discharge process produces ozone by passing
oxygen or air between electrodes separated by an insulating
material. A complete ozonation system is represented in Figure
VII-20.
Application and Performance. Ozonation has been applied
commercially to oxidize cyanides, phenolic chemicals, and organo-
metal complexes. Its applicability to photographic wastewaters
has been studied in the laboratory with good results. Ozone is
used in industrial waste treatment primarily to oxidize cyanide
to cyanate and to oxidize phenols and dyes to a variety of
colorless nontoxic products.
Oxidation of cyanide to cyanate is illustrated below:
CN~ + 03 	> CNO~ + 02
1359

-------
Continued exposure to ozone will convert the cyanate formed to
carbon dioxide and ammonia; however, this is not economically
practical.
Ozone oxidation of cyanide to cyanate requires 1.8 to 2.0 pounds
ozone per pound of CN-; complete oxidation requires 4.6 to 5.0
pounds ozone per pound of CN-. Zinc, copper, and nickel cyanides
are easily destroyed to a nondetectable level, but cobalt and
iron cyanides are more resistant to ozone treatment.
Advantages and Limitations. Some advantages of ozone oxidation
for handling process effluents are its suitability to automatic
control and on-site generation and the fact that reaction
products are not chlorinated organics and no dissolved solids are
added in the treatment step. Ozone in the presence of activated
carbon, ultraviolet, and other promoters shows promise of
reducing reaction time and improving ozone utilization, but the
process at present is limited by high capital expense, possible
chemical interference in the treatment of mixed wastes, and an
energy requirement of 25 kwh/kg of ozone generated. Cyanide is
not economically oxidized beyond the cyanate form.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Ozone oxidation is highly
reliable with proper monitoring and control, and proper
pretreatment to control interfering substances.
Maintainability: Maintenance consists of periodic removal of
sludge, and periodic renewal of filters and desiccators required
for the input of clean dry air; filter life is a function of
input concentrations of detrimental constituents.
Solid Waste Aspects: Pretreatment to eliminate substances which
will interfere with the process may be necessary. Dewatering of
sludge generated in the ozone oxidation process or in an "in
line" process may be desirable prior to disposal.
14. Cyanide Oxidation By Ozone With UV Radiation
One of the modifications of the ozonation process is the
simultaneous application of ultraviolet light and ozone for the
treatment of wastewater, including treatment of halogenated
organics. The combined action of these two forms produces
reactions by photolysis, photosensitization, hydroxylation,
oxygenation, and oxidation. The process is unique because
several reactions and reaction species are active simultaneously.
Ozonation is facilitated by ultraviolet absorption because both
the ozone and the reactant molecules are raised to a higher
energy state so that they react more rapidly. In addition, free
radicals for use in the reaction are readily hydrolyzed by the
water present. The energy and reaction intermediates created by
the introduction of both ultraviolet and ozone greatly reduce the
amount of ozone required compared with a system using ozone
alone. Figure VII-21 shows a three-stage UV-ozone system. A
system to treat mixed cyanides requires pretreatment that
1360

-------
involves chemical coagulation, sedimentation, clarification,
equalization, and pH adjustment.
Application and Performance. The ozone-UV radiation process was
developed primarily for cyanide treatment in the electroplating
and color photo-processing areas. It has been successfully
applied to mixed cyanides and organics from organic chemicals
manufacturing processes. The process is particularly useful for
treatment of complexed cyanides such as ferricyanide, copper
cyanide, and nickel cyanide, which are resistant to ozone alone.
Ozone combined with UV radiation is a relatively new technology.
Four units are currently in operation, and all four treat cyanide
bearing waste.
Ozone-UV treatment could be used in nonferrous metals forming
plants to destroy cyanide present in some waste streams.
15. Cyanide Oxidation By Hydrogen Peroxide
Hydrogen peroxide oxidation removes both cyanide and metals in
cyanide containing wastewaters. In this process, cyanide bearing
waters are heated to 49 to 54C (120 to 130F) and the pH is
adjusted to 10.5 to 11.8. Formalin (37 percent formaldehyde) is
added while the tank is vigorously agitated. After 2 to 5
minutes, a proprietary peroxygen compound (41 percent hydrogen
peroxide with a catalyst and additives) is added. After an hour
of mixing, the reaction is complete. The cyanide is converted to
cyanate, and the metals are precipitated as oxides or hydroxides.
The metals are then removed from solution by either settling or
filtration.
The main equipment required for this process is two holding tanks
equipped with heaters and air spargers or mechanical stirrers.
These tanks may be used in a batch or continuous fashion, with
one tank being used for treatment while the other is being
filled. A settling tank or a filter is needed to concentrate the
precipitate.
Application and Performance. The hydrogen peroxide oxidation
process is applicable to cyanide-bearing wastewaters, especially
those containing metal-cyanide complexes. In terms of waste
reduction performance, this process can reduce total cyanide to
less than 0.1 mg/1 and the zinc or cadmium to less than 1.0 mg/1.
Advantages and Limitations. Chemical costs are similar to those
for alkaline chlorination using chlorine and lower than those for
treatment with hypochlorite. All free cyanide reacts and is
completely oxidized to the less toxic cyanate state. In
addition, the metals precipitate and settle quickly, and they may
be recoverable in many instances. However, the process requires
energy expenditures to heat the wastewater prior to treatment.
Demonstration Status. This treatment process was introduced in
1971 and is used in several facilities. No nonferrous metals
forming plants use oxidation by hydrogen peroxide.
1361

-------
16. Evaporation
Evaporation is a concentration process. Water is evaporated from
a solution, increasing the concentration of solute in the
remaining solution. If the resulting water vapor is condensed
back to liquid water, the evaporation-condensation process is
called distillation. However, to be consistent with industry
terminology, evaporation is used in this report to describe both
processes. Both atmospheric and vacuum evaporation are commonly
used in industry today. Specific evaporation techniques are
shown in Figure VII-22 and discussed below.
Atmospheric evaporation could be accomplished simply by boiling
the liquid. However, to aid evaporation, heated liquid is
sprayed on an evaporation surface, and air is blown over the
surface and subsequently released to the atmosphere. Thus,
evaporation occurs by humidification of the air stream, similar
to a drying process. Equipment for carrying out atmospheric
evaporation is quite similar for most applications. The major
element is generally a packed column with an accumulator bottom.
Accumulated wastewater is pumped from the base of the column,
through a heat exchanger, and back into the top of the column,
where it is sprayed into the packing. At the same time, air
drawn upward through the packing by a fan is heated as it
contacts the hot liquid. The liquid partially vaporizes and
humidifies the air stream. The fan then blows the hot, humid air
to the outside atmosphere. A scrubber is often unnecessary
because the packed column itself acts as a scrubber.
Another form of atmospheric evaporator also works on the air
humidification principle, but the evaporated water is recovered
for reuse by condensation. These air humidification techniques
operate well below the boiling point of water and can utilize
waste process heat to supply the energy required.
In vacuum evaporation, the evaporation pressure is lowered to
cause the liquid to boil at reduced temperature. All of the
water vapor is condensed, and to maintain the vacuum condition,
noncondensible gases (air in particular) are removed by a vacuum
pump. Vacuum evaporation may be either single or double effect.
In double effect evaporation, two evaporators are used, and the
water vapor from the first evaporator (which may be heated by
steam) is used to supply heat to the second evaporator. As it
supplies heat, the water vapor from the first evaporator
condenses. Approximately equal quantities of wastewater are
evaporated in each unit; thus, the double effect system
evaporates twice the amount of water that a single effect system
does, at nearly the same cost in energy but with added capital
cost and complexity. The double effect technique is
thermodynamically possible because the second evaporator is
maintained at lower pressure (higher vacuum) and, therefore,
lower evaporation temperature. Vacuum evaporation equipment may
be classified as submerged tube or climbing film evaporation
units.
1362

-------
Another means of increasing energy efficiency is va,
recompression evaporation, which enables heat to be transferred
from the condensing water vapor to the evaporating wastewater.
Water vapor generated from incoming wastewaters flows to a vapor
compressor. The compressed steam than travels through the
wastewater via an enclosed tube or coil in which it condenses as
heat is transferred to the surrounding solution. In this way,
the compressed vapor serves as a heating medium. After
condensation, this distillate is drawn off continuously as the
clean water stream. The heat contained in the compressed vapor
is used to heat the wastewater, and energy costs for system
operation are reduced.
In the most commonly used submerged tube evaporator, the heating
and condensing coil are contained in a single vessel to reduce
capital cost. The vacuum in the vessel is maintained by an
eductor-type pump, which creates the required vacuum by the flow
of the condenser cooling water through a venturi. Wastewater
accumulates in the bottom of the vessel, and it is evaporated by
means of submerged steam coils. The resulting water vapor
condenses as it contacts the condensing coils in the top of the
vessel. The condensate then drips off the condensing coils into
a collection trough that carries it out of the vessel.
Concentrate is removed from the bottom of the vessel.
The major elements of the climbing film evaporator are the
evaporator, separator, condenser, and vacuum pump. Wastewater is
"drawn" into the system by the vacuum so that a constant liquid
level is maintained in the separator. Liquid enters the steam-
jacketed evaporator tubes, and part of it evaporates so that a
mixture of vapor and liquid enters the separator. The design of
the separator is such that the liquid is continuously circulated
from the separator to the evaporator. The vapor entering the
separator flows out through a mesh entrainment separator to the
condenser, where it is condensed as it flows down through the
condenser tubes. The condensate, along with any entrained air,
is pumped out of the bottom of the condenser by a liquid ring
vacuum pump. The liquid seal provided by the condensate keeps
the vacuum in the system from being broken.
Application and Performance. Both atmospheric and vacuum
evaporation are used in many industrial plants, mainly for the
concentration and recovery of process solutions. Many of these
evaporators also recover water for rinsing. Evaporation has also
been applied to recovery of phosphate metal cleaning solutions.
In theory, evaporation should yield a concentrate and a deionized
condensate. Actually, carry-over has resulted in condensate
metal concentrations as high as 10 mg/1, although the usual level
is less than 3 mg/1, pure enough for most final rinses. The
condensate may also contain organic brighteners and antifoaming
agents. These can be removeu with an activated carbon bed, if
necessary. Samples from one plant showed 1,900 mg/1 zinc in the
feed, 4,570 mg/1 in the concentrate, and 0.4 mg/1 in the
1363

-------
condensate. Another plant had 416 mg/1 copper in the feed and
21,800 mg/1 in the concentrate. Chromium analysis for that plant
indicated 5,060 mg/1 in the feed and 27,500 mg/1 in the
concentrate. Evaporators are available in a range of capacities,
typically from 15 to 75 gph, and may be used in parallel
arrangements for processing of higher flow rates.
Advantages and Limitations. Advantages of the evaporation
process are that it permits recovery of a wide variety of process
chemicals, and it is often applicable to concentration or removal
of compounds which cannot be accomplished by any other means.
The major disadvantage is that the evaporation process consumes
relatively large amounts of energy for the evaporation of water.
However, the recovery of waste heat from many industrial
processes (e.g., diesel generators, incinerators, boilers and
furnaces) should be considered as a source of this heat for a
totally integrated evaporation system. Also, in some cases solar
heating could be inexpensively and effectively applied to
evaporation units. Capital costs for vapor compression
evaporators are substantially higher than for other types of
evaporation equipment. However, the energy costs associated with
the operation of a vapor compression evaporator are significantly
lower than costs of other evaproator types. For some
applications, pretreatment may be required to remove solids or
bacteria which tend to cause fouling in the condenser or
evaporator. The buildup of scale on the evaporator surfaces
reduces the heat transfer efficiency and may present a
maintenance problem or increase operating cost. However, it has
been demonstrated that fouling of the heat transfer surfaces can
be avoided or minimized for certain dissolved solids by
maintaining a seed slurry which provides preferential sites for
precipitate deposition. In addition, low temperature differences
in the evaporator will eliminate nucleate boiling and
supersaturation effects. Steam distillable impurities in the
process stream are carried over with the product water and must
be handled by pre- or post-treatment.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Proper maintenance will
ensure a high degree of reliability for the system. Without such
attention, rapid fouling or deterioration of vacuum seals may
occur, especially when corrosive liquids are handled.
Maintainability: Operating parameters can be automatically
controlled. Pretreatment may be required, as well as periodic
cleaning of the system. Regular replacement of seals, especially
in a corrosive environment, may be necessary.
Solid Waste Aspects: With only a few exceptions, the process
does not generate appreciable quantities of solid waste.
Demonstration Status. Evaporation is a fully developed,
commercially available wastewater treatment system. It is used
extensively to recover plating chemicals in the electroplating
industry, and a pilot scale unit has been used in connection with
phosphating of aluminum. Proven performance in silver recovery
1364

-------
indicates that evaporation could be a useful treatment operation
for the photographic industry, as well as for metal finishing.
Vapor compression evaporation has been practically demonstrated
in a number of industries, including chemical manufacturing, food
processing, pulp and paper, and metal working.
17. Flotation
Flotation is the process of causing particles such as metal
hydroxides or oil to float to the surface of a tank where they
can be concentrated and removed. This is accomplished by
releasing gas bubbles which attach to the solid particles,
increasing their buoyancy and causing them to float. In
principle, this process is the opposite of sedimentation. Figure
VII-23 shows one type of flotation system.
Flotation is used primarily in the treatment of wastewater
streams that carry heavy loads of finely divided suspended solids
or oil. Solids having a specific gravity only slightly greater
than 1.0, which would require abnormally long sedimentation
times, may be removed in much less time by flotation. Dissolved
air flotation is of greatest interest in removing oil from water
and is less effective in removing heavier precipitates.
This process may be performed in several ways: foam, dispersed
air, dissolved air, gravity, and vacuum flotation are the most
commonly used techniques. Chemical additives are often used to
enhance the performance of the flotation process.
The principal difference among types of flotation is the method
of generating the minute gas bubbles (usually air) in a
suspension of water and small particles. Chemicals may be used
to improve the efficiency with any of the basic methods. The
following paragraphs describe the different flotation techniques
and the method of bubble generation for each process.
Froth Flotation - Froth flotation is based on differences in the
physiochemical properties in various particles. Wettability and
surface properties affect the particles' ability to attach
themselves to gas bubbles in an aqueous medium. In froth
flotation, air is blown through the solution containing flotation
reagents. The particles with water repellant surfaces stick to
air bubbles as they rise and are brought to the surface. A
mineralized froth layer, with mineral particles attached to air
bubbles, is formed. Particles of other minerals which are
readily wetted by water do not stick to air bubbles and remain in
suspension.
Dispersed Air Flotation - In dispersed air flotation, gas bubbles
are generated by introducing the air by means of mechanical
agitation with impellers or by forcing air through porous media.
Dispersed air flotation is used mainly in the metallurgical
industry.
1365

-------
Dissolved Air Flotation - In dissolved air flotation, bubbles are
produced by releasing air from a supersaturated solution under
relatively high pressure. There are two types of contact between
the gas bubbles and particles. The first type is predominant in
the flotation of flocculated materials and involves the
entrapment of rising gas bubbles in the flocculated particles as
they increase in size. The bond between the bubble and particle
is one of physical capture only. The second type of contact is
one of adhesion. Adhesion results from the intermolecular
attraction exerted at the interface between the solid particle
and gaseous bubble.
Vacuum Flotation - This process consists of saturating the
wastewater with air either directly in an aeration tank, or by
permitting air to enter on the suction of a wastewater pump. A
partial vacuum is applied, which causes the dissolved air to come
out of solution as minute bubbles. The bubbles attach to solid
particles and rise to the surface to form a scum blanket, which
is normally removed by a skimming mechanism. Grit and other
heavy solids that settle to the bottom are generally raked to a
central sludge pump for removal. A typical vacuum flotation unit
consists of a covered cylindrical tank in which a partial vacuum
is maintained. The tank is equipped with scum and sludge removal
mechanisms. The floating material is continuously swept to the
tank periphery, automatically discharged into a scum trough, and
removed from the unit by a pump also under partial vacuum.
Auxiliary equipment includes an aeration tank for saturating the
wastewater with air, a tank with a short retention time for
removal of large bubbles, vacuum pumps, and sludge pumps.
Application and Performance. The primary variables for flotation
design are pressure, feed solids concentration, and retention
period. The suspended solids in the effluent decrease, and the
concentration of solids in the float increases with increasing
retention period. When the flotation process is used primarily
for clarification, a retention period of 20 to 30 minutes usually
is adequate for separation and concentration.
Advantages and Limitations. Some advantages of the flotation
process are the high levels of solids separation achieved in many
applications, the relatively low energy requirements, and the
adaptability to meet the treatment requirements of different
waste types. Limitations of flotation are that it often requires
addition of chemicals to enhance process performance and that it
generates large quantities of solid waste.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Flotation systems normally
are very reliable with proper maintenance of the sludge collector
mechanism and the motors and pumps used for aeration.
Maintainability: Routine maintenance is required on the pumps
and motors. The sludge collector mechanism is subject to
possible corrosion or breakage and may require periodic
replacement.
1366

-------
Solid Waste Aspects: Chemicals are commonly used to aid the
flotation process by creating a surface or a structure that can
easily adsorb or entrap air bubbles. Inorganic chemicals, such
as the aluminum and ferric salts, and activated silica, can bind
the particulate matter together and create a structure that can
entrap air bubbles. Various organic chemicals can change the
nature of either the air-liquid interface or the solid-liquid
interface, or both. These compounds usually collect on the
interface to bring about the desired changes. The added
chemicals plus the particles in solution combine to form a large
volume of sludge which must be further treated or properly
disposed.
Demonstration Status. Flotation is a fully developed process and
is readily available for the treatment of a wide variety of
industrial waste streams.
1®' Gravity Sludge Thickening
In the gravity thickening process, dilute sludge is fed from a
primary settling tank or clarifier to a thickening tank where
rakes stir the sludge gently to densify it and to push it to a
central collection well. The supernatant is returned to the
primary settling tank. The thickened sludge that collects on the
bottom of the tank is pumped to dewatering equipment or hauled
away. Figure VII-24 shows the construction of a gravity
thickener.
Applicat ion and Performance. Thickeners are generally used in
facilities where the sludge is to be further dewatered by a
compact mechanical device such as a vacuum filter or centrifuge.
Doubling the solids content in the thickener substantially
reduces capital and operating cost of the subsequent dewatering
device and also reduces cost for hauling. The process is
potentially applicable to almost any industrial plant.
Organic sludges from sedimentation units of one to two percent
solids concentration can usually be gravity thickened to six to
ten percent; chemical sludges can be thickened to four to six
percent.
Advantages and Limitations. The principal advantage of a gravity
sludge thickening process is that it facilitates further sludge
dewatering. Other advantages are high reliability and minimum
maintenance requirements.
Limitations of the sludge thickening process are its sensitivity
to the flow rate through the thickener and the sludge removal
rate. These rates must be low enough not to disturb the
thickened sludge.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Reliability is high with
proper design and operation. A gravity thickener is designed on
the basis of square feet per pound of solids per day, in which
the required surface area is related to the solids entering and
1367

-------
leaving the unit. Thickener area requirements are also expressed
in terms of mass loading, grams of solids per square meter per
day (lbs/sq ft/day).
Maintainability: Twice a year, a thickener must be shut down for
lubrication of the drive mechanisms. Occasionally, water must be
pumped back through the system in order to clear sludge pipes.
Solid Waste Aspects: Thickened sludge from a gravity thickening
process will usually require further dewatering prior to
disposal, incineration, or drying. The clear effluent may be
recirculated in part, or it may be subjected to further treatment
prior to discharge.
Demonstration Status. Gravity sludge thickeners are used
throughout industry to reduce water content to a level where the
sludge may be efficiently handled. Further dewatering is usually
practiced to minimize costs of hauling the sludge to approved
landfill areas.
19.	Insoluble Starch Xanthate
Insoluble starch xanthate is essentially an ion exchange medium
used to remove dissolved heavy metals from wastewater. The water
may then either be reused (recovery application) or discharged
(end-of-pipe application). In a commercial electroplating oper-
ation, starch xanthate is coated on a filter medium. Rinse water
containing dragged out heavy metals is circulated through the
filters and then reused for rinsing. The starch-heavy metal
complex is disposed of and replaced periodically. Laboratory
tests indicate that recovery of metals from the complex is
feasible, with regeneration of the starch xanthate. Besides
electroplating, starch xanthate is potentially applicable to any
other industrial plants where dilute metal wastewater streams are
generated. Its present use is limited to one electroplating
plant.
20.	Ion Exchange
Ion exchange is a process in which ions, held by electrostatic
forces to charged functional groups on the surface of the ion
exchange resin, are exchanged for ions of similar charge from the
solution in which the resin is immersed. This is classified as a
sorption process because the exchange occurs on the surface of
the resin, and the exchanging ion must undergo a phase transfer
from solution phase to solid phase. Thus, ionic contaminants in
a waste stream can be exchanged for the harmless ions of the
resin.
Although the precise technique may vary slightly according to the
application involved, a generalized process description follows.
The wastewater stream being treated passes through a filter to
remove any solids, then flows through a cation exchanger which
contains the ion exchange resin. Here, metallic impurities such
as copper, iron, and trivalent chromium are retained. The stream
1368

-------
then passes through the anion exchanger and its associated resin.
Hexavalent chromium, for example, is retained in this stage. if
one pass does not reduce the contaminant levels sufficiently, the
stream may then enter another series of exchangers. Many ion
exchange systems are equipped with more than one set of
exchangers for this reason. A strongly basic anion exchange
resin may be used alone to remove precious metals, such as gold,
palladium and platinum.
The other major portion of the ion exchange process concerns the
regeneration of the resin, which now holds those impurities
retained from the waste stream. An ion exchange unit with in-
place regeneration is shown in Figure VII-25. Metal ions such
as nickel are removed by an acid, cation exchange resin,
which is regenerated with hydrochloric or sulfuric acid,
replacing the metal ion with one or more hydrogen ions. Anions
such as dichromate are removed by a basic, anion exchange resin,
which is regenerated with sodium hydroxide, replacing the anion
with one or more hydroxyl ions. The three principal methods
employed by industry for regenerating the spent resin are:
A)	Replacement Service:	A regeneration service
replaces the spent resin with regenerated resin,
and regenerates the spent resin at its own facility.
The service then has the problem of treating and
disposing of the spent regenerant.
B)	In-Place Regeneration: Some establishments may find
it less expensive to do their own regeneration. The
spent resin column is shut down for perhaps an
hour, and the spent resin is regenerated. This
results in one or more waste streams which must be
treated in an appropriate manner. Regeneration is
performed as the resins require it, usually every few
months.
C)	Cyclic Regeneration: In this process, the regeneration
of the spent resins takes place within the ion exchange
unit itself in alternating cycles with the ion
removal process. A regeneration frequency of twice an
hour is typical. This very short cycle time
permits operation with a very small quantity of resin
and with fairly concentrated solutions, resulting in a
very compact system. Again, this process varies
according to application, but the regeneration cycle
generally begins with caustic being pumped through the
anion exchanger, carrying out hexavalent chromium, for
example, as sodium dichromate. The sodium dichromate
stream then passes through a cation exchanger,
converting the sodium dichromate to chromic acid.
After concentration by evaporation or other means,
the chromic acid can be returned to the process line.
Meanwhile, the Cation exchanger is regenerated
with sulfuric acid, resulting in a waste acid stream
containing the metallic impurities removed earlier.
1369

-------
Flushing the exchangers with water completes the
cycle. Thus, the wastewater is purified and, in this
example, chromic acid is recovered. The ion
exchangers, with newly regenerated resin, then enter
the ion removal cycle again.
Application and Performance. The list of pollutants for which
the ion exchange system has proved effective includes aluminum,
arsenic, cadmium, chromium (hexavalent and trivalent), copper,
cyanide, gold, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, platinum and
palladium, selenium, silver, tin, zinc, and more. Thus, it
can be applied to a wide variety of industrial concerns. Because
of the heavy concentrations of metals in their wastewater,
the metal finishing industries utilize ion exchange in several
ways. As an end-of-pipe treatment, ion exchange is certainly
feasible, but its greatest value is in recovery applications. It
is commonly used as an integrated treatment to recover
rinse water and process chemicals. Some electroplating
facilities use ion exchange to concentrate and purify
plating baths. Also, many industrial concerns use ion exchange
to reduce salt concentrations in incoming water sources.
Ion exchange is highly efficient at recovering metal bearing
solutions. Recovery of chromium, nickel, phosphate solution, and
sulfuric acid from anodizing is common. A chromic acid
recovery efficiency of 99.5 percent has been demonstrated.
Typical data for purification of rinse water have been reported
and are displayed in Table VII-26. Sampling at a nonferrous
metals manufacturing battery manufacturing plant characterized
influent and effluent streams for an ion exchange unit on a
silver bearing waste. This system was in start-up at the time
of sampling, however, and was not found to be operating
effectively.
Advantages and Limitations. Ion exchange is a versatile
technology applicable to a great many situations. This
flexibility, along with its compact nature and performance, makes
ion exchange a very effective method of wastewater treatment.
However, the resins in these systems can prove to be a limiting
factor. The thermal limits of the anion resins, generally in the
vicinity of 60C, could prevent its use in certain situations.
Similarly, nitric acid, chromic acid, and hydrogen peroxide can
all damage the resins, as will iron, manganese, and copper when
present with sufficient concentrations of dissolved oxygen.
Removal of a particular trace contaminant may be uneconomical
because of the presence of other ionic species that are
preferentially removed. The regeneration of the resins presents
its own problems. The cost of the regenerative chemicals can
be high. In addition, the waste streams originating from the
regeneration process are extremely high in pollutant
concentrations, although low in volume. These must be
further processed for proper disposal.
1370

-------
Operational Factors. Reliability: With the exception of
occasional clogging or fouling of the resins, ion exchange has
proved to be a highly dependable technology.
Maintainability: Only the normal maintenance of pumps, valves,
piping and other hardware used in the regeneration process is
requi red.
Solid Waste Aspects: Few, if any, solids accumulate within the
ion exchangers, and those which do appear are removed by the re-
generation process. Proper prior treatment and planning can eli-
minate solids buildup problems altogether.	The brine
resulting from regeneration of the ion exchange resin
usually must be treated to remove metals before discharge.
This can generate solid waste.
Demonstration Status. All of the applications mentioned in this
document are available for commercial use, and industry sources
estimate the number of units currently in the field at well over
120. The research and development in ion exchange is focusing on
improving the quality and efficiency of the resins, rather than
new applications. Work is also being done on a continuous
regeneration process whereby the resins are contained on a fluid-
transfusible belt. The belt passes through a compartmentalized
tank with ion exchange, washing, and regeneration sections. The
resins are therefore continually used and regenerated. No such
system, however, has been reported beyond the pilot stage.
21. Membrane Filtration
Membrane filtration is a treatment system for removing
precipitated metals from a wastewater stream. It must therefore
be preceded by those treatment techniques which will properly
prepare the wastewater for solids removal. Typically, a membrane
filtration unit is preceded by pH adjustment or sulfide addition
for precipitation of the metals. These steps are followed by the
addition of a proprietary chemical reagent which causes the
precipitate to be nongelatinous, easily dewatered, and highly
stable. The resulting mixture of pretreated wastewater and
reagent is continuously recirculated through a filter module and
back into a recirculation tank. The filter module contains
tubular membranes. While the reagent-metal hydroxide precipitate
mixture flows through the inside of the tubes, the water and any
dissolved salts permeate the membrane. When the recirculating
slurry reaches a concentration of 10 to 15 percent solids, it is
pumped out of the system as sludge.
Application and Performance. Membrane filtration appears to be
applicable to any wastewater or process water containing metal
ions which can be precipitated using hydroxide, sulfide or
carbonate precipitation. It could function as the primary
treatment system, but also might find application as a polishing
treatment (after precipitation and settling) to ensure continued
compliance with metals limitations. Membrane filtration systems
are being used in a number of industrial applications,
1371

-------
particularly in the metal finishing area. They have also been
used for toxic metals removal in the metal fabrication industry
and the paper industry.
The permeate is claimed by one manufacturer to contain less than
the effluent concentrations shown in Table VII-27 regardless
of the influent concentrations. These claims have been
largely substantiated by the analysis of water samples at
various plants in various industries.
In the performance predictions for this technology, pollutant
concentrations are reduced to the levels shown in Table VII-27
unless lower levels are present in the influent stream.
Advantages and Limitations. A major advantage of the membrane
filtration system is that installations can use most of the
conventional end-of-pipe systems that may already be in place.
Removal efficiencies are claimed to be excellent, even with
sudden variation of pollutant input rates; however, the
effectiveness of the membrane filtration system can be limited by
clogging of the filters. Because pH changes in the waste stream
greatly intensify clogging problems, the pH must be carefully
monitored and controlled. Clogging can force the shutdown of
the system and may interfere with production. In addition,
the relatively high capital cost of this system may limit its
use.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Membrane filtration has been
shown to be a very reliable system, provided that the pH is
strictly controlled. Improper pH can result in the clogging of
the membrane. Also, surges in the flow rate of the waste stream
must be controlled in order to prevent solids from passing
through the filter and into the effluent.
Maintainability: The membrane filters must be regularly
monitored, and cleaned or replaced as necessary. Depending on
the composition of the waste stream and its flow rate, frequent
cleaning of the filters may be required. Flushing with
hydrochloric acid for 6 to 24 hours will usually suffice. In
addition, the routine maintenance of pumps, valves, and other
plumbing is required.
Solid Waste Aspects: When the recirculating reagent-precipitate
slurry reaches 10 to 15 percent solids, it is pumped out of the
system. It can then be disposed of directly or it can undergo a
dewatering process. Because this sludge contains toxic metals,
it requires proper disposal.
Demonstration Status. There are more than 25 membrane filtration
systems presently in use on metal finishing and similar
wastewaters. Bench scale and pilot studies are being run in an
attempt to expand the list of pollutants for which this system is
known to be effective.
1372

-------
22. Peat Adsorption
Peat moss is a complex natural organic material containing lignin
and cellulose as major constituents. These constituents,
particularly lignin, bear polar functional groups, such as
alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, acids, phenolic hydroxides, and
ethers, that can be involved in chemical bonding. Because of the
polar nature of the material, its adsorption of dissolved solids
such as transition metals and polar organic molecules is quite
high. These properties have led to the use of peat as an agent
for the purification of industrial wastewater.
Peat adsorption is a "polishing" process which can achieve very
low effluent concentrations for several pollutants. If the
concentrations of pollutants are above 10 mg/1, then peat
adsorption must be preceded by pH adjustment for metals
precipitation and subsequent clarification. Pretreatment is also
required for chromium wastes using ferric chloride and sodium
sulfide. The wastewater is then pumped into a large metal
chamber called a kier which contains a layer of peat through
which the waste stream passes. The water flows to a second kier
for further adsorption. The wastewater is then ready for
discharge. This system may be automated or manually operated.
Application and Performance. Peat adsorption can be used in
nonferrous metals forming for removal of residual dissolved
metals from clarifier effluent. Peat moss may be used to
treat wastewaters containing heavy metals such as mercury,
cadmium, zinc, copper, iron, nickel, chromium, and lead, as
well as organic matter such as oil, detergents, and
dyes. Peat adsorption is currently used commercially at a
textile plant, a newsprint facility, and a metal reclamation
operation.
Table VII-28 contains performance figures obtained from pilot
plant studies. Peat adsorption was preceded by pH adjustment
for precipitation and by clarification.
In addition, pilot plant studies have shown that chelated metal
wastes, as well as the chelating agents themselves, are removed
by contact with peat moss.
Advantages and Limitations. The major advantages of the system
include its ability to yield low pollutant concentrations, its
broad scope in terms of the pollutants eliminated, and its
capacity to accept wide variations of waste water composition.
Limitations include the cost of purchasing, storing, and
disposing of the peat moss; the necessity for regular replacement
of the peat may lead to high operation and maintenance costs.
Also, the pH adjustment must be altered according to the
composition of the waste stream.
Operational Factors. Reliability: The question of long term
reliability is not yet fully answered. Although the manufacturer
1373

-------
reports it to be a highly reliable system, operating experience
is needed to verify the claim.
Maintainability: The peat moss used in this process soon
exhausts its capacity to adsorb pollutants. At that time, the
kiers must be opened, the peat removed, and fresh peat placed
inside. Although this procedure is easily and quickly
accomplished, it must be done at regular intervals, or the
system's efficiency drops drastically.
Solid Waste Aspects: After removal from the kier, the spent peat
must be eliminated. If incineration is used, precautions should
be taken to insure that those pollutants removed from the water
are not released again in the combustion process. Presence of
sulfides in the spent peat, for example, will give rise to sulfur
dioxide in the fumes from burning. The presence of significant
quantities of toxic heavy metals in battery manufacturing
wastewater will in general preclude incineration of peat used in
treating these wastes.
Demonstration Status. Only three facilities currently use
commercial adsorption systems in the United States - a textile
manufacturer, a newsprint facility, and a metal reclamation firm.
No data have been reported showing the use of peat adsorption in
nonferrous metals forming plants.
23. Reverse Osmosis
The process of osmosis involves the passage of a liquid through a
semipermeable membrane from a dilute to a more concentrated
solution. Reverse osmosis (RO) is an operation in which pressure
is applied to the more concentrated solution, forcing the per-
meate to diffuse through the membrane and into the more dilute
solution. This filtering action produces a concentrate and a
permeate on opposite sides of the membrane. The concentrate can
then be further treated or returned to the original operation for
continued use, while the permeate water can be recycled for use
as clean water. Figure VII-26 depicts a reverse osmosis
system.
As illustrated in Figure VII-27, there are three basic
configurations used in commercially available RO modules:
tubular, spiral-wound, and hollow fiber. All of these operate on
the principle described above, the major difference being their
mechanical and structural design characteristics.
The tubular membrane module uses a porous tube with a cellulose
acetate membrane lining. A common tubular module consists of a
length of 2.5 cm (1 inch) diameter tube wound on a supporting
spool and encased in a plastic shroud. Feed water is driven into
the tube under pressures varying from 40 to 55 atm (600-800 psi).
The permeate passes through the walls of the tube and is
collected in a manifold while the concentrate is drained off at
the end of the tube. A less widely used tubular RO module uses a
1374

-------
straight tube contained in a housing, under the same operating
conditions.
Spiral-wound membranes consist of a porous backing sandwiched
between two cellulose acetate membrane sheets and bonded along
three edges. The fourth edge of the composite sheet is attached
to a large permeate collector tube. A spacer screen is then
placed on top of the membrane sandwich, and the entire stack is
rolled around the centrally located tubular permeate collector.
The rolled up package is inserted into a pipe able to withstand
the high operating pressures employed in this process, up to 55
atm (800 psi) with the spiral-wound module. When the system is
operating, the pressurized product water permeates the membrane
and flows through the backing material to the central collector
tube. The concentrate is drained off at the end of the container
pipe and can be reprocessed or sent to further treatment facili-
ties .
The hollow fiber membrane configuration is made up of a bundle of
polyamide fibers of approximately 0.0075 cm (0.003 in.) OD and
0.0043 cm (0.0017 in.) ID. A commonly used hollow fiber module
contains several hundred thousand of the fibers placed in a long
tube, wrapped around a flow screen, and rolled into a spiral.
The fibers are bent in a U-shape and their ends are supported by
an epoxy bond. The hollow fiber unit is operated under 27 atm
(400 psi), the feed water being dispersed from the center of the
module through a porous distributor tube. Permeate flows through
the membrane to the hollow interiors of the fibers and is
collected at the ends of the fibers.
The hollow fiber and spiral-wound modules have a distinct advan-
tage over the tubular system in that they are able to load a very
large membrane surface area into a relatively small volume.
However, these two membrane types are much more susceptible to
fouling than the tubular system, which has a larger flow channel.
This characteristic also makes the tubular membrane much easier
to clean and regenerate than either the spiral-wound or hollow
fiber modules. One manufacturer claims that their helical
tubular module can be physically wiped clean by passing a soft
porous polyurethane plug under pressure through the module.
Application and Performance. In a number of metal processing
plants, the overflow from the first rinse in a countercurrent
setup is directed to a reverse osmosis unit, where it is
separated into two streams. The concentrated stream contains
dragged out chemicals and is returned to the bath to replace the
loss of solution caused by evaporation and dragout. The dilute
stream (the permeate) is routed to the last rinse tank to provide
water for the rinsing operation. The rinse flows from the last
tank to the first tank, and the cycle is complete.
The closed-loop system described above may be supplemented by the
addition of a vacuum evaporator after the RO unit in order to
further reduce the volume of reverse osmosis concentrate. The
1375

-------
evaporated vapor can be condensed and returned to the last rinse
tank or sent on for further treatment.
The largest application has been for the recovery of nickel solu-
tions. It has been shown that RO can generally be applied to
most acid metal baths with a high degree of performance,
providing that the membrane unit is not overtaxed. The
limitations most critical here are the allowable pH range and
maximum operating pressure for each particular configuration.
Adequate prefiltration is also essential. Only three membrane
types are readily available in commercial RO units, and their
overwhelming use has been for the recovery of various acid metal
baths. For the purpose of calculating performance predictions of
this technology, a rejection ratio of 98 percent is assumed for
dissolved salts, with 95 percent permeate recovery.
Advantages and Limitations. The major advantage of reverse
osmosis for handling process effluents is its ability to
concentrate dilute solutions for recovery of salts and chemicals
with low power requirements. No latent heat of vaporization or
fusion is required for effecting separations; the main energy
requirement is for a high pressure pump. It requires relatively
little floor space for compact, high capacity units, and it
exhibits good recovery and rejection rates for a number of
typical process solutions. A limitation of the reverse osmosis
process for treatment of process effluents is its limited
temperature range for satisfactory operation. For cellulose
acetate systems, the preferred limits are 18 to 30C (65 to 85F);
higher temperatures will increase the rate of membrane
hydrolysis and reduce system life, while lower temperatures will
result in decreased fluxes with no damage to the membrane.
Another limitation is inability to handle certain solutions.
Strong oxidizing agents, strongly acidic or basic solutions,
solvents, and other organic compounds can cause dissolution of
the membrane. Poor rejection of some compounds such as borates
and low molecular weight organics is another problem. Fouling of
membranes by slightly soluble components in solution or colloids
has caused failures, and fouling of membranes by feed waters with
high levels of suspended solids can be a problem. A final
limitation is inability to treat or achieve high concentration
with some solutions. Some concentrated solutions may have
initial osmotic pressures which are so high that they either
exceed available operating pressures or are uneconomical to
treat.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Very good reliability is
achieved so long as the proper precautions are taken to minimize
the chances of fouling or degrading the membrane. Sufficient
testing of the waste stream prior to application of an RO system
will provide the information needed to insure a successful
application.
Maintainability: Membrane life is estimated to range from six
months to three years, depending on the use of the system.
Downtime for flushing or cleaning is on the order of two hours as
1376

-------
often as once each week; a substantial portion of maintenance
time must be spent on cleaning any prefilters installed ahead of
the reverse osmosis unit.
Solid Waste Aspects: In a closed loop system utilizing RO,
there is a constant recycle of concentrate and a minimal
amount of solid waste. Prefiltration eliminates many solids
before they reach the module and helps keep the buildup to a
minimum. These solids require proper disposal.
Demonstration Status. There are presently at least one hundred
reverse osmosis wastewater applications in a variety of
industries. In addition to these, there are 30 to 40 units being
used to provide pure process water for several industries.
Despite the many types and configurations of membranes, only the
spiral-wound cellulose acetate membrane has had widespread suc-
cess in commercial applications.
24. Sludge Bed Drying
As a waste treatment procedure, sludge bed drying is employed to
reduce the water content of a variety of sludges to the point
where they are amenable to mechanical collection and removal to
landfill. These beds usually consist of 15 to 45 cm (6 to 18
in.) of sand over a 30 cm (12 in.) deep gravel drain system made
up of 3 to 6 mm (1/8 to 1/4 in.) graded gravel overlying drain
tiles. Figure VII-28 shows the construction of a drying
bed.
Drying beds are usually divided into sectional areas
approximately 7.5 meters (25 ft) wide x 30 to 60 meters (100 to
200 ft) long. The partitions may be earth embankments, but more
often are made of planks and supporting grooved posts.
To apply liquid sludge to the sand bed, a closed conduit or a
pressure pipeline with valved outlets at each sand bed section is
often employed. Another method of application is by means of an
open channel with appropriately placed side openings which are
controlled by slide gates. With either type of delivery system,
a concrete splash slab should be provided to receive the falling
sludge and prevent erosion of the sand surface.
Where it is necessary to dewater sludge continuously throughout
the year regardless of the weather, sludge beds may be covered
with a fiberglass reinforced plastic or other roof. Covered
drying beds permit a greater volume of sludge drying per year in
most climates because of the protection afforded from rain or
snow and because of more efficient control of temperature.
Depending on the climate, a combination of open and enclosed beds
will provide maximum utilization of the sludge bed drying
facilities.
Application and Performance, Sludge drying beds are a means of
dewatering sludge from clarifiers and thickeners. They are
1377

-------
widely used both in municipal and industrial treatment
facilities.
Dewatering of sludge on sand beds occurs by two mechanisms:
filtration of water through the bed and evaporation of water as a
result of radiation and convection. Filtration is generally
complete in one to two days and may result in solids
concentrations as high as 15 to 20 percent. The rate of
filtration depends on the drainability of the sludge.
The rate of air drying of sludge is related to temperature,
relative humidity, and air velocity. Evaporation will proceed at
a constant rate to a critical moisture content, then at a falling
rate to an equilibrium moisture content. The average evaporation
rate for a sludge is about 75 percent of that from a free water
surface.
Advantages and Limitations. The main advantage of sludge drying
beds over other types of sludge dewatering is the relatively low
cost of construction, operation, and maintenance.
Its disadvantages are the large area of land required and long
drying times that depend, to a great extent, on climate and
weather.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Reliability is high with
favorable climatic conditions, proper bed design and care to
avoid excessive or unequal sludge application. If climatic
conditions in a given area are not favorable for adequate drying,
a cover may be necessary.
Maintainability: Maintenance consists basically of periodic
removal of the dried sludge. Sand removed from the drying bed
with the sludge must be replaced and the sand layer resurfaced.
The resurfacing of sludge beds is the major expense item in
sludge bed maintenance, but there are other areas which may
require attention. Underdrains occasionally become clogged and
have to be cleaned. Valves or sludge gates that control the flow
of sludge to the beds must be kept watertight. Provision for
drainage of lines in winter should be provided to prevent damage
from freezing. The partitions between beds should be tight so
that sludge will not flow from one compartment to another. The
outer walls or banks around the beds should also be watertight.
Solid Waste Aspects: The full sludge drying bed must either be
abandoned or the collected solids must be removed to a landfill.
These solids contain whatever metals or other materials were
settled in the clarifier. Metals will be present as hydroxides,
oxides, sulfides, or other salts. They have the potential for
leaching and contaminating ground water, whatever the location of
the semidried solids. Thus the abandoned bed or landfill should
include provision for runoff control and leachate monitoring.
1378

-------
Demonstration Status. Sludge beds have been in common	use in
both municipal and industrial facilities for many	yea: .
However, protection of ground water from contamination	is not
always adequate.
25. Ultrafilt ration
Ultrafiltration (UF)* is a process which uses semipermeable
polymeric membranes to separate emulsified or colloidal materials
suspended in a liquid phase by pressurizing the liquid so that it
permeates the membrane. The membrane of an ultrafilter forms a
molecular screen which retains molecular particles based on their
differences in size, shape, and chemical structure. The membrane
permits passage of solvents and lower molecular weight molecules.
At present, an ultrafilter is capable of removing materials with
molecular weights in the range of 1,000 to 100,000 and particles
of comparable or larger sizes.
In an ultrafiltration process, the feed solution is pumped
through a tubular membrane unit. Water and some low molecular
weight materials pass through the membrane under the applied
pressure of 2 to 8 atm (10 to 100 psig). Emulsified oil droplets
and suspended particles are retained, concentrated, and removed
continuously. In contrast to ordinary filtration, retained
materials are washed off the membrane filter rather than held by
it. Figure VII-29 represents the ultrafiltration process.
Figure VII-34 shows a flow diagram for a batch treatment
ultrafiltration system.
Application and Performance. Ultrafiltration has potential
application to nonferrous metals forming wastewater for
separation of oils and residual solids from a variety of
waste streams. In treating nonferrous metals forming wastewater,
its greatest applicability would be as a polishing treatment to
remove residual precipitated metals	after	chemical
precipitation and clarification. Successful commercial use,
however, has been primarily for separation of emulsified
oils from wastewater. Over one hundred such units now operate in
the United States, treating emulsified oils from a variety
of industrial processes. Capacities of currently operating
units range from a few hundred gallons a week to 50,000 gallons
per day. Concentration of oily emulsions to 60 percent oil or
more is possible. Oil concentrates of 40 percent or more are
generally suitable for incineration, and the permeate can be
treated further and in some cases recycled back to the process.
In this way, it is possible to eliminate contractor removal
costs for oil from some oily waste streams.
The test data in Table VII-29 indicate ultrafiltration
performance (note that UF is not intended to remove dissolved
solids). The removal percentages shown are typical, but they
can be influenced by pH and other conditions.
The permeate or effluent from the ultrafiltration unit is
normally of a quality that can be reused in industrial
1379

-------
applications or discharged directly. The concentrate from the
ultrafiltration unit can be disposed of as any oily or solid
waste.
Advantages and Limitations. Ultrafiltration is sometimes an
attractive alternative to chemical treatment because of lower
capital equipment, installation, and operating costs, very high
oil and suspended solids removal, and little required
pretreatment. It places a positive barrier between pollutants
and effluent which reduces the possibility of extensive pollutant
discharge due to operator error or upset in settling and skimming
systems. Alkaline values in alkaline cleaning solutions can be
recovered and reused in process.
A limitation of ultrafiltration for treatment of process
effluents is its narrow temperature range (18 to 30C) for
satisfactory operation. Membrane life decreases with higher
temperatures, but flux increases at elevated temperatures.
Therefore, surface area requirements are a function of
temperature and become a trade-off between initial costs
and replacement costs for the membrane. In addition,
ultrafiltration cannot handle certain solutions. Strong
oxidizing agents, solvents, and other organic compounds can
dissolve the membrane. Fouling is sometimes a problem, although
the high velocity of the wastewater normally creates enough
turbulence to keep fouling at a minimum. Large solids particles
can sometimes puncture the membrane and therefore must be
removed by gravity settling or filtration prior to the
ultrafiltration unit.
Operational Factors. Reliability: The reliability of an
ultrafiltration system is dependent on the proper filtration,
settling or other treatment of incoming waste streams to prevent
damage to the membrane. Careful pilot studies should be done in
each instance to determine necessary pretreatment steps and the
exact membrane type to be used.
Maintainability: A limited amount of regular maintenance is
required for the pumping system. In addition, membranes must
be periodically changed. Maintenance associated with membrane
plugging can be reduced by selection of a membrane with optimum
physical characteristics and sufficient velocity of the
waste stream. It is occasionally necessary to pass a
detergent solution through the system to remove an oil and
grease film which accumulates on the membrane. With proper
maintenance, membrane life can be greater than twelve months.
Solid Waste Aspects: Ultrafiltration is used primarily to
recover solids and liquids. It therefore eliminates solid waste
problems when the solids (e.g., paint solids) can be recycled to
the process. Otherwise, the stream containing solids must be
treated by end-of-pipe equipment. In the most probable
applications within the nonferrous metals forming category,
1380

-------
the ultrafilter would remove hydroxides or sulfides of metals
which have recovery value.
Demonstration Status. The ultrafiltration process is well
developed and commercially available for treatment of wastewater
or recovery of certain high molecular weight liquid and solid
contaminants. One nonferrous metals forming plant reported its
use.
26. Vacuum Filtration
In wastewater treatment plants, sludge dewatering by vacuum
filtration generally uses cylindrical drum filters. These drums
have a filter medium which may be cloth made of natural or
synthetic fibers or a wire-mesh fabric. The drum is suspended
above and dips into a vat of sludge. As the drum rotates slowly,
part of its circumference is subject to an internal vacuum that
draws sludge to the filter medium. Water is drawn through the
porous filter cake to a discharge port, and the dewatered sludge,
loosened by compressed air, is scraped from the filter mesh.
Because the dewatering of sludge on vacuum filters is relatively
expensive per kilogram of water removed, the liquid sludge is
frequently thickened prior to processing. A vacuum filter is
shown in Figure VI1-30.
Application and Performance. Vacuum filters are frequently used
both in municipal treatment plants and in a wide variety of
industries. They are most commonly used in larger facilities,
which may have a thickener to double the solids content of
clarifier sludge before vacuum filtering.
The function of vacuum filtration is to reduce the water content
of sludge, so that the solids content increases from about 5
percent to about 30 percent.
Advantages and Limitations. Although the initial cost and area
requirement of the vacuum filtration system are higher than those
of a centrifuge, the operating cost is lower, and no special
provisions for sound and vibration protection need be made. The
dewatered sludge from this process is in the form of a moist cake
and can be conveniently handled.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Vacuum filter systems have
proven reliable at many industrial and municipal treatment
facilities. At present, the largest municipal installation is at
the West Southwest wastewater treatment plant of Chicago,
Illinois, where 96 large filters were installed in 1925,
functioned approximately 25 years, and then were replaced with
larger units. Original vacuum filters at Minneapolis-St. Paul,
Minnesota, now have over 28 years of continuous service, and
Chicago has some units with similar or greater service life.
Maintainability: Maintenance consists of the cleaning or
replacement of the filter media, drainage grids, drainage piping,
filter pans, and other parts of the equipment. Experience in a
1381

-------
number of vacuum filter plants indicates that maintenance
consumes approximately 5 to 15 percent of the total time. If
carbonate buildup or other problems are unusually severe,
maintenance time may be as high as 20 percent. For this reason,
it is desirable to maintain one or more spare units.
If intermittent operation is used, the filter equipment should be
drained and washed each time it is taken out of service. An
allowance for this wash time must be made in filtering schedules.
Solid Waste Aspects: Vacuum filters generate a solid cake which
is usually trucked directly to landfill. All of the metals
extracted from the plant wastewater are concentrated in the
filter cake as hydroxides, oxides, sulfides, or other salts.
Demonstration Status. Vacuum filtration has been widely used for
many years. It is a fully proven, conventional technology for
sludge dewatering.	Vacuum filtration is used in 18
nonferrous metals forming plants for sludge dewatering.
27. Permanganate Oxidation
Permanganate oxidation is a chemical reaction by which wastewater
pollutants can be oxidized. When the reaction is carried to
completion, the byproducts of the oxidation are not
environmentally harmful. A large number of pollutants can be
practically oxidized by permanganate, including cyanides,
hydrogen sulfide, and phenol. In addition, the chemical oxygen
demand (COD) and many odors in wastewaters and sludges can be
significantly reduced by permanganate oxidation carried to its
end point. Potassium permanganate can be added to wastewater in
either dry or slurry form. The oxidation occurs optimally in the
8 to 9 pH range. As an example of the permanganate oxidation
process, the following chemical equation shows the oxidation of
phenol by potassium permanganate:
3 C6H5(OH) + 28 KMn04 + 5H2 	> 18 co2 + 28KOH + 28
Mn02 •
One of the byproducts of this oxidation is manganese dioxide
(Mn02), which occurs as a relatively stable hydrous
colloid usually having a negative charge. These properties, in
addition to its large surface area, enable manganese dioxide to
act as a sorbent for metal cation, thus enhancing their removal
from the wastewater.
Application and Performance. Commercial use of permanganate
oxidation has been primarily for the control of phenol and waste
odors. Several municipal waste treatment facilities report that
initial hydrogen sulfide concentrations (causing serious odor
problems) as high as 100 mg/1 have been reduced to zero through
the application of potassium permanganate. A variety of
industries (including metal finishers and agricultural chemical
manufacturers) have used permanganate oxidation to totally
1382

-------
destroy phenol in their wastewaters.
Advantages and Limitations. Permanganate oxidation has several
advantages as a wastewater treatment technique. Handling and
storage are facilitated by its non-toxic and non-corrosive
nature. Performance has been proved in a number of municipal and
industrial applications. The tendency of the manganese dioxide
by-product to act as a coagulant aid is a distinct advantage over
other types of chemical treatment.
The cost of permanganate oxidation treatment can be limiting
where very large dosages are required to oxidize wastewater
pollutants. In addition, care must be taken in storage to
prevent exposure to intense heat, acids, or reducing agents;
exposure could create a fire hazard or cause explosions. Of
greatest concern is the environmental hazard which the use of
manganese chemicals in treatment could cause. Care must be taken
to remove the manganese from treated water before discharge.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Maintenance consists of
periodic sludge removal and cleaning of pump feed lines.
Frequency of maintenance is dependent on wastewater
characteristics.
Solid Waste Aspects: Sludge is generated by the process where
the manganese dioxide byproduct tends to act as a coagulant aid.
The sludge from permanganate oxidation can be collected and
handled by standard sludge treatment and processing equipment.
Demonstration Status. The oxidation of wastewater pollutants by
potassium permanganate is a proven treatment process in several
types of industries. It has been shown effective in treating a
wide variety of pollutants in both municipal and industrial
wastes. No nonferrous metals forming plants are know to use
permanganate oxidation for wastewater treatment at this time.
2^* Ammonia Steam Stripping
Ammonia, often used as a process reagent, dissolves in water to
an extent governed by the partial pressure of the gas in contact
with the liquid. The ammonia may be removed from process
wastewaters by stripping with air or steam.
Air stripping takes place in a packed or lattice tower; air is
blown through the packed bed or lattice, over which the ammonia-
laden stream flows. Usually, the wastewater is heated prior to
delivery to the tower, and air is used at ambient temperature.
The term "ammonia steam stripping" refers to the process of
desorbing aqueous ammonia by contacting the liquid with a
sufficient amount of ammonia-free steam. The steam is introduced
countercurrent to the wastewatei. to maximize removal of ammonia.
The operation is commonly carried out in packed bed or tray
columns, and the pH is adjusted to 12 or more with lime. Simple
1383

-------
tray designs (such as dish and doughnut trays) are used in steam
stripping because of the presence of appreciable suspended solids
and the scaling produced by lime. These allow easy cleaning of
the tower, at the expense of somewhat lower steam water contact
efficiency, necessitating the use of more trays for the same
removal efficiency.
Application and Performance. The evaporation of water and the
volatilization of ammonia generally produces a drop in both
temperature and pH, which ultimately limit the removal of ammonia
in a single air stripping tower. However, high removals are
favored by:
1.	High pH values, which shift the equilibrium from ammonium
toward free ammonia;
2.	High temperature, which decreases the solubility of ammonia
in aqueous solutions; and
3.	Intimate and extended contact between the wastewater to be
stripped and the stripping gas.
Of these factors, pH and temperature are generally more cost-
effective to optimize than increasing contact time by an increase
in contact tank volume or recirculation ratio. The temperature
will, to some extent, be controlled by the climatic conditions;
the pH of the wastewater can be adjusted to assure optimum
stripping.
Steam stripping offers better ammonia removal (99 percent or
better) than air stripping for high-ammonia wastewaters found in
the magnesium forming, titanium forming and zirconium-hafnium
forming subcategories of this category. The performance of an
ammonia stripping column is influenced by a number of important
variables that are associated with the wastewater being treated
and column design. Brief discussions of these variables follow.
Wastewater pH: Ammonia in water exists in two forms, NH3 and
NH4+, the distribution of which is pH-dependent. Since
only the molecular form of ammonia (NH3) can be stripped,
increasing the fraction of NH3 by increasing the pH enhances
the rate of ammonia desorption.
Column Temperature: The temperature of the stripping column
affects the equilibrium between gaseous and dissolved ammonia, as
well as the equilibrium between the molecular and ionized forms
of ammonia in water. An increase in the temperature reduces the
ammonia solubility and increases the fraction of aqueous ammonia
that is in the molecular form, both of which have favorable
effects on the desorption rate.
Steam rate: The rate of ammonia transfer from the liquid to gas
phase is directly proportional to the degree of ammonia
undersaturation in the desorbing gas. Increasing the rate of
1384

-------
steam supply, therefore, increases undersaturation and ammonia
transfer.
Column design: A properly designed stripper column achieves
uniform distribution of the feed liquid across the cross-section
of the column, rapid renewal of the liquid-gas interface, and
extended liquid-gas contacting area and time.
Chemical analysis data were collected for raw waste (treatment
influent) and treated waste (treatment effluent) from one plant
in the iron and steel category. EPA collected six paired samples
over a two-month period. These data are the data base for
determining the effectiveness of ammonia steam stripping
technology and are contained within the public record supporting
this document. Ammonia treatment at this coke plant consisted of
two steam stripping columns in series with steam injected
countercurrently to the flow of the wastewater. A lime reactor
for pH adjustment separated the two stripping columns.
An arithmetic mean of the treatment effluent data produced an
ammonia long-term mean value of 32.2 mg/1. The one-day maximum,
10-day, and 30-day average concentrations attainable by ammonia
steam stripping were calculated using the long-term mean of the
32.2 mg/1 and the variability factors developed for the combined
metals data base. This produced ammonia concentrations of
133.3, 58.6, and 52.1 mg/1 ammonia for the one-day maximum, 10-
day and 30-day averages, respectively.
EPA believes the performance data from the iron and steel
category provide a valid measure of this technology's performance
on nonferrous metals forming category wastewater.
The Agency has verified the proposed steam stripping performance
values using steam stripping data collected at a zirconium-
hafnium manufacturing plant, a plant in the nonferrous metals
manufacturing category which has raw ammonia concentrations as
high as any in the nonferrous metals forming category. Data
collected by the plant represent almost two years of daily
operations, and support the long-term mean used to establish
treatment effectiveness.
Several comments were received regarding the application of
ammonia steam stripping technology to nonferrous metals
manufacturing wastewaters. These comments stated that ammonia
steam stripping performance data transferred from the iron and
steel category are not appropriate for the nonferrous metals
manufacturing category. Many of the commenters believe plugging
of the column due to precipitates will adversely affect their
ability to achieve the promulgated steam stripping performance
values. In developing compliance costs, the Agency designed the
steam stripping module to allow for a weekly acid cleaning to
reduce plugging problems (see Section VIII, p. xxx). Through
Section 308 information requests, the Agency attempted to gather
data at plants which stated they could not achieve the proposed
limits. However, very little data were submitted to support
1385

-------
their claims or document column performance. Therefore, the
Agency has retained the proposed performance based on the data
from the iron and steel category.
Commenters on the limitations and standards for the secondary
aluminum subcategory of the nonferrous metals manufacturing
category contend that stripped ammonia will have to be disposed
of as corrosive hazardous waste. The Agency does not agree with
the commenters because ammonia has an intrinsic value. The
ammonia can either be sold, given away, or reused in the
manufacturing process. Steam stripping can recover significant
quantities of reagent ammonia from wastewaters containing
extremely high initial ammonia concentrations, which partially
offsets the capital and energy costs of the technology.
Advantages and Limitations. Strippers are widely used in
industry to remove a variety of materials, including hydrogen
sulfide and volatile organics as well as ammonia, from aqueous
streams. The basic techniques have been applied both in-process
and in wastewater treatment applications and are well understood.
The use of steam strippers with and without pH adjustment is
standard practice for the removal of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia
in the petroleum refining industry and has been studied
extensively in this context. Air stripping is used to treat
municipal and industrial wastewater and is recognized as an
effective technique of broad applicability. Both air and steam
stripping have successfully treated ammonia-laden wastewater,
both within the nonferrous metals manufacturing category and for
similar wastes in closely related industries.
The major drawback of air stripping is the low efficiency in cold
weather and the possibility of freezing within the tower.
Because lime may cause scaling problems and the types of towers
used in air stripping are not easily cleaned, caustic soda is
generally employed to raise the feed pH. Air stripping simply
transfers the ammonia from water to air, whereas steam stripping
allows for recovery and, if so desired, reuse of ammonia. The
two major limitations of steam strippers are the critical column
design required for proper operation and the operational problems
associated with fouling of the packing material.
Operational Factors. Reliability and Maintainability: Strippers
are relatively easy to operate. The most complicated part of a
steam stripper is the boiler. Periodic maintenance will prevent
unexpected shutdowns of the boiler.
Packing fouling interferes with the intimate contacting of
liquid-gas, thus decreasing the column efficiency, and eventually
leads to flooding. The stripper column is periodically taken out
of service and cleaned with acid and water with air sparging.
Column cutoff is predicated on a maximum allowable pressure drop
across the packing of maximum "acceptable" ammonia content in the
stripper bottoms. Although packing fouling may not be completely
avoidable due to endothermic CaS04 precipitation, column runs
could be prolonged by a preliminary treatment step designed to
1386

-------
remove suspended solids originally present in the feed and those
precipitated after lime addition.
Demonstration Status. Steam stripping has proved to be an
efficient, reliable process for the removal of ammonia from many
types of industries wastewaters that contain high concentrations
of ammonia. Industries using ammonia steam stripping technology
include the fertilizer, iron and steel, petroleum refining,
organic chemicals manufacturing, and nonferrous metals
manufacturing industries. One nonferrous metals forming plant
reported using this technology.
IN-PROCESS POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNIQUES
In general, the most cost-effective pollution reduction tech-
niques available to any industry are those which prevent
completely the entry of pollutants into process wastewater or
reduce the volume of wastewater requiring treatment. These "in-
process" controls can increase treatment effectiveness by
reducing	the volume of wastewater to treatment/
resulting in more concentrated waste streams from which they can
be more completely removed, or by eliminating pollutants which
are not readily removed or which interfere with the
treatment of other pollutants. They also frequently yield
economic benefits in reduced water consumption, decreased waste
treatment costs and decreased consumption or recovery of process
mater ials.
Techniques which may be applied to reduce pollutant discharges
from most nonferrous metals forming subcategories include
wastewater segregation, water recycle and reuse, water use
reduction, process modification, and plant maintenance and
good housekeeping. Effective in-process control at most
plants will entail a combination of several techniques.
Frequently, the practice of one in-process control technique is
required for the successful implementation of another. For
example, wastewater segregation is frequently a prerequisite
for the extensive practice of wastewater recycle or reuse.
Wastewater Segregation
The segregation of wastewater streams is a key element in
implementing pollution control in the nonferrous metals forming
category. Separation of noncontact cooling water from
process wastewater prevents dilution of the process wastes and
maintains the character of the non-contact stream for subsequent
reuse or discharge. Similarly, the segregation of process
wastewater	streams differing significantly in their
chemical characteristics can reduce treatment costs and
increase effectiveness.
Mixing process wastewater with noncontact cooling water increases
the total volume of process wastewater. This has an adverse
effect on both treatment performance and cost. The increased
volume of wastewater increases the size and cost of treatment
1387

-------
facilities. Since a given treatment technology has a specific
treatment effectiveness and can only achieve certain discharge
concentrations of pollutants, the total mass of pollutants which
is discharged increased with dilution. Thus a plant which
segregates noncontact cooling water and other nonprocess waters
from process wastewater will almost always achieve a lower
mass discharge of pollutants while substantially reducing
treatment costs.
Nonferrous metals forming plants commonly produce multiple
process and nonprocess wastewater streams. The identified
nonprocess streams include wastewater streams that are reusable
after minimal treatment and other streams that are not reusable.
Reusable waters are most often noncontact cooling waters. This
water is uncontaminated and can be recycled in a closed indirect
cooling configuration as well as use as makeup for process water.
Noncontact cooling water is commonly recycled for reuse.
The segregation of dilute process waste streams from those bear-
ing high pollutant loads may allow further use of the dilute
streams. Sometimes the lightly polluted stream may be recycled
to the process from which they were discharged, such as
annealing. Other wastewater streams may be suitable for use
in another process with only minimal treatment.
Segregation of wastewater streams may allow separate treatment
of the wastewater stream which often costs less.	For
example, wastewater streams containing high levels of suspended
solids may be treated in separate inexpensive settling
systems rather than a more expensive lime and settle
treatment system. Often the clarified wastewater is suitable
for further process use and both pollutant loads and the
wastewater volume requiring further treatment are reduced.
Segregation and separate treatment of selected wastewater streams
may yield an additional economic benefit to the plant by allowing
increased recovery of process materials. The solids borne by
wastewater from a specific process operation are primarily
composed of materials used in that operation. Sludges
resulting from separate settling of these streams may be
reclaimed for use in the process with little or no processing or
recovered for reprocessing.
Wastewater Recycle and Reuse
The recycle or reuse of process wastewater is a particularly
effective technique for the re-duction of both pollutant
discharges and treatment costs. The term "recycle" is used to
designate the return of process wastewater, usually after
some treatment, to the process or processes from which it
originated, while "reuse" refers to the use of wastewater from
one process in another. Both recycle and reuse of process
wastewater are presently practiced at nonferrous metals
forming plants, although recycle is more extensively used. The
most frequently recycled waste streams include wet air pollution
1388

-------
control wastewater discharges, casting contact cooling water,
annealing and heat treatment contact cooling water and rolling
emulsions. Numerous other process wastewater streams from
nonferrous metals forming processes may also be recycled or
reused. Both recycle and reuse are frequently possible without
extensive treatment of the wastewater; process pollutants
present in the waste stream are often tolerable (or
occasionally even beneficial) for process use. Recycle or
reuse in these instances yields cost savings by reducing
the volume of wastewater requiring treatment. Where treatment
is required for recycle or reuse, it is frequently
considerably simpler than the treatment necessary to achieve
effluent quality suitable for release to the environment.
Treatment prior to recycle or reuse observed in present
practice is generally restricted to simple settling or
neutralization. Since these treatment practices are less costly
than those used prior to discharge, economic as well as
environmental benefits are usually realized. In addition to
these in-process recycle and reuse practices, some plants
return part or all of the treated effluent from an end-of-pipe
treatment system for further process use.
Recycle can usually be implemented with minimal expense and comp-
lications because the required treatment is often minimal and the
water for recycle is immediately available. As an example, hot
rolling contact cooling water can be collected in the
immediate area of the rolling mill cooled in a cooling tower,
and recycled for use in the rolling process. A flow diagram for
recycling direct chill casting water with a cooling tower is
shown in Figure VII-36.
The rate of water used in wet air scrubbers is determined by the
requirement for adequate contact with the air being scrubbed and
not by the mass of pollutants to be removed. As a result,
wastewater streams from once-through scrubbers are character-
istically very dilute and high in volume. These streams can
usually be recycled extensively without treatment with no
deleterious effect on scrubber performance. Limited treatment
such as neutralization where acid fumes are scrubbed can signifi-
cantly increase the practical recycle rate.
Water used in washing process equipment and production floor
areas frequently serves primarily to remove solid materials and
is often treated by settling and recycled. This practice is
especially prevalent in the precious metals subcategory but is
observed in other subcategories as well. The extent of
recycle of these waste streams may be very high, and in many
cases no wastewater is discharged from the recycle loop.
Water used in surface treatment rinsing is also recirculated in
some cases. This practice is ultimately limited by the
concentrations of materials rinsed off the product in the
rinsewater. Wastewater from contact cooling operations also may
contain low concentrations of pollutants which do not interfere
with the recycle of these streams. In some cases, recycle of
1389

-------
contact cooling water with no treatment is observed while in
others, provisions for heat removal in cooling towers or closed
heat exchangers is required. Where contact cooling water becomes
heavily contaminated with acid, neutralization may be
required to minimize corrosion.
Water used in vacuum pump seals and steam ejectors commonly
becomes contaminated with process pollutants. The levels of
contaminants in these waste streams are sometimes low enough
to allow recycle to the process with minimal treatment. A
high degree of recycle of wastewater from contact cooling streams
may require provisions for neutralization or removal of heat.
The extent of recycle possible in most process water uses is
ultimately limited by increasing concentrations of dissolved
solids in the water. The buildup of dissolved salts generally
necessitates some small discharge or "blowdown" from the process
to treatment. In those cases, where the rate of addition of
dissolved salts is balanced by removal of dissolved solids in
water entrained in settled solids, complete recycle with no
discharge can be achieved. In other instances, the contaminants
which build up in the recycle loop may be compatible with another
process operation, and the "blowdown" may be used in another
process. An example of this is the reuse of alkaline cleaning
rinsewater as make-up to an acid fume wet air pollution control
recirculating system. The rinsewater provides alkaline species
to neutralize the acid fumes.
Water Use Reduction
The volume of wastewater discharge from a plant or specific
process operation may be reduced by simply eliminating
excess flow and unnecessary water use. Often this may be
accomplished with no change in the manufacturing process or
equipment and without any capital expenditure. A comparison of
the volumes of process water used in and discharged from
equivalent process operations at different plants or on
different days at the same plant indicates substantial
opportunities for water use reductions. Additional reductions
in process water use and discharge may be achieved by
modifications to process techniques and equipment.
Many production units in nonferrous metals forming plants
were observed to operate intermittently or at highly variable
production rates. The practice of shutting off process water
flow during periods when the unit is not operating and of
adjusting flow rates during periods of low production can
prevent much unnecessary water use. Water may be shut off
and controlled manually or through automatically controlled
valves. Manual adjustments have been found to be somewhat
unreliable in practice; production personnel often fail to turn
off manual valves when production units are shut down and tend to
increase water flow rates to maximum levels "to insure good
operation" regardless of production activity. Automatic shut-
off valves may be used to turn off water flows when
1390

-------
production units are inactive. Automatic adjustment of flow
rates according to production levels requires more sophisticated
control systems incorporating production rate sensors.
Observations and flow measurements at visited nonferrous metals
forming plants indicate that automatic flow controls are
rarely employed. Manual control of process water use is
generally observed in process rinse operations, and little or no
adjustment of these flows to production level is practiced.
The present situation is exemplified by a rinse operation at one
plant where the daily average production normalized discharge
flow rate was observed to vary from 287 to 1230 1/kkg over a
three-day span. Thus, significant reductions in pollutant
discharges can be achieved by the application of flow control in
this category at essentially no cost. (A net savings may
be realized from the reduced cost of water and sewage
charges.) Additional flow reductions may be achieved by
the implementation of more effective water use in some process
operations.
Rinsing is a common operation in nonferrous metals forming plants
and a major source of wastewater discharge at most plants.
Efficient rinsing requires the removal of the greatest possible
mass of material in the smallest possible volume of
water. It is achieved by ensuring that the material removed
is distributed uniformly through the rinse water.
Rinsing efficiency is also increased by the use of multi-stage
and countercurrent cascade rinses (see figures VII-37 and VII-
38). Multi-stage rinses reduce the total rinse water requirements
by allowing the removal of much of the contaminant in a more
concentrated rinse with only the final stage rinse diluted to
the levels required for final product cleanliness. In a
countercurrent cascade rinse, dilute wastewater from each
rinse stage is reused in the preceding rinse stage and all of
the contaminants are discharged in a single concentrated waste
stream.	The	technical aspects	of countercurrent
cascade rinsing are detailed later in this section.
Equipment and area cleanup practices observed at nonferrous
metals forming plants vary widely. While some plants
employ completely dry cleanup techniques, many others use
water with varying degrees of efficiency. The practice of
"hosing down" equipment and production areas generally represents
a very in-efficient use of water, especially when hoses are
left running during periods when they are not used.
Alternative techniques which use water more efficiently
include vacuum pick-up floor wash machines and bucket and sponge
or bucket and mop techniques as observed at some plants.
Additional reduction in process water and wastewater dis-
charge may be achieved by the substitution of dry air pollution
control devices such as bag'nouses for wet scrubbers where the
emissions requiring control are amenable to these techniques.
1391

-------
Countercurrent Cascade Rinsing and Multistage Rinsing
Of the many schemes discussed above for reduction of water use in
nonferrous metals forming plant, countercurrent cascade
rinsing is most likely to result in the greatest
reduction of water consumption and use.
Countercurrent cascade rinses are already employed in some plants
in the nonferrous metals forming category. In most cases,
however, these techniques are not combined with effective flow
control, and the wastewater discharge volumes from the
countercurrent cascade rinses are as large as or larger than
corresponding single stage rinse flows at other plants.
Rinse water requirements and the benefits of countercurrent
cascade rinsing may be influenced by the volume of drag-out
solution carried into each rinse stage by the electrode or
material being rinsed, by the number of rinse stages used, by the
initial concentrations of impurities being removed, and by the
final product cleanliness required. The influence of these
factors is expressed in the rinsing equation which may be stated
simply as:
Vr = Co (1/n) x VD
Cf
Vr is the flow through each rinse stage.
Co is the concentration of the contaminant(s) in the initial
process bath
Cf is the concentration of the contaminant(s) in
the final rinse to give acceptable product cleanliness
n is the number of rinse stages employed,
and
VD is the flow of drag-out carried into each rinse stage
For a multistage rinse, the total volume of rinse wastewater is
equal to n times Vr while for a countercurrent rinse, Vr is the
total volume of wastewater discharge.
For a multistage rinse, the total volume of rinsewater is equal
to n times Vr while for a countercurrent rinse the total volume
of water equals Vr. As an example, the flow reduction achieved
for pickling a nickel sheet can be estimated through the use of a
two-stage countercurrent cascade rinse following the surface
treatment bath. The mass of nickel in one square meter of sheet
that is 6 mm (0.006 m) in thickness can be calculated using the
density of nickel, 8.90 kkg/m3 (556 lbs/cu ft), as follows:
= (0.006 m) x (8.90 kkg/m^) = 0.053 kkg/m^ of sheet.
1392

-------
Using the mean surface treatment rinsewater discharge, Vr can
then be calculated as follows:
Vr = (0.053 kkg x 10,600 1 = 561.8 1/m2 of sheet
	n		
m'' '	kkg
Drag-out is solution which remains on the surface of materials
being rinsed when it is removed from process baths or rinses.
Without specific plant data available to determine drag-out, an
estimate of rinsewater reduction to be achieved with two-stage
countercurrent rinsing can be made by assuming a thickness of any
process solution film as it is introduced into the rinse tank.
If the film on a piece of nickel sheet is 0.015 mm (0.6 mil)
thick, (equivalent to the film on a well-drained vertical
surface) then the volume of process solution, VD, carried into
the rinse tank on two sides of a one square metter of sheet will
be:
VD = (0.015 mm) x ( 1 m/mm) x (1000 1/m^) x 2
1000
= 0.030 1/m2 of sheet
Let r = Co, then r = 1/n - Vr.
Cf	VD
For single-stage rinsing, n = 1, therefore, r = Vr
VD
and r = 561.8 = 18,727
0.030
For a 2-stage countercurrent cascade rinse to obtain the same r,
that is the same product cleanliness,
Vr = r 1/2' therefore Vr = 18,727 1//2 = 136.8
VD	VD
But VD = 0.030 1/m2 of sheet; therefore, for 2-stage
countercurrent cascade rinsing, Vr is:
Vr = 136.8 x 0.030 - 4.10 1/m2 of sheet
In this theoretical calculation, a flow reduction of greater than
99 percent can be achieved. The actual numbers may vary
depending on efficiency of squeegees or air knives, and the rinse
ratio desired.
1393

-------
Significant flow reductions can be achieved by the addition of
only one other stage in the rinsing operation, as discussed
above. The largest reductions are made by adding the first few
stages. Additional rinsing stages cost additional money. The
actual number of stages added depends on site-specific layout and
operating conditions. With higher costs for water and waste
treatment, more stages might be economical. With very low water
costs, fewer stages would be economical. In considering retrofit
applications, the space available for additional tanks is also
important. After considering all of these points, the Agency
believes that countercurrent cascade rinsing is an effective and
economical means of reducing wastewater flow and consequently
pollutant discharge.
If the flow from stage to stage can be effected by gravity,
either by raising the latter rinse stage tanks or by varying the
height of the overflow weirs, countercurrent cascade rinsing is
usually quite economical. If, on the other hand, pumps and level
controls must be used, then other methods, such as spray rinsing,
may be more feasible.
Another factor is the need for agitation, which will reduce short
circuiting of the flow. Large amounts of short circuiting can
reduce the flow reduction attained by adding more stages. In
cases where water is cascading in enormous quantities over a
workpiece, the high flow usually provides enough agitation. As
more staging is applied to reduce the amount of water, the point
will be reached where the flow of the water itself is not
sufficient to provide agitation. This necessitates either
careful baffling of the tanks or additional mechanical agitation.
Countercurrent cascade rinsing has been widely used as a flow
reduction technique in the metal finishing industry. In aluminum
conversion coating lines that are subject to the coil coating
limitations, countercurrent cascade rinsing is currently used in
order to reduce costs of wastewater treatment systems (by
allowing use of smaller systems) for direct dischargers and
additionally to reduce sewer charges for indirect dischargers
since those costs are based on flow.
Countercurrent cascade rinsing is currently practiced at 12
nonferrous metals forming plants.
Spray Rinsing
Spray rinsing is another method used to dilute the concentration
of contaminants adhering to the surface of a workpiece. The
basis of this approach is to spray water onto the surface of the
workpiece as opposed to submerging it into a tank. The amount of
water contacting the workpiece, and therefore the amount of water
discharged, is minimized as a result. The water use and
discharge rates can be further reduced through recirculation of
the rinse water.
1394

-------
The equipment required for spray rinsing includes piping, spray
nozzles, a pump, a holding tank and a collection basin. Tne
holding tank may serve as the collection basin to collect the
rinse water prior to recirculation as a method of space
economization. Spray rinsing is demonstrated in plants in the
nonferrous metals forming category.
Regeneration of Chemical Baths
Regeneration of chemical baths is used to remove contaminants and
recover and reuse the bath chemicals, thus minimizing the
chemical requirements of the bath while achieving zero discharge.
Chemical bath regeneration is applicable to recover and reuse
chemicals associated with caustic surface treatment baths,
sulfuric acid surface treatment baths, chromic acid surface
treatment baths, and alkaline cleaning baths.
Some metal salts can be precipitated out of chemical baths by
applying a temperature change or shift to the bath. Once the
metal salts are precipitated out of solution, the chemical
properties and utility of the bath can then be restored by adding
fresh chemicals. The addition of lime may aid in precipitating
dissolved metals by forming carbonates or hydroxides.
Ultrafiltration, previously discussed in this section, can be
used to remove oils and particulates from alkaline cleaning
baths, allowing the recovery of the water and alkali values to be
a reused in the make-up of fresh bath rather than treating and
discharging them.
Ultrafiltration membranes allow only low molecular weight solutes
and water to pass through and return to the bath; particulates
and oils are held back in a concentrated phase. The concentrated
material is then disposed of separately as a solid waste.
The advantages of bath regeneration are: (1) it	reduces the
volume of discharge of the chemical bath water; (2)	the surface
treatment operations are made more efficient because the bath can
be kept at a relatively constant strength; (3) it	results in
reduced maintenance labor associated with the bath;	and (4) it
reduces chemical costs by recovering chemicals and increasing
bath life.
Chemical bath regeneration results in lower maintenance labor
because the bath life is extended. Regeneration also increases
the process reliability in that it eliminates extended periods of
downtime to dump the entire bath solution.
It may be necessary to allow baths normally operated at elevated
temperatures to cool prior to regeneration. As an example, hot
detergent baths will require cooling prior to introducing
material into the ultrafiltration membrane.
1395

-------
Regeneration of caustic, detergent, chromic acid, and sulfuric
acid baths results in the formation of precipitates. These
precipitates are collected, dewatered, if necessary, and then
disposed of as solid wastes. The metal sulfate precipitate
resulting from sulfuric acid baths may be commercially
marketable. The solid waste aspects of wastewater treatment
sludges similar to regeneration sludges are discussed in detail
in Section VIII.
There are commercial processes available for regenerating baths
which are patented or claimed confidential. In general, these
regeneration processes are based on the fundamental concepts
described above.
As discussed previously in this section, ultrafiltration is well
developed and commercially available for recovery of high
molecular weight liquids and solid contaminants. EPA is not
aware of any nonferrous metals forming plants that have applied
ultrafiltration for the purpose of regenerating bath materials.
There are two aluminum forming plants and one nonferrous metals
forming plant using ultrafiltration to recover spent lubricant
Since alkaline cleaning baths are used to remove these lubricants
from the metalsurface prior to further processing, it is
reasonable to assume that ultrafiltration is equally applicable
for separating these same lubricants from alkaline cleaning baths
used in nonferrous metals forming plants.
Regeneration may be applicable in specific applications in the
nonferrous metals forming category although at present it does
not appear to be applicable on a nationwide basis.
Contract Hauling
Contract hauling refers to the industry practice of contracting
with a firm to collect and transport wastes for off-site
disposal. This practice is particularly applicable to low-
volume, high concentration waste streams. Examples of such waste
streams in the nonferrous metals forming industry are pickling
baths, drawing lubricants, and cold rolling lubricants.
The dcp data identified several waste solvent haulers, most of
whom haul solvent in addition to their primary business of
hauling waste oils. The value of waste solvents seems to be
sufficient to make waste solvent hauling a viable business.
Telephone interviews conducted during the development of metal
finishing regulations indicate that the number of solvent haulers
is increasing and that their operations are becoming more
sophisticated because of the increased value of waste solvent.
In addition, a number of chemical suppliers include waste hauling
costs in their new solvent price. Some of the larger solvent
refiners make credit arrangements with their clientele; for
example, it was reported that one supplier returns 50 gallons of
refined solvent for every 100 gallons hauled.
1396

-------
Lubricating Oi1 and Deoilinq Solvent Recovery
The recycle of lubricating oils is a common practice in the
industry. The degree of recycle is dependent upon any in-line
treatment (e.g., filtration to remove metal fines and other
contaminants), and the useful life of the specific oil in its
application. Usually, this involves continuous recirculation of
the oil, with losses in the recycle loop from evaporation, oil
carried off by the metal product, and minor losses from in-line
treatment. Some plants periodically replace the entire batch of
oil once its required properties are depleted. In other cases, a
continuous bleed or blowdown stream of oil is withdrawn from the
recycle loop to maintain a constant level of oil quality. Fresh
make-up oil is added to compensate for the blowdown and other
losses, and in-line filtration is used between cycles.
Reuse of oil from spent emulsions used in rolling and drawing is
practiced at some plants. The free oil skimmed from gravity oil
and water separation, following emulsion breaking, is valuable.
This free oil contains some solids and water which must be
removed before the oil can be reused. The traditional treatment
involves acidifying the oil in a heated cooker, using steam coils
or live steam to heat the oil to a rolling boil. When the oil is
sufficiently heated, the steam is shut off and the oil and water
are permitted to separate. The collected floating oil layer is
suitable for use as supplemental boiler fuel or for some other
type of in-house reuse. Other plants choose to sell their oily
wastes to oil scavengers, rather than reclaiming the oil
themselves. The water phase from this operation is either sent
to treatment or, if of a high enough quality, it can be recycled
and used to make up fresh emulsion.
Some plants collected and recycle rolling oils via mist
eliminators. In the rolling process, pils are sprayed as a fine
mist on the rollers for cooling and lubricating purposes, and
some of this oil becomes airborne and may be lost via exhaust
fans or volatilization. With the rising price of oils, it is
becoming a more common practice to prevent these losses. Another
reason for using hood and mist eliminators is the improvement in
the working environment.
Using organic solvents to deoil or degrease nonferrous metals is
usually performed prior to sale or subsequent operations such as
coating. Recycling the spent solvent can be conomically
attractive along with its environmental advantages. No plants
are known to use distillation units to reclaim spent solvent for
recycling in this category. Most plants in this category
contract haul spent solvents or sell them to a reclaimer. No
nonferrous metals forming plants currently discharge spent
solvents as a direct discharge. There are several plants that
discharge spent solvents to a POTW; however, this practice is not
widespread and is subject to strict controls by the POTW for
those that do discharge. The Agency is establishing a no
discharge requirement for this waste stream. This is discussed
more fully in Sections IX through XIII.
1397

-------
Dry Air Pollution Control Devices
The use of dry air pollution control devices allows the
elimination of waste streams with high pollution potential, i.e.,
wastestreams from wet air pollution control devices. However,
the choice of air pollution control equipment is complicated, and
sometimes a wet system is the necessary choice. The important
difference between wet and dry devices is that wet devices
control gaseous pollutants as well as particulates.
Wet devices may be chosen over dry devices when any of the*
following factors are found: (1) the particle size is
predominantly under 20 microns, (2) flammable particles or gases
are to be treated and there is minimal combustion risk, (3) both
vapors and particles are to be removed from the carrier medium
and (4) the gases are corrosive and may damage dry air pollution
control devices.
Equipment for dry control of air emissions includes cyclones, dry
electrostatic precipitators, fabric filters, and afterburners.
These devices remove particulate matter, the first three by
entrapment and the afterburners by combustion.
Afterburner use is limited to air emissions consisting mostly of
combustible particles. Characteristics of the particulate-laden
gas which affect the design and use of a device are gas density,
temperature, viscosity, flammability, corrosiveness, toxicity,
humidity, and dew point. Particulate characteristics which
affect the design and use of a device are particle size, shape,
density, resistivity, concentration, and other physiochemical
properties.
Scrubbers must be used in forging because of the potential fire
hazard of baghouses used in this capacity. The oily mist
generated in this operation is highly flammable and also tends to
plug and bind fabric filters, reducing their efficiency.
Caustic surface treatment wet air pollution control is necessary
due to the corrosive nature of the gases.
Proper application of a dry control device can result in
particulate removal efficiencies greater than 99 percent by
weight for fabric filters, electrostatic precipitators, and
afterburners, and up to 95 percent for cyclones.
Common wet air pollution control devices are wet electrostatic
precipitators, venturi scrubbers, and packed tower scrubbers.
Collection efficiency for gases will depend on the solubility of
the contaminant in the scrubbing liquid. Depending on the
contaminant removed, collection efficiencies usually approach 99
percent for particles and gases.
Some nonferrous metals forming plants industry report the use of
dry air pollution controls for forging.
1398

-------
Good Housekeeping
Good housekeeping and proper equipment maintenance are necessary
factors in reducing wastewater loads to treatment systems.
Control of accidental spills of oils, process chemicals/ and
wastewater from washdown and filter cleaning or removal can aid
in maintaining the segregation of wastewater streams. Curbed
areas should be used to contain or control these wastes.
Leaks in pump casings, process piping, etc., should be minimized
to maintain efficient water use. One particular type of leakage
which may cause a water pollution problem is the contamination of
noncontact cooling water by hydraulic oils, especially if this
type of water is discharged without treatment.
Good housekeeping is also important in chemical, solvent, and oil
storage areas to preclude a catastrophic failure situation.
Storage areas should be isolated from high fire-hazard areas and
arranged so that if a fire or explosion occurs, treatment
facilities will not be overwhelmed nor excessive groundwater
pollution caused by large quantities of chemical-laden fire-
protection water.
Bath or rinse waters that drip off the metal product while it is
being transferred from one tank to another (dragout) should be
collected and returned to their originating tanks. This can be
done with simple drain boards.
A conscientiously applied program of water use reduction can be a
very effective method of curtailing unnecessary wastewater flows.
Judicious use of washdown water and avoidance of unattended
running hoses can significantly reduce water use.
1399

-------
TABLE VII-1
pH CONTROL EFFECT ON METALS REMOVAL
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
In	Out	In 	Out	In	Out
pH Range	2.4-3.4	8.5-8.7	1.0-3.0	5.0-6.0	2.0-5.0	6.5-8.1
(mg/1)
TSS	39 8	16	19	16 7
Copper	312	0.22	120	5.12	107	0.66
Zinc	250	0.31	32.5	25.0	43.8	0.66
TABLE VI1-2
EFFECTIVENESS OF SODIUM HYDROXIDE FOR METALS REMOVAL
Day 1	Day 2	Day 3
In	Out	In	Out	In	Out
pH Range
2.1-2.9
9.0-9.3
2.0-2.4
8.7-9.1
2.0-2.4
8.6-9
(mg/1)






Cr
0.097
0.0
0. 057
0.005
0.068
0.005
Cu
0.063
0.018
0.078
0.014
0.053
0.019
Fe
9.24
0.76
15.5
0.92
9.41
0.95
Pb
1 .0
0.11
1 .36
0.13
1 .45
0.1 1
Mn
0.1 1
0.06
0.12
0.044
0.1 1
0.044
Ni
0.077
0.01 1
0.036
0.009
0.069
0.01 1
Zn
. 054
0.0
0.12
0.0
0.1 9
0.037
TSS

13

1 1

1 1
1400

-------
TABLE VI1-3
EFFECTIVENESS OF LIME AND SODIUM HYDROXIDE FOR METALS REMOVAL

Day
In
1
Out
Day
In
2
Out
Day
In
3
Out
pH Range
9.2-9 . 6
8 . 3-9.8
9.2
7.6-8.1
9.6
7 . 8-8
(mg/I)






A1
37 . 3
0.35
38 . 1
0.35
29. 9
0.35
Co
3 . 92
0.0
4 .65
0.0
4 . 37
0.0
Cu
0.65
0. 003
0.63
0. 003
0.72
0. 003
Fe
137
0.49
1 1 0
0. 57
208
0 . 58
Mn
175
0.12
205
0.012
245
0.12
Ni
6.86
0.0
5.84
0.0
5.63
0.0
Se
28 . 6
0.0
30.2
0.0
27 . 4
0.0
Ti
143
0.0
1 25
0.0
1 1 5
0.0
Zn
18.5
0. 027
16.2
0. 044
17.0
0.01
TSS
4390
9
3595
1 3
2805
1 3
TABLE VI1-4
THEORETICAL SOLUBILITIES OF HYDROXIDES AND SULFIDES
OF SELECTED METALS IN PURE WATER
Solubility of metal ion, mq/I
Metal	As Hydroxide	As Carbonate	As Sulfide
Cadmium (Cd++)
2.3
X
1 0-5
1 . 0
X
1 o-4
6.7
X
1 0-1 0
Chromium (Cr+++)
8 . 4
X
1 0-4



No precipitate
Cobalt (Co++)
•2.2
X
1 o-i



1 . 0
X
1 0-8
Copper (Cu++)
2 . 2
X
1 0-2



5.8
X
1 0"1 8
Iron (Fe++)
8 . 9
X
1 o-i



3 . 4
X
1 0"5
Lead (Pb++)
2 . 1


7.0
X
1 0"3
3 . 8
X
1 o-9
Manganese (Mn++)
1 . 2





2. 1
X
1 o-3
Mercury (Hg++)
3 . 9
X
1 0-4
3 . 9
X
1 0-2
9.0
X
1 O-20
Nickel (Ni++)
6.9
X
1 0-3
1 . 9
X
1 0~1
6.9
X
1 0"8
Silver (Ag+)
13.3


2. 1
X
1 o-1
7 . 4
X
1 O-12
Tin (Sn++)
1 . 1
X
1 0-4



3.8
X
1 0-8
Zinc (Zn++)
1 . 1


7 . 0
X
1 0"4
2.3
X
10-7
1401

-------
TABLE VI1-5
SAMPLING DATA FROM SULFIDE
PRECIPITATION-SEDIMENTATION SYSTEMS
Lime, FeS, Poly-	Lime, FeS, Poly-	NaOH, Ferric
electrolyte,	electrolyte,	Chloride, Na2S
Treatment Settle, Filter	Settle, Filter	Clarify (1 stage
In	Out	In	Out	In	Out
pH 5.0-6.8 8-9	7.7 7.38
(mg/1)
Cr+6 25.6 <0.014	0.022 <0.020	11.45 <.005
Cr 32.3 <0.04	2.4 <0.1	18.35 <.005
Cu - -	-	0.029 0.003
Fe 0.52 0.10	108 0.6
Ni - -	0.68 <0.1
Zn 39.5 <0.07	33.9 0.01	0.060 0.009
These data were obtained from three sources:
Summary Report, Control and Treatment Technology for the
Metal Finishing Industry; Sulfide Precipitation, USEPA, EPA
No. 625/8/80-003, 1979.
Industrial Finishing, Vol. 35, No. 11, November, 1979.
Electroplating sampling data from plant 27045.
1402

-------
TABLE VI1-6
SULFIDE PRECIPITATION-SEDIMENTATI ON PERFORMANCE
Parameter
Treated Effluent
(mg/1)
Cd
Cr (T)
Cu
0.01
0.05
0,05
Pb
Hg
Ni
0.01
0.02
0 .05
Aq
Zn
0. 05
0.01
Table VII-6 is based on two reports:
Summary Report, Control and Treatment Technology for the
Metal Finishing Industry: Sulfide Precipitation, USEPA, EPA
No. 625/8/80-003, 1979.
Addendum to Development Document for Effluent Limitat ions
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards, Major
Inorganic Products Segment of Inorganics Point Source
Category, USEPA., EPA Contract No. EPA-68-01-3281 (Task 7),
June, 1978.
1403

-------

Table VII-7


FERRITE CO-PRECIPITATION
PERFORMANCE
Metal
Influent(mg/1)
Eff1uent(mg/1)
Mercury
7 . 4
0. 001
Cadmium
240
0. 008
Copper
1 0
0.010
Zinc
18
0.016
Chromium
10
<0.010
Manganese
1 2
0 . 007
N i ckel
1 ,000
0 . 200
Iron
600
0.06
Bismuth
240
0 . 1 00
Lead
475
0.010
NOTE: These
data are from:

Sources and
Treatment of Wastewater in
the Nonferrous
Metals Industry, USEPA, EPA No. 600/2-
80-074, 1980.

TABLE VI1-8


CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL CYANIDE

(mg/1)

Plant
Method In
Out
1057
FeS04 2.57
0.024

2.42
0.015

3.28
0. 032
33056
FeS04 0.14
0.09

0.16
0.09
1 2052
ZnS04 0.46
0.14

0.12
0. 06
Mean

o
o
•
1404


-------
Table VII-9
MULTIMEDIA FILTER PERFORMANCE
Plant ID #	TSS Effluent Concentration, mq/I
06097
0.0,
0.0,
0.5


1 3924
1.8,
2.2,
5.6,
4.0, 4.0,
3.0,

3.0,
2.0,
5.6,
3.6, 2.4,
3 . 4
1 8538
1 . 0




30172
1.4,
7.0,
1 . 0


36048
2.1 ,
2.6,
1 . 5


mean
2.61




TABLE VI I-10
PERFORMANCE OF SELECTED SETTLING SYSTEMS
PLANT ID SETTLING	SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION (mg/1)
DEVICE	Day 1	Day 2	Day 3
In	Out In	Out In	Out
01057
Lagoon
54
6
56
6
50
5
09025
Clarifier &
1 1 00
9
1 900
1 2
1 620
5

Settling







Ponds






11058
Clarif ier
451
1 7
—
—
-
—
12075
Settling
284
6
242
1 0
502
1 4

Pond






19019
Settling
170
1
50
1
-
-

Tank






33617
Clarif ier &
-
-
1662
1 6
1 298
4

Lagoon






40063
Clarifier
4390
9
3595
1 2
2805
1 3
44062
Clarifier
1 82
1 3
1 1 8
1 4
1 74
23
46050
Settling
295
1 0
42
1 0
1 53
8

Tank






1405

-------
Table VII-11
SKIMMING PERFORMANCE
Oil & Grease
mg/1
Plant Skimmer Type	In	Out
06058	API	224,669	17.9
06058	Belt	19.4	8.3
1406

-------
TABLE VII-12
SELECTED PARITION COEFFICIENTS
Log Octanol/Water
Priority Pollutant	Partition Coefficient
1
Acenaphthene
4 . 33
11
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
2.17
1 3
1,1-Dichloroethane
1.79
1 5
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
2. 56
1 8
Bis(2-chloroethy1)ether
1 . 58
23
Chloroform
1 . 97
29
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1 . 48
39
Fluoranthene
5 . 33
44
Methylene chloride
1 . 25
64
Pentachlorophenol
5.01
66
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)


phthalate
8 .73
67
Butyl benzyl phthalate
5. 80
68
Di-n-butyl phthalate
5 . 20
72
Benzo(a)anthracene
5.61
73
Benzo(a)pyrene
6.04
74
3,4-benzof1uoranthene
6.57
75
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene
6. 84
76
Chrysene
5.61
77
Acenaphthylene
4 . 07
78
Anthracene
4 .45
79
Benzo(ghi)perylene
7 . 23
80
Fluorene
4.18
81
Phenanthrene
4 .46
82
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
5.97
83
Indeno(1,2,3,cd)pyrene
7 . 66
84
Pyrene
5 .32
85
Tetrachloroethylene
2.88
86
Toluene
2.69
1407

-------
TABLE VII-13
TRACE ORGANIC REMOVAL BY SKIMMING
API PLUS BELT SKIMMERS
(From Plant 06058)
Oil & Grease
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Naphthalene
N-ni trosodiphenylamine
Bis-2-ethy1hexy1 phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Butylbenzyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Anthracene - phenanthrene
Toluene
Inf .
mg/1
225,000
0 .023
0.013
2.31
59.0
11.0
0. 005
0.019
16.4
0.02
Eff .
mg/1
14.6
0. 007
0.012
0. 004
0.182
0. 027
0
0
0
0
002
002
014
012


Table
1
>


COMBINED
METALS DATA
EFFLUENT VALUES
(mg/1)


One Day
10 Day Avg.
30 Day

Mean
Max.
Max.
Max
Cd
0.079
0.34
0.15
0.13
Cr
0. 084
0.44
0.18
0.12
Cu
0. 58
1 .90
1 .00
0.73
Pb
0.12
0.42
0.20
0.16
Ni
0.74
1 . 92
1 . 27
1 . 00
Zn
0. 33
1 .46
0.61
0.45
Fe
0.41
1 .20
0.61
0. 50
Mn
0.16
0.68
0.29
0.21
TSS
12.0
41.0
19.5
15.5
1408

-------
TABLE VI1-15
L&S PERFORMANCE
ADDITIONAL POLLUTANTS
Pol 1utant	Average Performance (mq 71'
Sb	0.7
As	0.51
Be	0.3 0
Hg	0.06
Se	0.30
Ag	0.10
T1	0.50
A1	2.24
Co	0.05
F	14.5
TABLE VII-16
COMBINED METALS DATA SET - UNTREATED WASTEWATER
Pollutant	Min. Cone (mq/1)	Max. Cone, (mq/1)
Cd	<0.1	3.83
Cr	<0.1	116
Cu	<0.1	108
Pb	<0.1	29.2
Ni	<0.1	27 . 5
Zn	<0.1	337.
Fe	<0.1	263
Mn	<0.1	5.98
TSS	4.6	4390
1409

-------
Table VII - 17





MAXIMUM POLLUTANT LEVEL
IN UNTREATED
WASTEWATER











ADDITIONAL POLLUTANTS (MG/L)












Barium,








Arsenic &


Boron &

Molybdenum f





Columblum &
POLLUTANT
Antimony
Selenium
Beryllium
Silver
Vanadium
Fluoride
& Uranium
Radiunr-226
Tin
Titanium
Tungsten
Zi rconium
Tantalum
Antimony
8.5
_


_
«.

_



_
_
Arsenic
0.024
4.2
-
-
0.008
-
-
0.008
-
-
-
-
-
Beryllium
-
-
10.24
-
<0.02
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cadmium
0.83
<0.1
•
<0,1
0.043
<0.1
<0.25
-
1.88
<0,25
<0.03
<0.25
9.2
Chromium
-
0,18
8.60
0.23
14.0
22.8
0.4
0.035
79.2
0.4
0.07
<0,3
13
Coppe r
0.41
33.2
1.24
110.5
2.4
2.2
4.7
0.02
107,0
4.7
0.2
0.5
120
Lead
76.0
6.5
0.35
11.4
2.70
5.35
9.2
0.065
0.1 68
9.2
0,2
22
160
Mercury
-
-
-

-
-
-
•
-
-
-
-
-
Nickel
-
-
-
100
34.0
0.69
1.4
0,06
47.7
1.4
0.9
<0.25
170
Selenium
-
0.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
—

Sliver
-
-
-
4.7
0.001
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.2
Zinc
0.53
3.62
0.12
1512
0.3
<0.1
0.6
0.17
197
0.6
1.0
<0.25
0.5
Barium
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.6
-


-
—
_
Boron
-
-
-

1 7.0
-
1,6
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cobalt
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
Columblutn
-
-
-
-
-
•
-

_
—


98
Fluoride
-
-
-
-
1050
760
12
-
9.25
12
-
-
-
Iron
-
—
646
•
62.0
-
-
-
38.3
-
-
-
-
Molybdenum
-
-
-
•
0.5
-
9.2
0.07

_

-

Radia n-226*
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1090
-
-
-

-
Tantalum
-
-
•
-
—
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
90
Tin
-
_
-
-
1.1
-
-
-
4.39
_

-

Titanium
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
24
12
-
170
Tungsten
—
—
-
-
—
-
—
-
-
-
2.4
-
37
Uranium
_
-
-
-
-
-
230
10.53
-
230
—
-

Vanadium
-
_

-

37
6.0
_
-
_
-
-
-
Zirconium
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
170
6.7
Oil & Grease
-
16.9
-
16
34
2.8
220
-
33
220
<1
860
72
Total













Suspended













Solids
134
352
796
587.8
690
5.6
420
1639
3500
420
<1
42
450
* Value In plcocuries per liter.
(—) Indicates pollutant not analyzed

-------
TABLE VI1-18
PRECIPITATION-SETTLING-FILTRATION (LS&F) PERFORMANCE
Plant A
Parameters
No Pts.
For 1979-Treated Wastewater
Range mq/I
Mean +
std. dev.
Mean + 2
std. dev

Cr
47
0.015

0.13
0.045
+0.029
0.10

Cu
1 2
0.01
-
0. 03
0.019
+0.006
0.03

Ni
47
0. 08
-
0. 64
0.22
+ 0.13
0.48

Zn
47
0. 08
-
0.53
0.17
+ 0. 09
0. 35

Fe







For
1 978-
Treated Wastewater






Cr
47
0.01
—
0.07
0. 06
+ 0.10
0. 26

Cu
28
0.005
-
0.055
0.016
+0.010
0. 04

Ni
47
0.10
-
0. 92
0. 20
+ 0.14
0.48

Zn
47
0. 08
-
2.35
0.23
+ 0. 34
0.91

Fe
21
0. 26
-
1 . 1
0.49
+ 0.18
0.85
Raw
Waste








Cr
5
32.0
_
72.0




Cu
5
0. 08
-
0.45




Ni
5
1 .65
-
20. 0




Zn
5
33 . 2
-
32.0




Fe
5
10.0
-
95.0



1411

-------
TABLE VII-19
PRECIPITATION-SETTLING-FILTRATION (LS&F) PERFORMANCE
Plant B
Mean +	Mean + 2
Parameters No Pts. Range mq/1 std. dev. std. dev.
For 1 979-Treated Wastewater
Cr
175
0.0
- 0.40
0. 068
+0.075
0. 22
Cu
176
0.0
- 0.22
0. 024
+0.021
0. 07
Ni
175
0.01
-1.49
0.219
+0.234
0.69
Zn
175
0.01
- 0.66
0. 054
+0.064
0.18
Fe
174
0.01
- 2.40
0. 303
+0.398
1.10
TSS
2
1 .00
- 1 .00



For 1978-Treated Wastewater
Cr
144
0.0
- 0.70
0.059
+0.088
0 . 24
Cu
143
0.0
- 0.23
0.017
+0.020
0.06
N i
143
0.0
- 1 . 03
0.147
+0.142
0.4 3
Zn
131
0.0
- 0.24
0. 037
+0.034
0.11
Fe
144
0.0
- 1 .76
0. 200
+0.223
0.47
Total 1974-1979-Treated Wastewater
0.0
- 0.56
0. 038
+0.055
0.15
0.0
- 0.23
0.011
+0.016
0. 04
0.0
- 1 . 88
0. 184
+0.211
0. 60
0.0
- 0.66
0. 035
+0.045
0. 13
0.0
-3.15
0.402
+0.509
1 .42
Cr	1288
Cu	1290
Ni	1287
Zn	1273
Fe	1287
Raw Waste
Cr	3	2.80-9.15 5.90
Cu	3	0.09 - 0.27 0.17
Ni	3	1.61 - 4.89 3.33
Zn	2	2.35 - 3.39
Fe	3	3.13 -35.9 22.4
TSS	2	177 -466.
1412

-------
TABLE VI1-20
PRECIPITATION-SETTLING-FILTRATION (LS&F) PERFORMANCE
Plant C
For Treated Wastewater	Mean +	Mean + 2
Parameters No Pts. Range mq/1	std. dev. std, dev.
For Treated Wastewater
Cd	103	0.010	- 0,500	0.049 +0.049 0.147
Zn	103	0.039 - 0.899	0.290 +0.131 0.552
TSS	103	0.100	- 5.00	1.244 +1.043 3.33
pH	103	7.1	- 7.9	9.2*
For Untreated Wastewater
Cd	103	0.039 - 2.319	0.542 +0.381 1.304
Zn	103	0.949	-29.8	11.009 16.933 24.956
Fe	3	0.107	- 0.46	0.255
TSS	103	0.80	-19.6	5.616 +2.896 11.408
pH	103	6.8	-8.2	7.6*
* pH value is median of 103 values.
1413

-------
Table VII-21
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS (mg/1)
I—1
I—1
L8.S Technology System
LS&F Technology System
Sulfide Precipitation Filtration
Pol 1utant

One-Day
10-Day
30-Day

One-Day
1 0-Day
30-Day

One-Day
1 0-Day
30-Day
Parameter
Mean
Ma x i mum
Average
Average
Mean
Max i mum
Average
Average
Mean
Ma x i mum
Average
Averagi
1 14
Sb
0.70
2.87
1 . 28
1.14
0 . 47
1 .93
0.86
0.76




1 15
As
0.5 1
2.09
0 .93
0.83
0.34
1 . 39
0 . 62
0.55




1 1 7
Be
0.30
1 . 23
0.55
0.49
0.20
0.82
0 . 37
0 . 32




1 18
Cd
0.079
0 . 34
0.15
0.13
0.049
0 . 20
0.08
0.08
0.01
0.04
0.018
0.016
1 19
Cr
0.084
0 . 44
0.18
0.12
0 .07
0.37
0.15
0.10
0.08
0.21
0.091
0.081
1 20
Cu
0.58
1 .90
1 .00
0.73
0.39
1 . 28
0.61
0.49
0.05
0.21
0.091
0.001
121
CN
0.07
0 . 29
0.12
0.11
0.047
0. 20
0.08
o
o
CD




1 22
Pb
0.12
0 .42
0. 20
0.16
0 .08
0. 28
0.13
0.11
0.01
0.04
0.018
0.016
1 23
Hg
0.06
0 . 25
0.10
0.10
0.036
0.15
0.06
0.06
0.03
0.13
0.0555
0.049
1 24
Ni
0 . 74
1 .92
1 . 27
1 .00
0 .22
0.55
0.37
0. 29
0.05
0.21
0.091
0.081
1 25
Se
0.30
1 . 23
0.55
0.49
0 . 20
0.82
0 . 37
0 . 33




1 26
Ag
0.10
0.41
0.17
0.16
0.07
0 . 29
0.12
0.10
0.05
0.21
0.091
0.081
1 27
T 1
0.50
2 .05
0.91
0.81
0.34
1 . 40
0.61
0 .55




1 28
Zn
0.33
1 .46
0.61
0.45
0. 23
1 .02
0.42
0.31
O
o
0.04
0.018
0.016

A 1
2 . 24
6.43
3 . 20
2.52
1 . 49
6.11
2.71
2.41





Co
0.05
0.21
0.09
0.08
0 .034
0.14
0.07
0.06





F
14.5
59.5
26.4
23.5

59.5
26 . 4
23.5





Fe
0.41
1 . 20
0.61
0.50
0 . 28
1 . 20
0.61
0 . 50





Mn
0.16
0.68
0.29
0.21
0.14
0 . 30
0 . 23
0.19





P
4.08
16.7
6.83
6. 60
2 .72
11.2
4.6
4 . 4





O&G

20.0
12.0
10.0

10.0
10.0
10.0




TSS
12.0
41.0
19.5
15.5
2.6
15.0
12.0
10.0

-------
Table VII-22
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS FOR SELECTED NONCONVFNT I ONAL METAL POLLUTANTS (mg/1)
Pol 'u t an t
Pa rame ter
Mean
L&S Technology S/stem
One-Day	1D-Day
Ma x i mum
Average
LS8.F Technology System
30-Day	One-Day 10~Day	30-Day
Average	Mean Maximum Average Average
NH3
Cb
Au
32 . 2
~ *
* *
133.3
0,12*
0 . 1
58. 6
* *
» *
52 . 1
* *
* »
32,2
* *
* *
133.3
0.12*
D , 1
58 . 6
* *
* *
52.1
* *
* *
HF
Mg
Mo
7 .28
» »
1 . 83
28 . 8
0.1*
6.61
13.9
* *
3 .42
NC
* »
NC
4.81
* *
1 . 23
19.7
0.1*
5 . 03
9.01
* *
2 . 23
NC
* *
NC
Pt
Ta
1 i
» *
* »
0.19
0 . 1
0.45*
D .94
* »
* »
0.41
* *
* *
NC
~ *
» *
0.13
0 . 1
0 . 45*
0 . 53
* *
* *
0 . 23
* *
* »
NC
M
ui
w
u
V
1 . 29
4 . 00
* *
6.96
6.50
0.1*
2 . 78
4 . 73
~ +
NC
NC
* *
0.85
2 .67
* *
3	. 40
4	. 29
0.1*
1 .55
3.12
* *
NC
NC
Zr
7 . 20
28 . 8
13.9
NC
4.01
19.7
9.01
NC
'•None established.
~Limits of detection.
NC - Not calculated.

-------
TABLE VII-23
TREATABILITY BATING OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
UTILIZING CAnBON ADSORPTION
'MidtiI	•Removal
Priority Pollutant
Rating
Priority Pollutant
Rating
1.
acanaphthane
H
49.
trichlorofluoronathana
M
2.
acrolain
L
50.
dichlorodifluoroaathane
L
3.
acrylonitrila
L
51.
chlorodibroaoaathane
M
4.
banian
N
52.
hexaehlorobutadiane
n
5.
benzidine
e
53.
hexachlorocyclopentadiane
H
6.
carbon tetrachloride
M
54.
iaophorona
B

(tetrachloroaaa thane)

55.
naphthalene
H
7.
chlorobenzene
e
56.
nitrobenzene
H
a.
1,2,3-trichlorobanxana
B
57.
2-nitrophaaol
H
9.
hexachlorobenzene
H
58.
4-oicrophanol
B
10.
1,2-diehloroathana
M
59.
2,4-dinifcrophenol
B
11.
1,1,1-trichloroethane
M
60.
4,6-dlnifcro—o-creaol
H
12.
haxachloroathane
H
61.
Tl ill 1 i iimilliael lif 1 aallie
M
13.
1,1-dichloroethane
M
62.
H-nitroaodiphanylamina
B
14.
1,1,2-trichloroathana
N
63.
S-nltroaodl-n-propylaMine
M
15.
1,1,2,2-tetrachlorethane
B
64.
pentachlorophano1
B
16.
chloroethane
L
65.
phenol
M
17.
bla(chlorowethy1) ether
-
66.
bia(2-athylhexy1)phthalata
H
ia.
bia(2-chloroathyl) athar
N
67.
butyl benzyl phthalata
H
19.
2-chloroetbylvlnyl athar
L
68.
di-n-butyl phthalata
B

(mixed)

69.
di-n—octyl phthalata
H
20.
2-chloronaphthaleiie
H
70.
diethyl phthalata
B
21.
2,4,6-trichlorophaaol
B
71.
dimethyl phthalata
H
22.
parachloroaata eraaol
B
72.
1,2-benzanthracene
a
23.
chlorofon* (trichloraaaathane)
L

(banco(a)anthracene)

24.
2-chlorophanol
B
73.
benxo(aJpyrmne (3,4-benzo-
B
25-
1,.2-di chlorobenzene
B

pyrana)

26.
1,3-di chlorobenzene
H
74.
3,4-banxofluoranthane
a
27.
1,4-di chlorobanzana
B

(banco(b)fluoranthana)

2B.
3,3' -dicillorobexizidina
B
75.
11,12-benxofluoranthane
a
29.
1,1-di chloroe tirylena
L

(banco(k)fluoranthana)

30.
1,2-trana-dichloroethylane
L
76.
chryaane
H
31.
2,4-dlchloropbanol
B
77.
acanaphttoylena
H
32.
1,2-dichloropropana
M
78.
anthracene
B
33.
1,2-dichloropropylena
N
79.
1,12-benzoparylena (banco
B

(1,3-dichloropropene)


(ghiJ-parylane)

34.
2,4-dinathylphanol
B
80.
floorano
B
35.
2,4-dinitrotoluana
B
81.
phenanthrena
H
36.
2,6—dlnitzotoluana
a
82.
1,2,3,6-dibaneanthrac—.a
R
37.
1,2-diphenylhydrazina
H

(dibanzo(a,b) anthracene)

38.
athylbanzana
M
83.
indano (1,2,3-cd) pyrane
H
39.
fluoranthana
B

(2,3-o-phenyl ana pyrene)

40.
4-chlorophanyl phenyl athar
a
84.
pyrene
-
41.
4-bromo phenyl phenyl athar
B
85.
tatrachloroathylana
H
42.
bia ( 2-chloroiaopropy1)athar
K
86.
toluene
H
43.
bia (2 -chloroethcnry)aethane
N
87.
tri chloroathylane
L
44.
methylene chlorida
L
88.
vinyl chlorida
L

(dichlorowvthane)


(chloroethylene)

45.
aathyl chlorida (chloroaathaaa)
L
106.
PCB-1242 (Aroelor 1242)
n
46.
methyl broad.de (broaoaathana)
L
107.
PC9-1254 (Aroelor 1254)
B
47.
brmof ora (txlbroini methane)
H
100.
PCB-1221 (Aroelor 1221)
H
48.
dichlorobroaoaathana
N
109.
PC3-1232 (Aroelor 1232)
H



110.
PCB-1248 (Aroelor 1249)
H



111.
PCB-1260 (Aroelor 1260)
a



112.
PCB-1016 (Aroelor 1016)
H
•Kota Explanation of Raaoval Ra tinge
Category a (high raaoval)
adsorb! at lavala Ł 100 mg/g carbon at cf - 10 mq/1
adaorba at levels 2,100 tag/g carbon at C^ < 1.0 tng/1
catagory H (iaodarata raaoval)
adaorba at lavala i 100 mg/g carbon at Cf - 10 hhj/1
adaorba at lavala Ł 100 ig/g carbon at < 1,0 ng/1
Catagory L (low ranoval)
adaorba at lavala < 100 mg/g carbon at " 10 ag/1
adaorba at lavala < 10 Bg/g carbon at <1.0 og/1
C ¦ final concantratlona of priority pollutant at equilibrium
1416

-------
Table VII - 24
CLASSES OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ADSORBED ON CARBON
Organic Chemical Class
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Polynuclear Aromatics
Chlorinated Aromatics
Phenolics
Chlorinated Phenolics
High Molecular Weight Aliphatic and
Branch Chain Hydrocarbons
Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
High Molecular Weight Aliphatic Acids
and Aromatic Acids
High Molecular Weight Aliphatic Amines
and Aromatic Amines
High Molecular Weight Ketones, Esters,
Ethers and Alcohols
Surfactants
Soluble Organic Dyes
Examples of Chemical Cla9s
benzene, toluene, xylene
naphthalene, anthracene
bephenyIs
chlorobenzene, polychlorinated
biphenyls, aldrin, er.drin,
toxaphene, DDT
phenol, cresol, resorcer.ol
and polyp'nenyls
trichlorophenol, pentachloro-
pheno1
gasoline, kerosine
carbon tetrachloride,
perchloroethylene
tar acids, benzoic acid
aniline, toluene diamine
hydroquinone, polyethylene
glycol
alkyl benzene sulfonates
melkylene blue, Indigo carmine
High Molecular Weight includes compounds in the broad range of from 4 to 20
carbon atoms.
1417

-------
Table VII-25
ACTIVATED CARBON PERFORMANCE (MERCURY)
Mercury levels -	mq/1
Plant	In	Out
A	28.0	0.9
B	0.36	0.015
C	0.008	0.0005
Table VII-26
ION EXCHANGE PERFORMANCE
Parameter
Plant
A
Plant
B

Prior To
After
Prior To
After

Pur if i-
Purifi-
Purifi-
Pur i f i
All Values mg/1
cation
cation
cation
cation
A1
5.6
0.20
_
_
Cd
5.7
0.00
—

Cr + 3
3. 1
0.01
-
-
Cr + 6
7. 1
0.01


Cu
4.5
0. 09
43.0
0.10
CN
9.8
0. 04
3.40
0. 09
Au
—
—
2. 30
o
o
Fe
7.4
o
o
—
—
Pb
—
-
1 . 70
o
o
Mn
4.4
0.00
	
	
Ni
6.2
0.00
1 .60
0. 01
Ag
1 . 5
0.00
9.10
0. 01
SO 4
—
—
210.00
2. 00
Sn
1 .7
0.00
1.10
0.10
Zn
14.8
0.40
—
_
1418

-------
Table VII-27
MEMBRANE FILTRATION SYSTEM EFFLUENT
Speci f ic
Metal
A1
Cr,
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
CN
Ni
Zn
TSS
( + 6
(T)
Manufacturers
Guarantee
0.5
0 . 02
0.03
0. 1
0. 1
0.05
0. 02
0
0.
1
Plant 19066
In	Out
0.46	0.01
4.13	0,018
IB.8	0.043
2B8	0,3
0.652	0,01
<0.005	<0,005
9,56	0.017
2.09	0.046
632	0.1
Plant 31022
In Out
5 . 25
98 . 4
8.00
<0.005
0. 057
0. 222
21.1 0.263
0.288 0.01
<0.005 <0.005
1 94
5. 00
13.0
0. 352
0.051
8. 0
Pred i cted
Performanc
0. 05
0. 20
0 .30
0.05
0. 02
0.40
0.10
1 . 0
Table VII-28
PEAT ADSORPTION PERFORMANCE
Pol1utant	In	Out
(mg/1)
Cr+6	35,000	0.04
Cu	250	0.24
CN	36.0	0,7
Pt>	20.0	0.025
Hg	1.0	0.02
Ni	2.5	0.07
Ag	1.0	0.05
Sb	2.5	0.9
Zn	1.5	0.25
1419

-------
Table VII-29
ULTRAFILTRATION PERFORMANCE
Parameter	Feed (mq/1)	Permeate (mq/1)
Oil (freon extractable)	1230	4
COD	8920	148
TSS	1380	13
Total Solids	2900	296
1420

-------
TABLE VI1-3 0
CHEMICAL EMULSION BREAKING EFFICIENCIES
Concentration (mq/1
Parameter
I nf1uent
Ef f1uent
Ref erence
O&G
6, 060
98
Sampling data*
TSS
2,612
46

O&G
13,000
277
Sampling data+

18,400
	


21,300
189

TSS
540
121


680
59


1 , 060
140

O&G
2, 300
52
Sampling data**

12,500
27


13,800
1 8

TSS
1 , 650
187


2, 200
1 53


3,470
63

O&G
7, 200
80
Katnick and Pavilcius,
*Oil and grease and total suspended solids were taken as grab
samples before and after batch emulsion breaking treatment which
used alumn and polymer on emulsified rolling oil wastewater.
+0il and grease (grab) and total suspended solids (grab) samples
were taken on three consecutive days from emulsified rolling
oil wastewater. A commercial demuIsifier was used in this batch
treatment.
**0il and grease (grab) and total suspended solids (composite)
samples were taken on three consecutive days from emulsified
rolling oil wastewater. A commercial demulsifier (polymer)
was used in this batch treatment.
++This result is from a full-scale batch chemical treatment system
for emulsified oils from a steel rolling mill.
1421

-------
10
10

10
10
Zn(OH)
Cd(OH)
10
2 ioJ
Cu(OH)
COS
10
ZnS
CdS
PbS
I 0
10
10*' 1
7
11
4
3
5
12
IS
2
10
PH
FIGURE VIM. COMPARATIVE SOLUBILITIES OF METAL HYDROXIDES
AND SULFIDE AS A FUNCTION OF pH
1422

-------
0.40
0.30
CAUSTIC SODA
20
SODA ASH AND
CAUSTIC SODA
1 0
LIME
0
6.5
6.0
9.0
9.5
PH
FIGURE VII-2. LEAD SOLUBILITY IN THREE ALKALIES
1423

-------




0









0 0




1 <
o
(
0
(cx> S




o
c
o
e c
o

o

o
o
o o
o
,	oQ 1



3
c

o



X
ft
»-
z
u
3
-l
|L
L.
u
Z
3
Z
Ł
X
c.
z
tu
D
bf
U.
UJ
2
3
5
z
V)
>
z
o
H
<
tt
*-
z
UJ
u
z
o
u
o
z
N
z
UJ
D
-J
L.
b.
Ui
>
Ui
tt
D
(3
[Z
h/OM) N0I1VH1NS3N03 3NIZ INiniiJl
1424

-------
1.0
NJ
LP
0.1
C
QJ
U
c
o
o
E
a
E
"O
ro
U
0.01
~S
^e-
0.001
0.01
lYlfTi
Data points with a raw waste concentration
less than 0.1 mg/l were not included in
treatment effectiveness calculations.
0.1
1.0
Cadmium Raw Waste Concentration (mg/l)
10	100
(Number of observations - 2)
FIGURE VII-4
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
CADMIUM

-------
(|/Bui) uojieiiuaouo3 iuan|y3 paieajj. uimuiojiio
1426

-------
10
®
®
- 1.0
(•I
o
o
4^
NJ
^0
o
CJ
®
"E"
'¦>
0
O
0.1
ft
0.01
I /-abr4^\l
0.1
1.0
10
Copper Raw Waste Concentration (mg/l)
100	1000
(Number of observations = 18)
FIGURE VII-6
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
COPPER

-------
1.0
NJ
00
O)
E
o
ra
o
o
a>
_3
!fc
a>
E
0.1
0.01
0.001

















































































































































































































































































































(
©
» §









0
)
















































































































































































































































































































®


































































































































































































































































































































rana a
a ar
im i
ao


f,
•>



















0.01
0.1
1.0
Lead Raw Waste Concentration (mg/l)
10	100
(Number of observations = 22)
FIGURE VII-7
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
LEAD

-------
10
x
~c*
[NJ

01
Ł	~
2	1
2	g
4-^	O
0)	CO
CJ	>-
§	=
O	S
+*	c
c	o
OJ	CJ
=	«-
3=	=
rr.	«
a>
=	15
B	Ł
?	t
1	.2
J3	U
<	z
x	©
1.0
0.1
0.01
J2
_©_
©
Jaaai
a
©
X
X X
0.1
1.0	10
© Nickel Raw Waste Concentration (mg/l)
x Aluminum Raw Waste Concentration (mg/l)
100
(Number of observations = 12)
(Number of observations = 11)
1000
FIGURE VII-8
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
NICKEL AND ALUMINUM

-------
10
U>
O
o
'~3
re
o
u
T3
0)
o
.S
M
1.0
0.1
0.01
















































































































































































































































































































•>






















W




























































(
E>
















(ii

















































©





<•
)




















/7\























©

©





















i
9
f
D


































>
©







C
>

































vS?




























































)


•J
















































































































































©
















©









©



































9






©
















IS\


































0.1
1.0
10
100
1000
Zinc Raw Waste Concentration (mg/l)
(Number of observations = 28)
FIGURE VII-9
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
ZINC

-------
10
1.0
E
O
c
o
o
OJ
0.1
o.oi























































































































































































































































































©

















r
*










©































,•]













































&
























i
•J






























&












ri
1


























































































©

A)
*)


























(
(
)
^ <













©

















®




j



©

(•>
























vsv-








w


































































































yzxzj












































































































©







I
















































































—@	

















0.1
1.0
10
Iron Raw Waste Concentration (mg/l)
100	1000
(Number of observations = 28)
FIGURE VII-10
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
IRON

-------
10
J*
U)
NJ
E
E
01
u
c
e
o
0.1
0.01
8.
c
Ł
0.001























































































































































































9


/





























<:
>





Q
¦




























































































fj












































































































































































3©



































































































































































































































































































































































































































Gi





























¦




0.1
1.0	10
Manganese Raw Waste Concentration (mg/l)
100	1000
(Number of observations = 10)
FIGURE VII-11
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
MANGANESE

-------
1000
c
c
o
u
¦*->
c
03
U>
UJ
CO
CO
100
10
1.0































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































r
>
(J
)




©

©






(
)





©

















0

©

©




©

(
D

















c
(
)
)



®
©

(
>





© ©
9
rz

©





©
©
®
©




























































it>











zr-
















































































ci
1)








yy

























u.
)






















	—ry- H




























































































ri













j









1.0
10
100
TSS Raw Waste Concentration (mg/l)
1000	10,000
(Number of observations = 45)
FIGURE VII-12
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
TSS

-------
SULFURIC SULFUR
ACID	DIOXIDE
LIME OR CAUSTIC
pM CONTROLLER O—!
CO
RAW WASTE
(HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM)
ORP CONTROLLER
(TRIVALENT CHROMIUM)
pH CONTROLLER
REACTION TANK
PRECIPITATION TANK
TO CLARIFIER
(CHROMIUM
HYDROXIDE)
FIGURE VII-13. HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM REDUCTION WITH SULFUR DIOXIDE

-------
influent
ALUM
EFFLUENT
WATER
LEVEL
STORED
BACKWASH
WATER
• •-•—FILTER
¦Hbackwash
THREE WAY VALVE
FILTER
COMPARTMENT
COAL
SAND
COLLECTION CHAMBER
SUMP
DRAIN
FIGURE Vll-14.
GRANULAR BED FILTRATION
1435

-------
PERFORATED
BACKING PLATE
FABRIC
FILTER MEDIUM
SOLID
RECTANGULAR
END PLATE
-A.
INLET
SLUDGE
FABRIC
FILTER MEDIUM
ENTRAPPED SOLIDS
PLATES AND FRAMES ARE
PRESSED TOGETHER DURING
FILTRATION CYCLE
RECTANGULAR
METAL PLATE
FILTERED LIQUID OUTLET
RECTANGULAR FRAME
FIGURE VII-15. PRESSURE FILTRATION
1436

-------
SEDIMENTATION BASIN
INLET ZONE
INLET LIQUID
BAFFLES TO MAINTAIN
QUIESCENT CONDITIONS
NT *	* * SETTLING PARTICLE *
'U _ < • • . ^4.— • . TRAJECTORY . «.y
——*¦ . • • • • '""m. • , . \ . . ¦ A
*• • • . , • • . * ", •
•	. • it v{*>• •
•	• • . • • * I • I • * V. v* r I - ~
*.** * - i •<•*r*V'
. :..yfrfe rf-. . v	i-1^1
•s:•( -f. • y r, •; rr,	J
OUTLET ZONE
OUTLET LIQUID
BELT-TYPE SOLIDS COLLECTION
MECHANISM
SETTLED PARTICLES COLLECTED
AND PERIODICALLY REMOVED
CIRCULAR CLARIFIER
CIRCULAR BAFFLE
INLET LIQUID
ANNULAR OVERFLOW WEIR
OUTLET LIQUID
INLET ZONE
LIQUID
FLOW ,
SETTLING ZONE
SETTLING PARTICLES
.V
SETTLED PARTICLES
COLLECTED AND PERIODICALLY
REMOVED
REVOLVING COLLECTION
MECHANISM
SLUDGE DRAWOFF
FIGURE V11-16. REPRESENTATIVE TYPES OF SEDIMENTATION
1437

-------
«
WABTK WATIR
IACKWAIH
INFLUENT——
DISTRIBUTOR
ION
SURFACE WASH
MANIFOLD
CARBON BED
IACKWAIH
TREATED WATER
FIGURE Vll-17. ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION COLUMN
1438

-------
LIQUID
OUTLET
DRYING
ZONE
CONVEYOR DRIVE
LIQUID ZONE
BOWL DRIVE
CZ3
SLUDGE
INLET
<1? r-'v-f
SLUDGE
DISCHARGE
CYCLOGEAR
CONVEYOR
BOWL
REGULATING
RING
MPELLER
FIGURE VII-18. CENTRIFUGATION
1439

-------
RAW WASTE
CAUSTIC
SODA
»H
CONTROLLER
ORP CONTROLLERS
CAUSTIC
SODA
»H
CONTROLLER
WATER
CONTAINING
CANATE
CO
CIRCULATING
PUMP ~~7
CHLORINE
REACTION TANK
REACTION TANK
CHLORIN ATOR
FIGURE VII-19. TREATMENT OF CYANIDE WASTE BY ALKALINE CHLORINATION

-------
WASTE
OZONE
REACTION
TANK
CONTROLS
020NE
GENERATOR
CD
DRY AIR
RAW WASTE
FIGURE VII-20. TYPICAL OZONE PLANT FOR WASTE TREATMENT
1441

-------
wastewater
FEED TANK
MIXER
EXHAUST
6 AS
TEMPERATURE
CONTROL
FIRST
STAGE
PH MONITORING
TEMPERATURE
CONTROL
SECOND
ST AQE
PH MONITORING
TEMPERATURE
CONTROL
THIRD
STAGE
PH MONITORING
OZONE
GENERATOR
OZONE
TREATED WATER
FIGURE VII-21. UV/OZONATION
1442

-------
EXHAUST
WATER VAPOR
PACKED TOWER
EVAPORATOR
WASTEWATER
'III
EVAPORATOR-
STEAM
VAPOR-LIQUID
HEAT
EXCHANGER
•* —STEAM
STEAM
CONDENSATE
CONCENTRATE
ATMOSPHERIC EVAPORATOR
STEAM
CONDENSATE
WASTEWATER
1
1
RETURN
VACUUM PUMP
CONCENTRATE
Ui
CLIMBING FILM EVAPORATOR
VAPOR
VACUUM
VACUUM LINE
COOLING
WATER
MOT VAPOR
CONDENSATE
VACUUM PUMP
COOLING
STEAM
CONDENSATE
STEAM
ACCUMULATOR
WATER
CONCENTRATE
FEED
CONDENSATE
FOR REUSE
CONDENSATE
wastewater
CONCENTRATE
STEAM
CONDENSATE
SUBMERGED TUBE EVAPORATOR
CONCENTRATE FOR REUSE
DOUBLE-EFFECT EVAPORATOR
FIGURE VII 22. TYPES OF EVAPORATION EQUIPMENT

-------
WATER
OILY WATER	DISCHARGE
INFLUENT
MOTOR
DRIVEN
RAKE
OVERFLOW
SHUTOFF
VALVE
AIR IN
BACK PRESS
VALVE
•ft
FINES & OIL
OUT
EJECTOR
EXCESS
AIR OUT
LEVEL
CONTROLLER
HOLDING
TANK
TO SLUDGE
TANK
FIGURE VII-23. DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION
1444

-------
RAKE ARM
CONDUIT
TO MOTOR
INFLUENT
CONDUI
OVERLOAD
ALARM
EFFLUENT PIPE
COUNTERFLOW
INFLUENT W
LKWA
LUENT
DIRECTION OF ROTATION
EFFLUENT CHANNEL
PLAN
TURNTABLE
BASE
HANDRAIL
INFLUENT
DRIVE
WATER LEVEL	I
I	ibjj
CENTER COLUMN
CENTER CAGE
WEIR
STILTS
CENTER SCRAPER
SQUEEGEE
SLUDGE PIPE
FIGURE VII-24. GRAVITY THICKENING
1445

-------
WASTE WATER CONTAINING
REGENERANT
SOLUTION
DISSOLVED METALS OR
OTHER IONS
DIVERTER VALVE
DISTRIBUTOR
EXCHANGE
RESIN
•SUPPORT
DIVERTER VALVE
REGENERANT TO REUSE,
TREATMENT. OR DISPOSAL
METAL-FREE WATER
FOR REUSE OR DISCHARGE
FIGURE VII-25. ION EXCHANGE WITH REGENERATION
1446

-------
MACROMOLECULCS
AND SOLIDS
MEMBRANE
Ar ¦ 450 psi
WATER
MEMBRANE CROSS SECTION,
IN TUBULAR, HOLLOW FIBER,
OR SPIRAL-WOUND CONFIGURATION
PERMEATE (WATER)
CONCENTRATE
(SALTS)
FEED
SALTS OR SOLIDS
• WATER MOLECULES
FIGURE Vll-26. SIMPLIFIED REVERSE OSMOSIS SCHEMATIC
1447

-------
COMCtHT*ATE
FL OW
SPIRAL MEMBRANE MODULE
POROUS SUPPORT TUBE
WITH MEMBRANE
• ••
.* •* BRACKISH
* WATER
FEED FLOW
PRODUCT WATER
PERMEATE FLOW
*•»	• f
•	*	• >V. ¦ ®	*1
0 o 0 *0 o	• - • ••/
n'i.iAt V. o.B J
> r
BRINE
CONCENTRATE
PLOW
PRODUCT WATER
TUBULAR REVERSE OSMOSIS MODULE
SNAP
RING
OPEN ENDS
OF FIBERS
EPOXY
TUBE SHEET
POROUS
BACK-UP DISC
FIBER
FLOW SCREEN
O" RING
POROUS FEED
DISTRIBUTOR TUBE •
<=!>
PERMEATE
END PLATE
HOLLOW FIBER MODULE
FIGURE Vll-27. REVERSE OSMOSIS MEMBRANE CONFIGURATIONS
1448

-------

ij j	3

TT
II
ii
h
i
II
M
ii St» ii

rf
i
i

to)
	A	
,	
=CI	ya—Q ¦¦, —[J"
t)
<
j
u
H
II
|l
EJ
i ni
^1
O t
—
••IN. VITRIFIED PIPE LAID
WITH PLASTIC JOINTS
LAID S
L°J
V* SPLASH BOX
\rib
u
u oil
I*1!
¦mil
>°x\\
Z *|l
3 ill
-Aw.
i!
L°j

t)
6^
H
ll
t°5
• •IN. PLANCCD
SHEAR GATE
"

IL
~
	W_J—1 —	+14-	—	_j j a.	IL™ _*~ij|r
J-IN. MEDIUM GRAVEL

PLAN
8-IN. PINE SAND
3- IN. COARSE SAN D
l-IN. FINE GRAVEL
J-IN MEDIUM GRAVEL
1 TO 6 IN. COARSE GRAVEL
•-IN. CI PIPE
COARSE SAND
Z-IN. PLANK
WALK
PIPE COLUMN FOR
GLA55-OVER
• •IN. UNOERDRAIN L AID-
WITH OPEN JOINTS
SECTION A-A
FIGURE VII-2b. SLUDGE DRYING BED
1449

-------
noN	^
• <
MACROMOLCCULES
P - 10-90 PSI
MEMBRANE
WATER
SALTS
PERMEATE
• •
o* •
4
• • •
MEMBRANE
• •
• °. °. • . o . «0 . .	• .0 .
— 0°			
• ° • o
• O • O • ° t° > • • #°	O • #
FE ED
•I- •
O " CONCENTRATE
° • *o • .
O .0
O OIL PARTICLES
• DISSOLVED SALTS AND LOW-MOLECULAR-WEIGHT ORGANICS
FIGURE VII-29. SIMPLIFIED ULTRAFILTRATION FLOW SCHEMATIC
1450

-------
FABRIC OR WIRE
FILTER MEDIA
STRETCHED OVER
REVOLVING DRUM-
DIRECTION OF ROTATION
SOLIDS SCRAPED
OFF FILTER MEDIA
•STEEL
CYLIND
UNNION
VACUUM
SOURCE
G
LI QU
VAC
UC i.V	•' «*. W
w.\-r
SOLIDS COLLECTION
HOPPER
INLET LIQUID
TO BE
FILTERED
-TROUGH
FILTERED LIQUID
FIGURE VII-30. VACUUM FILTRATION
1451

-------
rALUM
POLYMER
TO GRAVITY
SEPERATION
EMULSIFIED
OIL
HOLDING
TANK
OR
RAPID MIX
TANK
TO AIR FLOTATION
Figure VII-31
FLOW DIAGRAM FOR EMULSION BREAKING WITH CHEMICALS

-------
•OVERFLOW
TROUGH
EFFLUENT
— c
(b)
i n n n n rTr
INFLUENT
(a)
30-40 in -
FINE/.- •
SANO •'
• coarse'
T
6-10 ft-
OEPTH
FINE..
sand
v. v COARSE'
-GRIT TO
RETAIN /_x
SAND	J
STRAINER
EFFLUENT
4-6 ff
DEPTH
J
EFFLUENT
INFLUENT
UNOERDRAIN
CHAMBER —
UNDERDRAIN
CHAMBER
UNDERDRAIN
CHAMBER
U
INFLUENT
(d)
COARSE MEDIA-
INTERMIX ZONE-
FINER MEDIA •
FINEST MEDIA-
INFLUENT
ANTHRACITE
r-'v'-'COAL
SILICA 1 ,
and:J,'
(e)
7
30 -40m
COARSE MEDIA
INTERMIX ZONE
FINER MEQIA -
FINEST MEDIA ¦
FINE .
SAND •'//•
'•'.COARSE.'- •
ANTHRACITE
C'o A L:
W:
SILICA-
• SAND '
EFFLUENT
UNDERDRAIN
CHAMBER —
UNDERDRAIN
CHAMBER -
X
T,
INFLUENT
28- 48in
GARNET SAND
EFFLUENT
Figure VII-32
FILTER CONFIGURATIONS
(a)	Single-Media Conventional Filter. (d) Dual-Media Filter.
(b)	Single-Media Upflow Filter.	(e) Mixed-Media (Triple-
(c)	Single-Media Biflow Filter.	Media) Filter.
1453

-------
SEPARATOR CHANNEL
-DIFFUSION DEVICE
(VERTICAL-SLOT BAFFLE)
GATEWAY PIER
FLIGHT SCRAPER
CHAIN SPROCKET
ROTATABLE OIL-
SKIMMING PIPE-
OIL RETENTION
BAFFLE
/"-EFFLUENT
WEIR AND
WALL
FLIGHT SCRAPER
CHAIN 	
WATER
LEVEL-
WOOD FLIGHTS
EFFLUENT
SEWER
FLOW
LSLOT FOR
CHANNEL GATE
EFFLUENT FLUME
FOREBAY
SLUDGE - COLLECTING HOPPER
DISCHARGE WITH LEAD PIPE.
SLUDGE COLLECTING
HOPPER	
SLUDGE PUMP
SUCTION PIPE
Figure VII-33
GRAVITY OIL/WATER SEPARATOR

-------
I
CONCENTRATE
CIRCULATION LOOP
SPENT FREE
AND
EMULSIFIED
OIL
HOLDING
FREE OIL
PROCESS
PERMEATE
M
SEPARATION
TANK
TANK
LH
U1
MEMBRANE
MODULES
CONCENTRATE (WITHDRAWN
AFTER EACH BATCH)
Figure VII-34
FLOW DIAGRAM FOR A BATCH TREATMENT ULTRAFILTRATION SYSTEM

-------
ADSORPTION
COLUMN
FILTER
TERTIARY
TREATED
EFFLUENT
REGENERATED CARBON SLURRY
FINES
REMOVAL
SCREEN
DEWATERING
SCREEN
REGENERATION
FURNACE
CARBON
STORAGE
REGENERATED
CARBON
SLURRY TANKS
FINES TO
WASTE
Figure VII-25
FLOW DIAGRAM OF ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION WITH REGENERATION

-------
EVAPORATION
CONTACT COOLING
WATER
COOLING
TOWER
BLOWDOWN
DISCHARGE
D.C.
CASTING
MAKE-UP WATER
RECYCLED FLOW
Figure VII-36
FLOW DIAGRAM FOR RECYCLING WITH A COOLING TOWER
1457

-------
OUTGOING WATER
SINGLE RINSE
WORK MOVEMENT
INCOMING WATER

DOUBLE COUNTERFLOW
RINSE
OUTGOING WATER1
WORK
		 MOVEMENT
— INCOMING WATER
TRIPLE COUNTERFLOW
RINSE
WORK MOVEMENT
INCOMING
WATER
OUTGOING WATER
Figure VII-37
COUNTER CURRENT RINSING (TANKS)
1458

-------
1000
750
500
250
2
3
4
Rinse Stages
Figure Ą11-38
effect of added rinse stages on water use
1459

-------
SECTION VIII
COST OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND CONTROL
This section contains a summary of cost estimates, a discussion
of the cost methodology used to develop these estimates, and
descriptions of the equipment and assumptions for each individual
treatment technology. These cost estimates, together with the
estimated pollutant reduction performance for each treatment and
control option presented in Sections IX, X, XI, and XII, provide
a basis for evaluating each regulatory option. The cost
estimates also provide the basis for determining the probable
economic impact of regulation on the category at different
pollutant discharge levels. In addition, this section addresses
nonwater quality environmental impacts of wastewater treatment
and control alternatives, including air pollution, solid wastes,
and energy requirements.
SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES
The total capital and annual costs of compliance associated with
the final regulation are presented by subcategory in Tables VIII-
1 through VIII-3 for regulatory options BPT, BAT, and PSES,
respectively. The number of direct and indirect discharging
plants in each subcategory is also shown. The cost estimation
methodology used to obtain these plant cost estimates is
described in the following subsection.
COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
Two general approaches to cost estimation are possible. The
first is a plant-by-plant approach in which costs are estimated
for each individual plant in the category. Alternatively, in a
model plant approach, costs can be projected for an entire
category (or subcategory) based on cost estimates for an
appropriately selected subset of plants. The plant-by-plant cost
estimation procedure is usually preferred compared with the model
plant approach because it maximizes the use of plant specific
data.
To implement the selected approach, the wastewater
characteristics and appropriate treatment technologies for the
category are identified. These are discussed in Section V and
Section VII of this document, respectively. Based on a
preliminary technical and economic evaluation, the model
treatment systems are developed for each regulatory option from
the available set of treatment processes. When these systems
are established, a cost data base is developed containing capital
and operating costs for each applicable technology. To apply
this data base to each plant for cost estimation, the following
steps are taken:
1461

-------
1.	Define the components of the treatment system (e.g.,
chemical precipitation, multimedia filtration) that are
applicable to the waste streams under consideration at
the plant and their sequence.
2.	Define the flows and pollutant concentrations of the
waste streams entering the treatment system.
3.	Estimate capital and annual costs for this treatment
system.
4.	Estimate the actual compliance costs by accounting for
and subtracting the costs for existing treatment-in-
place.
5.	Repeat steps 1-4 for each regulatory option.
In this subsection, the changes made in the cost estimation
methodology from proposal are presented first. Following this,
each of the elements of the cost estimation procedure are
presented. This includes development of the cost data base, the
plant profile data base, and the wastewater characterization data
base. The subsection concludes with a discussion of the three
methods used for treatment system cost estimation-application of
a computer cost estimation model, use of cost curves and
equations, and scaling of costs from similar plants.
Cost Data Base Development
A preliminary step required prior to cost estimation is the
development of a cost data base, which includes the compilation
of cost data and standardization of the data to a common dollar
basis. The sources of cost data, the components of the cost
estimates, and the update factors used for standardization (to
March 1982 dollars in this case) are described below.
Sources of Cost Data
Capital and annual cost data for the selected treatment processes
were obtained from three sources: (1) equipment manufacturers,
(2) literature data, and (3) cost data from existing plants. The
major source of equipment costs was contacts with equipment
vendors, while the majority of annual cost information was
obtained from the literature. Additional cost and design data
were obtained from data collection portfolios when possible.
Components of Costs
The components of the capital and annual costs and the terminol-
ogy used in this study are presented here in order to ensure
unambiguous interpretation of the cost estimates and cost curves
included in this section.
1462

-------
SECTION VIII
COST OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND CONTROL
This section contains a summary of cost estimates, a discussion
of the cost methodology used to develop these estimates, and
descriptions of the equipment and assumptions for each individual
treatment technology. These cost estimates, together with the
estimated pollutant reduction performance for each treatment and
control option presented in Sections IX, X, XI, and XII, provide
a basis for evaluating each regulatory option. The cost
estimates also provide the basis for determining the probable
economic impact of regulation on the category at different
pollutant discharge levels. In addition, this section addresses
nonwater quality environmental impacts of wastewater treatment
and control alternatives, including air pollution, solid wastes,
and energy requirements.
SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES
The total capital and annual costs of compliance associated with
the final regulation are presented by subcategory in Tables VIII-
1 through VIII-3 for regulatory options BPT, BAT, and PSES,
respectively. The number of direct and indirect discharging
plants in each subcategory is also shown. The cost estimation
methodology used to obtain these plant cost estimates is
described in the following subsection.
COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
Two general approaches to cost estimation are possible. The
first is a plant-by-plant approach in which costs are estimated
for each individual plant in the category. Alternatively, in a
model plant approach, costs can be projected for an entire
category (or subcategory) based on cost estimates for an
appropriately selected subset of plants. The plant-by-plant cost
estimation procedure is usually preferred compared with the model
plant approach because it maximizes the use of plant specific
data.
To implement the selected approach, the wastewater
characteristics and appropriate treatment technologies for the
category are identified. These are discussed in Section V and
Section VII of this document, respectively. Based on a
preliminary technical and economic evaluation, the model
treatment systems are developed for each regulatory option from
the available set of treatment processes. When these systems
are established, a cost data base is developed containing capital
and operating costs for each applicable technology. To apply
this data base to each plant for cost estimation, the following
steps are taken:
1461

-------
1.	Define the components of the treatment system (e.g.,
chemical precipitation, multimedia filtration) that are
applicable to the waste streams under consideration at
the plant and their sequence.
2.	Define the flows and pollutant concentrations of the
waste streams entering the treatment system.
3.	Estimate capital and annual costs for this treatment
system.
4.	Estimate the actual compliance costs by accounting for
and subtracting the costs for existing treatment-in-
place.
5.	Repeat steps 1-4 for each regulatory option.
In this subsection, the changes made in the cost estimation
methodology from proposal are presented first. Following this,
each of the elements of the cost estimation procedure are
presented. This includes development of the cost data base, the
plant profile data base, and the wastewater characterization data
base. The subsection concludes with a discussion of the three
methods used for treatment system cost estimation-application of
a computer cost estimation model, use of cost curves and
equations, and scaling of costs from similar plants.
Cost Data Base Development
A preliminary step required prior to cost estimation is the
development of a cost data base, which includes the compilation
of cost data and standardization of the data to a common dollar
basis. The sources of cost data, the components of the cost
estimates, and the update factors used for standardization (to
March 1982 dollars in this case) are described below.
Sources of Cost Data
Capital and annual cost data for the selected treatment processes
were obtained from three sources: (1) equipment manufacturers,
(2) literature data, and (3) cost data from existing plants. The
major source of equipment costs was contacts with equipment
vendors, while the majority of annual cost information was
obtained from the literature. Additional cost and design data
were obtained from data collection portfolios when possible.
Components of Costs
The components of the capital and annucil costs and the terminol-
ogy used in this study are presented here in order to ensure
unambiguous interpretation of the cost estimates and cost curves
included in this section.
1462

-------
Capital Costs. The total capital costs consist of two major
components: direct, or total module capital costs and indirect,
or system capital costs. The direct capital costs include:
(1)	Purchased equipment cost,
(2)	Delivery charges (based on shipping distance of 500
miles), and
(3)	Installation (including labor, excavation, site work,
and materials).
The direct components of the total capital cost are derived
separately for each unit process, or treatment technology. In
this particular case, each unit process cost includes individual
equipment costs (e.g., pumps, tanks, feed systems, etc.). The
correlating equations used to generate the individual equipment
costs are presented in Table VIII-4.
Indirect capital costs consist of contingency, engineering, and
contractor fees. These indirect costs are derived from factored
estimates, i.e., they are estimated as percentages of a subtotal
of the total capital cost, as shown in Table VIII-5.
Annual Costs. The total annualized costs also consist of both a
direct and a system component as in the case of total capital
costs. The components of the total annualized costs are listed
in Table VIII-6. Direct annual costs include the following:
o Raw materials - These costs are for chemicals and other
materials used in the treatment processes, which may
include lime, caustic, sodium thiosulfate, sulfur diox-
ide, ion exchange resins, sulfuric acid, hydrochloric
acid, ferrous sulfate, ferric chloride, and polyelectro-
lyte.
o Operating labor and materials - These costs account for
the labor and materials directly associated with opera-
tion of the process equipment. Labor requirements are
estimated in terms of hours per year. A labor rate of
$21 per hour was used to convert the hour requirements
into an annual cost. This composite labor rate included
a base labor rate of $9 per hour for skilled labor, 15
percent of the base labor rate for supervision and plant
overhead at 100 percent of the total labor rate. The
base labor rate was obtained from the "Monthly Labor
Review," which is published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. For the
metals industry, this wage rate was approximately $9 per
hour in March of 1982.
1463

-------
o Maintenance labor and materials - These costs account for
the labor and materials required for repair and routine
maintenance of the equipment. They are based on informa-
tion gathered from the open literature and from equipment
vendors.
o Energy - Energy, or power, costs are calculated based on
total energy requirements (in kW-hrs), an electricity
charge of $0.0483/kilowatt-hour and an operating schedule
of 24 hours/day, 250 days/year unless specified other-
wise. The electricity charge rate (March 1982) is based
on the average retail electricity prices charged for
industrial service by selected Class A privately-owned
utilities, as reported in the Department of Energy's
Monthly Energy Review.
System annual costs include monitoring, insurance and
amortization. Monitoring refers to the periodic analysis of
wastewater effluent samples to ensure that discharge limitations
are being met. The annual cost of monitoring was calculated
Using an analytical lab fee of $120 per wastewater sample and a
sampling frequency based on the wastewater discharge rate, as
shown in Table VIII-7, page . The values shown in Table VIII-
7 represent typical requirements contained in NPDES permits. For
the economic impact analysis, the Agency also estimated
monitoring costs based on 10 samples per month, which is
consistent with the statistical basis for the monthly limit.
The cost of taxes and insurance is assumed to be one percent of
the total depreciable capital investment.
Amortization costs, which account for depreciation and the cost
of financing, were calculated using a capital recovery factor
(CRF). A CRF value of 0.177 was used, which is based on an
interest rate of 12 percent, and a taxable lifetime of 10 years.
The CRF is multiplied by the total depreciable investment to
obtain the annual amortization costs.
Standardization of Cost Data
All capital and annual cost data were standardized by adjusting
to March 1982 dollars based on the following cost indices.
Capital Investment. Investment costs were adjusted using the
EPA-Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index. The value of
this index for March 1982 is 414.0.
Chemicals. The Chemical Engineering Producer Price Index for
industrial chemicals is used. This index is published biweekly
in Chemical Engineering magazine. The March 1982 value of this
index is 362.6.
Energy. Power costs are adjusted by using the price of
electricity on the desired date and multiplying it by the energy
requirements for the treatment module in kW-hr equivalents. The
1464

-------
industrial charge rate for electricity for March 1982 is $0.0483
per kW-hr as mentioned previously in the annual costs discussion.
Labor. Annual costs are adjusted by multiplying the hourly labor
rate by the labor requirements (in labor-hours), if the latter is
known. The labor rate for March 1982 was assumed to be $21 per
hour (see above). In cases where the labor-hour requirements are
unknown, the annual labor costs are updated using the EPA-Sewage
Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index. The value of this index
for March 1982 is 414.0 as stated above.
Plant Specific Flowsheet
After the cost data base have been developed, the next step of
the cost estimation procedure is the selection of the appropriate
treatment technologies and their sequence for a particular plant.
These are determined for a given regulatory option by applying
the general treatment diagram for that subcategory to the plant.
This general option diagram is modified as appropriate to reflect
the specific treatment technologies that the plant will require.
For instance, one plant in a subcategory may generate wastewater
from a certain operation that requires oil-water separation.
Another plant in the same subcategory may not generate this waste
stream and thus may not require oil-water separation technology.
The specific plant flowsheets will reflect this difference.
Wastewater Characteristics
Upon establishing the appropriate flowsheet for a given plant,
the next step is to define the influent waste stream
characteristics (flow and pollutant concentrations).
The list of pollutants which may influence the design (and thus
the cost) of the treatment system is shown in Table VIII-8.
This list includes the conventional, priority metal, and selected
nonconventional pollutants that are generally found in metal-
bearing waste streams. Varying influent concentrations will
affect the various wastewater treatment processes. For example,
influent waste streams with high metals loadings require a
greater volume of precipitant (such as lime) and generate a
greater amount of sludge than waste streams with lower metals
concentrations.
The raw waste concentrations of pollutants present in the
influent waste streams for cost estimation were based primarily
on field sampling data. A production normalized raw waste value
in milligrams of pollutant per metric ton of production was
calculated for each pollutant by multiplying the measured
concentration by the corresponding waste stream flow and dividing
this result by the corresponding production associated with
generation of the waste stream. These raw waste values are
averaged across all sampled plants where the waste stream is
found. These final raw waste values are used in the cost
estimation procedure to establish influent pollutant loadings to
each plant's treatment system. The underlying assumption in this
1465

-------
approach is that the amount of pollutant that is discharged by a
process is a function of the off-mass of product that is produced
by the process. The amount of water used in the process is
assumed to not affect the mass of pollutant discharged. This
assumption is also called the constant mass assumption since the
mass of pollutant discharged remains the same even if the flow of
water carrying the pollutant is changed.
The individual flows for cost estimation are determined for each
waste stream. The procedure used to derive these flows is as
follows:
(1)	The production normalized flows (1/kkg) were determined
for each waste stream based on production (kkg/yr) and
current flow (1/yr) data obtained from each plant's
dcp or trip report data where possible.
(2)	This flow was compared to the regulatory flow allowance
(1/kkg) established by the Agency for each waste
stream.
(3)	The lower of the two flows was selected as the cost
estimation flow. The flow in 1/yr is calculated by
multiplying the selected flow by the production associ-
ated with that waste stream.
(4)	The regulatory flow was assigned to waste streams for
which actual flow rate data were unavailable for a
plant.
In the nonferrous metals forming category, production and flow
information was not available for all plants. For these
facilities, the best approach is to use either the cost curves
(which are based on general assumptions of the pertinent
wastewater characteristics) or scaling costs based on analogous
plants. These approaches, and where each was used, are discussed
later in this section.
Treatment System Cost Estimation
Costs for the nonferrous metals forming category were estimated
in one of three ways: (1) through use of a computer cost
estimation model, (2) through use of cost curves, or (3) through
scaling of costs from other similar facilities. Selecting the
appropriate method for each plant was based primarily on the
quality and timeliness of the information available for that
plant. Where complete information (flows, production, analytical
data, in-place treatment technology) was available, the computer
cost estimation model or the cost curves were selected. The cost
curves were generally developed using the same algorithms used in
the cost estimation model, and thus the two cost estimation
methods give comparable results. The cost scaling procedure was
selected for plants with nonferrous metals forming wastewater
flows of less than 5 percent of the plant's total wastewater
flow, or where available information was so sparse that use of
1466

-------
one of the other two procedures was precluded. Each procedure is
discussed in detail helow.
Cost Estimation Model
The computer-based cost estimation model was designed to provide
conceptual wastewater treatment design and cost estimates based
on wastewater flows, pollutant loadings, and unit operations that
are specified by the user. The model was developed using a
modular approach; that is, individual wastewater treatment
processes such as gravity settling are contained in semi-
independent entities known as modules. These modules are used as
building blocks in the determination of the treatment system flow
diagram. Because this approach allows substantial flexibility in
treatment system cost estimation, the model did not require
modification for each regulatory option.
Each module was developed by coupling design information from the
technical literature with actual design data from operating
plants. This results in a more realistic design than using
either theoretical or actual data alone, and correspondingly more
accurate cost estimates. The fundamental units for cost estima-
tion are not the modules themselves but the components within
each module. These components range in configuration from a
single piece of equipment, such as a pump to components with
several individual pieces, such as a lime feed system. Each
component is sized based on one or more fundamental parameters.
For instance, the lime feed system is sized by calculating the
lime dosage required to adjust the pH of the influent to 9 and
precipitate dissolved pollutants. Thus, a larger feed system
would be designed for a chemical precipitation unit treating
wastewater containing high concentrations of dissolved metals
than for one treating wastewater of the same flow rate but lower
metals loadings.
The cost estimation model consists of four main parts, or catego-
ries of programs:
o	User input programs,
o	Design and simulation programs,
o	Cost estimation programs, and
o	Auxiliary programs.
A general logic diagram depicting the overall calculational
sequence is shown in Figure VIII-1.
The user input programs allow entry of all data required by the
model, including the plant specific flowsheet, flow and
composition data for each waste stream, and specification of
recycle loops. The design portion of the model calculates the
design parameter for each module of the flowsheet based on the
user input and material balances performed around each module.
Figure VIII-2, depicts the logic flow diagram for the design
portion of the model.
1467

-------
The design parameters are used as input to the cost estimation
programs to calculate the costs for each module equipment
component (individual correlating cost equations were developed
for each of these components). The total direct capital and
annual costs are equal to the sum of the module capital and
annual costs, respectively. System, or indirect costs (e.g.,
engineering, amortization) are then calculated (see Table VIII-5,
and Table VIII-6, and added to the total direct costs to obtain
the total system costs. The logic flow for the cost estimation
programs is displayed in Figure VIII-3. The auxiliary programs
store and transfer the final cost estimates to data files, which
are then used to generate final summary tables (see Table VIII-
10, for a sample summary table).
Cost Curves
The cost curves were developed using the computer cost estimation
model. Therefore, the design and cost assumptions for each
treatment option presented later in this section also apply to
cost curve development. Several flows were selected for each
treatment operation and the capital and annual costs were plotted
against the flow or other design parameter. In cases where the
cost was a function of two or more independent variables (e.g.,
countercurrent cascade rinsing), a combination of curves or
curves and equations was used. To simplify the calculations, the
sludge handling operations (i.e., vacuum filtration and contract
hauling) cost curves were plotted as a function of influent flow
to the sludge handling operation. This necessitated a
calculation of the ratio of sludge produced to the influent
wastewater flow. This ratio is a function of the wastewater
pollutant loadings. Wastewater characteristics from the
subcategories to be costed using the cost curves (nickel-cobalt,
titanium, zirconium-hafnium, uranium, and refractory metals) were
reviewed to determine how many sludge ratios were required to
accurately reflect variation among these subcategories. This
resulted in the identification of the need for four ratios. The
subcategories represented by each ratio and the ratios themselves
appear in Table VIII-9. The table also presents the dry sludge
ratios used in cost estimation for contract hauling.
To calculate the sludge generation ratios, a model plant
representative of the plants in the subcategory group was
developed. This plant included those waste streams within the
group that contained the highest pollutant loadings. Next, the
computer cost estimation model was utilized to perform the
necessary material balances around a treatment system designed
for the model plant. Flows based on BAT regulatory requirements
were used. From this analysis, the sludge ratios were calculated
as the volume of sludge produced divided by the influent flow to
treatment. In cases where the waste stream mix diverged
substantially from the set of waste streams used to develop the
ratio, the ratio was revised accordingly. The ratios used for
each plant are documented in the public record supporting this
rulemaking.
1468

-------
In addition to chemical precipitation, the sludge ratios for
cyanide precipitation in the titanium forming subcategory were
calculated. The values are 0.72 1 sludge/1 influent and 0.11 1
sludge/1 influent for wet (3 percent) sludge and for dry (20
percent) sludge, respectively.
To calculate the necessary flow to read the sludge handling
curves, the influent wastewater flow is multiplied by the
corresponding sludge ratio.
After the curves and equations were developed, they were
validated by comparing curve-derived costs with those generated
by the computer model. Average agreement within 25 percent was
obtained for each treatment option.
Having verified the cost curves, the necessary flow and design
data were tabulated for each treatment operation at each plant.
The curves were then read to obtain individual treatment
operation costs. The results were summed and added to costs for
enclosures and segregation. System capital costs (engineering,
contractor's fee, contingency) were then applied as were system
annual costs (amortization, taxes and insurance, and monitoring)
to arrive at the necessary totals for each plant.
Table VIII-10 lists each treatment operation and the
corresponding figure or table number where the specific cost
correlation is displayed.
Cost Scaling
The third method used to estimate compliance costs was to scale
capital and operating costs from similar plants that had been
costed by one of the other two methods. As indicated earlier,
this technique was utilized for plants for which insufficient
information was available to use one of the other two procedures,
and for plants whose nonferrous metals forming flow was less than
5 percent of the total plant flow. In the latter case, the
impact of the nonferrous metals forming regulation is small
enough that a more sophisticated method is unwarranted.
Table VIII-12 lists the number of plants in each subcategory that
were addressed by the scaling procedure.
The procedure used for scaling consists of four steps. First,
all available information about the plant is summarized. This
includes the presence and wastewater flows of each nonferrous
metals forming subcategory and other industrial categories, the
type of wastewater treatment present at the plant, and the
relative production of each subcategory and category at the
plant. In the second step, this profile was compared to plants
within or outside of the nonferrous metals forming category to
identify the most similar facility according to the profile
factors given above.
1469

-------
Third, the identified plant's total capital and operating costs
were scaled based on the flow and the six-tenths rule for cost
estimation:
The six-tenths rule has been widely applied for first order
approximation of equipment costs.
Finally, the costs of compliance attributable to the nonferrous
metals forming regulation are calculated by apportioning the
total plant costs on a flow basis.
A greater subjectivity is associated with this procedure than the
other two methods due to the inherent uncertainties in selecting
and applying analogous plants. However, this procedure yields
costs of an acceptable degree of accuracy when examined in light
of the availability of information and the minimal overall cost
impact of these plants on the forming category.
The calculations and selected analogous plants for each plant
subjected to this procedure are contained in the record
supporting this rulemaking.
General Cost Assumptions
Regardless of the cost methodology applied, several general cost
assumptions were used throughout the category. These include:
(1) Lime is used for pH adjustment and coagulation in all
chemical precipitation and sedimentation systems except
for the precious metals subcategory. Caustic is used
for precious metals forming wastewater to facilitate
precious metals recovery from treatment sludges. These
sludges may be recovered by heating in a furnace. If
lime is used in chemical precipitation, the calcium
ions present in the sludge would cause hot spots in the
furnace. This will result in degradation of the
furnace lining. Therefore, caustic is used for the
precious metals forming subcategory since sodium ions
do not cause this condition and fluoride (which
requires calcium for removal as calcium fluoride) is
not found in significant quantities in precious metals
forming wastewater.
Cost for
Subject
Plant
Cost for
Analogous
Plant
Flow for	0.6
x Subject Plant
Flow for
Analogous Plant
1470

-------
(2)	Sludges produced as a result of chemical precipitation
and sedimentation which contain excess lime are consid-
ered to be nonhazardous waste industrial facilities
will have to test these sludges Exceptions are sludges
produced by treating uranium forming wastewater, which
are considered radioactive wastes.
(3)	Sludges produced as a result of cyanide precipitation
are considered to be hazardous.
(4)	Equalization tanks prior to chemical precipitation are
not included for plant flows of <100 1/hr.
(5)	For plant flows less than 50 gallons per week, compli-
ance costs are estimated based on treatment or disposal
by an off-site source, i.e., contract disposal.
(6)	Enclosure costs are assumed to be zero for all modules
except vacuum filters and, in some cases, chemical feed
systems.
(7)	Combined treatment of chemical precipitation, chromium
reduction (where applicable), and cyanide precipitation
(where applicable) is used for flow rates less than
2,200 1/hr. If the costs calculated for combined
treatment are less than the costs estimated for each
separate treatment operation, the former costs are
used. Additional information is provided under COST
ESTIMATES FOR INDIVIDUAL TECHNOLOGIES - Combined
Treatment, below.
(8)	In cases in which a single plant has wastewater gener-
ating processes associated with different nonferrous
metals forming subcategories and or other industrial
categories, costs are estimated for a single treatment
system. In most cases, the combined treatment system
costs are then apportioned between subcategories and
categories on a flow-weighted basis since hydraulic
flow is the primary determinant of equipment size and
cost. It is possible, however, for the combined
treatment system to include a treatment module that is
required by only one of the associated subcategories.
In this case, the total costs for that particular
module are included in the costs for the subcategory
which requires the module. Where the module in
question involves flow reduction, the costs are appor
tioned based on an influent flow-weighted basis. Such
cost apportioning is essentially only a bookkeeping
exercise to allocate costs; the total costs calculated
for the plant remain the same.
1471

-------
Consideration of Existing Treatment
The cost estimates calculated by the model represent "greenfield
costs" that do not account for equipment that plants may already
have in-place, i.e., these costs include existing treatment
equipment. In order to estimate the actual compliance cost that
would be incurred by a plant to meet the effluent guidelines,
"credit" should be given to account for treatment in place at
that plant. This was accomplished by subtracting capital and
annual costs of treatment in place from the "greenfield costs" to
obtain the actual or required capital and annual costs of
compliance.
Existing treatment is considered as such only if the capacity and
performance of the existing equipment (measured in terms of
estimated ability to meet the proposed effluent limitations) is
equivalent to that of the technologies considered by the Agency.
The primary source of information regarding existing treatment
was data collection portfolios (dcps).
General assumptions applying to all subcategories used for
determining treatment in-place qualifications in specific
instances include:
(1)	In cases in which existing equipment has adequate
performance but insufficient capacity, it is assumed
that the plant would comply by either installing
additional required capacity to supplement the existing
equipment or disregard the existing equipment and
install new equipment to treat the entire flow. This
selection was based on the lowest total annualized
cost.
(2)	When a plant reported processing treatment plant
sludges for metal recovery, capital and annual costs
for sludge handling (vacuum filtration and contract
hauling) are not included in the compliance costs. It
is assumed that it is economical for the plant to
practice recycle in this case, and therefore, the
related costs are considered to be process associated,
or a cost of doing business.
(3)	Capital costs for flow reduction (via recycling) were
not included in the compliance costs whenever the plant
reported recycle of the stream, even if the specific
method of recycle was not reported.
1472

-------
(4) Settling lagoons were assumed to be equivalent to
vacuum filtration for dewatering treatment plant
sludges. Thus, whenever a plant reported settling
lagoons to be currently in use for treatment plant
sludges, the capital costs of vacuum filtration were
not included. It was assumed that annual vacuum
filtration costs were comparable to those for
operation of settling lagoons and were used to
approximate the annual operating cost for lagoons.
COST ESTIMATES FOR INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Treatment technologies have been selected from among the larger
set of available alternatives discussed in Section VII after
considering such factors as raw waste characteristics, typical
plant characteristics (e.g., location, production schedules,
product mix, and land availability), and present treatment
practices. Specific rationales for selection is addressed in
Sections IX, X, XI, and XII of this document. Cost estimates for
each technology addressed in this section include investment
costs and annual costs for amortization, operation and
maintenance, and energy.
The specific design and cost assumptions for each wastewater
treatment module are listed under the subheadings to follow.
Costs are presented as a function of influent wastewater flow
except where noted in the unit process assumptions.
Costs are presented for the following control and treatment
technologies:
Countercurrent cascade-spray rinsing,
Cooling towers,
Holding tanks,
Flow equalization,
Cyanide precipitation and gravity settling,
Chromium reduction,
-	Iron co-precipitation,
Chemical emulsion breaking,
Ammonia steam stripping,
-	-Oil-water separation,
-	Chemical precipitation and gravity settling,
Combined treatment,
Vacuum filtration,
Multimedia filtration,
Ion exchange, and
Contract hauling.
In addition, costs for the following items associated with
compliance costs are also discussed:
Enclosures, and
Segregation.
1473

-------
Countercurrent Cascade-Spray Rinsing
Countercurrent cascade rinsing is used to reduce water use in
rinsing operations. In this process, the cleanest water is used
for final rinsing of an item, preceded by rinse stages using
water with progressively more contaminates to partially rinse the
item. Fresh make-up water is added to the final rinse stage, and
contaminated rinse water is discharged from the initial rinse
stage. The make-up water for all but the final rinse stage is
from the following stage. The addition of overhead sprays to the
rinsing process also increases rinsing efficiency. Therefore,
countercurrent cascade rinsing with sprays was costed when
appropriate as a flow reduction technology for rinse operations.
The costs for countercurrent cascade-spray rinsing apply to a
two-stage rinse system, each consisting of the following
equipment:
o Two fiberglass rectangular tanks (for existing sources,
costs include only one additional tank since the first
tank was assumed to be in place).
o One spray rinsing system if not in place,
—stainless steel spray nozzles
—valves
—Teflon-lined piping system
—conductivity meter
—strainer
—splash guard.
o PVC spargers (air diffuser) for agitation,
—one sparger/1.5 feet of tank length
—4 cubic feet of air/min/sparger
—8 hours installation
—20 feet of interconnecting piping.
o One blower (including motor) for supplying air to the
sparger.
Retrofit capital costs are estimated at 15 percent of the
installed equipment cost.
Information reported in dcps was used to estimate the volume of
countercurrent rinse tanks. If no information was available,
tank volume was assumed to be 1,000 gallons. When it was
determined from a plant's dcp that two-stage countercurrent
cascade rinsing could be achieved by converting two existing
adjacent rinse tanks, only piping, pump, and spray rinsing costs
were accounted for. A constant value of $1,000 was estimated for
the piping costs.
1474

-------
Maintenance materials are estimated at 2 percent of purchased
equipment cost, and maintenance labor is estimated at 5 percent
of the operating hours.
Capital costs for the spray rinsing system are presented in
Figure VIII-4, and annual costs as an equation in Table VIII-11.
Capital and annual costs may be determined for rectangular
fiberglass tanks with spargers and interconnecting piping in
Figure VIII-5. Capital and annual costs for pumps may be found
in Figure VIII-6.
Cooling Towers
Cooling towers are used to reduce discharge flows by recycling
cooling water waste streams. Holding tanks are used to recycle
flows less than 3,400 liters per hour (15 gpm). This flow
represents the effective minimum cooling tower capacity generally
available.
The cooling tower capacity is based on the amount of heat
removed, which takes into account both the design flow and the
temperature decrease needed across the cooling tower. The
influent flow to the cooling tower and the recycle rate are based
on the assumptions given in Table VIII-13, page . It should
be noted that for BAT a cooling tower is not included for cases
in which the actual flow is less than the reduced regulatory flow
(BAT flow) since flow reduction is not required.
The temperature decrease is calculated as the difference between
the hot water (inlet) and cold water (outlet) temperatures. The
cold water temperature was assumed to be 20C (85F) and an average
value calculated from sampling data is used as the hot water
temperature for a particular waste stream. When such data were
unavailable, or resulted in a temperature less than 35C (95F), a
value of 35C (95F) was assumed, resulting in a cooling
requirement for a 6C (10F) temperature drop. The other two
design parameters, namely the wet bulb temperature (i.e., ambient
temperature at 100 percent relative humidity) and the approach
(the difference between the outlet water temperature and the wet
bulb temperature), were assumed to be constant at 25C (77F) and
4C (8F), respectively.
For flow rates above 3,400 1/hr, a cooling tower is assumed. The
cooling tower is sized by calculating the required capacity in
evaporative tons. Cost data were gathered for cooling towers up
to 700 evaporative tons.
The capital costs of cooling tower systems include the following
equipment:
Cooling tower (crossflow, mechanically-induced) and
typical accessories;
- Piping and valves (305 meters (1,000 ft.), carbon steel);
1475

-------
Cold water storage tank (1-hour retention time);
-	Recirculation pump, centrifugal; and
-	Chemical treatment system (for pH, slime and corrosion
control).
For heat removal requirements exceeding 700 evaporative tons,
multiple cooling towers are assumed.
The direct capital costs include purchased equipment cost,
delivery, and installation. Installation costs for cooling
towers are assumed to be 200 percent of the cooling tower cost
based on information supplied by vendors.
Direct annual costs include raw chemicals for water treatment and
fan energy requirements. Maintenance and operating labor was
assumed to be constant at 60 hours per year. The water treatment
chemical cost is based on a rate of $220/1,000 lph ($5/gpm) of
recirculated water.
For small recirculating flows (less than 15 gpm), holding tanks
were used for recycling cooling water. A holding tank system
consists of a steel tank, 61 meters (200 feet) of piping, and a
recirculation pump. The capacity of the holding tank is based on
the cooling requirements of the water to be cooled. Calculation
of the tank volume is based on a surface area requirement of
0.025 m2/lph (60 ft2/gpm) of recirculated flow and
constant relative tank dimensions.
Capital costs for the holding tank system include purchased
equipment cost, delivery and installation. The annual costs are
attributable to the operation of the pump only (i.e., annual
costs for tank and piping are assumed to be negligible).
Capital and annual costs for cooling towers and tanks are
presented in Figure VIII-7.
Holding Tanks-Recycle
A holding tank is used to recycle water back to a process.
Holding tanks are usually used when the recycled water need not
be cooled. The equipment used to determine capital costs are a
tank, pump, and recycle piping. Fiberglass tanks were used for
capacities of 24,000 gallons or less; steel tanks for larger
capacities. Annual costs are associated only with the pump. The
tank capital cost is estimated on the basis of required volume.
Required tank volume is calculated on the basis of influent flow
rate, 20 percent excess capacity, and four-hour retention time.
The influent flow and the degree of recycle were derived from the
assumptions outlined in Table VIII-13.
Cost curves for direct capital and annual costs are presented, in
Figure VIII-8.
1476

-------
Flow Equalization
Flow equalization is accomplished through equalization tanks
which are sized based on a retention time of 8 or 16 hours and an
excess capacity factor of 1.2. Fiberglass tanks were used for
capacities of 24,000 gallons or less; steel tanks for larger
capacities. A retention time of 16 hours was assumed only when
the equalization tank preceded a chemical precipitation system
with "low flow" mode, and the operating hours were greater than
or equal to 16 hours per day. In this case, the additional
retention time is required to hold wastewater during batch
treatment, since treatment is assumed to require 16 hours and
only one reaction tank is included in the "low flow" batch mode.
Cost data were available for steel equalization tank up to a
capacity of 1,893,000 liters (500,000 gallons); multiple units
were required for volumes greater than 1,893,000 liters (500,000
gallons). The tanks are fitted with agitators with a horsepower
requirement of 0.006 kW/1,000 liters (0.03 hp/1,000 gallons) of
capacity to prevent sedimentation. An influent transfer pump is
also included in the equalization system.
Annual costs include electricity costs for the agitator and pump
and 5 percent of the installed tank cost for maintenance.
Cost curves for capital and annual costs are presented in Figure
VIII-9, for equalization at 8 hours and 16 hours retention time.
Cyanide Precipitation and Gravity Settling
Cyanide precipitation is a two-stage process to remove complexed
and uncomplexed cyanide as a precipitate. In the first step, the
wastewater is contacted with an excess of FeS04.7H20 at
pH 9.0 to ensure that all cyanide is converted to the complexed
form:
FeS04.7H20 + 6CN~ -> Fe3(Fe(CN)6)2 +
21H20 + 3S04 2~ + e~
The hexacyanoferrate is then routed to the second stage, where
additional FeS04.7H20 and acid are added. In this stage,
the pH is lowered to 4.0 or less, causing the precipitation of
Fe3(Fe(CN)s)2 (Turnbull's blue) and its analogues:
3FeS04.7H20 + 2Fe(CN)63 ->
Fe3(Fe(CN)6)2 + 21H20 + 3SO42"
The blue precipitate is settled and the overflow is discharged
for further treatment.
Since the complexation step adjusts the pH to 9, metal hydroxides
will precipitate. These hydroxides may either be settled and
1477

-------
removed at pH 9 or resolubilized at pH 4 in the final
precipitation step and removed later in a downstream chemical
precipitation unit. Advantages of preliminary removal of the
metal hydroxides include reduced acid requirements in the final
precipitation step, since the metals will resolubilize when the
pH is adjusted to 4. However, the hydroxide sludge may be
classified as hazardous due to the presence of cyanide. In
addition, the continuous mode operation requires an additional
clarifier between the complexation and precipitation step. These
additional costs make the settling of metal hydroxides
economically unattractive in the continuous mode. However, the
batch mode requires no extra equipment. Consequently, metal
hydroxide sludge removal in this case is desirable before the
precipitation step. Therefore, the batch cyanide precipitation
step settles two sludges: metal hydroxide sludge (at pH 9) and
cyanide sludge (at pH 4).
Costs were estimated for both batch and continuous systems with
the operating mode selected on a least cost basis. The equipment
and assumptions used in each mode are detailed below.
Costs for the complexation step in the continuous mode are based
on the following:
(1)	Ferrous sulfate feed system
-	ferrous sulfate steel storage hoppers with dust
collectors (largest hopper size is 170 m3 (6,000
ft3); 15 days storage)
enclosure for storage tanks
volumetric feeders (small installations)
-	mechanical weigh belt feeders (large installations)
-	dissolving tanks (5-minute detention time, 6 percent
solution) - dual-head diaphragm metering pumps
instrumentation and controls
(2)	Lime feed system
hydrated lime
feeder
-	slurry mix tank (5-minute retention time)
feed pump
instrumentation (pH control)
(3)	H2SO4 feed system (used when influent pH is >9)
93 percent H2SO4 delivered in bulk or in drums
-	acid storage tank (15 days retention) when delivered
in bulk
-	metering pump (standby provided)
-	pipe and valves
instrumentation and controls
1478

-------
(4)	Reaction tank and agitator (fiberglass, 60-minute
retention time, 20 percent excess capacity, agitator
mount, concrete slab)
(5)	Effluent transfer pump.
Costs for the second step (precipitation) in the continuous mode
are based on the following equipment:
(1)	FeS04 feed system - as above
(2)	H2SO4 feed system - as above
(3)	Polymer feed system
storage hopper
chemical mix tank with agitator
chemical metering pump
(4)	Reaction tank with agitator (fiberglass, 30-minute
retention time, 20 percent excess capacity, agitator
mount, concrete slab)
(5)	Clarifier
sized based on 709 lph/m2 (17.4 gph/ft2), 3 percent
solids in underflow
steel or concrete, above ground - support
structure, sludge scraper, and other
internals
center feed
(6)	Effluent transfer pump
(7)	Sludge transfer pump.
Operation and maintenance costs for continuous mode cyanide
precipitation include labor requirements to operate and maintain
the system, electric power for mixers, pumps, clarifier and
controls, and treatment chemicals. Electrical requirements are
also included for the chemical storage enclosures for lighting
and ventilation and in the case of caustic storage, heating. The
following assumptions are used in establishing O&M costs for the
complexation step in the continuous mode:
(1) Ferrous sulfate feed system
stoichiometry of 1 mole FeS04.7H20 to 6 moles CN~
1.5 times stoichiometric dosage to drive reaction to
completion
operating labor at 10 min/feeder/shift
maintenance labor at 8 hrs/yr for liquid metering
pumps
power based on agitators, metering pumps
maintenance materials at 3 percent of capital cost
1479

-------
chemical cost (sewage grade) at $0.1268 per kg
($0.0575 per lb)
(2)	Lime feed system
dosage based on pH and metals content to raise pH to
9
operating and maintenance labor requirements are
based on 20 min/day; in addition, 8 hrs/7,260 kg (8
hrs/16,000 lbs) are assumed for delivery of hydrated
lime
maintenance materials cost is estimated as 3 percent
of the purchased equipment cost
chemical cost of lime is based on $0.0474/kg
($0.0215 per lb) for hydrated lime delivered in bags
(3)	Acid feed system (if required)
dosage based on pH and metals to bring pH to 9
labor unloading - 0.25 hr/drum acid
labor operation - 15 min/day
annual maintenance - 8 hrs
power (includes metering pump)
maintenance materials - 3 percent of capital cost
chemical cost at $0,082 per kg ($0,037 per lb)
(4)	Reaction tank with agitator
maintenance materials
tank: 2 percent of tank capital cost
pump: 5 percent of pump capital cost
power based on agitator (70 percent efficiency) at
0.099 kW/1,000 liters (0.5 hp/1,000 gallons) of tank
volume
(5)	Pump
operating labor at 0.04 hr/operating day
maintenance labor at 0.005 hr/operating hour
maintenance materials at 5 percent of capital cost
power based on pump hp.
The following assumptions were used for the continuous mode
precipitation step:
(1) Ferrous sulfate feed system
stoichiometric dosage based on 3 moles FeS04.7H20 to
2 moles of iron-complexed cyanide (Fe(CN)6~)
total dosage is 10 times stoichiometric dosage based
on data from an Agency treatability study
other assumptions as above
1480

-------
(2)
H2SO4 feed system
dosage based on pH adjustment to 4 and resolubiliza-
tion of the metal hydroxides from the complexation
step
other assumptions as above
(3) Polymer feed system
2 mg/1 dosage
operation labor at 134 hrs/yr, maintenance labor at
32 hrs/yr
maintenance materials at 3 percent of the capital
cost
power at 17,300 kW/yr
chemical cost at $4.96/kg ($2.25/lb)
(4)	Reaction tank with agitator
- see assumptions above
(5)	Clarifier
maintenance materials range from 0.8 percent to 2
percent as a function of increasing size
labor - 150 to 500 hrs/yr (depending on size)
power - based on horsepower requirements for sludge
pumping and sludge scraper drive unit
(6)	Effluent transfer pump
see assumptions above
(7)	Sludge pump
sized on underflow from clarifier
operation and maintenance labor varies with flow
rate
maintenance materials - varies from 7 percent to 10
percent of capital cost depending on flow rate.
The batch mode cyanide precipitation step accomplishes both
complexation and precipitation in the same vessel. Costs for
batch mode cyanide complexation and precipitation are based on
the following equipment:
(1) Ferrous sulfate addition
from bags
added manually to reaction tank
1481

-------
(2)	Lime addition
- from bags
added manually to reaction tank
(3)	H2S04 addition
from 208 liter (55 gallon) drums
stainless steel valve to control flow
(4)	Reaction tank and agitator (fiberglass, 8.5 hours
minimum retention time, 20 percent excess capacity,
agitator mount, concrete slab)
(5)	Effluent transfer pump
(6)	Sludge pump.
Operation and maintenance costs for batch mode cyanide
complexation and precipitation include costs for the labor
required to operate and maintain the equipment; electrical power
for agitators, pumps, and controls; and chemicals. The
assumptions used in estimating costs are as follows:
(1)	Ferrous sulfate addition
stoichiometric dosage
—complexation; 1 mole FeS04.7H20 per 6 moles CN~
—precipitation: 3 moles FeSC>4.7H2O per 2 moles of
the iron cyanide complex (Fe(CN)g)2
-	actual dosage in excess of stoichiometric
—complexation; 1.5 times stoichiometric dosage
added
—precipitation: 10 times stoichiometric dosage
added
operating labor at 0.25 hr/batch
• - chemical cost (sewage grade) at $0.1268/kg
($0.0575/lb)
-	no maintenance labor or materials, or power costs
(2)	Lime addition
-	dosage based on pH and metals content to raise pH to
9
operating labor at 0.25 hr/batch
chemical cost at $0.0474/kg ($0.0215/lb)
no maintenance labor or materials, or power costs
(3)	H2SO4 addition
dosage based on pH and metals content to lower pH to
9 (for complexation if required) and/or to lower pH
to 4 (for precipitation)
1482

-------
operating labor at 0.25 hr/batch
chemical cost at $0.082/kg ($0.037/lb)
no maintenance labor or materials, or power costs
(4)	Reaction tank with agitator
maintenance materials
—tank: 2 percent of tank capital cost
—pump: 5 percent of pump capital cost
power based on agitator (70 percent efficiency) at
0.099 kW/1,000 liters (0.5 hp/1,000 gallons) of tank
volume
(5)	Effluent transfer pump
operating labor at 0.04 hr/operating day
maintenance labor at 0.005 hr/operating day
maintenance materials at 5 percent of capital cost
power based on pump hp
(6)	Sludge pump
operation and maintenance costs vary with flow rate
maintenance materials costs vary from 7 to 10
percent of capital cost depending on flow rate.
Capital and annual costs for continuous and batch mode cyanide
precipitation are presented in Figure VIII-10.
At plants where the total flow requiring cyanide treatment is
low, cyanide precipitation and settling may be accomplished in
the same unit as chemical precipitation and settling. This is
called combined treatment and is discussed later in this section.
Chromium Reduction
Chromium reduction refers to the reduction of hexavalent chromium
to the trivalent form. Chromium in the hexavalent state will not
precipitate as a hydroxide; it must first be reduced to trivalent
chromium. For large flows (greater than 2,000 1/hr) which
undergo continuous treatment, the waste stream is treated by
addition of acid (to lower pH to 2.5) and gaseous sulfur dioxide
(SO2) dissolved in water in an agitated reaction vessel. The
SO2 is oxidized to sulfate (SO4) while it reduces the
chromium. For smaller flows (less than 2,000 1/hr), for which
batch treatment is more appropriate, the waste stream is treated
by manual addition of sodium metabisulfite in the same reaction
vessel used for chemical precipitation. The chemistry of this
operation is similar to that for SO2 addition. This is
referred to as combined treatment, and is discussed more fully
later in this section.
The equipment required for the continuous stream includes a
202 feed system (sulfonator), a H2SO4 feed system, an
acid resistant reactor vessel and agitator, and a stainless steel
1483

-------
pump. The reaction pH is 2.5 and the SO2 dosage is a
function of the influent loading of hexavalent chromium. A
conventional sulfonator is used to meter SO2 to the reaction
vessel. The mixer velocity gradient is 100/sec.
Annual costs are as follows:
(1)	SO2 feed system
-	S02 cost at $0.55/kg ($0.25/lb)
operation and maintenance labor requirements vary
from 437 hrs/yr at 4.5 kg SC>2/day (10 lbs
SC>2/day) to 5,440 hrs/yr at 4,540 kg
SC>2/day (10,000 lbs SC>2/day)
energy requirements vary from 570 kW/yr at 4.5 kg
SC>2/day (10 lbs S02/day) to 31,000 kW/yr at
4,540 kg S02/day (10,000 lbs S02/day)
(2)	H2SO4 feed system
-	operating and maintenance labor at 72 hrs/yr at 37.8
lpd (10 gpd) of 93 percent H2SO4 to 200 hrs/yr at
3,780 lpd (1,000 gpd), of 93 percent H2SO4
maintenance materials at 3 percent of the equipment
cost
energy requirements for metering pump and storage
heating and lighting
(3)	Reactor vessel and agitator
operation and maintenance labor at 120 hrs/yr
electrical requirements for agitator.
For batch treatment of hexavalent chromium with sodium
metabisulfite, no equipment in addition to that required for
chemical precipitation is assumed to be necessary. Annual costs
are based on 1/2 hour of labor per batch for chemical addition
and testing.
Figure VIII-11 presents capital and annual costs for a continuous
chromium reduction system and capital costs for the batch system.
Annual costs for the batch system are presented in Table VIII-11.
Iron Co-Precipitation
Molybdenum is effectively precipitated by addition of high
excesses of iron salts at low pH. Although the precipitation
chemistry and precise iron-molybdenum compounds formed are not
well understood, complexation and physical adsorption onto
settling iron hydroxide floe have both been postulated as
mechanisms for molybdenum removal. This technology is described
in more detail in Section VII.
The necessary iron salt dosage has been determined empirically as
approximately a 10:1 weight ratio of iron to the summed mass of
1484

-------
molybdenum. To alleviate scaling problems, FeCl3 is selected
over Fe2(SO4)3 as the iron source. The pH for
optimum precipitation is 4.0. Hydrochloric acid is added as the
acid source. Removal of the insoluble precipitates is
accomplished during chemical precipitation and sedimentation.
Capital and operating costs have been estimated for both
continuous, batch and low flow operating modes. However, for the
nonferrous metals forming industry, all plants requiring iron co-
precipitation generated flows in the batch and low flow treatment
ranges. Assumptions for cost estimation of the batch FeCl3
feed system are as follows:
Capital
o Flow between 100 1/hr and 10,500 1/hr
o Influent molybdenum concentration is assumed as 150 mg/1
o FeCl3 {40 weight percent solution) is added at 10:1 iron
to molybdenum ratio
o FeCl3 storage hopper: 2-week supply
o Mix tank of 8 hrs retention, 20 percent excess, 50 gal
minimum
o Agitator at 0.5 hp/1,000 gal, 0.25 hp minimum
o Pump at 3 gpm feed
Annual
o	Operating labor at 0.75 hour/batch
o	Maintenance labor at 1 hour/week
o	Batch is 8 hrs of flow
o	FeCl3 (sewage grade) at $174/ton
Assumptions for the low flow FeCl3 feed system include:
Capital
o	Flow less than 2,200 1/hr
o Manual addition of FeCl3 from bags (hopper included at
$2,360 for flows greater than 500 1/hr)
o 10,000 gallons of wastewater accumulated prior to treat-
ment
Annual
o 10,000 gallons of wastewater accumulated prior to treat-
ment
1485

-------
o Operating labor and maintenance labor are calculated by
0.25 hr/batch + 0.0025 hr/lb FeCl3
o FeCl3 cost is $0.21/lb for flow < 500 1/hr; $0.087/lb for
flows > 500 1/hr
Assumptions for the batch and low flow pH adjustment system are
as follows:
Capital
o Manual addition from drum
o $250 capital cost for acid valve
o Dosage based on 100 mg CaC03/l alkalinity
Annual
o 0.25 hr/batch for operation labor
o 1 hr/7 batches for maintenance labor
o HC1 (22° Baume) is $85/ton
The sludge generation from iron co-precipitation is 0.05 1
sludge/1 of influent flow from molybdenum-containing streams
(0.0075 1 sludge/1 influent for dewatered sludge). This sludge
is in addition to the sludge ratios presented earlier.
Capital costs for iron co-precipitation are presented in Figure
VIII-12, while annual costs are presented in Figure VIII-13.
Chemical Emulsion Breaking
Chemical emulsion breaking involves the separation of relatively
stable oil-water mixtures by chemical addition. Alum, polymer,
and sulfuric acid are commonly used to destabilize oil-water
mixtures. In the determination of capital and annual costs based
on continuous operation, 400 mg/1 of alum and 2 mg/1 of polymer
are added to waste streams containing emulsified oil. In the
continuous system, no sulfuric acid is required. The equipment
included in the capital and annual costs for continuous chemical
emulsion breaking are as follows:
(1)	Alum and polymer feed systems
storage units
dilution tanks
conveyors and chemical feed lines
chemical feed pumps
(2)	Rapid mix tank (retention time of	15 minutes; mixer
velocity gradient is 300/sec, 20	percent excess capac-
ity)
(3)	Flocculation tank (retention time	of 45 minutes; mixer
velocity gradient is 100/sec, 20	percent excess capac-
ity)
1486

-------
(4) Pump.
Following the flocculation tank, the destabilized oil-water
mixture is routed to oil skimming.
In the determination of capital and annual costs based on batch
operation, sulfuric acid is added to waste streams containing
emulsified oil until a pH of 3 is reached. No alum or polymer is
required. The following equipment is included in the determina-
tion of capital and annual costs based on batch operation:
(1)	Sulfuric acid feed systems
storage tanks or drums
chemical feed lines
chemical feed pumps
(2)	Two tanks equipped with agitators (retention time of 8
hrs, mixer velocity gradient is 300/sec, 20 percent
excess capacity)
(3)	Two belt oil skimmers
(4)	Two waste oil pumps
(5)	Two effluent water pumps
(6) One waste oil storage tank (sized to retain the waste
oil from eight batches, 20 percent excess capacity).
The capital and annual costs for continuous and batch chemical
emulsion breaking were determined by summing the costs from the
above equipment. Alum, polymer, and sulfuric acid costs were
assumed to be $0,257 per kg ($0,118 per pound), $4.95 per kg
($2.25 per pound), and $0.08 per kg of 93 percent acid ($0,037
per pound of 93 percent acid), respectively.
Operation and maintenance and energy costs for the different
types of equipment which comprise the batch and continuous
systems were drawn from various literature sources and are
included in the annual costs.
The cutoff flow for determining the operation mode (batch or
continuous) is 1,000 liters per hour (264 gal/hr), above which
the continuous system is costed; at lower flows, the batch system
is costed.
For annual influent flows to the chemical emulsion breaking
system of 92,100 liters/year (24,000 gallons/year) or less, it is
more economical to directly contract haul rather than treat the
waste stream. The breakpoint flow is based on a total annualized
cost comparison and a contract hauling rate of $0.40/gallon (no
credit was given for oil resale).
1487

-------
Capital and annual costs for chemical emulsion breaking are
presented in Figure VIII-14.
Ammonia Steam Stripping
Ammonia removal using steam is a proven technology that is in use
in many industries. Ammonia is more volatile than water and may
be removed using steam to raise the temperature and preferen-
tially evaporate the ammonia. This process is most economically
done in a plate or packed tower, where the method of contacting
the liquid and vapor phases reduces the steam requirement.
The pH of the influent wastewater is raised to approximately 12
by the addition of lime to convert almost all of the ammonia
present to molecular ammonia (NH3). The water is preheated
before it is sent to the column. This process takes place by
indirectly contacting the influent with the column effluent and
with the gaseous product via heat exchangers. The water enters
the top of the column and travels downward. The steam is
injected at the bottom and rises through the column, contacting
the water in a countercurrent fashion. The source of the steam
may be either boiled wastewater or another steam generation
system, such as the plant boiler system.
The presence of solids in the wastewater, both those present in
the influent and those which may be generated by adjusting the pH
(such as metal hydroxides), necessitates periodic cleaning of the
column. This requires an acid cleaning system and a surge tank
to hold wastewater while the column is being cleaned. The column
is assumed to require cleaning approximately once per week based
on the demonstrated long-term cleaning requirements of an ammonia
stripping facility. The volume of cleaning solution used per
cleaning operation is assumed to be equal to the total volume of
the empty column (i.e., without packing).
For the estimation of capital and annual costs, the following
pieces of equipment were included in the design of the steam
stripper:
(1)	Packed tower
3-inch Rashig rings
hydraulic loading rate = 2 gpm/ft2
-	height equivalent to a theoretical plate = 3 ft
(2)	pH adjustment system
-	lime feed system (continuous) - see chemical precip-
itation section for discussion
rapid mix tank, fiberglass (5-minute retention time)
agitator (velocity gradient is 300 ft/sec/ft)
control system
pump
(3)	Heat exchangers (stainless steel)
1488

-------
(4)	Reboiler (gas-fired)
(5)	Acid cleaning system
batch tank, fiberglass
agitator (velocity gradient is 60/sec)
metering pump
(6)	Surge tank (8-hour retention time).
The direct capital cost of the lime feed system was based on the
chemical feed rate as noted in the discussion on chemical precip-
itation. Sulfuric acid used in the acid cleaning system was
assumed to be added manually, requiring no special equipment.
Other equipment costs were direct or indirect functions of the
influent flow rate. Direct annual costs include operation and
maintenance labor for the lime feed system, heat exchangers and
reboiler; the cost of lime and sulfuric acid, maintenance materi-
als, energy costs required to run the agitators and pumps; and
natural gas costs to operate the reboiler. The cost of natural
gas is $6.70/1,000 scf. The total direct capital and annual
costs are presented in Figure VIII-15.
Oil-Water Separation
Oil skimming costs apply to the removal of free (non-emulsified)
oil using either a coalescent plate oil-water separator or a belt
skimmer located on the equalization tank. The latter is applica-
ble to low oil removal rates (less than 189 liters per day)
whereas the coalescent plate separator is used for oil removal
rates greater than 189 liters/day (50 gpd).
Although the required coalescent plate separator capacity is
dependent on many factors, the sizing was based primarily on the
influent wastewater flow rate, with the following design values
assumed for the remaining parameters of importance:
Extreme operating conditions, such as influent oil concentrations
greater than 30,000 mg/1, or temperatures much lower than 20C
(68F) were accounted for in the sizing of the separator.
Additional capacity for such extreme conditions was provided
using correlations developed from actual oil separator
performance data.
The capital and annual costs of oil-water separation include the
following equipment:
Parameter
Design Value
Specific gravity of oil
Operating temperature (°F)
Effluent oil concentration (mg/1)
0.85
68
10.0
1489

-------
-	Coalescent plate separator with automatic shutoff valve
and level sensor
-	Oily waste storage tanks (2-week retention time)
-	Oily waste discharge pump
Effluent discharge pump
Influent flow rates up to 159,100 1/hr (700 gpm) are treated in a
single unit; flows greater than this require multiple units.
The direct annual costs for oil-water separation include the cost
of operating and maintenance labor and replacement parts. Annual
costs for the coalescent plate separators alone are minimal and
involve only periodic cleaning and replacement of the plates.
If the amount of oil discharged is 189 liters/day (50 gpd) or
less, it is more economical to use a belt skimmer rather than a
coalescent plate separator. This belt skimmer may be attached to
the equalization basin which is usually necessary to equalize
flow surges. The belt skimmer-equalization basin configuration
is assumed to achieve 10 mg/1 oil in the effluent.
The equipment included in the belt oil skimmer and associated
design parameters and assumptions are presented below.
(1)	Belt oil skimmer
12-inch width
- 6-foot length
(2)	Oily waste storage tank
2-week storage
fiberglass
Capital costs for belt skimmers were obtained from published
vendor quotes. Annual costs were estimated from the energy and
operation and maintenance requirements. Energy requirements are
calculated from the skimmer motor horsepower. Operating labor is
assumed constant at 26 hours per year. Maintenance labor is
assumed to require 24 labor hours per year and belt replacement
once a year.
Capital and annual costs for oil-water separation are $2,600 and
$1,300, respectively, based on these assumptions.
Chemical Precipitation and Gravity Settling
Chemical precipitation using lime or caustic followed by gravity
settling is a fundamental technology for metals removal. In
practice, quicklime (CaO), hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2)f or
caustic (NaOH) can be used to precipitate toxic and other metals.
Where lime is selected, hydrated lime is generally more
economical for low lime requirements since the use of slakers,
which are necessary for quicklime usage, is practical only for
large volume applications of lime (greater than 50 lbs/hr). The
1490

-------
chemical precipitant used for compliance costs estimation depends
on a variety of factors and the subcategory being considered.
Lime or caustic is used to adjust the pH of the influent waste
stream to a value of approximately 9, at which optimum overall
precipitation of the metals as metal hydroxides is assumed to
occur. The chemical precipitant dosage is calculated as a
theoretical stoichiometric requirement based on the pH and the
influent metals concentrations. In addition, particular waste
streams may contain significant amounts of fluoride. The
fluoride will form calcium fluoride (CaF2) when combined with
free calcium ions which are present if lime is used as the
chemical precipitant. The additional sludge due to calcium
fluoride formation is included in the sludge generation
calculations. In cases where the calcium consumed by calcium
fluoride formation exceeds the calcium level resulting from
dosing for pH adjustment and metal hydroxide formation, the
additional lime needed to consume the remaining fluoride is
included in the total theoretical dosage calculation. The total
chemical dosage requirement is obtained by assuming an excess of
10 percent of the theoretical dosage. The effluent
concentrations are generally based on the Agency's combined
metals data base treatment effectiveness values for chemical
precipitation technology described in Section VII.
The costs of chemical precipitation and gravity settling are
based on one of three operating modes, depending on the influent
flow: continuous, "normal" batch, or "low flow" batch. The use
of a particular mode for cost estimation purposes is determined
on a least cost (total annualized) basis. The economic break-
point between continuous and normal batch was estimated to be
10,600 1/hr (46.7 gpm). Below 2,200 1/hr, it was found that the
low flow batch was the most economical. The direct capital and
annual costs are presented in Figure VIII-16 for all three
operating modes.
Continuous Mode. For continuous operation, the following
equipment is included in the determination of capital and annual
costs:
(1) Chemical precipitant feed system (continuous)
lime
—bags (for hydrated lime) or storage units (30-day
storage capacity) for quicklime
—slurry mix tank (5-minute retention time) or
slaker
—feed pumps (for hydrated lime slurry) or gravity
feed (for quicklime slurry)
—instrumentation (pH control)
caustic
—day tanks (2) with mixers and feeders for feed
rates less than 200 lbs/day; fiberglass tank with
15-day storage capacity otherwise
—chemical metering pumps
1491

-------
—pipe and valves
—instrumentation (pH control)
(2)	Polymer feed system
storage hopper
chemical mix tank with agitator
chemical metering pump
(3)	Reaction system
rapid mix tank, fiberglass (5-minute retention time)
agitator (velocity gradient is 300 ft/sec/ft)
instrumentation and control
(4)	Gravity settling system
clarifier, circular, steel (overflow rate is 560
gpd/ft2; underflow solids is 3 percent)
(5)	Sludge pump
Ten percent of the clarifier underflow stream is recycled to the
pH adjustment tank to serve as seed material for the incoming
waste stream.
The direct capital costs of the chemical precipitant and polymer
feed are based on the respective feed rates (dry lbs/hr), which
are dependent on the influent waste stream characteristics. The
flexibility of this feature (i.e., costs are independent of other
module components) was previously noted in the description of the
cost estimation model. The remaining equipment costs (e.g., for
tanks, agitators, pumps) were developed as a function of the
influent flow (either directly or indirectly, when coupled with
the design assumptions).
Direct annual costs for the continuous system are based on the
following assumptions:
(1) Lime feed system
operating and maintenance labor requirements are
based on 3 hrs/day for the quicklime feed system and
20 min/day for the hydrated lime feed system; in
addition, 5 hrs/50,000 lbs are required for bulk
delivery of quicklime and 8 hrs/16,000 lbs are
assumed for delivery of hydrated lime
maintenance materials cost is estimated as 3 percent
of the purchased equipment cost
chemical cost of lime is based on $47.40/kkg
($43.00/ton) for hydrated lime delivered in bags and
$34.50/kkg ($31.30/ton) for quicklime delivered on a
bulk basis (these costs were obtained from the
Chemical Marketing Reporter)
1492

-------
(2) Caustic feed system
-	labor for unloading of dry NaOH requires 8 hours/
16,000 lbs delivered; liquid 50 percent NaOH
requires 5 hours/50,000 lbs
-	operating labor for dry NaOH feeders is 10 min/day/
feeder
-	operating labor for metering pump is 15 min/day
maintenance materials cost is assumed to be 3
percent of the purchased equipment cost
maintenance labor requires 8 hours/year
-	energy cost is based on the horsepower requirements
for the feed pumps and mixers; energy requirements
generally represent less than 5 percent of the total
annual costs for the caustic feed system
-	chemical cost is $0,183 per lb
(3)	Polymer feed system
polymer requirements are based on a dosage of 2 mg/1
-	the operating labor is assumed to be 134 hrs/yr,
which includes delivery and solution preparation
requirements; maintenance labor is estimated at 32
hrs/yr
-	energy costs for the feed pump and mixer are based
on 17,300 kW-hr/yr
-	chemical cost for polymer is based on $5.00/kkg
($2.25/lb)
(4)	Reaction system
operating and maintenance labor requirements are 120
hrs/yr
-	pumps are assumed to require 0.005 hrs of mainte-
nance/operating hr (for flows less than 100 gpm) or
0.01 hrs/operating hr (flows greater than 100 gpm),
in addition to 0.05 hrs/operating day for pump
operation
-	maintenance materials costs are estimated as 5
percent of the purchased equipment cost
-	energy costs are based on the power requirements for
the pump (function of flow) and agitator (0.06
hp/1,000 gal); an agitator efficiency of 70 percent
was assumed
(5)	Gravity settling system
annual operating and maintenance labor requirements
range from 150 hrs for the minimum size clarifier
(3Q0 ft ) to 500 hrs for a clarifier of 30,000
ft ; in addition, labor hours for operation and
maintenance of the sludge pumps were assumed to range
from 55 to 420 hrs/yr, depending on the pump capacity
(10 to 1,500 gpm)
1493

-------
-	maintenance material costs are estimated as 3
percent of the purchased equipment cost
energy costs are based on power requirements for the
sludge pump and rake mechanism.
Normal Batch Mode. The normal batch treatment system, which is
used for flows between 2,200 and 10,600 1/yr, consists of the
following equipment:
(1)	Chemical precipitant feed system
lime (batch)
—slurry tank (5-minute retention time)
—agitator
—feed pump
caustic (batch)
—fiberglass tank (1-week storage)
—chemical metering pump
(2)	Polymer feed system (batch)
chemical mix tank (5-day retention time)
-	agitator
chemical metering pump
(3)	Reaction system
reaction tanks (minimum of 2) (8-hour retention time
each)
agitators (2) (velocity gradient is 300 ft/sec/ft)
pH control system
The reaction tanks used for pH adjustment are sized to hold the
wastewater volume accumulated for one batch period (assumed to be
8 hours). The tanks are arranged in a parallel setup to allow
treatment in one tank while wastewater is accumulated in the
other tank. A separate gravity settler is not necessary since
settling can occur in the reaction tank after precipitation has
taken place. The settled sludge is then pumped to the dewatering
stage if necessary.
Direct annual costs for the normal batch treatment system are
based on the following assumptions:
(1) Lime feed system (batch)
operating labor requirements range from 15 to 60
min/batch, depending on the feed rate (5 to 1,000
lbs of hydrated lime/batch)
-	maintenance labor is assumed to be constant at 52
hrs/yr (1 hr/week)
energy costs for the agitator and feed pump are
assumed to be negligible
chemical costs are based on the use of hydrated lime
(see continuous feed system assumptions)
1494

-------
(2)
Caustic feed system (batch)
operating labor requirements are based on 30 min/
metering pump/shift
- maintenance labor requirements are 16 hrs/metering
pump/year
energy costs are assumed to be negligible
chemical costs are based on the use of 50 percent
liquid caustic solution (see continuous feed system)
(3)	Polymer feed system (batch)
polymer requirements are based on a dosage of 2 mg/1
operating and maintenance labor are assumed to
require 50 hrs/year
chemical cost for polymer is based on $5.00/kkg
($225/lb)
(4)	Reaction system
required operating labor is assumed to be 1 hr/batch
(for pH control, sampling, valve operation, etc.)
maintenance labor requirements are 52 hrs/yr
energy costs are based on power requirements for
operation of the sludge pump and agitators.
Low-Flow Batch Mode. For small influent flows (less than 2,200
1/hr), it is more economical on a total annualized cost basis to
select the "low flow" batch treatment system. The lower flows
allow an assumption of up to five days for the batch duration, or
holding time, as opposed to eight hours for the normal batch
system. However, whenever the total batch volume (based on a
five-day holdinq time) exceeds 10,000 gallons, which is the
maximum single batch tank capacity, the holding time is decreased
accordingly to maintain the batch volume under this level.
Capital costs for the low flow system are based on the following
equipment:
(1)	Reaction system
reaction/holding tank (5-day or less retention time)
agitator
transfer pump
(2)	Polymer feed system (batch)
chemical mix tank (5-day retention time)
agitator
chemical metering pump.
The polymer feed system is included for the low flow system for
manufacturing processes operating in excess of 16 hours per day.
The addition of polymer for plants operating 16 hours or less per
1495

-------
day is assumed to be unnecessary due to the additional settling
time available.
Only one tank is required for both equalization and treatment
since sedimentation is assumed to be accomplished during nonpro-
duction hours (since the holding time is greater than the time
required for treatment). Costs for a chemical precipitant feed
system are not included since lime or caustic addition at low
application rates can be assumed to be done manually by the
operator. A common pump is used for transfer of both the super-
natant and sludge through an appropriate valving arrangement.
As in the normal batch case, annual costs consist mainly of labor
costs for the low flow system and are based on the following
assumptions:
(1)	Reaction system
operating labor is assumed to be constant at 1
hr/batch (for pH control, sampling, filling, etc.);
additional labor is also required for the manual
addition of lime or caustic, ranging from 15 minutes
to 1.5 hrs/batch depending on the feed requirement
(1 to 500 lbs/batch)
maintenance labor is 52 hrs/year (1 hr/week)
energy costs are based on power requirements associ-
ated with the agitator and pump
chemical costs are based on the use of hydrated lime
or liquid caustic (50 percent)
(2)	Polymer feed system (batch)
see assumptions for normal batch treatment.
Combined Treatment
For small treatment systems (i.e., flow is less than 2,200 1/hr)
where one or more pretreatment steps is required (e.g., cyanide
precipitation or chromium reduction), significant cost savings
can be realized by using a single reactor vessel and multiple
treatment steps versus treatment in several separate tanks. For
the nonferrous metals forming industry, this combined treatment
approach was used, where applicable, in the precious metals
forming and iron, copper and aluminum metal powders subcatego-
ries .
The treatment steps that may be performed in combined treatment
include chemical emulsion breaking, oil-water separation, cyanide
precipitation, chromium reduction, and chemical precipitation and
settling. Only those steps specifically required by the waste
streams at the plant are included in the design.
The design basis for combined treatment begins with the chemical
precipitation unit. This unit is designed to hold wastewater
from the plant for a period up to five days, based on the optimal
1496

-------
cost of capital equipment and operating costs. The total reten-
tion time required is calculated by summing the individual
retention times associated with each treatment step. The tank
size is then calculated based on the larger of either the holdup
time or the total retention time.
The equipment that may be used in combined treatment includes:
(1)	Manual lime or caustic addition
(2)	Batch reactor tank
(3)	Pump
(4)	Agitator
(5)	Polymer feed system (if required)
(6)	FeSC>4 feed system (if required)
(7)	H2SO4 feed system (if required)
(8)	Na2S2C>5 feed system (if required)
(9)	Belt skimmer (if required).
The design bases such as dosages and feed equipment are identical
to those presented in the respective treatment discussions for
batch operation, with the following exceptions:
(1)	Annual costs for chemical addition are adjusted by the
number of days of holdup
(2)	Batch reactor tank annual costs are recalculated as
follows:
one hour/batch for operating labor for each treat-
ment step except chromium reduction, where 0.5
hour/batch is used
52 hours/year total maintenance
(3)	The chemical feed rates for identical chemicals
required in separate treatment steps are additive.
The capital and annual costs calculated by combined treatment are
apportioned to each treatment step as follows:
Treatment Step
Chemical Precipitation
Batch reactor tank
Lime addition
Pump
Agitator
Polymer feed system
Cost Items
Cyanide Precipitation
FeS04 feed system
H2SO4 feed system
Chromium Reduction
Na2S205 feed system
H2SO4 feed system (if cyanide
precipitation is not
present)
1497

-------
Chemical Emulsion Breaking Belt skimmer
H2SO4 feed system (if cyanide
precipitation or chromium
reduction is not present)
Vacuum Filtration
The underflow from the clarifier at 3 percent solids is routed to
a rotary precoat vacuum filter, which dewaters sludge to a cake
of 20 percent dry solids. The dewatered sludge is disposed of by
contract hauling and the filtrate is recycled to the chemical
precipitation step.
The capacity of the vacuum filter, expressed as square feet of
filtration area, is based on a yield of 14.6 kg of dry solids/hr
per square meter of filter area (3 lbs/hr/ft^), a solids
capture of 95 percent and an excess capacity of 30 percent. It
was assumed that the filter was operated eight hours/operating
day.
Cost data were compiled for vacuum filters ranging from 0.9 to
69.7 m2 (9.4 to 750 ft2) of filter surface area. Based
on a total annualized cost comparison, it was assumed that it was
more economical to directly contract haul clarifier underflow
streams which were less than 50 1/hr (0.23 gpm), rather than
dewater by vacuum filtration before hauling.
The costs for the vacuum filtration system include the following
equipment:
(1)	Vacuum filter with precoat but no sludge conditioning
(2)	Housing
(3)	Influent transfer pump
(4)	Slurry holding tank
(5)	Sludge pumps.
The vacuum filter is sized based on 8 hrs/day operation. The
slurry holding tank and pump are excluded when the treatment
system operates 8 hrs/day or less. It was assumed in this case
that the underflow from the clarifier directly enters the vacuum
filter and that holding tank volume for the slurry in addition to
the clarifier holding capacity was unnecessary. For cases where
the treatment system is operated for more than 8 hrs/day, the
under-flow is stored during vacuum filter non-operating hours.
Accordingly, the filter is sized to filter the stored slurry in
an 8 hour period each day. The holding tank capacity is based on
the difference between the plant and vacuum filter operating
hours plus an excess capacity of 20 percent.
Cost curves for direct capital and annual costs are presented in
Figures VIII-17 and VIII-18, for vacuum filtration. Two cost
curves are presented, one for stainless steel filter systems and
one for carbon steel filter systems. The stainless steel filter
and appurtenances are used for sludges from cyanide
1498

-------
precipitation, carbon steel filters for all other sludges.
Annual cost for both designs are presented in Figure VIII-19.
The following assumptions were made for developing capital and
annual costs:
(1)	Annual costs associated with the vacuum filter were
developed based on continuous operation (24 hrs/day,
365 days/year). These costs were adjusted for a
plant's individual operating schedule by assuming that
annual costs are proportional to the hours the vacuum
filter actually operates. Thus, annual costs were
adjusted by the ratio of actual vacuum filter operating
hours per year (8 hrs/day x number days/year) to the
number of hours in continuous operation (8,760 hrs/
year).
(2)	Annual vacuum filter costs include operating and
maintenance labor (ranging from 200 to 3,000 hrs/year
as a function of filter size), maintenance materials
(generally less than 5 percent of capital cost), and
energy requirements (mainly for the vacuum pumps).
(3)	Enclosure costs for vacuum filtration were based on
applying rates of $45/ft2 and $5/ftVyear for capital
and annual costs, respectively to the estimated floor
area required by the vacuum filter system. The capital
cost rate for enclosure is the standard value as
discussed below in the costs for enclosures discussion.
The annual cost rate accounts for electrical energy
requirements for the filter housing. Floor area for
the enclosure is based on equipment dimensions reported
in vendor literature, ranging from 300 ft2 for the
minimum size filter (9.4 ft2) to 1,400 ft for a vacuum
filtration capacity of 1,320 ft .
Multimedia Filtration
Multimedia filtration is used as a wastewater treatment polishing
device to remove suspended solids not removed in previous treat-
ment processes. The filter beds consist of graded layers of
coarse anthracite coal and fine sand. The equipment used to
determine capital and annual costs are as follows:
(1)	Gravity flow, vertical steel cylindrical filters with
media (anthracite and sand)
(2)	Influent storage tank sized for one backwash volume
(3)	Backwash tank sized for one backwash volume
(4)	Backwash pump to provide necessary flow and head for
backwash operations
air scour system
1499

-------
(5) Influent transfer pump
piping, valves, and a control system.
The hydraulic loading rate is 7,335 lph/m^ (180 gph/ft^)
and the backwash loading rate is 29,340 lph/m^ (720
gph/ft2). The filter is backwashed once per 24 hours for 10
minutes. The backwash volume is provided from the stored
filtrate.
Effluent pollutant concentrations are based on the Agency's
combined metals data base for treatability of pollutants by
filtration technology.
Cartridge-type filters are used instead of multimedia filters to
treat small flows (less than 800 liters/hour) since they are more
economical than multimedia filters at these flows (based on a
least total annualized cost comparison). The effluent quality
achieved by these filters was equivalent to the level attained by
multimedia filters. The equipment items used to determine
capital and annual costs for membrane filtration are as follows:
(1)	Influent holding tank sized for 8 hours retention
(2)	Pump
(3)	Prefilter
prefilter cartridges
prefilter housings
(4)	Membrane filter
membrane filter cartridges
housing
The majority of annual cost is attributable to replacement of the
spent prefilter and membrane filter cartridges. The maximum
loading for the prefilter and membrane filter cartridges was
assumed to be 0.225 kg per 0.254 m units length of cartridge.
The annual energy and maintenance costs associated with the pump
are also included in the total annual costs. Cost curves for
direct capital and annual costs for multimedia filtration and
capital costs for cartridge filtration are presented in Figure
VIII-20. Annual costs for cartridge filtration are obtained from
Table VIII-11.
Ion Exchange
This technology is applicable to precious metals recovery and
final effluent polishing in the precious metals subcategory. It
operates by absorption of charged precious metal ions onto a
strongly anionic resin, which replaces the metal ions with
chloride or hydroxide ions. It has been found that loading of
1500

-------
the resin to exhaustion and recovery of metals through combustion
is preferred over regeneration; separation efficiency of the
desired metals during regeneration is not usually adequate.
EPA has determined that removal of precious metal ions is achiev-
able at no net cost, since the annual value of recovered metal
exceeds the annualized cost of column operation. This analysis
was based on median flows and concentrations of precious metals
at a model plant. The mass of metal recovered was calculated
using a treatability value for each metal (Au, Pt, Pd) of 0.01
mg/1 (0.007 mg/1 for silver). The metal value was determined by
assuming 2/3 of the market price for each metal. This was
compared to the cost of operating and depreciating the ion
exchange column.
Contract Hauling
Concentrated sludge and waste oils are removed on a contract
basis for off-site disposal. The cost of contract hauling
depends on the classification of the waste as being either
hazardous or nonhazardous. For nonhazardous wastes, a rate of
$0.106/liter ($0.40/gallon) was used in determining contract
hauling costs. The cost for contract hauling hazardous wastes
was developed from a survey of waste disposal services and varies
with the amount of waste hauled. No capital costs are associated
with contract hauling. Annual cost curves for contract hauling
nonhazardous and hazardous wastes are presented in Figure VIII-
21.
Enclosures
The costs of enclosures for equipment considered to require
protection from inclement weather were accounted for separately
from the module costs (except for vacuum filtration). In partic-
ular, chemical feed systems were generally assumed to require
enclosure.
Costs for enclosures were obtained by first estimating the
required enclosure area and then multiplying this value by the
$/ft unit cost. A capital cost of $45/ft was
estimated, based on the following:
structure (including roofing, materials, insulation,
etc.)
site work (masonry, installation, etc.)
electrical and plumbing.
The rate for annual costs of enclosures is $5/ft2/yr which
accounts for energy requirements for heating and lighting the
enclosure.
The required enclosure area is determined as the amount of total
required enclosure area which exceeds the enclosure area esti-
1501

-------
mated to be available at a particular plant. It was assumed that
a common structure could be used to enclose all equipment needing
housing unless information was available to indicate that sepa-
rate enclosures are needed (e.g., due to plant layout). The
individual areas are estimated at 50 ft2 per feed system.
The available enclosure areas associated with each plant site
were based on experience from site visits at numerous plants.
For plant flows less than 1,100 1/hr, between 1,100 1/hr and
10,800 1/hr, and over 10,800 1/hr, the estimated available areas
are 150 ft2, 200 ft2, and 250 ft2, respectively.
The estimated available area did not exceed the required enclo-
sure area at any plant in this category.
Segregation
Estimation of costs for segregation of process wastewaters for
the nonferrous metals forming category is required by the fre-
quency of multiple subcategories and categories present at plants
covered by this regulation. Eighty-two of the approximately 150
plants for which costs were estimated for this regulation are
such plants. Because the subcategories and categories repre-
sented at these plants may have different arrays of regulated
pollutants, the possibility exists for mass allowances to be
incorporated into a plant's permit that are in fact not required
from a treatment standpoint. EPA seeks to avoid such a situation
due to its potential for allowing additional pollutants to be
discharged into the environment. As discussed in Section X, EPA
took steps to minimize monitoring difficulties that could arise
from this situation. However, segregation of wastewater contain-
ing different pollutants may be required for optimal environmen-
tal benefit. EPA does not seek to discourage combined treatment
of process wastewater where such treatment provides effective
removal of regulated pollutants.
Segregation costs, which are essentially the costs associated
with transporting wastewater from its point of generation to the
treatment system, are therefore a function of the subcategories
and categories present at the plant. In case I, which is the
most common, the nonferrous metals forming flow is a small
portion of the total process wastewater flow. The cost of
segregating the flow from each nonferrous metals forming process
at a particular plant was estimated by multiplying a per stream
segregation cost by the number of waste streams in each subcate-
gory that are present at the plant. These costs are then attrib-
uted to each forming subcategory.
In case II, the nonferrous metals forming wastewater is the major
wastewater flow. Here the cost is also calculated by using the
per stream cost, however, the number of wastewater streams not
associated with the major nonferrous metals forming subcategory
were used. The costs were then assigned to the major nonferrous
metals forming subcategory to reflect the cost of compliance by
the major subcategory with its effluent limitations.
1502

-------
The per stream segregation costs and assumptions are listed in
Table VIII-14.
Finally/ an additional cost for segregation must be included for
separation of process wastewaters that are discharged from the
same equipment, where this equipment is used to process metals
that are in separate subcategories. For instance, the same
surface treatment rinse tank may rinse titanium parts over a
certain period and then be used for rinsing of nickel parts. The
cost for this segregation is represented by the cost of a holding
tank of 4 hours retention, a pump, and connecting piping. The
resulting cost was assigned to each nonferrous metals forming
subcategory for which wastewater is discharged from the common
equipment.
For the purpose of evaluating the economic impact of the nonfer-
rous metals forming regulation, the Agency estimated the compli-
ance cost for each plant on the basis of a combined wastewater
treatment system. Nonferrous metals forming plants that generate
process wastewater which is regulated by more than one nonferrous
metals forming subcategory with different model end-of-pipe
treatment requirements may be able to comply with permit require-
ments using a less costly treatment system than a system which
will treat all process wastewater to meet the most stringent
limitations.
Costs for segregation of wastewaters not included in this regula-
tion (e.g., noncontact cooling water) were also included in the
compliance cost estimates. The capital costs for segregating the
above streams were determined using a rate of $6,900 for each
stream requiring segregation. This rate is based on the purchase
and installation of 50 feet of 4-inch piping (with valves, pipe
racks, and elbows) for each stream. Annual costs associated with
segregation are assumed to be negligible.
Where a common stormwater-process wastewater piping system was
used at a plant, costs were included for both segregation of each
process waste stream to treatment (based on the above rate) and
segregation of stormwater for rerouting around the treatment
system. Stormwater segregation cost is $8,800 based on the
underground installation of 300 feet of 24-inch diameter concrete
pipe.
COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATION
A cost summary was prepared for each plant. An example of this
summary for plants that were costed by the computer model may be
found in Table VIII-15, page . Referring to this table, five
types of data are included for each option: run number, total
capital costs, required capital costs, total annual costs, and
required annual costs. Run number refers to which computer run
the costs were derived from.
Total capital costs include the capital cost estimate for each
piece of wastewater treatment equipment necessary to meet mass
1503

-------
limitations. Required capital costs are determined by consider-
ing the equipment and wastewater treatment system a plant cur-
rently has in place. As discussed previously, the required
capital costs reflect the estimates of the actual capital cost
the facility will incur to purchase and install the necessary
treatment equipment by accounting for what that facility already
has installed.
For plants that discharge wastewater in more than one subcategory
in the nonferrous metals forming category, or in more than one
category, the compliance costs must be allocated to the different
subcategories and categories. In general, this allocation is
done based on the flow contribution of each subcategory and
category. For instance, if 33 percent of the flow came from the
nickel and cobalt forming subcategory, the titanium forming
subcategory, and the electroplating category each, the capital
and annual costs allocated to each of the two forming subcatego-
ries and the other category would be 33 percent.
An exception to this rule occurs when preliminary treatment steps
such as chromium reduction are performed on only a portion of the
total plant wastewater flow. In this case, the costs associated
with the preliminary step are allocated solely to the subcatego-
ries and categories that discharge water requiring that treat-
ment. Where flow reduction is included, the costs are appor-
tioned as above keeping constant the portion(s) borne by subcate-
gories where flow is not reduced. This prevents compliance costs
from increasing for a subcategory from option to option when no
regulatory flow change has been established. Examples and
detailed calculation sheets for the apportionment of costs at
each plant are contained in the public record for this
rulemaking.
NONWATER QUALITY ASPECTS
The elimination or reduction of one form of pollution may aggra-
vate other environmental problems. Therefore, Sections 304(b)
and 306 of the Act require EPA to consider the nonwater quality
environmental impacts (including energy requirements) of certain
regulations. In compliance with these provisions, EPA has
considered the effect of this regulation on air pollution, solid
waste generation, water scarcity, and energy consumption. This
regulation was circulated to and reviewed by EPA personnel
responsible for nonwater quality environmental programs. While
it is difficult to balance pollution problems against each other
and against energy utilization, the Administrator has determined
that the impacts identified below are justified by the benefits
associated with compliance with the limitations and standards.
The following are the nonwater quality environmental impacts
associated with compliance with BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS.
Air Pollution, Radiation, and Noise
In general, none of the wastewater treatment or control processes
causes air pollution. Steam stripping of ammonia has a potential
1504

-------
to generate atmospheric emissions; however, with proper design
and operation, air pollution impacts are prevented. None of the
wastewater treatment processes cause objectionable noise or have
any potential for radiation hazards.
Solid Waste Disposal
As shown in Section V, the waste streams being discharged contain
large quantities of toxic and other metals; the most common
method of removing the metals is by chemical precipitation.
Consequently, significant volumes of heavy metal-laden sludge are
generated that must be disposed of properly.
The technologies that directly generate sludge are:
1.	Cyanide precipitation,
2.	Chemical precipitation (lime or caustic),
3.	Multimedia filtration, and
4.	Oil water separation.
Table VIII-15 presents the sludge volumes generated by plants for
each regulatory option in each subcategory, page
The estimated sludge volumes generated from wastewater treatment
were obtained from material balances performed by the computer
model and extrapolated to the entire category. Generally, the
solid waste requiring disposal is a dewatered sludge resulting
from vacuum filtration, which contains 20 percent solids (by
weight). The solids content will be lower in cases where it is
more economical to contract haul a waste stream directly from the
process without undergoing treatment.
A major concern in the disposal of sludges is the contamination
of soils, plants, and animals by the heavy metals contained in
the sludge. The leaching of heavy metals from sludge and subse-
quent movement through soils is enhanced by acidic conditions.
Sludges formed by chemical precipitation possess high pH values
and thus are resistant to acid leaching. Since the largest
amount of sludge that results from the alternatives is generated
by chemical precipitation, it is not expected that metals will be
readily leached from the sludge. Disposal of sludges in a lined
sanitary landfill will further reduce the possibility of heavy
metals contamination of soils, plants, and animals.
Other methods of treating and disposing sludge are available.
One method currently being used at a number of plants is reuse or
recycle, usually to recover metals. This is especially common at
plants in the precious metals forming subcategory. Since the
metal concentrations in some sludges may be substantial, it may
be cost-effective for some plants to recover the metal fraction
of their sludges prior to disposal.
Wastes generated by nonferrous metal formers are subject to
regulation under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) if they are hazardous. However, the Agency
1505

-------
examined solid wastes similar to those that would be generated at
nonferrous metals forming plants by the suggested treatment
technologies (that is, the sludges from lime and settle treat-
ment) and believes they are not hazardous wastes under the
Agency's regulations implementing Subtitle C of RCRA. The one
exception to this is solid waste generated by cyanide precipita-
tion. This sludge is expected to be hazardous and this judgement
was included in this study. None of the noncyanide wastes are
specifically listed as hazardous, nor ate they likely to exhibit
one of the four characteristics of hazardous waste (see 40 CFR
Part 261) based on the recommended technology of chemical
precipitation and sedimentation, preceded where necessary by
hexavalent chromium reduction. By the addition of a small excess
of lime during treatment, similar sludges, specifically toxic
metal-bearing sludges generated by other industries such as the
iron and steel industry passed the Extraction Procedure (EP)
toxicity test (see 40 CFR 261.24). Thus, the Agency believes
that nonferrous metals forming wastewater treatment sludges will
similarly not be EP toxic if the recommended technology is
applied.
The Agency is not proposing an allowance for discharge of spent
solvents from the solvent degreasing operations at nonferrous
metals forming plants. Disposal of the spent solvent may be
subject to regulation under RCRA. However, no plant in the
nonferrous metals forming industry is known to currently dis-
charge the spent solvents. Therefore, the cost of disposal of
the spent solvents has not been included in estimating the cost
of this proposed regulation because all plants which use solvent
degreasing already incur those costs.
Although solid wastes generated as a result of these guidelines
are not expected to be hazardous, generators of these wastes must
test the waste to determine if the wastes meet any of the charac-
teristics of hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 261.10). The Agency
also may list these wastes as hazardous under 40 CFR 261.11.
If these wastes are hazardous, as defined by RCRA, they will come
within the scope of RCRA's "cradle to grave" hazardous waste
management program, requiring regulation from the point of
generation to point of final disposition. EPA's generator
standards require generators of hazardous nonferrous metals
forming wastes to meet containerization, labelling, recordkeep-
ing, and reporting requirements; if plants dispose of hazardous
wastes off-site, they have to prepare a manifest which tracks the
movement of the wastes from the generator's premises to a permit-
ted off-site treatment, storage, or disposal facility (see 40 CFR
262,20). The transporter regulations require transporters of
hazardous wastes to comply with the manifest system to assure
that the wastes are delivered to a permitted facility (see 40 CFR
263.20). Finally, RCRA regulations establish standards for
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
allowed to receive such wastes (see 40 CFR Part 264).
1506

-------
Even if these wastes are not identified as hazardous, they still
must be disposed of in compliance with the Subtitle D open
dumping standards, implementing Section 4004 of RCRA (see 44 FR
53438, September 13, 1979). The Agency has calculated as part of
the costs for wastewater treatment, the cost of hauling and
disposing of these wastes.
Consumptive Water Loss
Treatment and control technologies that require extensive recy-
cling and reuse of water may require cooling mechanisms. Evapo-
rative cooling mechanisms can cause water loss and contribute to
water scarcity problems-a primary concern in arid and semi-arid
regions. While this regulation assumes water reuse, the overall
amount of reuse through evaporative cooling mechanisms is low and
the quantity of water involved is not significant. In addition,
most nonferrous metals forming plants are located east of the
Mississippi where water scarcity is not a problem. The Agency
has concluded that consumptive water loss is insignificant and
that the pollution reduction benefits of recycle technologies
outweigh their impact on consumptive water loss.
Energy Requirements
The incremental energy requirements of a wastewater treatment
system have been determined in order to consider the impact of
this regulation on natural resource depletion and on various
national economic factors associated with energy consumption.
The calculation of energy requirements for wastewater treatment
facilities proceeded in two steps. First, the portion of operat-
ing costs which were attributable to energy requirements was
estimated for each wastewater treatment module. Then, these
fractions, or energy factors, were applied to each module in all
plants to obtain the energy costs associated with wastewater
treatment for each plant. These costs were summed for each
subcategory and converted to kW-hrs using the electricity charge
rate previously mentioned ($0.0483/kW-hr for March 1982). The
total plant energy usage was calculated based on the data collec-
tion portfolios.
Table VIII-16, presents these energy requirements for each
regulatory option in each subcategory. From the data in this
table, the Agency has concluded that the energy requirements of
the proposed treatment options will not significantly affect the
natural resource base nor energy distribution or consumption in
communities where plants are located.
1507

-------
Table VIII-i
BPT COSTS OF COMPLIANCE FOR THE
NONFERROUS METALS FORMING CATEGORY
Subcatego ry
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Magnesium Forming
N1 eke 1-Coba11 Forming
Precious Metals Forming
Refractory Metals Forming
Titanium Forming
Uranium Forming
O
00
Zinc Forming
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Metal Powders
Number	Regulation Cost
of Direct	Estimates (1982)
Dischargers Capital	Annual
'3
1
12
4
6
13
2
1
4
A
148,000
392,000
A
96,000
186,000
226,000	98,000
87,000	44,000
2,238,000 2,261,000
A	A
A	A
359,000	327,000
A	A
A
- Based on confidential data.

-------
Table V111-2
BAT COSTS OF COMPLIANCE FOR THE
NONFERROUS METALS FORMING CATEGORY
Subcategory
Numbe r
of Di rect
D i s chargers
Regulation Cost
Estimates (1982)*
Cap ital Annual
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
3
A
A
Magnesium Forming
1
79,000
45,000
Nieke 1-Coba1t Forming
1 2
493,000
242,000
Precious Metals Forming
4
352,000
151 ,000
Refractory Metals Forming
6
135,000
68,000
Titanium Forming
13
2, 124,000
2, 192 ,000
Uranium Forming
2
A
A
Z i nc Forming
1
A
A
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
4
568,000
400,000
Metal Powders 3
A
A

*Costs are shown for selected option
only (See Section X),

A - Based on confidential data.




-------
Table VIII-3
PSES COSTS OF COMPLIANCE FOR THE
NONFERROUS METALS FORMING CATEGORY
Subcat ego ry
Number
of Direct
Di schargers
Regulation Cost
Estimates (1982)*
Capital Annual
Lead-Tin-B1smuth Forming
13
230,000
88,000
Magnesium Forming
2
A
A
Nieke 1-Coba1t Forming
26
3,622,000
2,159,000
Precious Metals Forming
26
824,000
373,000
Refractory Metals Forming
25
1 ,437,000
589,000
Titanium Forming
15
757,000
348,000
Uranium Forming
0
—
--
Zinc Forming
Exempted
—
—
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
3
11,000
4,000
Metal Powders
27 512,
000 334,000
~Costs are shown for selected option only (See Section XII).
A - Based on confidential data.

-------
Tab!e VI 11-4
NONFERROUS METALS FORMING CATEGORY
COST EQUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDED TREATMENT AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
LTI
Equ i pment
Agitator, C-clamp
Agitator, Top Entry
Ammonia Steam Strip-
ping Column
Clarifier, Concrete
Clarifier, Steel
Contract Hau1i ng
C = 839. 1
A = 0.0483 *
C = 1,585.55
A = 0.0483 *
Equat i on
587.5 (HP)
* (HPY) * 0.746 (HP)
+ 0.05 (C)
+ 125.302 (HP) - 3.27437 (HP)2
(HPY) x 0.746 (HP) + 0.05 (C)
C = 1(4,907.67	- 320.389) X (DF) + 89,9082
*	(DF)2 J +	[HT K (30.3022 * 86.9193
x	(DF) - 0.298958 * (DF)2)] + NST] * 1.1
A = 0
NST = 21 x (1 B	+ 0.00075 x (W))
NST = 21 x (41	+ 0,0006 x (W) )
NST = 21 x (59	+ 0.00045 x (W))
C = 78,400 + 32.65 (S) - 7.5357 x 10-4(5)2
A = expTS.22809 - 0.2247B1 (InS) + 0.0563252
(lnS)2]
C = 41,197.1 + 72.0979(S)
A = exp[8.22809 - 0.224781
(lnS)2]
C = 0
A = 0.40 (G)(HPY)
¦ 0.0106542(5)2
(InS) + 0.0563252
exp[-0.0240857 + 1.02731 (InG)
- 0.0196787 (1nG)2](HPY)
Range of Validity
0.25 < HP < 0.33
0.33 < HP < 5.0
2 < DF < 12
0 < W < 30,000
30,000 < W < 60,000
60,000 < W
500 < S < 12,000
300 < S < 2,800
Nonhazardous
Hazardous

-------
Table VIII-4 (Continued)
NONFERROUS METALS FORMING CATEGORY
COST EQUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDED TREATMENT AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
U1
I-*
NJ
Equ i pment
Cooling Tower System
Equalization Basin
Feed System, Alum
Feed System, Caustic
Equat i on
C = exp[8.76408 + 0.07048 (InCTON)
+ 0.5095 (1nCTON)2]
A = exp[9.08702 + 0.75544 (InCTON)
+ 0.140379 (lnCT0N)2J
C = 14,759.8 + 0.170817 (V) - 8.44271
x 10 8 (V)2
C = 3,100.44 + 1.9041 (V) - 1.7288
x 10 5 (V)2
C = exp[4.73808 - 0.0628537 (InV)
+ 0.0754345 (lnV)2]
A = 0.05 (C)
C = exp[16.2911 - 0.206595 (InF) + 0.06448
(1nF)2]
A = [0.52661 + 0.11913 (F) + 1.964 x 10"B
( F2 ) ] HPV
Continuous feed:
C = exp[9.63461 + 8.36122 x 10~3 (InF)
+ 0.0241809 (1nF)2]
A = exp 17.9707 - 4.45846 x 10 3 (InF)
+ 0.0225972 (lnF)2] + 0.183 (HPY)(F)
Batch feed:
C = exp[7.50026 + 0.199364 (InF) + 0.0416602
(1nF)2]
A = (21)[16 + 0.5 (BPY) + 0.131 (F)(HPY)
Range of Validity
5 < CTON < 700
5 < CTON < 700
24,000 < V < 500,000
1 ,000 < V < 24,000
V < 1,000
0 < V < 500,000
10 < F < 1,000
0.4 < F < 417
1.5 < F < 1,500

-------
Table VI I I-4 (Continued)
NONFERROUS METALS FORMING CATEGORY
COST EQUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDED TREATMENT AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
Equ i pmen t
U1
I-1
w
Feed System, Defoamer
Feed System, Lime
(Manua1)
Feed System, Lime
(Bat ch)
Feed System, Lime
( Cont i nuous )
Feed System, Ferrous
Sulfate
Feed System, Polymer
Equa ti on
Low flow batch feed:
C = 250
A = 10.5 (BPY) + 0,131 (F) (HPV)
C = 980
A = 6.5 * 1005 (X) (HPY)
C = 0
A = (DPY)(0.074 (B) + 5.25 (NB)]
0.036824 (B) 2
1,65864
C = 1 ,697.79 + 19.489 (B)
C = 16,149.2 + 10.2512 (B)
x 10 (B) 2
A = (BPY)[5.01989 +0.0551812 (B)
- 1.79331 x 10 5 (B)2 J - 1.65864
C = exp[6.32249 + 1.70246 (InF) - 0.137186
(lnF)21
A = exp[4.87322 + 1.78557 (InF) + 0.136732
(1nF)21 + (F)(HPY)(LC)
C = expl10.1703 - 0.38694 (InF) + 0.0765919
(lnF)2J
A = exp[9.696551 - 0.612972 (InF) + 0.0960144
OnF)2] + 0.0575 (F) (HPY)
C = exp[9.83111 + 0.663271 (InF) + 0.0557039
(lnF)2]
A = 0 .42 (F)(HPY) + 1 ,050
C = 13,150 + 2,515.2 (F)
A = exp[8.60954 + 0.04109 (InF) + 0.0109397
(1nF)2] + 2.25 (F)(HPV)
Range of Validity
X < 100
0 < X < 83,000
X < 2,000
1 < B < 200
B > 200
10 < F < 1,000
10.7 < F < 5,530
0.04 < F < 0.5
0.5 < F < 12

-------
Table VIII-4 (Continued)
NONFERROUS METALS FORMING CATEGORY
COST EQUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDED TREATMENT AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
Equ i pment
Equat i on
Range of Validity
U1
t-1
•c*
Feed System, Sulfuric
Ac i d
C =
A =
= exp[0.1441 + 0.23345 (InF) + 0.0100092
(1nF)2]
= exp[7.36913 + 0.0133111 (InF) + 0.029219
(1nF)2] + 0.03743 (F)(HPY)
0.01
<
F < 3,200
Filter, Multimedia
C =
A =
= 10,880 + 277.05 (SA) - 0.154337 (SA)2
= exp[8.20771 + 0.275272 (InSA) + 0.0323124
(lnSA)2]
7 <
SA
< 500
Filter, Membrane
C =
A =
= 290.48 + 31.441 (Y) - 0.050717 (Y)2
= [0.34253 x 10 3 + 0.173683 (SR - 4.1435
x 10 5 (SR)2](HPV)
2 <
V <
140

C =
A =
= -2,922.48 + 60.6411 (Y) - 0.065206 (Y)2
= [-0.0152849 + 0.172153 (SR) - 3.46041
x 10 6 (SR)2](HPV)
140
V <
336
Oil/Water Separator,
Coalescent Type
C =
A =
= 5,542.07 + 65.7150 (V) - 0.029627 (Y)2
= 703.04 + 6.3616 (V) - 0.001736 (V)2
0 <
V <
700
Oil/Water Separator,
Belt-Type
(Sma11 Flow)
C =
A =
C =
A =
= 2,370
= 1,300
= 2,900
= 1,500
OC <
OC <
25
25

Piping, Recycle
C =
A =
= exp[6.55278 + 0.382166 (InD) + 0.133144
(1nD)2] (0 . 0 1 ) (L)
= 0
D >
1


-------
Table VIII-4 (Continued)
NONFERROUS METALS FORMING CATEGORY
COST EQUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDED TREATMENT AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
in
I-1
<_n
Equi pment
Prefilter, Cartridge
Pump, Centrifugal
Pump, Sludge
Spray Rinsing System
SuIfonator
Tank, Batch Reactor
Equation
C = 283,353 + 25.91 1 1 (Y) - 0.058203 (V) 2
A = [0.110985 + 0.0803004 (SR) - 1.66003
"5 r cc
*. 10 3 ( SR ) 2} (HP Y )
-2 612.73 + 51 .568 (Y)
1.82339
0.059361 (Y) 2
0.0937196 (SR) - 1.7736
10
C SR)2](HPY)
C = exp[6.31076 +	0.228887(1nY ) + 0.0206172
C 1 nV)2]
A = e*p[6.67588 + 0.031335 (1nY) + 0.062016
(1nY)2] (HPB)
C = 2,264.31 + 21.0097 (Y) - 0.0037265 (Y)2
A = exp[7.64414 + 0.192172 (1nV) + 0.0202428
(1nY)2] (HPB)
4,212.72 -
(X)2
1.05 (HPY)
0.009005 (X)
+ 0.02(C)
C = 14,336.3 + 36.1562 (F)
A = 6,934.09 + 2,704.2 (F)
+ 1.004 x 10-6
0.156326 (F)2
1.08636 (F)2
Range of Validity
2	< Y < 140
140 < Y < 336
3	< Y < 3,500
5 < Y < 500
C = exp(4.73808 - 0.062B537 (InV) + 0.0754345
(1nV)2]
C = 3,100.44 + 1.19041 (V) - 1.7288 x 10 5(V)2
A = 1 , 090 + 2 1 (BP Y)
A = expfS.65018 - 0.0558604 (InX) + 0.0145276
(>nX)2]
4.0 < F < 350
57 < V < 1,000
2,200 < X < 11,600

-------
Table VIII-4 (Continued)
NONFERROUS METALS FORMING CATEGORY
COST EQUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDED TREATMENT AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
U1
I—1
Ot
Equ1pment
Tank, Concrete
Tank, Large Fiberglass
Tank, Small Fiberglass
Tank, Rectangular
Fiberglass With
Sparger System
Tank, Large Steel
Vacuum Filter
Vacuum Filter Housing
Equat i on
C = 5,800 + 0.8V
A = 0.02 (C)
C = 3,100.44 + 1.19041 (V) - 1.7288
A = 0.02 (C)
C = exp[4.7308
(1nV)2]
A = 0.02 (C)
10 (V)2
0.0628537 (InV) + 0.0754345
C = 6,670.25 + 3.444 (V) - 25.084 (V)0.5
- 1.11928 x 10-04 (V)2
A = [0.257195 - 0.00349 (V)0.5 + 3.736 x 10"5
(V)](HPY)
C = 3,128.83 + 2.37281 (V) - 7.10689
x 10 (V)2
C = 14,759.8 +0.1
x 10 8 (V)2
A = 0.02 (C)
70817 (V) - 8.44271
C = 71,083.7 + 442.3 (SA) - 0.233807 (SA)2
A = 17,471.4 + 677.408 (SA) - 0.484647 (SA)2
C = (45)[308.253 + 0.836592 (SA)]
A = (4.96)1308.253 + 0.836592 (SA)]
Range of Validity
24,000 < V < 500,000
1 ,000 < V < 24,000
57 < V < 1,000
1,000 < V < 13,000
1,000 < V < 13,000
500 < V < 12,000
V < 25,000
9.4 < SA < 750
9.4 < SA < 750

-------
Table VIII-4 (Continued)
NONFERROUS METALS FORMING CATEGORY
COST EQUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDED TREATMENT AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES

Vari ab1

A
5=

B


BD


BPY


C
=

D
=

DF
=

DPY
=

F
=

G
=

HP
=

HPB
=

HP Y


HT
=
h-1
L

Ln
LC
=
h-1
NB
=

NST
=

OC
=

S
=

SA
=

SR
=

V
=

W
=

X
=

Y
=
Equipment	Equation	Range of Validity
Direct annual costs (1982 dol1ars/year)
Batch chemical feed rate (pounds/batch)
Batch chemical feed rate (pounds/day)
Number of batches per year
Direct capital, or equipment costs (1982 dollars)
Inner diameter of pipe (inches)
Inner diameter of column (feet)
Days of operation per year
Chemical feed rate (pounds/hour)
Sludge disposal rate (ga11ons/hour)
Power requirement (horsepower)
Fraction of time equipment is in operation
Plant operating hours (hours/year)
Height of column (feet)
Length of piping (feet)
Lime cost ($/lb, March 1982)
Number of batches per day
Installed cost of column (1982 dollars)
Oil removed (gallons/day)
Clarifier surface area (square feet)
Filter surface area (square feet)
Solids removed by filter (grams/hour)
Tank capacity (gallons)
Weight of column (pounds)
Wastewater flow rate (1i ters/hour)
Wastewater flow rate (ga11ons/minute)

-------
Table VIII-5
COMPONENTS OF TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Number	Item	Cost
1	Bare Module Capital Costs	Direct capital costs3
2	Electrical & instrumentation Included in item 1
3	Yard piping	Included in item 1
4	Enclosure	Included in item 1
5	Pumping	Included in item 1
6	Retrofit allowance	Included in item 1
7	Total Module Cost	Item 1 + items 2
through 6
8	Engineering/admin. & legal	10% of item 7
9	Construction/yardwork	0% of item 7
10	Total Plant Cost	Item 7 + items 8
through 9
11	Contingency	15% of item 10
12	Contractor's fee	10% of item 10
13	Total Construction Cost	Item 10 + items 11
through 12
14	Interest during construction 0% of item 13
15	Total Depreciable Investment	Item 13 + item 14
16	Land	0% of item 15
17	Working capital	0% of item 15
18	Total Capital Investment	Item 15 + items 16
through 17
aDirect capital costs include costs of equipment and required
accessories, installation, and delivery.
1518

-------
Table VIII-6
COMPONENTS OF TOTAL ANNUALIZED INVESTMENT
Number
19
20
21
22
23
24
Item
Bare Module Annual Costs
Overhead
Monitoring
Taxes and Insurance
Amortization
Total Annualized Costs
Cost
Direct annual costs
0% of item 15k
See footenote c
1% of item 15
CRF x item 15
Item 19 + items 20
through 23
aDirect annual costs include costs of raw materials, energy,
operating labor, maintenance and repair.
^Item 15 is the total depreciable investment obtained from Tabl
VIII-5.
cSee page	for an explanation of the determination of
monitoring costs.
^The capital recovery factor (CRF) was used to account for
depreciation and the cost of financing.
1519

-------
Table VIII-7
WASTEWATER SAMPLING FREQUENCY
Wastewater Discharge
(liters per day)
0 - 37,850
37,851 - 189,250
189,251 - 378,500
378,501 - 946,250
946,250+
Sampling Frequency
Once per month
Twice per month
Once per week
Twice per week
Three times per week
1520

-------
Table VIII-8
POLLUTANT PARAMETERS IMPORTANT TO TREATMENT SYSTEM DESIGN
Parameter	Units
Flow rate	liters/hour
pH	pH units
Temperature	F
Total suspended solids	mg/1
Acidity (as CaC03)	mg/1
Aluminum	mg/1
Ammonia	mg/1
Antimony	mg/1
Arsenic	mg/1
Beryllium	mg/1
Cadmium	mg/1
Chromium (trivalent)	mg/1
Chromium (hexavalent)	mg/1
Cobalt	mg/1
Columbium	mg/1
Copper	mg/1
Cyanide (free)	mg/1
Cyanide (total)	mg/1
Fluoride	mg/1
Iron	mg/1
Lead	mg/1
Magnesium	mg/1
Manganese	mg/1
Mercury	mg/1
Molybdenum	mg/1
Nickel	mg/1
Oil and grease	mg/1
Phosphorus	mg/1
Selenium	mg/1
Silver	mg/1
Sulfate	mg/1
Tantalum	mg/1
Thallium	mg/1
Tin	mg/1
Titanium	mg/1
Tungsten	mg/1
Uranium	mg/1
Vanadium	mg/1
Zinc	mg/1
Zirconium	mg/1
1521

-------
Table VIII-9
THE RATIO OF SLUDGE TO INFLUENT WASTEWATER FLOW
FOR COST CURVE DEVELOPMENT
Subcategory Group
Wet (3%) Sludge
Ratio
Dry (20%) Sludge
Ratio
Ni-Co, U, Zr
0.14
0.02
Ti
0.66
0.10
Refractory Metals - Ia
0.05
0.007
Refractory Metals - 11^
0.89
0.13
aThese include plants with surface treatment baths and rinses,
sawing and grinding lubricants, and alkaline cleaning baths and
rinses.
^These include plants with tumbling wastewater and sawing and
grinding lubricants.
1522

-------
Table VIII-10
KEY TO COST CURVES AND EQUATIONS
Module
Capital Cost
Annual Cost
Spray Rinsing
Equipment
Pump
Countercurrent Rinsing
Tank, Rectangular
Fiberglass
Pump
Cyanide Precipitation
Chromium Reduction
Batch
Continuous
Holding Tanks
Cooling Towers
Equalization
Chemical Emulsion Breaking
Oil Skimming
Chemical Precipitation and
and Settling
Vacuum Filtration
Carbon Steel
Stainless Steel*
Multimedia Filtration
Contract Hauling
Iron Co-Precipitation
Low-Flow
Flow < 499 1/hr
500 1/hr < Flow <
2,200 1/hr
Batch and Continuous
Figure VIII-4
Figure VIII-6
Figure VIII-5
Figure VIII-6
Figure VIII-10
Figure VIII-11
Figure VIII-11
Figure VIII-8
Figure VIII-7
Figure VIII-9
Figure VIII-14
$2,600
Figure VIII-16
Figure VIII-17
Figure VIII-18
Figure VIII-20
$ 250
$2,510
Figure VIII-12
Table VIII-11
Figure VIII-6
Figure VIII-5
Figure VIII-6
Figure VIII-10
Table VIII-11
Figure VIII-11
Figure VIII-8
Figure VIII-7
Figure VIII-9
Figure VIII-14
$1,300
Figure VIII-16
Figure VIII-19
Figure VIII-19
Figure VIII-20
Table VIII-11
Figure VII1-21
Figure VIII-13
Figure VIII-13
Figure VIII-13
*Used for sludges from cyanide precipitation.
1523

-------
Table VI11-11
COST EQUATIONS USED IN COST CURVE METHOD
Range of
Item	Equation	Validity
Spray Rinsing Equipment	A = 1.05 (HPY)
Batch Chromium Reduction	A = 1,925 + [8.84 - 10.5 (HPD/8)] (DPY)
Cartridge Filtration	A = 1,000 + [0.119 + 9.306 x 10-4 (X) - 1.085	0 < X < 800
x 10-9] (HPY)
H*	Variable Definitions:
U1
A =	Direct annual costs (1982 do 11ars/year)
DPY =	Operating days per year
HPD =	Operating hours per day
HPY =	Operating hours per year
X =	Wastewater flow rate (liters/hour)

-------
Table VIII-12
NUMBER OF PLANTS FOR WHICH COSTS WERE SCALED
FROM SIMILAR PLANTS
Subcategory	Number of Plants
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
12
Magnesium Forming
1
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
5
Precious Metals Forming
9
Refractory Metals Forming
10
Titanium Forming
6
Uranium Forming
0
Zinc Forming
0
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
0
Metal Powders
5
1525

-------
Table VI11-13
FLOW REDUCTION RECYCLE RATIO AND ASSOCIATED COST ASSUMPTIONS
Condi t i on
Option A:
1. Actual flow from process* is greater
than Option A.
2. Actual flow from process is less than
Option A.
Options B and C:
1.	Actual flow from process is greater
than Option A and no in-process flow
reduction techniques are in place.
2.	Actual flow from process is greater
than Option A. The actual plant recycle
ratio is known and results in a reduced
flow less than Option A but greater than
Opt i on B . * * *
3.	Actual flow from process is greater
than Option A. The actual plant recycle
ratio is known and results in a flow
less than Option B.
4.	Actual flow from process is greater
than Option A and the actual plant
recycle is unknown.
Action
1.	Reduce flow to Option A at negligible
cost. Use flow to cost combined treat-
ment system.
2.	Use actual plant flow to cost combined
treatment plant.
1.	Reduce flow to Option A at zero cost.
Reduce flow to Option B using recycle
rat i o.~~
2.	Reduce flow to Option A at zero cost.
Reduce flow to Option B using recycle
rat i o.
3.	Reduce flow to Option A at zero cost.
Set discharge from flow reduction
equipment equal to actual plant reduced
flow.
4.	Reduce flow to Option A at zero cost.
Reduce flow to Option B using constant
recycle ratio.

-------
Table VI 11 - 13 (Continued)
FLOW REDUCTION RECYCLE RATIO AND ASSOCIATED COST ASSUMPTIONS
Condi11 on
Act ion
Actual flow from process is less than
Option A (but greater than Option 8) and
the actual plant recycle ratio is known
and results in a flow less than Option B,
Actual flow from process is less than
Option A (but greater than Option B) and
the actual plant recycle rati~ is unkown,
zero, or results in a flow greater than
Opt 'ion B.
6.
Set discharge from flow reduction
equipment equal to actual plant reduced
flow.
Set discharge from flow reduction
equipment equal to Option B.
Actual flow from process is less than
Option B using no reduction
t echn i ques,
7. Set discharge equal to actual plant
flow.
LTI
[O
*Flow before any reported flow reduction techniques (i.e., holding tanks,
towers, thickeners).
cooling
**The constant recycle ratio is calculated as: R = Option A Flow - Option B Flow.
Opt ion A Flow
***The actual plant recycle ratio is calculated as:
R = Flow Before Flow Reduction - Flow After Flow Reduction
Flow Before Flow Reduction
Note this table assumes:
Option A = Lime and settle.
Option B = Lime and settle with in-process flow reduction.
Option C = Lime, settle, and multimedia filtration with in-process flow reduction.

-------
Total Flow to Treatment
<100 1/hr
>100 1/hr,
1nd i v i dua1
<100 1/hr
where each
stream is
>100 1/hr, where one or
more waste streams are
>100 1/hr
Table VIII-14
SEGREGATION COST BASIS
( 1982 Do 1lars)
Cost per Waste Stream	Cost Basis
$1,380	100 feet of 4" Schedule 40,
180 psi PVC pipe, valves, fittings
installed above grade in pipe racks
$ 1,380	As above
$6,900
500 feet of 4" Schedule 40,
180 psi PVC pipe, valves, fittings
installed above grade in pipe racks

-------
Table VIII-15
NONFERROUS METALS FORMING
SOLID WASTE GENERATION (kkg/yr)
Subcategory
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Magnesium Forming
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Precious Metals Forming
Refractory Metals Forming
Titanium Forming
Uranium Forming
Zinc Forming
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Metal Powders
BPT	BAT
9.68	11.2
189	191
PSES
22.2
33.2
81.7	113	3,800
19.0	22.3	58.7
162	196	1,130
705	901	1,710
150	153	0
99.6	101	0
65.6	80.3	2.23
27.4	27.4	273
1529

-------
Table Ą111-16
NONFERROUS METALS FORMING
ENERGY CONSUMPTION	(1000 kW-hr/yr)
Subcategory HPT	BAT	PSES
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming 330	330	890
Magnesium Forming 110	110	50
Nickel-Cobalt Forming 880	880	950
Precious Metals Forming 440	440	1,160
Refractory Metals Forming 330	330	1,260
Titanium Forming 880	880	580
Uranium Forming	220	220
Zinc Forming 110	110	50
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming 440	440	110
Metal Powders 330	330	1,310
1530

-------
START
CREATE DATA FILES
FOR AUTOMATIC
DATA ENTRY
MAIN DESIGN ROUTINE
TO CALL REQUIRED
MOOULES
END
COST
MODULE 3
COST
MODULE N
DESIGN
MOOULE 1
COST
MOOULE 2
DESIGN
MOOULE 3
DESIGN
MOOULE 2
COST
MOOULE 1
DESIGN
MOOULE N
CALCULATE SYSTEM
COSTS
USER INPUT
rnINT COST RESULTS
OUTPUT DESIGN
VALUES &
MATERIAL BALANCE
	(OPTIONAL)
TRANSFER RESULTS
TO DISK DATA FILES
MAIN COST ROUTINE
TO CALL REQUIRED
MOOULES
Figure VIII-1
GENERAL LOGIC DIAGRAM OF COMPUTER COST MODEL
1531

-------
*IOMP«CĄ«OUS
NO
Figure VIII-2
LOGIC DIAGRAM OF MODULE DESIGN PROCEDURE

-------
DESIGN VALUES
ANO CONFIGURATION
FROM MATERIAL
BALANCE PROGRAM
MOO
COM*
ULf 1
5NENTS
i
t
'
CALL COST
EQUATIONS
1
MOOI
COMPC
JLE 2
NENTS
i
I
P
CALL
EQUAT
:ost
IONS
T
• • •
MOO
COMPC
ULE N
3NENTS
j
i
r
CALL
EQUA1
COST
noNS
a
COST
EQUATIONS
±
COMPUTE
SUMMED
MOOUU
COSTS
'
1
COMPUTE
SYSTfM
COSTS
'
1
Olfl
CO
TUT
STS
T	
(RETURN FOR\
NEXT PLANT J
Figure VIII-3
LOGIC DIAGRAM OF THE COST ESTIMATION ROUTINE
1533

-------
10s
m
u>
CM
00
X
o
AC
<
S

-------
TANK VOLUME (GALLONS)
Figure VIII-5
CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS OF AERATED RECTANGULAR FIBERGLASS TANKS

-------
10s
w
CO
g 10'

-------
LO
-sj
10°
w 10°
CD
X
o
cc
«
(A
h
(A
o
o
h
u
ui
AC
3io«
2
o
10J
10'
HOLDING TANKS
CAPITAL


ANNUAL

7^


k'
«'
COOLING TOWERS
CAPITAL
ANNUAL
y
yS:


2:
y
lO*
10J
10H
10E
10c
INFLUENT FLOW TO COOLING TOWER (l/hr)
Figure VIII-7
CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS OF COOLING TOWERS AND HOLDING TANKS

-------
106
ut
CAPITAL
STEEL
CAPITAL
FIBERGLASS
10' 		— I I I. I I I		I I I I I I	— I » I 111				H		—	II
1ftl,	10'	10>	103	10«	101,
INFLUENT FLOW TO HOLDING TANK (l/hr)
Figure VIII-8
CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS OF HOLDING TANKS AND RECYCLE PIPING

-------






































»






































































































*

































CAPITAL







































































*



































































































































Ifi
4ni
in
R
E"
1

TION Til
VIE






























1 1



























































ANNU/
XL







CAP
uy>
iL































































1
40
UR RETE
NTIC
IN
ni
IE




AN
MUJ
\L































































,










































































































































































































101	102	103	104	105
INFLUENT FLOW TO EQUALIZATION (l/hr)
Figure VIII-9
CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS OF EQUALIZATION

-------
CAPITAL
CONTINUOUS
BATCH
CAPITAL
INFLUENT FLOW TO CYANIDE PRECIPITATION (l/hr)
Figure VIII-10
CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS OF CYANIDE PRECIPITATION

-------
10b
(J1
4*.
CM
CO
1
o
0C
<
2
to
h
W
o
o
h
o
UJ
GC
Q
<
(-
O
10b
10*
103
















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































CONTINUOUS CAPITAL






































































*















































. —' A
MNU
AL























































































































































































AT(
:h
c
ftl
Jl
T
ft
L




















































































































10
10'	10J	104
INFLUENT FLOW TO CHROMIUM REDUCTION (l/hr)
10s
Figure VIII-11
CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS OF CHROMIUM REDUCTION

-------
10'

«»



CO

X

o

X

<

3



w

h

in

o

o



<

fc

a.

<

u

h

u

UJ

a
en
5

-j
to
12

o

h
10'
10'
10*

— —
. —



¦



_ . --

•mm
""

~
"







¦* p




¦M

""
"


~~~
"""

~

T
































"
















































































0
9













































































| CONTINUOUS |
































-—










































































'






























































































































¦ ¦¦1




__


































¦ ¦I
IMH

































	









































































*


N(

-------
10«
¦

-------
10s
N
co
CAPITAL
ANNUAL
10, 		— iiiiii		— ' 1 "		— ' 1 ' 		—	" 		— —1 ' ' ' "
10"	10J	lO1	10'	104	10'
INFLUENT FLOW TO CHEMICAL EMULSION BREAKING (l/lir|
Figure VIII-14
CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS OF CHEMICAL EMULSION BREAKING

-------
10°
U1
.t*
U1

-------
10'
CONTINUOUS
CAPITAL
NORMAL BATC
10
CAPITAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
LOW FLOW BATCH
10
CAPITAL
ANNUAL
10
105
10°
INFLUENT FLOW TO CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION (l/hr)
Figure
CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS
VIII-16
OF CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION

-------
CAPITAL
INFLUENT FLOW TO VACUUM FILTER (l/lir|
(3% SOLIDS)
Figure VIII-17
CAPITAL COSTS FOR CARBON STEEL VACUUM FILTERS

-------
10®

-------
10«
10'
(J1
VD
cc
>¦
X
u>
M
00
X
o
ff
<
S
«
H
to
O
o
-I
<
3
Z
Z
<
u
ui
E io«
5
<
t-
o
























































































































































































































































































































































4 HRS









































1 1









































: 1A MRS






































/














































1





































y

/



BHRS




































/
/

4








































/
/
/









































X





























































































































































































































































1




















-















































10
10'
103
10«
INFLUENT FLOW TO VACUUM FILTER (l/|ir(
NOTE. RESULT MUST BE MULTIPLIED BY DPY/365
Figure VIII-19
ANNUAL COSTS FOR VACUUM FILTERS

-------
MULTIMEDIA FILTRATION
CAPITAL
ANNUAL
CARTRIDGE FILTRATION
CAPITAL
ANNUAL
,6
,3
,0
I
INFLUENT FLOW TO MULTIMEDIA FILTRATION (l/hr)
Figure VIII-20
CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS FOR MULTIMEDIA AND CARTRIDGE FILTRATION

-------
U1
U1
10*
N
m
X
o
DC
<
2
U)
f-
U)
O
O
<
3
Z
Z
<
f-
o
ui
DC
5
<
t-
o
10'
ioH
ioJ
HAZARDOUS

/
7
r
/

7
NONHAZARDOUS
/

V

*
/

10u
10"	10z	10J
VOLUME OF WASTE CONTRACT HAULED (l/hr)
ioH
ioa
Figure VIII-21
ANNUAL COSTS FOR CONTRACT HAULING

-------
SECTION IX
1
BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
This section defines the effluent characteristics attainable
through the application of best practicable control technology
currently available (BPT), Section 301(b)(1)(A). BPT reflects
the average of the best existing performance by plants of various
sizes, ages, and manufacturing processes within the nonferrous
metals forming category.
The factors considered in identifying BPT include the total cost
of applying the technology in relation to the effluent reduction
benefits from such application, the age of equipment and facili-
ties involved, the manufacturing processes employed, nonwater
quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements),
and other factors the Administrator considers appropriate. In
general, the BPT level represents the average of the best exist-
ing performances of plants of various ages, sizes, processes, or
other common characteristics. Where existing performance is
uniformly inadequate, BPT may be transferred from a different
subcategory or category. Limitations based on transfer of
technology are supported by a rationale concluding that the
technology is, indeed, transferable, and a reasonable prediction
that it will be capable of achieving the prescribed effluent
limits. See Tanner's Council of America v. Train, 540 F.2d 1188
(4th Cir. 1976). BPT focuses on end-of-pipe treatment rather
than process changes or internal controls, except where such
practices are common industry practice.
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO BPT
The Agency studied the nonferrous metals forming category to
identify the manufacturing processes used and wastewaters gener-
ated during nonferrous metals forming. Information was collected
from industry using data collection portfolios, and wastewaters
from specific plants were sampled and analyzed. The Agency used
these data to subcategorize the category and determine what
constitutes an appropriate BPT. The factors which were con-
sidered in establishing subcategories are discussed fully in
Section IV. Nonwater quality impacts and energy requirements are
considered in Section VIII.
The category has been subcategorized, for the purpose of regula-
tion, on the basis of metal type formed. Each subcategory is
further divided into specific wastewater sources associated with
specific manufacturing operations. The regulation establishes
pollutant discharge limitations for each source of process
wastewater identified within the subcategory. This approach to
regulation is referred to as the building block approach with
each waste stream being a building block. Compliance with the
regulation is determined on an overall plant basis rather than
for individual building blocks. The building block approach is
1553

-------
especially useful for this category since many nonferrous metals
forming plants generate wastewater from more than one operation.
In addition, a few plants generate wastewater from forming more
than one metal type, i.e., from operations associated with more
than one subcategory. Since the regulation uses the building
block approach, permit writers can develop permits which are
specific to each individual plant and which reflect the types of
metals formed and wastewater sources present at the plant.
In making technical assessments of data, reviewing manufacturing
processes, and evaluating wastewater treatment technology
options, both indirect and direct dischargers have been con-
sidered as a single group. An examination of plants and pro-
cesses did not indicate any process differences based on the type
of discharge, whether it be direct or indirect. Consequently,
the calculation of BPT regulatory flows included production
normalized flows from both direct and indirect dischargers.
Oil and grease, suspended solids, priority and nonconventional
metals, and other nonconventional pollutants are present in
significant concentrations in wastewater produced by forming
operations (rolling, drawing, extruding, forging, cladding, tube
reducing, metal powder production and powder metallurgy) and by
operations associated with metal forming (casting, heat treat-
ment, surface treatment, alkaline cleaning, solvent degreasing,
sawing, grinding, tumbling, burnishing, and product testing).
Although the specific priority and nonconventional metals present
will vary from subcategory to subcategory, the Agency believes
that one treatment technology with preliminary treatment, where
necessary, is an appropriate basis for BPT effluent limitations
for all subcategories. Wastewater treatment performance data
show that the treatment scheme detailed below will remove all
pollutants present in significant concentrations to an acceptable
level.
BPT for the nonferrous metals forming category is based on common
treatment of combined wastewater streams. For the most part,
nonferrous metals forming plants with existing treatment-in-place
combine waste streams in a common treatment system. The general
treatment scheme for BPT is to apply oil skimming technology to
remove oil and grease, followed or combined with lime and settle
technology to remove metals and solids from the combined waste-
waters. Separate preliminary treatment steps for chromium
reduction, emulsion breaking, cyanide removal, and ammonia
removal are utilized when necessary. Iron coprecipitation is
added to the treatment train when necessary to remove the non-
conventional pollutant molybdenum. The BPT treatment effective-
ness concentrations are based on the performance of these prelim-
inary treatment steps (when necessary) and chemical precipitation
and sedimentation (lime and settle) when applied to a broad range
of metal-bearing wastewater. The BPT treatment train varies
somewhat between subcategories to take into account treatment of
hexavalent chromium, emulsified oils, cyanide, ammonia, and
molybdenum. Tables IX-1 through IX-10 summarize for each subcat-
egory the waste streams which may need preliminary treatment
1554

-------
prior to combined wastewater treatment. The basis for perfor-
mance of these treatment technologies is set forth in substantial
detail in Section VII.
For each of the subcategories, a specific approach was followed
for the development of BPT mass limitations. To account for
production and flow variability from plant to plant, a unit of
production or production normalizing parameter (PNP) was deter-
mined for each operation which could then be related to the flow
from the operation to determine a production normalized flow. As
discussed in Section IV, the PNP for the nonferrous metals
forming category is off-metric ton (the metric tons of metal
removed from a forming operation or associated operation at the
end of a process cycle), with one exception. Laundry washwater
in the uranium forming subcategory is normalized to employee-day.
Each subcategory was analyzed to determine: (1) which operations
included generated wastewater, (2) specific flow rates generated,
and (3) specific production normalized flows for each operation.
The normalized flows were then analyzed to determine which flow
was to be used as the basis for BPT mass limitations for that
operation. The selected flow (referred to as the BPT regulatory
flow), reflects the water use controls which are common practices
within the industry. The overall effectiveness of end-of-pipe
treatment for the removal of wastewater pollutants is improved by
the application of water flow controls within the process to
limit the volume of wastewater requiring treatment. However, the
controls or in-process technologies recommended under BPT include
only those measures which are commonly practiced within the
category or subcategory. Except for recycle of lubricating
emulsions, most plants in this category do not have flow
reduction in place. Therefore, flow reduction is not generally
included as part of the BPT technology.
In general, the BPT regulatory flows are based on the average of
all applicable data. However, for some waste streams with a
large range of production normalized flows the median was used as
the basis for the BPT regulatory flow. The Agency believes the
median is more representative of the current typical water use
for these waste streams than the average. Plants with existing
flows above the average or median may have to implement some
method of flow reduction to achieve the BPT limitations. In most
cases, this will involve improving house-keeping practices,
better maintenance to limit water leakage, or reducing excess
flow by turning down a flow valve. It is not believed that these
modifications will generate any significant costs for the plants.
In fact, these plants should save money by reducing water
consumption.
Pollutant discharge limitations for this category are expressed
as mass loadings, i.e., allowable mass of pollutant discharge per
off-kilogram of production (mg/off-kg). Mass loadings were
calculated for each operation (building block) within each
subcategory. The mass loadings were calculated by multiplying
the BPT regulatory flow (1/off-kkg) for the operation by the
1555

-------
effluent concentration achievable by the BPT treatment technology
(mg/1). Table VII-11 presents the effluent concentrations
achievable by the BPT model treatment train for the pollutants
regulated in each subcategory. These concentrations are based on
the performance of chemical precipitation and sedimentation (lime
and settle) when applied to a broad range of metal-bearing waste-
waters, with preliminary treatment, when necessary. The deriva-
tion of these achievable effluent concentrations is discussed in
substantial detail in Section VII.
In deriving mass limitations from the BPT model treatment tech-
nology, the Agency assumed that all wastewaters generated within
a subcategory were combined for treatment in a single or common
treatment system for that subcategory, even though flow and
sometimes pollutant characteristics of process wastewater streams
vary within the subcategory. A disadvantage of common treatment
is that some loss in pollutant removal effectiveness will result
where waste streams containing specific pollutants at treatable
levels are combined with other streams in which these same
pollutants are absent or present at very low concentrations.
Under these circumstances a plant may prefer to segregate these
waste streams and bypass treatment. Since treatment systems
considered under BPT are primarily for metals, oil and grease,
and suspended solids removal, and many existing plants usually
had one common treatment system in place for these pollutants, it
is reasonable to assume a common treatment system for each
subcategory to calculate the system's cost and effectiveness.
Regulated Pollutant Parameters
In Section VI, priority pollutant parameters are selected for
consideration for regulation in the nonferrous metals forming
subcategories because of their frequent presence at treatable
concentrations in raw wastewaters. The selected pollutant
parameters include total suspended solids, oil and grease, and pH
which are regulated in every subcategory. Priority metals are
also regulated in every subcategory, though the specific metals
regulated vary. Nonconventional pollutants selected for
regulation also vary with different subcategories.
Nonconventional pollutants regulated in one or more subcategories
include ammonia, fluoride, and molybdenum. The basis for
regulating total suspended solids, oil and grease, and pH is
discussed below. Selection of priority and nonconventional
pollutants for regulation will be included in the individual
subcategory discussions presented later in this section since
regulated priority metal and nonconventional pollutants vary with
the different subcategories.
Total suspended solids, in addition to being present at high
concentrations in raw wastewater from nonferrous metals forming
operations, is an important control parameter for metals removal
in chemical precipitation and settling treatment systems. Metals
are precipitated as insoluble metal hydroxides, and effective
solids removal is required in order to ensure reduced levels of
regulated metals in the treatmei. t sys'.em effluent. Therefore,
1556

-------
total suspended solids are regulated as a conventional pollutant
to be removed from the wastewater prior to discharge.
Oil and grease is regulated under BPT since a number of nonfer-
rous metals forming operations (i.e., rolling, sawing, grinding,
drawing, extrusion) generate emulsified wastewater streams which
may be discharged. In addition, the equipment used to form
nonferrous metals use significant quantities of oil as machinery
lubricant or hydraulic fluid, these oils frequently get into the
process wastewater as tramp oils.
The importance of pH control is documented in Section VII and its
importance in metals removal technology cannot be overemphasized.
Even small excursions from the optimum pH level can result in
less than optimum functioning of the treatment system and inabil-
ity to achieve specified results. The optimum operating level
for removal of most metals is usually pH 8.8 to 9.3. However,
nickel, cadmium, and silver require higher pH for optimal
removal. To allow a reasonable operating margin and to preclude
the need for final pH adjustment, the effluent pH is specified to
be within the range of 7.5 to 10.
The remainder of this section describes the development of BPT
mass loadings for each subcategory. The development of BPT
regulatory flows for each operation in each subcategory is pre-
sented in detail. The pollutants selected and excluded from
regulation, and the cost and benefit of the regulation at BPT are
also presented.
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
Production operations that generate wastewater in the lead-tin-
bismuth forming subcategory include rolling, drawing, extrusion,
swaging, continuous strip casting, semi-continuous ingot casting,
shot casting, shot forming, alkaline cleaning, and degreasing.
Water use practices, wastewater streams, and wastewater discharge
flows from these operations were discussed in Section V. This
information provided the basis for development of the BPT regula-
tory flow allowances summarized in Table IX-11. The following
paragraphs discuss the basis for the BPT flow allowances for each
waste stream.
Rolling
Rolling is performed at 26 plants in this subcategory. The
following information is available from these plants:
Number of plants and operations using emulsion lubricant: 7
Number of plants and operations using soap solution lubricant:
1.
No lubricants were reported to be used in over 15 rolling opera-
tions .
1557

-------
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Rolling Spent Emulsions. All of the operations
using rolling emulsions completely recycle the emulsions and
periodically batch dump them when they become spent. The spent
emulsion from one operation is incinerated; the spent emulsion
from one operation is applied to land; and the spent emulsion
from five operations is contract hauled. Spent emulsions which
are contract hauled off-site typically receive some type of
emulsion breaking (chemical or thermal) and oil skimming treat-
ment. After this treatment the water fraction is discharged and
the oil fraction is either sent to a reclaiming operation or
landfilled directly. Since spent emulsions are often treated on-
site and the water discharged (with the oil fraction contract
hauled), EPA is allowing a discharge for this waste stream. The
BPT discharge allowance is 23.4 1/kkg (5.60 gal/ton), the average
of the six reported production normalized discharge flows.
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Rolling Spent Soap Solutions. The one operation
using rolling soap solutions applies and discharges 43.0 1/kkg
(10.3 gal/ton). Therefore, the BPT discharge allowance is 43.0
1/kkg (10.3 gal/ton).
Drawing
Drawing is performed at 26 plants in the lead-tin-bismuth forming
subcategory. The following information is available from these
plants:
Number of plants and operations using neat oil lubricant: 3
Number of plants and operations using emulsion lubricant: 6
plants, 8 operations.
Number of plants and operations using soap solution lubricant-
coolant: 2.
No lubricants were reported to be used in over five operations.
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Drawing Spent Neat Oils. None of the three
operations using neat oils discharge any of the lubricant. Two
achieve zero discharge through total recycle and one contract
hauls batches of the spent neat oils periodically. Since neat
oils are pure oil streams, with no water fraction, it is better
to remove the oil directly by contract hauling and not to dis-
charge the stream than to commingle the oil with water streams
and then remove it later using an oil-water separation process.
Therefore, this waste stream should not be discharged.
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Drawing Spent Emulsions. Six of the eight
operations using emulsion lubricants do not discharge spent
emulsion. Two operations periodically discharge the spent
emulsion. Information sufficient to calculate production normal-
ized discharge flows was available for only one of the operations
which discharge the spent emulsion. Four of the six remaining
operations achieve zero discharge through 100 percent recycle of
the emulsions with drag-out on the product surface being the only
loss, while two operations report contract hauling the spent
emulsions after periodic batch dumps. Information sufficient to
1558

-------
calculate production normalized discharge flows was not available
for the operations which contract haul the spent emulsion. Spent
emulsions which are contract hauled off-site typically receive
some type of emulsion breaking (chemical or thermal) and oil
skimming treatment. After this treatment, the water fraction is
discharged and the oil fraction is either sent to a reclaiming
operation or landfilled directly. Since spent emulsions are
often treated on-site and the water discharged (with the oil
fraction contract hauled), EPA is allowing a discharge for this
waste stream. The BPT discharge allowance is 26.3 1/kkg (6.30
gal/ton), the only reported non-zero production normalized
discharge flow.
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Drawing Spent Soap Solutions. One of the two
operations using soap solutions as a drawing lubricant periodi-
cally discharges the solution. The other operation achieves zero
discharge through total recycle. The BPT discharge allowance is
7.46 1/kkg (1.79 gal/ton), the one reported non-zero production
normalized discharge flow.
Extrusion
Extrusion is performed at 43 plants in this subcategory. The
following information is available from these plants:
Number of plants and operations using contact cooling water: 14
plants, 17 operations
Number of plants and operations reporting hydraulic fluid
leakage: 2.
None of the plants reported using water-based lubricants in
extrusion operations.
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Extrusion Press and Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling Water. As discussed in Section III, contact
cooling water is used in extrusion operations, either by spraying
water onto the metal as it emerges from the die or press, or by
direct quenching in a contact water bath. Three operations were
reported to achieve zero discharge by 100 percent recycle and one
operation reported achieving zero discharge by 100 percent
recycle with periodic contract hauling. A discharge with no
recycle is reported for 11 extrusion operations. No water use
data were reported for one of these operations. A discharge with
an unknown recycle rate was reported by two plants. The BPT dis-
charge allowance is the average of the 10 reported non-zero
production normalized discharge flows, 1,440 1/kkg (346 gal/ton).
Production normalized discharge flows for the two operations with
unknown recycle ratios were not included in the average.
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage. One of
the 43 plants with extrusion operations discharges hydraulic
fluid leakage from an extrusion press. Another plant reported 100
percent recycle of hydraulic fluid leakage. The Agency believes
that other plants in the lead-tin-bismuth forming subcategory use
similar extrusion presses and may have leakage. The BPT dis-
1559

-------
charge allowance is based on the one reported production
normalized discharge fow, 55.0 1/kkg (13.2 gal/ton).
Swaging
Swaging is performed at five plants in this subcategory. Emul-
sions are used for lubrication in a total of four operations at
three plants. Two plants did not report the use of lubricants in
swaging operations.
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Swaging Spent Emulsions. Three of the four
swaging operations which use lubricants achieve zero discharge by
100 percent recycle, with evaporation and drag-out on the product
surface being the only losses. Spent emulsion is batch dis-
charged from the other operation. Spent emulsions which are
contract hauled off-site typically receive some type of emulsion
breaking (chemical or thermal) and oil skimming treatment. After
this treatment, the water fraction is discharged and the oil
fraction is either sent to a reclaiming operation or landfilled
directly. Since the spent emulsions are often treated on-site
and the water discharged (with the oil fraction contract hauled)
by plants in this category and other categories, EPA is allowing
a discharge for this waste stream. The BPT discharge allowance
is 1.77 1/kkg (0.424 gal/ton), the only reported non-zero produc-
tion normalized discharge flow.
Casting
The following information was reported on casting operations in
this subcategory:
Total number of plants: 34
Number of plants and operations with continuous strip casting: 6
Number using contact cooling water: 5
Number of plants and operations using semi-continuous ingot
casting: 3
Number using contact cooling water: 3
Number of plants and operations with shot casting: 3 Number
using contact cooling water: 3
Number of plants and operations with continuous wheel casting: 1
Number using contact cooling water: 0
Number of plants and operations with continuous sheet
casting: 1 Number using contact cooling water: 0
Number of plants and operations with stationary casting (also
referred to as chill casting and mold casting): 26 plants, 28
operations
Number using contact cooling water: 0
Number of plants and operations with shot pressing: 2 Number
1560

-------
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Continuous Strip Casting Contact Cooling Water.
In five of the six continuous strip casting operations, the
contact cooling water is completely recycled and periodically
batch dumped. One operation uses only noncontact cooling water.
The BPT discharge allowance is the average of the five reported
production normalized discharges flows, 1.00 1/kkg (0.240
gal/ton).
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Semi-Continuous Ingot Casting Contact Cooling
Water. Water use and discharge data were reported for only one
operation. Contact cooling water from this operation is dis-
charged on a once-through basis. Based on the one reported
production normalized water use, the BPT discharge allowance is
29.4 1/kkg (7.04 gal/ton).
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Shot Casting Contact Cooling Water. In two of
the three operations, the contact cooling water is periodically
dumped. The average of the two reported production normalized
discharge flows is the BPT discharge allowance, 37.3 1/kkg (8.95
gal/ton).
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Shot Forming Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown.
One plant provided information on shot forming. It reported
using a wet scrubber to control air pollution from the lead
polishing and drying unit operations of a shot forming line. The
scrubber water is discharged on a once-through basis. The BPT
discharge allowance is the production normalized water use of the
one plant, 588 1/kkg (141 gal/ton).
Alkaline Cleaning
Four plants provided information on six alkaline cleaning opera-
tions .
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths. Spent baths are
discharged from six alkaline cleaning operations. The BPT
discharge allowance is 120 1/kkg (28.7 gal/ton), the average of
the six production normalized discharge flows.
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Alkaline Cleaning Rinse. Four alkaline cleaning
operations discharge rinse with no recycle. The BPT discharge
allowance is 2,360 1/kkg (565 gal/ton), the average of the four
production normalized water use from the four operations.
Degreasing
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Degreasing Spent Solvents. A small number of
surveyed plants with solvent degreasing operations have process
wastewater streams associated with the operation. Because most
plants practice solvent degreasing without wastewater discharge,
the Agency believes zero discharge of wastewater is the appropri-
ate discharge limitation.
1561

-------
Regulated Pollutants
The priority pollutants considered for regulation under BPT are
listed in Section VI, along with an explanation of why they were
considered. The only priority pollutants considered for regula-
tion are antimony and lead. These two pollutants have been
selected for regulation under BPT along with total suspended
solids, oil and grease, and pH. The basis for regulating total
suspended solids, oil and grease, and pH under BPT was discussed
earlier in this section. The basis for regulating antimony and
lead is discussed below.
Antimony has been selected for regulation under BPT since it is
frequently found at treatable concentrations in process waste-
water streams from this subcategory. Treatable antimony concen-
trations were found in shot casting contact cooling water,
alkaline cleaning spent baths, and alkaline cleaning rinse.
Lead has been selected for regulation under BPT since it was
found at treatable concentrations in all process wastewater
samples analyzed from this subcategory and because it is the
metal being processed. The Agency believes that when antimony
and lead are controlled with the application of lime and settle
technology, control of other priority metals which may be present
in process wastewater is assured.
Treatment Train
The BPT model treatment train for the lead-tin-bismuth forming
subcategory consists of preliminary treatment when necessary,
specifically emulsion breaking and oil skimming. The effluent
from preliminary treatment is combined with other wastewater for
common treatment by oil skimming and lime and settle. Waste
streams potentially needing preliminary chemical emulsion break-
ing are listed in Table IX-1. Figure IX-1 presents a schematic
of the general BPT treatment train for the nonferrous metals
forming category.
Effluent Limitations
The pollutant mass discharge limitations (milligrams of pollutant
per off-kilogram of PNP) were calculated by multiplying the BPT
regulatory flows summarized in Table IX-11 (1/kkg) by the concen-
tration achievable by the BPT model treatment system summarized
in Table VII-21 (mg/1) for each pollutant parameter considered
for regulation at BPT (1/off-kkg x mg/1 x kkg/1,000 kg = mg/off-
kg). The results of this computation for all waste streams and
regulated pollutants in the lead-tin-bismuth forming subcategory
are summarized in Table IX-13. This limitation table lists all
the pollutants which were considered for regulation; those
specifically regulated are marked with an asterisk.
1562

-------
Costs and Benefits
In establishing BPT, EPA considered the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievability. As shown in Table X-3 (page xxxx), the application
of BPT to the total lead-tin-bismuth forming subcategory will
remove approximately 5,730 kg/yr (12,610 lbs/yr) of pollutants
including 235 kg/yr (520 lbs/yr) of toxic pollutants. As shown
in Table X-13 (page xxxx), the application of BPT to direct
dischargers only will remove approximately 1,450 kg/yr (3,190
lbs/yr) of pollutants including 45 kg/yr (100 lbs/yr) of toxic
pollutants. Since there are only three direct discharge plants
in this subcategory, total subcategory capital and annual costs
will not be reported in this document in order to protect confi-
dentiality claims. The Agency concludes that these pollutant
removals justify the costs incurred by plants in this
subcategory.
MAGNESIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
Production operations that generate wastewater in the magnesium
forming subcategory include rolling, forging, direct chill
casting, surface treatment, sawing, grinding, and degreasing.
Water use practices, wastewater streams, and wastewater discharge
flows from these operations were discussed in Section V. This
information provided the basis for development of the BPT regula-
tory flow allowances summarized in Table IX-13. The following
paragraphs discuss the basis for the BPT flow allowances for each
waste stream.
Rolling
The following information was reported on rolling operations in
this subcategory:
Number of plants: 1
Number of operations using emulsion lubricant: 2.
Magnesium Rolling Spent Emulsions. The emulsions from both
operations are batch dumped and hauled off-site by a waste
contractor. The quantity of emulsion hauled was not reported for
either operation. Spent emulsions which are contract hauled off-
site typically receive some type of emulsion breaking (chemical
or thermal) and oil skimming treatment. After this treatment,
the water fraction is discharged and the oil fraction is either
sent to a reclaiming operation or landfilled directly. Since
spent emulsions are often treated on-site and the water
discharged (with the oil fraction contract hauled), EPA is
allowing a discharge for this waste stream. The BPT flow has
been set equal to the BPT flow given for spent aluminum rolling
emulsions, 74.6 1/kkg (17.9 gal/ton). The Agency believes that,
because aluminum and magnesium have similar melting points and
1563

-------
other metallurgical properties, similar amounts of waste emulsion
will be generated in rolling the two metals.
Forging
The following information was reported on forging operations in
this subcategory:
Number of plants: 4
Number of plants and operations using lubricants: 3 plants,
4 operations Number of plants and operations using contact
cooling water:
3 plants, 4 operations Number of equipment cleaning operations:
2.
Magnesium Forging Spent Lubricants. The only loss of lubricant
from any of the four operations is through drag-out on the
product surface. Consequently, there is no BPT discharge
allowance for forming spent lubricants. Since, magnesium forging
lubricants are not water based, they should be kept separate from
other process wastewater streams and therefore, should not be
discharged.
Magnesium Forging Contact Cooling Water. One operation has no
water discharge due to 100 percent recycle and evaporation. The
BPT flow is the average of the two reported non-zero production
normalized discharge flows, 2,890 1/kkg (693 gal/ton).
Magnesium Forging Equipment Cleaning Wastewater. One plant
reported using water to clean equipment in its two forging
operations. The equipment cleaning wastewater from these opera-
tions is not recycled. The BPT discharge allowance, based on the
average production normalized water use from the two operations,
is 39.9 1/kkg (9.59 gal/ton).
Casting
Magnesium Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling Water. One
nonferrous metals forming plant casts magnesium by the direct
chill method. The cooling water used in this operation is
completely recycled. Another plant has a direct chill casting
operation which is an integral part of a magnesium smelting and
refining (nonferrous metcils manufacturing phase II) operation.
Once-through contact cooling water is discharged from this
operation. The BPT flow of 3,950 1/kkg (947 gal/ton) is based on
the production normalized water use for the nonferrous metals
manufacturing operation.
Surface Treatment
Three plants supplied information on magnesium surface treatment
operations. Information was provided on the discharge of nine
surface treatment baths and on seven surface treatment rinse
operations.
1564

-------
Magnesium Surface Treatment Spent Baths. An unreported amount of
wastewater is contract hauled from two of the operations.
Wastewater discharge flows were reported for three of the remain-
ing seven operations. The BPT discharge allowance is the average
of production normalized discharge flow from three operations,
466 1/kkg (112 gal/ton).
Magnesium Surface Treatment Rinse. One operation uses 100
percent recycle with a periodic batch discharge of rinse. Of the
remaining six operations, two operations consist of single stage
overflow rinses with no recycle, two operations consist of a
spray rinse followed by an overflow rinse with no recycle, and
two operations consist of non-cascade sequential rinsing stages.
The average of the seven production normalized discharge flows is
the BPT flow, 18,900 1/kkg (4,520 gal/ton).
Sawing or Grinding
The use of emulsion lubricants was reported for a total of two
operations at two plants.
Magnesium Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions. One operation
achieves zero discharge by 100 percent recycle. Some emulsion
from this operation is lost due to evaporation and drag-out on
the product. In the other operation, the emulsion is recycled
with periodic batch discharges contract hauled to treatment and
disposal off-site. Since spent emulsions are often treated on-
site and the water discharged (with the oil fraction contract
hauled), EPA is allowing a discharge for this waste stream. The
BPT allowance has been set equal to the production normalized
discharge flow of contract hauled emulsion, 19.5 1/kkg (4.68
gal/ton).
Degreasing
Magnesium Degreasing Spent Solvents. Only a small number of
surveyed plants with solvent degreasing operations have process
wastewater streams associated with the operation. Because most
plants practice solvent degreasing without wastewater discharge,
the Agency believes zero discharge of wastewater is an appropri-
ate discharge limitation.
Wet Air Pollution Control
Magnesium Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown. Blowdown from the
wet air pollution control devices used to control air pollution
from forging, sanding and repairing, and surface treatment is
included under this building block. The Agency believes that the
water requirements for scrubbing air emissions from these areas
are similar. Three of the four operations practice 90 percent
recycle or greater of the scrubber liquor while no recycle is
used in the remaining operation. Flow reduction is considered
BPT technology for wet air pollution control blowdown since three
of the four plants practice 90 percent or greater recycle.
1565

-------
Therefore, the BPT flow of 619 1/kkg (148 gal/ton) is based on
the average production normalized discharge flow from the opera-
tions with 90 percent or greater recycle.
Regulated Pollutants
The priority pollutants considered for regulation under BPT are
listed in Section VI along with an explanation of why they were
considered. The only priority pollutants considered for regula-
tion in this subcategory are chromium and zinc. Chromium and
zinc are selected for regulation under BPT along with the noncon-
ventional pollutants ammonia and fluoride and the conventional
pollutant parameters total suspended solids, oil and grease, and
pH. The nonconventional pollutant, magnesium, is not specifi-
cally regulated under BPT for the reasons given in Section X. The
basis for regulating total suspended solids, oil and grease, and
pH under BPT was discussed earlier in this section. The basis
for regulating total chromium, zinc, ammonia, and fluoride is
discussed below.
Total chromium is regulated since it includes both the hexavalent
and trivalent forms of chromium. Only the trivalent form is
removed by the lime and settle technology. Therefore, the
hexavalent form must be reduced by preliminary chromium reduction
treatment in order to meet the limitations on chromium in this
subcategory. Treatable chromium concentrations were found in
samples from surface treatment baths and rinses. Therefore,
regulation of total chromium is appropriate for this subcategory.
Zinc has been selected for regulation under BPT since it and
chromium are the predominant priority metals present in magnesium
forming wastewaters. The Agency believes that when these
parameters are controlled with the application of lime and settle
technology with preliminary treatment when needed, control of the
other toxic metals is assured.
Ammonia may be present at treatable concentrations in surface
treatment spent baths and surface treatment rinse. Therefore,
ammonia is selected for regulation in the magnesium forming
subcategory. Preliminary ammonia steam stripping treatment is
needed to remove this pollutant from these wastewaters.
Fluoride may also be present at treatable concentrations in
surface treatment baths and surface treatment rinse. Therefore,
fluoride is selected for regulation in this subcategory.
Treatment Train
The BPT model treatment train for the magnesium forming subcate-
gory consists of preliminary treatment when necessary, specifi-
cally emulsion breaking and oil skimming, chromium reduction and
ammonia steam stripping. The effluent from preliminary treatment
is combined with other wastewater for common treatment by oil
skimming and lime and settle. Waste streams potentially needing
preliminary treatment are listed in Table IX-2. Figure IX-1
1566

-------
presents a schematic of the general BPT treatment train for the
nonferrous metals forming category.
Effluent Limitations
The pollutant mass discharge limitations (milligrams of pollutant
per off-kilogram of PNP) were calculated by multiplying the BPT
regulatory flows summarized in Table IX-13 (1/kkg) by the concen-
tration achievable by the BPT model treatment system summarized
in Table VII-21 (mg/1) for each pollutant parameter considered
for regulation at BPT (1/off-kkg x mg/1 x 1 kkg/1,000 kg =
mg/off-kg). The results of this computation for all waste
streams and regulated pollutants as well as magnesium in the
magnesium forming subcategory are summarized in Table IX-14.
Although no limitations have been established for magnesium,
Table IX-14 includes magnesium mass discharge limitations
attainable using the BPT model technology. These limitations are
presented for the guidance of permit writers. Only daily maximum
limitations are presented, based on the detection limit for
magnesium (0.10 mg/1), because lime and settle treatment was
determined to remove magnesium to below the level of analytical
quantification. The attainable monthly average discharge is
expected to be lower than the one day maximum limitation, but
since it would be impossible to monitor for compliance with a
lower level, no monthly average has been presented.
The limitation table lists all the pollutants which were consid-
ered for regulation; those specifically regulated are marked with
an asterisk.
Costs and Benefits
In establishing BPT, EPA considered the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievability. As shown in Table X-4 (page xxxx), the application
of BPT to the total magnesium forming subcategory will remove
approximately 33,570 kg/yr (73,855 lbs/yr) of pollutants includ-
ing 16,900 kg/yr (37,180 lbs/yr) of toxic pollutants. As shown
in Table X-l (page xxxx), the corresponding capital and annual
costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are $218,000 and $146,000
per year, respectively. As shown in Table X-14 (page xxxx), the
application of BPT to direct dischargers only will remove approx-
imately 28,615 kg/yr (62,950 lbs/yr) of pollutants including
14,790 kg/yr (32,540 lbs/yr) of toxic pollutants. As shown in
Table X-2 (page xxxx), the corresponding capital and annual costs
(1982 dollars) for this removal are $148,200 and $95,700 per
year, respectively. The Agency concludes that these pollutant
removals justify the costs incurred by the plants in this subcat-
egory .
1567

-------
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
Production operations which generate process wastewater in the
nickel-cobalt forming subcategory include rolling, tube reducing,
drawing, extrusion, forging, metal powder production, stationary
casting, vacuum melting, heat treatment, surface treatment,
cleaning, sawing, grinding, product testing, and degreasing.
Water use practices, wastewater streams and wastewater discharge
flows from these operations were discussed in Section V. This
information provided the basis for development of the BPT regula-
tory flow allowances summarized in Table IX-15. The following
paragraphs discuss the basis for the BPT flow allowances for each
waste stream.
Rolling
Rolling is performed at 30 plants in the nickel-cobalt forming
subcategory. The following information is available from these
plants:
Number of plants and operations using neat oil lubricant: 5
plants, 6 operations
Number of plants and operations using emulsion lubricant: 5
plants, 7 operations
Number of plants and operations using contact cooling water: 6
plants, 9 operations.
Approximately 15 plants reported no use of lubricants or contact
cooling water for their rolling operations.
Nickel-Cobalt Rolling Spent Neat Oils. The neat oils in four of
the operations are consumed during the rolling operation, while
the neat oils in the other two operations are contract hauled.
Since neat oils are pure oil streams, with no water fraction, it
is better to remove the oil directly by contract hauling and not
to discharge the stream than to commingle the oil with water
streams and then remove it later using an oil-water separation
process. Consequently, this waste stream should not be
discharged.
Nickel-Cobalt Rolling Spent Emulsions. Spent rolling emulsions
are either treated o~i--site or contract hauled for treatment and
disposal off-site. Production normalized discharge flows are
available for three of the seven rolling operations which use
spent emulsions. Spent emulsions from two of these operations
are treated on-site while emulsion from the third operation is
contract hauled. A BPT discharge allowance of 170 1/kkg (40.9
gal/ton) has been established for this stream since spent emul-
sion is sometimes treated on-site and the water discharged (with
the oil fraction contract hauled). The BPT flow is based on the
average of the three reported production normalized discharge
flows.
1568

-------
Nickel-Cobalt Rolling Contact Cooling Water. Flow information
was available for eight of the nine rolling operations which use
contact cooling water. Two operations achieve zero discharge by
completely recycling the contact cooling water stream. No
information regarding the amount of water used in these opera-
tions was available. The other operations use widely varying
amounts of water for contact cooling. Production normalized
water uses for these operations vary from 72.8 to 43,400 1/kkg.
The BPT flow of 3,770 1/kkg (905 gal/ton) is based on the median
of the six reported production normalized cooling water uses.
The median is believed to be a better representation of the
current typical water use for this operation than the average
(arithmetic mean) because of the large range of reported produc-
tion normalized water uses.
Tube Reducing
Three plants reported information on three tube reducing (also
referred to as pilgering) operations. Lubricants are used in
these operations.
Nickel-Cobalt Tube Reducing Spent Lubricant. There shall be no
discharge allowance for the discharge of pollutants from tube
reducing spent lubricants if once each month for six consecutive
months the facility owner or operator demonstrates the absence of
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine, N-nitrosodimethylamine, and N-
nitrosodiphenylamine by sampling and analyzing spent tube
reducing lubricants.	If the facility complies with this
requirement for six months then the frequency of sampling may be
reduced to once each quarter. A facility shall be considered in
compliance with this requirement if the concentrations of the
three nitrosamine compounds does not exceed the analytical
quantification levels set forth in 40 CFR Part 136 which are
0.020 mg/1 for N-nitrosodiphenylamine, 0.020 for N-nitrosodi-n-
propylamine, and 0.050 mg/1 for N-nitrosodimethylamine.
Drawing
Drawing is performed at 32 plants in the nickel-cobalt forming
subcategory. The following information is available from these
plants:
Number of plants and operations using neat oil lubricant: 8
plants, 11 operations
Number of plants and operations using emulsion lubricant: 8
plants, 9 operations.
No lubricants were reported to be used at over 15 plants.
Nickel-Cobalt Drawing Spent Neat Oils. Neat oils from nine of
the 11 operations are contract hauled; the only loss of neat oil
from one operation is by evaporation and drag-out; no information
regarding spent neat oils is available for the other drawing
operation which uses a neat oil lubricant. As discussed previ-
ously for rolling spent neat oils, it is better to remove the
1569

-------
neat oils directly and not to discharge the stream than to
commingle the oil wita water streams and then remove it later.
Therefore, this waste stream should not be discharged.
Nickel-Cobalt Drawing Spent Emulsions. Spent emulsions from
eight of the nine plants reporting the use of emulsion lubricants
are periodically contract hauled to treatment and disposal off-
site. One operation periodically discharges the spent emulsion.
Information sufficient to calculate production normalized
discharge flows was available for two of the operations which
haul the emulsion and the one which discharges it. As discussed
previously for drawing spent emulsions in the lead-tin-bismuth
forming subcategory, spent emulsions are often treated on-site
and the water discharged (with the oil fraction contract hauled)
by plants in this category and other categories. Therefore, the
BPT discharge allowance is the average of the three reported
production normalized discharge flows, 95.4 1/kkg (22.9 gal/ton).
Extrusion
Extrusion is performed at eight plants in this subcategory. The
following information is available from these plants:
Number of plants and operations using lubricants: 4
Number of plants and operations using press and solution heat
treatment contact cooling water: 2
Number of plants and operations recording hydraulic fluid
leakage: 1.
Nickel-Cobalt Extrusion Spent Lubricants. Lubricants are com-
pletely recycled in all operations, with the only loss occurring
through evaporation and drag-out. The extrusion lubricants which
are used are typically neat oils. Since neat oils are pure oil
streams, with no water fraction, it is better to remove the oil
directly and not to discharge the stream than to commingle the
oil with water streams and then remove it later. Therefore, this
waste stream should not be discharged.
Nickel-Cobalt Extrusion Press and Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water. As discussed in Section III, contact cooling
water is used in extrusion operations to accomplish a heat
treatment effect, either by spraying water onto the metal as it
emerges from the die or press, or by direct quenching in a water
bath. Contact cooling water in one of the operations is recycled
and periodically batch dumped; the other operation discharges
with no recycle. The average of the two reported production
normalized discharge flows is the BPT discharge allowance, 83.2
1/kkg (20.0 gal/ton).
Nickel-Cobalt Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage. Discharge
of hydraulic fluid leakage was reported from one extrusion
operation. The BPT discharge allowance of 232 1/kkg (55.6
gal/ton) is based on the production normalized discharge flow
from this operation.
1570

-------
Forging
Forging is performed at 31 plants in the nickel-cobalt forming
subcategory. The following information is available from these
plants:
Number of plants and operations using lubricants: 5 plants, 6
operations
Number of plants and operations using contact cooling water: 6
Number of plants and operations reporting hydraulic fluid
leakage: 1
Number of equipment cleaning operations: 1 plant, 2 operations.
Approximately 20 dry forging operations were reported.
Nickel-Cobalt Forging Spent Lubricants. The lubricants from the
six operations are either contract hauled directly or only lost
through evaporation and drag-out. It is better to remove the
neat oil and graphite-based lubricants typically used in forging
operations from this subcategory and not to discharge the stream
than to commingle the lubricants with other water streams and
then remove them later. Therefore, this waste stream should not
be discharged.
Nickel-Cobalt Forging Contact Cooling Water. Five of the six
plants that reported this waste stream provided flow information.
Four plants discharge the cooling water without any recycle while
one plant recycles over 95 percent of the water. The BPT dis-
charge of 474 1/kkg (114 gal/ton) is based on the average produc-
tion normalized water use for the five plants providing flow
information.
Nickel-Cobalt Forging Equipment Cleaning Wastewater. One plant
reported using water to clean the equipment in its two forging
operations. The BPT discharge allowance, based on the average of
the two production normalized water uses, is 40.0 1/kkg (9.57
gal/ton).
Nickel-Cobalt Forging Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage. One plant
reported a discharge of forging press hydraulic fluid leakage.
The BPT discharge allowance of 187 1/kkg (44.8 gal/ton) is based
on the production normalized discharge flow of hydraulic leakage
from this operation.
Casting
The following information was reported on casting operations in
this subcategory:
Total number of plants: 12
Number of plants and operations with stationary casting:	10
plants, 12 operations
Number using contact cooling water: 2
Number dry: 10
1571

-------
Number of plants and operations with vacuum melting and casting:
3
Number of plants with vacuum melting steam condensate: 2
Number dry: 1
Number of plants and operations with electroflux remelting: 2
Number dry: 2.
Nickel-Cobalt Stationary Casting Contact Cooling Water. Two
stationary casting operations use contact cooling water. In one
operation the cooling water is completely reused in other nonfer-
rous forming operations at the plant. The cooling water is not
recycled in the other operation but some is lost through evapora-
tion and drag-out. The BPT allowance of 12,100 1/kkg (2,900
gal/ton) is based on the average production normalized water use
for the two operations.
Nickel-Cobalt Vacuum Melting Steam Condensate. Information was
reported on two vacuum melting operations which generate a steam
condensate waste stream. In one operation the entire volume of
steam condensate is reused for surface treatment rinse. The
other operation recycles 98 percent of the steam condensate
through a cooling tower. Analysis of a sample of the bleed
stream from the cooling tower indicated that there are no pollu-
tants present above treatable concentrations. In fact, some
pollutants were found at concentrations lower than source water
concentrations. Vacuum melting steam condensate can, therefore,
be reused in the generation of steam for vacuum melting or in
other processes present at the forming plant. The feasibility of
reusing the condensate is demonstrated by the operation which
currently reuses the condensate for surface treatment rinse.
Therefore, since analysis of the condensate indicates that no
pollutants are present at treatable concentrations, and it is
current industry practice to reuse the condensate in other
forming operations, no allowance is provided for this stream.
Metal Powder Production
Metal powder production operations are performed at 15 plants.
Atomization wastewater is generated in a total of seven opera-
tions at six plants. No wastewater is generated from atomization
processes at nine plants.
Nickel-Cobalt Metal Powder Production Atomization Wastewater.
Production normalized discharge flows for this waste stream vary
widely from 1,280 1/kkg to 75,300 1/kkg. The BPT flow allowance
of 2,620 1/kkg (629 gal/ton) is based on the median of seven
production normalized discharge flows. Because of the large
range of production normalized discharge flows, the median is
believed to be a better representation of the current typical
water use for this operation than the average (arithmetic mean).
1572

-------
Solution Heat Treatment
Heat treatment operations are performed at 31 plants. Contact
cooling water is used in a total of 22 operations at 17 plants.
No water is used at 14 plants.
Nickel-Cobalt Annealing and Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water. No BPT discharge allowance is provided for this
stream. The zero discharge allowance is based on 100 percent
reuse of the wastewater, either as annealing contact cooling
water or in other processes present at the forming plants.
Analysis of a sample of this wastewater indicates that there are
no pollutants present above treatable concentrations and there-
fore, reuse is possible. Furthermore, three operations which use
annealing contact cooling water recycle all of the cooling water.
In one operation the cooling water is treated by oil skimming and
recycled to the cooling process. In two operations, the cooling
water is recycled without treatment.
Surface Treatment
Thirty plants provided information on surface treatment opera-
tions in the nickel-cobalt forming subcategory.
Nickel-Cobalt Surface Treatment Spent Baths. A total of 39
surface treatment bath operations were identified. Spent baths
from six operations are discharged to evaporation ponds, baths
from 10 operations are contract hauled to treatment and disposal
off-site and 23 baths are discharged to either a POTW or surface
water. The BPT regulatory flow of 935 1/kkg (224 gal/ton) is
based on the average of the 24 reported production normalized
flows. Information sufficient to calculate production normalized
flows was provided for 25 baths that are discharged or contract
hauled.
Nickel-Cobalt Surface Treatment Rinse. Thirty-three surface
treatment rinse operations were identified. Rinse from seven
operations is discharged to evaporation ponds or surface
impoundments, and rinse from two operations is contract hauled.
In one process, the rinse is treated and reused. The BPT flow of
23,600 1/kkg (5,640 gal/ton) is based on the average of the 24
production normalized water uses reported for this operation.
Ammonia Rinse Treatment
Two plants reported using an ammonia rinse in a total of 3
operations.
Nickel-Cobalt Ammonia Rinse. All three operations are stagnant
rinses with batch discharges. The BPT flow of 14.8 1/kkg (3.54
gal/ton) is based on the average production normalized discharge
flow from the three operations.
1573

-------
Alkaline Cleaning
Eighteen plants provided information on alkaline cleaning opera-
tions in the nickel-cobalt subcategory. The reported operations
include 23 baths and 22 rinses.
Nickel-Cobalt Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths. Seven baths are
discharged to evaporation ponds or impoundments, and two are
contract hauled to treatment and disposal off-site. Flow data
were available for 15 baths. Production normalized discharge
flows for these baths vary from 1.2 1/kkg to 231 1/kkg. The BPT
flow of 33.9 1/kkg (8.13 gal/ton) is based on the median produc-
tion normalized discharge flow from the 15 baths. The median is
believed to be a better representation of the current typical
flow for this operation than the average (arithmetic mean)
because of the large range of production normalized discharge
flows. The production normalized water use for a combined bath
and rinse was not included in the average because the individual
discharges could not be discerned.
Nickel-Cobalt Alkaline Cleaning Rinse. Rinse from eight
operations is discharged to evaporation ponds, impoundments, or
applied to land. Rinse from one operation is treated and reused.
Water use data are available for a total of 12 alkaline cleaning
rinse operations. The BPT flow of 2,330 1/kkg (559 gal/ton) is
the average production normalized water use for 11 operations.
The production normalized water use for a combined bath and rinse
was not included in the average because the individual discharges
could not be discerned.
Molten Salt Treatment
Six plants reported using molten salt treatment in a total of
eight operations.
Nickel-Cobalt Molten Salt Rinse. The BPT flow for this stream is
8,440 1/kkg (2,020 gal/ton). This flow is the average production
normalized water use for six nonrecycled overflowing rinses. The
water uses for two stagnant rinses were not included in the
average because flow reduction through stagnant rinsing is
considered to be part of the BAT technology.
Sawing or Grinding
Twenty-one plants reported using emulsion lubricants in a total
of 25 sawing or grinding operations. One rinse operation was
also reported.
Nickel-Cobalt Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions. Information
sufficient to calculate production normalized discharge flows was
reported for five operations. The BPT flow allowance of 39.4
1/kkg (9.45 gal/ton) is based on the average production normal-
ized discharge flow from the five operations.
1574

-------
Nickel-Cobalt Sawing or Grinding Rinse. One plant reported
generating this waste stream. The BPT regulatory flow of 1,810
1/kkg (435 gal/ton) is based on the production normalized dis-
charge flow from this plant.
Steam Cleaning
Nickel-Cobalt Steam Cleaning Condensate. Two plants reported the
discharge of contact steam condensate from product cleaning
operations. Neither plant recycles the condensate. Only one
plant reported information sufficient to calculate production
normalized flows. The BPT discharge allowance is the one
reported production normalized discharge flow, 30.1 1/kkg (7.22
gal/ton).
Product Testing
Nickel-Cobalt Hydrostatic Tube Testing and Ultrasonic Testing
Wastewater. The Agency believes that hydrostatic tube testing
and ultrasonic testing wastewater can be recycled or reused in
other processes present at the forming plant. Also, some plants
in this category discharge wastewater from these operations less
than once per year, which is effectively zero discharge. There-
fore, no allowance for the discharge of process wastewater
pollutants is provided for this stream.
Nickel-Cobalt Dye Penetrant Testing Wastewater. Three plants
reported generating wastewater from six dye penetrant testing
operations. Flow information was reported for two operations.
The BPT discharge allowance of 213 1/kkg (50.9 gal/ton) is the
average production normalized discharge flow from the two opera-
tions .
Miscellaneous Wastewater
Nickel-Cobalt Miscellaneous Wastewater Sources. Some low volume
sources of wastewater were reported in dcps and observed during
the site and sampling visits. These include wastewater from
maintenance and cleanup. The Agency has determined that none of
the plants reporting these specific water uses discharge these
wastewaters to surface waters (directly or indirectly). However,
because the Agency believes this type of low volume periodic
discharge occurs at most plants, the Agency has combined these
individual wastewater sources under the term "miscellaneous
wastewater sources" and provided a BPT discharge allowance of 246
1/kkg (58.4 gal/ton).
Degreasing
Nickel-Cobalt Degreasing Spent Solvents. Only a small number of
surveyed plants with solvent degreasing operations indicated
having process wastewater streams associated with the operation.
Because most plants practice solvent degreasing without waste-
water discharge, the Agency believes zero discharge of wastewater
is an appropriate discharge limitation.
1575

-------
Wet Air Pollution Control
Nickel-Cobalt Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown. Wet air
pollution control devices are used to control air emissions from
surface treatment operations, shot blasting, molten salt treat-
ment and rolling. Six plants reported achieving over 90 percent
recycle of the scrubber water. Therefore, the BPT discharge
allowance of 810 1/kkg (194 gal/ton) is based on 90 percent
recycle of the average production normalized water use for six
operations since 90 percent recycle or greater is current typical
industry practice.
Electrocoating
Nickel-Cobalt Electrocoating Rinse. One plant reported
discharging electrocoating rinse. The BPT regulatory flow of
3,370 1/kkg (807 gal/ton) is based on the production normalized
discharge flow from this one plant.
Regulated Pollutants
The priority pollutants considered for regulation under BPT are
listed in Section VI along with an explanation of why they were
considered. The priority pollutants considered for regulation in
this subcategory are cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and
zinc. Chromium and nickel are selected for regulation under BPT
along with fluoride, total suspended solids, oil and grease, and
pH. The priority pollutants cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc are
not specifically regulated under BPT for the reasons given in
Section X. The basis for regulating total suspended solids, oil
and grease, and pH under BPT was discussed earlier in this
section. The basis for regulating total chromium, nickel, and
fluoride is discussed below.
Total chromium is regulated since it includes both hexavalent and
trivalent forms of chromium. Only the trivalent form is removed
by the lime and settle technology. Therefore, the hexavalent
form must be reduced by preliminary chromium reduction treatment
in order to meet the limitations on chromium in this subcategory.
Chromium was found at treatable concentrations in 71 of 90 raw
wastewater samples, and 16 of the 18 raw wastewater streams in
which it was analyzed.
Nickel has been selected for regulation under BPT since it was
found at treatable concentrations in 81 of 90 raw wastewater
samples and because it is the metal being processed. Nickel was
present at treatable concentrations in 16 of the 18 raw waste-
water streams in which it was analyzed. The Agency believes that
when chromium and nickel are controlled with the application of
lime and settle technology and preliminary treatment when needed,
the control of other priority pollutants which may be present is
assured.
1576

-------
Fluoride was found at treatable concentrations in 21 of 89	raw
wastewater samples and in six of 18 raw wastewater streams	in
which it was analyzed. Therefore, fluoride is selected	for
regulation under BPT.
Treatment Train
The BPT model treatment train for the nickel-cobalt forming
subcategory consists of preliminary treatment when necessary,
specifically emulsion breaking and oil skimming, and chromium
reduction. The effluent from preliminary treatment is combined
with other wastewater for common treatment by oil skimming and
lime and settle. Waste streams potentially needing preliminary
treatment are listed in Table IX-3. Figure IX-1 presents a
schematic of the general BPT treatment train for the nonferrous
metals forming category.
Effluent Limitations
The pollutant mass discharge limitations (milligrams of pollutant
per off-kilogram of PNP) were calculated by multiplying the BPT
regulatory flows summarized in Table IX-15 (1/kkg) by the concen-
tration achievable by the BPT model treatment system summarized
in Table VII-21 (mg/1) for each pollutant parameter considered
for regulation at BPT (1/off-kkg x mg/1 x 1 kkg/1,000 kg =
mg/off-kg). The results of this computation for all waste
streams and regulated pollutants in the nickel-cobalt forming
subcategory are summarized in Table IX-16. This limitation table
lists all the pollutants which were considered for regulation;
those specifically regulated are marked with an asterisk.
Costs and Benefits
In establishing BPT, EPA must consider the cost of treatment and
control in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. BPT
costs and benefits are tabulated along with BAT costs and bene-
fits in Section X. As shown in Table X-5 (page xxxx), the appli-
cation of BPT to the total nickel-cobalt forming subcategory will
remove approximately 729,230 kg/yr (1,604,300 lbs/yr) of pollu-
tants including 99,570 kg/yr (219,050 lbs/yr) of toxic metals.
As shown in Table X-l (page xxxx), the corresponding capital and
annual costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are $3,342 million
and $2,077 million per year, respectively. As shown in Table X-
15 (page xxxx), the application of BPT to direct dischargers only
will remove approximately 21,590 kg/yr (47,500 lbs/yr) of
pollutants including 10,400 kg/yr (22,880 lbs/yr) of toxic
metals. As shown in Table X-2 (page xxxx), the corresponding
capital and annual costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are
$392,000 and $186,000 per year, respectively. The Agency con-
cludes that these pollutant removals justify the costs incurred
by plants in this subcategory.
1577

-------
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
Production operations that generate process wastewater in the
precious metals forming subcategory include rolling, drawing,
metal powder production, direct chill casting, shot casting,
stationary casting, semi-continuous and continuous casting, heat
treatment, surface treatment, alkaline cleaning, tumbling,
burnishing, sawing, grinding, pressure bonding, and degreasing.
The wet scrubbers used for air pollution control at some plants
are also a source of process wastewater. Water use practices,
wastewater streams and wastewater discharge flows from these
operations were discussed in Section V. This information pro-
vided the basis for development of the BPT regulatory flow
allowances summarized in Table IX-17. The following paragraphs
discuss the basis for the BPT flow allowances for each waste
stream.
Rolling
Rolling is performed at 33 plants in this subcategory. The
following information is available from these plants:
Number of plants and operations using neat oil lubricant: 2
Number of plants and operations using emulsion lubricant:	5
plants, 6 operations.
No lubricants were reported to be used at approximately 25
plants.
Precious Metals Rolling Spent Neat Oils. No discharge is the BPT
requirement for this waste stream. Spent neat oil is not
discharged from the two rolling operations where the use of neat
oil lubricants was reported. One operation achieves zero
discharge through recirculation with some loss due to drag-out on
the product. No information regarding how zero discharge is
achieved was reported for the other operation. Since neat oils
are pure oil streams, with no water fraction, it is better to
remove the oil directly by contract hauling and not to discharge
the stream than to commingle the oil with water streams and then
remove it later.
Precious Metals Rolling Spent Emulsions. Information sufficient
to calculate production normalized flows was available for three
of the six operations where the use of emulsion lubricants was
reported. The BPT regulatory allowance of 77.1 1/kkg (18.5
gal/ton) is based on the average of the three production normal-
ized discharge flows. This regulatory flow incorporates recycle
with periodic discharge of spent emulsion since this is current
practice at the three plants supplying flow data for this waste-
water stream.
1578

-------
Drawing
Drawing is performed at 25 precious metals forming plants. The
following information is available from these plants:
Number of plants and operations using neat oil lubricant: 1
Number of plants and operations using emulsion lubricant: 8
plants, 12 operations
Number of plants and operations using soap solutions: 2.
No lubricants are used at approximately 15 plants.
Precious Metals Drawing Spent Neat Oils. Neat oils are com-
pletely consumed in the one drawing process where neat oil
lubricants are used. As discussed previously, should a plant
need to dispose of these lubricants it is better to remove them
directly by contract hauling and not to discharge the stream.
Therefore, this stream should not be discharged.
Precious Metals Drawing Spent Emulsions. Drawing emulsions are
completely recycled with the only loss due to evaporation and
drag-out in three operations. Seven operations recycle the
emulsion with periodic batch discharges. The spent emulsion from
four of the seven operations is contract hauled to treatment and
disposal off-site. The BPT regulatory flow of 47.5 1/kkg (11.4
gal/ton) is based on the average of five non-zero production
normalized discharge flows from operations where emulsion is
recycled with periodic batch discharges. The production normal-
ized discharge flow from one operation where no recycle is
practiced was not included in the BPT regulatory flow calculation
since once-through discharge of spent emulsion is not indicative
of current industry practice.
Precious Metals Drawing Spent Soap Solutions. No d1' scharge data
were provided on one operation and one operation was reported to
periodically discharge spent soap solution. The BPT discharge
allowance is the one reported value, 3.12 1/kkg (0.748 gal/ton).
Metal Powder Production
Metal powder production operations are performed at eight plants.
Atomization wastewater is generated at one of these plants.
Precious Metals Metal Powder Production Atomization Wastewater.
The BPT discharge allowance, based on the one reported production
normalized discharge flow, is 6,680 1/kkg (1,600 gal/ton).
Casting
Casting is performed at 23 plants in the precious metals forming
subcategory. The following information is available from these
plants:
1579

-------
Number of plants and operations with direct chill casting using
contact cooling water: 3 plants, 4 operations
Number of plants and operations with shot casting using contact
cooling water: 1
Number of plants and operations with stationary casting using
contact cooling water: 5
Number of plants and operations with semi-continuous and
continuous casting using contact cooling water: 5.
Precious Metals Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling Water. In
one reported direct chill casting operation the cooling water is
completely recycled with no discharge. The contact cooling water
is discharged from two operations on a once-through basis. The
BPT flow allowance of 10,800 1/kkg (2,590 gal/ton) is based on
the average production normalized water use from these two opera-
tions. The production normalized water use from one operation
with an unreported discharge flow was not used in the BPT flow
calculation since it is nearly 10 times greater than the water
use for the other two discharging operations, and therefore not
indicative of current industry practice.
Precious Metals Shot Casting Contact Cooling Water. The BPT
regulatory flow allowance is the production normalized water use
from the one reported operation, 3,670 1/kkg (880 gal/ton).
Precious Metals Stationary Casting Contact Cooling Water. Five
plants reported using contact cooling water to cool stationary
castings. One plant completely recycles this water, one prac-
tices 99.8 percent recycle, and one plant only discharges the
cooling water periodically. Water recycle practices were not
reported by the other two plants. No BPT discharge allowance is
provided for this waste stream. The zero discharge allowance is
based on practices currently in use at one plant in this subcate-
gory and in plants from several other subcategories in the
category which perform the same operation on other metals.
Precious Metals Semi-Continuous and Continuous Casting Contact
Cooling Water. Two plants completely recycle the cooling water
with no discharge. Flow data were reported for one of the three
plants which discharge this stream. The BPT regulatory allowance
is based on the one reported, nonrecycled production normalized
water use, 10,300 1/kkg (2,480 gal/ton).
Heat Treatment
Precious Metals Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water. Eleven
plants reported using contact cooling water in a total of 20 heat
treatment operations. Contact cooling water is used in anneal-
ing, rolling, and extrusion heat treatment. The BPT regulatory
flow is based on the median of 12 reported production normalized
water uses, 4,170 1/kkg (1,000 gal/ton). The median is believed
to be a better representation of the current typical water use
for this operation than the average (arithmetic mean) because of
the large range of reported production normalized water uses (659
1/k' to 14"» .000 lA'"o) .
1580

-------
Surface Treatment
Seventeen plants supplied information on surface treatment
operations. Wastewater is generated and discharged from these
operations as follows:
Number of baths contract hauled or discharged: 16
Number of baths never discharged: 4
Number of rinses discharged: 18 Number of rinses treated and
completely recycled: 1.
Precious Metals Surface Treatment Spent Baths. No wastewater
discharge data were reported for 12 of the operations. The BPT
discharge allowance is the average of the four reported produc-
tion normalized discharge flows, 96.3 1/kkg (23.1 gal/ton).
Precious Metals Surface Treatment Rinse. One rinse operation
uses two-stage countercurrent cascade rinsing and another
operation uses three-stage countercurrent cascade rinsing. The
BPT regulatory flow of 6,160 1/kkg (1,480 gal/ton) is based on
the average production normalized water use for seven noncascaded
rinse operations because flow reduction through cascade rinsing
is considered to be part of the BAT technology.
Alkaline Cleaning
Nine plants supplied information on alkaline cleaning operations.
Seven plants supplied information on alkaline cleaning prebonding
operations. Wastewater is generated and discharged from these
operations as follows:
Number of alkaline cleaning baths contract hauled or discharged:
8
Number of alkaline cleaning baths never discharged: 0
Number of alkaline cleaning rinses discharged: 7
Number of alkaline cleaning prebonding operations discharging
wastewater: 8.
Precious Metals Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths. Production
normalized flow information is available for one bath. The BPT
regulatory flow of 60.0 1/kkg (14.4 gal/ton) is based on the
production normalized discharge flow from this bath.
Precious Metals Alkaline Cleaning Rinse. Flow data were
available for four alkaline cleaning rTnse operations. No
recycle or other flow reduction techniques are used for any of
these operations. The BPT regulatory flow of 11,200 1/kkg (2,690
gal/ton) is based on the average production normalized water use
from the four operations.
1581

-------
Precious Metals Alkaline Cleaning Prebondinq Wastewater. Flow
information is available for all of the alkaline cleaning pre-
bonding operations. The BPT regulatory flow of 11,600 1/kkg
(2,770 gal/ton) is based on the median production normalized
water use for the eight operations. The median is believed to be
a better representation of the current typical water use for this
operation than the average (arithmetic mean) because of the large
range of reported production normalized water uses (10.2 1/kkg to
93,800 1/kkg).
Tumbling or Burnishing
Precious Metals Tumbling or Burnishing Wastewater. Flow informa-
tion was reported for two tumbling operations and two burnishing
operations. No recycle is practiced for any of these operations.
The BPT flow allowance of 12,100 1/kkg (2,910 gal/ton) is based
on the average production normalized water use for the four
operations.
Sawing or Grinding
Precious Metals Sawing or Grinding Spent Neat Oils. Neat oil is
used as a lubricant in one grinding operation. The neat oil is
completely recycled with some loss due to evaporation and drag-
out. As previously discussed, since neat oils are pure oil
streams, with no water fraction, it is better to remove the oil
directly by contract hauling and not to discharge the stream than
to commingle the oil with water streams and then remove it later.
Therefore, the BPT flow allowance is zero.
Precious Metals Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions. An emulsion
lubricant is used in four operations. In each of the four
operations, the emulsion is recirculated with periodic discharges
contract hauled to treatment and disposal off-site. However, a
BPT regulatory flow has been established for this stream since
the spent emulsion could be treated on-site and the water frac-
tion discharged (with the oil fraction contract hauled). The BPT
regulatory flow of 93.4 1/kkg (22.4 gal/ton) is based on the
median production normalized discharge flow from the four opera-
tions. The median is believed to be a better representation of
the current typical water use for this operation than the average
(arithmetic mean) because of the large range of reported produc-
tion normalized discharge flows (3.17 1/kkg to 2,775 1/kkg).
Pressure Bonding
Precious Metals Pressure Bonding Contact Cooling Water. One
plant reported using contact cooling water after a pressure
bonding operation. The production normalized discharge flow from
this operation is the BPT regulatory flow, 83.5 1/kkg (20.0
gal/ton).
1582

-------
Degreasing
Precious Metals Degreasing Spent Solvents. Only a small number
of surveyed plants with solvent degreasing operations have
process wastewater streams associated with the operation.
Because most plants practice solvent degreasing without waste-
water discharge, the Agency believes zero discharge of wastewater
is an appropriate discharge limitation.
Wet Air Pollution Control
Precious Metals Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown. Wet air
pollution control devices are used to control air emissions from
two surface treatment operations and three casting operations.
The scrubber water is completely recycled with no discharge in
two operations, and a periodic discharge is contract hauled to
treatment and disposal off-site in a third operation. Since zero
discharge from wet air pollution devices is common practice in
this subcategory, no BPT flow allowance is provided for this
stream.
Deleted Waste Streams
Precious Metals Metal Powder Production Milling Wastewater. At
proposal, an allowance was written for metal powder production
milling wastewater. Upon re-examination of the information
available, it was determined that the operation upon which the
allowance was based is powder metallurgy part milling, not powder
milling. The discharge from this operation is covered by tum-
bling, burnishing wastewater allowance and its reported PNF has
been included in the calculation of the tumbling, burnishing
wastewater regulatory flow and discharge allowance.
Regulated Pollutants
The priority pollutants considered for regulation under BPT are
listed in Section VI along with an explanation of why they have
been considered. The pollutants selected for regulation under
BPT are cadmium, copper, lead, silver, cyanide, oil and grease,
total suspended solids and pH. The priority metal pollutants
chromium, nickel, and zinc, listed in Section VI are not
specifically regulated under BPT for the reasons explained in
Section X. The basis for regulating oil and grease, total
suspended solids and pH was discussed earlier in this section.
The basis for regulating cadmium, copper, lead, silver, and
cyanide is discussed below.
Cadmium is selected for regulation since it was found at treat-
able concentrations in 23 of 37 raw wastewater samples. Cadmium
was present at treatable concentrations in rolling spent emul-
sions, shot casting contact cooling water, semi-continuous and
continuous casting contact cooling water, heat treatment contact
cooling water, surface treatment spent baths, surface treatment
rinse, alkaline cleaning spent baths, alkaline cleaning
1583

-------
prebonding wastewater, tumbling and burnishing wastewater, and
pressure bonding contact cooling water.
Copper is selected for regulation since it was found at treatable
concent rations in 32 of 37 raw wastewater samples. Copper was
found at treatable concentrations in all raw wastewater streams
in which it was analyzed. This includes all of the waste streams
where cadmium was found at treatable concentrations, and also
drawing spent emulsions.
Lead is selected for regulation since it was found at treatable
concentrations in 25 of 37 raw wastewater samples. Lead was
found at treatable concentration in 11 of the 12 raw wastewater
streams in which it was analyzed.
Silver is selected for regulation because it was found at treat-
able concentrations in 11 of 37 raw wastewater samples, it is a
toxic metal, and it is one of the metals formed in this subcate-
gory. Silver was found at treatable concentrations in rolling
spent emulsions, drawing spent emulsions, surface treatment spent
baths, surface treatment rinse, alkaline cleaning spent baths,
and tumbling, burnishing wastewater.
Cyanide is selected for regulation since it was found at treat-
able concentrations in alkaline cleaning prebonding wastewater
and semi-continuous and continuous casting contact cooling water.
Preliminary cyanide precipitation is needed to remove this
pollutant from wastewater. Therefore regulation of cyanide is
appropriate for this subcategory.
Treatment Train
The BPT model treatment train for the precious metals forming
subcategory consists of preliminary treatment when necessary,
specifically chemical emulsion breaking and oil skimming, and
cyanide precipitation. The effluent from preliminary treatment
is combined with other wastewater for common treatment by oil
skimming and lime and settle. Waste streams potentially needing
preliminary treatment are listed in Table IX-4. Figure IX-1
presents a schematic of the general BPT treatment train for the
nonferrous metals forming category.
Effluent Limitations
The pollutant mass discharge limitations (milligrams of pollutant
per metric ton of PNP) were calculated by multiplying the BPT
regulatory flows summarized in Table IX-17 (1/kkg) by the concen-
tration achievable by the BPT model treatment system summarized
in Table VII-21 (mg/1) for each pollutant parameter considered
for regulation at BPT (1/off-kkg x mg/1 x 1 kkg/1,000 kg =
mg/off-kg). The results of this computation for all waste
streams and regulated pollutants in the precious metals forming
subcategory are summarized in Table IX-18. This limitation table
lists all the pollutants which were considered for regulation and
those specifically regulated -ire marked with an asterisk.
1584

-------
Costs and Benefits
In establishing BPT, EPA must consider the cost of treatment and
control in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. BPT
costs and benefits are tabulated along with BAT costs and bene-
fits in Section X. As shown in Table X-6 (page xxxx), the appli-
cation of BPT to the total precious metals forming subcategory
will remove approximately 12,635 kg/yr (27,800 lbs/yr) of pollu-
tants including 110 kg/yr (242 lbs/yr) of toxic metals. As shown
in Table X-l (page xxxx), the corresponding capital and annual
costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are $1,013 million and
$0,414 million per year, respectively. As shown in Table X-16
(page xxxx), the application of BPT to direct dischargers only
will remove approximately 2,875 kg/yr (6,325 lbs/yr) of pollu-
tants including 21 kg/yr (46 lbs/yr) of toxic metals. As shown
in Table X-2 (page xxxx), the corresponding capital and annual
costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are $226,000 and $98,000
per year, respectively. The Agency concludes that these pollu-
tant removals justify the costs incurred by plants in this
subcategory.
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
Production operations that generate process wastewater in the
refractory metals forming subcategory include rolling, drawing,
extrusion, forging, metal powder production, surface treatment,
alkaline cleaning, molten salt treatment, tumbling, burnishing,
sawing, grinding, product testing, equipment cleaning, degreasing
and a few miscellaneous operations. The wet scrubbers used for
air pollution control at some plants are also a source of process
wastewater. Water use practices, wastewater streams and waste-
water discharge flows from these operations were discussed in
Section V. This information provided the basis for development
of the BPT regulatory flow allowances summarized in Table IX-19.
The following paragraphs discuss the basis for the BPT flow
allowances for each waste stream.
Rolling
Rolling is performed at approximately 16 plants in the refractory
metals forming subcategory. The following information is avail-
able from these plants:
Number of plants and operations using neat oil or graphite-based
lubricants: 2
Number of plants and operations using emulsion lubricants: 1.
No lubricants are used at approximately 13 plants.
Refractory Metals Rolling Spent Neat Oils and Graphite Based
Lubricants. One operation uses a neat oil lubricant and the
other operation uses a graphite-based lubricant. The lubricant
in both processes is completely recycled with some loss due to
1585

-------
evaporation and drag-out. Should a plant find the need to
dispose these lubricants, it would be better to remove the
lubricants directly by contract hauling and not to discharge the
stream rather than to combine the lubricants with water streams,
and remove them later. Therefore, rolling spent neat oils and
graphite-based lubricants should not be discharged.
Refractory Metals Rolling Spent Emulsions. Spent emulsion in the
one rolling operation which uses an emulsified lubricant is
periodically batch dumped and contract hauled. As discussed
previously for rolling spent emulsions in the lead-tin-bismuth
forming subcategory, the spent emulsions are often treated on-
site and the water discharged (with the oil fraction contract
hauled) by plants in this category and other categories. There-
fore, the production normalized discharge flow from the one
operation is the BPT discharge allowance, 429 1/kkg (103
gal/ton).
Drawing
Drawing is performed at approximately 16 refractory metals
forming plants. Six plants reported using lubricants in a total
of seven drawing operations.
Refractory Metals Drawing Spent Lubricants. No lubricant is
discharged from six of the seven drawing operations reporting the
use of lubricants. In four operations, the lubricant is com-
pletely recycled with some lubricant consumed or lost through
evaporation and drag-out. In the other zero discharge opera-
tions, the only losses are due to lubricant being consumed and
burned off or through evaporation and drag-out. One operation
has no available water discharge data. The drawing lubricants
used include neat oils, graphite-based lubricants, and dry soap
lubricants. Should a plant find the need to dispose of these
lubricants, it would be better to remove them directly by con-
tract hauling and not to discharge the stream rather than to
combine the lubricants with water streams and remove them later.
Therefore, drawing spent lubricants should not be discharged.
Extrusion
Extrusion is performed at approximately seven plants in this
subcategory. The following information is available from these
plants:
Number of plants and operations using lubricants: 3
Number of plants and operations reporting hydraulic fluid
leakage: 1.
Four plants did not report the use of lubricants or hydraulic
fluid leakage from their extrusion operations.
Refractory Metals Extrusion Spent Lubricants. There are no
reported discharges of spent extrusion lubricants. Should a
plant need to dispose of these lubricants, it would be better to
remove them directly by contract haulinj rather than to combine
1586

-------
the lubricants with wastewater streams and remove them later.
Therefore, this waste stream should not be discharged.
Refractory Metals Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage.
Leakage of extrusion press hydraulic fluid was observed at one
sampled plant. The BPT discharge allowance is based on the
production normalized discharge flow for this operation, 1,190
1/kkg (285 gal/ton).
Forging
Forging is performed at approximately 10 refractory metals
forming plants. The following information is available for these
plants:
Number of plants and operations using lubricants: 3 plants, 4
operations
Number of plants and operations using contact cooling water: 2.
No lubricants or contact cooling water was reported to be used at
over five plants.
Refractory Metals Forging Spent Lubricants. No lubricants are
discharged from the four operations for which lubricant was
reported. The only loss is due to evaporation and drag-out.
Should a plant find the need to dispose of these lubricants, it
would be better to remove the lubricants directly by contract
hauling and not to discharge the stream than to combine the
lubricants with wastewater streams and remove them later.
Therefore, this waste stream should not be discharged.
Refractory Metals Forging Contact Cooling Water. Flow data were
provided for one operation. None of the contact cooling water in
this operation is recycled. The BPT discharge allowance is the
production normalized water use from this one operation, 323
1/kkg (77.5 gal/ton).
Metal Powder Production
Metal powder production operations are performed at approximately
46 refractory metal forming plants. The following information is
available from these plants:
Number of plants and operations generating metal powder
production wastewater: 3 plants, 5 operations
Number of plants and operations generating floorwash wastewater:
2.
No process wastewater is generated from metal powder production
operations at approximately 40 plants.
Refractory Metals Metal Powder Production Wastewater. None of
the operations practice any recycle of the metal powder produc-
tion wastewater. No wastewater is discharged from two operations
since it evaporates in drying operations. The BPT regulatory
flow of 281 1/kkg (67.3 gal/ton) is based on the median produc-
tion normalized water use for five operations which discharge.
1587

-------
The median is believed to be a better representation	of the
current typical watei use for this operation than the	average
(arithmetic mean) because of the large range of reported	produc-
tion normalized water uses (37.1 1/kkg to 34,500 1/kkg).
Refractory Metals Metal Powder Production Floorwash Wastewater.
The floorwash wastewater is completely recycled by one plant
while at the other plant the wastewater is contract hauled.
Since neither plant which generates the waste stream reported
discharging it, there shall be no discharge from this waste
stream.
Refractory Metals Metal Powder Pressing Spent Lubricants. The
one plant which reported using metal powder pressing lubricants
achieves zero discharge of the lubricants through 100 percent
recycle. Therefore, the BPT flow allowance is zero.
Surface Treatment
Twelve plants supplied information on refractory metals surface
treatment operations.
Refractory Metals Surface Treatment Spent Baths. Flow data were
supplied for six of the 15 reported surface treatment baths. The
BPT regulatory flow of 389 1/kkg (93.3 gal/ton) is based on the
average production normalized discharge flow from the six opera-
tions .
Refractory Metals Surface Treatment Rinse. Fourteen surface
treatment rinse operations were reported. Two-stage counter-
current cascade rinsing is practiced at two of the operations.
No flow reduction techniques were reported for the other 12
operations. Discharge data were available for the two
countercurrent cascade rinses and four non-cascaded rinse opera-
tions. The BPT flow of 121,000 1/kkg (29,100 gal/ton) is based
on the average production normalized water use from the four non-
cascaded rinse operations. The countercurrent cascade rinse
operations were not included in the flow calculation since
countercurrent cascade rinsing is a BAT technology, and does not
represent current typical water use for this operation.
Alkaline Cleaning
Fourteen plants supplied information on alkaline cleaning opera-
tions. A total of 14 alkaline cleaning baths and 18 alkaline
cleaning rinses were reported.
Refractory Metals Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths. Flow data were
available for three of the 14 reported alkaline cleaning baths.
The BPT regulatory flow of 334 1/kkg (80.2 gal/ton) is based on
the average production normalized discharge flow from the three
operations.
Refractory Metals Alkaline Cleaning Rinse. Flow data were
available for 11 rinse operat'',ns. No flow reduction practices
1588

-------
(countercurrent cascade rinsing, recycle, etc.) were reported for
any of these operations. The BPT regulatory flow of 816,000
1/kkg (196,000 gal/ton) is based on the average production
normalized water use from the 11 operations.
Molten Salt Treatment
Refractory Metals Molten Salt Rinse. Five plants reported a
total of six molten salt rinse operations. No flow reduction
practices were reported for five of the operations. In one
operation, a decreased flow rate is used to significantly reduce
the discharge of molten salt rinse. Flow data were available for
five of the six operations. The BPT regulatory flow of 6,330
1/kkg (1,520 gal/ton) is based on the ave.rage production
normalized water use from the five operations.
Tumbling or Burnishing Wastewater
Refractory Metals Tumbling or Burnishing Wastewater. Seven
plants reported generating wastewater from 10 tumbling and
burnishing operations. No flow reduction practices were reported
for any of these operations. Flow data were supplied for eight
of the operations. The BPT regulatory flow of 12,500 1/kkg
(3,000 gal/ton) is based on the median production normalized
water use from the eight operations. The median is believed to
be a better representation of the current typical water use for
this operation than the average because of the large range of
production normalized water uses (953 1/kkg to 666,000 1/kkg).
Sawing or Grinding
Thirteen plants reported generating wastewater from sawing or
grinding operations. The following information is available from
these plants:
Number of plants and operations using neat oil lubricant: 3
Number of plants and operations using emulsion lubricant:	8
plants, 16 operations
Number of plants and operations using contact cooling water: 5
plants, 8 operations
Number of plants and operations using a rinse: 2.
Refractory Metals Sawing or Grinding Spent Neat Oils. No dis-
charge information was reported for one operation. Spent neat
oils are contract hauled to treatment and disposal off-site in
the other two operations. Since neat oils are pure oil streams,
with no water fraction, it is better to remove the oil directly
by contract hauling and not to discharge the stream than to
commingle the oil with water streams and remove it later.
Therefore, this waste stream should not be discharged.
Refractory Metals Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions. The spent
emulsions from six operations are contract hauled; emulsions are
completely recycled in one operation; the only loss of emulsions
from three operations is through drag-out or consumption.
1589

-------
Discharge data were available for four operations. The average
production normalized discharge flow from the four operations is
the BPT discharge allowance, 297 1/kkg (71.1 gal/ton).
Refractory Metals Sawing or Grinding Contact Cooling Water. Zero
discharge is achieved in three operations through 100 percent
recycle; in one operation 80 percent of the cooling water is
recycled; in another operation cooling water is only periodically
discharged; no recycle is practiced in three operations. The BPT
regulatory flow of 24,300 1/kkg (5,820 gal/ton) is based on the
average production normalized water use from the four operations
where water use data were available.
Refractory Metals Sawing or Grinding Rinse. No recycle or other
flow reduction practices are used in either of the two reported
rinse operations. Flow data were provided for one operation.
The BPT flow of 135 1/kkg (32.5 gal/ton) is based on the
production normalized water use for this operation.
Product Testing
Refractory Metals Dye Penetrant Testing Wastewater. Wastewater
from a dye penetrant testing operation was observed at one
sampled plant. The BPT discharge allowance is the production
normalized discharge flow for this operation, 77.6 1/kkg (18.6
gal/ton).
Equipment Cleaning
Refractory Metals Equipment Cleaning Wastewater. Three plants
reported generating wastewater from cleaning various equipment
such as spray driers, forging presses, ring rollers, tools, and
wet abrasive saw areas. A total of six equipment cleaning
operations were reported. In one operation, zero discharge is
achieved by completely recycling the cleaning wastewater. The
BPT regulatory flow of 1,360 1/kkg (326 gal/ton) is based on the
median production normalized discharge flow from the six opera-
tions. The six production normalized discharge flows included in
the median calculation include five non-zero discharge flows and
the zero discharge flow from the operation practicing 100 percent
recycle. The median is believed to be a better representation of
the current typical water use for this operation than the average
because of the large range of production normalized discharge
flows (0 1/kkg to 21,140 1/kkg).
Miscellaneous Wastewater
Refractory Metals Miscellaneous Wastewater. Miscellaneous
wastewater streams identified in this subcategory include waste-
water from a post oil coating dip rinse, a quench of extrusion
tools, and spent emulsions from grinding the stainless steel
rolls used in refractory metals rolling operations. The BPT
discharge allowance is 345 1/kkg (83.0 gal/ton), 10 percent of
the one reported production normalized discharge flow. This
1590

-------
discharge is a free flowing tool quench which can be 90 percent
flow reduced by recycling it through a holding tank.
Degreasing
Refractory Metals Degreasing Spent Solvents. Only a small number
of surveyed plants with solvent degreasing operations have
process wastewater streams associated with the operation.
Because most plants practice solvent degreasing without waste-
water discharge, the Agency believes zero discharge of wastewater
is an appropriate discharge limitation.
Wet Air Pollution Control
Refractory Metals Wet Air Pollution Control Scrubber Blowdown.
In this subcategory, wet air pollution control devices are used
to control air emissions from metal powder production, surface
treatment, surface coating, and sawing and grinding operations.
The use of wet air pollution control devices was reported for a
total of nine operations. Scrubber water from one operation is
completely recycled with no discharge. In two other operations,
the discharge flow of scrubber water is reduced by recycling over
90 percent of the scrubber water. Water use data were available
for four operations. The BPT regulatory flow of 787 1/kkg (189
gal/ton) is based on 90 percent reduction of the average produc-
tion normalized water use from three of these operations. The
production normalized water use for one operation was over 175
times larger than the other values and was believed to be so
atypical of current typical water use that it was not included in
the regulatory flow calculation.
Deleted Waste Streams
Following proposal, the Agency received additional data and
conducted a review of all available data concerning wastewater
discharges. This review led to a reinterpretation of some data
reported prior to proposal. As a result, the following waste
streams included in the proposed regulation have been deleted
from the final regulation:
o	Extrusion Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water,
o	Metal Powder Pressing Spent Lubricant,
o	Casting Contact Cooling Water, and
o	Post-Casting Wash Water.
Data included under these waste streams at proposal have been
reclassified under other waste streams in this subcategory as
appropriate.
Regulated Pollutants
The priority pollutants considered for regulation under BPT are
listed in Section VI along with an explanation of why they were
considered. The pollutants selected for regulation under BPT are
copper, nickel, fluoride, molybdenum, oil and grease, total
1591

-------
suspended solids and pH. The priority pollutants chromium, lead,
silver, and zinc, and the nonconventional pollutants columbium,
tantalum, tungsten, and vanadium are not specifically regulated
under BPT for the reasons explained in Section X. The basis for
regulating oil and grease, total suspended solids, and pH under
BPT was discussed earlier in this section. The basis for
regulating copper, nickel, fluoride, and molybdenum is discussed
below.
Copper is selected for regulation since it was found at treatable
concentrations in nine of 25 raw wastewater samples. Copper was
present at treatable concentrations in extrusion press hydraulic
fluid leakage, surface treatment spent baths, surface treatment
rinse, alkaline cleaning spent baths, tumbling and burnishing
wastewater, and sawing or grinding contact cooling water.
Nickel is selected for regulation since it was found at treatable
concentrations in 13 of 25 raw wastewater samples. Nickel was
found at treatable concentrations in all wastewater streams
listed in the previous paragraph for copper. It was also present
at treatable concentrations in molten salt rinse and dye
penetrant testing wastewater.
Fluoride is selected for regulation since it was found at treat-
able concentrations in seven of 21 raw wastewater samples.
Fluoride was present at treatable concentrations in surface
treatment rinse, alkaline cleaning spent baths, molten salt
rinse, and wet air pollution control blowdown.
Molybdenum is selected for regulation since it was present at
treatable concentrations in five of 25 raw wastewater samples and
it is one of the metals formed in this subcategory. Molybdenum
is specifically regulated under BPT because it will not be
adequately removed by the technology (lime and settle) required
for the removal of the regulated priority metal pollutants,
copper and nickel. The addition of iron to a lime and settle
system (i.e., iron coprecipitation) is necessary for effective
removal of molybdenum. Regulation of priority metals only is not
sufficient to ensure the removal of molybdenum from refractory
metals forming wastewater.
Treatment Train
The BPT model treatment train for the refractory metals forming
subcategory consists of preliminary treatment when necessary,
specifically chemical emulsion breaking and oil skimming. The
effluent from preliminary treatment is combined with other
wastewater for common oil skimming, iron coprecipitation, and
lime and settle treatment. Waste streams potentially needing
preliminary treatment are listed in Table IX-5. Figure IX-1
presents a schematic of the general BPT treatment train for the
nonferrous metals forming category.
1592

-------
Effluent Limitations
The pollutant mass discharge limitations (milligrams of pollutant
per off-kilogram of PNP) were calculated by multiplying the BPT
regulatory flows summarized in Table IX-19 (1/kkg) by the concen-
tration achievable by the BPT model treatment system summarized
in Table VII-21 (mg/1) for each pollutant parameter considered
for regulation at BPT (1/kkg x mg/1 x kkg/1,000 kg = mg/off-kg).
The results of this computation for all waste streams and
regulated pollutants in the refractory metals forming subcategory
are summarized in Table IX-20. Although no limitations have been
established for columbium, tantalum, tungsten, and vanadium,
Table IX-20 includes mass discharge limitations for these
pollutants which are attainable using the BPT model technology.
These limitations are presented for the guidance of permit
writers. Only daily maximum limitations are presented for
columbium, tantalum, and vanadium, based on the detection limits
of 0.12, 0.46, and 0.10 mg/1, respectively. Lime and settle
treatment was determined to remove these pollutants to below
their level of analytical quantification. The attainable monthly
average discharge is expected to be lower than the one-day
maximum limitation, but since it would be impossible to monitor
for compliance with a lower level, no monthly average has been
presented.
The limitations table lists all the pollutants which were consid-
ered for regulation. Those specifically regulated are marked
with an asterisk.
Costs and Benefits
In establishing BPT, EPA must consider the cost of treatment and
control in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. BPT
costs and benefits are tabulated along with BAT costs and bene-
fits in Section X. As shown in Table X-7 (page xxxx), the appli-
cation of BPT to the total refractory metals forming subcategory
will remove approximately 183,300 kg/yr (403,260 lbs/yr) of
pollutants including 54 kg/yr (119 lbs/yr) of toxic metals. As
shown in Table X-l xxxx), the corresponding capital and annual
costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are $1,117 million and
$0,582 million per year, respectively. As shown in Table X-17
(page xxxx), the application of BPT to direct dischargers only
will remove approximately 24,220 kg/yr (53,285 lbs/yr) of
pollutants. As shown in Table X-2 (page xxxx), the corresponding
capital and annual costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are
$87,000 and $44,000 per year, respectively. The Agency concludes
that these pollutant removals justify the costs incurred by
plants in this subcategory.
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
Production operations that generate process wastewater in the
titanium forming subcategory include rolling, drawing, extrusion,
1593

-------
forging, tube reducing, heat treatment, surface treatment,
alkaline cleaning, molten salt treatment, tumbling, sawing,
grinding, product testing, degreasing and various miscellaneous
operations. The wet scrubbers used for air pollution control at
some plants are also a source of process wastewater. Water use
practices, wastewater streams, and wastewater discharge flows
from these operations were discussed in Section V. This informa-
tion provided the basis for development of the BPT regulatory
flow allowances summarized in Table IX-21. The following para-
graphs discuss the basis for the BPT flow allowances for each
waste stream.
Rolling
Rolling is performed at 16 plants in the titanium forming subcat-
egory. The following information is available from these plants:
Number of plants and operations using neat oil lubricant: 2
Number of plants and operations using contact cooling water: 4.
No lubricants or contact cooling water were reported to be used
at approximately 10 plants.
Titanium Rolling Spent Neat Oils. No neat oils are discharged
from either of the operations reporting the use of this lubri-
cant. As previously discussed, should a plant need to dispose of
this stream, it would be better to remove the neat oils directly
by contract hauling and not to discharge them than to commingle
the neat oils with wastewater streams and remove them later using
an oil-water separation process. Therefore, this waste stream
should not be discharged.
Titanium Rolling Contact Cooling Water. Reliable flow data were
only available for one of the four rolling operations which use
contact cooling water. No recycle is practiced in this opera-
tion. The BPT flow of 4,880 1/kkg (1,170 gal/ton) is based on
the production normalized water use for the operation.
Drawing
Drawing is performed at six titanium forming plants. Two plants
reported using neat oil lubricants in a total of two operations.
No lubricants were reported to be used at the other four plants.
Titanium Drawing Spent Neat Oils. Spent neat oils from both
operations reporting the use of this lubricant are contract
hauled to treatment and disposal off-site. It is better to
handle the neat oils in this manner rather than to commingle them
with wastewater streams and then remove them later using an oil-
water separation process. Therefore, this waste stream should
not be discharged.
Extrusion
Extrusion is performed at nine plants in this subcategory. The
following information is available from these plants:
1594

-------
Number of plants and operations using neat oil lubricant: 5
Number of plants and operations using emulsion lubricant: 1
Number of plants and operations with hydraulic fluid leakage: 1
Three plants did not report the use of lubricants or hydraulic
fluid leakage.
Titanium Extrusion Spent Neat Oils. Neat oils are not discharged
from any of the five extrusion operations using a neat oil
lubricant. The only loss of neat oil is through evaporation and
drag-out. Should a plant from these operations need to dispose
of this stream, it would be better to remove the neat oils
directly by contract hauling rather than to combine them with
wastewater streams and remove them later by oil-water separation.
Therefore, this waste stream should not be discharged.
Titanium Extrusion Spent Emulsions. One plant reported discharg-
ing spent emulsion lubricants from an extrusion operation. No
recycle of the emulsion is practiced in this operation. The BPT
regulatory flow of 71.9 1/kkg (17.2 gal/ton) is based on the
production normalized discharge flow from the operation.
Titanium Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage. The BPT
regulatory flow of 178 1/kkg (42.8 gal/ton) is based on the
production normalized discharge flow from the only plant which
reported this stream.
Forging
Forging is performed at 32 titanium forming plants. The follow-
ing information is available from these plants:
Number of plants and operations using lubricants: 7 plants, 8
operations
Number of plants and operations using contact cooling water: 4
Number of plants and operations with equipment cleaning
wastewater: 1 plant, 2 operations
Number of plants and operations with hydraulic fluid leakage: 2.
Over 20 plants from this subcategory reported that no waste
streams were generated from forging operations.
Titanium Forging Spent Lubricants. The lubricants in seven of
the eight operations are consumed during forging and the lubri-
cants from the other operation are contract hauled. The forging
lubricants are typically neat oils. As discussed previously, it
is better to remove neat oils directly by contract hauling and
not to discharge the stream rather than to commingle them with
wastewater streams and then remove them later by oil-water
separation. Therefore, this waste stream should not be
discharged.
Titanium Forging Contact Cooling Water. Flow information is
available for three of the four forging operations which use
contact cooling water. In one operation 95 percent of the
cooling water is recycled; no recycle is practiced for the other
1595

-------
two operations. The BPT regulatory flow of 2,000 1/kkg (479
gal/ton) is based on tha average production normalized water use
for the three operations.
Titanium Forging Equipment Cleaning Wastewater. No recycle is
practiced for either of the two reported equipment cleaning
operations. The BPT regulatory flow of 40.0 1/kkg (9.60 gal/ton)
is based on the average production normalized discharge flow from
the two operations.
Titanium Forging Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage. Flow data are
available for one of the forging operations where hydraulic fluid
leakage was reported. The BPT regulatory flow of 1,010 1/kkg
(242 gal/ton) is based on the production normalized discharge
flow from this operation.
Tube Reducing
Titanium Tube Reducing Spent Lubricants. One of the lubricants
used in reducing titanium tubes is a neat oil. Since neat oils
contain no water, the Agency believes that it is better to haul
the oil directly and not to commingle it with wastewater streams
only to remove it later. Other titanium tube reducing lubricants
are emulsions. A tube reducing emulsion was sampled at a nickel
forming plant. Analysis of the sampled tube reducing lubricant
showed treatable concentrations of N-nitrosodiphenylamine, a
toxic organic pollutant with potentially carcinogenic properties.
If one nitrosamine compound is present in this wastewater source
then there are likely to be other compounds or other nitrosamine
compounds could be formed as this compound most likely was in the
presence of precursors, under the conditions created by the tube
reducing process. Therefore, there shall be no discharge of
titanium tube reducing lubricant.
Heat Treatment
Ten plants reported using contact cooling water in 10 heat
treatment operations.
Titanium Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water. No BPT discharge
allowance is provided for this stream. The zero discharge
allowance is based on 100 percent reuse of this wastewater,
either as heat treatment contact cooling water or in other
processes present at the titanium forming plant. Analysis of a
similar nickel forming waste stream, "Annealing and Solution Heat
Treatment Contact Cooling Water," indicated that the wastewater
did not contain any treatable concentrations of pollutants.
Therefore, reuse of the wastewater is possible. Furthermore,
reuse of nickel annealing and solution heat treatment contact
cooling water is demonstrated at three plants. Because titanium
heat treatment contact cooling water contains pollutants at
concentrations similar to nickel annealing and solution heat
treatment contact cooling water (since the processes are simi-
lar), there is no discharge allowance for titanium heat treatment
contact cooling based on the reuse of this wastewater stream.
1596

-------
Surface Treatment
Twenty-one plants reported information on surface treatment
operations. A total of 32 surface treatment baths and 29 surface
treatment rinse operations were reported.
Titanium Surface Treatment Spent Baths. Flow data were available
for 21 baths which are either discharged or contract hauled. The
BPT regulatory flow of 208 1/kkg (49.9 gal/ton) is based on the
median production normalized discharge flow of the 21 baths. The
median is believed to be a better representation of the current
discharge from this operation than the average because of the
large range of reported production normalized discharge flows
(1.71 1/kkg to 1,310 1/kkg).
Titanium Surface Treatment Rinse. Countercurrent cascade rinsing
is not practiced in any of the rinse operations. In one
operation 40 percent of the rinse is recycled while rinsewater is
only periodically discharged from five operations. The BPT
regulatory flow of 29,200 1/kkg (7,000 gal/ton) is based on the
average of 16 of 19 reported production normalized rinse
application rates. Three reported values were not used to
calculate the average because they are much larger than the other
values. Therefore, the Agency does not believe that these
outlying values are representative of current typical water use
for this operation.
Alkaline Cleaning
Six plants supplied information on alkaline cleaning operations.
All six plants discharge spent cleaning baths and rinse.
Titanium Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths. Flow data were available
for seven of the eight reported baths. The BPT regulatory flow
of 240 1/kkg (57.5 gal/ton) is the median production normalized
discharge flow of the seven reported wastewater discharges. The
median is believed to be a better representation of the current
typical discharge for this operation than the average because of
the large range of reported production normalized discharge flows
(52.1 1/kkg to 9,810 1/kkg).
Titanium Alkaline Cleaning Rinse. Flow data were available for
six of the seven reported rinse operations. No recycle or other
flow reduction practices were used in any of these operations.
The BPT regulatory flow of 2,760 1/kkg (663 gal/ton) is based on
the median production normalized water use from four operations.
Two operations with very high flows were not included in the
calculation. Both of these very high flows came from operations
described as "Free-Flowing Rinses." Because this is the least
efficient type of rinsing, in terms of water use, the two
operations were excluded from the determination of current
typical practice used for the BPT allowance. The median is
believed to be a better representation of the current typical
water use for this operation than the average (arithmetic mean)
1597

-------
because of the large range of rinse flows even after excluding
the two high values (348 1/kkg to 82,300 1/kkg).
Molten Salt Treatment
Titanium Molten Salt Rinse. One plant reported generating rinse
from a molten salt treatment operation. The BPT regulatory flow
of 955 1/kkg (229 gal/ton) is based on the production normalized
discharge flow from this operation.
Tumbling
Titanium Tumbling Wastewater. One plant reported generating
wastewater from a titanium tumbling operation. The wastewater
from this operation is discharged on a once-through basis. The
BPT discharge flow of 790 1/kkg (189 gal/ton) is based on the
production normalized water use for this operation.
Sawing or Grinding
Thirteen plants reported generating wastewater from sawing or
grinding operations. The following information is available from
these plants:
Number of plants and operations using neat oil lubricant: 2
Number of plants and operations using emulsions and synthetic
coolants: 11 plants, 19 operations
Number of plants and operations using contact cooling water: 1.
Titanium Sawing or Grinding Spent Neat Oils. In one operation,
the only loss of neat oils occurs through evaporation and drag-
out. Spent neat oils from the other operation are contract
hauled to treatment and disposal off-site. It is better to
remove neat oils directly by contract hauling than to commingle
the oils with wastewater streams only to remove them later using
an oil-water separation process. Therefore, this waste stream
should not be discharged.
Titanium Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions and Synthetic Cool-
ants . In this subcategory, these lubricants are either
completely recycled with no discharge or recycled with periodic
batch discharges. The lubricants in four operations are com-
pletely recycled with no discharge. In four other operations the
only loss of lubricant is through evaporation and drag-out.
Lubricant is periodically dumped from seven operations. Flow
data were available for six of the operations which discharge
spent emulsions and synthetic coolants. Recycle with periodic
batch discharges is practiced in four of these operations while
no recycle is used for the other two operations. The BPT regula-
tory flow of 183 1/kkg (43.8 gal/ton) is based on the average
production normalized discharge flow from these six operations.
The four recycle operations were included in the calculation
since recycle is current typical industry practice.
1598

-------
Titanium Sawing or Grinding Contact Cooling Water. The use of
contact cooling water was reported for only one operation.
Cooling water is discharged on a once-through basis from this
operation. The BPT regulatory flow of 4,760 1/kkg (1,140
gal/ton) is based on the production normalized water use for this
operation.
Product Testing
Titanium Dye Penetrant Testing Wastewater. Wastewater is gener-
ated from six dye penetrant testing operations. Flow data are
available for two of these operations. The BPT regulatory flow
of 1,120 1/kkg (268 gal/ton) is based on the average production
normalized discharge flow from these two operations.
Miscellaneous Wastewater Sources
Titanium Miscellaneous Wastewater Sources. Miscellaneous waste-
water sources identified in this subcategory include wastewater
from cleaning tools, hydrotesting wastewater, and spillage from
an abrasive saw area. Discharge data were only available for the
tool cleaning and hydrotesting operations. The BPT regulatory
flow of 32.4 1/kkg (7.77 gal/ton) is based on the production
normalized discharge flow from the tool cleaning operation.
Hydrotesting wastewater is not included in the basis because the
Agency believes that hydrotesting wastewater should not be
discharged, but should be reused for hydrotesting or other
forming operations.
Degreasing
Titanium Degreasing Spent Solvents. Only a small number of
surveyed plants with solvent degreasing operations have process
wastewater streams associated with the operation. Because most
plants practice solvent degreasing without wastewater discharge,
the Agency believes zero discharge of wastewater is an appropri-
ate discharge limitation.
Wet Air Pollution Control
Titanium Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown. Titanium forming
plants reported using wet air pollution control devices to
control air emissions from forging and surface treatment opera-
tions. Ninety percent or greater recycle of the scrubber water
is practiced by five of the 14 reported operations and only
periodic batch discharges were reported for another operation.
Scrubber water is discharged on a once-through basis from five
operations. No flow data are available for the remaining three
operations. The BPT regulatory flow of 2,140 1/kkg (514 gal/ton)
is based on the median production normalized water use from the
11 operations for which water use data were available. The
median is believed to be a better representation of the current
typical water use than the average (arithmetic mean) because of
the large range of production normalized water uses from the 11
operations (88.1 1/kkg to 554,000 1/kkg).
1599

-------
Deleted Waste Streams
Titanium Cold Rolling Spent Lubricants. Following proposal, the
Agency received additional data and conducted a review of all
available data concerning wastewater discharges in this subcate-
gory. This review led to a reinterpretation of some data
reported prior to proposal. As a result, the Cold Rolling Spent
Lubricant waste stream included in the proposed regulation for
this subcategory has been deleted from the final regulation. All
data included under Cold Rolling Spent Lubricants at proposal,
have been reclassified under other waste streams in this subcate-
gory for the final regulation.
Regulated Pollutants
The priority pollutants considered for regulation under BPT are
listed in Section VI along with an explanation of why they have
been considered. The pollutants selected for regulation under
BPT are lead, zinc, cyanide, ammonia, fluoride, oil and grease,
total suspended solids, and pH. The priority metals chromium,
copper, and nickel, and the nonconventional pollutant titanium
are not specifically regulated under BPT for the reasons
explained in Section X. The basis for regulating oil and grease,
total suspended solids and pH under BPT was discussed earlier in
this section. The basis for regulating lead, zinc, cyanide,
ammonia, and fluoride is discussed below.
Lead is selected for regulation since it was found at treatable
concentrations in 18 of 21 raw wastewater samples. Lead was
present at treatable concentrations in all raw wastewater streams
in which it was analyzed. These streams are rolling contact
cooling water, surface treatment spent baths, surface treatment
rinse, molten salt rinse, tumbling wastewater, dye penetrant
testing wastewater, wet air pollution control blowdown and sawing
or grinding spent emulsions and synthetic coolants.
Zinc is selected for regulation since it was found at treatable
concentrations in 10 of 21 raw wastewater samples. Zinc was
present at treatable concentrations in seven of the eight raw
wastewater streams in which it was analyzed.
Cyanide is selected for regulation since it was found at treat-
able concentrations in rolling contact cooling water, tumbling
wastewater, dye penetrant testing wastewater, and sawing or
grinding spent emulsions and synthetic coolants. Preliminary
cyanide precipitation is needed to remove this pollutant from
wastewater. Therefore, regulation of cyanide is appropriate for
the titanium forming subcategory.
Ammonia is selected for regulation since it was found at treat-
able concentrations in surface treatment rinse and tumbling
wastewater. Preliminary ammonia steam stripping is needed to
remove ammonia from these wastewaters. Therefore, regulation of
ammonia is appropriate for the titanium forming subcategory.
1600

-------
Fluoride is selected for regulation since it was found at treat-
able concentrations in 17 of 22 raw wastewater samples and seven
of the eight raw wastewater streams in which it was analyzed.
Treatment Train
The BPT model treatment train for the titanium forming subcate-
gory consists of preliminary treatment when necessary, specifi-
cally chemical emulsion breaking and oil skimming, cyanide
precipitation, and ammonia steam stripping. The effluent from
preliminary treatment is combined with other wastewater for
common treatment by oil skimming and lime and settle. Waste
streams potentially needing preliminary treatment are listed in
Table IX-6. Figure IX-1 presents a schematic of the general
treatment train for the nonferrous metals forming category.
Effluent Limitations
The pollutant mass discharge limitations (milligrams of pollutant
per off-kilogram of PNP) were calculated by multiplying the BPT
regulatory flows summarized in Table IX-21 (1/kkg) by the concen-
tration achievable by the BPT model treatment system summarized
in Table VII-21 (mg/1) for each pollutant parameter considered
for regulation at BPT (1/kkg x mg/1 x kkg/1,000 kg = mg/off-kg).
The results of this computation for all waste streams and regu-
lated pollutants in the titanium forming subcategory are summa-
rized in Table IX-22. Although no limitations have been
established for titanium, Table IX-22 includes titanium mass
discharge limitations attainable using the BPT model technology.
These limitations are presented as guidance for permit writers.
This limitation table lists all the pollutants which were consid-
ered for regulation. Those specifically regulated are marked
with an asterisk.
Costs and Benefits
In establishing BPT, EPA must consider the cost of treatment and
control in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. BPT
costs and benefits are tabulated along with BAT costs and bene-
fits in Section X. As shown in Table X-8 (page xxxx), the appli-
cation of BPT to the total titanium forming subcategory will
remove approximately 350,650 kg/yr (771,430 lbs/yr) of pollu-
tants, including 300 kg/yr (660 lbs/yr) of toxic metals. As
shown in Table X-l, the corresponding capital and annual costs
(1982 dollars) for this removal are $2,879 million and $2,571
million per year, respectively. As shown in Table X-18 (page
xxxx), the application of BPT to direct dischargers only will
remove approximately 105,460 kg/yr (232,010 lbs/yr) of pollutants
including 90 kg/yr (200 lbs/yr) of toxic metals. As shown in
Table X-2 (page xxxx), the corresponding capital and annual costs
(1982 dollars) for this removal are $2,238 million and $2,261
million per year, respectively. The Agency concludes that these
1601

-------
pollutant removals justify the costs incurred by plants in this
subcategory.
URANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
Production operations that generate process wastewater in the
uranium forming subcategory include extrusion, forging, heat
treatment, surface treatment, sawing, grinding, area cleaning,
drum washing, on-site laundries, and degreasing. The wet scrub-
bers used for air pollution control at some plants are also a
source of process wastewater. Water use practices, wastewater
streams, and wastewater discharge flows from these operations
were discussed in Section V. This information provided the basis
for development of the BPT regulatory flow allowances summarized
in Table IX-23. The following paragraphs discuss the basis for
the BPT flow allowances for each waste stream.
Extrusion
Extrusion is performed at one uranium forming plant. The follow-
ing information was reported on extrusion operations by this
plant:
Number of operations: 1
Number of operations using lubricants: 1
Number of operations using contact cooling water: 1.
Uranium Extrusion Spent Lubricants. No lubricants are discharged
from the one uranium extrusion operation where their use was
reported. Extrusion lubricants are typically neat oils. Should
a uranium forming plant need to dispose of a spent neat oil
stream, it would be better to remove the stream directly by
contract hauling rather than to commingle the oil with wastewater
streams only to remove it later using an oil-water separation
process. Therefore, this waste stream should not be discharged.
Uranium Extrusion Tool Contact Cooling Water. One plant reported
using contact cooling water to quench extrusion tools. No
recycle is practiced for this operation. The BPT discharge
allowance is the production normalized water use from the opera-
tion, 344 1/kkg (82.5 gal/ton).
Forging
The following information was reported on forging operations in
this subcategory:
Number of plants: 1
Number of operations: 1
Number of operations using lubricants: 1.
1602

-------
Uranium Forging Spent Lubricants. No lubricants are discharged
from the only reported forging operation. The only loss of
lubricant from this operation is due to evaporation and drag-out.
Forging lubricants are typically neat oils. As previously
discussed, should a plant need to dispose of the oil, it would be
better to remove the oil directly by contract hauling rather than
to commingle it with other wastewaters only to remove it later
using an oil-water separation process. Therefore, this waste
stream should not be discharged.
Heat Treatment
Two plants reported using contact cooling water in a total of
five heat treatment operations.
Uranium Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water. In three opera-
tions, the cooling water is periodically batch discharged. The
cooling water is discharged on a once-through basis from two
operations. The BPT regulatory flow of 1,900 1/kkg (455 gal/ton)
is based on the average production normalized water use from
these two operations.
Surface Treatment
All three uranium forming plants provided information on surface
treatment operations. Three surface treatment baths and two
surface treatment rinse operations were reported.
Uranium Surface Treatment Spent Baths. Flow data were available
for one of the three surface treatment bath operations. The BPT
regulatory flow of 27.2 1/kkg (6.52 gal/ton) is based on the
production normalized discharge flow from this bath.
Uranium Surface Treatment Rinse. Flow data were available for
each of the two reported rinse operations. Although neither
countercurrent cascade rinsing nor recycle is practiced in either
rinse operation, water use for both operations is low, indicating
conservative water use. The BPT regulatory flow of 337 1/kkg
(80.9 gal/ton) is based on the average production normalized
discharge flow from the two operations.
Sawing or Grinding
Uranium Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions. Lubricating emul-
sions are used in three operations. In all three operations,
spent emulsions are periodically discharged. Discharge flow data
were available for two of the operations. The BPT regulatory
flow of 5.68 1/kkg (1.36 gal/ton) is based on the average produc-
tion normalized discharge flow from the two operations.
Uranium Sawing or Grinding Contact Cooling Water. One plant
reported using contact cooling water to quench parts following a
shear cutting operation. No information on recycle or other flow
reduction practices was reported for this operation. The BPT
regulatory flow of 1,650 1/kkg (395 gal/ton) is based on the
1603

-------
production normalized discharge flow from the quenching opera-
tion.
Uranium Sawing or Grinding Rinse. One plant reported using a
stagnant rinse after a sawing operation. The stagnant rinse is
periodically discharged. The BPT regulatory flow is the produc-
tion normalized discharge flow from the stagnant rinse, 4.65
1/kkg (1.12 gal/ton).
Area Cleaning
Uranium Area Cleaning Wastewater. One plant reported discharging
wastewater from cleanup operations in three different areas of
the plant. The BPT regulatory flow of 42.9 1/kkg (10.3 gal/ton)
is based on the average production normalized discharge flow from
the three cleanup operations.
Degreasing
Uranium Degreasing Spent Solvents. Only a small number of
surveyed plants with solvent degreasing operations have process
wastewater streams associated with the operation. Because most
plants practice solvent degreasing without wastewater discharge,
the Agency believes zero discharge of wastewater is an appropri-
ate discharge limitation.
Wet Air Pollution Control
Uranium Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown. Two plants reported
using wet air pollution control scrubber devices to control air
emissions from surface treatment operations. No wastewater is
discharged from one scrubber operation. Wastewater is only
periodically discharged from the other operation. The BPT
regulatory flow of 3.49 1/kkg (0.836 gal/ton) is based on the
production normalized discharge flow from this operation.
Drum Wash
Uranium Drum Washwater. One plant reported washing solid waste
drums before they were contract hauled to off-site disposal. The
BPT regulatory flow of 44.3 1/kkg (10.6 gal/ton) is based on the
production normalized discharge flow from this operation.
Laundry
Uranium Laundry Washwater. Wastewater from the on-site launder-
ing of employee uniforms is generated at one plant. The Agency
established the normalizing parameter for this building block as
the number of employees, not a unit of production. The BPT
regulatory flow of 52.4 1/employee-day (12.6 gal/employee-day) is
based on the water use for the one reported operation.
1604

-------
Regulated Pollutants
The priority pollutants considered for regulation under BPT are
listed in Section VI along with an explanation of why they have
been considered. The pollutants selected for regulation under
BPT are cadmium, total chromium, copper, nickel, fluoride,
molybdenum, oil and grease, total suspended solids, and pH. The
priority pollutants lead and zinc, and the nonconventional
pollutants uranium and radium-226 are not specifically regulated
for the reasons explained in Section X. The basis for regulating
oil and grease, total suspended solids, and pH under BPT was
discussed earlier in this section. The basis for regulating
cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, fluoride, and molybdenum is
discussed below.
Cadmium is selected for regulation since it was found at treat-
able concentrations in seven of 14 raw wastewater samples and
four of the eight raw wastewater streams in which it was ana-
lyzed. Treatable concentrations of cadmium were found in surface
treatment spent baths, surface treatment rinse, area cleaning
wastewater and sawing, grinding spent emulsions.
Total chromium is selected for regulation since it was present at
treatable concentrations in seven of 14 raw wastewater samples
and five of the eight raw wastewater streams in which it was
analyzed. Treatable concentrations of total chromium were found
in heat treatment contact cooling water, surface treatment spent
baths, surface treatment rinse, area cleaning wastewater and
sawing or grinding spent emulsions. Total chromium includes both
the trivalent and hexavalent forms of chromium. Only the tri-
valent form is effectively removed by lime and settle technology.
Hexavalent chromium, which may be present in wastewaters such as
surface treatment spent baths and surface treatment rinse, must
be reduced to the trivalent form by preliminary chromium
reduction treatment in order to meet the limitation on total
chromium in this subcategory. Therefore, regulation of total
chromium is appropriate for the uranium forming subcategory.
Copper is selected for regulation since it was found at treatable
concentrations in 10 of 14 raw wastewater samples and six of the
eight raw wastewater streams in which it was analyzed. Copper
was found at treatable concentrations in all of the waste streams
listed in the previous paragraph for chromium, and it was also
present at treatable concentrations in drum washwater.
Lead is selected for regulation since it was found at treatable
concentrations in 13 of 14 raw wastewater samples and seven of
the eight raw wastewater streams in which it was analyzed. Lead
was found at treatable concentrations in all of the waste streams
listed in the previous paragraph for chromium, and it was also
present at treatable concentrations in drum washwater and surface
treatment wet air pollution control blowdown.
Nickel is selected for regulation since it was found at treatable
concentrations in eight of 14 raw wastewater samples and four of
1605

-------
the eight raw wastewater streams in which it was analyzed.
Treatable concentrations of nickel were present in heat treatment
contact cooling water, surface treatment spent baths, surface
treatment rinse, and area cleaning wastewater.
Fluoride is selected for regulation since it was present at
treatable concentrations in one of 14 raw wastewater samples and
one of eight raw wastewater streams in which it was analyzed.
Fluoride is specifically regulated under BPT because it will not
be adequately removed by the technology (lime and settle)
required for the removal of the regulated priority metals pollu-
tants, copper and nickel.
Molybdenum is selected for regulation since it was present at
treatable concentrations in three of 14 raw wastewater samples
and two of the eight raw wastewater streams in which it was
analyzed. Molybdenum is specifically regulated under BPT because
it will not be adequately removed by the technology (lime and
settle) required for the removal of the regulated priority metal
pollutants, copper and nickel. The addition of iron to a lime
and settle system (i.e., iron coprecipitation) is necessary for
efficient removal of molybdenum. Regulation of priority metals
only is not sufficient to ensure the removal of molybdenum from
uranium forming wastewater.
Treatment Train
The BPT model treatment train for the uranium forming subcategory
consists of preliminary treatment when necessary, specifically
chromium reduction, and chemical emulsion breaking and oil
skimming. The effluent from preliminary treatment is combined
with other wastewater for common treatment by oil skimming, iron
coprecipitation, and lime and settle. Waste streams potentially
needing preliminary treatment are listed in Table IX-7. Figure
IX-1 presents a schematic of the general BPT treatment train for
the nonferrous metals forming category.
Effluent Limitations
The pollutant mass discharge limitations (milligrams of pollutant
per off-kilogram of PNP) were calculated by multiplying the BPT
regulatory flows summarized in Table IX-23 (1/kkg) by the concen-
tration achievable by the BPT model treatment system summarized
in Table VII-21 (mg/1) for each pollutant parameter considered
for regulation at BPT (1/kkg x mg/1 x kkg/1,000 kg = mg/off-kg).
The results of this computation for all waste streams and regu-
lated pollutants in the uranium forming subcategory are summa-
rized in Table IX-24. Although no limitations have been
established for uranium, Table IX-24 includes uranium mass
discharge limitations attainable using the BPT model technology.
These limitations are presented for the guidance of permit
writers. The limitations table lists all the pollutants which
were considered for regulation. Those specifically regulated are
marked with an asterisk.
1606

-------
Costs and Benefits
In establishing BPT, EPA must consider the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievability. As shown in Table X-9 (page xxxx), the application
of BPT to the total uranium forming subcategory will remove
approximately 23,100 kg/yr (50,820 lbs/yr) of pollutants includ-
ing 46 kg/yr (100 lbs/yr) of toxic pollutants. The application
of BPT to direct dischargers will remove the same amount of
pollutants since all uranium forming plants are direct discharg-
ers. Since there are only two plants in this subcategory, total
subcategory and direct discharger capital and annual costs will
not be reported in this document in order to protect confidenti-
ality claims. The Agency concludes that the pollutant removals
justify the costs incurred by plants in this subcategory.
ZINC FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
Production operations that generate process wastewater in the
zinc forming subcategory include rolling, drawing, direct chill
casting, stationary casting, annealing heat treatment, surface
treatment, alkaline cleaning, sawing, grinding, degreasing, and
electroplating. Water use practices, wastewater streams, and
wastewater discharge flows from these operations were discussed
in Section V. This information provided the basis for develop-
ment of the BPT regulatory flow allowances summarized in Table
IX-25. The following paragraphs discuss the basis for the BPT
flow allowances for each waste stream.
Rolling
Rolling is performed at four zinc forming plants. The following
information is available from these plants:
Number of plants and operations using neat oil lubricant: 1
Number of plants and operations using emulsion lubricant: 3
Number of plants and operations using contact cooling water: 1
plant, 2 operations.
Zinc Rolling Spent Neat Oils. The one rolling operation that
uses a neat oil lubricant does not discharge any of the lubri-
cant. Drag-out on the product surface accounts for the only
loss. Should the plant ever need to dispose the neat oil, it
would be better to remove the oil directly by contract hauling
and not to discharge the stream. Therefore, this waste stream
should not be discharged.
Zinc Rolling Spent Emulsions. The spent emulsion from one of the
three operations is applied to land; the spent emulsion from
another operation is contract hauled; and the spent emulsion from
the third operation is treated on-site and the water fraction is
completely reused. As discussed previously for rolling spent
emulsions in the lead-tin-bismuth forming subcategory, spent
1607

-------
emulsions are often treated on-site and the water discharged
(with the oil fract:on contract hauled). Therefore, EPA is
providing a discharge allowance. The BPT discharge allowance is
1.39 1/kkg (0.334 gal/ton), the only reported production
normalized flow.
Zinc Rolling Contact Cooling Water. Flow data were available for
two of the three rolling operations where the use of contact
cooling water was reported. Contact cooling water is discharged
on a once-through basis from both operations. The BPT regulatory
flow of 536 1/kkg (129 gal/ton) is based on the average produc-
tion normalized water use from the two operations.
Drawing
Drawing is performed at seven plants in this subcategory. Four
plants reported the use of emulsion lubricants in a total of four
drawing operations.
Zinc Drawing Spent Emulsions. The spent emulsion from two of the
four operations is contract hauled and the spent emulsion from
two operations is treated on-site and the water fraction is dis-
charged. Flow data were available for one of the four opera-
tions. The BPT regulatory flow of 5.80 1/kkg (1.39 gal/ton) is
based on the production normalized discharge flow from this
operation.
Casting
Casting is performed at six zinc forming plants. The following
information is available from these plants:
Number of plants and operations with direct chill casting using
contact cooling water: 2
Number of plants and operations with stationary casting using
contact cooling water: 1
Number of plants and operations with continuous casting: 2
Number dry: 2.
Zinc Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling Water. The contact
cooling water from one operation is completely recycled with no
discharge; the contact cooling water from the other operation is
discharged with no recycle. The BPT discharge allowance is 505
1/kkg (121 gal/ton), the production normalized water use for the
one reported non-zero discharge operation.
Zinc Stationary Casting Contact Cooling Water. The contact
cooling water in the one operation is completely evaporated.
Therefore, the BPT discharge allowance is zero.
Heat Treatment
The following information was reported on heat treatment opera-
tions in this subcategory:
1608

-------
Number of plants: 1
Number of operations: 1
Number of operations using contact cooling water: 1.
Zinc Annealing Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water. The contact
cooling water in the one operation is batch dumped daily. The
BPT discharge allowance is 763 1/kkg (183 gal/ton), the produc-
tion normalized discharge flow from the one operation.
Surface Treatment
Two plants provided information on zinc surface treatment opera-
tions. Four surface treatment baths and three surface treatment
rinse operations were reported.
Zinc Surface Treatment Spent Baths. Discharge flow data were
available for three of the four baths. The BPT discharge allow-
ance of 88.7 1/kkg (21.3 gal/ton) is based on the average produc-
tion normalized discharge flow from the three operations.
Zinc Surface Treatment Rinse. Neither countercurrent cascade
rinsing or recycle was reported for any of the three surface
treatment rinse operations. The BPT regulatory flow of 3,580
1/kkg is based on the average production normalized water use for
the three operations.
Alkaline Cleaning
Two plants supplied information on alkaline cleaning. At each
plant, an alkaline cleaning bath is followed by a rinse.
Zinc Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths. The BPT regulatory flow of
3.55 1/kkg (0.850 gal/ton) is based on the average production
normalized discharge flow from the two alkaline cleaning bath
operations.
Zinc Alkaline Cleaning Rinse. Two stage countercurrent cascade
rinsing is utilized in one operation and spray rinsing is
practiced in the other operation. Both of these rinsing methods
reduce water use compared to traditional rinsing methods. The
BPT discharge flow of 1,690 1/kkg (405 gal/ton) is based on the
average production normalized discharge flow from the two opera-
tions .
Sawing or Grinding
Zinc Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions. One plant provided
information on grinding zinc. An emulsion is used as a lubricant
in the grinding operation. The emulsion is completely recircu-
lated and periodically batch dumped. The BPT discharge allowance
is 23.8 1/kkg (5.71 gal/ton), the production normalized discharge
flow from the operation.
1609

-------
Degreasing
Zinc Degreasing Spent Solvent. Only a small number of surveyed
plants with solvent degreasing operations have process wastewater
streams associated with the operation. Because most plants
practice solvent degreasing without wastewater discharge, the
Agency believes zero discharge of wastewater is an appropriate
discharge limitation.
Electrocoating
Zinc Electrocoating Rinse. One plant reported discharging
wastewater from an electrocoating rinse operation. The BPT
discharge allowance of 2,290 1/kkg (550 gal/ton) is based on the
production normalized water use for the rinse operation.
Regulated Pollutants
The priority pollutants considered for regulation under BPT are
listed in Section VI along with an explanation of why they were
considered. The pollutants selected for regulation under BPT are
total chromium, copper, zinc, cyanide, oil and grease, total
suspended solids, and pH. The priority pollutant nickel, listed
in Section VI as selected for further consideration, is not
specifically regulated under BPT for the reasons explained in
Section X. The basis for regulating oil and grease, total
suspended solids, and pH was discussed earlier in this section.
The basis for regulating total chromium, copper, zinc, and
cyanide is discussed below.
Total chromium is selected for regulation since it was found
above treatability in a surface treatment rinse sample and the
Agency believes it is also present at treatable concentrations in
surface treatment spent baths. Surface treatment baths and rinse
may contain the hexavalent form of chromium which must be reduced
by the trivalent form by preliminary chromium reduction before
mium is appropriate for this subcategory.
Copper is selected for regulation since the Agency believes that
treatable concentrations of copper may be present in raw waste-
water streams such as electrocoating rinse. In one electro-
coating operation reported in this subcategory, copper is plated
onto zinc. Therefore, the electrocoating rinse from this
operation is likely to contain treatable copper concentrations.
Zinc is selected for regulation since it was found at treatable
concentrations in both raw wastewater streams in which it was
analyzed and it is the metal being formed in this subcategory.
In addition, the Agency believes that other raw wastewater
streams may contain treatable zinc concentrations.
Cyanide is selected for regulation since it was found above its
treatable concentration in an alkaline cleaning rinse sample and
is a process chemical used in the electrocoating process.
Preli^; nary cyanide precipitation treatment is needed to remove
1610

-------
cyanide from wastewater. Therefore, regulation of cyanide in the
zinc forming subcategory is appropriate.
Treatment Train
The BPT model treatment train for the zinc forming subcategory
consists of preliminary treatment when necessary, specifically
chromium reduction, chemical emulsion breaking and oil skimming,
and cyanide precipitation. The effluent from preliminary treat-
ment is combined with other wastewater for common treatment by
oil skimming, and lime and settle. Waste streams potentially
needing preliminary treatment are listed in Table IX-8. Figure
IX-1 presents a schematic of the general BPT treatment train for
the nonferrous metals forming category.
Effluent Limitations
The pollutant mass discharge limitations (milligrams of pollutant
per off-kilogram of PNP) were calculated by multiplying the BPT
regulatory flows summarized in Table IX-25 (1/kkg) by the concen-
tration achievable by the BPT model treatment system summarized
in Table VII-21 (mg/1) for each pollutant parameter considered
for regulation at BPT (1/kkg x mg/1 x kkg/1,000 kg = mg/off-kg).
The results of this computation for all waste streams and regu-
lated pollutants in the zinc forming subcategory are summarized
in Table IX-26. This limitations table lists all the pollutants
which were considered for regulation and those specifically
regulated are marked with an asterisk.
Costs and Benefits
In establishing BPT, EPA considered the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievability. As shown in Table X-10 (page xxxx), the applica-
tion of BPT to the total zinc forming subcategory will remove
approximately 308,260 kg/yr (678,170 lbs/yr) of pollutants
including 262,210 kg/yr (576,860 lbs/yr) of toxic pollutants. As
shown in Table X-20 (page xxxx), the application of BPT to direct
dischargers only will remove approximately 307,400 kg/yr (676,280
lbs/yr) of pollutants including 262,150 kg/yr (576,730 lbs/yr) of
toxic pollutants. Since there is only one direct discharge plant
in this subcategory, total subcategory capital and annual costs
and direct discharger capital and annual costs will not be
reported in this document in order to protect confidentiality
claims. The Agency concludes that the pollutant removals justify
the costs incurred by plants in this subcategory.
ZIRCONIUM-HAFNIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Production operations that generate process wastewater in the
zirconium-hafnium forming subcategory include rolling, drawing,
extrusion, swaging, tube reducing, heat treatment, surface
treatment, alkaline cleaning, molten salt treatment, sawing,
grinding, product testing, and degreasing. The wet scrubbers
used for air pollution control at some plants are also a source
1611

-------
of process wastewater. Water use practices, wastewater streams,
and wastewater discharge flows from these operations were dis-
cussed in Section V. This information provided the basis for
development of the BPT regulatory flow allowances summarized in
Table IX-27. The following paragraphs discuss the basis for the
BPT flow allowances for each waste stream.
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
Rolling
Rolling is performed at seven plants in the zirconium-hafnium
forming subcategory. One plant reported using a lubricant in one
rolling operation.
Zirconium-Hafnium Rolling Spent Neat Oils. No neat oils are
discharged from the one operation. Should the plant ever find
the need to dispose the neat oil, it would be better to remove
the oil directly by contract hauling rather than to commingle the
oil with wastewater streams and remove it later using oil-water
separation treatment. Therefore, this waste stream should not be
discharged.
Drawing
Drawing is performed at four plants in this subcategory. These
plants reported using lubricant in a total of three drawing
operations.
Zirconium-Hafnium Drawing Spent Lubricants. The only loss of
lubricant in one operation is through evaporation and drag-out;
spent lubricants from another operation are contract hauled; no
flow information is available for the other operation. Drawing
lubricants are typically neat oils. It is better to remove these
lubricants directly by contract hauling rather than to commingle
the lubricants with wastewater streams only to remove them later.
Therefore, this waste stream should not be discharged.
Extrusion
Extrusion is performed at five zirconium-hafnium forming plants.
The following information is available from these plants:
Number of plants and operations using lubricants: 4 plants, 5
operations
Number of plants and operations with hydraulic fluid leakage: 1.
Zirconium-Hafnium Extrusion Spent Lubricants. No lubricants are
discharged from any of the five operations. Should a plant need
to dispose of these lubricants, it would be better to remove them
directly by contract hauling rather than commingle the lubricants
with wastewater streams and remove them later. Therefore, this
waste stream should not be discharged.
1612

-------
Zirconium-Hafnium Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage. One
plant reported the discharge of leakage from extrusion presses.
Hydraulic fluid leaks result from the moving connection points in
high pressure extrusion presses. The BPT discharge allowance of
237 1/kkg (56.9 gal/ton) is based on the production normalized
discharge flow of leakage from the one operation.
Swaging
Zirconium-Hafnium Swaging Spent Neat Oils. One plant reported
using neat oil lubricants in a swaging operation. The only loss
of neat oils from this operation is through dragout. Should the
plant ever need to dispose of spent neat oils, it would be better
to remove the oil directly by contract hauling rather than to
combine the neat oil with wastewater streams and then remove it
later using oil-water separation treatment. Therefore, this
waste stream should not be discharged.
Tube Reducing
Zirconium-Hafnium Tube Reducing Spent Lubricants. There shall be
no discharge allowance for the discharge of pollutants from tube
reducing spent lubricants, if once each month for six consecutive
months the facility owner or operator demonstrate the absence of
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine, N-nitrosodimethylamine, and N-
nitrosdiphenylamine by sampling and analyzing spent tube reducing
lubricants. If the facility complies with this requirement for
six months then the frequency of sampling may be reduced to once
each quarter. A facility shall be considered in compliance with
this requirement if the concentrations of the three nitrosamine
compounds does not exceed the analytical quantification levels
set forth in 40 CFR Part 136 which are 0.020 mg/1 for N-
nitrosodiphenylamine, 0.020 mg/1 for N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine,
and 0.050 mg/1 for N-nitrosodimethylamine.
Heat Treatment
Zirconium-Hafnium Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water. Contact
cooling water is used in six heat treatment operations. Flow
information was available for four of these operations. The BPT
regulatory flow of 343 1/kkg (82.3 gal/ton) is based on the
median production normalized water use for the four operations.
The median is believed to be a better representation of the
current typical water use for this operation than the average
(arithmetic mean) because of the large range of reported produc-
tion normalized water uses (135 1/kkg to 6,000 1/kkg).
Surface Treatment
Eight plants supplied information on surface treatment operations
in the zirconium-hafnium forming subcategory.
Zirconium-Hafnium Surface Treatment Spent Baths. Flow data were
available for nine of the 14 reported surface treatment baths.
The BPT regulatory flow of 340 1/kkg (81.5 gal/ton) is based on
1613

-------
the median production normalized discharge flow of the nine
operations. The median is believed to be a better representation
of the current typical discharge from this operation than the
average (arithmetic mean) because of the large range of produc-
tion normalized discharge flows (102 1/kkg to 64,300 1/kkg).
Zirconium-Hafnium Surface Treatment Rinse. Flow data were
available for 10 of the 12 reported surface treatment rinse
operations. Countercurrent cascade rinsing and recycle are not
practiced in any of these operations. The BPT regulatory flow of
8,880 1/kkg (2,130 gal/ton) is based on the median production
normalized water use for the 10 operations. The median is
believed to be a better representation of the current typical
water use for this operation than the average (arithmetic mean)
because of the large range of production normalized water uses
(297 1/kkg to 971,000 1/kkg).
Alkaline Cleaning
Zirconium-Hafnium Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths. A total of 13
alkaline cleaning bath operations were reported. Flow data were
available for 12 of these operations. The BPT regulatory flow of
1,600 1/kkg (384 gal/ton) is based on the average production
normalized discharge flow of the 12 operations.
Zirconium-Hafnium Alkaline Cleaning Rinse. Flow data were
available for 10 of 11 reported alkaline cleaning rinse opera-
tions. Countercurrent cascade rinsing and recycle are not
practiced in any of these operations. The BPT regulatory flow of
31,400 1/kkg (7,530 gal/ton) is based on the average production
normalized water use for the 10 operations.
Molten Salt Treatment
Zirconium-Hafnium Molten Salt Rinse. Two plants reported
discharging molten salt rinse. Neither plant practices
counter cur rent cascade rinsing or recycle of the rinse, however
the water use for one plant was very low (only 20.86 1/kkg). The
BPT regulatory flow of 7,560 1/kkg (1,810 gal/ton) is based on
the average production normalized water use for the two
operations.
Sawing or Grinding
Zirconium-Hafnium Sawing or Grinding Spent Neat Oils. The use of
a neat oil lubricant was reported for only one operation. The
only loss of lubricant from this operation is through drag-out.
Should spent neat oil from this operation ever need to be dis-
posed, it would be better to contract haul the lubricant directly
and not to discharge the stream. Therefore, this waste stream
should not be discharged.
Zirconium-Hafnium Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions. The use of
emulsion lubricants was reported for seven operations. No flow
data were available for three operations; the only loss of
1614

-------
emulsion from three other operations is from evaporation and
drag-out; flow data were available for one operation in which
spent emulsion is periodically discharged to an evaporation pond.
Since spent emulsions are often treated on-site and the water
fraction discharged (with the oil fraction reused or contract
hauled), EPA is allowing a discharge for this waste stream. The
BPT regulatory flow of 281 1/kkg (67.2 gal/ton) is based on the
production normalized discharge flow for the one operation which
discharges spent emulsion to an evaporation pond.
Zirconium-Hafnium Sawing or Grinding Contact Cooling Water. Flow
data were available for one of the two operations where the use
of contact cooling water was reported. The BPT regulatory flow
of 321 1/kkg (77.0 gal/ton) is based on the production normalized
discharge flow from this operation.
Zirconium-Hafnium Sawing or Grinding Rinse. Products are
sometimes rinsed following grit blasting and belt polishing
operations. Four rinse operations were reported in this subcate-
gory. No recycle is practiced in any of these operations. The
BPT regulatory flow of 1,800 1/kkg (431 gal/ton) is based on the
median production normalized water use for the four operations.
The median is believed to be a better representation of the
current typical water use for this operation than the average
(arithmetic mean) because of the large range of production
normalized water uses (123 1/kkg to 19,600 1/kkg).
Product Testing
Zirconium-Hafnium Inspection and Testing Wastewater. Wastewater
Is discharged from four product testing operations in this
subcategory: a hydrotesting operation, a non-destructive testing
operation, a dye penetrant testing operation, and an ultrasonic
tube testing operation. Flow data were available for the hydro-
testing operation and non-destructive testing operation. The BPT
regulatory flow of 15.4 1/kkg (3.70 gal/ton) is based on the
production normalized discharge flow from the non-destructive
testing operation. The hydrotesting operation flow was not
included in the regulatory flow calculation because the Agency
believes that the water used for hydrotesting can be recycled or
reused in other water-demanding operations at the forming plant.
Degreasing
Zirconium-Hafnium Degreasing Spent Solvents.	Three degreasing
operations were reported in this subcategory.	In one operation,
the solvent is completely recycled with no	discharge; spent
solvent from two operations is contract hauled.	Therefore, the
BPT discharge allowance is zero.
Zirconium-Hafnium Degreasing Rinse. One	plant dischages
wastewater from a degreasing rinse operation.	This is the only
plant in the subcategory discharging wastewater	from a degreasing
operation. Samples of this wastewater were analyzed after
proposal and high concentrations of volatile	organic solvents
1615

-------
were detected. Some plants degrease formed zirconium without
generating any wastewater by using solvents which need not be
followed by a water rinse, while other plants degrease formed
zirconium without solvents, by using alkaline (detergent)
cleaning followed by a water rinse. Because the Agency believes
this plant could achieve zero discharge by converting the water
rinse into a second solvent cleaning step or could use a
detergent cleaning instead of solvents, the BPT allowance for
this solvent degreasing rinse stream is based on zero discharge.
Wet Air Pollution Control
Zirconium-Hafnium Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown. Water is
used in wet air pollution control devices on surface treatment,
rolling, forging, and extrusion operations. A total of eight
operations where wet air pollution control devices are used were
identified. However, wastewater is reported to be discharged to
surface water from only one of the eight operations. Therefore,
since the majority of plants with this wastewater stream are
achieving no discharge from this stream, there shall be no
allowance for the discharge of wastewater pollutants.
Regulated Pollutants
The priority pollutants considered for regulation under BPT are
listed in Section VI along with an explanation of why they were
considered. The pollutants selected for regulation under BPT are
total chromium, nickel, cyanide, fluoride, oil and grease, total
suspended solids, and pH. The priority pollutants copper, lead,
and zinc, and the nonconventional pollutants zirconium and
hafnium, are not specifically regulated under BPT for the reasons
explained in Section X. The basis for regulating oil and grease,
total suspended solids, and pH was discussed earlier in this
section. The basis for regulating total chromium, nickel,
cyanide, ammonia, and fluoride is discussed below.
Total chromium is selected for regulation since it was found at
treatable concentrations in 10 of 19 raw wastewater samples and
five of nine raw wastewater streams in which it was analyzed.
Treatable total chromium concentrations were found in tube
reducing spent lubricant, surface treatment spent baths, surface
treatment rinse, alkaline cleaning spent baths, and degreasing
spent solvents. Waste streams such as surface treatment spent
baths and surface treatment rinse may contain the hexavalent form
of chromium. As previously discussed, preliminary chromium
reduction is needed to reduce hexavalent chromium to the
trivalent state since the hexavalent form is not removed by lime
and settle technology. Therefore, regulation of total chromium
is appropriate for this subcategory.
Nickel is selected for regulation since it was found at treatable
concentrations in six of 19 raw wastewater samples and three of
the nine raw wastewater streams in which it was analyzed. Nickel
was found at treatable concentrations in tube reducing spent
1616

-------
lubricant, surface treatment spent baths, and degreasing spent
solvents.
Cyanide is selected for regulation since it was found at treat-
able concentrations in surface treatment spent baths. Prelimi-
nary cyanide precipitation is needed to remove this pollutant
from wastewater. Therefore, regulation of cyanide is appropriate
for this subcategory.
Ammonia is selected for regulation because it was found at
treatable concentrations in surface treatment baths and tube
reducing spent lubricants. Preliminary ammonia steam stripping
may be needed to remove ammonia from these wastewaters. There-
fore, regulation of ammonia is appropriate for the zirconium-
hafnium forming subcategory.
Fluoride is selected for regulation since it was found at treat-
able concentrations in five of 18 raw wastewater samples.
Fluoride was found at treatable concentrations in surface treat-
ment baths and rinses.
Treatment Train
The BPT model treatment train for the zirconium-hafnium forming
subcategory consists of preliminary treatment when necessary,
specifically chromium reduction, chemical emulsion breaking and
oil skimming, and cyanide precipitation. The effluent from
preliminary treatment is combined with other wastewater for
common treatment by oil skimming and lime and settle. Waste
streams potentially needing preliminary treatment are listed in
Table IX-9. Figure IX-1 presents a schematic of the general BPT
treatment train for the nonferrous metals forming category.
Effluent Limitations
The pollutant mass discharge limitations (milligrams of pollutant
per off-kilogram of PNP) were calculated by multiplying the BPT
regulatory flows summarized in Table IX-27 (1/kkg) by the concen-
tration achievable by the BPT model treatment system summarized
in Table VII-21 (mg/1) for each pollutant parameter considered
for regulation at BPT (1/kkg x mg/1 x kkg/1,000 kg = mg/off-kg).
The results of this computation for all waste streams and regu-
lated pollutants in the zirconium-hafnium forming subcategory are
summarized in Table IX-28. Although no limitations have been
established for zirconium and hafnium, Table IX-28 includes
zirconium and hafnium mass discharge limitations attainable using
the BPT model technology. These limitations are presented for
the guidance of permit writers. The limitations table lists all
the pollutants which were considered for regulation. Those
specifically regulated are marked with an asterisk.
Costs and Benefits
In establishing BPT, EPA must consider the cost of treatment and
control in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. BPT
1617

-------
costs and benefits are tabulated along with BAT costs and bene-
fits in Section X. As shown in Table X-ll (page xxxx), the
application of BPT to the total 2irconium-hafnium forming subcat-
egory will remove approximately 17,340 kg/yr (38,150 lbs/yr) of
pollutants including 640 kg/yr (1,410 lbs/yr) of toxic metals.
As shown in Table X-l (page xxxx), the corresponding capital and
annual costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are $0,367 million
and $0,330 million per year, respectively. As shown in Table X-
21 (page xxxx), the application of BPT to direct dischargers only
will remove approximately 16,315 kg/yr (35,890 lbs/yr) of
pollutants including 640 kg/yr (1,410 lbs/yr) of toxic metals.
As shown in Table X-2 (page xxxx), the corresponding capital and
annual costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are $0,359 million
and $0,327 million per year, respectively. The Agency concludes
that these pollutant removals justify the costs incurred by
plants in this subcategory.
METAL POWDERS SUBCATEGORY
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
Production operations that generate process wastewater in the
metal powders subcategory include metal powder production,
tumbling, burnishing, cleaning, sawing, grinding, sizing, steam
treatment, oil-resin impregnation, degreasing, hot pressing, and
mixing. Water use practices, wastewater streams and wastewater
discharge flows from these operations were discussed in Section
V. This information provided the basis for development of the
BPT regulatory flow allowances summarized in Table IX-29. The
following paragraphs discuss the basis for the BPT flow allow-
ances for each waste stream.
Metal Powder Production
Metal powder production operations were reported by approximately
70 plants in this subcategory. The following information is
available from these plants:
Number of plants and operations with wet atomization wastewater:
5 plants, 6 operations
Number of plants and operations with wet air pollution control
devices: 2.
Metal Powder Production Wet Atomization Wastewater. No recycle
was reported for any of the six operations. From an examination
of the available data, it is not apparent that there is any
significant difference in water use and discharge among the
different metals in this subcategory. Therefore, the BPT dis-
charge allowance is the average production normalized discharge
flow from the six operations, 5,040 1/kkg (1,210 gal/ton).
Tumbling, Burnishing or Cleaning
Metal Powders Tumbling, Burnishing or Cleaning Wastewater.
Twenty-nine plants reported information on 40 tumbling, burnish-
1618

-------
ing, and other physical-chemical cleaning operations associated
with powder metallurgy parts production. Water use data were
available for 25 operations. The BPT regulatory flow of 4,400
1/kkg (1,050 gal/ton) is based on the average production normal-
ized water use for the 25 operations.
Sawing or Grinding
Metal Powders Sawing or Grinding Spent Neat Oils. A neat oil
lubricant is used in one operation. Spent neat oils from this
operation are contract hauled to treatment and disposal off-site.
It is better to handle neat oils in this manner rather than
combine them with wastewater streams only to remove them later
using oil-water separation treatment. Therefore, the BPT dis-
charge allowance is zero.
Metal Powders Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions. Emulsion
lubricants are used in seven operations. No emulsions are
discharged from one operation; emulsions are periodically dis-
charged from five operations; emulsions are discharged on a once-
through basis from one operation. The production normalized
discharge flow from the once-through operation is over five times
higher than the discharge values from the other operations. This
value was not included in the regulatory flow calculation because
it does not represent the current typical discharge practice for
this subcategory. The BPT regulatory flow of 18.1 1/kkg (4.33
gal/ton) is based on the average production normalized discharge
flow of the five periodic discharge operations.
Metal Powders Sawing or Grinding Contact Cooling Water. Contact
cooling water is used in four operations. Flow data were avail-
able for one of these operations. The cooling water is dis-
charged on a once-through basis from this operation. The current
water use at the one plant reporting flow data is excessive
compared to current water use for this operation in other subcat-
egories. The BPT regulatory flow of 1,620 1/kkg (389 gal/ton) is
based on 99 percent recycle of the water use for this one opera-
tion. This is comparable to the allowance for this operation in
other subcategories.
Sizing
Metal Powders Sizing Spent Neat Oils. Neat oil lubricants are
used in two sizing operations. The neat oils are completely
recycled with no discharge in either operation. Should the neat
oil from either operation ever need to be disposed, it would be
better to directly remove the oil by contract hauling rather than
to commingle the oil with wastewater streams and then remove it
later. Therefore, the BPT discharge allowance is zero.
Metal Powders Sizing Spent Emulsions. An emulsion lubricant is
used in one sizing operation. Since spent emulsions are often
treated on-site and the water fraction discharged by plants in
this category and other categories, EPA is allowing a discharge
for this waste stream. The BPT discharge allowance of 14.6 1/kkg
1619

-------
(3.50 gal/ton) is based on the production normalized water use
for this operation.
Steam Treatment
Metal Powders Steam Treatment Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown.
One plant operates a wet scrubber to control air pollution from
its steam treatment process. No recycle of the scrubber water is
practiced. The BPT discharge allowance of 792 1/kkg (190
gal/ton) is based on the production normalized water use for the
one operation.
Oil-Resin Impregnation
Metal Powders Oil-Resin Impregnation Spent Neat Oils. Seven
plants reported using neat oils in oil-resin impregnation pro-
cesses. Neat oils are completely recycled with no discharge in
two operations; spent neat oils from three operations are con-
tract hauled; no data are available for the other two operations.
It is better to remove neat oils directly by contract hauling
rather than to commingle them with wastewater streams and then
remove them later using oil-water separation treatment. There-
fore, this waste stream should not be discharged.
Degreasing
Metal Powders Degreasing Spent Solvents. Only a small number of
surveyed plants with solvent degreasing operations have process
wastewater streams associated with the operation. Because most
plants practice solvent degreasing without wastewater discharge,
the Agency believes zero discharge of wastewater is an appropri-
ate discharge limitation.
Hot Pressing
Metal Powders Hot Pressing Contact Cooling Water. One plant
reported using contact cooling water in a hot pressing operation.
None of the cooling water used in this operation is recycled.
The BPT regulatory flow of 8,800 1/kkg (2,110 gal/ton) is based
on the production normalized water use for the one operation.
Mixing
Metal Powders Mixing Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown. One
plant reported using a wet scrubber to control air pollution from
a mixing operation. Ninety percent of the scrubber water is
recycled. The BPT regulatory flow of 7,900 1/kkg (1,890 gal/ton)
is based on the production normalized discharge flow from the
scrubber.
Deleted Waste Streams
Metal Powder Production Milling Wastewater. Following proposal,
the Agency received additional data and conducted a review of all
available data concerning wastewater discharges in this subcate-
1620

-------
gory. This review led to a reinterpretation of some data
reported prior to proposal. As a result, the Metal Powder
Production Milling wastewater stream included in the proposed
regulation for this subcategory has been deleted from the final
regulation. This waste stream was improperly classified at
proposal. Since the plant believed to have this wastewater at
proposal actually mills fabricated parts, not powder, its
reported production normalized flow was included in the
calculation of the tumbling, burnishing or cleaning wastewater
discharge allowance.
Metal Powder Production Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown.
Prior to proposal, two plants reported the use of wet air pollu-
tion control devices associated with metal powders production.
One plant reported complete recycle of scrubber water; the other
reported that 85 percent of the scrubber water is recycled.
Following proposal, the Agency received additional data concern-
ing wastewater discharges in this subcategory. These data
included the fact that the discharging scrubber is no longer
operated. Therefore, the Metal Powder Production Wet Air Pollu-
tion Control Blowdown waste stream included in the proposed
regulation for this subcategory has been deleted from the final
regulation.
Regulated Pollutants
The priority pollutants considered for regulation under BPT are
listed in Section VI along with an explanation of why they were
considered. The pollutants selected for regulation under BPT are
copper, lead, cyanide, oil and grease, total suspended solids and
pH. The priority pollutants chromium, nickel, and zinc, and the
nonconventional pollutants iron and aluminum are not specifically
regulated under BPT for the reasons explained in Section X. The
basis for regulating oil and grease, total suspended solids, and
pH was discussed earlier in this section. The basis for
regulating copper, lead, and cyanide is discussed below.
Copper is regulated since it is one of the metals being processed
in this subcategory and it was found at treatable concentrations
in 10 of 18 raw wastewater samples and three of the four raw
wastewater streams in which it was analyzed. Copper was present
at treatable concentrations in metal powder production wet
atomization wastewater, tumbling, burnishing or cleaning waste-
water, and sawing or grinding spent emulsions.
Lead is selected for regulation since it was found at treatable
concentrations in eight of 18 samples and three of the four raw
wastewater streams in which it was analyzed. Lead was found at
treatable concentrations in the same raw waste streams listed in
the previous paragraph for copper.
Cyanide is selected for regulation since it was present in
treatable concentrations in eight of 17 raw wastewater samples
and three of the four raw wastewater streams in which it was
analyzed. Treatable concentrations of cyanide were found in
1621

-------
tumbling, burnishing or cleaning wastewater, sawing or grinding
spent emulsions, and steam treatment wet air pollution control
blowdown. Preliminary cyanide precipitation is needed to remove
cyanide from these wastewater streams. Therefore, regulation of
cyanide is appropriate for this subcategory.
Treatment Train
The BPT model treatment train for the metal powders subcategory
consists of preliminary treatment when necessary, specifically
chemical emulsion breaking and oil skimming and cyanide precipi-
tation. The effluent from preliminary treatment is combined with
other wastewater for common treatment by oil skimming and lime
and settle. Waste streams potentially needing preliminary
treatment are listed in Table IX-10. Figure IX-1 presents a
schematic of the general BPT treatment train for the nonferrous
metals forming category.
Effluent Limitations
The pollutant mass discharge limitations (milligrams of pollutant
per off-kilogram of PNP) were calculated by multiplying the BPT
regulatory flows summarized in Table IX-29 (1/kkg) by the concen-
tration achievable by the BPT model treatment system summarized
in Table VII-21 (mg/1) for each pollutant parameter considered
for regulation at BPT (1/kkg x mg/1 x kkg/1,000 kg = mg/off-kg).
The results of this computation for all waste streams and regu-
lated pollutants in the metal powders subcategory are summarized
in Table IX-30. Although no limitations have been established
for iron and aluminum, Table IX-30 includes mass discharge
limitations for these pollutants attainable using the BPT model
technology. These limitations are presented for the guidance of
permit writers. The limitations table lists all the pollutants
which were considered for regulation. Those specifically
regulated are marked with an asterisk.
Costs and Benefits
In establishing BPT, EPA considered the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievability. As shown in Table X-12 (page xxxx), the applica-
tion of BPT to the total metal powders subcategory will remove
approximately 57,570 kg/yr (126,650 lbs/yr) of pollutants includ-
ing 1,085 kg/yr (2,390 lbs/yr) of toxic pollutants. As shown in
Table X-22 (page xxxx), the application of BPT to direct
dischargers only will remove approximately 4,105 kg/yr (9,030
lbs/yr) of pollutants including 128 kg/yr (282 lbs/yr) of toxic
pollutants. Since there are only three direct discharge plants
in this subcategory, total subcategory capital and annual costs
will not be reported in this document in order to protect
confidentiality claims. The Agency concludes that the pollutant
removals justify the costs incurred by plants in this
subcategory.
1622

-------
APPLICATION OF REGULATION IN PERMITS
The purpose of these limitations (and standards) is to form a
uniform basis for regulating wastewater effluent from the nonfer-
rous metals forming category. For direct dischargers, this is
accomplished through NPDES permits. Since the nonferrous metals
forming category is regulated on an individual waste stream
"building-block" approach, three examples of applying these
limitations to determine the allowable discharge from nonferrous
metals forming facilities are given below.
Example 1
Plant X forms a refractory metal strip by a rolling operation
which uses an emulsion as a lubricant. The plant produces 20 kkg
(44,000 lbs) of final product strip per day. In the process, a
stock billet is heated and put through a reversing rolling mill
for five passes, then annealed (dry annealing), brought back to
the rolling mill for three more passes, annealed again, rolled
for four more passes, and annealed for a final time to produce
the product. Table IX-31 illustrates the calculation of the
allowable BPT discharge for nickel, one of the pollutants regu-
lated in this subcategory. The allowable discharge for the other
regulated pollutants would be calculated in the same way.
This example illustrates the calculation of an allowable pollu-
tant mass discharge using "off-kilograms." The term "off-kilo-
gram" means the mass of metal or metal alloy removed from a
forming operation at the end of a process cycle for transfer to a
different machine or process. A reversing mill allows the metal
to pass between the rollers several times without having to be
removed from the mill. Therefore, on a multiple pass roll, the
mass of metal rolled is considered to have been processed only
once; the off-mass equals the mass. In this example, since the
metal is removed from the reversing mill for annealing and then
returned, the off-mass of rolling equals the mass of metal times
the number of times it is returned to the process. Therefore,
for this plant, the off-kilograms to produce 20 kkg of final
product is 60 off-kkg. This is the daily production used in the
calculations presented in Table IX-31.
Example 2
Plant Y forms lead bullets by an extrusion and swaging process
and casts lead shot. The plant operates 250 days per year with a
total annual production of 250,000 kg (551,000 lbs) of shot and
1,000,000 kg (2,205,000 lbs) of bullets. Shot is produced by
casting. Bullets are produced by casting lead into ingots
(stationary casting), extrusion followed by a spray quench at the
press, and swaging. Approximately 5 percent of the lead is lost
to scrap following extrusion. The bullets are washed and rinsed
before being assembled into cartridges. Table IX-32 illustrates
the calculation of the allowable BPT discharge of total suspended
solids (TSS).
1623

-------
The daily shot casting production is 250,000 kg/yr divided by 250
days/yr or 1,000 kg/day. The number of kg of shot produced is
equal to the number of off-kg formed. This production is
multiplied by the shot casting limitation (mg/off-kg) to get the
daily discharge limit for shot casting at Plant Y. The daily
amount of lead cast and extruded is 1,050,000 kg/yr divided by
250 days/yr or 4,200 kg/day. This production is multiplied by
the limitations (mg/off-kg) for extrusion press or solution heat
treatment contact cooling water and extrusion press hydraulic
fluid leakage to get the first part of the daily discharge limits
for bullet making. The daily bullet production is 1,000,000
kg/yr divided by 250 days/yr or 4,000 kg/day. This production is
multiplied by the limitations (mg/off-kg) for swaging spent
emulsions, alkaline cleaning spent baths, and alkaline cleaning
rinse to get the second part of the daily discharge limits for
bullet making. The sum of the daily limits for the individual
operations becomes the plant limit.
Example 3
Plant Z forms nickel and titanium alloys. This plant forges 125
kkg (275,000 lbs) of nickel and 25 kkg (55,000 lbs) of titanium
per year (250 days). Eighty percent of the nickel and 10 percent
of the titanium are pickled, then rinsed with a spray. The plant
also contact cools forgings with water following forging and has
a wet air pollution control scrubber to control the fumes from
the pickling bath. This example demonstrates the application of
the limitations for nickel which is a regulated pollutant in the
nickel forming subcategory and for cyanide a regulated pollutant
in the titanium forming subcategory to the combined discharge of
nickel forming process wastewater and titanium forming process
wastewater. Table IX-33 illustrates the calculation of the BPT
discharge allowance for nickel. Although nickel was not specifi-
cally regulated in the titanium forming subcategory, it is
present in treatable concentrations in titanium forming waste-
water. The Agency chose not to specifically regulate nickel in
this subcategory because it should be adequately controlled by
the other regulated pollutants. Since nickel is present in the
titanium forming wastewater, Plant Z will need an allowance for
nickel from this source to comply with the nickel discharge
allowance. Therefore, the mass allowance for nickel from the
titanium forming wastewater is added to the mass allowance from
nickel-cobalt forming. The mass limitations for nickel can be
obtained from Tables IX-16 and IX-22 which provide the limita-
tions for regulated pollutants and other pollutants considered
for but not specifically regulated.
The calculation of the mass allowance for the pollutant cyanide
is illustrated in Table IX-34. Cyanide is regulated in the
titanium forming subcategory, but not in the nickel-cobalt
forming subcategory. Cyanide was not found in significant
quantities in any nickel-cobalt process wastewater, and was not
considered for regulation in the nickel-cobalt subcategory.
Since the nickel-forming process wastewater from Plant Z would
not be expected to contribute any cyanide to the mass loading in
1624

-------
the effluent, it is not appropriate to add a mass allowance for
cyanide from the nickel forming wastewater to the mass allowance
for cyanide from the titanium forming wastewater.
1625

-------
Table I*-1
POTENTIAL PRELIMINARY TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Operat i on
N>
a>
Ro11i ng
Drawl rig
Ext rusi on
Swag ing
Cast i ng
Continuous Strip Casting
Semi-Continuous Ingot
Cast i ng
Shot Casting
Shot Forming
Alkaline Cleaning
Waste Stream
Spent emulsions
Spent soap solutions
Spent emulsions
Spent soap solutions
Press or solution heat
treatment contact cooling
water
Press hydraulic fluid
1eakage
Spent emulsions
Contact cooling water
Contact cooling water
Contact cooling water
Wet air pollution control
b1owdown
Spent baths
R i nsewater
Possible Required
Preliminary Treatments
Chemical emulsion breaking
None
Chemical emulsion breaking
None
None
Chemical emulsion breaking
Chemical emulsion breaking
None
None
None
None
None
None

-------
Table IX-Z
POTENTIAL PRELIMINARY TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
MAGENSIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Operat1 on
Waste Stream
Possible Required
Preliminary Treatments

RoI 1 i ng
Forging
Casti ng
Direct Chill Casting
Surface Treatment
Sawing or Grinding
Wet Air Pollution Control
Spent emulsions
Contact cooling water
Equipment cleaning
wast ewate r
Contact coaling water
Spent batns
R i nsewater
Spent emulsions
B1owdown
Chemical emulsion breaking
None
None
None
Chromium reduction, ammonia
steam stripping
Chromium reduction, ammonia
steam stripping
Chemical emulsion breaking
Chromium reduction

-------
Table IX-3
POTENTIAL PRELIMINARY TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Operat i on
RollIng
Draw 1ng
Ext rusi on
Fo rg1ng
Metal Powder Production
Cast l" ng
Stat 1onary
Surface Treatment
Waste Stream
Spent emulsions
Contact cooling water
Spent emulsions
Press or solution heat
treatment contact cooli
water
Press hydraulic fluid
1eakage
Contact cooling water
Equipment cleaning
wastewater
Press hydraulic fluid
1eakage
Atomization wastewater
Contact cooling water
Spent baths
R1nsewat er
Possible Required
Preliminary Treatments
Chemical emulsion breaking
None
Chemical emulsion breaking
None
Chemical emulsion breaking
None
None
Chemical emulsion breaking
None
None
Chromium reduction
Chromium reduction

-------
Table IX-3 (Continued)
POTENTIAL PRELIMINARY TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
CTl
to
VO
Operat i on
Amnion i a
Alkaline Cleaning
Mo 1 ten Sa1t
Sawing or Grinding
Steam Cleaning
Dye Penetrant Testing
Miscellaneous Wastewater
Sources
Wet Air Pollution Control
E1ect rocoati ng
Waste Stream
R i nse
Spent baths
R i nsewat er
R i nsewater
Spent emulsions
R i nsewater
Condensate
Wastewater
Var i ous
BIowdown
Ri nsewater
Possible Required
Preliminary Treatments
None
Chromium reduction
None
Chromium reduction
Chemical emulsion breaking
None
None
None
None
Chromium reduction
None

-------
Tabte IX-4
POTENTIAL PRELIMINARY TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
o\
OJ
o
OperatIon
Ro11ing
Draw i ng
Metal Powder Production
Cast Ing
Direct Chill Casting
Shot Casting
Semi-Continuous and
Continuous Casting
Heat Treatment
Surface Treatment
Alkaline CIean1ng
Tumbling or Burnishing
Sawing or Grinding
Pressure Bonding
Waste Stream
Spent emulsions
Spent emulsions
Spent soap solutions
Atomization wastewater
Contact cooling water
Contact cooling water
Contact cooling water
Contact cooling water
Spent baths
Ri nsewate r
Spent baths
R i nsewater
Prebonding wastewater
Wastewater
Spent emulsions
Contact cooling na'er
Possible Required
Preliminary Treatments
Chemical emulsion breaking
Chemical emulsion breaking
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Cyanide precipitation
Chemical emulsion breaking
None

-------
Table IX-5
potential preliminary treatment requirements
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
CTl
UJ
OperatIon
Rolling
Ext rus i on
Forg1ng
Metal Powder
Surface Treatment
A 1ka1i ne CI ean1ng
Mo 11en Salt
Tumbling or Burnishing
Sawing or Grinding
Dye Penetrant Testing
Equipment Cleaning
Waste Stream
Spent emulsions
Press hydraulic fluid
Ieakage
Contact cooling water
Wastewater
Spent baths
R i nsewat er
Spent baths
Ri nsewater
R i nsewate r
Was t ewat er
Spent emulsions
Contact cooling water
R i nsewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Possible Required
Preliminary Treatments
Chemical emulsion breaking
Chemical emulsion breaking
None
None
Chromium reduction
Chromium reduction
None
None
Chromium reduction
Chromium reduction
Chemical emulsion breaking
None
None
None

-------
Table IX-5
POTENTIAL PRELIMINARY
REFRACTORY METALS
(Cont i nued)
TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Operat i on
Waste Stream
Possible Required
Preliminary Treatment:
Miscellaneous Wastewater
Sources
Vari ops
None
Wet Air Pollution Control
B1owdown
Chromium reduction

-------
Table IX-6
POTENTIAL PRELIMINARY TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Ope rat 1" on
Ro11i ng
E* trusi on
Forging
Surface Treatment
I—1
Ch
Oj Alkaline Cleaning
U)
Mo 1 ten Salt
Tumb1i ng
Waste Stream
Contact cooling water
Spent emulsions
Press hydraulic fluid
1eakaye
Contact cooling water
Equipment cleaning
wastewater
Press hydraulic fluid
1eakage
Spent baths
R i nsewater
Spent baths
R i nsewater
R1nsewater
Washwater
Possible Required
Preliminary Treatments
None
Chemical emulsion breaking
Chemical emulsion breaking
None
None
Chemical emulsion breaking
Ammonia steam stripping,
chromium reduction
Ammonia steam stripping,
chromium reduction
None
None
Chromium reduction
Cyanide precipitation
Sawing or Grinding
Spent emulsions and syn-
thetic coolants
Contact cooling water
Chemical emulsion breaking
None

-------
Table IX-6 (Continued)
POTENTIAL PRELIMINARY TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Operat1 on
Dye Penetrant Testing
Miscellaneous Wastewater
Sources
Waste Stream
Wastewater
Various
Possible Required
Preliminary Treatments
None
Wet Air Pollution Control
Slowdown
Chromium reduction

-------
Table IX-7
potential preliminary treatment requirements
URANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Operat1 on
Ext rus i on
Heat Treatment
Surface Treatment
Sawing or Grinding
Area Cleaning
Wet Air Pollution Control
Drum Washwater
I—1
C3\ Laundry Washwater
U)
Ul
Waste Stream
Tool contact cooling water
Contact cooling water
Spent baths
R i nsewate r
Spent emulsions
Contact cooling water
R i nsewater
Washwat er
B1owdown
Wastewater
Wastewater
Possible Required
Preliminary Treatments
None
None
None
None
Chemical emulsion breaking
None
None
None
Chromium Reduction
None
None

-------
Table IX-8
POTENTIAL PRELIMINARY TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
ZINC FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Operat i on
Rolling
Draw i ng
Cast 1ng
Direct Chill Casting
Annealing and Solution Heat
T reatment
Surface Treatment
Alkaline Cleaning
U>
o\
Sawing or Grinding
E1ect rocoati ng
Waste Stream
Spent emulsions
Contact cooling water
Spent emulsions
Contact cooling water
Contact cooling water
Spent baths
Ri nsewater
Spent baths
Ri nsewater
Spent emulsions
Ri nsewater
Possible Required
Preliminary Treatments
Chemical emulsion breaking
None
Chemical emulsion breaking,
cyanide precipitation
None
None
Chromium reduction
Chromium reduction
Cyanide precipitation
Cyanide precipitation
Chemical emulsion breaking
None

-------
Table IX-9
POTENTIAL PRELIMINARY TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
ZIRCONIUM-HAFNIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Operat i on
Ext rus i on
Heat Treatment
Surface Treatment
Alkaline C1ean i ng
Mo 1ten Sa1t
Sawing or Grinding
C\
*** Inspection and Testing
-J
Waste Stream
Press hydraulic fluid
1eakage
Contact cooling water
Spent baths
R i nsewater
Spent baths
Ri nsewater
Ri nsewater
Spent emu 1s i ons
Contact cooling water
R i nsewater
Wastewater
Possible Required
Preliminary Treatments
Chemical emulsion breaking
None
Ammonia steam stripping,
cyanide precipitation
Ammonia steam stripping,
cyanide precipitation
None
None
Chromium reduction
Chemical emulsion breaking
None
None
None

-------
Table IX-10
POTENTIAL PRELIMINARY TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
METAL POWDERS SUBCATEGORY
0\
CO
00
Operat i on
Metal Powder Production
Tumbling, Burnishing, and
C1ean i ng
Sawing or Grinding
S i z i ng
Steam Treatment Wet Air
Pol 1ut i on Control
Hot Pressing
Mixing Wet Air Pollution
Cont ro1
Waste Stream
Atomization wastewater
Wastewater
Spent emulsions
Contact cooling water
Spent emulsions
B1owdown
Contact cooling water
B1owdown
Possible Required
Preliminary Treatments
None
Cyanide precipitation
Chemical emulsion breaking
None
Chemical emulsion breaking
None
None
None

-------
Table IX-)t
BPT REGULATORY FLOWS FOR
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Norma 1i zed
BPT Discharge
Opera!ion
Ro 1 1i ng
Draw i ng
Extrusion
U>
VO
Swaging
Waste Stream
Spent emulsions
Spent soap solutions
Spent neat oils
Spent emulsions
Spent soap solutions
Press or solution heat treatment
contact cooling water
Press hydraulic fluid leakage
Spent emulsions
Cast ing
Continuous Strip Casting Contact cooling water
1 / kkg
23,4
43.0
0
26. 3
7.46
1 , 440
Semi-Continuous Ingot
Cast i ng
Contact cooling water
55.0
1 .77
1 . 00
29.4
ga1/ton
5.60
10.3
0
6. 30
1	. 79
346
13.2
0.424
0. 240
7 . 04
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of tead-t i n-bismuth
rolled with emulsions
Mass of lead-tin-bismuth
rolled with soap solutions
Mass of iead-lin-bismuth drawn
with emuIsions
Mass of 1 odd -1in~bismuth druwn
with soap solutions
Mass of load -1in-bismuth heat
treated and subsequently
cooled with water
Mass of Isad-turiiibmuth
ex t ruded
Mass of 1 eat) • t i n-bi smuth
swaged with emulsions
Mass of I ead"tin-bismuth cast
by the continuous strip method
Mass of lead-tin-bismuth ingot
cast by the semi-continuous
method
Shot Casting
Contact cooling water
37 .3
1,9b
Mass of 1 ead-t l n-b i sinuth shot

-------
Table IX-11 (Continued)
BPT REGULATORY FLOWS FOR
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Operat i on
Shot-forming
Alkaline Cleaning
Waste Stream
Wet air pollution control
b1owdown
Spent baths
R i nsewat er
Degreas i ng
Spent solvents
Normali zed
BPT Discharge
1 / k kg
gal/1 on
Production Normalizing
Paraine ter
588
141
Mass of 1 eatl-t in-bi smuth shot
f o rmed
1 20
28 . 7
Mass of 1ead-tin-bismuth
alkaline cleaned
2,360
565
Mass of 1 ead-1 i ii-b i smu t h
alkaline cleaned

-------
Table IX-12
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Rolling Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
rolled with emulsions
*Antimony
*Lead
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within the range
.067	.030
.010	.005
.468	.281
.960	.457
of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Rolling Spent Soap Solutions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
rolled with soap solutions
*Antimony	.124	.055
*Lead	.018	.009
*Oil and Grease	.860	.516
*TSS	1.770	.839
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Drawing Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1641

-------
Table IX-12 (Continued)
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Drawing Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
drawn with emulsions
*Antimony	.076	.034
*Lead	.011	.005
*Oil and Grease	.526	.316
*TSS	1.080	.513
*pH Within	the range of 7.5 to	10.0 at all times
BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Drawing Spent Soap Solutions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
drawn with soap solutions
*Antimony	.021	.010
*Lead	.003	.001
*Oil and Grease	.149	.090
*TSS	.306	.146
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0	at all times
1642

-------
Table IX-12 (Continued)
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Extrusion Press or Solution Heat Treatment CCW
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
heat treated
*Antimony
*Lead
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within the range
4.130	1.850
.605	.288
28.800	17.300
59.100	28.100
of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Pollutant or	Maximum for Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
extruded
*Antimony	.158	.070
*Lead	.023	.011
*Oil and Grease	1.100	.660
*TSS	2.260	1.070
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1643

-------
Table IX-12 (Continued)
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Swaging Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
swaged with emulsions
*Antimony	.0051	.0023
*Lead	.0008	.0004
*Oil and Grease	.0354	.0213
*TSS	.0726	.0345
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Continuous Strip Casting Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
cast by the continuous strip method
*Antimony .0029	.0013
*Lead .0004	.0002
*Oil and Grease .0200	.0120
*TSS .0410	.0195
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1644

-------
Table IX-12 (Continued)
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Semi-Continuous Ingot Casting Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
ingot cast by the semi-continuous method
*Antimony	.084	.038
*Lead	.012	.006
*Oil and Grease	.588	.353
*TSS	1.210	.574
*pH Within	the range of 7.5 to	10.0 at all times
BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Shot Casting Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
shot cast
*Antimony	.107	.048
*Lead	.016	.007
*Oil and Grease	.746	.448
*TSS	1.530	.728
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0	at all times
1645

-------
Table IX-12 (Continued)
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Shot-Forming Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
shot formed
*Antimony	1.690	.753
*Lead	.247	.118
*Oil and Grease	11.800	7.060
*TSS	24.100	11.500
*pH Within	the range of 7.5 to	10.0 at all times
BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
alkaline cleaned
*Antimony
*Lead
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within the range
.345	.154
.050	.024
2.400	1.440
4.920	2.340
of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1646

-------
Table IX-12 (Continued)
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
alkaline cleaned
*Antimony 6.780	3.020
*Lead .991	.472
*Oil and Grease 47.200	28.300
*TSS 96.800	46.000
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1647

-------
Tab 1e-IX-13
BPT REGULATORY FLOWS FOR
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - MAGNESIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORV
Normali zed
BPT Discharge
Operat i on
Rot 1i ng
Fo rg ing
Direct Chill Casting
o\
CO
Surface Treatment
Sawing or Grinding
Degreas ing
Wet Air Pollution Control
Waste Stream
Spent emulsions
Spent lubricants
Contact cooling water
Equipment cleaning wastewater
Contact cooling water
Spent baths
R i nsewat er
Spent emulsions
Spent solvents
B1owdown
1 /kkg
74.6
0
2,890
39.9
3 ,950
466
18 ,900
19.5
0
619
gal/ton
17.9
0
693
9.59
947
1 12
4,520
4.68
0
148
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of magnesium rolled with
emu 1s i ons
Mass of forged magnesium
cooled with water
Mass of magnesium forged on
equipment requiring cleaning
with water
Mass of magnesium cast with
direct chill methods
Mass of magnesium surface
t reat ed
Mass of magnesium surface
t reat ed
Mass of magnesium sawed or
ground
Mass of magnesium sanded and
repaired or forged

-------
Table IX-14
MAGNESIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Magnesium Forming
Rolling Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of magnesium
rolled with emulsions
~Chromium
.033
.013
*Zinc
.109
.046
*Ammonia
9.950
4.370
*Fluoride
4.440
1.970
Magnesium
.007
	
*Oil and Grease
1.490
.895
*TSS
3.060
1.460
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Magnesium Forming
Forging Spent Lubricants
There could be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Magnesium Forming
Forging Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of forged magnesium
cooled with water
*Chromium 1.270	.520
*Zinc 4.220	1.760
*Ammonia 385.000	170.000
~Fluoride 172.000	76.300
Magnesium	.289		
*Oil and Grease 57.800	34.700
*TSS 119.000	56.400
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at	all times
1649

-------
Table IX-14 (Continued)
MAGNESIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Magnesium Forming
Forging Equipment Cleaning Wastewater
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg(lb/million off-lbs)of magnesium
forged
~Chromium
*Zinc
~Ammonia
*Fluoride
Magnesium
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
0176
0583
3200
3800
0040
7980
6400
.0072
.0244
2.3400
1.0600
.4790
.7780
kpH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Magnesium Forming
Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of magnesium
cast with direct chill methods
*Chromium	1.740	.711
*Zinc	5.770	2.410
*Ammonia	527.000	232.000
*Fluoride	235.000	104.000
Magnesium	.395		
*Oil and Grease	79.000	47.400
*TSS	162.000	77.000
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1650

-------
Table IX-14 (Continued)
MAGNESIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Magnesium Forming
Surface Treatment Spent Baths
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of magnesium
surface treated
*Chromium .205	.084
*Zinc .681	.284
*Ammonia 62.100	27.300
*Fluoride 27.700	12.300
Magnesium	.047		
*Oil and Grease 9.320	5.590
*TSS 19.100	9.090
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Magnesium Forming
Surface Treatment Rinse
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of magnesium
surface treated
*Chromium
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Magnesium
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
8.320
27.600
2,520.000
1,130.000
1.890
378.000
775.000
3.400
11.500
1,110.000
499.000
227.000
369.000
*pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1651

-------
Table IX-14 (Continued)
MAGNESIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Magnesium Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of magnesium

sawed or ground



*Chromium
.009

.004
*Zinc
.029

.012
*Ammonia
2.600

1.140
*Fluoride
1.160

.515
Magnesium
.002

	
*Oil and Grease
.390

.234
*TSS
.800

.380
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Magnesium Forming
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Magnesium Forming
Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of magnesium
formed
*Chromium
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Magnesium
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.273
.904
82.500
36.900
.062
12.400
25.400
.112
.378
36.300
16.400
7.430
12.100
kpH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1652

-------
Table IX-15
BPT REGULATORY FLOWS FOR
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Norma 1i zed
BPT Discharge
Operat i on
CTi
Ul
bJ
Ro1 1i ng
Tube Reducing
Drawing
Ext rusi on
Forg i ng
Metal Powder Production
Stationary Casting
Waste Stream
Spent neat oils
Spent emulsions
Contact cooling water
Spent lubricants
Spent neat oils
Spent emulsions
Spent lubricants
Press or solution heat
treatment contact cooling
water
Press hydraulic fluid
1eakage
Spent lubricants
Contact cooling water
Equipment cleaning wastewater
Press hydraulic fluid leakage
Atomization wastewater
Contact cooling water
1 /kkg
0
170
3,770
0
0
95.4
0
03.2
232
0
474
40.0
107
2,620
12,100
ga1/1 on
0
40.9
905
0
0
22.9
0
20.0
55 . 6
0
1 14
9 .57
44 . 0
629
2 ,900
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of nieke 1-coba1t rolled
with emu 1s i ons
Mass of nieke 1-coba11 rolled
with water
Mass of nieke 1-coba1t drawn
with emu 1s i ons
Mass of nieke 1-coba1t extruded
or heat treated and subse-
quently cooled with water
Mass of nieke 1-coba1t extruded
Mass of forged nieke 1-coba 1 t
cooled with water
Mass of nickel-cobalt forged
on equipment requiring clean-
ing with wat er
Mass of nieke 1-coba1t forged
Mass of nieke 1-coba1t metal
powder produced by wet atom-
ization
Mass of nieke 1-cobalt cast
with stationary casting

-------
Table IX-15 (Continued)
BPT REGULATORY FLOWS FOR
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Operat i on
Vacuum Me 1t i ng
Annealing and Solution
Heat Treatment
Surface Treatment
Waste Stream
Steam condensate
Contact cooling water
Spent baths
R i nsewater
(—1

LTI
Ammonia
Alkaline Cleaning
R i nse
Spent baths
R i nsewater
Mo 1 ten Sa1t
Sawing or Grinding
R i nsewater
Spent emulsions
R i nsewater
Steam Cleaning
Condensate
Hydrostatic Tube Testing
and Ultrasonic Testing
Dye Penetrant Testing
Wastewater
Wastewater
Miscellaneous Wastewater
Sources
Various
Normali zed
BPT Discharge
1 / kkg
0
0
gal/ton
0
0
Production Normalizing
Parameter
935
23,600
14.0
33.9
2,330
8,440
39.4
1,810
30. 1
224	Mass of nieke 1-coba1t surface
treated
5,650	Mass of nieke 1-coba11 surface
t reated
3.54	Mass of nieke 1-coba11 treated
with ammonia solution
8.13	Mass of nieke 1-coba1t alkaline
c1eaned
559	Mass of nieke 1-coba1t alkaline
c1eaned
2,020	Mass of nieke 1-coba1t treated
with mo 1 ten salt
9.45	Mass of nieke 1-coba1t sawed or
ground with emulsions
435	Mass of sawed or ground
nieke 1-coba1t rinsed
7.22	Mass of nieke 1-coba1t steam
c1eaned
213
50.9
Mass of nieke 1-coba1t tested
with dye penetrant methods
246
58.4
Mass of nieke 1-coba1t formed

-------
Table IX-15 (Continued)
BPT REGULATORV FLOWS FOR
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Operat i on
Norma 1i zed
BPT Discharge
Waste Stream
1 /kkg
ga!/ton
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Degreasi ng
Wet Air Pollution Control
Electrocoating
Spent solvents
B1owdown
Ri nsewater
0
8 10
3,370
0
194
807
Mass of nieke 1-cobalt formed
Mass of nickel-coba1t electro-
coated
o>
Ul
cn

-------
Table IX-16
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Rolling Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Rolling Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
pollutant property
any
one day
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-
lbs) of nickel-cobalt
rolled with emulsions



Cadmium

.058
.026
*Chromium

.075
.031
Copper

.323
.170
Lead

.071
.034
*Nickel

.327
.216
Zinc

.248
.104
*Fluoride

10.100
4.490
*Oil and Grease

3.400
2.040
*TSS

6.970
3.320
*pH Within the
range
of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
BPT



Nickel-Cobalt Forming



Rolling Contact Cooling Water

Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
pollutant property
any
one day
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-
lbs) of nickel-cobalt
rolled with water



Cadmium

1.280
.566
*Chromium

1.660
.679
Copper

7.170
3.770
Lead

1.590
.754
*Nickel

7.240
4.790
Zinc

5. 510
2.300
*Fluoride

225.000
99.500
*Oil and Grease

75.400
45.300
*TSS

155.000
73.500
*pH Within the
range
of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1656

-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Tube Reducing Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Drawing Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Drawing Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt

drawn with emulsions



Cadmium
.033

.014
*Chromium
.042

.017
Coppe r
.181

.095
Lead
.040

.019
*Nickel
.183

.121
Zinc
.139

.058
*Fluoride
5.680

2.520
*Oil and Grease
1.910

1.150
*TSS
3.910

1.860
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Extrusion Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1657

-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Extrusion Press or Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
heat treated
Cadmium
.028
.013
*Chromium
.037
.015
Copper
.158
.083
Lead
.035
.017
*Nickel
.160
.106
Zinc
.122
.051
*Fluoride
4.950
2.200
*Oil and Grease
1.670
.999
*TSS
3.410
1.620
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
extruded


Cadmium
.079
.035
*Chromium
.102
.042
Copper
.441
.232
Lead
.098
.046
*Nickel
.446
.295
Zinc
.339
.142
*Fluoride
13.800
6.130
*Oil and Grease
4.640
2.790
*TSS
9.510
4.530
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1658

-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Forging Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Forging Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of ;
forged nickel
-cobalt
cooled with water



Cadmium
. 161

.071
*Chromium
. 209

.085
Copper
. 901

.474
Lead
.199

.095
*Nickel
. 910

.602
Zinc
. 692

. 289
*Fluoride
28.200

12.500
*Oil and Grease
9. 480

5.690
*TSS
19.500

9.250
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Forging Equipment Cleaning Wastewater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
forged
Cadmium
.0136
. 0060
*Chromium
.0176
.0072
Coppe r
.0760
.04 00
Lead
.0168
.0080
*Nickel
.0768
.0508
Zinc
.0584
.0244
*Fluoride
2.3800
1. 0600
*Oil and Grease
.8000
.4800
*TSS
1.6400
.7800
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1659

-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Forging Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
forged
Cadmium
.064
.028
*Chromium
.082
.034
Copper
.356
.187
Lead
.079
.037
*Nickel
.359
.238
Zinc
.273
.114
*Fluoride
11.100
4.940
*Oil and Grease
3.740
2.250
*TSS
7.670
3.650
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all
times
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Metal Powder Production Atomization Wastewater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
metal powder atomized
Cadmium
.891
.393
*Chromium
1.150
.472
Copper
4.980
2.620
Lead
1.100
.524
*Nickel
5.030
3.330
Zinc
3.830
1.600
*Fluoride
156.000
69.200
*Oil and Grease
52.400
31.500
*TSS
108.000
51.100
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1660

-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Stationary Casting Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant
pollutant
or Maximum for
property any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg
(lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
cast with
stationary casting methods

Cadmium
4.120
1.820
*Chromium
5.330
2.180
Copper
23.000
12.100
Lead
5.080
2.420
*Nickel
23.300
15.400
Zinc
17.700
7.380
*Fluoride
720.000
320.000
*Oil and Grease 242.000
145.000
*TSS
496.000
236.000
*pH
Within the range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Vacuum Melting Steam Condensate
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Annealing and Solution Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1661

-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Surface Treatment Spent Baths
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
surface treated
Cadmium
.318
.140
*Chromium
.412
.169
Copper
1.780
.935
Lead
.393
.187
*Nickel
1.800
1.190
Zinc
1.370
. 571
*Fluoride
55.700
24.700
*Oil and Grease
18.700
11.200
*TSS
38.400
18.300
*pH Within
the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at
all times
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Surface Treatment Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
surface treated
Cadmium

8.030
3.540
*Chromium

10.400
4. 250
Copper

44.900
23.600
Lead

9.910
4.720
*Nickel

45.300
30.000
Zinc

34.500
14.400
*Fluoride
1
,410.000
623.000
*Oil and Grease

472.000
283.000
*TSS

968.000
460.000
*pH Within the
range
of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1662

-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Ammonia Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
________ j2b/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
treated with ammonia solution
Cadmium
.005
.002
*Chromium
.007
.003
Copper
.028
.015
Lead
.006
. 003
*Nickel
.028
.019
Zinc
.022
.009
*Fluoride
.881
. 391
*Oil and Grease
.296
.178
*TSS
.607
.289
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all
times
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
pollutant property
any one day
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of :
nickel-cobalt
alkaline cleaned


Cadmium
.012
.005
*Chromium
.015
.006
Copper
.064
.034
Lead
.014
.007
*Nickel
. 065
.043
Zinc
.050
.021
*Fluoride
2.020
.895
*0il and Grease
.678
.407
*TSS
1.390
.661
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1663

-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
alkaline cleaned
Cadmium
.792
.350
*Chromium
1.030
.420
Copper
4.430
2.330
Lead
.979
.466
*Nickel
4.480
2.960
Zinc
3.400
1.420
*Fluoride
139.000
61.500
*Oil and Grease
46.600
28.000
*TSS
95.600
45.500
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Molten Salt Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
treated with molten salt
Cadmium
2.870
1.270
*Chromium
3.720
1. 520
Copper
16.100
8.440
Lead
3.550
1.690
*Nickel
16.200
10.700
Zinc
12.300
5.150
*Fluoride
502.000
223.000
*Oil and Grease
169.000
101.000
*TSS
346.000
165.000
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
1664

-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
sawed or ground with
emulsions

Cadmium
.013
.006
*Chromium
.017
.007
Copper
.075
.039
Lead
. 017
.008
*Nickel
. 076
.050
Zinc
.058
.024
*Fluoride
2. 350
1.040
*Oil and Grease
. 788
.473
*TSS
1.620
.769
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Sawing or Grinding Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any
one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-
lbs) of sawed
or ground
nickel-cobalt rinsed




Cadmium

.616

. 272
*Chromium

.797

.326
Copper

3. 440

1.810
Lead

. 760

.362
*Nickel

3.480

2.300
Zinc

2.640

1.110
*Fluoride

108.000

47.800
*Oil and Grease

36. 200

21.700
*TSS

74.200

35.300
*pH Within the
range
of 7.5 to 10
.0 at all times
1665

-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Steam Cleaning Condensate
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt

steam cleaned


Cadmium
.010
.005
*Chromium
.013
.005
Copper
.057
.030
Lead
.013
.006
*Nickel
.058
.038
Zinc
.044
.018
*Fluoride
1.790
.795
*Oil and Grease
.602
.361
*TSS
1.240
.587
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all
times
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Hydrostatic Tube Testing and Ultrasonic Testing
Wastewater
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1666

-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Dye Penetrant Testing Wastewater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
tested with dye penetrant methods
Cadmium
.072
.032
*Chromium
.094
.038
Copper
.405
.213
Lead
.090
.043
*Nickel
.409
.271
Zinc
.311
.130
*Fluoride
12.700
5.630
*Oil and Grease
4 . 260
2.560
*TSS
8.740
4.160
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Miscellaneous Wastewater Sources
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
formed
Cadmium
.084
.037
*Chromium
.108
.044
Copper
.468
. 246
Lead
.104
.049
*Nickel
.473
.313
Zinc
.359
.150
*Fluoride
14.700
6.500
*Oil and Grease
4.920
2.950
*TSS
10.100
4.800
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all
times
1667

-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown
Pollutant or	Maximum for Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
formed
Cadmium
.276
.122
~Chromium
.357
.146
Copper
1.540
.810
Lead
.340
.162
*Nickel
1.560
1.030
Zinc
1.180
.494
*Fluoride
48.200
21.400
*Oil and Grease
16.200
9.720
*TSS
33.200
15.800
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1668

-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Electrocoating Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
electrocoated
Cadmium
1.150
. 506
*Chromium
1.480
.607
Copper
6.410
3.370
Lead
1.420
.674
*Nickel
6.470
4.280
Zinc
4.920
2.060
*Fluoride
201.000
89.000
*Oil and Grease
67.400
40.500
*TSS
138.000
65.700
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1669

-------
Table IX-17
BPT REGULATORY FLOWS FOR
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Norma 1i zed
BPT Discharge
Operat i on
cn
O
Ro11ing
Draw ing
Metal Powder Production
Cast 1ng
Direct Chill Casting
Shot Casting
Stationary Casting
Semi-Continuous and
Continuous Casting
Heat Treatment
Waste Stream
Spent neat oils
Spent emulsions
Spent neat oils
Spent emulsions
Spent soap solutions
Wet atomization wastewater
Contact	cooling water
Contact	cooling water
Contact	cooling water
Contact	cooling water
Contact	cooling water
1 /kkg
0
77. 1
0
47.5
3.12
6,600
10,800
3,670
0
10,300
4 , 1 70
gal/ton
0
18.5
0
11.4
0 . 74B
1 ,600
2,590
880
0
2,480
1 ,000
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of precious metals rolled
with emu 1s i Ons
Mass of precious metals drawn
with emu 1s i ons
Mass of precious metals drawn
with soap solutions
Mass of precious metals powder
produced by wet atomization
Mass of precious metals cast
by the direct chill method
Mass of precious metals shot
cast
Mass of precious metals cast
by the semi-continuous or
continuous method
Mass of extruded precious
metals heat treated
Surface Treatment
Alkaline Cleaning
Spent baths
Ri nsewater
Spent baths
96.3
6, 160
60.0
23. 1
1 ,480
14,4
Mass of precious metals
surface treated
Mass of precious metals
surface treated
Mass of precious metals
alkaline cleaned

-------
Table IX-17 (Continued)
BPT REGULATORV FLOWS FOR
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Operat i on
Alkaline Cleaning
Waste Stream
R i nsewater
Norma 1 i zed
BPT Discharge
1/kkg	gal/ton
1t,200	2,690
Production Normalizing
Paramet er
Mass of precious metals
alkaline cleaned
On
—1
Tumbling or Burnishing
Sawing or Grinding
Pressure Bonding
Prebonding wastewater
Wastewater
Spent neat oils
Spent emulsions
Contact cooling water
11,600
12,100
0
93.4
83 .5
2 , 770
2,910
D
22 . 4
20.0
Mass of precious metal and
base metal cleaned prior to
bonding
Mass of precious metals
tumbled or burnished with
water-based media
Mass of precious metals sawed
or ground with emulsions
Mass of precious metal and base
metal pressure bonded and sub-
sequently cooled with water
Degreasing	Spent solvents
Wet Air Pollution Control	Blowdown
0
0
0
0

-------
Table IX-18
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Rolling Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Rolling Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of precious metals
rolled with emulsions
*Cadmium
.026
.012
Chromium
.034
.014
*Copper
.147
.077
*Cyanide
.022
.009
*Lead
.032
.015
Nickel
.148
.098
*Silver
.032
.013
Zinc
.113
.047
*Oil and Grease
1.540
.925
*TSS
3.160
1.510
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all
times
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Drawing Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1672

-------
Table IX-18
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Drawing Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
pollutant property
any one day
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of ]
precious metals
drawn with emulsions


*Cadmium
.016
.007
Chromium
.021
.009
*Copper
. 090
.048
*Cyanide
.014
.006
*Lead
.020
.010
Nickel
.091
.060
*Silver
.020
.008
Zinc
.069
.029
*Oil and Grease
.950
.570
*TSS
1.950
.926
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Drawing Spent Soap Solutions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of precious metals
drawn with soap solutions
*Cadmium
.0011
. 0005
Chromium
. 0014
.0006
*Copper
.0059
.0031
*Cyanide
.0009
. 0004
*Lead
.0013
. 0006
Nickel
.0060
.0040
*Silver
.0013
.0005
Zinc
.0046
.0019
*Oil and Grease
.0624
.0375
*TSS
.1280
.0609
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all
times
1673

-------
Table IX-18 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Metal Powder Production Atomization Wastewater
Pollutant or	Maximum for Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of precious metals
powder wet atomized
*Cadmium
2.270
1.000
Chromium
2.940
1.200
*Copper
12.700
6.680
*Cyanide
1.940
.802
*Lead
2.810
1.340
Nickel
12.800
8.490
*Silver
2.740
1.140
Zinc
9.750
4.080
*Oil and Grease
134.000
80.200
*TSS
274.000
130.000
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at
all times
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of precious metals
cast by the direct chill method
*Cadmium
3.670
1.620
Chromium
4.750
1.950
*Copper
20.500
10.800
*Cyanide
3.130
1.300
*Lead
4.540
2.160
Nickel
20.800
13.700
*Silver
4.430
1.840
Zinc
15.800
6.590
*Oil and Grease
216.000
130.000
*TSS
443.000
211.000
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1674

-------
Table IX-18 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Shot Casting Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of precious metals
shot cast


*Cadmium
1.250
. 551
Chromium
1.620
.661
*Copper
6.980
3.670
*Cyanide
1.070
.441
*Lead
1.540
.734
Nickel
7.050
4.660
*Silver
1.510
.624
Zinc
5.360
2.240
*Oil and Grease
73.400
44.100
*TSS
151.000
71.600
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Stationary Casting Contact Cooling Water
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1675

-------
Table IX-18 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Semi-Continuous and Continuous Casting Contact
Cooling Water
Pollutant
or
Maximum for
Maximum for
pollutant
property
any
one day
monthly average
mg/off-kg
(lb/million
off-
lbs) of precious metals cast
by the semi-continuous or
continuous
method
*Cadmium


3.500
1.550
Chromium


4.530
1.860
*Copper


19.600
10.300
*Cyanide


2.990
1.240
*Lead


4.330
2.060
Nickel


19.800
13.100
*Silver


4.230
1.750
Zinc


15.100
6.290
*Oil and Grease

206.000
124.000
*TSS


423.000
201.000
*pH
Within the
range
of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
BPT



Precious Metals Forming


Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water


Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of extruded precious
metals heat treated



*Cadmium
1.420

.626
Chromium
1.840

.751
*Copper
7.930

4.170
*Cyanide
1.210

.501
*Lead
1.750

.834
Nickel
8.010

5.300
*Silver
1.710

.709
Zinc
6.090

2.550
*Oil and Grease
83.400

50.100
*TSS
171.000

81.300
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1676

-------
Table IX-18 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Surface Treatment Spent Baths
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of extruded precious
metals heat treated
*Cadmium
.033
.015
Chromium
.042
.017
*Copper
.183
.096
*Cyanide
.028
.012
*Lead
.041
.019
Nickel
.185
.123
*Silver
.040
.016
Zinc
.141
.059
*Oil and Grease
1.930
1.160
*TSS
3.950
1.880
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all
times
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Surface Treatment Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of precious metals
surface treated
*Cadmium
2.100
.924
Chromium
2.710
1.110
*Copper
11.700
6.160
*Cyanide
1.790
.739
*Lead
2.590
1.230
Nickel
11.800
7.830
*Silver
2.530
1.050
Zinc
9.000
3.760
*Oil and Grease
123.000
73.900
*TSS
253.000
120.000
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at
all times
1677

-------
Table IX-18 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of precious metals
alkaline cleaned
*Cadmium
.020
.009
Chromium
.026
.011
*Copper
.114
.060
*Cyanide
.017
.007
*Lead
.025
.012
Nickel
.115
.076
*Silver
.025
.010
Zinc
.088
.037
*Oil and Grease
1.200
.720
*TSS
2.460
1.170
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all
times
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any
one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-
lbs) of precious metals
alkaline cleaned




*Cadmium

3.810

1.680
Chromium

4.930

2.020
*Copper

21.300

11.200
*Cyanide

3.250

1.350
*Lead

4.710

2.240
Nickel

21.500

14.200
*Silver

4.590

1.910
Zinc

16.400

6.830
*Oil and Grease

224.000

135.000
*TSS

459.000

219.000
*pH Within the range
of 7.5 to
10.0 at all
times
1678

-------
Table IX-18 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Prebonding Wastewater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of precious metals and
base metal cleaned prior to bonding
*Cadmium
3.950
1.740
Chromium
5.110
2.090
*Copper
22.100
11.600
*Cyanide
3.370
1.390
*Lead
4.870
2.320
Nickel
22.300
14.800
*Silver
4.760
1.970
Zinc
17.000
7.080
*Oil and Grease
232.000
139.000
*TSS
476.000
226.000
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Tumbling or Burnishing Wastewater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of precious metals
tumbled or burnished
*Cadmium
4.120
1.820
Chromium
5.330
2.180
*Copper
23.000
12.100
*Cyanide
3.510
1.450
*Lead
5.080
2.420
Nickel
23.300
15.400
*Silver
4.960
2.060
Zinc
17.700
7 .380
*Oil and Grease
242.000
145.000
*TSS
496.000
236.000
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1679

-------
Table IX-18 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of precious metals
sawed or ground with
emulsions


*Cadmium
.032

.014
Chromium
.041

.017
*Copper
.178

.093
*Cyanide
.027

.011
*Lead
.039

.019
Nickel
.180

.119
*Silver
.038

.016
Zinc
.137

.057
*Oil and Grease
1.870

1.120
*TSS
3.830

1.820
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1680

-------
Table IX-18 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Pressure Bonding Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of precious metals and
base metal pressure bonded
*Cadmium
.028
.013
Chromium
.037
.015
*Copper
.159
.084
*Cyanide
. 024
.010
*Lead
.035
.017
Nickel
.161
.106
*Silver
.034
.014
Zinc
.122
.051
*Oil and Grease
1.670
1.000
*TSS
3.430
1.630
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at
all times
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Precious Metals Forming
Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1681

-------
Table IX-19
BPT REGULATORY FLOWS FOR
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Normali zed
BPT Discharge
CT\
00
CO
Operat i on
Ro11lng
Draw i rig
Ext rus i on
Forg i ng
Metal Powder Production
Metal Powder Pressing
Surface Treatment
Alkaline CIean i ng
Mo 1 ten Salt
Tumbling or Burnishing
Waste Stream
Spent neat oils and graphite-
based lubricants
Spent emulsions
Spent lubricants
Spent lubricants
Press hydraulic fluid leakage
Spent lubricants
Contact cooling water
Wastewater
Floor wash water
Spent lubricants
Spent baths
Rinsewater
Spent baths
Ri nsewater
R i nsewater
Wastewater
1 /kkg
0
429
0
0
1 , 190
0
323
281
0
0
389
121,000
334
816,000
6,330
12,500
gal /tori
0
103
285
0
77.5
67.3
0
0
93.3
29,100
80.2
196,000
1 ,520
3,000
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of refractory metals
rolled with emulsions
Mass of refractory metals
ex truded
Mass of forged refractory
metals cooled with water
Mass of refractory metals
powder produced using water
Mass of refractory metals
surface treated
Mass of refractory metals
surface treated
Mass of refractory metals
a 1ka1i ne c1eaned
Mass of refractory metals
a 1ka1i ne c1eaned
Mass of refractory metals
treated with molten salt
Mass of refractory metals
tumbled or burnished with

-------
Table IX-19 (Continued)
BPT REGULATORY FLOWS FOR
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Opera 11 on
Sawing or Grinding
Waste Stream
Spent neat oils
Spent emulsions
Contact cooling water
R i nsewater
a*
03
u>
Dye Penetrant Testing
Equipment Cleaning
Was t ewater
Wastewater
Miscellaneous Wastewater
Sou rces
Deg reas ing
Wet Air Pollution Control
Various
Spent solvents
B 1 owdown
Norma1 i zed
BPT Discharge
1 /kkg
0
297
24,300
1 35
77 .6
1 , 360
345
0
787
gal/ton
0
7 1.1
5,620
32.5
18.6
326
83.0
0
189
Production Normalizing
Paramet er
Mass of refractory metals
sawed or ground with emulsions
Mass of refractory metals
sawed or ground with contact
coo 1 i ng water
Mass of refractory metals
sawed or ground and subse-
quently rinsed
Mass of refractory metals
tested with dye penetrant
met hods
Mass of refractory metals
formed on equipment requiring
cleaning with water
Mass of refractory metals
formed
Mass of refractory metals
sawed, ground, surface coated
or surface treated

-------
Table IX-20
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Rolling Spent Neat Oils and Graphite-Based Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Rolling Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
pollutant property
any
one day
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-
lbs) of :
refractory metals
rolled with emulsions



Chromium

.189
.077
*Copper

.815
.429
Lead

.180
.086
*Nickel

.824
.545
Silver

.176
.073
Zinc

.627
.262
Columbium

.052
	
*Fluoride

25.500
11.300
~Molybdenum

2.840
1.470
Tantalum

.193
	
Vanadium

.043
	
Tungsten

2.990
1.190
*Oil and Grease

8. 580
5.150
*TSS

17.600
8. 370
*pH Within the
range
of 7.5
to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Drawing Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1684

-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Extrusion Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
extruded
Chromium
.524
.214
*Copper
2. 260
1.190
Lead
.500
.238
*Nickel
2.290
1.510
Silver
.488
.203
Zinc
1.740
.726
Columbium
.143
	
*Fluoride
70.800
31.400
*Molybdenum
7.870
4-070
Tantalum
. 536
	
Vanadium
. 119
	
Tungsten
8. 280
3.310
*Oil and Grease
23.800
14.300
*TSS
48.800
23.200
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Forging Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1685

-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Forging Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of forged refractory
metals cooled with water
Chromium
.142
.058
*Copper
.614
.323
Lead
.136
.065
*Nickel
.620
.410
Silver
.133
.055
Zinc
.472
.197
Columbium
.039
	
*Fluoride
19.200
8.530
*Molybdenum
2.140
1.110
Tantalum
.146
	
Vanadium
.032
	
Tungsten
2.250
.898
*Oil and Grease
6.460
3.880
*TSS
13.300
6.300
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1686

-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Metal Powder Production Wastewater
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum
monthly
for
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of
refractory metals
powder produced



Chromium
.124

.051
*Copper
.534

.281
Lead
.118

.056
*Nickel
.540

.357
Silver
.115

.048
Zinc
.410

.172
Columbium
.034

	
*Fluoride
16.700

7.420
*Molybdenum
1.860

.961
Tantalum
.127

	
Vanadium
.028

	
Tungsten
1.960

.781
*Oil and Grease
5.620

3.370
*TSS
11.500

5.480
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Metal Powder Production Floor Wash Water
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Metal Powder Pressing Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1687

-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Surface Treatment Spent Baths
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-
lbs) of refractory metals
surface treated



Chromium

.171
.070
*Copper

.739
.389
Lead

.164
.078
*Nickel

.747
.494
Silver

.160
.066
Zinc

.568
.237
Columbium

.047
	
*Fluoride

23.200
10.300
*Molybdenum

2.570
1.330
Tantalum

.175
	
Vanadium

.039
	
Tungsten

2.710
1.080
*Oil and Grease

7.780
4.670
*TSS

16.000
7.590
*pH Within the
range
of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1688

-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Surface Treatment Rinse
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of refractory metals
surface treated


Chromium
53.300
21.800
*Copper
230.000
121.000
Lead
50.800
24.200
*Nickel
233.000
154.000
Silver
49.600
20.600
Zinc
177.000
73.800
Columbium
14.500
	
*Fluoride
7,200.000
3,200.000
*Molybdenum
800.000
414.000
Tantalum
54.500
	
Vanadium
12.100
	
Tungsten
842.000
337.000
*Oil and Grease
2,420.000
1,450.000
*TSS
4,960.000
2,360.000
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1689

-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of
refractory metals
alkaline cleaned



Chromium
.147

.060
*Copper
.635

.334
Lead
.140

.067
*Nickel
.641

.424
Silver
.137

.057
Zinc
.488

.204
Columbium
.040

	
~Fluoride
19.900

8.820
~Molybdenum
2.210

1.140
Tantalum
.151

	
Vanadium
.033

	
Tungsten
2.330

.929
*Oil and Grease
6.680

4.010
*TSS
13.700

6.520
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1690

-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Rinse
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of refractory metals
alkaline cleaned


Chromium
359.000
147.000
*Copper
1,550.000
816.000
Lead
343.000
163.000
*Nickel
1,570.000
1,040.000
Silver
335.000
139.000
Zinc
1,190.000
498.000
Columbium
97.900
	
*Fluoride
48,600.000
21,600.000
*Molybdenum
5,400.000
2,790.000
Tantalum
367.000
	
Vanadium
81.600
	
Tungsten
5,680.000
2,270 .000
*Oil and Grease
16,300.000
9,790.000
*TSS
33,500.000
15,900.000
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1691

-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Molten Salt Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
treated with molten salt
Chromium
2.790
1.140
*Copper
12.000
6.330
Lead
2.660
1.270
*Nickel
12.200
8.040
Silver
2.600
1.080
Zinc
9.240
3.860
Columbium
.760
	
*Fluoride
377.000
167.000
~Molybdenum
41.900
21.700
Tantalum
2.850
	
Vanadium
.633
	
Tungsten
44.100
17.600
*Oil and Grease
127.000
76.000
*TSS
260.000
124.000
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1692

-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Tumbling or Burnishing Wastewater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
tumbled or burnished
Chromium
5. 500
2. 250
*Copper
23.800
12.500
Lead
5.250
2.500
*Nickel
24.000
15.900
Silver
5.130
2.130
Zinc
18.300
7.630
Columbium
1.500
	
*Fluoride
744.000
330.000
*Molybdenum
82.600
42.800
Tantalum
5.630
	
Vanadium
1.250
	
Tungsten
87.000
34.800
*Oil and Grease
250.000
150.000
*TSS
513.000
244.000
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1693

-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
sawed or ground with emulsions
Chromium
.131
.054
*Copper
.565
.297
Lead
.125
.059
*Nickel
.570
.377
Silver
.122
.051
Zinc
.434
.181
Columbium
.036
	
*Fluoride
17.700
7.840
~Molybdenum
1.970
1.020
Tantalum
.134
	
Vanadium
.030
	
Tungsten
2.070
.826
*Oil and Grease
5.940
3.570
*TSS
12.200
5.790
*pH Within
the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at
all times
1694

-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Sawing or Grinding Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
sawed or ground with contact cooling water
Chromium

10.700
4.380
*Copper

46.200
24.300
Lead

10.200
4.860
*Nickel

46.700
30.900
Silver

9.970
4.130
Zinc

35.500
14.800
Columbium

2.920
	
*Fluoride
1
,450.000
642.000
*Molybdenum

161.000
83.100
Tantalum

11.000
	
Vanadium

2.430
	
Tungsten

169.000
67.600
*Oil and Grease

486.000
292.000
*TSS

997.000
474.000
*pH Within the
range
of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1695

-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Sawing or Grinding Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any
one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-
lbs) of sawed or ground
refractory metals rinsed



Chromium

.059

.024
*Copper

.257

.135
Lead

.057

.027
*Nickel

.259

.172
Silver

.055

.023
Zinc

.197

.082
Columbium

.016

	
*Fluoride

8.030

3.570
~Molybdenum

.893

.462
Tantalum

.061

	
Vanadium

.014

	
Tungsten

.940

.376
*Oil and Grease

2.700

1.620
*TSS

5.540

2.630
*pH Within the
range
of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1696

-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Dye Penetrant Testing Wastewater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
tested with dye penetrant methods
Chromium
.034
.014
*Copper
.148
.078
Lead
.033
. 016
*Nickel
.149
. 099
Silver
.032
. 013
Zinc
.113
. 047
Columbium
.009
	
*Fluoride
4.620
2.050
*Molybdenum
. 513
. 266
Tantalum
.035
	
Vanadium
.008
	
Tungsten
.540
. 216
*Oil and Grease
1.550
. 931
*TSS
3.180
1. 520
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
1697

-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Equipment Cleaning Wastewater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
formed


Chromium
.599
.245
*Copper
2.590
1.360
Lead
.571
.272
*Nickel
2.610
1.730
Silver
.558
.231
Zinc
1.990
.830
Columbium
.163
	
*Fluoride
80.900
35.900
*Molybdenum
8.990
4.650
Tantalum
.612
	
Vanadium
.136
	
Tungsten
9.470
3.780
*Oil and Grease
27.200
16.300
*TSS
55.800
26.500
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
1698

-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Miscellaneous Wastewater Sources
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum
monthly
for
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of
refractory metals
formed



Chromium
.152

.062
*Copper
.656

.345
Lead
.145

.069
*Nickel
.663

.438
Silver
.142

.059
Zinc
.504

.211
Columbium
.041

	
*Fluoride
20.500

9 .110
*Molybdenum
2. 280

1.180
Tantalum
.155

	
Vanadium
.035

	
Tungsten
2.400

.959
*Oil and Grease
6.900

4.140
*TSS
14.200

6.730
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1699

-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Refractory Metals Forming
Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
formed
Chromium
.346
.142
*Copper
1.500
.787
Lead
.331
.158
*Nickel
1.510
1.000
Silver
.323
.134
Zinc
1.150
.480
Columbium
.095
	
*Fluoride
46.800
20.800
*Molybdenum
5.200
2.690
Tantalum
.354
	
Vanadium
.079
	
Tungsten
5.480
2.190
*Oil and Grease
15.800
9.450
*TSS
32.300
15.400
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
1700

-------
Table IX-21
BPT REGULATORY FLOWS FOR
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Norma 1ized
BPT Discharge
Operati on
R o1 1ing
Draw 1ng
Extrusion
^	Forg i ng
O
Tube Reduc i ng
Heat Treatment
Surface Treatment
Alkaline Cleaning
Waste Stream
Spent neat oils
Contact cooling water
Spent neat oils
Spent neat oils
Spent emulsions
Press hydraulic fluid leakage
Spent lubricants
Contact cooling water
Equipment cleaning wastewater
Press hydraulic fluid leakage
Spent lubricants
Contact cooling water
Spent baths
Rinsewater
Spent baths
Rinsewat er
1	/ kkg
0
4,800
0
0
71.9
170
0
2,000
40 , 0
1,010
0
0
208
29,200
240
2	,760
gal/ton
0
1,170
0
0
17.2
42 . a
0
479
9 . 60
242
0
0
49 . 9
7 ,000
57 . 5
663
Production Normalizing
Parame t e r
Mass of titanium rolled with
contact cooling water
Mass of titanium extruded with
emu t s i ons
Mass of titanium extruded
Mass of forged titanium cooled
with water
Mass of titanium forged on
equipment requiring cleaning
with water
Mass of titanium forged
Mass of titanium surface
t reated
Mass of titanium surface
t realed
Mass of titanium alkaline
c1eaned
Mass of titanium alkaline
c1eaned

-------
Table IX-21 (Continued)
BPT REGULATORY FLOWS FOR
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Norma 11 zed
BPT Discharge
Production Normalizing
Operation	Waste Stream	1/kkg	gal/ton	Parameter
Mo 1ten Salt
ftinsenater
955
2 29
Mass of titanium treated with
mo 1 ten salt
Tumb t1ng
Wastewater
790
1 89
Mass of titanium tumbled with
water-based media
Sawing or Grinding
Spent neat oils
Spent emulsions
O
to
Dye Penetrant Testing
Contact cooling water
Wastewater
Miscellaneous Wastewater
Sources
Degreasi ng
Wet Air Pollution Control
Vari ous
Spent solvents
B1owdown
0
183
4, 760
1 , 1 20
32.4
0
43.8
1 , 140
268
7.77
Mass of titanium sawed or
ground with an emulsion
Mass of titanium sawed or
ground with contact cooling
wat er
Mass of titanium tested with
dye penetrant methods
Mass of titanium formed
0
2, 140
0
514
Mass of titanium surface
treated or forged

-------
Table IX-22
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Titanium Forming
Rolling Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Titanium Forming
Rolling Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium
rolled with contact cooling water
Chromium
2.150
.879
Copper
9.270
4.880
*Cyanide
1.420
.586
*Lead
2.050
.976
Nickel
9.370
6.200
*Zinc
7.130
2.980
*Ammonia
651.000
286.000
*Fluoride
291.000
129.000
Titanium
4.590
2.000
*Oil and Grease
97.600
58.600
*TSS
200.000
95.200
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
BPT
Titanium Forming
Drawing Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Titanium Forming
Extrusion Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1703

-------
Table IX-22 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Titanium Forming
Extrusion Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium
extruded with emulsions
Chromium
.032
.013
Copper
.137
.072
*Cyanide
.021
.009
*Lead
.030
.014
Nickel
.138
.091
*Zinc
.105
.044
*Ammonia
9.590
4.220
*Fluoride
4.280
1.900
Titanium
.068
.030
*0il and Grease
1.440
.863
*TSS
2.950
1.400
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Titanium Forming
Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Pollutant or	Maximum for Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium
extruded
Chromium
.078
.032
Copper
.338
.178
*Cyanide
.052
.021
*Lead
.075
.036
Nickel
.342
.226
*Zinc
.260
.109
*Ammonia
23.700
10.500
*Fluoride
10.600
4.700
Titanium
.168
.073
*0il and Grease
3.560
2.140
*TSS
7.300
3.470
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at
all times
1704

-------
Table IX-22 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Titanium Forming
Forging Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Titanium Forming
Forging Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of forged titanium
cooled with water
Chromium
.880
.360
Copper
3.800
2.000
*Cyanide
.580
.240
*Lead
.840
.400
Nickel
3.840
2.540
*Zinc
2.920
1.220
*Airanonia
267.000
117.000
*Fluoride
119.000
52.800
Titanium
1.880
.«20
*Oil and Grease
40.000
24.000
*TSS
82.000
39.000
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at
all times
1705

-------
Table IX-22 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Titanium Forming
Forging Equipment Cleaning Wastewater
Pollutant or
Maximum for Maximum
for
pollutant property
any
one day monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-
lbs) of titanium

forged



Chromium

.018
.007
Copper

.076
.040
*Cyanide

.012
.005
*Lead

.017
.008
Nickel

.077
.051
*Zinc

.058
.024
*Ammonia

5.330
2.350
*Fluoride

2.380
1.060
Titanium

.038
.016
*Oil and Grease

.800
.480
*TSS

1.640
.780
*pH Within the
range
of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT



Titanium Forming



Forging Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage

Pollutant or
Maximum for Maximum
for
pollutant property
any
one day monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-
lbs) of titanium

forged



Chromium

.445
.182
Copper

1.920
1.010
*Cyanide

.293
.121
*Lead

.424
.202
Nickel

1.940
1.280
*Zinc

1.480
.616
*Ammonia

135.000
59.200
*Fluoride

60.100
26.700
Titanium

.950
.414
*Oil and Grease

20.200
12.100
*TSS

41.400
19.700
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1706

-------
Table IX-22 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Titanium Forming
Tube Reducing Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Titanium Forming
Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Titanium Forming
Surface Treatment Spent Baths
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium
surface treated
Chromium
.092
.038
Copper
.395
.208
*Cyanide
.060
.025
*Lead
.087
.042
Nickel
.400
.264
*Zinc
.304
.127
*Ammonia
27.700
12.200
*Fluoride
12.400
5.490
Titanium
.196
.085
*Oil and Grease
4.160
2.500
*TSS
8. 530
4.060
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
1707

-------
Table IX-22 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Titanium Forming
Surface Treatment Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum for Maximum
for
pollutant property
any one day monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium

surface treated


Chromium
12.900
5.260
Copper
55.500
29.200
*Cyanide
8.470
3.510
*Lead
12.300
5.840
Nickel
56.100
37.100
*Zinc
42.700
17.800
*Ammonia
3,890.000 1,
710.000
*Fluoride
1,740. 000
771.000
Titanium
27.500
12.000
*Oil and Grease
584.000
351.000
*TSS
1,200.000
570.000
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT


Titanium Forming


Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths

Pollutant or
Maximum for Maximum
for
pollutant property
any one day monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of titanium

alkaline cleaned


Chromium
.106
.043
Copper
.456
. 240
*Cyanide
.070
.029
*Lead
.101
.048
Nickel
.461
.305
*Zinc
.351
.147
*Ammonia
32.000
14.100
*Fluoride
14.300
6.340
Titanium
.226
.098
*Oil and Grease
4.800
2.880
*TSS
9.840
4.680
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1708

-------
Table IX-22 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Titanium Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium
alkaline cleaned
Chromium
1.220
.497
Copper
5.250
2.760
*Cyanide
.801
.331
*Lead
1.160
.552
Nickel
5.300
3.510
*Zinc
4.030
1.690
*Ammonia
368.000
162.000
*Fluoride
164.000
72.900
Titanium
2.600
1.130
*0il and Grease
55.200
33.100
*TSS
113.000
53.800
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at
all times
BPT
Titanium Forming
Molten Salt Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium
treated with molten salt
Chromium
.420
.172
Copper
1.820
.955
*Cyanide
.277
.115
*Lead
.401
.191
Nickel
1.840
1.210
*Zinc
1. 400
.583
*Ammonia
128.000
56.000
*Fluoride
56.800
25.200
Titanium
.898
.392
*Oil and Grease
19.100
11.500
*TSS
39.200
18.600
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1709

-------
Table IX-22 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Titanium Forming
Tumbling Wastewater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of titanium
tumbled
Chromium
.348
.142
Copper
1.500
.790
*Cyanide
.229
.095
*Lead
.332
.158
Nickel
1.520
1.010
*Zinc
1.160
.482
*Ammonia
106.000
46.300
*Fluoride
47.000
20.900
Titanium
.743
.324
*Oil and Grease
15.800
9.480
*TSS
32.400
15.400
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Titanium Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1710

-------
Table IX-22 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Titanium Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium
sawed or ground with emulsions
Chromium
.081
.033
Copper
.348
.183
*Cyanide
.053
.022
*Lead
.077
.037
Nickel
.352
.233
*Zinc
.267
.112
*Ammonia
24.400
10.700
*Fluor ide
10.900
4.830
Titanium
.172
.075
*Oil and Grease
3.660
2.200
*TSS
7.510
3.570
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
BPT
Titanium Forming
Sawing or Grinding Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium
sawed or ground with contact cooling water
Chromium
2.100
.857
Copper
9.050
4.760
*Cyanide
1.380
. 571
*Lead
2.000
.952
Nickel
9.140
6.050
*Zinc
6.950
2.910
*Ammonia
635.000
279.000
*Fluoride
283.000
126.000
Titanium
4.480
1.950
*Oil and Grease
95.200
57.100
*TSS
195.000
92.800
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at
all times
1711

-------
Table IX-22 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Titanium Forming
Dye Penetrant Testing Wastewater
Pollutant or	Maximum for Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium
tested with dye penetrant methods
Chromium
.493
.202
Copper
2.130
1.120
*Cyanide
.325
.135
*Lead
.471
.224
Nickel
2.150
1.420
*Zinc
1.640
.683
*Ammonia
149.000
65.700
*Fluoride
66.700
29.600
Titanium
1.050
.459
*Oil and Grease
22.400
13.500
*TSS
45.900
21.900
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
BPT
Titanium Forming
Hydrotesting Wastewater
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1712

-------
Table IX-22 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Titanium Forming
Miscellaneous Wastewater Sources
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/mi111on off^lbs) of titanium" formed
Chromium
. 014
.006
Copper
.062
.032
*Cyanide
.009
.004
*Lead
.014
.006
Nickel
.062
.041
*Zinc
.047
.020
*Ammonia
4.320
1.900
*Fluoride
1. 930
.856
Titanium
.031
.013
*Oil and Grease
.648
. 389
*TSS
1.330
.632
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
BPT
Titanium Forming
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1713

-------
Table IX-22 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Titanium Forming
Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown
Pollutant or	Maximum for Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium
formed
.385
2.140
.257
.428
2.720
1.310
126.000
56.500
.878
25.700
41.800
^pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Chromium
.942
Copper
4.070
*Cyanide
.621
*Lead
.899
Nickel
4.110
*Zinc
3.130
*Ammonia
285.000
*Fluoride
128.000
Titanium
2.010
*Oil and Grease
42.800
*TSS
87.800
1714

-------
Table IX-23
BPT R EGULATORV FLOWS FOR
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - URANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Ope rat ion
Ext rusIon
Waste Stream
Spent lubricants
Tool contact cooling water
No rmali zed
BPT Discharge
1 /kkg
0
344
gaI/tan
0
B2.5
Fa rgi ng
Heat Treatment
Spent lubricants
Contact cooling water
~
1 ,900
0
455
H Surface Treatment
cn
Spent baths
R i nsewat er
27 . 2
337
6.52
80.9
Sawing or Grinding
Spent emulsions
5 . 68
1 . 36
Contact cooling water
1 ,650
395
Rinsewater	4.65	1.12
Area Cleaning	Washwater	42.9	10.3
Decreasing	Spent solvents	0	0
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of uranium extruded with
tools requiring contact cool"
i ng with water
Mass of extruded or forged
uranium heat treated and
subsequently cooled with water
Mass of uranium surface
treated
Mass of uranium surface
t reated
Mass of uranium sawed or
ground with emulsions
Mass of uranium sawed or
ground with contact cooling
water
Mass of uranium sawed or
ground and subsequently rinsed
Mass of uranium formed

-------
Tabie IX-23 (Continued)
BPT REGULATORY FLOWS FOR
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - URANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Operat i on
Norma 1i zed
BPT Discharge
Waste Stream
t /kkg
ga1/ton
Wet Air Pollution Control
B1owdown
3.49
0.836
Drum Washwater
Laundry Washwater
Wastewater
Wastewater
44. 3
52.4**
10.6
12.6**
*Li ters/employee-day.
I—1
' **Ga11ons/emp1oyee-day.
CTl
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of uranium surface
treated
Mass of uranium formed
Emp1oyee-day

-------
Table IX-24
URANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Uranium Forming
Extrusion Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Uranium Forming
Extrusion Tool Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of uranium
extruded
*Cadmium
.117
.052
*Chromium
.152
.062
*Copper
.654
.344
*Lead
.145
.069
*Nickel
.661
.437
Zinc
.502
.210
*Fluor ide
20.500
9.080
*Molybdenum
2.280
1.180
Uranium
2.240
1.630
*Oil and Grease
6.880
4.130
*TSS
14.100
6.710
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Uranium Forming
Forging Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1717

-------
Table IX-24 (Continued)
URANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT



Uranium Forming



Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water

Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
pollutant property
any
one day
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-
lbs) of extruded or forged
uranium heat treated



*Cadmium

.646
.285
*Chromium

.836
.342
*Copper

3.610
1.900
*Lead

.798
.380
*Nickel

3.650
2.420
Zinc

2.780
1.160
*Fluoride

113.000
50.200
^Molybdenum

12.600
6.500
Uranium

12.400
8.990
*Oil and Grease

38.000
22.800
*TSS

77.900
37.100
*pH Within the
range
of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
BPT
Uranium Forming
Surface Treatment Spent Baths
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of uranium
surface treated


*Cadmium
.009
.004
*Chromium
.012
.005
*Copper
.052
.027
*Lead
.011
.005
*Nickel
.052
.035
Zinc
.040
.017
*Fluoride
1.620
.718
*Molybdenum
.180
.093
Uranium
.177
.129
*Oil and Grease
.544
.327
*TSS
1.120
.531
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1718

-------
Table IX-24 (Continued)
URANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Uranium Forming
Surface Treatment Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of uranium
surface treated
*Cadmium
.115
.051
*Chromium
.148
.061
*Copper
.641
.337
*Lead
.142
.067
*Nickel
.647
.428
Zinc
.492
.206
*Fluoride
20.100
8.900
~Molybdenum
2. 230
1.150
Uranium
2.190
1.600
*Oil and Grease
6.740
4.050
*TSS
13.800
6.570
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at
all times
BPT
Uranium Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of uranium
sawed or ground with emulsions
*Cadmium
.0019
.0009
*Chromium
.0025
.0010
*Copper
.0108
.0057
*Lead
.0024
.0011
*Nickel
.0109
.0072
Zinc
.0083
.0035
*Fluoride
.3380
.1500
~Molybdenum
.0376
.0194
Uranium
.0369
.0269
*Oil and Grease
.1140
.0682
*TSS
.2330
.1110
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all
times
1719

-------
Table IX-24 (Continued)
URANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Uranium Forming
Sawing or Grinding Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of uranium
sawed or ground with contact cooling water
*Cadmium
.561
.248
*Chromium
.726
.297
*Copper
3.140
1.650
*Lead
.693
.330
*Nickel
3.170
2.100
Zinc
2.410
1.010
*Fluoride
98.200
43.600
*Molybdenum
10.900
5.650
Uranium
10.700
7.810
*Oil and Grease
33.000
19.800
*TSS
67.700
32.200
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
BPT
Uranium Forming
Sawing or Grinding Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any
one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-
lbs) of sawed or ground
uranium rinsed




*Cadmium

.0016

.0007
*Chromium

.0021

.0008
*Copper

.0088

.0047
*Lead

.0020

.0009
*Nickel

.0089

.0059
Zinc

.0068

.0028
*Fluoride

.2770

.1230
*Molybdenum

.0308

.0159
Uranium

.0302

.0220
*Oil and Grease

.0930

.0558
*TSS

.1910

.0907
*pH Within the
range
of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1720

-------
Table IX-24 (Continued)
URANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Uranium Forming
Area Cleaning Washwater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of uranium
formed
*Cadmium
.015
.006
*Chromium
.019
.008
*Copper
.082
.043
*Lead
.018
.009
*Nickel
.082
.055
Zinc
.063
.026
*Fluor ide
2.550
1.130
*Molybdenum
.284
.147
Uranium
.279
.203
*Oil and Grease
.858
.515
*TSS
1.760
.837
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
BPT
Uranium Forming
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1721

-------
Table IX-24 (Continued)
URANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Uranium Forming
Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for Maximum
any one day monthly
for
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of uranium

surface treated


*Cadmium
.0012
.0005
~Chromium
.0015
.0006
*Copper
.0066
.0035
*Lead
.0015
.0007
~Nickel
.0067
.0044
Zinc
.0051
.0021
*Fluoride
.2080
.0922
~Molybdenum
.0231
.0120
Uranium
.0227
.0165
*Oil and Grease
.0698
.0419
*TSS
.1430
.0681
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Uranium Forming
Drum Washwater
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of uranium

formed



~Cadmium
.015

.007
~Chromium
.020

.008
~Copper
.084

.044
~Lead
.019

.009
~Nickel
.085

.056
Zinc
.065

.027
~Fluoride
2.640

1.170
~Molybdenum
.293

.152
Uranium
.288

.210
~Oil and Grease
.886

.532
~TSS
1.820

.864
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1722

-------
Table IX-24 (Continued)
URANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Uranium Forming
Laundry Washwater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/employee-day uranium formed
Cadmium
17 .800
7.860
Chromium
23.100
9.430
Copper
99.600
52.400
Lead
22.000
10.500
Nickel
101.000
66.600
Zinc
76.500
32.000
Fluoride
3,120.000
1,390.000
Molybdenum
347.000
179.000
Uranium
341.000
248.000
Oil and Grease
1,050.000
629.000
TSS
2,150.000
1,020.000
pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
1723

-------
Table IX-25
BPT REGULATORY FLOWS FOR
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - ZINC FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Norma 1i zed
BPT Discharge
Operat i on
-J
NJ
R o 1 1 i n g
Draw i ng
Cast i ng
Direct Chill Casting
Stationary Casting
Heat Treatment
Surface Treatment
Alkaline Cleaning
Sawing or Grinding
Degreas i ng
EI ect rocoat i ng
Waste Stream
Spent neat oils
Spent emulsions
Contact cooling water
Spent emulsions
Contact cooling water
Contact cooling water
Contact cooling water
Spent baths
R i nsewater
Spent baths
R i nsewater
Spent emulsions
Spent solvents
R i nsewater
1 /kkg
0
1	.39
536
5.80
505
0
763
88.7
3,580
3.55
1	,690
23.8
0
2	, 290
ga1/ton
0
0.334
129
1	. 39
121
0
183
21.3
859
0.850
405
5.71
0
550
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of zinc rolled with
emu 1s i ons
Mass of zinc rolled with
contact cooling water
Mass of zinc drawn with
emu 1s i ons
Mass of zinc cast by the
direct chill method
Mass of zinc heat treated and
subsequently cooled with water
Mass of zinc surface treated
Mass of zinc surface treated
Mass of zinc alkaline cleaned
Mass of zinc alkaline cleaned
Mass of zinc sawed or ground
with emu 1s i ons
Mass of zinc e1ectrocoated

-------
Table
ZINC FORMING
BPT EFFLUENT
IX-26
SUBCATEGORY
LIMITATIONS
BPT
Zinc Forming
Rolling Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Zinc Forming
Rolling Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of zinc
rolled with emulsions
*Chromium
.0006
.0003
*Copper
.0026
.0014
*Cyanide
.0004
.0002
Nickel
.0027
.0018
*Zinc
.0020
.0009
*Oil and Grease
.0278
.0167
*TSS
.0570
.0271
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all
times
BPT
Zinc Forming
Rolling Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of zinc
rolled with contact cooling water
*Chromium .236	.097
*Copper 1.0 20	.536
*Cyanide .156	.064
Nickel 1.030	.681
*Zinc .783	.327
*Oil and Grease 10.700	6.430
*TSS 22.000 10.500
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1725

-------
Table IX-26 (Continued)
ZINC FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Zinc Forming
Drawing Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of zinc
drawn with emulsions
*Chromium
.0026
.0011
*Copper
.0110
.0058
*Cyanide
.0017
.0007
Nickel
.0112
.0074
*Zinc
.0085
.0035
*Oil and Grease
.1160
.0696
*TSS
.2380
.1130
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
BPT
Zinc Forming
Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of zinc
cast

by the direct chill method


*Chromium
.222

.091
*Copper
.960

.505
*Cyanide
.147

. 061
Nickel
.970

.642
*Zinc
.738

.308
*Oil and Grease
10.100

6.060
*TSS
20.700

9.850
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1726

-------
Table IX-26 (Continued)
ZINC FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Zinc Forming


Stationary Casting Contact Cooling Water
There shall be no discharge of
process wastewater
pollutants.


BPT


Zinc Forming


Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water

Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
pollutant property
any one day
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of zinc
heat treated


*Chromium
.336
.138
*Copper
1.450
.763
*Cyanide
. 221
.092
Nickel
1.470
.969
*Zinc
1.120
.466
*Oil and Grease
15.300
9.160
*TSS
31.300
14.900
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
BPT


Zinc Forming


Surface Treatement Spent Baths

Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
pollutant property
any one day
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of zinc
surface treated


*Chromium
.039
.016
*Copper
.169
.089
*Cyanide
.026
.011
Nickel
.171
.113
*Zinc
.130
.054
*Oil and Grease
1.780
1.070
*TSS
3.640
1.730
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1727

-------
Table IX-26 (Continued)
ZINC FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Zinc Forming
Surface Treatment Rinse
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of zinc
surface treated
*Chromium
*Copper
*Cyanide
Nickel
*Zinc
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
580
800
040
880
230
71.600
147.000
.645
3.580
.430
4.550
2.190
43.000
69.800
kpH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Zinc Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of zinc
alkaline cleaned


*Chromium
.0016
. 0006
*Copper
. 0068
.0036
*Cyanide
.0010
. 0004
Nickel
.0068
.0045
*Zinc
.0052
.0022
*Oil and Grease
.0710
.0426
*TSS
.1460
.0692
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1728

-------
Table IX-26 (Continued)
ZINC FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Zinc Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Rinse
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of zinc
alkaline cleaned
*Chromium
*Copper
*Cyanide
Nickel
*Zinc
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.744
3.210
.490
3.250
2.470
33.800
69.300
304
690
203
150
030
20.300
33.000
*pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT
Zinc Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of zinc
sawed or ground with emulsions
*Chromium
*Copper
*Cyanide
Nickel
*Zinc
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.011
.045
. 007
.046
.035
.476
.976
.004
.024
.003
.030
.015
. 286
.464
kpH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1729

-------
Table IX-26 (Continued)
ZINC FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Zinc Forming
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Zinc Forming
Electrocoating Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of zinc
electrocoated
*Chromium 1.010	.412
*Copper 4.350	2.290
*Cyanide .664	.275
Nickel 4.400	2.910
*Zinc 3.350	1.400
*Oil and Grease 45.800	27.500
*TSS 93.900	44.700
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1730

-------
Table-IX-27
BPT REGULATORY FLOWS FOR
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - ZIRCONIUM-HAFNIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORV
Operation
-J
U>
Ro 1 ling
Draw1ng
Ext rusi on
Swag 1ng
Tube Reducing
Heat Treatment
Surface Treatment
Alkaline Cleaning
Mo 11en Sa1t
Waste Stream
Spent neat oils
Spent lubricants
Spent lubricants
Press hydraulic fluid leakage
Spent neat oils
Spent lubricants
Contact cooling water
Spent baths
R i nsewater
Spent baths
Rinsewater
Ri nsewater
Norma H zed
BPT	Di scharge
1 /kkg	ga 1 /t o n
0	0
0	0
0	0
237	56.9
Production Normalizing
Parameter
0
0
343
340
8 ,860
1 ,600
31,400
7 , 560
0
0
82.3
81.5
2, 130
384
7 ,530
1,8 10
Mass of zirconium-hafnium
ext ruded
Mass of zirconium-hafnium heat
treated and subsequently
cooled with water
Mass of zirconium-hafnium
surface treated
Mass of zirconium-hafnium
surface treated
Mass of zirconium-hafnium
alkaline cleaned
Mass of zirconium-hafnium
alkaline cleaned
Mass of zirconium-hafnium
treated with molten salt

-------
Table IX-27 (Continued)
BPT REGULATORY FLOWS FOR
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - ZIRCONIUM-HAFNIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Operat ion
Waste Stream
Sawing or Grinding
Spent neat oils
Spent emulsions
Contact cooling water
-J
u>
to
Inspection and Testing
Ri nsewater
Wastewater
Degreasi ng
Wet Air Pollution Control
Spent solvents
B1owdown
Normalized
BPT Discharge
1 / kkg
gal/ton
Production Normalizing
Parameter
0
28 1
321
1 ,800
15.4
0
0
0
67 .4
77.0
431
3.70
0
0
Mass of zircon1um-hafn1um
sawed or ground with emulsions
Mass of zirconium-hafnium
sawed or ground with contact
coo 11ng water
Mass of zirconium-hafnium
sawed or ground and subse-
quently rinsed
Mass of zirconium-hafnium
tested
Degrees1ng
Ri nsewater
0
0

-------
Table IX-28
ZIRCONIUM-HAFNIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Rolling Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Drawing Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Extrusion Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for Maximum
any one day monthly
for
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-
lbs) of zirconium-hafnium
extruded



*Chromium

.104
.043
Copper

.451
.237
*Cyanide

.069
.029
Lead

.100
.047
*Nickel

.455
.301
Zinc

.346
.145
*Ammonia

31.600
13.900
*Fluoride

14.100
6. 260
Zirconium

6.830
3.300
*Oil and Grease

4.740
2.850
*TSS

9.720
4.620
*pH Within the
range
of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1733

-------
Table IX-28 (Continued)
ZIRCONIUM-HAFNIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Swaging Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Tube Reducing Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of zirconium-hafnium
heat treated
*Chromium
.151
.062
Copper
.652
.343
*Cyanide
.100
.041
Lead
.144
.069
*Nickel
.659
.436
Zinc
.501
.209
*Ammonia
45.700
20.100
*Fluoride
20.400
9.060
Zirconium
9.880
4.770
*Oil and Grease
6.860
4.120
*TSS
14.100
6.690
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1734

-------
Table IX-28 (Continued)
ZIRCONIUM-HAFNIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Surface Treatment Spent Baths
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-
lbs) of zirconium-hafnium
surface treated



*Chromium

.150
.061
Copper

.646
.340
*Cyanide

.099
.041
Lead

.143
.068
*Nickel

.653
.432
Zinc

.497
.208
*Ammonia

45.300
19.900
*Fluoride

20.300
8.980
Zirconium

9 .790
4.730
*Oil and Grease

6.800
4.080
*TSS

14.000
6.630
*pH Within the
range
of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
BPT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Surface Treatment Rinse
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for Maximum
any one day monthly
for
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of zirconium-hafnium
surface treated


*Chromium
3.910
1.600
Copper
16.900
8.880
*Cyanide
2.580
1.070
Lead
3.730
1.780
*Nickel
17.100
11.300
Zinc
13.000
5.420
*Ammonia
1,190.000
521.000
*Fluoride
529.000
235.000
Zirconium
256.000
124.000
*Oil and Grease
178.000
107.000
*TSS
364.000
173.000
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1735

-------
Table IX-28 (Continued)
ZIRCONIUM-HAFNIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
pollutant property
any one day
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of zirconium-hafnium
alkaline cleaned


*Chromium
.704
.288
Copper
3.040
1.600
*Cyanide
.464
.192
Lead
.672
.320
*Nickel
3.070
2.030
Zinc
2.340
.976
*Ammonia
213.000
93.800
*Fluoride
95.200
42.300
Zirconium
46.100
22.300
*Oil and Grease
32.000
19.200
*TSS
65.600
31.200
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
BPT


Zirconium-Hafnium Forming

Alkaline Cleaning Rinse

Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
pollutant property
any one day
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of zirconium-hafnium
alkaline cleaned


*Chromium
13.800
5.650
Copper
59.700
31.400
*Cyanide
9.110
3.770
Lead
13.200
6.280
*Nickel
60.300
39.900
Zinc
45.900
19.200
*Ammonia
4,190.000
1,840.000
*Fluoride
1,870.000
829.000
Zirconium
905.000
437.000
*Oil and Grease
628.000
377.000
*TSS
1,290.000
613.000
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1736

-------
Table IX-28 (Continued)
ZIRCONIUM-HAFNIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Molten Salt Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of zirconium-hafnium
treated with molten salt
~Chromium

3.330
1.360
Copper

14.400
7.560
*Cyanide

2.190
.907
Lead

3.180
1.510
*Nickel

14.500
9.600
Zinc

11.100
4.610
*Ammonia
1
,010.000
443.000
*Fluoride

450.000
200.000
Zirconium

218.000
105.000
*Oil and Grease

151.000
90.700
*TSS

310.000
148.000
*pH Within
the range
of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
BPT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1737

-------
Table IX-28 (Continued)
ZIRCONIUM-HAFNIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property any
one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-
lbs) of zirconium-hafnium
sawed or ground with emulsions


*Chromium
.124

.051
Copper
.534

.281
*Cyanide
.082

.034
Lead
.118

.056
*Nickel
.540

.357
Zinc
.410

.172
*Aitunonia
37.500

16.500
*Fluoride
16.700

7.420
Zirconium
8.090

3.910
*Oil and Grease
5.620

3.370
*TSS
11.500

5.480
*pH Within the range
of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
BPT



Zirconium-Hafnium Forming



Sawing or Grinding Contact
Cooling Water

Pollutant or Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property any
one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-
lbs) of zirconium-hafnium
sawed or ground with contact cooling
water

*Chromium
.141

.058
Copper
.610

.321
*Cyanide
.093

.039
Lead
.135

.064
*Nickel
.617

.408
Zinc
.469

.196
*Aitunonia
42.800

18.800
*Fluoride
19.100

8.480
Zirconium
9.250

4.460
*Oil and Grease
6.420

3.850
*TSS
13.200

6.260
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1738

-------
Table IX-28 (Continued)
ZIRCONIUM-HAFNIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Sawing or Grinding Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for
Maximum for
pollutant property any
one day
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-
lbs) of sawed or ground
zirconium-hafnium rinsed


*Chromium
.792
.324
Copper
3.420
1.800
*Cyanide
.522
.216
Lead
.756
.360
*Nickel
3.460
2.290
Zinc
2.630
1.100
*Ammonia
240.000
106.000
*Fluoride
107.000
47.500
Zirconium
51.900
25.000
*Oil and Grease
36.000
21.600
*TSS
73.800
35.100
*pH Within the range
of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
BPT


Zirconium-Hafnium Forming


Inspection and Testing Wastewater

Pollutant or Maximum for
Maximum for
pollutant property any
one day
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-
lbs) of zirconium-hafnium
tested


*Chromium
.007
.003
Copper
.029
.015
*Cyanide
.004
.002
Lead
.006
.003
*Nickel
.030
.020
Zinc
.023
.009
*Ammonia
2.050
.903
*Fluoride
.917
.407
Zirconium
.444
.214
*Oil and Grease
.308
.185
*TSS
.632
.301
*pH Within the range
of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1739

-------
Table IX-28 (Continued)
ZIRCONIUM-HAFNIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown
There shall be no allowance for the discharge of process
wastewater pollutants.
BPT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Degreasing Rinse
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1740

-------
Table IX-29
BPT REGULATORS' FLOWS FOR
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - METAL POWDERS SUBCATEGORY
Operat i on
Metal Powder Production
Waste Stream
Atomi zat ion wastewater
No rma1ized
BPT Discharge
1 /kkg
5 , 040
gal/ton
1,210
Tumbling, Burnishing or
C 1 ean i ng
Ws stewater
4 ,400
1 ,050
Sawing or Grinding
Spent neat oils
Spent emulsions
0
10.1
0
4.33
-J
Contact cooling water
1 ,620
3B9
Sizing
Spent neat oils
Spent emulsions
0
14.6
0
3 .50
Steam Treatment Wet Air
Pollution Control
0i1-Resin Impregnation
Degreas i ng
Hot Pressing
B1owdown
Spent neat oils
Spent sol vent s
Contact cooling water
792
0
0
8 ,000
190
0
0
2,110
Mixing Wet Air Pollution
Control
B1owdown
7,900
1 ,090
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of powder produced by
wet atomization
Mass of powder metallurgy
parts tumbled, burnished or
cleaned with water-based media
Mass of powder metallurgy
parts sawed or ground with
emu 1s i ons
Mass of powder metallurgy
parts sawed or ground with
contact cooling water
Mass of powder sized using
emu 1s i ons
Mass of metallurgy parts steam
t reated
Mass of powder cooled with
water after pressing
Mass of powder mixed

-------
Table IX-30
METAL POWDERS SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Metal Powders
Metal Powder Production Atomization Wastewater
Pollutant or
Maximum for Maximum for
pollutant property
any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of powder

wet atomized


Chromium
2.220
.907
*Copper
9.580
5.040
*Cyanide
1.460
.605
*Lead
2.120
1.010
Nickel
9.680
6.400
Zinc
7.360
3.080
Aluminum
32.400
16.100
Iron
6.050
3.080
*Oil and Grease
101.000
60.500
*TSS
207.000
98.300
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at
all times
BPT


Metal Powders


Tumbling, Burnishing,
or Cleaning Wastewater

Pollutant or
Maximum for Maximum for
pollutant property
any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of powder metallurgy
parts tumbled, burnished, or cleaned

Chromium
1.940
.792
*Copper
8.360
4.400
*Cyanide
1.280
.528
*Lead
1.850
.880
Nickel
8.450
5.590
Zinc
6.430
2.690
Aluminum
28.300
14.100
Iron
5.280
2.690
*Oil and Grease
88.000
52.800
*TSS
181.000
85.800
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at
all times
1742

-------
Table IX-30 (Continued)
METAL POWDERS SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Metal Powders
Sawing or Grinding Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Metal Powders
Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions
Pollutant
or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant
property
any
one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg
(lb/million
off-
lbs) of powder metallurgy
parts sawed or ground
with
emulsons


Chromium


.008

.003
*Copper


.034

.018
*Cyanide


.005

.002
*Lead


.008

.004
Nickel


.035

.023
Zinc


.026

.011
Aluminum


.117

.058
Iron


. 022

.011
*Oil and Grease

.362

.217
*TSS


.742

.353
*pH
Within the
range
of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1743

-------
Table IX-30 (Continued)
METAL POWDERS SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Metal Powders
Sawing or Grinding Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of powder metallurgy
parts sawed or ground with contact cooling water
Chromium
.713
.292
*Copper
3.080
1.620
*Cyanide
.470
.195
*Lead
.681
.324
Nickel
3.110
2.060
Zinc
2.370
.988
Aluminum
10.400
5.190
Iron
1.950
.988
*Oil and Grease
32.400
19.500
*TSS
66.400
31.600
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
BPT
Metal Powders
Sizing Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1744

-------
Table IX-30 (Continued)
METAL POWDERS SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Metal Powders
Sizing Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
Maximum for Maximum
for
pollutant property
any
one day monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-
lbs) of powder

sized



Chromium

.006
.003
*Copper

.028
.015
*Cyanide

.004
.002
*Lead

.006
.003
Nickel

.028
.019
Zinc

.021
.009
Aluminum

.094
.047
Iron

.018
.009
*Oil and Grease

.292
.175
*TSS

.599
.285
*pH Within the
range
of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
BPT



Metal Powders



Steam Treatment Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown
Pollutant or
Maximum for Maximum
for
pollutant property
any
one day monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-
lbs) of powder metallurgy
parts steam treated



Chromium

.349
.143
*Copper

1.510
.792
*Cyanide

. 230
.095
*Lead

.333
.159
Nickel

1.520
1.010
Zinc

1.160
.483
Aluminum

5.090
2.540
Iron

.951
.483
*Oil and Grease

15.900
9.510
*TSS

32.500
15.500
*pH Within the
range
of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1745

-------
Table IX-30 (Continued)
METAL POWDERS SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Metal Powders
Oil-Resin Impregnation Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Metal Powders
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BPT
Metal Powders
Hot Pressing Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of powder
cooled after pressing
Chromium
3.870
1.590
*Copper
16.700
8.800
*Cyanide
2.550
1.060
*Lead
3.700
1.760
Nickel
16.900
11.200
Zinc
12.900
5.370
Aluminum
56.600
28.200
Iron
10.600
5.370
*Oil and Grease
176.000
106.000
*TSS
361.000
172.000
*pH Within
the range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1746

-------
Table IX-30 (Continued)
METAL POWDERS SUBCATEGORY
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BPT
Metal Powders
Mixing Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of powder
mixed
Chromium
3.480
1.420
*Copper
15.000
7.900
*Cyanide
2.290
.948
*Lead
3.320
1.580
Nickel
15.200
10.100
Zinc
11.600
4.820
Aluminum
50.800
25.300
Iron
9.480
4.820
*Oil and Grease
158.000
94.800
*TSS
324.000
154.000
*pH Within
the range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1747

-------
Table IX-31
ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE CALCULATIONS FOR REFRACTORY METALS
FORMING PLANT X IN EXAMPLE 1 (NICKEL)
Waste Stream
Refractory Metals Rolling
Spent Emulsion
Average
Dai 1y
Product ion
(off-kg/day)
60
BPT
Regu1atory
One-Day
MaxImum
Ni Discharge
(mg/off-kg)»
0.824
BPT
Regu1atory
Monthly
Average
Ni Discharge
(mg/off-kg)*
0.545
BPT
A11owab1e
One-Day
Max imum
Ni Discharge
for Plant X
(rug/day)
49,4
BPT
A 11owab!e
Mont h1y
Average
Ni Discharge
for Plant X
(mg/day)
32.7
-J
*These values are taken from Table IX-25 (Refractory Metals Forming Subcategory),
00
~•Allowable discharge concentrations (mg/1) can be calculated by dividing these values by the plant's
daily process water discharge (liters/day).

-------
Table IX-32
ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE CALCULATIONS FOR LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH
FORMING PLANT V IN EXAMPLE 2 (TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS)
Waste Stream
Lead Shot Casting Contact Coaling
Wa ter
Ave rage
Da i 1 y
Product i on
Ł off-kg/day)
1 ,000
BPT
Regu1 story
One-Day
Max i mum
TSS Discharge
(mg/a f f-kg)*
1 .53
BPT
BPT
BPT
Regu1 at o ry
Mont h1y
Average
TSS Discharge
(mg/of f-kg)*
0 . 720
Allowable	Allowable
One-Day	Monthly
Maximum	Average
TSS Discharge TSS Discharge
for Plant V for Plant Y
(mg/day)	(mg/day)
1 ,530
728
Lead Extrusion Press or Solution
Heat Treatment Contact Cooling
Wa ter
A , 200
59 . 1
20 , 1
248,220
118,020
Lead Extrusion Press Hydraulic
Fluid Leakage
4, 200
2 .26
1 . 07
9 ,492
4 , 494
-J
J*.
<Ł>
Lead Swaging Spent Emulsion	4,000
Lead Alkaline Cleaning Spent Bath	4,000
0.0726
4.92
0 . 0345
2.34
290
19,6B0
1 3B
9 , 360

-------
Table IX-32 (Continued)
allowable discharge calculations for lead-tin-bismuth
FORMING PLANT V IN EXAMPLE 2 (TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS)
BPT	BPT
BPT	BPT	Allowable	Allowable
Regulatory	Regulatory	One-Day	Monthly
Average One-Day	Monthly	Maximum	Average
Daily Maximum	Average	TSS Discharge	TSS Discharge
Production TSS Discharge	TSS Discharge	for Plant V	for Plant V
Waste Stream (off-kg/day) (mg/off-kg)*	(mg/off-kg)*	(mg/day)	(mg/day)
Lead Alkaline Cleaning Rinsewater 4,000 96.8	46.0	387,200	184,000
316,740
or 0.317
kg/day
(0.098
1b/day)
-J 	
tn
O	*These values are taken from Table IX-13 (Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming Subcategory).
•~Allowable discharge concentrations (mg/1) can be calculated by dividing these values by the plant's
daily process water discharge (liters/day).
666,412
or 0.666
kg/day
( 1 .47
1b/day)

-------
Tat) 1 e IX-33
ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE CALCULATIONS FOR NICKEL-COBALT AND TITANIUM
FORMING PLANT Z IN EXAMPLE 3 (NICKEL)

-------
Table IX-33 (Continued)
ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE CALCULATIONS FOR NICKEL-COBALT AND TITANIUM
FORMING PLANT Z IN EXAMPLE 3 (NICKEL)
Waste Stream
Titanium Wet Air Pollution
Control Scrubber Blowdown
Average
Da i 1 y
Product ion
(off-kg/day)
10
BPT
Regulatory
One-Day
Max 1 mum
Ni Discharge
(mg/off-kg)*
4.11
BPT
Regu1atory
Month 1y
Average
Ni Discharge
(mg/off-kg)*
2.72
BPT
A 1]owab1e
One-Day
Max i mum
Ni Discharge
for Plant Z
(mg/day)
41
BPT
A 1 1owab1e
Month 1y
Average
Ni Discharge
for Plant Z
(mg/day)
27
Titanium Miscellaneous Waste-
water Sources
0.11
0.062
0.041
256,196
169,203
U1
w
or 0.256
kg/day
(0.565
1b/day)
or 0.169
kg/day
(0.373
1b/day)
~These values are taken from Tables IX-19 and IX-28 (Nieke 1-Coba11 Forming and Titanium
Forming Subcategories, respectively).
••Allowable discharge concentrations (mg/1) can be calculated by dividing these values by the plant's
dally process water discharge (liters/day).

-------
Table IX-34
ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE CALCULATIONS FOR NICKEL-COBALT AND TITANIUM
FORMING PLANT Z IN EXAMPLE 3 (CYANIDE)
Waste Stream
Nickel Forging Contact Cooling
Water
Ave rage
Da i 1 y
Production
(off-kg/day)
500
BPT
Regu1 at ory
One-Day
Max i mum
CM D i scharge
(mg/off-kg)*
BPT
Regu)atory
Month 1y
Average
CN Discharge
(mg/off-kg)*
BPT
A 11owable
One-Day
Ma x i mum
CN Discharge
for P1 ant Z
(mg/day)
BPT
A 1 louable
Month 1 y
Ave rage
CN D i scharge
for Plant Z
(mg/day)
Nickel Surface Treatment Spent
Bath
400
-J
U)
Nickel Surface Treatment Rinse-
water
Nickel Surface Treatment Wet
Air Pollution Control Blowdown
Nickel Miscellaneous Wastewater
Sources
Titanium Forging Contact
Coo 11ng Wat er
Titanium Surface Treatment
Spent Bath
Titanium Surface Treatment
Rinsewater
400
400
500
100
10
10
0.5B0
0.061
8.47
0.240
0.025
3.51
0
58
0.61
84. 7
24
0. 25
35 . 1

-------
Table IX-34 (Continued)
ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE CALCULATIONS FOR NICKEL-COBALT AND TITANIUM
FORMING PLANT Z IN EXAMPLE 3 (CYANIDE)
Waste Stream
Titanium Wet Air Pollution
Control Scrubber Blowdown
Average
Dai 1 y
Product i on
(off-kg/day)
10
BPT
Regu1atory
One-Day
Max i mum
CN Discharge
(mg/off-kg)*
0.621
BPT
Regu1 at ory
Month 1y
Average
CN Discharge
(mg/off-kg)*
0. 257
BPT
A 11owab1e
One-Day
Max imum
CN Discharge
for PI ant Z
(mg/day)
6.21
BPT
A 11owab1e
Month t y
Average
CN Discharge
for PI ant Z
(mg/day)
2.57
Titanium Miscellaneous Waste-
water Sources
0. 1
0.010
0.004
1 .0
0.4
150.5
62.3
«v]

-------
Chemical Addilion
Removal if OH
,m<| Creaa*
Chemlcal
Ad
-------
SECTION X
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
The effluent limitations in this section apply to existing direct
dischargers. A direct discharger is a facility which discharges
or may discharge pollutants into waters of the United States.
These effluent limitations, which were to be achieved by July 1,
1984, are based on the best control and treatment technology
employed by a specific point source within the industrial
category or subcategory, or by another industry where it is
readily transferable. Emphasis is placed on additional treat-
ment techniques applied at the end of the treatment systems
currently employed for BPT, as well as improvements in reagent
control, process control, and treatment technology optimization.
The factors considered in assessing best available technology
economically achievable (BAT) include the age of equipment and
facilities involved, the process employed, process changes,
nonwater quality environmental impacts (including energy require-
ments), and the costs of application of such technology. BAT
technology represents the best existing economically achievable
performance of plants of various ages, sizes, processes, or other
characteristics. Those categories whose existing performance is
uniformly inadequate may require a transfer of BAT from a
different subcategory or category. BAT may include process
changes or internal controls, even when these are not
common industry practice. This level of technology also
considers those plant processes and control and treatment
technologies which at pilot plants and other levels have
demonstrated both technological performance and economic
viability at a level sufficient to justify investigation.
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO BAT
The Agency reviewed and evaluated a wide range of technology
options to ensure that the most effective technologies were used
as the basis of BAT. To accomplish this, the Agency examined
three technology alternatives which could be applied to
nonferrous metals forming as BAT options and which would
represent substantial progress toward prevention of
pollution of the environment above and beyond progress
achievable by BPT. The statutory assessment of BAT considers
costs, but does not require a balancing of costs against
effluent reduction benefits [see Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 11
ERC 2149 (D.C. Cir. 1978)]; however, in assessing the proposed
BAT, the Agency has given substantial weight to the
reasonableness of costs.
1757

-------
EPA evaluated three levels of BAT for the category at proposal.
Option 1 is BPT treatment. Option 2 is BPT treatment plus flow
reduction and in-plant controls. Option 3 provides additional
levels of treatment, including filtration. Options 1, 2, and 3
technologies are, in general, equally applicable to all the
subcategories of the nonferrous metals forming category Each
treatment produces similar concentrations of pollutants in the
effluent from all subcategories. Mass limitations derived from
these options will vary, however, because of the impact of
different production normalized wastewater discharge flow
allowances.
In summary form, the treatment technologies which were considered
as BAT for the nonferrous metals forming category are:
Option 1 (Figure X-l):
Oil skimming,
Lime and settle (chemical precipitation of metals
followed by sedimentation), and
pH adjustment; and, where required,
Iron coprecipitation,
Chemical emulsion breaking,
Ammonia steam stripping,
Cyanide removal, and
Hexavalent chromium reduction.
(This option is the technology on which BPT is based.)
Option 2 (Figure X-l):
Option 1, plus process wastewater flow reduction by the
following methods:
Contact cooling water recycle through cooling towers
or holding tanks.
Air pollution control scrubber liquor recycle.
Countercurrent cascade rinsing or other water effi-
cient methods applied to surface treatment rinses
and alkaline cleaning rinses.
Use of periodic batch discharges or decreased flow
rate for molten salt rinse.
- Recycle of equipment cleaning wastewater, tumbling
and burnishing wastewater, and other wastewater
streams through holding tanks with provision for
suspended solids removal, if necessary.
Option 3 (Figure X-2):
Option 2, plus multimedia filtration at the end
of the Option 2 treatment train. In addition to
filtration, ion exchange was added to the end-of-
pipe treatment train for the removal of gold, where
necessary.
1758

-------
Option 1
Option 1 is the BPT end-of-pipe treatment technology. This
treatment train depicted in Figure X-l consists of preliminary
treatment, when necessary, consisting of chemical emulsion
breaking and oil skimming, ammonia steam stripping, cyanide
removal, and hexavalent chromium reduction. The effluent from
preliminary treatment is combined with other wastewaters for
combined treatment by oil skimming and lime and settle Iron
coprecipitation is added to the end-of-pipe treatment train when
necessary to remove molybdenum.
Option 2
Option 2, depicted in Figure X-2, builds upon the BPT end-of-pipe
treatment technologies by incorporating in-process flow reduction
measures. The flow reduction measures eliminate some wastewater
streams and concentrate the pollutants in others. Treatment of
more concentrated streams allows a greater net removal of
pollutants. Additionally, treating a reduced flow reduces
costs. Methods for reducing process wastewater generation or
discharge include:
Contact Cooling Water Recycle Through Cooling Towers or Holding
Tanks. The cooling and recycle of contact cooling water from
heat treatment and casting operations was reported for 50
operations in this category. Contact cooling water recycle is
also demonstrated by nonferrous metals manufacturing plants,
aluminum forming plants, copper forming plants, and metal molding
and casting (foundry) plants. The function of contact cooling
water is to remove heat quickly from the nonferrous metals.
Therefore, the principal requirements of the water are that it be
cool and not contain dissolved solids at a level that would cause
water marks or other surface imperfections. There is sufficient
industry experience to assure the success of recycle using
cooling towers or heat exchangers. For operations with low
cooling water flow rates, holding tanks should be sufficient to
recycle the cooling water. Although no cooling water was
reported to be discharged from 26 operations by reason of
continued recycle, some blowdown or periodic cleaning is likely
to be needed to prevent a build-up of dissolved and suspended
solids.
Scrubber Liquor Recycle~ The recycle of scrubber liquor from wet
air pollution control devices was reported for 32 operations in
this category. The scrubber water picks up particulates and
fumes from the air. Scrubbers and other wet air pollution
control devices have relatively low water quality requirements
for efficient operation, accordingly, recycle of scrubber liquor
is appropriate for nonferrous metals forming operations. For
eight operations, complete recycle of scrubber water with no
discharge is practiced. However, a blowdown or periodic cleaning
may be necessary in some cases to prevent the build-up of
dissolved and suspended solids.
1759

-------
Countercurrent Cascade Rinsing Applied to Surface Treatment
Rinses and Alkaline Cleaning Rinses. Countercurrent cascade
rinsing is a mechanism commonly encountered in nonferrous metals
processing operations (see Section VII). The cleanest water is
used for final rinsing of an item, preceded by rinse stages using
water with progressively more contaminants to partially rinse the
item. Fresh make-up water is added to the final rinse stage, and
contaminated rinse water is discharged from the initial rinse
stage. The make-up water for all but the final rinse stage is
from the following stage.
The countercurrent cascade rinsing process substantially improves
efficiencies of water use for rinsing. For example, the use of a
two-stage countercurrent cascade rinse can reduce water usage to
less than one-tenth of that needed for a single-stage rinse to
achieve the same level of product cleanliness. Similarly, a
three-stage countercurrent cascade rinse would reduce water usage
to approximately one-hundredth. Through information supplied by
plants in dcps or obtained during sampling visits by the Agency,
countercurrent cascade rinsing is known to be practiced at six
nonferrous metals forming plants. Most plants did not provide
sufficient information in the dcp to classify the type of rinsing
performed in their operations. Nonetheless, there is sufficient
industry experience in countercurrent cascade rinsing to assume
that a large number of plants use such rinsing operations. The
installation of countercurrent cascade rinsing is applicable to
existing nonferrous metals forming plants because surface
treatment and alkaline cleaning operations are usually
discrete operations and space is generally available for
additional rinse tanks following these operations.
Periodic Batch Discharge or Decreased Flow Rate Applied to Molten
Salt Rinse. Discharge flows from molten salt rinrs operations
can be significantly reduced by discharging the rinse on a
periodic basis instead of continuously or by decreasing the rinse
application rate. These flow reduction techniques are
demonstrated at three plants in the nickel-cobalt forming
subcategory, one plant in the refractory metals forming
subcategory, and one plant in the zirconium-hafnium forming
subcategory.
Recycle of Wastewater Through Holding Tanks With Suspended Solids
Removal if Necessary. Discharge flows from a number of
nonferrous metals forming operations can be significantly
reduced by recycle through holding tanks. For streams with
high concentrations of suspended solids, it may be necessary to
add a suspended solids removal step such as filtration,
centrifugation, or gravity settling to the recycle circuit.
The recycle of wastewater after suspended solids removal is
demonstrated at plants in the nonferrous metals forming
category and in other point source categories such as
battery manufacturing. For instance, at one nonferrous metals
forming plant, over 90 percent of the wastewater from a tumbling
operation is recycled through a centrifuge and holding tank. A
few plants reported total recycle of some waste streams,
1760

-------
e.g., wastewater from one tumbling operation is completely
recycled with no discharge. Although total recycle was
reported by some plants, the Agency believes a blowdown or
periodic cleaning may be necessary to prevent the build-up of
dissolved solids and suspended solids in the recycle circuit.
Option 3
Option 3, depicted in Figure X-2, builds upon the technical
requirements of Option 2 by adding conventional mixed-media
filtration after the Option 2 technology treatment train. Ion
exchange is added to the end-of-pipe treatment train for the
precious metals forming subcategory for removal of gold and other
precious metals.
The Agency briefly considered a fourth option, filtration without
flow reduction. This option would have been equivalent to Option
1 with the addition of conventional mixed-media filtration after
the Option 1 technology treatment train. However, flow reduction
greatly reduces the size of the wastewater treatment system
required, and hence its costs. Simultaneously, the efficiency of
the treatment system is increased. For these reasons, the Agency
concluded that filtration without flow reduction was not a
practicable operation. Also, greater pollutant removals could be
achieved by implementing in-process flow reduction prior to end-
of-pipe treatments, including multimedia filtration. For waste
streams which cannot be flow-reduced, this option is equivalent
to Option 3.
Industry Cost and Environmental Benefits of the Various Treatment
Options
The Agency estimated the costs and benefits of the implementation
of each of the options described above in order to evaluate their
economic achievability. The capital and annual costs of each
option were estimated for each subcategory. Additional plant-
specific information collected after proposal permitted the
Agency to expand the scope of cost estimation from model plants
representative of a costing group (the proposal cost methodology)
to a plant-by-plant approach where compliance cost estimates are
prepared for each plant. Plant-by-plant cost estimates were
prepared for 149 discharging plants in the nonferrous metals
forming category, including the 37 direct discharge plants.
Total subcategory cost estimates are presented in Table X-l for
each option. The cost estimates for direct dischargers are
presented in Table X-2. All costs are based on March 1982
dollars.
The cost methodology has been described in detail in Section
VIII. As discussed in Section VIII, the plant-by-plant costs
were estimated in one of three ways: (1) through use of a
computer cost estimation model, (2) through use of cost curves,
or (3) through scaling of costs from other similar facilities.
Selecting the appropriate method for each plant was based primar-
ily on the quality and timeliness of the information available
)
1761

-------
for that plant. Capital and annual costs are based on treatment
of the total flow of process wastewater from each plant, regard-
less of its source. The cost of compliance with the nonferrous
metals forming effluent limitations and standards was then
determined as a portion of the total plant cost. Costs were also
apportioned between subcategories when a plant had operations
associated with more than one nonferrous metals forming subcate-
gory. This costing methodology accounts for the fact that many
nonferrous metals forming plants also generate wastewater from
other industrial categories or generate wastewater from opera-
tions associated with more than one nonferrous metals forming
subcategory. The costs for the 149 nonferrous metals forming
plants were extrapolated to estimate the compliance cost for the
additional nine plants for which detailed information was not
available.
Capital and annual cost data for the selected treatment processes
were obtained from three sources (1) equipment manufacturers, (2)
literature data, and (3) cost data from existing plants. The
major source of equipment costs was contacts with equipment
vendors, while the majority of annual cost information was
obtained from the literature. Additional cost and design data
were obtained from data collection portfolios, when possible.
Pollution reduction benefit estimates were calculated for each
option for each subcategory. Total subcategory benefit estimates
are presented in Tables X-3 through X-ll. Benefits for direct
dischargers are presented in Tables X-ll through X-20. Benefits
for indirect dischargers are presented in Section XII.
The first step in the calculation of pollutant reduction benefit
estimates was the calculation of production normalized raw waste
values. The sampling data collected during the field sampling
program and summarized in Section V were used to characterize the
waste streams in each nonferrous metals forming subcategory. At
each sampled facility, the sampling data were converted into
production normalized values (i.e., mass of pollutants generated
per mass of product manufactured) for each waste stream. The
production normalized values, referred to as raw waste values in
this document, were used to estimate the mass of pollutants
generated in the subcategory.
The raw waste values for each pollutant were calculated by
multiplying the pollutant concentration (mg/1) by the correspond-
ing waste stream flow (1/unit time) and dividing this result by
the corresponding production (kkg/unit time) associated with
generation of the waste stream. This calculation was performed
for each raw wastewater sample. All raw waste values for a given
waste stream were then averaged to determine the average raw
waste value for the pollutant in that waste stream. The average
raw waste value was used as the basis for estimating the mass of
pollutant generated in the waste stream (kg/yr), also referred to
as the raw waste generation. Average raw waste values were
calculated for all waste streams for which sampling data were
available at the time the benefit calculations were performed.
When sampling data were not available for a given waste stream,
1762

-------
the raw waste values for a stream with similar water quality
characteristics were used (see Section V of this document). The
raw waste values used in the pollutant reduction benefit calcula-
tions are included in the public record supporting this regula-
tion.
Pollutant reduction benefits were calculated for direct and
indirect dischargers. The benefits for direct and indirect
dischargers were then added to determine total subcategory
benefits. The calculation of pollutant reduction benefits
involves three basic steps: (1) calculation of raw waste genera-
tion, (2) calculation of pollutant discharges, and (3) calcula-
tion of pollutant removals. The raw waste generation (kg/yr)
associated with both direct and indirect dischargers was calcu-
lated for each pollutant for each subcategory. To determine the
total raw waste generation associated with direct or indirect
dischargers for a given pollutant, the raw waste generation of
that pollutant is determined for each waste stream in the subcat-
egory and the results for the individual waste streams are added.
The raw waste generation for individual waste streams is calcu-
lated by multiplying the total waste stream production for direct
or indirect discharge plants (kkg/yr) by the average raw waste
value for the pollutant in the waste stream (kkg/yr x mg/kkg - 1
x 106 = kg/yr).
The mass discharged (kg/yr) for each pollutant for each option
was calculated for both direct and indirect dischargers in each
subcategory. The pollutant discharge mass was calculated by
multiplying the total flow (1/yr) for those waste streams which
enter the treatment system, by the treatment effectiveness
concentration (mg/1) (Table VII-21, p. xxxx) for each pollutant
for the appropriate option. The total flow was determined by
adding the flows for each individual stream discharged to treat-
ment for the option under consideration. The flows for individ-
ual waste streams were calculated by multiplying the total direct
or indirect discharger production for the waste stream (kkg/yr)
by the production normalized regulatory flow (1/kkg) for the
stream (kkg/yr x 1/kkg = 1/yr).
The total mass of pollutant removed was calculated by subtracting
the pollutant discharge mass (kg/yr) from the raw waste genera-
tion (kg/yr).
BAT OPTION SELECTION
The Agency evaluated the compliance costs and benefits for each
of the options considered under BAT on a subcategory-by-
subcategory basis. Compliance costs and benefits for the nonfer-
rous metals forming category are presented in Tables X-l through
X-20. Both Options 2 and 3 provided additional pollutant reduc-
tion beyond that provided by Option 1, the option selected for
BPT.
1763

-------
EPA has selected Option 3 as the basis for BAT effluent limita-
tions in four subcategories and Option 2 as the basis for five
subcategories. Option 1 was selected as the basis for the BAT
limitations in one subcategory. Table X-23 presents a summary of
the selected BAT option for each subcategory.
Option 3 has been selected as the basis for the BAT limitations
for four subcategories because it increases pollutant removals
over BPT and Option 2, and the incremental removals are high in
relationship to the incremental costs BAT limitations for the
following subcategories are based on Option 3: nickel-cobalt
forming, refractory metals forming, uranium forming, and zinc
forming. Option 3 builds upon the technologies established for
BPT. Flow reduction measures and multimedia filtration are the
principal mechanisms for reducing pollutant discharges at this
option. Flow reduction measures concentrate the pollutants in
wastewater streams. Treatment of a more concentrated stream
allows a greater net removal of pollutants. In addition, flow
reduction lowers the cost of treatment by reducing the flow and
hence pumping and chemical costs and the size of treatment
equipment. In many cases, the costs for reducing a wastewater
flow and treating the reduced flow with lime, settle, and multi-
media filtration are less than the costs of treating a non-
reduced wastewater flow by lime and settle alone. All of the
flow reduction measures included in BAT are demonstrated in the
nonferrous metals forming category as well as other point source
categories.
Filtration is demonstrated at one plant in the nonferrous metals
forming category and numerous plants in other point source
categories as well.
Option 2 has been selected as the basis for BAT limitations for
the following subcategories: lead-tin-bismuth forming, magnesium
forming, precious metals forming, titanium forming, and
zirconium-hafnium forming. Lime and settle treatment is
particularly effective for these subcategories. When it is
applied after flow reduction, the amount of toxic metal
pollutants remaining in the wastewater is not significant. The
application of filters after lime and settle treatment at lead-
tin-bismuth forming, magnesium forming, precious metals forming,
and zirconium-hafnium forming direct dischargers would remove
less than 2 kg/yr of additional toxic metal pollutants, at an
incremental cost of $233,790. The addition of filters to the
end-of-pipe treatment train for titanium forming direct
dischargers would result in the removal of an additional 18.5
kg/yr of toxic metals, at an incremental cost of $122,000. EPA
believes that these costs are not justified by the amount or
toxicity of the additional pollutants removed.
Option 1 has been selected as the basis for BAT limitations for
the metal powders subcategory. None of the direct dischargers in
this subcategory have any of the processes for which additional
flow reduction measures above those included in the Option 1
1764

-------
model technology were added at Option 2. Since the Agency cannot
show any incremental pollutant removal with the application of
additional flow reduction technologies to direct dischargers, the
BAT limitations are based on Option 1. Thus, BPT and BAT limita-
tions for the metal powders subcategory are equal.
REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
In each nonferrous metals forming subcategory, the raw wastewater
concentrations from individual operations and the subcategory as
a whole were examined to select those pollutant parameters found
at frequencies and concentrations warranting regulation. In
general, in each subcategory EPA has selected for regulation the
two or three priority metals present at the highest concentra-
tions in the raw waste, because in removing these two or three
priority metals, the lime and settle treatment system also
provides adequate removal of the priority and nonconventional
metal pollutants present at lower concentrations. By
establishing limitations for only two or three priority metal
pollutants instead of all priority metals present at treatable
concentrations, dischargers should attain the same degree of
control as they would have been required to achieve had all
priority metal pollutants been directly limited, with fewer
monitoring and recordkeeping requirements.
In each subcategory, the metal pollutant present in the highest
concentration is the metal being subjected to the forming
operations. In several subcategories the metal pollutant present
in the greatest amount is a priority pollutant (nickel in the
nickel-cobalt forming subcategory, for example). In other
subcategories, the metal pollutant present in greatest amount is
a nonconventional pollutant (titanium in the titanium forming
subcategory, for example). In general, EPA is not regulating
nonconventional metal pollutants, even when they are the metal
being formed. The Agency has concluded that regulation of just
the priority metal pollutants will in most cases ensure the
nonconventional metal pollutants are removed. Further,
establishing regulations for only the priority metal pollutants
allows plants greater flexibility in combining wastewater streams
for treatment which are covered by more than one category or
subcategory, because the pollutants controlled are more likely to
be the same. However, EPA is regulating one nonconventional
metal pollutant, molybdenum, in the refractory metals forming and
uranium forming subcategories. A lime and settle system alone
will not remove molybdenum adequately; it is necessary to add
iron to coprecipitate molybdenum. Molybdenum is present in
significant concentrations at refractory metals plants because it
is one of the refractory metals being formed. It is also present
in significant concentrations at uranium forming plants because
it is used as a major alloying agent in depleted uranium alloys.
As discussed in Section VII, maintaining the correct pH in the
treatment system is important to assure adequate removal of
priority metal pollutants.	The Agency believes that by
maintaining the correct pH range for removal of the regulated
1765

-------
pollutants, removal of the other priority and nonconventional
metal pollutants not specifically regulated should be assured.
The Agency believes that the mechanism and the chemistry of
priority metals removal in a lime and settle system are the same
for all of the priority metals. This theoretical analysis is
supported empirically by performance data of lime and settle
systems collected by the Agency The theoretical background
metal priority pollutants removal as well as the performance have
been presented in Section VII.
The Agency is also regulating certain priority and nonconven-
tional pollutants which must be removed by preliminary treatment
prior to combined wastewater treatment by lime and settle.
Hexavalent chromium is present in the surface treatment baths and
rinses from some subcategories. Hexavalent chromium must be
reduced to the trivalent form prior to combined end-of-pipe
treatment, since only the trivalent form of chromium is removed
by lime and settle treatment Therefore, chromium is
specifically regulated in some subcategories because preliminary
chromium reduction is needed to ensure the removal of this
pollutant when it is present in the hexavalent form. Total
cyanide is regulated in subcategories where it is present at
treatable concentrations, preliminary cyanide precipitation is
needed to remove this pollutant from raw wastewater Ammonia is
regulated in subcategories where it was found at treatable
concentrations; preliminary ammonia steam stripping is needed to
remove the nonconventional pollutant ammonia.
Priority organic pollutants were found in two nonferrous metals
forming waste streams. N-nitrosodiphenylamine was found in a
significant amount in a sample of tube reducing lubricant. In
addition, methylene chloride and toluene were found in the
rinse which followed a solvent cleaning bath which contains
these compounds. The Agency is requiring zero discharge from
these wastewater streams. This requirement affects three
subcategories: nickel-cobalt, titanium, and zirconium-hafnium.
Tube reducing lubricants are currently hauled, rather than
discharged by the majority of plants that generate this waste.
Since they tend to be small in volume and highly concentrated,
the Agency has concluded this is the most practical disposal
alternative. These waste streams can be most economically
handled by intercepting each such waste stream before
mixing it with other process wastewaters and disposing of
it as a solid waste. Treatment of the wastes with
activated carbon after mixing it with other process
wastewaters would be much more expensive. However, the
Agency has provided an alternative to contract hauling for
plants regulated by the nickel-cobalt forming or zirconium-
hafnium forming subcategories. The Agency has provided no
allowance for the discharge of process wastewater pollutants if
the following conditions are met. Once each year the facility
owner or operator, (1) demonstrates the absence of N-nitrosodi-n-
propylamine, N-nitroso-dimethylamine and N-nitrosodiphenylamine
by sampling and analyzing spent tube reducing lubricant; and (2)

-------
certifies that the tube reducing lubricants do not contain amine
compounds, nitrates or nitrite.
Solvents are commonly used by nonferrous metals forming companies
to clean oils from the surface of the metal; these processes are
almost always dry. However, at one plant sampled after proposal,
the Agency observed and sampled an organic solvent cleaning
process that involves the generation of contaminated rinse. EPA
is establishing a zero discharge allowance for this waste
stream. Other plants perform the same process without generating
any wastewater, by using solvents which need not be followed by a
water rinse or by using cleaning agents other than solvents
(e.g., detergents). EPA has based the zero discharge requirement
on a process change which should achieve the same product quality
as a water rinse at very little expense. Instead of operating a
solvent bath followed by a water rinse, this plant can convert
the water rinse into a second solvent cleaning step, or eliminate
the use of solvents entirely Treatment of this wastewater with
activated carbon would be prohibitively expensive.
The Agency found 1,1,1-trichloroethane in small amounts in the
nickel-cobalt, refractory metals, zirconium-hafnium and metal
powders subcategories The Agency also found chlorodibromo-
methane, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, and di-n-butyl phthalate in
small amounts in zinc forming process wastewater. From the
available data, the Agency believes these pollutants are unique
to those sources and are not present as an integral part of the
nonferrous forming process. Therefore, EPA is not regulating
these pollutants. However, the permit writer should consider the
possible presence of priority organic pollutants in nonferrous
metals forming wastewater and, if found, should control them
under this regulation on the basis of best professional judgment
Regulation of priority metal pollutants does not ensure that
fluoride will be adequately removed from raw wastewater since
this pollutant precipitates from the lime and settle treatment
system as calcium fluoride. Control of the metal pollutants
requires the addition of an alkali to raise the pH and cause the
metals to precipitate as hydroxides. As stated in Section VII,
page xxxx, this alkali can be one of several agents. However,
to remove fluoride and metals in the same treatment system, the
alkali most commonly used is lime because it also contributes
calcium that causes precipitation of fluoride. When fluoride is
present at higher concentrations than metal pollutants, the
addition of excess calcium may be necessary to remove fluoride to
the treatment effectiveness concentration shown in Table VII-21
(page	). Therefore, fluoride is specifically regulated in
the six subcategories in which it was found at treatable concen-
trations .
1767

-------
The conventional pollutant parameters oil and grease, total
suspended solids, and pH are not regulated under BAT. These
pollutants parameters are regulated under the best conventional
technology (BCT) effluent limitations. As discussed in Section
XIII, the BCT effluent limitations guidelines will be developed
after EPA promulgates a final BCT methodology.
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Discharge Flows
Table X-24 lists the BAT regulatory flows for waste streams in
the lead-tin-bismuth forming subcategory. All waste streams
which received a BPT flow allowance also receive an allowance
under BAT. The regulatory flows for four waste streams have been
decreased at BAT based on the application of in-process flow
reduction control measures. The four flow reduced waste streams
are: extrusion press and solution heat treatment contact cooling
water, semi-continuous ingot casting contact cooling water, shot
forming wet air pollution control blowdown, and alkaline cleaning
rinse. Calculation of the BAT regulatory flows for these four
flow reduced streams is discussed below. The BAT regulatory
flows for all other waste streams in the subcategory are equal to
the BPT regulatory flow discussed in Section IX.
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Extrusion Press and Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling Water. The BAT regulatory flow for this stream
is 144 l/kkg (34.6 gal/ton). The BAT regulatory flpw is 90
percent reduction of the BPT flow, based on recycle 'through a
cooling tower or holding tank. Holding tanks are used in place
of cooling towers for streams with low flow rates. Extrusion
press and solution heat treatment contact cooling water from
three operations in this subcategory is completely recycled with
no discharge while cooling water from a fourth operation is
recycled and periodically contract hauled. The recycle of heat
treatment contact cooling water is demonstrated in other
nonferrous metals forming subcategories and other point source
categories as well. Although the cooling water from three
operations in this subcategory was reported to be completely
recycled with no discharge or blowdown, the Agency believes a
periodic discharge or bleed stream may be needed to prevent the
build-up of dissolved solids in the recycle circuit.
Therefore, EPA has provided a discharge allowance equal to 10
percent of the BPT flow for this waste stream.
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Semi-Continuous Ingot Casting Contact Cooling
Water. The BAT regulatory flow for this stream is 2.94 l/kkg
(0.70 gal/ton). The BAT regulatory flow is a 90 percent
reduction of the BPT flow, based on recycle through a cooling
tower or holding tank. The recycle of casting contact cooling
water is demonstrated in the nonferrous metals forming category
as well as other point source categories.
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Shot Forming Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown.
The BAT regulatory flow for this stream is 5878 l/kkg (14.07
1768

-------
gal/ton). The BAT regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of
the BPT flow, based on recycle through a holding tank. The
recycle of wet air pollution control wastewater is demonstrated
in the nonferrous metals forming category as well as other point
source categories.
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Alkaline Cleaning Rinse. The BAT regulatory
flow for this stream is 236 1/kkg (56.5 gal/ton). The BAT
regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of the BPT flow, based
on the application of countercurrent cascade rinsing with sprays.
Although countercurrent cascade rinsing is not used in any of the
four alkaline cleaning rinse operations reported for this
subcategory this technology is demonstrated at other nonferrous
metals forming plants and in other point source categories as
well.
Regulated Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BAT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they were
considered. The pollutants selected for regulation under
BAT are antimony and lead. These two pollutants were the only
priority pollutants considered for regulation in this
subcategory.
Treatment Train
The BAT model end-of-pipe treatment technology for the lead-tin-
bismuth forming subcategory is lime and settle. This is the same
end-of-pipe technology as BPT, with the addition of measures to
reduce the flows from selected waste streams. The end-of-pipe
treatment configuration is shown in Figure X-2. The combination
of in-process control and end-of-pipe technology increases the
removals of pollutants over that achieved by BPT and is
demonstrated and technically achievable.
Effluent Limitations
Table VII-21 (page xxxx) presents the treatment effectiveness
corresponding to the BAT model treatment train for pollutant
parameters considered for regulation in the lead-tin-bismuth
forming subcategory. Effluent concentrations (one-day maximum
and ten-day average values) are multiplied by the BAT regulatory
flows summarized in Table X-24 to calculate the mass of pollutant
allowed to be discharged per mass of product. The results of
these calculations are shown in Table X-25.
Benefits
In establishing BAT, EPA considered the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievability. As shown in Table X-3, the application of BAT
level treatment to the total lead-tin-bismuth forming subcategory
will remove approximately 6,520 kg/yr (14,345 lbs/yr) of
pollutants including 249 kg/yr (548 lbs/yr) of priority
1769

-------
pollutants. As shown in Table X-13, the application of BAT to
direct dischargers only will remove approximately 1,710
kg/yr (3,762 lbs/yr) of pollutants including 49 kg/yr (108
lbs/yr) of priority pollutants. Since there are only three
direct discharge plants in this subcategory, total subcategory
capital and annual costs and direct discharger capital .and
annual costs will not be reported in this document in order
to protect confidentiality claims. The Agency has determined
that the BAT limitations are economically achievable.
MAGNESIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Discharge Flows
Table X-26 lists the BAT regulatory flows for waste streams in
the magnesium forming subcategory. All waste streams which
received a BPT flow allowance also receive an allowance under
BAT. The regulatory flows for three waste streams have been
decreased at BAT based on the application of in-process flow
reduction control measures The three flow reduced waste streams
are: forging contact cooling water, forging equipment cleaning
wastewater, and surface treatment rinse. Calculation of the BAT
regulatory flows for these three flow reduced streams is
discussed below. The BAT regulatory flows for all other waste
streams in the subcategory are equal to the BPT regulatory flows
discussed in Section IX.
Magnesium Forging Contact Cooling Water. The BAT regulatory flow
for this stream is 289 1/kkg (69.3 gal/ton). The BAT regulatory
flow is a 90 percent reduction of the BPT flow, based on recycle
through a holding tank or cooling tower. Holding tanks are used
in place of cooling towers for streams with low flow rates. The
recycle of forging contact cooling water is demonstrated in one
operation in this subcategory where total recycle of the cooling
water with no discharge was reported. Contact cooling water
recycle is also demonstrated in other nonferrous forming
subcategories as well as other point source categories.
Although total recycle with no discharge was reported for one
forging operation in this subcategory, the Agency believes that
a periodic blowdown or bleed stream of cooling water may be
necessary to prevent the build-up of dissolved solids in the
recycle circuit. Therefore, EPA has provided a discharge
allowance equal to 10 percent of the BPT flow for this waste
stream.
Magnesium Forging Equipment Cleaning Wastewater. The BAT
regulatory flow for this stream is 3.99 1/kkg (0.959 gal/ton).
The BAT regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of the BPT
flow, based on recycle through a holding tank with provision
for removal of suspended solids, if necessary, by filtration,
gravity settling, or another suspended solids removal step. The
recycle of waste-water through holding tanks with suspended
solids . removal if necessary is demonstrated in the
1770

-------
nonferrous metals forming category as well as other point
source categories.
Magnesium Surface Treatment Rinse. The BAT regulatory flow for
this stream is 1,890 1/kkg (452 gal/ton). The BAT regulatory
flow is a 90 percent reduction of the BPT flow, based on the
application of countercurrent cascade rinsing. This technology
is demonstrated in the nonferrous metals forming category and
other point source categories.
Regulated Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BAT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they were
considered. The only priority pollutants considered for
regulate were total chromium and zinc. Total chromium and
zinc selected for regulation under BAT along with the
nonconventionals pollutants ammonia and fluoride. Although
effluent limitations guidelines and standards for magnesium
were proposed,	no limitations for magnesium were
established in the final regulation. This is because
regulation of the priority metal pollutants chromium and zinc
should ensure that magnesium is removed. The technology
required for removal of chromium and zinc (lime and settle) will
also remove magnesium.
Treatment Train
The BAT model end-of-pipe treatment technology for the magnesium
forming subcategory is lime and settle. This is the same end-of-
pipe technology as BPT, with the addition of measures to reduce
the flows from selected waste streams. The end-of-pipe treatment
configuration is shown in Figure X-2. The combination of in-
process control and end-of-pipe technology increases the removals
of pollutants over that achieved by BPT and is demonstrated and
technically feasible.
Effluent Limitations
Table VIl-21 (page xxxx) presents the treatment effectiveness
corresponding to the BAT model treatment train for pollutant
parameters considered for regulation in the magnesium forming
subcategory. Effluent concentrations (one-day maximum and ten-
day average values) are multiplied by the BAT regulatory flows
summarized in Table X-26 to calculate the mass of pollutant
allowed to be discharged per mass of product. The results of
these calculations are shown in Table X-27. Although no
limitations have been established for magnesium, Table X-27
includes magnesium mass discharge limitations attainable using
the BAT model technology. These limitations are presented
for the guidance of permit writers. Only daily maximum
limitations are presented, based on the detection limit for
magnesium (0.10 mg/1), because lime and settle treatment was
determined to remove magnesium to below the level of analytical
quantification. The attainable monthly average discharge is
1771

-------
expected to be lower than the one-day maximum limitation, but
since it would be impossible to monitor for compliance with a
lower level, no monthly average has been presented.	The
limitation table lists all the pollutants which were
considered for regulation.	Those specifically regulated
are marked with an asterisk.
l
Benefits
In establishing BAT, EPA considered the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievability. As shown in Table X-4, the application of BAT
level treatment to the total magnesium forming subcategory will
remove approximately 34,100 kg/yr (75,020 lbs/yr) of pollutants
including 16,900 kg/yr (37,180 lbs/yr) of priority pollutants.
As shown in Table X-l, the corresponding capital and annual costs
(1982 dollars) for this removal are $158,500 and $99,000 per
year, respectively. As shown in Table X-14, the application of
BAT to direct dischargers only will remove approximately 29,035
kg/yr (63,880 lbs/yr) of pollutants including 14,800 kg/yr
(32,560 lbs/yr) of priority pollutants. As shown in Table X-2,
the corresponding capital and annual costs (1982 dollars) for
this removal are $79,400 and $45,500, respectively. The Agency
has determined that the BAT limitations are economically
achievable.
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Discharge Flows
Table X-28 lists the BAT regulatory flows for waste streams in
the nickel-cobalt forming subcategory. All waste streams which
received a BPT flow allowance also receive an allowance under
BAT. The regulatory flows for eight waste streams have been
decreased at BAT based on the application of in-process flow
reduction control measures. The eight flow reduced waste streams
are: rolling contact cooling water, forging contact cooling
water, forging equipment cleaning wastewater, stationary casting
contact cooling water, surface treatment rinse, alkaline
cleaning rinse, molten salt rinse, and sawing or grinding
rinse. Calculation of the BAT regulatory flows for these eight
streams is discussed below. The BAT regulatory flows for all
other waste streams in the subcategory are equal to the BPT
regulatory flows discussed in Section IX.
Nickel-Cobalt Rolling Contact Cooling Water. The BAT regulatory
flow for this stream is 75.4 1/kkg (18.0 gal/ton). The BAT
regulatory flow is a 98 percent reduction of the BPT regulatory
flow, based on recycle through a cooling tower or holding tank.
Holding tanks are used in place of cooling towers for streams
with low flow rates. Ninety-eight percent recycle of rolling
contact cooling water is demonstrated in one rolling operation
from this subcategory. Total recycle of the contact cooling
water with no discharge was reported for two other operations.
Although zero discharge was reported for two operations, the
1772

-------
Agency believes a periodic discharge or bleed stream may be
needed in order to prevent the build-up of dissolved solids in
the recycle circuit. Therefore, EPA has provided a discharge
allowance equal to 2 percent of the BPT allowance for this waste
stream.
Nickel-Cobalt Forging Contact Cooling Water. The BAT regulatory
flow for forging contact cooling water is 24.5 1/kkg (5.89
gal/ton). The BAT regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of
the BPT flow, based on recycle through a cooling tower or holding
tank. Recycle of forging contact cooling water is demonstrated
by one plant in this subcategory where over 95 percent recycle is
achieved (although this plant reported discharging 53.5 1/kkg
(12.8 gal/ton)).	Contact cooling water recycle is also
demonstrated at other nonferrous forming plants as well as in
other point source categories.
Nickel-Cobalt Forging Equipment Cleaning Wastewater. The BAT
regulatory flow for this stream is 4.00 1/kkg (0.957 gal/ton).
The BAT regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of the BPT
flow, based on recycle through a holding tank with provision for
suspended solids removal, if necessary, by gravity settling,
filtration, or another suspended solids removal step. Recycle
through holding tanks with suspended solids removal when
necessary is demonstrated in the nonferrous metals forming
category and other point source categories.
Nickel-Cobalt Stationary Casting Contact Cooling Water. The BAT
regulatory flow for this waste stream is 1,210 1/kkg (290
gal/ton). The BAT regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of
the BPT flow, based on recycle through a cooling tower or holding
tank. Recycle of stationary casting contact cooling water is
demonstrated by one plant in this subcategory where total recycle
of the cooling water with no discharge was reported. Casting
contact cooling water recycle is also demonstrated at other
nonferrous metals forming plants and plants in other categories.
Although one plant in this subcategory reported total recycle
with no discharge, the Agency believes a periodic discharge or
bleed stream may be needed to prevent the build-up of dissolved
solids in the recycle loop. Therefore, EPA has provided a
discharge allowance equal to 10 percent of the BPT flow for this
waste stream.
Nickel-Cobalt Surface Treatment Rinse. The BAT regulatory flow
for surface treatment rinse is 2,360 1/kkg (565 gal/ton).
The BAT regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of the BPT
flow, based on the application of countercurrent cascade
rinsing. Countercurrent cascade rinsing is demonstrated by one
plant in this subcategory and plants in other subcategories of
this category, as well as plants in other point source
categories. Another method for reducing or eliminating the
discharge from surface treatment rinses is to recycle the
effluent from wastewater treatment to the surface treatment
rinse operation. This practice was reported by one plant in
the nickel-cobalt forming subcategory.	Reuse of surface
1773
I

-------
treatment rinse for molten salt rinsing was also reported
by one plant in this subcategory.
Nickel-Cobalt Alkaline Cleaning Rinse. The BAT regulatory flow
for alkaline cleaning rinse is 233 1/kkg (55.8 gal/ton).
The BAT regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of the BPT
flow, based on the application of countercurrent cascade
rinsing. Another method for reducing or eliminating the
discharge of alkaline cleaning rinse is to recycle wastewater
treatment effluent to the alkaline cleaning rinse operation.
This practice is demonstrated by one plant in the nickel-forming
subcategory.
Nickel-Cobalt Molten Salt Rinse. The BAT regulatory flow for
molten salt rinse is 844 1/kkg (202 gal/ton). The BAT
regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of the BPT flow, based
on the use of periodic batch discharge or decreased flow rate, as
demonstrated by three plants currently discharging at less than
the BAT regulatory flow.
Nickel-Cobalt Sawing or Grinding Rinse. The BAT regulatory flow
for this waste stream is 181 1/kkg (43.5 gal/ton). The BAT
regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of the BPT flow, based
on recycle through a holding tank with provision for removal of
fines, if necessary, by gravity settling, filtration or another
suspended solids removal step. Recycle through holding tanks
with provision for suspended solids removal when necessary is
demonstrated in this category as well as other point source
categories.
Regulated Pollutants	!
The pollutants considered for regulation under BAT aie listed in	,
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they were	'
considered. The pollutants selected for regulation under BAT are	j
total chromium, nickel, and fluoride. The priority metal
pollutants cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc, listed in Section	i
VI, are not regulated under BAT. These pollutants are expected	j
to be adequately removed by achievement of the limitations for
chromium, nickel, and fluoride.
Treatment Train
The BAT model end-of-pipe treatment technology for the
nickel-cobalt forming subcategory is lime settle and filter.
This adds filtration to the BPT end-of-pipe technology, and
in-process controls to reduce the flows from selected waste
streams. The end-of-pipe treatment configuration is shown in
Figure X-3. This combination of in-process control and end-
of-pipe technology increases the removals of pollutants over
that achieved by BPT and is demonstrated and technically
feasible.
1774
I

-------
Effluent Limitations
Table VII-21 (page xxxx) presents the treatment effectiveness
corresponding to the BAT model treatment train for pollutant
parameters considered for regulation in the nickel-cobalt forming
subcategory. Effluent concentrations (one-day maximum and ten-
day average values) are multiplied by the BAT regulatory flows
summarized in Table X-28 to calculate the mass of pollutant
allowed to be discharged per mass of product. The results of
these calculations are shown in Table X-29. Although no
limitations have been established for cadmium, copper, lead or
zinc, Table X-29 includes mass discharge limitations for these
pollutants which are attainable using the BAT model technology.
The limitation table lists all of the pollutants which were
considered for regulation. Those specifically regulated are
marked with an asterisk.
Benefits
In establishing BAT, EPA considered the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievability. As shown in Table X-5, the application of BAT
level treatment to the total nickel-cobalt forming subcategory
will remove approximately 817,000 kg/yr (1,800,000 lbs/yr) of
pollutants including 103,500 kg/yr (28,000 lbs/yr) of priority
pollutants. As shown in Table X-l, the corresponding capital and
annual costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are $4,115 million
and $2,401 million per year, respectively. As shown in Table X-
15, the application of BAT to direct dischargers only will remove
approximately 34,800 kg/yr (76,600 lbs/yr) of pollutants
including 10,950 kg/yr (24,100 lbs/yr) of priority pollutants.
As shown in Table X-2, the corresponding capital and annual costs
(1982 dollars) for this removal are $0,493 million and $0,242
million per year, respectively. The Agency has determined that
the BAT limitations are economically achievable.
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Discharge Flows
Table X-30 lists the BAT regulatory flows for waste streams in
the precious metals forming subcategory. All waste streams which
received a BPT flow allowance also receive an allowance under
BAT. The regulatory flows for eight waste streams have been
decreased at BAT based on the application of in-process flow
reduction control measures. The eight flow reduced waste streams
are: direct chill casting contact cooling water, shot casting
contact cooling water, semi-continuous and continuous casting
contact cooling water, heat treatment contact cooling water,
surface treatment rinse, alkaline cleaning rinse, alkaline
cleaning prebonding wastewater, and tumbling or burnishing
wastewater. Calculation of BAT regulatory flows for these
eight flow reduced streams is discussed below. The BAT
regulatory flows for all other waste streams in the subcategory
are equal to the BPT regulatory flows discussed in Section IX.
1775

-------
Precious Metals Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling Water. The
BAT regulatory flow for this waste stream is 1,080 1/kkg (259
gal/ton). The BAT regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of
the BPT flow, based on recycle through a cooling tower or holding
tank. Holding tanks are used in place of cooling towers for
streams with low flow rates. Recycle of direct chill casting
contact cooling water is demonstrated at one precious metals
forming plant where total recycle of the cooling water with no
discharge was reported. Casting contact cooling water recycle is
demonstrated at other nonferrous metals forming plants as well as
at plants in other point source categories. Although total
recycle with no discharge was reported by one precious metals
forming plant, the Agency believes a periodic discharge or bleed
stream may be needed to prevent the build-up of dissolved solids
in the recycle circuit. Therefore, EPA has provided a discharge
allowance equal to 10 percent of the BPT allowance for this waste
stream.
Precious Metals Shot Casting Contact Cooling Water. The BAT
regulatory flow for shot casting contact cooling water is 367
1/kkg (88.0 gal/ton). The BAT regulatory flow is a 90 percent
reduction of the BPT flow, based on recycle through a cooling
tower or holding tank. The recycle of casting contact cooling
water is thoroughly demonstrated in this category and other point
source categories.
Precious Metals Semi-Continuous and Continuous Casting Contact
Cooling Water. The BAT regulatory flow for this waste stream is
1,030 1/kkg (248 gal/ton). The BAT regulatory flow is a 90
percent reduction of the BPT flow, based on recycle through a
cooling tower or holding tank. Recycle of semi-continuous and
continuous casting contact cooling water is demonstrated at two
plants in the precious metals forming subcategory where total
recycle with no discharge of cooling water was reported. Casting
contact cooling water recycle is also demonstrated at other
nonferrous forming plants and in other point source categories.
Although two plants in this subcategory reported total recycle
with no discharge of cooling water, EPA believes a periodic
blowdown or bleed stream may be needed to prevent the build-up of
dissolved solids in the recycle circuit. Therefore, EPA has
provided a discharge allowance equal to 10 percent of the BPT
flow allowance for this waste stream.
Precious Metals Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water. The BAT
regulatory flow for heat treatment contact cooling water is 417
1/kkg (100 gal/ton). The BAT regulatory flow is a 90 percent
reduction of the BPT flow, based on recycle through a cooling
tower or holding tank. The recycle of contact cooling water is
demonstrated in several precious metals forming heat treatment
operations. In three operations, total recycle of the cooling
water with no discharge of cooling water was reported. Only
periodic discharges of contact cooling water were reported for
three other operations. Although total recycle of the cooling
water was reported for three heat treatment operations, the
1776

-------
Agency believes a periodic blowdown or bleed stream from the
recycle circuit may be necessary to prevent the build-up of
dissolved solids. Therefore, EPA has provided a discharge
allowance equal to 10 percent of the BPT flow allowance for this
waste stream.
Precious Metals Surface Treatment Rinse. The BAT regulatory flow
for surface treatment rinse is 616 1/kkg (148 gal/ton). The BAT
regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of the BPT flow,
based on two-stage countercurrent cascade	rinsing.
Countercurrent cascade rinsing was reported for two surface
treatment rinse operations in this subcategory; a three-stage
countercurrent cascade rinse was utilized in one operation while
the other operation used a two-stage countercurrent cascade
rinse. Although neither countercurrent cascade rinse operation
was achieving the BAT regulatory flow, the Agency believes that
these operations could achieve the BAT flow if better water use
practices such as a lower rinse application rate were used.
Three plants in the subcategory currently meet the BAT regulatory
flow for surface treatment rinse.
Precious Metals Alkaline Cleaning Rinse. The BAT regulatory flow
for alkaline cleaning rinse is 1,120 1/kkg (268 gal/ton).
The BAT regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of the BPT
flow, based on the application of two-stage countercurrent
cascade rinsing. Countercurrent cascade rinsing is demonstrated
in this category and other point source categories.
Precious Metals Alkaline Cleaning Prebonding Wastewater. The BAT
regulatory flow for this waste stream is 1,160 l/kkg (277
gal/ton). The BAT regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of
the BPT flow, based on counter flow between stages or recycle of
one rinse stage in power scrublines. For small scale, "by-hand"
type operations, flow reduction is based on operation of spray or
free flowing rinses only during the actual rinsing operation.
The BAT regulatory flow is currently achieved by four of the
eight reported alkaline cleaning prebonding operations.
Precious Metals Tumbling or Burnishing Wastewater. The BAT
regulatory flow for this waste stream is 1,210 1/kkg (290
gal/ton). The BAT regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of
the BPT flow, based on recycle through a holding tank with
provision for suspended solids removal, if needed, by gravity
settling, filtration or another suspended solids removal
step. Recycle of wastewater through holding tanks with
provision for suspended solids removal when necessary is
demonstrated in this category and other point source categories.
Regulated Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BAT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they were
considered. The pollutants selected for regulation under
BAT are cadmium, copper, lead, silver, and total cyanide. The
priority metal pollutants total chromium, nickel, and zinc,
1777

-------
listed in Section VI, are not specifically regulated under
BAT. These pollutants are expected to be adequately removed by
achievement of the limitations for the regulated pollutants.
Treatment Train
The BAT model end-of-pipe treatment technology for the precious
metals forming subcategory is lime and settle. This is the same
end-of-pipe technology as BPT, with the addition of measures to
reduce the flows from selected waste streams. The end-of-pipe
treatment configuration is shown in Figure X-2. This combination
of in-process control and end-of-pipe technology increases the
removals of pollutants over that achieved by BPT and is
demonstrated and technically achievable.
Effluent Limitations
Table VII-21 (page xxxx) presents the treatment effectiveness
corresponding to the BAT model treatment train for pollutant
parameters considered for regulation in the precious metals
forming subcategory. Effluent concentrations (one-day maximum
and ten-day average values) are multiplied by the BAT regulatory
flows summarized in Table X-30 to calculate the mass of pollutant
allowed to be discharged per mass of product. The results of
these calculations are shown in Table X-31. Although no
limitations have been established for chromium, nickel, or zinc,
Table X-31 includes mass discharge limitations for these
pollutants which are attainable using the BAT model
technology. These limitations are presented for the guidance
of permit writers. The limitation table lists all of the
pollutants which were considered for regulation. Those
specifically regulated are marked with an asterisk.
Benefits
In establishing BAT, EPA considered the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievability. As shown in Table X-6, the application of BAT
level treatment to the total precious metals forming subcategory
will remove approximately 15,300 kg/yr (33,700 lbs/yr) of
pollutants including 213 kg/yr (470 lbs/yr) of priority
pollutants. As shown in Table X-l, the corresponding capital and
annual costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are $1,064 million
and $0,452 million per year, respectively. As shown in Table
X-16, the application of BAT to direct dischargers only will
remove approximately 3,570 kg/yr (7,860 lbs/yr) of pollutants
including 42 kg/yr (93 lbs/yr) of priority pollutants. As shown
in Table X-2, the corresponding capital and annual costs (1982
dollars) for this removal are $0,315 million and $0,128
million per year, respectively. The Agency has determined that
the BAT limitations are economically achievable.
1778

-------
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Discharge Flows
Table X-32 lists the BAT regulatory flows for waste streams in
the refractory metals forming subcategory. All waste streams
receiving a BPT flow allowance also receive an allowance under
BAT. The regulatory flows for eight waste streams have been
decreased at BAT based on the application of in-process flow
reduction control measures. These eight waste streams are:
forging contact cooling water; surface treatment rinse;
alkaline cleaning rinse; molten salt rinse; tumbling,
burnishing wastewater; sawing or grinding contact cooling water;
sawing or grinding rinse; and equipment cleaning wastewater.
Calculation of the BAT regulatory flows for these eight flow
reduced streams is discussed below. The BAT regulatory flows for
all other waste streams in the subcategory are equal to the BPT
regulatory flows discussed in Section IX.
Ref ractory Metals Forging Contact Cooling Water. The BAT
regulatory flow for forging contact cooling water is 32.3 1/kkg
(7.75 gal/ton). The BAT regulatory flow is a 90 percent
reduction of the BPT flow, based on recycle through cooling
towers or holding tanks. Holding tanks are used in place of
cooling towers for streams with low flow rates. The recycle
of contact cooling water is demonstrated in the nonferrous
metals forming category and other point source categories.
Refractory Metals Surface Treatment Rinse. The BAT regulatory
flow for surface treatment rinse is 12,100 1/kkg (2,900 gal/ton).
The BAT regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of the BPT
flow, based on the application of two-stage countercurrent
cascade rinsing. Countercurrent cascade rinsing is performed
in two surface treatment rinse operations in this subcategory.
It is also demonstrated at other nonferrous forming plants and
plants in other categories.
Refractory Metals Alkaline Cleaning Rinse. The BAT regulatory
flow for this stream is 8,160 1/kkg (1,960 gal/ton). The BAT
regulatory flow is a 99 percent reduction of the BPT flow,
based on the application of three-stage countercurrent cascade
rinsing. Three-stage countercurrent rinsing to achieve a 99
percent flow reduction is appropriate for this waste stream
because the magnitude of the existing flows for this waste stream
reported by plants in this subcategory were more than an order or
magnitude larger than flows for similar processes in other
subcategories and even for other rinse streams within this
subcategory. The BAT regulatory flow based on 99 percent
reduction of the BPT flow is within the range of flows
established for this process waste stream in other subcategories.
Countercurrent cascade rinsing is demonstrated in this
subcategory and other nonferrous metals forming subcategories
as well as other point source categories.
1779

-------
Refractory Metals Molten Salt Rinse. The BAT regulatory flow
for molten salt rinse is 633 1/kkg (152 gal/ton). The BAT
regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of the BPT flow
based on the use of periodic batch discharge or decreased flow
rate, as demonstrated by three plants in the nickel-cobalt
forming subcategory and one plant in this subcategory.
Refractory Metals Tumbling or Burnishing Wastewater. The BAT
regulatory flow for this waste stream is 1,250 1/kkg (300
gal/ton). The BAT regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of
the BPT flow based on recycle through a holding tank with
provision for removal of fines, if needed, by gravity
settling, filtration, or another suspended solids removal step.
Recycle with suspended solids removal when necessary is
demonstrated in the nonferrous metals forming category and other
categories.
Refractory Metals Sawing or Grinding Contact Cooling Water. The
BAT regulatory flow for this waste stream is 2,430 1/kkg (582
gal/ton). The BAT regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of
the BPT flow based on recycle through a holding tank with
provision for suspended solids removal, if needed, by
gravity settling, filtration, or another suspended solids
removal step. Sawing or grinding contact cooling water recycle
is practiced in four operations from this subcategory. Total
recycle of the cooling water with no discharge was reported
for three operations, while 80 percent recycle was reported
for the fourth operation.	Although the production
normalized discharge flow from another operation where the
cooling water is only periodically discharged was over 10 times
lower than the BAT regulatory flow, the Agency believes a
periodic discharge or bleed stream is needed to prevent the
build-up of dissolved solids in the recycle circuit. Therefore,
EPA has provided a discharge allowance equal to 10 percent of the
BPT flow for this waste stream.
Refractory Metals Sawing or Grinding Rinse. The BAT regulatory
flow for this waste stream is 13.5 1/kkg (3.25 gal/ton). The
BAT regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of the BPT flow
based on recycle through a holding tank with provision for
suspended solids removal, if needed by gravity settling,
filtration, or another suspended solids removal step. As
previously discussed, this technology is demonstrated in this
category and other point source categories.
Equipment Cleaning Wastewater. The BAT regulatory flow for
equipment cleaning wastewater is 136 1/kkg (32.6 gal/ton). The
BAT regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of the BPT flow
based on recycle through a holding tank with provision for
suspended solids removal, if needed by gravity settling,
filtration, or another suspended solids removal step. This
technology is demonstrated in this category and other categories.
1780

-------
Regulated Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BAT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they were
considered. The pollutants selected for regulation under
BAT are copper, nickel, fluoride, and molybdenum. Although
effluent limitations guidelines and standards for columbium,
tantalum, tungsten, and vanadium were proposed, no limitations
for these pollutants were established in the final regulation.
This is because regulation of the priority metal pollutants
copper and nickel should ensure that columbium, tantalum,
tungsten, and vanadium are removed. The technology required
for removal of copper and nickel (lime and settle) will also
remove columbium, tantalum, tungsten, and vanadium. The
priority metal pollutants total chromium, lead, silver, and zinc,
listed in Section VI, are not specifically regulated under
BAT. These pollutants are expected to be adequately removed
by achievement of the limitations for the regulated pollutants.
Molybdenum is specifically regulated under BAT because it will
not be adequately removed by the technology (lime and settle)
required for the removal of the regulated priority metal
pollutants, copper and nickel. The addition of iron to a
lime and settle system (iron coprecipitation) is necessary for
efficient removal of molybdenum.
Treatment Train
The BAT model end-of-pipe treatment technology for the refractory
metals forming subcategory is lime, settle and filter. This adds
filtration to the BPT end-of-pipe technology, and in-process
controls measures to reduce the flows from selected waste
streams. The end-of-pipe treatment configuration is shown in
Figure X-3 and includes iron coprecipitation for molybdenum
removal. This combination of in-process control and end-of-pipe
technology increases the removals of pollutants over that
achieved by BPT and is demonstrated and technically feasible.
Effluent Limitations
Table VII-21 (page xxxx) presents the treatment effectiveness
corresponding to the BAT model treatment train for pollutant
parameters considered for regulation in the refractory metals
forming subcategory. Effluent concentrations (one-day maximum
and ten-day average values) are multiplied by the BAT regulatory
flows summarized in Table X-32 to calculate the mass of pollutant
allowed to be discharged per mass of product. The results of
these calculations are shown in Table X-33. Although no
limitations have been established for columbium, tantalum,
tungsten, and vanadium, Table X-33 includes mass discharge
limitations for these pollutants which are attainable using the
BAT model technology. These limitations are presented for
the guidance of permit writers. Only daily maximum limitations
are presented for columbium, tantalum, and vanadium, based on
the detection limits of 0.12, 0.46, and 0.10 mg/1,
respectively. Lime and settle treatment was determined to
1781
\
I

-------
remove these pollutants below their level of analytical
quantification. The attainable monthly average discharge is
expected to be lower than the one-day maximum limitation,
but since it would be impossible to monitor for compliance with
a lower level, no monthly average has been presented. The
limitation table lists all the pollutants which were considered
for regulation. Those specifically regulated are marked with an
asterisk.
Benefits
In establishing BAT, EPA considered the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievability. As shown in Table X-7, the application of BAT and
PSES to the total refractory metals forming subcategory will
remove approximately 198,100 kg/yr (435,800 lbs/yr) of pollutants
including 326 kg/yr (717 lbs/yr) of priority pollutants. (As
discussed in Section XII, EPA has selected Option 2 as the basis
for PSES in this subcategory.) As shown in Table X-l, the
corresponding capital and annual costs (1982 dollars) for this
removal are $1,572 million and $0,657 million per year,
respectively. As shown in Table X-17, the application of BAT to
direct dischargers only will remove approximately 29,350 kg/yr
(64,570 lbs/yr) of pollutants including 78 kg/yr (172 lbs/yr) of
priority pollutants. As shown in Table X-2, the corresponding
capital and annual costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are
$0,135 million and $0,068 million per year, respectively.
The Agency has determined that the BAT limitations are
economically achievable.
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Discharge Flows
Table X-34 lists the BAT regulatory flows for waste streams in
the titanium forming subcategory. All waste streams which
received an allowance under BPT also receive a BAT flow
allowance. The regulatory flows for seven waste streams have
been decreased at BAT based on the application of in-process
flow reduction control measures. The seven flow reduced waste
streams are: rolling contact cooling water; forging contact
cooling water; surface treatment rinse; alkaline cleaning
rinse-water; tumbling wastewater; sawing or grinding contact
cooling water; and wet air pollution control blowdown.
Calculation of the BAT regulatory flows for these seven flow
reduced streams is discussed below. The BAT regulatory flows
for all other waste streams in the subcategory are equal to the
BPT regulatory flows discussed in Section IX.
Titanium Rolling Contact Cooling Water. The BAT regulatory flow
for rolling contact cooling water is 488 1/kkg (117 gal/ton).
The BAT regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of the BPT flow
based on recycle through a holding tank. This technology is
demonstrated at nonferrous metals forming plants and plants in
other point source categories.
1782

-------
Titanium Forging Contact Cooling Water. The BAT regulatory flow
for forging contact cooling water is 99.9 1/kkg (24.0 gal/ton).
The BAT regulatory flow is a 95 percent reduction of the BPT flow
based on recycle through a holding tank with provision for
suspended solids removal, if necessary, by gravity settling,
filtration, or another suspended solids removal step. Ninety-
five percent recycle of forging contact cooling water is
demonstrated at one of the four plants in this subcategory
which discharge forging contact cooling water.
Titanium Surface Treatment Rinse. The BAT regulatory flow for
surface treatment rinse is 2,920 l/kkg (700 gal/ton). The BAT
regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of the BPT flow based
on the application of two-stage countercurrent cascade
rinsing. Countercurrent cascade rinsing is practiced at
nonferrous metals forming plants as well as plants in other
point source categories.
Titanium Alkaline Cleaning Rinse. The BAT regulatory flow for
alkaline cleaning rinse is 276 1/kkg (66.3 gal/ton). The BAT
regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of the BPT flow based
on the application of two-stage countercurrent cascade
rinsing. As previously discussed, countercurrent cascade rinsing
is a demonstrated technology.
Titanium Tumbling Wastewater. The BAT regulatory flow for
tumbling wastewater is 79 1/kkg (18.9 gal/ton). The BAT
regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of the BPT flow
based on recycle through a holding tank with provision for
removal of suspended solids, if needed, by gravity settling,
filtration, or another suspended solids removal step. This
technology is demonstrated in the nonferrous metals forming
category and other point source categories.
Titanium Sawing or Grinding Contact Cooling Water. The BAT
regulatory flow for this stream is 476 1/kkg (114 gal/ton). The
BAT regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of the BPT flow
based on recycle through a holding tank with provision for
suspended solids removal, if necessary. As previously discussed,
the recycle of wastewater through holding tanks with suspended
solids removal if necessary is a demonstrated technology.
Titanium Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown. The BAT regulatory
flow for wet air pollution control blowdown is 214 1/kkg (51.4
gal/ton). The BAT regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of
the BPT flow based on recycle through a holding tank. The
recycle of wet air pollution control water is demonstrated at
five plants in this subcategory which reported 90 percent recycle
or greater of the scrubber water.
Regulated Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BAT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they were
1783

-------
considered. The pollutants selected for regulation under BAT are
lead, zinc, total cyanide, ammonia, and fluoride. The priority
metals total chromium, copper, and nickel, listed in Section VI,
are not specifically regulated under BAT. Although effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for titanium were proposed,
no limitations for titanium were established in the final
regulation. This is because regulation of the priority metal
pollutants lead and zinc should ensure that titanium is removed.
The technology required for removal of lead and zinc (lime and
settle) will also remove titanium.	These pollutants are
expected to be adequately removed by achievement of the
limitations for the regulated pollutants.
Treatment Train
The BAT model end-of-pipe treatment technology for the titanium
forming subcategory is lime and settle. This option uses the
same end-of-pipe technology as BPT, with the addition of measures
to reduce the flows from selected waste streams. The end-of-pipe
treatment configuration is shown in Figure X-2. The combination
of in-process control and end-of-pipe technology increases the
removals of pollutants over that achieved by BPT and is
demonstrated and technically feasible.
Effluent Limitations
Table VII-21 (page xxxx) presents the treatment effectiveness
corresponding to the BAT model treatment train for pollutant
parameters considered for regulation in the titanium forming
subcategory. Effluent concentrations (one-day maximum and ten-
day average values) are multiplied by the BAT regulatory flows
summarized in Table X-34 to calculate the mass of pollutant
allowed to be discharged per mass of product. The results of
these calculations are shown in Table X-35. Although no
limitations have been established for chromium, copper,
nickel, and titanium, Table X-35 includes chromium, copper,
nickel, and titanium mass discharge limitations attainable
using the BAT model technology. These limitations are
presented for the guidance of permit writers. The limitation
table lists all the pollutants which were considered for
regulation. Those specifically regulated are marked with an
asterisk.
Benefits
In establishing BAT, EPA considered the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievability. As shown in Table X-8, the application of BAT
level treatment to the total titanium forming subcategory will
remove approximately 393,000 kg/yr (864,600 lbs/yr) of pollutants
including 644 kg/yr (1,417 lbs/yr) of priority pollutants. As
shown in Table X-l, the corresponding capital and annual costs
(1982 dollars) for this removal are $2,881 million and $2,540
million per year, respectively. As shown in Table X-18, the
application of BAT to direct dischargers only will remove
1784

-------
approximately 136,500 kg/yr (300,300 lbs/yr) of pollutants
including 259 kg/yr (570 lbs/yr) of priority pollutants. As
shown in Table X-2, the corresponding capital and annual costs
(1982 dollars) for this removal are $2,124 million and $2,192
million per year, respectively. The Agency has determined that
the BAT limitations are economically achievable.
URANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Discharge Flows
Table X-36 lists the BAT regulatory flows for waste streams in
the uranium forming subcategory. All waste streams which
received a BPT flow allowance also receive an allowance under
BAT. The regulatory flows for four waste streams have been
decreased at BAT based on the application of in-process flow
reduction control measures. The four flow reduced streams are:
extrusion tool contact cooling water; heat treatment contact
cooling water; sawing or grinding contact cooling water; and
laundry washwater. Calculation of the BAT regulatory flows for
these four flow reduced streams is discussed below. The BAT
regulatory flows for all other waste streams in the subcategory
are equal to the BPT regulatory flows discussed in Section IX.
Uranium Extrusion Tool Contact Cooling Water. The BAT regulatory
flow for extrusion tool contact cooling water is 34.4 1/kkg (8.25
gal/ton). The BAT regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of
the BPT flow based on recycle through a cooling tower or holding
tank. Holding tanks are used in place of cooling towers for
streams with low flow rates. The recycle of contact cooling
water streams is demonstrated in the nonferrous metals forming
category as well as other point source categories.
Uranium Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water. The BAT regulatory
flow for heat treatment contact cooling water is 31.3 1/kkg (7.52
gal/ton). The BAT allowance is based on the average production
normalized discharge flow from three operations in which the
cooling water is only periodically discharged. This incorporates
flow reduction by basing the BAT regulatory flow on only those
plants that are currently recycling this process waste stream.
Uranium Sawing or Grinding Contact Cooling Water. The BAT
regulatory flow for this stream is 165 1/kkg (39.5 gal/ton). The
BAT regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of the BPT flow
based on recycle through a cooling tower or holding tank. As
previously discussed, the recycle of contact cooling water is a
demonstrated technology.
Uranium Laundry Washwater. The BAT regulatory flow for laundry
washwater is 26.2 1/employee-day. The BAT regulatory flow is a
50 percent reduction of the BPT flow based on recycle through a
holding tank.
1785

-------
Regulated Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BAT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they were
considered. Although effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for uranium and radium were proposed, no limitations
for uranium or radium were established in the final regulation.
This is because regulation of the priority metal pollutants
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead and nickel will ensure that
uranium is removed and radium was not present in significant
concentrations. The technology required for removal of cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead and nickel (lime and settle) will
also remove uranium. The pollutants selected for regulation
under BAT are cadmium, total chromium, copper, lead, nickel,
molybdenum, and fluoride. The priority metal zinc, listed in
Section VI, is not regulated under BAT. This pollutant is
expected to be adequately removed by achievement of the
limitations for the regulated pollutants.
Treatment Train
The BAT model end-of-pipe treatment technology for the uranium
forming subcategory is lime settle and filter. This option adds
filtration to the BPT end-of-pipe technology,
reduce the flows from selected waste streams,
treatment configuration is shown in Figure X-3.
of in-process control and end-of-pipe technology increases the
removals of pollutants over that achieved by BPT and is
demonstrated and technically achievable.
and measures to
The end-of-pipe
This combination
Effluent Limitations
Table VII-21 (page xxxx) presents the treatment eŁfectiveness
corresponding to the BAT model treatment train for pollutant
parameters considered for regulation in the uranium forming
subcategory. Effluent concentrations (one-day maximum and ten-
day average values) are multiplied by the BAT regulatory flows
summarized in Table X-36 to calculate the mass of pollutant
allowed to be discharged per mass of product. The results of
these calculations are shown in Table X-37. Although no
limitations have been established for uranium and zinc, Table
X-37 includes uranium and zinc mass discharge limitations
attainable using the BAT model technology. These limitations
are presented for the guidance of permit writers.	The
limitation table lists all the pollutants which were considered
for regulation. Those specifically regulated are marked with an
asterisk.
Benefits
In establishing BAT, EPA considered the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievability. As shown in Table X-9, the application of BAT to
the uranium forming subcategory (which consists entirely of
direct dischargers) will remove approximately 23,650 kg/yr
1786

-------
(52,140 lbs/yr) of pollutants including 59.45 kg/yr (131.1
lbs/yr) of priority pollutants. Specific costs for the uranium
forming subcategory are not included in this document in order to
protect confidentiality claims. The Agency has determined that
the BAT limitations for the uranium forming subcategory are
economically achievable.
ZINC FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Discharge Flows
Table X-38 lists the BAT regulatory flows for waste streams in
the zinc forming subcategory. All waste streams receiving a BPT
flow allowance also receive an allowance under BAT. The
regulatory flows for five waste streams have been decreased
at BAT based on the application of in-process flow reduction
control measures. The five flow reduced waste streams are:
rolling contact cooling water, direct chill casting contact
cooling water, annealing heat treatment contact cooling water,
surface treatment rinse, and electrocoating rinse. Calculation
of the BAT regulatory flows for these five flow reduced waste
streams is discussed below. The BAT regulatory flows for all
other waste streams in the subcategory are equal to the BPT
regulatory flows discussed in Section X.
Zinc Rolling Contact Cooling Water. The BAT regulatory flow for
rolling contact cooling water is 53.6 1/kkg (12.9 gal/ton). The
BAT regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of the BPT flow
based on recycle through a cooling tower or holding tank.
Holding tanks are used in place of cooling towers for streams
with low flow rates. The recycle of contact cooling water is
demonstrated in this category as well as other point source
categor ies.
Zinc Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling Water. The BAT
regulatory flow for direct chill casting contact cooling water
is 50.5 1/kkg (12.1 gal/ton). The BAT regulatory flow is a 90
percent reduction of the BPT flow based on recycle through a
cooling tower or holding tank. The recycle of direct chill
casting contact cooling water is demonstrated by one plant
in this subcategory where total recycle of the cooling water
with no discharge was reported. Although zero discharge was
reported by one plant, the Agency believes a periodic
blowdown or bleed stream of cooling water may be needed to
prevent the build-up of dissolved solids in the recycle
circuit. Therefore, EPA has provided a discharge allowance
equal to 10 percent of the BPT allowance for this waste stream.
Zinc Annealing Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water. The BAT
regulatory flow for this waste stream is 76.3 1/kkg (18.3
gal/ton). The BAT regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of
the BPT flow based on recycle through a cooling tower or holding
tank. As previously discussed, the recycle of contact cooling
water is a demonstrated technology.
1787

-------
Zinc Surface Treatment Rinse. The BAT regulatory flow for
surface treatment rinse is 358 1/kkg (85.8 gal/ton). The BAT
regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of the BPT flow
based on the application of two-stage countercurrent cascade
rinsing. Countercurrent cascade rinsing is demonstrated at one
plant in this subcategory, at other plants in this category, and
other point source categories.
Zinc Electrocoating Rinse. The BAT regulatory flow for
electrocoating rinse is 229 1/kkg (55 gal/ton). The BAT
regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of the BPT flow based
on the application of two-stage countercurrent cascade rinsing.
Countercurrent cascade rinsing is demonstrated at one plant in
this subcategory.
Regulated Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BAT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they were
considered. The pollutants selected for regulation under BAT are
total chromium, copper, zinc, and total cyanide. The priority
metal nickel, which was selected for consideration for
regulation in Section VI, is not specifically regulated under
BAT, because it is expected to be adequately removed by
achievement of the limitations for the regulated
pollutants. The conventional pollutant parameters oil and
grease, total suspended solids, and pH are not regulated under
BAT, but will be considered under BCT.
Treatment Train
The BAT model end-of-pipe treatment technology for the zinc
forming subcategory is lime, settle and filter. This adds
filtration to the BPT end-of-pipe technology, and in-process
controls to reduce the flows from selected waste streams. The
end-of-pipe treatment configuration is shown in Figure X-3. This
combination of in-process control and end-of-pipe technology
increases the removals of pollutants over that achieved by BPT
and is demonstrated and technically feasible.
Effluent Limitations
Table VII-21 (page xxxx) presents the treatment effectiveness
corresponding to the BAT model treatment train for pollutant
parameters considered for regulation in the zinc forming
subcategory. Effluent concentrations (one-day maximum and
ten-day average values) are multiplied by the BAT
regulatory flows summarized in Table X-38 to calculate the
mass of pollutant allowed to be discharged per mass of
product. The results of these calculations are shown in Table
X-39. Although no limitations have been established for nickel,
Table X-39 includes mass discharge limitations for this pollutant
attainable using the BAT model technology. These limitations
are presented for the guidance of permit writers. The
1788

-------
limitation table lists all of the pollutants which were
considered for regulation, with those specifically regulated
marked with an asterisk.
Benefits
In establishing BAT, EPA considered the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievability. As shown in Table X-10, the application of BAT to
the total zinc forming subcategory will remove approximately
309,800 kg/yr (681,560 lbs/yr) of pollutants including 262,300
kg/yr (577,060 lbs/yr) of priority pollutants. As shown in Table
X-20, the application of BAT to direct dischargers only will
remove approximately 308,800 kg/yr (679,360 lbs/yr) of pollutants
including 262,230 kg/yr (576,900 lbs/yr) of priority pollutants.
Since there is only one direct discharge plant in the zinc
forming subcategory, total subcategory capital and annual costs
and direct discharger capital and annual costs will not be
reported in this document in order to protect confidentiality
claims.	The Agency has determined that the BAT limitations
are economically achievable.
ZIRCONIUM-HAFNIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Discharge Flows
Table X-40 lists the BAT regulatory flows for waste streams in
the zirconium-hafnium forming subcategory. All waste streams
receiving a flow allowance for BPT also receive an allowance
under BAT. The regulatory flows for five waste streams have
decreased at BAT based on the application of in-process flow
reduction control measures. The five flow reduced waste streams
are: heat treatment contact cooling water; surface treatment
rinse; alkaline cleaning rinse; molten salt rinse; and sawing
or grinding rinse. Calculation of the BAT regulatory flows
for these five flow reduced streams is discussed below. The BAT
regulatory flows for all other waste streams in the subcategory
are equal to the BPT regulatory flows discussed in Section IX.
Zirconium-Hafnium Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water. The BAT
regulatory flow for heat treatment contact cooling water is 34.3
1/kkg (8.22 gal/ton). The BAT regulatory flow is a 90 percent
reduction of the BPT flow based on recycle through a cooling
tower or holding tank. Contact cooling water recycle is a
demonstrated technology and is demonstrated in the nonferrous
metals forming category as well as other point source categories.
Zirconium-Hafnium Surface Treatment Rinse. The BAT regulatory
flow for surface treatment rinse is 888 1/kkg (213 gal/ton).
The BAT regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of the BPT
flow based on two-stage countercurrent cascade rinsing.
Countercurrent cascade rinsing is demonstrated in the nonferrous
metals forming category as well as other point source categories.
1789

-------
Zirconium-Hafnium Alkaline Cleaning Rinse. The BAT regulatory
flow for alkaline cleaning rinse is 3,140 1/kkg (753 gal/ton).
The BAT regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of the BPT
flow based on the application of two-stage countercurrent cascade
rinsing. Countercurrent cascade rinsing is a demonstrated
technology, as described above.
Zirconium-Hafnium Molten Salt Rinse. The BAT regulatory flow
for molten salt rinse is 756 1/kkg (181 gal/ton). The BAT
regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of the BPT flow
based on use of periodic batch discharge or decreased flow rate,
as demonstrated by one plant in this subcategory, three plants in
the nickel-cobalt forming subcategory and one plant in the
refractory metals forming subcategory.
Zirconium-Hafnium Sawing or Grinding Rinse. The BAT regulatory
flow for this waste stream is 180 1/kkg (43.1 gal/ton). The BAT
regulatory flow is a 90 percent reduction of the BPT flow
based on recycle through a holding tank with provision for
suspended solids removal, if needed, by gravity settling,
filtration, or another solids removal process. Recycle of
waste streams through holding tanks with suspended solids
removal when necessary is a demonstrated technology.
Regulated Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BAT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they were
considered. The pollutants selected for regulation under BAT are
total chromium, nickel, total cyanide, and fluoride. Although
effluent limitations guidelines and standards for zirconium and
hafnium were proposed, no limitations for these pollutants were
established in the final regulation.	This Is because
regulation of the priority metal pollutants chromium and nickel
should ensure that zirconium and hafnium are removed. The
technology required for removal of chromium and nickel (lime and
settle) will also remove zirconium and hafnium. The priority
metals copper, lead, and zinc, listed in Section VI, are not
regulated under BAT. These pollutants are expected to be
adequately removed by achievement of the limitations for the
regulated pollutants.
Treatment Train
The BAT model end-of-pipe treatment technology for the zirconium-
hafnium subcategory is lime and settle. This uses the same end-
of-pipe technology as BPT, with the addition of measures to
reduce the flows from selected waste streams. The end-of-pipe
treatment configuration is shown in Figure X-2. The combination
of in-process control and end-of-pipe technology increases the
removals of pollutants over that achieved by BPT and is
demonstrated and technically feasible.
1790

-------
Effluent Limitations
Table VII-21 (page xxxx) presents the treatment effectiveness
corresponding to the BAT model treatment train for pollutant
parameters considered for regulation in the zirconium-hafnium
forming subcategory. Effluent concentrations (one-day maximum
and ten-day average values) are multiplied by the BAT regulatory
flows summarized in Table X-40 to calculate the mass of pollutant
allowed to be discharged per mass of product. The results of
these calculations are shown in Table X-41. Although no
limitations have been established for copper, lead, zinc,
zirconium, and hafnium, Table X-41 includes zirconium and
hafnium mass discharge limitations attainable using the BAT
model technology. These limitations are presented for the
guidance of permit writers. The limitation table lists all
the pollutants which were considered for regulation. Those
specifically regulated are marked with an asterisk.
Benefits
In establishing BAT, EPA considered the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievability. As shown in Table X-ll, the application of BAT to
the total zirconium-hafnium forming subcategory will remove
approximately 20,200 kg/yr (44,440 lbs/yr) of pollutants
including 646 kg/yr (1,421 lbs/yr) of priority pollutants. As
shown in Table X-l, the corresponding capital and annual
costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are $0,579 million and
$0,404 million per year, respectively. As shown in Table X-21,
the application of BAT to direct dischargers only will
remove approximately 19,100 kg/yr (42,020 lbs/yr) of
pollutants including 645 kg/yr (1,419 lbs/yr) of priority
pollutants. As shown in Table X-2, the corresponding capital
and annual costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are $0,568
million and $0,400 million per year, respectively. The Agency
has determined that the BAT limitations are economically
achievable.
METAL POWDERS SUBCATEGORY
Discharge Flows
Table X-42 lists the BAT regulatory flows for waste streams in
the metal powders subcategory. The BAT regulatory flows for all
waste streams are equal to the regulatory flows established at
BPT because the technology option selected as the basis for BAT
does not include flow reduction above that which was included at
BPT as described in Section IX. Calculation of these flows is
discussed in Section IX. None of the direct discharge plants in
this subcategory have any of the waste streams for which further
flow reduction is applicable.
1791
)
I

-------
Regulated Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BAT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they have been
considered. The pollutants selected for regulation under BAT are
copper, lead, and total cyanide. Although effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for iron and aluminum were proposed, no
limitations for these pollutants were established in the final
regulation. Regulation of the priority metal pollutants copper
and lead will ensure that iron and aluminum are removed. The
technology required for removal of copper and lead (lime and
settle) will also remove iron and aluminum. The priority metals
total chromium, nickel, and zinc, listed in Section VI, are not
regulated under BAT. These pollutants are expected to be
adequately removed by achievement of the limitations for the
regulated pollutants. The conventional pollutant parameters oil
and grease, total, suspended solids, and pH are not regulated
under BAT, but will be considered under BCT.
Treatment Train
The BAT model end-of-pipe treatment technology for the metal
powder subcategory is lime and settle. This consists of
preliminary treatment, where necessary, followed by combined
wastewater treatment consisting of oil skimming and lime and
settle. Since this is also the basis for the BPT limitations,
the BPT and BAT limitations for the metal powders subcategory are
identical.
Effluent Limitations
Table VII-21 (page xxxx) presents the treatment effectiveness
corresponding to the BAT model treatment train for pollutant
parameters considered for regulation in the metal powders
subcategory. Effluent concentrations (one-day maximum and
ten-day average values) are multiplied by the BAT
regulatory flows summarized in Table X-42 to calculate the
mass of pollutant allowed to be discharged per mass of
product. The results of these calculations are shown in Table
X-43.	Although no limitations have been established for
chromium, nickel, zinc, iron and aluminum, Table X-43
includes mass discharge limitations for these pollutants
attainable using the BAT model technology. These limitations
are presented for the guidance of permit writers. The
limitation table lists all the pollutants which were considered
for regulation. Those specifically regulated are marked with an
asterisk.
Benefits
In establishing BAT, EPA considered the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievability. As shown in Table X-12, the application of BAT to
the total metal powders subcategory will remove approximately
57,570 kg/yr (126,655 lbs/yr) of pollutants including 1,085 kg/yr
1792

-------
(2,390 lbs/yr) of priority pollutants. As shown in Table X-22,
the application of BAT to direct dischargers only will remove
approximately 4,105 kg/yr (9,030 lbs/yr) of pollutants including
128 kg/yr (282 lbs/yr) of priority pollutants. Since there are
only three direct discharge plants in the metal powders
subcategory, total subcategory capital and annual costs and
direct discharger capital and annual costs will not be reported
in this document in order to protect confidentiality claims.
The Agency has determined that the BAT limitations are
economically achievable.
1793

-------
Table x-1
CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COST ESTIMATES FOR BAT (PSES) OPTIONS
TOTAL SUBCATEGORY ($ 1982)
Subcategory
Option 1
Option 2*
Option 3**
Lead-Tin-Bismuth
Capital
Annual
C
C
C
C
C
C
Magnesium Forming
Capital
Annual
C
C
C
C
C
C
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Capital
Annual
3,341,800
2,077,000
3,792,800
2,228,900
4,115,300
2,401,000
Precious Metals Forming
Capital
Annual
1,012,700
413,900
1,063,600
451,600
1,175,300
523,700
Refractory Metals Forming
Capital	1,117,100 1,560,400 1,670,400
Annual	581,700	649,900	764,900
Titanium Forming
Capital
Annual
2,878,600
2,570,700
2,881,400
2,540,200
3,146,500
2,694,500
Uranium Forming
Capital
Annual
C
C
C
C
C
C
Zinc Forming
Capital
Annual
C
C
C
C
C
C
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Capital
Annual
366,500
330,100
579,000
404,400
697,000
464,800
Metal Powders
Capital
Annual
C
C
C
C
C
C
*Total cost to install Option 2 technology.
**Total cost to install Option 3 technology.
C - Confidential.
1794

-------
Table X-2
CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COST ESTIMATES FOR BAT OPTIONS
DIRECT DISCHARGERS ($ 1982)
Subcategory
Option 1
Option 2*
Option 3**
Lead-Tin-Bismuth
Capital
Annual
C
C
C
C
c
c
Magnesium Forming
Capital
Annual
148,200
95,700
79,400
45,500
84,800
48,200
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Capital
Annual
Precious Metals Forming
Capital
Annual
392,200
185,700
226,100
98,000
465,600
225,200
314,600
127 ,900
493,400
242,300
351,600
150,800
Refractory Metals Forming
Capital
Annual
87,000
44,300
123,500
60,800
135,000
67,700
Titanium Forming
Capital
Annual
2,237,900
2,261,300
2,124,500
2,191,800
2,335,100
2,312,700
Uranium Forming
Capital
Annual
C
C
c
c
c
c
Zinc Forming
Capital
Annual
C
C
C
C
C
c
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Capital
Annual
359,400
327,300
567,700
400,400
685,000
460,400
Metal Powders
Capital
Annual
C
C
C
C
C
C
*Total cost to install Option 2 technology.
**Total cost to install Option 3 technology.
C - Confidential.
1795

-------
Table X-3
NONFERROUS METALS FORMING POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFIT ESTIMATES (kg/yr)
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
TOTAL SUBCATEGORY

Tota 1







Raw
Option 1
Option 1
Option 2
Option 2
Option 3
Option 3
Po11utant
Waste
Di scharged
Removed
Di scharged
Removed
Di scharged
Removed
Ant imony
10. 38
10.38
0.00
5.06
5.32
3.40
6.98
Arsenic
0. 19
0. 19
0.00
0.19
0.00
0.19
0.00
Beryl 1i um
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
Cadmi um
0.04
0.04
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.04
0.00
Chromi um
32. 19
4.03
28. 16
0.61
31 . 59
0.51
31 .69
Copper
2 .47
2 .47
0 .00
2.47
0.00
1 .95
0.53
Lead
212.91
5. 76
207.16
0.87
212.05
0.58
212.33
N i eke 1
2. 24
2.24
0.00
2. 24
0.00
1.10
1.14
Z i nc
1 . 29
1 . 29
0.00
1 . 29
0.00
1.15
0.13
TOTAL TOXIC METALS
261.72
26.40
235.32
12.77
248.95
8.92
252.80
Cyan i de
0.56
0.56
0.00
0.56
0.00
0.56
0.00
TOTAL TOXICS
262.27
26.95
235.32
13.32
248.95
9.47
252.80
A 1uminum
1 .53
1 .53
0.00
1 .53
0.00
1 . 53
0.00
Ammon ia
3. 27
3.27
0.00
3 . 27
0 .00
3 .27
0 .00
Cobalt
115.20
2.40
112.81
0.36
1 14.84
0.25
1 14.96
F1uor i de
1 1 .85
1 1 .85
0.00
1 1 .85
0.00
1 1 .85
0.00
I ron
16.11
1 3.08
3.03
2 .96
13.15
2.02
14.09
Magnesium
311.35
4.80
306.55
0.72
310.62
0.48
310.86
Manganese
1 .59
1 .59
0.00
1.16
0 .44
1.01
0 .58
Mo 1ybdenum
0. 27
0.27
0.00
0.27
0.00
0. 27
0. 00
T i n
4.73
4. 73
0.00
3.32
1 .42
2 .44
2.30
Ti tani um
0.67
0.67
0.00
0.67
0.00
0.67
0 .00
Vanad i um
0.65
0. 65
0.00
0.65
0.00
0.65
0.00
TOTAL NONCONVENTIONALS
467.22
44.84
422.39
26. 76
440.47
24.44
442.78
TSS
4,113.63
575.51
3,538.12
86. 68
4,026.95
18 . 78
4,094.85
Oi1 and Grease
1,875.92
344.3b
1,531.53
72 . 24
1,803.68
72 . 74
1,803.68
TOTAL CONVENTIONALS
5,989.54
919.89
5,069.65
158.92
5,830.63
91 .02
5,898.53
TOTAL POLLUTANTS
6,719.04
991.68
5,727.36
199.00
6,520.05
124.93
6,594.11

-------
Table X-4
NONFERROUS METALS FORMING POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFIT ESTIMATES (kg/yr)
MAGNESIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
TOTAL SUBCATEGORY

Total







Raw
Op t i on 1
Op t i on 1
Opt i on 2
Opt i on 2
Op t i on 3
Opt i on 3
Po11utant
Waste
Di scharged
Removed
D i scharged
Removed
Di scharged
Removed
Ant i mony
0.02
0 .02
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.02
0. 00
Arsenic
0.00
0 . 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Beryl 1i um
0.20
0 . 20
0.00
0 . 20
0.00
0. 20
0.00
Cadmi um
0. 00
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Chromi um
16,770.18
1 .89
16,768.30
0 . 23
16,769.95
0. 19
16,769.99
Copper
0 . 48
0 . 48
0.00
0.37
0.11
0. 25
0. 23
Lead
1 . 24
1 . 24
0.00
0. 29
0 .95
0.21
1 . 03
Nickel
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
SiIver
0.04
0.04
0.00
0 . 04
0.00
0 . 04
0.00
Zinc
138.47
7.41
131.06
0.92
137.55
0 . 64
137.83
TOTAL TOXIC METALS
16,910.63
1 1 . 27
16,899.35
2.07
16,908.55
1 . 55
16,909.08
Cyan i de
0.11
0.11
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.11
0.00
TOTAL TOXICS
16,910.73
1 1 .38
16,899.35
2.18
16,908.55
1 . 65
16,909.08
A 1umi num
98 . 28
50.31
47 .97
6 . 23
92.04
4.15
94 . 1 3
Amnion i a
526.53
526 . 53
0.00
526 . 53
0.00
526.53
0.00
Coba 1 t
2.03
1.12
0.91
0.14
1 .89
0.09
1 .94
Fluoride
76 . 24
76.24
0.00
40 . 36
35.88
40 . 36
35.88
Iron
5 . 47
5 .47
0.00
1.14
4.32
0.78
4.69
Magnes i um
13,490.05
2 . 25
13,487.81
0.28
13,489.78
0.19
13,489.87
Manganese
2.80
2.80
0.00
0 .45
2 . 35
0.39
2.41
TOTAL NONCONVENTIONALS
14,201.40
664.72
13,536.69
575.13
13,626 . 27
572.49
13,628.91
TSS
3,009.78
269.51
2,740.27
33.40
2,976.38
7 . 24
3,002.54
0i1 and Grease
616.65
224.59
392.06
27.83
588.82
27.83
588.82
TOTAL CONVENTIONALS
3,626.43
494.10
3,132.33
61 . 24
3,565. 19
35.07
3,591.36
TOTAL POLLUTANTS
34,738.56
1,170.20
33,568.36
638.55
34,100.02
609.22
34,129.35

-------
Table X-S
NONFERROUS METALS FORMING POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFIT ESTIMATES (kg/yr)


NICKEL-
¦COBALT FORMING
SUBCATEGORY






TOTAL SUBCATEGORY




Tota 1
0pt1on 1
Option 1
Option 2
Option 2
Option 3
Option 3
Po 1 1 utarit
Raw Waste
Discharged
Removed
Di scharged
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Arsenic
3.43
3.43
0.00
3.43
0.00
3.43
0.00
Cadmi urn
817.75
191.61
626.14
22.65
795.10
14.05
803.70
Chromi um
7,781.79
203.76
7,578.03
24.10
7,757.69
20 .07
7,761.72
Copper
5,036.44
1,407.07
3,629.37
166.33
4,870,1 1
11 1 .86
4,924.58
Lead
177.48
177.48
0.00
31 .85
145.63
22.04
155.44
Nickel
89,531.14
1,795.20
87,735.94
212.27
89,318.87
63, 10
89,468.04
Tha111um
0.15
0.15
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.15
0.00
Zinc
488.62
488.62
0.00
94.63
393.99
66.00
422.62
TOTAL TOXIC METALS
103,836.80
4,267.32
99,569.48
555.41
103,281.39
300.70
103,536.10
Cyanide
0.09
0.09
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.09
0,00
TOTAL TOXICS
103,836.89
4,267.41
99,569.48
555.50
103,281.39
300.79
103,536.10
Aluminum
633.43
633.43
0.00
528.66
104.77
398.79
234.70
Amnion 1 a
4,287.59
4,287.59
0.00
4,287.59
0.00
4,287.59
0,00
Cobalt
9,677.99
121.29
9,556.70
14.36
9,663.63
9.74
9,668.25
f1uoride
144,546.22
35,175.50
109,370.72
4,158.83
140,387.39
4, 158.83
140,387.39
Iron
13,293.21
917.59
12,375.62
117.60
13,175.61
80.31
13,212.90
Molybdenum
1,466.64
1 ,466.64
0.00
421.07
! ,045.57
247.40
!,219.24
T1 tan 1um
9,139.58
9,139.58
8,754.41
57.37
9,082.21
37.29
9,102.29
Vanadium
360.58
360.58
0.00
348.27
12.31
234,68
125.90
TOTAL NONCONVENT IONA LS
183,405.24
43,347.79
140,057.45
9,933.75
173,471.49
9,454.57
173,950,67
TSS
283,049.33
29,105.20
253,944.13
3,441.76
279,607.57
745.60
282,303.73
01 1 and Grease
260,089.26
24,191.88
235,897.38
2,868.30
257,220.96
2,868.30
257,220.96
TOTAL CONVENTIONALS
543,138.59
53,297.08
489,841 .51
6,310.06
536,828.53
3,613.90
539,524,69
TOTAL POLLUTANTS
830,380.72
100,912.28
729,468.44
16,799.31
813,581.41
13,369.26
817,011.46

-------
Table X-6
NONFERROUS METALS FORMING POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFIT ESTIMATES (kg/yr)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
TOTAL SUBCATEGORY

Total
Opt ion 1
Opt i on 1
Opt i on 2
Opt i on 2
Opt i on 3
Opt i on 3
Po11ut ant
Raw Waste
Di scharged
Removed
Di scharged
Removed
Di scharged
Removed
Ant i mony
0.07
0 . 07
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.07
0.00
Arseni c
0 . 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Cadmi um
30.53
9.40
21.13
1 .00
29.53
0.62
29.91
Chromi um
2.81
2.81
0.00
1 .05
1 .77
0 .89
1 .93
Copper
92.55
64 . 09
28 .46
7.37
85. 18
4.95
87 . 60
Lead
2.15
2.15
0.00
1 .43
0.72
1 . 02
1.14
Nickel
7.00
7 . 00
0.00
7.00
0.00
2 . 79
4. 20
Se1 en i um
0 . 00
0 . 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 . 00
0.00
S i1ve r
4 . 75
4 .75
0.00
1 . 27
3.48
0 . 09
4 . 67
Tha11i um
0 . 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
Zinc
29 . 95
29 .95
0.00
4.19
25.76
2.92
27.03
TOTAL TOXIC METALS
169.B2
120.22
49.59
23.37
146.44
13.35
156.46
Cyan i de
67 . 38
8 . 33
59.05
0.89
66.49
0.60
66.79
TOTAL TOXICS
237.20
128.55
10B.65
24. 26
2 1 2.94
13.95
223.25
A 1umi num
184.36
184.36
0.00
28.45
155.91
18.93
165.43
Ammon i a
20 . 39
20.39
0.00
20.39
0.00
20.39
0.00
Cobalt
0.11
0.11
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.11
0.00
Fluoride
77 .95
77 .95
0.00
77.95
0.00
77 .95
0.00
I ron
8 1.72
48 . 79
32 .93
5.21
76.51
3 . 56
78. 16
Magnes i um
360.46
1 1 .90
348.56
1 . 27
359. 19
1 . 27
359.19
Manganese
16.02
16.02
0.00
2.03
13.99
1 .78
14.25
Tin
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.00
Tit an i um
1 . 53
1 . 53
0.00
1 .53
0.00
1 . 43
0.11
Vanad i um
0.09
0.09
0 . 00
0.09
0.00
0.09
0.00
TOTAL NONCONVENTIONALS
742.67
361 . 18
381.49
137.07
605.60
125.54
617.13
TSS
1 0,689.20
1,427.93
9,261.27
152.42
10,536.78
33 .02
10.656.17
Oi1 and Grease
4,073.62
1,189.94
2,883.68
127.02
3,946.60
127.02
3,946.60
TOTAL CONVENTIONALS
14,762.82
2,617 . 87
12,144.95
279.44
14,483.38
160.04
14,602.77
TOTAL POLLUTANTS
15,742.69
3 , 1 07.61
12,635.08
440 . 78
15,301.91
299.53
15,443.16

-------
Table X-7
NONFERROUS METALS FORMING POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFIT ESTIMATES (kg/yr)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORV
TOTAL SUBCATEGORY

Total
Option 1
Option 1
Opt i on 2
Option 2
Option 3
Option 3
Pol 1utant
Raw Waste
D i scharged
Removed
D i scharged
Removed
D i scharged
Removed
Arsenic
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Beryl 1lum
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Cadmlum
1 .95
1 .95
0.00
0.95
1.01
0.71
1 . 24
Chromi um
19.78
19.78
0.00
1 .83
17.95
1 .56
18.22
Copper
11.91
11.91
0.00
8 . 25
3.66
6.81
5.09
Lead
1 .50
1 .50
0.00
1 .50
0 .00
1 .38
0.13
N1 eke 1
312.96
258.63
54.33
16.52
296.44
4.91
308.05
SI 1ver
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Thai 11um
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
0. 00
Z i nc
6.10
6.10
0.00
4. 66
1 .44
3.83
2 .27
TOTAL TOXIC METALS
354.21
299.88
54.33
33.71
320.50
19. 20
335.01
Cyani de
0 . 03
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.03
0 . 00
TOTAL TOXICS
354.24
299.91
54.33
33.74
320.50
19.23
335.01
A 1um1num
745.56
699.25
46.31
50 .00
695.56
33.26
712.30
Amnion 1 a
12.22
12.22
0.00
12.22
0.00
12.22
0.00
Cobalt
3.38
3.38
0.00
0.82
2.56
0.60
2 .78
Fluoride
6,172.91
5,058.22
1 , 114.69
323.68
5,849.23
323.68
5,849.23
I ron
452.31
190.01
262.31
9.15
443.16
6. 25
446.06
Magnes ium
0 .00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 . 00
Manganese
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Refractory Metals
126,545.16
897.92
125,647.24
23.70
126,521.46
16.57
126,528.60
T1 tan 1um
122.04
45.05
76.99
1 .55
120.49
1 . 30
120 . 74
TOTAL NONCONVENTIONALS
134,053.59
6,906.05
127,147.54
421.13
133,632.46
393.88
1 33,659.7 1
TSS
64,084. 17
7,998.24
56,085.93
267.88
63,816.30
58 . 04
64,026. 13
01 1 and Grease
405.92
405.90
0.03
150.23
255.69
150.23
255.69
TOTAL CONVENTIONALS
64,490.10
8,404 . 14
56,085.95
418.10
64,071.99
208.27
64,281 .83
TOTAL POLLUTANTS
198,897.93
15,610.10
183,287.83
872.97
198,024.95
621 . 38
198,276.55

-------
Table X-0

NONFERROUS
METALS FORMING
POLLUTANT
REDUCTION BENEFIT ESTIMATES
(kg/yr)



TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY






TOTAL SUBCATEGORY




Tota t
Opt ion 1
Option 1
Option 2
Option 2
Option 3
Option 3
Pol 1utant
Raw Waste
D i scharged
Removed
D i scharged
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Arsenic
2.02
2.02
0.00
2.02
0.00
2 . 02
0.00
Cadmium
0 . 20
0.20
0.00
0.20
0.00
0 . 20
0.00
Chromi um
40 . 14
40, 14
0.00
13.56
26.58
1 1 .30
28.84
Copper
55, 00
55.00
0.00
55.00
0.00
52.71
2. 29
Lead
427.13
172.69
254.44
19.37
407.76
12.91
414.22
N i eke 1
9.40
9.40
0.00
9.40
0.00
9,40
0.00
Thai 11um
0,07
0.07
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.07
0.00
Zi nc
262.58
214.16
48.43
53.27
209.31
37. 13
225.46
TOTAL TOXIC METALS
796.54
493.68
302.87
152.89
643.66
125.74
670.81
Cyan 1de
0.77
0 . 77
0. 00
0.77
0.00
0.77
0.00
TOTAL TOXICS
797.32
494.45
302.87
153.66
643.66
126.51
670.81
A 1uminum
11,042.37
3, 223.61
7,818.76
361.57
10,680.80
240.51
10,801 .86
Ammoni a
13,441.20
13,441 .20
0.00
13,441.20
0.00
13,44 1.20
0.00
Coba1t
212.28
71 .96
140.32
8.07
204.21
5 .49
206.79
F1uori de
168,294.83
20,867.13
147,427.70
2,340,55
165,954.28
2,340,55
165,954.28
I ron
50,114.63
590.04
49,524.60
66. 18
50,048.45
45. 20
50,069.44
Mo)ybdenum
893.48
846.38
47. 10
227.60
665,88
151.73
741.75
Tantalum
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
T i tanium
1 18.505.32
287.82
1 18,217.49
32 . 28
1 18 ,473.03
20.98
1 18,484.33
Tungsten
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .00
Vanad i um
2,747.32
1,644.59
1 , 102.73
227.60
2,519.72
151.73
2,595.59
TOTAL NONCONVENTIONALS
365,251.43
40,972.73
324,278.70
16,705.06
348,546.37
16,397.40
348 ,854.04
TSS
43,335.39
17,269.35
26,066.04
1,937.01
41 , 398.38
419.69
42,915.70
Oi1 and Grease
4,053.06
4,053.06
0.00
1,614.17
2,438.89
1,614.17
2,438.89
TOTAL CONVENTIONALS
47,388.45
21,322.41
26,066.04
3,551 . 18
43,837.27
2,033.86
45,354.59
TOTAL POLLUTANTS
413,437.20
62,789.59
350,647.61
20,409.90
393,027.30
18,557.77
394,879.43

-------
Table X-10

NONFERROUS
METALS FORMING POLLUTANT
REDUCTION BENEFIT ESTIMATES
(kg/yr)




ZINC FORMING
SUBCATEGORY






TOTAL SUBCATEGORY




Tota 1
Opt ion 1
Opt i on 1
Option 2
Opt i on 2
Opt i on 3
Opt i on 3
Po11utant
Raw Waste
Di scharged
Removed
Di scharged
Removed
Di scharged
Removed
Ant i mony
0.10
0.10
0 .00
0.10
0.00
0.10
0.00
Arsenic
0.01
0.01
0 .00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
Bery1 1i urn
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Cadmi um
0.00
0.00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Chromi um
3,704.02
6.19
3,690.63
4.56
3,700.26
3.02
3,701.00
Copper
211,750.02
41 .79
211,700.23
30.55
21 1 ,719.47
20.55
211,729.47
Lead
0.17
0.17
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.17
0.00
Nickel
245.57
57.91
107.66
40.40
205.09
1 2 . 03
233.54
Z i nc
6,275.07
25.73
6,250 . 14
10.05
6,257 .02
1 2 . 50
6,263.29
total toxic metals
221,976.64
131.90
221,044.66
94.00
221,002.64
49.34
221,927.30
Cyan i de
40,37 1 .66
5.40
40,366. 10
3.02
40,367.04
2.57
40,369.09
TOTAL TOXICS
262,340.30
1 37.46
262,210.04
97.02
262,250.40
51.91
262,296.39
A 1umi num
152.79
152.79
0.00
119.34
33.45
79.06
72.93
Amnion i a
73. 15
73. 15
0.00
73.15
0.00
73.15
0.00
Coba1t
0 . 74
0.31
0 .43
0.10
0.64
0.07
0.67
F1uo ride
23,594.00
1 ,060.96
2 1 , 733 . 1 2
1 ,500. 10
22,013.90
1 ,500 . 10
22,013.90
Iron
122.96
32.00
90.00
22.43
100.53
15.32
107.64
Magnes i um
1 ,104. 16
7.02
1 ,096.34
5 .47
1,098.69
3.67
1,100.49
Manganese
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
Mo 1ybdenum
0.41
0.41
0 .00
0.41
0.00
0.41
0.00
T i n
0.46
0.46
0.00
0.46
0.00
0.46
0.00
T i tan i um
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.00
Vanad i um
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
total nonconventionals
25,040.79
2,120.02
22,920.77
1 ,001 .50
23,247.29
1 ,753.00
23,295.7 1
TSS
19,916.02
939.04
10,976.90
656.43
19,259.59
142.26
19,773.76
0i 1 and Grease
4,937.46
702.55
4, 154.91
547.01
4,390.45
547.01
4,390.45
total conventionals
24,053.40
1 , 721 . 59
23,131.09
1,203.44
23,650.04
609.27
24, 164.2 1
total pollutants
312,250.57
3,907.07
300,263.50
3,102.76
309,147.01
2,494.25
309,756.31

-------
Table X-11

NONFERROUS
METALS FORMING POLLUTANT
REDUCTION
BENEFIT ESTIMATES (kg/yr)



ZIRCONIUM-HAFNIUM
FORMING SUBCATEGORY





TOTAL SUBCATEGORY




Total
Option 1
Option 1
Option 2
Option 2
Option 3
Option 3
Po11utant
Raw Waste
Di scharged
Removed
Di scharged
Removed
Di scharged
Removed
Arseni c
0.06
0.06
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.06
0.00
Cadmi um
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Chromi um
5.80
5.78
0.02
1 .06
4. 74
0.88
4.92
Copper
4.31
4.31
0.00
4.31
0.00
4.31
0.00
Lead
1.14
1.14
0.00
1.14
0.00
0.99
0.15
N i eke 1
1 .46
1 .46
0.00
1 .46
0.00
1.41
0.05
Tha11i um
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
Z i nc
2.73
2.04
0.69
1 .58
1.15
1 .56
1.17
TOTAL TOXIC METALS
15.52
14.08
0.71
9.63
5.89
9.23
6. 29
Cyan 1de
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.05
0.01
Dichloromethane
590.83
0.00
590.83
0.00
590.83
0.00
590.83
To 1uene
49.36
0.00
46.36
0.00
49.36
0.00
49.36
TOTAL TOXICS
655.75
14.86
640.90
9.68
646.08
9.27
646.48
A 1uminum
52.79
52.79
0.00
28 . 19
24.60
18 . 75
34.04
Ammonia
52.33
52. 33
0.00
52.33
0.00
52.33
0.00
Coba1t
0.31
0.31
0.00
0.3 1
0.00
0.31
0.00
F1uor1de
2,422.22
1 ,232.40
1 , 189.82
182.45
2,239.76
182.45
2,239.76
I ron
39.86
34.85
5 .02
5.16
34.70
3.52
36.34
Mo 1ybdenum
0.11
0.11
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.11
0.00
Ti tanium
0.27
0.27
0.00
0.27
0.00
0.27
0.00
Vanadi um
2.78
2.78
0.00
2.78
0.00
2. 78
0.00
Zi rconium
7,469.65
613.65
6,856.00
90.85
7,378.80
60.52
7,409.12
TOTAL NONCONVENTIONALS
10,040.31
1,989.48
8,050.83
362.44
9,677.86
321.05
9,719.26
TSS
714.08
657.45
56.63
151.00
563.09
32.72
681 .37
Oi1 and Grease
9,441.90
849.93
8,591.97
125 .83
9,316.06
1 25 .83
9,316.06
TOTAL CONVENTIONALS
10,155.98
1 ,507 .38
8,648.60
276.83
9,879.15
158.55
9,997.43
TOTAL POLLUTANTS
20,852.04
3,511.72
17,340.32
648.95
20,203.09
488.86
20,363.18

-------
Table X-12
NONFERROUS METALS FORMING POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFIT ESTIMATES (kg/yr)
METAL POWDERS SUBCATEGORY
TOTAL SUBCATEGORY

Total
Opt i on 1
Opt i on 1
Opt ion 2
Opt ion 2
Opt i on 3
Opt i on 3
Po1 1ut ant
Raw Waste
Di scharged
Removed
Di scharged
Removed
Di scharged
Removed
Ant i mony
0.42
0 .42
O. 00
0 . 42
0 . 00
0.42
0 . 00
Arseni c
0.68
0 . 6B
0.00
0.68
0.00
0.68
0 . 00
Cadmi um
0.00
0 . 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Chromi um
2.10
2.10
0 . 00
2.10
0 . 00
2.10
0. 00
Coppe r
932.B0
60 . 20
872.61
22.20
910.61
14.93
917 . 8B
Lead
183.80
1 2 . 45
171.35
4 . 59
179.21
3.06
180.74
Nickel
44 . 57
44 . 57
0.00
25.40
19.17
B .42
36 . 1 5
Si 1ve r
0.00
0 . 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 . 00
0 . 00
Tha1 1i um
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Zinc
74.59
34.25
40.34
1 2 . 63
61 .96
8.80
65.79
TOTAL TOXIC METALS
1 , 238.96
154.67
1,084.29
68.02
1 , 170.94
38.40
1 , 200.56
Cyan i de
3.13
3.13
0.00
1 .96
1.17
1 . 32
1.81
TOTAL TOXICS
1 , 242.09
157.80
1,084.29
69 .98
1,172.11
39 .72
1,202.37
A 1umi num
445.40
232.49
212.92
85.72
359.68
57.02
388 . 38
Ammon ia
16.89
16.89
0 .00
16.89
0.00
16.89
0 . 00
Coba 1 t
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0 . 00
Fluoride
41.91
41.91
0.00
41.91
0.00
41.91
0 . 00
Iron
1 ,980 . 07
42.55
1 ,937.51
15.69
1,964.38
10.72
1,969.35
Magnes i um
79 . 58
10.3B
69.20
3.83
75 . 75
2.56
77 .02
Manganese
0 . 64
0 . 64
0.00
0 . 64
0 . 00
0 . 64
0 . 00
T i n
87 . 56
87 . 56
0.00
39. 10
48 . 46
27.17
69 . 39
Tit an i um
34 . 39
20 .76
13.63
7 . 65
26 . 73
4.98
29 . 41
Vanad i um
0 . 36
0 . 36
0.00
0 . 36
0.00
0.36
0.00
TOTAL NONCONVENTI ONA LS
2,686.80
453.54
2 , 233.26
211.81
2,475.00
1 62.25
2,524.55
TSS
40,568.9B
1,245.46
39 ,323.52
495.24
40,109.74
99.50
40,469.48
Oi 1 and Grease
15,867.35
935.27
14,932.09
280.08
15,587.27
280.08
15,587 . 27
TOTAL CONVENTIONALS
56,436.33
2,180.72
54,255.61
739.32
55,697.02
379.58
56,056.75
TOTAL POLLUTANTS
60 , 365.22
2,792.06
57 , 573 . 1 7
1,021.10
59,344 . 1 2
581.56
59,783.67

-------
Table X-13
NONFERROUS METALS FORMING POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFIT ESTIMATES (kg/yr)
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS

Total
Option 1
Option 1
Option 2
Option 2
Opt i on 3
Option 3
Po11utant
Raw Waste
Di scharged
Removed
D1scharged
Removed
D i scharged
Removed
Ant imony
2.50
2.50
0.00
1.71
0.79
1.15
1 . 35
Arsen1c
0.06
0.06
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.06
0.00
Bery11ium
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Cadmi um
0.01
0.01
0. 00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
Chromi um
13.19
1 .67
1 1 .52
0.21
12.90
0.17
13.02
Copper
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Lead
35.00
2.39
33.41
0.29
35.51
0 . 20
35.60
N i eke 1
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.05
0.00
Zi nc
0.06
0.06
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.06
0.00
TOTAL TOXIC METALS
51 .75
6.83
44.93
2 . 47
49 . 20
1 . 78
49.97
Cyan i de
0.23
0.23
0.00
0 . 23
0 . 00
0 . 23
0.00
TOTAL TOXICS
51 .98
7.06
44.93
2 . 70
49. 28
2.01
49 .97
A 1umi num
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
Ammon i a
0.47
0.47
0.00
0 . 47
0.00
0 . 47
0.00
Coba1t
17.85
1 .00
16.85
0.12
1 7 . 73
0.00
17.77
Fluoride
1 .70
1 .70
0.00
1 .70
0.00
1 .70
0.00
I ron
1 .58
1 . 58
0.00
1 .00
0.50
0.60
0.89
Magnes i um
96.99
1 .99
95.00
0 . 24
96.74
0.16
96.82
Manganese
0.64
0.64
0.00
0.39
0 . 25
0 . 34
0 . 30
Mo 1ybdenum
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.00
Tin
4.03
4.03
0.00
2.62
1 .42
1 . 74
2.30
Ti tan i um
0.24
0.24
0.00
0 . 24
0.00
0.24
0 . 00
Vanad i um
0.27
0 . 27
0.00
0 . 27
0.00
0.27
0 . 00
TOTAL NONCONVENTIONALS
123.01
1 1 .96
111.05
A
7.10
116.71
5.73
1 18.08
TSS
1,531.12
238.94
1,292.18
29.34
1,501.79
6.36
1 ,524.77
Oi 1 and Grease
63.91
63.91
0.00
24.45
39.46
24 . 45
39 . 46
TOTAL CONVENTIONALS
1,595.03
302.84
I ,292. 18
53.70
1,541.25
30.00
1,564.23
TOTAL POLLUTANTS
1,770.02
321.86
1,440.96
63.50
1,707.24
30.54
1,732.28

-------
Table X-14

NONFERROUS
METALS FORMING
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFIT ESTIMATES
(kg/yr)



MAGNESIUM FORMING
SUBCATEGORY






DIRECT DISCHARGERS




Total
Opt ion 1
Opt ion 1
Opt i on 2
Opt i on 2
Opt ion 3
Opt ion 3
Pol 1utant
Raw Waste
D i schar-ged
Removed
Di scharged
Removed
D i scharged
Removed
Ant i mony
0 . 02
0 .02
0 .00
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.00
Arsen i c
0.00
0 . 00
0.00
0.00
0 . 00
0 . 00
0.00
Bery1 1 i urn
0. IB
0. 18
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.18
0.00
Cadm i urn
0.00
0 . 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Chromi urn
14,675.69
1 . 48
1 4,674.21
0.18
14,675.51
0.15
14,675.54
Copper
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Lead
1 . 20
1 . 20
0.00
0. 26
0.95
0.17
1 .03
Nickel
0 . 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Si 1 ve r
0.04
0.04
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.04
0.00
Zinc
1 19.55
5.81
113.74
0.71
1 18.84
0.49
1 19.05
TOTAL TOXIC METALS
14,796.67
8 . 72
14,787.95
1 .38
14,795.30
1 . 05
14,795.63
Cyan i de
0.10
0.10
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.10
0.00
TOTAL TOXICS
14,796.77
8.82
14,787.95
1 . 48
14,795.30
1.15
14,795.63
A 1umi num
01 .66
39.42
42 . 24
4.80
76.87
3.19
78 . 47
Ammon i a
410.75
410.75
0.00
410 . 75
0.00
410.75
0.00
Coba1t
1 . 29
0.88
0.41
0.11
1.18
0.07
1.21
Fluoride
61 .99
61 .99
0.00
31 .06
30 . 92
31 .06
30.92
I ron
4. 44
4 . 44
0.00
0.88
3.56
0.60
3.84
Magnes i urn
27,560.00
1 .76
27,558.24
0.21
27,559.79
0.14
27,559.86
Manganese
2.59
2 . 59
0.00
0.34
2 . 25
0.30
2 . 29
TOTAL NONCONVENT IONALS
28,122.72
521.83
27,600.89
448.16
27,674.57
446 . 1 2
27,676.60
TSS
2,247.54
2 11.19
2,036.35
25 . 7 1
2,221.83
5.57
2,241.97
0i1 and Grease
499.48
175.99
323.49
21 .42
478 . 06
21.42
478.06
TOTAL CONVENTIONALS
2,747.02
387 . 17
2,359.85
47. 13
2,699.89
26.99
2,720.03
TOTAL POLLUTANTS
45,666.51
917.83
44,748.69
496.76
45,169.76
474.26
45,192.26

-------
Table X- 1 5
NONFERROUS METALS FORMING POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFIT ESTIMATES (kg/yr)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS

Total
Option 1
Option 1
Option 2
Option 2
Option 3
Option 3
Po11utant
Raw Waste
Oi scharged
Removed
D i scharged
Removed
Di scharged
Removed
Arsenlc
0.39
0.39
0.00
0.39
0.00
0.39
0.00
Cadmi um
36. 10
29.30
6.80
3.28
32.82
2.03
34.07
Chromi um
756.70
31.17
725.53
3.50
753.20
2.90
753.80
Copper
913.10
215.40
697.70
24. 10
889.00
16.22
896.88
Lead
2.42
2.42
0.00
2.42
0.00
2.42
0.00
Nickel
9,245.50
274.80
8,970.70
30.80
9,214.70
9.15
9,236.35
Tha11i um
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
Z i nc
39.05
39.05
0.00
13.70
25.35
9.60
29.45
TOTAL TOXIC METALS
10,993.27
592.54
10,400.73
78.20
10,915.07
42.72
10,950.55
Cyanide
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.00
TOTAL TOXICS
10,993.30
592.57
10,400.73
78.23
10,915.07
42.75
10,950.55
A 1uminum
33.34
33.34
0.00
33.34
0.00
33.34
0.00
Ammonia
908.76
908.76
0.00
908.76
0.00
908.76
0.00
Coba1t
1,080.88
18 .56
1 ,062.32
2.10
1,078.78
1 .40
1,079.48
F1uori de
7,090.26
5,383.80
1 , 706.46
603.00
6,487.26
603.00
6,487.26
I ron
1,235.71
75.20
1,160.5 1
17.06
1,218.65
1 1 .65
1,224.06
Mo 1ybdenum
78.37
78.37
0.00
75 . 30
3.07
16.88
61 .49
Ti tani um
1 , 1 11.82
74.25
1 ,037.57
8.32
1 , 103.50
5.41
1 , 106.41
Vanadi um
16.47
16.47
0.00
4.16
12.31
4.16
12.31
TOTAL NONCONVENTIONALS
1 1 ,555.61
6,588.75
4,966.86
1 ,652.04
9,903.57
1 ,584.60
9,971.01
TSS
10,755.90
4,456.00
6,299.90
499.00
10,256.90
108.00
10,647.90
Oi1 and Grease
3,645.88
3,645.88
0.00
416.00
3,329.88
416.00
3,229.88
TOTAL CONVENTIONALS
14,401.78
8, 101 .88
6,299.90
915.00
13,486.78
524.00
13,877.78
TOTAL POLLUTANTS
36,950.69
15,283.20
21,667.49
2,645.27
34,305.42
2, 151 .35
34,799.34

-------
Tab1e X-16
NONFERROUS METALS FORMING POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFIT ESTIMATES (kg/yr)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS

Tota 1
Opt i or i 1
Opt i on 1
Option 2
Option 2
Option 3
Opt i on 3
Po11utant
Raw Waste
Dischaiged
Removed
Di scharged
Removed
D i s charged
Removed
Ant i mony
0.00
U . 00
0 . 00
0 . 00
0 . 00
0.00
0 . 00
Arseni c
0.00
0 . 00
0.00
0.00
0 . 00
0 . 00
0 . 00
Cadmi urn
6.69
2 . 53
4. 16
0 . 27
6 .42
0.17
6. 52
Chromi um
0 . 26
0 . 26
0.00
0 . 26
0.00
0 . 24
0 .03
Copper
13.67
1 3 . 67
0.00
1 .98
1 1 . 69
1 . 33
1 2 . 34
Lead
0 .32
0 .32
0.00
0.32
0 .00
0 . 27
0 . 04
Ni eke 1
0.78
0.78
0.00
0.78
0.00
0.75
0.03
Se1 en i um
0.00
0 . 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Silver
1 . 32
1 . 32
0.00
0.34
0 .98
0.02
1 . 30
Tha1 1i um
0.00
0 . 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Z i nc
5 . 58
5 . 58
0.00
1.12
4 . 45
0 . 78
4 . 79
TOTAL TOXIC METALS
28 . 61
24.46
4.16
5.07
23 . 54
3 . 56
25.05
Cyan i de
18.83
2 . 24
16.59
0 . 24
1 8 . 59
0.16
18 .67
TOTAL TOXICS
47 . 44
26. 70
20. 74
5.31
42. 13
3 . 72
43. 72
A 1um i num
28 . 32
28 .32
0.00
7 . 63
20 . 69
5.08
23 . 24
Ammon ia
5.30
5 . 30
0.00
5.30
0.00
5.30
0.00
Coba 1 t
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0 . 00
0.01
0.00
F1uo ri de
16.42
1 6.42
0.00
16.42
0.00
16.42
0.00
I ron
14.51
13.14
1 . 36
1 . 40
13.11
0.95
13.55
Magnes i um
96.85
3.21
93.65
0 . 34
96.51
0.34
96.51
Manganese
4.07
4 . 07
0.00
0.55
3 . 52
0.48
3.59
T i n
0.00
0 . 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ti tani um
0 .22
0. 22
0.00
0. 22
0.00
0.22
0.00
Vanadi um
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
TOTAL NONCONVENTIONALS
165.69
70 . 68
95.01
31 .85
133.83
28 . 79
136.90
TSS
3,113.09
384.7 1
2,728.38
40.89
3 , 072.21
8 .86
3,104.23
Oi1 and Grease
351 .66
320.59
31 .06
34.07
317.59
34.07
317.59
TOTAL CONVENTIONALS
3,464.75
705.31
2,795.44
74.96
3,389.79
42 . 93
3,421.82
TOTAL POLLUTANTS
3,677.88
802.69
2,875.19
112.12
3,565.76
75 . 44
3,602.44

-------
Table X-17
NONFERROUS METALS FORMING POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFIT ESTIMATES (kg/yr)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS

Total
Option 1
Option 1
Option 2
Option 2
Option 3
Option 3
Pol 1ut ant
Raw Waste
D i scharged
Removed
Di scharged
Removed
D i scharged
Removed
Arsenic
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 . 00
Bery111um
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Cadmlum
0. 58
0.58
0.00
0.35
0.23
0.23
0.34
Chromi um
4.71
4.71
0 . 00
0.61
4.11
0.54
4.17
Copper
3.10
3.10
0.00
2.80
0.30
2.14
0.96
Lead
0.32
0 .32
0.00
0.32
0.00
0.32
0.00
Nickel
72 . 56
72.56
0.00
5. 75
66.81
1.71
70.85
Si 1ver
0.00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Tha11i um
0 . 00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Zinc
2 .87
2.87
0. 00
1.71
1.16
1 . 29
1 . 58
TOTAL TOXIC METALS
84.14
84.14
0. 00
1 1 .55
72.60
6. 24
77.90
Cyani de
0 .02
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.00
0. 02
0.00
TOTAL TOXICS
84. 1 7
84 . 1 7
0.00
11.57
72.60
6. 27
77.90
A 1umi num
186.04
186.04
0. 00
17.42
168.62
1 1 . 58
1 74.45
Ammon i a
9.10
9.10
0. 00
9.10
0.00
9.10
0 . 00
Coba1t
0.80
0 . 80
0.00
0.24
0.56
0.17
0.63
Fluoride
1,668.61
1,668.61
0 .00
112.74
1 , 555.87
112.74
1 ,555.87
I ron
265.73
84 . 90
180.83
3.19
262.54
2.18
263.55
Magnes ium
0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Manganese
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 . 00
Refractory Metals
15,955.27
305 . 22
15,650.05
6.55
1 5,948.72
4.57
15,950.70
T i tan i um
28 .51
15.36
13.15
0.41
28. 10
0.35
28. 16
TOTAL NONCONVENTIONALS
18,114.06
2 ,270.03
15,844.03
149.64
17,964.42
140.70
17,973.36
TSS
11,310.50
2,931 .95
8,378.55
93.30
11,217.20
20 .22
1 1 ,290.28
Oi1 and Grease
50. 23
50.2 1
0.03
46.90
3.34
46.90
3.34
TOTAL CONVENTI ONALS
11,360.73
2,982. 16
8,378.58
140 . 20
11,220.53
67. 1 1
1 1 ,293.62
TOTAL POLLUTANTS
29,558.96
5,336.35
24,222.60
301.41
29,257.55
2 14.08
29,344.88

-------
Table X- 1 8
NONFERROUS METALS FORMING POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFIT ESTIMATES (kg/yr)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS

Tota 1
Opt i on 1
Opt i on 1
Option 2
Opt ion 2
Opt ion 3
Option 3
Po11utant
Raw Waste
Di scharged
Removed
D i scharged
Removed
D i scharged
Removed
A rsen i c
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.00
Cadmi um
0.15
0.15
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.15
0.00
Chromi um
15.15
15.15
0.00
10.09
5 . 06
8 .40
6 . 74
Copper
36.58
36.58
0.00
36.58
0.00
36.58
0.00
Lead
217.22
127.81
89.41
14.41
202.81
9.61
207.62
Nickel
1 . 04
1 . 04
0.00
1 .04
0.00
1 . 04
0.00
Tha11i um
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 . 00
0.00
Zinc
90. 72
90 . 72
0. 00
39. 62
51.10
27.62
63. 1 1
TOTAL TOXIC METALS
360.91
271.50
89.41
101.93
258.98
CO
GO
277.47
Cyan i de
0.16
0.16
0.00
0.16
0.00
0.16
0.00
TOTAL TOXICS
361.07
271.66
89.41
102.09
258.98
83 . 60
277.47
A 1umi num
3,858.44
2,385.78
1,472.66
268.95
3,589.49
178.90
3,679.54
Ammon i a
9,898.97
9,898.97
0.00
9,898.97
0.00
9 , 898.97
0.00
Coba 1t
77.80
53 . 25
24.55
6.00
71 .80
4 . 08
73 . 72
F1uoride
44,266.07
15,443.64
28,822.43
1 ,740.97
42 ,525.10
1,740.97
42,525.10
I ron
16,889.30
436.68
16,452.61
49 . 23
16,840.07
33 .62
16,855.68
Mo 1ybdenum
318.99
318.99
0.00
169.29
149.70
112.86
206. 13
Tanta1um
0 . 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 . 00
0.00
T i tan i um
42,802.41
2 13.02
42,589.40
24.01
42 , 778.40
15.61
42 , 786.81
Tungsten
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Vanadi um
1 , 1 17.20
1,117.20
0.00
169.29
947.91
1 12.86
1,004.34
TOTAL NONCONVENT IONALS
1 19,229. 19
29,867.54
89,361.65
12,326.73
106,902.46
12,097.88
107,131.31
TSS
28,793.48
12,780.95
16,012.53
1 ,440.80
27,352.67
312.17
28,48 1 . 30
Oi 1 and Grease
3,181.73
3,181.73
0.00
1,200.67
1 ,981 .06
1 , 200.67
1,981,06
TOTAL CONVENT IONALS
31 ,975.2 1
1 5 , 962.67
16,012.53
2,641.47
29,333.73
1 , 512.84
30,462 . 36
TOTAL POLLUTANTS
151,565.47
46,101.87
105,463.59
15,070.29
136,495.17
13,694.33
137,871.14

-------
Table X-19

NONFERROUS
METALS FORMING
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFIT ESTIMATES (kg/yr)



URANIUM FORMING
SUBCATEGORY






DIRECT DISCHARGERS




Total
Option 1
Option 1
Option 2
Option 2
Opt i on 3
Option 3
Po11utant
Raw Waste
Di scharged
Removed-
Di scharged
Removed
Di scharged
Removed
Ant i mony
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Arsenic
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Cadmium
0.67
0. 67
0.00
0.17
0.50
0.11
0.57
Chromi um
2.82
1 .52
1 . 30
0.18
2.64
0.15
2.67
Copper
3.94
3.94
0.00
1 .25
2.69
0.84
3.10
Lead
42.42
2.17
40. 25
0.26
42. 16
0.17
42 . 25
N i eke 1
1.11
1.11
0.00
1.11
0.00
0.47
0.64
Tha1 1 i um
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Zinc
10.73
5.96
4. 77
0.71
10.02
0.50
10. 23
TOTAL TOXIC METALS
61 . 69
15.37
46.32
3.68
58.01
2. 24
59.45
Cyan 1de
0.09
0.09
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.09
0.00
TOTAL TOXICS
61 . 79
15.47
46.32
3. 78
58.01
2.33
59.45
A 1umi num
113.16
40.47
72.69
4.82
108.34
3.21
109.95
Ammonia
39.60
39 . 68
0.00
39.68
0.00
39.68
0.00
Fluoride
96. 08
96.00
0.00
31 . 22
64.86
31 . 22
64.86
I ron
850.69
7.41
043.29
0.88
849.81
0.60
850.09
Magnes ium
144.96
1.81
143.15
0.22
144.74
0.22
144.74
Mo 1ybdenum
0.37
0 . 37
0.00
0.37
0.00
0 . 37
0.00
Ti tan i um
5.95
3.61
2.34
0.43
5.52
0. 28
5 . 67
Uran i um
9,576.13
72. 26
9,503.87
8.61
9,567.52
5.68
9,570.45
TOTAL NONCONVENTIONA LS
10,827.02
261.68
10,565.34
86.23
10,740.79
81 .25
10,745.77
TSS
12,022.92
216.79
11 ,806. 13
25.83
1 1 ,997.09
5. 60
12,017.33
0i1 and Grease
050.82
180.66
670. 16
21 . 53
829.29
21 .53
829.29
TOTAL CONVENTIONALS
12,873.74
397.45
12,476.29
47 .36
12,826.38
27 . 13
1 2,846.62
TOTAL POLLUTANTS
23,762.55
674.60
23,087.95
137.37
23,625. 18
1 10.72
23,651.83

-------
Table X-20

NONFERROUS
METALS FORMING POLLUTANT
REDUCTION BENEFIT ESTIMATES
(kg/yr)




ZINC FORMING
SUBCATEGORY






DIRECT DISCHARGERS




Tot a 1
Option 1
Option 1
Option 2
Option 2
Option 3
Option 3
Po 11utant
Raw Waste
Di scharged
Removed
Di scharged
Removed
Di scharged
Removed
Ant i mony
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
Arsenic
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Be ry 1 1 i um
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
Cadmi um
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Chromi um
3,704.68
6.05
3,698.63
4.42
3,700.26
3.68
3,701.00
Copper
211,750.00
41 .77
211,708.23
30.53
211,719.47
20.53
211,729.47
Lead
0.16
0.16
0.00
0.16
0.00
0.16
0.00
N i eke 1
238.22
53. 29
184.93
38.95
199.27
1 1 .58
226.64
Zi nc
6,227.69
23.67
6,204.02
17.37
6,210.32
12.11
6,215.58
TOTAL TOXIC METALS
221,920.75
124.94
221,795.81
91 .43
221,829.32
48.06
221,872.69
Cyan i de
40,361 .87
5.04
40,356.83
3.68
40,358. 19
2.47
49,359.40
TOTAL TOXICS
262,282.62
129.98
262,152.64
95. 1 1
262,187.51
50.53
262,232 .09
A]um i num
151 .36
151 .36
0.00
117.91
33.45
78 .43
72 .93
Ammon i a
72.99
72 .99
0.00
72 .99
0.00
72.99
0.00
Coba1t
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
F 1 uor i de
22,777.28
1,044.16
21 ,733. 12
763.30
22 ,013.98
763.30
22,013 .98
I ron
118.17
29.52
88.65
21 .58
96. 59
14. 74
103.43
Magnes i um
1,066.64
7 . 20
1,059.44
5. 26
1,061.38
3.53
1,063.11
Manganese
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
Mo 1ybdenum
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
T i n
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
T i tan i um
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Vanad i um
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .00
0.00
TOTAL NONCONVENTIONALS
24,186.44
1,305.23
22,881.21
981.04
23,205.40
932.99
23,253.45
TSS
19,196.17
864.10
18,332.07
631.70
18,564.47
136.90
19,059.27
Oi1 and Grease
4,753.57
720.10
4,033.47
526.40
4,227 . 17
526.40
4,227.17
TOTAL CONVENTIONALS
23,949.74
1,584.20
22,365.54
1 , 158.10
22 , 791 .64
663.30
23,286.44
TOTAL POLLUTANTS
310,418.81
3,019.42
307,399.39
2,234.26
308.184.55
1,646.83
308,771.98

-------
Table X-21
NONFERROUS METALS FORMING POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFIT ESTIMATES (kg/yr)
ZIRCONIUM-HAFNIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORV
DIRECT DISCHARGERS

Tota 1
Option 1
Opt i on 1
Option 2
Option 2
Option 3
Opt i on 3
Pol 1utant
Raw Waste
D i scharged
Removed
D i scharged
Removed
Di scharged
Removed
Arseni c
0.06
0.06
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.06
0.00
Cadmiurn
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Chromi um
5 . 64
5 . 64
0.00
1 . 04
4.60
0.87
4.78
Copper
4 . 24
4 . 24
0.00
4 . 24
0.00
4.24
0.00
Lead
1.14
1.14
0.00
1.14
0.00
0 .99
0.15
Nickel
1 .37
1 .37
0.00
1 .37
0.00
1 . 37
0.00
Tha11ium
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
Zinc
1 .52
1 .52
0.00
1 .52
0.00
1 .52
0.00
TOTAL TOXIC METALS
13.98
13.98
0.00
9.38
4.60
9.06
4.93
Cyan i de
0.04
0.04
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.04
0.00
Di ch1oromethane
590.83
0.00
590.83
0.00
590.83
0.00
590.83
T o1uene
49.36
0.00
49.36
0.00
49.36
0.00
49.36
TOTAL TOXICS
654.20
14.02
640. 18
9.42
644.79
9.09
645. 1 1
A 1umi num
51 .37
51 .37
0.00
27.72
23.65
18.44
32.93
Ammon i a
51 .92
51 .92
0.00
51 .92
0.00
51 .92
0. 00
Coba1t
0.30
0.30
0.00
0.30
0.00
0.30
0. 00
F1uor i de
2,395.32
1 ,209.35
1 , 185.97
179.44
2,215.88
179.44
2,215.88
I ron
30 . 34
34. 20
4.15
5.07
33.27
3.47
34.88
Mo 1ybdenum
0.07
0.07
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.07
0.00
Ti tanium
0.26
0.26
0.00
0.26
0.00
0.26
0.00
Vanad i um
2.69
2.69
0.00
2.69
0.00
2.69
0 . 00
Zirconi um
7,376.00
602.17
6,773.82
89.35
7 , 286.65
59.53
7,316.47
TOTAL NONCONVENTIONALS
9 ,916.28
1 ,952.34
7,963.94
356.84
9,599.44
316.12
9,600.16
TSS
638.38
638.38
0.00
148.50
489.88
32 . 18
606.20
Oi1 and Grease
8,543.04
034.04
7,709.00
123.75
8,419.28
123.75
8,419.28
TOTAL CONVENTIONALS
9,181.42
1,472.42
7,709.00
272.26
8,909.16
155.93
9,025.49
TOTAL POLLUTANTS
19,751.90
3,438.78
16,313.12
638.51
19,113.39
48 1 . 14
19,270.76

-------
Table X-22
NONFERROUS METALS FORMING POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFIT ESTIMATES (kg/yr)
METAL POWDERS SUBCATEGORV
DIRECT DISCHARGERS

Total
Opt ion 1
Opt i on 1
Opt ion 2
Option 2
Opt i on 3
Opt i on 3
Po11utant
Raw Was t e
Di scharged
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Di scharged
Removed
Ant i mony
0 . 04
0 . 04
0.00
0.04
0 . 00
0 . 04
0.00
Arseni c
0 . 07
0.07
0. 00
0.07
0.00
0 . 07
0.00
Cadmi um
0 . 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 . 00
0 . 00
0 . 00
Chromi um
0.22
0 . 22
0 . 00
0 . 22
0.00
0.22
0 . 00
Copper
111.76
5 .95
105.80
5 .95
105.80
4 .00
107.75
Lead
19.31
1 . 23
18.07
1 . 23
18.07
0.82
18.48
Nickel
4 . 68
4 . 68
0.00
4.68
0.00
2 . 26
2 .42
SiIver
0 . 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Tha11i um
0.00
0 . 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Z i nc
7.71
3 . 39
4.33
3 . 39
4. 33
2.36
5.35
TOTAL TOXIC METALS
143.79
1 5 . 58
128.20
1 5 . 58
128.20
9 . 78
134.01
Cyan i de
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
TOTAL TOXICS
143.79
15.58
1 28.20
15.58
128.20
9 . 78
134.01
A 1umi num
46. 25
22 . 99
23 . 27
22.99
23 . 27
15.29
30 .96
Ammon i a
1.01
1.01
0.00
1.01
0.00
1.01
0.00
Coba1t
0 . 00
0 . 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
F1uo r i de
2.18
2.18
0.00
2.18
0.00
2.18
0.00
Iron
207.31
4.21
203 . 10
4.21
203.10
2.87
204.43
Magnes i um
5.58
1 . 03
4. 55
1 .03
4.55
0.69
4.89
Mo 1ybdenum
0 . 07
0 . 07
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.07
0.00
Tin
9.14
9.14
0. 00
9.14
0. 00
7. 29
1 . 85
T i t an i um
3.61
2 . 05
1 . 56
2 . 05
1 .56
1 . 33
2 . 28
Vanad i um
0.04
0 . 04
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.04
0.00
TOTAL NONCONVENTIONALS
275. 18
42 . 70
232.48
42.70
232.48
30.76
244.42
TSS
3 , 868.40
123.14
3,745.26
123. 14
3,745.26
26.68
3,841.72
Oi1 and Grease
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
TOTAL CONVENTIONALS
3,868.40
123.14
3,745.26
123. 14
3,745.26
26.68
3,841.72
TOTAL POLLUTANTS
4,287.36
181.42
4,105.95
181.42
4,105.95
67 . 22
4,220. 15

-------
Table X-23
OPTIONS SELECTED AS THE TECHNOLOGY BASES FOR BAT
Subcategory
BAT

Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Option
2
Magnesium Forming
Option
2
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Option
3
Precious Metals Forming
Option
2
Refractory Metals Forming
Option
3
Titanium Forming
Option
2
Uranium Forming
Option
3
Zinc Forming
Option
3
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Option
2
Metal Powders Forming
Option
1
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
-	Flow Normalization, Lime and Settle
-	Flow Reduction, Lime and Settle
-	Flow Reduction, Lime and Settle, Multimedia Filtration
1816

-------
Table X-24
BAT REGULATORY FLOWS FOR THE
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
No rma1i zed
BAT Discharge
00
H
—I
Ope rat i on
Ro1 1i ng
Draw i ng
Extrusion
Swag i ng
Waste Stream
Spent emulsions
Spent soap solutions
Spent neat oils
Spent emulsions
Spent soap solutions
Press hydraulic fluid leakage
Spent emulsions
Cast i ng
Continuous Strip Casting Contact cooling water
Semi-Continuous Ingot
Cast i ng
Shot Cast i ng
Shot-forming
Contact cooling water
Contact cooling water
Wet aii pollution control
b 1 o w d o w n
1 / kkg
23.4
43.0
0
26.3
7 . 46
Press or solution heat treatment	144
contact cooling water
55.0
1 . 77
1 .00
2.94
37.3
58.8
gal/ton
5 .60
10.3
0
6.30
1	. 79
34 . 6
13.2
0 . 424
0 . 240
0.704
8 . 95
14.1
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of 1ead-tin-bismuth
rolled with emulsions
Mass of 1ead-t in-bi smuth
rolled with soap solutions
Mass of 1ead-tin-bismuth drawn
with emu 1s i ons
Mass of 1ead-tin-bismuth drawn
with soap solutions
Mass of 1ead-tin-bismuth heat
treated and subsequent Iy
cooled with water
Mass of 1ead-tin-bismuth
e x t ruded
Mass of 1ead-tin-bismuth
swaged with emulsions
Mass of	1ead-tin-bismuth cast
by the continuous strip method
Mass of	1ead-tin-bismuth ingot
cast by	the semi-continuous
method
Mass of	I ead-11n-blsmuth shot
cas t
Mass of	Iead"tin-bismuth shot
f o rrnecl

-------
Table X-24 (Continued)
BAT REGULATORY FLOWS FOR THE
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Operat i on
Normalized
BAT Discharge
Waste Stream
1 /kkg
gal/ton
Production Normalizing
Parameter
A1kali ne CIeani ng
Degreaslng
Spent baths
R1nsewat er
Spent solvents
120
236
0
28.7
56.5
0
Mass of lead-tin-bismuth
a 1kaline c1eaned
Mass of lead-tin-bismuth
a 1ka11ne c1eaned
00
H
00

-------
Table X-25
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Rolling Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
rolled with emulsions
*Antimony	.067	.030
*Lead	.010	.005
BAT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Rolling Spent Soap Solutions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) df lead-tin-bismuth
rolled with soap solutions
*Antimony	.124	.055
*Lead	.018	.009
BAT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Drawing Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1819

-------
Table X-25 (Continued)
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Drawing Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
drawn with emulsions
*Antimony	.076	.034
*Lead	.011	.005
BAT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Drawing Spent Soap Solutions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
drawn with soap solutions
*Antimony	.021	.010
*Lead	.003	.001
BAT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Extrusion Press or Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
heat treated
*Antimony	.413	.185
*Lead	.061	.029
1820

-------
Table X-25 (Continued)
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg	(lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
extruded
*Antimony	.158 .070
*Lead	.023 .011
BAT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Swaging Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
swaged with emulsions
*Antimony	.0051	.0023
*Lead	.0008	.0004
BAT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Continuous Strip Casting Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
cast by the continuous strip method
*Antimony	.0029	.0013
*Lead	.0004	.0002
1821

-------
Table X-25 (Continued)
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Semi-Continuous Ingot Casting Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
ingot cast by the semi-continuous method
*Antimony	.008	.004
*Lead	.001	.001
~
BAT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Shot Casting Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mc/off-kg	(lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
shot cast
*Antimony	.107 .048
*Lead	.016 .007
BAT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Shot-Forming Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
shot formed
*Antimony	.169	.075
*Lead	.025	.012
1822

-------
Table X-25 (Continued)
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
alkaline cleaned
*Antimony	.345	.154
*Lead	.050	.024
BAT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
alkaline cleaned
*Antimony	.678	.302
*Lead	.099	.047
BAT
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1823

-------
Table X- 26
BAT REGULATORV FLOWS FOR THE
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - MAGNESIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Norma 1i zed
BAT Discharge
Operat ion
00
IsJ
>f*
Ro111ng
Forg1ng
Direct Chill Casting
Surface Treatment
Sawing or Grinding
Degraas1ng
Wat Air Pollution Control
Waste Stream
Spent emulsions
Spent lubricants
Contact cooling water
Equipment cleaning wastewater
Contact cooling water
Spent baths
R1 nsewater
Spent emulsions
Spent solvents
B1owdown
1 /kkg
74.6
0
289
3.99
3,950
466
1 ,090
19.5
0
619
gal/ton
17.9
0
69.3
0.959
947
1 1 2
452
4.63
0
148
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of magnesium rolled with
emu 1s1ons
Mass of forged magnesium
cooled with water
Mass of magnesium forged on
equipment requiring cleaning
with water
Mass of magnesium cast with
direct chill methods
Mass of magnesium surface
t reated
Mass of magnesium surface
treated
Mass of magnesium sawed or
ground
Mass of magnesium sanded and
repaired or forged

-------
Table X-27
MAGNESIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Magnesium Forming
Rolling Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of magnesium
rolled with emulsions
*Chromium
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Magnesium
.033
.109
9.950
4.440
.007
.013
. 046
4 . 370
1.970
BAT
Magnesium Forming
Forging Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Magnesium Forming
Forging Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs)
cooled with water
of forged magnesium
*Chromium
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Magnesium
38
17
127
422
500
200
029
. 052
.176
17.000
7.630
1825

-------
Table X-27 (Continued)
MAGNESIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Magnesium Forming
Forging Equipment Cleaning Wastewater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/millicn off-lbs) of magnesium
forged
*Chromium	.0018	.0007
*Zinc	.0058	.0024
*Ammonia	.5320	.2340
*Fluoride	.2380	.1060
Magnesium	.0004		
BAT
Magnesium Forming
Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of magnesium
cast with direct chill methods
*Chromium	1.740	.711
*Zinc	5.770	2.410
*Ammonia	527.000	232.000
*Fluoride	235.000	104.000
Magnesium	.395 	
1826

-------
Table X-27 (Continued)
MAGNESIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Magnesium Forming
Surface Treatment Spent Baths
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of magnesium
surface treated
*Chromium	.205	.084
*Zinc	.681	.284
*Ammonia	62.100	27.300
*Fluoride	27.700	12.300
Magnesium	.047 	
BAT
Magnesium Forming
Surface Treatment Rinse
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of magnesium
surface treated
*Chromium
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluor ide
Magnesium
.832
2.760
252.000
113 . 000
.189
. 340
1.150
111.000
49.900
1827

-------
Table X-27 (Continued)
MAGNESIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Magnesium Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions
Pollu-ant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
poll^cant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of magnesium
sawec or ground
*Chromium	.009	.004
*Zinc	.029	.012
*Ammcnia	2.600	1.140
*Flucride	1.160	.515
Magnesium	.002 	
BAT
Magnesium Forming
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Magnesium Forming
Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of magnesium
formed
*Chromium	.273	.112
*Zinc	.904	.378
*Ammonia	82.500	36.300
*Fluoride	36.900	16.400
Magnesium	.062 	
1828

-------
Table X-28
BAT REGULATORY FLOWS FOR THE
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Operat i on
Ro11i ng
00
N>
VO
Tube Reducing
Draw i ng
Ext rusion
Forgi ng
Metal Powder Production
Stationary Casting
Waste Stream
Spent neat oils
Spent emulsions
Contact cooling water
Spent lubricants
Spent neat oils
Spent emulsions
Spent lubricants
Press or solution heat
treatment contact cooling
wa ter
Press hydraulic fluid
1eakage
Spent lubricants
Contact cooling water
Equipment cleaning wastewater
Press hydraulic fluid leakage
Atomization wastewater
Contact cooling water
Norma 1i zed
BAT Discharge
1 / kkg
0
1 70
75.4
0
0
95.4
0
83 . 2
232
0
47.4
4.00
1 B7
2,620
1,210
ga1/ton
0
40.9
1 B . 1
0
0
22.9
0
20.0
55.6
0
11.4
0.957
44.8
629
290
Production Normalizing
Parame ter
Mass of nickel-cobalt rolled
with emu 1s i ons
Mass of nickel-cobalt rolled
with water
Mass of nieke 1-coba1t drawn
with emu 1s i ons
Mass of nieke 1-coba1t extruded
or heat treated and subse-
quently cooled with water
Mass of ni eke 1-cobalt extruded
Mass of forged nieke 1-coba1t
cooled with water
Mass of nieke 1-cobalt forged
on equipment requiring clean-
i ng with water
Mass of nieke 1-cobalt forged
Mass of nieke 1 -coba1t metal
powder produced by wet atom-
i zat i on
Mass of nieke 1-coba1t cast
with stationary casting
methods

-------
Table X-28 (Continued)
BAT REGULATORY FLOWS FOR THE
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
00
OJ
o
Ope rat 1 on
Vacuum Me 111ng
Annealing and Solution
Heat Treatment
Surface Treatment
Ammon1 a
Alkaline Cleaning
Mo 11 en Sa11
Sawing or Grinding
waste Stream
Steam condensate
Contact cooling water
Spent baths
R i nsewat er
Rinse
Spent baths
Ri nsewater
Ri nsewater
Spent emulsions
Rinsewater
1 /kkg
0
0
935
2,360
14.0
33.9
233
044
39.4
i a i
Normali zed
BAT Discharge
ga1/t on
0
0
224
565
3 .54
8.13
55.9
202
9.45
43 . 5
Production Normalizing
Pa rame ter
Mass of nieke 1-coba1t surface
t reat ed
Mass of nicke1-coba1t surface
treated
Mass of nieke 1-coba1t treated
with ammonia solution
Mass of nieke 1-coba1t alkaline
c1eaned
Mass of nickel-cobalt alkaline
c1eaned
Mass of nicke1-cobalt treated
with mo 1 ten salt
Mass of nieke 1-coba1t sawed or
ground with emulsions
Mass of sawed or ground

-------
Table X~28 (Continued)
Operat i on
BAT REGULATORV FLOWS FOR THE
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Waste Stream
Norma 1i zed
BAT Discharge
1/kkg	ga1/t on
Production Normalizing
Parameter
00
u>
Steam Cleaning
Hydrostatic Tube Testing
and Ultrasonic Testing
Dye Penetrant Testing
Miscellaneous Wastewater
Sources
Degreasi ng
Wet Air Pollution Control
Elect rocoati ng
Condensate
Wastewater
Wastewater
Vari ous
Spent solvents
B1 owdown
R i nsew ater
30. 1
213
246
0
810
3.3 70
7.22
0
50.9
58.4
0
192
807
Mass of nieke )-coba1t steam
c1eaned
Mass of nieke 1-coba1t tested
with dye penetrant methods
Mass of ni eke 1-cohalt formed
Mass of nickel-cobalt formed
Mass of nieke 1-coba1t electro-
coated

-------
Table X-29
NICKEL-C03ALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Rolling Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Rolling Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximur. for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
rolled with emulsions
Cadmium
.034
.014
*Chromium
.063
.026
Copper
. 218
.104
Lead
.048
.022
*Nickel
.094
.063
Zinc
.174
.071
*Fluoride
10.100
4.490
BAT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Rolling Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant
or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant
property
any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg
(lb/million
off-lbs) of i
nickel-cobalt

rolled with water



Cadmium

.015

.006
*Chromium

.028

.011
Copper

.097

.046
Lead

.021

.010
*Nickel

.042

.028
Zinc

.077

.032
*Fluor ide

4.490

1.990
1832

-------
Table X-29 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Tube Reducing Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Drawing Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Drawing Spent Emulsions
Pollu-tant or	Maximum for Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
drawn with emulsions
Cadmium
.019
.008
*Chromium
.035
.014
Copper
.122
.058
Lead
.027
.012
*Nickel
.053
.035
Zinc
.097
.040
*Fluoride
5.680
2.520
BAT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Extrusion Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1833

-------
Table X-29 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Extrusion Press or Solution Heat Treatment CCW
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
pollutant property
any one day
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of :
nickel-cobalt
heat treated


Cadmium
.017
.007
*Chromium
.031
.013
Copper
,107
.051
Lead
.023
.011
*Nickel
.046
.031
Zinc
.085
.035
*Fluoride
4.950
2.200
BAT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg
(lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt

extruded


Cadmium
.046
.019
*Chromium
.086
.035
Copper
.297
.142
Lead
.065
.030
*Nickel
.128
.086
Zinc
.237
.098
*Fluoride
13.800
6.130
BAT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Forging Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1834

-------
Table X-29 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Forging Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any
one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-
lbs) of forged
nickel
-cobalt
cooled with water





Cadmium

.009


.004
*Chromium

.018


.007
Copper

.061


.029
Lead

.013


.006
*Nickel

.026


.018
Zinc

.048


.020
*Fluoride

2.820


1.250
BAT





Nickel-Cobalt Forming





Forging Equipment Cleaning
Wastewater



Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any
one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-
lbs) of nickel-
-cobalt

forged





Cadmium

.0008


.0003
*Chromium

.0015


.0006
Copper

. 0051


.0024
Lead

. 0011


. 0005
*Nickel

.0022


. 0015
Zinc

.0041


.0017
*Fluoride

. 2380


.1060
1835

-------
Table X-29 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Forging Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Pollutant
or
Maximum for
Maximum for
pollutant
property
any one day
monthly average
mg/off-kg
(lb/million
off-lbs) of
nickel-cobalt
forged



Cadmium

.037
.015
*Chromium

.069
.028
Copper

.240
.114
Lead

.052
.024
*Nickel

.103
.069
Zinc

.191
.079
*Fluor ide

11.100
4.940
BAT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Metal Powder Production Atomization Wastewater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
metal powder atomized
Cadmium	.524	.210
*Chromium	.970	.393
Copper	3.360	1.600
Lead	.734	.341
*Nickel	1.440	.970
Zinc	2.670	1.100
*Fluoride	156.000	69.200
1836

-------
Table X-29 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Stationary Casting Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
cast with stationary casting methods
Cadmium	.242	.097
*Chromium	.448	.182
Copper	1.5 50	.7 38
Lead	.339	.158
*Nickel	.666	.448
Zinc	1.240	.508
*Fluoride	72.000	32.000
BAT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Vacuum Melting Steam Condensate
There shall be no allowance for the discharge of
process wastewater pollutants.
BAT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Annealing and Solution Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water
There shall be no allowance for the discharge of
process wastewater pollutants.
1837

-------
Table X-29 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Surface Treatment Spent Baths
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
surface treated
Cadmium	.187	.075
*Chromium	.346	.140
Copper	1.200	.571
Lead	.262	.122
*Nickel	.514	.346
Zinc	.954	.393
*Fluoride	55.700	24.700
BAT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Surface Treatment Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
surface treated
Cadmium	.472	.189
*Chromium	.873	.354
Coppe r	3.020	1.440
Lead	.661	.307
*Nickel	1.300	.873
Zinc	2.410	.991
*Fluoride	141.000	62.300
1838

-------
Table X-29 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Nickel-Cobalt
Ammonia Rir.se
Forming
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
treated with ammonia solution
Cadmium
*Chromium
Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Zinc
*Fluor ide
,003
005
,019
004
,008
015
881
,001
002
009
002
005
006
391
BAT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths
Pollutant or	Maximum for Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
alkaline cleaned
Cadmium
. 007
.003
*Chromium
.013
. 005
Copper
.043
.021
Lead
.009
. 004
*Nickel
.019
. 013
Zinc
.035
.014
*Fluoride
2.020
.895
1839

-------
Table X-29 (continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
alkaline cleaned
Cadmium
. 047
.019
*Chromium
.086
.035
Copper
. 298
.142
Lead
.065
.030
*Nickel
.128
.086
Zinc
. 238
.098
*Fluoride
13.900
6.150
BAT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Molten Salt Rinse
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg(lb/million off-lbs)
treated with molten salt
of nickel-cobalt
Cadmium
*Chromium
Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Zinc
*Fluoride
.169
.312
1.080
. 237
. 464
.861
50.200
.068
.127
.515
.110
.312
. 355
22.300
1840

-------
Table X-29 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt

sawed or ground with
emulsions

Cadmium
.008
.003
*Chromium
.015
.006
Copper
.051
.024
Lead
.011
.005
*Nickel
.022
.015
Zinc
.040
.017
*Fluoride
2.350
1.040
BAT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Sawing or Grinding Rinse
Pollutant
or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant
property
any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg
(lb/million
off-lbs) of
sawed or ground
nickel-cobalt rinsed



Cadmium

.036

.015
*Chromium

.067

.027
Copper

. 232

.111
Lead

.051

.024
*Nickel

. 100

.067
Zinc

. 185

.076
*Fluoride

10 . 800

4.780
1841

-------
Table X-29 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Steam Cleaning Condensate
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
steam cleaned
Cadmium
.006
.002
*Chromium
.011
.005
Copper
.039
. 018
Lead
.008
.004
*Nickel
.017
. 011
Zinc
.031
.013
*Fluoride
1.790
.795
BAT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Hydrostatic Tube Testing and Ultrasonic Testing Wastewater
There shall be no allowance for the discharge of
process wastewater pollutants.
BAT



Nickel-Cobalt Forming



Dye Penetrant Testing
Wastewater


Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of i
nickel-cobalt

tested with dye penetrant methods


Cadmium
.043

.017
*Chromium
.079

.032
Copper
. 273

.130
Lead
.060

.028
*Nickel
.117

.079
Zinc
. 217

.090
*Fluoride
12.700

5 .630
1842

-------
Table X-29 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Miscellaneous Wastewater Sources
Pollutant
or
Maximum for
Maximum for
pollutant
property
any one day
monthly average
mg/off-kg
{lb/million
off-lbs) of
nickel-cobalt
formed



Cadmium

.049
.020
^Chromium

.091
.037
Copper

. 315
.150
Lead

.069
.032
*Nickel

.136
.091
Z inc

. 251
.104
*Fluorice

14.700
6.500
BAT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
formed
Cadmium
*Chromium
Copper
Lead
*Nickel
Z inc
*Fluor ide
48
,162
,300
,040
,227
,446
826
200
21
,065
122
494
,106
300
340
400
1843

-------
Table X-29 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Electrocoating Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg vlb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
elect rocoated
Cadmium
.674
.270
*Chromium
1.250
. 506
Copper
4.320
2.060
Lead
.944
.438
*Nickel
1.860
1. 250
Zinc
3.440
1.420
*Fluoride
201.000
89.000
1844

-------
Table X-30
BAT REGULATORY FLOWS FOR THE
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Ope rat 1" on
00
U1
Rolling
Draw i ng
Metal Powder Product ion
Cast i ng
Direct Chill Casting
Shot Cast i ng
Stationary Casting
Semi-Continuous and
Continuous Casting
Heat Treatment
Waste Stream
Spent neat gils
Spent emulsions
Spen t neat ails
Spent emulsions
Spent soap solutions
Atomizdtion wastewater
Contact cooling water
Contact cooling water
Contact cooling water
Contact cooling water
Contact cooling water
N0rma1i zed
BAT Discharge
1/kkg	gal/ton
0	0
77. 1	10.5
0
47 .5
3.12
6,680
1 ,080
367
0
1 ,030
417
0
11.4
0.748
1 , 600
259
88 . 0
0
248
100
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of precious metals rolled
with emu 1s i ons
Mass of precious metals drawn
with emu 1s i ons
Mass of precious metals drawn
with soap solutions
Mass of precious metals powder
produced by wet atomization
Mass of precious metals cast
by the direct chill method
Mass of precious metals shot
cast
Mass of precious metals cast
by the semi-continuous or
continuous method
Mass of extruded precious
metals heat treated
Surface Treatment
Alkaline Cleaning
Spent baths
Ri nsewater
Spent baths
96.3
616
60 .0
23. 1
148
14.4
Mass of precious metals
surface treated
Mass of precious metals
surface treated
Mass of precious metals
alkaline c 1 eaned

-------
Table X-30 (Continued)
BAT REGULATORY FLOWS FOR THE
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Norma 1i zed
BAT Discharge
Ope rat i on
Alkaline Cleaning
00

-------
Table X-31
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Precious Metals Forming
Rolling Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Precious Metals Forming
Rolling Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of precious metals

rolled with emulsions


*Cadmium
.026
.012
Chromium
.034
.014
*Copper
.147
.077
*Cyanide
.022
.009
*Lead
.032
.015
Nickel
.148
.098
*Silver
.032
.013
Zinc
.113
. 047
BAT
Precious Metals Forming
Drawing Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1847

-------
Table X-31 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Precious Metals Forming
Drawing Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of precious metals
drawn with emulsions


*Cadmium
.016
.007
Chromium
.021
.009
*Copper
.090
.048
*Cyanide
.014
. 006
*Lead
.020
.010
Nickel
.091
.060
*Silver
.020
.008
Zinc
.0-69
.029
BAT
Precious Metals Forming
Drawing Spent Soap Solutions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of precious metals
drawn with soap solutions
*Cadmium
.0011
. 0005
Chromium
.0014
.0006
*Copper
.0059
.0031
*Cyanide
.0009
. 0004
*Lead
.0013
. 0006
Nickel
. 0060
. 0040
*Silver
.0013
. 0005
Zinc
.0046
. 0019
1848

-------
Table X-31 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Precious Metals Forming
Metal Powder Production Atomization Wastewater
Pollutant
or
Maximum for
Maximum for
pollutant
property
any one day
monthly average
mg/off-kg
(lb/million
off-lbs) of ]
precious metals
powder wet
atomized


*Cadmium

2.270
1.000
Chromium

2.940
1. 200
*Copper

12.700
6.680
*Cyanide

1.940
.802
*Lead

2.810
1.340
Nickel

12.800
8.490
*Silver

2.740
1.140
Zinc

9.750
4.080
BAT
Precious Metals Forming
Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of precious metals
cast by the direct chill method
Cadmium
.367
.162
Chromium
.475
.195
Copper
2.050
1.080
Cyanide
.313
.130
Lead
.454
.216
Nickel
2.080
1.370
Silver
. 443
.184
Zinc
1.580
.659
1849

-------
Table X-31 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Precious Metals Forming
Shot Casting Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant
or Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant
property any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg
(lb/million off-lbs) of precious
metals
shot cast




*Cadmium
.125


.055
Chromium
.162


.066
*Copper
.698


.367
*Cyanide
.107


.044
*Lead
. 154


.073
Nickel
.705


.466
*Silver
.151


.062
Zinc
. 536


.224
BAT




Precious Metals Forming



Stationary
Casting Contact Cooling
Water


There
shall be no discharge of
process
wastewater
pollutants.



BAT




Precious Metals Forming



Semi-Continuous and Continuous Casting CCW


Pollutant
or Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant
property any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg
(lb/million off-lbs) of precious
metals cast
by the semi-continuous or continuous method


*Cadmium
.350


.155
Chromium
. 453


.186
*Copper
1.960


1.030
*Cyanide
. 299


.124
*Lead
. 433


. 206
Nickel
1.980


1.310
*Silver
. 423


.175
Zinc
1.510


.629
1850

-------
Table X-31 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Precious Metals Forming
Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant
or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant
proper ty
any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg
(lb/million
off-lbs) of i
extruded precious
metals heat treated



*Cadmium

.142

.063
Chromium

.184

.075
*Copper

.793

. 417
*Cyanide

.121

.050
*Lead

.175

.083
Nickel

.801

.530
*Silver

.171

.071
Zinc

. 609

.255
BAT
Precious Metals Forming
Surface Treatment Spent Baths
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of precious metals
surface treated
Cadmium
.033
.015
Chromium
.042
. 017
Copper
.183
.096
Cyanide
.028
. 012
Lead
.041
.019
Nickel
.185
.123
Silver
.040
.016
Zinc
.141
. 059
1851

-------
Table X-31 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Precious Metals Forming
Surface Treatment Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of precious metals
surface treated
*Cadmium
.210
.092
Chromium
.271
.111
*Copper
1.170
.616
*Cyanide
.179
.074
*Lead
.259
.123
Nickel
1.180
.783
*Silver
.253
.105
Zinc
.900
.376
BAT
Precious Metals Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg(lb/million off-lbs)of precious metals
alkaline cleaned
Cadmium
.020
.009
Chromium
.026
.011
Copper
.114
.060
Cyanide
.017
.007
Lead
.025
.012
Nickel
.115
.076
Silver
.025
.010
Zinc
.088
.037
1852

-------
Table X-31 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Precious Metals Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of precious metals
alkaline cleaned
Cadmium
.381
.168
Chromium
.493
.202
Copper
2 .130
1.120
Cyanide
.325
.135
Lead
.471
.224
Nickel
2.150
1.420
Silver
.459
.191
Zinc
1.640
.683
BAT
Precious Metals Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Prebonding Wastewater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of precious metals and
base metal cleaned prior to bonding
*Cadmium
. 395
.174
Chromium
. 511
. 209
*Copper
2 . 210
1.160
*Cyanide
.337
.139
*Lead
.487
.232
Nickel
2 .230
1.480
*Silver
.476
.197
Zinc
1.700
.708
1853

-------
Table X-31 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Precious Metals Forming
Tumbling or Burnishing Wastewater
Pollutant or Maximum for
Maximum for
pollutant property any
one day
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-
lbs) of precious metals
tumbled or burnished


*Cadmium
. 412
.182
Chromium
.533
. 218
*Copper
2.300
1.210
*Cyanide
.351
.145
*Lead
.508
.242
Nickel
2.330
1.540
*Silver
.496
.206
Zinc
1.770
.738
BAT


Precious Metals Forming


Sawing or Grinding Spent Neat Oils

There shall be no discharge of
process wastewater
pollutants.


BAT


Precious Metals Forming


Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions

Pollutant or Maximum for
Maximum for
pollutant property any
one day
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-
lbs) of precious metals
sawed or ground with emulsions

*Cadmium
.032
.014
Chromium
.041
.017
*Copper
.178
.093
*Cyanide
.027
.011
*Lead
.039
.019
Nickel
.180
.119
*Silver
.038
. 016
Z inc
.137
.057
1854

-------
Table X-31 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Precious Metals Forming
Pressure Bonding Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for	Maximum for
any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of precious metals and
base metal pressure bonded
BAT
Precious Metals Forming
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Precious Metals Forming
Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
*Cadmium
Chromium
.028
.037
.159
.024
.035
.161
.034
.122
.013
. 015
.084
.010
. 017
.106
. 014
.051
*Copper
*Cyanide
*Lead
Nickel
*Silver
Zinc
1855

-------
Table X-32
BAT REGULATORY FLOWS FOR THE
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Normali zed
BAT Di scharge
Operat1 on
CD
U1
ON
Rolling
Draw 1ng
Ext rus ijn
Forg i ng
Metal Powder Production
Metal Powder Pressing
Surface Treatment
Alkaline Cleaning
Mo 1ten Salt
Tumbling or Burnishing
Waste Stream
Spent neat oils and graphite-
based lubricants
Spent emulsions
Spent lubricants
Spent lubricants
Press hydraulic fluid leakage
Spent lubricants
Contact cooling water
Was t ewat er
Floor wash water
Spent lubricants
Spent baths
R i nsewater
Spent baths
R i nsewat er
Ri nsewater
Wastewater
1 /kkg
0
429
0
0
1 , T90
0
32,3
28 1
0
0
389
12,100
334
8, 160
633
T ,250
gal/ton
0
1 03
0
0
28 5
0
7.75
67.3
0
0
93.3
2,910
B0.2
1 ,960
152
300
Production Normalizing
Parame t e r
Mass of refractory metals
rolled with emulsions
Mass of refractory metals
ex t ruded
Mass of forged refractory
metals coaled with water
Mass of refractory metals
powder produced using water
Mass of refractory metals
surface treated
Mass of refractory metals
surface treated
Mass of refractory metals
alkaline cleaned
Mass of refractory metals
alkaline cleaned
Mass of refractory metals
treated with molten salt
Mass of refractory metals
tumbled or burnished with
water-based media

-------
Table X-32 (Continued)
BAT REGULATORV FLOWS FOR THE
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Ope rat i on
Sawing or Grinding
CO
LP
-O
Dye Penetrant Testing
Equipment Cleaning
Miscellaneous Wastewater
Sources
Degreas i ng
Wet Air Pollution Control
Wast e St ream
Spen t neat oils
Spent emulsions
Contact cooling water
Rinsewater
Wastewater
Wast ewater
Vari ous
Spent solvents
B1owdown
Norma 1i zed
BAT Di scharge
1/kkg	gal/ton
0	0
297	71.1
2,430
13. 5
77.6
136
345
0
707
5B2
3. 25
18.6
32.6
83 . 0
0
1 09
Production Normalizing
Pa rameter
Mass of refractory metals
sawed or ground with emulsions
Mass of refractory metals
sawed or ground with contact
cooling water
Mass of refractory metals
sawed or ground and subse-
quent 1y r i ns ed
Mass of refractory metals
tested with dye penetrant
methods
Mass of refractory metals
formed on equipment requiring
cleaning with water
Mass of refractory metals
f o rmed
Mass of refractory metals
sawed, ground, surface coated
or surface treated

-------
Table X-33
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Refractory Metals Forming
Rolling Spent Neat Oils and Graphite-Based Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Refractory Metals Forming
Rolling Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of
refractory metals
rolled with emulsions



Chromium
.159

.064
*Copper
.549

.262
Lead
.120

.056
*Nickel
.236

.159
Silver
.125

.052
Zinc
.438

.180
Columbium
.052

	
*Fluoride
25.500

11.300
*Molybdenum
2.160

.957
Tantalum
.193

	
Vanadium
.043

	
Tungsten
1.490

.665
BAT
Refractory Metals Forming
Drawing Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Refractory Metals Forming
Extrusion Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1858

-------
Table X-33 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Refractory Metals Forming
Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
extruded
Chromium
. 441
. 179
*Copper
1.530
.726
Lead
.333
.155
*Nickel
.655
. 441
Silver
. 345
.143
Zinc
1.220
.500
Columbium
.143
	
*Fluor ide
70.800
31.400
*Molybdenum
5.990
2. 660
Tantalum
.536
	
Vanadium
.119
	
Tungsten
4.140
1.850
BAT
Refractory Metals Forming
Forging Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1859

-------
Table X-33 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Refractory Metals Forming
Forging Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property any
one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-
lbs) of :
forged refractory
metals cooled with water



Chromium
.012

.005
*Copper
.041

.020
Lead
.009

.004
*Nickel
.018

.012
Silver
.009

.004
Zinc
.033

.014
Columbium
.004

	
*Fluoride
1.920

.853
*Molybdenum
.163

.072
Tantalum
.015

	
Vanadium
.003

	
Tungsten
.113

.050
BAT



Refractory Metals Forming



Metal Powder Production Wastewater


Pollutant or Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property any
one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-
lbs) of
refractory metals
powder produced



Chromium
.104

.042
*Copper
.360

.172
Lead
.079

.037
*Nickel
.155

.104
Silver
.082

.034
Z inc
. 287

.118
Columbium
.034

	
*Fluoride
16.700

7 .420
*Molybdenum
1.420

.627
Tantalum
.127

	
Vanadium
.028

	
Tungsten
.978

.436
1860

-------
Table X-33 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Refractory Metals Forming
Metal Powder Production Floor Wash Water
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Refractory Metals Forming
Metal Powder Pressing Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Refractory Metals Forming
Surface Treatment Spent Baths
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of
refractory metals
surface treated



Chromium
.144

.058
*Copper
.498

. 237
Lead
.109

. 051
*Nickel
. 214

.144
Silver
.113

.047
Zinc
.397

.164
Columbium
.047

	
*Fluoride
23.200

10.300
*Molybdenum
1.960

.868
Tantalum
.175

	
Vanadium
.039

	
Tungsten
1.360

.603
1861

-------
Table X-33 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Refractory Metals Forming
Surface Treatment Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any
one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-
lbs) of :
refractory
metals
surface treated





Chromium

4.480


1.820
*Copper

15.500


7.380
Lead

3.390


1. 580
*Nickel

6.660


4.480
Silver

3. 510


1.450
Zinc

12.400


5.080
Columbium

1.450


	
*Fluoride

720.000


320 .000
*Molybdenum

60.900


27.000
Tantalum

5.450


	
Vanadium

1.210


	
Tungsten

42.100


18.800
BAT





Refractory Metals Forming




Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths



Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any
one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-
lbs) of :
ref ractory
metals
alkaline cleaned





Chromium

.124


.050
*Copper

.428


.204
Lead

.094


.043
*Nickel

.184


.124
Silver

.097


.040
Zinc

. 341


.140
Columbium

.040


	
*Fluoride

19.900


8.820
*Molybdenum

1.680


.745
Tantalum

.151


	
Vanadium

.033


	
Tungsten

1.160


. 518
1862

-------
Table X-33 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Refractory Metals Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
alkaline cleaned
Chromium
3.020
1.230
*Copper
10.500
4.980
Lead
2.290
1.060
*Nickel
4.490
3.020
Silver
2.370
.979
Zinc
8.330
3.430
Columbium
.979
	
*Fluoride
486.000
216.000
*Molybdenum
41.100
18.200
Tantalum
3.670
	
Vanadium
.816
	
T'jjigsten
28.400
12.700
BAT
Refractory Metals Forming
Molten Salt Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
treated with molten salt
Chromium
. 234
.095
Copper
.810
. 386
Lead
.177
.082
Nickel
.348
.234
Silver
. 184
.076
Zinc
.646
. 266
Columbium
.076
	
Fluoride
37 .700
16.700
Molybdenum
3.190
1.410
Tantalum
. 285
	
Vanadium
.063
	
Tungsten
2. 200
.981
1863

-------
Table X-33 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Refractory Metals Forming
Tumbling or Burnishing Wastewater
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of :
refractory metals
tumbled or burnished



Chromium
.463

.188
*Copper
1.600

.763
Lead
.350

.163
*Nickel
.688

.463
Silver
.363

.150
Zinc
1.280

.525
Columbium
.150

	
*Fluoride
74.400

33.000
^Molybdenum
6.290

2.790
Tantalum
.563

	
Vanadium
.125

	
Tungsten
4.350

1.940
BAT
Refractory Metals Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1864

-------
Table X-33 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Refractory Metals Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
sawed or ground with emulsions
Chromium
.110
.045
Copper
.380
. 181
Lead
.083
.039
Nickel
.164
. 110
Silver
.086
.036
Zinc
.303
.125
Columbium
.036
	
Fluoride
17 .700
7.840
Molybdenum
1.500
.663
Tantalum
.134
	
Vanadium
.030
	
Tungsten
1.040
.461
BAT
Refractory Metals Forming
Sawing or Grinding Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
sawed or ground with contact cooling water
Chromium
.899
.365
*Copper
3.110
1. 480
Lead
.681
.316
*Nickel
1.340
.899
Silver
.705
. 292
Zinc
2.480
1.020
Columbium
. 292
	
*Fluoride
145.000
64.200
^Molybdenum
12.200
5.420
Tantalum
1.100
	
Vanadium
. 243
	
Tungsten
8.460
3.770
1865

-------
Table X-33 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Refractory Metals Forming
Sawing or Grinding Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of sawed or ground
refractory metals rinsed
Chromium
.005
.002
*Copper
.017
. 008
Lead
.004
. 002
*Nickel
.007
.005
Silver
.004
.002
Zinc
.014
.006
Columbium
.002
	
*Fluoride
.803
. 357
*Molybdenum
.068
.030
Tantalum
.006
	
Vanadium
.001
	
Tungsten
.047
.021
BAT
Refractory Metals Forming
Dye Penetrant Testing Wastewater
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any
one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-
lbs) of
refractory metals
tested with dye penetrant
methods


Chromium

.029

.012
*Copper

.099

.047
Lead

.022

.010
*Nickel

.043

.029
Silver

. 023

.009
Z inc

.079

.033
Columbium

.009

	
*Fluoride

4.620

2.050
*Molybdenum

. 391

.173
Tantalum

.035

	
Vanadium

.008

	
Tungsten

. 270

.120
1866

-------
Table X-33 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Refractory Metals Forming
Equipment Cleaning Wastewater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
formed
Chromium
.050
. 020
*Copper
.174
.083
Lead
.038
.018
*Nickel
.075
.050
Silver
.040
.016
Zinc
.139
.057
Columbium
.016
	
*Fluoride
8.090
3. 590
*Molybdenum
.684
. 303
Tantalum
.061
	
Vanadium
.014
	
Tungsten
. 473
.211
BAT
Refractory Metals Forming
Miscellaneous Wastewater Sources
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
formed
Chromium
.128
.052
*Copper
.442
. 211
Lead
.097
.045
*Nickel
.190
.128
Silver
.100
.041
Zinc
. 352
.145
Columbium
. 041
	
*Fluoride
20 . 500
9.110
*Molybdenum
1.740
.770
Tantalum
.155
	
Vanadium
.035
	
Tungsten
1. 200
. 535
1867

-------
Table X-33 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Refractory Metals Forming
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Refractory Metals Forming
Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
formed
Chromium
. 291
.118
*Copper
1.010
.480
Lead
.221
.103
*Nickel
.433
.291
Silver
.228
.095
Zinc
.803
.331
Columbium
.095
	
*Fluoride
46.800
20.800
*Molybdenum
3.960
1.760
Tantalum
.354
	
Vanadium
.079
	
Tungsten
2.740
1.220
1868

-------
Table X-34
bat regulatorv flows for the
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Norma 1i zed
BAT Discharge
Opera 1ion
03
CTl
Rolling
Draw i ng
Ext rusi on
Forgi rg
Tube Reducing
Fleat Treatment
Surface Treatment
Alkaline Cleaning
Mo I ten Sa 1 t
Waste 5tream
Spent neat oils
Contact cooling water
Spent neat oils
Spent neat oils
Spent emulsions
Press hydraulic fluid leakage
Spent lubricants
Contact cooling water
Equipment cleaning wastewater
Press hydraulic fluid leakage
Spent lubricants
Contact cooling water
Spent baths
R i nsewater
Spent baths
Ri nsewater
R i nsewater
1 /kkg
0
488
0
0
71.9
178
0
99.9
40 . 0
1,010
0
0
208
2,920
240
276
955
gaI/t on
0
1 1 7
0
0
17.2
42.8
0
24. 0
9 . 60
242
0
0
49 .9
700
57.5
66.3
229
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of titanium rolled with
contact cooling water
Mass of titanium extruded with
emu 1s i ons
Mass of titanium extruded
Mass of forged titanium cooled
with water
Mass of titanium forged on
equipment requiring cleaning
with water
Mass of titanium forged
Mass of titanium surface
t reated
Mass of titanium surface
t reated
Mass of titanium alkaline
c1eaned
Mass of titanium alkaline
c1eaned
Mass of titanium treated with
mo 1t en salt
Tumb1 i ng
Wastewater
79 . 0
1 S . 9
Mass of titanium tumbled with

-------
water-based media
Table X-34 (Continued)
BAT REGULATORY FLOWS FOR THE
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Operat i on
Sawing or Grinding
Waste Stream
Spent neat oils
Spent emulsions
Contact cooling water
Dye Penetrant Testing
Wastewater
00
--J
o
Hydrotest i ng
Miscellaneous Wastewater
Sources
Degreas i ng
Wet Air Pollution Control
Wastewater
Var i ous
Spent so 1 vents
B1owdown
Norma 1i zed
BAT Discharge
1 /kkg
0
183
476
1 , 120
0
32.4
ga1/ton
0
43.8
1 14
268
0
7.77
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of titanium sawed or
ground with an emulsion
Mass of titanium sawed or
ground with contact cooling
water
Mass of titanium tested with
dye penetrant methods
Mass of titanium formed
0
214
0
51.4
Mass of titanium surface
treated or forged

-------
Table X-35
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Titanium Forming
Rolling Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Titanium Forming
Rolling Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium
rolled with contact cooling water
Chromium
. 215
.088
Copper
.927
. 488
*Cyanide
.142
.059
*Lead
.205
.098
Nickel
.937
.620
*Zinc
.713
.298
*Ammonia
65.100
28.600
*Fluoride
29.100
12.900
Titanium
.459
. 200
BAT
Titanium Forming
Drawing Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Titanium Forming
Extrusion Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1871

-------
Table X-35 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Titanium Forming
Extrusion Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium
extruded with emulsions
Chromium
.032
.013
Copper
.137
.072
*Cyanide
.021
.009
*Lead
.030
.014
Nickel
.138
.091
*Zinc
.105
.044
*Ammonia
9.590
4. 220
*Fluoride
4.280
1.900
Titanium
.068
.030
BAT
Titanium Forming
Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium
extruded
Chromium
.078
.032
Copper
.338
.178
*Cyanide
.052
.021
*Lead
.075
.036
Nickel
.342
.226
*Zinc
. 260
.109
*Ammonia
23.700
10.500
*Fluoride
10.600
4.700
Titanium
.168
.073
1872

-------
Table X-35 Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Titanium Forming
Forging Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Titanium Forming
Forging Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant
pollutant
or Maximum for
property any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg
(lb/million off-lbs) of
forged titanium
cooled with water

Chromium
. 044
. 018
Copper
.190
.100
*Cyanide
.029
.012
*Lead
.042
.020
Nickel
.192
.127
*Zinc
.146
.061
*Ammonia
13.300
5.860
*Fluoride
5.950
2.640
Titanium
.094
.041
1873

-------
Table X-35 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Titanium Forming
Forging Equipment Cleaning Wastewater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium
forged
Chromium
.018
.007
Copper
.076
.040
*Cyanide
.012
. 005
*Lead
.017
.008
Nickel
.077
.051
*Zinc
.058
.024
*Ammonia
5.330
2.350
*Fluoride
2.380
1.060
Titanium
.038
.016
BAT
Titanium Forming
Forging Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium
forged
Chromium
.445
.182
Copper
1.920
1.010
*Cyanide
.293
.121
*Lead
.424
.202
Nickel
1.940
1.280
*Zinc
1.480
.616
*Ammonia
135.000
59.200
~Fluoride
60.100
26.700
Titanium
.950
.414
1874

-------
Table X-35 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Titanium Forming
Tube Reducing Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Titanium Forming
Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water
There shall be no allowance for the discharge of
process wastewater pollutants.
BAT
Titanium Forming
Surface Treatment Spent Baths
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium
surface treated
Chromium
.092
.038
Copper
.395
.208
*Cyanide
.060
.025
*Lead
.087
.042
Nickel
. 400
. 264
*Zinc
.304
.127
*Ammonia
27.700
12.200
*Fluor ide
12.400
5.490
Titanium
.196
.085
1875

-------
Table X-35 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Titanium Forming
Surface Treatment Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any
one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-
lbs) of
ti tanium

surface treated




Chromium

1. 290

.526
Copper

5.550

2.920
*Cyanide

.847

.351
*Lead

1. 230

.584
Nickel

5.610

3.710
*Zinc

4. 270

1.780
*Ammonia

389.000

171.000
*Fluor ide

174.000

77 .100
Titanium

2.750

1. 200
BAT




Titanium Forming




Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths


Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any
one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-
lbs) of
titanium

alkaline cleaned




Chromium

.106

.043
Copper

.456

. 240
*Cyanide

.070

.029
*Lead

.101

.048
Nickel

.461

.305
*Zinc

.351

.147
*Ammonia

32.000

14.100
*Fluor ide

14.300

6.340
Titanium

. 226

.098
1876

-------
Table X-35 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Titanium Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs)oftitanium
alkaline cleaned
Chromium
.122
.050
Copper
.525
.276
*Cyanide
.080
.033
*Lead
.116
.055
Nickel
.530
. 351
*Zinc
.403
.169
*Ammonia
36.800
16.200
*Fluoride
16.400
7. 290
Titanium
. 260
. 113
BAT
Titanium Forming
Molten Salt Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium
treated with molten salt
Chromium
.420
.172
Copper
1.820
.955
*Cyanide
.277
. 115
*Lead
.401
.191
Nickel
1.840
1.210
*Zinc
1.400
. 583
*Ammonia
128.000
56.000
*Fluor ide
56.800
25.200
Titanium
.898
.392
1877

-------
Table X-35 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Titanium Forming
Tumbling Wastewater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium
tumbled
Chromium
.035
.014
Copper
.150
.079
*Cyanide
.023
.009
*Lead
.033
.016
Nickel
.152
.101
*Zinc
.116
.048
*Ammonia
10.600
4.630
*Fluor ide
4.700
2.090
Titanium
.074
.032
BAT
Titanium Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1878

-------
Table X~3d (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Titanium Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
Maximum fcr Maximum
for
pollutant property
any one day monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of titanium

sawed or ground with
emulsions

Chromium
.081
.033
Copper
. 348
.183
*Cyanide
.053
.022
*Lead
.077
.037
Nickel
.352
. 233
*Zinc
.267
. 112
*Ammonia
24.400
10.700
*Fluoride
10.900
4.830
Titanium
.172
.075
BAT


Titanium Forming


Sawing or Grinding Contact Cooling Water

Pollutant or
Maximum for Maximum
for
pollutant property
any one day monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of titanium

sawed or ground with
contact cooling water

Chromium
. 210
.086
Copper
.905
.476
*Cyanide
.138
.057
*Lead
.200
.095
Nickel
.914
.605
*Zinc
.695
. 291
*Ammonia
63.500
27.900
*Fluoride
28.300
12.600
Titanium
.448
.195
1879

-------
Table X-35 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Titanium Forming
Dye Penetrant Testing Wastewater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium
tested with dye penetrant methods
Chromium
.493
.202
Copper
2.130
1.120
*Cyanide
.325
.135
*Lead
.471
.224
Nickel
2.150
1.420
*Zinc
1.640
.683
*Ammonia
149.000
65.700
*Fluoride
66.700
29.600
Titanium
1.050
.459
BAT
Titanium Forming
Miscellaneous Wastewater Sources
Pollutant
or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant
property
any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg
(lb/million
off-lbs) of
titanium

formed




Chromium

.014

.006
Copper

.062

.032
*Cyanide

.009

.004
*Lead

.014

.006
Nickel

.062

.041
*Zinc

.047

.020
*Ammonia

4.320

1.900
*Fluoride

1.930

.856
Titanium

.031

.013
1880

-------
Table X-35 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Titanium Forming
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Titanium Forming
Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium
formed
Chromium
.094
.039
Copper
. 407
.214
*Cyanide
.062
.026
*Lead
.090
.043
Nickel
.411
.272
*Zinc
.313
.131
~Ammonia
28.500
12.600
*Fluoride
12.800
5.650
Titanium
.201
.088
1881

-------
Table X-36
BAT REGULATORY FLOWS FOR THE
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - URANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Norma 1i zed
BAT Discharge
00
00
NJ
Operat i on
Ext rusion
Forgi ng
Heat Treatment
Surface Treatment
Sawing or Grinding
Area Cleaning
Degreas i ng
Wet Air Pollution Control
Drum Washwater
Laundry Washwater
Waste Stream
Spent lubricants
Tool contact cooling water
Spent lubricants
Contact cooling water
Spent baths
Rinsewater
Spent emulsions
Contact cooling water
Ri nsewater
Washwater
Spent solvents
B1owdown
Wastewater
Wastewater
1 /kkg
0
34.4
0
31.3
27.2
337
5.68
165
4.65
42.9
0
3.49
44.3
26.2«
ga1/ton
0
8.25
0
7.52
6.52
80.9
1	.36
39. 5
1.12
10.3
0
0.836
10.6
6.30**
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of uranium extruded with
tools requiring contact cool-
i ng with water
Mass of extruded or forged
uranium heat treated and
subsequently cooled with water
Mass of uranium surface
t reated
Mass of uranium surface
t reat ed
Mass of uranium sawed or
ground with emulsions
Mass of uranium sawed or
ground with contact cooling
wat er
Mass of uranium sawed or
ground and subsequently rinsed
Mass of uranium formed
Mass of uranium surface
t reat ed
Mass of uranium formed
Emp1oyee-day
*L i ters/emp1oyee-day.
* *Ga11ons/emp1oyee-day.

-------
Table X-37
URANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Uranium Forming
Extrusion Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Uranium Forming
Extrusion Tool Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of uranium
extruded


~Cadmium
.007
.003
*Chromium
.013
.005
*Copper
.044
.021
*Lead
.010
.001
*Nickel
.019
.013
Zinc
.035
.015
~Fluoride
2.050
.908
~Molybdenum
.173
.077
Uranium
.148
.108
BAT
Uranium Forming
Forging Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1883

-------
Table X-37 (Continued)
URANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Uranium Forming
Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of extruded or forged
uranium heat treated
*Cadmium
.006
.003
*Chromium
.012
.005
*Copper
.040
.019
*Lead
.009
.004
*Nickel
.017
.012
Zinc
.032
.013
*Fluoride
1.860
.827
*Molybdenum
.158
.070
Uranium
.134
.098
BAT
Uranium Forming
Surface Treatment Spent Baths
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of i
jranium

surface treated



*Cadmium
.005

.002
*Chromium
.010

.004
*Copper
.035

.017
*Lead
.008

.004
*Nickel
.015

. 010
Zinc
.028

.011
*Fluoride
1.620

.718
*Molybdenum
.137

.061
Uranium
.117

.085
1884

-------
Table X-37 (Continued)
URANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Uranium Forming
Surface Treatment Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of uranium
surface treated
*Cadmium
.067
.027
*Chromium
.125
.051
*Copper
.432
.206
*Lead
.094
.044
*Nickel
.186
.125
Zinc
.344
.142
*Fluoride
20.100
8.900
~Molybdenum
1.700
.752
Uranium
1.450
1.050
BAT
Uranium Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of uranium	~
sawed or ground with emulsions
*Cadmium
.0011
.0005
*Chromium
.0021
.0009
*Copper
.0073
.0035
*Lead
.0016
.0007
*Nickel
.0031
.0021
Zinc
.0058
.0024
*Fluoride
.3380
.1500
~Molybdenum
.0286
.0127
Uranium
.0244
.0178
1885

-------
Table X-37 (Continued)
URANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Uranium Forming
Sawing or Grinding Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum
monthly
for
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of uranium

sawed or ground with
contact cooling
water

*Cadmium
.033

.013
*Chromium
.061

.025
*Copper
. 211

.101
*Lead
.046

.022
*Nickel
.091

.061
Zinc
.169

.069
*Fluor ide
9.820

4. 360
*Molybdenum
.830

.368
Uranium
.708

. 515
BAT	,
Uranium Forming
Sawing or Grinding Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of :
sawed or ground
uranium rinsed



*Cadmium
.0009

.0004
*Chromium
.0017

. 0007
*Copper
. 0060

.0028
*Lead
.0013

. 0006
*Nickel
.0026

.0017
Zinc
.0048

.0020
*Fluoride
.2770

.1230
*Molybdenum
.0234

.0104
Uranium
.0200

.0145
1886

-------
Table X-37 (Continued)
URANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Uranium Forming
Area Cleaning Washwater
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of i
uranium

formed



~Cadmium
.009

.003
~Chromium
.016

.006
~Copper
.055

.026
~Lead
. 012

.006
*Nickel
.024

.016
Zinc
. 044

.018
~Fluoride
2.550

1.130
~Molybdenum
.216

.096
Uranium
.184

.134
BAT
Uranium Forming
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Uranium Forming
Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of uranium
surface treated
~Cadmium
. 0007
.0003
~Chromium
.0013
. 0005
~Copper
.0045
.0021
~Lead
. 0010
.0005
~Nickel
.0019
.0013
Zinc
. 0036
.0015
~Fluor ide
. 2080
.0922
~Molybdenum
.0176
. 0078
Uranium
. 0150
.0109
1887

-------
Table X-37 (Continued)
URANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Uranium Forming
Drum Washwater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of uranium
formed
*Cadmium
.009
.004
*Chromium
.016
.007
*Copper
.057
.027
*Lead
.012
.006
*Nickel
.024
.016
Zinc
.045
.019
*Fluoride
2.640
1.170
*Molybdenum
.223
.099
Uranium
.190
.138
BAT
Uranium Forming
Laundry Washwater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/employee-day uranium formed
Cadmium
5.240
2 .100
Chromium
9.700
3.930
Copper
33.600
16.000
Lead
7.340
3.410
Nickel
14.400
9.700
Zinc
26.700
11.000
Fluoride
1,560.000
692.000
Molybdenum
132.000
58.400
Uranium
113.000
81.800
1888

-------
Table X-38
BAT REGULATORY FLOWS FOR THE
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - ZINC FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Norma 1i zed
BAT Discharge
Operat1 on
00
00
vo
RolIing
Draxing
Cast i ng
Direct Chill Casting
Stationary Casting
Heat Treatment
Surface Treatment
Alkaline Cleaning
Sawing or Grinding
Degressi ng
Elect rocoat i ng
Waste Stream
Spen t neat oils
Spent emulsions
Contact cooling water
Spent emulsions
Contact cooling water
Contact cooling water
Contact cooling water
Spent baths
R i nsewater
Spent baths
R i nsewater
Spent emulsions
Spent solvents
Ri nsewater
1 /kkg
0
1	.39
53. 6
5.80
50.5
0
76.3
8B .7
35a
3.55
1 , 690
23.8
0
229
ga1/ton
0
0 .334
12.9
T .39
12.1
0
18.3
21.3
85.9
0.050
405
5.71
0
55.0
Production Normalizing
Pa rameter
Mass of zinc rolled with
emu 1s i ons
Mass of zinc rolled with
contact cooling water
Mass of zinc drawn with
emu 1s i ons
Mass of zinc cast by the
direct chill method
Mass of zinc heat treated and
subsequently cooled with water
Mass of zinc surface treated
Mass of zinc surface treated
Mass of zinc alkaline cleaned
Mass of zinc alkaline cleaned
Mass of zinc sawed or ground
wi th emu 1 si ons
Mass of zinc electrocoated

-------
Table
X-39
ZINC FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Zinc Forming
Rolling Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Zinc Forming
Rolling Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of zinc
rolled with emulsions
*Chromium
.0005
.0002
*Copper
.0018
.0009
*Cyanide
.0003
.0001
Nickel
.0008
.0005
*Zinc
.0014
.0006
BAT
Zinc Forming
Rolling Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant
or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant
property
any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg
(lb/million off-lbs) of zinc


rolled with contact
cooling water


*Chromium

.020

.008
*Copper

.069

.033
*Cyanide

.011

.004
Nickel

.030

.020
*Zinc

.055

.023
1890

-------
Table X-39 (Continued)
ZINC FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Zinc Forming
Drawing Spent Emulsions
Pollutant
or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant
property
any
one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg
(lb/million
off-
lbs) of zinc


drawn with emulsions




*Chromium


.0022

.0009
*Copper


.0074

.0035
*Cyanide


.0012

.0005
Nickel


.0032

.0022
*Zinc


.0059

.0024
BAT





Zinc Forming




Direct Chill Casting i
Contact Cooling Water

Pollutant
or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant
property
any
one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg
(lb/million
off-
lbs) of zinc
cast

by the direct chill method



*Chromium


.019

.008
*Copper


.065

.031
*Cyanide


.010

.004
Nickel


. 028

.019
*Zinc


.052

.021
BAT
Zinc Forming
Stationary Casting Contact Cooling Water
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1891

-------
Table X-39 (Continued)
ZINC FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Zinc Forming
Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of zinc
heat treated
*Chromium
.028
.012
*Copper
.098
.047
*Cyanide
.015
. 006
Nickel
.042
.028
*Zinc
.078
. 032
BAT
Zinc Forming
Surface Treatement Spent Baths
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of zinc
surface treated
*Chromium
.033
.013
*Copper
.114
.054
*Cyanide
.018
.007
Nickel
.049
.033
*Zinc
.091
.037
1892

-------
Table X-39 (Continued)
ZINC FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Zinc Forming
Surface Treatment Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of zinc


surface treated



*Chromium
.133

.054
*Copper
.458

. 219
*Cyanide
.072

.029
Nickel
.197

.133
*Zinc
.365

.151
BAT



Zinc Forming



Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths


Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of zinc


alkaline cleaned



*Chromium
.0013

.0005
*Copper
.0046

.0022
*Cyanide
.0007

.0003
Nickel
.0020

.0013
*Zinc
.0036

.0015
1893

-------
Table X-39 (Continued)
ZINC FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Zinc Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of zinc
alkaline cleaned
*Chromium	.626	.254
*Copper	2.170	1.030
*Cyanide	.338	.135
Nickel	.930	.626
*Zinc	1.730	.710
BAT
Zinc Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of zinc
sawed or ground with emulsions
*Chromium	.009	.004
*Copper	.031	.015
*Cyanide	.005	.002
Nickel	.013	.009
*Zinc	.024	.010
BAT
Zinc Forming
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1894

-------
Table X-39 (Continued)
ZINC FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Zinc Forming
Electrocoating Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum
for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any one
day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs)
of zinc


electrocoated




*Chromium
•
085

.034
*Copper
•
293

.140
*Cyanide
•
046

.018
Nickel
•
126

.085
*Zinc

234

.096
1895

-------
Table X-40
BAT REGULATORY FLOWS FOR THE
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - ZIRCONIUM-HAFNIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Normali zed
BAT Discharge
Operat i on
00
ID
en
Ro1 1i ng
Draw 1ng
Ext rusion
Swag i ng
Tube Reducing
Heat Treatment
Surface Treatment
Alkaline Cleaning
Mo 1 ten Salt
Sawing or Grinding
Waste Stream
Spent neat oils
Spent lubricants
Spent lubricants
Press hydraulic fluid leakage
Spent neat oils
Spent lubricants
Contact cooling water
Spent baths
R i nsewa ter
Spent baths
R i nsewater
Rinsewater
Spent neat oils
Spent emulsions
Contact cooling water
Ri nsewater
1 / kkg
0
0
0
237
0
0
34.3
340
888
1 ,600
3, 140
756
O
28 1
321
180
ga1/1 on
0
0
0
56. 9
0
0
S.23
81.5
213
384
753
18 1
0
67.4
77.0
43, 1
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of zirconium-hafnium
ex t ruded
Mass of zirconium-hafnium heat
treated and subsequently
cooled with water
Mass of zirconium-hafnium
surface treated
Mass of zirconium-hafnium
surface treated
Mass of zirconium-hafnium
alkaline cleaned
Mass of zirconium-hafnium
alkaline cleaned
Mass of zirconium-hafnium
treated with molten salt
Mass of zirconium-hafnium
sawed or ground with emulsions
Mass of zirconium-hafnium
sawed or ground with contact
coo1i ng water
Mass of zirconium-hafnium
sawed or ground and subse-
quently rinsed

-------
Table X-4Q (Continued)
BAT REGULATORY FLOWS FOR THE
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - ZIRCONIUM-HAFNIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Norma 1 i zed
BAT Discharge
Ope rat 1 on
Inspection and Testing
Degressing
Wet Air Pollution Control
Degreas i ng
Waste Stream
Was tewater
Spent solvents
B1owdown
R i nsewater
1 ! kkg
15.4
0
0
0
gal/ton
3 .70
0
0
0
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of zirconium-hafnium
tested
00
VX5

-------
Table X-41
ZIRCONIUM-HAFNIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Rolling Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Drawing Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Extrusion Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of zirconium-hafnium
extruded
*Chromium
.104
.043
Copper
.451
.237
*Cyanide
.069
.029
Lead
.100
.047
*Nickel
.455
. 301
Zinc
.346
.145
*Ammonia
31.600
13.900
*Fluoride
14.100
6.260
Zirconium
6.830
3.300
1898

-------
Table X-41 (Continued)
ZIRCONIUM-HAFNIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Swaging Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Tube Reducing Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of :
zirconium-hafnium
heat treated



*Chromium
.015

.006
Copper
.065

.034
*Cyanide
.010

.004
Lead
.014

.007
*Nickel
.066

.044
Zinc
.050

.021
*Ammonia
4.570

2.010
*Fluor ide
2.040

.906
Zirconium
.988

.477
1899

-------
Table X-41 (Continued)
ZIRCONIUM-HAFNIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Surface Treatment Spent Baths
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of :
zirconium-hafnium
surface treated


*Chromium
.150
.061
Copper
.646
.340
*Cyanide
.099
.041
Lead
.143
.068
*Nickel
.653
. 432
Zinc
.497
.208
*Ammonia
45.300
19 .900
*Fluoride
20.300
8.980
Zirconium
9.790
4.730
BAT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Surface Treatment Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any
one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-
lbs) of :
zirconium-hafnium
surface treated




*Chromium

.391

.160
Copper

1.690

.888
*Cyanide

.258

.107
Lead

.373

.178
*Nickel

1.710

1.130
Zinc

1.300

. 542
*Ammonia

119.000

52.100
*Fluoride

52.900

23.500
Zirconium

25.600

12.400
1900

-------
Table X-41 (Continued)
ZIRCONIUM-HAFNIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths
Pollutant
or
Maximum for
Maximum for
pollutant
property
any one day
monthly average
mg/off-kg
(lb/million
off-lbs) of '
zirconium-hafnium
alkaline -
cleaned


*Chromium

.704
. 288
Copper

3.040
1. 600
*Cyanide

.464
.192
Lead

.672
.320
*Nickel

3.070
2.030
Zinc

2.340
.976
*Ammonia

213.000
93.800
*Fluoride

95.200
42.300
Zirconium
46.100
22.300
BAT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of zirconium-hafnium
alkaline cleaned
*Chromium
1.380
.565
Copper
5.970
3.140
*Cyanide
.911
.377
Lead
1. 320
.628
*Nickel
6 .030
3.990
Zinc
4.590
1.920
*Ammonia
419.000
184 . 000
*Fluoride
187.000
82.900
Zirconium
90.500
43.700
1901

-------
Table X-41 (Continued)
ZIRCONIUM-HAFNIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Molten Salt Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs)of zirconium-hafnium
treated with molten salt
*Chromium
.333
.136
Copper
1.440
.756
*Cyanide
.219
.091
Lead
.318
. 151
*Nickel
1.450
.960
Zinc
1.110
. 461
*Ammonia
101.000
44.300
*Fluoride
45.000
20.000
Zirconium
21.800
10.500
BAT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1902

-------
Table X-41 (Continued)
ZIRCONIUM-HAFNIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions
Pollutant
or
Maximum for
Maximum for
pollutant
property
any one day
monthly average
mg/off-kg
(lb/million
off-lbs) of
zirconium-hafnium
sawed or i
ground with
emulsions

*Chromium

.124
.051
Copper

.534
.281
*Cyanide

.082
.034
Lead

. 118
.056
*Nickel

.540
.357
Zinc

.410
.172
*Ammonia

37.500
16.500
*Fluoride

16.700
7 . 420
Zirconium
8.090
3.910
BAT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Sawing or Grinding Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of zirconium-hafnium
sawed or ground with contact cooling water
*Chromium
.141
.058
Copper
.610
. 321
*Cyanide
.093
.039
Lead
.135
.064
*Nickel
. 617
.408
Zinc
.469
.196
*Ammonia
42.800
18.800
*Fluor ide
19.100
8.480
Zirconium
9.250
4.460
1903

-------
Table X-41 (Continued)
ZIRCONIUM-HAFNIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Sawing or Grinding Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of sawed or ground
zirconium-hafnium rinsed
*Chromium
.079
.032
Copper
. 342
.180
*Cyanide
.052
.022
Lead
.076
.036
*Nickel
.346
.229
Zinc
.263
.110
*Ammonia
24.000
10 .600
*Fluoride
10.700
4.750
Zirconium
5.190
2.500
BAT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Inspection and Testing Wastewater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of zirconium-hafnium
tested
*Chromium
.007
.003
Copper
.029
. 015
*Cyanide
.004
.002
Lead
.006
.003
*Nickel
.030
.020
Zinc
.023
.009
*Ammonia
2.050
.903
*Fluoride
.917
.407
Zi rconium
.444
. 214
1904

-------
Table X-41 (Continued)
ZIRCONIUM-HAFNIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Wet Air Pollution Control Blcwdown
There shall be no allowance for the discharge of process
wastewater pollutants.
BAT
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Degreasing Rinse
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1905

-------
Operat i on
Metal Powder Production
Table X-42
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - METAL POWDERS SUBCATEGORY
Normali zed
BAT Discharge
Waste Stream
Atomization wastewater
1 / kkg
5,040
ga1/ton
1,210
Tumbling, Burnishing or
C1ean i ng
Wastewater
4,400
1 ,050
Sawing or Grinding
Spent neat oils
Spent emulsions
0
18.1
0
4.33
Contact cooling water
1 ,620
369

S i z i ng
Spent neat oils
Spent emulsions
0
14.6
0
3.50
Steam Treatment Wet Air
Pollution Control
Oil-Resin Impregnation
Degreas i ng
Hot Pressing
B 1 owdown
Spent neat oils
Spent solvents
Contact cooling water
792
0
0
8 ,800
190
0
0
2,110
Mixing Wet Air Pollution
Cont ro1
B1owdown
7,900
1 ,890
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of powder produced by
wet atomization
Mass of powder metallurgy
parts tumbled, burnished or
cleaned with watei—based media
Mass of powder metallurgy
parts sawed or ground with
emu 1s i ons
Mass of powder metallurgy
parts sawed or ground with
contact cooling water
Mass of powder sized using
emu 1s i ons
Mass of powder metallurgy parts
steam treated
Mass of powder cooled with
water after pressing
Mass of powder mixed

-------
Table X-43
METAL POWDERS SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Metal Powders
Metal Powder Production Atomization Wastewater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of powder
wet atomized
Chromium
2.220
.907
*Copper
9.580
5.040
*Cyanide
1.460
.605
*Lead
2.120
1.010
Nickel
9.680
6.400
Zinc
7.360
3.080
Aluminum
32.400
16.100
Iron
6.050
3.080
BAT
Metal Powders
Tumbling, Burnishing, or Cleaning Wastewater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of powder metallurgy
parts tumbled, burnished, or cleaned
Chromium
1.940
.792
*Copper
8. 360
4 . 400
*Cyanide
1. 280
.528
*Lead
1.850
.880
Nickel
8.450
5.590
Zinc
6.430
2.690
Aluminum
28.300
14.100
Iron
5. 280
2.690
1907

-------
Table X-43 (Continued)
METAL POWDERS SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Metal Powders
Sawing or Grinding Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Metal Powders
Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of powder metallurgy
parts sawed or ground with emulsons
Chromium
.008
.003
*Copper
.034
.018
*Cyanide
.005
. 002
*Lead
.008
.004
Nickel
.035
.023
Zinc
.026
.011
Aluminum
.117
.058
Iron
.022
.011
BAT
Metal Powders
Sawing or Grinding Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of powder metallurgy
parts sawed or ground with contact cooling water
Chromium
.713
. 292
*Copper
3.080
1.620
*Cyanide
.470
.195
*Lead
.681
.324
Nickel
3.110
2.060
Zinc
2.370
.988
Aluminum
10.400
5.190
Iron
1.950
.988
1908

-------
Table X-43 (Continued)
METAL POWDERS SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Metal Powders
Sizing Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Metal Powders
Sizing Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of powder
sized
Chromium
.006
.003
*Copper
.028
.015
*Cyanide
.004
.002
*Lead
.006
.003
Nickel
.028
.019
Zinc
.021
.009
Aluminum
.094
.047
Iron
.018
.009
BAT
Metal Powders
Steam Treatment Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of powder metallurgy
parts steam treated
Chromium
.349
.143
*Copper
1.510
.792
*Cyanide
. 230
.095
*Lead
.333
.159
Nickel
1.520
1.010
Zinc
1.160
.483
Aluminum
5.090
2.540
Iron
.951
.483
1909

-------
Table X-43 (Continued)
METAL POWDERS SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Metal Powders
Oil-Resin Impregnation Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Metal Powders
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
BAT
Metal Powders
Hot Pressing Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant
or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant
property
any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg
(lb/million
off-lbs) of powder

cooled after pressing



Chromium

3.870

1.590
*Copper

16.700

8.800
*Cyanide

2.550

1.060
*Lead

3.700

1.760
Nickel

16.900

11. 200
Zinc

12.900

5.370
Aluminum

56.600

28.200
Iron

10.600

5.370
1910

-------
Table X-43 (Continued)
METAL POWDERS SUBCATEGORY
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BAT
Metal Powders
Mixing Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of powder
mixed
Chromium
3.480
1.420
*Copper
15.000
7.900
*Cyanide
2.290
.948
*Lead
3.320
1.580
Nickel
15.200
10.100
Zinc
11.600
4.820
Aluminum
50.800
25.300
Iron
9.480
4.820
1911

-------
Chemical Addition
WjsIv St rC3""» Requiring
Inula ion Hre iking
Renewal of OIL
dnJ Graa*«
Cyanide
FreeIpltation
Ciieitici!
FreeipitatIon
Discharge
ic a t i on
~r
Requiring
Lltr"i
-------
domical Xd.lltlon
EnmIjInn 9re.ifelnn
Prelimlnjrv frem
Oil and Greai
„ oil
wA
rrwnic.it
Free {p I tat I'
SedlnentmcIon
W ist*
Rfjuirlng	—
(hromlufl Reduction
Preliminary Treat™
Requiring Ho
PrelIwlnary Treatment
Removal of Oil
Vacuum Filtration
Wa*le Stream
Ruqiilrlns;
Hyanlde
Preclp L c a tinn
Preliminary
Sludge Recycle
Requiting Ammonia Steam Stripping
Preliminary Treatment
In,
«L
NOTE: 1) Waste streams which may require specific preliminary treatment are
listed in Table IX-1.
2) Chemical precipitation includes iron coprecipitation when necessary
to remove molybdenum.
Figure X-2
BAT OPTION 3 TREATMENT TRAIN FOR THE NONFERROUS METALS FORMING CATEGORY

-------
SECTION XI
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The basis for new source performance standards (NSPS) under
Section 306 of the Clean Water Act is the best available demon"
strated technology (BDT). New plants have the opportunity to
design the best and most efficient production processes, and
wastewater treatment technologies. Therefore, NSPS includes
process changes, in-plant controls (including elimination of
wastewater streams), operating procedure changes, and end-of-pipe
treatment technologies to reduce pollution to the maximum extent
possible. This section describes the control technology for
treatment of wastewater from new sources and presents mass
discharge limitations of regulated pollutants for NSPS, based on
the described control technology.
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO NSPS
Most wastewater reduction and process changes applicable to a new
source have been considered previously for the BAT options. For
this reason, the three options considered as the basis for the
BAT options in Section X were also considered for NSPS. The
three options are summarized below and presented in greater
detail in Section X.
In summary form, the treatment technologies considered for new
nonferrous metals forming facilities are:
NSPS Option 1 is based on:
Oil skimming,
Lime and settle (chemical precipitation of metals
followed by sedimentation),
pH adjustment; and, where required,
Iron co-precipitation,
Chemical emulsion breaking,
Ammonia steam stripping,
Cyanide removal, and
Hexavalent chromium reduction.
NSPS Option 2 is based on:
NSPS Option 1, plus process wastewater flow
minimization by the following methods:
Contact cooling water recycle through cooling
towers or holding tanks.
Air pollution control scrubber liquor recycle.
Countercurrent cascade rinsing or other water
efficient methods applied to surface treatment
rinses and alkaline cleaning rinses.
Use of periodic batch discharges or decreased
flow rate for molten salt rinsewater.
1915

-------
- Recycle of equipment cleaning wastewater,
tumbling, burnishing and cleaning wastewater,
and other wastewater streams through holding
tanks with suspended solids removal if necessary.
NSPS Option 3 is based on:
NSPS Option 2, plus multimedia filtration at the end
of the NSPS Option 2 treatment train. Plus ion
exchange for the precious metals subcategory.
A more detailed discussion of these options and their applicabil-
ity with each of the 10 subcategories is presented in Section X.
NSPS OPTION SELECTION
EPA is issuing NSPS on the same technology basis as BAT for eight
of the 10 subcategories in the nonferrous metals forming
category. For the magnesium subcategory, EPA is issuing NSPS
based on technology equivalent to BAT technology for that
s^b9ategory with the addition of filtration prior to discharge.
Fpr the metal powders subcategory, EPA is issuing NSPS based oh
technology equivalent to BAT technology for that subcategory with
tile- additional process wastewater flow minimization. As
discussed in Sections IX and X, these technologies are currently
used at plants within this point source category.
EPA is issuing NSPS based on the application of lime, settle, and
filter with in-process controls to reduce wastewater flows fbr
the nickel-cobalt, refractory metals, uranium, and zinc forming
subcategories. Filtration has been included in the NSPS model
technology for subcategories because new plants have the opportu-
nity to design the most efficient process water use and waste-
water reduction techniques within their processes, thereby
reducing the size of and cost of filtration equipment. Specifi-
cally, the design of new plants can be based on recycle of
contact cooling water through cooling towers, recycle of air
pollution control scrubber liquor or the use of dry air pollution
control equipment, and use of countercurrent cascade rinsing.
These reductions in water use in turn reduce the cost of waste-
water treatment technologies, including filtration equipment.
For the lead-tin-bismuth, precious metals, titanium, and
zirconium-hafnium forming subcategories, the Agency is issuing
NSPS on the basis of flow reduction, lime, and settle.
The NSPS regulatory flows are the same as the BAT regulatory
flows discussed in Section X with the exception of three waste
streams in the metal powders subcategory. These are tumbling,
burnishing, and cleaning wastewater; steam treatment wet air
pollution control blowdown; and hot pressing contact cooling
water. The NSPS flows for these waste streams are based on
recycle of process wastewater. Opportunities to achieve further
flow reduction of process wastewater do currently exist for these
process waste streams; however, they are not employed at existing
direct discharge facilities. The Agency believes these processes
1916

-------
could be used at new sources. Further, a new plant has the
opportunity to build into the plant when it is being constructed
the necessary cooling towers, holding tanks or sedimentation
equipment required to recycle these streams.
Table XI-1 presents a summary of the option selected as the basis
for NSPS for each subcategory.
New sources regardless of whether they are plants with major
modifications or greenfield sites, will have costs that are not
greater than the costs that existing sources would incur in
achieving equivalent pollutant discharge reduction. In fact,
these costs may be less, since retrofitting is unnecessary.
Based on this, the Agency believes that the selected NSPS is
appropriate for both greenfield sites and existing sites undergo-
ing major modifications (e.g., a primary zinc plant which
installs a rolling operation).
Costs and Environmental Benefits of Treatment Options
Costs for an individual new source can be estimated using the
methods described in Section VIII. The Agency has not estimated
total costs or benefits for the category or subcategories since
it is not known how many new nonferrous metals forming plants
will be built.
REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
The Agency has no reason to believe that the pollutants that will
be found in significant quantities in processes within new
sources will be any different than those found in existing
sources. Consequently, pollutants selected for regulation, in
accordance with the rationale of Section VI, are the same ones
for each subcategory that were selected for BAT plus TSS, oil and
grease, and pH. At NSPS, as at BAT, the other metal priority
pollutants considered for regulation will be controlled by
regulation of these selected pollutants.
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The regulatory production normalized flows for NSPS are the same
as the production normalized flows for the selected BAT option
with the exception of three streams in the metal powders subcate-
gory. New plants can design and install recycle systems for
these streams during original plant construction. As such, new
plants would not incur the costs of retrofitting these recycle
systems. The NSPS flow allowance for tumbling, burnishing and
cleaning wastewater is 440 1/kkg (105 gal/ton). The NSPS flow
allowance for steam treatment wet air pollution control blowdown
is 79.2 1/kkg (19.0 gal/ton). The NSPS flow allowance for hot
pressing contact cooling water is 880 1/kkg (211 gal/ton). These
flows are based on 90 percent flow reduction from BAT flows using
process wastewater flow minimization techniques discussed in
detail in Section X.
1917

-------
The treatment effectiveness for each subcategory is based on the
values presented in Table VII-21 for lime and settle or lime,
settle, and filter treatment. The mass of pollutant allowed to
be discharged per mass of product is calculated by multiplying
the appropriate treatment effectiveness value (one-day maximum
and 10-day average values) (mg/1) by the production normalized
flows (1/kkg). When these calculations are performed, the mass-
based NSPS can be derived for the selected option for each
subcategory. These values are presented for each of the 10
subcategories in Tables XI-2 through XI-11.
1918

-------
Table XI-1
OPTIONS SELECTED AS THE TECHNOLOGY BASES FOR NSPS
Subcategory
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Magnesium Forming
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Precious Metals Forming
Refractory Metals Forming
Titanium Forming
Uranium Forming
Zinc Forming
Zirconium-Hafnium Forming
Metal Powders
NSPS
Option 2
Option 3
Option 3
Option 2
Option 3
Option 2
Option 3
Option 3
Option 2
Option 2
Option 1 - Flow Normalization, Lime and Settle
Option 2 - Flow Reduction, Lime and Settle
Option 3 - Flow Reduction, Lime and Settle, Multimedia Filtration
1919

-------
Table XI-2
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Rolling Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
rolled with emulsions
*Antimony
*Lead
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within the range
.067	.030
.010	.005
.468	.281
.960	.457
of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
NSPS
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Rolling Spent Soap Solutions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
rolled with soap solutions
*Antimony .124	.055
*Lead .018	.009
*Oil and Grease .860	.516
*TSS 1.770	.839
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0	at all times
NSPS
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Drawing Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1920

-------
Table XI-2 (Continued)
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Drawing Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
drawn with emulsions
*Antimony
*Lead
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within the range
.076	.034
.011	.005
.526	.316
1.080	.513
of 7.5 to 10.0	at all times
NSPS
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Drawing Spent Soap Solutions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
drawn with soap solutions
*Antimony	.021	.010
*Lead	.003	.001
*Oil and Grease	.149	.090
*TSS	.306	.146
*pH Within the range of	7.5 to 10.0 at all	times
1921

-------
Table XI-2 (Continued)
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Extrusion Press or Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
heat treated
*Antimony
*Lead
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
*	Within the range
.413	.185
.061	.029
2.880	1.730
5.910	2.810
of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
NSPS
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Pollutant or	Maximum for Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
extruded
*Antimony	.158	.070
*Lead	.023	.011
*Oil and Grease	1.100	.660
*TSS	2.260	1.070
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1922

-------
Table XI-2 (Continued)
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Swaging Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
swaged with emulsions
*Antimony
*Lead
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within the range
.0051	.0023
.0008	.0004
.0354	.0213
.0726	.0345
of 7.5 to 10.0	at all times
NSPS
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Continuous Strip Casting Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
cast by the continuous strip method
*Ant imony
*Lead
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within the range
.0029	.0013.
.0004	.0002
.0200	.0120
.0410	.0195
of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1923

-------
Table XI-2 (Continued)
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Semi-Continuous Ingot Casting Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
ingot cast by the semi-continuous method
*Antimony .008	.004
*Lead .001	.001
*Oil and Grease .059	.035
*TSS .121	.057
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0	at all times
NSPS
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Shot Casting Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
shot cast
*Antimony
*Lead
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within the range
.107	.048
.016	.007
.746	.448
1.530	.728
of 7.5 to 10.0	at all times
1924

-------
Table XI-2 (Continued)
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Shot-Forming Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
shot formed
*Antimony
*Lead
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within the range
.169	.075
.025	.012
1.180	.706
2.410	1.150
of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
NSPS
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
alkaline cleaned
*Antimony
*Lead
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
.345
.050
2.400
4.920
. 154
. 024
1.	440
2.	340
tpH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1925

-------
Table XI-2 (Continued)
LEAD-TIN-BISMUTH FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of lead-tin-bismuth
alkaline cleaned
*Antimony
*Lead
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within the range
.678	.302
.099	.047
4.720	2.830
9.680	4.600
of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
NSPS
Lead-Tin-Bismuth Forming
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1926

-------
Table XI-3
MAGNESIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Magnesium Forming
Rolling Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of magnesium
rolled with emulsions
*Chromium
.028
.011
*Zinc
.076
. 031
*Ammonia
9.950
4. 370
*Fluoride
4.440
1.970
Magnesium
.005
	
*Oil and Grease
.746
.746
*TSS
1.120
.895
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
NSPS
Magnesium Forming
Forging Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
NSPS
Magnesium Forming
Forging Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of forged magnesium
cooled with water
*Chromium	.107	.043
*Zinc	.295	.122
*Ammonia	38.500	17.000
*Fluoride	17.200	7.630
Magnesium	.019		
*Oil and Grease	2.890	2.890
*TSS	4.340	3.470
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1927

-------
Table XI-3 (Continued)
MAGNESIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Magnesium Forming
Forging Equipment Cleaning Wastewater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of magnesium
forged
*Chromium	.0015	.0006
*Zinc	.0041	.0017
*Ammonia	.5320	.2340
*Fluoride	.2380	.1060
Magnesium	.0003		
*Oil and Grease	.0399	.0399
*TSS	.0599	.0479
*pH Within	the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
NSPS
Magnesium Forming
Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of magnesium
cast with direct chill methods
*Chromium 1.460	.593
*Zinc 4.030	1.660
*Ammonia 527.000	232.000
*Fluor ide 235.000	104.000
Magnesium	.265		
*Oil and Grease 39.500	39.500
*TSS 59.300	47.400
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at	all times
1928

-------
Table XI-3 (Continued)
MAGNESIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Magnesium Forming
Surface Treatment Spent Baths
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of magnesium
surface treated
*Chromium
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Magnesium
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
62
27
4
6
173
476
100
700
031
660
990
. 070
. 196
27.300
12.300
4.660
5. 590
kpH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
NSPS
Magnesium Forming
Surface Treatment Rinse
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of magnesium
surface treated
*Chromium
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Magnesium
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
1
252
113
18
28
700
930
000
000
127
900
400
. 284
.794
111.000
49.900
18.900
22.700
kpH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1929

-------
Table XI-3 (Continued)
MAGNESIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Magnesium Forming
Sawing or Grinding
Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-
sawed or ground
*Chromium
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Magnesium
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
¦lbs) of magnesium
.007
.020
2.600
1.160
.001
.195
.293
003
, 008
140
515
195
, 234
kpH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
NSPS
Magnesium Forming
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
NSPS
Magnesium Forming
Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of magnesium
formed
*Chromium
*Zinc
*Ammonia
*Fluoride
Magnesium
*Oil and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within the range
229
.093
632
. 260
500
36.300
900
16.400
042
	
190
6.190
290
7.430
. 5 to
10.0 at all times
1930

-------
Table XI-4
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Rolling Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Rolling Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
rolled with emulsions
Cadmium
.034
.014
*Chromium
. 063
.026
Copper
.218
.104
Lead
.048
.022
*Nickel
.094
.063
Zinc
.174
.071
*Fluoride
10.100
4.490
*Oil and Grease
1.700
1.700
*TSS
2.550
2.040
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
1931

-------
Table XI-4 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Rolling Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
rolled with water
Cadmium
.015
.006
*Chromium
.028
.011
Copper
.097
.046
Lead
.021
. 010
*Nickel
.042
. 028
Zinc
.077
.032
*Fluoride
4.490
1.990
*Oil and Grease
.754
.754
*TSS
1.130
.905
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Tube Reducing Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Drawing Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1932

-------
Table XI-4 (Continued
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Drawing Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
drawn with emulsions
Cadmium
. 019
. 008
*Chromium
.035
. 014
Copper
.122
.058
Lead
. 027
. 012
*Nickel
.053
. 035
Zinc
.097
.040
*Fluoride
5.680
2. 520
*Oil and Grease
.954
.954
*TSS
1.430
1.150
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all
times
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Extrusion Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1933

-------
Table XI-4 (Continued
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Extrusion Press or Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
pollutant property
any one day
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of i
nickel-cobalt
heat treated


Cadmium
.017
.007
*Chromium
. 031
.013
Copper
.107
.051
Lead
.023
.011
*Nickel
.046
.031
Zinc
.085
.035
*Fluoride
4.950
2.200
*0x1 and Grease
.832
.832
*TSS
1. 250
. 999
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
extruded


Cadmium
.046
.019
*Chromium
.086
.035
Copper
.297
.142
Lead
.065
.030
*Nickel
.128
.086
Zinc
. 237
.098
*Fluoride
13.800
6.130
*Oil and Grease
2.320
2.320
*TSS
3.480
2.790
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all
t imes
1934

-------
Table XI-4 (Continued
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Forging Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Forging Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of forged nickel-cobalt
cooled with water
Cadmium
.009
.004
*Chromium
.018
.007
Copper
.061
.029
Lead
.013
.006
*Nickel
.026
.018
Zinc
.048
.020
*Fluoride
2.820
1.250
*Oil and Grease
.474
.474
*TSS
.711
. 569
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
1935

-------
Table XI-4 (Continued
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Forging Equipment Cleaning Wastewater
Pollutant
or Maximum for
Maximum for
pollutant
property any one day
monthly average
mg/off-kg
(lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt

forged




Cadmium
. 0008


. 0003
*Chromium
.0015


.0006
Copper
. 0051


. 0024
Lead
.0011


.0005
*Nickel
.0022


.0015
Zinc
.0041


.0017
*Fluoride
.2380


.1060
*Oil and Grease .0400


. 0400
*TSS
.0600


. 0480
*pH
Within the range of 7.5 to
10.0 at
all
times
NSPS




Nickel-Cobalt Forming



Forging Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage



Pollutant
or Maximum for
Maximum for
pollutant
property any one day
monthly average
mg/off-kg
(lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt

forged




Cadmium
.037


.015
*Chromium
.069


.028
Copper
.240


.114
Lead
.052


.024
*Nickel
.103


.069
Zinc
.191


.079
*Fluoride
11.100


4.940
*Oil and Grease 1.870


1.870
*TSS
2.810


2.250
*pH
Within the range of 7.5 to
10.0 at
all
times
1936

-------
Table XI-4 (Continued
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Metal Powder Production Atomization Wastewater
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Max
any
imum ror
one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-
lbs) of nickel-cobalt
metal powder atomized



Cadmium

.524
.210
*Chromium

.970
.393
Copper

3.360
1.600
Lead

.734
.341
*Nickel

1.440
.970
Zinc

2.670
1.100
*Fluoride

156.000
69.200
*Oil and Grease

26.200
26.200
*TSS

39.300
31.500
*pH Within the
range
of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Stationary Casting Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
cast with stationary casting methods
Cadmium
.242
.097
*Chromium
.448
.182
Copper
1.550
.738
Lead
.339
.158
*Nickel
.666
.448
Zinc
1.240
.508
*Fluoride
72.000
32.000
*Oil and Grease
12.100
12.100
*TSS
18.200
14.500
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1937

-------
Table XI-4 (Continued
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Vacuum Melting Steam Condensate
There shall be no allowance for the discharge of
process wastewater pollutants.
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Annealing and Solution Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water
There shall be no allowance for the discharge of
process wastewater pollutants.
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Surface Treatment Spent Baths
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of i
nickel-cobalt

surface treated



Cadmium
.187

.075
*Chromium
.346

.140
Copper
1.200

. 571
Lead
. 262

.122
*Nickel
.514

.346
Zinc
.954

.393
*Fluoride
55.700

24.700
*Oil and Grease
9.350

9.350
*TSS
14.000

11.200
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1938

-------
Table XI-4 (Continued
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Surface Treatment Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg(lb/million off-lbs)of nickel-cobalt
surface treated
Cadmium
.472
.189
*Chromium
.873
.354
Copper
3.020
1.440
Lead
.661
.307
*Nickel
1.300
.873
Zinc
2.410
.991
*Fluoride
141.000
62.300
*Oil and Grease
23.600
23.600
*TSS
35.400
28.300
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at
all times
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Ammonia Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
treated with ammonia solution
Cadmium
.003
.001
*Chromium
.005
.002
Copper
.019
.009
Lead
.004
.002
*Nickel
.008
.005
Zinc
.015
.006
*Fluoride
.881
.391
*Oil and Grease
.148
.148
*TSS
.222
.178
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all
times
1939

-------
Table XI-4 (Continued
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
alkaline cleaned
Cadmium
.007
.003
*Chromium
.013
.005
Copper
.043
.021
Lead
.009
.004
*Nickel
. 019
.013
Zinc
.035
.014
*Fluoride
2.020
.895
*Oil and Grease
. 339
. 339
*TSS
. 509
. 407
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all
times
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
alkaline cleaned
Cadmium
.047
.019
*Chromium
.086
.035
Copper
.298
.142
Lead
.065
.030
*Nickel
.128
.086
Zinc
. 238
.098
*Fluoride
13.900
6.150
*Oil and Grease
2.330
2.330
*TSS
3. 500
2.800
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1940

-------
Table XI-4 (Continued
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Molten Salt Rinse
Pollutant
or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant
property
any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg
(lb/million
off-lbs) of
nickel-cobalt

treated with molten salt


Cadmium

.169

.068
*Chromium

.312

.127
Copper

1.080

. 515
Lead

.237

. 110
*Nickel

.464

. 312
Zinc

.861

. 355
*Fluoride

50.200

22.300
*Oil and Grease
8.440

8.440
*TSS

12.700

10 .100
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
sawed or ground with emulsions
Cadmium
.008
. 003
*Chromium
.015
.006
Copper
.051
.024
Lead
.011
.005
*Nickel
.022
. 015
Zinc
.040
.017
*Fluoride
2. 350
1.040
*Oil and Grease
. 394
. 394
*TSS
.591
. 473
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all
times
1941

-------
Table XI-4 (Continued
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Sawing or Grinding Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of sawed or ground
nickel-cobalt rinsed
Cadmium
.036
.015
*Chromium
.067
.027
Copper
. 232
.111
Lead
.051
.024
*Nickel
.100
.067
Zinc
.185
.076
*Fluoride
10.800
4.780
*Oil and Grease
1.810
1.810
*TSS
2.720
2.170
*pH Within
the range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Steam Cleaning Condensate
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for Maximum
any one day monthly
for
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt

steam cleaned


Cadmium
.006
.002
*Chromium
.011
.005
Coppe r
.039
. 018
Lead
.008
. 004
*Nickel
.017
. 011
Zinc
.031
.013
*Fluoride
1.790
.795
*Oil and Grease
. 301
.301
*TSS
.452
.361
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1942

-------
Table XI-4 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Hydrostatic Tube Testing and Ultrasonic Testing Wastewater
There shall be no allowance for the discharge of
process wastewater pollutants.
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Dye Penetrant Testing Wastewater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
tested with dye penetrant methods
Cadmium
.043
.017
*Chromium
.079
.032
Copper
.273
.130
Lead
.060
.028
*Nickel
.117
.079
Zinc
.217
.090
~Fluoride
12.700
5.630
*Oil and Grease
2.130
2.130
*TSS
3.200
2.560
*pH Within
the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at
all times
1943

-------
Table XI-4 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Miscellaneous Wastewater Sources
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
formed
Cadmium
.049
.020
*Chromium
.091
. 037
Copper
.315
.150
Lead
.069
.032
*Nickel
.136
.091
Zinc
.251
.104
*Fluoride
14.700
6.500
*Oil and Grease
2.460
2. 460
*TSS
3.690
2.950
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1944

-------
Table XI-4 (Continued)
NICKEL-COBALT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown
Pollutant
or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant
property
any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg
(lb/million
off-lbs) of
nickel-cobalt

formed




Cadmium

.162

.065
*Chromium

.300

.122
Copper

1.040

. 494
Lead

.227

.106
*Nickel

.446

.300
Zinc

.826

.340
*Fluoride

48.200

21.400
*Oil and Grease
8.100

8.100
*TSS

12.200

9.720
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
NSPS
Nickel-Cobalt Forming
Electrocoating Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of nickel-cobalt
electrocoated
Cadmium
.674
.270
*Chromium
1.250
.506
Copper
4.320
2.060
Lead
.944
.438
*Nickel
1.860
1.250
Zinc
3.440
1.420
*Fluoride
201.000
89.000
*Oil and Grease
33.700
33.700
*TSS
50.600
40.500
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at
all times
1945

-------
Table XI-5
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Precious Metals Forming
Rolling Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
NSPS
Precious Metals Forming
Rolling Spent Emulsions
Pollutant
or
Maximum for
Maximum for
pollutant
property
any
one day
monthly average
mg/off-kg
(lb/million
off-
lbs) of precious metals
rolled, with emulsions



*Cadmium


.026
.012
Chromium


.034
.014
*Copper


.147
.077
*Cyanide


.022
.009
*Lead


.032
.015
Nickel


.148
.098
*Silver


.032
.013
Zinc


.113
.047
*Oil and <
Grease

1.540
.925
*TSS


3.160
1.510
*pH
Within the
range
of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
NSPS
Precious Metals Forming
Drawing Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1946

-------
Table XI-5 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Precious Metals Forming
Drawing Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of precious metals
drawn with emulsions


*Cadmium
.016
.007
Chromium
.021
.009
*Copper
.090
.048
*Cyanide
.014
.006
*Lead
. 020
.010
Nickel
.091
.060
*Silver
.020
.008
Zinc
.069
.029
*Oil and Grease
.950
. 570
*TSS
1.950
.926
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
NSPS
Precious Metals Forming
Drawing Spent Soap Solutions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of precious metals
drawn with soap solutions
*Cadmium
.0011
. 0005
Chromium
.0014
.0006
*Copper
.0059
.0031
*Cyanide
.0009
.0004
*Lead
.0013
.0006
Nickel
.0060
.0040
*Silver
. 0013
.0005
Zinc
.0046
.0019
*Oil and Grease
.0624
.0375
*TSS
.1280
.0609
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1947

-------
Table XI-5 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Precious Metals Forming
Metal Powder Production Atomization Wastewater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of precious metals
powder wet atomized
*Cadmium
2.270
1.000
Chromium
2.940
1.200
*Copper
12.700
6.680
*Cyanide
1.940
.802
*Lead
' 2.810
1.340
Nickel
12.800
8.490
*Silver
2.740
1.140
Zinc
9.750
4.080
*Oil and Grease
134.000
80.200
*TSS
274.000
130.000
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
NSPS
Precious Metals Forming
Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of precious metals
cast by the direct chill method
*Cadmium
.367
.162
Chromium
.475
. 195
*Copper
2.050
1.080
*Cyanide
.313
.130
*Lead
.454
. 216
Nickel
2.080
1.370
*Silver
.443
.184
Zinc
1.580
.659
*Oil and Grease
21.600
13.000
*TSS
44.300
21.100
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1948

-------
Table XI-5 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Precious Metals Forming
Shot Casting Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg
(lb/million off-lbs) of precious
metals
shot cast


*Cadmium
.125
.055
Chromium
.162
.066
*Copper
.698
.367
*Cyanide
. 107
.044
*Lead
.154
.073
Nickel
.705
.466
~Silver
.151
.062
Zinc
. 536
.224
*Oil and Grease 7.340
4.410
*TSS
15.100
7.160
*pH
Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
NSPS
Precious Metals Forming
Stationary Casting Contact Cooling Water
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1949

-------
Table XI-5 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Precious Metals Forming
Semi-Continuous and Continuous Casting Contact
Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of precious metals cast
by the semi-continuous or continuous method
*Cadmium
. 350
.155
Chromium
.453
.186
*Copper
1.960
1.030
*Cyanide
.299
.124
*Lead
.433
.206
Nickel
1.980
1.310
*Silver
.423
. 175
Zinc
1. 510
.629
*Oil and Grease
20.600
12.400
*TSS
42.300
20.100
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
NSPS



Precious Metals Forming


Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water


Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of extruded precious
metals heat treated



*Cadmium
.142

. 063
Chromium
.184

.075
*Copper
.793

.417
*Cyanide
.121

.050
*Lead
.175

.083
Nickel
.801

. 530
*Silver
.171

.071
Zinc
.609

.255
*Oil and Grease
8. 340

5.010
*TSS
17 .100

8.130
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1950

-------
Table XI-5 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Precious Metals Forming
Surface Treatment Spent Baths
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of precious metals
surface treated
*Cadmium
.033
.015
Chromium
.042
.017
*Copper
.183
.096
*Cyanide
.028
.012
*Lead
.041
.019
Nickel
.185
.123
*Silver
.040
.016
Zinc
.141
.059
*Oil and Grease
1.930
1.160
*TSS
3.950
1.880
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
NSPS
Precious Metals Forming
Surface Treatment Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of precious metals
surface treated
Cadmium
.210
.092
Chromium
. 271
.111
Copper
1.170
.616
Cyanide
.179
.074
Lead
.259
.123
Nickel
1.180
.783
Silver
.253
.105
Zinc
.900
.376
Oil and Grease
12.300
7.390
TSS
25.300
12.000
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1951

-------
Table XI-5 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Precious Metals Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of precious metals
alkaline cleaned
*Cadmium
. 020
.009
Chromium
.026
.011
*Copper
.114
.060
*Cyanide
.017
.007
*Lead
.025
.012
Nickel
.115
.076
*Silver
.025
.010
Zinc
.088
.037
*Oil and Grease
1. 200
.720
*TSS
2.460
1.170
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
NSPS
Precious Metals Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of precious metals
alkaline cleaned
*Cadmium
.381
.168
Chromium
. 493
.202
*Copper
2.130
1.120
*Cyanide
.325
.135
*Lead
.471
.224
Nickel
2.150
1.420
*Silver
.459
.191
Zinc
1.640
.683
*Oil and Grease
22.400
13.500
*TSS
45.900
21.900
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1952

-------
Table XI-5 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Precious Metals Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Prebonding Wastewater
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off
-lbs) of precious metals and
base metal cleaned prior
to bonding

*Cadmium

. 395
.174
Chromium

. 511
. 209
*Copper

2.210
1.160
*Cyanide

. 337
.139
*Lead

.487
. 232
Nickel

2 . 230
1.480
*Silver

.476
.197
Zinc

1.700
.708
*Oil and Grease

23.200
13.900
*TSS

47.600
22.600
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
NSPS
Precious Metals Forming
Tumbling or Burnishing Wastewater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of precious metals
tumbled or burnished
*Cadmium
.412
.182
Chromium
. 533
. 218
*Copper
2.300
1.210
*Cyanide
. 351
.145
*Lead
. 508
.242
Nickel
2.330
1. 540
*Silver
.496
. 206
Zinc
1.770
.738
*Oil and Grease
24.200
14.500
*TSS
49 .600
23.600
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1953

-------
Table XI-5 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Precious Metals Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
NSPS
Precious Metals Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions
Pollutant
or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant
property
any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg
(lb/million
off-lbs) of precious metals
sawed or
ground with
emulsions


*Cadmium

.032

. 014
Chromium

.041

.017
*Copper

.178

. C93
*Cyanide

.027

.011
*Lead

.039

.019
Nickel

.180

.119
*Silver

.038

.016
Zinc

.137

.057
*Oil and
Grease
1.870

1.120
*TSS

3.830

1.820
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1954

-------
Table XI-5 (Continued)
PRECIOUS METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Precious Metals Forming
Pressure Bonding Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of precious metals and
base metal pressure bonded
*Cadmium
.028
.013
Chromium
.037
.015
*Copper
.159
.084
*Cyanide
.024
.010
*Lead
.035
. 017
Nickel
.161
.106
*Silver
.034
.014
Zinc
.122
.051
*Oil and Grease
1.670
1.000
*TSS
3.430
1.630
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
NSPS
Precious Metals Forming
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
NSPS
Precious Metals Forming
Wet Air Pollution Control Blowdown
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1955

-------
Table XI-6
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Refractory Metals Forming
Rolling Spent Neat Oils and Graphite-Based Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
NSPS
Refractory Metals Forming
Rolling Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum
monthly
for
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of
refractory metals
rolled with emulsions



Chromium
.159

.064
*Copper
. 549

.262
Lead
.120

.056
*Nickel
.236

.159
Silver
.125

.052
Zinc
.438

.180
Columbium
.052

	
*Fluoride
25.500

11.300
*Molybdenum
2.160

.957
Tantalum
.193

	
Vanadium
.043

	
Tungsten
1.490

.665
*Oil and Grease
4.290

4.290
*TSS
6.440

5 .150
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
NSPS
Refractory Metals Forming
Drawing Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1956

-------
Table XI-6 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Refractory Metals Forming
Extrusion Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
NSPS
Refractory Metals Forming
Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
extruded
Chromium
.441
.179
*Copper
1.530
.726
Lead
.333
.155
*Nickel
.655
.441
Silver
.345
.143
Zinc
1.220
.500
Columbium
.143
	
*Fluoride
70.800
31.400
*Molybdenum
5.990
2.660
Tantalum
.536
	
Vanadium
.119
	
Tungsten
4.140
1.850
*Oil and Grease
11.900
11.900
*TSS
17.900
14.300
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at
all times
NSPS
Refractory Metals Forming
Forging Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1957

-------
Table XI-6 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
N3PS
Refractory Metals Forming
Forging Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of forged refractory
metals cooled with water
005
020
004
012
004
014
853
072
.050
.323
.388
cpH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
Chromium
.012
*Copper
.041
Lead
.009
*Nickel
.018
Silver
.009
Zinc
.033
Columbium
.004
*Fluoride
1.920
*Molybdenum
.163
Tantalum
.015
Vanadium
.003
Tungsten
.113
*Oil and Grease
.323
*TSS
.485
1958

-------
Table XI-6 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Refractory Metals Forming
Metal Powder Production Wastewater
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for Maximum
any one day monthly
for
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-
lbs) of refractory metals
powder produced



Chromium

.104
.042
*Copper

.360
.172
Lead

.079
.037
*Nickel

.155
.104
Silver

.082
.034
Zinc

. 287
.118
Columbium

.034
	
*Fluoride

16.700
7.420
*Molybdenum

1.420
.627
Tantalum

.127
	
Vanadium

. 028
	
Tungsten

.978
.436
*Oil and Grease

2.810
2.810
*TSS

4.220
3.370
*pH Within the
range
of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
NSPS
Refractory Metals Forming
Metal Powder Production Floor Wash Water
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
NSPS
Refractory Metals Forming
Metal Powder Pressing Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1959

-------
Table Xl-6 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Refractory Metals Forming
Surface Treatment Spent Baths
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
surface treated
Chromium
.144
.058
Copper
.498
. 237
Lead
.109
.051
Nickel
. 214
.144
Silver
.113
. 047
Zinc
.397
.164
Columbium
.047
	
Fluoride
23.200
10.300
Molybdenum
1.960
.868
Tantalum
.175
	
Vanadium
.039
	
Tungsten
1.360
.603
Oil and Grease
3.890
3.890
TSS
5.840
4.670
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1960

-------
Table XI-6 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Refractory Metals Forming
Surface Treatment Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
surface treated
Chromium
4.480
1.820
*Copper
15.500
7.380
Lead
3.390
1. 580
*Nickel
6.660
4. 480
Silver
3 .510
1.450
Zinc
12.400
5. 080
Columbium
1. 450
	
*Fluoride
720.000
320.000
*Molybdenum
60.900
27.000
Tantalum
5.450
	
Vanadium
1. 210
	
Tungsten
42.100
18.800
*Oil and Grease
121.000
121.000
*TSS
182.000
145.000
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at
all times
1961

-------
Table XI-6 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Refractory Metals Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-
lbs) of refractory metals
alkaline cleaned



Chromium

.124
.050
*Copper

. 428
.204
Lead

.094
.043
*Nickel

.184
.124
Silver

.097
.040
Zinc

.341
.140
Columbium

.040
	
*Fluoride

19.900
8.820
*Molybdenum

1.680
.745
Tantalum

.151
	
Vanadium

.033
	
Tungsten

1.160
.518
*Oil and Grease

3.340
3.340
*TSS

5.010
4.010
*pH Within the
range
of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1962

-------
Table XI-6 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Refractory Metals Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
alkaline cleaned
Chromium
3.020
1. 230
*Copper
10.500
4.980
Lead
2.290
1. 060
*Nickel
4.490
3.020
Silver
2.370
.979
Zinc
8.330
3.430
Columbium
.979
	
*Fluoride
486 .000
216.000
*Molybdenum
41.100
18.200
Tantalum
3. 670
	
Vanadium
.816
	
Tungsten
28.400
12.700
*Oil and Grease
81.600
81.600
*TSS
123.000
97.900
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
1963

-------
Table XI-6 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Refractory Metals Forming
Molten Salt Rinse
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Max
any
imum for Maximum
one day monthly
for
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-
lbs) of refractory metals
treated with molten salt


Chromium

.234
.095
*Copper

.810
.386
Lead

.177
.082
*Nickel

.348
.234
Silver

.184
.076
Zinc

.646
.266
Columbium

.076

*Fluor ide

37 .700
16.700
^Molybdenum

3.190
1.410
Tantalum

.285
	
Vanadium

.063
	
Tungsten

2.200
.981
*Oil and Grease

6.330
6.330
*TSS

9.500
7.600
*pH Within the
range
of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1964

-------
Table XI-6 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Refractory Metals Forming
Tumbling or Burnishing Wastewater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
tumbled or burnished
Chromium
. 463
.188
*Copper
1.600
.763
Lead
.350
.163
*Nickel
.688
.463
Silver
. 363
.150
Zinc
1. 280
. 525
Columbium
.150
	
*Fluor ide
74.400
33.000
*Molybdenum
6. 290
2.790
Tantalum
. 563
	
Vanadium
.125
	
Tungsten
4.350
1.940
*Oil and Grease
12.500
12.500
*TSS
18.800
15.000
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
NSPS
Refractory Metals Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1965

-------
Table XI-6 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Refractory Metals Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for Maximum
any one day monthly
for
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of refractory metals
sawed or ground with
emulsions

Chromium
.110
.045
*Copper
.380
.181
Lead
.083
.039
*Nickel
.164
.110
Silver
.086
.036
Zinc
.303
.125
Columbium
.036
	
*Fluoride
17.700
7.840
^Molybdenum
1.500
. 663
Tantalum
.134
	
Vanadium
.030
	
Tungsten
1.040
.461
*Oil and Grease
2.970
2.970
*TSS
4.460
3.570
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1966

-------
Table XI-6 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Refractory Metals Forming
Sawing or Grinding Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for Maximum
any one day monthly
for
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of refractory metals
sawed or ground with
contact cooling water

Chromium
.899
. 365
*Copper
3.110
1.480
Lead
.681
. 316
*Nickel
1.340
.899
Silver
.705
. 292
Zinc
2.480
1.020
Columbium
.292
	
*Fluoride
145.000
64.200
*Molybdenum
12.200
5.420
Tantalum
1.100
	
Vanadium
.243
	
Tungsten
8.460
3.770
*Oil and Grease
24.300
24.300
*TSS
36.500
29.200
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1967

-------
Table XI-6 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Refractory Metals Forming
Sawing or Grinding Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of sawed or ground
refractory metals rinsed
Chromium
.005
.002
*Copper
.017
.008
Lead
. 004
.002
*Nickel
.007
.005
Silver
.004
.002
Zinc
.014
.006
Columbium
.002
	
*Fluor ide
.803
. 357
^Molybdenum
.068
.030
Tantalum
.006
	
Vanadium
.001
	
Tungsten
.047
.021
*Oil and Grease
.135
.135
*TSS
.203
.162
*pH Within the range of
7.5 to 10.0 at all
times
1968

-------
Table XI-6 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Refractory Metals Forming
Dye Penetrant Testing Wastewater
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for Maximum
any one day monthly
for
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-
lbs) of refractory metals
tested with dye penetrant
methods

Chromium

.029
.012
*Copper

.099
.047
Lead

.022
.010
*Nickel

.043
.029
Silver

.023
.009
Zinc

.079
.033
Columbium

.009
	
*Fluoride

4.620
2.050
*Molybdenum

. 391
.173
Tantalum

.035
	
Vanadium

.008
	
Tungsten

.270
.120
*Oil and Grease

.776
.776
*TSS

1.170
.931
*pH Within the
range
of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1969

-------
Table XI-6 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Refractory Metals Forming
Equipment Cleaning Wastewater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
formed
Chromium
.050
.020
*Copper
.174
.083
Lead
.038
.018
*Nickel
.075
.050
Silver
.040
.016
Zinc
.139
.057
Columbium
.016
	
*Fluoride
8.090
3.590
*Molybdenum
.684
.303
Tantalum
.061
	
Vanadium
.014
	
Tungsten
.473
.211
*Oil and Grease
1.360
1.360
*TSS
2.040
1.630
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1970

-------
Table XI-6 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Refractory Metals Forming,
Miscellaneous Wastewater Sources
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of refractory metals
formed
Chromium
.128
.052
*Copper
.442
. 211
Lead
.097
.045
*Nickel
.190
.128
Silver
.100
. 041
Zinc
.352
.145
Columbium
.041
	
*Fluoride
20.500
9.110
*Molybdenum
1.740
.770
Tantalum
.155
	
Vanadium
.035
	
Tungsten
1.200
.535
*Oil and Grease
3.450
3.450
*TSS
5.180
4.140
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
NSPS
Refractory Metals Forming
Degreasing Spent Solvents
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1971

-------
Table XI-6 (Continued)
REFRACTORY METALS FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Refractory Metals Forming
Wet Air Pollution Control Slowdown
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any
one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-
lbs) of refractory metals
formed




Chromium

. 291

.118
*Copper

1.010

. 480
Lead

.221

.103
*Nickel

. 433

. 291
Silver

. 228

.095
Zinc

.803

.331
Columbium

.095

	
*Fluoride

46.800

20 .800
*Molybdenum

3.960

1.760
Tantalum

. 354

	
Vanadium

.079

	
Tungsten

2.740

1.220
*Oil and Grease

7.870

7.870
*TSS

11.800

9.450
*pH Within the
range
of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1972

-------
Table XI-7
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Titanium Forming
Rolling Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
NSPS
Titanium Forming
Rolling Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for
pollutant property any one day
Maximum
monthly
for
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of
titanium

rolled with contact cooling
water


Chromium
. 215

.088
Copper
.927

.488
*Cyanide
.142

.059
*Lead
.205

.098
Nickel
.937

.620
*Zinc
.713

.298
*Ammonia
65.100

28.600
*Fluoride
29.100

12.900
Titanium
.459

. 200
*Oil and Grease
9.760

5.860
*TSS
20.000

9.520
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
NSPS
Titanium Forming
Drawing Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
NSPS
Titanium Forming
Extrusion Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1973

-------
Table XI-7 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Titanium Forming
Extrusion Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium
extruded with emulsions
Chromium
.032
.013
Copper
.137
. 072
*Cyanide
.021
.009
*Lead
.030
.014
Nickel
.138
.091
*Zinc
.105
.044
*Ammonia
9.590
4.220
*Fluoride
4.280
1.900
Titanium
.068
.030
*Oil and Grease
1.440
.863
*TSS
2.950
1.400
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1974

-------
Table XI-7 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Titanium Forming
Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium
extruded
Chromium
.078
.032
Copper
.338
.178
*Cyanide
.052
.021
*Lead
.075
.036
Nickel
.342
.226
*Zinc
.260
.109
*Ammonia
23.700
10.500
*Fluoride
10.600
4.700
Titanium
.168
.073
*Oil and Grease
3.560
2.140
*TSS
7.300
3.470
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
NSPS
Titanium Forming
Forging Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
1975

-------
Table XI-7 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Titanium Forming
Forging Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of forged titanium
cooled with water
Chromium	.044	.018
Copper	.190	.100
*Cyanide	.029	.012
*Lead	.042	.020
Nickel	.192	.127
*Zinc	.146	.061
*Ammonia	13.300	5.860
*Fluoride	5.950	2.640
Titanium	.094	.041
*Oil and Grease	2.000	1.200
*TSS	4.100	1.950
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1976

-------
Table XI-7 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Titanium Forming
Forging Equipment Cleaning Wastewater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium
forged
Chromium
.018
.007
Copper
. 076
.040
*Cyanide
.012
.005
*Lead
. 017
.008
Nickel
.077
.051
*Zinc
.058
.024
*Ammonia
5.330
2.350
*Fluoride
2.380
1.060
Titanium
.038
.016
*Oil and Grease
.800
.480
*TSS
1.640
.780
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at
all times
1977

-------
Table XI-7 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Titanium Forming
Forging Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium
forged
Chromium
.445
.182
Copper
1.920
1.010
*Cyanide
.293
.121
*Lead
.424
. 202
Nickel
1.940
1.280
*Zinc
1.480
.616
*Ammonia
135.000
59.200
*Fluoride
60.100
26.700
Titanium
.950
. 414
*Oil and Grease
20.200
12.100
*TSS
41.400
19.700
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0 at
all times
NSPS
Titanium Forming
Tube Reducing Spent Lubricants
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
NSPS
Titanium Forming
Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water
There shall be no allowance for the discharge of
process wastewater pollutants.
1978

-------
Table XI-7 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS



Titanium Forming



Surface Treatment Spent Baths


Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum
for
pollutant property
any one day
monthly
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of
titanium

surface treated



Chromium
.092

. 038
Copper
.395

. 208
*Cyanide
.060

. 025
*Lead
.087

. 042
Nickel
.400

. 264
*Zinc
.304

. 127
*Ammonia
27.700

12.200
*Fluoride
12.400

5.490
Titanium
.196

. 085
*Oil and Grease
4.160

2.500
*TSS
8.530

4.060
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
NSPS
Titanium Forming
Surface Treatment Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium
surface treated
Chromium
1.290
. 526
Copper
5. 550
2.920
*Cyanide
.847
. 351
*Lead
1.230
. 584
Nickel
5.610
3.710
*Zinc
4.270
1.780
*Ammonia
389.000
171.000
*Fluoride
174.000
77.100
Titanium
2.750
1. 200
*Oil and Grease
58.400
35.100
*TSS
120.000
57.000
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
1979

-------
Table XI-7 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Titanium Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Spent Baths
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property	any one day	monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium
alkaline cleaned
Chromium
.106
.043
Copper
.456
.240
*Cyanide
.070
.029
*Lead
.101
.048
Nickel
.461
.305
*Zinc
.351
.147
*Ammonia
32.000
14.100
*Fluoride
14.300
6.340
Titanium
. 226
.098
*Oil and Grease
4.800
2.880
*TSS
9.840
4.680
*pH Within
the range of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
NSPS
Titanium Forming
Alkaline Cleaning Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for
pollutant property any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-
lbs) of titanium
alkaline cleaned


Chromium
.122
.050
Copper
.525
. 276
*Cyanide
.080
.033
*Lead
.116
.055
Nickel
.530
. 351
*Zinc
.403
.169
*Ammonia
36.800
16.200
*Fluoride
16.400
7.290
Titanium
. 260
.113
*Oil and Grease
5. 520
3.310
*TSS
11.300
5.380
*pH Within the range
of 7.5 to
10.0 at all times
1980

-------
Table XI-7 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Titanium Forming
Molten Salt Rinse
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium
treated with molten salt
Chromium
.420
.172
Copper
1.820
.955
*Cyanide
. 277
.115
*Lead
. 401
. 191
Nickel
1.840
1. 210
*Zinc
1.400
.583
*Ammonia
128.000
56.000
*Fluoride
56.800
25.200
Titanium
.898
.392
*Oil and Grease
19.100
11.500
*TSS
39.200
18.600
*pH Within the
range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
NSPS
Titanium Forming
Tumbling Wastewater
Pollutant or	Maximum for	Maximum for
pollutant property any one day monthly average
mg/off-kg (lb/million off-lbs) of titanium
tumbled
Chromium
.035
.014
Copper
.150
.079
*Cyanide
.023
.009
*Lead
.033
.016
Nickel
.152
. 101
*Zinc
.116
.048
*Ammonia
10.600
4.630
*Fluoride
4.700
2.090
Titanium
.074
.032
*Oil and Grease
1.580
. 948
*TSS
3.240
1.540
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1981

-------
Table XI-7 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Titanium Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Neat Oils
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
NSPS
Titanium Forming
Sawing or Grinding Spent Emulsions
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum
monthly
for
average
mg/off-kg (lb/million
off-lbs) of
titanium

sawed or ground with
emulsions


Chromium
.081

.033
Copper
.348

.183
*Cyanide
.053

.022
*Lead
.077

.037
Nickel
.352

.233
*Zinc
.267

.112
*Ammonia
24.400

10.700
*Fluoride
10.900

4.830
Titanium
.172

.075
*Oil and Grease
3.660

2.200
*TSS
7.510

3.570
*pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times
1982

-------
Table XI-7 (Continued)
TITANIUM FORMING SUBCATEGORY
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NSPS
Titanium Forming
Sawing or Grinding Contact Cooling Water