United Slates
f nvironmantal Protection
Agency
Effluent Guidelines Division
WH-552
Washington DC 20460
EPA 440/1-83/091
June 1983
Development
Document for
Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and
Standards for the

Metal Finishing

Point Source Category

-------
                DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT

                        for

          EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES

          NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

                      for the

                  METAL FINISHING
               POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
               William D. Ruckelshaus
                   Administrator

                  Steven Schatzow
Director, Office of Water Regulations and Standards
                   Jeffery Denit
       Director. Effluent Guidelines Division

                Edward Stigall, P.E.
         Chief, Inorganic Chemicals Branch

                   Richard Kinch
                  Project Officer
                     June 1983
            Effluent Guidelines Division
     Office of Water Regulations and Standards
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
              Washington, D.C.  20406

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS


          TITLE                                           PAGE

I.    CONCLUSIONS                                         I-I

II.    RECOMMENDATIONS                                     II-1

III.  INTRODUCTION                                        III-l

          LEGAL AUTHORITY                                 III-l

          GUIDELINE DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY                   II1-3

               Sources of Industry Data                   II1-4
               Utilization of Industry Data               111-15

          INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION                            II1-16

               Unit Operations Descriptions               111-21

IV.    INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION                             IV-1

          INTRODUCTION                                    IV-1

          CATEGORIZATION BASIS                            IV-1

          EFFLUENT LIMITATION BASE                        IV-7

V.    WASTE CHARACTERIZATION                              V-l

          INTRODUCTION                                    V-l

          WATER USAGE IN THE METAL FINISHING CATEGORY     V-l

               Water Usage by Operations                  V-3
               Water Usage by Waste Type                  V-8

          WASTE CHARACTERISTICS FROM METAL
          FINISHING UNIT OPERATIONS                       V-15

               Electroplating                             V-15
               Electroless Plating                        V-31
                              in

-------
           TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT)
TITLE                                           PAGE

     Anodizing                                  V-31
     Coating                                    V-37
     Etching                                    V-38
     Cleaning                                   V-41
     Machining                                  V-43
     Grinding                                   V-43
     Polishing                                  V-44
     Barrel Finishing                           V-44
     Burnishing                                 V-44
     Impact Deformation. Pressure
      Deformation, and Shearing                 V-44
     Heat Treating                              V-45
     Thermal Cutting                            V-46
     Welding. Brazing. Soldering,
      Flame Spraying                            V-46
     Other Abrasive Jet Machining               V-46
     Electrical Discharge Machining             V-46
     Electrochemical Machining                  V-46
     Laminating                                 V-47
     Hot Dip Coating                            V-47
     Salt Bath Descaling                        V-47
     Solvent Degreasing                         V-47
     Paint Stripping                            V-48
     Painting, Electropainting,
      Electrostatic Painting                    V-48
     Testing                                    V-49
     Mechanical Plating                         V-49
     Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing        V-49

CHARACTERISTICS OF WASTE TYPE STREAMS           V-50

     Total Plant Raw Waste Discharged
     To End-of-Pipe Treatment                   V-57
     Common Metals Waste Type                   V-59
     Precious Metals Waste Type                 V-59
     Complexed Metals Waste Type                V-59
     Cyanide Waste Type                         V-59
     Hexavalent Chromium Waste Type             V-59
     Oily Waste Type                            V-63
     Toxic Organics Waste Type                  V-63

-------
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT)

          TITLE                                           PAGE

VI.   SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS                   VI-1

          INTRODUCTION                                    VI-1

          SELECTION RATIONALE                             VI-1

               Toxic Organic Pollutants                   VI-1
               Non-Toxic Metals                           VI-2
               Other Pollutants                           VI-3

          POLLUTANT PARAMETERS SELECTED                   VI-3

VII.  CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY                    VII-1

          INTRODUCTION                                    VII-1

          APPLICABILITY OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES         VII-4

          TREATMENT OF COMMON METALS WASTES               VI1-8

               Introduction                               VI1-8

               Treatment of Common Metal Wastes -
                Option 1                                  VI1-8
                  Hydroxide Precipitation                 VII-10
                  Sedimentation                           VI1-12
                  Common Metals Waste Treatment
                   System Operation - Option 1            vil-17
                  Common Metals Waste Treatment
                   System Performance - Option 1          VI1-20

               Treatment of Common Metals Wastes -
                Option 2                                  VI1-48

                  Granular Bed Filtration                 VII-48
                  Diatomaceous Earth Filtration           VI1-53
                  Common Metals Waste Treatment
                   System Operation - Option 2            VI1-55

               Treatment of Common Metals Wastes -
                Option 3                                  VI1-72

-------
           TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT)

TITLE                                           PAGE

        Cadmium Background Level                VI1-73
        Evaporation                             VI1-76
        Ion Exchange                            VI1-80

     Alternative Treatment Methods for
      for Common Metals Removal                 VI1-86

        Peat Adsorption                         VI1-86
        Insoluble Starch Xanthate               VII-88
        Sulfide Precipitation                   VII-89
        Flotation                               VII-93
        Membrane Filtration                     VII-98

TREATMENT OF PRECIOUS METAL WASTES -
 SINGLE OPTION                                  VII-100

     Introduction                               VII-100

     Treatment Techniques                       VII-100

        Option 1 Common Metals System           VII-100
        Evaporation                             VII-100
        Ion Exchange                            VI1-102
        Electrolytic Recovery                   VI1-102

TREATMENT OF COMPLEXED METAL WASTES             VII-104

     Introduction                               VII-104

TREATMENT TECHNIQUES                            VI1-112

     High pH Precipitation/Sedimentation        VI1-112

     Chemical Reduction - Precipitation/
      Sedimentation                             VI1-113
     Membrane Filtration                        VI1-113

     Ferrous Sulfate (FeSO4>
      Precipitation/Sedimentation               VII-114

     Ion Exchange                               VI1-114

TREATMENT OF HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM WASTES
 SINGLE OPTIOM                                  VII-115

-------
                  TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT)

       TITLE                                           PAGE

            Introduction                               VII-115

            Recommended Hexavalent Chromium
             Treatment Techniques                      VII-115

            Chemical Chromium Reduction                VII-115

       Alternative Hexavalent Chromium
        Treatment Techniques                           VI1-120

            Electrochemical Chromium Reduction         VI1-120
            Electrochemical Chromium
             Regeneration                              VII-123
            Evaporation                                VII-124
            Ion Exchange                               VII-124

   TREATMENT OF CYANIDE WASTES - SINGLE OPTION         VI1-126

       Introduction                                    VII-126

       Recommended Treatment Techniques                VII-126

            Oxidation by Chlorination                  VII-126

       Alternative Cyanide Treatment Techniques        VI1-144

            Oxidation by Ozonation                     VI1-144
            Oxidation by Ozonation with UV
             Radiation                                 VII-148
            Oxidation by Hydrogen Peroxide             VII-150
            Electrochemical Cyanide Oxidation          VII-151
            Chemical Precipitation (Ferrous Sulfate)   VII-153
            Evaporation                                VII-153

TREATMENT OF OILY WASTES                               VI1-155

       Introduction                                    VII-155

       Treatment of Oily Wastes for
        Combined Wastewater                            VI1-156

       Combined Wastewater Performance for
       Oils - Option 1 Common Metals System            VII-156

-------
               TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT)

    TITLE                                           PAGS

    Combined Wastewater Performance for
    Oils - Option 2 Common Metals System            VI1-159

    Treatment of Segregated Oily Wastes             VI1-161

         Segregated Oil Waste Treatment
          System - Option 1                         VI1-162

               Emulsion Breaking                    VII-162
               Skimming                             VII-167
               Segregated Oily Waste Treatment
                System Performance for Oils -
                Option 1                            VII-169

            Segregated Oily Wastes Treatment
             System - Alternative to
             Option 1                               VII-172
               Ultrafiltration                      VII-172
               Segregated Oily Waste Treatment
                System Performance
                Alternative to Option 1             VI1-177

            Segregated Oily Waste Treatment
             System - Polishing Techniques          VI1-178

               Reverse Osmosis                      VI1-178
         Additional Oily Waste Treatment
          Technologies                              VII-180
            Coalescing                              VII-180
            Flotation                               VII-183
            Centrifugation                          VII-185
            Integrated Adsorption                   VII-186
            Thermal Emulsion Breaking               VI1-187

CONTROL AND TREATMENT OF TOXIC ORGANICS             VI1-190

    Introduction                                    VII-190

    Waste Solvent Control Options                   VII-190

         Waste Solvent Segregation                  VII-190
         Contract Hauling                           VII-190
         Cleaning Alternatives to
          Solvent Degreasing                        VII-191
                       Vlll

-------
                  TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT)

       TITLE                                           PAGE

   Treatment of Toxic Organics for
    Combined Wastewater                                VI1-197

   Treatment of Toxic Organics in
    Segregated Oily Waste                              VII-205

   Additional Treatment Methods for
    Toxic Organics Removal                             VII-208

       Carbon Adsorption                               VII-209
       Reverse Osmosis                                 VII-217
       Resin Adsorption                                VII-218
       Ozonation                                       VII-219
       Chemical Oxidation                              VII-220
       Aerobic Decomposition                           VII-221

TREATMENT OF SLUDGES                                   VII-229

   Introduction                                        VII-229

   Treatment Techniques                                VI1-230

       Gravity Sludge Thickening                       VII-230
       Pressure Filtration                             VII-232
       Vacuum Filtration                               VII-235
       Centrifugation                                  VII-238
       Sludge Bed Drying                               VII-241
       Sludge Disposal                                 VII-243

IN-PROCESS CONTROL TECHNOLOGY                          VI1-245

   Introduction                                        VII-245

   Control Techniques                                  VII-245

       Flow Reduction Through Efficient
        Rinsing                                        VII-245
       Process Bath Conservation                       VII-251
       Oily Waste Segregation                          VII-253
       Process Bath Segregation                        VII-254

-------
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT)

          TITLE                                           PAGE

          Process Modification                            VII-254
          Cutting Fluid Cleaning                          VII-255
          Integrated Waste Treatment                      VI1-257
          Good Housekeeping                               VII-257

   STATISTICAL ANALYSIS                                   VI1-260

      Introduction                                        VII-260

      Data                                                VII-260

          Statistical Calculations                        VII-260

      Daily Variability                                   VII-260

      Monthly Average Variability                         VI1-261

      Long Term Averages                                  VI1-262

          Effluent Limits                                 VII-262

VIII. COST OF WASTEWATER CONTROL AND TREATMENT            VIII-1

          INTRODUCTION                                    VIII-1

          COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY                     VIII-1

               Cost Estimation Input Data                 VII1-2

               System Cost Computation                    VII1-4

               Treatment Component Models                 VII1-7

               Cost Factors and Adjustments               VII1-9

               Subsidiary Costs                           VIII-10

          COST ESTIMATES FOR INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT
           TECHNOLOGIES                                   VII1-13

               Cyanide Oxidation                          VII1-14

               Chromium Reduction                         VII1-19
                              x

-------
               TABLE OP CONTENTS (CONT)
    TITLE                                           PAGE
    Chemical Precipitation and Settling             VIII-24
    Chemical Emulsion Breaking                      ¥111-30
    Holding Tanks                                   VII1-33
    Multimedia Filtration                           VIII-36
    Ultrafiltration                                 VIII-36
    Carbon Adsorption                               VIII-42
    Sludge Drying Beds                              VII1-46
    Vacuum Filtration                               VII1-51
    Countercurrent Rinsing                          VIII-51
    Contract Removal                                VII1-58
RCRA COST ANALYSIS                                  VI11-62
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST ESTIMATES                     VII1-63
    System Cost Estimates (Option 1)                VI11-64
    System Cost Estimates (Option 2)                VI11-80
    System Cost Estimates (Option 3)                VIII-80
    Use of Cost Estimation Results                  VIII-80
IN-PROCESS FLOW REDUCTIONS                          VII1-105
ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OF SYSTEM
 COST ESTIMATES                                     VI11-105
ENERGY AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS                VI11-106
    Energy Aspects                                  VII1-106

-------
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT)

          TITLE                                           PAGE

          Non-Water Quality Aspects                       VII1-106

IX.   BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
       CURRENTLY AVAILABLE                                IX-1

          INTRODUCTION                                    IX-1

          IDENTIFICATION OF BPT                           IX-1

          RATIONALE FOR THE SELECTION OF BPT              IX-4

          BPT LIMITATIONS                                 IX-5

          PRESENT COMPLIANCE WITH BPT                     IX-6

          BENEFITS OF BPT IMPLEMENTATION                  IX-7

X.    BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY
       ACHIEVABLE                                         X-l

          INTRODUCTION                                    X-l

          IDENTIFICATION OF BAT                           X-l

          RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF BAT                  X-3

          BAT LIMITATIONS                                 X-3

          PRESENT COMPLIANCE WITH BAT                     X-4

          BENEFITS OF BAT IMPLEMENTATION                  X-4

XI.   NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS                    XI-1

          INTRODUCTION                                    XI-1

          IDENTIFICATION OF NSPS                          XI-1

          RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF NSPS TECHNOLOGY      XI-3

-------
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT)

          TITLE   PAGE

      NSPS LIMITATIONS                                    XI-3

      PRESENT COMPLIANCE WITH NSPS                        XI-4

      BENEFITS OF NSPS IMPLEMENTATION                     XI-5

XII.  PRETR1ATMENT STANDARDS                              XII-1

      INTRODUCTION                                        XII-1

      IDENTIFICATION OF PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGY           XII-1

      RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF PRETREATMENT
       TECHNOLOGY                                         XII-1

      PRETREATMENT STANDARDS                              XII-2

      PRESENT COMPLIANCE WITH PRETREATMENT
       STANDARDS                                          XII-2

      BENEFITS OF IMPLEMENTATION                          XI1-2

XIII. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY                               XIII-1

      INTRODUCTION                                        XIII-1

      INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY CANDIDATES                    XII1-2

          Electrodialysis                                 XIII-3
          Advanced Electrodialysis                        XII1-7
          Water Reducing Controls for
           Electroplaters                                 XIII-10

XIV.  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT                                     XIV-1

XV.   REFERENCES                                          XV-1

XVI.  GLOSSARY                                            XVI-1

   APPENDIX A                                             A-l

      Exhibit l~  Statistical Analysis of Cadmium         A-l
                  (except new sources). Chromium.
                   Copper, Lead, Nickel, Silver, Zinc.
                   Cyanide. TSS. and Oil and Grease

      Exhibit 2-  Analysis of Total Toxic Organics        A-15
                  (TTO) Data

      Exhibit 3-  Analysis of New Source Cadmium          A-41
                   Data


                             x±±i

-------
                       LIST OF FIGURES
NUMBER                     TITLE
3-1        Metal Finishing Process Application          111-20
4-1        Waste Treatment Schematic                    IV-3
5-1        Flow Distribution Within the
            Metal Finishing Category                    V-7
5-2        Waste Treatment Schematic                    V-51
7-1        Waste Treatment Schematic                    VI1-2
7-2        Treatment of Common Metals
            Wastes - Option 1                           VII-9
7-3        Precipitation and Sedimentation              VII-11
7-4        Solubilities of Metal Hydroxides
            as a Function of pH                         VII-13
7-5        Representative Types of Sedimentation        VI1-14
7-6        Treatment Scheme - Option 1                  VI1-21
7-7        Clarifier TSS Distribution                   VII-22
7-8        Waste Treatment Scheme - Option 2            VI1-49
7-9        Granular Bed Filtration Example              VII-51
7-10       Effluent TSS Concentrations vs. Raw
            Waste Concentrations - Option 2             VI1-58
7-11       Effluent Cadmium Concentrations vs. Raw
            Waste Concentrations - Option 2             VII-59
7-12       Effluent Chromium Concentrations vs. Raw
            Waste Concentrations - Option 2             VI1-60
                           XIV

-------
                 LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
NUMBER                     TITLE                        PAGE
7-13       Effluent Copper Concentrations vs. Raw
            Waste Concentrations - Option 2             VI1-61
7-14       Effluent Lead Concentrations vs. Raw
            Waste Concentrations - Option 2             VI1-62
7-15       Effluent Nickel Concentrations vs. Raw
            Waste Concentrations - Option 2             VI1-63
7-16       Effluent Zinc Concentrations vs. Raw
            Waste Concentrations - Option 2             VI1-64
7-17       Cadmium Raw Waste Concentration
            Distribution                                VII-75
7-18       Types of Evaporation Equipment               VI1-77
7-19       Ion Exchange with Regeneration               VII-81
7-20       Comparative Solubilities of Metal
            Sulfides as a Function of pH                VI1-90
7-21       Dissolved Air Flotation                      VII-94
7-22       Observed Evaporation System at
            Plant ID 06090                              VII-103
7-23       Hexavalent Chromium Reduction with
            Sulfur Dioxide                              VII-117
7-24       Effluent Hexavalent Chromium
            Concentrations vs. Raw Waste
            Concentrations                              VII-118
7-25       Treatment of Cyanide Waste by
            Alkaline Chlorination                       VII-127
7-26       Typical Ozonation Plant for
            Waste Treatment                             VI1-145
7-27       UV/Ozonation                                 VII-149
                           xv

-------
                 LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

NUMBER                     TITLE                        PAGE

7-28       Effluent Oil and Grease Concentrations
            vs. Raw Waste Concentrations  - Option 2
            Common Metals Data Base                     VI1-160

7-29       Treatment of Segregated Oily Wastes -
            Option 1                                    ¥11-163

7-30       Typical Emulsion Breaking/Slimming
            System                                      ¥11-164

7-31       Segregated Oil and Grease Effluent
           Performance - Option 1                       ¥11-170

7-32       Treatment of Segregated Oily Wastes
            Alternative to Option 1                     ¥11-173

7-33       Simplified Ultrafiltration Flow
            Schematic                                   ¥11-174

7-34       Treatment of Segregated Oil Wastes
            Polishing Techniques                        ¥11-179

7-35       Coalescing Gravity Separator                 ¥11-181

7-36       Typical Dissolved Air Flotation System       ¥11-184

7-36a      Thermal Emulsion Breaker                     ¥11-188

7-37       Alkaline Wash Oil Separator                  ¥11-195

7-38       Percentile Distribution of TTP in
            Effluent from Option 1 Plants               ¥11-203

7-39       Percentile Distribution of TTO in Raw
            Waste in Metal Finishing Wastewaters        ¥11-204

7-40       Activated Carbon Adsorption Column           ¥11-211

7-41       Schematic Diagram of a Conventional
            Activated Sludge System                     ¥11-222
                            XVI

-------
                 LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

NUMBER                     TITLE                        PAGE

7-42       Schematic Cross Section of a Trickling
            Filter                                      VII-223

7-43       Schematic Diagram of a Single-stage
            Trickling Filter                            VII-225

7-44       Mechanical Gravity Thickening                VII-231

7-45       Pressure Filtration                          ¥11-233

7-46       Vacuum Filtration                            VII-236

7-47       Centrifugation                               VII-239

8-1        Cost Estimation Program                      VIII-5

8-2        Simple Waste Treatment System                VIII-6

8-3        Cyanide Oxidation Investment Costs           VII1-15

8-4        Annual OSM Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Cyanide Oxidation                           VII1-18

8-5        Annual Energy Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Cyanide Oxidation                           VII1-20

8-6        Chromium Reduction Investment Costs          VII1-22

8-7        Annual O&M Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Chromium Reduction                          VI11-23

8-8        Chemical Precipitation and
            Clarification Investment Costs              VIII-26

8-9        Chemical Precipitation and Settling
            Annual Operation and Maintenance
            Labor Requirements                          VI11-28

8-10       Annual O&M Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Clarifier                                   VIII-29
                           xvi i

-------
                 LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

NUMBER                     TITLE                        PAGE

8-11       Emulsion Breaking Investment Costs           VII1-32

8-12       Annual O&M Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Chemical Emulsion Breaking                  VIII-34

8-13       Annual Energy Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Chemical Emulsion Breaking                  VIII-35

8-14       Holding Tank Investment Costs                VIII-37

8-15       Annual Energy Costs vs. Flow for
            Holding Tanks                               VIII-38

8-16       Labor Requirements vs. Flow for
            Sludge Holding Tanks                        VIII-39

8-17       Multimedia Filtration Investment Costs       VII1-40

8-18       Annual O&M Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Multimedia Filtration                       VIII-41

8-19       Ultrafiltration Investment Costs             VII1-43

8-20       Annual O&M Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Ultrafiltration                             VIII-44

8-21       Annual Energy Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Ultrafiltration                             VIII-45

8-22       Carbon Adsorption Investment Costs           VII1-47

8-23       Annual O&M Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Carbon Adsorption                           VIII-48

8-24       Annual Energy Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Carbon Adsorption                           VIII-49

8-25       Sludge Drying Beds Investment Costs          VIII-50

8-26       Annual O&M Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Sludge Beds                                 VIII-52
                           xv 1.11

-------
                 LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

NUMBER                     TITLE                        PAGE

8-27       Vacuum Filtration Investment Costs           VII1-53

8-28       Annual O&M Costs vs. Flow Rate Cor
            Vacuum Filtration                           VII1-54

8-29       Annual Energy Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Vacuum Filtration                           VIII-55

8-30       Submerged Tube Evaporation (Double
            Effect) Investment Costs                    VIII-59

8-31       Annual O&M Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Submerged Tube Evaporation                  VII1-60

8-32       Annual Energy Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Submerged Tube Evaporation                  VII1-61

8-33       Option 1 System                              VIII-62

8-34       Option 1 Treatment System for
            Segregated Oily Waste Streams               VIII-67

8-35       Total Investment Cost vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 1 Treatment System. Case 1           VIII-68

8-36       Total Annual Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Option I. Treatment System, Case 1           VI11-69

8-37       Total Investment Cost vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 1 Treatment System, Case 2           VII1-70

8-38       Total Annual Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 1 Treatment System. Case 2           VIII-71

8-39       Total Investment Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 1 Treatment System. Case 3           VII1-72

8-40       Total Annual Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 1 Treatment System, Case 3           VI11-73

8-41       Total Investment Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 1 Treatment System. Case 4           VIII-74
                           XXX

-------
                 LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

NUMBER                     TITLE                        PAGE

8-42       Total Annual Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 1 Treatment System. Case 4           VIII-75

8-43       Total Investment Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 1 Treatment System, Case 5           VIII-76

8-44       Total Annual Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 1 Treatment System. Case 5           VII1-77

8-45       Total Investment Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 1 Treatment System. Case 6           VII1-78

8-46       Total Annual Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 1 Treatment System. Case 6           VIII-79

8-47       Option 2 System                              VII1-83

8-48       Total Investment Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 2 Treatment System. Case 1           VII1-84

8-49       Total Annual Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 2 Treatment System. Case 1           VII1-85

8-50       Total Investment Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 2 Treatment System. Case 2           VII1-86

8-51       Total Annual Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 2 Treatment System, Case 2           VII1-87

8-52       Total Investment Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 2 Treatment System. Case 3           VIII-88

8-53       Total Annual Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 2 Treatment System. Case 3           VIII-89

8-54       Total Investment Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 2 Treatment System. Case 4           VII1-90

8-55       Total Annual Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 2 Treatment System. Case 4           VII1-91

8-56       Total Investment Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 2 Treatment System. Case 5           VIII-92
                           xx

-------
                 LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

NUMBER                     TITLE                        PAGE

8-57       Total Annual Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 2 Treatment System. Case 5           VII1-93

8-58       Option 3 System                              VIII-94

8-59       Total Investment Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 3 Treatment System. Case 1           VII1-95

8-60       Total Annual Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 3 Treatment System. Case 1           VII1-96

8-61       Total Investment Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 3 Treatment System. Case 2           VII1-97

8-62       Total Annual Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 3 Treatment System. Case 2           VII1-98

8-63       Total Investment Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 3 Treatment System. Case 3           VIII-99

8-64       Total Annual Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 3 Treatment System. Case 3           VIII-100

8-65       Total Investment Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 3 Treatment System. Case 4           VIII-101

8-66       Total Annual Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 3 Treatment System. Case 4           VII1-102

8-67       Total Investment Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 3 Treatment System. Case 5           VIII-103

8-68       Total Annual Costs vs. Flow Rate for
            Option 3 Treatment System. Case 5           VIII-104

9-1        BPT System                                   IX-2

10-1       BAT System                                   X-2

11-1       NSPS System                                  XI-2
                           xxi

-------
                 LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
NUMBER                     TITLE                        PAGE
13-1       Simple Electrodialysis Cell                  XIH-4
13-2       Mechanism of the Electrodialytic
            Process                                     XIII-6
13-3       Electrodialysis Recovery System              XIII-8
13-4       Electrodialysis Cell                         XIII-9
                            XXIX

-------
                        LIST OF TABLES

NUMBER                     TITLE                        PAGE

2-1        BPT Limitations                              II-2

2-2        BAT Limitations                              II-2

2-3        PSES Limitations                             II-3

2-4        PSNS Limitations                             II-3

2-5        NSPS Limitations                             II-4

3-1        Metal Finishing Category Unit Operations     III-6

3-2        Sampling Parameters                          III-ll

3-3        Industries Within the Metal
            Finishing Category                          111-17

4-1        Metal Finishing Category Raw Waste
            Classifications                             IV-2

4-2        Waste Characteristics Distribution           IV-4

5-1        Water Usage by Metal Finishing
            Operations                                  V-4

5-2        Determination of Zero Discharge
            Operations                                  V-5

5-3        Determination of Zero Discharge
            Operations (DCP Data Bases)                 V-6

5-4        Common Metals Stream Contribution            V-9

5-5        Precious Metals Stream Contribution          V-10

5-6        Complexed Metals Stream Contribution         V-ll

5-7        Hexavalent Chromium Stream
            Contribution                                V-12
                            XXlll

-------
                  LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

NUMBER                     TITLE                        PAGE

5-8        Cyanide Bearing Stream Contribution          V-13

5-9        Segregated Oily Wastewater
            Contribution                                V-14

5-10       Pollutant Parameter Questionnaire
            DCP Responses                               V-16

5-11       Source Identification for KTBP
           (Known to be Present) Pollutant
            Parameters                                  V-22

5-12       Waste Characteristic Distribution            V-26

5-13       Constituents of Plating Baths                V-28

5-14       Constituents of Electroless
            Plating Baths                               V-32

5-15       Constituents of Immersion Plating Baths      V-34

5-16       Constituents of Process Baths Used
            in Etching                                  V-39

5-17       Minimum Detectable Limits                    V-53

5-18       Pollutants Found in Total Plant
            Raw Waste Discharged to End-of-Pipe
            Treatment                                   V-58

5-19       Pollutant Concentrations Found in
            the Common Metals Raw Waste Stream          V-60

5-20       Pollutant Concentrations Found in
            the Precious Metals Raw Waste Stream        V-61

5-21       Pollutant Concentrations Found in
            the Complexed Metals Raw Waste Stream       V-61

5-22       Pollutant Concentrations Found in
            the Cyanide Waste Stream                    V-62
                            XXIV

-------
                  LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

NUMBER                     TITLE                        PAGE

5-23       Pollutant Concentrations Found in
            the Hexavalent Chromium Raw Waste
             Stream                                     V-62

5-24       Pollutant Concentrations Found in
            the Oily Raw Waste Stream                   V-64

5-25       Oily Waste Characterization                  V-65

5-26       1974 Degreasing Solvent Consumption          V-66

5-27       Summary of DCP Solvent Degreasing Data       V-68

5-28       Total Toxic Organics (TTO) Concentrations
            in Metal Finishing Raw Waste                V-70

5-29       TTO Concentrations in Raw Waste from
            Electroplating Lines                        V-72

5-30       TTO Concentrations in Raw Waste from
            Electroless Plating Line Rinses             V-74

5-31       TTO Concentrations in Raw Waste from
            Precious Metals Electroplating
            Line Rinses                                 V-78

5-32       TTO Concentration in Raw Waste from
            Anodizing Line Rinses                       V-79

5-33       TTO Concentration in Raw Waste from
            Coating Line Rinses                         V-80

5-34       TTO Concentration in Raw Waste from
            Etching and Bright Dipping Rinses           V-82

5-25       TTO Concentrations in Raw Waste from
            Cleaning Operations                         V-84

5-36       TTO Concentrations in Raw Waste from
            Machining. Grinding. Barrel! Finishing,
            Burnishing, and Sheading Operations         V-85
                            xxv

-------
                  LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

NUMBER                     TITLE                        PAGE

5-37       TTO Concentrations in Raw Waste from
            Heat Treating Operations and Quench
            Baths                                       V-86

5-38       TTO Concentrations in Raw Waste from
            Soldering, Welding, and Brazing
            Operations                                  V-87

5-39       TTO Concentrations in Raw Waste from
            Paint Stripping and Salt Bath
            Descaling                                   V-88

5-40       TTO Concentrations in Raw Waste from
            Painting Operations                         V-89

5-41       TTO Concentrations in Raw Waste from
            Solvent Degreasing Condensates              V-92

5-42       TTO Concentrations in Raw Waste from
            Testing and Assembly Operations             V-93

5-43       TTO Concentrations in Treated Oily
            Wastestreams                                V-94

5-44       TTO Concentrations in Raw Waste from
            Segregated Chromium Streams                 V-101

5-45       TTO Concentrations in Raw Waste from
            Segregated Cyanide Streams                  V-103

5-46       TTO Concentrations in Raw Waste from
            Air Scrubbers                               V-104

5-47       TTO Concentrations in Non-Metal
            Finishing Operations                        V-105

6-1        Pollutant Parameters Selected
            for Regulation                              VI-4

7-1        Index and Specific Application of
            Treatment Technologies                      VII-5

7-2        Applicability of Treatment Technologies
            to Raw Waste Types                          VI1-7

7-3        Metal Finishing Plants with Option 1
            Treatment Systems for Common Metals         VI1-18


                           xx vi

-------
                  LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

NUMBER                     TITLE                        PAGE

7-4        Metal Finishing Category Performance
            Data for Cadmium                            VI1-26

7-5        Metal Finishing Category Performance
            Data for Chromium (Total)                   VI1-27

7-6        Metal Finishing Category Performance
            Data for Copper                             VI1-28

7-7        Metal Finishing Category Performance
            Data for Lead                               VII-30

7-8        Metal Finishing Category Performance
            Data for Nickel                             VII-32

7-9        Metal Finishing Category Performance
            Data for Zinc                               VII-34

7-10       Metal Finishing Category Performance
            Data for TSS                                VI1-35

7-11       Treatment of Common Metals - Visited
            Plants Summary of option 1 Mean
            Effluent Concentration                      VII-37

7-12       Effluent TSS Self-Monitoring Performance
            Data for Plants with Option 1 Systems       VI1-39

7-13       Effluent Cadmium Self-Monitoring
            Performance Data for Plants with
            Option 1 Systems                            VI1-40

7-14       Effluent Chromium Self-Monitoring
            Performance Data for Plants with
            Option 1 Systems                            VI1-41

7-15       Effluent Copper Self-Monitoring
            Performance Data for Plants with
            Option 1 Systems                            VI1-42

7-16       Effluent Lead Self-Monitoring
            Performance Data for Plants with
            Option 1 Systems                            VI1-43
                            XXV XI

-------
                  LIST OF TABLES  (Continued)

NUMBER                     TITLE                        PAGE

7-17       Effluent Nickel Self-Monitoring
            Performance Data for Plants with
            Option 1 Systems                            VII-44

7-18       Effluent Zinc Self-Mpnitoring
            Performance Data for Plants with
            Option 1 Systems                            VII-45

7-19       Summary of Option 1 Daily Maximum
            and 10-Day Average Variability
            Factors                                     VII-46

7-20       Summary of Option 1 Daily Maximum
            and 10-Day Average Factors                  VII-46

7-21       Percentage of the MFC Data Base
            Below the Effluent Concentration
            Limitations for Option 1                    VII-47

7-22       Metal Finishing Plants with Option 2
            Treatment Systems for Common Metals         VI1-56

7-23       Treatment of Common Metals Visited
            Plant Option 2 Mean Effluent
            Concentrations                              VII-65

7-24       Effluent TSS Self-Monitoring
            Performance Data for Plants with
            Option 2 Systems                            VI1-67

7-25       Effluent Cadmium Self-Monitoring
            Performance Data for Plants with
            Option 2 Systems                            VI1-67

7-26       Effluent Chromium Self-Monitoring
            Performance Data for Plants with
            Option 2 Systems                            VI1-67

7-27       Effluent Copper Self-Monitoring
            Performance Data for Plants with
            Option 2 Systems                            VII-68
                            XXVI11

-------
                  LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

NUMBER                     TITLE                        PAGE

7-28       Effluent Lead Self-Monitoring
            Performance Data for Plants with
            Option 2 Systems                            VI1-68

7-29       Effluent Nickel Self-Monitoring
            Performance Data for Plants with
            Option 2 Systems                            VI1-68

7-30       Effluent Zinc Self-Monitoring
            Performance Data for Plants with
            Option 2 Systems                            VII-68

7-31       Summary of Option 2 Daily Maximum
            and 10-Day Average Variability
            Factors                                     VII-69

7-32       Option 2 Common Metal Performance
            Levels                                      VI1-70

7-33       Percentage of the MFC Data Base
            Below the Daily Maximum
            Concentrations for Option 2                 VII-70

7-34       Option 1 and Option 2 Mean Concentration
            Comparison                                  VII-71

7-3S       Option 1 and Option 2 Performance
            Comparison                                  VII-71

7-36       Performance Data for Cadmium Metal
            Finishing Category                          VII-74

7-37       Metal Finishing Plants Employing
            Evaporation                                 VII-80

7-38       Typical Ion Exchange Performance Data        VI1-84

7-39       Metal Finishing Plants Employing
            Ion Exchange                                VI1-85

7-40       Sampling Data from Sulfide Precipita-
            tion/Sedimentation Systems                  VII-92

7-41       Foam Flotation Performance                   VI1-97
                            XXIX

-------
                  LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

NUMBER                     TITLE                        PAGE

7-42       Metal Finishing Plants Employing
            Flotation                                   VII-97

7-43       Membrane Filter Performance (mg/1)           VII-99

7-44       Metal Finishing Category Performance
            Data for Silver Visited Option 1 Plants     VII-101

7-45       Ion Exchange Performance                     VI1-102

7-46       Common Complexing Agents                     VI1-105

7-47       Complexing Agents Used in the
            Visited Plant Data Base                     VII-105

7-48       Pollutant Concentrations (mg/1) for
            Sampled Data from Plants with Complexed
            Metal Wastes Employing Precipitation/
            Clarification                               VII-108

7-49       Pollutant Concentrations (mg/1) for
            Sampled Data from Plants with Complexed
            Metal Wastes Employing Precipitation/
            Clarification/Filtration                    VII-111

7-50       Effluent Hexavalent Chromium Self-
            Monitoring Performance Data for
            Plants with Option 1 Systems                VI1-119

7-51       Metal Finishing Plants Employing
            Chemical Chromium Reduction                 VI1-121

7-52       Amenable Cyanide Data Base                   VII-130

7-53       Data Used for Amenable Cyanide
            Performance                                 VII-133

7-54       Plants Deleted from Cyanide Data
            Base due to Poor Performance                VII-135

7-55       Data Used for Total Cyanide
            Performance                                 VII-136
                           XXX

-------
                  LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

NUMBER                     TITLE                        PAGE

7-56       Plant Data Deleted from Total
            Cyanide Data Base                           VII-138

7-57       Effluent Total and Amenable Cyanide Self-
            Monitoring Performance Data for
            Plants with Option 1 Systems                VII-141

7-58       Adjusted Effluent Total and Amenable
           Cyanide Self-Monitoring Data                 ¥11-142

7-59       Metal Finishing Plants Employing
            Cyanide Oxidation                           VII-143

7-60       Oily Waste Removal System Options            VI1-155

7-61       Metal Finishing Category Performance
            Data for Oil and Grease                     VII-157

7-62       Oil and Grease Effluent Self-
            Monitoring Performance Data
            Combined Wastewater - Common
            Metals Option 1                             VII-158

7-63       Oil and Grease Limitation Summary
            Combined Wastewater - Common Metals
            Option 1                                    VII-159

7-64       Oil and Grease Performance Summary
            Combined Wastewater - Common Metals
            Option 2                                    VII-159

7-65       Metal Finishing Plants Employing
            Emulsion Breaking                           VII-166

7-66       Skimming Performance Data for
            Oil and Grease (mg/1)                       VII-168

7-67       Metal Finishing Plants Employing
            Skimming                                    VII-168
                            XXXI

-------
                  LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

NUMBER                     TITLE                        PAGE

7-68       Effluent Oil and Grease Self-
            Monitoring Performance Data
            Segregated Oily Wastewater -
            Option 1                                    VII-171

7-69       Metal Finishing Plants Employing
            Ultrafiltration                             VII-176

7-70       Ultrafiltration Performance Data
            for Oil and Grease Removal                  VII-177

7-71       Reverse Osmosis Performance (mg/1)           VTI-178

7-72       Cleaning Approaches                          VTI-192

7-73       Cleaning Process Relative Ranking
            (Lowest Number is Best)                     VII-193

7-74       Metal Finishing Category Performance
            Data for TTO. Option 1                      VII-199

7-75       Metal Finishing Category Performance
            for TTO, Option 2                           VI1-201

7-76       Metal Finishing Category Performance
            for TTO, Other Than Option 1 or 2           VI1-202

7-77       Solubility of Toxic Organic Parameters       VI1-206

7-78       TTO Performance Data (mg/1) for
            Option 1 Segregated Oil Waste               VII-207

7-79       TTO Performance Data (mg/1) for
            Ultrafiltration                             VII-207

7-80       Treatability Rating of Priority
            Pollutants Utilizing Carbon
            Adsorption                                  VII-214

7-81       Classes of Organic Compounds
            Adsorbed on Carbon                          VII-215
                            XXXll

-------
                  LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

NUMBER                     TITLE                        PAGE

7-82       Performance of Carbon Adsorption
            at Plant 38040 (mg/1)                       VII-216

7-83       Metal Finishing Plants Employing
            Carbon Adsorption                           VII-216

7-84       TTO Performance Data (mg/1)
            for Reverse Osmosis                         VI1-217

7-85       Ozone Requirements for Phenol
            Oxidation                                   VII-220

7-86       Maintenance Techniques for Aerobic
            Decomposition                               VII-224

7-87       Activated Sludge Removal of Some
            Priority Organic Compounds                  VII-226

7-88       Proposed BAT Effluent Limitations
            for the Organic Chemicals Industry          VII-227

7-89       Metal Finishing Plants Employing
            Aerobic Decomposition                       VII-228

7-90       Comparison of Wastewater at Plant
            ID 23061 Before and After Pumping
            of Settling Tank                            VII-229

7-91       Metal Finishing Plants Employing
            Gravity/Sludge Thickening                   VII-232

7-92       Metal Finishing Plants Employing
            Pressure Filtration                         VII-235

7-93       Metal Finishing Plants Employing
            Vacuum Filtration                           VII-238

7-94       Metal Finishing Plants Employing
            Centrifugation                              VII-241

7-95       Metal Finishing Plants Employing
            Sludge Drying Beds                          VI1-244
                            XXXI11

-------
                  LIST OP TABLES (Continued)

NUMBER                     TITLE                        PAGE

7-96       Theoretical Rinse Water Flows Required
            to Maintain a 1,000 to 1
            Concentration Reduction                     VII-248

7-97       Comparison of Rinse Type Flow Rates
            for Sampled Plants                          VII-248

8-1        Cost Program Pollutant Parameters            VIII-3

8-2        Treatment Technology Subroutines             VIII-8

8-3        Wastewater Sampling Frequency                VII1-12

8-4        Index to Technology Costs                    VIII-14

8-5        Lime Additions for Lime
            Precipitation                               VIII-30

8-6        Countercurrent Rinse (For Other
            Than Recovery of Evaporative
            Plating Loss)                               VIII-56

8-7        Countercurrent Rinse Used for
            Recovery of Evaporative
            Plating Loss                                VIII-57

8-8        Flow Split Cases for Options 1,
            2. and 3                                    VIII-63

8-9        Option 1 Costs                               VIII-65

8-10       Option 2 Costs                               VIII-81

8-11       Option 3 Costs                               VIII-82

8-12       Non-Water Quality Aspects of
            Wastewater Treatment                        VII1-107

8-13       Non-Water Quality Aspects of
            Sludge and Solids Handling                  VIII-108

9-1        BPT Effluent Limitations
            Concentration (mg/1)                        IX-5
                            XXXIV

-------
                  LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

NUMBER                     TITLE                        PAGE

9-2        Percentage of the MFC Data Base
            Below the BPT Limitations                   IX-8

9-3        BPT Self-Monitoring Data Compliance
            Summary Data Points < BPT
            Daily Maximum Limitations/
            Total Data Points                           IX-9

9-4        BPT Self-Monitoring Data Compliance
            Summary Data Points < BPT
            Daily Maximum Limitations                   IX-10

9-5        Single Option -  Self-Monitoring Data
           Compliance Summary Data Points < BPT
            Limitations/Total Data Points               IX-11

9-6        Single Option -  Self-Monitoring Data
           Compliance Summary Percent of Data Points
           < BPT Limitations                            IX-12

9-7        BPT Self-Monitoring Data Compliance
            Summary 10-Day Averages < BPT Monthly
            Maximum Average Limitations/Total
            Number of 10-Day Averages                   IX-13

9-8        BPT Self-Monitoring Data Compliance
            Summary Percent of 10-Day Averages
            < BPT Monthly Maximum Average
            Limitations                                 IX-14

9-9        Single Option - Self-Monitoring Data
            Compliance Summary 10-Day Averages
            < BPT Monthly Maximum Average
            Limitations/Total Number of 10-Day
            Averages                                    IX-15

9-10       Single Option - Self-Monitoring Data
            Compliance Summary 10-Day Averages
            < BPT Monthly Maximum Average
            Limitations                                 IX-16

9-11       BPT Treatment Benefit Summary                IX-17

10-1       BAT Effluent Limitations                     X-3
                            XXXV

-------
                  LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

NUMBER                     TITLE                        PAGE

11-1       NSPS Effluent Limitations                    XI-4

11-2       NSPS Treatment Benefit Summary
            Concentration Reduction (mg/1)              XI-5

12-1       PSES Limitations                             XII-3

12-2       PSNS Limitations                             XII-3

12-3       Pretreatment Benefit Summary                 XI1-4

13-1       Index to Innovative Technology               XII1-2
            Candidates Described in Section VII
                            XXXV1

-------
                            SECTION I

                           CONCLUSIONS
In order to establish uniformly applicable effluent limitations
and standards, groupings can be established within each
industrial category based on certain criteria.  These criteria
include raw waste characteristics, manufacturing processes, raw
materials used, product type and/or production volume, size and
age of facility, number of employees, water usage, and individual
plant characteristics.

After consideration of these factors as applied to the metal
finishing industry, it was concluded that a single metal
finishing subcategory could be established.  Thus, all process
wastewaters in the Metal Finishing Category are amenable to
treatment by a single system.  One set of discharge limitations
and standards results from the use of a single waste treatment
technology system.

Effluent limitations and standards are expressed in concentration
units (mg/1) without accompanying production based units.  Basing
limitations and standards on production based units was rejected
after numerous attempts failed to find production related factors
which could be correlated in a statistically reliable manner with
wastewater flow.  This lack of correlation is understandable in
light of the number and complexity of metal finishing
manufacturing operations.

-------
                            SECTION II
                         RECOMMENDATIONS


On the basis of the toxic pollutant analysis and the evaluation
of applicable technologies for discharge control and treatment,
it is recommended that effluent limitation guidelines, new source
performance standards and pretreatment standards for new and
existing sources be promulgated for the Metal Finishing Point
Source Category.

Tables 2-1 through 2-5 summarize the regulations for Best
Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT), Best
Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT), Pretreatment
Standards for Existing Sources (PSES). Pretreatment Standards for
New Sources (PSNS) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).

BCT limitations for this industry were proposed on October 29,
1982 (47 FR 49176).  They were accompanied by a proposed method-
ology for the general development of BCT limitations.  BCT limits
for this industry will be promulgated with, or soon after the
promulgation of the final methodology for BCT development.  At
that time EPA will respond to relevant comments filed in either
that rulemaking or in this one.
                              Il-l

-------
                            TABLE 2-1
                         BPT LIMITATIONS
   Pollutant or
Pollutant Parameter

     Cadmium
     Chromium, total
     Copper
     Lead
     Nickel
     Silver
     Zinc
     Cyanide, total
     TTO
     Oil and Grease
     TSS
     pH
                    Daily
                   Maximum

                     0,69
                     2.77
                     3.38
                     0.69
                     3.98
                     0.43
                     2.61
                     1.20
                     2.13
                    52
                    60
Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0
     Alternative to total cyanide:
     Cyanide, amenable to chlorination
                     0.86
Maximum Monthly
	Average	

      0.26
      1.71
      2.07
      0.43
      2.38
      0.24
      1.48
      0.65

     26
     31
      0.32
                            TABLE 2-2
                         BAT LIMITATIONS

   Pollutant or                        Daily
Pollutant Parameter                   Maximum

     Cadmium                            0.69
     Chromium, total                    2.77
     Copper                             3.38
     Lead                               0.69
     Nickel                             3.98
     Silver                             0.43
     Zinc                               2.61
     Cyanide, total                     1.20
     TTO                                2.13

     Alternative to total cyanide:
     Cyanide, amenable to chlorination  0.86
                               Maximum Monthly
                               	Average	

                                     0.26
                                     1.71
                                     2.07
                                     0.43
                                     2.38
                                     0.24
                                     1.48
                                     0.65
                                     0.32
                              II-2

-------
                            TABLE 2-3
                         PS1S LIMITATIONS
   Pollutant or
Pollutant Parameter
     Cadmium
     Chromium
     Copper
     Lead
     Nickel
     Silver
     Zinc
     Cyanide,
     TTO
     TTO
      total
     total
(interim)
(final)
 Daily
Maximum

  0.69
  2.77
  3.38
  0.69
  3.98
  0.43
  2.61
  1.20
  4.57
  2.13
     Alternative to total cyanide:
     Cyanide, amenable to chlorination
Maximum Monthly
    Average	

      0.26
      1.71
      2.07
      0.43
      2.38
      0,24
      1.48
      0.65
                               0.86
                  0.32
                            TABLE 2-4
                         PSNS LIMITATIONS

   Pollutant or                        Daily
Pol1utant Par ame t er                   Maximum

     Cadmium                            0,11
     Chromium, total                    2.77
     Copper                             3.38
     Lead                               0.69
     Nickel                             3.98
     Silver                             0.43
     Zinc                               2.61
     Cyanide, total                     1.20
     TTO                                2.13

     Alternative to total cyanide:
     Cyanide, amenable to chlorination  0.86
                                         Maximum Monthly
                                         	Average	

                                               O.07
                                               1.71
                                               2.07
                                               0.43
                                               2.38
                                               0.24
                                               1.48
                                               0.65
                                               0.32
                              II-3

-------
                            TABLE 2-5
                         NSPS LIMITATIONS

   Pollutant or                        Daily      Maximum Monthly
Po[Ilutant Parameter                   Maximum         Average	

     Cadmium                            0.11            0.07
     Chcomium. total                    2.77            1.71
     Copper                             3.38            2.07
     Lead                               0.69            0.43
     Nickel                             3.98            2,38
     Silver                             0.43            0.24
     Zinc                               2.61            1.48
     Cyanide, total                     1.20            0.65
     TTO                                2.13
     Oil and Grease                    52              26
     TSS                               60              31
     pH            Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0

     Alternative to total cyanide:
     Cyanide, amenable to chlorination  0.86            0.32
                             II-4

-------
                        SECTION III

                        INTRODUCTION
LEGAL AUTHORITY

This document is written under authority of Sections 301,
304, 306, 307, 308, and 501 of the Clean Water Act (the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 USC 1251 et
seg., as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977, P.L. 95-217T"
(the "Act").  The document is also in response to the Settlement
Agreement in Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. et al
v. Train, 8 ERG 2120 (D.D.C 1976), modified March 9, 1979.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
established a comprehensive program to "restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters,"  Section 101(a).  By July 1, 1977, existing industrial
dischargers were required to achieve "effluent limitations
requiring the application of the best practicable control technology
currently available" ("BPT"), Section 301(b)(1)(A); and by July 1,
1983, these dischargers were required to achieve "effluent limita-
tions requiring the application of the best available technology
economically achievable ... which will result in reasonable
further progress toward the national goal of eliminating the
discharge of all pollutants" ("BAT"), Section 301 (b)(2)(A).  New
industrial direct dischargers were required to comply with Section
306 new source performance standards ("NSPS"), based on best
available demonstrated technology, and new and existing dischargers
to publicly owned treatment works ("POTWs") were subject to
pretreatment standards under Sections 307(b) and (c) of the Act.
While the requirements for direct dischargers were to be incor-
porated into National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits issued under Section 402 of the Act, pretreatment
standards were made enforceable directly against dischargers to
POTWs (indirect dischargers).

Although section 402 (a)(l) of the 1972 Act authorized the setting
of requirements for direct dischargers on a case-by-case basis,
Congress intended that, for the most part, control requirements
would be based on regulations promulgated by the Administrator of
the EPA.  Section 304(b) of the Act required the Administrator to
promulgate regulations providing guidelines for effluent limita-
tions setting forth the degree of effluent reduction attainable
through the application of BPT and BAT.  Moreover, Sections 304(c)
and 306 of the Act required promulgation of regulations for NSPS,
and Sections 304(f), 307(b), and 307(c) required promulgation
of regulations for pretreatment standards.
                               III-l

-------
In addition to these regulations for designated industry categories,
Section 307(a) of the Act required the Administrator to promulgate
effluent standards applicable to all dischargers of toxic pollu-
tants.  Finally, Section 501(a) of the Act authorized the
Administrator to prescribe any additional regulations "necessary
to carry out his functions" under the Act.

The EPA was unable to promulgate many of these regulations by
the dates contained in the Act.  In 1976, EPA was sued by several
environmental groups, and in settlement of this lawsuit EPA and the
plaintiffs executed a "Settlement Agreement" which was approved by
the Court.  This Agreement required EPA to develop a program and
adhere to a schedule for promulgating for 21 major industries BAT
effluent limitations guidelines, pretreatment standards, and new
source performance standards for 65 "priority" pollutants and classes
of pollutants.  See Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. et al
v. Train, 8 ERG 2120 (D.D.C. 1976), modified March 9, 1979.

On December 27, 1977, the President signed into law the Clean Water
Act of 1977.  Although this law makes several important changes in
the Federal water pollution control program, its most significant
feature is its incorporation into the Act of several of the basic
elements of the Settlement Agreement program for toxic pollution
control.  Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and 301(b)(2)(C) of the Act now
require the achievement by July 1, 1984 of effluent limitations
requiring application of BAT for "toxic" pollutants, including the
65 "priority" pollutants and classes of pollutants which Congress
declared "toxic" under Section 307(a) of the Act.  Likewise, EPA's
programs for new source performance standards and pretreatment
standards are now aimed principally at toxic pollutant controls.
Moreover, to strengthen the toxics control program, Section 304(e)
of the Act authorizes the Administrator to prescribe "best
management practices" ("BMPs") to prevent the release of toxic
and hazardous pollutants from plant site runoff, spillage or
leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and drainage from raw material
storage associated with, or ancillary to, the manufacturing or
treatment process.

In keeping with its emphasis on toxic pollutants, the Clean Water
Act of 1977 also revises the control program for non-toxic pollutants,
Instead of BAT for "conventional" pollutants identified under
Section 304(a)(4) (including biochemical oxygen demand, suspended
solids, fecal coliform and pH), the new Section 301(b)(2)(F)
requires achievement by July 1, 1984, of "effluent limitations
requiring the application of the best conventional pollutant
control technology" ("BCT").  The factors considered in assessing
BCT for an industry include the costs of attaining a reduction
in effluents and the effluent reduction benefits derived compared
to the costs and effluent reduction benefits from the discharge
of publicly owned treatment works (Section 304(b)(4)(B)).  For
                             III-2

-------
non-toxic,  nonconventional pollutants, Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and
(b)(2)(F) require achievement of BAT effluent limitations  within
three  years after their establishment or July 1, 1984, whichever
is later, but not later than July 1, 1987.

GUIDELINE DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY

The Metal Finishing Category (MFC) encompasses 46 unit operations
involved in the machining, fabrication and finishing of  products
primarily associated with SIC groups 34 through 39.  The effluent
guidelines  for  the Metal Finishing Category were developed from
data obtained from previous  EPA  studies,  literature  searches,
plant surveys and evaluations, and long term self-monitoring data
supplied  by  industry.  Initially, all existing information from
EPA records and data from  literature  searches  were  collected.
This  information  was  then compiled  in a format that summarized
the individual plant descriptions for  the following  information:
manufacturing  unit  operations  performed,  water usage, process
water discharges, wastewater treatment practices, and  wastewater
constituents.

In  addition to providing a quantitative description of the Metal
Finishing  Category,  this  existing   information  was  used   to
determine  if the wastewater characteristics of the industry as a
whole were uniform and thus amenable   to  one  set  of  discharge
standards.   The  discharge  characteristics of all plants in the
existing data base were not uniform; however, the discharge  from
these  plants was amenable to the application of a common end-of-
pipe treatment technology.  Therefore, the entire Metal Finishing
Category is represented by a single subcategory and is subject to
one set of effluent discharge limitations.  Seven classifications
of raw waste are present and were studied to establish  treatment
requirements.  These seven waste types are:

          Common Metals             .    Cyanide
          Precious Metals           .    Oils
          Complexed Metals          .    Toxic Organics
          Hexavalent Chromium

To supplement existing data, data collection  portfolios   (DCP's)
under the authority of Section 308 of  the Federal Water Pollution
Control  Act  as  amended  were transmitted by the EPA to a large
number  of  manufacturing  facilities  in  the  Metal   Finishing
Category.    In  addition  to the existing data base and the plant
supplied  information   (via  the  completed  DCP's),  a  sampling
program  was conducted at selected plant  locations.  The sampling
program was used to  establish  the  sources  and  quantities  of
pollutant  parameters   in  the  raw  process  wastewater  and the
treated effluent.  The sites visited were chosen on the basis  of
either  the  specific  manufacturing   operations performed or the
particular  waste  treatment  technology  employed.    Historical
effluent  information in the form of long  term self
                               III-3

-------
monitoring data, was requested by the EPA and was responded to by nearly
100 plants.  All of the data collected were analyzed to correlate the
pollutants generated with the manufacturing processes performed by
each facility.

In addition to evaluating pollutant constituents and discharge
rates, the full range of control and treatment technologies
within the Metal Finishing Category was identified and examined.
This was done considering the pollutants to be treated and their
chemical, physical, and biological characteristics.  Special
attention was paid to in-process technology such as the recovery
and reuse of process solutions, the recycle of process water, and
the reduction of water use.

This information was then evaluated in order to determine the
levels of technology appropriate as bases for effluent limitations
for existing sources after July 1, 1977, ("Best Practicable
Control Technology Currently Available") and after July 1, 1984
("Best Available Technology Economically Achievable").  Levels
of technology appropriate for direct discharge and pretreatment
of wastewater to POTW's from both new and existing sources were
also identified as were the demonstrated control technology,
processes, operating methods, or other alternatives.  Various
factors were considered in the evaluation of these technologies.
These factors included demonstrated effluent performance of
treatment technologies, the total cost of application of the
technology in relation to the pollution reduction benefits to
be achieved, the production processes employed, the engineering
aspects of the application of various types of control techniques
and process changes, and non-water quality environmental impact
(including energy requirements).


SOURCES OF INDUSTRY DATA

Data for the Metal Finishing Category were gathered from literature
surveys, previous studies of the industry by the EPA, inquiries to
professional contacts, seminar and meeting attendance, the survey
and evaluation of manufacturing facilities, and long term self-
monitoring data provided by industry.

Literature Study

Published literature in the form of books, periodicals, reports,
papers, and promotional materials was examined.  These sources
are listed in Section XV.  The material researched included
manufacturing processes, recycling/reclamation techniques,
pollutant characteristics, waste treatment technologies, and
cost data.
                                III-4

-------
Previous EP& Studies

Previous EPA studies that contributed technical information
to the Metal Finishing Category study were:

          Machinery & Mechanical Products Manufacturing
          Category

          Electroplating Category

          Electroless Plating & Printed Circuit Board
          Manufacturing Segments of the Electroplating
          Category

          Printing & Publishing Category

          Mechanical & Electrical Products Category

          Copper & Copper Alloy Manufacturing Category

          Aluminum & Aluminum Alloy Manufacturing Category

          Iron & Steel Manufacturing Category

These EPA studies provided information on the process raw wastes
generated by each of the metal finishing operations listed in
Table 3-1 and the treatment utilized by industry to control the
pollutants in these wastes.  Information from the Machinery and
Mechanical Products Manufacturing study was used specifically to
identify plants with segregated wastes for particular manufac-
turing unit operations and with treatment technology to control
these wastes.  Applicable plants were selected for sampling to
establish waste characteristics and performance of existing
wastewater treatment components and systems.  Plant data from
earlier studies of electroplating, electroless plating, and
printed circuit board manufacturing were examined and incorpor-
ated into the current Metal Finishing data base.  Data from the
Printing and Publishing Category study were examined with the
intent of including lithography and metallic plate making in the
Metal Finishing Category.  Plant data files from the Mechanical
and Electrical Products study were incorporated directly into the
Metal Finishing data base.  Selected data from the copper, alumi-
num, and iron and steel studies were used to determine character-
istics of oily raw waste streams and to determine performance of
oily waste treatment technologies.  Most of the preceding infor-
mation was obtained directly from EPA files or EPA contractors
rather than from published reports.
                              III-5

-------
                         TABLE 3-1
          METAL FINISHING CATEGORY UNIT OPERATIONS
UNIT OPERATIONS

1.   Electroplating
2.   Electroless Plating
3.   Anodizing
4.   Conversion Coating
5.   Etching (Chemical Milling)
6.   Cleaning
7.   Machining
8.   Grinding
9.   Polishing
10.  Tumbling (Barrel Finishing)
11.  Burnishing
12.  Impact Deformation
13.  Pressure Deformation
14.  Shearing
15.  Heat Treating
16.  Thermal Cutting
17.  Welding
18.  Brazing
19.  Soldering
20.  Flame Spraying
21.  Sand Blasting
22.  Other Abrasive Jet Machining
23.  Electric Discharge Machining
24.  Electrochemical Machining
25.  Electron Beam Machining
26.  Laser Beam Machining
27.  Plasma Arc Machining
28.  Ultrasonic Machining
29.  Sintering
30.  Laminating
31.  Hot Dip Coating
32.  Sputtering
33.  Vapor Plating
34.  Thermal Infusion
35.  Salt Bath Descaling
36.  Solvent Degreasing
37.  Paint Stripping
38.  Painting
39.  Electrostatic Painting
40.  Electropainting
41.  Vacuum Metalizing
42.  Assembly
43.  Calibration
44.  Testing
45.  Mechanical Plating
46.  Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing
                                III-6

-------
Professional Contacts

All Federal EPA regions and several state environmental agencies
were contacted to obtain permit and monitoring data on plants
that performed metal finishing processes.

Numerous suppliers and manufacturers for the metal finishing
industry were contacted to collect information regarding the
use and properties of materials/ constituents of process
chemicals, waste treatment equipment, waste contract haulers,
and possible applications of process modifications to minimize
the generation of pollutants.

Seminars and Meetings

An Advanced Wastewater Treatment Seminar provided methods for
accurately estimating waste treatment costs.  The American Electro-
platers Society Intensive Training Course in Electroplating and
Surface Finishing was taken.  The Eastern Plant Engineering Con-
ference on lubricant management, conservation, recycling, and
disposal was also attended.

In addition, jointly sponsored EPA/American Electroplaters'
Society conferences on Advanced Pollution Control for the
Metal Finishing Industry were attended.  At these conferences
various papers on metal finishing technology and waste treatment
were presented by the industry and the EPA.  A meeting of the
Continuous Coil Anodizing Association was also attended.  The
EPA sponsored an informational meeting with the Association of
Home Appliance Manufacturers, the Electrical Industries of
America, the Motor Vehicles Manufacturers Association of the
United States, the National Association of Manufacturers, and
the National Electrical Manufacturers Association.

Plant Survey and Evaluation

The collection of data pertaining to facilities in the metal
finishing industry was accomplished via two primary mechanisms.
The EPA conducted a survey wherein data collection portfolios
(DCPs) in questionnaire form were mailed to production facili-
ties.  Also, a plant visit and sampling program was implemented
to accumulate the specific data necessary for each waste charac-
teristic subcategory.

Data Collection Portfolios - Data collection portfolios of three
types were sent to various industries within the Metal Finishing
Category.  The first DCP was  utilized during the Machinery and
Mechanical Products Industries Study.  Data were obtained from
339 production facilities that were selected from a group of 1,422
                              III-7

-------
plants originally contacted by telephone.  Requested information
included general plant data, principal raw materials consumed,
specific production processes employed, composition of effluent
streams and wastewater treatment in use.

The second DCP, used during the M&EP study was sent to 900 facilities
that were randomly selected from approximately 160,000 manufacturers
listed in recent Dun & Bradstreet data.  This DCP requested informa-
tion pertinent to general plant characteristics, unit operations
performed (including quantity, frequency, and method of liquid dis-
posal), data related specifically to plating type operations,
wastewater treatment facilities, and the contract hauling of wastes.
A total of 365 useful responses resulted from the mailing of this
questionnaire.

The third DCP was used during the Electroplating study.  It was
mailed to 1883 companies believed to operate plating facilities.
This mailing list was randomly selected from among the approxi-
mately 13,000 facilities that perform plating in the United
States.  There were approximately 1190 usable responses (from
419 companies) to this questionnaire mailing.  This survey re-
quested information regarding general plant characteristics, pro-
duction history, manufacturing processes, process and waste treat-
ment, wastewater characteristics, treatment costs, and economic
analysis data.

Plant Sampling Visits - During the study of the metal finishing
industry, a total of 322 manufacturing facilities were visited.
The criteria used to select plants for sampling visits were:

1.   A large percentage of the plant's effluent discharge should
     result from the manufacturing processes listed in Table 3-1.

2.   The physical layout of plant plumbing should facilitate
     .sampling  of  the  wastewater  type under study.

3.   The plant must have waste treatment and control
     technology in place.

4.   The mix of plants visited should contain dischargers to
     both surface waters and publicly owned treatment works
     (POTW).
                          111-8

-------
5.   The selected plants should provide a representative
     geographical distribution to avoid a data base that
     concentrates on a unique geographical condition.

The plant visits consisted of two major activities:  collection
of all pertinent technical information related to both the
manufacturing processes and the treatment techniques and collec-
tion of wastewater samples.  The technical data gathering effort
entailed completion of the applicable data collection portfolio
and obtaining information in the following specific areas:

1.   Rinsing operations and their effect on water use and waste
     characteristics.

2.   Water conservation techniques, both practiced and planned.

3.   Overall performance of the waste treatment system and
     future plans or changes anticipated.

4.   Current regulations under which the plant is
     operating and any difficulties in meeting them.

5.   Process modifications which significantly alter the
     characteristics of the wastewater generated.

6.   Particular pollutant parameters which plant personnel
     believe will be found in the waste stream.

7.   Any problem or situation peculiar to the plant being
     visited.

The object of plant sampling was to determine by analysis which
pollutants were present in the plant wastewater for each sub-
category.  The wastewater collection at the visited plants con-
sisted of a composite sampling program performed over a two or
three day period.  Prior to the sampling visit, all available
data pertaining to manufacturing processes and waste treatment
were reviewed.  Representative sample points were selected for
the raw wastewater entering the treatment systems and for the
final treated effluents.  Finally a detailed sampling plan
showing the selected sample points and the overall sampling
procedure was prepared, reviewed, and approved by the EPA.
                         III-9

-------
Composite samples  (24 hour composites) were taken at each
sample point.  The plants which were sampled were divided
into two sample analysis groups.  Within each analysis group
the samples were subjected to various levels of analysis
depending on the stability of the parameters to be analyzed.
These analysis groups and the various levels of analysis
within were:

 1.    On-site analysis/  local  laboratory  analysis,  Chicago  EPA
      laboratory  analysis,  GC/MS laboratory  analysis,  and
      central laboratory analysis.

 2.    On-site analysis,  local  laboratory  analysis,  EPA contracted
      laboratory  metals  analysis and  EPA  contracted  laboratory
      organics  analysis.

 In  the  first analysis group,  on-site analysis performed by the
 sampler at  the facility determined flow  rate, pH,  and  temperature.
 Several liters of  water from  each sample point  were delivered to
 a laboratory in  the  locality  of the  subject plant  and  analyzed
 for total cyanide, cyanide amenable  to chlorination,  TSS,  oil
 and grease,  and  phenols.   This  analysis  was performed  by local
 laboratories within  a  24 hour period after  the  composite sample
 was prepared.  Two  liters of water from each sample  point were
 sent to an  EPA laboratory  where screening analysis  was run to
 establish metals present in the samples.  Water samples
 from each point  were also  sent  to a  laboratory  with GC/MS  capa-
 bilities to  determine organics  that  were present.   The remainder
 of  the  wastewater  was shipped to a central  laboratory  where
 analysis was performed  to  verify the levels of  metals,  organics,
 and total dissolved  solids as appropriate.   For some  sampling
 visits  the  Chicago EPA  laboratory and the GC/MS laboratory were
 eliminated.   Analysis for  certain special parameters  such  as
 palladium and  rhodium was  performed  only if the facility being
 sampled utilized such materials in their process lines.  Samples
 from electroless plating plants were also analyzed  for the
 complexing  agents  which were  being used  by  the  plants.  In
 addition to  this sampling  and analysis,  special grab  samples
 were collected from  certain plants to obtain data  related  to
 specific unit  operations,  process variations, or rinsing opera-
 tions.   In  the second analysis  group, the on-site  analysis
 remained the same  as in the first group.  The local laboratory
 analyzed for total cyanide, oil and  grease, ammonia nitrogen,
 TOC,  TSS, BOD, and phenols.   These were  analyzed within 24 hours
 after the composite  or  grab composite sample was prepared.  Two
 liters  of water  were sent  to  an EPA  contracted  laboratory  to
 perform analysis to  determine metals present in the water  samples.
 Additional water was sent  to  a  second EPA contracted  laboratory
 for analysis to  determine  organics present  in the wastewater.


 The acquisition, preservation,  and analysis of  the  water samples
 were performed in  accordance  with methods set forth in 40  CFR Part
 136.  Sampling parameters  are presented  in  Table 3-2.
                         111-10

-------
                          Table 3-2

                    SAMPLING PARAMETERS

Toxic Pollutants
           1  acenaphthene
           2  acrolein
           3  acrylonitrile
           4  benzene
           5  benzidine
           6  carbon tetrachloride (tetrachlororaethane)
           7  chlorobenzene
           8  1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
           9  hexachlorobenzene
          10  1,2-dichloroethane
          11  1,1,1-trichloroethane
          12  hexachloroethane
          13  1,1-dichloroethane
          14  1,1,2-trichloroethane
          15  1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
          16  chloroethane
          18  bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
          19  2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)
          20  2~chloronaphthalene
          21  2,4,6-trichlorophenol
          22  parachlorometa cresol
          23  chloroform (trichloromethane)
          24  2-chlorophenol
          25  1,2-dichlorobenzene
          26  1,3-dichlorobenzene
          27  1,4-dichlorobenzene
          28  3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
          29  1,1-dichloroethylene
          30  1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
          31  2,4-dichlorophenol
          32  1,2-dichloropropane
          33  1,2-dichloropropylene (1,3-dichloropropene)
          34  2,4-dimethylphenol
          35  2,4-dinitrotoluene
          36  2,6-dinitrotoluene
          37  1,2-diphenylhydrazine
          38  ethylbenzene
          39  fluoranthene
          40  4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
          41  4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
          42  bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
          43  bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
          44  methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
          45  methyl chloride (chloromethane)

-------
           Table 3-2  (CONT.)
          SAMPLING PARAMETERS
46  methyl bromide (bromomethane)
47  bromoform (tribromomethane)
48  dichlorobromomethane
51  chlorodibromomethane
52  hexachlorobutadiene
53  hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54  isophorone
55  naphthalene
56  nitrobenzene
57  2-nitrophenol
58  4-nitrophenol
59  2,4-dinitrophenol
60  4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61  N-nitrosodimethylamine
62  N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63  N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
64  pentachlorophenol
65  phenol
66  bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67  butyl benzyl phthalate
68  di-n-butyl phthalate
69  di-n-octyl phthalate
70  diethyl phthalate
71  dimethyl phthalate
72  1,2-benzanthraeene (benzo(a)anthracene)
73  benzo (a) pyrene (3,4-benzo-pyrene)
74  3,4-benzofluoranthene (benzo(b)fluoranthene)
75  11,12-benzofluoranthene (benzo(k)fluoranthene)
76  chrysene
77  acenaphthylene
78  anthracene
79  lf12-benzoperylene (benzo(ghi)-perylene)
80  fluorene
81  phenanthrene
82  1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene (dibenzo  (a,h) anthracene)
83  indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene (2,3-o-phenylene pyrene)
84  pyrene
85  tetrachloroethylene
86  toluene
87  trichloroethylene
88  vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
89  aldrin
90  dieldrin
91  chlordane (technical mixture and metabolites)
92  4,4'-DDT
                    111-12

-------
           Table 3-2  (CONT.)
          SAMPLING PARAMETERS
 93  4,4'-DDE (p,p'-DDX)
 94  4,4'-DDD (p,p'-TDE)
 95  alpha-endosulfan
 96  beta-endosulfan
 97  endosulfan sulfate
 98  endrin
 99  endrin aldehyde
100  heptachlor
101  heptachlor epoxide
102  alpha-BHC (BHC=hexachlorocyclohexane)
103  beta-BHC
104  gamma-BHC (lindane)
105  delta-BHC
106  PCB-1242 (Aroclor 1242)
107  PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254)
108  PCB-1221 (Aroclor 1221)
109  PCB-1232 (Aroclor 1232)
110  PCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248)
111'  PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
112  PCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016)
113  toxaphene
114  antimony
115  arsenic
116  asbestos
117  beryllium
118  cadmium
119  chromium, total and hexavalent
120  copper
121  cyanide, total & amenable to chlorination
122  lead
123  mercury
124  nickel
125  selenium
126  silver
127  thallium
128  zinc
129  2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)

Conventional Pollutants

oil & grease
TSS
pH
                    111-13

-------
          Table 3-2  (CONT.)
         SAMPLING PARAMETERS

Nonconventional Pollutants

gold
fluoride
phosphorus
aluminum
barium
iridium
magnesium
molybdenum
osmium
palladium
platinum
rhodium
ruthenium
sodium
tin
titanium
vanadium
yttrium
total phenols
bis  (chloromethyl) ether
trichlorofluoromethane
dichlorodifluoromethane


Other Parameters

flow
temperature
                  111-14

-------
Long-Term Self-Monitoring Data - During the study of the metal
finishing industry, a request for long-term self-monitoring
data was sent to various industries within the Metal Finishing
Category.  More than 50 plants responded with a full year of
daily data that had been analyzed by an approved EPA method.
The criteria used to select plants from whom data were requested
were:

     1.   The plant was believed to monitor, via analysis,
          their effluent.

     2.   The plant was known to discharge wastewater that
          contained cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel,
          silver, zinc, cyanide, or oils at levels that re-
          quired treatment.

     3.   The plant had combinations of the following waste
          treatment control technologies in-place:

          a.   Hydroxide precipitation and sedimentation
          b.   Precipitation/sedimentation followed by fil-
               tration
          c.   Emulsion breaking/oil separation for oily wastes
          d.   Cyanide destruction
          e.   Hexavalent chromium reduction

     4.   A large percentage of the wastewater discharge re-
          sulted from the manufacturing processes listed in
          Table 3-1.

     5.   The mix of plants contained discharges to both sur-
          face waters and publicly owned treatment works (POTW).

     6.   The selected plants covered a wide geographical dis-
          tribution to avoid any geographical uniqueness.

Post Proposal Data - After publication of the proposed regulation,
industry and control authorities submitted data as part of the
comments.  The data were not included in the derivation of the final
limits.  The reasons for exclusion were:  inadequate treatment, i.e.,
high TSS; technology different from regulatory basis; and incomplete
information.   However,  all the data were examined and a comparison
made between the submitted data and the effluent limits.  Where
reasonable evidence was presented, modifications were made to the
analysis of the data to address the comment.

UTILIZATION OF INDUSTRY DATA

Data collected from the previously described sources are used through-
out this report in the development of a basis for limitations.  Sub-
categorization was not deemed necessary because all wastes were amen-
able to the same treatment scheme.  However, seven distinct types of
                              II1-15

-------
process raw wastes were found to occur  in  the Metal Finishing Category.
These seven process raw waste types are:   common metals, precious metals,
complexed metals, hexavalent chromium,  cyanide, oils, and  solvents.
The water usage and raw waste characteristics for each raw waste type,
presented in Section V, were obtained from the analysis of raw waste-
water samples taken from the process wastes discharged by  the manufac-
turing unit operations.  Selection of the  pollutant parameters for
control (Section VI) was made from these plant sampling results.
This selection required that two criteria  be met:  first,  the
pollutant nature of the parameter must  be  significant; and second,
it must be discharged at a significant  concentration level.
Based on the amount and types of pollutants requiring control,
applicable treatment technologies were  studied and are discussed
in Section VII of this document.  Wastewater treatment technolo-
gies utilized by the Metal Finishing Category plants and observed
during plant visits were used to identify  applicable treatment
technologies.  All performance data presented are for existing
treatment installations.  Both in-process  control and end-of-pipe
wastewater treatment were studied and are  included in the discus-
sion.  Actual sampling data are used in Section VII to define
treatment system performance and for the presentation of actual
achievable effluent concentration levels for various treatment
options.  The cost of treatment (for both  individual technolo-
gies and systems) based on literature surveys, on-site surveys,
and data from equipment manufacturers is contained in Section
VIII of this document.  The guidelines  and limitations for the
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) are
presented in Section IX.  Section X contains the guidelines and
limitations for the Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable (BAT).  New Source Performance  Standards (NSPS) are
presented in Section XI.  Pretreatment  guidelines and limita-
tions are discussed in Section XII.  Innovative technologies and
the provisions for their use in the regulations are detailed in
Section XIII.

INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION
The Metal Finishing Category is defined by manufacturing processes.
The industries covered by the Metal Finishing Category are generally
included in Standard Industrial Classification  (SIC) Major
Groups 34 through 39 and are those that perform some combination
of the 46 manufacturing unit operations listed in Table 3-1.  The
specific industries covered by these Major Groups are listed in
Table 3-3.  Industries listed in Table 3-3 which are not exclu-
sively in the Metal Finishing Category include porcelain enamel-
ing, coil coating, batteries manufacturing, electrical and elec-
tronic components, photographic equipment and supplies, iron and
steel, aluminum and aluminum alloys, copper and copper alloys,
and shipbuilding.  For example, all of the industries listed
under Major Group 36 are covered under both the Electrical and
Electronics Component Category and the Metal Finishing Category.
The Electrical and Electronic Components Category covers
processes unique to electronics, and the Metal Finishing Category
covers the remaining processes used to manufacture the products
in Major Group 36.
                               111-16

-------
                                            TABLE  3-JJ
                         INDUSTRIES WITHIN  THE METAL FINISHING CATEGORY

       Major  Group  34  Fabricated Metal  Products,  Except  Machinery and Transportation Equipment

            341   Metal Cans  and Shipping Containers.
            342   Cutlery,  Hand Tools, and  General  Hardware.
            343   Heating  Equipment (except Electric and  Warm Air, Plumbing Fixtures).
            344   Fabricated  Structural  Metal Products.
            345   Screw Machine Products, and Bolts, Nuts,  Screws, Rivets and Washers.
            346   Metal Forgings and  Stampings.
            347   Coating,  Engraving  and Allied Services.
            348   Ordnance  and Accessories,  except  Vehicles and Guided Missiles.
            349   Miscellaneous Fabricated  Metal Products.

       Major  Group  35  Machinery, Except Electrical

            351   Engines  and Turbines.
            352   Farm  and  Garden Machinery and Equipment.
            353   Construction, Mining and  Materials Handling Machinery and Equipment.
M           354   Metalworking Machinery and Equipment.
M           355   Special  Industry Machinery, except Metalworking Machinery.
V           356   General  Industrial  Machinery and  Equipment.
^J           357   Office,  Computing,  and Accounting  Machines.
            358   Refrigeration and Service Industry Machinery.
            359   Miscellaneous Machinery,  except  Electrical.

       Major  Group  36  Electrical and Electronic Machinery, Equipment and Supplies

            361   Electric  Transmission  and Distribution  Equipment.
            362   Electrical  Industrial  Apparatus.
            363   Household Appliances.
            364   Electric  Lighting and  Wiring Equipment.
            365   Radio and Television Receiving Equipment, except Communication Types.
            366   Communication Equipment.
            367   Electronic  Components  and Accessories.
            369   Miscellaneous Electrical  Machinery,  Equipment,  and  Supplies.

       Major  Group  37  Transportation Equipment


            371   Motor Vehicles and  Motor  Vehicle  Equipment.
            372   Aircraft  and Parts.

-------
                                         TABLE 3-3 (Cont.)

    Major Group 37 Transportation Equipment (Cont.)

         373  Ship and Boat Building and Repairing.
         374  Railroad Equipment.
         375  Motorcycles, Bicycles, and Parts.
         376  Guided Missiles and Space Vehicles and Parts.
         379  Miscellaneous Transportation Equipment.

    Major Group 38 Measuring, Analyzing and Controlling Instruments; Photographic, Medical  and
                                         Optical Goods; Watches and Clocks

         381  Engineering, Laboratory, Scientific, and Research Instruments and Associated  Equipment.
         382  Measuring and Controlling Instruments.
         383  Optical Instruments and Lenses.
         384  Surgical, Medical, and Dental Instruments and Supplies.
         385  Opthalmic Goods.
H        386  Photographic Equipment and Supplies
*?        387  Watches, Clocks, Clockwork Operated Devices, and Parts.
00
    Major Group 39 Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries

         391  Jewelry, Silverware, and Plated Ware.
         393  Musical Instruments.
         394  Dolls.
         395  Pens, Pencils, and Other Office and Artists' Materials.
         396  Costume Jewelry, Costume Novelties, Buttons and Miscellaneous Notions,  Except
                                         Precious Metal.
         399  Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries.

-------
Based upon industry journal mailing lists, there are approximately
13,500 manufacturing facilities in the United States which are covered
by the Metal Finishing Category.  These plants are engaged in the
manufacturing of a variety of products that are constructed
primarily by using metals.  The operations performed (Table
3-1) usually begin with materials in the form of raw stock
(rods, bars, sheet, castings, forgings, etc.) and can progress
to the most sophisticated surface finishing operations.  These
facilities vary greatly in size, age, number of employees and
number and type of operations performed.  They range from
very small job shops with less than 10 employees to large
facilities employing thousands of production workers.  Because of
the differences in size and processes, production facilities are
custom-tailored to the specific needs of each individual plant.
Figure 3-1 illustrates the variation in number of unit operations
that can be performed depending upon the complexity of the product.
The possible variations of unit operations within the Metal Finishing
Category are extensive.  The unit operations (and their sequence)
presented in Figure 3-1 are not actual plants but are representa-
tive of possible manufacturers within the Metal Finishing Category.
Some complex products could require the use of nearly all 45 unit
operations, while a simple product might require only a single
operation.

Many different raw materials are used by the plants in the
Metal Finishing Category.  Basis materials are almost exclusive-
ly metals which range from common copper and steel to extreme-
ly expensive high grade alloys and precious metals.  The
solutions utilized in the various unit operations can contain
acids, bases, cyanide, metals, complexing agents, organic
additives, oils and detergents.  All of these raw materials can
potentially enter wastewater streams during the production sequence.

Water usage within the Metal Finishing Category, the processes that
utilize water and the quantities of process wastewater generated by
metal finishing are presented in Section V.  Plating and cleaning
operations are typically the biggest water users.  While the
majority of metal finishing operations use water, some of them are
completely dry.  The type of rinsing utilized can have a marked
effect on water usage as can the flow rates within the particular
rinse types.  Product quality requirements often dictate the
amount of rinsing needed for specific parts.  Parts requiring exten-
sive surface preparation will generally necessitate the use of larger
amounts of water.
                             111-19

-------
                     OQMMJBX PfiQBJCT
H
H
H
I
K5
O
                                                                                                                         •»- Ship
                     SIMPLE PRODUCT
Raw
Stock


Machining
                                                                  Ship
                                                                       FIGURE 3-1
                                                           METAL  FINISHING PROCESS APPLICATION

-------
UNIT OPERATIONS DESCRIPTIONS

This subsection describes each of the 46 individual unit opera-
tions that are included in the Metal Finishing Category.

     1.   Electroplating is the production of a thin surface
          coating .of one metal upon another by electrodeposition.
          This surface coating is applied to provide corrosion
          protection, wear or erosion resistance, anti-frictional
          characteristics, or for decorative purposes.  The electro-
          plating of common metals includes the processes in which
          ferrous or nonferrous basis material is electroplated with
          copper, nickel, chromium, brass, bronze, zinc, tin, lead,
          cadmium, iron, aluminum or combinations thereof.  Precious
          metals electroplating includes the processes in which a
          ferrous or nonferrous basis material is plated with gold,
          silver, palladium, platinum, rhodium, indium, ruthenium,
          iridium, osmium, or combinations thereof.

          In electroplating, metal ions in either acid, alkaline or
          neutral solutions are reduced on cathodic surfaces.  The
          cathodic surfaces are the workpieces being plated.  The
          metal ions in solution are usually replenished by the
          dissolution of metal from anodes or small pieces con-
          tained in inert wire or metal baskets.  Replenishment
          with metal salts is also practiced, especially for
          chromium plating.  In this case, an inert material must
          be selected for the anodes.  Hundreds of different
          electroplating solutions have been adopted commercially
          but only two or three types are utilized widely for a
          particular metal or alloy.  For example, cyanide
          solutions are popular for copper, zinc, brass, cadmium,
          silver, and gold.  However, non-cyanide alkaline solu-
          tions containing pyrophosphate have come into use
          recently for zinc and copper.  Zinc, copper, tin and
          nickel are plated with acid sulfate solutions, especially
          for plating relatively simple shapes.  Cadmium and zinc
          are sometimes electroplated from neutral or slightly aci-
          dic chloride solutions.  The most common methods of plating
          are in barrels, on racks, and continuously from a spool or
          coil.

     2.   Electroless Plating is a chemical reduction process which
          depends upon the catalytic reduction of a metallic ion
          in an aqueous solution containing a reducing agent and
          the subsequent deposition of metal without the use of
          external electrical energy.  It has found widespread use
          in industry due to several unique advantages over con-
          ventional electroplating.  Electroless plating provides a
                               111-21

-------
uniform plating thickness on all areas of the part
regardless of the configuration or geometry of the part.
An electroless plate on a properly prepared surface is
dense and virtually non-porous.  Copper and nickel
electroless plating are the most common.  The basic
ingredients in an electroless plating solution are:

     1.   A source of metal, usually a salt.
     2.   A reducer to reduce the metal to its base state.
     3.   A complexing agent to hold the metal in solution
          (so the metal will not plate out indiscriminately)
     4.   Various buffers and other chemicals designed to
          maintain bath stability and increase bath life.

Electroless plating is an autocatalytic process where
catalysis is promoted from one of the products of a
chemical reaction.  The chemistry of electroless plating
is best demonstrated by examining electroless
nickel plating.  The source of nickel is a salt such as
nickel chloride or nickel sulfate, and the reducer is
sodium hypophosphite.  There are several complexing
agents can be used, the most common ones being citric
and glycolic acid.  Hypophosphite anions in the presence
of water are dehydrogenated by the solid catalytic
surface provided by nickel to form acid orthophosphite
anions.  Active hydrogen atoms are bonded on the catalyst
forming a hydride.  Nickel ions are reduced to metallic
nickel by the active hydrogen atoms which are in turn
oxidized to hydrogen ions.  Simultaneously, a portion
of the hypophosphite anions are reduced by the active
hydrogen and adsorbed on the catalytic surface producing
elemental phosphorus, water and hydroxyl ions.  Elemental
phosphorus is bonded to or dissolved in the nickel making
the reaction irreversible.  At the same time hypophosphite
anions are catalytically oxidized to acid orthophosphite
anions, evolving gaseous hydrogen.  The basic plating
reactions proceed as follows:

     The nickel salt is ionized in water

          NiSO4 = Ni+2 + SO4~2

     There is then a reduction-oxidation reaction
     with nickel and sodium hypophosphite.

          Ni+2 + SO ~2 + 2NaH0P00 + 2 HOO =
                   4         ^  ^      ^



     The sodium hypophosphite also reacts in the
     following manner:

               PO0 + Hn = 2P + 2NaOH + 2H0O
                     111-22

-------
&s can be seen in the equations above, both nickel and
phosphorus are produced, and the actual metal deposited
is a nickel-phosphorus alloy.  The phosphorus content can
be varied to produce different characteristics in the
nickel plate.

When electroless plating  is done on a plastic basis material,
catalyst application and acceleration steps are necessary as
surface preparation operations«  These steps are considered
part of the electroless plating unit operation.

Immersion plating is a chemical plating process in which a
thin metal deposit is obtained by chemical displacement of
the basis metal.  Unlike electroless plating, it is not an
autocatalytic process.  In immersion plating, a metal will
displace from solution any other metal that is below it in
the electromotive series of elements.

The lower (more noble) metal will  be deposited from solution
while the more active metal (higher in the series)
will be dissolved.  A common example of immersion plating
is the deposition of copper on steel from an acid copper
solution.  Because of the similarity of the wastes pro-
duced and the materials involved, immersion plating is
considered part of the electroless plating unit operation.

Anodizing is an electrolytic oxidation process which con-
verts the surface of the metal to an insoluble oxide.
These oxide coatings provide corrosion protection, decora-
tive surfaces, a base for painting and other coating pro-
cesses, and special electrical and mechanical properties.
Aluminum is the most frequently anodized material, while
some magnesium and limited amounts of zinc and titanium
are also treated.

Although the majority of anodizing is carried out by
immersion of racked parts in tanks, continuous anodizing
is done on large coils of aluminum in a manner similar to
continuous electroplating.  For aluminum parts, the for-
mation of the oxide occurs when the parts are made anodic
in dilute sulfuric acid or dilute chromic acid solutions.
The oxide layer begins formation at the extreme outer sur-
face, and as the reaction proceeds, the oxide grows into the
metal.  The last formed oxide, known as the boundary layer,
is located at the interface between the base metal and the
oxide.  The boundary is extremely thin and nonporous.  The
sulfuric acid process is typically used for all parts fab-
ricated from aluminum alloys except for parts subject to
stress or containing recesses in which the sulfuric acid
solution may be retained and attack the aluminum.  Chromic
acid anodic coatings are more protective than sulfuric acid
coatings and have a relatively thick boundary layer.  For
these reasons, a chromic acid bath is used if a complete
rinsing of the part cannot be achieved.
                     111-23

-------
Coating  -  This manufacturing operation includes
chromating, phosphating, metal coloring and passivating.
These coatings are applied to previously deposited
metal or basis material for increased corrosion protection,
lubricity, preparation of the surface for additional
coatings or formulation of a special surface appearance.
In chromating, a portion of the base metal is converted to
one of the components of the protective film formed by the
coating solution.  This occurs by reaction with aqueous
solutions containing hexavalent chromium and active organic
or inorganic compounds.  Chromate coatings are most frequent-
ly applied to zinc, cadmium, aluminum, magnesium, copper,
brass, bronze and silver.  Most of the coatings are applied
by chemical immersion although a spray or brush treatment
can be used.  Changes in the solutions can impart a wide
range of colors to the coatings from colorless to irides-
cent yellow, brass, brown, and olive drab.  Additional
coloring of the coatings can be achieved by dipping the
parts in organic dye baths to produce red, green, blue,
and other colors.

Phosphate coatings are used to provide a good base for
paints and other organic coatings, to condition the sur-
faces for cold forming operations by providing a base for
drawing compounds and lubricants, and to impart corrosion
resistance to the metal surface by the coating itself or
by providing a suitable base for rust-preventative oils or
waxes.  Phosphate conversion coatings are formed by the
immersion of iron, steel, or zinc plated steel in a dilute
solution of phosphoric acid plus other reagents.  The
method of applying the phosphate coating is dependent upon
the size and shape of the part to be coated.  Small parts
are coated in barrels immersed in the phosphating solution.
Large parts, such as steel sheet and strip, are spray coated
or continuously passed through the phosphating solution.
Supplemental oil or wax coatings are usually applied after
phosphating unless the part is to be painted.

Metal coloring by chemical conversion methods produces a
large group of decorative finishes.  This operation covers
only chemical methods of coloring in which the metal surface
is converted into an oxide or similar metallic compound.
The most common colored finishes are used on copper, steel,
zinc, and cadmium.

Application of the color to the cleaned basis metal involves
only a brief immersion in a dilute aqueous solution.  The
colored films produced on the metal surface are extremely
thin and delicate.  Consequently, they lack resistance to
handling and the atmosphere.  A clear lacquer is often used
to protect the colored metal surface.  A large quantity of
copper and brass is colored to yield a wide variety of
shades and colors.  Shades of black, brown, gray, green and
patina can be obtained on copper and brass by use of appro-
priate coloring solutions.  The most widely-used colors for
                       111-24

-------
     ferrous metals are based on oxides which yield black,  brown,
     or blue colors.   A number of colors can be developed on zinc
     depending on the length of immersion in the coloring solu-
     tion.   Yellow, bronze,  dark green, black and brown colors
     can be produced  on cadmium.  Silver, tin, and aluminum are
     also colored commercially.  Silver is given a gray color by
     immersion in a polysulfide solution such as ammonium
     polysulfide.  Tin can be darkened to produce an antique
     finish of pewter by immersion in a solution of nitric  acid
     and copper sulfate.

     Passivation refers to forming a protective film on metals,
     particularly stainless  steel and copper, by immersion  in
     an acid solution.  Stainless steel is passivated in order
     to dissolve any  imbedded iron particles and to form a  thin
     oxide  film on the surface of the metal.  Typical solutions
     for passivating  stainless steel include nitric acid and
     nitric acid with sodium dichromate.  Copper is passivated
     with a solution  of ammonium sulfate and copper sulfate
     forming a blue-green patina on the surface of the metal.

5.    Etching and Chemical Milling - These processes are used to
     produce specific design configurations and tolerances  or
     surface appearances on  parts (or metal-clad plastic in the
     case of printed  circuit boards)'by controlled dissolution
     with chemical reagents  or etchants.  Included in this  classi-
     fication are the processes of chemical milling,  chemical etch-
     ing and bright dipping.  Chemical etching is the same  process
     as chemical milling except the rates and depths of metal
     removal are usually much greater in chemical milling.   Typical
     solutions for chemical  milling and etching include ferric
     chloride, nitric acid,  ammonium persulfate, chromic acid,
     cupric chloride, hydrochloric acid and combinations of these
     reagents.  Bright dipping is a specialized form of etching
     and is used to remove oxide and tarnish from ferrous and
     nonferrous materials and is frequently performed just  prior
     to anodizing.  Bright dipping can produce a range of surface
     appearances from bright clean to brilliant depending on the
     surface smoothness desired for the finished part.  Bright
     dipping solutions usually involve mixtures of two or more
     of sulfuric, chromic, phosphoric, nitric and hydrochloric
     acids.  Also included in this unit operation is the
     stripping of metallic coatings.

6.    Cleaning involves the removal of oil, grease and dirt  from
     the surface of the basis material using water with or
     without a detergent or other dispersing agent.  Alkaline
     cleaning (both electrolytic and non-electrolytic) and  acid
     cleaning are both included.
                        111-25

-------
     Alkaline cleaning is used to remove oily dirt or solid
     soils from workpieces.  The detergent nature of the
     cleaning solution provides most of the cleaing action
     with agitation of the solution and movement of the
     workpiece being of secondary importance.  Alkaline
     cleaners are classified into three types: soak, spray,
     and electrolytic.  Soak cleaners are used on easily
     removed soil.  This type of cleaner is less efficient
     than spray or electrolytic cleaners.  Spray cleaners
     combine the detergent properties of the solution with
     the impact force of the spray which mechanically
     loosens the soil.  Electrolytic cleaning produces the
     cleanest surface available from conventional methods of
     alkaline cleaning.  The effectiveness of this method
     results from the strong agitation of the solution by
     gas evolution and oxidation-reduction reactions that
     occur during electrolysis.  Also, certain dirt parti-
     cles become electrically charged and are repelled from
     the surface.  Direct current (cathodic) cleaning uses
     the workpiece as the cathode, while for reverse current
     (anodic) cleaning the workpiece is the anode.  In
     periodic reverse current cleaning, the current is
     periodically reversed from direct current to reverse
     current.  Periodic reverse cleaning gives improved smut
     removal, accelerated cleaning and a more active surface
     for any subsequent surface finishing operation.

     Acid cleaning is a process in which a solution of an
     inorganic (mineral)  acid, organic acid, or an acid
     salt, in combination with a wetting agent or detergent,
     is employed to remove oil, dirt, or"oxide from metal
     surfaces.  Acid cleaning is done with various acid
     concentrations can be referred to as pickling, acid
     dipping, descaling,  or desmutting.  The solution may or
     may not be heated and can be an immersion or spray
     operation.  Agitation is normally required with soaking,
     and spray is usually used with complex shapes.  An acid
     dip operation may also follow alkaline cleaning prior
     to plating.  Phosphoric acid mixtures are also in
     common use to remove oils and light rust while leaving
     a phosphate coating that provides a paint base or
     temporary resistance to rusting.  Strong acid solutions
     are used to remove rust and scale prior to surface
     finishing.

7.    Machining is the general process of removing stock from
     a workpiece by forcing a cutting tool through the
     workpiece, removing a chip of basis material.  Machining
     operations such as turning, milling, drilling, boring,
     tapping, planing, broaching, sawing and cutoff, shaving,
     threading, reaming,  shaping, slotting, hobbing, filing,
     and chamfering are included in this definition.
                        111-26

-------
 8.   Grinding is the process of removing stock from a workpiece
      by the use of a tool consisting of abrasive grains held by
      a rigid or semirigid binder.  The tool is usually in the
      form of a disk (the basic shape of grinding wheels), but
      may also be in the form of a cylinder, ring, cup, stick,
      strip, or belt.  The most commonly used abrasives are
      aluminum oxide, silicon carbide, and diamond.  The processes
      included in this unit operation are sanding (or cleaning to
      remove rough edges or excess material), surface finishing,
      and separating (as in cut-off or slicing operations).

 9.   Polishing is an abrading operation used to remove or smooth
      out surface defects (scratches, pits, tool marks, etc.)
      that adversely affect the appearance or function of a part.
      Polishing is usually performed with either a belt or wheel
      to which an abrasive such as aluminum oxide or silicone
      carbide is bonded.  Both wheels and belts are flexible and
      will conform to irregular or rounded areas where necessary.
      The operation usually referred to as buffing is included in
      the polishing operation.

10.   Barrel Finishing or tumbling is a controlled method of
      processing parts to remove burrs, scale, flash, and oxides
      as well as to improve surface finish.  Widely used as a
      finishing operation for many parts, it obtains a uniformity
      of surface finish not possible by hand finishing.  For
      large quantities of small parts it is generally the most
      economical method of cleaning and surface conditioning.

      Parts to be finished are placed in a rotating barrel or
      vibrating unit with an abrasive media, water or oil, and
      usually some chemical compound to assist in the operation.
      As the barrel rotates slowly, the upper layer of the work
      is given a sliding movement toward the lower side of the
      barrel, causing the abrading or polishing action to occur.
      The same results may also be accomplished in a vibrating
      unit, in which the entire contents of the container are
      in constant motion.

 11.  Burnishing is the process of finish sizing or smooth
      finishing a workpiece (previously machined or ground) by
      displacement, rather than removal, of minute surface
      irregularities.  It is accomplished with a smooth point
      or line-contact and fixed or rotating tools.
                         111-27

-------
12.  Impact Deformation is the process of applying an impact
     torce to a workpiece such that the workpiece is permanently
     deformed or shaped.  Impact deformation operations include
     shot peening, peening, forging, high energy forming,
     heading, and stamping.

13.  Pressure Deformation is the process of applying force (at
     a slower rate than an impact force) to permanently deform
     or shape a workpiece.  Pressure deformation includes
     operations such as rolling, drawing, bending, embossing,
     coining, swaging, sizing, extruding, squeezing, spinning,
     seaming, staking, piercing, necking, reducing, forming,
     crimping, coiling, twisting, winding, flaring or weaving.

14.  Shearing is the process of severing or cutting a
     workpiece by forcing a sharp edge or opposed sharp edges
     into the workpiece stressing the material to the point of
     shear failure and separation.

15.  Heat Treating is the modification of the physical properties
     of a workpiece through the application of controlled heating
     and cooling cycles.  Such operations as tempering, carburi-
     zing, cyaniding, nitriding, annealing, normalizing, austen-
     izing, quenching, austempering, siliconizing, martempering,
     and malleabilizing are included in this definition.

16.  Thermal Cutting is the process of cutting, slotting or
     piercing a workpiece using an oxyacetylene oxygen lance
     or electric arc cutting tool.

17.  Welding is the process of joining two or more pieces of
     material by applying heat, pressure or both, with or with-
     out filler material, to produce a localized union through
     fusion or recrystallization across the interface.  Included
     in this process are gas welding, resistance welding, arc
     welding, cold welding, electron beam welding, and laser
     beam welding.

18.  Brazing is the process of joining metals by flowing a thin,
     capillary thickness layer of nonferrous filler metal into
     the space between them.  Bonding results from the intimate
     contact produced by the dissolution of a small amount of
     base metal in the molten filler metal, without fusion of the
     base metal.  The term brazing is used where the temperature
     exceeds 425°C (800°F).

19.  Soldering is the process of joining metals by flowing a
     thin (capillary thickness) layer of nonferrous filler metal
     into the. space between them.  Bonding results from the in-
     timate contact produced by the dissolution of a small amount
                        111-28

-------
     of base metal in the molten filler metal, without fusion
     of the base metal.   The term soldering is used where the
     temperature range falls below 425°C (800°F).

20.   Flame Spraying is the process of applying a metallic coating
     to a workpiece using finely powdered fragments of wire,
     together with suitable fluxes, are projected through a cone
     of flame onto the workpiece.

21.   Sand Blasting is the process of removing stock, including
     surface films, from a workpiece by the use of abrasive
     grains pneumatically impinged against the workpiece.  The
     abrasive grains used include sand, metal shot, slag, silica,
     pumice, or natural  materials such as walnut shells.

22.   Abrasive Jet Machining is a mechanical process for
     cutting hard brittle materials.  It is similar to sand
     blasting but uses much finer abrasives carried at high
     velocities (500-3000 fps) by a liquid or gas stream.  Uses
     include frosting glass, removing metal oxides, de-
     burring, and drilling and cutting thin sections of metal.

23.   Electrical Discharge Machining is a process which
     can remove metal with good dimensional control from any
     metal.  It cannot be used for machining glass, ceramics,
     or other nonconducting materials.  The machining action
     is caused by the formation of an electrical spark between
     an electrode, shaped to the required contour, and the
     workpiece.  Since the cutting tool has no contact with
     the workpiece, it can be made from a soft, easily worked
     material such as brass.  The tool works in conjunction with
     a fluid such as mineral oil or kerosene, which is fed to
     the work under pressure.  The function of this coolant is
     to serve as a dielectric, to wash away particles of eroded
     metal from the workpiece or tool, and to maintain a uniform
     resistance to flow of current.

     Electrical discharge machining is also known as spark
     machining or electronic erosion.  The operation was de-
     veloped primarily for machining carbides, hard nonferrous
     alloys, and other hard-to-machine materials.

24.   Electrochemical Machining is a process based on the
     same principles usedin electroplating except the workpiece
     is the anode and the tool is the cathode.  Electrolyte is
     pumped between the  electrodes and a potential applied with
     the result that metal is rapidly removed.

     In this process, electrode accuracy is important since
     the surface finish of the electrode tool will be reproduced
     in the surface of the workpiece.  While copper is frequently
                         111-29

-------
     used as the electrode, brass, graphite, and copper-tungsten
     are also used.  The tool must be an electrical conductor,
     easy to machine, corrosion resistant, and able to conduct
     the quantity of current needed.  Although there is no
     standard electrolyte, sodium chloride is more generally
     used than others.

25.  Electron Beam Machining is a thermoelectric process.
     In electron beam machining, heat is generated by high
     velocity electrons impinging on part of the workpiece.  At
     the point where the energy of the electrons is
     focused, it is transformed into sufficient thermal
     energy to vaporize the material locally.  The process is
     generally carried out in a vacuum.  While the metal-removal
     rate of electron beam machining is approximately 0.01
     milligrams per second, the tool is accurate and is
     especially adapted for micro-machining.  There is no heat
     affected zone or pressure on the workpiece and extremely
     close tolerances can be maintained.  The process results
     in X-ray emission which requires that the work area
     be shielded to absorb radiation.  At present the
     process is used for drilling holes as small as 0.0508
     mm (0.002 in.) in any known material, cutting slots,
     shaping small parts, and machining sapphire jewel bearings.

26.  Laser Beam Machining is the process whereby a highly
     focused monochromatic collimated beam of light is used to
     remove material at the point of impingement on a workpiece.
     Laser beam machining is a thermoelectric process, and material
     removal is largely accomplished by evaporation although some
     material is removed in the liquid state at high velocity.
     Since the metal removal rate is very small, they are used
     for such jobs as drilling microscopic holes in carbides
     or diamond wire drawing dies and for removing metal in
     the balancing of high-speed rotating machinery.

     Lasers can vaporize any known material.  They have small
     heat affected zones and work easily with nonmetallic hard
     materials.

27.  Plasma Arc Machining is the process of material removal or
     shaping of a workpiece by a high velocity jet of high
     temperature ionized gas.  A gas (nitrogen, argon, or
     hydrogen) is passed through an electric arc causing it to
     become ionzied and raised to temperatures in excess of
     16,649°C (30,000°F).  The relatively narrow plasma jet melts
     and displaces the workpiece material in its path.  Because
     plasma machining does not depend on a chemical reaction
                         IH-30

-------
     between the gas and the work material and because plasma
     temperatures are extremely high,  the process can be used
     on almost any metal,  including those that are resistant to
     oxygen-fuel gas cutting.  The method is of commercial im-
     portance mainly for profile cutting of stainless steel and
     aluminum alloys.

28.   Ultrasonic Machining  is a mechanical process designed to
     effectively machine hard, brittle materials.  It removes
     material by the use of abrasive grains which are carried in
     a liquid between the  tool and the work and which bombard
     the work surface at high velocity.  This action gradually
     chips away minute particles of material in a pattern
     controlled by the tool shape and  contour.  A transducer
     causes an attached tool to oscillate linearly at a
     frequency of 20,000 to 30,000 times per second at an
     amplitude of 0.0254 to 0.127 mm (0.001 to 0.005 in).  The
     tool motion is produced by being  part of a sound wave energy
     transmission line which causes the tool material to change
     its normal length by  contraction  and expansion.  The tool
     holder is threaded to the transducer and oscillates linearly
     at ultrasonic frequencies, thus driving the grit particles
     into the workpiece.  The cutting  particles, boron carbide
     and similar materials, are of a 280-mesh size or finer,
     depending upon the accuracy and the finish desired.  Opera-
     tions that can be performed include drilling, tapping, coin-
     ing, and the making of openings in all types of dies.
     Ultrasonic machining  is used principally for machining
     materials such as carbides, tool  steels, ceramics, glass,
     gem stones, and synthetic crystals.

29.   Sintering is the process of forming a mechanical part from
     a powdered metal by fusing the particles together under
     pressure and heat.  The temperature is maintained below
     the melting point of  the basis metal.

30.   Laminating is the process of adhesive bonding layers of
     metal, plastic, or wood to form a part.

31.   Hot Dip Coating is the process of coating a metallic
     workpiece with another metal by immersion in a molten bath
     to provide a protective film.  Galvanizing (hot dip zinc)
     is the most common hot dip coating.

32.   Sputtering is the process of covering a metallic or non-
     metallic workpiece with thin films of metal.  The surface
     to be coated is bombarded with positive ions in a gas
     discharge tube, which is evacuated to a low pressure.
                       111-31

-------
33.   Vapor Plating is the process of decomposition of a metal or
     compound upon a heated surface by reduction or decomposition
     of a volatile compound at a temperature below the melting
     point of either the deposit or the basis materi'al.

34.   Thermal Infusion is the process of applying a fused zinc,
     cadmium, or other metal coating to a ferrous workpiece by
     imbuing the surface of the workpiece with metal powder or
     dust in the presence of heat.

35.   Salt Bath Descaling is the process of removing surface
     oxides or scale from a workpiece by immersion of the
     workpiece in a molten salt bath or a hot salt solution.
     Molten salt baths are used in a salt bath - water quench -
     acid dip sequence to clean hard-to-remove oxides from
     stainless steels and other corrosion-resistant alloys.
     The work is immersed in the molten salt (temperatures range
     from 400 - 540 degrees C), quenched with water, and then
     dipped in acid.  Oxidizing, reducing, and electrolytic
     baths are available, and the particular type needed is
     dependent on the oxide to be removed.

36.   Solvent Degreasing is a process for removing oils and grease
     from the surfaces of a workpiece by the use of organic
     solvents, such as aliphatic petroleums (eg-kerosene, naptha),
     aromatics (eg-benzene, toluene), oxygenated hydrocarbons
     (eg-ketones, alcohol, ether), halogenated hydrocarbons
     (eg-l,l,l-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, methylene
     chloride), and combinations of these classes of solvents.
     Solvent cleaning can be accomplished by either the liquid or
     vapor phase.  Solvent vapor degreasing is normally quicker
     than solvent liquid degreasing.  However, ultrasonic vibra-
     tion is sometimes used with liquid solvent so as to
     decrease the required immersion time with complex shapes.
     Solvent cleaning is often used as a precleaning operation
     such as prior to the alkaline cleaning that precedes plating,
     as a final cleaning of precision parts, or as a surface pre-
     paration for some painting operations.

     Emulsion cleaning is a type of solvent degreasing that uses
     common organic solvents (eg-kerosene, mineral oil, glycols,
     and benzene) dispersed in an aqueous medium with the aid of
     an emulsifying agent.  Depending on the solvent used, clean-
     ing is done at temperatures from room temperature to 82°C
     (180°F).  This operation uses less chemical than solvent
     degreasing because of the lower solvent concentration
     employed.  The process is used for rapid superficial clean-
     ing and is usually performed as emulsion spray cleaning.
                            111-32

-------
37.  Paint Stripping is the process of removing an organic coating
     from a workpiece.  The stripping of such coatings is usually
     performed with caustic, acid, solvent, or molten salt.

38.  Painting is the process of applying an organic coating
     to a workpiece.  The application of coatings such as paint,
     varnish, lacquer, shellac, and plastics by processes such
     as spraying, dipping, brushing, roll coating, lithographing,
     and wiping are included.  Spray painting is by far the most
     common and can be used with nearly all varieties of paint.
     The paint can be sprayed manually or automatically, hot
     or cold, and it may be atomized with or without compressed
     air to force the paint through an orifice.  Other processes
     included under this unit operation are printing, silk
     screening and stenciling.

39.  Electrostatic Painting is the application of electrosta-
     tically charged paint particles to an oppositely charged
     workpiece followed by thermal fusing of the paint particles
     to form a cohesive paint film.  Usually the paint is applied
     in spray form and may be applied manually or automatically,
     hot or cold, and with or without compressed air atomization.
     Both waterborne and solvent-borne coatings can be sprayed
     electrostatically.

40.  Electrepainting is the process of coating a workpiece by
     either making it anodic or cathodic in a bath that is
     generally an aqueous emulsion of the coating material.  The
     electrodeposition bath contains stabilized resin, dispersed
     pigment, surfactants, and sometimes organic solvents in water,
     Electropainting is used primarily for primer coats because
     it gives a fairly thick, highly uniform, corrosion resistant
     coating in relatively little time.

41.  Vacuum Metalizing is the process of coating a workpiece
     with metal by flash heating metal vapor in a high-vacuum
     chamber containing the workpiece.  The vapor condenses on
     all exposed surfaces.
                                               i
42.  Assembly is the fitting together of previously manufactured
     parts or components into a complete machine, unit of a
     machine, or structure.

43.  Calibration is the application of thermal, electrical, or
     mechanical energy to set or establish reference points
     for a component or complete assembly.

44.  Testing is the application of thermal, electrical, or
     mechanical energy to determine the suitability or function-
     ality of a component or complete assembly.
                        111-33

-------
45.  Mechanical Plating is the process of depositing metal coatings
     on a workpiece via the use of a tumbling barrel, metal powder.
     and usually glass beads for the impaction media.  The operation
     is subject to the same cleaning and rinsing operations that are
     applied before and after the electroplating operation.

46.  Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing involves the formation of
     a circuit pattern of conductive metal (usually copper) on
     nonconductive board materials such as plastic or glass.
     There are five basic steps involved in the manufacture of
     printed circuit boards:  cleaning and surface preparation,
     catalyst and electroless plating, pattern printing and masking,
     electroplating, and etching.


     After the initial cutting, drilling and sanding of the boards.
     the board surface is prepared for plating electroless copper.
     This surface preparation involves an etchback (removal of
     built-up plastic around holes) and an acid and alkaline
     cleaning to remove grime,  oils, and fingerprints.   The board is
     then etched and rinsed.  Following etching, the catalyst is
     applied, and rinsing operations following catalyst
     application.  The entire board is then electroless copper
     plated and rinsed.

     Following electroless copper plating,  a plating resist is
     applied in non-circuit areas.  Following application of a
     resist, a series of electroplates are applied.  First the
     circuit is copper plated.   A solder electroplate is applied
     next followed by a rinse.   For copper removal in non-circuit
     areas, an etch step is next.  After the etch operation, a
     variety of tab plating processes can be utilized depending on
     the board design requirements.  These include nickel
     electroplating, gold electroplating, rhodium electroplating.
     and tin immersion plating.

     There are presently three  main production methods  for printed
     circuit boards:  additive, semi-additive, and subtractive.  The
     additive method uses pre-sensitized. unclad material as the
     starting board; the semi-additive method uses unclad.
     unsensitized material as the starting board;  and the
     subtractive method begins  with copper clad, unsensitized
     material.
                             111-34

-------
                         SECTION IV
                   INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION
INTRODUCTION

The primary purpose of industry categorization is to establish
groupings within the Metal Finishing Category (MFC) such that
each group (subcategory) has a uniform set of effluent limita-
tions.  This requires that the elements of each group be cap-
able of using similar treatment technologies to achieve the
effluent limitations.  Thus, the same wastewater treatment and
control technology is applicable within a subcategory and a uni-
form treated effluent results from the application of a specific
treatment and control technology.  This section presents the sub-
categorization established for the Metal Finishing Category and
explains the selection rationale.

Proper industry subcategorization defines groups within an
industrial category whose wastewater discharges can be controlled
by the same concentration or mass based limitations.  The
subsections which follow deal with these considerations as
they apply to the Metal Finishing Category.


 CATEGORIZATION  BASIS

 The following aspects of the Metal Finishing Category were
 considered for the bases of establishing subcategories:

      1.    Raw waste  characteristics
      2.    Manufacturing  processes
      3.    Raw materials  (basis and process)
      4.    Product  type or production volume
      5.    Size  and age of facility
      6.    Number of  employees
      7.    Water usage
      8.    Individual plant  characteristics

 After  examination  of the potential categorization  bases,  a  single
 metal  finishing subcategory was  established.   All  process waste-
 waters in  the Metal  Finishing Category are amenable  to  treat-
 ment  by  a  single system  and one  set of discharge standards
 results  from the application of  a single waste  treatment
 technology.

 Seven  distinct  types of  raw wastes are present  in  metal finishing
 wastewaters.  These  raw  wastes can be  divided  into two  constituents,
 namely:   inorganic and organic wastes.  These  can  then  be further
 subdivided  into the  specific types of  waste  that occur  in each  of
 the  two  major areas  and  are identified in Table  4-1.
                                IV-1

-------
                         TABLE 4-1
     METAL FINISHING CATEGORY RAW WASTE CLASSIFICATIONS
MAJOR SUBDIVISION
INORGANIC WASTES
ORGANIC WASTES
RAW WASTE TYPE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Common metals
Precious metals
Complexed metals
Chromium (hexavalent)
Cyanide
Oils
Toxic organics
Figure 4-1 presents the waste treatment requirement for the Metal
Finishing Category and illustrates the effect of raw waste type
upon the treatment technology requirements.  All of the process raw
wastes resulting from each of the 46 individual unit operations,
previously defined and described in Section III, are encompassed by
one or more of the raw waste types.  Table 4-2 presents a tabulation
of the manufacturing unit operations and the types of the raw waste
that they have the potential to generate.  Thus a direct relationship
exists between the treatment system requirements and the unit opera-
tions performed at a manufacturing facility.  Subsequent sections of
this document further describe the specifics of the relationship be-
tween the unit operations performed, the wastes they produce, and
the various levels of treatment technology and systems applicable
to guideline limitations.

The following paragraphs discuss other approaches that were con-
sidered as bases for further subdividing the metal finishing sub-
category and the rationale for further subdivision being unneces-
sary.

Manufacturing Processes

The manufacturing processes employed by the Metal Finishing Cate-
gory are fully represented by the 46 unit operations that were
defined in Section III.  Unit operation subdivision would be
overly complex as a subcategorization basis due to the number of
combinations of processes that exists in this category.  In addition,
subdivision on the basis of each of the unit operations is not unique
since many operations generate the same waste constituents.  Unit
operations with similar waste characteristics could be combined to
form individual subcategories and thus effectively provide a cate-
gorization based upon waste characteristics.  However, as explained
                              IV-2

-------
Haste Treatment
(If Applicable)


    Treated
    Effluent
Manufacturing Facility
Raw Haste Sources

charge
'stem
Fluent \







| . ,___„„_!
nt 1 Oily Waste • | Chromium j
e) ! Removal ' I Reduction j
| 	 	 J I 	 |









i

Cannon
Metals


1
j Cyanide 2
j *
| Destruction j
| 	 	 |


Toxic
Organics
•



j Complexed J I Precious •
Metals ! j Metals j
! Removal j j Recovery J
si
•H
f
Without Cyanide
*

^ —

Raw Waste
. (Common Metals)
I






Haul*





sd Or
jf Reclaimed
"~ ~" 1

I
1
I
                                            I—
                                               Metals ~|
                                               Removal  j
Hauled Or
Reclaimed
                                                      Treated
                                                      Effluent
                                            Final Treated
                                              Effluent
                                                                                     Normal Route
                                                                             	 Optional Route


                                                              Notes Discharge frcm precious metals recovery may be
                                                                    hauled in alternative ways,  depending on the
                                                                    recovery method in use.
                                               FIGURE  4-1
                                       WASTE TREATMENT SCHEMATIC

-------
           TABLE 4-2




WASTE CHARACTERISTIC DISTRIBUTION
^""^^^^ WASTE
^""•••-CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT ^^---^
OPERATION ' ^"---^^^
1. Electroplating
2. Electroless Plating
3. Anodizing
4. Conversion Coating
5. Etching (Chem. Milling)
6; Cleaning
7. Machining
8. Grinding
9. Polishing
10. Tumbling
11. Burnishing
12. Impact Deformation
13. Pressure Deformation
14. Shearing
15. Heat Treating
16. Thermal Cutting
17. Welding
18. Brazing
19. Soldering
20. Flame Spraying
21. Sand Blasting
22. Other Abr. Jet Machining
23. Elec. Discharge Machining
24. Electrochemical Machining
25. Electron Beam Machining
26. Laser Beam Machining
27. Plasma Arc Machining
28. Ultrasonic Machining
INORGANICS
Common Precious Complexed Chromium
Metals Metals Metals (Hexavalent)
XX X
XXX
X X
XX X
XX X X
XX X X
X
X
X X
X X
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ORGANICS
Toxic
Cyanide Oils Organics
X
X

X

XXX
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
XXX






X
X
XXX





-------
                                            TABLE 4-2
                                  WASTE CHARACTERISTIC DISTRIBUTION
                                               (com.)
              WASTE
              CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT
OPERATION
                    INORGANICS
Connron   Precious   Conplexed   Chromium
Metals   Metals     Metals      (Hexavalent)
                   ORGANICS
                             Toxic
            Cyanide   Oils  Qrganics
29. Sintering                    x
30. Laminating                   x
31. Hot Dip Coating              x
32. Sputtering                   x
33. Vapor Plating                x
34. Thermal Infusion             x
35. Salt Bath Descaling          x
36. Solvent Degreasing           x
37. Paint Stripping              x
38. Painting                     x
39. Electrostatic Painting       x
40, Electrcpainting              x
41. Vacuum Metalizing            x
42. Assembly                     x
43. Calibration                  x
44. Testing                      x
45. Mechanical Plating           x
46. Printed Circuit Board        x
      Manufacturing
                                                         x
                                                         X
                                                         X
                                  X
                                                         X
                                                         X
                                                         X
                       X
X

X
                                X

                                X
                                IF
                                «n>

                                X

                                X

-------
previously, a direct correlation exists between the unit
operations performed and treatment technology needed via
the selected metal finishing subcategorization.  Therefore,
manufacturing process variations are inherently accounted
for by their waste characteristics and no further subdivision on the
basis of manufacturing process is required.

Haw Materials

There is a wide variation in basis materials, process materials,
and process chemicals used within this industry and all wastes are
a direct result of this material usage.  Subcategorization
on the basis of raw material usage would not result in industry
subgroups whose wastes are amenable to treatment by different
systems.

Product Type or Production Volume

The products manufactured by the Metal Finishing Category cover
virtually the entire spectrum of metallic goods.  There are
specific differences in manufacturing operations and many vari-
eties of raw and process materials are used throughout the cate-
gory.  However, wastewaters resulting from the manufacture of many
different products have the same waste treatment requirements and
this is accounted for by the single metal finishing subcategory.

The production volume influences the mass of pollutants discharged
but does not alter the waste constituents.  Therefore, the quantity
of work processed is not appropriate as a basis for subcategoriza-
tion.

Size and Age of Facility

The nature of the manufacturing processes for the Metal Finishing
Category is the same in all facilities regardless of their size.
Size is an insufficient criterion for further subdivision since the
waste characteristics of a plant depend on the raw materials and
the unit operations employed.  Size, however, is an important
consideration in determining the mass of pollutants dis-
charged.

The relative age of plants is important but is not a suitable basis
for subdividing the metal finishing subcategory because it does not
consider those items which affect the effluent discharged.  The age
of a plant has no bearing on the resulting waste characteristics or
the required waste treatment.

Number of Employees

The number of employees is not an appropriate basis for subdivision
since identical manufacturing operations can be performed manu-
                              al V- 6

-------
ally or by automatic machinery.  For example, a specific operation
might be accomplished manually by several machine operators for a
particular production level or, if automated, it might reguire only
one operator to produce an equivalent production output.  In both
cases, the resulting waste characteristics are identical if all
other factors are the same.

Water Usage

Variations in water usage will not alter the identity of waste-
water constituents but may affect their concentrations in the
waste stream.  These variations are due mainly to the different
rinsing operations employed (i.e. single stage rinsing, series
rinsing, countercurrent rinsing, etc).  Since wastewater treat-
ment systems are designed to remove groups of pollutants (having
similar physical or chemical properties), subcategorization
on the basis of water usage would not be appropriate.

Individual Plant Characteristics

Individual plant characteristics, including geographical loca-
tion, do not provide a proper basis for subcategorization
because they do not affect the process wastewater charac-
teristics of the plant.

Summary of Categorization Bases

For this study, a single metal finishing subcategory which includes
seven types of raw waste was established.  The primary division of
waste characteristics is the grouping of wastes into inorganic and
organic compounds.  These two groups are then subdivided into four
inorganic and three organic raw waste types.  The seven raw
waste types encompass the pollutants contained in the wastewaters
generated by all combinations of unit operations, raw materials,
and process materials and chemicals employed in the Metal
Finishing Category.

EFFLUENT LIMITATION BASE

In addition to determining the necessity for subdividing the
Metal Finishing Category, subcategorization also involves the
selection of a parameter on which to base limitations.
                              IV-7

-------
Since pollutants are measured in terras of their concentration
(mg/1)r concentration itself is the obvious primary considera-
tion for quantification of the limitations.  Utilization of
concentration has the following advantages:

     1.   Concentration is a directly measurable parameter
          using fundamental sampling and analysis techniques.

     2.   Industry, via its self-monitoring data, has the
          opportunity to rapidly recognize and respond to
          deviations from a given set of limitations.

     3.   Application of pertinent treatment and control
          systems to either new or existing manufacturing
          facilities is straightforward because these systems
          are designed to provide reduction to specific effluent
          concentration levels for specific pollutants.

A production related parameter for this industry, such as a
combination of the product surface area and the number of
particular wastewater producing operations performed, can be
used in conjunction with the concentration and process flow
rate to provide mass discharge limitations (e.g. limitation
in terms of mg/operation-sg.m. for electroplating operations).
Based on previous electroplating studies, the application
of this type of parameter to quantify limitations has proven
to be difficult to understand, implement, and enforce.  Several
specific problems associated with the use of a production re-
lated parameter for the Metal Finishing Category are:

     1.   Differences in part configuration are not
          accounted for by merely using a surface
          area basis such as was used in the past for
          electroplating.

     2.   It is often difficult to determine the pro-
          duction level.  For example, the overall
          area of barrel plated items such as miscel-
          laneous jewelry varies constantly throughout
          a normal production day.  To determine pro-
          duction (surface area plated) requires measure-
          ment of each individual part.
                             IV-8

-------
     3.   Mass based limitations are difficult to implement
          if either the production sequence or processed
          parts are constantly changing, as is especially
          the case for job shops.

     4.   It is often difficult to establish what constitutes
          a single wastewater producing operation since
          operations may be dry or wet and the sequence of
          performing operations is subject to variation.

The use of concentration alone as the limitation criterion allows
direct measurement and analysis of the treated effluent to verify
compliance with the regulations.  Thus concentration is selec-
ted as the limitations basis for the Metal Finishing Category.
                               IV-9

-------
                             SECTION V
                       WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
INTRODUCTION

This section presents the water uses, identifies the waste
constituents, and quantifies the pollutant parameters that
originate in the Metal finishing Category.  Published literature.
data collection portfolio responses, and actual sampling data were
reviewed in order to obtain data for this section.  In general.
quantitative raw waste information was not included in the data
collection portfolios.  When such information was included, it was
fragmented, incomplete and nearly impossible to correlate.
Therefore, the raw waste data presented are derived from an
analysis of samples taken at visited plants, downstream of the
manufacturing sources, and prior to waste treatment.  All
parameters analyzed were measured as total rather than dissolved
and are expressed in terms of milligrams per liter  (mg/l).

This section is organized in the following manner.  First is a
discussion of water usage within the Metal Finishing Category.
This is followed by a discussion of waste characteristics for each
of the forty-six unit operations.  Finally, .there is a description
of the parameters found in the total plant process wastewaters
discharged prior to end-of-pipe treatment, and a description of
the parameters found in each of the seven waste types that were
outlined in Section IV:

     o   Common metals
     o   Precious metals
     o   Complexed metals
     o   Hexavalent chromium
     o   Cyanide
     o   Oils
     o   Toxic organics

WATER USAGE IN THE METAL FINISHING CATEGORY

Water is used for rinsing workpieces. washing away  spills, air
scrubbing, process fluid replenishment, cooling and lubrication.
washing of equipment and workpieces, quenching, spray booths, and
assembly and testing.  Descriptions of these uses follow.

Rinsing

A large proportion of the water usage in the Metal  Finishing
Category is for rinsing.  This water is used to remove the film
(fluids and solids) that is deposited on the surfaces of the
workpieces during the preceding process.  As a result of this
                               v-i

-------
rinsing, the water becomes contaminated with the constituents of
the film.  Rinsing can be used in some capacity after virtually
all of the unit operations covered by the Metal Finishing Cate-
gory and is considered to be an integral part of the unit operation
that it follows.

Spills and Air Scrubbing

Water is used for washing away floor spills and for scrubbing of
ventilation exhaust air.  In both cases these wastewaters are
contaminated with constituents of process materials and dirt.

Process Fluid Replenishment

As process fluids (e.g. - cleaning solutions, plating solutions,
paint formulations, etc.) become exhausted or spent, new solu-
tions have to be made up, with water a major constituent of  these
solutions.  When a fluid is used at high temperature, water  must
be added periodically to make up for evaporative losses.  Exhaus-
ted or spent process solutions to be dumped are either collected
in sumps for batch processing or are slowly metered into dis-
charged rinse water prior to treatment.

Cooling and Lubrication

Coolants and lubricants in the form of free oils, emulsified oils,
and grease are required by many metal removal operations.  The
films and residues from these fluids are removed during cleaning,
washing, or rinsing operations and these constituents contaminate
other fluids.  In addition, spent fluids in the sumps represent a
further waste contribution that is processed either batchwise
(segregated) or is discharged to other waste streams.

Water from Auxiliary Operations

Auxiliary operations such as stripping of plating or painting racks
are essential to plant operations; waters used in these operations
do become contaminated and require treatment.

Washing

Water used for washing workpieces or for washing equipment such as
filters, pumps and tanks picks up residues of concentrated process
solutions, salts, or oils and is routed to an appropriate wastewater
stream for treatment.

Quenching

Workpieces which have undergone an operation involving intense heat
such as heat treating, welding, or hot dip coating are frequently
quenched or cooled in aqueous solutions to achieve the desired pro-
                                 V-2

-------
perties or to facilitate subsequent handling of the part.  These
solutions become contaminated and require treatment.
                               /
Spray Booths


Plants  which employ spray painting processes use spray booths in
order to capture oversprayed paint in a particular medium.   Many
of   these  booths  use  water  curtains  to  capture  the  paint
overspray.  The paint is directed against  a  flowing  stream  of
water,  which  scrubs  the air so that paint and solvents are not
exhausted to the outside atmosphere.  The paint collected in  the
water  is removed by skimming or by use of an ultrafilter and the
water is reused in the curtain.  This water will periodically be
dumped.

Testing and Calibration

Many  types  of  testing  such as leak, pressure, and performance
testing, make use of large quantities of water that  become  con-
taminated.

WATER USAGE BY OPERATIONS

Table  5-1  is  a  listing  of the unit operations covered in the
Metal Finishing Category and shows the operations  that  tend  to
utilize  water.   The table is broken down according to degree of
water use:  significant water usage, minimal water usage and zero
discharge.  The operations found  to  have  zero  discharge  were
determined  by  an  analysis  of  visited  plants  in  the  Metal
Finishing Category data base; the data are shown  in  Table  5-2.
The  data  shown include total number of occurrences of each unit
operation, number of zero discharges and the  percentage  of  the
total  occurrence with zero discharge.  The unit operations which
tend to have zero discharge are electron  beam  machining,  laser
beam  machining,  plasma  arc  machining,  ultrasonic  machining,
sintering, sputtering, vapor plating,  thermal  infusion,  vacuum
metalizing  and  calibration.  Table 5-3 shows the zero discharge
data from the DCP data bases for comparison.  While an  operation
may tend to be zero discharge, associated preparatory operations,
i.e., cleaning, may have discharges.

Figures  5-1 a  and  5-1b display the ranges of flows which may be
found within the Metal Finishing Category.  This figure  is  based
on flow information obtained from visited plants and the majority
of the plants fall within a flow range of zero to 100,000 gallons
per day, which is expanded in the figure.
                               V-3

-------
                          Table 5-1
         WATER USAGE BY METAL FINISHING OPERATIONS
Unit
Operation
 1.  Electroplating
 2.  Electroless Plating
 3.  Anodizing
 4.  Conversion Coating
 5.  Etching (Chemical Milling)
 6.  Cleaning
 7.  Machining
 8.  Grinding
 9.  Polishing
10.  Tumbling (Barrel Finishing)
11.  Burnishing
12.  Impact Deformation
13.  Pressure Deformation
14.  Shearing
15.  Heat Treating
16.  Thermal Cutting
17.  Welding
18.  Brazing
19.  Soldering
20.  Flame Spraying
21.  Sand Blasting
22.  Other Abr. Jet Machining
23.  Elec. Discharge Machining
24.  Electrochemical Machining
25.  Electron Beam Machining
26.  Laser Beam Machining
27.  Plasma Arc Machining
28.  Ultrasonic Machining
29.  Sintering
30.  Laminating
31.  Hot Dip Coating
32.  Sputtering
33.  Vapor Plating
34.  Thermal Infusion
35.  Salt Bath Descaling
36.  Solvent Degreasing
37.  Paint Stripping
38.  Painting
39.  Electrostatic Painting
40.  Electropainting
41.  Vacuum Metalizing
42.  Assembly
43.  Calibration
44.  Testing
45.  Mechanical Plating
46.  Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing
Major
Water
Usage

  x
  x
  x
  x
  X
  X
  X
  X
Minimal
Water
Usage
Zero
Discharge
  x
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
  X
            X
            X

            X

            X
            X

            X

            X


            X

            X
            X
            X
            X
                      X

                      X

                      X

                      X

                      X
                      X
                      X
                      X
                      X


                      X
                                 V-4

-------
                                         TABLE 5-2
                         DETERMINATION OP ZERO DISCHARGE OPERATIONS
         Unit Operation

    1.   Electroplating
    2.   Electroless Plating
    3.   Anodizing
    4.   Conversion Coating
    5.   Etching & Chemical Milling
    6.   Cleaning
    7..   Machining
   . 8.   Grinding
    9.   Polishing
   10.   Tumbling (Barrel Finishing)
   11.   Burnishing
   12.   Impact Deformation
   13.   Pressure Deformation
   14.   Shearing
   15.   Heat Treating
   16.   Thermal Cutting
   17.   Welding
   18.   Brazing
   19.   Soldering
   20.   Flame Spraying
   21.   Sand Blasting
   22.   Other Abrasive Jet Machining
   23.   Electrical Discharge Machining
   24,   Electrochemical Machining
   25.   Electron Beam Machining
   26.   laser Beam Machining
   27.   Plasma Arc Machining
   28.   Ultrasonic Machining
   29.   Sintering
   30.   Laminating
   31.   Hot Dip Coating
   32.   Sputtering
   33.   Vapor Plating
   34.   Thermal Infusion
   35.   Salt Bath Descaling
 **36.   Solvent Degreasing
   37.   Paint Stripping
   38.   Painting
   39.   Electrostatic Painting
   40.   Electropainting
   41.   Vacuum Metalizing
   42.   Assembly
   43.   Calibration
   44.   Testing
***45.   Mechanical Plating

   These data are from a 41 plant sampled data base.  All other
    data are from a separate 99 plant sampled data base.

  **ttot included in the 99 plant data base.  Other data indicate
    that this operation consistently generates wastewater.

 ***Not included in survey at time of plant visits.

Number of
Occurences
32
9
12
11
8
41
60
62
42
53
16
20
39
37
37
18
52
28
38
5
20
20
12
9
6
5
4
2
4
11
4
2
3
3
13
50
18
15
15
7
61
24
70
Number of
Zero
Dischargers
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
31
30
20
10
18
34
33
17
17
46
25
33
3
18
18
9
3
6
5
4
2
4
10
3
2
3
3
2
3
0
0
0
7
57
24
40
.5
.0
,2
.2
Percentage of
    Zero
Dischargers

     0.0
     0.0
     0.0
     0.0
     0.0
     0.0
    13.3
    50.0
    71.4
    37.8
    62,
    90.
    87.
    89.
    45.9
    94.4
    88.5
    89.3
    86.8
    60.0
    90.0
    90.0
    75.0
    33.3
   100.0
   100.0
   100.0
   100.0
   100.0
    91.0
    75.0
   100.0
   100.0
   100.0
    15.4
     0.0
     6.0
     0,0
     0.0
     0.0
   100.0
    93.4
   100.0
    57.0
                                          V-5

-------
                                        TABLE 5-3
                        DETERMINATION OF ZERO DISCHARGE OPERATIONS
                                     (DCP DATA BASES)
*  1.
*  2.
*  3.
*  4.
*  5.
*  6.
   7.
   8.
   9.
  10.
  11.
  12.
  13.
  14.
  15.
  16.
  17.
  18.
  19.
  20.
  21.
  22.
  23.
  24.
  25.
  26.
  27.
  28.
  29.
  30.
  31.
  32.
  33.
  34.
  35.
  36.
  37.
  38.
  39.
  40.
  41.
  42.
  43.
  44.
* 45.
Uiit Operation

Electroplating
Electroles's Plating
Anodizing
Conversion Coating
Etching & Chemical Milling
Cleaning
Machining
Grinding
Polishing
Tumbling (Barrel Finishing)
Burnishing
Impact Deformation
Pressure Deformation
Shearing
Heat Treating
Thermal Cutting
Welding
Brazing
Soldering
Flame Spraying
Sand Blasting
Other Abrasive Jet Machining
Electrical Discharge Machining
Electrochemical Machining
Electron Beam Machining
Laser Beam Machining
Plasma Arc Machining
Ultrasonic Machining
Sintering
Laminating
Hot Dip Coating .
Sputtering
Vapor Plating
Thermal Infusion
Salt Bath Descaling
Solvent Degreasing
Paint Stripping
Painting
Electrostatic Painting
Electropainting
Vacuum Metalizing
Assembly
Calibration
Testing
Mechanical Plating

Number of
Occurences
1100
207
233
490
177
1221
241
204
80
41
11
36
48
96
38
32
162
75
87
7
44
8
12
3
0
1
4
2
3
17
7
1
0
0
2
77
16
97
9
2
2
167
46
93
2
Number of
Zero
Dischargers
0
0
0
0
0
0
200
166
79
15
8
35
46
95
29
30
158
75
82
7
44
7
9
1
0
1
4
0
3
16
3
1
0
0
1
28
8
84
9
2
2
165
45
82
0
Percentage of
Zero
Dischargers
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
83.0
81.5
98.8
36.6
72.7
97.2
95.8
98.9
76.3
93.7-
97.5
100.0
94.2
100.0
100.0
87.5
75.0
34.0
—
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
94.1
42.8
100.0
—
-
50.0
36.4
50.0
86.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
98.8
97.8
88.0
0.0
These data are from a 1221 plant DCP data base.
 are from a separate 365 plant DCP data base.
                                          All other data
                                        V-6

-------
      DISCHARGE RATE.
         FIGURE 5-la
  o
         DISCHARGE RATE, MGD
           FIGURE 5-lb
          FIGURE 5-1

FLOW DISTRIBUTION WITHIN THE
  METAL FINISHING CATEGORY
               V-7

-------
WATER USAGE BY WASTE TYPE

Tables 5-4 through 5-9 present data on the contribution of the
various types of waste streams toward the total  flow of a plant.
For each visited plant where flows of discrete types of waste
streams could be measured, the tables present total wastewater
flow, waste type stream flow and percentage contribution of  the
waste type stream flow.

Table 5-4 shows flow data for those visited plants which had
common metals waste streams measured prior to mixing with other
pretreated wastewaters.  The average contribution of these streams
to the total wastewater flow is 67.6% (range of  1.4-100%).  All
of the plants visited and sampled had a waste stream requiring
common metals treatment.

Table 5-5 contains flow data for those plants with precious
metals wastewater.  Of the plants in the data set used for these
tables, 6.3% of them had production processes which generated
precious metals wastewater. The typical precious metals waste-
water flow contribution is 20.1%.

Table 5-6 presents flow data for those plants with segregated
complexed metals waste streams.  Although additional plants have
processes which generate complex metal wastes, their wastes are
not segregated.  The average contribution of the complexed metal
streams at those plants listed in the table is 11.9%, and 13.9%
of the plants in the data set used for these tables have com-
plexed metal streams.

Table 5-7 presents the flow contribution of hexavalent chromium
wastewater streams.  Of the plants in the data set used for these
tables, 24.1% have segregated hexavalent chromium waste streams.
The average flow contribution of these waste streams to the total
wastewater stream is 23.4%.  Of the plants having hexavalent
chromium streams, 100% segregate those streams for treatment.

Table 5-8 presents flow data on cyanide bearing  waste streams. As
shown on the table, at those plants with cyanide wastes, the
average contribution of the cyanide bearing stream toward the
total wastewater generated is 14.6% (range: 1.4-29.6%).  Of the
plants in the data set used for these tables, 13.9% have segre-
gated cyanide bearing wastes.

Table 5-9 presents data for the flow of segregated oily waste-
water. Segregated oily wastewater is defined as  oil waste col-
lected from machine sumps and process tanks that is kept segre-
gated from other wastewaters until it has been treated by an oily
waste removal system.  The plants identified in  Table 5-9 , which
make up 12.9% of the plants in the data set used for these tables,
are known to segregate their oily wastes.  The average contribu-
tion of their oily wastes to this total wastewater flow is 6.4%,
with a range of nearly zero to 31.7%.
                             V-8

-------
                              TABLE 5-4
                  CCMMON METALS STREAM CONTRIBUTION
Common Metals
Stream Flow (gpd)
16,590
56,987
37,680
18,000
145,800
93,600
53,280
304,800
8,269
24,280
165,000
3,200
3,600
272,400
152,912
83,536
252,822
50,400
719,248
80,827
5,280
255,672
151,264
6,421
599,232
65,067
1,600
55,600
400
46,080
303
1,320
6,241
5,000
76,320
9,080
210,880
54,800
96
Total Process
Water Discharge (gpd)
16,590
77,995
59,136
50,400
183,816
194,320
244,080
304,800
8,269
42,780
825,000
3,200
4,880
272,400
186,712
83,536
593,280
723,432
5,352,000
95,634
5,280
292,080
829,192
8,117
603,786
89,840
13,360
82,576
400
50,400
21,842
1,320
6,819
14,750
76,320
103,522
217,280
74,320
96
Percent Of
Total Flow
100.0
73.1
63.7
35.7
79.3
48.2
21.8
100.0
100.0
56.8
20.0
100.0
73.8
100.0
81.9
100.0
42.6
7.0
13.4
84.5
100.0
87.5
18.2
79.1
99.2
72.4
12.0
67.3
100.0
91.4
1.4
100.0
91.5
33.9
100.0
8.8
97.1
73.7
100.0
Plant ID

1003
2032
2033
2062
4069
4071
6091
6110
6679
6960
7001
8006
8007
9052
11103
11108
12061
12065
12075
15608
17050
17061
18538
19068
20022
20083
21003
21066
25010
27046
30054
33028
36048
38052
40060
40063
41051
44062
46025
Average common metals stream contribution = 67.6%
                                    V-9

-------
                              TABLE 5-5
                  PRECIOUS METALS STREAM CONTRIBUTION
               Precious Metals       Total Process          Percent Of
Plant ID       Stream Flow (gpd)   Water Discharge (gpd)    Total Flow
02033
06090
21003
30054
36623
12,720
2,400
4,080
5,406
77,040
59,136
171,600
13,360
21,908
364,560
21.5
2.8
30.5
24.7
21.1
Average precious metals stream contribution = 20.1%
                              V-10

-------
                              TABLE 5-6
                  COMPLEXED METALS STREAM CONTRIBUTION
               Complexed Metals      Total Process          Percent Of
Plant ID       Stream Flow (gpd)   Water Discharge (gpd)    Total Flow
02032
02033
04069
04071
06097
12065
15608
17061
20083
34051
36048
6,080
7,667
20,016
100,720
5,232
17,280
10,768
10,320
11,773
960
131
77,995
59,136
183,816
194,320
61,424
723,432
95,634
292,080
89,840
14,400
6,819
7.8
13.0
10.9
51.8
8.5
2.4
11.3
3.5
13.1
6.7
1.9
Average complexed metals stream contribution = 11.9%
                               V-ll

-------
                              TABLE 5-7
                             CHROMIUM STREAM CONTRIBUTION
                 Hexavalent Chromiun        Tptal Process        Percent Of
Plant ID          Stream Flow (gpd)       Water Discharge (gpd)  Ibtal Flow


06072                 9,480                     51,720             18.3
06091               106,560                    244,080             43.7
06960                10,175                     42,780             23.8
12075               147,480                  5,384,072              2.7
18538               172,016                    829,192             20.7
20082                91,609                    129,859             70.5
20083                 5,187                     89,840              5.8
21066                14,528                     82,576             17.6
30050                 7,308                    564,000              1.3
30054                 1,680                     21,908              7.7
30074                25,920                     43,392             47.2
31050                   600                      4,600             13.0
33024                 2,952                     34,896              8.5
35061                70,000                    785,000              8.9
38052                 9,750                     14,750             66.1
40061                48,600                     59,400             81.8
40062                 2,160                    571,680              0.4
44050                11,040                    113,760              9.7
44062                15,752                     74,320             21.2



Average hexavalent chromium stream contribution = 23.4%
                               V-12

-------
                              TABLE 5-8
                  CYANIDE BEARING STREAM CONTRIBUTION
                 Cyanide Bearing            Total Process        Percent Of
Plant ID         Stream Flow (gpd)        Water Discharge (gpd)   Total Flow


02033                17,496                        59,136           29.6
06072                 3,280                        51,720            6.3
06090                 2,400                       171,600            1.4
11103                21,704                       186,712           11.6
19050                 3,480                        25,264           13.8
20083                 3,960                        89,840            4.4
21066                12,448                        82,576           15.1
30022                11,520                        48,960           23.5
33024                 5,256                        26,688           15.1
35061               150,000                       785,000           19.1
36623                77,040                       364,560           21.1
Average cyanide stream contribution = 14.6%
                                  V-13

-------
                                    TABLE 5-9
                     SEGREGATED OILY WASTEWATER CONTRIBUTION
Plant ID

01058
03043
04892
06019
11477
12078
13042
13324
14062
15010
15055
19462
20005
20103
23041
28699
30012
30166
30516
30698
31031
33050
33692
38040
  Segregated
  Oily Waste
Discharge (gpd)

   125,000
     2,081
    33,600
    30,800
    21,600
    15,300
    60,000
    14,400
    14,362
    13,000
    30,000
     2,200
   174,990
    11,100
     3,090
   190,280
     4,845
       249
    31,700
     2,500
       286
     2,558
    68,000
       693
 Total Plant
Discharge (gpd)

  2,590,000
    118,650
    285,200
  1,810,000
  1,090,000
  1,064,900
    223,400
    144,900
    609,700
  1,100,000
    600,000
    250,000
  1,500,000
    150,000
    900,000
    600,000
    312,440
     11,250
 20,000,000
     20,000
  2,160,000
    320,000
    500,000
    117,000
Percent Of
Total Flow

   4.83
   1.75
  11.8
   1.70
   1.98
   1.44
  26.9
   9.94
   2.36
   1.18
   5.00
   0.88
  11.7
   7.42
   0.34
  31.7
   1.55
   2.21
   0.16
  12.5
   0.01
   0.80
  13.6
   0.59
Average segregated oily waste contribution =6.4%
                                     V-14

-------
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS FROM METAL FINISHING UNIT OPERATIONS

The waste constituents most commonly found in wastewaters gener-
ated by the forty-six metal finishing unit operations are des-
cribed in the following subsections.  Information from 1/048
data collection portfolios on the presence of priority pollutants
in metal finishing wastewaters are summarized in Tables 5-10 and
5-11.  Table 5-10 shows the number and type of responses given
for each of the 129 pollutant parameters.  (KTBP is known to be
present, BTBP is believed to be present, BTBA is believed to be
absent, and KTBA is known to be absent.)  Table 5-11 indicates
reported sources of the pollutants known to be present.  Table
5-12 summarizes the waste characteristic distribution for the 46
unit operations.  Operations which have been designated as
generally zero dischargers are omitted from this discussion.
Included in each of the unit operation presentations is a listing
of each waste type to which the particular operation's wastewater
could contribute.

ELECTROPLATING

Electroplating baths contain metal salts, acids, alkalies, and
various bath control compounds.  All of these materials contri-
bute to the wastewater stream either through part dragout, batch
dump, or floor spill.  Electroplating baths can contain copper,
nickel, silver, gold, zinc, cadmium, palladium, platinum, chrom-
ium, lead, iron and tin.  In addition to these metals, common
cationic components of plating baths are ammonia, sodium and
potassium.  Anions likely to be present are chromate, borate,
cyanide, carbonate, fluoride, fluoborate, phosphates, chloride,
nitrate, sulfate, sulfide, sulfamate and tartrate.

Many plating solutions contain metallic, metallo-organic and
organic additives to induce grain refining, leveling of the
plating surface and deposit brightening.  Arsenic, cobalt,
molybdenum and selenium are used in this way, as are saccharin
and various aldehydes.  These additives are generally present
in a bath at concentrations of less than one percent by volume
or weight.  Table 5-13 presents a selection of plating baths
and their major constituents.  The processes covered under the
electroplating unit operation and the type of wastewater are
listed below:

          Common metals - Electroplating of aluminum, brass,
                          bronze, cadmium, acid copper, fluo-
                          borate copper and copper pyrophos-
                          phate, iron, lead, nickel, solder,
                          tin and zinc.

          Precious metals - Electroplating of gold, silver,
                            rhodium, palladium, platinum,
                            indium, ruthenium, iridium, and
                            osmium.

          Cyanide wastes - Cyanide plating of copper, cadmium,
                           zinc, brass, gold, silver,  indium,
                           and irridium.

          Hexavalent chromium wastes - chromium plating.

                                V-15

-------
                               Table  5-10
                    POLLUTANT PARAMETER QUESTIONNAIRE
                            DCP RESPONSES
Pollutant Parameter
001  Acenaphthene
002  Acrolein
003  Acrylonitrile
004  Benzene
005  Benzidine
006  Carbon tetrachloride
     (tetrachloromethane)
007  Chlorobenzene
008  1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
009  Hexachlorobenzene
010  1,2-dichloroethane
Oil  1,1,1-trichloroethane
012  Hexachloroethane
013  1,1-dichloroethane
014  1,1,2-trichloroethane
015  1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
016  Chloroethane
017  Bis(chloromethyl) ether
018  Bis(2~chloroethyl) ether
019  2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)
020  2-chloronaphthalene
021  2,4,6-trichlorophenol
022  Parachlorometa cresol
023  Chloroform (trichloromethane)
Number of
Responses
1011
1011
1013
1014
1011
1012
1010
1010
1010
1011
1020
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1009
) 1009
1009
1008
1009
1009
KTBP
0
0
2
9
1
3
1
0
0
2
53
0
1
5
0
9
0
0
1
0
1
0
7
BTBP
2
1
12
16
5
10
8
9
4
11
77
7
8
17
12
14
I
1
1
3
4
4
13
BTBA
762
760
755
734
746
737
751
749
756 .
752
666
752
758
742
746
744
756
755
756
758
754
756
743
KTBA
221
224
218
229
233
236
224
226
224
220
198
225
217
220
226
217
227
227
225
222
222
223
221
                                    V-1S

-------
                               Table  5-10  (Continued)
 jllutant Parameter


 24  2-chlorophenol

 25  1,2-dichlorobenzene

 26  1,3-dichlorobenzene

 27  1,4-dichlorobenzene

 28  3,3-dichlorobenzidine

 29  1,1-dichloroethylene

 30  Ir2~trans-dichloroethylene
           *
 31  2,4-dichlorophenol

 32  1,2-dichloropropane

 33  1,2-dichloropropylene
    (1,3-dichloropropene)

 34  2 ,4-dimethylphenol

 35  2,4-dinitrotoluene

 >36  2,6-dinitrotoluene

 i37  1,2-diphenylhydrazine

 i38  Ethylbenzene

 139  Fluoranthene

 •40  4-chlorophenyl  phenyl  ether

 )41  4-bromophenyl phenyl ether

 342  Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)  ether

 )43  Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane

544  Methylene  chloride
    (dichloromethane)

)45  Methyl chloride (chloromethane)

)46  Methyl bromide  (bromomethane)
Number of
Responses
1008
1009
1009
1009
1009
1010
1010
1009
1010
1010
1008
1008
1008
1008
1010
1006
1007
1010
1009
1010
1015
1011
1012
KTBP
1
1
0
1
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
.. ' 3
0
0
0
0
0
38
5
2
BTBP
3
2
2
3
1
2
2
4
1
1
. 3
1
1
1
, . 5
2
2
2
2
4
49
11
1
BTBA
760
756
758
756
755
763
760
757
756
760
757
759
759
758
758
758
755
755
756
755
695
747
759
KTBA
218
223
223
223
227
217
221
222
226
223
222
222
222
222
218
221
225
225
225
225
206
223
224
                                   V-17

-------
                               Table  5-10  (Continued)
Pollutant Parameter
047  Bromoform (tribromomethane)



048  Dichlorobromomethane



050  Dichlorodifluoromethane



051  Chiorodibromomethane



052  Hexachlorobutadiene



053  Hexachlorocyclopentadiene



054  Isophorone



055  Naphthalene



056  Nitrobenzene



057  2-nitrophenol



058  4-nitrophenol



059  2,4-dinitrophenol



060  4,6-dinitro-o-cresol



061  N-nitrosodimethylamine



062  N-nitrosodiphenylamine



063  N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine



064  Pentachlorophenol



065  Phenol



066  Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate



067  Butyl benzyl phthalate



068  Di-n-butyl phthalate



069  Di-n-octyl phthalate



070  Diethyl phthalate
Number of
Responses
1014
1014
1014
1014
1014
1012
1012
1015
1015
1013
1013
1013
1012
1012
1014
1014
1012
1020
1014
1014
1014
1013
1012
KTBP
0
1
4
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
71
2
2
2
1
2
BTBP
2
2
15
1
2
1
9
14
9
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
8
40
4
4
4
4
2
BTBA
759
758
748
759
761
760
755
748
755
758
758
757
759
762
762
759
754
677
760
759
758
758
759
i
KTBA
227
227f
221!
227
j
225
225'
221'
22 5
225
227
227
228
226
224
224
227
224:
206
222
223
223
224
223
                                  V-18

-------
                              Table  5-10 (Continued)
jllutant Parameter


'1  Dimethyl phthalate

?2  1,2-benzanthracene
    (benzo(a)anthracene)

?3  Benzo(a)pyrene
    {3,4-benzo-pyrene)

74  3,4-benzofluoranthene
    (benzo(b)fluoranthene)

75  11,12-benzofluoranthene
    (benzo(k)fluoranthene)

76  Chrysene

77  Acenaphthylene

78  Anthracene

79  1,12-benzoperylene
    (benzo(gh i)-perylene)

BO  Fluorene

81  Phenanthrene

82
83
1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene
(d ibenzo(a,h)anthracene)

Indeno(l,2,3~cd) pyrene
(2,3-o-phenylene pyrene)
84  Pyrene

85  Tetrachloroethylene

86  Toluene

87  Trichloroethylene

88  Vinyl chloride (chloroethylene}

89  Aldrin
Number of
Responses
1014
1014
1014
1014
1014
1014
1014
1012
1012
1011
1010
1009
1009
1009
1008
1016
1011
1009
1010
KTBP
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
8
37
27
4
0
BTBP
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
19
69
71
8
3
BTBA
759
759
757
759
759
760
759
756
759
760
759
755
755
756
740
694
683
757
752
KTBA
225
226
229
228
228
227
228
227
226
223
224
225
227
223
215
190
204
214
229
                                  V-19

-------
Table  5-10 (Continued)
Number of
Pollutant Parameter Responses
090
091
092
093
094
095
096
097
098
099
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
Dieldrin
Chlordane (technical mixture
and metabolites)
4,4-DDT
4,4-DDE (p,p-DDX)
4,4-DDD (p,p-TDE)
Alpha-endosulfan
Beta-endosulf an
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
(BHC-hexachlorocyclohexane )
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
Gamma-BHC
Delta-BHC
PCB-1242 (Aroclor 1242)
PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254)
PCB-1221 (Aroclor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Aroclor 1232)
PCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248)
PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
1008
1008
1008
1008
1008
1008
1008
1008
1008
1008
1008
1008
1008
1008
1008
1009
1010
1009
1009
1009
1008
1006
KTBP
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
3
1
2
2
3
BTBP
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
4
10
6
4
4
5
6
BTBA
753
756
749
751
755
756
756
758
751
756
754
755
753
753
750
750
731
736
744
745
741
733
KTBA
227
224
231
228
224
224
224
222
229
224
225
225
227
227
230
229
237
238
234
232
234
238
         V-20

-------
                           TABLE 5-10 (Continued)
>llutant Parameter


.2  PCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016)

i3  Toxaphene

14  Antimony

L5  Arsenic

16  Asbestos

L7  Beryllium

18  Cadmium

L9  Chromium

20  Copper

21  Cyanide

22  Lead

23  Mercury

24  Nickel

25  Selenium

26  Silver

27  Thallium

28  Zinc

29  2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-
    p-dioxin (TCDD)
Number of
Responses
990
990
990
996
987
986
1012
1048
1038
1032
1017
1002
1039
990
1007
990
1032
KTBP
1
0
33
39
10
33
272
633
577
457
280
88
531
37
185
25
520
BTBP
5
3
37
18
22
37
56
96
105
86
84
25
110
28
54
13
74
BTBA
729
737
696
689
713
685
479
219
248
330
477
630
276
686
562
702
304
KTBA
231
226
200
226
218
208
179
74
82
133
150
233
98
215
182
227
112
990
733
224
TBP - Known to be present
TBP - Believed to be present
TBA - Known to be absent
TBA - Believed to be absent
                                   V-21

-------
                                TABLE 5-11

           SOURCE  IDENTIFICATION FOR KTBP (KNOWN TO BE PRESENT!
                           POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
Pollutant Parameter

003 Acrylonitrile

004 Benzene
005 Benzidine

006 Carbon tetrachloride

007 Chlorobenzene

010 1,2-Dichloroethane

Oil 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
013 1,1-Dichloroethane

014 1,1,2-Trichloroethane


016 Chloroethane


019 2-Chloroethyl vinyl
      ether

021 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol

023 Chloroform

024 2-Chlorophenol

025 1,2-Dichlorobenzene

027 1,4-Dichlorobenzene

029 1,1-Dichloroethylene

030 1,2-trans-Dichloro-
      ethylene
  KTBP
Responses  Sources of Pollutant Parameters

    2      ABS components manufactured

    9      Fuel component; solvent; raw
           material; contaminant in toluene;
           water supply

    1      Solvent and cleaner

    3      Water supply

    1      Spray booth wall coating

    2      Photoresist developer; water supply

   53      Degreaser; photoresist developer;
           cleaner; hand washing operations;
           plating; maintenance solvent;
           milling; water supply

    1      Plant lab facilities; cleaning

    5      Degreaser; cleaning; plant lab
           facilities

    9      Raw material; degreaser; wash tanks;
           floor cleaner; solvent cleaning

    1      Water supply


    1      Unknown  (detected by sample analysis!

    7      Raw material; degreaser; nickel
           brightener constituent; water supply
    1      Water supply

    1      Gum solvent

    1      Unknown  (detected by sample analysis)

    2      Water supply

    1      Water supply
                                    V-22

-------
                          TABLE  5-11  (Continued)
Pollutant Parameter
  KTBP
Responses  Sources of Pollutant Parameters
032  1,2-Dichloropropane

037  1,2-Diphenylhydrazine

038  Ethylbenzene

044  Methylene chloride
045  Methyl chloride
      1

      1

      3

     38
      5
046  Methyl bromide            2

048  Dichlorobromomethane      1

050  Dichlorodifluoromethane   4


051  Chlorodibromomethane      1

054  Isophorone                1

055  Naphthalene               2

065  Phenol                   71
Water supply

Coolant biocide

Fuel constituent

Paint stripper; photoresist
stripper; cleaner; plastic;
injection molding and extrusion;
etch resist stripper; solvent;
painting; electroplating; rubber
primer

Raw material; cleaner; paint
stripper

Constituent of chrome plating bath

Water supply

Refrigerant; anodizing bath coolant;
water supply

Water supply

White paint

Painting

Lubricating oils; post metal fin-
ishing operations; paper and molding
compounds; photoresist stripper
coolant; creosote floor blocks; iron
phosphatizing; etch resist stripper;
adhesives; gasoline; paint stripper;
painting; washers; hydraulic oils;
wire insulation stripping; rinsing;
plating; emulsion breaker; varnish;
coolant biocide; spindle oil; DTE
oil; spray paint; adhesives;
electropainting; integrated circuit
lab; paint; conformal coating; cast
iron making  (coke); paint gun
cleaner; cleaners tin plating
additive; phosphate esters; phenolic
resins; water supply
                                   V-23

-------
                          TABLE 5-11  (Continued)
Pollutant Parameter

066  Bis  (2-ethylhexyi;
       phthalate
  KTBP
Responses

      2
067  Butylbenzyl phthalate


068  Di-n-butyl phthalate


069  Di-n-octyl phthalate

070  Diethyl phthalate


071  Dimethyl phthalate


072  1,2-Benzanthrancene

080  Fluorene

082  1,2,5,6-Dibenzanthracene

084  Pyrene

085  Tetrachloroethylene
  !6  Toluene
087  Trichloroethylene
088  Vinyl chloride
106  PCB-1242
      1

      2
     37
     27
Sources of Pollutant Parameters

Sealants; paints; adhesives; water
supply
Sealants,
supply
Sealants,
supply
Sealants,

Sealants,
supply
Sealants,
supply
paints,


paints,


paints,

paints,
                             adhesives;  water
                             adhesives;  water
adhesives

adhesives,
water
                     paints;  adhesives;  water
Water supply

Unknown  (detected by sample analysis)

Unknown  (detected by sample analysis)

Unknown  (detected by sample analysis)

Degreaser; photoresist stripper;
ceramic tinning; electroplating;
cleaner; solvent recovery; water
supply

Painting; paint thinner; varnish
thinner; paint booth cleanup; thin
ner for printed circuit protective
coating; cleaning solvent; adhesive;
water supply

Degreaser; paint thinner; photo-
resist developer; electroplating
operations; lab solvent; machine
solvent; electrical contact cleaner;
welding tip cleaner; water supply

Plastic molding; sealers; adhesives;
coating for manufactured parts; water
supply

Lighting fixtures; power correction
units; transformers; previous usage
hydraulic fluid; water supply
                                   V-24

-------
                          TABLE  5-11  (Continued)
Pollutant Parameter
107  PCB-1254
108

109
PCB-1221

PCB-1232
110  PCB-1248



111  PCB-1260


112  PCB-1016

116  Asbestos compounds
  KTBP
Responses

    3


    1

    2
                        3


                        1

                       10
Sources of Pollutant Parameters

Process capacitors; previous usage;
water supply

Process capacitors; water supply

Lighting fixtures; power correction
units; transformers; process
capacitors; water supply
Lighting fixtures; power correction
units; transformers; process
capacitors; water supply

Process capacitors; previous usage;
water supply

Water supply

Aluminum dip braze; pipe covering;
brakeband operations; furnace seals;
sealer compound; plaster molds;
nickel electroplating bath filter;
water supply
                                   V-25

-------
                                                     TABLE 5-12
                                               CHAMCTERISTIC DISTRIBUTION
f
Ch
^~~"\^ WASTE
UNIT ^"^""\^
OPERATION ^"^"-^
1. Electroplating
2. Electroless Plating
3. .Anodizing
4. Conversion Coating
5. Etching {Chem. Milling)
6. Cleaning
7. Machining
8. Grinding
9. Polishing
10. Tumbling
11. Burnishing
12. Impact Deformation
13. Pressure Deformation
14. Shearing
15. Heat Treating
16. Thermal Cutting
17. Welding
18. Brazing
19. Soldering
20. Flame Spraying
21. Sand Blasting
22. Other Abr. Jet Machining
23. Elec. Discharge Mach.
24. Electrochemical Mach.
25. Electron Beam Mach.
26. Laser Beam Mach.
27. Plasma Arc Mach.
28. Ultrasonic Machining
INORGANICS ORGA1
Common Precious Complexed Chromium
Metals Matals Matals (Hexavalent) Cyanide Oi
XX XX
XX XX
X X
XX XX
XX XX X
XX XX X
X
X
X X
X XX
XX X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X




KflCS
Toxic zero
Is Organics Discharge





X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X






X
X
X
X
X
X
X

-------
                                                         TABLE  5-12 Cont.

                                                  WASTE CHARACTERISTIC  DISTRIBUTION
I
hJ
"^^^^^ WASTE
^"•••^CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT ^^-\^
OPERATION ^^\^^
29. Sintering
30. Laminating
31. Hot Dip Coating
32. Sputtering
33. Vapor Plating
34. Thermal Infustion
35. Salt Bath Descaling
36. Solvent Degreasing
37. Paint Stripping
38. Painting
39. Electrostatic Painting
40. Electroplating
41. Vacuum Metalizing
42. Assembly
43. Calibration
44. Testing
45. Mechanical Plating
46. Printed Circuit Board
Manufacturing
INORGANICS ORGA1
Common Precious Complexed Chromium
Metals Metals Metals (Hexavalent) Cyanide Oi.

X
X



X X
X X
X X
X
X X
X

X X

X
X X
X X

vies
Toxic Zero
Ls Organics Discharge
X


X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X


X


-------
                           TABLE  5-13
                   CONSTITUENTS OF PLATING BATHS
Electroplating Bath

Brass & Bronze:
Cadmium Cyanide:
Cadmium Fluoborate:
Copper Cyanide:
Copper Pluoborate:
Acid Copper Sulfate:
Copper Pyrophosphate:
Fluoride Modified
Copper Cyanide:


Chromium:
Chromium with
Fluoride Catalyst:
Gold Cyanide:
Compos i t ion

Copper cyanide
Zinc cyanide
Sodium cyanide
Sodium carbonate
Ammonia
Rochelle salt

Cadmium cyanide
Cadmium oxide
Sodium cyanide
Sodium hydroxide

Cadmium fluoborate
Fluoboric acid
Boric acid
Ammonium fluoborate
Licorice

Copper cyanide
Sodium cyanide
Sodium carbonate
Sodium hydroxide
Rochelle salt

Copper fluoborate
Fluoboric acid

Copper sulfate
Sulfuric acid

Copper pyrophosphate
Potassium hydroxide
Ammonia

Copper cyanide
Potassium cyanide
Potassium fluoride

Chromic acid
Sulfuric acid

Chromic acid
Sulfate
Fluoride

Metallic gold
Potassium cyanide
Sodium phosphate
                             V-28

-------
                        TABLE 5-13 (Con't)
                  CONSTITUENTS OF PLATING BATHS
Electroplating Bath

Iron j
Lead Fluoborate:
Lead-Tin:
Nickel (Watts):
Nickel-Acid Fluoride:
Black Nickel:
Composition

Ferrous sulfate
Ferrous chloride
Ferrous fluoborate
Calcium chloride
Ammonium chloride
Sodium chloride
Boric acid

Lead fluoborate
Fluoboric acid
Boric acid
Gelatin or glue
Hydroqu inone

Lead fluoborate
Tin fluoborate
Boric acid
Fluoboric acid
Glue
Hydroqu inone

Nickel sulfate
Nickel chloride
Nickel fluoborate
Boric acid
Nickel sulfate
Nickel chloride
Nickel sulfamate
Boric acid
Phosphoric acid
Phosphorous acid
"Stress-reducing agents"

Hydrofluoric acid
Nickel carbonate
Citric acid
Sodium lauryl sulfate
  (wetting agent)

Nickel ammonium sulfate
Nickel sulfate
Zinc sulfate
Ammonium sulfate
Sodium thiocyanate
                             V-29

-------
                        TABLE  5-13  (Con't)
                  CONSTITUENTS OF PLATING BATHS
Electroplating Bath

Silver:
Acid Tin;
Stannate Tin:
Tin-Copper Alloy:
Tin-Nickel Alloy:
Tin-Zinc Alloy:
Acid line:
Zinc Cyanide:
                             V-30
Compos it ion

Silver cyanide
Potassium cyanide or
  Sodium cyanide
Potassium carbonate or
  Sodium carbonate
Potassium hydroxide
Potassium nitrate
Carbon disulfide

Tin fluoborate
Fluoboric acid
Boric acid
Stannous sulfate
Sulfuric acid
Cresol sulfonic acid
Beta naphthol
Gelatin

Sodium stannate
Sodium hydroxide
Sodium acetate
Hydrogen peroxide

Copper cyanide
Potassium stannate
Potassium cyanide
Potassium hydroxide
Rochelle salt

Stannous chloride
Nickel chloride
Ammonium fluoride
Ammonium bifluoride
Sodium fluoride
Hydrochloric acid

Potassium stannate
Zinc cyanide
Potassium cyanide
Potassium hydroxide

Zinc sulfate
Ammonium chloride
Aluminum sulfate or
  Sodium acetate
Glucose or
  Licorice

Zinc oxide
Sodium cyanide
Sodium hydroxide
Zinc cyanide

-------
ELECTROLESS PLATING

Electroless plating (autocatalytic)  is most often used on printed
circuit boards, as a base plate for plating on plastics, and as
a protective coating on metal parts.  Copper and nickel are the
metals most often plated autocatalytically, although iron, cobalt,
gold, palladium, and arsenic can also be plated in this manner.
The components of several electroless plating baths are listed in
Table 5-14.   The principle components are the metal being deposited,
a reducing agent such as sodium hypophosphite or formaldehyde, and
various complexing (or chelating) agents such as Rochelle salt,
EDTA, or sodium citrate.  Bath constituents enter the waste stream
by way of dragout or batch dumping of the process bath.

Immersion plating, which is categorized with electroless plating,
generates waste by basis material dissolution and process solution
dragout.  Table 5-15 lists the different immersion plating solu-
tions as well as the base material upon which each can be deposited.
Immersion plating baths are usually simple formulations of metal
salts, alkalies and complexing agents.  The complexing agents are
typically cyanide or ammonia and are used to raise the deposition
potential of the metal.  Because of the displacement action in-
volved in the immersion plating operation, more basis material ends
up in the waste stream than the metal being deposited.  Electroless
plating wastewaters are contributed to the discrete process wastes
by the following operations:

       Precious metals - Electroless gold, electroless silver,
                         electroless palladium, immersion gold,
                         immersion palladium, immersion platinum,
                         immersion rhodium, immersion silver.

       Complexed metals - All electroless plating operations, all
                          immersion plating operations.

       Cyanide - Electroless gold, electroless arsenic, electroless
                 silver, immersion brass, immersion silver, immersion
                 tin.

ANODIZING

The wastewaters generated by anodizing contain the basis material
being anodized (aluminum or magnesium) as well as the constituents
of the processing baths.  Anodizing is done using solutions of
either chromic or sulfuric acid.  In addition, it is common to
dye or color anodized coatings.  A number of these dyes contain
chromium (which will be found in wastewaters when the dyes are
used) and other metals.  Nickel acetate is widely used to seal
anodic coatings and is therefore another potential pollutant
associated with anodizing.  Other complexes and metals originating
from dyes, coloring solutions and sealers could possibly be found
in anodizing wastewaters.
                              V-31

-------
                         TABLE  5-14
         CONSTITUENTS OF ELECTROLESS  PLATING BATHS
Process
Electroless Nickel:
Electroless Copper:
Electroless Cobalt-Nickel:
Electroless Gold:
Electroless Gold over Cu, Nir Kovar:
Composition

Nickel chloride
Sod ium glycollate
Sodium hypophosphite

         or

Nickel carbonate
Hydrofluoric acid
Citric acid
Ammonium acid fluoride
Sodium hypophosphate
Ammonium hydroxide

Copper nitrate
Sodium bicarbonate
Rochelle salt
Sodium hydroxide
Formaldehyde

         or

Copper sulfate
Sodium carbonate
Rochelle salt
Versene-T
Sodium hydroxide
Formaldehyde

Cobalt chloride
Nickel chloride
Rochelle salt
Ammonium chloride
Sodium hypophosphite

Potassium gold cyanide
Ammonium chloride
Sodium citrate
Sodium hypophosphite

Potassium gold cyanide
Citric acid
Monopotassium acid phthalate
Tungstic acid
Sodium hydroxide
NrN diethylglycine (Na salt)
                             V-32

-------
                   TABLE 5-14 (CONTINUED)
Process
Electroless Iron:
Electroless Palladium;
Electroless Arsenic:
Electroless Chromium (acidic):
Electroless Chromium (alkaline)
Electroless Cobalt:
Electroless Silver:
Composition

Ferrous sulfate
Rochelle salt
Sodium hypophosphite

Tetramine palladium chloride
Disodium EDTA
Ammonium hydroxide
Hydrazine

Zinc sulfate
Arsenic trioxide
Sodium citrate
Sodium cyanide
Sodium hydroxide
Ammonium hydroxide
Sodium hypophosphite

Chromic bromide
Chromic chloride
Potassium oxalate
Sodium acetate
Sodium hypophosphite

Chromic bromide
Chromic iodide
Sodium oxalate
Sodium citrate
Sodium hypophosphite

Cobalt chloride
Sodium citrate
Ammonium chloride
Sodium hypophosphite

Silver cyanide
Sodium cyanide
Sodium hydroxide
Dimethylamine borane
Thiourea
                              V-33

-------
                         TABLE 5-15
          CONSTITUENTS OP IMMERSION PLATING BATHS
Process

Immersion Plating -

              Copper on Steel:


              Copper on Zinc:



              Gold on Copper Alloys



              Gold on Iron & Steel:
              Lead on Copper Alloys
              and on Zinc:
              Lead on Steel:
              Nickel on Aluminum;
              Nickel on Copper
              Alloys:
              Nickel on Steels
              Nickel on Zinc:
              Palladium on Copper
              Alloys:
              Platinum on Copper
              Alloys:

              Rhodium on Copper
              Alloys j
Composition
Copper sulfate
Sulfuric acid

Copper sulfate
Tartaric acid
Ammonia

Potassium gold cyanide
Sodium cyanide
Sodium carbonate

Denatured alcohol
Gold chloride

Lead monoxide
Sodium cyanide
Sodium hydroxide

Lead nitrate
Sodium cyanide
Sodium hydroxide

Nickel sulfate
Ammonium chloride

Nickel sulfate
Nickel ammonium sulfate
Sodium thiosulfate

Nickel chloride
Boric acid

Nickel sulfate
Sodium chloride
Sodium carbonate

Palladium chloride
Hydrochloric acid
Ammonia (sealant)

Platinum chloride
Hydrochloric acid

Rhodium chloride
Hydrochloric acid
                              V-34

-------
                   TABLE 5-15 (Continued)
Process

Immersion Plating -

              Arsenic on Aluminum;
              Arsenic on Copper
              Alloys:
              Arsenic on Steels
              Brass on Aluminum:
              Brass on Steel:
              Cadmium on Aluminum;
              Cadmium on Copper
              Alloys;

              Cadmium on Steel:
              Copper on Aluminum;
              Ruthenium on Copper
              Alloys:

              Silver on Copper
              Alloys;
Composition
White aresenic
Sodium carbonate

White arsenic
Ferric chloride
Muriatic acid

White arsenic
Muriatic acid

Zinc oxide
Sodium hydroxide
Copper cyanide
Sodium cyanide
Lead carbonate

Stannous sulfate
Copper sulfate
Sulfuric acid

Cadmium sulfate
Hydrofluoric acid

Cadmium oxide
Sodium cyanide

Cadmium oxide
Sodium hydroxide

Copper sulfate
Ammonia
Potassium cyanide

Copper sulfate
Hydrofluoric acid

Copper sulfate
Ethylene diamine

Ruthenium chloride
Hydrochloric acid

Silver cyanide
Sodium cyanide

Silver nitrate
Ammonia
Sodium thiosulfate
                              ¥-35

-------
                   TABLE 5-15 (Continued)
Process

Immersion Plating -

              Silver on Zincs


              Tin on Aluminum:

              Tin on Copper Alloys



              Tin on Steel:




              Tin on Zinc:
Composition
Silver cyanide
Potassium

Sodium stannate

Tin chloride
Sodium cyanide
Sodium hydroxide

Stannous sulfate
Sulfuric acid
Cream of tartar
Tin chloride

Tin chloride
                             V-36

-------
Wastewaters are generated by the following anodizing operations:

      Common metals - Sulfuric acid anodizing, phosphoric acid
                      anodizing, oxalic acid anodizing, dyeing,
                      nickel acetate sealing.

      Cyanide - Ferrocyanide pigment impregnation

      Hexavalent chromium - Chromic acid anodizing, dichromate
                            sealing.

COATING

Several types of conversion coating operations such as phosphating,
chromating, coloring, and passivating contribute pollutants to raw
waste streams.  These pollutants may enter the waste stream through
rinsing after coating operations and batch dumping of process baths,
Coating process baths usually contain metal salts, acids, bases,
and dissolved basis materials and various additives.

The phosphates of zinc, iron, manganese, nickel, and calcium are
most often used for phosphate coatings.  Strontium and cadmium
phosphates are used in some baths, and the elements aluminum,
chromium, fluorine, boron, and silicon are also common bath
constituents.  Phosphoric acid is used as the solvent in
phosphating solutions.


Coloring can be done with a large variety of solutions.  Several
metals may be contributed to the waste stream by coloring opera-
tions, among them copper, nickel, lead, iron, zinc and arsenic.
Passivation can be done in a nitric acid solution (for stainless
steel) or a caustic solution (for copper).  In both cases,
dissolved basis materials enter the wastewater.

There are a number of conversion coating processes which utilize
chromium-containing solutions.  These include chromating, black
oxidizing and sealing rinses.  Chromating baths are usually
proprietary solutions which contain concentrated chromic acid
and active organic or inorganic compounds (even cyanide in some
instances).  Both hexavalent and trivalent chromium will be
found in chromate conversion coating baths and in the rinses
associated with them.  Black oxidizing is done in solutions
containing dichromate while sealing rinses used extensively
following phosphating are usually made up of very dilute chromic
acid.  Any of these conversion coating operations will also
contribute small amounts of basis material to their respective
wastewater streams.

The wastewater contribution of conversion coating operations is
as follows:

        Common metals - Phosphating, nitric acid or caustic
                        passivation, coloring.
                              V-37

-------
        Precious metals - Chromating of silver

        Cyanide - Some Chromating processes

        Hexavalent chromium - Chromating/ dichromate passivation,
                              chromic acid sealing of phosphate
                              coatings.
ETCHING
Wastewater is produced in this unit operation by etching, chemical
milling, bright dipping and related operations.  As demonstrated
by the list of etching solutions in Table 5-16, the majority of
etching solutions are acidic while sodium hydroxide is used quite
frequently as a caustic etch on aluminum.  The constituents in
the waste stream produced by etching operations are predominatly
dissolved basis materials.  Among the basis materials commonly
etched are stainless steel, aluminum and copper.  In addition to
these materials, metals such as zinc and cadmium may appear in
the waste stream due to bright dipping of these metals.

Certain etching baths contain concentrated chromic acid and are
usually employed prior to plating steps.  Chromic acid etches
are used extensively on plastics prior to electroless plating of
copper or nickel.  These etching solutions and their associated
rinses can contain hexavalent and trivalent chromium, small
amounts of organic compounds (when used for etching plastics)
and metals which originate in the basis material being etched.
Chromic acid (in conjunction with other acids) is also used for
the bright dipping of copper and copper alloys as well as zinc
and cadmium plated parts.

An increasing number of etching solutions incorporate ammonia
compounds.  Ammonium hydroxide and ammonium chloride are the
most common constituents of these baths.  The ammonia contributed
by these compounds acts as a metal-complexing agent in solution.
Dumps of these baths or discharge of rinses following ammoniacal
etches will therefore contain complexed wastes.  These etchants
are most widely used in the manufacture of printed circuit
boards and their associated discharges can include complexed
copper as well as various organic compounds (from the epoxy
board and from etch resist formulations).'

Cyanides are not generally used as constituents in etching
baths.  However, at least one bright dipping solution (for silver)
does contain a mixture of sodium cyanide and hydrogen peroxide.
The use of this particular bath will yield wastewater containing
the above-mentioned constituents as well as silver.
                             V-38

-------
                         TABLE 5-16
       CONSTITUENTS OF PROCESS BATHS USED IN ETCHING
Process
Chemical Etching -
              Ferric chloride
              solns:
              Ammonium persulfate
              solns:
              Cupric chloride
              solns:
              Chromic-sulfuric
              acid solns:
Chemical
Milling -
For various metals:
              For aluminum:

Electrochemical Milling -

              on steel, cobalt,
              copper, chromi um:
              for tungsten &
              molybdenum alloys
                          Composition
                          Ferric chloride
                          Hydrochloric acid
                          Base material

                          Ammonium persulfate
                          Mercuric chloride
                          Sulfuric acid
                          Ammonium chloride
                          Sodium chloride
                          Copper
                          Base material

                          Cupric chloride
                          Hydrochloric acid
                          Sodium chloride
                          Ammonium chloride
                          Base material

                          Chromic acid
                          Sodium sulfate
                          Sulfuric acid
                          Copper
                          Base material
Nitric acid
Chromic acid
Hydrochloric acid
Base metal
Sodium hydroxide
                          Sodium chloride
                          Sodium nitrate
                          Base metal

                          Sodium hydroxide
                          Sodium chloride
                          Base metal
                              V-39

-------
                   TABLE  5-16(Continued)
Process
Bright Dip -
              for Copper:
              for Aluminum:
              also for Nickel
              for Zinc and
              Cadmiums

              for Silver:
Composition
Nitric acid
Acetic acid
Phosphoric acid
Hydrochloric acid

Phosphoric acid
Nitric acid
Glacial acetic acid

Phosphoric acid
Sulfuric acid
Nitric acid
Phosphoric acid
Nitric acid
Titanium chloride

Chromium acid
Sulfuric acid

Sodium cyanide
Hydrogen peroxide
                              V-40

-------
Etching operations contribute wastewater to the various waste
types in the following manner:

      Common metals - Etching, bright dipping and chemical milling
                      of common metals basis materials with
                      solutions such as ferric chloride, cupric
                      chloride, nitric acid, hydrochloric acid,
                      phosphic acid, sulfuric acid, hydrofluoric
                      acid; stripping of common metal platings.

      Precious metals - Any etching or bright dipping of precious
                        metals; stripping of precious metal platings,

      Complexed metals - Etching with ammoniated solutions such as
                         ammonium hydroxide and ammonium chloride.

      Cyanide - Certain bright dipping operations; cyanide
                stripping operations,,

      Hexavalent chromium - Etching, bright dipping, or chemical
                            milling with solutions containing
                            chromic acid; stripping with chromic
                            acid or stripping of chromium platings.

CLEANING                                  ;

Cleaning operations are used throughout the Metal Finishing Category
and provide the bulk of the wastewater generated by the industry.
The purpose of cleaning is to remove the bulk of all of the soils
(oils and dirt) prior to phosphating, electroplating, painting,
pre and post penetrant inspection, burnishing and polishing, or
after any other operation that produces an oil bearing part.
Cleaning is often a necessary antecedent for several of the met^al
finishing operations.  This cleaning does not include solvent
cleaning which in itself is a separate unit operation.

Alkaline cleaning solutions usually contain one or more of the
following chemicals:  sodium hydroxide, sodium carbonate, sodium
metasilicate, sodium phosphate (di- or trisodium), sodium silicate,
sodium tetraphosphate, and a wetting agent.  The specific content
of cleaners varies with the type of soil being removed.  For
example, compositions for cleaning steel are more alkaline and
active than those for cleaning brass, zinc die castings, and
aluminum.  Wastewaters from cleaning operations contain not only
the chemicals found in the alkaline cleaners but also soaps from
the saponification of greases left on the surface by polishing
and buffing operations.  Some oils and greases are not saponified
but are, nevertheless, emulsified.  The raw wastes from cleaning
show up in rinse waters, spills and dumps of concentrated solutions.
                              V-41

-------
The concentrations of dissolved basis metals in rinses following
alkaline cleaning are usually small relative to acid dip rinses.

Organic chelating agents are utilized in some alkaline cleaning
solutions in order to help soften the water.  Hardness constituents
such as calcium and magnesium salts are chelated as inert soluble
complexes.  This facilitates their removal from the surface of
a part and prevents the formation of insoluble scums (from
calcium and magnesium soaps).  Therefore, some alkaline cleaning
baths and their subsequent rinses contain complexed metals,
phosphates in various forms and organic compounds including oils
and greases.

Solutions for pickling or acid cleaning usually contain one or
more of the following:  hydrochloric acid (most common), sulfuric
acid, nitric acid, chromic acid, fluoboric acid, and phosphoric
acid.  The solution compositions vary according to the nature of
the basis metals and the type of tarnish or scale to be removed.
These acid solutions accumulate appreciable amounts of metal as
a result of dissolution of metal from workpieces or uncoated areas
of plating racks that are recycled repeatedly through cleaning,
acid treating, and electroplating baths.

As a result, the baths usually have a relatively short life, and
when they are dumped and replaced, large amounts of chemicals must
be treated or reclaimed.  These chemicals also enter the waste
stream by way of dragout from the acid solutions into rinse waters.

The amount of waste contributed by acid cleaners and alkaline
cleaners varies appreciably from one facility to another depending
on the substrate material, the formulation of the solution used
for cleaning or activating the material, the solution temperature,
the cycle time, and other factors.  The initial condition of the
substrate material affects the amount of waste generated during
treatment prior to finishing.  A dense, scale-free copper alloy
part can be easily prepared for finishing by using a mild hydro-
chloric acid solution that dissolves little or no copper, whereas
products with a heavy scale require stronger and hotter solutions
and longer treating periods for ensuring the complete removal of
any oxide prior to finishing.

Electrocleaners are basically heavy duty alkaline types that are
employed with an electrical current.  They are designed both for
soil removal and metal activation.  A dilute mineral acid dip
usually follows the final cleaners to neutralize the alkaline film
on the metal surface.

Emulsion cleaning removes soils from the surface of metals by
the use of common organic solvents (e.g. kerosene, mineral oil,
glycols, and benzene) dispersed in an aqueous medium with the
                             V-42

-------
aid of an emulsifying agent.  Parts which have been emulsion
cleaned are not normally rinsed following the cleaning operation.
Wastes come from leaks and flo6r spills" and can contain removed
soils plus any of the cleaner constituents listed above.

Phosphates are used in some cleaners and function as water
softeners, rinsing aids, soil suspending agents, and detergency
boosters.  Common cleaners include trisodium phosphate, sodium
tripolyphosphate, tetrasodium and tetrapotassium pyrophosphates,
and "glassy" phosphates such as sodium hexametaphosphate.

Diphase cleaning involves two immiscible liquid phases.  One phase
consists of water plus water soluble wetting agents, and may also
include inorganic salts and emulsified oil.  The other phase
usually is a layer of some suitable organic solvent or solvents.

In general, cleaning baths and their associated rinses can
contain oils, greases, grit, base metals, complexing agents,"
cyanides, acids, alkalies and miscellaneous additives.  Cleaning
operations contribute to the raw waste types in the
following way:

      Common metals - Most acid and alkaline cleaning operations.
      Precious metals - Cleaning operations done on a precious
                        metal basis material.
      Complexed metals - Cleaning operations done with heavily
                         chelated alkaline cleaners.
      Hexavalent chromium - Cleaning done with chromated cleaners.
      Cyanide - Cleaning done with cyanide cleaners.
      Oily Waste - Cleaning of very oily parts.
      Toxic organics - Solvent wiping, emulsion cleaning, vapor
                       degreasing.
MACHINING

Machining operations performed in the Metal Finishing Category
incorporate the use of natural and synthetic oils for cooling
and lubrication.  Spills and leakage onto floor areas may be
washed away with water and contribute oil/water emulsions to
wastewater streams.  Chip removal techniques produce large amounts
of metal solids and clinging oils.  Chip storage areas may include
oil recovery facilities if the production level warrants them.  If
properly contained, these oily wastes will not normally enter
wastewater streams.  Any wastewaters which are generated belong
to the common metals and oily waste types.

GRINDING

Natural and synthetic oils are used in many grinding operations.
Soluble oil emulsions and other fluids are used for cooling and
lubrication, in a similar manner to that for machining.  Some
                              V-43

-------
of these fluids are highly chlorinated and sulfochlorinated water
soluble oils that contain wetting agents and rust inhibitors.
Grinding system sumps contain ground metallic dust  (or swarf)
which is an oily sludge requiring periodic removal. This sludge
does not mix with wastewater; however, grinding area spills and
leaks may be washed into wastewater streams.  They  can contain
any of the oily and additive constituents mentioned above.  These
wastes could contribute to the common metals, oily  waste and
solvent waste types.

POLISHING

The wastes generated include polishing and buffing  compounds,
greases, metallic soaps, wafers, mineral oils, and  dispersing
agents.  Greases with stearic acid addition, hydrogenated
glycerides, and petroleum waxes are also used in these opera-
tions.  Abrasives and fine metal particles accumulate and must be
periodically removed.  Area cleaning and washdown can produce
wastes that enter wastewater streams.  They would belong to the
common metals and oily waste types.

BARREL FINISHING

Abrasives, cleaners, soaps, anti-rust agents, emulsified oils,
and water are used in barrel finishing (tumbling) operations.
Caustic and alkaline cleaners are also used.  Chemical solutions
used in barrel finishing include maleic acid, tartaric acid,
citric acid, sodium cyanide and sodium dichromate.  Wastes from
tumbling consist of dilute oils, process chemicals, fine clays,
scale, and abrasive grit.  Wastewater is generated  by rinsing of
parts following the finishing operation and by periodic dumping
of process solutions.  Contributions to the common metals, hexa-
valent chromium, cyanide and oily waste types could be made by
this operation, depending upon the chemicaljsolutions employed.

BURNISHING

Lubricants and soap solutions are used to cool tools used in
burnishing operations.  Because burnishing provides a smoother
surface, light spindle oil or rich soluble oil is usually used.
Wastes may come from spills, leaks, process solution dumps and
post-finish rinsing.  The wastes could contribute to the common
metals, precious metals and oily waste types depending upon the
basis material finished.  In addition, sodium cyanide (NaCN) may
be used as a wetting agent and rust inhibitor (for  steel), contri-
buting to cyanide wastes from this operation.

IMPACT DEFORMATION, PRESSURE DEFORMATION, AND SHEARING

Natural and synthetic oils, light greases, and pigmented lubricants
                              V-44

-------
are used in deformation and shearing operations.  Pigmented
lubricants include:  whiting, lithapone, mica, zinc oxide,
molybdenum disulfide, bentonite, flour, graphite, white lead, and
soap-like materials.  The presses commonly used for these opera-
tions incorporate hydraulic lines and incur fluid leakage that
contributes oily waste. Spills and leaks in work areas may be
cleaned with water and combined with other wastewater streams.

Wastes from these operations would belong to the common metals
and oily waste types.

HEAT TREATING

Quenching oils are of three general types:  Conventional, fast,
and water/oil emulsions (10-90% oil).  A conventional oil con-
tains no additives that will alter cooling characteristics.
Fast quenching oils are blends which may contain specially de-
veloped proprietary additives such as nickel-zinc dithiophosphate,
The wastes generated will contain the solution constituents as
well as various scales, oxides and oils.  Wastewater is generated
through rinses, bath discharges (including batch dumps), spills
and leaks.  Included among the solutions used are:

     Brine solutions (used in quenching) which can contribute
     sodium chloride, calcium chloride, sodium hydroxide,
     sodium carbonate, hydrochloric acid and sulfuric acid to
     waste streams.

     Water and water-based solutions (for quenching and rinsing)
     which may contain dissolved salts, soaps, alcohols, oils,
     emulsifiers, slimes and algae.

     Cyaniding (liquid carburizing and carbonitriding) solutions
     for heat treating containing sodium cyanide, inert salts
     (sodium carbonate and sodium chloride), detergents, rust
     preventatives, carbon, alkali carbonate, nitrogen, carbon
     monoxide, carbon dioxide, cyanide, cyanate and oils (from
     subsequent quenching).

     High temperature baths containing sodium cyanide, potassium
     chloride, sodium chloride, sodium carbonate, calcium and
     strontium chlorides, manganese dioxide, boron oxide, sodium
     fluoride and silicon carbide.

     Unalloyed molten lead used for heat treating steel.

Most heat treating operations contribute wastewater to the common
metals or oily wastes subcategory.  Cyaniding operations contri-
bute wastewaters to the cyanide waste type and the oily waste
type.
                             V-45

-------
THERMAL CUTTING

Water may be used for rinsing or cooling of parts and equip-
ment following this operation.  Wastewaters produced would
contribute to the common metals and oily waste types.

WELDING, BRAZING, SOLDERING, FLAME SPRAYING

These operations are normally not wastewater producers.
However, each of them can be followed by quenching, cooling
or annealing in a solution of water or emulsified oils.
When this is done, wastes produced can belong to the common
metals waste type.

OTHER ABRASIVE JET MACHINING

Abrasive slurries in alkaline or emulsified oil solutions
and abrasives in air, nitrogen, or CO2 are used.  Aluminum
oxide, silicon carbide, dolomite, calcium magnesium carbonate,
sodium bicarbonate and glass beads are common abrasives used in
this operation.  Wastewater can be produced through solution
dumps, spills, leaks or washdowns of work areas and contributes
to the common metals and oily waste types.

ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE MACHINING

Dielectric fluids are used in this operation.  Common fluids
include:  hydrocarbon-petroleum oils, kerosene, silicone
oils, deionized water, polar liquids, and; aqueous ethylene
glycol solutions.  Rinsing of machined parts and work area
cleanups can generate wastewaters which also contain base
materials.  These wastewaters contribute to the common
metals and oily waste types.

ELECTROCHEMICAL MACHINING

In addition to standard chemical formulations, inorganic and
organic solvents are sometimes used as electrolytes for
electrochemical machining.  Solvents used include water,
ammonia, hydrocyanic acid, sulfur dioxide, acetone, benzene,
ethanol, diethyl ether, methanol and pyridine.  Any of the
constituents listed as well as the basis material being
machined can enter waste streams via rinse discharges, bath
dumps and floor spills.  Generated wastes can belong to the
common metals, cyanide, and solvent waste types depending
upon the solvent used.
                              V-46

-------
LAMINATING

Water is not often used by this operation.  However, occasional
rinsing or cooling may occur in conjunction with laminating.  The
waste generated could contribute to the common metals and oily
waste types.

HOT DIP COATING

Hot dipping involves the immersion of metal parts in molten
metal.  The molten metal coats the part and an alloy is formed at
the interface of the two metals.  Water is used for rinses fol-
lowing precleaning and sometimes for quenching after coating.
Aluminum, zinc, lead and tin are the metals most commonly used.
Hot zinc coating (galvanizing) is probably used more extensively
than any others.  Galvanizing (as well as the other coatings) is
done mainly for corrosion protection; in a few instances, hot dip
coatings are also used for decorative purposes.  Most hot dip
coatings require fluxing.  In galvanizing, a zinc ammonium
chloride flux is normally used prior to the actual coating step.
These wastewaters can contribute to the common metals waste type.

SALT BATH DESCALING

These baths contain molten salts, caustic soda, sodium hydride
and chemical additives.  They are designed to remove rust, scale
and resolidified glass.  These contaminants (and a small amount
of base material and oils) enter wastewater streams through
rinsing, spills, leaks, batch dumps of process solutions and
improper handling of sludge produced by the process. Wastewaters
produced by salt bath descaling contribute to the common metals
and oily waste types.

SOLVENT DECREASING

Solvent degreasing uses organic solvents such as aliphatic
petroleums (eg-kerosene, naptha), aromatics (eg-benzene, toluene),
oxygenated hydrocarbons (eg-ketones, alcohol, ether), halogenated
hydrocarbons (1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, methylene
chloride), and combinations of these classes of solvents.  The
degreasing equipment, sumps, and stills contain spent solvents
and sludges along with removed oils, greases, and metallic par-
ticles.  These pollutants can enter wastewater streams and con-
tribute to the toxic organic waste type.
                              V-47

-------
PAINT STRIPPING

The stripping of paint films from rejected parts, hooks, hangers,
masks, and other conveyor equipment is included in this opera-
tion.  All the stripping wastes can contain any of the constitu-
ents of the paint being removed, as well as a small amount of the
basis material beneath the paint and the constituents of the
stripping solution.  Stripping solutions may contain caustic
soda, wetting agents, detergents, emulsifiers, foam soaps,
alcohol, amines, ammonia or solvents.  Solvents used include
chlorinated solvents (such as methylene chloride) and highly
polar solvents (such as acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, benzene and
toluene). Other solvents employed in paint stripping operations
include carbon tetrachloride, trichloroethylene, and orthodi-
chlorobenzene. Wastes are primarily generated by rinsing and can
also contain small amounts of emulsified oils.  Spills, leaks,
and solution dumps can also contribute to wastewater streams.
Wastes produced belong to the common metals and oily waste
types.

PAINTING, ELECTROPAINTING, ELECTROSTATIC PAINTING

The sources of wastewater associated with industrial painting
processes include scrubbing water dumps, discharge of ultrafilter
permeate and discharge of rinse waters.  Scrubbing (water cur-
tain) discharges vary widely in frequency of occurrence, from
once a week up to once every six to twelve months.  A dump
schedule of once a month is not unusual for painters using water
curtains.  These wastewater dumps may contain any of the common
paint ingredients (which often involve common metals) such as
solvents, pigments, resins and other additives.  Dumps are
usually necessitated by buildups in the water of dissolved salts,
odor-causing anaerobic bacteria, and suspended solids that clog
the water curtain nozzles.

Ultrafiltration is used in connection with electropainting to
concentrate paint solids.  The permeate contains pollutants from
the spent bath.   However, the ultrafilter permeate is commonly
used as a water source for rinses immediately following the
electrodeposition process, and the ultrafilter concentrate is
returned to the painting bath.  A final deionized water rinse is
used in electrodeposition painting,  and the rinse water is
eventually discharged to a waste stream.  This wastewater will
contain pollutants present in the paint bath.
                           V-48

-------
In the dip coating process, wastewaters containing paint pig-
ments and solvents are generated by selective spray rinsing
following the paint bath.  Electrodeposition rinses generate
wastewaters and are described above.  Rinses following auto-
deposition are normally discharged to'^waste streams and commonly
contain chromium in addition to paint constituents.  Wastewaters
from these unit operations can contribute to the common metals,
hexavalent chromium and solvent waste types.

TESTING

Fuels, lubricating oils, and hydraulic fluids are commonly used
in non-destructive performance testing for many products such as
engines, valves, controls, and pressure vessels.  Oily penetrants
are used in dye-penetrant inspection and testing operations.
Common penetrants include water, kerosene, ethylene glycol,
neutral oil, SAE 10W or SAE 40W oils, water-washable penetrants,
color-contrast penetrants, and emulsifiers.  Leak testing, final
washing (automobiles, etc.) and test area washdowns enter waste
streams and may contain oils and fluids used at testing stations
as well as heavy metal contamination derived from the component
being tested.  These wasitewaters contribute to the common rnetals
and oily waste types.

MECHANICAL PLATING

Cadmium, zinc, and tin, singly or in combination, may be applied
by mechanical plating.  The parts are first precleaned by any of
the conventional methods such as solvent degreasing or alkaline
washing.  They are then plated in a rotating, rubber lined barrel
containing an acid solution, inert impact media, and the metal to
be plated in powder form.  The plated parts are rinsed and some-
times go through a chromating step before drying.  Thus, the
plating solution and rinse water contain common metals, while
rinse water from the chromating step contains mainly hexavalent
chromium.

PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD MANUFACTURING

Wastewater is produced in the manufacturing of printed circuit
boards from the following processes:

     1.  Surface preparation - The rinses following scrubbing.
         alkaline cleaning, acid cleaning, etchback. catalyst
         application and activation.

     2.  Electroless plating - Rinses following the electroless
         plating step.

     3.  Pattern plating - Rinse following acid cleaning, alkaline
         cleaning, copper plating, and solder plating.

     4.  Etching - Rinses following etching and solder brightening,
                               V-49

-------
     5.  Tab plating - Rinses following solder stripping,
         scrubbing, acid cleaning, and nickel, gold, or other
         plating operations.

     6.  Immersion plating - Rinses following acid cleaning and
         immersion tin plating.

Additionally, water may be used for subsidiary purposes such as
rinsing away spills, air scrubbing water, equipment washing, and
dumping spent process solutions.

The principal constituents of the waste streams from the printed
board industry are suspended solids, copper, fluorides,
phosphorus, tin. palladium, and chelating agents.  Low pH values
are characteristic of the wastes because of the acid cleaning and
surface pretreatment necessary.  The suspended solids are
comprised primarily of metals from plating and etching oprations
and dirt which is removed during the cleaning processes prior to
plating.  The large amount of copper present in the waste stream
comes from the electroless copper plating as well as copper
electroplating and etching operations.  Fluorides are primarily
the result of cleaning and surface treatment processes utilizing
hydrofluoric and fluorboric acids.  Phosphorus results from the
large amount of cleaning that is performed on the boards.  Tin
results from operations involving catalyst application and solder
electroplating, and palladium is a waste constituent from catalyst
application.  The chelating agents present are primarily from the
electroless plating operations, although others may have been
added by the cleaning, immersion plating, and gold plating
operations.


CHARACTERISTICS OF WASTE TYPE STREAMS

The waste effluent schematic in Figure 5-2 is applicable to raw
waste streams generated by operations within the Metal Finishing
Category.   In this scheme, oily waste, hexavalent chromium waste,
cyanide waste, and precious metals waste are treated prior to
combining with other plant wastewaters (i.e., common metals waste)
for end-of-pipe treatment.  Complexed metals waste are segregated
and treated  separately and toxic  organics waste  are hauled or
reclaimed.   In some  cases a waste stream will contain pollutants
belonging  to more  than one waste  type.  When  this occurs,  it  is
expected that  the  waste stream  will  receive the  appropriate
specialized  treatment prior to  joining other  streams and  receiving
treatment  for metals  removal.   For  example, a waste stream from a
copper  cyanide electroplating operation must  receive treatment for
cyanide destruction  before passing  on to metals  removal.
                                  V-50

-------
f
en
M
Raw
f f
Raw Waste Discharge
(Treatment System
Influent) , i
I j I
Waste Treatment ! oilv Waste j Chromium j
(If Applicable) I Removal ! Reduction j
Treated
Effluent
i
Raw Wast
End-of-P
j Ket
! Rent
Final
Eff]
anufactur
Waste So
i i
Cannon
Metals
j Cyar
{ Destru
L 	
ing Facility
urces
i i
'
	 "I
ide i
i
ction 1
— __._]
s
£
i
!
i
i
Compl
Met
Rene

-------
Oil-bearing streams containing common metals1 must pass through oil
removal before going to metals removal.  Selection of pollutant
parameters for regulation is covered in Section VI.  Specific
details of appropriate waste treatment techniques are discussed in
Section VII.

In order to characterize the waste streams for each waste type.
raw waste data were gathered from the sampling visits.  Discrete
samples of raw wastes were taken for each waste type and analysis
was done as explained previously in this section.

The minimum detectable limits for the priority pollutants, the
conventional pollutants TSS and Oil and Grease, and selected
non-conventional pollutants as published by :EPA in March 1979 and
December 1979 are presented in Table 5-17.

Individual laboratories can vary in their detection limits for
various parameters and can often achieve lower detection limits
than the ones presented in Table 5-17.  Laboratories under
contract to EPA for pollutant analysis for this program reported
detection limits that were generally at or below the minimum
detectable limits.  The results of the analyses from sample visits
are presented in this section.

The raw waste characteristics of the total plant raw waste
discharged to end-of-pipe treatment and the individual waste types
- common metals, precious metals, complexed metals, cyanide.
hexavalent chromium, oily, and toxic organics wastes - are
discussed in this section, and the sample visit data are
presented.  The data tables include the following terms:

     o   Minimum concentrations found in the analysis of each
         appropriate waste stream.
     o   Maximum concentrations found in the analysis of each
         appropriate waste stream.
    '*b   Mean concentrations calculated from the results of the
         analysis of each appropriate waste stream.
     o   Median concentrations selected by ranking appropriate
         waste stream concentration values.
     o   ft of pts represents the number of streams used in the
         preceding computations.
     o   tt of zeros is the number of times that a parameter was
         not detected.  Zeros were used in the generation of
         statistics for the minimum, mean, median,  and flow
         proportioned average concentrations.
     o   Flow Proportioned Mean Concentrations obtained by
         multiplying concentration times flow rate for each plant.
         summing these products,  and dividing by the sum of the
         flow rates.
                               V-52

-------
                        TABLE 5-17
                MINIMUM DETECTABLE LIMITS*
PARAMETER
MINIMUM
DETECTABLE
LIMIT mq/».
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
Acenaphthene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Benzidine
Carbon Tetrachloride (Tetrachloromethane)
Chlorobenzene
1. 2. 4 -Tri Chlorobenzene
Hexa Chlorobenzene
1 . 2-Dichlorethane
1. 1. 1-Trichloroethane
Hexachloroe thane
1. 1-Dichloroethane
1. 1.2-Trichloroethane
1.1.2. 2-Tetrachloroethane
Chloroethane
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether (Mixed)
2-Chloronaphthalene
2.4. 6-Trichlorophenol
p-Chloro-m-cresol
Chloroform (Trichloromethane)
2-Chlorophenol
1. 2 -Di Chlorobenzene
1. 3-Dichlorobenzene
1. 4-Dichlorobenzene
3.3' -Dichlorobenzidine
1. 1-Dichloroethylene
1. 2-trans-Dichloroethylene
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
1. 2-Dichloropropane
1. 3-Dichloropropylene(l, 3-Dichloropropene)
2.4-Dimethyl Phenol
2 . 4-Dinitrotoluene
2 . 6-Dinitrotoluene
1.2-Diphenylhydrazine
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.005
0.04
0.005
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.001
0.005
0.01
0.005
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.005
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.005
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
References:  USEPA  Environmental  Monitoring  and  Support
Laboratory. Methods  for  Chemical  Analysis  of Water  and Wastes,
March  1979; and USEPA  Guidelines  Establishing Test  Procedures
for the Analysis  of  Pollutants. Proposed Regulations.  Federal
Register Vol.  44. No.  233. Monday.  December  3.  1979.
                           V-53

-------
                  TABLE 5-17 (Continued)

                MINIMUM DETECTABLE LIMITS*
PARAMETER
MINIMUM
DETECTABLE
LIMIT ma/8.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether
4-Broraophenyl Phenyl Ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis (2-chloroethoxy)methane
Methylene Chloride(Dichlorome thane)
Methyl Chloride(Chloromethane)
Methyl Bromide (Bromomethane)
Bromoforra (Tribromomethane)
Dichlorobromome thane
Chlorodibromome thane
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
2 . 4-Dinitrophenol
4. 6-Dinitro-o-cresol
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Di-n-butyl Phthalate
Di-n-octyl Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
Dimethyl Phthalate
1. 2-Benzanthracene [Benzo(a)anthracene]
Benzo(a)Pyrene (3.4-Benzopyrene)
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.005
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
References:  USEPA Environmental Monitoring and  Support
Laboratory. Methods for Chemical Analysis  of Water  and Wastes
March 1979; and USEPA Guidelines Establishing Test  Procedures
for the Analysis of Pollutants. Proposed Regulations. Federal
Register Vol. 44. No. 233. Monday. December 3. 1979.
                           V-54

-------
                        TABLE 5-17 (Continued)

                      MINIMUM DETECTABLE LIMITS*
      PARAMETER
MINIMUM
DETECTABLE
LIMIT ma/ft.
 74.   3,4-Benzofluoranthene [Benzo(b)fluoranthene]
 75,   11,12-Benzofluoranthene [Benzo(k)fluoranthene]
 76.   Chrysene
 77.   Acenaphthylene
 78.   Anthracene
 79,   1.12-Benzoperylene [Benzo(ghi)perylene]
 80.   Fluorene
 81.   Phenanthrene
 82.   1,2.5,6-Dibenzathracene [Dibenzo(a,h)anthraeene]
 83.   Indeno(1.2,3-cd)pyrene (2,3-0-Phenylenepyrene)
 84.   Pyrene
 85,   Tetracaloroethylene
 86.   Toluene
 87.   Trichloroethylene
 88.   Vinyl Chloride (Chloroethylene)
 89.   Aldrin
 90.   Dieldrin
 91.   Chlordane (Technical Mixture and Metabolites)
 92.   4,4'-DDT
 93.   4,4'-DDE(P,P'-DDX)
 94.   4.4'-DDD(P,P'-TDE)
 95.   Alpha-Endosulfan
 96.   Beta-Endosulfan
 97.   Endosulfan Sulfate
 98,   Endrin
 99.   Endrin Aldehyde
100.   Heptachlor
101.   Heptachlor Epoxide(BHC-Hexachlorocyclohexane)
102.   Alpha-BBC
103.   Beta-BHC
104.   Gamma-BHC(Lindane)
105.   Delta-BHC (PCB-Polychlorinated Biphenyls)
106,   PCB-1242  (Aroclor 1242)
107.   PCB-1254  (Aroclor 1254)
108.   PCB-1221  (Aroclor 1221)
109.   PCB-1232  (Aroclor 1232)
110.   PCB-1248  (Aroclor 1248)
  0.02
  0.02
  0.02
  0.01
  0.01
  0.02
  0.01
  0.01
  0.02
  0.02
  0.01
  0.005
  0.005
  0.005
  0.01
  0.005 vg/8,
  0.005 vg/i
  0.05 vg/1
  0.01
  0.005
  0.01
  0.005 yf/5t
  O.OO5 vg/%
  0.01 yg/St
  0.005 vg/51
  0.01 vg/8,
  0.005 Wg/St
  0.005 wg/8,
  o.oos
  0.005
  0.005 pg/8.
  0.005
  0.05
  0.10 vg/i
  0.10 wg/fi,
  0.10 yg/8.
  0.10 pg/9.
      References:  USEPA Environmental Monitoring and Support
      Laboratory. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,
      March 1979; and USEPA Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures
      for the Analysis of Pollutants, Proposed Regulations. Federal
      Register Vol. 44, No. 233. Monday, December 3, 1979.
                              V-55

-------
                  TABLE 5-17 (Continued)

                MINIMUM DETECTABLE LIMITS*
PARAMETER
MINIMUM
DETECTABLE
LIMIT mq/il
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
















PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
PCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016)
Toxaphene
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
2.3.7. 8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(TCDD)
Iron
Gold
Iridium
Osmium
Palladium
Platinum
Rhodium
Ruthenium
Tin
Hexavalent Chromium
Phosphorus (total)
Fluoride
Cyanide Amenable to Chlorination
Total Phenols
TSS
Oil and Grease
0.20 vg/S,
0.05 vg/S,
0.05 vg/S,
0.2
0.002
	
0.005
0.005
0.05
0.02
0.02-0.005
0.1
6.0002
0.04
0.002
0.01
0.1
0.005
0.005 vg/S,
0.03
0.1
3.0
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.05
0.2
0.8
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.005
0.005
10.0
5.0 to 0.2
References:  USEPA Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,
March 1979; and USEPA Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures
for the Analysis of Pollutants. Proposed Regulations. Federal
Register Vol. 44, No. 233. Monday, December 3. 1979.
                       V-56

-------
TOTAL PLANT RAW WASTE DISCHARGED TO END-OF-PIPE TREATMENT

Analysis of data the from sampled plants representing the raw
waste stream discharged prior to end-of-pipe treatment is pre-
sented in Table 5-18.  The major constituents of metal finishing
raw waste discharged to end-of-pipe treatment are toxic metals
contributed primarily from the common metals waste stream and the
chromium waste stream after reduction.  Cyanide, precious metals,
and oil and grease appear as minor constituents in the raw waste
to end-of-pipe treatment because (as shown in Figure 5-2) these
streams, like chromium, are combined with the common metals waste
after segregated treatment.  The concentrations of these
constituents in the individual raw waste streams prior to initial
treatment, however, are significant.
                             V-57

-------
                             TABLE 5-18
             POLLUTANTS FOUND IN TOTAL PLANT EAW WASTE
                DISCHARGED TO END-OF-PIPE TREATMENT

                                                Flow Proportioned
PARAMETER                                       Mean Concentration
114.  Antimony                                          0.009
115.  Arsenic                                           0.008
117.  Beryllium                                         0.001
118.  Cadmium                                           0.283
119.  Chromium                                         27.46
      Chromium, Hexavalent                              0.931
120.  Copper                                           12.63
121.  Cyanide                                           1.856
      Cyanide. Amenable to Chlorination                 1.168
122.  Lead                                              0.331
123.  Mercury                                           0.001
124.  Nickel                                           15.47
125.  Selenium                                          0.001
126.  Silver                                            0.023
127.  Thallium                                          0.009
128.  Zinc                                             12.47
      Oil and Grease                                  391.60
      Total Suspended Solids                          539.09
                               V-58

-------
COMMON METALS WASTE TYPE

Table 5-19 shows the concentrations of metals in common metals raw
waste streams from sampled plants.  The major constituents in
common metals waste are parameters which originate in process
solutions such as from plating or galvanizing and enter the
wastewater by dragout to rinses.  These include cadmium, chromium,
copper, cyanide, lead, nickel, zinc, and tin, and these pollutants
appear in common metals waste streams in widely varying
concentrations.

PRECIOUS METALS WASTE TYPE

Table 5-20 shows the concentrations of silver, gold, palladium.
and rhodium found in precious metals raw waste streams.  All of
the precious metals shown are used in Metal Finishing Category
operations.  The major constituents are silver and gold, which are
much more commonly used than palladium and rhodium.  Because of
their high cost, metal finishers generally attempt to recover
these metals from wastewaters.

COMPLEXED METALS WASTE TYPE

The concentrations of toxic metals found in complexed metals raw
waste streams are presented in Table 5-21.  Complexed metals may
occur in a number of unit operations but come primarily from
electroless and immersion plating.  The most commonly used metals
in these operations are copper, nickel and tin.  Wastewaters
containing complexing agents must be segregated and treated
independently of other wastes in order to prevent further
complexing of free metals in the other streams.

CYANIDE WASTE TYPE

The cyanide concentrations found in cyanide raw waste streams are
shown in Table 5-22.  Streams with high cyanide concentrations
normally originate in electroplating and heat treating processes.
Other unit operations can also contribute cyanide wastes.
Cyanide-bearing waste streams should be segregated and treated
before being combined witli other raw waste streams.

HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM WASTE TYPE

Concentrations of hexavalent chromium from metal finishing raw
wastes are shown in Table 5-23.  Hexavalent chromium enters
                              V-59

-------
Toxic Pollutant
                                                       TABLE 5-19
                                         POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS FOUND IN THE
                                             COMMON METALS RAW WASTE STREAM
                                            (Average Daily Values (mg/liter)
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
t Zeros
f Points
Plow Proportioned
Mean Concentratio
114
115
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
^ 128
f
o\
o















Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Calcium
Cobalt
Fluorides
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Phosphorus
Sodium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Oil and Grease
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.67
25.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.6
0.059
0.0
0.0
16.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.70
0
0
0
21
35
500
2370
42
0
415
0
0
0
16,500
200
0
4
76
0
36
13,100
31
0
0
76
310
14
4
0
0
802,000
.430
.064
.044
.5
.4
*
»
.3
.400
,
.060
.080
.062
*

.017
.0
.2
.023
.1
B
.1
.500
.300
.7
,
.7
.30
.216
.020
*
0.007
0.005
0.008
0.613
2.10
14.2
42.1
1.25
0.005
19.4
0.007
0.006
0.008
312.
27.4
0.032
31.4
51.4
0.007
4.31
500.
16.1
0.233
0.102
7.72
151.
1.04
0.493
0.066
0.010
40,700.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
52
0
0
2
13
0
0
3
138
0
0
0
0
6,060
.0
.0
.005
.001
.105
.175
.016
.053
.0
.078
.005
.0
.003
.393
.27
.029
.76
.2
.0
.876
.44
.8
.085
.018
.06
,
.0
.006
.023
.010
*
84
75
4
48
16
3
29
35
67
20
5
59
5
1
2
1
0
0
4
9
1
0
0
1
1
0
60
4
1
1
0
106
105
27
119
116
119
99
122
109
111
26
103
26
122
16
4
3
4
7
99
102
4
7
6
98
4
98
9
4
4
37

0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
41
85
0
3
58
0
6
84
17
0
0
8
211
3
0
0
0
11,600
.0007
.015
.016
.070
.39
.84
.834
.738
.001
.16
.003
.001
.003
.3
.6
.031
.13
.5
.010
.15
.7
.4
.337
.109
.00
,
.35
.046
.069
.010
.

-------
                 Otoxic  Bpllutant

                 126 Silver
                     Gold
                     Palladium
                     Rhodium
 ninimun
                                                                               TABLE 5-20
                                                                    POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS FOUND IN THE
                                                                      PRECIOUS METALS RAW WASTE STREAM

                                                                    Average Daily Values (rag/liter)

                                                                    Maximum     fean        Median     12
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
600.
42.7
0.120
0.220
69.0
9.27
0.023
0.018
0.243
0.560
0.0
0.0
3
6
10
11
                                               IPoints

                                                   15
                                                   15
                                                   13
                                                   12
                                                                        Flow Proportioned
                                                                        Msan Comentra.'H on _
                                                                              8.09
                                                                              6.11
                                                                             0.003
                                                                             0.005
f
                Toxic Pollutant

                118  Cadmium
                120  Copper
                122  Lead
                124  Nickel
                128  Zinc
Minimum
                                                                               TABLE  5-21
                                                                   POLLUTANT eOONTRATIONS FOUND IN THE
                                                                     COMPLEXED METALS RAW WASTE STREAM
Average Daily Values (mg/Liter)

Maximun     Wean        Median
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.023
3.65
62.6
3.61 .
294.
17.6
0.247
10.3
0.372
22.5
3.05
0.0
5.90
0.0
0.550
0.210
                                              f  Zeros

                                                  22
                                                   3
                                                  21
                                                   6
                                                   0
             Flow Proportioned
I Points     tfeanConcentration

    31            0.173
    31             9.68
    31            0.240
    31             18.8
    31             2.52

-------
f
crt
to
              Toxic Pollutant

              121  Cyanide, total
                   Cyanide, Amen, to Chlor.
                                                                             TABLE  5-22
                                                                  POLLOTRNT COCEWERA.TICNS FOCM) IN THE
                                                                    CXANIDE RAH WASTE STREAM
Average E&ily Values (mg/liter)

Minimum     Haxintun     Maan
 0.045
   0.0
1680.
1560.
298.
266.
^Median

  77.4
  7.63
I Zeros

    0
    1
             Flow Proportioned
I Baints     Maan Concentration

   23              96.3
   22              86,8
             Toxic Pollutant

                  Chromium, Bexavalent
                                                                             TMtE  5-23
                                                                 POLLUTANT CONCENTRATICNS FOUND IN THE
                                                                 ~KSXAVKL£m CHROMIUM RAW WASTE STREAM
Average Daily Values (ing/liter)

MiniiiiiiB     Maximum     Mean

0.005       12900.       377.
                                                          Flow Proportioned
                                             i Points     Mean Concentration

                                                46              54.6

-------
wastewaters as a result of many unit operations and can be very
concentrated.  Hexavalent chromium is highly toxic and should be
segregated and treated before combining with other raw waste
streams.

OILY WASTE TYPE

Table 5-24 shows the concentrations of oil and grease in oily
waste streams from sampled plants.  Oily waste in the metal
finishing industry consists of free oils, emulsified or water
soluble oils  and greases in a concentrated or dilute form.  The
relationship between the unit operations and type of oily waste
generated (concentrated or dilute) is illustrated in Table 5-25.
Applicable treatment of oily waste streams can vary dependent upon
the concentration levels of the waste.  Concentrated oily wastes
typically include machining oils and process coolants and
lubricants.  Concentrated oily wastes are generally characterized
by very high concentrations of oil and grease and should be
segregated for oil removal prior to combining with other plant
wastewaters for treatment.  Dilute oily wastes include wastes from
cleaning operations.   The concentrations of oil and grease in
these waste streams is generally much lower than that of segre-
gated oily wastes and these streams typically do not receive
segregated treatment before combining with other process waste-
waters .

TOXIC ORQANICS WASTE TYPE

Toxic organics raw wastes are generated in the Metal Finishing
Category primarily by the dumping of spent solvents from
degreasing equipment  (including its sumps, water traps, and
stills).  These solvents are predominately comprised of compounds
that are classified by the EPA as toxic pollutants.  Table 5-26,
extracted from the literature, illustrates specific solvents
employed and shows their annual consumption for 1974.  Spent
solvents should be segregated, hauled for disposal or reclamation.
or reclaimed on site.  These and other sources of toxic organics
enter various metal finishing wastewaters.

Table 5-26 shows that in 1974 this degreasing solvent consumption
amounted to 1600 million pounds/yr  (6.4 million  Ib/day)  and   is
expected  to  be  in  the  order  of  23-00 million pounds/yr  (9.3
million Ib/day) by 1985.  Literature indicates that  nearly   100%
of  all  solvents consumed reach the atmosphere, either by direct
evaporation  from  degreasing   equipment   or   by   evaporation
subsequent  to   improper  disposal.  (Reference:  Organic Solvent
Cleaning - Background Information for Proposed Standards;  USEPA;
EPA-450/278-045;  May  1979).   In  addition,  the same reference
estimates that approximately 75%  of  the  incidence  of  solvent
degreasing  occurs in the metal finishing and related industries.
Since degreasing solvents are predominantly concentrated priority
pollutants that are discharged to the environment from  a  single
unit  operation, solvent degreasing, the reduction
of this source will significantly  improve the environment.
                               V-63

-------
                                   TABLE 5-24

                     POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS FOUND IN THE
                             OILY RAW WASTE STREAM
                                                               Flow
            	Average Daily Values  (mg/lL)	  Proportioned
Toxic                                           No.      No.   Mean
Pollutant   Minimum  Maximum   Mean    Median  Zeros   Points  Concentration

Oil & Grease  4.7    802,000  40,700   6,060     0       37         11,600
                                  ¥-64

-------
                          TABLE 5-25
                 OILY WASTE CHARACTERIZATION


 Unit  Operation                      Character ofOily Waste Generated

                                         Concentrated   Dilute

      Cleaning                                             x
      Machining                                x           x
      Grinding                                 x           x
      Polishing                                            x
-"     Tumbling  (Barrel Finishing)          .                x
      Burnishing                               x
      Impact Deformation                      x
      Pressure  Deformation                    x
      Shearing                                 x
      Heat Treating                           x           x
      Welding                                 x
      Brazing                                 x
      Soldering                                x
      Flame Spraying                          x
      Other Abrasive Jet Machining            x
      Electrical  Discharge Machining          x
      Salt Bath  Descaling                                 x
      Solvent Degreasing                      x
      Paint Stripping                                     x
      Assembly                                             x
      Testing                                 x           x
                              V-65

-------
                         TABLE 5-26
            1974 DECREASING SOLVENT CONSUMPTION

                         Solvent Consumption (Millions of Pounds/Yr).

     Solvent Type               Cold           Vapor           All
                              Cleaning       Degreasing     Degreasing

Halogenated;
  Trichloroethylene              55             282            337
  1,1,1-trichloroethane         180             176            356
  Perchloroethylene              29              90            119
  Methylene Chloride             51              16             67
  Trichlorotrifluoroethane       22              44             66
                                337             608            945

Aliphatics;
  (Kerosenes, Napthas)          489               0            489

Aromatics;
  Benzene                        15               0             15
  Toluene                        31               0             31
  Xylene                         27               0             27
  Cyclohexane                     2               02
  Heavy Aromatics                27               0             27
                                TU2               ff            TO~Z

Oxygenated;
  Ketones
    Acetone                      22               0             22
    Methyl Ethyl Ketone          18               0             18
  Alcohols
    Butyl                        11               0             11
  Ethers                         13             	0             13
                                __.               _            -—j

Total Solvents:                 992             608           1600
                               V-66

-------
The  primary  source  of  data  for  this  report  was  365  Data
Collection  Portfolios  (DCP's)  produced from a random survey of
900 manufacturers having Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
Codes between 3400 and 3999.  These cover the  manufacturing  of:
Fabricated  Metal Products, Machinery, Electrical and Electronics
Machinery, Transportation Equipment, Measuring  Instruments,  and
Miscellaneous  Products.   The  requested  information concerning
manufacturing  unit  operations  and  waste   treatment   methods
provided  solvent  degreasing unit operation data including waste
solvent  consumption   quantities   and   frequencies   of
disposition .   Additional  or  missing data  were
obtained  by  telephone  survey.  Since  the  manufacturers  were
selected at random, the survey data was considered representative
of the entire population of manufacturers within those SIC Codes.


A summary of the DCP data  is presented in Table 5-27.  These data
show  that  24% of the respondents perform the solvent degreasing
operation, and that  73%  of  these  have  their  waste  solvents
contract  hauled  while 27% discharge their waste directly to the
environment.  Based upon a mean discharge rate of 49.4 Ib/day (as
shown in Table 5-27)  and a population of 13,470  metal  finishing
plants,  approximately  43,000  Ib/day  of solvent are discharged
directly to the environment.

   13,470  (metal finishing plants)
     x 24%   (percent of plants which do solvent degreasing)
     3,233  (number of plants performing solvent degreasing)
     x 27%   (percent of degreasing operations discharging to
             environment)
       873   (number of degreasing operations discharging to environment)
     x  49.4   (mean spent solvent discharge rate  (Ib/day)
   43,126  spent solvent discharged to environment  (Ib/day)

 In addition, approximately 3,300,000  Ib/day are contract hauled.

     3,233  (number of plants doing solvent degreasing)
     x73%   (percent of plants whose solvent wastes are contract hauled)
     2,360   (number of plants whose solvents are contract hauled)
   x 118.7  mean amount  of  solvents hauled (Ib/day)
   280,143  Total spent solvents hauled  (Ib/day)

 The  total   solvent  consumption  based  upon  estimates  in  the
 literature is  4.8 million  Ib/day.

 In   addition  to   the DCP  information, plant visits  provided data
 that identified the particular solvents used by relatively  large
 manufacturing  facilities.   These   data  show  that 43 of the 84
 manufacturers  visited   (51%)   performed   solvent   degreasing.
 Although    the  quantity,   frequency,  and  disposal  data  are
 incomplete,  93% of the  manufacturers  who  reported a  disposal
 method either used  contract  hauling  or reclaimed their waste
 solvents.   Comparing  this with  the  random   survey  data   (73%
 reporting  contract  haulers)  indicates that larger  manufacturers
 may  be more likely to haul or  reclaim  their spent solvents.
                             V-67

-------
                         TABLE  5-27
           SUMMARY OF DCP SOLVENT DECREASING DATA
DCP's Issued

DCP Respondents

DCP Respondents Performing Solvent Degreasing

DCP Respondents with Supportive Plant Visit
   Data

DCP Respondents Contacted via Telecon

Degreasers - Waste Solvent Disposal Specified

Degreasers - Waste Solvent Disposal Unspecified


Degreasers That Have Waste Solvent Contract Hauled

     Maximum hauled
     Minimum hauled
     Mean


Degreasers Discharging to Sewer or Surface

     Maximum discharged
     Minimum discharged
     Mean
900

365

 88 (24%)

 14


 28

 74

 14


 54 (73%)

960 Ibs/day
0.4 Ibs/day
118.7 Ibs/day


 20 (27%)

399 Ibs/day
0.5 Ibs/day
49.4 Ibs/day
                               V-68

-------
The results of the analysis for total toxic organics (TTO) in the
raw waste from sampled plants is presented in Table 5-28.  Data on
TTO concentrations in various operations and waste streams at
sampled plants are presented in Tables 5-29 through 5-47.
                                   ¥-69

-------
                                   TABLE 5-28


                   TOTAL TOXIC ORGANICS (TTO) CONCENTRATIONS

                          IN METAL FINISHING RAtf tfRSTE
Raw Waste ffo
Concentration
   (mq/g,)
Plant ID
                           Raw Waste TTO
                           Concentration
               Plant ID
     NA
     NA
     NA
     NA
     NA
     NA
     NA
     NA
     NA
     NA
     NA
     NA
     NA
     NA
     NA
     NA
     NR
     NA
     NR
     NR
     NR
     NR
     NR
     NA
     NA
    0
    0.002
    0.003
    0.003
    0.005
    0.006
6019
6091-15-0
6091-15-1
6091-15-2
12061-14-0
12065-14-1
12065-15-2
12065-15-4
13042-21-1
17050-14-0
19068-14-0
19069-15-0
19069-15-1
19069-15-2
20005-21-0
27046-15-2
34050-15-0
34050-15-1
34050-15-2
36048-15-0/1
36048-15-2/3
36048-15-4/5
38040-23-0
38040-23-1
38217-23-0
9025-15-0
20083-15-0/1
20083-15-2/3
20083-15-4/5
11108-15-1
12061-15-0
0.006
0^.007
0.007
0.008
0.008
0.009
0,.009
0.009
0;.009
0.009
0.010
0^010
0.011
o:.on
0,011
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.013
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.017
0.019
0.020
0.020
0.021
0.022
0.023
0.028
0.028
12061-15-2
11108-15-2
20022-15-2
40060-15-0
20022-15-1
18538-15-5
40060-15-1
6110-15-1
6110-15-2
9052-15-0
11103-15-2/3
6110-15-0
2033-15-4/5
11108-15-0
21066-15-1
18538-15-3
21066-15-0
9052-15-2
11103-15-4
21066-15-3
21003-15-2
41051-15-0
15608-15-2
15608-15-0
20022-15-0
41051-15-1
12075-15-2/3
4069-15-0/1
41051-15-2
12075-15-0/1
2033-15-0/1
NA =  Total raw waste TTO not available; total effluent TTO presented in
      Section VII.
                                        V-70

-------
                             TABLE 5-28 (Continued)


                   TOTAL TOXIC ORGANICS (TTO) CONCENTRATIONS

                          IN METAL FINISHING RAW WASTE
Raw Waste fTO
Concentration
                   Plant ID
                                          Raw Waste TTO
                                          Concentration
                                             (mq/g.)
                                              Plant ID
    0.030
    0,030
    0.031
    0.034
    0.036
    0.038
    0.040
    0.040
    0.042
    0.043
    0.059
    0.064
    0.084
    0.091
    0.095
    0.097
    0.097
    0.098
    0.099
    0.104
    0.107
    0.109
    0.110
    0.111
     ,113
     ,120
     ,130
     ,133
    0.140
    0.141
0,
0,
0,
0,
2033-15-2/3
12061-15-1
2032-15-2
21003-15-0
17061-15-1
15608-15-1
9052-15-1
21003-15-1
12075-15-4/5
4071-15-0
6960-15-4/5
18538-14-0
11103-15-0
34051-15-0
34051-15-1
6090-14-0
38051-15-2
44062-15-0
38052-15-0
6960-15-0/1
44062-15-2
2032-15-5
44062-15-1
34051-15-2
4069-15-2/3
19068-15-1
4071-15-3
4071-15-1
30165-21-0
17061-15-3
                                              0.178
                                              0.192
                                              0.200
                                              0.202
                                              0.204
                                              0.224
                                              0.251
                                              0.259
                                              0.283
                                              0.285
                                              0.289
                                              0.326
                                              0.364
                                              0.400
                                              0.426
                                              0.473
                                              0.477
                                              0.486
                                              0.769
                                              0.888
  .083
  .09
  .161
  .287
  .619
  .938
  .005
 8.466
12.866
13.50
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
2,
4069-15-4
38052-15-1
38052-15-2
19068-15-2
6960-15-2/3
38051-15-0
9025-15-1
38051-15-1
4282-21-0
36178-21-0
9025-15-2
36178-21-1
30054-15-0
27046-15-1
27046-15-0
6019
17050-15-1
6090-15-1
30054-15-1
17061-14-1
17050-15-0
33692-23-0
2032-15-0
30054-15-2
28699-21-0
20103-21-0
36178-21-2
6090-15-2
20103-21-1
33692-23-1
                                       V-71

-------
                                    TABLE 5-29
            TTO CONCENTRATIONS IN RAW WASTE FROM ELECTROPLATING LINES
                                                              TTO Concentration
Plant ID             Description

21051-15-0     Wastes from nickel and zinc
               plating lines

21051-15-1     wastes from nickel and zinc
               plating lines (after copper
               reduction)

12075-15-0     Rinses from tin plating lines

12075-15-2     Rinses from tin plating lines

12075-15-4     Rinses from tin plating lines

12075-15-0     Rinses from tin plating lines

12075-15-2     Rinses from tin plating lines

12075-15-4     Rinses from tin plating lines

18538-15-3     Acid/Alkali rinses from nickel
               and zinc electroplating

18538-15-5     Acid/Alkali rinses from nickel
               and zinc electroplating

2033-15-0      Acid rinses from nickel plating

2033-15-2      Acid rinses from nickel plating

2033-15-4      Acid rinses from nickel plating

12065-15-1     Parts strip & rack strip rinses
               on common metals plating line

12065-15-2     Parts strip & rack strip rinses
               on common metals plating line

12065-15-4     Parts strip & rack strip rinses
               on common metals plating line

19069-15-0     Rinses from common metals
               plating (after partial treat-
               ment of wastewater)
% Total Flow
43
86
8.86
7.1
10.5
.9
.6
.4
69.4
63.8
53.77
53.77
53.77
54
(mq/a)
.625
.396
.013
.006
.008
.01
.020
0
.010
.010
.011
.015
.014
.026
54
54
42
.016
.035
.282
                                     V-72

-------
                              TABLE 5-29 (Continued)
            TTO CONCENTRATIONS IN RAW WASTE FROM ELECTROPLATING LINES
Plant ID             Description

19069-15-1     Rinses from common metals
               plating (after partial treat-
               ment of wastewater)

19069-15-2     Rinses from common metals
               plating (after partial treat-
               ment of wastewater)

21066-15-4     Alkaline rinse from common
               metals plating

15193-21-0     Sodium nitrate from common
               metals plating

12061-15-0     Rinse water from zinc plating

12061-15-1     Rinse water from zinc plating

12061-15-2     Rinse water from zinc plating

12061-15-0     Rinse water from copper plating

12061-15-1     Rinse water from copper plating

12061-15-2     Rinse water from copper plating

6960-15-0      Acid/Alkaline rinses on common
               metals electroplating lines

6960-15-2      Acid/Alkaline rinses on common
               metals electroplating lines

6960-15-4      Acid/Alkaline rinses on common
               metals electroplating lines

6960-15-0      Zinc chloride plating rinse

6960-15-2      Zinc chloride plating rinse

6960-15-4      Zinc chloride plating rinse


6960-15-0      Cadmium plating rinse

6960-15-2      Cadmium plating rinse

6960-15-4      Cadmium plating rinse
% Total Plow

     42



    100




     NA


     NA
     23
     23
TTO Concentration
	(mg/U

        .313
        .011
        .041
       1.025
21.8
20.9
22.8
17.9
16.6
17.3
23
.006
.007
.004
.003
.004
.003
.084
        .253
        .030
7
7
7
8
8
8
.135
.003
.004
.028
.107
.042
                                      V-73

-------
                                    TABLE 5-30
       fTO CONCENTRATIONS IK RAW WASTE FROM ELECTROLESS PLATING LINE RINSES
Plant ID
Description
% Total Flow
TTO Concentration
       (mg/it)
20083-15-0   Neutralization rinses on
             electfoless plating line

30083-15-2   Neutralization rinses on
             electroless plating line

20083-15-4   Neutralization rinses on
             electroless plating line

20083-15-0   Rinses following catalyst application

20083-15-2   Rinses following catalyst application

20083-15-4   Rinses following catalyst application

20083-15-0   Rinses after accelerator step

20083-15-2   Rinses after accelerator step

20083-15-4   Rinses after accelerator step

20083-15-0   Electroless nickel plating rinse

20083-15-2   Electroless nickel plating rinse

20083-15-4   Electroless nickel plating rinse

20083-15-0   Electroless copper plating rinses
             to copper seeder

20083-15-2   Electroless copper plating rinses
             to copper seeder

20083-15-4   Electroless copper plating rinses
             to copper seeder

20083-15-0   Electroless copper plating rinses
             not directed to copper seeder

20083-15-2   Electroless copper plating rinses
             not directed to copper seeder

20083-15-4   Electroless copper plating rinses
             not directed to copper seeder
9
9
9
ion 6
ion 6
ion 6
9
9
9
9
9
9
4,6
NA
4.5
1.5
1.5
NA
.001
.002
.002
.003
.003
.003
.003
.002
.002
.002
.004
.002
.003
.003
.004
.001
.009
.003
                                     V-74

-------
                              TABLE 5-30 (Continued)
       TTO CONCENTRATIONS IN RAW WASTE FROM ELECTROLBSS PLATING LINE RINSES

                                                              TTO Concentration
Plant ID             Description               % Total Flow   	(mq/t)

34051-15-0   Electroless nickel plating line         6.0               .084
             rinse water

36048-15-0   Alkaline rinse on electroless           1                 .040
             plating line

36048-15-2   Alkaline rinse on electroless           1                 .279
             plating line

36048-15-4   Alkaline rinse on electroless           1                 .233
             plating line

36048-15-0   Acid rinse on electroless plating line  4                 .022

36048-15-2   Acid rinse on electroless plating line  4                 .011

36048-15-4   Acid rinse on electroless plating line  4                 .172

36048-15-0   Descaling rinse on electroless          2                 .064
             plating line

36048-15-2   Descaling rinse on electroless          2                 .053
             plating line

36048-15-4   Descaling rinse on electroless          2                 .063
             plating line

36048-15-0   Activator rinse on electroless          1                 .087
             plating line

36048-15-2   Activator rinse on electroless          1                 .136
             plating line

36048-15-4   Activator rinse on electroless          1                 .148
             plating line

36048-15-0   Rinse after electroless nickel plating  3                 .261
             operation

36048-15-2   Rinse after electroless nickel plating  3.5               .169
             operation

36048-15-4   Rinse after electroless nickel plating  3.5               .228
             operation
                                     V-75

-------
                              TABLE 5-30 (Continued)
       TTO CONCENTRATIONS IN RAW WASTE FROM ELECTROLESS PLATING LINE RINSES

                                                              TTO Concentration
Plant ID             Description               % Total Plow   	(mg/t)

2033-15-0    Acid wastes from electroless plating   19.2               .010
             line

2033-15-2    Acid wastes from electroless plating   19.2               .007
             line

2033-15-4    Acid wastes from electroless plating   19.2               .013
             line

2033-15-0    Rinse water from precious metal         5.05              .035
             electroless plating

2033-15-2    Rinse water from precious metal         5.05              .023
             electroless plating

2033-15-4    Rinse water from precious metal         5.05              .014
             electroless plating

12065-15-1   Acid dip neutralizer rinse on           6                 .014
             electroless plating line

12065-15-2   Acid dip neutralizer rinse on           6                 .013
             electroless plating line

12065-15-4   Acid dip neutralizer rinse on           6                 .055
             electroless plating line

12065-15-1   Catalyst rinse from electroless         7                 .016
             plating (plastic)

12065-15-2   Catalyst rinse from electroless         7                 .030
             plating (plastic)

12065-15-4   Catalyst rinse from electroless         7                 .014
             plating (plastic)

12065-15-1   Accelerator rinse from plastic          8                 .023
             electroless plating line

12065-15-2   Accelerator rinse from plastic          8                 .012
             electroless plating line

12065-15-4   Accelerator rinse from plastic          8                 .014
             electroless plating line
                                      V-76

-------
                              fABLE 5-30 (Continued)
       HO CONCENTRATIONS IN RAW WASTE FROM ELECTSOLESS PLATING LINE RINSES
Plant ID
Description
12065-15-1   Rinse following electroless
             nickel plating

12065-15-2   Rinse following electroless
             nickel plating

12065-15-4   Einse following electroless
             nickel plating

4069-15-0    Rinse from electroless copper line

4069-15-2    Rinse from electroless copper line
% Total Plow

      7
                                 .3

                                 .3
TTO Concentration
	(mg/ft)

         .024


         .022
                        .005


                        .102

                        .059
                                     V-77

-------
                                    TABLE 5-31
                         TTO CONCENTRATIONS IN RAW WASTE
                 FROM PRECIOUS METALS ELECTROPLATING LINE RINSES
                                                              TTO Concentration
Plant ID             Description

6090-14-0    Silver-bearing raw waste

19069-15-0   Rinses from precious metals
             plating line

19069-15-1   Rinses from precious metals
             plating line

2033-15-0    DI rinses from silver electroplating

2033-15-2    DI rinses from silver electroplating

2033-15-4    DI rinses from silver electroplating

2033-15-0    Rinses from precious metals
             electroless plating

2033-15-2    Rinses from precious metals
             electroless plating

2033-15-4    Rinses from precious metals
             electroless plating

2033-15-0    Rinses from precious metals
             electroless & electroplating

2033-15-2    Rinses from precious metals
             electroless & electroplating

2033-15-4    Rinses from precious metals
             electroless & electroplating

30054-15-0   Rinses from gold plating

30054-15-1   Rinses from gold plating

30054-15-2   Rinses from gold plating
% Total Plow
0
58
58
.ng 9.2
.ng 9.2
.ng 9.2
5.05
5.05
5.05
19.2
19.2
19.2
19
20
16
(mq/l)
.054
.401
.280
.035
.007
.006
.035
.023
.014
.056
.038
.025
.007
2.53
.961
                                     V-78

-------
                        TABLE 5-32
TTO CONCENTRATION IN RAW WASTE PROM ANODIZING LINE RINSES
                                                      Concentration
Plant IP             Description

20022-15-2   Dye rinses (from anodizing plant)

17050-14-0   Raw wastes from anodizing line

40060-15-1   Alkaline cleaning rinse on
             anodizing line

9052-15-0    Anodizing line rinses

9052-15-1    Anodizing line rinses

9052-15-2    Anodizing line rinses

41051-15-0   Anodizing rinse water

41051-15-1   Anodizing rinse water

41051-15-2   Anodizing rinse water
% Total Flow

      3

     82

     16


     55

     55

     55

     72

     72

     72
                                                           .004

                                                           .465

                                                           .021


                                                           .009

                                                           .061

                                                           .009

                                                           .013

                                                           .018

                                                           .027
                            V-79

-------
                                    TABLE 5-33
             TTO CONCENTRATIONS  IN RAW WASTE FEOM COATING LINE EIMSES
                                                              TfO Concentration
Plant ID
6091-15-1
34051-15-0
38051-15-0
38051-15-1
38051-15-2
12075-15-0
12075-15-2
12075-15-4
18538-15-3
18538-15-3
18538-14-0
18538-15-5
18538-15-1
18538-15-5
11103-15-1
11103-15-3
11103-15-4
11103-15-3
Description % Total Flow (mq/il)
Chromating rinse
Conversion coating rinse
Conversion coating rinses
Conversion coating rinses
conversion coating rinses
Electrogalvanizing line rinses
Blectrogalvanizing line rinses
Electrogalvanizing line rinses
Appearance phosphating line rinses
Non-appearance phosphating line rinses
Composite of phosphating line rinses
composite of phosphating line rinses
Phosphating rinse
Phosphating rinse
Rinse water from 1st rinse tank after
black oxidizing process tank
Rinse water from 1st rinse tank after
light zinc phosphating process tank
Rinse water from 1st rinse tank after
zinc phosphating (auto barrel)
Chromic acid sealer tank on zinc
11
5
78.4
78.4
78.4
1.2
1.3
1.3
8.4
6.4
11.7
16.7
NA
NA
7.7
2.5
2.5
1.0
.174
.124
.243
.306
.084
.010
.009
.013
.009
.009
.031
.007
.064
.007
.006
.003
.004
.007
36178
phosphating line

Composite of phosphating line wastes
NA
24.2
                                     V-80

-------
                              TABLE 5-33(Continued)
             TTO CONCENTRATIONS IN RAW WASTE PROM COATING LINE RINSES
                                                              TTO Concentration
Plant ID

11103-15-0

11103-15-2

11103-15-3

Iil03-15-0


11103-15-2


11103-15-3


6960-15-2

6960-15-4

6960-15-0

6960-15-2

6960-15-4

6960-15-0

6960-15-2

6960-15-4

44062-15-0


44062-15-1


44062-15-2


44062-15-0


44062-15-1


44062-15-2
        Description

Conversion coating rinses

Conversion coating rinses

Conversion coating rinses

Conversion coating rinses
bypassing treatment

Conversion coating rinses
bypassing treatment

Conversion coating rinses
bypassing treatment

Phosphating line cleaning rinse

Phosphating line cleaning rinse

Acid pickle rinse on phosphating line

Acid pickle rinse on phosphating line

Acid pickle rinse on phosphating line

Zinc phosphating rinse

Zinc phosphating rinse

Zinc phosphating rinse

Conversion coating line (Alodine 404)  16
rinse water

Conversion coating line (Alodine 404)  16
rinse water

Conversion coating line (Alodine 404)  16
rinse water
% Total Plow
21
18
18
38
33
33
8
8
.ine 8
.ine 8
.ine 8
8
8
8
104) 16
(roq/fc)
.312
.003
.006
.022
.018
.021
.896
.192
.148
.031
.017
.088
.058
.049
.130
Conversion coating (Alodine 401)
rinse water

Conversion coating (Alodine 401)
rinse water

Conversion coating (Alodine 401)
rinse water
20
20
20
.281


.067


.189


.082


.123
                                     V-81

-------
                              TABLE 5-34
TTO CONCENTRATIOMS IN RAW WASfE PROM ETCHING AND BRIGHT DIPPING RINSES

                                                        TfO Concentration
Plant ID
6091-15-0
6091-15-1
6091-15-2
20083-15-0
20083-15-2
20083-15-4
14062-21-0
36048-15-0
36048-15-4
2032-15-0
2032-15-2
2032-15-5
34050-15-0
34050-15-1
34050-15-2
4069-15-0
4069-15-2
4069-15-4
4282-21-0
9052-15-0
9052-15-1
9052-15-2
Description
Small parts caustic etch rinse
small parts caustic etch rinse
Small parts caustic etch rinse
Chromic acid etch rinse
Chromic acid etch rinse
Chromic acid etch rinse
Chemical milling rinse
Etching rinses
Etching rinses
Alkaline etching rinses
Alkaline etching rinses
Alkaline etching rinses
Bright dip wastes
Bright dip wastes
Bright dip wastes
strip resist and etching rinses
Strip resist and etching rinses
Strip resist and etching rinses
Rinses from chromic acid etching
Etching rinses
Etching rinses
Etching rinses
% Total Flow
22
22
22
6
6
6
27
36.5
40
9
9
8
18.9
21.1
21.1
10.6
10.6
10.6
9.5
45
45
45

-------
                              TABLE 5-34 (Continued)
      TTO CONCENTRATIONS IN RAW WASTE PROM ETCHING AND BRIGHT DIPPING RINSES
Plant ID             Description

19068-15-1   Etching rinses

19068-15-2   Etching rinses

30054-15-0   Bright dip etching rinses

38052-15-0   Bright dip chromic etching rinses

38052-15-1   Bright dip chromic etching rinses

38052-15-2   Bright dip chromic etching rinses

41051-15-0   Etching rinse waters

41051-15-1   Etching rinse waters

41051-15-2   Etching rinse waters
% Total Plow

     65

     62

      5

     66

     66

     66

     24

     24

     24
TTO Concentration
	(ma/it)

         .078

         .298

         .608

         .081

         .207

         .248

         .016

         .022

         .010
                                      V-83

-------
                                    TABLE 5-35
             fTO CONCENTRATIONS IN RAW WASTE FROM CLEANING OPERATIONS
Plant IP
33617
30082

30082
30165-21-0
30165-21-0
44062-15-0
44062-15-1
44062-15-2
44062-15-0
44062-15-1
44062-15-2
        Description
small parts wash
Rinse following detergent wash of
filled and sealed capacitors
%Total Flow
       NA
       .7
Detergent washing of capacitors          .002
Acid cleaning rinse                     3
Acid cleanlng-muric acid concentrate     .01
Acid cleaning rinse                    34
Acid cleaning rinse                    34
Acid cleaning rinse                    34
Precleaning rinse water                30
Precleanlng rinse water                30
Precleaning rinse water                30
TTO Concentration
	(mg/ft)
       14.5
         .092

         .86
         .06
         .10
         .062
         .083
         .117
         .060
         .068
         .106
                                     V-84

-------
                        TABLE 5-36
TTO CONCENTRATIONS IN RAW VASTS FROM MACHINING,  GRINDING,
  BARBEL FINISHING, BURNISHING, AND SHEARING OPERATIONS
                                                  TTO Concentration
Plant ID
15193-21-0
15193-21-1
30012-21-1
30012-21-1
3043-21-1
31031-10-2
31031-10-3
30166
30166
30166
30166
38217-23-0
38217-23-1
30054-15-1
30054-15-2
3043-21-0
Description
Barrel finishing rinse
Barrel finishing rinse
Non-soluble machining oils
Water-soluble machining oils
Barrel finishing rinses
Raw waste oils from tumbling
Raw waste oils from grinding
Raw oily wastes from machining,
grinding, burnishing
Raw oily wastes from machining,
grinding, burnishing
Raw oily wastes after centrifuge
Ravi oily wastes after centrifuge
Machine coolants and oils, after
skimmer
Machine coolants and oils, after
skimmer
Burnishing rinses
Burnishing rinses
Tube shearing
% Total Flow
16.7
16.7
NA
NA
.07
.2
.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
88
96
13
17
0
(mq/l)
NA
.031
.242
4.91
1.83
.080
.133
2.27
9.93
1.77
1.41
1.58
4.13
.019
.018
1,761
                            V-85

-------
                  TABLE 5-37
       ffO CONCENTRATIONS IN 1AW WASTE
PROM HEAT TREATING OPERATIONS AND QUENCH BATHS
                                            TTO Concentration
Plant ID
15193-21-0
15193-21-1
20005-21-0
20103-21-0
20103-21-1
14062-21-0
36047-23-0
36119-23-0
30012-21-1
30012-21-1
30012-21-1
4282-21-0
Description % Total Flow
Hardening quench runoff
Hardening quench runoff
In-line heat treating
Heat treat water and coolant quench
Heat treat water and coolant quench
Heat treating quench tank oils
Heat treating raw wastewater
Heat treating quench raw wastewater
Alkaline bath in heat treating line
Dilute alkaline bath in heat treating
line
Immunol bath In heat treating line
Heat treatment quench water
1.7
1.7
0
<.01
<.01
6.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4
(mq/fc)
1.70
.211
.020
.084
.660
.050
.100
.402
.130
.130
1.67
.319
                   V-86

-------
                                    fABLE 5-38
                         TTO CONCENTRATION IN WASfE FROM
                    SOLDERING, WELDING, AND BRAZING OPERATIONS
PlantJljP             Description

36048-15-0   Acid rinse on cleaning and solder
             dip line

36048-15-3   Acid rinse on cleaning and solder
             dip line

36048-15-5   Acid rinse on cleaning and solder
             dip line

36048-15-0   Rinses on solder wash line

36048-15-3   Rinses on solder wash line

36048-15-5   Rinses on solder wash line

36048-15-0   Solder plate line rinses

18699-21-0   Solder body rinse water

20170-21-0   Seam welder - roller mill collant

3043-21-0    Curling/seam welding wastes

30165-21-0   Solder quench/water soluble oils
% Total Flow

     21.5



     23.5


     23.5


      8

      9

      9

      8

       .2

       NA

     12.0

      0
TTO Concentration
	(mg/fc)

         .019
         .046



         .047



         .075

         .172

         .163

         .109


        2.63

       10.7

         .656

    1,043
                                     V-87

-------
                                    TABLE  5-39
                         TTO CONCENTRATIONS IN RAW WASTE
                   FROM PAINT STRIPPING AND SALT BATH DESCALING
                                                              TTO
Plant ID             Description

15193-21-1   Paint strip rinse  (ethylene glycol
             and NaOH)

20103-21-0   Paint stripper concentrate

20103-21-0   Paint stripper rinse

28699-21-0   Caustic paint strip rinse

28699-21-0   Kolene paint strip rinse

28699-21-0   Caustic paint strip concentrate

14062-21-0   Paint stripping rinse

12078-1      Caustic rinse from paint stripping

3043-21-0    Strip rinse

3043-21-0    Paint strip

4892-21-0    Salt bath descaling rinse

15193-21-0   Salt bath descaling concentrate

15193-21-0   Salt bath descaling rinse

20103-21-0   Kolene salt bath descaling rinse

20103-21-1   Kolene salt bath descaling rinse

33617-3      Kolene rinse

20005-21-0   Kolene rinse

4282-21-0    Kolene paint stripping rinse water

4282-21-0    Kolene salt bath descaling rinse
4282-21-0    Chromic acid and methylene chloride
             paint stripping rinse
% Total Flow
Concentration
   (mg/U
4.2
.02
<.01
NA
NA
NA
1.5
NA
8.0
0
.20
0
2.5
2.4
2.4
NA
NA
47
31.6
2 9.5
.428
2.20
.402
.140
,104
12.8
2.00
1.61
.318
.543
.107
.502
.397
.060
.002
.245
.120
.214
.460
.215
                                     V-88

-------
                                    TABLE 5-40
             TTO CONCENTRATIONS IN RAW WASTE FROM PAINTING OPERATIONS
                                                              TTO Concentration
Plant IP             Description

4892-21-0    DI rinse from BDP

4892-21-0    influent to water curtain of
             water-based paint booth

4892-21-0    Discharge from solvent-based
             paint booth

20005-21-0   In-line process L-4 paint booth

20005-21-0   in-line SDP

20005-21-0   Final coat spray booth

20005-21-0   in-process V-8 paint booth

20103-21-0   Paint booth

28699-21-1   Prime spray booth

28699-21-1   Topcoat spray

28699-21-1   Truck prime

28699-21-1   Truck topcoat

28699-21-1   Electrodeposition rinse

28699-21-1   Electrodeposition permeate

30165-21-0   Paint booth water curtain

18538-14-1   Ultrafilter permeate from paint booth

12078-1      Paint booth - plastic parts

12078-2      Paint booth - plastic parts

12078-1      Paint booth

12078-2      Paint booth

12078-1      Prime base coat, paint booth
% Total Flow (mq/8,)
18
.02
.3
.03
.07
.2
.08
.4
NA
NA
MA
MA
.02
.02
0
Oth NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
.744
.078
1.42
.784
1.43
3.58
1.62
1.03
2.13
5.95
1.06
3.25
.903
1.93
2.73
.935
.728
.096
.605
.105
.769
                                      V-89

-------
                 TABLE 5-40 (Continued)
TTO CONCENTRATIONS IN RAW WASTE FROM PAINTING OPERATIONS
                                                 TTO Concentration
Plant ID
12078-2
12078-1
12078-2
12078-1
15055-21-1
15055-21-1
15055-21-2
15055-21-2
15055-21-2
30012-21-1
33617-2
33617-1
3043-21-1
13042-21-1
20170-21-0
20170-21-1
20170-21-0
20170-21-1
36178-21-0
36178-21-1
36178-21-2
36178-21-0
Description
Prime base coat, paint booth
Lacquer, paint booth
Lacquer, paint booth
Urethane paint booth
EDP/DI rinse
Paint booth - wheels
Paint booth - body enamel
Paint booth - truck tutone
Paint booth - wheels
Paint booth water curtain
Painting line (2 booths)
Anodic EDP wastes after UF
(UF perneate)
Paint booth
Paint booth
High solids paint booth
High solids paint booth
Powder paint booth
Powder paint booth
Paint booth, hood color
Paint booth, hood color
Paint booth, hood color
Paint booth, heavy chassis
% Total Flow
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
.1
2.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(mq/l)
.477
4.21
1.11
5.44
.112
.225
.065
.439
.059
1.82
2.69
.370
1.50
8.72
6.40
2.09
.375
.303
3.36
.649
2.16
4.46
                        V-90

-------
                              TABLE 5-40 (Continued)
             TTO CONCENTRATIONS IN EAV WASTE FROM PAINTING OPERATIONS
Plant IP             Description

36178-21-1   Paint booth, heavy chassis

36178-21-2   Paint booth, heavy chassis

36178-21-0   Paint booth, small parts

36178-21-1   Paint booth, small parts

36178-21-2   Paint booth, small parts

36178-21-0   Paint booth, cab prime

36178-21-1   Paint booth, cab prime

36178-21-2   Paint booth, cab prime
% Total Flow

       NA

       NA

       NA

       NA

       NA

       NA

       NA

       NA
                                                              TTO Concentration
1.62

 .255

1.49

 .065

 .370

7.11

2.99

3.85
                                     V-91

-------
                                    TABLE 5-41
       TIO CONCENTRATIONS IN RAM WASTE FEOM SOLVENT DEGEEASING CONDENSATES

                                                              TTO Concentration
Plant ID             Description               % Total Plow   	(mg/St)

15193-21-0   Solvent degreaslng condensate            .8               .555
             (water layer)

15193-21-1   Solvent degreasing condensate            .8               NA
             (water layer)

30012-21-1   condensate from carbon column            NA              1.85
             on degreaser

30166        Evaporator condensate                    NA               .233
                                     V-92

-------
                             TABLE 5-42
TTO CONCENTRATIONS IN RAW WASTE FROM TESTING AND ASSEMBLY OPERATONS

                                                       TTO Concentration
Plant IP
20005-21-0
20103-21-0
30166
30166
30166
33617
30165-21-0
6019-21-0
6019-21-0
6019-21-0
6019-21-1
6019-21-1
4282-21-0
Description %_
Engine test water
Engine test cooling water
Engine test wash water
Engine test oily waste
Magna Flux wash
Wash testing
Leak testing (heating core element
and radiator)
Zyglo spray rinses
Countercurrent rinse tank on Zyglo
spray line
Countercurrent rinse tank on Zyglo
spray line
Zyglo emulslfler rinses
Zyglo emulsifier rinses
Zyglo rinse
Total Flow
0
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
.6
2.8
.1
.1
2.8
2.8
2
(mq/8.)
.422
.090
.024
.525
.071
.422
.060
.031
2.48
.236
.031
3.11
.484
                               V-93

-------
                                    TABLE 5-43
                 TTO CONCENTRATIONS IN TREATED OILY WASTESTREAMS
Plant ID             Description

13041-22-0   Raw waste oils (spent
             oils)

12095-22-0   Raw waste oils

12095-22-1   Raw waste oils

12095-22-2   Raw waste oils

28125-22-0   Raw oily waste from can
             wash rinses

28125-22-1   Raw oily waste from can
             wash rinses

40836-22-0   Raw oily waste

41097-22-0   Oily waste from lubricant
             spills

41097-22-1   Oily waste from lubricant
             spills

41097-22-2   Oily waste from lubricant
             spills

40070-22-0   Raw oily waste (die cast
             cooling water)

40070-22-1   Raw oily waste (die cast
             cooling water)

40070-22-2   Raw oily waste (die cast
             cooling water)

41097-22-0   Oily waste from 1st stage
             wash overflows

41097-22-1   Oily waste from 1st stage
             wash overflows

41097-22-2   oily waste from 1st stage
             wash overflows

13324-21-0   Raw oily wastes
             (wash water)
% Total Plow

       NA



       NA

       NA


       NA


       NA



       NA



       NA

       NA



       NA



       NA



       NA



       NA



       NA



       NA



       NA



       NA



       NA
TTO Concentration
	(ma/U

        3.0
        6.14

        3.15

        6.50

         .558


         .292



       21.5

         .111


         .200



        2.14


         .538


         .858


         .853


         .039



         .015



         .020


        2.40
                                      V-94

-------
                              TABLE 5-43 (Continued)
                 TTO CONCENTRATIONS IN TREATED OILX WASTESTREAMS

                                                              TTO Concentration
Plant ID             Description               % Total Plow   	(mq/St)

41115-22-0   Raw oily wastes                          NA              1.14
             (car rinses)

41115-22-0   Raw oily wastes                          HA              3.31
             (car rinses)

41115-22-0   Raw oily wastes                          NA              1.19
             (car rinses)

1058-22-0    Ravr oily waste (spent                   4.83            15.0
             mineral and emulsified oil)

1058-22-1    Raw oily waste (spent                   4.83           110
             mineral and emulsified oil)

1058-22-2    Raw oily waste (spent                   4.83             6.42
             mineral and emulsified oil)

13324-22-0   Raw oily wastes (wash                   9.94             2.40
             water)

19462-23-1   Oily wastestream after                   NA          1,921
             screen and filter

30698-21-0   Concentrated oily waste                  NA              7.90
             tank (prior to treatment)

6019-21-0    Soluble cutting oils -                  1.1             24.4
             influent totreatment

30012-21-0   Water soluble machining                 1.55             4.91
             oils

30516-23-0   Raw oily waste (coolants                0.16            58.1
             and machining oils)

33617-22-0   Waste machine oil                        NA             49.8

30698-21-0   Oily waste from drawing,                 NA               .289
             welding, and shearing

33692-23-0   Raw oily waste from                      NA              1.09
             machining, grinding,
             barrel finishing
                                     V-95

-------
             TABLE 5-43 (Continued)
TTO CONCBNfRATIONS IN TREATED OILY'WRSTESTRBAMS
                                             TTO Concentration
Plant ID
33617-22-1
3043-21-0
20170-21-0
30166-21-0
30166-21-0
31031-10-3
15193-21-0
15193-21-1
15193-21-1
20103-21-1
20103-21-0
20103-21-0
38217-23-0
38217-23-1
33692-23-1
Description
Waste oil
Tube shearing
Seam welder - roller
mill coolant
Raw oily waste from
machining, grinding, burning
Engine test oily waste
Raw waste oils from
grinding
Oily waste holding tank
Machining oils
Salt bath descaling
concentrate
Heat treatment coolant
quench
Oily waste after cooker
Heat treatment coolant
quench
Machine coolants and
oils, after skimmer
Machine coolants and
oils, after skimmer
Raw oily waste
% Total Flow
NA
1.75
NA
2.21
2.21
0.2
3.6
NA
0
7.42
7.42
7.42
88
96
NA
(mq/!t)
4219
1761
10.7,
9.93
.525
.133
802
7.83
.502
.659
2.33
.084
1.58
4.13
13.5
                    V-96

-------
                              TABL1 5-43 (Continued)
                 TTO CONCENTRAfIONS IN TREATED OILS WASTBSTREAMS
Plant ID

13041-22-0

13041-22-0

13041-22-0

13041-22-0



13041-22-0



13041-22-0



12095-22-0


12095-22-0


12095-22-0


28125-22-1

28125-22-0

28125-22-1

28125-22-0

28125-22-1

30516-23-0

30516-23-1

40070-22-0

40070-22-0

40070-22-0
        Description               %Total Plow

Oily wastestream after emulsion breaking NA

Oily wastestream after emulsion breaking NA

Oily wastestream after emulsion breaking NA

Oily wastestream after emulsion breaking NA
and UP

Oily wastestream after emulsion breaking NA
and UP

Oily wastestream after emulsion breaking NA
and UP

Oily wastestream after emulsion          NA
breaking and clarification

Oily wastestream after emulsion          NA
breaking and clarification

Oily wastestream after emulsion          NA
breaking and clarification

Oily wastestream after oil skimmer       NA

Oily wastestream after clarification     NA

Oily wastestream after clarification     NA

Oily wastestream after filtration        NA

Oily wastestream after filtration        NA

Oily wastestream (ultrafilter permeate)  NA

Oily wastestream (ultrafilter permeate)  NA

Oily wastestream after oil skimmer       NA

Oily wastestream after oil skimmer       NA

Oily wastestream after oil skimmer       NA
TTO Concentration
	(mq/5t)

    1,037

       14.3

        4.84

       14.8



       13.0


       30.8



         .996


         .800


         .480


         .767

         .707

        1.08

         .635

         .390

        4.54

        5.51

         .763

         .395

        3.24
                                      V-97

-------
                              TABLE 5-43 (Continued)
                 TTO CONCENTRATIONS IN TREATED OILY WASTESTREAMS
                                                              TTO Concentration
Plant ID
40836-22-0
41097-22-0
41097-22-1
41097-22-2
41097-22-1
41115-22-0
41115-22-0
41115-22-0
1058-22-0
1058-22-0
1058-22-0
1058-22-0
1058-22-1
1058-22-1
1058-22-2
1058-22-2
13324-21-0
Description % Total Flow
i
Oily wastestream after emulsion breaking
Oily wastestream after emulsion
breaking and DAP
Oily wastestream after emulsion
breaking and DAF
Oily wastestream after emulsion
breaking and DAF
Oily wastestream after emulsion
breaking, DAF, and vacuum filter
Oily wastestream after oil skimmer
Oily wastestream after oil skimmer
Oily wastestream after oil skimmer
Oily wastestream prior to emulsion
breaking
Oily wastestream after emulsion breaking
Oily wastestream prior to polishing
pond
Oily wastestream after polishing pond
Oily wastestream prior to polishing
pond
Oily wastestream after polishing pond
Oily wastestream prior to polishing
pond
Oily wastestream after polishing pond ,
Oily wastestream after oil/water
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(mq/t)
8.62
.045
.125
.560
23.0
.655
1.64
.905
2.77
1.43
.364
.323
1.34
.278
.308
3.79
12.0
             separator

13324-21-0   Oily wastestream after ultrafiltration
             and oil/water separator
NA
1.48
                                     V-98

-------
                              TABLE 5-43 (Continued)
                 TTO CONCENTRATIONS IN TREATED OILY WASTESTREAMS
                                                              TTO Concentration
Plant ID
19462-23-1
19462-23-1
19462-23-1
30698-21-0
31032-15-0
31032-15-1
31032-15-2
31032-15-0
31032-15-1
31032-15-2
33692-23-0
33692-23-0
33692-23-0
33692-23-1
33692-23-1
33692-23-1
Oily
Oily
Oily
Oily
tank
Description
wastestream after
wastestreara
wastestream
wastestream
Rav; waste (rinses
Raw waste (rinses
Raw waste (rinses
Oily
Oily
Oily
Oily
Oily
Oily
tank
Oily
Oily
Oily
wastestream
wastestream
wastestream
wastestream
wastestream
wastestream
wastestream
wastestream
wastestream
after
after
after
from
from
from
after
after
after
after
after
after
after
after
after
% Total
screen and filter
centrifuge
ultrafiltration
batch treatment
FET and PCB)
FET and PCB)
FET and PCB)
OF, RO
UP, RO
UP, RO
clarifier
DAP
final settling
clarifier
DAP
final settling
Flow
NA
NA
NA
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(HW/l)
1.92
1.42
.234
.133
.016
.007
.004
.011
,006
.010
.928
1.19
.823
.720
.795
.433
             tank

38040-23-0   Treated oily wastes (API settler,        NA
             bag filter, cartridge filter, P.O.,
             and carbon filter)

38040-23-1   Treated oily wastes (API settler,        NA
             bag filter, cartridge filter, P.O.,
             and carbon filter)

6019-21-0    Effluent from treatment tank            1.1
 .288
 .377
9.31
                                      V-99

-------
                              TABLE 5-43 (Continued)
                 fTO CONCENTRATIONS IN TREATED OILY MASTESTREAMS

                                                              TfO Concentration
Plant ID             Description               % Total Flow   	(mg/Sl)

14062-21-0   Soluble oils after centrifuge            .9             21.9

15193-21-0   Permeate from OP on soluble oils        2.75            80.8

15193-21-1   Permeate from UP on soluble oils        2.2              4.61
                                      V-100

-------
                                    TABLE 5-44
         TTO CONCENTRATIONS IN RAW WASTE FROM SEGREGATED CHROMIUM STREAMS

                                                              TTO Concentration
Plant ID
4071-15-0
4071-15-1
4071-15-3
34050-15-0
34050-15-1
34050-15-2
38051-15-0
38051-15-1
38051-15-2
12075-15-0
12075-15-3
12075-15-5
18538-15-3
18538-15-5
11103-15-0
Description %
Chromium waste from PCB manufacture
Chromium waste from PCB manufacture
Chromium waste from PCB manufacture
Chromium plating line rinse water
Chromium plating line rinse water
Chromium plat ing- 4ine rinse water
Chromium-bearing wastes
Chromium-bearing wastes
Chromium-bearing wastes
Chromium-plating line rinses
Chromium- plating line rinses
Chromium-plating line rinses
Chromium-bearing wastes
Chromium-bearing wastes
Acidic and chromic wastes from
Total Flow
.7
.01
.01
NA
NA
NA
20.3
20.3
20.3
4.5
2.8
.8
36.2
30.6
23
(mq/l)
.104
.190
.036
.337
.281
.120
.151
.078
.147
.006
.014
.008
.006
.016
.014
             electroplating

11103-15-2   Acidic and chromic wastes from
             electroplating

11103-15-4   Acidic and chromic wastes from
             electroplating

21066-15-0   Chromic wastes from electroplating

21066-15-1   chromic wastes from electroplating

21066-15-3   Chromic wastes from electroplating

6960-15-0    Mild acid rinse and chromic rinse
25
25
.004
.015
1
1
1
15
.010
.015
.010
.053
                                     V-101

-------
                              TABLE 5-44 (Continued)
         TTO CONCENTRATIONS IN RAW WASTE FROM SEGREGATED CHROMIUM STREAMS

                                                              TTO Concentration
Plant ID             Description               % Total Plow   	(mg/8.)

6960-15-2    Mild acid rinse and chromic rinse      15                 .102

6960-15-4    Mild acid rinse and chromic rinse      15                 .008

19068-15-1   Chromate rinses and chromic            35                 .199
             acid rinses

19068-15-2   Chromate rinses and chromic            38                 .046
             acid rinses
                                      V-102

-------
                                    TABLE 5-45
         TTO CONCENTRATIONS IN RAW WASTE FROM SEGREGATED CYANIDE STREAMS

                                                              TTO Concentration
Plant ID             Description               % Total Flow   	(mq/8,)

11103-15-0   cyanide wastes from electroplating     11                 .012
             lines

11103-15-2   Cyanide wastes from electroplating     18                 .010
             lines

11103-15-4   Cyanide wastes from electroplating     18                 .005
             lines

21066-15-0   Cyanide wastes from electroplating       NA               .015
             lines

21066-15-1   Cyanide wastes from electroplating       NA               .018
             lines

21066-15-3   Cyanide wastes from electroplating       NA               .009
             lines
                                      V-103

-------
                                    TABLE 5-46
                TTO CONCENTRATIONS IN RAW WASTE PROM AIR SCRUBBERS
                                               % Total Flow

                                                    10
Plant IB             Description

4069-15-0    Air scrubber discharge from all
             wet operations of PCB manufacture
             (stripping, etching, sensitizing,
              multilayer operations)
4069-15-2    Air scrubber discharge from all        10
             wet operations of PCB manufacture
             (stripping, etching, sensitizing,
              multilayer operations)

4069-15-4    Air scrubber discharge from all        10
             wet operations of PCB manufacture
             (stripping, etching, sensitizing,
              multilayer operations)
2033-15-0    Wet scrubber wastewater

2033-15-2    Wet scrubber wastewater

2033-15-4    Wet scrubber wastewater

11103-15-0   Conversion coating air scrubber

11103-15-0   Electroplating air scrubber

18538-15-1   Phosphating condensate (similar to   ,
             air scrubber discharge) collected from
             both phosphating lines process tanks.
18538-15-5   Phosphating condensate (similar to       NA
             air scrubber discharge) collected from
             both phosphating lines process tanks.

20022-15-0   Air scrubber discharge from anodizing   3
             operations

20022-15-1   Air scrubber discharge from anodizing   4
             operations

20022-15-1   Air scrubber discharge from anodizing;   3
             operations                           ,

33617-4      Kolene air scrubber blowdown             NA
TTO Concentration
	(ma/ft)

         .017
                                                                       .053
                                                                       .032
NA
HA
NA
3
2
NA
.007
.012
.019
.008
.007
.003
                                                                       .003
                                                                       .009
                                                                       .009
                                                                       .004
                                                                       .221
                                      V-104

-------
                                    f ABLE 5-47
               fTO CONCENTRATIONS IN NOH-MEfAL FINISHING OPBRAfIONS
Plant ID

18538-14-0


33617-7

13042-21-1

6097-15-0


6097-15-1


6097-15-2


6097-15-0


6097-15-1


6097-15-2
        Description

Composite of rinses on procelain
enemaling pickle line
                                  %TotalFlow

                                         NA
Plastics processing effluent             NA

Metal impregnation rinse tank overflow   NA

                                       70.5
Rlnsewater from grinding and
polishing of plate glass

Rinsewater from grinding and
polishing of plate glass

Rinsewater from grinding and
polishing of plate glass

Rinsewater from beveling and
grinding of lens

Rinsewater from beveling and
grinding of lens

Rinsewater from beveling and
grinding of lens
                                       68.5


                                       70.5


                                        7.9


                                        8.7


                                        6.0
TTO Concentration
	Uw/t)

         .015
        2.69

         .043

         .032


         .015


         .181


         .406


         .100


         .259
                                      V-105

-------
                             SECTION VI
                 SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
INTRODUCTION

This section presents the pollutant parameters selected for
limitation in the Metal Finishing Category.  These parameters were
chosen from the pollutant parameters identified in Section V from:

     o   Laboratory analysis results of samples taken during
         screening and verification visits.

     o   Responses received from the data collection portfolios
         containing pollutant parameter questionnaires.

     o   Technical information and data received from chemical
         suppliers, equipment manufacturers, and previous studies.

Following are an explanation of the rationale for selection and
exclusion of individual pollutant parameters and a presentation of
the parameters selected for each waste type.

SELECTION RATIONALE

The selection of pollutant parameters for regulation was based
both on sampling analysis data and information received in the
data collection portfolios.  The sampling analysis data and a
summary of the data collection portfolios are presented in Section
V.

The parameters available for selection were grouped into four
categories:  toxic organic pollutants, toxic inorganic pollutants.
non-toxic metals, and other pollutants.  The selection of
parameters from each of these groups is discussed below.

TOXIC ORGANIC POLLUTANTS

The toxic organic pollutants are listed in Table 3-2.  During the
analysis of the wastewater samples, it was found that a variety of
toxic organics could be present in both common metals and oily
waste streams.  It was also found that the types of toxic organics
detected varied from plant to plant.  Because this large variety
of toxic organics is present in the Metal Finishing Category and
because of the difficulty involved with regulating such a large
number of pollutants, a total toxic organics (TTO) heading has
been established which covers all the toxic organic pollutants.
                             VI-1

-------
It was recognized that some of the toxic organics should rarely be
present in metal finishing wastewaters.  For example, parameters
either were not detected through sampling or were found upon rare
occasion in low concentrations.  There is no known reason why
pesticide type parameters should be present within the wastewater
streams generated by the Metal Finishing Category.  However, the
availability of the certification procedure eliminates the need to
monitor for pollutants not likely to be present and focuses the
identification of toxic organics even for,those rarely used.

Total toxic organics are present in the tptal raw waste of sampled
plants in concentrations ranging from zero to 13.5 mg/8, as shown
in Table 5-28.  TTO concentrations in the wastewater from various
metal finishing operations is presented in Tables 5-29 through
5-47 in Section V.

Cyanide, which is commonly used within the Metal Finishing
Category (as evidenced by the 298 mg/& mean concentration of
total cyanide in the cyanide raw waste stream), was an obvious
selection as a pollutant parameter.

Of the toxic metals, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel.
silver, and zinc were found at significant concentration levels in
the raw waste.  Table 5-16 shows the concentrations of toxic
metals that were found in the raw waste discharged to end-of-pipe
treatment.   Consequently, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel.
silver, and zinc have been selected as pollutant parameters to be
regulated.   Other toxic metals and asbestos were not regulated
because they either were present only in insignificant
concentrations, or present only at a small number of sources and
effectively controlled by regulating other parameters.

NON-TOXIC METALS

The non-toxic metals group contains those metals which were
analyzed but were not listed among the 126 toxic pollutants.
Table 5-18 presents the non-toxic metals, and their flow
proportioned mean concentrations in the total metal finishing raw
waste.  Because of the priority given to the control of toxic
pollutants, these non-toxic metals were not regulated.  These
parameters would have to be found at high concentrations with high
frequency to be selected for regulations.
                              VI-2

-------
OTHER POLLUTANTS

There are other pollutant parameters which are normally controlled
to maintain water quality.  Total suspended solids (TSS) is a
traditional pollutant parameter which can serve to control the
discharge of harmful pollutants.  Oil and grease is a traditional
pollutant parameter which can cause odor and taste problems with
water and kill aquatic organisms.  As evidenced by its mean
concentration in the oily wastes raw waste stream (40,700 mg/St),
oil and grease is a significant pollutant parameter in the Metal
Finishing Category.

POLLUTANT PARAMETERS SELECTED

Table 6-1 presents the pollutant parameters selected for
regulation for the Metal Finishing Category.
                             Vl-3

-------
                 TABLE 6-1
POLLUTANT PARAMETERS SELECTED FOR REGULATION


Cadmium
Chromium, total
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Cyanide, total  (alternative - cyanide, amenable)
Total Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
Total Toxic Organics
pH
                 VI-4

-------
                          SECTION VII
               CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
INTRODUCTION

This section describes the treatment techniques currently used
or available to remove or recover wastewater pollutants nor-
mally generated by the Metal Finishing Category.  Included is
a discussion of individual wastewater treatment technologies
and in-plant control and treatment technologies.  Pertinent
treatment and control technology is discussed specifically for
each of the seven types of raw waste that are present.  The
technologies presented are applicable to the metal finishing
industry for both direct and indirect dischargers and reflect
the entire metal finishing data base.

The raw wastes for the Metal Finishing Category were initially
subdivided into two constituent types, inorganic and organic
wastes.  These were then further subdivided into the specific
types of waste that occur in each of these two major areas and
grouped into the following seven waste types:
MAJOR SUBDIVISION
INORGANIC
WASTES
ORGANIC
WASTES
WASTE TYPE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Common Metals
Precious Metals
Complexed Metals
Hexavalent Chromium
Cyanide
Oils
Toxic Organics
Treatment for each of these seven waste types is shown schemat-
ically in Figure 7-1.  This schematic illustrates the types of
treatment that are needed for wastes of each type. The spe-
cific treatment required for these .wastes is as follows:
     WASTE TYPE
       PRIMARY
      TREATMENT
     FINAL
   TREATMENT
Common Metals
Precious Metals
Complexed Metals

Hexavalent Chromium
Cyanide
Oils
Toxic Organics
Precious Metals Recovery
Chromium Reduction
Cyanide Destruction
Oily Waste Removal
Metals Removal
Optional (depend-
ing on other wastes
present)
Complexed Metals
Removal
Metals Removal
Metals Removal
Metals Removal
Haul or Reclaim
                              VII-1

-------
I
to

Raw Waste Dis
Manufacturing Facility
Raw Waste Sources

i
charge
(Treatment System
Influent)


Waste Treatment
(If Applicable)
Treated
Effluent




















Oily Waste !
Removal !
	 	 J











t




<




r " i
Chromium j
Reduction j


^^






.



i


Conmon
Hetals








! Metala



-»___^
l
Cyanide j
Destruction |
L 	 	 1




1


i

\




Toxic
Organics





Cotplexed j Precious .
Metals ! Metals
Removal j Recovery
5 a
£

Without Cyanide

I
L
-«

Raw Waste
(Common Metals)
— 1
•
•«







• Removal J











1



Treated
Effluent




m
1
1
1
1

_- - -J
1
I
I
I
|




I
1

1

t
Hauled Or
Reclaimed



Hauled Or
Reclaimed






                                                           Final Treated
                                                             Effluent
                                                                                                      Normal Route
                                                                                             	Optional Route


                                                                              Note: Discharge from precious metals recovery may be
                                                                                    hauled in alternative ways, depending on  the
                                                                                    recovery method in use.
                                                            FIGURE 7-1

-------
The wastewater stream segregation shown in Figure 7-1 is
current common practice in the Metal Finishing Category, as
discussed in Section IV.  This stream segregation allows the
recovery of precious metals, the reduction of hexavalent
chromium to trivalent chromium, the destruction of cyanide,
and the removal/ recovery of oils prior to the removal of the
common metals that are also present in these streams.  Segrega-
tion of these streams reduces the flow rate of wastewater to
be treated in each component and accordingly reduces the cost
of this primary treatment.  The complexed metals wastewaters
require segregated treatment to preclude the complexing of
other metal wastes in the treatment system.

This section is divided into subsections with the following
headings: Applicability of Treatment Technologies, Treatment
of Common Metals Wastes, Treatment of Precious Metals Wastes,
Treatment of Complexed Metals Wastes, Treatment of Hexavalent
Chromium Wastes, Treatment of Cyanide Wastes, Treatment of
Oily Wastes, Treatment of Toxic Organics, Treatment  of Sludges,
In-Process Control Technology, and Statistical Analysis.  The
Applicability of Treatment Technologies Subsection defines specific
applications of individual treatment technologies and references
the location of their respective descriptions within this
section.

The subsections that discuss treatment present three specific
levels of treatment options for common metals.  The organization
of each of these subsections is such that the Option 1 system
is described, the particular treatment components that are applic-
able to the first level option (Option 1) for common metals
are described, and their performance is presented.  Then,
the Option 1 performance level is presented.  The information
relative to Options 2 and 3 is developed and discussed in a
similar manner.  The subsections that discuss treatment for
other waste types present only a single option because only one
level of treatment is clearly superior based on performance and
demonstration status.  Several alternatives to the Option 1 system
are presented for the oily waste streams.

The In-Process Control Technology Subsection discusses tech-
niques for process water usage reduction, alternative proc-
esses, integrated water treatment, and good housekeeping.
                               VII-3

-------
APPLICABILITY OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

This subsection identifies the component technologies that are
applicable for the treatment of raw wastes that are generated
by industries that perform the metal finishing operations des-
cribed in Section III.  Table 7-1 lists the component tech-
nologies, shows their specific application to the Metal Fin-
ishing Category, and indicates the page on which each is
described.  Table 7-2 illustrates the applicability of each
technology to each of the waste types.

Each treatment component is functionally described and dis-
cussions are presented of the application, performance, and
the demonstration status of each component.  In some instances
the technique described has been demonstrated in another industry
to successfully remove a particular waste constituent.  Wherever
the waste characteristics are similar to that for a Metal
Finishing Category wastewater type, performance data have been
shown to better illustrate the capabilities of the treatment
techniques being described.
                               VII-4

-------
Technology

Aerobic Decom-
 position

Carbon Adsorption

Centrifugation

Chemical Reduction

Chemical Reduction-
 Precipitation/
  Sedimentation

Coalescing

Diatomaceous Earth
  Filtration

Electrochemical
  Oxidation

Electrochemical
  Reduction

Electrochemical
 Regeneration
            TABLE 7-1
INDEX AND SPECIFIC APPLICATION OF
      TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

 Application or Potential Application
 	to Metal Finishing	            Page

 Oil breakdown and organics removal           VII-221
 Removal of trace metals and organics         VII-209

 Sludge dewatering,  oil removal               VII-185,  238

 Treatment of chromic acid and chromates      VII-115

 Removal of Complexed Metals                  VII-113



 Oil removal                                  VII-180

 Metal hydroxides and suspended solids        VII-53
   removal

 Destruction of free cyanide and cyanates     VII-151
 Reduction of chromium from metal finishing   VII-120
   and cooling tower blowdowns

 Conversion of trivalent chromium to hexa-    VII-123
   valent valence
Electrolytic
 Recovery

Emulsion Breaking

Evaporation
Ferrous Sulfate
 (FeSO.)-Preoi-
 pitatIon/Sedi-
 mentation

Flotation

Granular Bed Fil-
  tration

Gravity Sludge
  Thickening
 Recovery of precious and common metals       VII-102
 Breakdown of emulsified oil mixtures         VII—162

 Concentration and recovery of process         VII-76, 100
   chemicals                                  124, 153

 Removal of complexed metals and cyanides     VII-114, 153
 Suspended solids and oil removal              VII-93,  183

 Solids polishing of settling tank            VII-48
   effluent

 Dewatering of clarifier  underflow            VII-230
                               VII-5

-------
Technology
High pH Precipi-
  tation/Sed imenta-
  tion
Hydroxide Precipi-
  tation
Insoluble Starch
  Xanthate
Integrated
  Adsorption
Ion Exchange
        TABLE 7-1  (Cont.)
INDEX AND SPECIFIC APPLICATION OF
     TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Application or Potential Application
	to Metal Finishing  .	
Removal of complexed metals
Dissolved metals removal
Dissolved metals removal
Emulsified oils and paints removal
Recovery or removal of dissolved metals
Membrane Filtra-
  tion
Oxidation by
  Chlorine
Oxidation by Hy-
  drogen Peroxide
Oxidation by Ozone
Oxidation by Ozone
  w/UV Radiation
Peat Adsorption
Pressure Filtra-
  tion
Resin Adsorption
Reverse Osmosis
Sedimentation
Skimming
Sludge Bed Drying
Sulfide Precipita-
 tion
Ultrafiltration
Dissolved metals and suspended solids
  removal
Destruction of cyanides and cyanates
Cyanide destruction and metals removal

Destruction of cyanides and cyanates
Destruction of cyanides and cyanates

Dissolved metals removal
Sludge dewatering or suspended solids
  removal
Removal of organics
Removal of dissolved salts'for water
  reuse
Suspended solids and metals removal
Free oil removal
Sludge dewatering
Dissolved metals removal
Oil and suspended solids removal and
  paint purification
Vacuum Filtration   Sludge dewatering
  Page
VII-112

VII-8

•VII-88

VII-186
VI1-80, 102
114, 124
VII-98, 113
VII-126

VII-150

VI1-144, 219
Vll-148

VII-86
VII-232

VII-218
VII-178, 217

VII-10
VII-167
VII-246
VII-89, 153

VII-241

VII-235
                              VII-6

-------
 Technology
Common
Metals
 Aerobic Decomposition
 Carbon Adsorption               x
 Centri fugation
 Chemical Reduction
 Coalescing
 Diatomaceous Earth              x
   Filtration
 Electrochemical Oxidation
 Electrochemical Reduction
 Electrochemical Regeneration
 Electrodialysis
 Electrolytic Recovery           x
 Emulsion Breaking
 Evaporation                     x
 Flotation                       x
 Granular Bed Filtration         x
 Gravity Sludge Thickening
 High pH Precipitation
< Hydroxide Precipitation         x
j Insoluble Starch Xanthate       x
 Ion Exchange                    x
 Membrane Filtration             x
 Oxidation by Chlorine
 Oxidation by Hydrogen Peroxide
 Oxidation by Ozone
 Oxidation by' Ozone with
   UV Radiation
 Peat Adsorption                 x
 Pressure Filtration             x
 Resin Adsorption
 Reverse Osmosis                 x
 Sedimentation                   x
 Skimming
 Sludge Bed Drying
 Sulfide Precipitation           x
 Ultrafiltration                 x
 Vacuum Filtration
                     TABLE 7-2
    APPLICABILITY OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES TO
                  RAW WASTE TYPES

Precious  Complexed Chromium  Cyanide   Oily
Metals    Metals    Bearing   Bearing   Wastes

                                          x
  XX                             X
                                          X
                                                    X
                                                    X
                                X
                                X
                                X
       Toxic
       Organics  Sludge
                  In-Process
                                                               x.
                                                               x
                                                                         X
                                                                         X
                                                                         X
            X
            X
            X
            X
            X
            X
            X


            X
            X
            X
            X
            X
                                                    X


                                                    X
                                          X

                                          X

                                          X

                                          X
            X
            X


            X
            X
            X
            X
            X
            X


            X
            X
            X
            X
X
X
X
X

-------
TREATMENT OF COMMON METALS WASTES

INTRODUCTION

Common metals wastes can be generated in the Metal Finishing
Category by the unit operations that have previously been
described.  The methods used to treat these wastes are
discussed in this section and fall into two groupings -
recovery techniques and solids removal techniques.  Recovery
techniques are treatment methods used for the purpose of
recovering or regenerating process constituents which would
otherwise be lost in the wastewater or discarded.  Included in
this group are evaporation, ion exchange, electrolytic recov-
ery, electrodialysis, and reverse osmosis.  Solids removal
techniques are employed to remove metals and other pollutants
from process wastewaters to make these waters suitable for
reuse or discharge.  These methods include hydroxide and
sulfide precipitation, sedimentation, diatomaceous earth
filtration, membrane filtration, granular bed filtration,
sedimentation, peat adsorption, insoluble starch xanthate
treatment, and flotation.                '•

This subsection presents the treatment systems that are appli-
cable to common metals removal for treatment Options 1, 2, and
3; describes the treatment techniques applicable to each
option; and defines the effluent performance levels for each
of those options.  Option 1 common metals removal incorporates
hydroxide precipitation and sedimentation.  Option 2 for
common metals removal consists of the addition of filtration
devices to the Option 1 system.  The Option 3 treatment system
for common metals wastes consists of the Option 1 end-of-pipe
treatment system with the addition of in-plant controls for
cadmium.  Alternative treatment techniques that can be applied
to provide Option 1, 2, or 3 system performance are described
following the Option 3 discussion.

TREATMENT OF COMMON METAL WASTES - OPTION 1

The Option 1 system for the treatment of common metals wastes
consists of hydroxide precipitation followed by sedimentation,
as is shown in Figure 7-2.  This system accomplishes the end-
of-pipe metals removal from all common metals bearing waste-
water streams that are present at a facility.  The recovery of
precious metals, the reduction of hexavalent chromium, the
removal of oily wastes, and the destruction of cyanide must be
accomplished prior to common metals removal, as was shown in
Figure 7-1.

Cyanide bearing wastes must undergo oxidation to destroy the
cyanide in the wastewater.  Cyanide, as well as being a highly
toxic pollutant, will complex metals such as copper, cadmium,
and zinc and prevent efficient removal of these metals in the
                              VII-8

-------
                      Common Metals
                       Wastewater
    Chemical
    Addition
                           I
  Hydroxide
Precipitation
                      Sedimentation
                       Sludge
                           I
                      Effluent Water
                    FIGURE 7-2
TREATMENT OP COMMON  METALS  WASTES  - OPTION 1
                        VII-9

-------
solids removal device.  Similarly, complexed metal wastes must
be kept segregated and treated separately to avoid complexing
metals in the primary solids removal device.  Complexed metal
wastes should be treated in a separate solids removal device
such as a membrane filter or a high pH clarifier.  The spe-
cific techniques for the treatment of all other waste types, a
description of the three levels of treatment options for each
waste type and the performance for all levels of these options
are presented in subsequent subsections. ;

The treatment techniques incorporated in the Option 1 common
metals waste treatment system include pH adjustment, hydroxide
precipitation, flocculation, and sedimentation.  Sedimentation
may be carried out with equipment such as1 clarifiers, tube
settlers, settling tanks, and sedimentation lagoons, or it
may be replaced by various filtration devices preceded by
hydroxide precipitation.  The following paragraphs describe the
hydroxide precipitation and sedimentation, techniques that are
employed for the Option-1 common metals treatment system.

Hydroxide Precipitation
                                         i 	    •   •    • • • •  •
Dissolved heavy metal ions are often chemically precipitated
as hydroxides so that they may be removed by physical means
such as sedimentation, filtration, or centrifugation.  Rea-
gents commonly used to effect this precipitation include
alkaline compounds such as lime and sodium hydroxide.  Calcium
hydroxide precipitates trivalent chromium and other metals as
metal hydroxides and precipitates phosphates as insoluble
calcium phosphate.  These treatment chemicals may be added to
a flash mixer or rapid mix tank, or directly to the sedimenta-
tion device.  Because metal hydroxides tend to be colloidal in
nature, coagulating agents may also be added to facilitate
settling.  Figure 7-3 illustrates typical chemical precipita-
tion equipment as well as the associated sedimentation device.

After the solids have been removed, final pH adjustment may be
required to reduce the high pH created by the alkaline treat-
ment chemicals.                          '

Application

Hydroxide precipitation is used in metal finishing for precip-
itation of dissolved metals and phosphates.  It can be uti-
lized in conjunction with a solids removal device such as a
clarifier or filter for removal of metal ions such as iron,
lead, tin, copper, zinc, cadmium, aluminum, mercury, manga-
nese, cobalt, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, and trivalent
chromium.  The process is also applicableito any substance
that can be transformed into an insoluble;form like soaps,
phosphates, fluorides, and a variety of others.

Hydroxide precipitation has proven to be an effective tech-
nique for removing many pollutants from industrial wastewater.

                             VII-10

-------
                Rapid Sedimentation
                       and
           Continuous Gravity Drainage
   Inlet
Wastewater
                          Tube Settling    Flocculator
                                             Drive
                     Chemicals
Collection
  Trouqh

    >'<-< i
                Effluent
           Rapid
         Mix Tank
                                     Flocculator Tube
                                         Settler
                   Sludge
                                                              Sludge Siphon
                                                 Sludge Collector
                                 FIGURE  7-3
                      PRECIPITATION AND SEDIMENTATION
                                       VII-11

-------
Hydroxide precipitation operates at ambient conditions and is
well suited to automatic control.  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, which results from a buildup of
solids.  The use of hydroxide precipitation does produce large
quantities of sludge requiring disposal following precipitation
and settling.  The use of treatment chemicals requires caution be-
cause of the potentially hazardous situation involved with the
storage and handling of those chemicals.  Recovery of the
precipitated species is sometimes difficult because of the
homogeneous nature of most hydroxide sludges (where no single
metal hydroxide is present in high concentrations) and because
of the difficulty in smelting which results from the interfer-
ence of calcium compounds.

Performance

The performance of hydroxide precipitation depends on several
variables.  The most important factors affecting precipitation
effectiveness are:

     1.   Addition of sufficient excess anions to drive the
          precipitation reaction to completion.

     2.   Maintenance of an alkaline pH throughout the precip-
          itation reaction and subsequent settling.  (Figure
          7-4 details the solubilities of various metal hydrox-
          ides as a function of pH).

     3.   Effective removal of precipitated solids (see
          appropriate solids removal technologies).

Demonstration Status

Hydroxide precipitation of metals is a classic waste treatment
technology used in most industrial waste treatment systems.
As noted earlier, sedimentation to remove precipitates is dis-
cussed separately; however, both techniques have been illus-
trated in Figure 7-3.

Sedimentation

Sedimentation is a process which removes solid particles from
a liquid waste stream by gravitational settling.  The operation
is effected by reducing the velocity of the feed stream in a
large volume tank or lagoon so that gravitational settling can
occur. Figure 7-5 shows two typical sedimentation devices.
                              VII-12

-------
         100
4J
•H  *~-
M  r1
•H  \
xi  J?
3  e
>H  *
o
en
      0.0001
        0.01
       0.001
                                                 10
11
12
                                      pH
                              FIGURE 7-4



       SOLUBILITIES OF  METAL HYDROXIDES AS A FUNCTION OP pH



                                VII-13

-------
Sadirrwntatlon Basin

          Inlet Zone



Inlet Liquid
           Baffles To Maintain
         "Quiescent Conditions
Outlet Zone
Settled Particles Collected
 And Periodically Removed
 Circular Ctarifier
 ~*—-i-. *  Se\tlint| Partiele«TrajSct
-------
For the Option 1 system, sedimentation is preceded by hydrox-
ide precipitation which converts dissolved metallic pollutants
to solid forms and coagulates suspended precipitates into
larger, faster settling particles.  Wastewater is fed into a
high volume tank or lagoon where it loses velocity and the
suspended solids are allowed to settle.  High retention times
are generally required.  (The plants in the data base used
retention times ranging from 1 to 48 hours).  Accumulated
sludge can be collected and removed either periodically or
continuously and either manually or mechanically.

Inorganic coagulants or polyelectrolytic flocculants are added
to enhance coagulation.  Common inorganic coagulants include
sodium sulfate, sodium aluminate, ferrous or ferric sulfate,
and ferric chloride.  Organic polyelectrolytes vary in struc-
ture, but all usually form larger floccules than coagulants
used alone.

The use of a clarifier for sedimentation reduces space require-
ments, reduces retention time, and increases solids removal
efficiency.  Conventional clarifiers generally consist of a
circular or rectangular tank with a mechanical sludge col-
lecting device or with a sloping funnel-shaped bottom designed
for sludge collection.  In advanced clarifiers, inclined
plates, slanted tubes, or a lamellar network may be included
within the clarifier tank in order to increase the effective
settling area.  A more recently developed "clarifier" utilizes
centrifugal force rather than gravity to effect the separation
of solids from a liquid.  The precipitates are forced outward
and accumulate against an outer wall, where they can later be
collected.  A fraction of the sludge stream is often recir-
culated to the clarifier inlet, promoting formation of a
denser sludge.

Application

Sedimentation is used in metal finishing to remove precip-
itated metals, phosphates, and suspended solids.  Because most
metal ion pollutants are easily converted to solid metal
hydroxide precipitates, sedimentation is of particular use in
industries associated with metal finishing and in other indus-
tries with high concentrations of metal ions in their wastes.
In addition to heavy metals, suitably precipitated materials
effectively removed by sedimentation/clarification include
aluminum, manganese, cobalt, arsenic, antimony, beryllium,
molybdenum, fluoride, and phosphate.

The major advantage of simple sedimentation is the simplicity
of the process itself - the gravitational settling of solid
particulate waste in a holding tank or lagoon.  The major
disadvantage of sedimentation involves the long retention
times necessary to achieve complete settling, especially if
the specific gravity of the suspended matter is close to that
of water.
                              VII-15

-------
A clarifier is more effective in removing slow settling sus-
pended matter in a shorter time and in less space than a
simple sedimentation system.  Also, effluent quality is often
better from a clarifier.  The cost of installing and main-
taining a clarifier is, however, substantially greater than
the costs associated with sedimentation lagoons.

Inclined plate, slant tube, and lamellar clarifiers 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 capac-
ity.

Performance                             j

A properly operating sedimentation system is capable of effi-
cient removal of suspended solids, precipitated metal hydrox-
ides, and other impurities from wastewater.  The performance
of the process depends on a variety of factors, including the
effective charge on the suspended particles (adjustments can
be made in the type and dosage of flocculant or coagulant) and
the types of chemicals used in prior treatment.  It has been
found that the site of flocculant or coagulant addition may
significantly influence the effectiveness of sedimentation.
If the flocculant is subjected to too much mixing before
entering the settling device, the agglomerated complexes may
be broken up and the settling effectiveness diminished.  At
the same time, the flocculant must have sufficient mixing in
order for effective set-up and settling to occur.  Most plant
personnel select the line or trough leading into the clarifier
as the most efficient site for flocculant addition.  The
performance of sedimentation is a function of the retention
time, particle size and density, and the;surface area of the
sedimentation catchment.
Sampling visit data from plant 40063, a porcelain enameling
facility that performs metal finishing operations, exemplify
efficient operation of a chemical precipitation/settling system.
The following table presents sampling data from this system,
which consists of the addition of lime and caustic soda for
pH adjustment and hydroxide precipitation, polyelectrolyte
flocculant addition, and clarification.  Samples were taken
of the raw waste influent to the system and of the clarifier
effluent.  Flow through the system is approximately 18,900 LPH
(5000 GPH).  Concentrations are given in mg/1.  The effluent pH
shown in the table reflects readjustment with sulfuric acid after
solids removal.  Parameters which were not detected are
listed as ND.
                             VII-16

-------
              POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS (mg/1)
                       PLANT ID 40063


pH Range
TSS
Al
Co
Cu
Fe
Mn
Ni
Se
Ti
Zn
Day
Inf.
9.2-9.6
4390
37., 3
3.92
0.65
137
175
6.86
28,6
143
18.5
1
Eff .
8.3-9.8
9.0
0.35
ND
0.003
0.49
0.12
ND
ND
ND
0.027
Day
Inf.
9.2
3595
38.1
4.65
0.63
110
205
5.84
30.2
125
16.2
2
Eff.
7.6-8.1
13
0.35
ND
0.003
0.57
0.012
ND
ND
ND
0.044

Inf.
9.6
2805
29.9
4.37
0.72
208
245
5.63
27.4
115
17.0
Day 3
Eff.
7.8-8.2
13
0.35
ND
0.003
0.58
0.12
ND
ND
ND
0.01
Effluent TSS levels were below 15 mg/1 on each day, despite raw
waste TSS concentrations in excess of 2800 mg/1.  Effluent pH was
maintained at approximately 8 or above, lime addition was suffi-
cient to precipitate most of the dissolved metal ions, and the
flocculant addition and clarifier retention served to effec-
tively remove the precipitated solids.

Demonstration Status

Sedimentation in conjunction with hydroxide precipitation (the
Option 1 system) represents the typical method of solids
removal and is employed extensively in industrial waste treat-
ment.  The advanced clarifiers are just beginning to appear in
significant numbers in commercial applications, while the
centrifugal force "clarifier" has yet to be used commercially.
Sedimentation preceded by hydroxide precipitation is used in
154 plants in the Metal Finishing data base that are listed in
Table 7-3.

Common Metals Waste Treatment System Operation - Option _!

When operated properly, the Option 1 system is a highly reli-
able method for removing dissolved heavy metals from waste-
water, although proper system monitoring, control, and prelim-
inary treatment to remove interfering substances are required.
Effective operation depends upon attention to proper chemical
addition, raw waste load variations, routine maintenance, and
solids removal.  Control of chemical addition is required to

                             VII-17

-------
                       TABLE 7-3
METAL FINISHING PLANTS WITH OPTION 1 TREATMENT SYSTEMS
                   FOR COMMON METALS
      HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION WITH SEDIMENTATION
   01003
   01067
   02032
   02037
   03049
   04065
   04069
   04071
   04105
   04132
   04148
   04174
   04211
   04216
   04273
   05020
   05021
   06002
   06006
   06035
   06037
   06051
   06053
   06065
   06073
   06074
   06075
   06077
   06079
   06083
   06084
   06086
   06087
   06090
   06103
   06107
   06110
   06116
   06124
06731
07001
09026
10020
11008
11098
11113
11118
11477
12002
12014
12033
12061
12071
12074
12076
12078
12087
12102
12256
12709
13042
14060
15010
15058
15070
16544
17030
17061
19050
19063
19067
19068
19098
20005
20017
20022
20070
20073
20077
20078
20079
20080
20082
20083
20086
20102
20104
20106
20116
20120
20156
20158
20160
20161
20162
20175
20249
20255
20291
20708
21078
22735
23041
23061
23062
23076
27044
28125
30022
30050
30087
30090
30150
30151
30153
31020
31037
33024
33043
33050
33065
33074
33092
33113
33120
33172
33184
33186
33199
33293
33692
34036
34037
36040
36041
36062
36112
36176
36623
38031
38050
38223
40062
40079
43052
44036
44037
44045
44050
44062
44150
45741
46036
47035
                              VII-18

-------
maintain the appropriate pH for precipitation of the metals
present and to promote coagulation of the metals precipitated.
When fluctuating levels of raw waste loading occur, constant
monitoring of the system flow and pH is needed to provide
chemical addition at the proper rate.  Other raw waste types
such as hexavalent chromium or cyanide must be appropriately
treated before entering the Option 1 system.  Specifically,
hexavalent chromium will not be removed by the Option 1
system, and cyanide will interfere with the Option 1 system's
ability to remove dissolved metals.  The necessary preliminary
treatment for hexavalent chromium and cyanide is discussed in
detail later in Section VII.

An important factor in successful Option 1 system operation is
the handling of changes in raw waste load.  This is equally
true for small batch systems and for large continuous systems.
Most system failures, i.e. excessive discharges of pollutants,
are the result of inadequate response to raw waste loading
changes.  Both hydraulic overloading and pollutant shock loads
can be avoided by the segregation and bleed-in of concentrated
batch dumps.  When these practices are not employed, success-
ful operation requires careful monitoring and quick response
by the system operator.  Appropriate action by the operator in
the event of an upset usually involves adjusting chemical feed
rate, changing residence time, recycling of treated wastewater,
or shutdown for maintenance.
                             VII-19

-------
The major maintenance requirements involve the periodic inspec-
tion and adjustment of monitoring devices, chemical mixing and
feeding equipment, feed and sludge pumps, and clarifier mixing
and drive components.  Removal of accumulated sludge is neces-
sary for efficient operation of precipitation/sedimentation
systems. Solids which precipitate must be continually removed
and properly disposed.  Proper disposal practices are
discussed later in this section under Treatment of Sludges.

Common Metals Waste Treatment System Performance - Option 1^

Although the performance of many Option 1 treatment systems  (as
shown in Figure 7-6 with sources of wastes) is excellent, others
exhibit inferior performance.  The major causes of poor per-
formance are low pH (resulting in incomplete metals precipitation)
and poor sedimentation, evidenced by high suspended solids in
the effluent.  In analyzing the data to determine expected per-
formance, poorly performing plants were excluded from the data base
Plants with low effluent concentrations due to dilution, low in-
fluent concentration, or similar factors were also excluded.

The performance for the Option 1 treatment system was estab-
lished from a combination of visited plant sampling data and
long term self-monitoring data that were submitted by industry.
The following subsection describes the procedure used to
establish Option 1 treatment system performance for the vis-
ited plant data set.

Visited Plant Performance

To establish the treatment system performance characteristics/
plants employing Option 1 treatment that were visited were
selected from the Metal Finishing Category data base.  The
files for these plants were then examined to ensure that only
properly operating facilities were included in the performance
data base by establishing criteria to eliminate the data for
improperly operating systems.  The criteria for eliminating
improperly operating treatment systems were as follows:

1.   Data with an effluent TSS level greater than 50 mg/1 were
     deleted.  This represents a level of TSS above which no
     well-operated treatment plant should be discharging.
     Figure 7-7 shows effluent TSS concentrations vs. per-
     centile distribution.  As is shown in the graph there is
     an abrupt increase in slope (approximately 5.8:1) at the
     50 mg/1 level.  Deleting data above this concentration
     still includes nearly seventy percent of the data base.
     The following presentation of TSS and metals concentra-
     tions for plants 20073 and 20083 shows that a low level
     of TSS is indicative of low effluent metal concentrations.
                               VI1-20

-------
      Sludge-
NJ
Complexed
Metals
Wastes
t
Solids
Removal
t
Discharge
o
Chromium Common Precious
Bearing Cyanide Metals Metals
Wastes Wastes Wastes Wastes
t t t
Hexa\
Chrc
Redui
ntinn 1
'alent Cyanide
mium Oxidation
stion
i ' (
1
Precious
Metals
Recovery

— — — —
i
I Precipitation

Oily
Wastes
t
Oily Waste
Removal
Recovered
*- Metals

>
	 1
I
1
1
C
f
F
f
"oxic
)rganics
V
(aul or
leclaim
                                                           Sedimentation
Sludge
                                                              Discharge
                                                        FIGURE 7-6

                                                      TREAIMENT SCHEME
                                                         OPTION 1

-------
        180
        160
        140
   \
   o*


   4J
   C
   0)
   3
   ^
   MJ
   U-l
   [J
120
100
<   CO
2  -o
    o
   C/)

   •a
    0)
   •a
    c
    IV
   ni
   4J
   O
 80
         60
         40
         20
            5lCg>
                         10
                                        20
                                                       30
                                                             40             '<0
                                                             'i.Mit i I o Distf LbuL ion

                                                                I-'IGUKK  7-7

                                                             KI I:K 'i':;:;  IHSTKU'.UTIOU
                                                                                                  (.0
                                                                                                                 70

-------
              POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS  (mg/1)
                       Plant ID 20073
TSS
Cu
Ni
Cr
2.
Avg,
TSS
Cr
Zn
               Day 1
                              Day 2
                                  Day 3
          Inf,
               Eff.
         Inf.
           Eff,
             Inf.
               Eff,
702.
64., 6
53.8
162.
11.
.812
.448
1.47
712.
97.1
52.5
175.
14.
.875
.478
1.89
124.
91.2
89.7
220.
33.
1.37
1.12
2.85
              POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS (mg/1)
                       Plant ID 20083
        Day 1
                   Day 2
                   Day 3
                           Day 4
     Inf.
        Eff.
Inf.
Eff.
Inf.
Eff.
Inf.
Eff.
TSS
Cu
Ni
24.0
56.2
103
145
2.75
6.13
18.0
57.7
153
23.0
0.38
0.91
15.0
39.3
82.8
27.0
0.21
0.77
10.0
50.0
87.1
97.0
2.44
4.75
Plants with alkaline precipitation systems that operated at
an average effluent pH of less than 7.0 were deleted.  An
alkaline precipitation system will not work properly in
this pH range, as is illustrated by the following data from
plant 21066.
              POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS  (mg/1)
                       Plant ID 21066
                         Day 1
                                             Day 2
                    Inf.
                         Eff.
effluent pH
     *Not Available
NA*
48.0
5.36
114
5.4
448
3.74
150
                        Inf.

                        NA*
                        61.0
                        8.99
                        111
                          Eff.

                          5.1
                          371
                          1.28
                          140
     Proper control of pH is absolutely essential for favorable
     performance of precipitation/sedimentation technologies.
     This is illustrated by results obtained from a sampling
     visit to manufacturing plant 47432 (not a metal finishing
     plant) as shown by the following data (concentrations are
     in mg/1) :
                             VII-23

-------
               POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS (mg/1)
                        Plant ID 47432
                                              !
                Day 1               Day 2     :          Day 3
           In        Out       In_        Out       ^ri        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

 TSS       39        8         16        19        16        7

 Copper    312       0.22      120       5.12 j     107       0.66
                                              I                      .....
 Zinc      250       0.31      32.5      25   j"   43.8      0.66

 Lead      0.16      0.03      0.16      0.04 \     0.15      0.04

 Nickel    42.8      0.78      33.8      0.53 I     36.6      0.46

      This  plant utilizes lime precipitation and pH adjustment
      followed by flocculant addition and sedimentation.
      Samples were taken before and after the system.  On day
      two effluent pH was allowed to range below 7 for the
      entire day and the effluent metals control was less
      effective than on days one and three.  In general,  better
      results will be obtained in chemical precipitation sys-
      tems  when pH is maintained consistently at a level be-
      tween 8.5 and 9.5.  It can be clearly seen that the best
      results were produced on day one when the effluent pH was
      kept  within the recommended range for the entire day.

 3.   Plants that had complexing agents (unoxidized cyanide
      or nonsegregated wastes from electroless;plating)
      present were deleted.

 4.   Plants which had effluent flows significantly greater than
      the corresponding raw waste flows were deleted.  The in-
      crease in flows was assumed to be dilution by other waste-
      waters.

 5.   Pollutant parameters which had an effluent concentration
      greater than the raw waste concentration were deleted.

 6.   Plants that experienced difficulties in system operation
      during the sampling period were excluded.  These difficulties
      included a few hours operation at very low pH (approximately 4.0),
      observed operator error,an inoperative chemical feed system,
      improper chemical usage, improperly maintained equipment,
      high  flow slugs during the sampling period, and excessive
      surface water intrusion (heavy rains).

The following procedure was followed for each metal pollutant parameter
 (except for TSS which is created during precipitation) in order to elimi-
nate spurious background metal readings.  The mean effluent concentration
of each parameter was calculated and when a raw waste concentration was
less than the mean effluent concentration for that parameter, the cor-
responding effluent reading was deleted from the data set.  The mean was
recalculated using points not removed and the iprocess

                                VII-24         !

-------
was repeated in an iterative loop.  The deletion of these points
prevents the calculation of unrealistically low mean effluent
concentrations from the waste treatment systems due to low raw
waste pollutant loadings.

Option 1 performance data from visited plants are presented in
Tables 7-4 through 7-10 for cadmium, chromium, copper, lead,
nickel, zinc, and total suspended solids.  The mean effluent
concentrations for these parameters are summarized in Table 7-11.
                            VII-25

-------
                                   TftBLE  7-4      i

             METRL FINISHING CATEGORY PERFORMANCE DATA  FOR CADMIUM
                                    OPTION  1
   Data
   Point

     1.
     2.
     3.
     4.
     5.
     6.
     7.
     8.
     9.
    10.
    11.
    12.
    13.
    14.
    15.
    16.
    17.
    18.
    19.
    20.
    21.
    22.
    23.
    24.
    25.
    26.
    27.
    28.
    29.
    30.
    31.
  Raw Waste
Concentration
   (mg/g.)

    0.012
    0.012
    0.012
    0.013
    0.013
    0.013
    0.015
    0.017
    0.019
    0.021
    0.021
    0.022
    0.022
    0.024
    0.030
    0.032
    0.033
    0.037
    0.037
    0.042
    0.042
    0.053
    0.068
    0.077
    0.084
    0.087
    0.113
    0.250
    0.925
    1.00
    1.88
  Effluent
Concentration
   (mq/8,)

    0.006
    0.006
    0.006
    0.005
    |0.005
    ;0.010
    :0.008
    iO.006
    "0.007
    0.010
    0.018
    :0.013
    0.019
    0.005
    0.014
    0.005
    0.011
    '0.005
    0.005
    ,0.006
    0.006
    0.009
    0.017
    b.005
    0.027
    0.024
    0.028
    0.008
    0.012
    ,0.015
    0.018
Plant ID

20083-1-5
20083-1-6
19063-1-2
6083-1-2
19063-1-3
15070-1-1
6731-1-1
6731-1-2
6731-1-3
6074-1-1
31020-1-1
6087-1-3
27044-1-0
20080-1-1
6087-1-1
4065-8-1
6074-1-1
20073-1-1
20073-1-2
36041-1-2
36041-1-3
36041-1-1
21003-15-2
33024-6-0
21003-15-0
21003-15-1
6051-6-0
15070-1-2
20086-1-1
20086-1-3
20086-1-2
Mean
Concentration
    0.162 (n=31)
    0.011 (n=31)
                                    VII-26

-------
                                   TABLE 7-5

         METAL FIMISHIMG CATEGORY PERFORMANCE DATA FOB CHROMIUM (TOTAL)


Data
Point
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
OPTION 1
Raw Waste
Concentration
(mq/i)
0.65
1.09
1.20
1.30
1.31
1.51
1.56
1.60
1.70
2.00
2.43
4.34
7.00
12.2
12.2
14.0
21.6
24.7
25.0
25.3
28.6
29.4
32.2
58.2
69.3
70.3
76.7
85.3
98.0
104.
116.
117.
117.
142.
162.
175.
190.
393.

Effluent
Concentration
(mq/l)
0.052
0.128
1.12
0.013
0.014
0.150
0.255
0.120
1.16
0.040
0.070
0.039
0.020
0.556
0.611
0.250
0.005
0.333
0.333
0.533
0.667
0.733
0.0
0.833
1.06
0.833
1.64
0.143
0.333
0.714
0.018
0.400
0.500
0.195
1.47
1.89
2.36
2.14



Plant ID
6087-1-3
6731-1-2
15010-12-3
19068-15-1
4069-8-1
44062-15-0
6051-6-0
44062-15-1
15010-12-2
11477-22-2
33024-6-0
44062-15-2
11477-22-1
6083-1-2
36041-1-2
33065-9-1
19068-14-0
36040-1-1
36041-1-3
36040-1-1
36041-1-1
36040-1-1
19068-15-2
20086-1-2
20086-1-3
20086-1-1
20078-1-7
6074-1-1
6074-1-1
6074-1-1
31020-1-1
20078-1-2
20078-1-3
20080-1-1
20073-1-1
20073-1-2
40062-8-0
40062-8-0
Mean
Concentration
58.6 (n=38)
0.572 (n=38)
                                     VII-27

-------
                                TABLE 7-6

           METAL FINISHING CATEGORY PERFORMANCE DATA FOR COPPER


                                 OPTION 1        .

                    Raw Waste                Effluent
Data              Concentration            Concentration
Point                (mq/9.)                   (mq/8,)            Plant ID

  1.                 0.88                      0.006            19068-14-0
  2.                 0.94                      0.258            6731-1-2
  3.                 0.95                      0.13             21003-15-2
  4.                 1.00                      0.044            6074-1-1
  5.                 1.30                      0.029            12061-15-2
  6.                 1.39                      0.060            36040-1-1
  7.                 1.63                      0.016            19068-15-2
  8.                 1.65                      0.588            6731-1-3
  9.                 1.78                      0;028            19068-15-1
 10.                 1.90                      0.038            12061-15-0
 11.                 2.62                      1.30             5020-1-6
 12.                 2.86                      1.85             5020-1-4
 13.                 3.29                      0.780            4071-25-3
 14.                 4.35                      0.727            4069-8-1
 15.                 4.55                      0.380            4065-8-1
 16.                 6.21                      0.076            36040-1-1
 17.                 6.42                      0.898            4065-8-1
 18.                 7.53                      0.444            36041-1-2
 19.                 7.67                      O.'l65            5020-1-3
 20.                 7.69                      0.247            20078-1-3
 21.                 7.69                      0.307            20078-1-2
 22.                 7.79                      0.157            27044-1-0
 23.                 8.16                      0.400            20078-1-7
 24.                 8.31                      0.372            20078-1-4
 25.                 8.44                      0.776            4069-8-1
 26.                 9.56                      1.06             36041-1-3
 27.                10.2                       0.071            36040-1-1
 28.                11.0                       0.160            33024-6-0
 29.                14.7                       2.20             19063-1-2
 30.                14.9                       4.47             19063-1-1
 31.                16.1                       3.53             19063-1-3
 32.                19.5                       0.900            5020-1-5
 33.                26.5                       1.89             36041-1-1
 34.                47.5                       1.62             40062-8-0
 35.                47.8                       0.212            20083-1-5

                               (Continued)       j
                                   VII-28

-------
                             TABLE 7-6 (Continued)
              METAL FINISHING CATEGORY PERFORMANCE DATA FOR COPPER
                                    OPTION 1
   Data
   Point

    36.
    37.
    38.
    39.
    40.
    41.
    42.
    43.
    44.
    45.
    46.
    47.
  Raw Waste
Concentration
 49.3
 51.5
 52.5
 57.7
 64.6
 80.0
 84.6
 91.7
 95.8
 96.9
 97,1
108.
  Effluent
Concentration
   (rng/ft)

    1.94
    0.163
    1.69
    0.375
    0.812
    2.63
    0.547
    0.500
    1.06
    0.533
    0.875
    1.00
                                              Plant ID

                                              6087-1-1
                                              20083-1-6
                                              40062-8-0
                                              20083-1-3
                                              20073-1-1
                                              6087-1-3
                                              20086-1-2
                                              20086-1-1
                                              20086-1-3
                                              33065-9-1
                                              20073-1-2
                                              31020-1-1
Mean
Concentration
  26.7 (n=47)
    0.815 (n=47)
                                      VII-29

-------
                                TABLE 7-7

            METAL FINISHING CATEGORY PERFORMANCE DATA FOR LEAD
                                 OPTION 1
Data
Point

  1.
  2.
  3.
  4.
  5.
  6.
  7.
  8.
  9.
 10.
 11.
 12.
 13.
 14.
 15.
 16.
 17.
 18.
 19.
 20.
 21.
 22.
 23.
 24.
 25.
 26.
 27.
 28.
 29.
 30.
 31.
 32.
 33.
 34.
 35.
  Raw Waste
Concentration
   (mg/il)

    0.052
    0.054
    0.064
    0.067
    0.071
    0.072
    0.072
    0.075
    0.084
    0.102
    0.103
    0.125
    0.136
    0.136
    0.144
    0.145
    0.154
    0.160
    0.164
    0.168
    0.174
    0.182
    0.212
    0.218
    0.226
    0.233
    0.270
    0.364
    0.394
    0.474
    0.567
    0.600
    0.800
    0.909
    1.000
  Effluent
Concentration
   (mq/ft)

    0.048
    0.033
    0.025
    0.013
    0.0
    0.044
    0.048
    0.010
    0.025
    0.025
    0.077
    0.050
    0.032
    0.040
    0.032
    0.038
    0.044
    0.036
    0.040
    0.032
    0.0 !
    0.044
    0.036
    0.044
    0.025
    0.0
    0.160
    0.067
    0.021
    0.043
    0.0
    0.036
    0.068
    0.073
    0.064
Plant ID

15070-1-3
36040-1-1
20078-1-3
6731-1-3
19068-15-1
15070-1-1
15070-1-2
20080-1-1
20078-1-2
20078-1-4
4065-8-1
20083-1-3
36041-1-2
20078-1-7
20083-1-6
20073-1-1
20086-1-3
20086-1-1
20086-1-2
20083-1-5
19068-15-2
6074-1-1
36041-1-3
6074-1-1
20073-1-2
36623-15-2
4071-15-3
27044-1-0
33065-9-1
40062-8-0
36623-15-0
40062-8-0
31020-1-1
15010-12-2
36041-1-1
                               (Continued)
                                    VTI-30

-------
                             TABLE 7-7 (Continued)

               METAL FINISHING CATEGORY PERFORMANCE DATA FOR LEAD
                                    OPTION 1
   Data
   Point

    36.
    37.
    38.
    39.
    40.
    41.
    42.
    43.
    44.
  Raw Waste
Concentration
   (rng/t)
    1,
    1,
    1,
    2.
 .000
 .000
 ,120
 .500
2.540
6.928
6.930
8.362
9.701
  Effluent
Concentration
   (mq/U

    0.085
    0.133
    0.065
    0.160
    0.0
    0.165
    0.0
    0.098
    0.143
Plant ID

6087-1-1
15010-12-3
6087-1-3
6083-1-2
12061-15-2
19063-1-1
12061-15-0
19063-1-2
19063-1-3
Mean
Concentration
    1.11 (n=44)
                         0.0505 (n=44)
                                    VII-.31

-------
                                TABLE 7-8

           METAL FINISHING CATEGORY PERFORMANCE DATAFOR NICKEL


                                 OPTION 1

                    Raw Vaste                Effluent
Data              Concentration            Concentration
Point                (mq/a.)                   (mq/St)            Plant ID

  1.                   1.07                    0.076            19063-1-1
  2.                   1.44                    1.11             6731-1-1
  3.                   1.48                    0.150            21003-15-1
  4.                   1.69                    0.060            19063-1-2
  5.                   2.14                    0.342            4069-8-1
  6.                   2.22                    1.00             6731-1-2
  7.                   2.23                    0.190            19063-1-3
  8.                   2.57                    0.044            36041-1-2
  9.                   3.20                    0.726            27044-1-0
 10.                   3.24                    0.700            36623-15-2
 11.                   3.87                    0.122            4069-8-1
 12.                   3.89                    1.89             6731-1-3
 13.                   4.49                    0.571            36041-1-3
 14.                   5.00                    0.320            36041-1-1
 15.                   5.42                    1.20             36623-15-0
 16.                   5.60                    0.414            5020-1-6
 17.                   5.80                    1.03             36623-15-1
 18.                   6.80                    0.414            5020-1-5
 19.                   7.31                    0.759            5020-1-4
 20.                   8.56                    0.0;             19068-15-2
 21.                   9.33                    2.27             6083-1-2
 22.                  11.8                     0.294            5020-1-3
 23.                  27.5                     0.120            31020-1-1
 24.                  33.9                     0.536            20086-1-2
 25.                  36.7                     0.464            20086-1-3
 26.                  42.9                     0.786            20086-1-1
 27.                  50.0                     7.30             6087-1-1
 28.                  52.5                     0.478            20073-1-2
 29.                  53.8                     0.448            20073-1-1
 30.                  73.0                     6.39             6087-1-3
 31.                  76.9                     0.381            20078-1-7
 32.                  78.7                     0.106            20078-1-3
 33.                  78.7                     0.427            20078-1-4
 34.                  80.6                     1.84             40062-8-0
 35.                  85.3                     0.144            20078-1-2

                               (Continued)
                                    VII-32

-------
                             TABLE 7-8 (Continued)

              MlfftL FINISHING CATEGORY PERFORMANCE DATA FOR NICKEL
                                    OPTION 1
   Data
   Point

    36.
    37.
    38.
    39.
    40.
    41.
    42.
    43.
    44.
    45.

Mean
Concentration
  Raw Vaste
Concent ratIon
   (mq/St)
     1
 94.3
 94.4
 97.
108.
108
111.
128.
142.
153.
167.
                          effluent
                        Concentration
    46.1 (n=45)
0.600
1.52
0.808
0.778
1.78
0.462
0.571
1.56
0.907
0.304
                            0.942 (n=45)
Plant ID

6074-1-1
40062-8-0
20083-1-5
36040-1-1
36040-1-1
20083-1-6
6074-1-1
36040-1-1
20083-1-3
6074-1-1
                                    VII-33

-------
                                   TABLE 7-9

               METAL FINISHING CATEGORY PERFORMANCE DATA FOR ZINC
                                    OPTION  1
   Data
   Point

     1.
     2.
     3.
     4.
     5.
     6.
     7.
     8.
     9.
    10.
    11.
    12.
    13.
    14.
    15.
    16.
    17.
    18.
    19.
    20.
    21.
    22.
    23.
    24.
    25.
    26.
    27.
    28.
    29.
    30.
    31.
    32.
    33.
    34.

Mean
Concentration
  Raw Waste
Concentration
   (mcr/H)

   0.63
   0.73
   0.81
   0.87
   0.92
   1.08
   1.13
   1.25
   1.36
   1.71
   1.75
   3.71
   4.11
   4.67
   4.89
   4.89
   5.07
   9.91
  11.2
  13.4
  14.3
  17.5
  18.7
  18.8
  19.2
  42.6
  48.5
  59.4
 100.
 103.
 121.
 169.
 171.
 175.
    33.9 (n=34)
  Effluent
Concentration
   (mg/il)

    0.028
    0.024
    0.060
    0.013
    0.123
  i  0.020
    0.016
    0.193
    0.105
  i  0.070
  :  o.oio
  i  0.166
    0.040
  '  0.029
    0.033
  ;  0.083
  I  0.304
    0.889
  i  1.00
    0.139
  \  0.430
  !  1.12
  !  0.765
  !  0.018
  i  .0.889
  '  3.00
    0.308
  ,  0.375
  ,  3.12
  i  1.33
    1.09
    0.765
  I  1.12
  .  1.00
  !  0.549 (n=34)
Plant ID

36623-15-1
36040-1-1
19068-14-0
36040-1-1
15010-12-2
19068-15-1
36040-1-1
15010-12-3
20073-1-1
20073-1-2
19068-15-2
6083-1-2
20078-1-7
20078-1-2
20078-1-3
20078-1-4
6731-1-1
6731-1-2
6087-1-1
36041-1-2
36041-1-3
6087-1-3
36041-1-1
31020-1-1
6731-1-3
15070-1-3
33065-9-1
20080-1-1
15070-1-2
15070-1-1
33024-6-0
20086-1-1
20086-1-2
20086-1-3
                                 VII-34

-------
                                TABLE 7-10

            HETRL FINISHING CATEGORY PERFORMANCE DRTftPOR.TJLS
Data
Point

  1.
  2.
  3.
  4.
  5.
  6.
  7.
  8.
  9.
 10.
 11.
 12.
 13.
 14.
 15.
 16.
 17.
 18.
 19.
 20.
 21.
 22.
 23.
 24.
 25.
 26.
 27.
 28.
 29.
 30.
 31.
 32.
 33.
 34.
 35.
 36.
 37.
 38.
 39.
 40.
                                 OPTION 1
  Saw Waste
Concentration
   (mg/8.)
                       Effluent
                     Concentration
    1,
    1,
    2,
    3,
    3,
    3,
    3.
    4,
    6.
    7.
    9.
    9,
 0.0
 0.000
  .000
  .200
  .000
  .000
  .000
  .290
  .610
  .000
  .000
  .000
  .000
  .000
10.00
10.00
10.00
14.35
15.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.04
16.38
17.00
18.000
21.000
23.000
23.000
26.000
33.000
38.000
42.518
44.606
45.000
46.510
55.268
59.000
66.000
67.000
 0.0
12.000
24.000
 0.700
38.000
  .000
  .000
  .400
  .900
 6.
 7
 2
 2.
34.00
 5,
 6,
   000
   000
24.00
32.00
 5.000
15.000
11.500
21.00
 8.000
                              9.
                              9,
  .000
  .000
37.00
17.00
22.00
 1.000
34.000
14.000
 4.000
27.000
 5.000
32.000
16.000
28.487
15.000
 8.0000
48.000
 4.000
27.000
11.000
 4.000
Plant ID

  21003-15-0
  21003-15-2
   33074-1-3
  36623-15-2
   20078-1-7
   20083-1-6
   27044-1-0
  36623-15-1
  36623-15-0
    5020-1-4
  21003-15-1
    6731-1-1
    5020-1-5
   20078-1-3
   20080-1-1
    5020-1-6
   19051-6-0
  19068-15-1
   6101-12-1
   6101-12-1
   20083-1-5
   20078-1-4
  19068-15-2
  19068-14-0
    6731-1-2
   20083-1-3
   20078-1-2
    6731-1-3
   40062-8-0
    5020-1-3
   40062-8-0
    4065-8-1
   19063-1-1
    4069-8-1
   36040-1-1
   4071-15-3
    4069-8-1
    4065-8-1
   36040-1-1
   23061-8-1
                               (Continued)
                                  VII-35

-------
                             TABLE 7-10  (Continued)
               METAL.FINISHING CATEGORY  PBRFORMftNCB DRTft FOR TSS
                                    OPTION 1
   Data
   Point

    41.
    42.
    43.
    44.
    45.
    46.
    47.
    48.
    49.
    50.
    51.
    52.
    53.
    54.
    55.
    56.
    57.
    58.
    59.
    60.
    61.
    62.
    63.
    64.
    65.
    66.
    67.
    68.
    69.
    70.
    71.
    72.
    73.
    74.
    75.
    76.
    77.
    78.
  Raw Waste
Concentration
   (mq/it)

   74.000
   78.000
   80.000
   88.666
  117.58
  119.00
  131.00
  139.13
  162.00
  174.04
  180.00
  182.28
  194.00
  201.00
  215.00
  259.50
  344.00
  392.00
  472.00
  504.00
  524.00
  652.00
  672.00
  702.00
  712.00
  812.00
  904.00
  920.00
 1032.0
 1036.0
 1100.0
 2060.0
 2425.0
 2466.8
 3103.8
 4410.0
 8340.0
 9970.0
  Effluent
Concentration
     32.000
      5.000
     19.000
     13.238
     14.000
      3,
      9.
      7.
  .000
  .000
  .9498
10.900
23.000
42.000
13.000
14.;000
15.000
12.000
42.000
44.000
34.000
22.!000
25.000
10.000
 5JOOO
 0.0
11.000
14.000
  .000
  .000
12.000
16.000
32.000
  .000
  ,1000
17.000
25.000
22.000
21.000
26.000
46.000
      7.
     21,
      1,
      0,
Plant ID

  15010-12-2
  12061-15-2
  14001-12-1
   19063-1-2
  44062-15-1
  11477-22-0
    6051-6-0
   19063-1-3
  33692-23-1
  44062-15-2
  15010-12-3
  44062-15-0
   36040-1-1
   23061-8-2
  11477-22-2
   33024-6-0
    6087-1-1
    6087-1-3
    6083 1-2
   15070-1-3
   36041-1-2
   36041-1-3
  12061-15-0
   20073-1-1
   20073-1-2
  12061-15-1
   15070-1-2
   15070-1-1
   31020-1-1
   36041-1-1
  11477-22-1
   33065-9-1
   20086-1-1
   20086-1-2
   20086-1-3
    6074-1-1
    6074-1-1
    6074-1-1
Mean
Concentration
  599.558 (n=78)
     16.836 {n=78>
                                      VII-36

-------
                             TABLE 7-11
            TREATMENT OF COMMON METALS - VISITED PLANTS
          SUMMARY OF OPTION 1 MEAN EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS
Parameter
Mean Concentration (mq/St)
Cadmium
Chromium. Total
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Total Suspended Solids
                0.011
                0.572
                0.815
                0.051
                0.942
                0.549
               16.8
                              VII-37

-------
Long Term Self-Monitoring Data Performance

Long term self-monitoring data were submitted by a number of
plants with Option 1 treatment systems.  The total data points
per parameter ranged from 485 for cadmium to 3552 for chromium.
The mean concentrations, daily maximum variability factors, and
10-day variability factors were determined statistically
for these data and are summarized in Tables 7-12 through 7-18.
These tables also show overall values for each pollutant, speci-
fically the total number of points, the mean value for all
points, and the median of the variability factors listed in the
table.                                    :

Overall Performance

The overall Option 1 system performance is based on mean
concentrations calculated from the visited plant data multi-
plied by variability factors calculated from the historical
performance data.  For cadmium and lead, the weighted mean Option
1 self-monitoring concentrations rather than the mean visit concen-
trations are used because of the relatively low raw waste con-
centrations of the visit data.  The statistical procedures used
to establish the Option 1 system performance are discussed in
Statistical Analysis at the end of this section.
                            VIl-38

-------
                            TABLE 7-12
          EFFLUENT TSS SELF-MONITORING PERFORMANCE DATA
                 FOR PLANTS WITH OPTION 1 SYSTEMS
                     Mean Effluent
            Number   Concentration
Plant ID  OF Points    (mg/St)
VariabilityFactor
                        13.85
                        10.08
                        11.49
                         4.71
                         7.86
                         8.41
                        11.64
                        21.38
                        12.52
                         0.40
                         3.88
                         4.29
                         8.88
                         4.19
                        14.05
                         6.84
                         4.58
                         3.58
                         3.50
                        15.22

OVERALL    1777(Total)   9.02(Mean)   3.59(Median)  1.85(Median)
1067
3049
6002
6035
6051
6053
6087
6103
6107
6111
11008
11477
19063
20080
20116
22735
30050
30090
44045
47025
149
49
18
12
13
12
12
13
10
3
140
69
9
269
243
27
292
51
50
336
Daily
3.41
7.49
3.58
5.33
3.50
4.57
5.01
2.52
3.54
13.21
2.63
3.39
7.18
3.61
2.80
2.80
4.42
4.82
3.42
4.45
10-Dav
1.85
2.55
1.24
1.54
1.76
3.27
1.76
1.24
—
—
1.99
1.36
—
2.24
1.48
2.00
2.13
1.82
1.85
2.25
                              VII-39

-------
                            TABLE 7-13
        EFFLUENT CADMIUM SELF-MONITORING PERFORMANCE DATA
                 FOR PLANTS WITH OPTION 1 SYSTEMS
                     Mean Effluent
            Number   Concentration   Variability Factor
Plant ID  OF Points    (mq/il)          Daily      10-Day

  1067      222          0.13         3.08          2.04
  6002        6          0.05         7.48
  6035        9          0.01
  6051       13          0.04          --           1.14
 11008      185          0.12         3.14          2.01
 47025       50          0.21         7.49          8.54

OVERALL     485(Total)   0.13(Mean)   5.31(Median)  2.02(Median)
                               VII-40

-------
                       TABLE 7-14
EFFLUENT TOTAL CHROMIUM SELF-MONITORING PERFORMANCE DATA
            FOR PLANTS WITH OPTION 1 SYSTEMS
                                Variability Factor
                     Mean Effluent
            Number   Concentration
Plant ID  OF Points    (mcr/n

                         0.17
                         0.03
                         0.74
                         0.18
                         0.27
                         0.14
                         0.02
                         0.10
                         0.12
                         0.09
                         0.20
                         0.16
                         0.29
                         0.60
                         0.21
                         0.15
                         0.40
                         0.01
                         O.04
                         0.24
                         0.01
                         0.06
                         0.06

OVERALL    3552(Total)   0.19(Mean)   4.85(Median)  2.98(Median)
1067
5020
6002
6035
6051
6053
6087
6107
6111
11008
17030
19063
20080
20082
20116
22735
23076
30050
30090
36040
44150
45741
47025
230
228
6
12
13
12
12
10
3
185
344
238
269
253
243
35
242
289
49
224
42
358
255
Daily
3 . 07
—
13.66
7.52
3.97
8.72
5.58
5.57
5.97
6.84
3.51
4.58
5.20
2.76
4.64
4.79
3.80
4.90
1.67
—
4.47
5.57
10-Dav
2.27
10.52
—
1.89
1.78
3.02
«. _
	
4.08
5.56
4.80
2.63
3.70
1.65
1.39
4.41
3.07
2.12
1.30
37.26
2.98
2.81
                           VII-41

-------
                            TABLE 7-15
         EFFLUENT COPPER SELF-MONITORING PERFORMANCE DATA
                 FOR PLANTS WITH OPTION 1 SYSTEMS
Plant ID
  Number
OF Points
1067
5020
6002
6051
6087
6107
11008
12002
19063
20082
20116
23076
30050
30090
30165
33050
34037
44045
44150
230
232
6
13
12
10
185
59
231
253
243
241
292
259
66
112
123
49
127
Mean Effluent
Concentration
  (nrn/9.)

    0.09
    0.24
    0.14
    0.12
    1.38
    2.36
    0.06
    0.08
    0.64
    1.38
    O.10
    0.74
    0.10
    0.18
    1.47
    0.07
    1.40
    0.16
    0.43
                                     Variability Factor
Daily
4.07
4.56
5.10
3.19
3.56
3.87
5.87
3.65
4.55
4.02
4.15
9.29
2.30
2.39
2.43
5.06
5.92
4.62
10-Dav
2.81
2.54
—
1,77
2.58
—
5.72
2.24
2.51
3.37
3.07
6.90
1.62
1.62
2.08
2.21
4.08
1.72
                                      5.70
                                          7.25
OVERALL
 2744(Total)   0.46(Mean)   4.15(Median)  2.54(Median)
                               VII-42

-------
                            TABLE 7-16
          EFFLUENT LEAD SELF-MONITORING PERFORMANCE DATA
                 FOR PLANTS WITH OPTION 1 SYSTEMS
Plant ID

  5020
 19063
 30165
 44045

OVERALL
  Number
OF Points

  229
  238
   65
   49
Mean Effluent
Concentration
  (rng/it)

    0.242
    0.10
    0.45
    0.14
Variability.Factor
  Daily      10-Day
 4.50
 3.15
 2.66
 3.89
2.11
3.18
1.93
2.26
  581(Total)   0.20(Mean)   3.52(Median)  2.19(Median)
                                VIl-43

-------
                   TABLE 7-17
EFFLUENT NICKEL SELF-MOWITORING PERFORMANCE DATA
        FOR PLANTS WITH OPTION 1 SYSTEMS
                            Va r i ab i 1 i ty Fa c t or
                     Mean Effluent
            Number   Concentration
Plant ID  OF Points    (roq/it)

                         0.21
                         0.40
                         0.09
                         0.06
                         0.04
                         0.66
                         0.44
                         0.07
                         0.32
                         0.67
                         0.50
                         0.03
                         0.25
                         0.32
                         0.32
                         V* » JL &          — —          ^  m. *m>  ^ ^

OVERALL    1804(Total)   0.39(Mean)   4.22(Median)  2. 52(Median)
1067
5020
6002
6035
6051
6087
11008
19063
20082
20116
23076
30050
33092
36040
44045
44150
230
231
6
9
13
12
185
10
253
243
241
75
27
178
49
42
Daily :
4.05
4.48
4.72
5.37
6.55
—
2.79
2.90
3.72
2.26
6.38
3.78
4.38
1.73
10.13
10-Day
2.39
2.54
—
—
6.12
6.30
1.62
—
2.77
1.31
4.29
2.37
2.51
1.27
2.66
                         VII-44

-------
                            TABLE 7-18
          EFFLUENT ZINC SELF-MONITORING PERFORMANCE DATA
                 FOR PLANTS WITH OPTION 1 SYSTEMS
                     Mean Effluent
            Number   Concentration
Plant ID  OF Points    (mq/B.)
Variability Factor
                         0.61
                         0.15
                         0.13
                         1.50
                         0.26
                         0.24
                         0.41
                         0.32
                         1.26
                         0.07
                         0.02

OVERALL    1216(Total)   0.41(Mean)   4.75(Median)  2.70(Median)
1067
6002
6051
6107
11008
12002
20080
20082
30165
33050
44150
230
6
13
10
184
31
269
250
S6
115
42
Daily
3.52
8.86
7,24
5.20
3.93
14.16
2.22
4.07
4.34
5.15
_ -
10-Day
1.96
—
1.42
—
2.26
11.35
1.41
2.70
3.50
3.07
4.62
                                 VII-45

-------
Table 7-19 summarizes the daily and 10-day variability factors
calculated from the long term data and shown earlier in Tables
7-12 through 7-18.

                            TABLE 7-19
       SUMMARY OF OPTION 1 DAILY MAXIMUM AND 10-DAY AVERAGE
                       VARIABILITY FACTORS
Pollutant

Total suspended solids
Cadmium
Chromium, total
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
                  Variability Factor
             Daily Max.     10-Day Average
                3.59
                5.31
                4.85
                4.15
                3.52
                4.22
                4.75
                   1.85
                   2.02
                   2.98
                   2.54
                   2.19
                   2.52
                   2.70
Table 7-20 presents the daily and monthly maximum average
effluent limitations for common metals Option 1.  These
limitations were obtained by multiplying the visited plant mean
concentrations of Table 7-11 by the respective variability
factors shown in Table 7-19 (except for cadmium and lead, where
the mean from the long term self-monitoring concentrations were
used in place of the visited mean effluent concentrations).
                            TABLE 7-20
       SUMMARY OF OPTION 1 DAILY MAXIMUM AND 10-DAY AVERAGE
Pollutant

Total suspended solids
Cadmium
Chromium, total
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Daily Max.

   60
    0.69
    2.77
    3.38
    0.69
    3.98
    2.61
    Monthly
Maximum Average

     31
     ' 0.26
      1.71
      2.07
      0.43
      2.38
      1.48
Long Term
 Average

  17
   0.13
   0.57
   0.82
   0.19
   0.94
   0.55
                              VII-46

-------
Table 7-21 summarizes the percent compliance for the EPA sampled
plant data presented previously in Tables 7-4 to 7-10 and for the
Option 1 plants submitting long term data.
                            TABLE 7-21

            PERCENTAGE OF THE MFC DATA BASE BELOW THE
         EFFLUENT CONCENT1ATION LIMITATIONS FOR OPTION 1


                  EPA Sampled      Self-Monitoring    Self-Monitoring
                  Plants           Data               Data
Pollutant         Daily Maximum    Daily Maximum      10-dayAverage

Total Suspended       100.0             99.8              100.0
  Solids
Cadmium               100.0             98.8               97.8
Chromium, total       100.0             99.7               99.7
Copper                 95.7             98.5               96.7
Lead                  100.0             95.9               92.7
Nickel                 95.6             99.9              100.0
Zinc                   94.1             99.2               95.8
                               VTI-47

-------
TREATMENT OF COMMON METALS WASTES - OPTION 2

The Option 2 treatment system for common metals wastes is
pictured schematically in Figure  7-8.  As  shown in the figure,
the system is identical to the Option 1 common metals treatment
system with the addition of a filtration device after the primary
solids removal step.  The purpose of this filtration unit is to
"polish" the effluent, that is, to remove suspended solids
such as metal hydroxides which did not settle out in the
clarifier.  The filter also acts as a safeguard against pollu-
tant discharge if an upset should occur in the sedimentation
device.  Filtration techniques that are applicable for Option
2 systems include granular bed filtration and diatomaceous
earth filtration.

Granular Bed Filtration

Filtration is basic to water treatment technology, and experi-
ence with the process dates back to the 1800's.  Filtration
occurs in nature as the surface ground waters are purified 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 multi-media filters may be arranged to
maintain relatively distinct layers by virtue of balancing the
forces of gravity, flow and buoyancy on the individual parti-
cles.  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.  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 arrange-
ment 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.
                              VII-48

-------
Complexed Chromium
Common Precious
Metals Bearing Cyanide
Wastes Wastes Wastes
* * i
.,, , Solids Hexavalent
Sludge-*H
1 Removal Chromium
I

Cyanide
Oxidation
i Reduction
Sludge-* Filtration
1 r-
H Discharge
V



Sludge -





	


*•




Metals Metals
Wastes Wastes



i


Pr
f
•n-
K€
t
i
Precipitation


1

Sedimentation
t
Sludge -^-
Filtration
t
•ecious Recovered
letals 1-^- Metals
jcovery

1
1
I
1
1 Option 2 System
1
1
1
1
OUy Wastes
1
^
OUy
Wastes
Removed














Toxic
Organic









r
Haux o]
Reclaii




            Discharge
       FIGURE 7-8
WASTE TREATMENT SCHEME
        OPTION 2

-------
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, 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 effi-
ciency.  The biflow design is an attempt to overcome this
problem.

The usual granular bed filter operates by gravity flow.
However, pressure filters are also used.  Pressure filters
permit higher solids loadings before cleaning and are advan-
tageous 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 7-9 depicts a granular bed filter.  It is a high rate,
dual media, gravity downflow filter, with self-stored"backwash.
Both filtrate and backwash are piped around the bed in an
arrangement that permits upflow of the backwash, with the
stored filtrate serving as backwash.  Addition of the indi-
cated coagulant and polyelectrolyte usually results in a
substantial improvement in filter performance.

Auxiliary 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 manifolded 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.
                             VII-50

-------
                                                         INFLUENT
EFFLUENTjH
           COMPARTMENT \ MEDIA
          C  COLLECTION CHAMBER
                                           DRAIN
                         FIGURE  7-9




               GRANULAR BED  FILTRATION EXAMPLE
                           VII-51

-------
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 carryover basis from turbidity monitoring of the outlet
stream.  All of these schemes have been successfully used.

Application

Granular bed filters are used in metal finishing to remove
residual solids from clarifier effluent.  Filters in wastewater
treatment plants are often employed for polishing following
sedimentation or other similar operations.  Granular bed
filtration thus has potential application to nearly all indus-
trial plants.  Chemical additives which enhance the upstream
treatment equipment may or may not be compatible with or
enhance the filtration process.  It should be borne in mind
that in the overall treatment system, effectiveness and effi-
ciency are the objectives, not the performance of any single
unit.  The volumetric fluxes for various types of filters are
as follows:

     Slow Sand                      2.04 - 5.30 1/min/sq m
     Rapid Sand                    40.74 - 51.48 1/min/sq m
     High Rate Mixed Media         81.48 - 122.22 1/min/sq m

The principal advantages of granular bed filtration are its
low initial and operating costs and reduced land requirements
over other methods to achieve the same level of solids removal.
However, the filter may require pretreatment if the solids
level is high (from 100 to 150 mg/1).  Operator training is
fairly high due to controls and periodic backwashing, and
backwash must be stored and dewatered to be disposed of
economically.

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.  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.  Filter
backwash is generally recycled within the wastewater treatment
system, so that the solids 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 suitably disposed.  In
either of these situations there is a solids disposal problem
similar to that of clarifiers.
                              VII-52

-------
Performance

Suspended solids are commonly removed from wastewater streams
by filtering through a deep 0.3-0.9 ra (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 operating filters following some pretreatment to
reduce suspended solids should produce water averaging 12.8 mg/1
TSS.  Pretreatment with inorganic or polymeric coagulants can
improve poor performance.

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.

Diatomaceous Earth Filtration

Diatomaceous earth filtration, combined with precipitation and
sedimentation, is a solids separation device which can further
enhance suspended solids removal.  The diatomaceous earth
filter is used to remove metal hydroxides and other solids
from the wastewater and provides an effluent of high quality.
A diatomaceous earth filter is comprised of a filter element,
a filter housing and associated pumping equipment.  The filter
element consists of multiple leaf screens which are coated
with diatomaceous earth.  The size of the filter is a function
of flow rate and desired operating time between filter
cleanings.

Normal operation of the system involves pumping a mixture of
diatomaceous earth and water through the screen leaves.  This
deposits the diatomaceous earth filter media on the screens
and prepares them for treatment of the wastewater.  Once the
screens are completely coated, the pH adjusted wastewater can
be pumped through the filter.  The metal hydroxides and other
suspended solids are removed from the effluent in the diatomace-
ous earth filter.  The buildup of solids in the filter increases
the pressure drop across the filter.  At a certain pressure/
the wastewater is stopped, the filter is cleaned and the cycle
is repeated.

Application

The principal advantage of using a diatomaceous earth filter
is its increased removal of suspended solids and precipitates.
One additional advantage is that sludge removed from the
filter is much drier than that removed from a clarifier (approxi-
mately 50% solids).  This high solids content can significantly
reduce the cost of hauling and landfill.

                                VII-53

-------
The major disadvantage to the use of a filter system is an
increase in operation and maintenance costs.
Performance

Three of the plants that were visited and sampled were operat-
ing diatomaceous earth filters.  The analytical results of
samples taken before and after the filters are displayed
below.  All of these plants were using filters in place of
sedimentation, and both influent and effluent concentrations
are therefore relatively high.  However, the data do illustrate
that removal of solids by these filters is very substantial.
               POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION  (mg/1)
                       Plant ID 09026
                  Day 1
                          Day 2
                                     Day 3
Parameter

TSS
Cu
Ni
Cr, Total
Zn
Cd
Sn
Pb
Input To
 Filter

 548.
 52.4
 .299
 .078
 22.4
 .011
 .086
 .062
 Filter
 Effluent

   11.
  2.25
  .116
  .008
  3.06
  .012
  .086
  .036
 Input To
  Filter

  544.
  63.8
  .341
  .086
  27.6
  .010
  .086
  .062
 Filter
 Effluent

  : 15.
  4.17
  .102
  .010
  .706
  .009
  .086
  .040
               POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION (mg/1)
                       Plant ID 36041
               Day 1

          Input To
Parameter  Filter
                        Day 2
 Input To
  Filter

   450.
  63.8
  .377
  .086
  30.6
  .011
  .086
  .065
                                   Day 3
TSS
Cu
Ni
Cr, Total
Zn
Cd
Sn
Pb
 1036,
 26.5
 5.00
 28.6
 18.7
 .053
 1.77
 1.00
Filter
Effluent

  32.0
  1.89
  .320
  .667
  .765
  .009
  .171
  .064
Input To
 Filter

  524.
  7.53
  2.57
  12.2
  13.4
  .042
  2.00
  .136
Filter
Effluent

  10.0
  .444
  .044
  .611
  .139
  .006
  ^.143
  .032
Input To
 Filter

  652.
  9.56
  4.49
  25.0
  14.3
  .042
  1.58
  .212
 Filter
 Effluent

   67.
   2.2
  .107
  .012
  .882
  .011
  .086
  .051
Filter
Effluent

  5.00
  1.06
  .571
  .333
  .430
  .006
  .114
  .036
                               VTI-54

-------
               POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION (mg/1)
                       Plant ID 38217
Parameter
TSS
Cu
Ni
Cr,
Zn
Cd
Sn
Pb
    Total
Input To
 Filter

  575.
  .158
  .253
  .022
  1.92
  .006
  .028
  .058
Filter
Effluent

  30.0
  .261
  .195
  .037
  3.79
  .011
  .034
  .154
Input To
 Filter

  620.
  .325
  .255
  .060
  5.20
  .019
  .054
  .150
                                                            Filter
                                                            E f fluent

                                                              90.0
                                                              .085
                                                              .159
                                                              .020
                                                              2.31
                                                              .010
                                                              .003
                                                              .032
Demonstration Status
Filters with similar operational characteristics to those
described above are in common use throughout the metal finish-
ing industry.

Common Metals Waste Treatment System Operation - Option _2

The entire Option 1 system operation discussion applies equally
to Option 2.  In addition, the use of a polishing filter
necessitates further precautions.  Close monitoring is needed
to prevent both hydraulic overloading and solids overloading.
Either form of overloading may result in pollutant bypassing
in a barrier filter (through element breakage or pressure
relief) or pollutant reentrainment in a depth filter.  Many
types of filters must be shut down for solids removal.  Waste-
water flow must not be bypassed during this period.  Bypassing
can be obviated by use of a holding tank or by installation of
dual filters in parallel arrangment.  A further consideration
concerns disposable elements for filters that use them.
Because of the contained toxic metals, these elements must be
treated as hazardous waste and should not be placed in the
plant trash,

The following table (Table 7-22) presents a listing of 37 plants
from the metal finishing data base which have an Option 2 common
metals treatment system.  These include both sampled plants, DCP
plants, and plants which supplied long term self -monitoring data
                            VII-55

-------
                          TABLE  7-22
   METAL FINISHING PLANTS WITH OPTION 2 TREATMENT SYSTEMS
                     FOR COMMON METALS

          03043               19069               31033
          04140               20483               31044
          04151               27042               33110
          06062               28115               36048
          06131               28121       '        36082
          11096               28699               36102
          11125               30159               38223
          11182               30165               40047
          12075               30507               44150
          12077               30519               45041
          13031               30927
          13033               31021
          15193               31022

Common Metals Waste Treatment System Performance - Option 2^

Performance of a properly operating Option 2 treatment system
(shown in Figure 7-8  with its sources of wastes)  is  demon-
strated by low effluent levels of total suspended solids
(TSS).  Effective removal of heavy metals depends on maintain-
ing the system pH at the level needed to form metal hydroxides.

Generally, a pH range of 8.5 to 9.5 is considered most effec-
tive for settling and filtration of precipitated hydroxides in
mixed metal finishing wastes.

The performance for the Option 2 treatment system was estab-
lished from a combination of visited plant sampling data and
long term self-monitoring data that were submitted by industry.
The following subsection describes the procedure used to
establish Option 2 treatment system performance for the visited
plant data set.

Visited Plant Performance

To establish the treatment system performance characteristics,
plants employing Option 2 treatment that were visited were
selected from the Metal Finishing Category data base.  The
files for these plants were then examined to ensure that only
properly operating facilities were included in the performance
data base by establishing criteria to eliminate the data for
improperly operating systems.  The criteria for eliminating
improperly operating treatment systems were as follows:

1.   Data with an effluent TSS level greater than 50 mg/1 were
     deleted.  This represents a level of TSS above which no
     well-operated treatment plant should be discharging.
                               VII-56

-------
2.   Plants with alkaline precipitation systems that operated
     at an average effluent pH of less than 7.0 were deleted.
     An alkaline precipitation system will not work properly
     in this pH range.

3.   Plants that had complexing agents (unoxidized cyanide or
     nonsegregated wastes from electroless plating) present
     were deleted.

4.   Plants which had effluent flows significantly greater
     than the corresponding raw waste flows were deleted.
     The increase in flows was assumed to be dilution by
     other wastewaters.

5.   Pollutant parameters that had an effluent concentration
     greater than the raw waste concentration were deleted.

6.   Plants that experienced difficulties in system operation
     during the sampling period were excluded.

The following procedure was followed for each metal pollutant
parameter (except TSS which is created during precipitation)
in order to eliminate spurious background metal readings.  The mean
effluent concentration of each parameter was calculated, and when a
raw waste concentration was less than the mean effluent concentration
for that parameter, the corresponding effluent reading was deleted
from the data set.  The mean was recalculated using points not removed
and the process was repeated in an iterative loop.  The
deletion of these points prevents the calculation of unrealistically
low mean effluent concentrations from the waste treatment  systems
due to low raw waste pollutant loadings.

Plots of raw waste concentration to the precipitation step vs.
effluent concentration from the filter were generated for
total suspended solids, cadmium, total chromium, copper, lead,
nickel, and zinc.  These plots are shown in Figure 7-10 through
7-16.  The mean effluent concentrations for these parameters were
then computed and are summarized in Table 7-23.
                               VII-57

-------
Solids Effluent (mq/1)
Ul A J* tJ
K) O CO O
Suspended
K)
*.
-H
| 16^
s-

0-































































































































—











- •••


c










(


D





-





it:








e

y











»











IX











inum Total



.
O


0
e
	 	 A 	 1


Suspen
m




D
O
Q




led £












oli<
O





I





Is





>







































1.0
  10                           100
Total Suspended Solids Raw Waste (mg/1)
                                                                                         10CO
                                    FIGURE  7-10

              EFFLUENT TSS CONCENTRATIONS vs RAW WASTE CONCENTRATIONS
                                      OPTION 2

-------
V
en
VD


E
*""*
•e 020-
Ol

UJ
M
E
3 016 -
E
73
(0
U
m 9
. UJ-z
nns _

.004

















.001



















































































> (
















i (
















i





















0


0




0
o e



























































































































.01

















0.
                                                            Cadmium Raw Waste  (r.c/i)



                                                                                 Daily Maximum Concentration - 0.54 mg/1
                                                                FIGURE 7-11



                                       EFFLUENT CADMIUM CONCENTRATIONS vs RAW WASTE CONCENTRATIONS

                                                                 OPTION 2

-------
H

cr\
o
1 2-
r* i o-
Hi
e
•H
c
3
1-1 0 8-
«•*
&
s
s
e
0
^ 0 6-
u
r-l
HJ
0
^
04-
n 5-




0.


























1.0










































































»














































































03
C


























































































e







o

-






















































































D














































(E



























10
























a







o









































































































































































































100 10
                                                         Total Chromium Raw Waste {rr.g/15
                                                                                  Daily Maximum Concentration -  1.60  mg/1
                                                                 FIGURE  7-12



                                       EFFLUENT CHROMIUM CONCENTRATIONS vs RAW WASTE CONCENTRATIONS

                                                                  OPTION 2

-------
V
1.50-
1.25-
N.
E
^ 1.00-
c
0
3
rH
U
£ 0.75-^
a
o
u
0.50-
0.25-
OJ

























































































<









, 0
1









e









0
e









D




























<









i









0
<

Dail;
O






i
(
r Maxir




3



)
tun C









3pp<






(9


kj*







































                         0.1
1.0                           10
    Copper Raw Waste (mg/1)
                                                                                                                  100
                                                                                   Daily Maximum Concentration -  1.75mg/l
                                                               FIGURE  7-13

                                       EFFLUENT COPPER CONCENTRATIONS  vs RAW WASTE  CONCENTRATIONS
                                                                OPTION 2

-------
V

                       . OS-
                     c
                     o
                     's .06-
                       .04-
                                                                        O
                          C.I
                                                     0.2
    0.3         0.4      0.5    0.6   0.7   0.8  0.9 1.0


Lead Raw Waste (mg/1)
                                                                                 Daily Maximum Concentration - 0.48 mg/1
                                                                  FIGURE 7-14




                                            EFFLUENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS vs RAW WASTE CONCENTRATIONS

                                                                    OPTION 2

-------
u>
J.. /D-
•
1.50-
1.25-
i-i
\
CT
~ 1.00-
jj
c
o
D
W
U-l
t:
^ 0.75-
o
u
z
0.50-
0.25-
0-
0











1















































































(








1


\





° 0


0




















o












































































m
o










9























































10























Daily







°g






texiirum Nickel



































































100 1C
                                                            Nickel Raw Waste  (mg/1)
                                                                FIGURE 7-15

                                          EFFLUENT NICKEL  CONCENTRATIONS vs RAW  WASTE  CONCENTRATIONS
                                                                  OPTION  2

-------
H
V
(Ti
1 ")-


i n.
»-K •
•-H
.E 0 8-
C
0)
3
Vu
Vu
M 0 6-
u
c
•H
N

0 4 -

07-


0 -























0.1










































































































































C




















































1
















0



o <0
_
o
0



































































01
c





















1






















o



















<






















)


o

























Da
o


















o


Lly Ma:






















:imu!T






















Zii






















c


























































































10 1C
                                                             Zinc Raw Waste  (mg/1)
                                                              FIGURE 7-16

                                        EFFLUENT ZINC CONCENTRATIONS vs RAW WASTE CONCENTRATIONS
                                                                OPTION 2

-------
                     TABLE  7-23
             TREATMENT OP COMMON METALS
VISITED PLANT OPTION 2 MEAN EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS
           Parameter                          mg/1

      Total Suspended Solids                 12.8
      Cadmium                                .014
      Chromium, Total                        .319
      Copper                                 .367
      Lead                                    .031
      Nickel                                  .459
      Zinc                                    .247
                           VII-65

-------
Long Term Self-Monitoring Data Performance

Long term self-monitoring data were submitted by a number of
plants with Option 2 treatment systems.  However, the quantity of
data submitted, relative to the data available for Option 1, was
considered to be statistically inferior for the calculation of
Option 2 variability factors.  In addition, the variability for
plants with Option 2 generally fell within the range of the
Option 1 results.  Therefore, the previously determined Option 1
variability factors were used in calculating Option 2 effluent
performance.   Tables 7-24 through 7-30 present overall values
for each pollutant, the total number of available points, and the
mean value for all points.                 i

Overall Performance

The overall Option 2 system performance is based on mean effluent
concentrations calculated from visited plant data shown in Table
7-23 (except for cadmium and lead, where the mean from the self-
monitoring data were used) multiplied by variability factors
calculated from long term self-monitoring data taken at Option 1
plants.  The statistical procedures used to establish Option 2
system performance are discussed in Statistical Analysis at the
end of this section.
                               VII-66

-------
                            TABLE 7-24
          EFFLUENT TSS SELF-MONITORING PERFORMANCE DATA
                 FOR PLANTS WITH OPTION 2 SYSTEMS

                         Number                Mean Effluent
Plant ID               Of Points            Concentration  (mq/jlj

03043                     94                       10.07
15193                     12                       13.58
20483                    357                        5.90
38223                    234                        5.74

OVERALL                  697  (TOTAL)                6.54  (MEAN)
                            TABLE 7-25
        EFFLUENT CADMIUM SELF-MONITORING PERFORMANCE DATA
                 FOR PLANTS WITH OPTION 2 SYSTEMS

                         Number                Mean Effluent
Plant ID               Of Points            Concentration  (mq/|J

38223                    234                        0.08
                            TABLE 7-26
        EFFLUENT CHROMIUM SELF-MONITORING PERFORMANCE DATA
                 FOR PLANTS WITH OPTION 2 SYSTEMS

                         Number                Mean Effluent
Plant ID               Of Points            Concentration (mq/jtj

03043                     91                        0.60
15193                     12                        0.11
31021                     86                        0.25
38223                    234                        0.06
OVERALL                  423 (TOTAL)                0.22  (MEAN)
                               VII-67

-------
                             TABLE 7-27
         EFFLUENT COPPER  SELF-MONITORING PERFORMANCE DATA
                 FOR PLANTS  WITH OPTION 2 SYSTEMS
Plant ID

1112B
15193
31021

OVERALL
  Number
Of Points

   29
   12
  121
   Mean Effluent
Concentration  (mq/il)

        1.11
        0.06
        1.44
  225  (TOTAL)
        1.32  (MEAN)
                            TABLE  7-28
          EFFLUENT LEAD SELF-MONITORING PERFORMANCE DATA
                 FOR PLANTS WITH OPTION 2  SYSTEMS
Plant ID

38223
  Number
Of Points

  234
   Mean Effluent
Concentration (mq/8.)

        0.04
                            TABLE  7-29
         EFFLUENT NICKEL SELF-MONITORING  PERFORMANCE DATA
                 FOR PLANTS WITH OPTION 2 SYSTEMS
Plant ID

03043
11125
15193
31021

OVERALL
  Number
Of Points

   91
   29
   12
  120
   Mean Effluent
Concentration (mg/g.)

        0,42
        1.75
        0.27
        0.93
  252 (TOTAL)
        0.81 (MEAN)
Plant ID

03043
15193
31021
38223

OVERALL
                            TABLE  7-30
          EFFLUENT ZINC SELF-MONITORING  PERFORMANCE  DATA
                 FOR PLANTS WITH OPTION  2  SYSTEMS
  Number
O£ Points

   91
   12
  121
  234
   Mean Effluent
Concentration (roq/st)

        0.35
        0.14
        0.77
        0.11
  252 (TOTAL)
        0.81 (MEAN)
                                VII-68

-------
Table 7-31 summarizes the daily and 10-day variability factors
used in determining Option 2 effluent limitations.  These vari-
ability factors are a repeat of the Option 1 variability factors
presented previously in Table 7-19.
                            TABLE 7-31
       SUMMARY OF OPTION 2 DAILY MAXIMUM AND 10-DAY AVERAGE
                       VARIABILITY FACTORS
Pollutant

Total suspended solids
Cadmium
Chromium, total
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
     Variability Factor
Daily Max.     10-Day Average
   3.59
   5.31
   4.85
   4.15
   3.52
   4.22
   4.75
1,
2,
2,
 ,85
 ,02
 ,98
2.54
2.19
2.52
2.70
                               VII-69

-------
Table 7-32 presents the daily maximum, 10-day average, and long
term average effluent performance for common metals Option 2.
Performance was obtained by multiplying the visited plant mean
concentrations of Table 7-23 by the respective variability
factors shown in Table 7-31 (except for cadmium and lead, where
the weighted mean Option 2 self-monitoring data concentrations
were used in place of the visited plant mean effluent
concentrations).  The allowable daily effluent concentrations for
each of the parameters have been shown on Figures 7-10 through
7-16.
                            TABLE 7-32
             OPTION 2 COMMON METAL PERFORMANCE LEVELS

                                                         Long Term
Pollutant               Daily Max.     10-Day Average     Average

Total suspended solids     46              24              12,8
Cadmium                     0.42            0.16            0.08
Chromium, total             1.55            0.95            0.32
Copper                      1.52            0.93            0.37
Lead                        0.14            0.09            0.04
Nickel                      1.94            1.16            0.46
Zinc                        1.13            0.67            0.25


Table 7-33 summarizes the percentage of the metal finishing data
base below the Option 2 daily maximum concentration limitation
for the EPA sampled plants.


                            TABLE 7-33
         PERCENTAGE OF THE MFC DATA BASE BELOW THE DAILY
               MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS FOR OPTION 2

Pollutant                               EPA Sampled Plants
                                           Da11y Max imum

Total suspended solids                         100.0
Cadmium                                        100.0
Chromium, total                                100.0
Copper                                         100.0
Lead                                           100.0
Nickel                                         100.0
Zinc                                            94.1
                                VII-70

-------
Summary tables are provided to show a direct comparison of the
mean, daily maximum, and 10-day average concentrations for
Options 1 and 2.  Table 7-34 presents a comparison of the mean
concentrations and Table 7-35 lists the daily maximum and maximum
monthly average concentrations for each.
                            TABLE 7-34
       OPTION 1 AND OPTION 2 MEAN CONCENTRATION COMPARISON
Pollutant

Total suspended solids
Cadmium
Chromium, total
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
                               CONCENTRATION  (mg/8.)

                           Option 1           Option 2
                             16.8
                              0.19
                              0.572
                              0.815
                              0.20
                              0.942
                              0.549
                         12.8
                          0.08
                          0.319
                          0.367
                          0.04
                          0.459
                          0.247
Pollutant
                 TABLE 7-35
OPTION 1 AND OPTION 2 PERFORMANCE COMPARISON

                   CONCENTRATION (mg/8.)

      	Option 1	   	Option 2
                               Maximum
                 Daily Max. Monthly Ave.
                                              Maximum
                                Daily Max. Monthly Ave
Total Suspended
  Solids
Cadmium
Chromium, total
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
          60

           0.69
           2.77
           3.38
           0.69
           3.98
           2.61
31
46
24
 0.26
 1.71
 2.07
 0.43
 2.38
 1.48
 0.42
 1.55
 1.52
 0.14
 1.94
 1.17
 0.16
 0.95
 0.93
 0.09
 1.16
 0.67
                                V1I-71

-------
TREATMENT OF COMMON METALS WASTES - OPTION  3

The Option 3 treatment system for metal wastes consists of the
Option 1 end-of-pipe treatment system plus  the addition of in-
plant controls for cadmium.  In-plant controls could  include
evaporative recovery, ion exchange, and recovery rinses. The
purpose of these in-plant controls is to nearly eliminate
cadmium from the raw waste stream.  These additional controls
will also minimize the chance of discharging this highly toxic
metal due to treatment system failure.
                              Vli-72

-------
The performance of the Option 3 treatment system, applied to
cadmium plating rinse, acid stripping of cadmium plated parts,and
chromating of cadmium plated parts, will be identical to the
Option 1 treatment system with the exception that only background
concentration levels of cadmium should be discharged.  In order
to establish background concentration levels for cadmium all
available sampled data were studied to identify data points from
plants that apply the metal.  The objective was to segregate the
data base into two distinct data sets:  one data set for plants
that apply cadmium, and one data set for plants in which cadmium
is not applied.  The data set for plants that do not apply
cadmium is representative of background metal concentration
levels.

Cadmium Background Level

Table 7-36 presents the data set for plants that do not apply
cadmium which was used to establish a background level for
cadmium.  A percentile distribution of these data are presented
in Figure 7-17.  While the average of the data is 0.013 mg/2.,
the Agency has conservatively used the average of the two highest
plants not plating cadmium - plants 36041 and 33024.  These
plants were determined to be statistically different from the
other facilities.  The resultant daily maximum is higher than all
values measured.  Furthermore, a new source plant which
eliminates the discharge from the cadmium sources should be more
than adequately able to meet the background level which was
determined using raw waste values.  New source performance
standards are based on the in-plant cadmium controls plus
precipitation/clarification.  (Examination of the EPA sampled
data for precipitation/clarification of cadmium in Table 7-4
showed an average of 0.011 mg/S.).   A summary of the statistics
used in deriving the new source cadmium limits is presented below.

     Mean Background Concentration     0.058 mg/Sl
     Daily Variability Factor          1.54 mg/8.
     10-Day Variability Factor         0.89 mg/8.
     Daily Maximum Background          0.114 mg/8.
       Concentration
     Maximum Monthly Average           0.066 mg/8.
       Background Concentration

The daily maximum and maximum monthly average background
concentrations for cadmium detailed in the previous paragraphs
are defined as the Option 3 effluent limitations for cadmium.

A review of the various data bases available did not identify any
plants that had in-process treatment technologies specifically
for the control of three cadmium sources mentioned above.  This
does not mean that extensive in-process treatment technologies
for control of cadmium effluents are not in use within the metal
finishing industrial segment; it simply means that no plants were
identified which controlled all three sources based upon the
available information.
                                VII-73

-------
                                    TABLE 7-36

             PERFORMANCE DATA  FOR CADMIUM METAL FINISHING CAfEGOEY
                                     OPTION 3
Plant ID
  Raw Waste
Concentration
   (mcr/St)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6,
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
6101-12-1
6101-12-1
19068-14-0
11477-22-1
11477-22-2
15010-12-2
15010-12-3
4065-8-1
4069-8-1
4069-8-1
5020-1-4
5020-1-5
5020-1-6
19051-6-0
20078-1-2
20078-1-3
20078-1-4
20078-1-7
36040-1-1
36040-1-1
36040-1-1
31021-1-2
31021-1-3
20083-1-3
33692-23-1
31021-1-1
33070-1-1
5020-1-3
33065-9-1
33070-1-3
.001
.002
.002
.002
.002
.004
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.006
.006
.006
.007
.007
.007
.008
Plant ID
                                                                 Raw Waste
                                                               Concentration
31.
32,
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
40062-8-0
40062-8-0
33065-9-1
15070-1-3
19063-1-1
31022-1-2
19063-1-2
20083-1-5
20083-1-6
31022-1-0
33073-1-1
33073-1-3
6083-1-2
15070-1-1
19063-1-3
15070-1-2
33073-1-2
6731-1-1
6731-1-2
6074-1-1
6731-1-3
6074-1-1
31020-1-1
27044-1-0
20080-1-1
4065-8-1
6074-1-1
36041-1-2
36041-1-3
36041-1-1
33024-6-0
.008
.008
.009
.009
.011
.011
.012
.012
.012
.013
.013
.013
.013
.013
.013
.014
.015
.015
.017
.019
.019
.021
.021
.022
.024
.032
.033
.042
.042
.053
.095
Mean
Concentrat ion
     0.0131 (n=61)
                                  VII-74

-------
H
(Jl
U.IU
n nn
3
e>
o 0.06
P
cc
01
0
o QQ4
£
3
S
a
o
00?


n












v * * * •


















































,••••*'












* * '
. * *
























» * *










•
.. •
• *


*

f

*

• *
» «





                          10
20
30
40         50        60




 PERCENTILE DISTRIBUTION
70
80
90
100
                                      FIGURE 7-17. CADMIUM RAW WASTE CONCENTRATION DISTRIBUTION

-------
'She following paragraphs detail common metals treatment techniques
that are applicable to Option 3:  Evaporation and Ion Exchange.

Evaporation

Evaporation is a concentration process.  Wa!ter is evaporated
from a solution, increasing the concentration of solute in the
remaining solution.  If the resulting water vapor is condensed
back to a liquid, 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 tech-
niques are shown in Figure 7-18 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 evaporation combines evaporative
recovery of plating chemicals with plating tank fume control.
A third form of atmospheric evaporation also works on the air
humidification principle/ but the evaporated rinse 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,
noncondenslble gases (air in particular) are removed by a
                               VII-76

-------
   PACKCD TOWER
    EVAPORATOR
CONDKNSATE-
WASTEWATER-
  CONCEHTRATE-
                                            .EXHAUST
                                                                                                                                  COUUBNSER
                          WATER VAPOR
          1IKAT
       EXCHANGER
                                                      STEAM
                                                   COMPENSATE
                                                 *-CONCENTRATE
                    ATMOSPHERIC EVAPORATOR
                                 VACUUM LINE
    VACUUM
     PUMP
                    .\\\\ \ \. \ \ \.Y
                                               COOLING
                                                WATER
                                                -STEAM
  STEAM
COHOEHSATE
                STEAM


               BASTE
               WATER
                FERD
                                                                               EVAPORATOR
                                                                                    STEAM
                                 STEAM
                               CONDENSATE
                                                                               WASTEWATER
                                                                                     HOT VAPOR
                                                     VAPOR-LIQUID   eFp,nRrr,o
                                                        MIXTURE     SEPARMOR
    ZL
                                                                                                                                         «-;'OHCEHTRATF,
                                                                                                       CLIMBING FILM EVAPORATOR
                                                                                                                      VAPOR
                                       STEAM
                                     COMDENPATF,
                                                                                         CONCENTRATE
                                                                                                                         CONDEIIRER
                                                                         COHDENSATB
                                                                                                                       COHOENSATE
COOMHT
 WA^BR
                                                                                                                                       VACUUM PUMP
                                                                                                                                       ACCUHUf.ATOn

                                                                                                                                               CON!)RNf3ATF,
                                                                                                                                             -»-   FOR
                                                                                                                           CONCRHTRATR FOR RRUSE
                                 E  EVAPORATOR
                                                                      FIGURE  7-18


                                                            TYPES OF EmPOFATION EQUIPMEOT
                                                                                                                 EVAPORATOR

-------
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.  Another means
of increasing energy efficiency is vapor recompression (thermal
or mechanical), which enables heat to be transferred from the
condensing water vapor to the evaporating wastewater.  Vacuum
evaporation equipment may be classified as submerged tube or
climbing film evaporation units.

In the most commonly used submerged tube evaporator, the
heating and condensing coil are contained in a single vessel
to reduce capital cost.  The vacuum in the vessel is maintained
by an 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

Evaporation is used in the Metal Finishing Category for recov-
ery of a variety of metals, bath concentrates, and rinse
waters. Both atmospheric and vacuum evaporation are used in
metal finishing plants, mainly for the concentration and
recovery of plating solutions.  Many of these evaporators also
recover water for rinsing.  Evaporation has also been applied

                              VII-78

-------
to recovery of phosphate metal cleaning solutions.  There is
no fundamental limitation on the applicability of evaporation.
Recent changes in construction materials used for climbing
film evaporators enable them to process a wide variety of
wastewaters (including cyanide-bearing solutions), as do the
other types of evaporators described in this report.

Advantages of the evaporation process are that it permits
recovery of a wide variety of process chemicals, and it is
often applicable to removal and/or concentration 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.  For some applications, pretreat-
ment may be required to remove solids and/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
increased 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.

Performance

In theory, evaporation should yield a concentrate and a deion-
ized 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 anti-
foaming agents.  These can be removed with an activated carbon
bed, if necessary.  Samples from one metal finishing plant
showed 1,900 mg/1 zinc in the feed, 4,570 mg/1 in the concen-
trate, and 0.4 mg/1 in the 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.

Demonstration Status

Evaporation is a fully developed, commercially available
wastewater treatment system.  It is used extensively to recover
plating chemicals, and a pilot scale unit has been used in
connection with phosphate washing of aluminum coil.
                             VII-79

-------
Evaporation has been used  in  39  of  the  visited  plants
in the present data base and  these  are  identified in the
following table (Table 7-37).


                          TABLE 7-37
        METAL FINISHING PLANTS EMPLOYING EVAPORATION

          04266          12065          33033
          04276          12075          33065
          04284   .       13031          33112
          06009          19069          34050
          06037          20064          36062
          06050          20069          36084
          06072          20073          36162
          06075          20147          38050
          06087          20160          38052
          06088          20162          40062
          06090          23071          40836
          06679          28075          43003
          08060          30096          61001
                                         i
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 suspended 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 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.

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 7-19.  Metal ions such
as nickel are removed by an acidic  cation exchange resin, which
is regenerated with hydrochloric or sulfuric acid, replacing the
metal ion with one or more hydrogen ions.  Anions such as dichro-
mate are removed by a basic anion exchange
                               VII-80

-------
WASTE WATER CONTAINING



   DISSOLVED METALS



     OR OTHER IONS
                                             OIVERTER VALVE
     REGENERANT TO REUSE,





   TREATMENT, OR DISPOSAL
       REGENERANT



       SOLUTION
                                          DIVERTER VALVE
 METAL—FREE WATER




FOR REUSE OR DISCHARGE
                             FIGURE 7-19




                  ION  EXCHANGE WITH REGENERATION
                                  VII-81

-------
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 replacement 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 only  as the resins require  it.

C)   Cyclic Regeneration - In this process, the regeneration
     of the spent resins takes place 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.   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

Many metal finishing facilities utilize ion exchange to concen-
trate and purify their plating baths.

The list of pollutants for which the ion exchange system has
proven effective includes aluminum,  arsenic, cadmium, chromium
(hexavalent and trivalent), copper,  cyanide, gold, iron, lead,
manganese, nickel, 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, however, as an  integrated  treatment to

                              VII-82

-------
recover rinse water and process chemicals.  In addition to
metal finishing, ion exchange is finding applications in the
photography industry for bath purification, in battery manufac-
turing for heavy metal removal, in the chemical industry, the
food industry, the nuclear industry, the pharmaceutical industry,
the textile industry, and others.  It could also be used in
the copper and copper alloys industry for recovery of copper
from pickle rinses.  Also, many industrial and non-industrial
concerns utilize ion exchange for reducing the salt concentra-
tions in their incoming water.

Ion exchange is a versatile technology applicable to a great
many situations.  This flexibility, along with its compact
nature and performance, make ion exchange a very effective
method of waste water treatment.  However, the resins in these
systems can prove to be a limiting factor.  The thermal limits
of the anion resins, generally placed in the vicinity of 60° C,
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 prefer-
entially 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 concentra-
tions, although low in volume.  These must be further processed
for proper disposal.

Performance

Ion exchange is highly efficient at recovering metal finishing
chemicals.  Recovery of chromium, nickel, phosphate solution,
and sulfuric acid from anodizing is in commercial use.  A
chromic acid recovery efficiency of 99.5% has been demonstrated.
Typical data for purification of rinse water in electroplating
and printed circuit board plants are shown in Table 7-38.
                               VIl-83

-------
                         TABLE 7-38
            TYPICAL ION  EXCHANGE PERFORMANCE  DATA
Parameter
All Values mg/1

Zinc (Zn)
Cadmium  (Cd) 3
                 El ec t ropla t i ng Plant
                 Prior To      Aft er
                 Purifi-       Purifi-
                 cation        cation
                        Printed Circuit Board Plant
                        Prior To
                        Purifi-
                        cation
                          After
                          Purifi-
                          cation
Chr om i urn ( Cr -
Chromium (Cr
Copper (Cu)
Iron (Fe)
Nickel (Ni)
Silver (Ag)
Tin (Sn)
Cyanide (CN)
Manganese (Mn)
Aluminum (Al)
Sulfate (SO4)
Lead (Pb}
Gold (Au)
              )
14.8
5.7
3.1
7.1
4.5
7.4
6.2
1.5
1.7
9.8
4.4
5.6
0.40
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.09
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.20
                                           43.0
                                            mm t

                                           1.60
                                           9.10
                                           1.10
                                           3.40
                                           210.00
                                           1.70
                                           2.30
0.10

0.01
0.01
0.10
0.09
                                          2.00
                                          0.01
                                          0.10
Plant ID 11065, which was visited and sampled> employs an ion
exchange unit to remove metals from rinsewater.  The results
of the sampling are displayed below:

               POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION  (mg/1}
                       Plant ID 11065

                         Day 1
               Input To      Effluent From
             Ion Exchange    Ion Exchange
Parameter

TSS
Cu
Ni
Cr, Total
Cd
Sn
Pb
                6.0
                52.080
                .095
                .043
                .005
                .06
                .010
               4.0
               .118
               .003
               .051
               .005
               .06
               .011
                       Day 2
                Input To
               Ion Exchange

                    1.0
                    189.3
                    .017
                    .026
                    .005
                    .06
                    .010
   Output From
   Ion Exchangi

      1.0
      .20
      .003
      .006
      .005
      .06
      .010
                               VH-84

-------
Demonstration Status

All of the applications mentioned in this document are available
for commercial use.  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 compartmented tank with ion exchange, washing,
and regeneration sections. The resins are therefore continually
used and regenerated.  No such system, however, has been
reported to be beyond the pilot stage.

Ion exchange is used in 63 plants in the present data base and
these are identified in Table 7-39.
                          TABLE 7-39
       METAL FINISHING PLANTS EMPLOYING ION EXCHANGE
     02033
     02034
     02037
     04145
     04221
     04223
     04236
     04263
     04541
     04676
     04690
     05050
     06103
     06679
     08073
     09025
     11065
     12065
     12075
     12080
     13040
17030
17050
17061
18538
19081
19120
20017
20075
20120
20162
20483
21059
21065
21066
21075
23065
25033
27046
28111
28121
30153
30967
31032
31050
31070
33130
33172
33186
33187
36087
36623
37060
38036
38039
40048
40061
41086
41089
44062
46035
61001
62032
                               VII-85

-------
ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT METHODS FOR COMMON METALS REMOVAL

In addition to the treatment methods described under Options
1, 2, and 3? there are several other alternative treatment
technologies applicable for the treatment of common metals
wastes.  These technologies may be used in conjunction with or
in place of the Option 1, 2, or 3 system components.  The
following paragraphs describe these technologies:
peat adsorption, insoluble starch xanthate> sulfide precipitation,
flotation, and membrane filtration.

Peat Adsorption

Peat moss is a rather complex material with 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 this 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 and settling.
The wastewater is then pumped into a large metal chamber
(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.
                                VU-86

-------
Application

Peat adsorption can be used in metal finishing plants 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 could be used in metal
finishing industries, coil coating plants, porcelain
enameling, battery manufacturing plants, copper products
manufacturing facilities, photographic plants, textile
manufacturing, newsprint production facilities, and other
industries.  Peat adsorption is currently used commercially at
a textile plant, a newsprint facility, and a metal reclamation
operation.

Performance

The following table contains performance figures obtained from
pilot plant studies.  Peat adsorption was preceded by pH
adjustment for precipitation and by clarification.


Pollutant      Before Treatment (mg/1)       After Treatment (mg/1)

   Pb                   20.0                       0.025
   Sb                    2.5                       0.9
   Cu                  250.0                       0.24
   Zn                    1.5                       0.25
   Ni                    2.5                       0.07
   Cr b             35,000.0                      <0.04
   CN                   36.0                       0.7
   Hg                   >1.0                       0.02
   Ag                   >1.0                       0.05

In addition, pilot plant studies have shown that complexed metal
wastes, as well as the complexing agents themselves, are removed
by contact with peat moss.  Therefore, peat adsorption could be
applied to printed circuit board manufacturing, which uses com-
plexing agents extensively.

Demonstration Status

Only three commercial adsorption systems are currently in use
in the United States.  These are at a textile manufacturer, a
newsprint facility, and a metal reclamation firm.

No data have been reported showing the use of peat adsorption in
any metal finishing plants.  Its only commercial applications are
as stated above.
                              VII-87

-------
Insoluble Starch Xanthate

Insoluble starch xanthate (ISX) is essentially an ion exchange
medium used to remove dissolved heavy metals from wastewater.
ISX is formed by reacting commercial cross-linked starch with
sodium hydroxide and carbon disulfide.  Magnesium sulfate is
also added as a stabilizer and to improve sludge settling.

ISX acts as a cationic ion exchange material removing the
heavy metal ions and replacing them with sodium and magnesium.
The starch has good settling characteristics/ good filtering
characteristics, and is well suited for use as a filter
precoat.  ISX can be added as a slurry for continuous
treatment operations/ in solid form for batch treatments and
as a precoat to a filter.  The ISX process is effective for
removal of all uncomplexed metals, including hexavalent
chromium/ and also some complexed metals such as the
copper-ammonia complex.  The removal of hexavalent chromium is
brought about by lowering the pH to below 3 and subsequent
raising of it above 7.  The hexavalent chromium is reduced by
the ISX at the acid pH and is removed at the alkaline pH as
chromium starch xanthate or chromic hydroxide.

Presently/ ISX is being used in two metal finishing establish-
ments.  One of the plants utilizes the ISX process as a
polishing filter and claims to reduce Ievt2ls of metals in the
effluent of their clarifier from 1 mg/1 to .020 mg/1.  The
other plant (ID 27046)/ which was visited and sampled, uses
the ISX process to recycle rinse waters on their cleaning line
and nickel/ copper, and solder plating lines.  The results of
the sampling are listed below.
     Solder Line
Cu
Pb
Sn
Zn
Ni
Pe
Input
 To
Filter

 .42
 .56
 2.0
.092
Output
 From
Filter

 .41
 .53
 1.5
.083
  Nickel Line

Input     Output
 To        From
Filter    Filter
 .24
.047
552.
 .24
.040
547.
             Cleaning Line

          Input     Output
           To        From
          Filter    Filter
 .43


.167

 .38
 .39


.126

 .26
As shown by the data, the ISX was not removing a high
percentage of metal.  Its main purpose was to keep
contaminants from building up to a point where the water would
not be reusable.
                              VII-88

-------
Sulfide Precipitation

Application

Hydrogen sulfide or soluble sulfide salts such as sodium sul-
fide are used to precipitate many heavy metal sulfides.  Since
most metal sulfides are even less soluble than metal
hydroxides at alkaline pH levels, greater heavy metal removal
can be accomplished through the use of sulfide rather than
hydroxide as a chemical precipitant prior to sedimentation.
The solubilities of metallic sulfides are pH dependent and are
shown in Figure 7-20.

Of particular interest is the ability at a pH of 8 to 9 of the
ferrous sulfide process to precipitate hexavalent chromium
(Cr  ) without prior reduction to the trivalent state as is
required in the hydroxide process, although the chromium is
still precipitated as the hydroxide.  When ferrous sulfide is
used as the precipitant, iron and sulfide act as reducing
agents for the hexavalent chromium.
              2FeS + 7H2O = 2Fe(OH)3 + 2Cr(OH)3 + 2S
20H
In this case the sludge produced consists mainly of ferric
hydroxides and chromic hydroxides.  Some excess hydroxyl ions
are produced in this process, possibly requiring a downward
re-adjustment of pH to between 8-9 prior to discharge of the
treated effluent.

In addition to the advantages listed above, the process will preci-
pitate metals complexed with most complexing agents.  However, care
must be taken to maintain the pH of the solution above
approximately 8 in order to prevent the generation of toxic
hydrogen sulfide gas.  For this reason ventilation of the
treatment tanks may be a necessary precaution in some instal-
lations.  The use of ferrrous sulfide virtually eliminates the
problem of hydrogen sulfide evolution, however.  As with
hydroxide precipitation, excess sulfide must be present to
drive the precipitation reaction to completion.  Since sulfide
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 posttreatment.  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 sulfide to the less harmful sodium sulfate
(Na2SO.).  The cost of sulfide precipitants is high in
comparison with hydroxide precipitating agents, and disposal
of metallic sulfide sludges may pose problems.  With improper
                              VII-89

-------
               10




               10
              10
                -I

           3  »o"4
           g  10*
           O
           to
           Q
           0  JO'7
           c
           o
           u
           -U



           I  ID'8

           o
             10
               -10
             10
               -it
             10
               -12
             10
               -13
                          T    I     I    T
                                                      I    1    I
                                                           CoS
                 2   3    4    5    6    7    8    9    10   II   12   13

                                        pH
Note;.  Plotted data  for metal sulfides  based on experimental data listed

        in Seidell's  solubilities.




                               FIGURE  7-20



              COMPARATIVE  SOLUBILITIES OF METAL SULFIDES

                          AS A  FUNCTION OF pH
                                   VII-90

-------
handling or disposal of sulfide precipitates, hydrogen sulfide may
be released to the atmosphere creating a potential toxic hazard,
toxic metals may be leached out into surface waters, and sulfide
might oxidize to sulfate and release dilute sulfuric acid to surface
waters.  An essential element in effective sulfide precipitation
is the removal of precipitated solids from the wastewater to a site
where reoxidation and leaching are not likely to occur.

Performance

Data from sampling at Plant 27045 show the effectiveness of
sulfide precipitation on unreduced hexavalent chromium as well
as total chromium.  Mean concentrations for the only metals
present in the aluminum anodizing operation were as follows:

Parameter                Influent mg/1       Effluent mg/1

Chromium, hex.                11.5           Undetectable
Chromium, total               18.4           Undetectable
Aluminum                      4.18           0.112

One report (Treatment of Metal Finishing Wastes by Sulfide
Precipitation, EPA-600/2-75-049, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1977} concluded that (with no complexing agents
present) the following effluent quality can be achieved:

    Parameter          E £ fluent mg/1

     Cadmium             0.01
     Copper              0.01
     Zinc                0.01
     Nickel              0.05
     Chromium, Total     0.05

Sampling data from three other industrial plants using sulfide
precipitation are presented in Table 7-40.  Concentrations are
given in rag/1.
                             VII-91

-------
                         TABLE 7-40
                  SAMPLING DATA FROM SULFIDE
            PRECIPITATION/SEDIMENTATION SYSTEMS
Data Source
Treatment
Reference 1
Reference 2
               Lime, FeS?, Poly-  Lime, FeS^r Poly-
               Electrolyte,       Electrolyte,
Settle, Filter
Settle, Filter
Reference 3

NaOH, Ferric
Chloride, Na_S,
Clarify (1 scage

PH, c 5
Cr
Cr, T
Cu
Fe
Ni
Zn
Reference:
1. Treatment
Raw
.0-6.8
25.6
32.3
-
.52
-
39.5

of Metal
Eff.
8-9
< . 01
<.04
-
.10
-
<.07

Finishing
Raw
7.7
.022
2.4
—
108
.68
33.9

3 Wastes b
Eff.
7.38
<.020
<.l
-
0.6
< . 1
<.l

y Sulfide
Raw
27
11.4
18.3
.029
-
-
.060

Precipitat
Eff.
6.4
<.005
<.005
.003
-
-
.009
	
ion,
     EPA Grant No. S804648010.
2.   Industrial Finishing, Vo. 35, No. 11, Nov.  1979, p.  40  (Raw
     waste sample taken after chemical addition).
3.   Visit Plant 27045.  Concentrations are two  day averages.
                              VXi-92

-------
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 inorganic
chemicals manufacturing plants using sulfide precipitation
reveal effluent mercury concentrations varying between 0.009
and 0.03 mg/1  (Calspan Report No. ND-5782-M-72).  As can be
seen in Figure 7-20, the solubilities of PbS and Ag^S are
lower at alkaline pH levels than either the corresponding hy-
droxides or other sulfide compounds.  This implies that removal
performance for lead and silver sulfides should be comparable to
or better than shown for the metals listed in Table 7-38.  Bench
scale tests conducted on several types of metal finishing waste-
water (Centec Corp; EPA Contract 68-03-2672) 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 precipi-
tation followed by clarification.  Some of the bench scale data,
particularly in the case of lead, do not support such low effluent
concentrations.  However, no suspended solids data were
provided in these studies.  TSS removal is a reliable
indicator of precipitation/sedimentation system performance.
Lack of this data makes it difficult to fully evaluate the
bench tests, and insufficient solids removal can result in
high metals concentrations.  Lead is consistently removed to
very low levels (less than 0.02 mg/1) in systems using
hydroxide precipitation and sedimentation.  Therefore one
would expect even lower effluent concentrations of lead
resulting from properly operating sulfide precipitation
systems due to the lower solubility of the lead sulfide
compound.

Demonstration Status

Full scale commercial sulfide precipitation units are in
operation at numerous installations, including several plants
in the Metal Finishing Category.

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 7-21 shows one type of flotation system.  Flotation
processes that are applicable to oil removal are discussed in
the subsection entitled "Treatment of Oily Wastes and
Organics".
                              VII-93

-------
OILY WATER
INFLUENT
                                             WATER
                                             DISCHARGE
                                  OVERFLOW
                                  SHUTOFF
                                  VALVE
                                               AIR IN
                                                         BACK PRESS
                                                         VALVE
      TO SLUDGE
      TANK   "*
                                                                EXCESS
                                                                AIR OUT
                                                                LEVEL
                                                                CONTROLLER
                              FIGURE 7-21
                        DISOLVED AIR FLOTATION
                                  VII-94

-------
Flotation is used primarily in the treatment of wastewater
containing large quantities of industrial wastes that carry
heavy loads of finely divided suspended solids.  Solids having
specific gravity only slightly greater than 1.0, which would
require abnormally long sedimentation times may be removed in
much less time by flotation.

This process may be performed in several ways:  foam,
dispersed air, dissolved air, gravity, and vacuum flotation
are the most commonly used techniques.  Chemical additives are
often used to enhance the performance of the flotation
process.

The principal difference between types of flotation is the
method of generation of the minute gas bubbles, usually air,
in a suspension of water and small particles.  Addition of
chemicals to improve the efficiency may be employed with any
of the basic methods.  The following paragraphs describe the
different flotation techniques and the method of bubble
generation for each process.

Foam flotation is based on the utilization of differences in
the physiochemical properties of various particles.  Wetta-
bility 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.

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.

In dissolved air flotation, bubbles are produced as a result
of the release of 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 floccu-
lated 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.

The vacuum flotation process consists of saturating the
wastewater with air either 1) directly in an aeration tank, or
2) 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
                               VII-95

-------
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 main-
tained.  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 and scum pumps.                     i
                                           I        •   •	••  • •
Application                                i

Flotation applies to most situations requiring separation of
suspended materials.  It is most advantageous for oils and for
suspended solids of low specific gravity or small particle
size.

Some advantages of the flotation process are the high levels
of solids separation achieved in many applications, the
relatively low energy requirements, and the air Elow
adjustment capability to meet the requirements of treating
different waste types.  Limitations of flotation are that it
often requires addition of chemicals to enhance process
performance, and it generates large quantities of solid waste.

Performance

Performance of a flotation unit was measured at Plant 33692,
with results as follows:

     Parameter           Influent mg/1       Effluent mg/1

     Oil & Grease              412         ;       108
     TSS                       416                210
     TOG                      3000                132
     BOD                       130                 78
                                           I
For oil removal by a variety of flotation units one literature
source (Chemical Engineering Deskbook - Environmental
Engineering, October 17, 1977, p. 52, McGraw-Hill) indicates
effluents of 10 to 15 mg/1 for influents of 61 to 100 mg/1,
effluents of 15 to 62 mg/1 for influents of 105 to 360 mg/1,
and effluent of 60 to 128 mg/1 for influents of 580 to 1930
mg/1.  For suspended solids removal, another source (Process
Design Manual for Suspended Solids Removal, January, 1975,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) indicates an effluent of
70 mg/1 for an influent of 2000 mg/1 at one pilot plant, and
an effluent of 12 to 20 mg/1 for an influent of 94 to 152 mg/1
at another pilot plant.

                               Vli-96

-------
Bench scale experiments have shown foam flotation to be very
effective in removing precipitated copper, lead, arsenic,
zinc, and fluoride.  The following table (Table 7-41) shows
the results.  A sodium lauryl sulfate (NLS) surfactant and a
flocculant were used in each case, and pollutant concentrations
were between 10 and 500 mg/1.


                         TABLE 7-41
                 FOAM FLOTATION PERFORMANCE

                                                  Residual
                                   Optimum        Concentration,
     Pollutant      Reagent           pH          	mg/1	

     Copper         Fe(OH).,-NLS       7.0               0.1
     Lead           Fe(OH)^-NLS       6.5               0.1
     Arsenate       Fe(OH)^-NLS       4-5               0.1
     Zinc           A1(OH)^-NLS     8.0-8.5             0.2

     Note:     NLS is sodium lauryl sulfate

The primary variables for flotation design are pressure,
feed solids concentration, and retention period.  The effluent
suspended solids 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 is adequate for separation
and concentration.

Demonstration Status

Flotation is a fully developed process and is readily available
for the treatment of a wide variety of industrial waste
streams. It is used in 25 plants in the present data base
and these are identified in Table 7-42.

                              TABLE 7-42
          METAL FINISHING PLANTS EMPLOYING FLOTATION

               01063          20165          33120
               11704          20247          33127
               12076          20254          33180
               12080          30150          33692
               12091          31051          38031
               14062          30153          41097
               15058          30516          41151
               20106          31067
               20157          31068
                              VII-97

-------
Membrane Filtration                        '.

Membrane filtration  is a technique for removing precipitated
heavy 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 cyanide and chromium
pretreatment as well as pH adjustment for precipitation of the
metals.  These steps are followed by addition of a proprietary
chemical reagent which causes the metal precipitate to be
non-gelatinous, easily dewatered, and highly stable.  The
resulting mixture of pretreated wastewater is continuously
recirculated through a filter module and back into a
recirculation tank.  The filter module contains tubular
membranes.  While the reagent-metal precipitates mixture IMo^s
through the inside of the tubes, the water and any dissolved
salts permeate the membrane.  The permeate, essentially free
of precipitate, is alkaline, non-corrosive, and may be safely
discharged to sewer or stream.  When the recirculating slurry
reaches a concentration of 10 to 15 percent solids, it is
pumped out of the system as sludge.        •

Application

Membrane filtration can be used in metal finishing in addition
to sedimentation to remove precipitated metals and phosphates.
Membrane filtration systems are being used in a number of
industrial applications, particularly in the metal finishing
industry and have also been used for heavy metals removal in
the paper industry.  They have potential application in coil
coating, porcelain enameling, battery, and copper and copper
alloy plants.

A major advantage of the membrane filtration system is that
installation can utilise most of the conventional end-of-pipe
system that may already be in place.  Also, the sludge is
highly stable in an alkaline state.  Removal efficiencies are
excellent, even tfith sudden variation of pollutant input
rates.  However, the effectiveness of the membrane filtration
system can be limited by clogging of the filters.  Because a
change in the pH of the waste stream greatly intensifies the
clogging problem, the pH must be carefully monitored and
controlled.  Clogging can force the shutdown of the system and
may interfere with production.            i

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, cleaning of the filters may be
required quite often.  Flushing with hydrochloric acid for
6-24 hours will usually suffice.  In addition, the routine
maintenance of pumps, valves, and other plumbing is required.

When the recirculating reagent-precipitate slurry reaches 10
to 15 percent solids, it is pumped out of the system.  It can
                              VII-98

-------
then be disposed of directly or it can undergo a dewatering
process.  The sludge's leaching characteristics are such that
the state of South Carolina has approved the sludge for
landfill, provided that an alkaline condition be maintained.
Tests carried out by the state indicate that even at the
slightly acidic pH of 6.5, leachate from a sludge containing
2600 mg/1 of copper and 250 mg/1 of zinc contained only 0.9
mg/1 of copper and 0.1 rag/1 of zinc.

Performance

The permeate is guaranteed by one manufacturer to contain less
than the effluent concentrations shown in the following table,
regardless of the influent concentrations.  These claims have
been largely substantiated by the analysis of water samples at
various plants including those shown for comparison in Table
7-43.
                         TABLE 7-43
             MEMBRANE FILTER PERFORMANCE (rag/1)
Parameter
Guarantee  Plant #19066
                                    Raw
                  Treated
Plant #31022
Raw
Treated
Aluminum
Chromium, hexavalent
Chromium, total
Copper
Iron
Lead
Cyanide
Nickel
Zinc
TSS
0.5
0.03
0.02
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.02
0.1
0.1
	
	
0.46
4.13
18.8
288
.652
<.005
9.56
2.09
632
	
0.01
0.018
0.043
0.3
0.01
<.005
.017
.046
0.1
5.25
98.4
8.00
21.1
0.288
<.005
194.
5.00
13.0
<.005
.057
.222
.263
0.01
<.005
.352
.051
8.0
Demonstration Status

There are approximately twenty membrane filtration systems
presently in use by the metal finishing and other industries.
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.

Membrane filtration is used in 7 plants in the present data
base: Plant ID's 02032, 04690, 15193, 19066, 31022, 34050, and
37042.
                              VII-99

-------
TREATMENT  OF  PRECIOUS METAL WASTES  -  SINGLE;OPTION

INTRODUCTION

This  subsection  describes  the  treatment  for  precious  metal  wastes
which includes Option 1  common metals treatmentplus  precious
metals recovery.   Silver removal  performance data for Option 1
common metals treatment  systems and describes the techniques that
are commonly  used  for the  removal/recovery of precious metals
from  waste streams.

Precious metal wastes are  produced  in the  Metal  Finishing
Category by electroplating of  precious metals and subsequent
finishing  operations performed on the precipus metals.   Included
among  the  precious metals  are  gold, silver,'rhodium,  palladium,
platinum,  osmium,  ruthenium, iridium, and  indium.   Precious
metal  wastes  can be treated using the same treatment  alterna-
tives  as those described for treatment of  common metal wastes.
However, due  to  the intrinsic  value of precious  metals,  every
effort should be made to recover  them.   The  treatment alterna-
tives  recommended  for precious metal  wastes  are  the recovery
techniques:   evaporation,  ion  exchange and electrolytic recovery.

TREATMENT  TECHNIQUES                       :

Option 1_ Common  Metals System
        "                                   i
Included in the  common metals  Option  1 treatment system (precipi-
tation/sedimentation) data base are a total  of 21 sampled
occurrences of silver.   Performance data for properly operated
Option 1 common  metals treatment  systems from visited plants and
from  plants submitting long term  self-monitoring data are presented
in Table 7-44.   The pertinent  effluent limitation data for  silver
are summarized as  follows:
     Mean Silver Effluent  Concentration        0.096 mg/8,
     Variability Factors (Daily/10-Day)        4.48/2.54* mg/4
     Daily Maximum Effluent Concentration      0.43 mg/8,
     Maximum Monthly Average Effluent          0.24 mg/8,
       Concentration

     *  Median common metals variability factor was used because
        of insufficient  silver data.

The percent compliance for the silver effluent concentrations are
100 percent for EPA sampled.  70.6 percent  for  the self-monitoring
data daily maximum and 100 percent for the self-monitoring data
10-day averages.   The lower percent compliance for  the
self-monitoring daily maximum  can be  attributed  to  Plant 11125
which  does not segregate precious metals wastes  for recovery
prior  to precipitation/clarification.
Evaporation

Evaporation is used to recover precious metals by boiling off
the water  portion  of a precious metal  solution.  This  process
is described  under the "Treatment of  Common:Metal Wastes"
heading.   Solutions such as silver cyanide plating  baths are
now being  recovered through the use of evaporation, the  silver

                             VII-100

-------
                                   TABLE 7-44
                            METAL FINISHING CATEGORY
                          PERFORMANCE DATA FOR SILVER
                            VISITED OPTION 1 PMNTS
Data Point
    1.
    2.
    3.
    4.
    5.
  Raw Waste
Concentration
   (mg/t)
    o.nso
    0.1780
    0.2100
    0.2700
    0.2900
          Effluent
       Concentration
          (rM/St)
           0.1670
           0.1190
           0.0610
           0.0640
           0.0690
Plant IP
  6087-1-1
  6087-1-3
21003-15-2
21003-15-0
21003-15-1
Mean
Concentration
    0.2252 (n=5)
           0.0960 (n=5)
                         Effluent Silver Self-Monitoring Performance Data
                                  for Plants with Option 1 Systems
           Plant ID

            6087

           11125
     No. of
     Points

       12

        5
Concentration (mg/£)

        0.04
        1.66
           Overall
       17
                                               0.52
                                      VII-101

-------
 cyanide  portion either being returned  to the process  tank or
 held  aside  for subsequent sale.   Figure 7-22 displays the
 system which was observed at Plant ID  06090.  Plant personnel
 reported that the recovery of silver solutions paid back the
 capital  cost of the evaporation  equipment after six months.

 Ion Exchange

 Ion exchange, which was described in detail  under  the "Treatment
 of Common Metal Wastes" heading,  is  commonly used  in  the
 recovery of precious metals, particularly gold.  This recovery
 process  can be used in an on-line or end-of-pipe capacity.
 Analyses of samples taken before  and after ion exchange  at
 photoprocessing plants (from Guidance  Document for the Control
 of Water Pollution in  the:  Photographic Processing Industry.
 EPA 440/1-81/082-9 April 1981)  yielded the data shown in Table
 7-45:
                          TABLE 7-45
                   ION  EXCHANGE  PERFORMANCE
                                           1
                                    Silver Concentration  (mg/1)
      Plant                          Influent            Effluent

      06208                          2.0     !            0.14
      09061      (Unit 1)             0.74               0.04
      09061      (Unit 2)             0.60               0.10
                                           i .

 Many  plants have ion exchange units  hooked up to rinses  immedi-
 ately  following precious  metal plating  operations  to  recover
 the metal and return the  rinse water to the  rinse  tank.   If a
 company  does precious  metal  work  on  a  large  scale,  it may
 segregate its precious metal wastes  and run  them through a
 series of ion exchangers  prior  to sending the water to waste
 treatment.   In any case,  the resins  from the ion exchange
 units  are saved and the precious  metal  recovered,  normally by
 burning  off the resin.

 Electrolytic Recovery

 Although electrolytic  recovery was covered under the  "Treatment
 of Common Metal Wastes" heading,  it  is  particularly applicable
 to the recovery of precious  metals.  This is because  the more
 valuable precious metals  offer a  faster payback  on the equipment
 and energy  costs.   As  explained earlier,  equipment normally
 consists of a dragout  rinse  located  after the precious metal
 plating  step and an off line electrolytic recovery tank  with
 pumps  and piping connecting  the two.   The dragout  rinse  solu-
 tion  is  recirculated between the  tanks  while the precious
 metal  is plated out in the electrolytic recovery tank.   An
 electrolytic recovery  system at a photoprocessing  plant  (Plant
 ID 4550;   Guidance  Document for the Control of Water Pollution in
 the:    Photographic  Processing Industry.   EPA 440/1-81/082-9
April  1981)  was  able to reduce silver concentrations  from 476
mg/1 to  21 mg/1.
                              VII-102

-------
               Parts Flow
H

H
O
w
Surface
Preparation
Cone


~
:en


Silver
Cyanide
Plating
trate J
i
Submerged
Tube
Evaporator
-»*-

*
(
2 Stage
Countercurrent
Rinse
1
i
1
1
	 i i
I
- J
-ondensate
                                               FIGURE  7-22
                           OBSERVED EVAPORATION SYSTEM AT PLANT  ID  06090

-------
                                TABLE  7-46
                            COMMON CCMPLEXING AGENTS
Anononia
ATtmonium Chloride
Ammonium Hydroxide
Ammonium Bifluoride
Acetylaeetone
Citric Acid
Chromotropic Acid (DNS)
Cyanide*
DTPA
Dipyridyl
Disulfopyrocatechol (PDS)
Dimethylglyoxime
Disalicylaldehyde 1,2-prqpylenedi imine
Dimereaptopropanol (BAL)
Dithizone
Diethyl Dithiophosphoric Acid
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid (EDTA)
Ethylenebis (hydroxyphenylglycine)  (EHPG)
Ethylened iamine
Ethylenediaminetetra(methylenephosphoric
                     Acid) (EOTPO)
Glyceric Acid
Glycolic Acid
Gluconic £cid
Hydroxyethylethylenediaminetriacetic Ac id
                                    (HEDTA)
Hydroxyethylidenediphosphonic Acid  (HEDP)
HEDEft
lactic Acid
Malic Acid
Monosodiura Phosphate
Nitrilotriacetic Acid  (NTA)
N-Dihydroxyethylglyc ine
Nitrilotrimethylenephosphonic Acid  (ISfTPO,
O-phenanthroline
Qxine, 8-Hydroxyquinoline (Q)
Qxinesulphonic Acid
Ehthalocyanine
Ebtassium Ethyl Xanthate
Phosphoric Acid
Balyethyleneimine (PEI)
RxLyroethacryloylacetone
Rjly (p-vinylbenzyliminodiacetic Acid)
Itochelle Salts
Sodium GLuconate
Sodium Pyrophosphate
Succinic Acid
Sodium Iripolyphosphate
Sulphosalicylic Acid (SSA)
Salicylaldehyde
Salicylaldoxime
Sodium Hydroxyacetate
Sodium Citrate
Sodium Fluoride

Sodium Malate
Sodium Amino Acetate
l^rtaric Acid
Trisodium Phosphate (TSP)
N-fiEydroxyethylethylenediamine
                                    ATMP)
Trifluoroacetylacetone
Thenoyltrif1uoroacetone
Triethylenetetramine
Triaminotriethylamine
Triethanolamine (TEA)
Tetraphenylporphin
Tbluene Dithiol
Thioglycolic Acid

Ihiourea
(TTA)
* Treatment of cyanide vestes are specifically discussed within Section VII.
                                      VII-105

-------
                                TABLE  7-46
                            COMMON CCMPLEXING AGENTS
Anononia
ATtmonium Chloride
Ammonium Hydroxide
Ammonium Bifluoride
Acetylaeetone
Citric Acid
Chromotropic Acid (DNS)
Cyanide*
DTPA
Dipyridyl
Disulfopyrocatechol (PDS)
Dimethylglyoxime
Disalicylaldehyde 1,2-prqpylenedi imine
Dimereaptopropanol (BAL)
Dithizone
Diethyl Dithiophosphoric Acid
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid (EDTA)
Ethylenebis (hydroxyphenylglycine)  (EHPG)
Ethylened iamine
Ethylenediaminetetra(methylenephosphoric
                     Acid) (EOTPO)
Glyceric Acid
Glycolic Acid
Gluconic £cid
Hydroxyethylethylenediaminetriacetic Ac id
                                    (HEDTA)
Hydroxyethylidenediphosphonic Acid  (HEDP)
HEDEft
lactic Acid
Malic Acid
Monosodiura Phosphate
Nitrilotriacetic Acid  (NTA)
N-Dihydroxyethylglyc ine
Nitrilotrimethylenephosphonic Acid  (ISfTPO,
O-phenanthroline
Qxine, 8-Hydroxyquinoline (Q)
Qxinesulphonic Acid
Ehthalocyanine
Ebtassium Ethyl Xanthate
Phosphoric Acid
Balyethyleneimine (PEI)
RxLyroethacryloylacetone
Rjly (p-vinylbenzyliminodiacetic Acid)
Itochelle Salts
Sodium GLuconate
Sodium Pyrophosphate
Succinic Acid
Sodium Iripolyphosphate
Sulphosalicylic Acid (SSA)
Salicylaldehyde
Salicylaldoxime
Sodium Hydroxyacetate
Sodium Citrate
Sodium Fluoride

Sodium Malate
Sodium Amino Acetate
l^rtaric Acid
Trisodium Phosphate (TSP)
N-fiEydroxyethylethylenediamine
                                    ATMP)
Trifluoroacetylacetone
Thenoyltrif1uoroacetone
Triethylenetetramine
Triaminotriethylamine
Triethanolamine (TEA)
Tetraphenylporphin
Tbluene Dithiol
Thioglycolic Acid

Ihiourea
(TTA)
* Treatment of cyanide vestes are specifically discussed within Section VII.
                                      VII-105

-------
                          TABLE 7-47
   COMPLEXING AGENTS  USED  IN  THE  VISITED PLANT DATA BASE


Ammonia                                  Lactic Acid
Ammonium Bifluoride                      Malic Acid
Ammonium Chloride                        Monosodium Phosphate
Ammonium Hydroxide                       NTA
Citric Acid                              Phosphoric Acid
DTPA                                     Rochelle Salts
EDTA                                     Sodium Gluconate
Gluconic Acid                            Sodium Pyrophosphate
Glyceric Acid                            Succinic Acid
Glycolic Acid                            Tartaric Acid
HEDDA                                    Trisodium Phosphate
HEDTA                                    Uspecified Chelating Agents
                                VII-106

-------
wastes for separate treatment.  This plant has significantly
lower levels of chromium, copper, and total cyanide than plant
20083 which does not segregate and separately treat their
complexed metals waste.  Segregation of complexes metals
wastestreams appears to be necessary to achieve compliance.

Table 7-48 and 7-49 also summarize the percentage of the metal
finishing visited plant data base (that use complexing agents)
that are in compliance within the daily maximum limitation
concentration for the sampled plants that employ either Option 1
or Option 2 common metals waste treatment.
                          VTI-107

-------
RWWS WITH 0MWUBH3D
                                                                       TABLE 7-48
                                                           COHCfWmATIONS (mg/1) FOR SAHPIJa) Wl'A FHCH
                                                                MASKS EMPUJnNG PK!OPITATrON/aARIF.IOmOM
                 PLANT ID

                 02032



                 02033


                 04069
                 04071



                 04077


                 05020
       Cc
Cu
Hi
                                                                               Fc
H
o
00
                 05021
                 06036


                 06074



                 06091



                 09025












2.640
3,140
0.164
0.024
0.025
0.007
0.007
0.005








0.333
0.143
0.714
0.180
0.770
0.360
0.068
0.050
3.07
3.07
3.30


0.776
0.300
0.150
0.150
1.620
0.860
0.780
5-680
4.170
0.206
1.470
0.165
12.70
4.23
5.87
5.060
0..400.
O.U6
7.850
2.780
2.100










0.08 0.049
2.30 0.034
2.70 0.075
1.840
1.300
0.122
0.120
0.140
0.041
0.0 1.700
0.200 1.460
0.160 2.000
24.50
21.00
0.400
0.300
0.294
0.150
0.160
0.065
0.807
0.013
o.oon
2.440
1.110
2.440
0.006
4.154
0.304
0.600
0.571
1.790
1.930
1.320





0.040
0.081







45.00
37.90






0,0012 0.045
0.0012 0.007-
0.0012 0.005
0.0012 0.055
0.0012 0.020
0.0012 0.020










                                                                                                                  0.215
                                                                                                                  3.41
                                                                                                                  1.24
                                                                                                                  1.25
                                                                              3.400
                                                                              0.923
                                                                              5.170
                                                                               ,450
                                                                               ,650
                                                                              8.150

                                                                              0.390
                                                                              0.190
                                                                       •ras

                                                                       40
                                                                      100
                                                                       98

                                                                      650
                                                                        5

                                                                        4
                                                                       30
                                                                        2
                                                                        2

                                                                       02
                                                                       98
                                                                       48

                                                                       50
                                                                      162

                                                                       58
                                                                      234
                                                                        5
                                                                       21
                                                                       75
                                                                       10

                                                                       44
                                                                       18
                                                                       JO
                                                                       44
                                                                       20
                                                                       21

                                                                        6
                                                                       17

                                                                       46
                                                                       21
                                                                       2fi

                                                                      175
                                                                       20
                                                                      5L5

                                                                       12
                                                             0.04
                                                             0.04
                                                             0,4

                                                             0.2
                                                             0.01

                                                             0,50
                                                             0.03
                                                             0.53B
                                                             0.44U

                                                             0.0
                                                             0,0
                                                             0.0

                                                             6.3
                                                             0.26

                                                             0.005
                                                             0.003
                                                             0.005
                                                             0.005
                                                             0.005
                                                             0.005

                                                             0.131
                                                             0.01)')
                                                             0.005
                                                             0.119
                                                             0.000
                                                             0.005

                                                             O.OOfl
                                                             0.005

                                                             0.024
                                                             0.021
                                                             0.012

                                                             0.0
                                                             0.060
                                                             0.0

                                                             0.005
                                                             o.oor>

-------
                                                                   TABLE 7-48  (Continued)

                                                 POU.UTANT CONCENTRATIONS (mg/j.)  TOR SAMPLED i.wm FROM

                                         PLANTS WTO! CCWLEXFD METAL WASTES  EMPLOYING rRBCIPrrATtON/OAI?IFICAlTCM
V
H
O
PLANT ID Cd
21003 0.027
0.024
0.017
27044
30050
31032
35061 0.050
36623
TOTAL rwt'A
roiNrs 4
DATA POINTS
IN CCMPLI-
ANCB 4
% POTNl'S IN
COMPLIANCE 100.0
TOfAL FWl'A
POINTS WITH
T,';s AND CN
LIMITATIONS* 4
DATA TO IMS
IN COMPU-
ANCi'1. 4
Cr
0.035
0.035
0.035

0.024

0.200
0.029
0.0
0.0
54
37
68.5
35
27
Co
0.160
0.140
0.130
0.157
4.000
1.810
39.61
0.400
0.290
0.200
1.100
0.220
0.180
0. 210
75
62
82.7
52
47
Fb Ni Acj ?,n Fe
0.2.JO 0.064 0.070 0.610
0.150 0.069 0.050 0.610
O.J70 0.061 0.040 0.390
0.726
3.280
0.744
0.022 0.312 0.098
0.0 O.J60
0.0 0.120
0.0 0.460
0.700
0.0 1.200 0.0 0.039
0.0 1.030 0.0 0.028
0.0 0.700 0.014 0.025
14 80 14 24 27
11 66 14 18 25
78.6 82.5 100.0 75.0 92.6
10 54 13 21 24
9 50 13 17 23
TSS
0.0
5.0
12.0
7.0
96.7
57.0
0.1
11.8
5.0
26.0
2.9
2.4
0.7





— T
0.0
0.0
0.0
0. J20
2.790
2.050
0.006
0.425
0.450
0.790
0.090
0.0)0
0.020
0.033





                       I',1; IN

                 COWMANCR   100.0
77.1
90.4
90.0        92.6
100.0
80.9
95.8
                 * Data points associated with TSS > 61.0 nrj/1 or CH, >_ 1.30 rag/1  have been deleted.

-------
                                                                TABI,E 7-18 (Continued)
                                              rofiWAOT OCNCEOTRATICNS (mj/l) FW SWIPfJ^O IJVFA PIOI
                                            wrm coMPtExro rs^im, wares wumrn
               rc.wr ID

               noes

               12061


               12065



               15608


               20064


               20073
Od
Cr
H
M
O
               20083
                         1.273
                         0.455

                         0.030
                         0,029
               20085
0.250
0.500
0.720
0.760



0.300
0.200
5.000
1.470
1.890
3. 690
3. 190
2.050
40.50
4.810
13.80
3.150
4.050
15.80
18.30
2.55
18.70
9.J10
2.070
5.040
80.00
2.040
128.0
3.360
2.840
1.950
6.380
1.580
2.980
2.100
0.110
0.100
0.068
0.910
0.728
3.670
0.812
0.875
2.440
1.260
1..370
2.750
0. 375
0. 210
0.212
0.163
2.440
2. 170
1.000
2.100
1.920
6. 170
1.440
9.220
1.960
16. 00
0.206
0..1R8
0.132
 Jb

0.017
0.011

0.0
0.0
                                                            JSL
                                                                                 1SS           04
                                  0.017
                                  0.023
                                                9.230
                                                9.230
                                               11.20
                                                6.46
                                                2.386
                                                3.216

                                                2.250
                                                0.448
                                                0.478
                                                1.300
                                                1.120
                                                1.120

                                                G.I 30
                                                0.907
                                                0.767
                                                0.808
                                                0.462
                                                4.750
                                                5.510
                                                0.2 JO
                                                5.990
                                                3.500
                                                1.030
                                                2.600
                                                30.70
                                                0.150
                                                38.50

                                                1.330
                                                1.330
                                                0.667


26.00 0.290
26.00 1.000
1.040 2.210
1.140 2.530
0.790 1.550
0.500 1.240
5.220 1.240
5.680 1.5BO
1.380 0.820


























15
8
0
5
23
23
2f».4
23.2
15.6
23.5
10.3
108
26.0
43.0
11.0
14.0
44.0
3«.0
33.0
145
34.0
27.0
9.0
6.0
97
110
9.0
130
51.0
3.0
24.0
490
2.0
710
29.0
32.0
21.0
0.120
0.005
0.005
0.006
1.858
0.327
0.0
0.014
0.090
0.005
0.005
0.038
0.024
0.060
0.030
0.020
0.370
0.090
0.540
0.030
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0. 170
135.0
0.0
1.5
1J4
53
0.0
68
o. no
0.007
0.000
0.013

-------
                                                                       TABLE  7-49
                                                 POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS  (mg/1) FOR SAMPLED CftTA FROM
                                       PLANTS Ifini COMPLEXED flETAL WASTES EMPLOYING PllTCIPITATIOtl/CLARIFTGWJ.ON/P.rLTJWl'ION


                PLANT 10        CM         £r          _Cu         Jfo         Mi          _Ag           |ii           F
005
I'JO
040
090
046
005
(HO
3
60.0
9
100.0
5
100.0
7
70.0
3
100.0
3
100.0
                TOTAL
                POIMI'S WITH
                TSS AMD CN
                LIMITATIONS*    05738337

                DATA POIMTS
                IN COMPLI-
                ANCE          NA           37353            37

                % POINTS IN
                COMPLIANCE    NA          60.0       100.0        100.0        62.5        100.0        100.0        100.0

                * Data points associated with  TSS  >^ 42.9 mg/1 or  CN,_  >^ 1,30 mg/1 have been deleted.

-------
A comparison  (reference Tables 7-48 and 7-28) of the percent
of plants that have complexed metals and;meet Option 1
compliance compared to the percent of plants that do not
have complexed metals and meet Option 1 compliance limitations
reveals that  the complexed wastes are frequently more difficult
to treat. A similar comparison (reference Table 7-49 and 7-33
of the Option 2 compliance results does not necessarily
reveal the same conclusion.  However, the size of the Option
2 complexed metal data base is much smaller than its Option
1 counterpart, which may influence the results of the comparison.
Based upon the Option 1 comparison results, segregated
treatment of  the complexed metal wastes is recommended.

TREATMENT TECHNIQUES
                                        i        ..       ...
High pH Precipitation/Sedimentation     j

The wastewater treatment alternative of hydroxide precipitation
was described in great detail under the heading "Treatment
of Common Metal Wastes".  High pH precipitation is a type of
chemical precipitation which is particularly applicable to
complexed metal wastes.  The process involves adding chemicals
to the waste  solution which bring about a drastic increase
in pH, thereby prompting a shift in the complex disassociation
equilibrium to produce uncomplexed metal ions which then can
be precipitated by available hydroxide ions.

The treatment of solutions of complexed copper with calcium
hydroxide, calcium oxide (lime), calcium chloride, or calcium
sulfate at a  pH of 11.6 - 12.5 will effectively remove
copper from the solution as a copper hydroxide.  Flocculation
of the copper hydroxide with an anionic polyelectrolyte
accelerates the settling of sludge.  This process works well
with both concentrated baths and dilute rinse baths.

The process equipment required for a high pH system includes
holding and treatment tanks if the operation is conducted on
a batch basis. Also needed are pumps to transfer the wastewater
and a settling tank to concentrate the precipitate.

Although results of lab tests have shown that the process is
applicable to removing copper from complexed copper solutions
with calcium  ions at a high pH, the effectiveness of treatment
is determined by the structure of the complexing agent in
the solution.  The presence of carboxyl groups within the
complexing agent (ligand) increases copper removal in this
procedure.  Complexing agents containing no carboxyl group
and only hydroxyl groups show no copper removal.  Electroless
nickel solutions were also prepared under laboratory conditions
and the results show the calcium treatment at a high pH to
be effective.  The high pH precipitation process is presently
in the laboratory stage of development and has been useful
in the precipitation of the metals in certain copper and
nickel complexes.
                             VII-112      I
                                         i .    .     •• .          ...;, ii:.iv j,

-------
Chemical Reduction - Precipitation/Sedimentation

This process involves adding chemicals to lower the pH of the
waste stream (to breakup the various metal complexes) followed by
the addition of a reducing agent to reduce the metals to an oxida-
tion state which permits precipitation of the metals.  Following
reduction of the metals, additional chemicals are used to
increase the pH of the waste solution, forming metallic
precipitates which are allowed to settle out of solution.

Electroless copper wastes and solder brightener wastes generated
by printed circuit board manufacturers are treated in the following
manner:  initially the pH of the waste stream is lowered to
approximately 4.0 using a dilute sulfuric acid solution in
order to break the various metallic complexes.  Sodium hydrosul-
fite is then added to reduce the metals to their lowest oxidation
state.  Following reduction, lime is added to raise the pH
of the waste solution to approximately 9.0 and precipitate
the metals out of solution.  Sedimentation is then employed
to remove the precipitated metals from the waste stream.

Chemical reduction of complexed metal wastes followed by chemical
precipitation and sedimentation is employed at two metal finishing
plants.  These are plants 17061 and 19063.  Each of these plants
employ the chemical reduction precipitation/sedimentation
technique for the treatment of copper, tin and lead.

Membrane Filtration

Membrane filtration is a treatment method whose primary use is
as an alternative to sedimentation for solids removal.  A
description of this treatment process, its application and
performance, advantages and limitations, operational factors
and demonstration status are detailed in the "Treatment ©f
Common Metal Wastes" segment. This process has also proven to
be effective for treatment of complexed metal wastes.

Tests carried out by a printed circuit board manufacturer show
that this system is also effective in the presence of strong
chelating agents such as EDTA, but continuous addition of the
chemical reagent is required.  Also, laboratory bench scale
and pilot studies have been conducted on the following waste
streams:

     A.   Tin and lead waste containing thiourea-copper complexes
          were tested on a pilot unit for over 200 hours with
          no flux deterioration with tin, lead, and copper all
          less than 0.1 mg/1 in the product water.

     B.   Cupro-"ammonia complex rinse from alkaline etching
          was treated in the pilot unit for 400 hours with no flux
          deterioration and with copper in the effluent less
          than 0.1 mg/1.
                               VII-113

-------
          Based on this laboratory pilot study, a 1 gpm pilot
          test was run in a printed circuit board manufacturing
          facility.  Over a 200 hour period, the flux was always
          in excess of 1.1 gpm.  The effluent copper was consis-
          tently below 0.5 mg/1 and usually at 0.1 mg/1, even
          with a varying concentration of ;copper in the feed.

     C.   Preliminary runs of electroless copper rinse waters have
          yielded product water in the range of 0.1 mg/1 copper.

Ferrous Sulfate (FeSO.) - Precipitation/Sedimentation

Sulfide preciptation is capable of achieving low metal solu-
bilities is spite of the presence of certain complexing and chela-
ting agents.  The use of complexing agents such as phosphates,
tartrates/ EDTA and ammonia (which are common in cleaning and
plating formulations) can have an adverse effect upon metal re-
moval efficiencies when hydroxide precipitation is used.  Modifi-
cation of the hydroxide precipitation process can improve system
performance in the removal of complexed heavy metals from the
waste stream.

Improved performance is attained by the dissolution of a posi-
tively charged ion such as Fe   into the waste stream followed
by precipitation of the metals.  The ferrous sulfate (FeSO4)
technique uses this principle.

Ion Exchange

Ion exchange is applicable to the treatment of certain metal
complexes.  This waste treatment technology has been discussed
under Treatment of Common Metals Wastes within Section VII of the
document.
                              VII-114

-------
TREATMENT OF HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM WASTES - SINGLE OPTION

INTRODUCTION

This subsection describes the treatment system option for
hexavalent chromium bearing wastewater, presents effluent per-
formance, and discusses alternative treatment techniques.

Hexavalent chromium bearing wastewaters are produced in the
Metal Finishing Category in several ways:

     -    Chromium electroplating
     -    Chromate conversion coatings
     -    Etching with chromic acid
     -    Metal finishing operations carried out on chromium
            as a basis material

The selected treatment option involves the reduction of hexava-
lent chromium to trivalent chromium.  The reduced chromium can
then be removed with a conventional precipitation-solids
removal system.

RECOMMENDED HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM TREATMENT TECHNIQUE

Chemical Chromium Reduction

Reduction is a chemical reaction in which electrons are trans-
ferred to the chemical being reduced from the chemical initiat-
ing the transfer (the reducing agent).  Sulfur dioxide, sodium
bisulfite, sodium metabisulf ite, and ferrous sulfate form
strong reducing agents in aqueous solution and are, therefore,
useful in industrial waste treatment facilities for the reduc-
tion of hexavalent chromium to the trivalent form.  The reduc-
tion enables the trivalent chromium to be separated from
solution in conjunction with other metallic salts by alkaline
precipitation.  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 H2O       =    3 H2S03
The above reaction is favored by low pH.  A pH of 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.

A typical treatment consists of two hours retention in an
equalization tank followed by 45 minutes retention in each of
two reaction tanks connected in series.  Each reaction tank
has an electronic recorder-controller device to control process

                               VII-115

-------
conditions with respect to pH and oxidation reduction potential
(ORP).  Gaseous sulfur dioxide is metered to the reaction
tanks 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.  Each of the reaction tanks is equipped with
a propeller agitator designed to provide approximately one
turnover per minute.  Following reduction of the hexavalent
chromium, the waste is combined with other waste streams for
final adjustment to an appropriate alkaline pH to remove
chromium and other metals by precipitation and sedimentation.
Figure 7-23 shows a continuous chromium reduction system.
                                          !
Application

Chromium reduction is used in metal finishing for treating
chromium bearing waste streams, including chromium plating
baths, chromating baths and rinses.  The main application of
chemical reduction to the treatment of wastewater is in the
reduction of hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium.  Rinse
waters and cooling tower blowdown are two major sources of
chromium in waste streams.  A study of an operational waste
treatment facility chemically reducing hexavalent chromium has
shown that a 99.7% reduction efficiency is easily achieved.
Final concentrations of 0.05 mg/1 are readaly attained, and
concentrations down to 0.01 mg/1 are documented in the litera-
ture.

The major advantage of chemical reduction of hexavalent chromium
is that it is a fully proven technology based on 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.  Further-
more, 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 correspondingly high.  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.

Performance

The hexavalent chromium performance data base for visited
plants is presented in Figure 7-24.  These data are for metal
finishing plants that use chemical reduction of hexavalent
chromium.

Self-monitor ing performance data for plants treating hexavalent
chromium by chemical reduction are shown in Table 7-47.  This
table shows the number of data points for each plant, the


                              VII-116

-------
                     SULFURIC    SULFUR
                        ACID    DIOXIDE
     PH CONTROLLER
    RAW WASTE
(HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM)
                      "1
                       I
                          oo
-i
                                         ORP CONTROLLER
                                   (TRIVALENT CHROMIUM)
                       REACTION TANK
                     FIGURE 7-23

   HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM REDUCTION WITH  SULFUR DIOXIDE
                         VTI-117

-------
H
00
                   D-
                   E
 C
 0)
 3
r-l
U-i
U-l
ta

 e
 D


 o

X
u

.u
C
a)
                       .175-
                       .ISO-
                       .125-
                      .100-
                       .075-
                       .050'
                       .oas-
                                                                                             Mean Concentration
                           .1
                                         1                               10

                                      Hexavalent Chromium Raw Waste  (mq/1)
100
                                                                                          Daily Maximm Concentration - 0,180 mg/1
                                                                   FIGURE  7-24


                                    EFFLl-ENT HEXAVALENT CHROMIL^ CONCENTRATIONS vs  RAW WASTE CONCENTRATIONS

-------
corresponding mean concentrations, and the calculated variability
factors.  Also shown are the total number of points, the overall
mean concentration, and the median variability factors.
                            TABLE 7-50

EFFLUENT HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM SELF-MONITORING PERFORMANCE DATA
                 FOR PLANTS WITH OPTION 1 SYSTEMS
Plant ID
  Number
Of Points
Mean Effluent
Concentration
   (mg/U
Variability
   Daily
           Factor
           10-Dav
   1067
   3043
   6051
  11008
  17030
  19063
  20080
  20116
  30090
  31021
  47025

OVERALL
   230
    94
    13
   185
   282
   237
   269
   243
   260
    35
   339
    0.048
    0.009
    0.020
    0.034
    0.025
    0.011
    0.014
    0.017
    0.010
    0.096
    0.015
   3.01

   8.46
   6.19
   2.37
   2.52
     ,88
     ,06
     ,04
2
5
5
5.07
 2.61
28.08
 1.95
 6.37
 6.59
 2.12
 1.99
  .96
  .50
 3.05
 3.25
1,
3
  2187(Total)  6.022(Mean)   5.04(Median)  3.05(Median)
The visited plant mean performance and the self-monitoring data
variability factors were used to establish the following daily
and maximum monthly performance values for hexavalent chromium:
       Mean effluent hexavalent chromium
       Daily variability factor
       10-Day variability factor
       Daily maximum effluent concentration
       Maximum monthly average effluent
         concentration
                                      0.032 mg/9.
                                      5.04 mg/9,
                                      3.05 mg/9.
                                      0.16 mg/9.
                                      0.10 mg/9.
The percentages of hexavalent chromium effluent concentrations
that are less than the daily maximum concentration limitation are
100.0 percent for the EPA sampled data base used to develop the
limits.
                              VII-119

-------
Demonstration Status

The reduction of chromium waste by sulfur dioxide or sodium
bisulfite is a classic process and is used by numerous plants
employing chromium compounds in metal finishing and non-contact
cooling operations.

Chemical chromium reduction is used in 343 plants in the
present data base and these are identified in Table 7-51,

ALTERNATIVE HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM TREATMENT TECHNIQUES

The following treatments are recovery techniques which can
also be applied to waste streams containing hexavalent chromium.
They include electrochemical chromium reduction, electrochemical
chromium regeneration, evaporation and ion exchange.


Electrochemical Chromium Reduction

This process has been developed to aid the 'removal of chromium
from metal finishing and cooling tower blowdown wastewaters.
It involves an electrochemical reaction in which consumable
iron electrodes in the presence of an electrical current
generate ferrous ions which react with chromate ions in solution.
The reaction produces chromic hydroxides and ferric hydroxides
that can be removed in a settling pond or clarifier without
the need for further chemical addition.  The process has also
been shown effective in removing zinc and other heavy metals.
The metallic hydroxides formed are gelatinous and highly
adsorptive.  They can therefore coprecipitate other species
which might be present in a wastewater solution.

In addition to the electrochemical unit, the only equipment
required is a pump and a clarifier or pond for settling.  As
long as the pH of the entering waste stream is between 7.0 and
8.0, no pH adjustment is necessary.

Application

Although the process was developed for removal of chromium and
zinc from cooling tower discharge, electrochemical chromium
reduction can also be applied to the treatment of metal finishing
wastewaters such as chromating baths and rinses.  Coil coating
and porcelain enameling plants are other potential applications.
According to manufacturers, the electrochemical reduction
process performs best on low concentration, high volume waste-
water streams.  Conventional chemical reduction is probably
more economical in treating more concentrated effluents.
                              VII-120

-------
                               TABLE 7-51
METAL FINISHING PLANTS EMPLOYING CHEMICAL CHROMIUM REDUCTION
01007
01067
01068
02037
02038
03043
04033
04069
04100
04114
04146
04151
04175
04199
04214
04216
04219
04221
04222
04261
04276
04277
04281
20077
20078
20079
20080
20081
20082
20083
20084
20085
20086
20087
20094
20104
20109
20112
20115
20116
20120
20121
20123
20136
20143
20145
20149
20150
20152
04282
04284
04690
04719
05033
05035
05050
06002
06006
06035
06050
06051
06052
06053
06062
06072
06073
06074
06076
06077
06078
06079
06083
20157
20158
21060
20172
20241
21003
21051
21059
21062
21066
21074
21078
22028
22031
22735
23039
23048
23056
23059
23061
23066
23070
23076
23337
25001
25030
06084
06085
06086
06087
06088
06090
06091
06094
06096
06112
06113
06115
06117
06118
06124
06129
06148
06156
06358
06360
06381
06679
06371
25031
25033
25034
25037
27042
28081
28082
28094
28096
28109
30009
30011
30050
30054
33058
30064
30074
30087
30090
30096
30097
30101
30111
30121
30127
30148
06960
07001
08004
08008
08061
08072
08074
08081
09025
09040
09041
09046
09061
11008
11065
11096
11113
11121
11127
11129
11139
11140
11156
30153
30155
30157
30162
30507
30967
31020
31021
31022
31035
31037
31040
31054
31050
31069
31071
33024
33033
33043
33070
33071
33073
33074
33107
33112
33113
11165
11173
11174
11184
11477
11704
12005
12010
12014
12065
12068
12071
12074
12075
12078
12080
12081
12084
12087
12090
12100
12102
12105
33116
33126
33129
33133
33137
33150
33172
33183
33184
33195
33197
33199
33281
33293
33852
34037
34039
34041
34042
34050
35040
35061
36001
36036
36040
36041
13031
13033
13034
13039
13040
14060
14062
15010
15036
15042
15044
15047
15048
15057
15070
15193
15194
16032
16033
16035
16544
17030
17032
36082
36083
36090
36091
36102
36112
36113
36130
36149
36154
36155
36151
36161
36162
36166
36177
36179
36937
37063
38031
38035
38051
38052
38222
38223
40047
17033
17050
18050
18532
18538
19051
19063
19066
19067
19068
19084
19090
19091
19104
20001
20005
20010
20017
20064
20069
20070
20073
20076
40048
40061
40062
41092
41869
43003
44037
44040
44042
44044
44050
44062
44148
44150
45035
45041
45045
46031
47005
47025
47059
47068
47074
47412
62032
62052
                                VII-121

-------
An advantage of the electrochemical chromium reduction process
is that no pH adjustment chemicals are required with  incoming
pH values between 7 and 8.  Retention time  is unimportant when
the pH is held within this range and the process is continuous
and automatic.  However, it is not efficient for effluents
with high chromium concentrations/ and species which  consume
hydroxide ions interfere with the precipitation of the ferric
and ferrous hydroxides.

The system normally requires about thirty,minutes of  operator
time per day.  Since the iron electrodes are consumable they
need to be replaced periodically.  Sedimentation is part of
the process and there is consequently a demand for sludge
processing and removal.  The precipitation  of ferric  and
chromic hydroxides generates waste sludge which must  even-
tually be dewatered and properly disposed.  No appreciable
amounts of sludge are allowed to settle in  the actual electro-
chemical process tank.

Performance

The process is capable of removing hexavalent chromium from
wastewater to less than 0.05 mg/1 with input chromium concentra-
tions up to at least 20 mg/1.  Performance  for one plant is as
follows:
     Pollutant           Influent       Effluent

     Hexavalent Chromium   10 mg/1      0^05 mg/1
     Zinc                   3           0.1
                                          i


Laboratory tests have also shown that the process is capable
of removing metals other than chromium to the following levels
(inlet concentrations not available):


          Metal                    Concentration (mg/1)

          Zinc                          0.1
          Nickel                        2,1
          Copper                        Oi2
          Silver                        0.5
          Tin                          <5


Retention time is unimportant since the reaction is instantane-
ous at pH values between 7.0 and 8.0, but subsequent sedimenta-
tion is needed to remove the precipitate formed in the reaction.
                              VEI-122

-------
Demonstration Status

There are more than 50 electrochemical reduction systems in
operation in a variety of industries, mostly in organic and
inorganic chemicals plants.  Five are presently in service at
plants in the metal finishing industry.  The process has
potential for applications in the photographic industry since
it has been shown to successfully remove silver from waste-
waters.  Electrochemical chromium reduction is used in 2
plants in the present data base:  34051 and 42030.

Electrochemical Chromium Regeneration

Chromic acid baths must be continually discarded and replen-
ished to prevent buildup of trivalent chromium.  An electro-
chemical system employing a lead anode and nickel cathode has
been developed to recover chromium by converting the trivalent
form to the hexavalent form. In this process, trivalent chromium
is electro-oxidized to hexavalent chromium at the lead anode
while hydrogen is released at the nickel cathode.  This process
is similar to the electrodialytic chromium oxidation process,
but no membrane is used to separate concentrate from dilute
solution.  The reaction is carried out at 68°C, a cell voltage
of 4.5 volts, and an anode-to-cathode area ratio of 30:1.  The
same process can also be used to recover chromium from chromic
oxide sludges precipitated by conventional chemical chromium
waste treatment.  The sludges are dissolved in 200 g/1 chromic
acid and electro-oxidized under slightly different operating
conditions than those previously described.

Application

Electrochemical chromium regeneration can be used in metal
finishing to prolong the life of chromium plating and chromat-
ing baths.  Chromic acid baths are used for electroplating,
anodizing, etching, chromating and sealing.  The electro-oxida-
tion process has been commercially applied to regeneration of
a plastic etchant.  In this particular installation, chromic
acid dragged out of the etching bath into the first stage of a
countercurrent rinse is concentrated by evaporation and returned
to the etching bath.  This closed loop system tends to cause a
rapid buildup of trivalent chromium.  However, when the etchant
is recirculated through an electrochemical regeneration unit,
the trivalent chromium is oxidized to the hexavalent form.
The process has also been applied to regeneration of a chromic
acid sealing bath in the coil coating industry.

Some advantages of the electrochemical chromium regeneration
process are its relatively low energy consumption, its opera-
tion at normal bath temperature, eliminating need for heating
or cooling, its ability for recovering and reusing valuable
process chemicals, and elimination of sludges generated by
conventional chromium treatment processes.  Some limitations
of chromium electrooxidation are low current efficiencies for

                              VII-123

-------
baths with less than 5.0 g/1 trivalent chromium, need for
control of impurities which can interfere with the process,
and dependence on electrical energy for oxidation to take
place.

Performance

The current efficiency for this process is 80 percent at
concentrations above 5 g/1.  If a trivalent chromium concen-
tration of less than 5 g/1 were treated, research has shown
that the current efficiency would drop.

Demonstration Status                      '

One automobile plant (Plant ID 12078) is using the system
experimentally to regenerate a chromic acid etching solution.
In addition, one coil coater (Plant ID 01054) is using it on a
full scale basis to regenerate a chromic acid sealing bath.
                                          t

Evaporation                               !

Evaporation, which is explained in detail in the "Treatment of
Common Metal Wastes" has found applicability in the treatment
of chromium bearing wastes, especially the rinse waters after
chromium plating.  The rinse waters following the finishing
operation (normally a countercurrent rinse of at least three
stages) are sent to an evaporator.  Here the chromium bearing
solution is broken down into water and process solution (pre-
dominantly chromic acid).  The water is returned to the last
(cleanest) stage of the countercurrent rinse and the process
solution may be returned to the process tank or put aside for
sale to a scavenger.  Plant 33065 has a similar arrangement on
their chromium plating line.  The data presented below represent
the raw waste stream going to evaporation and the concentrate
stream being returned to plating.

                    Input To
Parameter           Evaporator     (mg/1)    Concentrate

Chromium, Total     5060                     27,500
Chromium, Hex       4770                     16,700
TSS                <.l                       400
pH                  1.6                      1.4


Ion Exchange


Ion exchange is another possible method for recovering and
regenerating chromic acid solution.  As explained under the
                              VII-124

-------
"Treatment of Common Metal Wastes" segment, anions such as
chromates or dichromates can be removed from rinse waters with
an anion exchange resin.  In order to regenerate the resin,
caustic is pumped through the anion exchanger, carrying out
sodium dichromate.  The sodium dichromate stream is passed
through a cation exchanger, converting the sodium dichromate
to chromic acid.  After some means of concentration such as
evaporation, the chromic acid can be returned to the process
bath.
                              VII-125

-------
TREATMENT OF CYANIDE WASTES - SINGLE OPTION

INTRODUCTION

This subsection describes the technique recommended for cyanide
treatment/ discusses the mean cyanide concentrations found,
identifies the recommended daily maximum and monthly maximum
average concentrations  for cyanide and presents alternative
treatments for the destruction of cyanide.

The following paragraphs describe the chlorine oxidation
technique recommended for the treatment of cyanide bearing
wastes.                                    '

RECOMMENDED TREATMENT TECHNIQUE

Oxidation By Chlorination

Cyanides are introduced as metal salts for plating and conver-
sion coating or are active components in plating and cleaning
baths. Cyanide is generally destroyed by oxidation.

Chlorine is used primarily as an oxidizing agent in industrial
waste treatment to destroy cyanide.  Chlorine can be used in
the elemental or hypochlorite form.  This classic procedure
can be illustrated by the following two step chemical reaction:

     1.   C12 + NaCN +  2NaOH = NaCNO + 2NaC;l + H2O

     2.   3C12 + 6NaOH  + 2NaCNO = 2NaHCO3 +: N2 + 6NaCl + 2H2O

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 chlorinatibn of cyanide is
shown in Figure 7-25.                      ,

The cyanide waste flow  is treated by the alkaline chlorination
process for oxidation of 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% 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
                               VII-126

-------
       RAW WASTE
                CAUSTIC
                 SODA
         PH
      CONTHOUL.KW
H
KJ
                         oo
                                                                         CAUSTIC
                                                                          SODA
                                                                      00
                                                                                  CONTHOLLEH
,THEATEO
 WASTE
                 REACTION TANK
                                            CHLORINATOR
                                                                    REACTION  TANK
                                             FIGURE 7-25

                         TREATMENT OF CYANIDE WASTE BY ALKALINE CHLORINATION

-------
for collection of waste over a specified time period, and one
tank 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.

Application

The oxidation of cyanide waste by chlorine is a classic process
and is found in most plants using cyanide.  This process is
capable of achieving efficiencies of 99 percent or greater and
effluent levels that are nondetectable.  Chlorine has also
been used to oxidize phenols, but use of chlorine dioxide for
this purpose is much preferred because formation of toxic
chlorophenols is avoided.

Some advantages of chlorine oxidation for handling process
effluents are operation at ambient temperature, suitability
for automatic control, and low cost.  Some disadvantages of
chlorine oxidation for treatment of process effluents are that
toxic, volatile intermediate reaction products must be con-
trolled by careful pH adjustment, chemical interference is
possible in the treatment of mixed wastes, and a potentially
hazardous situation exists when chlorine gas is stored and
handled.                                   ;

Performance                                j

Performance for cyanide oxidation was determined by evaluating
the amenable cyanide effluent data from visited plants.  Amenable
cyanide was evaluated because treatment for cyanide is almost ex-
clusively performed by alkaline chlorination.  This form of
treatment focuses upon oxidizing the cyanide which is amenable
to chlorination.

Amenable cyanide data from visited plants are listed in Table 7-52,
The table has the following four columns:
                                           i
1.   ID Number - The identification number of the visited plant.
     Duplicate numbers indicate different sampling days at the
     same plant.                           ;

2.   Effluent Concentration - The measured concentration of the
     final effluent after treatment.  At this point, cyanide
     wastes are mixed with other wastewaters.

3.   Dilution Factor - This number represents the amount of
     dilution of the cyanide raw waste stream by other raw
     waste streams and is determined by dividing the total
     effluent stream flow by the cyanide stream flow.

4.   Adjusted Cyanide Effluent Concentration - These concentra-
     tions are calculated by multiplying the effluent cyanide
     concentrations by the dilution factor applicable in each
     individual case.

                              Vn-128

-------
The data contained in Table 7-52 were arranged in the following
manner:

     1.   For each plant data set (CN,.) the concentrations
          were listed in decending oraer.

     2.   The plant data sets were listed in ascending order
          using the first value in each plant data set as the
          basis for ordering (the first value in each plant
          data set represents the highest concentration).

Ordering the data in this fashion facilitates identification of
poorly operated treatment systems.  As illustrated in the table.
a break occurs between plant 20080 and 04045.  The highest con-
centration at plant 20080 is 0.416 mg/4 and at plant 04045 the
highest concentration is 2.2 rag/I.  Since alkaline chlorination
is capable of reducing amenable cyanide concentrations to levels
approximating zero, plants listed after plant 20080 exhibit poor
control and excessive effluent concentrations.  These plants have
been deleted from the data base used to determine performance for
cyanide oxidation.

Table 7-53 presents amenable cyanide data after deletions to
remove plants with poorly operated treatment systems.  The entire
plant data set (both CN^ and CN-j-) was deleted if any cyanide
amenable concentration for that plant exceeded the breakpoint
between 0.416 mg/4 and 2.2 mg/4.   Plants  which were deleted
from both the amenable and total cyanide data bases are listed in
Table 7-54.

Total cyanide data (after deleting the plants listed in Table
7-54) are presented in Table 7-55.  These data correspond to the
amenable cyanide data remaining in the data base from which
performance is determined.  In Table 7-55 two data points. 105.0
mg/4 and 5.69 mg/8, were  deleted  from the  calculation of  the
mean effluent concentration for total cyanide.  The 105.0 mg/8.
was deleted because it was a high outlier although the
corresponding cyanide amenable value did not indicate a high
level.   The 5.69 mg/4 was deleted as a high outlier and because
there was no corresponding cyanide amenable value.  Plant data
sets which wei:e deleted from the total cyanide data base are
listed in Table 7-56.

The edited data sets  (presented in Tables 7-53 and 7-55) were
used to determine performance for cyanide oxidation.  The adjusted
mean effluent concentrations from the edited data base are presented
below.
                               Adjusted Mean
Parameter                      Effluent Concentration (mg/&)

Cyanide, Total                          0.18

Cyanide, Amenable                       0.06
                              VII-129

-------
                               TABLE  7-52
                        AMENABLE  CYANIDE DATA BASE
             CN-EFFLUENT               DILUTION     ADJUSTED CN.
PLfiNT ID     CX3NCENTRHTION (mg/1)       FACTOR       OTSOMTRATION (mg/1)

12065             0                    10.0               0

21051             0                     1.0               0
                  0                     1.0               0
                  0                     1.0               0

38051             0                    19.9               0

06075             0.005                 5.0               0,025
                  0.005                 4.8               0.024

36623             0.005                 5.1               0.025
                  0.005                 4.9               0.024
                  0.005                 4.3               0.021

19050             0.005                 6.2               0.031

20079             0.005                 7.9               0.039
                  0.005                 6.2               0.031
                  0.005                 6.1               0.030
                  0.005                 5.6               0.028
                  0.005                 5.0               0.025
                  0.005                 4.8               0.024

05021             0.005                 8.0               0.04
                  0.005                 4.8               0.024
                  0.005                 4.8               0.024

20078             0.01                  6.6               0.066
                  0.005                 7.4               0.037
                  0.005                 7.0               0.035
                  0.005                 6.9               0.034
                  0.005                 5.7               0.029
                  0.005                 5.6               0.028

15070             0.02                  3.4               0.068
                  0.005                 2.8               0.014
                  0.005                 2.5               0.012

33073             0.027                 5.5               0.147
                  0.008                 5.1               0.041

09026             0.06                  2.6               0.156
                  0.01                  2.4               0.024
                  0.005                 3.8               0.021
                                   VII-130

-------
                            TABLE 7-52(CON"T)
                        AMENABLE CYANIDE  DATA BASE
             CN-EFFLUENT               DILUTION     ADJUSTED CN
PLANT ID     CONCENTRATIOSI (mg/1)       FACTOR       CONCENTRATIQS1  (mg/1)

31021             0.05                  3.2               0.16
                  0.05                  3.2               0.16
                  0.05                  3.0               0.150

33024             0.04                  5.1               0.204

20080             0.104                 4.0               0.416
                  0.005                 5.8               0.029
                  0.005                 4.5               0.023
                  0.005                 4.5               0.023  ,
                  0.005                 4.5               0.023

04045             2.2                   1.0               2.2
                  1.0                   1.0               1.1
                  0.25                  1.0               0.25

06089             1.14                  3.5               3.99
                  0.285                 3.0               0.855
                  0.163                 2.9               0.478

36041             0.4                  10.4               4.16
                  0.1                  11.5               1.15
                  0.1                  10.1               1.01

06381             0.751                 6.5               4.88
                  0.089                 8.7               0.733
                  0.096                 6.3               0.609

06085             1.08                  5.0               5.4
                  0.56                  4.8               2.69
                  0.06                  5.4               0.323

20082             3.0                   1.8               5.4
                  1.08                  2.1               2.23
                  0.945                 2.0               1.88
                  0.625                 2.1               1.32
                  0.056                 2.0               0.147
                  0.034                 2.0               0.064

06084             1.97                  3.6               7.19
                                    VII-131

-------
                            TABLE 7-52(CQN'T)
                                 CYANIDE DATA
HANT ID
20081
11103


02033

20077
06090

20086



06037



21066
CN-EFFLUENT               DILUTION
CONCENTRATION (mg/1)       FACTOR

     0.49                 15.6
     0.348                16.3
     0.075                17.6
     0.017                17.7
     0.005                15.9
     0.005                14.4

     3.37                  3.0
     2.91                  2.4

     4.2                   2.6

     3.0                   5.9
     2.1                   7.8
     0.78                  9.7
     0.1                   6.5
     0.005                 9.7
     0.005                 7.1

     5.27                  4.3

     5.25                  4.5
     0.36                  4.5
     0.005                 4.5

    11.6                   6.4
     0.408                 6.4
     0.122                 6.4

    11.75                  7.4
     6.57                 10.2
     8.83                  4.7
                                                    ADJUSTED CN
         (mg/1)
7.
5,
1.
  .64
  ,68
  ,32
 0.3
 0.079
 0.072

10.0
 6.98

11.1

17.7
16.4
 7.58
 0.65
 0.049
 0.036

22.5

23.6
 1.62
 0.023

73.7
 2.59
 0.775

86.9
66.9
41.5
                                    VH-132

-------
                                TABLE 7-53
                DATA USED FOR AMENABLE CYANIDE  PERFORMANCE

             CNAEFFLUENT               DILUTION     ADJUSTED CM*
PLANT ID     CONCENTRATION (mg/1)       FACTOR       CO^EMERATroN (mg/1)

12065             0                    10.0              0

21051             0                     1.0              0
                  0                     1.0              0
                  0                     1.0              0

38051             0                    19.9              0

06075             0.005                 5.0              0,025
                  0.005                 4.8              0.024

36623             0.005                 5.1              0.025
                  0.005                 4.9              0.024
                  0.005                 4.3              0.021

19050             0.005                 6.2              0.031

20079             0.005                 7.9              0.039
                  0.005                 6.2              0.031
                  0.005                 6.1              0.030
                  0.005                 5.6              0.028
                  0.005                 5.0              0.025
                  0.005                 4.8              0.024

05021             0.005                 8.0              0.04
                  0.005                 4.8              0.024
                  0.005                 4.8              0.024

20078             0.01                  6.6              0.066
                  0.005                 7.4              0.037
                  0.005                 7.0              0.035
                  0.005                 6.9              0.034
                  0.005                 5.7              0.029
                  0.005                 5.6              0.028

15070             0.02                  3.4              0.068
                  0.005                 2.8              0.014
                  0.005                 2.5              0.012

33073             0.027                 5.5              0.147
                  0.008                 5.1              0.041

09026             0.06                  2.6              0.156
                  0.01                  2.4              0.024
                  0.005                 3.8              0.021
                                    VII-133

-------
                            TABLE 7-53(CON'T)
                DATA. USED TOR AMENABLE CMNIDE PERFORMANCE
             CN.EFFLUEWT               DILUTION
PLANT ID     CONCENTRATION (ntg/1)      FACTOR

31021             0.05                  3.2
                  0.05                  3.2
                  0.05                  3.0

33024             0.04                  5.1

20080             0.104                 4.0
                  0,005                 5.8
                  0.005                 4.5
                  0.005                 4.5
                  0.005                 4.5
ADJUSTED CKL
CONCENTRATION (mg/1)

     0.16
     0.16
     0.150

     0.204

     0.416
     0.029
     0.023
     0.023
     0.023
                                    VII-134

-------
             TABLE 7-54
PLANTS         FROM CYANIDE E&TA BASE
       DUE TO POOR PERFORMANCE
                04045
                06089
                36041
                06381
                06085
                20082
                06084
                20081
                11103
                02033
                20077
                06090
                20086
                06037
                21066
                 VII-135

-------
                                TABLE 7-55
                  E&TA USED FDR TOTAL CYANIDE PERFORMANCE
PLANT ID

12065

21051
38051

06075



36623



19050

20079
05021
20078
20080
CNT EFFLUENT              DILUTION
CCACENTRATION (mg/1)       FACTOR

     0.014                10

     0                     1.0
     0                     1.0
     0                     1.0

     0                    19.9

     0.005                 4.8
     0.005                 5.0
     0.014                 4.8

     0.01                  4.3
     0.02                  4.9
     0.033                 5.1

     0.005                 6.2

     0.005                 4.8
     0.005                 6.1
     0.005                 6.2
     0.005                 7.9
     0.02                  5.6
    21.0                   5.0

     0.005                 4.8
     0.005                 4.8
     0.007                 8.0

     0.005                 5.6
     0.005                 5.7
     0.005                 7.0
     0.005                 7.4
     0.01                  6.9
     0.04                  6.6

     0.005                 4.5
     0.005                 4.5
     0.005                 4.5
     0.005                 5.8
     0.1                   4.1
     0.111                 4.0
     1.23                  4.6
ADJUSTED CN
CONCENTRATION (mg/1)

     0.14

     0
     0
     0

     0

     0.024
     0.025
     0.067

     0.043
     0.098
     0.167

     0.031

     0.024
     0.031
     0.031
     0.039
     0.112
   105.*

     0.024
     0.024
     0.056

     0.028
     0.029
     0.035
     0.037
     0.069
     0.266

     0.023
     0.023
     0.023
     0.029
     0.41
     0.444
     5.69*
*  Not used in calculation of mean effluent concentration.
                                   VII-136

-------
                            TABLE 7-55(OON'T)
                  DATA USED FOR TCHM,
                    CYANIDE PERFORMANCE
             CISL, EFFLUENT              DILUTION
PLANT ID     OafcENTRATION (mg/1)       FACTOR

15070             0.02                  2.5
                  0.03                  3.4
                  0.29                  2.8

33073             0.013                 5.5
                  0.129                 5.1
                  0.254                 5.5

09026             0.03                  2.4
                  0.02                  3.8
                  0.08                  2.6
                                   ADJUSTED CISL,
31021
33024
0.16
0.16
0.35

0.04
3.2
3.2
3.1

5.1
                                                 (mg/1)
0.05
0.102
0.818

0.071
0.66
1.39

0.072
0.076
0.208

0.512
0.512
1.1

0.204
                                    VJI-137

-------
                                TABLE 7-56
              PLSNT DATA DELETED FROM TOTAL CYANIDE DATA BASE


             QL, EFFLUENT              DILUTION      ADJUSTED C1SL,
PL&NT ID     CofcENTRATION (mg/1)      FACTOR        CONCENTRATION (mg/1)

02033            10.0                   2.6              26.0

04045             6.4                   1.0               6.4
                  8.7                   1.0               8.7
                 15.2                   1.0              15.2

06037             0.53                  6.3               3.37
                  0.591                 6.3               3.75
                 12.6                   6.4              80.6,

06084             0.027                 2.9               0.078
                  0.435                 4.3               1.86
                  2.8                   3.6              10.2

06085             0.96                  4.8               4.61
                  0.92                  5.4               4.95
                  1.8                   5.0               9.0

06089             0.285                 2.9               0.835
                  0.428                 3.0               1.28
                  2.42                  3.5               8.47

06090             2.81                  4.3              12.1
                  6.73                  4.3              28.7
                 10.8                   4.3              46.1

06381             0.089                 8.7               0.773
                  0.25                  6.3               1.58
                  0.981                 6.5               6.38

11103            10.0                   2.4              24.0
                  9.37                  3.0              28.1

20077             0.005                 7.1               0.036
                  1.5                   9.7              14.6
                  2.5                   6.5              16.2
                  3.0                   5.9              17.7
                  2.5                   7.8              19.5
                  2.4                   9.7              23.3
                                    VXI-138

-------
                            TABLE 7-56(CON"T)
              PLANT C&TA DELETED FROM TOTAL CYANIDE DATA
PLANT ID
20081
20082
20086
21066
36041
CM  EFFLUENT              DILUTION
CONCENTRATION (mg/1)      FACTOR

     0.035                17.7
     0.023                14.4
     0.068                15.9
     0.911                17.6
     1.16                 16.3
     3.82                 15.6

     0.034                 2.0
     0.635                 2.1
     0.722                 2.0
     0.945                 2.0
     3.09                  1.8
     3.31                  2.1

     0.73                  4.5
     1.13                  4.5
     5.25                  4.5

    16.38                  4.7
    12.15                 10.2
    20.65                  7.4

     0.25                 11.5
     0.4                  10.1
     0.6                  10.4
ADJUSTED CN
CONCENTRATION (mg/1)

     0.618
     0.331
     1.08
    16.0
    19.0
    59.6

     0.068
                                                          1,
                                                          1,
                                                          1.
                                                          5,
       34
       47
       88
       63
     6.85

     3.28
     5.08
    23.6

    76.9
   123.9
   152.8

     2.87
     4.04
     6.24
                                     VII-139

-------
Self-monitoring data for total cyanide and amenable cyanide are
shown in Table 7-57.  For each plant, this table shows the number
of data points, the mean effluent concentration, and the
calculated variability factors plus the total number of points.
the overall mean effluent concentration, and the median
variability factors.

                                                CNT          CNA

Mean Effluent Concentration (mg/8.)               0.18         0.06
Variability Factors (Daily/10-day)           6.68/3.61   14.31/5.31
Daily Maximum Concentration (mg/a)         '     1.20         0.86
Maximum Monthly Average Concentration (mg/a)    0.65         0.32

The percent of plants with cyanide levels below the cyanide daily
maximum effluent concentration limitations;are as follows:

             EPA Sampled Plants  Self-Monitoring  Self-Monitoring
Parameter      Daily Maximum     Data Daily Max.  Data IP-Day Ave.

Cyanide. Total        97.8            79.2             62.9
Cyanide. Amenable    100.0            92.8             78

The percent compliance for the self-monitoring data for the
cyanide total daily maximum and for the cyanide total and cyanide
amenable 10-day averages is relatively low compared to the EPA
samples plants.  When examining the EPA sampled data, the Agency
excluded numerous plants that had high cyanide levels after
correcting for dilution.  Apparently many plants are relying on
dilution of treated cyanide wastes rather than performing
alkaline chlorination to its capability.  Self-monitoring data
are insufficient to examine the adequacy of the treatment system
because both cyanide amenable and cyanide total results are
generally not available for the same plants.  Two plants have
both cyanide amenable and cyanide total values; however, the
cyanide amenable results are indicative of inadequate treatment.
This appears to indicate that there is a need for additional
control of cyanide by many of the plants that submitted
self-monitoring data.  This is illustrated in Table 7-58 which
shows the adjusted mean and maximum concentrations for cyanide
total and cyanide amenable for plants with self- monitoring data
for which dilution factors were available. !

Demonstration Status

The oxidation of cyanide wastes by chlorine is a widely used
process in plants using cyanide in cleaning and plating baths.
There has been recent attention to developing chlorine dioxide
generators and bromine chloride generators.  A problem that
has been encountered is that the generators produce not only
the bromine chloride and chlorine dioxide gas, but chlorine
gas is also formed simultaneously.  Both of these gases are
extremely unstable, corrosive, and have low vapor pressure,
which results in handling difficulties.  These generators are
in the development stages and as advances are made in their
design, they may become competitive with chlorine.

Oxidation by chlorine is used in 206 plants in the present
data base, and these are identified in Table 7-59.


                               VTI-140

-------
                            TABLE 7-57
     EFFLUENT TOTAL CYANIDE SELF-MONITORING PERFORMANCE DATA
                 FOR PLANTS WITH OPTION 1 SYSTEMS
Plant ID
  Number
OF Points
1067
3043
6051
6107
11008
11125
15193
20080
20082
31021
36082
44045
47025
230
89
13
10
179
54
12
268
246
119
121
50
138
Mean Effluent
Concentration
  (nig/ft)

    0.041
    0.154
    0.07
    2.20
    0.09
    1.21
    0.053
    0.001
    0.132
    0.533
    0.043
    0.008
    0.057
Var lability. Factor
  Daily      10-Day
                                      1.92
                                     10.02

                                     25.01
                                      6.10
                                      3.64
                                      3.23

                                      7.25
                                     11.16
                                      4.23

                                      7.92
                                          1.46
                                          4.75
                                          4.15
                                          1.35
                                          3.68

                                          3.55
                                          7.67
                                          3.33
                                          7.68
                                          2.57
OVERALL
 1529(Total)   0.156(Mean)  6.68(Median)  3.61(Median)
    EFFLUENT AMENABLE CYANIDE SELF-MONITORING PERFORMANCE DATA
                 FOR PLANTS WITH OPTION 1 SYSTEMS
Plant ID
31021
38223
47025
Mean Effluent
Number Concentration
OF Points (mq/l)
28
235
243
0.196
0.0004
0.007
Variability Factor
Daily
14.32
1 O 1

3
5
5
Day
.18
.31
.77
OVERALL
  529(Total)   0.016(Mean) 14.31(Median)  5.31(Median)
                            VH-141

-------
                            TABLE 7-58

       ADJUSTED EFFLUENT TOTAL CYANIDE SELF-MONITORING DATA
Plant ID

  3043
 11008
 11125
 15193
 20080
 2O082
 31021
 36082
 44045
 47025
  Number
OF Points

   89
  179
   54
   12
  268
  246
  119
  121
   50
  138
  Adjusted
 CN,T Mean
Concentration
  (mq/it)

    0.57
    0.35
   10.11
    1.75
    0.01
    0.66
    1.48
    0.21
    0.83
    2.26
      Adjusted
   CN,T Maximum
Daily Concentration
  ;      (rag/in	
LIMITATION COMPARISON
               0.18 (EPA Sample
                     Data Mean)
        3.11
        8.40
       33.32
        5.33
        0.46
        7.0
       15.29
        5.0
       15.0
       12.32

        1.20 (Daily Max.)
     ADJUSTED EFFLUENT AMENABLE CYANIDE SELF-MONITORING DATA
Plant ID

 31021
 38223
 47025
  Number
OFPoints

   28
  235
  243
  Adjusted
 CN,T Mean
Concentration
  (mq/a.)

    0.54
    0.06
    0.28
LIMITATION COMPARISON
      Adjusted
   CN,T Maximum
Daily Concentration
	(mq/g.)

        3.89
        1.43
        6.80
               0.06 (EPA Sample
                     Data Mean)
                         0.86 (Daily Max.)
                             VII-142

-------
                     TABLE 7-59
METAL FINISHING PLANTS EMPLOYING CYANIDE OXIDATION
007
067
068
033
037
240
042
043
045
076
114
178
199
124
227
236
263
277
279
182
021
05029
05033
06002
06006
06037
06050
06051
06052
06053
06002
06072
06073
06075
06079
06078
06079
06081
06084
06085
06087
06089
06090
06094
06101
06107
06111
06113
06115
06119
06120
06122
06124
06129
06141
06146
06147
06152
06358
06360
06381
06679
08004
08008
08074
09026
09060
10020
11008
11096
11098
11103
11125
11118
11174
11177
11184
12005
12065
12078
12087
12709
13033
13034
13039
13040
15042
15045
15047
15048
15070
15193
16033
16035
18050
18055
18534
19050
19051
19063
19069
19084
19090
19099
19102
19104
20001
20005
20017
20073
20077
20078
20079
20080
20081
20082
20084
20086
20087
20158
20162
20172
20243
20708
21003
21062
21066
21074
21078
22028
22656
23039
23059
23061
23074
23076
23337
25001
25030
25031
27044
27046
28082
28105
30011
30022
30090
30096
30097
30109
30111
30162
30967
31021
31037
31040
31047
31070
33024
33043
33065
33070
33071
33073
33113
33120
33137
33146
33184
33187
33275
34041
34042
35061
35963
36036
36040
36041
36082
36083
36084
36090
36091
36102
36112
36113
36151
36154
36156
36623
37042
38031
38038
38051
38223
40037
40047
41116
42830
43052
44037
44040
44045
45035
                                               47005
                                               47025
                      VII-143

-------
ALTERNATIVE CYANIDE TREATMENT TECHNIQUES

Alternative treatment techniques for the destruction of cyanide
include oxidation by ozone, ozone with ultraviolet radiation
(oxyphotolysis), hydrogen peroxide and electrolytic oxidation.
These techniques are presented in the following paragraphs.

Oxidation By Ozonation

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.  The electrodes are usually stainless steel or
aluminum.  The dielectric or insulating material is usually
glass.  The gap or air space between electrodes or dielectrics
must be uniform and is usually on the order of 0.100 to 0.125
inches.  The voltage applied is 20,000 volts or more, and a
single phase current is applied to the high tension electrode.

Ozone is approximately ten times more soluble than oxygen on a
weight basis in water, although the amount that can be effi-
ciently dissolved is still slight.  Ozone's solubility is
proportional to its partial pressure and also depends on the
total pressure on the system.  It should be noted, however,
that it is the oxidizable contaminant in the water that deter-
mines the quantity of ozone needed to oxidize the contaminants
present.  A complete ozonation system is represented in Figure
7-26.

Thorough distribution of ozone in the water under treatment is
extremely important for high efficiency of the process.  There
are four methods of mixing ozone with water; these are: (1)
diffusers, (2) negative or positive pressure injection, (3) packed
columns whereby ozone-containing air or oxygen is distributed
throughout the water, and (4) atomizing the aqueous solution into
a gaseous atmosphere containing ozone.

Application

Ozonation has been applied commercially for oxidation of
cyanides, phenolic chemicals, and organo-metal complexes.  It
is used commercially with good results to treat photoprocessing
wastewaters.  Divalent iron hexacyanato complexes (spent bleach)
are oxidized to the trivalent form with ozone and reused for
bleaching purposes.  Ozone is used to oxidize cyanides in other
industrial wastewaters and to oxidize phenols and dyes to a
variety of colorless, nontoxic products.
                               VII-144

-------
     CONTROUS
                    OZONE
                  GENERATOR
      DRY  AIR
RAW WASTE.
                       0
                               OZONE
                              REACTION
                               TANK
                                        •M-
                                       t
                                                  TREATED
                  FIGURE  7-26

 TYPICAL OZONATION PLANT  FOR WASTE TREATMENT
                      VII-145

-------
Oxidation of cyanide to cyanate is illustrated below:

                   CN"1 + 03 = CNO"1 + 02 i

Continued exposure to ozone will convert the cyanate formed to
carbon dioxide and ammonia if the reaction is allowed to
proceed; however, this is not economically practical, and
cyanate can be economically decomposed by biological oxidation
at neutral pH.

Ozone oxidation of cyanide to cyanate requires 1.8 to 2.0
pounds of ozone per pound of CN  and complete oxidation requires
4.6 to 5.0 pounds of ozone per pound of CN .  Zinc, copper,
and nickel cyanides are easily destroyed to a nondetectable
level, but cobalt cyanide is resistant to ozone treatment.

The first commercial plant using ozone in the treatment of
cyanide waste was installed by a manufacturer of aircraft.
This plant is capable of generating 54.4 Kg (120 pounds) of
ozone per day.  The concentration of ozone used in the treatment
is approximately 20 mg/1.  In this process the cyanate is
hydrolyzed to C02 and NH^.  The final effluent from this
process passes into a lagoon.  Because of ^n increase in waste
flow the original installation has been expanded to produce
162.3 Kg (360 pounds) of ozone per day.
                                          !
Some advantages of ozone oxidation for handling process effluents
are that it is well suited to automatic control, on-site,
generation eliminates treatment chemical procurement and
storage problems, reaction products are not chlorinated organics,
and no dissolved solids are added in the treatment step.
Ozone in the presence of ultraviolet radiation or other pro-
moters such as hydrogen peroxide and ultrasound shows promise
of reducing reaction time and improving ozone utilization.
Some limitations of the process are high capital expense, possible
chemical interference in the treatment of imixed wastes, and
an energy requirement of 15 to 22 kwh per kilogram of ozone
generated.  Cyanide is not economically oxidized beyond the
cyanate form.
                                          i
Performance

An electroplating plant (ID 30022) that serves the electronics
industry plates gold, silver, copper, and nickel.  Ozone was
selected for treatment of cyanide bearing waste, and the
results were as follows:

     A.   Optimum operating conditions were determined to be 1 to
          1.5 moles of ozone/mole CN at a pH of 9.0-9.5 in the
          ozone contactor.

     B.   It was established that ozone dosage is the most criti-
          cal operating parameter, with 1.0 to 1.5 moles Oo/mole
          CN found to be optimum at low CN concentrations [20 mg/1)
          and 1.8 to 2.8 moles 0.,/mole CN at levels greater than
          40 mg/1.
                              VII-146

-------
          Cost data based on plant experience were obtained.
          Treatment operating cost was $1.43/100 gallons of
          influent cyanide bearing waste water and $1.03/1000
          gallons total waste water.  Total capital costs were
          $66,613 for this installation but are estimated at
          $51,200 for an optimized, non-research installation.

          The results of three days of sampling are shown below:

                   PLANT ID 30022  (mg/1)

                              Day 1          Day 2          Day 3
Parameter
Cyanide, Total
Cyanide, Amenable

Demonstration Status
In

1.4
1.4
Out

.113
.110
In

.30
.30
Out

.039
.039
In
Out
2.4    .096
2.389  .096
Ozone is useful for application to cyanide destruction.  There
are at least two units presently in operation in the country
(Plant ID's 14062 and 30022), and additional units are planned.
There are numerous orders for industrial ozonation cyanide
treatment systems pending.

Ozone is useful in the destruction of wastewaters containing
phenolic materials, and there are several installations in
operation in the United States.

Research and development activities within the photographic
industry have established that ozone is capable of treating
some compounds that are produced as waste products.  Solutions
of key ingredients in photographic products were composed and
treated with ozone under laboratory conditions to determine
the treatability of these solutions.  It was found that some
of these solutions were oxidized almost completely by ozona-
tion and some were oxidized that were difficult to treat by
conventional methods.  Ozone breaks down certain developer
components that biodegrade slowly, including color developing
agents, pheniodone, and hydroxylamine sulfate. Developing
agents, thiocyanate ions, and formate ions degrade more com-
pletely with ozone than when exposed to biological degradation.
Thiosulfate, sulfite, formalin, benzyl alcohol, hydroquinone,
maleic acid, and ethylene glycol can be degraded to a more or
less equal degree with either biological treatment or ozone.
Silver thiosulfate complexes were also treated with ozone
resulting in significant recovery of the silver present in
solution.  Ozone for regeneration of iron cyanide photoprocessing
bleach and treatment of thiosulfate, hydroquinone, and other
chemicals is currently being utilized by the photoprocessing
industry.  There are 40 to 50 installations of this nature
in use at the present time.
                              VII-147

-------
O_xid_at.jLpn By Ozonation With UV Rad i at ion  -

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 halo-
genated organics.  The combined action of these two forms
produces reactions by photolysis, photosensitization, hydroxyla-
tionr 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.  The energy
and reaction intermediates created by the introduction of
both ultraviolet radiation and ozone greatly reduce the amount
of ozone required compared with a system that utilizes ozone
alone to achieve the same level of treament.  Figure 7-27 shows
a three-stage UV/ozone system.

A typical process configuration employs three single stage
reactors. Each reactor is a closed system which is illuminated
with ultraviolet lamps placed in the reactors, and the ozone
gas is sparged into the solution from the bottom of the tank.
The ozone dosage rate requires 2.6 pounds of ozone per pound
of chlorinated aromatic.  The ultraviolet power is on the
order of five watts of useful ultravioletjlight per gallon of
reactor volume.  Operation of the system is at ambient tempera-
ture and the residence time per reaction stage is about 24
minutes.  Thorough mixing is necessary and the requirement for
this particular system is 20 horsepower per 1000 gallons of
reactor volume in quadrant baffled reaction stages. A system
to treat mixed cyanides requires pretreatment that involves
chemical coagulation, sedimentation, clarification, equalization,
and pH adjustment.  Pretreatment is followed by a single stage
reactor, where constituents with low refractory indices are
oxidized.  This may be followed by a second, multi-stage reactor
which handles constituents with higher refractory indices.
Staging in this manner reduces the ultimate reactor volume
required for efficient treatment.

Application

The ozonation/UV radiation process was developed primarily for
cyanide treatment in the metal finishing and color photo-
processing areas, and it has been successfully applied to
mixed cyanides and organics from organic chemicals manufactur-
ing 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, but readily
oxidized by ozone with UV radiation.
                                VII-148

-------
  MIXER,

WASTEWATER
FEED
TANK


F
s-
SE
ST
T
S
1
TREATI
\,

w ,
H
X
RST 0
'AGE J
>

V)
1-
IOND §
\GE 3
>
3
Cfl '
1- '
HIRD (3
TAGE j
>
a
N3
PUMP
5D WATEF
?

||



??


S
r _ EXHAUST



a
1 1


c


3
H|


1
a.
I
c

:


GAS

	 TEMPERATURE
	 CONTROL
	 PH MONITORING



	 TEMPERATURE
	 CONTROL
	 PH MONITORING
	 TEMPERATURE
	 CONTROL
	 PH MONITORING

OZONE



OZONE
GENERATOR
FIGURE  7-27




UV/OZONATION
  VII-149

-------
Performance

For mixed metal cyanide wastes, consistent'reduction  in total
cyanide concentration to less than 0.1 mg/1  is claimed.
Metals are converted to oxides, and halogenated organics are
destroyed.  TOC and COD concentrations are reduced to less
than 1 mg/1.

Demonstration Status

A full scale unit to treat metal complexed cyanides has been
installed in Oklahoma, while a large American chemical company
in France has installed an on-line unit for  the treatment of
cyanides and organics and a similar design is scheduled for
installation by the same company in the United States.  There
are also two other units known to be in service, one  for
treating mixed cyanides and the other for treatment of copper
cyanide.

Oxidation By Hydrogen Peroxide             '

The hydrogen peroxide oxidation treatment process treats both
the cyanide and metals in cyanide wastewaters containing zinc
or cadmium.  In this process, cyanide rinse waters are heated
to 49-54°C (120-130°) to break the cyanide complex, and the pH
is adjusted to 10.5-11.8.  Formalin (37% formaldehyde) is
added/ while the tank is vigorously agitated.  After  2-5
minutes/ a proprietary formulation (41% hydrogen peroxide
with a catalyst and additives) is likewise 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 chemical reactions which- take place are as follows:

               CN + HCHO + H2O = HOCH2CN +,'OH~

The hydrogen peroxide converts cyanide to cyanate in  a single
step:

                    CN + H2O2 = NCO + H2o

The formaldehyde also acts as a reducer, combining with the
cyanide ions:

     Zn(CN)4~2 + 4 HCHO + 4H2O = 4 HOCH2CN + 4 OH~ +  Zn+2

The metals subsequently react with the hydroxyl ions  formed
and precipitate as hydroxides or oxides:

               Zn+2 + 2 OH" = ZnO + H2o

The main pieces of equipment required for this process are two
holding tanks.  These tanks must be equipped with heaters and

                               VII-150

-------
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

The hydrogen peroxide oxidation process is applicable to
cyanide bearing wastewaters, especially those from cyanide
zinc and cyanide cadmium electroplating.  The process has been
used on photographic wastes to recover silver and oxidize
toxic compounds such as cyanides, phenols and "hypo" (sodium
thiosulfate pentahydrate).  Additions of hydrogen peroxide are
made regularly at a large wastewater treatment plant to control
odors and minimize pipe corrosion by oxidizing hydrogen sulfide.

Chemical costs are similar to those for alkaline chlorination
and lower than those for  treatment with hypochlorite, and all
free cyanide reacts and is completely oxidized to the less
toxic cyanate state.  In addition, metals precipitate and
settle quickly, and they are recoverable in many instances.
However, the process requires energy expenditures to heat the
wastewater prior to treatment.  Furthermore, the addition of
formaldehyde results in treated wastewater having relatively
high BOD values.  Although cyanates are much less toxic than
cyanide, there is not complete acceptance of the harmlessness
of cyanates.

Performance

In terms of waste reduction performance, this process is
capable of reducing the cyanide level to less than 0.1 mg/1
and the zinc or cadmium to less than 1.0 mg/1.

Demonstration Status

This treatment process was introduced in 1971 and is being
used in several facilities.

Peroxide oxidation is used in three plants in the present data
base:  08061, 21058, and 30009.

Electrochemica1 Cyanide Oxidation

Electrochemical cyanide oxidation is used to reduce free
cyanide and cyanate levels in industrial wastewaters.  In this
process, wastewater is accumulated in a storage tank and then
pumped to a reactor where an applied DC potential oxidizes the
cyanide to nitrogen, carbon dioxide and trace amounts of
ammonia.  The gases generated are vented to the atmosphere.
The oxidation reaction is accomplished if concentrations are
not greater than 1000 mg/1.  If reaction time is critical, the
process can be accelerated by augmenting the system with a
chemical (hypoehlorite) treatment as long as the cyanide

                             VEI-151

-------
concentration level is less than 200 mg/1.  The process equip-
ment consists of a reactor, a power supply, a storage tank and
a pump.

Another electrochemical oxidation system employs a low voltage
anode with a metallic oxide coating.  Upon application of an
electrical potential several oxidation reactions occur at the
anode. These reactions include the oxidation of chloride (from
common salt) to chlorine or hypochlorite and the formation of
ozone, as well as direct oxidation at the anode.  Although
untested on cyanide-bearing wastewaters, this system shows
good potential in that area.

Application

The electrochemical cyanide oxidation system has been used
commercially only for heat treating applications; however, it
should be equally appropriate for other cyanide bearing wastes.
Its application for plating and photographic process wastewaters
is still in the development stage.  The process can also be
applied to the electrochemical oxidation of nitrite to nitrate.

Electrochemical cyanide oxidation has the advantage of low
operating costs with moderate capital investment, relative to
alternative processes.  There is no requirement for chemicals,
thereby eliminating both their storage and control, and there
is no need to dilute or pretreat the wastewater as the process
is most efficient at high cyanide concentration levels.
However, the process is less efficient than chemical destruc-
tion at cyanide concentrations less than 100 mg/1, and it is
relatively slow when not accelerated by addition of treatment
chemicals.  Moreover, it will not work well in the presence of
sulfates.

Performance

Performance has been demonstrated on a commercial scale and
shown to result in a reduction in the cyanide concentration
level from 3500 mg/1 to less than 1.0 mg/1 in 160 hours.  The
process emits no noticeable odor with adequate ventilation.

Demonstration Status

There is currently a unit in operation which is handling the
cyanide bearing wastewater generated by a heat treating opera-
tion.  The manufacturer claims that there is a potential for
future use of the process in both the electroplating and
photographic industries.  However, despite a variety of experi-
mental programs, industry has not been enthusiastic about the
electrolytic approach to cyanide oxidation.

Electrochemical cyanide oxidation is used at plants 04224,
18534, 19002, and 30080.


                              VII-152

-------
Chemical Precipitation

Chemical precipitation is a classic waste treatment process
for metals removal as described under the "Treatment of Common
Metal Wastes" heading.  The precipitation of cyanide can be
accomplished by treatment with ferrous sulfate.  This preci-
pitates the cyanide as a ferrocyanide, which can be removed in
a subsequent sedimentation step.  Waste streams with a total
cyanide content of 2 mg/1 or above have an expected waste
reduction of 1.5 to 2 orders of magnitude.  These expectations
are substantiated by the following results from plant 01057:


          CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL CYANIDE  (mg/1)


          Raw Waste             Final Effluent

            2.57                    0.024
            2.42                    0.015
            3.28                    0.032

Evaporation

Evaporation is another recovery alternative applicable to
cyanide process baths such as copper cyanide, zinc cyanide,
and cadmium cyanide and was described in detail for common
metals removal.
                              VEI-153

-------
TREATMENT OF OILY W&STSS

INTRODUCTION

This section presents the Option 1 treatment systems that are
applicable to the treatment of oily wastes; describes the
treatment techniques for Option 1 and its alternatives; and
defines the effluent concentration levels for those options.  Oily
wastes include process coolants and lubricants, wastes from
cleaning operations directly following many other unit operations,
wastes from painting processes, and machinery lubricants.  Oily
wastes generally are of three types:  free oils, emulsified or
water soluble oils, and greases.  Techniques commonly employed in
the Metal Finishing Category to remove oil include skimming,
coalescing, emulsion breaking, flotation, centrifugation.
ultrafiltration. reverse osmosis, and removal by contractor
hauling.  Oil removal techniques may also afford additional
removal of toxic organics, and the applicability and performance
of these techniques for toxic organics is discussed under
"Treatment of Toxic Organics."

Table 7-60 presents oily waste removal system options for free
oils, combined wastewater, and segregated oily waste.  The Option
1 oily waste treatment system incorporates the emulsion breaking
process followed by surface skimming (gravity separation is
adequate if only free oils are present).  Ultrafiltration may be
employed as an alternative to the Option i; system.  Polishing
systems for Option 1 and its alternative a|re presented in the
text.  These may be added to further improve effluent quality.
Because emulsified oils, or processes that emulsify oils, are used
extensively in the Metal Finishing Category, the exclusive
occurrence of free oils is nearly nonexistent.  Combined
wastewater (e.g., -oils in common metals wastewaters} should
contain only oils that are introduced from rinsing or cleaning
operations, inadvertent spills, or equipment leakage.  As a result
of this, these wastewaters contain low oil concentrations but have
high flow rates.  Because treatment system costs are proportional
to the quantity of waste oil, segregation of oily waste is
economically preferable.  Segregated oily waste is that collected
from tanks and sumps throughout a manufacturing facility for
separate waste treatment or recovery.
                               VH-154

-------
                                                                     TABLE 7-60



                                                         OILY WASTE REMOVAL  SYSTEM OPTIONS
U1
>v WASTE
>v CHARACTERISTICS
TREATMENT OPTION\.
PC
TE
ALTER!
T<
OPTI!
OPTION
1
JATIVE
3
DN 1
)LISHING
CHNIQUES
FREE OILS
Combined
or
Segregated
Haste
Gravity
Separator
I i
COMBINED WASTEWATER SEGREGATED OILY WASTE
Mixture of free oils, grease, and emulsified oils
Wastewater from rinsing or „ ,, . . , , . .
, . _,. .7, Collection from tanks and
cleaning overflow, spills,
and leakage suips
Low oil concentration, High oil concentration,
high flow rate low flow rate
Emulsion Breaking with Skimming
Ultxafiltration
Option 1 (or Alternative) Followed by Carbon Adsorption or Reverse Osmosis

-------
Oily waste performance data and  limitations are presented herein
for both combined wastewater and  segregated oily wastes.  The
combined wastewater concentrations are applicable to the oils
present in common metals wastewaters and concentration  limitations
are stated for both the Option 1  and Option 2 common metals
treatment systems.  A single option and an alternative  are
presented for the treatment of segregated oily wastes.

TREATMENT OF OILY WASTES FOR COMBINED WASTEWATER

The following paragraphs present  the oily waste performance data
for combined wastewater in the common metals wastewater data base,
identify the mean concentrations  established for oil and grease,
define the concentration limitations, and compare these
limitations with the sampled data base and the self-monitoring
data base for the Option 1 and Option 2 common metals treatment
systems.

COMBINED WASTEWATER PERFORMANCE FOR OILS - OPTION 1
COMMON METALS SYSTEM                      \

Table 7-61 presents the oil and grease performance data for the
Option 1 common metals treatment  system data base for properly
opreating systems.  From these data a mean effluent concentration
of 11.8 mg/8. was established for oil and grease in combined
wastewater for the Option 1 common metals treatment system.

An iterative procedure was used in the calculation of the
mean effluent concentration for oil and grease to prevent
the calculation of an unrealistically low mean effluent
concentration due to low raw waste pollutant loadings.   The
mean effluent concentration for oil and grease was calculated;
when a raw waste concentration was less than the mean effluent
concentration, the corresponding  effluent value was deleted from
the data set.  The mean was recalculated using points not removed
initially, and the process repeated in an iterative loop.  This
same iterative procedure was used for the toxic metals.

The variability factors for oil and grease in combined wastewater
for the Option 1 common metals treatment system were established
from long term self-monitoring data.  The specific data set used
is tabulated in Table 7-62.
                              VII-156

-------
                                   TABLE 7-61

          METAL FINISHING CATEGORY PERFORMANCE DATA FOR OIL AND GREASE


                                    OPTION 1
   Data
   Point

     1.
     2.
     3.
     4.
     5.
     6.
     7.
     8.
     9.
    10.
    11.
    12.
    13.
    14.
    15.
    16.
    17.
    18.
    19.
    20.
    21.
    22.
    23.
    24.
    25.
    26.
    27.
    28.
    29.
    30.
  Raw Waste
Concentration
   (mg/il)

   12.200
   14.200
   16.111
   16.200
   16.644
   16.900
   18.000
   22.804
   23.000
   23.600
   28.000
   29.444
   34.000
   36.312
   40.350
   41.000
   43.000
   46.000
   51.600
   54.000
   66.000
   67.600
   72.000
   90.393
  137.15
  195.93
  224.11
  418.00
 1291.0
 2650.0
  Effluent
Concentration
   (mg/U

      9.800
     11.200
        000
        000
        000
     11.700
      2.0000
     18.150
     11.000
     12.600
     19.300
      1.
      6.
  .0000
  .0000
 9.6385
23.015
 1.0000
24.000
      5.
      1.
      7.
  .0000
  .600
  .0000
14.000
 9.600
10.000
23.378
12.000
25.000
16.000
10.200
23.200
31.200
Plant ID

   6101-12-1
    6731-1-3
   20086-1-2
   19051-6-0
   20086-1-3
    6051-6-0
  21003-15-0
   33024-6-0
  15010-12-2
   6101-12-1
    6083-1-2
   20086-1-1
   36041-1-1
   19063-1-1
   19063- 1-3
   36041-1-3
  15010-12-3
   36041-1-2
   36040-1-1
  11477-22-2
  11477-22-0
    6074-1-1
  11477-22-1
   19063-1-2
  44062-15-1
  44062-15-0
  44062-15-2
    6074-1-1
    6074-1-1
  33692-23-1
Mean
Concentration
  193.185 (n=30)
     11.819 (n=30)
                                   VII-157

-------
                       TABLE 7-62

OIL AND GREASE EFFLUENT SELF-MONITORING PERFORMANCE DATA
      COMBINED WASTEWATER - COMMON METALS OPTION 1
                                 Variability Factor
                     Mean Effluent
            Number   Concentration
Plant ID  OF Points     (mq/g.)

                         1.80
                         1.75
                        10.80
                         2,57
                         1.95
                         4.51
                         4.73
                         1.24
                         4.88
                         1.46
                         3.83
                         3.48

OVERALL     893(Total)   2.79(Mean)   4.36(Median)  2.18(Median)
3049
6051
6107
11477
12002
20080
22735
30050
30079
30090
30165
45741
49
13
2
66
55
269
45
287
12
45
20
48
Daily
I
5.71
6.22
33.38
2.73
5.98
6.70
3.01
7.71
1.38
2.53
1.63
3.00
10-Day
2.58
3.09
—
1.82
2.65
2.68
" "" r.§6
2.40
1.41
1.97
—
1.42
                            VH-158

-------
In a manner consistent with the development of limitations for
other parameters in common metals wastewaters, the median
variability factor values are used to establish the limitations
presented in Table 7-63.

                            TABLE 7-63
                OIL AND GREASE LIMITATION SUMMARY
           COMBINED WASTEWATEH - COMMON METALS OPTION 1

       Mean Effluent Concentration               11.8 mg/8.
       Daily Variability Factor                  4.36 mg/8,
       10-Day variability factor                 2.18 mg/8.
       Daily Maximum Concentration               52 mg/8.
       Monthly Maximum Average Concentration     26 mg/8.


The percentage of oil and grease effluent concentrations that are
less than the daily maximum concentration limitation are 100
percent for the EPA sampled data set used to establish mean
effluent concentration, 100 percent for the self-monitoring data
set daily values and 100 percent for the self-monitoring data set
monthly averages.

       COMBINED WASTEWATER PERFORMANCE FOR OILS - OPTION 2
       COMMON METALS SYSTEM

Figure 7-28 presents the oil and grease performance data for the
Option 2 common metals treatment system data base.  From these
data, excluding the outlier at an effluent concentration of 56
rag/ft, which exceeds the Option 1 daily maximum concentration
limitation, the mean effluent oil and grease concentration was
established to be 7.1 mg/8,.

The variability factors for oil and grease is combined wastewater
for the Option 2 common metals treatment system are those used
for oil and grease in the Option 1 common metals treatment
system.  Insufficient data are presently available to separately
establish these factors for the Option 2 treatment system.
Applying the Option 1 variability factors to the Option 2 oil and
grease mean effluent concentration results in the performance
presented in Table 7-64.

                            TABLE 7-64
                OIL AND GREASE PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
           COMBINED WASTEWATER - COMMON METALS OPTION 2

       Mean Effluent Concentration               7.1 mg/S.
       Daily Variability Factor                  4.36 mg/S.
       10-Day variability factor                 2.18 mg/S.
       Daily Maximum Concentration               31.0 mg/S.
       Monthly Maximum Average Concentration     15.5 mg/8.
                               VII-159

-------
V
so-
•
~ 
W
<0
u ;
•o
c
f-1
•H
01 fi -

8.


n .
















*


0


























































0






















































































C











































0






























Daily Maximum Oil And Grease



























— A 	









































































































                         10
             100
Oil And Grease Raw Waste (mg/1)
                                                                                                                  1000
                                                                FIGURE 7-28

                                    EFFLUENT OIL AND GREASE CONCENTRATIONS  vs  RAW WASTE  CONCENTRATIONS
                                                     OPTION 2 COMMON  METALS DATA BASE

                                                           (Combined Wastewater)

-------
The percentage of combined wastewater oil and grease effluent
concentrations that are less than the Option 2 daily maximum
concentration limitation is 96.7 percent for the EPA sampled
data base used in calculating the mean effluent concentration.

TREATMENT OF SEGREGATED OILY WASTES

Treatment of oily wastes can be carried out most efficiently
if oils are segregated from other wastes and treated separ-
ately. Segregated oily wastes originate in the manufacturing
areas, are collected in holding tanks and sumps, and can have
oil and grease concentrations as high as 400,000 mg/1.  Combined
oily wastes are those generated from washing or rinsing of
oily parts, spills, and leakages and generally have lower oil
and grease concentrations than segregated oily wastes by
several orders of magnitude.  Furthermore, oily wastes in
combined wastewater streams, such as common metals waste-
waters, require larger and thus more costly treatment systems
for oils removal than do segregated oily wastewaters because
the combined wastewaters have significantly greater flow
rates.  Performance limitations for combined wastewater oils
and total priority organics are presented in the preceding
subsection.

Treatment of segregated oily wastes consists of separation of
the oily wastes from the water.  This separation can require
several different steps depending on the character of the oily
wastes involved.  If the oils are all of a free or floating
variety, physical means such as decantation or the use of a
gravity oil separator should be used to remove the oils.  If
the oily wastes are emulsified, techniques such as emulsion breaking
or dissolved air flotation with the addition of chemicals are
necessary to accomplish removal of the oils.  Once the oil-water
emulsion is broken, the oily waste is physically separated from the
water by decantation or skimming.  (Ultrafiltration is an alternative
to emulsion breaking).

After the oil-water separation has been accomplished the water
is sent to the precipitation/sedimentation unit described under
the "Treatment of Common Metals Wastes" heading for removal of
metals.
                               VII-161

-------
     SEGREGATED OILY WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM - OPTION 1

The Option 1 system for the treatment of segregated oily
wastewater consists of emulsion breaking followed by skimming,
as is illustrated in Figure 7-29.  The emulsion breaking is
effected by the addition of chemicals (such as alum or
polymers) to accomplish coagulation and flocculation of the
oily wastes.  These floating oily wastes are then removed via
skimming to complete the Option 1 level of treatment.

Treatment alternatives to the Option 1 system that are
presently employed in the metal finishing industry include
ultrafiltration, dissolved air flotation, coalescing gravity sepa-
rators, thermal emulsion breaking and the use of centrifu-
gation.  These alternative techniques, as well as contractor
hauling, are described in the subsection entitled "Additional
Oily Waste Treatment Techniques."


The Option 1 treatment system is employed extensively within
the metal finishing data base for treatment of segregated oily
waste.  However, because of the increasing price of oil, metal
finishing plants are tending toward the use of treatment
techniques such as ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, or
centrifugation for the recovery and direct reuse of oils.

The following paragraphs describe the emulsion breaking and
skimming tecniques that are applicable to the removal of oily
wastes for Option 1.

Emulsion Breaking

Emulsion breaking is a process by which emulsified oils are
removed from oil/water mixtures.  Emulsified oils are commonly
used as coolants, lubricants, and antioxidants for many of the
unit operations performed in the Metal Finishing Category.
Methods of emulsion breaking include a variety of chemical
processes, thermal processes, and combinations of the two
processes.  These techniques are discussed in the following
paragraphs.

Chemical emulsion breaking can be accomplished either as a
batch process or a continuous process.  A typical system
(with skimming incorporated) is illustrated in Figure 7-30.
The mixture of emulsified oils and water is initially treated
by the addition of chemicals to the wastewater.  A means of
agitation (either mechnical or by increasing the turbulence
of the wastewater stream) is provided to ensure that the chemical
added and the emulsified oils are adequately mixed to break
the oil/water emulsion bond.  Finally the oily residue (commonly
called scum) that results rises to the surface and is separated
from the remaining wastewater by a skimming or decanting process.
The skimming process can be accomplished by any of the many types
                                VII-162

-------
Oily Wastes
                     Segregated
                  Oily Wastewater
                         I
                      Emulsion
                      Breaking
Skimming
             To Metals/Solids Removal,
            or Discharge as Applicable
              FIGURE 7-29

  TREATMENT OF SEGREGATED OILY WASTES
                OPTION 1
                 ¥11-163

-------
                   Chemical Addition
Emulsified Oils
1
H

*»
                          Mixing Tank
                                                         Skimmer
                                                                           Oils
                                                    Combination Flotation

                                                             tod

                                                         Settlinq Tank
                                                                                           Treated Wastewater
                                                            Sludge
                                          .FIGURE 7-30


                           TYPICAL  EMULSION  BREAKING/SKIMMING  SYSTEM

-------
of mechanical surface skimmers that are presently in use.
Decanting methods include removal of the oily surface residue
via a technique such as controlled tank overflow or by
removal of the demulsified wastewater from the bottom of  the
tank.  Decanting can be accomplished with a series of tap-off
lines at various levels which allow the separated oils to be
drawn off the top or the wastewater to be drawn off the bottom
until oil appears in the wastewater line.  With any of these
arrangements, the oil is usually diverted to storage tanks
for further processing or hauling by a licensed contractor.

Chemical emulsion breaking can be accomplished by a large
variety of chemicals which include acids, salts, or polymers.
These chemicals are sometimes used separately, but often  are
required in combination to break the various emulsions that
are common in the wastewater.  Acids are used to lov/er the pH
to 3 or 4 and can cleave the ion bond between the oil and
water, but can be very expensive unless acid rich wastewaters,
such as pickling wastes, can be used. Acids are more commonly
employed in oil recovery systems than in oily waste removal
systems.  Iron or aluminum salts such as iiecrous sulfate,
ferric chloride, or aluminum sulfate are more commonly used
because they are less expensive.  These salts combine with the
wastewater to form acids which in turn lower the pH and break
the oil/water bond (and 'nave the additional benefit that  these
salts aid in agglomeration of the oil droplets), but the  use
of these salts produces more sludge because of the addition of
iron or aluminum.  Polymers, such as polyamines or polyacryl-
ates and their copolymers, have been demonstrated to be effec-
tive emulsion breakers and generate less sludge than do metal
salts.  The Option 1 tredba^ni: system costing, presented  in
Section VIII, is based upon the use of aluminum sulfate plus a
quantity of polymer as the emulsion breaking chemicals.

After chemical addition, the mixture is agitated to ensure
complete control: of the emulsified oils with the ^emulsifying
agent. With the addition of the proper amount of chemical and
thorough agitation, emulsions of 5% to 10% oil can be reduced
to approximately 0.01% remaining emulsified oil.  The third
step in the emulsion breaking process is to allow sufficient
time for the oil/water mixture to separate.  Differences  in
specific gravity will permit the oil to rise to the surface in
approximately two hoars.  Heat can be added to decrease the
separation ti.iae.  Afitec separation, the normal procedure
involves skimming or decanting the oil from the tank.
                              VII-165

-------
Emulsion breaking technology can be applied to the treatment
of emulsified oil/water mixtures in the Metal Finishing
Category wherever it is necessary to separate oils, fats,
soaps, etc. from wastewaters.  Certain machining coolant emul-
sion cannot be chemically or thermally broken and must be treated
by ultrafiltration.

The main advantage of the chemical emulsion breaking process
is the high percentage of oil removal possible with this
system.  For proper and economical application of this
process, the oily wastes (oil/water mixture) should be
segregated from other wastewaters either by storage in a
holding tank prior to treatment or be fed directly into the
oily waste removal system from major collection points.
Further, if a significant quantity of free oils are present,
it is economically advantageous to precede the emulsion break-
ing with a gravity separator.  Chemical and energy costs can
be high, especially if heat is used to accelerate the process.

Chemical emulsion breaking can be highly reliable if adequate
analysis is performed prior to the selection of chemicals and
proper operator training is provided to ensure that the estab-
lished procedures are followed.            ;

For chemical emulsion breaking, routine maintenance is required
on pumps, motors, and valves as well as periodic cleaning of
the treatment tank to remove any sediment which may accumulate
in the tank.  The use of acid or acidic conditions Will require
a lined tank, and the lining should be checked periodically.
Emulsion breaking generates sludge which requires proper
disposal.

Performance

The performance attainable by a chemical emulsion breaking
process is dependent on addition of the proper amount of
de-emulsifying agent, good mixing agitation and sufficient
retention time for complete emulsion breaking.  Since there
are several types of emulsified oils, a detailed study should
be conducted to determine the most effective treatment techniques
and chemicals for particular application.

Demonstration Status

Emulsion breaking is a common technique used in industry, is a
proven method of effectively treating emulsified wastes, and is in
use at 29 plants in the present data base.  These plants are
identified in Table 7-65.                  '

                             TABLE 7-65    ;
         METAL FINISHING PLANTS EMPLOYING EMULSION BREAKING
                                           i
       01058     11477     12095     20173     30153     36074
       01063     12075     13041     20247     33050     38040
       03041     12076     20103     20249 i    33120     40836
       06679     12080     20158     20254     33127     46713
       11129     12091     20159     30135     33179


                               VII-166

-------
Skimming

Skimming is used to remove floating wastes and normally takes
place in a tank designed to allow the debris (with a specific
gravity less then water) to rise and remain on the surface.
Skimming devices are therefore suited to the removal of oily
wastes from raw waste streams after demulsification.  Common
skimming mechanisms include the rotating drum type, which
picks up oil from the surface of £he water as it rotates.  A
knife edge scrapes oil from the drum and collects it in a
trough for disposal or reuse.  The water portion is then
allowed to flow under the rotating drum.  Occasionally, an
underflow baffle is installed after the drum; this has the ad-
vantage of retaining any floating oil which escapes the drum
skimmer.  The belt type skimmer is pulled vertically through
the water, collecting oil from the surface which is again
scraped off and collected in a tank.  System design and
operational controls are important in drum and belt type
skimmers in order to ensure uniform flow through the system
and avoid oil bypassing the skimmer mechanism.

Gravity separators, 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 disposition 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.  An inlet diffusion device, such as a vertical
slit baffle, aids in creating a uniform flow through the
system and increasing oil removal efficiency.

Application

Oil skimming is used in the Metal Finishing Category to remove
oily wastes from many different process wastewater streams.
Skimming is applicable to any waste stream containing pollutants
which float to the surface.  Skimming is used in conjunction
with emulsion breaking, dissolved air flotation, clarifiers,
and other sedimentation devices.

API or other gravity-type separators are more suitable for use
where the amount of surface oil flowing through the system is
consistently significant as with free oils.  Drum, belt, or
rotary type skimmers are applicable to waste streams which
carry smaller amounts of floating oily waste and where surges
of floating oil are not a problem. The use of a gravity separator
system preceding emulsion breaking is a very effective method
of removing free oil constituents from oily waste streams.

Skimming as a pretreatment is effective in removing naturally
floating waste materials, such as free oils, and improves the
performance of subsequent downstream treatments.  Many
pollutants, particularly dispersed or emulsified oil, will not
float "naturally" but require additional treatments.  Therefore,
skimming alone will not remove all the pollutants capable of
being removed by more sophisticated technologies.
                               VII-167

-------
Because of its simplicity,  skimming  is  a Very  reliable  technique.
however, a mechanical skimming mecahnism requires periodic
lubrication, adjustment, and  replacement of worn parts.

The collected layer of debris  (scum) must  be disposed of  in an
approved manner.  Because  relatively large quantities of  water are
present in the collected wastes, direct combustion or incineration
is not always possible.

Performance

The performance attainable  by skimming  is  dependent on  proper
mechanical operation of the skimmer  and on the separation rate of
the oil/water mixture which is affected by such factors as the
size and specific gravity of the oil globules.  Examples  of
performance of skimmer systems for oil and grease are presented in
Table 7-66.

                             TABLE 7-66
         SKIMMING PERFORMANCE DATA FOE OIL AND GREASE (mg/1)
Plant ID

6058-14-0
6058-15-5
6058-14-0
11477
Oil and Grease
Influent (rag A)

   395.538
    53,800
        19,4
        61
Oil and Grease
Influent (met/1)

      13.3
      16
       8.3
      14 ;
Type of
Skimmer

  API
  API
  Belt
  Belt
Demonstration Status
Skimming is a common operation utilized extensively in industrial
waste treatment systems and is used by 94 plants in the metal
finishing data base.  These are identified in Table 7-67.
                          TABLE  7-67
          METAL  FINISHING PLANTS  EMPLOYING  SKIMMING
           01063
           04233
           04892
           06041
           06051
           06058
           06062
           06084
           06086
           06116
           06679
           07001
           09047
           09181
           11113
             12080
             12091
             13324
             14001
             14062
             15010
             15033
             16032
             17030
             18091
             18538
             19106
             20001
             20064
             20075
       20471
       20483
       20708
       22031
       23075
       25031
       25339
       28075
       28115
       28116
       28125
       30050
       30079
       30135
       30150
    33178
    33179
    33292
    35001
    36074
    36102
    36131
    36155
    36623
    38040
    38050
    38217
    40070
    41084
    41115
                              VII-168

-------
                   TABLE 7-67 (Continued)
         METAL FINISHING PLANTS EMPLOYING SKIMMING


          11129          20106          30151          44062
          11137          20157          30153          46025
          11152          20158          30516          46032
          11477          21059          31040          46713
          12007          20165          31067          47025
          12033          20173          33024          47048
          12042          20177          33050          47049
          12075          20249          33120          6019
          12076          20254          33127          20103

Segregated Oily Waste Treatment System Performance for Oils -
Option _1

Figure 7-31 presents the Option 1 system performance data base
for segregated oily waste treatment systems that were sampled.
From these data a mean effluent concentration of 23.8 mg/1 was
established for oil and grease in the Option 1 segregated oily
waste treatment system.  Long term  self-monitoring data means
are presented in Table 7-68.

Oil and grease performance for segregated oily wastewater was
calculated for Option 1 using the mean effluent concentration from
EPA sampled plants and the Option 1 combined oily waste
variability factors.  Performance is summarized below:


                 OIL AND GREASE PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
                  SEGREGATED OILY WASTE - OPTION 1

       Mean Effluent Concentration              23.8 mg/8,
       Daily Variability Factor                  4.36 mg/8,
       10-Day Variability Factor                 2.18 mg/8,
       Daily Maximum Concentration             104 mg/8,
       Monthly Maximum Average Concentration    52 mg/8,
                              VII-169

-------
/u
60
|so
J
n)
jj
§ 4°
«§
HI
8
2
S "30
^
H 3
£ °
4J
«M 20
<*-i
u
10
0
]





















M












ean












a












an



D







O
sent
,

0

0





0


ration


i









^
























































100














O














»
















































io3








O

O








































































































«





















































io4 io5 K
Segregated Raw Oil & Grease Concentration  (mg/1)
                 FIGURE  7-31
SEGREGATED  OIL & GREASE EFFLUENT PERFORMANCE
                  OPTION 1

-------
                             TABLE 7-68
      EFFLUENT OIL AND GREASE SELF-MOWITORING PERFORMANCE DATA
               SEGREGATED OILY WASTEWATER - OPTION 1
 Plant
  ID

06116
12076
13042
20158
20254
20698
33692

OVERALL
 Number
of Points

   100
    25
   142
    35
    10
   186
    55

   533 (Total)
   Mean Effluent
Concentra11on {mg/ P)

       287.4
        23.4
        52.8
         8.3
       104.8
         9.2
        26.2
        74.70 (Mean)
                              VH-171

-------
     SEGREGATED OILY WASTES TREATMENT SYSTEM - ALTERNATIVE TO
     OPTION 1

The alternative treatment system for segregated oily wastes is
illustrated in Figure 7-32.  The system consists of an ultra-
filtration unit.  The ultrafilter's purpose is to reclaim oils
from wastewater which is to be ultimately discharged.
The ultrafiltration unit removes quantities of oil and toxic
organics as well as removing metals and other solids.

Ultrafiltration

Ultrafiltration (UF) is a process using semipermeable
polymeric membranes to separate emulsified or colloidal
materials dissolved or suspended in a liquid phase by pressuriz-
ing the liquid so that it permeates the membrane.  The membrane
of an ultrafilter forms a molecular screen which separates
molecular particles based on their differences in size, shape,
and chemical structure.  The membrane permits passage of
solvents and lower molecular weight solutes while barring
dissolved or dispersed molecules above a predetermined size.
At present, an ultrafilter is capable of removing materials
with molecular weights in the range of 1,000 to 100,000.

In the 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 .767 kg/cm  (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 the filter.  Figure 7-33 illustrates the ultra-
filtration process.

The pore structure of the membrane acts as a filter, passing
small particles, such as salts, while blocking larger
emulsified and suspended matter.  The pores of ultrafiltration
membranes are much smaller than the blocked particles.  There-
fore, these particles cannot clog the membrane structure.
Clogging of the membrane by particles near the minimum removal
size can be minimized by proper selection of the membrane to
suit the wastewater to be treated.

Once a membrane is chosen that provides maximum attainable
removal of the desired particles, the next most important
design criterion is the membrane capacity.  Here the term flux
is used.  Flux is the volume of water passed through the
membrane area per unit time.  The standard units are cu
m/day/sq m (gpd/sq ft).  The typical flux is 4.2 to 844 cu
m/day/sq m (5 to 1000 gph/sq ft).  Both membrane equipment and
operating costs increase with the membrane area required.  It
is, therefore, desirable to maximize flux.
                              VII-172

-------
                    Segregated
                    Oily Wastes
Oily Wastes
                        1
Ultraf iltration

            To Metals/Solids  Removal,
           or Discharge  as Applicable
             FIGURE  7-32

 TREATMENT OP SEGREGATED OILY WASTES
       ALTERNATIVE TO OPTION 1
                  VII-173

-------
ULTRAFILTRATION
\
                         MACROMOLECULES


                                     *
P=10-50 PSI  •.
  MEMBRANE
                                 WATER     SALTS
                                     •MEMBRANE
            PERMEATE
           *   • !•    • •      I  •/     '  L
           ..  . f   •..•.•{/•••  '4
          _^    *__•_«    •__    A 	    •
          °* * ~
         FEED *  *  *
                   o  •• °  • °*
             -'Q        • * *   •<
             •  * * * O •  • • * n '
.  CONCENTRATE
          • o  «o • o
          O  OIL PARTICLES  • DISSOLVED SALTS AND LOW-

                            MOLECULAR-WEIGHT ORGANICS
                       FIGURE 7-33


          SIMPLIFIED ULTRAFILTRATION FLOW SCHEMATIC
                        VII-174

-------
Membrane flux is normally dependent on operating pressure,
temperature, fluid velocity, solids concentration  (both total
dissolved solids and total suspended solids), membrane permea-
bility, membrane thickness, and fluid viscosity.   Membrane
flux is also affected by the surface tension of the solution
being processed.  With a fixed geometry, membrane  flux will
increase as the fluid velocity is increased in the system.
This increase in fluid velocity win require greater capacity
and more horsepower.  Less membrane area i.<3, therefore,
required per unit of effluent to be treated with higher fluid
velocities; membrane replacement and initial capital costs
decrease.  Opposing these cost decreases is the increase in
power and its resultant cost, and the fact that these operating
conditions may decrease membrane life, resulting in higher
maintenance costs,

Application

Ultrafiltration is employed in metal finishing plants for the
separation of oils, toxic organics, and residual solids.  The
major applications of ultrafiltration in the metal finishing
industries have been to electropainting wastes and oily waste-
waters.  Successful commercial use has been proven for the
removal of emulsified oils from wastewater and Eor (recovery of
rinse water and detergent solutions in phosphate washers.
Recovery operations are common because of the increasing value
of oils, but ultrafiltration is used for end-of-pipe treatment
in industrial plants.

Ultrafiltration is a proven technique for the removal of oily
or paint contaminated wastes from the process waste streams.
This permits reuse of both the permeate and concentrate.  With
segregated oily wastes, the concentrate is essentially the
recovered oils and application of ultrafiltration  for this
purpose is increasing.  Ultrafiltration of the waste from
electropainting (electrocoating)  provides an excellent example
of this process.  Car manufacturers and many other U.S.
companies use electropainting for priming purposes.  In this
application, the ultrafiltration unit splits the electro-
painting rinse water circulating through the unit  into a
permeate stream and paint concentrate stream.  The permeate is
reused for rinsing, and the concentrate is returned to the
electropainting bath.

Bleeding a small amount of the ultrafiltrate, which contains
low suspended solids and generally two or three percent of
organic solids, to the waste system enables ionic  contaminants
to be removed from the paint itself.  Situations where tanks
of 150,000 to 190,000 liters (40,000 to 50,000 gallons) of
paint were periodically dumped because of contamination have
now been eliminated by using ultrafiltration, thus reducing
effluent problems arising from this dumping process.
                               VII-175

-------
The permeate or effluent from the ultrafiltration unit is
normally of a quality that can be reused in industrial applica-
tions or discharged directly.

Ultraf iltration is sometimes an attraetivie alternative to
chemical treatment because of lower capital equipment,
installation, and operating costs with a very high oil removal
efficiency.  Little, if any, pretreatment is required and
because of its compact equipment, it utilizes only a small
amount of floor space.

A limitation of ultrafiltration for treatment of process
effluents is its narrow temperature range (18°C to 70°C) for
satisfactory operation.  Membrane life is decreased with
higher temperatures, but flux increases at elevated temperatures.
Therefore, surface area requirements are a function of temperature
and become a tradeoff between initial costs and replacement
costs for the membrane.  In addition, ultrafiltration is limited
in its ability to handle strong oxidizing agents, some solvents,
and other organic compounds which can cause dissolution of the
membrane.

The reliability of an ultrafiltration system is dependent on
the application of proper filtration to incoming waste streams
to prevent membrane damage.  The tubular membrane configuration
does not require prefiltration.  A limited amount of regular
maintenance is required for the pumping system.  In addition,
membranes must be periodically changed.

Ultrafiltration is used primarily for recovery of 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
additional end-of-pipe equipment.

Demonstration Status

The ultrafiltration process is well developed and is commercially
available for the treatment of wastewater' or the recovery of
certain liquid and solid constituents.  Ultrafiltration is
used at 20 plants in the present Metal Finishing Category data
base and these are identified in Table 7-69.

                         TABLE 7-69
      METAL FINISHING PLANTS EMPLOYING ULTRAFILTRATION
                    06062          25010
                    06071          30100
                    06102          30516
                    12065          31022
                    12074          31032
                    13041          33092
                    13324          33617
                    15193          36074
                    19462          38217
                    23076          44048


                               VII-176

-------
Segregated Oilv Waste Treatment System Performance - Alternative
to Option 1

The raw waste and effluent concentrations of oil and grease for
streams entering into and discharged from ultrafiltration systems
in the data base are displayed in Table 7-70.  The performance
(removal efficiency) of these ultrafiltration systems is tabulated
for oil removal.  Removal performance was calculated by computing
the percentage of oil removal at each plant using ultrafiltration
and then finding the mean of the individual performances.  The
removal performance was calculated by the following formula:

          Removal Efficiency  =  (raw waste - effluent)100
                                        raw waste
                             TABLE 7-70

     ULTRAFILTRATION PERFORMANCE DATA FOR OIL & GREASE REMOVAL

Plant        Oil & Grease Concentration (mg/8,)       Removal
 ID                 In                Out            Efficiencv(%)

13041-22-0         95.0              22.0                76.8
13041-22-1         1.540.            52.0                96.6
13041-22-2         38.180.           267.                99.3
13324-21-0         31.000.           21.4                99.9
15193-21-0         1.380.            39.0                97.2

                         Mean Removal Efficiency         94.0%
                              VTI-177

-------
 SEGREGATED OILY WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM - POLISHING TECHNIQUES

 The  Option 1  treatment system for oil  and grease removal  from
 segregated oily wastes with the addition of  polishing techniques
 is illustrated  in Figure  7-34.   As shown, the system is  comprised
 of the  components that make up the Option 1  oily waste treatment
 system  (or its  alternative) with the addition of a final  polishing
 component.  A reverse osmosis unit has been  identified as a
 possible  polishing technique because it will remove additional
 oils not  removed by the Option 1 system.   In the case of  reverse
 osmosis heavy loadings of  oil will render the unit ineffective
 because oil can plug the membrane of a reverse osmosis system.   As
 with the  Option 1 system,  the effluent from  the polishing waste
 treatment components is directed to the solids removal components
 of the  metal  waste treatment system, to reuse or discharge as
 applicable.

 The  following paragraphs describe a reverse  osmosis technique
 applicable for  the treatment of segregated oily wastes for
 polishing.

Reverse Osmosis

Reverse osmosis, which  is explained  in detail  in Section
XIII, "Innovative  Treatment  Technologies", is  the  process  of
applying  a pressure  to  a concentrated  solution  and  forcing  a
permeate  through a semipermeable  membrane  into  a dilute solution.
This principle has found use  in  treating  oily  wastes.  In  terms of
oily wastewater, reverse osmosis  is used  primarily  as  a polishing
mechanism  to  remove  oils and metals that  are  still  remaining
after treatment  such  as emulsion  breaking  or  ultrafiltration.
Examples  of reverse  osmosis  performance are  shown  in  Table  7-71.

                         TABLE  7-71
              REVERSE OSMOSIS  PERFORMANCE  (mg/1)

                     30166              38040                38040
                                       Day  1                Day 2

Parameter     Influent   Effluent   Influent  Effluent   Influent  Effluent

Oil&Grease    117.       8.5        10.6      4.1       129.      41.
TOC           371.       78.        139.      94.        116.      108.
BOD           183.       60.        60.       58.        27.        53.
TSS           9.6        1.2        37.       14.        13.        1.0
Iron          -         -         1.91      .182       1.94      .22
                              VH-178

-------
                      Segregated
                     Oily Wastes
Oily Wastes-
                          I
      Option 1
 Emulsion Breaking
        And
      Skimming

(or Ultrafiltration
      Alternative)
Oily Wastes-
  Reverse Osmosis
         or
 Carbon Adsorption
                          T
               To Metals/Solids Removal,
              or Discharge  as  Applicable
             FIGURE  7-34

 TREATMENT OF SEGREGATED OILY WASTES
         POLISHING TECHNIQUES
                   VTI-179

-------
ADDITIONAL OILY WASTE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

In addition to the treatment methods presented there are several
other alternative technologies that are applicable for the
treatment of oily wastewater.  The following paragraphs describe
these technologies:  coalescing, flotation, centrifugation,
integrated adsorption, and thermal emulsion breaking.

Coalescing

The,basic principle of coalescing involves the preferential
wetting of a coalescing medium by oil droplets which accumulate
on the medium, and. then rise to the surface of the solution.
The most important requirements for coalescing media are
wettability for oil and large surface area.
                                          I
Coalescing stages may be integrated with a wide variety of
gravity oil separation devices, and some systems may incor-
porate several coalescing stages.  In general, the provision
of preliminary oil skimming treatment is desirable to avoid
overloading the coalescer. One commercially marketed system
for oily waste treatment (See Figure 7-35)  combines coalescing
with gravity separation.  In this unit, the oily waste enters
the separator where the large droplets immediately move to the
top surface of the separator because of the specific gravity
differential.  The smaller droplets enter the corrugated plate
area where laminar flow produces coalescing of the oil droplets.
The oil droplets deposit on the surface of the plates and
stream upward through weep holes in the plates to the surface,
where adjustable skimmers remove the oil.  Heavy solids are
deposited in the entrance chamber before the oily wastewater
enters the plate area.
                              VII-180

-------
V
I-1
00
                INFLUENT
                OIL-WATER
                MIXTURE
OIL SKIMMER
                OIL OUTLET
                  DRAIN
                                    INLET WEIR
              OIL
SEPARATED OIL  SKIMMER
OIL DAM
  s
                                          \
                                        COALESCING
                                        PLATE ASSEMBLY
                                                                                       OUTLET
                                                                                       WEIR
                                                               CLEAN
                                                               WATER
                                                               EFFLUENT
                                                              DRAIN
                                                FIGURE  7-35


                                      COALESCING  GRAVITY  SEPARATOR

-------
Application

Coalescing is used in the Metal Finishing Category for treatment
of oily wastes.  It allows removal of oil droplets too finely
dispersed for conventional gravity separation/skimming technology.
It can also significantly reduce the residence times (and
therefore separator volumes) required to achieve separation of
oil from some' wastes. Because of their simplicity, coalescing
oil separators provide generally high reliability and low
capital and operating costs.  Coalescing is not generally
effective in removing soluble or chemically stabilized emulsi-
fied 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 prefliters
may be necessary when raw waste oil concentrations are high.

Coalescing is inherently highly reliable because there are no
moving parts, and the coalescing substrate is inert in the
process and therefore not subject to frequent regeneration or
replacement requirements.  Large loads or inadequate prior
treatment, however, may result in plugging or bypassing of
coalescing .  'Maintenance  requirements are generally  limited
to replacement of the coalescing medium on an  intrequent basis.


No appreciable solid waste is generated by this process, but
when coalescing occurs in a gravity separator, the normal
solids accumulation is experienced.

Performance

The analysis results of samples taken before and after a
coalescing gravity separator at Plant ID 38217 are shown below
(Concentrations are in mg/1).

                   Plant ID 38217 (mg/1)
                    Day 1                    Day 2
Parameter      Raw       Effluent       Raw       Effluent

Oil & Grease   8320.     490.           4240.     619.
TOC            923.      1050.           -        535.
BOD            2830.     2950.          1980.     1530.
TSS            637.      575.           1610.     620.
Demonstration Status
                                           I
Coalescing has been fully demonstrated in the Metal Finishing
Category and in other industries that generate oily wastewater,
Coalescers are used at 3 facilities in the present data base;
Plant ID'S 14001, 20173, and 38217.
                              VII-182

-------
Flotation

Flotation, as was explained in the "Treatment of Common Metals
Wastes" section, is the process of causing particles such as
oil or metal hydroxides to float to the surface of a tank
where they can be concentrated and removed.  This is brought
about by releasing gas bubbles which attach themselves to the
particles, increasing their buoyancy, causing them to rise to
the surface and float.  Flotation units are commonly used in
industrial operations to remove free and emulsified oils and
grease.  For these applications in the Metal Finishing Category,
the flotation technique commonly referred to as dissolved air
flotation (DAF) is employed.  Dissolved air flotation utilizes
the emulsion breaking techniques that were previously discussed
and in addition uses the bubbles of dissolved air to assist in
the agglomeration of the oily droplets and to provide increased
buoyancy for raising the oily droplets to the surface.  A
typical dissolved air flotation system is shown in Figure
7-36.

Application

The use of dissolved air for oily waste flotation subsequent
to emulsion breaking can provide better performance in shorter
retention times (and therefore smaller flotation tanks) than
with emulsion breaking without flotation.  A small reduction
in the quantity of chemical for emulsion breaking is also
possible.  Dissolved air flotation units have been used success-
fully, in conjunction with further subsequent processes, to
reclaim oils for direct reuse and/or use as power plant fuels
in the Metal Finishing Category.

Performance

The performance of a flotation system depends upon having
sufficient air bubbles present to float essentially all of the
suspended solids.  An insufficient quantity of air will result
in only partial flotation of the solids, and excessive air
will yield no improvement.  The performance of a flotation
unit in terms of effluent quality and solids concentration in
the float can be related to an air/ solids ratio.  The shape
of the curve obtained will vary with the nature of the solids
in the feed.
                               VTI-183

-------
V
M
             Chemical
             Addition
 Oil To
Disposal
Sludge Line (If Req'd)
                                          1
                Pressure
                Regulator
                     Pressure
                       Tank
         Air Supply
                                                      Flotation
                                                        Tank
                                                                                   Effluent
                              cycle  II  Jf
                              * —     y    !
                                                                                     Optional
                                                                                     'Source
                                                                t_
                                       Recycl
                                                                    Centrifugal Pump
                                             FIGURE 7-36

                                TYPICAL DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION SYSTEM

-------
The results of sampling done at Plant ID 33692 are presented
below (Concentrations are in mg/1).

                   Plant ID 33692  (mg/1)

                         Day 1                    Day 2

Parameter           Influent    Effluent.    Influent    Effluent

Oil & Grease        412.        108.         65.8        28.9
TOG                 3000.       132.         98.         86.
BOD                 130.        78.          31.         24.
TSS                 416.        210.         166.        103.

Demonstration Status

Flotation is used in 25 facilities in the present data base
and these are identified in Table  7-42.

Centrifugation

Centrifugation is the process of applying a centrifugal force
to cause the separation of materials.  This force is many
times the force of gravity so it allows for solids separation
in a much shorter time than that required by settling.  When a
suspension is centrifuged, the components of the solution with
the greatest specific gravity accumulate at the farthest
distance from the axis of the centrifuge and those with the
least specific gravity are located nearest the axis.  So when
oily wastes containing suspended solids are centrifuged, the
solids portion collects at the outside of the centrifuge, the
oil forms the innermost layer, and the water portion is sand-
wiched in between.  The different  layers that are formed can
                              VII-185

-------
then be collected separately. Centrifuges are currently avail-
able that have been specifically designed to separate either
oil/water mixtures or oil/solids/water mixtures.  Centrifugation
equipment is  in use as a pretreatment technique to separate
oil/water mixtures prior to further wastewater treatment.

The performance of the centrifuge at plant  ID 19462, which
employs centrifugation to lower the oil concentration of the
wastewater prior to further oil removal by  ultrafiltration,
was established by sampling the influent and effluent streams.
The results are presented below (Concentrations are in mg/1).

                   Plant JED 19462 (mg/1) !

                         Day 1                  Day 2

Parameter           _In        Out       In             Out

Oil and Grease      373,280   3402      14,639         1102
TSS                 6866      1266      8938           1154

A detailed discussion on the various types  of centrifuges is
presented under the heading "Treatment of Sludges".

Centrifugation is used on oily wastes by 5  plants in the
present data base:  Plant ID'S 06019, 11184, 14062, 19462, and
30166.

Integrated Adsorption

Application

The integrated adsorption process is designed for disposal oE
materials in dilute aqueous emulsion, such  as oils and paints.
The active agent is any of several aluminum silicate-based
formulations in powder form.  This material is added to the
wastewater, and the mixture is agitated for six minutes.
During this period, the powder adsorbs the  emulsified materials.
Next, the solid material is allowed to settle for two minutes,
and the water phase is then decanted through a disposable belt
filter, leaving any unsettled solids on the filter. Finally,
the sludge phase is ejected on the disposable belt filter,
where it is partially dewatered.  Both the belt and the material
retained on it feed into a disposal container.  The filtered
water is collected for reuse or discharge.

The integrated adsorption process is available as a commercial
system.  Equipment consists of a reagent feed hopper, an
associated automatic feed device,  a wastewater feed pump, a
reaction vessel, a high-speed turbine mixer, a disposable
belt, a band filter, a clean water pump, a clean water tank,
and associated controls.
                              VII-186

-------
The integrated adsorption system does not add anything to the
processed water, the pH and salinity of which are unaffected..
The system is designed for automatic operation, and the sludge
is leach-resistant because of the strong bonding of the adsorbed
materials.  The system obviates the need for other chemical
treatment or physical separation, but it does entail both
capital and operating expense.

Performance

The integrated adsorption system consistently removes greater
than 99 percent of the paints, detergents, and emulsified oils
in the feed stream.  The sludge is 20 to 40 percent solids,
and is strongly resistant to leaching.

Demonstration Status

The system is employed for treating paint booth water and
emulsified oils by a leading European auto maker, among others.
There are more than 100 units presently in service.


Thermal Emulsion Breaking

Thermal emulsion breaking is usually a continuous process.  In
most cases, however, these systems are operated intermittently,
due to the batch dump nature of most emulsified oily wastes.
The emulsified raw waste is collected in a holding tank until
sufficient volume has accumulated to warrant operating the
thermal emulsion breaking system.  One such system is an
evaporation-distillation-decantation apparatus which separates
the spent emulsion into distilled water, oil and other floating
particles, and sludge (See Figure 7-36a) . Initially, the raw
waste flows from the holding tank into the main conveyorized
chamber.  Warm dry air is passed over a large revolving drum
which is partially submerged in the emulsion.  Some water
evaporates from the surface of the drum and is carried upward
through a filter and a condensing unit.  The condensed water
is discharged and can be reused as process makeup, while the
air is reheated and returned to the evaporation stage.  As the
concentration of water in the main conveyorized chamber decreases,
oil concentration increases and some gravity separation occurs.
The oils and other emulsified wastes which separate flow over
a weir into a decanting chamber.  A rotating drum skimmer
picks up oil from the surface of this chamber and discharges
it for possible reprocessing or contractor removal.  Mean-
while, oily water is being drawn from the bottom of the decant-
ing chamber, reheated, and sent back into the main conveyorized
chamber. This aids in increasing the concentration of oil in
the main chamber and the amount of oil which floats to the
top.  Solids which settle out in the main chamber are removed
by a conveyor belt.  This conveyor, called a flight scraper,
moves slowly so as not to disturb the settling action.  As
with the use of acids for chemical emulsion breaking, thermal
emulsion breaking is more commonly used for oil recovery than
for oily waste removal.
                              VII-187

-------
                           REHEATING
                           COIL
 MAKE UP TO
 OPERATING
 EMULSION SYSTEM
AIR
RECIRCULATION
FAN
                                        CONDENSING
                                        UNIT
                          MAIN CONVEYOR I ZED
                                                   FROM SPENT
                                                  EMULSION TANK
OIL
DISCHARGE
                         TRANSFER
                         PUMP
                         FIGURE   7-36a

                  THERMAL  EMULSION BREAKER
                              VII-188

-------
Application

Emulsion breaking technology can be applied to the treatment
of emulsified oil/water mixtures in the Metal Finishing Category
wherever it is necessary to separate oils, fats, soaps, etc.
from wastewaters.

Advantages of thermal emulsion breaking include an extremely
high percentage of oil removal, the separation of floating oil
from settleable sludge, and the production of distilled water
which is available for process re-use.  In addition, no chemical
additives are required and the operation is fully automatic,
factors which reduce operating costs and maintenance require-
ments.  Disadvantages of this system are the cost of heat to
run the small boiler and the necessary installation of a large
storage tank.  Thermal emulsion breaking models are currently
available to handle loads of 150, 300, and 600 gallons per
day.

Performance

The performance level using thermal emulsion breaking is
dependent primarily on the characteristics of the raw waste
and proper maintenance and functioning of the system components.
Some emulsions may contain volatile compounds which could.
escape with the distilled water.  In systems where the water
is recycled back to process, however, this problem is essentially
eliminated.  Experience in at least two plants has shown that
trace organics or other contaminants found in the effluent
will not adversely affect the lubricants when this water is
recycled back to process emulsions.

Demonstration Status

Thermal emulsion breaking is known to be in regular use in at
least two plants (ID 04086 and 15030) manufacturing copper wire.
The process is equally applicable to oil-water emulsions used
in metal finishing plants.
                              VII-189

-------
CONTROL AND TREATMENT OF TOXIC ORGAN!CS


INTRODUCTION

This section presents information on the control and treatment of
toxic ocganics from spent solvents; in total plant process
wastewaters; and in segregated oily waste streams.  This section is
organized as follows:   (1) waste solvent control options; (2) treat-
ment of toxic organics  for combined wastewater; and (3) treatment of
toxic organics in segregated oily wastestreams.  In addition.
alternative treatment methods for toxic organics control are
presented.

WASTE SOLVENT CONTROL OPTIONS

The primary control technology for toxic organics is not to dump
concentrated toxic organics directly into waste streams or to
combine concentrated toxic organics with any waste that will enter
the waste treatment system.  The major source of toxic organics in
metal finishing wastewaters are waste solvents from degreasing
operations that have been dumped into the waste stream.  The
solution to controlling toxic organics in the wastewaters, there-
fore, is to segregate concentrated toxic organics wastes for
contract hauling or reclamation.  Additionally, alternative
techniques for solvent  degreasing may be employed to reduce or
eliminate the quantity  of waste solvent generated.  The following
paragraphs discuss the  segregation of waste solvents, contract
hauling of waste solvents, and cleaning alternatives that can be
substituted for solvent degreasing.

Waste Solvent Segregation

Spent degreasing solvents should be segregated from other
process fluids to maximize the value of the solvents, to
preclude the contamination of other segregated wastes (such as
oily wastes)/ and to prevent the discharge ;of priority pollu-
tants to any wastewaters.  This segregation can be accomplished
by providing and identifying the necessary storage container(s),
establishing clear disposal procedures, training personnel in
the use of these techniques, and checking periodically to
ensure that proper segregation is occuring.  Segregated waste
solvents are appropriate for on-site solvent recovery or can
be contract hauled for  disposal or reclamation.

Contract Hauling

The DCP data identified several waste solvent haulers most of
whom haul solvent in addition to their primary business of
haulinq waste oils.  The value of waste solvents seems to be
                         VII--190

-------
sufficient to make waste solvent hauling a viable business.
Telephone interviews 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.

Cleaning Alternatives to Solvent Degreasing

The substitution for solvent degreasing of cleaning techniques
that use no solvents or use lesser amounts of solvents would
eliminate or reduce the quantity of toxic organics that are
found in wastewaters.  Alternative cleaning methods for the
removal of oils and grease include wiping, immersion, and
spray (both liquid and vapor phase) techniques using water,
alkaline or acid mixtures, and solvent emulsions.  Various
methods of agitation, including ultrasonic and electrolytic
are helpful wherever they are applicable.  Table 7-72  presents
a generalized matrix of these cleaning approaches, each of
which has the capability for cleaning oily metal parts.

Fundamentally, the factors required to remove oil and clean
the metal surfaces of a part are:

     1.   A fluid to transport the cleaning agent to and the
          soil particles away from the surface to be cleaned.
     2.   A chemical in which oily residues are soluble.
     3.   Heat (temperatures above 150°F) to lower the
          viscosity of the oil and enhance the activity
          of the chemical agent.
     4.   A scrubbing or wiping mechanism to physically
          remove the cleaner and soil.

In the metal finishing industry, the factors that dictate the
cleaning needs include:

     1.   Production volume
     2.   Product size
     3.   Product material (eg-ferrous, non-ferrous)
     4.   Product shape and complexity (eg-blind holes, internal
          corners)
     5.   Degree of cleanliness required (eg-surface purity)
     6.   Surface preparation required (eg-dry, oil film,
          oxide/scale'removal, oxidation resistance)

Obviously, a single cleaning approach is not practicable for
all of these diverse product and manufacturing requirements.
The task of identifying feasible cleaning alternatives to
solvent degreasing then becomes one of identifying areas which
have similar cleaning requirements so that substitution for
solvent degreasing is practicable.  Typical areas that are


                              VII-191

-------
                             TABLE 7-72
                         CLEANING APPROACHES
CLEANING METHOD
SORBENT   WATER
                                             CLEANING AGENT
ALKALINE  ACID EMULSION  SOLVENT
WIPING
 A.  Dry
 B.  Wfet

IMMERSION

 A.  Cold
   X
   X
     1.  without agitation
     2.  with agitation
 B.  Hot
     1.  without agitiation
     2.  with agitation
SPRAY

 A.  Liquid

     1.  Cold
     2.  Hot

 B.  Vapor
            X
            X

            X
   X
                       X
                       X
   X
   X
   X
   X

   X
X
           X
           X
X
X
X
X

X
X
       X
       X
X
X
          X
          X
                                   VII-192

-------
 imenable to cleaning techniques other than solvent degreasing
 ire:


     1.   Low to medium volume production levels where cleaning
          cycle time does not impact the cost of production
     2.   Non-ferrous products
     3.   Simple product shapes
     4.   Small parts (adaptable to automated processes)
     5.   Oily film residue not objectionable
     6.   No exacting surface finishing required.

 kll of the previously described cleaning methods are applicable
 :o some of these cleaning needs.  For comparative purposes,
 :hese cleaning processes have been ranked on the relative
 >asis of cost, quality of cleaniness, and significant environ-
 \ental effects. This relative ranking is presented in Table
 '-73  for the five general cleaning methods.  The bases for the
 criteria used for relative ranking are defined as follows;

     1.   Cost - include equipment, facilities, chemicals,
          heat, power, maintenance, operation (rinsing and
          drying where applicble) and wastewater treatment.
     2.   Cleanliness Quality - surface purity.
     3.   Pollution - environmental effects of the process.
     4.   Energy - thermal and electrical energy requirement.
CLEANING METHOD
                             TABLE  7-73
                CLEANING PROCESS RELATIVE RANKING
                     (LOWEST NUMBER IS BEST)
  CLEANINESS            ENVIRONMENTAL  •
COST   QUALITY  POLLUTION  ENERGY  COMBINED
MEAN
OVERALL
RANKING
Solvent Degreasing

Emulsion Cleaning

Alkaline Cleaning

Acid Cleaning

Hot Water/Steam
  Cleaning
1
3
2
4
5
3
4
2
1
5
5
4
2
3
1
1
2
3
4
5
3
3
2.5
3.5
3
2.
3.
2.
3
4
5
25
25


                             VTI-193

-------
Alkaline cleaning is the most feasible substitute for solvent
degreasing.  This selection is based in part on the fact that
the combined alkaline cleaning environmental ranking and the
mean overall ranking are lowest.  Further, data derived from
existing cleaning processes, shows that alkaline cleaning is
only 14% less cost effective than vapor degreasing.  It is
believed that further development of alkaline cleaners and the
associated equipment should make its cost effectiveness equiva-
lent to or better than that for solvent degreasing.  The major
advantage of alkaline cleaning over solvent degreasing is the
elimination or reduction in the amount of priority pollutants
being discharged.  A major disadvantage connected with alkaline
cleaning is the energy consumption.  Another disadvantage is
the fact that the process itself tends to dilute the oils
removed and discharges these diluted oils as well as the
cleaning additive, whereas in solvent degreasing, the oils are
contractor hauled along with the spent solvent and not dis-
charged.  However, at least one firm produces a close-loop
alkaline cleaning system oil separator that is illustrated in
Figure 7-37.

This system provides in-process removal of oils and metals
wastes which extends the useful alkaline cleaner life and
significantly reduces treatment requirements because the spent
cleaning solution is normally contract hauled.  Only the
alkaline solution dragout to a subsequent rinsing operation
produces a waste that requires treatment.  Best described as a
continous-batch oil separator, the system has dual compartments
holding caustic wash solution, each equipped with an oil
skimmer and separated by a waste tank. Piping leads from each
compartment to a series of washers and back to a pump.  Auto-
mated valves control flow from the pump to one of the compart-
ments.  One compartment continuously supplies caustic solution
to a group of washers as the other stands for 24 hours, allowing
heavy materials to settle to the bottom as sludge and permitting
the oils to float to the surface.  There, :surface oils are
skimmed off, drained into the waste tank, and periodically
drawn off for reclamation or reuse.  While one wash solution
in the first compartment is undergoing treatment, the clean
solution in the other compartment is circulated to the washers.
Four plants have these systems in operation and one installation
has been in use since June 1975.  At this facility they report
zero discharge (via contract hauling the spent cleaning solu-
tion) and the reclamation of 25,000 gallons of oil annually
from a cleaning operation prior to heat treatment.  The specific
advantages of applying this type of in-process oil/metal
treatment are as follows:

     1.   The concentrated discharges of spent alkaline cleaning
          baths are eliminated by contract hauling the reduced
          volume of spent cleaner.
                              VII-194

-------
H
VO
in
                                                           Make up
                                                            water
                              Collection
                                sump
                            Lift
                           pump
                                                                                              fteussabla
                                                                                               alkaline
                                                                                             cleaning wale'
                                                           FIGURE 7-37



                                                 ALKALINE  WASH OIL  SEPARATOR

-------
2.   Energy requirements are lowered:because of water
     conservation.
3.   Water and air pollution resulting from alkaline
     cleaning are less than for the solvent degreasing
     operation.
4.   Oil reclamation is accomplished.
5.   Lower cleaning costs are available through the con-
     servation of cleaning agent and heat; less frequent
     waste haulingi the use of cold cleaners; and lowered
     treatment requirements.
                         ¥11-196

-------
TREATMENT OF TOXIC ORGANICS FOR COMBINED WASTEWATER

Toxic organics that enter the plant process wastewater from
various sources such as rinses and paint booth water curtains are
usually present at lower concentrations than toxic organics in
waste solvents or in concentrated oily wastes.

The applicable treatment technologies for toxic organics removal
from combined wastewater are the common metals treatment
technologies.  To the extent that these technologies, evaluated
by the Agency for control of metals and cyanides, also remove
toxic organics. the TTO limit should reflect the discharge from
plants with these technologies.

The limitations for TTO are based on total plant wastewater data
for EPA sampled plants.  EPA sampled plants cover three
technology groupings:  Option 1 (precipitation/clarification).
Option 2 (precipitation/clarification/filtration), and other than
Option 1 or Option 2 plants.  These data are presented in Tables
7-74 through 7-76.  Option 1 plant data were used to derive the
end-of-pipe TTO limits.  The raw waste TTO limits were derived
using the total plant raw waste data  from all three groupings.

The TTO data were evaluated on the basis of processes, products.
type of work, pre- and post-process water quality characteristics
to investigate combinations of plants that generate  larger
amounts of TTO than other groups.  The data were classified into
groups, namely plants that perform painting, solvent degreasing.
painting and solvent degreasing; plants with total raw waste oil
and grease concentrations above and below 100  mg/£;  and  plants
with TTO concentrations in the supply water of above and below
0.1 mg/5t.   In addition, the Agency examined job shops.
captives,  printed circuit board manufacturers, and automotive
plants.  (This classification analysis is presented  in detail  in
Exhibit 2 at the back of the development document.)

The results of this analysis showed that plants that have both
paint and solvent degreasing operations discharge the highest TTO
concentrations of any other process sector of  the metal finishing
industry.   The painting and solvent degreasing plants were used
to establish an overall mean.  The daily variability factor was
derived using the data from plants involved in painting or
degreasing.  Long term self-monitoring for TTO were  not available
for the industry  (primarily because plants typically had not been
required to monitor for organics in the past).  Considering the
high cost of TTO monitoring, no 10-day variability factors or
monthly maximum averages were developed for TTO.  The results  of
the statistical calculations of the TTO daily  maximum limitations
are summarized below:
                                VII-197

-------
               TTO EFFLUENT  LIMITATIONS  -;OPTION  1

     Mean TTO effluent concentration           0.434 mg/i
     Daily variability factor                  4.91 mg/8.
     Daily maximum effluent  concentration      2.13 mg/8,


                    TTO HAW  WASTE LIMITATIONS

     Mean TTO effluent concentration           1.08 mg/8.
     Daily variability factor                  4.23 mg/8.
     Daily maximum raw waste concentration     4.57 mg/8.


Percentile distribution graphs for TTO Option  1 effluent data and
for TTO total raw waste data are presented  in  Figures 7-38 and
7-39. respectively.  As is evident from  these  graphs, compliance
with the TTO effluent limits and with the TTO  raw waste limits  is
100 percent when data, which are considered indicative of
improper disposal of toxic organics. are excluded.
                         VXl-198

-------
                                TABLE 7-74

            METAL FINISHING CATEGORY PERFORMANCE DATA FOR TTO

                                 OPTION 1
Data
Point

 1.
 2.
 3.
 4.
 5.  •
 6.
 7.
 8.
 9.
 10.
 11.
 12.
 13.
 14.
 15.
 16.
 17.
 18.
 19.
 20.
 21.
 22.
 23.
 24.
 25.
 26.
 27.
 28.
 29.
 30.
 31.
 32.
 33.
 34.
 35.
 36.
 37.
 38.
 39.
 40.
 41.
 42.
  Raw Waste
Concentration
   (mq/8.)

    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
   0
   0.002
   0.003
   0.003
   0.006
   0.006
   0.007
   0.008
   0.009
   0.009
   0.009
   0.010
   0.012
   0.014
   0.014
   0.017
   0.019
   0.020
   0.020
   0.022
   0.023
   0.030
   0.031
   0.034
   0.036
   0.038
   0.040
   0.040
   0.043
   0.059
   0.091
  Effluent
Concentration
   (mg/it)

    0.019
    0.001
    0.019
    0.037
    0.025
    0.430
    0.007
    0.007
    0.020
    0.007
    0.485
    0
    0.004
    0.004
    0.007
    0.005
    0.008
    0.009
    0.016
    0.005
    0.006
    0.010
    0.006
    0.007
    0.008
    0.013
    0.015
    0.004
    0.008
    0.024
    0.254
    0.012
    0.014
    0.207
    0.002
    0.020
    0.013
    0.002
    0.035
    0.032
    0.038
     NA
Plant ID

6091-15-0
6091-15-1
6091-15-2
12061-14-0
19068-14-0
20005-21-0
27046-15-2
34050-15-0
34050-15-1
34050-15-2
6019
9025-15-0
20083-15-0/1
20083-15-2/3
20083-15-4/5
12061-15-0
12061-15-2
20022-15-2
20022-15-1
6110-15-1
6110-15-2
9052-15-0
6110-15-0
9052-15-2
21003-15-2
41051-15-0
15608-15-2
15608-15-0
20022-15-0
41051-15-1
4069-15-0/1
41051-15-2
12061-15-1
2032-15-2
21003-15-0
17061-15-1
15608-15-1
9052-15-1
21003-15-1
4071-15-0
6960-15-4/5
34051-15-0
                               (Continued)
                                VII-199

-------
                         TABLE 7-74 (continued)

           METRL FINISHING CATEGORY PERFORMANCE DMR FOR TTO
                                OPTION 1      i
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
  Raw Waste
Concentration
   (met/it)

   0.095
   0.097
   0.097
   0.098
   0.099
   0.104
   0.107
   0.109
   0.110
   0.111
   0.113
   0.120
   0.130
   0.133
   0.140
   0.141
   0.178
   0.192
   0.200
   0,202
   0.204
   0.224
   0.251
   0.259
   0.283
   0.289
   0.364
   0.400
   0.426
   0.473
   0.486
   0.769
   0.888
   1.161
   1.287
   1.619
   1.938
   8.466
  12.866
  Effluent
Concentration
   (mg/8.)

    0.016
    0.203
    0.003
    0.228
    0.180
    0.056
    0.081
    0.081
    0.122
    0.007
    0.131
    '0.017
    0.093
    0.040
    0.130
    0.034
    0.322
    0.012
    0.109
    0.016
    0.144
    0.007
    0.008
    0.005
     NA
    18.005
    0.067
    0.002
    0.012
    0.483
    0.052
    0.140
    0.699
    0.082
    0.109
    0.643
    0.181
    37.355
     NA
Plant ID

34051-15-1
6090-14-0
38051-15-2
44062-15-0
38052-15-0
6960-15-0/1
44062-15-2
2032-15-5
44062-15-1
34051-15-2
4069-15-2/3
19068-15-1
4071-15-3
4071-15-1
30165-21-0
17061-15-3
4069-15-4
38052-15-1
38052-15-2
19068-15-2
6960-15-2/3
38051-15-0
9025-15-1
38051-15-1
4282-21-0
9025-15-2
30054-15-0
27046-15-1
27046-15-0
6019
6090-15-1
30054-15-1
17061-14-1
2032-15-0
30054-15-2
28699-21-0
20103-21-0
6090-15-2
20103-21-1
                               VH-200

-------
                                TABLE 7-75
            METAL FINISHING CATEGORY PERFORMANCE DATA FOR TTO
                                 OPTION 2
                    Raw Waste                Effluent
Data              Concentration            Concentration
Point                (mq/fi.)                   (mq/H)            Plant ID

  1.                  NA                       0.400            17050-14-0
  2.                  NA                       0.415            36048-15-0/1
  3.                  NA                       0.103            36048-15-2/3
  4.                  NA                       0.091            36048-15-4/5
  5.                 0.012                     0.056            18538-15-3
  6.                 0.021                     0.010            12075-15-2/3
  7.                 0.028                     0.043            12075-15-0/1
  8.                 0.042                     0.007            12075-15-4/5
  9.                 0.064                     0.030            18538-14-0
 10.                 0.477                     0.037            17050-15-1
 11.                 1.083                     0.003            17050-15-0
                                VII-201

-------
                               TABLE  7-76

           METAL  FINISHING CATEGORY PERFORMANCE DATA FOR TTO

                        OTHER THAN OPTION  1 or 2
                   Raw Waste
                 Concentration
                         Effluent
                       Concentration
                          (mqA)
 1.
 2.
 3.
 4.
 5.
 6.
 7.
 8.
 9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
10.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
 NA
 NA
 NA
 NA
 NA
 NA
 NA
 NA
 NA
 NA
0.005
0.007
0.008
0.009
0,010
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.012
0.013
0.014
0.028
0.030
0.084
0.285
0.326
 .09
 .005
                           2,
                           o:.
 1.
 2.
13.50
  52
  .189
0|.153
0.165
0.005
0.007
0.007
0.288
0,377
0.673
0^006
0.001
old 12"
0;012
0.009
0.014
0.005
0.009
No Data
0.009
0.011
0.014
0.010
0.011
0.257
0.140
0.823
0.120
0.433
Plant ID

12065-14-1
12065-15-2
12065-15-4
13042-21-1
19069-15-0
19069-15-1
19069-15-2
38040-23-0
38040-23-1
38217-23-0
11108-15-1
11108-15-2
40060-15-0
40060-15-1
11103-15-2/3
2033-15-4/5
11108-15-0
21066-15-1
21066-15-0
11103-15-4
21066-15-3
2033-15-0/1
2033-15-2/3
11103-15-0
36178-21-0
36178-21-1
33692-23-0
36178-21-2
33692-23-1
                              VII-202

-------
                                                    <
                                                    _J
                                                    O-
                                                    o
                                                    EC
                                                   =>
                                                   m
  31X01 1V101
VII-203

-------
to
o
          en


          CO
          u

          5
          <
          a
          oc
          o
          u
             12
             10
              OU-
                                                                                       ••••••••
                                                                                               	
                          10
20
30
40        50         60



 PERCENTILE DISTRIBUTION
70
80
90
100
                                      FIGURE 7-39. PERCENTILE DISTRIBUTION OF TTO IN RAW WASTE

                                                         IN METAL FINISHING WASTEWATERS

-------
TREATMENT OF TOXIC ORGANICS IN SEGREGATED OILY WASTE

Toxic organics can be removed from wastewater streams during
treatment for oil and grease because of their solubility in
hydrocarbons as shown in Table 7-77.  Segregated oily wastes
treatment of concentrated oily wastestreams will effectively remove
oil and grease, which will result in removal of toxic organics.
However, as stated previously, preventing toxic organics from
entering the wastewater stream can be the most effective control.

The technologies applicable to removing TTO in segregated oily waste
streams include Option 1 for segregated oily wastes (emulsion
breaking and skimming or ultrafiltration).   A detailed description
plus information on the applicability and demonstration status of
these technologies is presented in "Treatment of Oily Waste."

TTO performance data for Option 1 and ultrafiltration are presented
in this section in Tables 7-78 and  7-79.
                             VTI-205

-------
                         TABLE  7-77
           SOLUBILITY OP TOXIC  ORGANIC  PARAMETERS
     Parameter

001  Acenaphthene
006  Carbon Tetrachloride
010  1,2-dichloroethane
Oil  1,1,1-trichloroethane
013  1,1-dichloroethane
021  2,4,6-trichlorophenol
022  Paraehlorometa Cresol
029  1,1-dichloroethylene
030  1,2-trans-diehloroethylene
034  2,4-dimethyl Phenol
038  Ethylbenzene
039  Fluoranthene
044  Methylene Chloride
045  Methyl Chloride
054  isophorone
055  Naphthalene
059  2,4-dinitrophenol
060  4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
062  N-nitrosodiphenylamine
064  Pentachlorophenol
065  Phenol
066  Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
067  butyl Benzyl Phthalate
068  Di-n-butyl Phthalate
070  Diethyl Phthalate
077  Acenaphthylene
078  Anthracene
081  Phenanthrene
085  Tetrachloroethylene
086  Toluene
087  Trichloroethylene
Water
Solubility in
          Hydrocarbons
Insoluble
Very Slightly
Very Slightly
Insoluble
Very Slightly
Slightly   "'
Soluble
Slightly
Slightly
Soluble
Soluble
Insoluble
Slightly
Slightly
Slightly
Insoluble
Slightly
Slightly
Insoluble
Slightly
Soluble
Insoluble
Insoluble
Insoluble
Insoluble
Insoluble
Insoluble
Insoluble
Insoluble
Slightly
Insoluble
          Soluble
          Infinitely
          Very to Infinitely
          Soluble
          Soluble
          Soluble
          Very to Infinitely
          Soluble
          Soluble
          Soluble
          Soluble to Infiniti
          Soluble
          Soluble
          Soluble
          Soluble
          Soluble
          Very Soluble
          Infinitely
          Soluble
          Soluble
          Infinitely
          Soluble
          Soluble
          Soluble
          Soluble
          Very Soluble
          Soluble
          Soluble
          Soluble
          Infinitely
          Infinitely
                                vii-206

-------
Plant ID

 1058-22-0
12095-22-0
12095-22-1
12095-22-2
20103-21-0
28125-22-1
40836-22-0
          TABLE 7-78

TTO PERFORMANCE DATA  (mg/S,) FOR
OPTION 1 SEGREGATED OILY WASTE

        Influent                   Effluent

           2.77                        1.43
           6.14                        0.996
           3.15                        0.800
           6.50                        0.480
           1.94                        1.86
           0.767                       1.076
          21.5                         8.6
                             TABLE 7-79

           TTO PERFORMANCE DATA  (Hig/a) FOR ULTRAFILTRATION

Plant ID                    Influent                    Effluent
15193-21-0
30166-21-0
13041-22-0
13041-22-1
13041-22-2
13324-21-0
         802.05
           9.93
        1037.5
          14.3
           4.84
          12.02
80.83
 1.41
14.82
13.0
30.8
 1.48
                              VII-207

-------
ADDITIONAL TREATMENT METHODS FOR TOXIC ORGANICS REMOVAL

Additional treatment technologies applicable for the treatment of
TTO include carbon adsorption and reverse osmosis (polishing
techniques) and resin adsorption, ozonation, chemical oxidation,
and aerobic decomposition.  These technologies are described in
detail in this subsection.
                           VH-208

-------
Carbon Adsorption

Carbon adsorption in industrial wastewater treatment involves
passing the wastewater through a chamber containing activated
carbon. The use of activated carbon has been proven to be
applicable for removal of dissolved organics from water and
wastewater.  In fact, it is one of the most efficient organic
removal processes available.  This process is reversible, thus
allowing activated carbon to be regenerated and reused by the
application of heat and steam.

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, 500-1500 square meters/gram, resulting from a
large number of internal pores.  Pore sizes generally range
from 10-100 angstroms in radius.

Activated carbon removes organic contaminants from water by
the process of adsorption, or the attraction and accumulation
of one substance on the surface of another.  Activated carbon
has a preference for organic compounds and, because of this
selectivity, is particularly effective in removing organic
compounds from aqueous solutions.

Some important but general rules based on considerations
relating to carbon adsorption capacity are:

     Higher surface area will give a greater adsorption capacity,

     Larger pore sizes will give a greater adsorption capacity
     for large molecules.

     Adsorptivity increases as the solubility of the solute
     decreases.  For hydrocarbons, adsorption increases with
     molecular weight.

     Adsorption capacity will decrease with increasing
     temperature.

     For solutes with ionizable groups, maximum adsorption
     will be achieved at a pH corresponding to the minimum
     ionization.

The rate of adsorption is also an important consideration.
For example, while capacity is increased with the adsorption
of higher molecular weight hydrocarbons, the rate of adsorp-
tion is decreased. Similarly, while temperature increases will
decrease the capacity, they may increase the rate of removal
of solute from solution.

                              VH-209

-------
Carbon adsorption requires pretreatment to remove excess
suspended solids, oils, and greases.  Suspended solids in the
influent should be less than 50 ppm to minimize backwash
requirements; a downflow carbon bed can handle much higher
levels (up to 2000 ppm), but frequent backwashing is required.
Backwashing more than two or three times a day is not desirable;
at 50 ppm suspended solids, one backwash will suffice.  Oil
and grease should be less than about 10 ppm.  A high level of
dissolved inorganic material in the effluent 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 waste on the carbon prior to reactivation.

Activated carbon is available in both powdered and granular
form. The equipment necessary for a granular activated carbon
adsorption treatment system consists of the following:  a
preliminary clarification or filtration unit to remove the
bulk of suspended solids; two or three adsorption columns
packed with activated carbon similar to the one shown in
Figure 7-40; a holding tank located between the adsorbers; and
liquid transfer pumps.  Unless a reactivation service is
utilized, a furnace and associated quench tanks, spent carbon
tank, and reactivated carbon tank are necessary for reactiva-
tion.

Powdered carbon is less expensive per unit ^weight than granular
carbon and may have slightly higher adsorption capacity but it
does have some drawbacks.  For example, it is more difficult
to regenerate; it is more difficult to handle (settling characteris-
tics may be poor); and larger amounts may be required than for
granular systems in order to obtain good contact.  One innova-
tive powdered carbon system uses wet oxidation for regeneration
instead of fluidized bed incineration.  This technique has
been applied mainly to municipal treatment but can be used in
industrial systems.

The necessary equipment for a two stage powdered carbon unit
is as follows:  four flash mixers, two sedimentation units,
two surge tanks, one polyelectrolyte feed tank, one dual media
filter, one filter for dewatering spent carbon, one carbon
wetting tank, and a furnace for regeneration of spent carbon.

Thermal regeneration, which destroys adsorbates, is economical
if carbon usage is above roughly 454 kg/day (1000 Ibs/day).
Reactivation is carried out in a multiple hearth furnace or a
rotary kiln at temperatures from 870°C to 988°C.  Required resi-
dence times are of the order of 30 minutes.  With proper
control, the carbon may be returned to its original activity;
carbon losses will be in the range of 4-9% and must be made up
with fresh carbon. Chemical regneration may be used if only
one solute is present which can dissolve off the carbon.  This
allows material recovery. Disposal of the carbon may be required
if use is less than approximately 454 kg/day (1000 Ibs/day)
and/or a hazardous component makes regeneration dangerous.

                                VII-210

-------
                                        FLANGE
WASTE WATER
   INFLUENT
 DISTR IBUTOR
 WASH WATER
    BACKWASH
                                                    BACK WASH
                                              REPLACEMENT CARBON
                                                   SURFACE  WASH
                                                      MANIFOLD
                                         CARBON REMOVAL  PORT
                                                   TREATED  WATER
                                                SUPPORT  PLATE
                        FIGURE 7-40

            ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION COLUMN
                                VII-211

-------
A new type of carbonaceous adsorbent is made by pyrolizing ion
exchange resins.  These spherical adsorbents appear to have
the best characteristics of adsorbent resins and activated
carbon. They have a greater physical strength, attrition
resistance, and regeneration flexibility than either activated
carbon or polymeric resins.  One type is particularly suited
for halogenated organics and has greater capacity than selected
carbons for compounds such as 2-chloroethyl ether, bromodichloro-
methane, chloroform, and dieldrin.  Another type (based on a
different polymeric resin) is best suited for removing aromatics
and unsaturated hydrocarbons.  A third type has a particularly
mg/1) for phenol and other relatively polar organic molecules.
These adsorbents are commercially available but have not yet
been proven in large scale operation.

Application

The principle liquid-phase applications of activated carbon
adsorption include sugar decolorization; municipal water
purification; purifications of fats, oils, foods, beverages
and Pharmaceuticals; and industrial/municipal wastewater
treatment.  Potentially, it is almost universally applicable
because trace organics are found in the wastewater of almost
every industrial plant.

The major benefits of carbon treatment include applicability
to a wide variety of organics, with 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, destruc-
tion of adsorbed compounds often occurs during thermal regenera-
tion.  If carbon cannot be thermally desorbed, it must be
disposed of along with any adsorbed pollutants. When thermal
regeneration is utilized, capital and operating costs are
relatively high.  Cost surveys show that thermal regeneration
is generally economical when carbon usage exceeds about 454
kg/day (1,000/lbday).  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 ppm
in the influent water.

This system should be very reliable assuming upstream protec-
tion and proper operation and maintenance procedures.  It
requires periodic regeneration or replacement of spent carbon
and is dependent upon raw waste load and process efficiency.
Solid waste from this process is contaminated activated
carbon that requires disposal. If the carbon undergoes regenera-
tion, the solid waste problem is reduced because of much less
frequent replacement.
                              VII-212

-------
Performance

Carbon adsorption, when applied to well-treated secondary
effluent, is capable of reducing COD to less than 10 mg/1 and
BOD to under 2 mg/1.  Removal efficiencies may be in the range
of 30% to 90% and vary with flow variations and different bed
loadings.  Carbon loadings in tertiary treatment plants fall
within the range of 0.25 to 0.87 kg of COD removed per kg of
carbon, and if the columns are operated downflow, over 90%
suspended solids reduction may be achieved.

Quite frequently, segregated industrial waste streams are
treated with activated carbon.  The contaminants removed
include BOD, TOC, phenol, color, cresol, polyesters, polynitro-
phenol, toluene, p-nitrophenol, p-chlorobenzene, chlorophenols,
insecticides, cyanides and other chemicals, mostly organic.
The flows being treated are generally small in comparison with
tertiary systems  (less than 75,700 liters/day (20,000 gpd)).

Thermal reactivation of the carbon does not become common
until flows are above 227,100 liters/day (60,000 gpd).  Some
installations reactivate their carbon chemically and the
adsorbate is recovered.  Recoverable adsorbates are known to
include phenol, acetic acid, p-nitrophenol, p-chlorobenzene,
p-cresol, and ethylene diamine.  Carbon loadings approach one
kg COD removal per kg carbon in installations where the adsorbates
are easily adsorbed and present in relatively high concentra-
tions.  In other cases, where influent concentrations are
lower and where the adsorbates are not readily adsorbed, much
lower loadings will result.  For example,  it was determined
that brine wastewaters containing 150-750 ppm phenol and
1500-1800 ppm acetic acid could be reduced to about 1 ppm
phenol and 100-200 ppm acetic acid with phenol loadings in  the
range of 0.09-0.16 kg per kg and acetic acid loadings in the
range of 0.04-0.06 kg per kg.

From metal finishing, loadings for cyanide removal have been
found to be on the order of 0.01 kg for influ'ent concentrations
around 100 ppm.  Loadings for removal of hexavalent chromium
have been shown to be as high as 0.07 kg/kg carbon at 100 ppm
and 0.14 kg/kg carbon at 1000 ppm.

EPA isotherm tests have indicated that activated carbon is
very effective in adsorbing 65 percent of  the organic priority
pollutants and 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-trichloroe-
thane, 1,1-dichloroethane, phenol, and toluene.  Table 7-80
summarizes the treatability effectiveness  for most of the
organic priority pollutants by activated carbon as compiled by
EPA.  Table  7-81 summarizes classes of organic compound together
with examples of organics that are readily adsorbed on carbon.


                              VII-213

-------
                                           TABLE   7-80
               TREATABILnV RATING OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS UTILIZING CARBCN ADSORPTICN
 Priority Pollutant

 1.   acenaphthere
 2.   actolein
 3.   aerylonitrlie
 4.   benzene
 5.   benzidine
 6.   carton tetrachloride
     (tetrachlorome thane)
 7.   chlorobenzene
 8.   1,2,4-trichlorobenzere
 9.   hexachlocobenzene
 10.  1,2-dichloroethane
 11.  1,1,1-trichloroethane
 12.  hexachloroethane
 13.  1,1-dichloroethane
 14.  l,l»2-trichloroethane
 IS.  1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
 16.  chlorcethane
 17.  bis(chloeanethyl)ether
 18.  bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
 19.  2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
     (mixed)
 20.  2-chloronaphthalene
 21.  2,4,6-trichlorophenol
 22.  parachloroneta cresol
 23.  chloroform (trichloronethane)
 24.  2-chlorophenol
 25.  1,2-dichlorobenzene
 26.  1,3-dichlorobenzene
 27.  1,4-dichlorobenzene
 28.  3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
 29.  1,1-dichloroethylene
 30.  1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
 31.  2,4-dichlorophenol
 32.  1,2-dichloropropane
 33.  1,2-dichlorcpropylene
     (1,3,-dichloropropene)
 34.  2,4-diiDethylphenol
 35.  2,4-dinitrotoluene
 36.  2,6-dinitrotoluene
 37.  1,2-diphenylhydrazine
 38.  ethylbenzene
 39.  fluoranthene
 40.  4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
 41.  4-bromophenyl  phenyl ether
 42.  bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
 43.  bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
 44.  trethylene chloride
     (dichloromethane)
 45.  methyl chloride (chloronethane)
 46.  methyl bromide (bromomethane)
 47.  bromoform  (tribromomethane)
 48.  dichlorobromomethane
*Retnoval Rating

     H
     L
     L
     M
     H
     M

     H
     H
     H
     M
     M
     H
     M
     M
     H
     L

     M
     L

     H
     H
     H
     L
     H
     H
     H
     H
     H
     L
     L
     H
     M
     M

     H
     H
     H
     H
     M
     H
     H
     H
     H
     H
     L

     L
     L
     H
     M
Priority Pollutant
*Renoval Rating
49.  trichlorofluoromethane        M
50.  dichlorodifluoromethane       L
51.  chlorodibroncnie thane          H
52.  hexachlorobutadiene           H
53.  hexachlorocyclopentadiene     H
54.  isophorone                    H
55.  naphthalene                   H
56.  nitrobenzene                  H
57.  2-nitrophenol                 H
58.  4-nitrophenol                 H
59.  2,4-dinitrophenol             H
60.  4,6-dinitro-o-cresol          H
61.  N-nitrosodimethylamine        M
62.  N-nitrosodiphenylamine        H
63.  N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine     M
64.  pentachlorophenol             H
65.  phenol                        M
66.  bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate    H
67.  butyl benzyl phthalate        H
68.  di-n-butyl phthalate          H
69.  di-n-octyl phthalate          H
70.  diethyl phthalate             H
71.  dimethyl phthalate            H
72.  Ij2-benzanthracene (benzo     H
     (a)anthracene)
73.  bsnzo(a)pyrene (3,4-benzo-    H
     pyrene)
74.  3,4-benzofluoranthene         H
     (benzo(b)fluoranthene)
75.  11,12-benzofluoranthene       H
     (benzo(k)fluoranthene)
76.  cnrysene                      H
77.  acenaphthylene                H
78.  anthracene                    H
79.  1,12-benzoperylene (benzo     H
     (ghi)-perylene)
80.  fluorene                      H
81.  ptienanthrene                  H
82.  1,2,5,6-dibenzathracene       H
     (dibenzo (a,h) anthracene)
83.  indeno (1,2,3-cd)  pyrene      H
     (2,3-o-phenylene pyrene)
84.  pyrene
85.  tetrachloroethylene           M
86.  toluene                       M
87.  trichloroethylene             L
88.  vinyl chloride                L
     (chloroethylene)
106. PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)      H
107. PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)      H
108. PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)      H
109. PCB-1332 (Arochlor 1232)      H
110. PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)      H
111. PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)      H
112. PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)      H
*  NOTE;  Explanation of Removal RAtings

Category H (high removal)
     adsorbs at levels >^ 100 mg/g carbon at C, = 10 rog/1
     adsorbs at levels _> 100 mg/g carton at CJj < 1.0 rog/1

Category H (moderate removal)
     adsorbs at levels >^ 100 mg/g carton at Cf = 10 rog/1
     adsorbs at levels £ 100 an/g carbon at C^ < 1.0 mg/1

Category L (low removal)
     adsorbs at levels < 100 mg/g carton at C- = 10 rog/1
     adsorbs at levels < 10 n»g/g carton at C, < 1.0 mg/1

C, « final concentrations of priority pollutant at equilibrium
                                             VII-214

-------
                                   TABLE  7-81

                    CLASSES OF OBGANIC COMPOUNDS ADSORBED ON CARBON
Organic Chemical Class

Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Fblynuclear Aromatics


Chlorinated Aromatics



Phenolics


Chlorinated Fhenolics
*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 & Alcohols

Surfactants

Soluble Organic Dyes
Examples of Chemical Class

benzene, toluene, xylene

naphthalene, anthracene
biphenyls

chlorobenzene, polychlorinated
biphenyls, aldrin, endrin,
toxaphene, DDT

phenol, cresol, resorcenol
and polyphenyls

trichlorophenol, pentachloro-
phenol

gasoline, kerosine
1,1,1-Tr ichloroethane, tri-
chloroethylene, carbon tetra-
chloride, perchloroethylene

tar acids, benzoic acid
aniline, toluene diamine


hydrcquinone, polyethylene
glycol

alkyl benzene sulfonates

methylene blue, Indigo carmine
* High Molecular Weight includes compounds in the range of
  4 to 20 carbon atoms
                                      VII-215

-------
Samples were taken of influent and effluent streams around the
carbon adsorption unit at Plant ID 38040. ; The results of this
sampling are presented in Table 7-82.

                           TABLE 7-82     ;
        PERFORMANCE OF CARBON ADSORPTION AT PLANT 38040
                             (mg/1)

                               Day 1                 Day 2

Parameter                Influent   Effluent   Influent   Effluent

oil and Grease           4.1        3.3   !     41.0       2.0
BOD                      58.0        *         53.0       8.0
TOC                      93.9       87.7       108.0      77.5
TSS                      14.0       11.0       1.0        9.0
TTO                      1.02       0.29       1.40       0.38

* Lab analysis experienced interference

Demonstration Status

Carbon adsorption systems have been demonstrated to be practical
and economical for the reduction of COD, BOD and related
parameters in secondary municipal and industrial wastewatersz
for the removal of toxic or refractory organics from isolated
industrial wastewaters? for the removal and recovery of certain
organics from wastewaters; and for the removal, at times with
recovery, of selected inorganic chemicals from aqueous wastes.
Carbon adsorption must be considered a viable and economic
process for organic waste streams containing up to 1-5% of
refractory or toxic organicsj its applicability for removal of
inorganics such as metals, although demonstrated in a few
cases, is probably much more limited.

Carbon adsorption is being used in 10 plants in the present
Metal Finishing Category data base.  These plants are identified in
Table 7-83.

                         TABLE 7-83
     METAL FINISHING PLANTS EMPLOYING CARBON ADSORPTION

                    04236          18538
                    04690          19120
                    12065          25033
                    14062          31044
                    17061          38040
                               VII-216

-------
Reverse Osmosis

A detailed description of reverse OSMOSIS along with information
on general applicability and demonstration status are presented in
"Treatment of Oily Waste."  Reverse osmosis or carbon adsorption
are considered effective polishing techniques for wastewaters
containing toxic organics.

Performance Data

Table 7-84 presents the performance data for TTO for reverse
osmosis.
                             TABLE 7-84

           TTO PERFORMANCE DATA (mg/1) FOR REVERSE OSMOSIS

Plant ID                    Influent                   Effluent

38040-23-0                     4.301                      1.018
38040-23-1                     0.887                      1.401
30166-21-0                     1.413                      0.774
                              VII-217

-------
Resin... Adsorption

Adsorption of trace organics on synthetic resins is similar to
adsorption on activated carbon.  The basic materials are different
and the means of regeneration are different.  A potential
advantage is that resins are more easily tailored for removal of
specific pollutants.

The resins are generally microporous styrene-divinylbenzenes,
acrylic esters, or phenol-formaldehydes.  Each type may be
produced in a range of densities, void volumes, bulk densities,
surface areas, and pore sizes.  The formaldehyde resins are
granular, and the others are in the form of beads.

Adsorptive resins are in limited commercial use for removal of
priority and other organics.  There are existing operations for
removal of phenols in two plants (one in Indiana and the other at
a coal liquefaction plant in West Virginia), for removal of fats
at a food processing plant, and for removal of organic dyes at
several plants.  Pilot plant operations have been designed for
removal of trinitrotoluene, 2,4-dinitrotoluene, cyclomethylene-
trinitramine, cyclotetramethylenetetranitramine, Endrin, other
pesticides,  laboratory carcinogens (unspecified), 2,4-dichloro-
phenol, ethylene dichloride, and vinyl chloride.  In a non-
industrial application, organic carbon removal efficiency
decreased from 58 percent to 40 percent during a through-put of
5,000 bed volumes, with an input concentration of about 6 mg/l.

Regeneration of the resins is done chemically, while regeneration
of activated carbon is thermal.  The chemical may be an inorganic
acid, base,  or salt, or an organic solvent such as acetone.
                              VH-218

-------
Ozonation

Ozone is effective in the treatment of phenols.  It is about
twice as powerful as hydrogen peroxide and is not as selective;
thus it oxidizes a wider range of material.  For low concentra-
tion phenolic wastes, the usual practice is to oxidize the
phenolic compound to intermediate organic compounds that are
toxic but readily biodegrdable.  For this application, ozone
requirements are in the range of 1.5 to 2.5 parts of ozone per
part of phenol.  As the concentration decreases, the relative
amount of ozone needed increases.  If other material with COD
is present, the ozone requirement will be still greater.  When
pH values of 11.5 to 11.8 are maintained, this range appears
to result in selective or preferential oxidation of phenol
over other substances.

For concentrated or intermediate level phenolic wastes chemical
oxidation by ozone may not be economical as a primary treatment
system; however, it is useful as a polishing process following
a biological system.  In treating phenolic refinery wastes,
ozone is used as tertiary treatment to produce final effluents
as low as 3 ug/1 phenol.

Several manufacturers have begun using ozone for the treatment
of phenolic industrial wastewaters.  They are listed and
briefly described below:

     A.   An oil refinery in Canada treats waste effluent of
          1,514,000 liters/day (400,000 gallons/day) with the
          phenol concentration averaging 50 mg/1.

          Pretreatment consists of pre-aeration and a biologi-
          cal trickling filter.  Ozonation is the final treat-
          ment step and utilization is 86 kg/day (190 pounds/
          day).  This treatment results in an effluent of less
          than 0.012 mg/1 residual phenol.

     B.   A manufacturer of a thermoplastic resin in New York
          treats a phenolic effluent by biological oxidation.
          Further treatment was necessary to meet state stan-
          dards.  The effluent had a high COD of about 1500
          mg/1 which competed with the phenol for ozone;
          therefore a large ozone dosage level, 300 ppm, was
          required to reach the desired phenol effluent con-
          centration.  At a flow rate of 946,250 liters/day
          (0.25 MGD), a total of 283.5 kg (625 pounds) of
          ozone was required daily.  The air feed generating
          equipment represents a capital investment of $220,000
          and requires daily operating expenditures of $98.43
          including electrical costs of 1.5^/kwh.  Concurrent
          with phenol removal, 30 percent of the color, 29
          percent of the turbidity and 17 percent of the COD
          were removed.
                              VTI-219

-------
     C.   Study of various coke plant wastes shows that various
          ozone requirements are necessary to oxidize the phenol.
          The results are displayed in Table 7-85.  The great
          variation in the ozone-to-phenol ratios of samples
          from different sources illustrates the differences
          in the composition of the wastes;.

                           TABLE 7-85
            OZONE REQUIREMENTS FOR PHENOL OXIDATION
Source
Coke Plant
it n
ii it
H H
n it
it n
it it
it H
Chemical "
Refinery
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A*
A
Initial
Phenols
 mg/1
 Ozone
 Demand
  mg/1

  2500
  1200
  1700
   950
   550
   900
  1000
   700
   400
11,000
Ozone/
Phenol
ratio

 2.0
 1.5
 5.2
 6.8
 4.3
 8.8
  20
  18
 1.4
18.0
                                                          Residual
                                                          Phenols
                                                           1.2
                                                           0.6
                                                           1.0
                                                           1.0
                                                           0.2
                                                           0.0
                                                           0.4
                                                           0.1
                                                           0.3
                                                           2.5
*This plant effluent contained 2,4-dichlorophenol and the
 results are expressed as such.

There are 40 to 50 commercial installations utilizing ozone
for bleach regeneration and photoprocessing wastewater treatment.
Ozone is also effective in treating wastewaters containing
other organics and organo-metal complexes.  In organo-metal
complexes the metals can be released and then precipitated.
One kilogram of COD should consume three kilograms of ozone
and yield two kilograms of molecular oxygen.

Chemical Oxidation

Chemical oxidation can be effective in destroying some of the
priority organic compounds.  Oxidation can be accomplished
by ozone, by ozone with ultraviolet radiation, by hydrogen
peroxide, and possibly by electrolytic oxidation.  Oxidation
by chlorine is more likely to generate priority organics than
to destroy them.
                               VII-22"0

-------
These oxidation techniques are used industrially primarily for
cyanide destruction.  They are therefore discussed in detail
under the general heading of "Treatment of Cyanide Wastes",
earlier in this section.  Where information is available/
these discussions include consideration of ability to destroy
priority organics.

Aerobic Decomposition

Aerobic decomposition is the biochemically actuated decomposi-
tion or digestion of organic materials in the presence of
oxygen.  The chemical agents effecting the decomposition are
microorganism secretions termed enzymes.  The principal products
in a properly controlled aerobic decomposition are carbon
dioxide and water. Aerobic decomposition is used mainly in the
treatment of organic chemicals and lubricants used in the film
industry and such other industries that use organic lubricants.

As a waste treatment aid, aerobic decomposition plays an
important role in the following organic waste treatment
processes:

     1.   Activated Sludge Process
     2.   Trickling Filter Process
     3.   Aerated Lagoon

The activated sludge process consists of the aeration of a
biodegradable waste for a sufficient time to allow the formation
of a large mass of settleable solids.  These settleable solids
are masses of living microorganisms and are termed activated
sludge.

A schematic diagram of the basic process is shown as Figure
7-41. The wastes enter the aeration tank after being mixed
with return sludge.  The microorganisms from the returned
sludge aerobically stabilize the organic mixture which then
flows to a sedimentation tank.  Sedimentation allows the
activated sludge to flocculate and to settle out, producing a
clear effluent of low organic content.  A portion of the waste
sludge is returned to the aeration tank, thereby•repeating the
process.  Excess sludge is discharged from the process for
further treatment or disposal.

The trickling filter is basically a bed of stones or other
suitable material covered with slime over which organic wastes
slowly flow. A schematic cross section of a trickling filter
is shown as Figure 7-42.  As wastewater passes through the
filter, it diffuses into the slimes where aerobic and anaerobic
decomposition occurs.  After primary sedimentation, the waste-
water is introduced onto the filter by a rotary distributor so
designed that the wastes are discharged at a uniform volume
per unit of filter surface.  The waste flows by gravity over
the filter bed into an underdrain system. The liquid is collected
into a main effluent channel which flows to a final sedimenta-
tion tank.  A schematic diagram of a single stage trickling
                              VTI-221

-------
   SETTLED
   WASTES
                     AERATION
                      RETURN SLUDGE
SECONDARY
 SEDIMEN-
  TATION
            EFFLUENT
                                                    WASTE EXCESS
                                                       SLUDGE
                         FIGURE  7-41

SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF A  CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM
                              VTI-222

-------
                    I    Rotary distributor
///\\\
 //\ \\
  II ^ \
///\\\
           C?
                         Stone media
                         6-10' depth
  .>.* ..;-y / f  %:>^Jt'
                Vitrified clay underdrains

                Reinforced concrete floor
                    FIGURE  7-42


       SCHEMATIC CROSS SECTION OF A TRICKLING FILTER
                    VII-223

-------
filter is shown as Figure 7-43.

An aerated lagoon is a large shallow pond to which raw waste
is added at one end or in the center and the treated effluent
discharged at the other end.  Aeration is accomplished by
mechanical aerators or diffusers in the wastewater.  Aerobic
decomposition is one of the factors involved in degradation of
the organic matter and is carried out by bacteria in a manner
similar to activated sludge.  It is necessary to periodically
dredge the oxidation pond in order to maintain the proper
ecological balance.

Application

Aerobic decomposition can be applied to the treatment of oily
wastes from the Metal Finishing Category.

Advantages of aerobic decomposition include 1) low BOD concentra-
tions in supernatant liquor, 2) production of an odorless,
humuslike, biologically stable end product with excellent
dewatering characteristics that can be easily disposed, 3)
recovery of more of the basic fertilizer values in the sludge,
and 4) few operational problems and low initial cost.  The
major disadvantages of the aerobic decomposition process are
1) high operational cost associated with supplying the required
oxygen, and 2) sensitivity of the bacterial population to
small changes in the characteristics of their environment.

Reliability can be high, assuming adequate temperature, pH,
detention time, and oxygen content control.  Prior treatment
to eliminate substances toxic to the microorganisms affecting
decomposition may be necessary.  (In some cases, adaptation
will increase the tolerance level of the microorganisms for
toxic substances).

Maintenance of the three main waste treatment techniques
employing aerobic decomposition is detailed in the following
Table 7-86.


                        TABLE  7-86
   Maintenance Techniques for Aerobic Decomposition
     Process                            Maintenance

Activated Sludge    Periodic removal of excess sludge and skimming
                    of scum layer.        ;

Trickling Filter    Periodic application of insecticides to reduce
                    the insect population and periodic chlorination
                    to reduce excess bacterial population.

Aerated Lagoon      Periodic dredging to remove excess sludge, and
                    periodic aeration to maintain the pond's aero-
                    bic character.
                              VII-224

-------
 RAW
SEWAGE
 PRIMARY
SEDIMENTA
  TION
SECONDARY
SEDIMENTA
   TION
                              FIGURE  7-43
         SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM  OF A SINGLE-STAGE TRICKLING FILTER
                                 VII-225

-------
Performance

Aerobic decomposition is very effective for1organic constituents
that are readily biodegradeable.  The toxic organics. however.
represent a range of biodegradability.  Performance of a pilot
scale activated sludge system is reported in  "Removal of Organic
Constituents in a Coal Gasification Process Wastewater by
Activated Sludge Treatment." Argonne National La;oratory. 1979.
In this system, phenol was reduced from 250 mg/8, to an
undetectable level, naphthalene was reduced from 0.405 to
0.009 mg/8,. and ethylbenzene at 0.015 mg/8, concentration was
not reduced.

Another source of information on organics (Handbook of Environ-
mental Data on Organic Chemicals. Verschueren. 1977) indicates
treatability for a number of priority organics.  These data are
summarized in Table 7-87.                   i

An additional source of toxic organics performance information are
the BAT limitations for the organic chemicals industry developed
using data from plants using biological treatment.  These limits.
proposed by EPA in March 21. 1983. are presented in Table 7-88.

The activated sludge process also reduces concentrations of toxic
metals, by agglomeration of precipitates and  by adsorption of
dissolved metals.  However, effectiveness ;is highly variable and
unpredictable.

                             TABLE 7-87     |
    ACTIVATED SLUDGE REMOVAL OF SOME PRIORITY ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

                      Influent Concentration    Reported Removal
Compound              	(mg/8.)	[    Efficiency.  Percent

Benzene                           500                   33
1,2-Dichloroethane                200                   45
   11      "                       400                   30
   "      "                      1000                    9
2.4-Dimethylphenol                	                   94.5
Ethylbenzene                      500                   27
   "      "                    50-100                    8
Phenol                            500                   33
                               VII-226

-------
                              TABLE 7-88
 PROPOSED BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE ORGANIC CHEMICALS INDUSTRY

                                  BAT Effluent Limitations.. (mg/t)

                                                    Average of
                                                    Daily Values for
                                    Maximum         4 Consecutive
Toxic Organic                    For Any 1 Pay      Mo n i t o r i nq Pays

2.4.6~trichlorophenol                 175                 100
2-chlorophenol                         75                   50
2,4-dichlorophenol                    200                 100
2,4-dimethylphenol                     50
2-nitrophenol                         100                  75
4-nitrophenol                         500                 325
2.4-dinitrophenol                     150                 100
pentachlorophenol                     100                   50
phenol                                 50
acenaphthene                           50
1,2.4-trichlorobenzene                225                 125
1,2-dichlorobenzene                   250                 125
isophorone                             50
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate           350                 150
di-n-butyl phthalate                  300                 150
diethyl phthalate                     275                 125
dimethyl phthalate                    375                 175
acenaphthylene                         50                  —
fluorene                               50
phenanthrene                           50
benzene                               125                  75
carbon tetrachloride                   50
1,2-dichloroethane                    150                 100
1,1,1-trichloroethane                  50
1.1-dichloroethane                    225                 125
1,1.2-trichloroethane                  75                   50
chloroethane                           50
chloroform                             75                  50
1,1-dichloroethylene                  125                  75
ethylbenzene                          275                 150
methylene chloride                     50
methyl chloride                        50
methyl bromide                         50
dichlorobromomethane                   50
toluene                               225                 125
trichloroethylene                      75                  50
                             VII-227

-------
Demonstration Status

Aerobic digestion is a widely used unit process to reduce organic
content of wastewaters.  It is currently employed at 14 of the
plants in the data base.  These plants are identified in Table
7-89.
                             TABLE 7-89
       METAL FINISHING PLANTS EMPLOYING AEROBIC DECOMPOSITION

           05050       11560       23041       33263
           06067       11179       30927       44050
           08172       13031       31050
           11050       14062       33050
                              VII-228

-------
TREATMENT OF SLUDGES
INTRODUCTION

Sludges are created by waste treatment alternatives which
remove solids from wastewater.  Removal of sludges from the
treatment system as soon as possible in the treatment process
minimizes returning pollutants to the waste stream through
re-solubilization.  One plant visited during this program  (ID#
23061) utilized a settling tank in their treatment system  that
required periodic cleaning.  Such cleaning had not been done
for some time, and analysis of both their raw and treated
wastes showed little difference.  The accumulation of sludge
apparently decreased the effective residence time to a point
where the sedimentation process was unsuccessful.  Subsequent
pumping out of this settling tank resulted in an improved
effluent (Reference Table 7-90) .

Once removed from the primary effluent stream, waste sludges
must be disposed of properly.  If landfills are used for
sludge disposal, the landfill must be designed to prevent
material from leaching back into the water supply.  Mixing of
waste sludges which might form soluble compounds should be
prevented.  If sludge is disposed of by incineration, the
burning must be carefully controlled to prevent air pollution.
A licensed scavenger may be substituted for plant personnel to
oversee disposal of the removed sludge.

                         TABLE 7-90
          COMPARISON OF WASTEWATER AT PLANT ID 23061
          BEFORE AND AFTER PUMPING OF SETTLING TANK
Parameter
Concentration (mg/1)
Before Sludge Removal
Concentration (mg/1)
 After Sludge Removal
                     Total Raw   Treated
                       Waste     Effluent

Cyanide, Amen, to
Chlorination           0.007     0.001
Cyanide, Total         0.025     0.035
Phosphorus             2.413     2.675
Silver                 0.001     0.001
Gold                   0.007     0.010
Cadmium                0.001     0.006
Chromium, Hexavalent   0.005     0.105
Chromium, Total        0.023     0.394
Copper                 0.028     0.500
Iron                   0.885     3.667
Fluoride               0.16      0.62
Nickel                 0.971     1.445
Lead                   0.023     0.034
Tin                    0.025     0.040
Zinc                   0.057     0.185
Total Suspended Solids 17.0      36.00
                         Total Raw
                           Waste
                         0.005
                         0.005
                         14.35
                         0.002
                           ,005
                           ,005
                           ,005
                           ,010
                           127
                           883
                           ,94
                           378
                           ,007
                           ,121
                           ,040
 0.
 0,
 0,
 0,
 0.
 2.
 0,
 0.
 0,
 0.
 0,
                         67.00
             Treated
             Effluent
0.005
0.005
13.89
0.003
0.005
0.002
0.005
0.006
0.034
1.718
0.520
0.312
0.014
0.134
0.034
4.00
                              VII-229

-------
TREATMENT TECHNIQUES

Sludges can typically vary between one and five percent solids.
The sludge should be dewatered to lessen space requirements if
sludges are landfilled on the plant site and to decrease shipping
costs if sludges are hauled away by a contractor.  Applicable sludge
dewatering techniques include gravity sludge thickening,
pressure filtration, vacuum filtration, centrifugation and
sludge bed drying.  These techniques are discussed in the
following subsections.

Gravity Sludge Thickening

In the gravity thickening process, dilute sludge is fed from a
primary settling tank or clarifier to a thickening tank.
Rakes stir the sludge gently to densify the sludge 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 7-44 shows the construction
of a gravity thickener.                    !

Application

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.

The principal advantage of a gravity sludge thickening process
is that it facilitates further sludge dewatering.  Other
advantages are high reliability and minimum maintenance require-
ments.  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.              i

Reliability is high assuming proper design ;and operation.  A
gravity thickener is designed on the basis of square feet per
pound of solids per day, entering and leaving the unit.
Thickener area requirements are also expressed in terms of
mass loading, grams of solids per square meter per day (pounds
per square foot per day).

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.  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.

                              VII-230

-------
             -0—-i
                 ^THICKENING;
                    -TANK:
SLUDGE  PUMP
                   CD
                               OVERFLOW

                               RECYCLED
                                THROUGH
                                 PLANT
                 FIGURE 7-44

           MECHANICAL GRAVITY THICKENING
                    VII-231

-------
Performance
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.

Demonstration Status

Gravity sludge thickeners are used throughout  industry to
reduce water content to a level where the sludge may be effi-
ciently handled.  Further dewatering is usually  practiced to
minimize costs of hauling the sludge to approved landfill
areas.

Sludge thickening is used in 78 plants in Ithe  present data
base. These are identified in Table  7-91.i

                          TABLE  7-91
  METAL FINISHING PLANTS EMPLOYING GRAVITY/SLUDGE THICKENING
          03043
          04069
          04071
          04263
          04719
          04981
          05021
          05035
          06052
          08004
          11156
          11177
          11182
          11704
          12033
          12074
          12075
          12078
          12091
          12100

Pressure Filtration
12102
12709
13031
13040
14061
15042
15044
17061
18050
18091
19063
20005
20010
20064
20073
20075
20078
20082
20085
20116
20120
20157
20165
20248
20291
21078
23062
23337
25001
27044
28082
28115
30079
30087
30090
30151
30153
30927
30967
33065
33070
33113
33120
36085
36090
36091
36092
36112
36130
36180
36623
40061
40063
41151
43003
43052
44044
62032
Pressure filtration is achieved 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 7-45 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 are pressed together between a  fixed, end and a
                               VII-232

-------
  PERFORATED
  BACKING PLATE
FABRIC
FILTER MEDIUM
SOLID
RECTANGULAR
END PLATE
                                                     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  7-45
                      PRESSURE  FILTRATION
                               VT.I-233

-------
traveling end.  On the surface of each plate  is mounted a
filter made of cloth or a synthetic fiber.  The sludge is
pumped into the unit and passes through feed  holes  in the
trays along the length of the press until the cavities or
chambers between the trays are completely filled.   The solids
in the sludge 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                               \

Because dewatering is such a common operation in treatment
systems, pressure filtration is a technique which can be found
in many industry applications concerned with  removing solids
from their waste stream.

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.  Pressure filtration may  also reduce
the amount of chemical pretreatment required.  The  sludge,
retained in the form of the filter cake, has  a higher percent-
age of solids than either a centrifuge or vacuum filter yield.
Thus, the sludge can be easily accommodated by materials
handling systems.

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.    I

Assuming proper pretreatment, design, and control, pressure
filtration is a highly dependable system.  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.
Because it is generally drier than other types of sludges, the
filter sludge cake can be handled with relative ease.  Disposal
of the accumulated sludge may be accomplished by any of the
accepted procedures.

Performance                               \

In a typical pressure filter, chemically preconditioned sludge
detained in the unit for one to three hours under pressures


                              VTI-234

-------
varying from 5 to 13 atmospheres exhibited final moisture
content between 50 and 75 percent.

Demonstration Status

Pressure filtration is a commonly used technology that is
currently utilized in a great many commercial applications.

Pressure filtration is used in 66 plants in the present data
base and these are identified in Table 7-92.

                         TABLE 7-92
     METAL FINISHING PLANTS EMPLOYING PRESSURE FILTRATION

               01002          12074          31033
               01003          13031          31035
               10007          14060          31068
               03043          19066          31070
               04069          19083          33110
               04146          20022          33113
               04276          20070          33148
               04284          20083          33172
               05050          20115          33195
               06050          20255          33293
               06077          20483          34050
               06107          23039          35041
               06153          23076          36102
               06960          27042          36176
               08060          27044          38223
               09046          27045          40047
               11096          28043          41051
               11103          28121          41068
               11115          30087          42030
               12005          30927          44044
               12065          30967          47025
               12071          31021          47074

Vacuum Filtration

In wastewater treatment plants, sludge dewatering by vacuum
filtration is an operation that is generally accomplished on
cylindrical drum filters.  These drums have a filter medium
which may be cloth made of natural or synthetic fibers, coil
springs, 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
relativley expensive per kilogram of water removed, the liquid
sludge is frequently thickened prior to processing.  A vacuum
filter is shown in Figure 7-46.


                               VII-235

-------
                 FABRIC OR WIRE
                 FILTER MEDIA
                 STRETCHED OVER
                 REVOLVING DRUM
        DIRECTION OF ROTATION
            ROLLER
SOLIDS SCRAPED
OFF FILTER MEDIA
 SOLIDS COLLECTION
 HOPPER
V
                                                                    INLET LIQUID
                                                                    TO BE
                                                                    FILTERED
                               TROUGH
                                           FILTERED LIQUID
                              FIGURE  7-46

                            VACUUM FILTRATION
                                  VII-236

-------
Application

Vacuum filters are frequently used both in municipal treatment
plants and in a wide variety of industries for dewatering
sludge.  They are most commonly used in larger facilities,
which have a thickener to double the solids content of clari-
fier sludge before vacuum filtering.

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.

Vacuum filter systems have been proven reliable at many indus-
trial and municipal 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.

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 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.  If intermittent operation
is to be employed, the filter equipment should be drained and
washed each time it is taken out of service and an allowance
for wash time should be made in the selection of sludge filter-
ing schedules.

Vacuum filters generate a solid cake.  All of the metals
extracted from the plant wastewater are concentrated in the
filter cake as hydroxides, oxides, sulfides, or other salts.
These metals are subject to leaching into ground water, espe-
cially under acid conditions.

Performance

The function of vacuum filtration is to reduce the water
content of sludge, so that the proportion of solids increases
from about 5 percent to about 30 percent.

Demonstration Status

Vacuum filtration has been widely used for many years.  It is
a fully proven, conventional technology for sludge dewatering.


                              VII-237

-------
Vacuum filtration is used in 67 plants in the present data
base and these are identified in Table 7-93.

                         TABLE  7-93
     METAL FINISHING PLANTS EMPLOYING VACUUM FILTRATION
               02062
               03041
               03042
               06037
               06074
               06087
               06088
               06152
               09052
               09060
               11182
               11704
               12002
               12014
               12042
               12075
               12078
               12091
               12709
               15058
               15070
               16544
               17030
18050
19084
19090
20005
20010
20073
20077
20080
20100
20161
20175
20248
20249
20291
21078
28115
30079
30090
30153
30927
31044
31047
33092
33110
33120
33124
33195
33263
34036
36040
36092
36113
36130
36623
38217
40037
40063
40067
40079
41097
41151
42030
43003
44036
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 cen-
trifugal force is effective because of the density differen-
tial 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 7-47.
                                         i
There are three common types of centrifuges:  the disc/ basket,
and conveyor type.  All three operate by removing solids under
the influence of centrifugal force.  The fundamental difference
between the three types is the method by which solids are
collected and discharged.                |

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 dis-
charged continuously through small orifices in the bowl wall.
The clarified effluent is discharged through an overflow weir.
                               VTI-238

-------
CONVEYOR DRIVE  .   DRYING  _
                  ZONE
LIQUID
OUTLET
 CYCLOGEAR
                                                           IMPELLER
                           FIGURE 7-47

                         CENTRIFUGATION
                             VH-239

-------
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 cen-
trifuge 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 dewater-
ing 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, they 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.

Application

Virtually all of those industrial waste treatment systems
producing sludge can utilize centrifugation to dewater it.
Centrifugation is currently being used by a wide range of
industrial concerns.

Sludge dewatering centrifuges have minimal; space requirements
and show a high degree of effluent clarification.  The opera-
tion 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 concen-
trate which is relatively high in suspended, non-settling
solids.

Reliability is high, assuming proper control of factors such
as sludge feed, consistency, and temperature.  Pretreatment
such as grit removal and coagulant addition may be necessary.
Pretreatment requirements will vary depending on the composi-
tion of the sludge and on the type of centrifuge employed.

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

                               VII-240

-------
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.

Performance

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 20-35 percent.

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.

Centrifugation is used in 55 plants in the present data base
and these are identified in Table 7-94.

                          TABLE 7-94
        METAL FINISHING PLANTS EMPLOYING CENTRIPUGATION
          02032
          04151
          04153
          06006
          06071
          06075
          06086
          06148
          11050
          11125
          11127
          12005
          12033
          12061
12075
12077
14062
15044
17050
19067
19068
19104
19107
19462
20070
20079
20106
20140
20149
20241
20708
21062
21065
21074
23048
27044
30097
30111
30155
30927
31022
33'024
33071
34051
36091
36937
38052
41086
41116
41629
41869
44040
44150
45041
47041
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.  These beds usually consist of 15.24 to 45.72 cm  (6
to 18 inches) of sand over a 30.48 cm  (12 inch) deep gravel
drain system made up of 3.175 to 6.35 mm (1/8 to 1/4 inch)
graded gravel overlying drain tiles.
                                 VII-241

-------
Drying beds are usually divided  into sectional areas approxi-
mately 7.62 meters  (25 feet) wide x 30.48 to  60.96 meters  (100
to 200 feet) 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 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.  Depend-
ing on the climate, a combination of open and enclosed beds
will provide maximum utilization of the sljjdge bed drying
facilities.

Application

Sludge drying beds  are a common means of dewatering sludge
from clarifiers and thickeners.  They are widely used both in
municipal and industrial treatment facilities.

The main advantage  of sand 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.

Maintenance consists 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 mainte-
nance, 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 made 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.

The full sludge drying bed must either be abandoned or the
collected solids must be removed.  These solids contain what-
ever metals or other materials were settled in the clarifier.
Metals will be present as hydroxides, oxides, sulfides, or
                              VII-242

-------
other salts.  They have the potential for leaching and contami-
nating ground water, whatever the location of the semidried
solids.  Thus an abandoned bed should include provision for
runoff control and leachate monitoring.

Performance

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 gener-
ally 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.

Demonstration Status

Sludge beds have been in common use in both municipal and
industrial facilities for many years.  However, protection of
ground water from contamination is not always adequate.
Sludge bed drying is used in 77 plants in the present data
base and these are identified in Table 7-95.

Sludge Disposal

There are several methods of disposal of sludges from indus-
trial wastewater treatment.  The two most common techniques
are landfilling by the company on its own property and removal
by licensed contractor to an outside landfill or reclamation
point.  Other disposal techniques proposed for industrial
waste sludges include chemical containment, encapsulation,
fixation, and thermal conversion.  All of these techniques
require landfilling, but they reduce the probability of
groundwater contamination.

The chemical containment approach has been demonstrated commer-
cially.  The heavy metal sludge is placed in pits lined with
powdered limestone.  This keeps the pit-soil interface at an
alkaline pH, reducing the solubility of metals at the interface
to a very low value.  This minimizes heavy metal leaching,
even by acid rainfall.

Encapsulation consists of two approaches.  One is to seal the
sludge in a heavy concrete container.  The other is to coat
the material with a nondegradable, waterproof polymer.
                              VII-243

-------
                     TABLE  7-95
METAL FINISHING PLANTS EMPLOYING SLUDGE  DRYING BEDS
 01067
 01068
 04076
 04262
 05050
 06002
 06035
 06051
 06067
 06073
 06076
 06081
 06083
 06084
 06091
 06094
 06101
 06113
 06117
 06119
06124
06128
06138
06360
08061
08072
09025
09047
11008
11113
11152
11173
12075
13041
14061
14062
15048
17061
18050
19050
20003
20064
20082
20085
20247
21003
22735
23'039
23070
23072
25001
30009
30031
30'064
30519
31032
31050
31067
33024
33047
33050
33179
33184
33200
33287
36001
36082
36083
36592
38039
40062
40075
40079
40836
41068
45035
47412
                     VTI-244

-------
IN-PROCESS CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

This section presents flow guidance and process controls in
the form of available methods and practices which can help
reduce the water usage and pollution discharge at metal finish-
ing facilities.

CONTROL TECHNIQUES

The in-process control techniques described below include
techniques for:

          Flow reduction through efficient rinsing
          Process bath conservation
          Waste oil segregation
     .    Process bath segregation
          Process modification
          Cutting fluid cleaning
          Integrated waste treatment
          Good housekeeping

These techniques deal with reducing water usage and with
efficient handling of process wastes.  All of the areas of
in-process control are presented in the following sections.

Flow Reduction Through Efficient Rinsing

Reductions in the amount of water used in metal finishing can
be realized through installation and use of efficient rinse
techniques.  Cost savings associated with water use reduction
result from lower cost for rinse water and reduced chemical
costs for wastewater treatment.  An added benefit is that the
waste treatment efficiency is also improved.  It is estimated
that rinse steps may consume over 90 percent of the water used
by a typical metal finishing facility.  Consequently, the
greatest water use reductions can be anticipated to come from
modifications of rinse techniques.

Rinsing is essentially a dilution step which reduces the
concentration of contaminants on the work piece.  The design
of rinse systems for minimum water use depends on the maximum
level of contamination allowed to remain on the work piece
(without reducing acceptable product quality or causing poison-
ing of a subsequent bath) as well as on the efficiency or
effectiveness of each rinse stage.

A rinse system should be considered efficient if the dissolved
solids concentration is reduced just to the point where no
noticeable effects occur either as a quality problem or as
excessive drag-in to the next process step.  Operation of a
rinse tank or tanks which achieve a 10,000 to 1 reduction in
concentration where only a 1,000 to 1 reduction is required

                              VII-245

-------
represents inefficient use of water.  Operating rinse tanks at
or near their maximum acceptable level of contamination provides
the most efficient and economical form of rinsing.   Insufficient
operation manifests  itself in higher operating costs not only
from the purchase cost of water, but also from the  treatment
of it.

Dragout Control

Since the purpose of rinsing is to remove process solution
dragout from the surface of the workpiece,  the best way to
reduce the amount of rinsing required is to reduce  the dragout.
A reduction in dragout results in a reduction of waste that
has to be treated.   Dragout is a function of several factors
including workpiece  geometry, viscosity and surface tension of
the process solution, withdrawal and drainage time  and racking.
These factors affecting dragout are described below.

Geometry of the Part - This partly determines the amount of
dragout contributed  by a part and is one of the principal
determinants for the type of rinsing arrangement selected.  A
flat sheet with holes is well suited for an impact  spray rinse
rather than an immersion rinse, but for parts with  cups or
recesses such as a jet fuel control, a spray rinse  is totally
ineffective.

Kinematic Viscosity of the Process Solution - The kinematic
viscosity is an important factor in determining process bath
dragout.  The effect of increasing kinematic viscosity is that
it increases the dragout volume in the withdrawal phase and
decreases the rate of draining during the drainage phase.  It
is advantageous to decrease the dragout and increase the
drainage rate.  Consequently, the process solution kinematic
viscosity should be  as low as possible.  Increasing the tempera-
ture of the solution decreases its viscosity, thereby reducing
the volume of process solution going to the: rinse tank.  Care
must be exercised in increasing bath temperature, particularly
with electroless plating baths, because the rate of bath
decomposition may increase significantly with temperature
increases.

Surface Tension of the Process Solution - Surface tension is a
major factor that controls the removal of dragout during the
drainage phase.  To  remove a liquid film from a solid surface,
the gravitation force must overcome the adhesive force between
the liquid and the surface.  The amount of  work required to
remove the film is a function of the surface tension of the
liquid and the contact angle.  Lowering the surface tension
reduces the amount of work required to remove the liquid and
reduces the edge effect (the bead of liquid adhering to the
edges of the part).  Surface tension is reduced by  increasing
the temperature of the process solution or  more effectively,
by use of a wetting agent.
                               VII-246

-------
Time of Withdrawal and Drainage - The withdrawal velocity of a
part from a solution has an effect similar to that of kinematic
viscosity. Increasing the velocity or decreasing the time of
withdrawal increases the volume of solution that is retained
by the part.  Since time is directly related to production
rate, it is more advantageous to reduce the dragout volume
initially adhering to the part rather than attempt to drain a
large volume from  the part.

Racking - Proper racking of parts is the most effective way to
reduce dragout.  Parts should be arranged so that no cup-like
recesses are formed, the longest dimension should be horizon-
tal, the major surface vertical, and each part should drain
freely without dripping onto another part.  The racks them-
selves should be periodically inspected to insure the integ-
rity of the rack coating.  Loose coatings can contribute
significantly to dragout.  Physical or geometrical design of
racks is of primary concern for the control of dragout both
from the racks and the parts themselves.  Dragout from the
rack itself can be minimized by designing it to drain freely
such that no pockets of process solution can be retained.

Rinsing Techniques

The different types of rinsing commonly used within the metal
finishing industry are described below.

Single Running Rinse - This arrangement requires a large
volume of water to effect a large degree of contaminant removal,
Although in widespread use, single running rinse tanks should
be modified or replaced by a more effective rinsing arrangement
to reduce water use.

Countercurrent Rinse - The countercurrent rinse provides for
the most efficient water usage and thus, where possible, the
countercurrent rinse should be used.  There is only one fresh
water feed for the entire set of tanks, and it is introduced
in the last tank of the arrangement.  The overflow from each
tank becomes the feed for the tank preceding it.  Thus, the
concentration of dissolved salts decreases rapidly from the
first to the last tank.

In a situation requiring a 1,000 to 1 concentration reduction,
the addition of a second rinse tank (with a countercurrent
flow arrangement) will reduce the theoretical water demand by
97 percent.

Series Rinse - The major advantage of the series rinse over
the countercurrent system is that the tanks of the series can
be individually heated or level controlled since each has a
separate feed.  Each tank reaches its own equilibrium condi-
tion? the first rinse having the highest concentration, and
the last rinse having the lowest concentration.  This system
uses water more efficiently than the single running rinse, and

                             VH-247

-------
the concentration of dissolved salts decreases  in each  succes-
sive tank.

Spray Rinse - Spray rinsing  is considered  the most efficient
ortne various rinse techniques in continuous dilution  rinsing.
The main concern encountered in use of this mode is the effi-
ciency of the spray (i.e./ the volume of water  contacting the
part and removing contamination compared to the volume  of
water discharged).  Spray rinsing is well  suited for flat
sheets.  The impact of the spray also provides  an effective
mechanism for removing dragout from recesses With a large
width to depth ratio.

Dead/ Still/ or Reclaim Rinses - This form of rinsing is
particularly applicable for  initial rinsing after metal plating
because the dead rinse allows for easier recovery of the metal
and lower water usage.  The  rinse water can often be periodi-
cally transferred to the plating tank that precedes it.  The
dead rinse  is followed by spray or other running rinses.

Effect on Water Use - The use of different rinse types  will
result in wide variations in water use.  Table  7-96 shows the
theoretical flow arrangements for several  different rinse
types to maintain a 1,000 to 1 reduction in concentration.
Table 7-97  shows the mean flows (1/m ) found: at sampled
plants for  three rinse water-intensive operations.

                          TABLE 7-96
     THEORETICAL RINSE WATER FLOWS REQUIRED TO  MAINTAIN A
              1,000 TO 1 CONCENTRATION REDUCTION


Type of Rinse            Single         Series          Countercurrent


Number of Rinses           1         2          3         23
Required Flow (gpm)        10       0.61      0.27      0.31       0.1


                          TABLE  7-97
    COMPARISON OF RINSE TYPE FLOW RATES FOR SAMPLED PLANTS

                                                         2
                             Rinse Type and Mean Flow (1/m )

                       Single  2 Stage     2 Stage         3 Stage
Operation              Stage   Series   Countercurrent  Countercurrent

Alkaline Cleaning      1504.   235.6         i67-36           28.76

Nickel Electroplate    322.9   88.96         26.54           7.44

Zinc Electroplate      236.8   33.78         21.79           7.84


                               VII-248

-------
Rinsing Systems

By combining different rinse techniques, a plant can greatly
reduce water consumption and in some cases form a closed loop
rinsing arrangement.  Some examples of primary rinse types and
specialized rinsing arrangements applicable to metal finishing
are discussed below.

Closing The Loop With A Countercurrent Rinse - This particular
arrangement is well suited for use "with heated process baths.
The overflow from the countercurrent rinse becomes the evapora-
tive makeup for the process bath.  By installing the proper
number of countercurrent tanks, the fresh feed rate for a
given dilution ratio is sized to equal the bath's evaporative
rate.  This arrangement is easily controlled by using liquid
level controllers in both the process bath and rinse tank, a
pump to transfer rinse solution to the process bath, and a
solenoid valve on the fresh feed line for the rinse tanks.
Plant ID's 06037, 06072, and 20064 use this arrangement.

Closing The Loop With Spray Followed By Countercurrent Rinse -
The spray followed by countercurreYft FTnseHf ~weT 1 suite~d fo"r
flat sheets and parts without complex geometry.  The spray is
mounted over the process bath, and the work is fogged before
moving to the countercurrent rinse.  A major advantage of this
arrangement is that the spray reduces concentration of the
dragout on the part, returning the removed portion to the
process tank. This provides for evaporative makeup of the
process bath and a lower water usage and/or a smaller number
of tanks necessary for the countercurrent rinse.  Plant ID
40062 utilizes this rinse technique.

Closing The Loop With Countercurrent Rinsing Followed By Spray
Rinsing - The countercurrent "foITowed by spray rinsing approach
can be used when a very clean workpiece (and, therefore, final
rinse) is required.  The spray is mounted above the last
countercurrent rinse.  Depending on the evaporation rate of;
the process solution, the evaporative makeup can come from the
first countercurrent tank.

Closing The Loop With Dead Rinse Followed By Countercurrent -
The dead rinse followed by countercurrent IFTnse arrangement is
particularly useful with parts of a complex geometry.  Evapora-
tive losses from the original solution tank can be made up
from the dead rinse tank and the required flow for the counter-
current system can be greatly reduced.  The following plants
                              VII-249

-------
make use of this rinsing arrangement:  04045, 06036, 06072,
06081, 06088, 20064, 20073, 20080, 21003, 21651, 30022, 31022,
33065, 33070, 33073, 36041, 41069, 61001. j

Closing The Loop With Recirculatory Spray - When the geometry
of the work permits, the recirculating spray offers an improved
alternative to the dead rinse.  Operating with a captive
supply of rinse solution, the solution is sprayed onto the
work.  The advantage of this system is that the impact of the
spray is used to remove dragout, particularly for work with
holes in it.  The basic equations for concentration buildup
hold but are modified by the removal efficiency of the spray.
The required flow rate of the spray is dependent on the
geometry of the parts, the production rate,and the solution
evaporation rate.  Plant ID's 15608 and 27046 have this
rinsing system.

Rinse Water Control

Another method of conserving water through^efficient rinsing
is by controlling the flow of the feed water entering the
rinse tanks.  Some flow control methods are listed below.

Conductivity Controllers - Conductivity controllers provide
for efficient use and good control of the rinse process.  This
controller utilizes a conductivity cell to measure the conduc-
tance of the solution which, for an electrolyte, is dependent
upon the ionic concentration.  The conductivity cell is tied
to a controller which will open or close a solenoid on the
makeup line.  As the rinse becomes more contaminated, its
conductance increases until the set point of the controller is
reached, causing the solenoid to open and allowing makeup to
enter.  Makeup will continue until the conductance drops below
the set point.  The advantage of this method of control is
that water is flowing only when required.  A major manufacturer
of conductivity controllers supplied to plants in the Metal
Finishing Category claims that water usage can be reduced by
as much as 50-85% when the controllers are used.

Liquid Level Controllers - These controllers find their great-
est use on closed loop rinsing systems.  A typical arrangement
uses a liquid level sensor in both the process solution tank
and in the first rinse tank, and a solenoid on the rinse tank
makeup water line.  When the process solution evaporates
to below the level of the level controller, the pump is acti-
vated, and solution is transferred from the first tank to the
process tank.  The pump will remain active until the process
tank level controller is satisfied.  As the liquid level of
the rinse tank drops due to the pumpout, the rinse tank con-
troller will open the solenoid allowing fresh feed to enter.

Manually Operated Valves - Manually operated valves are suscep-
tible to misuse and should, therefore, be installed in conjunc-
tion only with other devices.  Orifices should be installed in


                              VTI-250

-------
addition to the valve to limit the flow rate of rinse water.
For rinse stations that require manual movement of work and
require control of the rinse (possibly due to low utilization),
dead man valves should be installed in addition to the orifice
to limit the flow rate of rinse water.  They should be located
so as to discourage jamming them open,,

Orifices or Flow Restrictors - These devices are usually
installed for nmse tanks that have a constant production
rate.  The newer restrictors can maintain a constant flow even
if the water supply pressure fluctuates.  Orifices are not as
efficient as conductivity or liquid level controllers, but are
far superior to manual valves.

Process Bath Conservation

There are a number of techniques that are utilized to recover
or reuse process solutions in the Metal Finishing Category.
The costs and reduced availability of certain process solutions
have encouraged finishers to recognize process solutions as a
valuable resource rather than a disposal problem.  Some examples
of chemical recovery and reuse are:  reprocessing of oil,
reclamation of oil, recycling of oil, reuse of spent etchants,
recovery of metal from spent process baths, regeneration of
etchants and dragout recovery.  These techniques are described
below.

Oil Recovery

Reprocessing of Oil - Reprocessing consists of contaminant
removal by physical separation, filtering, centrifuging, or
magnetic separation, as previously discussed.  Reprocessing
also includes the preparation of waste oils for burning as a
fuel supplement.

Reclamation of Oil - Oil reclamation combines the elements of
reprocessing along with mechanical or chemical steps.  Reclama-
tion is used to remove solids and water, fuel or solvents, and
degradation products such as acid.  Two common processes are
flash distillation and chemical adsorption.  The addition of
heat with a partial vacuum and filtration are employed to
remove degradation products in used oil.

Reclamation is used with synthethic fluids or highly refined
mineral oils.  Reclamation systems are available for either
fixed or portable operation, and outside reclamation services
are available.

Recycling of Oil - Recycling is the most comprehensive treatment,
The waste oil is prefiltered to remove most of the solids,
solvents/ fuel, and water, leaving essentially base oil and
additives.  Removing the additives leaves a high quality
basestock.  The basestock is then formulated with conventional
additives and can be used in the same application as the

                               VTI-251

-------
virgin basestock.  Re-refining provides the best economics
when large volumes of waste oil are available.  Re-refiners
may accept industrial oil wastes when a large source or many
smaller sources of waste oils are available for collection in
a region.                                 '

Other Recovery Operations

Reuse of Spent Etchant - If a facility maintains both an
additive and a conventional subtractive line for the manufac-
turing of printed boards, a two-fold incentive exists for
reuse of spent copper etchant.  The copper etchant used in a
conventional subtractive process is normally dumped when the
copper concentration reaches approximately 45,000 mg/1.
However, by removing the iron and chromium from the etchant,
it can become an inexpensive source of copper for the additive
plating baths.  This technique can be extended to recover the
copper bearing waters from copper etchant rinse tanks as well
as from the etch tank and is practiced at Plant ID 11065.
Some concentrating devices, such as vacuum distillation, may
be required to reduce the volume of the rinse.

Recovery of Metal from Spent Plating Baths - Spent plating
baths contain a significant percentage of metal in solution.
Recovery can be effected by electrolizing the solution at low
voltage or by decomposing a hot bath with seed nuclei.  The
resultant material, while pure, can be refined or sold to
recover some of its original value.  The advantage of this
type of treatment is that a large percentage of the metal is
recovered and does not require treatment. This type of metal
recovery is performed by Plant ID'S 17061 and 11065.

Regeneration of Etchants - Regeneration of etchants from a
copper etchant solution can be achieved by partially dumping
the bath and then adding fresh make-up acid and water.  If
this is done, the etchant life can be extended indefinitely.
Another method practiced for the regeneration of etchants used
in the electroless plating of plastics is fto oxidize the
trivalent chromium back to the active hexavalent chromium.
The oxidization is done by an electrolytic cell.  Plant 20064
regenerates its preplate etchants in this manner.  Use of this
method reduces the amount of material requiring waste treatment,

Reclamation of Paint Powders - A plant which uses powder
coating does not need water wash spray booths to catch over-
spray.  The oversprayed particles can be collected with a
vacuum arrangement in a dry booth, filtered, and reused on the
production line.

Dragout Recovery - If the overflow water from a rinse tank can
be reusecfT it does not have to be treated, and additional
water does not have to be purchased.  One approach currently
in use is to replace the evaporative losses from the process
bath with overflow from the rinse station.1  This way a large


                              VII-252

-------
percentage of process solution normally lost by dragout can be
returned and reused.

The usefulness of this method depends on the rate of evapora-
tion from the process tank.  The evaporation from a bath is a
function of its temperature, surface area, and ventillation
rate, while the overflow rate is dependent on the dilution
ratio, the geometry of the part, and the dragout rates.  If
the rinse is noncritical, i.e., where the part is going to
another finishing operation, closing the loop (returning rinse
overflow to the process tank) can be accomplished with far
fewer rinse tanks than a critical rinse (following the last
process operation).  For example, if a particular line is
always used to plate base metals only, and afterwards the work
always goes to another process, then this permits a lower flow
rate with consequently higher buildup of pollutants in the
rinse.  Under these conditions, an external concentrator, such
as an evaporator, is not required, and the rinse overflow can
be used directly for process bath makeup.  The reverse is
often true with the rinse following the final finishing step.
The flow rate in this instance may be high enough that it
exceeds the bath evaporation rate and some form of concen-
trator is required.

When using any rinse arrangement for makeup of evaporative
losses from a process solution, the quality of the rinse water
must be known and carefully monitored.  Naturally occurring
dissolved solids such as calcium and magnesium salts can
slowly build up and cause the process to go out of control.
Even using softened water can cause process control problems.
For this reason, deionized water is often used as a feed for
rinsing arrangements which will be used for evaporative makeup
of process solutions.

Oily Waste Segregation

Many different types (or compounds) of oils and related fluids
are common in oily wastes and include cutting oils, fluids,
lubricants, greases, solvents, and hydraulic fluids.  Segrega-
tion of these oily wastes from other wastewaters reduces the
expense of both the wastewater treatment and the oil recovery
process by minimizing the quantity and number of constituents
involved.  In addition, segregated oily wastes are appropriate
for hauling to disposal/reclamation by a contractor in lieu of
on-site treatment.  Additional segregation of oily wastes by
type or compound can further reduce treatment or hauling
costs.  Some oils have high reclaimer values and are more
desirable if they are not contaminated by other oils.

Properly segregated spent oils containing common base oils and
additives will retain much more of their original value and
can be efficiently processed.  Spent oils, properly segregated,
can be reprocessed in-house or sold to an outside contractor.
Some plants purchase reprocessed oils which results in substan-
tial savings.


                              VI1-253

-------
The true value of oils and cutting fluids should be realized
during its entire use cycle, from purchase ,to disposal and
reuse.  This is particularly true during used oil collection
and storage.                               i

Process Bath Segregation

Process baths which are to be sent to waste  treatment rather
than being shipped out should be segregated  from one another.
The purpose of this is the same as for segregating raw waste
streams. Mixing together of process solutions may form com-
pounds which are very difficult to treat or  create unneces-
sarily larger volumes of water requiring specialized treatment
such as chromium reduction or cyanide oxidation.

Process Modification

Process modifications can reduce the amount  of water required
for rinsing or reduce the load of certain pollutants on a
waste treatment facility.  For example, a rinse step can be
eliminated in electroless plating by using a combined sensiti-
zation and activation solution followed by a rinse in place of
a process sequence of sensitization-rinse-activation-rinse.
Another potential process modification would be to change from
a high concentration plating bath to one with a lower concen-
tration.  Parts plated in the lower concentration bath require
less rinsing (a dilution operation) and, thus, decrease the
water usage relative to high concentration baths.

There are also constantly increasing numbers of substitute
bath solutions and plating processes becoming commercially
available. A number of these are listed below:

     Non-chromic acid pickling solutions   j
     Non-cyanide zinc and copper plating   j
     Non-aqueous plating processes         !
     Trivalent chromium plating
     Etch recovery and recirculating systems
     Non-chromium decorative plating
     Substitutions for cadmium where applicable
     Phosphate-free and biodegradable cleaners

These options have been formulated in an effort to reduce the
level of critical pollutants generated.

For plants which are currently using spraying as their painting
application method, there are several alternative methods of
application which could reduce the amount of wastewater gene-
rated by the painting operation.  Among these methods are
electrostatic spraying, powder coating, flow coating and dip
coating.  Electrostatic spraying has a smaller percent of
overspray so less paint enters into the wastewater stream.
Powder coating, flow coating and dip coating generate no
wastewater and the powders or paints used can be recycled.


                               VII-254

-------
The selection of an application method is highly dependent
upon the geometry of the part being painted so not all of the
methods mentioned above will work for a specific work piece.

A plant which has a painting operation and employs water wash
spray booths to capture overspray may reduce its pollutant
generation by modifications to the spray booths.  One possi-
bility is switching over to dry filter booths or oil wash
booths.  Neither of these produces any wastewater.  Another
alternative is improving the existing booths by adding auto-
matic screening or electrostatic treatment.  Both of these
features continuously remove paint solids from the water and
allow for less frequent dumps of the booth water, thereby
reducing wastewater generation.

Another process modification applicable to metal finishing
plants is the replacement of solvent degreasing, where possi-
ble, with an alternative cleaning method such as alkaline
cleaning.  Typical areas that are amenable to cleaning tech-
niques other than solvent degreasing are:

     1.   Low to medium volume production levels when cleaning
          cycle time does not impact the cost of production.

     2.   Non-ferrous products.

     3.   Simple product shapes

     4.   Small parts (adaptable to automated processes)

     5.   Situations where an oily film residue is not
          objectionable.

     6.   Situations where no exacting surface finishing
          is required.

Cutting Fluid Cleaning

Essential to efficient machining operations is a clean and effi-
cient cutting fluid cleaning system.  An efficient cleaning
system allows for recycling and reuse of oils.  In maintaining
clean fluid, the operation, the metal, and the fluid must be
considered. Settling and skimming is only efficient when large
volumes of fluid and long retention times are available.  When
fine particles or micro-debris are involved, the cleaning or
maintenance of a cutting fluid also depends on whether it is a
straight oil or an aqueous emulsion.  Many operations and
metals will produce coarse debris while brittle metals produce
fine debris requiring a more sophisticated type of treatment.
Filtration, centrifuging, or magnetic separation may be necessary,
                              VII-255

-------
Straining

Oil or water solutions require straining to ensure pump protec-
tion.  Double strainers should be inserted and kept free of
rags, lint, or other clogging elements.  Stainless mesh
strainers are recommended for aqueous systems to minimize
corrosion.

Settling

Large sumps or central systems permit settling.  Particle size
and retention time are important considerations to ensure
debris or sediment removal.  Settling is essential to other
methods of fluid cleaning by helping reduce sediment loads on
filters and centrifuges.                  !

Baffles above and below the surface of the fluid level will
improve settling and deposition.  Tramp oils, scums, and soaps
may be skimmed either continuously or intermittently.  Dense
debris and sediment can be removed by drag chains, periodic
sump cleanout, scum gutters, or surface paddles and sweeps.

Centrifuging

As an accelerated settling process, the centrifuge is largely
limited to low solids content removal.  It! may be used to
enhance the efficiency of low volume systems and will remove
fine particles.

Magnetic Separators

Magnetic separators are an effective means of removing ferrous
or magnetic metals and are most efficiently used with low
viscosity fluids or aqueous systems.

Filtration

The pore size or opening of a filter medium will determine the
particle size which may be removed.  The most common filtering
systems consist of self-advancing rolled fabric.  Filtration
may be enhanced by vacuum or negative pressure.  Supplemental
coatings on filter media, such as diatomaceous earth, add
depth to barrier filtration.

Flotation

The cleaning of cutting fluids can utilize the aeration process,
which causes fine particles to attach themselves to air bubbles,
producing an efficient flotation system.  Floating matter,
foam, and scum are then removed by continuous skimmers or froth
paddles.  Flotation by aeration has the advantage of high
solids removal in relation to liquid losses and effectively
conserves coolant.  In general, the flotation-type system
works best with emulsifiable coolants, but foam must be con-
                              VII-256

-------
trolled.  This system cannot be used with water miscible
fluids of high wettability.

Integrated Waste Treatment

Waste treatment can be accomplished in the production area
with constant recycling of the effluent.  This process is
generally known as integrated waste treatment.  Integrated
waste treatment can be applied to oily wash waters and elec-
troplating rinse waters.

The washing of oily metal parts, rinses following oil quenches,
machine system leaks, and some testing washes or rinses produce
the largest majority of oily wastewater.  Steps should be
taken in-plant to segregate cutting fluids, hydraulic oils,
crankcase oil, quench oils, and solvents from these waste
streams.

Closed loop systems are available for removing oils, metal
fines, and other residues from wash water through a combina-
tion of settling and skimming.  A typical closed loop system
consists of two compartments holding caustic wash solution,
each equipped with an oil roll skimmer.  While one compartment
supplies wash solution to a series of washers, the other
remains dormant, allowing heavy material to settle and oils
float to the surface.  The solids are collected as sludge and
the oils are skimmed off.  An alternative system would be an
ultrafiltration system which can recycle water back to rinse
and wash make-up stations.

Integrated treatment for plating processes uses a treatment
rinse tank in the process line immediately following a process
tank (plating, chromating, etc).  Treatment solution (usually
caustic soda in excess) circulating through the rinse tank
reacts with the dragout to form a precipitate and removes it
to a clarifier. This clarifier is a small reservoir usually
designed to fit near the treatment rinse tank and is an
integral part of water use in the production process.  Further
treatment may take place in the clarifier (cyanide oxidation,
chromium reduction) or settling alone may be used to separate
the solids.  Sludge is removed near the spillover plate on the
effluent side of the clarifier, and the effluent is returned
to the treatment rinse tank.  Consequently, no pollutants are
directly discharged by the waste treatment process.  Although
further rinsing of the parts is required to remove treatment
chemicals, this rinse will not contain pollutants from the
original process tank, and no further treatment is needed.

Good Housekeeping

Good housekeeping, proper selection and handling of process
solutions, and proper maintenance of metal finishing equipment
are required to reduce wastewater loads to the treatment
system.  Good housekeeping techniques prevent premature or
                               VII-257

-------
unnecessary dumps of process solutions and cooling oils.
Examples of good housekeeping are discussed below.
                                           i
          Frequent inspection of plating racks for loose
          insulation prevents excessive dragout of process
          solutions.  Also, periodic inspection of the condi-
          tion of tank liners and the tanks themselves reduces
          the chance of a catastrophic failure which would
          overload the treatment system.   :

          Steps should be taken to prevent the formation of
          hard-to-treat wastes.  Separation of cyanide wastes
          from nickel or iron wastes is advisable to avoid
          formation of cyanide complexes.  Proper tank linings
          in steel tanks prevent the formation of ferrocyanides.

          Periodic inspection should be performed on all
          auxiliary metal finishing equipment.  This includes
          inspection of sumps, filters, process piping, and
          immersion steam heating coils for leaks.  Filter
          replacement should be done in curbed areas or in a
          manner such that solution retained by the filter is
          dumped to the appropriate waste stream.

          Chemical storage areas should be isolated from high
          hazard fire areas and arranged such that if a fire
          or explosion occurs in the storage area, loss of the
          stored chemicals due to deluge quantities of water
          would not overwhelm the treatment facilities.

          To prevent bacterial buildup on machines, sump walls
          and circulatory systems should be sterilized at regular
          intervals.  Centralized cooling systems are self-cleaning
          to some extent, but physical and biological cleaning
          are required.  The physical cleaning entails the
          removal of metallic fines, oxidized oil and other
          sludge forming matter.  Biological cleaning involves
          the use of antiseptic agents, detergents and germi-
          cides.

          Chip removal from machining operations should include
          oil recovery and salvage provisions.

     .    A lubrication program schedule keeps track of leakage
          and contamination.  By analyzing records of consump-
          tion, it is possible to identify high consumption
          equipment.  Premature drain intervals may indicate
          abnormal system contamination which should be corrected.

          A general accounting of oils and fluids throughout
          their life cycle (purchasing, storage, application,
          cleaning and disposal) will lead.to oil and fluid
          conservation.
                               VII-258

-------
It is important that proper labricants should be
employed in a particular piece of machinery.  Marking
each piece of equipment with the product type required
is practiced throughout the industry.  This helps
prevent the use of an improper oil and the subsequent
premature dumping of that oil.

Training and educating the operators of production
equipment and waste treatment equipment can prevent
unnecessary waste.
                   VII-259

-------
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION

     To establish effluent guideline limitations for the Metal Finishing Category,
the available toxic pollutant data were examined statistically to determine
the performance levels that were attained by properly operated metal finishing
treatment systems.

     Details regarding the statistical analysis of toxic pollutants are described
in exhibits:  total toxic organics in Exhibit 2, new source Cd in Exhibit 3,
and all other pollutants in Exhibit 1.  The statistical analysis followed
three approaches with fundamentally similar methodology.  Differences in approach
are due mainly to differences in quantity and structure of the data.

DATA

     The types of data usable for TTO and new source ICd were similar and are
therefore discussed together.  That data consisted of one set of EPA sampling
data resulting from samples taken daily over a 1 to 4 day period.  The data
sets were subdivided (the resulting set of data is refered to as a "subgroup")
based on industrial process (for TTO) or statistical,properties (for new source
Cd).  For each pollutant the "subgroup" provided all the numerical information
used for the estimation of variability, and a "subset" of the "subgroup" pro-
vided estimation of the long term average.

     The limitations on all other pollutants were based on two distinct sets
of sampling data.  The first set consists of raw and effluent concentration
data that were collected during EPA conducted sampling visits.  Typically,
these data cover a period of 3 days of sampling, although as many as 6 days
were occassionally recorded.  The other data consisted of sets of long term
self monitoring effluent data (usually without parallel raw waste data) that
were submitted by plants in the Metal Finishing Category.  These self moni-
toring data cover periods of continuous effluent monitoring up to a year, with
much of the data collected on a daily basis.  The self monitoring data were
used to estimate variability and the EPA data were used to estimate the long
term average concentration.  There are only a few exceptions to the above.
For Cd and Pb self monitoring data were used to estimate the long term average
and variability; EPA sampling data were not used.  This was because the EPA
sampled data indicated very low raw waste Pb and Cd levels and it was not
certain that they adequately represented the range of Pb or Cd in actual use.
For Ag no usable self monitoring data were available,so variability was esti-
mated using the variability estimates of other toxic metals.

STATISTICAL CALCULATIONS
DAILY VARIABILITY

     For all pollutants a measure of variability (referred to as a variability
factor) is calculated.  In all cases the variability factor is the ratio of
the 99th percentile estimated using a lognomal distribution to the arithmetic
mean of the same data that was used to estimate the 99th percentile.   Variability
factors are used to account for fluctuations in effluent levels expected in
well operated treatment systems.

                                   VII-260

-------
     Variability factors for TTO and new source Cd, because of the data
similiarities, have been calculated in a similar manner and are described
together.  The data were assumed to follow a lognormal distribution by plant
although the new source Cd and TTO data sets have no single plants with data
sets sufficient to test lognormality.  This assumption has been found to be
satisfactory for the discharge of other pollutants in this industry as well as
other industries.  Although not tested formally, these data do not display
significant departures from lognormality.  The 99th percentiles in these cases
were estimated using a pooled within plant variance.  The pooled within plant
variance uses only those plants with multiple observations.  The 99th percentile
of the "subgroup" is then divided by the arithmetic mean of the entire "subgroup"
to arrive at the variability factor for the pollutant.

     The variability factors for all the remaining toxic pollutants have been
calculated in a similar manner and are discused below.  Because the self moni-
toring data base contained large within plant data sets, lognormality of the
toxic pollutant data was graphically and statistically verified by plant.  In
cases where detection limit observations were present in the data, a generalized
form of the lognormal, known as the delta lognormal distribution was used.
The variability factor used to calculate the limitations was determined by
taking the median of the variability factors for each pollutant.  Any datura
reported as below a detection limit was assigned a value of zero.  If more
than 50 percent of the data were reported below the detection limit the plant
was not used to estimate variability.

MONTHLY AVERAGE VARIABILITY

     The monthly average variability calculations for new source Cd were based
upon the average of ten daily samples.  The assumption is made that the distri-
bution of means of small samples of lognormally distributed values are also
lognormally distributed.*  This assumption provides the basis for the parameter
estimates used to determine the 10-day (monthly average) 99th percentile estimate.
Details regarding the methodology behind this approach to 10-day 99th percen-
tiles are described in Exhibit 3.  The 10-day (monthly average) variability
factor is calculated in an identical manner to the daily variability factor;
the 99th percentile estimate is divided by the arithmetic mean of the same
data used to estimate the 99th percentile.  No monthly average limitations
were calculated for TTO.

     The monthly average variability calculations for all other toxic
pollutants was also based on the assumption that averages of 10 daily
samples are approximately lognormally distributed.  In these cases, however,
with large quantities of self monitoring data, the 10 day average limitations
* This lognormal characteristic of small sample averages from lognormal dis-
  tributions has been observed in many industry categories for a wide variety
  of pollutants and was used as the basis of four (4) sample monthly average
  limitations in Pretreatment Standards for the Electroplating industry.

                                   VII-261

-------
were based on empiricial distributions of the logs of 10 day averages.  That
is, averages of 10 sequential daily values were constructed from each plants'
self monitoring data and fit to a lognormal distribution.  The estimated 99th
percentiles of these fitted distributions were then used as the numerator of
the variability factor.  The arithmetic mean of the 10 day averages was used
as the denominator.  The median plant 10 day average variability factor for
each pollutant was then used to determine 10 day average monthly limitations.

LONG TERM AVERAGES                                ;

     Long term averages were calculated for TTO, and new source Cd in a similar
manner.  A "subgroup" was used to estimate variability and a "subset" of the
"subgroup" was used to estimate the long term average.  The "subsets" for both
pollutants contained plants that were exceptional either because of the sta-
tistical properties (eg. extremely large average) and/or because of a special
industrial process (eg. painting and solvent degreasing).  An arithmetic average
was calculated from the "subset" and was used as the long term average.

     The long term averages for all the other toxic pollutants (except Pb and
Cd) were calculated from the EPA sampling data described above.  Arithmetic
means of all values for each pollutant were used as the long term average.
The arithmetic averages of the previously described self monitoring data were
used for Cd and Pb.

EFFLUENT LIMITS

     The effluent limitations are based on a plant's treatment system being
operated to maintain an average effluent concentrations equal to the long term
averages.  The day-to-day concentrations are expected to fluctuate  about these
average concentrations.

     The variability factors estimated from the long term self monitoring data
account for these fluctuations.  Daily and monthly average limitations were
determined by multiplying the appropriate variability factors and averages.
Details of the data and analysis used to determine the limitations  are provided
in exhibits attached to this document and supplemental computer printouts and
worksheets contained in the administrative record supporting this rulemaking.
                                    VII-262

-------
                          SECTION VIII
            COST OF WASTE WATER CONTROL AND TREATMENT

INTRODUCTION • •                                               -

This section presents estimates of the cost of implementation of
wastewater treatment and control options for each of the sub-
categories included in the Metal Finishing Category.  These
costs estimates, together with the pollutant reduction perform-
ance for each treatment and control option presented in Section
VII provide a basis for evaluation of the options presented.
The cost estimates also provide the basis for the determination
of the probable economic impact of regulation at different
pollutant discharge levels on the Metal Finishing Category.  In
addition, this section addresses non-water quality environmental
impacts of wastewater treatment and control alternatives includ-
ing air pollution, noise pollution, solid wastes, and energy
requirements.

To arrive at the cost estimates presented in this section,
specific wastewater treatment technologies and in-process con-
trol techniques from among those discussed in Section VII were
selected and combined in wastewater treatment and control sys-
tems appropriate for each waste type.  The different waste
treatment systems were combined for cost estimation in six
different plant treatment systems corresponding to the most
common types of facilities operating within the Metal Finishing
Category.  As described in more detail below, investment and
annual costs for each system were estimated based on wastewater
flows and raw wastewater characteristics for each waste type as
presented in Section V.  Cost estimates are also presented for .
individual treatment technologies included in the waste treat-
ment systems.

COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY                                 .  -  ,

Cost estimation is accomplished using a computer program which  ..
accepts inputs specifying the treatment system to be estimated,
chemical characteristics of the raw wastewater streams treated, .
flow rates and operating schedules.  The program accesses models
for specific treatment components which relate component invest-
ment and operating costs, materials and energy requirements, and
effluent stream characteristics to influent flow rates and
stream characteristics.  Component models are exercised sequen-
tially as the components are encountered in the system to deter-
mine chemical characteristics and flow rates at each point.
Component investment and annual costs are also determined and
used in the computation of total system costs.  Mass balance
calculations are used to determine the characteristics of com-
bined streams resulting from mixing two or more streams and to
determine the volume of sludges or liquid wastes resulting from
treatment operations such as chemical precipitation and set-
tling, filtration, and oil separation.
                             VIII-1

-------
Cost estimates are broken down into several distinct elements in
addition to total investment and annual costs:  operation and
maintenance costs, energy costs, depreciation, and annual costs
of capital.  The cost estimation program incorporates provisions
for adjustment of all costs to a common dollar base on the basis
of economic indices appropriate to capital equipment and operat-
ing supplies.  Labor and electrical power costs are input vari-
ables appropriate to the dollar base year for cost estimates.
These cost breakdown and adjustment factors as well as other
aspects of the cost estimation process are discussed in greater
detail in the following paragraphs.

Cost Estimation Input Data

The wastewater treatment system descriptions input to the com-
puter cost estimation program include both a specification of
the wastewater treatment components included and a definition of
their interconnections.  For some components, retention times or
other operating parameters are specified in the input, while for
others, such as reagent mix tanks and clarifiers, these para-
meters are specified within the program based on prevailing
design practice in industrial wastewater treatment.  The waste-
water treatment system descriptions may include multiple raw
wastewater stream inputs and multiple treatment trains.  For
example, cyanide bearing waste streams are segregated and
treated for cyanide oxidation and chromium bearing wastes are
segregated for chromium reduction prior to subsequent chemical
precipitation treatment with the remaining process wastewater.

The specific treatment systems selected for cost estimation for
each subcategory were based on an examination of raw waste
characteristics, consideration of manufacturing processes, and
an evaluation of available treatment technologies discussed in
Section VII.  The rationale for selection of these systems and
their pollutant removal effectiveness are also addressed in
Section VII.

The input data set also includes chemical characteristics for
each raw wastewater stream specified as input to the treatment
systems for which costs are to be estimated.  These character-
istics are derived from the raw wastewater sampling data pre-
sented in Section V.  The pollutant parameters which are pre-
sently accepted as input by the cost estimation program are
shown in Table 8-1.  The values of these parameters are used in
determining materials consumption, sludge volumes, treatment
component sizes, and effluent characteristics.  The list of
input parameters is expanded periodically as additonal pollut-
ants are found to be significant in wastewater streams from
industries under study and as additional treatment technology
cost and performance data become available.  Within the Metal
Finishing Category, individual waste types commonly encompass a
number of different wastewater streams which are present to
varying degrees at different facilities.  The raw wastewater
characteristics shown as input to wastewater treatment represent
                             VIII-2

-------
a mix of these streams including all significant pollutants
found and will not in general correspond precisely to process
wastewater at any existing facility.  The process by which these
raw wastewaters were defined is explained in Section V.

                            TABLE 8-1
               COST PROGRAM POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
Parameter, Units

Flow, MGD
pH, pH units
Turbidity, Jackson Units
Temperature, degrees C
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
Residual Chlorine, mg/1
Acidity, mg/1 CaCOS
Alkalinity, mg/1 CaC03
Ammonia, mg/1
Biochemical Oxygen Demand mg/1
Color, Chloroplatinate units
Sulfide, mg/1
Cyanides, mg/1
Kjeldahl Nitrogen, mg/1
Phenols, mg/1
Conductance, micromhos/cm
Total Solids, mg/1
Total Suspended Solids, mg/1
Settleable Solids, mg/1
Aluminum, mg/1
Barium, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Chromium, Total, mg/1
Copper, mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
Iron, Total, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Molybdenum, mg/1
Total Volatile Solids, mg/1
Parameter, Units

Oil, Grease, mg/1
Hardness, mg/1 CaCOS
Chemical Oxygen Demand, mg/1
Alg ic ides , mg/1
Total Phosphates, mg/1
Polychlorobiphenyls, mg/1
Potassium, mg/1
Silica, mg/1
Sodium, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Sulfite, mg/1
Titanium, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Boron, mg/1
Iron, Dissolved, mg/1
Mercury, mg/1
Nickel, mg/1
Nitrate, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1
Silver, mg/1
Strontium, mg/1
Surfactants, mg/1
Beryllium, mg/1
Plasticizers, mg/1
Antimony, mg/1
Bromide, mg/1
Cobalt, mg/1
Thallium, mg/1
Tin, mg/1
Chromium, Hexavalent, mg/1
                             VII1-3

-------
The final input data set comprises raw wastewater flow rates for
each subcategory input stream addressed.  Six treatment scenar-
ios corresponding to different types of manufacturing facilities
within the Metal Finishing Category are addressed in the cost
estimates.  Each scenario entails a different combination of
individual subcategory wastewater streams.  For each, costs are
estimated for five total plant wastewater flow rates spanning
the range of flows generally encountered within the Metal
Finishing Category (1,000 - 10,000,000 I/day).  From these data,
graphs have been prepared showing total treatment system invest-
ment costs and total annual costs as a function of flow rate for
each scenario.

In establishing costs for the Metal Finishing Category, the
Agency used the total plant process flow which could include
wastewaters from other categories, e.g., porcelain enameling.
This analysis provides conservative cost estimates for metal
finishing in that other categorical regulations have costed and
examined the impact of pollution control for non-metal finishing waste-
water streams.                              !

System Cost Computation

A simplified flow chart for the estimation of wastewater
treatment and control costs from the input data described above
is presented in Figure 8-1.  In the computation, raw wastewater
characteristics and flow rates are used as input to the model
for the first treatment technology specified, in the system
definition.  This model is used to determine the size and cost
of the component, materials and energy consumed in its opera-
tion, and the volume and characteristics of the stream(s) dis-
charged from it.  These stream characteristics are then used as
input to the next component(s) encountered in the system defini-
tion.  This procedure is continued until the complete system
costs and the volume and characteristics of the final effluent
stream(s) and sludge wastes have been determined.  In addition
to treatment components, the system may include mixers in which
two streams are combined, and splitters in which part of a
stream is directed to another destination.  These elements are
handled by mass balance calculations and allow cost estimation
for specific treatment of segregated process wastewaters prior
to combination with other process wastewaters for further treat-
ment, and representation of partial recycle of wastewater.

As an example of this computation process, the sequence of cal-
culations involved in the development of cost estimates for the
simple treatment system shown in Figure 8-2 may be described.
Initially, input specifications for the treatment system are
read to set up the sequence of computations.  The subroutine
addressing chemical precipitation and clarification is then
accessed.  The sizes of the mixing tank and clarification basin
are calculated based on the raw wastewater flow rate to provide
45 minute retention in the mix tank and 4 hour retention with a
33.3 gal/hr/sq ft surface loading in the clarifier.   Based on
these sizes, investment and annual costs for labor,  supplies for

                               VIII-4

-------
                           SIMPLIFIED LOGIC DIAGRAM
                        SYSTEM COST ESTIMATION PROGRAM
NON-RECYCLE
  SYSTEMS
                         INPUT
                         A)   RAW WASTE DESCRIPTION
                         B)   SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
                         C)   "DECISION" PARAMETERS
                         D)   COST FACTORS
                         PROCESS CALCULATIONS
                         A)   PERFORMANCE - POLLUTANT
                              PARAMETER EFFECTS
                         B)   EQUIPMENT SIZE
                         C}   PROCESS COST
                                         (RECYCLE SYSTEMS)
CONVERGENCE
A)   POLLUTANT PARAMETER
     TOLERANCE CHECK
                                           (NOT WITHIN
                                           TOLERANCE LIMITS)
                                         (WITHIN TOLERANCE LIMITS)
                       COST CALCULATIONS
                       A)   SUM INDIVIDUAL PROCESS
                           COSTS
                       B)   ADD SUBSIDIARY COSTS
                       C)   ADJUST TO DESIRED DOLLAR BASE
                       OUTPUT
                       A)   STREAM DESCRIPTIONS-
                            COMPLETE SYSTEM
                       B)   INDIVIDUAL PROCESS SIZE AND
                            COSTS
                       C)   OVERALL SYSTEM INVESTMENT
                            AND ANNUAL COSTS
                                  FIGURE 8-1
                        COST ESTIMATION  PROGRAM
                                        VHI-5

-------
                  CHEMICAL
                  ADDITION
RAW WASTE
(PLOW, TSS, LEAD,
ZINC, ACIDITY)

^ 1 _
PRECIPITATION
c^>




^ -h_ -YJ-VJ-VJ. -t-inu-rx-OL.
L^^^^ggyse^J
                                                     EFFLUENT
                                                              SLUDGE
                                                              {CONTRACTOR
                                                               REMOVED)
                          FIGURE  8-2
            SIMPLE WASTE  TREATMENT  SYSTEM
                             VI11-6

-------
the mixing tank and clarifier including mixers, clarifier rakes
and other directly related equipment are determined.  Fixed
investment costs are then added to account for sludge pumps,
controls, piping, and reagent feed systems.

Based on the input raw wastewater concentrations and flow rates,
the reagent additions (lime, alum and polyelectrolyte) are
calculated to  provide fixed concentrations of  alum  and poly-
electrolyte and  10% excess lime over that required  for stoichio-
metric reaction  with the  acidity and metals  present in the
wastewater stream.  Costs are calculated for these  materials,
and the  suspended solids  and flow leaving the  mixing  tank and
entering  the clarifier are increased to reflect  the lime solids
added and precipitates formed.  These modified stream character-
istics are then  used with performance algorithms for  the clari-
fier  (as  discussed  in Section VII) to determine  concentrations
of each  pollutant in the  clarifier effluent  stream.   By mass
balance,  the amount of each pollutant in the clarifier sludge
may be determined.  The volume of the sludge stream is deter-
mined by  the concentration of TSS which is fixed at 4.5% based
on general operating experience, and concentrations of other
pollutants in  the sludge  stream are determined from their masses
and the  volume of the stream.

The subroutine describing vacuum filtration  is then called, and
the mass  of suspended solids in the clarifier  sludge  stream is
used  to  determine the size and investment cost of the vacuum
filtration unit.  To determine manhours required for operation,
operating hours  for the filter are calculated  from  the flow rate
and TSS  concentration.  Maintenance labor requirements are added
as a  fixed additional cost.

The sludge flow  rate and  TSS content are then  used  to determine
costs of  materials  and supplies for vacuum filter operation
including iron and  alum added as filter aids,  and the electrical
power costs for  operation.  Finally, the vacuum  filter perform-
ance  algorithms  are used  to determine the volume and character-
istics of the  vacuum filter sludge and  filtrate, and  the costs
of contract disposal of the sludge are  calculated.   The recycle
of vacuum filter filtrate to the chemical precipitation and
settling  system  is  not reflected in the calculations due to the
difficulty of  iterative solution of such loops and  the general
observation that the contributions of such streams  to the total
flow  and  pollutant  levels are, in practice,  negligibly small.
Allowance for  such  minor  contributions  is made in the 20% excess
capacity provided in most components.

The costs determined for  all components of the system are summed
and subsidiary costs are  added to provide output specifying
total investment and annual costs for the system and  annual
costs for capital,  depreciation, operation and maintenance, and
energy.   Costs for  specific system components  and the character-
istics of all  streams in  the system may also be  specified as
output from the  program.

Treatment Component Models

The cost estimation program presently incorporates  subroutines
providing cost and  performance calculations  for  the treatment

                             VIII-7

-------
 technologies identified in Table 8-2.   These subroutines  have
 been developed  over a period  of years  from the best available
 information  including on-site observations of  treatment system
performance, costs, and construction practices at a large number
of industrial facilities, published data, and  information ob-
 tained from  suppliers of wastewater treatment  equipment.  The
 subroutines  are modified and new subroutines added as additional
data allow improvements in models for treatment technologies
presently available, and as additional treatment technologies
are required for the industrial wastewater streams under study.
Specific discussions of each of the treatment  component models
used in costing wastewater treatment and control systems for  the
Metal Finishing Category is presented later  in this section
where cost estimation is addressed, and in Section VII where
performance  aspects were developed.

                            TABLE 8-2

                TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY SUBROUTINES

                  Treatment Process Subroutines
Spray/Fog Rinse
Countercurrent Rinse
Vacuum Filtration
Gravity Thickening
Sludge Drying Beds
Holding Tanks
Centrifugation
Equalization
Contractor Removal
Reverse Osmosis
Landfill
Chemical Reduction of Chromium
Chemical Oxidation of Cyanide
Neutralization
Clarification (Settling
  Tank/Tube Settler)
API Oil Skimming
Emulsion Breaking (Chem/Thermal)
Membrane Filtration
Filtration {Diatomaceous Earth)
Ion Exchange - w/Plant Regeneration
Ion Exchange - Service Regeneration
Flash Evaporation
Climbing Film Evaporation
Atmospheric Evaporation
Cyclic Ion Exchange
Post Aeration
Sludge Pumping
Copper Cementation
Sanitary Sewer Discharge Pee
Ultrafiltration
Submerged Tube Evaporation
Flotation/Separation
Wiped Film Evaporation
Trickling Filter
Activated Carbon Adsorption
Nickel Filter
Sulfide Precipitation
Sand Filter
Chromium Regeneration
Pressure Filter
Multimedia Granular Filter
Sump

Codling Tower
Ozonation
Activated Sludge
Coalescing Oil Separator
Non Contact Cooling Basin

Raw Wastewater Pumping
Preliminary Treatment
Preliminary Sedimentation
Aerator - Final Settler
Chlorination
Flotation Thickening
Multiple Hearth Incineration
Aerobic Digestion
                              VIII-8

-------
In general terms, cost estimation is provided by mathematical
relationships in each subroutine approximating observed cor-
relations between component costs and the most significant
operational parameters such as water flow rates, retention
times, and pollutant concentrations.  In general, flow rate is
the primary determinant of investment costs and of most annual
costs with the exception of material costs.  In some cases,
however, as discussed for the vacuum filter, pollutant concen-
trations may also significantly influence costs.

Cost Factors and Adjustments

As previously indicated, costs are adjusted to a common dollar
base and are generally influenced by a number of factors in-
cluding:  Cost of Labor, Cost of Energy, Capital Recovery Costs
and Debt-Equity Ratio.  These cost adjustments and factors are
discussed below.

Dollar Base - A dollar base of August 1979 was used for all
costs.

Investment Cost Adjustment - Investment costs were adjusted to
the aforementioned dollar base by use of Sewage Treatment Plant
Construction Cost Index.  This cost is published monthly by the
EPA Division of Facilities Construction and Operation.  The
national average of the Construction Cost Index for August 1979
was 337.8.

Supply Cost Adjustment — Costs of supplies such as chemicals
were related to the dollar base by use of the Producer Price
Index (formerly known as the Wholesale Price Index).  This
figure was obtained from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, "Monthly Labor Review".  For August 1979 the
"Industrial Commodities" Producer Price Index was 240.3.  Pro-
cess supply and replacement costs were included in the estimate
of the total process operating and maintenance cost.

Cost of Labor - To relate the operating and maintenance labor
costs, the hourly wage rate for non-supervisory workers in sani-
tary services was used from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau
of Labor Statistics October, 1979, publication, "Employment and
Earnings".  For August 1979, this wage rate was $6.71 per hour.
This wage rate was then applied to estimates of operation and
maintenance man-hours within each process to obtain process
direct labor charges.  To account for indirect labor charges, 15
percent of the direct labor costs was added to the direct labor
charge to yield estimated total labor costs.  Such items as
Social Security, employer contributions to pension or retirement
funds, and employer-paid premiums to various forms of insurance
programs were considered indirect labor costs.
                             VIII-9

-------
Cost of Energy - Energy requirements were calculated directly
within each process.  Estimated costs were' than determined by
applying an electrical rate of 4.5 cents per kilowatt hour.

This electrical charge was determined by a'ssuming that any
electrical needs of a waste treatment facility or in-process
technology would be satisfied by an existing electrical distri-
bution system, i.e., no new meter would be required.  This
eliminated the formation of any new demand, load base for the
electrical charge.

Capital Recovery Costs - Capital recovery costs were divided
into straight line five-year depreciation and cost of capital at
a thirteen percent annual interest rate for a period of five
years.  The five year depreciation period was consistent with
the faster write-off (financial life) allowed for these facili-
ties even though the equipment life is in the range of 20 to 25
years.
                                          l
The annual cost of capital was calculated by using the capital
recovery factor approach.

The capital recovery factor is normally used in industry to help
allocate the initial investment and the interest to the total
operating cost of the facility.  It is equal to:
where i is the annual interest rate and N is the number of years
over which the capital is to be recovered.  The annual capital
recovery was obtained by multiplying the initial investment by
the capital recovery factor.  The annual depreciation of the
capital investment was calculated by dividing the initial invest-
ment by the depreciation period N, which was assumed to be five
years.  The annual cost of capital was then equal to the annual
capital recovery minus the depreciation.

Debt-Equity Ratio - Limitations on new borrowings assume that
debt may not exceed a set percentage of the shareholders'
equity.  This defines the breakdown of the capital investment
between debt and equity charges.  However, due to the lack of
information about the financial status of various plants, it was
not feasible to estimate typical shareholders equity to obtain
debt financing limitations.  For these reasons, capital cost was
not broken into debt and equity charges.  Rather, the annual
cost of capital was calculated via the procedure outlined in the
Capital Recovery Costs section above.

Subsidiary Costs

The waste treatment and control system costs presented in
Figures 8-34 through 8-65 for end-of-pipe and in-process waste-
water control and treatment systems include subsidiary costs
                             VIII-10

-------
associated with system construction and operation.  These sub-
sidiary costs include:

     -    administration and laboratory facilities

     -    garage and shop facilities
                                                      *

     -    line segregation

     -    yardwork

     -    piping

     -    instrumentation

     -    land

     -    engineering

     -    legal, fiscal, and administrative

     -    interest during construction

          contingency

Administrative and laboratory facility treatment investment is
the cost of constructing space for administration and laboratory
functions for the wastewater treatment system.  For these cost
computations, it was assumed that there was already an existing
building and space for administration and laboratory functions.
Therefore, there was no investment cost for this item.

For laboratory operations, an analytical fee of $105  (August 1979
dollars) was charged for metals and cyanide and $635 for toxic
organics for each wastewater sample, regardless of whether the
laboratory work was done on or off site.  This analytical fee is
typical of the charges experienced by the EPA contractor during
the past several years of sampling programs.  The frequency of
wastewater sampling is a function of wastewater discharge flow
and is presented in Table 8-3.  This frequency was suggested by the
Water Compliance Division of  the  USEPA.  However, for the economic
impact analysis, the Agency costed 10 samples per month for
metals and cyanide which is consistent with the statistical basis
for the monthly limit.

For industrial waste treatment facilities being costed, no
garage and shop investment cost was included.  This cost item
was assumed to be part of the normal plant costs and was not
allocated to the wastewater treatment system.

Line segregation investment costs account for plant modifica-
tions to segregate wastewater streams.  The investment costs for
line segregation included placing a trench in the existing plant
floor and installing the lines in this trench.  The same trench
was used for all pipes.  The pipes were assumed to run from the
center of the floor to a corner.  A rate of 2.04 liters per hour
of wastewater discharge per square meter of area (0.05 gallons
per hour per square foot) was used to determine floor and trench
dimensions from wastewater flow rates for use in this cost

                             VIII-11

-------
estimation process.   It was assumed that a transfer pump would
be required for each  segregated process line in order to trans-
fer the wastes to the treatment system.

                      TABLE 8-3

           WASTEWATER SAMPLING FREQUENCY


Waste Water Discharge
   (liters per day)                Sampling Fregency
                                          I ""	 .' "  ' . " "
      0 -  37,850                  once per month
                                          i
 37,850 - 189,250                  twice per month

189,250 - 378,500                  once per week

378,500 - 946,250                  twice per week
                                          i
946,250+                           thrice per week

The yardwork investment cost item includes: the cost of general
site clearing, lighting, manholes, tunnels, conduits, and gen-
eral site items outside the structural confines of particular
individual plant components.  This cost is typically 9 to 18
percent of the installed components investment costs.  For these
cost estimates, an average of 14 percent was utilized.  Annual
yardwork operation and maintenance costs are considered a part
of normal plant maintenance and were not included in these cost
estimates.

The piping investment cost item includes the cost of inter-
component piping, valves, and piping required to transfer the
wastes to the waste treatment system.  This cost is estimated to
be equal to 20 percent of installed component investment costs.

The instrumentation investment cost item includes the cost of
metering equipment, electrical wiring and cable,  treatment
component operational controls, and motor control centers as
required for each of  the waste treatment systems described in
Section VII of the document.  The instrumentation investment
cost is estimated based upon the requirements of each waste
treatment system.  For continuous operations a base cost of  $25.000
was used for instrumentation and was adjusted upward by a variable
factor that depended on the complexity of the treatment system.

No new land purchases were required.  It was assumed that the
land required for the end-of-pipe treatment system was already
available at the plant.

Engineering costs include both basic and special  services.
Basic services include preliminary design reports, detailed
design, and certain office and field engineering  services during
                             VIII-12

-------
construction of projects.  Special services include improvement
studies, resident engineering, soils investigations, land sur-
veys, operation and maintenance manuals, and other miscellaneous
services.  Engineering cost is a function of process installed
and yardwork investment costs .  The engineering cost ranges  from
approximately one percent  for  investment costs of about  $1.2 million
to 37 percent for investment costs of about $12,000.

Legal, fiscal and administrative costs relate to planning and
construction of waste water treatment facilities and include
such items as preparation of legal documents, preparation of
construction contracts, acquisition of land, etc.    These costs
are a function of process installed, yardwork, engineering, and
land investment costs, ranging between approximately 0.5 and 5.3 percent
of the total of these costs.

Interest cost during construction is the interest cost accrued
on funds from the time payment is made to the contractor to the
end of the construction period.  The total of all  other project
investment costs (process installed; yardwork; land; engineer-
ing; and legal, fiscal, and administrative) and the applied
interest affect this cost.  An interest rate of 13 percent was
used to determine the interest cost for these estimates.

A contingency allowance was included equal to ten percent of the
sum of the cost of individual  treatment technologies plus piping,
line segregation, and yard work.

COST ESTIMATES FOR INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

Table 8-4 lists those technologies which are incorporated in the
wastewater treatment and control options offered for the metal
finishing category and for which cost estimates have been devel-
oped.  These treatment technologies have been selected from
among the larger set of available alternatives discussed in
Section VII on the basis of an evaluation of raw waste character-
istics, typical plant characteristics (e.g. location, production
schedules, product mix, and land availability), and present
treatment practices within the subcategory addressed.  Specific
rationale for selection is addressed in Section IX, X XI and
XII.  Cost estimates for each technology addressed in this
section include investment costs and annual costs  for deprecia-
tion, capital, operation and maintenance, and energy.

Investment - Investment is the capital expenditure required to
bringthe technology into operation.  If the installation is a
package contract, the investment is the purchase price of the
installed equipment.  Otherwise, it includes the equipment cost,
cost of freight, insurance and taxes, and installation costs.

Total AnnualCost - Total annual cost is the sum of annual costs
for depreciation, capital, operation and maintenance (less
energy), and energy (as a separate function).

     Depreciation - Depreciation is an allowance,  based on tax
     regulations, for the recovery of fixed capital from an
     investment to be considered as a non-cash annual expense.
                             VIII-13

-------
It may be regarded as the decline in value of a capital
asset due to wearout and obsolescence.

     Capital - The annual cost of capital is the cost, to the
     plant, of obtaining capital expressed as an interest rate.
     It is equal to the capital recovery cost (as previously
     discussed on cost factors) less depreciation.

     Operation and Maintenance - Operation and maintenance cost
     is the annual cost of running the wastewater treatment
     equipment.  It includes labor and materials such as waste
     treatment chemicals.  As presented in the tables, operation
     and maintenance cost does not include energy (power or
     fuel) costs because these costs are shown separately.

     Energy - The annual cost of energy is shown separately,
     although it is commonly included as part of operation and
     maintenance cost.  Energy cost has been shown separately
     because of its importance to the nation's economy and
     natural resources.
                          TABLE 8-4
                  INDEX TO TECHNOLOGY COSTS
     Technology
CN Oxidation
Chromium Reduction
Clarification
Emulsion Breaking
Holding Tanks
Multimedia Filtration
Ultrafiltration
Carbon Adsorption
Sludge Drying Beds
Vacuum Filtration
Contract Removal
Countercurrent Rinse
Evaporation

Cyanide Oxidation
     Figure or Table

Figures 8-3  to 8-5
Figures 8-6 : &  8-7
Figures 8-8 to 8-10
Figures 8-11 to 8-13
Figures 8-14 to 8-16
Figures 8-17 &  8-18
Figures 8-19 to 8-21
Figures 8-22 to 8-24
Figures 8-25 &  8-26
Figures 8-27 to 8-29

Tables 8-6  &  8-7
Figures  8-30 to 8-32
In this technology, cyanide is destroyed by reaction with sodium
hypochlorite under alkaline conditions.  A complete system for
accomplishing this operation includes reactors, sensors, con-
trols, mixers, and chemical feed equipment.  Control of both pH
and chlorine concentration (through oxidation-reduction poten-
tial) is important for effective treatment.

Investment Costs - Investment costs for cyanide oxidation as
shown in Figure 8-3 include reaction tanks, reagent storage,
mixers, sensors and controls necessary for operation.  Costs are
estimated for both batch and continuous systems with the oper-
ating mode selected on a least cost basis.  Specific costing
assumptions are as follows:
                            VIII-14

-------
Ul
iu-
oT
r-
0
3,05
I
V)
(t
INVESTMENT COST (DOLLA
0 0
u to







































r


























ON

























TIT


I






















-JU


JA






















O


Ti






















U


:h






















s


4


























M


























	 .-


























- —




1 BA




















•••• •




TCh




















•M*




1/V




















M^




fE




















«




Eh




















^





c




















1


























^















































































"1
L


























» ••





















































































1



















«•





B



















>





A



















,---""'

















•••^^^

B^.







TCH/DAY



















=

**























ssa
+
























^m
*
























x

























-.*






















X1
x I

' 	 f

•
I























• • ••
























M ^*









2 B





i
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
£
X*








AT
















n
44
±1

SEPARATE
CAUSTIC
STORAGE
TANK
COSTS
INCLUDED
**•










Ch




«s










IE




3










s/




7










SI




1











HIFT




         10
                             100
                                                   to-
                                                                        10*
10 =
                                                         FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                                FIGURE 8-3
                                                 CYANIDE OXIDATION INVESTMENT COSTS

-------
For batch teatment, oxidation is accomplished by the addition of
sodium hypochlorite.  Sodium hydroxide and sulfuric acid are
added to maintain the proper pH level.  A: manually controlled
feed pump is included for each treatment chemical.  Chemical
storage for the limited quantities generally involved in batch
treatment is assumed to be in shipping containers, and no invest-
ment costs for storage facilities are calculated.  Reaction tank
costs are based on two fiberglass tanks, each of which is sized
to provide four hours retention based on process flow rates.
Mixers, based on one horsepower per 1000 gallons of reaction
tank volume (0.5 HP minimum) are also provided.  Investment
costs also include a transfer pump and a manual instrumentation
set including:

          2 pH probes
          1 pH probe maintenance kit
          1 pH meter
          3 ORP probes
          1 ORP meter

Installation is included as 60% of the sum of the component
costs.                                    '

For continuous treatment, oxidation is accomplished using chlo-
rine obtained as a gas.  Sodium hydroxide .and sulfuric acid are
used for pH control.  Investment costs include a chlorination
system and automatically controlled pH control systems for two
treatment tanks (for the two-stage cyanide destruction process).
These systems include:                    [

pH Control and Instrumentation

     2 Pump stands
     2 Peed pumps
     2 Liquid Level detectors
       15 days storage for acid and sodium hydroxide
     2 pH probes
     2 pH meters
     1 pH probe maintenance kit
     2 pH controllers
     3 ORP probes
     2 ORP meters
     2 ORP controllers
     2 Recorders

Chlor ina t ion Sys tern

     Chlorinator
     Pressure Reducing valves
     Venturi ejector
     Diffuser
     Piping and fittings
     Evaporator
                             VIII-16

-------
     Weighing scale
     Gas detector
     Emergency vent system
     Hoisting equipment
     Installation and start-up service

Costs are estimated for fiberglass reaction tanks providing 0.5
hours retention for the first stage of treatment and 1 hour
retention for the second stage.  Mixers based on 1 horsepower
per 1000 gallons with a minimum of 1 horsepower are costed for
each tank.  Cost estimates also include 2 emergency vent fans, 3
circulation pumps, and 2 transfer pumps.

Operation and Maintenance Costs - Costs for operating and main-
taining cyanide oxidation systems include labor and chemical
expenses.  Annual operation and maintenance expenses for batch
and continuous cyanide oxidation systems are shown in Figure 8-4
as a function of waste stream flow rate.

Labor expenses for the batch treatment system are estimated
based on 1.5 hours of labor per batch of waste treated plus 2
hours of maintenance labor per week plus additional labor for
chemical handling based on the amounts of treatment chemicals
consumed.  For continuous treatment, maintenance labor is esti-
mated at 4 hours per week, and operating labor at 1 hour per
shift plus an additional 0.5 hours per cylinder (1 ton) of
chlorine consumed.

Chlorine or sodium hypochlorite addition is calculated based on
a 10% excess over stoichiometric requirements calculated from
measured cyanide concentrations plus concentrations of some
metals,  (copper, iron, and nickel) which form cyanide complexes.
Sodium hydroxide requirements to maintain pH are calculated
based on the flow and the amount of cyanide being treated, and
sulfuric acid consumption is based on flow and sodium hydroxide
consumption.

Chemical costs have been based on the following unit prices:

     $ 600 Per ton of chlorine (August, 1979 price)
     $1462 Per ton of sodium hypochlorite (August, 1979 price)
     $ 699 Per ton of sodium hydroxide (August, 1979 price)
     $ 113 Per ton of sulfuric acid (August, 1979 price)

The assumption has been made that the plants operate 24 hours
per day,  260 days per year.   This assumption overestimates the
costs for facilities which operate less than 24 hours per day.

Energy Costs - Motor horsepower requirements for chemical mixing
have been described above.  Mixing equipment is assumed to
operate continuously over the operation time of the treatment
system for both the continuous and batch modes.  Pump motor
                              VIII-17

-------
H
H

H
00
         10"
      0
      3  10s

       I
      in
      K

      j
      j
      0
(0
(0
0
o
s
*
0
         10"
      3
      Z
      Z
           10
                     CONTINUOUS
                          BATCH
                                100
                                                                           10"
                                                                                                 ioa
                                                            FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                                                                                10*
                                                          FIGURE 8-4

                                 ANNUAL O&M COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR CYANIDE OXIDATION

-------
horsepower requirements are calculated based on several var-
iables.  These include system flow, pump head and system oper-
ating time.

Annual energy expenses for batch and continuous cyanide oxida-
tion systems are shown in Figure 8-5 as a function of waste
stream flow rate.  Energy expenses have been estimated based
upon a rate of $Q.045/kilowatt hour of required electricity.
Plant operation was assumed to be for 24 hours/day, 260 days/
year.  For continuous treatment, the treatment system operates
during plant operation.  Batch treatment operation schedules
vary with flow rate as discussed above.

Chromium Reduction

This technology provides chemical reduction of hexavalent chro-
mium under acidic conditions to allow subsequent removal of the
trivalent form by precipitation as the hydroxide.  Treatment may
be provided in either continuous or batch mode; cost estimates
are developed for each.  Operating mode for system cost esti-
mates is selected on a least cost basis.

Investment Cost - Cost estimates include all required equipment
for performing this treatment technology including reagent
dosage, reaction tanks, mixers and controls.  Different reagents
are provided for batch and continuous treatment resulting in
different system design considerations as discussed below.

For both continuous and batch treatment, sulfuric acid is added
for pH control.  The acid is purchased at 93% concentration and
stored in the cylindrical drums in which it is purchased.

For continuous chromium reduction a single chromium reduction
tank is used.  Costs are estimated for an above-ground cylin-
drical rubber lined tank with a one hour retention time,  and an
excess capacity factor of 1.2.  Sulfur dioxide is added to
convert the influent hexavalent chromium to the trivalent form.
The control system for continuous chromium reduction consists
of:

     1    immersion pH probe and transmitter
     2    immersion ORP probes and transmitter
     1    pH monitor and controller
     1    ORP monitor and controller
     1    sulfonator and associated controls, diffuser,
          evaporator, and pressure regulator
     1    sulfuric acid pump
     2    dilute acid pumps and pump stands
     1    transfer pump for sulfur dioxide ejector with
          pump stand
     1    pH probe maintenance kit
     1     pen  recorder
     2     mixers
                             VIII-19

-------
H
M

to
O
 0
 3

 I
 V)
 £
 <
 _l
 _l
 0
 Q^

 in


 8
 u
 >•
 o
 o:
 Id
 Z
 Id
 _l
 <
 3
 Z
-Z-
          io
o
          10
                                                                                           • CONTINUOUS
                                                                                            BATCH
            100
                                                        10"
                                                                              10=
                                                              FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                           FIGURE 8-5

                                ANNUAL ENERGY COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR CYANIDE OXIDATION

-------
For batch chromium reduction, the dual chromium reduction tanks
are sized as above-ground cylindrical rubber-lined tanks, with a
variable retention time, depending on flow rates.  Up to a flow
of 400 I/day to chromium reduction, one batch is treated per 5
days of operation, and treatment tanks are sized to contain 5
days' flow.  Above this flow rate, one batch is treated each
day.  Sodium bisulfite is added to reduce the hexavalent chro-
mium.

A completely manual system is provided for batch operation.
Subsidiary equipment includes:

     2    immersion pH probes
     1    pH probe maintenance kit
     1    pH meter
     3    immersion ORP probes (one stand by)
     1    ORP meter
     1    sulfuric acid transfer pump and stand
     1    sulfuric acid dilution tank
     1    sulfuric acid feed pump and stand
     1    reduction tank drain transfer pump

Investment costs for batch and continuous treatment systems are
presented in Figure 8-6.

Operation and Maintenance - Costs for operating and maintaining
chromium reduction systems include labor and chemical expenses.
Annual operation and maintenance expenses for batch and continu-
ous chromium reduction systems are shown in Figure 8-7 as a
function of waste stream flow rate.

Labor requirements for batch treatment include 2 hours/week
maintenance, 45 minutes/batch treated and additional labor for
chemical handling depending on the amount of sulfuric acid
consumed.  For continuous treatment, labor requirements are 4
hours/week maintenance, 1 hour/day operation and additional
labor for chemical handling depending on the amount of sulfuric
acid consumed.

For the continuous system, sulfur dioxide is added according to
the following:


      (Ibs SO /day)  - (8.34) (flow to unit-MGD) (1.85xmg/lCr+6+4 x
                      mg/1 dissolved 02)  (1.1 excess capacity factor)

 In the batch mode,  sodium bisulfite is added in place of sulfur
 dioxide according to the following:

      (Ibs NaHSO /day)  = (8.34)(flow to unit-MGD)(2.74 x mg/lCr+6 +
                         5.94 x mg/1 dissolved 02)(1.1 excess
                         capacity factor)

 Costs for these labor and chemical requirements are estimated
 based on the following:


                              VIII-21

-------
NJ
         10°
       0

       3«««
        I
       OT
J
J
0
£

tn

V)
0
u
h
z
UI
       U)
       u

     —-z -----
          10-
            10
                      .CONTINUOUS
                           BATCH
                                        100
                                                       10°


                                                      FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                                                    10"
                                                                                                          10 =
                                                                                                                         10C
                                                                 FIGURE 8-6

                                                 CHROMIUM REDUCTION INVESTMENT COSTS

-------
 I
w
U)
          10"
        01
        rs

        0
        D
        I
        V)
        a:
0
Q

V)

V)
0
u
        0
        -l
        <
        D
        Z
        Z
          105
  10"
          10"
            100
                             BATCH--
                                                                                           ^
                                  10J
                                                        10"
                                                                               10 =
                                                                                              10"
                                                             FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                                FIGURES-?

                                       ANNUAL O&M COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR CHROMIUM REDUCTION

-------
     $6.71 per manhour +15% indirect labor charge
     $760. per ton of sulfur dioxide
     $280. per ton of sodium metabisulfite  (1978 dollars)

Energy Costs - The horsepower required for chemical mixing is
estimated based on tank volumes at 1 hp per 1,000 gallons.  The
mixers are assumed to operate continuously :over the operation
time of the treatment system.  Pump motor horsepower require-
ments are calculated based on system flow, pump head, and oper-
ating time.  Energy expenses are estimated based on a rate of
$0.045/kilowatt hour of required electricity.

Chemical Precipitation and Settling

This technology removes dissolved pollutants by the formation of
precipitates by reaction with added lime and subsequent removal
of the precipitated solids by gravity settling in a clarifier.
Several distinct operating modes and construction techniques are
costed to provide least cost treatment over a broad range of
flow rates.  Because of their interrelationships and integration
in common equipment in some installations, both the chemical
addition and solids removal equipment are addressed in a single
subroutine.  The chemical precipitation/sedimentation subroutine
also incorporates an oil skimming device on the clarifier for
removal of floating oils.                  '•

Investment Costs - Investment costs are determined for this
technology for both batch and continuous treatment systems using
steel tank or concrete tank construction.  jThe system selected
is based upon least cost on an annual basis as discussed previ-
ously in this section of the development document.  Continuous
treatment systems include a mix tank for reagent feed addition
(flocculation basin) and a clarification basin with associated
sludge rakes and pumps.  Batch treatment systems include only
reaction settling tanks and sludge pumps.

The flocculator included in the continuous chemical precipita-
tion and sedimentation system can be either a steel tank or
concrete tank unit.  The concrete unit is based on a 45 minute
retention time, a length to width ratio of'5, a depth of 8 feet,
a wall thickness of 1 foot, and a 20 percent excess capacity
factor.  The steel unit size is based on a 45 minute retention
time, and a 20 percent excess capacity factor.  Capital costs
for the concrete units include excavation (as required).  A
mixer is included in flocculators of both constructions.

The concrete settling tank included in the'continuous chemical
precipitation and clarification system is an in-ground unit
sized for a hydraulic loading of 33.3 gph/square foot, a wall
thickness of 1 foot, and an excess capacity factor of 20 per-
cent.  The steel settling tank included in:the continuous chem-
ical precipitation and sedimentation system is a circular above-
                            VIII-24

-------
ground unit sized for a hydraulic loading of 33.3 gph/square
foot, and an excess capacity factor of 20 percent.  The depth of
the circular steel tank is assumed to increase linearly between
six and fifteen feet for tanks with diameters between eight and
twenty-four feet respectively.  For tanks greater than twenty-
four feet in diameter, the depth is assumed to be a constant
fifteen feet.  An allowance for field fabrication for the larger
volume steel settling tanks is included in the capital cost
estimation.

For batch treatment systems, dual above ground cylindrical steel
tanks sized for an eight hour retention period and a 20 percent
excess capacity factor are employed.  The batch treatment system
does not include a flocculation unit.

A fixed cost of $3,349 is included in the clarifier investment cost
estimates for sludge pumps regardless of whether above-ground
steel tanks (in the batch or continuous operation modes) or the
in-ground concrete settling tank are used.  This cost covers the
expense of two centrifugal sludge pumps.  Fixed costs of $2,346
and $12,902 are included to cover the expense of polymer feed
systems for the batch and continuous operation modes respec-
tively.  The $12,902 figure is included regardless of whether
concrete or steel tank construction is employed for the contin-
uous operation mode.

Lime addition for chemical precipitation in the batch mode is
assumed to be performed manually.  A variable cost allowance for
lime addition equipment is included in the continuous operation
mode.  This cost allowance covers the expense associated with a
lime storage hopper, feeding equipment, slurry formation and
mixing and slurry feed pumps.  The cost allowance increases as
clarifier tank size increases.

Figure 8-8 shows a comparison of investment cost curves for
batch and continuous chemical precipitation and sedimentation
systems.  The continuous treatment system investment cost
is based on a steel flocculation unit followed by a steel clari-
fication basin.  This combination of treatment components was
found to be less expensive than the concrete flocculation
basin, concrete clarification basin combination, or any
combination of steel and concrete flocculation and clarification
units.  The batch treatment investment curve is based upon two
above-ground cylindrical steel tank clarifier units.  Both the
continuous and batch system investment curves include allowances
for the sludge pump, polymer feed systems, and lime addition
equipment (continuous system only).

All costs presented above include motors, controls, pump stands,
and piping specifically associated with each treatment compo-
nent .

Operation and Maintenance Costs - The operation and maintenance
costs for the clarifier routine include the cost of chemicals
                              VII1-25

-------
I
NJ
         10'
       0
       3


       I
       V)
J
0
Q
           CONTINUOUS
V)
0
u
1-

u


Sto*
bl
         to-
                      TREATMENT
                BATCH
                      TREATMEN-
                                   MANUAL MIXING

                                   "OF TREATMENT

                                   TANKS
                                                  ONE PORTABLE

                                                  "MIXER
 FIXED MIXERS ON

"BOTH TREATMENT

 TANKS
           10
                                 100
                                                                              10"
                                                                                                    10 =
                                                                                                                    10"
                                                              FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                                   FIGURE 8-8
                                       CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION AND CLARIFICATION INVESTMENT COSTS

-------
added (lime, flocculants), and of labor for operation and mainte-
nance.  Each of these contributing factors is discussed below.

Figure 8-9 presents the annual manhour requirements for the
continuously operating chemical precipitation and settling
system.   For the batch system, maintenance labor is calculated
from the following equation:

Annual manhours for maintenance = 0.75 x (Days of operation per
                                  year)

Operational labor for the batch system is calculated from the
following equation:

Annual manhours for operation = 780 +  (1.3) (Ibs of lime added
                                per day)

Labor expenses have been estimated using a labor rate of $6.71
per manhour plus an additional 15% to cover indirect labor ex-
penses .

Lime is  added to the waste solution in order to precipitate
dissolved metals so that the metal may be removed from the waste
stream as settleable particulates.  The amount of lime required
for addition is based on equivalent amounts of various pollutant
parameters present in the waste stream entering the unit.  The
coefficients used for calculating lime requirements are shown in
Table 8-5.

The cost of lime required has been determined using a rate of:

     $44.61 per ton of lime   (August, 1979 price)

Figure 8-10 presents annual operation and maintenance cost
curves for the continuous and batch operation modes of the
chemical precipitation and settling system as a function of
waste stream flow rate.  The cost curves have been based on the
assumption that the waste treatment system will operate 24 hours
per day, 5 days per week, 260 days per year.

Energy Costs - The energy costs are calculated from the clar-
ifier and sludge pump horsepower requirements.

Continous Mode - The clarifier horsepower requirement is assumed
constant over the hours of operation of the treatment system at
a level  of 0.0000265 horsepower per 3.8 I/hour (1 gph) of flow
influent to the clarifier.  The sludge pumps are assumed opera-
tional for 5 minutes of each operational hour at a level of
0.00212 horsepower per 3.8 I/hour (1 gph) of sludge stream flow.

Batch Mode - The clarifier horsepower requirement is assumed to
occur for 7.5 minutes per operational hour at the following
level:
                             VI11-27

-------
   800
   700
K  600
U
oT
«  500
0

§  400
m
S  30°
tt
5
o
   100
                               I
I
I
I
             50
                     100
                                                       300
                                                               350
                              150      200     <>50
                             FLOW RATE (1000 L/HR)
                                   FIGURE 8-9
                    CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION AND SETTLING
        ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE LABOR REQUIREMENTS
                                                                        400
                               VI11-28

-------
V
Ni
^D
ANNUAL O&M COSTS (DOLLARS - AUG. '79
          10°
0

O
0
                          BATCH=^
                     .CONTINUOUS
0
U
                                                                                          ^
                                                                                                  s
                                                                                               *'
            100
                                10
                                                     10
                                                                          I0
                                                                                               10
10y
                                                          FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                             FIGURE 8-10

                                          ANNUAL O&M COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR CLARIFIER

-------
     influent flow < 3944 I/hour; 0.0048 hp/gph

     influent flow > 3944 I/hour; 0.0096 hp/gph

The power required for the sludge pumps in the batch system is
the same as that required for the sludge pumps in the continuous
system.  Energy costs for these requirements are estimated based
on a unit cost of $0.045/kilowatt hour of required electricity.

                     TABLE 8-5

            LIME ADDITIONS FOR LIME PRECIPITATION
                                   Lime Addition
Stream Parameter                   kg/kg  (Ibs/lb)

Aluminum                                0.81
Antimony                                4.53
Arsenic                                 1.75
Cadmium                                 2.84
Chromium                                2.73
Cobalt                                  2.35
Copper                                  1.38
Iron  (Dissolved)                        1.28
Lead                                    2.19
Magnesium                               0.205
Manganese                               3.50
Mercury                                 1.48
Nickel                                  0.42
Selenium                                1.45
Silver                                  3.23
Zinc                                    1.25

Chemical Emulsion Breaking

Chemical emulsion breaking removes emulsified oil droplets from
suspension through chemical destabilization.  Destabilization
allows the oil droplets to agglomerate, rise to the surface of
the separation tank, and be removed from  the wastewater by
surface skimming mechanisms.  This technology assumes that the
waste oil emulsion is capable of being broken through chemical
addition only, and that addition of heat will not be required.

In this waste treatment system, emulsified oil wastes are mixed
with alum and chemical polymers, then allowed to separate via
gravity separation in a settling tank.  Once separation has
occurred, the waste oils can be skimmed from the tank surface
and disposed.  The remaining wastewater is either passed on to
further treatment or discharged depending on the waste treatment
system.

Chemical emulsion breaking can be performed in either a continu-
ous or a batch mode.  Each operating mode, the equipment asso-
ciated with each mode, and the design and operating assumptions
incorporated are discussed in the following paragraphs.


                           VIII-30

-------
Investment Costs - The investment costs associated with the
continuous and batch operating modes for chemical emulsion
breaking are shown in Figure 8-11 as a function of waste stream
flow rate.  For the continuous operating mode, the cost curve is
based upon the purchase and installation of the following equip-
ment :

     2    946 liter (250 gallon) alum dilution tanks
     2    Alum dilution tank mixers
     2    Variable speed alum feed pumps (with pump
          stands and associated automatic control equipment)
     2    946 liter (250 gallon) polymer dilution tanks
     2    Polymer dilution tank mixers
     2    Variable speed polymer feed pumps (with pump
          stands and associated automatic control equipment)
     1    Steel mixing tank with liner for chemical addition
          (sized for 15 minute retention time)
     1    Mixing tank mixer (motor horsepowe'r variable with
          mixing tank volume)
     1    Steel gravity separation tank with liner, weirs,
          and baffles (sized for 1 hour retention time)
     1    Separation tank surface oil skimming mechanism
     1    Skimmed oil transfer pump
     1    Waste oil storage tank (steel tank with liner, sized
          for 20 day retention)
     1    Separation tank effluent transfer pump

For the chemical emulsion breaking unit operated in the batch
mode, the cost curve is based upon the purchase and installation
of the following equipment:

     1    946 liter (250 gallon) alum dilution tank
     1    Alum dilution tank mixer
     1    Alum feed pump with pump stand
     1    946 liter (250 gallon) polymer dilution tank
     1    Polymer dilution tank mixer
     1    Polymer feed pump with pump stand
     2    Steel gravity separation tanks with liners
          (sized for variable retention depending on least cost
          mode)
     2    Tank mixers (motor hp variable with separation
          tank volume)
     1    Separation tank effluent transfer pump

The chemical emulsion breaking system (both batch and continuous
operating modes) have been sized for a 20% excess capacity
factor.  Selection of the operating mode is based on a least
cost basis as discussed previously in the Section VIII text.

Operation and Maintenance Costs - The operation and maintenance
costs associated withthe chemical emulsion breaking unit con-
sist of labor and material expenses.
                              VII1-31

-------
V
CO
       0
       3
       <
       l
       tfl
0
Q


W
0
U
h

U
2

U)
u
  10J
                BATCH-
         10"
          to-
                                                          1 BATCH/DAY
2 BATCH/SHIFT
            100
                                                       10"
                                                                             10 =
                                                                                                                 10'
                                                           FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                           FIGURE 8-11

                                            EMULSION BREAKING INVESTMENT COSTS

-------
Annual labor expenses for both the continuous and batch op-
erating modes for the chemical emulsion breaking unit are shown
in Figure 8-12 as a function of waste stream flow rate.  For the
continuous operating mode, labor requirements are based on  ':.
estimated manhours required for diluting and mixing the polymer
and alum solutions and operating the unit.  General operation
labor has been estimated at 0.75 manhours per 8 hour shift.
General maintenance of the entire system has been estimated at 2
manhours per week.

For the batch operating mode, labor requirements are based on
estimated manhours required for diluting and mixing the polymer
and alum solutions and operating the unit.  General operation
labor has been estimated at 0.75 manhours required per batch.
General maintenance of the entire system has been estimated at 1
manhour per week.

Labor expenses have been calculated using a labor rate of $6.71
per manhour plus an additional 15% to cover indirect labor
costs.

Material costs are associated with the alum and polymer chemical
addition requirements.  Polymer is added to the wastewater until
a concentration of 150 mg/1 is attained.  Alum is added to the
wastewater until a concentration of 25 mg/1 is attained.  Chem-
ical costs have been based upon the following unit prices;

          $0.38 per kg of alum
          $1.55 per kg of polymer                       ,    •

The assumption has been made that the unit operates 24 hours per
day, 5 days per week, 52 weeks per year.

Energy Costs - Annual energy expenses for the chemical emulsion
break ing sy s tern (both batch and continuous operating modes)- -are
shown in Figure 8-13 as a function of waste stream flow rate.
These costs are based on operation of the dilution tank mixers,
chemical feed pumps, mixing and separation tank mixers (as
applicable), oil skimmer (as applicable), and solution transfer
pumps (oil and separation tank transfer pumps, as applicable).
Energy expenses have been estimated based upon a rate of $0.045/
kilowatt-hour of required electricity.  It has been assumed that
the unit operates 24 hours per day, 5 days per week, 52 weeks
per year.

Hold ing Tanks

Tanks serving a variety of purposes in wastewater treatment and
control systems are fundamentally similar in design and construc-
tion and in cost.  They may include equalization tanks, solution
holding tanks, slurry or sludge holding tanks, mixing tanks, and
settling tanks from which sludge is intermittently removed
manually or by sludge pumps.  Tanks for all of these purposes"
are addressed in a single cost estimation subroutine with addi-
tional costs for auxilliary equipment such as sludge pumps added
as appropriate.


                             VIII-33

-------
$
H

V
U)
        01
        ts



        0

        3
        i

        (0
        £
        0
        Q
(0
0
u
s
*


*I04
3
Z
Z
                 BATCH-
             too
                                  103
                                               10"
                                                                             10 =
106
                                                                                                                        10'
                                                            FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                            FIGURE 8-12

                                ANNUAL O&M COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR CHEMICAL EMULSION BREAKING

-------
H

V
OJ
         10
        0
        3
        w 10-
        K
U)


8
u

o
K
U
Z
U  2
j 102

D
Z
Z
           100
                      CONTINUOUS
                                                          BATCH.
                                                                         /.
                                                  10"
                                                                      10 =
                                                      FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                                                                 7
                                                                                          10"
                                                                                                             10
                                                          FIGURE 8-13

                              ANNUAL ENERGY COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR CHEMICAL EMULSION BREAKING

-------
Investment Costs - Costs are estimated for steel tanks.  Tank
construction may be specified as input data, or determined on a
least cost basis.  Retention time is specified as input data
and, together with stream flow rate, determines tank size.
Investment costs for steel tanks sized for 0.5 days retention
and 20% excess capacity are shown as functions of stream flow
rate in Figure 8-14.  These costs include mixers, pumps and
installation.

Operation and Maintenance Costs - For all holding tanks except
sludge holding tanks, operation and maintenance costs are min-
imal in comparison to other system O&M costs.  Therefore only
energy costs for pump and mixer operation are determined.  These
energy costs are presented in Figure 8-15.

For sludge holding tanks, additional operation and maintenance
labor requirements are reflected in increased O&M costs.  The
required manhours used in cost estimation are prsented in Figure
8-16.  Labor costs are determined using a labor rate of $6.71
per manhour plus 15% indirect labor charge.

Where tanks are used for settling as in lime precipitation and
clarification batch treatment, additional operation and mainte-
nance costs are calculated as discussed specifically for each
technology.

Multimedia Filtration

This technology provides removal of suspended solids by filtra-
tion through a bed of particles of several distinct size ranges.
As a polishing treatment after chemical precipitation and clar-
ification processes, multimedia filtration provides improved
removal of precipitates and thereby improved removal of the
original dissolved pollutants,             '

Investment Costs - The size of the granular bed multimedia
filtration unit is based on 20%_excess flow capacity and a
hydraulic loading of 81.5 Ipm/m .  Investment cost is presented
in Figure 8-17 as a function of flow installation.

Operation and Maintenance - The costs shown in Figure 8-18 for
operation and maintenance include contributions of materials,
electricity and labor.  These curves result! from correlations
made with data obtained by a major manufacturer.  Energy costs
are estimated to be 3% of total O&M.

Ultrafiltration

Ultrafiltration is a separation process involving the use of a
semipermeable polymeric membrane.  The porous membrane acts as a
barrier, separating molecular sized particulates from the waste
stream.  Membrane permeation by particulates is dependent upon
particulate size, shape and chemical structure.  Solvents and
lower molecular weight solutes are typically passed through the
                             VIII-36

-------
  to
u
3 10-

I
m
K

J
J
0
Q

(A

(A
0
U
I-
Z
III
s
H
H

-J
                                                                                (BASED ON o.s DAY  RETENTION-
                                                                                INCLUDED ARE MIXER & TRANSFER  PUMP)
  10
  to
    100
                         10-
                                               10"
                                                                     10 =
                                                     FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                                                           10°
                                                  FIGURE 8-14

                                         HOLDING TANK INVESTMENT COSTS

-------
104
103
too
1















































































































































































































































-


























- • " -


























-

































































































































































»


























*























s*
JS
^r
. . ^





















s
f



... . .




















/





'




















'





_..














































>


























/


























^























>"
s
t






(B
P(













y
f
/

















J



















/




















/








































/




















t

















/
f
/


































































































ASED ON O.S DAY RETENTION -
3WER FOR MIXER AND TRANSFER PUMP



























































)





















































































30 103 104 105 106 'O7
                   FLOW (L/DAY)
                 FIGURE 8-15
ANNUAL ENERGY COSTS VS. FLOW FOR HOLDING TANKS

-------
        10"
        10J
      n
      a
      D
      0
      X
      z
      0
      CD
s
M
M
OJ
        100
        10
         100
TOTAL LABOR
      i—r—i-
  OPERATION
                                    -MAINTENANCE
                             10J
             10"
                                                                      10s
                                                      10s
                                                                                                               10'
                                                        FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                  FIGURE 8-16

                               LABOR REQUIREMENTS VS. FLOW FOR SLUDGE HOLDING TANKS

-------
I
£>
o
10°


INVESTMENT COST (DOLLARS - AUG, '79)
o o o
W £> Ul
























































































































































































_



s


























s


























s


























/

























X


























/

























/
























-

/

























s\


























s




















































s
























x^
^
^





















^
x^
r


-





















X


























/


























x


























x


























^




















































s

























X
X
PACKfl























S
/

GED























X


UN






















X*



IT





















/I
1


























^



C






















X



>rv


























I-S



















.^
^^
t*r




ITE FABI




- -












^X
*r







RICA




. 	












xx








no

















X








N




"












X


























X


























X


























f


















           too
                                10-
                                                     to"
10s
                                                           FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                               FIGURE 8-17

                                               MULTIMEDIA FILTRATION INVESTMENT COSTS

-------
at
IN

0

< 105
I
(0
a:
4
0
a

(0

(0
0
u
2
*
0
j
4
D
Z
Z

  103
     100
                         103
105
                                                                                      10'
                                                   FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                 FIGURE 8-18

                        ANNUAL O&M COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR MULTIMEDIA FILTRATION

-------
membrane, while dissolved or dispersed materials with molecular
weights in the range of 1,000 to 100,000 are removed from solu-
tion.

The ultrafiltration process occurs when a. waste solution is
pumped under a fixed head (10 to 100 psig) through a tubular
membrane unit.  Water and low molecular weight materials pass
through the membrane and are recycled, passed on to further
treatment or are discharged.  Emulsified oils and larger sized
suspended particulates are blocked by the! membrane and are thus
concentrated in a continuously discharged waste stream.  The
concentrated waste solution can then be passed on to further
treatment or disposal.                   ,

Investment Costs - The investment cost curve for the ultra-
filtration unit has been calculated using information supplied
by leading manufacturers in the industry.!  Figure 8-19 presents
investment cost information for ultrafiltration systems as a
function of waste stream flow rate.  This cost curve has been
generated based upon purchase and installation of a complete
package ultrafiltration system.  This system includes the fol-
lowing equipment:

     1    wastewater flow equalization tank
     1    wastewater process tank
     1    set of ultrafiltration membrane modules (quantity
          variable with wastewater flow rate)
     1    set of transfer and circulation pumps
     1    acid feed system (includes storage and pumps as
          required for membrane cleaning)
     1    set of process controls and instrumentation

Operation and Maintenance Costs - Annual operation and main-
tenance costs for the ultrafiltration system are shown in Figure
8-20 as a function of waste stream flow rate.  This cost curve
includes labor and materials required for system operation.  The
operation and maintenance cost curve has been estimated based
upon information supplied by a leading ultrafiltration system
manufacturer.  The curve is based on the assumption that the
system operates 24 hours per day, 5 days per week, 52 weeks per
year.

Energy Costs - Annual energy costs for the ultrafiltration
system are shown in Figure 8-21 as a function of waste stream
flow rate.  This cost curve has been generated based upon infor-
mation supplied by a leading ultrafiltration system manufac-
turer.  The curve is based on the assumption that the system
operates 24 hours per day, 5 days per week, 52 week per year.

Carbon Adsorption

This technology removes organic pollutants and suspended solids
by pore adsorption, surface reactions, and physical filtering by
the carbon grains.  It typically follows other types of treat-
                             VIII-42

-------
s
M
2
U)
   10'
o  io6
3
-I
-I
0
£

I-
V)
0
U
Z
U
Z

in
ui
        10 =
   10"
     too
                          10-
                                              10"
                                                                    10 =
                                                    FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                                                                             10'
                                                  FIGURE 8-19

                                    ULTRAFILTRATION INVESTMENT COSTS

-------
       10'
l-l
     0
     3 ios
      I
     10
     K.
-I
0
Q

(0

(0
0
U
s
*
     <
     3
     Z
     Z
       10-
                                                                                  Z
                                                                                X
                                                                                  Z
                                                                                                                               10'
                                                                                                                              o
                                                                                                                         ,06  3
      _J
      _J
      o
      Q

      (0

      (0
      0
      U
                                                                                                                               I05  J
                                                                                                                                   Z
                                                                                                                                   <
          100
                                10J
                                                                               10a
                                                                                                 10C
  10"

107
                                                             FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                                   FIGURE 8-20

                                           ANNUAL O&M COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR ULTRAFILTRATION

-------
10"
DOLLARS- AUG. '79
ANNUAL ENERGY COS
0
0
                                                                                                       10«
                                                                                                       10s
                                                                                                       10*
  100
                     10-
                                         10"
10"
                                                                                                     10'
                                            FLOW (L/DAY)
                                               FIGURE 8-21
                         ANNUAL ENERGY COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR ULTRAFILTRATION

-------
merit as a means of polishing the effluent.  A variety of carbon
adsorption systems exist:  upflow, downflow, packed bed, ex-
panding bed, regenerative, and throwaway.  Regeneration of
carbon requires an expensive furnace and fuel for regeneration
that are not required for a throwaway system.  Large systems may
find that the high cost of replacement carbon makes a regenera-
tive system economically attractive.

Investment Costs - The investment costs presented in Figure 8-22
are for a packed-bed throwaway system as based on the EPA
Technology Transfer Process Design Manual for Carbon Adsorption.
They include a contactor system, a pump station, and initial
carbon.  The design assumes a contact time_of 30 minutes, a
hydraulic loading of 1.41 liters/minute/ft  (4 gpm/ft ,) and 20%
excess capacity.

Operation and Maintenance Costs - The chief operation and mainte-
nance costs are labor and replacement carbon.  The labor hours
required are computed using Figure 8-23 which is taken from an
EPA Technology Transfer.  The labor unit cost used is $6.71/hr
plus 15% indirect charges.  The replacement carbon cost was
calculated by assuming:

     1)   One pound of replacement carbon is required
          per pound of organics removed.

     2)   The influent organic concentration (materials
          effectively adsorbed) is 0.42 mg/1.

     3)   Activated carbon costs $2.62/kg. ($1.19 Ib).

Energy Costs - Energy is required for carbon adsorption operated
in the throwaway mode for the operation of pumps.  Costs for  :
this electrical energy requirement based on a unit cost of
$0.045/kilowatt hour of required electricity are shown as a
function of wastewater flow rate in Figure 8-24.

Sludge Drying Beds

This technology provides for the dewatering of sludge by means
of gravity drainage and natural evaporation.  Beds of highly
permeable gravel and sand underlain by drain pipes allow the
water to drain easily from the sludge.  This is a non energy-
intensive alternative to sludge dewatering.

Investment Costs - The curve shown in Figure 8-25 illustrates
the correlation used to estimate the cost of sludge drying beds.
The investment cost is a function of both the flow rate to the
beds and the settleable solids concentration in the stream
influent to the sludge beds; however, the effect of solids
concentration is very small in comparison to the dependence on
flow rate.  The cost estimates presented include excavation,
fill, drain and feed pipes, and concrete splash boxes.
                             VIII-46

-------
        10'
I
^
-J
       o>
       IS
       I
       V)
       a:
o
£


in
0
U
1-
z
1U
       111
       >
       z
        10'
          100
                                                       10"
                                                                              10'
                                                                                                                           10'
                                                              FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                          FIGURE 8-22

                                             CARBON ADSORPTION INVESTMENT COSTS

-------
          10=
I
4^
CO
        0
        3
        <

        in
        K
in
0
(J
2
*
0

<
3
Z
Z
          10'
            100
                                                                          10 =
                                                                                       10*
10'
                                                         FLOW (U/DAY)
                                                            FIGURE 8-23

                                   ANNUAL O&M COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR CARBON ADSORPTION

-------
10"
ANNUAL ENERGY COSTS (DOLLARS - AUG, '79
o
0
M
lot-
 too
                                                                              iZ
                                                                                                                   10s
                                                                                                                    to"
                                                                                                                    toj
                                                                                                                        ai
                                                                                                                        r»

                                                                                                                        0
                                                                                                                        3
                                                                                                                       in
                                                                                                                       K.
                                                                                                                       <
                                                                                                                       j
                                                                                                                       j
                                                                                                                       0
                                                                                                                       0

                                                                                                                       in

                                                                                                                       in
                                                                                                                       0
                                                                                                                       u
                                                                                                                       >•
                                                                                                                       (5
                                                                                                                       E
                                                                                                                       Ul
                                                                                                                       Z
                                                                                                                       Ul
                                                                                                                       J

                                                                                                                       3
                                                                                                                       Z
                                                                                                                       Z
                        10
                                              I0
                                                                     10
                                                                                           106
                                                                                                                 I0
                                                   FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                       FIGURE 8-24

                           ANNUAL ENERGY COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR CARBON ADSORPTION

-------
         10°
79
H

r
Ul
o
o
o
                                                       X

o
           10
                               100
                                                   10
                                                                       10'
10'
                                                         FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                            FIGURE 8-25

                                               SLUDGE DRYING BEDS INVESTMENT COSTS

-------
Operation and Maintenance - Operation and maintenance costs for
sludge drying bedsinclude labor and materials.  Labor require-
ments include routine operation and maintenance and periodic
removal of sludge from the beds.  Material costs include the
replacement of sand and gravel removed with the sludge.

The cost of labor and material required to maintain and operate
the sludge beds is shown as a function of flow rate to the beds
in Figure 8-26.

Vacuum Filtration

Vacuum filtration is widely used to reduce the water content of
high solids streams.  In the metal finishing category, this
technology is applied to dewatering sludge from clarifiers,
where the volume of sludge is too large for economical dewater-
ing in sludge drying beds.

Investment Costs - The vacuum filter is sized based on a typical
loading of 14.6 kilograms of influent solids per hour per square
meter of filter area (3 Ibs/ft /hr).  The investment costs are
shown as a function of sludge flow rate to the filter in Figure
8-27.  The investment costs shown on this curve include installa-
tion costs and correspond to a solids content of 4.5% in the
influent to the filter, typical of the sludge stream from»a
clarifier.

Operation and Maintenance Costs - Annual costs for operation and
maintenance for vacuum filtration include both operation and
maintenance labor and the cost of materials and supplies.  These
costs are presented as a function of sludge flow rate to the
filter in Figure 8-28.

The vacuum filtration subroutine calculates operating hours per
year based on flow rate and the total suspended solids concentra-
tion in the influent stream.  Maintenance labor for vacuum
filtration is fixed at 24 manhours per year.

The cost of materials and supplies needed for operation and
maintenance includes belts, oil, grease, seals, and chemicals
required to raise the total suspended solids to the vacuum
filter.  The amount of chemicals required (iron and alum) is
based on raising the TSS concentration to the filter by 1 mg/1.

Energy Costs - Electrical costs needed to supply power for pumps
and controls are presented in Figure 8-29.  The required horse-
power of the pumps is dependent on the influent TSS level.  The
costs shown are based on a unit cost of $0.045/kilowatt hour of
required electricity.

Countercurrent Rinsing

This technology is applied in rinsing operations to substan-
tially improve the efficiency of rinse water use and decrease
                            VI11-51

-------
M

V
171
NJ
,06



1 ANNUAL O&M COSTS (DOLLARS - AUG, '79)
000
_, W fe 01



































SLUDGE
HAULED-*
WET
NO DRYING
BEDS
COSTEI




D





















H




I




















































=a

























^

























•

























•

























•

























	 *•


























— H


























*-—

























p^-

























--


























**


























'

























f


























*
























^^^
^^^^
























x


























X









































\










/


























*

























f
/



























t





















.
s
y
f
/




















,
/













	











/









































_







































































































































_ _ _. ... .
















































































_











































































































































00 103 I04 105 106 107
                                                            FLOW (L/DAY)



                                                              FIGURE 8-26

                                           ANNUAL O&M COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR SLUDGE BEDS

-------
M

V
Ul
OJ
INVESTMENT COST (DOLLARS - AUG. '79)
0000
t> 01 O> SJ







































[VACUUM
FILTER




















I

NOT COSTED
SLUGE
DISPOSED
-WET
















































































































































































































































































••"••


























•^M


























••


























••


























•




















































^^~~*^

























^

























^^


























*^~

























4*


























**




















































+•




















































^f


























*^


























*>*


























^>


























•*


























X*




















































X'


























.X-







































































































































































































         100
                             10
                                                10
                                                                    10
                                                                                        10
                                                                                                            10'
                                                      FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                  FIGURE 8-27

                                      VACUUM FILTRATION INVESTMENT COSTS

-------
ANNUAL O&M COSTS (DOLLARS- AUG, '79)
o o o o
•• u> £• 01 o>























. ...





















-^


























H




f




















































































SLUDGE
HAULED
WET
VACUUM
NOT


































FILTER
COSTED


iii





*•





*•





^





m





^







— —•

























*-^"

-























^^


- •-


























—






















X*

























^


























x


























<•


























X


























^




'-




















J*
X

























X


























x

























,/


























x




















































/


























/























X
X
X





















/
x'
^
























/








































-










































































































































































































































































































































)0 103 104 JO5 106 JO
                     FLOW (L/DAY)
                        FIGURE 8-28
ANNUAL O&M COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR VACUUM FILTRATION

-------
           10«
01
U1
•
0
a:
u
z
u
_1
<
D
Z
Z
<
o
01
o
 SLUDGE

"HAULED

 WET

"VACUUM

 FILTER

 NOT

•COSTED
           10J
            too
                                    10
                                                           10"
                                                                           10 =
                                                                                                   10V
                                                               FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                                                                                           10'
                                                                  FIGURE 8-29

                                       ANNUAL ENERGY COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR VACUUM FILTRATION

-------
the volume of wastewater generated.  In countercurrent rinsing
the product is rinsed in several tanks in series.  Water flows
counter to the movement of product so that clean water enters
the last rinse tank from which clean product is removed, and
wastewater is discharged from the first rinse tank which re-
ceives the contaminated product to be rinsed.  Two different
countercurrent rinsing modes are addressed in costing depending
on whether wastewater is discharged from the rinse or is used as
make-up for evaporative losses from a process bath.  The costs
of countercurrent rinsing without using the first stage for
evaporative loss recovery are presented in Table 8-6 as a func-
tion of the number of rinse tanks utilized.  Costing assumptions
are:

Investment Costs - Unit cost is based on open top stainless
steel tanks with a depth of 1.22 meters (4 feet), length of 1.22
meters (4 feet), and width of 0.91 meters (3 feet). Investment
cost includes all water and air piping, a blower on each rinse
tank for agitation, and programmed hoist line conversions.

Operation and Maintenance Costs - Operation and maintenance
costsinclude a cost for electricity for the blowers based on a
capacity of 1,219 liters/min./sg. meter of tank surface, area (4
cfm/sq. ft.) at a discharge pressure of 1,538 kg/meter /meter of
tank depth (1 psi/18 in.). Fan efficiency is assumed to be 60
percent.  A water charge based on a rinse ratio of 8,180 is also
included.  Rinse maintenance charges are assumed to be negli-
gible when compared to normal plating line maintenance and are
ignored.

                          TABLE 8-6        ;
        COUNTERCURRENT RINSE (FOR OTHER THA1N RECOVERY
                OF EVAPORATIVE PLATING LOSS)


Number of Rinse Tanks:          3         4j         5

Investment:                   10,794   13,8,85     16,978

Annual Costs:

     Capital Cost                909    1,170      1,430

     Depreciation              2,158    2,777      3,396

     Operation & Maintenance
     Costs (Excluding Energy
     & Power Costs)               27       ;12          8

     Energy & Power Costs        511      682        851

     Total Annual Costs      $3,605    $4,641     $5,685
                            VIII-56

-------
The costs of countercurrent rinsing with a rinse flow rate
sufficient to replace plating tank evaporative losses are pre-
sented in Table 8-7.  The results are tabulated for various
evaporative rates which are equal to the rinse water flow rates,
Costing assumptions are:

                          TABLE 8-7

          COUNTERCURRENT RINSE USED FOR RECOVERY OF
                  EVAPORATIVE PLATING LOSS
Evaporative Rate
(Liters/Hr):                     15.3      24.0      50.8

Investment:                   $15,430   $12,736   $10,042

Annual Costs:

     Capital Costs              1,301     1,074       847
     Depreciation               3,086     2,547     2,008

     Operation & Maintenance
     Costs  (Excluding Energy
     & Power Costs)                 5         7        16

     Energy & Power Costs         714       572       428

       Total Annual Cost      $ 5,105   $ 4,200   $ 3,300

Note:     Savings due to recovery of plating solution are not
          presented in this table.

Investment  Costs - Unit cost is based on a sufficient number of
rinse stages to replace the evaporative loss from a plating bath
at approximately 43 degrees C while also maintaining a rinse
ratio of 8,180.

Investment  costs include open top stainless steel tanks with a
depth of 0.91 meters (3 feet), length of 1.22 meters (4 feet),
and width of 1.22 meters (4 feet).  All water and air piping, a
blower on each rinse tank for agitation, a liquid level con-
troller, solenoid, and pump are also included in the investment
cost.  Operation is assumed to be programmed.  Hoist and line
conversion  costs are included.

Operation and Maintenance Costs - Operation and maintenance
costs include a cost for electricity for the blowers based on a
capacity of 1.219 liters/min/sq. meter of tank surface area (4
cfm/sq. ft.) at a discharge pressure of 1,538 kg/sq. meter/meter
of tank depth (1 psi/18 in.).  A fan efficiency of 60 percent is
assumed.  A water charge is also included.  Rinse maintenance
charges are assumed to be neglible when compared to normal
plating line maintenance and are ignored.
                              VIII-57

-------
Submerged Tube Evaporation

In this technology, contaminants present in process wastewater
are concentrated by removing the water as vapor.  Evaporation is
accomplished by applying heat, and the evaporated water is
condensed using non-contact cooling water, and reclaimed for
process use.  Costs generated in this subroutine are based on
double effect evaporation in which heat contained in vapor from
the first stage (effect) is used to evaporate water from the
second.

Investment Costs - Investment costs for this technology are
estimated based on data supplied by a manufacturer of submerged
tube evaporation equipment.  As shown by the plot of costs
versus wastewater flow rate in Figure 8-30, costs were supplied
for units of specified capacities which are available from the
manufacturer.  Cost estimates are based on the smallest avail-
able unit which is adequate for the specified wastewater flow
rate.  The investment costs shown include the evaporation unit
and purification devices required for the return of the evapora-
tion concentrate to a process bath.  Costs for installation of a
non-contact cooling loop are not included.  The availability of
this service on-site is assumed.

Operation and Maintenance Costs - Estimates for operation and
maintenance costs are based on manufacturer supplied data.
These costs are shown as a function of wastewater flow rate in
Figure 8-31.

Energy Costs - Energy is required in this technology primarily
to supply the heat of vaporization for the evaporated water.
The use of a double effect evaporator significantly reduces the
total amount of heat consumed per unit of water evaporated.

Energy requirements are based on an evaporative heat of 583
cal/gram of water which is reduced to an effective value of 292
cal/gram in the double effect unit.  Fuel consumption is based
on a lower heat value of 10,140 cal/gram with an 85% heat re-
covery efficiency.  Energy costs based on these factors are
shown in Figure 8-32 as a function of wastewater flow rate to
the evaporator.

Contract Removal

Sludge, waste oils, and in some cases concentrated waste solu-
tions frequently result from wastewaster treatment processes.
These may be disposed of on-site by incineration, landfill or
reclamation, but are most often removed on a contract basis for
off-site disposal.  System cost estimates;presented in this
report are based on contract removal of sludges.  In addition,
where only small volumes of concentrated wastewater are pro-
duced, contract-removal or off-site treatment may represent the
most cost effective approach to water pollution abatement.
Estimates of solution contract haul costs are also provided by
                             VIII-58

-------
I
(Jl
10"
oT
ts
0
3. .5
INVESTMENT COST (DOLLARS - A
o o e
— w t>











































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































0 '00 103






























































































































•
























r
t—1
__J























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































104 10s 106
                                                   FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                       FIGURE 8-30
                              SUBMERGED TUBE EVAPORATION (DOUBLE EFFECT) INVESTMENT COSTS

-------
        10=
V

-------
        to
      0
      3
M
V
-I
J
0
Q

W

OT
0
U
>•
(9
K
U
Z
U  o
_. '0-
<
3
Z
z
<
0
O
         100
                            10
                                               104
                                                                  10
                                                                                     to
                                                                                                        to
                                                     FUOW (U/DAY)
                                               FIGURE 8-32
                     ANNUAL ENERGY COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR SUBMERGED TUBE EVAPORATION

-------
 this subroutine and may be selected in place of on-site treat-
 ment on a least-cost basis.

 Investment Costs - Investment for contract removal is zero.

 Operating Costs - Annual costs are estimated for contract re-
 moval of total waste streams of sludge and oil streams as spec-
 ified in input data.  Sludge and oil removal costs are further
 divided into wet and dry haulage depending upon whether or not
 upstream sludge dewatering is provided.   The use of wet haulage
 or of sludge dewatering and  dry haulage  is based on least cost
 as determined by annualized  system costs over a ten year period.
 Wet haulage costs are always used when the volume of the sludge
 stream is less than 100 gallons per day.

 Both wet sludge haulage and  total waste  haulage differ in cost
 depending on the chemical composition of the waste removed.
 Wastes are classified as cyanide bearing, hexavalent chromium
 bearing, or oily and assigned different  haulage costs as shown
 below.                                    |

      Waste Composition             Haulage .Cost

      >0.05 mg/1 CN-                $0.16/liter ($0.60/gallon)
      X).l mg/1 Cr+6                $0.18/liter ($0.56/gallon)
      Oil & grease-TSS              $0.08/liter (0.30/gallon)
      All others                    $0.06/liter (0.24/gallon)

 Dry sludge haul costs are estimated at $0.07/liter ($0.27/
 gallon).

RCRA COST ANALYSIS

RCRA costs were originally developed for sludge disposal from
electroplating plants using data from 48 surveyed plants and from
contacting haulers.  Of the 48 plants surveyed. 38 plants had
their waste hauled  to a commercial or municipal site for disposal
while  10 plants disposed  of the sludge at company owned sites.
The cost for  transport and disposal of these sludges reported by
the plants varied from zero to $2.04 per gallon.  Haulers quoted
costs for transport and disposal ranging from $0.06 per gallon to
$2.80 per gallon, dependent on the quantity and type of sludge.

The detailed  results of the RCRA analyses are presented in:
"Electroplating RCRA Review - Technical Contractor's Final
Report." and  "RCRA  Impact Analysis for Sludge Disposal for the
Machinery and Mechanical  Products Category."  These reports along
with the supporting data  are available in the metal finishing
record.

RCRA sludge disposal was  recosted to reflect costs for the entire
Metal Finishing Category.  RCRA related costs were generated for
39 job shops. 100 captive indirects. and 103 captive directs.   For
each plant RCRA related annual costs, initial costs, and capital
costs were developed using the methods and equations presented in
"Guidance for RCRA  ISS Costs." Office of Analysis and Evaluation.
December 1980.

                            VIII-62

-------
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST ESTIMATES

This section presents estimates of the total cost of wastewater
treatment and control systems for metal finishing process waste-
water incorporating the treatment and control components dis-
cussed above.  Flows in the Metal Finishing Category vary from
approximately 378 to 3,785,000 liters/day (100 gpd to 1,000,000
gpd).  This wide variation in flow rate necessitates the presen-
tation of treatment system total annual cost curves for each
option.  Total annual costs have been plotted against flow in
units enabling the determination of cost for any flow rate.  All
available flow data from industry data collection portfolios
were used in defining the raw waste flows.  Raw waste character-
istics were determined based on sampling data as discussed in
Section V.

Cost curves for each option are presented for six different cases
for Option 1 and five different cases for Options 2 and 3.  Each
case corresponds to different types of plants encountered in the
Metal Finishing Category.  Cases one and two represent facilities
primarily engaged in electroplating.  In case two electroless pla-
ting is performed resulting in the presence of complexed metal
wastes.  Cases three and five represent integrated facilities com-
bining electroplating with other metal finishing operations.  In
case five electroless plating is practiced.  Case four represents
plants performing a variety of metal finishing operations including
heat treating, but without on-site electroplating, while case six
represents plants generating only oily wastewater.  The flow splits
for those cases as shown in Table 8-8 are based on the ratios of
the average wastewater flow rates from all subcategories included
in each case.  These flow splits are presented to show examples of
a broad range of cases which occur within the Metal Finishing
Category.

                          TABLE 8-8
          FLOW SPLIT CASES FOR OPTIONS 1, 2, AND 3


Case           Waste Type Flows (% of total plant flow)

                                                  Complexed
          Oily      Cyanide   Chromium  Metals    Metals

1

2

3         31.5

4         30

5         30        4         9         52.5      4.5

6        100

Five examples of varying total daily waste volumes (gallons per day)
have been presented for each of the six cases in order to provide a
range of estimated system costs.  The system costs presented include
component costs as discussed above and subsidiary costs including
                             VIII-63
Cyanide
7
6
4.5

4
Chromium
13
12.5
9

9
Metals
80
75.5
55
70
52. 5

-------
engineering, line  segregation, administration, and interest expenses
during construction.   In developing cost estimates for these option
systems,  it  is assumed that none of the specified treatment and con-
trol measures is in place so that  the presented costs represent total
costs for the systems.

Several of these system cost curves show discontinuities.  Some
of  these  result from  transitions occurring  in specific component
cost subroutines,  and others result from changes in system cost
factors.  Sludge dewaterina costs  are of particular signif-
icance. For  flows  below 10  I/day  sludge dewatering is accom-
plished using sludge  drying beds,  and cost  estimates reflect
this technology.   Above this flow  sludge dewatering is accom-
plished using a vacuum filter.  Since the degree of dewatering
achieved  (typically 40% solids from a sludge drying bed and 20%
solids from a vacuum  filter) is influenced  by this change,
system costs are influenced not only by the dewatering costs
themselves, but also  through an effect on the volume of sludge
requiring contract removal.  At very high flow rates, the cost
of removing sludge at 20% solids may become substantial, and the
most economical system design would incorporate further dewater-
ing of the vacuum  filter product.  This refinement, however, has
not been  included  in  these cost estimates.

System Cost Estimates (Option 1)

This section presents the system cost estimates for the Option 1
end-of-pipe treatment systems.  The representative flow rates
used in these system cost estimates were determined based upon
actually  sampled flows and flow information received in the data
collection portfolios.  The complete system block diagram appli-
cable to cases 1-5 is shown in Figure 8-33.  Option 1 treatment
for the isolated oily waste stream addressed in case 6 is shown
in Figure 8-34.                            ;

The costing assumptions for each component .of the Option 1
system were discussed above under Technology Costs and Assump-
tions.  In addition to these components, contract sludge removal
was included in all cost estimates.        '

Table 8-9 presents costs for each of the six cases discussed
above for various  treatment system influent flow rates.  The
basic cost elements used in preparing these tables are the same
as those presented for the individual technologies;  investment,
annual capital costs, annual depreciation, annual operations and
maintenance cost (less energy cost), energy cost, and total
annual cost.  These elements were discussed in detail earlier in
this section.

For the cost computations, a least cost treatment system selec-
tion was performed.  This procedure calculated the costs for a
batch treatment system and a continuous treatment system over a
5 year comparison period.  Figures 8-35 through 8-46 show the
investment and total annual costs for each case shown in Table
8-9.                                       .'
                               VIIl-64

-------
I
o>
1/1
    Case
    Number


Batch
Batch
Batch
Continuous
Continuous
Batch
Batch
Batch
Continuous
Continuous
Batch
Batch
Batch
Continuous
Continuous
Batch
Batch
Batch
Continuous
Continuous
Batch
Batch
Batch
Continuous
Continuous
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Continuous
Flos
gpd
264.
2638.
26380.
263800.
2637999.
264.
2662.
26350.
263600.
2637998.
264.
2660.
26410.
266330.
2638998.
264.
2642.
26420.
264300.
2642999.
264,
2638.
26460.
264600.
2645998.
264.
2640.
26400.
264000.
2640000.
Flow
I/day
1,000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000,
10,000,000,
1,000.
10,000,
100,000
1,000,000
10,000,000
1,000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
10,000,000
1,000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
10,000,000
1,000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000,
10,000,000
1,000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
10,000,000
TABI-E 8-9
Option I Costs

Investment
(Dollars)
129466,937
156768.312
271783.812
658308. 6R7
1389210.00
141021.000
169637.562
295868.875
754696.125
1547783.00
177289.500
207743.000
386569.187
947278.312
2148885.00
76337.000
9845 1 . 000
239445.562
674088.500
1638202.00
144796.750
223017.687
408999.937
1035760.50
2291527.00
48120.527
79619.937
95708, 8] 2
306961.562
1412968.00

Capital Costs
(Dollars)
10916.160
13217.984
22915.613
55505.562
117132.437
11890.398
14303.066
24946.352
63632.437
130502.937
14948.301
17516.000
32593.875
79870.062
181185.187
6436.414
8300.969
20188.953
56836.125
138126.312
12208.711
18803.766
34485.125
87330.375
193212.625
4057.312
6713.219
8069.754
25881.625
119135.750

Depreciation
(Dollars)
25893.387
31353.660
54356.762
131661.687
277842.000
28204.199
33927.512
59173,773
150939.187
309556.562
35457.898
41548.598
77313.812
189455.625
429777.000
15267.398
19690,199
47889.109
134817.687
327640,375
28959.348
44603.535
81799.937
207152.062
458305.375
9624.105
15923.984
19141.762
61392.312
282593.562
Operation S
Maintenance
(Dollars)
12446.344
22896.891
32761.973
182141.437
1433646.00
19893.262
24395.422
395S6.77?
178190.812
1368158.00
14035.863
21761.270
40553.965
268203,125
2172029.00
10597.324
17826,531
31906.484
242074.375
2034457.00
19384.918
28946.770
47390.582
261455.187
2095432.00
3676.566
5396.180
21783.789
10B626.562
818738.375

Energy
(Dollars)
35 . 090
53.571
396.887
5877,852
36224.941
63.154
81.395
271.490
5740.566
34512.113
36.611
61.020
463.474
6650.617
41918.371
31.078
51.313
405.359
4442.797
28883.500
59.162
88.451
479.039
6539.930
40662.414
7.431
26.372
203.722
2637.227
1054-> 426
Tola] Annual
(Dollars)
  49290.977
  67522.062
 110431.187
 375186.500
1864844.00
  60051.012
  72707.375
 123978.312
 398503.000
1842729.00
  64478.672
  80886.812'
 150925.062
 544179.375
2824909.00
  32332.2)5
  45869.012
 100389.812
 438170.937.
2529106.00
  60612.937
  92442.500
 164154.625
 562477.500
2787612.00
  17365.414
  28059.754
  492:>9.023
 198537.687
1231010.00

-------
   OILY RAW WASTE    RAW WASTE   .„,,..  RAW WASTE      RAW WASTE      RAW WASTE
                                  WITH
RAW WASTE   TOXIC ORGANI
p
I

EMULSION
BREAKING


OIL

















1 CYANIDE ^J

















1
PR EC
<
•inns
METALS
RECOVERY




1
HAU



















'






t

CYA

MIDE
OXIDATION



WITHOUT



















1
CYANIDE *^
UOR








































•fc-

















1



CHROMIUM
REDUCTION

COMMON
METALS
r



CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION
1
r

CLARIFIER
\
TREATED
EFFLUENT















































LIME *>.
^ ii LIME "












SLUDGE






\
r I
r
SLUDGE
DEWATERING


SLUDGE











1
1
HAUL OR
RECLAIM
COMPLEXED
METALS



f
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION

\

r

CLARIFIER
1
TREATED
EFFLUENT
CONTRACTOR
„,_..„_„-., REMOVAL
                                                      OPTION ! SYSTEM

-------
                  OILY HAW WASTE
                    EMULSION
                    BREAKING
    SKIMMED OIL
                    TREATED
                    EFFLUENT
              FIGURE 8-34
     OPTION 1 TREATMENT SYSTEM
FOR SEGREGATED OILY WASTE STREAMS
               VIII-67

-------
H
M

CTi
00
         10'
       Ol
       fs


       0
       D
       i«o«
0
£

H
in
0
u
H
Z
U


W
u   ,
> 10'
Z
       H
       0
         (0'
          100
                     CONTINUOUS
                          BATCH
                                                                        10 =
                                                                                      106
to?
                                                         FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                          FIGURE 8-35

                            TOTAL INVESTMENT COST VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION 1 TREATMENT SYSTEM, CASE 1

-------
  10'
0
D
<
I
to
o
£


in
0
u
j
<
D
Z
Z
  101
CONTINUOUS
                                                                                    >'  J>
0
                   BATCH
  10"
   (00
                       10-
                                                              10s
                                                FLOW (L./DAY)
                                              FIGURE 8-36

                     TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION 1 TREATMENT SYSTEM, CASE 1
                                                                                       10'

-------
a
M
V
^J
O
        10?
       0
       3
J
J
0
£


(A
0
u
H
Z
U
S

ui
U
> 10
z
       0
        10'
           too
                      CONTINUOUS
BATCH

                               10-
                                                    10*
                                                                  10s
                                                                                             10C
                                                          FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                                                        10'
                                                       FIGURE 8-37

                      TOTAL INVESTMENT COST VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION 1 TREATMENT SYSTEM, CASE 2

-------
         to'
H

-J
      0
      3
       I
       V)
V)

V)
0
O
-i
<•
3
Z
Z
      h
      0
      h
        10 =
           100
                     CONTINUOUS
                   BATCH
                              10'
                                                 10"
                                                              105
                                                                                                            10'
                                                      FL.OW (L./DAY)
                                                    FIGURE 8-38

                     TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION 1 TREATMENT SYSTEM, CASE 2

-------
         10'
M
T
^j
NJ
       01
       rs

       6
       3
       in io
       a:
0
Q

(0

(0
0
U
H
Z
Ul
2
        0
         10*
           100
BATCH
                                10
                                                      10'
                                                                           10
                                                                                        10'
                                                                                                                     10
                                                           FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                           FIGURE :8-39

                            TOTAL INVESTMENT COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION 1 TREATMENT SYSTEM, CASE 3

-------
s
M
M

OJ
0
3
<
I
U)
tt
U)

U)
0
U
3
Z
z
0
I-
  10 =
  10"
    100
              CONTINUOUS
                   BATCH — — —

                                                                                              /
                                                                                             f

                                                                                             '/I

                       10
                                          10'
                                                                                 10'
                                                                                                    10
                                                FLOW (L/DAY)
                                             FIGURE 8-40

                    TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION 1 TREATMENT SYSTEM, CASE 3

-------
01
ts
0
3
(0
tt
0
£

in

VI
0
o
H
Z
Ul
5

in
Ul
>
z

J
<

0
10s
           'CONTINUOUS
                 BATCH
  10"
    100
                       10-
                                           10'
                                                                                10'
                                                FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                FIGURE 8-41

                    TOTAL INVESTMENT COST VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION I TREATMENT SYSTEM, CASE 4
                                                                                                     10

-------
  10'
Ol
f.

o
3
<
I
(A
K
10°
J
0
(A

(A
0
U
J
<
3
Z
Z
0
              CONTINUOUS
                   BATCH
  10"
    100
                       10'
                                           10'
                                                                                 10'
107
                                                 FLOW (L/DAY)
                                               FIGURE 8-42
                     TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION 1 TREATMENT SYSTEM, CASE 4

-------
N

-J
Ch
      0
      3
j
0
£


tn
0
u
H
Z
Id
2

V)
        10s
      0
        10*
         100
                    CONTINUOUS
                         BATCH
                                                 10"
                                                              10=
                                                                                                            10'
                                                       FLOW {L./DAYJ

                                                        FIGURE 8-43

                          TOTAL INVESTMENT COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION 1 TREATMENT SYSTEM. CASE 5

-------
V
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (DOLLARS - AUG, '79)
o o o c
r ..*. . w o>







































































CO


























NT


























ir>


























U




















0



AT

























US


























i— ""• """


























— —



^






















«*— '


^*























.•—


























1— •

,
























W

^
























^

^
























^


























V


























.^ 	 '
» ^^

























— •*

























^^

























-•—
***

























—?
^«

























•«
!^

























^
^

























V
»

























»
rf

























— ^
^^

























^^
S>'

























^
S

























**
x


























^

























^


























X


























^
















































^
^x^
^*iX
^Zr
^





















4
\r^
r
























/


























/
/

























/
/

























/
s

























*
/

























/
/



















0 103 I04 105 106 10
                                                   FLOW (U/DAY)
                                                 FIGURE 8-44
                          TOTAL ANNUAL COST VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION 1 TREATMENT SYSTEM, CASE 5

-------
H

3
00
         JO'
I
W
K
<

J
0
Q

1-
U)
0
u
1-
z
III
2
1-
V)
u
         10=
        0
         10s
           100
                       CONTINUOUS
                            BATCH
                                                     10"
                                                                           10 =
                                                                                        10C
                                                                                                                     10'
                                                            FLOW (U/DAY)
                                                             FIGURE 8-45

                             TOTAL INVESTMENT COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION 1 TREATMENT SYSTEM, CASE 6

-------
M
M
        10'
0
3
4
I
10
DC

J
J
0
£


W
0
U
J

3
Z
Z
        to1
        10 =
       1-
       o
       i-
          too
                    CONTINUOUS
                         BATCH
                             to-
                                                      FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                                    10 =
                                                                                        10C
                                                     FIGURE 8-46

                           TOTAL ANNUAL COST VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION 1 TREATMENT SYSTEM , CASE 6

-------
The investment costs shown assume that the 'treatment system must
be specially constructed and include all subsidiary costs dis-
cussed under the Cost Breakdown Factors segment of this section.
It is also assumed all plants operate 24 hours a day, 5 days per
weekr for 52 weeks per year (260 total days). This assumption
overestimates  the costs  for facilities which operate less than
24 hours per day.

System Cost Estimates (Option 2)

System cost estimates of the effects of adding a multimedia
filter to the  previously discussed end-of-pipe systems were
developed to provide Option 2 Treatment Cost Estimates.  A
schematic of the system  for cases 1-5 is shown in Figure 8-47.
The cases used are the same as those for Option 1 and are shown
in Table 8-8.  The costing assumptions for the multimedia filter
were discussed above under the technology costs and assumptions
subsection.

Several flow rates were  used for each case Ito effectively model
a wide spectrum of plant sites.  Figures 8-48 through 8-57
present the investment and total annual costs for each case in
Option 2.

Table 8-10 presents Option 2 treatment costs for construction of
the entire end-of-pipe system.  These costs would be representa-
tive of expenditures to be expected to attain Option 2 for a
plant with no  treatment  in place.

System Cost Estimates (Option 3)

The Option 3 system takes the Option 1 system and makes one signi-
ficant change.  The one change requires the closed loop operation
(zero discharge) of any processes using cadmium.  For cost-
ing purposes,  an evaporative system has been used with the
condensate reused for rinsing and the concentrate hauled for
disposal.  This may also be accomplished by other means selected
by the individual plants.  Closed loop precipitation with reuse
of the treated water and licensed hauling of the sludge, or ion
exchange with  reuse of the water and treatment and hauling of
the regenerant solution are two possible options.  The schematic
for the complete Option  3 system for cases 1-5 is shown in
Figure 8-58.   The investment and total annual cost curves for each
case are shown in Figures 8-59 through 8-68.  Table 8-11 presents a
summary of the Option 3 costs.             :

Use of Cost Estimation Results

Cost estimates presented in the tables and figures in this
section are representative of costs typically incurred in imple-
menting treatment and control equivalent to the specified op-
tions.  They will notr in general, correspond precisely to cost
experience at  any individual plant.  Specific plant conditions
such as age, location, plant layout, or present production and
treatment practices may yield costs which are either higher or
lower than the presented costs.  Because the costs shown are


                             VIII-80

-------
ee
  Case
  Humber
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5


Batch
Batch
Batch
Continuous
Continuous
Batch
Batch
Batch
Continuous
Continuous
Batch
Batch
Batch
Continuous
Continuous
Batch
Batch
Batch
Continuous
Continuous
Batch
Batch
Batch
Continuous
Continuous
Flow
gpd
264.
2638.
26380.
263800.
2637999.
264.
2662.
26350.
263600.
2637998.
264.
2660.
26410.
266300.
2638998.
264.
2642.
26420.
264300.
2642999.
264.
2638.
26460.
264600,
2645998.
Flew
I/day
1,000.
10,000.
100,000.
1,000,000.
10,000,000.
1,000.
10,000.
100,000.
1,000,000.
10,000,000.
1,000.
10,000.
100,000.
1,000,000.
10,000,000.
1,000.
10,000.
100,000.
1,000,000.
10,000,000.
1,000.
10,000.
100,000.
1,000,000.
10,000,000.
1»BI£ 8-10
Option 2 Costs

Investment
(Dollars)
131895. ?12
166617.362
317501.575
775782.562
1759412.00
143877.062
180996.687
347292.300
897996.562
1999361 .CD
179689,'C-62
222102.1:5
433213.250
1064609.00
2517744.00
73779. ~'?Q
112982.575
286488.000
790898. 575
2006627.00
147632.500
238419.312
460628.062
1174778.00
2753802.00

Capital Costs
(Dollars)
11120.953
1404S.422
26770.312
65410.125
US346.250
12131.211
15260.781
29282.125
75714.625
168577.750
15150.605
18726.656
36526.687
89762.937
212285.625
6642.379
9526.258
24155.402
66684,812
169190.500
12447.863
20102.391
38838.125
99051.750
232189.375

Depreciation
(Dollars)
26379.160
33323.512
63500.375
155156.500
351882.375
28775.410.
36199.336
69458.375
179599.312
399372.187
35937.812
44420.422
86642. -625
212921.750
503548.750
15755.949
22596.574
57297.598
158179.750
401325.375
29526.500
47683.859
92125.562
234955.562
550760.375
Operation S
Maintenance
(Dollars)
18059.805
2466! .469
39294.414
191502.062
1473137.00
31575.918
38055.617
52200.605
193548.937
1413598.00
19417.297
28194.559
47096.309
277545.437
2211218.00
16829.016
24253.570
33450.984
251363.750
2073672.00
31636.180
41643.074
60006.383
276797.875
2140789.00

Energy
(Dollars)
41.582
80.944
512.365
6365.043
33230.355
70.738
112.773
402.604
6294.062
36848.262
43.060
88.314
578.113
7136.859
43957.875
37.520
78.484
519.993
4926.543
30924.371
67.495
118.835
607.457
7081.457
42947.062
                                                                                                                              Total Annual
                                                                                                                              (Dollars)
  55601.496
  72114.312
 130077.375
 418433.687
2011645.00
  72553.187
  89628.437
 151343.625
 455156.937
2018895.00
  70548.687
  91429.937
 170843.625
 587366.937
2971009.00
  39264.863
  56454.887
 120423.875
 481159.812
2675111.00
  73677.937
 109548.125
 191577.500
 617886.625
2966685.00

-------
Case
Number

1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
TABLE 8-11
Option 3 Costs



Batch
Batch
Batch
Continuous
Gbntinuous
Batch
Batch
Batch
Continuous
Continuous
Batch
Batch
Batch
Continuous
Continuous
Batch
Batch
Batch
Continuous
Continuous
Batch
Batch
Batch
Continuous
Continuous

Blow
qpd
264.
2476.
24490.
244684.
2446819.
264.
2500.
24686.
246740.
2459499.
264.
2542.
25134.
251046.
2510287.
264.
2566.
25544.
255372.
2553623.
288.
2544.
25252.
252328.
2523349.

Blow
Vday
1,000.
10,000.
100,000.
1,000,000.
10,000,000.
1,000.
10,000.
100,000.
1,000,000.
10,000,000.
1,000.
10,000.
100,000.
1,000,000.
10,000,000.
1,000.
10,000.
100,000.
1,000,000.
10,000,000.
1,000.
10,000.
100,000.
1,000,000.
10,000,000.

Invesfcnent
(Dollars)
192780.875
215883.312
348419.812
715315.000
1472822.00
208C25.375
232406.812
371089.625
812359.375
1634327.00
240344.062
271247.562
460278.000
1005995.31
2223688.00
. 140197.937
165645.187
304231.000
737350.312
1732473.00
255809.187
283810.000
481832.250
1095964.00
2353792.00

Capital Costs
(Dollars)
16254.516
18202.301
29377.250
60312.000
124182.125
17539.859
19595.391
31288.687
68494.250
137799.500
20264.812
22870.301
38808.687
84820.250
187492.875
. 11820.918 ... ...
13966.504
25651.426
62170.000
146075.062
21568.664
23929.562
40625.937
92406.125
198462.500

Depreciation
(Dollars)
38556.172
43176.660
69683.937
143063.000
294564.375
41605.074
46481.359
74217.875
162471.875
326865.375
48068.812
54249.512
92055.562
201199.062
444737.562
28039.586
33129.035
• 60846.199
147470.062
346494.562
51161.836
56762.000 -
96366.437 '
219192.750
470758.375 i
Operation &
Maintenance
(Dollars)
12600.187
16988.187
29551.547
166658.062
1334110.00
20047.117
24332.359
36565.973
163858.187
1276480.00
14189.594
21771.258
37829.395
259804.250
2105460.00
. 10807.941.
17912.301
31900.461
238480.000
1998380.00
21734.387
28998.359
44753.180
254738.937
2029948.00

Energy
(Dollars)
4827.246
4843.324
5002.102
16672.348
107447.812
4855.309
4871.309
5028.004
15326.258
99898.000
4828.766
4851.891
5217.797
15027.391
91024.125
._ 4823,234 .
4843.039
5187.508
11617.648
65666.812
4856.965
4879.828
5100.312
12488.359
72823.687

Total Annual
(Dollars)
72238.062
83210.437
133614.750
386705.375
1660303.00
34047.250
95280.312
147100.500
410150.562
1841042.00
87351.937
103742.937
173911.375
560850.937
2828714.00
55491.680
69850.875
123585.562
459737.687
2556615.00
99321.812
114569.687
: 186845.812
578826.125
2771991.00

-------
             OILY RAW WASTE
                                                  RAW WASTE
                                                                  RAW WASTE
                                                                                   RAW WASTE
SKIMMED OILS

PRECIOUS
METALS
RECOVERY
}

•— *
CYANIDE
OXIDATION
WITH!
CYANIDE]
IWITHOUT

1
, CYANIDE ""~
1
CHROMIUM
REDUCTION
COMMON
METALS
r


                                                                                                                 RAW WASTE  TOXIC ORGANlCS
                                                                                                           COMPLEXED
                                                                                                           METALS
                                 HAUL OR
                                 RECLAIM
                                                                                                    LIME-
                 HAUL OR
                 RECLAIM
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION
                                                                   FIGURE 8-47
                                                                 OPTION 2 SYSTEM
                                                                                      CONTRACTOR
                                                                                      REMOVAL

-------
s
H
H
00
o
rs

0
3
<
 I
V)
        10°
J
J
0
Q


V)
0
U
I-
z
LJ
5

tn
LJ
I
                     CONTINUOUS
                          BATCH
   10"
     100
                                              10"
                                                                   10 =
                                                                                              10"
                                                     FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                       FIGURE 8-48

                    TOTAL INVESTMENT COST VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION 2 TREATMENT SYSTEM, CASE 1

-------
        10'
      0


      < 106

       I
       tn
j
j
0
Q

1-
tn
0
u
j
<
3
Z

< 105
00
Ul
                    CONTINUOU:
      0
                         BATCH
        10'
         100
                                                 10"
                                                       FLOW~IL/DAY)
                                                                     10=
                                                      FIGURE 8-49

                            TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION 2 TREATMENT SYSTEM, CASE 1

-------
H
H
CO
      
-------
00
-J
         10'
         10'
       I

       CO
       cn
       0
       u
       D


       I  ios
         10"
                       CONTINUOUS-
                           BATCH
           100
                               10-
                                                     10"
10 =
                                                                                                10"
                                                          FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                         FIGURE 8-51

                          TOTAL ANNUAL COST VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION 2 TREATMENT SYSTEM, CASE 2
                                                                                                                     10'

-------
00
       JO'
at
N

0
3
<



8.0
<
J
J
0
£

V)

V)
0
U

H

UI
5

V)
u
       10'
                        BATCH — — — '
         100
                                               10"
                                                                  10s
                                                                               10"
                                                                                                        10'
                                                    FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                       FIGURE 8-52

                         TOTAL INVESTMENT COST VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION 2 TREATMENT SYSTEM, CASE 3

-------
00
         to3
       Ol
       fs


       d
       3
       J
       J
       0
       £


       U)
       0
       U
       J
       0
         10"
          100
                     CONTINUOUS
                         BATCH





tOJ
                                                  10"
                                                                      10-
10*
107
                                                       FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                        FIGURE 8-53

                           TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION 2 TREATMENT SYSTEM, CASE 3

-------
V
VD
O
        10'
      0
      3
-J
0
£

(A

(A
0
U
1-
Z
U
S

in
u  _
> to5
      0
        10'
         100
CONTINUOUS
                        -BATCH
                                                10*
                                                              10 =
                                                                                       10°
                                                                                       10'
                                                      FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                        FIGURE 8-54

                         TOTAL INVESTMENT COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION 2 TREATMENT SYSTEM, CASE 4

-------
M
T
      a>
      r»

      0
      D
      <
      I
      10
  10"
J
J
0
£

10
10
0
U
J

D
Z
Z
       10 =
      1-
      0
       10"
                        -BATCH
         100
                                                10"
                                                     FLOW (U/DAY)
                                                             10 =
10*
                                                                                                          10'
                                                         FIGURE 8-55
                            TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION 2 TREATMENT SYSTEM, CASE 4

-------
H
M
       ifl
       K
0
Q

f-
w
0
u

H
Z
111


in
u 10s
      -H-
       0
       H
         10"
           100
                     CONTINUOUS
                          BATCH
                              10
                                                  10'
                                                                                        10'
                                                                                                            10
                                                       FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                     FIGURE 8-56

                          TOTAL INVESTMENT COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION 2 TREATMENT SYSTEM, CASE 5

-------
        10'
I
VD
CO
      0
      3
      <
      I
      in
J
J
0
Q

M

in
0
o
      0
      1-
        10=
         too
                    CONTINUOUS
                         .BATCH
                                                 10*
                                                                     10 =
                                                                                    10'
                                                                                                              to'
                                                       FLOW (U/DAY)
                                                       FIGURE 8-57

                            TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION 2 TREATMENT SYSTEM, CASE 5

-------
               OILY RAW WASTE
 SKIMMED OILS
                 EMULSION
                 BREAKING
 HAUL OR
 RECLAIM
RAW WASTE   W,TH  RAW WASTE  RAW WASTE RAW WASTE
     I        CYANIDE
                                                  I
CYANIDE
OXIDATION
                                       i
                                         WITHOUT
                                         CYANIDE
                                          RAW WASTE

                                       CADMIUM
                                           CHROMIUM
                                           REDUCTION
                                                                         COMMON
                                                                         METALS
                                                                                                    i
                                                                                                               RAW WASTE TOXIC ORGANICS
EVAPORATIVE
RECOVERY OR
ION EXCHANGE
                                                  COMPUEXED
                                                  METALS
                                            Zero
                                          Discharge
                                                                                                                                HAUL OR
                                                                                                                                RECLAIM
  CHEMICAL
  PRECIPITATION
H
H
H
 I
                                                                             •LIME
                                                                                                   LIME.
                                                                          CHEMICAL
                                                                          PRECIPITATION
                                           TREATED
                                           EFFLUENT
     CLARIFIER
                                                         CLARIFIER
                                                                  SLUDGE
                                                                                    SLUDGE
                                                                                    DEWATERING
                                                                                                             SLUDGE
                                                                                              TREATED
                                                                                              EFFLUENT
                                                                                     CONTRACTOR
                                                                                     REMOVAL
                                                                FIGURE 8-58
                                                             OPTION 3 SYSTEM

-------
U1
         10
          100
                                                                                                            10'
                                                       FLOW (L/DAY)

                                                      FIGURE 8-59
                           TOTAL INVESTMENT COST VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION 3 TREATMENT SYSTEM, CASE 1

-------
I
<£>
CTl
        10
         100
                             10
                                                       FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                         FIGURE 8-60

                            TOTAL ANNUAL COST VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION 3 TREATMENT SYSTEM, CASE 1

-------
         10'
H
r
VO
-J
        01
        Is


        0
        D
        to 10
        X
0
£

(A

10
0
U
H
Z
U
s
H
U)
hi
>
Z
        0
         10'
                       CONTINUOUS
•BATCH
           100
                                 10-
                          10"
                                                                            10 =
                                                                                                  10C
                                                                                                                        10'
                                                             FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                            FIGURE 8-61
                             TOTAL INVESTMENT COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION 3 TREATMENT SYSTEM, CASE 2

-------
V
\o
CO
         100
                                                    FLOW (L/DAY)




                                                     FIGURE 8-62


                           TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION 3 TREATMENT SYSTEM, CASE 2

-------
          10'
M
V
        o>
        r>
        I
        in 10"
0
£

V)

V)
0
U
I-
z
u
        V)
        u
          10=
        0
          10"
           100
                            BATCH
                                 10-
                                                      10"
                                                                    10 =
                                                                                                 10'
                                                                                                                       10'
                                                            FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                           FIGURE 8-63

                            TOTAL INVESTMENT COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION 3 TREATMENT SYSTEM, CASE 3

-------
V
o
o
          100
                                                      FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                       FIGURE 8-64

                           TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION 3 TREATMENT SYSTEM, CASE 3

-------
H
r
          100
                             10
                                                   FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                    FIGURE 8-65
                          TOTAL INVESTMENT COST VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION 3 TREATMENT SYSTEM, CASE 4

-------
M
M

h-1
o
to
           100
                               10
                                                                                           10°
                                                     FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                       FIGURE 8-66

                            TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION 3 TREATMENT SYSTEM, CASE 4

-------
        10'
o
u>
0
D
<
I  I0<
tfl
en
<
J
J
0
£


V)
0
U
I-
z
kl
        10 =
      H
      0
      H
        10'
          100
                     CONTINUOUS
                           BATCH
                               10-
                                                    10"
                                                                    10 =
                                                                                                                     10'
                                                           FLOW (L/DAY)
                                                          FIGURE 8-67

                            TOTAL INVESTMENT COSTS VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION 3 TREATMENT SYSTEM, CASE 5

-------
V
       10
         100
                                                      FLOW (L/DAY)

                                                        FIGURE 8-68
                           TOTAL ANNUAL COST VS. FLOW RATE FOR OPTION 3 TREATMENT SYSTEM, CASE 5

-------
total system costs and do not assume any treatment in place, it
is probable that most plants will require smaller expenditures
to reach the specified levels of control from their present
status.

The actual costs of installing and operating a system at a
particular plant may be substantially lower than the tabulated
values.  Reductions in investment and operating costs are pos-
sible in several areas.  Design and installation costs may be
reduced by using plant workers.  Equipment costs may be reduced
by using or modifying existing equipment instead of purchasing
all new equipment.  Application of an excess capacity factor,
which increases the size of most equipment foundation costs
could be reduced if an existing concrete pad or floor can be
utilized.  Equipment size requirements may be reduced as a
result of treatment conditions (for example, shorter retention
time) for particular waste streams.  Substantial reduction in
both investment and operating cost may be achieved if a plant
reduces its water use rate below that assumed in costing.

IN-PROCESS FLOW REDUCTIONS

The use of in-process techniques to achieve reductions in waste
flows can result in significantly reduced operating and mainte-
nance costs.  Although an additional initial investment will be
required for a countercurrent rinse or other flow reducing
equipment, in roost cases it will be less than the saving due to
downstream treatment components may be sized for smaller flows.  This
reduces the initial investment for downstream treatment components

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OF SYSTEM COST ESTIMATES

The individual waste treatment component and system cost estimates
presented in this section of the development document can be ap-
plied to each manufacturing facility in the Metal' Finishing Cate-
gory.  The cost estimates can be used to estimate the value of
existing in-place waste treatment components and to estimate the
economic impact of a proposed level of waste treatment upon an
individual manufacturing facility.

In order to establish the economic impact of the various proposed
waste treatment systems upon actual Metal Finishing firms, treat-
ment system cost estimates were developed for one hundred (100)
captive indirect dischargers, one hundred three (103) captive
direct dischargers, and forty (40) job shop direct dischargers.
These firms were determined to be representative of the Metal
Finishing Category and these cost estimates were used to assess
the economic impact of the proposed regulations upon the entire
                             VI11-105

-------
Metal Finishing Industry.  Cost  estimates  for  job  shop  indirect
dischargers were developed only  for  the control of  total  toxic
organics  (TTO) because  these  firms are regulated under  the Pre-
treatment Regulations for the Electroplating Point  Source Category,
40 CFR Part 413 (Ref. EPA 440/1-79/003, August 1979) .

System cost estimates for the previously described groups of
plants were provided to the Office of Analysis and Evaluation
of the EPA for use in Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) of the
Metal Finishing Category.  Option 3  for the !new source cadmium
limitations was recosted to include three sources of cadmium:
cadmium plating rinses, acid  stripping of ca'dmium plated parts,
and chromating of cadmium plated parts.  The revised costs
were used in the economic impact analysis and  the results are
presented in the Metal Finishing record.

ENERGY AND NON-WATER QUALITY  ASPECTS        j

Energy and non-water quality  aspects of the wastewater treatment
technologies described  in Section VII are summarized in Tables
8-12 and 8-13.  Energy requirements  are listed, the impact on
environmental air and noise pollution is notjed, and solid waste
generation characteristics are summarized.  The treatment proc-
esses are divided into two groups, wastewater  treatment proc-
esses on Table 8-12 and sludge and solids handling processes on
Table 8-13.

Energy Aspects

Energy aspects of the wastewater treatment processes are impor-
tant because of the impact of energy use on our natural re-
sources and on the economy.   Electrical power  and fuel require-
ments (coal, oil,  or gas) are listed in units  of kilowatt hours
per ton of dry solids for sludge and solids handling.  Specific
energy uses are noted in the  "Remarks" column.

Evaporation as applied in Option 3 is an energy intensive tech-
nology for waste treatment.   However, its energy consumption is
significantly reduced by the  use of double effect evaporation
and by the use of countercurrent rinsing to limit the volume of
wastewater flowing to the evaporator.  With the effective imple-
mentation of these techniques the total energy requirements for
evaporation in this category will be small and will probably not
exceed the energy consumed in treating and pumping the volume of
water which would be used in  rinsing without these techniques.

Non-Water Quality Aspects

It is important to consider the impact of each treatment process
on air, noise, and radiation pollution of the  enviroment to
preclude the development of a more adverse environmental impact.
                              VIII-106

-------
                                                                    TA3LE 3-12

                                              NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
    PROCESS
    Chemical Reduction
    Ski-.tiing
    Clarification
                              ENERGY REQUIREMENTS

                             Power            Fuel
                             kwh              kwh	
                                          1000 liters
                                                   NON-WATER QUALITY IMPACT
1000 liters

    1.0
    0.01-.3
    0.1-3.2
    Chemical Precipitation     1.02
    Sedimentation
    Reverse Osmosis
    0.1-3.2
    3.0
Energy
Use

Mixing
Skimmer Drive
Sludge Collec-
tor Drive

Flocculation
Paddles
Sludge collector  No
Drive
Air
Pollution
Impact

No
No
No
High Pressure
Pump
No
Noise
Pollution   Solid
Impact      Waste
No
No
No
              No
              Yes
No .
Yes:
Yes:
                                                                          Yes'
                          Yes"
            Yes-
            Yes"
                Solid Waste
                Concentration
                % Dry Solids
5-50 (oil)
1-10
                3-10


                1-3


                1-40
    Ultrafiltration
    1.25-3.0
High Pressure
Pump
No
                                                              Yes
            Yes.
            Yes"
                                                            1-40
i    Electrochemical
5   Chromium Reduction
«j
    Chemical Oxidation
    by Chloride

    Chemical Emulsion
    Breaking
    Deep Bed Filtration
    Carbon Adsorption
    Throwaway

    Evaporation
    0.2-0.8


    4.4-9.6


    .1-3,2



    .02-1.0


    .08
              2,500,000
ReactiEier, Pump  No
Mixing
Mixer, Skimmer,   No
Sludge Pump
Head, Backwash    No
Pumps

Head, Backwash    No
Pumps

Evaporation       Yes
                                                                                         No
                                No
                                                                                                     Yes"
                          No
                                                                                          1-3
Yes

No
No
NO
3
Yes
Yes3
Yes3
Yes3
3-50 (oil)
1-3 (TSS)
Variable
Variable
50-100
    Countercurrent Rinse
                              Negligible
                                                                           No
                                                                                         No
                                                                                                     No

-------
                                                             TABLE 8~B

                                         N35-KKTER QUALITY AS?EGTS OF SLUDGE AND SOLIDS HANDLING
    PHOCESS
EJEBGY RBQUIREMENTS
                                                                      NOH-KFER QUALITY IHPACT



Sludge
Thickening

Pressure
Filtration
Vacuum
Filter
Power
kwh
ton dry solids
29-930


21

16.7-
66.8
Fuel
kwh
ton dry



—

	


Energy
solids Ose
Skimmer/
Sludge Rake
Drive
High Pressure
Pumps
Vacuum Pump,
Rotation
Air
filiation
Impact
ita


>fo

So

Noise
Pollution
Impact
No


No

Yes2


Solid
Waste
Yes3


Yes5

Yes5

Solid 'ivaste
Concentration
% Dry Solids
4-27


25-50

12-40

Solid Waste
Disposal
Technique
Debater & Landfill
or Incinerate

Landfill or Incinerate

Landfill or Incinerate

    Centrifugation   0.2-
                   98.5
f   Landfill
    Lagooning       	

    Sand Bed Drying  	
                    Rotation
20-980      Haul, Land-   No
           fil 1-10
           Mile Trio
Yes
                                           Nc
Yes'
            Yes"
                                                               15-50
                N/A
36

35

Removal
Equipment
Removal
"Equipment
No

Mo

No

NO

Yes
c
YesT

3-5

15-40.

Landfill or Incinerate


         N/A



Dewater S Landfill

Landfill
 1)  Depends on volatiles present
 2)  Not objectionable                                                      .   ,
 3}  Wastewater pollutants have been  concentrated into  a solid for disposal
     or further treatment
 4)  Wastewater pollutants have been  concentrated into  a liquid for disposal
     or further treatment
 5}  Wastewater pollutants which have been concentrated into a solid  have
     been further concentrated by dewatering for disposal

-------
In general, none of the liquid handling processes causes air
pollution.  Alkaline chlorination for cyanide destruction and
chromium reduction using sulfur dioxide also have potential
atmospheric emissions.  With proper design and operation, how-
ever, air pollution impacts are eliminated.  Incineration of
sludge or solids can cause significant air pollution which must
be controlled by suitable bag houses, scrubbers, or stack gas
precipitators as well as proper incinerator operation and main-
tenance.  Care must be taken to insure that solids collected in
air pollution control do not become a water pollution threat.
None of the wastewater treatment processes causes objectionable
noise and none of the treatment processes has any potential for
radioactive radiation hazards.

The solids waste impact of each sludge dewatering process is
indicated in two columns on Table 8-13.  The first column shows
whether effluent solids are to be expected and, if so, the
solids content in qualitative terms.  The second column lists
typical values of percent solids of sludge or residue.  The
third column indicates the usual method of solids disposal
associated with the process.

The processes for treating the wastewaters from this category
produce considerable volumes of sludges.  In order to ensure
long-term protection of the environment from harmful sludge
constituents, all sludges must be disposed of in accordance with
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
                              VIII-109

-------
                         SECTION IX
  BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
INTRODUCTION
This section describes the best practicable control technology
currently available (BPT) for the treatment of process waste-
waters generated within the Metal Finishing Category.  BPT re-
flects existing treatment and control practices at metal finish-
ing plants of various sizes, ages, and manufacturing processes.

The factors considered in defining BPT include the total cost of
application of technology in relation to the effluent reduction
benefits from such application, the age of equipment and facili-
ties involved, the processes employed, non-water quality environ-
mental impact (including energy requirements), and other factors
considered appropriate by the Administrator.  In general, the BPT
technology level represents the best existing practices at plants
of various ages, sizes, processes, or other common characteristics.
Where existing practice is uniformly inadequate, BPT may be trans-
ferred from a different subcategory or category.  Limitations based
on transfer of technology must be supported by a conclusion that
the technology is, indeed, transferrable and a reasonable predic-
tion that it will be capable of achieving the prescribed effluent
limits (see Tanner1 s Council of America v_._ Train Supra) .  BPT fo-
cuses on end-of-pipe treatment rather than process changes or in-
ternal controls, except where such are common industry practice.

IDENTIFICATION OF BPT

Plants in the Metal Finishing Category generate process wastewater
streams of several distinct types.  As described in Sections V and
VI, waste streams produced in this category may contain common
metals (e.g., copper, nickel, zinc, etc.), precious metals
(e.g., gold, palladium, silver), cyanide, hexavalent chromium,
oil and grease, and a variety of toxic organic compounds (de-
signated total toxic organics, TTO).  Individual process waste-
water streams characteristically contain only some of these pollu-
tants, and metal finishing facilities generally produce several
distinct streams differing in their chemical composition and treat-
ment requirements.  These considerations are reflected in pre-
vailing wastewater treatment practices within the category, and
in the identified BPT.

The BPT wastewater treatment system (Option 1 System in Section
VII) for the Metal Finishing Category is illustrated in Figure
9-1.  This treatment system provides for the removal of metals
                              IX-1

-------
i
to
                             Oily Raw Waste     Raw Waste
Raw Waste
Raw Waste
                          r
                       Skiimtecl
                         Oil
1
Emulsion
Breaking
3


1
Cyanide
Oxidation





Common
Metals
!

I


1
Chror
Redu<


Chemical j. .
'recipitation
'
Clari
Tees
Rffl
i
Sludge

_
f Slu
ited Dewat
\
nium
3tion
Complexed
Metals
r
no , ». Chemical
""" Precipitation
i
Slw3ge „
.._.._._..„. Pl-rr

'_
dge '
ering „_
^ Trea

Lfier
i
ted

Raw Waste       Toxic Organic
                                                                                    1
                                  Effluent
                                                                                Contractor
                                                                                 Removal
                                                 Hauled or
                                                 Reclaimed
                                                         FIGURE 9-1

                                                         BPT SYSTEM

-------
from all process wastewater streams by chemical precipitation and
clarification, and specific treatment of some waste streams for
the removal of other process wastewater pollutants.  Extensive
description of these treatment components is provided in Section
VII.  Individual plants in the Metal Finishing Category that do
not produce all of the distinct wastewater types shown need to
install only the system components necessary for the treatment of
those wastewater types existing at the plant to achieve compliance
with BPT.

Where some process waste streams contain complexed metals, BPT
includes the segregation of these wastes and separate treatment
for the precipitation of metals and removal of suspended solids.
Precipitation of metals from these wastes is characteristically
accomplished at a high pH (11.6 - 12.5) to induce dissociation of
the metal complexes.  Lime or other calcium compounds are used
to adjust the pH to the high levels required to induce precipita-
tion of the free metals as hydroxides.  Sedimentation is then
used in order to allow the resulting suspended solids to settle
out of solution.

Waste streams containing cyanide or hexavalent chromium are also
segregated for treatment in the BPT system.  Cyanide bearing
wastes are treated chemically to oxidize the cyanide, and streams
containing hexavalent chromium are subjected to chemical chromium
reduction.  After these separate treatment operations are com-
pleted, these waste streams are combined with other process waste-
water for the chemical precipitaion of metals and clarification.

Concentrated oily waste streams are segregated and treated for the
removal of oil and grease prior to treatment for metals removal.
Oils and greases are removed by gravity separation and skimming
of free oils followed by chemical emulsion breaking and subsequent
skimming for the removal of emulsified oils.  Some oily waste
streams produced in this category may contain very low concen-
trations of emulsified oils making chemical emulsion breaking
unnecessary, while others may contain low free oil concentrations
obviating the need for skimming prior to emulsion breaking.
Some oily waste streams containing very low concentrations of
dissolved metals may be of a quality suitable for discharge af-
ter oil removal treatment.  In these cases, further treatment
for metals removal with other process waste streams would not
be necessary to achieve compliance with BPT.

Following separate stream treatment the effluents are combined and
the metals are removed by precipitation and subsequent clarifica-
tion.  Precipitation is accomplished by the addition of lime,
caustic, sodium carbonate, or acid to achieve a favorable pH.
Most metals precipitate as hydroxides although some, such as lead
and silver, preferentially form other compounds (e.g. carbonates
or chlorides).  The optimum pH for precipitation is generally in
the range of 8.8-9.3, although it will vary somewhat depending on
the specific waste composition.  The use of coagulents or flocculants
to enhance the effectiveness of clarification is also specifically
included in BPT.
                             IX.-3

-------
In addition to the control of toxic metals, cyanide. TSS, and pH.
BPT regulates toxic organics as Total Toxic Organics.  Compliance
with the TTO limit can be achieved by good management practices
(i.e.. not dumping waste solvents into the wastewater).  No
additional end- of-pipe technology beyond that required for metals
removal is necessaty.

Alternative technologies are available which are equivalent to
BPT for the removal of the pollutants encountered in the Metal
Finishing Category.  Some of these technologies as well as those
discussed above as BPT have been describedindetailin Section
VII of this document.  The specific technologies implemented at
each individual plant to achieve compliance with BPT limitations
will depend on economic and operational considerations specific
to the facility.


RATIONALE FOR THE SELECTION OF BPT


The BPT system identified above has been selected on the basis
of: proven effectiveness in treating pollutants present in
metal finishing process wastewaters; present practice within
the category; and non-water quality considerations.  All of the
elements of the selected BPT are presently practiced at many plants
within the Metal Finishing Category and have been proven to be
reliable and effective in treating industrial wastewater.
Energy requirements for these technologies are moderate.  However,
sludges and waste oils which prove to be hazardous must be handled
and disposed of in accordance with the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act regulations.

Chemical precipitation is a proven technology which is widely
applied at Metal Finishing Category plants.  As is shown in
Section VII, over 100 facilities employing hydroxide precipita-
tion and sedimentation for the removal of metals from process
wastewaters are identified.  With appropriate control of pH and
settling conditions, this technology can be effectively applied
to process wastewaters containing any of the metals commonly
encountered in this category.  Because this technology has been
applied at many facilities over extended periods of time, its
performance capabilities were established on the basis of a
large body of data from industrial effluents within the Metal Fi-
nishing Category.                         '..

Chemical chromium reduction is also a proven and widely applied
technology.  Over 300 plants in the Metal Finishing Category
which employ this technology were identified.  It may be imple-
mented using a variety of equipment, reagents, and operating pro-
cedures, and is readily adaptable to the wide range of flow
rates and hexavalent chromium concentrations encountered in the
Metal Finishing Category.  Similar to chemical precipitation,
its pollutant reduction performance capabilities were established
from effluent data from a number of plants within the category.
                             IX-4

-------
Chemical oxidation of cyanide using chlorine is also a common
wastewater treatment practice within the Metal Finishing Category.
Over 200 plants employing this technology were identified within
the surveyed data base.  As a result, considerable data establishing
the reliability and performance of this technology were available
from industrial sites within the Metal Finishing Category.

Treatment  of  process  wastewater  for  the  removal of oils and
greases is common practice in the Metal  Finishing  Category.   A
variety  of  oil  removal techniques are employed as discussed  in
Section VII.   These correspond to the wide range of waste  stream
compositions  encountered.   The  identified BPT provides for the
removal of both free and emulsified oils commonly encountered   in
metal finishing wastewaters.  Twenty-nine plants in the data base
were  identified  which employ emulsion breaking technology.  The
number of plants employing skimming for the removal of  oils  and
greases  is  much  larger.   Performance  capabilities  for these
technologies were firmly established on the  basis  of  extensive
long-term  practice  in  treating  industrial process wastewater.
The specific technologies identified as BPT are relatively simple
and reliable; however, comparable  effluent  performance  can   be
achieved by numerous technical alternatives.

The  technical  merits,  present  practice, and demonstrated per-
formance of the BPT  technologies  are  discussed  in  detail   in
Section  VII.   The  costs  and  non-water  quality environmental
aspects of these technologies are presented in Section VIII.


BPT LIMITATIONS

The effluent limitations attainable by  application  of  BPT  are
presented in Table 9-1 .

                            TABLE 9-1
                     BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
                       Concentration  (mg/fc)

   Pollutant or                        Daily      Maximum Monthly
Pollutant Parameter                   Maximum         Average	

     Cadmium                           0.69            0.26
     Chromium,  total                    2.77            1.71
     Copper                             3.38            2.07
     Lead                               0.69            0.43
     Nickel                             3.98            2.38
     Silver                             0.43            0.24
     Zinc                               2.61            1.48
     Cyanide,  total                     1.20            0.65
     TTO                                2.13
     Oil  and Grease                    52               26
     TSS                               60               31
     pH           Within  the  range  of 6.0  to  9.0

     Alternative  to  total  cyanide
     Cyanide,  amenable to  chlorination  0.86            0.32
                            IX-5

-------
These limitations are based on demonstrated performance at metal
finishing plants employing the identified BPT technologies.  As
described in Section VII, both on-site sampling and observations,
and long-term effluent monitoring data are reflected in the limi-
tations.  They therefore incorporate both plant to plant varia-
tions in raw wastes and treatment practices and the day-to-day
variability of treatment system performance.  The effluent con-
centrations shown in Table 9-1 represent levels attainable by a
well run BPT system 99% of the time.

The concentrations shown are all applicable to the treated ef-
fluent prior to any dilution with sanitary wastewater, noncon-
tact cooling water, or other non-process water.  The total cyanide
concentration limitation applies to the discharge from cyanide
.oxidation prior to mixture with any other process wastes.

As  an alternative  the  amenable  cyanide  limit  may  apply  in  place
of  the  total cyanide limit  for  industrial  facilities with
cyanide  treatment  and  upon  agreement  between  a  source subject
to  those limits  and  the pollution  control  authority.
                                           j..~  	      	   •  -
The derivation of these performance limitations from effluent
data for Metal Finishing Category plants is described in detail
in Section VII.  After technical analysis of the effluent data
and supporting information to identify plants with properly
operating treatment systems, the data were screened to ensure
that only effluent data corresponding to raw waste streams which
contained significant levels of each pollutant were used to
establish limitations for that parameter.  These data were then
analyzed statistically as described under Statistical Analysis
(reference Section VII) to derive 99th percentile limits on tooth
single day and monthly maximum average effluent concentrations,


PRESENT  COMPLIANCE WITH BPT                ;

Table 9-2 shows the compliance percentages for  the two data bases
evaluated in developing the BPT effluent limitations:   (1) the
EPA sampled data base; and  (2) the  long teem  self-monitoring data
base from data submitted by plants  in the  industry.  Compliance
Cor^the  self-monitoring data was determined for both daily
maximum  values and 10-day average  values.
                               IX-6

-------
Tables 9-3 and 9-10 present a detailed summary of the self-
monitoring data relative to compliance with the daily maximum and
the monthly maximum average limitations for the regulated
parameters.  Table 9-3 shows the number of data points in
compliance with the BPT daily maximum limitations and the total
number of data points for each parameter at each plant.  Table 9-4
presents the corresponding compliance percentage values.  Tables
9-5 and 9-6 present the same information for total cyanide.
amenable cyanide, and silver.  Compliance information is presented
in the same format for the maximum monthly averages in Tables 9-7
through 9-10 using 10 days as a basis.

BENEFITS OF BPT IMPLEMENTATION

The estimated environmental benefits of the application of BPT to
all plants in the Metal Finishing Category are summarized in Table
9-11.  This table presents estimates of the total mass of the
regulated pollutant parameters in raw wastewaters from all metal
finishing plants and the remaining mass of these pollutants
discharged after application of BPT at all facilities with direct
discharges.  The differences between these values are presented as
quantitative estimates of the environmental benefits of
implementing BPT.  These benefits may be compared to the costs of
BPT (Option 1) as presented in Section VIII.
                              IX-7

-------
                               TABLE 9-2
                    PERCENTAGE OF THE MFC DATA BASE
                       BELOW THE BPT LIMITATIONS

                                     Self-Monitoring   Self-Monitoring
                 IPA Sampled Data*        Data               Data
Pollutant         Daily Maximum       Daily Maximum      10-Day Average
Cadmium               100.0                98.8               97.8
Chromium              100.0                99.7               99.7
Copper                 95.7                98.5               96.7
Lead                  100.0                95.9               92.7
Nickel                 95.6                99.9              100.0
Silver                100.0                7d,6              100.0
Zinc                   94.1                99.2               95.8
Cyanide, total         97.8                79.3               63.4
TTO                   100.0
Oil & grease          100.0               100^.0              100.0
TSS                   100.0                991.8              100.0
   EPA sampled data used to develop limits  (ij.e.. Tables 7-4 to 7-10,
   7-55, 7-74).
                               IX-8

-------
X
I
PLANT

1067
3049
5020
6002
6035
6051
6053
6087
6103
6107
11008
11477
12002
17030
19063
20080
20082
20116
22735
23076
30050
30079
30090
30165
33050
33092
34037
36040
44045
44150
45741
47025
              TSS

              148/149
              49/49
              12/12
              13/13
              12/12
              12/12
              13/13
              10/10
              140/140
              69/69
269/269

243/243
27/27

292/292

51/51
              50/50
              335/337
                                                   TABLE 9-3
                                  BPT SELF-MONITORING  DATA COMPLIANCE  SUMMARY
                         DATA POINTS < BPT DAILY MAXIMUM^IMITATIONS/TOTAL DATA POINTS
CADMIUM
228/230
—
6/6
9/9
13/13
—
—
183/185
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
49/51
CHROMIUM
230/230
228/228
—
12/12
13/13
—
10/10
185/185
—
342/344
238/238
269/269
250/253
243/243
35/35
237/242
289/289
49/49
—
—
—
225/225
—
—
358/358
256/256
COPPER
230/230
232/232
—
—
13/13
12/12
8/10
185/185
58/58
—
247/248
—
240/253
243/243
—
231/241
292/292
260/260
65/66
112/112
172/184
—
49/49
124/127
—
—
                                                LEAD
                                                              217/229
                                                              238/238
                                                             54/65
                                                48/49
NICKEL
                                                            13/13
                                                            185/185
10/10

253/253
243/243

239/241
75/75
33/33

228/228
49/49
ZINC
OIL & GREASE
                                                            230/230     230/230

                                                            231/231
            13/13
            9/10
            184/184

            51/51
269/269
249/250
                                                                        58/66
                                                                        115/115
                                                                                      42/42
                        49/49
            13/13
                                                                                    66/66
                                                                                    55/55
    269/269
                                                                                                  45/45

                                                                                                  287/287
                                                                                                  12/12
                                                                                                  45/45
                                                                                                  49/49
     OVERALL  1745/1748    488/494
                                 3469/3479   2773/2815    557/581
                                                            1789/1791    1220/1230   890/890
     — = No data  or  material not used  in metal  finishing processes.

-------
                                              TABLE 9-4
                             BPT SELF-MONITORING DATA COMPLIANCE SUMMARY
                        PERCENT OP DATA POINTS < BP1 DAILX MAXIMUM LIMITATIONS















H
X
1
H
O
















PLANT
1067
3049
5020
6002
6035
6051
6053
6087
6103
6107
11008
11477
12002
17030
19063
20080
20082
20116
22735
23076
30050
30079
30090
30165
33050
33092
34037
36040
44045
44150
45741
47025
OVERALL
TSS
99.3
100.0
—
—
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
~-
—
...
100.0
__
100.0
100.0.
--
100.0
—
,100.0
—
—
—
—
—
100.0
—

99.4
99.8
CADMIUM CHROMIUM
99.1 100.0

100.0
100.0
100.0 100.0
100.0 100.0

- -
...
100.0
98.9 100.0
_.
, -
99.4
100,0
100.0
98.8
100.0
100.0
97.9
100.0
_.
100.0

- -
...
--
100.0
--
.. -
100.0
96.1 100.0
98.8 99.7
COPPER LEAD
100.0
..-
100.0 94.8
-
—
100.0
„_
100.0
...
80.0
100.0
._
100.0
~-
99.6 100.0
—
94.9
100.0
__
95.9
100.0
...
100.0
98.5 83.1
100.0
...
93.5
__
100.0 97.9
97.6
- -
— -—
98.5 95.9
NICKEL
100.0

100.0
—
,_
100.0
—
--
__
.._
100.0
—
_._

100.0
—
100.0
100.0
__
99.2
100.0
—
—
—
_.-
100.0
.„
100.0
100.0
,_
.._
—
99.9
ZINC
100.0
—
—
—
—
100.0
—
--
—
90.0
100.0
—
100.0
—
—
100.0
99.6
—
_._
—
—
—
:
87.9
100.0
--
—
—
.
100.0
__
—
99.2
OIL & GREASE
_.
100.0
__
—
—
100.0
—
--
__
—
—
100.0
100.0
—
— -
100.0
—
—
100.0
--
100.0
100.0
wo. a
—
--
--
—
__
—
—
100.0
—
100.0
— = No data or .material not used In metal finishing processes.

-------
                               TABLE 9-5
        SINGLE OPTION - SELF -MONITOR ING DATA COMPLIANCE SUMMARY
            DATA POINTS <. BPT LIMITATIONS/TOTAL DATA POINTS
Plant
1067
3043
6002
6051
6087
6107
11008
11125
15193
20080
2OO82
31021
36082
38223
44045
47025
Cyanide. Total
      *
    78/89
                  Cyanide. Amenable
                                                               Silver
170/179
  0/54
  4/12
268/268
2OO/246
 86/140
119/121
  —
 40/50
 63/139
                                                                  12/12
                                                                   0/5
                                            31/40
                                           234/235
                                           216/243
Overall
   1028/1298
                        481/518
                                                                  12/17
 t Adjusted for dilution.
 * Dilution factor not known.
— No data or material not used in metal finishing processes
                               IX-11

-------
                               TABLE  9-6
        SINGLE OPTION - SELF-MONITORING DATA COMPLIANCE SUMMARY
                PERCENT OF DATA POINTS <. BPT LIMITATIONS

Plant           Cyanide. Total *      Cyanide. Amenablet        Silver
1067                  *
3043                87.6                    --'
6002
6051                  *
6087                 —                     —                   100.0
6107                  *
11008               94.9
11125                0.0                    —                     0.0
15193               33.3
20080              100.0
20082               81.3
31021               61.4                   77.5
36082               98.3
38223                —                    99.6
44045               80.0
47025               45.3                   88.9
Overall             79.2                   92.8                   70.5

 t Adjusted for dilution.
 * Dilution factor not known.
— No data or material not used in metal finishing processes.
                                IX-12

-------
                                              TABLE 9-1
                                 BPT SELF-MONITORING DATA COMPLIANCE
      10-DAY AVERAGES < BPT MONTHLY MAXIMUM AVERAGE LIMITATIONS/TOTAL NUMBER OF 10-DAY AVERAGES















H
X
1
M
U)
















PLAMT
1067
3049
5020
6002
6035
6051
6053
6087
6103
6107
11008
11477
12002
17030
19063
20080
20082
20116
22735
23076
30050
30079
30090
30165
33050
33092
34037
36040
44045
44150
45741
47025
OVERALL
TSS
14/14
4/4
—
—
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
14/14
6/6
—
—
— .
26/26
— --
24/24
2/2
__
29/29
—
5/5

—
—
—
—
5/5
—
. —
33/33
168/168
CADMIUM CHROMIUM
23/23 23/23
—
22/22
—
1/1
1/1 1/1
—
—
—
1/1
18/18 18/18
—
—
34/34
23/23
26/26
24/25
24/24
3/3
24/24
28/28
—
4/4
_._
__
__
—
22/22
—
__
35/35
3/4 25/25
45/46 338/339
COPPER LEAD
23/23
__
23/23 21/22
—
—
1/1
—
1/1
—
0/1
18/18
—
5/5
—
24/24 23/23

22/25
24/24
—
23/24
29/29
—
26/26
6/6 3/6
11/11
—
14/18
—
4/4 4/4
12/12
_..
—
266/275 51/55
NICKEL
23/23
—
23/23
—
—
1/1
—
—
—
—
18/18
—
-..
—
1/1

25/25
24/24
--
24/24
7/7
—
--
—
_._
3/3
—
22/22
4/4
_.
--
--
175/175
ZINC
23/23
— .
—

—
1/1
—
—
—
0/1
18/18
—
5/5

—
26/26
25/25
—
—
—
—
—
__
2/6
11/11
—
—
_._
__
4/4
—
—
115/120
OIL & GRBJ
-
4/4
--
—
—
1/1
—
—
—
—
—
6/6
5/5
—
.._
26/26
__
...
4/4
--
28/28
1/1
4/4
—
__
--
.._

--
—
4/4
. —
83/83
— = No data or material not used in metal  finishing processes.

-------
                                              TABLE 9-8
                             BPT SELF-MONITORING DATA COMPLIANCE SUMMARY
                 PERCENT OF 10-DAX AVERAGES < BPT MONTHLY MAXIMUM AVERAGE LIMITATIONS
PLANT
1067
3049
5020
6002
6035
6051
6053
6087
6103
6107
11008
11477
12002
17030
19063
20080
20082
20116
22735
23076
30050
30079
30090
30165
33050
33092
34037
36040
44045
44150
45741
47025
OVERALL
TSS
100.0
100.0
—
__
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
__
--
—
100.0;
--
100.0
100.0,
....
100.0

100.0
—
—
—
- .
—
100.0
—
—
100.0
100.0
CADMIUM CHROMIUM
100.0 100.0

100.0
._
100.0
100.0 100.0
--
- -

100.0
100.0 100.0
—
...
100.0
100.0
100.0
96.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100. d
. .. . .. _ •

- -
._
100.0
--

100.0
75.0 100.0
97.8 99,7
COPPER LEAD
100.0
--
100.0 95.5
.._
__
100.0

100.0

0.0
100.0
—
100.0
—
100.0 100.0
--
88,0 —
100.0
_._
95.8
100.0
...
100.0" —
100.0 50.0
100.0
. -
77.8
__
100.0 100.0
100.0
__
— —
96.7 92.0
NICKEL
100.0
—
100.0
—
—
100.0
__

--
--
100.0
—
_-
—
100.0
—
100.0
100.0
—
100.0
100.0
—
—
—
__
100.0
—
100.0
100.0
--
—
—
100.0
ZINC
100.0
—
--
__
—
100.0
__
--
—
0.0
100.0
—
100. 0


100.0
100.0
--
— :.
__
:
—

33.3
100.0
—
—
—
__
100.0
—
—
95.8
OIL & GREASE
__
100.0
__
—
—
100.0
—
—
—
—
—
100.0
100.0
—
—
100.0
—
—
100.0
—
100.0
100.0
100.0
—
__
—
—
--
--
—
100.0
—
100.0
— = No data or; material not used in metal finishing processes.

-------
                               TABLE 9-9
        SINGLE OPTION - SELF-MONITORING DATA COMPLIANCE SUMMARY
    10-DAY AVERAGES <. BPT MONTHLY MAXIMUM AVERAGE LIMITATIONS/TOTAL
                       NUMBER OF 10-DAY AVERAGES

Plant           Cyanide.Total*      Cyanide. Amenable*        Silver
1067                 *
3043                6/8
6002
6051                 *
6087                ~                       --                    1/1
6107                 *
11008              15/17
11125               0/5
15193 ,              0/1
20080              26/26
20082              12/24
31021               4/14                     0/3
36082              11/12
38223               --                      22/23
44045               3/4
47025               1/13                    17/24
Overall            78/124                   39/50                  1/1

 t Adjusted for dilution.
 * Dilution factor not known.
-- No data or material not used in metal finishing processes.
                                IX-1S

-------
                                TABLE 9-10
        SINGLE OPTION  - SELF-MONITORING  DATA COMPLIANCE  SUMMARY
  PERCENT OF 10-DAY AVERAGES  <. BPT MONTHLY  MAXIMUM AVERAGE  LIMITATIONS

Plant           Cyanide. Totalt      Cyanide! Amenablet        Silver
1067                   *
                                             u
3043                75.0                 '    j~
6002                 —                      --                     •->*
6051                   *                      --
6087                 —                      p-                    100.0
6107                   *                      --                     --
11008               88.2
11125                0.0
15193                0.0
20080              100.0
20082               50.0                     ;--                     =-
31021               28.6                     0.0
36082               91.7                     ;—
38223                —                     9516                    --
44045               75.0
47025                7.7                    70.8
                                             i
overall             62.9                    78.0                   100.0

 t Adjusted for dilution.
 * Dilution factor not known.
— No data or material not used in  metal finishing  processes.
                                IX-16

-------
Pollirbant Parameter

Cadmium
Chromium, Total
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
TOXIC METALS TOTALS:

Cyanide, Total

Total Toxic Organics



OVERALL TOTALS:
                                  TABLE 9-11

                        BPT TREATMENT BENEFIT SUMMARY

                         Discharge (Metric tons/year)
RawLoading

   102
  9886
  4547
   119
   557
     8
  4489
 19708

  3582

  1170



 24460
BPT
_Effl_uetrt

   3
 136
 206
  14
 237
   6
 110
 712

  65

  30
 807
 BPT
 Benefit

   99
 9750
 4341
  105
  320
    2
 4379
18996

 3517

 1140



23653
                                       IX-17

-------
                         SECTION X
                 BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
                  ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
INTRODUCTION
This section describes the best available technology economically
achievable (BAT) for the treatment and control of process waste-
water generated within the Metal Finishing Category.  BAT represents
the best existing economically achievable performance of plants
of various ages, sizes, processes or other shared characteristics.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 required that BAT
represent reasonable further progress (beyond BPT) toward elimina-
ting the discharge of all pollutants.  In fact, elimination of
discharge of all pollutants is required if technologically and
economically achievable.  The Clean Water Act of 1977 specifically
defined both the conventional and toxic pollutants that must be
regulated (See Section V of this document for identification of
these pollutants) and also established a class of nonconventional
pollutants for regulation.

BAT has been further defined as the very best control and treatment
technology within a subcategory or as superior technology transferred
from other industrial subcategories or categories.  This definition
encompasses in-plant process improvements as well as more effective
end-of-pipe treatment.

IDENTIFICATION OF BAT

BAT is the technology defined under Option 1 in Section VII of
this document and is shown in Figure 10—1.  For toxic metals,
toxic organics, and cyanide, BAT effluent control is achieved by
the BPT system described in Section IX.

For waste streams containing complexed metals, BAT will be identi-
cal to BPT.  This will require the segregation of the complexed
metals waste stream with separate treatment for the precipitation
of metals and removal of suspended solids.  Precipitation of
metals from this waste stream can be accomplished by adjusting
the pH of the wastewater to 11.6-12.5 in order to promote dis-
sociation of the metal complexes and subsequent precipitation
of the free metals.  Sedimentation is then employed in order
to allow the resulting suspended solids to settle out of solution.

The BAT treatment systems (Option 1 system in Section VII) is
adequate to achieve the BAT effluent limitations presented later
in this section.  However, a plant may elect to supplement this
system with other equipment or use an entirely different treat-
ment technique in order to attain the BAT limitations.  Alterna-
tive technologies (both end-of-pipe and in-process) are described
in Section VII of this document.  In-plant techniques such as
evaporative recovery or reverse osmosis may substantially reduce
the end-of-pipe treatment requirements.
                                X-J

-------
x

N)
                                Oily Raw Waste      Raw Waste         Raw Waste          Raw Waste         Raw Waste      Toxic Organi<
                                     I
                                  Emulsion
                                  Breaking
                          Skimmed
                            Oil
    I
 Cyanide
Oxidation
               Cannon
               Metals
   1
Chromium
Reduction
            Ccnplexed
               Metals
                                                                    Chemical
                                                                  Precipitation
                                     Lime
Hauled or
Reclaimed
                 Chemical
               Precipitation
                                                                    Clarifier
                                                                                Sludge        Sludge
                                                                    Treated
                                                                    Effluent
                                    Sludge
                                  Dewatering
                                                                                        T
                                                                                                          I
                                                    Treated
                                                    Effluent
                                                                                    Contractor
                                                                                     Removal
                                                             FIGURE 10-1

                                                              BAT SYSTEM

-------
fiATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF BAT

The BAT treatment system identified previously was selected
because it has been proven in metal finishing plants to represent
a well demonstrated, reliable technology which achieves a high
degree of toxic pollutant removal.  This is demonstrated by the
Option 1 system performance in Section VII.

Although demonstration of BAT at a single plant is adequate for
its selection, the common metals Option 1 system is identified in
Section VII as presently employed at over 100 known metal
finishing plants.  Precipitation, clarification, and filtration.
has been demonstrated to be effective at several plants, although
far less frequently than precipitation/clarification alone.
Although precipitation/clarification/filtration was considered
for BAT, it was not selected as the technology basis because of
the very high incremental aggregate costs.

Compared to BPT. BAT has identical impact on energy requirements
and nonwater quality aspects.

BAT LIMITATIONS

The BAT effluent limitations are presented in Table 10-1.


                            TABLE 10-1
                     BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

   Pollutant or                        Daily      Maximum Monthly
Pollutant Parameter                   Maximum         Average	

     Cadmium                            0.69            0.26
     Chromium, total                    2.77            1.71
     Copper                             3.38            2.07
     Lead                               0.69            0.43
     Nickel                             3.98            2.38
     Silver                             0.43            0.24
     Zinc                               2.61            1.48
     Cyanide, total                     1.20     *      0.65
     TTO                                2.13

     Alternative to total cyanide:
     Cyanide, amenable to chlorination  0.86            0.32


As discussed in Section VII, these limitations represent the
effluent concentrations attainable by a properly operating BAT
system 99 percent of the time.  The concentrations presented
                                X-3

-------
in Table 10-1 reflect treated effluent undiluted by sanitary
wastewater. noncontact cooling water, or other nonprocess water.
The total cyanide concentration limitation applies to the
discharge from cyanide oxidation prior to mixture with any other
process wastes.  As an alternative to the total cyanide limit.
cyanide amenable limit may apply in place of total cyanide for a
facility with cyanide treatment and contingent on agreement
between the facility and the pollution control authority.

The development of these effluent limitations from performance
measurements of existing BAT systems is described in Section VII.
The statistical rationale used in developing these limitations is
presented at the end of Section VII under the heading of Statis-
tical Analysis.

PRESENT COMPLIANCE WITH BAT

The percent compliance with BAT for the EPA sampled data base and
the long-term self-monitoring data base is the same as for BPT for
the toxic metals and cyanide as presented in Tables 9-2 to 9-10.

BENEFITS OF BAT IMPLEMENTATION

Since the BAT treatment system is identical to the BPT system, no
increased environmental benefit above that derived from BPT
treatment is attained.
                                X-4

-------
                         SECTION XI
              NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
INTRODUCTION
This section describes the new source performance standards
(NSPS) for the treatment and control of process wastewaters
generated within the Metal Finishing Category.  NSPS reflects
existing treatment and control practices or demonstrations that
are not necessarily in common practice.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 required that
NSPS represent the best available demonstrated control tech-
nology, processes, and operating methods.  Where practicable, no
pollutant discharge at all is to be allowed.  Where pollutant
discharge is unavoidable, these standards are to represent the
greatest degree of effluent reduction achievable.  They apply
to new sources, which are defined as any building, structure,
facility, or installation that discharges pollutants and for
which construction is started after promulgation of the standards,

IDENTIFCATION OF NSPS
NSPS is the technology defined under Treatment of Common Metals
Wastes - Option 3 in Section VIII of this Development Document.
The NSPS waste treatment system is shown in Figure 11-1.  For
common metals, precious metals, oil and grease and cyanide wastes,
NSPS is achieved by the previously described BPT and BAT treat-
ment systems, plus the use of in-process treatment modifications
for controlling the discharge of cadmium.  The BPT or BAT waste
treatment systems have been previously described in Sections IX
and X of the document.

The in-process modifications for controlling cadmium consist of
using evaporative recovery or ion exchange on segregated cadmium
bearing waste streams prior to mixing with other common metals
bearing wastewaters for end-of-pipe treatment.  These in-process
modifications will reduce cadmium discharges to the background
levels detailed in Section VII of the document.

For complexed metal bearing waste streams, NSPS will be identi-
cal to the BPT and BAT waste systems.  This requires segregation
of the complexed metals waste stream with separate treatment for
the precipitation of metals and removal of suspended solids.
Precipitation of metals from this waste stream is accomplished by
pH adjustment of the wastewater to 11.6-12.5 in order to promote
dissociation of the metal complexes and subsequent precipitation
of the free metals.  This is followed by sedimentation in order
to allow the resulting suspended solids to settle out of solution.
                              Xl-1

-------
             OILY RAW WASTE
RAW WASTE  wtTH  RAW WASTE  RAW WASTE RAW WASTE
SKIMMED OILS
HAUL OR
RECLAIM
                                                                         CHROMIUM
                                                                         REDUCTION
                                   RAW WASTE
                                CADMIUM!
                                                                                              i
 RAW WASTE  TOXIC ORGANICS
                                   EVAPORATIVE
                                   RECOVERY OR
                                   ION EXCHANGE
                                                                                                  COMPLEXED
                                                                                                  METALS
                                     Zero
                                   Discharge
                                                                                                                        HAUL OR
                                                                                                                        RECLAIM
                                                      CHEMICAL
                                                      PRECIPITATION
     X
     H
     I
     K!
                •LIME
                                     LIME.
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION
                                        TREATED
                                        EFFLUENT
CLARIFIER
                                                 CLARIFIER
                                                              SLUDGE
                                                                               SLUDGE
                                                                               DEWATERING
                                                                                                       SLUDGE
                  TREATED
                  EFFLUENT
                                                                               CONTRACTOR
                                                                               REMOVAL
                                                            FIGURE 11-1
                                                            NSPS SYSTEM

-------
The NSPS treatment system will, with proper operation, achieve
the NSPS effluent limitations presented later in this section.
However, a plant may elect to supplement this system with other
equipment or use an entirely different treatment technique in
order to attain the NSPS limitations.  Alternative technologies
(both end-of-pipe and in-process) are described in Section VII of
this document.  In-plant treatment modifications such as the use
of evaporated recovery may substantially reduce end-of-pipe
treatment requirements.

RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF NSPS TECHNOLOGY

The NSPS treatment components identified previously for control
of cadmium were selected because they have been proven in metal
finishing plants to represent reasonable performance improvement
beyond the BPT and BAT levels of treatment.  This improvement is
demonstrated by the comparison of Option 1 and Option 3 system
performance for cadmium in Section VII.

Option 3 effluent limitations for cadmium represent background
levels detected in effluents from plants which do not apply this
metal in their production operations.  Because the technology
basis eliminated the discharge from cadmium wastewater sources.
this limit is appropriate.  In using data indirectly, the Agency
has been conservative in two ways.  First, the background levels
used to develop the standards are raw waste concentrations; the
technology basis of precipitation/clarification is expected to
result in further removal.  Second, the highest two plants were
used for the derivation of the long term average.  The
conservative nature of this procedure can be seen by comparing
the new source average with the EPA sampled discharges of cadmium
from precipitation/clarification.  (A detailed explanation of
this approach and the data supporting the reasonableness of
this approach are provided in Section VII.)

When compared to BPT and BAT, NSPS has only minor incremental
impact upon energy requirements and other nonwater quality
aspects.

NSPS LIMITATIONS

The NSPS effluent limitations are presented in Table 11-1.
                             XI-3

-------
                            TABLE 11-1
                    NSPS EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
   Pollutant or
Pollutant Parameter

     Cadmium
     Chromium, total
     Copper
     Lead
     Nickel
     Silver
     Zinc
     Cyanide, total
     TTO
     Oil and Grease
     TSS
                    Daily
                   Maximum
                       i	
                     0.11
                     2.77
                     3.38
                     0.69
                     3.98
                     0.43
                     2.61
                     1.20
                     2.13
                    52
                    60
     pH
     Alternative to total cyanide:
     Cyanide, amenable to chlorination
Maximum Monthly
    Average	

      0.07
      1.71
      2.07
      0.43
      2.38
      0.24
      1.48
      0.65
Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0
     26
     31
                     0.86
      0.32
As discussed in Section VII of this document, these limitations
represent the effluent concentrations attainable by a well
operating NSPS system 99 percent of the time.  The concentrations
presented in Table 11-1 reflect treated effluent undiluted by
sanitary wastewater. non-contact cooling water, or other non-
process water.  The total cyanide concentration limitation applies
to the discharge from in-process modifications (for this
pollutant) prior to mixture with any other process wastes.  As an
alternative to the total cyanide limit, a facility with cyanide
treament may apply the cyanide amenable limit in place of the
total cyanide limit upon agreement between the facility and the
pollution control authority.  The cadmium limitation applies to
the discharge from in-process modifications  (for this pollutant)
prior to mixture with any other process wastes.

The development of the NSPS effluent limitations is described in
Section VII under Common Metals Waste Treatment System Performance
- Option 3. and the statistical rationale is presented at the end
of Section VII under the heading of Statistical Analysis.

PRESENT COMPLIANCE WITH NSPS

The NSPS compliance for all parameters other than cadmium is the
same as that presented in Section IX (for BPT) because the NSPS
limitations for all parameters other than cadmium are identical
tothe BPT limitations.  Present compliance with the Option 3
cadmium limitation cannot be determined because data are not
available from metal finishing plants using the specified
technology.
                             XI-4

-------
BENEFITS OF NSPS IMPLEMENTATION

Table 11-2 shows the estimated benefit of reduced cadmium dis-
charge in terms of concentration reduction that results
from the implementation of the NSPS limitations.  An incremental
reduction benefit of 0.19 mg/£ of cadmium would be achieved.
The estimated environmental benefits for all pollutant para-
meters other than cadmium were presented in Section IX (for
BPT) and Section X (for BAT).  Quantitative benefits cannot
be determined for NSPS because installation of future facilities
cannot be predicted, and the wastewater flow rates from new
sources cannot be projected.
                           TABLE 11-2
                 NSPS TREATMENT BENEFIT SUMMARY
                 Concentration Reduction (mg/1)


                         Average        Average        Average
                         BPT/BAT         NSPS           NSPS
Pollutant Parameter      Effluent       Effluent       Reduction

Cadmium                    0.13            0.06           0.07
                              XI-

-------
                        SECTION XII
                   PRETREATMENT STANDARDS


INTRODUCTION

This section describes the pretreatment  standards  for  existing
sources  (PSES)  and  the  pretreatment standards for new sources
(PSNS) for the treatment  of  wastewaters  generated  within  the
Metal  Finishing Category that are discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works (POTW).  These standards are intended to  provide
an  equivalent degree of toxic metals and toxic organic pollutant
removal as provided by direct discharge limitations.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 stated  that  the
pretreatment  standards  shall prevent the discharge to a POTW of
any pollutant that may interfere with, pass through, or otherwise
be incompatible with the POTW.   The  Clean  Water  Act  of  1977
further  stipulated that industrial discharges must not interfere
with use and disposal of municipal sludges.  In  accordance  with
the  Clean Water Act, individual POTWs may specify more stringent
standards or (after meeting specified  criteria)  may  relax  the
standards presented here.

IDENTIFICATION OF PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGY

Pretreatment technology for PSES is the same as that defined in
Section X for BAT, and pretreatment technology for PSNS is the same
as that defined in Section XI for NSPS, with the exception that oil
and grease and TSS are not regulated parameters.  In addition, the
Agency is allowing 31 months for compliance with the metals, cyanide,
and total toxic organics standards.  However, the Agency believes
that toxic organics should not be uncontrolled for this period
and has. therefore, established an interim TTO limit based on
data prior to precipitation/clarification and reflecting proper
management of toxic organics.  The interim TTO limit has been
established with a compliance date of June 30, 1984.

RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGY

Toxic metals, and toxic organics may pass through a POTW. or they
may contaminate its sludge, or they may interfere with the
treatment process.  These pollutants must therefore be controlled
by pretreatment.
                             XII-1

-------
PRBTREATMENT STANDARDS

Pretreatment standards for existing sources are the same as BAT
(reference Section X) for existing sources' with the exception of
the interim TTO limit.  The PSES interim TTO daily maximum
limitation is 4.57 ing/a and applies to the TTO concentration in
the total plant raw wastewater.  Pretreatment standards for new
sources are the same as NSPS (reference Section XI) for new
sources, with the exception of control of oil and grease, TSS,
and pH.  Table 12-1 quantifies the PSES requirements and Table
12-2 presents the requirements for PSNS.  Although specific
control of TSS is not required, it will be effectively controlled
by the need to control metals.

PRESENT COMPLIANCE WITH PRETREAMENT STANDARDS
                                          I..  .
The percent compliance for EPA  sampled pljants with the interim
TTO limitation is 100 percent, for plants which appear to properly
manage toxic organic wastes.  Compliance with PSES for metals,
cyanide and TTO (final) is the same as that presented in
Section IX for BPT.  Compliance with PSNS is discussed in Section
XI for NSPS.                              '

BENEFITS OF IMPLEMENTATION

Table 12-3 shows for existing sources the estimated benefit of
reduced metals, cyanide, and total toxic organics discharge in
terms of metric tons of pollutant per day that results from the
implementation of the pretreatment limitations.  A reduction of
toxic metals (52549 metric tons/year), total cyanide (7699 metric
tons/year), and total toxic organics (4098 metric tons/year) may
be achieved by pretreatment prior to discharge to the municipal
sewer.  Benefits derived from implementing new source performance
standards cannot be predicted.  However, the impact on cadmium
effluent concentration reduction is presented in Section 11,
Table 11-2.
                              xn-2

-------
                            TABLE 12-1
                         PSES LIMITATIONS
   Pollutant or
Pollutant Parameter

     Cadmium
     Chromium, total
     Copper
     Lead
     Nickel
     Silver
     Zinc
     Cyanide, total
     TTO (interim)
     TTO (final)
 Daily
Maximum

  0.69
  2.77
  3.38
  0.69
  3.98
  0.43
  2.61
  1.20
  4.57
  2.13
     Alternative to total cyanide:
     Cyanide, amenable to chlorination  0.86
Maximum Monthly
	Average	

      0.26
      1.71
      2.07
      0.43
      2.38
      0.24
      1.48
      0.65
                  0.32
                            TABLE 12-2
                         PSNS LIMITATIONS
   Pollutant or
Pollutant Parameter

     Cadmium
     Chromium, total
     Copper
     Lead
     Nickel
     Silver
     Zinc
     Cyanide, total
     TTO
 Daily
Maximum

  0.11
  2.77
  3.38
  0.69
  3.98
  0.43
  2.61
  1.20
  2.13
     Alternative to total cyanide:
     Cyanide, amenable to chlorination  0.86
Maximum Monthly
	Average

      0.07
      1.71
      2.07
      0.43
      2.38
      0.24
      1.48
      0.65
                  0.32
                              XII-3

-------
                         TABLE 12-3
                PRETREATMENT BENEFIT SUMMARY

                    Discharge (kkg/yr)
Pollutant Parameter
Raw Loading
Pretreatment
  Effluent
Pretreatment
  Benefit
Cadmium                    223
Chromium, Total          21638
Copper                    9952
Lead                       261
Nickel                   12190
Silver                      18
Zinc                      9826
                   6
                 296
                 451
                  30
                 522
                  14
                 240
                  217
                21342
                 9501
                  231
                1 1668
                    4
                 9586
TOXIC METALS TOTALS:     54108
                1J559
                52549
Cyanide, Total

Total Toxic Organics
 7841

 4164
   142

    66
  7699

  4098
OVERALL TOXIC TOTALS:
66113
  1767
 64346
                                   XII-4

-------
                   INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY
INTRODUCTION

The Clean Water Act of 1977, Public Law 95-217, provides that di-
rect discharging facilities which make use of innovative tech-
nology that results in an effluent reduction greater than that
required by the limitations may have a date of July 1, 1987 for
compliance with the limitations.

Specifically, this compliance date extension is authorized by
Section 47 of the Act and is reproduced herein for reference:
Compliance
date
extension.
Supra.
                        INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY

               Sec. 47. Section 301 of the Federal Water Pollution
               Control Act is amended by adding at the end thereof
               a new subsection as follows:
                    "(k) In the case of any facility subject to a
               permit under section 402 which proposes to comply
               with the requirements of subsection (b) (2) (A)  of
               this section by replacing existing production capa-
               city with an innovative production process which
               will result in an effluent reduction significantly
               greater than that required by the limitation other-
               wise applicable to such facility and moves toward
               the national goal of eliminating the discharge of
               all pollutants, or with the installation of an in-
               novative control technique that has a substantial
               likelihood for enabling the facility to comply with
               the applicable effluent limitation by achieving a
               significantly greater effluent reduction than that
               required by the applicable effluent limitation and
               moves toward the national goal of eliminating the
               discharge of all pollutants, or by achieving the
               required reduction with an innovative system that
               has the potential for significantly lower costs than
               the system which have been determined by the Admin-
               istrator to be economically achievable, the Admini-
               strator (or the State with an approved program un-
               der section 402, in consultation with the Admini-
               strator) may establish a date for compliance under
               subsection (b) (2) (A) of this section no later than
               July 1, 1987, if it is also determined that such
               innovative system has the potential for industry
               wide application".

This section describes pollution control techniques that have the
capability of achieving the significant effluent reduction neces-
sary to qualify as an innovative technology.
                              XIII-1

-------
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY CANDIDATES

This section presents information on various innovative technologies
available to the industry for use in wastewater treatment and
control.  The innovative technologies described in this section may
not be applicable to all metal finishing facilities as the
appropriateness of these technologies is dependent on a number of
factors, including the design and operating characteristics of a
facility.  Currently, the appropriateness of these innovative
technologies should be determined on a plant-by-plant basis.
However, the innovative technologies described in this section have
been reported to be effective for wastewater treatment and control
at plants in the metal finishing industry.  These technologies, if
properly applied, can qualify as innovative technologies.  Included
among these candidate systems are evaporative systems, ion exchange.
electrolytic recovery systems, electrodialysis. reverse osmosis, and
electrochemical chromium regeneration.  A discussion of water
reducing controls is also presented in this section.
                                            I
Descriptions of evaporation, ion exchange, electrolytic recovery.
reverse osmosis, and electrochemical chromium regeneration
technologies are provided in Section VII along with information on
application, performance, and demonstration status in the Metal
Finishing industry.

An index to these technologies is provided in Table XIII-1.
Electrodialysis is described below.


                              TABLE 13-1

  INDEX TO INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY CANDIDATES DESCRIBED IN SECTION VII

TECHNOLOGY                               PAGE

Evaporation                              VII-76. 100. 124. 153

Ion Exchange                             VII-80. 102. 114. 124
Reverse Osmosis                          VI1-178

Electrolytic Recovery                    VII-102

Electrochemical Chromium Regeneration     VI1-123
                          XIII-2

-------
Electrodialysis

Electrodialysis is a process in which dissolved species are
exchanged between two liquids through selective semiperraeable
membranes.  An electromotive force causes concentration of the
species from a waste stream, thereby providing purified water.

Water to be treated by electrodialysis is pumped through a stan-
dard cartridge filter and into the membrane stack.  The stack
consists of about fifty cell pairs operated in parallel flow.
Each cell pair consists of an anion-selective membrane, a cation-
selective membrane, and membrane spacers.  These membranes and a
membrane from the adjacent cell pair define a diluting compart-
ment and a concentrating compartment.

Water to be treated flows through the diluting compartments. As
it does so, the contained ions (e.g. nickel and sulfate) are
drawn toward the electrodes at either end of the stack. Negative
and positive ions are drawn in opposite directions through the
selective membranes on either side of the diluting compartment
into the adjacent concentrating compartments.  Water of hydration
goes with them.  The ions continue in each direction across the
concentrating compartments but are trapped there because they are
blocked by membranes having a selectivity opposite to the one
they passed through.  The net effect is that the water passing
through the diluting compartments is deionized, while a concen-
trate (the ions and their water of hydration)  is formed in the
concentrating compartments  (the concentrating  compartments have
no inlet, only an outlet).

The end (electrode) compartments are different.  They are
continously flushed with a common-ion liquid (e.g. sodium
sulfate for nickel sulfate plating solution) to remove oxygen,
hydrogen, and chlorine formed by electrolysis at the
electrodes.  These gases are vented from the electrode wash
solution reservoir.

The overall effect is that the total mineral content of the
treated water is reduced to about 1,000 mg/1.  Further reduction
in concentration is not efficient and is not practical because
of excessive electrolysis. Thus, electrodialysis functions more
like ion exchange than like reverse osmosis and evaporation.
That is, ions are removed from wastewater rather than concen-
trated.  Nqn-ionic constituents such as organic brighteners
remain in the treated water rather than in the concentrate.

Figure 13-1 shows the application of a simple electrodialysis
cell to separate potassium sulfate solution (KjSO.) into its
components.  Practical electrodialysis installations contain
from ten to hundreds of compartments between one pair of
electrodes.  The application of an electric charge draws the
cations to the cathode and anions to the anode.  Industrial
wastewater containing metallic salts enters the center cell,
                            XIII-3

-------
(CATHODE) —
I
 CATION-    ANION-
PERMEABLE  PERMEABLE
 MEMBRANE  MEMBRANE
     1
     I
                  OH-
       K2S04
                                        f°2
                                (ANODE)
                    FIGURE  13-1

             SIMPLE ELECTRODIALYSIS CELL
                         XIII-4

-------
and the charge takes the positive ions to the cathode and
negative ions to the anode.  The result is a significant
reduction in salt concentration in the center cell with an
increase in solution concentrations in the adjacent cells.
Thus, the water from the center of each of three adjacent
cells is purified and metal ions are concentrated in the
cathode cell, with sulfates, chlorides, etc., concentrated in
the anode cell.  At the outlet end of the cell stack, streams
are drawn off from the individual cells either as the purified
water or as concentrate for recovery or for further treatment.

Figure 13-2 illustrates the operation of a seven chamber
conventional electrodialysis cell.  In large electrodialysis
installations, two or more stacks are linked in series.  The
dilute effluent from the first stage is passed through an
identical second stage, and so forth, with the effluent from
the final stage reaching the desired concentration.

Application

The functional characteristics just described are the key to
potential application.  Electrodialysis treated water is not
pure enough for a final rinse.  Adding a reverse osmosis unit
would achieve adequately pure water, with the RO concentrate
returning to the ED feed.  The standard setup, however, is
recirculation of a dead rinse (following the plating tank)
through the ED unit and back.  This maintains a low concentra-
tion (about 1,000 mg/1 of total mineral content) in the dead
rinse, minimizing the flow needed in the following running rinses.
If desired, these running rinses could be counterflowed through
an RO unit, with the concentrate directed to the ED unit.

Present applications include nickel, gold (cyanide and citrate),
silver, and cadmium plating.  Any type of plating solution is
potentially recoverable for direct return to the plating tank.
Electrodialysis has been shown to be an effective method for
concentrating rinse waters to a high percentage of bath strength.
Nickel, copper,'cyanide, chromic acid, iron and zinc can be
removed from process wastes by electrodialysis.  The natural
evaporation taking place in a plating bath will often be suffi-
cient to allow electrodialysis to be used to close the loop
without the addition of an evaporator.

At the time of the sampling visit, conventional electrodialysis
was being used by plant ID 20064 as a means of concentrating and
recovering chromic acid etch solution.  Electrodialysis can be
combined with an existing treatment system for recovery of metals,
or it can be used with other treatment to effect recirculation of
rinse water.  Many possibilities exist for electrodialysis and
with recent developments in membrane materials and cathode design
and increased knowledge of their applications, it may become a
major form of treatment for metals.
                               XIII-5

-------
  PURIFIED
   WATER
CONCENTRATE
                     	1 CATHODE
                     i
                           £f
y^Prt^
~i t 
-------
Performance

Little information is available on performance for treatment of
chromic acid; however, information is available on copper cyanide
performance.  Copper cyanide rinse water is treated in an electro-
dialysis unit for return of the concentrated chemicals to the
process bath.  The copper cyanide chemicals in the rinse water
can be concentrated to slightly more than 70 percent of the bath
strength.  For most copper cyanide plating, this concentration
may be sufficient to permit the direct return of all chemicals to
the processing operation.  One manufacturer guarantees 94 percent
recovery of dragged-out plating metals.  Figure 13-3 shows an
electrodialysis recovery system.

Demonstration Status

Commercial electrodialysis units are manufactured by at least
two major suppliers to the metal finishing industry. At least
20 units have been installed.

Three metal finishing plants in our data base indicate the use
of electrodialysis.  These plant ID'S are:  20064, 20069, and
41003.

Advanced Electrodialysis

This particular electrodialysis system is used to oxidize chro-
mium (in spent chromic acid)  from a trivalent form to a hexa-
valent form.  Its design uses a circular, permeable anode,
separated from the cathode by perfluorosulfonic membrane.  The
anode material is a specially designed lead alloy.  The cathode
is made from Hastelloy C tubing, which is a nickel alloy.  The
cathode is located in the center of the circular, permeable anode
and has a catholyte (10 percent sulfuric acid) which is circulat-
ing through it and surrounds the cathode.  This solution is used
as a transfer solution.  Figure 13-4 shows the physical construc-
tion of this circular electrodialysis cell.

The etchant is pumped in at the bottom of the unit through the
anode so that it remains in the chamber between the anode and the
perfluorosulfonic membrane.  Chromium in the trivalent form is
contained in the etchant and, when a current is passed through
this etchant solution, electrons are stripped from the trivalent
chromium causing oxidation of the trivalent chromium to hexavalent
chromium.  The newly stripped electrons migrate through the
perfluorosulfonic membrane into the catholyte solution.  Converted
hexavalent chromium is pumped back into the chromium etch tank
for reuse, while at the same time the catholytic solution is
being recirculated.  The reaction which occurs at the anode is as
follows:

     Cr+3 + 12 H20 + 3e- = CrO4~2 + 8H3O+1 + 6e-
                                 XIII-7

-------
H
H
H

I
OD
                                      DRAG-OUT
                           DRAG-OUT
                        ri
                                                                         |	^~ DRAG-OUT
                 PARTS
                           PLATING TANK
                  RINSE #1
CONCENTRATE
       I
                                           r
                                            	J
                                                                   JL
 RINSE #2
                         j   FEED     Jl
                         U	r
                                                                                PARTS
,  f •«   ;. DEIONIZED WATER
            | ELECTRODIALYZER STACK f
                                      L_
                            LFEED	„

- 1
_ J
_ 	

r ~
L. _
_ —

        I
                                —T1-J
                                      FEED
                                           DEIONIZED WATER
                                              FIGURE 13-3


                                    ELECTRODIALYSIS RECOVERY  SYSTEM

-------
                                                                   CATHOLYTIC
X
H
H
H
I
    SPENT CHROMIC
    ACID
                                          CATHODE-
SPLNT
ACID
EN E RATED
OMIC ACID ^
ANODE -
LFONIC
E
1

.f-
5MIc'r~"
I «
14
r«
— »-U
c
r.
n
n
1.4
;i
n
u
•^
Vrf
rk
(


•— INPUT
^1 	 CAT
x*1 OU1

U
0
a
§
a
a
a
0
a
n
                                                                        :ATHOLYTIC—
                                                                                     CATHOLYTE
                                                                                       STORAGE
                         TOP VIEW
                      SIDE VIEW
                                           FIGURE 13-4

                                       ELECTRODIALYSIS CELL

-------
 This  reaction is  continually taking  place  as  both  the  etchant  and
 the catholyte are circulated through the cell.

 Application

 Electrodialysis of chromium, oxidizing  trivalent chromium  to
 hexavalent chromium,  is  not  a widely practiced,method  of waste
 treatment as  yet.   It  is,  however, a very  efficient method  for
 waste  treatment of chromium, and  it  is  used at one company  visited
 (ID 20064).   This electrodialysis cell  closes the  loop on chromium
 so that  there is  no need to  reduce hexavalent chromium.  The only
 application,  current or  predicted, for  this electrodialysis cell
 system is the oxidation  of chromium  wastes.    .

 Performance                                    ;

 The electrical efficiency of the  unit varies  with  the  concentration
 of both  hexavalent chromium  and  trivalent  chromium.  The electro-
 chemical efficiency of the unit  is generally  between 50 to  90
 percent, depending on  the concentrations.  This corresponds to an
 energy consumption of  8  to 16 kwh/kg of chromic acid from  reduced
 chromium.  The metal removed efficiency of the electrodialysis
 unit  is  90 percent for 8 mg/1 of  trivalent chromium and 95  percent
 for 12 mg/1.

 Water  Reducing Controls  for  Electroplaters

 To minimize pollution  problems,   electroplaters  have  discovered
 that   relatively  simple strategies  can effectively  be made
 operational.   First, water can be used  more efficiently.   Second,
 water  can be  kept clean  to begin with and, therefore,  will  not be
 a problem that requires  wastewater treatment.

 Efficient water use means getting  the  most  rinsing  from each
 gallon  of  water.   A  single rinse tank is the  least efficient
 means  to obtain adequate rinsing because a much larger volume  of
 water    must   be   used  in  comparison  to counterflow  rinsing.
 (Counterflow  rinsing is  an effective flow  reduction technique  but
 it can also be expensive.)   Electroplaters have found  that  using
 rinse  water two or three times before it is purified or discarded
 not  only  reduces water consumption, but  it  can actually  improve
 rinsing  and save  process chemicals.   Moreover,
-------
Multiple Drag-Out Control:  Techniques and Effectiveness

By controlling the amount of plating solution that is dragged from
work pieces upon their removal from the process tank, the amount of
contamination in subsequent rinse tanks can be reduced.  A dragout
tank, consisting of nothing more than a still rinse, installed immedi-
ately following the plating process will capture some of the
contamination.

The  multiple  dragout method uses the same number of rinse tanks
as counterflow rinsing.  The difference  is  that  instead  of  a
single  dragout  tank  and  several  running rinse tanks, several
dragout tanks and a single running rinse tank are used.

Most of the solution dragged from the plating tank is captured in
the first dragout tank.  The multiple drag-out tank  protect  the
running  rinse  from   intense  contamination and often allows the
rinsewater to be discharged with little or no  treatment  because
it  already  meets  the  Federal  standards.   As  a  result, the
multiple drag-out method greatly reduces the cost the  wastewater
treatment.   Likewise,  because wastewater treatment is minimized
so is sludge generation and sludge management costs.

Periodically, some of  the solution from the first  tank  must  be
drained  and  replaced by the less contaminated solution from the
second drag-out tank.  Fresh water  is  than  used  to  fill  the
second  tank.   The solution drained from the first drag-out tank
can be (1) recycled to the  plating  process;  (2)  processed  to
recover  the  metals;  or  (3)  sent  to a waste treatment plant.
Multiple drag-out tanks are  a  simple  and  efficient  means  to
reduce  drag-out  contamination.   Two  or  more  drag-out  tanks
operated in series assure almost  complete  control  of  drag-out
losses.

Reactive Rinsing: Techniques and Effectiveness

Reactive  rinsing means reusing or recycling the rinse water.  By
flowing rinse water back through the electroplating  process  and
taking  advantage  of  the  chemical  reactivity  of contaminated
water, water use can be minimized.

As an example, consider a nickel plating process composed  of  an
alkaline  cleaning  tank,  an  acid dip tank, and a plating tank,
with a rinse tank after each process.   In a conventional  plating
process,   water  would  be  individually  fed to each rinse tank.
Using reactive rinsing, water fed to the rinse tank following the
planting tank would supply the rinse tank following the acid dip;
the water from this rinse would supply  the  tank  following  the
alkaline cleaner.

Reactive  rinsing allows a pH neutralization reaction to occur as
the rinse water from the acid dip is fed back to the rinse  water
                                XIII-11

-------
from  the  alkaline  cleaner.   The  reaction  does  not harm the
plating process, and actually improves the rinsing  effectiveness
following  the  cleaner.   Cleaner solution is greasy and hard to
rinse; however, with acid rinsewater  the  .alkaline  solution  is
neutralized  and  rinses easily.  Drag-out contamination may also
be reduced because  rinse  water  from  thetank  following  the
plating tank (i.e., water containing drag-out) is fed back to the
rinse  tank preceding the plating tank.  Accordingly, the drag-in
to the nickel tank will contain some nickel solution.

This  example  describes  an  in-process,  counterflow   reactive
rinsing  technique,  other  reactive  rinsing  opportunities  are
possible.  Depending upon the particular plating process, it  may
be  possible to feed rinse water forwards.  In some  instances, it
is be possible to feed rinse water across  processes  to obtain the
desired reaction.  The possibilities for   interprocess  reuse  at
plating shops are great but have been largely unexplored.
                             XIII-12

-------
                             SECTION XIV
                           ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Mr. Richard Kinch. of the EPA's Effluent Guidelines Division served
as the Project Officer during the preparation of this document and
limitations.  Mr. Jeffery Denit. Director. Effluent Guidelines
Division, and Mr. G. Edward Stigall. Chief. Inorganics Chemicals and
Services Branch, offered guidance and suggestions during this
project.  Appreciation is extended to Mr. Devereaux Barnes and Mr.
J. Bill Hanson for their previous work on the Electroplating
Pretreatment Regulations which was useful in developing the Metal
Finishing Category Regulations.

The Environmental Protection Agency was aided in the preparation of
this Development Document by Hamilton Standard. Division of United
Technologies Corporation in the collection of data and in the
preparation of the proposed development document and by Versar Inc.
in the analysis of comments, the re-analysis of data, and the
preparation of the final development document.  The engineering
activities and field operations of Hamilton Standard were directed
by Mr. Kenneth Dresser. Mr. Jeffrey Wehner. and Mr. Jack Nash
directed the engineering activities, and field operations were under
the direction of Mr. Richard Kearns.  Hamilton Standard's effort was
managed by Mr. Daniel Lizdas. Mr. Walter Drake, and Mr. Robert
Blaser.  Versar's efforts were directed by Mr. Larry Davies. Program
Manager, and Ms. Gayle Riley. Task Manager.  Technical assistance
was provided by Mr. Bill Moran and Ms. Jean Moore.

Significant contributions were made by Mr. Dwight Hlustick. Mr.
Frank Hund. Mr. David Pepson. Mr. John Newbrough, Mr. James Berlow,
and Mr. Walter Hunt of EPA's Effluent Guidelines Division: by Mr.
James Spatarella and Ms. Alexandra Tarnay of EPA's Monitoring and
Data Support Division; by Ms. Kathleen Ehrensberger and Mr. Bruce
Clemens of EPA's Office of Analysis and Evaluation; by Mr. Michael
Dworkin of EPA's Office of General Counsel; and by Eric Auerbach.
Steven Bauks. David Bowker. Charles Hammond. Lewis Hinman. Steven
Klobukowski. Raymond Levesque. Robert Lewis, Lawrence McNamara. Jeff
Newbrough. Joel Parker. James Pietrzak. Donald Smith, and Peter
Williams of Hamilton Standard.  Data and information acquisition.
analysis, and processing were performed by Clark Anderson. Michael
Derewianka. Remy Halm. Robert Patulak. and John Vounatso of Hamilton
Standard.  Mr. Richard Kotz. Barnes Johnson, and Henry Kahn of EPA's
Office of Analysis and Evaluation provided analytical guidance and
statistical support.

Acknowledgement and appreciation is also given to Glenda Nesby.
Pearl Smith, and Carol Swann of EPA's word processing staff.  Mrs.
Lynne McDonnell. Ms. Lori Kucharzyk. and Ms. Kathy Maceyka of
Hamilton Standard, and Mrs. Nan Dewey of Versar.

Finally, appreciation is also extended to those metal finishing
industry associations and plants that participated in the con-
tributed data for the formulation of this document; the companies
that have already installed pollution control equipment: and the
states and regional offices that have addressed pollution control in
the Metal Finishing Industry.
                                 xiv-l

-------
SECTION XV
REFERENCES
      XV-1

-------
OIL, SOLVENT, AND CHEMICAL RECOVERY


"Alcoa Employs Ultrafiltration to Recycle 90,000 GPD", news item,
Ind* Water Eng^, Jan/Feb., 1981.            :

Allen, Paul, "Reclaiming Four Plating Solutions", Products Finishing,
Aug., 1979.

"A Low-Cost Answer to Oil Recycling?"
Factory Management, January 1977, pp. 32-33.

Easily, William, "Industrial Waste Water Treatment Facility,
Charleston Plant", General Electric, April 5, 1978.

Bech, E.G., Giannini, A.P., and Ramirez, E.R.,
"Electrocoagulation Clarifies Food Wastewater", Reprinted
from Food Technology, Vol. 28, No. 2, 1974, 'pp. 18-22.

Belinke, Robert J., "Central Filtration for Coolants",
American Machinists, December 1976, pp. 86-88.

Bolster, Maurice, "How to Maintain Emulsion .Coolant Systems",
Modern Machine Shop, March 1977, pp. 112-115.

Bowes, H. David, "In-House Solvent Reclamation Eliminates
Quality Problems at Low Cost", Plastics Design & Processing,
May 1978, pp. 20-32.

Chonisby, J. and Kuhn, D., "Practical Oil Reclamation,
Purification", Hydraulics & Pneumatics, April 1976, pp. 71-73.

Chua, John P., "Coolant Filtration Systems",
Plant Engineering, December 23, 1976, pp. 46-51.

"Coolant Failure and How to Prevent It", Sun Coolant
Control Inc., Southfield, Mich.

"Coolant Tripples Tool Life", Modern Machine Shop,
June 1979, pp. 140-141.

Cutting and Grinding Fluids; Selection and Application,
American Society of Tool and Manufacturing Engineers,
Dearborn, Mich., 1967.

Dinius, B., "How to Choose an In-Plant Oil Reclamation System",
Hydraulics and Pneumatics, July 1978, pp. 62-64.

"Economic Impact of the Proposed Illinois Special Waste Hauling
Regulations (R76-10)", Illinois Institute of Environmental
Quality, Project No. 80.089, IIEQ Document No. 77/26,
October 1977.
                               XV-2

-------
Electrostatic Separation of Solids from Liquids", Filtration &
Separation, March/April 1977, pp. 140-144.

"EPA/AES Conference . . . The Third Time Around:  Recovery",
Plating and Surface Finishing, June, 1980.

Ford, Davis L., and Elton, Richard L, , "Removal of Oil and Grease
from Industrial Wastewaters", Chemical Engineering/Deskbook Issue,
October 17, 1977, pp. 49-56.

Gransky, Michael, "The Case for Electrodialysis", Products
Finishing, April 1980.

Hura, LCdr Myron, USN and Mittleman, John,
"High Capacity Oil-Water Separator", Naval Engineers Journal,
December 1977, pp. 55-62.

"Ion Transfer Recovers Chrome", Industrial Finishing, April, 1980.

"IX for Nickel Recovery at Oldsmobile", Products Finishing, May, 1979,

Johnson, Ross E. Jr., Wastewater Treatment and Oil Reclamation
atGeneral Motors, St. Catherines, pp. 345-357.

Kellogg, Jack, "Cutting Oil and Coolant Reclamation Pays  Its
Way at Twin Disc".

Kelley, Ralph, "The Use of Cutting Fluids and Their Effect on
Cutting Tools and Grinding Wheels in Solving Production Problems",
Cincinnati Milacron/Products Division.

Kostura, John D., "Recovery and Treatment of Plating and  Anodizing
Wastes", Plating and Surface Finishing, Aug., 1980.

Koury, Anthony J., and Gabel, M.K., and Wijenayake, Anton P.,
"Effect of Solid Film Lubricants on Tool Life", Journal of the
American Society of Lubrication Engineers, June 1979, Volume 35,6.,
pp. 315-316, 329-338.

Kremer, Lawrence N. , "Prepaint Final Rinses:  Chrome or Chrome-
Free?", Products Finishing, Nov., 1980.

Lewis, Tom A., " Elow to Electrolytically Recovery Metals from
Finishing Operations", Industrial Finishing, April, 1980.

Luthy, Richard G., and Sellech, Robert E., and Galloway,  Terry R.,
"Removal of Emulsified Oil with Organic Coagulants 'and Dissolved
Air Flotation", Journal WPCF, February 1978, pp. 331-346.
                               XV-3

-------
Lutz-Nagey, Robert C., "Detroit Experimenters Reveal New Ways
to Save Cutting Oil", Production Engineering, June 1977, pp. 54-55,

"Making Recycling Work for You Through Proper Process Selection",
ibid, p. 10.

McNutt, J.E. and Swalheim. D.A., "Recovery and Re-use of Chemicals
in Plating Effluents", AES Illustrated Lecture Series,
American Electroplaters Society, Inc., Winter Park, FL, 1975.

McNutt, James. E., "Electroplating Waste Control", Plating and
Surface Finishing, July, 1980.

Miranda, Julio G., "Designing Parallel-Plates Separators",
Chemical Engineering, January 31, 1977.     '

"Model Plant for Plastics Painting-Decorating", _Ind us trial
Finishing, Feb., 1980.

"Oil Audit and Reuse  Manual for the Industrial Plant", Illinois
Institute of Natural  Resources, Project No.'80.085, Document
No. 78/35, November 1978.                   \

"Oil/Water Splitter Snags Emulsified Oil", Chemical Engineering.
July 18, 1977, p. 77.                      ~

Parker, Konrad, "Renewal of Spent Electroless Nickel Plating
Baths", Plating and Surface Finishing, March, 1980.

"Plastics Plated at Norris Meet Rigid Specifications", Industrial
Finishing, March, 1981.

"Plating on Plastics  Etchants Regenerated", Products Finishing,
May, 1979.

Quanstrom, Richard L., "Central Coolant Systems-Closing the Loop
on Metalworking Fluids", Lubrication Engineering, January 1977,
Volume 33,1, pp. 14-19.

Rasquin, Edgar A. and Lynn, Scott and Hanson, Donald N.,
"Vacuum Steam Stripping of Volatile, Sparingly Soluble Organic
Compounds from Water  Streams", Ind. Eng. Chemical Fundam.,
Vol. 17, No. 3, 1978, pp. 170-174.

"Recovery Pays at Sommer Metalcraft", Industrial Finishing, June,
1980.                                       ;

"Recycling Etchant for Printed Circuits", Metal Finishing,
Metals and Plastics Publications Inc., Hackensack,NJ,
March 1972, pp. 42-43.
                               XV-4

-------
Reininga, O.G. and Wagner, R.H. and Bonewitz,
"Thermopure for Processing Water-Oil Emulsions",
Wire Journal, October 1976, pp. 48-53.

Roberts, David A., "Romicon Ultrafiltration for Waste Oil Re-
clamation", Paper presented to the Water Pollution Control Asso-
ciation of Pennsylvania, June 15, 1977.

"Selection of Lubricants for Drawing and Cleaning", Daniel Brewer,
Ceramic Industry Magazine, June 1978, pp. 34-35.

Seng, W.C. and Kreutzer, G.M., "Resume of Total Operation of
Waste Treatment Facility for Animal and Vegetable Oil Refinery",
Reprinted from the Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society,
Volume 52, No. 1, 1975, pp. 9A-13A.

Shah, B. and Langdon, W., and Wasan, D., "Regeneration of Fibrous
Bed Coalescers for Oil-Water Separation", Environmental Science
a nd Tec h no logy, Volume 11, No. 2, February 1977, pp. 16~7-170.

"Simple Dragout Recovery Methods", Products Finishing, Oct., 1979.

Sutcliffe, T. and Barber, S.J., "How to Select a Water-Base
Coolant", American Machinist, April 1977.

"System Strips Solvents, Separates Solids Simultaneously",
Chemical Engineering, November 22, 1976, pp. 93-94.

Taylor, J.W., "Evaluation of Filter/Separators and Centrifuges
for Effects on Properties of Steam Turbine Lubricating Oils",
Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Volume 5, No. 5, September 1977,
pp. 401-405.

Teale, James M., "Fast Payout from In-Plant Recovery of Spent
Solvents", Chemical Engineering, January 31, 1977, pp. 98-100.

"The First Step-Reducing Waste Oil Generation", ibid, p. 16.

"Used Oil Recycling in Illinois", Data Book, Illinois Institute
of Natural Resources, Project No. 80.085, Document No. 78/34,
October, 1978.

Vucich, M.G., "Emulsion Control and Oil Recovery on the Lubricating
System of Double-Reduction Mills", Iron and Steel Engineer,
December 1976, pp. 29-38.

Wahl, James R. , and others, "Ultrafiltration for Today's Oily
Wastewaters:  A Survey of Current Ultrafiltration Systems", Pro-
ceedings of the 34th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University,
May,1979, Ann Arbor Science.
                              XV-5

-------
"Waste Oil Reclamation", The Works Managers Guide to Working
Fluid Economy, Alfa-Laval NO.I«4u4y4 K^.|

"Waste Oil Recycling - Coming Up a Winner", Fluid and Lubricant
Ideast Volume 2, Issue 3, Summer 1979, p. 8.

Young, James C., "Removal of Grease and Oil by Biological Treatment
Processes", Jl.WPCF, Vol. 51, no. 8, Aug.,il979.

PLATING AND COATING

Adams, F., "Getting the Most Out of Vacuum I Metalizing",
Products Finishing, Gardner Publications, Inc., Cincinnati,
Ohio, November, 1977, pp. 43-51.           :

"Alkaline Zinc Bath Solves Low-CD Problems", Prod ucts Finish ing,
Aug., 1980.

Allied Chemical Company and Aluminum Company of America,
"Chromic Acid Anodizing of Aluminum", AES Illustrated
Lecture Series, American Electroplaters Society, Inc.,
Winter Park, FL, 1973.                     j

Atiroion, Leo, "A program of Conservation, Pollution Abatement",
Plating and Surface Finishing, March, 1980,1

Baker, R. G. et al, "Gold Electroplating Part 2", AES
Illustrated Lecture Series, American Electroplaters Society,
Inc., Winter Park, FL, 1978.               :

Bellis, H.E. and Pearlstein, F., "Electroless Plating of Metals",
AES Illustrated Lecture Series, American Electroplaters Society
Inc., Winter Park, FL, 1972.

Blount, Ezra A., "How Guide Recovers Nickel and Chromium",
Products Finishing, Dec., 1980.

Breslou, Barry R., and others, "Hollow Fiber Ultrafiltration
Technology", Ind. Water Eng., Jan./Feb., 1980.

"Cheminator", Chemical Eng ineer ing, McGraw Hill, New York, NY,
September,19 75, p. 26.

"Current Events and Cadmium Plating", Plating and SurfaceFinishing,
July, 1980.

"Developments to Watch", Product Engineering, Morgan-Grampian,
New York, NY, October 1976, p. 5.
                               XV-6

-------
DiBari, G.A., "Practical Nickel Plating", AES Illustrated
Lecture Series, American Electroplaters Society, Inc., Winter
Park, FL, 1977.

Duva, R., "Gold Electroplating Part 1", AES Illustrated
Lecture Series, American Electroplaters Society, Inc., Winter
Park, FL, 1977.

Electroplating Engineering Handbook, Third Edition, edited
by A.Kenneth Graham, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York,
NY, 1971.

Electroplating - Fundamentals of Surface Finishing, Frederick
ATLowenheim, McGraw-Hill,Inc., New York, NY, 1978.

General Motors Research Laboratories, "Factors Influencing
Plate Distribution", AES Illustrated Lecture Series, American
Electroplaters Society, Inc., Winter Park, FL, 1975.

Halva, C.J. and Rothschild, B.F., "Plating and Finishing of
Printed Wiring/Circuit Boards", AES Illustrated Lecture Series,
American Electroplaters Society, Inc., Winter Park, FL, 1976.

Harrison, Albert, Coil Coater Cuts Effluent Treatment Costs",
Products Finishing, November, 1980.

Hubbell, F.N., "Chemically Deposited Composites - A new Gener-
ation of Electroless Coatings", Plating and Surface Finishing,
American Electroplaters Society, E. Orange, NJ, Vol.~65, Dec.
1978, p. 48.

"Ion Transfer Method Developed for Metal Plating", Industrial
Finishing, Hitchcock Publishing Co., Wheaton, Ohio, April 1979,
p. 95.

Logozzo, Arthur W., "Hard Chromium Plating", AES Illustrated
Lecture Series, American Electroplaters Society, Inc., Winter
Park, FL, 1973.

MacDermid, Inc., "Chromate Conversion Coatings" AES Illus-
trated Lecture Series, American Electroplaters Society, Inc.,
Winter Park, FL, 1970.

Mazzeo, D.A., "Energy Conservation In Plating and Surface
Finishing", Plating and Surface Finishing, American Electroplaters
Society, Inc., Winter Park, FL, July, 1979, pp. 10-12.

M&T Chemical Inc., "Decorative Chromium Plating",  AES Illus-
trated Lecture Series, American Electroplaters Society, Inc.,
Winter Park, FL, 1972.
                               XV-7

-------
Mohler, J.B., "The Art and Science of  Rinsing", AES  Illustrated
Lecture Series, American Electroplaters Society,  Inc., Winter
Park, PL, 1973.

Montgomery, D.C., "The Coloration of Anodic Coatings for
Architectural Applications by Using Organic Dyes", Plating
and Surface Finishing, American Electroplaters Society, IT
Orange, NJ7 Vol. 65,  Dec. 78, p. 48.

Ostraw, R. and Kessler, R.B., "A Technical and Economic Com-
parison of Cyanide and Cyanide-Free Zinc Plating", Plating,
American Electroplaters Society, Hackensack, NJ,  April 1970.

Pearlstein, P., "Selection and Application of Inorganic Fini-
shes - Part I11, plating and Surface Finishing, American Elec-
troplaters Society, E. Orange,"NJ, Vol. 65, Dec.  1978., p. 32.

Pearlstein, P. et al, "Testing and Evaluation of  Deposits",
AES Illutrated Lecture Series, American Electroplaters Society
Inc., Winter Park, PL, 1974.

"Plater Turns Fire Woes into Golden Opportunity",  Industrial
Finishing, Nov., 1980.

"Plating Aluminum Busbar", Industri a 1  Finishing,  Feb., 1979.

Rajagopal, I., and Rajam, K.S., "A New Addition Agent for
Lead Plating", Metal  Finishing, Metals and Plastics  Publi-
cation Inc., Hackensack, NJ,December, 1978.

Riley, Thomas C., "Benefits are Bountiful with Elco's Bright
Zinc Process", Ind us tria1 Finish ing, Jan. 1981.

Roberts, Vicki, "A Low-Cyanide Zinc for Champion  Spark Plugs",
Products Fin ish ing, Sept., 1979.           i

Rose, Betty A., "Bulk Platec Saves with Evaporative  Recovery",
Industrial Finishing, Jan. 1979.

Rose, Betty A., "Design for Recovery", Industrial  Finishing,
May, 1979.

"Slide into Compliance", Industrial Fir^ishi_ng_, Dec., 1979.

"Tri-Chrome Takes on New Importance to Platers",  Industrial
Finishing, Nov., 1980.
                               XV-8

-------
SURFACE PREPARATION

Axelson, William, "Specialized Cleaning Equipment Supports
Efficient Maintenance", Pit & Quauy, October 1976, pp.  95-98.

Bauks, S.V., and Dresser, K. J. , Cleaning Alternatives to Solvent;
Degreasing, EPA, December 7, 1978.

Jackson, Lloyd, C., "How to Select a Substrate Cleaning Solvent",
Ad he si ves Age, April 1977, p.p. 23-31.

Jackson, Lloyd C., "Removal of Silicone Grease and Oil
Contaminants", Adhesiyes Age, April 1977, pp. 29-32.

Jackson, Lloyd C. , "Solvent Cleaning Process Efficiency",
Adhesives Age, July 1976, pp. 31-34.

Maloney, J.E., "Low Temperature Cleaning", Me ta 1 Finish_ing,
June 1976, pp. 33-35.

Metal Cleaning Fundamentals, Materials and Methods, Oakite
Products, Tnc r,™ F 10646R13-379"!

Metals Hand book, American Society for Metals, 8th Edition, Volume
T~i ^Heat Treating, Cleaning, and Finishing", 1964, pp.  307-314.

Mohler, J.B., "Guidelines for Cleaning Metal Parts", Plant
Engineering, October 2, 1975, pp. 93-95.

Obrzut, John J., "Metal Cleaning Bends with Social Pressures",
Iron Age, February 17, 1974, pp. 41-44.

Taller, R.A. and Koleske, J.V., "Energy Conservation in Metal
Pretreatment and Coating Operations", Metal Finishing,
August 1977, pp. 18-19.

Tonis, Paul G., "Try Steam Cleaning/Phosphatizlng", Products
Finishing, January 1979, pp. 56-57.


SURFACE PREPARATION - ACID CLEANING

Frey, S.S. and Swalheirn, D.A., "Cleaning and Pickling for
Electroplating", AES Illustrated Decture Series, American
Electroplaters Society, Inc., Winter Park, FL, 1970.

MetaIs Handbook, American Society for Metals, 8th edition.
Volume 2, "Heat Treating, Cleaning and Finishing", 1964.

Rodzewich, Edward A., "Theory and Practice of Phosphating",
AES Illustrated Lecture Series, American Electroplaters
Society, Inc., Winter Park, FL, 1974.

Roebuck, A.H., "Safe Chemical Cleaning - The Organic Way",
Chemical Engineering, July 31, 1978, pp. 107-110.


                               XV-9

-------
SURFACE PREPARATION - ALKALINE CLEANING

Erichson, Paul R. and Throop, William M, , "Alkaline Treatment
System Reduces Pollution Problems", Industrial Wastes, March/
April 1977.

Erichson, Paul R. and Throop, William M., "Improved Washing of
Machined Parts", Production Engineering, March 1977.

Graham, A. Kenneth, Electroplating Engineering Handbook, 1971,
pp. 152-176.

Metals Handbook, American Society for Metals, 8th Edition,
Volume ~2," "Heat Treating, Cleaning and Finishing", 1964,
pp. 317-325.                              !


SURFACE PREPARATION - EMULSION CLEANING   ',

Connolly, James T., "Metal Cleaning with Emulsions - An Update",
Lubrication Engineering, December 1976, pp. 651-654.

Glover, Harry C., "Are  Emulsified Solvents Safer Cleaners?",
Production Engineering, July 1978, pp. 41-43.

Me ta1 Ha ndbook, American Society for Metals, 8th Edition,
Volume 2,"Heat Treating, Cleaning and Finishing", 1964,
pp. 326-330.


SURFACE PREPARATION - VAPOR DECREASING

Bauks, S.V. and Dresser, K.J., Solvent DecreasingUnit Operation
Report, EPA, September  17, 1979.          i

MetalsHandbook, American Society for Metals, 8th Edition,
Volume2~7"Heat Treating, Cleaning and Finishing", 1964,
pp. 334-340.

"Organic Solvent Cleaning-Background Information for Proposed
Standards", US EPA, EPA-450/2-78-045, May :1979.

Suprenant, K., "Vapor Degreasing or Alkaline Cleaning?",
Products Finishing, March 1979, pp. 67-71.
                              XV-10

-------
TREATMENT

Barrett, F., "The Electroflotation of Organic Wastes",
Chemistry and Industry, October 16, 1976, pp. 880-882.

Bell, John P., "How to Remove Metals from Plating Rinse Waters",
Products Finishing, Aug., 1979.

Chin, D.T., and Echert, B., "Destruction of Cyanide Wastes
with a Packed-Bed Electrode", Platingand Surface Finishing,
October 1976, pp. 38-41.

DeLatour, Christopher, "Magnetic Separation in Water Pollution
Control", IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Volume Mag-9, No. 3,
September 1973, p. 314.

"Development Document for Proposed Exisiting Source Pretreat-
ment Standards for the Electroplating Point Source Category",
EPA 440/1-78/085, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, 1978,

"Economic Analysis of Proposed Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources of the Electroplating Point Source Category",
EPA 230/1/78-001, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, 1977.

"Electrotechnology Volume 1, Wastewater Treatment and Separation
Methods", Cheremisinof£, Paul N., King, John A., Oullette, Robert P.,
Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI, 1978.

"Emerging Technologies for Treatment of Electroplating
Wastewaters", for presentation by Stinson, M.K., at AICHE
71st Annual Netting, Session 69, Miami Beach, Florida,
November 15, 1978.

Flynn, B.L. Jr., "Wet Air Oxidation of Waste Streams", CEP,
April 1979, pp. 66-69.

Grutsch, James F., "Wastewater Treatment: The Electrical
Connection", Environmental Science and Technology, Volume 12,
No. 9, Sept. 1978, pp."1022-1027.

Grutsch, James F., and Mallatt, R.C., "Optimizing Granular
Media Filtration", GEP, April 1977, pp. 57-66.

"Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals", Karel
Verschueren, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, NY 1977.

Henry, Joseph D, Jr., Lowler, Lee P., and Kuo, C.H. Alex,
"A Solid/Liquid Separation Process Based on Cross Flow and
Electrofiltration", AIChE Journal, Volume 23, No. 6, November
1977, pp. 851-859.
                              XV-11

-------
Hochenberry,  H.R.  and  Lieser,  J.E.,  Pr a c tic a 1  App lication
of Membrane Techniques of  Waste  Oil  Treatme'nt,  presented
at the31st Annual  Meetingin  PhiladeTphia, Pennsylvania,
May 10-13, 1976, American  Society  of Lubrication Engineers,
Reprint Number  76-AM-28-2.                !

Humenich, Michael  J. and Davis,  Barry J.,  "High Rate
Filtration of Refinery Oily Wastewater Emulsions",
Journal WPCF, Agusut 1978, pp. 1953-1964.  '

11 In Process Pollution  Abatement  -  Upgrading Metal  Finishing
Facilities to Reduce Pollution", EPA Technology Transfer  Semi-
mar Publication, Environmental Protection  Agency,  July 1973.
                                           (*T» . • ' a . :. L .i to «.J H. . .>   ."*
Kaiser, Klaus L.E.  and Lawrence, John, Polyelectrolytes;
Potential Chloroform Precursors, Environment Canada,  Canada
Centre  for Inland  Waters,  BurTington, Ontario,  January 25, 1977.

Kitagewa, T.  and Nishikawa, Y. and Frankenfeld, J.W.  and  LlW
IMr«W "Wastewater  Treatment by Liquid Membrane Process",
Environmental Science  and  Technology, Volume 11, No.  6,
June 1977, pp.  602-605.;

Kohn, Philip  M., "Photo-Processing Facility Acheives  Zero  Discharge",
Chem. Eng., Dec. 4, 1978.

Kolm, Henry H., "The Large-Scale Manipulatibn  of Small Particles",
IEEE Transactions  on Magnetics,  Vol.  Mag-lli, No. 5, Sept.  1975,
pp. 1567-1569.                             I

Lancy,  L. E., "Metal Finishing Waste Treatment Aims Accomplished
by Process Changes", Chemical  Engineering  Progress Symposium
Series, Vol.  67, 1971, pp. 439-441.

Lancy,  L.E. and Steward, F.A., "Disposal of Metal  Finishing
Sludges - The Segregated Landfill  Concept",. Plating and Surface
Finishing, American Electroplaters Society, E,  Orange, NJ,
Vol. 65, Dec. 1978. p. 14.
                                           i
Lawes,  B.C. and Stevens, W.F., "Treatment  of Cyanide  and
Chromate Rinses",  AES  Illustrated  Lecture  Series,  American
Electroplaters  Society,  Inc., Winter Park, PL,  1972.

Lee, Carl, "Huge New Plating Facility Builtj for the Future",
Products Finishing, Nov.,  1979.
Lorenzo,  George A.,  and  Hendrickson,  Thomas  N.,  "Ozone  in  the
Photoprocessing Industry",  Ozone:   Science and  Engineering,  Pergamon
Press,  1979.
                                           i
                                           i	
Lowder,  L.R.,  "Modifications  Improve  Treatment  of  Plating  Room
Wastes",  Water and Sewage Works,  Plenum  Publishing Ocj? , New
York, NY,  December,  I968. p.  581.
                               XV-12

-------
Nakayaraa, S,, and others, "Improved Ozonation in Aqueous Systems",
Ozone;  Science and Engineering, Pergamon Press, 1979.

"No More Woes for Custom Plater", Indus tria1 Finishing, Jan., 1979.

Novak, Fred, "Destruction of Cyanide Wastewater by Ozonation",
Paper presented at the International Ozone Assn. Conf., Nov., 1979.

Oberteuffer, John A., "High Gradient Magnetic Separation",
IEEE Transaction on Magnetics, Volume Mag-9, No. 3,
September 1973, pp. 303-306.

Okamato, S., "Iron Hydroxide as Magnetic Scavengers",
Institute of Physical and Chemical Research, Waho-shi,
Saitama-hen, 351 Japan.

Oulman, Charles S. and Baumann, Robert E., "Polyelectcolyte
Coatings for Filter Media", Industrial Water Engineering,
May 1971, pp. 22-25.

Pietrzak, J., Unit Operation Discharge Summaryforthe Mechanical
Products Category,. EPA, September 7, 1979.

Pinto, Steven, D., Ultrafiltration for Dewatering of Waste
Emulsified Oils, Lubrication Challenges in Metalworking and
Processing Proceedings, First International Conference, IIT
Research Institute, Chicago, Illinois 60616, USA, June 7-9, 1978.

"Physiochemical Processes for Water Quality Control", Wiley-
Interscience Series, Walter, J. Weber, Jr., John Wiley and Sons
Inc., New York, NY 1972.

"Pollution Control 1978", Products Finishing, Gardner Publica-
tions, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio,August,1978, pp. 39-41.

Read, H.J., "Principles of Corrosion", AES Illustrated Lecture
Series, American Electroplaters Society, Inc., Winter Park,
PL, 1971.

Rice, Rip G., "Ozone for Industrial Water & Wastewater Treatment",
Paper presented at WWEMA Industrial Pollution Control Conf.,
June, 1980.

Robison, Thomas G., "Chromecraft's New High-Production Plating Line",
Products Finishing, Feb., 1981.

Robinson, G.T., "Powder Coating Replaces Zinc Plating for
Pulleys", Products Finishing, Gardner Publications inc.,
Cincinnati, OH, Feb., 1974, pp. 79-81.

Rose, Betty A., "Managing Water at Helicopter Plant", Industrial
Finishing.
                              XV-13

-------
Sachs, T.R./ "Diversified Finisher Handles Complex Waste
Treatment Problem", Plating and SurfaceFinishing, American
Electroplaters Society, E. Orange, NJ, Vol.  65, Dec. 1978, p. 36.

"Semiconductor Technique Now to Plate Auto Parts", Machine
Design, Penton Publishing, Cleveland, OH, p. 18.

Shambaugh,  Robert  T. and Melhyh, Peter B., "Removal of Heavy
Metals via  Ozonation", Journal WPCF, Jan. 1978, pp. 113-121.

"Simple Treatment  for Spent Electroless Nickel",  Products
Finishing,  Feb., 1981.                    i
                                          i     ...     ,     ,        	
Spooner, R.C., "Sulfuric Acid Anodizing of1 Aluminum and Its
Alloys", AES Illustrated Lecture Series, American Electro-
platers Society, Inc., Winter Park, FL, 1969.

Staebler, C.J. and Simpers, B.F., "Corrosion Resistant Coatings
with Low Water Pollution Potential", presented at the EPA/AES
First Annual Conference on Advanced Pollution Control for the
Metal Finishing Industry, Lake Buena Vista,  FL, January 17-19, 1978,

Sundaram, T.R. and Santo, J.E., "Removal of  Suspended and
Colloidal Solids from Waste Streams by the Use of Cross-Flow
Microfiltration",  American Society ofMechanical  Engineers,
77-ENAs-Sl.

Swalheim, D.A. et  al, "Cyanide Copper Plating", AES Illustrated
Lecture Series, American Electroplaters Society,  Inc., Winter
Park, FL, 1969.                           !

Swalheim, D.A. et  al, "Zinc and Cadmium Plating", AES Illustrated
Lecture Series, American Electroplaters Society,  Inc., Winter
Park, FL.                                 '

Tang, T.L.  Don, "Application of Membrane Technology to Power
Generation  Waters", Industrial Water Engineering, Jan./Feb., 1981.

"The Electrochemical Removal of Trace Metals for  Metal Wastes
with Simultaneous  Cyanide Destruction", for  presentation by
H.S.A. Reactors Limited at the First annual  EPA/AES Conference
on Advanced Pollution Control for the Metal  Finishing Industry,
Dutch Inn,  Lake Buena Vista, FL, Jan. 18, 1978.

"Treating Electroless Plating Effluent", Prod uc ts Fin i s h ing,
Aug., 1980.

Tremmel, Robert A., "Decorative Nickel-Iron  Coatings11, Plating
and Surface Finishing, Jan., 1981.        i

Udylite Corporation, "Bright Acid Sulfate Copper  Plating",
AES Illustrated Lecture Society, American Electroplaters Society,
Inc., Winter Park, FL, 1970.
                              XV-14

-------
Ukawa, Hiroshi, Koboyashi, Kaseimaza, and Iwata, Minoru "Analysis
of Batch Electrokinetic Filtration", Journal of Chemical Engineering
of Japan, Volume 9, No. 5, 1976, pp. 396-401.

Wahl, James R., Hayes, Thomas C., Kleper, Myles H., and Pinto,
Steven D. , Ultrafiltration for Today's Oily Wastewaters;
A Survey of Current Ultrafiltratiqn Systems, presented at the
34th Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, May 8-10, 1979.

Wing, R.E., and others, "Treatment of Complexed Copper Rinsewaters
with Insoluble Starch Xanthate", Plating and Surface Finishing,
Dec., 1978.

"Wooing Detroit with Cheaper Plated Plastic", Busin es s Week,
McGraw-Hill Inc., New York City, NY, May 9, 1977,  pp. 44c-44d.

Yost, Kenneth J., and Scarfi, Anthony, "Factors Affecting Copper
Solubility in Electroplating Waste", Journal WPCF, Vol. 51, No. 7,
July, 1979.

Zabban, Walter, and Heluick, Robert, "Cyanide Waste Treatment
Technology - The Old, the New, and the Practical", Plating and
Surface Finishing, Aug., 1980.
                               XV-15

-------
                         SECTION XVI

                          GLOSSARY
Abrasive Belt Grinding - Roughing and/or finishing a workpiece by
     means of a power-driven belt coated with an abrasive, usually
     in particle form, which removes material by scratching  the
     surface.

Abrasive Belt Polishing - Finishing a workpiece with a power-driven
     abrasive-coated belt in order to develop a very good finish.

Abrasive Blasting - (Surface treatment and cleaning.)  Using dry or
     wet abrasive particles under air pressure for short durations
     of time to clean a metal surface.

Abrasive Cutoff - Severing a workpiece by means of a thin abrasive
     wheel.

Abrasive Jet Machining - Removal of material from a workpiece by a
     high-speed stream of abrasive particles carried by gas  from a
     nozzle.

Abrasive Machining - Used to accomplish heavy stock removal  at high
     rates by use of a free-cutting grinding wheel.

Acceleration - See Activation.

Acceptance Testing - A test, or series of tests, and inspections
     that confirms product functioning in accordance with specified
     requirements.

Acetic Acid - (Ethanoic acid, vinegar acid, methanecarboxylic acid)
     CH3_COOH.  Glacial acetic acid is the pure compound (99.8% min.),
     as distinguished from the usual water solutions known as acetic
     acid.  Vinegar is a dilute acetic acid.

Acid Cleaning - Using any acid for the purpose of cleaning any mater-
     ial.  Some methods of acid cleaning are pickling and oxidizing.

Acid Dip - An acidic solution for activating the workpiece surface
     prior to electroplating in an acidic solution, especially after
     the workpiece has been processed in an alkaline solution.

Acidity - The quantitative capacity of aqueous solutions to  react
     with hydroxyl ions.  It is measured by titration with a standard
     solution of a base to a specified end point.  Usually expressed
     as milligrams per liter of calcium carbonate.
                               XVI-1

-------
Act - Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.

Activitated Sludge Process - Removes organic matter from sewage by
     saturating it with air and biological active sludge.

Activation - The process of treating a substance by heat, radiation
     or the presence of another substance so that the  first mentioned
     substance will undergo chemical or physical change more rapidly
     or completely.                          '.
                                             i        • •   •••   	  .....
Additive Circuitry - 1.  Full - Circuitry produced by  the buildup of
     an electroless copper pattern upon an unclad board.  2.   Semi -
     Circuitry produced by the selective "quick" etch  of an electro-
     less layer; this copper layer was previously deposited on an
     unclad board.

Administrator - Means the Administrator of the United  States Environ-
     mental Protection Agency.
                            s
Adsorption - The adhesion of an extremely thin layer of molecules
     (as of gas, solids or liquids) to the surface of  solid  or
     liquids with which they are in contact.

Aerobic - Living, active, or occurring only in the presence of oxygen.

Aerobic Biological Oxidation - Any waste treatment process utilizing
     organisms in the presence of air or oxygen to reduce the  pol-
     lution load or oxygen demand of organic substance in water.

Aerobic Digestion - (Sludge Processing)  The biochemical decomposition
     of organic matter, by organisms living or active  only in  the
     presence of oxygen, which results in thetformation of mineral and
     simpler organic compounds.              ;

Aging - The change in properties (eg. increase in tensile strength and
     hardness) that occurs in certain metals at atmospheric temperature
     after heat treatment.                   :
                                             I
Agitation of Parts - The irregular movement given to parts when they
     have been submerged in a plating or rinse solution.

Air Agitation - The agitation of a liquid medium through the use of
     air pressure injected into the liquid.

Air Flotation - See Flotation

Air Pollution - The presence in the outdoor (ambient)  atmosphere of one
     air pollutants or any combination thereof in such quantities and
     of such characteristics and duration as to be, or be likely to be,
     injurious to public welfare, to the health of human, plant or
     animal life, or to property, or as unreasonably to interfere with
     the enjoyment of life and property.
                               XVI-2

-------
Air-Liquid Interface - The boundary layer between the air and the
     liquid in which mass transfer is diffusion controlled.

Aldehydes Group - A group of various highly reactive compounds
     typified by actaldehyde and characterized by the group CHO,

Algicides - Chemicals for preventing the growth of algae.

Alkaline jC_l_eaning - A process for cleaning basis material where
     mineral and animal fats and oils must be removed from the
     surface.  Solutions at high temperatures containing casutic
     soda, soda ash, alkaline silicates and alkaline phosphates
     are commonly used,

Alkalinity - The capacity of water to neutralize acids, a property
     imparted by the water's content of carbonates, bicarbonates,
     hydroxides, and occasionally borates, silicates, and phosphates.

Alloy Steels - Steels with carbon content between 0.1% to 1.1% and
     containing elements such as nickel, chromium, molybdenum and
     vanadium.  (The total of all such alloying elements in these type
     steels is usually less than 5%.)

Aluminizing - Forming an aluminum or aluminum alloy coating on a metal
     by hot dipping, hot spraying or diffusion.

Amines - A class of organic compounds of nitrogen that may be considered
     as derived from ammonia (NIO) by replacing one or more of the
     hydrogen atoms by organic radicals, such as CH_3 or C6HJ5, as in
     methylamine and aniline.  The former is a gas at ordinary tempera-
     ture and pressure, but other amines are liquids or solids.  All
     amines are basic in nature and usually combine readily with hydro-
     chloric or other strong acids to form salts.

Anaerobic Biological Treatment - Any waste treatment process utilizing
     anaerobic or facultative organisms in the absence of air to
     reduce the organic matter in water.

Anaerobic Digestion - The process of allowing sludges to decompose
     naturally in heated tanks without a supply of oxygen.

Anaerobic Waste Treatment - (Sludge Processing) Waste stabilization
     brought about through the action of microorganisms in the absence
     of air or elemental oxygen.

Anhydrous - Containing no water.

Anions - The negatively charged ions in solution, e.g., hydroxyl.

Annealing - A process for preventing brittleness in a metal part.
     The process consists of raising the temperature of the metal
     to a pre-established level and slowly cooling the steel at a
     prescribed rate.


                             XVI-3

-------
Annual Capital Recovery Cost  - Allocates  the  initial  investment  and
     the  interest  to  the  total operating  cost.   The capital  recovery
     cost  is equal  to  the  initial  investment  multiplied  by the capital
     recovery factor.

Anode - The positively charged electrode  in an  electrochemical process.
                                                 i
Anodizing  - The production of a  protective oxide film on aluminum  or
     other light metal by  passing  a  high  voltage 'electric current
     through a bath in which  the metal  is suspended.

Aquifer - Water bearing stratum.

Ash - The  solid residue left  after complete combustion.

Assembly - The fitting together  of manufactured  parts into a complete
     machine, structure, or unit of  a machine.   j

Atmospheric Evaporation -  Evaporation at  ambient pressure utilizing
     a tower filled with packing material.  Air  is drawn in  from
     the bottom of  the tower  and evaporates feed material entering
     from  the top.  There  is  no  recovery  of the  vapors.
                                                 !
Atomic Absorption - Quantitative chemical instrumentation used for the
     analysis of elemental  constituents.
                                                 i
Automatic  Plating - 1.  Full  - Plating  in which  the workpieces are
     automatically  conveyed through  successive  cleaning  and  plating
     tanks.  2.  Semi  - Plating  in which  the  workpieces  are  conveyed
     automatically  through  only  one  plating tank.

Austempering - Heat treating  process to obtain  greater toughness and
     ducticity in certain  high-carbon steels.   The process is charac-
     terized by interrupted quenching and results in  the formation of
     bainite grain  structure.
                                                 i
Austenitizing - Heating a  steel  to a temperature at which the structure
     transforms to  a solution of one or more  elements in face-centered
     cubic iron.  Usually  performed  as  the essential  preliminary of
     heat  treatment/ in order to get the  various alloying elements
     into  solid solution.

Barrel Finishing - The process of  polishing a workpiece  using a  rotat-
     ing or vibrating  container  and  abrasive  grains or other polishing
     materials to achieve  the desired surface appearance.

Barrel Plating - Electroplating  of workpieces in barrels (bulk).

Basis Metal or Material - That substance  of which the workpieces are
     made and that  receives the  electroplate  and 'the  treatments  in
     preparation for plating.
                              XVI-4

-------
Batch Treatment - A waste treatment method where wastewater is collect-
     ed over a period of time and then treated prior to discharge.

Bending - Turning or forcing by a brake press or other device from a
     straight or even to a curved or angular condition.

Best Available Technology Economically Achievable  (BAT) - Level of
     technology applicable to effluent limitations to be achieved
     by 1984 for industrial discharges to surface waters as defined
     by Section 301(b) (2) (A) of the Act.

Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available - Level of
     technology applicable to effluent limitations to be achieved
     for industrial discharges to surface waters as defined by
     Section 301 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) - The amount of oxygen in milligrams
     per liter used by microorganisms to consume biodegradable organics
     in wastewater under aerobic conditions.

Biodegradability - The susceptibility of a substance to decomposition
     by microorganisms; specifically, the rate at which compounds may
     be chemically broken down by bacteria and/or natural environmental
     factors.

Blanking - Cutting desired shapes out of sheet metal by means of dies.

Slowdown - The minimum discharge of recirculating water for the purpose
     of discharging materials contained in the water, the further build-
     up of which would cause concentration in amounts exceeding limits
     established by best engineering practice.

BODS - The five-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODS) is the quantity
     of oxygen used by bacteria in consuming organic matter in a sample
     of wastewater over a five-day period.  BOD from the standard five-
     day test equals about two-thirds of the total BOD.  See Biochem-
     ical Oxygen Demand.

Bonding - The process of uniting using an adhesive or fusible
     ingredient.

Boring - Enlarging a hole by removing metal with a single or occasion-
     ally a multiple point cutting tool moving parallel to the axis of
     rotation of the work or tool.  1.  Single-Point Boring - Cutting
     with a single-point tool.  2.  Precision Boring - Cutting to
     tolerances held within narrow limits.  3.  Gun Boring - Cutting
     of deep holes.  4.  Jig Boring - Cutting of high-precision and
     accurate location holes.  5.  Groove Boring - Cutting accurate
     recesses in hole walls.
                                XVI-5

-------
Brazing - Joining metals by flowing a thin layer, capillary thickness,
     of non-ferrous filler metal into the space between them.  Bonding
     results from the intimate contact produced by the dissolution of
     a small amount of base metal in the molten filler metal, without
     fusion of the base metal.  The term brazing is used where the
     temperature exceeds 425°C(800°F).    ,

Bright Dipping - The immersion of all or part of a workpiece in a
     media designed to clean or brighten the surface and leave a
     protective surface coating on the workpiece.

Brine - An aqueous salt solution.

Broaching - Cutting with a tool which consists of a bar having a
     single edge or a series of cutting edges (i.e., teeth) on its
     surface.  The cutting edges of multiple-tooth, or successive
     single-tooth, broaches increase in size and/or change in shape.
     The broach cuts in a straight line or axial direction when
     relative motion is produced in relation to the workpiece, which
     may also be rotating.  The entire cut is made in single or
     multiple passes over the workpiece to shape the required surface
     contour.  1.  Pull Broaching - Tool pulled through or over work-
     piece.  2.  Push Broaching - Tool pushed over or through work-
     piece.  3.  Chain Broaching - A continuous high production
     surface broach.  4.  Tunnel Broaching;- Work travels through an
     enclosed area containing broach inserts.

Bromine Water - A nonmetallic halogen liquid, normally deep red,
     corrosive and toxic, which is used as!an oxidizing agent.

Buffing - An operation to provide a high luster to a surface.  The
     operation, which is not intended to remove much material,
     usually follows polishing.           :

Buffing Compounds - Abrasive contained by a liquid or solid binder
     composed of fatty acids, grease, or tallow.  The binder serves
     as lubricant, coolant, and an adhesive of the abrasive to the
     buffing wheel.

Burnishing - Finish sizing and smooth finishing of a workpiece
     (previously machined or ground) by displacement, rather than
     removal, of minute surface irregularities with smooth point or
     line-contact, fixed or rotating tools.

Calendering - Process of forming a continuous sheet by squeezing the
     material between two or more parallel rolls to impart the desired
     finish or to insure uniform thickness*

Calibration - The application of thermal, electrical, or mechanical
     energy to set or establish reference points for a part, assem-
     bly or complete unit.
                                XVI-6

-------
Calibration Equipment - Equipment used for calibration of  instruments.

Capital Recovery Costs - Allocates the initial  investemnt  and  the  inter-
     est to the total operating cost.  The capital recovery cost is
     equal to the initial investment multiplied by the capital recovery
     factor.

Capital Recovery Factor - Capital Recover Factor  is defined as:
     i -f i/(a - 1) where i = interest rate, a = (1 +  i)  to the power  n,
     n = interest period in years.

Captive Facility - A facility which owns more than 50 percent  (annual
     area basis) of the materials undergoing metal finishing.

C a p t i v e Qp_era_t_ip n - A manufacturing operation carried out  in a facility
     to support subsequent manufacturing, fabrication, or  assembly
     operations.

Carbides - Usually refers to the general class  of pressed  and  sintered
     tungsten carbide cutting tools which contain tungsten carbide plus
     smaller amounts of titanium and tantalum carbides along with
     cobalt which acts as a binder.  (It is also  used to describe  hard
     compounds in steels and cast irons.)

Carbon Adsorption - Activated carbon contained  in a vessel and
     installed in either a gas or liquid stream to remove  organic
     contaminates.  Carbon is regenerable when  subject to  steam which
     forces contaminant to desorb from media.

Carbon Bed Catalytic Destruction - A non-electrolytic process  for  the
     catalytic oxidation of cyanide wastes using  filters filled with
     low-temperature coke.

Carbon Steels - Steel which owes its properties chiefly  to various
     percentage of carbon without substantial amounts of other alloying
     elements.

Carbonate - A compound containing the acid radical of carbonic acid
          group) .
Carbonit r id i ng - Process for case or core hardening of metals.  The
     heated metals absorb carbon in a gaseous atmosphere.

Carburizing - (Physical Property Modification) Increasing  the carbon
     content of a metal by heating v?ith a carburizing medium  (which
     may be solid, liquid or gas) usually for the purpose  of producing
     a hardened surface by subsequent quenching.

Carcinogen - Substance which causes cancerous growth.

Case Hardening - A heat treating method by which the surface layer of
     alloys is made substantially harder than the interior.   (Carburiz
     ing and nitriding are common ways of case hardening steels.)

Cast - A state of the substance after solidification of the molten
     substance.


                                XVI -7

-------
Casthquse - The facility which melts metal, holds it  in furnaces for
     degassing  (fluxing) and alloying and then casts  the metal into
     pigs, ingots, billets, rod, etc.

Casting - The operation of pouring molten metal into  a mold.

Catalytic Bath - A bath containing a substance used to accelerate the
     rate of chemical reaction.               !

Category - Also point source category.  A segment of  industry for
     which a set of effluent limitations has been established.

Cathode - The negatively charged electrode in an electrochemical
     process.

Cation - The positively charged ions in a solution.

Caustic - Capable of destroying or eating away by chemical action.
     Applies to strong bases and characterized, by the presence of
     hydroxyl ions in solution.

Caustic Soda - Sodium hydroxide, NaOH, whose solution in water is
     strongly alkaline.                       I

Cementation - The electrochemical reduction of metal  ions by contact
     with a metal of higher oxidation potential.  It  is usually used
     for the simultaneous recovery of copper and reduction of
     hexavalent chromium with the aid of scrap iron.
                                              !
Centerless Grinding - Grinding the outside or inside  of a workpiece
     mounted on rollers rather than on centers.  The  workpiece may be
     in the form of a cylinder or the frustrum of a cone.

Central Treatment Facility - Treatment plant which co-treats process
     wastewaters from more than one manufacturing operation or co-
     treats process wastewaters with non-contact cooling water, or
     with non-process wastewaters (e.g., utility blowdown, miscellan-
     eous runoff, etc.).

Centrifugation - An oil recovery step employing a centrifuge to remove
     water from waste oil.

Centrifuge - A device having a rotating container in  which centrifugal
     force separates substances of differing densities.

Chelated Compound - A compound in which the metal is  contained as an
     integral part of a ring structure and is not readily ionized.
                                XVI-8

-------
Chelating Agent - A coordinate compound in which a central atom
     (usually a metal) is joined by covalent bonds to two or more
     other molecules or ions (called ligands) so that heterocyclic
     rings are formed with the central (metal) atom as part of each
     ring.  Thus, the compound is suspending the metal in solution.

Chemical Brightening - Process utilizing an addition agent that leads
     to the formation of a bright plate or that improves the brightness
     of the deposit.

Chemical Deposition - Process used to deposit a metal oxide on a
     substrate.  The film is formed by hydrolysis of a mixture of
     chlorides at the hot surface of the substrate.  Careful control
     of the water mixture insures that the oxide is formed on the
     substrate surface.

Chemical Etching - To dissolve a part of the surface of a metal or
     all of the metal laminated to a base.

Chemical Machining - Production of derived shapes and dimensions
     through selective or overall removal of metal by controlled
     chemical attack or etching.

Chemical Metal Coloring - The production of desired colors on metal
     surfaces by appropriate chemical or electrochemical action.

Chemical Milling - Removing large amounts of stock by etching
     selected areas of complex workpieces.  This process entails
     cleaning, masking, etching, and demasking.

Chemical Oxidation - (Including Cyanide) The addition of chemical
     agents to wastewater for the purpose of oxidizing pollutant
     material.

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) - The amount of oxygen in milligrams per
     liter to oxidize both organic and oxidizable inorganic compounds.

Chemical Precipitation - A chemical process in which a chemical in
     solution reacts with another chemical introduced to that solution
     to form a third substance which is partially or mainly insoluble
     and, therefore, appears as a solid.

Chemical Recovery Systems - Chemical treatment to remove metal or
     other materials from wastewater for later reuse.

Chemical Reduction - A chemical reaction in which one or more electrons
     are transferred to the chemical being reduced from the chemical
     initiating the transfer (reducing agent).
                              XVI-9

-------
Chemical Treatment - Treating contaminated water by  chemical means.

Chip Dragout - Cutting fluid or oil adhering 'to metal chips from a
     machining operation.

Chlorinated Hydrocarbons - Organic compounds containing chlorine
     such as many insecticides.

Chlorination - The application of chlorine to water  generally for
     purposes of disinfection, but frequently for accomplishing
     other biological or chemical results.

Chromate Conversion Coating - Protective coating formed by immersing
     metal in an aqueous acidified solution consisting substantially
     of chromic acid or water soluble salts of chromic acid together
     with various catalysts or activators.

Chromatizing - To treat or impregnate with a chromate (salt of ester
     of chromic acid) or dichromate, especially with potassium
     dichromate.

Chrome-Pickle Process - Forming a corrosion-resistant oxide film on
     the surface of magnesium base metals by immersion in a bath of
     an alkaline bichromate.

Clarification - The composite wastewater treatment process consisting
     of flash mixing of coagulants, pH adjusting chemicals, and/or
     polyelectrolytes, flocculation, and sedimentation.

Clarifier - A unit which provides for settling and removal of solids
     from wastewater.                        \

Cleaning - The removal of soil and dirt  (including grit and grease)
     from a workpiece using water with or without a  detergent or
     other dispersing agent.

See  Vapor Degreasing
     Solvent Cleaning
     Contaminant Factor
     Acid Cleaning
     Emulsion Cleaning
     Alkaline Cleaning
     Salt Bath Descaling
     Pickling
     Passivate
     Abrasive Blast Cleaning
     Sonic and Ultrasonic Cleaning

Closed-Loop Evaporation System - A system used for the recovery of
     chemicals and water from a chemical finishing process.  An
     evaporator concentrates flow from the rinse water holding tank.
     The concentrated rinse solution is returned to  the bath, and
     distilled water is returned to the final rinse  tank.  The
     system is designed for recovering 100 percent of chemicals nor-
     mally lost in dragout for reuse in the process.


                            XVI-10

-------
Closed Loop Rinsing - The recirculation of rinse water without the
     introduction of additional makeup water.

Coagulation - A chemical reaction in which polyvalent ions neutralize
     the repulsive charges surrounding colloidal particles.

Coating  See   Aluminum Coating
               Hot Dip Coating
               Ceramic Coating
               Phosphate Coating
               Chromate Conversion Coating
               Rust-Preventive Compounds
               Porcelain Enameling

COD - See Chemical Oxygen Demand

Cold Drawing - A process of forcing material through dies or other
     mandrels to produce wire, rod, tubular and some bars.

Cold Heading - A method of forcing metal to flow cold into enlarged
     sections by endwise squeezing.  Typical coldheaded parts are
     standard screws, bolts under 1 in. diameter and a large variety
     of machine parts such as small gears with stems.

Cold Rolling - A process of forcing material through rollers to produce
     bars and sheet stock.

Colorimetric - A procedure for establishing the concentration of impur-
     itites in water by comparing its color to a set of known color
     impurity standards.

Common Metals - Copper, nickel, chromium, zinc, tin, lead, cadmium,
     iron, aluminum, or any combination thereof.

Compatible Pollutants - Those pollutants which can be adequately
     treated in publicly-owned treatment works without upsetting
     the treatment process.

Complexing Agent - A compound that will join with a metal to form
     an ion which has a molecular structure consisting of a central
     atom (the metal) bonded to other atoms by coordinate covalent
     bonds.

Composite Wastewater Sample - A combination of individual samples of
     water or wastewater taken at selected intervals, generally hourly
     for some specified period, to minimize the effect of the varia-
     bility of the individual sample.  Individual samples may have
     equal volume or may be proportioned to the flow at time of
     sampling.

Conductance - See Electrical Conductivity.
                               XVI-11

-------
Conductivity Surface - A surface that can transfer heat or electricity.

Conductivity Meter - An instrument which displays a quantitative
     indication of conductance.

Contact Water - See Process Wastewater.

Contam ination - Intrusion of undesirable elements.

Continuous Treatment - Treatment of waste streams operating without
     interruption as opposed to batch treatment; sometimes referred
     to as flow=through treatment.

Contractor Removal - Disposal of oils, spent solutions, or sludge
     by a scavenger service.                 '

Conversion Coating - A coating produced by chemical or electrochemical
     treatment of a metallic surface that gives a superficial layer
     containing a compound of the metal.  For example, chromate coating
     on zinc and cadmium, oxide coatings on steel.

Coolant - See Cutting Fluids.

Cooling Water - Water which is used to absorb and transport heat
     generated in a process or machinery.

Copper Flash - Quick preliminary deposition of copper for making
     surface acceptable for subsequent plating.

Coprecipitation of Metals - Precipitation of a metal with another
     metal.

Corrosion Resistant Steels - A term often used to describe the stain-
     less steels with high nickel and chromium alloy content.

Cost o£ Capital - Capital recovery costs minus the depreciation.
Cpunterboring - Removal of material to enlarge a hole for part of
     its depth with a rotary, pilot guided, end cutting tool having
     two or more cutting lips and usually having straight or helical
     flutes for the passage of chips and the admission of a cutting
     fluid.                                  l

Countercurrent Rinsing - Rinsing of parts in such a manner that the
     rinse water is removed from tank to tank counter to the flow of
     parts being rinsed.

Countersinking - Beveling or tapering the work material around the
     periphery of a hole creating a concentric surface at an angle
     less than 90 degrees with the centerline of the hole for the
     purpose of chamfering holes or recessing screw and rivet heads.
                               XVI-12

-------
Crys tal1i ne So1id - A substance with an ordered structure, such as
     a crystal.

Crystallization - 1.  Process used to manufacture semiconductors
     in the electronics industry.  2.  A means of concentrating
     pollutants in wastewaters by crystallizing out pure water.

Curcumine or Carmine Method - A standard method of measuring the
     concentration of boron (B) within a solution.

Cutting Fluids - Lubricants employed to ease metal and machining
     operations, produce surface smoothness and extend tool life
     by providing lubricity and cooling.  Fluids can be emulsified
     oils in water, straight mineral oils when better smoothness
     and accuracy are required, or blends of both.

Cyaniding - A process of case hardening an iron-base alloy by the
     simultaneous absorption of carbon and nitrogen by heating in a
     cyanide salt.  Cyaniding is usually followed by quenching to
     produce a hard case.

Cyclone Separator - A device which removes entrained solids from gas
     streams.

Dead Rinse - A rinse step in which water is not replenished or dis-
     charged.

Deburring - Removal of burrs or sharp edges from parts by filing,
     grinding or rolling the work in a barrel with abrasives sus-
     pended in a suitable medium.

De ep Bed F i 1t rat ion - The common removal of suspended solids from
     wastewater streams by filtering through a relatively deep
     (0.3-0.9 m) granular bed.  The porous bed formed by the granular
     media can be designed to remove practically all suspended
     particles by physical-chemical effects.

Degassing - (Fluxing)  The removal of hydrogen and other impurities
     from molten primary aluminum in a casthouse holding furnace by
     injecting chlorine gas (often with nitrogen and carbon).

Degradable - That which can be reduced, broken down or chemically
     separated.

Demineralization - The removal from water of mineral contaminants
     usually present in ionized form.  The methods used include ion-
     exchange techniques, flash distillation or electrolysis.
                              XVI-13

-------
Denitrification (Biological) - The reduction of nitrates to nitrogen
     gas by bacteria.                       ;
                                            i
Deoxidizing - The removal of an oxide film  from an alloy such as
     aluminum oxide.                        ,

Depreciation - Decline in value of a capital asset caused either by use
     or by obsolescence.                    '

Descaling - The removal of scale and metallic oxides from the surface
     of a metal by mechanical or chemical means.  The former includes
     the use of steam, scale-breakers and chipping tools, the latter
     method includes pickling in acid solutions.

Desmutting - The removal of smut (matter that soils or blackens)
     generally by chemical action.

Dewatering - (Sludge Processing)  Removing  water from sludge.

Diaminobenzidene - A chemical used in the standard method of measuring
     the concentrations of selenium in a solution.
                                            !
Dibasic Acid - An acid capable of donating  two protons (hydrogen
     ions) .                                 ! 	" "

Dichromate Reflux - A standard method of measuring the chemical
     oxygen demand of a solution.

Die Casting - (hot chamber, vacuum, pressure)  Casting are produced
     by forcing molten metal under pressure into metal mold called
     dies.  In hot chamber machines, the pressure cylinder is sub-
     merged in the molten metal resulting in a minimum of time and
     metal cooling during casting.  Vacuum  feed machines use a
     vacuum to draw a measured amount of melt from the molten bath
     into the feed chamber.  Pressure feed  systems use a hydraulic
     or pneumatic cylinder to feed molten metal to the die.

Digestion - A standard method of measuring  organic nitrogen.

Dipping - Material coating by briefly immersing parts in a molten
     bath, solution or suspension.

Direct Labor Costs - Salaries, wages and other direct compensations
     earned by the employee.

Discharge of Pollutant(s) - 1.  The addition of any pollutant to
     navigable waters from any point source.  2.  Any addition of any
     pollutant to the waters of the continguous zone or the ocean
     from any point source, other than from a vessel or other floating
     craft.  The term "discharge" includes  either the discharge of a
     single pollutant or the discharge of multiple pollutants.
                           XVI-14

-------
Dispersed-air Flotation - Separation of low density contaminants  from
     water using minute air bubbles attached to  individual particles
     to provide or increase the buoyancy of the  particle.  The bubbles
     are generated by introducing air through a  revolving impeller or
     porous media.

Dissolved-air Floatation - Separation of low density contaminants from
     water using minute air bubbles attached to  individual particles
     to provide or increase the buoyancy of the  particle.  The air is
     put into solution under elevated pressure and later released under
     atmospheric pressure or put into solution by aeration at atmos-
     pheric pressure and then released under a vacuum.

Dissolved Oxygen (DO) - The oxygen dissolved in  sewage, water, or other
     liquid, usually expressed in milligrams per liter or percent of
     saturation.  It is the test used in BOD determination.

Distillation - Vaporization of a liquid followed by condensation  of
     the vapor.

Distillation Refining - A metal with an impurity having a higher  vapor
     pressure than the base metal can be refined by heating  the metal
     to the point where the impurity vaporizes.

Distillation-Silver Nitrate Titration - A standard method of measuring
     the concentration of cyanides in a solution.

Distillation-SPADNS - A standard method of measuring the concentration
     of fluoride in a solution.

Dollar Base - A period in time in which all costs are related.  Invest-
     ment costs are related by the Sewage Treatment Plant Construction
     Cost Index.  Supply costs are related by the "Industrial Commod-
     ities" Wholesale Price Index.

Drag-in - Water or solution carried into another solution by the  work
     and the associated handling equipment.

Dragout - The solution that adheres to the objects removed from a bath,
     more precisely defined as that solution which is carried past the
     edge of the tank.

Dragout Reduction - Minimization of the amount of material (bath  or
     solution) removed from a process tank by adherring to the part
     or its transfer device.

Drainage Phase - Period in which the excess plating solution adhering
     to the part or workpiece is allowed to drain off.
                             XVI-15

-------
Drawing - Reduction of cross section area and  increasing  the length
     by pulling metal through conical taper dies.

Drawing Compounds - See Wire Forming Lubricants.

Drilling - Hole making with a rotary, end-cutting tool having one or
     more cutting lips and one or more helical or straight  flutes or
     tubes for the ejection of chips and the passage of a cutting
     fluid.  1.  Center Drilling - Drilling a  conical hole  in the
     end of a workpiece.  2.  Core Drilling -  Enlarging a hole with
     a chamer-edged, multiple-flute drill.  3.  Spade Drilling -
     Drilling with a flat blade drill tip.  4.  Step Drilling - Using
     a multiple diameter drill.  5.  Gun Drilling - Using special
     straight flute drills with a single lipiand cutting  fluid at high
     pressures for deep hole drilling.  6.  Oil Hole or Pressurized
     Coolant Drilling - Using a drill with one or more continuous
     holes through its body and shank to permit the passage of a
     high pressure cutting fluid which emerges at the drill point
     and ejects chips.

Drip Station - Empty tank over which parts are allowed to drain
     freely to decrease end dragout.

Drip Time - The period during which a part is  suspended over baths
     in order to allow the excessive dragout to drain off.

Drying Beds - Areas for dewatering of sludge by evaporation and
     seepage.

EDTA Titration - EDTA - ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid  (  or its
     salts).  A standard method of measuring the hardness of a
     solution.

Effluent - The water and the quantities, rates, and concentrations
     of chemical, physical, biological, and other constituents
     which are discharged from point sources.

Effluent Limitation - Any restriction (including schedules  of compli-
     ance) established by a state or the federal EPA on quantites,
     rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical, biological,
     and other constituents which are discharged from point sources
     into naviigable waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, or
     the ocean.

Electrical Conductivity - The property which allows an electric current
     to flow when a potential difference is applied.  It  is the re-
     ciprocal of the resistance in ohms measured between opposite
     faces of a centimeter cube of an aqueous  solution at a specified
     temperature.  It is expressed as micromhos per centimeter at
     temperature degrees Celsius.
                           XVI-16

-------
Electrical Discharge Machining - Metal removal by a rapid spark dis-
     charge between different polarity electrodes, one  the workpiece
     and the other the tool separated by a gap distance of 0.0005  in.
     to 0.035 in.  The gap is filled with dielectric  fluid and metal
     particles which are melted, in part vaporized and  expelled from
     the gap.

Electrobrightening - A process of reversed electro-deposition which
     results in anodic metal taking a high polish.

Electrochemical Machining (ECM) - A machining process whereby the  part
  .;   to be machined is made the anode and a shaped cathode is maintain-
     ed in close proximity to the work.  Electrolyte  is pumped between
     the electrodes and a potential applied with the  result  that metal
     is rapidly dissolved from the workpiece in a selective  manner and
     the shape produced on the workpiece complements  that of the
     cathode.

Electrocleaning - The process of anodic removal of surface oxides  and
     scale from a workpiece.

Electrode -  Conducting material for passing electric current into or
     out of a solution by adding electrons to or taking electrons
     from ions in the solution.

Electrodialysis - A treatment process that uses electrical current and
     and arrangement of permeable membranes to separate soluble minerals
     from water.  Often used to desalinate salt or brackish  water.

Electroless Plating - Deposition of a metallic coating  by a  control-
     led chemical reduction that is catalyzed by the  metal or alloy
     being deposited.

Electrolysis - The chemical decomposition by an electric current of
     a substance in a dissolved or molten state.

Electrolyte - A liquid, most often a solution, that will conduct an
     electric current.

Electrolytic Cell - A unit apparatus in which electrochemical react-
     ions are produced by applying electrical energy  or which supplies
     electrical energy as a result of chemical reactions and which
     includes two or more electrodes and one or more  electrolytes  con-
     tained in a suitable vessel.

Electrolytic Decomposition - An electrochemical treatment used for the
     oxidation of cyanides.  The method is practical  and economical
     when applied to concentrated solutions such as contaminated baths,
     cyanide dips, stripping solutions, and concentrated rinses.
     Electrolysis is carried out at a current density of 35  amp/sq.
     ft. at the anode and 70 amp/sq. ft. at the cathode.  Metal is
     deposited at the cathode and can be reclaimed.
                             XVI-17

-------
Electrolytic Oxidation - A reaction by an electrolyte  in which there
     is an increase in valence resulting from a loss of electrons.

Electrolytic Reduction - A reaction in which there  is  a decrease  in
     valence resulting from a gain in electrons.
                                            i
                                            i
Electrolytic Refining - The method of producing pure metals by making
     the impure metal the anode in an electrolytic  cell and depositing
     a pure cathode.  The impurities either remain  undissolved at the
     anode or pass into solutions in the electrolyte.

Electrometallurgical Process - The application of electric current to
     a metallurgical process either for electrolytic deposition or as
     a source of heat.

Electrometric Titration - A standard method of measuring the alkalin-
     ity of a solution.

Electron Beam Machining - The process of removing material from a
     workpiece by a high velocity focused stream of electrons which
     melt and vaporize the workpiece at the point of impingerent.

Electroplating - The production of a thin coating of one metal on a
     surface by electrodeposition.

Electropolishing - Electrolytic corrosion process that increases  the
     percentage of specular reflectance from a metallic surface.
                                            j
Embossing - Raising a design in relief against a surface.

Emulsified Oil and Grease - An oil or grease dispersed in an immis-
     cible liquid usually in droplets of larger than colloidal size.
     In general suspension of oil or grease within  another liquid
     (usually water).

Emulsifying Agent - A material that increases the stability of a
     dispersion of one liquid in another.   i

Emulsion Breaking - Decreasing the stability of dispersion of one
     liquid in another.

Emulsion Cleaning - A cleaning process using organic solvents dis-
     persed in an aqueous medium with the aid of an emulsifying agent.

End-of-Pipe Treatment - The reduction and/or removal of pollutants by
     treatment just prior to actual discharde.

Environmental Protection Agency - the United States Environmental
     Protection Agency.
                           XVI-18

-------
EPA - See Environmental Protection Agency.

Equalization - (Continuous Flow) - The balancing of flow or pollutant
     load using a holding tank for a system that has widely varying
     inflow rates.

Equilibrium Concentration - A state at which the concentration of
     chemicals in a solution remain in a constant proportion to one
     another.

Ester - An organic compound corresponding in structure to a salt in
     inorganic chemistry.  Esters are considered as derived from the
     acids by the exchange of the replaceable hydrogen of the latter
     for an organic alkyl radical.  Esters are not ionic compounds,
     but salts usually are.

Etchant - The material used in the chemical process of removing glass
     fibers and epoxy between neighboring conductor layers of a PC
     board for a given distance.

Etching - A process where material is removed by chemical action.

Evaporation Ponds - Liquid waste disposal areas that allow the liquid
     to vaporize to cool discharge water temperatures or to thicken
     sludge.

Excess Capacity Factor - A multiplier on process size to account for
     shutdown for cleaning and maintenance.

Extrusion - A material that is forced through a die to form lengths
     of rod, tube or special sections.

4-AAP Colorimetric - A standard method of measurement for phenols
     in aqueous solutions.

Fermentation - A chemical change to break down biodegradable waste.
     The change is induced by a living organism or enzyme, specific-
     ally bacteria or microorganisms occurring in unicellular plants
     such as yeast, molds, or fungi.

Ferrite - A solid solution in which alpha iron is present.

Ferrous - Relating to or containing iron.

Filtrate - Liquid after passing through a filter.

Filtration - Removal of solid particles from liquid or particles
     from air or gas stream by means of a permeable membrane.
     Types:  Gravity, Pressure, Microstraining, Ultrafiltration,
     Reverse Osmosis (Hyperfiltration).
                              XVI-19

-------
Flameless Atomic Absorption - A method of measuring  low  concen-
     tration values of certain metals in a  solution.
                                           f	r">	 : .;	•"  .  <•' '•'•'•' ...;T •'•." a1:' • •
Flame Hardened - Surface hardened by controlled  torch  heating
     followed by quenching with water or air.
                                           i
Flame Spraying - The process of applying a  metallic  coating  to a
     workpiece whereby finely powdered fragments or  wire,  together
     with suitable fluxes, are projected through a cone  of flame
     onto the workpiece.

Flash Evaporation - Evaporation using steam heated tubes with feed
     material under high vacuum.  Feed material  "flashes off" when
     it enters the evaporation chamber.

Flocculation - The process of separating suspended solids  from waste-
     water by chemical creation of clumps or floes.

Flotation - The process of removing finely .divided particles from
     a liquid suspension by attaching gas bubbles to the particles,
     increasing their buoyancy, and thus concentrating them  at the
     surface of the liquid medium.

Fluxing - (Degassing)  The removal of oxides and other impurities
     from molten primary aluminum in a casthouse holding furnace by
     injecting chlorine gas (often with nitrogen and carbon  monoxide).

Fog - A type of rinse consisting of a fine  spray.

Forming Compounds (Sheet) - Tightly adhering lubricants  composed of
     fatty oils, fatty acids, soaps, and waxes and designed  to resist
     the high surface temperatures and pressures the metal would
     otherwise experience in forming.

Forming Compounds (Wire) - Tightly adhering  lubricants composed of
     solids (white lead, talc, graphite, or molybdenum disulfide)
     and solible oils for cooling and corrosion protection.  Lubri-
     cants typically contain sulfur, chlorine, or phsophate  additives.

Free Cyanide - 1.  True - the actual concentration of  cyanide radical
     or equivalent alkali cyanide not combined in complex  ions with
     metals in solutions.  2.  Calculated -  the concentration of
     cyanide or alkali cyanide present in solution in  excess of that
     calculated as necessary to form a specified complex ion with a
     metal or metals present in solution.   3.  Analytical -  the free
     cyanide content of a solution as determined by  a  specified
     analytical method.

Freezing/Crystallization - The solidification of a liquid  into
     aggregations of regular geometric forms (crystals)  accomplished
     by subtraction of heat from the liquid.  This process can be used
     for removal of solids, oils, greases,  and heavy metals  from
     industrial wastewater.
                             XVI-20

-------
Galvanizing - The deposition of zinc on the surface of steel for
     corrosion protection.

Gas Carburizing - The introduction of carbon into the surface layers
     of mill steel by heating in a current of gas high in carbon.

Gas Chr onto tag rophy - Chemical analytical instrumentation generally
     used for quantitative organic analysis.

Gas Nitriding - Case hardening metal by heating and diffusing nitro-
     gen gas into the surface.

Gas Phase Separation - The process of separating volatile constitu-
     ents from water by the application of selective gas permeable
     membranes.

Gear Forming - Process for making small gears by rolling the gear
     material as it is pressed between hardened gear shaped dies. .

Glass Fiber Filtration - A standard method of measuring total sus-
     pended solids.

Good Housekeeping - (In-Plant Technology)  Good and proper mainten-
     ance minimizing spills and upsets.

GPP - Gallons per day.

Grab Sample - A single sample of wastewater taken without regard
     to time or flow.

Gravimetric 103-105C - A standard method of measuring total
     solids in aqueous solutions.

Gravimetric 550C - A standard method of measuring total volatile
     solids in aqueous solutions.

Gravity Filtration - Settling of heavier and rising of lighter
     constituents within a solution.

Gravity Flotation - The separation of water and low density contam-
     inants such as oil or grease by reduction of the wastewater
     flow velocity and turbulence for a sufficient time to permit
     separation due to difference in specific gravity.  The floated
     material is removed by some skimming technique.

Gray Cast Irons - Alloys primarily of iron, carbon and silicon along
     with other alloying elements in which the graphite is in flake
     form.  (These irons are characterized by low ductility but have
     many other properties such as good castability and good damping
     capacity.)
                              XVI-21

-------
Grease - In wastewater, a group of substances  including  fats, waxes,
     free fatty acids, calcium and magnesium soaps, mineral oils,
     and certain other nonfatty materials.  The type of  solvent
     and method used for extraction should be  stated for quantifi-
     cation.

Grease Skimmer - A device for removing floating grease or  scum from
     the surface of wastewater in a tank.

Grinding - The removal of stock from a workpiece by use  of abrasive
     grains held by a rigid or semi rigid binder.  1.  Surface
     Grinding - Producing a flat surface with  a rotating grinding
     wheel as the workpiece passes under the wheel.  2.  Cylindrical
     Grinding - Grinding the outside diameters of cylindrical work-
     pieces held between centers.  3.  Internal Grinding - Grinding
     the inside of a rotating workpiece by use of a wheel  spindle
     which rotates and reciprocates through the length of  depth of
     the hole being ground.

Grinding Fluids - Water based, straight oil, or synthetic  based
     lubricants containing mineral oils, soaps, or fatty materials
     lubricants serve to cool the part and maintain the  abrasiveness
     of the grinding wheel face.
                                           i                  	
Hammer Forging - Heating and pounding metal to shape it  into the
     desired form.

Hardened - Designates condition produced by various heat treatments
     such as quench hardening, age hardening and precipitation
     hardening.
                                           i
Hardness - A characteristic of water, imparted by salts  of calcium,
     magnesium and iron such as bicarbonates,  carbonates,  sulfates,
     chlorides and nitrates, that cause curdling of soap,  deposition
     of scale, damage in some industrial processes and sometimes
     objectionable taste.  It may be dtermined by a standard labora-
     tory procedure or computed from the amounts of calcium and
     magnesium as well as iron, aluminum, manganese, barium,
     strontium, and zinc and is expressed as equivalent  calcium
     carbonate.

Heading - (Material forming)  Upsetting wire,  rod or bar stock in
     dies to form parts having some of the cross-sectional area
     larger than the original.  Examples are bolts, rivets and
     screws.                               !

Heat Resistant Steels - Steel with high resistance to oxidation and
     moderate strength at high temperatures above 500 Degrees C.
                           XVI-22

-------
Heat Treatment - The modification of the physical properties of a
     workpiece through the application of controlled heating and
     cooling cycles.  Such operations are heat treating, tempering,
     carburizing, eyaniding, nitriding, annealing, normalizing,
     austenizing, quenching, austempering, siliconizing, martemper-
     ing, and malleabilizing are included in this definition.

Heavy Metals - Metals which can be precipitated by hydrogen sulfide
     in acid solution, e.g., lead, silver, gold, mercury, bismuth,
     copper, nickel, iron, chromium, zinc, cadmium, and  tin.

High Energy Forming - Processes where parts are formed at a rapid
     rate by using extremely high pressures.  Examples:  Explosive
     forming, Electrohydraulic forming.

High Energy Rate Forging  (HERF) - A closed die process where hot or
     cold deforming is accomplished by a high velocity ram.

Bobbing - Gear cutting by use of a tool resembling a worm gear  in
     appearance, having helically-spaced cutting teeth.  In a single-
     thread hob, the rows of teeth advance exactly one pitch as the
     hob makes one revolution.  With only one hob, it is possible to
     cut interchangeable gears of a given pitch of any number of
     teeth within the range of the hobbing machine.

Honing - A finishing operation using fine grit abrasive  stones  to
     produce accurate dimensions and excellent finish.

Hot Compression Molding - (Plastic Processing)  A technique of
     thermoset molding in which preheated molding compound is closed
     and heat and pressure  (in the form of a downward moving ram)
     are applied until the material has cured.

Hot Pi p Coat ing - The process of coating a metallic workpiece with
     another metal by immersion in a molten bath to provide a pro-
     tective film.

Hot Rolled - A term used  to describe alloys which are rolled at tem-
     peratures above the  recrystallization temperature.  (Many  alloys
     are hot rolled, and machinability of such alloys may vary  because
     of differences in cooling conditions from lot to lot.

Hot Stamping - Engraving operation for marking plastics  in which roll
     leaf is stamped with heated metal dies onto the face of the
     plastics.  Ink compounds can also be used.

Hot Upset Forging - The diameter is locally increased i.e. to upset
     the head of a bolt,  the end of the barstock is heated and  then
     deformed by an axial blow often into a suitably shaped die.

Hyd rof1uor ic Ac id - Hydrogen fluoride in aqueous solution.
                              XVI-23

-------
Hydrogen Embrittlement - Embrittlement of a metal or alloy caused by
     absorption of hydrogen during a pickling, cleaning, or plating
     process.

Hydrometallurgical Process - The treatment of ores by wet processes
     such as leaching.
                                            !
Hydrophilic - A surface having a strong affinity for water or being
     readily wettable.

Hydrophobic - A surface which is non-wettable or not readily wettable,

Hydrostatic Pressure - The force per unit area measured in terms of
     the height of a column of water under the influence of gravity.

Immersed Area - Total area wetted by the solution or plated area plus
     masked area.

Immersion Plate - A metallic deposit produced by a displacement re-
     action in which one metal displaces another from solution, for
     example:   Fe + Cu(+2) = Cu + Fe(+2)

Impact Deformation - The process of applying impact force to a work-
     piece such that the workpiece is permanently deformed or shaped.
     Impact deformation operations such as shot peening, peening,
     forging, high energy forming, heading, or stamping.

Incineration - (Sludge Disposal)  The combustion (by burning) of
     organic matter in wastewater sludge after dewatering by
     evaporation.

Incompatible Pollutants - Those pollutants which would cause harm to,
     adversely affect the performance of, or be inadequately treated
     in publicly-owned treatment works.

Independent Operation - Job shop or contract shop in which electro-
     plating is done on workpieces owned by the customer.

Indirect Labor Costs - Labor-related costs paid by the employer
     other than salaries, wages and other direct compensation such as
     social security and insurance.

Induction Hardened - Surface or through hardened using induction
     heating followed by quenching with water or air.

Industrial User - Any industry that introduces pollutants into public
     sewer systems and whose wastes are treated by a publicly-owned
     treatment facility.                    ;

Industrial Wastes - The liquid wastes from industrial processes, as
     distinct from domestic or sanitary wastes.
                               XVI-24

-------
Inhibition - The slowing down or stoppage of chemical or biological
     reactions by certain compounds or ions.

In-Process Control Technology - The regulation and the conservation
     of chemicals and the reduction of water usage throughout the
     operations as opposed to end-of-pipe treatment.

Inspection - A checking or testing of something against standards or
     specification.

Intake Water - Gross water minus reuse water.

Integrated Chemical Treatment - A waste treatment method in which a
     chemical rinse tank is inserted in the plating line between the
     process tank and the water rinse tank.  The chemical rinse
     solution is continuously circulated through the tank and removes
     the dragout while reacting chemicals with it.

Integrated Circuit (1C) - 1.  A combination of interconnected circuit
     elements inseparably associated on or within a continuous sub-
     strate.  2.  Any electronic device in which both active and
     passive elements are contained in a single package.  Methods of
     making an integrated circuit are by masking process, screening
     and chemical deposition.

Intraforming - A method of forming by means of squeezing.

Investment Costs - The capital expenditures required to bring the
     treatment or control technology into operation.

Ion Exchange - A reversible chemical reaction between a solid (ion
     exchanger) and a fluid (usually a water solution) by means of
     which ions may be interchanged from one substance to another.
     The superficial physical structure of the solid is not
     affected.

Ion Exchange Resins - Synthetic resins containing active groups
     (usually sulfonic, carboxylic, phenol, or substituted amino
     groups) that give the resin the property of combining with
     or exchanging ions between the resin and a solution.

Ion-Flotation Technique - Treatment for electroplating rinse waters
     (containing chromium and cyanide) in which ions are separated
     from solutions by flotation.

Iridite Dip Process - Dipping process for zinc or zinc-coated objects
     that deposits protective film that is a chromium gel, chromium
     oxide, or hydrated chromium oxide.

Isolation - Segregation of a waste for separate treatment and/or
     disposal.
                             XVI-25

-------
Job Shop - A facility which owns not more than 50 percent (annual
     area basis) of the materials undergoing metal finishing.

Kiln - (Rotary)  A large cylindrical mechanized type of furnace.

Kinematic Viscosity - The viscosity of a fluid divided by its density.
     The C.G.S. unit is the stoke (cm2/sec) . '•

Knurling - Impressing a design into a metallic surface, usually by
     means of small, hard rollers that carry the corresponding design
     on their surfaces.

Lagoon - A man-made pond or lake for holding wastewater for  the removal
     of suspended solids.  Lagoons are also used as retention ponds,
     after chemical clarification to polish the effluent and to safe-
     guard against upsets in the clarifier; for stabilization of
     organic matter by biological oxidation; for storage of  sludge;
     and for cooling of water.

Laminate - 1.  A composite metal, wood or plastic usually in the form
     of sheet or bar, composed of two or more layers so bonded that
     the composite forms a structural member-.  2.  To form a product
     of two or more bonded layers.

Landfill - Disposal of inert, insoluble waste solids by dumping at an
     approved site and covering with earth.

Lapping - An abrading process to improve surface quality by  reducing
     roughness, waviness and defects to produce accurate as  well as
     smooth surfaces.

Laser Beam Machining - Use of a highly focused mono-frequency colli-
     mated beam of light to melt or sublime material at the  point of
     impingement on a workpiece.

Leach Field - A area of ground to which wastewater is discharged.
     Not considered an acceptable treatment method for industrial
     wastes.                                I

Leaching - Dissolving out by the action of a percolating liquid,
     such as water, seeping through a landfill.

Ligands - The molecules attached to the central atom by coordinate
     covalent bonds.                        !

Liquid/Liquid Extraction - A process of extracting or removing contam-
     inant(s) from a liquid by mixing contaminated liquid with another
     liquid which is immiscible and which has a higher affinity for
     the contaminating substance(s).

Liquid Nitriding - Process of case hardening a metal in a molten
     cyanide bath.
                             XVI-26

-------
Liquid Phase Refining - A metal with an impurity possessing a lower
     melting point is refined by heating the metal to the point of.
     melting of the low temperature metal.  It is separated by sweat-
     ing out.

Machining - The process of removing stock from a workpiece by forcing
     a cutting tool through the workpiece removing a chip of basis
     material.  Machining operations such as turning, milling, drill-
     ing, boring, tapping, planing, broaching, sawing and filing, and
     chamfering are included in this definition.

Maintenance - The upkeep of property or equipment.

Malleablizing - Process of annealing brittle white cast iron in such
     a way that the combined carbon is wholly or partly transformed
     to graphitic or temper carbon nodules in a ferritic or pearlitic
     microstructure, thus providing a ductile and machinable material.

Manual Plating - Plating in which the workpieces are conveyed manually
     through successive cleaning and plating tanks.

Maraged - Describes a series of heat treatments used to treat high
     strength steels of complex composition (maraging steels) by
     aging of martensite.

Martensite - An acicular or needlelike microstructure that is formed
     in quenched steels.  (It is very hard and brittle in the quenched
     form and, therefore, is usually tempered before being placed into
     service.  The harder forms of tempered martensite have poorer
     machinability.)

Martempering - Quenching an austentized ferrous alloy in a medium at a
     temperature in the upper part of the martensite range, or slight-
     ly above that range, and holding it in the medium until the
     temperature throughout the alloy is substantially uniform.
     The alloy is then allowed to cool in air through the martensite
     range.

Masking - The application of a substance to a surface for the pre-
     vention of plating to said area.

Material Modification - (In-Plant Technology)  Altering the substance
     from which a part is made.

Mechanical Agitation - The agitation of a liquid medium through the
     use of mechanical equipment such as impellers or paddles.

Mechanical Finish - Final operations on a product performed by a
     machine or tool.  See:  Polishing, Buffing, Barrel Finishing,
     Shot Peening, Power Brush Finishing.
                               XVl-27

-------
Mechanical Plating - Providing  a  coating wherein  fine  metal  powders
     are peened onto the part by  tumbling  or  other  means.

Membrane - A thin sheet of synthetic polymer  through the  apertures
     of which small molecules can pass, while larger ones  are  re-
     tained.
                                            !

Membrane Filtration - Filtration  at pressures ranging  from 50  to 100
     psig with the use of membranes or  thin films.  The membranes
     have accurately controlled pore sites  and  typically  low flux
     rates.

Metal Ion - An atom or radical  that has lost  or gained one or  more
     electrons and has thus acquired an elebtric  charge.   Positively
     charged ions are cations,  and those having a negative charge
     are anions.  An ion often  has entirely differnt properties from
     the element (atom) from which it was  formed.

Metal Oxidation Refining - A refining technique that removes impuri-
     ties from the base metal because the  impurity  oxidizes  more
     readily than the base.  The  metal  is  heated  and oxygen  supplied.
     The impurity upon oxidizing  separates  by gravity  or  volatilizes.

Metal Paste Production - Manufacture of metal pastes for  use as pig-
     ments by mixing metal powders with mineral spirits,  fatty acids
     and solvents.  Grinding and  filtration are steps  in  the process.

Metal Powder Production - Production of metal particles for  such uses
     as pigments either by milling and  grinding of  scrap  or  by atomi-
     zation of molten metal.

Metal Spraying - Coating metal  objects  by  spraying  molten  metal upon
     the surface with gas pressure.
                                            I
Microstraining - A process for  removing solids  from water, which con-
     sists of passing the water stream  through  a  microscreen with
     the solids being retained  on the screen.

Milling - Using a rotary tool with one  or  more  teeth which engage the
     workpiece and remove material as the  workpiece moves  past the
     rotating cutter.  1.  Face Milling -  Milling a surface  perpendi-
     cular cutting edges remove the bulk of the material  while the
     face cutting edges provide the finish  of the surface  being
     generated.  2.  End Milling  - Milling  accomplished with a tool
     having cutting edges on its  cylindrical  sufaces as well as on
     its end.  In end milling - peripheral, the peripheral cutting
     edges on the cylindrical surface are  used; while  in  end milling-
     slotting, both end and peripheral  cutting  edges remove  metal.
     3.  Slide and Slot Milling - Milling  of  the  side  or  slot  of a
     workpiece using a peripheral cutter.   4.   Slab Milling  -  Milling
     of a surface parallel to the axis  of  a helical, multiple-toothed
     cutter mounted on an arbor.  5.  Straddle  Milling -  Peripheral
     milling a workpiece on both  sides  at  once  using two  cutters
     spaced as required.
                             XVI-28

-------
Ijplecule - Chemical units composed of one or more  atoms.

Ptonitoring - The measurement, sometimes  continuous,  of  water  quality.

E|ylti-Effeet Evaporator - A series of evaporations and  condensations
     with the individual units set up in series  and  the latent  heat of
     vaporization from one unit used to  supply energy for  the next.

Rfeiltiple Operation Machinery - Two or more  tools are used  to  perform
     simultaneous or consecutive operations.

l|ultiple Subcategory Plant - A plant discharging process wastewater
     from more than one manufacturing process subcategory.

t|ational Pollutant Discharge Elimination System  (NPDES)  -  The federal
     mechanism for regulating point source  discharge by means of
     permits.

l|avigable Waters - All navigable waters  of  the United States; tribu-
     taries of navigable waters of the United States; interstate
     waters,intrastate lakes, rivers and streams which  are utilized
     for recreational or other purposes.

I|eutralization - Chemical addition of either acid  or base  to  a  solu-
     tion such as the pH is adjusted to  7.

E|ew Source - Any building, structure, facility,  or installation from
     which there is or may be the discharge of pollutants,  the  con-
     struction of which is commenced after  the publication of proposed
     regulations prescribing a standard  of  performance  under  Section
     306 of the Act which will be applicable to  such source if  such
     standard is thereafter promulgated  in  accordance with Section
     306 of the Act.

Ijjitriding - A heat treating method in which nitrogen is diffused  into
     the surface of iron-base alloys.  (This is  done by heating the
     metal at a temperature of about 950 degrees P in contact with
     ammonia gas or other suitable nitrogenous materials.   The  surface,
     because of formation of nitrides becomes much harder  than  the
     interior.  Depth of the nitrided surface is a function of  the
     length of time of exposure and can  vary from  .0005" to .032"
     thick.  Hardness is generally in the 65 to  70 Re range,  and,
     therefore, these structures are almost always ground.)

!|itriding Steels - Steels which are selected because they  form  good
     case hardened structures in the nitriding process.  (  In these
     steels, elements such as aluminum and  chromium  are important
     for producing a good case.)

Nitrification (Biological) - The oxidation  of nitrogenous  matter  into
     nitrates by bacteria.
                               XVI-29

-------
Noble Metals - Metals below hydrogen  in the electromotive  force series;
     includes antimony, copper, rhodium, silver, gold, bismuth.

Noncontact Cooling Water - Water used  for cooling which does  not come
     into direct contact with any raw  material,  intermediate  product,
     waste product, or finished product.

Nonferrous - No iron content.

Non-Water Quality Environmental Impact - The ecological impact as a
     result of solid/ air, or thermal  pollution  due to the appli-
     cation of various wastewater technologies to achieve  the effluent
     guidelines limitations.  Associated with the non-water quality
     aspect is the energy impact of wastewater treatment.

Normalizing - Heat treatment of iron-base alloys above the critical
     temperature, followed by cooling  in still air.   (This is often
     done to refine or homogenize the  grain structure of castings,
     forgings and wrought steel products.)

Notching - Cutting out various shapes  from the edge or side of a
     sheet, strip, blank or part.

NPDES - See National Pollutant Discharge Elimination  System.

Oil Cooker - Open-topped vessel contining a heat source and typically
     maintained at 68°C (180°F) for the purpose  of driving off excess
     water from waste oil.

Operation and Maintenance Costs - The  cost of running the  wastewater
     treatment equipment.  This includes labor costs, material and
     supply costs, and energy and power costs.

Organic Compound - Any substance that  contains the element carbon,
     with the exception of carbon dioxide and various carbonates.

ORP Recorders - Oxidation-reduction potential recorders.

Oxidants - Those substances which aid  in the formation of  oxides.
                                            i
Oxidizable Cyanide - Cyanide amenable  to oxidation.

Oxidizing - Combining the material concerned with oxygen.

Paint Stripping - The term "paint stripping" shall mean the process
     of removing an organic coating from a workpiece  or painting
     fixture.  The removal of such coatings using processes such
     as caustic, acid, solvent and molten salt stripping are  included.
                                 XVI-30

-------
Parameter - A characteristic element of constant factor.

Passivation - The changing of the chemically active surface of a
     metal to a much less reactive state by means of an acid dip.

Patina - A blue green oxidation of copper.

Pearlite - A microstituent found in iron-base alloys consisting of
     a lamellar (Patelike) composite of ferrite and iron carbide.
     (This structure results from the decomposition of austenite
     and is very common in cast irons and annealed steels.)

Peening - Mechanical working of metal by hammer blows or shot im-
     pingement.

pH - A unit for measuring hydrogen ion concentrations.  A pH of 7
     indicates a "neutral" water or solution.  A pH lower than 7,
     a solution is acidic.  At pH higher than 7, a solution is
     alkaline.

pH Buffer - A substance used to stabilize the acidity or alkalinity
     in a solution.

Phenols - A group of aromatic compounds having the hydroxyl group
     directly attached to the benzene ring.  Phenols can be a con-
     taminant in a waste stream from a manufacturing process.

Phosphate Coating - Process of forming a conversion coating on iron
     or steel by immersing in a hot solution of manganese, iron or
     zinc phosphate.  Often used on a metal part prior to painting
     or porcelainizing.

Phosphate - Salts or esters of phosphoric acid.

Phosphatizing - Process of forming rust-resistant coating on iron
     or steel by immersing in a hot solution of acid manganese,
     iron or zinc phosphates.

Photoresists - Thin coatings produced from organic solutions
     which when exposed to light of the proper wave length are
     chemically changed in their solubility to certain solvents
     (developers).  This substance is placed over a surface which
     is to be protected during processing such as in the etching
     of printer circuit boards.

Photosensitive Coating - A chemical layer that is receptive to
     the action of radiant energy.
                             XVI-31

-------
Pickling  - The immersion of all or part of a workpiece  in a
     corrosive media such as acid to remove scale and related
     surface coatings.

Planing - Producing flat surfaces by linear reciprocal motion of
     the work and the table to which it is attached relative to
     a stationary single-point cutting tool.

Plant Effluent or Discharge After Treatment - The wastewater
     discharged from theindustrial plant.  In this definition,
     any waste treatment device  (pond, trickling filter, etc.)
     is considered part of the industrial plant.

Plasma Arc Machining - The term  "plasma arc machining" shall mean
     the process of material removal or shaping of a workpiece
     by a high velocity jet of high temperature ionized  gas.

Plated Area - Surface upon which an adherent layer of metal is
     deposited.

Plating - Forming an adherent layer of metal upon an object.

Point Source - Any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance
     including, but not limited to, any pipe, ditch, channel,
     tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling
     stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or
     other floating craft from which pollutants are or may be
     discharged.

Point Source Category - See Category.

Polishing - The process of removing stock from a workpiece by the
     action of loose or loosely held abrasive grains carried to
     the workpiece by a flexible support.  Usually, the  amount of
     stock removed in a polishing operation is only incidental to
     achieving a desired surface finish or appearance.

Polishing Compounds - Fluid or grease stick lubricants composed
     of animal tallows, fatty acids, and waxes.  Selection depends
     on surface finish desired.

Pollutant - Dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage,
     garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological
     materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or  discarded
     equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial,  municipal
     and agricultural waste discharged intp water.  It does not
     mean (1) sewage from vessels or (2) water, gas, or  other mat-
     erial which is injected into a well to facilitate production
     of oil or gas, or water derived in association with oil or
     gas production and disposed of in a well, if the well, used
     either to facilitate production or for disposal purposes, is
                              XVI-32

-------
     approved by authority of the State in which the well is
     located, and if such State determines that such injection
     or disposal will not result in degradation of ground or
     surface water resources.

Pollutant Parameters - Those constituents of wastewater deter-
     minded to be detrimental and, therefore, requiring control.

Pollution - The man-made or man-induced alternation of the
     chemical, physical, biological, and radiological integrity
     of water.

Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCS) - A family of chlorinated biphenyls
     with unique thermal properties and chemical inertness which
     have a wide variety of uses as plasticizers, flame retardants
     and insulating fluids.  They represent a persistent contam-
     inant in waste streams and receiving waters.

Polyelectrolyte - A high polymer substance, either natural or
     synthetic, containing ionic constituents? they may be either
     cationic or anionic.

Post Curring - Treatment after changing the physical properties
     of a material by chemical reaction.

Pouring - (Casting and Molding)  Transferring molten metal from
     a furnace or a ladle to a mold.

Power Brush Finishing - This is accomplished (wet or dry) using a
     wire or nonmetallic-fiber-filled brush used for debarring,
     edge blending and surface finishing of metals.

Precious Metals - Gold, silver, iridium, palladium, platinum,
     rhodium, ruthenium, indium, osmium, or combination thereof.

Precipitate - The discrete particles of material rejected from a
     liquid solution.

Precipitation Hardening Metals - Certain metal compositions which
     respond to precipitation hardening or aging treatment.

Pressure Deformation - The process of applying force, (other than
     impact force), to permanently deform or shape a workpiece.
     Pressure deformation operations may include operations such
     as rolling, drawing, bending, embossing, coining, swaging,
     sizing, extruding, squeezing, spinning, seaming, piercing,
     necking, reducing, forming, crimping, coiling, twisting,
     winding, flaring or weaving.

Pressure Filtration - The process of solid/liquid phase separation
     effected by passing the more permeable liquid phase through a
     mesh which is impenetrable to the solid phase.
                             XVI-33

-------
Pretreatment - Treatment of wastewaters from sources before  intro-
     duction into municipal treatment works.
                                          i
Primary Settling - The first treatment for the  removal of settle-
     able solids from wastewater which is passed through a treat-
     ment works.

Primary Treatment - The first stage in wastewater treatment  in
     which floating or settleable solids are mechanically removed
     by screening and sedimentation.

Printed Circuit Boards - A circuit in which the interconnecting
     wires have been replaced by conductive strips printed,  etched,
     etc., onto an insulating board.  Methods of fabrication in-
     clude etched circuit, electroplating,' and  stamping.
                                          j
Printing - A process whereby a design or pattern in ink or types
     of pigments are impressed onto the surface of a part.

Process Modification - (In-Plant Technology)  Reduction of water
     pollution by basic changes in a manufacturing process.

Process Wastewater - Any water which, duribg manufacturing or
     processing,comes into direct contact with or results from
     the production or use of any raw material, intermediate
     product, finished product, byproduct, or waste product.

Process Water - Water prior to its direct .contact use in a process
     or operation.  (This water may be any combination of raw water,
     service water, or either process wastewater or treatment facil-
     ity effluent to be recycled or reused).

Punching - A method of cold extruding, cold heading, hot forging or
     stamping in a machine whereby the mating die sections control
     the shape or contour of the part.

Pyrolysis - (Sludge Removal)  Decomposition of materials by  the
     application of heat in any oxygen-deficient atmosphere.

Pyrazolone-Colorimetric - A standard method of measuring cyanides
     in aqueous solutions.

Quantity GPP - Gallons per day.

Quenching - Rapid cooling of alloys by immersion in water, oil, or
     gases after heating.

Racking - The placement of parts on an apparatus for the purpose
     of plating.

RackPlating - Electroplating of workpieces on racks.
                            XVI-34

-------
Radiography - A nondestructive method of internal examination
     in which metal or other objects are exposed to a beam of
     x-ray or gamma radiation.  Differences in thickness, density
     or absorption, caused by internal discontinuities, are
     apparent in the shadow image either on a fluorescent screen
     or on photographic film placed behind the object.

Raw Water - Plant intake water prior to any treatment or use.

Reaming - An operation in which a previously formed hole is sized
     and contoured accurately by using a rotary cutting tool  (reamer)
     with one or more cutting elements (teeth).  The principal sup-
     port for the reamer during the cutting action is obtained from
     the workpiece.  1.  Form Reaming - Reaming to a contour  shape.
     2.  Taper Reaming - Using a special reamer for taper pins.  3.
     Hand Reaming - Using a long lead reamer which permits reaming
     by hand.  4.  Pressure Coolant Reaming (or Gun Reaming)  -
     Using a multiple-lip, end cutting tool through which coolant is
     forced at high pressure to flush chips ahead of the tool or
     back through the flutes for finishing of deep holes.

Receiving Waters - .Rivers, lakes, oceans, or other water courses
     that receive treated or untreated wastewaters.

Recirculating Spray - A spray rinse in which the drainage is  pumped
     up to the spray and is continually recirculated.

Recycled Water - Process wastewater or treatment facility effluent
     which is recirculated to the same process.

Recycle Lagoon - A pond that collects treated wastewater, most of
     which is recycled as process water.

Reduction - A reaction in which there is a decrease in valence
     resulting from a gain in electrons.

Redox - A term used to abbreviate a reduction-oxidation reaction.

Residual Chlorine - The amount of chlorine left in the treated
     water that is available to oxidize contaminants.

Reverse Osmosis - The application of pressure to the surface  of
     solution through a semipermeable membrane that is too dense
     to permit passage of the solute, leaving behind the dissolved
     solids  (concentrate).

Reused Water - Process wastewater or treatment facility effluent
     which is further used in a different manufacturing process.

Ring Rolling - A metals process in which a doughnut shaped piece of
     stock is flattened to the desired ring shape by rolling  between
     variably spaced rollers.  This process produces a seamless ring.
                             XVI-35

-------
Rinse - Water for removal of dragout by dipping,  spraying,
     fogging, etc.

Riveting - Joining of two or more members of a  structure  by means
     of metal rivets, the undeaded end being upset after  the  rivet
     is in place.

Routing - Cutting out and contouring edges of various  shapes  in  a
     relatively thin material using a small'diameter rotating
     cutter which is operated at fairly high speeds.

Running Rinse - A rinse tank in which water continually flows  in
     and out.

Rust Prevention Compounds - Coatings used to protect iron and  steel
     surfaces, against corrosive environment during fabrication,
     storage, or use.

Salt -  1.  The compound formed when the hydrogen of an acid  is
     replaced by a metal or its equivalent (e.g., an NH4  radical).
     Example:     HC1 + NaOH = NaCl + H20
     This is typical of the general rule that the reaction of  an
     acid and a base yields a salt and water.   Most salts ionize
     in water solution.  2.  Common salt, s6dium  chloride, occurs
     widely in nature, both as deposits left by ancient seas and
     in the ocean, where its average concentration is  about 3%.

Salt Bath Descaling - Removing the layer of oxides formed on some
     metals at elevated temperatures in a salt  solution.  See:
     Reducing, Oxidizing, Electrolytic.

Sand Bed Drying - The process of reducing the water content in a wet
     substance by transferring that substance to  the surface of  a
     sand bed and allowing the processes of:drainage through  the
     sand and evaporation to effect the required  water separation.

Sand Blasting - The process of removing stock including surface
     films, from a workpiece by the use of abrasive grains
     pneumatically impinged against the workpiece.

Sand Filtration - A process of filtering wastewater through sand.
     The wastewater is trickled over the bed of sand where air and
     bacteria decompose the wastes.  The clean  water flows out
     through drains in the bottom of the bed.   The sludge accumulat-
     ing at the surface must be removed from the  bed periodically.

Sanitary Water - The supply of water used for sewage transport and
     the continuation of such effluents to disposal.

Sanitary Sewer - Pipes and conveyances for sewage transport.

Save Rinse - See Dead Rinse.
                             XVI-36

-------
Sawing - Using a toothed blade or disc to sever parts or cut
     contours.  1.  Circular Sawing - Using a circular saw fed
     into the work by motion of either the workpiece or the
     blade.  2.  Power Band Sawing - Using a long, multiple-
     tooth continuous band resulting in a uniform cutting
     action as the workpiece is fed into the saw.  Power Hack
     Sawing - Sawing in which a reciprocating saw blade is fed
     into the workpiece.

Scale - Oxide and metallic residues.

Screening - Selectively applying a resist material to a surface
     to be plated.

Secondary Settling - Effluent from some prior treatment process
     flows for the purpose of removing settleable solids.

Secondary Treatment - The second step in most sanitary waste
     treatment plants in which bacteria consume the organic
     portions of the waste.  This removal is accomplished by trick-
     ling filters, an activated sludge unit, or other processes.

Sedimentation - The process of subsidence and deposition of suspended
     matter carried by water, wastewater, or other liquids by
     gravity.  It is usually accomplished by reducing the velocity
     of the liquid below the point at which it can transport the
     suspended material.  Also called settling.

Sensitization - The process in which a substance other than the
     catalyst is present to facilitate the start of a catalytic
     reaction.

Sequestering Agent - An agent (usually a chemical compound) that
     "sequesters" or holds a substance in suspension.

Series Rinse - A series of tanks which can be individually heated
     or level controlled.

Service Water - Raw water which has been treated preparatory to
     its use in a process or operation; i.e., makeup water.

Settleable Solids - That matter in wastewater which will not stay
     in suspension during a preselected settling period, such as one
     hour, but either settles to the bottom or floats to the top.

Settling Ponds - A large shallow body of water into which indus-
     trial wastewaters are discharged.  Suspended solids settle
     from the wastewaters due to the large retention time of water
     in the pond.
                              XVI-37

-------
Shaping - Using single point tools fixed  to a  ram  reciprocated  in
     a linear motion past the work.  1.   Form  Shaping  -  Shaping
     with a tool ground to provide a specified shape.  2.  Contour
     Shaping - Shaping of an irregular surface,  usually  with  the
     aid of a tracing mechanism.  3.  Internal Shaping - Shaping
     of internal forms such as keyways and guides.

Shaving - 1.  As a finishing operation, the accurate removal  of a
     thin layer by drawing a cutter in straight  line motion across
     the work surfaces.  2.  Trimming parts like stampings, forgings
     and tubes to remove uneven sheared edges  or to improve accuracy,

Shearing - The process of severing or cutting  of a workpiece  by
     forcing a sharp edge.or opposed sharp edges into  the workpiece
     by forcing a sharp edge or opposed sharp  edges into the  work-
     piece stressing the material to the  point of  sheer  failure and
     separation.
                                           i
                                           i	
Shipping - Transporting.                   I

Shot Peening - Dry abrasive cleaning of metal surfaces by  impacting
     the surfaces with high velocity steel shot.

Shredding - (Cutting or Stock Removal)  Material cut, torn or  broken
     up into small parts.                  .

SIC - Standard Industrial Classification - Defines  industries  in
     accordance with the composition and structure  of the  economy
     and covers the entire field of economic activity.

Silica - (Si(^2_)  Dioxide of silicon which occurs in crystalline form
     as quartz, cristohalite, tridymite.  Used  in its pure form for
     high-grade refractories and high temperature insulators and in
     impure form (i.e. sand) in silica bricks.

Siliconizing - Diffusing silicon into solid metal,  usually steel,
     at an elevated temperature for the purposes of case hardening
     thereby providing a corrosion and wear-resistant surface.

Sintering - The process of forming a mechanical part from  a
     powdered metal by bonding under pressure and heat but below
     the melting point of the basis metal.

Sizing  1.  Secondary forming or squeezing operations, required
     to square up, set down, flatten or otherwise correct  surfaces,
     to produce specified dimensions and tolerances.  See  restriking.
     2.  Some burnishing, broaching, drawing and shaving operations
     are also called sizing.  3.  A finishing operation for correct-
     ing ovality in tubing.  4.  Powder metal.  Final pressing of
     a sintered compact.
                              XVI-38

-------
Skimming - The process of removing floating solid or liquid wastes
     from a wastewater stream by means of a special tank and skim-
     ming mechanism prior to treatment of the water.

Slaking - The process of reacting lime with water to yield a
     hydrated product.

Sludge - Residue produced in a waste treatment process.

Sludge Dewatering - The removal of water from sludge by introducing
     the water sludge slurry into a centrifuge.  The sludge is
     driven outward with the water remaining near the center.  The
     water is withdrawn and the dewatered sludge is usually land-
     filled.

Slurry - A watery suspension of solid materials.

Snagging - Heavy stock removal of superfluous material from a work
     piece by using a portable or swing grinder mounted with a
     coarse grain abrasive wheel.

Soldering - The process of joining metals by flowing a thin
     (capillary thickness) layer of nonferrous filler metal into
     the space between them.  Bonding results from the intimate
     contact produced by the dissolution of a small amount of base
     metal in the molten filler metal, without fusion of the base
     metal.  The term soldering is used where the temperature range
     falls below 425°C (800°F).

Solids - (Plant Waste)  Residue material that has been completely
     dewatered.

Solute - A dissolved substance.

Solution - Homogeneous mixture of two or more components such as a
     liquid or a solid in a liquid.

Solution Treated -  (Metallurgical)  A process by which it is
     possible to dissolve micro-constituents by taking certain
     alloys to an elevated temperature and then keeping them in
     solution after quenching.  (Often a solution treatment is
     followed by a precipitation or aging treatment to improve
     the mechanical properties.  Most high temperature alloys which
     are solution treated and aged machine better in the solution
     treated state just before they are aged.)

Solvent - A liquid used to dissolve materials.  In dilute solutions
     the component present in large excess is called the solvent
     and the dissolved substance is called the solute.

Solvent Cleaning - Removal of oxides, soils, oils, fats, waxes,
     greases, etc. by solvents.
                              XVI-39

-------
Solvent Degreasing - The removal of oils and grease  from  a
     workpiece using organic solvents or solvent vapors.

Specific Conductance - The property of a solution which allows
     an electric current to flow when a potential difference  is
     applied.

Spectrophotometry - A method of analyzing a wastewater sample by
     means of the spectra emitted by its constituents under
     exposure to light.

Spray Rinse - A process which utilizes the expulsion of water
     through a nozzle as a means of rinsing:.

Spinning - Shaping of seamless hollow cylindrical sheet metal parts
     by the combined forces of rotation and pressure.
                                           I
Spotfacing - Using a rotary, hole piloted end facing tool to produce
     a flat surface normal to the axis of rotation of the tool on ow
     slightly below the workpiece surface.

Sputtering - The process of covering a metallic or non-metallic
     workpiece with thin films of metal.  The surface to  be coated
     is bombarded with positive ions in a gas discharge tube,
     which is evacuated to a low pressure.

Squeezing - The process of reducing the size of a piece of heated
     material so that it is smaller but more compressed than  it
     was before.

Stainless Steels - Steels which have good or excellent corrosion
     resistance.  (One of the common grades contains 18%  chromium
     and 8% nickel.   There are three broad classes of stainless
     steels - ferritic, austenitic, and martensitic.  These various
     classes are produced through the use of various alloying
     elements in differing quantities.

Staking - Fastening two parts together permanently by recessing
     one part within the other and then causing plastic flow at
     the joint.

Stamping - A general term covering almost all press operations.
     It includes blanking, shearing, hot or cold forming, drawing,
     bending and coining.

Stamping Compounds - See Forming Compounds (Sheet).

Standard of Performance - Any restrictions established by the Admin-
     istrator pursuant to Section 306 of the Act on quantities,
     rates and concentrations of chemical, physical, biological,
     and other constituents which are or may be discharged from
     new sources into navigable waters, the' waters of the contiguous
     zone or the ocean.
                             XVI-40

-------
Stannous Salt - Tin based compound used in the acceleration process.
     Usually stannous chloride.

Utill Rinse - See Dead Rinse.

Storm Water Lake - Reservoir for storage of storm water runoff
     collected from plant site;  also, auxiliary source of process
     water.

Stress Relieved - The heat treatment used to relieve the internal
     stresses induced by forming or heat treating operations.
     (It consists of heating a part uniformly, followed by cooling
     slow enough so as not to reintroduce stresses.  To obtain low
     stress levels in steels and cast irons, temperatures as high
     as 1250 degrees F may be required.)

Strike - A thin coating of metal (usually less than 0.0001 inch in
     thickness) to be followed by other coatings.

Stripping - The removal of coatings from metal.

Subcategory or Subpart - A segment of a point source for which
     specific effluent limitations have been established.

Submerged Tube Evaporation - Evaporation of feed material using
     horizontal steam-heat tubes submerged in solution.  Vapors
     are driven off and condensed while concentrated solution is
     bled off.

Subtractive Circuitry - Circuitry produced by the selective etching
     of a previously deposited copper layer.

Substrates - Thin coatings ( as of hardened gelatin) which act as a
     support to facilitate the adhesion of a sensitive emulsion.

Surface Tension - A measure of the force opposing the spread of
     a thin film of liquid.

Surface Waters - Any visible stream or body of water.

Surfactants - Surface active chemicals which tend to lower the
     surface tension between liquids, such as between acid and
     water.

Surge - A sudden rise to an excessive value, such as flow, pressure,
     temperature.

Swaging - Forming a taper or a reduction on metal products such as
     rod and tubing by forging, squeezing or hammering.

Tank - A receptacle for holding transporting or storing liquids.
                             XVI-41

-------
Tapping - Producing internal  threads with  a  cylindrical  cutting
     tool having two or more  peripheral cutting  elements  shaped
     to cut threads of the desired size and  form.   By  a  combination
     of rotary and axial motion, the leading end of the  tap  cuts
     the thread while the tap is supported mainly by the  thread it
     produces.
                                             i
Tempering - Reheating a quench-hardened or normalized  ferrous alloy
     to a temperature below the transformation range then cooling
     at any rate desired.                    :

Testing - The application of  thermal, electrical, or mechanical
     energy to determine the  suitability or  functionality of a
     part, assembly or complete unit.

Thermal Cutting - The term "thermal cutting" shall  mean  the  process
     of cutting, slotting or  piercing a workpiece using  an
     oxy-acetylene oxygen lance or electric  arc  cutting  tool.

Th e rm a1 Infus ion - The process of applying a fused  zinc,  cadmium or
     other metal coating to a ferrous workpiece  by  imbueing  the
     surface of the workpiece with metal -powder  or  dust  in the
     presence of heat.

Thickener - A device or system wherein the solid contents of slurries
     or suspensions are increased by gravity settling  and mechanical
     separation of the phases, or by flotation and  mechanical separ-
     ation of the phases.

Thickening - (Sludge Dewatering)  Thickening or  concentration is the
     process of removing water from sludge after the initial separ-
     ation of the sludge from wastewater.  The basic objective of
     thickening is to reduce  the volume of liquid sludge  to  be
     handled in subsequent sludge disposal processes.

Threading - Producing external threads on  a  cylindrical  surface.
     1.  Die Threading - A process for cutting external  threads
     on cylindrical or tapered surfaces by the use  of  solid  or
     self-operning dies.  2.  Single-Point Threading - Turing
     threads on a lathe.  3.  Thread Grinding -  See definition
     under grinding.  4.  Thread Milling - A method of cutting
     screw threads with a milling cutter.
                                            i
                                            i     .
Th reshold Tox ic i ty - Limit upon which a substance becomes toxic or
     poisonous to a particular organism.

Through Hole Plating - The plating of the  inner  surfaces  of  holes in
     a PC board.                            ;

Titration -  1.  A method of  measuring acidity of alkalinity.  2. The
     determination of a constituent in a known volume  of  solution by
     the measured addition of a solution of known strength for complet-
     ion of the reaction as signaled by observation of an end point.
                             XVI-42

-------
Total Chromium - The sum of chromium in all valences.

Total Cyanide - The total content of cyanide expressed as  the
     radical CN-  or alkali cyanide whether present as simple or
     complex ions.  The sum of both the combined and  free  cyanide
     content of a plating solution.  In analytical terminology,
     total cyanide is the sum of cyanide amenable to  oxidation
     by chlorine and that which is not according to standard
     analytical methods.

Total Dissolved Solids  (TDS) - The total amount of dissolved solid
     materials present  in an aqueous solution.

Total Metal - Sum of the metal content in both soluble and  insoluble
     form.

Total Organic Carbon (TOC) - TOC is a measure of the  amount of
     carbon in a sample originating from organic matter only.  The
     test is run by burning the sample and measuring  the CC^2
     produced.

Total Solids - The sum  of dissolved and undissolved constituents
     in water or wastewater, usually stated in milligrams  per liter.

Total Suspended Solids  (TSS) - Solids found in wastewater  or in the
     stream, which in most cases can be removed by filtration.  The
     origin of suspended matter may be man-made or of natural
     sources, such as silt from erosion.

Total Volatile Solids - Volatile residue present in wastewater.

Tool Steels - Steels used to make cutting tools and dies.   (Many of
     these steels have  considerable quantities of alloying  elements
     such as chromium,  carbon, tungsten, molybdenum and other
     elements.  These form hard carbides which provide good wearing
     qualities but at the same time decrease machinability.  Tool
     steels in the trade are classified for the most  part  by their
     applications, such as hot work die, cold work die, high speed,
     shock resisting, mold and special purpose steels.)

Toxic Pollutants - A pollutant or combination of pollutants including
     disease causing agents, which after discharge and upon exposure,
     ingestion, inhalation or assimilation into any organism either
     directly or indirectly cause death, disease, cancer,  genetic
     mutations, physiological malfunctions (including malfunctions
     in such organisms  and their offspring.

Treatment Facility Effluent - Treated process wastewater.

Trepanning - Cutting with a boring tool so designed as to  leave
     an unmachined core when the operation is completed.
                               XVI-43

-------
Trickling Filters - A filter consisting of an artificial bed of
coarse material, such as broken stone, clinkers, slate, salts, or
brush over which an effluent is distributed and applied in drops,
films, or spray from troughs, drippers, moving distributors, or
fixed nozzles and through which it trickles to the underdrains
giving opportunity for the formation of zoological slimes which
clarify and oxidize the effluent.

Tumbling - See Barrel Finishing.

Tubidimeter - An instrument for measurement of turbidity in which
     a standard suspension is usually used for reference.

Turbidity -  1.  A condition in water or wastewater caused by the
     presence of suspended matter resulting ; in the scattering and
     absorption of light rays.  2.  A measure of fine suspended
     matter in liquids.  3.  An analytical quantity usually report-
     ed in arbitrary turbidity units determined by measurements of
     light diffraction.

Turning - Generating cylindrical forms by removing metal with a
     single-point cutting tool moving parallel to the axis of
     rotation of the work.  1.  Single-Point Turning - Using a
     tool with one cutting edge.  2.  Face Turning - Turning a
     surface perpendicular to the axis of the workpiece.  3.
     Form Turning - Using a tool with a special shape.  4.
     Turning Cutoff - Severing the workpiece with a special
     lathe tool.  5.  Box Tool Turning - Turning the end of
     workpiece with one or more cutters mounted in a boxlike
     frame, primarily for finish cuts.

Ultrafiltration - A process using semipermeable polymeric membranes
     to separate molecular or colloidal materials dissolved or
     suspended in a liquid phase when the liquid is under pressure.

Ultrasonic Agitation - The agitation of a liquid medium through
     the use of ultrasonic waves.
                                           !
Ultrasonic Cleaning - Immersion cleaning aided by ultrasonic waves
     which cause microagitation.

Ultrasonic Machining - Material removal by means of an ultrasonic-
     vibrating tool usually working in an abrasive slurry in close
     contact with a workpiece or having diamond or carbide cutting
     particles on its end.

Unit Operation - A single, discrete process1 as part of an overall
     sequence, e.g., precipitation, settlina anfi fi 1 f-r^f-ion.

Vacuum Deposition - Condensation of thin metal coatings on the cool
     surface of work in a vacuum.
                              XVI-44

-------
Vacuum Evaporization - A method of coating articles by melting
     and vaporizing the coating material on an electrically
     heated conductor in a chamber from which air has been
     exhausted.  The process is only used to produce a decor-
     ative effect.  Gold, silver, copper and aluminum have been
     used.

Vacuum Filtration - A sludge dewatering process  in which sludge
     passes over a drum with a filter medium, and a vacuum is
     applied to the inside of the drum compartments.  As the
     drum rotates, sludge accumulates on the filter surface,
     and the vacuum removes water.

Vacuum Metalizing - The process of coating a workpiece with
     metal by flash heating metal vapor in a high-vacuum
     chamber containing the workpiece.  The vapor condenses on
     all exposed surfaces.

Vapor Blasting - A method of roughing plastic surfaces in prepar-
     ation for plating.

Vapor Degreasing - Removal of soil and grease by a boiling liquid
     solvent, the vapor being considerably heavier than air.  At
     least one constituent of the soil must be soluble in the
     solvent.

Vapor Plating - Deposition of a metal or compound upon a heated
     surface by reduction or decomposition of a  volatile compound
     at a temperature below the melting points of either the
     deposit or the basis material.

Viscosity - The resistance offered by a real fluid to a shear
     stress.

Volatile Substances - Material that is readily vaporizable at a
     relatively low temperature.

Volumetric Method - A standard method of measuring settleable
     solids in an aqueous solution.

Waste Discharged - The amount (usually expressed as weight) of
     some residual substance which is suspended  or dissolved
     in the plant effluent.

Wastewater Constituents - Those materials which  are carried by
     or dissolved in a water stream for disposal.
                             XVI-45

-------
                                  APPENDIX A
                                   EXHIBIT 1

 Statistical Analysis of Cadmium (except new sources), Chromium, Copper, Lead,
    Nickel, Silver, Zinc, Cyanide,  Total Suspended Solids and Oil and Grease
Background

     This exhibit provides documentation of the data and methods used to
determine final effluent guidelines limitations for the Metal Fininshing
industry.  Limitations are expressed in concentration units (mg/1); production
based limitations were not developed because flow data were fragmentary and
relationships of flow to other indices of production were not reliable.  The
Final Regulation for Effluent Limitations, Guidelines, and Standards for the
Metal Finishing Point Source Category specifies daily maximum and 10 day average
limitations for Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT),
Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT), Pretreatment Standards
for Existing Sources (PSES) Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) and
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).

     Unless mentioned otherwise, limitations for the following pollutants
under each standard are based on the methodology, data, and results presented
in this exhibit.  The standards will limit cadmium (Cd), total chromium (Cr^),
copper (Cu), lead (Pb), nickle (Ni), silver (Ag), zinc (Zn), total cyanide
and amenable cyanide (Cn^).  Oil and Grease (OG), total suspended solids
(TSS) and pH are regulated only under BPT and NSPS, and are derived in accord
with this exhibit.  The development of new source (PSNS and NSPS) Cd limits
are discussed in another exhibit.  Guidance limitations for hexavalent chromium
(Cr°+) are also established here.  The establishment of limits for TTO standards
are discussed in another exhibit.

     Details regarding the technical background and justification for effluent
guidelines for the Metal Finishing Category are discussed in chapter VII of
the "Final Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
for the Metal Finishing Point Source Category".

     Several appendices are referred to in this exhibit.  They include computer
printouts which support the results reported here.  These printouts are voluminous
and are not attached physically to this exhibit.  They have, however, been
entered into the administrative record supporting the metal finishing rulemaking;
the titles to the Appendices are listed in Table 1.

Data

     Two data sets are used for the development of the limitations; a set of
EPA collected and analyzed wastewater data, (refered to as EPA data) and a data
set of the results from self monitoring samples, collected and analyzed by
metal finishing plants as part of their compliance monitoring activities,
(refered to as self monitoring data).
                                     A-l

-------
     The EPA data are analytical results of samples collected at metal finishing
plants before and after wastewater treatment.  The availability of paired raw
and treated waste data allows assessment of treatment when pollutants are pre-
sent in significant concentrations in the raw waste.  Daily samples were generally
taken over a 1 to 3 day period (in some cases, as many as 6 daily samples were
taken at a plant).  Total suspended solids (TSS) andjpH were measured and if
the treated waste samples had TSS concentrations greater than 50 mg/1 or pH
less than 7.0, the entire sample was deleted for all pollutants measured.
Plants with complexing, dilution, or poor operation were deleted.*  Plants that
were not option 1 (precipitation-clarification) metal finishing plants were
also deleted.  Effluent observations which were greater than influent observa-
tions taken on the same day were deleted.  Also, effluent observations identified
by an iterative procedure were deleted.  The iterative procedure is intended
to remove treated effluent values associated with low pollutant mesurements in
untreated wastewater and is described in Appendix A.  The values remaining,
after all the deletions are listed in Appendix A.  The treated effluent con-
centrations as listed in Appendix A for all pollutants, except Cd and Pb, are
used to calculate long term average pollutant concentrations in treated waste-
water.  Cadmium and Pb means are from the self monitoring data discussed below.
Table 2 lists the pollutants, the number of observations, and the number of
plants used from the EPA sampling data.             :

     The self monitoring data were obtained from metal finishing plants where
sampling, analysis, and reporting of treated waste waters were conducted by
industry without EPA's direct involvement.  Analytical methodology is reported
to have followed acceptable EPA methods.  To the extent information was avail-
able, plants were checked for properly constructed and managed Option 1 treatment
systems.  Raw waste data were not available for the self monitoring data to
measure treatment when pollutants are present in significant concentrations in
the raw waste; as an alternative the Agency used a pollutant only when there
was an identifiable process source of the pollutant.  Self monitoring data
were used for the evaluation of variability, which will be presented in the
following data-analysis section.  Table 3 lists the pollutants, the number
of observations and the number of plants chosen from the self monitoring data.

    When pollutant concentrations were too low to be quantified they were
reported as below a detection limit (DL).  For a particular pollutant-plant
data set, DL's could differ depending on the laboratory, sample dilution, or
methodology.  Values reported at below a DL were set equal to zero for the
purpose of estimating variability and central tendency.  This was done for the
* The cut-off criteria are:  1) plants that had complexing agents unoxidized
  cyanide or nonsegregated wastes; 2) plants which had effluent flow signifi-
  cantly greater than the corresponding raw waste flows were deleted; 3) plants
  that experienced difficulties in system operation during the sampling period
  were excluded.  These difficulties include a few hours operation at very
  low pH (approximately 4.0), observed operator error, an inoperative chemical
  feed system, improper chemical usage, improperly maintained equipment, high
  flow slugs during the sampling period, and excessive surface water intrusion
  (heavy rains).

                                       A-2

-------
following reasons:  the data above the DL were found to generally fit the
lognormal distribution; the assignment of the value zero to DL observations
is recommended for estimation from data sets that are mixtures of DL observa-
tions and observations that fit the lognormal (see Owen and DeRouen, "Estimation
of the Mean for Lognormal Data Containing Zeroes and Left Censored Values,
with Applications to the Measurement of Worker Exposure to Air Contaminents",
Biometrics (1980), V. 36, pp. 707-719).  Appendix B is a listing of the self
monitoring data and Appendix C presents summary statistics of the self moni-
toring data.

Analysis

     Lognormal Goodness-of-Fit

     Lognormality was examined graphically and tested for each pollutant-plant
combination in the self monitoring data base in Appendix B.  The distributional
form of each plant-pollutant combination data set is displayed in Appendix D
as empirical frequency histograms of the data, before logarithmic transfor-
mation.  A majority of the histograms have the general shape of the lognormal
distribution, i.e., positive skewness and long "tails" to the right.  The
larger data sets tend to display the lognormal characteristics more than the
smaller data sets.  This is not surprising since the lognormal distribution has
provided a satisfactory fit to effluent data for a wide range of industrial
categories and pollutants.  The visual suggestion of lognormality is best
revealed in the larger sets as distributional shapes cannot be identified with
only a few observations.

     Three goodness-of-fit tests were performed on the natural logarithms of
the self-monitoring data for each pollutant-plant combination for which suffi-
cient data were available. (Appendix E)  If the distribution of the logarithms
of the data are not significantly different from the normal distribution then
the assumption of lognormality is reasonable.  The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test
(KS), the Anderson-Darling test (AD) and the D'Agostino test (DA) were applied
to each pollutant-plant data set.  These procedures test the null hypothesis
that the distribution of the logs of the observed values follow a normal distri-
bution.  The DA test was not performed in some cases because the data did not
meet the minimum sample size required for the test.  The three tests together
provide a thorough examination of the distributional form because the KS is a
general test of normality, the AD is sensitive to normality departures in
the tails, and DA is sensitive to normality departures in the higher moments.
Table 4 summarizes the results of the 3 significance tests and indicates that
the pollutant distributions within each plant frequently follow a lognormal
distribution.  Appendix F contains time plots of the data which permit visual
inspection of data structure over time.

     Daily Variability Factors

     A variability factor (VF) for a pollutant-plant combination is defined as
the ratio of the lognormally estimated 99th percentile of the distribution of
within-plant pollutant values to the arithmetic mean of the same values.  In
cases where there were DL observations present in the data, a generalized form
of the lognormal disbribution, known as the delta lognormal distribution (DLN)
was used to model the data.  The delta lognormal distribution is described in
Chapter 9 of The Lognormal Distribution, by Aitchison and Brown, Cambridge


                                    A-3

-------
University Press, 1963.  The DLN is a mixed probability distribution, having
both discrete and continuous portions.  The discrete portion models the possi-
bility of observing a DL value while the continuous portion is a lognormal
probability distribution and models the distribution of all values above the
DL.

     The 99th percentile for the DLN is

      5 ~  exp(y + Vq'cr)

where

     q' = (.99 - 6)/(l - 6)

and

     6 * probability of observing a DL value

     Vq' is the quantile of order q1 of the N(0,l) distribution

     Vq' - 2.326 if 6 = 0

     The 99th percentile is estimated by using the following estimates of the
DLN parameters in the above formulae:
         n     where n  is the number of DL values and n is the total number of
               values

         _    ni
         x =  £  xi/nl     where x^ = In y^ for non DL values of y,       _
             i=l                 nj   is the number 'of non DL values , and x
                                      is the logmean of the non DL values
             (x.. -7)/(ni - 1).
     The DLN 99th percentile was not estimated if greater than 50% of the
observations for a pollutant-plant data set were DL lvalues.  This is because a
large proportion of DL observations can introduce mathematical instabilities
into the estimates and result in extremely exaggerated and unreliable measures
of variability.

     For each pollutant-plant combination a DLN 99th percentile was estimated
and divided by the arithmetic mean (AM) from the same pollutant-plant combina-
tion to estimate the daily VF.  The median VF of all the plants that had data
on a particular pollutant was then used as the daily VF for that pollutant.
Table 5 presents the median daily VF for each pollutant.  Appendix E is a
listing of each pollutant-plant combination and the corresponding goodness-of-
fit results, DLN parameter estimates, 99th percentiles, AMs, and VFs.
                                      A-4

-------
     Usable Self monitoring data were not available for silver so the average
median variability factor for CrT, Cu, Pb, Ni, Cd and Zn was used as an
estimate of the Ag VF.

Ten Day Variability Factors

     Ten day variability factors were determined on the basis of the assumption
that averages of 10 samples drawn from the distribution of daily values are
approximately lognormally distributed.  This characteristic of small sample
averages drawn from underlying distributions that are lognormally distributed has
been observed in effluent data from many different industry categories for a
wide variety of pollutants.  This assumption was used as the basis of four
sample average monthly limitations in the effluent guideline regulations for
pretreatment standards for the electroplating industry.  The assumption of log-
normality for the 10 day averages was also verified empirically by constructing
averages of sequences of 10 observations in the self monitoring data base and
examining their distributions.  The listing of the 10 day average data are in
Appendix G.  Summary statistics of the 10 day average are in Appendix H and
the empirical distributions of 10 day averages are listed in Appendix I.
Lognormal goodness-of-fit tests of the ten day average distributions are shown
in Appendix J.  In general, the lognormal provides a reasonable fit to the data.
Appendix K presents plots of temporally sequential 10 day average data which
permit visual inspection of data structure over time.

     The empirical distributions were used to estimate 10 day VF's using a
methodology identical to the calculation of the daily VFs.  That is, the data
were fit to a lognormal distribution and the VF was determined by the ratio of
the estimated 99th percentile to the arithmetic mean.  The DLN model was used
in some cases because there were several instances in the self monitoring data
when there are series of ten or more DL values in a row.  Table 6 lists the 10
day average variability factors for each pollutant.

Effluent Limitations
     The maximum daily and 10 day average effluent limitations were determined
by multiplying the long term average pollutant concentrations and the daily
and 10 day average variability factors, respectively.  The long term average
concentration was determined by the arithmetic average of the EPA sample data
for each pollutant with the exception of Cd and Pb.  For Cd and Pb the arithmetic
average of the self monitoring data was used.  The AMs, daily VFs, 10 day VFs
and resulting limitations are shown in Tables 5 and 6.  The VFs shown in Tables
5 and 6 are the median plant VFs of daily and 10 day VFs for each pollutant.

Alternative Methodologies Considered

     Effluent limitations for the MF industry were determined on the basis of
median VFs and average effluent concentrations.  Given the data on hand, however,
other methods of combining or averaging the results across plants to form
limitations are possible and reasonable alternatives.  During the development
of daily maximum limitations for the MF regulation a variety of methodologies
were examined.  These exploratory analyses were conducted to examine reasonable
alternatives and ensure that methods used to develop the final limitations

-------
were both appropriate and consistent with methods used previously in the pro-
posed metal finishing regulations.  Consideration was also given to identifying
plants whose data exerted excessive influences on the results.

     The daily maximum limitations that result from the various alternatives
considered are shown in Tables 7 and 8.  Although the results in Tables 7 and
8 include plant 11118, it was discovered that for the pollutants reported for
this plant (Cr-^, Zn, Ni, Cn^, Cu, Pb, Cd), the mean concentration or variability
were excessive relative to the other plants with data for a particular pollutant.
This led to an engineering assessment of the plant|s wastewater treatment
system.  Because plant 11118 was not isolating complexing wastewaters that
plant was not operating as an option 1 plant during the time the self monitoring
data were collected.  Therefore, plant 11118 is not used in final limitations.
Column II in Table 7 lists the limitations including plant 11118 calculated
using the same methodology used to calculate the final limitations in Table 5
which do not include 11118.

     The proposed and final limitations for MF used median plant VFs.  During
the examination of other alternatives weighted mean VFs were also considered
and limitations based on these are listed in columns III and V of Table 7.
The median has the convienient interpretation of being the "middle most" value
in a set of data while the weighted mean procedure is an objective way of
combining data from sources providing unequal amounts of observations.
                                                  i
     The EPA sampling data were also evaluated under various methodologies.
For both proposed and final limitations EPA data were used to establish a
long term average performance level for each pollutant (except Cd and Pb).
The EPA data for each pollutant were summarized as an AM and as a mean estimated
by fitting the data to a lognormal distribution.  Each mean was then used in
combination with weighted mean self monitoring VF's  and median self monitoring
VFs.  These limitations are listed in columns II through V of Table 7.  The
EPA data were also used to estimate limitations without the use of self moni-
toring data.  These values are shown in column VI of Table 7.

     Table 8 shows alternative limitation values based on the self monitoring
data only.  In each case the variability factors and means were determined on
the basis of estimates of lognormal means and 99th percentiles calculated by
fitting the data to a lognormal distribution.  The estimated lognormal means
are slightly different from the AM of the data but given that the data fit a
lognormal distribution it would be appropriate to use an estimated lognormal
mean.  The AM and estimated lognormal mean are both  estimates of the mean of
the distribution and thus either could be reasonable.  Arithmetic means are,
of course, more easily understood and were used in proposal.

     Appendix L details the results of alternative methods for computing 10
Day (average monthly) limitations.
                                      A-6

-------
                                    TABLE 1

       List of Appendices Which Can Be Found in the Administrative Record



Appendix                    	Title	

   A                        A Listing of the EPA Data Used for the Long Term
                            Mean

   B                        A Listing of the Self Monitoring Data Used for
                            Estimating Variability

   C                        Summary Statistics of the Self Monitoring Data

   D                        Empirical Frequency Histograms of the Self Monitoring
                            Data

   E                        Listing of Goodness-of-Fit Results,  Delta Lognormal
                            Parameter Estimates, 99th Percentiles, Arithmetic
                            Means and Variability Factors for Each Pollutant-
                            Plant Combination in the Self Monitoring Data Base

   F                        Plots Over Time of the Daily Self Monitoring
                            Pollutant Concentrations for Each Pollutant-Plant
                            Combination

   G                        A Data Listing of the 10 Day Average Data Derived
                            from the Self Monitoring Daily Data

   H                        Summary Statistics of the 10 Day Average Self
                            Monitoring Data

   I                        Empirical Frequency Histograms of the 10 Day
                            Average Data Derived from the Self Monitoring
                            Daily Data

   J                        Listing of Goodness-of-Fit Results,  Delta Lognormal
                            Parameter Estimates, 99th Percentiles, Arithmetic
                            Means, and Variability Factors for Each Pollutant-
                            Plant Combination in the Derived 10  Day Average
                            Data Derived from the Self Monitoring Data

   K                        Plots of Temporally Sequential 10 Day Average Data
                            of the Daily Self Monitoring Pollutant Concentrations
                            for Each Pollutant-Plant Combination

   L                        Listing of 10 Day Limitations Using  Various
                            Alternative Methodologies.
                                      A-7

-------
                                  TABLE 2

 A Summary of the Pollutants, Number of Plants, and Number of Observations
                Used to Establish the EPA Long Term Averages
         Pollutant

           TSS

           OG
           Cu

           Pb

           Ni

           Zn
           Ag
of Plants

  36

  16

   6

  20

   5

  22

   5

  20

  17

  15

  15

   2
of Observations

     78

     30

    485

     38

     10

     47

    620

     45

     34

     45

     43

      5
Data are from the self monitoring data set.

                                   A-8

-------
                                    TABLE 3

    A Summary of the Pollutants,  Number of Plants and Number of  Observations
                       Used from the Self Monitoring Data
           Pollutant
# of Plants
# of Observations
TSS
OG
Cd*
CrT*
Gr6+
Cu*
Pb*
Ni*
Zn*
CnT*
CnA
20
12
4
20
9
19
4
14
11
13
1
1777
893
463
3270
1811
2743
581
1750
1216
1198
28
* Plant 11118 is not included in the summary.
                                     A-9

-------
                                    TABLE 4

  A Summary of Normality Tests Applied to the Natural Logarithms of the Daily
   Self Monitoring Metal Finishing Data for Each Pollutant-Plant Combination
                   KS
AD
DA

TSS
OG
Cd
CrT
Cr6+
Cu
Pb
Ni
Zn

CnA
Total
*
20
12
4
9
9
19
4
14
10
10
1
Accept1
20
10
4
9
9
17
4
13
9
10
1
Accept1
100
83
100
100
100
90
100
93
90
100
100
Total
#
20
12
4
9
9
19
4
14
10
10
1
Accept1
12
8
2
4
2
10
2
7
6
3
1
Accept1
60
67
50
44
1
2;2 	
5-3
50
5p
60
1
30
100
Total
11
8
3
9
8
15
4
10
7
8
1
Accept1
10
6
2
6
2
9
2
6
5
5
1
Accept1
91
75
67
67
25
60
50
60
71
63
100
K-S - Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.
A-D - Anderson Darling test.
D-A - D'Agostino test.

* Fail to reject the null hypothesis that the data are from a lognormal
  distribution.
                                     A-10

-------
                                    TABLE 5

  Metal Finishing Daily Median Variability Factors, EPA Arithmetic Means, and
           the Daily Maximum Limitations for Each Pollutant Parameter
TSS

OG

Cd
Cu

Pb

Ni

Zn
Ag
VF1
3.59
4.36
5.31
4.85
5.04
4.15
3.52
4.22
4.75
6.68
14.31*
4.4?
X2 (tng/1)
16.8
11.8
0.130
0.572
0.032
0.815
0.197
0.942
0.549
0.180
0.060
0.096
DAILY LIMIT3 (mg/1)
60.0
52.0
0.69
2.77
0.16
3.38
0.69
3.98
2.61
1.20
0.86
0.43
* Median plant variability factor calculated for each pollutant-plant combina-
  tion by taking the ratio of the estimated delta lognormal 99th percentile to
  the arithmetic mean.

2 Arithmetic mean of the EPA sampled data.

3 VF * X = Daily maximum limitation.

* VF based on only one plant with data suitable for estimating variability.
                                       A-ll

-------
                                  TABLE 6


 Metal Finishing Ten Day Median Variability Factors, EPA Arithmetic Means,
       and the Daily Maximum Limitations for Each Pollutant Parameter
TSS
OG
Cd
CrT
Or**
Cu
Pb
Ni
Zn
CnT
CnA
Ag
VF1
10
1.85
2.18
2.02
2.98
3.05
2.54
2.19
2.53
2.70
3.61
5.31
2.49
                                   X2  (mg/1)



                                       16.8


                                       11.8


                                       0.130


                                       0.572


                                       0.032


                                       0.815


                                       0.197


                                       0.942


                                       0.549


                                       0.180


                                       0.060


                                       0.096
10 Day Limit3  (mg/1)



       31.0


       26.0


        0.26


        1.71


        0.10


        2.07


        0.43


        2.38


        1.48


        0.65


        0.32


        0.24
Median plant 10 day average variability factor calculated for each pollutant-
plant combination by taking the ratio of the delta lognorraal 99th percentile
(with detection limits equal to zero) to the arithmetic mean.


Arithmetic mean of the EPA sampled data.

       —
VF,Q * X = 10 day average maximum limitation.
                                      A-12

-------
                                    TABLE  7

             Metal Finishing Alternative Daily Maximum Limitations

I
ITSS
1
io&c
1
1
|Cd
1
iCrT
i
1
|Cr6+
1
1
|Cu
1
1
jPb
I
1
iNi
i
1
jZn
i
1
|CnT
|CnA
i
I
PROPOSED
LIMITS
60.1
42.2
1.29**
2.87
0.18
3.72
0.67**
3.51
2.64
1.30
0.54
II
MEDIAN VF
0 EPA X
60.8
51.8
1.41**
2.94
0.16
3.56
0.80**
4.17
2.40
1.29
0.71
III
WEIGHTED VF
0 EPA X
63.3
67.0
0.80**
2.55
0.14
3.89
0.79**
3.83
2.39
1.12
0.71
IV
MEDIAN VF
0 EPA LN MEAN
51.8
39.8
0.07
1.90
*
1.90
0.19
3.20
Oo92
*
*
V
WEIGHTED VF
0 EPA LN MEAN
54.6
51.5
0.04
1.65
*
2.08
0.19
2.94
0.91
*
*
VI
EPA SAMPLING!
DATA ONLY
(LN)
52.1
26.7
0.014
1.11
*
1.35
0.08
2.29
0.62
*
*
  I  Limits Proposed for Metal Finishing,  August,  1982.

 II  Product of Self Monitoring Data Median Variability  Factor (VF)  based  on
     lognormal and EPA MF data arithmetic  mean (X).

Ill  Product of Self Monitoring Data Weighted Average VF~ and  EPA  MF  data X.

 IV  Product of Self Monitoring Data Median VF and EPA MF data lognormal mean.

  V  Product of Self Monitoring Data Weighted Average VF and  EPA  MF  data lognormal
     mean.

 VI  EPA MF data only, lognormal 99th percentile estimate.

  *  EPA MF data required to estimate lognormal mean not available.

 **  The arithmetic means of the EPA data  were not used  for  these limitations.
     Instead, the arithmetic means  of the  self monitoring data were  used.
                                     A-13

-------
                                    TABLE 8

             Metal Finishing Alternative Daily Maximum Limitations
                           Self Monitoring Data Only

1
ITSS
i
i
IO&G
|Cd
i
I Cr"^
i
jCr&+
1
ICu
1
iPb

iNi
1
|Zn
1
I0"
1°
I
MEDIAN VF °
WTG. LN MEAN

32.9
12.7
1.46
1.02
0.10

1.91

0.78

1.73

1.88
3.51

*
II
WTG. VF °
WTG. LN MEAN

34.7
16.4
0.83
0.88
0.09

2.09

0.77

1.59

1.88
1.30

*
III
MEDIAN VF °
MED. LNiMEAN

28.2
13.2
0.97
0.81
0.09
•
0.92
t
i
0.85
i
i
1.36

1.36
0.75

*
I IV
1
1 WTG. VF °
i MED. LN MEAN
i
t 30.8
I
1 17.0
I
i 0.56
j
1 0.70
I
I
i 0.07
i
i 1.01
1
1 0.84
1
1 1.25
1
t 1.35
j
I 0.65
1
( *
1
  I  Product of Median plant variability factors based on lognormal and weighted
     average of plant estimated lognormal means.

 II  Product of weighted average of plant lognormal variability factors and
     weighted average of plant lognorraal means.

Ill  Product of median plant lognormal variability factors and median of plant
     lognormal mean.

 IV  Product of weighted average of plant lognormal variability factors and
     median of plant lognormal means.

  *  Self monitoring data on Cn" suitable for estimation were available from
     only one plant with excessive variability.  Accordingly, limitation values
     were not calculated.
                                      A-14

-------
                                   EXHIBIT 2
                   Analysis of Total Toxic Organic (TTO) Data
Background

     The final effluent guideline regulation for the Metal Finishing (MF)
industry contains limitations on TTO.  The purpose of including TTO limitations
is to require MF facilities to practice control of the release of toxic organics,
into process wastewaters.  This exhibit documents the data and analysis used
to determine two daily limitations for TTO.  The data sources and industrial
sector to which each limitation applies are outlined in Table 1.

Data
     Total toxic organic data are presented in Appendix A.  Each value is
the sum of all toxic organic compounds found in the sample.  In Chapter 6
there is a description of the toxic organic chemicals whose concentrations are
summed to arrive at TTO, when toxic organic chemicals were reported below the
detection limit (DL) the measurement was assigned a value equal to the DL.
This yields TTO concentrations that tend to be slightly higher than actual
concentrations and results in less stringent limitations than would be obtained
by setting DL values equal to zero or some value between zero and the detection
limit.  TTO concentrations calculated by setting the DL values equal to zero
(DL = 0) were also calculated; (indicated by "<" in the Table).  Although summary
information was examined for TTO concentrations generated using the DL=0
technique, no limitations were developed using these data.

     Plants with TTO data were divided into three categories: Option 1 plants,
(plants with precipitation-clarification) Option 2 plants (plants with preci-
pitationclarification plus filtration) and other than Option 1 and Option 2
plants.  Option 1 plants were used to estimate end-of-pipe TTO limits.
These data are shown in Table 2; descriptive information regarding the limit
derived from the data is in Table 1, section A.  Raw waste TTO limits were
estimated using the raw waste TTO data from all three categories.  These
data are shown in Table 3; descriptive information regarding the limit derived
from these data is in Table 1, section B.

     The data were also classified  on the basis of other  characteristics.
This was done to  investigate  combinations of plants  that  would be expected, on
the basis of processes, pre-  and post-process water  quality  characteristics,
products, or type of work, to generate larger amounts of  TTO than other groups
of plants.  The processes were classified into two categories, painting and
solvent degreasing (these two processes were specifically examined because
they have higher TTO concentrations  in the raw waste than metals finishers
without these processes).  Classifications were also provided for the raw
waste stream, oil and grease  (OG) concentration (which  is an indicator of
certain processes), and the TTO concentration in the plant's influent water
supply ("supply stream").  The raw waste stream oil  and grease data were used
to place plants into groups with concentrations above and below 100 mg/1 OG.
The supply stream TTO data were used to categorize plants into groups with
concentrations above and below 0.1 mg/1 TTO.  There were  three product
                                       A-15

-------
categories:  printed circuit board manufacturing, automotive, and auto
assembly.  The type of work also considered, i.e., plants were classified as
job shops or captives.  If their work was partially job order or partially
captive, then a percentage of involvement was generally provided.  This array
of classifications allows examination of the TTO characteristics of various
components of the Metal Finishing Industry.  The number of plants and
observations used for the Option 1, treated effluent based analysis within
each of the above described categories and various combinations are reported
in Table 2.  Similar information for the raw waste based analysis of the
Option 1, Option 2, and other than Option 1 or Option 2 plants are reported in
Table 3.  The overall EPA metal finishing TTO data base is comprised of 75
observations from 29 plants.  There were from 1 to 4 observations per plant.


Analysis

     Metal Finishing plants that paint and also solvent degrease (P&SD)  discharge
more toxic organic chemicals than any other sector of the metal finishing
industry, with the partial exception of the automobile assembly plants (AA)
(Tables 2 and 3).  The P&SD group is the intersection of the painting group  and
the solvent degreasing group; i.e.  it includes only plants that fit in both
groups.  P&SD plants were used to establish an overall mean.   The overall mean
specifically includes the AA plants because the AA plants are a subset of the
P&SD plants.  The P&SD group represents a more reasonable measure of  process
control than the AA plants; because P&SD plants are identifiable by the  use  of
solvent degreasers and paints which are linked to the process rather  than to
the type of product produced.  Finally, and significantly,  there are  more
observations in the P&SD group (N=4 for the end-of-pipe data and N=5  for the
untreated waste data) than in the AA group (N=2).   Data based on process and
larger sample sizes give a better measure of appropriate levels.
                                                  !
                                                  !
     The painting or solvent degreasing group (PorSD) is the union of painting
and solvent degreasing plants — it includes plants from either group — and
is used to estimate overall variability.   It is appropriate to estimate  vari-
ability from the PorSD group because it corresponds with the processes used  in
the P&SD group which provided the mean and because there are more observations
in the PorSD group than in the P&SD (Tables 2 and 3).  The variability of the
PorSD group is expressed as a variability factor (VF) which is calculated by
dividing the lognormal estimate of  the 99th percentile by the arithmetic mean.
Details of the formulae and calculations  are presented in Appendix B.  Table
4 lists the data used for the treated effluent analysis; Table 5 lists the
data used for the raw waste analysis.

     The daily limitations are presented in Table 6.   The VF from the PorSD
group is multiplied by the arithmetic mean from the P&SD group to calculate
the daily limitations.

     In conclusion,  these limitations are rather high as a result of  the heavy
consideration given to the painting and/or solvent:degreasing operations at
some MF plants.   By comparison,  if  the entire data set was  used,  the  daily
maximum limitations for the raw waste option 1,  option 2,  and other than option
1 and option 2 plants would be 0.71 mg/1  TTO and for  the treated effluent  of
option 1 plants  the daily maximum limitation would be 0.19  mg/1 TTO.
                                     A-16

-------
                                    TABLE 1

                  AN OUTLINE OF EACH TTO LIMITATION (A AND B)
             DESCRIBING THE DATA SOURCE AND INDUSTRIAL APPLICATION
A.  Limits calculated using TTO concentrations after treatment of toxic metals
    with option 1 technology (precipitation—clarification).

    a.  DATA SOURCE:  Treated wastes of option 1 plants.

    b.  APPLICATION:  Applies to Metal Finishing (MF) and Electroplating
        Pretreatment (part 413, PSES) plants expected to treat toxic metals
        with precipitation-clarification treatment.

B.  Limits calculated using TTO concentrations before treatment of waste waters,

    a.  DATA SOURCE:  Raw wastes, prior to treatment from option 1, option 2,
        and non option 1 or option 2 plants.

    b.  APPLICATION:  An interim limit for MF that applies prior to complying
        with limits in A, above.  This is also a limit that applies to part
        413, PSES for plants which are not expected to treat toxic metals with
        precipitation-clarification technology, namely, those discharging
        less than 10,000 gals/day.
                                      A-17

-------
                                       TABLE 2
              SUMMARY OF TTO (mg/1) DATA FROM THE TREATED EFFLUENT OF
                          OPTION 1 METAL FINISHING PLANTS

                              # of      # of
	Subset	

Solvent Degreasing

Solvent Degreasing
 & not Painting

Painting

Painting & not Solvent
 Degreasing

Neither Painting nor
 Solvent Degreasing

Either painting or
 Solvent Degreasing

Painting and Solvent
 Degreasing

Printed Circuit
 Board Manufactuers

Automobile Assembly
 Plants

100% Jobshops

Any Jobshop Work

100% Captive

Any Captive Work

TTO in the water supply
 greater than 0.1 mg/1

fTO in the water supply
 less than 0.1 mg/1

O&G in the raw waste
 greater than 100 mg/1

O&G in the raw waste
 less than 100 mg/1

TOTAL

X « arithmetic mean, „ »
Plants
9
5
7
3
17
12
4
4
2
11
14
16
19
3
21
4
22
29
Observations
18
14
10
6
51
24
4
12
2
32
41
38
47
6
52
6
62
75
X
0.209
0.144
0.231
0.095
0.030
0.180
0.434
0.166
0.536
0.046
0.064
0.088
0.095
0.171
0.084
0.231
0.064
0.078
u
-2.257
-2.630
-1.854
-2.593
-4.309
-2.33
-.931
-2.318
-0.643
-3.934
-3.808
-3.646
-3.590
-1.904
-3.796
-1.714
-3.845
-3.694
_OJ1
"'""W ""^•"
1.019
1.019
0.521
0.521
0.850
0.948
—
1.061
—
0.864
0.939
0.783
0.882
0.423
0.909
0.521
0.838
0.875
log mean, o ™ pooled within plant log standard deviation,
           P
                                     A-18

-------
                                        TABLE 3

       SUMMARY OF TTO (mg/1) DATA FROM THE RAW WASTE OF OPTION 1, OPTION 2, and
                OTHER THAN OPTION 1 & OPTION 2 METAL FINISHING PLANTS
Category

Solvent Degreasing

Solvent Degreasing
 & not Painting

Painting

Painting & not Solvent
 Degreasing

Neither Painting nor
 Solvent Degreasing

Either Painting or
 Solvent Degreasing

Painting and Solvent
 Degreasing

Printed Circuit
 Board Manufactuers

Automobile Assembly
 Plants

100% Jobshops

Some Jobshop Work

100% Captive

Some Captive Work

TTO in the water supply
 greater than 0.1 mg/1

TTO in the water supply
 less than 0.1 mg/1

O&G in the raw waste
 greater than 100 mg/1

O&G in the raw waste
 less than 100 mg/1

TOTAL

X = arithmetic mean p = log mean a = pooled within plant log standard deviation.
                                  P
t of
Plants O1
11
6
10
5
20
16
5
4
2
13
16
21
24
3
27
5
31
45
# of
bservation
23
18
17
12
56
35
5
12
2
36
45
49
58
7
69
9
82
90
s X
0.381
0.186
0.473
0.220
0.112
0.326
1.081
0.249
1.354
0.089
0.124
0.247
0.250
0.431
0.164
0.456
0.165
0.194
ji
-1.965
-2.467
-1.542
-2.172
-3.434
-2.032
-0.156
-2.156
0.284
-3.189
-3.198
-2.734
-2.808
-1.430
-3.1003
-2.022
-2.982
-2.095
0
1.149
1.149
0.658
0.658
0.579
1.012
—
1.378
—
0.608
0.842
0.658
0.848
0.898
0.664
.250
0.778
.752
                                    A-19

-------
                                    TABLE 4

                    A SUMMARY OF THE DATA USED TO CALCULATE
                  LIMITS FOR THE TREATED EFFLUENT OF OPTION 1
                             METAL FINISHING PLANTS
                                                           CATEGORY
FLANT

2032
4069
4071
6019
17061
20005
20103
9025
28699
30165
44062
34051
TTO1
ing/1
0.082
0.207
0.081
0.254
0.131
0.322
0.032
0.040
0.093
0.483
0.699
0.020
0,034
0.430
0.181
0.008
0.643
0.130
0.228
0.122
0.081
0.016
0.007
In
TTO P or SD2 P & SD3

-2.501 x
-1.575
-2.513
-1.370 x
-2.033
-1.133
-3,442 x
-3.219
-2.375
-0.728 x x
-0.358 x
-3.912
-3.381
-0.844 x x
-1.709 x x
-4.828 x
-0.442 x x
-2.040 x
-1.478 x
-2.104
-2.513
-4.135 x
-4.962
1  Concentrations of TTO after processing by the treatment facility.
„                                                i
z  Painting or Solvent Degreasing is performed at the plant.

3  Painting and Solvent Degreasing is performed at the plant.

x  Indicates category membership.

-------
                                   TABLE 5

A SUMMARY OF THE DATA USED TO CALCULATE LIMITS FOR THE RAW WASTE OF OPTION 1,
     OPTION 2, AND OTHER THAN OPTION 1 OR OPTION 2 METAL FINISHING PLANTS
                                                         CATEGORY
PLANT

2032
4069
4071
4282
6019
9025
17061
20103
28699
44062
30165
34051
17050
TTO1
mg/1
1.161
0.031
0.109
0.022
0.113
0.178
0.032
0.040
0.093
0.283
0.473
0.000
0.251
0.289
0.888
0.036
0.141
1.938
1.619
0.098
0.110
0.107
0.140
0.091
0.095
0.111
1.083
0.477
In
TTO

0.149
-3.474
-2.216
-3.817
-2.180
-1.726
-3.147
-2.017
-2.040
-1.262
-0.749
-1.382
-1.241
-0.119
-3.324
-1.959
0.662
0.482
-2.323
-2.207
-2.235
-1.966
-2.397
-2.354
-2.198
0.090
-0.740
P or SD2 P & SD3

X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
x • " • :-
X

-------
                                TABLE 5 (CON'D)

 A SUMMARY OF THE DATA USED TO CALCULATE LIMITS FOR THE RAW WASTE OF OPTION 1,
      OPTION 2, AND OTHER THAN OPTION 1 OR OPTION 2 METAL FINISHING PLANTS
                                                     	CATEGORY
                                      In
  PLANT                  TTO1         TTO            P or SD2      P & SD3
                         rag/I
18538                 0.064         0.030
                      0.012         0.056
                      0.009         0.001

 2033                 0.028        -3.576
                      0.030        -3.507
                      0.011        -4.510

33692                 1.090         0.086
1  Concentrations of TTO before processing by the treatment facility!

2  Painting or Solvent Degreasing is performed at the plant,

3  Painting and Solvent Degreasing is performed at the plant.

x  Indicates category membership.


                                    A-22

-------
                                    TABLE 6

        DAILY LIMITATIONS FOR TTO (mg/1) IN THE METAL FINISHING INDUSTRY


                                  Yp or SD2      Y.993     VFp ^ so4   LIMIT5
Raw Waste6              1.081       0.326        1.380       4.23        4.57

Treated Effluents7      0.434        0.180        0.883                  2.13
1 Arithmetic mean of plants that paint and solvent degrease.

2 Arithmetic mean of plants that either paint or solvent degrease.

3 Lognoraal estimates of the 99th percentile (Appendix B) from plants that
  paint or solvent degrease.

* Variability factor from plants that paint or solvent degrease,
  VF = X.99/Xp or SD.

5 Limitation = VFp or SD ' ¥p&SD

6 TTO concentrations from the raw wastewater of option 1, option 2, and
  nonoption 1 or 2 metal finishing plants.

' TTO concentrations from the treated wastewater option 1 metal finishing
  plants.
                                    A-23

-------
 EXHIBIT 2
APPENDIX A
  A-24

-------
                                       METAL FINISHING - OPT ION 1 PLANTS  FOR  TTO DATA BASE
>
   Plant
      ID
                      Metal                                       Auto
 Job                Finishing   Solvent             Automotive  Assembly
Shop  Captive  PCBH   Plant    Pegreasing  Painting    Plant      Plant
                                                                                    Supply
                                                                                    Water   Water Supply     Total Raw
                                                                                   Sampled  TTO >0.1 mq/g.  O&G >100 mq/jl
            10%
        90%
 2032
 4069
 4071
 4282
 4892*
 6019
 6090
 6091
 6110
 6960
 9025
 9052
12061
15193*
15608
17061
19068
20005
20022
20083
20103
21003
21051*  40%
27046
28699
30054
30165
34050           /              /                                                     v
34051   /                      /           /                                         v
38051   /                      V                                                     v
38052   V                      /                                                     v
41051           V              /
44062   /                      /                      V                              v

 * No total raw waste or total effluent TfO data available.
** Electroplating-captive,  wire drawing - job shop - no percentage breakdown supplied
   General Cable Corporation (likely captive).
            70%
           75%
        /**


        30%



        25%


        60%
                                  No

-------
Plant ID

 2032
 4069
 4071
 4282
 4892
 6019
 6090
 6091
 6110
 6960
 9025
 9052
12061
15193
15608
17061
19068
20005
20022
20083
20103
21003
21051
27046
28699
30054
30165
38052
41051
44062
34050
34051
38051
Total Raw
   /*
   /*
   /*
   /*
                 METAL FINISHING - OPTION 1 PLANTS
                           TTO DATA BASE
  Total
Effluent
                  V
                  v
                  /*
                  /*
Example
streams
                             * Total raw TTO from precision and
                               accuracy study.
                             * 14-0 - total raw not available.
                             * 14-0 - no TTO raw waste data.
                             * 21-1 - no TTO effluent data.
                             * 15-2 - no TTO raw waste data.
                             *15-0 - no TTO effluent data.

-------
       fTO DATA SIMOTA1X - METAL FINISHING - OPTION  1 PLANTS
                     TTO Concentration  (mg/8.)

                       RAW	
               with <
 4282-21-0
0,283
             W/O <
2032-15-0
2032-15-2
2032-15-5
4069-15-0/1
4069-15-2/3
4069-15-4
4011-15-0
4071-15-1
4071-15-3
1.161
0.031
0.109
0.022
0.113
0.178
0.043
0.133
0.130
1.158
0.026
0.103
0.014
0.109
0.175
0.035
0.124
0.121
0.283
                                 EFFLUENT
              With <

               0.082
               0.207
               0.081

               0.254
               0.131
               0.322

               0.032
               0.040
               0.093
       W/O <

       0.075
       0.202
       0.074

       0.245
       0.121
       0.322

       0.019
       0.032
       0.089

NO DATA 	
6090-14-0
6090-15-1
6090-15-2
6091-15-0
6091-15-1
6091-15-2
6110-15-0
6110-15-1
6110-15-2
6960-15-0/1
6960-15-2/3
6960-15-4/5
9025-15-0
9025-15-1
9025-15-2
0,097
0.486
8.466
— —
0.010
0.009
0.009
0.104
0.204
0.059
0
0.251
0.289
0.093
0.475
8.458
	
0
0
0
0.099
0.198
0.052
0
0.248
0.285
0.203
0.052
36.355
0.019
0.001
0.019
0.006
0.005
0.006
0.056
0.144
0.038
0
0.008
18.005
0.199
0.043
37.342
0.015
0
0.018
0.001
0
0
0.049
0.142
0.036
0
0
18.0
FOOTNOTE:

— = No total plant wastewater TTO data available.
No Data = No toxic organics data available.
                            A-27

-------
       TfO DAfA SUMMARY - MEfAL FINISHING - OPTION 1 PLANTS
                     TTO Concentration  (mg/SL)
                       RAW
                    EFFLUENT

9052-15-0
9052-15-1
9052-15-2

12061-14-0
12061-15-0
12061-15-1
12061-15-2
15608-15-0
15608-15-1
15608-15-2
17061-14-1
17061-15-1
17061-15-3
1 Qrt^HO—. 1 A f\
JL"UOO l*i U
19068-15-1
19068-15-2
With <
0.009
0.040
0.012

—
0.006
0.030
0.006
0.019
0.038
0.017
0.888
0.036
0.141

JNU U
0.120
0.202
W/O <
0
0.034
0.003

—
0.0001
0.030
0.0001
0
0.032
0.0001
0.886
0.031
0.139

A1A
0.119
0.196
With <
0.010
0.002
0.007
1 -
0.037
0.005
0.014
0.008
0.004
0.013
0.015
0.699
0.020
0.034
OnoK
. UZ3
0.017
6.016
W/O <
0
0
0

0.037
0
0
0.0001
0.0001
0
0.0001
0.696
0.012
0.011
OJTlOO
* \J 4tt\J
0.010
0.013
10005-21-0
               0.430
             0.357
20022-15-0
20022-15-1
20022-15-2
20083-15-0/1
20083-15-2/3
10083-15-4/5
0.020
0.008
0.007
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.0009
0
0
0.0004
0
0.0001
0.008
0.016
6.009
6.004
0.004
0.007
0.0003
0
0
0
0
0.0001
20103-21-0
20103-21-1

21003-15-0
21003-15-1
21003-15-2
                1.938
                0.034
                0.040
                0.014
1.868
0.024
0.034
0
 . 181
0,002
0.035
6.008
0.061
0.002
0.028
0.007
POOTNOYB:

— = No total plant wastewater TTO data available.
No Data = No toxic organics data available.
                            A-28

-------
       TTO DATA SUMMARY - METAL FINISHING - OPTION 1 PLANTS
                           (Continued)
                     TTO Concentration (rng/8,)
                       RAW
               With <
             W/O <
                                 EFFLUENT
              With <
             W/O <
27046-15-0
27046-15-1
27046-15-2
0.426
0.400
0.420
0.398
       NO DATA
0.012
0.002
0.007
0
0
0
28699-12-0
1.619
1.619
0.643
0.643
30054-15-0
30054-15-1
30054-15-2
0.364
0.769
1.287
0.354
0.761
1.282
0.067
0.140
0.109
0.060
0.138
0.108
30165-21-0
0.140
0.070
0.130
0.060
34050-15-0
34050-15-1
34050-15-2
34051-15-0
34051-15-1
34051-15-2
38051-15-0
38051-15-1
38051-15-2
38052-15-0
38051-15-1
38052-15-2
41051-15-0
41051-15-1
41051-15-2
44062-15-0
44062-15-1
44062-15-2
6019
6019 (P&A)
—
0.091
0.095
0.111
0.224
0.259
0.097
0.099
0.192
0.200
0.014
0.020
0.023
0.098
0.110
0.107
0.473
—
0.086
0.084
0.110
0.214
0.255
0.094
0.096
0.188
0.199
0.001
0.014
0.018
0.087
0.101
0.097
0.473
                                            0.007
                                            0.020
                                            0.007
                                            0.016
                                            0.007

                                            0.007
                                            0.005
                                            0.003

                                            0.180
                                            0.012
                                            0.109

                                            0.013
                                            0.024
                                            0.012

                                            0.228
                                            0.122
                                            0.081

                                            0.485
                                            0.483
                                         0
                                         0.011
                                         0
                                         0
                                         0

                                         0
                                         0
                                         0

                                         0.173
                                         0
                                         0.101

                                         0
                                         0.018
                                         0

                                         0.227
                                         0.110
                                         0.074

                                         0.485
                                         0.483
FOOTNOTE:
— = No total plant wastewater TTO data available.
No Data = No toxic organics data available.
                            A-29

-------
                                    METAL FINISHING - OPTION 2 PLANTS FOR TTO DATA BASE
                              Metal                                       Auto
Plant    Job                Finishing   Solvent             Automotive  Assembly
  ID    Shop  Captive  PCBH   Plant    Degreasing  Painting    Plant    	Plant.
 Supply
 Water   Water Supply     Total Raw
Sampled  TTO >0.1 rag/it  OSG >100.mg/t




1
w
o
12075 / / / /
14062* V / V / /
17050 / / / /
18538 / / / /
31031* /'//./ / /
36048 / / / /
        * Ho total raw waste or total effluent TTO data available.

-------
                                            METAL FINISHING - OPTION 2 PLANTS

                                                      ffO DATA BASE
I
w
Total
Plant ID Total Raw Effluent
12075 / /
14062
17050 /* /
18538 / V
31031
36048 /
Example
Streams
/
/
/

/
/
                                                                       *14-0 - no TTO raw waste data.

-------
       IfO DATA SUMMARY - METAL FINISHING - OPTION 2 PLANTS
                                        i
                     TTO Concentration  (mg/fi.)
                       RAW
                                  EFFLUENT
12075-15-0/1
12075-15-2/3
12075-15-4/5

17050-14-0
17050-15-0
17050-15-1
With <

 0.028
 0.021
 0.042
 1.083
 0.477
¥/O <

0.0003
0.0004
0.020
1.081
0.475
With <

 0.043
 0.010
 0.007

 0.400
 0.003
 0.037
W/O <

0.025
0
0

0.400
0
0.032
18538-14-0
18538-15-3
18538-15-5

36048-15-0/1
36048-15-2/3
36048-15-4/5
 0.064
 0.012
 0.009
0.019
0.004
0
 0.030
 0.056
 0.001

 0.415
 0.103
 0.091
0
0.055
                                          0.413
                                          0.097
                                          0.081
FOOTNOTE;

— = No total plant wastewater TTO data Available.
No Data = No toxic organics data available.
                            A-32

-------
                            METAL FINISHING  - OTHER  THAN OPTION 1  08 2 PLANTS FOR THE TTO DATA BASE
w
w
Plant
  ID

 2033

 3043

11103

11108

12065

13042

19069

20170

21066

30166

31032

33692

36178

38040

38217

40060
            Job
                      Metal
                    Finishing   Solvent
              Auto
Autemot ive  Assembly
Shop  Captive  PCBM   Plant    Degreasing  Painting    Plant
                                                                             Plant
 Supply
 ¥ater   Water Supply     Total law
Sampled  TTO >0.1 mg/il  O&G >100 mq/jl
                                   NO
                                   NO

-------
         HETftL FINISHING - OfHBR THM OPTION 1 OR 2 PLANTS
                       FOR THE TTO DATA BRSE
Plant ID

 2033

 3043

11103

11108

12065

21066

20170 :

31032

30166

36178

40060

19069

33692

38040

38217

13042
Total Raw
  Total
Effluent
Example
Streams
                  /*
                             *15-0 - No TTO effluent data.

-------
            fTO DATA SUMMARY - MBTAL FINISHING PLANTS
                     OTHER THAN OPTION  1 or 2
                     TTO Concentration  (mg/l)
                       RAW
               With <
13042-21-1
38217-23-0

40060-15-0
40060-15-1
.008
.009
            W/O <
19069-15-0
19069-15-1
19069-15-2
21066-15-0
21066-15-1
21066-15-3
33692-23-0
33692-23-1
36178-21-0
36178-21-1
36178-21-2
38040-23-0
38040-23-1
—
0.012
0.011
0.014
1.09
13.50
0.285
0.326
2.005
—
--
0
0.001
0.003
1.08
13.49
0.285
0.326
2.005
—
.0001
                                EFFLUENT
             With <
             W/O <
2033-15-0/1
2033-15-2/3
2033-15-4/5
11103-15-0
11103-15-2/3
11103-15-4
11108-15-0
11108-15-1
11108-15-2
12065-14-1
12065-15-2
12065-15-4
0.028
0.030
0.011
0.084
0.010
0.013
0.011
0.005
0.007
—
0.012
0.019
0.003
0.069
0.0001
0.0001
0
0.003
0
—
0.014
0.010
0.014
0.011
0.009
0.009
0.005
0.006
0.001
2.52
0.189
0.153
0.011
0.0007
0.013
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0
0
0.001
2.52
0.168
0.144
                           0.165

                           0.005
                           0.007
                           0.007
0.009
0.011

0.823
0.433

0.257
0.140
0.120

0.288
0.377

0.673

0.012
0.012
                           0.165

                           0
                           0
                           0
                                                   NO DATA
                                                         0
                                                         0
0.763
0.373

0.257
0.140
0.120

0.218
0.327

0.634

0
0
FOOTNOTE;

— - No total plant wastewater TTO data available.
No Data = No toxic organics data available.
                            A-35

-------
 EXHIBIT 2
APPENDIX B
A-36

-------
                             DEFINITIONS
K
          K
          ni
                                                total number of plants

                                                number of observations at
                                                plant i

                                                total number of observa-
                                                tions

                                                concentration of TTO in
                                                mg/1, observation j at
                                                plant i; j = 1,..., n^,
                                                •*» ~~ JL f * * * f K.

                                                natural logarithm of TTO
                                                in mg/1
      .     .
      1=1 3=1
                                                 mean of the logs
       n
2i
        i _
           i -Xij)/ni-l
within plant variance,
for plant i
       K
       T (ni-1) a2,
                  1
                                                 pooled within plant
                                                 variance
a - / a2
 P     P
E(Y) = e P + O  2/2
 .99 " e
          U -I- 2.326
                                                pooled within plant
                                                standard deviation

                                                estimated mean (expected
                                                value) of the distribution
                                                of Y

                                                estimated 99th percentile
    » I   I
          ni
                                                arithmetic mean of all
                                                observations
                                A-37

-------
                             METAL FINISHING - TTO
                   RAW WASTE - OPTION 1, OPTION 2, AND OTHERS
Daily Data

     P or SD;    N    - 35

                 y    =  2.032
                 02   =  1.024
                  P
                 a    -  1.012

                 YP   _  -2.032+2.326(1.021)
                 x.99 ~ e
                      » e0.322

                      = 1.380

                 E(Y) = e-2.032+0.5(1.024)
                        e-1.520
                      - 0.219

                 Y"    - 0.326

     P&SD:

                 N    - 5

                 Y    = 1.081
                                     A-38

-------
                             METAL FINISHING - TTO

                          TREATED EFFLUENT - OPTION 1
Daily Data



     P or SD;    N    =24



                 y    =  2.33



                 o2   =  0.899

                  P

                 o    =  0.948



                 v    _  -2.334-2.326(. 948)
                 I QQ ~ &

                  *yy . e-.125




                      =  0.883



                 E(Y) = e-2.33+.5(.899)



                      = e-1.88




                      =  0.153



                 ¥    =  0.180



     P&SD;




                 N    =4



                 Y    =  0.434
                                   A-39

-------
                                   EXHIBIT #3

                    Analysis of New Source Cadmium (Cd) Data
Introduction

     This exhibit documents the data and methodology used to determine New
Source Performance Standards i(NSPS) and Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
(PSNS) for the Metal Finishing Industry for Cadmium1 (Cd).  The NSPS for Cd
will require treatment of the segregated waste from Cd plating, acid cleaning
of Cd plated parts, and chromating of Cd plated parjts with evaporative recovery
or ion exchange technology.  These processes are the major sources of Cd in
the Metal Finishing Industry,  but there are no knowb metal finishing plants in
existence that have all components of the treatment1 technology required by
NSPS.  Some plants, for example, have evaporative recovery applied to their Cd
plating operation, but not the acid cleaning or chromating which is instead
commingled with other wastes prior to wastewater treatment.

     The evaporative recovery and ion exchange technologies are capable of
eliminating the discharge from Cd related processes and thereby reducing con-
centrations of Cd to extremely low levels.  In order to estimate treated effluent
Cd concentrations achievable using these technologies, we have examined data
on Cd concentrations in the untreated wastewater from metal finishing plants
that do not plate Cd.  It has been found that in the untreated wastes of plants
not involved with Cd plating,  measurable quantities of Cd still exist, possibly
from source waters or from the waste water of operations that do not plate Cd
but contain low concentrations of Cd.  Therefore, in order to establish NSPS
limits for Cd we have assumed that background concentrations from the raw
waste streams of metal finishing plants not involved with Cd plating are similar
to the Cd concentrations in wastewaters that have been treated according to
NSPS requirements.

Data

     The data from plants not involved with Cd plating are listed in Appendix
A and include measurements of Cd (mg/1) in raw (untreated) wastewater.  The
sampling and analyses were conducted by EPA.  There are a total of 61 measure-
ments from 27 plants.  Eight of the 27 plants have single observations.  The
data range from 0.005 mg/1 to 0.095 mg/1 Cd.
                                    A-40

-------
Analysis

     The data were assumed to follow a lognormal distribution by plant.   The
lognormal has been found to provide a satisfactory fit to effluent data  for a
wide range of industrial categories and pollutants.*  This data base includes
too few values from any given plant to confirm the assumption of lognormality;
however they do not contradict it.  Cadmium concentrations have been trans-
formed using the natural logarithm function and are hereafter refered to as
logs. (The symbol "In" means natural logarithm).

     Because the data exhibited large plant to plant variation, several  methods
of grouping the plants into subsets with statistically homogenous means  were
examined.  The subsets are based on a statistical partitioning of the data.
They should reflect variation in underlying unidentifiable sources of cadmium.
The purpose of this exercise was to assess the possibility of determining
limitations on the basis of groups of statistically homogenous plant values.
Subsets were chosen based on several statistical comparisons of plant means:
Duncan's multiple range test, Student-Newman-Keuls, Scheffe's, and Tukey's
tests.  These tests examine the log means of plants with multiple observations
and place them into groups with nonsignificantly different means.  The groups
can overlap, for example, a given plant or several plants can have log means
that are intermediate in size between two groups (a larger mean group and a
smaller mean group).  The plants with intermediate log means are not statisti-
cally larger than the small mean group, and not statistically smaller than the
large mean group; therefore, these plants fall in the overlap between the two
groups and it would be reasonable to include them in both or either group(s).
Thus, subset definition, because of the overlap, is somewhat flexible.  Five
groupings emerged that were supported by the four mean comparison tests.
These are shown in Appendix B.

     The large variation in Cd levels among the 5 groups of plants suggested
that limitations could be based reasonbly on subsets of the plants that  were
homogenous statistically.  Accordingly, the NSPS Cd limits are based on subsets
of the plants with the largest mean Cd concentrations.  The data from these
subsets are shown in Table 1.  The plants with the statistically largest mean
are designated as subset 2.  Plants in the group with the next largest mean
are included in subset 1 along with the two plants in 2.  Although only  plants
with multiple observations were included in the multiple comparison tests, plants
with single observations that fell within the group ranges are also listed in
Table 1.  The mean used in determining the NSPS Cd limits was taken from subset
2 (the set with the largest mean.)  The variance estimate used to determine
variability was taken from subset 1 because this provided a reasonable quantity
of data with which to estimate the variance and an F test showed that the
pooled within plant variance for subset 1 was significantly greater than the
variance for the other subsets combined.
*   The methodology used here for fitting the lognormal distribution to effluent
data across plants is discussed in detail in the Final Development Document
for the Porcelain Enameling Industry, EPA 440/1-82/072.


                                    A-41

-------
     Table 2 presents several statistics that summarize the entire data set
and statistics based on three methods of partitioning the Cd raw waste
concentration data into subsets.
                                                   !
                                                   L, ;..   ,  ':	 ,   : ,.	.: 	:
     The limits are based upon the variability of subset 1 and the mean of
subset 2.  The variability is expressed as a variability factor (VF) and
calculated by dividing the estimated 99th percentile (daily and 10-day 99th
percentile estimates as described in Appendix C) from subset 1 by the arithmetic
mean from subset 1.  The mean Cd concentration is obtained from subset 2; the
subset 2 arithmetic mean is then multiplied by the subset 1 variability factors
to arrive at daily maximum and 10-day average maximum limitations (shown in
Table 3).  This multiplication, therefore, used both the highest variability
group and the highest mean concentration group, producing a limit that is
larger than would result from reliance on any single group.

     In conclusion, it should be noted that the limitations in Table 3 are
large relative to the limitations calculated using the entire data set.  If
all 61 observations had been used for the VF and the overall mean, the daily
maximum and 10-day average maximum limitations would be 0.017 and 0.0115 mg/1
of Cd respectively.  (see Table 2).  This serves to illustrate the effect of
using subsets of plants for the purpose of determining limitations.
                                   A-42

-------
                          TABLE 1

Subsets of Cd (mg/1) Concentrations that have Higher Values
  (Subsets with lower values are presented in Appendix B)
Plant
4065
6074
6083
6731
15070
19063
20080
27044
31020
31022
33024
33073
36041
Raw Cd (mg/1)
0.005
0.032
0.019
0.021
0.033
0.013
0.015
0.017
0.019
0.009
0.013
0.014
0.011
0.012
0.013
0.024
0.022
0.021
0.011
0.013
0.095
0.013
0.013
0.015
0.042
0.042
0.053
In Cd
-5.2983
-3.4420
-3.9633
-3.8632
-3.4112
-4.3428
-4.1997
-4.0745
-3.9633
-4.7105
-4.3428
-4.2687
-4.5099
-4.4228
-4.3428
-3.7297
-3.8167
-3.8632
-4.5099
-4.3428
-2.3539
-4.3428
-4.3428
-4.1997
-3.1701
-3.1701
-2.9375
Subsets
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 2
1
1 2
                           N - 27
                         A-43

-------
                                    TABLE 2

                        Estimates for NSPS Cd (mg/1) in
                          the Metal Finishing Industry
Daily E(Y)
All plants 0.0093
All plants except
plant 33024 0.0089
Subset A Plants 0.0197
Subset B Plants 0.0551
10 Day
All plants
All plants except
plant 33024
Subset A Plants
Subset B Plants
Y.qq Y
0.017 0'.013
0.017 0!.012
0.045 o'.023
0.075 0.075
i • •
Y.qg (10)'
0.012
0.009
0.026
0.061
M
-4.726
-4.765
-3,998
-2.908
JLLO_ _
-4.683"
-4.722
-3.931
-2.900
op
0.2937
0.2937
0.3885
0.1342
_°JLO
0.0947
0.0947
0.1273
0.0424
E(Y)      = estimated lognormal mean
^.99      = estimated lognormal 99th percentile
 p        = estimated log mean
 0        = estimated pooled within plant log standard deviation
          « estimated 10 day average 99th percentile
          - estimated 10 day log mean
          ~ estimated 10 day log standard deviation
                                     A-44

-------
                                    TABLE 3

          A Summary of Values Used to Estimate the NSPS Cd Limitations
                	YA1	     	Y_B2	     	I.993	       VFA4         Limit5

Daily            0.023       0.058        0.045         1.96          0.114

10-Day                                    0.026         1.13          0.066
  Arithmetic mean of subset A.

  Arithmetic mean of subset B.

  Lognormal estimates of 99th percentile, daily and 10-day, based on data from
  subset A.
5
Variability Factors from subset A, VF^

Limitation = VFA * ¥fi.
                                      A-45

-------
 EXHIBIT  3




APPENDIX A
    A-46

-------
Cd DATA BASE
Observation
Number
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
Plant ID
6101-12-1
6101-12-1
19068-14-0
11477-22-1
11477-22-2
15010-12-2
15010-12-3
4065-8-1
4069-8-1
4069-8-1
5020-1-4
5020-1-5
5020-1-6
19051-6-0
20078-1-2
20078-1-3
20078-1-4
20078-1-7
36040-1-1
36040-1-1
36040-1-1
31021-1-2
31021-1-3
20083-1-3
33692-23-1
31021-1-1
33070-1-1
5020-1-3
33065-9-1
33070-1-3
40062-8-0
Raw (mg/1)
.001
.002
.002
.002
.002
.004
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.006
.006
.006
.007
.007
.007
.008
.008
Observation
Number
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.


Plant ID
40062-8-0
33065-9-1
15070-1-3
19063-1-1
31022-1-2
19063-1-2
20083-1-5
20082-1-6
31022-1-0
33073-1-1
33073-1-3
6083-1-2
15070-1-1
19063-1-3
15070-1-2
33073-1-2
6731-1-1
6731-1-2
6074-1-1
6731-1-3
6074-1-1
31020-1-1
27044-1-0
20080-1-1
4065-8-1
6074-1-1
36041-1-2
36041-1-3
36041-1-1
33024-6-0


Raw (mg/1)
.008
.009
.009
.011
.011
.012
.012
.012
.013
.013
.013
.013
.013
.013
.014
.015
.015
.017
.019
.019
.021
.021
.022
.024
.032
.033
.042
.042
.053
.095

  A-47

-------
 EXHIBIT 3
APPENDIX B
   A-48

-------
DEPENDENT VARIABLE:

SOURCE

MODEL

ERROR

CORRECTED TOTAL


MODEL F =


R-SQUARE

0.914324


SOURCE

PLANT


SOURCE

PLANT
   NEW SOURCE CADMIUM DATA IN MG/L
NATURAL LOGARITHMS OF CADMIUM (MG/L)

   GENERAL LINEAR MODELS PROCEDUEE

LNRAWCD                    NAT LOG OF CONG. FOR NS CD MG/L

    DF                     SUM OP SQUARES     MEAN SQUARES

    19                        30.37781823       1.59883254

    33                         2.84653212       0.08625885

    52                        33.22435035
 18.54


  C.V.

6.1396


    DF

    19


    DF

    19
             PR > F = 0.0001


   ROOT MSB     LNRAWCO MEAN

 0.29369808      -4.78368585


  TYPE I SS  F VALUE  PR > F

30.37781823   18.54   0.0001


TYPE III SS  F VALUE  PR > F

30.37781823   18.54   0.0001
                                      A-49

-------
                        NEW SOURCE CADMIUM DATA IN MG/L  .
                     NATURAL LOGARITHIMS OF CADMIUM (MG/L)

                        GENERAL LINEAR MODELS PROCEDURE

DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR VARIABLE:  LNRAWCD
NOTE:  THIS TEST CONTROLS THE TYPE 1 COMPARISONWISE ERROR RATE, NOT THE
       EXPERIMENTWISE ERROR RATE.
                  ALPHA = 0.05
DR
33
MSE = .0862585
WARNING:  CELL SIZES ARE NOT EQUAL.
HARMONIC MEAN OF CELL SIZES =2.5
**MEANS WITH THE SAME LETTER ARE NOT SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT.***
DUNCAN CLUSTERS



C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F




A
B
B
B
B
B









E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E








G
G
G






D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
















MEAN
-3.0925
-3.7459

-4.0792

-4.2951

-4.3702

-4.4252

-4.4263

-4.4407

-4.6539

-4.5283

-4.8362

-4.8951

-5.2142

-5.2375

-5.2983

-5.2983

-5.2983

-5.4099
-6.2146

-6.5612
A-50
N
3
3

3

3

2

3

2

3 .

3

2

2

2

4

3

4

2

3

2
2

2

PLANT
36041
6074

6731

33073

4065

19063

31022

15070

20083

40062

33065

33070

5020

31021

20078

4069

36040

15010
1147?

6101

GROUPING
1
2













3







4










5




-------
                        NEW SOURCE CADMIUM DATA IN MG/L
                     NATURAL LOGARITHIMS OF CADMIUM (MG/L)

                        GENERAL LINEAR MODELS PROCEDURE

STUDENT-NEWMAN-KEULS TEST FOR VARIABLE:  LNRAWCD
NOTE:  THIS TEST CONTROLS THE TYPE I EXPERIMENTWISE ERROR RATE UNDER THE COMPLETE
       NULL HYPOTHESIS BUT NOT UNDER PARTIAL NULL HYPOTHESES
                                               MSB = .0862585
                  ALPHA = 0.05     DF = 33

WARNING:  CELL SIZES ARE NOT EQUAL.
HARMONIC MEAN OF CELL SIZES =2.5
MEANS WITH THE SAME LETTER ARE NOT SIGNIFICNATLY DIFFERENT.
SNK CLUSTERS
A


C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C




















E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E


B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B

F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F






D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D








-3
-3

-4

-4

-4

-4

-4

-4

-4

-4

-4

-4

— S

— 5

-5

-5

-5

-5
MEAN
.0925
.7459

.0792

.2951

.3702

.4252

.4263

.4407

.6539

.8283

.8362

.8951

.2142

.2375

.2983

.2983

.2983

.4099
N
3
3

3

3

2

3

2

3

3

2

2

2

4

3

4

2

3

2
PLANT GROUPING
36041 1
6074 '.. 2

6731

33073

4065

19063

31022

15070

20083 3

40062

33065

33070 ' . -

5020 4

31021

20078

4069

36040

15010
                                     A-51

-------
                        NEW SOURCE CADMIUM DATA IN MG/L
                     NATURAL LOGARITHMS OF CADMIUM (MG/L)

                        GENERAL LINEAR MODELS PROCEDURE
SNK      CLUSTERS

               G
               G
               G
MEAN
-6.2146
-6.5612
N
2
2
PLANT
11471
6101
GROUPING
5

                                     A-52

-------
                        NEW SOURCE CADMIUM DATA IN MG/L
                     NATURAL LOGARITHMS OF CADMIUM (MG/L)

                        GENERAL LINEAR MODELS PROCEDURE

TUKEY'S STUDENTIZED RANGE (HSD) TEST FOR VARIABILE:  LNRAWCD
NOTE:  THIS TEST CONTROLS THE TYPE I EXPERIMENTWISE ERROR RATE, BUT GENERALLY
       HAS A HIGHER TYPE II ERROR RATE THAN REGWQ.
                  ALPHA = 0.05
DF - 33
MSB = .0862585
CRITICAL VALUE OF STUDENTIZED RANGE = 5.432
MINIMUM SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE = 1.009

WARNING:  CELL SIZES ARE NOT EQUAL.
HARMONIC MEAN OF CELL SIZES =2.5

MEANS WITH THE SAME LETTER ARE NOT SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT.
TUKEY CLUSTERS
A

B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B






„
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F









E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E

A
A
A
A

D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D






C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C













MEAN
-3.0925

-3

-4

-4

-4

-4

-4

-4

-4

-4

_4

-4

^C

-5

-5

-5

-5

-5


.7459

.0792

.2951

.3702

.4252

.4263

.4407

.6539

.8283

.8362

.8951

.2142

.2375

.2983

.2983

.2983

.4099

N
3

3

3

3

2

3

2

3

3

2

2

2

4

3

4

2

3

2

PLANT GROUPING
36041 1

6074 2

6731

33073

4065

19063

31022

15070

20083 3

40062

33065

33070

5020 4

31021

20078

4069

36040

15010

                                      A-53

-------
                        NEW SOURCE CADMIUM DATA IN MG/L
                     NATURAL LOGARITHMS OF CADMIUM (MG/L)

                        GENERAL LINEAR MODELS PROCEDURE

TUKEY    CLUSTERS                    MEAN        N|       PLANT        GROUPING

               G                   -6.2146       2,       11477            5
               G                                   ;
               G                   -6.6512       2         6101
                                     A-54

-------
                        NEW SOURCE CADMIUM DATA IN MG/L
                     NATURAL LOGARITHIMS OF CADMIUM (MG/L)

                        GENERAL LINEAR MODELS PROCEDURE
SCHEFFE'S TEST FOR VARIABILE:  LNRAWCD
NOTE:  THIS TEST CONTROLS THE TYPE I EXPERIMENTWISE ERROR RATE, BUT GENERALLY
       HAS A HIGHER TYPE II ERROR RATE THAN REGWF FOR ALL PAIRWISE COMPARISONS.
                  ALPHA = 0.05
DF = 33
MSB = .0862585
CRITICAL VALUE OF T = 1.38254
MINIMUM SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE = 1.58307

WARNING:  CELL SIZES ARE NOT EQUAL.
HARMONIC MEAN OF CELL SIZES =2.5

MEANS WITH THE SAME LETTER ARE NOT SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT.
SCHEFFE CLUSTERS
A

B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B


















D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A







E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E




C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

-3

-3

-4

-4

-4

—4

-4

-4

-4

-4

-4

-4

-5

-5

-5

-5

-5

-5

MEAN
.0925

.7459

.0792

.2951

.3702

.4252

.4263

.4407

.6539

.8283

.8362

.8951

.2142

.2375

.2983

.2983

.2983

.4099
A-55
N
3

3

3

3

2

3

2

3

3

2

2

2

4

3

4

2

3

2

PLANT GROUPING
36041 1

6074 2

6731

33073

4065

19063

31022

15070

20083 3

40062

33065

33070

5020 4

31021

20078

4069

36040

15010


-------
                        NEW SOURCE CADMIUM DATA IN MG/L
                     NATURAL LOGARITHIMS OF CADMIUM (MG/L)
                        GENERAL LINEAR MODELS PROCEDURE
SCHEFFE  CLUSTERS

           D   E
           D   E
               E
MEAN
-6.2146
-6.5612
N
2
2
PLANT
11477
6101
GROUPING
5

                                     A-56

-------
 EXHIBIT  3
APPENDIX C
  A-57

-------
                              Definitions
 K
           K
           N
total number of plants

number of observations at
plant i

total number of observa-
tions
                                                  concentration of Cd in
                                                  mg/1, observation j at
                                                  plant i; j—1, ..., n£,
                                                  3.— I j * » « j IX

                                                  natural  logarithm of Cd
                                                  observation in mg/1
        K
                                                  mean of the log
 02 , I (n.-i) 0
  P  i-1	
     K
                                                  within plant variance,
                                                  plant i
pooled within plant variance
 B(Y) = e
          p + 02/2
 Y.99 = e
         w + 2.3260p
                                                  pooled within plant
                                                  standard deviation
estimated mean (expected
value) of the distribu-
tion of Y

estimated 99th percentile
of the distribution of Y
        K
p (10) = p + a2/2 - (0.5)ln(_ef_2 + 10-1)
              P              10     10
                                                  arithmetic mean of all
                                                  observations
10-day log mean estimate
                                 A-58

-------
                         Definitions (Con'd)
              2
a2(10) = In  e   + 10-1                          10-day log variance estimate
             10     10
Y<99(10) = e^10 + ^«^°olu                       10-day 99th percentile
                                                 estimate
                               A-59

-------
                           Metal Finishing - NSPS Cd
All Data
Dail-s
        N - 61


         V   = 4.726


         O2n = 0.08626
        Op   = 0.29370
10 Day
               Y    . e-4.726+2.326(0.2937)
                * y y

                    a e-4.726+.6832 = e-4.0429


                    = 0.018


               E(Y) - e-4.726+.5(.08626)

                    » 0.0093
                                              VF - with plant 33024


                                              Overall Mean - with plant 33024
          U10  = y + .5( a2 ) - (.5) In     e  +
                                          n
                                                 n-1
                                                 n
          = -4.726 + ,5(.08626) -


         = -4.6874

                 o2    t
         = In  e   + "-1
                                               .08626
                                                I'O
                                                      + .9
                In
               ,.08626
               - -
                 10
Y.99(10)
.00897

 P     9
e 10 + 2'
                             --
                             10
                              10
             -4. 6874+2. 326C. 0947)
            .0115
                                                     = .0947
                                    A-60

-------
                           Metal Finishing - NSPS Cd


All Data Without Plant 33024
Dail
       N = 60


        U   = -4.765


        o2p = 0.08626


        ap  =  .29370
              .99
                  _  -4. 765+2. 326(. 2937)
                  ~
                  = .017


             E(Y) = e~4'765+('5)'08626


                  = 0.0089
10 Day
            = U
              = -4.765 + .0387


              = -4.7264
       a210 = -00897


        a10 = .0947

              _  -4.7264+2.326(.00897)
      .99(10) ~ e

          = .0091
                                                 VF - without plant 33024


                                                 Overall Mean - without plant


                                                                33024
                                       n     n
                                    A-61

-------
                           Metal Finishing - NSPS Cd
                  Using High Effluent Concentration Plants
                                    Subset A
Dail-v
       N = 27

       U    = -3.998
   VF  -  using  subset A

   Overall Mean  -  using  subset A
             = 0.1510

             0.3886
10 Day
             Y    = e-3. 998+2. 326(0. 3886)

                  = 0.045

             E(Y) = e~3. 998+0. 5(. 1510)

                  = .0198
            = P + .5 ( a
                                     n      n

             = -3.998 + (.5X.1510) - (.5)ln


             = -3.9306
        a2   = In   e'1510 + .9
                     ~~
             = .0162

        010 = .1273

                ^-3. 9306+2. 326(. 1273)
,.1510 +  .9
   10
     Y.99(10)
              .0264
                                    A-62

-------
Daib
                           Metal Finishing - NSPS Cd
                    Using High Effluent Concentration Plants
                                  ,  Subset B
10-Day
        y  =  -2.908
        a2 =   0.0180
        0p = 0.1342

        v    _  -2. 908+2. 326(. 1342)
        Y.99 ~ e

             = .0746

        E(X) = e-2. 908+0. 5(. 0180)


             = .0551


        X"    = .058
                  .5
                                                   VF - using subset B


                                                   Overall Mean - using subset B
                                             n-1
                                             .018
              = -2.908 + .5C.018) - (.5)ln _f	 + _9
                                             10     10
         10
              = -2.900

                     .018
              = In  e
                     10
                9
               10
         10


     Y.99(10)
= .0018


= .0424


= e-2.90+2.326(.0424)


= .0610
                                   A-63

-------