United States
 Environmental Protection
 Agency
Effluent Guidelines
Division (WH-552)
Washington DC 20460
EPA 440/1-84/067
August 1984
Development         Final
Document for
Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and
Standards for
Battery Manufacturing


Point Source  Category
Volume II
Subcateqoi
Lead

-------
                  VOLUME II

            DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT

                     for

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS

                   for the

            BATTERY MANUFACTURING

            POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
           William D. Ruckelshaus
                Administrator

                Jack E. Ravan
           Assistant Administrator
               Office of Water

           Edwin Johnson, Director
  Office of Water Regulations and Standards
         Jeffery D. Denit, Director
        Effluent Guidelines Division

         Ernst P. Hall, P.E., Chief
         Metals and Machinery Branch

              Mary L. Belefski
               Project Officer

               September, 1984

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
        Effluent Guidelines Division
  Office of Water Regulations and Standards
           Washington, D.C.  20460

-------
This volume is dedicated to John  Allen  von  Hemert  who  worked
diligently  as  a member of the EPA Battery Project team, and who
suddenly passed away January 29, 1984.

-------
                            CONTENTS


SECTION                       TITLE

I         SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

II        RECOMMENDATIONS

III     .  INTRODUCTION                                      31
               Legal Authority                              31
               Guideline Development Summary                33
               Industry Description                         40
               Industry Summary                             58
               Industry Outlook                             61

IV        INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION                       . 93
               Subcategorization                            93
               Final Subcategories And Production
                 Normalizing Parameters                    101
               Operations Covered Under Other
                 Categories                                104

V         WATER USE AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION             109
               Data Collection And Analysis                109
               Lead Subcategory                            120
                    Manufacturing Process and Water
                      Use                                  122
                    Wastewater Characteristics             144
                    Wastewater Treatment Practices and
                      Effluent Data Analysis               156

VI        SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS                251
               Verification Parameters                     251
               Specific Pollutants Considered for
                 Regulation                                289

VII       CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY                 303
            End-of-Pipe Treatment Technologies             303
               Major Technologies                          304
                    1.  Chemical Reduction of Chromium     304
                    2.  Chemical Precipitation             306
                    3.  Cyanide Precipitation              312
                    4.  Granular Bed Filtration            314
                    5.  Pressure Filtration                317
                    6.  Settling                           319
                    7,  Skimming                           322
               Major Technology Effectiveness              326
                    L & S Performance                      326
                               iii*

-------
                            CONTENTS

SECTION                       TITLE                        PAGE

                    LS & F Performance                     338
               Minor Technologies                          342
                     8. Carbon Adsorption                  342
                     9. Centrifugation                     344
                    10. Coalescing                         346
                    11. Cyanide Oxidation By Chlorine      348
                    12. Cyanide Oxidation By Ozone         349
                    13. Cyanide Oxidation By Ozone With
                         UV Radiation                      350
                    14. Cyanide Oxidation By Hydrogen
                         Peroxide                          351
                    15. Evaporation                        352
                    16. Flotation                          355
                    17. Gravity Sludge Thickening          358
                    18. Insoluble Starch Xanthate          359
                    19. Ion Exchange                       360
                    20. Membrane  Filtration               363
                    21. Peat Adsorption                    364
                    22. Reverse Osmosis                    366
                    23. Sludge Bed Drying                  369
                    24. Ultrafiltration                    371
                    25. Vacuum Filtration                  374
                    26. Permanganate Oxidation             375
            In-Process Pollution Control Techniques        376

VIII      COST OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND CONTROL         457
               General Approach                            457
               Cost Estimation Model Bases                 458
               Cost Comparison: Proposal Versus
                 Promulgation                              460
               Cost Estimation Methodology: Post-
                 Proposal                                  462
               Normal Plant                                486
               Nonwater Quality Environmental Aspects      486

IX        BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY
            AVAILABLE                                      533
               Technical Approach To BPT                   533
               Selection of Pollutant Parameters for
                 Regulation                                538
               Production Operations and Discharge
                 Flows                                     539
               Model Treatment Technology                  549
               Effluent Limitations                        551
               Pollutant Removals and Costs                551
                               IV

-------
                            CONTENTS

SECTION                       TITLE                        PAGE

               Reasonableness of the Limitations           551
               Application of Regulations in Permits       555

X         BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY
            ACHIEVABLE                                     585
               Technical Approach To BAT                   585
               Regulated Pollutant Parameters              596
               Discharge Flows
               Pollutant Removals and Costs                596
               Effluent Limitations                        597

XI        NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS                 621
             Technical Approach to BDT                     621
             Pollutant Removals and Costs                  623
             Regulated Pollutant Parameters                623
             New Source Performance Standards              623

XII       PRETREATMENT STANDARDS                           635
             Discharge of Wastewaters to a POTW            636
             Technical Approach to Pretreatment            637
             PSES and PSNS Option Selection                638
             Pollutant Removal Benefits and Cost           638
             Pollutant Parameters for Regulation           639
             Pretreatment Effluent Standards               639

XIII      BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL
            TECHNOLOGY                                     659

XIV       ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS                                 661

XV        BIBLIOGRAPHY                                     663

XVI       GLOSSARY                      .                   673
          CONVERSION TABLE                     ,            690

-------
                             TABLES
Number                             Title                              Page
III-l     Survey Summary                                            .   63
II1-2     Battery General Purposes and Applications                    64
III-3     Anode Half-Cell Reactions                        '            65
III-4     Cathode Half-Cell Reactions                                  65
II1-5     Consumption of Toxic Metals in Battery Manufacture           66
II1-6     Battery Manufacturing Category Summary                       67
IV-1      Lead Subcategory Elements And Production Normalizing
          Parameters (PNP)                                            105
IV-2      Operations at Battery Plants Included in Other
          Industrial Categories (Partial Listing)                     106
V-l       Screening and Verification Analysis Techniques              164
V-2       Screening Analysis Results - Lead Subcategory               170
V-3       Normalized Discharge Flows from Lead Subcategory Elements   174
               /
V-4       Personal Hygiene Data from Industry Survey                  175
V-5       Lead Subcategory Characteristics of Individual Process
          Wastes                                                      178
V-6       Pasting Wastewater Characteristics (mg/1)                   183
V-7       Pasting Waste Loadings (mg/kg)                              185
                              *
V-8       Curing Wastewater Characteristics (mg/1)                    187
V-9       Curing Waste Loadings (mg/kg)                               188
V-10      Double Fill and Fill & Dump Formation Waste
          Characteristics (mg/1)                                      189
V-l1      Double Fill and Fill & Dump Formation Waste Loadings
          (mg/kg)                                                     190
V-l2      Open Formation Dehydrated Battery Waste Characteristics
          (mg/1)                                                      191
                               VI

-------
                                TABLES
Number                             Title

V-13      Open Formation Dehydrated Battery Waste Loadings
          (mg/kg)                                                     192
V-14      Battery Wash - Detergent Wastewater Characteristics
          (mg/1)                                                      193
V-15      Battery Wash - Detergent Waste Loadings (mg/kg)             194
V-16      Battery Wash - Water Only Wastewater Characteristics
          (mg/1)                                                      195
V-17      Battery Wash - Water Only Waste Loadings {mg/kg)            196
V-18      Floor Wash Wastewater Characteristics (mg/1)                197
V-19      Floor Wash Waste Loadings (mg/kg)                           198
V-20      Wet Air Pollution Control Wastewater Characteristics
          (mg/1)                                                      199
V-21      Wet Air Pollution Control Waste Loadings (mg/kg)            200
V-22      Battery Repair Wastewater Characteristics (mg/1)            201
V-23      Battery Repair Waste Loadings (mg/kg)                       202
V-24      Truck Wash Wastewater Characteristics (mg/1)                203
V-25      Truck V'msh Waste Loadings (mg/kg)                           204
V-26      Handwash Wastewater Characteristics (mg/1)                  205
V-27      Handwash Waste Loadings (mg/kg)                             206
V-28      Respirator Wash Wastewater Characteristics  (mg/1)           207
V-29      Respirator Wash Waste Loadings (mg/kg)                      208
V-30      Laundry Wastewater Characteristics (mg/1)                   209
V-31      Laundry Waste Loadings (mg/kg)                              210
V-32      Reported Total Process Flow                                 211
                               Vll

-------
                                TABLES
Number                             Title                              Page

V-33      Treatment In Place at Lead Subcategory Plants               213
V-34      Total Raw Waste for Visits (mg/1)                           220
V-35      Lead Subcategory Total Raw Waste Loadings (mg/kg)           223
V-36      Statistical Analysis (mg/1) of the Lead Subcategory
          Total Raw Waste Concentrations                              226
V-37      Statistical Analysis (mg/kg) of the Lead Subcategory
          Total Raw Waste Loadings                                    227
V-38      Effluent Characteristics Reported in Dcp by Plants
          Practicing pH Adjustment and Settling Technology            228
V-39      Effluent Characteristics Reported in Industry Survey
          by Plants Practicing pH Adjustment and Settling
          Technology                                                  229
V-40      Effluent Characteristics Reported in Dcp by Plants
          Practicing pH Adjustment and Filtration                     230
V-41      Effluent Characteristics Reported in Industry Survey
          by Plants Practicing pH Adjustment and Filter Technology    231
V-42      Effluent Characteristics Reported in Dcp by Plants
          Practicing pH Adjustment Only                               232
V-43      Effluent Characteristics Reported in Industry Survey
          by Plants Practicing pH Adjustment Only                     233
V-44      Influent to Wastewater Treatment Pollutant
          Characteristics (mg/1)                                      234
V-45      Effluent from Sampled Plants (mg/1)                         236
VI-1      Priority Pollutant Disposition                              296
VI-2      Other Pollutants Considered for Regulation                  301
VII-1     pH Control Effect On Metals Removal                         404
VI1-2     Effectiveness Of Sodium Hydroxide For Metals
          Removal                                                     404
                              viii

-------
                                TABLES
Number                             Title

VII-3     Effectiveness Of Lime And Sodium Hydroxide For
          Metals Removal                                              405
VII-4     Theoretical Solubilities of Hydroxides and Sulfides
          of Selected Metals in Pure Water                            405
VI1-5     Sampling Data From Sulfide Precipitation-
          Sedimentation Systems                                       406
VI1-6     Sulfide Precipitation-Sedimentation Performance             407
VI1-7     Ferrite Co-Precipitation Performance                        408
VI1-8     Concentration of Total Cyanide                              408
VII-9     Multimedia Filter Performance                               409
VII-10    Performance of Sampled Settling Systems                     409
VII-11    Skimming Performance                                        410
VII-12    Selected Partition Coefficients                             411
VI1-13    Trace Organic Removal by Skimming API Plus
          Belt Skimmers                                               412
VII-14    Combined Metals Data Effluent Values (mg/1)                 412
VII-15    L&S Performance-Additional Pollutants                       413
VII-16    Combined Metals Data Set - Untreated Wastewater             413
VII-17    Maximum Pollutant Level in Untreated Wastewater-
          Additional Pollutants                                       414
VII-18    Precipitation-Settling-Filtration (LS&F)
          Performance - Plant A                                       415
VII-19    Precipitation-Settling-Filtration (LS&F)
          Performance Plant B                                         416
VII-20    Precipitation-Settling-Filtration (LS&F)
          Performance Plant C            *                             417
                               IX

-------
                                TABLES
Number                             Title

VII-21    Summary of Treatment Effectiveness
VII-22    Treatability Rating of Priority Pollutants
          Utilizing Carbon Adsorption
VI1-23    Classes of Organic Compounds Adsorbed On Carbon
VI1-24    Activated Carbon Performance (Mercury)
VI1-25    Ion Exchange Performance
VII-26    Membrane Filtration System Effluent
VI1-27    Peat Adsorption Performance
VI1-28    Ultrafiltration Performance
VII-29    Process Control Technologies In Use At Battery
          Manufacturing Plants
VIII-1    Battery Manufacturing Compliance Costs - Lead
          Subcategory
VII1-2    In-Plant Cost Procedure Changes
VIII-3    Cost Difference Comparison •- Promulgated vs.
          Proposed
VII1-4    Cost Equations for Recommended Treatment and
          Control Technologies
VII1-5    Components of Total Capital Investment
VIII-6    Components of Total Annualized Costs
VII1-7    Wastewater Sampling Frequency
VII1-8    In-Plant Cost Frequency Summary
VII1-9    Nonprocess Water Disposition Among Plants
          Visited After Proposal
VIII-10   Cost Program Pollutant Parameters
Page

418

419
420
421
421
422
422
423

424

489
490

493

494
500
501
502
503

504
505

-------
                                TABLES
Number                             Title                              Page

VIII-11   Example Plant Summary                                       506
VIII-12   Normal Plant Capital and Annual Costs                       507
VIII-13   Energy Costs and Requirements                               508
IX-1       Flow Basis for BPT Mass Discharge Limitations
          Lead Subcategory                                            557
IX-2      Summary of Zero Discharge for Lead Subcategory
          Process Elements                   .                         559
IX-3      Summary of Treatment In-Place at Lead Subcategory
          Plants                                                      561
          Lead Subcategory BPT Ef f1uent L imitat ions;
IX"-4      Mold Release Formulation                                    562
IX-5      Direct Chill Lead Casting                                   563
IX-6      Lead Rolling (Lead Used)                                    564
IX-7      Lead Rolling (Lead Rolled)                                  565
IX-8      Closed Formation - Double Fill, or Fill & Dump              566
IX-9      Open Formation - Dehydrated                                 567
IX-10     Open Formation - Wet                                        568
IX-11     Plate Soak                                                  569
IX-12     Battery Wash (Detergent)                                    570
IX-13     Battery Wash (Water Only)                                   571
IX-14     Truck Wash                                                  572
IX-15     Laundry                                                     573
IX-16     Miscellaneous Wastewater Streams                            574
IX-17     Comparison of Actual Total Flow Rates to
                               xi

-------
                                TABLES
Number                             Title

          BPT Hourly Flow Rates                                       575
IX-18     Summary of BPT Treatment Effectiveness at
          Lead Subcategory Plants                                     580
IX-19     Sample Derivation of the BPT 1-Day Lead
          Limitation                                                  582
X-l       Process Element Flow Summary Lead Subcategory               598
X-2       Normal Plant Element Flows Lead Subcategory                 599
X-3       Summary of Treatment Effectiveness Lead
          Subcategory                                                 601
X-4       Pollutant Reduction Benefits of Control Systems
          Lead Subcategory - Normal Plant                             602
X-5       Pollutant Reduction Benefits of Control Systems
          Lead Subcategory - Normal Discharging Plant                 603
X-6       Pollutant Reduction Benefits of Control Systems
          Lead Subcategory - Total Dischargers                        604
X-7       Pollutant Reduction Benefits of Control Systems
          Lead Subcategory - Direct Dischargers                       605
X-8       Battery Manufacturing Compliance Costs Lead
          Subcategory                                                 606
          Lead Subcategory BAT EffluentLimitations;
X-9       Mold Release Formulation                                    607
X-10      Direct Chill Lead Casting                                   608
X-11      Open Formation - Dehydrated                                 609
X-l2      Open Formation - Wet                                        610
X-l3      Plate Soak                                                  611
X-l4      Battery Wash (Detergent)                                    612
                               XII

-------

Number
X-15
X-16
X-17
XI-1
XI-2
XI-3
XI-4
XI-5
XI-6
XI-7
XI-8
XI-9
XI-10
XII-1
XII-2
XII-3
XII-4
XII-5
XII-6
TABLES
Title
Truck Mash
Laundry
Miscellaneous Wastewater Streams
Pollutant Reduction Benefits of Option 5
Lead Subcategory New Source Performance Standards:
Mold Release Formulation
Direct Chill Lead Casting
Open Formation - Dehydrated
Open Formation - Wet
Plate Soak
Battery Wash (Detergent)
Truck Wash
Laundry
Miscellaneous Wastewater Streams
Lead Subcategory Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources:
Pollutant Reduction Benefits of Control Systems
Lead Subcategory - Indirect Dischargers
Mold Release Formulation
Direct Chill Lead Casting
Open Formation - Dehydrated
Open Formation - Wet
Plate Soak

Pag (
613
614
615
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
640
641
642
643
644
645
XI11

-------
                                TABLES
Number                             Title                              Page

XI1-7     Battery Wash (Detergent)                                    646
XI1-8     Truck Wash                                       '           647
XI1-9     Laundry                                                     648
XII-10    Miscellaneous Wastewater Streams                            649
          Lead Subcateqory Pretreatment Standards for
          New Sources;
XII-11    Mold Release Formulation                                    650
XII-12    Direct Chill Lead Casting                                   651
XII-13    Open Fomation - Dehydrated                                  652
XII-14    Open Formation - Wet                                        653
XII-15    Plate Soak                                                  654
XII-16    Battery Wash (Detergent)                                    655
XII-17    Truck Wash                                                  656
XI1-18    Laundry                                                     657
XI1-19    Miscellaneous Wastewater Streams                            658
                               xiv

-------
                             FIGURES
Number                             Title                              Page
III-l     Theoretical Specific Energy As a Function of
          Equivalent Weight and Cell Voltage For Various
          Electrolytic Couples                                         68
III-2     Performance Capability of Various Battery Systems            69
II1-3     Cutaway View of An Impregnated Sintered Plate
          Nickel-Cadmium Cell                                          70
II1-4     Cutaway View of A Cylindrical Nickel-Cadmium
          Battery                                                      71
II1-5     Cutaway View of Lead Acid Storage Battery                    72
III-6     Cutaway View of A Leclanche Cell  .                           73
II1-7     Exploded View of A Flat Leclanche Battery Used
          In Film Pack                                                 74
II1-8     Cutaway View of Two Solid Electrolyte Lithium
          Cell Configurations                                          75
II1-9     Cutaway View of A Reserve Type Battery                       76
III-l0    Cutaway View of A Carbon-Zinc-Air Cell                       77
III-l1    Cutaway View of An Alkaline-Manganese Battery                78
II1-12    Cutaway View of A Mercury (Ruben) Cell                       79
II1-13    Major Production Operations in Nickel-Cadmium
          Battery Manufacture                                          80
II1-14    Simplified Diagram of Major Production Operations
          In Lead Acid Battery Manufacture                             81
III-15    Major Production Operations In Leclanche Dry
          Battery Manufacture                                          82
II1-16    Major Production Operations in Lithium-Iodine
          Battery Manufacture                                          83
III-l7    Major Production Operations In Ammonia-Activated
          Magnesium Reserve Cell Manufacture                           84
                               xv

-------
                              FIGURES

Number                             Title                              Page


111-18    Major Production Operations In Water-Activated
          Carbon-Zinc-Air Cell Manufacture                             85

111-19    Major Production Operations In Alkaline-Manganese
          Dioxide Battery Manufacture                                  86

II1-20    Simplified Diagram of Major Operations In Mercury
          (Ruben) Battery Manufacture                                  87

111-21    Value of Battery Product Shipments 1963-1977                 88

111-22    Geographical-Regional Distribution of
          Battery Manufacturing Plants                                 89
                               *
111-23    Distribution of Lead Subcategory Production Rates            90

II1-24    Distribution of Employment At Lemd Subcategory
          Manufacturing Facilities                                     91

IV-1      Summary Of Category Analysis                                107

V-l       Generalized Lead Subcategory Manufacturing
          Processes                                                   240

V-2       Lead Subcategory Analysis                                   241

V-3       Percent Production Normalized Discharge From
          Lead Subcategory Process Operations                         243

V-4       Production Normalized Discharge From Double
          and Single Fill Formation                                   244

V-5       Production of Closed Formation Wet Batteries                245

V-6       Production of Damp Batteries                                246

V-7       Production of Dehydrated Batteries                          247

V-8       Production of Batteries From Green (Unformed)
          Electrodes                                                  248

V-9       Production of Batteries from Purchased Formed
          Plates                                                      249
                               xvi

-------
                              FIGURES

Number                             Title                              Page


VII-1     Comparative Solubilities of Metal Hydroxides
          and Sulfide as a Function of pH                             427

VII-2     Lead Solubilities in Three Alkalies                         428

VII-3     Effluent Zinc Concentration vs. Minimum Effluent
          pH                                                          429

VI1-4     Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation Effectiveness
          Cadmium                                                     430

VI1-5     Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation Effectiveness
          Chromium                                                    43T

VI1-6     Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation Effectiveness
          Copper                                                      432

VI1-7     Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation Effectiveness
          Lead                                                        433

VI1-8     Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation Effectiveness
          Nickel and Aluminum                                         434

VI1-9     Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation Effectiveness
          Zinc                                                        435

VII-10    Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation Effectiveness
          Iron                                                     %   436

VII-11    Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation Effectiveness
          Manganese                                                   437

VI1-12    Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation Effectiveness
          TSS                                                         438

VI1-13    Hexavalent Chromium Reduction with Sulfur Dioxide           439

VII-14    Granular Bed Filtration                 "                    440

VII-15    Pressure Filtration                                         441

VI1-16    Representative Types of Sedimentation                       442

VI1-17    Activated Carbon Adsorption Column                          443
                              xvii

-------
                              FIGURES
Number                             Title

VII-18    Centrifugation
VI1-19    Treatment of Cyanide Waste by Alkaline
          Chlorination
VI1-20    Typical Ozone Plant for Waste Treatment
VI1-21    UV-Ozonation
VI1-22    Types of Evaporation Equipment
VII-23    Dissolved Air Flotation
VII-24    Gravity Thickening
VII-25    Ion Exchange With Regeneration
VII-26    Simplified Reverse Osmosis Schematic
VI1-27    Reverse Osmosis Membrane Configurations
VI1-28    Sludge Drying Bed
VII-29    Simplified Ultrafiltration Flow Schematic
VII-30    Vacuum Filtration
VIII-1    Costs for Paste Mixing and Application Area Wash
          Water Recycle
VII1-2    Costs for Steam Curing
VII1-3    Costs for Humidity Curing Water Recycle
VII1-4    Costs for Slow Formation
VII1-5    Costs for Countercurrent Rinsing
VII1-6    Costs for Sealant Water Recycle
VII1-7    Capital Costs for Formation Area WAPC Water
          Recycle
VIII-8    Annual Costs for Formation Area WAPC Water
444

445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456

509
510
511
512
513
514

515
                              xviii

-------
                              FIGURES

Number                             Title


          Recycle                                                     516

VII1-9    Capital Costs for Reuse of Battery Rinse
          Water in Acid Cutting      *                                 517

VI11-10   Annual Costs for Reuse of Battery Rinse Water
          in Acid Cutting                                             518

VIII-11   Costs for Power Floor Scrubber Water Settling               519

VIII-12   Costs for Segregation of Non-Process Water
          Flows                                                       520

VII1-13   General Logic Diagram of Computer Cost Model                521

VI11-14   Logic Diagram of Module, Design Procedure                    522

VII1-15   Logic Diagram of the Costing Routine                        523

VII1-16   Costs for Chemical Precipitation and
          Sedimentation                                               524

VII1-17   Costs for Sulfide Precipitation and Sedimentation           525

VIII-18   Costs for Vacuum Filtration                                 526
                                           \
VII1-19   Costs for Equalization                                      527

VIII-20   Costs for Recycling                                         528

VIII-21   Costs for Multimedia Filtration-Membrane Filtration         529

VII1-22   Costs for Reverse Osmosis                                   530

VII1-23   Costs for Oil-Water Separation                              531

VIII-24   Costs for Contract Hauling                                  532

IX-1      Lead Subcategory BPT Treatment                              583

X-l       Lead Subcategory BAT Option 1 Treatment                     616

X-2       Lead Subcategory BAT Option 2 Treatment                     617
                               xix

-------
                              FIGURES
Number                             Title

X-3       Lead Subcategory BAT Option 3 Treatment                      618
X-4       Lead Subcategory BAT Opt i 013 4 Treatment                      619
                                xx

-------
                            SECTION I

                     SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Background

Pursuant to Sections 301, 304, 306, 307,  308,  and  501  of  the
Clean   Water  Act,  and  the  Settlement  Agreement  in  Natural
Resources Defense Council v.  Train  8  ERC  2120  (D.D.C.  1976)
modified  12  ERC  1833  (D.D.C. 1979) by orders dated October 26,
1982, August 2, 1983, and January  6,  1984,  EPA  collected  and
analyzed  data  for  plants  in  the  Battery Manufacturing Point
Source Category.  There are no existing effluent  limitations  or
performance  standards  for this industry.  This document and the
administrative   record   provide   the   technical   bases   for
promulgating effluent limitations for existing direct dischargers
using  best  practicable  and  best available technology  (BPT and
BAT).  Effluent standards are promulgated for  existing   indirect
dischargers. (PSES), and new sources, for both direct dischargers
(NSPS) and indirect dischargers (PSNS).

Battery  manufacturing  encompasses  the  production  of  modular
electric power sources where part or all of the fuel is contained
within  the  unit and electric power is generated directly from a
chemical reaction rather than indirectly  through  a  heat  cycle
engine.   There  are  three  major components of a cell — anode,
cathode, and electrolyte — plus mechanical and conducting  parts
such  as  case,  separator,  or  contacts.   Production   includes
electrode manufacture of  anodes  and  cathodes,  and  associated
ancillary operations necessary to produce a battery.

This  volume (Volume II) of the development document specifically
addresses the lead subcategory and Volume I addresses  all  other
subcategories  within  the  battery  manufacturing  point  source
category.   Section  III  of  both  volumes  provides  a  general
discussion of all battery manufacturing.

Subcategprigation

The category is subcategorized on the basis of anode material and
electrolyte.  This subcategorization was selected because most of
the  manufacturing  process  variations  are similar within these
subcategories and the  approach  avoids  unnecessary  complexity.
The  data  base  for this volume includes all information for the
lead subcategory.

-------
Within the lead subcategory manufacturing process operations  (or
elements)   were   grouped   into   anode   manufacture,  cathode
manufacture,  and  ancillary  operations  associated   with   the
production . of  a  battery.   The  development  of  a  production
normalizing parameter (pnp) for each  element  was  necessary  to
relate   water   use   to  various  plant  sizes  and  production
variations.  For the lead subcategory the  total  (raw  material)
lead  use was selected as the pnp and is generally applied to all
process elements.

Data.

The data base for the lead subcategory includes 186 plants  which
employed  an  estimated  18,745  people.   Of  the 186 plants, 12
discharge wastewater directly to surface  waters,  117  discharge
wastewater  to publicly owned treatment works (POTW), and 57 have
no discharge of process wastewater.  Data  collection  portfolios
(dcp)  were  sent  to all known battery companies in the U.S. and
data were requested for 1976.  Data were returned by  96  percent
of  the lead battery companies.  The data base includes some data
for 1977, 1978, and 1982.

Water is used throughout  lead  battery  manufacturing  to  clean
battery  components  and  to  transport wastes.   Water is used in
paste mixing to make lead  electrodes;  water  is  also  a  major
component   of  the  sulfuric  acid  electrolyte  which  is  also
contained in formation baths.  A total of 17 lead battery  plants
were  visited  before  proposal  for  engineering  analysis,  and
wastewater sampling was conducted at five of these plants.  These
visits enabled the Agency to  characterize  subcategory  specific
wastewater   generating  processes,  select  the  pollutants  for
regulation, and evaluate wastewater treatment performance in this
subcategory.   Since  proposal,  17   additional   lead   battery
manufacturing  sites  were visited in order to collect additional
data and to further evaluate wastewater treatment performance.

Pollutants or pollutant parameters found in  significant  amounts
in  lead  battery  manufacturing  wastewaters  include  (1) toxic
metals — copper and  lead;  (2)  nonconventional  pollutants
aluminum, iron, manganese; and (3) conventional pollutants — oil
and grease, TSS, and pH.  Toxic organic pollutants generally were
not  found  in  large quantities.  Because of the amount of toxic
metals present, the sludges generated during wastewater treatment
generally contain substantial amounts of toxic metals.

Current wastewater treatment systems in the battery manufacturing
category  range  from  no  treatment  to  sophisticated  physical
chemical  treatment  (although  frequently not properly operated)
combined with water conservation  practices.   Of  the  186  lead

-------
battery  manufacturing plants in the data base, 23 percent of the
plants have no treatment and do not discharge, 17 percent have no
treatment and discharge, 20 percent have only pH adjust  systems,
5  percent  have  only sedimentation or clarification devices, 29
percent have equipment for chemical precipitation  and  settling,
5.5  percent  have equipment for chemical precipitation, settling
and filtration, and'0.5 percent  have  other  treatment  systems.
Even  though  treatment  systems  are  in-place  at  many plants,
wastewater treatment practices in this subcategory are  uniformly
inadequate.   The  systems  in-place  are  generally inadequately
sized,  poorly  maintained,  or  improperly   operated   (systems
overloaded, solids not removed, pH not controlled, etc.).

Wastewater Treatment

The   control  and  treatment  technologies  available  for  this
category  and  considered  as  the  basis  for  the   promulgated
regulation  include  both  in-process and end-of-pipe treatments.
In-process treatment includes a variety of water  flow  reduction
steps   and   major   process   changes  such  as:   cascade  and
countercurrent rinsing (to reduce the amount  of  water  used  to
remove   unwanted  materials  from  electrodes);  consumption  of
cleansed  wastewater  in  product  mixes;  and  substitution   of
nonwastewater-generating  formation  (charging) systems.  End-of-
pipe treatment considered includes:   chemical  precipitation  of
metals  using hydroxides, carbonates, or sulfides; and removal of
precipitated  metals  and  other  materials  using  settling   or
sedimentation;  filtration;  reverse osmosis; and combinations of
these technologies.  While developing the final  regulation,  EPA
also considered the impacts of these technologies on air quality,
solid waste generation, water scarcity, and energy requirements.

The  effectiveness  of  these  treatment  technologies  has  been
evaluated and  established  by  examining  their  performance  on
battery  manufacturing  and  other similar wastewaters.  The data
base for hydroxide precipitation-sedimentation (lime and  settle)
technology  is  a  composite  of data drawn from EPA sampling and
analysis of copper and aluminum forming,  battery  manufacturing,
porcelain  enameling,  and  coil  coating  effluents.  A detailed
statistical analysis done on the  data  base  showed  substantial
homogeneity  in  the treatment effectiveness data from these five
•categories.  This supports EPA's technical  judgment  that  these
wastewaters  are  similar  in all material respects for treatment
because they contain a range of dissolved  metals  which  can  be
removed by precipitation and solids removal.  Electroplating data
were  originally  used  in  the data set, but were excluded after
further statistical analyses were performed.  Following proposal,
additional  battery  manufacturing  lime  and  settle  technology
effluent  data  were  obtained  from  battery plants primarily to

-------
evaluate  treatment  effectiveness  for   lead.    Precipitation-
sedimentation  and  filtration technology performance is based on
the performance of full-scale commercial systems treating  multi-
category  wastewaters  which  also  are  essentially  similar  to
battery manufacturing wastewaters.

The treatment performance data is used to  obtain  maximum  daily
and    monthly    average    pollutant   concentrations.    These
concentrations  (mg/1)  along  with  the  production   normalized
regulatory  flows  (I/kg of production normalizing parameter) are
used to obtain the  maximum  daily  and  monthly  average  values
(mg/kg)  for  effluent  limitations  and  standards.  The monthly
average values are  based  on  the  average  of  ten  consecutive
sampling  days.   The  ten  day average value was selected as the
minimum number of consecutive samples which need to  be  averaged
to  arrive  at  a  stable  slope  on  a statistically based curve
relating one day and 30 day average values  and  it  approximates
the  most  frequent  monitoring  requirement  of direct discharge
permits.

Treatment Costs

The Agency estimated the costs  of  each  control  and  treatment
technology using a computer program based on standard engineering
cost  analysis.  EPA derived unit process costs by applying plant
data and characteristics (production and flow) to each  treatment
process  (i.e.,  metals precipitation, sedimentation, mixed-media
filtration, etc.).  The program  also  considers  what  treatment
equipment  exists  at  each plant.  These unit process costs were
added for each plant to yield total cost at each treatment level.
In cases where there is more than one plant at  one  site,  costs
were  calculated separately for each plant and probably overstate
the actual amount which would be spent  at  the  site  where  one
combined  treatment  system  could be used for all plants.  These
costs were then used by the Agency ' to  estimate  the  impact  of
implementing  the . various  options  on  the  industry.  For each
control and treatment option considered the number  of  potential
closures,  number  of employees affected, and the impact on price
were estimated.  These results are reported in the  EPA  document
entitled,  Economic  Impact  Analysis of Effluent Limitations and
Standards   forthe   Battery   Manufacturing   Industry   (EPA
440/2-84-002).

Regulation

On the basis of raw waste characteristics, in-process and end-of-
pipe  treatment  performance  and  costs,  and other factors, EPA
identified  and  classified   various   control   and   treatment
technologies  as BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS.  The regulation,

-------
however, does not require  the  installation  of  any  particular
technology.    Rather,   it   requires  achievement  of  effluent
limitations equivalent to those achieved by the proper  operation
of these or equivalent technologies.

Except  for  pH  requirements,  the effluent limitations for BPT,
BAT, and NSPS are expressed as mass  limitations  —  a  mass  of
pollutant  per  unit of production  (mg/kg).  They were calculated
by combining three figures:  (1) treated effluent  concentrations
determined  by analyzing control technology performance data; (2)
production-weighted  wastewater  flow  for   each   manufacturing
process element of each subcategory; and (3) any relevant process
or  treatment variability factor (e.g., mean versus maximum day).
This basic calculation was performed for each regulated pollutant
or pollutant parameter and for each wastewater-generating process
element of each subcategory.  Pretreatment standards — PSES  and
PSNS  —  are  also  expressed  as  mass  limitations rather than
concentration limits to ensure a reduction in the total  quantity
of pollutant discharges.

BPT  -  In  general,  the BPT level represents the average of the
best existing performances of  plants  of  various  ages,  sizes,
processes   or  other  common  characteristics.   Where  existing
performance is uniformly inadequate, BPT may be transferred  from
a  different  subcategory  or  category.   In  balancing costs in
relation to effluent reduction benefits, EPA considers the volume
and nature of existing  discharges,  the  volume  and  nature  of
discharges   expected  after  application  of  BPT,  the  general
environmental effects of the pollutants, and  cost  and  economic
impact of the required pollution control level.

EPA  is  promulgating  BPT  mass  limitations for existing direct
dischargers based on model end-of-pipe treatment, which  consists
of   oil  skimming  when  required  and  lime  precipitation  and
settling.  The pollutant parameters selected  for  limitation  at
BPT  are:   copper,  lead,  iron, oil and grease, total suspended
solids  (TSS), and pH.

Twelve   lead   battery   plants    are    direct    dischargers.
Implementation  of  BPT limitations will remove 115,400 kilograms
(253,900 pounds) per year of toxic metals and  675,800  kilograms
(1,486,800  pounds) per year of conventional and other pollutants
from the estimated raw waste generation.   The  Agency  estimates
that capital costs above equipment  in place for these plants will
be  $0.715  million  ($1983) and total annual costs will be $0.499
million ($1983).  The economic  impact  analysis  concluded  that
there  are  no  potential  plant  closures  or employment effects
associated with compliance with this regulation.   If  compliance
costs  were  passed  on to consumers, price increases would be no

-------
higher than 0.3 percent for lead battery products.  There are  no
balance-of-trade  effects.   The  Agency  has determined that the
effluent reduction benefits associated with compliance  with  BPT
limitations justify the costs.

BAT  -  The BAT level represents the best economically achievable
performance of plants of various ages, sizes, processes or  other
shared  characteristics.  As with BPT, where existing performance
is uniformly inadequate, BAT may be transferred from a  different
subcategory  or  category.   BAT  may  include  feasible  process
changes or internal  controls,  even  when  not  common  industry
practice.

In  .developing  BAT,  EPA  has  given  substantial  weight to the
reasonableness of costs.  The Agency considered  the  volume  and
nature  of  discharges,  the  volume  and  nature  of  discharges
expected after application  of  BAT,  the  general  environmental
effects  of the pollutants, and the costs and economic impacts of
the   required   pollution   control   levels.    Despite    this
consideration  of  costs, the primary determinant of BAT is still
effluent reduction capability.

The  direct  dischargers  are  expected  to  move   directly   to
compliance  with  BAT limitations from existing treatment because
the flow reduction used to meet BAT limitations would  allow  the
use of smaller — and less expensive — lime and settle equipment
than  would  be  used  to  meet  BPT limitations without any flow
reduction.  The pollutants selected for regulation  at  BAT  are:
copper, lead, and iron.

Implementation  of  the  BAT  limitations will remove annually an
estimated 115,600 kilograms (254,000 pounds) of toxic metals  and
679,000 kilograms (1,494,000 pounds) per year of other pollutants
from  estimated  raw  waste  generation  at a capital cost, above
equipment in place, of $0.819 million and a total annual cost  of
$0.510  million  ($1983).  The Agency projects no plant closures,
employment impacts, or foreign trade effects and  has  determined
that the BAT limitations are economically achievable.

NSPS  -  NSPS (new source performance standards) are based on the
best available demonstrated, technology (BDT),  including  process
changes,    in-plant    controls,   and   end-of-pipe   treatment
technologies  which  reduce  pollution  to  the  maximum   extent
feasible.

EPA  is  establishing  the best available demonstrated technology
for the lead subcategory of the battery manufacturing category to
be equivalent to BAT technology with the addition  of  filtration

-------
prior to discharge.  The pollutants regulated at NSPS are copper,
lead, iron, oil and grease, total suspended solids (TSS), and pH.

EPA   estimates   that   a  new  direct  discharge  lead  battery
manufacturing plant having the industry average annual production
level for discharging plants would generate a raw waste of 14,500
kilograms  (31,800 pounds) per year of toxic pollutants.  The NSPS
technology would reduce the toxic pollutant discharge  levels  to
4.3 kilograms (9.5 pounds) per year.  The capital investment cost
for  a  new model lead battery manufacturing plant to install the
NSPS technology is estimated to be $0.119  million,  with  annual
costs of $0.069 million ($1983).  EPA believes that NSPS will not
constitute  a  barrier  to  entry  for new sources, prevent major
modifications to  existing  sources,  or  produce  other  adverse
economic effects.

PSES  -  PSES  (pretreatment  standards for existing sources) are
designed to  prevent  the  discharge  of  pollutants  which  pass
through,   interfere  with, or are otherwise incompatible with the
operation of POTW.  Pretreatment standards  are  technology-based
and  analogous  to  the  best available technology for removal of
toxic  pollutants.   EPA  is  promulgating  PSES  based  on   the
application  of  technology  equivalent to BAT, which consists of
end-of-pipe treatment comprised of oil skimming where  necessary,
and lime precipitation and settling.

The  Agency  has  concluded that the toxic metals regulated under
these standards (copper and lead) pass  through  the  POTW.   The
nationwide  average percentage of these toxic metals removed by a
well operated POTW meeting secondary treatment requirements is 58
percent  for  copper  and  48  percent  for  lead,  whereas   the
percentage  that  can  be removed by a lead battery manufacturing
direct  discharger  applying  the   best   available   technology
economically  achievable  is  expected  to  be  over  99 percent.
Accordingly, these pollutants pass through a POTW and  are  being
regulated  at PSES.

Implementation  of  the  PSES  will  remove annually an estimated
1,488,400  kilograms (3,274,500 pounds) of toxic  pollutants,  and
8,743,600  kilograms (19,235,900 pounds) of other pollutants from
estimated  raw waste.

To comply  with PSES, EPA estimates that total capital investment,
above equipment in place, would be $7.11 million and that  annual
costs  would  be  $4.07  million  ($1983), including interest and
depreciation.  The Agency has concluded that PSES is economically
achievable.

-------
PSNS - Like PSES, PSNS (pretreatment standards for  new  sources)
are established to prevent the discharge of pollutants which pass
through,  interfere  with, or are otherwise incompatible with the
operation of. the POTW.  New indirect dischargers, like new direct
dischargers,  have  the  opportunity  to  incorporate  the   best
available demonstrated technologies.

This   regulation   establishes  mass-based  PSNS  for  the  lead
subcategory of the battery manufacturing category.  The treatment
technology basis for the PSNS being promulgated is  identical  to
the  treatment  technology  set  forth  as the basis for the NSPS
being promulgated.   The  pollutants  regulated  under  PSNS  are
copper and lead.

New  source  model  plant  costs  were  estimated  for  the  lead
subcategory.  The  total  capital  investment  cost  for  a  lead
battery  manufacturing plant with the industry average production
level for discharging plants to install PSNS technology is $0.119
million with corresponding total annual costs of  $0.069  million
($1983).    This  new  lead  battery  manufacturing  plant  would
generate a raw  waste  load  of  approximately  14,500  kilograms
(31,800 pounds) per year of toxic pollutants and 84,900 kilograms
(186,900  pounds)  per  year of other pollutants.  Application of
PSNS technology would reduce the toxic pollutant discharge to 4.3
kilograms (9.5 pounds)  per  year  and  the  discharge  of  other
pollutants  to  42  kilograms (92 pounds) per year.  EPA does not
believe that PSNS will pose a barrier to entry for  new  indirect
sources.

BCT  -  BCT  effluent  limitations  for  .the lead .subcategory are
deferred pending adoption of the BCT cost test.

Nonwater Quality Environmental Impacts

Eliminating or reducing one form of  pollution  may  cause  other
environmental  problems.   Sections  304(b)  and  306  of the Act
require  EPA  to  consider  the  nonwater  quality  environmental
impacts  (including  energy  requirements).   In  compliance with
these provisions,  the  Agency  considered  the  effect  of  this
regulation  on  air  pollution, solid waste generation and energy
consumption.  The Administrator has determined that  the  impacts
identified  below  are  justified by the benefits associated with
compliance with the limitations and standards.

Imposition of BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS will not create  any
substantial   air   pollution  problems  because  the  wastewater
treatment technologies required to  meet  these  limitations  and
standards do not cause air pollution.

-------
EPA  estimates that battery manufacturing plants generated 18,960
kkg (87,000 tons) of solid wastes  per  year  from  manufacturing
process  operations,  and  an indeterminate amount of solid waste
from wastewater treatment because of  the  variable  technologies
currently practiced.  The solid wastes that would be generated at
battery   manufacturing  plants  by  lime  and  settle  treatment
technologies are be"li.eved to be not hazardous under Section  3001
of  the  Resource  Conservation  and  Recovery  Act (RCRA).  Only
wastewater treatment sludge generated  by  sulfide  precipitation
technology,  and  wastewater treatment sludges containing mercury
are likely to be hazardous  under  the  regulations  implementing
subtitle C of RCRA.

EPA  estimates  that  the achievement of BPT effluent limitations
for the lead  subcategory  will  result  in  a  net  increase*  in
electrical  energy  consumption  of  approximately '0.40  million
kilowatt-hours  per  year.   The  BAT  effluent  technology   are
projected  to  increase  electrical  energy  consumption  by 0.30
million kilowatt hours per year, slightly  less  than  BPT.   The
energy requirements for NSPS and PSNS are estimated to be similar
to energy requirements for BAT and PSES.

-------

-------
                           SECTION II

                         RECOMMENDATIONS


1.    EPA has divided  the  battery  manufacturing  category  into
eight  subcategories  for the purpose of effluent limitations and
standards.  These subcategories are:

          A.  Cadmium            E.  Lithium
          B,  Calcium            F,  Magnesium
          C.  Lead               G.  Zinc
          D.  Leclanche          H.  Nuclear

2.    These  subcategories  have  been  further  subdivided   into
process  elements  specific  to  basic  manufacturing  operations
within the  subcategory,  and  the  promulgated  regulations  are
specific  to  these  elements.   This volume (Volume II) presents
effluent limitations  and  standards  for  the  lead  subcategory
(Subcategory  C).   Effluent  limitations  and  standards for the
other battery subcategories of the battery manufacturing category
are presented in Volume I.

3.    The  following  effluent  limitations  are  promulgated  for
existing sources in the lead subcategory.


A.    Subcategory C - Lead

(a)  BPT Limitations

(1) Subpart C - Closed Formation - Double Fill, or Fill
                and Dump BPT Effluent Limitations


Pollutant or
Pollutant             Maximum for      Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used

Copper                   0.86                 0.45
Lead                     0.19                 0.090
Iron                     0.54                 0.27
Oil and Grease           9.00                 5.40
TSS                     18.45"                 8.78
pH             Within the range of 7.5 - 10.0 at all times
                               11

-------
(2) Subpart C - Open Formation - Dehydrated
                BPT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant             Maximum for      Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used

Copper                   20.99               11.05
Lead                      4.64                2.21
Iron                     16.13                6.74
Oil and Grease          221.00              132.60
TSS                     453.05              215.47
pH             Within the range of 7.5 - 10.0 at all times


(3) Subpart C - Open Formation - Wet
                BPT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant             Maximum for      Maximum for
Property	any one day	month 1 y average

Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used

Copper                   0.10                 0.05
Lead                     0.02                 0.01
Iron                     0.06                 0.03
Oil and Grease           1.06                 0.64
TSS                      2.17                 1.03
pH             Within the range of 7.5 - 10.0 at all times
                               12

-------
(4) Subpart C - Plate Soak
                BPT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant             Maximum for      Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly aye rage

Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used

Copper                   0.04                 0.02
Lead                     0.009                0.004
Iron                     0.03                 0.01
Oil and Grease           0.42                 0.25
TSS                      0.86                 0.41
pH             Within the range of 7.5 - 10.at all times
(5) Subpart C - Battery Wash (with Detergent)
                BPT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant             Maximum for      Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used

Copper                   1.71                 0.90
Lead                     0.38                 0.18
Iron                     1.08                 0.55
Oil and Grease          18.00                10.80
TSS                     36.90                17.55
pH             Within the range of 7.5 - 10.0 at all times
                               13

-------
(6) Subpart C - Battery Wash (Water Only)
                BPT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant
Pollutant
Property
or
            Maximum for
            any one day
Maximum
monthly
for
average
Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Copper
Lead
Iron
Oil and Grease
TSS
PH
               1,12
               0,25
               0,71
              11 ,80
              24.19
      0.59
      0.12
      0.36
      7,
     11
08
51
     Within the range of 7.5 - 10.0 at all times
(7) Subpart C - Direct Chill Lead Casting
                BPT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
            Maximum for
            any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Copper
Lead
Iron
Oil and Grease
TSS.
PH
               0.0004
               0.00008
               0.0002
               0.004
               0.008
     Within the range of 7.5
       0.0002
       0.00004
       0.0001
       0.002
       0.003
  10.at all times
                               14

-------
(8) Subpart C
 Mold Release Formulation
 BPT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
       Maximum for
       any one day
Maximum for
month1y average
Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Copper
Lead
Iron
Oil and Grease
TSS
pH
          0.011
          0.002
          0.00?
          0.120
          0.246
Within the range of 7.5 -
      0.006
      0.001
      0.004
      0.072
      0.117
  10.0 at all times
(9) Subpart C - Truck Wash
                BPT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
       Maximum for
       any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
Metric Units - mg/kg of lead in trucked batteries
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead in trucked
                batteries
Copper
Lead
Iron
Oil and Grease
TSS
pH
          0.026
          0.005
          0.016
          0.280
          0.574
Within the range of 7.5
       0,
       0,
       0,
       0,
       0.
014
002
008
168
273
- 10.at all times
                               15

-------
(10) Subpart C - Laundry
                BPT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
       Maximum for
       any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Copper
Lead
Iron
Oil and Grease
TSS
PH
          0.21
          0.05
          0.13
          2.18
          4.47
Within the range of 7.5
      0.11
      0.02
      0.07
      1 .31
      2.13
  10.0 at all times
(11) Subpart C - Miscellaneous Wastewater Streams
                BPT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
       Maximum for
       any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Copper
Lead
Iron
Oil and Grease
TSS
PH
          0.81
          0. 18
          0.51
          8.54
         17.51
       0.43
       0.09
         26
         12
0,
5,
8.33
Within the range of 7.5 - 10.0 at all times
There shall be no  discharge  allowance  for  process  wastewater
pollutants  from  any  battery manufacturing operation other than
those battery manufacturing operations listed above.
                               16

-------
(b)  BAT Limitations

O) Subpart C - Open Formation - Dehydrated
                BAT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
        Maximum  for
        any  one  day
Maximum for
monthly average
Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Copper
Lead
Iron
           3.19
           0.71
           2.02
      1 .68
      0.34
      1 .02
(2) Subpart C - Open Formation - Wet
                BAT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
        Maximum  for
        any one  day
Maximum for
monthly average
Metric Units -
English Units

Copper
Lead
Iron
 mg/kg  of  lead  used
- lb/1,000,000  Ib  of  lead used

           0.100
           0.022
           0.06
      0.053
      0.010
      0.03
(3) Subpart C -
  Plate Soak
  BAT  Effluent  Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
        Maximum for
        any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
Metric Units -
English Units

Copper
Lead
Iron
 mg/kg  of  lead used
- lb/1,000,000 Ib of  lead used

           0.039
           0.008
           0.030
      0.021
      0.004
      0.010
                               17

-------
(4) Subpart C -
 Battery  Wash  (Detergent)
 BAT  Effluent  Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
        Maximum  for
        any  one  day
Maximum for
monthly average
Metric Units •
English Units

Copper
Lead
Iron
 mg/kg  of  lead  used
- lb/1,000,000  Ib  of  lead  used

           0.86
           0.19
           0.54
      0.45
      0.09
      0.27
(5) Subpart C -
  Direct  Chill  Lead  Casting
  BAT  Effluent  Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
        Maximum  for
        any  one  day
Maximum for
monthly average
Metric Units -
English Units

Copper
Lead
Iron
 mg/kg  of  lead  used
- lb/1,000,000  Ib  of  lead  used

           0.0004
           0.00008
           0.0002
      0.0002
      0.00004
      0.0001
(6) Subpart C -
  Mold  Release  Formulation
  BAT Effluent  Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
        Maximum  for
        any  one  day
Maximum for
monthly average
Metric Units -
English Units

Copper
Lead
Iron
 mg/kg  of  lead  used
- lb/1,000,000  Ib  of  lead  used

           0.011
           0.002
           0.007
      0.006
      0.001
      0.003
                               18

-------
(7) Subpart C -
  Truck Wash
  BAT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
       Maximum  for
       any one  day
Maximum for
monthly average
Metric Units -
English Units
Copper
Lead
Iron
 mg/kg of  lead  in  trucked  batteries
- lb/1,000,000  Ib  of  lead  in  trucked
  batteries
           0.026
           0.005
           0.016
      0.014
      0.002
      0.008
(8) Subpart C -
  Laundry
  BAT  Effluent  Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
        Maximum for
        any  one day
Maximum for
monthly average
Metric Units -
English Units

Copper
Lead
Iron
 mg/kg  of  lead  used
- lb/1,000,000  Ib of  lead  used

           0.21
           0.05
           0.13
      0.11
      0.02
      0.07
                               19

-------
(9) Subpart C - Miscellaneous Wastewater Streams
                BAT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
              Maximum for
              any one day
               Maximum for
               monthly average
Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Copper
Lead
Iron
                 0.58
                 0.13
                 0.37
                     0.31
                     0.06
                     0. 19
There shall be no  discharge  allowance  for  process  wastewater
pollutants  from  any  battery manufacturing operation other than
those battery manufacturing operations listed above.

4.   The following standards are promulgated for new sources.
A.   Subcategory C - Lead

(1) Subpart C - Open Formation - Dehydrated - NSPS
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
              Maximum for
              any one day
               Maximum for
               monthly average
Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Copper
Lead
Iron
Oil and
TSS
pH
Grease
 2,
 0,
 2,
16,
25,
15
47
01
80-
20
       Within the limits of 7.5 -
   1 .02
   0.21
   1 .02
  16.80
  20.16
10.0  at all  times
                               20

-------
(2) Subpart C - Open Formation - Wet - NSPS
Pollutant or
Pollutant'
Property	
              Maximum for
              any one day
             Maximum for
             monthly average
Metric Dnits - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead
Copper
Lead
Iron
Oil and Grease
TSS
pH
                 0.067
                 0.014
                 0.063
                 0.53
                 0.80
       Within the limits of 7.5
               used

                   0.032
                   0.006
                   0.032
                   0.53
                   0.64
              • 10.0 at all times
(3) Subpart C - Plate Soak - NSPS
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
              Maximum for
              any one day
             Maximum for
             monthly average
Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Copper
Lead
Iron
Oil and
TSS
pH
Grease
       Within the
.026
.005
.025
.21
.32
1imits
of 7.5 -
   0.012
   0.002
   0.-012
   0.21
   0.25
10.0 at  all times
(4) Subpart C - Battery Wash (Detergent) - NSPS
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
              Maximum for
              any one day
             Maximum for
             monthly average
Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Copper
Lead
Iron
Oil and Grease
                 0.576
                 0.126
                 0.540
                 4.50
                   0.274
                   0.058
                   0.274
                   4.50
                               21

-------
TSS
pH
          6.75                5.40
Within the limits of 7.5 - 10.0 at all times
(5) Subpart C - Direct Chill Lead Casting - NSPS
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
       Maximum for
       any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/l,000,OQO Ib of lead
Copper
Lead
Iron
Oil and Grease
TSS
pH
          0.000256
          0.000056
          0.000240
          0.0020
          0.0030
Within the limits of 7.5
  used

      0
      0
      0
      0
      0
  - 10.0
,000122
,000026
,000122
,0020
,0024
 at  all
times
(6) Subpart C - Mold Release Formulation - NSPS
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
       Maximum for
       any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Copper
Lead
Iron
Oil and Grease
TSS
pH
          0.0077
          0.0017
          0.0072
          0.060
          0.090
Within the limits of 7.5
      0.0037
      0.0008
      0.0037
      0.060
      0.072
   10.0 at all times
                               22

-------
(7) Subpart C - Truck Wash - NSPS
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
       Maximum for
       any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
Metric Units - mg/kg of lead in trucked batteries
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead in trucked
                batteries
Copper
Lead
Iron
Oil and Grease
TSS
pH
          0.006
          0.001
          0.006
          0.050
          0.075
Within the limits of 7.5
      0.003
      0.0007
      0.003
      0.050
      0.060
   10.0 at all times
(8) Subpart C - Laundry - NSPS
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
       Maximum for
       any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Copper
Lead
Iron
Oil and Grease
TSS
pH
          0.14
          0.03
          0.13
          1 .09
          1 .64
        07
        01
        07
        09
        31
Within the limits of 7.5 - 10.0 at all times
                               23

-------
(9) Subpart C - Miscellaneous Wastewater Streams - NSPS


Pollutant or
Pollutant             Maximum for      Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead  used

Copper                   0,39                0.19
Lead                     0.085               0.039
Iron                     0.37                0.19
Oil and Grease           3.07                3.07
TSS                      4.61                3.69
pH             Within the limits of 7.5 - 10.0 at all times

There shall be no  discharge  allowance  for  process  wastewater
pollutants  from  any  battery manufacturing operation other than
those battery manufacturing operations listed above.

5.  The following  pretreatment  standards  are  promulgated  for
existing sources,


A.   Subcategory C - Lead

(1) Subpart C - Open Formation - Dehydrated - PSES
Pollutant or
Pollutant             Maximum for      Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - Ib/.l ,000,000 Ib of lead used

Copper                   3.19                1.68
Lead                     0.71                0.34
                               24

-------
(2) Subpart C - Open Formation - Wet - PSES
Pollutant or
Pollutant             Maximum for      Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used

Copper                   0.100               0.053
Lead                     0.022               0.010
(3) Subpart C - Plate Soak - PSES
Pollutant or
Pollutant             Maximum for      Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used

Copper                   0.039               0.021
Lead                     0.008               0.004

(4) Subpart C - Battery Wash - Detergent - PSES
Pollutant or
Pollutant             Maximum for      Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used

Copper                   0.86                0.45
Lead                     0.19                0.09
                               25

-------
(5) Subpart C - Direct Chill Lead Casting - PSES
Pollutant or
Pollutant             Maximum for      Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used

Copper                   0.0004              0.0002
Lead                     0.00008             0.00004
(6) Subpart C - Mold Release Formulation - PSES
Pollutant or
Pollutant             Maximum for      Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used

Copper                   0.011               0.006
Lead                     0.002               0.001
(7) Subpart C - Truck Wash - PSES
Pollutant or
Pollutant             Maximum for      Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

Metric Units - mg/kg of lead in trucked batteries
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead in trucked
                batteries

Copper                   0.026               0.014
Lead                     0.005               0.002
                               26

-------
(8) Subpart C - Laundry - PSES
Pollutant or
Pollutant             Maximum for      Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used

Copper                   0.21                0.11
Lead                     0.05                0.02


(9) Subpart C - Miscellaneous Wastewater Streams - PSES


Pollutant or
Pollutant             Maximum for      Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used

Copper                   0.58                0.31
Lead                     0.13                0.06

There shall be no  discharge  allowance  for  process  wastewater
pollutants  from  any  battery manufacturing operation other than
those battery manufacturing operations listed.above.

6.  The following pretreatment standards are promulgated for  new
sources.


A.   Subcategory C - Lead

(1) Subpart C - Open Formation - Dehydrated - PSNS


Pollutant or
Pollutant             Maximum for      Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead  used

Copper                   2.15                1.02
Lead                     0.47                0.21
                               -27

-------
(2) Subpart C - Open Formation - Wet - PSNS
Pollutant or
Pollutant             Maximum for      Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used

Copper                   0.067               0.032
Lead                     0.014               0.006
(3)  Subpart C - Plate Soak - PSNS
Pollutant or
Pollutant             Maximum for      Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used

Copper                   0.026               0.012
Lead                     0.005               0.002
(4) Subpart C - Battery Wash - Detergent - PSNS
Pollutant or
Pollutant             Maximum for      Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used

Copper                   0.576               0.274
Lead                     0.126               0.058
                               28

-------
(5)  Subpart C - Direct Chill Lead Casting - PSNS
Pollutant or
Pollutant             Maximum for      Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used

Copper                   0.000256            0.000122
Lead                     0.000056            0.000026
(6) Subpart C - Mold Release Formulation - PSNS
Pollutant or
Pollutant             Maximum for      Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used

Copper                   0.007               0.0037
Lead                     0.0017              0.0008
(7)  Subpart C - Truck Wash - PSNS
Pollutant or
Pollutant             Maximum for      Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

Metric Units - mg/kg of lead in trucked batteries
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead in trucked
                batteries

Copper                   0.006               0.003
Lead                     0.001               0.0007
                               29

-------
(8) Subpart C - Laundry - PSNS
Pollutant or
Pollutant             Maximum for      Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used

Copper                   0.14                0.07
Lead                     0.03                0.01


(9)  Subpart C - Miscellaneous Wastewater Streams -PSNS


Pollutant or
Pollutant             Maximum for      Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used

Copper                   0.39                0.19
Lead                     0.085               0.039

There shall be no  discharge  allowance  for  process  wastewater
pollutants  from  any battery manufacturing operations other than
those battery manufacturing operations listed above.

7.  Effluent limitations based on the best conventional pollutant
control technology are reserved at this time.
                               30-

-------
                           SECTION III

                          INTRODUCTION


This section provides an overview of the legal background of  the
Clean  Water  Act/ and of the technical background of the battery
category.  Volumes I and II include general information  for  the
entire  category in this section.  Volume I also includes a brief
technical  description  of  the  cadmium,   calcium,   Leclanche,
lithium,  magnesium, and zinc subcategories whereas only the lead
subcategory is discussed in Volume II.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

This report  is  a  technical  background  document  prepared  to
support  effluent  limitations  and  standards under authority of
Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, and 501 of the Clean Water  Act
(Federal  Water  Pollution  Control  Act,  as Amended, (the Clean
Water Act or the Act).  These effluent limitations and  standards
are in partial fulfillment of the Settlement Agreement in Natural
Resources  Defense  Council,  Inc.  v.  Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C.
1976), modified 12 ERC 1833 (D.D.C.  1979),  modified  by  orders
dated October 26, 1982, August 2, 1983 and January 6, 1984.  This
document  also  fulfills  the requirements of sections 304(b) and
(c) of the Act.  These sections require the Administrator,  after
consultation  with  appropriate  Federal  and  State Agencies and
other interested persons, to issue information on the  processes,
procedures,  or operating methods which result in the elimination
or  reduction  of  the  discharge  of  pollutants   through   the
application  of the best practicable control technology currently
available, the best available technology economically achievable,
and through the implementation of standards of performance  under
Section 306 of the Act (New Source Performance Standards).

Background

The Clean Water Act

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.  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  limitations
requiring  the  application  of  the  best  available  technology
economically  achievable  	  which  will  result  in reasonable
                               31

-------
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
sources  which introduce pollutants into publicly owned treatment
works  (POTW)  were  subject  to  pretreatment  standards   under
Sections  307(b)  and (c) of the Act.  While the requirements for
direct  dischargers  were  to  be  incorporated   into   National
Pollutant  Discharge  Elimination  System  (NPDES) permits issued
under Section 402 of the Act, pretreatment  standards  were  made
enforceable  directly against any owner or operator of any source
which introduces pollutants into  POTW (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
EPA.  Section 304(b) of the Act  required  the  Administrator  to
promulgate   regulations   providing   guidelines   for  effluent
limitations  setting  forth  the  degree  of  effluent  reduction
attainable  through  the  application  of BPT and BAT.  Moreover,
Section 306 of the Act requires promulgation of  regulations  for
NSPS.   Sections 304(g), 307(b), and 307(c) required promulgation
of regulations for pretreatment standards.  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  pollutants.
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. v. Train, 8 ERC 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
priority   pollutant   control.    Sections   301(b)(2)(A)    and
                               32

-------
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)(E)  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).    The  cost  methodology  for  BCT  has  not   been
promulgated  and  BCT  is  presently  deferred.   For  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  effluent guidelines for battery manufacturing were developed
from data obtained from previous EPA  studies,  literature  sear-
ches,  and a plant survey and evaluation.  Initially, information
from EPA records  was  collected  and  a  literature  search  was
conducted.   This  information was then catalogued in the form of
individual  plant  summaries  describing   processes   performed,
production  rates,  raw  materials utilized, wastewater treatment
practices, water uses and wastewater characteristics.

In addition  to  providing  a  quantitative  description  of  the
battery  manufacturing  category,  this  information  was used to
determine if the characteristics of the category as a whole  were
uniform  and thus amenable to one set of effluent limitations and
standards.  Since the characteristics of the plants in  the  data
                               33

-------
base  and  the wastewater generation and discharge varied widely,
the  establishment  of  subcategories  was   determined   to   be
necessary.   The  initial  subcategorization  was  made  by using
recognized battery type as the subcategory description:

     Lead Acid                          .    Carbon-Zinc (Air)
     Nickel-Cadmium (Wet Process)       .    Silver Oxide-Zinc
     Nickel-Cadmium (Dry Process)       .    Magnesium Cell
     Carbon-Zinc (Paper)                .    Nickel-Zinc
     Carbon-Zinc (Paste)                .    Lithium Cell
     Mercury (Ruben)                    .    Mercury (Weston)
     Alkaline-Manganese                 .    Lead Acid Reserve
     Magnesium-Carbon                   .    Miniature Alkaline

To supplement existing data, EPA sent a data collection portfolio
(dcp) under  authority  of  Section  308  of  the  Federal  Water
Pollution   Control  Act,  as  amended,  to  each  known  battery
manufacturing  company.   In  addition  to  existing  and   plant
supplied  information  (via  dcp),  data  were obtained through a
sampling program conducted at selected sites.  Sampling consisted
of a screening program at one plant for each listed battery  type
plus  verification  at  up  to  5  plants  for each type.  Screen
sampling was used to select pollutant parameters for analysis  in
the  second or verification phase of the program.  The designated
priority pollutants (65 toxic  pollutants)  and  typical  battery
manufacturing  pollutants  formed  the  basic list for screening.
Verification sampling and analysis was conducted to determine the
source and quantity of the selected pollutant parameters in  each
subcategory.

Conventional  nomenclature  of  batteries  provided little aid in
development of 'effluent limitations and standards.  SIC groupings
are inadequate because they are based  on  the  end  use  of  the
product,   not  composition  of  the  product,  or  manufacturing
processes.  Based on the information provided by the  literature,
dcp,   and   the   sampling  program,  the  initial  approach  to
subcategorization  using  battery  type  was  reviewed.   Of  the
initial  16 battery types no production of mercury (Weston) cells
was found.  The miniature alkaline type was dropped because it is
not a specific battery type but merely a size distinction  invol-
ving  several  battery  types  (e.g.,  alkaline-manganese, silver
oxide-zinc,  and  mercury-zinc  (Ruben)).   In  addition  to  the
original  battery  types,  the  dcp's  disclosed seven additional
battery  types  (silver  chloride-zinc,   silver   oxide-cadmium,
mercury-cadmium,  mercury  and  silver-zinc, mercury and cadmium-
zinc, thermal, and nuclear).  Nuclear  batteries,  however,  have
not  been  manufactured  since  1978.   Since  they  constitute a
distinct  subcategory,   they   have   been   included   in   the
subcategorization discussion, but have not been considered in the
                               34

-------
battery  documents.   Mercury  and silver-zinc batteries have not
been manufactured since 1977, but  do  not  constitute  a  single
subcategory  and  therefore  will be discussed where appropriate.
The other five additional battery types  are  considered  in  the
battery documents.

An analysis of production methods, battery structure and electro-
lytic couple variations for each battery type revealed that there
are  theoretically  about  600  distinct  variations  that  could
require further subgrouping.  Based on dcp  responses  and  plant
visits,   over  200  distinct  variations  have  been  positively
identified.  Because of the large number of  potential  subgroup-
ings   associated  with  subcategorization  by  battery  type,  a
subcategorization  basis  characterizing  these  variations   was
sought.   Grouping  by anode material accomplishes this objective
and results in the following subcategories:

          Anode Material           Designation for Battery Documents*

     Cadmium Anode                           Cadmium
     Calcium Anode                           Calcium
     Lead Anode                  "            Lead
     Zinc Anode, Acid Electrolyte            Leclanche
     Lithium Anode                           Lithium
     Magnesium Anode              .           Magnesium
     Zinc Anode, Alkaline Electrolyte        Zinc
     Radioisotopes                           Nuclear

*    All subcategories except for lead are discussed in detail in
     Volume I and the lead subcategory is discussed in Volume II.

As discussed fully in Section IV, the zinc anode is divided  into
two  groups  based  on  electrolyte  type  because of substantial
differences in  manufacture  and  wastes  generated  by  the  two
groups.   As  detailed in Sections IV and V, further segmentation
using a  matrix  approach  is  necessary  to  fully  detail  each
subcategory.   Specific  manufacturing process elements requiring
control for each subcategory are presented in. Section IV followed
by a detailed technical discussion in Section V.

After establishing subcategorization,  the  available  data  were
analyzed  to  determine  wastewater generation and mass discharge
rates in terms of production for each subcategory.   In  addition
to evaluating pollutant generation and discharges, the full range
of control and treatment technologies existing within the battery
manufacturing category was identified.  This was done considering
the  pollutants  to  be  treated  and the chemical, physical, and
biological  characteristics   of   these   pollutants.    Special
attention  was  paid  to  in-process  technologies  such  as  the
                               35

-------
recovery and reuse of process solutions, the recycle  of  process
water, and the curtailment of water use.

The  information as outlined above was then evaluated in order to
determine what levels of technology were appropriate as  a  basis
for  effluent  limitations for existing sources based on the best
practicable control technology currently available  (BPT) and best
available technology economically achievable  (BAT).   Levels  of
technology  appropriate for pretreatment of wastewater introduced
into a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) from  both  new  and
existing  sources  were  also  identified  as were the new source
performance standards (NSPS) based on best  demonstrated  control
technology,  processes,  operating methods, or other alternatives
(BDT) for the control of direct discharges from new sources.   In
evaluating  these  technologies  various factors were considered.
These included treatment technologies from other industries,  any
pretreatment  requirements,  the total cost of application of the
technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits  to  be
achieved, the age of equipment and plants involved, the processes
employed,  the  engineering aspects of the application of various
types of control technique process changes, and non-water quality
environmental impact (including energy requirements).

Sources of Industry Data

Data on  battery  manufacturing  were  gathered  from  literature
studies,  previous  industry studies by the Agency, plant surveys
and evaluations,  and  inquiries  to  waste  treatment  equipment
manufacturers.  These data sources are discussed below.

Literature  Study  -  Published  literature in the form of books,
reports,  papers,  periodicals,  and  promotional  materials  was
examined.  The most informative sources are listed in Section XV.
The   material  research  covered  battery  chemistry,  the  man-
ufacturing processes utilized in  producing  each  battery  type,
waste  treatment  technology,  and  the  specific market for each
battery type.

EPA Studies - A previous preliminary and unpublished EPA study of
the battery manufacturing segment was reviewed.  The  information
included a summary of the industry describing:  the manufacturing
processes  for  each  battery  type;  the  waste  characteristics
associated   with   this   manufacture;   recommended   pollutant
parameters  requiring  control;  applicable end-of-pipe treatment
technologies for wastewaters from the manufacture of each battery
type; effluent characteristics resulting from this treatment; and
a background bibliography.  Also  included  in  these  data  were
detailed  production and sampling information on approximately 20
manufacturing plants.
                               36

-------
Plant Survey and Evaluation -  The  initial  collection  of  data
pertaining  to  facilities  that manufacture batteries was a two-
phased operation.  First, a mail survey was conducted by EPA.   A
dcp  was  mailed to each company in the country known or believed
to manufacture batteries.  This dcp included sections for general
plant data, specific production process  data,  waste  management
process  data,  raw  and treated wastewater data, waste treatment
cost information, and priority  pollutant  information  based  on
1976  production  records.  A total of 226 dcp were mailed.  From
this survey, it was determined that 133  companies  were  battery
manufacturers,  including full line manufacturers and assemblers.
Of the remaining 93 data requests that were mailed,  9  companies
were  no  longer  manufacturing  batteries,  15  were returned as
undeliverable, and 69 companies were in other business areas.

For clarification, the following terminology is  used  throughout
the battery manufacturing documents.  Battery manufacturing sites
are  physical  locations  where  battery  manufacturing processes
occur.  Battery plants are locations  where  subcategory-specific
battery  manufacturing  processes  occur.  Battery facilities are
locations where final battery type products or  their  components
are  produced  and is primarily used for economic analysis of the
category.  In the survey, some plants responded with 1977 or 1978
data,  and  some  provided  1976  data  although  production  has
subsequently ceased.  Table III-l (page 63) summarizes the survey
responses  received  in  terms  of number of plants that provided
information in each subcategory.  Another  column  was  added  to
include information obtained in the survey, by phone or by actual
plant  visit, that a plant was no longer active in a subcategory.
The total number of  plant  responses  is  larger  than  the  133
company  responses,  since many companies own more than one plant
and information was requested on each site owned or  operated  by
the company.  Also, some sites manufacture batteries in more than
one  subcategory; four are active in three subcategories and nine
are active in two subcategories.  Due to changes in ownership and
changes in production lines, the  number  of  companies  and  the
number  of  plants  and  sites active in the category often vary.
The result is that about 230 sites are currently included  in this
category.  All information received was reviewed  and  evaluated,
and will be discussed as appropriate in subsequent sections.

The  second phase of the data collection effort included visiting
selected plants,  for  screening  and  verification  sampling  of
wastewaters  from  battery  manufacturing  operations.   The  dcp
served as the  major  source  in  the  selection  of  plants  for
visitation   and  sampling.   Specific  criteria  used  for  site
selection included:
                               37

-------
1.    Distributing visits according to the type of  battery  manu-
     factured.

2.    Distributing visits among various manufacturers of each bat-
     tery type.

3.    Selecting plants whose production processes  were  represen-
     tative  of  the  processes performed at many plants for each
     subcategory.  Consideration was also  given  to  the  under-
     standing  of  unique  processes or treatment not universally
     practiced but applicable to the industry in general.

4.    A plant's knowledge of its production  processes  and  waste
     treatment system as indicated in the dcp.

5.    The presence of wastewater treatment or  water  conservation
     practices.

Prior   to   proposal  forty-eight  plants  were  visited  and  a
wastewater sampling program was conducted at twenty-four of these
plants.  The sampling program at  each  plant  consisted  of  two
activities:  first,  the collection of technical information, and
second, water sampling and analysis.  The  technical  information
gathering  effort  centered around a review and completion of the
dcp to obtain historical data as  well  as  specific  information
pertinent  to the time of the sampling.  In addition to this, the
following specific technical  areas  were  covered  during  these
visits.

1.    Water use for each process step and waste constituents.

2.    Water conservation techniques.

3.    In-process waste treatment and control technologies.

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

5.    Particular  pollutant  parameters  which   plant   personnel
     thought would be found in the waste stream.

6.    Any problems or  situations  peculiar  to  the  plant  being
     visited.


All of the samples collected were kept on ice throughout each day
of  sampling.   At  the  end  of each day, samples were preserved
according to EPA protocol and sent to laboratories  for  analysis
per  EPA  protocol.   Details of this analysis and of the overall
                               38

-------
sampling program results are  described  in  Section  V  of  this
document.

After proposal, EPA made a second intensive study of lead battery
manufacturing    (lead    subcategory),    and   foliar   battery
manufacturing (Leclanche subcategory).  Seventeen additional lead
plants were visited and five were sampled.  One foliar plant  was
also  visited.   Plant  supplied  data  from  65  lead plants was
updated using an industry survey form.  This additional  data  is
reported  in  Section  V, (Volume I for the Leclanche subcategory
and Volume II for the Lead subcategory).

Waste Treatment Equipment Manufacturers -  Various  manufacturers
of  waste  treatment equipment were contacted by phone or visited
to determine cost and performance data on specific  technologies.
Information  collected  was based both on manufacturers' research
and on in-situ operation at plants that were  often  not  battery
manufacturers   but   had   similar   wastewater  characteristics
(primarily toxic metal wastes).

Utilization of Industry Data

Data collected from the previously  described  sources  are  used
throughout  this  report in the development of a base for BPT and
BAT limitations, and NSPS and pretreatment  standards. .  Previous
EPA  studies and information in the literature provided the basis
for the initial battery subcategorization  discussed  in  Section
IV.   This  subcategorizat'ion  was  further  refined  to an anode
grouping basis as the result of  information  obtained  from  the
plant  survey and evaluation.  Raw wastewater characteristics for
each subcategory  presented  in  Section  V  were  obtained  from
screening and verification sampling because raw waste information
from  other  sources was so fragmented and incomplete that it was
unusable.  Selection of pollutant parameters for control (Section
VI) was based on both dcp responses and  plant  sampling.   These
provided information on both the pollutants which plant personnel
felt would be in their wastewater discharges and those pollutants
specifically  found  in  battery manufacturing wastewaters as the
result  of  sampling.   Based  on  the  selection  of  pollutants
requiring   control   and   their  levels,  applicable  treatment
technologies were identified and then studied  and  discussed  in
Section   VII   of   this   document.    Actual  waste  treatment
technologies utilized by battery plants (as identified in dcp and
seen on plant visits)  were  also  used  to  identify  applicable
treatment  technologies.   The cost of treatment (both individual
technologies and systems) based primarily on data from  equipment
manufacturers  is  contained  in  Section  VIII of this document.
Finally, dcp data and sampling data are utilized in Sections  IX,
X, XI, XII, and XIII (BPT, BAT, NSPS, Pretreatment, and BCT, res-
                               39

-------
pectively)  for the selection of applicable treatment systems and
the  presentation  of  achievable  effluent  levels  and   actual
effluent  levels  obtained for each battery subcategory discussed
in the two volumes.

INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION

Background

The industry covered by  this  document  makes  modular  electric
power  sources  where part or all of the fuel is contained within
the unit.  Electric power is generated directly from  a  chemical
reaction  rather  than  indirectly  through  a heat cycle engine.
Batteries using a  radioactive  decay  source  where  a  chemical
reaction is part of the operating system were considered.

Historical  -  Electrochemical batteries and cells were assembled
by Alessandro Volta as early as 1798.  His work establishing  the
relationship between chemical and electrical energy came 12 years
after  the  discovery  of  the galvanic cell by Galvani, and 2000
years after the use of devices in the  Middle  East,  which  from
archeological  evidence, appear to be galvanic cells.  Volta used
silver and zinc electrodes in salt water  for  his  cells.   Soon
after  Volta's experiments, Davy, and then Faraday, used galvanic
cells  to  carry  out  electrolysis  studies.   In  1836  Daniell
invented  the  cell  which  now bears his name.  He used a copper
cathode in copper sulfate solution separated by a porous cup from
a  solution  of  zinc  sulfate  in  dilute  sulfuric  acid  which
contained  the amalgamated zinc anode.  In 1860, Plante presented
to the French Academy of Sciences the lead acid  storage  battery
he  had developed, and in 1868 Leclanche developed the forerunner
of the modern dry cell.  Leclanche used an amalgamated zinc anode
and a carbon cathode surrounded by manganese dioxide and immersed
both in an ammonium chloride solution.  The portable dry cell was
developed in the late 1880s  by  Gassner  who  prepared  a  paste
electrolyte  of zinc oxide, ammonium chloride and water in a zinc
can, inserted the carbon rod and manganese dioxide,  then  sealed
the   top   with   plaster  of  Paris.   The  cell  was  produced
commercially.   Several  other   acid-electrolyte   cells   using
amalgamated  zinc  anodes  and  carbon  or  platinum cathodes saw
limited use prior to 1900.

Lalande and Chaperon developed a  caustic  soda  primary  battery
about  1880  which  was  used  extensively  for  railroad  signal
service.  Amalgamated zinc anodes and cupric oxide cathodes  were
immersed  in  a  solution of sodium hydroxide.  A layer of oil on
the surface of the electrolyte prevented  evaporation  of  water,
and the formation of solid sodium carbonate by reaction of carbon
                               40

-------
dioxide  in the air with the caustic soda electrolyte.  Batteries
with capacities to 1000 ampere hours were available.

A s-torage battery of great commercial importance during the first
half of this century was the Edison cell.  Although the system is
not manufactured today, a  large  volume  of  research  is  being
directed  toward  making  it  a workable automotive power source.
The  system  consists  of  iron   anodes,   potassium   hydroxide
electrolyte,  and nickel hydroxide cathodes.  The iron powder was
packed in flat "pockets"  of  nickel-plated  steel  strips.   The
nickel  hydroxide,  with  layers  of  nickel  flakes  to  improve
conductivity, was packed in tubes of nickel-plated steel  strips.
The  batteries  were  rugged  and  could withstand more extensive
charge-discharge cycling than lead acid storage batteries.  Their
greater cost kept them from replacing lead acid batteries.

Another cell only recently displaced from the  commercial  market
is  the  Weston cell.  For decades the Weston cell, consisting of
an amalgamated cadmium anode and a mercurous sulfate cathode in a
cadmium  sulfate  solution,  was  used  as  a  voltage  reference
standard  in  industrial  instruments.  Introduction of new solid
state devices and circuits has displaced  the  Weston  cell  from
most  of  its former industrial applications, and it is no longer
commercially available.

New battery systems are  introduced  even  today.   In  the  past
decade  implantable  lithium  batteries  have  been developed for
heart pacemakers, tens of thousands of which are  in  use.   Huge
development  programs  have  been  funded  for  electric  powered
automobiles.  The liquid sodium-liquid sulfur system  is  one  of
the  new "exotic" systems being studied.  Advancing technology of
materials coupled with new applications requirements will  result
in development of even newer systems as well as the redevelopment
of  older  systems for new applications.  Figure III-l (page 68),
graphically illustrates the amplitude of systems in use or  under
development  in  1975  for  rechargeable batteries.  This plot of
theoretical specific energy versus equivalent weight of reactants
clearly shows the  reason  for  present  intensive  developmental
efforts  on  lithium and sodium batteries, and the Edison battery
(Fe/NiOOH) and the zinc-nickel oxide battery.

Battery Definitions and Terminology  -  Batteries  are  named  by
various  systems.   Classification systems include end-use, size,
shape, anode-cathode couple, inventor's name,  electrolyte  type,
and  usage mode.  Thus a flashlight battery  (end-use), might also
be properly referred to as a D-Cell (size),  a  cylindrical  cell
(shape),  a zinc-manganese dioxide cell (anode-cathode couple), a
Leclanche cell (inventor), an acid cell (electrolyte type), and a
primary cell (usage mode), depending  on  the  context.   In  the
                               41

-------
strictest  sense,  a  cell  contains only one anode-cathode pair,
whereas a battery is an assemblage of cells connected  in  series
to produce a greater voltage, or in parallel to produce a greater
current.   Common usage has blurred the distinction between these
terms, and frequently the term battery is applied to any finished
entity sold as a single unit, whether it contains one cell, as do
most flashlight batteries, or several  cells,  as  do  automobile
batteries.   In  these  documents  the  marketed  end  product is
usually referred to as a battery.  Manufacturing flow charts  and
construction diagrams reveal the actual assembly details.

In the battery documents, the terms "battery" and "cell" are used
only  for  self-contained  galvanic  devices, i.e., those devices
which convert chemical energy to electrical energy and  which  do
not  require  a  separate chemical reservoir for operation of the
device.  Cells where one of  the  reacting  materials  is  oxygen
supplied  by  the  atmosphere  in  which  the  cell  operates are
included as well as cells  which  contain  all  of  the  reacting
chemicals  as  part of the device.  In some literature, reference
is made to electrolysis cells or batteries of electrolysis cells.
Those devices are for chemical production or  metal  winning  and
are  not  covered  by  this  discussion.   Fuel  cells,  although
functioning as  galvanic  devices,  must  be  supplied  with  the
chemical  energy  from an external source, and are not considered
in this document.

The essential parts of an  electrochemical  cell  designed  as  a
portable  source  of  electrical power are the same regardless of
the size of the unit.  From the smallest cell used in a watch  to
the  massive storage batteries used in telephone branch exchanges
there  is  an  anode,  sometimes  called  the  negative plate,  a
cathode,  also  called  the positive plate, and electrolyte.  The
anode and cathode are referred to by the general term electrodes.
One or both electrodes consist of a support or grid which  serves
as  a  mechancial  support  and currentcollector, and the active
material which actually  undergoes  electrochemical  reaction  to
produce  the  current  and  voltage  characteristics of the cell.
Sometimes the active material is the electrode structure  itself.
The combination of an inert current collecting support and active
material  is  an  electrode system.   For  convenience,  in  this
document as well as in many publications, the  terms  cathode  or
anode   are   used   to   designate  the  cathode system  or  the
anodesystem.

Most  practical  modern  batteries  contain   insulating   porous
separators  between  the  electrodes.   The resulting assembly of
electrodes and electrolyte is contained in a protective case, and
terminals attached to the cathode and anode are held in place  by
an insulating material.
                               42

-------
The  operating  characteristics  of  a  battery  are described by
several different parameters  referred  to  collectively  as  the
battery  performance.   Voltage  and  current  will vary with the
electrical load placed on the battery.  In  some  batteries,  the
voltage  will  remain  relatively constant as the load is changed
because internal resistance and  electrode polarization  are  not
large.   Polarization  is  the  measure of voltage decrease at an
electrode when current density is increased.  Current density  is
the   current  produced  by  a  specified  area  of  electrode
frequently milliamperes per square centimeter.  Thus, the  larger
the  electrode  surface  the  greater the current produced by the
cell unit at a given voltage.

Battery  power  is  the  instantaneous  product  of  current  and
voltage.  Specific power is the power per unit weight of battery;
power density  is the power per unit volume.  Watts per pound and
watts per cubic foot, are common measures  of  these  performance
characteristics.   Power  delivered by any battery depends on how
it is being used, but  to  maximize  the  power  delivered  by  a
battery the operating voltage must be substantially less than the
open-circuit or no-load voltage.  A power curve is sometimes used
to  characterize  battery performance under load, but because the
active materials are being consumed, the power curve will  change
with  time.  Because batteries are self-contained power supplies,
additional ratings of specific energy and energy density must  be
specified.    These   are   commonly   measured   in   units   of
watthours per pound and  watthours per cubic foot,  respectively.
These  latter  measures  characterize  the total energy available
from the battery under specified operating conditions  and  allow
comparison  of  the  ability of different battery systems to meet
the requirements of a given application.  Figure III-2 (page  69)
illustrates how these measures of performance are used to compare
battery  systems  with  each  other  and  with  alternative power
sources.

The  suitability  of  a  battery  for  a  given  application   is
determined  not  only by its voltage and current characteristics,
and the  available  power  and  energy.   In  many  applications,
storage  characteristics  and  the  length of time during which a
battery may be operational are also important.   The  temperature
dependence  of  battery  performance  is  also important for some
applications.  Storage characteristics of batteries are  measured
by  shelf-life  and  by  self-discharge,  the  rate  at which the
available stored energy decreases over time.   Self-discharge  is
generally  measured  in  percent  per  unit  time  and is usually
dependent on temperature.  In some battery types,  self-discharge
differs  during storage and use of the battery.  For rechargeable
cells, cycle-life, the number of times a battery may be recharged
before failure, is often an important parameter.
                               43

-------
Battery Applications and Requirements - Batteries are used in  so
many  places  that  it would be impractical to try to name all of
them.   Each  application  presents  a  unique  set  of   battery
performance  requirements which may place primary emphasis on any
specific performance parameter or combination of parameters.  The
applications may be useful however,  in  considering  groups  for
which  the  general  purpose and primary performance requirements
are similar.  Such groups are shown in Table III-2 (page 64).

The requirements for a flashlight battery are:   low  cost,  long
shelf  life,  suitability  for  intermittent  use,  and  moderate
operating  life.   The  household  user   expects   to   purchase
replacement  cells at low cost after a reasonable operating life,
but does expect long periods before use or between uses.

An  automobile  battery  must  be  rechargeable,  produce   large
currents to start an engine, operate both on charge and discharge
over  a wide temperature range, have long life, and be relatively
inexpensive when replacement is necessary.  The  user  looks  for
high power density, rechargeability, and low cost.

Standby lighting, and life raft emergency radio beacons represent
two   similar   applications.   For  standby  lighting  power  in
stairways and halls/ the battery is  usually  a  storage  battery
maintained  in  a  constant  state of readiness by the electrical
power system and is activated by failure of that primary  system.
Such  a  battery system can be activated and then restored to its
original state many times and hence can be more expensive and can
have complex associated equipment.  Weight  is  no  problem/  but
reliable  immediate  response,  high  energy  density  and  power
density are important.  The emergency radio beacon in a life raft
is required to be 100 percent reliable after  storage  of  up  to
several  years.   It  will  not  be  tested  before use, and when
activated  will  be  expected  to  operate   continuously   until
completely  discharged.   Light weight may be important.  Instan-
taneous response is not a requirement although a short  time  for
activation is expected.

Remote  location operation such- as arctic meteorological stations
and orbiting spacecraft requires very high reliability  and  long
operating  life.   Cost  is usually of no consequence because the
overall cost of launching a  satellite  or  travel  to  a  remote
location  overshadows any possible battery cost.  Rechargeability
is required because solar cells (solid  state  devices  producing
small  electrical  power levels directly from solar illumination)
can be used to recharge the batteries during sunlight periods  to
replace the energy used in brief periods of high power demand for
transmissions  or  satellite  equipment  operation.   High  power
density for meteorological stations and high specific  power  for
                               44

-------
satellites  is  therefore more important than high energy density
or high specific energy because the  rechargeability  requirement
means  energy  can  be  replaced.   Additional  requirements  are
reliable operation over a wider range  of  temperatures  than  is
usually  experienced  in  temperate  earth  regions,  and  sealed
operation to  prevent  electrolyte  loss  by  gassing  on  charge
cycles.

Voltage  leveling  and  voltage  standards  are similar.  Voltage
leveling is a requirement for  certain  telephone  systems.   The
batteries  may  be  maintained  in  a  charged state, but voltage
fluctuations must be  rapidly  damped  and  some  electrochemical
systems  are  ideally  suited  to  this  purpose.   An additional
requirement is the provision of  standby  power  at  very  stable
voltages.   Such  operation  is  an electrochemical analogue of a
surge tank of a very large area, maintaining  a  constant  liquid
head   despite  many  rapid  but  relatively  small  inflows  and
outflows.  The use of batteries for secondary  voltage  standards
requires  stability  of  voltage  over time and under fluctuating
loads.  Though similar to the voltage leveling  application,  the
devices  or  instruments may be portable and are not connected to
another electrical system.  Frequently power is supplied  by  one
battery type and controlled by a different battery type.  Usually
cost  is  a  secondary consideration, but not completely ignored.
For secondary voltage  standards,  wide  temperature  ranges  can
usually  be  avoided,  but a flat voltage-temperature response is
important over the temperature range of application.   Power  and
energy  density  as well as specific power and energy also become
secondary considerations in both of these applications.

Battery Function and Manufacture

The extremely varied requirements outlined above have led to  the
design  and  production  of  many  types  of  batteries.  Because
battery  chemistry  is  the  first  determiner  of   performance,
practically  every  known  combination of electrode reactions has
been studied - at least on paper.  Many of the possible electrode
combinations are in use in batteries  today.   Others  are  being
developed  to  better meet present or projected needs.  Some have
become obsolete, as noted  earlier.   Short  discussions  on  the
electrochemistry  of batteries, battery construction, and battery
manufacturing are presented to help orient the reader.

Battery Chemistry - The essential function of the electrodes in a
battery is to convert chemical energy into electrical energy  and
thereby  to  drive  electrical  current through an external load.
The driving force is  measured  in  volts,  and  the  current  is
measured  in  amperes.   The discrete charges carrying current in
the external circuit,  or  load,  are  electrons,  which  bear  a
                               45

-------
negative   charge.    The   driving  force  is  the  sum  of  the
electromotive force, or EMF, of the half-cell reactions occurring
at the anode and the cathode.  The voltage delivered by a cell is
characteristic of the overall chemical reaction in the cell.  The
theoretical open-circuit (no-load) voltage of a cell  or  battery
can be calculated from chemical thermodynamic data developed from
nonelectrochemical  experiments.   The cell voltage is related to
the Gibbs free energy of the  overall  chemical  reaction  by  an
equation  called  the  Nernst equation.  The variable factors are
temperature and concentration of the reactants and products.

Voltages (or more properly the EMF) of single electrode reactions
are often used in comparing anodes of cathodes of different types
of cells.  These single electrode  (or  half-cell)  voltages  are
actually the voltages of complete cells in which one electrode is
the  standard  hydrogen  electrode having an arbitrarily assigned
value of zero.  In all such calculations, equilibrium  conditions
are assumed.

In  this  brief  discussion, only the net half-cell reactions are
discussed.   The  very  complex  subject  of  electrode  kinetics,
involving  a  study  of  exactly which ionic or solid species are
present and in what quantities, can be found in  any  of  several
electrochemistry textbooks.

The  anode supplies electrons to the external circuit - the half-
cell reaction is an oxidation.   The  cathode  accepts  electrons
from  the  external circuit - the reaction is a reduction.  Half-
cell reactions can occur in either forward or reverse  direction,
at  least  in  theory.   Some,  however,  cannot be reversed in a
practical cell.  Tables  III-3  and  III-4  (page  65)  show  the
reactions  as  they  are  used in practical cells for delivery of
power.  In those cells that are rechargeable,  charging  reverses
the direction of the reaction as written in the tables.

Most  of  the  battery  systems  currently  produced are based on
aqueous electrolytes.  However, lithium  and  thermal  batteries,
and  at  least  one  magnesium cell,  have nonaqueous electrolyte.
Because lithium reacts vigorously with  water,  organic  or  non-
aqueous  inorganic electrolytes are usually, but not always, used
with this very high energy anode metal.   Thermal  batteries  are
made  with  the  electrolyte in a solid form and are activated by
melting the electrolyte with a pyrotechnic device just  prior  to
use.   One  type  of magnesium reserve cell uses a liquid ammonia
electrolyte which is injected under pressure just prior to use.

In aqueous systems, any of the anode  reactions  can  be  coupled
with any of the cathode reactions to make a working cell, as long
                               46

-------
as the electrolytes are matched and the overall cell reaction can
be balanced at electrical neutrality.  As examples:

Leclanche;

anode:    Zn <	>  Zn+2 + 2e  (acid)

cathode:  2e + 2Mn02 + 2NH4C1 + Zn+z  <	>  MN203 + H20 + Zn(NH3)2Cl2(acid)

cell:     Zn + 2Mn02 + 2NH4C1 <	>   Mn203 + H20  + Zn(NH3)2Cl2

Alkaline Manganese;

anode:    Zn + 20H-  <	> Zn(OH)2 + 2e (alkaline)

cathode:  e + Mn02 + H20  <	>  MnOOH + OH~ (alkaline)

          e + MnOOH- + H20  <	>  Mn(OH)2 + OH~  (alkaline)

cell:     Zn + MnO2 + 2H20  <	>  Zn(OH)2 + Mn(OH)2

One  essential  feature  of  an  electrochemical cell is that all
conduction within the electrolyte  must  be  ionic.   In  aqueous
electrolytes  the  conductive ion may be H+ or OH~. In some cases
metal ions carry some of the current.  Any electronic  conduction
between  the  electrodes  inside  the  cells  constitutes a short
circuit.  The driving force established  between  the  dissimilar
electrodes  will  be  dissipated  in  an unusable form through an
internal short circuit.  For  this  reason,  a  great  amount  of
engineering  and design effort is applied to prevent formation of
possible electronic conduction paths and  at  the  same  time  to
achieving  low  internal resistance to minimize heating and power
loss.

Close spacing of electrodes and porous electrode separators leads
to low  internal electrolyte resistance.   But  if  the  separator
deteriorates   in  the  chemical  environment,  or  breaks  under
mechanical  shock,  it  may  permit  electrode-electrode  contact
resulting  in cell destruction.  Likewise, in rechargeable cells,
where high rates of charging lead to rough deposits, of the  anode
metal,  a  porous separator may be penetrated by metal "trees" or
dendrites, causing a short circuit.  The  chemical  compatibility
of  separators and electrolytes is an important factor in battery
design.

Long shelf life is frequently a requirement for batteries.  Shelf
life is limited both by deterioration of battery  separators  and
by  corrosion  (self-discharge) of electrodes which decreases the
available electrical energy and may also result in other types of
                               47

-------
cell failure.  As an example, corrosion  of  the  zinc  anode  in
Leclanche  cells  may  result  in  perforation  of  the anode and
leakage of the electrolyte.  Compatability of the active material
of the electrodes in contact with  the  electrolyte  to  minimize
these  self-discharge reactions is an electrochemical engineering
problem.  Two of the approaches  to  this  problem  are  outlined
here.

Some  applications require only one-time use, and the electrolyte
is injected into the cell just before use, thereby avoiding  long
time  contact  of  electrode  with  electrolyte.  The result is a
reserve battery.  One reserve battery design (now abandoned) used
a solid electrolyte and the battery was constructed in two  parts
which  were  pressed together to activate it.  The parts could be
separated  to  deactivate  the  battery.   Up  to  25  cycles  of
activation-deactivation  were  reported  to be possible.  Reserve
batteries are usually found in critical applications  where  high
reliability  after  uncertain  storage  time  justifies the extra
expense of the device.

In other applications, long shelf life in the activated state  is
required.   This allows repeated intermittent use of the battery,
but is achieved at the  price  of  somewhat  lower  certainty  of
operation than is provided by reserve cells.  Special fabrication
methods  and  materials then must be used to avoid self-discharge
by corrosion of the anode.   In  Leclanche  cells,  the  zinc  is
protected  from  the acid electrolyte by amalgamating it; in some
magnesium cells a chemical reaction with the electrolyte forms  a
protective  film  which is subsequently disrupted when current is
drained; in some lithium batteries, the very thin film formed  by
chemical  reaction  with  electrolyte  conducts lithium ions at a
rate sufficiently high to be  usable  for  power  delivery.   All
three  types  of  cells require the use of specific chemicals and
special assembly techniques.

Operation of cells in the  rechargeable  mode  places  additional
constraints  . on   the   chemical   components  and  construction
materials.  In aqueous-electrolyte cells, vented operation may be
possible,  as  with  lead  acid  automotive  and  nickel  cadmium
batteries.   Or, the cells may be sealed because remote operation
prevents servicing and  water  replacement.   Cells  with  liquid
organic  or  inorganic  electrolyte  also  are  sealed to prevent
escape of noxious vapors.  Organic liquids used in cells manufac-
tured in the U. S. today include:  methyl formate,  acetonitrile,
methyl acetate, and dioxolane.  Inorganic liquids include thionyl
chloride and ammonia.

Sealed  operation  of  rechargable  cells  introduces  two  major
problems relating to pressure buildup that imst  be  accommodated
                               48

-------
by  design and materials.  Pressure changes normally occur during
discharge-charge cycling and must be accommodated by the  battery
case  and  seal designs.  Many applications also require cells to
accept overcharging.  In  nickel-cadmium  cells,  the  oxygen  or
hydrogen pressure would build to explosive levels in a short time
on  overcharge.   As  a  result,  cells  are designed with excess
uncharged negative material so that when the nickel electrode  is
completely  charged,  the  cadmium  electrode  will  continue  to
charge, and oxygen evolved at the nickel electrode  will  migrate
under  pressure  to  the  cadmium  and be reduced before hydrogen
evolution occurs.  A steady state  is  reached  where  continuous
overcharge  produces  no harmful effects from pressure and no net
change in the composition of  electrodes  or  electrolytes.|  The
excess  uncharged  negative material ensures that hydrogen is not
evolved.  Oxygen recombination is used  because  the  alternative
reaction   of  hydrogen  recombination  at  an  excess  uncharged
positive electrode proceeds at very low  rates  unless  expensive
special catalysts are present.
Cell  reversal  is  the  other  operational  phenomenon requiring
chemical and electrochemical compensation.  Cell reversal  occurs
when a battery of cells is discharged to a point that one cell in
the  battery  has delivered all of its capacity (i.e., the active
material in at least one electrode is used up)  but  other  !cells
are still delivering power.  The current then travels through the
depleted  cell  in  the  same  direction  but the cell becomes an
electrolytic cell.

In a nickel-cadmium battery, cell reversal  results  in  hydrogen
generation  at  the  nickel electrode or oxygen generation at the
cadmium electrode.  Cells  can  be  designed  to  avoid  pressure
build-up in those instances where reversal may occur.  One method
is  the  incorporation  of  an antipolar mass (APM)  in the nickel
electrode.  The APM is Cd(OH)2.  When cell reversal  occurs,'  the
APM  is  reduced  to cadmium metal.  However, by using the proper
amount of APM, oxygen generated  at  the  cell  anode  builds  to
sufficient pressure to react with the metallic cadmium in th'e APM
before   all  of  the  Cd(OH)2  is  reduced.   Thus,  the  oxygen
generation-reduction cycle discussed  above  is  established  and
hydrogen  evolution is avoided.  For the oxygen cycle to fun'ction
for either overcharge or cell reversal,  the  separator  must  be
permeable  to  oxygen  in  nickel  cadmium batteries.  All sealed
cells also  have  an  overpressure  release  to  prevent  violent
explosions.

Special  applications  may  require special operating conditions.
The ability of a cell  to  perform  its  function  of  delivering
current  is  determined  first  of  all  by  the  kinetics of the
electrode  processes  for  the  anode-electrolyte-cathode  system
                               49

-------
chosen.   For a given electrode combination, the current per unit
area  of  active  surface  is  characteristic  of   the   system.
Temperature  and  pressure  have  an  effect  on  the fundamental
electrode kinetics,  but  only  in  special  applications  is  it
possible  to design a battery for operation at other than ambient
temperature.  For some  high-power  drain  applications  such  as
prime  mover  power  plants  and  central  station  power,  it is
feasable to build a high-temperature system to take advantage  of
the   improved   electrode   kinetics   and  reduced  electrolyte
resistance.  Of course the kinetics of  corrosion  processes  are
also enhanced, so additional materials problems must be overcome.

For  the majority of cells that must be operated at a temperature
determined by the environment, the only practical way to  achieve
greater  power  outputs is to increase the active surface area of
the electrodes.  The usual approach to increasing surface area is
to subdivide the electrode material.  Powdered or granular active
material is formed into an electrode with or without a structural
support.  The latter may also function as a current collector.

The limitation to increasing the surface area is the fact that  a
mass  of.  finely  divided active material immersed in electrolyte
will tend to lose surface area with time, a phenomenon similar to
Ostwald ripening  of  silver  halide  photograph  emulsion.   The
smaller particles, which provide the large surface area, dissolve
in  the  electrolyte,  and the larger particles grow even larger.
The nature of  the  electrolyte  and  active  mass  is  the  main
determinant of the extent of this phenomenon.

A  further  limitation  to  the power drain available from porous
electrodes  results  from  a  phenomenon   called   concentration
polarization.   Total  ampere-hours available are not affected by
this process, but the energy delivered is limited.   In  a  thick
porous  body  such  as  a  tube  or  pocket  type  electrode, the
electrolyte within the narrow, deep pores of  the  electrode  can
become  overloaded  with  ionic products of electrode reaction or
depleated of ions required for electrode reaction.  For instance,
at the-negative plate of a lead-acid battery,  sulfate  ions  are
required for the reaction:

     Pb + S04 <	>  PbS04 + 2e

When  an automotive battery is fully charged the concentration of
sulfuric acid, hence sulfate ions, is very high.  Large  currents
can be sustained for sufficient time to crank a cold engine until
it  starts.  However, when the battery is "low" (i.e. the sulfate
ion concentration  throughout  the  battery  is  low)  sufficient
sulfate  ions  are initially present in the pores of the negative
plate to sustain the negative plate reaction for a  brief  period
                               50

-------
of  cranking  the  engine,  then  the  sulfate  is so drastically
depleted that the cranking current cannot be sustained.   If  the
battery  is " allowed  to  "rest"  a  few minutes,  the rather slow
process of diffusion will replenish sulfate ions in the  interior
of  the  pores  and in effect return to effective use that "deep"
surface area.  The battery  appears  to  come  to  "life"  again.
Cranking  currents  will again deplete the supply of ions and the
battery is "dead." If a "light" load, such as a radio  is  placed
on the nearly "dead" battery the diffusion process may be able to
supply  sufficient ions on a continuing basis so that the battery
appears to be functioning normally.

The above example is familiar to many people.  Similar  phenomena
occur  in  any  battery  with porous electrodes.  In some primary
batteries the discharge products may increase in concentration to
a point of insolubility and permanently block off active material
surface.  Thus a battery may deliver significantly fewer  ampere-
hours  to  a  predetermined  cut-off voltage when used at the C/2
ampere rate  than  at  the  C/20  ampere  rate  where  C  is  the
theoretical ampere-hour capacity of the battery and the numerical
denominator is in hours.

Concentration   polarization   also  limits  the  rate  at  which
rechargeable batteries can be charged.  Use  of  higher  charging
voltages  to  shorten  the  recharge  time  can result in gassing
(e.g., production of hydrogen or oxygen  in  aqueous  electrolyte
cells) because the electrolyte constituents required for charging
become depleted in the vicinity of the electrode and a different,
unwanted  reaction  begins  to  carry  the  current.   This is an
inefficient mode of operation.  In rechargeable cells there is an
additional consideration in  preparing  porous  el.ectrodes.   The
surface  area  of  the  electrodes must be substantially the same
after recharge as it was after the  initial  formation  charging.
It  is  of  little  benefit  to provide large surface area in the
manufacture of the cell if it cannot be sustained during a usable
number of cycles.

The steps used  to  manufacture  batteries  with  stable,  large-
surface-area   electrodes  are  outlined  for  several  types  of
batteries  to  show  similarities  and  differences  in  methods.
Further  details of techniques for each specific battery type are
given in Section V.

Battery Manufacture - The details of  battery  construction  vary
with  the  type  of  battery.   For  the usual liquid electrolyte
batteries the steps are: manufacture  of  structural  components,
preparation  of electrodes, and assembly into cells.  Fabrication
of the structural  components — cell  cases  or  caps,  terminal
fittings or fixtures, electrode support grids, separators, seals,
                               51

-------
and   covers — are  all  manufacturing  processes  not  directly
involving the electrochemistry of the cell.  These components may
be fabricated by the battery producer, or they may be supplied by
other  manufacturers.  The  steps  considered   to   be   battery
manufacturing  operations are: anode and cathode fabrication, and
ancillary operations (all  operations  not  primarily  associated
with  anode  and  cathode  manufacture,  or  structural component
fabrication).      *  •

Discussion of the manufacturing operations is divided into  three
parts-anodes,  cathodes, and ancillary operations.  In each part,
specific operations are illustrated by  reference  to  particular
battery  types.   Ten  battery  types were chosen to illustrate a
range of  materials,  applications,  and  sizes.   Figures  II1-3
through  111-12  (pages  70-79)  are drawings or cutaway views of
these 10 batteries.  Figures 111-13 through 111-20 (pages  80-87)
are simplified manufacturing process flow diagrams for these same
batteries.   Reference  to  the figures should help to understand
the discussion.

     Anodes

Anodes are prepared by at least four basic methods  depending  on
the  strength  of  the  material  and the application, i.e., high
current drain or low current  drain.   Once  the  electrodes  are
fabricated  they may require a further step, formation, to render
them active.  As noted earlier, anodes are metals when  they  are
in  their  final or fully charged form in a battery.  Some anodes
such as lithium anodes, and zinc anodes for some Leclanche cells,
are made directly by cutting and drawing  or  stamping  the  pure
metal  sheet.   Lithium,  because  of  its flexibility, is either
alloyed with a metal such as aluminum, or is attached to  a  grid
of  nickel  or  other  rigid  metal.  Drawn sheet zinc anodes are
rigid enough to serve as a cell container.

Zinc anodes for some alkaline-manganese batteries are made from a
mixture of zinc powder, mercury, and potassium  hydroxide.   Zinc
is  amalgamated to prevent hydrogen evolution and thus, corrosion
at the anode.

Anodes for most lead-acid batteries and some nickel-cadmium cells
are prepared from a paste of a compound of the anode metal   (lead
oxides  or  cadmium  hydroxide,  respectively).  Additives may be
mixed in, and then the paste is applied to  a  support  structure
and cured.

The techniques for preparing the compounds of the anode metal may
be  unique to the battery manufacturing process.  For pocket-type
nickel cadmium batteries, cadmium metal is  oxidized  in  a  high
                               52

-------
temperature  air  stream,  then  hydrated  to  cadmium hydroxide.
Graphite, to increase conductivity, and iron oxide, to  keep  the
cadmium  in  a porous state during cycling, may be mixed into the
cadmium hydroxide.

Organic expanders, lampblack, and barium sulfate are added to the
paste  mixture  for  lead-acid  battery  anodes.   The  expanders
maintain  the  lead  in  a  porous  state during charge-discharge
cycling.   The  organic  expanders  coat  the   lead   particles,
preventing  agglomeration.   Barium sulfate holds the lead grains
apart.  Lampblack aids in the formation step.

In addition to physically applying the  active  material  to  the
support  structure  as  a  metal  or  compound, some anode active
materials are prepared from soluble metal  compounds.   High-rate
nickel-cadmium  battery  anodes  are  prepared  by impregnating a
porous nickel plaque with a solution  of  cadmium  nitrate.   The
plaque  is  transferred  to  an  alkali  solution  or is made the
cathode of an electrolysis cell.  Either  technique  precipitates
the  cadmium  as the hydroxide which is subsequently converted to
metallic cadmium in the forming step.

To sum up, the active mass for anodes is usually prepared as  the
massive   metal,  finely  divided  metal,  finely  divided  metal
compound, or as a soluble salt of the metal which is precipitated
onto a carrier or support structure.  In most batteries, there is
an additional support  structure,  such  as  the  paste  for  the
negative active mass of a lead-acid battery which is pressed into
a  grid  of  lead  or  a  lead alloy.  Different types of nickel-
cadmium batteries exemplify three approaches  to  fabrication  of
anodes.   As  noted  above, the cadmium for pocket type anodes is
admixed with other materials then loaded into the  pockets  of  a
perforated nickel or steel sheet.  The method of precipitating an
insoluble  cadmium  compound from a solution of a soluble cadmium
salt in the pores of a porous powder metallurgical nickel  plaque
was  also described above.  For some cells, highly porous cadmium
powder is mixed with cadmium compounds and pasted onto a  support
structure.   Chemical  production of anode active materials which
are specifically  used  for  batteries,  is  considered  part  of
battery  manufacturing.  This process is.usually considered as an
ancillary operation.

The final step in anode preparation for many types  of  batteries
is  formation,  or  charging,  of  the  active  mass.   The  term
"formation" was first used  to  describe  the  process  by  which
Plante  plates  were  prepared  for lead-acid batteries-.  In that
process, lead sheet or another form of pure lead  was  placed  in
sulfuric acid and made anodic, generating a surface layer of lead
sulfate,  then  cathodic,  reducing  that  layer  to  lead  which
                               53

-------
remained in the finely divided state.  Repeated cycling generated
a deep layer of finely divided lead for the  anodes.   Few  lead-
acid anodes are made that way today, but the term "formation" has
remained   to   designate  the  final  electrochemical  steps  in
preparation of electrodes for any type of battery.

Formation may be carried out on individual electrodes or on pairs
of electrodes in a tank of suitable  electrolyte,  e.g.  sulfuric
acid  for  lead-acid  battery  plates, or potassium hydroxide for
nickel-cadmium  battery  electrodes.   Formation  of  anodes   by
themselves  requires  an inert, gassing, counter-electrode.  More
often the electrodes for a battery  are  formed  in  pairs.   The
cathodes  are arranged in the tank in opposition to the anodes or
are interspaced between the anodes.  Frequently,  electrodes  are
formed  in the cell or battery after final assembly.  However the
electrodes are physically arranged, current is passed through the
electrodes to charge  them.   For  some  battery  types,  charge-
discharge  cycling  up  to  seven  times  is  used  to  form  the
electrode.

Primary battery anodes are almost always prepared in  the  active
form, and require no formation step.  Rechargeable battery anodes
almost always go through a formation step.

     Cathodes

Cathode  active  materials  are  never  metals despite the common
usage of the metal type to designate the cathode active material.
"Nickel"  cathodes  are  actually  nickel  hydroxide;   "mercury"
cathodes,   are  actually  mercury  oxide;  "manganese"  cathodes
(alkaline-manganese battery) are  manganese  oxide  (pyrolusite).
Non-metals  such  as  iodine  (lithium-iodine  battery) and meta-
dinitrobenzene (magnesium-ammonia reserve battery) are the  other
kinds   of  cathode  active  materials  used.   Manufacturing  of
cathodes for batteries is not necessarily more complex than  that
of  the anodes, however, cathode production encompasses a broader
variety of raw materials for use in different battery types.

Cathode active materials are weak electronic conductors at  best,
and  usually possess slight mechanical strength.  Therefore, most
cathodes  must  have  a  metallic  current   conducting   support
structure.   In  addition,  a  conducting  material is frequently
incorporated into the active mass.  Structural reinforcement  may
be  in the form of a wire mesh, a perforated metal tube, or inert
fibrous material {woven or felted).  Conducting  materials  added
to  the  cathode  active  mass  are  almost  invariably carbon or
nickel.
                               54

-------
Preparation of the cathode active material in the  battery  plant
is usually restricted to the metal oxides or hydroxides.  Cathode
active materials for two of the ten battery types discussed here,
nickel  hydroxide,  and  leady  oxide,  are  specific  to battery
manufacturing and are usually  produped  in  the  battery  plant.
Cathode   active  materials  for  the  other  types  are  usually
purchased directly from chemical suppliers.   For  nickel-cadmium
pressed  powder  (pocket-electrode)  cells  nickel  hydroxide  is
produced by dissolution of nickel powder in sulfuric  acid.   The
nickel  sulfate  solution  is reacted with sodium hydroxide.  The
resulting  nickel  hydroxide  is  centrifuged,  mixed  with  some
graphite,  spray  dried,  compacted,  and  mixed  with additional
graphite.  For high-rate cells, nickel oxide is  precipitated  in
the  pores  of  a  nickel  plaque  immersed in nickel nitrate.  A
process analogous to those described for preparation of high-rate
cadmium anodes is used.  Lead-acid batteries require  a  specific
oxidation  state  of  lead  oxide  (24  to  30 percent free lead)
referred to by industry as "leady oxide," which  is  produced  by
the  ball  mill  or Barton process.  This leady oxide is used for
both the anode and the cathode.  Chemical production  of  cathode
active  materials  which  are  used specifically for batteries is
considered part of battery manufacturing usually as an  ancillary
operation.

Manganese  dioxide  for  Leclanche  cells  and alkaline-manganese
cells is mixed  with  graphite  to  increase  conductivity.   For
Leclanche  cells,  the mixture may be compacted around the carbon
cathode rod, or is poured into the cell as  a  loose  powder  and
compacted  as the carbon rod is inserted.  For alkaline-manganese
cells, analagous procedures are  used  except  that  the  cathode
active material takes the shape of a cylinder against the wall of
the  nickel-plated  steel  can and no carbon rod is used.  In the
foliar-cell Leclanche battery the manganese  dioxide  is  printed
onto  a  conducting  plastic  sheet.  The other side of the sheet
bears the  zinc  anode  film  to  produce  a  bipolar  electrode.
(Bipolar  electrodes  perform  the  same function as an anode and
cathode of two separate cells connected in series.)

The magnesium-ammonia reserve battery uses a  different  type  of
cathode  structure.   A  glass  fiber  pad  containing  the meta-
dinitrobenzene (mDNB), carbon, and ammonium thiocyanate is placed
against a stainless steel cathode current collector.   Activation
of  the  battery  causes  liquid ammonia to flood the cell space,
saturate the pad, and dissolve  the  dry  acidic  salt  (ammonium
thiocyanate)  and the cathode active material (m-DNB).  The m-DNB
functions as a dissolved cathodic depolarizer.

The cathode active material for the  carbon-zinc  (air)  cell  is
oxygen  from  the  air.  Therefore, the principal function of the
                               55

-------
cathode structure is to provide a large area of conductive carbon
surface in the immediate vicinity of the electrolyte-air  contact
region.   Air  must have free access through the exposed pores of
the rigid' structure.  Electrolyte in  the  wetted  surface  pores
must  have  a  continuous  path to the body of the electrolyte to
provide the ionic conduction to the  anode.   The  porous  carbon
body  is  wetproofed  on  the electrolyte surface to prevent deep
penetration  and  saturation  or  flooding  of   the   pores   by
electrolyte.

The  mercury-zinc  cell uses a compacted cathode active material.
Mercuric oxide mixed with graphite is pressed  into  pellets  for
use  in  miniature  cells,  or  is pressed directly into the cell
case.

In sum/ cathode  fabrication  almost  always  includes  a  rigid,
current-carrying  structure  to support the active material.  The
active material may  be  applied  to  the  support  as  a  paste,
deposited in a porous structure by precipitation from a solution,
fixed  to  the support as a compacted pellet, or may be dissolved
in an electrolyte which has been immobilized in  a  porous  inert
structure.

The formation step for cathodes of rechargeable batteries is much
the  same  as  that  for  anodes.   Nickel cathodes may be formed
outside or inside the assembled cell  in  a  potassium  hydroxide
electrolyte.   Lead  cathodes for lead-acid batteries are handled
in a manner similar to that used  to  make  anodes,  except  they
remain  in  the lead peroxide state after forming.  For some cell
types, chemical processes rather than electrolysis  are  used  to
form  nickel  hydroxide  and  silver  oxide  cathodes or reactive
materials prior to physical application to the electrode support.

     Ancillary Operations

Ancillary operations are  all  those  operations  unique  to  the
battery   manufacturing  point  source  category  which  are  not
included specifically under anode or cathode  fabrication.   They
are  operations  associated mainly with cell assembly and battery
assembly.  Also chemical production for anode or  cathode  active
materials used only for batteries (discussed above) is considered
an ancillary operations.

Cell  assembly  is  done  in  several  ways.   The electrodes for
rectangular nickel cadmium batteries are placed in a stack with a
layer of separator  material  between  each  electrode  pair  and
inserted  into  the battery case.  Almost all lead-acid batteries
are assembled in a case of hard rubber or plastic with  a  porous
                               56

-------
separator  between  electrode  pairs.  The cells or batteries are
filled with electrolyte after assembly.

Cylindrical cells of the Leclanche or the alkaline-manganese type
are usually assembled by insertion of the  individual  components
into the container.  For Lecla che batteries, a paper liner which
may  be  impregnated  with a mercury salt is inserted in the zinc
can; then depolarizer mixture, a carbon rod, and electrolyte  are
added.   The  cell is closed and sealed, tested, aged, and tested
again.  Batteries are assembled from cylindrical cells to produce
higher voltages.  Several  round  cells  can  be  placed  in  one
battery  container  and  series  connections are made internally.
Two terminals are added and the batteries are sealed.

Miniature button cells of the alkaline-manganese and mercury-zinc
types are assembled from pellets of  the  electrode  active  mass
plus  separator  discs, or the electrodes may be pressed directly
in the cell case to assure electrical contact and  to  facilitate
handling during assembly.

Leclanche  foliar  cell  batteries  are a specialty product which
illustrate  the  possibility   of   drastically   modifying   the
conventional  battery  configuration  when  a  need  exists.  The
bipolar electrodes and separators are heat sealed at  the  edges.
After  each separator is positioned, electrolyte is applied to it
before the  next  electrode  is  placed.   When  the  battery  is
completed  the  entire  .assembly  is  sandwiched between two thin
aluminum  sheets.   Assembly  is   completely   automated.    The
resulting  six-volt  battery is about three inches by four inches
by three-sixteenths of an inch thick and has high specific  power
and  power  density.   Shelf  life is several years and operating
lifetime depends on drain rate.

A contrasting battery is the carbon-zinc (air)  cell.   The  cast
amalgamated  zinc  anodes  positioned  on  each  side of a porous
carbon air electrode are attached to the cover of the cell.   Dry
potassium hydroxide and lime are placed in the bottom of the cell
case,  the  cover  is  put  ir   .ace  and  sealed,  and a bag of
dessicant is placed in the fi ' -.c opening.  The cell  is  shipped
dry and the user adds water to activate it.  This cell has a very
low power density but a very long operating life.

Ancillary  operations for this document, beside specific chemical
production, include some dry operations as well as cell  washing,
battery  washing,  the washing of equipment, floors and operating
personnel.  Because the degree of automation varies from plant to
plant for a given battery type, the specific method  of  carrying
out  the ancillary operations is not as closely identifiable with
                               57

-------
a  battery  type  as  are  the  anode  and  cathode   fabrication
operations.

INDUSTRY SUMMARY

The  battery manufacturing industry in the United States includes
about 250 plants operated by about 130 different  companies.   In
all,  the  industry produced  approximately   1.8 million tons of
batteries valued at 2.1 billion dollars  in   1976,  and  employed
over  33 thousand workers.  As Figure 111-21  (page 88) shows, the
value of industry products has increased significantly in  recent
years.   This  growth  has  been  accompanied  by major shifts in
battery applications, and the emergence of new types of cells and
the decline and phase - out of other cell types  as  commercially
significant  products.   Present  research  activity  in  battery
technology   and   continuing   changes   in   electronics    and
transportation  make  it  probable  that rapid changes in battery
manufacture  will  continue.   The  rapid  changes   in   battery
manufacturers  is  reflected  in the age of battery manufacturing
plants.  Although a few  plants  are  more  than  60  years  old,
battery  manufacturing  plants  are  fairly  new  with  over half
reported to have been built in the past twenty years.  Most  have
been  modified  even  more  recently.   Figure  II1-22  (page 89)
displays where battery plants are located throughout the U.S. and
within EPA regions.

Plants commonly manufacture a variety of cells and batteries dif-
fering in size, shape, and performance characteristics.  Further,
a significant number of  plants  produce  cells  using  different
reactive  couples  but  with  a  common  anode  material,  (e.g.,
mercury-zinc and alkaline manganese batteries  both  use  a  zinc
anode).   Thirteen  plants  currently  produce cells or batteries
using two or more different anode  materials  and  therefore  are
considered   in   two   or   more  subcategories.   Some  battery
manufacturing  plants  purchase  finished  cell  components   and
assemble the final battery products without performing all of the
manufacturing   process   steps   on-site.    Other  plants  only
manufacture battery components, and perform battery manufacturing
process  operations   without   producing   finished   batteries.
Finally,  some  battery  plants  have  fully   integrated  on-site
production  operations  including  metal  forming  and  inorganic
chemicals   manufacture   which   are  not  specific  to  battery
manufacturing.

The reactive materials in most modern batteries  include  one  or
more  of  the  following  toxic  metals:  cadmium, lead, mercury,
nickel, and zinc.  Cadmium and zinc are used as  anode  materials
in  a  variety of cells, and lead is used in both the cathode and
anode in the familiar lead-acid storage battery.  Mercuric  oxide
                               58

-------
is  used  as  the cathode reactant in mercury-zinc batteries, and
mercury is also widely used  to  amalgamate  the  zinc  anode  to
reduce   corrosion  and  self  discharge  of  the  cell.   Nickel
hydroxide is the cathode reactant in rechargeable nickel  cadmium
cells,  and  nickel  or  nickel  plated steel may also serve as a
support for other  reactive  materials.   As  a  result  of  this
widespread  use,  these  toxic  metals  are  found  in wastewater
discharges and solid  wastes  from  almost  all  battery  plants.
Estimated  total annual consumption of these materials in battery
manufacture is shown in Table III-5 (page 66).  Since only  lead-
acid  batteries are reclaimed on a significant scale, essentially
all of the cadmium, mercury, nickel, and zinc consumed in battery
manufacture will eventually be found in liquid  or  solid  wastes
either from battery manufacturers or from battery users.

Water  is  used  in  battery  manufacturing  plants  in preparing
reactive  materials  and  electrolytes,  in  depositing  reactive
materials   on   supporting  electrode  structures,  in  charging
electrodes and  removing  impurities,  and  in  washing  finished
cells,  production equipment and manufacturing areas.  Volumes of
discharge and patterns of water use  as  well  as  the  scale  of
production   operations,  wastewater  pollutants,  and  prevalent
treatment practices vary widely among  different  battery  types,
but  show  significant  similarities  among batteries employing a
common anode reactant and electrolyte.   Table  II1-6  (page  67)
summarizes  the characteristics of plants manufacturing batteries
in each of the groups discussed in the battery documents based on
anode and electrolyte.  The lead subcategory is discussed below.


Lead Subcategory

The lead subcategory, encompassing lead acid  reserve  cells  and
the  more  familiar  lead  acid storage batteries, is the largest
subcategory both in terms of  number  of  plants  and  volume  of
production.   It  also contains the largest plants and produces a
much larger total volume of wastewater.

The lead group includes 186 battery manufacturing plants of which
about 146 manufacture electrodes from basic  raw  materials,  and
almost 40 purchase electrodes prepared off-site and assemble them
into  batteries  (and  are  therefore  termed  assemblers).  Most
plants which  manufacture  electrodes  also  assemble  them  into
batteries.   In  1976,  plants in the lead group ranged in annual
production from 10.5 metric  tons   (11.5  tons)  to  over  40,000
metric   tons   (44,000  tons)  of  batteries  with  the  average
production being 10,000  metric  tons  (11,000  tons)  per  year.
Total  annual battery production in this subcategory is estimated
to be 1.3 million kkg  (1.43 million tons)  of  batteries.   Seven
companies owned or operated 42 percent of the plants in this sub-
category,  consumed  over  793,650  metric tons  (875,000 tons) of
pure lead and produced over 1.1 million metric tons  (1.2  million
tons)  of  batteries.   In  1977,  total lead subcategory product
shipments were valued at about 1.7 billion dollars.   The  number
                                59

-------
of  employees  reported  by plants in the lead subcategory ranged
from 1 to 643 with total employment estimated to be 18,745.  Most
of the plants employing fewer than 10 employees were found to  be
battery  assemblers  who  purchased  charged  or uncharged plates
produced in other plants.  The distribution of plants in the lead
subcategory in terms of production and  number  of  employees  is
shown in Figures 111-23 and 111-24 (Page 90 and 91).

With  the  exception  of  lead-acid  reserve batteries (which are
electroformed and are reported to be  manufactured  at  only  one
site),  all  products  in this subcategory are manufactured using
similar materials and  employ  the  same  basic  cell  chemistry.
Products   differ   significantly   in   configuration   and   in
manufacturing processes, however, depending on  end  use.   Lead-
acid battery products include cells with immobilized electrolytes
used  for  portable  hand  tools,  lanterns,  etc.;  conventional
rectangular batteries used for automotive starting, lighting  and
ignition  (SLI) applications; sealed batteries for SLI use; and a
wide variety of batteries designed for industrial applications.

Manufacturers of SLI and  industrial  lead  acid  batteries  have
commonly  referred to batteries shipped with electrolyte as "wet-
charged" batteries and those shipped without electrolyte as "dry-
charged" batteries.  The term "dry-charged"  batteries  which  is
used  to  mean  any  battery shipped without electrolyte includes
both damp-charged batteries (damp batteries) and dehydrated plate
batteries (dehydrated batteries).  Dehydrated  batteries  usually
are  manufactured  by  charging  of  the electrodes in open tanks
(open formation), followed by rinsing and  dehydration  prior  to
assembly  in  the  battery  case.   Damp  batteries  are  usually
manufactured by charging the electrodes in the battery case after
assembly (closed formation), and emptying the electrolyte  before
final assembly and shipping.  The term "wet-charged" batteries is
used  to  mean any battery shipped with electrolyte.  Wet-charged
batteries (wet batteries)  are  usually  manufactured  by  closed
formation  processes,  but can also be produced by open formation
processes.  Details of these  formation  process  operations  are
discussed in Section V.

Dehydrated plate batteries afford significantly longer shelf-life
than  wet  batteries  or  damp  batteries.  In 1976, sixty plants
reported the production of 239,000 metric tons (268,000 tons)  of
dehydrated plate batteries; this accounted for over 18 percent of
all  lead  acid batteries produced.  Twenty-seven plants reported
producing damp batteries, which account for 9.3  percent  of  the
subcategory   total,  or  121,000  metric  tons  (136,000  tons).
Contacts with battery manufacturers have indicated a  substantial
reduction  in  dehydrated  battery  manufacture  since  1976  due
                               60

-------
largely to the introduction of sealed wet charged batteries using
calcium alloy grids which provide improved shelf-life.

Major raw materials for all of these battery types include  lead,
leady  oxide,  lead  oxide,  lead  alloys, sulfuric acid, battery
cases, covers, filler caps, separators and other  plastic  rubber
or  treated  paper  components.   Generally, additional materials
including carbon, barium sulfate, and fibrous materials are added
in the manufacture of electrodes.  Many manufacturers use  epoxy,
tar, or other similar materials to seal battery cases, especially
in  manufacturing industrial batteries.  Common alloying elements
used in the lead alloys are antimony, calcium, arsenic  and  tin.
Antimony  may  be  used  at levels above 7 percent while arsenic,
calcium, and tin are generally used only in small percentages  (1
percent).

Patterns  of  water  usage  and wastewater discharge are found to
vary significantly among lead battery plants.  Variations  result
both   from  differences  in  manufacturing  processes  and  from
differences  in  the  degree  and  type  of  wastewater   control
practiced.  In general, the major points of process water use are
in the preparation and application of electrode active materials,
in  the  "formation" (charging) of the electrodes, and in washing
finished batteries.  Process  wastewater  discharges  may  result
from wet scrubbers, floor and equipment wash water, laboratories,
casting  operations, and personal hygiene where process materials
are removed by washing.

The total volume  of  discharge  from  lead  subcategory  battery
plants  varies  between  0 and 62,000 1/hr  (16,400 gal/hr) with a
mean discharge rate of 6580 1/hr  (1,740  gal/hr)  and  a  median
discharge  rate  of  1,640 1/hr  (430 gal/hr).  When normalized on
the  basis  of  the  total  amount  of  lead  used   in   battery
manufacture,  these  discharge  flows  vary between 0 and 78 I/kg
(9.5 gal/lb) with an average of 4.280 I/kg  (0.521 gal/lb).   Over
60  percent  of  lead  subcategory plants discharge wastewater to
POTW.  The wastewater from  these  plants   is  characteristically
acidic   as   a   result  of  contamination  with  sulfuric  acid
electrolyte and generally contains dissolved lead  and  suspended
particulates   which  are  also  likely  to  contain  lead.   The
prevailing treatment practice is to treat the wastewater with  an
alkaline  reagent to raise its pH, and to provide settling to re-
move particulates and precipitated  lead.   In-process  treatment
and reuse of specific waste streams is also common.

INDUSTRY OUTLOOK

The   pattern  of  strong  growth  and  rapid  change  which  has
characterized the battery industry during the past decade may  be
                               61

-------
expected  to  continue  in the future.  A number of technological
changes which  have  occurred  in  recent  years  and  which  are
anticipated  in  the  near  future are creating strong demand for
existing battery products and for new ones.

The  advent  of  transistor  electronics,  and  subsequently   of
integrated  circuits,  light  emitting diodes, and liquid crystal
devices has resulted in the development of  innumerable  portable
electronic  devices such as radios, calculators, toys, and games,
which are  powered  by  batteries.   This  has  resulted  in  the
development  of new mass markets for cells in small sizes and has
led to the  rapid  commercialization  of  new  cell  types.   The
extremely  low  power  drains  of some digital electronic devices
have created markets for low power,  high  energy  density,  long
life  cells  and  have  resulted in the commercial development of
silver oxide-zinc and lithium batteries.  Solid state  technology
has  also  reduced  or eliminated markets for some battery types,
most notably mercury (Weston) cells which were widely used  as  a
voltage  reference  in  vacuum  tube  circuits.   Continued rapid
change in electronics and growth  in  consumer  applications  are
anticipated  with  corresponding  change  and  growth  in battery
markets.

In transportation technology  and  power  generation,  tightening
fuel  supplies  and  increasing  costs  are  directing  increased
attention  toward  electrical  energy   storage   devices.    The
development  and  increasing  use  of  battery  powered  electric
automobiles and trucks are  creating  an  increasing  market  for
large  battery  sizes  with  high  energy  and  power  densities.
Increasing  application  'of  batteries  for   peak   shaving   in
electrical  power  systems  is  also  an  anticipated development
creating higher demand for batteries in larger sizes.

In summary, while, as with Lalande, Edison and  Weston  cells  in
the  past,  some  battery  types may become obsolete, the overall
outlook  is  for  growth  in  the  battery  industry.   Increased
production  of  many  current products and the development of new
battery types are likely.  Based on  general  industry  patterns,
conversion  of  battery  plants  from  one  type of product where
demand for specific battery types is not  strong  to  another  is
more likely than plant closings.
                               62

-------
                           TABLE II1-1

                         SURVEY SUMMARY

SUBCATEGORY         NUMBER OF PLANTS    NUMBER OF PLANTS
               (Information Received)   (Currently Acti ve)
Cadmium
Calcium
Lead
Leclanche
Lithium
Magnesium
Nuclear
Zinc
13
3
186*
20
7
8
1
17
10
3
167*
19
7
8
0
16
     Totals              255                 228

Total Number of Plant Sites in Category - 230.

*Includes plate manufacturers and assemblers.
                               63

-------
                           TABLE II1-2

            BATTERY GENERAL PURPOSES AND APPLICATIONS
          Purpose

     Portable electric power


     Electric power storage
     Standby or emergency
     electrical power
4.   Remote location electrical power



5.   Voltage leveling
PBXs

6.   Secondary voltage standard
     Application

flashlights, toys, pocket
calculators

automobile     batteries,
solar  powered electrical
systems

emergency  lighting   for
hallways and stairways,
life raft radio beacons

spacecraft,
meteorological  stations,
railway signals

telephone  exchanges  and


regulated power supplies
                               64

-------
                           TABLE II1-3

             ANODE HALF-CELL REACTIONS (electrolyte)

Cd + 20H- <	>   Cd(OH)2 + 2e (alkaline)
Ca <	>  Ca+2 + 2e (nonaqueous inorganic)
Pb + H2S04 <	>  PbS04 + 2H+ + 2e (acidic)
Zn <—>  Zn+2 + 2e (acidic)
Li <	>  Li+ + e (molten salt, organic,  nonaqueous inorganic)
Mg <	>  Mg+2 + 2e  (sea water)
Zn + 20H- <	>  Zn(OH)2 + 2e  (alkaline)

                           TABLE II1-4

           CATHODE HALF-CELL REACTIONS   (electrolyte)

e + NiOOH + H20 <	>  Ni(OH)2 + OH~ (alkaline)
4e + Ag202 + 2H2O <	> 2Ag + 40H-  (alkaline)
2e + Ag20 + H20 <	>  2Ag + 20H- (alkaline)
2e + HgO + H20 <	>  Hg + 20H-  (alkaline)
2e + Pb02 + S04~2 + 4H+ <	>   PbS04 +  2H20  (acid)
2e + 2Mn02 + 2NH4C1 + Zn+2  <	> Mn203  + H20 + Zn(NH3)2Cl2   (acid)
2e + 2AgCl + Zn+2  <	>  2Ag + ZnCl2 (acid)
e + TiS2 + Li+ <	>  TiS2:Li (propylene carbonate)
2e + 2S02  <	> S204-2  (acetonitrile)
4e + 2SOC12 + 4 Li+  <	> 4 LiCl + (S0)2   (thionyl chloride)
2e + I2 + 2 Li+  <	> 2 Lil  [poly(2 vinyl)propylene]
2e + PbI2 + 2Li+  <	>  2 Lil + Pb (nonaqueous inorganic)
2e + PbS + 2Li+  <	>  Li2S + Pb (nonaqueous inorganic)
e + Mn02 + HjjO  <	>  MnOOH + OH-  (alkaline)
e + MnOOH + H20  <	>  Mn(OH)2 + OH~  (alkaline)
8e + m-C4H4(N02)2 + 6NH4+ + Mg+2  <	>  m-bis-C6H4(NHOH)2
            + 6NH3 + Mg(OH)2 (ammonia)
2e + PbCl2  <	>  Pb + 2C1- (sea water)
e + CuCl  <	>  Cu + Cl~   (sea water)
e + AgCl <	>   Ag + Cl~   (sea water)
4e + 02 + 2H2O   <	>  4OH-   (alkaline)
                               65

-------
                         Table II1-5

 CONSUMPTION OF TOXIC METALS IN BATTERY MANUFACTURE*


METAL                            ANNUAL CONSUMPTION

                              Metric Tons         Tons

Cadmium                           730              800
Lead                          980,000        1,080,000
Mercury                           670              ,740
Nickel                          1,200            1,300
Zinc                           27,000           29,000

* Based on 1976 data provided in dcp.  Numbers shown are sums of
  provided data.  Because response to the raw materials questions was
  incomplete, actual consumption will be higher by 10 to 20 percent.
                               66

-------
                                                               TABLE 111-6

                                                 BATTERY MANUFACTURING CATEGORY SUMMARY
                                                            (TOTAL DATA BASE)
                                                                                                                    Tocai

Subcategory
Cadmium


Calcium
Lead
Leclanche




Lithium

Magnesium
Batteries
Manufactured
Nickel -Cadmium
Stiver Cadmium
Mercury Cadmium
Thermal
Lead Acid
Carbon Zinc
Carbon Zinc, Air
Depolarized
Silver Chloride-
Zinc
Lithium
Thermal
Magnesium Carbon
Number of
Plants
13


3
186
20




7

8
Total Annual Production
kkg
5,250


<23
1,300,000
108,000




<23

1,220
(tons)
(5,790)


«25)
(1,430,000)
(119,000)




«25)

(1,340)
Total Nuiooer Discharges
of Employees Direct
2,500 5(4)'


240
18,745 12
4,200 0




400 1

350 1
POTW
4


2
117
8




4

3
Zero
4(5)'


1
57
12




2

4
Process tfastewater Flow
i/yr (106)
748


0.13
7, 106
16.7




0.36

3.91
[gai/yr (1
0(JU \
7O /


(0.
(1,877)
(4.




(0.

(1.
o°>i



034)

41)




095)

03)
Zinc
Magnesium
Thermal

Alkaline Manganese    17
Silver Oxide-Zinc
Mercury Zinc
Carbon Zinc-Air
  Depolarized
Nickel Zinc

TOTALS  •             2542
23,000
(25,000)
4,680
11
60.3
                                          1,437,516   (1,581,180)
                          31,115    22(21)    149   83(84)   7,935.40
(15.9)
                                                              (2,096.469)
NOTES:

'One direct discharge plant changed to zero discharge after data was collected,

^Total  does not include nuclear subcategory (1 plant).

                                             V

-------
   E
   X
   u
   z
   u
   u
   u
   a.
   w
   U

   p
   u
   a
   o
   u
   I
   H
       3000
       2000
1000




 800


 700



 600



 SOO




 400





 300








 ZOO
        too
                                      •U/S
              Li/Se


                Li/CuS


                  Li/FoS


                     Na/S


                       Li/Te


                         LiAI/ToCU
Zn/NiOOH-


 Fs/NiOOH-
                    TYPE OF ELECTROLYTES


                 © MOLTEN SALT OR CERAMIC

                 O AQUEOUS

                 O ORGANIC

                 O MOLTEN SALT AND AQUEOUS
             Cd/NiOOH-'


                Pb/PbO2'






            I    I
                                                            I
          10
                       20           40      60    80  tOO


                           EQUIVALENT WEIGHT, G/EQUIVALENT
                                                                200
                                                                       300   400
                                  FIGURE 111-1

THEORETICAL SPECIFIC ENERGY AS A FUNCTION OF EQUIVALENT WEIGHT AND

                 CELL VOLTAGE FOR VARIOUS ELECTROLYTIC

                                   COUPLES
                                       68

-------
 1000
                             SPECIFIC ENERGY, W-HR/KG
                                           too
                                                                 1000
   100
m
j
uT
I-
5
tt
Id
u
Ul
0.
w
                                                                         — TOOO
                                                COMBUSTION
                                                ENGINES
                                        NiZnl I   NaS
                                                            , . FUEL
                                                            VCELLS
                                                            x —
HEAVY
DUTY
LECLANCHE
                                                            ORGANIC
                                                            ELECTROLYTE
                                                            CELLS
               LOW-DRAIN
               LECLANCHE
   0.1
                                                                            0.4
                       6    10  20        40  60    100
                          SPECIFIC ENERGY WATT HOURS/LB
                                                          200
                                                                 400
                                                                         1000
                                   FIGURE HI-2
           PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY OF VARIOUS BATTERY SYSTEMS
                                        69

-------
                 TERMINAL
                        ^
    BAFFLE
    NEGATIVE PLATE
    (CADMIUM ANODE)


    SEPARATOR
    POSITIVE PLATE
    (NICKEL CATHODE)


    CELL JAR
                                 FIGURE HI-3
CUTAWAY VIEW OF.AN IMPREGNATED SINTERED PLATE NICKEL-CADMIUM CELL
                 (SIMILAR IN PHYSICAL STRUCTURE TO SOME
                 SILVER OXIDE-ZINC AND NICKEL-ZINC CELLS)
                                     70

-------
                  NICKEL-PLATED
                  STEEL COVER
                                                       NICKEL-PLATED
                                                       STEEL CASE
     NICKEL POSITIVE
     CONTACT LUG
  NYLON GASKET-
  SEAL
  POLYETHYLENE-
  INSULATOR
      POLYETHYLENE
      INSULATOR
POSITIVE PLATE
(NICKEL CATHODE)


     ..SEPARATOR
                 NICKEL NEGATIVE
                 CONTACT LUG
                                            NEGATIVE PLATE
                                            (CADMIUM ANODE)
                       •      FIGURE 111-4
CUTAWAY VIEW OF A CYLINDRICAL NICKEL-CADMIUM BATTERY (SIMILAR IN
      PHYSICAL STRUCTURE TO CYLINDRICAL LEAD ACID BATTERIES)
                                    71

-------
   VENT PLUGS
 TAPERED
TERMINAL
  POSTS
CONTAINER
       NEGATIVE PLATE
                                                                       POST STRAP
                                                                         COVER
                                                                       PLATE LUGS
                                                                         POSITIVE
                                                                          PLATE
                                                                      SEPARATORS
                ELEMENT RESTS

     SEDIMENT SPACE
                                  FIGURE HI-5
                 CUTAWAY VIEW OF LEAD ACID STORAGE BATTERY
                                        72

-------
      METAL CAP
      EXPANSION SPACE
      ZINC CAN
      (ANODE)
      SEPARATOR
                                                     METAL COVER
      METAL BOTTOM

      BOTTOM INSULATOR
INSULATING WASHER


SUB SEAL

CARBON ELECTRODE
(CATHODE)
                                                                      1-9
                                                                    INCHES
                                                    MANGANESE DIOXIDE
                                                    MIX (DEPOLARIZER)
                                                     COMPLETE CELL
                                FIGURE 111-6
  CUTAWAY VIEW OF A CYLINDRICAL LECLANCHE CELL (SIMILAR IN PHYSICAL
STRUCTURE TO SOME CARBON-ZINC-AIR AND SILVER CHLORIDE-ZINC DRY CELLS)
                                       73

-------
                                    NEGATIVE END (-)
      MANGANESE
      DIOXIDE
    ZINC
CONNECTOR
(CONDUCTIVE SHEET)
                                                   ALUMINUM COVERED WITH CONDUCTIVE
                                                   PLASTIC BEARING A PATCH OF ZINC ON
                                                   THE UNDERSIDE (ALUMINUM WRAPS
                                                   AROUND ALUMINUM AT OTHER END)
                                                   DUPLEXES
                                                   (CONDUCTIVE PLASTIC-
                                                   UPPER SIDE MANGANESE
                                                   DIOXIDE, LOWER SIDE ZINC)
                                                  SEPARATOR CONTAINING
                                                  ELECTROLYTE

                                                  ADHESIVE AROUND EDGE
                                                  OF SEPARATOR
                                                  MANGANESE DIOXIDE ON
                                                     NDUCTIVE PLASTIC ON  ALUMINUM
                                                POSITIVE END
                                                              COMPLETED BATTERY
                                                              ASSEMBLED ON CARD
                                                              WITH CONTACT HOLES
            THICKNESS, 1/4 INCH
                                     FIGURE 111-7
     EXPLODED VIEW OF A FOLIAR LECLANCHE BATTERY USED IN FILM PACK
                                            74

-------
                            POLYESTER
                            JACKET
                          CATHODE CURRENT
                              COLLECTOR

                           ANODE CURRENT
                              COLLECTOR

                             DEPOLARIZER
                            LITHIUM ANODE

                            FLUOROCARBON
                            PLASTIC JACKET
PLASTIC LAYERS SEPARATE
 DEPOLARIZER FROM CASE
      LITHIUM ENVELOPE AND
  FLUOROCARBON PLASTIC JACKET
SEPARATE DEPOLARIZER FROM CASE
                              FIGURE III-8
              CUTAWAY VIEW OF TWO SOLID ELECTROLYTE
                    LITHIUM CELL CONFIGURATIONS
                                 75

-------
                                        GAS GENERATOR
        TOP CAP
     DRIVE DISK
     ACTIVATOR
     CUP
      OUTER
      CASE
      BATTERY
      ASSEMBLAGE
                                                   LANCE
          ELECTROLYTE
          RESERVOIR
                                                   BULKHEAD
                                                  QUAD RING
                                                                3 INCHES
           B-C SECTION

            TERMINAL PLATE
A SECTION
EXAMPLE SHOWN FOR LIQUID-AMMONIA-ACTIVATED MAGNESIUM RESERVE BATTERY:

  CATHODE      - CARBON DEPOLARIZED META-DINITROBENZENE
  ANODE         - MAGNESIUM
  ELECTROLYTE  - DRY AMMONIUM THIOCYANATE ACTIVATED BY LIQUID AMMONIA
                             FIGURE Ili-S
 CUTAWAY VIEW OF A RESERVE TYPE BATTERY ("A" SECTION AND "B-C"
                SECTION CONTAIN ANODE AND CATHODE)
                                 76

-------
      FILLER
      TUBE CAP
FILLER TUBE
FOR WATER
                                                          SOLID CAUSTIC SODA
                                                          CYLINDRICAL
                                                          ZINC ANODE


                                                          CARBON CATHODE
MIXTURE OF
PELLETED LIME
AND GRANULAR
CAUSTIC SODA
                               FIGURE 111-10
                CUTAWAY VIEW OF A CARBON-ZINC-AIR CELL
                                      77

-------
ONE PIECE COVER
(+) PLATED STEEL
ELECTROLYTE-
POTASSIUM HYDROXIDE
CATHODE-MANGANESE
DIOXIDE MIX
SEPARATORS -
NON WOVEN FABRIC

INSULATING TUBE -
POLYETHYLENE COATED
KRAFT

    METAL SPUR

        INSULATOR -
        PAPERBOARD
CAN -STEEL

CURRENT COLLECTOR -
BRASS

ANODE - AMALGAMATED
POWDERED ZINC
JACKET -
TIN PLATED
LITHOGRAPHED
STEEL

SEAL - NYLON


INNER CELL BOTTOM -
STEEL

PRESSURE SPRING -
PLATED SPRING STEEL
           METAL WASHER          |         -RIVET-BRASS
                           OUTER BOTTOM (-)
                           PLATED STEEL
                           FIGURE IIJ-11
    CUTAWAY VIEW OF AN ALKALINE-MANGANESE BATTERY
      (SIMILAR IN PHYSICAL STRUCTURE TO CYLINDRICAL
                     MERCURY-ZINC BATTERIES)
                                 78

-------
 CELL CAN
                                                                   ANODE CAP
                                     CATHODE
                                     (MERCURIC)
                                     OXIDE MIX
                               ANODE
                               (AMALGAMATED
                               ZINC)
                                FIGURE ill-12
   CUTAWAY VIEW OF A MERCURY-ZINC (RUBEN) CELL (SIMILAR IN PHYSICAL
STRUCTURE TO ALKALINE-MANGANESE AND SILVER OXIDE-ZINC BUTTON CELLS)
                                      79

-------
                POSITIVE PLATE PROCESS
          NICKEL
          POWDER"
    RAW
    MATERIALS-
                      a	t
                       SINTERED
                       STRIP
IMPREGNATION
                        BRUSH
                      FORMATION
                       SEPARATOR-
                NICKEL
                •STRIP
               POTASSIUM HYDROXIDE
               SODIUM HYDROXIDE 	:
               WATER
                                                      METAL  RAW
                                                      SCREEN MATERIALS
                                        ASSEMBLY
                                      ELECTROLYTE
                                      ADDITION
                                                         u
                                                         NEGATIVE
                                                         PLATE
                                                         PROCESS
                                                       •NICKEL PLATED
                                                       STEEL CASE
                             FIGURE 111-13
MAJOR PRODUCTION OPERATIONS IN NICKEL-CADMIUM BATTERY MANUFACTURE
                                    80

-------
    LEAD'
LEAD OXIDE.

SULFURIC  •
ACID
LEADY OXIDE
PRODUCTION
   MIXER
                 SEPARATORS
                    BATTERY CASE
                    AND COVER
PASTING
MACHINE
WITH DRYER
                                    CURING OF
                                    PLATES
                     STACKER
                                   WELD
                                   ASSEMBLED
                                   ELEMENTS
                                                    PIG LEAD OR
                                                    SHEET LEAD
GRID
MANUFACTURE
                                    PRODUCT
                                  FIGURE 111-14
               SIMPLIFIED DIAGRAM OF MAJOR PRODUCTION
            OPERATIONS IN LEAD ACID BATTERY MANUFACTURE

-------
r
     WATER, STARCH,
     ZINCCHLOR1DE,
     MERCUR'OUS CHLORIDE,
     AMMONIUM CHLORIDE
                                           ADDITION
                                           OF PASTE
   	A
   ncrom A 01 -rrr e    	 — 	        • »•	••••• • •—•• ••	IIIIIIIII^IIIMII
                                 •ZINC CANS
                             	|
   DEPOLARIZER
   (MANGANESE DIOXIDE
   + CARBON BLACK)
±
                            MIX
           ELECTROLYTE
           (AMMONIUM CHLORIDE +
           ZINC CHLORIDE + WATER)
          CARBON ROD
          DEPOLARIZER AND
          ELECTROLYTE ADDED
                                                             •CARBON ROD

                                                             - PAPER LINED
                                                              ZINC CANS
                                        SUPPORT
                                        WASHER ADDED
                                           PASTE
                                           SETTING
                                                  =L_ J
                                           CELL
                                           SEALED
                                            CRIMP
                                           TEST AND
                                           FINISH
  	 ALTERNATE PRODUCTION STEPS
               AGE AND
               TEST
                                          PRODUCT

                                FIGURE 111-15
 MAJOR PRODUCTION OPERATIONS IN LECLANCHE BATTERY MANUFACTURE
                                     82

-------
                        IODINE-

          POLY-2-VINYL-PYRIDINE-
CATHODE
   MIX
                             ELECTROLYTE
LITHIUM-
             DEGREASE
                          ANODE
             CELL CASE,
             CONTACTS,
             SEALS
                                       ASSEMBLY
                                         TEST
                                          T
                                        PRODUCT
                        FIGURE 111-16
             MAJOR PRODUCTION OPERATIONS IN
          LITHIUM-IODINE BATTERY MANUFACTURE
                             83

-------
   CARBON-

 DEIONIZE
 WATER
SUURRY
PREPARATION
                 DRY
                PUNCH
                                      MAGNESIUM
                                      STRIP
                                       PUNCH
                        CATHODE
                                          ANODE
                                      ASSEMBLY
                                         T
                                      AMMONIA
                                      -AMMONIUM-
                                      THIOCYANATE
                                      PRODUCT
                        FIGURE IH-17
MAJOR PRODUCTION OPERATIONS IN AMMONIA-ACTIVATED MAGNESIUM
                  RESERVE CELL MANUFACTURE
                              84

-------
                                            CONTAINER
                            LIME .
                         CAUSTIC
                         POTASH '
                       DRY ELECTROLYTE
                       PLACED IN
                       CONTAINER
  MANGANESE
  DIOXIDE'
GRAPHITE'
 CHARCOAL
 POWDER•
POROUS ACTIVATED
CARBON
ELECTRODE
ELECTRODE
INSERTED
                            ZINC-
                        MERCURY-
                                          AMALGAMATED
                                          ZINC ELECTRODE
                                          INSERTED
                                            ZINC
                                            ELECTRODE
                                            SEALED
                                             TEST AND
                                             PACK
                                             PRODUCT


                         FIGURE 111-18
     MAJOR PRODUCTION OPERATIONS IN WATER ACTIVATED
              CARBON-ZINC-AIR CELL MANUFACTURE
                               85

-------
                   BINDER,
                   CARBON ft
                   MANGANESE
                   DIOXIDE
                                              ZINC ft
                                              MERCURY
                  FORMED INTO
                  CATHODE
                        POTASSIUM HYDROXIDE,
                        WATER & BINDER
     CONTAINER
     PRODUCED
CATHODE
INSERTED
SEPARATOR
INSERTED
ELECTROLYTE
                                               ANODE
ANODE
INSERTED
CURRENT
COLLECTOR
RIVET AND
SEAL INSERTED
                                                     CRIMP
00
O>
         PRODUCT-
   TEST AND
   PACK
   COVERS
   ATTACHED
     PRESSURE
     SPRING
     INSERTED
  JACKET AND
  PAPER
  INSULATOR
  ATTACHED
                                                                                     PRE-TEST
             H
                                                                                                   CELL WASH
                                                   FIGURE iII-19
                                     MAJOR PRODUCTION OPERATIONS IN ALKALINE-
                                     MANGANESE DIOXIDE BATTERY MANUFACTURE

-------
            MERCURIC
            .OXIDE

            GRAPHITE

          MANGANESE
          DIOXIDE
          SODIUM
          HYDROXIDE-
               WATER
ELECTROLYTE
PREPARED


ELECTROLYTE
ADDED
                  ZINC
                  MERCURY.
                  AMALGAM
ZINC ANODE


ANODE
ADDED
                                             TOP AND
                                             GASKET ADDED
                                             CELL CRIMPED
                                             AND WASHED
                                                PRODUCT
                            FIGURE 111-20
SIMPLIFIED DIAGRAM OF MAJOR OPERATIONS IN MERCURY-ZINC (RUBEN)
                        BATTERY MANUFACTURE
                                  87

-------
                2800
00
00
                400
                                                                                  •FROM U.S. DEPT. OF COMMERCE DATA
                                                                                   1 977 CENSUS OF MANUFACTURERS
                                                    FIGURE 111-21
                                 VALUE OF BATTERY PRODUCT SHIPMENTS 1963-1977*

-------
00
vo
                                                                                          A 1H PLANTS
                                                                                             •BASED ON TOTAL OF 253 PLANTS; PLANTS
                                                                                             IN MULTIPLE SUBCATEGORIES COUNTED
                                                                                             MORE THAN ONCE.
                                                                                        I—X EPA REGIONS
                                                                            FIGURE 111-22
                                                  GEOGRAPHICAL REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF BATTERY MANUFACTURING PLANTS

-------
V0
O
               50
                40
             V)

             \  3°
             J
             £L
             U.
             0
             a:
             ui
             m
             2
             3  20
             Z
                10
                  0   '   4   '   8     12
• REPRESENTS THE NUMBER OF PLANTS

  IN INDICATED PRODUCTION RANGE
                                           16
                                              PRODUCTION (METRIC TONS X 10 )
                                                       FIGURE 111-23
                               DISTRIBUTION OF LEAD SUBCATEGORY PRODUCTION RATES

-------
   so
40
W

Z
<
J
ft.
tL
0
E
U
03
5
3
Z
30
                                                              I REPRESENTS THE NUMBER OF PUANTS

                                                               HAVING THE INDICATED RANGE OF

                                                               NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
20
   10
                100
                             200
                                       300  " •"" '    "  400

                                    NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
                                                                    500
                                                                                             700
                                        FIGURE 111-24

            DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYMENT AT LEAD SUBCATEGORY MANUFACTURING
                                           PLANTS

-------

-------
                           SECTION IV
                   INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION


Subcategorization should take  into  account  pertinent  industry
characteristics,  manufacturing  process  variations,  water use,
wastewater characteristics, and other factors which are important
in determining a specific grouping of industry segments  for  the
purpose  of  regulating  wastewater  pollutants.  Division of the
industry segment into  subcategories  provides  a  mechanism  for
addressing   process  and  product  variations  which  result  in
distinct wastewater characteristics.   Effluent  limitations  and
standards   establish   mass  limitations  on  the  discharge  of
pollutants and are applied, through the permit issuance  process,
to  specific  dischargers.   To allow the national standard to be
applied to a wide range of sizes of production units, the mass of
pollutant discharge must be referenced to a unit  of  production.
This  factor is referred to as a production normalizing parameter
and is developed in conjunction with Subcategorization.

In  addition  to  processes  which  are   specific   to   battery
manufacturing,   many   battery   plants   report  other  process
operations.  These operations, generally involve the  manufacture
of   battery   components  and  raw  materials  and  may  include
operations not specific to  battery  manufacture.   A  number  of
these operations are not considered in this document.

SUBCATEGORIZATION

Factors Considered

After examining the nature of the various segments of the battery
manufacturing  category and the operations performed therein, the
following Subcategorization factors were selected for evaluation.
Each of these factors is discussed  in  the  ensuing  paragraphs,
followed  by a description of the process leading to selection of
the anode Subcategorization.

     1.   Waste Characteristics
     2.   Battery Type
     3.   Manufacturing Processes
     4.   Water Use
     5.   Water Pollution Control Technology
     6.   Treatment Costs
     7.   Effluent Discharge Destination
     8.   Solid Waste Generation and Disposal
     9.   Size of Plant
     10.  Age of Plant
     Tl.  Number of Employees
                               93

-------
     12.  Total Energy Requirements  {Manufacturing Process
            and Waste Treatment and Control)
     13.  Non-Water Quality Characteristics
     14.  Unique Plant Characteristics

Waste Characteristics -  While  subcategorization  is  inherently
based on waste characteristics, these are primarily determined by
characteristics   of  the  manufacturing  process,  product,  raw
materials,  and  plant  which  may  provide  useful   bases   for
subcategor i zat ion.

Battery  Type - Battery type as designated by reactive couples or
recognized battery types (as in the case of magnesium reserve  or
thermal  cells),  was initially considered as a logical basis for
subcategorization.  This basis has two significant  shortcomings.
First,  batteries  of  a  given type are often manufactured using
several  different  processes  with  very  different   wastewater
generation  characteristics.  Second, it was found that batteries
of several types were often manufactured at a  single  site  with
some process operations (and resultant wastewater streams) common
to  the  different  battery types.  Since modification of battery
type subcategories to reflect all process variations and  product
combinations  results in over 20.0 subcategories, battery type was
found   to   be   unacceptable   as   the   primary   basis   for
subcategorization.   Battery  type  is,  however,  reflected to a
significant degree in manufacturing process considerations and in
anode metal.

Manufacturing  Processes  -  The  processes  performed   in   the
manufacture   of   batteries   are   the  sources  of  wastewater
generation, and thus are a logical basis for the establishment of
subcategories.  In this category, however, similar processes  may
be  applied  to  differing  raw  materials  in  the production of
different   battery   types   yielding    different    wastewater
characteristics.    For   example,   nickel,   cadmium  and  zinc
electrodes may all be produced by  electrodeposition  techniques.
Further,  the number of different manufacturing process sequences
used in producing batteries is extremely large although a smaller
number of distinct process operations are used  in  varying  com-
binations.   As a result of these considerations, neither overall
process sequence nor specific process operations were found to be
suitable  as  primary  bases  for  subcategorization.    However,
process  variations  that  result  in  significant differences in
wastewater generation are reflected in the manufacturing  process
elements  for  which specific discharge allowances were developed
within each subcategory,

Water Use - Water use alone is not a comprehensive enough  factor
upon  which  to subcategorize because water use is related to the
                               94

-------
various manufacturing processes used and product quality  needed.
While water use is a key element in the limitations and standards
established, it is not directly related to the source or the type
and  quantity  of the waste.  For example, water is used to rinse
electrodes and to rinse batteries.   The amounts of water used for
these processes might be similar, but the quantity of  pollutants
generated is significantly different.

Water Pollution Control Technology, Treatment Costs, and Effluent
Discharge  Destination  -  The  necessity for a subcategorization
factor to relate to the raw wastewater characteristics of a plant
automatically eliminates certain factors  from  consideration  as
potential  bases  for  subdividing the category.  Water pollution
control  technology,  treatment  costs,  and  effluent  discharge
destination  have  no effect on the raw wastewater generated in a
plant.  The water pollution  control  technology  employed  at  a
plant  and its costs are the result of a requirement to achieve a
particular effluent level for a given raw wastewater  load.   The
treatment   technology   does   not  affect  the  raw  wastewater
characteristics.  Likewise, the  effluent  discharge  destination
does not affect the raw wastewater characteristics.

Solid Waste Generation and Disposal - Physical and chemical solid
waste  characteristics  generated by the manufacture of batteries
can be accounted for by subcategorization  according  to  battery
type  since  this  determines  some of the resultant solid wastes
from a plant.  Solid wastes resulting  from  the  manufacture  of
batteries includes process wastes (scrap and spent solutions) and
sludges  resulting  from  wastewater  treatment.  The solid waste
characteristics (high metals  content),  as  well  as  wastewater
characteristics,  are a function of the specific battery type and
manufacturing process.  However, not  all  solid  wastes  can  be
related  to  wastewater  generation  and  be  used for developing
effluent limitations and standards.  Also, solid  waste  disposal
techniques  may  be  identical for a wide variety of solid wastes
but cannot be related to  pollutant  generation.   These  factors
alone do not provide a sufficient base for subcategorization.

Size  of  Plant  -  The  size  of  a  plant is not an appropriate
subcategorization factor since the wastewater characteristics per
unit of production are essentially the same  for  different  size
plants that have similar processing sequences.  However, the size
of  a  plant is related to its production capacity.  Size is thus
indirectly used to determine the effluent limitations since these
are based on  production  rates.   But,  size  alone  is  not  an
adequate   subcategorization  parameter  because  the  wastewater
characteristics of plants are  also  dependent  on  the  type  of
processes performed.
                               95

-------
Age of Plant - While the relative age of a plant may be important
in  considering the economic impact of a regulation, it is not an
appropriate basis for subcategorization because it does not  take
into  consideration  the  significant parameters which affect the
raw wastewater characteristics.  In addition, a subcategorization
based on age would have to distinguish between  the  age  of  the
plant  and  the  age  of all equipment used in the plant which is
highly variable.  Plants in this industry modernize  and  replace
equipment  relatively  frequently,  and  changes of subcategories
would often  result.   Subcategorization  using  this  factor  is
therefore infeasible.

Number of Employees - The number of employees in a plant does not
directly  provide  a basis for subcategorizati-on since the number
of employees does not reflect the production processes used,  the
production rates, or water use rates.  Plants producing batteries
varied  widely  in  terms of number of production employees.  The
volume and characteristics of process wastewater was found to not
have any meaningful relationship with plant employment figures.

Total  Energy  Requirements  -  Total  energy  requirements  were
excluded  as  a  subcategorization  parameter  primarily  because
energy requirements are found to vary widely within this category
and are not meaningfully related  to  wastewater  generation  and
pollutant  discharge.   Additionally,  it  is  often difficult to
obtain reliable energy estimates specifically for production  and
waste treatment.  When available, estimates are likely to include
other energy requirements such as lighting, air conditioning, and
heating energy.

Non-Water Quality Aspects - Non-water quality aspects may have an
effect  on the wastewater generated in a plant.  For example, wet
scrubbers  may  be  used  to  satisfy   air   pollution   control
regulations.   This could result in an additional contribution to
the plant's wastewater flow.  However,  it  is  not  the  primary
source  of  wastewater  generation  in  the battery manufacturing
category,  and  therefore,   not   acceptable   as   an   overall
subcategorization factor.

Unique  Plant Characteristics - Unique pl-ant characteristics such
as  geographical  location,   space   availability,   and   water
availability  do not provide a proper basis for subcategorization
since they do not affect the raw  waste  characteristics  of  the
plant.   Dcp  data  indicate that plants in the same geographical
area do not necessarily have similar processes and,  consequently
may  have different wastewater characteristics.  However, process
water availability may be a function of the  geographic  location
of  a  plant,  and  the price of water may necessitate individual
modifications to procedures employed in plants.  For example,  it
                               96

-------
has  been  generally  observed  that  plants  located in areas of
limited water supply  are  more  likely  to  practice  in-process
wastewater  control  procedures  to reduce the ultimate volume of
discharge.  These procedures however/ can also be implemented  in
plants  that  have  access  to plentiful water supplies and thus,
constitute  a  basis  for  effluent  control  rather   than   for
subcategorization.

A limitation in the availability of land space for constructing a
waste  treatment  facility  may in some cases affect the economic
impact of a limitation.  However, in-process controls  and  water
conservation  can  be  adopted to minimize the size and thus land
space required for the  treatment  facility.   Often,  a  compact
treatment  unit  can  easily handle wastewater if good in-process
techniques are utilized to conserve raw. materials and water.

Subcateqorization Development

After reviewing  and  evaluating  data  for  this  category,  the
initial  battery type subcategorization was replaced by the anode
material, electrolyte approach.  This  development  is  discussed
below in detail.

Upon  initiation  of  the  study  of  the  battery  manufacturing
category,  published  literature  and   data   generated   in   a
preliminary   study   of   the  industry  were  reviewed,  and  a
preliminary approach to subcategorization  of  the  industry  was
defined.   This  approach was based on electrolytic couples (e.g.
nickel-cadmium and  silver  oxide-zinc)  and  recognized  battery
types  (e.g. carbon-zinc, alkaline manganese, and thermal cells).
The weight of batteries produced was  chosen  as  the  production
basis  for  data  analysis.  This approach provided the structure
within which a detailed study of the industry was conducted,  and
was  reflected  in  the  data collection portfolio used to obtain
data from all battery manufacturing plants.  In  addition,  sites
selected for on-site data collection and wastewater sampling were
chosen  to provide representation of the significant electrolytic
couples and battery  types  identified  in  the  data  collection
portfolios.

As  discussed  in  Section  III,  the  preliminary  review of the
category resulted  in  the  identification  of  sixteen  distinct
electrolytic  couples  and  battery types requiring consideration
for  effluent  limitations  and  standards.   A  review  of   the
completed  dcp  returned by the industry revealed four additional
battery types requiring study but did not initially result in any
fundamental change in the approach to subcategorization.
                               97

-------
As the detailed study of  the  industry  proceeded,  however,  it
became    apparent    that    the    preliminary    approach   to
subcategorization would not be adequate as a final framework  for
the  development  of  effluent limitations and standards.  It was
determined that further breakdown of the  original  battery  type
subcategories   would  be  required  to  encompass  existing  and
possible  process  and  product  variations.    The   number   of
subcategories  ultimately required using this approach was likely
to approach 200.  This approach was likely to result in redundant
regulations and possible confusion about  applicability  in  some
cases.

Review  of  dcp responses and on-site observations at a number of
plants revealed that  there  was  substantial  process  diversity
among  plants  producing  a  given battery type, and consequently
little uniformity in wastewater generation  and  discharge.   For
most  cell  types,  several  different  structures and production
processes were identified for both anode and cathode, and it  was
observed  that these could be combined into many variations.  The
data also revealed that not  all  plants  performed  all  process
operations  on-site.   Some battery manufacturing plants produced
cell electrodes or  separators  which  were  not  assembled  into
batteries  within  the plant, and others purchased some or all of
the  components  which  were  used  in  producing  the   finished
batteries  shipped  from the plant.  To reflect these differences
in manufacturing processes it would have been necessary to divide
the preliminary battery type subcategories into approximately 200
subcategories to accommodate those presently  existing  and  into
nearly   600  subcategories  to  encompass  all  of  the  obvious
variations possible in new sources.

The data  obtained  from  the  industry  also  showed  that  most
production   operations   are  not  separated  by  battery  type.
Manufacture of more than one battery type at a single location is
common, and some production operations  are  commonly  shared  by
different  battery types.  Raw material preparation, cell washes,
and the manufacture of specific electrodes (most often the anode)
are often commonly performed  for  the  production  of  different
battery types.  Production schedules at some of these plants make
the  association of production activity (and therefore wastewater
discharge)  in  these  operations  with  specific  battery  types
difficult.

Many operations are intermittent and variable, and there is often
a  considerable  lag between the preparation of raw materials and
components,  and  the  shipment  of  finished   batteries.    The
redundant   inclusion  of  production  operations  under  several
different battery types is undesirable in any case.
                               98

-------
Subcategorization of the battery category  was  re-evaluated  and
redefined  in  light  of  the  industry characteristics discussed
above.   In  the  development  of  the  final   subcategorization
approach, objectives were to:

     1.   Encompass  the  significant  variability  observed   in
          processes  and  products  within  battery manufacturing
          operations

     2.   Select  a  subcategorization  basis  which  yielded   a
          manageable number of subcategories for the promulgation
          of effluent limitations and standards

     3.   Minimize  redundancy  in  the  regulation  of  specific
          process effluents

     4.   Facilitate  the  determination  of   applicability   of
          subcategory guidelines and standards to specific plants

     5.   Subcategorize so that, to the maximum extent  possible,
          plants fall within a single subcategory

Available  data show that where multiple cell types are produced,
and especially where process operations  are  common  to  several
types,  the  cells frequently have the same anode material.  As a
result, cell anode was considered as a  subcategorization  basis.
Significant  differences in wastewater volume and characteristics
between  plants  producing  zinc  anode   cells   with   alkaline
electrolytes    and    Leclanche   cells   necessitated   further
subcategorization based on cell  electrolyte,   Subcategorization
on  these  bases  yielded eight subcategories5  cadmium, calcium,
lead, Leclanche, lithium,  magnesium,  nuclear,  and  zinc.   All
subcategories  except  for  lead  are  discussed  specifically in
Volume I of the Development  Document  for  Effluent  Limitations
Guidelines  and  Standards  for  the  Battery Manufacturinq Point
Source Category.

These subcategories preserve most of the recognized battery types
within a single subcategory and greatly reduce the redundancy  in
covering  process  operations.   They  also  limit  the number of
plants producing batteries under more  than  one  subcategory  to
thirteen.   Recognized  battery  types which are split under this
approach are carbon-zinc air cells which  are  manufactured  with
both  alkaline  and  acidic  electrolytes,  and thermal batteries
which are produced with calcium, lithium, and  magnesium  anodes.
In  both  cases, however, significant variations in process water
use and discharge  exist  within  the  preliminary  battery  type
subcategories, and these are reflected in the breakdown resulting
from  anode based'subcategorization.  In most cases where process
                               99

-------
operations are common to multiple battery  types,  the  processes
fall within a single subcategory.  Where plants produce batteries
in   more  than  one  subcategory,  manufacturing  processes  are
generally completely segregated.

Identification  of  these  anode  groups  as  subcategories   for
effluent  limitations purposes was also favored by an examination
of wastewater characteristics and waste treatment practices.   In
general,  plants  manufacturing  batteries  with  a  common anode
reactant were observed to produce wastewater streams bearing  the
same  major  pollutants  (e.g.  zinc  and mercury from zinc anode
batteries, cadmium and nickel from cadmium anode batteries).   As
a result, treatment practices at these plants are similar.

A  battery  product  within  a  subcategory  is  produced  from a
combination   of   anode   manufacturing    processes,    cathode
manufacturing processes and various ancillary operations  (such as
assembly  associated  operations,  and chemical powder production
processes specific to battery manufacturing).  Within each  group
(anode,  cathode,  or ancillary) there are numerous manufacturing
processes or production functions.  These processes or  functions
may  generate  independent  wastewater  streams  with significant
variations in wastewater  characteristics.   To  obtain  specific
waste  characteristics  for  which  discharge allowances could be
developed, the following approach was  used  (Figure  IV-1,  page
107).   Individual  process  waste  streams  (subelements) can be
combined to obtain specific flow and waste characteristics for  a
manufacturing   process   or  function  with  similar  production
characteristics which  generates  a  process  wastewater  stream.
Some   manufacturing   processes  are  not  associated  with  any
subelements; these are discussed in Section V.   Each  significant
battery manufacturing process or production function is called an
element   in   this   document.   For  example,  in  the  cadmium
subcategory, a nickel cathode  can  be  produced  for  a  nickel-
cadmium  battery.   One  method  of  producing this cathode is by
sintering nickel paste to a support  structure  and  impregnating
nickel  salts  within  the pores of the sintered nickel.  Several
process waste streams can be associated with  this  manufacturing
process such as, electrode rinse streams, spent solution streams,
and  air  scrubber  wastewater streams.  All of these subelements
are related to production of nickel impregnated  cathodes,  which
is  the  element.   At  the  element  level,  flows and pollutant
characteristics can  be  related  to ( production.   Elements  are
combined or can be combined in various ways at specific plants at
the  subcategory  level.   Wastewater treatment can be related to
this level which is considered  the  level  of  regulation.   The
detailed  information  which  contributed  to the adoption of the
above subcategorization approach is presented in  the  discussion
                              100

-------
of process wastewater sources and characteristics in Section V of
this document.

FINAL SUBCATEGORIES AND PRODUCTION NORMALIZING PARAMETERS

For   lead   batteries   the  determination  was  made  that  one
subcategory  would  be  appropriate.   The  subcategory  however,
needed to be divided into separate elements or process operations
to  account  for  "various wastewater flow differences and process
mixes at different plants.  Also, lead used was selected  as  the
most  appropriate  production  normalizing  parameter.   Specific
elements within the lead subcategory are summarized in Table IV-1
(page 105).  Discussion of the process elements and selection  of
a production normalizing parameter is discussed below.

Lead Subcategory

All  lead  batteries  use  the  lead-lead  peroxide  electrolytic
couple,  but  differences  in  battery  type  and   manufacturing
processes  require  careful examination of production normalizing
factors.  Some of the significant variations include:

          Full line manufacture (plates produced on-site)

          Assembly using green plates (formation on-site)

          Assembly using formed plates

          Leady Oxide Production

               Purchased oxide
               On site production
                    Ball Mill process
                    Barton process

          Grid Manufacture

               Grid casting
               Mold Release Formulation
               Direct chill casting
               Lead rolling

          Plate Curing

               With steam
               Humidity temperature controls
               Stacked

          Plate Formation (Charging)
                              101

-------
          Closed Formation (electrodes assembled in battery case)

               Single fill-single charge
               Double fill - double charge
               Double fill - single charge
               Acid dumped after charge - no refill (damp batteries)

          Open Formation

               Electrodes formed, rinsed, and dried prior to assembly
               (dehydrated batteries)
               Plates formed prior to assembly into batteries

          Plate Soak

          Electrolyte

               Immobilized
               Liquid
          Case
               Sealed
               Vented
          Battery Wash

               None
               With water only
               With detergent

          Configuration

               Cylindrical
               Rectangular

          Separators

               Rubber
               Paper-Phenoli c
               Vinyl

Among  these  variations,  the  distinction  between  full   line
manufacture  and  assembly,  and  variations  in plate curing and
formation, and battery wash operations were observed  to. have  a
significant  effect  on  the  volume  and treatability of process
wastewater.   Other  operations  which   are   not   specifically
associated with manufacturing operations contribute to wastewater
                              102

-------
generation:  floor  wash,  wet  air  pollution  control,  battery
repair, laboratories, truck wash, and  personal  hygiene  related
activities.   To  adequately  reflect  the  combinations of these
variables observed  within  the  industry,  the  subcategory  was
subdivided on the basis of specific process operations.

The  total lead weight (including the weight of alloying elements
in lead  grid  alloys)  used  in  the  manufacture  of  batteries
produced  was  chosen as the production normalizing parameter for
all process elements for which discharge allowances are  provided
in   this   subcategory   except   truck  wash.   The  production
normalizing parameter for truck wash is the  weight  of  lead  in
batteries  moved over the highway in trucks, because this relates
more closely with what is actually washed.  Total battery weight,
electrode  surface  area,  total  electrode  weights,  electrical
capacity  of the battery, and number of employees were considered
as alternatives to the selected production normalizing parameter.
The weight of lead consumed in battery manufacture was chosen  in
preference  to  total battery weight because total battery weight
is subject to variations resulting from differences in the  ratio
of  case weight to the weight of active material.  Case weight is
not directly related to wastewater generation.  Further,  battery
weight  is  not  applicable  where  plates are shipped for use at
other locations.  Total  electrode  weights  were  not  generally
reported  by plants in this subcategory and, further, are subject
to variation due to the degree of hydration and state  of  charge
of  the  electrode.   Therefore,  the weight of lead was found to
provide a  more  available  and  consistent  basis  for  effluent
limitations   and   standards.   Since  most  of  the  wastewater
discharge volume associated  with  electrode  production  results
from   depositing   materials  on  or  removing  impurities  from
electrode surfaces,  electrode  surface  area  was  considered  a
possible  choice as the production normalizing parameter for lead
operations.  Significant difficulty is  encountered  in  defining
the  surface  area,  however, and data were not always available.
The  difficulty  results  from  the  fact  that  the   electrodes
generally  have  significant porosity and irregular surfaces, and
it is the total wetted surface rather than the  simple  projected
area  which determines the volume of wastewater generated.  Since
this area could not be readily determined, electrode surface area
was not chosen as the production normalizing parameter for  these
operations.

Electrical  capacity of the battery should, in theory, correspond
closely to those characteristics of cell electrodes most  closely
associated   with   process   water   use  and  discharge  during
manufacture.  The electrical capacity of cells is  determined  by
the  mass  of  reactive  materials present, and the processing of
reactive is often the major source of process wastewater.  It was
                              103

-------
not, however, for use in this study because  electrical  capacity
data were not obtained.

Becuase the degree of process automation at battery manufacturing
plants  was  observed to vary, the number of production employees
was  not  found  to  be  generally  suitable  as   a   production
normalizing parameter.  Although the number of employees would be
a  suitable  basis  for limiting discharges from employee showers
and handwashes, battery weight  was  chosen  instead  to  achieve
uniformity   with  other  ancillary  wastewater  sources  and  to
minimize the number of production normalizing  parameters  to  be
applied.

OPERATIONS COVERED UNDER OTHER CATEGORIES

Some  lead  subcategory  battery plants perform processes on-site
which are not unique  to  battery  manufacturing  and  which  are
addressed   in  effluent  limitations  and  standards  for  other
industrial categories.  These are identified in Table IV-2  (page
106)  and  are  discussed  in  reference  to the lead subcategory
below.  Specific operations are discussed in Section V.


Plants producing batteries within the lead subcategory perform  a
number  of  processes  which may be performed in other industrial
categories.  Most plants produce electrode grids on-site.   These
are  most often cast from lead (and lead alloys), a metal casting
operation, but may also be rolled or stamped from pure  or  alloy
lead  in  metal  forming  operations.   For  the purposes of this
battery manufacturing  regulation,  lead  casting  (die  cast  or
direct  chill)  performed  at  battery  manufacturing  plants  is
regulated under the battery manufacturing category.  Lead rolling
is included under the battery manufacturing category but  is  not
specifically   regulated   because   there  are  no  dischargers.
Guidance is provided for those battery manufacturing plants which
may perform this function and need to discharge wastewater.   The
production  of  lead  oxide  at  lead  battery plants is a unique
operation yielding a  "leady  oxide"  distinct  from  lead  oxide
produced  in inorganic chemical production.  It is included under
the battery manufacturing category for the  purpose  of  effluent
limitations and standards.

Several  lead  battery  plants  report  the recovery of lead from
scrap  batteries.   These  processes  -  battery   cracking   and
secondary  lead smelting are included under the nonferrpus metals
manufacturing point source category.   Some  lead  anode  battery
plants also produce rubber or plastic battery cases on-site which
are  not  regulated  under the battery manufacturing point source
category.
                              104

-------
                            TABLE  IV-1
       LEAD SUBCATEGORY ELEMENTS AND  PRODUCTION  NORMALIZING
                        PARAMETER  (PNP)l/
Anodes and Cathodes
Ancillary
Personal Hygiene
Leady Oxide Production
Grid Manufacture
  Grid Casting
  Mold Release Formulation
  Direct Chill Casting
  Lead Rolling
Paste Preparation and Application
Curing
Closed Formation (in case)
  Single Fill
  Double Fill
  Fill and Dump
Open Formation (out of case)
  Wet
  Dehydrated
Plate Soaking
Battery Wash
  Detergent
  Water Only
Floor Wash
Wet Air Pollution Control
Battery Repair
Laboratory
Truck Wash.?/
Hand Wash
Respirator Wash
Laundry
I/Production Normalizing  Parameter  (PNP)  is  the  total  weight of
  lead used.
2./PNP is weight of  lead in  trucked  batteries.
                               105

-------
                          TABLE  IV-2

       OPERATIONS AT BATTERY  PLANTS  INCLUDED IN  OTHER
                    INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES

                     (Partial Listing)
Plastic and Rubber Case Manufacture

Retorting, Smelting and Alloying Metals

Inorganic Chemical Production  (Not Specific  to  Battery
Manufacturing)
                           106

-------
                                      SUBCATEGORY
ANODE MANUFACTURE
~i  r
   11
                                           *      4	
CATHODE MANUFACTURE
                                                                                           REGULATION
ANCILLARY OPERATIONS



L


ELEMENT
t
ma
1 -
•Hi
, i
•MM
[
m



mmmmmm


ELEMENT
i
t *M
U
••
i
— .



— -J
i
I
1
1
1
1
1
i.


ELEMENT
t
mmmm
t i
—
t
Ml




mwm


ELEMENT

	



mmm


ELEMENT
/
MB
. J
• ••
t -
•PMP
i
•Ml
1
1
I
1


II
1
1
mt
L


ELEMENT
i
mmmm* mm
i
MJM» ••



•MM* W


ELEMENT
'
••••••
t '

-------

-------
                            SECTION V

            WATER USE AND WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION


This   section   describes   the   collection,   analysis,    and
characterization  of  data  that  form  the  basis  for  effluent
limitations and standards for the lead subcategory, and  presents
the  results of these efforts.  Data were collected from a number
of sources including published literature,  previous  studies  of
battery manufacturing, data collection portfolios  (dcp) mailed to
all  known battery manufacturers, industry surveys mailed to lead
battery manufacturers after proposal, and on-site data collection
and sampling at selected facilities.  Data analysis began with an
investigation of the manufacturing processes practiced,  the  raw
materials  used,  the  process  water  used  and  the  wastewater
generated in the entire battery category.  This analysis was  the
basis   for  subcategorization  of  battery  manufacturing  which
resulted in a separate lead subcategory, and also was  the  basis
for  selection  of  the  lead  subcategory production normalizing
parameter (pnp)  already  discussed  in  detail  in  Section  IV.
Further  analysis  included  collecting  wastewater  samples  and
characterizing wastewater streams within the lead subcategory.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The sources of data used in this study  have  been  discussed  in
detail in Section III.  For the lead subcategory, data collection
and  analysis  were  conducted  in  two  phases, before and after
proposal.  Prior to proposal data collection served to provide  a
subcategorization  scheme  as  well as characterize manufacturing
processes, water use, and treatment.  After  proposal,  extensive
data   collection   and  analysis  was  performed  for  the  lead
subcategory in order to address issues received in comments  from
the lead battery industry.

Published   literature   and  previous  studies  of  the  battery
manufacturing  category  provided  a  basis  for   initial   data
collection  efforts  and general background for the evaluation of
data from specific plants.  The dcp sent  -to  all  known  battery
manufacturing  companies  provided the most complete and detailed
description of the category which could be  obtained.   Dcp  were
used  to develop category and lead subcategory data summaries and
were the primary basis  for  the  selection  of  sites  for  pre-
proposal  on-site  sampling and data collection.  Data from these
plant visits were used to characterize raw and treated wastewater
streams within the  lead  subcategory  and  provide  an  in-depth
evaluation  of  the  impact  of product and process variations on
wastewater characteristics and treatability.
                              109

-------
Prior to proposal, data analysis proceeded concurrently with data
collection and provided guidance for the initial data  collection
effort.   Initially,  a  review  and  evaluation of the available
information from published literature and  previous  studies  was
used  as the basis for developing the dcp format which structured
the preliminary data base for  category  analysis.   This  effort
included  the  definition of preliminary subcategories within the
battery  manufacturing  category.    These   subcategories   were
expected  to  differ significantly in manufacturing processes and
wastewater discharge characteristics.  Consequently on-site  data
collection  and  wastewater  sampling  were  performed  for  each
subcategory.  Specific sites for sampling were  selected  on  the
basis of data obtained from completed dcp.  For each subcategory,
screening  samples  were  collected and analyzed for all priority
pollutants and other selected parameters.  The results  of  these
screening  analyses,  plus the dcp data, were evaluated to select
significant pollutant  parameters  within  each  subcategory  for
verification sampling and analysis.

After   proposal,  additional  data  were  collected  to  augment
existing data in response to a number of comments  received  from
lead  battery  manufacturers  and  their  trade  associations.  A
survey  was   developed   and   distributed   to   lead   battery
manufacturers  to  assess  wastewater  treatment system operating
characteristics, solid waste  disposal,  and  process  water  use
practices.   Based  on  industry  comments  and survey responses,
sites were selected for data  collection  and  additional  sample
analysis.   Data  from  these  site  visits  were used to further
characterize raw and treated process wastewater streams to assess
wastewater  characteristics   and   treatability.    Also,   grid
manufacture  operations  proposed  for regulation under the metal
molding  and  casting  category  were  transferred  to  the  lead
subcategory.   Visit  data  were  used  to  augment existing data
concerning water use and air pollution control practices  in  the
grid manufacturing process operations.

Data Collection Portfolio

The   data   collection   portfolio  (dcp)  was  used  to  obtain
information  about  production,  manufacturing   processes,   raw
materials,   water   use,  wastewater  discharge  and  treatment,
effluent quality, and presence or absence of priority  pollutants
in  wastewaters  from  battery  manufacturers.  Because many lead
battery manufacturers operate on-site casting facilities,  a  dcp
addressing  casting  operations for the metal molding and casting
(foundry) category was included with  the  battery  manufacturing
dcp.   After  collection  of the data, the determination was made
that process wastewater discharges from casting were initially to
be evaluated as part of the foundry category.
                              110

-------
For data  gathering  purposes,  a  list  of  companies  known  to
manufacture  batteries  was compiled from Dun and Bradstreet Inc.
SIC code listings, battery industry trade association  membership
lists   (Battery  Council  International  (BCD  and  Independent
Battery Manufacturers Association  (IBMA)  for  lead  batteries),
listings   in   the   Thomas   Register,  and  lists  of  battery
manufacturers  compiled  during  previous  EPA  studies.    These
sources  included  battery  distributors,  wholesalers, corporate
headquarters and individual plants.  The lists were  screened  to
identify   corporate  headquarters  for  companies  manufacturing
batteries and to eliminate distributors and  wholesalers.   As  a
result,  a  total  of  226  dcp  were  mailed  to  each corporate
headquarters, and a separate  response  was  requested  for  each
battery   manufacturing   plant   operated  by  the  corporation.
Following dcp distribution, responses  were  received  confirming
battery   manufacture   by   133   companies   operating  at  235
manufacturing sites.  Of these, 184  lead  battery  manufacturing
sites  were identified.  Because of the dynamic nature of battery
manufacturing these numbers vary since some new sites  have  been
built,  some  sites  have  consolidated operations, and some have
closed.  Since proposal, information was received which  revealed
that   19  lead  battery sites have closed, while 2 new sites have
been built.

Specific information requested in the dcp was determined  on  the
basis  of an analysis of data available from published literature
and previous EPA studies of this category, and  consideration  of
data   requirements  for  the promulgation of effluent limitations
and standards.  This analysis indicated that  wastewater  volumes
and  characteristics varied significantly among different battery
types  according to the chemical reactants and  electrolyte  used,
and  that  raw  materials  constituted  potential sources of sig-
nificant pollutants.  In addition, batteries of a given type were
commonly produced in a variety of sizes, shapes,  and  electrical
capacities.   Available  data also indicated that processes could
vary significantly in wastewater discharge characteristics.

As a result of these considerations, the  dcp  was  developed  so
that specific battery types manufactured, manufacturing processes
practiced,  and  the  raw  materials  used for each type could be
identified.  Production information was  requested  in  terms  of
both   total  annual  production   (Ibs/yr)  and  production  rate
(lbs/hr).  The dcp requested data for the  year  1976,  the  last
full   year  for  which  production information was expected to be
available.  Some plants provided information for  1977  and  1978
rather than 1976 as requested in the dcp.  All data received were
used   to  characterize the industry.  Water discharge information
was requested in  terms  of  gallons  per  hour.   The  dcp  also
requested a complete description of the manufacturing process for
                              111

-------
each battery type, including flow diagrams designating points and
flow  rates  of water use and discharge, and type and quantity of
raw materials used.  Chemical  characteristics  of  each  process
wastewater stream were also requested.

Basic  information requested included the name and address of the
plant and corporate headquarters, and  the  names  and  telephone
numbers  of  contacts for further information.  Additionally, the
dcp included a request for a description of wastewater  treatment
practices,   water   source   and   use,   wastewater   discharge
destination, and type of  discharge  regulations  to  which  each
plant  was  subject.  Since the wast.ewaters at each plant had not
been analyzed for the priority pollutants, the dcp asked  whether
each  priority  pollutant was known or believed to be present in,
or absent from, process wastewater from the plant.

Of the 184 confirmed lead battery manufacturing sites, all but 10
returned either  a  completed  dcp  or  a  letter  with  relevant
available  information  submitted in lieu of the dcp.  This level
of response was achieved through follow-up telephone and  written
contacts  after mailing of the original data requests.  Follow-up
contacts indicated that six  of  the  10  plants  which  did  not
provide  a written response had less than five employees and with
the other four comprised a negligible fraction of the industry.

The quality  of  the  responses  obtained  varied  significantly.
Although  most  plants  could  provide  most  of  the information
requested a few indicated that available information was  limited
to the plant name and location, product, and number of employees.
These  plants were generally small and usually reported that they
discharged no process  wastewater.   Also,  process  descriptions
varied  considerably.   Plants were asked to describe all process
operations, not just those that generated process wastewater.  As
a  result  over  50  percent  of  the  lead  subcategory   plants
submitting  dcp indicated that certain process operations did not
generate wastewater.  In some dcp  specific  process  flow  rates
conflicted  with water use and discharge rates reported elsewhere
in the dcp.  Specific process flow information  provided  in  the
dcp  was  sufficient  to characterize flow rates for most process
elements for the lead subcategory.  These data were augmented  by
data  from  plant  visits  and, where appropriate, by information
gained in follow-up telephone and written contacts with  selected
plants.   Raw  waste  chemical  analysis  was  almost universally
absent from the dcp and had to be developed almost entirely  from
sampling at visited plants and data from previous EPA studies.

Upon  receipt, each dcp was reviewed to determine plant products,
manufacturing  processes,  wastewater   treatment   and   control
practices,  and  effluent  quality (if available).  Subsequently,
                              112

-------
selected data contained in each portfolio  were  entered  into  a
computer  data  base  to  provide  identification  of plants with
specific  characteristics  (e.g.   specific   products,   process
operations,  or waste treatment processes), and to retrieve basic
data for thes'e plants.  The dcp data base  provided  quantitative
flow  and  production  data for each plant.  This information was
used to calculate production normalized flow values  as  well  as
wastewater  flow  rates  for  each  process  element  in the lead
subcategory.  The  data  base  was  also  used  to  identify  and
evaluate wastewater treatment technologies and in-process control
techniques used.

Industry Survey

After  proposal,  the Agency determined that additional data were
required in order to address  a  number  of  issues  in  comments
received  from lead battery manufacturers and trade associations.
An industry survey was developed to assess  wastewater  treatment
system  operating  characteristics  including  effluent  quality;
solid waste disposal; process water use practices;  and  personal
hygiene and cleaning practices required at the plant.

The  Battery  Council  International (BCI) played a major role in
the development of the  industry  survey.   BCI  distributed  the
survey  to  their  membership  and  to  the  Independent  Battery
Manufacturing Association (IBMA).  Completed forms were  sent  to
the  EPA  at  the  request of BCI.  EPA received survey responses
from 65 plants.  Two of the survey responses indicated that their
plants were closed and did not provide any new data.

The data provided in the industry surveys;  along -with  the  dcp
data   base   were   carefully   considered  in  formulating  the
promulgated regulation.  Industry survey data  were  particularly
useful  in  evaluating personal hygiene and cleaning practices at
lead battery plants.

Plant Visits and Sampling (Pre-Proposal)

Seventeen lead subcategory plants were .visited prior to proposal.
At each plant, information was obtained about  the  manufacturing
processes,  raw  materials,  process wastewater sources (if any),
and  wastewater  treatment  and  control  practices.   Wastewater
samples were collected at 5 lead subcategory plants.

Prior   to   proposal,   the  collection  of  data  on  priority,
conventional and  nonconventional  pollutants  in  waste  streams
generated  by  this  category  was accomplished using a two-phase
sampling program.  The first phase, screening,  was  designed  to
provide  samples  of  influent  water, raw wastewater and treated
                              113

-------
effluent  from  a  representative  plant  in  each   subcategory.
Samples  from  the  screening phase were analyzed and the results
evaluated to determine the presence  of  pollutants  in  a  waste
stream  and  their  potential  environmental significance.  Those
pollutants found to be potentially significant in  a  subcategory
were   selected   for   further   study   under  the  second,  or
verification, phase »of. the program.  This  screening-verification
approach   allowed  both  investigation  of  a  large  number  of
pollutants and in-depth characterization  of  individual  process
wastewater streams without incurring prohibitive costs.

Plant Visits and Sampling (Post-Proposal)

Engineering  site  visits were made to seventeen lead subcategory
sites after proposal.  Sites were selected in order to obtain the
data necessary to accurately address the issues raised during the
comment period.  During the  site  visits  the  Agency  collected
information,  where available, about the quality and flow rate of
raw and treated water,  including  treatment  effectiveness  data
from  plants  where  monitoring was conducted.  Additionally, the
Agency collected samples for chemical analysis  for  verification
at  five  of  the sites visited.  These samples were collected to
characterize pollutant loadings  in  raw  waste  streams  and  to
determine the effectiveness of end-of-pipe treatment.  Analytical
data  collected  on  the  post-proposal sampling visits have been
combined with the  data  collected  prior  to  proposal  and  are
included in the data base presented in this section.

Sampling and Analysis Procedures

Sampling  procedures  were  applied  for  all  sampling  programs
including screening and verification sampling  and  post-proposal
sampling.   For  the screening effort, plants identified as being
representative of  the  subcategory  in  terms  of  manufacturing
processes,  raw  materials,  products,  and wastewater generation
were selected for sampling.

Screening samples were obtained to characterize the total process
wastewater  before  and  after  treatment.   All  screening   was
performed according to EPA protocol as documented in Sampling and
Analysis  Procedures  for  Screening  of Industrial Effluents for
Priority Pollutants,  April 1977.  Only  the  combined  raw  waste
stream  and  total process effluent were sampled.  At plants that
had no single combined raw waste  or  treated  effluent,  samples
were  taken  from  discrete waste sources and a flow-proportioned
composite was used  to  represent  the  total  waste  stream  for
screening.
                              114

-------
Asbestos  data  were  collected  from one lead plant as part of a
separate screening effort using self-sampling  kits  supplied  to
the  selected  plant.   The  sampling  protocol  for asbestos was
developed after the initial screening efforts had been completed.
Consequently, asbestos data on plant  influent,  raw  wastewater,
and  effluent  for each subcategory was not necessarily collected
from the same plants involved in the initial screening.

Plants were selected for verification sampling on  the  basis  of
the  screening results.  Those plants within the subcategory that
demonstrated effective  pollutant  reductions  were  specifically
identified for sampling in order to evaluate wastewater treatment
and  control  practices.   Plants were selected for post-proposal
sampling to obtain data  to  adequately  address  several  issues
concerning  process  wastewater  flows  and  effective  treatment
practices that arose during the comment period.

Initially,  each  potential  sampling  site  was   contacted   by
telephone  to  confirm  and  expand  the  dcp  information and to
ascertain  the  degree  of  cooperation  which  the  plant  would
provide.  The dcp for the plant was then reviewed to identify (a)
specific   process  wastewater  samples  needed  to  characterize
process raw waste streams and  wastewater  treatment  performance
and  (b)  any  additional  data required.  Each plant was usually
visited for one day to determine specific sampling locations  and
collect additional information.  In some cases, it was determined
during the preliminary visit that existing wastewater plumbing at
the plant would not permit meaningful characterization of battery
manufacturing  process  wastewater.   In  these  cases, plans for
sampling the site  were  discontinued.   For  plants  chosen  for
sampling,  a detailed sampling plan was developed on the basis of
the preliminary plant visit identifying sampling locations,  flow
measurement  techniques,  sampling schedules, and additional data
to be collected during the sampling visit.

Sample points were selected  at  each  plant  to  characterize  a
process  wastewater  from  each  distinct  process operation, the
total process waste stream,  and  the  effluent  from  wastewater
treatment.   Multiple  wastewater  streams  from a single process
operation or unit, such as the  individual  stages  of  a  series
rinse,  were  not  sampled  separately  but  combined  as a flow-
proportioned composite sample.  In some  cases,  wastewater  flow
patterns  at  specific  plants did not allow separate sampling of
certain process waste  streams,  and  only  samples  of  combined
wastewaters  from  two  or  more  process  operations were taken.
Where possible,  chemical  characteristics  of  these  -individual
waste  streams  were determined by mass balance calculations from
the analyses of samples of other contributing waste  streams  and
of combined streams.  In general, process wastewater samples were
                              115

-------
obtained  belore  any  treatment,  such  as  settling  in  sumps,
dilution, or mixing that would change its characteristics.   When
samples  could not be taken before treatment, sampling conditions
were carefully documented and considered in the evaluation of the
sampling results.

As a result of the pre-proposal and post-proposal sampling visits
to lead battery plants, over 100 raw waste samples were  obtained
which  characterize  wastewater sources from 21 process elements.
In addition, samples were obtained  from  plant  water  supplies.
Samples  were  also taken for analysis which either characterized
wastewater streams from sources other than battery  manufacturing
that  were  combined  for  treatment  with  battery manufacturing
wastes or characterized  wastewater  at  intermediate  points  in
treatment systems that used several operations.

Samples  for  verification were usually collected at each site on
three successive days.  Except  if  precluded  by  production  or
wastewater   discharge   patterns,   24-hour   flow  proportioned
composite samples were obtained.  Composite samples were prepared
either by using continuously operating automatic samplers  or  by
compositing  grab  samples obtained manually at a rate of one per
hour.  For batch operations composites were prepared by combining
grab samples from each batch.  Wastewater  flow  rates,  pH,  and
temperature  were  measured  at  each  sampling  point hourly for
continuous operations.  For batch  operations,  these  parameters
were  measured  at  the time the sample was taken.  At the end of
each sampling day, composite samples were divided  into  aliquots
and  taken  for  analysis of organic priority pollutants, metals,
TSS, and oil and grease.  Separate grab samples  were  taken  for
analysis  of  volatile  organic  compounds  and for total phenols
because  these  parameters  would  not   remain   stable   during
compositing.   Composite  samples  were kept on ice at 4°C during
handling and shipment.  Analysis for metals  was  by  plasma  arc
spectrograph   for   screening   and  by  atomic  absorption  for
verification.  Metals analyses were  done  by  both  methods  for
post-proposal  sampling.  Atomic absorption was used for analysis
of  antimony  and  arsenic.   Analysis   for   organic   priority
pollutants  was  performed by gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer
for screening.  For verification analysis, gas chromatograph-mass
spectrometer (GCMS) and gas chromatograph were used  for  organic
priority  pollutant  analysis  as  required  by IPA protocol.  No
organic analyses were performed for sampling done after proposal.
All sample analyses were performed in  accordance  with  the  EPA
protocol listed in Table V-l (page 164).

The sampling data provided wastewater chemical characteristics as
well  as  flow information for the manufacturing process elements
within the subcategory.  Long-term  flow  and  production  values
                              116

-------
from  the  dcp  data  base  or average flow and production values
obtained during sampling were used as a basis for  calculating  a
production  normalized  flow  for each process element.  A single
value for each plant that most  accurately  represented  existing
plant  operations was used to avoid excessively weighting visited
plants (usually three days of values) in statistical treatment of
the data.

Mean and median statistical methods  were  used  to  characterize
each  process  element  production normalized flow and wastewater
characteristics.  The mean value is  the  average  of  a  set  of
values,  and  the  median  of  a set of values is the value below
which half of the values in the  set  lie.   For  the  additional
process  wastewater  streams  considered  after  proposal, a flow
weighted  average  was  calculated  using  production  and  other
parameters  from a number of plants.  Production normalized flows
for the lead subcategory are described in detail  later  in  this
section.

All  data  were  used  to  determine  total  process  element and
subcategory wastewater discharge flows.  For plants that did  not
supply  process  wastewater  discharge  flows,  but  did  provide
production data, the mean of the individual production normalized
flow values was used.

Screening Analysis Results

The results of screening analysis for the  lead  subcategory  are
presented  in  Table  V-2 (page 170).  Pollutants reported in the
dcp as known or believed to be present in process wastewater from
plants in the subcategory are also indicated on this  table.   In
the  table,  ND indicates that the pollutant was not detected and
NA indicates that the pollutant was not  analyzed.   For  organic
pollutants  other  than  pesticides,  the  symbol  *  is  used to
indicate detection at less  than  or  equal  to  0.01  mg/1,  the
quantifiable  limit of detection.  For pesticides (pollutants 89-
105), the symbol ** indicates detection less than or equal to the
quantifiable limit of 0.005 mg/1.   For  metals,  the  use  of  <
indicates  that the pollutant was not detected by analysis with a
detection limit  as  shown.   The  analytical  methods  used  for
screening  analysis  could not separate concentrations of certain
pollutant parameter pairs, specifically  pollutants  numbered  72
and  76,  78  and  81, and 74 and 75.  These pollutant pairs will
have the  same  reported  concentrations.   Alkyl  epoxides,  and
xylenes  were  not  analyzed  in  any samples because established
analytical procedures and standards were  not  available  at  the
time of analysis.  2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) was
not  analyzed  because  of  the  hazard  in  laboratory  analysis
associated  with  handling  TCDD  standards.   In  the  screening
                              117

-------
analysis tables dioxin is listed as not detected because analysis
was  not  done  for  this  pollutant.   Analysis  of asbestos was
accomplished using microscopy.  Results of asbestos analysis  are
reported  as  fibers  being present or absent from a sample.  The
symbol + is used to indicate the presence of chrysotile fibers.

Selection Of Verification Parameters

Verification parameters were selected based on screening analysis
results, presence of the pollutants in process waste  streams  as
reported  in  dcp,  and  a  technical evaluation of manufacturing
processes  and  raw  materials  used  within   the   subcategory.
Criteria  for  selection  of priority and conventional pollutants
included:

     1.   Occurrence of the pollutant in process wastewater  from
          the   subcategory   may   be  anticipated  because  the
          pollutant is present in, or used as, a raw material  or
          process  chemical.   Also  the  dcp  priority pollutant
          segment indicated  that  the  pollutant  was  known  or
          believed to be present in process wastewaters.
     2.   The pollutant was found to be present  in  the  process
          wastewater  at quantifiable limits based on the results
          of  screening  analysis.   If  the  presence   of   the
          pollutant  was  at or below .the quantifiable limit, the
          other criteria were used to determine if  selection  of
          the parameter was justified.
     3.   The detected concentrations were considered significant
          following an analysis  of  the  ambient  water  quality
          criteria    concentrations   and   an   evaluation   of
          concentrations detected in blank, plant  influent,  and
          effluent samples.
                          !
The criteria was used for the final selection of all verification
parameters,  which included both toxic and conventional pollutant
parameters.  An  examination  was  made  of  all  nonconventional
pollutants  detected  at screening and several were also selected
as verification parameters.  Specific discussion of the selection
of  verification  parameters  is  presented  in   the   following
paragraphs.

For  the  lead subcategory, the following 30 pollutant parameters
were selected for further analysisi
     11   1,1,1-trichloroethane
     23   chloroform
     44   methylene chloride
     55   naphthalene
     65   phenol
118
119
120
122
123
cadmium
chromium
copper
lead
mercury
                              118

-------
     66   bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate    124  nickel
     67   butyl benzyl phthalate        126  silver
     68   di-n-butyl phthalate          128  zinc
     69   di-n-octyl phthalate               aluminum
     78   anthracene                         iron
     81   phenanthrene                       manganese
     84   pyrene                             phenols (4AAP)
    114   antimony                           strontium
    115   arsenic                            oil and grease
                                             TSS
                                             pH

Eighteen organic priority pollutants were detected  in  screening
at  concentrations  at  or below the quantification level.  These
pollutants,  acenaphthene,  benzene,  2,4,6,trichlorophenol,   2-
chlorophenol,       1,3-dichlorobenzene,      2,4-dichlorophenol,
ethylbenzene,         fluoranthene,         dichlorobromomethane,
chlorodibromomethane,  1,2-benzanthracene,  3,4-benzopyrene, 3,4-
benzofluoranthene, 11,12-benzofluoranthene,  chrysene,  fluorene,
trichloroethylene,  and  heptachlor epoxide were neither known to
be used in manufacturing within the subcategory nor  reported  as
present  in  process  wastewater  by any manufacturer.  They were
therefore not selected for verification.  Five additional organic
priority pollutants were reported as believed to  be  present  in
process  wastewater  by at least one plant in the subcategory but
were not  detected  in  screening  analysis.   On  the  basis  of
screening  results  and  the  other criteria, 1,2-dichloroethane,
dichlorodifluoromethane, PCB-1242, PCB-1254, and  PCB-1260,  were
not selected as verification parameters for the lead subcategory.
Toluene  was also indicated as believed to be present in one dcp,
but  was  detected  in  screening  analysis  at  less  than   the
quantifiable   limit.    Therefore,   it  was  not  selected  for
verification.  Two organic pollutants,  methylene  chloride,  and
naphthalene,  were  included  in  verification  analysis,  though
detected only  at  the  quantifiable  limit,  because  they  were
reported  to  be  present  in process wastewater in dcp from lead
subcategory  plants.   Pyrene  and  phenol   were   selected   as
verification parameters because they were identified as potential
pollutants  resulting  from  oils  and  bituminous  battery  case
sealants.  All other organic  priority  pollutants  found  to  be
present  in screening analysis for this subcategory were included
in verification.

Of  the  metal  priority  pollutant  parameters,  beryllium   was
reported  at  the  limit of detection.  Because beryllium was not
known to be related to battery manufacture, it was  not  selected
for  verification.   Antimony,  although detected at the limit of
detection,  was  selected  for  verification   because   of   dcp
responses.   All metal pollutant parameters detected in screening
                              119

-------
above the limits of detection  were  selected  for  verification.
Arsenic  was  selected as a verification parameter because it was
reported  to  be  present  in  process  wastewater   by   battery
manufacturers  and  was  known  to  be  used in the manufacturing
process.  Another metal pollutant, mercury, was also selected for
verification because it was not analyzed   in  screening  and  was
reported as believed'to be present in process wastewaters by some
battery manufacturers.  Cyanide was not selected for verification
since  it  was  reported in all samples at the limit of detection
and  was  not  known  to  be  present  in  lead  battery  process
wastewaters.

A  number  of  nonconventional  pollutants  were also detected in
screening, but not included in verification analysis.   Iron  and
total  phenols  were  detected in screening and were consequently
included in verification analyses.  Iron is  present  in  process
wastewater  as  a  result  of corrosion of process equipment, and
total phenols may derive from  oil  and  grease,  and  bituminous
materials  used  in  manufacturing.  After proposal, aluminum and
manganese  were  also  detected  and  included  in   verification
analysis.    Strontium  was  included  in  verification  analysis
although it was not analyzed in screening  because it is used as a
raw material in manufacturing some batteries in this subcategory.
In addition, the conventional pollutants,  oil  and  grease,  TSS,
and pH were included in verification analysis.

Presentation  of_  Analytical  Results.   Pre-proposal  and  post-
proposal parameter analytical results are  discussed and tabulated
by process element in the discussion which follows this  section.
Pollutant  concentration (mg/1) tables are shown for each sampled
process.  In the tables  0.00  indicates   no  detection  for  all
organic pollutants.  For organic pollutants, the symbol * is used
to  indicate  detection  at  less than or  equal to 0.01 mg/1, the
quantifiable limit of detection.  For the  metals, total suspended
solids, and oil and grease, 0.000 indicates the pollutant was not
detected above the quantifiable limit. 'When  samples  were  flow
proportionally  combined  for  a  process,  the  values shown are
calculated, and 0.0000 indicates that the  pollutant was  detected
in at least one sample of the combined process wastewater stream.
For  chemical analysis, the *'s are calculated as positive values
which cannot be quantified,  but  for  statistical  analysis  are
counted as zeroes.

LEAD SUBCATEGORY

Batteries  manufactured in this subcategory use lead anodes, lead
peroxide cathodes, and acid electrolytes.  Lead subcategory cells
and  batteries,  however,  differ   significantly   in   physical
configuration,   size,  and  performance   characteristics.   They
                              120

-------
include small cells  with  immobilized  electrolyte  for  use  in
portable  devices,  batteries  for automotive starting, lighting,
and ignition (SLI) applications, a variety of batteries  designed
for  industrial  applications,  and special reserve batteries for
military use.  Lead reserve batteries are similar  to  dehydrated
batteries  and  are produced from lead electrodeposited on steel.
The SLI and industrial batteries are manufactured and shipped  as
"dry-charged" and "wet-charged" units.  Dry-charged batteries are
shipped  without  acid  electrolyte  and  may be either "damp" or
"dehydrated plate" batteries as described in Section  III.   Wet-
charged batteries are shipped with acid electrolyte.  Significant
differences   in  manufacturing  processes  correspond  to  these
product variations.

Lead subcategory battery production reported in dcp totaled  over
1.3  million  kkg  (1.43  million tons) per year.  Of this total,
72.3 percent were shipped as  wet  batteries,  9.3  percent  were
damp,   and  18.4  percent  were  produced  as  dehydrated  plate
batteries.   Less  than  1  percent  of  the  subcategory   total
production  is  for  lead  reserve  batteries.   Reported  annual
production of batteries at individual plants in this  subcategory
ranged  from  10.5  kkg  (11.5  tons)  to over 40,000 kkg (44,000
tons).  Median annual production at lead subcategory  plants  was
approximately  6,000  kkg  (6,600  tons).  No correlation between
plant size and  battery  type,  i.e,  wet,  damp,  or  dehydrated
batteries, was observed.

Geographically,   lead   acid   battery  plants  are  distributed
throughout the U.S. and are located in  every  EPA  region.   The
highest  concentrations  of plants in this subcategory are in EPA
Regions IV, V, and IX.  Region IX in  particular  contains  large
numbers  of  small  manufacturers  many  of whom purchase battery
plates from outside suppliers.

Process water use and wastewater discharge vary widely among lead
subcategory plants because of differences  in  control  of  water
use,  wastewater  management practices, and manufacturing process
variations.  The  manufacturing  process  variations  which  most
significantly  influence  wastewater  discharge  are in electrode
formation  techniques,  but  these  variations   are   frequently
overshadowed  by  variations in plant water management practices.
Wastewater treatment  practices  also  were  observed  to  differ
widely,  leading  to significant variability in effluent quality.
Most plants in the subcategory discharge  process  wastewater  to
POTW, and many provide little or no pretreatment.
                               121

-------
     Manufacturing Process and Water Use


The   manufacture   of  lead  batteries  is  illustrated  in  the
generalized process flow diagram  presented in Figure  V-l  (page
240).   As  shown  in  the  figure,  processes  presently used in
commercial manufacture generally involve the following steps: (1)
grid or plate support  structure  manufacture;  (2)  leady  oxide
production;  (3)  paste  preparation and application to provide a
plate with a highly porous surface; (4) curing to ensure adequate
paste strength and adhesion to the plate; (5) assembly of  plates
into groups or elements (semi-assembly); (6) electrolyte addition
as  appropriate;  (7)  formation  or  charging  (including  plate
soaking) which further binds the paste to the  grid  and  renders
the  plate  electrochemically  active;  (8)  final  assembly; (9)
battery testing and repair if needed; (10) battery  washing;  and
(11)  final  shipment.   Each  of  these  process  steps  may  be
accomplished in a variety of ways and they  may  be  combined  in
different overall process sequences depending on intended use and
desired characteristics of the batteries being produced.  Process
steps  (1)  through   (7)  are  anode and cathode operations while
assembly, battery testing and repair,  and  battery  washing  are
ancillary  operations.   Additional ancillary operations involved
in the manufacture of lead  batteries  include  floor  anJ  truck
washing,  laboratory  testing,  and  personal hygiene activities.
Personal   hygiene   activities   include   mandatory    employee
handwashing,  respirator washing, and laundering of employee work
uniforms.  Each process step and ancillary  operation  identified
above  is  a  process  element  in  the  lead subcategory.  These
process elements, and their various combinations form  the  basis
for analysis of lead subcategory process wastewater generation as
shown in Figure V-2 (page 241).  A general discussion summarizing
water  use  data  collected  for  the  lead  subcategory  process
elements is  provided  below.   Following  this  discussion,  the
process   elements  are  discussed  individually.   Each  process
element discussion includes a process description and  a  summary
of the process element water usage.

Water  Use  Data  - Wastewater flow data for the lead subcategory
process elements were collected from the dcp,  site  visits,  and
written responses to EPA requests for data.  These flow data were
normalized  with  production  data in order to compare flows from
different  sized  battery  plants.   The  production  normalizing
parameter  is  generally  the  total  weight of lead used for all
processes.  Lead use data were originally provided  in  the  dcp,
however,  after  proposal, the Agency obtained more recent  (1982)
lead use data from 41 plants.  Production normalized flow  values
for  these 41 plants were calculated using the more recent  (1982)
lead use data.  Mean and median normalized discharge  flows  from
                              122

-------
all dcp, site visit, and written response data for the wastewater
production  processes  are  summarized  in Table V-3.  This table
also shows the number of plants which reported flow data for each
process.

Table V-3 contains a  number  of  wastewater  sources  for  which
limited  flow  data  is  available.   In the case of mold release
formulation, laboratory, hand wash, respirator wash, and laundry,
a  flow  weighted  average  calculation  procedure  was  used  to
calculate  the  mean  normalized  flow.   This  procedure  varied
somewhat for the  different  operations  due  to  differences  in
available flow data; specific calculation procedures are provided
in  each  of the process element discussions.  The calculation of
the  average  normalized  flows  for  hand  washing,   respirator
washing,  and laundry was determined with the aid of lead battery
manufacturers survey data regarding personal hygiene  activities.
Personal hygiene activity data are summarized in Table V-4.

Normalized   flow   data   for  the  major  wastewater  producing
manufacturing process elements  are  summarized  in  Figure  V-3.
This figure shows the distribution of production normalized flows
for  each  process  operation  at  those  plants  which produce a
wastewater discharge for the  process  operation.   Plants  which
report no process wastewater from the process are not represented
on  the  curves.   The  insert  on  the  figure presents for each
process the median of the non-zero flows, the median of all flows
values, the total number of flow values, and the number of  these
which are equal to zero.  The median shown for the non-zero flows
is  derived  from  a  linear  regression  fit  to  the  data  and
represents the best available estimate of the  median  flow  from
all  plants  discharging  wastewater from each process operation.
Because of  the  difficulty  in  handling  zero  values  in  this
statistical  treatment,  the  median  shown for all values is the
classical median of the sample population (for  plants  supplying
specific process flow data).

As  the regression lines on Figure V*-3 indicate the dispersion in
the flow data (indicated by the slopes of the  lines)  showed  no
significant  differences  among  the different process operations
shown on the figure.  The slope for leady  oxide  production  was
slightly  less  than  the  slope  of other process element lines.
This difference is judged to be insignificant.  The median  flows
differed   considerably.    This   reflects  the  fact  that  the
variability  in  wastewater  flow  from  all  process  operations
results  primarily  from  the  same factors, i.e., plant-to-plant
variations in the degree of water conservation and  flow  control
practiced.    No  significant  technical  factors  causing  major
wastewater flow differences were  identified  for  any  of  these
process   elements   and   none  are  .suggested  by  these  data.
                              123

-------
Consequently the data indicate that any plant active  in  any  of
these   process   operations   can   achieve   wastewater   flows
demonstrated for that process by other plants without  any  major
process change.

Grid  Manufacture.   A  lead or lead-alloy grid is the mechanical
framework to support active material (lead or lead peroxide)  for
a  battery  plate  or  electrode.   Cast  or perforated grids are
designed to provide  mechanical  strength,  paste  adhesion,  and
electrical  conductivity  while  minimizing  the  grid  weight in
relation to the weight of active material in the  paste.   Alloys
reported in1 dcp include lead-antimony and lead-calcium, sometimes
with  the  addition  of  tin.  The literature also indicates that
lead-strontium grids may  be  used  and  that  trace  amounts  of
arsenic,  cadmium, selenium, silver and tellurium may be added to
grids.

Impurities found in lead  grids  include  copper,  silver,  zinc,
bismuth,  and iron.  Newly developed grid structures discussed in
the literature use ABS plastic grids coated with  lead  or  poly-
styrene  interwoven with lead strands for the negative plate, but
no plant reported commercial manufacture of these grid types.

Two different operations are used to  manufacture  grids  in  the
lead  subcategory:  (1)  grid  casting (a form of die casting) of
lead and (2) perforating by punching or piercing and expanding of
lead.  The latter can be preceeded by the actual  manufacture  of
the  sheet  which  includes direct chill casting and lead rolling
processes.  Based on dcp data, grid casting is performed  at  130
lead  subcategory  sites  and was performed at 14 of the 17 sites
visited after proposal.  Grid fabrication by punching or piercing
and expanding is known to be practiced by at least 10 plants  and
the  practice  is  growing.  Melting furnaces or pots are used to
produce molten lead  for  both  grid  casting  and  direct  chill
casting methods.  These melting furnaces generate fumes which are
removed  by wet air pollution control devices at some sites.  Wet
air pollution control is discussed later in this  section.   Both
of the grid manufacturing methods are discussed below.

Grid  Casting  - Grid casting is performed by cooling molten lead
in metal molds to produce individual grids.  The molten  lead  is
cooled  by  passing  noncontact  cooling  water through the mold.
This non-process water is recycled through cooling towers at some
sites, discharged direct 14 to the sanitary sewer at other sites,
or discharged to wastewater treatment.  If the water is  recycled
through  cooling towers, non-process cooling tower blowdown water
is discharged to the sewer or to wastewater treatment.
                              124

-------
The use of molds in grid casting  requires  the  use  of  a  mold
release  compound which prevents the molten lead from adhering to
the mold upon cooling.  Mold release compounds are either cork or
silica based with either  kerosene  or  silicon  carrier  fluids.
These  compounds  can  either be purchased or formulated on-site.
Twenty-nine sites owned by  two  companies  reported  formulating
their  mold  release  compound  on-site.   Process  wastewater is
generated from  on-site  mold  release  formulation  by  cleaning
equipment  after  mixing  batches  of the release material.  Flow
information for  mold  release  formulation  was  obtained  after
proposal  from  both of the companies which report this activity.
At one company approximately 50 gallons per day of water are used
at each site for equipment cleanup.  At  the  other  company,  75
gallons of water are used per day at each site.

The  average  production  normalized  flow  (0.006 I/kg) for mold
release formulation was calculated as follows:

     o    For each company, the company mold release  formulation
          flow  was  multiplied by the number of company sites to
          determine the total company  mold  release  formulation
          flow.

     o    The total company mold  release  formulation  flow  was
          then   divided  by  the  total  company  production  to
          determine a production normalized flow for the company.

     o    The two production normalized company flows  were  then
          averaged.

Perforating   -  In  this  process,  grids  are  manufactured  by
perforating sheet lead by various methods.  The sheet lead can be
continuously punched and coiled or  cut  into  individual  grids.
This  method does not generate wastewater and lead scrap from the
punching is reclaimed.  The sheet metal can also be  pierced  and
expanded  into  grids  with  no  wastewater discharge, although a
neglibible amount of aqueous emulsion is  used  for  lubrication.
This  method  can be preceded by manufacture of the lead sheet by
direct chill casting and lead rolling.

In direct chill casting, molten lead flows by gravity  through  a
die.  This die is sprayed with contact cooling water which causes
the  lead to solidify into a continuous strip of about two inches
thick.  The continuous strip  is  then  reduced  to  the  desired
thickness  (0.05 in.)  in a rolling mill.  Following rolling, the
lead strip is aged for one  to  two  weeks  to  increase  tensile
strength prior to grid fabrication.
                              125

-------
Water  usage  data for direct chill casting and lead rolling were
collected on a post-proposal sampling visit to one site  reported
to  be  active  in  these  processes.  At this site, direct chill
casting contact cooling water drains  to  a  catch  tank  and  is
continuously   recirculated.    The  catch  tank  is  drained  to
treatment about once every four months.  The  average  production
normalized  flow  of* 0.0002 I/kg was calculated for direct chill
casting as follows:

     o    Catch  tank  dimensions  at  the  sampled   site   were
          measured.

     o    The annual discharge flow from direct chill casting was
          then calculated assuming three batch dumps per year.

     o    The annual discharge flow was  divided  by  the  site's
          annual  production  to determine the average normalized
          flow.

In lead rolling, an aqueous emulsion of 0.5 percent oil  is  used
to  lubricate  the  rolling mills.  This emulsion is continuously
recirculated and subsequently contract hauled once  per  week  to
treatment  and  disposal  off-site.   Based on flow data from the
sampled site, 0.006 I/kg of spent solution are contract hauled.

Leady Oxide Production.  Active materials for the positive (Pb02)
and  negative  (Pb)  plates  are  derived  from  lead  oxides  in
combination  with  finely divided lead.  Lead oxide (PbO) used in
battery plates and known as litharge exists  in  two  crystalline
forms,  the  yellow  orthorhombic  form (yellow lead) and the red
tetrogonal form.  Red lead (Pb304) is sometimes  used  in  making
positive  plates,  but  its  use  is  declining.   The lead oxide
mixture (PbO and Pb) called leady oxide, which is most often used
in producing electrodes, is usually produced on-site  at  battery
manufacturing  plants  by  either  the  ball  mill process or the
Barton process.  Leady oxide  generally  contains  25-30  percent
free  lead  with  a typical value observed to be approximately 27
percent.

In the ball, mill process, high purity lead pigs or  balls  tumble
in  a ball mill while being subjected to a regulated flow of air.
Heat generated by friction and the exothermic oxidation  reaction
causes oxidation of the eroding lead surface to form particles of
red litharge and unoxidized metallic lead.  The rate of oxidation
is  controlled  by  regulation  of  air  flow  and by non-contact
cooling of the ball mill, or bearings.

In the Barton process, molten lead is fed into a pot  and  vigor-
ously  agitated  to  break lead into fine droplets by aspiration.
                              126

-------
Oxidation in the presence of an air stream  forms  a  mixture  of
yellow  lead,  red  litharge,  and  unoxidized lead in a settling
chamber.

High purity refined lead is required to produce oxide for use  on
electrodes.   Recycled  lead  recovered  by  remelting  scrap  is
normally used in casting grids, straps, and terminals.

Water use and wastewater generation associated with  leady  oxide
production  is  dependent  on  the  process (Barton or ball mill)
used.  The Barton process uses only non-process water for cooling
screw conveyors and other mechanical parts.  Shell cooling  water
is the primary source of process wastewater from ball mills.

Five  of  the  17  sites  visited  after proposal used the Barton
process.   None of these sites generated process  wastewater.   In
the  ball  mill  process, a number of cooling configurations have
been observed in this subcategory.   At  some  sites,  noncontact
cooling   water   was   used  to  cool  bearings.   This  cooling
configuration does not generate a process wastewater stream since
the  cooling  water  does  not  contact  lead   dust   or   other
contaminants.   Other  sites  use  water to cool the shell of the
ball  mill.   Cooling  in  this  manner  may  produce  a  process
wastewater stream due to entrainment and dissolution of lead dust
when  the  ball  mill  is  not shrouded properly.  Four of the 17
sites visited after proposal operate ball mills.   One  of  these
sites  cools  only  bearings  generating  no  process wastewater.
Three of the sites use shell cooling water  with  widely  varying
cooling   configurations.    One  site  uses  once-through  shell
cooling.   One has two  ball  mills  with  two • different  cooling
configurations:  in  one  ball  mill,  once through shell cooling
water is used while at the other  ball  mill  the  shell  cooling
water  is  recirculated  with minimal wastewater generation.  The
third  site  uses  a  completely  closed  recirculating   cooling
configuration with annual sump cleaning.

Twenty-nine  of  the  41  plants submitting data for this process
reported zero discharge of wastewater.  Nine  of  the  12  plants
reporting  discharge  flows  from leady oxide production are from
shell cooling.  Two of 12  are  discharges  associated  with  wet
scrubbers.   Wet  scrubber discharges from leady oxide production
are  included in the wet air  pollution  control  process  element
which  is discussed later in this section.  The remaining flow is
an   unidentified  process  wastewater  discharge.   The   average
production normalized flow is 0.37 I/kg and median is 0.00 I/kg.

Paste Preparation and Application.  Lead oxides are pasted on the
grid  to  produce  electrode  plates  with  a  porous, high area,
reactive surface.  The  pores  provide  maximum  contact  of  the
                              127

-------
electrolyte  with  the electrode.  Various mixtures of lead oxide
powder are used for the formulation of the negative and  positive
pastes/  which  usually are mixed separately.  The positive plate
is formed from leady oxide,  granular  lead,  or  red  lead  with
binders  such  as  acrylic fibers, sulfuric acid, and water.  The
negative paste generally contains  leady  oxide,  lead,  sulfuric
acid,  water, and expanders.  Expanders are added to the negative
paste to minimize contraction and solidification  of  the  spongy
lead.   The  most common expanders are lampblack, barium sulfate,
and organic materials such as lignosulfonic  acid.   Addition  of
expanders  amounting  to an aggregate 1 or 2 percent of the paste
can increase the negative plate effective area by several hundred
percent.

Hardeners have been added to pastes (e.g., glycerine and carbolic
acid), but prevailing practice is to  control  this  property  by
proper  oxide  processing.   Other additives to the paste include
ammonium  hydroxide,  magnesium  sulfate,  lead  carbonate,  lead
chloride, lead sulfate, potash, and zinc chloride.  Where a plate
is to be placed in a dehydrated battery, mineral oil may be added
to  the  negative paste to protect the plate from oxidation, from
sulfation, and to reduce hydrogen evolution (depending  upon  the
grid alloy).

Water  is  added  to  the paste to produce proper consistency and
increase paste adhesion.  During acid addition, considerable heat
is evolved.  Temperature must be controlled to  produce  a  paste
with  the proper cementing action.  Paste is applied to the grids
by hand or machine.

The  major  source  of  wastewater  from  paste  preparation  and
application  is  equipment  and area cleanup.  Equipment and area
cleanup  is  a  required  procedure   because   different   paste
formulations  may  be  used  on  any  one  pasting  line, and the
equipment must be periodically cleaned.  Fifty-seven of  the  100
plants submitting flow data on this process report zero discharge
of  wastewater  from  paste  preparation  and  application.  Zero
discharge is accomplished by settling and  recycling  paste  area
water  for  equipment  washdown.   The  settled paste can also be
reclaimed.  The  average  production  normalized  flow  for  this
process is 0.49 I/kg and the median is 0.00 I/kg.

Sixteen  of  the  17  sites  visited after proposal perform paste
formulation and application operations.  Seven of these sites  do
not  discharge  wastewater  from  equipment  and  area  washdown.
Another site was planning to  install  a  complete  recirculation
washdown water system by December 1983.
                              128

-------
Some  plants  use  wet scrubbers to control dust generated during
paste mixing.  These wet scrubbers are discussed  later  in  this
section under the wet air pollution control process element.


Curing.   The  drying  and  curing  operations  must be carefully
controlled to provide electrodes with the porosity and mechanical
strength required for adequate battery  performance  and  service
life.   The  purpose  of  curing  is  to ensure proper control of
oxidation and sulfation of the plates.

Where leady oxides are present, common practice is to  flash  dry
the plates by passing them through a tunnel drier and then either
stacking and covering them (air curing), placing them in humidity
controlled  rooms or ovens (humidity curing) for several days, or
directly  applying  steam  in  a  controlled  environment   (steair
curing)  to  convert  free  lead  particles in the plates to lead
oxide.  The free lead  is  reduced  from  24-30  percent  to  the
desired   level  (5  percent  or  less)  during  curing.   Proper
conditions of temperature and humidity  allow  the  formation  of
small crystals of tribasic lead sulfate which convert easily to a
very active lead peroxide (positive plate) during formation.  Toe
high  a  temperature  (57°  C)  leads  to the formation of coarse
crystals of tetrabasic lead which is difficult to convert to lead
peroxide and may cause shedding of active material during  forma-
tion.   Too  little or too much moisture in the plate retards the
rate of oxidation.  Steam curing increases the rate of curing  by
providing controlled humidity at higher temperatures.

Multiple  curing  techniques are used by a number of sites  in the
subcategory.  For instance, at some sites plates are first  cured
in  humidity  controlled  rooms  or ovens.  The curing process is
then completed in covered stacks.  Other sites first  steam  cure
plates  and then finish the curing process in humidity controlled
rooms.  At some sites only positive plates are steam or  humidity
cured  while at other sites both positive and negative plates are
steam or  humidity  cured.   Process  wastewater  discharge  from
curing  was  reported  by ten of the 97 plants that supplied flow
data.  The average production normalized flow for this process is
0.03 I/kg and the median is 0.00 I/kg.  Discharge  of  wastewater
from  curing is associated with humidity curing and steam curing.
Wastewater  discharge   from   humidity   curing   results   from
condensation  in humidity controlled rooms and once-through spray
water from humidity  curing  ovens.   Wastewater  discharge  from
steam curing is associated with steam condensation.

Although  a few sites discharge wastewater from steam or humidity
curing, other sites have demonstrated that these  operations  can
be  performed without the discharge of process wastewater.  Eight
                               129

-------
of  the  17  sites  visited  after  proposal  do  not   discharge
wastewater from positive or negative plate curing.  Of these, six
use  humidity controlled rooms for both types of plates; one uses
steam curing for both  types  of  plates  and  one  uses  ambient
curing,  humidity  controlled rooms, or steam curing depending on
the battery and type of plate.

Semi-Assembly  (Stacking,   Grouping,   Separator   Addition)
Following  curing,  plates  are stacked or grouped in preparation
for formation.  This semi-assembly process varies depending  upon
the specific formation process which is to follow and the type of
separator being used.

Separators prevent short circuiting between the anode and cathode
yet  permit electrolyte conduction between the electrodes.  Sepa-
rators also may serve to provide physical support to the positive
plate.  The configuration and the material of  separators  differ
according to the specific properties desired.  Materials used for
separators in lead acid storage batteries include paper, plastic,
rubber, and fiberglass.

Water  use  in  the  semi-assembly  operation  is limited to non-
contact cooling water associated with  welding  of  elements  and
groups.   No  process  wastewater is generated or discharged from
the semi-assembly operation.


Electrolyte Preparation and Addition - Sulfuric acid is purchased
by battery  manufacturers  as  concentrated  acid  (typically  93
percent)  and  must be diluted with water or "cut" to the desired
concentration(s)  prior to use in forming  electrodes  or  filling
batteries.   Dilution usually proceeds in two steps.   The acid is
first cut to an  intermediate  concentration  (about  45  percent
acid)  which  may  be used in paste preparation.  Final dilutions
are made to concentrations  (generally  20-35  percent)  used  in
battery  formation  and  battery  filling.   Often  two  or  more
different final acid  concentrations  are  produced  for  use  in
formation and for shipment in different battery types.

For  some  battery  applications, sodium silicate is added to the
electrolyte prior to addition  to  the  battery.   The  resulting
thixotropic  gel   is  poured into the battery and allowed to set,
yielding a product from which liquid loss and gas  escape  during
operation   are   minimal  and  which  may  be  operated  in  any
orientation.

Acid cutting generates heat and generally  requires  the  use  of
non-contact  cooling  water.  Process wastewater is not generally
produced.  Wet scrubbers are reported to be in use at some  sites
                              130

-------
to control acid fumes but are used as dry mist eliminators and do
not  generate  process  wastewater.   Since  water is consumed-in
"cutting" acid, some sites use this process as a sink for process
wastewater contaminated with acid and lead, thereby  reducing  or
eliminating'the volume requiring treatment and discharge.

The  addition  of  electrolyte to batteries for formation and for
shipment is frequently a source of wastewater  discharge  in  the
form of acid spillage.  Electrolyte addition is accomplished by a
wide variety of techniques which result in widely varying amounts
of  spillage  and  battery  case  contamination.  While efficient
producers  employ  filling  devices  which  sense  the  level  of
electrolyte  in the batteries and add only the proper amount with
essentially no spillage or case contamination, others continue to
regulate the amount of acid in the batteries by  overfilling  and
subsequently removing acid to the desired level.  In some plants,
batteries  are filled by immersion in tanks of acid.  Overfilling
or filling by immersion results in significant  contamination  of
the  battery  case  with  acid  and necessitates rinsing prior to
further handling or shipment, generating significant  volumes  of
process  wastewater.   Acid  spills also contaminate equipment in
the  formation  area  requiring   periodic   equipment   washdown
(formation  area washdown).  Wastewater flows from formation area
washdown and battery rinsing are considered as  flow  values  for
the formation processes.

Formation   (Charging)  - .Although  lead  peroxide  is the active
material of the finished positive plate, it is not a component of
the paste applied to the plate.  The formation  process  converts
lead  oxide  and  sulfate to lead peroxide for the positive plate
and to lead for the  negative  plate  by  means  of  an  electric
current.   Formation starts in the region where poorly conducting
paste is in contact with the more conductive grids  and  proceeds
through  the  volume  of  the  paste.  Completion of formation is
indicated by (1) color of active materials (plates have "cleared"
and are uniform in color), (2) plates are gassing normally, (3) a
constant maximum  voltage  is  indicated,  and  (4)  the  desired
electrolyte  specific  gravity is reached.  Final composition for
the positive  plate  is  85-95  percent  lead  peroxide  and  the
negative  plate  is  greater  than 90 percent lead.  Formation of
battery plates may be accomplished either within the battery case
after assembly has been completed (closed formation) or  in  open
tanks prior to battery assembly (open formation).  Open formation
is  most  often  practiced in the manufacture of dehydrated plate
batteries.

A number of charging techniques are used  to  form  batteries  in
this  subcategory.  Charging techniques used for closed formation
include (1) high rate formation,  (2)  low  rate  formation,  (3)
                              131

-------
controlled charge rate formation, and  (4) chilled acid formation.
In  high  rate formation, batteries are formed rapidly in one day
or less.  When batteries are formed rapidly, heat  generation  is
so  rapid  that the batteries must be  cooled using fine sprays of
water on the battery cases.  This  contact  cooling  water  is  a
significant  source  of  wastewater.   Low  rate  formation  is a
charging technique .in which batteries  are charged at  a  constant
rate  which  is  low ' enough to adequately dissipate heat without
using  cooling  water.   Low  rate  charging  requires  formation
periods  of  up  to  seven  days.   In  controlled  charging, the
charging current is varied during  the  course  of  formation  to
maintain  acceptable  electrolyte  temperatures.  This eliminates
the  need  for  contact  cooling  water.   Current  variation  is
achieved  manually  or  by  the  use of automatic timers or small
computer  devices.   Controlled  charging   sometimes   comprises
charging  slowly for a few hours initially, on the order of a few
amps; then the rate is increased for most of the formation cycle,
and then the rate is decreased again to finish  charging.   Other
plants  charge  rapidly  for  nine  to  ten  hours,  then let the
batteries cool for several hours and finish charging rapidly  for
approximately  another  nine  hours.  Overall controlled charging
formation times have been observed to  vary from nine hours  to  a
total  of  72 hours.  Another charging technique observed in this
subcategory is the use of  chilled  acid  to  reduce  electrolyte
temperatures   in   the   initial  stage  of  charging.   Reduced
electrolyte temperature in the initial stage of  charging  serves
to  reduce  the  overall  charging  time.   The  initial  heat of
reaction during, the charge cycle is usually greater  due  to  the
presence  of  unreacted  (uncured) lead oxide in the cured plate.
Instead of charging slowly at first to dissipate  heat,  charging
can  proceed  more  rapidly  immediately  with the use of chilled
acid.

Open formation charging periods have been observed to  vary  from
approximately  one  to  five days.  Since batteries are formed in
open tanks heat dissipation is not a problem in open formation.

Closed Formation.   Closed  formation  is  performed  in  several
different  ways  depending  upon  the  desired  charging rate and
characteristics of the final product.  The  major  variations  in
this  process  may  be  termed: single fill-single charge, double
fill-single charge, double fill-double charge, and fill and  dump
(for  damp  batteries).  A major factor influencing the choice of
operating conditions for closed  formation  is  the  relationship
between charging rate, electrode characteristics, and electrolyte
concentration.   As  the electrolyte concentration increases, the
rate of formation of positive plates decreases, but durability of
the product improves.   The rate of formation of  negative  plates
increases by increasing acid concentration.
                              132

-------
Single-Fill  -  In  the  single  fill-single  charge process, the
battery is filled with acid of  a  specific  gravity  such  that,
after  formation,  the  electrolyte will be suitable for shipment
and operation  of  the  battery.   Thirty-one  of  the  43  sites
reporting  flow  data  for  single  fill  formation  achieve zero
discharge.  The average production normalized flow is  0.28  I/kg
and  the median is 0.00 I/kg.  For sites that report a discharge,
wastewater sources include area washdown, contact cooling  water,
and  wet  air  pollution  control  scrubbers.   Wet air pollution
control scrubbers are  used  to  remove  fumes  generated  during
charging  and  are  discussed later in this section under the wet
air pollution control process  element.   As  discussed  earlier,
contact  cooling  water  is a major source of wastewater at sites
which use high rate charging.

Eight sites visited after proposal  use  single  fill  formation.
Three  of these sites use contact cooling water to dissipate heat
generated during high rate charging.  One of the three sites  has
two  single  fill operations.  In one operation the cooling water
is recycled through a water  softening  system  while  the  other
operation   uses  a  once  through  cooling  configuration  which
generates the majority of wastewater discharged to  treatment  at
the  site,  about  200,000  gpd.  The second site uses controlled
charging with no wastewater generation for  some  batteries,  and
spray  cooling  for the remaining batteries.  The third site uses
spray cooling water to dissipate heat.  The remaining five  sites
incorporate   slow   or  controlled  formation  procedures  which
eliminate the need for cooling water.

Double-Fill - Double fill formation processes use a  more  dilute
formation  electrolyte  than  is  used for single-fill formation.
Formation of the battery is complete  in  about  24  hours.   The
formation electrolyte is removed for reuse, and more concentrated
fresh  electrolyte  suitable  for  battery  operation  is  added.1.
Double fill-double charge batteries  are  given  a  boost  charge
prior to shipment.

Seven  of  the  35  sites  reporting  flow  data  for double fill
formation  achieve  zero  discharge.   The   average   production
normalized  flow  is  0.92 I/kg and the median is 0.44 I/kg.  The
sources of wastewater from double fill are essentially  the  same
as  for  single  fill:  cooling water, area washdown, and wet air
scrubber  discharge.   An   additional   source   of   wastewater
associated  with  double  fill operations is battery rinse water.
Both  filling  and  emptying  battery   cases   may   result   in
contamination  of  the  case  with acid, necessitating subsequent
battery rinsing.  The extent of this contamination depends on the
filling and emptying techniques applied.  The  immersion  filling
method  results  in the most extensive battery case contamination
                              133

-------
and requires subsequent battery rinsing.  Other  filling  methods
have been observed which do not require battery rinsing.

The fraction of sites using immersion filling is much greater for
double  fill  operations  than  for  single fill.  Based on post-
proposal site visits three of four double fill sites use at least
one filling procedure by immersion; only one of the  eight  sites
visited  used  immersion filling for single fill operations.  All
sites using immersion filling were observed to  rinse  batteries.
Conversely, very few double fill plants practice contact cooling;
none were observed during site visits and one plant reported this
procedure based on dcp and industry survey data.

Closed  formation  of  wet batteries (single and double fill) was
reported to produce a process wastewater discharge at  40  of  78
plants.   Data specific to these two formations are summarized in
Figure V-4 (page 244).  As these data show, over  70  percent  of
all  plants  reported  zero  discharge from single fill formation
while 80 percent reported wastewater discharge from  double  fill
formation.   The  median  flow at discharging plants was similar,
for both processes (0.28 I/kg for single fill and 0.45  I/kg  for
double  fill).   The  more  frequent  occurrence  of discharge of
process wastewater from double fill is  attributable  to  rinsing
batteries   after  immersion  filling  or  dumping  of  formation
electrolyte.

Fill and Dump - The fill and dump process is used to produce damp
batteries which are a part of the  group  of  batteries  commonly
called   dry-charged   by   manufacturers.    These  differ  from
dehydrated plate batteries (produced by open  formation)  in  the
degree  of  electrolyte removal and dehydration.  The presence of
some electrolyte in the damp  batteries  when  they  are  shipped
causes the degree of charge retention during long-term storage to
be  less  than that of the dehydrated plate type.  Damp batteries
are produced by  closed  formation  of  assembled  batteries  and
subsequent removal of the electrolyte and draining of the battery
which  is  shipped  without  electrolyte.   After  the  formation
electrolyte is removed from the battery, some  manufacturers  add
chemicals  to the battery in a second acid solution which is also
dumped.  These chemicals are  intended  to  reduce  the  loss  of
battery charge during storage.  Other manufacturers centrifuge or
"spin-dry" the batteries before final assembly.

Water  use  and  wastewater  discharge  in the production of damp
batteries do not differ significantly from that for  double  fill
wet batteries.  Thirteen plants supplied flow information on this
process.  One of the 13 reported zero discharge from the process.
The  average  production  normalized  flow  is  1.83 I/kg and the
median is 1.49 I/kg.
                              134

-------
Three plants  visited  after  proposal  practice  fill  and  dump
formation.  One of these plants uses immersion filling techniques
with  an  associated  battery  rinse.  All three plants reuse the
dumped acid electrolyte.  At one of  the  plants,  batteries  are
filled  with  a  chemical  solution  to  dry the plates after the
formation electrolyte  is  dumped.   This  chemical  solution  is
discharged to treatment.

Open  Formation  -  Open  formation  has  the advantage of having
access to the battery plates during and after formation.   Visual
inspection  of  the plates during formation allows closer control
of formation conditions than is possible during closed formation.
More significantly, however, after open formation plates  can  be
rinsed  thoroughly to remove residual electrolyte and can then be
thoroughly dried as is required for the manufacture of dehydrated
plate batteries.

Wet - Open case formation is used in the manufacture of some  wet
batteries.   Because  problems of inhomogeneity in the plates are
most pronounced during formation of larger plate sizes, open case
formation for the manufacture of wet batteries is frequently used
for  the  manufacture  of   industrial   batteries   with   large
electrodes.

Ten  of  the 16 sites submitting flow data for open formation wet
batteries  achieve  zero  discharge.   The   average   production
normalized  flow  is  0.36  I/kg  and  the  median  is 0.00 I/kg.
Wastewater discharges  from  open  formation  for  wet  batteries
result  from periodic replacement of spent formation electrolyte,
plate rinsing, formation area washdown,  and  wet  air  pollution
control  scrubbers.  Three of the six discharging sites discharge
wastewater from plate rinsing operations.  Plate rinsing is  done
in  tanks  which are periodically (about once a month) emptied to
treatment.  Alternately, some sites use a light  water  spray  to
rinse  plates.   The  discharge  flows  from  these plate rinsing
operations are much lower than  the  flows  from  open  formation
dehydrated  battery  plate  rinsing  where single or multi staged
rinsing operations are often used to eliminate all acid from  the
battery  plates.   Three  of  the  six  discharging  sites, which
include  one  site  which  also  discharges  plate  rinse  water,
discharge   spent  formation  electrolyte.   The  remaining  site
discharges wastewater  from • wet  scrubbers  and  formation  area
washdown.   Wet scrubber discharges associated with formation are
discussed under the wet air pollution control process element.

Dehydrated - Most open case  formation  is  for  the  purpose  of
producing  dehydrated  plates.   Immediately after formation, the
plates  are  rinsed  and  dehydrated.    These   operations   are
particularly  important  for  the  (lead)  negative  plates which
                              135

-------
oxidize rapidly if acid  and  moisture  are  not  eliminated*   A
variety  of  techniques  including the use of deionized water are
used  to  rinse  the  formed  plates.   Multi-stage  rinses   are
frequently  used  to  achieve  the required degree of electrolyte
removal.  Drying often requires both heat and vacuum  to  achieve
dehydration of the plates.

The  most  common  and significant source of wastewater from open
dehydrated formation is  plate  rinsing.   Additional  wastewater
sources are from vacuum pump seals or ejectors, wet air pollution
control   scrubbers,   formation   area  washdown,  and  periodic
electrolyte discharge.

Forty-two  plants  provided  flow  data . with  regard   to   open
dehydrated formation.  Two of these sites achieve zero discharge.
A  wide  range  of flows were reported by the 40 discharge sites.
The wide range of flows is due to a number of factors.  A variety
of plate rinsing techniques  (single  stage  rinsing,  multistage
series  rinsing, countercurrent cascade rinsing) are practiced in
the subcategory.  Water usage associated with single  and  multi-
stage   series  rinses  is  greater  than  that  associated  with
countercurrent cascade rinsing.  At some sites, the  rinse  tanks
are  agitated  by  bubbling  air  through  sprayers or repeatedly
lifting plates in and out of the  tanks.   Rinse  tank  agitation
lowers the water usage associated with plate rinsing.  The use of
flow  controllers  also lowers water usage.  Some sites discharge
water from vacuum pump seals and ejectors  used  for  dehydrating
plates.    Vacuum   pump  seal  or  ejector  water  significantly
increases the flow from open dehydrated formation.   The  average
production  normalized flow is 28.26 I/kg and the median is 11.05
I/kg.

Seven of the sites visited after  proposal  use  open  dehydrated
formation.   All  of  these  sites  use plate rinses.  One of the
sites uses treated water for plate rinsing.  Three sites use  wet
air  pollution  control  scrubbers to remove acid fumes and mist,
while at one  site  electrolyte  is  periodically  discharged  to
treatment.   None  of the plants have a discharge associated with
vacuum pump seals or ejectors.

Plate Soak - After curing,  and usually the preliminary  step  for
open  formation, plates may be soaked in a sulfuric acid solution
to enhance sulfation and improve  mechanical  properties.   Plate
soaking  may be done in the battery case, a formation tank, or in
a separate vessel, and is usually done for  plates  greater  than
0.25  cm  (0.10  inches) thick.  Wastewater results from periodic
discharge of the spent soaking acid.  Wastewater  flow  data  for
plate  soaking  was  collected  after  proposal from three sites.
Assuming a monthly replacement  of  soaking  acid,  a  production
                              136

-------
normalized  flow  for plate soaking was calculated for each site.
The average of the three production  normalized  flows  is  0.026
I/kg and the median is 0.021 I/kg.

Battery  Assembly  -  As  discussed  previously,  assembly may be
partially accomplished prior to formation but is completed  after
formation.   Assembly  after open formation includes interleaving
positive and negative plates and separators to  create  elements,
and  welding  connecting straps to the positive and negative lugs
on the elements to  provide  electrical  continuity  through  the
battery.  The battery cover is then installed and sealed in place
by heat, epoxy resin, rubber cement, or with a bituminous sealer;
vents are installed; and the battery posts are welded or "burned"
in place.  Partial assembly prior to closed formation is the same
as  semi-assembly.  Final sealing of the case and installation of
vent  covers  is  accomplished   after   formation.    Wastewater
discharges  from battery assembly result from using wet scrubbers
to control fumes generated from casting terminals  and  connector
straps   (small  parts  casting) and welding battery posts.  These
wet scrubbers are discussed later under  the  wet  air  pollution
control process element.

Battery  Wash.   Many  plants  wash  batteries in preparation for
shipment.  Plants which do not wash batteries  generally  produce
dehydrated plate batteries, or extensively use contact cooling in
formation precluding the necessity to -wash.  Batteries are washed
primarily  to  remove sulfuric acid spilled on the outside of the
battery case.  Detergent is used at some plants to remove oil and
grease.  The battery wash process element  is  divided  into  two
subelements,  battery wash with water only, and battery wash with
detergent.

Battery Wash with Water Only - Forty-four  plants  reported  flow
data for water only battery washes.  One of these plants achieves
zero  discharge.   This  plant  reuses battery wash water in acid
cutting.  The average production normalized flow for this process
is 3.47 I/kg and the median is 0.59 I/kg.  The magnitude  of  the
discharge  flow  from  battery  washing is related to a number of
factors.  Factors which tend to reduce the discharge flow are  as
follows:

     o    Use of a switching device (mechanical or electrical) to
          stop the flow of water when batteries are  not  in  the
          battery washer.
     o    Use of appropriate types of spray nozzles  to  properly
          disperse the rinsewater.
     o    Recycle wash water back to the battery washer.
                              137

-------
Seven of the sites visited  since  proposal  operate  water  only
battery  washes.   All  of these sites discharge wash water.  One
site uses an electrical switching device to reduce the  discharge
flow.   Another  site  recycles  the  wash water with an overflow
stream to treatment.

Battery Wash with Detergent -  Twenty-two  plants  reported  flow
data for detergent battery washes.  All of these plants discharge
the detergent wash water.  The average production normalized flow
for  this process is 1.70 I/kg and the median is 0.90 I/kg.  Five
of the sites visited after  proposal  operate  detergent  battery
washes.

Floor  Wash.   Many  battery  plants use power floor scrubbers to
clean floor areas.  Power floor scrubbers are sometimes not  used
in  areas such as (1) formation areas because acid spills tend to
corrode these machines and  (2)  those  areas  where  it  is  not
practical  to  use  a  machine  scrubber.  Instead, high pressure
water hoses are used to  spray  equipment  and  floors  in  these
areas.    Wastewater   discharges   associated  with  both  power
scrubbers and hoses are considered under floor wash.

A total of 13 sites reported  flow  data  with  regard  to  floor
washing.    Two   sites  reported  no  discharge  from  floorwash
operations.  The average production normalized  flow  from  floor
washing is 0.11 I/kg while the median flow is 0.13 I/kg.  At some
sites, floor wash flows and formation area washdown flows are not
distinquishable.   For  those  sites,  the  flow  associated with
formation area washdown was included in the floor wash flow.

Floor wash information was obtained  from  twelve  of  the  sites
visited after proposal.  Ten sites have power floor scrubbers and
2 sites use only hoses.  Five of the 10 sites use power scrubbers
to  clean  all  floor  areas  including  the formation area.  The
remaining five sites use water hoses to  washdown  the  formation
and other miscellaneous areas.

Wet  Air  Pollution  Control.    Wet  air pollution control  (WAPC)
devices are reported to be used in many lead  battery  plants  to
varying  degrees in the following process activities: leady oxide
production,  grid  manufacture,   pasting,   formation,   battery
assembly,  battery  washing,  boost  charging,  acid  mixing, and
laboratories.  From dcp, site visits, and telephone contacts with
plant personnel, 80 sites reported using scrubbers in  each  area
as  follows: three sites for leady oxide production, 16 sites for
grid manufacturing, 53 sites for pasting, 37 sites for  formation
(22  for  open, 24 for closed, 15 for closed only), six sites for
battery assembly, one site for  battery  washing,  one  site  for
boost  charging,  five  sites  for  acid  mixing,  two  sites for
                              138

-------
laboratories  and  one  site   for   controlling   paint   fumes.
Wastewater  discharges from all lead subcategory process elements
except laboratories are included in the wet air pollution control
process element.  Discharges from laboratory  wet  scrubbers  are
included in the laboratory process element.

Based  on  all collected data for wet air pollution control, most
plants  use  wet  scrubbers  in  two  or  less  process   element
operations.   Of  the  80  plants  which indicated the use of wet
scrubbers, 73 use scrubbers in two or less  operations.   Pasting
and formation represent the most common areas where wet scrubbers
are  used.   The  use of scrubbers in other areas was found to be
rare, and  site  specific  in  nature.   Grid  manufacturing  and
battery assembly wet scrubbing is mostly (70 percent) represented
by one company.

The scrubbers reported for battery washing and acid mixing are at
sites  associated with one corporation and are now used as static
demisters without use of or generation of water.  The site  using
a  boost charging scrubber utilizes recycle of coalescer/demister
washdown water with caustic addition,  incurring  infrequent  low
volume  blowdown  to  treatment.   No  information  is  availalbe
concerning the paint fume scrubber.

Based on telephone contacts and post-proposal data submittals  by
lead  battery  companies,  primarily  two  types of scrubbers are
used.  These are as follows: (1)  a  static  vessel  of  scrubber
water,  or internally recirculated water, through which fumes are
sparged and (2) an acid mist or fume cpalescer with  intermittent
washdown.    The   static  vessel  design  typifies  leady  oxide
production,  grid  manufacture,  pasting,  and  battery  assembly
applications;  the  latter  design  typifies  formation  area air
scrubbing.  Wastewater from the static vessel design results from
continuous overflow or periodic tank drainage.   Wastewater  from
the fume coalescer results from intermittent mesh washdown or the
use  of  a  continuous  water  spray  in  the  fan section of the
scrubber.

Flow rates reported by plants in the subcategory for WAPC devices
applied in pasting, grid manufacture, battery assembly, and leady
oxide production  varied  significantly  due  to  widely  varying
operating  philosophies.   The  flow rates reported varied from  0
1/hr to 1,703 1/hr.  After the dcp were  submitted,  three  sites
eliminated  a  total of five grid manufacturing, battery assembly
and leady oxide WAPC scrubber operations and installed baghouses.
Consequently,, the current reported flow range is from 0' 1/hr  to
681  1/hr.   All but two of these flows are equal to or less than
227 1/hr.  About  40  sites  report  either  fcn  intermittent  or
unmeasureable  stream  which  goes  to wastewater treatment.  The
                               139

-------
intermittency results from overflow or batch periodic draining to
clean the tank and reclaim any residual lead-containing material.

The measured flows connote a continuous makeup and drainage  rate
for generally undefined reasons.  From plant contacts with a site
which  used  a  scrubber  for grid manufacturing, it was reported
that a steady drainage was used at a time when a  different  mold
release  compound  was  being  used,  which generated significant
loadings of soot upon application to the molds.  The soot was the
desired end product to  lubricate  the  mold.   This  raised  the
particulate  loading on their static scrubber system, purportedly
requiring  continuous  makeup  and  drainage  of   water.    Upon
switching  to  cork release material, the need is negligible, and
the flow has been set back, but still remains.

Reported flow rates from formation  area  scrubbers  varied  from
negligible  and  intermittent  to  68,130  liters per hour.  This
difference is due to a number of factors.  Some sites operate the
scrubber dry with intermittent washdown of the mesh.  Some  sites
report  no  mesh washdown at all.  Mesh washdown frequency varies
from site to site resulting in  varying  wastewater  flow  rates.
Other  sites  use  a continuous water spray in the fan section of
the scrubber.  Based on vendor information, use of the continuous
water spray results in a wastewater discharge that  'is  20  times
greater  than the discharge associated with the dry  (intermittent
washdown) operating mode.

The average and median production normalized  flow  for  wet. air
pollution   control  was  calculated  using  flow  data  for  all
scrubbers except for laboratories.   Flow  values  for  scrubbers
used  for more than one process area were counted once.  The flow
from one scrubber (68,130 1/hr) was not  used  to  calculate  the
average  and  median  production  normalized  flow values because
water usage at this high  level  is  considered  excessive.   The
average  production normalized flow for WAPC is 0.26 I/kg and the
median is 0.00 I/kg, based on data from 56 scrubbers of which  32
do not discharge.

Battery  Testing  and Repair.  Most finished batteries are tested
prior to shipment to assure correct voltage and current capacity.
Selected batteries may undergo  more  extensive  tests  including
capacity,  charge  rate  acceptance, cycle life, over-charge, and
accelerated life tests.  Batteries which are found to  be  faulty
in  testing  may  be  repaired  on site.  These repair operations
generally require disassembly of the battery and  replacement  of
some component(s).

The  conduction  of tests and subsequent disassembly, inspection,
and repair  operations  yield  wastewater  which  is  similar  in
                              140

-------
character to discharges from formation operations.  From industry
survey   data,   30   out  of  65  plants  report  this  activity
demonstrating extensive involvement by the subcategory.  The flow
data which exists for this process is primarily from the dcp  and
sampling visits.  Three sites reported flow values of 0.004 I/kg,
0.25 I/kg, and 0.34 I/kg.  The average production normalized flow
is 0.20 I/kg and the median is 0.25 I/kg.

Laboratory  Testing.   A  number  of quality control analyses are
performed in laboratories at lead battery plants.  These analyses
involve both chemical and  some  physical  property  analyses  of
intermediate  battery  components  and  finished  batteries.  The
following parameters are commonly analyzed at battery  plants  in
this subcategory:

     o    Iron content of battery electrolyte,
     o    Particle size of leady oxide powder,
     o    Free lead content of lead oxide powder,
     o    Free lead content of cured plates,
     o    Lead sulfate content of paste,
     o    Lead sulfate content of formed plates
     o    Trace element contaminants contained in grids and  lead
          strip.

Fifty-seven   of   the   65  industry  surveys  reported  on-site
laboratory facilities.

There are a number of wastewater sources associated with  on-site
laboratory  facilities.   Sources  of  process wastewater include
instrument washing,  general  area  cleanup,  wet  air  pollution
control  discharge,  and  dumped  battery  electrolyte.   Wet air
pollution control scrubbers are used to remove lead dust and acid
mist  generated  from  wet  chemistry  tests  performed  under  a
ventilation  hood.   Slowdown  from these scrubbers is considered
under this process element rather  than  with  the  WAPC  process
element  because  scrubber  use in the laboratory is intermittent
and the flow is minimal.

Laboratory flow data was collected on post-proposal  site  visits
to  five  sites.  Flow data from four of the five sites were used
to calculate an average normalized flow for laboratories of 0.003
I/kg.  One flow value reported during the site  visits  was  more
than  an  order  of  magnitude greater than the other four values
measured or reported.  This large flow is not justified in  terms
of  differences  among  sites testing and analysis procedures and
was not considered in establishing the average  normalized  flow.
The  average  normalized  flow  is a flow weighted average of the
four reported or measured flows.  This  flow  was  calculated  by
adding  the  laboratory flows from the four sites and dividing by
                              141

-------
the total production associated with the four sites.   Production
data from 1982 was used to calculate the total production.

Truck  Wash.   Trucks  are  used  to  transport used batteries in
connection with battery cracking {secondary lead  subcategory  of
the  nonferrous  metals  category)  processes and to ship new and
repairable batteries to and  from  battery  manufacturing  sites.
These  trucks  are  periodically  washed  generating a wastewater
discharge.   Only   truck   washing   associated   with   battery
manufacturing    processes   is   considered   in   the   battery
manufacturing regulation.   Truck  washing  at  sites  that  have
battery  cracking  or  secondary lead smelting will be considered
under nonferrous metals manufacturing.

From the industry surveys, 18  lead  battery  sites  operate  and
washdown  trucks  and  have no associated secondary lead smelter.
Information on the number of trucks washed  each  day  and  water
usage for truck washing was not provided in the industry surveys.
However,  water  usage  associated with truck wash operations was
measured on two postproposal site visits.   One  of  these  sites
uses about 150 liters of water per truck and the other sites uses
about  125 liters of water per truck.  These sites had associated
secondary lead smelters.  Although the measured flow values  were
from  operations  associated  with  a secondary lead smelter, the
water usage data can also be used to estimate the use  associated
with  battery  manufacturing  truck  wash  operations.  Using 150
liters of water per truck and the  number  of  trucks  washed,  a
production  normalized  flow  was  calculated for each site.  The
average normalized flow from truck  washing  at  these  sites  is
0.014 I/kg.

Hand  Wash.   In order to control employee exposure to lead, hand
washing is a mandatory activity  at  most  lead  battery  plants.
Sixty-three  of  the  65  plants  which responded to the industry
survey reported that handwashing was a  mandatory  activity.   No
flow  data  with regard to handwashing was reported in the dcp or
industry .surveys.  However, on two  post  proposal  site  visits,
measurements  of  the volume of water used by plant personnel for
handwashing were taken.  At both-plants, hand  wash  water  usage
was measured as 1.5 liters per employee per wash.  This value was
used  to calculate an average normalized flow of 0.027 I/kg.  The
following procedure was used to calculate the average  normalized
flow:

     o    The number of production  employees  in  required  hand
          wash  activites  at  each  site  was  obtained from the
          industry survey (see Table V-4).
                              142

-------
     o   .Assuming 1.5 lites per  employee  per  wash,  and  four
          washes  per  day,  a daily hand wash flow for each site
          was calculated.  This flow was converted to  an  annual
          flow ,by assuming 250 days of operation per year.

     o    The hand wash flows from each of the 63 sites were then
          added to determine the total annual hand wash flow  for
          the subcategory.

     o    This total flow was divided  by  the  total  production
          associated  with  the 63 sites to determine the average
          normalized flow.  Site production data  from  1982  was
          used   (when   available)   to   calculate   the  .total
          production.   When  1982  production   data   was   not
          available  for  a  particular site, dcp production data
          was used.

Respirator  Wash.   At  some  battery  plants,   employees   wear
respirators  to  prevent  the  inhalation  of  lead dust and acid
fumes.  These respirators are usually cleaned and reused.  Fifty-
one plants which responded to the industry survey indicated  that
respirators  are  washed  on-site.   In addition, respirator wash
information was obtained  from  twelve  of  the  seventeen  sites
visited after proposal.  The observed methods used for respirator
wash  were  varied.   Washing  techniques included rinsing in lab
sinks, laundering in conventional clothes washing  machines,  and
sanitizing   in   ultrasonic'   machinery  specifically  used  for
respirator washing.

As with handwashing, there was limited respirator wash flow  data
available.    No  flow  data were reported by plants in the dcp or
industry surveys.  However, the respirator wash flow was measured
on two post proposal sampling visits  and  reported  flow  values
were obtained from four additional sites.  The average respirator
wash  water  usage at these 6 sites is 4.6 liters per respirator.
The average normalized respirator  wash  flow  (0.006  I/kg)  was
calculated  using the 4.6 liters per respirator value; 1982 (when
available)  or dcp production data; and industry survey data shown
in Table V-4 on the number of respirators washed at each  of  the
fifty-one  sites reporting a respirator wash.  The procedure used
in calculating the average flow 'is identical  to  that  used  for
hand washing.

Laundry.   Eleven  sites  in  the  subcategory  reported  on-site
laundering of work uniforms based on industry survey  information
(see  Table  V-4).   Work  uniforms  include clothing, towels and
other items distributed to each employee at the plant  which  are
laundered together.  Laundry water usage data was obtained on two
post  proposal  sampling  visits.   The  average  water .usage for
                              143

-------
laundry at these two sites was  21.4  liters  per  uniform.   The
average  normalized  laundry  flow (0.109 I/kg) was calculated in
the same manner as the hand wash and respirator wash  flows;  the
number  of uniforms laundered per day was used as well as  1982 or
dcp production data.

Process Integration

The different methods of carrying out each of the  basic  process
steps  discussed  above may be combined to produce a large number
of distinct process flow diagrams.  Each plant will combine these
process elements  in  a  pattern  suited  to  its  age,  type  of
product(s),  degree  of  automation, and production volume.  Fur-
ther, not all plants perform all process operations  on-site.   A
significant  number of plants purchase pasted battery plates from
other plants.   Conversely,  some  battery  manufacturing  plants
produce   only  battery  plates  and  do  not  assemble  finished
batteries.

When plates are formed by the plate  manufacture,  only  assembly
and  electrolyte  addition  are  performed  by  the battery manu-
facturer.   Alternatively,  the  plates  may  be   sold    "green"
(unformed)  and  subjected  to either open or closed formation by
the battery manufacturer.

Examples of wet, damp and dehydrated battery manufacture  and  of
battery  manufacture from purchased "green" and formed plates are
shown in the process flow diagrams of  Figures  V-5  through  V-9
(pages  245-249).   In  many cases, single sites produce multiple
product  types  and  therefore  have  process   flows   combining
operations of more than one of these figures.

     Wastewater Characteristics

Wastewater  samples  obtained  at lead subcategory sites provided
characterization  of  wastewater  from   the   specific   process
operations   addressed  in  the  preceding  discussion.   Process
wastewater samples  were  collected  from  five  sites  prior  to
proposal.   Following proposal process element wastewater samples
were obtained from three sites.  These eight  sites  collectively
represent the production of both SLI and industrial batteries and
provide  a  broad view of the manufacturing processes in the lead
subcategory.  They also embody a variety  of  in-process  control
techniques   including   recirculation,   low   rate   formation,
recirculation  of  treated  process   wastewater,   and   several
different  wastewater  treatment technologies.  Sampling at these
sites provides the basis for characterizing wastewater  resulting
from   specific   process   operations  and  total  lead  battery
manufacturing process  wastewater.   Interpretation  of  sampling
                              144

-------
results was aided by reference to additional information obtained
from   dcp/   industry  surveys  and  by  visits  to  twenty-nine
additional lead acid battery manufacturing sites at which process
wastewater samples were not obtained.

Characteristics of process element wastewater were determined  as
a  result  of  sampling performed both before and after proposal.
These wastewater characteristics  are  summarized  in  Table  V-5
(page  178).   The  concentrations and pollutant loadings in this
table are in general, the average of all samples  taken  for  the
process  element.   Wastewater  characteristics  of  each process
element are. discussed below.

Leady Oxide Production.   Process  wastewater  from  leady  oxide
production  results  from  shell cooling of inadequately shrouded
ball mills.  Shell cooling water from  an  inadequately  shrouded
ball  mill  was sampled at Plant H.  Pollutant concentrations and
loadings in this wastewater are shown in Table  V-5  under  leady
oxide  production.   The  0.5  mg/1  lead  concentration  in this
wastewater results from the entrainment and dissolution  of  lead
dust  from  the  ball  mill.  This concentration coupled with the
large  discharge  flow  of  shell  cooling  water  results  in  a
significant lead loading (3.42 mg/kg).

Grid  Manufacture.  Mold Release Formulation - No samples of mold
release  formulation  water  were  collected.   As  mold  release
formulation  cleanup  water  does not come in direct contact with
lead, pollutant concentrations should be minimal.

Direct Chill Casting - A sample of direct chill  casting  contact
cooling  water  was collected from a catch tank.  No overflow was
observed from the catch tank and it was not due to be dumped when
the sample was taken.  The pollutant concentrations and  loadings
in  the  sample  should  adequately  represent characteristics of
direct chill casting contact cooling water.  These concentrations
and loadings are shown in Table V-5.   As  shown  in  Table  V-5,
pollutant loadings in this wastewater are minimal.

Lead  Rolling  - A sample of spent rolling emulsion was collected
and pollutant concentrations and loadings are shown in Table V-5.
The spent rolling emulsion  is contract hauled by all of the  five
sites which roll lead in the subcategory.

Paste  Preparation  and  Application.   Wastewater  samples  were
collected at five sites  (threeprior  to  proposal,  two  after
proposal).    Table   V-6   (page    183)   shows  the  wastewater
characteristics of paste preparation and application  area  water
at  these  sites.  .Pollutant loadings from the pasting wastewater
at  these  five  sites  are  shown   in  Table  V-7  (page   185).
                               145

-------
Wastewater  samples at four of the sites (Plant D, Plant E, Plant
F and Plant H) were obtained  from  trenches,  sumps  or  holding
tanks  in  which  some settling of solids from washdown water had
occurred.  A sample of the supernatant from an  in-line  settling
tank  at Plant D was found to contain 10 mg/1 of suspended solids
and 37 mg/1 of lead  indicating  that  significant  reduction  in
suspended material can be readily achieved by immediate settling.
The  wastewater  stream  at  Plant  A was sampled as the washdown
water came off the equipment. This sample exemplifies the pasting
raw  waste  concentration.   The  Plant  A  sample  was  used  to
characterize  raw  pasting water in Table V-5 and the other plant
samples were used to estimate the effects of settling  the  paste
stream.

Curing.   Wastewater from curing was sampled during post proposal
visits to two plants.  Curing wastewater  at  one  plant  results
from steam curing pasted plates while wastewater at another plant
is  from  a  water  injected  humidity  oven.   Curing wastewater
characteristics and pollutant loads observed in sampling at these
two sites are summarized in Tables V-8, and V-9  (pages  187  and
188).

Closed  Formation  Single  Fill.    Wastewater samples from single
fill formation were obtained at Plant H.  This site  manufactures
both  SLI  and  industrial batteries using single fill formation.
Contact cooling water is used to dissipate heat generated  during
charging  for  both  battery  types.  Wastewater samples from the
contact cooling wate(r streams of bo£h battery  types  were  taken
and  pollutant  concentrations  and  loadings were averaged.  The
average concentrations and loadings are presented in Table V-5.

Closed Formation Double Fill.   Wastewater  samples  from  double
fill formation were obtained at Plant A.  These samples were from
a  post-formation  rinse  of  double  fill  batteries.  Pollutant
concentrations and loadings in the rinse are shown in Tables V-10
and V-l1 (pages 189 and 190).  No samples of double fill  contact
cooling  water  were  taken,  however,  this  wastewater  is well
represented by the single fill contact cooling water samples.

Closed Formation Fill  and  Dump  (Damp  Batteries).   Wastewater
samplesfrom fill and dump formation were also taken at Plant A.
Pollutant concentrations  and  loadings  are  also  displayed  in
Tables  V-10  and  V-l1.   This  process  replaced a conventional
dehydrated plate system in which it was necessary to  remove  the
cells  and run them through a high-water-use, three stage washer.
The current discharge is associated with a spray rinse similar to
that used for double fill formation.  Pollutant loadings  in  the
fill  and  dump spray rinse are somewhat higher than those in the
                              146

-------
double fill rinse, apparently as a result of  case  contamination
in dumping electrolyte from the batteries.

Damp  batteries are also produced at Plant C, and wastewater from
formation is included in the total raw wastewater stream  sampled
at  the  plant.   Formation  wastewater at that site results from
contact  cooling  of  batteries  during  a  high  rate  formation
process.   Contact  cooling water from fill and dump formation is
also represented by the single fill samples from  Plant  H  which
were also from contact cooling wastewater.

Open  Dehydrated Formation.  Open dehydrated formation wastewater
was sampled at Plants D, G, and H.  Pollutant concentrations  and
loadings from these three sites are summarized in Tables V-12 and
V-13  (pages  191  and  192).   At  Plant D, wastewater from open
dehydrated formation results from a countercurrent cascade  plate
rinse.   Plant G also discharges wastewater from a countercurrent
cascade plate rinse and has an  additional  discharge  associated
with  periodically  rinsing  residual plate materials out of open
formation tanks (area washdown).   These  two  wastestreams  were
sampled  separately  and pollutant concentrations in the combined
open dehydrated formation wastewater at the site were  calculated
from  a  mass  balance.   Open dehydrated formation wastewater at
Plant  H  results  from  a  single  stage  plate  rinse  and   an
electrolyte bleed stream which results from a partial draining of
each  formation  tank.  The formation tanks are partially drained
each day to enable plant  personnel  to  physically  get  to  the
formed  plates for removal.  Both the electrolyte bleed and plate
rinse were sampled separately and pollutant concentrations in the
combined wastewater shown in Table V-12 were  determined  from  a
mass balance.

No samples of vacuum pump seal "or ejector water were specifically
collected,  however  total  raw  wastewater  samples from Plant B
includes vacuum ejector wastewater.  Pollutant concentrations  in
this wastewater should be minimal because the seal water does not
come in direct contact with lead.

Open  Wet  Formation.  Wastewater from open wet formation was 'not.
specifically sampled.  However,  wastewater  from  this  step  is
primarily  a  result  of  spent  electrolyte discharges and plate
rinsing.   Pollutant  concentrations  in  the  electrolyte  bleed
sample  from Plant H should be similar to discharge from open wet
formation.  This sample was used to determine the characteristics
of open wet formation wastewater which are shown in Table V-5.

Plate soaking.  Plate soaking  wastewater  was  not  specifically
sampled.    However,   in   terms  of  pollutant  concentrations,
discharges from plate soaking should be  similar  to  those  from
                              147

-------
open  wet  formation  because  both  of  these  process  elements
discharge  spent  acid  or  electrolyte.   Thus,  the   pollutant
concentrations   shown   in   Table  V-5  are  the  same  as  the
concentrations for open wet formation.

Battery Wash.  Battery wash  wastewater  samples  were  collected
from Plants A, D, F, and G.  Plants D and G run detergent battery
wash  operations.   Pollutant  concentrations and loadings in the
detergent battery wash water at these sites are shown  in  Tables
V-14  and  V-15  (pages  193 and 194).  The detergent wash sample
from Plant G was collected from the battery wash tank.  This tank
was being drained for cleaning and  was  nearly  empty  when  the
sample   was  taken.   As  a  result  of  this,  the  sample  was
contaminated with sediment from the bottom of the tank and is not
representative of overflow detergent  battery  wash  water.   The
samples  from  Plant  D  included minimal flow contributions from
battery repair and area washdown.  Although the Plant  D  samples
include  these minimal flow contributions from battery repair and
area washdown, they are more representative of detergent  battery
wash   water   than   the   sample   from   Plant  G.   Pollutant
concentrations in the Plant G sample are, in general, nearly  ten
times  greater  than  the  concentrations in the Plant D samples.
These high concentrations most  likely  result  from  the  sample
being  contaminated  with  sediment  from the bottom of the tank.
Therefore, pollutant concentrations and loadings shown  in  Table
V-5  for detergent battery washing are based on an average of the
samples from Plant D.

Plants  A  and  F  use  water  only  battery  washes.   Pollutant
concentrations  and  loadings in the battery wash water are shown
in  Tables  V-16,  and  V-17  (pages  195  and  196).   Pollutant
concentrations  and  loadings in Table V-5 for water only battery
washing are based on the average.

Floor Wash.  Floor wash samples were collected at  Plants  A,  F,
and  H.   Pollutant  concentrations and loadings in these samples
are presented in Table V-18, and V-19 (pages 197 and  198).   The
samples from Plants A and H represent wastewater from power floor
scrubbers.   At  Plant  F,  botti  power floor scrubbers and water
hoses are used to clean floors.  Wastewater from  both  of  these
operations   was  sampled  separately  and  a  mass  balance  was
performed to determine the characteristics of combined floor wash
water at the site.  Pollutant concentrations and  loadings  shown
in  Tables V-18 and V-19 for Plant F represent the combined floor
wash water.

As mentioned above, the samples from Plants  A  and  H  represent
wastewater from power floor scrubbers.  Many sites also use hoses
to  wash  certain floor areas; particularly formation area floors
                               148

-------
which may be space constrained or contain large amounts  of  acid
spillage.  The average pollutant concentrations shown in Table V-
5 for floor wash water were calculated as follows:

     o    Using flow data and concentration data  from  the  hose
          water  sample  at  Plant F, pollutant concentrations in
          combined floor wash  water  at  Plants  A  and  H  were
          calculated (by a mass balance).

     o    The calculated concentrations from Plants A and H  were
          then averaged with the concentrations from Plant F.

Wet  Air  Pollution  Control.   Wet  air  pollution control water
samples were collected at Plants F and H.  Both of these  samples
were from formation area scrubber wastewater.  Tables V-20 and V-
21 (pages 199 and 200) show pollutant concentrations and loadings
in these samples.  These samples are used to characterize wet air
pollution  control wastewater from all lead battery manufacturing
operations.


Battery Repair.  Battery repair wastewater samples were collected
from Plants A and D.  Pollutant concentrations and  loadings  are
shown in Tables V-22 and V-23 (pages 201 and 202).

Laboratory.    A sample of laboratory wastewater was collected at
Plant  H.   Laboratory  wastewater  at  this  site  consists   of
instrument  wash  water,  dumped  battery  electrolyte,  and  wet
scrubber water.  The sample  was  collected  from  a  sink  where
laboratory  instruments are washed and the battery electrolyte is
dumped.  The wet scrubber wastewater was not sampled.   Pollutant
concentrations  in  the  combined  laboratory  waste stream  (sink
water plus wet  scrubber  water)  were  determined  from  a  mass
balance.   The pollutant concentrations in the wet scrubber water
were estimated for the mass balance.   The  calculated  pollutant
concentrations and waste loadings are shown in Table V-5.

Truck  Wash.    Truck  wash  samples  were  collected on sampling
visits to Plants G and H.  Pollutant concentrations and  loadings
in these samples are shown in Tables V-24 and V-25 (pages 203 and
204).   The  samples  from  these  two sites were from truck wash
operations  at  battery  manufacturing  sites   associated   with
secondary  lead  smelters.   Both  sites  haul scrap batteries to
their secondary lead smelters.  These scrap batteries  are  often
damaged  and  leak electrolyte onto the floor of the trucks.  The
wastewater  from  washing  these   trucks   is   therefore   more
contaminated  than  the  wastewater  from washing trucks that are
used solely for battery  manufacturing  purposes.   A  review  of
pollutant  concentrations  in  the  two  samples shows that  toxic
                              149

-------
pollutant concentrations in the sample from Plant G are generally
lower than those from Plant H.  Therefore,  Plant  G  truck  wash
water  is  assumed to be more indicative of battery manufacturing
wastewater.  The average pollutant  concentrations  and  loadings
shown in Table V-5 for truck wash water are based on Plant G.

Hand  Wash.    Hand»wa.sh samples were collected from Plants G and
H.  These samples were collected from the sinks  where  employees
wash  their hands.  Tables V-26 and V-27 (pages 205 and 206) show
pollutant concentrations and loadings in the two samples.

Respirator Wash.   Respirator wash samples  were  collected  from
Plants  G  and  H.  At Plant G, an ultrasonic cleaning machine is
used which  rinses  and  sterilizes  the  respirators.   Separate
samples  of  the rinse water and germicide (sterilizing solution)
were taken.  Pollutant concentrations in the combined  respirator
wash water were then determined from a mass balance.  At Plant H,
respirators  are  washed first in an acetic acid bath followed by
double rinsing with water and final  cleaning  in  an  ultrasonic
machine.   A  composite  sample  from the acetic acid bath, rinse
water, and  ultrasonic  cleaning  machine  water  (including  the
germicide  solution)  was taken.  Tables V-28 and V-29 (pages 207
and 208)  show  the  pollutant  concentrations  and  loadings  in
respirator water at these sites.

Laundry.    Laundry  wastewater  samples were also collected from
Plants G and H.  Tables V-30 and V-31 (pages 209  and  210)  show
the  pollutant  concentrations  and  pollutant  loadings  in this
wastewater.

Total Process Wastewater Discharge and Characteristics

Flow - Total plant discharge flows range from 0 to nearly  62,000
1/hr  with  a  median value of 1,640 1/hr.  Production normalized
discharge flows range from 0 to 78 I/kg with  a  median  of  0.97
I/kg.  Discharge flow from each plant in the subcategory is shown
in  Table  V-32 (page 211).  Approximately 30 percent (57 plants)
of all plants in the subcategory reported zero process wastewater
discharge.  Most of these zero discharge plants were plants which
only purchased plates and  assembled  batteries  (17  plants)  or
plants  which  produced only wet batteries and generally employed
single-fill formation (20 plants).  Of the 57 plants,  26  plants
indicated that no process wastewater was generated.   Seven others
indicated that wastewater was recycled and reused.  The remaining
plants  employ evaporation or holding ponds (5 plants), discharge
to dry wells, sumps,  septic  tanks  or  cesspools  (13  plants),
contract  removal  of  process wastewater (2 plants), disposal of
wastewater in a sanitary landfill (1 plant),  or did  not  specify
the  disposition of process wastes (3 plants).  Among discharging
                              150

-------
plants,  only  twelve  were  direct   dischargers.    All   other
discharging plants introduce process wastewater into POTW.

Raw   Wastewater   Characteristics  -  Total  process  wastewater
characteristics determined from the analysis of samples collected
at Plants Ar B, C, D, E, F, G, and H are presented in Table  V-34
(page  220).   Pollutant  loads determined by sampling at each of
these sites are presented in Table V-35 (page 223).   These  data
represent  the  process wastewater stream discharged to treatment
at Plants A through F.  The total process wastewater  stream  for
Plants  G  and  H  include  both process wastewater discharged to
treatment and  process  wastewater  that  is  not  discharged  to
treatment.   Minimal amounts of process wastewater resulting from
personal hygiene activities bypass treatment at Plants A  through
F.   However,  personal hygiene streams were not sampled at these
six sites and therefore were not included in  the  total  process
waste   stream.    Pollutant   loadings   from  personal  hygiene
wastewater are minimal (as shown in Tables V-27, V-29, and  V-31)
and  therefore the concentrations and loadings shown in Tables V-
34, and V-35 for these six sites adequately represent  the  total
process  waste  stream.   Wastewater streams which are completely
recycled such as pasting wastewater are not included in the total
waste stream.

Large  differences  in  wastewater  volume   and   in   pollutant
concentrations   among   these  eight  sites  are  evident.   The
differences may be  understood  by  examining  the  manufacturing
process and wastewater management practices at each site.

Plant  A  manufactures  wet  and  damp  batteries  and  practices
extensive in-process control of  wastewater.   Pasting  equipment
and  area  washdown  at  this  plant  is  treated in a multistage
settling system and is totally reused.  The clarifier supernatant
from this system is reused in equipment and area washing, and the
settled lead oxide  solids  are  returned  for  use  in  pasting.
Batteries  are formed at this site using the double-fill, double-
charge technique, filling operations are performed with equipment
designed to  avoid  electrolyte  spillage  and  overfilling;  and
formation  is  accomplished  without  the  use of contact cooling
water.  Wastewater associated with  formation  is  limited  to  a
spray  rinse  of the battery case after the final acid fill.  Wet
charged batteries are boost charged  one  or  more  times  before
shipment  and  given  a  final wash just before they are shipped.
Damp batteries at this site are  initially  formed  in  the  same
manner  as wet batteries.  The second acid fill, however, is also
dumped to reuse, and the battery  is  sealed  and  spray  rinsed.
These  damp  batteries  are  given  the  same final wash prior to
shipment as the wet charged units.  A small volume of  additional
process  wastewater  at this site results from cleanup operations
                              151

-------
in a battery repair area.  The total wastewater from this  plant,
which is represented in Tables V-34 and V-35, includes wastewater
flowing  to  wastewater  treatment,  the  battery rinses and wash
water, and the repair  area  cleanup  wastewater,  but  does  not
include  the  pasting  wastewater since this stream is segregated
and totally  recycled.   The  low  pollutant  concentrations  and
loadings  shown  in  the  table reflect the efficiency of the in-
process controls employed  by  this  plant.   Significantly,  the
wastewater treatment system includes an evaporation pond allowing
the achivement of zero pollutant discharge from this plant.

Plant  B  manufactures  a  high  percentage  of  dehydrated plate
batteries but also practices  significant  in-process  water  use
control.   Pasting  equipment and area wash water is recirculated
using a system  similar  to  that  described  at  Plant  A.   Wet
batteries  are produced in a single-fill formation process, which
is accomplished using low  rate  charging  to  eliminate  process
contact  cooling  water,  and  filling  techniques which minimize
battery case contamination.  Only  occasional  discharges  result
from  the  filling  area  and  battery  case  washing.  Open-case
formation and plate dehydration operations generate most  of  the
process  wastewater.   The  wastewater sources are plate rinsing,
fume scrubbers, formation area washdown,  and  a  vacuum  ejector
used in dehydrating the formed, rinsed plates.  Partially treated
wastewater  is  recycled from the wastewater treatment system for
use in the wet scrubbers, area washdown, and  rinsing  of  formed
plates;  but  recycled  water is not used in the vacuum ejectors.
As a result of the recycle practiced, the  volume  of  the  final
effluent from this plant is only 46 percent of the raw wastewater
volume shown in the table or approximately 4.0 I/kg.

The  raw  wastewater  characterized in the table includes process
wastewater from open  formation  and  plate  dehydration,  closed
formation processes, and contaminated wastewater resulting from a
cooling jacket leak on a ball mill used in producing leady oxide,
but  it  does  not  include  pasting  wastewater which is totally
recycled.  The effect of plate rinsing  operations  in  the  open
formation  process is evident in the elevated lead concentrations
and loadings at  this  plant.   The  relatively  high  production
normalized  flow  arises  to a great extent from the use of large
volumes of water in ejectors to aid vacuum drying of  the  rinsed
plates.

Plant  C  produces  wet and damp SLI batteries and practices only
limited in-process water use control.  Pasting area wash water is
collected in a sump and pumped to central wastewater treatment at
the plant.   Aside  from  limited  settling  in  the  sump,  this
wastewater  stream  is  neither  recycled  nor treated separately
prior to combining with other process  wastewater  streams.   Wet
                              152

-------
and  damp  batteries  both undergo an initial high rate formation
process in which contact cooling water is sprayed on the  battery
cases  and discharged to wastewater treatment.  The wet batteries
are subsequently dumped (the acid is reused)  and  refilled  with
stronger  acid,  boost  charged,  and  topped  off  to ensure the
correct  electrolyte  level.   Damp  batteries  have  electrolyte
dumped  after  formation  and  are centrifuged to insure complete
electrolyte removal.  Wastewater from the  centrifuge,  including
some  formation  electrolyte, also flows to wastewater treatment.
Both the wet charged and damp batteries are washed, labeled,  and
tested  prior  to shipment.  Wastewater from battery washing also
flows to treatment.

The combined raw wastewater at  this  plant  was  sampled  as  it
entered  wastewater  treatment and includes all sources discussed
above.  The pasting  wastewater  is  included  in  total  process
wastewater  for  this  plant.  This, together with differences in
water  conservation  practices,  appears  to  account   for   the
differences  observed  in  pollutant concentrations and pollutant
loads between  this  plant  and  Plant  A.   Lead  loadings,  for
example,  are  significantly higher at Plant C as a result of the
introduction of pasting wastewater and  wastewater  from  battery
centrifuges   into   wastewater  treatment,  but  raw  wastewater
concentrations are low due to the dilution afforded by  the  much
higher  wastewater  volume  at  this plant (approximately 8 times
greater production normalized flow).

Plant D  manufactures  both  SLI  and  industrial  batteries  and
employs  closed and open formation processes.  Several in-process
water use control  techniques  at  this  plant  resulted  in  the
generation  of  a  relatively  low  volume of process wastewater.
Pasting area and equipment wash water is  not  recycled  at  this
plant,  but is separately treated by settling before introduction
into the wastewater treatment system.  Closed  formation  of  SLI
batteries  is  accomplished  in a double-fill process without the
use  of  contact  cooling  water.   The  final  acid  fill  after
formation  is  followed  by  a  battery  rinse yielding a process
wastewater discharge.  No industrial  batteries   (open  formation
process)  were  formed  during  sampling  at  this  plant.   Open
formation is followed by a two-stage countercurrent cascade rinse
of the formed plates.  They are dried in an oven without the  use
of  ejector  or  vacuum  pump seal water.  Finished batteries are
given a final wash prior to packaging and  shipment.   Additional
sources  of process wastewater at this site include assembly area
washdown, battery repair operations, and wastewater from  an  on-
site laboratory.

Plant  E  manufactures only wet industrial batteries.  In-process
water use control techniques at this  site  reduce  the  ultimate
                              153

-------
discharge  volume nearly to zero.  Formation is accomplished in a
single fill process using low rate charging.  No contact  cooling
water  is  used and batteries are not washed.  Process wastewater
at this plant results only from washing the pasting equipment and
floor areas.  This wastewater is treated and recycled for use  in
washing  the  pasting  area  floors.   Equipment  is  washed with
deionized water.  This practice results in a gradual accumulation
of wastewater in the recycle system and  necessitates  occasional
contract  removal  of  some wastewater.  The total process waste-
water characterized in Tables V-34 and V-35 includes  the  waste-
water  from pasting equipment and area washdown.  The sample used
to characterize this wastewater was obtained  from  a  wastewater
collection  pit  in  which  settling of paste particles occurred.
Therefore lowered lead and TSS concentrations  were  found.   The
total process wastewater characteristics presented in Tables V-34
and  V-35  were calculated from analyses of all of the individual
wastewater streams described above, including the pasting  waste-
water before settling.

Plant  F  manufactures  wet SLI batteries.  Pasting equipment and
area washdown water is collected in a trench network, drains to a
sump, and is pumped to wastewater treatment.  Aside from  limited
settling  in  the  trench  network  and  sump, this wastewater is
neither recycled nor treated separately prior to  combining  with
other  process  wastewater streams.  Wastewater is also generated
from curing which goes to wastewater  treatment.   Batteries  are
formed  at  this  site  using  the  single  fill,  single  charge
technique.   A  controlled  charging  procedure  is  used   which
eliminates  the  need  to  use contact cooling water to dissipate
heat, and results in a completely formed battery in approximately
one day.  The controlled charging procedure allows for a break in
the middle of formation  which  allows  the  batteries  to  cool.
Fumes  from  the  formation  area are vented to wet air pollution
control scrubbers.  The scrubbers operate  without  water  except
for  periodic  washdown  of  the  mesh  filters  where acid fumes
coalesce.

At Plant F, all batteries pass .through a water only battery  wash
after  formation.  The battery wash water is recirculated through
a small tank; an overflow stream from  this  tank  is  routed  to
wastewater   treatment.   The  overflow  stream  is  continuously
discharged even when no batteries are being  washed.   Additional
process  wastewater discharges at this site result from floor and
hand washing (floor washing is accomplished with both power floor
scrubbers and hoses), grid manufacturing, and laboratory testing.
All process wastewater  is  discharged  to  wastewater  treatment
except  one  process  stream  which is discharged directly to the
sanitary sewer, and another  process  stream  which  is  contract
hauled.   Pollutant concentrations and loadings for total battery
                              154

-------
manufacturing process wastewater at this site  are  presented  in
Tables V-34 and V-35.

These   concentrations   and   loadings   represent  all  battery
manufacturing process wastewater which is discharged to treatment
and includes the stream which  is  contract  hauled.   Hand  wash
wastewater  was  not  sampled at this site and is not included in
the total waste stream; however the  contribution  to  the  total
process  waste  stream  from  hand  washing is minimal.  The high
pollutant  loadings  in  the  total  process  waste  stream   are
primarily  due  to  the  discharge  of pasting equipment and area
washdown water.  This single wastewater source accounts for  over
75% of the lead loading in the total process waste stream.

Plant  G  manufactures  both  SLI  and  industrial  batteries and
employs closed and open formation processes.   Pasting  and  area
washdown  wastewater,  which  is not recycled at this site, along
with curing wastewater is discharged to treatment.   Several  in-
plant  water  use  control techniques are practiced at this site.
For single fill formation, a  controlled  charging  procedure  is
used  which  eliminates  the need for contact cooling water.  The
batteries, which are charged in racks, are charged slowly  for  a
few  hours  initially;  the  charging  rate is then increased for
several hours and then decreased for several more hours.  Overall
formation time is about three days.  A wet scrubber  is  used  to
remove fumes generated during the single fill charging procedure.
Wet  scrubber  water  is , treated  with caustic and recycled.  No
blowdown from the scrubber system was observed  during  sampling.
Both  wet  and  dehydrated plate industrial and SLI batteries are
produced by open formation.   Two  stage  countercurrent  cascade
rinse  operations  are used to rinse plates prior to dehydration.
These rinse tanks are agitated to ensure proper mixing and  lower
water  usage.   In  the  production  of dehydrated SLI batteries,
treated water from the wastewater treatment system  is  used  for
the  countercurrent  plate  rinse.   Thus,  this  plate  rinse is
ultimately a zero discharge operation.  Both SLI  and  industrial
plates  are dehydrated following plate rinsing without the use of
vacuum pump seal or ejector water.

Pollutant concentrations and loadings in the total process  waste
stream  at this site are presented in Tables V-34, and V-35.  The
concentrations and loadings in this waste stream  represent  both
wastewater  discharged to treatment and wastewater from handwash,
respirator wash,  laundry,  truck  wash  and  laboratory  testing
operations  which  is  not  discharged  to  the central treatment
system.  Pollutant loadings in the total  raw  waste  stream  are
comparable  to those from Plant D, which also produces dehydrated
batteries.  These loadings, although fairly low, could be reduced
                              155

-------
further if additional in-plant water use control  practices  such
as recycle of pasting area cleanup water were implemented.

Plant  H  manufactures  both  SLI  and  industrial  batteries and
employs closed and open  formation  processes.   Leady  oxide  is
produced by both the Barton and ball mill processes.  In the ball
mill  process/  a. large volume of process wastewater is produced
from shell cooling o'f an inadequately shrouded ball mill.   Three
pasting  operations  are performed onsite, two of which discharge
equipment and area washdown water after limited settling.  In the
third pasting operation, the equipment and area washdown water is
collected, settled, and reused in pasting area  washdown.   There
were plans to install a recycle system for one of the discharging.
pasting operations but this system was only partially implemented
at  the  time of sampling.  Both SLI and industrial batteries are
produced in single fill formation operations  which  use  contact
cooling  water  to  dissipate  heat  generated  during  high rate
formation.  Two different cooling configurations are used for the
single fill operations.  In one operation, a once-through cooling
configuration is used which  results  in  a  large  discharge  of
process  wastewater.   In  the  second single fill operation, the
cooling water  discharge  is  significantly  reduced  by  recycle
through a water softening system.  Dehydrated plate batteries are
also  produced  at  this  site.   Wastewater  discharge  from the
dehydrated plate operation results  from  a  single  stage  plate
rinse  and  bleeding  electrolyte  from  the formation tanks.  No
vacuum pump seal or ejector water is used in  plate  dehydration.
Additional  battery  manufacturing  process wastewater sources at
this site result from wet air pollution control, hand  and  floor
washing, respirator washing, and on-site laundry facilities.

Tables   V-34  and  V-35  present  pollutant  concentrations  and
loadings in the total battery manufacturing process waste stream.
These  concentrations  and   loadings   represent   all   battery
manufacturing  process  wastewater  discharged  at this site.  As
shown in Table V-35, pollutant loadings are fairly  high  due  to
inefficient water use in a number of processes.

A statistical summary of the total raw wastewater characteristics
observed  at  these  sites is presented in Table V-36 (page 226).
This table shows  the  range,  mean,  and  median  concentrations
observed  for  each  pollutant included in verification analyses.
Corresponding pollutant loading data are presented in Table  V-37
(page 227).

     Wastewater Treatment Practices and Effluent Data Analysis

Pep  and  Industry  Survey  Data - Plants in the lead subcategory
employ a variety of end-of-pipe treatment technologies  shown  in
                              156

-------
Table  V-33  and  in-process control techniques, and they achieve
widely varying effluent quality.  End-of-pipe treatment practices
employed include pH adjustment, chemical precipitation,  settling
using  a  variety  of devices, filtration, flotation, and reverse
osmosis.   In-process  water  use  control   techniques   include
segregation  and  treatment  or  recycle  of  specific wastewater
streams arid process modifications to eliminate  points  of  water
use and discharge.  Most plants in the subcategory, which produce
a  process  wastewater  discharge,  discharge  to  POTW.  Dcp and
industry survey  response  showed  some  significant  differences
between plants discharging to POTW and direct dischargers both in
terms  of  treatment practices and effluent performance achieved.
Direct dischargers generally provide  more  extensive  wastewater
treatment  and  control  than  plants discharging to POTW.  Where
similar treatment  equipment  is  in  place,  direct  dischargers
generally operate it more effectively and achieve better effluent
quality.

The  most  frequently  reported  end-of-pipe treatment systems in
this subcategory provided pH adjustment and  removal  of  solids.
Fifty-three plants reported the use of pH adjustment and settling
or  pH  adjustment  and  filtration  for  solids  removal.  These
filtration units generally serve as  primary  solids  removal  —
they  do  not  function  as  polishing filters following settling
which are usually designed to achieve very low effluent pollutant
concentrations.

Effluent quality data provided in dcp for  plants  practicing  pH
adjustment  and  settling are presented in Table V-38  (page 228).
While the dcp did not in general provide sufficient data to allow
meaningful evaluation of treatment system  design  and  operation
parameters,  some characteristics of the effluent data themselves
provide indications of the quality of treatment provided  and  of
the  probable  sources  of  the  variability  shown.   First, the
limited effluent pH data provided in the dcp  indicate  that  few
discharges  are  at  the  values  (pH  8.8-9.3)  appropriate  for
efficient removal of lead by precipitation.   In  the  data  from
those  plants reporting both lead and pH values for the effluent,
it may be observed that those plants reporting higher  pH  values
achieved  lower  effluent  lead concentrations.  Second, effluent
TSS  values  shown  in  Table  V-38  clearly  indicate  that  the
sedimentation  systems  employed by some plants are inadequate in
design or  operation.   Finally,  plants  which  introduce  their
wastewater  into POTW produced effluents ranging from  0.5 mg/1 to
7.5 mg/1 in lead concentration  with  an  average  of  2.1  mg/1.
Plants  discharging  to  surface  waters  and  also practicing pH
adjustment and settling produced effluents ranging from 0.187  to
0.4  mg/1  with an average of 0.28 mg/1.  The great difference in
effluent performance  between  direct  and  indirect   dischargers
                               157

-------
corresponds   to  differences  in  the  severity  of  regulations
presently applied to these two groups of plants.  This difference
indicates that the variations in the data reflect  variations  in
treatment design and operating practice rather than difference in
attainable  levels  of  pollutant  reduction  at  plants  in this
subcategory.

Effluent quality data provided in  industry  surveys  for  plants
practicing pH adjustment and settling are presented in Table V-39
(page  229).   In  general,  the  data  provided  in the industry
surveys corresponds closely with that provided in dcp.  Less than
one third of the plants reported an effluent  pH  at  the  values
appropriate  for efficient removal of lead by precipitation.  The
effluent TSS values are also high indicating inadequate operation
of the settling device.  Plants which introduce their  wastewater
into  POTW reported effluent lead concentrations ranging from 0.1
mg/1  to  6.0  mg/1;  with  an  average  of  1.8  mg/1.    Plants
discharging    to   surface   waters   reported   effluent   lead
concentrations ranging from 0.09  mg/1  to  0.47  mg/1,  with  an
average  of  0.23  mg/1.   Effluent  quality data provided in the
industry surveys support the conclusion drawn from the dcp  data;
that  variations  in  data reflect variations in treatment design
and operation  rather  than  differences  in  attainable  levels.
Clearly,   direct   dischargers   are  more  carefully  operating
treatment  systems  and  are  obtaining  better   lead   effluent
concentrations than indirect dischargers using the same treatment
technologies.

Table V-40 {page 230) presents effluent quality data from dcp for
plants  practicing pH adjustment and filtration.  In general, the
indicated effluent pollutant concentrations are lower than  those
shown from pH adjustment and settling, and the variability in the
data  is  less marked.  The effluent data from these systems also
show lower lead  concentrations  achieved  by  plants  practicing
direct discharge.

Effluent  quality  data  provided  in industry surveys for plants
practicing pH adjustment and filtration are presented in Table V-
41 (page 231).  As was true  for  the  dcp  data,  effluent  lead
concentrations for plants practicing pH adjustment and filtration
are  generally  lower  than  plants  practicing pH adjustment and
settling and the data exhibits less  variability.   Plants  which
discharge   wastewater  directly  reported  lower  effluent  lead
concentrations (average 0.27 mg/1) than those which discharge  to
a POTW (average 0.93 mg/1).

In  the  dcp,  twenty-two  plants  reported  the  introduction of
process wastewater into POTW  after  pH  adjustment  without  the
removal of suspended solids.  Effluent quality data were provided
                              158

-------
by  eleven  of  these  indirectly  discharging plants as shown in
Table V-42 (page 232).  This table also shows effluent data  from
one  plant  which reported process wastewater discharge to a POTW
without treatment.  Effluent lead concentrations reported in  the
dcp range from 1.0 mg/1 to 29.8 mg/1 and average 10 mg/1.

Industry  survey effluent quality data for plants practicing only
pH adjustment before discharge are presented in Table V-43  (page
233).   Eighteen  indirect  dischargers  reported  the  use of pH
adjustment only with none of these plants reporting operation  in
the desired pH range of 8.8 to 9.3.  Effluent lead concentrations
range  from  1.25 mg/1 to 20 mg/1, with an average 5.3 mg/1.  The
effluent concentrations reported for these  indirect  dischargers
practicing  pH  adjustment  only  are  comparable to the effluent
concentrations reported by indirect dischargers who  practice  pH
adjustment  and  settling.   This clearly indicates that settling
devices are being improperly  operated  and  controlled  at  lead
battery plants.

Several  plants  provided  data  in  dcp  indicating  the  use of
wastewater treatment systems other than  those  discussed  above.
These  included  sulfide precipitation, flotation separation, and
reverse osmosis.  One plant practicing chemical precipitation and
flotation separation of the precipitate reported an effluent lead
concentration of 0.1 mg/1.

While most plants specified end-of-pipe treatment  in  their  dcp
responses,  the in-process controls were often not clearly shown.
In many dcp in-process controls were deduced  from  process  line
descriptions  and  the  presence of wastewater sources similar to
those of plants which were visited for on-site  data  collection.
As  a  result,  the  extent  to which techniques such as low-rate
charging without  contact  cooling  water  are  used,  cannot  be
defined  from  the  dcp.   One in-process control technique which
could be identified  in  many  dcp  was  segregation  of  process
wastewater   from   pasting   area  and  equipment  washdown  and
subsequent  settling  and  reuse  of  this   wastewater   stream.
Approximately  30  percent  of  the  plants  reporting wastewater
discharges indicated this practice.  Those plants using this  in-
process  technique  are identified in Tables V-38, V-40 and V-42.
The data in Tables V-38 and V-40 do not show significantly  lower
effluent   lead  concentrations  from  plants  recycling  pasting
wastewater although raw wastewater concentrations  and  pollutant
loads  are significantly reduced by this practice as demonstrated
by the data  in  Table  V-42.   This  further  substantiates  the
observation  that- effluent  quality at existing lead subcategory
plants  is  primarily  determined  by  process  flow   practices,
treatment system design, and operating parameters.
                              159

-------
Additional  in-process  control techniques which are indicated in
the  dcp  include:   recirculation  of  wet  scrubber   discharge
streams;  use  of  multistage or countercurrent rinses after open
formation;  reduction  or  elimination  of  electrolyte  spillage
during   battery  fill  operations  or  dry  cleanup  of  spilled
electrolyte; low-rate charging of assembled batteries without the
use of contact cooling water; and elimination or recirculation of
vacuum pump seal water or vacuum ejector streams in plate  drying
operations.   Recirculation  of wet scrubber discharge streams is
specifically reported in some dcp and is  presumed  to  exist  at
other  plants  since  many  plants  report no scrubber discharges
although  acid  mist  and  fume  problems  are  common  to   most
manufacturers.   Multistage  or  countercurrent  plate rinses are
identified by approximately 25  percent  of  those  plants  which
practiced  dehydrated  plate  manufacture  and  supplied  process
diagrams in their dcp.  The production normalized flows resulting
from these rinses are usually not significantly lower than  those
resulting  from  single  stage  or unspecified rinses.  Since the
spillage of electrolyte on battery cases necessitates removal  of
the  spilled acid prior to shipment to allow safe handling of the
battery, it may be concluded that where wet batteries are shipped
and battery wash discharges are not reported, spillage  has  been
eliminated,  or  that  any  spillage  which has occurred has been
neutralized and cleaned up by  dry  techniques.   Both  of  these
conditions have been observed, and a small but significant number
of  battery  manufacturers reported shipment of wet batteries and
provided complete process diagrams which  did  not  show  battery
wash  wastewater  production.   The  use  of low-rate charging is
indicated at a number of battery manufacturing plants  which  did
not indicate contact cooling wastewater from wet-charge formation
processes.  Finally, approximately 85 percent of the plants which
supplied complete process diagrams describing open case formation
and  subsequent  rinsing  of  the formed plates prior to assembly
into dehydrated plate batteries showed no  wastewater  from  pump
seals  or  vacuum  ejectors  on plate drying and no other process
wastewater sources associated with plate drying.  It is concluded
that  these  plants  either  achieve  satisfactory  plate  drying
without  the  use  of  seal or ejector water or recirculate water
used for these purposes.

Visited and Sampled Plants - Wastewater treatment system effluent
was sampled at eight visited battery manufacturing  sites  (three
visited before proposal and five visited after proposal).  At two
sites,  Plants  G  and  H, wastewater from on-site secondary lead
smelters is combined with battery manufacturing wastewater  prior
to  treatment.  Pollutant concentrations in the combined influent
to wastewater treatment at these sites are shown in  Table  V-44.
At Plant F, wastewater is held in equalization ponds with several
days retention time prior to treatment.  These ponds are not well
                              160

-------
agitated  and thus some settling out of solids occurs.  Pollutant
concentrations in the effluent from  these  ponds  represent  the
influent   to   wastewater   treatment   at   Plant   F.    These
concentrations have also been included in Table V-44 to provide a
description of the influent to treatment at Plant  F.   Pollutant
concentrations in the treated effluent at each site are presented
in  Table V-45.  These sites all use wastewater treatment systems
based on chemical  precipitation  and  solids  removal  but  have
implemented a number of different solids removal techniques.

Plant  B  uses  a  tubular  cloth  filter  from  which solids are
continuously removed by the flow of the wastewater which  becomes
progressively  more  concentrated  as  clarified  water permeates
through the filter.   This  system  was  reported  to  be  highly
effective  in  the  dcp  data  from  this site.  During sampling,
however, excessive solids levels had been allowed to build up  in
the  system  and  solids  were  carried through the filter during
surge flows.  As a result, effluent characteristics determined in
sampling do not reflect effective treatment.

Plant C employs a clarifier followed by a  polishing  lagoon  for
wastewater   treatment.   As  the  data  show,  this  system  was
operating normally during sampling.

At Plant D, wastewater is treated by pH adjustment and subsequent
filtration through a diatomaceous earth  pre-coat  filter  press.
During  the  plant visit, company personnel acknowledged that the
plant production and wastewater flow rates had increased and that
the system was therefore overloaded.  This condition is reflected
in observed effluent performance  which  was  considerably  worse
than that exhibited in historical data from the plant.

plant  F also employs pH adjustment (with caustic) and subsequent
filtration through a diatomaceous earth  pre-coat  filter  press.
It   was  observed  during  the  visit  to  this  site  that  the
precipitation pH was  7.5  standards  units.   The  best  overall
removal  of  toxic  metals occurs when the precipitation pH is in
the range of 8.8 to 9.3 standards units.  It  would  appear  that
plant  personnel  have  elected  to operate at this low pH not to
optimize  toxic  metals  removals  but  rather  to  minimize  the
alkaline  load  discharged to the POTW.  Despite these practices,
however, lead was not detected in the sampled effluent from  this
site.   Industry  survey  data from this site indicate an average
lead effluent of 0.25 mg/1.  This high effluent concentration  is
most likely caused by the low precipitation pH.

Plant  G  employs a clarifier for solids removal.  This site does
not practice sludge recycle to  the  clarifier  influent  or  mix
tank,  a practice that is widespread in the'battery manufacturing
                              161

-------
category as well as many others.  Recycle of  a  portion  of  the
sludge  is  critical  in  floe  formation in the clarifier.  This
site's failure to do so limits  its ability to effectively  remove
toxic  metals.   In addition, this site was adding polyphosphates
to chelate calcium  and  to  prevent  it  from  precipitating  in
treated  wastewater  which  was  reused.   The  addition  of this
chemical or any other .chelating agent impedes  the  precipitation
and  removals  of  metals including lead.  This explains the high
lead concentrations in the effluent  from  two  of  the  sampling
days.

Plant  H uses two conventional  clarifiers and a lamella separator
followed by a polishing lagoon  to remove precipitated solids from
wastewater.  As the data show,  this system was operating normally
during the sampling period.

At  Plant  I,   wastewater   is   treated   by   pH   adjustment,
clarification,  and  filtration.   Two  operational problems were
observed at this site.  First large solids were observed  exiting
the   clarifier.   This  is  generally  an  indication  of  short
circuiting or the need of a coagulant aid (such as iron salts) to
enhance the settling properties of the precipitants.  Second, the
pH of the effluent from the clarifier is lowered by the  addition
of  sulfuric  acid prior to being introduced to the filter.  This
results  in  redissolution  of  toxic  metals.    Despite   these
operational  problems, lead was not detected in the effluent from
this site.  However, industry survey data  indicate  the  average
lead  concentration in the effluent from this site is 0.697 mg/1.
This high effluent value is a direct result  of  the  operational
problems discussed above.

Plant   J   uses   a  clarifier  with  tube  settlers  to  remove
precipitated  solids.   During  the  visit  to  this  site,   the
precipitation   pH   was   observed  to  be  7.5.   As  discussed
previously, this is below the expected range for solids  removal.
The  tube settler used for primary solids removal was observed to
be laden with solids.  This impedes the manner in which the  tube
settler  removes solids.  In addition, the clarifier at this site
is designed for continuous  operation  however  it  was  operated
intermittently during the visit.

Data  from  Plants  B and D illustrate the importance of pH as an
operating  parameter  for  the  removal  of  lead   by   chemical
precipitation.   Both  Plants  B and D (as well as Plant F and I)
were observed to provide  treatment  at  pH  values  considerably
lower  than  in  desirable  for  lead  precipitation, a condition
reflected in the poor effluent performance observed by  sampling.
This  effect is particularly evident, on day 1 at Plant D when the
effluent pH was observed to be as low as 6, and a  comparison  of
                              162

-------
effluent  lead  and  TSS  values  shows clearly that the effluent
contained considerable concentrations of dissolved lead.

After evaluating all  dcp  and  plant  visit  effluent  data  the
conclusion  is  made  that  although  plants which discharge have
treatment equipment in-place, the operation  and  maintenance  of
most of these systems is inadequate for treating lead subcategory
pollutants.
                              163

-------
                                        TABLE V-1


                      SCREENING AND VERIFICATION ANALYSIS TECHNIQOES
Pollutants
Screening Analysis
   Methodology
Verification Analysis
    Methodology
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6,

7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
42.
13.
1ft.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Acenaphthene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Benzidine
Carbon Tetrachloride
(fetrachloromethane)
Chlorobenzene
1,2,1 -Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1 -Irichloroethane
Hexachl or oe thane
1,1 -Dichloroe thane
1,1 ,2-lrichloroethane
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroe thane
Chloroethane
Bis (Chloromethyl) Ither
Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether
2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether (Mixed)
2-Ctoloronaphthalene
2,U, 6-Trichlorophenol
Parachlorometa Cresol
Chloroform (Trichloromethane)
2-Chlorophenol
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene
1 , ft-Dichlorobenzene
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
1,1 -Dichloroethylene
1,2 -Trana-Dichloroethylene
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP

SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP VP: L-L Extract; GC, BCD
SP VP: L-L Extract; 3C, BCD
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP VP: L-L Extract; SC, ECD

-------
                                            TABLE V-1

                          SCREENING AND VERIFICATION ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
                                       Screening Analysis       Verification Analysis
    Pollutants                            Methodology               Methodology
31. 2,4-Da.chlorophenol                      SP
32. 1,2-Dichloropropane                     SP
33. 1,2-Dichloropropylene                   SP
       (1»2-Dichloropropene)
34. 2,4-Dimethylphenol                      SP                  VP: GC - FID
35. 2,4-Dinitrotoluene                      SP
36. 2,6-Dinitrotoluene                      SP
37. 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine                   SP
38. Ethylbenzene                            SP
39. Fluoranthene                            SP                      SP
40. 4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether             SP
41. 4-Bxomophenyl Phenyl Ether              SP
42. Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)  Ether            SP
43. Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)  Methane             SP
44. Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)     SP
45. Methyl Chloride (Chloromethane          SP
46. Methyl Bromide (Bromomethane)            SP
17. Bromoform {Tribrcmomethane)             SP
48. Dichlorobromomethane                    SP
49. Trichlorofluoromethane                  SP
50. Dichlorodifluoromethane                 SP
51. chlorodibromomethane                    SP
52. Hexachlorobutadiene                     SP
53. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene               SP
54. Isophorone                              SP                      SP
55. Naphthalene                             SP                      SP
56. Nitrobenzene                            SP
57. 2-Nitrophenol                           SP
58. 4-Nitrophenol                           SP
59. 2,4-Dinitrophenol                       SP
60. 4,6-Dinitro-O-Cresol                    SP

-------
                                            TABLE V-1

                          SCREENING AND VERIFICATION ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
                                       Screening Analysis       Verification Analysis
    Pollutants                            Methodology               Methodology
61. N-Nitrosodimethylamine                  SP
62. N-Nitrosodiphenylamine                  SP
63. N-Nitrosodi-N-Propylamine               SP
64. Pentachlorophenol                       SP
65. Phenol                                  SP                  VP: GC, ID
66. Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate             SP                      SP
67. Butyl Benzyl Phthalate                  SP                      SP
68. Di-N-Butyl Phthalate                    SP                      SP
69. Di-N-Octyl Phthalate                    SP                      SP
70. Diethyl Phthalate                       SP                      SP
71.. Dimethyl Phthalate                      SP  .                    SP
72. 1,2-Benzanthracene                      SP                      SP
       (Benzo (a) Anthracene)
73. Benzo (a)  Pyrene  (3,4-Benzo-Pyrene)     SP                      SP
74. 3,4-Benzofluoranthene                   SP                      SP
75. 11,12-Benzofluoranthene                 SP                      SP
       (Benzo (k) Fluoranthene}
76. Chrysene                                SP                      SP
77. Acenaphthylene                          SP                      SP
78. Anthracene                              SP                      SP
79. 1,12-Benzoperylene                      SP                      SP
       {Benzo (qhi)-Perylene)
80. Fluorene                                SP                      SP
81. Phenanthrene                            SP                      SP
82. 1,2,5,6-Dibenzathracene                 SP                      SP
       (Dibenzo  (a,hj Anthracene)
83. Indeno  (1,2,3-cd) Pyrene                SP                      SP
       (s,3-0-Phenylene Pyrene)
84. Pyrene                                  SP^                     SP
85. Tetrachloroethylene                     SP

-------
                                                        TABLE V-1

                                      SCREENING AND VERIFICATION ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
                Pollutants
                                        Screening Analysis
                                           Methodology
Verification Analysis
    Methodology
O*
-4
 86. Toluene                                 SP
 87. Trichloroethylene                       SP
 88. Vinyl Chloride (Chloroethylene)          SP
 89. Aldrin                                  SP
 90. Dieldrin                                SP
 91. chlordane                               SP
       (Technical Mixture and Metabolites)
 92. 4.4-DD1                                 SP
 93. 4,4-DDE (p,p'-DDX)                      SP
 94. 4,4-DDD (p,p'-i:DE)                      SP
 95. Alpha-Endosulfan                        SP
 96. Beta-Endosulfan                         SP
 97. Endosulfan Sulfate                      SP
 98. Endrin                                  SP
 99. Endrin Aldehyde               •          SP
100. Heptachlor                              SP
101. Heptachlor Epoxide                      SP
       (BHC-Hexachloroeyclohescane)
102. Alpha-BHC                               SP
103. Beta-BHC                                SP
104. Gamma-BBC (Lindane)                      SP
105. Delta-BHC                               SP
       (iCB-Polychlorinated Biphenyls)
106. PCB-1242 (Aroclor 1242)                  SP
107. PCB-125<» (Aroclor 1254)                  SP
108. PCB-1221 (Aroclor 1221)                  SP
109. PCB-1232 (Aroclor 1232)                  SP
110. PCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248)                  SP
111. PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)                  SP
112. PCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016)                  SP
113. Toxaphene                               SP
114. Antimony                                SP
115. Arsenic                                 SP
                                                                            VP: L-L Extract;  SC,  FID
                                                                            VP: L-L EKtract;  SC,  BCD

-------
                                                          TABLE V-1

                                       SCREENING AND VERIFICATION ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
                  Pollutants
                                        Screening Analysis
                                           Methodology
                        Verification Analysis
                            Methodology
ON
00
116.  Asbestos
117.  Beryllium
118.  Cadmium
119.  Chromium
     Hexavalent Chromium
120.  Copper
121.  Cyanide                       40CFR
     Cyanide Amenable to Chlorination
122.  Lead
123.  Mercury
124.  Nickel
125.  Selenium
126.  Silver
127.  Thallium
128.  Zinc
129.  2,3,4,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-
       P-Dioxin (TCDD)
     Aluminum
     Fluorides
     Iron
     Manqanese
     Phenols
     Phosphorous Total
     Oil & Grease
     TSS
     IDS
     pH Minimum
    'pH Maximum
     Temperature
    I CAP
    I CAP
    I CAP

    I CAP
136: Dist./Col. Mea.

    I CAP
    SP
    SP
    SP
    SP
    SP
    ICAP
    SP
                                                                              4QCFR 136:
                                                                              40CFR 136:
                                                                              40CFR 136:
                                                                              40CFR 136:
                                                                              40CFR 136:
AA
AA
Colorimetric
AA
Dist./Col. Mea.
           Mea.
                                                                              4QCFR 136: Dist./Col.
                                                                              4QCFR 136:AA

                                                                              40CFR 136:AA
                                                                              40CFR 136:AA
                                                                              40CFR 136:AA
                                                                              Dist./I.E.
                                                                              4QCFR 136:AA
                                                                              »OCFR 136:AA
                                                                              40CFR 136
                                                                              SM: Dig/SnC1
                                                                              10CFR 136: Dist./I.E.
                                                                              40CFR 136
                                                                              40CFR 136
                                                                              Electrochemlca1
                                                                              Electrochemical

-------
                                             TABLE V-1

                           SCREENING AND VERIFICATION ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES


Notes

HOCFR 136: Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 136.

SP - Samplinq_andAnalysis Procedures for Screening o§Industrial Efflaents  for  Priority ggllutants,
     Bis. EPA, March, 1977, Revised April, Iff?.
VI> ~ Analfj:ical_Methgdj^|or the Verification Phase of BAT Review,
     U.S. IPA, June, 1977.
SM - Standard Methods, 14th Edition.
ICAP - Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma.
AA - Atomic Absorption.
L-L Extract; GC, BCD - Liquid-Liquid Extraction/Gas Chromatography, Electron Capture  Detection.
Diq/SnC1» - Digestion/Stannous Chloride.
Filt./Grav. - Filtration/Gravimetric
Freon Ext. - Freon Extraction
Dist./Col. Mea. - Distillation/pyridine pyrazolone colorimetric
Dist./l.l. - Distillation/Ion Electrode
GC-FID - Gas Chromatography - Flame lonizatian Detection.
SIE - Selective Ion Electrode

-------
         TABLE tf-2
SCREENING ANALYSIS RESULTS
LEW)
DCP Data
KTBP, BTBP


1 . Acenaphthene
2. Aero lain
3, Aery Ion itr He
4 . Benzene
5. Benzidiae
6. Carbon letrachloride
7. Chlorobenzene
8. 1,2,1 Trichlorobenzene
9. Hexachlorobenzene
10, 1,2 Dichloroethane 0,1
11. 1,1,1 Trichloroethane 0,5
12. Hexachloroethane
13. 1,1 Dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2 Irichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2 Tetrachloroethane
16. Chloioethane
17. Eis Chloromethyl Ether
18. Bis 2-Chloroethyl Ether
19. 2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether
20. 2-Chloronaphthalene
21. 2,4,6 trichlorophenol
22. Parachlorometacresol
23. Chloroform
24. 2 Chlorophenol
25. 1,2 Dichlorobenzene
26. "1,3 Dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4 Dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3 Dichlorobenzidine
29. 1,1 Dichlcroethylene
30, 1,2 Irans-Dichloroethylene
31. 2,4 Dichlorophenol
32. 1,2 Dichloropropane
33. 1,2 Dichloropropylene
34. 2,4 Diirethylphenol
35. 2,4 Dir.itrotoluene .
36. 2,6 Dir.itrotoluene
37. 1,2 Diphenylhydrazine
38. Ethylbenzene
39. Fluoranthene
40. « Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether
41. H Brcmophenyl Phenyl Ether
42. Bis {2 Chloroisopropyl) Ether
43. Bis (2 Chloroethoxy) Methane
44. Methylene Chloride 6,0
45. Methyl Chloride
46. Methyl Bromide
SUBCATE30RX
*
Plant
Influent
Cone.
raci/1 _ _.
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.06
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.017
ND
ND

Raw •
Haste
Cone.
m
-------
          TABLE V-2
SCREENING ANALYSIS RESULTS





i»7.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
5tt.
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.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
LEAD
DCP Data
KTBP, BTBP


Brcrcoform
Dichlorobromome thane
Trichloiof luoromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane 0,1
Chlorodibromomethane
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Isophorcne
Naphthalene 0,6
Nitrobenzene
2 N it ro phenol
4 Nitrophenol
2,4 Dinitrophenol
4,6 Dinitro-o-cresol
N-Nitrcsodimethylamine
B-Nit rosed iphenylamine
N-Nitrasodi-N-propylamine
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Butyl Eenzyl Phthalate
Di-N-butyl Phthalate
Di-N-octyl Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
Dimethyl Phthalate
1,2 Benzanthracene
Benzo (A) Pyrene
3,4 Benzofluoranthene
11, 12-Benzofluoranthene
Chrysene
Acena ph thy lene
Anthracene
1,1 2-Benzoperylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
1,2,5,6 Dibenzanthracene
Indenopyrene
Pyrene
letrachloroethylene
Toluene 0,1
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Aldrin
Cieldrin
Chlordane
4,4 DDT
SUBCATEGORY
Plant
Influent
Cone.
mqf/1
ND
*
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

Raw
waste
Cone.
mcj/1
ND
*
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
*
0.135
0.017
*
0. 140
ND
ND
*
*
*
*
*
ND
0.032
ND
*
0.032
ND
ND
*
ND
*
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

Effluent
Cone .

mg/1
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
HD
*
0.016
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
*
ND
0.007
ND
ND
0.007
ND
ND
*
ND
*
»
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

Analysis
Blank
Cone.
mg/1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Nft.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
N&
NA
*
*
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA

-------
          TABLE V-2
SCHEEHING ANALYSIS HESULTS
LEAD SUBCATEGORY
DCP Data Plant Raw
KTBP, BTBP Influent Haste
Cone. cone,
mq/1 mq/1
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110,
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116,
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
121.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.







4,4 DOE
4,4 ODD
Alpha-Endosulfan
Beta-Endosulfan
Endcsulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Alpha-EHC
Beta-BHC
Gamaa-BHC (Lindane)
Delta-BHC
PCB-1242
PCB-12S4
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
loxaphene
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
2,3,7,8 TCDD (Dioxin)
Xylenes
Alkyl Epoxides
Aluirinum
Ammonia
Barium
Boron
Calcium
Cobalt
Fluoride













0,1
0,1



0,1


38,8
30,7


21,2
15,2
1«,32

65,9
0,6
20,8
6,0
6,5

21,7

0,3
0,2
~ i~
mm ^mm
~ f~
~~ f~
— f ~
— f —
~~ f ~
ND
NO
ND
ND
HD
ND
HD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
<0.1
ND
ND
<0.001
0.010
0.009
0.040
ND
0.200
NA
0.010
HD
<0.001
ND
0.300
NA
NA
NA
0.060
NA
0.007
NA
11.000
<0.005
0.820
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
**
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
<0.1
ND
ND
<0.001
<0.01
0.01
0.09
<0.005
14.0
NA
<0.005
RD
0.033
ND
0.40
NA
NA
NA
0.20
NA
0.03
NA
26.0
<0.005
0.8
Effluent
Cone.
mq/1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
<0.1
ND
ND
<0.001
<0.002
<0.005
<0.006
<0.005
2.0
NA
<0.005
ND
ND
ND
0.10
NA
NA
NA
<0.05
NA
<0.005
NA
45.0
<0.005
0.92
Analysis
Blank
Cone.
nqt/1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
• NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

-------
                                    TABLE V-2

                          SCREENING ANALYSIS RESULTS
                                LEAD SUBCATEGORY
DCP Data Plant
KTBP, BTBP Influent
Cone.
mg/1
Gold 	 ND
Iron
Maqnesim
Manqanese
Molybdenum
Oil and Grease
Phenols (Total)
Phosphorus
Sodium
Strontium
TSS
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Yttrium
<0.2
1.800
0.090
0.020
7.30
ND
,0.040
<0.015
NA
ND
0.060
0.040
<0.01
<0.02
Raw
Haste
Cone.
mq/1
ND
2.00
2.20
0.06
.0.008
36.5
0.08
0.58
100.0
NA
57.8
0.02
<0.02
<0.01
<0.02
Effluent
Cone.
mq/1
ND
<0.2
2.10
0.03
<0.005
10.0
<0.005
0.04
260.0
NA
90.6
<0.005
<0.02
<0.01
<0.02
Analysis
Blank
Cone.
mg/1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
•ND
Not detected
NA    Not analyzed  (includes Xylenes 6 Alkyl Epoxides since laboratory analyses were
                    not finalized for these parameters).

KTBP  .Known to be present indicated by number of plants.

BTBP  Believed to be present indicated by number of plants.

-,-   Not investigated in DCP survey.

 *    Indicates < .01 mg/1.

**    Indicates < .005 mg/1.

-------
                                        TABLE  V-3

              NORMALIZED DISCHARGE FLOWS  FROM  LEAD SUBCATE60RY ELEMENTS1/
Element

Anodes and Cathodes
                                 %
Leady Oxide Production
Grid Manufacture
  Mold Release Formulation
  Direct Chill Casting
  Lead Rolling
Paste Preparation and Application
Curing
Closed Formation  (In Case)
  Single Fill
  Double Fill
  Fill and Dump
Open Formation  (Out of  Case)
  Dehydrated
  Wet
Plate Soaking

Ancillary Operations

Battery Wash
  Detergent
  Water Only
Floor Wash
Wet Air Pollution Control2'
Battery Repair
Laboratory
Truck Wash3/

Personal Hygiene

Hand Wash
Respirator Wash
Laundry
                                   Mean
                                 Discharge
                                  (I/kg)
                                   0.37

                                   0.006
                                   0.0002
                                   0.006
                                   0.49
                                   0.03

                                   0.28
                                   0.92
                                   1.83

                                  28.26
                                   0.36
                                   0.026
                                   1.70
                                   3.47
                                   0.11
                                   0.26
                                   0.20
                                   0.003
                                   0.014
                                   0.027
                                   0.006
                                   0.109
 Median
Discharge
 (I/kg)
  0.00
  0.0002
  0.006
  0.00
  0.00

  0.00
  0.44
  1.49

 11.05
  0.00
  0.021
  0.90
  0.59
  0.13
  0.00
  0.25
   *
  0.014
   *
   *
   *
                                                                        Number of Plants
                                                                         Reporting Flow
                                                                              Data
 41

  2
  1
  1
100
 97

 43
 35
 13

 42
 16
  3
 22
 44
 13
 56
  3
  4
  2
                         (29)
  2 (63)
  6 (51)
  2 (11)
 I/   -  Production  normalizing parameter is total weight of lead used.
 2/


 3/

 *
- Discharge flow based on number of scrubbers froa all process areas  except
  laboratories.

- Production normalizing parameter is weight of lead  in  trucked  batteries.

- Calculated as flow weighted average - no median available.   (See  text  for
  discussion on calculation.)
 (  )  -  Number  of  plants  used to calculate I/kg flow per unit operation.

-------
                                                       TABLE  V-4



                                      PERSONAL HYGIENE DATA FROM INDUSTRY SURVEY
Ln



Plant
ID
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W

Production
Employees
in Required
Wash Up
180
193
75
60
125
160
148
130
256
90
130
144
350
62
225
400
100
250
300
175-230
441
•213
18

Number
of Hand
Washes
Per Day
4
4
' 4
3
4
3
3
4
4
4
4+
3
4
4
.4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Number of
Employees
Which
Shower
Per Day
65
12
75
60
30
160
148
20
256
60
20
144
225
62
150
400
50
175
60
125-185
441
213
18

Number of
Uniforms
Laundered
Per Day
120
22
75
64
85
160
148
60
256
100
100
144
250
62
150
8
50
200
95
150
441
213
18
Laundry
on Premise
(P) or at
Commercial
Laundry (C)
C
C
P
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
P
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
P
C
Number of
Gloves
Cleaned
Per Day
on Premise
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Numbe'r of
Respirators
Washed
Per Day on
Premise
60
7
22
0
30
0
75
25
45
0
0*
170
80
0
60
6
20
80
0
60
127
47
0*

-------
           IWBIE V-4 (Continued)



PERSONAL HYGIENE DATA FROM INDUSTRY SURVEY



Plant
ID
X
Y
Z
AA
AB
AC
AD
'AE
AF
AG
AH
AI
AJ

AK
AL
AM
AN
AO
AP
AQ
AR

Production
Bnployees
in Bequired
Wash Up
55
219
260
175
110
772
55
71
68
390
70
280
470

30
241
245
150
205
250
176
218

Number
of Hand
Washes
Per Day
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
3
4
4
4
3

4
4
3
4
3
4
4
3
Number of
Bnployees
Which
Shower
Per Day
30
43
180
175
20
645
55
52
68
130
70
200
470

12
241
245
75
. 205
175
90
120

Number of
Uniforms
Laundered
Per Day
55
6
220
180
110
675
55
71
68
30
70
140
470

25
241
245
100
205
215
171
120
laundry
on Premise
(P) or at
Commercial
Laundry (C)
P
C
C
C
C
P
p
C
C
C
C
C
P (72%)
C (28%)
C
P
C
C
C
C
C
P
Number of
Gloves
Cleaned
Per Day
on Premise
12
0
0
0
30
0
0
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
25
0
0
Number of
Respirators
Washed
Bar Day on
Premise
30
10
80
65
70
145
0
12
28
2
55
60
275
0
30
145
50
85
75
65
95

-------
                                        TABLE V-4 (Continued)

                             PERSONAL HYGIENE MTA FRCM INDUSTRY SURVEY



Plant
ID
AS
AT
AU
AV
AW
AX
AY
AZ
BA
BB
BC
BD
BE
BF
BG
BH
BI
BJ
BK

Production
Baployees
in Required
Wash Up
75
170
250
275
275
180
112
2
145
225
250
80
325
300-350
245
98
250
243
200

Number
of Hand
Washes
Per Day
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
3
4 •
3
3
4
4
4
3
3-
4
4
Number of
Employees
Which
Shower
Per Day
30
46
175
175
200
100
112
2
145
190
128
80
150
225
245
74
250
132
50

Number of
Uniforms
laundered
Per Day
50
140
215
250
200
100
112
50
190
200
225
80
250
275
245
111
250
243
200
laundry
on Premise
(P) or at
Commercial
Laundry (C)
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
P
C
C
C
C
C
C
P
C
C
C
C
Number of
Gloves
Cleaned
Ber Day
on Premise
0
0
25
20
120
0
0
0
0
0
0
0~~
0
25
0
0
0
0
0
Number of
Respirators
Washed
Per Day on
Premise
8
35
75
100
80
30
60
0
145 -
50-100
0
0
80
75
35
42
200
40
12
*Disposable respirators are used.

NOTE:  Two plants submitted no information on survey due to closure; total number of references
       was 65.

-------
                                                                            TABLE V-5

                                                                          LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                                                            CHARACTERISTICS OF INDIVIDUAL PROCESS WASTES
00
    Flow (I/kg)
    Temperature  (Deg C)
 11   1,1,1-Trichloroethane
 23  Chloroform
 44  Methylene chloride
 55  Naphthalene
 65   Hienol
 66  Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
 67  Butyl  benzyl phthalate
 68  Dt-n-butyl phthalate
 69  Di-n-octyl phthalate
 78  Anthracene
 81   Ehenanthrene
 84   Fyrene
114  Antimony
115  Arsenic
118  Cadmium
119   Chromium, Total
     Chromium, Hexavalent
120   Copper
122   Lead
123  fereury
124   Nickel
126   Silver
128   Zinc
    Aluminum
     Iron
    Manganese
     Rienols, Total
     Strontium
     Oil & Grease
     Total Suspended Solids
     pH, Minimum
     pH, Maximum
                                       LEADY CKIDE PRODUCTION
                                          mg/1
30.0
 NA
 NA
 NA
 NA
 NA
 NA
 NA
 NA
 NA
 NA
 NA
 NA
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
 NA
0.000
0.50
 NA
0.000
 NA
0.000
0.000
0.25
0.062
 NA
 NA
1.49
0.62

7.0
 7.04
30.0
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA

  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
 0.000
 0.000
 0.000
 0.000
  NA
 0.000
 3.52
  NA
 0.000
  NA
 0.000
 0.000
 1.76
 0.444
  NA
  NA
10.5
 4.4
  NA
 7.0
                                                           rag/1
23.0
 NA
 NA
 NA
 NA
 NA
 NA
 m
 NA
 NA
 NA
 NA
 NA
 NA
 NA
0.012
0.009
 NA
0.41
1.2
 NA
0.13
 NA
3.1
0.54
3.61
0.06
 NA
 NA
6.0
8,0
 NA
8.5
IASTING
tng/kg
0.0002
23.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.000
0.000
NA
0.0001
0.0003
NA
0.0000
NA
0.0007
0.0001
0.0008
0.0000
NA
NA
0.0013
0.0018
NA
8.5
LEAD ROLLING
tflg/l WR/kg

27.0
*
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
NA
0.25
29.0
0.000
0.003
0.000
1.4
0.35
7.3
0.053
NA
NA
270.0
480.0
NA
7.9
0.0029
27.00
*
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
NA
0.007
0.084
0.0000
0.0000
0.000
0.0041
0.0010
0.021
0.0002
NA
NA
0.783
1.39
NA
7.9
EASTING

NA
*
*
0.00
*
*
*
#
*
0.00
*
*
*
1.223
0.000
0.060
0.000
0.000
0.261
4020.0
0.010
0.000
0.387
0.236
NA
3.56
NA
0.115
0.000
952.7
21883.3
7.7
8.4
0.326
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.386
0.000
0.019
0.000
0.000
0.083
1335.0
0.0031
0.000
0.1240
0.076
NA
1.153
NA
0.038
0.000
319.6
7035.0
7.7
8.4
a
UK/1

46.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
m.
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.017
0.007
0.000
0.000
NA
0.045
19.675
m.
0.075
NA
0.625
4.05
4.625
0.070
NA
NA
0.000
46.5
NA
7.8
 0.048
46.5
  NA
 .NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  KA
  NA
 0.0009
 0.0004
 0.000
 0.000
  NA
 0.0025
 1,029
  NA
 0.004
  NA.
 0.031
 0.222
 0.269
 0.004
  NA
  NA
 0.000
 0.435
  NA
 7.8
            NA - Not Analyzed
            *  - < 0.0!

-------
                                                                TABLE V-5  (Continued)

                                                                   LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                                                     CHARACTERISTICS OF INDIVIDUAL PROCESS WASTES
                                 SINGLE FILL FORMATION    DOUBLE FILL FORMATION   FILL & DUMP FORMATION    OPEN WET FORMATION
     Flow (I/kg)
     Temperature (Deg C)
 11   1,1,1-Trichloroethane
 23  Chloroform
 44  Methylene chloride
 55  Naphthalene
 65  Phenol
 66 ' Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
 67  Butyl benzyl phthalate
 68  Di-n-butyl phthalate
 69  Dl-n-octyl phthalate
 78  Anthracene
 81   Phenanthrene
 84  Pyrene
114  Antimony
115  Arsenic
118  Cadmium
119  Chromiura, Total
     Chromium, Hexavalent
120  Copper
122  Lead
123' Mercury
124  Nickel
126  Sliver
128  Zinc
     Aluminum
     Iron
     Manganese
     Phenols, Total
     Strontium
     Oil & Grease
     Total Suspended Solids
     pH, Minimum
     pH, Maximum

     NA - Not Analyzed
     *  - < 0.01
                                   rag/1
mg/kg
rag/1
mg/kg
n>g A
mg/kg
fflg/1
mg/kg
                                                                                     OPEN DEHYDRATED
                                                                                        FORMATION-
Blg/1
mg/kg

30.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.06
0.000
0.000
0.000
NA
1.5
0.275
NA
0.000
NA
0,02
0.15
4.25
0.05
NA
HA
1.5
22.5
2.0
2.0
5.717
30.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.34
0.000
0.000
0.000
NA
8.58
1.57
NA
0.000
NA
0.114
0.086
24.3
0.29
HA
NA
8.6
128.6
2.0
2.0

19.0
*
*
*
0.00
0.00
*
*
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.047
0.000
0.223
1.173
0.005
0.024
0.000
0.107
NA
5.64
NA
0.035
0.000
2.1
5.0
2.0
2.7
0.45
19.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.021
0.000
0.093
0.532
0.0023
0.011
0.000
0.046
NA
2.52
NA
0.014
0.000
0.868
2.376
2.0
2.7

19.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.006
0.00
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.025
0.005
0.117
0.000
0.395
1.835
0.000
0.091
0.000
0.135
NA
6.88
NA
0.021
0;000
1.25
10.5
2.0
2.3
1.295
19.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.006
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.023
0.007
0.132
0.000
0.487
2.331
0.000
0.100
0.000
0.162
NA
7.967
NA
0.027
0.000
1.640
12.65
2.0
2.3

30.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.928
0.12
0.037
0.037
NA
0.003
2.146
NA
0.696
NA
0.557
0.278
1.078
0.000
NA
NA
0.000
148.95
NA
1.7
0.36
30.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.334
0.043
0.013
0.013
NA
0.001
0.773
NA
0.251
NA
0.201
0.100
0.388
0.000
NA
NA
0.000
53.6
NA
1.7

45.0
*
8.0
0.00
*
NA
0.064
0.00
*
0.00
*
*
0.00
0.141
0.004
0.002
0.022
NA
0.016
4.856
0.000
0.050
0.000
0.361
0.118
1.403
0.029
0.01
0.000
3.924
87.256
1.6
3.2
7.912
45.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
0.920
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.612
0.0051
0.0187
0.2308
NA
0.208
47.635
0.000
0.5332
0.000
2.945
0.962
9.4S2
0.166
0.159
0.000
34.87
582.5
1.6
3.2

-------
                                                                       TABLE V-5 (Continued)

                                                                          LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                                                            CHARACTERISTICS OF INDIVIDUAL PROCESS WASTES
00
O
                                             PLATE SOAK
         BATTERY WASH DETERGENT
                          BATTERY WASH
                           WATER ONLY
                                       FLOOR WASH
                                          rag/1
mg/kg
mg/1
mg/kg
rag/1
mg/kg
rag/L
mg/kg
                                                                                                                                         WET AIR POLLUTION
                                                                                                                                              CONTROL
mg/L
rag/kg


11
23
44
55
65
.66
67
68
69
,78
81
84
114
115
118
119

120
122
123
124
126
128









Flow (I/kg)
Temperature (Deg C)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Naphthalene
Phenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phchalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium, Total
Chromium, Hexavalent
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
Phenols, Total
Strontium
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended Solids
pH, Minimum
pH, Maximum

30.0
NA
NA
• NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.928
0.12
0.037
0.037
NA
0.003
2.146
NA
0.696
NA
0.557
0.278
1.078
0.000
NA
NA
0.000
148.95
NA
1.7
0.026
30.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.024
0.003
0.001
0.001
NA
0.0001
0.056
NA
0.018
NA
0.015
0.007
0.028
0.000
NA
NA
0.000
3.87
NA
1.7

28.0
*
*
*
*
NA
0,034
*
*
*
*
*
0.00
0.123
0.043
0.001
2.093
NA
1.517
12.34
0.000
1.447
0.001
3.393
NA
49.93
NA
0.021
0.000
13.13
107.8
2.0
12.0
0.61
28.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
0.020
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.068
0.022
0.001
1.184
NA
0.830
7.138
0.000
0.802
0.0005
1.818
NA
28.35
NA
0.012
0.000
7.987
68.43
2.0
12.0

19.0
*
*
0.00
0.025
0.00
0.006
*
*
*
*
*
0.00
0.01
0.003
0.001
0.087
0.000
0.322
2.487
0.0247
0.060
0.000
0.632
0.17
6.707
0.085
0.017
0.013
14.5
42.0
1.5
4.6
0.439
19.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.011
0.00
0.002
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.003
0.0005
0.0005
0.025
0.000
0.166
1.373
0.0079
0.0178
0.000
0.1635
0.031
2.601
0.016
0.008
0.008
7.795
24.60
1.5
4.6

24.0
0.00
0.00
*
*
0.00
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.333
0.07
0.070
1.157
0.000
0.670
198.26
0.000
0.765
0.000
2.950
5.782
39.802
0.361
0.095
0.000
12.518
631.555
3.0
9.1
0.034
24.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.156
0.006
0.021
0.359
0.000
0.182
62.48
0.000
0.230
0.000
0.452
0.326
10.60
0.015
0.003
0.000
9.486
427.5
3.0
9.1
«
26.0
•NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.165
0.007
0.000
0.03
NA
0.075
0.225
NA
0.04
NA
0.5
0.45
6.5
0.04
NA
NA
4.7
16.5
NA
1.8
0.109
26.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.014
0.0005
0.000
0.0025
NA
0.0075
0.019
NA
0.003
NA
0.04
0.065
0.49
0.006
NA
NA
0.465
1.8
NA
1.8
            NA - Not Analyzed
            *  - < 0.01

-------
                                                                 TABLE V-5 (Continued)

                                                                    LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                                                      CHARACTERISTICS  OF INDIVIDUAL PROCESS WASTES
                                     BATTERY REPAIR
                            LABORATORY
     Flow (I/kg)
     Temperature (Deg C)
 11   1,1 ,i1 -Trichloroethane
 23   Chloroform
 44   Methylene chloride
 55   Naphthalene
 65   Phenol
 66   Bis(2~ethylhexyl)phthalate
 67   Butyl  benzyl phthalate
 68   Di-n-butyl phthalate
 69   Di-n-octyl phthalate
 78   Anthracene
 81   Phenanthrene
. 84   Pyrene
114   Antimony
115   Arsenic
118   Cadmium'
119   Chromium,  Total
     Chromium,  Hexavalent
120   Copper
122   Lead
123   Mercury
124   Nickel
126   Silver
128   Zinc
     Aluminum
     Iron
     Manganese
     Phenols,  Total
     Strontium
     Oil  & Grease
     Total  Suspended Solids
     pH,  Minimum
     pH,  Maximum
                                    «>g/1
 32.0
   *
   *
   *
   *
  0.00
  0.012
   *
  0.007
   *
   *
  0.128
  0,05
  0.116
  0.147
  0.000
  3.408
 13,532
  0.0044
  0.251
  0.002
  4.52
   NA
169.26
   HA
  0.09
  0.000
 35.46
314.26
  2.7
  2,8
mg/kg

 0.10
  NA
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.0015
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.0004
 0.005
 0.0008
 0.016
 0.000
 0.065
 0.132
 0.0000
 0.016
 0.0000
 0.096
  NA
 0.952
  NA
 0.006
 0.000
 0.919
 1.947
 2.7
 2.8
                         rag/1
 25.0
   NA
   NA
   HA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
  0.000
  0.000
  0.018
  0.000
   HA
  0.417
  5.01
   NA
  0.000
   NA
  0.965
  1.02
  1.159
  0.000
   NA
   NA
 39.88
723.45
   HA
  2.0
IY
nig/kg
0.0024
25.0
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NN
NA
0.000
0.000
0.0000
0.000
HA
0.0010
0,0012
NA
0.000
NA
0.0023
0.0024
0.0028
0,000
NA
HA
0.0960
1.74
NA
2.0
TRUCK
n«/l

16.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
0.31
0.05
0.04
0.18
NA
1.2
20.9
NA
0.25
HA
1,58
37.8
1050.0
7.2
NA
NA
7.0
2500.0
NA
3.0
WASH
mg/kg
0.0027
16.0
NA
NA
NA
m.
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
HA
HA
0.0008
0.0001
0.0001
0.0005
NA
0.003
0.056
HA
0.0007
HA
0.004
0.102
2.835
0.019
NA
HA
0.019
6.75
HA
3.0
HAND
mg/1

30.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HA
0.23
0.03
0.000
0.01
NA
0.875
11.25
NA
0.025
NA
0.83
0.20
1.05
0.000
NA
NA
165.0
269.0
NA
8.0
WASH
n«/kg
0.0208
30.0
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.006
0.0007
0.000
0.0003
MA
0.019
0.221
NA
0.0004
HA
0.019
0.005
0.024
0.000
HA
NA
2.625
6.63
HA
8.0
RESPIRA'
mg/1

43.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
0.0002
0.00015
0.0002
0.31
NA
0.175
3.117
NA
0.2
NA
0.412
0.000
0.176
0.000
NA
NA
5.6
10.549
NA
7.0
mg/kg

 0.0166
 43.0
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  KA
  NA
  NA
  HA
  NA
 0.0000
 0.0000
 0.0000
 0.0085
  HA
 0.008
 0.081
  HA
 0.005
  NA
 0.008
 0.000
 0.0045
 0.000
  NA
  NA
 0.085
 0.213
  NA
 7.0
     HA - Hot Analyzed
     *  - < 0.01

-------
                                                                         TABLE V-5 (Continued)

                                                                           LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                                                             CHARACTERISTICS OF INDIVIDUAL PROCESS WASTES
                                               LAttJDRY
00
                                           rag/1
rag/kg


11
23
44
55
65
66
67
68
69
78
81
84
114
115
118
119

120
122
123
124
126
128









Flow (I/kg)
Temperature (Deg C)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Naphthalene
Phenol
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium, Total
Chromium, Hexavalent
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
Phenols, Total
Strontium
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended Solids
pH, Minimum
pH, Maximum

30.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.105
0.01
0.000
0.000
NA
0.225
13.2
NA
0.000
NA
0.58
0.25
0.95
0.000
NA
NA
49.2
135.0
NA
6.0
0.0885
30.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.009
0.0009
0.000
0.000
NA
0.020
1.162
NA
0.000
NA
0.050
0.022
0.083
0.000
NA
NA
4.211
12.03
NA
6.0
            NA - Not Analyzed
            *   - < 0.01

-------
oo
CO
                                                                    TABLE V-6

                                                                     PASTING
                                                           WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
                                                                      mg/1

                                                             PLANT A
PLANT D
PLANT E






Stream Identification

11
23
44
55
65
66
67
68
69
78
81
84
114
115
118
119

120
122
123
124
126
128









Temperature (Deg C)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Naphthalene
Phenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium, Total
Chromium, Hexavalent
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
Phenols, Total
Strontium
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended Solids
pH, Minimum
pH, Maximum
MA
*
*
0.00
*
NA
*
*
*
0.00
*
*
*
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.120
2700.0
0. 0200
0.000
0.2600
0.038
NA
0.800
NA
0.085
0.000
38.0
10890.0
7.2
7.9

Clean Up Water

From
Pasting Machine
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
*
0.00
*
0.00
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.083
6000.0
0.000
0.000
0.1900
0.160
NA
2.650
NA
0.150
0.000
1620.0
12450.0
9.8
9.8
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
*
NA
*
0.00
*
0.00
*
*
0.00
3.670
0.000
0.180
0.000
0.000
0.580
3360.0
I
0.000
0.710
0.510
NA
7.23
NA
0.110
0.000
1200.0
42310.0
11.4
11.4
29.0
*
*
*
0.020
NA
*
0.00
*
0.00
*
*
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.033
NA
0.025
280.0
0.000
0.027
0.0100
0.780
NA
0.760
NA
0.061
0.000
9.3
6600. 0
6.1
6.1
In -Line Sump
Under Pasting
Machine
NA
*
*
0.00
0.012
NA
*
0.00
*
*
*
*
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.006
0.017
NA
0.025
208.0
0.000
0.016
0.0100
0.540
NA
0.540
NA
0.079
0,000
35.0
20900.0
NA
NA

Holding
Pitt
NA
*
*
0.00
0.016
NA
0.113
0.00
*
0.00
*
*
0.00
0.310
0.000
0.036
0.030
HA
0.190
254.0
0.000
0.024
0. 1 800
0.410
NA
2.030
NA
0.069
0.023
30.0
1 1 000. 0
NA
NA
NA
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
*
*
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.130
NA
0.034
NA
0.000
NA
13.40
0.0460
NA
0. 0080
3.880
NA
390.0
NA
0.020
0,000
3.0
184.0
NA
NA
             I  - Interference
             NA - Not Analyzed
             *  - < 0.01
             t  - Includes Some Floor Wash & Deionized Water Spillage (Approximately  2  Days  Residence Time Before Treatment)

-------
                                                            TABLE V-6 (Continued)

                                                                    PASTING
                                                          WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
                                                                      rag/1
00
     Temperature (Deg C)
 11   1,1,1-Trichloroethane
 23   Chloroform
 44   Mechylene chloride
 55   Naphthalene
 65   Phenol
 66   Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
 67   Butyl benzyl phthalate
 68   Di-n-butyl phthalate
 69   Di-n-octyl phthalate
 78   Anthracene
 81   Phenanthrene
 84   Pyrene
114   Antimony
115   Arsenic
118   Cadmium
119   Chromium, Total
     Chromium, Hexavalent
120   Copper
122- Lead
123   Mercury
124   Nickel
126   Silver
128   Zinc
     Aluminum
     Iron
     Manganese
     Phenols, Total
     Strontium
     Oil & Grease
     Total Suspended Solids
     pH, Minimum
     pH, Maximum
PLANT F*

 23.0
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
  0,12
  0,004
  0.000
  0.000
   NA
  0.12
850.0
   NA
  0.000
   NA
  0.000
  0.080
  0.41
  0.006
   NA
   NA
   NA
  0.2
  5.5
  6.0
PLANT H**

 30.0
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
  0.02
  0.000
  0.000
  0.000
   NA
  0.000
384.0
   NA
  0.000
   NA
  0.02
  0.000
  0.15
  0.000
   NA
   NA
160.0
730.0
   NA
  6.0
            NA - Not Analyzed

             *Composite of aliquots collected from under paste application machine conveyor  belt,  paste area  trenches,  and
              belt bed under paste application machine.
            **Discharge pipe from trench collection system In pasting area.

-------
                                                            TAB IE V-7
                                                             PASTING
                                                         WASTE LOADINGS
 Stream Identification

     Flow (I/kg)
     Temperature  (Deg C)
 11   1,t,1-Trlchloroethane
 23   Chloroform
 44   Methylene chloride
 55   Naphthalene
 65   Phenol
 66   Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
 67   Butyl benzyl phthalate
 68   Dl-n-butyl phthalate
 69   Di-n-octyl phthalate
 78   Anthracene
 81   Phenanthrene
 84   Pyrene
114   Antimony
115   Arsenic
118   Cadmium
119   Chromium, Total
     Chromium, Hexavalent
120   Copper
122   Lead
123   Mercury
124   Nickel
126   Silver
128   Zinc
     Aluminum
     Iron
     Manganese
     Phenols, Total
     Strontium
     Oil & Grease
     Total Suspended Solids
     pH, Minimum
     pH, Maximum
                                                     PLANT A
                                                                                             PLANT D
                                                                                                 PLANT E



Clean Up Water

From
Pasting Machine
0.311
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.037
840.0
0.0062
0.000
0.0809
0.012
NA
0.249
NA
0.026
0.000
11.82
3388.0
7.2
7.9
0.351
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.029
2104.0
0.000
0.000
0.0667
0.056
NA
0.929
NA
0.053
0.000
568.2
4367.0
9.8
9.8
0.316
NA
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.158
0.000
0.057
0.000
0.000
0.183
1060.0
I
0.000
0. 2244
0.161
NA
2.282
NA
0.035
0.000
378.7
13350.0
11.4
11.4
0.058
29.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
NA
0,001
16.26
0. 0006
0.002
0. 0006
0.045
NA
0.044
NA
0.004
0.000
0.540
383.3
6. 1
6.1
In -Line Sump
Under Pasting
Machine
0.063
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
NA
0.002
13.18
0.0006
0.001
0. 0006
0,034
NA
0.034
NA
0.005
0.000
2.205
1324.0
NA
NA

Holding
Pitt
0.064
NA
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.000
NA
0.01
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.020
0.000
0.002
0.002
NA
0.012
16.25
0.0115
0.002
0.0115
0.026
NA
0.130
NA
0.004
0.001
2.217
704.0
NA
NA
0.218
NA
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.028
NA
0.007
NA
0.00
NA
2.920
0.010
NA
0.0017
0.845
NA
85.0
NA
0.004
0,000
1.919
40.09
NA
NA
     I  - Interference
     NA - Not Analyzed
     t  - Includes Some
Floor Wash & Delontzed Water Spillage (Approximately  2  Days  Residence Time Before Treatment),

-------
                                                           TABLE V-7  (Continued)

                                                                   PASTING
                                                               WASTE  LOADINGS
                                                                    rag/kg
           Flow (I/kg)
           Temperature (Deg C)
       11  1,1,1-Trichloroethane
       23  Chloroform
       44  Methylene chloride
       55  Naphthalene
       65  Phenol
       66  Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
       67  Butyl benzyl phthalate
       68  Di-n-butyl phthalate
       69  Di-n-octyl phthalate
       78  Anthracene
       81  Phenanthrene
       84  Pyrene
_^    114  Ant imony
00    115  Arsenic
ON    118  Cadmium
      119  Chromium, Total
           Chromium, Hexavalent
      120  Copper
      1.22  Lead
      123  Mercury
      124  Nickel
      126  Silver
      128  Zinc
           Aluminum
           Iron
           Manganese
           Phenols, Total
           Strontium
           Oil & Grease
           Total Suspended Solids
           pH, Minimum
           pH, Maximum
PLANT F*

  0.0508
 23.0
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
  0.006
  0.0002
  0.000
  0.000
   NA
  0.006
 43.0
   NA
  0.000
   NA
  0.000
  0.004
  0.021
  0.0003
   NA
   NA
   NA
  0.11
  5.5
  6.0
PLANT H**

  0.0831
 30.0
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
  0.002
  0.000
  0.000
  0.000
   NA
  0.000
 31.9
   NA
  0.000
   NA
  0.002
  0.000
  0.013
  0.000
   NA
   NA
 13.3
 60.7
   NA
  6.0
           NA - Not Analyzed

            *Coraposite of aliquots collected from under paste application machine  conveyor  belt,  paste area trenches,  and
             belt bed under paste application machine.
           **Discharge pipe from trench collection system  in pasting area.

-------
00

11
23
44
55
65
66
67
68
69
7'8
81
84
114
115
118
119

120
122
123
124
126
128









Temperature (Deg C)
1 ,- 1 , 1 -Tr ichloroethane
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Naphthalene
Phenol
Bis (2-ethylheKyl)phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium, Total
Chromium, Hexavalent
Copper
Lead
• Mercury
Nickel
Silver
, Zinc
Aluminum
•- Iron .•
Manganese
Phenols, Total
Strontium
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended Solids
pH, Minimum
pH, Maximum
          NA - Not Analyzed
                                                                 TABLE  V-8

                                                                  CURING
                                                        WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
                                                                    rag/1
60.0
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
 0.015
 0.013
 0.000
 0.000
  NA
 0.090
38.0
  NA
 0.15
  NA
 0.95
 0.80
 9.0
 0,14
  NA
  NA
 0.000
 8.3
  NA
10.11
33.0
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
 0.02
 0.000
 0.000
 0.000
  NA
 0.000
 1.35
  NA
 0.000
  NA
 0.3
 0.1
 0.25
 0.000
  NA
  NA
 0.000
10.0
  NA
 7.5

-------
00
00
     Flow (I/kg)
     Temperature  (Deg C)
 11   1,1,1-Trichloroethane
 23   Chloroform
 44   Methylene chloride
 55   Naphthalene
 65   Phenol
 66   Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
 67   Butyl  benzyl phthalate
 68   Di-n-butyl phthalate
 69   Di-n-octyl phthalate
 78   Anthracene
 81   Phenanthrene
 84   Pyrene
114   Antimony
 15   Arsenic
118   Cadmium
 19   Chromium,  Total
     Chromium,  Hexavalent
120   Copper
122   Lead
123   Mercury
124   Nickel
126   Silver
128   Zinc
     Aluminum
     Iron
     Manganese
     Phenols, Total
     Strontium
     Oil  &  Grease
     Total  Suspended Solids
     pH,  Minimum
     pH,  Maximum
             NA - Not Analyzed
                                                                    TABLE V-9

                                                                     CURING
                                                                 WASTE LOADINGS
                                                                      rag/kg
 0.0533
60.0
  NA
  NA
  NA
  HA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
 0.0008
 0,0007
 0.000
 0.000
  NA
 0.005
 2.0
  NA
 0,008
  NA
 0.051
 0.426
 0.48
 0.007
  NA
  NA
 0.000
 0.44
  NA
10.11
 0.043
 33.0
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
 0.0009
 0.000
 0.000
 0.000
  NA
 0.000
 0.058
  NA
.0.000
  NA
 0.01
 0.018
 0.058
 0.0003
  NA
  NA
 0.000
 0.43
  NA
 7.5

-------
                                                                      TABLE V-10

                                                        DOUBLE FILL AND FILL & DUMP FORMATION
                                                                WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
                                                                       PLANT A
                                                                         mg/1
00
VD
     Temperature (Deg C)
 11   1,1,1-Trichloroethane
 23  Chloroform
 44  Methylene chloride
 55  Naphthalene
 65  Phenol
 66  Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
 67  Butyl benzyl phthalate
 68  Di-n-butyl phthalate
 69  Di-n-octyl phthalate
 78  Anthracene
 81   Phenanthrene
 84  Pyrene
114  Antimony
115  Arsenic
118  Cadmium
119  Chromium, Total
     Chromium, Hexavalent
120  Copper
122  Lead
123  Mercury
124  Nickel
126  Silver
128  Zinc
     Aluminum
     Iron
     Manganese
     Phenols, Total
     Stront ium
     Oil  & Grease
     Total Suspended Solids
     pH, Minimum
     pH, Maximum
18.5
 0.00
 0.00
  *
 0.00
  NA
  *
  *
  *
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.000
 0.000
 0.000
 0.026
 0.000
 0.100
 0.960
 0.000
 0.008
 0.000
 0.060
  NA
 3.900
  NA
 0.016
 0.000
 1.0
 6.0
 2.0
 6.8
DOUBLE FILL

    20.0
      *
      *
      *
     0.00
     0.00
      *
      *
      *
     0.00
     0.00
     0.00
     0.00
     0.000
     0.000
     0.005
     0.070
     0.000
     0.170
     1 .710
     0.0150
     0.044
     0.000
     0.083
      NA
     7.92
      NA
     0.010
     0.000
     1.1
     8.0
     2.0
                                                                                             FILL  6t  DUMP
                                                              2.4
18.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
*
0.00
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.006
0.045
0.000
0.400
0.850
o.ooo
0.020
0.000
0.180
NA
5.100
NA
0.078
0.000
4.2
1 .0
2.0
2.6
20.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
*
0.00
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.064
0.000
0.330
1 .710
0.000
0.043
0.000
0.100
NA
4.400
NA
0.020
0.000
1 .3
8.0
2.0
5.7
18.0
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
  NA
 0.012
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.000
 0.050
 0.005
 0.170
 0.000
 0.460
 1.960
 0.000
 0.140
 0.000
 0.170
  NA
 9.36
  NA
 0.022
 0.000
 1 .2
13.0
  NA
 2.0
               NA - Not Analyzed
               *  - < 0.01

-------
                                                                     TABLE  V-11

                                                       DOUBLE FILL AND FILL &  DUMP  FORMATION
                                                                  WASTE  LOADINGS
                                                                      PLANT A
o
     Flow (I/kg)                       0.52
     Temperature  (Deg C)              18.5
 11   1,1,1-Trichloroethane            0.00
 23   Chloroform                       0.00
 44   Methylene chloride               0.00
 55   Naphthalene                       0.00
 65   Phenol                            NA
 66   Bis(2-eehylhexyl)phthalate       0.00
 67   Butyl  benzyl phthalate           0.00
 68   Di-n-butyl phthalate             0.00
 69   Di-n-octyl phthalate             0.00
 78   Anthracene                       0.00
 81   Phenanthrene                     0.00
 84   Pyrene                           0.00
114   Antimony                         0.000
115   Arsenic                          0.000
118   Cadmium                          0.000
119   Chromium,  Total                  0.013
     Chromium,  Hexavalent             0.000
120   Copper                           0.052
122   Lead                             0.498
123   Mercury                          0.000
124   Nickel                           0.004
126   Silver                           0.000
128   Zinc                             0.031
     Aluminum                          NA
     Iron                             2.025
     Manganese                         NA
     Phenols, Total                   0.008
     Strontium                        0.000
     Oil &  Grease                     0.519
     Total  Suspended Solids           3.115
     pH,  Minimum                       2.0
     pH,  Maximum                       6,8
DOUBLE FILL

    0.45
   10.0
    0.00
    0.00
    0.00
    0.00
    0.00
    0.00
    0.00
    0.00
    0.00
    0.00
    0.00
    0.00
    0.000
    0.000
    0.002
    0.032
    0.000
    0.077
    0.777
    0.0070
    0.020
    0.000
    0.038
     NA
    3.598
     NA
    0.005
    0.000
    0.500
    3.634
    2.0
    2.4
                                                                                            FILL & DUMP
0.38
8.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.017
0.000
0.151
0.321
0.000
0.008
0.000
0.068
NA
1.926
NA
0.029
0.000
1.586
0.378
2.0
2.6
1.68
20.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.008
0.108
0.000
0.554
2.873
0.000
0.072
0.000
0.168
NA
7.393
NA
0.034
0.000
2.184
13.44
2.0
5.7
 0.91
18.0 "
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
  NA
 0.011
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.000
 0.046
 0.005
 0.155
 0.000
 0.420
 1.789
 0.000
 0.128
 0.000
 0.155
  NA
 8.541
  NA
 0.020
 0.000
 1.095
11.86
  NA
 2.0
              NA  - Not Analyzed

-------
                                                                        TABLE V-12

                                                            OPEN FORMATION DEHYDRATED BATTERY
                                                                  WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
                                                                           mg/1
                                                       PLANT  D
                                                                                         PLANT G
                                                                                                           PLANT H
vO
     Temperature (Deg C)
 11   1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane
 23   Chloroform
 44   Methylene chloride
 55   Naphthalene
 65   Phenol
 66   Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
 67   Butyl benzyl phthalate
 68   Di-n-butyl phthalate
 69   Di-n-octyl phthalate
 78   Anthracene
 81   Phenanthrene
 84   Pyrene
114   Antimony
115   Arsenic
1 18   Cadmium
119   Chromium, Total
     Chromium, Hexavalent
120   Copper
122   Lead
123   Mercury
124   Nickel
126   Silver
128   Zinc
     Aluminum
     Iron
     Manganese
     Phenols, Total
     Strontium
     Oil & Grease
     Total Suspended Solids
     pH,  Minimum
     pH,  Maximum
50.0
  NA
  NA
  NA
  *
  NA
 0.077
 0.00
  *
 0.00
  *
  +
 0.00
 0.000
 0.000
 o.uoo
 0.047
  NA
 0.046
 8.59
 0.000
 0.096
 0.000
 0.350
  NA
 0.930
  NA
 0.016
 0.000
 5.7
 9.0
 2.0
                                                  4.1
48.0
*
8.0
0.00
*
NA
0.051
0.00
*
0.00
V*
*
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.009
0.048
NA
0.036
6.72
0.000
0.130
0.000
0.330
NA
2.210
NA
0.005
0.000
2.4
0.000
2.0
5.4
47.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.18
0.0005
0.000
0.000
NA
0.006
2.9
NA
0.000
NA
0.5
0.02
0.66
0.008
NA
NA
3.0
166.0
2.0
3.0
46.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.16
0.0005
0.000
0.000
NA
0.005
5.3
NA
0.000
NA
0.5
0.02
0.52
0.10
NA
NA
0.000
60.0
2.0
3.0
47.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.18
0.004
0.000
0.000
NA
0.004
2.62
NA
0.000
NA
0.4
0.4
0.58
0.006
NA
NA
8.0
271 .0
2.0
3.0
30.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.34
0.014
0.004
0.04
NA
0.000
3.0
NA
0.08
NA
0.06
0.03
3.52
O.OOO
NA
3.52
4.7
17.0
1.5
3.0
                NA  -  Not Analyzed
                *   -  <  0.01

-------
                                                                     TABLE V-13

                                                         OPEN FORMATION DEHYDRATED BATTERY
                                                                  WASTE LOADINGS
                                                                       rag/kg
                                                    PLANT D
                                                                             PLANT G
                                                                      PLANT H
vo
'
     Flow (I/kg)
     Temperature  (Deg C)
 11   1,1,1-Trichloroethane
 23   Chloroform
 44   Methylene chloride
 55   Naphthalene
 65   Phenol
 66   Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
 67   Butyl  benzyl phthalate
 68   Di-n-butyl phthalate
 69   Di-n-octyl phthalate
 78   Anthracene
 81   Phenanthrene
 84   Pyrene
114   Antimony
115   Arsenic
118   Cadmium
119   Chromium, Total
     Chromium, Hexavalent
120   Copper
122   Lead
123   Mercury
124   Nickel
126   Silver
128   Zinc
     Aluminum
     Iron
     Manganese
     Phenols, Total
     Strontium
     Oil &  Grease
     Total  Suspended Solids
     pH, Minimum
     pH; Maximum
 16.10
 50.0
  0.00
  0.00
  0.00
  0.00
   NA
  1.240
  0.00
  0.00
  0.00
  0.00
  0.00
  0.00
  0.000
  0.000
  0.000
  0.757
   NA
  0.741
138.3
  0.000
  1.546
  0.000
  5.636
   NA
 14.98
   NA
  0.258
  0.000
 91.8
144.9
  2.0
- 4.1
11.74
48.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
0.599
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00"
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.106
0.564
NA
0.423
78.9
0.000
1.526
0.000
3.875
NA
25.95
NA
0.059
0.000
28.18
0.000
2.0
5.4
3.1167
47.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.56
0.0016
0.000
0.000
NA
0.019
9.04
NA
0.000
NA
1.56
0.06
2.06
0.025
NA
NA
9.35
517.0
2.0
3.0
5.8707
46.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.94
0.0029
0.000
0.000
NA
0.029
31.1
NA
0.000
NA
2.9
0.12
3.05
0.59
NA
NA
0.000
352.0
2.0
3.0
9.0545
47.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.63
0.0036
0,000
0.000
NA
0.036
23.7
NA
0.000
NA
3.6
3.62
5.25
0.05
NA
NA
. 72.4
2454.0
2.0
3.0
1.59
30.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA'
NA
NA
NA
0.541
0.223
0.0006
0.064
NA
0.000
4.77
NA
0.127
NA
0.10
0,048
5.60
0.000
NA
NA
7.47
27.0
1.5
3.0
              NA - Not Analyzed

-------
                                                            TABLE V-14

                                                    BATTERY WASH - DETERGENT
                                                   WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
                                                              1 Big/L
     Temperature (Deg C)
 il   1,1,1-TrichLoroethane
 23   Chlorofonn
 44   Mechylene chloride
 55   Naphthalene
 65   Phenol
 66   Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
 67   Butyl benzyl phthalate
 68   Di-n-butyl phthalate
 69   Di-n-octyl phthalate
 78   Anthracene
 81   Phenanthrene
 84   Pyrene
114   Antimony
115   Arsenic
118   Cadmium
119   Chromium,  Total
     Chromium,  Hexavalent
120   Copper
122   Lead
123   Mercury
124   Nickel
126   Silver
128   Zinc  ; ,
     Aluminum
     Iron
     Manganese
  ,.  Phenols, Total-
     Strontium
     Oil & Grease
     Total Suspended Solids
     pH, Minimum
     pH, Maximum
 28.0
   *
   *
   *
   *
   NA
  0,013
   *
   *
   *
  0.00
  0.000
  0.000
  0.000
  1 .160
   NA
  0.290
  8.42
  0.000
  0.630
  0.000
•  0.810
   NA
 26.80
   NA
  0.018
  0.000
 14.0
160.0
  2.0
 12.0
PLANT D

 28.0
   *
   *
   NA
  0.048
  0.00
  0.00
   *
  0.00
  0.190
  0.000
  0.004
  1.450
   NA
                                                                              PLANT G
  1 .470
  9.69
  0.000
  0.910
  0.000
  1.770.
   NA
 40.00
   NA
  0.021
  0.000
 10.4
 70.4
  2.0
 12.0
28.0
*
*
0.0
*
NA
0.042
*
*
*
*
*
0.00
0.180
0.130
0.000
3.670
NA
2.790
18.90
0.000
2.800
0.0030
7.60
NA
83.0
NA
0.023
,0.000
= 15.0
93.0
2.0
12.0
30.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.1
0.000
0.000
2.2
NA
63.5
260.0
NA
2.0
NA
92.4
12.0
728.0
4.0
NA
NA
0.000
9050.0
NA
12.0
     NA - -Not Analyzed
     *  - < 0.01

-------
                                                                        TABLE V-15

                                                                BATTERY WASH - DETERGENT
                                                                     WASTE LOADINGS
                                                                          rag/kg
vD
     Flow (L/kg)                      0.730
     Temperature (Deg C)             28.0
 11   1,1,1-Trichloroethane            0.00
 23  Chloroform                       0.00
 44  Mechylene chloride               0.00
 55  Naphthalene                      0.00
 65  Phenol                            NA
 66  Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate       0.009
 67  Butyl benzyl phthalate           0.00
 68  Di-n-butyl phthalate             0.00
 69  Di-n-octyl phthalate             0.00
 78  Anthracene                       0.00
 81   Phenanthrene                     0.00
 84  Pyrene                           0.00
114  Antimony                         0.000
115  Arsenic                          0.000
118  Cadmium                          0.000
119  Chromium, Total                  0.847
     Chromium, Hexavalent              NA
120  Copper                           0.212
122  Lead                             6.15
123  Mercury                          0.000
t24  Nickel                           0.460
126  Silver                           0.000
128  'Zinc                             0.591
     Aluminum                          NA
     Iron  '                          19.56
     Manganese                         NA
     Phenols, Total                   0.013
     Strontium                        0.000
     Oil & Grease                    10.22
     Total Suspended Solids         116.8
     pH,  Minimum                      2.0
     pH,  Maximum                     12.0
PLANT D

  0.600
 28.0
  0.00
  0.00
  0.00
  0.00
   NA
  0.029
  0.00
  0.00
  0.00
  0.00
  0.00
  0.00
  0.114
  0.000
  0.004
  0.870
   NA
  0.882
  5.814
  0.000
  0.546
  0.000
  1.062
   NA
 24.00
   NA
  0.013
  0.000
  6.24
 42.00
  2.0
 12.0
                                                                                          PLANT G
0.500
28.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
0.021
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.090
0.065
0.000
1.835
NA
1.395
9.45
0.000
1.400
0.005
3.800
NA
41.50
NA
0.011
0.000
7.50
46.50
2.0
12.0
0.2808
30.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.56
0.000
0.000
0.62
NA
17.8
73.0
NA
0.56
NA
25.9
3.37
204.0
1.123
NA
NA
0.000
2541.0
NA
12.0
                 NA - Not Analyzed

-------
                                                           TABLE  V-16

                                                   BATTERY WASH - WATER ONLY
                                                  WASTEWATER  CHARACTERISTICS
                                                               rag/1
     Temperature (Deg  C)
 11   1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane
 23   Chloroform
 44   Methylene chloride
 55   Naphthalene
 65   Phenol
 66   Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
 67   Butyl benzyl phthalate
 68   Di-n-butyl  phthalate
 69   Di-n-octyl  phthalate
 78   Anthracene
 81   Phenanthrene
 84   Pyrene
114   Antimony
115   Arsenic
118   Cadmium
119   Chromium, Total
     Chromium,  Hexavalent
120   Copper
122.  Lead
123   Mercury
124   Nickel
126   Silver
128   Zinc
     Aluminum
     Iron
     Manganese
     Phenols,  Total
     Strontium
     Oil & Grease
     Total Suspended Solids
     pH,  Minimum
     pH,  Maximum
 18.0
   *
   *
  0.00
  0.012
   NA
   *
   *
   *
  0.00
   *
   *
  0.00
  0.000
  0.000
  0.002
  0.072
  0.000
  0.570
  6.39
  0.000
  0.055
  0.000
  0.240
   NA
  6.93
   NA
  0.016
  0.039
 18.0
120.0
  2.0
  7.7
PLANT A

 18.0

  0.00
  0.00
  0.025
  0.00
   *
  0.00
   *
   *
   *
   *
  0.00
  0.000
  0.000
  0.000
  0.000
  0.000
  0.280
  1.200
  0.0090
  0.000
  0.000
  0.130
   NA
  3.900
   NA
  0.014
  0.000
 23.0
 19.0
  2.0
  6.8
                                                                              PLANT F
18.0
*
0.00
0.00
0.037
NA
0.017
*
*
*
*
*
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.017
0.000
0.330
1.370
0.0650
0.007
0.000
0.160
NA
5.000
NA
0.022
0.000
17.0
29.0
2.0
5.7
22.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.061
0.010
0.000
0.26
NA
0.11
0.99
NA
0.18
NA
2.0
0.17
11.0
0.085
NA
NA
0.000
0.000
1.0
4.0
     NA - Not  Analyzed
     *  - < 0.01

-------
                                                            TABLE V-17

                                                    BATTERY  WASH - WATER ONLY
                                                         WASTE  LOADINGS
                                                             mg/kg
                                                  PLANT  A

     Flow (I/kg)                       0.651          0.639
     Temperature  (Deg C)              18.00          18.00
 11   1,1,1-Trichioroethane             0.00           0.00
 23   Chloroform                       0.00           0.00
 44   Methylene chloride                0.00           0.00
 55   Naphthalene                       0.008          0.016
 65   Phenol                            NA           0.00
 66   Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate       0.00           0.00
 67   Butyl benzyl phthalate           0.00           0.00
 68   Di-n-butyl phthalate             0.00           0.00
 69   Di-n-octyl phthalate             0.00           0.00
 78   Anthracene                       0.00           0.00
 81   Phenanthrene                .     0.00           0,00
 84   Pyrene                           0.00           0.00
114   Antimony                         0.000          0.000
115   Arsenic                          0.000          0.000
118.  Cadmium                          0.001          0.000
119   Chromium, Total                  0.047          0.000
     Chromium, Hexavaient             0.000          0.000
120   Copper                           0.371          0.179
122   Lead                             4.159          0.767
123   Mercury                          0.000          0.0056
124   Nickel                           0.036          0.000
126   Silver                           0.000          0.000
128,  Zinc                             0.156          0.083
     Aluminum                          NA            NA
     Iron                             4.511          2.491
     Manganese                         NA            NA
     Phenols, Total                   0.010          0.009
     Strontium                        0.025          0.000
     Oil & Grease                    11.72          14.70
     Total Suspended Solids          78.12          12.14
     pH, Minimum                       2.0           2.0
     pH, Maximum                       7.7           6.8
                                                                              PLANT F
0.280
18.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.010
NA
0.005
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.005
0.000
0.093
0.384
0.0182
0.002
0.000
0.045
NA
1.402
NA
0.006
0.000
4.760
8.13
2.0
5.7
0.185
22.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.011
0.002
0.000
0.048
NA
0.020
0.18
NA
0.033
NA
0.37
0.031
2.0
0.016
NA
NA
0.000
0.000
1.0
4.0
     NA - Not Analyzed

-------
                                                             TABLE V-18

                                                            FLOOR WASH
                                                   WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
                                                  PLANT  A
                                                                                      PLANT F
PLANT H
      Temperature  (Deg C)
  11   1,1,1-Irichloroethane
  23   Chloroform
  44   Methylene chloride
  55   Naphthalene
  65   Phenol
  66   Bi3{2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
  67   Butyl benzyl phthalate
  68   Di-n-tmtyl phthalate
  69   Di-n-octyl phthalate
  78   Anthracene
  81   Phertanthrene
  84   Pyrene
 114   Antimony
 115   Arsenic
 118   Cadmium
 119   Chromium, Total
      Chromium, Hexavalent
 120   Copper
 122   Lead
 123   Mercury
"124   Nickel
 126   Silver
 128   Zinc
     • Aluminum
      Iron
      Manganese
      Phenols, Total
      Strontium
      Oil & Grease
      Total Suspended  Solids
      pH,  Minimum
      pH, Maximum
NA
0.00
0.00
*
*
NA
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.940
0.000
0.042
0.034
0.000
0.290
251.0
0.000
0.033
0.000
0.940
NA
9.76
NA
0.153
0.000 '
HA
NA
NA
NA
22.0
0.00
0.00
*
*
0.00
*
*
*
^0.00
*
*
0,00
o.'ooo
0.000
0.035
0.019
0.000
0.210
107.0
0.000
0.023
0.000
0.710
NA
6.82
NA
0.090
0.000
25.0
1116.0
NA
10.2
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
*
NA
*
*
*
0.00
*
*
*
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.018
0.000
0.320
51.0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.470
NA
6.45
NA
0.161
0.000
28.0
952.0
NA
10.2
25.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.28
0.10
0.12
1.62
NA
1.27
129.0
NA
1.19
NA
3.46
11.85
57.0
0.57
NA
NA
. 4.5
318.0
3.0
8.82
23.0
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.32
0.19
0.13
1.86
NA
1.31
629.0
NA
1.21
NA
6.35
18.74
89.0
0.87
NA
NA
0.000
545.0
3.0
9.0
30.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.98
0.08
0.04
0.1
NA
0.4
120.0
NA
0.000
NA
15.2
3.9
12.4
0.15
NA
NA
42.0
450.0
NA
9.0
      NA  - Not  Analyzed
      *  - < 0.01

-------
                                                                  TABLE V-19

                                                                 FLOOR WASH
                                                               WASTE LOADINGS
                                                                    mg/kg
vo
00
                                                 PLANT A

     Flow (I/kg)                      0.026         0.020
     Temperature (Deg C)               NA          22.0
 11   1,1,1-Trichloroethane            0.00          0.00
 23  Chloroform                       0.00          0.00
 44  Methylene chloride               0.00          0.00
 55  Naphthalene                      0.00          0.00
 65  Phenol                            NA           0.00
 66  Bis<2-ethylhexyl)phthalate       0.00          0.00
 67  Butyl benzyl phthalate           0.00          0.00
 68  Di-n-butyl phthalate             0.00          0.00
 69  Di-n-octyl phthalate             0.00          0.00
 78  Anthracene                       0.00          0.00
 81   Phenanthrene                     0.00          0.00
 84  Pyrene                           0.00          0.00
114  Antimony                         0.025         0.000
115  Arsenic                          0.000         0.000
118  Cadmium                          0.001         0.001
119  Chromium, Total                  0.001         0.000
  •   Chromium, Hexavalent             0.000         0.000
120  Copper                           0.008         0.004
122  Lead                             6.62          2.162
123  Mercury                          0.000         0.000
124  Nickel                           0.001         0.000
126  Silver                           0.000         0.000
128  Zinc                             0.025         0.014
     Aluminum                          NA            NA
     Iron                             0.257         0.138
     Manganese                         NA            NA
     Phenols, Total                   0.004         0.002
     Strontium                        0.000         0.000
     Oil & Grease                      NA           0.505
     Total Suspended Solids            NA          22.55
     pH, Minimum                       NA            NA
     pH, Maximum                       NA          10.2
                                                                                           PLANT F
                                                                                                          PLANT H
0.026
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.008
1.319
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.012
NA
0.169
NA
0.004
0.000
0.724
24.62
NA
10.2
0.025
25.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0069
0.0026
0.0030
0.041
NA
0.0318
3.235
NA
0.030
NA
0.086
0.30
1.416
0.014
NA
NA
0.11
7.96
3.0
8.82
0.033
23.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0105
0.0063
0.0044
0.062
NA-
0.044
20.9
NA
0.040
NA
0.211
0.62
2.98
0.029
NA
NA
0.000
18.2
3.0
9.0
0.0148
30.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.015
0.001
0.0006
0.002
NA
0.006
1.78
NA
o.oop
NA
0.225
0.058
0.184
0.002
NA
NA
0.621
6.66
NA
9.0
           NA - Not Analyzed
           *  - < 0.01

-------
     Temperature (Deg C)
 11   1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane
 23   Chloroform
 44   Methylene chloride
 55   Naphthalene
 65   Phenol
 66   Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
 67   Butyl benzyl phthalate
 68   Di-n-butyl phthalate
 69   Di-n-octyl phthalate
 78   Anthracene
 81   Phenanthrene
 84   Pyrene
114   Antimony
115   Arsenic
118   Cadmium
119   Chromium, Total
     Chromium, Hexavalent
120   Copper
122   Lead
123   Mercury
124   Nickel
126   Silver
128   Zinc
     Aluminum
     Iron
     Manganese
     Phenols, Total
     Strontium
     Oil & Grease
     Total Suspended Solids
     pH, Minimum
     pH, Maximum
     NA - Not Analyzed
                                                            TABLE  V-20

                                                    WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
                                                    WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
                                                               mg/1
PLANT F

 22.0
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
  0.28
  0.013
  0.000
  0.06
   NA
  0.10
  0.4
   NA
  0.08
   NA
  1.0
  0.000
 13.0
  0.000
   NA
   NA
  6.0
 16.0
  1.0
  3.5
PLANT H

  30.0
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
   0.05
   0.000
   0.000
   0.000
    NA
   0.05
   0.05
    NA
   0.000
    NA
   0.000
   0.9
   0.000
   0.08
    NA
    NA
   3.4
  17.0
    NA
   2.0

-------
NJ
O
O
     Flow (I/kg)
     Temperature  (Deg C)
 11   1,1,1-Trichloroethane
 23   Chloroform
 44   Methylene  chloride
 55   Naphthalene
 65   Phenol
 66   Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
 67   Butyl benzyl phthalate
 68   Di-n-butyl phthalate
 69   Dir-n-octyl phthalate
 78   Anthracene
 81   Phenanthrene
 84   Pyrene
114   Antimony
115   Arsenic
118   Cadmium
119   Chromium,  Total
     Chromium,  Hexavalent
120   Copper
122   Lead
123   Mercury
124   Nickel
126   Silver
128   Zinc
     Aluminum
     Iron
     Manganese
     Phenols, Total
     Strontium
     Oil & Grease
     .Total Suspended Solids
     pH,  Minimum
     pH,  Maximum
             NA - Not Analyzed
                                                                    TABLE V-21

                                                            WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
                                                                 WASTE LOADINGS
                                                                      mg/kg
PLANT F

  0.0757
 22.0
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
  0.021
  0.001
  0.000
  0.005
   NA
  0.008
  0.03
   NA
  0.006
   NA
  0.08
  0.000
  0.98
  0.000
   NA
   NA
  0.45
  1.2
  1 .0
  3.5
PLANT H

   0.142
  30.0
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
   0.007
   0.000
   0.000
   0.000
    NA
   0.007
   0.007
    NA
   0.000
    NA
   0.000
   0.13
   0.000
   0.011
    NA
    NA
   0.48
   2.4
    NA
   2.0

-------
                                                           TABLE V-22

                                                        BATTERY REPAIR
                                                  WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
                                                              rag/1
                                                 PLANT A
                                                                                     PLANT  D
     Temperature (Deg C)               NA
 11   1,1,1-Trichloroethane          .   *
 23   Chloroform                       *
 44 * Methylene chloride               *
 55   Naphthalene H                     NA
 65   Phenol                           NA
 66   Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate        NA
 67   Butyl benzyl phthalate            NA
 68   Dl-n-butyl phthalate              NA
 69   Di-n-octyL phthalate              NA
 78   Anthracene                       NA
 81   Phenanthrene                     NA
 84   Pyrene                           NA
114   Antimony            .             0,640
115   Arsenic                          0.110
118   Cadmium                          0.220
119   Chromium,  Total                   0.250
     Chromium,  HexavaLent              0.000
120   Copper                           5.460
122   Lead                            65,00
123   Mercury                          0.0060
124   Nickel                           0.430
126   Silver                           0.0130
128   Zinc                             B.97
     Aluminum                         NA
     Iron                          460.0
     Manganese                        NA
     Phenols, Total                   0.039
     Strontium                        0.000
     Oil & Grease                    62.0
     Total Suspended  Solids         624.0
     pH,  Minimum                      2.3
     pH,  Maximum                      2.3
NA
*
0.00
0.00
*
0.00
0.010
*
0.012
0.00
*
*
*
0.000
0.000
0.340
0.100
0.000
9.83
0.540
0.0100
0.520
0.000
7.510
NA
370.0
NA
0.174
0.000
46.0
362,0
NA
2.0
NA
*
0.00
0.00
*
NA
0.014
*
0.014
0.00
*
*
*
0.000
0.000
0.008
0.013
0.000 '
0.280
0.270
0.0060
0.007
0.000
4.210
NA
8.05
NA
0.130
0.000
54.0
572.0
NA
NA
32.0
*
*
0.00
*
NA
0.013
0.00
~* *
*
*
*
0.00
0.000
0.150
0.013
0.250
NA
1.220
1.020
0.000
0.130
0.000
1.410
NA
5.940
NA
0.011
0.000
6.0
1.3
2.9
3.9
31 .0
  *
  *
  *
  *
  NA
 0.011
  *
  *
  *
  *
  *
 0.00
 0.000
 0.000
 0.000
 0.120
  NA
 0.250
 0.830
 0.000
 0.170
 0.000
 0.500
  NA
 2.310
  NA
 0.091
 0.000
 9.3
12.0
 3.4
 5.6
     NA - Not Analyzed
     *  - < 0.01

-------
                                                                     TABLE V-23

                                                                  1A11ERY REPAIR
                                                                  WASTE LOADINGS
                                                                       ng/kg
O
K>
                                                  PLANT A

     Flow (I/kg)                       0.003         0.004
     Temperature (Deg C)                NA            NA
 11   1,1,1-Trichloroethane            0.00          0.00
 23  Chloroform                       0.00          0.00
 44  Methylene chloride               0.00          0.00
 55  Naphthalene                       NA           0.00
 65  Phenol                            NA           0.00
 66  Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate        NA           0.00
 67  Butyl benzyl phthalate            NA           0.00
 68  Dt-n-butyl phchalate              NA           0.00
 69  Di-n-octyl phthalate              NA           0.00
 78  Anthracene                        NA           0.00
 81   Phenanthrene                      NA           0.00-
 84  Pyrene                            NA           0.00
114  Antimony                         0.002         0.000
115  Arsenic                          0.000         0.000
118  Cadmium                          0.001         0.001
119  Chromium, Total                  0.001         0.000
     Chromium, Hexavalent             0,000         0.000
120  Copper                           0.0008        0.038
122 . Lead                             0.218         0.002
123 -Mercury                          0.000         0.000
124  Nickel                           0.001         0.002
126  Silver                           0.000         0.000
128  Zinc                             0.033         0.029
     Aluminum                          NA            NA
     Iron                             1.545         1.438
     Manganese    "                     NA            NA
     Phenols, Total                   0.000         0.001
     Strontium                        0.000         0.000
    ; Oil 8, Grease                     0.208         0.179
     Total Suspended Solids           2.096  '       1.407
     pH,  Minimum                      2.3            NA
    ' pH,  Maximum                      2.3           2.0
                                                                                              PLANT D
0.004
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.016
NA
0.030
NA
0.000
0.000
0.204
2.157
NA
NA
0.170
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
0.002
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.025
0.002
0.042
NA
0.207
0.173
0.000
0.022
0.000
0.239
NA
1 .007
NA
0.002
0.000
1.017
0.220
2.9
3.9
0.321
 NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
 NA
0.004
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.039
 NA
0.080
0.266
0.000
0.055
0.000
0.161
 NA
0.742
 NA
0.029
0.000
2.986
3.853
3.4
5.6
              NA - Not Analyzed

-------
to
o
     Temperature (Deg C)
 11  1 ,1,1-Triehloroethane
 23  Chloroform
 44  Methylene chloride
 55  Naphthalene
 65  Phenol
 66  Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
 67  Butyl benzyl phthalate
 68  Di-n-butyl phthalate
 69  Di-n-octyl phthalate
 78  Anthracene
 81  Phenanthrene
 84  Pyrene
114  Antimony
115- Arsenic
118  Cadmium
119  Chromium, Total
     Chromium, Hexavalent
120.  Copper
122  Lead
123  Mercury
124 •• Nickel
126  Silver
128'• Zinc
     Alufflinum
     Iron
     Manganese
   .  Phenols, Total
     Strontium
    • 011.& Grease
     Total Suspended Solids
     pH,  Minimum
     pH,  Maximum
                NA - Not Analyzed
                                                                       TABLE V-24

                                                                      TRUCK WASH
                                                              WASTEWATER .CHARACTERISTICS
                                                                          rag/1
 PLANT G

  16.0
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
   0.31
   0.05
   0.04
   0.18
    NA
   1 .2
  20.9
    NA
   0.25
    NA
   1.58
  37.8
1050.0
   7.2
    NA
    NA
   7.0
2500.0
    NA
   3.0
PLANT H

  30.0
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
   0.810
   0.060
   0.24
   0.14
    NA
   0.8
  63.4
    NA
   0.15
    NA
   6.12
 160
  53.8
   1.15
    NA
    NA
  26.0
10»0.0
    NA
   4.0

-------
     Flow (I/kg)
     Temperature (Deg C)
 11   1,1,1-Trichloroethane
 23  Chloroform
 44  Methylene chloride
 55  Naphthalene
 65  Phenol
 66  Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
 67  Butyl benzyl phthalate
 68  Di-n-butyl phthalate
 69  Di-n-oetyl phthalate
 78  Anthracene
 81   Phenanthrene
 84  Pyrene
114  Antimony
115  Arsenic
118  Cadmium
119  Chromium, Total
     Chromium, Hexavalent
120  Copper
122  Lead
123  Mercury
124  Nickel
126  Silver
128  Zinc
     Aluminum
     Iron
     Manganese
     Phenols, Total
     Strontium
     Oil & Grease
     Total Suspended Solids
     pH,  Minimum
     pH,  Maximum
     NA - Not Analyzed
                                                            TABLE  V-25

                                                          TRUCK WASH
                                                         WASTE  LOADINGS
                                                               ng/kg
PLANT G

  0.0027
 16.0
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
  0.0008
  0.0001
  0.0001
  0.0005
   NA
  0.003
  0.056
   NA
  0,0007
   NA
  0.004
  0.102
  2.835
  0.019
   NA
   NA
  0.019
  6.75
   NA
  3.0
PLANT H

   0.026
  30.0
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
   0.021
   0.0016
   0.006
   0.0036
    NA
   0.02
   1.65
    NA
   0.0039
    NA
   0.159
   4.16
   1.40
   0.030
    NA
    NA
   0.68
  28.1
    NA
   4.0

-------
                                                                      TABLE V-26

                                                                      HANDWASH
                                                             MASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
                                                                         rag/1
O
Ui
     Temperature (Deg C)
 11   1,1,1-Trichioroethane
 23.  Chloroform
 44   Methylene chloride
 55   Naphthalene
 65   Phenol
 66   Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
 67   Butyl benzyl phthalate
 68   Di-n-butyl  phthalate
 69   Ui-n-octyl  phthalate
 78   Anthracene
 81   Phenanthrene
 84   Pyrene
114   Antimony
115   Arsenic
118   Cadmium
119   Chromium, Total
     Chromium, Hexavalent
120   Copper
122   Lead
123   Mercury
124   Nickel
126'  Silver
128..Zinc
     Aluminum
     Iron
     Manganese
     Phenols, Total
     Strontium
     Oil & Grease
    . Total Suspended  Solids
     pH,  Minimum
     pH,  Maximum
PLANT G

 30.0
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
  0.42
  0.03
  0.000
  0.02
   NA
  1.05
  8.6
   NA
  0.000
   NA
  1.3
  0.30
  1.45
  0.000
   NA
   NA
  0.000
490.0
   NA
  8.0
PLANT H

 30.0
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
  0.04
  0.03
  0.000
  0.000
   NA
  0.7
 13.9
   NA
  0.05
   NA
  0.36
  0.10
  0.65
  0.000
   NA
   NA
330.0
  8.0
   NA
  8.0
                NA - Not Analyzed

-------
N>
O
     Flow  (I/kg)
     Temperature  (Deg C)
  11  1,1,1-Trlchloroethane
  23  Chloroform
  44  Methylene chloride
  55  Naphthalene
  65  Phenol
  66  Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
  67  Butyl benzyl phthalate
  68  Di-n-butyl phthalate
  69  Di-n-octyl phthalate
  78  Anthracene
  81  Phenanthrene
  84  Pyrene
 114  Antiroony
 115  Arsenic
 118  Cadmium
 119  Chromium, Total
     Chromium, Hexavalent
 120  Copper
 122  Lead
 123  Mercury
 124  Nickel
 126  Silver
•128  21nc
     Aluminum
     Iron
     Manganese
     Phenols, Total
     Strontium
     "Oil & Grease
     Total Suspended Solids
     pH, Minimum
     pH, Maximum
               NA - Not Analyzed
                                                                      TABLE V-27

                                                                      HANDHASH
                                                                   WASTE  LOADINGS
                                                                       ng/kg
PLANT G

  0.0256
 30.0
   NA
   NA
   HA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
  0.011
  0,0008
  0.000
  0.0005
   NA
  0.027
  0.22
   NA
  0.000
   HA
  0.0331
  0.008
  0.037
  0.000
   NA
   NA
  0.000
 12.5
   NA
  8.0
PLANT H

  0.0159
 30.0
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
  0.0006
  0.0005
  0.000
  0.000
   NA
  0.01
  0.221
   NA
  0.0008
   NA
  0.0057
  0.002
  0.010
  0.000
   NA
   NA
  5.25
  0.76
   NA
  8.0

-------
      Temperature (Deg C)
  11  1,1,1-Trichloroethane
  23  Chloroform
  44  Methylene chloride
  55  Naphthalene
  65  Phenol
  66  Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
  67  Butyl benzyl phthalate
  68  ;Di-n-butyl phthalate
  69  ;Di-n-octyl phthalate
  78  Anthracene
  81  'Phenanthrene
  •84  Pyrene
 ;114  'Antimony
 •115  -Arsenic
.  118  Cadmium
 .119  Chromium, Total
      Chromium, Hexavalent
  120  'Copper
  122  .Lead
  123  Mercury
 , 124  -.Nickel
  126  'Silver
  128  : Zinc
      Aluminum
      (-Iron
      • Manganese
      -Phenols, Total
      Strontium
      Oil & Grease
      Total Suspended Solids
      pH,' Minimum
      .pH, Maximum
      NA - Not Analyzed
                                                             TABLE V-28

                                                          RESPIRATOR WASH
                                                    WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
                                                                tog/I
PLANT G

 55.0
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
  0.0004
  0.0002
  0.0003
  0.000
   NA
  0.3
  0.33
   NA
  0.0
   NA
  0.31
  0.000
  0.003
  0.000
   NA
   NA
  6.2
  7.1
   NA
  7.0
PLANT H

 30.0
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
  0.000
  0.000
  0.000
  0.62
   NA
  0.5
  5.9
   NA
  0.4
   NA
  0.52
  0.000
  0.35
  0.000
   NA
   NA
  5.0
 14.0
   NA
  7.0

-------
                                                                       TABLE V-29

                                                                     RESPIEATOR WASH
                                                                     WASTE  LOADINGS
                                                                         -rag/kg
O
CD
     Flow (I/kg)
     Temperature  (Deg C)
 11   1,1,1-Trichloroethane
 23   Chloroform
 44   Methylene chloride
 55   Naphthalene
 65   Phenol
 66   Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
 67   Butyl benzyl phthalate
 68   Dl-n-butyl phthalate
 69   Di-n-oetyl phthalate
 7.8   Anthracene
 81   Phenanthrene
 84   Pyrene
114   Antimony
t15   Arsenic
1.18   Cadmium
1.19   Chromium, Total
     Chromium, Hexavalent
120   Copper
122  . Lead
123   Mercury
124   Nickel
126   Silver
128   Zinc
     Aluminum
     Iron
     Manganese
     Phenols, Total
     Strontium
     Oil & Grease
     Total Suspended Solids
     pH, Minimum
    - pH, Maximum
PLANT G

  0.0063
 55.0
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
  0.000
  0.000
  0.000
  0.000
   NA
  0.002
  0.0021
   NA
  0.000
   NA
  0.002
  0.000
  0.000
  0.000
   NA
   NA
  0.039
  0.045
   NA
  7.0
PLANT H

  0.0269
 30.0
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
  0.000
  0.000
  0.000
  0.017
   NA
  0.014
  0.16
   NA
  0,01
   NA
  0.014
  0.000
  0.009
  0.000
   NA
   NA
  0.13
  0.38
   NA
  7.0
                 NA - Not Analyzed

-------
     Temperature (Deg C)
 11   1,1,1-Trichloroethane
 23   Chloroform
 44   Methylene chloride
 55   Naphthalene
 65   Phenol
'66   Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
 67   Butyl benzyl phthalate
 68   Di-n-butyl phthalate
 69   Di-n-octyl phthalate
 78   Anthracene
 81   Phenanthrene
 84   Pyrene
114   Antimony
115   Arsenic
118   Cadmium
119   Chromium, Total
     Chromium, Hexavalent
120   Copper
122   Lead
123   Mercury
124   Nickel
126   Silver
128   line.
     Aluminum
     Iron              ""'
     Manganese
     Phenols, Total
     Strontium
     Oil & Grease
     Total Suspended Solids
     pH, Minimum
     pH, Maximum
     NA - Not Analyzed
                                                            TABLE V-30

                                                             LAUNDRY
                                                   WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
                                                               rag/1
PLANT G

 30.0
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   HA
   NA
   NA
  0.15
  0.02
  0.000
  0.000
   NA
  0.2
 14.9
   NA
  0.000
   NA
  1.06
  0.30
  1.35
  0.000
   NA
   NA
 90.0
110.0
   NA
  6.0
PLANT H

 30.0
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA  .
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
  0.06
  0.000
  0.000
  0.000
   NA
  0.25
 11.5
   NA
  0.000
   NA
  0.1
  0.20
  0.55
  0.000
   NA
   NA
  8.4
160.0
 '  NA
  6.0

-------
O
     Flow (I/kg)
     Temperature (Deg C)
 11   1,1,1-Trichloroethane
 23  Chloroform
 44  Methylene chloride
 55  Naphthalene
 65  Phenol
 66  Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
 67  Butyl  benzyl phthalate
 68  Di-n-butyl phthalate
 69  Di-n-octyl phthalate
 78  Anthracene
 81   Phenanthrene
 84  Pyrene
114  Antimony
115  Arsenic
118  Cadmium
119  Chromium, Total
     Chromium, Hexavalent
120  Copper
122  Lead
123  Mercury
124  Nickel
126  Silver
128  Zinc
     Aluminum
     Iron
     Manganese
     Phenols, Total
     Strontium
     Oil &  Grease
     Total  Suspended Solids
     pH,  Minimum
     pH,  Maximum
            NA - Not Analyzed
                                                                   TABLE V-31

                                                                    LAUNDRY
                                                                WASTE LOADINGS
PLANT G

  0.0850
 30.0
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
  0.013
  0.002
  0.000
  0.000
   NA
  0.017
  1.27
   NA
  0.000
   NA
  0.090
  0.026
  0. 115
  0,000
   NA
   NA
  7.65
  9.35
   NA
  6.0
PLANT H

  0.0919
 30.0
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
  0.0055
  0.000
  0.000
  0.000
   NA
  0.023
  1.057
   NA
  0.000
   NA
  0.009
  0.018
  0.051
  0.000
   NA
   NA
  0.77
 14.7
   NA
  6.0

-------
                                          TABLE V-32

                                 REPORTED TOTAL PROCESS FLOW
Plant Number

     107
     110
     112
     122
     132
     133
     135
     138
     144
     146
     147
     152
     155
     158
     170
     173
     178
     179
     182
     184
     190
     191
     198
     207
     208
     212
     213
     226
     233
     237
     239
     242
     255
     261
     269
     277
    ,278
     280
 Reported
   Flow
Rate (1/hr)
Plant Number
 Reported
   Flow
Rate (l/hr)
                                                             Plant Number
1503
NA
3180
11706
NA
NA
0
NA
0
6815
0
9280
NA
0
0
0
0
7.57
NA
0
0
37325
10266
18851
NA
7041
454
9312
9375
11129
6106
NA
NA
2271
12212
NA
5770
NA
288
295
299
311
320
321
331
342
346
349
350
356
358
361
366
370
371
372
374
377
382
386
387
400
402
403
406
421
429
430
436
439
444
446
448
450
462
463
NA
0
0
20895
34450
0
2498
61920
0
7845
NA
0
7041
NA
0
NA
3390
0
3861
0
1197
7950
2006
3835
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
29000
0
2063
14645
27252
2574
NA
466
467
469
472
480
486
491
493
494
495
501
503
504
513
517
520
521
522
526
529
536
543
549
553
572
575
594
620
623
634
635
640
646
652
656
668
672
677
 Reported
   Flow
Rate (1/hr)

     0
     0
    15
     0
 30610
    NA
    NA
    NA
  3110
     0
 12624
     0
     0
  1363
     0
  4542
     0
     0
 18170
   570
    NA
     0
 47470
  3449
  2275
  3634
     0
    NA
    NA
  1590
  1685
 25196
   476
 12705
    NA
     0
 52950
     0

-------
                                                  TABLE V-32 (Continued)

                                               REPORTED TOTAL PROCESS FLOW
ro
fsi
Plane Number

     680
  '   681
     682
     683
    " 685
     686
     690
 .   - 704
     705
     706
    '708
     714
     716
     717
    - 721
 ,  .  722
     725
     730
     731
     732
     733
     738
     740
     746
                              Reported
                                Flow
                             Race (1/hr)
Plant Number
1534
4542
6814
0
6359
8404
0
27125
3180
0
NA
1590
NA
6490
0
NA
0
443
2858
3607
NA
29080
NA
0
765
768
771
772
775
777
781
785
786
790
796
811
814
815
817
820
828
832
844
852
854
857
863
866
Reported
Flow
Rate (1/hr) Plant Number
11690
7881
1363
11500
4088
4325
NA
41660
5120
0
0
NA
13130
598
0
3407
40
10520
NA
16070
0
0
11055
0
877
880
883
893
901
917
920
927
936
939
942
943
947
951
963
964
968
971
972
976
978
7 982
979
990
 Repotted
   Flow
Rate (1/hr)

 46165
     0
     0
  2470
     0
 18851
    NA
     0
  3706
    NA
     0
 17261
 18397
  1135
     0
     0
     0
     0
 23837
 26801
  1840
 10540
     0
  3180

-------
                                           TABLE V-33

                         TREATMENT IN-PLACE AT LEAD SUBCATEGORY PLANTS


        Plant ID         	Treatment In-Place  	         Discharge ''

          107            pH adjust,  settling                                I
          110            None                                               I
          112            pH adjust                                          I (C)
          122            pH adjustment,  settling,  lagooning                 D
          132            None                                               I
          133            None indicated                       •               U
          135            None                                               Zero
          138            pH adjust                                          I
          144            pH adjust,  clarification,  sand filtration          Zero
          146            Settling, pH adjust,  settling                      I
          147            Evaporation                                        Zero
N>         152            pH adjust                                          I
Co         155            None indicated                                      U
          158            None                                               Zero
          •170            None                                               Zero
          173            None indicated                                      Zero
          178            pH adjust,  clarification,  lagooning                Zero
          179            None                                               I
          182            None                                               U
          184            None                                               Zero
          190            None                                               Zero
          191            pH adjust                                  .        I (C)
          198            pH adjust                                          D (C)
          207            pH adjust                                          I (C)
          208            pH adjust                                          I
          212            pH adjust,  clarification                            I (C)
          213            None                                               I
          226            pH adjust                                          I (C)
          233            pH adjust                            .•             I
          237            pH adjust,  settling                                I
          239            pH adjust,  settling                                I

-------
                            TABLE V-33 (Continued)

                 TREATMENT IN-PLACE AT LEAD SUBCATEGORY PLANTS


Plant ID         	Treatment In-Place	         Discharge^/

  242            None indicated                                     U
  255            None indicated                                     U
  261            pH adjust                                          I (C)
  269            pH adjust                                          I
  277            pH adjust, clarification                           I
  278            pH adjust                                          I
  280            None indicated                                     U
  288            None indicated                                     U
  295            None indicated                                     Zero
  299            None                                               Zero
  311            pH adjust                                          I
  320            pH adjust                                          I
  321            None                                               Zero
  331            pH adjust                                          I
  342            pH adjust, lagooning                               I
  346            None                                               Zero
  349            pH adjust, settle, filtration                      I
  350            None indicated                                     U
  356            None indicated                                     Zero
  358            pH adjust, settle                    '              I
  361            None                                               I
  366            None                                               Zero
  370            None indicated                                     I
  371            Clarification, filtration                          I
  372            None                                               Zero
  374            pH adjust, filtration                              I
  377            None                                               Zero
  382            pH adjust, clarification, sand filtration          I
  386            pH adjust, settling                                D (C)
  387            pH adjust, filtration                              I
  400            pH adjust, settling                                I

-------
                            TABLE V-33 (Continued)

                 TREATMENT IN-PLACE AT LEAD SUBCATEGORY PLANTS
Plant ID

  402
  403
  406
  421
  429
  430
  436
  439
  444
  446

  448
  450
  462
  463
  466
  467
  469
  472
  480
  486
  491
  493
  494
  495
  501
  503
  504
  513
  517
  520
 Treatment  In-Plaee
  sand  filtration
  clarification, lagooning
  filtration
  settling, filtration
None indicated
None indicated
None indicated
None
None
None
Lagooning,
pH adjust,
None
pH adjust, coagulant addition, clarification,
filtration
pH adjust
pH adjust,
pH adjust.
None
Settling
None
pH adjust.
Settling,
pH adjust,
None
None indicated
None
pH adjust
None
pH adjust
pH adjust,
None
pH adjust,
None
pH adjust,
filtration
                                               Discharge''
,  settling
pH adjust,
  pressure
 clarification
filtration
  coagulant  addition,  clarification

  clarification

  coagulant  addition,  settling,
U
U
U
Zero
Zero
Zero
Zero (C)
D
Zero
I

I
D
I
I
Zero
Zero
I
Zero
I
1
U
D
I
Zero
I
Zero
Zero
I
Zero
D (C)

-------
                            TABLE V-33 (Continued)

                 TREATMENT IN-PLACE AT LEAD SUBCATEGORY PLANTS
Plant ID

  521
  522
  526
  529
  536
  543
  549
  553
  572
  575
  594
  620
  623
  634
  635
  640
  646
  652
  656
  668
  672
  677
  680
  681
  682
  683
  685
  686
  690
  704
  705
          Treatment In-Place
None
None
pH adjust,  settling
pH adjust,  settling
None indicated
None
pi adjust
pH adjust
pH adjust
pH adjust
None
None indicated
None
pH adjust
   adjust
pH
pH
pH
pH
           clarification, filtration

           settling
           settling
 filtration
 filtration
   adjust
   adjust,
   adjust
 coagulant addition, clarification
None indicated
None
pH adjust,
None
pH adjust
   adjust,
   adjust,
   adjust
   adjust,
   adjust,
Settling,
pH adjust
pH adjust,
pH
pH
pH
PH
pH
           clarification
 filtration
 settling
 settling
 settle
atmospheric

 settling
                      evaporation
Pis charge

    Zero
    Zero
    I
    I (C)
    U
    Zero
    I
    I
    I
    I
    Zero
    U
    I
    I
    I
    1
    1
    I
    U
    Zero
    D
    Zero
    I
    I
    I (C)
    Zero
    I
    I
    Zero
    I
    1
                                           (C)

-------
                                    TABLE V-33 (Continued)

                         TREATMENT IN-PLACE AT LEAD SUBCATEGORY PLANTS
ND
Plant ID

  706
  708
  714
  716
  717
  721
  722
  725
  730
  731
  732
  733
  738
  740
  746
  765
  768
  771
  772

  775
  111
  781
  785
  786
  790
  796
  811
  814
  815
  817
                                   Treatment In-Place
pH adjust
pH adjust
pH adjust
Settling
pH adjust
pH adjust
None
None
pH adjust
pH adjust
pH adjust
pH adjust
pH adjust
None indicated
None
pH adjust,
pH adjust,
pH adjusti
pH adjust,
                                    settling
                                    settling
                                    settling

                                    skimming,
                                    aeration,
clarification
atmospheric evaporation
                                    settling
                         sand filtration
                                    clarification
                                    settle
                                    settling and filtration
                                    coagulant addition,  clarification,
                         pH adjust,
                         pH adjust,
                         pH adjust
                         pH adjust,
                         pH adjust,
                         None
                         None
                         Unknown
                         pH adjust
                         Zero
                         pH adjust,
           clarification
           flocculant addition,

           clarification
           flotation
           flotation
           settling
Discharge

    Zero
    I
    1
    I
    I
    Zero
    U
    Zero
    D
  -  I
    I
    1
    I
    U
    Zero
    I
    I
    D
    I

    D (C)
    I
    1
    I
    I
    Zero
    Zero
    U
    I
    I
    Zero

-------
                                    TABLE V-33 (Continued)

                         TREATMENT IN-PLACE AT LEAD SUBCATEGORY PLANTS
Ni

00
Plant ID

  820
  828
  832
  844
  852

  854
  857
  863
  866
  877
  880
  883
  893
  901
  917
  920
  927
  936
  939
  942
  943
  947
  951
  963
  964
  968
  971
  972
  976
  978
                                   Treatment In-Place
                                               Discharge^
pH adjust
None
pH adjust
pH adjust,
pH adjust,
settling
None
None
pH adjust,
None
pH adjust,
None
Settling
pH adjust
Settling
pH adjust
None
None
pH adjust,
None
None
pH adjust,
pH adjust,
Clarification
None
None
None
Settling,
pH adjust,
pH adjust
pH adjust,
                                    settling
                                    flocculant
addition, clarification,
                                    clarification

                                    clarification, filtration
                                    settle
                                    filtration
                                    filtration
                                   filtration
                                    settling

                                    flocculant addition, clarification
                                                                              (C)
                             Zero
                             Zero
                             I
                             Zero
                             I
                             Zero
                             Zero
                             I
                             Zero
                             I
                             I
                             Zero
                             I
                             U
                             Zero
                             D
                             1 (C)
                             I (C)
                             Zero
                             Zero
                             Zero
                             Zero
                             I
                             I
                             I

-------
                                    TABLE V-33 (Continued)

                         TREATMENT IN-PLACE AT LEAD SUBCATEGORY  PLANTS


        Plant ID	Treatment In-Place	          Discharge

          979            None                                                Zero
          982            pH adjust, settling                                 I (C)
          990            pH adjust                                           I (C)
ro
            I = Indirect
            D = Direct
            U = Unknown
            C = Closed

-------
                                                                         TABLE V-34
                                                                TOTAL RAW WASTE FOR VISITS
                                                                         .  ng/1

                                                              PLANT A
                                                                                            PLANT B
|S3
O
     Temperature (Deg C)              18.2          18.9
 11   1,1,1-Triohloroethane             *             *
 23   Chloroform                        *             *
 44   Methylene chloride                *     *       *
 55   Naphthalene                      0.006         0.013
 65   Phenol                            NA           0.00
 66   Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate        *             *
 67   Butyl  benzyl phthalate            *             *
 68   Di-n-butyl phthalate              *            0.00
 69   Dl-n-octyl phthalate             0.00           *
 78   Anthracene                        *             *
 81   Phenanthrene                      *             *
 84   Pyrene                           0.00           *
114   Antimony                         0.002         0.000
115   Arsenic                          0.000         0.000
118   Cadmium                          0.027         0.003
119   Chromium. Total                  0.120         0.032
     Chromium, Hexavalent             0.000         0.000
120  -Copper                           0.436         0.278
122   Lead                             6.88          1.434
123   Mercury                          0.0000        0.0100
124   Nickel                           0.120         0.022
126   Silver                           0.0000        0.000
128   Zinc      '                       0.305         0.134
     Aluminum                          NA            NA
     Iron                             6.64          6.55
     Manganese                         NA            NA
     Phenols, Total                   0.015         0.014
     Strontium                        0.021         0.000
     Oil &  Grease                    49.0          13.0
     Total  Suspended Solids         416.0          15.0
     pH, Minimum                      2.0           2.0
     pH, MaKirauffl                     11.9           6.8
18.0
*
0.00
0.00
0.015
NA
0.008
#
0.00
*
*
*
*
0.000
0.005
0.005
0.047
0.000
0.378
1.170
0,0260
0.027
0.000
0.193
NA
5.522
NA
0.050
0.000
9.2
16.4
2.0
5.7
17.0
0,025
*
*
*
*
0.135
0.017
*
0,140
0.032
0.032
*
0,000
0.000
0.008
0.009
0.000
0.083
• 13.00
% NA
0.000
0.0330
0.333
NA
2.000
NA
0.008
NA
36.5
57.8
2.2
3.6
17.0
  *
 0.00
  *
  *
  NA
 0,044
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.000
 0.000
 0.003
 0.012
  NA
 0.090
15.40
 0.000
 0.000
 0.0070
 0.350
  NA
 3.800
  NA
 0.000
 0.000
10.6
31.2
 2.0
 4.9
17.0
  *
 0.00
 0.00
  *
  NA
 0.030
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
  *
 0.000
 0.000
 0.012
 0.017
  NA
 0.110
45.90
 0.000
 0.020
 0.015C
 0.380
  NA
 4.370
  NA
 0.000
 0.000
 5.2
52.4
 1.8
 3.9
                  NA - Not Analyzed
                  *  - < 0.01

-------
                                                             TABLE V-34  (continued)
N>
     Temperature (Deg C)             15.3
 11   1,1,1-Trichloroethane             *
 23   Chloroform                     :  0.00
 44   Methylene chloride               0.00
 55   Naphthalene                       *
 65   Phenol                            NA
 66   Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate        *
 67   Bucyl benzyl phthalate           0.00
 68   Di-n-butyL phthalate             0.00
 69   Di-n-octyl phthalate             0.00
 78   Anthracene                       0.00
 81   Phenanthrene                     0.00
 84   Pyrene                           0.00
114   Antimony                         0.000
115   Arsenic                          0.000
118   Cadmium                          0.000
119   Chromium, Total                  0.097
120   Copper                           0.063
1 22   Lead                             1.000
123   Mercury                          0.000
124   Nickel                           0.077
126   Silver                           0.000
128   Zinc                             0.054
     Aluminum                          NA
     Iron                             9.24
     Manganese                         NA
     Phenols, Total                   0.000
     Strontium                        0.027
     Oil & Grease                     3.1
     Total Suspended Solids           6.0
     pH,  Minimum                      2.1
     pH, Maximum                      2.9
                                                           TOTAL RAW WASTE  FOR VISITS
                                                                      mg/1

                                                              PLANT C
16.5
  *
 0.00
  *
 0.00
  NA
 0.01
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.000
 0.000
 0.000
 0.057
 0,078
 1.360
 0.000
 0.036
 0,000
 0.120
  NA
15.51
  NA
 0.000
 0.033
 4.0
14.0
 2.0
 2.4
                                                                                             PLANT D
                                                                     PLANT E
6.7
*
0.00
*
0.00
NA
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.068
0.053
1.450
0.000
0.069
0.000
0.190
NA
9.41
NA
0.000
0.033
3.9
5.0
2.0
2.4
35.1
*
*
*
0.001
NA
0.032
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.000
0.019
0.002
0.670
0.324
18.29
0.000
0.384
0.0000
0.747
NA
15.45
NA
0.018
0.000
10.3
350.1
2.0
12.0
33.5
*
*
*
0.001
NA
0.037
*
' *
*
*
*
0.00
0.090
0.000
0.004
0.732
0.772
15.64
0.000
0.506
0. 0000
1.068
NA
20.14
NA
0.038
0.000
9.4
974.0
2.0
12.0
28.0
*
*
0.00
0.002
NA
0.050
*
*
*
*"
*
0.00
0.194
0.116
0.004
3.267
2.502
44.94
0.000
2.493
0.0230
6.80
NA
74.0
NA
0.028
0.003
16.7
1300.0
2.0
12.0
NA
*
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
*
0.00
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.130
NA
0.034
NA
NA
13.40
0.046C
NA
0.008C
3.88
NA
390.0
NA
0.020
0.000
3.0
184.0
NA
NA
             NA  - Not Analyzed
             *   - <  0,01

-------
                                                             TABLE V-34  (Continued)

                                                           TOTAL RAW WASTE FOR  VISITS
                                                                       ng/l
                                             PLANT F
N>
N>

11
23
44
55
65
66
67
68
69
78
81
84
114
115
118
119

120
122
123
124
126
128









Temperature (Deg C)
1,1,1 -Triehloroethane
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Naphthalene
Phenol
Bis (2-e'thylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene,
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium, Total
Chromium, Hexavalent
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
Phenols, Total
Strontium
Oil & Grease
Total Suspended Solids
pH, Minimum
pH, Maximum
27.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.114
0.014
0.0054
0.244
NA
0.155
135.4
NA
0.192
NA
1.398
1.748
12.084
0.1053
NA
NA
6.27
57.36
1.7
10.11
38.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.536
0.041
0.008
0.090
NA
0.273
36.2
NA
0.021
NA
0.871
2.80
20.1
0.42
NA
«NA
12.6
249.0
1.5
8.0
PLANT G

 38.0
   NA
   HA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
 '  NA
  0.415
  0.030
  0.004
  0.103
   NA
  0.165
 13.5
   NA
  0.055
   NA
  0.736
  2.12
 23.6
  0.34
   NA
   NA
 10.4
257.0
  2.0
  8.0
38.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.226
0.010
0.0001
0.020
NA
0.122
13.2
NA
0.008
NA
0.616
0.53
6.6
0.11
NA
NA
6.3
70.0
2.0
8.0
30.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.078
0.004
0.002
0.047
NA
0.150
23.9
NA
0.027
NA
0.131
1.61
6.60
0. J1
NA
NA
32.5
93.9
1.0
8.0
PLANT H

  30.0
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
   0.054
   0.004
   0.004
   0.060
    NA
   0.115
  12.5
    NA
   0.036
    NA
   0.300
   1.44
   7.41
   0.11
    NA
    NA
  40.8
  57.6
   1.0
   8.0
30.0
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
 0.076
 0.002
 0.001
 0.054
  NA
 0.074
24.1
  NA
 0.032
  NA
 0.211
 1.22
 4.94
 0.09
  NA
  NA
 4.77
40.4
 1.0
 8.0
             NA - Not Analyzed

-------
                                                                     TABLE V-35
                                                                 LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                                                             TOTAL RAW WASTE LOADINGS
                                                                       mg/kg

                                                           PLANT A
to
to
u>
     Flow (I/kg)
     Temperature  (Deg C)
 11   1,1,1-Trichloroethane
 23   Chloroform
 44   Methylene chloride
 55   Naphthalene
 65   Phenol
 66   Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
 67   Butyl benzyl phthalate
 68   Di-n-butyl phthalate
 69   Di-n-octyl phthalate
 78   Anthracene
 81   Phenanthrene
 84   Pyrene
114   Antimony
115   Arsenic
118   Cadmium
119   Chromium,  Total
     Chromium,  Hexavalent
120   Copper
122   Lead
123   Mercury
124   Nickel
126   Silver
128   Zinc
     Aluminum
     Iron
     Manganese
     Phenols, Total
     Strontium
     Oil & Grease
     Total Suspended Solids
     pH,  Minimum
     pH,  Maximum
  1.207         1.196
 18.2          18.9
  0.00          0.00
  0.00          0.00
  0.00          0.00
  0.008         0.016
   NA           0.00
  0.00          0.00
  0.00          0.00
  0.00          0.00
  0.00          0.00
  0.00          0.00
  0.00          0.00
  0.00          0.00
  0.002         0.000
  0.000         0.000
  0. 033         0. 004
  0.145         0.038
  0.000         0.000
  0.526         0.333
  8.31          1.715
  0.0000        0.0120
  0.145         0.026
  0.0000        0.0000
  0.368         0.160
   NA            NA
  8.02          7.84
   NA            NA
  0.019         0.017
  0.025         0.000
 59.15         15.51
502.2          17.97
  2.0           2.0
 11.9           6.8
0.705
18.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.011
NA
0.006
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.004
0.004
0.033
0.000
0.266
0.825
0.0185
0.019
0.0000
0.136
NA
3.894
NA
0.035
0.000
6.52
11.60
2.0
5.7
8.84
17.0
0.221
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.193
0.150
0.00
1.237
0.283
0.283
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.071
0.080
0.000
0.734
114.9
NA
0.000
0.2920
2.943
NA
17.68
NA
0.071
NA
322.6
510.8
2.2
3.6
PLANT B

   9.87
  17.0
   0.00
   0.00
   0.00
   0.00
    NA
   0.434
   0.00
   0.00
   0.00
   0.00
   0.00
   0.00
   0.000
   0.000
   0.030
   0.118
    NA
   0.889
 152.0
   0.000
   0.000
   0.0690
   3.455
    NA
  37.52
    NA
   0.000
   0.000
 104.7
 308.0
   2.0
   4.9
 10.27
 17.0
  0.00
  0.00
  0.00
  0.00
   NA
  0.308
  0.00
  0.00
  0.00
  0.00
  0.00
  0.00
  0.000
  0.000
  0.123
  0.175
   NA
  1.130
471.4
  0.000
  0.205
  0. 0000
  3.903
   NA
 44.88
   NA
  0.000
  0.000
 53.41  '
538.2
  1.8
  3.9
              NA - Not Analyzed

-------
                                                     TABLE V-35 (Continued)

                                                        LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                                                    TOTAL RAW WASTE LOADINGS
                                                              mg/kg
                                                 PLANT  C

     Flow (I/kg)                      6,68          6.59
     Temperature (Deg C)             15.3          16.5
 11   1,1,1-Trichloroethane            0.00          0.00
 23   Chloroform                  '     0.00          0.00
 44   Methylene chloride               0.00          0.00
 55   Naphthalene                      0.00          0.00
 65   Phenol                            NA            NA
 66   Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate       0.00          0.066
 67   Butyl benzyl phthalate           0,00          0.00
 68   Dl-n-butyl phthalate             0.00          0.00
 69   Dl-n-octyl phthalate             0.00          0.00
 78   Anthracene                       0.00          0.00
 81   Phenanthrene                     0.00          0.00
 84   Pyrene                           0.00          0.00
114   Antimony                         0.000         0.000
115   Arsenic                          0.000         0.000
118   Cadmium                          0.000         0.000
119   Chromium, Total                  0.648         0.376
     Chromium, Hexavalent              NA            NA
120   Copper                           0.421         0.514
122   Lead  '                           6.68          8.96
123   Mercury                          0.0000        0.0000
124   Nickel                           0.515         0.237
126   Silver                           0.0000        0.0000
128   Zinc                             0.361         0.791
     Aluminum                          NA            NA
     Iron                            61.8         102.2
     Manganese                         NA            NA
     Phenols, Total                   0.000         0.000
     Strontium                        0.180         0.218
     Oil & Grease                    20.72         26.37
     Total Suspended Solids          40.11         92.28
     pH, Minimum                      2.1           2.0
     pH, Maximum                      2.9           2.4
PLANT D
PLANT E
6.98
16.7
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.474
NA
0.370
10.12
0. 0000
0.481
0. 0000
1.326
NA
65.7
NA
0.000
0.230
27.21
34.89
2.0
2.4
1.351
35.1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
0.043
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.025
0.003
0.905
NA
0.437
24.71
0. 0000
0.519
0.0010
1.009
NA
20.87
NA
0.025
0.000
13.96
472.8
2.0
12.0
1.252
33.5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
0.046
. 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.113
0.000
0.005
0.917
NA
0.967
19.60
0. 0000
0.634
0.0010
1.337
NA
25.21
NA
0.048
0.000
11.82
1220.0
2.0
12.0
0.562
28.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
0.028
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.109
0.065
0.002
1.835
NA
1.405
25.24
0. 0000
1.400
0.0129
3.821
NA
41.58
NA
0.016
0.001
9.36
731.0
2.0
12.0
0.218
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 -
0.000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.028
NA
0.007
NA
0.000
NA
2.920
0.0101
NA
0. 001 8
0.845
NA
85.0
NA
0.004
0.000
0.654
40.1
NA
NA
     NA - Not Analyzed

-------
                                                              TABLE V-35 (Continued)

                                                                 LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                                                             TOTAL RAW WASTE LOADINGS
                                                                       rag/kg
                                             PLANT F
N>
     Flow (I/kg)
     Temperature (Deg C)
 11   1,I,1-Triehloroethane
 23   Chloroform
 44  ; Methylene chloride
 55   Naphthalene.
 65   Phenol
 66   Bia(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
 67   Butyl  benzyl phthalate
 68   Di-n-butyl phthalate
 69   Di-n-octyl phthalate
 78   Anthracene
 81   Phenanthrene
 84   Pyrene
114  " Antimony
115   Arsenic
118  .'-Cadmium
119  ,'Chromium, Total
    ^Chromium, Hexavalent
120  ,-Copper
122  . Lead
123  - Mercury
124  ' Nickel
126  ., Si Iver, .
128  . Zinc
     Aluminum
     Iron
     Manganese
     Phenols, Total
     Strontium  •
     •Oil  &; Grease
     Total  Suspended Solids
     pH,  Minimum.
     pH,  Maximum
0.407
27.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0465
0.0055
0.002
0.010
NA
0.063
55.16
NA
0.078
NA
0.570
0.711
4.92
0.043
NA
NA
2.55
23.37
1.7
10.11
1.02
38.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
' NA
0.545
0.042
0.008
0.091
NA
0.277
36.8
NA
0.021
NA
0.885
2.86
20.4
0.43
NA
NA
12.7
253.0
1.5
8.0
 PLANT G

  1.4
 38.0
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
  0.582
  0.042
  0.006
  0.145
   NA
  0.232
 18.9
   NA
  0.077
   NA
  1.03
  2.97
 33.0
  0.48
   NA
   NA
 14.6
360.0
  2.0
  8.0
2.10
38.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.474
0.020
0. 0002
0. 0425
NA
0.2563
27.7
NA
0.016
NA
1.29
1.11
13.9
0.23
NA
NA
13.3
146.0
2.0
8.0
3.36
30.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.262
0.012
0.006
0.157
NA
0.504
80.4
NA
0. 090
NA
0.439
5.41
22.2
0.37
NA
NA
109.0
315.0
1.0
8.0
PLANT H

  3.17
 30.0
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
  0.172
  0.011
  0.013
  0.190
   NA
  0.365
 39.7
   NA
  0.114
   NA
  0.951
  4.56
 23.5
  0.35
   NA
   NA
129.0
183.0
  1.0
  8.0
  7.65
 30.0
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
  0.583
  0.018
  0.010
  0.410
   NA
  0.565
185.0
   NA
  0.247
   NA
  1.617
  9.33
 37.8
  0.69
   NA
   NA
 36.5
309.3
  1.0
  8.0
              NA  -  Not  Analyzed

-------
                                                                   TABLE V-36

                                           STATISTICAL ANALYSIS  (rag/1)  OF THE LEAD SUBCATEGORY TOTAL
                                                           RAW WASTE CONCENTRATIONS
                                           Minimum
                                                  Maximum
Mean
N>
to
ON
     Temperature (Deg C)
 11   1,1,1-TrichloroeChane
 23   Chloroform
 44   Methylene chloride
 55   Naphthalene
 65   Phenol
 66   Bis(2-eehylhexyl)phthalate
 67   Butyl benzyl phchalate
 68   Di-n-butyl phthalate
 69   Di-n-oceyl phchalate
 78   Anthracene
 81   Phenanthrene
 84   Pyrene
114   Antimony
115   Arsenic
118   Cadmium
119   Chromium, Total
     Chromium, Hexavalent
120   Cdpper
122   Lead
123   Mercury
124   Nickel
126   Silver
128   Zinc
     Aluminum
     Iron
     Manganese
     Phenols, Total
     Strontium
     Oi1 & Grease
     Total Suspended Solids
     pH,  Minimum
     pH,  Maximum
5.3
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.000
0,000
0.000
0.009
0.000
0.053
1,0
0.0000
0.000
0.0000
0.054
0.53
2,0
0.09
0.000
0.000
3.0
5.0
1.0
2.4
38.0
0.025
*
*
0.015
*
0.135
0.017
*
0.140
0.032
0.032
*
0.536
0.116
0.034
3.267
0.000
2.502
135.4
0.046
2.493
0.0330
6.8
2.80
390.0
0.42
0.050
0.033
49.0
1,300.0
2.2
11.9
25.4
0.002
*
*
0.003
*
0.029
0.001
*
0.011
0.002
0.002
*
0.096
0.013
0.006
0.301
0.000
0.327
21.93
0.0068
0.217
0.0066
0.941
1.638
32.2
0.184
0.015
0.010
14.4
212.4
1.8
7.3
Med ian

27.0
  *
 0.00
  *
  *
  *
 0.030
  *
  *
 0.00
  *
  *
 0.00
 0.028
 0.002
 0.004
 0.06
 0.000
 0.15
13.45
 0.0000
 0.036
 0.0000
 0.342
 1.61
 8.3
 0.11
 0.014
 0.000
 9.9
   7
                                                                                      57
                                                                                       2.0
                                                                                       8.0
 I
Val

 19
 13
  6
  8
 10
  1
 13
  7
  8
  6
  7
  7
  5
 11
 10
 17
 19
  0
 19
 20
  4
 17
  8
 20
  7
 20
  7
  8
  5
 20
 20
 19
 19
  #
Zeros

  0
  0
  7
  5
  3
  2
  0
  6
  5
  7
  6
  6
  8
  9
  9
  3
  0
  5
  0
  0
  8
  2
  5
  0
  0
  0
  0
  5
  7
  0
  0
  0
  0
            *  - < 0.01

-------
                                                            TABLE V-37

                                      STATISTICAL  ANALYSIS  (rag/kg)  OF THE LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                                                    TOTAL  RAW  WASTE LOADINGS
                                                  Minimum
Maximum
Mean
                                                                                             Median
     Flow (L/kg)
     Temperature  (Deg C)
 11   1,1,1-Trichloroethane
 23   Chloroform
 44   Methylene chloride
 65   Phenol '
 66   Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
 67   Butyl  benzyl phthalate
 68   Di-n-butyl phthalate
 69   Di-n-octyl phthalate
 78   Anthracene
 81   Phenanthrene
 84   Pyrene
114   Antimony
115   Arsenic
118   Cadmium
119   Chromium, Total
     Chromium, Hexavalent
120   Copper
122   Lead
123   Mercury
124   Nickel
126   Silver
128   Zinc
     Aluminum
     Iron
     Manganese
     Phenols,  Total.
     Strontium
     Oil &  Grease
     Total  Suspended Solids
     pH, Minimum
     pH, Maximum
0.218
15.3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.01
0.000
0.063
0.825
0.0000
0. 000
0.000
0.136
0.711
3.894
0.043
0.000
0.000
0.654
11.6
1.0
2.4
10.27
38.0
0.221
0.00
0.016
0.00
1.193
0.028
0.00
1.237
0.283
0.283
0.00
0.583
0.065
0.123
1.835
0.000
1.405
471.4
0.0185
1.4
0.2920
3.903
9.33
102.2
0.69
0.071
0.230
322.6
1220.0
2.2
11.9
3.74
25.4
0.017
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.185
0.012
0.00
0.095
0.022
0.022
0.00
0.146
0.013
0.016
0.357
0.000
0.540
64.55
0.0034
0.2539
0.0291
1.362
3.850
33.89
0.370
0.018
0.055
49.48
305.5
1.8
7.3
1.75
27.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.043
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.015
0.004
0.0055
0.157
0.000
0.437
24.98
0.0000
0.114
0.0000
0.98
2.97
24.36
0.37'
0.016
0.000
18.12
280.5
2.0
8.0

-------
                                             TABLE V-38

                    EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS REPORTED IN DCP BY PLANTS  PRACTICING
                                pH ADJUSTMENT AND SETTLING TECHNOLOGY
00
      ID #
Direct/
Indirect
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
D
I
I
D
I
I
I
D
I
I
D
I
I
D
I
Production
Normalized
 Effluent
   I/kg

   5.10
   1.88
   3.15
   8.0
   4.56
   9.76
   2.01
   6.35
  13.32
                           51.
                            1.
                            1.
                            2,
                            5.
                 9
                 74
                 34
                 57
                 76
 pH

6.9



7.5

6.9
7

6.65
                                                 Pollutant Parameters  (mg/1)
O&G
                                                 8.2
                                                 4.5
TSS

20
                            1.58
                           5.85
                       26.14
          3.7
          3

          1.4
          4.6
                 330
                 257.7
Fe
       2.7
       0.2
Pb
      1.1-4.3
        7.5
        0.4
        0.5
        1.0
        0.8
        0.187

        1.0
        0.28

        1.0
        0.25
Zn
 Paste
Recirc
                                                         0.1
                X
                X

-------
                                                                  TABLE  V-39

                                   EFFLUENT  CHARACTERISTICS  REPORTED  IN  INDUSTRY SURVEY BY PLANTS PRACTICING
                                                    pH ADJUSTMENT AND SETTLING TECHNOLOGY
                                                             Pollutant Parameters  (mg/1)
to
NS
ID t

 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 G
 H
 I
 J
 K
 L
 M
 N
 0
 P
 Q
 R
 S
 T
 U
 V
Direct/
Indirect
D
I
I
I
I
I
D
i
i
i
D
I
'1
I 1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
Influent to WWT
PH




1.66
2
3-11
2.0
1.5-6.7
2.1
1.25
2.;61
1
.25-3.5
2

3-9


1.7
2
2
TSS






<100
3,580

1,203
38

100



1,500
13,470

81


Pb 304




28.8 2,250

1-15
18
8-75
450
18.5 .7,820
7.90
1-10
49-80 6,073

1-10
1-40
1,300

5.7


Average Effluent from
pH
8.0
7.41


7.93
8
7.6
8

8.2
8.76
7.8
9.0

9.0
9.0
8.8-9.2

9.2
7.9
8
7.5
TSS

4,810

3.80
29

30



7
34
50
29
150

300-500
57.1
70.0
48.3

90
Pb
0.47
3.36

2.3
1.51

0.09
0.5
0,76
2.3
0.14
0.55
1.1
3.11
0.5
1.1
3.5
1.30
6.0
2.91
0.1
0.3
WWT Permit or
804 pH
6-9

5.5-10
6.0-9.0

5.5-10
6-9.5

6.5-8.5
6-10
6-9
6-9
5.5-9.5
6.5-9.5
>6.0

6.0-9.5
6-9.5
>6.0
6-9
6-10
6.5-9
TSS

250
400

250




None
20
50




None
None
None
250
250

POTW Limit
Pb 804

0.4

10
1.0

0.5

0.6
0.05
0.14
0.5
3.0

40
3.0
0.5

40.0
5.0


         <    -  Less Than

         >    -  Greater Than

         WWT  -  Wastewater treatment

-------
                                             TABLE V-40

                    EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS REPORTED IN DCP BY PLANTS PRACTICING
                                    pH ADJUSTMENT AND FILTRATION
K>
W
o



ID #
A
B
C-f-
D
E
F
G


Direct/
Indirect
I
D
I
I
I
D
I
Production
Normalized
Effluent
I/kg
2.78
4.41
43.1
1.56
3.46
9.9
0.70
                                                 Pollutant Parameters  (mg/1)
                                         pH
                                        7.5
                                        7.5

                                       11.2
O&G
TSS

 0



 0.0
Fe
                                                                 0.3
Pb

1.0
0.05
0.5
0.3

0.47
0.25
      Past
Zn   Recir
                                0.1
                                0.34
                                0.1
                        X
          Filter & Settle,

-------
                                                          TABLE V-41

                          EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS REPORTED IN INDUSTRY SURVEY BY PLANTS PRACTICING
                                             pH ADJUSTMENT AND FILTER TECHNOLOGY


                                                     Pollutant Parameters (mg/1)
       Direct/     	Influent to WWT	
ID ff

 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 G
 H
Direct/
Indirect
I
I
0
I
I
I
1
D
Influent to WWT


2

2
<1
<2

1
pH TSS

.0

.0
.0
.0

.7
Pb S04

10

6.9
5-300
7.0

26.4
Average Effluent
pH
7.1
7.3
7.5
7.5
7.5
6.92
8.7
7.67
TSS
0

0
1
2
0
0
29 0
from WWT
Pb S04
.9

.3
.0
.0
.25
.5 1,850
.24
Permit or
PH
5-12
6-9
6-9
6-9
6-10
6-9
6-9
6-9
TSS






265
20
POTW Limit



0

0
2
0
0
Pb


.5

.07

.5
.14
S(>4






75C

<   - Less Than

WWT - Wastewater Treatment

-------
                                       TABLE V-42

              EFFLUENT 'CHARACTERISTICS REPORTED IN DCP BY PLANTS PRACTICING
                                   pH ADJUSTMENT ONLY
ID #
     Direct/
     Indirect
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J+
K •
L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Production
Normalized
 Effluent
   I/kg         pH

   6.07
  22.9
   3.73
  81.7
  13.5
   5.35
  51.9         6.95
  10.1
   5.02        5.7
  26.4
  63.3
  15.0
Pollutant Parameters (mg/1)

O&G      TSS     Fe      Pb
                                                     1.4
                                                    33
                                                    32
                                                         0.2
                        29.8
                        10-15
                         2.77
                         6.0
                        27.5

                         1.0
                                                                  3.95
                                                                  10-15
                                                                  3.0
                                                                  26.92
      Paste
Zn   Recirc
                                                                         0.4
                                                                            0.24
- Reports no effluent treatment prior to release to
                                                      POTW.

-------
                                                          TABLE V-43

                          EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS REPORTED IN INDUSTRY SURVEY BY PLANTS PRACTICING
                                                      pH ADJUSTMENT ONLY

ID #
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
R
Direct/


Indirect pH
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I


2-10
2-9
1-2
2
2-9
<2. 0
1-11
2

1-10
2-12
2-12

1-12


Influent
TSS


<100
50-750
346

<100

50-150 1


200-1,500
<100
<75

<100


to WWT
Polli
itant Par
rameters (
.mR/1)

Average Effluent trom WWT Permit or
Pb S04 pH


1-15
2-20
6.5

15-100

.0-10.0


7-25
2-50
1-15

2-10

7.2
7.0
7.8
7.5
6.5
8
7
-7.5
8
6.5
8
7.8
8.4
8
6.6
6.5-7.5
8.7
TSS


50
25
350

<100
47
50
5,200
100
<300
<75
68
67
<50

Pb
3.9
3.5
1.5
3.8
6.0

5
1.25
4.0
20.6
6.0
0.5
4.0
2.3
13.2
3.0
5.6
304 pH

6.0-9.0
6-9.5
6-9.5
5-10
5.5-10
5.5-9.5
5-10
6-9.5
5-10
2,000 5.5-7
6-9.0
6-9.5
5.5-10
6-9
6-9.5
6-9
TSS







275
300


350



<300


POTW Limit
Pb SO;
15.0
None
2
1.0
1.0

0.5
1.0
2.0


0.2
0.5
0.3
40

None
<   - Less Than

WWT - Wastewater Treatment

-------
                                                                           TABLE V-44

                                                               INFLUENT TO WASTEWATER TREATMENT
                                                                   POLLUTANT CHARACTERISTICS
                                                                              ng/l
                                                          PLANT F
S3
CO
     Temperature (Deg C)              28.0
 !1   1,1,1-Trichloroethane             NA
 23   Chloroform                        NA
 44   Methylene chloride                NA
 55   Naphthalene                       NA
 65   Phenol                            NA
 66   Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate        NA
 67   Butyl benzyl phthalate            NA
 68   Di-n-butyl phthalate              NA
 69   Di-n-octyl phthalate              NA
 78   Anthracene                        NA
 81   Phenanthrene                      NA
 84   Py-rene                            NA
114   Antimony                         0.021
1.15   Arsenic                          0.017
1,18   Cadmium                          0.009
119   Chromium,' Total                  0.66
     Chromium, Hexavalent              NA
120   Copper                           0.2
122   Lead                             4.8
123   Mercury                           NA
124   Nickel                           0.47
126   Silver .                           NA
128   Zinc                             2.8
     Aluminum   .                      0.87
     Iron                            23.0
     Manganese                        0.000
     Phenols, Total    , .                NA
     Strontium                         NA
     Oil & Grease                     0.000
     Total Suspended Solids  '        26.0
     pH,  Minimum                      1.4
     pk.  Maximum                      1.5
27.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.017 '
0.006
0.000
0.51
NA
0.089
4.3
NA
0.39
NA
0.34
0.54
18.0
0.23
NA
NA
0.000
26.0
1.3
1.6
28.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.26
0.04
0.04
0.06
NA
0.15
4.2
NA
0.05
NA
0.78
2.6
9.8
0.15
NA
NA
2.0-
270.0
1.5
1.5
PLANT G

  28.0
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
   0.28
   0.02
   0.000
   0.08
    NA
   0.1
  14.6
    NA
   0.05
    NA
   0.76
   1.6
   8.2
   0.15
    NA
    NA
  18.0
  70.0
   1.5
   2.0
26.0
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
 0.21
 0.01
 0.000
 0.06
  NA
 0.05
 6.6
  NA
 0.05
  NA
 0.6
 1.1
 5.2
 0.2
  NA
  NA
22.0
52.0
 1.5
 1.7
                    NA  - Not Analyzed

-------
                                                                    TABLE V-44 (Continued)

                                                               INFLUENT TO WASTEWATER TREATMENT
                                                                   POLLUTANT  CHARACTERISTICS
                                                                              mg/1
US
     Temperature (Deg C)
 11  1,1,1-Trichloroethane
 23  Chloroform
 44  Methylene chloride
 55  Naphthalene
 65  Phenol
 66  Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
 67  Butyl benzyl phthalate
 68  ^Di-n-butyl phthalate
 69  'Di-n-octyl phthalate
 78  Anthracene
 81  Phenanthrene
 84  Pyrene
,114  ,,Antimony
115  ,Arsenle
118  Cadmium
119  Chromium, Total
     Chromium, Hexavalent
120  Copper
122  Lead
123  Mercury
,124  Nickel
126  Silver
128  Zinc
     Aluminum
     Iron
     Manganese
     Phenols, Total
     Strontium
     Oil & Grease
     Total Suspended Solids
     pH,  Minimum
     pH,  Maximum
30.0
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
 2.1
 0.42
 1.8
 0.000
  NA
 0.5
25.0
  NA
 0.5
  NA
 3.2
 4.0
21.0
 1.0
  NA
  NA
 2.0
22.0
 1.0
 6.0
PLANT H

  30.0
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
   3.6
   0.54
   1.6
   0.000
    NA
   1.0
  21.0
    NA
   0.5
    NA
   2.6
   4.0
  30.5
   1.0
    NA
    NA
   9.4
  95.0
   1.0
   1.0
 30.0
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
  7.0
  0.94
  2.0
  0.000
   NA
  2.5
 41.0
   NA
  1.5
   NA
 10.8
  8.0
 54.5
  2.0
   NA
   NA
 12.0
200.0
  1.0
  1.0
                    NA - Not Analyzed

-------
                                                          PLANT B
                                                            TABLE V-45

                                                  EFFLUENT FROM SAMPLED PLANTS


                                                                       ng/1
                                                                                                         PLANT C
CO
     Temperature (Deg C)              17.0          17.0
 11   1,1,1-Trichloroethane             *             *
 23  Chloroform                       0.029         0.00
 44  Methylene chloride                *            0.00
 55  Naphthalene                      0.00          0.00
 65 .Phenol                            *             NA
 66  Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate       0.016          *
 67  Butyl  benzyl phthalate           0.00           *
 68  Di-n-butyl phthalate              *            0.00
 69  Di-n-octyl phthalate             0.00          0.00
 78  Anthracene                        *            0.00
 81   Phenanthrene                      *            0.00
 84  Pyrene                            *            0.00
114  Antimony                         0.000         0.000
115  Arsenic                          0.000         0.000
118  Cadmium                          0.003         0.000
119  Chromium, Total                  0.000         0.010
     Chromium, Hexavalent             0.000          NA
120  Copper                           0.000         0.040
122  Lead                             1.350         4.050
123  Mercury                           NA           0.000
124  Nickel                           0.000         0.000
126  Silver                           0.000         0.000
128  Zinc                             0.095         0.096
     Aluminum                          NA            NA
     Iron                             0.000         0.710
     Manganese                         NA            NA
     Phenols, Total                   0.000         0.000
     Strontium                         NA           0.020
     Oil &  Grease                    10.0           9.9
     Total  Suspended Solids          90.6          76.0
     pH, Minimum                      6.5           7.2
     pH, Maximum                      8.5           8.8
17.0
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
*
0.00
0.00
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.005
NA
0.034
3.580
0.000
0.012
0.000
0.084
NA
0.590
NA
0.000
0.013
5.0
39.8
6.6
7.9
7.60
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
NA
0.018
0.110
0.000
0.011
0.000
0.000
NA
0.760
NA
0.000
0.029
1.4
13.0
9.0
9.3
7.80
 *
0.00
 *
0.00
 NA
 *
 *
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.005
 NA
0.014
0.130
0.000
0.009
0.000
0.000
 NA
0.920
 NA
0.000
  027
  7
  0
  7
                                                                                                              0
                                                                                                              2
                                                                                                             11
                                                                                                              8
                                                                                                              9.1
 8.50
  *
 0.00
  *
 0.00
  NA
  *
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.00
 0.000
 0.000
 0.000
 0.005
  NA
 0.019
 0.110
 0.000
 0.011
 0.000
 0.037
  NA
 0.950
  NA
 0.000
 0.027
 2.2
11.0
 8.6
 9.1
                    NA - Not Analyzed
                    *  - < 0.01

-------
                                                                  TABLE V-45  (continued)

                                                               EFFLUENT FROM  SAMPLED  PLANTS
                                                                            mg/1
K>
     Temperature (Deg C)
 11   1,1,1-Trichloroethane
 23   Chloroform
 44   Methylene chloride
 55   Naphthalene
 65   Phenol
 66   Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
 67   Butyl  benzyl phthalate
 68   Di-n-butyl phthalate
 69.  Dl-n-octyl phthalate
 78   Anthracene
 81  . Phenanthtene
 84  -Pyrene
114   Antimony
115   Arsenic
118   Cadmium
119   Chromium, Total
   •  Chromium, Hexavalent
120   Copper
122   Lead
123   Mercury
1'24   Nickel
126   Silver
128   Zinc
     Aluminum
     Iron  ,
     Manganese
    . Phenols,- Total
     StronCiun
     Oil &  Crease
     Tocal  Suspended Solids
     pH, Minimum
    . pH,-Maximum
32,0
  *
  *
  *
 0.00
  NA
  *
  *
  *
 0,00
  *
  *
 0.00
 0,000
 0.000
 0.000
 0.010
  NA
 0.059
 6.06
 0.000
 0.110
 0.000
 0.165
  NA
 0.420
  NA
 0.019
 0.000
 2.3
 3.5
 6.0
10.4
                                                               PLANT D

                                                                31.0
                                                                  *
                                                                 0.00
                                                                  NA
                                                                 0.023
                                                                 0.023
                                                                 0.00
                                                                 0.00
                                                                  *
0.00
.0,000
0.000
0.000
0.010
 NA
0.050
3,880
0.000
0.068
0.000
0.000
 NA
0.280
 NA
0.014
0.000
  7
  0
  7
                                                                                                    PLANT F
                                                                 1
                                                                11
                                                                 7
                                                                 9.2
NA
*
*
*
0.00
NA
0.00
0.00
*
0.00
*
*
o.oo'
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.059
NA
0.090
13.30
0.000
0.046
0.000
0.105
NA
3.380
NA
0.006
0.000
7.0
66.0
7.0
9.0
28.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
- ' NA
NA
NA
NA
0.044
0,043
0.007
0.000
NA
0.023
0.000
NA
0.31
NA
0.15
0.000
0.000
0.10
NA
NA
0.000
33.0
NA
NA
28.0
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
 0.060
 0.037
 0.003
 0.000-
  NA
 0.012
 0,000
  NA
 0.35
  NA
 0.000
 0.000
 0.000
 0.1'3
  NA
  NA
 0.000
25.0
  NA
 7.11
                  NA  -  Not  Analyzed
                  *   -  < 0.01

-------
                                                                   TABLE V-45  (Continued)

                                                                EFFLUENT FROM  SAMPLED  PLANTS
                                                                             ag/1
N>
U»
00
                                                  PLANT  G

     Temperature (Deg C)              24.0           23.0
 11   1,1,1-Trichloroethane            HA            NA
 23  Chloroform                       NA            NA
 44  Methylene chloride               NA            NA
 55  Naphthalene                      NA            NA
 65  Phenol                           NA            NA
 66  Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate       NA            NA
 67  Butyl benzyl phthalate       .     NA            NA
 68  Di-n-butyl phthalate             NA            NA
 69  Di-n-octyl phthalate             NA            NA
 78  Anthracene                       NA            NA
 81   Phenanthrene                     NA            NA
 84  Pyrene                           NA            NA
114  Antimony                         0.12           0.13
115  Arsenic                          0.000          0.000
118  Cadmium                          0.000          0.000
119  Chromium, Total                  0.000          0.000
     Chromium, Hexavalent             NA        -    NA
120  Copper                           0.000          0.000
122  Lead                             0.2            0.1
123  -Mercury                          NA            NA
124  Nickel                           0.000          0.000
126  Silver                           NA            NA
128  Zinc                             0.06           0.02
     Aluminum                         0.1            0.1
     Iron                             0.05           0.05
     Manganese                        0.1            0.1
     Phenols, Total                   NA            NA
     Strontium                        NA            NA
     Oil & Grease                     0.000          0.000
     Total Suspended Solids           15.0            5.0
     pH, Minimum                      7.5  .          7.6
     pH, Maximum                      7.6            8.1
24.0
NA
NA
NA
•NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.17
0.000
0.000
0.000
NA
0.05
0.3
NA
0.000
NA
0.06
0.1
0.1
0.1
NA
NA
4.2
9.0
8.0
8.8
30.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.3
0.000
0.04
0.000
NA
0.05
0.1
NA
0.000
NA
0.000
0.2
0.1
0.150
NA
NA
9.0
140.0
NA
9.0
PLANT H

  30.0
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
    NA
   1.6
   0.000
   0.000
   0.000
    NA
   0.000
   0.07
    NA
   0.000
    NA
   0.000
   0.000
   0.000
   0.000
    NA
    NA
   0.000
  46.0
    NA
   9.0
30.0
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
  NA
 1.7
 0.000
 0.000
 0.000
  NA
 0.000
 0.19
  NA
 0.000
  NA
 0.000
 0.000
 0.000
 0.000
  NA
  NA
 2.0
25.0
  NA
 9.0
                    NA - Not Analyzed
                    *  - < 0.01

-------
                                                                  TABLE V-45  (Continued)

                                                               EFFLUENT FROM  SAMPLED  PLANTS
                                                                            mg/1
LO
     Temperature (Deg C)
 •11   1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane
 •23   Chloroform
 44   Methylene chloride
 55   Naphthalene
 65   Phenol
 66   Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phchalate
 67   Butyl benzyl phthalate
 68   Di-n-butyl phthalate
 69   Ot-n-octyl phthalate
 78   Anthracene
 81   Phenanthrene
 84'  Pyrene
114   Antimony
115   Arsenic
118   Cadmium
119   Chromium, Total
     Chromium, Hexavalent
120   Copper
122   Lead
123   Mercury
124   Nickel
126   Silver ' •
128   Zinc
     Aluminum
     Iron
     Manganese
     Phenols, Total
     Strontium
     Oil & Grease
     Total Suspended Solids
     pH, Minimum
     pH, Maximum
PLANT I

 28.0
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
  N0.007
  0.006
  0.000
  0.000
   NA
  0.000
  0.000
   NA
  0.077
   NA
  1.4
  0.000
  0.29
  0.066
   NA
   NA
  0.000
  0.000
   NA
  7.2
PLANT J

   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
  0.110
  0.000
  0.000
  0.000
   NA
  0.000
  0.100
   NA
  0.000
   NA
  0.080
  0.200
  0.200
  0.000
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
   NA
                   NA -  Not Analyzed
                   *  -  < 0.01

-------
       LEAD
      PbO-Pb
SULFURIC ACID
 WASTEWATER
                                                                              WASTEWATER
                                                                   WASTEWATER
          •RECYCLED TO SMELTER
                                     FIGURE V-1
           LEAD SUBCATEGORY GENERALIZED MANUFACTURING PROCESS
                                      240

-------
                            FIGURE V-2

                    LEAD SUBCATEGORY ANALYSIS
PROCESS ELEMENTS

Anodes and Cathodes

Leady Oxide Production


Grid Manufacture

  Grid Casting
  Mold Release Formulation
  Direct Chill Casting
  Lead Rolling

Paste Preparation and Application
Curing


Closed Formation (In Case)

  Single Fill



  Double Fill




  Fill and Dump




Open Formation (Out of Case)

  Wet
SPECIFIC WASTEWATER SOURCES
   Ball Mill Shell Cooling
   Scrubber*
   Scrubber*
   Equipment Wash
   Contact Cooling
   Spent Emulsion Solution

   Equipment and Floor Area
   Cleanup
   Scrubber*

   Steam Curing
   Humidity Curing
   Contact Cooling
   Formation Area Washdown
   Scrubber*

   Contact Cooling
   Scrubber*
   Product Rinse
   Formation Area Washdown

   Contact Cooling
   Scrubber*
   Product Rinse
   Formation Area Washdown
•  Plate Rinse
*  Spent Formation Electrolyte
•  Formation Area Washdown
*  Scrubber*
                               241

-------
                      FIGURE  V-2  (Continued)
                    LEAD  SUBCATEGORY  ANALYSIS
PROCESS ELEMENTS
  Dehydrated


Plate Soak
Ancillary Operations
Assembly - Small Parts Casting
Battery Wash
  With Detergent
  Water Only
Floor Wash

Wet Air Pollution Control

Battery Repair
Laboratory


Truck Wash

Personal Hygiene
Hand Wash
Respirator Wash
Laundry
SPECIFIC WASTEWATER SOURCES
*  Formation Area Washdown
•  Plate Rinse
•  Vacuum Pump Seals
*  Scrubber*
•  Soaking Acid
   Scrubber*
*  Detergent Battery Wash
•  Water Only Battery Wash
*  Floor Wash
*  Power Floor Scrubbers
*  Scrubber Slowdown From
   *'d Processes
•  Battery Repair Area Wash
*  Laboratory Sinks
•  Battery Electrolyte
*  Laboratory Wash
*  Scrubber Slowdown
•  Truck Wash
*  Hand Wash
•  Respirator Wash and Rinse
•  Clothing Wash and Rinse
                               242

-------
      1OO
O
X
x
j

O
0
01
N
2
i
oc
O
O
a
O
DC
0.
                                                           Sample
                                                 Median     Median   Number
                                                 (Zeros     (Zeros      of
                                                Excluded)   Included)   Values
Number
  of
 Zeros
                        Formation
                          Open Case:
                           Dehydrated
                          Closad Case
                           Damn
                          Leadv Oxide Production
                  5      10   15 20    30   40   50   60    70    80   85   90    95
               98
                                       PERCENT OF PLANTS


                                            FIGURE V-3
                PERCENT PRODUCTION NORMALIZED DISCHARGE FROM
                       LEAD SUBCATEGORY PROCESS OPERATIONS
                                               243

-------
to
      O
      O
      Q
      tu
      N
      CC
      .O
      Z

      Z
      g

      .o
      3
      Q
      O
      IT
      Q.
                                   I        I       I
                                   SAMPLE  NUMBER NUMBER
               PROCESS             MEDIAN    OF     OF
                                    (L/KG)  VALUES  ZEROS -
               SINGLE FILL FORMATION    0      43     31
               DOUBLE FILL FORMATION   .44      35   .  7
                   10
                                    DOUBLE FILL
                                    FORMATION,
                                          oxo
                                                                      SINGLE FILL
                                                                      FORMATION
20
30      40       iO      60      70


    CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF PLANTS
80
100
                                             FIGURE V-4
            PRODUCTION NORMALIZED DISCHARGE FROM DOUBLE AND SINGLE FILL FORMATION

-------
                     LEAD
ACID  WATER
 J	L
                 LEADY
                 OXIDE
                 PREPARATION
  ACID
  CUTTING
 DOUBLE FILL
PASTE
PREPARATION
                  WASTEWATER
               DUMP AND
               REFILL
               BOOST
               CHARGE
PASTING
                                    PIG LEAD OR
                                    SHEET LEAD
GRID
MANUFACTURE
                                    CURING
                                   WASTEWATER
                                    STACKING
                                    AND
                                    WELDING
                                 -SEPARATORS
                                   ASSEMBLY
                                  CASE, COVERS
                                  TERMINALS
                                    ACID FILL
                  CLOSED
                  FORMATION
                                               WASTEWATER
                                              SINGLE FILL
                    WASH
                                              WASTEWATER
                                     TEST
                                                                  ANCILLARY
                                                                  OPERATIONS
                                                                 WASTEWATER
                                                                   PERSONAL
                                                                   HYGIENE
                                                                 WASTEWATER
                                    PRODUCT
                               FIGURE V-5
      PRODUCTION OF CLOSED FORMATION WET BATTERIES

-------
 ACID  WATER
J	L
                     LEAD
                       I
LEADY
OXIDE
PRODUCTION
                                                     PIG LEAD OR
                                                     SHEET LEAD
  ACID
  CUTTING
PASTE
PREPARATION
PASTING
                  WASTEWATER
GRID
MANUFACTURE
                                     CURING
                   SEPARATORS.
                  CASE, COVERS ,
                  TERMINALS
                                                    WASTEWATER
                  STACKING
                  AND
                  WELDING
                  ASSEMBLY
                                     ACID FILL
                                   CLOSED
                                   FORMATION
                                               WASTEWATER
                                    DUMP ACID
                                      SEAL
                                     WASH
                                               WASTEWATER
                                                    »
                                      TEST
                                                                     ANCILLARY
                                                                     OPERATIONS
                                                                     WASTEWATER
                                                    PERSONAL
                                                    HYGIENE
                                                                     WASTEWATER
                                    PRODUCT
                                  FIGURE V-6
                    PRODUCTION OF DAMP BATTERIES
                                       246

-------
                       LEAD
 ACID   WATER
J	I
   ACID
   CUTTING
                    LEADY
                    OXIDE
                    PRODUCTION
PASTE
PREPARATION
                    WASTEWATER
                                    PIG LEAD OR
                                    SHEET LEAD
PASTING
GRID
MANUFACTURE
                                        CURING
                                                       WASTEWATER
                                        WELD
                                        GROUPS
                                       OPEN
                                       FORMATION
                                      RINSING
                                      AND
                                      DEHYDRATION
                SEPARATORS, CASES,.
                COVERS, TERMINALS
                                 WASTEWATER
                    ASSEMBLY
                                         WASH
                                                  WASTEWATER
                                         TEST
                                        PRODUCT
                                                                  ANCILLARY
                                                                  OPERATIONS
                                                                  WASTEWATER
                                                                   PERSONAL
                                                                   HYGIENE
                                FIGURE V-7
               PRODUCTION OF DEHYDRATED BATTERIES
                                                                  WASTEWATER
                                     247

-------
                                PURCHASED GREEN
                                     PLATES
              ACID  WATER

               J	1
                 ACID
                 CUTTING
    DOUBLE FILL
                DUMP AND
                REFILL
                 BOOST
                 CHARGE
                                   STACKING
                                   AND
                                   WELDING
              •SEPARATORS
                                   ASSEMBLY
              CASE, COVERS
              TERMINALS
                                    ACID FILL
CLOSED
FORMATION
  WASH
                                     TEST
                                    PRODUCT
              SINGLE FILL
                                               WASTEWATER
                                               WASTEWATER
                                                          ANCILLARY
                                                          OPERATIONS
                                                          WASTEWATER
                                                           PERSONAL
                                                           HYGIENE
                                                          WASTEWATER
                                FIGURE V-8
PRODUCTION OF BATTERIES FROM GREEN (UNFORMED) ELECTRODES
                                     248

-------
FORMED PLATE
GROUPS
ACID WATER
1 1
ACID
CUTTING





ASSEMBLY
1

ACJD Fitt
i

WASH
i

TEST
1
PRODUCT
SEPARATORS, CASES
COVERS, TERMINALS
» W A STEW ATE R

ANCILLARY
OPERATIONS
1
WASTEWATER
PERSONAL
HYGIENE
                                             WASTEWATER
                       FIGURE V-9
PRODUCTION OF BATTERIES FROM PURCHASED FORMED PLATES

                           249

-------

-------
                           SECTION VI

                SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS


The   priority,   nonconventional,   and  conventional  pollutant
parameters that are to be examined for possible  regulation  were
presented  in  Section  V.   Data from plant sampling visits, and
results  of  subsequent  chemical  analysis  were  presented  and
discussed.   Pollutant  parameters were selected for verification
according to a specified rationale.

Each  of  the  pollutant  parameters  selected  for  verification
analysis  is  discussed  in detail in this section.  The selected
priority pollutants are presented  in  numerical  order  and  are
followed  by  nonconventional  pollutants  and  then conventional
pollutants, both in alphabetical order.  The final part  of  this
section  sets forth the pollutants which are to be considered for
regulation in the lead subcategory.  The rationale for that final
selection is included.

VERIFICATION PARAMETERS

Pollutant  parameters  selected  for  verification  sampling  and
analysis  for  the lead subcategory are listed in Section V (page
118).   The  subsequent  discussion  is   designed   to   provide
information  about:   where the pollutant comes from - whether it
is  a  naturally   occurring   element,   processed   metal,   or
manufactured   compound;  general  physical  properties  and  the
physical form of the pollutant; toxic effects of the pollutant in
humans and other animals; and behavior of the pollutant  in  POTW
at  the  concentrations  that  might  be expected from industrial
dischargers.

1,1,l-Trichloroethane(11).  1,1,1-Trichloroethane is one  of  the
two    possible   trichlorethanes.    It   is   manufactured   by
hydrochlorinating vinyl chloride to 1,1-dichloroethane  which  is
then  chlorinated  to the desired product.  1,1,1-Trichloroethane
is a liquid at room temperature with a vapor pressure of 96 mm Hg
at 20°C and a boiling point of 74°C.  Its formula is CC13CH3.  It
is slightly soluble in water (0.48 g/1) and is  very  soluble  in
organic  solvents.   U.S.  annual production is greater than one-
third of a million tons.  1,1,1-Trichlbroethane  is  used  as  an
industrial solvent and degreasing agent.

Most  human  toxicity  data  for 1,1,1-trichloroethane relates to
inhalation  and  dermal  exposure  routes.   Limited   data   are
available   for   determining   toxicity   of   ingested   1,1,1-
trichloroethane, and those data are all for the  compound  itself
                              251

-------
not  solutions  in  water.   No  data are available regarding its
toxicity to fish and aquatic organisms.  For  the  protection  of
human  health  from the toxic properties of 1,1,1-trichloroethane
ingested through the consumption of water and fish,  the  ambient
water  criterion is 18.4 mg/1.  The criterion is based on bioassy
for possible carcinogenicity.

No detailed study of 1,1,1-trichloroethane behavior  in  POTW  is
available.   However,  it  has been demonstrated that none of the
organic priority pollutants of this type can be  broken  down  by
biological   treatment  processes . as  readily  as  fatty  acids,
carbohydrates, or proteins.

Biochemical oxidation of many of the organic priority  pollutants
has  been  investigated, at least in laboratory scale studies, at
concentrations  higher  than  commonly  expected   in   municipal
wastewater.  General observations relating molecular structure to
ease  of  degradation  have  been  developed  for  all  of  these
pollutants.  The conclusion reached by study of the limited  data
is  that  'biological  treatment  produces  a  moderate  degree of
degradation of 1,1,1-trichloroethane.  No evidence  is  available
for  drawing  conclusions  about its possible toxic or inhibitory
effect on POTW operation.  However, for degradation  to  occur  a
fairly constant input of the compound would be necessary.

Its  water  solubility would allow 1,1,1-trichloroethane, present
in the influent and not biodegradable, to  pass  through  a  POTW
into the effluent.  One fac'tor which has received some attention,
but  no  detailed  study,  is  the  volatilization  of  the lower
molecular weight organics from POTW.  If 1,1,1-trichloroethane is
not biodegraded, it will volatilize during aeration processes  in
the POTW.
                                                                 *
Chloroform(23).    Chloroform  is  a colorless liquid manufactured
commercially by chlorination  of  methane.   Careful  control  of
conditions  maximizes  chloroform  production, but other products
must be separated.  Chloroform boils at  61°C  and  has  a  vapor
pressure  of  200 mm Hg at 25°C.  It is slightly soluble in water
(8.22 g/1 at 20°C) and readily soluble in organic solvents.

Chloroform is used as a solvent and to manufacture  refrigerents,
Pharmaceuticals, plastics, and anesthetics.  It is seldom used as
an anesthetic.

Toxic  effects  of  chloroform  on humans include central nervous
system depression, gastrointestinal irritation, liver and  kidney
damage   and   possible   cardiac   sensitization  to  adrenalin.
Carcinogenicity  has  been   demonstrated   for   chloroform   on
laboratory animals.
                              252

-------
For  the  maximum  protection  of human health from the potential
carcinogenic effects of exposure to chloroform through  ingestion
of  water  and  contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water
concentration is zero based on the non-threshold  assumption  for
this  chemical.  However, zero level may not be attainable at the
present  time.   Therefore,  the  levels  which  may  result   in
incremental  increase  of  cancer  risk  over  the  lifetime  are
estimated at 10~7, 10~'*, and 10~5.  The corresponding recommended
criteria are 0.000019 mg/1, 0.00019 mg/1, and 0.0019 mg/1.

No data are available regarding the behavior of chloroform  in  a
POTW.   However,  the  biochemical oxidation of this compound was
studied in one laboratory scale study  at  concentrations  higher
than   these   expected   to   be  contained  by  most  municipal
wastewaters.   After  5,  10,  and  20  days  no  degradation  of
chloroform   was   observed.   The  conclusion  reached  is  that
biological treatment produces little or no removal by degradation
of chloroform in POTW.

The high vapor pressure of chloroform is expected  to  result  in
volatilization  of  the  compound from aerobic treatment steps in
POTW.  Remaining chloroform is expected to pass through into  the
POTW effluent.

Methylene   Chloride(44).    Methylene   chloride,   also  called
dichloromethane (CH2C12), is a colorless liquid  manufactured  by
chlorination of methane or methyl chloride followed by separation
from  the  higher  chlorinated  methanes  formed  as  coproducts.
Methylene chloride boils at 40°C, and has  a  vapor  pressure  of
362 mm Hg  at  20°C.   It is slightly soluble in water (20 g/1 at
20°C),  and  very  soluble  in  organic  solvents.   U.S.  annual
production is about 250,000 tons.

Methylene  chloride  is  a  common  industrial  solvent  found in
insecticides,  metal  cleaners,  paint,  and  paint  and  varnish
removers.

Methylene  chloride  is not generally regarded as highly toxic to
humans.  Most human toxicity data are for exposure by inhalation.
Inhaled methylene chloride  acts  as  a  central  nervous  system
depressant.   There  is  also  evidence  that the compound causes
heart failure when large amounts are inhaled.

Methylene chloride  does  produce  mutation  in  tests  for  this
effect.  In addition a bioassay recognized for its extremely high
sensitivity to strong and weak carcinogens produced results which
were marginally significant.  Thus potential carcinogenic effects
of  methylene chloride are not confirmed or denied, but are under
continuous study.  Difficulty in conducting and interpreting  the
                              253

-------
test  results  from  the  low  boiling  point (40°C) of methylene
chloride  which  increases  the  difficulty  of  maintaining  the
compound  in growth media during incubation at 37°C; and from the
difficulty of  removing  all  impurities,  some  of  which  might
themselves be carcinogenic.

For   the   protection   of   human  health  from  the  potential
concinogenic  effects  due  to  exposure  to  methylene  chloride
through ingestion of contaminated water and contaiminated aquatic
organisms,  the  ambient water concentration should be zero based
on the non-threshold assumption for this chemical.  However, zero
level may not be attainable at the present time.  Therefore,  the
levels  which  may  result in incremental increase of cancer risk
over the lifetime are estimated at  10-5,  10~«  and  10~7.   The
corresponding recommended criteria are 0.0019 mg/1, 0.00019 mg/1,
and 0.000019 mg/1.

The  behavior  of methylene chloride in POTW has not been studied
in any  detail.   However,  the  biochemical  oxidation  of  this
compound   was   studied   in   one  laboratory  scale  study  at
concentrations higher than those expected to be contained by most
municipal  wastewaters.   After  five  days  no  degradation   of
methylene  chloride was observed.  The conclusion reached is that
biological treatment produces litte or no removal by  degradation
of methylene chloride in POTW.

The  high  vapor  pressure  of  methylene chloride is expected to
result in volatilization of the compound from  aerobic  treatment
steps  in  POTW.   It  has  been reported that methylene chloride
inhibits anaerobic processes in POTW.  Methylene chloride that is
not volatilized in the POTW is expected to pass through into  the
effluent.

Naphthalene(55).  Naphthalene is an aromatic hydrocarbon with two
orthocondensed  benzene  rings  and a molecular formula of C10H8.
As  such  it  is  properly  classed  as  a  polynuclear  aromatic
hydrocarbon (PAH).  Pure naphthalene is a white crystalline solid
melting  at  80°C.   For  a solid, it has a relatively high vapor
pressure (0.05 mm Hg at 20°C), and moderate water solubility  (19
mg/1 at 20°C).  Naphthalene is the most abundant single component
of  coal  tar.  Production is more than a third of a million tons
annually in the U.S.  About three fourths of  the  production  is
used  as  feedstock  for phthalic anhydride manufacture.  Most of
the remaining production goes into  manufacture  of  insecticide,
dyestuffs,   pigments,   and  Pharmaceuticals.   Chlorinated  and
partially hydrogenated naphthalenes  are  used  in  some'  solvent
mixtures.  Naphthalene is also used as a moth repellent.
                              254

-------
Napthalene, ingested by humans, has reportedly caused vision loss
(cataracts),  hemolytic  anemia, and occasionally, renal disease.
These effects of naphthalene ingestion are confirmed  by  studies
on  laboratory animals.  No carcinogenicity studies are available
which can  be  used  to  demonstrate  carcinogenic  activity  for
naphthalene.    Naphthalene   does   bioconcentrate   in  aquatic
organisms.

There are insufficient data on which to base  any  ambient  water
criterion.

Only a limited number of studies have been conducted to determine
the  effects  of naphthalene on aquatic organisms.  The data from
those studies show only moderate toxicity.

Naphthalene has  been  detected  in  sewage  plant  effluents  at
concentrations  up  to  0.022  mg/1 in studies carried out by the
U.S. EPA.  Influent levels were not reported.   The  behavior  of
naphthalene  in  POTW  has  not  been  studied.   However, recent
studies have  determined  that  naphthalene  will  accumulate  in
sediments  at  100  times  the  concentration in overlying water.
These results suggest that naphthalene will be readily removed by
primary and secondary settling in POTW, if it is not biologically
degraded.

Biochemical oxidation of many of the organic priority  pollutants
has    been   investigated   in   laborat.ory-scale   studies   at
concentrations  higher  than  would  normally  be   expected   in
municipal  wastewater.   General  observations relating molecular
structure to ease of degradation have been developed for  all  of
these pollutants.  The conclusion reached by study of the limited
data  is  that  biological  treatment  produces a high removal by
degradation of naphthalene.  One  recent  study  has  shown  that
microorganisms  can  degrade  naphthalene,  first  to  a  dihydro
compound, and ultimately to carbon dioxide and water.

Phenol(65).  Phenol,  also  called  hydroxybenzene  and  carbolic
acid,   is   a   clear,   colorless,  hygroscopic,  deliquescent,
crystalline solid at room temperature.  Its melting point is 43°C
and its vapor pressure at room temperature is 0.35 mm Hg.  It  is
very  soluble  in water (67 gm/1 at 16°C) and can be dissolved in
benzene, oils, and petroleum solids.  Its formula is C«H5OH.

Although a small percent of the annual production  of  phenol  is
derived  from  coal  tar as a naturally occuring product, most of
the phenol is synthesized.  Two of  the  methods  are  fusion  of
benzene  sulfonate with sodium hydroxide, and oxidation of cumene
followed by clevage with a catalyst.  Annual  production  in  the
U.S.  is   in  excess  of  one  million tons*  Phenol is generated
                              255

-------
during distillation of wood and the microbiological decomposition
of organic matter in the mammalian intestinal tract.

Phenol is used as a disinfectant, in the manufacture  of  resins,
dyestuffs,  and  Pharmaceuticals,  and  in  the  photo processing
industry.  In this discussion, phenol is  the  specific  compound
which  is  separated  by  methylene  chloride  extraction  of  an
acidified sample and identified and quantified by GC/MS.   Phenol
also  contributes  to  the  "Total  Phenols", discussed elsewhere
which are determined by the 4-AAP colorinmetric method.

Phenol exhibits  acute  and  sub-acute  toxicity  in  humans  and
laboratory  animals.   Acute oral doses of phenol in humans cause
sudden collapse and unconsciousness by its action on the  central
nervous  system.   Death occurs by respiratory arrest.  Sub-acute
oral  doses  in  mammals  are  rapidly  absorbed   then   quickly
distributed  to  various  organs,  then  cleared from the body by
urinary excretion and metabolism.  Long term exposure by drinking
phenol  contaminated  water   has   resulted   in   statistically
significant  increase in reported cases of diarrhea, mouth sores,
and burning of the mouth.  In laboratory animals long  term  oral
administration  at  low  levels  produced slight liver and kidney
damage.  No  reports  were  found  regarding  carcinogenicity  of
phenol  administered  orally  -  all carcinogenicity studies were
skin tests.

For the protection of human health from phenol  ingested  through
water    and   through   contaminated   aquatic   organisms   the
concentration in water should not exceed 3.5 mg/1.

Fish and other aquatic organisms demonstrated  a  wide  range  of
sensitivities  to  phenol concentration.  However, acute toxicity
values were at moderate levels when  compared  to  other  organic
priority pollutants.

Data  have  been  developed  on  the  behavior of phenol in POTW.
Phenol is biodegradable by biota present in POTW.  The ability of
a POTW to treat phenol-bearing influents depends upon acclimation
of the biota and the constancy of the phenol  concentration.   It
appears  that  an  induction  period  is required to build up the
population of organisms which can degrade phenol.   Too  large  a
concentration  will  result in upset or pass through in the POTW,
but the specific level causing upset  depends  on  the  immediate
past  history  of  phenol concentrations in the influent.  Phenol
levels as high as 200 mg/1 have  been  treated  with  95  percent
removal  in  POTW, but more or less continuous presence of phenol
is necessary to maintain the population  of  microorganisms  that
degrade phenol.
                              256

-------
Phenol which is not degraded is expected to pass thorugh the POTW
because  of  its  very  high  water solubility.  However, in POTW
where chlorination is practiced  for  disinfection  of  the  POTW
effluent, chlorination of phenol may occur.  The products of that
reaction may be priority pollutants.

The   EPA   has   developed   data   on   influent  and  effluent
concentrations of total phenols in a study of  103 POTW.  However,
the analytical procedure was the 4-AAP method  mentioned  earlier
and  not the GC/MS method specifically for phenol.  Discussion of
the study, which of course includes phenol,  is  presented  under
the pollutant heading "Total Phenols."

Phthalate Esters (66-71).      Phthalic     acid,     or     1,2-
benzenedicarboxylic   acid,   is   one    of    three    isomeric
benzenedicarboxylic  acids  produced   by  the chemical industry.
The  other  two  isomeric  forms  are  called   isophthalic   and
terephthalic   acids.    The  formula  for  all  three  acids  is
C6H4(COOH)2.  Some esters of  phthalic  acid   are  designated  as
priority pollutants.  They will be discussed as a group here, and
specific  properties  of  individual  phthalate  .esters  will  be
discussed afterwards.

Phthalic acid esters are manufactured in the U.S.  at  an  annual
rate   in   excess  of  1  billion  pounds.    They  are  used  as
plasticizers - primarily in the production of  polyvinyl  chloride
(PVC)  resins.  The most widely used phthalate plasticizer is bis
(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (66) which accounts for nearly one third
of the phthalate  esters  produced.   This  particular  ester  is
commonly referred to as dioctyl phthalate  (DOP) and should not be
confused  with  one of the less used esters, di-n-octyl phthalate
(69), which is also used as a plasticizer.  In addition to  these
two  isomeric  dioctyl  phthalates,  four other esters, also used
primarily as plasticizers, are designated as priority pollutants.
They are: butyl benzyl phthalate (67), di-n-butyl phthalate (68),
diethyl phthalate (70), and dimethyl phthalate (71).

Industrially,  phthalate  esters  are  prepared   from   phthalic
anhydride  and  the  specific  alcohol  to  form the ester.  Some
evidence is. available suggesting that phthalic acid  esters  also
may  be  synthesized  by  certain  plant and animal tissues.  The
extent to which this occurs in nature is not known.

Phthalate  esters  used  as  plasticizers  can  be   present   in
concentrations  up  to  60 percent of the total weight of the PVC
plastic.  The plasticizer is not linked by primary chemical bonds
to the PVC resin.  Rather, it is locked'  into  the  structure  of
intermeshing  polymer molecules and held by van der Waals forces.
The  result  is  that  the  plasticizer  is    easily   extracted.
                              257

-------
Plasticizers  are  responsible  for  the odor associated with new
plastic toys or flexible sheet  that  has  been  contained  in  a
sealed package.

Although  the  phthalate  esters are not soluble or are only very
slightly soluble in water, they do migrate into aqueous solutions
placed in contact with the plastic.  Thus  industrial  facilities
with  tank  linings,  wire and cable coverings, tubing, and sheet
flooring of PVC are expected to discharge some  phthalate  esters
in  their  raw  waste.  In addition to their use as plasticizers,
phthalate esters are  used  in  lubricating  oils  and  pesticide
carriers.   These  also can contribute to industrial discharge of
phthalate esters.

From the accumulated data on acute toxicity in animals, phthalate
esters may  be  considered  as  having  a  rather  low  order  of
toxicity.   Human  toxicity data are limited.  It is thought that
the toxic effects of the esters is most likely due to one of  the
metabolic • products,  in  particular  the  monoester.  Oral acute
toxicity in animals is greater for  the  lower  molecular  weight
esters than for the higher molecular weight esters.

Orally   administered   phthalate   esters   generally   produced
enlargeing  of  liver  and  kidney,  and  atrophy  of  testes  in
laboratory  animals.   Specific  esters  produced  enlargement of
heart and brain, spleenitis, and degeneration of central  nervous
system tissue.

Subacute doses administered orally to laboratory animals produced
some  decrease in growth and degeneration of the testes.  Chronic
studies in animals showed similar effects to those found in acute
and subacute studies, but to  a  much  lower  degree.   The  same
organs  were  enlarged, but pathological changes were not usually
detected.

A recent study of several phthalic esters produced suggestive but
not conclusive evidence that dimethyl and diethyl phthalates have
a cancer liability.  Only four  of  the  six  priority  pollutant
esters   were   included  in  the  study.   Phthalate  esters  do
bioconcentrate in  fish.   The  factors,  weighted  for  relative
consumption  of  various aquatic and marine food groups, are used
to calculate ambient water quality  criteria for  four  phthalate
esters.   The  values  are  included  in  the  discussion  of the
specific esters.

Studies of toxicity of phthalate esters in  freshwater  and  salt
water  organisms  are  scarce.   Available data show that adverse
effects on freshwater  aquatic  life  occur  at  phthalate  ester
concentrations as low as 0.003 mg/1.
                              258

-------
The  behavior  of  phthalate esters in POTW has not been studied.
However,  the  biochemical  oxidation  of  many  of  the  organic
priority  pollutants  has  been  investigated in laboratory-scale
studies at concentrations higher than would normally be  expected
in  municipal  wastewater.   Three  of  the phthalate esters were
studied.  Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was found  to  be  degraded
slightly or not at ail.and its removal by biological treatment in
a  POTW  is  expected to be slight or zero.  Di-n-butyl phthalate
and diethyl phthalate were degraded to a moderate degree  and  it
is  expected that they will be biochemically oxidized to a lesser
extent than domestic sewage by biological treatment in POTW.   On
the  same basis it is expected that di-n-octyl phthalate will not
be biochemically oxidized to a significant extent  by  biological
treatment  in  a POTW.  An EPA study of seven POTWs revealed that
for all but di-n-octyl phthalate, which was not studied, removals
ranged from 62 to 87 percent.

No information was  found  on  possible  interference  with  POTW
operation  or  the  possible  effects  on sludge by the phthalate
esters.  The water insoluble phthalate esters -  butylbenzyl  and
di-n-octyl  phthalate  -  would tend to remain in sludge, whereas
the other four priority pollutant  phthalate  esters  with  water
solubilities ranging from 50 mg/1 to 4.5 mg/1 would probably pass
through into the POTW effluent.

Phthalate  esters  selected for verification analysis in the lead
subcategory - are discussed individually below.

Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate(66).  In  addition  to  the  general
remarks  and discussion on phthalate esters, specific information
on bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate is provided.   Little  information
is  available  about the physical properties of bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate.  It is a liquid boiling at 387°C  at  5mm  Hg  and  is
insoluble  in  water.   Its  formula  is  C«H4(COOC8H17)Z.   This
priority pollutant constitutes about one third of  the  phthalate
ester  production  in  the  U.S.   It  is commonly referred to as
dioctyl phthalate, or DOP, in the plastics industry where  it  is
the  most  extensively  used  compound  for the plasticization of
polyvinyl chloride (PVC).  Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate  has  been
approved  by  the  FDA  for use in plastics in contact with food.
Therefore, it may be found in wastewaters coming in contact  with
discarded  plastic  food  wrappers  as  well.as the PVC films and
shapes  normally  found  in  industrial  plants.   This  priority
pollutant  is  also  a  commonly  used organic diffusion pump oil
where its low vapor pressure is an advantage.

For the protection of human health from the toxic  properties  of
bis(2-ethylhexyl)  phthalate  ingested  through water and through
contaminated  aquatic  organisms,  the  ambient   water   quality
                              259

-------
 criterion  is  determined to be 15 mg/1.   If contaminated aquatic
 organisms alone are consumed,  excluding the consumption of water,
 the ambient water criteria is determined to be 50 mg/1.

 Although  the behavior of bis(2-ethylhexyl)  phthalate in POTW  has
 not   been   studied,   biochemical  oxidation  of  this  priority
 pollutant  has  been   studied   on   a   laboratory   scale   at
 concentrations   higher   than  would  normally  be  expected  in
 municipal wastewater.   In fresh water with  a non-acclimated  seed
 culture no biochemical oxidation was observed after 5,  10, and 20
 days.   However,   with  an  acclimated  seed  culture,  biological
 oxidation occurred to  the  extents  of  13,  0,   6,  and  23  of
 theoretical  after  5,  10,  15 and 20 days, respectively.   Bis(2-
 ethylhexyl) phthalate concentrations were 3 to  10 mg/1.    Little
 or   no removal  of  bis(2-ethylhexyl)  phthalate  by  biological
 treatment in POTW is expected.

 Butyl  benzyl phthalate(67).   In addition to the  general   remarks
 and discussion on phthalate esters, specific information on butyl
rbenzyl phthalate  is  provided.  No information was found on the
 physical  properties of this compound.

 Butyl  benzyl phthalate is used as a  plasticizer  for  PVC.   Two
 special   applications  differentiate  it  from  other  phthalate
 esters.  It is approved by the  U.S.  FDA  for  food  contact  in
 wrappers   and  containers;  and  it  is the industry standard for
 plasticization  of  vinyl  flooring  because  it  provides  stain
 resistance.

 No   ambient  water quality criterion is proposed for butyl benzyl
 phthalate.

 Butylbenzylphthalate removal in POTW by biological treatment in a
 POTW is discussed in the general discussion of phthalate esters.

 Di-n-butyl phthalate (68).  In addition to   the  general   remarks
 and discussion on phthalate esters, specific information on di-n-
 butyl   phthalate  (DBP)  is  provided.   DBP is a colorless, oily
 liquid,  boiling  at  340°C.   Its  water  solubility   at   room
 temperature is reported to be 0.4 g/1 and.4.5g/l in two different
 chemistry  handbooks.   The formula for DBP, C6H4(COOC4H,)2 is the
 same as for its isomer, di-isobutyl phthalate.  DBP production is
 one to two percent of total  U.S. phthalate  ester production.

 Dibutyl phthalate is used to a limited extent  as  a  plasticizer
 for polyvinylchloride (PVC).  It is not approved for contact with
 food.   It  is  used  in  liquid  lipsticks  and as a diluent for
 polysulfide dental  impression  materials.    DBP  is  used  as  a
 plasticizer  for  nitrocellulose  in  making gun powder,  and as a
                               260

-------
fuel  in  solid  propellants  for  rockets.   Further  uses   are
insecticides,   safety  glass  manufacture,  textile  lubricating
agents,   printing  inks,  adhesives,  paper  coatings  and  resin
solvents.

For  protection  of  human  health  from  the toxic properties of
dibutyl  phthalate ingested through water and through contaminated
aquatic   organisms,  the  ambient  water  quality  criterion   is
determined  to be 34 mg/1.  If contaminated aquatic organisms are
consumed, excluding the consumption of water, the  ambient  water
criterion is 154 mg/1.

Although  the  behavior  of  di-n-butyl phthalate in POTW has not
been studied, biochemical oxidation of  this  priority  pollutant
has  been  studied on a laboratory scale at concentrations higher
than  would  normally  be  expected  in   municipal   wastewater.
Biochemical  oxidation  of  35, 43, and 45 percent of theoretical
oxidation were obtained after 5, 10, and 20  days,  respectively,
using sewage microorganisms as an unacclimated seed culture.

Based on these data it is expected that di-n-butyl phthalate will
be biochemically oxidized to a lesser extent than domestic sewage
by biological treatment in POTW.

Di-n-octyl phthalate(69).  In addition to the general remarks and
discussion  on  phthalate  esters,  specific information on di-n-
octyl phthalate is provided.  Di-n-octyl phthalate is not  to  be
confused  with  the isomeric bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate which is
commonly referred to in the plastics industry as OOP.  Di-n-octyl
phthalate is a liquid which boils at 220°C at 5  mm  Hg.   It  is
insoluble  in  water.   Its molecular formula is C«H4(COOC8H,7)2.
Its production constitutes about one  percent  of  all  phthalate
ester production in the U.S.

Industrially,   di-n-octyl   phthalate   is  used  to  plasticize
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) resins.

No ambient water quality criterion  is  proposed  for  di-n-octyl
phthalate.

Biological  treatment in POTW is expected to lead to little or no
removal  of di-n-octyl phthalate.

Polynuclear  Aromatic   Hydrocarbons(72-84).    The   polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) selected as priority pollutants are a
group of 13 compounds consisting of substituted and unsubstituted
polycyclic  aromatic  rings.   The  general class of PAH includes
hetrocyclics,  but  none  of  those  were  selected  as  priority
pollutants.    PAH   are  formed  as  the  result  of  incomplete
                              261

-------
combustion when organic compounds are  burned  with  insufficient
oxygen.    PAH  are  found  in  coke  oven  emissions,   vehicular
emissions, and volatile products of oil  and  gas  burning.    The
compounds  chosen  as  priority  pollutants are listed with  their
structural formula and melting point (m.p.).  All  are  insoluble
in water.
     72   Benzo(a)anthrancene (1,2-benzanthracene)
                                 m.p. 162°C
     73   Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-benzopyrene)
                                 m.p. 176°C
     74   3,4-Benzofluoranthene
                                 m.p. 168°C
     75   Benzo(k)fluoranthene (11,12-benzofluoranthene)
                                 m.p. 217°C
     76   Chrysene {1,2-benzphenanthrene)
                                 m.p. 255°c
     77   Acenaphthylene
               HC=Ch
                                 m.p. 92°C
     78   Anthracene
                                 m.p. 216°C
     79   Benzo(ghi)perylene (1,12-benzoperylene)
                                 m.p. not reported
     80   Fluorene (alpha-diphenylenemethane)
                                 m.p. 116°C
     81   Phenanthrene
                                 m.p. 101°C
                              262

-------
     82   Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene  (1,2,5,6-dibenzoanthracene)

                                 m.p. 269°C
     83   Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene  (2,3-o-phenyleneperylene)

                                 m.p. not available

     84   Pyrene

                                 m.p. 156<>C
Some  of  these priority pollutants have commercial or  industrial
uses.  Benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene/ chrysene,  anthracene,
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene,  and pyrene are all used as antioxidants.
Chrysene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, fluorene, phenanthrene, and
pyrene are all used for synthesis of dyestuffs or  other  organic
chemicals.      3,4-Benzofluoranthrene,     benzo(k)fluoranthene,
benzo(ghi)perylene, and indeno   (1,2,3-cd)pyrene  have  no   known
industrial  uses, according to the results of a recent  literature
search.

Several of the PAH priority pollutants are found in smoked meats,
in smoke  flavoring mixtures, in  vegetable oils,  and  in  coffee.
They   are   found    in   soils  and  sediments  in  river   beds.
Consequently,  they   are  also   found  in  many  drinking    water
supplies.   The  wide distribution of these pollutants  in complex
.mixtures  with the many other PAHs which have not been   designated
as priority pollutants results in exposures by humans that cannot
be associated with specific individual compounds.

The  screening  and verification analysis procedures used for the
organic priority pollutants are  based on gas chromatography  mass
spectrometry  (GCMS).   Three  pairs  of  the  PAH have identical
elution times on the  column  specified  in  the  protocol,   which
means  that  the  parameters  of the pair are not differentiated.
For these three pairs [anthracene (78) - phenanthrene  (81);  3,4-
benzofluoranthene    (74)   -   benzo(k)fluoranthene    (75);   and
benzo(a)anthracene (72) - chrysene  (76)] results are obtained and
reported  as "either-or." Either  both are present in the combined
concentration  reported,  or  one is present in the concentration
reported.  When detections below reportable limits  are recorded
no   further   analysis  is  required.   For  samples   where the
concentrations of  coeluting  pairs  have  a  significant  value,
                               263

-------
additional  analyses  are  conducted,  using different procedures
that resolve the particular pair.

There are no studies to document the possible carcinogenic  risks
to humans by direct ingestion.  Air pollution studies indicate an
excess  of  lung  cancer mortality among workers exposed to large
amounts of PAH containing materials such as coal gas,  tars,  and
coke-oven  emissions.  However, no definite proof exists that the
PAH present in these materials are responsible  for  the  cancers
observed.

Animal  studies have demonstrated the toxicity of PAH by oral and
dermal administration.   The  carcinogenicity  of  PAH  has  been
traced  to  formation  of PAH metabolites which, in turn, lead to
tumor formation.  Because the levels of PAH which  induce  cancer
are  very  low, little work has been done on other health hazards
resulting from exposure.   It  has  been  established  in  animal
studies  that tissue damage and systemic toxicity can result from
exposure to non-carcinogenic PAH compounds.

Because there were no studies available  regarding  chronic  oral
exposures  to  PAH mixtures, proposed water quality criteria were
derived using data on exposure to a single compound.  Two studies
were selected, one involving  benzo{a)pyrene  ingestion  and  one
involving   dibenzo(a,h)anthracene  ingestion.   Both  are  known
animal carcinogens.

For the maximum protection of human  health  from  the  potential
carcinogenic  effects  of exposure to polynuclear aromatic hydro-
carbons (PAH) through ingestion of water and contaminated aquatic
organisms, the ambient water concentration should be  zero  based
on  the  non-threshold  assumption for these chemicals.  However,
zero level may not be attainable at the present time.  Therefore,
the levels which may result in  incremental  increase  of  cancer
risk  over  the  life  time are estimated at 10~5, 10-*, and 10~7
with  corresponding  recommended  criteria  of   0.000028   mg/1,
0.0000028 mg/1, and 0.00000028 mg/1, respectively.

No  standard  toxicity tests have been reported for freshwater or
saltwater organisms and any of the 13 PAH discussed here.

The behavior of PAH in POTW has received only a limited amount of
study.  It is reported that up to 90 percent of  PAH  entering  a
POTW  will  be  retained  in the sludge generated by conventional
sewage  treatment  processes.   Some  of  the  PAH  can   inhibit
bacterial-  growth  when they are present at concentrations as low
as 0.018 mg/1.  Biological treatment in  activated  sludge  units
has  been  shown  to reduce the concentration of phenanthrene and
anthracene to some  extent.   However,  a  study  of  biochemcial
                              264

-------
oxidation of fluorene on a laboratory scale showed no degradation
after 5, 10, and 20 days.  On the basis of that study and studies
of  other  organic priority pollutants, some general observations
were made relating molecular structure to  ease  of  degradation.
Those  observations  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the  13 PAH
selected to represent that group as priority pollutants  will  be
removed  only  slightly  or  not  at  all by biological treatment
methods in POTW.  Based on their water insolubility and  tendency
to  attach  to sediment particles very little pass through of PAH
to POTW effluent is expected.

No data are available at this time  to  support  any  conclusions
about  contamination  of  land  by  PAH  on  which  sewage sludge
containing PAH is spread.

Antimony(114).  Antimony (chemical name  -  stibium,  symbol  Sb)
classified  as  a  non-metal  or  metalloid, is a silvery white  ,
brittle, crystalline solid.   Antimony  is  found  in  small  ore
bodies  throughout the world.  Principal ores are oxides of mixed
antimony valences, and an  oxysulfide  ore.   Complex  ores  with
metals  are  important because the antimony is recovered as a by-
product.  Antimony melts at 631°C, and is  a  poor  conductor  of
electricity and heat.

Annual U.S. consumption of primary antimony ranges from 10,000 to
20,000  tons.   About half is consumed in metal products - mostly
antimonial lead for lead acid storage batteries, and  about  half
in  nonmetal products.  A principal compound is antimony trioxide
which is used  as  a  flame  retardant  in  fabrics,  and  as  an
opacifier  in  glass,  ceramincs,  and enamels.  Several antimony
compounds are used as catalysts in organic  chemicals  synthesis,
as  fluorinating agents  (the antimony fluoride), as pigments, and
in  fireworks.   Semiconductor  applications   are   economically
significant.

Essentially  no  information  on  antimony - induced human health
effects has been derived  from  community  epidemiology  studies.
The  available  data  are in literature relating effects observed
with therapeutic or medicinal  uses  of  antimony  compounds  and
industrial   exposure   studies.    Large  therapeutic  doses  of
antimonial compounds, usually used to treat schistisomiasis, have
caused severe  nausea,  vomiting,  convulsions,  irregular  heart
action,   liver  damage,  and  skin  rashes.   Studies  of  acute
industrial antimony poisoning have  revealed  loss  of  appetite,
diarrhea,  headache,  and  dizziness  in addition to the symptoms
found in studies of therapeutic doses of antimony.

For the protection of human health from the toxic  properties  of
antimony  ingested.through water and through contaminated aquatic
                              265

-------
organisms the ambient water criterion is determined to  be  0.146
mg/1.   If  contaminated  aquatic  organisms  alone are consumed,
excluding the consumption of water, the ambient  water  criterion
is  determined  to  be 45 mg/1.  Available data show that adverse
effects on aquatic life occur at concentrations higher than those
cited for human health risks.
                  f
Very little information is available regarding  the  behavior  of
antimony  in  POTW.   The  limited  solubility  of  most antimony
compounds  expected  in  POTW,  i.e.  the  oxides  and  sulfides,
suggests  that at least part of the antimony entering a POTW will
be precipitated and incorporated into the sludge.  However,  some
antimony  is  expected  to  remain dissolved and pass through the
POTW into the effluent.   Antimony  compounds  remaining  in  the
sludge  under  anaerobic  conditions  may be connected to stibine
(SbH3), a very soluble and very toxic  compound.   There  are  no
data  to  show antimony inhibits any POTW processes.  Antimony is
not known to be essential to the growth of plants, and  has  been
reported  to  be  moderately toxic.  Therefore, sludge containing
large amounts of antimony could be detrimental to plants If it is
applied in large amounts to cropland.

Arsenic(115).  Arsenic (chemical symbol As), is classified  as  a
non-metal or metalloid.  Elemental arsenic normally exists in the
alpha-crystalline  metallic form which is steel gray and brittle,
and in the beta form which is dark gray and  amorphous.   Arsenic
sublimes  at 615°C.  Arsenic is widely distributed throughout the
world  in  a  large  number  of  minerals.   The  most  important
commercial source of arsenic is as a by-product from treatment of
copper, lead, cobalt, and gold ores.  Arsenic is usually marketed
as  the trioxide (As203).  Annual U.S. production of the trioxide
approaches 40,000 tons.

The  principal  use  of  arsenic  is  in  agricultural  chemicals
(herbicides)  for controlling weeds in cotton fields.  Arsenicals
have various applications in medicinal  and  veterinary  use,  as
wood preservatives, and in semiconductors.

The effects of arsenic in humans were known by the ancient Greeks
and  Romans.   The  principal  toxic effects are gastrointestinal
disturbances.  Breakdown of red blood cells occurs.  Symptoms  of
acute  poisoning  include  vomiting,  diarrhea,  abdominal  pain,
lassitude, dizziness, and  headache.   Longer  exposure  produced
dry, falling hair, brittle, loose nails, eczema, and exfoliation.
Arsenicals  also  exhibit  teratogenic  and  mutagenic effects in
humans.   Oral  administration  of  arsenic  compounds  has  been
associated  clinically  with  skin  cancer  for  nearly a hundred
years.  Since 1888  numerous  studies  have  linked  occupational
                              266

-------
exposure  to, and therapeutic administration of arsenic compounds
to increased incidence of respiratory and skin cancer.

For the maximum protection of human  health  from  the  potential
carcinogenic effects due to exposure to arsenic through ingestion
of  water  and  contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water
concentration  should  be  zero  based   on   the   non-threshold
assumption  of  this  chemical.   However,  zero level may not be
attainable at the present time.  Therefore, the levels which  may
result  in  incremental increase of cancer risk over the lifetime
are  estimated  at  10~5,  10~*  and  10~7.   The   corresponding
recommended  criteria  are  2.2 x 1O-7 mg/1, 2.2 x 10-« mg/1, and
2.2 x 10-* mg/1.  If contaminated  aquatic  organisms  alone  are
consumed,   excluding   the   consumption  of  water,  the  water
concentration should be less than 1.75 x 10-4 mg/1  to  keep  the
increased  lifetime ' cancer risk below 10-5.  Available data show
that adverse effects on  aquatic  life  occur  at  concentrations
higher than those cited for human health risks.

A few studies have been made regarding the behavior of arsenic in
POTW.   One EPA survey of 9 POTW reported influent concentrations
ranging from 0.0005 to 0.693 mg/1; effluents from 3  POTW  having
biological  treatment contained 0.0004 - 0.01 mg/1; 2 POTW showed
arsenic removal efficiencies of 50 and 71 percent  in  biological
treatment.   Inhibition of treatment processes by sodium arsenate
is reported  to  occur  at  0.1 mg/1  in  activated  sludge,  and
1.6 mg/1  in  anaerobic  digestion  processes.   In another study
based on data from 60 POTW, arsenic in sludge ranged from 1.6  to
65.6 mg/kg and the median value was 7.8 mg/kg.  Arsenic in sludge
spread  on cropland may be taken up by plants grown on that land.
Edible plants can take up arsenic, but normally their  growth  is
inhibited before the plants are ready for harvest.

Cadmium(118).  Cadmium is a relatively rare metallic element that
is  seldom  found  in  sufficient  quantities  in a pure state to
warrant mining or extraction from the  earth's  surface.   It  is
found  in  trace  amounts  of  about 1 ppm throughout the earth's
crust.  Cadmium  is,  however,  a  valuable  by-product  of  zinc
production.

Cadmium is used primarily as an electroplated metal, and is found
as  an  impurity  in  the  secondary  refining of zinc, lead, and
copper.

Cadmium is an extremely dangerous  cumulative  toxicant,  causing
progressive  chronic  poisoning  in  mammals,  fish, and probably
other organisms.
                              267

-------
Toxic  effects  of  cadmium  on  man  have  been  reported   from
throughout the world.  Cadmium may be a factor in the development
of   such   human  pathological  conditions  as  kidney  disease,
testicular   tumors,   hypertension,   arteriosclerosis,   growth
inhibition,  chronic  disease of old age, and cancer.  Cadmium is
normally ingested by humans through food and water as well as  by
breathing   air   contaminated   by  cadmium  dust.   Cadmium  is
cumulative in the liver, kidney, pancreas, and thyroid of  humans
and  other  animals.   A severe bone and kidney syndrome known as
itai-itai disease has been  documented  in  Japan  as  caused  by
cadmium  ingestion via drinking water and contaminated irrigation
water.  Ingestion of as little as  0.6 mg/day  has  produced  the
disease.  Cadmium acts synergistically with other metals.  Copper
and zinc substantially increase its toxicity.

Cadmium   is   concentrated  by  marine  organisms,  particularly
molluscs, which accumulate cadmium in calcareous tissues  and  in
the  viscera.  A concentration factor of 1000 for cadmium in fish
muscle has been reported, as have concentration factors  of  3000
in marine plants and up to 29,600 in certain marine animals.  The
eggs  and larvae of fish are apparently more sensitive than adult
fish to poisoning by cadmium, and crustaceans appear to  be  more
sensitive than fish eggs and larvae.

For  the  protection of human health from the toxic properties of
cadmium ingested through water and through  contaminated  aquatic
organisms,  the ambient water criterion is determined to be 0.010
mg/1.

Cadmium is not destroyed when it is introduced into a  POTW,  and
will  either pass through to the POTW effluent or be incorporated
into the POTW sludge.  In addition, it  can  interfere  with  the
POTW treatment process.

In  a  study  of  189  POTW, 75 percent of the primary plants, 57
percent of  the  trickling  filter  plants,  66  percent  of  the
activated  sludge  plants and 62 percent of the biological plants
allowed over 90 percent of the influent cadmium to  pass  thorugh
to  the  POTW effluent.  Only 2 of the 189 POTW allowed less than
20 percent pass-through, and none  less  than  10  percent  pass-
through.   POTW  effluent  'concentrations  ranged  from  0.001 to
1.97 mg/1 (mean 0.028 mg/1, standard deviation 0.167 mg/1).

Cadmium not passed through the  POTW  will  be  retained  in  the
sludge  where it is likely to build up in concentration.  Cadmium
contamination of sewage sludge limits its use on  land  since  it
increases  the  level  of  cadmium  in  the soil.  Data show that
cadmium can be incorporated into crops, including vegetables  and
grains, from contaminated soils.  Since the crops themselves show
                              268

-------
no  adverse  effects  from  soils  with  levels  up  to 100 mg/kg
cadmium, these contaminated crops could have a significant impact
on human health.  Two Federal agancies  have  already  recognized
the  potential  adverse  human health effects posed by the use of
sludge on cropland.  The FDA recommends  that  sludge  containing
over 30 mg/kg of cadmium should not be used on agricultured land.
Sewage  sludge  contains  3  to  300 mg/kg (dry basis) of cadmium
(mean = 10 mg/kg).  The USDA also recommends  placing  limits  on
the total cadmium from sludge that may be applied to land.

Chromium(119).  Chromium is an elemental metal usually found as a
chromite (FeO«Cr20,).   The metal is normally produced by reducing
the  oxide  with  aluminum.   A  significant  proportion  of  the
chromium used  is  in  the  form  of  compounds  such  as  sodium
dichromate    (Na2Cr04),  and  chromic  acid  (Cr03)  -  both  are
hexavalent chromium compounds.

Chromium is found as an alloying component of many steels and its
compounds are used in  electroplating  baths,  and  as  corrosion
inhibitors for closed water circulation systems.

The   two  chromium  forms  most  frequently  found  in  industry
wastewaters are hexavalent and  trivalent  chromium.   Hexavalent
chromium  is  the  form used for metal treatments.  Some of it is
reduced to trivalent chromium as part of  the  process  reaction.
The  raw  wastewater  containing  both  valence states is usually
treated  first  to  reduce  remaining  hexavalent  to   trivalent
chromium,  and  second  to  precipitate the trivalent form as the
hydroxide.  The hexavalent form is not removed by lime treatment.

Chromium, in  its various valence states, is hazardous to man.  It
can  produce  lung  tumors  when  inhaled,   and   induces   skin
sensitizations.   Large doses of chromates have corrosive effects
on the  intestinal  tract  and  can  cause  inflammation  of  the
kidneys.   Hexavalent  chromium  is  a  known . human  carcinogen.
Levels of chromate ions that show no effect in man appear  to  be
so low as to prohibit determination, to date.

The  toxicity  of  chromium  salts to fish and other aquatic life
varies widely with the species, temperature, pH, valence  of  the
chromium, and synergistic or antagonistic effects, especially the
effect  of  water  hardness.   Studies  have shown that trivalent
chromium is more toxic to fish of some types than  is  hexavalent
chromium.  Hexavalent chromium retards growth of one fish species
at  0.0002 mg/1.   Fish  food  organisms and other lower forms of
aquatic life are extremely  sensitive  to  chromium.   Therefore,
both hexavalent and trivalent chromium must be considered harmful
to particular fish or organisms.
                              269

-------
For  the .protection of human health from the toxic properties of
chromium (trivalent)  ingested  through  water  and  contaminated
aquatic organisms, the recommended water qualtiy criterion is 170
mg/1.   If  contaminated  aquatic  organisms  alone are consumed,
excluding the consumption  of  water,  the  water  criterion  for
trivalent  chromium  is  3,443  mg/1.   The ambient water quality
criterion for hexavalent chromium is recommended to be  identical
to  the existing drinking water standard for total chromium which
is 0.050 mg/1.


Chromium is not destroyed when  treated  by  POTW  (although  the
oxidation  state may change), and will either pass through to the
POTW effluent or be incorporated  into  the  POTW  sludge.   Both
oxidation states can cause POTW treatment inhibition and can also
limit the usefuleness of municipal sludge.

Influent  concentrations of chromium to POTW facilities have been
observed by EPA to range from 0.005 to 14.0 mg/1, with  a  median
concentration  of  0.1 mg/1.   The  efficiencies  for  removal of
chromium by  the  activated  sludge  process  can  vary  greatly,
depending  on  chromium  concentration in the influent, and other
operating conditions at  the  POTW.   Chelation  of  chromium  by
organic  matter and dissolution due to the presence of carbonates
can cause deviations from the  predicted  behavior  in  treatment
systems.

The   systematic   presence   of  chromium  compounds  will  halt
nitrification in a POTW  for  short  periods,  and  most  of  the
chromium  will  be  retained  in  the  sludge solids,  Hexavalent
chromium has been reported to severely affect  the  nitrification
process,  but  trivalent  chromium  has  litte  or no toxicity to
activated sludge, except at high concentrations.  The presence of
iron, copper, and low pH will increase the toxicity  of  chromium
in  a POTW by releasing the chromium into solution to be ingested
by microorganisms in the POTW.

The amount of chromium which passes through to the POTW  effluent
depends  on the type of treatment processes used by the POTW.  In
a study of 240 POTW 5.6 percent of the primary plants allowed more
than 80 percent pass through to  POTW  effluent.   More  advanced
treatment  'results   in   less   pass-through.    POTW  effluent
concentrations ranged from 0.003 to 3.2 mg/1 total chromium (mean
« 0.197, standard deviation * 0.48), and from 0.002  to  0.1 mg/1
hexavalent chromium (mean = 0.017, standard deviation = 0.020).

Chromium  not  passed  through  the  POTW will be retained in the
sludge, where it is likely to build up in concentration.   Sludge
concentrations of total chromium of over 20,000 mg/kg (dry basis)
                              270

-------
have  been  observed.   Disposal  of sludges containing very high
concentrations  of  trivalent  chromium  can  potentially   cause
problems  in  uncontrollable landfills.  Incineration, or similar
destructive oxidation processes can produce  hexavalent  chromium
from  lower  valance  states.  Hexavalent chromium is potentially
more toxic than trivalent chromium.  In cases where high rates of
chrome sludge application  on  land  are  used,  distinct  growth
inhibition and plant tissue uptake have been noted.

Pretreatment    of    discharges    substantially   reduces   the
concentration of chromium  in  sludge.   In  Buffalo,  New  York,
pretreatment  of  electroplating 'waste resulted in a decrease in
chromium concentrations in POTW sludge from 2,510 to 1,040 mg/kg.
A similar reduction occurred  in  Grand  Rapids,  Michigan,  POTW
where  the chromium concentration in sludge decreased from 11,000
to 2,700 mg/kg when pretreatment was made a requirement.

Copper(120).  Copper is a  metallic  element  that  sometimes  is
found  free,  as  the native metal, and is also found in minerals
such  as  cuprite  (Cu20),  malechite  [CuCO3»Cu(OH)2],   azurite
[2CuC03»Cu(OH)2],  chalcopyrite  (CuFeS2), and bornite  (Cu5FeS4).
Copper is obtained from these ores  by  smelting,  leaching,  and
electrolysis.   It  is used in the plating, electrical, plumbing,
and heating equipment industries, as well as in insecticides  and
fungicides.

Traces of copper are found in all forms of plant and animal life,
and  the  metal  is  an  essential  trace  element for nutrition.
Copper is not considered to be a cumulative systemic  poison  for
humans  as  it  is readily excreted by the body, but it can cause
symptoms  of  gastroenteritis,   with   nausea   and    intestinal
irritations,  at  relatively low dosages.  The limiting factor in
domestic water  supplies  is  taste.   To  prevent  this  adverse
organoleptic effect of copper in water, a criterion of  1 mg/1 has
been established.

The toxicity of copper to aquatic organisms varies significantly,
not  only  with  the  species,  but  also  with  the physical and
chemical characteristics of  the  water,  including  temperature,
hardness,  turbidity, and carbon dioxide content.  In hard water,
the toxicity of copper salts may be reduced by the  precipitation
of  copper  carbonate or other insoluble compounds.  The sulfates
of copper and zinc, and of copper and calcium are synergistic  in
their toxic effect on fish.

Relatively  high  concentrations  of  copper  may be tolerated by
adult fish for short periods of  time;  the  critical  effect  of
copper  appears  to  be  its higher toxicity to young or juvenile
fish.  Concentrations of 0.02 to 0.031 mg/1 have proved fatal  to
                              271

-------
some  common  fish  species.   In general the salmonoids are very
sensitive and the sunfishes are less sensitive to copper.

The recommended criterion to protect freshwater aquatic  life  is
0.0056 mg/1   as   a  24-hour  average,  and  0.012 mg/1  maximum
concentration  at  a  hardness  of  50  mg/1  CaC03.   For  total
recoverable  copper  the  criterion to protect freshwater aquatic
life is 5.6 x TO-3 mg/1 as a 24-hour average.

Copper salts  cause  undesirable  color  reactions  in  the  food
industry  and  cause  pitting when deposited on some other metals
such as aluminum and galvanized steel.

Irrigation water containing more than minute quantities of copper
can be detrimental to  certain  crops.   Copper  appears  in  all
soils, and its concentration ranges from 10 to 80 ppm.  In soils,
copper occurs in association with hydrous oxides of manganese and
iron,  and  also  as soluble and insoluble complexes with organic
matter.  Copper is essential to  the  life  of  plants,  and  the
normal  range  of  concentration  in  plant  tissue  is from 5 to
20 ppm.  Copper concentrations in plants normally do not build up
to  high  levels  when  toxicity  occurs.    For   example,   the
concentrations  of  copper  in  snapbean leaves and pods was less
than 50 and 20 mg/kg, respectively, under  conditions  of  severe
copper  toxicity.  Even under conditions of copper toxicity, most
of the excess copper accumulates in the  roots;  very  little  is
moved to the aerial part of the plant.

Copper  is  not destroyed when treated by a POTW, and will either
pass through to the POTW effluent or  be  retained  in  the  POTW
sludge.   It  can interfere with the POTW treatment processes and
can limit the usefulness of municipal sludge.

The influent concentration of copper to POTW facilities has  been
observed  by  the  EPA  to  range  from 0.01 to 1.97 mg/1, with a
median concentration of 0.12 mg/1.  The copper  that  is  removed
from  the  influent stream of a POTW is adsorbed on the sludge or
appears in the sludge as the hydroxide of the metal.  Bench scale
pilot studies have shown that from about 25 percent to 75 percent
of the  copper  passing  through  the  activated  sludge  process
remains  in  solution  in  the  final  effluent.   Four-hour slug
dosages of copper sulfate  in  concentrations  exceeding  50 mg/1
were reported to have severe effects on the removal efficiency of
an  unacclimated  system,  with the system returning,to normal in
about 100 hours.  Slug dosages of copper in the  form  of  copper
cyanide  were  observed  to  have much more severe effects on the
activated sludge system, but the total system returned to  normal
in 24 hours.
                              272

-------
In  a  recent study of 268 POTW, the median pass-through was over
80 percent for primary plants and 40 to 50 percent for  trickling
filter,  activated sludge, and biological treatment plants.  POTW
effluent concentrations of copper ranged from 0.003  to  1.8 mg/1
(mean 0.126, standard deviation 0.242).

Copper  which  does not pass through the POTW will be retained in
the sludge where it will build up in concentration.  The presence
of excessive levels of copper in sludge  may  limit  its  use  on
cropland.   Sewage  sludge contains up to 16,000 mg/kg of copper,
with 730 mg/kg as  the  mean  value.   These  concentrations  are
significantly  greater  than  those normally found in soil, which
usually range from 18 to 80 mg/kg.   Experimental __data  indicate
that  when  dried sludge is spread over tillable land, the copper.
tends to remain in place down to the depth of tillage, except for
copper which is taken up by plants grown  in  the  soil.   Recent
investigation  has  shown  that the extractable copper content of
sludge-treated  soil  decreased  with  time,  which  suggests   a
reversion of copper to less soluble forms was occurring.

Lead  (122).   Lead is a soft, malleabLe-r-ductible, blueish-gray,
metallic element, usually obtained fronriEe-mineral galena  (lead
sulfide,  PbS),  anglesite  (lead  sulfate,  PbS04), or cerussite
(lead carbonate, PbC03).  Because it is usually  associated  with
minerals  of  zinc,  silver, copper, gold, cadmium, antimony,'and
arsenic, special purification methods are frequently used  before
and  after  extraction  of  the metal from the ore concentrate by
smelting.

Lead is widely used  for  its  corrosion  resistance,  sound  and
vibration absorption, low melting point (solders), and relatively
high imperviousness to various forms of radiation.  Small amounts
of  copper, antimony and other metals can be alloyed with lead to
achieve greater hardness, stiffness, or corrosion resistance than
is afforded by the pure metal.  Lead compounds are used in glazes
and paints.  About one third of U.S.  lead consumption goes  into
storage  batteries.   About half of U.S., lead"consumption is from
secondary lead recovery.  U.S. consumption  of ^Cead  is  in  the
range of-one million-tons annually.

Lead  "ingested  by  humans  produces  a  variety of toxic effects
including impaired reproductive ability,  disturbances  in  blood
chemistry,  neurological   disorders,  kidney damage, and adverse
cardiovascular effects.  Exposure to lead in the diet results  in
permanent   increase in lead levels in the body.  Most of the lead
entering the body eventually becomes localized in the bones where
it accumulates.  Lead is a carcinogen or  co-carcinogen  in  some
species   of   experimental  animals.   Lead  is  teratogenic  in
                              273

-------
 experimental  animals.   Mutagenicity data are  not  available  for
 lead.

 For   the   protection of human health from the toxic properties of
 lead  ingested through  water  and  through  contaminated  aquatic
 organisms   the  ambient water criterion is 0.050 mg/1.   Available
 data   show  that  adverse  effects  on  aquatic  life  occur   at
 concentrations  as  low  as  7.5 x 10-4 mg/1 of total recoverable
 lead  as a  24-hour average with a water hardness  of  50  mg/1   as
 CaCO,.

 Lead   is   not  destroyed  in  POTW,  but is passed through to  the
 effluent or retained in the POTW sludge; it  can  interfere with
 POTW   treatment  processes  and  can limit the usefulness of POTW
 sludge for  application  to  agricultural  croplands.   Threshold
 concentration  for  inhibition of the activated sludge process is
 0.1 mg/1,  and for the nitrification process is 0.5  mg/1.    In  a
 study of   214  POTW,   median  pass  through  values were over 80
 percent for primary plants and  over  60  percent  for  trickling
 filter,  activated  sludge,   and biological process plants.  Lead
 concentration in POTW effluents ranged from  0.003  to  1.8 mg/1
 (means * 0.106 mg/1,  standard deviation » 0.222).

 Application of lead-containing sludge to cropland should not lead
 to uptake  by  crops under most conditions because normally lead is
 strongly bound by soil.   However, under the unusual conditions of
 low    pH   (less  than  5.5)   and  low  concentrations  of  labile
 phosphorus,   lead  solubility  is  increased   and   plants   can
 accumulate lead.

 Mercury.    Mercury  (123)  is  an elemental metal rarely found in
 nature as  the free metal.  Mercury is unique among metals  as   it
 remains  a  liquid  down  to  about 39 degrees below zero.  It is
 relatively inert chemically  and  is  insoluble  in  water.    The
-principal  ore is cinnabar (HgjS).

 Mercury  is  used  industrially as the metal and as mercurous  and
 mercuric salts and compounds.   Mercury is used in  several  types
 of batteries.    Mercury  released  to the aqueous environment is
 subject to biomethylation - conversion  to  the  extremely  toxic
 methyl mercury.

 Mercury  "can—be^Jjitjoduced into the body through the skin and  the
 respiratory~system as_the elemental vapor.   Mercuric  salts  are
 highly  toxic   to  humans  and  can  be  absorbed  through  the
 gastrointestinal tract.   Fatal doses can vary from 1 to 30 grams.
 Chronic toxicity of methyl  mercury  is  evidenced  primarily   by
 neurological  symptoms.   Some mercuric salts cause death by kidney
 failure.
                               274

-------
Mercuric  salts  are  extremely  toxic  to fish and other aquatic
life.  Mercuric chloride is more lethal than  copper,  hexavalent
chromium,  zinc,  nickel, and lead towards fish and aquatic life.
In the food cycle, algae containing mercury up to TOO  times  the
concentration  in  the  surrounding  sea  water are eaten by fish
which further concentrate the mercury.  Predators  that  eat  the
fish in turn concentrate the mercury even further.

For  the  protection of human health from the toxic properties of
mercury ingested through water and through  contaminated  aquatic
organisms  the  ambient  water  criterion  is  determined  to  be
0.000144 mg/1.

Mercury is not destroyed when treated by a POTW, and will  either
pass  through  to  the  POTW effluent or be incorporated into the
POTW sludge.  At low concentrations it may  reduce  POTW  removal
efficiencies,  and  at  high concentrations it may upset the POTW
operation.

The influent concentrations of mercury to POTW have been observed
by the EPA to  range  from  0.0002 to 0.24 mg/1,  with  a  median
concentration  of  0.001 mg/1.   Mercury has been reported in the
literature to have inhibiting effects upon  an  activated  sludge
POTW  at levels as low as 0.1 mg/1.  At 5 mg/1 of mercury, losses
of COD removal efficiency of 14 to 40 percent have been reported,
while at 10 mg/1 loss of removal of 59 percent has been reported.
Upset of an activated sludge POTW is reported in  the  literature
to  occur near 200 mg/1.  The anaerobic digestion process is much
less affected by the presence of mercury, with inhibitory effects
being reported at 1365 mg/1.

In a study of 22 POTW having secondary treatment,  the  range  of
removal of mercury from the influent to the POTW ranged from 4 to
99  percent  with median removal of 41 percent.  Thus significant
pass through of mercury may occur.

In sludges, mercury content may be high if industrial sources  of
mercury  contamination  are  present.   Little is known about the
form in which mercury occurs  'in  sludge.   Mercury  may  undergo
biological  methylation in sediments, but no methylation has been
observed in soils, mud, or sewage sludge.

The mercury content of soils  not  receiving  additions  of  POTW
sewage  sludge lie in the range from 0.01 to 0.5 mg/kg.  In soils
receiving POTW sludges for protracted periods, the  concentration
of mercury has been observed to approach 1.0 mg/kg.  In the soil,
mercury  enters  into reactions with the exchange complex of clay
and organic fractions, forming both  ionic  and  covalent  bonds.
Chemical  and  microbiological degradation of mercurials can take
                              275

-------
place side by side in the soil,  and  the  products  -  ionic  or
molecular  -  are  retained  by organic matter and clay or may be
volatilized if gaseous.  Because of  the  high  affinity  between
mercury  and  'the   solid  soil surfaces, mercury persists in the
upper layer of soil.

Mercury can enter plants through the roots, it can  readily  move
to  other  parts  of the plant, and it has been reported to cause
injury to plants.  In many plants  mercury  concentrations  range
from  0.01 to 0.20 mg/kg,  but when plants are supplied with high
levels of mercury, these  concentrations  can  exceed  0.5 mg/kg.
Bioconcentration occurs in animals ingesting mercury in food.

Nickel(124).   Nickel  is  seldom  found  in-  nature  as the pure
elemental metal.  It is a relatively  plentiful  element  and  is
widely  distributed  throughout  the earth's crust.  It occurs in
marine  organisms  and  is  found  in  the  oceans.   The   chief
commercial  ores  for  nickel are pentlandite [(Fe,Ni),S8], and a
lateritic ' ore  consisting  of   hydrated   nickel-iron-magnesium
silicate.

Nickel has many and varied uses. . It is used in alloys and as the
pure metal.  Nickel salts are used for electroplating baths.

The  toxicity  of  nickel  to  man is thought to be very low, and
systemic poisoning of human beings by nickel or nickel  salts  is
almost  unknown.   In  non-human  mammals  nickel acts to inhibit
insulin release, depress growth, and reduce cholesterol.  A  high
incidence  of  cancer  of  the lung and nose has been reported in
humans engaged in the refining of nickel.

Nickel salts can kill fish at very low concentrations.   However,
nickel  has been found to be less toxic to some fish than copper,
zinc, and iron.  Nickel is present  in  coastal  and  open  ocean
water  at  concentrations  in  the  range of 0.0001 to 0.006 mg/1
although the most common values are 0.002 ~  0.003 mg/1.   Marine
animals  contain  up  to 0.4 mg/1 and marine plants contain up to
3 mg/1.  Higher nickel concentrations have been reported to cause
reduction in photosynthetic activity of the giant  kelp.   A  low
concentration was found to kill oyster eggs.

For  the protection of human health based on the toxic properties
of nickel ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic
organisms, the ambient water criterion is determined to be 0.0134
mg/1.  If contaminated aquatic organisms are consumed,  excluding
consumption  of  water, the ambient water criterion is determined
to be 0.100 mg/1.  Available data show that  adverse .effects  on
aquatic life occur for total recoverable nickel concentrations as
low as 0.0071 mg/1 as a 24-hour average.
                              276

-------
Nickel  is  not destroyed when treated in a POTW, but will either
pass through to the POTW effluent or  be  retained  in  the  POTW
sludge.   It  can interfere with POTW treatment processes and can
also limit the usefulness of municipal sludge.

Nickel salts have caused inhibition of the biochemical  oxidation
of  sewage  in  a  £OTW.   In a pilot plant, slug doses of nickel
significantly reduced normal treatment  efficiencies  for  a  few
hours,  but  the  plant  acclimated  itself  somewhat to the slug
dosage and appeared  to  achieve  normal  treatment  efficiencies
within  40  hours.   It  has  been  reported  that  the anaerobic
digestion process is inhibited only  by  high  concentrations  of
nickel,   while  a  low  concentration  of  nickel  inhibits  the
nitrification process.

The influent concentration of nickel to POTW facilities has  been
observed  by  the  EPA  to  range  from 0.01 to 3.19 mg/1, with a
median of 0.33 mg/1.  In a study of 190 POTW, nickel pass-through
was greater than 90 percent for 82 percent of the primary plants.
Median pass-through for trickling filter, activated  sludge,  and
biological  process,  plants  was  greater  than 80 percent.  POTW
effuent   concentrations   ranged   from   0.002    to    40 mg/1
(mean = 0.410, standard deviation = 3.279).

Nickel  not passed through the POTW will be incorporated into the
sludge.  In a recent two-year study of eight cities, four of  the
cities  had  median  nickel concentrations of over 350 mg/kg, and
two were over  1,000 mg/kg.   The  maximum  nickel  concentration
observed was 4,010 mg/kg.

Nickel  is found in nearly all soils, plants, and waters.  Nickel
has no known essential function  in  plants.   In  soils,  nickel
typically  is  found  in the range from 10 to 100 mg/kg.  Various
environmental  exposures  to  nickel  appear  to  correlate  with
increased incidence of tumors in man.  For example, cancer in the
maxillary  antrum  of  snuff  users  may  result from using plant
material grown on soil high in nickel.

Nickel toxicity may develop in plants from application of  sewage
sludge  on acid soils.  Nickel has caused reduction of yields for
a variety of crops including oats, mustard, turnips, and cabbage.
In one study nickel decreased the yields of oats significantly at
100 mg/kg.

Whether nickel exerts a toxic effect on plants depends on several
soil factors, the amount of nickel applied, and the  contents  of
other  metals  in  the sludge.  Unlike copper and zinc, which are
more available from inorganic sources than  from  sludge,  nickel
uptake  by  plants  seems  to  be promoted by the presence of the
                              277

-------
organic matter in sludge.  Soil treatments, such as liming reduce
the solubility of  nickel.   Toxicity  of  nickel  to  plants  is
enhanced in acidic soils.

Silver(126).    Silver  is  a  soft, lustrous, white metal that is
insoluble in water and alkali.  In nature, silver is found in the
elemental state (native silver) and  combined  in  ores  such  as
argentite  (Ag2S),  horn  silver (AgCl), proustite (Ag3AsS3), and
pyrargyrite (Ag3SbS3).  Silver is  used  extensively  in  several
industries, among them electroplating.

Metallic  silver  is  not considered to be toxic, but most of its
salts are toxic to a large number of organisms.   Upon  ingestion
by  humans,  many  silver  salts  are absorbed in the circulatory
system and  deposited  in  various  body  tissues,  resulting  in
generalized  or sometimes localized gray pigmentation of the skin
and mucous membranes know as argyria.  There is no  known  method
for  removing  silver  from the tissues once it is deposited, and
the effect is cumulative.

Silver is recognized as a bactericide and doses from 0.000001  to
0.0005  mg/1 have been reported as sufficient to sterilize water.
The criterion for ambient water to protect human health from  the
toxic  properties  of  silver  ingested through water and through
contaminated aquatic organisms is 0.050 mg/1.

The chronic toxic effects of silver on  the  aquatic  environment
have not been given as much attention as many other heavy metals.
Data  from  existing  literature  support the fact that silver is
very toxic to aquatic organisms.  Despite the fact that silver is
nearly the most toxic of the heavy metals, there are insufficient
data to adequately evaluate  even  the  effects  of  hardness  on
silver  toxicity.  There are no data available on the toxicity of
different forms of silver.

There is no available literature on  the  incidental  removal  of
silver  by  POTW.   An  incidental removal of about 50 percent is
assumed as being representative.  This  is  the  highest  average
incidental  removal  of  any  metal for which data are available.
(Copper has been indicated to have a  median  incidental  removal
rate of 49 percent).

Bioaccumulation  and  concentration  of silver from sewage sludge
has not  been  studied  to  any  great  degree.   There  is  some
indication  that  silver  could be bioaccumulated in mushrooms to
the extent that there could be adverse physiological  effects  on
humans  if  they  consumed  large quantites of mushrooms grown in
silver enriched soil.  The effect,  however,  would  tend  to  be
unpleasant rather than fatal.
                              278

-------
There  is little summary data available on the quantity of silver
discharged to POTW.  Presumably there  would  be  a  tendency  to
limit  its discharge from a manufacturing facility because of its
high intrinsic value.

Zinc(1281.   Zinc  occurs  abundantly  in  the   earth's   crust,
concentrated  in  ores.   It  is  readily  refined into the pure,
stable, silvery-white metal.  In addition to its use  in  alloys,
zinc  is used as a protective coating on steel.  It is applied by
hot dipping (i.e.  dipping  the  steel  in  molten  zinc)  or  by
electroplating.

Zinc  can  have an adverse effect on man and animals at high con-
centrations.  Zinc at concentrations in excess of  5 mg/1  causes
an   undesirable   taste   which  persists  through  conventional
treatment.  For the prevention of adverse effects  due  to  these
organoleptic  properties of zinc, concentrations in ambient water
should not exceed 5  mg/1.   Available  data  show  that  adverse
effects  on  aquatic life occur at concentrations as low as 0.047
mg/1 as a 24-hour average.

Toxic concentrations of zinc compounds cause adverse  changes  in
the  morphology and physiology of fish.  Lethal concentrations in
the  range  of  0.1 mg/1  have  been  reported.   Acutely   toxic
concentrations  induce  cellular  breakdown  of  the  gills,  and
possibly the clogging of  the  gills  with  mucous.   Chronically
toxic concentrations of zinc compounds cause general enfeeblement
and  widespread  histological  changes to many organs, but not to
gills.   Abnormal  swimming  behavior  has   been   reported   at
0.04 mg/1.   Growth  and maturation are retarded by zinc.  It has
been observed that the effects of zinc poisoning may  not  become
apparent immediately, so that fish removed from zinc-contaminated
water may die as long as 48 hours after removal.

In  general,  salmonoids  are most sensitive to elemental zinc in
soft water; the rainbow trout  is  the  most  sensitive  in  hard
waters.     A    complex   relationship   exists   between   zinc
concentration, dissolved zinc concentration, pH, temperature, and
calcium  and  magnesium  concentration.   Prediction  of  harmful
effects  has  been less than reliable and controlled studies have
not been extensively documented.

The major concern with zinc compounds in  marine  waters  is  not
with   acute  lethal  effects,  but  rather  with  the  long-term
sublethal effects of the metallic compounds and complexes.   Zinc
accumulates  in  some  marine species, and marine animals contain
zinc in the range of 6 to 1500 mg/kg.  From the point of view  of
acute  lethal effects, invertebrate marine animals seem to be the
most sensitive organism tested.
                              279

-------
Toxicities of zinc in nutrient solutions have  been  demonstrated
for  a  number of plants.  A variety of fresh water plants tested
manifested harmful symptoms at concentrations of  10 mg/1.   Zinc
sulfate  has  also  been found to be lethal to many plants and it
could impair agricultural uses of the water.

Zinc is not destroyed when treated by POTW, but will either  pass
through  to  the POTW effluent or be retained in the POTW sludge.
It can interfere with treatment processes in  the  POTW  and  can
also limit the usefuleness of municipal sludge.

In  slug  doses,  and  particularly  in  the  presence of copper,
dissolved zinc  can  interfere  with  or  seriously  disrupt  the
operation  of  POTW  biological  processes  by  reducing  overall
removal efficiencies, largely as a result of the toxicity of  the
metal  to biological organisms.  However, zinc solids in the form
of hydroxides  or  sulfides  do  not  appear  to  interfere  with
biological  treatment  processes, on the basis of available data.
Such solids accumulate in the sludge.

The influent concentrations of zinc to POTW facilities  has  been
observed  by  the  EPA  to  range from 0.017 to 3.91 mg/1, with a
median concentration of  0.33 mg/1.   Primary  treatment  is  not
efficient  in  removing  zinc;  however,  the  microbial  floe of
secondary treatment readily adsorbs zinc.

In a study of 258 POTW, the median pass-through values were 70 to
88 percent for primary plants, 50 to  60  percent  for  trickling
filter  and  biological  process  plants,  and  30-40 percent for
activated process plants.  POTW effluent concentrations  of  zinc
ranged from 0.003 to 3.6 mg/1 (mean «= 0.330, standard deviation =
0.464).

The  zinc which does not pass through the POTW is retained in the
sludge.  The presence of zinc in sludge  may  limit  its  use  on
cropland.   Sewage  sludge  contains  72  to over 30,000 mg/kg of
zinc, with 3,366 mg/kg as the mean value.   These  concentrations
are  significantly  greater  than  those  normally found in soil,
which range from 0 to 195 mg/kg, with  94 mg/kg  being  a  common
level.   Therefore,  application  of  sewage  sludge to soil will
generally increase the concentration of zinc in the  soil.   Zinc
can  be  toxic  to  plants,  depending  upon  soil  pH.  Lettuce,
tomatoes,  turnips,  mustard,  kale,  and  beets  are  especially
sensitive to zinc contamination.

Aluminum.   Aluminum  is  a  nonconventional  pollutant.  It is a
silvery white metal, very  abundant  in  the  earths  crust  (8.1
percent),  but  never found free in nature.  Its principal ore is
bauxite.  Alumina (A1203)  is  extracted  from  the  bauxite  and
                              280

-------
dissolved   in   molten   cryolite.    Aluminum  is  produced  by
electrolysis of this melt.

Aluminum is light, malleable, ductile, possesses high thermal and
electrical conductivity, and is non-magnetic.  It can be  formed,
machined or cast.  Although aluminum is very reactive, it forms a
protective  oxide  film  on  'the surface which prevents corrosion
under many conditions.  In contact with other metals in  presence
of moisture the protective film is destroyed and voluminous white
corrosion  products  form.   Strong  acids and strong alkali also
break down the protective film.

There  is  increasing  evidence  that  dissolved   aluminum   has
substantial  adverse  effects on human health.  Aluminum has been
implicated by several studies in the development  of  Alzheimer's
disease   (progressive   senile   dementia).    This  disease  is
associated with the formation of tangled bunches of nerve  fibers
or  "neurofibrillary  tangles" (NFT).  Autopsy studies have shown
that aluminum is present in 90  percent  of  the  nuclei  of  NFT
neurons.   It  is present in less than 6 percent of the nuclei of
normal neurons.  This trend is also apparent in the cytoplasm  of
NFT neurons, although less prominent than in the nuclei: aluminum
was  found  in  29.4 percent of the cytoplasms of NFT neurons and
11.1 percent of the cytoplasms of normal neurons.

Brains of individuals suffering from several  other  neurological
diseases have also displayed elevated concentrations of aluminum.
These diseases include Huntington's disease, Parkinsons' disease,
progressive  supranuclear  palsy, acoustic neuroma, and Guamanian
amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

These increased concentrations of aluminum may be a result of the
development of the disease, rather  than  a  contributing  cause;
however,  this  possibility seems less likely in light of several
recent studies correlating high concentrations of aluminum in the
environment to a high incidence of several of these  neurological
disorders.   These  and  other  studies  are discussed in greater
detail in the  report  "Aluminum.:  An  Environmental  and  Health
Effects  Assessment,"  cited  as  a  reference  in this document.
Although much work remains to be done on this subject, the Agency
believes that the evidence points to a  much  broader  neurotoxic
role for aluminum than had previously been assumed.

In  addition,  mildly alkaline conditions can cause precipitation
of  aluminum  as  the   hydroxide.    When   aluminum   hydroxide
precipitates  in waterways or bodies of water, it can blanket the
bottom, having an adverse effect on the benthos  and  on  aquatic
plant  life  rooted on the bottom.  Aluminum hydroxide, like many
                              281

-------
precipitates, can also  impair  the  gill  action  of  fish  when
present in large amounts.

Alum, an aluminum salt with the chemical formula Alj,(S04)3»14 HjO
is  used  as  a  coagulant in municipal and industrial wastewater
treatment.  This form is different from  dissolved  aluminum  and
aluminum  hydroxide,  which  are  both  harmful  pollutants.  The
amount of dissolved aluminum in finished water does not generally
depend upon the amount of alum used  as  a  coagulant,  unless  a
large  excess  is  used.   The alum is contained in the treatment
sludge; very little passes through into the effluent.

Similarly, the amount of aluminum  hydroxide  in  finished  water
does  not  depend  on the amount of alum used in coagulation, but
rather on the pH and the  concentration  of  dissolved  aluminum.
Therefore,  the  use  of  alum  as a coagulant does not result in
large  amounts  of  either  aluminum  or  aluminum  hydroxide  in
finished  water.  There are no data available on the POTW removal
efficiency for the pollutant aluminum.

Iron.  Iron is a nonconventional polluant.   It  is  an  abundant
metal found at many places in the earth's crust.  The most common
iron  ore  is  hematite  (Fej,O,)  from  which iron is obtained by
reduction with  carbon.   Other  forms  of  commercial  ores  are
magnetite  (Fe304)  and taconite (FeSiO).  Pure iron is not often
found in commercial use, but it is  usually  alloyed  with  other
metals and minerals.  The,most common of these is carbon.

Iron  is the basic element in the production of steel.  Iron with
carbon is used for casting of major parts of machines and it  can
be  machined,  cast, formed, and welded.  Ferrous iron is used in
paints, while powdered iron can be sintered and  used  in  powder
metallurgy.   Iron  compounds  are also used to precipitate other
metals  and  undesirable  minerals  from  industrial   wastewater
streams.

Corrosion  products  of iron in water cause staining of porcelain
fixtures, and ferric iron combines with tannin to produce a  dark
violet   color.    The   presence  of  excessive  iron  in  water
discourages cows from drinking and thus reduces milk  production.
High concentrations of ferric and ferrous ions in water kill most
fish  introduced to the solution within a few hours.  The killing
action is attributed to coatings of iron  hydroxide  precipitates
on  the  gills.  Iron oxidizing bacteria are dependent on iron in
water for growth.  These bacteria form slimes that can affect the
aesthetic values of bodies of water and cause stoppage  of  flows
in pipes.
                              282

-------
Iron is an essential nutrient and micro-nutrient for all forms of
growth.   Drinking water standards in the U.S. set a limit of 0.3
mg/1 of iron in domestic water supplies based  on  aesthetic  and
organoleptic properties of iron in water.

High  concentrations  of iron do not pass through a POTW into the
effluent.  In  some .POTW  iron  salts  are  added  to  coagulate
precipitates  and  suspended  sediments into a sludge.  In an EPA
study of POTW the concentration of iron in  the  effluent  of  22
biological  POTW  meeting  secondary treatment performance levels
ranged from 0.048 to 0.569 mg/1 with a median value of 0.25 mg/1.
This represented removals of 76 to 97 percent with a median of 87
percent removal.

Iron in sewage  sludge  spread  on  land  used  for  agricultural
purposes  is  not expcected to have a detrimental effect on crops
grown on the land.

Manganese.  Manganese is a nonconventional pollutant.   It  is  a
gray-white  metal  resembling  iron,  but more brittle.  The pure
metal does not occur in nature, but must be produced by reduction
of  the  oxide  with  sodium,  magnesium,  or  aluminum,  or   by
electrolysis.   The  principal  ores  are  pyrolusite  (MnOz) and
psilomelane (a complex mixture of Mn02 and oxides  of  potassium,
barium  and other alkali and alkaline earth metals).  The largest
percentage of manganese used in the U.S.  is  in  ferro-manganese
alloys.  A small amount goes into dry batteries and chemicals.

Manganese  is not often present in natural surface waters because
its hydroxides and carbonates are only sparingly soluble.

Manganese is undesirable in domestic water  supplies  because  it
causes unpleasant tastes, deposits on food during cooking, stains
and  discolors  laundry  and.  plumbing  fixtures, and fosters the
growth  of  some  microorganisms  in  reservoirs,  filters,   and
distribution systems.

Small  concentratons  of  0.2  to  0.3  mg/1  manganese may cause
building of heavy encrustations in piping.   Excessive  manganese
is  also  undesirable  in  water  for  use  in  many  industries,
including textiles, dying, food processing, distilling,  brewing,
ice, and paper.

The  recommended  limitations  for manganese in drinking water in
the U.S. is  0.05  mg/1.   The  limit  appears  to  be  based  on
aesthetic and economic factors rather than physiological hazards.
Most   investigators  regard  manganese  to be of no toxicological
significance in drinking  water  at  concentrations  not  causing
unpleasant  tastes.   However,  cases of manganese poisoning have
                              283

-------
been  reported  in  the  literature.    A   small   outbreak   of
encephalitis  - like disease, with early symptoms of 1ethergy and
edema, was traced to manganese in the drinking water in a village
near Tokyo.  Three persons died as a result of poisoning by  well
water  contaminated  by manganese derived from dry-cell batteries
buried nearby.  Excess manganese in the drinking  water  is  also
believed   to   be  the  cause  of  a  rare  disease  endemic  in
Northeastern China.

No data were found regarding the behavior of manganese  in  POTW.
However,  one  source  reports  that  typical mineral pickup from
domestic  water  use  results  in  an   increase   in   manganese
concentration  of  0.2  to 0.4 mg/1 in a municipal sewage system.
Therefore, it is  expected  that  interference  in  POTW,  if  it
occurs,   would  not  be  noted  until  manganese  concentrations
exceeded 0.4 mg/1.

Phenols(Total).  "Total Phenols" is a  nonconventional  pollutant
parameter.   Total phenols is the result of analysis using the 4-
AAP  (4-aminoantipyrene)  method.   This   analytical   procedure
measures the color development of reaction products between 4-AAP
and  some  phenols.   The  results  are reported as phenol.  Thus
"total phenol" is not total phenols because many phenols (notably
nitrophenols) do not react.  Also,  since  each  reacting  phenol
contributes  to  the color development to a different degree, and
each phenol has a molecular weight different from others and from
phenol itself, analyses of several mixtures containing  the  same
total   concentration  in  mg/1  of  several  phenols  will  give
different numbers depending on the proportions in the  particular
mixture.

Despite these limitations of the analytical method, total phenols
is  a  useful  parameter  when  the  mix of phenols is relatively
constant and an inexpensive monitoring method is desired.  In any
given plant or even in an  industry  subcategory,  monitoring  of
"total  phenols"  provides  an indication of the concentration of
this group of priority pollutants as well as  those  phenols  not
selected as priority pollutants.  A further advantage is that the
method is widely used in water quality determinations.

In an EPA survey of 103 POTW the concentration of "total phenols"
ranged  from  0.0001  mg/1  to 0.176 mg/1 in the influent, with a
median concentration of 0.016 mg/1.  Analysis of  effluents  from
22  of  these  same  POTW  which had biological treatment meeting
secondary treatment performance  levels  showed  "total  phenols"
concentrations ranging from 0 mg/1 to 0.203 mg/1 with a'median of
0.007.   Removals  were  64  to  100  percent with a median of 78
percent.
                              284

-------
It must be recognized, however, that six of the  eleven  priority
pollutant phenols could be present in high concentrations and not
be  detected.   Conversely,  it is possible, but not probable, to
have a high  "total  phenol"  concentration  without  any  phenol
itself  or  any  of  the  ten  other  priority  pollutant phenols
present.   A  characterization  of  the  phenol  mixture  to   be
monitored to establish constancy of composition will allow "total
phenols" to be used with confidence.

Strontium.   Strontium,  a  nonconventional  pollutant, is a hard
silver-white alkaline earth metal.  The metal reacts readily with
water and moisture in the air.  It does not  occur  as  the  free
metal  in  nature.   Principal  ores are strontianite (SrC03) and
celestite (SrS04).  The metal  is  produced  from  the  oxide  .by
heating  with aluminum, but no commerical uses for the pure metal
are known.

Small percentages of strontium are alloyed with the lead used  to
cast  grids  for  some  maintenance  free  lead  acid  batteries.
Strontium compounds are used  in  limited  quantites  in  special
applications.   Strontium  hydroxide [Sr(OH)2] import thermal and
mechanical stability and moisture resistance.  The  hydroxide  is
also  used  in  preparation  of  stabilizers  for vinyl plastics.
Several strontium compounds are used in pyrotechnics.

Very few data are available regarding toxic effects of  strontium
in humans.  Some studies indicate that strontium may be essential
to  growth  in  mammals.   Large  amounts  of strontium compounds
orally administered, have retarded growth and caused  rickets  in
laboratory animals.  Strontium is considered to be nontoxic or of
very  low  toxicity in humans.  Specific involvement of strontium
toxicity in enzyme or biochemical systems is not known.

No reports were found regarding behavior of  strontium  in  POTW.
At  the  low  concentrations  of  strontium  to be expected under
normal conditions, the strontium is expected to pass through into
the POTW effluent in the dissolved state.

Oil and Grease.   Oil  and  grease  are  taken  together  as  one
pollutant parameter.  This is a conventional polluant and some of
its components are:

1.   Light Hydrocarbons -  These  include  light  fuels  such  as
     gasoline, kerosene, and jet fuel, and miscellaneous solvents
     used  for  industrial  processing,  degreasing,  or cleaning
     purposes.  The presence of these light hydrocarbons may make
     the removal of other heavier oil wastes more difficult.
                              285

-------
2.   Heavy Hydrocarbons, Fuels, and  Tars  -  These  include  the
     crude  oils,  diesel  oils, 16 fuel oil, residual oils, slop
     oils, and in some cases, asphalt and road tar.

3.   Lubricants and Cutting Fluids - These  generally  fall  into
     two  classes: non-emulsifiable oils such as lubricating oils
     and greases and emulsifiable  oils  such  as  water  soluble
     oils,  rolling  oils,  cutting  oils, and drawing compounds.
     Emulsifiable oils may contain  fat  soap  or  various  other
     additives.

4.   Vegetable  and  Animal  Fats  and  Oils  -  These  originate
     primarily from processing of foods and natural products.

These  compounds  can  settle or float and may exist as solids or
liquids depending upon factors such as method of use,  production
process, and temperature of wastewater.

Oil  and  grease even in small quantities cause troublesome taste
and odor problems.  Scum lines from these agents are produced  on
water treatment basin walls and other containers.  Fish and water
fowl  are  adversely  affected  by  oils  in  their habitat.  Oil
emulsions may adhere to the gills of  fish  causing  suffocation,
and  the  flesh  of fish is tainted when microorganisms that were
exposed to waste oil are eaten.  Deposition of oil in the  bottom
sediments  of  water  can serve to inhibit normal benthic growth.
Oil and grease exhibit an oxygen demand.

Many of the organic priority pollutants will be found distributed
between the oily  phase  and  the  aqueous  phase  in  industrial
wastewaters.  The presence of phenols, PCBs, PAHs, and almost any
other   organic   pollutant   in   the   oil   and   grease  make
characterization of this parameter almost  impossible.   However,
all  of  these  other organics add to the objectionable nature of
the oil and grease.

Levels of oil and grease which are  toxic  to  aquatic  organisms
vary   greatly,   depending   on   the   type   and  the  species
susceptibility.  However, it has been reported that crude oil  in
concentrations  as  low  as 0.3 mg/1 is extremely toxic to fresh-
water fish.  It has been recommended  that  public  water  supply
sources be essentially free from oil and grease.

Oil and grease in quantities of 100 1/sq km show up as a sheen on
the  surface  of  a  body  of  water.  The presence of oil slicks
decreases the aesthetic value of a waterway.

Oil and grease is compatible with a POTW activated sludge process
in  limited   quantity.    However,   slug   loadings   or   high
                              286

-------
concentrations  of  oil  and  grease  interfere  with  biological
treatment processes.  The oils coat surfaces and solid particles,
preventing access of oxygen, and sealing in some  microorganisms.
Land   spreading   of  POTW  sludge  containing  oil  and  grease
uncontaminated by toxic pollutants  is  not  expected  to  affect
crops grown on the treated land, or animals eating those crops.

Total Suspended Solids(TSS).    Suspended   solids  include  both
organic and inorganic materials.  The inorganic compounds include
sand,  silt,  and  clay.   The  organic  fraction  includes  such
materials  as  grease,  oil,  tar, and animal and vegetable waste
products.  These  solids  may  settle  out  rapidly,  and  bottom
deposits  are  often  a  mixture  of  both  organic and inorganic
solids.  Solids may be suspended in water for  a  time  and  then
settle to the bed of the stream or lake.  These solids discharged
with  man's  wastes may be inert, slowly biodegradable materials,
or  rapidly  decomposable  substances.   While   in   suspension,
suspended  solids  increase  the  turbidity  of the water, reduce
light penetration, and  impair  the  photosynthetic  activity  of
aquatic plants.

Supended solids in water interfere with many industrial processes
and  cause  foaming  in  boilers  and incrustastions on equipment
exposed to such water, especially as the temperature rises.  They
are undesirable in process  water  used  in  the  manufacture  of
steel,  in  the textile industry, in laundries, in dyeing, and in
cooling systems.

Solids in suspension are aesthetically  displeasing.   When  they
settle  to  form  sludge deposits on the stream or lake bed, they
are often damaging to  the  life  in  the  water.   Solids,  when
transformed  to  sludge  deposit,  may  do  a variety of damaging
things, including blanketing the stream or lake bed  and  thereby
destroying  the  living  spaces  for those benthic organisms that
would otherwise occupy the habitat.  When of an  organic  nature,
solids  use a portion or all of the dissolved oxygen available in
the area.  Organic materials also serve  as  a  food  source  for
sludgeworms and associated organisms.

Disregarding  any toxic effect attributable to substances leached
out by water, suspended solids may kill  fish  and  shellfish  by
causing   abrasive   injuries  and  by  clogging  the  gills  and
respiratory  passages  of  various  aquatic  fauna.   Indirectly,
suspended solids are inimical to aquatic life because they screen
out  light,  and  they  promote  and  maintain the development of
noxious conditions through oxygen depletion.  This results in the
killing of fish and fish food organisms.  Suspended  solids  also
reduce the recreational value of the water.
                              287

-------
Total  suspended  solids  is  a  traditional  pollutant  which is
compatible  with  a  well-run  POTW.   This  pollutant  with  the
exception  of  those  components which are described elsewhere in
this section, e.g., heavy metal components,  does  not  interfere
with  the  operation  of  a  POTW.  However, since a considerable
portion of the innocuous TSS may  be  inseparably  bound  to  the
constituents  which  do interfere with POTW operation, or produce
unusable sludge, or subsequently dissolve to produce unacceptable
POTW effluent, TSS may be considered a toxic waste hazard.

pH.  Although not a specific pollutant,  pH  is  related  to  the
acidity  or  alkalinity  of  a  wastewater  stream.   It  is not,
however, a measure of either.  The term pH is  used  to  describe
the  hydrogen  ion concentration (or activity) present in a given
solution.  Values for pH range from 0 to 14,  and  these  numbers
are  the  negative logarithms of the hydrogen ion concentrations.
A pH of 7 indicates neutrality.  Solutions with a pH above 7  are
alkaline,  while  those  solutions  with a pH below 7 are acidic.
The  relationship  of  pH  and  acidity  and  alkalinity  is  not
necessarily  linear  or  direct.   Knowledge  of  the water pH is
useful in determining necessary measures for  corroison  control,
sanitation, and disinfection.  Its value is also necessary in the
treatment  of  industrial  wastewaters  to  determine  amounts of
chemicals required to remove  pollutants  and  to  measure  their
effectiveness.  .  Removal  of  pollutants,  especially  .dissolved
solids is affected by the pH of the wastewater.
                          4
Waters  with  a  pH  below  6.0  are  corrosive  to  water  works
structures,  distribution  lines, and household plumbing fixtures
and can thus add constituents to drinking  water  such  as  iron,
copper,  zinc, cadmium, and lead.  The hydrogen ion concentration
can affect the taste of the water and at a low pH,  water  tastes
sour.   The bactericidal effect of chlorine is weakened as the pH
increases, and it is advantageous to keep the pH  close  to  7.0.
This is significant for providng safe drinking water.

Extremes of pH or rapid pH changes can exert stress conditions or
kill   aquatic   life   outright.   Even  moderate  changes  from
acceptable criteria limits of pH are deleterious to some species.
The relative toxicity  to  aquatic  life  of  many  materials  is
increased   by   changes   in   the   water   pH.   For  example,
metallocyanide complexes can increase a thousand-fold in toxicity
with a drop of 1.5 pH units.

Because of the universal nature of pH and  its  effect  on  water
quality  and  treatment,  it is selected as a pollutant parameter
for many industry categories.  A neutral pH range  (approximately
6-9)  is  generally  desired  because  either extreme beyond this
                              288

-------
range has  a  deleterious  effect  on  receiving  waters  or  the
pollutant nature of other wastewater constituents.

Pretreatment  for  regulation  of  pH  is covered by the "General
Pretreatment  Regulations  for  Exisiting  and  New  Sources   of
Pollution,"  40 CFR 403.5.   This section prohibits the discharge
to a POTW of "pollutants which will  cause  corrosive  structural
damage  to  the POTW but in no case discharges with pH lower than
5.0 unless the works is specially designed  to  accommodate  such
discharges."

SPECIFIC POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR REGULATION

For  the  lead  subcategory,  discussion  of individual pollutant
parameters selected for consideration for specific regulation are
based on an evaluation of pollutant concentrations in  total  raw
wastewater  streams  from eight plants (Table V-34, page 220), an
evaluation  of  pollutant  concentrations  in  process   elements
streams (Tables V-5 to V-31, pages 178 to 210), and an evaluation
of the raw materials and the manufacturing processes employed.

Parameters  Selected  for  Consideration for Specific Regulation.
Based  on  the  subcategory  pollutant  selection  analysis,   15
pollutant parameters are considered for specific regulation.  The
parameters  selected  are:   antimony, cadmium, chromium, copper,
lead, mercury, nickel, silver, zinc, aluminum,  iron,  manganese,
oil  and grease, total suspended solids and pH.  These pollutants
were observed at significant levels in raw wastewater produced in
the  subcategory  and  are  amenable  to  control  by  identified
wastewater treatment and control practices.

Antimony concentrations appeared in 11 of 20 total raw wastewater
streams  from  the  lead  subcategory.   Antimony  is  used as an
alloying element in the lead grids used to make  battery  plates,
therefore,  its  presence  is  expected  in raw wastewaters.  The
maximum concentration in the total raw wastewater was  0.536 mg/1
and  in  the  pasting  raw  wastewater  samples  was  as  high as
3.67 mg/1.  Since some measured raw wastewater concentrations are
above the level which  can  be  achieved  by  specific  treatment
methods,  and  since  antimony  is  used as a raw material, it is
considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.

Cadmium concentration appeared in 17 of 20 total  raw  wastewater
streams from the lead subcategory.  The maximum concentration was
0.03 mg/1  in  the  total  raw  wastewater streams and as high as
0.34 mg/1 in the battery repair raw  wastewater  samples.   Since
some  of the measured concentrations iq raw wastewaters are above
the  concentration  level  which  can  be  achieve  by   specific
                              289

-------
treatment  methods, cadmium is considered for specific regulation
in this subcategory.

Chromium concentrations appeared in 19 of 19 total raw wastewater
streams in the lead subcategory.  The maximum  concentration  was
3.27 mg/1  in  the  total  raw  wastewater streams and as high as
3.67 mg/1 in the battery wash (detergent) raw wastewater samples.
Specific treatment methods can reduce chromium below this  level.
Therefore, chromium is considered for specific regulation.

Copper  concentrations  appeared in 19 of 19 total raw wastewater
streams, and individual process raw wastewater samples  from  the
lead  subcategory.   The  maximum  concentration in the total raw
wastewater streams was 2.50 mg/1, and as high as 9.83 mg/1 in the
battery repair  raw  wastewater  samples.   Copper  is  used  for
electrical  conductors  in charging operations and may be present
in process equipment.  It was not a primary raw material  in  the
sampled   plants  but  may  be  introduced  into  wastewaters  by
corrosion  of   equipment.    Some   of   the   measured   copper
concentrations  are greater than the levels which can be achieved
by specific treatment methods.  Therefore, copper  is  considered
for specific regulation in this subcategory.

Lead  concentrations appeared in all total raw wastewater streams
and individual process raw  wastewater  samples  from  the  eight
plants  in  the  lead subcategory.  The maximum concentration was
135.4 mg/1 in the total raw wastewater streams  and  as  high  as
6000 mg/1  in  the pasting raw wastewater samples.  All total raw
wastewater streams and most individual process wastewater samples
contained concentrations which were above the level which can  be
achieved  by  specific  treatment  methods.   Therefore,  lead is
considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.

Mercury concentrations appeared in 4 of 12 total  raw  wastewater
streams  analyzed  for this priority pollutant.  Streams from two
plants contained this pollutant.  The maximum  concentration  was
0.065  mg/1  which  was  from  a  battery  wash  (water only) raw
wastewater sample.  Specific treatment methods remove mercury  to
levels   lower  than  some  of  those  found  in  these  samples.
Therefore, even though mercury is not a primary raw  material  or
added  in  the  manufacturing  process,  specific  regulation  of
mercury is considered in this subcategory.

Nickel concentrations appeared in 17 of 19 total  raw  wastewater
streams  in  the lead subcategory.  The maximum concentration was
2.8 mg/1 which appeared  in  the  battery  wash  (detergent)  raw
wastewater  samples  and  a maximum of 2.49 mg/1 was in the total
raw wastewater streams.  Some of the concentrations were  greater
than  the  level  which  can  be achieved with specific treatment
                              290

-------
methods.   Therefore,  although  nickel  is  not  a  primary  raw
material, and is not a recognizable addition of any process step,
this  priority  pollutant  parameter  is  considered for specific
regulation in this subcategory.

Silver concentrations appeared in 8 of 13  total  raw  wastewater
streams   analyzed  for  this  priority  pollutant  in  the  lead
subcategory.  The maximum concentration found  was  0.03 mg/1  in
the  total  wastewater  streams  and  as  high as .71 mg/1 in the
pasting  raw  wastewater  samples.   Silver  can  be  removed  to
concentrations  below those found in some samples.  Silver is not
a primary raw material, but may be present in trace quantities in
the lead used for grids in this subcategory.   Therefore,  silver
is considered for specific regulation.

Zinc  concentrations appeared in all total raw wastewater streams
from the eight plants  in  the  lead  subcategory.   The  maximum
concentration  was  6.8 mg/1  in the total raw wastewater streams
and as high  as  15.2 mg/1  in  the  floor  wash  raw  wastewater
samples.  Many concentrations are above the level achievable with
specific  treatment  methods.   Thus,  even  though zinc is not a
primary raw material in this subcategory, it  is  considered  for
specific regulation.

Aluminum  concentrations  appeared  in  all  total raw wastewater
streams that were analyzed for aluminum.   The  maximum  aluminum
concentration  was  2.8 mg/1 in the total raw wastewater streams,
and concentrations were as high as 160 mg/1 in a truck  wash  raw
wastewater  sample.   These concentrations are greater than those
which can be achieved by specific treatment methods.   Therefore,
aluminum is considered for specific regulation.

Iron  concentrations appeared in all total raw wastewater streams
that were analyzed for iron in the lead subcategory.  The maximum
iron concentration was 390  mg/1  in  the  total  raw  wastewater
streams and all concentrations were above 1 mg/1.  Concentrations
were  as  high  as  1050 mg/1  in  the  truck wash raw wastewater
samples.  Iron in these raw wastewater streams is attributable to
corrosion of process equipment and  charging  racks  by  sulfuric
acid.   The  levels of iron in most of the sampled raw wastewater
streams may produce undesirable environmental effects.  All total
raw  wastewater  samples  contained  concentrations  which   were
greater  than  those  which can be achieved by specific treatment
methods.  Therefore, iron is considered for specific regulation.

Manganese concentrations appeared in  all  total  raw  wastewater
streams  that were analyzed for manganese.  The maximum manganese
concentration was 0.42 mg/1 in the total raw wastewater  streams,
and  concentrations  were as high as 7.2 mg/1 in a truck wash raw
                              291

-------
wastewater sample.  These concentrations are  above  those  which
can  be  achieved  by  specific  treatment  methods.   Therefore,
manganese is considered for specific regulation.

Oil  and  grease  concentrations  appeared  in  all   total   raw
wastewater  streams in the lead subcategory.  Concentrations were
as high as 49.0 mg/1 in the total raw waste streams and  as  high
as 1620 mg/1 in the pasting process raw wastewater samples.  This
pollutant  can  be  removed  by  conventional  treatment methods.
Therefore oil and grease is considered for specific regulation in
this subcategory.

Suspended solids appeared in all total raw wastewater streams  at
concentrations  as  high  as  1300 mg/1.   TSS  (Total  Suspended
Solids) may be introduced into wastewater at numerous  points  in
the  process,  most  notably  in electrode grid pasting processes
where concentrations were as high as 42,300 mg/1,  and  are  also
produced  by  the  treatment  of  wastewater for precipitation of
metal pollutants.  The TSS generated in this subcategory consists
of large proportions of priority  pollutants  and  is  treatable.
Therefore TSS is considered for specific regulation.

Raw  waste  streams  in  the  lead  subcategory are predominantly
acidic because of contamination by sulfuric acid which is used as
electrolyte and in process steps.  The  pH  of  these  wastewater
samples  range from 12 down to 1.  Regulation of pH is considered
in this subcategory to maintain the pH within  the  7.5  to  10.0
range.

Parameters  Not  Selected  for  Specific  Regulation.  A total of
fifteen pollutant parameters which were evaluated in verification
analysis were dropped from  further  consideration  for  specific
regulation  in the lead subcategory.  These parameters were found
to  be  present  in   raw   wastewaters   infrequently,   or   at
concentration  below those usually achieved by specific treatment
methods.  The  fifteen  are:  1,1,1-trichloroethane,  chloroform,
methylene      chloride,     napththalene,     phenol,     bis(2-
ethylhexyDphthalate,   butyl   benzyl   phthalate,    di-n-butyl
phthalate,   di-n-octyl   phthalate,   anthracene,  phenanthrene,
pyrene, arsenic, strontium, and "total phenols."

1,ly1-Trichloroethane concentrations appeared in all  of  the  13
total   raw   wastewater  ' streams  analyzed  for  this  priority
pollutant.  This priority pollutant is an industrial solvent  and
degreasing   agent   which   might   easily  be  present  in  any
manufacturing plant.  The maximum concentration was  0.025  mg/1,
which  is  below  the  level  considered  achievable by available
specific treatment methods.  Therefore  1,1,1-trichloroethane  is
not considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.
                              292

-------
Chloroform  concentrations  appeared  in  6  of  the 13 total raw
wastewater   streams   analyzed   for   this   pollutant.     All
concentrations  were  below  the  quantification  level for toxic
organic pollutants.  Chloroform is not a  specific  raw  material
nor  is  it  part  of  a  process  in this subcategory.  Specific
treatment methods do not bring chloroform concentrations down  to
the levels found in the raw wastewater.  Therefore, chloroform is
not considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.

Methylene  chloride  concentrations appeared in 8 of the 13 total
raw wastewater streams which were subjected to analysis for  this
priority   pollutant.    All   concentrations   were   below  the
quantifiable limit for organic  priority  pollutants.   Therefore
methylene  chloride  is not considered for specific regulation in
this subcategory.

Naphthalene concentrations appeared in 10 of  the  13  total  raw
wastewater  streams  analyzed  for  this  pollutant.  The maximum
concentration was 0.01 mg/1 in the total raw  wastewater  streams
and  as  high  as  0.037 mg/1  in the battery wash raw wastewater
samples.  This priority pollutant is not a raw material nor is it
part  of  a  process.   Concentrations  were  below   the   level
considered  to  be  achievable  with available specific treatment
methods.  Therefore, naphthalene is not considered  for  specific
regulation in this subcategory.

Phenol  concentrations  appeared  in  only one of three total raw
wastewater streams from the lead subcategory which were subjected
to analysis for this priority pollutant.   The  concentration  is
below   the   quantifiable   limit.   Therefore,  phenol  is  not
considered for specific regulation.

Four priority pollutant phthalate ester  concentrations  appeared
in  total  raw wastewater streams from the lead subcategory.  Bis
(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate concentrations appeared in all total raw
wastewater  streams  which  were  analyzed  for   this   priority
pollutant  at  concentrations  up to 0.135 mg/1.  The other three
esters - butyl benzyl phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate, and  di-n-
octyl  phthalate  were  present  in  fewer  samples and, with the
exception of di-n-octyl phthalate which had  a  maximum  of  0.14
mg/1,  were  found at lower concentrations.  None of these esters
are raw materials, nor are they part  of  processes.   All  these
esters  are  used  as  plasticizers  which  would result in their
presence in  the  plant  equipment  and  piping,  and  some  have
additional  uses  such as denaturant for alcohol in personal care
items.  Specific regulation of these four phthalate esters in the
lead  subcategory  is  not  considered   because   these   unique
detections are not attributable to battery manufacturing waters.
                              293

-------
Three  PAH  - anthracene, phenanthrene, and pyrene concentrations
appeared in total  raw  wastewater  streams  analyzed  for  these
priority  pollutant  parameters.   The  maximum concentration was
0.032 mg/1 for anthracene and phenanthrene and all  other  values
were .below  the  quantifiable  limit,  where only detections are
recorded.  None of these compounds are used in  processes  or  as
raw  materials  in  the  lead  subcategory, and only the greatest
concentration (for anthracene and phenathoene) measured is  above
the  level  which  is  considered  to  be achievable by available
specific treatment methods.  Therefore, none of these  three  PAH
are considered for specific regulation in this subcategory.

Arsenic  concentrations appeared in 10 of the 19 total raw waste-
water streams analyzed for this priority pollutant.  In the total
raw wastewater streams the maximum  concentration  was  0.12 mg/1
and  as  high as 0.19 mg/1 in a floor wash raw wastewater sample.
Arsenic is an additive of lead used in some battery plate  grids.
However,  concentration  levels  attainable by specific treatment
methods are higher  than  the  maximum  reported  raw  wastewater
concentration.  Therefore, arsenic is not considered for specific
regulation in this subcategory.

Strontium concentrations appeared in 5 of 12 total raw wastewater
streams  analyzed  for  this  pollutant  parameter.   The maximum
concentration of 0.039 mg/1 which appeared in  the  battery  wash
(water  only) raw wastewater samples is lower than the level that
can  be  achieved  by  available  specific   treatment   methods.
Therefore, strontium is not considered for specific regulation in
this subcategory.

"Total  phenols"  concentrations  appeared  in  8 of 13 total raw
wastewater streams analyzed for this pollutant parameter  in  the
lead  subcategory.   The  maximum  concentration  appeared in the
battery  repair  raw  wastewater  samples  and  was   0.174 mg/1.
Concentrations  ranged  from  0.01  mg/1 to 0.05 mg/1 in the total
raw wastewater streams which are below those for which  practical
specific  treatment  methods exist.  Some phenols will be removed
with oil and  grease  removal  treatments.   Therefore,  specific
regulation   of   "total  phenols"   is  not  considered  in  this
subcategory.

Summary

Table  VI-1,  (page  296)  presents  the  selection  of  priority
pollutant  parameters  considered  for  regulation  for  the lead
subcategory.  The selection is based  on  all  sampling  results.
The  "Not  Detected"  notation includes pollutants which were not
detected and not selected  during  screening  analysis  of  total
plant  raw wastewater, and those that were selected at screening,
                              294

-------
but not detected during  verification  analysis  of  process  raw
wastewater   streams   within   the   lead   subcategory.    "Not
Quantifiable" includes those pollutants which were  at  or  below
the  quantifiable  limits in influent, raw or effluent waters and
not selected at screening, and those  not  quantifiable  for  all
verification   raw   wastewater   stream   analysis   within  the
subcategory.  "Small  Unique  Sources"  for  both  screening  and
verification includes those pollutants which were present only in
small  amounts  and includes those samples which were detected at
higher concentrations in the influent or effluent than in the raw
process wastewater, were detected at  only  one  plant,  or  were
detected  and  could  not  be  attributed  to  this  point source
category.  "Not Treatable" means that concentrations  were  lower
than  the  level  achievable  with the specific treatment methods
considered in Section VII.  The  "Regulation"  notation1  includes
those pollutants which are considered for regulation.  Table VI-2
(page  301)   summarizes  the  selection  of  nonconventional  and
conventional pollutant parameters for consideration for  specific
regulation in the lead subcategory.
                              295

-------
                            TABLE VI-1

                  PRIORITY POLLUTANT DISPOSITION
                     FOR THE LEAD SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant

001   Acenaphthene                            NQ
002   Acrolein                                ND
003   Acrylonitrile                           ND
004   Benzene                                 NQ
005   Benzldine                               ND
006   Carbon tetrachloride
       (tetrachloromethane)                   ND
007   Chlorobenzene                           ND
008   1,2,4-trichloro-
       benzene                                ND-
009   Hexachlorobenzene                       ND
010   1,2-dichloroethane                      ND
011   1,1,1-trichloroethane                   NT
012   Hexachloroethane                        ND
013   1,1-dichloroethane                      ND
014   1,1,2-triehloroethane                   ND
015   1,1,2,2-tetra-
       chloroethane                           ND
016   Chloroethane                            ND
017   Bis (chloromethyl)
       ether                                  ND
018   Bis  (2-chloroethyl
       ether                                  ND
019   2-chloroethyl vinyl
       ether (mixed)                          ND
020   2-ehloronaphthalene                     ND
021   2,4,6-trichlorophenol                   NQ
022   Parachlorometa cresol                   ND
023   Chloroform (trichloro-
       methane)                               NT
024   2-chlorophenol                          NQ
025   1,2-dichlorobenzene                     ND
026   1,3-dichlorobenzene                     NQ
LEGEND:
       ND - NOT DETECTED
       NQ = NOT QUANTIFIABLE
       SU = SMALL, UNIQUE SOURCES
       NT = NOT TREATABLE
      REG = REGULATION CONSIDERED
                               296

-------
                      TABLE VI-1 (Continued)

                  PRIORITY POLLUTANT DISPOSITION
                     FOR THE LEAD SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant

027   1,4-dichlorobenzene                     ND
028   3,3-dichlorobenzidine                   ND
029   1,1-dichloroethylene                    ND
030   1,2-trans-dichloro-
       ethylene                               ND
031   2,4-dichlorophenol                      NQ
032   1,2-dichloropropane                     ND
033   1,2-dichloropropylene
       (1,2-dichloropropene)                  ND
034   2,4-dimethylphenol                      ND
035   2,4-dinitrotoluene                      ND
036   2,6-dinitrotoluene                      ND
037   1,2-diphenylhydrazine                   ND
038   Ethylbenzene                            NQ
039   Fluoranthene                            NQ
040   4-ehlorophenyl phenyl
       ether                                  ND
041   4-bromophenyl phenyl
       ether                                  ND
042   Bis(2-ehloroisopropyl)
       ether                                  ND
043   Bis (2-chloroethoxyl)
       methane                                ND
044   Methylene chloride
       (dichloromethane)                      NQ
045   Methyl chloride
       (chloromethane)                        ND
046   Methyl bromide
       (bromomethane)                         ND
047   Bromoform (tribromo-
       methane)                               ND
048   Dichlorobromomethane                    NQ
049   Trichlorofluoromethane                  ND
050   Dichlorodifluoromethane                 ND
051   Chlorodibromomethane                    NQ
052   Hexachlorobutadiene                     ND
053   Hexachlorocyclopenta-
       diene                                  ND
054   Isophorone                              ND
055   Naphthalene                             NT
056   Nitrobenzene                            ND
                               297

-------
                      TABLE VI-1 (Continued)

                  PRIORITY POLLUTANT DISPOSITION
                     FOR THE LEAD SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant

057   2-nitrophenol                           ND
058   4-nitrophenol                           ND
059   2,4-dinitrophenol                       ND
060   4,6-dinitro-o-cresol                    ND
061   N-nitrosodimethyl-
       amine                                  ND
062   N~nitrosodiphenyl-
       amine                                  ND
063   N-nitrosodi-n-propyl-
       amine                                  ND
064   Pentachlorophenol                       ND
065   Phenol                                  NQ
066   Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
       phthalate                              SU
067   Butyl benzyl-
       phthalate                              SU
068   Di-n-butyl phthalate                    SU
069   Di-n-octyl phthalate                    SU
070   Diethyl phthalate                       ND
071   Dimethyl phthalate                      ND
072   1,2-benzanthracene
       (benzo(a)anthracene)                   NQ
073   Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-
       benzopyrene)                           NQ
074   3,4-Benzofluoranthene
       (benzo(b)fluoranthene)                 NQ
075   11,12-benzofluoranthene
       (benzo(b)fluoranthene)                 NQ
076   Chrysene                                NQ
077   Acenaphthylene                          ND
078   Anthracene      ,                        SU
079   1,12-benzoperylene
       (benzo(ghi)perylene)                   ND
080   Fluorene                                NQ
081   Phenanthrene                            SU
082   1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene
       dibenzo(h)anthracene                   ND
083   Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene
       (2,3-o-phenylene pyrene).               ND
084   Pyrene                                  NQ
085   Tetrachloroethylene                     ND
                               298

-------
                      TABLE VI-1 (Continued)

                  PRIORITY POLLUTANT DISPOSITION
                     FOR THE LEAD SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant

086   Toluene                                 SU
087 '  Trichloroethylene                       NQ
088   Vinyl chloride
       (chloroethylene)                       ND
089   Aldrin                                  ND
090   Dieldrin                                ND
091   Chlorodane (technical
       mixture and metabolites)               ND
092   4, 4-DDT                                 ND
093   4,4-DDE (p.p-DDX)                       ND
094   4,4-DDD (p.p-TDE)                       ND
095   Alpha-endosulfan                        ND
096   Beta-endosulfan                         ND
097   Endosulfan sulfate                      ND
098   Endrin                                  ND
099   Endrin aldehyde                         ND
100   Heptachlor                              ND
101   Heptachlor epoxide (BHC
       hexachlorohexane)                      NQ
102   Alpha-BHC                               NQ
103   Beta-BHC                                ND
104   Gamma-BHC (lindane)                     ND
105   Delta-BHC (PCB-polychlor-
       inated biphenyls)                      ND
106   PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1242)                ND
107   PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)                ND
108   PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)                ND
109   PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)                ND
110   PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)                ND
111   PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)                ND
112   PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)                ND
113   Toxaphene                               ND
114   Antimony                                REG
115   Arsenic                                 NT
1 16   Asbestos                                ND
117   Beryllium                               NQ
118   Cadmium                      '           REG
119   Chromium                                REG
120   Copper                           .       REG
121   Cyanide   -                              NQ
122   Lead                                    REG
                               299

-------
                      TABLE VI-1  (Continued)

                  PRIORITY POLLUTANT DISPOSITION
                     FOR THE LEAD SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
123   Mercury                                 REG
124   Nickel                                  REG
125   Selenium                                ND
126   Silver                                  REG
127   Thallium                                ND
128   Zinc                                    REG
129   2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodi-
       benzo-p-dioxin                         ND
                               300

-------
                TABLE VI-2

OTHER POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR REGULATION
         IN THE LEAD SUBCATEGORY
              Aluminum


              Iron


              Manganese


              TSS


              Oil and Grease


              pH
                   301

-------

-------
                           SECTION VII

                CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY


This section describes the treatment techniques currently used or
available  to  remove  or  recover wastewater pollutants normally
generated by the lead subcategory of  the  battery  manufacturing
industrial  point  source  category.  Included are discussions of
individual  end-of-pipe  treatment  technologies   and   in-plant
technologies.   These  treatment  technologies are widely used in
many industrial categories, and data and information  to  support
their effectiveness has been drawn from a similarly wide range of
sources and data bases.

               END-OF-PIPE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

Individual  recovery  and  treatment  technologies  are described
which are used or are suitable for  use  in  treating  wastewater
discharges   from  lead  subcategory  plants.   Each  description
includes a functional description and discussion  of  application
and  performance, advantages and limitations, operational factors
(reliability,  maintainability,   solid   waste   aspects),   and
demonstration  status.  The treatment processes described include
both  technologies  presently  demonstrated  within  the  battery
manufacturing   category,   and   technologies   demonstrated  in
treatment of similar wastes in other industries.

Battery manufacturing wastewaters characteristically may be  acid
or  alkaline;  may  contain  substantial  levels  of dissolved or
particulate metals including cadmium,  chromium,  lead,  mercury,
nickel,  silver,  zinc and manganese; contain only small or trace
amounts of toxic organics; and are  generally  free  from  strong
chelating  agents.  The toxic inorganic pollutants constitute the
most significant wastewater pollutants in this category.

In  general,   these   pollutants   are   removed   by   chemical
precipitation  and sedimentation or filtration.  Most of them may
be effectively removed by precipitation of  metal  hydroxides  or
carbonates utilizing the reaction with lime, sodium hydroxide, or
sodium  carbonate.   For  some, improved removals are provided by
the use of sodium sulfide or ferrous sulfide to  precipitate  the
pollutants as sulfide compounds with very low solubilities.

Discussion  of end-of-pipe treatment technologies is divided into
three parts: the major technologies; the effectiveness  of  major
technologies; and minor technologies.
                              303

-------
MAJOR TECHNOLOGIES

In  Sections  IX,  X,  XI,  and  XII  the rationale for selecting
treatment systems is discussed.  The individual technologies used
in  the  system  are  described  here.   The  major   end-of-pipe
technologies  for  treating lead subcategory wastewaters are: (1)
chemical reduction of chromium, (2) chemical  precipitation,  (3)
cyanide  precipitation, (4) granular bed filtration, (5) pressure
filtration,  (6)  settling,  and   (7)  skimming.   In   practice,
precipitation   of   metals   and   settling   of  the  resulting
precipitates is often a unified  two-step  operation.   Suspended
solids  originally present in raw wastewaters are not appreciably
affected by the precipitation operation and are removed with  the
precipitated   metals   in  the  settling  operations.    Settling
operations can be evaluated independently of hydroxide  or  other
chemical   precipitation  operations,  but  hydroxide  and  other
chemical  precipitation  operations  can  only  be  evaluated  in
combination with a solids removal operation.

1 .   Chemical Reduction of_ Chromium

Description of the Process.  Reduction is a chemical reaction  in
which  electrons  are  transferred  to the chemical being reduced
from the chemical initiating the transfer (the  reducing  agent).
Sulfur  dioxide,  sodium  bisulfite,  sodium  metabisulfite,  and
ferrous sulfate form strong reducing agents in  aqueous  solution
and  are  often used in industrial waste treatment facilities for
the reduction of hexavalent chromium to the trivalent form.   The
reduction allows removal of chromium from solution in conjunction
with  other metallic salts by alkaline precipitation.  Hexavalent
chromium is not precipitated as the hydroxide.

Gaseous sulfur dioxide  is  a  widely  used  reducing  agent  and
provides  a  good  example  of  the  chemical  reduction process.
Reduction  using  other  reagents  is  chemically  similar.   The
reactions involved may be illustrated as follows:

          3 SO2 + 3 H20   	> 3 H2SO3

          3 H2SO3 + 2H2CrO4  	> Cr2(SO4)3 + 5 H20

The  above reaction is favored by  low pH.  A pH of from 2 to 3 is
normal for situations requiring complete reduction.  At pH levels
above 5, the reduction rate is slow.  Oxidizing  agents  such  as
dissolved  oxygen  and  ferric  iron interfere with the reduction
process by consuming the reducing  agent.

A typical  treatment  consists  of  45  minutes  retention  in  a
reaction  tank.   The  reaction  tank has an electronic recorder-
                              304

-------
controller device to control process conditions with  respect  to
pH  and  oxidation  reduction  potential  (ORP).   Gaseous sulfur
dioxide is metered to the  reaction  tank  to  maintain  the  ORP
within  the  range  of  250  to 300 millivolts.  Sulfuric acid is
added to maintain a pH level of from 1.8 to  2.0.   The  reaction
tank  is  equipped  with a propeller agitator designed to provide
approximately one turnover per minute.  Figure VI1-13 (Page  439)
shows a continuous chromium reduction system.

Application  and  Performance.   Chromium  reduction  is  used in
battery manufacturing for treating chromium containing cell  wash
solutions   and   heat  paper  production  wastewater.   Chromium
reduction is most usually required to  treat  electroplating  and
metal surfacing rinse waters/ but may also be required in battery
manufacturing  plants.  A study of an operational waste treatment
facility chemically reducing hexavalent chrbmium has shown that a
99.7 percent reduction  efficiency  is  easily  achieved.   Final
concentrations   of   0.05   mg/1   are   readily  attained,  and
concentrations of 0.01 mg/1 are considered to  be  attainable  by
properly maintained and operated equipment.

Advantages  and  Limitations.   The  major  advantage of chemical
reduction to reduce hexavalent chromium is that  it  is  a  fully
proven  technology  based on many years of experience.  Operation
at ambient conditions results in minimal energy consumption,  and
the process, especially when using sulfur dioxide, is well suited
to  automatic  control.   Furthermore,  the  equipment is readily
obtainable from many suppliers, and operation is straightforward.

One limitation of chemical reduction of  hexavalent  chromium  is
that  for  high concentrations of chromium, the cost of treatment
chemicals may be prohibitive.  When this situation occurs,  other
treatment  techniques are likely to be more economical.  Chemical
interference by oxidizing agents is possible in the treatment  of
mixed  wastes,  and the treatment itself may introduce pollutants
if not properly  controlled.   Storage  and  handling  of  sulfur
dioxide is.somewhat hazardous.

Operational   Factors.   Reliability:   Maintenance  consists  of
periodic removal of sludge, the frequency of removal  depends  on
the input concentrations of detrimental constituents.

Solid  Waste Aspects:  Pretreatment to eliminate substances which
will interfere with the process may  often  be  necessary.   This
process  produces  trivalent  chromium which can be controlled by
further treatment.  However,  small  amounts  of  sludge  may  be
collected  as the result of minor shifts in the solubility of the
contaminants.  This sludge can be processed by  the  main  sludge
treatment equipment.
                              305

-------
Demonstration  Status.  The reduction of chromium waste by sulfur
dioxide or sodium bisulfite is a classic process and is  used  by
numerous  plants  which  have  hexavalent  chromium  compounds in
wastewaters from operations  such  as  electroplating  conversion
coating and noncontact cooling.

2.   Chemical Precipitation

Dissolved toxic metal ions and certain anions may  be  chemically
precipitated for removal by physical means such as sedimentation,
filtration,  or  centrifugation.   Several  reagents are commonly
used to effect this precipitation:

1)   Alkaline compounds such as lime or sodium hydroxide  may  be
     used   to   precipitate  many  toxic  metal  ions  as  metal
     hydroxides.   Lime  also  may  precipitate   phosphates   as
     insoluble  calcium  phosphate, fluorides as calcium fluoride
     and arsenic as calcium arsinate.

2)   Both "soluble" sulfides such as hydrogen sulfide  or  sodium
     sulfide and "insoluble" sulfides such as ferrous sulfide may
     be  used  to  precipitate  many  heavy  metal  ions as metal
     sulfides.

3)   Ferrous sulfate, zinc sulfate or both (as is  required)  may
     be   used   to  precipitate  cyanide  as  a  ferro  or  zinc
     ferricyanide complex.

4)   Carbonate precipitates may be used to remove  metals  either
     by  direct  precipitation  using a carbonate reagent such as
     calcium  carbonate  or   by   converting   hydroxides   into
     carbonates using carbon dioxide.

These  treatment chemicals may be added to a flash mixer or rapid
mix tank, to a presettling tank, or directly to  a  clarifier  or
other  settling device.  Because metal hydroxides tend to be col-
loidal in nature, coagulating agents may also be added  to  faci-
litate' settling.   After  the solids have been removed, final pH
adjustment may be required to reduce the high pH created  by  the
alkaline treatment chemicals.

Chemical  precipitation  as  a mechanism for removing metals from
wastewater is a complex process of at  least  two  steps  -  pre-
cipitation of the unwanted metals and removal of the precipitate.
Some  very  small  amount  of  metal will remain dissolved in the
wastewater  after  precipitation  is  complete.   The  amount  of
resrdual  dissolved metal depends on the treatment chemicals used
and  related  factors.   The  effectiveness  of  this  method  of
removing  any  specific  metal  depends  on  the  fraction of the
                              306

-------
specific metal in the raw waste (and hence  in  the  precipitate)
and  the  effectiveness of suspended solids removal.  In specific
instances, a sacrifical ion such as iron or aluminum may be added
to aid in the removal of toxic metals by co-precipitation process
and reduce the fraction of a specific metal in the precipitate.

Application and Performance.  Chemical precipitation is  used  in
battery  manufacturing for precipitation of dissolved metals.  It
can be used to remove  metal  ions  such  as  antimony,  arsenic,
beryllium,   cadmium,  chromium,  copper,  lead,  mercury,  zinc,
aluminum, cobalt,  iron,  manganese,  molybdenum  and  tin.   The
process   is  also  applicable  to  any  substance  that  can  be
transformed into an insoluble form such as fluorides, phosphates,
soaps, sulfides and others.  Because it is simple and  effective,
chemical  precipitation  is extensively used for industrial waste
treatment.

The performance of  chemical  precipitation  depends  on  several
variables.   The  more  important factors affecting precipitation
effectiveness are:

     1.   Maintenance of an  appropriate  (usually  alkaline)  pH
          throughout  the  precipitation  reaction and subsequent
          settling;

     2.   Addition of a sufficient excess of  treatment  ions  to
          drive the precipitation reaction to completion;

     3.   Addition of an adequate supply of sacrifical ions (such
          as  iron  or  aluminum)  to  ensure  precipitation  and
          removal of specific target ions; and

     4.   Effective   removal   of   precipitated   solids   (see
          appropriate solids removal technologies).

Control  of  pH.   Irrespective  of the solids removal technology
employed, proper  control  of  pH  is  absolutely  essential  for
favorable      performance     of     precipitation-sedimentation
technologies.  This is clearly illustrated by  solubility  curves
for selected metals hydroxides and sulfides shown in Figure VII-1
(page  427), and by plotting effluent zinc concentrations against
pH as shown  in  Figure  VII-3  (page  429).   Figure  VII-3  was
obtained  from  Development  Document  for  the Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance  Standards  for
the  Zinc Segment of Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Point Source
Category, U.S. E.P.A., EPA 440/1-74/033, November, 1974.   Figure
VII-3  was plotted from the sampling data'from several facilities
with metal finishing operations.  It is partially illustrated  by
data  obtained  from  3 consecutive days of sampling at one metal
                              307

-------
processing plant (47432) as displayed in Table VII-1 (page  404).
Flow  through  this  system  is approximately 49,263 1/hr (13,000
gal/hr).

This treatment system uses  lime  precipitation  (pH  adjustment)
followed  by  coagulant addition and sedimentation.  Samples were
taken before (in) and after (out) the treatment system.  The best
treatment for removal of copper and zinc was achieved on day one,
when the pH was maintained at a satisfactory level.  The  poorest
treatment  was found on the second day, when the pH slipped to an
unacceptably low level; intermediate values were achieved on  the
third day, when pH values were less than desirable but in between
those for the first and second days.

Sodium  hydroxide  is  used  by  one  facility (plant 439) for pH
adjustment  and  chemical  precipitation,  followed  by  settling
(sedimentation  and  a  polishing lagoon) of precipitated solids.
Samples were taken prior to caustic addition  and  following  the
polishing  lagoon.   Flow  through  the  system  is approximately
22,700 1/hr (6,000 gal/hr).  These data displayed in Table  VI1-2
(page  404)  indicate  that  the system was operated efficiently.
Effluent pH was controlled within the range of 8.6 to  9.3,   and,
while  raw  waste  loadings  were  not unusually high, most toxic
metals were removed to very low concentrations.

Lime and  sodium  hydroxide  (combined)  are  sometimes  used  to
precipitate  metals.  Data developed from plant 40063, a facility
with a metal bearing wastewater, exemplify efficient operation of
a chemical precipitation and settling system.  Table VII-3  (page
405)  shows  sampling  data from this system, which uses lime and
sodium hydroxide for pH adjustment  and  chemical  precipitation,
polyelectrolyte  flocculant addition, and sedimentation.  Samples
were taken of the raw waste influent to the  system  and  of  the
clarifier  effluent.   Flow  through  the system is approximately
19,000 1/hr (5,000 gal/hr).

At this plant, effluent TSS levels were below  15  mg/1  on  each
day,  despite  average  raw waste TSS concentrations of over 3500
mg/1.  Effluent  pH  was  maintained  at  approximately  8,   lime
addition  was sufficient to precipitate the dissolved metal ions,
and the flocculant addition and  clarifier  retention  served  to
remove effectively the precipitated solids.

Sulfide  precipitation  is  sometimes  used to precipitate metals
resulting in improved metals removals.  Most metal  sulfides  are
less soluble than hydroxides, and the precipitates are frequently
more  dependably  removed  from,water.  Solubilities for selected
metal hydroxide, carbonate and sulfide precipitates are shown  in
Table   VII-4,   (page   405).    (Source:  Lange's  Handbook  of
                              308

-------
Chemistry).   Sulfide precipitation is particularly  effective  in
removing  specific  metals  such as silver and mercury.  Sampling
data from three industrial  plants  using  sulfide  precipitation
appear  in  Table  VII-5  (page  406).  In all cases except iron,
effluent concentrations are below 0.1  mg/1  and  in  many  cases
below 0.01 mg/1 for the three plants studied.

Sampling  data from several chlorine-caustic manufacturing plants
using  sulfide   precipitation   demonstrate   effluent   mercury
concentrations  varying between 0.009 and 0.03 mg/1.  As shown in
Figure VII-1, the solubilities of  PbS  and  Ag2S  are  lower  at
alkaline  pH  levels  than either the corresponding hydroxides or
other sulfide compounds.  This implies that  removal  performance
for  lead  and  silver sulfides should be comparable to or better
than that for the metal hydroxides.  Bench scale tests on several
types of metal finishing and  manufacturing  wastewater  indicate
that  metals removal to levels of less than 0.05 mg/1 and in some
cases less than 0.01 mg/1 are common  in  systems  using  sulfide
precipitation followed by clarification.  Some of the bench scale
data,  particularly  in the case of lead, do not support such low
effluent concentrations.  However, lead is  consistently  removed
to  very  low  levels  (less  than  0.02  mg/1)  in systems using
hydroxide and carbonate precipitation and sedimentation.

Of particular interest is the ability of sulfide  to  precipitate
hexavalent  chromium  (Cr+6)  without prior reduction to the tri-
valent state as is  required  in  the  hydroxide  process.   When
ferrous  sulfide is used as the precipitant, iron and sulfide act
as reducing agents for the hexavalent chromium according  to  the
reaction:

     Cr03+ FeS + 3H20 	> Fe(OH)3 + Cr(OH)3 + S

The  sludge  produced  in this reaction consists mainly of ferric
hydroxides,  chromic hydroxides, and  various  metallic  sulfides.
Some excess hydroxyl ions are generated in this process, possibly
requiring a downward re-adjustment of pH.

Based  on  the  available  data, Table VII-6 (page 407) shows the
minimum reliably attainable effluent concentrations  for  sulfide
precipitation-sedimentation  systems.   These  values are used to
calculate  performance  predictions  of  sulfide   precipitation-
sedimentation systems.

Carbonate  precipitation is sometimes used to precipitate metals,
especially where precipitated metals values are to be  recovered.
The  solubility  of most metal carbonates is intermediate between
hydroxide and sulfide solubilities; in addition, carbonates  form
easily filtered precipitates.
                              309

-------
Carbonate  ions appear to be particularly useful in precipitating
lead and antimony.  Sodium  carbonate  has  been  observed  being
added  at  treatment to improve lead precipitation and removal in
some industrial plants.  The lead hydroxide  and  lead  carbonate
solubility  curves  displayed in Figure VII-2 (page 428) (Source:
"Heavy  Metals   Removal,"   by   Kenneth   Lanovette,   Chemical
Enq i neer i nq/Deskbook   Issue,  October  17,  1977)  explain  this
phenomenon.

Co-precipitation  With  Iron.   The   presence   of   substantial
quantites  of  iron in metal bearing wastewaters before treatment
has been shown to improve the removal of toxic metals.   In  some
cases this iron is an integral part of the industrial wastewater;
in  other cases iron is deliberately added as a pre or first step
of treatment.  The iron functions to improve toxic metal  removal
by  three  mechanisms: the iron co-precipitates with toxic metals
forming a stable precipitate which desolubilizes the toxic metal;
the iron improves the settleability of the precipitate;  and  the
large  amount  of iron reduces the fraction of toxic metal in the
precipitate.  Co-precipitation with iron has been  practiced  for
many  years  incidentally when iron was a substantial consitutent
of raw wastewater and intentionally when iron salts were added as
a coagulant aid.  Aluminum or mixed iron-aluminum salt also  have
been  used.   The addition of iron for co-precipitation to aid in
toxic metals removal is considered a routine  part  of  state-of-
the-art lime and settle technology which should be implemented as
required to achieve optimal removal of toxic metals.

Co-precipitation  using  large  amounts  of ferrous iron salts is
known as ferrite co-precipitation because magnetic iron oxide  or
ferrite  is  formed.   The addition of ferrous salts (sulfate) is
followed  by  alkali  precipitation  and  air   oxidation.    The
resultant  precipitate is easily removed by filtration and may be
removed  magnetically.   Data  illustrating  the  performance  of
ferrite co-precipitation is shown in Table VII-7, (page 408).

Advantages and Limitations.  Chemical precipitation has proved to
be  an  effective  technique  for  removing  many pollutants from
industrial wastewater.  It-operates at ambient conditions and  is
well   suited   to   automatic  control.   The  use  of  chemical
precipitation may be limited because of interference by chelating
agents, because of  possible  chemical  interference  with  mixed
wastewaters   and   treatment   chemicals,   or  because  of  the
potentially hazardous situation involved  with  the  storage  and
handling  of  those chemicals.  Battery manufacturing wastewaters
do not normally contain chelating  agents  or  complex  pollutant
matrix  formations which would interfere with or limit the use of
chemical precipitation.  Lime is usually added as a  slurry  when
used  in  hydroxide  precipitation.  The slurry must be kept well
                              310

-------
mixed and the addition  lines  periodically  checked  to  prevent
blocking of the lines, which may result from a buildup of solids.
Also,   lime   precipitation   usually   makes  recovery  of  the
precipitated  metals  difficult,  because  of  the  heterogeneous
nature of most lime sludges.

The  major advantage of the sulfide precipitation process is that
the extremely low solubility of most metal sulfides promotes very
high metal removal efficiencies; the sulfide process also has the
ability to remove chromates and dichromates  without  preliminary
reduction  of  the chromium to its trivalent state.  In addition,
sulfide can precipitate metals  complexed  with  most  complexing
agents.  The process demands care, however, in maintaining the pH
of the solution at approximately 10 in order to restrict the gen-
eration   of  toxic  hydrogen  sulfide  gas.   For  this  reason,
ventilation of the treatment tanks may be a necessary  precaution
in most installations.  The use of insoluble sulfides reduces the
problem   of  hydrogen  sulfide  evolution.   As  with  hydroxide
precipitation, excess sulfide ion must be present  to  drive  the
precipitation  reaction  to  completion.   Since  the sulfide ion
itself is toxic, sulfide addition must be carefully controlled to
maximize heavy metals precipitation  with  a  minimum  of  excess
sulfide   to   avoid   the  necessity  of  additional  wastewater
treatment.  At very high  excess  sulfide  levels  and  high  pH,
soluble  mercury-sulfide  compounds  may  also  be formed.  Where
excess sulfide is present, aeration of the  effluent  stream  can
aid  in  oxidizing  residual  sulfide  to the less harmful sodium
sulfate (Na2S04).  The cost of sulfide precipitants  is  high  in
comparison  to  hydroxide  precipitants, and disposal of metallic
sulfide sludges may  pose  problems.   An  essential  element  in
effective  sulfide  precipitation  is the removal of precipitated
solids from the wastewater and proper disposal in an  appropriate
site.   Sulfide  precipitation will also generate a higher volume
of sludge  than  hydroxide  precipitation,  resulting  in  higher
disposal  and  dewatering  costs.   This  is especially true when
ferrous sulfide is used as the precipitant.

Sulfide precipitation may be used as a polishing treatment  after
hydroxide     precipitation-sedimentation.      This    treatment
configuration may provide the better treatment  effectiveness  of
sulfide  precipitation while minimizing the variability caused by
changes  in  raw  waste  and  reducing  the  amount  of   sulfide
precipitant required.

Operational    Factors.   .  Reliability:     Alkaline    chemical
precipitation is highly reliable, although proper monitoring  and
control  are  required.   Sulfide  precipitation  systems provide
similar reliability.
                              311

-------
Maintainability:  The major maintenance  needs  involve  periodic
upkeep  of  monitoring  equipment,  automatic  feeding equipment,
mixing equipment, and other  hardware.   Removal  of  accumulated
sludge  is  necessary  for  efficient operation of precipitation-
sedimentation systems.

Solid Waste Aspects:  Solids which precipitate out are removed in
a subsequent treatment step.  Ultimately,  these  solids  require
proper disposal.

Demonstration Status.  Chemical precipitation of metal hydroxides
is  a  classic waste treatment technology used by most industrial
waste treatment systems.  Chemical precipitation of metals in the
carbonate form alone  has  been  found  to  be  feasible  and  is
commercially  used  to  permit  metals  recovery and water reuse.
Full  scale  commercial  sulfide  precipitation  units   are   in
operation  at numerous installations, including several plants in
the  battery   manufacturing   category.    As   noted   earlier,
sedimentation to remove precipitates is discussed separately.

Use  iri  Battery Manufacturing Plants.  Chemical precipitation is
used  at  81  battery  manufacturing  plants.   The  quality   of
treatment  provided, however, is variable.  A review of collected
data and on-site observations  reveals  that  control  of  system
parameters  is  often  poor.   Where  precipitates are removed by
clarification,  retention  times  are  likely  to  be  short  and
cleaning  and maintenance questionable.  Similarly, pH control is
frequently inadequate.  As a result of  these  factors,  effluent
performance  at  battery  plants  nominally  practicing  the same
wastewater treatment is observed to vary widely.

3.   Cyanide Precipitation

Cyanide precipitation, although a method for treating cyanide  in
wastewaters,  does  not destroy cyanide.  The cyanide is retained
in the sludge that  is  formed.   Reports  indicate  that  during
exposure  to  sunlight,  the cyanide complexes can break down and
form free  cyanide.   For  this  reason,  the  sludge  from  this
treatment method must be disposed of carefully.

Cyanide may be precipitated and settled out of wastewaters by the
addition  of zinc sulfate or ferrous sulfate.  In the presence of
iron, cyanide will form extremely stable cyanide complexes.   The
addition   of   zinc   sulfate  or  ferrous  sulfate  forms  zinc
ferrocyanide or ferro ferricyanide complexes.

Adequate removal of the precipitated cyanide requires that the pH
must be  kept  at  9.0  and  an  appropriate  retention  time  be
maintained.   A study has shown that the formation of the complex
                              312

-------
is very dependent on pH.  At a pH of either 8 or 10, the residual
cyanide concentration measured is twice that of the same reaction
carried out at a pH  of  9.   Removal  efficiencies  also  depend
heavily  on  the  retention  time  allowed.  The formation of the
complexes takes place rather slowly.  Depending upon  the  excess
amount  of  zinc  sulfate or ferrous sulfate added, at least a 30
minute retention time should be allowed for the formation of  the
cyanide complex before continuing on to the clarification stage.

One  experiment  with  an  initial  concentration  of  10 mg/1 of
cyanide showed that 98 percent of the cyanide was  complexed  ten
minutes  after  the  addition  of  ferrous  sulfate  at twice the
theoretical amount  necessary.   Interference  from  other  metal
ions,  such  as  cadmium,  might  result  in  the need for longer
retention times.

Table VII-8 (page 408) presents cyanide precipitation  data  from
three  coil  coating  plants.  A fourth plant was visited for the
purpose of observing plant testing of the  cyanide  precipitation
system.   Specific  data  from  this  facility  are  not included
because: (1) the pH was usually well below the optimum  level  of
9.0;  (2)  the  historical treatment data were not obtained using
the standard cyanide analysis procedure; and (3)  matched  input-
output  data  were not made available by the plant.  Scanning the
available data indicates that the raw waste CN level was  in  the
range  of  25.0; the pH 7.5; and treated CN level was from 0.1 to
0.2.

The concentrations are those of the stream entering  and  leaving
the  treatment  system.  Plant 1057 allowed a 27-minute retention
time for the formation of the complex.  The  retention  time  for
the other plants is not known.  The data suggest that over a wide
range   of   cyanide   concentration   in   the  raw  waste,  the
concentration of cyanide can be reduced in the effluent stream to
under 0.15 mg/1.

Application and Performance.  Cyanide precipitation can  be  used
when  cyanide destruction is not feasible because of the presence
of cyanide complexes which are difficult  to  destroy.   Effluent
concentrations of cyanide well below 0.15 mg/1 are possible.

Advantages   and   Limitations.    Cyanide  precipitation  is  an
inexpensive method of treating cyanide.  Problems may occur  when
metal ions interfere with the formation of the complexes.
                              313

-------
4.   Granular Bed Filtration

Filtration occurs in nature as  the  surface  ground  waters  are
cleansed  by  sand.  Silica sand, anthracite coal, and garnet are
common filter media used in water treatment  plants.   These  are
usually  supported by gravel.  The media may be used singly or in
combination.  The 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 particles.  This is
accomplished  by selecting appropriate filter flow rates (gpm/sq-
ft), media grain size, and density.

Granular bed filters may be classified  in  terms  of  filtration
rate,  filter  media,  flow pattern, or method of pressurization.
Traditional rate classifications are slow sand, rapid  sand,  and
high  rate  mixed  media.   In  the  slow  sand  filter,  flux or
hydraulic loading is relatively low,  and  removal  of  collected
solids  to  clean  the filter is therefore relatively infrequent.
The filter is often cleaned by scraping off the inlet face  (top)
of  the  sand  bed.   In  the  higher  rate  filters, cleaning is
frequent and is accomplished by a periodic backwash, opposite  to
the direction of normal flow.

A  filter  may  use  a single medium such as sand or diatomaceous
earth, but dual and mixed (multiple) media filters  allow  higher
flow  rates  and  efficiencies.   The  dual  media filter usually
consists of a fine bed of sand under a coarser bed of  anthracite
coal.  The coarse coal removes most of the influent solids, while
the  fine  sand performs a polishing function.  At the end of the
backwash, the fine sand settles  to  the  bottom  because  it  is
denser  than  the  coal,  and  the  filter  is  ready  for normal
operation.   The  mixed  media  filter  operates  on   the   same
principle,  with  the  finer,  denser media at the bottom and the
coarser, less dense media at the top.  The usual  arrangement  is
garnet at the bottom (outlet end) of the bed, sand in the middle,
and  anthracite  coal  at  the  top.  Some mixing of these layers
occurs and is, in fact, desirable.

The flow pattern is usually top-to-bottom, but other patterns are
sometimes used.  Upflow filters are  sometimes  used,  and  in  a
horizontal  filter  the  flow is horizontal.  In a biflow filter,
the influent enters  both  the  top  and  the  bottom  and  exits
laterally.   The  advantage  of  an upflow filter is that with an
upflow backwash, the particles of  a  single  filter  medium  are
distributed and maintained in the desired coarse-to-fine (bottom-
to-top)  arrangement.   The disadvantage is that the bed tends to
become fluidized, which ruins filtration efficiency.  The  biflow
design is an attempt to overcome this problem.
                              314

-------
The  classic  granular  bed  filter  operates  by  gravity  flow;
however, pressure filters are fairly widely  used.   They  permit
higher  solids loadings before cleaning and are advantageous when
the filter effluent must be pressurized  for  further  downstream
treatment.   In  addition, pressure filter systems are often less
costly for low to moderate flow rates.

Figure VII-14 (page 439) depicts a high rate, dual media, gravity
downflow granular bed filter, with  self-stored  backwash.   Both
filtrate  and backwash are piped around the bed in an arrangement
that permits gravity upflow of  the  backwash,  with  the  stored
filtrate   serving   as  backwash.   Addition  of  the  indicated
coagulant and polyelectrolyte usually results  in  a  substantial
improvement in filter performance.

Auxilliary filter cleaning is sometimes employed in the upper few
inches  of  filter  beds.   This is conventionally referred to as
surface wash and is accomplished by water  jets  just  below  the
surface  of  the  expanded  bed during the backwash cycle.  These
jets enhance the scouring action in the  bed  by  increasing  the
agitation.

An important feature for successful filtration and backwashing is
the  underdrain.  This is the support structure for the bed.  The
underdrain provides an area for collection of the filtered  water
without  clogging  from  either  the filtered solids or the media
grains.  In addition, the underdrain prevents loss of  the  media
with  the  water,  and during the backwash cycle it provides even
flow  distribution  over  the  bed.   Failure  to  dissipate  the
velocity  head during the filter or backwash cycle will result in
bed upset and the need for major repairs.

Several standard approaches are employed for filter  underdrains.
The  simplest  one  consists  of  a parallel porous pipe  imbedded
under a layer of coarse gravel and 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.

Filter  system operation may be manual or automatic.   The filter
backwash  cycle  may  be  on a timed basis, a pressure drop basis
with a  terminal value which triggers backwash, or a solids carry-
over basis from turbidity monitoring of the outlet  stream.   All
of these schemes have been used successfully.
                              315

-------
Application  and  Performance.  Wastewater treatment plants often
use granular  bed  filters  for  polishing  after  clarification,
sedimentation-,   or   other  similar  operations.   Granular  bed
filtration  thus  has  potential  application   to   nearly   all
industrial plants.  Chemical additives which enhance the upstream
treatment  equipment may or may not be compatible with or enhance
the filtration process.  Normal operating flow rates for  various
types of filters are:

     Slow Sand                      2.04 - 5.30 1/sq m-hr
     Rapid Sand                    40.74 - 51.48 1/sq m-hr
     High Rate Mixed Media         81.48 - 122.22 1/sq m-hr

Suspended  solids are commonly removed from wastewater streams by
filtering through a deep 0.3-0.9 m  (1-3  feet)  granular  filter
bed.  The porous bed formed by the granular media can be designed
to  remove  practically  all suspended particles.  Even colloidal
suspensions (roughly 1  to  100  microns)  are  adsorbed  on  the
surface  of  the  media grains as they pass in close proximity in
the narrow bed passages.

Properly operated filters following some pretreatment  to  reduce
suspended  solids  below  200 mg/1 should produce water with less
than 10 mg/1 TSS.  For example, multimedia filters  produced  the
effluent qualities shown in Table VII-9 (page 409).

Advantages and Limitations.  The principal advantages of granular
bed  filtration  are  its  comparatively  (to  other filters) low
initial and operating costs, reduced land requirements over other
methods  to  achieve  the  same  level  of  solids  removal,  and
elimination  of  chemical  additions  to  the  discharge  stream.
However, the filter may require pretreatment if the solids  level
is  high  (over  100  mg/1).   Operator training must be somewhat
extensive due to the controls and periodic backwashing  involved,
and   backwash  must  be  stored  and  dewatered  for  economical
disposal.

Operational Factors.  Reliability:  The  recent  improvements  in
filter   technology   have   significantly   improved  filtration
reliability.   Control  systems,  improved  designs,   and   good
operating  procedures  have  made  filtration  a  highly reliable
method of water treatment.

Maintainability:  Deep bed filters may be  operated  with  either
manual  or  automatic  backwash.   In  either  case, they must be
periodically inspected for media attrition, partial plugging, and
leakage.  Where backwashing is not used, collected solids must be
removed by shoveling, and filter media must be at least partially
replaced.
                              316

-------
Solid Waste  Aspects:   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
disposed  of  in  a  suitable  landfill.   In  either  of   these
situations  there is a solids disposal problem similar to that of
clarifiers.

Demonstration Status.  Deep bed filters  are  in  common  use  in
municipal  treatment  plants.   Their use in polishing industrial
clarifier effluent is increasing, and the  technology  is  proven
and  conventional.   Granular  bed  filtration is used in several
battery manufacturing  plants.   As  noted  previously,  however,
little  data  is  available  characterizing  the effectiveness of
filters presently in use within the industry.

5.   Pressure Filtration

Pressure filtration works by pumping the liquid through a  filter
material  which is impenetrable to the solid phase.  The positive
pressure exerted by the feed  pumps  or  other  mechanical  means
provides the pressure differential which is the principal driving
force.   Figure VII-15 (page 441) represents the operation of one
type of pressure filter.

A typical pressure filtration unit consists of a number of plates
or trays which are held rigidly in a frame  to  ensure  alignment
and  which  are  pressed  together  between  a  fixed  end  and a
traveling end.  On the surface of each plate, a  filter  made  of
cloth  or  synthetic fiber  is mounted.  The feed stream is pumped
into the unit and passes through holes in  the  trays  along  the
length  of  the  press until the cavities or chambers between the
trays are completely filled.  The solids are then entrapped,  and
a cake begins to form on the surface of the filter material.  The
water passes through the fibers, and the solids are retained.

At  the  bottom of the trays are drainage ports.  The filtrate is
collected and discharged to a common drain.  As the filter medium
becomes coated with sludge, the  flow  of  filtrate  through  the
filter  drops sharply, indicating that the capacity of the filter
has been exhausted.  The unit must then be cleaned of the sludge.
After the cleaning or replacement of the filter media,  the  unit
is again ready for operation.

Application  and  Performance.   Pressure  filtration  is used in
battery manufacturing for sludge dewatering and also  for  direct
removal   of   precipitated   and  other  suspended  solids  from
wastewater.  Because dewatering is such  a  common  operation  in
                              317

-------
treatment  systems,  pressure filtration is a technique which can
be found in many industries concerned with removing  solids  from
their waste stream.

In  a  typical  pressure filter, chemically preconditioned sludge
detained in the unit for  one  to  three  hours  under  pressures
varying  from  5 to 13 atmospheres exhibited final solids content
between 25 and 50 percent.

Advantages and Limitations.  The pressures which may  be  applied
to  a  sludge  for  removal  of  water by filter presses that are
currently available range from 5 to 13 atmospheres.  As a result,
pressure  filtration  may   reduce   the   amount   of   chemical
pretreatment  required for sludge dewatering.  Sludge retained in
the form of the filter cake has a  higher  percentage  of  solids
than  that  from  centrifuge  or  vacuum filter.  Thus, it can be
easily accommodated by materials handling systems.

As  a  primary  solids  removal  technique,  pressure  filtration
requires  less  space  than  clarification  and is well suited to
streams with high solids loadings.  The sludge  produced  may  be
disposed  without further dewatering, but the amount of sludge is
increased  by  the  use  of  filter  precoat  materials  (usually
diatomaceous  earth).    Also, cloth pressure filters often do not
achieve as high a degree of effluent clarification as  clarifiers
or granular media filters.

Two disadvantages associated with pressure filtration in the past
have  been  the  short  life  of  the  filter  cloths and lack of
automation.  New synthetic fibers have largely offset  the  first
of  these  problems.   Also,  units  with  automatic  feeding and
pressing cycles are now available.

For larger operations, the relatively high space requirements, as
compared to those of a centrifuge, could be prohibitive  in  some
situations.

Operational  Factors.    Reliability:   With  proper pretreatment,
design, and control, pressure 'filtration is a  highly  dependable
system.

Maintainability:   Maintenance  consists  of periodic cleaning or
replacement of the filter media, drainage grids, drainage piping,
filter pans, and other parts of the system.  If  the  removal  of
the sludge cake is not automated, additional time is required for
this operation.

Solid  Waste  Aspects:   Because it is generally drier than other
types of sludges, the filter sludge  cake  can  be  handled  with
                              318

-------
relative  ease.  The accumulated sludge may be disposed by any of
the accepted procedures depending on  its  chemical  composition.
The  levels  of  toxic  metals  present  in  sludge from treating
battery wastewater necessitate proper disposal.

Demonstration Status.  Pressure filtration  is  a  commonly  used
technology  in  a  great  many commercial applications.  Pressure
filtration is used in six battery manufacturing plants.

6.   Settling

Settling is a process which removes solid particles from a liquid
matrix by gravitational force.  This  is  done  by  reducing  the
velocity  of  the feed stream in a large volume tank or lagoon so
that gravitational settling can occur.  Figure VII-.16  (page  442)
shows two typical settling devices.

Settling  is  often  preceded  by  chemical  precipitation  which
converts dissolved pollutants to solid form  and  by   coagulation
which  enhances  settling  by  coagulating suspended precipitates
into larger, faster settling particles.

If no chemical pretreatment is used, the wastewater is fed into a
tank or lagoon where it loses velocity and the  suspended  solids
are  allowed  to  settle out.  Long retention times are generally
required.    Accumulated   sludge   can   be   collected   either
periodically or continuously and either manually or mechanically.
Simple   settling,   however,   may   require  excessively  large
catchments, and long  retention  times  (days  as  compared  with
hours)  to  achieve  high removal efficiencies.  Because of this,
addition of settling aids such as alum or  polymeric   flocculants
is often economically attractive.

In  practice, chemical precipitation often precedes settling, and
inorganic coagulants or polyelectrolytic flocculants are  usually
added  as well.  Common coagulants include sodium sulfate, sodium
aluminate,  ferrous  or  ferric  sulfate,  and  ferric  chloride.
Organic  polyelectrolytes vary in structure, but all usually form
larger floe particles than coagulants used alone.

Following this pretreatment, the wastewater can  be  fed  into  a
holding tank, or lagoon for settling, but is more often piped into
a  clarifier  for  the  same  purpose.  A clarifier reduces space
requirements,  reduces  retention  time,  and  increases   solids
removal efficiency.  Conventional clarifiers generally consist of
a   circular   or  rectangular  tank  with  a  mechanical  sludge
collecting device or with a sloping funnel-shaped bottom designed
for sludge collection.  In advanced  settling  devices,  inclined
plates,  slanted  tubes,  or  a  lamellar network may  be included
                              319

-------
within the clarifier tank in  order  to  increase  the  effective
settling  area,  increasing  capacity.   A fraction of the sludge
stream is often recirculated to the inlet, promoting formation of
a denser sludge.

Settling is based on the ability of  gravity  (Newton's  Law)  to
cause small particles to fall or settle (Stokes1 Law) through the
fluid   they  are  suspended  in.   Presuming  that  the  factors
affecting chemical precipitation  are  controlled  to  achieve  a
readily settleable precipitate, the principal factors controlling
settling  are the particle characteristics and the upflow rate of
the suspending fluid.  When the effective settling area is  great
enough  to allow settling, any increase in the effective settling
area will produce no increase in solids removal.

Therefore, if a plant has installed equipment that  provides  the
appropriate  overflow  rate,  the  precipitated metals, including
lead, in the effluent can be effectively removed.  The number  of
settling  devices operated in series or in parallel by a facility
is not important with regard to  suspended  solids  removal,  but
rather  that  the  settling  devices provide sufficient effective
settling area.

Another  important  facet  of  sedimentation   theory   is   that
diminishing  removal  of  suspended solids is achieved for a unit
increase in the effective settling area.  Generally, it has  been
found  that  suspended solids removal performance varies with the
effective up-flow rate.  Qualitatively the performance  increases
asymptotically  to a maximum level beyond which a decrease in up-
flow  rate  provides  incrementally  insignificant  increases  in
removal.   This  maximum  level  is  dictated  by  particle  size
distribution, density characteristic of  the  particles  and  the
water  matrix,  chemicals  used for precipitation and pH at which
precipitation occurs.

Application and Performance.  Settling and clarification are used
in the battery  manufacturing  category  to  remove  precipitated
metals.   Settling can be used to remove most suspended solids in
a particular waste stream; thus it is used  extensively  by  many
different  industrial  waste  treatment facilities.  Because most
metal  ion  pollutants  are  readily  converted  to  solid  metal
hydroxide  precipitates,  settling  is of particular use in those
industries associated with  metal  production,  metal  finishing,
metal working, and any other industry with high concentrations of
metal  ions  in  their wastewaters.  In addition to toxic metals,
suitably precipitated materials effectively removed  by  settling
include  aluminum,  iron, manganese, cobalt, antimony, beryllium,
molybdenum, fluoride, phosphate, and many others.
                              320

-------
A properly  operating  settling  system  can  efficiently  remove
suspended   solids,  precipitated  metal  hydroxides,  and  other
impurities from  wastewater.   The  performance  of  the  process
depends  on  a  variety  of  factors,  including  the density and
particle  size  of  the  solids,  the  effective  charge  on  the
suspended   particles,   and  the  types  of  chemicals  used  in
pretreatment.  The site of flocculant or coagulant addition  also
may  significantly  influence the effectiveness of clarification.
If the flocculant is subjected to too much mixing before entering
the clarifier, the complexes may  be  sheared  and  the  settling
effectiveness  diminished.  At the same time, the flocculant must
have sufficient mixing and reaction time in order  for  effective
set-up and settling to occur.  Plant personnel have observed that
the  line  or trough leading into the clarifier is often the most
efficient site  for  flocculant  addition.   The  performance  of
simple  settling is a function of the movement rate particle size
and density, and the surface area of the basin.

The data displayed in Table VI1-10 (page 409) indicate  suspended
solids  removal  efficiencies  in  settling  systems.   The  mean
effluent TSS concentration obtained by the plants shown in  Table
VII-10  is 10.1 mg/1.  Influent concentrations averaged 838 mg/1.
The maximum effluent TSS value reported is 23 mg/1.  These plants
all use alkaline pH adjustment to precipitate  metal  hydroxides,
and most add a coagulant or flocculant prior to settling.

Advantages  and  Limitations.   The  major  advantage  of  simple
settling is its simplicity as demonstrated by  the  gravitational
settling  of solid particulate waste in a holding tank or lagoon.
The major problem with simple settling is the long retention time
necessary  to  achieve  complete  settling,  especially  if   the
specific  gravity  of  the  suspended  matter is close to that of
water.  Some materials cannot be practically  removed  by  simple
settling alone.

Settling  performed in a clarifier is effective in removing slow-
settling suspended matter in a shorter time  and  in  less  space
than  a  simple settling system.  Also, effluent quality is often
better from a clarifier.  The cost of installing and  maintaining
a  clarifier,  however,  is  substantially greater than the costs
associated with simple settling.

Inclined pfate, slant tube, and lamella settlers have even higher
removal efficiencies than conventional  clarifiers,  and  greater
capacities per unit area are possible.  Installed costs for these
advanced  clarification  systems  are  claimed to be one half the
cost of conventional systems of similar capacity.
                              321

-------
Operational Factors.  Reliability:   Settling  can  be  a  highly
reliable  technology  for  removing suspended solids.  Sufficient
retention time and regular sludge removal are  important  factors
affecting  the  reliability  of  all  settling  systems.   Proper
control of pH adjustment, chemical precipitation,  and  coagulant
or  flocculant addition are additional factors affecting settling
efficiencies  in  systems  (frequently  clarifiers)  where  these
methods are used.

Those  advanced settlers using slanted tubes, inclined plates, or
a lamellar network may require  pre-screening  of  the  waste  in
order  to eliminate any fibrous materials which could potentially
clog the system.  Some installations are especially vulnerable to
shock loadings, as from storm water  runoff,  but  proper  system
design will prevent this.

Maintainability:   When  clarifiers  or  other  advanced settling
devices are used, the associated  system  utilized  for  chemical
pretreatment  and  sludge dragout must be maintained on a regular
basis.   Routine  maintenance  of  mechanical   parts   is   also
necessary.    Lagoons   require  little  maintenance  other  than
periodic sludge removal.

Demonstration Status.  Settling represents the typical method  of
solids  removal  and  is employed extensively in industrial waste
treatment.  The advanced clarifiers are just beginning to  appear
in significant numbers in commercial applications.  Sedimentation
or  clarification is used in many battery manufacturing plants as
shown below.

Settling Device               No. Plants

Settling Tanks                   55
Clarifier                        13
Tube or Plate Settler             1
Lagoon                           10

Settling is used both as part of end-of-pipe treatment and within
the  plant  to  allow  recovery  of  process  solutions  and  raw
materials.   As  examples,  settling  tanks  are commonly used on
pasting waste streams in lead acid battery manufacture  to  allow
recovery  of  process  water  and paste solids, and settling sump
tanks are used to recover nickel and cadmium  in  nickel  cadmium
battery manufacture.

7.   Skimming

Pollutants with a specific gravity less  than  water  will  often
float  unassisted  to  the  surface  of the wastewater.  Skimming
                              322

-------
removes these floating wastes.  Skimming normally takes place  in
a  tank  designed to allow the floating debris to rise and remain
on the surface, while the liquid flows to an outlet located below
the floating layer.  Skimming devices are therefore suited to the
removal of non-emulsified oils from raw  waste  streams.   Common
skimming  mechanisms  include the rotating drum type, which picks
up oil from the surface of the water as  it  rotates.   A  doctor
blade  scrapes  oil from the drum and collects it in a trough for
disposal or reuse.  The water portion is allowed  to  flow  under
the   rotating   drum.   Occasionally,  an  underflow  baffle  is
installed after the drum; this has the advantage of retaining any
floating oil which escapes  the  drum  skimmer.   The  belt  type
skimmer  is  pulled  vertically through the water, collecting oil
which is scraped off from the surface and collected  in  a  drum.
Gravity  separators,  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.  A diffusion  device,  such  as  a
vertical slot baffle, aids in creating a uniform flow through the
system and in increasing oil removal efficiency.

Application  and  Performance.   Oil  skimming is used in battery
manufacture to remove free oil used as a preservative or  forming
lubricant for various metal battery parts.  Another source of oil
is  lubricants for drive mechanisms and other machinery contacted
by process water.  Skimming is applicable  to  any  waste  stream
containing pollutants which float to the surface.  It is commonly
used  to  remove  free oil, grease, and soaps.  Skimming is often
used in conjunction with air flotation or clarification in  order
to increase its effectiveness.

The  removal  efficiency of a skimmer is partly a function of the
retention time of the water in the tank.   Larger,  more  buoyant
particles  require  less  retention  time than smaller particles.
Thus, the efficiency also depends on the composition of the waste
stream.  The retention time required to  allow  phase  separation
and subsequent skimming varies from 1 to 15 minutes, depending on
the wastewater characteristics.

API or other gravity-type separators tend to be more suitable for
use where the amount of surface oil flowing through the system is
consistently  significant.   Drum  and  belt  type  skimmers  are
applicable to waste streams which  evidence  smaller  amounts  of
floating  oil and where surges of floating oil are not a problem.
                              323

-------
Using an API separator system in conjunction  with  a  drum  type
skimmer  would  be  a  very effective method of removing floating
contaminants from nonemulsified  oily  waste  streams.   Sampling
data shown in Table VII-11 (page 410) illustrate the capabilities
of  the  technology  with  both  extremely  high and moderate oil
influent levels.

These data are intended to be illustrative of the very high level
of oil and grease removals attainable in a  simple  two-step  oil
removal  system.   Based on the performance of installations in a
variety of manufacturing plants and permit requirements that  are
consistently  achieved, it is determined that effluent oil levels
may be reliably reduced below  10  mg/1  with  moderate  influent
concentrations.   Very  high concentrations of oil such as the 22
percent shown above may require two  step  treatment  to  achieve
this level.

Skimming which removes oil may also be used to remove base levels
of   organics.   Plant  sampling  data  show  that  many  organic
compounds tend to be removed  in  standard  wastewater  treatment
equipment.  Oil separation not only removes oil but also organics
that  are  more  soluble  in  oil  than  in water.  Clarification
removes organic solids directly and  probably  removes  dissolved
organics by adsorption on inorganic solids.

The  source  of these organic pollutants is not always known with
certainty, although in metal  forming  operations  they  seem  to
derive  mainly  from  various  process lubricants.  They are also
sometimes present in the plant  water  supply,  as  additives  to
proprietary  formulations  of  cleaners,  or  as  the  result  of
leaching from plastic lines and other materials.

High molecular  weight  organics  in  particular  are  much  more
soluble  in  organic  solvents than in water.  Thus they are much
more concentrated in the oil phase that is skimmed  than  in  the
wastewater.   The  ratio of solubilities of a compound in oil and
water phases is called the partition coefficient.  The  logarithm
of  the  partition coefficients for selected polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbon (PAH) and other toxic organic  compounds  in  octanol
and water are shown in Table VII-12 (page 411).

A  review  of  priority organic compounds commonly found in metal
forming operation waste streams indicated that incidental removal
of these compounds often occurs as a result  of  oil  removal  or
clarification processes.  When all organics analyses from visited
plants  are  considered,  removal  of  organic compounds by other
waste treatment technologies  appears  to  be  marginal  in  many
cases.   However, when only raw waste concentrations of 0.05 mg/1
or greater are considered, incidental  organics  removal  becomes
                              324

-------
much more apparent.  Lower values, those less than 0.05 mg/1, are
much  more  subject  to analytical variation, while higher values
indicate a significant presence of a given compound.  When  these
factors  are taken into account, analysis data indicate that most
clarification  and   oil   removal   treatment   systems   remove
significant amounts of the toxic organic compounds present in the
raw waste.  The API oil-water separation system performed notably
in this regard, as shown in Table VII-13 (page 412).

Data  from five plant days demonstrate removal of organics by the
combined oil skimming and settling operations performed  on  coil
coating  wastewaters.   Days  were  chosen where treatment, system
influent and effluent analyses provided paired  data  points  for
oil  and  grease and the organics present.  All organics found at
quantifiable levels on those days were included.   Further,  only
those  days  were  chosen  where  oil  and  grease raw wastewater
concentrations exceeded 10 mg/1 and where there was reduction  in
oil  and  grease  going  through the treatment system.  All plant
sampling days which met the above criteria  are  included  below.
The  conclusion is that when oil and grease are removed, organics
also are removed.

                           Percent Removal
Plant-Day        Oil & Grease                 Organics

 1054-3
13029-2
13029-3
38053-1
38053-2
Mean

The unit operation most applicable to removal of  trace  priority
organics   is  adsorption,  and  chemical  oxidation  is  another
possibility.  Biological degradation is not generally  applicable
because  the organics are not present in sufficient concentration
to sustain a  biomass  and  because  most  of  the  organics  are
resistant to biodegradation.

Advantages  and  Limitations.   Skimming  as  a  pretreatment  is
effective in removing naturally floating waste material.  It also
improves the performance  of  subsequent  downstream  treatments.
Many  pollutants,   particularly dispersed or emulsified oil, will
not float "naturally" but require additional treatments.   There-
fore, skimming alone may not remove all the pollutants capable of
being  removed  by  air  flotation  or  other  more sophisticated
technologies.
                              325

-------
Operational Factors.  Reliability:  Because  of  its  simplicity,
skimming is a very reliable technique.

Maintainability:    The   skimming  mechanism  requires  periodic
lubrication, adjustment, and replacement of worn parts.

Solid Waste Aspects,:  The  collected  layer  of  debris  must  be
disposed  of  by  contractor  removal, landfill, or incineration.
Because relatively large quantities of water are present  in  the
collected  wastes,  incineration  is not always a viable disposal
method.

Demonstration Status.  Skimming is a  common  operation  utilized
extensively  by industrial waste treatment systems.  Oil skimming
is used in seven battery manufacturing plants.

MAJOR TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS

The  performance  of  individual   treatment   technologies   was
presented  above.   Performance of operating systems is discussed
here.  Two  different  systems  are  considered:  L&S  (hydroxide
precipitation  and  sedimentation  or  lime  and settle) and LS&F
(hydroxide precipitation, sedimentation, and filtration or  lime,
settle,  and filter).  Subsequently, an analysis of effectiveness
of such systems is made to develop one-day maximum,  and  ten-day
and  thirty-day  average  concentration  levels  to  be  used  in
regulating pollutants.   Evaluation  of  the  L&S  and  the  LS&F
systems  is carried out on the assumption that chemical reduction
of chromium, cyanide precipitation and oil removal are  installed
and operating properly where appropriate.

L&S Performance — Combined Metals Data Base

A  data  base known as the "combined metals data base" (CMDB) was
used to determine treatment  effectiveness  of  lime  and  settle
treatment  for  certain  pollutants.  The CMDB was developed over
several years and has been  used  in  a  number  of  regulations.
During  the  development  of  coil  coating and other categorical
effluent limitations and standards, chemical analysis  data  were
collected  of  raw  wastewater  (treatment  influent) and treated
wastewater (treatment effluent) from 55 plants  (126  data  days)
sampled  by  EPA  (or  its  contractor)  using  EPA  sampling and
chemical analysis protocols.  These data  are  the  initial  data
base  for  determining  the  effectiveness  of  L&S technology in
treating nine pollutants.  Each of the plants in the initial data
base  belongs  to  at  least  one  of  the   following   industry
categories: aluminum forming, battery manufacturing, coil coating
(including   canmaking),   copper   forming,  electroplating  and
porcelain enameling.  All of the plants employ pH adjustment  and
                              326

-------
hydroxide  precipitation  using  lime  or  caustic,  followed  by
Stokes1 law settling  (tank,  lagoon  or  clarifier)  for  solids
removal.    An  analysis  of  this  data  was  presented  in  the
development documents  for  the  proposed  regulations  for  coil
coating   and  porcelain  enameling  (January  1981).   Prior  to
analyzing the data, some values were deleted from the data  base.
These  deletions  were  made  to  ensure  that  the  data reflect
properly operated treatment systems.  The following criteria were
used in making these deletions:

          Plants  where  malfunctioning  processes  or  treatment
          systems at the time of sampling were identified.

          Data days where pH  was  less  than  7.0  for  extended
          periods  of time or TSS was greater than 50 mg/1 (these
          are prima facie indications of poor operation).

In  response  to  the  coil  coating  and   porcelain   enameling
proposals,  some  commenters claimed that it was inappropriate to
use data from some categories for regulation of other categories.
In response to these comments, the Agency  reanalyzed  the  data.
An  analysis of variance was applied to the data for the 126 days
of sampling to test the hypothesis of homogeneous plant mean  raw
and treated effluent levels across categories by pollutant.  This
analysis  is  described  in the report "A Statistical Analysis of
the Combined Metals Industries Effluent Data"  which  is  in  the
administrative record supporting this rulemaking.  Homogeneity is
the  absence  of  statistically discernable differences among the
categories,  while  heterogeneity  is  the  opposite,  i.e.,  the
presence  of  statistically  discernable  differences.   The main
conclusion drawn from the analysis of variance is that, with  the
exception  of electroplating, the categories included in the data
base are generally homogeneous  with  regard  to  mean  pollutant
concentrations  in  both raw and treated effluent.  That is, when
data from electroplating facilities are included in the analysis,
the hypothesis of  homogeneity  across  categories  is  rejected.
When  the  electroplating  data are removed from the analysis the
conclusion  changes   substantially   and   the   hypothesis   of
homogeneity  across  categories is not rejected.  On the basis of
this analysis, the electroplating data were removed from the data
base used to determine limitations for the final coil coating and
porcelain enameling  regulations  and  proposed  regulations  for
copper   forming,   aluminum   forming,   battery  manufacturing,
nonferrous metals  (Phase I), and canmaking.

The statistical  analysis  provides  support  for  the • technical
engineering   judgment   that   electroplating   wastewaters  are
sufficiently different from the wastewaters of  other  industrial
categories  in the data base to warrant removal of electroplating
                              327

-------
data  from  the   data   base   used   to   determine   treatment
effectiveness.

For   the   purpose   of   determining  treatment  effectiveness,
additional data were deleted from the data base.  These deletions
were made, almost  exclusively,  in  cases  where  effluent  data
points  were  associated with low influent values.  This was done
in two steps.  First, effluent values measured on the same day as
influent values that were less than or equal  to  0.1  mg/1  were
deleted.   Second,  the remaining data were screened for cases in
which all influent values at a plant were low  although  slightly
above  the  0.1  mg/1  value.   These  data  were  .deleted not as
individual data points but as plant clusters of  data  that  were
consistently low and thus not relevent to assessing treatment.  A
few   data  points  were  also  deleted  where  malfunctions  not
previously identified were recognized.  The  data  basic  to  the
CMDB are displayed graphically in Figures VII-4 to 12 (Pages 430-
438).   The  ranges  of  raw  waste  concentrations  for  battery
manufacturing are also shown in these figures.  These  levels  of
metals  concentrations  in  the raw waste are within the range of
raw waste concentrations commonly encountered in  metals  bearing
industrial wastewater.

After  all  deletions,  148  data points from 19 plants remained.
These data were used to  determine  the  concentration  basis  of
limitations  derived  from the CMDB used for the proposed battery
manufacturing regulation.

The CMDB was reviewed following its use in a number  of  proposed
regulations  (including battery manufacturing).  Comments pointed
out a few errors in the data, and the Agency's review  identified
a  few  transcription  errors  and  some  data  points  that were
appropriate for inclusion in the data  that  had  not  been  used
previously  because  of  errors  in  data  record  identification
numbers.  Documents in the record of this rulemaking identify all
the changes, the reasons for the changes, and the effect of these
changes on the data base.  Other comments on  the  CMDB  asserted
that the data base was too small and that the statistical methods
used  were  overly  complex.   Responses to specific comments are
provided in a document included in the record of this rulemaking.
The Agency believes that the data base is adequate  to  determine
effluent   concentrations   achievable   with   lime  and  settle
treatment.  The statistical methods employed in the analysis  are
well known and appropriate statistical references are provided in
the documents in the record that describe the analysis.

The  revised  data  base  was  reexamined  for  homogeneity.  The
earlier conclusions were unchanged.   The  categories  show  good
overall  homogeneity  with  respect to concentrations of the nine
                              328

-------
pollutants in both raw and treated wastewaters with the exception
of electroplating.

The same procedures used in developing proposed limitations  from
the  combined metals data base were then used on the revised data
base.   That  is,  certain  effluent  data  associated  with  low
influent  values  were  deleted, and then the remaining data were
fit to a lognormal distribution to determine limitations  values.
The  deletion  of  data  was  done in two steps.  First, effluent
values measured on the same day as influent values that were less
than or equal to 0.1 mg/1 were deleted.   Second,  the  remaining
data  were  screened  for cases in which all influent values at a
plant were low although slightly above the 0.1 mg/1 value.  These
data were deleted not as individual  data  points  but  as  plant
clusters of data that were consistently low and thus not relevant
to assessing treatment.

The  revised  combined - metals  data  base  used  for  this final
regulation consists of 162 data points from 18 plants in the same
industrial categories used at proposal. .The  changes  that  were
made  since  proposal  resulted in slight upward revisions of the
concentration bases for the limitations and  standards  for  zinc
and  nickel.   The  limitations  for iron decrease slightly.  The
other limitations were unchanged.  A comparison of  Table  VII-21
in  the  final  development  document  with  Table  VII-21 in the
proposal development document will show the  exact  magnitude  of
the changes.

     One-day Effluent Values

The  same procedures used to determine the concentration basis of
the limitations for lime and settle treatment from  the  CMDB  at
proposal were used in the revised CMDB for the final limitations.
The  basic  assumption  underlying the determination of treatment
effectiveness is that the data for  a  particular  pollutant  are
lognormally  distributed  by plant.  The lognormal has been found
to provide a satisfactory fit to plant effluent data in a  number
of  effluent guidelines categories and there was no evidence that
the lognormal was not suitable in the case of the CMDB.  Thus, we
assumed measurements of each pollutant from a  particular  plant,
denoted by X, were assumed followed a lognormal distribution with
log  mean  »/  and  log  variance a2.  The mean, variance and 99th
percentile of X are then:

     mean of X = E(X) = exp (» + a2 /2)

     variance of X = V(X) - exp (2 M + a2) [exp( a2 )_i]

     99th percentile = X.,, = exp ( ? +2.33 a)
                              329

-------
where exp is e, the base of  the  natural  logarithm.   The  term
lognormal  is  used  because  the  logarithm  of  X  has a normal
distribution with mean  v  and  variance  az.   Using  the  basic
assumption of lognormality the actual treatment effectiveness was
determined  using  a  lognormal  distribution  that,  in a sense,
approximates the distribution of an average of the plants in  the
data  base, i.e., an "average plant" distribution.  The notion of
an "average plant"  distribution  is  not  a  strict  statistical
concept but is used here to determine limits that would represent
the  performance  capability  of  an avereige of the plants in the
data base.

This "average plant" distribution for a particular pollutant  was
developed  as  follows: the log mean was determined by taking the
average of all the observations for the pollutant across  plants.
The  log  variance  was  determined  by  the  pooled within plant
variance.  This is the weighted average of the  plant  variances.
Thus, the log mean represents the average of all the data for the
pollutant  and  the  log  variance  represents the average of the
plant  log  variances  or  average  plant  variability  for   the
pollutant.

     The one day effluent values were determined as follows:

     Let  Xij  = the jth observation on a particular pollutant at
plant i where

               i = 1, . . ., I
               j = 1, ..., Ji
               I = total number of plants
               Ji = number of observations at plant i.

     Then      yij = In Xij

     where     In means the natural logarithm.

     Then      y = log mean over all plants
     where
n = total number of observations
                              330

-------
     and       V(y) = pooled log variance
                     T
                          _ i\  t.2
     where     Si* « log variance at plant i
                y~i * log mean at plant i.

Thus, y and V(y) are the log mean and log variance, respectively,
of the lognormal distribution used  to  determine  the  treatment
effectiveness.   The  estimated  mean and 99th percentile of this
distribution form the basis for the long term average  and  daily
maximum effluent limitations, respectively.  The estimates are

     mean -1i:(X) = expfy) * n (0.5 V(y))
     99th percentile =  .,, = exp [y + 2.33>/ V(y)   ]

where  *  (.)  is a Bessel function and exp is e, the base of the
natural logarithms (See  Aitchison,   J.  and  J.A.C.  Brown,  The
Loqnormal  Distribution,  Cambridge  University Press, 1963).  In
cases where zeros were present in the data, a generalized form of
the lognormal, known as the  delta  distribution  was  used   (See
Aitchison and Brown, op. cit., Chapter 9).

For  certain  pollutants,  this approach was modified slightly to
ensure that well operated lime and  settle  plants  in  all  CMDB
categories  would  achieve  the  pollutant  concentration  values
calculated from the CMDB.   For  instance,  after   excluding  the
electroplating data and other data that did not reflect pollutant
removal  or  proper  treatment, the effluent copper data from the
copper forming plants were  statistically  significantly  greater
than  the copper data from the other plants.  This  indicated that
copper forming plants might have difficulty achieving an effluent
concentration value calculated from copper  data  from  all  CMDB
categories.   Thus,  copper effluent values shown in Table VIl-14
(page 412) are based only on the copper effluent  data  from  the
copper  forming  plants.  That is, the log mean for copper is the
mean of the logs of all copper values  from  the  copper  forming
plants   only  and the log variance is the pooled log variance of
the copper forming plant data only.   A similar situation occurred
in the case of lead.  That is, after excluding the  electroplating
data, the effluent lead  data  from  battery  manufacturing  were
                              331

-------
significantly  greater than the other categories.  This indicated
that battery manufacturing plants might have difficulty achieving
a lead concentration calculated from  all  the  CMDB  categories.
The  lead  values  proposed  were  therefore based on the battery
manufacturing lead data only.  Comments on the  proposed  battery
manufacturing  regulation objected to this procedure and asserted
that the lead  concentration  values  were  too  low.   Following
proposal,  the Agency obtained additional lead effluent data from
a battery manufacturing facility  with  well  operated  lime  and
settle  treatment.   These  data  were combined with the proposal
lead  data  and  analyzed  to  determine  the   final   treatment
effectiveness  concentrations.   The  mean  lead concentration is
unchanged at 0.12 mg/1 but the final one-day maximum and  monthly
10-day   average   maximum  increased  to  0.42  and  0.20  mg/1,
respectively.   A  complete  discussion  of  the  lead  data  and
analysis  is  contained  in  a  memorandum  in the record of this
rulemaking.

In the case of cadmium, after excluding the  electroplating  data
and  data that did not reflect removal or proper treatment, there
were insufficient data to estimate the log variance for  cadmium.
The  variance  used to determine the values shown in Table VII-14
for cadmium was estimated by pooling the within  plant  variances
for  all  the other metals.  Thus, the cadmium variability is the.
average of the plant variability  averaged  over  all  the  other
metals.   The log mean for cadmium is the mean of the logs of the
cadmium observations only. . A complete discussion of the data and
calculations  for  all   the   metals   is   contained   in   the
administrative record for this rulemaking.

     Average Effluent Values

Average  effluent  values  that  form  the  basis for the monthly
limitations were developed in a manner consistent with the method
used to develop  one-day  treatment  effectiveness  in  that  the
lognormal  distribution  used for the one-day effluent values was
also used as the basis for  the  average  values.   That  is,  we
assume  a  number  of consecutive measurements are drawn from the
distribution  of  daily  measurements.   The   average   of   ten
measurements  taken  during a month was used as the basis for the
monthly average  limitations.   The  approach  used  for  the  10
measurements  values  was  employed previously in regulations for
other categories and was proposed for the  battery  manufacturing
category.  That is, the distribution of the average of 10 samples
from   a   lognormal   was   approximated  by  another  lognormal
distribution.   Although  the  approximation   is   not   precise
theoretically, there is "empirical evidence based on effluent data
from  a  number  of  categories that the lognormal is an adequate
approximation for the distribution  of  small  samples.   In  the
                              332

-------
course  of  previous  work  the  approximation  was verified  in a
computer simulation study (see "Development Document for Existing
Sources  Pretreatment  Standards  for  the  Electroplating  Point
Source Category", EPA 440/1-79/003, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency,  Washington,  B.C.,  August 1979).  We also note that the
average  values  were  developed  assuming  independence  of  the
observations although no particular sampling scheme was assumed.

     Ten-Sample Average:

The  formulas  for  the 10-sample limitations were derived on the
basis of simple relationships between the mean  and  variance  o_f
the  distributions  of  the  daily pollutant measurements and the
average of 10 measurements.  We assume  the  daily  concentration
measurements  for  a particular pollutant, denoted by X, follow a
lognormal distribution with log mean and log variance denoted  by
i» and  lexp(.«r*10)-lJ

Now, if 10 and azlo can be derived in terms of » and ez as

     * 10 " f + *a /2 - 0.5 In [l*(exp( 
-------
     Thirty-Sample Average

Monthly   average  values  based  on  the  average  of  30  daily
measurements were also calculated.  These  are  included  because
monthly  limitations  based  on  30 samples have been used in the
past and for comparison with the 10 sample values.   The  average
values  based on 30 measurements are determined on the basis of a
statistical result known as  the  Central  Limit  Theorem.   This
Theorem   states   that,   under   general   and   nonrestrictive
assumptions, the distribution of a sum  of  a  number  of  random
variables,  say  n,  is  approximated by the normal distribution.
The  approximation  improves  as  the  number  of  variables,  n,
increases.   The  Theorem  is quite general in that no particular
distributional form  is  assumed  for  the  distribution  of  the
individual  variables.  In most applications (as in approximating
the distribution of 30-day  averages)  the  Theorem  is  used  to
approximate  the distribution of the average of n observations of
a random variable.  The  result  makes  it  possible  to  compute
approximate  probability  statements  about the average in a wide
range of cases.  For instance, it is possible to compute a  value
below  which  a  specified  percentage  (e.g., 99 percent) of the
averages of n observations are likely to  fall.   Most  textbooks
state   that  25  or  30  observations  are  sufficient  for  the
approximation to be  valid.   In  applying  the  Theorem  to  the
distribution   of   the   30  day  average  effluent  values,  we
approximate the distribution of the average  of  30  observations
drawn  from  the  distribution  of daily measurements and use the
estimated 99th percentile of this distribution.

     Thirty-Sample Average Calculation

The  formulas  for  the  30-sample  average  were  based  on   an
application  of  the  Central  Limit  Theorem.   According to the
Theorem,  the  average  of  30  observations   drawn   from   the
distribution   of   daily   measurements,   denoted  by  X30,	is
approximately normally distributed.  The mean and variance of X30
are:

     mean of ~X30 j. E(X30)_,- E(X)
     variance of X30 = V(X30) = V(X) t 30.

The 30 sample average value was determined by the estimate of the
approximate 99th percentile of the distribution of the 30  sample
average given by

     X?0(.99) = E?X)'+ 2.33VV?X) -r 30

     where /\
          E(X) = exp(y) «n(0.5V(y)).
                              334

-------
     and vTx) = exp(2y)  [ *,


The  formulas  for  E?X) and V(X) are estimates of E(X) and V(X),
respectively, given  in  Aitchison,  J.  and  J.A.C.  Brown,  The
Lognormal  Distribution,  Cambridge  University Press, 1963, page
45.

     Application

In response to the proposed coil coating and porcelain  enameling
regulations,  the  Agency  received  comments  pointing  out that
permits usually required less than 30 samples to be taken  during
a  month  while the monthly average used as the basis for permits
and pretreatment requirements usually is based on the average  of
30 samples.

In  applying the treatment effectiveness values to regulations we
have considered the comments,  examined  the  sampling  frequency
required  by  many permits and considered the change  in values of
averages depending on the number of consecutive sampling days  in
the  averages.  The most common frequency of sampling required in
permits is about ten samples per month or slightly  greater  than
twice  weekly.   The  99th  percentiles  of  the  distribution of
averages of ten consecutive sampling days are  not  substantially
different  from  the 99th percentile of the distribution's 30-day
average.  (Compared to the one-day maximum, the  ten-day  average
is  about  80  percent  of the difference between one- and 30-day
values).  Hence the ten-day average provides a  reasonable  basis
for  a  monthly average limitation and is typical of  the sampling
frequency required by existing permits.

The monthly average limitation is to be achieved in   all  permits
and  pretreatment  standards  regardless of the number of samples
required to be  analyzed  and  averaged  by  the  permit  or  the
pretreatment authority.

Additional Pollutants

Ten  additional  pollutant parameters were evaluated  to determine
the performance of lime arid settle treatment systems  in  removing
them  from  industrial  wastewater.   Performance  data for these
parameters is not a part of the CMDB so other data  available  to
the  Agency  from other categories has been used to determine the
long term average performance of lime and settle  technology  for
each  pollutant.   These  data  indicate  that the concentrations
shown in Table VII-15  (page 413)  are  reliably  attainable  with
hydroxide  precipitation  and  settling.  Treatment effectiveness
values were calculated by multiplying the mean  performance  from
                              335

-------
Table  VII-15  (page  413) by the appropriate variability factor.
(The variability factor is the ratio of the value of  concern  to
the mean).  The pooled variability factors are: one-day maximum -
4.100;  ten-day average - 1.821; and 30-day average - 1.618 these
one-, ten-, and thirty-day values are tabulated in  Table  VI1-21
(page 418).

In  establishing which data were suitable for use in Table VII-15
two  factors  were  heavily  weighed;  (1)  the  nature  of   the
wastewater;  and  (2) the range of pollutants or pollutant matrix
in the raw  wastewater.   These  data  have  been  selected  from
processes  that  generate  dissolved metals in the wastewater and
which are generally free from complexing agents.   The  pollutant
matrix   was   evaluated   by  comparing  the  concentrations  of
pollutants found  in  the  raw  wastewaters  with  the  range  of
pollutants  in  the  raw  wastewaters of the combined metals data
set.  These data are displayed in Tables VII-16  (page  413)  and
VII-17   (page   414)  and  indicate  that  there  is  sufficient
similarity in the raw wastes to logically assume  transferability
of  the  treated  pollutant concentrations to the combined metals
data base.  Battery manufacturing wastewaters also were  compared
to the wastewaters from plants in categories from which treatment
effectiveness  values  were  calculated.   The  available data on
these added pollutants do not allow homogeneity analysis  as  was
performed  on the combined metals data base.  The data source for
each added pollutant is discussed separately.

Antimony (Sb) - The achievable performance for antimony is  based
on  data  from  a  battery  and  secondary  lead plant.  Both EPA
sampling data and recent  permit  data  (1978-1982)  confirm  the
achievability of 0.7 mg/1 in the battery manufacturing wastewater
matrix included in the combined data set.

Arsenic (As) - The achievable performance of 0.5 mg/1 for arsenic
is  based on permit data from two nonferrous metals manufacturing
plants.  The untreated wastewater matrix shown  in  Table  VII-17
(page.414) is comparable with the combined data set matrix.

Beryllium  (Be)  -  The  treatability of beryllium is transferred
from the nonferrous metals manufacturing industry.  The 0.3  mg/1
performance  is achieved at a beryllium plant with the comparable
untreated wastewater matrix shown in Table VII-17.

Mercury (Hg) - The 0.06 mg/1 treatability of mercury is based  on
data  from  four battery plants.  The untreated wastewater matrix
at these plants was considered in the combined metals data set.

Selenium (Se) - The 0.30 mg/1 treatability of selenium  is  based
on   recent  permit  data  from  one  of  the  nonferrous  metals
                              336

-------
manufacturing plants also used  for  antimony  performance.   The
untreated wastewater matrix for this plant is shown in Table VII-
17.

Silver  -  The  treatability  of  silver  is  based on a 0.1 mg/1
treatability estimate  from  the  inorganic  chemicals  industry.
Additional  data  supporting  a treatability as stringent or more
stringent than 0.1 mg/1 is also available from  seven  nonferrous
metals manufacturing plants.  The untreated wastewater matrix for
these plants is comparable and summarized in Table VI1-17.

Thallium  (Tl)  -  The  0.50  mg/1  treatability  for thallium is
transferred from the inorganic chemicals industry.   Although  no
untreated  wastewater  data are available to verify comparability
with the combined metals data set plants,  no  other  sources  of
data for thallium treatability could be identified.

Aluminum  (Al)  - The 2.24 mg/1 treatability of aluminum is based
on the mean performance of three aluminum forming plants and  one
coil coating plant.  These plants are from categories included in
the  combined  metals  data  set,  assuring  untreated wastewater
matrix comparability.

Cobalt (Co) - The 0.05  mg/1  treatability  is  based  on  nearly
complete  removal of cobalt at a porcelain enameling plant with a
mean untreated wastewater cobalt concentration of 4.31 mg/1.   In
this  case,  the analytical detection using aspiration techniques
for this pollutant is used as  the  basis  of  the  treatability.
Porcelain  enameling  was  considered in the combined metals data
base, assuring untreated wastewater matrix comparability.

Fluoride (F) - The 14.5 mg/1 treatability of fluoride is based on
the  mean   "performance   {216   samples)   of   an   electronics
manufacturing  plant.   The  untreated wastewater matrix for this
plant shown in Table VI1-17 is comparable to the combined  metals
data  set.  The fluoride level in the electronics wastewater {760
mg/1) is significantly greater than the  fluoride  level  in  raw
battery  manufacturing  wastewater leading to the conclusion that
the battery manufacturing wastewater should be no more  difficult
to  treat  for  fluoride removal than the electronics wastewater.
The fluoride level in the CMDB - electroplating data ranges  from
1.29  to  70.0  mg/1  while  the  fluoride  level  in the battery
manufacturing wastewater was lower ranging from 0.44 to 3.05 mg/1
and leading to the  conclusion  that  the  battery  manufacturing
wastewater  should  be  no  more  difficult  to  treat  to remove
fluoride them electroplating wastewater.

Phosphorus  (PJ_- The 4.08  mg/1  treatability  of  phosphorus  is
based  on  the  mean  of 44 samples including 19 samples from the
                              337

-------
Combined Metals Data Base and 25 samples from the  electroplating
data  base.   Inclusion  of electroplating data with the combined
metals  data  was  considered  appropriate,  since  the   removal
mechanism for phosphorus is a precipitation reaction with calcium
rather than hydroxide.

LS&F Performance

Tables  VII-18 and VII-19 (pages 415 and 416) show long term data
from two plants which have well  operated  precipitation-settling
treatment  followed  by  filtration.   The  wastewaters from both
plants contain pollutants from metals  processing  and  finishing
operations   (multi-category).   Both  plants  reduce  hexavalent
chromium before neutralizing and precipitating metals with  lime.
A  clarifier  is  used  to  remove  much of the solids load and a
filter is used to  "polish"  or  complete  removal  of  suspended
solids.   Plant  A  uses  a pressure filter, while Plant B uses a
rapid sand filter.

Raw wastewater data  was  collected  only  occasionally  at  each
facility   and  the  raw  wastewater  data  is  presented  as  an
indication of the nature of the wastewater  treated.   Data  from
plant A was received as a statistical summary and is presented as
received.   Raw  laboratory  data  was  collected  at plant B and
reviewed for spurious points and discrepancies.   The  method  of
treating the data base is discussed below under lime, settle, and
filter treatment effectiveness.

Table VII-20 (page 417) shows long-term data for zinc and cadmium
removal at Plant C, a primary zinc smelter, which operates a LS&F
system.   This  data  represents  about  4 months (103 data days)
taken immediately before the smelter was  closed.   It  has  been
arranged similarily to Plants A and B for comparison and use.

These  data  are  presented  to  demonstrate  the  performance of
precipitation-settling-filtration (LS&F) technology under  actual
operating conditions and over a long period of time. •

It should be noted that the iron content of the raw wastewater of
plants  A  and  B  is  high  while that for Plant C is low.  This
results, for plants A and B, in co-precipitation of toxic  metals
with  iron.  Precipitation using high-calcium lime for pH control
yields  the  results  shown  above.   Plant  operating  personnel
indicate that this chemical treatment combination (sometimes with
polymer  assisted coagulation) generally produces better and more
consistent metals removal than other combinations of  sacrificial
metal ions and alkalis.
                              338

-------
The  LS&F  performance  data  presented here are based on systems
that provide polishing filtration after effective L&S  treatment.
We have previously shown that L&S treatment is equally applicable
to   wastewaters   from   the  five  categories  because  of  the
homogeneity  of  its  raw  and  treated  wastewaters,  and  other
factors.   Because of the similarity of the wastewaters after L&S
treatment, the Agency  believes  these  wastewaters  are  equally
amenable  to  treatment  using polishing filters added to the L&S
treatment system.  The Agency concludes that LS&F data  based  on
porcelain  enameling  and  nonferrous  smelting  and  refining is
directly applicable to  the  aluminum  forming,  copper  forming,
battery  manufacturing,  coil  coating,  and  metal  molding  and
casting categories, and the canmaking subcategory as well  as  it
is to porcelain enameling and nonferrous melting and refining.

Analysis of_ Treatment System Effectiveness

Data are presented in Table VII-14 showing the mean, one-day, 10-
day,  and  30-day  values for nine pollutants examined in the L&S
combined metals data base.  The  pooled  variability  factor  for
seven  metal  pollutants  (excluding cadmium because of the small
number of data points) was determined and  is  used  to  estimate
one-day,  10-day  and  30-day values.  (The variability factor is
the ratio of the  value  of  concern  to  the  mean:  the  pooled
variability factors are: one-day maximum - 4.100; ten-day average
-  1.821; and 30-day average - 1.618.)  For values not calculated
from the  CMDB  as  previously  discussed,  the  mean  value  for
pollutants   shown   in  Table  VI1-15  were  multiplied  by  the
variability factors to derive the value to obtain the one-,  ten-
and 30-day values.  These are tabulated in Table VII-21.

The   treatment   effectiveness  for  sulfide  precipitation  and
filtration has been  calculated  similarly.   Long  term  average
values  shown  in  Table VI1-6 (page 407) have been multiplied by
the appropriate variability factor to estimate  one-day  maximum,
and  ten-day  and  30-day  average  values.   Variability factors
developed in the combined metals data base were used because  the
raw  wastewaters  are  identical  and  the  treatment methods are
similar as both use chemical precipitation and solids removal  to
control metals.

LS&F  technology  data are presented in Tables VII-18 and VII-19.
These data represent two operating plants (A and B) in which  the
technology has been installed and operated for some years.  Plant
A  data  was  received  as a statistical summary and is presented
without change.  Plant B data  was  received  as  raw •laboratory
analysis  data.   Discussions with plant personnel indicated that
operating experiments and changes in materials and  reagents  and
occasional   operating   errors  had  occurred  during  the  data
                              339

-------
collection period.  No  specific  information  was  available  on
those  variables.   To  sort  out  high values probably caused by
methodological factors from random  statistical  variability,  or
data  noise,  the  plant  B data were analyzed.  For each of four
pollutants (chromium, nickel,  zinc,  and  iron),  the  mean  and
standard  deviation  (sigma)  were calculated for the entire data
set.  A data day was removed from the complete data set when  any
individual  pollutant concentration for that day exceeded the sum
of the mean plus three sigma for that pollutaftit.  Fifty-one  data
days (from a total of about 1300) were eliminated by this method.

Another  approach was also used as a check on the above method of
eliminating certain high  values.   The  minimum  values  of  raw
wastewater   concentrations  from  Plant  B  for  the  same  four
pollutants were compared to the  total  set  of  values  for  the
corresponding   pollutants.    Any   day  on  which  the  treated
wastewater pollutant concentration  exceeded  the  minimum  value
selected  from  raw  wastewater concentrations for that pollutant
was discarded.  Forty-five days of data were eliminated  by  that
procedure.  Forty-three days of data in common were eliminated by
either  procedures.  Since common engineering practice (mean plus
3 sigma) and logic (treated wastewater concentrations  should  be
less  than  raw  wastewater concentrations) seem to coincide, the
data base with the 51 spurious data days eliminated is the  basis
for  all  further  analysis.  Range, mean plus standard deviation
and mean plus two standard deviations are shown in Tables  VII-18
and VII-19 for Cr, Cu, Ni, Zn and Fe.

The  Plant  B  data was separated into 1979, 1978, and total data
base (six years) segments.  With the  statistical  analysis  from
Plant  A  for 1978 and 1979 this in effect created five data sets
in which there is some overlap between the individual  years  and
total  data  sets from Plant B.  By comparing these five parts it
is apparent that they are quite similar and all appear to be from
the same family of numbers.  The largest  mean  found  among  the
five  data  sets for each pollutant was selected as the long term
mean for LS&F technology and is used as the LS&F  mean  in  Table
VII-21.

Plant  C data was used as a basis for cadmium removal performance
and as a check on the zinc values derived from Plants  A  and  B.
The  cadmium  data is displayed in Table VII-20 (page 417) and is
incorporated into Table VII-21  for  LS&F.   The  zinc  data  was
analyzed for compliance with the 1-day and 30-day values in Table
VII-21;  no  zinc value of the 103 data points exceeded the 1-day
zinc value of 1.02 mg/1.  The 103 data points were separated into
blocks of 30 points and averaged.  Each  of  the  3  full  30-day
averages  was  less  than  the  Table  VII-21 value of 0.31 mg/1.
Additionally, the-Plant C raw wastewater pollutant concentrations
                              340

-------
(Table VI1-20) are  well  within  the  range  of  raw  wastewater
concentrations  of  the combined metals data base (Table VII-16),
further supporting the conclusion that Plant C wastewater data is
compatible with similar data from Plants A and B.

Concentration values for regulatory use are  displayed  in  Table
VII-21.  Mean one-day, ten-day and 30-day values for L&S for nine
pollutants were taken from Table VII-14; the remaining L&S values
were developed using the mean values in Table VII-15 and the mean
variability factors discussed above.

LS&F  mean  values  for  Cd,  Cr,  Ni, Zn and Fe are derived,from
plants A, B, and C as discussed above.  One-, ten- and thirty-day
values are derived by applying the variability  factor  developed
from  the pooled data base for the specific pollutant to the mean
for that pollutant.  Other LS&F values are calculated  using  the
long  term  average  or  mean  and  the  appropriate  variability
factors.

Copper levels achieved at Plants  A  and  B  may  be  lower  than
generally  achievable  because  of  the high iron content and low
copper content of  the  raw  wastewaters.   Therefore,  the  mean
concentration value from plants A and B achieved is not used? the
LS&F mean for copper is derived from the L&S technology.

L&S  cyanide mean levels shown in Table VI1-8 are ratioed to one-
day, ten-day and 30-day values using  mean  variability  factors.
LS&F  mean  cyanide  is  calculated  by  applying  the  ratios of
removals L&S and LS&F as discussed  previously  for  LS&F  metals
limitations.  The cyanide performance was arrived at by using the
average  metal  variability  factors.   The treatment method used
here is cyanide precipitation.  Because cyanide precipitation  is
limited   by   the   same   physical   processes   as  the  metal
precipitation, it is expected  that  the  variabilities  will  be
similar.  Therefore, the average of the metal variability factors
has  been  used  as  a basis for calculating the cyanide one-day,
ten-day and thirty-day average treatment effectiveness values.

The filter performance for removing TSS as shown in  Table  VH-9
(page  409) yields a mean effluent concentration of 2.61 mg/1 and
calculates to a 10-day average of 4.33, 30-day  average  of  3.36
mg/1;  a  one-day  maximum of 8.88.  These calculated values more
than amply support the classic thirty-day and one-day  values  of
10 mg/1 and 15 mg/1, respectively, which are used for LS&F.

Although   iron   concentrations  were  decreased  in  some  LS&F
operations, some facilities using that treatment  introduce  iron
compounds  to  aid settling.  Therefore, the one-day, ten-day and
30-day values for iron at LS&F were held at the L&S level  so  as
                              341

-------
to  not  unduly  penalize the operations which use the relatively
less objectionable iron compounds to enhance  removals  of  toxic
metals.

The removal of additional fluoride by adding polishing filtration
is  suspect  because  lime  and settle technology removes calcium
fluoride to a level near its solubility.  The one available  data
point  appears to question the ability of filters to achieve high
removals   of   additional   fluoride.    The   fluoride   levels
demonstrated  for L&S are used as the treatment effectiveness for
LS&F.

MINOR TECHNOLOGIES

Several other treatment technologies were considered for possible
application  in  this  subcategory.    These   technologies   are
presented here.

8.   Carbon Adsorption

The use of activated carbon to  remove  dissolved  organics  from
water  and  wastewater  is a long demonstrated technology.  It is
one of the most efficient organic  removal  processes  available.
This sorption process is reversible, allowing activated carbon to
be  regenerated for reuse by the application of heat and steam or
solvent.  Activated carbon has also proved  to  be  an  effective
adsorbent for many toxic metals, including mercury.  Regeneration
of  carbon which has adsorbed significant metals, however, may be
difficult.

The term activated carbon applies to any amorphous form of carbon
that  has  been  specially  treated  to  give   high   adsorption
capacities.   Typical  raw  materials include coal, wood, coconut
shells, petroleum base residues,  and  char  from  sewage  sludge
pyrolysis.    A  carefully  controlled  process  of  dehydration,
carbonization, and oxidation yields a  product  which  is  called
activated   carbon.   This  material  has  a  high  capacity  for
adsorption due primarily to the .large surface area available  for
adsorption,  500 to 1500 mz/sq m resulting from a large number of
internal pores.  Pore  sizes  generally  range  from  10  to  100
angstroms in radius.

Activated  carbon  removes contaminants from water by the process
of  adsorption,  or  the  attraction  and  accumulation  of   one
substance   on   the   surface   of  another.   Activated  carbon
preferentially adsorbs organic compounds  arid,  because  of  this
selectivity,   is  particularly  effective  in  removing  organic
compounds from aqueous solution.
                              342

-------
Carbon  adsorption  requires  pretreatment   to   remove   excess
suspended  solids,  oils,  and  greases.  Suspended solids in the
influent should  be  less  than  50  mg/1  to  minimize  backwash
requirements; ,a downflow carbon bed can handle much higher levels
(up to 2000 mg/1) but requires frequent backwashing.  Backwashing
more  than  two or three times a day is not desirable; at 50 mg/1
suspended solids, one backwash  will  suffice.   Oil  and  grease
should  be  less  than  about 10 mg/1.  A high level of dissolved
inorganic material  in  the  influent  may  cause  problems  with
thermal  carbon reactivation (i.e., scaling and loss of activity)
unless appropriate preventive steps are taken.  Such steps  might
include  pH control, softening, or the use of an acid wash on the
carbon prior to reactivation.

Activated carbon is available in both powdered and granular form.
An adsorption column packed with granular  activated  carbon   is
shown  in  Figure  VII-17  (page  443).   Powdered carbon is less
expensive per unit weight and may have slightly higher adsorption
capacity, but it is more difficult to handle and to regenerate.

Application and Performance.  Carbon adsorption is used to remove
mercury from wastewaters.  The removal rate is influenced by  the
mercury  level  in the influent to the adsorption unit.  In Table
VII-24, removal levels found at  three  manufacturing  facilities
are listed.

In  the  aggregate  these  data  indicate  that very low effluent
levels could be attained from any raw waste by  use  of  multiple
adsorption   stages.    This   is  characteristic  of  adsorption
processes.

Isotherm tests have  indicated  that  activated  carbon  is  very
effective  in  adsorbing  65  percent  of  the  organic  priority
pollutants and is reasonably effective for  another  22  percent.
Specifically,  for the organics of particular interest, activated
carbon  was  very  effective  in   removing   2,4-dimethylphenol,
fluoranthene,   isophorone,   naphthalene,  all  phthalates,  and
phenanthrene.    It   was   reasonably   effective   on    1,1,1-
trichloroethane,  1,1-dichloroethane, phenol, and toluene.  Table
VII-22 (page 419) summarizes the treatment effectiveness for most
of  the  organic  priority  pollutants  by  activated  carbon  as
compiled  by  EPA.  Table VII-23 (page 420) summarizes classes of
organic compounds together with examples  of  organics  that  are
readily adsorbed on carbon.

Advantages   and  Limitations.   The  major  benefits  of  carbon
treatment include applicability to a wide variety of organics and
high removal efficiency.  Inorganics such as  cyanide,  chromium,
and   mercury   are  also  removed  effectively.   Variations  in
                              343

-------
concentration and flow rate are well tolerated.   The  system  is
compact,   and   recovery  of  adsorbed  materials  is  sometimes
practical.  However,  destruction  of  adsorbed  compounds  often
occurs   during   thermal  regeneration.   If  carbon  cannot  be
thermally desorbed,  it  must  be  disposed  of  along  with  any
adsorbed  pollutants.  The capital and operating costs of thermal
regeneration are relatively high.  Cost surveys show that thermal
regeneration is generally  economical  when  carbon  use  exceeds
about 1,000 Ib/day.  Carbon cannot remove low molecular weight or
highly  soluble  organics.   It  also  has  a  low  tolerance for
suspended solids, which must be removed to at least  50  mg/1  in
the influent water.

Operational  Factors.   Reliability:   This system should be very
reliable  with  upstream  protection  and  proper  operation  and
maintenance procedures.

Maintainability:   This  system requires periodic regeneration or
replacement of spent carbon and is dependent upon raw waste  load
and process efficiency.

Solid   Waste   Aspects:    Solid  waste  from  this  process  is
contaminated activated carbon  that  requires  disposal.   Carbon
undergoes  regeneration,  reduces  the  solid  waste  problem  by
reducing the frequency of carbon replacement.

Demonstration  Status.   Carbon  adsorption  systems  have   been
demonstrated to be practical and economical in reducing COD, BOD,
and  related  parameters  in  secondary  municipal and industrial
wastewaters;  in  removing  toxic  or  refractory  organics  from
isolated  industrial  wastewaters;  in  removing  and  recovering
certain organics from wastewaters; and in removing and some times
recovering selected  inorganic  chemicals  from  aqueous  wastes.
Carbon  adsorption  is  a viable and economic process for organic
waste streams containing up to 1 to 5 percent  of  refractory  or
toxic organics.  Its applicability for removal of inorganics such
as metals has also been demonstrated.

9.   Centrif'ugation

Centrifugation  is  the  application  of  centrifugal  force   to
separate  solids  and  liquids  in  a  liquid-solid mixture or to
effect  concentration  of  the  solids.    The   application   of
centrifugal   force   is   effective   because   of  the  density
differential normally found between the insoluble solids and  the
liquid  in  which  they  are  contained.   As  a  waste treatment
procedure, centrifugation is applied to  dewatering  of  sludges.
One type of centrifuge is shown in Figure VII-18 (page 444).
                              344

-------
There  are  three common types of centrifuges;  disc, basket, and
conveyor.   All  three  operate  by  removing  solids  under  the
influence of centrifugal force.  The fundamental difference among
the  three  types  is the method by which solids are collected in
and discharged from the bowl.

In the disc centrifuge, the sludge feed  is  distributed  between
narrow  channels  that  are  present  as  spaces  between stacked
conical discs.  Suspended particles are collected and  discharged
continuously  through  small  orifices  in  the  bowl  wall.  The
clarified effluent is discharged through an overflow weir.

A second type of centrifuge which is useful in dewatering sludges
is the basket centrifuge.  In this  type  of  centrifuge,  sludge
feed  is  introduced  at  the  bottom  of  the basket, and solids
collect at the bowl wall while clarified effluent  overflows  the
lip  ring  at the top.  Since the basket centrifuge does not have
provision for continuous discharge of collected  cake,  operation
requires interruption of the feed for cake discharge for a minute
or two in a 10 to 30 minute overall cycle.

The  third  type of centrifuge commonly used in sludge dewatering
is the conveyor type.  Sludge is fed through  a  stationary  feed
pipe  into  a  rotating  bowl in which the solids are settled out
against the bowl wall by centrifugal force.  From the bowl  wall,
the  solids  are  moved  by a screw to the end of the machine, at
which  point  they  are  discharged.   The  liquid  effluent   is
discharged  through  ports  after  passing the length of the bowl
under centrifugal force.

Application And  Performance.'   Virtually  all  industrial  waste
treatment  systems  producing  sludge  can  use centrifugation to
dewater it.  Centrifugation is currently being  used  by  a  wide
range of industrial concerns.

The performance of sludge dewatering by centrifugation depends on
the  feed  rate,  the  rotational  velocity  of the drum, and the
sludge composition and concentration.  Assuming proper design and
operation, the solids content of the sludge can be  increased  to
20 to 35 percent.

Advantages  And  Limitations.   Sludge dewatering centrifuges have
minimal space requirements and show a  high  degree  of  effluent
clarification.   The  operation  is simple, clean, and relatively
inexpensive.   The  area  required  for   a   centrifuge   system
installation  is  less  than that required for a filter system or
sludge drying bed of equal capacity,  and  the  initial  cost  is
lower.
                              345

-------
Centrifuges have a high power cost that partially offsets the low
initial  cost.   Special  consideration  must  also  be  given to
providing sturdy foundations and  soundproofing  because  of  the
vibration  and  noise  that  result  from  centrifuge  operation.
Adequate electrical power  must  also  be  provided  since  large
motors  are  required.   The  major difficulty encountered in the
operation of centrifuges has been the disposal of the concentrate
which is relatively high in suspended, non-settling solids.

Operational  Factors.   Reliability:   Centrifugation  is  highly
reliable  with  proper  control  of  factors such as sludge feed,
consistency, and temperature.  Pretreatment such as grit  removal
and  coagulant  addition  may  be  necessary,  depending  on  the
composition of the sludge and on the type of centrifuge employed.

Maintainability:  Maintenance consists of  periodic  lubrication,
cleaning, and inspection.  The frequency and degree of inspection
required  varies  depending  on  the  type of sludge solids being
dewatered and the maintenance service conditions.  If the  sludge
is  abrasive,  it is recommended that the first inspection of the
rotating assembly be made  after  approximately  1,000  hours  of
operation.   If the sludge is not abrasive or corrosive, then the
initial inspection might be delayed.   Centrifuges  not  equipped
with  a  continuous  sludge  discharge  system  require  periodic
shutdowns for manual sludge cake removal.

Solid Waste Aspects:   Sludge  dewatered  in  the  centrifugation
process  may  be disposed of by landfill.  The clarified effluent
(centrate), if high in dissolved or suspended solids, may require
further treatment prior to discharge.

Demonstration Status.  Centrifugation  is  currently  used  in  a
great  many  commercial  applications to dewater sludge.  Work is
underway to improve the efficiency, increase  the  capacity,  and
lower the costs associated with centrifugation.

10.  Coalescing

The basic principle  of  coalescence • 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  as
they  combine  to  form  larger  particles.   The  most important
requirements for coalescing media are  wettability  for  oil  and
large  surface  area.   Monofilament  line is sometimes used as a
coalescing medium.

Coalescing stages may  be  integrated  with  a  wide  variety  of
gravity  oil separation devices, and some systems may incorporate
                              346

-------
several  coalescing  stages.   In  general,  a  preliminary   oil
skimming step is desirable to avoid overloading the coalescer.

One   commercially  marketed  system  for  oily  waste  treatment
combines  coalescing   with   inclined   plate   separation   and
filtration.   In  this  system,  the  oily  wastes  flow  into an
inclined plate  settler.   This  unit  consists  of  a  stack  of
inclined  baffle  plates  in  a cylindrical container with an oil
collection chamber at the top.  The oil droplets rise and impinge
upon the undersides of the plates.  They then migrate upward to a
guide rib which directs the oil to the  oil  collection  chamber,
from which oil is discharged for reuse or disposal.

The  oily  water continues on through another cylinder containing
replaceable filter cartridges, which remove  suspended  particles
from  the  waste.   From  there  the  wastewater  enters  a final
cylinder in which the coalescing material is housed.  As the oily
water  passes  through  the  many  small,  irregular,  continuous
passages  in  the  coalescing material, the oil droplets coalesce
and rise to an oil collection chamber.

Application and Performance.  Coalescing is used  to  treat  oily
wastes  which  do not separate readily in simple gravity systems.
The three-stage system  described  above  has  achieved  effluent
concentrations  of  10  to  15 mg/1 oil and grease from raw waste
concentrations of 1000 mg/1 or more.

Advantages and Limitations.  Coalescing  allows  removal  of  oil
droplets   too   finely   dispersed   for   conventional  gravity
separation-skimming technology.  It also can significantly reduce
the residence times (and therefore separator volumes) required to
achieve separation of oil  from  some  wastes.   Because  of  its
simplicity,  coalescing  provides  generally high reliability and
low capital and operating costs.   Coalescing  is  not  generally
effective in removing soluble or chemically stabilized emulsified
oils.   To  avoid  plugging,  coalescers  must  be  protected  by
pretreatment from very high concentrations of free oil and grease
and suspended solids.  Frequent replacement of prefliters may  be
necessary when raw waste oil concentrations are high.

Operational   Factors.   Reliability:  Coalescing  is  inherently
highly  reliable  since  the're  are  no  moving  parts,  and  the
coalescing  substrate   (monofilament,  etc.)   is  inert  in  the
process and therefore not subject  to  frequent  regeneration  or
replacement    requirements.     Large    loads   or   inadequate
pretreatment, however,  may  result  in  plugging  or  bypass  of
coalescing stages.
                              347

-------
Maintainability:  Maintenance  requirements are generally limited
to replacement of the coalescing medium on an infrequent basis.

Solid Waste Aspects: No appreciable solid waste is  generated  by
this process.

Demonstration  Status.  Coalescing has been fully demonstrated in
industries  generating  oily  wastewater,   although   none   are
currently in use at any battery manufacturing facilities.

11.   Cyanide Oxidation by Chlorine

Cyanide oxidation using chlorine is  widely  used  in  industrial
waste  treatment to oxidize cyanide.  Chlorine can be utilized in
either  the  elemental  or  hypochlorite  forms.   This   classic
procedure  can  be illustrated by the following two step chemical
reaction:

     1.   C12 + NaCN + 2NaOH 	> NaCNO + 2NaCl + H20

     2.   3C12 + 6NaOH + 2NaCNO 	> 2NaHC03 + 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 chlorination of cyanide is shown in Figure  VII-
19 (page 445).

The  alkaline  chlorination  process  oxidizes cyanides to carbon
dioxide  and  nitrogen.   The  equipment  often  consists  of  an
equalization  tank  followed  by two reaction tanks, although the
reaction can be carried out in a single tank.  Each tank  has  an
electronic  recorder-controller  to  maintain required conditions
with respect to pH and oxidation reduction potential  (ORP).   In
the  first  reaction  tank,  conditions  are  adjusted to oxidize
cyanides to  cyanates.   To  effect  the  reaction,  chlorine  is
metered  to  the reaction tank as required to maintain the ORP in
the range of 350  to  400  millivolts,  and  50  percent  aqueous
caustic  soda  is  added to maintain a pH range of 9.5 to 10.  In
the second reaction tank, conditions are  maintained  to  oxidize
cyanate to carbon dioxide and nitrogen.  The desirable ORP and pH
for  this  reaction  are 600 millivolts and a pH of 8.0.  Each of
the reaction tanks is equipped with a propeller agitator designed
to provide approximately one turnover per minute.   Treatment  by
the  batch  process  is  accomplished by using two tanks, one for
collection of water over a specified time period, and one for the
treatment of an accumulated  batch.   If  dumps  of  concentrated
wastes are frequent, another tank may be required to equalize the
flow  to  the treatment tank.  When the holding tank is full, the
liquid is transferred to the reaction tank for treatment.   After
                              348

-------
treatment,  the  supernatant  is  discharged  and the sludges are
collected for removal and ultimate disposal.

Application and Performance.  The oxidation of cyanide  waste  by
chlorine  is  a  classic  process and is found in most industrial
plants using cyanide.   This  process  is  capable  of  achieving
effluent   levels   that   are  nondetectable.   The  process  is
potentially applicable to battery facilities where cyanide  is  a
component in cell wash formulations.

Advantages   and   Limitations.    Some  advantages  of  chlorine
oxidation for handling process effluents are operation at ambient
temperature, suitability for automatic  control,  and  low  cost.
Disadvantages  include  the need for careful pH control, possible
chemical interference in the treatment of mixed wastes,  and  the
potential hazard of storing and handling chlorine gas.

Operational  Factors.  Reliability:  Chlorine oxidation is highly
reliable  with  proper  monitoring   and   control   and   proper
pretreatment to control interfering substances.

Maintainability:   Maintenance  consists  of  periodic removal of
sludge and recalibration of instruments.

Solid Waste Aspects:  There is no solid waste problem  associated
with chlorine oxidation.

Demonstration   Status.   The  oxidation  of  cyanide  wastes  by
chlorine is a widely used process  in  plants  using  cyanide  in
cleaning  and  metal  processing baths.  Alkaline chlorination is
also used for cyanide treatment in a number of inorganic chemical
facilities producing hydroganic acid and various metal cyanides.

12.  Cyanide Oxidation By Ozone

Ozone is a highly reactive oxidizing agent which is approximately
ten times more soluble than oxygen on a weight  basis  in  water.
Ozone  may  be  produced  by  several  methods,  but  the  silent
electrical discharge method is predominant  in  the  field.   The
silent  electrical  discharge  process  produces ozone by passing
oxygen or air  between  electrodes  separated  by  an  insulating
material.   A  complete ozonation system is represented in Figure
VII-20 (page 446).

Application  and  Performance.   Ozonation   has   been   applied
commercialfy to oxidize cyanides, phenolic chemicals, and organo-
metal  complexes.   Its applicability to photographic wastewaters
has been studied in the laboratory with good results.   Ozone  is
used  in  industrial waste treatment primarily to oxidize cyanide
                              349

-------
to cyanate and to oxidize  phenols  and  dyes  to  a  variety  of
colorless nontoxic products.

Oxidation of cyanide to cyanate is illustrated below:

          CN- + O3	> CNO- + O2

Continued  exposure  to  ozone will convert the cyanate formed to
carbon dioxide and ammonia; however,  this  is  not  economically
practical.

Ozone  oxidation of cyanide to cyanate requires 1.8 to 2.0 pounds
ozone per pound of CN-; complete oxidation requires  4.6  to  5.0
pounds ozone per pound of CN-.  Zinc, copper, and nickel cyanides
are  easily  destroyed  to  a nondetectable level, but cobalt and
iron cyanides are more resistant to ozone treatment.

Advantages and Limitations.  Some advantages of  ozone  oxidation
for  handling  process effluents are its suitability to automatic
control  and  on-site  generation  and  the  fact  that  reaction
products are not chlorinated organics and no dissolved solids are
added  in the treatment step.  Ozone in the presence of activated
carbon,  ultraviolet,  arid  other  promoters  shows  promise   of
reducing  reaction  time and improving ozone utilization, but the
process at present is limited by high capital  expense,  possible
chemical  interference  in  the treatment of mixed wastes, and an
energy requirement of 25 kwh/kg of ozone generated.   Cyanide  is
not economically oxidized beyond the cyanate form.

Operational  Factors.   Reliability:   Ozone  oxidation is highly
reliable  with  proper  monitoring  and   control,   and   proper
pretreatment to control interfering substances.

Maintainability:   Maintenance  consists  of  periodic removal of
sludge, and periodic renewal of filters and desiccators  required
for  the  input  of  clean  dry air; filter life is a function of
input concentrations of detrimental constituents.

Solid Waste Aspects:  Pretreatment to eliminate substances  which
will  interfere with the process may be necessary.  Dewatering of
sludge generated in the ozone oxidation  process  or  in  an  "in
line" process may be desirable prior to disposal.

13.  Cyanide Oxidation By Ozone With UV Radiation

One  of  the  modifications  of  the  ozonation  process  is  the
simultaneous  application  of ultraviolet light and ozone for the
treatment  of  wastewater,  including  treatment  of  halogenated
organics.   The  combined  action  of  these  two  forms produces
                              350

-------
reactions  by  photolysis,   photosensitization,   hydroxylation,
oxygenation,  and  oxidation.   The  process  is  unique  because
several reactions and reaction species are active simultaneously.

Ozonation is facilitated by ultraviolet absorption  because  both
the  ozone  and  the  reactant  molecules  are raised to a higher
energy state so that they react more rapidly.  In addition,  free
radicals  for  use  in the reaction are readily hydrolyzed by the
water present.  The energy and reaction intermediates created  by
the introduction of both ultraviolet and ozone greatly reduce the
amount  of  ozone  required  compared  with  a system using ozone
alone.  Figure VI1-21 (page 447)  shows  a  three-stage  UV-ozone
system.   A  system to treat mixed cyanides requires pretreatment
that involves chemical coagulation, sedimentation, clarification,
equalization, and pH adjustment.

Application and Performance.  The ozone-UV radiation process  was
developed  primarily  for cyanide treatment in the electroplating
and color  photo-processing  areas.   It  has  been  successfully
applied  to  mixed  cyanides  and organics from organic chemicals
manufacturing processes.  The process is particularly useful  for
treatment  of  complexed  cyanides  such  as ferricyanide, copper
cyanide, and nickel cyanide, which are resistant to ozone alone.

Ozone combined with UV radiation is a relatively new  technology.
Four units are currently in operation, and all four treat cyanide
bearing waste.

Ozone-UV  treatment  could  be  used in battery plants to destroy
cyanide present in waste streams from some cell wash operations.

14.  Cyanide Oxidation By Hydrogen Peroxide

Hydrogen peroxide oxidation removes both cyanide  and  metals  in
cyanide containing wastewaters.  In this process, cyanide bearing
waters  are  heated  to  49  to 54°C (120 to 130°F) and the pH is
adjusted to 10.5 to 11.8.  Formalin (37 percent formaldehyde)  is
added  while  the  tank  is  vigorously  agitated.   After 2 to  5
minutes, a proprietary peroxygen compound  (41  percent  hydrogen
peroxide  with a catalyst and additives) is added.  After an hour
of mixing, the reaction is complete.  The cyanide is converted to
cyanate, and the metals are precipitated as oxides or hydroxides.
The metals are then removed from solution by either  settling  or
filtration.

The main equipment required for this process is two holding tanks
equipped  with  heaters  and air spargers or mechanical stirrers.
These tanks may be used in a batch or  continuous  fashion,  with
one  tank  being  used  for  treatment  while  the other is being
                              351

-------
filled.  A settling tank or a filter is needed to concentrate the
precipitate.

Application and Performance.   The  hydrogen  peroxide  oxidation
process  is applicable to cyanide-bearing wastewaters, especially
those containing metal-cyanide  complexes.   In  terms  of  waste
reduction  performance,  this process can reduce total cyanide to
less than 0.1 mg/1 and the zinc or cadmium to less than 1.0 mg/1.

Advantages and Limitations.  Chemical costs are similar to  those
for alkaline chlorination using chlorine and lower than those for
treatment  with  hypochlorite.   All  free  cyanide reacts and is
completely  oxidized  to  the  less  toxic  cyanate  state.    In
addition, the metals precipitate and settle quickly, and they may
be  recoverable in many instances.  However, the process requires
energy expenditures to heat the wastewater prior to treatment.

Demonstration Status.  This treatment process was  introduced  in
1971 and is used in several facilities.  No battery manufacturing
plants use oxidation by hydrogen peroxide.

15.  Evaporation

Evaporation is a concentration process.  Water is evaporated from
a  solution,  increasing  the  concentration  of  solute  in  the
remaining  solution.   If  the resulting water vapor is condensed
back to liquid water,  the  evaporation-condensation  process  is
called  distillation.   However,  to  be consistent with industry
terminology, evaporation is used in this report to describe  both
processes.   Both atmospheric and vacuum evaporation are commonly
used in industry  today.   Specific  evaporation  techniques  are
shown in Figure VII-22 (page 448) 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.
                              352

-------
Another  form  of  atmospheric  evaporator  also works on the air
humidification principle, but the evaporated water  is  recovered
for  reuse  by condensation.  These air humidification techniques
operate well below the boiling point of  water  and  can  utilize
waste' process heat to supply the energy required.

In  • y.§.c.MPl  evaporation,  the  evaporation pressure is lowered to
cause the liquid to boil at  reduced  temperature.   All  of  the
water  vapor  is condensed, and to maintain the vacuum condition,
noncondensible gases (air in particular) are removed by a  vacuum
pump.   Vacuum evaporation may be either single or double effect.
In double effect evaporation, two evaporators are used,  and  the
water  vapor  from  the  first evaporator (which may be heated by
steam) is used to supply heat to the second  evaporator.   As  it
supplies   heat,  the  water  vapor  from  the  first  evaporator
condenses.  Approximately  equal  quantities  of  wastewater  are
evaporated   in   each  unit;  thus,  the  double  effect  system
evaporates twice the amount of water that a single effect  system
does,  at  nearly  the same cost in energy but with added capital
cost  and   complexity.    The   double   effect   technique   is
thermodynamically  possible  because  the  second  evaporator  is
maintained at lower  pressure  (higher  vacuum)  and,  therefore,
lower  evaporation temperature.  Vacuum evaporation equipment may
be classified as submerged  tube  or  climbing  film  evaporation
units.

Another   means   of   increasing   energy  efficiency  is  vapor
recompression evaporation, which enables heat to  be  transferred
from  the  condensing  water vapor to the evaporating wastewater.
Water vapor generated from incoming wastewaters flows to a  vapor
compressor.   The  compressed  steam  than  travels  through  the
wastewater via an enclosed tube or coil in which it condenses  as
heat  is  transferred  to the surrounding solution.  In this way,
the  compressed  vapor  serves  as  a  heating   medium.    After
condensation,  this  distillate  is drawn off continuously as the
clean water stream.  The heat contained in the  compressed  vapor
is  used  to  heat  the  wastewater,  and energy costs for system
operation are reduced.

In the most commonly used submerged tube evaporator, the  heating
and  condensing  coil  are contained in a single vessel to reduce
capital cost.  The vacuum in  the  vessel  is  maintained  by  an
eductor-type  pump, which creates the required vacuum by the flow
of the condenser cooling water  through  a  venturi.   Wastewater
accumulates  in the bottom of the vessel, and it is evaporated by
means of  submerged  steam  coils.   The  resulting  water  vapor
condenses  as  it contacts the condensing coils in the top of the
vessel.  The condensate then drips off the condensing coils  into
                              353

-------
a   collection   trough  that  carries  it  out  of  the  vessel.
Concentrate is removed from the bottom of the vessel.

The major elements  of  the  climbing  film  evaporator  are  the
evaporator, separator, condenser, and vacuum pump.  Wastewater is
"drawn"  into  the system by the vacuum so that a constant liquid
level is maintained in the separator.  Liquid enters  the  steam-
jacketed  evaporator  tubes,  and part of it evaporates so that a
mixture of vapor and liquid enters the separator.  The design  of
the  separator is such that the liquid is continuously circulated
from the separator to the evaporator.   The  vapor  entering  the
separator  flows  out through a mesh entrainment separator to the
condenser, where it is condensed as it  flows  down  through  the
condenser  tubes.   The condensate, along with any entrained air,
is pumped out of the bottom of the condenser  by  a  liquid  ring
vacuum  pump.   The  liquid seal provided by the condensate keeps
the vacuum in the system from being broken.

Application  and  Performance.   Both  atmospheric   and   vacuum
evaporation  are  used  in many industrial plants, mainly for the
concentration and recovery of process solutions.  Many  of  these
evaporators also recover water for rinsing.  Evaporation has also
been applied to recovery of phosphate metal cleaning solutions.

In theory, evaporation should yield a concentrate and a deionized
condensate.   Actually,  carry-over  has  resulted  in condensate
metal concentrations as high as 10 mg/1, although the usual level
is less than 3 mg/1, pure enough  for  most  final  rinses.   The
condensate  may  also contain organic brighteners and antifoaming
agents.  These can be removed with an activated  carbon  bed,  if
necessary.   Samples from one plant showed 1,900 mg/1 zinc in the
feed, 4,570  mg/1  in  the  concentrate,  and  0.4  mg/1  in  the
condensate.   Another  plant  had 416 mg/1 copper in the feed and
21,800 mg/1 in the concentrate.  Chromium analysis for that plant
indicated  5,060  mg/1  in  the  feed  and  27,500  mg/1  in  the
concentrate.  Evaporators are available in a range of capacities,
typically  from  15  to  75  gph,  and  may  be  used in parallel
arrangements for processing of higher flow rates.

Advantages  and  Limitations.   Advantages  of  the   evaporation
process are that it permits recovery of a wide variety of process
chemicals, and it is often applicable to concentration or removal
of  compounds  which  cannot  be accomplished by any other means.
The major disadvantage is that the evaporation  process  consumes
relatively  large amounts of energy for the evaporation of water.
However,  the  recovery  of  waste  heat  from  many   industrial
processes  (e.g.,  diesel  generators,  incinerators, boilers, and
furnaces) should be considered as a source of  this  heat  for  a
totally integrated evaporation system.  Also, in some cases solar
                              354

-------
heating   could  be  inexpensively  and  effectively  app.lied  to
evaporation  units.   Capital   costs   for   vapor   compression
evaporators  are  substantially  higher  than  for other types of
evaporation equipment.   However, the energy costs associated with
the operation of a vapor compression evaporator are significantly
lower  than  costs  of  other   evaporator   types.    For   some
applications,  pretreatment  may  be required to remove solids or
bacteria  which  tend  to  cause  fouling  in  the  condenser  or
evaporator.   The  buildup  of  scale  on the evaporator surfaces
reduces  the  heat  transfer  efficiency  and   may   present   a
maintenance  problem or increase operating cost.  However, it has
been demonstrated that fouling of the heat transfer surfaces  can
be   avoided   or  minimized  for  certain  dissolved  solids  by
maintaining a seed slurry which provides preferential  sites  for
precipitate deposition.  In addition, low temperature differences
in   the   evaporator   will   eliminate   nucleate  boiling  and
supersaturation effects.  Steam  distiliable  impurities  in  the
process  stream  are carried over with the product water and must
be handled by pre-or post treatment.

Operational  Factors.   Reliability:   Proper  maintenance   will
ensure a high degree of reliability for the system.  Without such
attention,  rapid  fouling  or  deterioration of vacuum seals may
occur, especially when corrosive liquids are handled.

Maintainability:   Operating  parameters  can  be   automatically
controlled.   Pretreatment  m.ay  be required, as well as periodic
cleaning of the system.  Regular replacement of seals, especially
in a corrosive environment, may be necessary.

Solid Waste Aspects:  With only a  few  exceptions,  -the  process
does not generate appreciable quantities of solid waste.

Demonstration   Status.    Evaporation   is  a  fully  developed,
commercially available wastewater treatment system.  It  is  used
extensively  to  recover  plating chemicals in the electroplating
industry, and a pilot scale unit has been used in connection with
phosphating of aluminum.  Proven performance in  silver  recovery
indicates  that evaporation could be a useful treatment operation
for the photographic industry, as well as  for  metal  finishing.
Vapor  compression  evaporation has been practically demonstrated
in a number of industries, including chemical manufacturing, food
processing, pulp and papery and metal working.  One battery plant
has recently reported showing the use of evaporation.

16.  Flotation

Flotation is the process  of  causing  particles  such  as  metal
hydroxides  or  oil  to float to the surface of a tank where they
                              355

-------
can  be  concentrated  and  removed.   This  is  accomplished  by
releasing  gas  bubbles  which  attach  to  the  solid particles,
increasing  their  buoyancy  and  causing  them  to  float.    In
principle, this process is the opposite of sedimentation.  Figure
VII-23 (page 449) shows one type of flotation system.

Flotation  is  used  primarily  in  the  treatment  of wastewater
streams that carry heavy loads of finely divided suspended solids
or oil.  Solids having a specific gravity only  slightly  greater
than  1.0,  which  would  require  abnormally  long sedimentation
times, may be removed in much less time by flotation.   Dissolved
air  flotation is of greatest interest in removing oil from water
and is less effective in removing heavier precipitates.

This process may be performed in several ways:   foam,  dispersed
air,  dissolved  air,  gravity, and vacuum flotation are the most
commonly used techniques.  Chemical additives are often  used  to
enhance the performance of the flotation process.

The  principal  difference among types of flotation is the method
of  generating  the  minute  gas  bubbles  (usually  air)  in   a
suspension  of  water and small particles.  Chemicals may be used
to improve the efficiency with any of  the  basic  methods.   The
following  paragraphs describe the different flotation techniques
and the method of bubble generation for each process.

Froth Flotation - Froth flotation is based on differences in  the
physiochemical  properties in various particles.  Wettability and
surface  properties  affect  the  particles'  ability  to  attach
themselves  to  gas  bubbles  in  an  aqueous  medium.   In froth
flotation, air is blown through the solution containing flotation
reagents.  The particles with water repellant surfaces  stick  to
air  bubbles  as  they  rise  and  are brought to the surface.  A
mineralized froth layer, with mineral particles attached  to  air
bubbles,  is  formed.   Particles  of  other  minerals  which are
readily wetted by water do not stick to air bubbles and remain in
suspension.

Dispersed Air Flotation - In dispersed air flotation, gas bubbles
are generated by introducing  the  air  by  means  of  mechanical
agitation  with impellers or by forcing air through porous media.
Dispersed air flotation  is  used  mainly  in  the  metallurgical
industry.

Dissolved Air Flotation - In dissolved air flotation, bubbles are
produced  by  releasing  air from a supersaturated solution under
relatively high pressure.  There are two types of contact between
the gas bubbles and particles.  The first type is predominant  in
the   flotation   of   flocculated  materials  and  involves  the
                              356

-------
entrapment of rising gas bubbles in the flocculated particles  as
they  increase in size.  The bond between the bubble and particle
is one of physical capture only.  The second type of  contact  is
one  of  adhesion.   Adhesion  results  from  the  intermolecular
attraction exerted at the interface between  the  solid  particle
and gaseous bubble.

Vacuum  Flotation  -  This  process  consists  of  saturating the
wastewater with air either directly in an aeration  tank,  or  by
permitting  air  to enter on the suction of a wastewater pump.  A
partial vacuum is applied, which causes the dissolved air to come
out of solution as minute bubbles.  The bubbles attach  to  solid
particles  and  rise to the surface to form a scum blanket, which
is normally removed by a  skimming  mechanism.   Grit  and  other
heavy  solids  that settle to the bottom are generally raked to a
central sludge pump for removal.  A typical vacuum flotation unit
consists of a covered cylindrical tank in which a partial  vacuum
is maintained.  The tank is equipped with scum and sludge removal
mechanisms.   The  floating material is continuously swept to the
tank periphery, automatically discharged into a scum trough,  and
removed  from  the  unit  by  a  pump  also under partial vacuum.
Auxiliary equipment includes an aeration tank for saturating  the
wastewater  with  air,  a  tank  with  a short retention time for
removal of large bubbles, vacuum pumps, and sludge pumps.

Application and Performance.  The primary variables for flotation
design are pressure, feed  solids  concentration,  and  retention
period.   The  suspended solids in the effluent decrease, and the
concentration of solids in the float  increases  with  increasing
retention  period.   When the flotation process is used primarily
for clarification, a retention period of 20 to 30 minutes usually
is adequate for separation and concentration.

Advantages and Limitations.  Some  advantages  of  the  flotation
process are the high levels of solids separation achieved in many
applications,  .the  relatively  low  energy requirements, and the
adaptability to meet  the  treatment  requirements  of  different
waste types.  Limitations of flotation are that it often requires
addition  of chemicals to enhance process performance and that it
generates large quantities of solid waste.

Operational Factors.  Reliability:   Flotation  systems  normally
are very reliable with proper maintenance of the sludge collector
mechanism and the motors and pumps used for aeration.

Maintainability:   Routine  maintenance  is required on the pumps
and  motors.   The  sludge  collector  mechanism  is  subject  to
possible   corrosion   or   breakage  and  may  require  periodic
replacement.
                              357

-------
Solid Waste Aspects:  Chemicals are  commonly  used  to  aid  the
flotation  process  by creating a surface or a structure that can
easily adsorb or entrap air bubbles.  Inorganic  chemicals,  such
as  the aluminum and ferric salts, and activated silica, can bind
the particulate matter together and create a structure  that  can
entrap  air  bubbles.   Various  organic chemicals can change the
nature of either the air-liquid  interface  or  the  solid-liquid
interface,  or  both.   These  compounds  usually  collect on the
interface  to  bring  about  the  desired  changes.   The   added
chemicals  plus the particles in solution combine to form a large
volume of sludge  which  must  be  further  treated  or  properly
disposed.

Demonstration Status.  Flotation is a fully developed process and
is  readily  available  for  the  treatment  of a wide variety of
industrial waste streams.  Flotation separation has been used  in
two  battery  manufacturing  plants  as  a  part of precipitation
systems for metals removal.

17.  Gravity Sludge Thickening

In the gravity thickening process, dilute sludge is  fed  from  a
primary  settling  tank  or  clarifier to a thickening tank where
rakes stir the sludge gently to density it and to push  it  to  a
central  collection  well.   The  supernatant  is returned to the
primary settling tank.  The thickened sludge that collects on the
bottom of the tank is pumped to dewatering  equipment  or  hauled
away.   Figure  VII-24  (page  450)  shows  the construction of a
gravity thickener.

Application and Performance.  Thickeners are  generally  used  in
facilities  where  the  sludge  is  to  be further dewatered by a
compact mechanical device such as a vacuum filter, or  centrifuge.
Doubling  the  solids  content  in  the  thickener  substantially
reduces capital and operating cost of the  subsequent  dewatering
device  and  also  reduces  cost  for  hauling.   The  process is
potentially applicable to almost any industrial plant.

Organic sludges from sedimentation units of one  to  two  percent
solids  concentration  can usually be gravity thickened to six to
ten percent; chemical sludges can be thickened  to  four  to  six
percent.

Advantages and Limitations.  The principal advantage of a grav-ity
sludge  thickening  process is that it facilitates further sludge
dewatering.  .Other advantages are high  reliability  and  minimum
maintenance requirements.
                              358

-------
Limitations  of the sludge thickening process are its sensitivity
to the flow rate through the thickener  and  the  sludge  removal
rate.   These  rates  must  be  low  enough  not  to  disturb the
thickened sludge.

Operational Factors.   Reliability:   Reliability  is  high  with
proper  design and operation.  A gravity thickener is designed on
the basis of square feet per pound of solids per  day,  in  which
the  required  surface area is related to the solids entering and
leaving the unit.  Thickener area requirements are also expressed
in terms of mass loading, grams of solids per  square  meter  per
day (Ibs/sq ft/day).

Maintainability:  Twice a year, a thickener must be shut down for
lubrication of the drive mechanisms.  Occasionally, water must be
pumped back through the system in order to clear sludge pipes.

Solid  Waste Aspects:  Thickened sludge from a gravity thickening
process  will  usually  require  further  dewatering   prior   to
disposal,  incineration,  or  drying.   The clear effluent may be
recirculated in part, or it may be subjected to further treatment
prior to discharge.

Demonstration  Status.   Gravity  sludge  thickeners   are   used
throughout  industry to reduce water content to a level where the
sludge may be efficiently handled.  Further dewatering is usually
practiced to minimize costs of hauling  the  sludge  to  approved
landfill  areas.   Sludge  thickening  is  used  in seven battery
manufacturing plants.

18.  Insoluble Starch Xanthate

Insoluble starch xanthate is essentially an ion  exchange  medium
used to remove dissolved heavy metals from wastewater.  The water
may  then  either  be reused (recovery application) or discharged
(end-of-pipe application).  In a commercial electroplating  oper-
ation, starch xanthate is coated on a filter medium.  Rinse water
containing  dragged  out  heavy  metals is circulated through the
filters and then reused  for  rinsing.   The  starch-heavy  metal
complex  is  disposed  of  and replaced periodically.  Laboratory
tests indicate that  recovery  of  metals  from  the  complex  is
feasible,  with  regeneration  of  the  starch xanthate.  Besides
electroplating, starch xanthate is potentially applicable to  any
other industrial plants where dilute metal wastewater streams are
generated.   Its  present  use  is  limited to one electroplating
plant.
                              359

-------
19.  Ion Exchange

Ion exchange is a process in which ions,  held  by  electrostatic
forces  to  charged  functional  groups on the surface of the ion
exchange resin, are exchanged for ions of similar charge from the
solution in which the resin is immersed.  This is classified as a
sorption process because the exchange occurs on  the  surface  of
the  resin,  and the exchanging ion must undergo a phase transfer
from solution phase to solid phase.  Thus, ionic contaminants  in
a  waste  stream  can  be  exchanged for the harmless ions of the
resin.

Although the precise technique may vary slightly according to the
application involved, a generalized process description  follows.
The  wastewater  stream  being treated passes through a filter to
remove any solids, then flows through a  cation  exchanger  which
contains  the ion exchange resin.  Here, metallic impurities such
as copper, iron, and trivalent chromium are retained.  The stream
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 VII-25 (page  451).   Metal
ions  such  as  nickel  are  removed  by an acid, cation exchange
resin, which is regenerated with hydrochloric or  sulfuric  acid,
replacing  the  metal ion with one or more hydrogen ions.  Anions
such as dichromate are removed by a basic, anion exchange  resin,
which  is  regenerated with sodium hydroxide, replacing the anion
with one or more hydroxyl  ions.   The  three  principal  methods
employed by industry for regenerating the spent resin are:

A)   Replacement Service:  A regeneration  service  replaces  the
     spent  resin  with  regenerated  resin,  and regenerates the
     spent resin at its own facility.  The service then  has  the
     problem of treating and disposing of the spent regenerant.

B)   In-Place Regeneration:  Some establishments may find it less
     expensive to do their own  regeneration.   The  spent  resin
     column is shut down for perhaps an hour, and the spent resin
     is  regenerated.   This results in one or more waste streams
     which  must   be   treated   in   an   appropriate   manner.
     Regeneration  is performed as the resins require it, usually
     every few months.
                              360

-------
C)   Cyclic Regeneration:  In this process, the  regeneration  of
     the  spent  resins  takes place within the ion exchange unit
     itself in alternating cycles with the ion  removal  process.
     A  regeneration frequency of twice an hour is typical.  This
     very short cycle time permits operation with  a  very  small
     quantity  of  resin  and with fairly concentrated solutions,
     resulting in a very compact  system.   Again,  this  process
     varies  according to application, but the regeneration cycle
     generally begins with caustic being pumped through the anion
     exchanger, carrying out hexavalent chromium, for example, as
     sodium dichromate.  The sodium dichromate stream then passes
     through a cation exchanger, converting the sodium dichromate
     to chromic acid.   After  concentration  by  evaporation  or
     other means, the chromic acid can be returned to the process
     line.   Meanwhile,  the cation exchanger is regenerated with
     sulfuric acid, resulting in a waste acid  stream  containing
     the  metallic  impurities  removed  earlier.   Flushing  the
     exchangers  with  water  completes  the  cycle.   Thus,  the
     wastewater is purified and, in this example, chromic acid is
     recovered.   The  ion  exchangers,  with  newly  regenerated
     resin, then enter the ion removal cycle again.

Application and Performance.  The list of  pollutants  for  which
the  ion  exchange system has proved effective includes aluminum,
arsenic, cadmium, chromium (hexavalent  and  trivalent),  copper,
cyanide,  gold,  iron, lead, manganese, nickel, 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  uti-
lize  ion exchange in several ways.  As an end-of-pipe treatment,
ion exchange is certainly feasible, but its greatest value is  in
recovery  applications.   It  is  commonly  used as an integrated
treatment to recover rinse water  and  process  chemicals.   Some
electroplating  facilities  use  ion  exchange to concentrate and
purify plating baths.  Also, many industrial concerns,  including
a  number  of  battery  manufacturing plants, use ion exchange to
reduce salt concentrations in incoming water sources.

Ion exchange is highly  efficient  at  recovering  metal  bearing
solutions.  Recovery of chromium, nickel, phosphate solution, and
sulfuric  acid  from  anodizing  is  commercial.   A chromic acid
recovery  efficiency  of  99.5  percent  has  been  demonstrated.
Typical  data  for purification of rinse water have been reported
and are displayed in Table VII-25 (page 421).   Sampling  at  one
battery  manufacturing  plant characterized influent and effluent
streams for an ion exchange unit on a silver bearing waste.  This
system was in start-up at the time of sampling, however, and  was
not found to be operating effectively.
                              361

-------
Advantages   and   Limitations.   Ion  exchange  is  a  versatile
technology  applicable  to  a  great   many   situations.    This
flexibility, along with its compact nature and performance, makes
ion  exchange  a  very  effective method of wastewater treatment.
However, the resins in these systems can prove to be  a  limiting
factor.  The thermal limits of the anion resins, generally in the
vicinity  of  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 preferen-
tially removed.  The regeneration of the resins presents its  own
problems.   The  cost  of the regenerative chemicals can be high.
In addition, the waste streams originating from the  regeneration
process  are extremely high in pollutant concentrations, although
low in volume.   These  must  be  further  processed  for  proper
disposal.

Operational   Factors.    Reliability:   With  the  exception  of
occasional clogging or fouling of the resins,  ion  exchange  has
proved to be a highly dependable technology.

Maintainability:   Only  the normal maintenance of pumps, valves,
piping and other hardware used in  the  regeneration  process'  is
required.

Solid  Waste  Aspects:  Few, if any, solids accumulate within the
ion exchangers, and those which do appear are removed by the  re-
generation process.  Proper prior treatment and planning can eli-
minate  solid  buildup  problems altogether.  The brine resulting
from regeneration of the  ion  exchange  resin  must  usually  be
treated  to  remove  metals  before discharge.  This can generate
solid waste.

Demonstration Status.  All of the applications mentioned in  this
document  are  available for commercial use, and industry sources
estimate the number of units currently in the field at well  over
120.  The research and development in ion exchange is focusing on
improving  the  quality and efficiency of the resins, rather than
new applications.  Work  is  also  being  done  on  a  continuous
regeneration process whereby the resins are contained on a fluid-
transfusible  belt.   The belt passes through a compartmentalized
tank with ion exchange, washing, and regeneration sections.   The
resins  are  therefore continually used and regenerated.  No such
system, however, has been reported beyond the pilot stage.
                              362

-------
Ion exchange is used for nickel recovery at  one  battery  plant,
for  silver  and  water recovery at another, and for trace nickel
and cadmium removal at a third.

20.  Membrane Filtration

Membrane  filtration  is  a   treatment   system   for   removing
precipitated  metals from a wastewater stream.  It must therefore
be preceded by those treatment  techniques  which  will  properly
prepare the wastewater for solids removal.  Typically, a membrane
filtration  unit is preceded by pH adjustment or sulfide addition
for precipitation of the metals.  These steps are followed by the
addition of a  proprietary  chemical  reagent  which  causes  the
precipitate  to  be  nongelatinous,  easily dewatered, and highly
stable.  The  resulting  mixture  of  pretreated  wastewater  and
reagent  is continuously recirculated through a filter module and
back into a  recirculation  tank.   The  filter  module  contains
tubular membranes.  While the reagent-metal hydroxide precipitate
mixture  flows through the inside of the tubes, the water and any
dissolved salts permeate the membrane.   When  the  recirculating
slurry  reaches a concentration of 10 to 15 percent solids, it is
pumped out of the system as sludge.

Application and Performance.  Membrane filtration appears  to  be
applicable  to  any  wastewater or process water containing metal
ions which  can  be  precipitated  using  hydroxide,  sulfide  or
carbonate  precipitation.   It  could  function  as  the  primary
treatment system, but also might find application as a  polishing
treatment  (after precipitation and settling) to ensure continued
compliance with metals limitations.  Membrane filtration  systems
are   being   used   in  a  number  of  industrial  applications,
particularly in the metal finishing area.  They  have  also  been
used  for  toxic metals removal in the metal fabrication industry
and the paper industry.

The permeate is claimed by one manufacturer to contain less  than
the  effluent  concentrations  shown  in  Table VII-26 (page 422)
regardless of the influent  concentrations.   These  claims  have
been  largely  substantiated  by the analysis of water samples at
various plants in various industries.

In the performance predictions  for  this  technology,  pollutant
concentrations  are  reduced  to the levels shown in Table VII-26
unless lower levels are present in the influent stream.
                              363

-------
Advantages and Limitations.  A major advantage  of  the  membrane
filtration  system  is  that  installations  can  use most of the
conventional end-of-pipe systems that may already  be  in  place.
Removal  efficiencies  are  claimed  to  be  excellent, even with
sudden  variation  of  pollutant  input   rates;   however,   the
effectiveness of the membrane filtration system can be limited by
clogging  of the filters.  Because pH changes in the waste stream
greatly intensify clogging problems, the  pH  must  be  carefully
monitored and controlled.  Clogging can force the shutdown of the
system  and  may  interfere  with  production.   In addition, the
relatively high capital cost of this system may limit its use.

Operational Factors.  Reliability:  Membrane filtration has  been
shown  to  be  a  very  reliable  system, provided that the pH is
strictly controlled.  Improper pH can result in the  clogging  of
the  membrane.  Also, surges in the flow rate of the waste stream
must be controlled  in  order  to  prevent  solids  from  passing
through the filter and into the effluent.

Maintainability:    The   membrane   filters  must  be  regularly
monitored, and cleaned or replaced as  necessary.   Depending  on
the  composition  of the waste stream and its flow rate, frequent
cleaning  of  the  filters  may  be  required.    Flushing   with
hydrochloric  acid  for  6  to 24 hours will usually suffice.  In
addition, the routine maintenance of  pumps,  valves,  and  other
plumbing is required.

Solid  Waste Aspects:  When the recirculating reagent-precipitate
slurry reaches 10 to 15 percent solids, it is pumped out  of  the
system.   It can then be disposed of directly or it can undergo a
dewatering process.  Because this sludge contains  toxic  metals,
it requires proper disposal.

Demonstration Status.  There are more than 25 membrane filtration
systems   presently   in  use  on  metal  finishing  and  similar
wastewaters.  Bench scale and pilot studies are being run  in  an
attempt to expand the list of pollutants for which this system is
known  to be effective.  Although there are no data on the use of
membrane filtration in battery manufacturing plants, the  concept
has   been   successfully   demonstrated   using   battery  plant
wastewater.   A  unit  has  been   installed   at   one   battery
manufacturing plant based on these tests.

21.  Peat Adsorption

Peat moss is a complex natural organic material containing lignin
and  cellulose  as  major  constituents.    These   constituents,
particularly  lignin,  bear  polar  functional  groups,  such  as
alcohols, aldehydes, ketones,  acids,  phenolic  hydroxides,  and
                              364

-------
ethers, that can be involved in chemical bonding.  Because of the
polar  nature of the material, its adsorption of dissolved solids
such as transition metals and polar organic  molecules  is  quite
high.   These  properties have led to the use of peat as an agent
for the purification of industrial wastewater.

Peat adsorption is a "polishing" process 'which can  achieve  very
low  effluent  concentrations  for  several  pollutants.   If the
concentrations  of  pollutants  are  above  10  mg/1,  then  peat
adsorption   must   be  preceded  by  pH  adjustment  for  metals
precipitation and subsequent clarification.  Pretreatment is also
required for chromium wastes using  ferric  chloride  and  sodium
sulfide.   The  wastewater  is  then  pumped  into  a large metal
chamber called a kier which contains  a  layer  of  peat  through
which . the waste stream passes.  The water flows to a second kier
for  further  adsorption.   The  wastewater  is  then  ready  for
discharge.  This system may be automated or manually operated.

Application  and  Performance.   Peat  adsorption  can be used in
battery manufacturing for removal of  residual  dissolved  metals
from  clarifier  effluent.   Peat  moss  may  be  used  to  treat
wastewaters containing heavy metals  such  as  mercury,  cadmium,
zinc,  copper,  iron,  nickel,  chromium,  and  lead,  as well as
organic  matter  such  as  oil,  detergents,  and   dyes.    Peat
adsorption  is  currently used commercially at a textile plant, a
newsprint facility, and a metal reclamation operation.

Table VII-27 (page 422)  contains  performance  figures  obtained
from  pilot  plant  studies.   Peat adsorption was preceded by pH
adjustment for precipitation and by clarification.

In addition, pilot plant studies have shown that  chelated  metal
wastes,  as  well as the chelating agents themselves, are removed
by contact with peat moss.

Advantages and Limitations.  The major advantages of  the  system
include  its  ability  to yield low pollutant concentrations, its
broad scope in  terms  of  the  pollutants  eliminated,  and  its
capacity to accept wide variations of waste water composition.

Limitations   include   the  cost  of  purchasing,'  storing,  and
di'sposing of the peat moss; the necessity for regular replacement
of the peat may lead to high  operation  and  maintenance  costs.
Also,  the  pH  adjustment  must  be  altered  according  to  the
composition of the waste stream.
                              365

-------
Operational Factors.  Reliability:  The  question  of  long  term
reliability is not yet fully answered.  Although the manufacturer
reports  it  to be a highly reliable system, operating experience
is needed to verify the claim.

Maintainability:   The  peat  moss  used  in  this  process  soon
exhausts  its  capacity  to adsorb pollutants.  At that time, the
kiers must be opened, the peat removed,  and  fresh  peat  placed
inside.    Although   this   procedure   is  easily  and  quickly
accomplished, it must  be  done  at  regular  intervals,  or  the
system's efficiency drops drastically.

Solid Waste Aspects:  After removal from the kier, the spent peat
must  be eliminated.  If incineration is used, precautions should
be taken to insure that those pollutants removed from  the  water
are  not  released  again in the combustion process.  Presence of
sulfides in the spent peat, for example, will give rise to sulfur
dioxide in the fumes from burning.  The presence  of  significant
quantities   of  toxic  heavy  metals  in  battery  manufacturing
wastewater will in general preclude incineration of peat used  in
treating these wastes.

Demonstration   Status.   Only  three  facilities  currently  use
commercial adsorption systems in the United States  -  a  textile
manufacturer, a newsprint facility, and a metal reclamation firm.
No  data have been reported showing the use of peat adsorption in
battery manufacturing plants.

22.  Reverse Osmosis

The process of osmosis involves the passage of a liquid through a
semipermeable membrane from  a  dilute  to  a  more  concentrated
solution.  Reverse osmosis (RO) is an operation in which pressure
is  applied  to  the more concentrated solution, forcing the per-
meate to diffuse through the membrane and into  the  more  dilute
solution.   This  filtering  action  produces a concentrate and a
permeate on opposite sides of the membrane.  The concentrate  can
then be further treated or returned to the original operation for
continued  use,  while the permeate water can be recycled for use
as clean water.  Figure  VI1-26  (page  452)  depicts  a  reverse
osmosis system.

As  illustrated  in  Figure  VII-27,  (page 453), there are three
basic configurations used in commercially available  RO  modules:
tubular, spiral-wound, and hollow fiber.  All of these operate on
the  principle  described above, the major difference being their
mechanical and structural design characteristics.
                              366

-------
The tubular membrane module uses a porous tube with  a  cellulose
acetate  membrane  lining.   A common tubular module consists of a
length of 2.5 cm (1 inch) diameter tube  wound  on  a  supporting
spool and encased in a plastic shroud.  Feed water is driven into
the tube under, pressures varying from 40 to 55 atm (600-800 psi).
The  permeate  passes  through  the  walls  of  the  tube  and is
collected in a manifold while the concentrate is drained  off  at
the end of the tube.  A less widely used tubular RO module uses a
straight  tube  contained  in a housing, under the same operating
conditions.

Spiral-wound membranes consist of  a  porous  backing  sandwiched
between  two  cellulose  acetate membrane sheets and bonded along
three edges.  The fourth edge of the composite sheet is  attached
to  a  large  permeate  collector  tube.  A spacer screen is then
placed on top of the membrane sandwich, and the entire  stack  is
rolled  around  the centrally located tubular permeate collector.
The rolled up package is inserted into a pipe able  to  withstand
the  high  operating pressures employed in this process, up to 55
atm (800 psi) with the spiral-wound module.  When the  system  is
operating,  the  pressurized product water permeates the membrane
and flows through the backing material to the  central  collector
tube.  The concentrate is drained off at the end of the container
pipe  and can be reprocessed or sent to further treatment facili-
ties.

The hollow fiber membrane configuration is made up of a bundle of
polyamide fibers of approximately 0.0075 cm (0.003  in.)  OD  and
0.0043  cm  (0.0017 in.) ID.  A commonly used hollow fiber module
contains several hundred thousand of the fibers placed in a  long
tube,  wrapped  around  a  flow screen, and rolled into a spiral.
The fibers are bent in a U-shape and their ends are supported  by
an  epoxy  bond.   The hollow fiber unit is operated under 27 atm
(400 psi), the feed water being dispersed from the center of  the
module through a porous distributor tube.  Permeate flows through
the  membrane  to  the  hollow  interiors  of  the  fibers and is
collected at the ends of the fibers.

The hollow fiber and spiral-wound modules have a distinct  advan-
tage over the tubular system in that they are able to load a very
large  membrane  surface  area  into  a  relatively small volume.
However, these two membrane types are much  more  susceptible  to
fouling than the tubular system, which has a larger flow channel.
This  characteristic  also makes the tubular membrane much easier
to clean and regenerate than either the  spiral-wound  or  hollow
fiber  modules.   One  manufacturer  claims  that  their  helical
tubular module can be physically wiped clean by  passing  a  soft
porous polyurethane plug under pressure through the module.
                              367

-------
Application  and  Performance.   In  a number of metal processing
plants, the overflow from the first  rinse  in  a  countercurrent
setup  is  directed  to  a  reverse  osmosis  unit,  where  it is
separated into two streams.   The  concentrated  stream  contains
dragged  out chemicals and is returned to the bath to replace the
loss of solution caused by evaporation and dragout.   The  dilute
stream (the permeate) is routed to the last rinse tank to provide
water  for  the rinsing operation.  The rinse flows from the last
tank to the first tank, and the cycle is complete.

The closed-loop system described above may be supplemented by the
addition of a vacuum evaporator after the RO  unit  in  order  to
further  reduce  the  volume of reverse osmosis concentrate.  The
evaporated vapor can be condensed and returned to the last  rinse
tank or sent on for further treatment.

The largest application has been for the recovery of nickel solu-
tions.   It  has  been  shown that RQ can generally be applied to
most  acid  metal  baths  with  a  high  degree  of  performance,
providing   that   the  membrane  unit  is  not  overtaxed.   The
limitations most critical here are the  allowable  pH  range  ancl
maximum  operating  pressure  for  each particular configuration.
Adequate prefiltration is also essential.   Only  three  membrane
types  are  readily  available  in commercial RO units, and their
overwhelming use has been for the recovery of various acid  metal
baths.  For the purpose of calculating performance predictions of
this  technology,  a rejection ratio of 98 percent is assumed for
dissolved salts, with 95 percent permeate recovery.

Advantages and  Limitations.   The  major  advantage  of  reverse
osmosis   for  handling  process  effluents  is  its  ability  to
concentrate dilute solutions for recovery of salts and  chemicals
with  low  power requirements.  No latent heat of vaporization or
fusion is required for effecting  separations;  the  main  energy
requirement  is for a high pressure pump.  It requires relatively
little floor space for  compact,  high  capacity  units,  and ' it
exhibits  good  recovery  and  rejection  rates  for  a number of
typical^process solutions.  A limitation of the  reverse  osmosis
process  for  treatment  of  process  effluents  is  its  limited
temperature range  for  satisfactory  operation.   For  cellulose
acetate  systems,  the  preferred  limits are 18° to 30°C (65° to
85°F); higher temperatures will increase  the  rate  of  membrane
hydrolysis  and reduce system life, while lower temperatures will
result in decreased  fluxes  with  no  damage  to  the  membrane.
Another  limitation  is  inability  to  handle certain solutions.
Strong oxidizing agents,  strongly  acidic  or  basic  solutions,
solvents,  and  other  organic compounds can cause dissolution of
the membrane.  Poor rejection of some compounds such  as  borates
and low molecular weight organics is another problem.  Fouling of
                              368

-------
membranes  by slightly soluble components in solution or colloids
has caused failures, and fouling of membranes by feed waters with
high levels of suspended solids can be a problem.  A final  limi-
tation  is  inability to treat or achieve high concentration with
some solutions.  Some concentrated solutions may have initial os-
motic pressures which are so high that they either exceed  avail-
able operating pressures or are uneconomical to treat.

Operational  Factors.   Reliability:   Very  good  reliability is
achieved so long as the proper precautions are taken to  minimize
the  chances  of  fouling  or degrading the membrane.  Sufficient
testing of the waste stream prior to application of an RO  system
will  provide  the  information  needed  to  insure  a successful
application.

Maintainability:  Membrane life is estimated to  range  from  six
months  to  three  years,  depending  on  the  use of the system.
Downtime for flushing or cleaning is on the order of two hours as
often as once each week; a  substantial  portion  of  maintenance
time  must be spent on cleaning any prefilters installed ahead of
the reverse osmosis unit.

Solid Waste Aspects:  In a closed loop system utilizing RO  there
is  a  constant  recycle  of  concentrate .and a minimal amount of
solid waste.  Prefiltration eliminates many  solids  before  they
reach  the module and helps keep the buildup to a minimum.  These
solids require proper disposal.

Demonstration Status.  There are presently at least  one/  hundred
reverse   osmosis   wastewater   applications  in  a  variety  of
industries.  In addition to these, there are 30 to 40 units being
used to  provide  pure  process  water  for  several  industries.
Despite  the many types and configurations of membranes, only the
spiral-wound cellulose acetate membrane has had  widespread  suc-
cess  in commercial applications.  Reverse osmosis is used at one
battery plant to treat process wastewater  for  reuse  as  boiler
feedwater.

23.  Sludge Bed Drying

As a waste treatment procedure, sludge bed drying is employed  to
reduce  the  water  content  of a variety of sludges to the point
where they are amenable to mechanical collection and  removal  to
landfill.   These  beds  usually  consist of 15 to 45 cm  (6 to 18
in.) of sand over a 30 cm (12 in.) deep gravel drain system  made
up  of  3  to 6 mm  (1/8 to 1/4 in.) graded gravel overlying drain
tiles.  Figure VII-28 (page 454)  shows  the  construction  of  a
drying bed.
                              369

-------
Drying   beds   are   usually   divided   into   sectional  areas
approximately 7.5 meters (25 ft) wide x 30 to 60 meters  (TOO  to
200  ft) long.  The partitions may be earth embankments, but more
often are made of planks and supporting grooved posts.

To apply liquid sludge to the sand bed, a  closed  conduit  or  a
pressure pipeline with valved outlets at each sand bed section is
often  employed.  Another method of application is by means of an
open channel with appropriately placed side  openings  which  are
controlled  by slide gates.  With either type of delivery system,
a concrete splash slab should be provided to receive the  falling
sludge and prevent erosion of the sand surface.

Where  it  is necessary to dewater sludge continuously throughout
the year regardless of the weather, sludge beds  may  be  covered
with  a  fiberglass  reinforced  plastic  or other roof.  Covered
drying beds permit a greater volume of sludge drying per year  in
most  climates  because  of  the protection afforded from rain or
snow and  because  of  more  efficient  control  of  temperature.
Depending on the climate, a combination of open and enclosed beds
will  provide  maximum  utilization  of  the  sludge  bed  drying
facilities.

Application and Performance.  Sludge drying beds are a  means  of
dewatering  sludge  from  clarifiers  and  thickeners.   They are
widely  used  both  in   municipal   and   industrial   treatment
facilities.

Dewatering  of  sludge  on  sand  beds  occurs by two mechanisms:
filtration of water through the bed and evaporation of water as a
result of radiation  and  convection.   Filtration  is  generally
complete   in   one   to  two  days  and  may  result  in  solids
concentrations as  high  as  15  to  20  percent.   The  rate  of
filtration depends on the drainability of the sludge.

The  rate  of  air  drying  of  sludge is related to temperature,
relative humidity, and air velocity.  Evaporation will proceed at
a constant rate to a critical moisture content, then at a falling
rate to an equilibrium moisture'content.  The average evaporation
rate for a sludge is about 75 percent of that from a  free  water
surface.

Advantages  and Limitations.  The main advantage of sludge drying
beds over other types of sludge dewatering is the relatively  low
cost of construction, operation, and maintenance.

Its  disadvantages  are  the large area of land required and long
drying times that depend, to  a  great  extent,  on  climate  and
weather.
                              370

-------
Operational  Factors.   Reliability:   Reliability  is  high with
favorable climactic conditions, proper bed  design  and  care  to
avoid  excessive  or  unequal  sludge  application.   If climatic
conditions in a given area are not favorable for adequate drying,
a cover may be necessary.

Maintainability:   Maintenance  consists  basically  of  periodic
removal  of  the  dried sludge.  Sand removed from the drying bed
with the sludge must be replaced and the sand layer resurfaced.

The resurfacing of sludge beds  is  the  major  expense  item  in
sludge  bed  maintenance,  but  there  are  other areas which may
require attention.  Underdrains occasionally become  clogged  and
have to be cleaned.  Valves or sludge gates that control the flow
of  sludge  to  the  beds must be kept watertight.  Provision for
drainage of lines in winter should be provided to prevent  damage
from  freezing.   The  partitions between beds should be tight so
that sludge will not flow from one compartment to  another.   The
outer walls or banks around the beds should also be watertight.

Solid  Waste  Aspects:  The full sludge drying bed must either be
abandoned or the collected solids must be removed to a  landfill.
These  solids  contain  whatever  metals  or other materials were
settled in the clarifier.  Metals will be present as  hydroxides,
oxides,  sulfides,  or  other salts.  They have the potential for
leaching and contaminating ground water, whatever the location of
the semidried solids.  Thus the abandoned bed or landfill  should
include provision for runoff control and leachate monitoring.

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.

24.  Ultrafiltration

Ultrafiltration   (UF)  is  a  process  which  uses  semipermeable
polymeric membranes to separate emulsified or colloidal materials
suspended in a liquid phase by pressurizing the liquid so that it
permeates  the  membrane.  The membrane of an ultrafilter forms a
molecular screen which retains molecular particles based on their
differences in size, shape, and chemical structure.  The membrane
permits passage of solvents and lower molecular weight molecules.
At present, an ultrafilter is capable of removing materials  with
molecular  weights in the range of 1,000 to 100,000 and particles
of comparable or larger sizes.

In an  ultrafiltration  process,  the  feed  solution  is  pumped
through  a  tubular  membrane unit.  Water and some low molecular
                              371

-------
weight materials pass through  the  membrane  under  the  applied
pressure of 2 to 8 atm (10 to 100 psig).  Emulsified oil droplets
and  suspended  particles are retained, concentrated, and removed
continuously.   In  contrast  to  ordinary  filtration,  retained
materials  are washed off the membrane filter rather than held by
it.  Figure VII-29  (page  455)  represents  the  ultrafiltration
process.

Application   and  Performance.   Ultrafiltration  has  potential
application to battery manufacturing for separation of  oils  and
residual  solids  from  a  variety of waste streams.  In treating
battery  manufacturing  wastewater,  its  greatest  applicability
would be as a polishing treatment to remove residual precipitated
metals    after   chemical   precipitation   and   clarification.
Successful  commercial  use,  however,  has  been  primarily  for
separation  of emulsified oils from wastewater.  Over one hundred
such units now operate in the United States, treating  emulsified
oils  from  a  variety  of  industrial  processes.  Capacities of
currently operating units range from a few hundred gallons a week
to 50,000 gallons per day.  Concentration of oily emulsions to 60
percent oil or more is possible.  Oil concentrates of 40  percent
or more are generally suitable for incineration, and the permeate
can  be  treated  further  and in some cases recycled back to the
process.  In this way, it is  possible  to  eliminate  contractor
removal costs for oil from some oily waste streams.

The test data in Table VII-28 (page 423) indicate ultrafiltration
performance  (note  that  UF  is not intended to remove dissolved
solids).

The removal percentages  shown  are  typical,  but  they  can  be
influenced by pH and other conditions.

The  permeate  or  effluent  from  the  ultrafiltration  unit  is
normally  of  a  quality  that  can  be  reused   in   industrial
applications  or  discharged  directly.  The concentrate from the
ultrafiltration unit can be disposed of  as  any  oily  or  solid
waste.

Advantages  and  Limitations.   Ultrafiltration  is  sometimes an
attractive alternative to chemical  treatment  because  of  lower
capital  equipment,  installation, and operating costs, very high
oil  and  suspended   solids   removal,   and   little   required
pretreatment.   It  places  a positive barrier between pollutants
and effluent which reduces the possibility of extensive pollutant
discharge due to operator error or upset in settling and skimming
systems.  Alkaline values in alkaline cleaning solutions  can  be
recovered and reused in process.
                              372

-------
A   limitation   of  ultrafiltration  for  treatment  of  process
effluents is its narrow  temperature  range  {18°  to  30°C)  for
satisfactory  operation.   Membrane  life  decreases  with higher
temperatures,  but  flux  increases  at  elevated   temperatures.
Therefore,   surface   area   requirements   are  a  function  of
temperature and become  a  tradeoff  between  initial  costs  and
replacement costs for the membrane.  In addition, ultrafiltration
cannot   handle  certain  solutions.   Strong  oxidizing  agents,
solvents, and other organic compounds can dissolve the  membrane.
Fouling is sometimes a problem, although the high velocity of the
wastewater  normally creates enough turbulence to keep fouling at
a minimum.  Large solids particles  can  sometimes  puncture  the
membrane  and  must  be removed by gravity settling or filtration
prior to the ultrafiltration unit.

Operational  Factors.   Reliability:   The  reliability   of   an
ultrafiltration  system  is  dependent  on the proper filtration,
settling or other treatment of incoming waste streams to  prevent
damage  to the membrane.  Careful pilot studies should be done in
each instance to determine necessary pretreatment steps  and  the
exact membrane type to be used.

Maintainability:   A  limited  amount  of  regular maintenance is
quired for the pumping system.  In addition,  membranes  must  be
periodically changed.  Maintenance associated with membrane plug-
ging  can be reduced by selection of a membrane with optimum phy-
sical  characteristics  and, sufficient  velocity  of  the  waste
stream.   It  is  occasionally  necessary  to  pass  a  detergent
solution through the system to remove  an  oil  and  grease  film
which  accumulates  on  the  membrane.   With proper maintenance,
membrane life can be greater than twelve months.

Solid  Waste  Aspects:   Ultrafiltration  is  used  primarily  to
recover  solids and liquids.  It therefore eliminates solid waste
problems when the solids (e.g., paint solids) can be recycled  to
the  process.   Otherwise,   the  stream containing solids must be
treated  by  end-of-pipe  equipment.   In   the   most   probable
applications  within  the  battery  manufacturing  category,  the
ultrafilter would remove hydroxides or .sulfides of  metals  which
have recovery value.

Demonstration   Status.   The  ultrafiltration  process  is  well
developed and commercially available for treatment of  wastewater
or  recovery  of  certain  high molecular weight liquid and solid
contaminants.
                              373

-------
25.  Vacuum Filtration

In wastewater  treatment  plants,  sludge  dewatering  by  vacuum
filtration  generally uses cylindrical drum filters.  These drums
have a filter medium which  may  be  cloth  made  of  natural  or
synthetic  fibers  or  a wire-mesh fabric.  The drum is suspended
above and dips into, a vat of sludge.  As the drum rotates slowly,
part of its circumference is subject to an internal  vacuum  that
draws  sludge  to  the filter medium.  Water is drawn through the
porous filter cake to a discharge port, and the dewatered sludge,
loosened by compressed air, is  scraped  from  the  filter  mesh.
Because  the dewatering of sludge on vacuum filters is relativley
expensive per kilogram of water removed,  the  liquid  sludge  is
frequently  thickened  prior  to  processing.  A vacuum filter is
shown in Figure VII-30 (page 456).

Application and Performance.  Vacuum filters are frequently  used
both  in  municipal  treatment  plants  and  in a wide variety of
industries.  They are most commonly used  in  larger  facilities,
which  may  have  a  thickener  to  double  the solids content of
clarifier sludge before vacuum filtering.

The function of vacuum filtration .is to reduce the water  content
of  sludge,  so  that  the  solids content increases from about 5
percent to about 30 percent.

Advantages and Limitations.  Although the initial cost  and  area
requirement of the vacuum filtration system are higher than those
of  a  centrifuge,  the  operating  cost is lower, and no special
provisions for sound and vibration protection need be made.   The
dewatered sludge from this process is in the form of a moist cake
and can be conveniently handled.

Operational  Factors.   Reliability:   Vacuum filter systems have
proven  reliable  at  many  industrial  and  municipal  treatment
facilities.  At present, the largest municipal installation is at
the   West  Southwest  wastewater  treatment  plant  of  Chicago,
Illinois,  where  96  large  filters  were  installed  in   1925,
functioned  approximately  25  years, and then were replaced with
larger units.  Original vacuum filters at  Minneapolis-St.  Paul,
Minnesota,  now  have  over  28  years of continuous service, and
Chicago has some units with similar or greater service life.

Maintainability:   Maintenance  consists  of  the   cleaning   or
replacement of the filter media, drainage grids, drainage piping,
filter  pans,  and other parts of the equipment.  Experience in a
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,
                              374

-------
maintenance  time may be as high as 20 percent.  For this reason,
it is desirable to maintain one or more spare units.

If intermittent operation is used, the filter equipment should be
drained and washed each time it is  taken  out  of  service.   An
allowance for this wash time must be made in filtering schedules.

Solid  Waste Aspects:  Vacuum filters generate a solid cake which
is usually trucked directly  to  landfill.   All  of  the  metals
extracted  from  the  plant  wastewater  are  concentrated in the
filter cake as hydroxides, oxides, sulfides, or other salts.

Demonstration Status.  Vacuum filtration has been widely used for
many years.  It is a fully proven,  conventional  technology  for
sludge  dewatering.   Vacuum  filtration  is used in at least two
battery manufacturing plants for sludge dewatering.

26.  Permanganate Oxidation

Permanganate oxidation is a chemical reaction by which wastewater
pollutants can be oxidized.  When  the  reaction  is  carried  to
completion,   the   byproducts   of   the   oxidation   are   not
environmentally harmful.  A large number  of  pollutants  can  be
practically   oxidized   by.   permanganate,  including  cyanides,
hydrogen sulfide, and phenol.  In addition, the  chemical  oxygen
demand  (COD)  and  many  odors in wastewaters and sludges can be
significantly reduced by permanganate oxidation  carried  to  its
end  point.  Potassium permanganate can be added to wastewater in
either dry or slurry form.  The oxidation occurs optimally in the
8 to 9 pH range.  As an example  of  the  permanganate  oxidation
process,  the  following chemical equation shows the oxidation of
phenol by potassium permanganate;

     3 C«H5(OH).+ 28KMnO4 + 5H2	-> 18 C02 + 28KOH + 28 Mn02.

One of the byproducts of  this  oxidation  is  manganese  dioxide
(MnO2),  which  occurs  as  a  relatively  stable hydrous colloid
usually having a negative charge.  These properties, in  addition
to  its  large surface area, enable manganese dioxide to act as a
sorbent for metal cation, thus enhancing their removal  from  the
wastewater.

Application  and  Performance.   Commercial  use  of permanganate
oxidation has been primarily for the control of phenol and  waste
odors.   Several municipal waste treatment facilities report that
initial hydrogen sulfide ' concentrations  (causing  serious  odor
problems)  as  high as 100 mg/1 have been reduced to zero through
the  application  of  potassium  permanganate.   A   variety   of
industries  (including  metal finishers and agricultural chemical
                              375

-------
manufacturers)  have  used  permanganate  oxidation  to   totally
destroy phenol in their wastewaters.

Advantages  and  Limitations.  Permanganate oxidation has several
advantages as a wastewater  treatment  technique.   Handling  and
storage  are  facilitated  by  its  non-toxic  and  non-corrosive
nature.  Performance has been proved in a number of municipal and
industrial applications.  The tendency of the  manganese  dioxide
by-product to act as a coagulant aid is a distinct advantage over
other types of chemical treatment.

The  cost  of  permanganate  oxidation  treatment can be limiting
where very large  dosages  are  required  to  oxidize  wastewater
pollutants.   In  addition,  care  must  be  taken  in storage to
prevent exposure to intense  heat,  acids,  or  reducing  agents;
exposure  could  create  a  fire  hazard or cause explosions.  Of
greatest concern is the environmental hazard  which  the  use  of
manganese chemicals in treatment could cause.  Care must be taken
to remove the manganese from treated water before discharge.

Operational   Factors.    Reliability:  Maintenance  consists  of
periodic  sludge  removal  and  cleaning  of  pump  feed   lines.
Frequency    of    maintenance   is   dependent   on   wastewater
characteristics.

Solid Waste Aspects:  Sludge is generated by  the  process  where
the  manganese dioxide byproduct tends to act as a coagulant aid.
The sludge from  permanganate  oxidation  can  be  collected  and
handled  by  standard  sludge treatment and processing equipment.
No battery manufacturing facilities are known to use permanganate
oxidation for wastewater treatment at this time.

Demonstration Status.  The oxidation of wastewater pollutants  by
potassium  permanganate  is a proven treatment process in several
types of industries.  It has been shown effective in  treating  a
wide  variety  of  pollutants  in  both  municipal and industrial
wastes.

             IN-PROCESS POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNIQUES

In general, the most  cost-effective  pollution  reduction  tech-
niques   available  to  any  industry  are  those  which  prevent
completely the entry of pollutants  into  process  wastewater  or
reduce  the volume of wastewater requiring treatment.  These "in-
process"  controls  can  increase  treatment   effectiveness   by
reducing   the   volume   of  wastewater  to  treatment  as  more
concentrated waste streams from which the pollutants can be  more
completely  removed,  or  by eliminating pollutants which are not
readily removed or which interfere with the  treatment  of  other
                              376

-------
pollutants.   They  also  frequently  yield  economic benefits in
reduced water consumption, in decreased waste treatment costs and
in decreased consumption or recovery of process materials.

Process  water  use  in  battery  manufacturing   provides   many
opportunities  for  in-process control and, as Table VI1-29 (Page
424)  shows,  some  in-process   control   measures   have   been
implemented  by  many battery manufacturing facilities.  The wide
range of in-process water use and wastewater discharge  exhibited
by  battery  manufacturing plants {as shown in the data presented
in Section V) reflects  the  present  variability  of  in-process
wastewater control at these facilities.

Many  in-process  pollution  control  techniques are of a general
character, although specific  applications  of  these  techniques
vary  among  different battery manufacturing subcategories.  Some
of the available in-process  control  techniques  apply  only  to
specific processing steps.

Generally Applicable In-Process Control Techniques

Techniques  which  may  be applied to reduce pollutant discharges
from most battery manufacturing subcategories include  wastewater
segregation,  water  recycle and reuse, water use reduction, pro-
cess modification, and plant maintenance and  good  housekeeping.
Effective  in-process  control  at  most  plants  will  entail  a
combination of several techniques.  Frequently, the  practice  of
one  in-process  control technique is required for the successful
implementation of another.  For example,  wastewater  segregation
is  frequently  a  prerequisite  for  the  extensive  practice of
wastewater recycle or reuse.

Wastewater Segreqati on - The segregation of wastewater streams is
a key element in implementing  effective  pollution  control  for
plants  in  the  lead subcategory.  Segregation is implemented to
separate  streams  of  widely  varying  physical   and   chemical
characteristics  for  subsequent  reuse, discharge, or treatment.
This is done to prevent dilution of the process  wastewaters  and
also to maintain the character of the nonprocess stream for reuse
or  discharge.  The cumulative effect of segregation is to reduce
treatment costs and increase pollutant removal.

The specific  effects  of  commingling  process  wastewater  with
nonprocess  wastewater is to increase the total volume of process
wastewater to be treated.  This has an  adverse  effect  on  both
treatment   performance   and  cost.   The  increased  volume  of
wastewater increases the size and, therefore, cost of  wastewater
treatment  facilities.   Since a given treatment technology has a
specific treatment effectiveness and  can  only  achieve  certain
                              377

-------
discharge   concentrations  of  pollutants,  the  total  mass  of
pollutants which is discharged increases with dilution.  Thus,  a
plant   which  segregates  noncontact  cooling  water  and  other
nonprocess waters from  process  wastewater  will  almost  always
achieve  a lower mass discharge of pollutants while substantially
reducing treatment costs.

Lead  battery  manufacturing  plants  commonly  produce  multiple
process   and  nonprocess  wastewater  streams.   The  identified
nonprocess streams include wastewater streams that are  reuseable
after  minimal treatment and other streams that are not reusable.
Reuseable waters are most often noncontact cooling waters.   This
water  is uncontaminated and can be recycled in a closed indirect
cooling configuration as well as used as makeup for process water
using operations.  Noncontact cooling water is commonly  recycled
for reuse in lead battery plants.

The  segregation  of  dilute  process  waste  streams  from those
bearing high lead loadings may allow further use  of  the  dilute
streams.   Sometimes  the lightly polluted stream may be recycled
to the process from which they were discharged, such as  in  lead
strip  casting.   Other  waste streams may be suitable for use in
another process with only minimal treatment, such as the  use  of
humidity curing water in paste machine washdown.  Selected dilute
process  waste  streams  are  suitable for incorporation into the
product, such as the use of battery rinse water in acid cutting.

Segregation of wastewater  streams  may  allow  lower  cost,  and
separate  treatment  of  the  streams.   For  example, wastewater
streams containing high levels of suspended solids may be treated
in  separate  inexpensive  settling  systems  rather  than   more
expensive   lime  and  settle  treatment.   Often  the  clarified
wastewater is suitable for further process use and both pollutant
loads and the wastewater volume requiring further  treatment  are
reduced.

Segregation and separate treatment of selected wastewater streams
may  yield  an  additional  economic  benefit  to  the  plant  by
promoting recovery of process materials.   The  solids  borne  by
wastewater  from  a  specific  process  operation  are  primarily
composed of materials used  in  that  operation.   These  sludges
resulting   from  separate  settling  of  these  streams  may  be
reclaimed for use in the process with little or no processing  or
recovered   for   reprocessing.    For  example,  this  technique
presently is used to  recover  lead  used  in  processing  pasted
plates at lead battery manufacturing plants.

Certain  nonprocess wastewater streams are not usually reused due
to the nature of the stream or operation.   At  lead  subcategory
                              378

-------
plants,  these streams include discharges from water softener and
deionizer backflushes, cooling tower and boiler water  blowdowns,
and  regular  production  employee  showers  and  other  sanitary
waters.  Segregation and separate discharge of these  streams  is
commonly observed in lead subcategory plants.

Wastewater  Recycle  and  Reuse - The recycle or reuse of process
wastewater is a particularly  effective  technique  for  the  re-
duction  of  both  pollutant discharges and treatment costs.  The
term "recycle"  is  used  to  designate  the  return  of  process
wastewater  usually  after  some  treatment  to  the  process  or
processes from which it originated, while "reuse" refers  to  the
use  of wastewater from one process in another.  Both recycle and
reuse of process wastewater are presently  practiced  at  battery
manufacturing  plants  although recycle is more extensively used.
The most frequently recycled waste streams include air  pollution
control  scrubber discharges, product rinsing and wastewater from
equipment and area cleaning.  Numerous other  process  wastewater
streams  from  lead  battery manufacturing activities may also be
recycled or reused.   Common  points  of  wastewater  recycle  in
present   practice   include  air  pollution .control  scrubbers,
equipment and area washdown, some product rinsing operations  and
contact cooling.

Both  recycle and reuse are frequently possible without extensive
treatment of the wastewater; process pollutants  present  in  the
waste   stream   are   ofteq   tolerable  (or  occasionally  even
beneficial) for process use.  Recycle or reuse in these instances
yields  cost  savings  by  reducing  the  volume  of   wastewater
requiring  treatment.  Where treatment is required for recycle or
reuse, it is frequently considerably simpler than  the  treatment
necessary to achieve effluent quality suitable for release to the
environment.   Treatment  prior  to  recycle or reuse observed in
present practice is generally restricted to  simple  settling  or
neutralization.   Since these treatment practices are less costly
than  those  used  prior  to  discharge,  economic  as  well   as
environmental  benefits  are  usually  realized.   In addition to
these in-process recycle and reuse  practices,  some  plants  are
observed  to  return  part or all of the treated effluent from an
end-of-pipe treatment system for further process use.

Recycle can usually be implemented with minimal expense and comp-
lications because the required treatment is often minimal and the
water for recycle  is  immediately  available.   As  an  example,
pasting  area  washdown  water  can be collected in the immediate
area of pasting, settled and the supernatant reused for  washdown
of the pasting area.
                              379

-------
The  rate of water used in wet air scrubbers is determined by the
requirement for adequate contact with the air being scrubbed  and
not  by  the  mass  of  pollutants  to  be removed.  As a result,
wastewater streams from  once-through  scrubbers  are  character-
istically  very  dilute  and  high  in volume.  These streams can
usually  be  recycled  extensively  without  treatment  with   no
deleterious  effect  on  scrubber performance.  Limited treatment
such as neutralization where acid fumes are scrubbed can signifi-
cantly increase the practical recycle rate.

Water used in washing  process  equipment  and  production  floor
areas  frequently  serves primarily to remove solid materials and
is often treated by settling  and  recycled.   This  practice  is
especially  prevalent  at lead subcategory plants but is observed
in other subcategories as well.  In some  instances  the  settled
solids  as  well as the clarified wastewater are returned for use
in the process.  The extent of recycle of these waste streams may
be very high, and in many cases no wastewater is discharged  from
the recycle loop.

Water used in product rinsing is also recirculated in some cases,
especially from battery rinse operations.  This practice is ulti-
mately  limited by the concentrations of materials rinsed off the
product in the rinsewater.  Wastewater from contact cooling oper-
ations also may contain low concentrations of pollutants which do
not interfere with the recycle of these streams.  In some  cases,
recycle  of  contact  cooling -water with no treatment is observed
while in others, provisions for heat removal in cooling towers or
closed heat exchangers is required.  Where contact cooling  water
becomes  heavily  contaminated  with  acid, neutralization may be
required to minimize corrosion.

Water used in vacuum pump seals  and  ejectors  commonly  becomes
contaminated with process pollutants.  The levels of contaminants
in  these  high  volume  waste  streams are usually low enough to
allow recycle to the process  with  minimal  treatment.   A  high
degree  of recycle of wastewater from contact cooling streams may
require provisions for neutralization or removal of heat.

The extent of recycle possible in  most  process  water  uses  is
ultimately  limited  by  increasing  concentrations  of dissolved
solids in the water.  The buildup of  dissolved  salts  generally
necessitates  some small discharge or "blowdown" from the process
to treatment.  In those cases, where  the  rate  of  addition  of
dissolved  salts  is  balanced  by removal of dissolved solids in
water entrained in  settled  solids,  complete  recycle  with  no
discharge  can be achieved.  In other instances, the contaminants
which build up in the recycle loop may be compatible with another
process operation, and the "blowdown"  may  be  used  in  another
                              380

-------
process.   Examples  of  this  condition  are  observed  in  lead
subcategory scrubbers, battery rinse, and contact cooling  wastes
which  become  increasingly  laden  with  sulfuric  acid and lead
during recycle.  Small volumes bled from these recycle loops  may
be   used  in  diluting  concentrated  acid  to  prepare  battery
electrolyte as observed at some existing facilities.

Water Use Reduction - The volume of wastewater discharge  from  a
plant  or  specific  process  operation  may be reduced by simply
eliminating excess flow and unnecessary water  use.   Often  this
may  be  accomplished with no change in the manufacturing process
or equipment and without any capital expenditure.   A  comparison
of  the  volumes  of  process  water  used in and discharged from
equivalent process operations at different battery  manufacturing
plants   or  on  different  days  at  the  same  plant  indicates
substantial opportunities for water use  reductions.   Additional
reductions  in process water use and discharge may be achieved by
modifications to process techniques and equipment.

Many  production  units  in  battery  manufacturing  plants  were
observed  to  operate  intermittently  or at highly variable pro-
duction rates.  The practice of shutting off process  water  flow
during  periods  when  the unit is not operating and of adjusting
flow rates during periods of  low  production  can  prevent  much
unnecessary  water  use.   Water  may  be shut off and controlled
manually or  through  automatically  controlled  valves.   Manual
adjustment  involving  the  human  factor  have  been found to be
somewhat unreliable in practice; production personnel often  fail
to turn off manual valves when production units are shut.down and
tend  to ' increase  water flow rates to maximum levels "to insure
good operation" regardless  of  production  activity.   Automatic
shut  off  valves  may  be  used  to  turn  off  water flows when
production units are  inactive.   Automatic  adjustment  of  flow
rates  according to production levels requires more sophisticated
control systems incorporating production rate sensors.

Observations and flow measurements at visited battery manufactur-
ing plants indicate  that  automatic  flow  controls  are  rarely
employed.   Manual  control  of  process  water  use is generally
observed in process rinse operations, and little or no adjustment
of these flows to production level was  practiced.   The  present
situation  is exemplified by a rinse operation at one plant where
the daily average production normalized discharge flow  rate  was
observed  to  vary  from  90  to 1200 I/kg over a three-day span.
Thus, significant  reductions  in  pollutant  discharges  can  be
achieved  by  the application of flow control in this category at
essentially no cost;  (A net saying  may  be  realized  from  the
reduced  cost  of  water  and  sewage  charges).  Additional flow
                              381

-------
reductions  may  be  achieved  by  the  implementation  of   more
effective water use in some process operations.

Rinsing is a common operation in the manufacture of batteries and
a major source of wastewater discharge at most plants.  Efficient
rinsing  requires  the  removal  of the greatest possible mass of
material in  the  smallest  possible  volume  of  water.   It  is
achieved  by  ensuring  that  the material removed is distributed
uniformly through the rinse water.  (The high porosity of many of
the electrode structures makes the achievement of uniform  mixing
difficult,  necessitating longer product residence times and high
mixing rates in rinses.)  Rinsing efficiency is also increased by
the use of multi-stage and countercurrent cascade rinses.  Multi-
stage  rinses  reduce  the  total  rinse  water  requirements  by
allowing  the  removal  of  much  of  the  contaminant  in a more
concentrated rinse with only the final stage rinse diluted to the
levels  required   for   final   product   cleanliness.    In   a
countercurrent  cascade  rinse, dilute wastewater from each rinse
stage is reused in the preceding  rinse  stage  and  all  of  the
contaminants  are  discharged  in  a  single  concentrated  waste
stream.  The technical aspects of countercurrent cascade  rinsing
are detailed in the following subsection.

Equipment  and  area  cleanup practices observed at battery manu-
facturing  plants  vary  widely.   While   some   plants   employ
completely  dry  cleanup  techniques,  many others use water with
varying degrees of efficiency.  The  practice  of  "hosing  down"
equipment  and  production  areas generally represents a very in-
efficient use of water, especially when hoses  are  left  running
during  periods  when  they are not used.  Alternative techniques
which use water more efficiently include  vacuum  pick  up  floor
wash  machines and bucket and sponge or bucket and mop techniques
as observed at some plants.

A major factor contributing in many cases to the need for battery
washing is  electrolyte  spillage  on  the  battery  case  during
filling.    This   spillage   and   subsequent   battery  washing
requirement is maximized when batteries are filled  by  immersion
or  by  "overfill and withdraw" techniques.  Water use in battery
washing may be  significantly  reduced  by  the  use  of  filling
techniques   and  equipment  which  add  the  correct  amount  of
electrolyte to the battery without overfilling and which minimize
drips and spills on the battery case.  These electrolyte addition
techniques and the production of finished batteries  with  little
or  no  battery  washing  are  observed at numerous plants in the
category.

Additional reduction in process water  use  and  wastewater  dis-
charge  may  be achieved by the substitution of dry air pollution
                              382

-------
control devices such as baghouses for  wet  scrubbers  where  the
emissions requiring control are amenable to these techniques.

Counter current Cascade Rinsing and Mul.ti-Stage Rinsing

Of the many schemes discussed above for reduction of water use in
a  battery  production  plant,  countercurrent cascade rinsing is
most  likely  to  result  in  the  greatest  reduction  of  water
consumption and use.

Countercurrent  cascade rinses are employed at many plants in the
battery manufacturing category.  In most  cases,  however,  these
techniques  are not combined with effective flow control, and the
wastewater discharge  volumes  from  the  countercurrent  cascade
rinses  are as large as or larger than corresponding single stage
rinse flows at other plants.  Three instances  of  countercurrent
cascade  rinsing with reasonable levels of flow control are noted
to illustrate the benefits achievable by  this  technique  within
the battery manufacturing category.

Two  lead subcategory plants use two-stage countercurrent cascade
rinses to rinse  electrodes  after  open-case  formation.   These
rinses  discharge  3.3  and 3.6 I/kg.  At 28 other plants, single
stage rinses are used after open-case formation with  an  average
discharge   of   20.9 I/kg.    Thus,   the   use   of   two-stage
countercurrent cascade rinsing in this  application  is  seen  to
reduce  rinse  wastewater  flow  by  a  factor  of 6
reduction).  Still further reductions would  result
operation  of  these  rinse  installations  or  from
additional countercurrent cascade rinse stages.
05" (83% flow
from  better
 the  use of
Rinse water  requirements  and  the  benefits  of  countercurrent
cascade  rinsing  may  be  influenced  by  the volume of drag-out
solution carried into  each  rinse  stage  by  the  electrode  or
material being rinsed, by the number of rinse stages used, by the
initial  concentrations  of  impurities being removed, and by the
final product,  cleanliness  required.   The  influence  of  these
factors  is expressed in the rinsing equation which may be stated
simply as:
     Vr
             Co
             Cf
                  d/n)
                       X VD
     Vr is the flow through each rinse stage.

     Co is the concentration of the contaminant(s) in
          the initial process bath

     Cf is the concentration of the contaminant(s) in
                              383

-------
          the final rinse to give acceptable product
          cleanliness

     n is the number of rinse stages employed,

     and

     VD is the flow of drag-out carried into each
          rinse stage

Drag-out is solution which  remains  in  the  pores  and  on  the
surface  of  electrodes  or  materials being rinsed when they are
removed from process baths or rinses.  In battery  manufacturing,
drag-out  volumes may be quite high because the high porosity and
surface areas of  electrodes.   Based  on  porosity  and  surface
characteristics, it is estimated that the drag-out volume will be
approximately   20  percent  of  the  apparent  electrode  volume
(including pores).  Because of the highly porous nature  of  many
electrodes,  perfect  mixing  in  each  rinse  generally  is  not
achieved, and deviation from ideal rinsing is anticipated.

The application of the rinsing equation with these considerations
to the lead subcategory example cited above provides a basis  for
the   transfer  of  countercurrent  rinse  performance  to  other
subcategories  and  process  elements.   Based  on  the  specific
gravities  of  component  materials  and approximately 20 percent
porosity, the apparent specific gravity of lead electrodes may be
estimated as 7.0; the volume of drag-out per unit weight of  lead
is therefore:

     VD = 0.2  =  0.029 I/kg.
          7.0

Based on the average single stage rinse flow, the rinse
ratio (equal to Co/Cf) is:

     Co  (V. )  =  Vr  *  20.9  =  720
      Cf           VD      0.029

The calculated flow for a two stage countercurrent rinse
providing equivalent product cleaning is then given by

     Vr » Co (Vn)  x  Vd  =  720  o.s  x  0.029  =  0.78 I/kg.
          Cf

This  calculated  flow  yields  a  rinse ratio of 26.8 and is 4.4
times (26.8 t- 6.05) lower than the observed countercurrent  rinse
flow  reflecting the extent to which ideal mixing is not achieved
in the rinses.  One of these two plants was visited for  sampling
                              384

-------
and was observed to employ no mixing or agitation  in  the  rinse
tanks.   Therefore, performance significantly closer to the ideal
should be attainable simply by  adding  agitation  to  the  rinse
tanks.

To  transfer  countercurrent  rinse results to other process ele-
ments, allowance must be made for the fact  that  required  rinse
ratios  may  be  substantially  different  in  order  to  provide
adequate contaminant removal from some electrodes.  To  encompass
all  process  element requirements, an extreme case is considered
in which contaminants initially prasent at  10  percent  (100,000
mg/1)  in a process bath must be reduced to a nearly immeasurable
1.0 mg/kg (one part per million) in the final  rinsed  electrode.
The  20 percent drag-out found, appropriate for lead electrodes is
also applicable to other electrode types  and  materials  rinsed,
since  all  have  high  porosity and surface area requirements in
order to sustain high current densities.  The specific  gravities
of  most electrode materials are lower than those of lead and its
salts.  Consequently, lower electrode densities are expected.  An
estimated specific gravity of 4.5 is used tor  purposes  of  this
calculation.   Also,  the  active  materials used as the basis of
most production normalizing parameters except lead make  up  only
approximately 45 percent of the total electroda saicht.

On  the  basis  of  these  figures, it may be calculated that the
volume of drag-out amounts to:.

     VD  =  0.2  =  0.044 I/kg of electrode
         .   4.5

          or

     VD  =  0.2 x 1	  =  0.1 I/kg of pnp
            4.5   0.45


The  concentration  of  pollutant  in  the  .final  rinse  may  be
calculated  as  10 mg/1  based  on  the  factors  postulated  and
calculated above.  The rinse ratio (Co/Cf) is 10,000.

Multi-stage rinsing uses two or more stages of  rinsinc  each  of
shich  is  supplied  with  fresh water and discharges to sewer or
treatment.  For a multi-stage rinse, the total  volume  of  rinse
wastewater  is  equal  to  n  times Vr while for a countercurrent
rinse, vr is the total volume of wastewater discharge.

Using these rinsing parameters, theoretical rinse  flow  require-
ments may be calculated for single stage rinses and for a variety
of  multi-stage  and countercurrent rinses.  Both ideal flows and
                              385

-------
flows  increased  by the 4.4 factor found in the lead subcategory
are shown for countercurrent rinses.

Number of      Required Rinse Water per Mass of Product (pnp)
Rinse                         (I/kg)
Stages         Multi-stage        	Countercurrent	

                  Ideal         Ideal       Adjusted        Rinse
                                                            Ratio

  1              1000         1000
  2                20           10            44.0          22.7
  3                 6.6          2.2           9.68        103.3
  4                 4.0          1.0           4.4         227.3
  5                 3.2          0.63          2.77        361.
  7                 2.6          0.37          1.63        613.
 10                 2.5          0.25          1.1         909.


Single  stage  rinse  flow  requirements  calculated  for   these
conditions  are  somewhat higher than those presently observed in
the battery manufacturing category.  The highest  reported  rinse
flow  is approximately 2000 I/kg,  and most are substantially less
than 1000 I/kg.  This indicates that the  cleanliness  level  has
been conservatively estimated.

In  general,  these  calculations confirm that extreme conditions
have  been  chosen  for  the  calculations  and  that  the   lead
subcategory  data  have  been transferred to rinsing requirements
more severe  in  terms  of  drag-out  and  cleanliness  than  any
presently  encountered  in  practice.   Therefore, countercurrent
rinse discharge flows  lower  than  those  calculated  should  be
attainable in all process elements in the category.

In  later  sections of this document it is necessary to calculate
the wastewater generation when countercurrent cascade rinsing  is
substituted  for  single  stage rinsing.  A rinse ratio of 6.6 is
used later for this calculation.  It is based on the  6.05  rinse
ratio found in existing lead subcategory plants with an allowance
of 10 percent added for increased efficiency obtained by improved
agitation.  As shown above, a rinse ratio of 22 would be expected
from  a  two  stage system and much higher ratios are obtained by
using additional stages.

Lead Subcategory Process Element In-Process Control Techniques

In this subcategory, some in-process control  technologies  which
significantly  reduce  pollutant discharge are commonly practiced
and  are  consequently  included  in   BPT   technology.    Other
                              386

-------
techniques  are  included  in  the BAT technology.  Some of these
control technologies are discussed below.

Process water uses in lead subcategory plants include leady oxide
production, paste preparation and applications, grid  manufacture
(including  mold  release  preparation and direct chill casting),
plate (electrode) curing, plate or battery formation, plate soak,
battery wash, floor wash,  wet  air  pollution  control,  battery
repair,  laboratory,  truck  wash, handwash, respirator wash, and
laundry.  The following discussions  address  waste  segregation,
recycle  and  reuse,  and other process modifications in the lead
subcategory process elements which will reduce the generation  of
process wastewater.

Leady Oxide Production - Leady oxide is produced either in a ball
mill  or  by  the  Barton  process.   The Barton process does not
generate process wastewater, but uses  noncontact  cooling  water
for  certain mechanical portions of the process.  Surface cooling
of ball mills does,  however,  generate  wastewater  because  the
water is contaminated by lead particles scrubbed from the ambient
air.   Process  change  can  eliminate this process wastewater by
several alternative procedures.  The first alternative is to shut
off the cooling water entirely, as the ball mills are observed to
be operated without cooling water.  A second  alternative  is  to
use  internal  cooling.   This  is  accomplished  by  the closely
controlled injection (spray) of water into the open  end  of  the
ball  mill.  The cooling water is evaporated in the ball mill and
passes out as water vapor through  the  baghouse  which  collects
lead dust.  Another alternative is to install water recirculation
equipment  for  shell  cooling  if  this  method  of  cooling  is
considered to be necessary.  This would require the  installation
of a water collection device, piping for return water to the ball
mill,  and  a  pump.   Still an additional alternative is to cool
only the trunion bearings of the ball  mill,  allowing  the  ball
mill  to be operated at a higher temperature and production rate.
This alternative requires a small amount  of  noncontact  process
wastewater  which  can  be  recirculated  or  routed  directly to
discharge.

Maintenance practices are observed to be important in eliminating
unnecessary leaks in  ball  mill  cooling  which  would  generate
contamination  of noncontact cooling water.  One lead subcategory
plant was observed to have a leaking  ball  mill  cooling  jacket
resulting  in increased volume of water to be treated and loss of
leady oxide material.

Good housekeeping practices are also  important  in  leady  oxide
production.   Reduction  in  spillage  in  bulk  handling  can be
                              387

-------
achieved using dust control and  rapid  dry  cleanup  of  spilled
materials.

Grid Manufacture - Grid Manufacture includes grid casting (making
battery  plate  grids  in a die casting type machine), connectors
and tabs (parts) casting, continuous strip (direct chill  or  DC)
casting  of  lead,  lead  rolling  and  mold release formulation.
Melting  furnaces  are  used  to  melt  the  lead,  scrubbers  or
baghouses  are  sometimes  used  to  control lead fumes, and mold
releases are often compounded on site  at  battery  manufacturing
plants.  Lead casting was performed at 32 of the 34 sites visited
before and after proposal.

Both  grid  casting  and  small  parts  casting  are performed by
cooling molten lead in dies, or molds.  Cooling water is used  to
cool  the  lead  indirectly by passing the water through the mold
without contacting the lead itself.  Many plants recirculate. this
cooling water in a closed loop system.  Some plants use a  glycol
indirect  heat  exchanger  as part of their closed cooling system
which generates neither process nor nonprocess wastewaters.

Grid casting requires the use of  mold  release  compounds  which
prevent  the molten lead from adhering to the mold surface.   Mold
release compound can either be purchased or  formulated  on-site;
most  plants  formulate  the  compound  on-site.  Commercial mold
releases  (both  cork-kerosene  and  silica-silicon   oil   based
formulations)  are  available.   Process  wastewater is generated
from mold release formulation by cleaning equipment after  mixing
batches  of  the  release  material.   No specific technology for
reducing the wastewater generated in mold release formulation has
been identified.

Direct chill lead casting uses a process which continuously melts
lead ingots, draws the solidifying molten lead through a die  and
sprays the die and lead strip directly with cooling water to cool
and  solidify  the  continuous  strip.   This  strip  is fed to a
rolling  mill  for  forming.   The  contact  cooling   water   is
continuously  recirculated with only an occassional (semi-annual)
blowdown to wastewater  treatment.   No  further  flow  reduction
techniques . have  been  identified.   An oil emulsion is used for
lubrication during  lead  rolling.   This  emulsion  is  contract
hauled  to offsite land disposal by all plants which perform lead
rolling in conjunction with battery manufacturing.

Melting  pots  are  used  by  all  plants  which   perform   grid
manufacture.  This operation only generates a wastewater from wet
air  scrubbers.   Flow  reduction for air scrubbers are discussed
below.
                              388

-------
Pasting - Recycle from paste preparation and application areas is
widespread.  These recycle systems commonly include settling  for
suspended  solids  removal  and operate as completely closed loop
systems  resulting  in  the  complete  elimination   of   process
wastewater discharge from this source.  Water is removed from the
recirculation  system  with the settled solids and by evaporation
resulting  in  a  negative  water  balance  and   requiring   the
introduction of fresh make-up water.  Water from the recirculated
wash-down  stream is sometimes used in the paste mixing operation
and ultimately is  evaporated  from  the  plates  in  drying  and
curing.   Fifty-seven  plants  in  the  subcategory reported zero
discharge  of  pasting  area  wastewater.   In  addition,  solids
recovery  is  practiced  at  many  plants  by reusing the settled
solids in the paste mix or shipping the solids to a smelter.

Curing - Curing may be performed by stacking plates with  ambient
curing,  the use of controlled temperature and humidity rooms, or
by the use of steam chests.  Discharges have been  observed  from
both  humidity-controlled and steam curing operations.  Discharge
flow control methods have also been observed.  Flow reduction  or
elimination  techniques  are  discussed  below  for  each  curing
method.

Humidity curing ovens sometimes  generate  a  process  wastewater
discharge.   This  discharge  may  be  eliminated by the use of a
variety of design alternatives.  A vendor of  humidity-controlled
ovens  maintains that these ovens may be operated in either a dry
or wet mode and still produce high quality cured plates.  The dry
mode eliminates any need for water and allows the use of existing
equipment for curing.

Internal recirculation of spray water can be  used  to  eliminate
the  discharge  of  wastewater  from  the  wet mode of operation.
Elevated temperatures (100-210°F) result in  the  loss  of  water
vapor  requiring  makeup  to  the  internal  collection area.  To
eliminate problems with spray nozzle  plugging,  various  in-line
filtration  devices and nozzles can be used to screen out or pass
particles.  Extended operation of this recirculation  system  may
result  in  the  accumulation  of  leady  oxide  particles in the
collection area.  This material may be periodically collected for
reclaim  at  a  smelter.   Membrane  evaporation  (simultaneously
passing  air through and water across a coarse membrane or cloth)
is also used for water distribution.  This method  precludes  the
need for filtration since spray nozzles are not used.

Drainage  water  from  the  humidity  oven may be directed to the
pasting area as makeup water for equipment  and  floor  washdown.
Some  plants  keep  their pasting area floors continuously wet to
suppress lead dust.  This practice evaporates  large  amounts  of
                              389

-------
water  and  can readily accomodate the typical 14 gph flow from a
curing oven.

All  of  the  water  reuse  and  discharge  reduction  techniques
outlined  above  have  been  observed  at visited battery plants.
Other techniques used to humidify air or  combinations  of  these
can be adapted to eliminate discharge from humidity curing ovens.

Another  approach  is  to  use  an  external water recycle design
configuration.  Drainage water from the curing oven is  collected
in  a  trench  at  the base of the oven, pumped to a holding tank
with a level control, and is subsequently returned to  the  spray
nozzles.  Settling in the holding tank plus in-line filtration is
used to prevent nozzle plugging.

Steam  curing  is  done by some plants which achieve faster plate
curing by the direct impingment of steam on the plates.  In  this
process,   steam   condenses   on   the  electrodes  producing  a
contaminated process wastewater.  This source of  wastewater  may
be  eliminated  by  the use of the more conventional "dry" curing
technique.  Alternatively, the process wastewater from curing may
be reused elsewhere in the process.

There are also a number of alternative ways to maintain  the  use
of  steam  curing  and  still  achieve  zero  discharge from this
operation.  Existing steam  curing  designs  generally  employ  a
water  sealed  chest.   The  steam  injected  into  the  chest is
subsequently vented to the plant atmosphere.  In this manner, the
temperature (and humidity) is controlled in the chest  by  virtue
of  the steam addition rate and steam properties (temperature and
pressure).

This discharge flow may be  avoided  altogether  by  the  use  of
electric  heaters  submerged  in  water-filled troughs inside the
steam chest.  Condensed steam  is  then  internally  recirculated
back   to   the   trough   for  re-evaporization.   Variation  of
temperature and relative humidity can be achieved by varying  the
wattage   employed   in  the  heating  elements.   As  a  similar
alternative, steam can be used as. the  heating  medium  for  the
curing  oven  humidification  water.   Once  again, with internal
recirculation of condensed steam, no discharge need be incurred.

Closed Formation (In-Case) -  Closed  formation  comprises  three
process  elements:   single fill, double fill, and fill and dump.
The wastewaters from each of these  elements  are  similar.   The
principal  wastewater  sources  are  (1)  electrolyte spills, (2)
battery case product rinse water,  (3) floor  area  and  equipment
washdown,  and  (4) contact cooling of battery cases during rapid
formation.  The type of formation process primarily  impacts  the
                              390

-------
need for battery rinsing and area equipment washdown.  Spills are
controllable  by proper filling procedures and good housekeeping;
area washdown water can be treated and recycled; battery  rinsing
can  be  minimized  and  reused;  contact  cooling  water  can be
recycled or obviated by  process  modification.   Each  of  these
control  techniques  as well as other in-process techniques which
impact closed formation are discussed below.

Spills - Electrolyte spills can be greatly reduced or  eliminated
by  the  use  of  proper filling techniques, such as automatic or
vacuum controlled filling  rather  than  overfill  and  withdraw.
Also, unavoidable spills can be collected, segregated, and reused
in  acid cutting.  This practice is performed in a number of lead
subcategory plants.

Product Rinsing - Product rinsing is  observed  predominately  at
plants   where  immersion  filling  techniques  are  used.   Flow
elimination is achieved by  minimization  of  water  use  in  the
rinsing  station  followed by reuse of the rinse in acid cutting.
These operations are discussed in more detail in the  discussions
of battery washing.

Equipment and Other Area Washdown - Floor area washdown water can
be minimized by the efficient use of power (vacuum pick up) floor
scrubbing  techniques.  Water volume reduction may be achieved by
proper maintenance of floors to  minimize  cracks  and  pores  in
which  spilled  materials  may  lodge.  Treated wastewater can be
used in floor wash hoses in the formation and other plant  areas.
This technique was observed during site visits.

Contact  Cooling  Water  -  The  formation process generates heat
which  must  be  removed  from  the  batteries  being  formed  if
acceptable  product quality is to be achieved.  The rate at which
this heat is generated depends upon the  charge  rate  (amperage)
and  the  size of the battery; the rate of heat accumulation is a
function of generation rate, area available for  dissipation  and
the  medium  used  for  heat transfer from the electrolyte.  When
batteries are formed rapidly as is practiced in some plants, heat
generation is so rapid that the batteries must  be  cooled  using
water  on  the  battery  cases.   This has been observed for both
small (SLI)  and  large  (industrial)  batteries.   This  contact
cooling  water  constitutes  a  significant  source of wastewater
discharge at these plants.

Flow reduction or elimination of  contact  cooling  water  during
formation  can be achieved in a number of ways.  The water can be
extensively  recycled  with  a  small  bleed  stream  removed  to
maintain a tolerable contaminant level.  The charging rate can be
                              391

-------
altered to eliminate the need for cooling water by slow charging,
or the use of controlled charging techniques.

Extensive  recycling  of  cooling water is practiced at one plant
visited.  To dissipate heat, a "cooling tank" is used in the area
where the cooling takes place.   Other  techniques  are  used  as
well, such as the addition of caustic to maintain a safe operable
pH  range.   To control metal (e.g., iron) contamination, a water
softener is used to treat a small portion of the recycled  water.
The  buildup  of iron, which presumably stains battery cases, can
also be avoided  by  the  use  of  epoxy; coatings  on  racks  or
conveyors  to eliminate corrosion, and control of contact cooling
water flow patterns.  Ultimately the recycle water  bleed  stream
can  be used in acid cutting, pasting area washdown, or as makeup
to the battery wash system.

Slow or Controlled Formation  -  A  number  of  closed  formation
techniques  are  used  in lead battery plants which eliminate the
need  for  cooling  water  during  formation.   Some   of   these
techniques  allow  for  forming  to take place at an overall rate
equal to or less than that rate  which  utilizes  cooling  water.
These  practices  include (1) slow rate formation,  (2) controlled
charge rate formation, (3) air cooling, and (4)  use  of  chilled
acid.   At  some  plants,  a  combination  of  these practices is
applied, such as controlled charging in tunnels with air cooling.
The convective passage of air over batteries during formation has
been observed to serve as a mechanism to convey acid fumes to  an
air scrubber as well as for heat dissipation.

The  primary  reduction in heat accumulation and maintenance of a
lower product temperature is due to charging rate control.   When
batteries  are charged more slowly, the heat is dissipated to the
atmosphere without the need for contact cooling water.  Formation
at a lower rate reduces gassing during formation and consequently
reduces acid load on wet air pollution control scrubbers as  well
as  the  extent  of  acid  contamination  of  battery  cases  and
formation areas and equipment.   The  additional  heat  generated
during  rapid,  uncontrolled  formation is a direct result of the
inefficient conversion of electrical energy to heat as opposed to
chemical reaction.  Slow, controlled formation will require  less
overall energy input to form a battery.

The  term  slow  formation  denotes a charging rate such that the
heat generated is adequately dissipated without cooling water and
the battery temperature is maintained so that battery quality  is
not  adversely  affected.  It does not require a specific forming
time.  Observations made  during  site  visits  demonstrate  that
batteries  can  be  formed  in  much  less  than 24 hours using a
combination of these techniques.
                              392

-------
Controlled charging denotes the use of current  variation  during
the  course  of  formation  to  maintain  acceptable  electrolyte
temperature.  Current variation is achieved manually, by  use  of
automatic  timing or small computer devices.  Controlled charging
was  observed  at  five  sites.   Overall
(formation)  times  varied  at  the  plants
product type) from 9 hours to a total of 72
time  has  an  associated  maximum  charge
hours.
  controlled   charging
   visited (for a given
   hours.    The  latter
  rate of  4 amps for 30
It was observed during site visits that batteries formed at lower
rates were predominantly stacked on stationary racks  as  opposed
to  conveyors.   It  was  stated at proposal that more floor area
would be required for slow formation which could last up to seven
days.  Based on information gathered, it is feasible for slow  or
controlled-charge  formation to be achieved in much less time and
without the  need  for  additional  building  space.   Concerning
additional  building  space  requirements, several factors may be
considered as follow:

     (1)  At sites where conveyors are used, they  were  observed
          to  have  sufficient  additional  floor  space  to  add
          stationary racks to handle  any  additional  in-process
          inventory where slow forming is instituted.

     (2)  If a site already uses racks and maintains  that  there
          is  no additional floor space available for more racks,
          then racks with additional levels can be used.  It  was
          observed  that  charging  racks  (for trickle charging)
          have been used with as many  as  15  batteries  stacked
          vertically.   More  usually,  batteries  are stacked in
          racks four to six batteries high.

     (3)  Based  on  observed  practices,  it  is  unlikely  that
          formation  duration  would need to be increased by more
          than about 50 percent if the  current  operation  at  a
          site  uses as long as 24 hours.  It is possible that no
          increase  be  incurred  at  all  if   the   appropriate
          technology  is used.  However, any anticipated increase
          in  in-process  inventory  can  easily  be  handled  by
          existing building space.
Contact  with  vendors  of  rectification
feasibility of using existing rectifiers
reconfiguring the charging circuits.
 equipment
for  slow
confirms the
charging  by
Plant  Water  Balance  -  Several closed formatipn procedures are
employed in the production of  wet  and  damp  charged  batteries
(single  fill,  double  fill,  and  fill  and  dump) resulting in
                              393

-------
significant variations in wastewater  discharge  flow  rate.   In
addition  to  the difference between wet and damp charged battery
formation, formation processes differ in the concentration of the
formation electrolyte and in the rate of charging.  All of  these
variations  are  observed  to  have  an  influence  on wastewater
discharge from the formation process and  from  the  plant  as  a
whole.

The  formation  of  damp charged batteries concludes with dumping
the formation acid from  the  battery  which  is  shipped  empty.
Although  no  process  wastewater is directly discharged from the
electrolyte dumping operations, the production of damp  batteries
influences wastewater discharge in two ways.  First, the practice
of  dumping  acid from the batteries increases the amount of acid
contamination of the outside of the battery case.   This  effect,
however,  is  also  observed  in  double  fill  closed formation.
Second, since the batteries are shipped  dry,  electrolyte  usage
on-site  is  significantly  reduced.   This reduces the amount of
water needed in acid cutting and therefore the  potential  amount
of process wastewater which may be used in battery acid cutting.

Closed  formation  may  be  accomplished using dilute electrolyte
which is subsequently dumped and replaced with more  concentrated
acid  for  shipment  with  the battery.  This double-fill process
allows maximum formation rates, but increases the extent of  acid
contamination  of  battery  cases.  Battery wash requirements are
consequently increased as well.  As an alternative, batteries may
be formed using acid which is  sufficiently  concentrated  to  be
shipped  with  the  battery  after  formation has been completed.
This single fill battery formation  process  is  widely  used  in
present  practice,  and  is most amenable to wastewater discharge
reduction.  No significant differences in product characteristics
between  batteries  formed  by  single  fill  and   double   fill
techniques are reported.

Open  Formation  - Open formation is performed by charging plates
in open tanks of electrolyte.  These  plates  may  then  also  be
assembled and placed into cases followed by filling the case with
electrolyte  for  shipping;  this  is  open  wet formation.  Open
dehydrated formation requires  rinsing  and  drying  the  charged
plates prior to assembly and shipping.

Both  open  wet  and  open  dehydrated  formations incur the same
potential sources of wastewater  during  formation:   electrolyte
spills,  area  and  equipment  washdown, and electrolyte dumping.
Electrolyte spills can be reduced or avoided by careful  filling;
this  will also result in a reduced need for area washdown water.
As in  closed  formation,  spill  collection  mechanisms  can  be
                              394

-------
instituted  such  as  catch trays beneath the forming table which
direct the spills to a common collection tank.

As in closed formation, area washdown which is usually  performed
with  hoses  can  utilize treated wastewater.  Equipment washdown
can also be performed with treated wastewater; one plant  visited
performed both functions with treated wastewater.

Open   formation  electrolyte  is  dumped  periodically  after  a
specified number of formation cycles are performed.  Some  plants
were observed to reuse this acid in wet battery filling and boost
charging which would eliminate the discharge.

In  addition to the above sources of wastewater, dehydrated plate
formation generates"wastewater from plate rinsing and from  plate
dehydrating.   Some  plants  also  rinse  plates  after  open wet
formation, however, the flows from these rinsing  operations  are
substantially  lower  than  flows  from open dehydrated formation
plate rinsing.  Thorough rinsing is required in  open  dehydrated
formation to remove residual sulfuric acid from the formed plates
and  this operation characteristically produces a large volume of
wastewater.  Water  is used in dehydration of the plates either in
ejectors used to maintain a vacuum and enhance drying or  in  the
water seals of vacuum pumps used for the same purpose.

Plate  rinse  water  is  generally the major source of wastewater
from a lead battery plant making dehydrated batteries.  This flow
can be reduced by   the  use  of  countercurrent  cascade  rinsing
techniques  discussed earlier in this section.  Currently, plants
vary widely in rinsing techniques, from  single  step  continuous
flowing  rinses  to multiple stage countercurrent rinsing.  Plate
rinse water use can be substantially reduced or  even  eliminated
by using treated wastewater as was done at one plant visited.

Wastewater   from   vacuum   pump  seals  and  ejectors  used  in
dehydrating formed  plates for use in dry charged  batteries  also
may be extensively  recycled.  Since the level of contamination in
waste  streams  from  this  use  is  low, recycle may drastically
reduce the high volume  discharges  presently  produced  at  some
facilities.

While  rinsing  and drying the plates is an indispensable part of
the formation process,  plate  dehydration  can  be  accomplished
without  the  use.  of  ejector  or  vacuum pump seal water.  Oven
drying without process water use  for  the  dehydration  of  dry-
charged  plates was observed, and approximately 85 percent of all
plants producing dehydrated plate batteries showed no  wastewater
discharge  from dehydration of the plates.  Oxidation of negative
plates during the heat drying process may be  controlled  by  the
                              395

-------
introduction  of  inert  or  reducing atmospheres into the drying
ovens, as observed at one site visited.

Plate Soaking - Plate soaking is an operation which is  performed
after  curing  and  prior  to  formation in order to enhance lead
oxide sulfation  and  to  allow  the  heat  of  sulfation  to  be
dissipated  before  charging  or  formation  is  begun.   This is
generally performed on thick battery plates approximately 0.25 cm
(0.10 inch) as opposed to thinner  battery  plates.   Plates  are
soaked   in   an  open  tank  of  acid  which  must  be  replaced
periodically.  Discharges from this operation may include spills,
area hosedown, tank cleaning, and acid dumping.

As in open formation, careful loading and draining of the  soaked
plates  will  minimize  spills  as  well as the need for hosedown
water.   Hosedown  water  and  tank  cleaning  can   be   treated
wastewater,  thus  eliminating'  any  additional  discharge.  Acid
dumping to treatment should only occur when the  product  mix  at
the  plant  will  not  allow  its use in other products and after
extensive reuse.

Battery Washing and Rinsing - Battery washing is the water  using
activity associated with preparation of the battery for shipping.
Battery washing may be performed using a detergent or using water
only.  Battery washing using water only is performed primarily to
remove  sulfuric  acid spilled on the outside of the battery case
while washing (using a detergent) is used to remove acid, oil and
grease and other soil.  Battery rinsing with water also has  been
observed  to be used as part of the forming operations (sometimes
referred to as product rinse) to remove the acid  from  immersing
or  overfilling  the  battery  or  dumping  electrolyte  from the
battery.  The wastewater  from  rinsing  the  batteries  contains
acid, lead, and other contaminants from process conveyors, racks,
or floors over which the acidic water has contacted.

Reduction  or  elimination of the wastewater generated by battery
washing or rinsing may be  accomplished  by  using  manufacturing
processes  which  require  less  cleaning of the battery case, by
reducing the water used for washing or rinsing,  and  by  reusing
some  or all of the water used for washing or rinsing.  Batteries
can be filled manually, automatically or semi-automatically  with
vacuum  type  injection filling devices which fill the battery to
the correct level.  Well operated injection  filling  methods  do
not require immediate rinsing.

Immersion   filling   (immersing   the  batteries  in  a  vat  of
electrolyte)  results  in  the   battery   case   being   heavily
contaminated  with  acid and requires rinsing.  Immersion filling
is used by about one third of the  visited  plants  and  for  all
                              396

-------
types  of closed formation.  Where double fill formation is used,
some plants use injection filling initially and immersion for the
second fill with a rinse associated only with the immersion fill.
Where immersion filling is performed  twice,  the  batteries  are
rinsed twice.

From site visits,  about twice as many operations use an injection
filling  method as opposed to immersion.  All plants which have a
rinse associated with filling and formation use only water so  as
not  to contaminate the electrolyte with detergent when immersed.
The  water  from  rinsing  after  filling,  or  topping  off  (an
additional  filling  step  sometimes  used  to  ensure the proper
electrolyte  level),  can  be  controlled  and  reused  in  other
manufacturing  processes.   Some plants with immersion filling do
not recycle the water at the  rinsing  station.   This  could  be
achieved  by  installation of a small tank and some return piping
to the spray nozzles.  Overflow is then  collected  in  a  holdup
tank  until acid cutting operations are performed - usually about
once a week.  This requires a tank and  overhead  piping  to  the
acid cutting area.

Samples   taken   at  one  site,  demonstrated  that  most  metal
concentrations were well  below  engineering  specifications  for
acid  cutting  water.   Metals  present  at  concentrations above
engineering specifications can be chemically removed  or  diluted
to  suitable  concentrations with fresh water.  If the mechanisms
discussed  below  for  minimizing  water  use  in   rinsing   are
implemented, all of the diluted rinse water can be reused in acid
cutting.  In the case of rinsing after filling, continuous makeup
of water to the rinse cycle serves to only dilute the electrolyte
being  rinsed  off.   Therefore,  for  rinsing  operations in the
formation area the overflow should be suitable for acid  cutting.
The  required  holdup  period  of about a week would also provide
plant personnel time to assay the chemical species of concern  in
two collected rinse waters prior to using each batch of water for
acid cutting.

The primary mechanisms for minimizing water use in rinsing are:

     (1)  Use of a switching device (mechanical or electronic) to
          stop the flow  of  water  to  the  spray  nozzles  when
          batteries are not actually being rinsed.  This practice
          was observed at several plants visited.

     (2)  Use of  the  appropriate  types  of  spray  nozzles  to
          properly disperse the rinse water.

     (3)  Use of recycle at the rinse stations and overflow to  a
          collection tank for water reuse.
                              397

-------
Some  plants  were  found to run water continuously through spray
nozzles and some do not use spray nozzles.  One plant  discharges
rinse  water to the on-site wastewater treatment system after the
volume necessary for acid cutting is fulfilled.  This  plant  did
not  employ  a  recycle mechanism and used an excessive amount of
water for rinsing.

The mechanisms for r'ecycle, segregation,  and  reuse  of  battery
rinse  water  as a finishing step are .the same as those described
above for battery  rinsing  after  filling  operations.   Usually
smaller  battery  products,  such  as  SLI  batteries  are washed
automatically in a  conveyor  spray  mechanism.   Industrial  and
specialty  batteries  are  generally  hosed down by hand prior to
finishing since they are produced in smaller numbers than the SLI
batteries.  Water recirculation and reuse can  be  instituted  in
hand  washing  or using stations similarly to those described for
automatic or machine washing.

Five visited plants use detergent  wash  systems  with  automatic
spray  washers.   Some  washing  lines  comprise an initial water
rinse to remove acid, then a detergent wash, and  a  final  water
rinse; others do not include the initial water rinse.

Segregation  and reuse of initial battery rinse water is feasible
for the automatic detergent washer  system.   This  can  be  done
using  recycle  and  collection  systems for routing the water to
acid  cutting.   Water  contaminated  with  detergent  has   been
reported  by  lead  battery  manufacturers  to  be unsuitable for
process-related reuse.  Water use can be minimized,  however,  by
using  the  final rinse as makeup to the detergent portion of the
system.

Some lead battery manufacturing operations  do  not  use  battery
washing  or  rinsing  procedures.   This  largely  stems from two
conditions!  (1) the plant  utilizes  extensive  contact  cooling
during   closed  forming  operations  which  acts  as  a  rinsing
operation, or (2) dehydrated batteries are produced.  Some plants
use dry  battery  production  techniques  and  still  maintain  a
washing operation.

Floorwash - Floor washing procedures include the use of hoses for
general   area  washdown,  buckets  and  mops  for  miscellaneous
cleanup, and power (vacuum) scrubbers  for  general  plant  floor
area cleanup.

To  achieve  minimization  of  floor wash pollutant discharge the
following measures can be taken:
                              398

-------
     (1)  settle power scrubber solids prior to  treatment;  this
          water  has  been assayed to contain high concentrations
          of suspended lead

     (2)  dry vacuum major dry spills such as in the leady  oxide
          production  area,  or  pasting  area.   This  has  been
          observed during one site visit

     (3)  use treated wastewater in hoses for general washdown

Wet Air Pollution Control -  Wet  air  pollution  control  (WAPC)
devices are reported to be used in lead battery plants to varying
degrees   in  the  following  process  activities:   leady  oxide
production,  grid  manufacture,   pasting,   formation,   battery
assembly,  battery washing, boost charging, acid mixing, painting
(of cases) and laboratories.

The scrubbers reported for battery washing and acid mixing are at
sites associated with one Corporation and are now used as  static
demisters  without use of or generation of water.  The site using
a boost charging scrubber utilizes recycle of  coalescer-demister
washdown  water  with  caustic addition, incurring infrequent low
volume  blowdown  to  treatment.   No  information  is  available
concerning the paint fume scrubber.

Two types of scrubbers were identified being used in lead battery
manufacturing plants.  These are; (1) a static vessel of scrubber
water,  or internally recirculated water, through which fumes are
sparged and (2) an acid mist or fume coalescer with  intermittent
washdown.    The   static  vessel  design  typifies  leady  oxide
production,  grid  manufacture,  battery  assembly,  and  pasting
applications;  the  latter  design  typifies  formation  area air
scrubbing.

The static and  internally  recirculated  designs  are  from  two
different  manufacturers  but  both  result in the same effective
wastewater  generation  rates  and  blowdown  requirements.   The
static  design  uses an induced draft system to pull the fumes to
be controlled into a vessel of water.  Submerged  baffles  direct
the  air  stream  through the water layer and subsequently to the
atmosphere via a demister.  No overflow is usually  required  and
makeup  is needed for water lost by evaporation and entrainment in
the  air  stream.   Some plants, however, steadily drain the tank
while adding fresh makeup water.        ,

The internal recirculation design reported recirculation. of  the
scrubbing water through a set of baffles above the water layer to
impinge  particulates  and absorb acid fumes.  As with the static
design, a demister removes most or all of  the  entrained  water,
                              399

-------
requiring  little makeup.  Also, in current practice, these tanks
are sometimes steadily drained and fresh water is added.

The primary function of these static and  internal  recirculation
scrubber   designs  is  to  remove  acid  mists  and  to  collect
particulates.  They are used on ball mills,  lead  melting  pots,
and  paste  mixers  and  collect  lead  particles  which  can  be
reclaimed.  The predominate use of WAPC for paste mixing  in  the
lead subcategory is as a precaution to avoid corrosion due to the
possibility of acid in the paste mixing fumes.

Baghouses  have  been  observed  in  use  on  ball  mills, Barton
process, paste mixers, and lead melt  pots.   When  they  can  be
used,  they preclude the generation of wastewater.  Baghouses are
observed on paste mixing in order to recover and reuse lead dust.
Acid in fumes from paste mixing and application does not  appear,
probably because of the neutralizing effect of lead oxides.

In  summary,  there  are several ways to minimize water flow from
static, batch WAPC scrubbers:

     (1)  Use of baghouses which is demonstrated in  leady  oxide
          production, pasting, and casting.

     (2)  Use an alkali to periodically adjust the pH in the tank
          to avoid equipment corrosion.  This eliminates the need
          for continuous blowdown and allows batch dumping  semi-
          annually.

     (3)  Use an external recycle system with a settling tank  to
          collect  bulk  residuals  which accumulate.  This would
          still allow batch dumping of  the  stream  water  semi-
          annually.

One particular scrubber design is typically used in the formation
area  by  lead  subcategory plants.  All major corporation plants
which reported the use of a wet scrubber reported this  type  and
no other type was reported at all.

In this type of scrubber, sulfuric acid fumes are scrubbed by two
mechanisms.   In the first mechanism, the centrifugal action of a
fan removes about 60 percent of the sulfuric acid in the incoming
air stream.  In the second mechanism, the air  passes  through  a
mesh  arrangement  where  the remaining acid fumes coalesce.  The
overall sulfuric acid removal efficiency  is  above  98  percent.
The  vendor  of this system indicated that the scrubber should be
operated  dry  with  intermittent  washdown  of  the  mesh   when
scrubbing sulfuric acid fumes.  The vendor also indicated that at
some battery sites, a fine water spray is used in the fan section
                              400

-------
of  the  scrubber.  The vendor indicated that this water spray is
unnecessary when scrubbing sulfuric acid  fumes.   Sulfuric  acid
has a high molecular weight, consequently, the centrifugal action
of  the  fan is sufficient to separate the sulfuric acid from the
low molecular weight air  stream.   The  water  spray  stream  is
unnecessary.

The  sites  reporting  data  vary  in  how mesh washdown water is
handled, plus  some  sites  report  no  washdown  at  all.   This
difference  is  believed  to  result  entirely from the manner in
which the mesh washdown is handled.  Current washdown practice is
largely represented by the use of once-through discharge designs.
According to vendor-specified washdown techniques,  a  plant  can
recycle  this  water,  with  or without the use of an alkali, and
maintain a minimum blowdown rate without resulting  in  equipment
corrosion.   The use of an alkali addition was reported to reduce
the necessary blowdown rate by a factor of 100.

Based on observed and reported design  and  operating  practices,
the  following  alternative  flow  minimization techniques can be
used with this type of scrubbing system:

     (1)  Do not use a water  spray,  as  this  practice  is  not
          necessary when scrubbing sulfuric acid fumes.

     (2)  Do not use a washdown, as some plants report  only  the
          use  of  the mesh to impinge and coalesce acid droplets
          resulting in negligible flow.

     (3)  Use external recirculation with  no  caustic  addition,
          and use the blow down in acid cutting, plate rinsing or
          other processes.

     (4)  Use external  recirculation  with  alkali  addition  to
          control pH and use the minimum required blowdown rate.

Virtually all plants use laboratories for quality control checks.
Part of the laboratory equipment is a hood for ventilation during
certain  tests  which  generate .lead dust or fumes.  At two sites
WAPC scrubbers were observed being used to control emissions from
these hoods.  These  scrubbers  are  operated  intermittently  in
conjunction  with  the  hood  operation.   One  plant  operates a
recirculating scrubber which incurs an intermittent overflow from
the recirculation tank to treatment as a result  of  fresh  water
addition.   The  other  plant  operates  the  scrubber in a once-
through  mode.   Flow  minimization  for   laboratory   scrubbers
comprises  operation of the scrubber (i.e., water flow) only when
the hood is operated.
                              401

-------
Truck Wash - Trailers are used for hauling finished batteries  to
distribution,  batteries  to repair facilities and for other non-
secondary lead related activities.  These trailers are  sometimes
washed  down on-site.  A mechanism for reducing overall water use
is to conduct the washdown procedure in two  phases:   the  first
phase  would  use treated wastewater to remove contamination, and
the second phase would use fresh water  to  avoid  any  dissolved
salt buildup.

Lead Subcateqory Other Iji-Process Control Techniques

Material  Recovery  - The recovery of particulate lead oxide from
paste preparation and application wastes is a common practice  at
lead  subcategory  plants which reduces both wastewater pollutant
loads and the mass  of  solid  waste  requiring  disposal.   This
material  is  generally  recovered by settling from the equipment
and area wash water as a part of treatment  of  this  stream  for
recycle.   Approximately  30  percent  of lead subcategory plants
reuse the settled solids directly in paste formulation.

Plant Maintenance and Good Housekeeping  -  At  lead  subcategory
plants,  maintenance  and  housekeeping  practices  are  of great
importance for the implementation of the other in-process control
measures which have been previously discussed.  Recycle and reuse
are especially dependent on the exclusion  of  contaminants  from
the   process   water  streams.   In  addition,  effective  plant
maintenance and housekeeping practices may  reduce  or  eliminate
some  process  wastewater  sources.  Plant maintenance practices,
such as (1) epoxy coating of racks and  equipment  which  contact
process  wastewater  and  (2)  containment  of  the wastewater to
minimize such contact, reduce the extent  of  contamination  with
materials  inimical  to  further  use of the water.  In addition,
these measures minimize corrosion by the  acidic  wastewater  and
extend the useful life of production equipment.

Both lead and sulfuric acid are hazardous materials which must be
controlled  in  the work place,  At\some plants, large quantities
of water are used  and  wastewater  'discharged  in  washing  down
production  areas to control workers exposure to these materials.
This water use may be substantially reduced or eliminated by  the
application  of  plant  maintenance and housekeeping practices to
reduce spillage and loss of these materials and by the use of dry
or water efficient cleanup techniques.

Control  of  lead  dust  within  the  plant  also  represents   a
significant water use at some plants where production floor areas
are  washed  down  with  hoses  or  other  similarly  inefficient
techniques.  The use of proper material  handling  techniques  to
minimize  the  dust  problem  and dry clean-up or water efficient
                              402

-------
cleanup  techniques  can  reduce  or  eliminate  the  volume   of
discharge  from this source.  Examples of water efficient cleanup
techniques include floor wash machines and bucket and  mop  floor
washing.

Equipment   maintenance  may  also  contribute  significantly  to
wastewater discharge reduction.  At one plant, a leaking  cooling
jacket  on  a  ball mill resulted in contamination of non-contact
cooling water with lead creating an additional process wastewater
discharge.  In addition, leaks in pumps and piping used to handle
electrolyte  are  likely  because  of  the  corrosive  nature  of
sulfuric  acid and may constitute a source of pollutant discharge
and necessitate the use of water for washing down affected areas.
Proper maintenance of this equipment can minimize discharge  from
this source.
                              403

-------
            TABLE VII-1
pH CONTROL EFFECT ON METALS REMOVAL
pH Range
(mg/1)
TSS
Copper
Zinc
Day 1
In
2.4-3.4

39
312
250
Out
8.5-8.7

8
0.22
0.31
Day
In
1 .0-3.0

16
120
. 32.5
2
Out
5.0-6.0

19
5.12
25.0
Day
In
2.0-5.0

16
107
43.8
3
Out
6.5-8.1

7
0.66
0.66
TABLE VI 1-2
EFFECTIVENESS
pH Range
(mg/1)
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mn
Ni
Zn
TSS
Day 1
In
2.1-2.9
0.097
0.063
9.24
1 .0
0.11
0.077
.054
1
OF SODIUM
Out
9.0-9.3
0.0
0.018
0.76
0.11
0.06
0.011
0.0
3
HYDROXIDE
Day
In
2.0-2.4
0.057 ,
0.078
15.5
1 .36
0.12
0.036
0.12

FOR METALS
2
Out
8.7-9. 1
0.005
0.014
0.92
0.13
0.044
0.009
0.0
11
REMOVAL
Day
In
2.0-2.4
0.068
0.053
9.41
1 .45
0.11
0.069
0. 19


3
Out
8.6-9.1
0.005
0.019
0.95
0.11
0.044
0.011
0.037
1 1
               404

-------
                         TABLE VI1-3           ,  '
EFFECTIVENESS OF LIME AND SODIUM HYDROXIDE FOR METALS REMOVAL
Day
In
pH Range 9.2-9,6
(mg/1)
Al 37.3
Co 3.92
Cu 0.65
Fe 137
Mn 175
Ni 6.86
Se 28.6
Ti 143
Zn 18.5
TSS 4390

THEORETICAL
OF

Metal
Cadmium (Cd++)
Chromium (Cr-*-**)
Cobalt (Co++)
Copper (Cu**)
Iron (Fe++)
Lead (Pb++)
Manganese (Mn++)
Mercury (Hg++)
Nickel (Ni++)
Silver (Ag+)
Tin 
-------
                         TABLE VII-5

                 SAMPLING DATA FROM SULFIDE
            PRECIPITATION-SEDIMENTATION SYSTEMS
Treatment
Lime, FeS, Poly-
electrolyte,
Settle, Filter
Lime, FeS, Poly-
electrolyte,
Settle, Filter
NaOH, Ferric
Chloride,  Na2S
Clarify (1 stage)
pH
(mg/1
Cr+6
Cr
Cu
Fe
Ni
Zn
These

In Out
5.0-6.8 8-9
)
25.6 <0.014
32.3 <0.04
0.52 0.10
39.5 <0.07
data were obtained from
Summary Report, Control
Metal Finishing Industry:
In Out
7.7 7.38
0.022 <0.020
2.4 <0.1
108 0.6
0.68 <0.1
33.9 '0.01
three sources:
In Out

11.45 <.005
18.35 <.005
0.029 0.003
0.060 0.009

and Treatment Technology for the
Sulfide Precipitation,
USEPA, EPA
     No. 625/8/80-003, 1979.

     Industrial Finishing, Vol. 35, No. 11, November,  1979.

     Electroplating sampling data from plant 27045.
                              406

-------
                         TABLE VII-6

      SULFIDE PRECIPITATION-SEDIMENTATION PERFORMANCE

           Parameter               Treated Effluent
                                       Cmg/1)

               Cd                     0.01
               Cr (T)                 0.05
               Cu                     0.05

               Pb                     0.01
               Hg                     0.03
               Ni                     0.05

               Ag                     0.05
               Zn                     0.01


Table VI1-6 is based on two reports:

     Summary Report, Control and  Treatment  Technology  for  the
     Metal Finishing Industry;  Sulfi.de Precipitation, USEPA, EPA
     No. 625/8/80-003, 1979.

     Addendum  to  Development  Document for Effluent Limitations
     Guidelines  and  New  Source  Performance  Standards,  Major
     Inorganic   Products  Segment  of  Inorganics  Point  Source
     Category, USEPA., EPA Contract No.  EPA-68-01-3281 (Task 7),
     June, 1978.
                              407

-------
                           Table VI1-7

              FERRITE CO-PRECIPITATION PERFORMANCE

Metal               Influent(mg/l)           Effluent(mg/1)

Mercury                  7.4                      0,001
Cadmium                240                        0,008
Copper                  10                        0.010

Zinc                    18                        0.016
Chromium                10                       <0.010
Manganese               12                        0.007

Nickel               1,000                        0.200
Iron                   600                        0.06
Bismuth                240                        0.100

Lead                   475                        0.010
NOTE; These data are froms
Sources and Treatment of Wastewater in the Nonferrous
Metals Industry, USEPA, EPA No. 600/2-80-074, 1980.
                           TABLE VI1-8

                 CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL CYANIDE


Plant

1057



33056


12052

Mean

Method
FeS04


FeS04

ZnSO4


(mg/1)
In
2.57
2.42
3.28
0, 14
0.16
0.46
0. 12


Out
0.024
0.015
0.032
0.09
0.09
0.14
0.06
0.07
                              408

-------
Plant ID »

  06097
  13924

  18538
  30172
  36048
     mean
          Table VI1-9

MULTIMEDIA FILTER PERFORMANCE

            TSS EffluentConcentration, mg/1
0.
1 .
3.
1 .
1 .
2.
2.
0,
8,
o,
0
4,
1,
61
0.
2.
2.
7.
2.
o,
2,
o,
o,
6,
0.
5.
5.
1 .
1 .
5
6, 4.0, 4.0, 3.0, 2.
6, 3.6, 2.4, 3.4
0
5
                                            2, 2.8
                        TABLE VII-10
        PERFOEMANCE OF SELECTED SETTLING SYSTEMS
PLANT ID


01057
09025


11058
12075

19019

33617

40063
44062
46050

SETTLING
DEVICE

Lagoon
Clarifier &
Settling
Ponds
Clarifier
Settling
Pond
Settling
Tank
Clarifier &
Lagoon
Clarifier
Clarifier
Settling
Tank
SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION (mg/1)
Day 1
In
54
1100


451
284

170

-

4390
182
295


Out
6
9


17
6

1

—

9
13
10

Day
In
56
1900


—
242

50

1662

3595
118
42

2
Out
6
12


—
10

1

16

12
14
10

Day 3
In
50
1620


—
502

-

1298

2805
174
153


Out
5
5


—
14

-

4

13
23
8

                              409

-------
                          Table VII-11

                      SKIMMING PERFORMANCE

                              Oil & Grease
                                 mg/1

Plant     Skimmer-Type        In             Out

06058        API         224,669             17.9
06058        Belt             19.4            8.3
                              410

-------
                          TABLE VII-12

                 SELECTED PARITION COEFFICIENTS

                              Log Octanol/Water
Priority Pollutant            Partition Coefficient

        1   Acenaphthene               4.33
       11   1,1,1-Trichloroethane      2.17
       13  1,1-Dichloroethane         1.79
       15  1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane  2.56
       18  Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether    1.58
       23  Chloroform                 1.97
       29  1,1-Dichloroethylene       1.48
       39  Fluoranthene               5.33
       44  Methylene chloride         1.25
       64  Pentachlorophenol          5.01
       66  Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
            phthalate                 8.73
       67  Butyl benzyl phthalate     5.80
       68  Di-n-butyl phthalate       5.20
       72  Benzo( a) anthracene         5.61.
       73  Benzo(a)pyrene             6.04
       74  3,4-benzofluoranthene      6.57
       75  Benzo(k)fluoranthene       6.84
       76  Chrysene                   5.61
       77  Acenaphthylene             4.07
       78  Anthracene                 4.45
       79  BenzoCghi)perylene         7.23
       80  Fluorene                   4.18
       81   Phenanthrene               4.46
       82  Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene     5.97
       83  Indeno(1,2,3,cd)pyrene     7.66
       84  Pyrene                     5.32
       85  Tetrachloroethylene        2.88
       86  Toluene                    2.69
                              411

-------
                          TABLE VI1-13

                TRACE ORGANIC REMOVAL BY SKIMMING'
                     API PLUS BELT SKIMMERS
                       (From Plant 06058)

                                   Inf.
                                   mg/1

Oil & Grease                    225,000           14.6
Chloroform                            0.023        0.007
Methylene Chloride                    0.013        0.012

Naphthalene                           2.31         0.004
N-nitrosodiphenylamine               59.0          0.182
Bis-2-ethylhexyl phthalate           11.0          0.027

Diethyl phthalate
Butylbenzyl phthalate                 0%005        0.002
Di-n-octyl phthalate                  0.'019        0.002

Anthracene - phenanthrene            16.4          0.014
Toluene                               0.02         0.012
                          Table VII-14

           COMBINED METALS DATA EFFLUENT VALUES (mg/1)
                       One Day     10 Day Avg.     30 Day Avg,
              Mean       Max.          Max.             Max.
Cd            0.079    0.34        0.15            0.13
Cr            0.084    0.44        0.18            0.12
Cu            0.58     1.90        1.00-            0.73

Pb            0.12     0.42        0.20            0.16
Ni            0.74     1.92        1.27            1.00
Zn            0.33     1.46        0.61            0.45

Fe            0.41     1.20        0.61            0.50
Mn            0.16     0.68        0.29            0.21
TSS          12.0     41.0        19.5            15.5
                              412

-------
                          TABLE VII-15
                         L&S PERFORMANCE
                      ADDITIONAL POLLUTANTS
     Pollutant                          Average Performance (mg/1)

     Sb                                      0.7
     As                                      0.51
     Be                                      0.30

     Eg                                      0.06
     Se                                      0.30
     Ag                                      0.10

     Tl                                      0.50
     Al                                      2.24
     Co                                      0.05
     F                                      14.5
                          TABLE VII-16

        'COMBINED METALS DATA SET - UNTREATED WASTEWATER


Pollutant           Min. Cone (rnq/1)         Max. Cone. (mg/1)

Cd                       <0.1                     3.83
Cr                       <0.1                   116
Cu                       <0.1                   108

Pb                       <0.1                    29.2
Ni                       <0.1                    27.5
Zn                       <0.1                   337.

Fe                       <0.1                   263
Mn                       <0.1                     5.98
TSS                       4.6                  4390
                              413

-------
                          TABLE VII-17
         MAXIMUM POLLUTANT LEVEL IN UNTREATED WASTEWATER
                      ADDITIONAL POLLUTANTS
                             (mg/1)


Pollutant      As & Se        Be        Ag        F          Sb

Sb
As
Be
Cd

Cr
Cu
Pb

Ni
Ag
Zn

F
Fe

O&G
TSS
4
<0
0
33
6


3


16
352
.2
.1
.18
.2
.5
_
-
,62
_
—
.9

10.24
—
8.60
1 .24
0.35
_
-
0.12
_
646
_
796
-
<0.1
0.23
110.5
11 .4
100
4.7
1512
_
—
'16
587.8
_
<0.1
22.8
2.2
5.35
0.69
_
<0.1
760
—
2.8
5.6
8.5
0.024
0.83
_
0.41
76.0
_
_
0.53
_
—
_
134
                              414

-------
                          TABLE VII-18
      PRECIPITATION-SETTLING-FILTRATION  (LS&F) PERFORMANCE
                             Plant A
Parameters
No Pts.
 Range mg/1
For 1979-Treated Wastewater
     Cr
     Cu
     Ni
     Zn
     Fe
 47
 12
 47
 47
0.015
0.01
0.08
0.08
0.13
0.03
0.64
0.53
For 1978-Tireated Wastewater
     Cr
     Cu
     Ni
     Zn
     Fe  ..

Raw Waste

     Cr
     Cu
     Ni
     Zn
     Fe
 47
 28
 47
 47
 21
  5
  5
  5
  5
  5
0.01
0.005
0.10
0.08
0.26
32.0
0.08
1 .£5
33.2
10.0
- 0.07
- 0.055
- 0.92
- 2.35
-1.1
- 72.0
- 0.45
- 20.0
- 32.0
-95.0
       Mean +_
       std. dev.
0.045 +0.029
0.019 +0.006
0.22  +0.13
0.17  +0.09
               0.06  +_0.10
               0.016 +0.010
               0.20  +0.14
               0.23  +_0.34
               0.49  +0.18
             Mean + 2
             std. dev,
0.10
0.03
0.48
0.35
                      0.26
                      0.04
                      0.48
                      0.91
                      0.85
                              415

-------
                    TABLE VI1-19
           >>  •                 :


PRECIPITATION-SETTLING-FILTRATION (LS&F) PERFORMANCE

                       Plant B
Parameters
For 1






For 1





Total
•




No Pts.
Range mq/1
Mean +_
std. dev.
Mean + 2
std. dev.
979-Treated Wastewater
Cr
Cu
Ni
Zn
Fe
TSS
175
176
175
175
174
2
0.0
0.0
0.01
0.01
0.01.
1 .00
- 0.
- 0.
- 1 .
- 0.
- 2.
- 1 .
40
22
49
66
40
00
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.

068
024
219
054
303

+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.

075
021
234
064
398

0.
0.
0.
0.
1 .

22
07
69
18
10

978-Treated Wastewater
Cr
Cu
Ni
Zn
Fe
1974-1
Cr
Cu
Ni
Zn
Fe
144
143
143
131
144 .
979-Treated
1288
1290
1287
1273
1287
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
- 0.
- 0.
- 1 .
- 0.
- 1 .
70
23
03
24
76
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
059
017
147
037
200
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
088
020
142
034
223
0.
0.
0.
' 0.
0.
24
06
43
1 1
47
Wastewater
0.0
0.0
0.0 .
0.0
0.0
- 0.
- 0.
- 1 .
- 0.
- 3.
56
23
88
66
15
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
038
on
184
035
402
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
055
016
211
045
509
0.
0.
0.
0.
1 .
15
04
60
13
42
Raw Waste






Cr
Cu
Ni
Zn
Fe
TSS
3
3
3
2
'3
2 1
2.80
0.09
1 .61
2.35
3.13
77
— 9
- o!
- 4.
- 3.
-35.
-466.
15
27
89
39
9

5.
0.
3.

22.

90
17
33

4

























                        416

-------
                          TABLE VII-20

      PRECIPITATION-SETTLING-FILTRATION (LS&F) PERFORMANCE
                             Plant C
For Treated Wastewater
Parameters     No Pts.
For Treated Wastewater
     Cd
     Zn
    TSS
     pH
103
103
103
103
For Untreated Wastewater
     Cd
     Zn
     Fe
    TSS
     pH
103
103
  3
103
103
           Range mq/1
               Mean +_
               std. dev.
0.010 - 0.500  0.049 ±0.049
0.039 - 0.899  0.290- +0.131
0.100 - 5.00   1 .244 +.1 .043
7.1    - 7.9    9.2*
                      Mean + 2
                      std. dev.
                        0.147
                        0.552
                        3.33
0.039 - 2.319
0.949 -29.8
0.107 - 0.46
0.80  -19.6 .
6.8
- 8.2
 0.542 +0.381
11.009 +6.933
 0.255
 5.616 +.2.896
 7.6*
                        1 .304
                       24.956

                       11.408
* pH value is median of 103 values.
                              417

-------
              TABLE VII-21



SUMMARY OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS (mg/1)
Pollutant
Parameter
•114
115
117
1 18
119
120
£ 121
00 122
123
124
125
126
127,
128



Sb
As
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
CN
Pb
Hg
Ni
Se
Ag
Tl
Zn
Al
Co
F
Fe
Mn
P
O&G
TSS
Mean
0.70
0.51
0.30
0.079
0.084
0.58
0.07
0.12
0.06
0.74
0.30
0.10
0.50
0.33
2.24
0.05
14.5
0.41
0.16
4.08
12.0
L & S
Technology
System
One
Day
Max.
2.87
2.09
1.23
0.34
0.44
1.90
0.29
0.42
0.25
1.92
1.23
0,41
2.05
,1.46
6.43
0.21
59.5
1.20
0.68
16.7
20.0
41.0
Ten
Day
Avg.
1.28
0.86
0.51
0.15
0.18
1.00
.0.12
0.20
0.10
1.27
0.55
0.17
0.84
0.61
3.20
0.09
26.4
0.61
0.29
6.83
12.0
19.5
Thirty
Day
Avg.
1.14
0.83
0.4.9
0.13
0.12
0.73
0.11
0.16
0.10
1.00
0.49
0.16
0.81
0.45
2.52
0.08
23.5
0.50
0.21
6.60
10.0
15.5
Mean
0.47
0.34
0.20
0.049
0.07
0.39
0.047
0.08
0.036
0.22
0.20
0.07
0.34
0.23
1.49
0.034
0.28
0.14
2.72
2.6
LS&F
Technology
System
One
Day
Max.
1.93
1.39
0,82
0.20
0.37
1.28
0.20
0.28
0.15
0.55
0.82
0.29
1.40
1.02
6.11
0. 14
59.5
1.20
0.30
11.2
10.0
15.0
Ten
Day
Avg.
0.86
0.57
0.34
0.08
0.15
0.61
0.08
0.13
0.06
0.37
0.37
0.12
0.57
0.42
2.71
0.07
26.4
0.61
0.23-
4.6
10.0
12.0
Thirty
Day
Avg.
0.76
0.55
0.32
0.08
0.10
0.49
0.08
0.11
0.06
0.29
0.33
0.10
0.55
0.31
2.41
0.06
23.5
0.50
0.19
4.4
10.0
10.0
Sulfide
Precipitation
Filtration
One
Day
Mean Max.

0.01 0.04
0.08 0.21
0.05 0.21
0.01 0.04
0.03 0.13
0.05 0.21
0.05 0.21
0.01 0.04



Ten
Day
Avg.

0.018
0.091
0.091
0.018
0.0555
0.091
0.091
0.018



Thirty
Day
Avg.

0.016
0.081
0.081
0.016
0.049
0.081
0.081
0.016




-------
                                         TABLE VII-22
                          TREJkTABIIiITY SATING OP PRIORIW POLLUTANTS
                                 UTILIZING CARBON  ABSORPTION
Priority Pollutant
 1.
 2 .
 3 •
 4.
 5 .
 6.

 7 .
 8.
 9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
IS.
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.
46.
47.
48 .
     acenaphthane
    ° acrolain
     aerylonitrile
     ben.tnna           .
     benzidin*
     carlson totrachlorido
     { tattrachloronethane)
     chlorobenzone
     1,2,3-trichlorotxmran*
     ha>uichlorobenz«n«
     l,2~dichloroethan«
     1,1,1-trichloroathane
     haxnchloroothana
     1,1-dichloroethane
     1,1,2-trichloroethana
     1, 1,2, 2 -tetrachlor ethane
     chloro«than«
     bi*(chloroiuthyl) athar
     bi«(2-chloroethyl) «th«r
     2-chloroatJjylvinyl ethar
     2-chloronaphthalane
     2,4,6-trichlorophenol
     parachloroa»ta ora*ol
     chloroform (trichloronathane)
     2-chlorophonol
     1,2-dichlorobenzane
     1,3-diehlorobanzafia
     1 , 4-dichlorobenzma
     3,3'-dichlorobenzidin«
     l»l-dichloro»thyl«na
     1 , 2 -trans-dichloroethy lona
     2,4-dichlorophenol
     1,2-dichloropropane
     l,2-dichloropropylan«
     (1, 3™dlclitoropi:op«n0 )
     2,4-dimathylphenol
     2,4-dinitrotoluen*
     2 , 6- dinitr oto luono
     1,2-diphenylhydraiine
     etiiylbanzena
     f luorenthona
     4-chlorophanyl phony 1 achar
     4-bromophenyl phanyl athar
     bis (2-chloroisopropyl lather
     bia(2-chloro«thojcy)«eth«ii«
     aBth'/Lana chloridn
     ( dichloromathane )
     machyl chlorida ( chlorcxnathane)
     mathyl bromida ( bromome than* )
     broaoform ( tr ibromooujthane )
     dlchlorobroraotaathana
                                      •Removal
                                        sating

                                         H
                                         L
                                         L
                                         H
                                         H
                                         M

                                         H
                                         H
                                         R
                                         H
                                         M
                                         H
                                         M
                                         H
                                         H
                                         L

                                         M
                                         I,

                                         R
                                         H
                                         a
                                         L
                                         H
                                         R
                                         R
                                         R
                                         H
                                         L
                                         L
                                         H
                                         R
                                         H
                                         R
                                         R
                                         M
                                         H
                                         H
                                         H
                                         II
                                         M
                                         L

                                         L
                                        ' L
                                         R
Priority Pollutant

49.  triohlorofluoromathana
50.  dichlorodifluoronethana
51*  chlorodibromomathana
52.  hexachlorobueadiena
53.  hexachlorocyclopantadlana
54.  iaophorona
55.  naphthalan«
56.  nitrobenzena
57.  2-nitrophanol
58.  4-nitroph*nol
59.  2,4-dlnitrophenol
SO.  4,6-dinitro-o-craaol
61.  H-nitrosodimathylamina
62.  N-nitroaodiphanylamina
63.  H-nitro«odi-n-propylamina
64.  pantachlorophanol
65.  phenol
66.  bis(2-«thylh«xyl)phthal«ta
67.  butyl bsniyl phthalat*
68.  di-n-butyl phthalata
69.  di-n-octyl phthalata
70.  dlathyl phthalat*
71.  diawthyl phthalata
72.  1,2-banzjuithracena
     (ban10(a)anthxacana)
73.  b«nzo(a)pyr«n« [3,4-benro-
     pyrana)
74.  3,4-banzofluoranthan*
     (banzo < b)fluoranthana)
75.  11,12-benzofluoranthena
     (b«nro(k)fluoranthan*)
76.  chrysana
77.  acanaphthylena
78.  anthracana
79.  l,12-benzop«rylena (b«nro
     (ghl)—peryiane)
80.  fluorena
81.  phanar.threne
82.  1,2,3,5-dibanianthraceno
     (dibenzo(a,h) anthracana)
83.  indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrena
     (2,3-ej-phanylano pyrena)
84.  pyrana
85.  tetraehloroathylena
86.  toluene
87.  trichloroethylena
88.  vinyl chlorida
     (chloroethylane)
106, PCS-1242 (Aroclor 1242)
107. PCB-12S4 (Aroclor 1254)
108. PCB-1221 (Aroclor 1221)
109. PCB-1332 (Aroclor 1232)
110. PCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248)
111. PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
112. PCB-L016 (Aroclor 1016)
•Noto  Sxplanatlon of Removal Ratings
Category H (high' ranoval)

   adsorbn at levels i 100 mg/q carbon at C» - 10 mg/1
   adsorbs at levels > 100 mg/g carbon at C. < 1.0 ng/1
Category H (moderate removal)

   adsorbs at levels i 100 mg/g carbon at C  " 10 cng/1
   adsorbs at levels £ 100 inj/ij carbon at c  * 1.0 mg/1
Category L (low removal)
   adsorbo it levels < 100 mg/f carbon at c. " 10 »
-------
                               TABLE VII - 23

               CLASSES OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ADSORBED ON CARBON
Organic Chemical Class

Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Polynuclear Aromatics


Chlorinated Aromatics



Phenolics


Chorinated Phenolics
*High Molecular Weight Aliphatic and
Branch Chain hydrocarbons

Chlorinated Aliphatic hydrocarbons
*High Molecular Weight Aliphatic
Acids and Aram tic Acids

*High Molecular Weight Aliphatic
Amines and Aromatic Amines

*High Molecular Weight Ketones,
Esters, Ethers and 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
carbon tetrachloride,
perchloroethylene

tar acids, benzoic acid
aniline, toluene diamine


hydroquinone, polyethylene
glycol

alkyl benzene sulfonates

nethylene blue, indigo carmine
* High Molecular Weight includes compounds in the broad range of from
  4 to 20 carbon atoms
                                     420

-------
                          Table VII-24

             ACTIVATED CARBON PERFORMANCE (MERCURY)
Plant
  A
  B
  C
                         Mercury levels - mg/1
in
28.0
 0.36
 0,008
Out
0.9
0.015
0.0005
                          Table VII-25

                    ION EXCHANGE PERFORMANCE
Parameter
Plant A
Prior To
Purifi-
All Values mg/1 cation
Al 5.6
Cd 5.7
Crt-3 3.1
Cr+6
Cu
CN
Au
Fe
Pb
Mn
Ni
Ag
S04
Sn
Zn
7
4
9

7

4
6
1

1
14
.1
.5
.8
_
.4
—
.4
.2
.5
_
.7
.8
After
Purifi-
cation
0.20
0.00
0.01
0
0
0

0

0
0
0

0
0
.01
.09
.04
_
.01
—
.00
.00
.00
_
.00
.40
Plant B
Prior To
Purifi-
cation
_
43.
3.
2.
-
1 .
_
1.
9.
210.
1.
-

0
40
30

70

60
10
00
10

After
Purifi-
cation

0
0
0

0

0
0
2
0

_
.10
.09
.10
-
.01
_
.01
.01
.00
.10
—
                              421

-------
                          Table VII-26

                  MEMBRANE FILTRATION SYSTEM EFFLUENT

Specific      Manufacturers      Plant  19066      Plant  31022    Predicted
Metal         Guarantee         I_n      Out        In     Out     Performance

Al
Cr, (+6)
Cr  (T)             0.03        4.13    0.018     98.4    0.057       0.05
Cu                  0.1        18.8     0.043      8.00   0.222       0.20
Manufacturers
Guarantee
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
.5
.02
.03
.1
.1
.05
.02
.1
.1
—
Plant
In
__
0.
4.
18.
288
0.
<0.
9.
2.
632
,_
46
13
8

652
005
56
09

19066
Out
m_ u
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
<0.
0.
0.
0.
.
01
018
043
3
01
005
017
046
1
Plant
In
__
5.
98.
8.
21 .
0.
<0.
194
5.
13.
._
25
4
00
1
288
005

00
0
31022
Out
_
<0
0
0
0
0
<0
0
0
8
„
.005
.057
.222
.263
.01
.005
.352
.051
.0
Fe                  0.1       288      0.3       21.1     0.263       0.30
Pb                  0.05        0.652  0.01       0.288   0.01        0.05
CN                  0.02       <0.005 <0.005     <0.005 <0.005       0.02

Ni                  0.1         9.56   0.017     194       0.352       0.40
Zn                  0.1         2.09   0.046      5.00    0.051       0.10
TSS                 	       632      0.1       13.0     8.0         1.0
                          Table VII-27

                   PEAT ADSORPTION PERFORMANCE

Pollutant                   ^ri                          Out
(mg/1)

   Cr+6              35,000                            0.04
   Cu                   250                            0.24
   CN                    36.0                          0.7

   Pb                    20.0                          0.025
   Hg                     1.0                          0.02
   Ni                     2.5                          0.07

   Ag                     1.0'                         0.05
   Sb                     2.5                          0.9
   Zn                     1.5                          0.25
                              422

-------
                          Table VII-28

                   ULTRAFILTRATION PERFORMANCE


Parameter                  Feed (mq/1)        Perme ate {mg/1)

Oil (freon extractable)       1230                   4
COD                           8920                 148
TSS                           1380                  13
Total Solids                  2900                 296
                              423

-------
                                                                                TABLE VII-29

                                                       PROCESS CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES IN USE AT BATTERY MANUFACTURE HANTS
                            WASTEWATER RECTCLE AND REUSE 1/
                                                                 WATER USE REDUCTION
                                                                                        PROCESS MODIFICATION
                                                                   COMBINED                MULTI-                                FOIWATION
                                                                   TREATED     DRY AIR     STAGE       DRY  '   BATTERY  CONTACT   IN CASE
               EQUIPMENT                                            WASTE     POLLUTION   COUNTER-    PIAQUE    WASH    COOLING   (EXCEPT   DRY 4MAL-
         EPA  WASH & PASTE  PROCESS           SCRUBBER   PIAQUE     STREAMS     CONTROL    CURRENT     SCRUB    EUMI-   ELIMI-   LEAD SUB-  GAMATION  MATERIA
         ID#  FORMULATION   SOLUTION  RINSES   WASTE    SCRUBBING   IN-PROCESS  TECHNOLOGY   RINSE    TECHNIQUE  NATION   NATION   CATEGORY   PROCESS   RECOVER
         Lead Subcategory
-P-
Ni
-P-
                   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
X
                                                                                                                                                           X
                                                                                                                                                           X
                                                                                                                            X
                                                                                                                            X
                   X
                   *
                   *
            *
            X
            X
                                                    X
                                                    X

                                                    X
                                                    X
                                                    X
                                                                                             X
                                                                                             X
                                                                        X
                                                                        X

                                                                        X
                                                                        X
                                                                        X
                                                                        X
                               X
                               X

-------
                                                                . TABUS VII-29 (Continued)

                                             PROCESS CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES IN USE AT BATTERY MANUFACTURE PLANTS
                  WASTEWATER RECTCLE AND REUSE I/
                                                     WATER USE REDUCTION
                                                                       PROCESS MODIFICATION
      EQUUMENT
EPA  WASH & PASTE  PROCESS
               SCRUBBER   PLAQUE
                   COMBINED
                   TREATED
                    WASTE
                   STREAMS
             MULTI-
 DRY AIR     STAGE
POLLUTION   COUNTER-
 CONTROL    CURRENT
ID*  FORMULATION   SOLUTION  RINSES   WASTE    SCRUBBING  IN-PROCESS  TECHNOLOGY   RINSE
                             FORMATION
   DRY     BATTERY  CONTACT   IN CASE
  PIAQUE    WASH    COOLING   (EXCEPT   DRY AMAL-
  SCRUB    ELIMI-   ELIMI-   LEAD SUB-  GAMATION   MATERIAL
TECHNIQUE  NATION   NATION   CATEGORY   PROCESS    RECOVERY
Lead Subcategory (Continued)
          *
          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
                                 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

-------
                                                                          TABLE VII-29 (Cbnttnued)

                                                      PROCESS CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES IN USE AT BATTERY MANUFACTURE PLANTS
                           WASTEWATER RECTCLE AND REUSE 1/
                                                     WATER USE REDUCTION
                                     PROCESS MODIFICATION
EQUIPMENT
EPA WASH & PASTE
ID# PORMUIATION
PROCESS
SOLUTION RINSES
SCRUBBER
WASTE
PLAGUE
SCRUBBING
COMBINED
TREATED
WASTE
STREAMS
IN-PROCESS
DRY AIR
POLLUTION
CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY
MULTI-
STAGE
COUNTER-
CURRENT
RINSE
CRY
PLAQUE
SCRUB
TECHNIQUE
BATTERY CONTACT
WASH COOLING
ELMI- ELIMI-
NATION NATION
FOFMATION
IN CASE
(EXCEPT
LEAD SUB-
CATEGORY
CRY AMAL-
GAMATION
PROCESS
MATERIAL
RECOVERY
N>
        Lead Subcategory (Concinued)

                  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
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
                                                                         X
                                                                         X
                                                                         X
X
X
X
X
X
X
                                X
                                X
                                X
                                X
                                                                                                                                                           X
                                                                                                                                                           X
                                                              X
                                                              X

                                                              X
                                                              X
                                                              X
         1/ Recycle or reuse  following treatment indicated by *.

-------
    to'
   10
   10
     0 «*•»
     •2
   to
   I0"5
J
<

u

Q
U
 in
 w
 Z
 o
 H '
 H
 Z
 U
 U
   to
     *4
   10-6
   10
     -7
   ID'9
  i fl-
     to
    -t !
    -t2
  to
  10'1
                                                   M»(OH)2
                                                         (OHJ
                                                      Cd(OH)2 -
                                                    PbS
               j	i	I	I	I	i	1
      2    3
                                7

                               PH
                                         »     10    It    12    13
FIGURE VII -1.  COMPARATIVE SOLUBILITIES OF METAL HYDROXIDES
                AND SULFIDE AS A FUNCTION OF pH
                               427

-------
0.40
                                                SODA ASH AND
                                                CAUSTIC SODA
   8.0
               8.9
                           9.0
                                        9.5
                                                   to.o
                                                               IO.S
        FIGURE VII - 2. LEAD SOLUBILITY IN THREE ALKALIES
                             428

-------












i







o




































0


















o



















- ,















2

O, .


o






O C
o
(
°doooc


"
(
cs
o

C
o
as
O

O O C
(
o
o

C



"

I
o.
1—
UJ
LL
0 U_
UJ
S
Z
5
5
UENT pH
TRATION V
J Z
U. UJ
0> li. Q
1 8
- O
- 2
5 N



m
D
	 1
K^
U.
u-
LU

•
^—

UJ

-------
u>
o
        "5   o.i

         o
         u
         i  0.01
         '§
         CO
         O
           0.001
22 Values
OffGi
©0 ©<
©00®
*


















&»
•aph
)
9 ©



















K
®(
©(




















)®
>>€



















fSl
<•



















J^










































?









































©
9 ©









































Batt
©
€




















ery
©


f

















Ca




















te




















10




















n




















r




















law Waste




















Value

.>




(•













!S



p
^



































































































t)






























































©




















©C




















IValue'
Of




















G




















n
<•




















i»
»




















'5
%
s



















               0.01



   Data points with a raw waste concentration

   less than 0.1 mg/l were not included in

   treatment effectiveness calculations.
0.1
               1.0


Cadmium Raw Waste Concentration (mg/l)
10                         100



    (Number of observations = 2)
                                                                 FIGURE VII-4

                                          HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS

                                                                  CADMIUM

-------
34 Values
OffG
©0
raph
©



Gfi





3

?



© 
                                   •&•
                                                                      ©
omiu

P
-
                              •&•
Ch
                                   -(>•
           O
                                                            ©
                    ©
0.01
    0.1
1.0                        10
                                      Chromium Raw Waste Concentration (mg/l)
100                     1000


    (Number of observations = 25)
                                                 FIGURE VII-5
                            HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
                                                  CHROMIUM

-------
         O

         I
         €
         o>
         B
         O
         CJ
LO
to
         O
         CJ
X
N.
1.0
0.1
0.01
0
21 Values
OffGi
©
©@ ©
*»





















aph
©





















/2\
&





















©,
DC





















:\
)






















3





















f
9













































•> G

©




















G
0i






















Batt



©


















ery
©






















Ci
©











©










te






















go



G


















rv











<










'











)










taw Waste






















Value



(







(•










>s



>






















































C





















<
>





















)























«











































































































































































*
N





















1 1.0 10 100 Iflt
           Copper Raw Waste Concentration (mg/l)



                    FIGURE VII-6
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
                       COPPER
                                                                                                 (Number of observations = 18)

-------
us
us
Lead Treatment Effluent Concentration (mg/l)
o
§ • '• g :• P-
P - - - ' -
20 Values
OffG
© (
> :


















raph



















©











































































































































S©
© ©
© ©



















- ©









©









Batl
(


















FDC\
ery
•)



















C<



















ite



















90


















f.
r



















1
(
^


















f)aw Waste
9 ee
> ©
©
W

















iValu



















es



























































(















































































©



























































©
©
















































































s
V


















01 0.1 1.0 10 10
                                                      Lead Raw Waste Concentration (mg/l)
                                                                                                (Number of observations = 22)
                                                               FIGURE VII-7

                                           HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS

                                                                  LEAD

-------
22 Values
* Off Graph

@© '

1


ft


3
-------
OO

Ul
           ^   1.0
           .5
           '£3
           s
            o
           CJ
09
3


£
LLJ

T3
09

CD
09

K


C

N
                0.1
               0.01
7 Values
Off Graph
® ©1
® 
>





-------
S   1.0
o
o
01
CO
s
     0.1
    0.01
1 Value
OffGi
raph






(
) (
)
Battery
®|
©}©
Categc
si
ry
g
^
taw Waste
G)
Value
0
s



3










k «t
K »f









...
©


«_ '






























































































•

^

















*?
"™"





©









f^









































©



















































































t



















\














©


«




























































































































































       0.1
1.0
              10


Iron Raw Waste Concentration (mg/l)
100                      1000




    (Number of observations = 28)
                                                     FIGURE VII-10

                                HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS

                                                         IRON

-------
17 Values
Manganese Treated Effluent Concentration (mg/l) o'
«•«
•*%
P _ C5
§ S P 3
<= -" •* ~* y / =•
to
b
S







'
9®












I






















5




(y








































0






















©






















i
<

^




















i)

•





















D



































































Ban






















ery Gate
y























6










































gory Raw Waste
I II®®®


































































Values











































«























®











































































































































































































































































































»





















1 1.0 10 100 100
          Manganese Raw Waste Concentration (mg/l)


                    FIGURE VII-11
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
                    MANGANESE
(Number of observations =*0)

-------
-p-
oo
oo
          E   100
          OJ
          u
          c
          o
          U
3=
LLI
               10
               1.0

s,
*






































3



















(







(

(









G
) i







)

(
)




)
1



•>







C

)

















>































(



















) ©








©
©
©









©



















Ban
D©
3







©
f)
f









ery
C
i









©
\




r.
1!


^
Ca
©
><•
i







©
©




Yn
*s



^
tfr
l)
)<



















JO
1
)



















r\
}
>
r
•



















r
»



















law Waste
5§ S








§
V)
© ©








/A
Valu
©









5 6









5S
3
©
%







(
(










S)
i)
©C







}
)
©









)



















<



















»'•



















s



















© ©







ffl

©
©








^
©









©



















©









\










•^




























t
9








































X
«w


















                 1.0
                                  10
100
                                                        TSS Raw Waste Concentration (mg/l)
1000                    10,000




     (Number of observation = 45)
                                                                FIGURE  VII-12

                                           HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS

                                                                    TSS

-------
                      SULFURIC   SULFUR
                       ACID      DIOXIDE
pH CONTROLLER
RAW WASTE        "
(HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM)
                            00
                                    r
ORP CONTROLLER
                                      (TRIVALENT CHROMIUM)
                                                                       LIME OR CAUSTIC
                         00
                       REACTION TANK
                                                                PRECIPITATION TANK
pH CONTROLLER
                                           -TO CLARIFIER
                                            (CHROMIUM
                                            HYDROXIDE)
               FIGURE VII-13.  HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM REDUCTION WITH SULFUR DIOXIDE

-------
                                                                    INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
                                STORED
                              BACKWASH
                                WATER
               COLLECTION CHAMBER
                                                       DRAIN
                FIGURE Vll-14.  GRANULAR BED FILTRATION
                                       440

-------
 PERFORATED
 BACKING PLATE
FABRIC
FILTER MEDIUM
                \
  SOLID
  RECTANGULAR
  END PLATE
INLET
SLUDGE
                                                           FABRIC
                                                           FILTER MEDIUM
                                                           ENTRAPPED SOLIDS
             FILTERED LIQUID OUTLET
                                                           PLATES AND FRAMES ARE
                                                           PRESSED TOGETHER DURING
                                                           FJLTRATION CYCLE
                                                           RECTANGULAR
                                                           METAL PLATE
                                                    RECTANGULAR FRAME
                    FIGURE  Vll-15.  PRESSURE FILTRATION
                                       441

-------
SEDIMENTATION BASIN

          INLET, ZONE
   INLET LIQUID
                               BAFFLES TO MAINTAIN
                               QUIESCENT CONDITIONS
                     SETTLING PARTICL|
                   *  «  TRAJECTORY «  •
                   ^»  *  *  * """"*""^-jL.*  TRAJECTORY  «  • §. S
                                                            OUTLET ZONE
                                                               OUTLET LIQUID
                                                  BELT-TYPE SOLIDS COLLECTION
                                                  MECHANISM
                         SETTLED PARTICLES COLLECTED
                         AND PERIODICALLY REMOVED
CIRCULAR CLAR1FIER
                               INLET LIQUID
                                              CIRCULAR BAFFLE
  SETTLING ZONE-
_j . ^ __  ..
 INLET ZONE
*  *
                                                     ANNULAR OVERFLOW WEIR
Tf^fHlL
            REVOLVING COLLECTION
            MECHANISM
                 \
                                                          OUTLET LIQUID
                                                         •SETTLING PARTICLES
                           SETTLED PARTICLES
                           COLLECTED AND PERIODICALLY
                           REMOVED
                             SLUDGE DRAWOFF
        FIGURE VII-16. REPRESENTATIVE TYPES OF SEDIMENTATION
                                    442

-------
                                        FLANGE
WASTE WATER
 WASH WATER
   BACKWASH
                                            SURFACE WASH
                                            MANIFOLD
         INFLUENT
         DISTRIBUTOR
                                                 BACKWASH
                                                 REPLACEMENT CARBON
                                         CARBON REMOVAL PORT
                                                   TREATED WATER
                                            SUPPORT PLATE
    FIGURE VIi -17. ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION COLUMN
                            443

-------
CONVEYOR DRIVE   ^  PRYING
                     ZONE
   1—BOWL DRIVE
                                                                      LIQUID
                                                                      OUTLET
                                 CONVEYOR      BOWL     REGULATING     IMPELLER
CYCLOGEAR
                       FIGURE  VII - 18,  CENTRIFUGATION
                                      444

-------
                                                                                CAUSTIC
                                                                                 SODA
ui
              CAUSTIC
               SODA
       PM
       CONTROLLER
                                                                                    _J—I     PM
                                                                                   ——1   I CONTROLLER
                                                                                            TREATED
                                                                                            WASTE
                 REACTION TANK
                                                                          REACTION TANK
                   FIGURE VII -19.  TREATMENT OF CYANIDE WASTE BY ALKALINE CHLORINATfON

-------
     CONTROLS
                    OZONE
                  GENERATOR
     DRY AIR
                       D
OZONE
REACTION
TANK
       RAW WASTE	»v
                                         -{x*
                 TREATED
                  WASTE
         X
FIGURE VII - 20. TYPICAL OZONE PLANT FOR WASTE TREATMENT
                        446

-------
         MIXER
FIF
ST
SE
ST

T!
WASTEWATER S1
FEED TANK
1 1

'

?ST §
AGE j
3
V.
'


1
in
:OND §
AGE j
D

to
•URD g
fAGE j
I*


!

r0
^ PUMP
TREATED WATER
C
11



c
UL

c=
II


f __ EXHAUST


c
a

i ,

L
n
I
c
a
UL

-

GAS

— — TEMPERATURE
— CONTROL
-7— PH MONITORING



	 TEMPERATURE
	 CONTROL
— — PH MONITORING


— TEMPERATURE
— CONTROL
— — PH MONITORING

OZONE



OZONE
GENERATOR
FIGURE VII - 21, UV/OZONATION
             447

-------
00
                                     EXHAUST
                      WATER VAPOR
          PACKED TOWER
          EVAPORATOR
               WASTEWATER
           HEAT
           EXCHANGER
       •STEAM

       STEAM
       CONDENSATE
       CONCENTRATE
                       ATMOSPHERIC EVAPORATOR
VACUUM LINE
  	«•"—
           CONDENSATE
           WASTEWATER
                                               VACUUM
                                               PUMP
                                       STEAM
                                            COOLING
                                            WATER
                                                      STEAM
                                                                                                            CONDENSER
                                                                    EVAPORATOR
                                                                       STEAM-
                                                                   STEAM
                                                                CONDENSATE
                                         	  VAPOR-LIQUID                 |
                                         ~~~S. MIXTURE      /SEPARATOR    . ..1	  ^

                                             *   t  \     I   WATER VAPOR        1
                                                                WASTEWATER
                                                                                         LIQUID
                                                                                         RETURN
             WASTE
             WATER-
             FEED
          CONCENTRATE


                   SUBMERGED TUBE EVAPORATOR
STEAM
CONDENSATE
                                                                                                                    COOLING
                                                                                                                    WATER
                                                                                                              CONDENSATE
                                                                                                    VACUUM PUMP
                                                                                                              -CONCENTRATE
                                                                               CLIMBING TILM EVAPORATOR
                                                                                                VAPOR
                                HOT VAPOR
                                                                        STEAM
                                                                        CONDENSATE
                                                                         CONCENTRATE

                                COOLING
                                WATER
                                                           CONDEN-
                                                           SATE
                                                                    CONDENSATE
                                                                    1 VACUUM PUMP
                                  ^
                                                                                   •*- EXHAUST
                                                                                                             ACCUMULATOR
                                                                                                             CONDENSATE
                                                                                                             FOR REUSE
                   CONCENTRATE FOR REUSE

DOUBLE-EFFECT EVAPORATOR
                                        FIGURE VII-22.  TYPES OF EVAPORATION EQUIPMENT

-------
OILY WATER
INFLUENT
                                               WATER
                                               DISCHARGE
                                    OVERFLOW
                                    SHUTOFF
                                    VALVE
                                                                   EXCESS
                                                                   AIR OUT
                                                                   LEVEL
                                                                   CONTROLLER
      TO SLUDGE
      TANK   •"
                FIGURE VII-23.  DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION
                                    449

-------
   CONDUIT
   TO MOTOR
INFLUENT
 CONDUIT TO
 OVERLOAD
 ALARM
                                              COUNTERFLOW
                                              INFLUENT WELL
                                                   DRIVE UNIT
                        OVERLOAD ALARM

                           EFFLUENT WEIR
                                DIRECTION OF ROTATION
    EFFLUENT PIPE
                                                         EFFLUENT CHANNEL
                                        PLAN
                                  TURNTABLE
                                  BASE
                 HANDRAIL
 INFLUENT
 CENTER COLUMN
   CENTER CAGE
                                                                    WEIR
                  STILTS

                  CENTER SCRAPER
                                                                  SQUEEGEE
SLUDGE PIPE
                   FIGURE VII-24.  GRAVITY THICKENING
                                   450

-------
WASTE WATER CONTAINING
DISSOLVED METALS OR
OTHER IONS
                                                 DIVERTER VALVE
     RECENERANT
     SOLUTION
                                                       DISTRIBUTOR
                                                      SUPPORT
     REGENERANT TO REUSE,
     TREATMENT, OR DISPOSAL
                                                 -DIVERTER VALVE
METAL-FREE WATER
FOR REUSE OR DISCHARGE
                FIGURE VII - 25.  ION EXCHANGE WITH REGENERATION
                                       451

-------
                                     MACROMOUECUt.es
                                     AND SOLIDS
                           MOST
                           SALTS
MEMBRANE
                                                              450 PSil
                                   WATER
           PERMEATE fWATER)
                                            MEMBRANE CROSS SECTrON,
                                            IN TUBULAR, HOLLOW FIBER,
                                            OR SPIRAL-WOUND CONFIGURATION
          0 •.•<>• °
    FEED
                :•:•°.
                     _CONCENTRATE
                       IS ALTS)
O   0*0
o  o
                                                     o,
          O  SALTS OR SOLIDS

          *  WATER MOLECULES
         FIGURE VII-26.  SIMPLIFIED REVERSE OSMOSIS SCHEMATIC
                                 452

-------
                          PERMEATE
                          TUBE
       PERMEATE
         ADHESIVE BOUND

                SPIRAL MODULE
                                                          CONCENTRATE
                                                 BACKING MATERIAL
                                        •MESH SPACER
                                  •MEMBRANE

                              SPIRAL MEMBRANE MODULE
           POROUS SUPPORT TUBE
           WITH MEMBRANE
             • ".•* BRACKISH
             °   WATER
                 FEED FLOW
PRODUCT WATER
PERMEATE FLOW

                                                               BRINE
                                                               CONCENTRATE
                                                               FLOW
                          TUBULAR REVERSE OSMOSIS MODULE
"O" RING
SEAL
FEED ..
<==£>
                                                   OPEN ENDS
                                                   OF FIBERS
                                 ,— EPOXY
                                   TUBE SHEET
                                                                        POROUS
                                                                        BACK-UP DISC
                                             SNAP
                                             RING
   END PLATE
      POROUS FEED
      DISTRIBUTOR TUBE
                                                                           PERMEATE
END PLATE
                               HOLLOW FIBER MODULE
           FIGURE VII - 27.  REVERSE OSMOSIS MEMBRANE CONFIGURATIONS
                                        453

-------




















t
I

1 U ! U 1
T?
||
3 H I
!
I
1
1
3 1 1
II
	 JL 	
6-IN. VITRIFII
i U -tn
ff
1
l
I
1 ! '
1
1
1
1
1
] 1 '
H
	 Jl^, 	
D PIPE LAID— ^
WITH PLASTIC JOINTS
1 ii i
II
II
II
II
] |! i
il
V- SPLASH BOX
\ 1 1 . „„_
\ ii r^

^ i
L=J i
\ \
\

|
I I J
¥ 1 \
1
|
11 .S'
r~)f
\£Q
.i U Ll '
ir
2 l!
2 |i
r !!
i «"
u o| 1
- zl'
H S|l
> OiJ
) ZH|| 1
» *ll
	 J^, 	
^
1 1
1 I
1
1


!! J
1 U -U M
]f

! •
n
H
n
M
n
i n i
n
JL
""if
i i
r
u
.i

1 H c
C-IN. FLANGED | 1
X^\ SHEAR GATE
\ U
"t-j
CbJ
n
l!


™ i ,1 «.^^ > i ... - ** 17 . . ' „ - - I 1 _ _,." —• . .-" -r l|
3-1N. MEDIUM GRAVEL
                                  PLAN
                                     6-IN. FINE SAND
                                     3-1N. COARSE SAND
                                     3-IN. FINE GRAVEL
                                     3-IN. MEDIUM GRAVEL
                                     3 TO 6 IN. COARSE GRAVEL
                                   2-1N. COARSE SAND
  -Z-IN. PLANK
   WALK
PIPE COLUMN FOR
CL, ASS-QVER
                                            6-IN. UNDERDRAIN LAID
                                            WITH OPEN JOINTS
                               SECTION A-A
               FIGURE VII-28. SLUDGE DRYING BED
                                 454

-------
  ULTRAFIUTRATION
                 *       •
                  •       <
                              MACROMOLECULE3
 F - 10-50 PS!
MEMBRANE
                                    WATER       SALTS
                                             -MEMBRANE
              PERMEATE

             it
                  • # *
                                         *  *
                     o  * °  *   *
           FEED   *(-« *  O • * •  •  « ,
 *   «
*
                          o  .. .
*. V* °*.o*.0
      *•* *  CONCENTR
          O  *    •
    _    v»«»»»_   O    CONCENTRATE
       -                  °  *   «
          O  OIL PARTICLES
          •  DISSOLVED SALTS AND LOW-MOLECULAR-WEIGHT ORGANICS
 FIGURE VII - 29.  SIMPLIFIED ULTRAFILTRATION FLOW SCHEMATIC
                            455

-------
           FABRIC OR WIRE
           FILTER MEDIA
           STRETCHED OVER
           REVOLVING DRUM
                      DIRECTION OF ROTATION
             ROLLER
SOLIDS SCRAPED
OFF FILTER MEDIA
STEEL
CYLINDRICAL
FRAME
                                                                                 VACUUM
                                                                                 SOURCE
                                                        LIQUID FORCE
                                                        THROUGH
                                                        MEDIA BY
                                                        MEANS OF
                                                        VACUUM
    SOLIDS COLLECTION
    HOPPER
                                                                              INLET LIQUID
                                                                              TO BE
                                                                              FILTERED
                                     -TROUGH
                                                               FILTERED LIQUID
                        FIGURE VU - 30.  VACUUM FILTRATION
                                           456

-------
                          SECTION VIII

            COST OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND CONTROL


This section presents estimates of the costs of implementing  the
major  wastewater treatment and control technologies described in
Section VII.  These cost estimates, together with  the  estimated
pollutant  reduction  performance  for each treatment and control
option presented in Sections IX, X, XI, and XII, provide a  basis
for  evaluating  the  options presented and identification of the
best  practicable  technology  currently  available  (BPT),  best
available   technology   economically   achievable   (BAT),  best
demonstrated technology (BDT), and the appropriate technology for
pretreatment.   The cost estimates  also  provide  the  basis  for
determining   the   probable   economic  impact  on  the  battery
manufacturing  lead  subcategory  of  regulation   at   different
pollutant  discharge levels.  In addition, this section addresses
nonwater quality environmental impacts  of  wastewater  treatment
and  control alternatives, including air pollution, solid wastes,
and energy requirements.

GENERAL APPROACH                                         *

Capital and annual costs associated with compliance with the lead
subcategory limitations and standards have been calculated  on  a
plant-by-plant  basis  for 85 discharging plants and extrapolated
for 26 discharging plants in the subcategory for which little  or
no data were available.

These  costs  have  been used as the basis for an economic impact
analysis of the lead subcategory (See "Economic  Impact  Analysis
of   Effluent   Limitations   and   Standards   for  the  Battery
Manufacturing Industry," EPA 440/2-84-002).   For  that  analysis
cost  estimates were broken down for each facility producing lead
batteries and cost results were expressed in dollars per pound of
battery produced.
                                                »
Prior to proposal, costs were generated using the cost estimation
methodology described in the development document of the proposed
regulation.  Since proposal, a new computer model for  estimating
end-of-pipe  wastewater  treatment system costs was developed for
this subcategory and several other point source  categories  with
similarly  treatable  wastewaters.  In addition, in-plant costing
procedures were revised. -Capital  and  annual  costs  have  been
recalculated for all plants in the lead subcategory using the new
computer  model  and the revised in-plant cost procedures.  Table
VIII-1  (page  489)  summarizes  these   costs   for   the   lead
                              457

-------
subcategory.    A   comparison   between   the  proposal  costing
methodology and revised costing methodology is provided later  in
this section.

COST ESTIMATION MODEL BASES

In this section, the end-of-pipe treatment system cost estimation
models  are  presented' for the lead subcategory.  The assumptions
for the cost model and the in-plant cost procedure may  be  found
later in this section.

End-of-pipe  compliance costs were estimated for each plant based
on  the  wastewater  sources  with  discharge  allowances.    The
possible  wastewater  sources  at  each  plant  are  double  fill
formation, fill and dump formation,  open  dehydrated  formation,
direct   chill   casting,    mold  release  formulation  equipment
washdown, battery wash with detergent, battery wash  with  water,
truck  wash,  laundry,  battery  repair,  laboratory, floor wash,
handwash,  respirator  wash,   and  wet  air   pollution   control
scrubbers.  The last six streams were included in a miscellaneous
group,  providing  the  entire flow of all six streams if any one
was present.  Discharge allowances for plate soaking and open wet
formation were provided after costs for the lead subcategory were
determined.  The flows from these areas are deminimus and do  not
affect the cost estimates.

The  treatment trains presented in Figure IX-1 and Figures X-l to
X-4 were used as the basis for cost  estimation.   Plant-by-plant
costs  were  determined  for  BPT and BAT (PSES) Options 1 and 2.
Costs for BAT Options 3 and 4 were determined for a normal  plant
and   a   normal   discharging  plant.   The  normal  and  normal
discharging plant are discussed later in this section.  As  shown
in  Figures  X-l  to  X-4,  a  holding  tank,  used for recycling
wastewater back  to  the  plant  for  use  in  hose  washdown  of
equipment  and  floor  areas, is part of the BAT (PSES) treatment
train.   Water  is  recycled  after  chemical  precipitation  and
settling.  An additional option, option 5, was considered for new
sources  only.   The treatment train for this option is identical
to option 2.'  For option 4 and option 5, the holding tank is also
used for recycling treated water for truck washing.

Compliance costs for chemical•precipitation were estimated  using
costs   for   lime   addition.     Sludge  produced  through  lime
precipitation is considered to be non-hazardous for the  purposes
of  estimating  costs.   However,  sludge  generated from sulfide
precipitation (normal plant only) is considered to be hazardous.

Miscellaneous wastewater has a smaller discharge allowance  under
BAT  than under BPT.  The difference is taken into account by the
                              458

-------
holding  tank,   used   to   recycle   water   back   to   the   plant   for
miscellaneous   use   (hose washdown)  under  the  BAT  (PSES) Options.
Therefore,  for the purposes of estimating   compliance   costs   for
BAT,   the   chemical  precipitation and settling units are sized on
the  basis of the BPT flow  with   recycle  occurring  through   the
holding  tank  after  chemical precipitation and settling.   The  BAT
(PSES) flow is therefore equivalent  to  the final   discharge  flow
and,   for   BAT  (PSES)-2,  multimedia   filtration  is sized on  the
basis  of this  flow.   Since the flow  into treatment for  option  2
and  the additional new source  option (option 5) are  nearly  the
same and the treatment  train is the  same,   costs   for   these   two
options  are   equal.  The only difference  between  options  2 and 5
is that  the holding  tank is also  used to recycle water  for truck
washing.

The  following points should also be noted:  (1) all of  the costed
,plants were given an allowance for miscellaneous wastewater,   and
(2)  if  the   actual flow from a process  at a plant was unknown,
costs  were  estimated on the basis of regulatory flow.

Required capital  costs are  determined   by   considering    the
equipment   and wastewater treatment system a  plant currently  has
in-place (see  page 485).  In the  lead subcategory,  four   general
assumptions are  made   concerning  treatment   in-place:  (1) if a
plant  currently operates chemical precipitation but does not   use
lime  as the  precipitating reagent, only  the  capital cost of  the
lime feed system  is  included under required capital.   (2)  If   the
plant  reports sedimentation  in  lagoons,  these are assumed to be
used as  impoundments for sludge storage.    Therefore,   no  solids
dewatering   equipment  is assumed to be required.  To reflect  the
annual  cost   of  operating  the   lagoon  ors  pond and ultimate
disposition of  the sludge,  the annual costs of  a vacuum filter
and  contract hauling are included.   In  most cases,  these costs
are  overestimated   for actual   operation of  the  lagoon or pond.
(3)  If a "sump" is reported to be in-place,  it is  assumed  that it
will not provide  adequate equalization  or  be an adequate tank   to
operate  chemical  precipitation unless the  sump volume is reported
and  determined 'to   have  sufficient   capacity.    If   a  "pit" is
reported to be in-place, it  is   assumed  that it will   provide
adequate equalization but will not be an adequate  tank  to  operate
chemical precipitation  unless  solids removal is reported.   (4) If
a  plant currently  has treatment for the  continuous operation of
chemical precipitation  but compliance cost estimates are based on
a batch  system (i.e.,  flow  less than 10,600 l/hr)>  required
capital  costs are determined  through evaluation of the specifics
of a plant's current treatment   system including the type   of
precipitating  reagent(s) added.
                               459

-------
COST COMPARISON PROPOSAL VERSUS PROMULGATION

The costs estimated for the proposed regulation differ from those
estimated  under  this  final  rule.  These differences stem from
different methodologies for estimation of costs for both in-plant
control technology and end-of-pipe treatment technology.

In-Plant Changes

As discussed earlier in this section, the Agency has revised  its
lead  subcategory  in-plant  cost  procedures  from proposal.   In
addition, in-plant cost procedures  for  five  technologies  have
been  added  to  the  original in-plant procedures.  The five new
technologies are:

     o    Steam curing

     o    Humidity curing water recycle

     o    Formation area wet air pollution control  (WAPC)  water
          recycle

     o    Paste mixing WAPC water neutralization

     o    Power floor scrubber water settling.

Table VIII-2 (page 490) presents a summary of the  in-plant  cost
procedure changes.

The  major  revision  to the in-plant cost procedures was in slow
formation.  At proposal, slow formation costs included a building
and racks for  stacking  batteries.   During  post-proposal  site
visits,  sufficient  vertical  height  was  observed  in existing
buildings to provide the necessary stacking for  slow  formation.
Erection  of a new building is not required.  Therefore, building
costs were removed from the in-plant costs  for  slow  formation.
The  Agency  also  revised its approach to plant-by-plant costing
for slow formation.  At proposal, slow formation was  costed  for
all  plants that reported a discharge from closed formation.  For
promulgation, slow formation was only  costed  for  those  plants
that  specified  the  use  of  contact  cooling  water  in closed
formation.  The costs for reducing other  wastewater  flows  from
closed  formation,  such  as  battery  rinse water, area washdown
water, and wet air pollution control water  are  estimated  using
the appropriate in-plant cost procedures.

Another  major  revision  to  the in-plant cost procedures was to
countercurrent cascade rinsing  labor  costs.   For  proposal,  a
$6.60  per  mahhour labor rate was used to determine labor costs.
                              460

-------
The revised costs use a  $21.00  per  manhour  labor  rate.   The
proposal   costs  were  developed  assuming  approximately  0.001
manhours  per  kilogram   of   lead   use   were   required   for
countercurrent  cascade  rinsing labor.  The revised costs assume
0.000169 manhours per kilogram  of  lead  use  are  required  for
labor.   This value is based on observations made during sampling
visits.  The revised costs are based  on  the  incremental  labor
required  for  countercurrent  cascade rinsing.  This incremental
labor is the labor needed to move plates  from  the  first  stage
rinse  tank  to  the second stage rinse tank.  The proposal labor
costs are based on a total  labor  requirement  for  running  the
countercurrent cascade rinse.  This represents an overestimate of
labor  costs since plant personnel are already present to run the
rinse operation.  Also, a difference between the  proposal  labor
costs  and revised labor costs is an economy of scale factor.  At
proposal, labor costs were assumed to be  a  linear  function  of
production.   The  revised labor costs account for the economy of
scale associated with increasing  production  by  relating  labor
costs to the six-tenths power of production.

Segregation  costs  have  also  been  revised.   Piping costs for
segregation are included in the  individual  in-plant  technology
costs.   A  model-based segregation cost procedure was developed,
however, for segregating nonprocess waste  streams  from  process
waste  streams.   For  proposal, a segregation cost was estimated
for routing wastewater to end-of-pipe treatment.  This  cost  was
based  on  a trench excavation cost and piping cost.  The revised
costs more accurately  reflect  the  cost  of  segregating  water
flows.                                                           !

End-of-Pipe Comparison

Because   a   different   contractor  developed  compliance  cosjt
estimates for the final regulation, a  different  computer  model
was  used  for  cost  estimation  than  was used for the proposed
regulation.   As  such,  the   cost   estimates   reflected   the
assumptions  and  design  and cost data upon which each model was
based.  As can be seen from Table VIII-3 (page 493),  the  annual
costs for BPT under this final rule were higher than at proposal;
while  the  capital  costs  were  lower.   For  either BAT (PSES;)
option, both annual and capital costs were lower for  this  finajl
rule.   The  increase  in  BPT  annual costs are due primarily to
differing assumptions for labor  rate,  labor  requirements,  and
contract  hauling  costs;  also,  additional analytical data have
been collected since  proposal  that  will  result  in  differing
compliance  costs.   Further,  a  10  percent  interest  rate for
capital recovery was used for cost estimation at proposal while  a
12 percent interest rate was used for this regulation.   Each  of
these were found to increase annual costs for BPT.
                              461

-------
The decrease in annual costs for the BAT options probably results
from  the procedure for estimating flows to the treatment system.
Rather  than  actual  flow  reported  by  each  plant,  the  cost
estimation  model  discussed  in  this section calculated flow by
comparing the actual flow  for  each  process  element  with  the
regulatory  flow  for  that element, and then selecting the lower
value as the flow to treatment.

The models also differed in specific assumptions for each module.
The assumptions for the model used at proposal are documented  in
a  report  entitled  "Comparison  of Cost Methodologies for EGD -
Metals and Machinery Branch." This  report  is  included  in  the
public record supporting this regulation.

COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY;  POST-PROPOSAL

The  calculation  of  plant-by-plant costs consists of two steps.
In-plant flow reduction costs are calculated using  the  in-plant
cost  procedures,  and  treatment  system (end-of-pipe) costs are
calculated using the  computer  model.   Sources  of  cost  data,
components  of  capital and annual costs, and cost update factors
are similar for the two costing procedures.  A general discussion
on the sources of cost data, components of costs, and cost update
factors is presented below.  Following these discussions the  in-
plant cost procedures and computer model are discussed.

Sources of Cost Data

Capital and annual cost data for the selected treatment processes
were  obtained  from three sources:  (1) equipment manufacturers,
(2) literature data, and (3) cost data from existing plants.  The
major source of equipment costs was contacts with equipment  ven-
dors,  while the majority of annual cost information was obtained
from the  literature.   Additional  cost  and  design  data  were
obtained from data collection portfolios when possible.

Components of Costs

Capital   Costs.    Capital  costs  consist  of  two  components:
equipment capital costs  and  system  capital  costs.   Equipment
costs  include:   (1)  the  purchase  price  of  the manufactured
equipment and  any  accessories  assumed  to  be  necessary;  (2)
delivery  charges,  which  account  for  the cost of shipping the
purchased  equipment  a  distance   of   500   miles;   and   (3)
installation,  which  includes  labor, excavation, site work, and
materials.  The correlating equations used to generate  equipment
costs are shown in Table VIII-4 (page 494).
                              462

-------
Capital  system  costs include contingency, engineering, and con-
tractor's fees.  These system costs, each expressed as a  percen-
tage  of  the  total  equipment  cost, are combined into a factor
which is multiplied by the total  equipment  cost  to  yield  the
total . capital  investment.   The components of the total capital
investment are listed in Table VIII-5 (page 500).

Annual Costs.  The total  annualized  costs  also  consist  of  a
direct  and " a  system  component as in the case of total capital
costs.  The components of the total annualized costs  are  listed
in  Table  VIII-6  (page  501).   Direct annual costs include the
following:

o  Raw materials - These costs are  for  chemicals  used  in  the
treatment  processes,  which  include  lime, sulfuric acid, alum,
polyelectrolyte, and sulfur dioxide.

o  Operating labor and materials - These costs  account  for  the
labor  and  materials  directly  associated with operation of the
process equipment.  Labor requirements are estimated in terms  of
manhours  per  year.   A labor rate of 21 dollars per manhour was
used to convert the manhour requirements  into  an  annual  cost.
This  composite  labor  rate  included  a base labor rate of nine
dollars per hour for skilled labor, 15 percent of the base  labor
rate  for  supervision  and  plant overhead at 100 percent of the
total labor rate.  Nine dollars per hour is the Bureau  of  Labor
national wage  rate for skilled labor during 1982.

o  Maintenance and repair - These costs account for the labor and
materials  required  for  repair  and  routine maintenance of the
equipment.

o  Energy - Energy, or power, costs are calculated based on total
nominal  horsepower  requirements   (in  kw-hrs),  an  electricity
charge  of  $.0483/kilowatt-hour  and an operating schedule of 24
hours/day,  250  days/year  unless  specified   otherwise.    The
electricity  charge  rate (March 1982) is based on the industrial
cost derived from  the  Department  of  Energy's  Monthly  Energy
Review.

System  annual  costs include monitoring, insurance and amortiza-
tion  (which is the major component).  Monitoring  refers  to  the
periodic sampling analysis of wastewater to ensure that discharge
limitations  are  being  met.   The annual cost of monitoring was
calculated using an analytical lab fee  of  $120  per  wastewater
sample and a sampling frequency based on the wastewater discharge
rate, as shown in Table VIIIr7 (page 502).
                              463

-------
Insurance cost is assumed to be one percent of the total depreci-
able capital investment (see Item 23 of Table VIII-6).

Amortization  costs,  which account for depreciation and the cost
of financing, were calculated using  a  capital  recovery  factor
(CRF).    A  CRF  value  of  0.177  was used, which is based on an
interest rate of 12 percent, and a taxable lifetime of 10  years.
The  CRF  is  multiplied  by  the total depreciable investment to
obtain the annual amortization costs (see Item 24 of Table  VIII-
6).

Cost Update Factors

All  costs  are  standardized by adjusting^ to June of 1983.  This
was done by updating the model costs  (which  are  calculated  in
March   1982   dollars)  using  the  EPA-Sewage  Treatment  Plant
Construction Cost Index.  The June 1983 value of  this  index  is
420.6.    The cost indices used for particular components of costs
are described below.

Capital Investment - Investment costs  were  adjusted  using  the
EPA-Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index.  The value of
this index for March 1982 is 414.0.

Operation  and  Maintenance  Labor  - The Engineering News-Record
Skilled Labor Wage Index is used to adjust the portion  of  Oper-
ation  and  Maintenance  costs  attributable to labor.  The March
1982 value is 325.0.

Maintenance Materials - The producer price index published by the
Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics  is  used.   The  March
1982 value of this index is 276.5.

Chemicals  -  The  Chemical  Engineering Producer Price Index for
industrial chemicals is used.  This index is  published  biweekly
in  Chemical  Engineering magazine.  The March 1982 value of this
index is 362.6.

Energy  -  Power  costs  are  adjusted  by  using  the  price  of
electricity  on the desired date and multiplying it by the energy
requirements for the treatment module in kwhr equivalents.

In-Plant Costs

In-plant flow reduction cost procedures were  developed  for  the
following   lead   subcategory  process  elements  and  ancillary
activities:

     (1)  Paste mixing and application area wash water recycle
                              464

-------
     (2)   Steam curing

     (3)   Humidity curing water recycle

     (4)   Slow formation

     (5)   Open dehydrated formation water
               o    Countercurrent cascade plate rinsing
               o    Vacuum pump seal and ejector water recycle

     (6)   Formation area wet air pollution control  (WAPC)  water
          recycle

     (7)   Paste mixing WAPC water neutralization

     (8)   Reuse of battery rinse water in acid cutting

     (9)   Power floor scrubber water settling

     (10) Hose washdown water recycle

     (11) Segregation on nonprocess water flows.

Table VII1-8 (page 503) summarizes the number of plants that were
costed using each of the above in-plant technologies.   The  hose
washdown   water  recycle  costs were estimated by the end-of-pipe
cost estimation model.  A brief discussion on the  in-plant  cost
procedure  is  presented  in this section.  A detailed discussion
which includes all design assumptions and a derivation of all in-
plant cost equations is presented in  the  battery  manufacturing
public record.

All in-plant costs were developed in a similar manner.  The costs
for  implementing  each  technology  were  first determined for a
model  plant.   Using  the  model  plant  flow  and   production,
equipment  items required for the in-plant technology were sized.
Equipment costs were then determined  using  the  cost  equations
contained  in the public record.  The model plant production, and
capital and annual operating and maintenance  costs   (O&M  costs)
were then used to develop a general algorithm for determining the
cost  for  .any size battery manufacturing operation.  The general
algorithm was the standard "six-tenths" scaling factor.   Figures
VIII-1  to  VIII-12  (pages  509  to 520) summarize the equipment
capital and direct annual costs for each in-plant technology.  No
credit was given in the in-plant costs for  savings  due  to  the
lower   water  usage  that  results  when  the  various  in-plant
technologies are used.
                              465

-------
The following presents a summary of the development of  equipment
capital  and  direct  annual  costs for each in-plant technology.
This discussion includes the methodology used to identify the in-
plant technologies applicable for a given plant.

Paste  Mixing  and  Application  Area  Wash  Water  Recycle.   As
discussed  in Section VII, the recycle of pasting area wash water
after settling for suspended solids removal  is  practiced  by  a
number  of  plants  in the lead subcategory.  Figure VIII-1 shows
the equipment capital and direct  annual  costs  associated  with
installing  a  recycle  system  for pasting area wash water.  The
recycle system costs are based on the cost for installing a three
stage settling system, a holding tank for retaining  the  settled
water before reuse, piping for segregation, and two pumps.

Pasting area water recycle costs were determined for both BPT and
BAT  (PSES).   The  recycle  system  costs were estimated for all
plants that discharge pasting area wash  except  those  that  had
recycle equipment in place.

Steam Curing.  Some plants continuously discharge condensate from
steam  curing.   As  discussed  in Section VII, it is feasible to
utilize  steam  curing   without   incurring   a   discharge   by
implementing  one  of  a  variety of techniques.  For plants that
currently discharge  this  stream,  a  cost  was  determined  for
converting  to  zero  discharge.   The  cost model basis selected
includes the addition of  pressure  relief  valves  to  vent  the
steam.  Figure VIII-2 shows the equipment capital cost associated
with  installing the pressure relief valves.  There are no direct
annual costs associated with the zero discharge  operation.   The
steam curing costs were estimated for both BPT and BAT (PSES).

Humidity  Curing  Water Recycle.  Some plants report a continuous
discharge from humidity  curing  operations.   For  plants  which
report  this  discharge,  an  external  water  recycle system was
costed  for  BPT  and  BAT  (PSES).   The  water  recycle  system
equipment   includes   a  holding  tank,  one  pump,  piping  for
segregation, and  a  collection  trench  for  the  curing  water.
Figure VIII-3 shows the equipment capital and direct annual costs
for the water recycle system.

Slow  Formation.   As discussed in Section VII, some plants which
charge batteries at high amperage (fast  formation)  require  the
use  of  cooling water since they generate significant quantities
of heat.  One technology for eliminating the use of cooling which
can be  costed  is  slow  formation.   Figure  VIII-4  shows  the
equipment  capital  costs  for converting to slow formation.  The
slow formation capital costs are based  on  the  installation  of
ratiks  for  stacking batteries (as opposed to charging on tables)
                              466

-------
and a retrofit cost for converting from fast  formation  to  slow
formation.   Direct  annual  costs are not affected by converting
from fast formation to slow formation.

Slow formation was costed for BAT  (PSES)  for  all  plants  that
reported  a.  cooling water discharge from double fill or fill and
dump formation.  For plants that report a cooling water discharge
from single fill formation, slow formation was costed for BPT and
BAT (PSES).

Open Dehydrated Formation Water.  Wastewater discharge from  open
dehydrated  formation  is  associated with rinsing formed plates.
At some plants, wastewater is also discharged  from  vacuum  pump
seals  and  ejectors used for dehydrating the rinsed plates.  The
wastewater discharge from plate rinsing can be greatly reduced if
the plates are rinsed  with  countercurrent  cascade  techniques,
with flow controllers and agitation.

Figure  VII1-5  shows  the equipment capital cost associated with
countercurrent  cascade  rinsing.   These  costs  are  based   on
converting   from   a   single   stage   rinse  to  a  two  stage
countercurrent cascade rinse.  The countercurrent cascade rinsing
costs include  installation of an additional rinse  tank,  a  flow
control  system, piping, and air spargers for air agitation.  The
rinse tanks are agitated to ensure proper mixing.  Air  agitation
is  accomplished  by  bubbling  compressed  air  through  the air
spargers.  The air  agitation  costs  assume  that  a  source  of
compressed  air  is  already  in-place.   The flow control system
consists of  a  conductivity  flow  controller  and  a  motorized
butterfly valve.

Figure  VIII-5  also  shows  the incremental labor (direct annual
cost) for using a two stage countercurrent cascade rinse  instead
of  a single stage rinse.  This cost is for the incremental labor
associated with moving the plates from the  first  stage  to  the
second stage of the rinse tanks.

Figure VIII-6  shows the equipment capital and direct annual costs
associated  with  recycling wastewater from vacuum pump seals and
ejectors  (sealant  water   recycle).    Since   the   level   of
contamination  in  waste streams from this source is low, recycle
will drastically reduce  the  high  volume  discharges  presently
produced at. some facilities.  The sealant water recycle costs are
based on the installation of a holding tank, one pump, and piping
for segregation.

Costs  for  BAT  (PSES)  only  were  estimated for countercurrent
cascade rinsing and sealant water recycle.  A number of different
costing situations were encountered when  estimating  these  flow
                              467

-------
reduction  costs.   These  situations  and  the costing procedure
followed for each situation are discussed below:

1.    Plant Reports Discharge From Both Plate Rinsing and  Sealant
     Water  Which  is Greater than BAT (PSES) Regulatory Flow for
     Open  Dehydrated  Formation  —  In  this   situation   both
     countercurrent  cascade  rinsing  and  sealant water recycle
     were costed.

2.    Plant Reports Discharge from Plate  Rinsing  Only  Which  is
     Greater  Than BAT (PSES) Regulatory Flow for Open Dehydrated
     Formation — In this situation only  countercurrent  cascade
     rinsing was costed.

3.    Plant Reports Discharges from Both Plate Rinsing and Sealant
     Water But Does Not Report Flow —  In  this  situation  both
     sealant  water  recycle  and  countercurrent cascade rinsing
     were costed.

4.    Plant Reports Discharge from Plate Rinsing Only But Does Not
     Report Flow —  In  this  situation  countercurrent  cascade
     rinsing was costed.

5.    Plant Reports Discharge Flow from Open Dehydrated  Formation
     Which  is  Greater  Than BAT (PSES) Regulatory Flow But Does
     Not Indicate Where Flow is From — In this situation it  was
     assumed  that  the  flow  was  from  plate  rinsing only and
     countercurrent cascade rinsing was costed.

6.    Plant Reports Discharge From Open Dehydrated  Formation  But
     Does  Not  Report  the  Flow or Where the Flow is From — In
     this situation, countercurrent cascade rinsing was costed.

Formation Area Wet Air Pollution Control Water Recycle.  Wet  air
pollution control (WAPC)  scrubbers are used in the formation area
to  primarily  remove acid fumes generated during formation.  The
discharge flow from these  scrubbers  can  be  minimized  if  the
scrubber water is neutralized with caustic and recycled.  Figures
VIII-7  and  VIII-8  show the equipment capital and direct annual
costs associated with recycle formation  area  WAPC  water.   The
recycle  system costs include a holding tank, agitator, one pump,
piping  for  segregation,   and   a   caustic   addition   system
(instrumentation  for  pH  control,  and a caustic storage tank).
The caustic storage tank is mounted on the holding tank  so  that
caustic  can  be gravity fed through a small valve into a holding
tank.

Formation area WAPC recycle costs were estimated for BPT and  BAT
(PSES)  for  all  plants that reported a discharge from formation
                              468

-------
area WAPC scrubbers in excess of 0.006 I/kg.   These  costs  were
also  estinicited  for  plants which did not report their formation
area WAPC flow.

Paste Mixing WAPC  Water  Neutralization.   An  annual  cost  was
estimated  at  BPT and BAT (PSES) for any plants which reported a
flow greater than 0.005 I/kg.  The model used  to  establish  the
cost  basis  is  a rotoclone-type scrubber.  The .flow is based on
semi-annual dumping of the scrubber water.  A cost  of  $100  per
plant  per  year  was  assigned  to  all  plants which reported a
discharge flow which exceeded the criterion.  This cost was  also
assigned  to plants which reported a discharge but did not report
the flow value.  The cost is  for  addition  of  caustic  to  the
rotoclone tank for acid neutralization to prevent corrosion.

Reuse  of  Battery  Rinse  Water  in Acid Cutting.  Battery rinse
water is used for product  rinses  in  the  formation  areas  and
battery wash with water only.

As  discussed  in  Section  VII,  all  water  used  in a properly
operated battery rinse can be reused to dilute (cut) acid to  the
appropriate  specific  gravity  for  battery electrolyte.  Proper
operation is where water is recycled at  the  rinse  station  and
flows  only when batteries are present.  Figures VII1-9 and VIII-
10 show the equipment capital and direct annual costs  associated
with  reusing battery rinse water in acid cutting.  The equipment
includes a holding tank, two pumps, piping for segregation, and a
photoelec.tric eye.  The photoelectric eye activates  the  battery
rinse flow when a battery passes beneath it.  The eye deactivates
the flow after the last battery is rinsed.

Reuse of battery rinse water in acid cutting costs were estimated
for BAT (PSES).  For costing purposes, it was assumed that plants
with  formation  battery rinses operate a detergent battery wash,
where the final rinse is used as makeup to the detergent recycle.
Several plants had equipment  in-place  to  reuse  battery  rinse
water; no costs were estimated for these plants.

Power Floor Scrubber Water Settling.   Wastewater from power floor
scrubbers  contains  high  concentrations of suspended solids and
should be settled before treatment.   Figure  VI11-11  shows  the
equipment  capital  and  direct  annual  costs  for  power  floor
scrubber water settling.  These settling costs were estimated for
BPT and BAT (PSES) for all plants that discharge wastewater.  The
floor scrubbing water  settling  equipment  includes  a  settling
tank,  one  pump,  and  piping.   A  labor cost for periodic tank
cleaning is included in the O&M costs.
                              469

-------
Segregation.   Many  plants  discharge  nonprocess   streams   to
wastewater   treatment.    These   nonprocess   streams  are  not
contaminated and can be either directly discharged or  discharged
to  the  sanitary sewer.  Costs for segregation, or rerouting, of
nonprocess water were estimated for all  discharging  plants  for
both  BPT  and  BAT  (PSES).   Figure VIII-12 shows the equipment
capital and  direct  annual  costs  associated  with  segregating
nonprocess water.

As   with  other  in-plant  costs,  the  segregation  costs  were
developed based on a model plant.  The following equipment  items
were included in the model costs:

o    Piping for routing each nonprocess stream to a common sump

o    One sump with a level controller

o    Piping for routing the combined nonprocess streams from  the
     sump to the sanitary sewer or direct discharge

o    One pump for pumping the water from the sump to the sanitary
     sewer or direct discharge.

There are a variety of  nonprocess  streams  present  at  battery
manufacturing  plants.    Table VII1-9 presents the disposition of
nonprocess water among the plants visited  in  the  post-proposal
data collection period.

The  segregation  model  costs  are  based on rerouting deionizer
blowdown water, water softener backflush, and assembly area  non-
contact  cooling  water.   The  remaining  nonprocess streams are
already segregated by most plants.

Cost Estimation Model

Cost estimation was accomplished using  a  computer  model  which
accepts  inputs specifying the required treatment system chemical
characteristics of the raw waste streams, flow rates  and  treat-
ment  system  entry points of these streams, and operating sched-
ules.  This model utilizes a computer-aided design  of  a  waste-
water  treatment system containing modules that are configured to
reflect the appropriate equipment at  an  individual  plant.  The
model  designs  each treatment module and then executes a costing
routine that contains the cost data for each module.  The capital
and annual costs from  the  costing  routine  are  combined  with
capital and annual costs for the other modules to yield the total
costs  for  that  regulatory option.  The process is repeated for
each regulatory option.
                              470

-------
Each module was developed by coupling theoretical design informa-
tion from the technical literature with actual design  data  from
operating   plants.   This  permits  the  most  realistic  design
approach possible to be used, which is  important  to  accurately
estimate costs.  The fundamental units for design and costing are
not the modules themselves but the components within each module,
e.g.,  the  lime  feed  system  within the chemical precipitation
module.  This is a significant for two reasons.  First,  it  does
not  limit  the  model  to  certain  fixed  relationships between
various components of each module.  For instance, cost  data  for
chemical    precipitation   systems   are   typically   presented
graphically as a family of curves with  lime   (or  other  alkali)
dosage  as  a parametric function.  The model, however, sizes the
lime feed system as a function of the required mass addition rate
(kg/hr)  of  lime.   The  model  thus  selects  a   feed   system
specifically designed for that plant.  Second, this approach more
closely  reflects  the  way  a  plant  would  actually design and
purchase its equipment.  Thus, resulting costs are close  to  the
actual costs that would be incurred by the plant.

Overall  Structure.   The  cost  estimation model consists of two
main'parts:  a design portion and a costing portion.  The  design
portion  uses  input  provided  by  the  user to calculate design
parameters for each module included in the treatment system.  The
design parameters are then used as input to the costing  routine,
which  contains cost equations for each discrete component in the
system.  The structure of the program is  such  that  the  entire
system is designed before any costs are estimated.

The  pollutants  or parameters which are tracked by the model are
shown in Table VIII-10 (page 505).

An overall logic diagram of the computer programs is depicted  in
Figure  VIII-13 (page 521).  First, constants are initialized and
certain variables such as the modules to be included, the  system
configuration,  plant  and  wastewater  flows,  compositions, and
entry points are specified by the user.  Each module is  designed
utilizing  the  flow  and  composition data for influent streams.
The design values are  transmitted  to  the  cost  routine.   The
appropriate  cost equations are applied, and the module costs and
system costs are computed.  Figures VIII-14  and  VIII-15  (pages
522  and  523)  depict the logic flow diagrams in more detail for
the two major segments of the program.

Input Data Requirements.   Several data inputs are required to run
the computer model.  First, the treatment modules  to  be  costed
and their sequence must be specified.  Next, information on hours
of operation per day and number of days of operation per year for
the  particular  plant being costed is required.  The flow values
                              471

-------
and characteristics must be specified for each wastewater  stream
entering  the treatment system, as well as each stream's point of
entry into the wastewater treatment system.   These  values  then
dictate  the  size  and  other  parameters of equipment for which
costs are to be determined.  The  derivation  of  each  of  these
inputs  for  costed  plants in the lead subcategory are discussed
below.

Choice of the appropriate modules and their sequence for a costed
plant are determined by applying  the  treatment  technology  for
each option (see Figures IX-1  and X-l through X-4).  These option
diagrams  were  adjusted  to accurately demonstrate the treatment
equipment that the costed plant  will  actually  require.   If  a
plant  has  a particular treatment module in place, that cost for
that module will be determined.   The  information  on  hours  of
operation  per  day  and  days of operation per year was obtained
from the data collection portfolio of the costed plant.

The flows used to size the treatment equipment  were  derived  as
follows:   production  (kg/yr)  and  flow  (1/yr) information was
obtained from dcp, or trip report  data  where  possible,  and  a
production  normalized flow in liters per kilogram was calculated
for each waste stream.  This flow was compared to the  regulatory
flow, also in liters per kilogram, and the lower of the two flows
was  used  to  size the treatment equipment.  Regulatory flow was
also assigned to any stream for which production or flow data was
not reported in the dcp.

The raw waste concentrations of influent waste streams  used  for
costing  were  based on sampling data and the assumption that the
total pollutant loading (mg/1) in a particular  waste  stream  is
constant, regardless of flow.

Model   Results.    For   a  given  plant,  the  model  generates
comprehensive material balances for  each  parameter   (pollutant,
temperature  and  flowrate)  at any point in the system.  It also
summarizes design values for  key  equipment  in  each  treatment
module,  and  provides  a  tabulation  of costs for each piece of
equipment in  each  module,  module  subtotals,  total  equipment
costs, and system capital and annual costs.

Cost Estimates for Individual Treatment Technologies

Introduction.   Treatment  technologies  have  been selected from
among the larger  set  of  available  alternatives  discussed  in
Section  VII  after considering such factors as raw waste charac-
teristics, typical plant characteristics (e.g., location, produc-
tion schedules, product mix, and land availability), and  present
treatment   practices.    Specific  rationale  for  selection  is
                              472

-------
addressed in Sections IX, X, XI, and  XII.   Cost  estimates  for
each  technology  addressed  in  this  section include investment
costs and annual costs for depreciation, capital,  operation  and
maintenance, and energy.

The specific assumptions for each wastewater treatment module are
listed under the subheadings to follow.  Costs are presented as a
function  of  influent wastewater flow rate except where noted in
the unit process assumptions.

Costs are presented  for  the  following  control  and  treatment
technologies:

        Lime Precipitation and Gravity Settling,
        Sulfide Precipitation and Gravity Settling,
        Vacuum Filtration,
        Flow Equalization,
        Holding Tank - Recycle,
        Multimedia Filtration,
        Membrane Filtration,
        Reverse Osmosis,
     -  Oil Skimming,
        Contract Hauling.                             .

Lime  Precipitation  and  Gravity  Settling.  Precipitation using
lime followed by gravity settling is a fundamental technology for
metals removal.  In practice, either quicklime (CaO) or  hydrated
lime can be used to precipitate toxic and other metals.  Hydrated
lime  is  more economical for low lime requirements since the use
of slakers, which are necesary for quicklime usage, are practical
only for large-volume applications of lime.

Lime is used to adjust the pH of the influent waste stream  to  a
value  of  approximately 9, at which optimum precipitation of the
metals is assumed to occur  (see Section VII, page  303),  and  to
react  with the metals to form metal hydroxides.  The lime dosage
is calculated as a theoretical stoichiometric  requirement  based
on  the  influent  metals concentrations and pH.  The actual lime
dosage requirement is  obtained  by  assuming  an  excess  of  10
percent   of   the   theoretical   lime   dosage.   The  effluent
concentrations are based  on  the  lime  precipitation  treatment
effectiveness values in Table VII-21 (page 418).

The  costs  of lime precipitation and gravity settling were based
on one of three operation modes, depending on the influent  flow-
rate:   continuous,  normal batch, and "low flow" batch.  The use
of a particular mode for costing purposes  was  determined  on  a
least  (total  annualized)  cost basis for.a given flowrate.  The
economic breakpoint between continuous and normal batch was esti-
                              473

-------
mated to be 10,600 liters/hour.  Below 2,000 liters/hour, it  was
found that the "low flow" batch system was most economical.

For a continuous operation, the following equipment were included
in the determination of capital and annual costs:

        Lime feed system (continuous)
        1.  Storage units (sized for 30-day storage)
        2.  Slurry mix tank (5 minute retention time)
        3.  Feed pumps
        4.  Instrumentation (pH control)

        Polymer feed system
        1.  Storage hopper
        2.  Chemical mix tank
        3.  Chemical metering pump

        pH adjustment system
        1.  Rapid mix tank, fiberglass (5 minute retention time)
        2.  Agitator (velocity gradient is 300/second)
        3.  Control system

     -  Gravity settling system
        1.  Clarifier, circular, steel (overflow rate is 0.347
            gpm/sq. ft., underflow solids is 3 percent)
        2.  Sludge pumps (1), (to transfer flow to and from
            clarifier)

Ten  percent of the clarifier underflow stream is recycled to the
pH adjustment tank to serve as seed  material  for  the  incoming
waste stream.

The  direct capital costs of the lime and polymer feed were based
on the respective chemical feed rates (dry  Ib/hour),  which  are
dependent  on  the  influent  waste  stream characteristics.  The
flexibility of this feature (i.e., costs are independent of other
module components) was previously noted in the description of the
cost estimation model.  The remaining equipment costs (e.g.,  for
tanks,  agitators,  pumps)  were  developed  as a function of the
influent flowrate (either directly or  indirectly,  when  coupled
with  the  design  assumptions).   A  cost  curve is presented in
Figure VIII-16 (page 524) for capital  costs  of  the  continuous
system.

Direct  annual  costs for the continuous system include operating
and maintenance labor for the feed systems and the clarifier, the
cost of lime and polymer, maintenance materials and energy  costs
required  to  run  the  agitators  and  pumps.   A  cost curve is
                              474

-------
presented in Figure VIII-16 (page 524) for annual  costs  of  the
countinuous systems.

The  normal  batch  treatment system (used for flows greater than
2,000 liters/hour and less than 10,600 liters/hour)  consists  of
the following equipment:

        Lime feed system (batch)
        1.  Slurry tank (5 minute retention time)
        2.  Agitator
        3.  Feed pump

     -  Polymer feed system
        1.  Chemical mix tank
        2.  Agitator
        3.  Chemical metering pump

        pH adjustment system
        1.  Reaction tanks (2), (8 hour retention time each)
        2.  Agitators (2), (velocity gradient is 300/second)
        3.  Sludge pump (1),  (to transfer sludge to dewatering)
        4.  pH control system

The  reaction  tanks  used in pH adjustment are sized to hold the
wastewater volume accumulated for one batch period (assumed to be
8 hours).  The tanks are arranged in a  parallel  setup  so  that
treatment  occurs in one tank while wastewater is accumulating in
the other tank.  A separate  gravity  settler  is  not  necessary
since  settling  will occur in the reaction tank after precipita-
tion has  taken place.  The settled sludge is then pumped  to  the
dewatering stage.

If additional tank capacity is required in the pH adjustment sys-
tem  in   excess of 25,000 gallons (largest single fiberglass tank
capacity  for which cost data were compiled), additional tanks are
added in  pairs.   Costs  for  a  sludge  pump  and  agitator  are
estimates  for  each  tank.   A cost curve is presented in Figure
VIII-16 (page 524) for capital costs of the normal batch system.

The cost  of operating labor is the major component of the  direct
annual  costs  for the normal batch system.  For operation of the
batch lime feed system, labor requirements range from  15  to  60
minutes   per  batch,  depending on the lime feed rate (5 to 1,000
pounds/batch).  This labor is associated with the manual addition
of lime (stored in 50 pound bags).  For pH  adjustment,  required
labor  is assumed  to  be  one  hour  per batch (for pH control,
sampling, valve operation, etc.).  Both the  pH  adjustment  tank
and the lime feed system are assumed to require 52 hours per year
(one hour/week) of maintenance labor.  Labor requirements for the
                              475

-------
polymer   feed  system  are  approximately  one  hour/day,  which
accounts for manual addition of dry polymer and maintenance asso-
ciated with the chemical feed pump and agitator.

Direct annual costs also include the  cost  of  chemicals  (lime,
polymer)  and  energy  required for the pumps and agitators.  The
costs of lime and polymer used in the  model  are  $47.30/kkg  of
lime ($43/ton) and $4.96/kg of polymer ($2.25/lb), based on rates
obtained  from the Chemical Weekly Reporter (lime) and quotations
from vendors (polymer).  A cost  curve  is  presented  in  Figure
VIII-16 (page 524) for annual costs of the normal batch system.

For  small influent flowrates (less than 2,000 liters/hour) it is
more economical on a total annualized cost basis  to  select  the
"low  flow" batch treatment system.  The lower flowrates allow an
assumption of five days for the batch  duration,  or  holdup,  as
opposed  to  eight  hours  for the normal batch system.  However,
whenever the total batch volume (based  on  a  five  day  holdup)
exceeds  25,000  gallons, the maximum single batch tank capacity,
the holdup is decreased accordingly to maintain the batch  volume
under  this  level.   Capital  and  annual costs for the low flow
system are based on the following equipment:

     -  pH adjustment system
        1.  Rapid mix/holdup tank (5 days or less retention time)
        2.  Agitator
        3.  Transfer pump

Only one tank is required for both holdup and  treatment  because
treatment  is  assumed  to  be  accomplished during non-operating
hours (since the holdup  time  is  much  greater  than  the  time
required  for  treatment).   Costs for a lime feed system are not
estimated since lime addition at low  application  rates  can  be
assumed  to  be  done manually by the operator.  A common pump is
used for transfer of both the supernatant and sludge  through  an
appropriate valving arrangement.  Addition of polymer was assumed
to be unnecessary due to the extended settling time available.  A
cost curve is presented in Figure VIII-16 (page 524), for capital
costs of the "low flow" batch system.

As in the normal batch case, annual costs are comprised mainly of
labor  costs  for  the low flow batch system.  Labor requirements
are constant at 1.5 hours  per  batch  for  operation  (e.g.,  pH
control,  sampling,  etc.)  and  52  hours per year (one hour per
week) for maintenance.  Labor is also  required  for  the  manual
addition of lime directly to the batch tank, ranging from 0.25 to
1.5  hours  per batch depending on the lime requirement (1 to 500
pounds per  batch).   Annual  costs  also  include  energy  costs
associated with the, pump and agitator.  A cost curve is presented
                              476

-------
in  Figure VII1-16 (page 524), for annual costs of the "low flow"
batch system.

Sulfide Precipitation and Gravity Settling.  Precipitation  using
sulfide precipitants followed by gravity settling is a technology
similar to lime precipitation.  In general, sulfide precipitation
removes  more  metals  from  wastewater  than  lime precipitation
because metal sulfides are less soluble than metal hydroxides.

Sulfide precipitants can be  either  soluble  sulfides  (such  as
sodium  sulfide, or sodium bisulfide) or insoluble sulfides (such
as ferrous sulfide).  Soluble sulfides generate less sludge  than
insoluble  sulfides,  are  less  expensive, and are more commonly
used in industry.  The sulfide precipitation module is  based  on
the use of sodium sulfide.

The sulfide precipitation system consists of a pH adjustment step
with lime followed by a sulfide precipitation step.  Lime is used
to  adjust  the  pH  of  the  influent waste stream to a value of
approximately 9, at which optimum precipitation of the metals  is
assumed  to  occur,  and  to  react with the metals to form metal
hydroxides.   The lime  dosage  is  calculated  as  a  theoretical
stoichiometric   requirement   based   on   the  influent  metals
concentrations,  lime   precipitation   treatment   effectiveness
concentration,  and  pH.   The  actual lime dosage requirement is
obtained by assuming an excess of 10 percent of  the  theoretical
lime  dosage.   The  treatment  effectiveness  concentrations are
based on the lime precipitation treatment effectiveness values in
Table VII-;>1 (page 418).

After pH adjustment, sodium sulfide is added to  the  wastewater.
The  sodium  sulfide  reacts  with the metal hydroxides and forms
metal sulfides.  The metal sulfides are  less  soluble  than  the
metal   hydroxides.    Thus,  a  larger  portion  of  the  metals
precipitate  (compared to lime precipitation) and  metals  removal
is  enhanced.   The sodium sulfide concentration is calculated as
the theoretical stoichiometric requirement based on the  influent
metals  concentration.   The  actual  sodium  sulfide  dosage  is
obtained by assuming an excess of 25 percent of  the  theoretical
sodium  sulfide  dosage.   Effluent  concentrations  are based on
treatment effectiveness values for sulfide precipitation.

As with lime precipitation costs, the  costs  for  pH  adjustment
with  lime,  sulfide precipitation, and gravity settling are based
on one of  three  operation  modes,  depending  on  the  influent
flowrate:  continuous,  normal  batch, and "low flow" batch.  The
use of a particular mode for costing purposes was determined on a
least (total annualized) cost basis for a  given  flowrate.   The
economic  breakpoint  between  continuous  and  normal  batch  is
                              477

-------
assumed to be 10,600 liters/hour.  Below 2,000 liters/hour, it  is
assumed that the "low flow" batch system is most economical.

For a continuous operation, the following equipment were included
in the determination of capital and annual costs:

          Lime feed system (continuous)
          1.   Storage units, (sized for 30-day storage)
          2.   Slurry mix tank (5 minute retention time)
          3.   Feed pumps
          4.   Instrumentation (pH control)

     -    Sodium sulfide feed system (continuous)
          1.   Storage units (sized for 30-day storage)
          2.   Mix tank (5 minute retention time)
          3.   Feed pumps
          4.   Hood for ventilation

     -    Polymer feed system
          1 .   Storage hopper
          2.   Chemical mix tank
          3.   Chemical metering pump

     -    pH adjustment system
          1.   Rapid mix tank, fiberglass
          2.   Agitator (velocity gradient is 300/second)
          3.   Control system,

     -    Sulfide precipitation system
          1.   Rapid mix tank, fiberglass
          2.   Agitator (velocity gradient is 300/second)
          3.   Hood for ventilation

     -    Flocculation system
          1.   Slow mix tank, fiberglass
          2.   Agitator (velocity gradient is 100/second)
          3.   2.0 mg/1 polymer dosage

          Gravity settling system
          1.   Clarifier,  circular, steel (overflow rate
               is 0.347 gpm/sq. ft., underflow solids is
               3 percent)
          2.   Sludge pumps (1),  (to transfer flow to and
               from clarifier)

The percent of the clarifier underflow stream is recycled to  the
pH  adjustment  tank  to  serve as seed material for the incoming
waste stream.
                              478

-------
An aeration  system  (tank  and  spargers)  for  removing  excess
hydrogen sulfide is also included in the costs.

The direct capital costs of the lime, sodium sulfide, and polymer
feed  systems  were  based  on the respective chemical feed rates
(dry Ib/hr), which are dependent on  the  influent  waste  stream
characteristics.   A  .cost  curve is presented in Figure VIII-17,
(page 525) for capital costs of continuous system.

Direct annual costs for the continuous system  include  operating
and maintenance labor for the feed systems and the clarifier, the
cost  of lime, sodium sulfide, and polymer, maintenance materials
and energy costs required to run the agitators and pumps.  A cost
curve is presented in Figure VIII-17 (page 525) for annual  costs
of the continuous system.

The  normal  batch treatment system  (used for 2,000 liters/hour <
flow <10,600 liters/hour) consists of the following equipment:

          Lime feed system (batch)
          1.   Slurry tank (5 minute retention time)
          2.   Agitator
          3,   Feed pump

          Polymer feed system
          1.   Chemical mix tank
          2,   Agitator
          3.   Chemical metering pump

          Sodium sulfide feed system
          1.   Mix tank (5 minute retention time)
          2.   Agitator
          3„   Feed pump
          4.,   Hood for ventilation

          pH adjustment and sulfide precipitation system
          1.   Reaction tanks (8 hour retention time
               each)
          2.   Agitators (Velocity gradient is 300/second)
          3.   Sludge pump (1), (to transfer sludge to
               dewatering)
          4.   pH control system
          5.   Hood for ventilation

The batch sulfide precipitation system is similar  to  the  batch
lime  precipitation  system.   An  aeration  system (tank and air
spargers) for removing excess hydrogen sulfide is  included.   As
with  the  continuous  sulfide  precipitation  system, the sodium
sulfide feed system is ventilated.  A cost curve is presented  in
                              479

-------
Figure  VII1-17  (page 525) for capital costs of the normal batch
system.

Direct annual  costs  for  batch  sulfide  precipitation  include
operating  labor  costs,  the  cost of chemicals (lime and sodium
sulfide) and energy required for the pumps and  agitators.   Lime
costs  are  discussed  in the lime precipitation section.  A cost
curve is presented in Figure VII1-17 (page 525) for annual  costs
of the normal batch system.

The  cost  used  by  the  model for sodium sulfide is $517/kkg of
sodium sulfide ($470/ton).  This cost is based on rates from  the
Chemical Marketing Reporter.

As  discussed  in  the  lime  precipitation  section,  for  small
influent flowrates (less  than  2,000  liters/hour)  it  is  more
economical  on  a  total annualized cost basis to select the "low
flow" batch treatment  system.   The  lower  flowrates  allow  an
assumption  of  five  days  for the batch duration, or holdup, as
opposed to eight hours for the  normal  batch  system.   However,
whenever  the  total  batch  volume  (based on a five day holdup)
exceeds 25,000 gallons, the maximum single batch  tank  capacity,
the  holdup is decreased accordingly to maintain the batch volume
under this level.  Capital and annual  costs  for  the  low  flow
system are based on the following equipment:

          pH adjustment and sulfide precipitation
          system
          1.   Rapid mix/holdup tank (5 days or less
               retention time)
          2.   Agitator
          3.   Transfer pump
          4.   Aeration system (tank and air spargers)
          5.   Hood for ventilation

Only  one  tank is required for both holdup and treatment because
treatment is assumed  to  be  accomplished  during  non-operating
hours  (since  the  holdup  time  is  much  greater than the time
required for treatment).  Lime and sodium  sulfide  feed  systems
are  not  costed  since  lime  and sodium-sulfide addition at low
application rates can be assumed  to  be  done  manually  by  the
operator.   A  common  pump  is  used  for  transfer  of both the
supernatant   and   sludge   through   an   appropriate   valving
arrangement.   Addition  of polymer was assumed to be unnecessary
due to the extending settling time available.  A  cost  curve  is
presented  in  Figure VIII-17 (page 525) for capital costs of the
"low flow" batch system.
                              480

-------
As in the normal batch case, annual costs are comprised mainly of
labor costs for the low flow batch  system.   Labor  requirements
are constant at 1 hour per batch for operation (e.g., pH control,
sampling,  etc.)  and  52  hours per year (one hour per week) for
maintenance.  Labor is also required for the manual  addition  of
lime and sodium sulfide directly to the batch tank.  A cost curve
is presented in Figure VIII-17 (page 525) for annual costs of the
"low flow" batch system.


Vacuum Filtration.  The underflow from the clarifier is routed to
a  rotary  pirecoat  vacuum  filter,  which dewaters the hydroxide
sludge (it may also include calcium sulfate and  fluoride)  to  a
cake  of 20 percent dry solids.  The dewatered sludge is disposed
of by contract hauling and the filtrate is recycled to the  rapid
mix tank as seed material for sludge formation.

The  capacity  of  the vacuum filter, expressed as square feet of
filtration area, is based on a yield value  of  14.6  kg  of  dry
solids/hr  per  square meter of filter area (3 lb/hr/ft2), with a
solids capture of 95 percent.  It was assumed that the filter was
operated 8 hours/day.

Cost data were compiled for vacuum filters ranging  from  0.9  to
69.7 m2(9.7 to 750 ft2) in filter surface area.  Based on a total
annualized  cost  comparison,  it  was  assumed  that it was more
economical to directly contract haul clarifier underflow  streams
which  were less than 42 1/hr (0.185 gpm), rather than dewater by
vacuum filtration before hauling.

The capital costs for the vacuum filtration include  the  follow-
ing:

        Vacuum filter with precoat but no sludge conditioning,
     -  Housing, and
        Influent transfer pump.

Operating  labor  cost  is  the  major component of annual costs,
which also include maintenance and energy costs.  Cost curves for
capital and annual costs are presented in  Figure  VIII-18   (page
526) for vacuum filtration.

Flow  Equalization.   Flow  equalization  is accomplished through
steel equalization tanks which are sized  based  .on  a  retention
time  of eight hours or 16 hours and an excess capacity factor of
1.2.  Cost data were available .for steel equalization tanks up to
a capacity of 500,000 gallons; multiple units were  required  for
volumes  greater than 500,000 gallons.  The tanks are fitted with
agitators with a horsepower requirement of 0.006 kw/1,000  liters
                              481

-------
(0.03 hp/1,000 gallons) of capacity to prevent sedimentation.  An
influent  transfer  pump  is  also  included  in the equalization
system.  Cost curves for capital and annual costs  are  presented
in  Figure  VIII-19 (page 527) for equalization at 8 hours and 16
hours retention time, respectively.

Holding Tanks Recycle.  A holding tank may  be  used  to  recycle
water back to a process or for miscellaneous purposes, e.g., hose
washdown   for   plant  equipment.   Holding  tanks  are  usually
implemented when the recycled water  need  not  be  cooled.   The
equipment  used to determine capital costs are a fiberglass tank,
pump, and recycle piping.  Annual costs are only associated  with
the  pump.  The capital cost of a fiberglass tank is estimated on
the basis of required  tank  volume.   Required  tank  volume  is
calculated  on  the basis of influent flowrate, 20 percent excess
capacity, and four hour retention time.

When chemical precipitation is operated in  a  batch  mode  (less
than  10,600  1/hr), it is assumed that water may be recycled out
of the tank used to operate chemical  precipitation.   Therefore,
since  a  separate  holding tank is not required, only a pump and
recycle piping are contributors to recycle costs.

Cost curves for capital and annual cost are presented  in  Figure
VIII-20 (page 528) for flowrates less than 2,000 1/hr and greater
than 10,600 1/hr respectively.  In the lead subcategory under BAT
(PSES) water is recycled back to hose washdown after the water is
treated by chemical precipitation and settling.

Multimedia  Filtration.   Multimedia  filtration  is  used  as  a
wastewater treatment polishing device to remove suspended  solids
not  removed  in  previous  treatment processes.  The filter beds
consist of graded layers of gravel, coarse anthracite  coal,  and
fine  sand.   The  equipment used to determine capital and annual
costs are as follows:

        Influent storage tank sized for one backwash volume;
     -  Gravity flow, vertical steel cylindrical filters with
        media (anthracite, sand, and garnet);
        Backwash tank sized for one backwash volume;
        Backwash pump to provide necessary flow and head for
        backwash operations;
        Influent transfer pump; and
        Piping, valves, and a control system.

The hydraulic loading rate is 7,335 lph/m2 (180 gph/ft2) and  the
backwash loading rate is 29,340 lph/m2 (720 gph/ft2).  The filter
is  backwashed  once  per  24 hours for 10 minutes.  The backwash
volume is provided from the stored filtrate.
                              482

-------
Effluent pollutant concentrations are based  on  treatability  of
pollutants by filtration technology presented in Section VII.

Cost  curves for capital and annual costs are presented in Figure
VIII-21 (page 529) for multimedia filtration.

Membrane Filtration.  Membrane filtration is used as a wastewater
treatment polishing device f6r suspended solids  not  removed  in
previous  treatment  processes.   Cartridge-type filters are used
instead of multimedia filters to treat  small  flows  (less  than
1,150  liters/hour)  since  they  are more economical compared to.
multimedia filters  (based  on  a  least  total  annualized  cost
comparison)  at  these  flows.   It was assumed that the effluent
quality achieved by these filters was at least the level attained
by multimedia filters.  The equipment used to  determine  capital
and annual costs for membrane filtration are as follows:

          Influent holding tank sized for eight hours retention

     -    Pump

          Pirefilter
          1,   Prefilter cartridges
          2.   Prefilter housings

          Membrane filter
          1.   Membrane filter cartridges
          2*   Housing

The majority of annual cost is attributable to replacement of the
spent  prefilter  and  membrane  filter  cartridges.  The maximum
loading for the prefilter  and  membrane  filter  cartridges  was
assumed  to  be  0.225  kg  per 10 inch length of cartridge.  The
annual energy and maintenance costs associated with the pump  are
also included in the total annual costs.  Cost curves for capital
and  annual  costs are presented in Figure VIII-21 (page 529) for
membrane filtration.

Reverse Osmosis.   Reverse  osmosis  concentrates  the  dissolved
organic  and  inorganic  pollutants  in wastewater by forcing the
water through semi-permeable membranes which will  not  pass  the
pollutants.    The   water   which  permeates  the  membranes  is
relatively free of contaminants and suitable for  reuse  in  most
manufacturing process operations.

Data from several manufacturers of reverse osmosis equipment were
used  to  determine  capital  and  annual  costs.   The following
equipment were used in the determination of  capital  and  annual
costs:
                              483

-------
          pH adjustment tank (15 minute retention)

     -    Cartridge prefilter
          1.   Cartridges
          2.   Housing

     -    Two influent transfer pumps
                                   \
          Permeate storage tank (one hour retention)

          Brine storage tank (one hour retention)

     -    Reverse osmosis module
          1.   Sulfuric acid feed system
          2.   Inhibitor feed system
          3.   Conductivity monitor
          4.   Membrane cleaning system
          5.   Reverse osmosis membranes and housing

Direct  annual  costs  for  reverse osmosis include operating and
maintenance labor for the feed systems,  the  cost  for  sulfuric
acid  and  inhibitor,  prefilter  cartridge  replacement, reverse
osmosis module cartridge replacement, and  maintenance  materials
and energy costs required for the pumps and air agitation system.
Cost  curves for capital and annual costs are presented in Figure
VII1-22 (page 530) for reverse osmosis.

Oil Skimming.  Oil skimming' costs apply to the separation of oil-
water mixtures using a coalescent plate-type separator (which  is
essentially  an enhanced API-type oil-water separator).  Although
the required separator capacity is dependent on many factors, the
sizing was based primarily on the influent wastewater flow  rate,
with  the  following  design  values  assumed  for  the remaining
parameters of importance:

Parameter            '              Nominal Design Value

Specific gravity of oil        4              0.85
Operating temperature (°F)                  68
Influent oil concentration (mg/1)       30,000

Extreme operating conditions, such as influent oil concentrations
greater than 30,000 mg/1, or temperatures much lower than  68  °F
were accounted for in the sizing of the separator.

The capital and annual costs of oil skimming included the follow-
ing equipment:

     -  Coalescent plate separator with automatic shutoff
                              484

-------
        valve and level sensor
                   t

     -  Oily waste storage tanks {2-week retention time)

        Oily waste discharge pump

        Effluent discharge pump

Influent flow rates up to 159,100 1/hr {700 gpm) are costed for a
single unit; flows greater than 700 gpm require multiple units.

The  direct  annual  costs  for  oil skimming include the cost of
operating and maintenance labor and  replacement  parts.   Annual
costs for the coalescent separators alone are minimal and involve
only periodic clean out and replacement of the coalescent plates.
Cost  curves for capital and annual costs are presented in Figure
VIII-23 (page 531) for oil skimming.

Contract Hauling.  Concentrated sludge and waste oils are removed
on a contract basis for off-site disposal.  The cost of  contract
hauling  depends  on  the  classification  of  the waste as being
either hazardous or nonhazardous'.   For  nonhazardous  wastes,  a
rate  of  $0.106/liter  ($0.40/gallon)  was  used  in determining
contract hauling costs.  The cost for contract hauling  hazardous
wastes is determined from the cost equation shown in Table VII1-4
{page  494).  This equation was developed from telephone contacts
with waste disposal services.  The cost of contract hauling is an
annual cost; no capital costs are  associated  with  it.   Annual
cost  curves  for  contract  hauling  non-hazardous and hazardous
wastes are presented in Figure VIII-24 (page 532).

Compliance Cost Estimation

To calculate the compliance cost estimates,  the  model  was  run
using  input  data as described previously.  The actual costs are
stored in a data file, where they are  accessed  from  electronic
spreadsheet  software  to  prepare a cost summary for each plant.
An example of this summary may be found in  Table  VIII-11  {page
489) .

All  options costed are included on one page.  Under each option,
there are four columns.  The run number refers to  which  run  on
the  computer  the  costs  were  derived from.  The total capital
column includes the capital  cost  estimate  for  each  piece  of
necessary  treatment  equipment.   The  required  capital  column
reflects the estimates of the actual capital cost to the plant to
purchase and install the equipment by accounting  for  what  that
plant  has  already  installed.   In  other  words, the treatment
                              485

-------
equipment the plant already has  in-place  is  reflected  in  the
required capital column.

NORMAL PLANT

In  order  to  estimate  costs  for  new  sources,  and pollutant
removals and nonwater quality aspects  for  existing  sources,  a
normal  plant and a normal discharging plant were developed.  The
normal plant, an arithmetic average of plants in the subcategory,
is a theoretical plant which contains each process element in the
subcategory.  The production level for each  process  element  is
the  average  process element production in the subcategory.  The
flow  rates  for  these  process  elements  are   calculated   by
multiplying  the  process element production times the production
normalized flow for the process element at the  various  options.
In addition, the normal plant was assumed to operate, 16 hours per
day, five days per week, 50 weeks per year.

The  normal  discharging  plant  is  a  theoretical  plant  which
contains each process element at the average production level for
plants that  discharge  wastewater.   This  plant  was  developed
because  plants  which  discharge wastewater are generally larger
than those which are  zero  dischargers.   The  normal  discharge
plant  costs  are  used  as  the  basis for estimating new source
costs.  Table VII1-12 (page 507) presents the capital and  annual
costs for both the normal plant and the normal discharging plant.

NONWATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS

The  elimination  or  reduction  of  one  form  of  pollution may
aggravate  other  environmental  problems.    For   this   reason
consideration  was  given to the effect of this regulation on air
pollution, solid waste generation,  water  scarcity,  and  energy
consumption.  While it is difficult to balance pollution problems
against  each  other  and against energy utilization, the impacts
identified below are justified by the  benefits  associated  with
compliance with the limitations and standards.  The following are
the  nonwater  quality  environmental  impacts  (including energy
requirements) associated with the lead subcategory regulation.

Air Pollution

In general, especially for the lime precipitation  systems,  none
of  the  liquid  handling  processes  causes air pollution.  With
sulfide precipitation, however the potential exists for -evolution
of hydrogen sulfide, a  toxic  gas.   Proper  control  of  pH  in
treatment  eliminates  this  problem.  Incineration of sludges or
solids  can  cause, significant  air  pollution  which  must   be
controlled   by   suitable  baghouses,  scrubbers  or  stack  gas
                              486

-------
precipitators  as  well  as  proper  incinerator  operation   and
maintenance.   Implementation  of  sulfide technology at existing
plants is costly because of the additional retrofitting  a  plant
would  have  to  do to create a safe working environment.  Due to
their high content of volatile heavy metals/ sludges from battery
manufacturing are not amenable to incineration except in  retorts
for metals recovery.

Solid Waste

Costs for treatment sludge handling were included in the computer
cost program already discussed and are included in the compliance
costs.   In  addition,  the cost impact that wastewater treatment
will have on the  battery  manufacturing  category  in  terms  of
satisfying  RCRA  hazardous  waste disposal criteria was analyzed
for lime and settle  technology.   Battery  manufacturing  plants
generate an estimated total of 18/960 kkg of solid waste per year
from  manufacturing  process  operations,  and  an  indeterminate
amount of solid  waste  from  wastewater  treatment.   Wastewater
treatment   sludges   contain  toxic  metals   including  cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc.

Under the BPT limitations for the lead subcategory, an  estimated
4,817  kkg/yr  of  solid  waste  will  be generated.  Solid waste
generation under the BAT limitations and PSES  is estimated to  be
4,840  kkg/yr and 62,290 kkg/yr respectively.  These sludges will
necessarily contain additional quantities (and concentrations) of
toxic metal pollutants.

The solid wastes that would  be  generated  at  lead  subcategory
battery   manufacturing  plants  by  lime  and  settle  treatment
technologies are believed to be not hazardous  under Section  3001
of  RCRA.   This  judgement  is  made  based   on  the recommended
technology of lime precipitation using an excess of lime.  By the
addition of a small excess (approximately  10  percent)  of  lime
during  treatment,  it  is  believed  that  wastewater  treatment
sludges will pass the EP toxicity  test.   Therefore,  wastewater
treatment  sludge  hauling  costs  for  the lead subcategory were
calculated assuming the sludge was nonhazardous.   Estimated  BPT
wastewater   treatment   sludge   hauling   costs  for  the  lead
subcategory  are  $44,300  per  year.   Estimated  BAT  and  PSES
wastewater  treatment sludge hauling costs are $437,870 per year.
Process sludges such as pasting  sludge  can   be  reprocessed  to
recover  additional  lead  value.   Thus,  there  is  no cost for
disposing process sludge.

If lead subcategory wastewater treatment sludges were  considered
to  be  hazardous,  the  costs  for  wastewater  treatment sludge
disposal would double.  The impact that  hazardous  waste  sludge
                              487

-------
hauling  costs  would have on the lead subcategory was evaluated.
Sludge hauling costs were doubled for eight plants and the  total
annual  costs for each plant were summed.  The total annual costs
($1983) were compared  with  the  proposed  costs  for  Option  4
(proposed  costs  for  Option  4  updated  to 1983 dollars) which
projected no plant closures.  In all cases, the annual costs  for
existing  plants  at BPT and BAT option levels were less than the
proposed costs for Option 4.  Therefore, it can be concluded that
even  if  individual  plants  must  classify   their   wastewater
treatment  sludges  as  hazardous,  the  cost  of hazardous waste
disposal would not cause any plant closures.

Consumptive Water Loss

Where evaporative cooling mechanisms are  used,  water  loss  may
result  and  contribute  to  water  scarcity  problems, a concern
primarily in arid and semi-arid regions.   This  regulation  does
not  require  substantial evaporative cooling and recycling which
would cause a significant consumptive water loss.

Energy Aspects

Energy  aspects  of  the  wastewater  treatment   processes   are
important  because  of  the  impact  of energy use on our natural
resources and on the economy.  It  is  estimated  that  the  lead
subcategory  consumed  0.77  billion kilowatt hours of electrical
energy in 1982.  Table VII1-13 (page 508) shows  the  total  lead
subcategory energy requirement and energy cost for each treatment
option.  As shown by Table VIII-13, none of the treatment options
would  increase the current electrical energy consumption by more
than one percent.
                              488

-------
                                             TABLE VI11-1

                                BATTERY MANUFACTURING COMPLIANCE COSTS
                                           LEAD SUBCATEGORY
00
VO
Discharge
Status
Direct
Indirect
Total
Discharge
Status
Direct
Indirect
Total
Option BPT (PSES-0)
Option BAT-1
/"* — . — > - 4- - . "! A — *•»•<•« 1 **"*«*«,"«*. ,rv 1
WctpJU t.CtJL fii.HLU.al v^djJJ- C.O.4.
714,843 499,
7,887,805 4,635,
8,602,648 5,134,
Option BAT-^3
Capital
989,487
11,214,186
12,203,673
039
339
378
(PSES
818,501
7,121,534
7,940,035
-3)*
Annual
739
8,381
9,120
,521
,238 1
, 759 1
(PSES-1)
Annual
509,777
4,072,814
4,582,591
Option BAT-
Capital
1,619,406
8,353,268
9,972,674
Option BAT-2
Capital
968,117
8,390,881 4
9,358,998 5
4 (PSES-4)*
Annual
930,465
10,545,270
11,475,735
(PSES-2)
A^«,.,p1
fitiil Clc*. x.
580,626
,723,621
,304,249
    *Plant-by-plant  costs were  not  calculated  for  Options 3 and 4.
     based on the normal discharging plant.

     All costs are in  June,  1983 dollars.
Option 3 and 4 costs are

-------
                                                     TABLE VIII-2

                                             IN-PLANT COST PROCEDURE CHANGES
         Process

         Slow Formation
         Final Product Rinse
VO
o
         Countercurrent
         Rinsing and Sealant
         Recycle
Item

Equipment


Retrofit

Equipment
Equipment
Proposal

Buildings, racks and
accessories (undefined)

0

Holding tank
(2 hours retention)
3 rinse tanks
(1/2 hour retention/tank)

Flow controller

2 pumps

1 holding tank for
sealant recycle
(2 hours retention)
Revised

Racks
20% of rack cost

Holding tank (1 week
retention)

Piping for
segregation (to acid
cutting)

2 pumps

Photoelectric eye

Countercurrent rinse:
2 rinse tanks
(1/2 hour retention/
tank)

Air agitation

Flow controller

10 feet of piping to
connect tanks

-------
                                      TABLE VII1-2 (Continued)

                                   IN-PIANT COST
Process

Countercurrent Rinsing
and Sealant Recycle
(Continued)
Item
Proposal
                           Countercurrent
                           Rinsing Basis


                           Labor for
                           Countercurrent
                           rinsing
Paste Water Recycle
Equipment
                        3 stage rinsing
                        Labor cost = 0.0143
                        x battery production
                        (kg/yr)
                        $6.6/hour-labor rate
3 settling tanks
(1 hour retention/tank)

Piping for segregation
Revised
Sealant recycle:
1 holding tank
(2 hour retention)

100 feet- of piping
for segregation

1 pump

2 stage rinsing and
assumes first stage
Is in place

1.323 x flead usage
(kg/yr))°- 6
$21/hr-labor rate
2.5 ruin, incremental
labor per basket of
plates
Sampling data-
baskets/hr, Pb/hr

3 settling tanks
(1 hour retention/
tank)

-------
                                      TABLE ¥111-2  (Continued)

                                   IN-PIANT COST
Process

Paste Water Recycle
(Continued)
Item
Proposal
Stream Segregation Costs

Five New In-Plant
Technologies

System Parameters
for In-Plant Costs
NOTE:
                           Annual labor cost
Equipment

General


Engineering
contingency and
contractor's fee

Interest rate

Equipment life
Piping and trench

Not included in
in-plant costs

0%
                                                    10%

                                                    10 years
Revised

1 holding tank
(1 day retention)

Piping for
segregation
2 pumps

Annual labor cost for
periodically cleaning
out settling tanks is
included

Piping, sump and pump

Included in in-plant
costs

37.5%
                             12%

                             10 years
Installation costs are included in revised equipment costs
Revised equipment costs from end-of-pipe treatment equipment costs,  literature,  and vendor quotes
System parameters (e.g., interest rate) are consistent with end-of-pipe  treatment  module parameters

-------
                             TABLE VIII-3



         COST DIFFERENCE COMPARISON  - PROMULGATED  VS.  PROPOSED

Plant
146
331
382
446
450
462
513
553
815
943
Mean(%)
ABPT (I)
Capital
-38
-10
	
-38
, 	
-68
-40
-57
-84
71
-33

Annual
80
122
	
109
_ —
101
36
59
-42
135
75
ABAT-'
Capital
-80
-46
	
-88
	
-71
-85
-78
-85
-45
-72
I (%)
Annual
-32
-4
	
-9
	 ,
-12
-41
-45
-45
-46
-30
ABAT -2 (%)
Capital
-78
-41
	
-89
	
-72
-82
-73
-82
-55
-72
Annual
-35
-15
___ •
-12
	
-12
-37
-41
-52
-46
-31
NOTES;



 % = [(Promulgation Cost - Proposal Cost)/(Proposal Cost)] x 100



 n = 8
                               493

-------
                                                        TABLE VEII-4

                                          COST EQUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDED TREATMENT
                                                  AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
NO
Equipment

Agitator, C-clamp


Agitator, Top Entry


Clarifier, Concrete



Clarifier, Steel



Contract Hauling
         Equalization Tank, Steel
                  Equation

C = 839.1 + 587.5 (HP)
A - 0.746 (HPY) (HP) (0.0483) + 0.05 (C)

C = 1,585.55 +  125.302 (HP) - 3.27437  (HP)2
A= 0.746 (HPY) (HP) (0.0483) + 0.05  (C)

C = 78,400 + 32.65 (S) - 7.5357 x 10~4 (S)2
A = exp[8.22809 - 0.224781  (InS)
    + 0.0563252 (InS)2]

C = 41,197.1 +  72.0979(5) + 0.0106542(S)2
A = exp[8.22809 - 0.224781  (InS)
    + 0.0563252 (InS)2]

C = 0
A = 0.40 (G)(HPY)

C = 0
A = exp[-0.0240857 +  1.02731 (InG)
    - 0.0196787 (InG)2](HPY)

C - 14,759.8 +  0.170817 (V) - 8.44271
    x ID"8 (V)2
C = 3,100.44 +  1.19041 (V)  - 1.7288
    x ID"5 (V)2
C = exp[4.73808 - 0.0628537 (InV)
    + 0.0754345 (InV)2]
A = 0.05 (C)
Range of Validity

0.25 < HP < 0.33


0.33 < HP '< 5.0


500 < S < 12,000



300 < S < 2,800




Non Hazardous



Hazardous

24,000 < V < 500,000

1,000 < V < 24,000

V < 1,000

-------
                                                  TABLE ¥111-4  (Continued)

                                         COST EQUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDED TREATMENT
                                                 AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
         Equipment.

         Feed System,  Caustic
VO
Ul
        Feed System, Itaual lime
        Addition

        Feed System, Batch lime
                  Equation

Continuous feed:
C = exp[9.63461 + 8.36122 x 1CT3  (InF)
    + 0.0241809 (InF)2]

Batch feed:
C = exp[7.50026 + 0.199364 (InF)
    + 0.0416602 (InF)2]

Low Flow Batch:
C = 250

Annual Costs:
Continuous feed:
A = exp[7.9707 - 4.45846 x 10~3 (InF)
    + 0.0225972 (InF)2] +0.183 (HPY)(F)

Batch feed:
A = (21) [16 + 0.5 (BPY)] + 0.131  (F) (HPY) (HPB)

Low Flow Batch:
A= (21) (0.5) (BPY) +0.131 (F) (HPY) (HPB)

C = 0
A = (DPY)[ 0.074 (B) + 5.25 (NB)]

C = 1,697.79 + 19.489 (B) - 0.036824 (B)2
C = 16,149.2 + 10.2512 (B) -  1.65864
    x 10-3(B)2
A = (BPY)[5.01989 + 0.0551812 (B)
    - 1.79331 x 10-5 (B)2] +  545
Range of Validity


0.4 < F < 417



1.5 < F < 1,500



X < 100



0.4 < F < 417



1.5 < F < 1,500


X< 100


X < 2,200

1  < B < 200
B > 200

-------
                                          TABLE VIII-4 (Continued)

                                 COST EQUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDED TREATMENT
                                         AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES .
Equipment

Feed System, lime
(Continuous)
Feed System, Sodium Sulfide
Feed System, Polymer
Feed System, Sulfuric Acid
Filter, Multimedia
Filter, Membrane
                  Equation

C - exp[6.32249 + 1.70246 (InF)
    - 0.137186 (InF)2]
A = exp[4.87322 + 1.78557 (InF)
    4- 0.136732 (InF)2] + (F) (HPY) (LC)

C = 13,953.3 4- 117.18 (F) -  0.069117 (F)2
A- [0.758002 4-0.140318 (F) - 8.6493
     x 10-8 (F)2](HPY)

C = exp[9.83111 + 0.663271 (InF)
    4- 0.0557039 (InF)2]
C = 13,150 4- 2515.2 (F)
A » (HPY)[0.42 4-F] 4- 1,050
A = exp[8.60954 + 0.04109 (InF)
    4- 0.0109397 (InF)2] 4- 2.25 (F)(HFY)

C = exp[8.1441 4- 0.23345 (InF)
    4- 0.0180092 (InF)2]
A = exp[7.36913 4- 0.0133111  (InF)
    4- 0.029219 (InF)2] 4- 0.03743  (F)(HPY)

C = 10,888 4- 277.85 (SA) - 0.154337 (SA)2
A = exp[8.20771 + 0.275272 (InSA)
    4- 0.0323124 (lnSA>2]

C - 290.48 + 31.441 (Y) - 0.050717 (Y)2
A = [8.34253 x 10'3 4- 0.173683 (SR)
     - 4.1435 x 10'5 (SR)2](HPY)

C - -2,922.48 4- 60.6411 (Y)  - 0.065206 (Y)2
A•- [-0.0152849 + 0.172153 (SR) - 3.46041
     x 10"6 (SR)2](HPY)
Range of Validity

10 
-------
Equipment

Prefliter, Cartridge
Oil-Water Separator


Piping, Recycle



Pump, Centrifugal




Pump, Sludge



Reverse Osmosis System
                                         TABIE  VLII-4 (Continued)

                                 COST EQUATIONS  FOR RBCOMENEED TREATMENT
                                        AND CONTROL TBCHNOIDGIES
                  Equation

C,= 283.353 + 25.91.11 (Y) - 0.058203 (Y)2
A= [0.118985 + 0.0803004 (SR) - 1.66003
    x 10~5 (SR)2](HPY)

C = -2,612.73 + 51.568 (Y) - 0.059361 (Y)2
A- [-3.82339 + 0.0937196 (SR) - 1.7736
    x 10~5 (SR)2](HPY)

C = 5,542.07 + 65.7158 (Y) - 0.029627 (Y)2
A = 783.04 + 6.3616 (Y) - 0.001736 (Y)2

C = exp[6.55278 + 0.382166 (InD)
    + 0.133144 (InD) 2] (0.01)(L)
A= 0

C = exp[6.31076 +0.228887 (InY)
    + 0.0206172 (InY)2]
A - exp[6.67588 + 0.031335 (MY)
    + 0.062016 (InY) 2]
C = 2,264.31 + 21.0097 (Y) - 0.0037265 (Y)2
A = exp[7. 64414 + 0.192172 (IriX)
    + 0.0202428 (InY)2] (HPB)

C - exp[6.82042 + 0.505285 (InX) + 4.77736
    x 10-3 (InX)2]
A = [1.39054 + 3.54401 x 1(H (X)
    + 1.0307 x 10-10 (X)2](HPY)
Range of Validity

2 < Y < 140



140 < Y < 336



0 < Y < 700


D> 1



3 < Y < 3,500




5 < Y < 500



16 < X < 120,000

-------
                                                   TABLE VIII-4 (Continued)

                                          COST EQUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDED TREATMENT
                                                  AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
         Equipment

         Tank, Batch Reactor
oo
         Tank, Concrete
Tank, large Fiberglass
         Tank, Small Fiberglass
         Tank, large Steel
         Tank, Snail Steel
                  Equation

C - exp[4.73808 - 0.0628537 (InV)
    + 0.0754345 (InV)2]
A - 1,091 + 21 (BPY)

C = 3,100.44 + 1.19041 (V) - 1.7288
    x 10-5(7)2
A = exp[8.65018 - 0.0558684 (InX)
    + 0.0145276 (InX)2]

C = 5,800 + 0.8V
A = 0.02 (C)

C = 3,100.44 + 1.19041 (V) - 1.7288
    x 10-5(7)2
A = 0.02 (C)

C = exp[4.73808 - 0.0628537 (InV)
    + 0.0754345 (InV)2]
A = 0.02 (C)

C - 3,128.83 + 2.37281 (V) - 7.10689
    x 10-5(V)2
C = 14,759.8 + 0.170817 (V)
    - 8.44271 x 10~8 (V)2
A = 0.02 (C)

C = 692.82*4 + 6.16706 (V) - 3.95367
    x 10~3(V)2
A = 0.02 (C)
Range of Validity

57 < V < 1,000

X < 2,200

1,000 < V < 24,000

2,200 < X < 11,600


24,000 < V < 500,000


1,000 < V < 24,000



V < 1,000



500 < V < 12,000

V > 25,000



100 < V < 500

-------
                                          TABLE  VIII-4 (Continued)

                                 COST EQUATIONS  FOR
                                         AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES


Equipment                                         Equation                       Range of Validity

Vacuum Filter                   C -  71,083.7 + 442.3 (SA)  - 0.233807 (SA)2       9.4 < SA <  750
                                A =  17,471.4 + 677.408 (SA) - 0.484647 (SA)2

Vacuum Filter Housing           C =  (45) [308.253 +  0.836592 (SA)]                9.4 < SA <  750
                                A =  (4.96)[308.253  + 0.836592 (SA)]
  A = Direct annual costs (1982 dollars/year)
  B = Batch chemical feed rate (pounds/batch)
BPY = Number of batches per year
  C = Direct capital, or equipment costs  (1982 dollars)
  D = Inner diameter of pipe  (inches)
  F = Chemical feed rate (pounds/hour)
  G = Sludge disposal rate (galIons/hour)
 HP = Power requirement (horsepower)
HEE = Fraction of time equipment is in operation
HPY = Plant operating hours (hours/year)
  L = Length of piping (feet)
 LC = lime cost ($/lb, March  1982)
  S = Clarifier surface area  (square feet)
 SA = Filter surface area (square feet)
 SR = Solids removed by filter (grams/hour)
  V = Tank capacity (gallons)
  X = Wastewater flowrate (liters/hour)
  Y = Wastewater flowrate (gallons/minute)

-------
                                          TABLE VIII-5

                             COMPONENTS OF TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
ui
o
o
 Item
Number                 Item

   1      Bare Module Capital Costs

   2        Electrical & instrumentation
   3        Yard piping
   4        Enclosure
   5   ••    Pumping
   6        Retrofit allowance
   7      Total Module Cost

   8        Engineering/admin. & legal
   9        Construction/yardwork
  10        Monitoring
  t1      Total Plant Cost

  12        Contingency
  13        Contractor's fee
  14      Total Construction Cost

  15        Interest during construction
  16      Total Depreciable Investment

  17        Land
  1 8	Working capital	
              Cost

Direct capital costs from modela

01 of item 1
0% of item 2
Included in item 1
Included in item 1
Included in item 1
Item 1 + items 2 through 6

10.0% of item 7
0% of item 7
0% of item 7
Item 7 + items 8 through 10

15% of item 11
10% of item 11
Item 11 + items 12 through 13

0% of item 14
Item 14 + item 15

0% of item 16
0% of item 16
        19
          Total Capital Investment
Item 16 + items 17 through 18
      aDirect capital costs include costs of equipment and required accessories,
       installation, and delivery.

-------
                                    TABLE VIII-6

                        COMPONENTS OF TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS
Item
Number
20
21
22
23
24
Item
Bare Module Annual Costs
Overhead
Monitoring
Insurance
Amortization
Cost
Direct annual costs
0% of item 1 6b
See footnote c
1% of item 1 6
CRF x item 1 6d
from modela

  25
Total Annualized Costs
Item 20 + items 21 through 24
aDirect annual costs include costs  of raw materials, energy, operating labor,
 maintenance and repair.                                     ;
      16 is the total depreciable investment obtained from Table 1.

GSee page 463  for an explanation of  the determination of monitoring costs.
     capital recovery factor (CRF)  was  used to account for depreciation and
 the cost of financing.

-------
                TABLE VIII-7
       WASTEWATER SAMPLING FREQUENCY
Wastewater Discharge
  (LitersPer Day)
       0  -  37,850
  37,851  - 139,250
 189,251  - 378,500
 378,501  - 946,250
 946,250+
Sampllng Frequency
Once per month
Twice per month
Once per week
Twice per week
Three times per week
                    502

-------
                           TABLE  VIII-8

                  IN-PLANT COST FREQUENCY SUMMARY


	Technology	      BPT-PSES  0      BPT-PSES  1

Paste Mixing and Application Area            28              28
Wash Water Recycle

Steam Curing                                  6               6

Humidity Curing Water Recycle                13              13

Slow Formation                                8              10

Plate Countercurrent Rinsing                  0              34

Sealant Water Recycle                         0               5

Formation Area WAPC Water Recycle            25              25

Paste Mixing WAPC Water Neutralization       31              31

Reuse of Battery Rinse Water in               1              50*
Acid Cutting

Power Floor Scrubber Water Settling          85              85

Hose Washdown Water Recycle                  85              85

Segregation of Nonproeess                    85              85
Water Flows
*Reuse of battery rinse water in acid cutting was  costed  for  16
 plants to eliminate discharges from formation battery rinsing.
                               503

-------
                                             TABIE VIII-9

              NONPROCESS WATER DISPOSITION MONG HANTS VISITED IN POST-PROPOSAL
Stream

Deionizer Blowdown*
and Water Softener
Baekflush

Assembly Noncontact*
Cooling

laady Oxide
Production Cooling

Grid Mold Cooling
Operations

Air Compressor
Cooling

Boiler Water!
Slowdown
       %
Cooling Tower Blowdown

Shower Water
  Number of
 Plants With
Total Recycle
     1 (5)
     1 (5)
    Number of
   Plants That
Already Segregate
                       1
Number of Plants That
Discharge Stream To
Wastewater Treatment
Number of Plants
Which Do Not Have
     Stream
                       2  (5)
                                               1  (5)
                      11
*Selected for segregation modeling
^ Associated with curing operation
( ) Plants visited represents a model for five plants

-------
                            TABLE VIII-10

                COST PROGRAM POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
          Parameter

     Flowrate
     pH
     Temperature
     Total Suspended Solids
    *Acidity (as CaC03>
     Aluminum
    *Ammonia
     Antimony
     Arsenic
     Cadmium
   **Ghromium (trivalent)
   **Chromium (hexavalent)
     Cobalt
     Copper
    *Cyanide (free)
    *Cyanide (total)
    *Fluoride
     Iron
     Lead
     Manganese
     Nickel
     Oil and Grease
    *Phosphorous
    *Selenium
    *Silver
    *Thallium
     Zinc
Units

liters/hour
pH units
SF
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
 *Not analyzed for lead subcategory of battery manufacturing
**Assume chromium is in trivalent form for lead subcategory of
  battery manufacturing                      ,
                               505

-------
Ol
o
                         EQUIPMENT
                                                                     TABLE  VIII-11

                                                               EXAMPLE  PLANT  SUMMARY
              OPTION DPT
      TOTAL  REQUIRED
RUN  CAPITAL  CAPITAL  ANNUM.
              OPTION BAM
      TOTAL  REQUIRED
RUN  CAPITAL  CAPITAL  ANNUAL
              OPTION BAT-2
      TOTAL  REQUIRED
RUN  CAPITAL  CAPITAL  ANNUAL
EHUALIZATION
OIL SKINHIN6
CHEM PRECIPITATION
GRAVITY SETTLING
VACUUM FILTRATION
MULTIMED FILTRATION
CONTRACT HAULING
HOLD TftfStS, RECYCLE
IN-PLANT COSTS
SUBTOTAL
SYSTEM CAP COSTS
ENCLOSURE
INSURANCE t TAXES
AMORTIZATION
NONITORING
TOTAL
TOTAL (JUNE 1983)
1 38508
1 2600
1 24300
1 67308
(5)

i e

8600
135300
50737
0



166937
189014
Ctttt
DOlw
2600
0
0


0

8600
17800
6675
0



24475
24867
5300
1380
13308
9600


11300

1600
42400

0
I860
4332
£880
51472
52296
2 20200
2 2600
2 32100
(4)
(5)

2 0
2 2399
8600
65800
24675
0



99475
91923
6600
2600
8



0
2339
8600
20100
7537
0



27637
28079
3208
1300
16400



4290
999
1600
27600

8
904
4891
IVA
34B3S
35392
2 20200
2 2600
2 32100
(4)
(5)
2 18000
2 0
2 2389
A£OA
UUiW
83800
31425
0



115225
117069
6600
2600
0


18000
0
2399
A£M
oow
38100
14287
0



52387
53225
3200
1300
16400


7600
4200
399
;ri«0
35200

0
1152
9272
1440
47064
47817

                    UBS OF BATTERIES/YR:  8,500,000
                    NQRHALIZED COST (JUNE 83 t/U):

                    FOOTNOTES:
                    .0061524
                     .8041638
                     .0056255
                    1. All costs are in March,1962 dollars except where indicated.
                    2. Systei capital costs are calculated as 37.5* of the total direct capital costs (capital subtotal).
                    1 Amortization is calculated as 17.7* of the total required capital costs.
                    4. Chnical precipitation operated in batch wide;  gravity settling not costed.
                    5. Flow to vacua* filter is less than nniwm for sizing  (42 1/hr).  StrtM is contract hauled.
                                                                                       1/11/84

-------
                          TABLE VIII-12
              NORMAL PLANT CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS
Normal Plant Costs;
Op 11on
BPT (PSES 0)
BAT 1  (PSES 1)
BAT 2 (PSES 2)
BAT 3 (PSES 3)
BAT 4 (PSES 4)
BDT 5 (PSNS 5)
Capital Cost
  107,708
   91,782
  111,760
  100,025
  149,339
  111,760
Annual Cost
  67,263
  46,159
  54,976
  64,787
  88,316
  54,976
Normal Discharging Plant Costs:
Option
BPT (PSES 0)
BAT 1  (PSES 1)
BAT 2 (PSES 2)
BAT 3 (PSES 3)
BAT 4 (PSES 4)
BDT 5 (PSNS 5)
Capital Cost
  122,377
   98,628
  119,443
  109,943
  179,934
  119,443
Annual Cost
  75,085
  59,529
  69,010
  82,169
 103,385
  69,010
All costs are based on June 1983 dollars.
                               507

-------
     Option
    BPT  (PSES-0)
    BAT-1  (PSES-1)
    BAT-2  (PSES-2)
    BAT-3  (PSES-3)
    BAT-4  (PSES-4)
Costs $/yr
 263,000
 206,000
 222,000
 222,000
 309,000
        TABLE VIII-13
ENERGY COSTS AND REQUIREMENTS

   Energy Requirement kwh/yr
      5,360,000  (386,540)
      4,200,000  (302,576)
      4,400,000  (327,184)
             v
      4,400,000  (327,184)
      6,320,000  (454,912)
  Percent Increase 'Over
Current Energy Consumption
           0.70
           0.55
           0.57
           0.57
           0.82
o
oo
     ( )  -  Indicates energy requirement  for  direct  dischargers.

-------
°
u\
o
VO
JUNE -83
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS




°
                   X
                                  X
                                               CAPITAL
                                                     ANNUAL
             101
                                          10-*
10J
104
                         TOTAL PLANT LEAD USAGE (KG/HR)
                            FIGURE VIII-1

COSTS FOR PASTE MIXING AND APPLICATION AREA WASH WATER RECYCLE

-------
TOTAL DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS {$ - JUNE '83)
-» -* -* ~
00 0 O
-» -» N) U *






































































































































































































X

























X


















































x

























'

























x
























/























v
s'
}f






















s
•*"























^r










































































f


















4 105 106







X
























x


















































x
























x
'




















107



^
























































































































































108



























   TOTAL PLANT LEAD USAGE (KG/YR)
       FIGURE VIII-2
COSTS FOR STEAM CURING

-------
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (S - JUNE '83)
-» -» -»
0 0 0
-• ro u





































































































































































































x
X








X















X








X
^














/









/















S
























S









S















S









s











jf*
^^^
^
, '







^
^
t










/










.^
S













/









S^















S








/
















S








S
















^








/•















t
4









t
j














X
X
' CAPIT/








x^
^













/

a







^
^^
,NNL













^










X1
AL













'









X














^
























^










/
























/




































































































































































































10"
10s
10°
                           TOTAL PLANT LEAD USAGE (KG/YR(
10b
                               FIGURE VIII-3
               COSTS FOR HUMIDITY CURING WATER RECYCLE

-------
Ln
              10°
           n
           n

           UJ
           z
              10
           w
           o
           o
           O


           o
           UI
           cc

           a
              10J


                                 101
102
10"
                                             CLOSED FORMATION LEAD USAGE (KG/HR)
                                                     FIGURE VIII-4

                                            COSTS FOR SLOW FORMATION

-------
Ul

CO
OTAL DIRECT COSTS (» - JUNE '83)
^ «*
3 O <
W 4k
102






































































































































































^


_sf
*
-------
Cn
          P)
          00

          UJ
          z
          D
          -J
(0
H
(0
o
o


o
UJ
K
          <
          i
104
103
102
1(






























































































































































































X








X















X







.
























X















x
























"







,
















'







'















f







t














*
^
,'





^
_/"











%


_x
^





s
^~







































^






/
























s
















'







'•
















x






^xX
















^






^.
VNNl















^
API






x'
JAL















^
TA





^1
















^

L




I <" '













)4 105 106 107



> '






< '


















































































































108


























                                      OPEN DEHYDRATED FORMATION LEAD USAGE (KG/YR)
                                                 FIGURE VIII-6

                                     COSTS FOR SEALANT WATER RECYCLE

-------
              10°
Ol
Ill
z
D
w

05

05
O
O


tu
ce
Q

<

O
               .
              10
                                              CAPITAL
              10
              10
               10"
                    10°
10°
10'
10a
                                            TOTAL PLANT LEAD USAGE (KG/YR)
                                                FIGURE VIII-7
                        CAPITAL COSTS FOR FORMATION AREA WAPC WATER RECYCLE

-------
(0
CO

UJ
z
D
->
M

M
O
O

<

Z
Z
<

o
UJ
tr
5


2
o
   10"
10°
10"
10'
10"
                               TOTAL PLANT LEAD USAGE (KG/YR)
                                   FIGURE VIII-8
           ANNUAL COSTS FOR FORMATION AREA WAPC WATER RECYCLE

-------
            10°
Ul
          ui
          z
          D
          £ 1°4

          M
          O
          O
          Q.

          <

          O
         UJ
         E
         O
            10
                                    X
                                                                    X
                              10°
    10°              107




LEAD USAGE FOR BATTERY RINSE (KG/YR)
10"
                                               FIGURE VIII 9

                  CAPITAL COSTS FOR REUSE OF BATTERY RINSE WATER IN ACID CUTTING

-------
00
             10"*
           F)
           00

           UJ
           Z
           D
           -J
           W
           O
           u
D
Z
Z

l-
u
UJ
E
Q
             10-^
           o
               10"


                  10s
10b
10'
10°
                                         LEAD USAGE FOR BATTERY RINSE (KG/YRj
                                              FIGURE VIM 10
                   ANNUAL COSTS FOR REUSE OF BATTERY RINSE WATER IN ACID CUTTING

-------
en
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (S • JUNE '83)
.* -* _. ->
O 0 0 0
-» ro w *








-










































































































































































/
/
.^
X























X
X

























x*
x
























s


























X
X
























f

*
^





















.f
^x
S
^
X




















^j*
J^


S





















X



^





















CA
X


X






















PI
X

























TAL
^
/
^
2























^
Jx
' ANNU
























X
x
ftL























X

X























X


























*"

X























^


X






















t


























^


/


















































































































































































































                             10a
10'
                                         TOTAL PLANT LEAD USAGE (KG/YR)
                                             FIGURE VIII-11
                         COSTS FOR POWER FLOOR SCRUBBER WATER SETTLING

-------
Ul
N>
O
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (S - JUNE '83)
-* ^t .*
o o o
ro w A































































































































































































^
-J^
^





/
















X







X
















X
























x1






X
























X
















/
























^
^























X
'




^
^
'














^
S





^
r
















S





S

















r





F^

















^






















£







*
x















X








x















x*







x^















X








r^
NN















X
:A







x
j/















'i







X"
L














/
X
PAL






x
X























,









































































































































              10"
10a
10°
10'
10B
                                           TOTAL PLANT LEAD USAGE (KG/YR)
                                              FIGURE VIII-12
                         COSTS FOR SEGREGATION OF NON-PROCESS WATER FLOWS

-------
                  FIGURE VIII-13
GENERAL LOGIC DIAGRAM OF COMPUTER COST MODEL
                       521

-------
                FIGURE YUM4;        	
LOGIC DIAGRAM OF MODULE DESIGN PROCEDURE
                      522

-------
                   DESIGN VALUES
                 AND CONFIGURATION
                   FROM MATERIAL
                 BALANCE PROGRAM
                                             MODULE N
                                            COMPONENTS
                                1
                       COST
                     EQUATIONS
                     COMPUTE
                     SUMMED
                     MODULE
                      COSTS
                    RETURN FOR
                    NEXT PLANT
                 FIGURE VIII-15
LOGIC DIAGRAM OF THE GQSTING RQUTINE
                       523

-------
ho
110




100




 90




 80




 70




 60




 50




 40




 30




 20




 10
                 100
                                          ANNUAL
                                                           /''ANNUAL
                                                     CAPITAL
                                                                        CAPITAL
                                                                                   ANNUAL
                                                                                   ^CAPITAL
                                            1,000
                                                                       10.000
30.000
                                                                                                   -I 29

                                                                                                     28
                 26




                 24




                 22




                 20




                 18




                 16




                 14



                 12




                 10
                                                                                                        Z
                                                                                                        z
                                                                                                        o
                                                                                                        o
                                                                                                        CO
                                                                                                        o
                                                                                                         w
                                                                                                        «>
                                                                                                        N

                                                                                                        DO
                                                    INFLUENT FLOW (L/HR)
                                                   FIGURE VIII—16

                           COSTS FOR CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION AND SEDIMENTATION

-------
to
            oc
            >-
            OT
            O
            O
D
z
z
<
o
z
<
in
O
O
r-

OT
O
O
220



200



180



160



140



120



100



 80



 60



 50



 40
            <  30
            o

               20



               10
                 100
                                                                  CAPITAL
                                                                                   _
                                                                              /CAPITAL
                              1.000
                                                                    10.000
                                                                  30.000
                                                  INFLUENT FLOW (L/HR)
                                                  FIGURE VIII-17
                           COSTS FOR SULFIDE PRECIPITATION AND SEDIMENTATION

-------
to
             PI
             O
             O
             0
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10










































































































































































































































































	 ~





















^^



^
fS





















^x







'.








CAPITAL


y

/




'ANNUAL

































































































































































'























































































































































































































































ANNUAL COST 1 0-* S/YR
2o)Cor»'»P)fM»-
                  10
                                           100
                                                                    1,000
                                                  INFLUENT FLOW (L/HR)
                                                  FIGURE VIII-18

                                        COSTS FOR VACUUM FILTRATION

-------
m
           (C
          n
           o
           ^


           w
           o
           o
           z

           <
           o
           z
          P!
           O
o
o


2
a

o
40




36




32




28




24




20




16




12
                100
                                              CAPITAL
                                          1,000
                                                      10,000
                                                                                     ANNUAL

                                                                     /CAPITAL
                                                                       30,000
                                                  INFLUENT FLOW (L/HR)
                                                  FIGURE VIII-19

                                            COSTS FOR EQUALIZATION

-------
 K

 N
 o
 o
 z

 <
 Q
P)
 O
o
o

i
a.
2
/CAPITAL
                                                                        ANNUAL
                                   • ANNUAL-
      100
                                1.000                       10.000         30.000

                                        INFLUENT FLOW (L/HR)
                                        FIGURE VIII-20
                                    COSTS FOR RECYCLING

-------
N)

VO

           P)
            o
            o
            o
            z

            <
            o
            z
           P)
            o
(0
o
o


2
Z

o
                50
                40
     30
                20
                           ANNUAL
                                                                  7

                                                                       CAPITAL
                                                                           ANNUAL
                 100
                                           1.000                       10,000


                                                   INFLUENT FLOW (L/HR)
                                                                       30.000
                                                   FIGURE VIII-21

                          COSTS FOR MULTIMEDIA FILTRATION-MEMBRANE FILTRATION

-------
u>
o
             tr
            M
             O
             V)
             O
             O
             z
             z
             <
             Q
             Z
(0
 o
             V)
             O
             O
             _l
             <

             a

             O
100



 90



 80



 70



 60



 50



 40



 30



 20



 10
                  10
                                           100
                                                        1.000
                                                                              10.000
                                                  INFLUENT FLOW (L/HR)
                                                  FIGURE VIII-22

                                          COSTS FOR REVERSE OSMOSIS

-------
                                                             o
                                                             o
                                                             q


                                                             S
                                                             o
                                                             o
                                                             o

                                                             6
o

H
                                                                                   o.
                                                                                   UJ
                                                               I
                                                                                E LU
                                                                ut
                                                                                  DC

                                                                                  O
                                                                                  u.
                                                                                  (0
                                                                                  O
                                                                                  o
                                                             §
UA/S E0 L M.SOO 1VONNV QNV 6 E01 '1SOD IVlldVO
                             531

-------
100.000
10.000
JUALCOST. 103$/YR
_*
b
o
0
<
100
10




























/
' j
s
S
r






























/
/
/

































j
/
/

































/

/



























H




^

/




























A?;





^
/




























VRDOUS
/
J*
f
S
/
t





























/
/

































/

/
































/


^































'


/


































x
r\
NC





























/
j?
f
S
A r
t
)NHAZAF




























/
/





DO



























/

/





JS


























^


/































/


/































^


t
/
7






















        1              10


         INFLUENT FLOW (L/HR)
100
         FIGURE VIII-24
COSTS FOR CONTRACT HAULING
              532

-------
                           SECTION IX

     BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE


This section  defines  the  effluent  characteristics  attainable
through  application  of  the best practicable control technology
currently available"(BPT), Section  301(b)(1)(A),  for  the  lead
subcategory  of the battery manufacturing category.  BPT reflects
the performance of existing treatment and  control  practices  at
manufacturing  plants  of  various sizes, ages, and manufacturing
processes.  Particular consideration is given  to  the  treatment
in-place at plants within the subcategory.

The  factors considered in defining BPT include the total cost of
the  application  of  technology  in  relation  to  the  effluent
reduction  benefits  from  such application, the age of equipment
and  facilities  involved,  the  processes  employed,   non-water
quality  environmental  impacts  (including energy requirements),
and other factors considered appropriate  by  the  Administrator.
In  general,  the  BPT technology level represents the average of
the best existing practices at plants  of  various  ages,  sizes,
processes   or  other  common  characteristics.   Where  existing
practice is universally inadequate, BPT may be transferred from a
different subcategory or category.   Limitations based on transfer
of  technology  must  be  supported  by  a  conclusion  that  the
technology  is  transferrable and by a reasonable prediction that
the technology  will  be  capable  of  achieving  the  prescribed
effluent  limits.   See Tanner's Council of America v. Train, 540
F.2d 1188 (4th Cir. 1976).  BPT focuses on end-of-pipe  treatment
rather  than  process  changes or internal controls, except where
such practices are common throughout the category or subcategory.

TECHNICAL APPROACH TO BPT

The  entire  battery  manufacturing  category  was  examined   to
identify  the processes used, wastewater generated, and treatment
practices employed in battery  manufacturing  operations.   After
preliminary   subcategorization   and  collection  of  additional
information using both dcp forms and specific plant sampling  and
analysis, the total information about the category was evaluated.
On  the  basis  of  this  evaluation,  the  subcategori'zation was
revised as described in Section IV to reflect primarily the anode
materials.  The lead subcategory, encompassing lead acid  reserve
cells   and   lead   acid   storage  batteries,  is  the  largest
subcategory.  The lead subcategory was  further  subdivided  into
discrete  manufacturing  process elements as shown in Table IV-1.
These process elements are  the  basis  for  defining  production
normalized  flows  and  pollutant  raw waste concentrations.  All
                              533

-------
information was then evaluated to determine an  appropriate  BPT.
Specific factors considered for BPT are:

     •    The lead subcategory encompasses several  manufacturing
          process  elements each of which may or may not generate
          process wastewater.  These elements  are  divided  into
          groups  for anode manufacture, cathode manufacture, and
          ancillary (or all other) operations  considered  to  be
          part  of  battery  manufacturing.   A  plant usually is
          active in one or more anode process  elements,  one  or
          more  cathode  process  elements,  and  in  one or more
          ancillary .operations.   Process  elements  within  the
          subcategory  are  combined  in  a  variety  of  ways at
          battery manufacturing plants.

     •    Wastewater streams from different elements  within  the
          subcategory    usually    share    similar    pollutant
          characteristics, have  similar  treatment  requirements
          and are usually treated in combined systems.

     •    Most  wastewater  streams   generated   in   the   lead
          subcategory are characterized by high concentrations of
          toxic metals.

     •    Treatment  practices  vary   extensively   within   the
          subcategory.   Observed  subcategory practices include:
          chemical  precipitation  of   metals   as   hydroxides,
          carbonates,     and    sulfides;    sedimentation;   and
          filtration.

Other factors which must be considered for establishing  effluent
limitations  based  on  BPT  have  already been addressed by this
document.  The age of  equipment  and  plants  involved  and  the
processes  employed  are  taken  into  account  and  discussed in
Section IV.  Nonwater quality impacts and energy requirements are
discussed in Section VIII.

In making technical  assessments  of  data,  EPA  considered  the
processes  and  treatment  technology of both indirect and direct
dischargers as a single group.   An  examination  of  plants  and
processes  did  not  indicate  any process or product differences
based  on  wastewater  destination.    Hence,   descriptions   of
applicable   technology   options  for  direct  dischargers,  are
referred to when describing indirect discharger applications.

The development of BPT mass limitations for the lead  subcategory
was  designed to account for production and flow variability from
plant to plant.  The production normalizing parameter   (pnp)  for
the lead subcategory was determined to be the weight of lead used
                              534

-------
for  all  processes  except  truck  wash  where weight of lead in
trucked batteries was selected as is  discussed  in  Section  IV.
Each  process  element  within the subcategory was then analyzed,
(1) to determine  whether  or  not  operations  included  in  the
element  generated  wastewater,  (2)  to  determine specific flow
rates generated, and (3) to  determine  the  specific  production
normalized  flows  (mean,  median  or  weighted  average) for the
process element.  This analysis is discussed  and  summarized  in
Section V.

Normalized  flows were analyzed to determine which flow was to be
used as part of the basis for BPT mass limitations.  The selected
flow (sometimes referred to as a BPT regulatory flow or BPT flow)
reflects the water use controls which are common practices within
the subcategory based upon dcp, industry survey and  plant  visit
data.   All of the flow data used in establishing this regulation
for each process element are presented in Section V.

Significant differences between the mean  and  median  reflect  a
data set which has skewed or biased a wide range of points.  When
even one data point (for a small data set) or several data points
(for  a  large  uniform  data  set)  have an abnormally high flow
(improper water control) or unusually  low  flow  (extensive  in-
process  control  or  process variation), the average or mean may
not represent subcategory practice.  In  cases  where  there  was
evidence  that  data  were  atypical, use of the median value was
considered as a means of minimizing the impact of one point (on a
small data base).or several points (on the larger data base).  In
general, the median is used as a part of the basis for  BPT  mass
limitations.  In those cases where a method other than the median
was  used  as  the  BPT  flow,  specific rationale for its use is
presented in the discussion.  Factors  considered  in  using  the
median  values include: numerical variations between the mean and
median, absolute size of mean and median value within  a  process
element,  relative  importance  of  the size of an element to the
total subcategory, and an analysis of specific atypical numbers.

Some elements were limited in the amount of flow  data  available
for  BPT  flow  analysis.   These elements are characteristically
those where a large fraction of the subcategory  is  involved  in
the  activity but flow values are available for only a few sites.
These elements  are  mold  release  formulation  equipment  wash,
laboratory,  handwash,  respirator  wash,  laundry,  and  wet air
pollution control.  Flows for these elements were  obtained  from
site  visits  and  equipment  vendor  information  as  they  were
generally not reported in the  dcp's  or  industry  surveys.   To
obtain  the  BPT flow, the general procedure was to calculate the
average flow per  site  for  sites  where  flow  information  was
available;  the  average flow per site was converted to an annual
                              535

-------
basis; the annual flow per site was  converted  to  total  annual
flow  using  the number of sites reporting the element; the total
annual flow was then divided by the sum of individual  site  lead
use  values  using the most updated values available, 1982 or dcp
(1976).  In some cases, flows were first normalized on the  basis
of  plant  personnel  for handwash, or respirators for respirator
wash.  These average flows were then converted to the total  site
flow  using  the  appropriate  industry  survey  data,  prior  to
conversion to annual flow.  In this way, all information provided
was used.

Plants with existing flows above the BPT regulatory flow may have
to implement some method of flow reduction in  order  to  achieve
the  BPT  limitations.  In many cases this will involve improving
housekeeping  practices,  better  maintenance  to   limit   water
leakage,  or  reducing  excess flow by turning down a flow valve.
In other  cases,  the  plant  may  need  to  install  systems  to
recirculate  water.  As discussed in Section VIII, costs for this
subcategory include recycle  systems  for  a  number  of  process
operations.

The   BPT   model   treatment   technology   assumes   that   all
(nonsegregated or nonrecycled) wastewaters generated  within  the
subcategory  are  combined  for .treatment  in a single or common
treatment system  for  that  subcategory  even  though  flow  and
sometimes pollutant characteristics of process wastewater streams
varied   within   the  subcategory.   A  disadvantage  of  common
treatment is that some loss in  pollutant  removal  effectiveness
will result where waste streams containing specific pollutants at
treatable  levels  are combined with other streams in which these
same pollutants are absent or present at very low concentrations.
Since treatment systems considered  at  BPT  were  primarily  for
metals  and suspended solids removal, and existing plants usually
had one common treatment  system  in-place,  a  common  treatment
system  for  this  subcategory is reasonable in terms of cost and
effectiveness.  Both treatment in-place  at  battery  plants  and
treatment  in  other  categories  having similar wastewaters were
evaluated.  The BPT treatment systems considered consisted of oil
skimming, chemical precipitation,  and settling.  These  treatment
systems when properly operated and maintained, can reduce various
pollutant  concentrations  to  specific levels for each pollutant
parameter.  Derivation  of  .these  concentrations  achievable  by
specific  treatment  systems  are  discussed  in  Section VII and
summarized in Table VI1-21 (page 418).

The  overall  effectiveness  of  end-of-pipe  treatment  for  the
removal  of  wastewater pollutants is improved by the application
of water flow controls within the process to limit the volume  of
wastewater  requiring  treatment.    The  controls  or  in-process
                              536

-------
technologies recommended at BPT include only those measures which
are commonly practiced within this subcategory and  which  reduce
flows  to  meet  the  production normalized flow for each process
element.

Mass-based limitations  have  been  determined  to  be  the  most
appropriate   approach   for  regulating  the  lead  subcategory.
Concentration-based limitations limit only the  concentration  of
pollutants  in  the effluent from the model treatment technology,
whereas mass-based limitations limit the total mass of pollutants
discharged (the product of achievable  concentration  and  flow).
Significant  reductions in pollutant discharge can be achieved in
this subcategory by the establishment of regulatory  flows.   The
concentrations  achievable  by the model treatment technology are
achievable  over  a  wide  range  of   influent   concentrations.
Therefore,  even in situations where decreased water discharge is
achieved by recycle (potentially resulting in  more  concentrated
pollutant levels in the wastestream), the effluent concentrations
will  still  be  low.   The resulting mass discharge of pollutants
will be much lower than those which would  be  achieved  by  only
concentration  based  limitations,  the achievement of which does
not require flow reduction.

For the development of effluent limitations, mass  loadings  were
calculated  for the process elements within the lead subcategory.
This calculation was made on an element by element basis  because
plants  in  this  subcategory  are  typically  active in multiple
wastewater producing process elements; pollutants  generated  and
flow  rates can vary for each process element.  The mass loadings
(milligrams of pollutant  per  kilogram  of  pnp  -  mg/kg)  were
calculated  by  multiplying the BPT normalized flow (I/kg) by the
concentration achievable using the BPT model treatment (mg/1) for
each pollutant parameter considered for regulation at  BPT.   The
BPT  normalized  flow  for  the  lead subcategory is based on the
median of all applicable data (except for elements  with  limited
flow data) rather than the average of the best plants.

The following method is used to calculate compliance with the BPT
limitation.   The  allowable  mass  discharge  for  each  process
element is determined by multiplying the allowable mass discharge
limitation (mg/kg) for that  process  element  by  its  level  of
production  (in  kg  of  production  normalizing parameter).  The
allowable mass, discharge  for  a  plant  is  then  calculated  by
summing  the  individual mass discharge allowances of the process
elements performed at the plant.  The actual  mass  discharge  of
the plant is calculated by multiplying the effluent concentration
of the regulated pollutant parameters by the total plant effluent
flow.  The actual mass discharge can then be compared against the
allowable mass discharge.
                              537

-------
SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS FOR REGULATION

The pollutant parameters selected for regulation in the lead sub-
category were selected because  of  their  frequent  presence  at
treatable  concentrations  in raw wastewater.  Specific raw waste
characteristics  from  the  process  elements  are  described  in
Section  V  and are displayed in Tables V-5 to V-31 (pages 178 to
210).  Total raw waste characteristics  for  all  of  the  plants
sampled  in this subcategory are presented in Table V-34.  Tables
VI-1 and VI-2 (page 296 and 301) summarize the  pollutants  which
were considered for regulation.  The pollutants which are present
at  treatable  concentrations in lead subcategory raw wastewaters
include  antimony,  cadmium,  chromium,  copper,  lead,  mercury,
silver,  nickel, zinc, aluminum, iron, manganese, oil and grease,
and TSS.  However, because antimony, cadmium, chromium,  mercury,
silver,  nickel,  zinc,  aluminum,  and  manganese  are  found in
smaller quantities  and  will  be  removed  by  lime  and  settle
treatment   simultaneously   with   removal   of   tne  regulated
pollutants, they are not regulated at BPT.

The pollutant parameters .selected are toxic  metals  (copper  and
lead),  iron,  suspended  solids,  and  oil  and  grease.   pH is
selected as a  treatment  control  parameter.   As  discussed  in
Section  VII,  the  importance  of  pH control for metals removal
cannot be overemphasized.  Even small excursions  away  from  the
optimum  pH  range  (in  most cases 8.8 - 9.3) can result in less
than optimum functioning of  the  system.   To  accommodate  this
operating  pH  range  (8.8  -  9.3)  without requiring a final pH
adjustment the effluent pH range is  shifted  from  the  commonly
required  6.0 - 9.0 to 7.5 to 10.0.  With the application of lime
and settle technology,' the concentration of regulated  pollutants
will  be  reduced .to the concentration levels presented in Table
VII-21.

Total suspended solids, in addition  to  being  present  at  high
concentrations  in  the  raw  wastewater  is an important control
parameter  for  metals  removal  in  chemical  precipitation  and
settling  treatment  systems.   The  metals  are  precipitated as
insoluble metal  hydroxides,  and  effective  solids  removal  is
required  in  order  to  ensure  reduced  concentrations of toxic
metals in the treatment system effluent.  Total suspended  solids
are also regulated as a conventional pollutant to be removed from
the  wastewater  prior to discharge.  Oil and grease is regulated
under BPT since  some  wastestreams  generated  at  lead  battery
plants contain high concentrations of oil and grease (as shown in
Section V).

Lead has been selected for regulation under BPT since it is found
at high concentrations in process wastestreams.
                              538

-------
Copper has been selected for regulation under BPT  since  it  and
lead  are  the  predominant  toxic metals present in lead battery
manufacturing wastewaters.  Copper may be introduced into battery
manufacturing  wastewaters  by  corrosion  of  process  equipment
containing  copper,  such  as  cables  and leads used in charging
operations.

Iron is  being  regulated  because  it  was  found  in  treatable
concentrations  in  all total raw wastewater streams.  These high
concentrations are attributable to corrosion of process equipment
and charging racks by sulfuric acid.

PRODUCTION OPERATIONS AND DISCHARGE FLOWS

The lead subcategory includes the manufacture  of  a  variety  of
battery types, almost all of which are made of the same principal
raw materials:  lead, lead oxides, and sulfuric acid electrolyte.
The plants within the subcategory vary widely in their wastewater
discharge volumes, reflecting process variations and a variety of
water  use  controls  and  water  management practices.  All lead
subcategory process elements identified in Table IV-1 (page  105)
generate  process  wastewater.   Specific  wastewater sources are
identified in Figure V-2  (page 170).  Production normalized  flow
data  for  all of these process elements are presented in Section
V.  The same production normalizing parameter  (total  lead  use)
can   generally   be  used  for  all  process  elements  in  this
subcategory except truck wash since water use is related to  lead
use.

Table  IX-1   {page  557)  presents the normalized discharge flows
that form part of the basis  for  the  pollutant  mass  discharge
limitations for each process element.  These normalized flows -are
generally equal to the median normalized flows presented in Table
V-3  (page  174)  {except for elements with limited flow data) and
are indicative of half of  the  plants  active  in  a  particular
process  element.   Median statistical analysis was used for this
subcategory because of the nature of the data base.  For the lead
subcategory, which is a large data base, the use  of  the  median
values  more  realistically  reflects  where  zeroes are in fact,
representative of common  industry  practice.   Table  IX-2  (page
559)  summarizes  the  number  of plants included in each process
element, the number which  have  zero  discharge,  and  how  zero
discharge  is  achieved.  Therefore the use of the median in this
subcategory is reasonable.

Anode and Cathode Process Elements

All anode  and  cathode  process  element  BPT  regulatory  flows
(except  grid  manufacturing regulatory flows) were calculated by
                              539

-------
using the median of plant-reported site specific flow rates which
were individually normalized by the site's lead  use.   The  lead
use  value  chosen was the most up to date value available, i.e.,
1982 or dcp (1976).  Plant-reported flow rates were obtained from
dcp data for all anode and cathode process elements except  where
more recent data were available.  Certain dcp values were updated
from  information ,obtained  from  trip reports (before and after
proposal), plant contacts, and plant  comment  information.   The
number  of  production normalized flows (I/kg) varied among these
process elements; the specific supporting data  are  reported  in
Section V.

Leady  Oxide Production.  Information on water use in leady oxide
production was reported by 41 plants of which 29 plants  reported
zero discharge for this process element.  Wastewater was reported
to  originate  from  leakage in ball mills, shell cooling contact
cooling, and wet scrubbers for air pollution control.  (Scrubbers
are considered  under  the  wet  air  pollution  control  process
element).   Many  plants generating leady oxide using balls mills
or Barton  processes  use  only  non-contact  cooling  water  for
bearings,  extensive  recycle,  and  dry bag houses for pollution
control and therefore produce  no  process  wastewater.   A  zero
discharge allowance has been established for this process element
at  BPT based upon the fact that 70.7 percent of the plants which
reported data for this.process element discharge no wastewater.

Grid Manufacture.  Process wastewater is generated from four grid
manufacturing operations: direct chill casting (continuous  strip
casting),  lead  rolling,  mold  release  formulation,  and  grid
casting.  In direct chill casting, contact cooling water is  used
to  quickly  cool the cast lead strip.  The contact cooling water
is collected and continually recirculated.   The  water  in  this
system  is generally batch dumped.  Five plants report the use of
this casting technique and one plant  provided  flow  information
for  this  wastestream.  This plant was presented as the model to
be used for all five plants.  The BPT regulatory  flow  has  been
established  as  0.0002  I/kg, the production normalized flow for
this one plant.

In lead rolling, an emulsion is used  to  lubricate  the  rolling
mills.    This  emulsion  is contract hauled to land disposal off-
site by all five lead battery plants which report this  activity.
Lead rolling is included under the battery manufacturing category
but  is  not  specifically  regulated  because there are no known
dischargers.  Guidance is provided in the event that plants which
perform lead rolling find the need to discharge this  wastewater.
A regulatory flow of 0.006 I/kg of lead used in batteries (0.0233
I/kg lead rolled) has been established for guidance should plants
                              540

-------
find  the  need to discharge this wastewater.  This flow is based
on sampling data from one plant.

Process wastewater from grid casting originates from mold release
formulation and wet air pollution control in  some  plants.   The
wet  air  pollution  control  operation  is  addressed under that
respective process element.   The  formulation  of  mold  release
agents  can  generate  process  wastewaters by cleaning equipment
after mixing batches of the release material.  Flow data (average
flow per plant) for the mold  release  formulation  process  were
obtained  from  two  companies  that  reported  discharge of this
wastewater at their plants.  This represents data  on  29  plants
all  of  which  reported  a  discharge  of  wastewater.   The BPT
regulatory flow for mold release formulation has been established
at 0.006 I/kg.   This  was  obtained  by:   (1)  multiplying  the
company  specific  flow by the number of respective plants in the
company and (2) dividing this  total  flow  by  the  sum  of  the
company-specific   productions   to   obtain  a  company-specific
production normalized flow.  The two  resulting  company-specific
PNFs were then averaged to obtain the BPT flow.

Paste  Preparation and Application.  Information on water use for
the  paste  preparation  and  application  process  element   was
reported  by  100  plants, of which 57 reported zero discharge of
wastewater.  The establishment of a closed loop  system  for  the
paste  processing  and  area  washdown  wastewater  is  a  common
practice among lead subcategory plants.  Settling the  wastewater
allows  for  the  removal  of  solids  which  can  be  either re-
introduced into the  paste  formulation  process  or  sent  to  a
smelter for the recovery of lead.  After settling, the wastewater
can be used either in paste formulation or pasting area floor and
equipment   washdown.    A  zero  discharge  allowance  has  been
established  for  this  process  element  at  BPT   because   the
elimination   of   process   wastewater   discharge   from  paste
preparation and application areas by  collection,  settling,  and
reuse  is  commonly  practiced by plants in the lead subcategory.
Discharges from wet scrubbers used to control  fumes  from  paste
mixing  at  some  plants  are  included  in the wet air pollution
control process element.

Curing.  Eighty-seven of the 97 plants  supplying  data  reported
zero  discharge  of  wastewater  from  plate  curing.  Wastewater
generated by the other ten  plants  was  a  result  of  steam  or
controlled  humidity  curing  with  discharge.   Steam curing and
humidity curing processes were observed at existing plants  which
currently achieve zero discharge from this process element.  This
is  achieved  by  collection  and  recirculation  methods for the
wastewater, as described  in  Section  VII.   Therefore,  a  zero
                              541

-------
discharge   allowance  has  been  established  for  this  process
element.

Closed Formation.  The closed formation  process  includes  three
distinct   elements?   single  fill  formation  and  double  fill
formation (which are collectively known as  closed  formation  of
wet batteries), and fill and dump formation (also known as closed
case  formation of damp batteries).  The closed formation process
generates wastewater from a variety of sources  as  discussed  in
Section V but primarily from the rinsing of battery cases.  A few
plants in the subcategory reported and were observed to use large
amounts  of  cooling  water.   The  use  of contact cooling water
results from the  implementation  of  rapid  charging  rates,  as
discussed  in  Section  VII.   As  discussed  in  Section  V, wet
scrubbers  used  to  control  fumes  from  closed  formation  are
included in the wet air pollution control process element.

In  the single fill operation, the battery is filled with acid of
such specific gravity that, after formation, the electrolyte will
be suitable for shipment and operation of the battery.  For  this
process  element,  31 of the 43 plants supplying data reported no
discharge.  Zero discharge  is  achieved  by  using  low-rate  or
controlled  charging  techniques  which do not require the use of
contact cooling water to dissipate heat generated during  battery
charging.   Effective battery filling techniques are also used to
control spills and eliminate the need for battery  rinsing  prior
to charging.  A zero discharge allowance has been established for
single  fill  closed formation since zero discharge is indicative
of common industry practice for the single fill process.

Even though the final shipping status is different for the double
fill and fill and dump processes (wet—with electrolyte vs. damp-
without electrolyte), the generation of  process  wastewater  and
the  pollutant  characteristics  are essentially similar.  In the
double fill formation process, the batteries are  filled  with  a
low  specific  gravity  electrolyte, charged, and the electrolyte
dumped.  The batteries are then filled  with  a  higher  specific
gravity  electrolyte for shipping.  The reuse of dumped formation
acid is a common practice among the lead subcategory  plants  and
is  economically beneficial.  Contamination of the electrolyte is
minimized by limiting spillage and  implementing  effective  acid
collection  techniques  during  post-formation dumping.  Once the
waste electrolyte solution is  collected,  it  is  combined  with
fresh  sulfuric  acid  and  water  to  achieve  the  acid quality
required for process reuse.  Of the 35 plants providing  data  on
the  double  fill  process,  seven  reported  zero  discharge  of
wastewater.
                              542

-------
The fill and dump formation process is the  same  as  the  double
fill  process  except  that  a  second  electrolyte  fill  is not
performed before shipment.  Thirteen plants provided  information
on  the  fill  and  dump  formation process, of which 12 reported
discharge of wastewater.

Because the processes are essentially identical, a BPT regulatory
flow has been established for  double  fill  and  fill  and  dump
formation  combined.  The BPT flow, is based on the median of all
of the data for the two processes and is 0.45 I/kg lead used.

Open Formation.  The open case formation  process  includes  open
formation  for  wet  plates  and  open  formation  for dehydrated
plates.

In the case of open formation for dehydrated plates, the  primary
source  of  wastewater  is  from  the  rinsing and dehydration of
plates.  Of the 42  sites  which  provided  information  on  open
dehydrated formation, 40 reported a discharge of wastewater.

The  median  normalized discharge flow of 11.05 I/kg was selected
as the BPT regulatory flow for open case formation for dehydrated
plates.  The median flow was selected because it is considered to
be common  industry  practice  with  50  percent  of  the  plants
currently discharging at or below this level.

Open  formation  for  wet  plates  is  frequently  used  for  the
manufacture  of  industrial  batteries  with  large   electrodes.
Wastewater  from  this  operation  is  sometimes  generated  from
dumping and not reusing electrolyte after  a  certain  number  of
formation  cycles.   Some  plants reuse this electrolyte in final
battery products/ others  send  it  to  treatment.   Plants  also
reported   area   washdown,  and  rinsing  of  formed  plates  as
contributing to the discharge from this  operation.   Of  the  16
plants   providing  information  on  this  process  element,  ten
reported zero discharge of process wastewater.  Five of  the  six
discharging  plants  discharge  plate  rinsing  wastewater, spent
electrolyte or both.  These plants contend that  a  discharge  of
these   wastewaters   is   unavoidable   because   there   is  no
opportunities in the plant for reuse of the acid or rinse  water.
Therefore,   a  BPT  regulatory  flow  of  0.053  I/kg  has  been
established for these waste streams based on the median discharge
flow from these five plants.  The sixth  plant  which  discharges
wastewater  from open wet formation was not used to calculate the
regulatory  flow.   This  plant  reuses  spent  electrolyte   but
discharges  wastewater  from  formation  area equipment washdown.
None of the other plants  with  open  wet  formation  reported  a
discharge  from  equipment  washdown.   Therefore, flow data from
this plant was not used to determine a regulatory flow.
                              543

-------
Four of the five plants used to determine the regulatory flow, are
operated by one company.   The  frequency  of  batch  electrolyte
discharges  at  these four plants varies from daily discharges to
semi-annual  discharges.   This  indicates  that  the  number  of
formation  cycles  that electrolyte can be used before dumping is
not well defined at this company.  To  calculate  the  regulatory
flow  for  open wet formation, it was assumed that electrolyte is
batch dumped once per month at these four plants.

Wastewater discharges  associated  with  wet  scrubbers  used  to
control  fumes  generated from open wet formation are included in
the wet air pollution control process element.

Plate Soak.  Based on data collected in dcps,  industry  surveys,
from site visits and in plant comments received, some plants soak
plates  usually  for  heavy industrial batteries in sulfuric acid
prior to formation.  The plates soaked are relatively thick  0.25
cm  (0.10  inch  or greater).  Occasional dumping of this acid is
required generating a small waste stream which must  be  treated.
The BPT regulatory flow for this stream is calculated to be 0.021
I/kg  of  lead  used  in  batteries  that are plate soaked.  This
number is based on the median of data reported by three plants on
the amount of electrolyte dumped.

Ancillary Operations

Regulatory flows for ancillary operations were  calculated  using
either medians of individual plant production normalized flows or
a  weighted average of flow data available followed by production
normalization.  The method which was used  was  dictated  by  the
amount  of  flow  data which were available from lead subcategory
plants.  Where a few flow rates  were  measured  or  reported  by
plants  but  the  participation  by  plants  in  the  element  is
significant,  a  weighted  average  was  used.   This   averaging
technique  varied  in accordance with the type of data being used
and is discussed for each applicable element.  The  plants  which
reported  flow  data  as well as those which reported the process
element are presented in Table IX-1.   As  in  the  case  of  the
anodes  and cathode elements, the production normalized flow data
base included dcp data which were updated with data obtained from
site visits, plant contacts, and plant comments.

Battery Wash.  Battery wash operations produce  wastewater  as  a
result of two different process elements - washing with detergent
and  washing with water only.  Nearly all of the plants active in
these process elements reported wastewater discharge.   Sixty-six
plants  provided  flow  data on battery wash of which 44 reported
the use of water and 22 reported the use of  detergent.   Of  the
plants  reporting  the  use  of  a  detergent  wash  system, none
                              544

-------
reported zero discharge of  wastewater.   The  median  production
normalized  discharge  flow, 0.90 I/kg, is used as the flow basis
for determining the BPT flow for detergent washing of  batteries.
The  median  was  chosen  because  50  percent  of the plants are
currently maintaining this flow which is considered to be  common
industry  practice.  Those plants currently discharging at a flow
greater than the median could reduce their  flows  by  additional
recirculation  of  wash  solution and rinse water, and by reusing
the final rinse as make-up to the detergent portion of the system
resulting in discharge from only the detergent wash step.      <'

Of the 44 plants reporting the use of water battery wash systems,
43 reported a discharge of wastewater.  The BPT  regulatory  flow
for  water  washing has been established at the median production
normalized flow of 0.59 I/kg.  Those plants currently discharging
at a flow greater than the median could  reduce  their  flows  by
either  reducing  the  amount  of  water per battery directly, or
using efficient methods described in Section VII.

Truck  Wash.   Sampling  and  industry  survey  data  support   a
discharge allowance for truck wash wastewater in both the battery
manufacturing  and  nonferrous  metals  manufacturing categories.
EPA observed that trucks are used to transport used batteries  in
connection  with  battery cracking (secondary lead subcategory of
the nonferrous metals manufacturing category) processes.   Trucks
are also used to transport batteries for various purposes related
to  battery  manufacturing, operations.  The truck wash regulatory
flow for the lead subcategory of  battery  manufacturing  applies
only  to those sites without an associated on-site secondary lead
smelting  plant.   Truck  washing  at  sites  that  have  battery
cracking  or  secondary lead smelting will be regulated under the
nonferrous   metals   manufacturing    regulation.     Equivalent
regulatory  flows  for  truck  wash are promulgated under the two
regulations.

Flow data to calculate the BPT  flow  for  battery  manufacturing
truck  wash  operations  were  obtained  from two sampling visits
after proposal.  For each site,  a  daily  truck  wash  flow  was
calculated using the highest measured flow per truck (150 liters)
from  the  two  sites  measured.  Assuming 250 operating days per
year, these flows were converted  to  annual  flows.   Production
data  from 1982 was used for both plants to obtain two production
normalized flows which were then averaged to obtain the BPT  flow
of 0.014 I/kg of batteries trucked.

Laundry.   Eleven  sites  in  the  subcategory  reported  on-site
laundering of work clothing based on industry survey data.   Flow
data  were  obtained  during  2  sampling  visits  for  2 laundry
operations.  Both of these plants reported discharge  of  laundry
                              545

-------
wastewater.  Although information of laundry activities indicates
that  most  plants  do  not  have on-site laundries, those plants
which do will have a discharge of laundry wastewater;  therefore,
a  BPT regulatory flow for on-site laundering of work uniforms is
appropriate.  Laundry discharge flows  were  normalized  by  work
uniform  using measured flow rates obtained at both sites.  These
flows were average^ to  obtain  21.4  liters  per  uniform.   The
number  of  uniforms ' washed per day at each plant reporting this
element was obtained from the industry survey.  Using the average
liters per uniform, number of uniforms per day,  and  an  assumed
250  days per year, an annual flow from the laundry operation was
estimated for each of the 11 plants.  The total laundry flow from
all eleven plants was divided by the total  of  their  respective
annual  production  values  (the most recently available data) to
determine the BPT regulatory flow of 0.109 I/kg.

Miscellaneous.  A BPT regulatory flow  of  0.427  I/kg  has  been
established  to  cover  a  miscellaneous  group  of wastestreams.
These wastestreams are  associated  with  the  following  process
elements:  floor wash, wet air pollution control, battery repair,
laboratories,  hand  wash,  and   respirator   wash.    Discharge
allowances  for  these  six streams are combined together because
all of those activities occur at  almost  all  lead  plants,  and
combining  them  into a single group, facilitates administration.
If a plant has any one of these streams, then the plant  receives
the  entire  miscellaneous  wastewater  discharge allowance.  The
miscellaneous regulatory  flow  is  the  arithmetic  sum  of  the
regulatory  flows  established  for  each  process element of the
miscellaneous group.  Each individual  process  element  and  its
associated regulatory flow is discussed below.

Floor  Wash  -  Information  provided in the dcp, industry survey
responses, and from site visits were considered  in  establishing
the  regulatory flow for floor wash.  Data were available from 13
plants, of which two  reported  zero  discharge.   A  variety  of
cleaning  methods  are  used  including buckets, mops, hoses, and
other manual  methods,  as  well  as  wet  power  (vacuum)  floor
scrubbers.   A  normalized  flow of 0.13 I/kg has been calculated
based on the median of production normalized flow  data  reported
and measured.  This regulatory flow applies to floor wash outside
of the pasting area.

Wet  Air  Pollution Control - The established regulatory flow for
wet air pollution control scrubber blowdown  is  based  on  model
technologies  typical  of those used for wet scrubbing of pasting
areas and wet scrubbing of formation areas (See  Sections  V  and
VII).   These models incorporate data obtained from on-site plant
visits  and  vendor  information  for  the  two  scrubber   types
typically  used.  Observations made during plant visits indicated
                              546

-------
that most plants have no more than two  wet  scrubber  operations
on-site;  therefore,  a  regulatory  flow  which  sums  both  wet
scrubber model flows has been established.   The  BPT  regulatory
flow is based on the sum of two model technology flows instead of
the  average normalized flow shown in Table V-3.  As discussed in
Section V, a wide range of discharge flows were reported from wet
air pollution control activities even though only  two  different
scrubbers  designs  are  used in this subcategory.  The two model
technologies accurately reflect the discharge flows which can  be
achieved  from the two types of wet air pollution control devices
used in this subcategory.

The information reported in the battery manufacturing and casting
dcp, site visits, plant contacts, and vendor contacts  were  used
to  identify  the  types  of  scrubbers  used at lead subcategory
plants.  As discussed in Section V, these were identified as  two
design  types  which  are used in two groups of process elements:
group  I  consists  of  leady  oxide  production,  pasting,  grid
manufacture  and assembly, and group II consists of the formation
elements.  Each design has a  characteristic  discharge  mode  of
operation  and  flow  rate.  The group I design incurs infrequent
(semi-annual)  batch  dumping  provided  that  proper   corrosion
protection  measures  are  taken,  such as the addition of alkali
into the holding tank.  The type of discharge mode  is  supported
by  plant visits and dcp flow data.  The actual flow used for the
group I model was obtained from equipment vendor information  for
a  conservatively  large scrubber: accomodates 50,000 SCFM with a
water capacity of 3,000 gallons.  (Typically  reported  sizes  in
group  I  accommodate  6-14,000  SCFM with a capacity of 220-1330
gallons.)  This volume (3000 gallons) is  assumed  to  be  dumped
semi-annually.  Pasting area scrubbing represents the most common
group  I scrubbing activity.  The BPT regulatory flow for group I
scrubbing  was  calculated  by  multiplying  the   annual   model
discharge  volume  by  the number of sites reporting pasting area
scrubbers and dividing by the total production from these  sites.
A 0.005 I/kg normalized flow was obtained using this procedure.

In  a  similar manner to the approach used to obtain a normalized
flow for group I scrubbers, a group II scrubber  normalized  flow
was  obtained.  One of the sampled plants was used as a model for
the scrubber design and operating mode.  Equipment was added  (in
the  model)  to  accommodate  recycle of the existing model plant
washdown water as well as for caustic addition to allow for  more
extensive  recycle.   A vendor-recommended blowdown rate was used
(1.5 x  (0.005 gpm  per  1000  cfm  of  air)).   This  factor  was
multiplied  by  the flow rate of air through each scrubber in the
model plant and then multiplied by the number of  scrubbers  used
at the model plant.  This resulting flow was then converted to an
annual • flow  based  on  the operation of the model plant system.
                              547

-------
The normalized flow for formation scrubbing  was  calculated  for
the  model  plant  using the 1982 production for the model plant.
This normalized flow is 0.006 I/kg.

The complete wet scrubber  regulatory  flow  of  0.011  I/kg  was
calculated by adding group I and group II normalized flows.

Battery  Repair  -  Thirty  plants which returned industry survey
information indicated some  type  of  battery  repair  operation.
However, flow data is available from only three plants from which
a normalized flow can be calculated.  The BPT regulatory flow has
been  established  at the median flow of 0.25 I/kg.  Contributing
wastewater  sources  include  dumped  electrolyte,  repair   area
washdown, and contact cooling water.

Laboratory  - Site visit data were used to determine a regulatory
flow  for   wastewater   discharged   from   on-site   laboratory
facilities.  The laboratory tests performed at the battery plants
which  generate  wastewater  were  found  to be very similar from
plant  to  plant;  there  were  no  differences  which  justified
significant  flow  differences between plants.  Observations made
indicated that some plants reclaim quality control  lead  samples
taken  for  their  lead  value.   Based  on  this  practice, lead
loadings in the discharge water to treatment should mostly be due
to  lab  instrument  washing,  dumped  electrolyte  from  battery
teardown  and wet air pollution control scrubbers used to control
fumes from various tests; also some tests require  plate  rinsing
before  chemical assay.  These wastewater sources are included in
the process water flow for the laboratory process element.  Other
flows such as noncontact cooling water for graphite furnaces  and
other instrumentation are not included.

Discharge  information  was  obtained  for all sites visited, and
flow data were obtained from five sites; two  were  measured  and
three  flows  were plant-reported.  Data from four of these sites
were used in the normalized flow calculation; one value was  more
than   an  order  of  magnitude  above  the  others  without  any
associated justification.  The normalized flow was calculated  by
adding  the daily flows from the four sites, converting the total
daily flow to an annual flow assuming 250 days of  operation  per
year,  and dividing the total annual flow by the total production
from the four  sites.   A  normalized  flow  of  0.003  I/kg  was
calculated from the above procedure.

Hand  Wash  -  Data  were collected from site visits and industry
surveys on hand wash operations; these data support a  regulatory
flow  for  employee  hand wash within the production areas of the
plant.  Hand wash is assumed to be practiced at  all  sites.   Of
the  sites  visited, most discharge hand wash water to a sanitary
                              548

-------
sewer without treatment while a few sites treat hand  wash  water
before  discharge.   Hand  wash  flows were measured at two sites
yielding the same flow values (1.5  I/person).   This  flow  (1.5
I/person)  was used to obtain individual site flow rates by using
the number of employees in required  washup  at  the  site.   The
number   of  employees  were  reported  in  the  industry  survey
responses.  This daily flow for each site  was  converted  to  an
annual  flow  using  250 days per year.  The 63 annual flows were
added and divided by the 63 plants' associated total  production.
A   normalized  flow  of  0.027  I/kg  of  total  lead  used  was
established for hand wash.

Respirator Wash - Sampling data and  industry  survey  data  were
used  to determine a normalized flow of 0.006 I/kg for respirator
wash water.  Fifty-one plants reported  on-site  respirator  wash
activities.   Flow  data  were  available  for six plants, all of
which reported the discharge of  this  wastewater.   Flow  values
from  the six plants were normalized by the number of respirators
washed and averaged to obtain an average flow of 4.6  liters  per
respirator  washed.   For  those  sites  reporting  the number of
respirators washed per day in the industry survey responses,  the
average flow per respirator was used to^determine a daily flow at
each  site.   These  daily  flows  were  added  and  the  sum was
converted to an annual flow assuming 250 operating days per year.
The total annual  flow  was  then  divided  by  the  sum  of  the
respective  productions  to obtain the regulatory flow.  The most
updated production values were used.

MODEL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY

BPT  end-of-pipe  technology  for   the   lead   subcategory   is
illustrated  in Figure IX-1 (page 583).  The BPT treatment scheme
consists of oil and grease removal by oil skimming,  and  end-of-
pipe   lime   and   settle  treatment  applied  to  all  combined
wastewater.  The end-of-pipe model technology of lime and  settle
treatment  is  intended  to  be  state of the art lime and settle
technology which is properly  designed  and  carefully  operated.
Caustic, sodium carbonate, or lime is added to adjust the pH to a
level that promotes adequate precipitation.  The optimum pH range
for   precipitation   of   metals,  especially  lead,  from  lead
subcategory waste streams is 8.8-9.3.  Carbonate ion in  addition
to   hydroxide   may   be   required  to  promote  the  effective
precipitation of lead.  Carbonate  precipitation  is  similar  to
hydroxide  precipitation  in  terms  of  metals  removal, and the
treated effluent from carbonate precipitation is  compatible  for
use  in lead recovery processes.  Alternatively, treatment system
performance can be improved  by  evaluating  other  precipitation
technologies.   Sulfide  precipitation  is  more  effective  than
hydroxide precipitation at removing lead  because  of  the  lower
                              549

-------
solubility  of  lead  sulfide.  Also, iron coprecipitation, which
involves the addition  of  iron  salts  to  a  precipitation  and
settling  system,  can  enhance  the  removal  efficiency  of the
system.  However, since the presence of iron  salts  in  recycled
waters  could  be  detrimental to lead subcategory processes, the
use of iron coprecipitaton would most likely be  limited  to  the
treatment of waste streams which are to be discharged.  Proper pH
control  will enhance the settling of both metal precipitates and
suspended  solids.   Clarifiers  can  achieve  required  effluent
concentrations;  however,  comparable effluent concentrations can
be achieved in tanks or lagoons or by filtration.  In some cases,
provisions of an oil skimmer may  also  be  required  to  achieve
acceptable effluent quality.

The  sludge  which accumulates during settling must be removed to
ensure continued effective operation of the settling  device.   A
vacuum  filter  is included in the BPT system to reduce the water
content of the sludge  and  minimize  the  quantity  of  material
requiring  disposal.   The  resulting  filtrate  is  returned for
further treatment,  and  the  sludge  should  be  sent  to  metal
recovery  or  to  a  secure landfill.  It is not anticipated that
such sludges will be hazardous wastes.

Lime and settle  (chemical  precipitation)  technology  was  con-
sidered   as   BPT   following  a  careful  review  of  collected
information characterizing process wastewater, present  treatment
practices,   and  present  manufacturing  practice.   Removal  of
metals, the primary  requirement  in  treating  lead  subcategory
process wastewater, can be achieved by chemical precipitation and
settling.   This technology is similar to that presently in-place
at plants which treat their wastewaters.  As summarized in  Table
IX-3   (page 561) the most frequently reported end-of-pipe systems
in this subcategory were equivalent to pH adjustment and settling
or pH adjustment and filtration (53 plants); ten others  reported
the  use  of filtration following pH adjustment and settling.  pH
adjustment only or no pH adjustment with treatment was  practiced
at 46 plants, and 74 plants reported no treatment in-place.

On  the  basis  of  33 plant visits and an evaluation of effluent
data  submitted,  which  was  discussed  in  Section  V,  it  was
concluded  that  existing treatment facilities in the subcategory
generally were improperly designed, maintained, or operated.   In
fact, those plants which had filtration units in place, used them
generally  as  primary  solids removal units and not as polishing
filters   designed   to   achieve    low    effluent    pollutant
concentrations.   Based  on  the  observation  that  most  plants
already have BPT end-of--pipe systems in-place, the  selected  BPT
is  judged  to be reasonable.  A discussion of the reasonableness
of the BPT limitations is presented later in this section.  As an
                              550

-------
alternative to reducing effluent concentrations to meet discharge
limitations,  the  discharge  flow  can  be  reduced  by   either
substitution  of  dry  processes  or  by  the reuse of treated or
untreated wastewater.

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

The pollutant mass discharge limitations (milligrams of pollutant
per kilogram of pnp)  were  calculated  by  multiplying  the  BPT
regulatory   flows   summarized  in  Table  IX-1  (I/kg)  by  the
concentration  achievable  by  the  BPT  model  treatment  system
summarized  in  Table  VI1-21 (mg/1) for each pollutant parameter
considered for regulation at BPT (I/kg  x  mg/1  =  mg/kg).   The
results   of  this  computation  for  all  process  elements  and
regulated pollutants in the lead subcategory  are  summarized  in
Tables IX-4 to IX-16 (pages 562 to 574).  These limitation tables
list  all the pollutants which were considered for regulation and
those specifically regulated are marked with an asterisk.

POLLUTANT REMOVALS AND COSTS

In the establishment of BPT, the cost  of  application  of  tech-
nology  must  be considered in relation to the effluent reduction
benefits from such application.  The quantity  of  pollutant  re-
moval  by  BPT is displayed in Table X-6 (page 604) for the total
subcategory and Table X-7 (page 605) for direct dischargers only.
Treatment costs are shown in Table X-8  (page 606).   The  capital
cost  of BPT as an increment'above the cost of in-place treatment
equipment is  estimated  to  be  $8.60  million  ($1983)  ($0.715
million for direct dischargers) for the lead subcategory.  Annual
costs  of  BPT for the lead subcategory are.estimated to be $5.13
million ($1983) ($0.499 million  for  direct  dischargers).   The
quantity  of  pollutants  removed from estimated raw waste by the
BPT model technology for this  subcategory  is  estimated  to  be
10,978,344 kg/yr (791,232 kg/yr for direct dischargers) including
1,601,278  kg/yr  (115,407 kg/yr for direct dischargers) of toxic
metals.  The pollutant removals justify the costs incurred by the
plants in the lead subcategory.

REASONABLENESS OF THE LIMITATIONS

To confirm the  reasonableness  of  these  limitations  for  this
subcategory,  limitations  were compared to actual performance at
lead subcategory plants by first looking at plant flows.  Because
BPT  is  common  end-of-pipe  treatment  from  multiple   process
elements,  and  because  compliance  with  the regulation will be
judged on  a  total  plant  basis,  total  plant  performance  is
compared rather than performance from each process element.  This
was  accomplished  by  calculating  total  process wastewater BPT
                              551

-------
regulatory flow rates for each plant in the subcategory1based  on
available  production  information  and on the normalized process
element BPT flows shown in Table IX-1.  These calculated BPT flow
rates were then compared to effluent flow rates actually reported
or measured.  Effluent concentrations were also compared to those
attainable by lime and settle (L&S) technology  as  presented  in
Table VII-21.  Finally total plant pollutant mass discharges were
compared  to  BPT  limitations  for plants which, on the basis of
effluent flow rates and concentrations, were potentially  meeting
BPT mass discharge limitations.

As  a  first  step  in  this comparison, lead subcategory process
wastewater flow rates from each plant were compared to  the  flow
rates  upon  which mass limitations for the plant would be based.
Since  operating  schedules  are  generally   regular   in   this
subcategory,  this  comparison  was  made  on the basis of hourly
flows.  To calculate actual process wastewater  discharge  flows,
the  discharge  flow rate (1/hr) from each process element at the
plant were added.  The total process wastewater  flow  from  this
procedure  represents  the  sum of reported process element flows
from the plant.  Process elements for which flow  data  were  not
reported  are  not  included in the total flow.  In general, flow
data from the ancillary streams added after proposal (laboratory,
truck wash, handwash,  respirator  wash,  and  laundry)  are  not
included  in the total reported process element flows, since flow
data was only available from  a  few  plants  for  these  process
elements.   (Flows  from these process elements are included when
available.)  At some plants,  individual  process  element  flows
were  either  not  available,  or only available for a few of the
process elements that the plant reported.  However, most of these
plants reported a total process wastewater flow  in  their  dcps.
For  these  plants, the total process wastewater flow was assumed
to be equal to the combined flow from process  elements  reported
in the dcp.  It was assumed that discharges from process elements
not  reported  in  the  dcps  (such  as  laboratory,  truck wash,
handwash, respirator wash, and laundry) were not included in  the
total process wastewater flow.  For all plants, the total process
wastewater  flow  was  compared  to  the sum of corresponding BPT
flows for each  process  element  included  in  the  total  flow.
Production  information  was  used  to  determine  the hourly BPT
process element flows.  The annual pnp was divided by the  plants
operating  time  to determine an hourly pnp.  This hourly pnp was
multiplied by the normalized flow shown for the  process  element
in  Table  IX-1.   The hourly BPT process element flows were then
added to determine the total BPT flow.  This BPT  flow  was  then
compared to the total process wastewater flow.  Table IX-17 (page
575) presents a comparison of these flows.
                              552

-------
Fifty-seven  plants reported zero discharge of process wastewater
from the lead subcategory and were, therefore, complying with the
BPT flow and limitations.  Twenty-eight  additional  plants  were
identified  that  produce  total  wastewater discharge flows less
than those used in calculating BPT  mass  discharge  limitations.
Fourteen  of  the  twenty-eight  have  BPT treatment systems (L&S
technology) in-place, and 13 of these 14 submitted effluent  data
which  is summarized in Table IX-18 (page 580).  Plants which had
pH adjustment and filtration were considered  to  have  treatment
equipment  in-place  that is equivalent to BPT (lime and settle).
However, the  filtration  systems  were  usually  used  only  for
primary solids removal.  Only one plant submitted data indicating
that  it  would comply with the average lead concentration values
shown  in  Table  VII-21;  however,  its  TSS  concentration  was
significantly  high,  indicating  a  poorly  maintained  settling
system.  On the basis of the data submitted, operational  factors
which influence treatment performance could only be evaluated for
the  plants  submitting pH data.  As discussed in Section VII, pH
should be maintained at 8.8-9.3 for the most efficient removal of
pollutants.  Only one plant (Plant J) reported a pH which was  in
the  8.8-9.3  range.   However,  this plant has other operational
problems (these problems are discussed later) which result  in  a
high effluent lead concentration.

Lead  subcategory  treated  wastewater  values (pH, lead and TSS)
vary considerably among plants indicating that treatment  systems
vary in design and operating practices.  This was also evident at
plants  that  were  sampled.  Six of the sampled plants discharge
process wastewater and have BPT equivalent treatment  syterns  in-
place.   Sampling  data from these six plants are also summarized
in Table IX-17.  Three of the six plants (Plants A, J and M) were
maintaining flows in compliance with BPT, and three (Plants N, 0,
and P) were not.  As shown  in  Table  IX-17,  plant  A  was  not
maintaining  pH  within an acceptable range, and consequently was
not  meeting  lead  concentrations  for  BPT   technology.    The
filtration  system  at  this  plant  was used as a primary solids
removal device and was not operating effectively at the  time  of
sampling, resulting in high TSS concentrations.  Sampling data at
this  plant  did  not  support  the  plant's  dcp  data  for lead
concentration and showed that the plant was  not  complying  with
its  permit  which  allowed  a  maximum of 1.0 mg/1 of lead to be
discharged.  With proper pH control and the addition of  settling
tanks  with adequate retention time, this plant would be expected
to comply with its permit and BPT limitations.  Plant J not  only
had the same operational problems as plant A  (improper pH control
and  no  settling with filtration), but also the treatment system
was being overloaded to almost triple its design capacity, due to
increased production.  This plant could readily comply  with  BPT
limitations  by  maintaining  proper  pH  control  and  by either
                              553

-------
limiting flows to the treatment system to design levels only,  or
enlarging  the  treatment  system.  The industry survey data from
Plant J was submitted after the plant was  sampled.   These  data
indicate that the plant now operates at an average pH level of 9.
However, the effluent lead concentration reported in the industry
survey  indicates  that  the  plant  has  not  solved  its  other
operational problems.  It was observed during the visit to  Plant
M  that a pH of 7.5 was used to precipitate metals.  This is well
below the effective removal range of 8.8 to  9.3.   Despite  this
low  pH,  lead  was  not detected in the effluent from this plant
during sampling.   Industry  survey  data  from  Plant  M  (which
represents  wastewater  treatment  performance over a longer time
period than sampling) indicate  that  an  average  effluent  lead
concentration  of  0.25  mg/1 is achieved.  Thus, it appears that
Plant  M  does  not  achieve  the  effluent  lead  concentrations
achieved  during  sampling  on a regular basis.  This is probably
due to the low operating pH.  If the operating pH  is  maintained
within  the  8.8  to  9.3  range, this plant would be expected to
achieve effluent concentrations similar to those achieved  during
sampling on a regular basis.

Three of the sampled plants with BPT equivalent treatment systems
in-place  do  not comply with the BPT flows.  Two of these plants
(Plants N and O) maintain pH within the effective removal  range.
This   enables   these   two  plants  to  achieve  effluent  lead
concentrations comparable to the average lead concentration shown
in Table VII-21.  Several operational problems were  observed  at
Plant  P.   Plant P uses a clarifier with tube settlers to remove
precipitated solids.  As with Plant M, an operating pH of 7.5 was
observed to be used to precipitate metals.  In addition, the tube
settler used for primary solids removal was observed to be  laden
with  solids.   This impedes the manner in which the tube settler
removes solids.  Also, the clarifier at this  plant  is  designed
for  continuous operation, but was operated intermittantly during
the visit.  A lead concentration of 0.100 mg/1  was  observed  in
the  effluent  lead  sample taken during the visit to this plant.
As  shown  by  the  industry  survey  data  from  Plant  P,  this
concentration  is  not  achieved  on  a  regular  basis.   If the
operational problems  of  the  wastewater  treatment  system  are
corrected,   this   plant   would  be  expected  to  achieve  the
concentrations observed during sampling on a regular basis.

Other lead plants which were visited, but not  sampled  supported
the  conclusions  reached  from  evaluation of submitted data and
sampling data.  Several plants were maintaining the  BPT  process
flows  and  also  had BPT or better end-of-pipe treatment systems
in-place which allowed the plants to reuse  the  water  and  thus
achieve  zero  discharge  of wastewater pollutants.  Other plants
appeared to have the same operational problems (no pH control and
                              554

-------
overloaded treatment systems)  as  some  of  the  sampled  plants
previously   mentioned.   Four  additional  plants  in  the  lead
subcategory were sampled.  Three of  these  plants  achieve  zero
discharge  of  wastewater  pollutants  by  methods other than BPT
technology such as treated wastewater reuse, contract hauling and
evaporation, or land application.  Process wastewater was sampled
at each of these three plants and sampling results are  shown  in
Section  V.   The  effluent  from  wastewater treatment (which is
reused or land applied) at one of these plants was also  sampled.
Sampling  results  and  an  evaluation  of  the plants' treatment
system are presented in Section V.  The other sampled plant  uses
a  lime,  settle,  and  filter wastewater treatment system.  This
system was characterized during  sampling  and  is  discussed  in
Section V.

In  summary,  the above discussion shows that 85 plants currently
comply with BPT flows, and that of the 112 plants with  treatment
in-place,  the most common treatment system was based on lime and
settle technology.  Most plants did not indicate the presence  of
ancillary  streams  added  after  proposal.  If these 'streams are
assumed to be present  in the total process flow from these plants
and the added flow allowance added, two additional  plants  would
meet   the  BPT  flows.   When  EPA  evaluated  treatment  system
performance at plants with BPT treatment and BPT flow,  the  data
indicated that treatment system design and operating practices at
most plants were inadequate.  In particular, close pH control was
not  practiced  at BPT lead subcategory plants.  Because lime and
settle treatment practices in the lead subcategory are  generally
inadequate  the  effectiveness of lime and settle technology must
be transferred from  other  industrial  categories  with  similar
wastewaters.  From the data and information collected, it appears
that  most  lead subcategory plants can comply with BPT with only
minimal changes in their present practices,  such  as  wastewater
flow  control,  pH  control,  and  better  control  of  operating
parameters.   Therefore,  the  selected  BPT   level   has   been
determined to be reasonable.

APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS IN. PERMITS

The  purpose  of  these  limitations (and standards) is to form a
uniform national basis for regulating  wastewater  effluent  from
the  battery manufacturing category.  For direct dischargers, th-e
regulations are implemented through NPDES  permits.   Because  of
the  many  elements  found  in lead battery manufacturing and the
apparent complexity of the regulation,  an  example  of  applying
these  limitations  to  determine  the  allowable  discharge from
battery manufacturing  is included.  The lead subcategory  battery
manufacturing  category  is regulated on an individual wastestream
"building block" approach as shown below.
                              555

-------
Example A.  Plant X manufactures lead acid batteries using 5.2  x
10* kg lead/yr.  The plant operates for 250 days during the year.
Leady oxide is purchased; paste is mixed in the plant and applied
to casted grids; plates are cured in stacks; 80% of the batteries
are  charged  using closed, single-fill formation; 20% are formed
using open formation and dehydration  for  dehydrated  batteries;
all batteries are detergent washed.  The plant provides hand wash
for  their  employees,  routinely washes floors in process areas,
and has respirator wash.

Table IX-19 (page 582) illustrates the calculation  of  allowable
daily discharge of lead for this plant.
                            .  556

-------
                                               TABLE IX-1

                             FLOW BASIS  FOR BPT MASS DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS
                                            LEAD SUBCATEGORY
Ul
Ol
  Process Element

Anodes and Cathodes


Leady Oxide Production

Grid Manufacture
     Mold Release Formulation
     Direct Chill Casting
     Lead .Rolling

Paste Preparation and Application

Curing

Closed Formation (in case)
     Single Fill
     Double Fill
     Fill and Dump

Open Formation (out of case)
     Dehydrated
     Wet

Plate Soak

Ancillary Operations^

Battery Wash
     Detergent
     Water Only
Median
Flow
(I/kg)
0.00
*
\
0.0002
0.006
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.451/
0.45V
11.05
0.00
Mean
Flow
(I/kg)
0.37
0.006
0.0002
0.006
0.49
0.03
0.28
0.92
1.83
28.26
0.36
BPT
Flow
(I/kg)
0.00
0.006
0.0002
0.006
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.45
0.45
11 .05
0.0532/
                                                0.021
0,026
0.021
                                                0.90
                                                0.59
1 .70
3.47
0.90
0.59

-------
Ul
Ul
00
                                         TABLE  IX-1  (continued)


                             FLOW BASIS  FOR BPT MASS  DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS
                                            LEAD  SUBCATEGORY
  Process Element

Anodes and Cathodes


Truck Wash

Laundry

MiscellaneousGroup

Floor Wash

Wet Air Pollution Control

Battery Repair

Laboratory

Hand Wash

Respirator Wash

    -Total Miscellaneous Group
Median
Flow
(I/kg)
'0.014
*
0.13
0.00
0.25
*
*
*
Mean
Flow
(I/kg)
0.014
0.109
0.11
0.26
0.20
0.003
0.027
0.006
BPT
Flow
0.014
0.109
0.13
0.0113/
0.25
0.003
0.027
0.006
                                                                                 0.427
        /  Based  on  combined  data for  double  fill  and  fill  and  dump  formation.

        /  Based  on  subset  of plants which  discharge open wet  formation  wastewater

        /  Based  on  sum  of  model  flows for  pasting and formation area scrubbers.

        *Calculated as  a  flow weighted average  -  no median available

-------
                                                                                TABUE IX-2

                                                     SUMMARY OF ZERO DISCHARGE FOR LEAD SUBCAHQQRY PROCESS ELEMENTS
          Process Element
  No, of Plants
Reporting Flow Efata
For Process Element
ND. of Plants Reporting
   Zero Discharge in
    Process Element
    ttathod of Attaining
      Zero Discharge
           Leady Qcide Production
        41
          29
Use of non-contact cooling water  on
ball mills.
          Grid Manufacture
             M3ld Release Formulation
             Direct Chill Casting

             Lead Rolling
        2(29)


        US)'/

        K5)1/
                                          Use commercially available mold-release
                                          formulations.

                                          Ifone reported.

                                          Contract hauling.
Ui
Oi
           teste Preparation and
             Application
          Curing
        100
        97
          57
          87
Recycle of wastewater after settling
(common practice).
Curing In covered stacks; in humidity
controlled rooms; internal reeireulation.
          Closed Formation—
             Single Fill


             touble Fill


             Fill and Dump
        43


        35


        13
          31


          7


          1
low rate and controlled  formation and reuse
battery case rinsewater  in acid cutting.

low rate and controlled  formation and reuse
battery case rinsewater  in acid cutting.

Low rate and controlled  formation and reuse
battery case rinsewater  in acid cutting.
          Open Forraation-
              ttehydrated

              Wet
        42

        16
          2

          10
Water recycled after treatment.

Reuse formation acid.
          Plate Soak
                                                                                                                  Reuse plate soak acid.

-------
                                                                WIE IX-2 (continued)

                                           SUWARY OF ZERO DISCHARGE FOR LEAD SUBQVTEQORY PROCESS EUJMENTS
Process Elesnent
  Na, of Hants
Reporting Flow
For Process Element
Ifo. of Hants Reporting
   Zero Discharge In
    Process Element
Battery Wash
Datergent
Water Only
Truck Wash
Laundry
Floor Wash
Wet "Air ibllution Control 2/
Battery Bepair
laboratory
Hand Wash
Respirator 'Wash
22
44
2 (18)1/
2 (11)1/
13
56 (80)
3 .
4 (57) 1/
2 (63) V
6 (51)1/
0
1
0
0
2
32
0
0
0
0
Ifethod of Attaining
  Zero Discharge
                                                                                                        Reuse battery case rlnsewater in acid
                                                                                                        cutting.

                                                                                                        Reuse lattery case rinsewater in acid
                                                                                                        cutting.
                                                                                                        bbne reported.
                                                                                                        Use offsite commercial services.
                                                                                                        Use of dry floor cleaning procedures.
                                                                                                        Use of dry baghouses; reuse group I
                                                                                                        scrubber water in paste washdowi;
                                                                                                        eliminate overflow from group 1 scrubbers;
                                                                                                        no washdown of demlster mesh in formation
                                                                                                        scrubbers.
                                                                                                        Rjne reported,


                                                                                                        Ifene reported.


                                                                                                        Nane reported.
                                                                                                        Reclaim disposable respirators at
                                                                                                        a smelter.
 '' The number in parenthesis is the number of plants which reported being active for these process elements,

 2/ Based on number of scrubbers from all process areas but laboratory.  The number in parenthesis is number of plants reporting scrubber usage.

-------
                                           TABLE IX-3

                                  SUMMARY OF TREATMENT  IN-PLACE
                                   AT LEAD SUBCATEGORY  PLANTS
ut
OS
      Treatment
      In-PIace

      None
                       Number of
                        Plants
Less than BPT
 (pH adjust only or no pH
  adjust with treatment)

BPT Treatment
 (L&S, or pH adj.ust,
  filter)

BAT Treatment
 (L,S & F)

Not Classified
74

46



53



10
                                 Discharge Status
                      Direct         IndirectZero
1

1  (D
                                                       8  (2)
                                                       2  (1)
                                                       0
12

40 (9)



40 (5)
42 I/

 5 (1)
      _!_/   Discharge status is unknown for 19 plants, which are  included in the total
           number of plants with no treatment, but not under discharge  status.   Fifteen
           of these plants are not full line manufacturers.  Based  on  the observations
           that most non-full line manufacturers are zero dischargers,  and that permit
           information was not found on these plants, they are considered as indirect or
           zero dischargers with no reported treatment in-place.
      ( )  Indicates number of plants that are closed.

-------
                            TABLE  IX-4

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                     BPT EFFLUENT  LIMITATIONS
Mold Release Formulation
Pollutant or
Pollutant              Maximum for                Maximum  for
Property   	any one day	monthly  average

              Metric Units - mg/kg of  lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of  lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
*Iron
Manganese
*0il and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within
0.01
0.002
0.003
0.011
0.002
0.002
0.01
0.0025
0.009
0.04
0.007
0.004
0.120
0.246
the range of 7.5 to
0.008
0.0009
0.001
0.006
0.001
0.0006
0.0076
0.001
0.004
0.02
0.004
0.002
0.072
0.117
10.0 at all times
*Regulated Pollutant
                               562

-------
                            TABLE IX-5

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                     BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Direct Chill Lead Casting
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
 Maximum for
 any one day
        Maximum for
        monthly average
              Metric Units - rag/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
 Antimony
 Cadmium
 Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
 Mercury
 Nickel
 Silver
 Zinc
 Aluminum
*Iron
 Manganese
*0il and Grease
*TSS
*pH	Within
     0.00057
     0.00007
     0,000088
     0.0004
     0.00008
     0.00005
     0.00038
     0.000082
     0.00029
     0.0013
     0.0002
     0.0001
     0.004
     0.008
the range of 7. 5 t o
           0.00026
           0.00003
           0.000036
           0.0002
           0.00004
           0.00002
           0.00025
           0.000034
           0.00012
           0.0006
           0.0001
           0.00006
           0.002
           0.003
10.0 at all times
^Regulated Pollutant
                               563

-------
                            TABLE  IX-6

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                     BPT EFFLUENT  LIMITATIONS
Lead Rolling
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
*Iron
Manganese
*0il and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within
0.017
0.002
0.003
0.011
0.003
0.002
0.012
0.002
0.009
0.039
0.007
0. 004
0.120
0.246
the range of 7.5 to
0.008
0.0009
0.001
0.006
0.001
0.0006
0.008
0.001
0.004
0.019
0.004
0.002
0.072
0.117
10.0 at all times
*Regulated Pollutant
                               564

-------
                            TABLE IX-7

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                     BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Lead Rolling
Pollutant or
Pollutant              Maximum for                Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead rolled
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead rolled
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
*Iron
Manganese
*0il and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within
0.07
0.008
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.006
0.04
0.01
0.03
0.15
0.03
0.02
0.47
0.96
the range of 7.5 to
0.03
0.004
0.004
0.02
0.005
0.002
0.03
0.004
0.01
0.07
0.01
0.007
0.28
0.45
10.0 at all times
*Regulated Pollutant
                               565

-------
                            TABLE IX-8

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                     BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Closed Formation - Double Fill, or Fill & Dump
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
* Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver *
Zinc
Aluminum
*Iron
Manganese
*0il and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within
1.29
0.15
0.20
0.86
0.19
0.11
0.86
0.18
0.66
2.89
0.54
0.31
9.00
18.45
the range of 7.5 to
0.58
0.07
0.08
0.45
0.09
0.05
0.57
0.08
0.27
1.44
0.27
0.13
5.40
8.78
10.0 at all times
*Regulated Pollutant
                               566

-------
                            TABLE  IX-9

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                     BPT EFFLUENT  LIMITATIONS
Open Formation - Dehydrated
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
Maximum for
anyone day
Maximum for
monthly average
              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Alum inum
* Iron
Manganese
*0il and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within
31.71
3.75
4.86
20.99
4.64
2.76
21.21
4.53
16.13
71.05
13.26
7.51
221.00
453.05
the range of 7.5 to
14.14
1.65
1.98
11.05
2.21
1.10
14.03
1.87
6.74
35.36
6.74
3.20
132.60
215.47
10.0 at all times
*Regulated Pollutant
                               567

-------
                            TABLE IX-10

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                     BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Open Formation - Wet
Pollutant or
Pollutant              Maximum for                Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used

 Antimony                  0.15                      0.07
 Cadmium                   0.02                      0.007
 Chromium                  0.02                      0.009
*Copper                    0.10                      0.05
*Lead                      0.02                      0.01
 Mercury                   0.01                      0.005
 Nickel                    0.10                      0.07
 Silver                    0.02                      0.009
 Zinc                      0.08                      0.03
 Aluminum                  0.34                      0.17
*Iron                      0.06                      0.03
 Manganese                 0.04                      0.02
*0il and Grease            1.06                      0.64
*TSS                       2.17                      1.03
*pH	Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0 at all times	

*Regulated Pollutant
                               568

-------
                            TABLE IX-11

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                     BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Plate Soak
Pollutant or
Pollutant              Maximum for                Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead-used
              English Units - lb/T,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
*Iron
Manganese
*0il and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within
0.06
0.007
0.009
0.04
0.009
0.005
0.04
0.008
0.03
0.14
0.03
0.01
0.42
0.86
the range of 7.5 to
0.03
0.003
0.003
0.02
0.004
0.002
0.03
0.003
0.01
0.07
0.01
0.01
0.25
0.41
10.0 at all. times
*Regulated Pollutant
                               569

-------
                            TABLE  IX-12

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                     BPT EFFLUENT  LIMITATIONS
Battery Wash (Detergent)
Pollutant or
Pollutant              Maximum for                Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
*Iron
Manganese
*0il and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within
2.58
0.31
0.396
1.71
0.38
0.23
1.73
0.37
1.31
5.79
1.08
0.61
18.00
36.90
the range of 7.5 to
1,15
0.14
0.162
0.90
0.18
0.09
1.14
0.15
0.55
2.88
0.55
0.26
10.80
17.55
10.0 at all times
*Regulated Pollutant
                               570

-------
                            TABLE, IX-13

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                     BPT EFFLUENT  LIMITATIONS


Battery Wash (Water Only)

Pollutant or
Pollutant-              Maximum for                 Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

              Metric Units - mg/kg of  lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of  lead  used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
* Iron
Manganese
*0il and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within
1,69
0.20
0.26
1.12
0.25
0.15
1.13
0.24
0.86
3.79
0.71
0.40
11.80
24.19
the range of 7.5 to
0.76
0.09
0.11
0.59
0.12
0.06
0.75
0.10
0.36
1.89
0.36
0.17
7.08
11.51
10.0 at all times
*Regulated Pollutant
                               571

-------
                            TABLE IX-14

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                     BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Truck Wash
Pollutant or
Pollutant              Maximum for                Maximum for
Property	any one day     	monthly average

   Metric Units - mg/kg of lead in trucked batteries
   English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead in trucked batteries
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
*Iron
Manganese
*0il and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within
0.040
0.004
0.006
0.026
0.005
0.003
0.026
0.005
0.020
0.09
0.016
0.01
0.280
0.574
the range of 7.5 to
0.017
0.002
0.002
0.014
0.002
0.001
0.017
0.002
0.008
0.04
0.008
0.004
0.168
0.273
10.0 at all times
*Regulated Pollutant
                               572

-------
                            TABLE IX-1 5

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                     BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Laundry
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
* Iron
Manganese
*0il and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within
0.31
0.037
0.05
0.21
0.05
0.027
0.209
0.045
0.16
0.70
0.13
0.07
2.18
4.47
the range of 7.5 to
0.14
0.016
0.02
0.11
0.02
0.011
0.138
0.019
0.07
0.35
0.07
0.03
1.31
2.13
10.0 at all times
*Regulated Pollutant
                               573

-------
                            TABLE IX-1 6

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                     BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Miscellaneous Wastewater Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
              Metric Units - rag/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
*Iron
Manganese
*0il and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within
1.23
0.15
0.19
0.81
0.18
0.11
0.82
0.18
0.62
2.75
0.51
0.29
8.54
17.51
the range of 7.5 to
0.55
0.06
0.08
0.43
0.09
0.04
0.54
0.07
0.26
1.37
0.26
0. 12
5.12
8.33
10.0 at all times
*Regulated Pollutant
                               574

-------
                                                          TABLE 1X-17

                                             COMPARISON OF ACTUAL TOTAL FLOW RATES
                                                   TO BPT HOURLY FLOW RATES
Ui
-si
Ui
Plant ID

  107
  110
  112
  122
  132
  133
  135
  138
  144
  146
  147
  152
  155
  158
  170
  173
  178
  179
  182
  184
  190
  191
  198
  207
  208
  212
  213
  226
  233
  237
  239
  242
  255
  261
  269
  277
  278
  280
  288
  295
                                             Actual Flow
                                              Meets BPT
Actual Flow
   (1/hr)

    1503
      NA
    3108
   11 706
      NA
      NA
       0
      NA
       0
    6815
       0
    9280
      NA
       0
       0
       0
       0
       7.57
      NA
       0
       0
   37325
   10266
   18851
      NA
    7041
     454
    9312
    9375
   11129
    6106
      NA.
      NA
    2271
   12212
     -NA
    5770
      NA
      NA
       0
BPT Hourly Flow
    (1/hr)

      11475
         NA
        621
       5091
         NA
         NA
         NA
         NA
       2650
       4000
          6.0
       6850
         NA
         NA
         NA
          0
       2143
         20
         NA
       1632
         NA
        105
        591
       5685
         NA
       2966
          0
      13200
       8070
      16775
       2255
         NA
         NA
       1019
      20615
         96
          5.1
         NA
         NA
         NA

-------
                                                     TABLE IX-t? (Continued)

                                              COMPARISON OF ACTUAL TOTAL FLOW RATES
                                                    TO BPT HOURLY FLOW RAXES
Oi
Plant ID

  299
  311
  320
  321
  331
  342
  346
  349
  350
  356
  358
  361
  366
  370
  371
  372
  374
  377
  382
  386
  387
  400
  402
  403
  406
  421
  429
  430
  436
  439
  444
  446
  448
  450
  462
  463
  466
  467
  469
  472
                                              Actual Flow
                                               Meets BPT
                                                   x
                                                   x
x
x


X
X
X
X
                                                   X
                                                   X
                                                   X
                                                   X


                                                   X
                                                   X
                                                   X
                                                   X

                                                   X
                                                   X
Actual Flow
   (1/hr)

       0
   20895
   34450 -
       0
    2498
   61920
       0
    7845
      NA
       0
    7041
      NA
       0
      NA
    3390
       0
    3861
       0
    1197
    7950
    2006
    3835
      NA
      NA
      NA
       0
       0
       0
       0
   29000
       0
    2063
   14645
   27252
    2574
      NA
       0
       0
      15
       0
BPT Hourly Flow
    (1/hr)

         NA
      13496
      17065
         NA
       2200
      31635
         NA
      16150
         NA
         NA
       3643
         NA
         NA
         NA
       7385
         NA
          0
         NA
       3160
      10083
       2825
       1949
         NA
         NA
         NA
          1.3
         NA
          0
          0
       4107
         NA
       4015
       3525
       8190
       2614
         NA
        330
         NA
       1350
       1900

-------
                                              TABLE IX-17 (Continued)

                                       COMPARISON OF ACTUAL TOTAL FLOW RATES
                                             TO BPT HOURLY FLOW RATES
Ul
«-J
•-J
Plant ID

  480
  486
  491
  493
  494
  495
  501 .
  503
  504
  513
  517
  520
  521
  522
  526
  529
  536
  543
  549
  553
  572
  575
  594
  620
  623
  634
  635
  640
  646
  652
  656
  668
  672
  677
  680
  681
  682
  683
  685
  686
  690
                                       Actual Flow
                                        Meets BPT
x
x


X
X
X
X


X
X


X


X
                                            X


                                            X



                                            X


                                            X
Actual Flow
   (1/hr)

   30610
      NA'
      NA
      NA
    3110
       0
   12624
       0
       0
    1363
       0
    4542
       0
       0
   18170
     570
      NA
       0
   47470
    3449
    2275
    3634
       0
      NA
      NA
    1590
    1685
   25196
     476
   12705
      NA
       0
   52950
       0
    1534
    4542
    6814
       0
    6359
    8404
       0
BPT Hourly Flow
    (1/hr)

      19680
         NA
         NA
        605
       3735
         NA
       4620
      35185
         NA
       3895
         NA
       1205
         NA
         NA
       2563
        700
         NA
         23
        645
       1318
       1196
       2000
         NA
         NA
        480
       1535
       4915
      16648
        555
       2080
         NA
          0
       9908
         NA
       1105
        492
       3925
         NA
       4230
       3960
        815

-------
                                                   TABLE IX-17 (Continued)

                                            COMPARISON OF ACTUAL TOTAL FLOW RATES
                                                  TO BPT HOURLY FLOW RATES
00
Plant ID

  704
  705
  706
  708
  714
  716
  717
  721
  722
  725
  730
  731
  732
  733
  738
  740
  746
  765
  768
  771
  772
  775
  777
  781
  785
  786
  790
  796
  811
  814
  815
  817
  820
  828
  832
  844
  852
  854
  857
  863
  866
                                            Actual Flow
                                             Meets BPT
                                                 x

                                                 X
X


X
                                                 X

                                                 X
                                                 X
                                                 X

                                                 X
                                                 X
                                                 X
Actual Flow
   (1/hc)

   27125
    3180
       0
      NA
    1590
      NA
    6490
       0
      NA
       0
     443
    2858
    3607
      NA
   29080
      NA
       0
   11690
    7881
    1363
   11500
    4088
    4325
      NA
   41660
    5120
       0
       0
      HA
   13130
     598
       0
    3407
      40
   10520
      NA
   16070
       0
       0
   11055
       0
BPT Hourly Flow
    (1/hr)

       3260
       2115
          0
       3635
       2025
        200
       4350
       1265
         NA
         NA
       2184
        974
       2230
         NA
      24815
         NA
         NA
      10051
      11205
         NA
         30
       2895
       2785
         NA
      10190
       1790
          0
         NA
         NA
       2830
        141
          0
       3900
         90
       7281
       1810
      15055
         NA
       4730
       6350
         NA

-------
                                                  TABLE IX-17 (ConCinued)

                                           COMPARISON OF ACTUAL TOTAL FLOW RATES
                                                 TO BPT HOURLY FLOW RATES
Ui
PlantID

  877.
  880
  883
  893
  901
  917
  920
  927'
  936
  939
  942
  943
  947
  951
  963
  964
  968
  971
  972
  976
  978
  982
  979
  990
                                           Actual Flow
                                            Meets BPT
Actual Flow
   (1/hr)

   46165
       0
       0
    2470
       0
   18851
      NA
       0
    3706
      NA
       0
   17261
   18397
    1135
       0
       0
       0
       0
   23837
   26801
    1840
   10540
       0
    3180
BPT Hourly Flow
    (1/hr)

       4615
         NA
        100
       2865
        580
      11785
         NA
         NA
       2750
         NA
         NA
      26595
      16094
         NA
          0
         NA
         NA
       5026
       4520
      33845
       7199
      12340
          0
       2389

-------
                                     TABLE IX-18

                       SUMMARY OF BPT TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
                             AT LEAD SUBCATEGORY PLANTS
                         PGP Data - Plants Meeting BPT Flow







Ul
00
0







ID
A
B
C
D
E
F


ID
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
D/I*
D
I
I
I
D
I


D/I*
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
Cr Cu Pb
0.1 0.05
1.0
3.5
1
0.28
1
Industry Survey Data

Cr Cu Pb
3.36
0.5
2.3
1.1
.24

0.25
Ni Zn Fe O&G
0.3

23.4
1.5


- Plants Meeting BPT Flow

Ni Zn Fe O&G







TSS
5548
26
150
20
46



TSS
4810



29
90

pH

7.8
6.5
7.28




pH
7.41
8
8.2
9.0
7.67
7.5
6.92
*D/I - Direct or Indirect Discharge

-------
Ut
00
                                     TABLE IX-18 (Continued)

                             SUMMARY OF BPT TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
                                   AT LEAD SUBCATEGORY PLANTS

                                Sampled Plants With BPT Treatment
ID
A
J
M
N1/

oV

pi/

Sampling
Day Cr
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
(Industry
1
2
3
(Industry

( Industry
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Survey
0
0
0
Survey
0
Survey
.000
.010
.005
.010
.010
.059
.000
.000
.000
.005
.005
Data)
.000
.000
.000
Data)
.00
Data)
Cu
0.000
0.040
0.034
0.059
0.050
0.090
0.023
0.012
0.018
0.014
0.019

0.05
0. 000
0.000

0.000

Pb
1.350
4.050
3.580
6.06
3.880
13.30
0.000
0.000
0.110
0.130
0.110
0.09
0.1
0.07
0.19
0.14
6.100
13.2
Ni
0.000
0.000
0.012
0.110
0.068
0.046
vO. 31
0.35
0.011
0.009
0.011

0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000

Zn
0.000
0.710
0.590
0.165
0.000
0.105
0.15
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.037

0.000
0.000
0.000

0.080

• Fe
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.420
0.280
3.380
0.000
0.000
0.760
0.920
0.950

0.1
0.000
0.000

0.200

O&G
10.0
9.9
5.0
2.3
1.7
3.7
0.000
0.000
1.4
2.7
2.2

9.0
0.000
2.0

NA

TSS
90.6
76.0
39.8
3.5
11.0
66.0
33.0
25.0
13.0
11.0
11.0
30.0
140.0
46.0
25.0
7
NA
67
El
6.5-8.5
7.2-8.8
6.6-7.9
6.0-10.4
7.7-9.2
7.0-9.0
NA
7.11
9.0-9.3
8.7-9.1
8.6-9.1
7.6
9.0
9.0
9.0
8.76
NA
6.6
      1/   These plants did not meet the BPT Flow.
      NA - Not Available

-------
                                                TABLE IX-19

                            SAMPLE DERIVATION OF THE BPT 1-DAY LEAD LIMITATION
Ul
oo
PNP
Process Elements kg/yr (10°)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Leady Oxide
Purchased
Paste Prep. &
Application
Curing - Stacked
Formation -
Closed, Single
Formation -
Open, Dehydrated
Battery Wash -
With Detergent
Miscellaneous
2.6
5.2
5.2
4.16
1.04
5.2
5.2
Avg. PNP
(kg/day)
10400
20800
20800
16640
4160
20800
20800
1 -Day Limits
(mg/kg)1/
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.64
0.38
0.18
Lead Mass
Discharge (mg/day)5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
19,302
7,904
3,744
         (Hand Wash,
         Respirator Wash,
         and Floor Wash)  3/

         TOTAL Plant X Discharge (1-Day Value for Lead):  30,950 rag/day  (0.68  Ib/day)

     jy   I/kg of lead used from Table IX-1 multiplied by lime and settle  treatment
         concentrations (mg/1) from Table VII-21.

     21   Average PNP multiplied by the 1-day limits in Tables IX-9,  IX-12, and
         IX-16, then each  process summed for the plant's daily discharge  limit.

     37   Plant indicates  hand wash, respirator wash, and floor wash;  therefore,  plant
         receives total miscellaneous wastewater allowance.

-------
oo
to
 PROCESS WASTEWATER FROM:
  GBID MANUFACTURE
   DIRECT CHILL CASTING
   MOLD RELEASE FORMULATION
  PLATE SOAK
  CLOSED FORMATION
   DOUBLE FILL (WET BATTERY)
   FILL AND DUMP (DAMP BATTERY)
  OPEN FORMATION
   DEHYDRATED
   WET
  BATTERY WASH
   DETERGENT
   WATER ONLY
•  TRUCK WASH
  LAUNDRY
  MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER
                                                                                 LIME AND
                                                                                CARBONATE
                                                                                 ADDITION
                                                          t  /  I  I
                                                                                                                     DISCHARGE
                                                            REMOVAL OF
                                                           OIL AND CREASE
                                                                                                      SLUDEE TO
                                                                                                     RECLAIM OR
                                                                                                      DISPOSAL
                                                                                                            SLUDGE
                                                                                                          QEWATHIHG
                                               MECOMMENDEO IN-PROCESS TECHNOLOGY:
                                                        •CONTROL SPILLS
                                                        •LOW-RATE OR CONTROLLED CHARGING IN CASE
                                                        •SPENT FORMATION ACID IS REUSED
                                                        •DIRECT CHILL CASTING WATER IS RECYCLED
                                                        •FORMATION AREA SCRUBBER WATER IS RECYCLED
                                                        •BATCH AIR  SCRUBBER WATER IS NEUTRALIZED
                                                        •PASTING OPERATION WASTEWATER IS RECYCLED OR REUSED
                                                  PASTE FORMULATION  '
                                                  AMD APPLICATION AREA
                                                  WJISNODWH WASTEWATER
                                                                                            RECYCLE OR REUSE
                                                                                          MULTISTAGE SETTLIN6
                                                                                              LEAD OXIDES
                                                                                           RETURN TO PflOCESS
                                          FIGURE IX-1.  LEAD SUBCATEGORY BPT TREATMENT

-------

-------
                            SECTION X
        BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE

The effluent limitations  presented  in  this  section  apply  to
existing direct dischargers.  A direct discharger is a site which
discharges  or may discharge pollutants into waters of the United
States.  These effluent limitations which were to be achieved  by
July  1,  1984,  are  based  on  the  best  available control and
treatment technology employed by a specific point  source  within
the  industrial  category  or subcategory, or by another industry
where  it  is  readily  transferrable.   Emphasis  is  placed  on
additional  treatment  techniques  applied  at  the  end  of  the
treatment  systems  currently  employed  for  BPT,  as  well   as
improvements  in  reagent control, process control, and treatment
technology optimization.

The factors considered in assessing the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT) include the age  of  equipment  and
plants  involved,  the  processes employed, process changes, non-
water   quality   environmental   impacts    (including    energy
requirements),  and  the  costs of application of such technology
(Section 304 (b) (2) (B)).  In general, the BAT technology  level
represents,   at   a  minimum,  the  best  existing  economically
achievable  performance  of  plants  of  various   ages,   sizes,
processes or other shared characteristics.  As with BPT, in those
subcategories   where   existing   performance   is   universally
inadequate, BAT may be transferred from a  different  subcategory
or  category.   BAT  may . include  process  changes  or  internal
controls, even when not common industry practice.  This level  of
technology  also  considers those plant processes and control and
treatment technologies which at pilot plant and other levels have
demonstrated  both   technological   performance   and   economic
viability at a level sufficient to justify investigation.

TECHNICAL APPROACH TO BAT

In  pursuing  effluent  limitations for the battery manufacturing
category, the. Agency desired  to  review  a  wide  range  of  BAT
technology  options.   To  accomplish this, the Agency elected to
develop significant technology options which might be applied  to
battery  manufacturing wastewater as BAT.   These options were to
consider the range  of  technologies  which  were  available  and
applicable  to  the  battery  manufacturing subcategories, and to
suggest technology trains which would  reduce  the  discharge  of
toxic   pollutants  remaining  after  application  of  BPT.   The
statutory assessment of BAT considers costs, but does not require
a balancing of costs against  effluent  reduction  benefits  [see
Weyerhaeyser v.  Costle, 11 ERG 2149 (D.C. Cir. 1978)].
                          585

-------
In  a  draft  development  document  that   was   given   limited
circulation  in  September,  1980  to  battery  manufacturers and
others who requested to receive a copy, a number  of  alternative
BAT  systems  were  described for the lead subcategory.  Comments
from this limited, but technically  knowledgeable  audience  were
used,  together  with  further  review  and analysis of available
data, in refining these alternatives and in making the  selection
of  a specific BAT option for the lead subcategory.  Some options
originally presented  in  the  draft  development  document  were
eliminated  from  consideration,  and others were modified on the
basis of comments received and other reevaluation.

At proposal, four technology options were considered as  a  basis
for  development  of BAT limitations for this subcategory.  These
options are built incrementally upon BPT (option 0)  and  achieve
either  reduced  process  wastewater  volume  or reduced effluent
pollutant concentrations in comparison with the previous  option.
All  of  the  in-process  controls included in these options were
observed in practice within the lead subcategory.   Some  end-of-
pipe  technologies  transferred  from other industrial categories
were considered as well as those  that  were  practiced  at  lead
subcategory plants.

For  promulgation,  four  technology options were considered as a
basis for development of BAT limitations.  BAT  options  1  to  3
remain  unchanged from proposal except reuse of treated water for
hose  washdown  is  added  as  an  in-process  technology.    The
treatment  scheme for BAT option 4 was revised, and an additional
in-process technology, reuse of treated water for  truck  washing
activities, was added.  The revised option 4 treatment scheme was
determined  after  carefully  reviewing  comments received on the
proposed regulation.


BAT Options Summary

In summary form, the treatment technologies which were considered
for the lead subcategory of the  battery  manufacturing  category
are:

Option 0 for this subcategory (Figure IX-1, page 583) consists of
the following technologies:

     a)   In-process technology:
               control spills
               low-rate or controlled charging in case
               reuse of spent formation acid in all but open
               wet formation
          -    multiple stage settling and tptal recycle
                              586

-------
               or reuse of pasting operations wastewater
               direct chill casting water recycle
               recycle of formation area scrubber water
               Neutralize batch air scrubber water
     b)   End-of-pipe treatment:
               oil skimming
               lime precipitation augmented with carbonate
               sedimentation
               sludge dewatering

Option  1  (Figure X-l, page 616) includes all aspects of option 0
and builds on it by adding the following:

     a)   In-process technology:
          -    countercurrent rinse of electrodes after open
               case formation
               eliminate or recycle process water for plate
               dehydration
               reuse of treated water for hose washdown activity
               water rinse for batteries prior to deter-
               gent wash
               reuse of detergent rinse as makeup to
               detergent tank
               countercurrent rinse of batteries
               reuse of battery rinse water from battery wash
               with water only or closed formation case rinsing
     b)   End-of-pipe treatment for this option is unchanged from
          option 0.

Option 2 (Figure X-2, page 617) builds on option 1 with  improved
end-of-pipe treatment.

     a)   In-process technology is unchanged from option 1 .
     b)   End-of-pipe treatment in addition to option 1:
               polishing filtration (multimedia filter)

Option  3 (Figure X-3, page 618) builds on option 2 with revision
of end-of-pipe treatment.

     a)   In-process technology is unchanged from option 1.
     b)   End-of-pipe treatment consist of the following
          treatment steps:
               oil skimming
               chemical precipitation using sulfide
               sedimentation
          -    polishing filtration using membrane filters
          -    sludge dewatering
                              587

-------
Option 4 (Figure X-4, page  619)  provides  improved  end-of-pipe
treatment and additional in-process technology.

     a)   In-process technology
               all in-process technologies of option 1
               recycle of permeate from reverse osmosis
               to the manufacturing process
               reuse of treated water for truck washing activites
     b)   End-of-pipe treatment consists of the following
          treatment steps:
               oil skimming
          -    filtration (mixed media or membrane) of selected
               streams
               reverse osmosis of selected streams
               lime precipitation of brine and remaining
               streams augmented with carbonate
               sedimentation of treated brine
          -    filtration (membrane type) of treated brine
               sludge dewatering.

Option 1

Option  1  continues  the end-of-pipe treatment of option O (BPT)
and adds improved in-process controls to  reduce  the  amount  of
wastewater treated and discharged.  The in-process flows for each
process  element  for  option  1  (and  also options 2 and 3) are
presented in  Table  X-l  (page  598).   All  in-process  control
techniques  included  in  option  0 are continued as part of this
treatment and control option.  As described in  Section  IX,  the
following  process  elements  have  a zero discharge allowance at
option  0:  leady  oxide  production;   paste   preparation   and
application;   curing;   and   closed  formation  of  single-fill
batteries.  Under option 1, zero discharge  allowances  are  also
established for closed formation of double fill and fill and dump
batteries,  and  water  only  battery wash.  Decreased regulatory
flows are established at option 1 for open  formation  dehydrated
plates,  detergent  battery  wash  and  miscellaneous wastewaters
(specifically the floor wash flow).  The in-process controls used
as the basis of these option 1 flows are discussed below:

Closed  Formation  -  All  wastewater  discharges   from   closed
formation  processes are eliminated by application of one or more
of  the  in-process  controls  included  under   the   option   1
technology.   All of these controls are presently observed within
the subcategory.  Specific in-process controls included are:

     •    Low rate or controlled charging (from Option 0) or
          recycle of contact cooling water with reuse of overflow
     •    Control of spillage in electrolyte filling and
                              588

-------
          and dumping to reduce case contamination and
          eliminate battery rinsing; or recirculation
          of rinse water with reuse of overflow .

Slow  charging'  or  controlled  charging  rates  used  in  closed
formation  eliminate  the  use  of  contact cooling water and the
resultant process wastewater discharge.   Contact  cooling  water
used in higher rate formation processes may be recycled through a
cooling  tower  and neutralized as required.  Widespread practice
of these techniques  is  illustrated  in  Table  X-1;  31  of  43
reporting  plants  report  no  process  wastewater discharge from
closed case single fill formation processes.

Appropriate care and technology in filling  batteries  with  acid
electrolyte   prior  to  formation,  limits  or  eliminates  acid
contamination of the battery cases and  of  production  equipment
and  work  areas.   If double fill or fill and dump processes are
employed, similar control during the removal  or  refill  of  the
electrolyte   is   also  required.   Production  by  single  fill
techniques simplifies the controls which must be employed , since
only the single-filling  operation  (there  is  no  acid  removal
operation)  must  be  controlled.  Effective control of overflows
and acid spillage in filling  batteries  has  been  demonstrated,
both by manufacturers employing automatic filling equipment (with
acid  level  sensing  provisions  and  special design features to
avoid drips and spills) and by  manufacturers  employing  careful
manual  battery  filling  procedures.   These  practices limit or
eliminate the requirement for battery rinsing or washing prior to
further  handling  or  shipment,  reducing  or  eliminating   the
quantity  of wastewater which must be treated.  As an alternative
to this level of control in filling and acid removal,  equivalent
pollution  reduction  may  be  achieved by recycle of the battery
rinse water and reuse of the overflow in acid cutting.

Where  recycle  is  used  to  reduce  or   eliminate   wastewater
discharges  associated  with  closed  formation  processes,  some
blowdown or a bleed from the system may be needed.  The overflow,
or blowdown, streams discussed above may be  directed  to  either
the  acid  cutting or paste preparation processes.  Both of these
operations have negative  water  balances  and  together  require
about  0.4 I/kg of makeup water.  These reuse practices have been
observed at existing plants.

Combinations of these spill control and water reuse  technologies
can  be  employed  to  reduce  wastewater  discharge to zero from
closed case formation.  As shown in Table X-1,  some  plants  are
now  achieving  this  wastewater  control  level; 39 of 91 plants
report no process wastewater discharge from closed formation.
                              589

-------
For double fill operations, seven of the 35 plants active in this
operation reported attaining zero discharge.  For fill  and  dump
operations,  one  of  the  13  plants  active  in  this operation
reported zero discharge.  These  plants  demonstrate  that  spill
control  and  water  reuse  practices  can  be used to reduce the
option 0 wastewater discharge flow from  these  closed  formation
processes  (0.45  I/kg-)  to  zero.   Therefore,  a zero discharge
allowance is established for option 1 for these process elements.

Open Formation - Dehydrated Batteries - Significant reductions in
process wastewater discharges from the formation and  dehydration
of  plates  for  dehydrated batteries are achieved by several in-
process control techniques, including:

     0    Use of countercurrent rinsing and rinse flow control or
          recycle of wastewater from post-formation plate rinses
     0    Elimination or recycle of process water used  in  plate
          dehydration

Countercurrent cascade rinsing and rinse flow control can provide
significant  reductions  in  wastewater  discharge  from  rinsing
electrodes after open formation.   The  achievable  reduction  is
discussed  in  Section  VII.   Although countercurrent and multi-
stage rinses after open formation are reported  by  a  number  of
plants in this subcategory, these techniques are not coupled with
effective rinse flow control.  Consequently, they may not achieve
substantially  reduced  wastewater  discharge volumes compared to
single-stage rinses.  As an alternative to countercurrent rinsing
and strict rinse flow control, rinse wastewater may  be  recycled
for  reuse  in  plate  rinsing  either before or after treatment.
Because this technique  affords  lower  rinsing  efficiency  than
countercurrent  cascade  rinsing,  it  may not be compatible with
both acceptable product quality and wastewater flow rates at some
sites.  Also,  where  wastewater  is  recycled  after  treatment,
higher treatment costs may be incurred.

Process  water  used in dehydrating electrodes is from seal water
on the vacuum pumps or ejectors used in vacuum  drying  of  elec-
trodes.   This water becomes contaminated with acid and lead from
the electrodes  and  consequently  requires  treatment  prior  to
discharge.   The volume of this wastewater may be greatly reduced
by  recycle,   or  eliminated  entirely  by  the  use   of   other
dehydrating  techniques  such  as steam dehydrating or the use of
inert gas.  These results are achieved by many  plants  producing
dehydrated  batteries,  although most plants did not specifically
identify the techniques employed.

Two of the 42  plants  reporting  open  formation  of  dehydrated
plates  also  reported  zero  discharge  from this operation.  As
                              590

-------
discussed above, significant  reductions  in  process  wastewater
discharge  from  the  formation  and  dehydration  of  plates for
dehydrated  batteries  can  be  achieved  by  several  in-process
control  techniques including; countercurrent cascade rinsing and
rinse flow control;  recycle  of  treated  wastewater  for  plate
rinses; and elimination or recycle of process water used in plate
dehydration.   The regulatory flow at option 1 for open formation
of dehydrated batteries was calculated in the  following  manner.
As  described  in  Section  IX, the flow used for determining BPT
mass discharge limitations for this subcategory  is  11.05  I/kg.
This  consists  of water from the plate dehydration area and from
the  plate  washing   area.    The   application   of   two-stage
countercurrent  cascade  rinsing  to plate washing will achieve a
water reduction factor of 6.6 (see Section VII).   Treatment  and
reuse  of  water  in  the  plate dehydration area will achieve an
equivalent water use reduction.  The option 1  flow of  1.68  I/kg
is  derived  by applying the water reduction factor of 6.6 to the
BPT flow of 11.05 I/kg.   This  flow  appears  to  be  reasonable
because some plants have eliminated plate dehydration wastewater,
and  additional  stages  of  countercurrent rinsing could further
reduce rinse water flow.

Battery Wash - At Option 1, water only washing of  batteries  has
been  limited  to  a  zero discharge allowance and the regulatory
flow for detergent washing of batteries has  been  reduced.   In-
process  control  techniques  for  the  reduction  of  wastewater
discharges from battery washing with detergent operations include.
use  of  efficient  acid  addition  and  removal  techniques   as
discussed  previously.  Also, water used for prerinsing, reducing
the need for detergent water, removes electrolyte  splashes  from
battery  cases  and  may be recycled.  Slowdown from this recycle
can be used in some cases in paste formulating, or  primarily  in
acid  cutting.   As discussed in Section VII,  many plants visited
demonstrated significant overuse of water in these  battery  wash
operations.  Simple cutback in the water used per battery by flow
reduction  through  the  nozzles  is feasible.  Use of mechanical
switching devices to prevent water flow when  batteries  are  not
present  has  a  significant  impact  on  water  use.  The use of
automatic washers typically includes a  final  water  only  rinse
after  the  detergent wash.  This final rinse water may be reused
as makeup for the detergent wash cycle since it already  contains
detergent  and  it  would  also be more economical for the plant.
Wastewater from rinses of detergent at this final  product  stage
may  not  be  amenable  to  reuse  in other battery manufacturing
operations and therefore requires  a  discharge  allowance.   The
option   1  regulatory  flow  for  detergent battery wash has been
reduced  to half of the BPT flow or 0.45 I/kg.   This flow is based
on the reuse of final rinse water  as  makeup  to  the  detergent
portion  of  the  battery  wash, system.  Non-detergent (initial)
                              591

-------
rinse water can be reused in detergent wash or can be rerouted to
acid cutting operations.

Nondetergent  rinses  (battery  wash  with   water   only)   seen
frequently  in battery manufacturing operations (44 of 66 plants)
can be recycled and reused, eliminating  a  wastewater  discharge
from  this  type  of battery wash.  Techniques for reducing flow,
segregating by recycle,  and reuse possibilities are discussed  in
Section  VII  and  above  under closed formation and battery wash
with detergent.  Wash water removes water soluble components such
as acid and lead which do not preclude  reuse  of  the  water  in
electrolyte.   A  discussed  in  Section  VII, the buildup of key
contaminants can be monitored to allow the reuse  of  this  water
without  infringing on established engineering specifications for
product purity.  A zero discharge allowance has been  established
for  water  only  battery wash at option 1 based on reuse of this
water in acid cutting.

M is eel1anepug Wastewater - The miscellaneous regulatory flow  for
option  1 is decreased from the option 0 (BPT) flow to 0.307 I/kg
due to a reduction in the normalized  flow  for  the  floor  wash
operation.   From  site  visits, primarily after proposal, it was
found that a number of plants use wet floor scrubbing  techniques
and  extensively use power floor scrubbers for efficient cleanup.
In order to protect the power  scrubbers  from  contamination  or
corrosion, these machines should use fresh water only.  For hoses
and  bucket  and  mop  operations,  however,  the  use of treated
wastewater is feasible and is recommended as the  flow  reduction
technique for this process element at option 1.

The  floor  wash  normalized  flow has been reduced to 0.01 I/kg.
This is based on a flow weighted  average  of  data  from  plants
using  advanced  floor  washing techniques.  This regulatory flow
can easily be achieved by the use  of  commercial  floor  washing
machines,   careful   spill   maintenance,   dry  floor  cleaning
techniques, and recycle of treated water for reuse in hoses.

Option ,2

Option 2 consists  of the in-process technologies  set  forth  in
option  1  plus end-of-pipe treatment consisting of oil skimming,
pH adjustment using lime augmented  by  carbonate  precipitation,
settling,  and  mixed  media  filtration.  This is a conventional
system which should be almost as effective  in  lead  removal  as
option 3.

Option 3
                              592

-------
Option  3  continues  all  of the in-process control technologies
included inception 1 and  adds  improved  end-of-pipe  treatment.
For  this  option  the  end-of-pipe  treatment  consists  of  oil
skimming, pH adjustment with lime,  chemical  precipitation  with
sulfide,  sedimentation,  and  polishing  filtration.  A membrane
filter was included to achieve  maximum  reduction  of  suspended
solids.  A membrane filter has been demonstrated in treating lead
subcategory  process wastewater on a pilot scale, although it was
not used  .in  conjunction  with  sulfide  precipitation  in  that
instance.                          .

Option 4

The treatment technologies included in option 4 are oil skimming,
membrane  filtrati.on,  reverse  osmosis,  lime precipitation, and
sludge dewatering.  As  discussed  earlier,  option  4  has  been
revised  for the promulgated regulation.  In the revised option 4
treatment scheme, process water is segregated such  that  certain
less  concentrated  streams  are  directed through filtration and
subsequently reverse osmosis.  The reverse osmosis brine and  the
remaining  process  water streams are commingled for treatment by
lime  precipitation  and  the  treated  water  is  filtered   and
discharged.   Both  sets  of streams are initially treated by oil
skimming and the permeate from reverse  osmosis  (50  percent  of
reverse osmosis influent) is recycled after treatment back to the
manufacturing process.

In   addition,   treated   water  is  reused  for  truck  washing
activities.

BAT OPTION SELECTION

The BAT options  were  carefully  evaluated,  and  the  technical
merits  and  disadvantages  of  each were compared.  Quantitative
estimates were prepared using all available data for  each  plant
in  the  subcategory.  As a part of this evalution, a theoretical
"normal" plant was developed.  This normal plant is defined as  a
theoretical  plant  which  has  each of the manufacturing process
elements covered by the subcategory at a production level that is
the average level of all plants in  the  subcategory.   While  no
such  entity  is  known  to. exist,  it  is  a  useful concept in
evaluating the pollutant reduction benefits of  various  options,
and  appraising  the  importance  of  toxic  and  other pollutant
discharges.

The EPA data base was used as a basis for generating  the  normal
plant profile and data.  All 186 plants in the data base supplied
some data.  Where data was lacking, the nonresponding plants were
presumed  to  be  similiar  to the average of those that supplied
                              593

-------
information.   Normal  plant  production  normalizing   parameter
equivalents  (million  kg/yr of lead) and flow (million 1/yr) are
displayed for each lead subcategory process in  Table  X-2   (page
599).

An evaluation of the lead subcategory indicates that plants which
discharge process wastewater tend to have higher productions than
those  which  achieve zero discharge.  As discussed earlier, data
from all plants (both dischargers and zero dischargers) were used
to develop the normal plant.  Therefore, productions and flows at
a typical discharging plant will be  higher  than  those  at  the
normal plant.  In order to determine pollutant reduction benefits
for  plants which discharge wastewater, the normal plant was used
to  develop  a  normal  discharging  plant.   This  plant  is   a
theoretical  plant  which  has  each of the manufacturing process
elements at a production level  that  is  the  average  level  of
direct   and   indirect  dischargers  in  the  subcategory.   The
productions  and  flows  of  the  normal  discharging  plant  are
approximately 1.3 times the normal plant values shown in Table X-
2.   The  normal discharging plant was used to estimate pollutant
removal benefits for all discharging plants, direct  dischargers,
and indirect dischargers.

In  Section  V  the  average  pollutant  concentrations  in  lead
subcategory process elements  were  described  and -displayed  in
Table V-5 (page 178).  These raw waste concentrations are used as
the  basis  for calculating treatment effectiveness and pollutant
removal benefits of the several  technology  options.   Treatment
effectiveness  is  based  on both in-process controls and end-of-
pipe  treatment.   Treatment   effectiveness   calculations   are
summarized  in  Table  X-3  (page 601), benefits are displayed in
Tables X-4 (for the normal plant) (page 602), X-5 (for the normal
discharging plant) (page 603), X-6 (for all  discharging  plants)
(page  604),  and X-7 (for direct discharging plants) (page 605).
The  first  step  involved  in  calculating  pollutant  reduction
benefits   for  the  normal  plant  was  to  estimate  raw  waste
generation.  To calculate normal plant raw waste generation,  the
raw  normal  plant  flow (1/yr MO6)) shown in Table X-2 for each
process element  was  multiplied  by  the  corresponding  process
element  pollutant concentrations (mg/1) shown in Table V-5  (page
178).  The  raw  waste  generation  (kg/yr)  for  the  individual
process  elements  were  then  summed  to determine the total raw
waste  generated  by  the  normal  plant.   Pollutant   reduction
benefits   of   each   treatment  and  control  alternative  were
calculated using the  raw  waste  generation,  the  normal  plant
effluent  discharge  flow for the option (see Table X-2), and the
treatment  effectiveness  concentrations.    The   normal   plant
effluent  discharge  flow  (1/yr  (10*))  was  multiplied  by the
treatment effectiveness concentrations (mg/1) (Table VII-21, page
                              594

-------
418)  to  determine  the  total  mass  of  pollutants  discharged
annually (kg/yr) with the control and treatment alternative.  The
mass   of   pollutants  removed  by  the  control  and  treatment
alternative-is the difference between raw  waste  and  pollutants
discharged.

Pollutant  reduction  benefits  for  the normal discharging plant
were determined in a similar  manner  to  those  for  the  normal
plant.   Total  discharging  plant  benefits  were  calculated by
multiplying the normal discharging plant benefits by  111  (there
are  111  plants which currently discharge wastewater in the lead
subcategory).  The 19 plants in the subcategory which have closed
were not  included  in  the  total  discharging  plant  benefits.
Benefits  for  direct  dischargers were determined by multiplying
the normal discharging plant benefits by eight (there  are  eight
active direct dischargers in the subcategory).

The Agency proposed Option 1 as the basis for BAT but also stated
that consideration would be given to establishing Option 2 as BAT
at  promulgation.  Both of these options were carefully evaluated
since proposal.  As  part  of  this  evaluation  after  proposal,
required capital and total annual compliance costs for technology
options  1  and 2 for the lead subcategory were estimated.  These
estimates were developed by  estimating  costs  for  each  active
discharging  plant  (85  plants)  in  the  subcategory  based  on
reported production and wastewater flows, and summing  the  costs
for  each  level of treatment and control.  Compliance costs were
not estimated for closed plants; there are  no  compliance  costs
for  the  57  zero  dischargers  in  the subcategory.  Twenty-six
plants  in  the  lead  subcategory  did  not  report   sufficient
production  or flow data to be costed.  In order to include these
plants in the  subcategory  total  of  186,  the  characteristics
available  in  the  data  base  were  used,  primarily  number of
employees, to establish general plant size.   The  average  plant
cost  for  those  analogous  plants  which  had  been  costed was
assigned to each  of  those  plants  with  insufficient  data  to
establish  a cost for this group of plants.  The results of these
lead subcategory cost calculations are shown in  Table  X-8.   An
economic  impact analysis based on estimated costs indicates that
there  are  no  potential  plant  closures  projected  for  these
options.

EPA has selected option 1, presented in Figure X-l (page 616), as
the  basis  for  BAT effluent limitations because it removes over
99.9 percent of  the  toxic  metals  and  other  pollutants  from
estimated  raw  waste and is economically achievable.  The Agency
has decided not to include filtration as part of  the  model  BAT
treatment   technology   (Option  2).   EPA  has  concluded  that
compliance with promulgated limitations based on  option  1  will
                              595

-------
remove  practically  all the toxic and other pollutants from lead
battery manufacturing wastewater discharges.   Further  treatment
would  result only in insignificant reductions in annual national
discharges.

REGULATED PQLLUTAN31 PARAMETERS

The pollutant parameters listed in Tables VI-}  and  VI-2   (pages
296  and  301)  as  being  considered for regulation were used to
select the specific  pollutants  to  be  regulated  in  the  lead
subcategory.   The  selection  of toxic pollutants for regulation
was based  primarily  upon  the  presence  of  the  pollutant  at
treatable  concentrations  in lead subcategory raw waste streams.
Plants in the  lead  subcategory  have  a  variety  of  different
combinations  of  process  elements,  but,  in  general, the same
pollutants are detected in  significant  concentrations  for  all
processes.   Other  pollutants, not specifically regulated, would
also be controlled by the removal  of  the  selected  pollutants.
The  overall costs for monitoring and.analysis would "therefore be
reduced.  Nonconventional pollutants are regulated as appropriate
when found at treatable concentrations.  Conventional  pollutants
(pH,  TSS  and O&G) are not regulated under BAT, except where one
might be used as an indicator, but are generally considered under
BCT.

Pollutant parameters regulated at.BAT for  this  subcategory  are
lead,  copper  and  iron.   Antimony, cadmium, chromium, mercury,
nickel, silver, zinc, aluminum, and manganese which  appeared  at
lower  concentrations  and  were considered, but not selected for
regulation at BAT, are expected to be'adequately removed  by  the
application of the selected technology.

The  conventional  pollutant  .parameters,  oil  and grease, total
suspended solids and pH .are not  .regulated  under  BAT,  but  are
considered under BCT.
POLLUTANT REMOVALS AND COSTS

In  establishing  BAT,  EPA  considered the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievability.  The application of BAT to  the  lead  subcategory
will  remove 115,604 kilograms (254,330 pounds) per year of toxic
metals and 679,114 kilograms (1,494,050 pounds) per year of other
pollutants from the estimated raw waste  of  direct  dischargers.
The  associated  capital cost, above equipment in place is $0.819
million ($1983) and the  total  annual  cost  is  $0.510  million
($1983).   These  costs  assume  that  plants  will  install  BAT
                              59-6

-------
treatment at the BAT regulatory flow.  The Agency has  determined
that the BAT limitations are economically achievable.

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

The effluent concentrations attainable through the application of
BAT   technology   are   displayed  in  Table  VI1-21  under  L&S
technology.  The BAT mass discharge limitations can be calculated
by  multiplying  these  concentrations  by  the  applicable   BAT
regulatory  flows  listed  in  Table  X-l.   These limitations are
expressed in terms of mg of pollutant per kg of lead used in  the
product  and  are  presented  in Tables X-9 to X-l7 (pages 607 to
615).  By multiplying these limitations by the actual  production
within  a  process element, the allowable mass discharge for that
process element  can  be  calculated.   The  allowable  pollutant
discharge  for  the  different  process elements can be summed to
determine the total allowable mass discharge for the  plant.   In
the  limitation  tables, all the pollutants which were considered
for regulation are listed and those selected for  regulation  are
*'d.

The  reasonableness  of  these  BAT limitations is based upon two
premises - the demonstrated ability to achieve  the  flow  levels
and  the  proven  ability  of  the  lime and settle technology to
achieve the designated effluent concentrations.  The  flows  used
as  a basis to calculate BAT mass discharge limitations are based
upon demonstrated performance at  lead  subcategory  plants.   By
process   substitution   or  in-process  controls,  lead  battery
manufacturing plants can meet the option  1  based  flow  levels.
Every  process  element  within  the lead subcategory for which a
zero  regulatory  flow  has  been  established  is  known  to  be
performed  without  wastewater  discharge  in at least one plant.
Table X-l includes a summary of the number of  plants  which  are
active in each process element.but do not discharge wastewater as
a result of these process elements.
                              597

-------
                                                                                              x-i
                                                                              P80CBJS  ELEMENT FLOW SUMMARY
                                                                                    Li&D SUBCA'IEGORY
U1
VD
00
                             No. Plants
                             Reporting
PROCESS ELEMENT              Flow Data

ANODES AND CATHODES

Leady Oxide Production           41
Grid Manufacture
  ttold Release Formulation        2  (29)
  Direct Chill Casting            1
  Lead Rolling                    1
Paste Preparation and
 Application                    100
Curing                           97
Closed Formation (In Case)
  Single Fill                    43
  Double Fill                    35
  Fill and Dump                  13
Open Formation (Out of Case)
  Dehydrated                     42
  Wet                            16
Plate Soak                        3

AKCILLARY OPERATIONS

Battery Wash
  Detergent                      22
  Water Only                     44
Floor Wash                    +
Wet Air dilution Control     +
Battery Repair                +   3
Laboratory                    +   4
Truck Wash                        2

PERSONAL HYGIENE

Hand Wash                     +  2 (63)
Respirator Wash               +  6 (51)
Laundry                          2 (11)
                                                                 tb. Plants
                                                                 Reporting
                                                                    Zero
                                                                 Discharge
                                                                     29

                                                                     0
57
87

31
 7
 1

 2
10
 0
                                                                     32'/
                                                                     0
                                                                     0
                                                                     0
                                                                      0
                                                                      0
                                                                      0
              0.00
              0.90
              0.59
              0.13
              0.00
              0.25
               *
              0.014
                           Mean       BPT (PSES 0)
                           Flow           Flow
                           I/kg           I/kg
0.37
1.70
3.47
0.11
0.26
0.20
0.003
0.014
                           0.027
                           0.006
                           0.109
0.00
*
0.0002
0,006
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.45
0.45
1.05
0.00
0.021
0.006
0.0002
0.006
0.49
0.03
0.28
0.92
1.83
28.26
0.36
0.026
0.006
0.0002
0.006
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.45
0.45
11.05
0.053
0.021
0.90
0.59
0.13
0.011
0.25
0.003
0.014
           0.027
           0.006
           0.109
BAT (PSES)

   I/kg



0.00

0.006
0.0002
0.006

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

1.68
0.053
0.021
0.45
0.00
0.01
0.011
0.25
0,003
0.014
                   0.027
                   0.006
                   0.109
                                              ME  (PSES 4)
                                                   Flow
                                                   1/kR
                  0.00

                  0.003t
                  0.0001t
                  0.006

                  0.00
                  0.00

                  0.00
                  0.00
                  0.00

                  0.84t
                  0.053
                  0.021
                  0.23t
                  0.00
                  0.01
                  0.011
                  0.25
                  0.003
                  0.005
                  0.027
                  0.006
                  0.109
                   MISCELLAKEDIS  (Elements marked "+" are  included)
                                      0.427
                              0.307
                    I/  Based on number of scrubbers from all process areas but  laboratories.
                    "II  Lead rolling spent emulsion is contract  hauled by  five plants;  flow data is available from one of these plants.
                    ( ) Number of plants used to calculate  I/kg  f},aw per unit operation
                    t  Flow reduction at this option based on 50% water reuse using reverse osmosis.
                    *  Calculated as flow weighted average - no median available
                                     0.307

-------
                                                                                    TABLE X-2


                                                                           NORMAL PIANT ELEMENT FLOWS
                                                                                LBU) 8UBCATEGORY
                                                                                             Normal Plant Flow. 1/yr (106)
Ui
*O
vo

Process Element
Leady Oxide
Produced On Site
Purchased
Grid Manufacture
Direct Chill Casting
Mold Release Formulation
Paste Preparation & Application
Curing
Stacked
Controlled Room
Steam Cure
Formation
Closed Formation
' • Single Fill
•' - Double Fill
Fill and Dump
Open Formation
Dehydrated
Wet
Plate Soak
Battery Wash
With Detergent
Water Only
Wet Air Pollution Control
Floor Wash
Battery Repair
Laboratory
Truck Wash
• PNP Equivalent
kg/yr lead (106)

5.440
2.928
2.512

0.648
4.792
5.440
5.440
4.074
0.718
0.648
5.440
4.301
1.684
2.078
0.539
1.139
0.973
0.166
0.071

0.289
4.678
5.440
5.440
0.127
5.440
.1.422
MW


1.083


0.0001
0.034
2.666

0
0
1.24


0.472
1.912
0.986

27.497
0.060
0.002

0.491
16.233
0.059
0.707
0.032
0.016
0.020
BPT
(PSES 0)


0


0.0001
0.029
0

0
0
0


0
0.935
0.243

10.752
0.009
0.002

0.26
2.70
0.059
0.707
0.032
0.01
0.020
BAT 1,2,3
(ESES 1,2,3)


0


0.0001
0.029
0

0
0
0


0
0
0

1.635
0.009
0.002

0.13
0
0.059
0.05
0.032
0.01
0.020 (0.007)*
BAI 4
(PSES 4)


0


0.00005
0.014
0

0
0
0


0
0
0

0.817
0.009
0.002

0.066
0
0.059
0.05
0.032
0.01
0.007

-------
                                                                              TABLE X-2  (continued)

                                                                           NO»WL PLANE  ELEMENT FMMS
                                                                                LEAD SUBCATEQQRY
                  Process Element

                  Personal Hygiene
                    Hand Wash
                    Respirator Wash
                    Laundry

                  Total  Normal Plant
5.440
5.440
0.837

5.440
 0.147
 0.033
 0.091

53.7361
                                                                                             Normal Plant Flow, 1/yr (106)
PHP Equivalent
kg/yr lead (106)
RAH
BPT
(PSES 0)
BAT 1,2,3
(PSES 1,2,3)
BAT 4-
(PSES 4)
 0.14
 0.03
 0.09

16.018
0.14
0.03
0.09

2.236 (2.223)*
0.14
0.03
0.09

1.327
O
O
                  *Elows used foe selected new source option.

-------
                                                                   TABLE X-3

                                                      SIMWRY OF TREMMBir EFFECTIVENESS
                                                               U3M) SUBCATEOTW
PARAMETER
Flow
114.
118.
119.
120.
122.
123.
124.
2 126.
128.





(I/kg)*
Antimony
Cadrolm
Chromiun
Gbpper
lead
Mercury 1/
tickel -'•••
Silver \J
Zinc
Aitminum
Iron
Manganese
Oil&Grease
TSS
RAW
BJg/1
WASTE
mg/kg
9.886
0.146
0.005
0.076
0.175
205.822
80.0
0.073
190.0
0.487
0.287
4.566
0.038
54.605
.'1154.747
1.44
0.04
0.75
1.73
2034.84
800.0
0.72
1800.0
4.8t
2.83
45.14
0.37
539.84
11416.32
BPT (PSES 0)
mg/1 mg/kg
2
0.28
0.009
0.08
0.50
0.12
200.-0
0.23
3.00
0.33
0.68
0.41
0.12
10.00
12.00
.94
0.82
0.02
0.24
1.47
0.35
760.0
0.69
8.82
0.97
2.00
1.20
0.36
29.42
35.31
BAT 1 (PSES 1)
mg/1 rag/kg
0.40
0.70
0.05
0.08
0.58^
0.12
0.584
0.74
2.24
0.33
2.24
0.41
0.16
10.00
12.00
0.28
0.02
0.03
0.23
0.04
0.234
0.30
0.919
0.13
0.91
0.16
0.06
4.09
4.91
BAT 2 (PSES 2)
mg/1 mg/kg
0.
0.47
0.04
0.07
0.39
0.08
0.584
0.22
2.24
0.23
1.49
0.28
0.14
10.00
2.60
,40
0.19
0.02
0.02
0.15
0.03
0.234
0.09
0.919
0.09
0.60
0.11
0.05
4.09
1.06
BAT 3 (PSES 3)
mg/1 rag/kg
0.
0.47
0.01
0.08
0.05
0.01
0.584
0.05
2.24
0.01
1.49
0.28
0.14
10.00
2.60
40
0.19
0.004
0.03
0.02
0.004
0.234
0.02
0.919
0.004
0.60
0.11
0.05
4.09
1.06
BAT 4 (PSES •
mg/1 mg/kj
0,
0.47
0.04
0.07
0.39
0.08
0.986
0.22
3.79
0.23
1.49
0.28
0.14
10.00
2.60
,24
0.11
0.01
0.01
6.09
0,01
0.23;
0.05
0.911
0.05
0.36
0.06
0.03
2.42
0.62
*tfcrmalized flow based on total subcategory  lead weight.

_1/ Mercury and silver units are ng/1 x 10"^ and tag/kg.x

-------
                                                                     TABLE X-4


                                                  POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS OF CONTROL SYSTEMS
                                                          LEAD SUBCATEGORY - NORMAL PLANT
ON
O
PARAMETER

FLOW 1/yr (10&)
1 14 Antimony
118 Cadmium
1 1 9 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
123 Mercury
124 Nickel
126 Silver
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
Oil & Grease
TSS
Total Toxics
Total Nonconv.
Total Gonv.
Total Pollu.
RAW WASTE
kg/yr
53.78
7.85
0.29
4.08
9.46
11068.96
0.44
3.92
1.02
26.19
16.02
261.97
2.15
2936.66
62137.96
11122.21
280.14
65074.62
76476.97
BPT &
removed
kg/yr

3.38
0.16
2.74
1.45
11067.04
0.03
0.14
1.02
20.91
5.12
255.41
0.18
2776.57
61945.85
11096.86
260.70
64722.42
76079.99
PSES 0
discharged
kg/yr
16.009
4.474
0.127
1.344
8.006
1.921
0.411
3.782
0.000
5.282
10.904
6.563
1.973
160.090
192.108
25.347
19.440
352.198
396.985
BAT 1
removed
kg/yr

6.29
0.20
3.89
7.51
11068.69
0.44
2.27
1.02
25.46
11.03
261.06
2.15
2914.39
62111.24
11115.77
274.24
65025.63
76415.63
& PSES 1
discharged
kg/yr
2.227
1.558
0.094
0.187
1.955
0.267
0.000
1.647
0.000
0.734
4.988
0.913
0.000
22.270
26.724
6.442
5.901
48.994
61.337
BAT 2
removed
kg/yr

6.80
0.20
3.93
8.59
11068.78
0.44
3.43
1.02
25.68
12.70
261.35
1.84
2914.39
62132.17
11118.87
275.89
65046.56
76441.32
& PSES 2
discharged
kg/yr
2.227
1.046
0.094
0.155
0.868
0.178
0.000
0.489
0.000
0.512
3.318
0.623
0.311
22.270
5.790
3.342
4.252
28.060
35.654
BAT 3
removed
kg/yr

. 6.80
0.27
3.90
9.35
11068.94
0.44
3.81
1.02
26.17
12.70
261.35
1.84
2914.39
62132.17
11120.70
275.89
65046.56
76443.15
& PSES 3
discharged
kg/yr
2.227
1.046
0.022
0.178
0.111
0.022
0.000
0.111
0.000
0.022
3.318
0.623
0.311
22.270
5.790
1.512
4.252
28.060
33.824
BAT 4
removed
kg/yr

7.23
0.23
3.99
8.95
11068.86
0.44
3.63
1.02
25.89
14.06
261.60
1.97
2923.48
62134.53
11120.22
277.62
65058.01
76455.86
& PSES 4
discharg'
kg/yr
1.318
0.619
0.064
0.092
0.514
0.105
0.000
0.289
0.000
0.303
1.963
0.369
0.184
13.180
3.426
1.986
2.516
16.606
21.108
         Sludge  kg/yr
463185
465199
465418
465445
465538

-------
                                                                    TABLE  X-5


                                                 POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS  OF  CONTROL SYSTEMS
                                                   LEAD SUBCATEGORY - NORMAL DISCHARGING PLANT
O
LO
PARAMETER

FLOW 1/yr (106)
1 14 Antimony
1 18 Cadmium
1 1 9 Chromium
1 20 Copper
122 Lead
123 Mercury
124 Nickel
126 Silver
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Iron '
Manganese
Oil & Grease
TSS :
Total Toxics
Total Nonconv.
Total Conv.
Total Pollu.
RAW WASTE
kg/yr
69.91
10.20
0.37
5.30
12.29
14389.65
0.57
5.09
1.32
34.04
20.82
340.56
2.79
3817.66
80779.35
14458.83
364.17
84597.01
99420.01
BPT &
removed
kg/yr

4.39
0.21
3.56
1.89
14387.16
0.04
0.18
1.32
27.18
6.65
332.03
,0.23
3609.55
80529.61
14425.93
338.91
84139.16
98904.00
PSES 0
BAT 1 &
PSES 1
BAT 2 &
PSES 2
BAT 3
discharged removed discharged removed discharged removed
kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr
20.81
5.81
0.16
1.74
10.40
2.49
0.53
4.91
0.00
6.86
14.17
8.53
2.56
208.11
249.74
32.90
25.26
457.85
516.01

8.18
0.25
5.06
9.75
14389.31
0.57
2.95
1.32
33.09
14.34
339.38
2.19
3788.71
80744.61
14450.48
355.91
. 84533.32
99339.71
2.89
2.02
0.12
0.24
2.54
0.34
0.00
2.14
0.00
0.95
6.48
1.18
0.60
28.95
34.74
8.35
8.26
63.69
80.30

8.84
0.25
5.10
11.17
14389.42
0.57
4.46
1.32
33.38
16.51
339.75
2.39
3788.71
80771.83
14454.51
358.65
84560.54
99373.70
2.89
1.36
0.12
0.20
1.12
0.23
0.00
0.63
0.00
0.66
4.31
0.81
0.40
28.95
7.52
4.32
5.52
36.47
. 46.31

8.84
0.34
5.07
12.15
14389.62
0.57
4.95
1.32
34.01
16.51
339.75
2.39
3788.71
80771.83
14456.87
358.65
84560.54
99376.06
& PSES 3
BAT 4
discharged removed
kg/yr kg/yr
2.89
1.36
0.03
0.23
0.14
0.03
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.03
4.31
0.81
0.40
28.95
7.52
1.96
5.52
36.47
43.95

9.40
0.29
5.19
11.63
14389.52
0.57
4.72
1.32
33.65
18.27
340.09
2.56
3800.53
80774.90
14456.29
360.92
84575.43
99392.64
& PSES 4
discharged
kg/yr
1.72
0.80
0.08
0.11
0.66
0.13
0.00
0.37
0.00
0.39
2.55
0.47
0.23
17.13
4.45
2.54
3.25
21.58
27.37
        Sludge  kg/yr
602141
604759
605044
                                                            605078
605200

-------
                                                                     TABLE X-6

                                                  POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS OF CONTROL SYSTEMS
                                                        LEAD SUBCATEGORY - TOTAL DISCHARGERS
O
PARAMETER

RAW WASTE BPT &
kg/yr 	 _
removed
FLOW 1/yr (106) 7760.01
1 14 Antimony
118 Cadmium
1 19 .Chromium
1 20 Copper
122 Lead •
1 23 Mercury
1 •
124 Nickel
126 Silver
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
Oil & Grease
TSS
Total Toxics
Total Noriconv.
Total Conv.
Total -Pollu. 1
1132.20
41.07
588. 30
1 364. 1 9
1597251.15
63.27
564. 99
146.52
3778.44
2311.02
37802.16
309. 69
423760.26
8966507.85
1604930.13
40422, 87
9390268.11
1035621.11
487.29
23.31
395.16
209. 79
1596974.76
4.44
19.98
146.52
3016.98
738.15
36855.33
25.53
400660.05
8938786.71
'1601278.23
37619.01
9339446.76
10978344.00
PSES 0
BAT 1 & PSES 1
discharged removed discharged
kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr
2309.91
644.91
17.76
193.14
1154.40
276.39
58.83
545.01
0.00
761.46
1572.87
946.83
284. 16
23100.21
27721.14
3651.90
2803. 86
50821.35
57277. 1 1

907.98
27.75
561 . 66
1082.25
1597213.41
63.27
327.45
146.52
3672.99
1591.74
37671,18
243. 09
420546.81
8962651.71
1604003.28
39506.01
9383198.52
•11026707.81
320. 79
224. 22
13.32
26.64
281.94
37.74
0.00
237. 54
0.00
105.45
719.28
1 30. 98
66.60
3213.45
3856.14
926.85
916.86
7069.59
8913.30
BAT 2 & PSES 2
removed discharged
kg/yr kg/yr

981.24
27.75
566.10
1239.87
1597225.62
63.27
495.06
146.52
3705.18
1832.61
37712.25
265.29
420546.81
8965673.13
1604450.61
39810.15
9386219.94
11030480.70
320.79
150.96
13.32
22.20
124.32
25.53
0.00
69.93
0.00
73.26
478.41
89.91
44.40
3213.45
834.72
479.52
612.72
4048.17
5140.41
BAT 3 & PSES 3
removed discharged
kg/yr kg/yr

981.24
37.74
562. 77
1348.65
1597247.82
63.27
549.45
146.52
3775.11
1832.61
37712.25
265.29
420546.81
8965673.13
1604712.57
39810.15
9386219.94
11030742.66
320.79
150.96
3.33
25.53
15.54
3.33
0.00
15.54
0.00
3.33
478.41
89.91
44.40
3213.45
834.72
217.56
612.72
4048.17
4878.45
BAT 4 & PSES 4
removed discharged
kg/yr kg/yr

1043.40
32.19
576.09
1290.93
1597236.72
63.27
523.92
146.52
3735.15
2027.97
37749.99
284.16
421858.83
8966013.90
1604648.19
40062.12
9387872.73
11032583.04
190.92
88.80
8.88
12.21
73.26
14.43
0.00
41.07
0.00
43.29
283. 05
52.17
25. 53_
1901.43
493.95
281.94
360.75
2395.38
3038.07
        Sludge kg/yr
66837651
67128249
67159884
67163658
67177200

-------
                                                                    TABLE  X-7


                                                  POLLUTANT REDUCTION  BENEFITS  OF  CONTROL SYSTEMS
                                                        LEAD SUBCATEGORY  -  DIRECT  DISCHARGERS
O
tn
PARAMETER

FLOW 1/yr (106)
1 14 Antimony
118 Cadmium
1 1 9 Chromium
1 20 Copper
122 Lead
123 Mercury
124 Nickel
126 Silver
V28 Zinc
Aluminum
Iron
.Manganese
Oil & Grease
TSS
Total Toxics
•Total Nonconv.
Total Conv.
•Total Pollu,
RAW WASTE
kg/yr
559.28
81.60
2.96
42.40
98.32
115117.20
4.56
40.72
10.56
272.32
166.56
2724.48
22.32
30541.28
646234.80
115670.64
.2913.36
676776.08
795360. 08
BPT
removed
kg/yr

35.12
1.68
28.48
15.12
115097.28
0.32
1.44
10.56
217.44
53.20
2656.24
1.84
28876.40
644236.88
115407.44
2711.28
673113.28
791232.00
discharged
kg/yr
166.48
46.48
1.28
13.92
83.20
19.92
4.24
39.28
0.00
54.88
113.36
68.24
20.48
1664.88
1 99-7-92
263.20
202.08
3662.80
4128.08
BAT
1
removed discharged
kg/yr kg/yr

65.44
2.00
40.48
78.00
115114.48
4.56
23. 60
10.56
264. 72
114.72
2715.04
17.52
30309.68
645956.88
115603.84
2847. 28
676266.56
794717.68
23.12
16.16
0.96
1.92
20.32
2.72
0.00
17.12
0.00
7.60
51.84
9.44
4.80
231.60
277.92
66.80
66.08
509. 52
642.40
BAT
2
removed discharged
kg/yr kg/yr

70.72
2.00
40.80
89.36
115115.36
4.56
35. 68
10.56
267.04
132.08
2718.00
19. 12
30309.68
646174.64
115636.08
2869. 20
676484.32
794989.60
23.12
10.88
0.96
1.60
8.96
1.84
0.00
5.04
0.00
5.28
34.48
6,48
3.20
231.60
60,16
34.56
44.16
291.76
370.48
BAT 3
removed
„- k«/yr

70.72
2.72
40.56
97.20
115116.96
4.56
39.60
10.56
272.08
132.08
2718.00
19.12
30309. 68
646174.64
115654,96
2869.20
676484. 32
795008.48
BAT 4
discharged removed discharge*
kg/yr kg/yr kg/yr
23.12
10.88
0.24
1.84
1.12
0.24
0.00
1.12
0.00
0.24
34.48
6.48
3.20
231.60
60.16
15.68
44.16
291.76
351.60

75.20
2.32
41.52
93.04
115116.16
4.56
37.76
10.56
269,20
146.16
2720.72
20.48
30404. 24
646199.20
115650.32
2887.36
676603.44
795141.12
13.76
6.40
0.64
0.88
5.28
1.04
0.00
2.96
0.00
3.12
20.40
3.76
1.84
137.04
35.60
20.32
26.00
172.64
218,96
         Sludge kg/yr
4817128
4838072
4840352
4840624
4841600

-------
                                             TABLE X-8

                               BATTERY MANUFACTURING COMPLIANCE COSTS
                                          LEAD SUBCATEGORY
o
Ov
Discharge
Status
Direct
Indirect
Total
Discharge
Status
Direct
Indirect
Total
Option BPT (PSES-0) Option BAT-1
Capital Annual Capital
714,843 499,039 818,501
7,887,805 4,635,339 7,121,534
8,602,648 5,134,378 7,940,035
Option BAT-3 (PSES-3)*
Capital Annual"
989,487 739,521
11,214,186 8,381,238 1
12,203,673 9,120,759 1
(PSES-1)
Annual
509,777
4,072,814
4,582,591
Option BAT-
Capital
1,619,406
8,353,268
9,972,674
Option BAT-2
Capital
968,117
8,390,881
9,358,998
4 (PSES-4)*
Annual
930,465
10,545,270
11,475,735
(PSES-2
Annual
580,62
4,723,62
5,304,24
    * Plant-by-plant costs were not calculated for Options 3 and 4.
     based on the normal discharging plant.

     All costs are in June, 1983 dollars.
Option 3 and 4 costs are

-------
                            TABLE X-9

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                     BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Mold Release Formulation
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
Maximum for
any one day
.Maximum  for
monthly  average
              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of  lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
* Iron
Manganese
0.01
0.002
0.003
0.011
0.002
0.002
0.01
0.0025
0.009
0.04
0.007
0.004
0.008
0.0009
0.001
0.006
0.001
0.0006
0.008
0.0010
0.004
0.02
0.003
0.002
*Regulated Pollutant
                                607

-------
                            TABLE X-10

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                     BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Direct Chill Lead Casting
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Si Iver
Zinc
Aluminum
*Iron
Manganese
0.00057
0.00007
0.00009
0. 0004
0. 00008
0.00005
0.00038
0. 00008
0. 00029
0.0013
0.0002
0.0001
0.00026
0.00003
0.00004
0. 0002
0.00004
0.00002
0.00025
0. 00003
0.00012
0.0006
0.0001
0.00006
*Regulated Pollutant
                               608

-------
                            TABLE X-1 1

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                     BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Open Formation - Dehydrated
Pollutant or
Pollutant              Maximum fo.r                 Maximum  for
Property	  any one day      	monthly  average

              Metric Units - mg/kg of  lead  used
              English Units '- lb/1,000,000  Ib  of  lead  used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
* Iron.
Manganese
4.82
0, 57
0.73
3.19
0.71
0.42 ;
3.22
0.68
2.45
10.80
2.02
1.14
2.15
0.25
0.30
1.68
0.34
0.16
2.13
0.28
1.02
5.38
1.02
.0.49
*Regulated Pollutant
                                609

-------
                            TABLE X-12

                         LEAD  SUBCATEGORY
                     BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Open Formation - Wet
Pollutant or
Pollutant              Maximum for                Maximum  for
Property	any one day	monthly  average

              Metric Units - mg/kg of  lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
*Iron
Manganese
0.152
0.018
0.023
0.100
0.022
0.013
0.101
0.021
0.077
0.34
0.06
0.04
0.067
0.007
0.009
0.053
0.010
0.005
0.067
0.009
0.032
0.17
0.03
0.02
*Regulated Pollutant
                               610

-------
                            TABLE X-13

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                     BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Plate Soak
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
*Iron
Manganese
0.060
0.007
0.009
0.039
0.008
0.005
0.040
0.008
0.030
0.135
0.030
'0.014
0.026
0.003
0.003
0.021
0.004
0.002
0.026
0.003
0.012
0.067
0.010
0.006
*Regulated Pollutant
                               611

-------
                            TABLE X-14

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                     BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Battery Wash (Detergent)
Pollutant or
Pollutant              Maximum for                Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
*Iron
Manganese
1.29
0.15
0.20
0.86
0.19
0.11
0.86
0.18
0.66
2.89
0.54
0.31
0.58
0.07
0.08
0.45
0.09
0.05
0.57
0.08
0.27
1.44
0.27
0.13
*Regulated Pollutant
                               612

-------
                            TABLE X-15

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                     BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Truck Wash
Pollutant or
Pollutant              Maximum for                Maximum for
Property   	any one day	monthly average

   Metric Units - mg/kg of lead in trucked batteries
   English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead in trucked batteries
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
*Iron
Manganese
0.040
0.004
0.006
0.026
0.005
0.003
0.026
0.005
0.020
0.09
0.016
0.01
0.017
0.002
0.002
0.014
0.002
0.001
0.017
0.002
0.008
0.04
0.008
0.004
*Regulated Pollutant
                               613

-------
                            TABLE X-16

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                     BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Laundry
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
*Iron
Manganese
0.31
0.037
0.05
0.21
0.05
0.027
0.209
0.045
0.16
0.70
0.13
0.07
0.14
0.016
0.02
0.11
0.02
0. 01 1
0.138
0.019
0.07
0.35
0.07
0.03
*Regulated Pollutant
                               614

-------
                            TABLE X-17

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                     BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS


Miscellaneous Wastewater Streams

Pollutant or
Pollutant              Maximum for                Maximum for
Property  	any one day	monthly average

              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
*Iron
Manganese
0.88
0. 10
0.14
0.58
0.13
0.08
0.59
0.13
0.45
1.97
0.37
0.21
0.39
0.05
0.06
0.31
0.06
0.03
0.39
0.05
0.19
0.98
0.19
0.09
^Regulated Pollutant
                               615

-------
PRDCESS WftSTEWATEB FBOM:
 GRID MANUFACTURE
   DIRECT CHILL CASTING
   MOLD RELEASE FORMULATION
   PLATE SOAK
 OPEN FORMATION
   DEHYDRATED
   WET
 BATTERY WASH
   DETERGENT
 TRUCK WASH
 LAUNDRY
 MISCELLANEOUS WASTIWATER
    LIME AND
    CARBONATE
    ADDITION

       l/s
RECYCLE HOSE WASHDOWN WATER
/ / } *
OIL
SKIMMING
1
REMOVAL OF
OIL AND GREASE



•X«-S*«_-»rf-^jC''_Xv->«— •»•"•
CHBIOI
mammon
-*•
fllTRATS


SEDIMENTATION

SLUDGE

\\
                                                                                       HOLDING
                                                                                        TANK
                                                                                                    DISCHARGE
                                                                                           SlUOBE TO
                                                                                           DECLAIM Ofl
                                                                                            DISPOSAL
                                                                            SLUDGE
                                                                          DEWATERIHG
       ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDED IN-PROCESS TECHNOLOGY:
•COUNTERCURRENT RINSE ELECTRODES AFTER OPEN FORMATION
•ELIMINATE OR RECYCLE PROCESS WATER FOR PLATE DEHYDRATION
•WATER RINSE OF BATTERIES PRIOR TO DETERGENT WASH
•COUNTERCUBRENT RINSE BATTERIES
•REUSE BATTERY     WATER
•REUSE TREATED WATER FOR HOSE WASHDOWN
        FIGURE X-1.  LEAD SUBCATEGORY BAT OPTION 1 TREATMENT

-------
PROCESS WASTEWATER FROM:
GRID MANUFACTURE
DIRECT CHILL CASTING
MOLD RELEASE FORMULATION
PLATE SOAK
OPEN FORMATION
DEHYDRATED
WET
BATTERY WASH
DETERGENT
TRUCK WASH
LAUNDRY
MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER

V / / /
Yl' 'IV
/ / / ^
OIL
SKIMMING
1
REMOVAL OF
OIL AND GREASE


_, BACKWASH
LIME AND
CARBONATE
ADDITION
IP -
^ -~~~~f* — ~— - A \ 	 ^^^^^^
t££%m^ SEDIMENTATION
^ r*,m^ | ^"*22S^-Aiiv;j3-?niB'>^
SLUDGE
FILTRATE ^'A

REUSE FOR
HOSE WASHDOWN
HOLOIIIfi
TANK







a*«W*ir>»--«4:i
§4 POLISHING m
fi'iflLTRATIONi?.
/»:;.-»v».-;?;*?.S-

^\ CjL SLUDGE TO
„. \/J\ RECLAIM OR
j » \ DISPOSAL
                                                                            • DISCHARGE
                                            SLUDGE
                                           OEWATERING
                     IN-PROCESS TECHNOLOGIES ARE THE SAME AS OPTION 1
FIGURE X-2.  LEAD SUBCATEGORY BAT OPTION 2 TREATMENT

-------
PflflCfSS WASTF.WATER FROM:
 GRID MANUFACTURE
   DIRECT CHILL CASTING
   MOLD RELEASE FORMULATION
 PLATE SOAK
 OPEN FORMATION
   DEHYDRATED
   WET
 BATTERY WASH
   DETERGENT
 TRUCK WASH
 LAUNDRY
SULFIDE
ADDITION
  REUSE FOR
HOSE WASHDOWH


/ / / v
OIL
SKIMMING



CKHCtt
MOTTHTKW
                          REMOVAL OF
                         OIL AND CREASE
                                                                                                         DISCHARGE
                                                                  SLUDGE
                                                                 DEWATERING
                                 IN-PROCESS TECHNOLOGIES ARE THE SAME AS OPTION I
          FIGURE X-3.  LEAD SUBCATEGORY BAT OPTION 3 TREATMENT

-------
ON
                    PROCESS WASTEWATER FROM:
                      GRID MANUFACTURE
                       DIRECT CHILL CASTING
                       MOLD RELEASE FORMULATION
                      OPEN FORMATION
PERMEATE RETURN
  TO PROCESS
BATTERY WASH
DETERGENT

i / / /
tv ri
/ / / *
OIL
SKIMMING
1
REMOVAL OF
OIL AND GREASE
                                                                                        8RINE
PROCESS WASTEWATER FROM:
PLATE SOAK
OPEN FORMATION
WET
TRUCK WASH . . ,

MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER 7 7V ^ \
OIL
SKIMMING
I
f
REMOVAL OF
Oil AND GREASE


LIME AND
CARBONATE REUSE FOR HOSE WASKDOWN
ADDITION AND TRUCK WASH
\o '


mcmniM j sramiEiimioN j |
"UJs*esSt^j^ J
I
/" "\ _Q SLUD8EIO
» I m lXT| RECLAIM OR
FILTRATE \\T /7 t t 01SPOS*L
SlUDGE l%?«aj.3«®>:
OEUfMTCDIUn t'.-i-Ji'ffiTijrf !!•"'-
                                                                                                                            •WARS)
                                     ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDED IN-PROCESS TECHNOLOGY: REUSE TREATED WATER FOR TRUCK WASH
                                    FIGURE X-4. LEAD SUBCATEGORY BAT OPTION 4 TREATMENT

-------

-------
                           SECTION  XI

                NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS


The  basis  for  new  source  performance  standards (NSPS) under
Section 306  of  the  Clean  Water  Act  is  the  best  available
demonstrated control technology (BDT).

This  section presents effluent characteristics attainable by new
sources  through  the   application   of   the   best   available
demonstrated   control  technology  (BDT),  processes,  operating
methods, or other alternatives including,  where  practicable,  a
standard  permitting  no discharge of pollutants.  Five levels of
technology  are  discussed;  cost,  performance   and   pollutant
removals  are  presented,  and the rationale for selection of the
BDT is outlined.   The  selection  of  pollutant  parameters  for
specific  regulations  is discussed and discharge limitations for
the regulated pollutants are presented for the lead subcategory.

TECHNICAL APPROACH TO NSPS

The technology options considered as possible BDT  for  the  lead
subcategory  are  similar  to the options considered at BAT.  BAT
options are discussed in outline form and in detail in Section  X
(pages  586-593) and are depicted schematically in Figures X-l to
X-4 (pages 616-619).  These  options  were  evaluated  for  their
applicability,  cost, and pollutant reduction benefits.  Option 1
was selected as the BAT model technology.

Each of the four BAT options is considered as an option for  BDT.
In  addition to these four options, the Agency considered another
option, option 5, for BDT.   Option  5  is  almost  identical  to
option  2, the only difference being that treated water is reused
for truck washing activities.  This results in a reduction of the
truck wash regulatory flow to 0.005 I/kg.  The  treatment  scheme
for  option  5  is  identical  to the scheme shown in Figure X-2.
Both truck wash and  floor  wash  water  are  recycled  from  the
holding tank.

As  discussed in Section X, EPA revised option 4 between proposal
and  promulgation.   At  proposal,  option  4  consisted  of  oil
skimming,  chemical  precipitation  (with  lime  and  carbonate),
filtration, and reverse osmosis for  all  process  streams.   The
permeate  from  the  reverse  osmosis  unit  was  returned to the
manufacturing process for  use  as  make  up  water.   The  brine
containing  essentially all of the process wastewater pollutants,
was treated in a  system  identical  to  the  end-of-pipe  system
                              621

-------
provided  in option 3.  This option was selected as the basis for
the proposed NSPS.

Commenters on the proposed NSPS contended that reverse osmosis is
not  demonstrated  in  the  subcategory  and-  is   not   readily
transferable  from other categories or subcategories.  Commenters
also pointed  out  that  reverse  osmosis  technology  could  not
adequately  treat  all  of  the  waste  streams at a lead battery
plant.  They stated that  the  technology  would  be  plagued  by
operational  problems  due to its sensitivity to temperature, pH,
acidity, chloride concentrations and blinding.  EPA  agrees  with
the  Commenters that reverse osmosis may not adequately treat all
lead battery wastewater discharges.  However, the Agency believes
that a combination of filtration and  reverse  osmosis  for  less
concentrated  wastewaters  followed  by  lime, settle, and filter
technology for the reverse osmosis brine and other wastewaters is
an  appropriate  technology  for  option  4.   Less  concentrated
wastewaters  which may be treated by reverse osmosis include open
dehydrated  formation  wastewater,   continuous   strip   casting
wastewater,  mold  release  formulation  equipment  washdown, and
detergent battery wash wastewater.  This new treatment scheme  is
the  basis  for  the  revised  option  4.   The  Agency carefully
considered  this  option  and  has  concluded  that  all  of  the
technologies   included   as   part  of  this  option  have  been
demonstrated in industrial situations.  This technology has  been
used   on   acid  mine  drainage  which  is  similar  to  battery
manufacturing wastes in that it contains  high  levels  of  toxic
metals and sulfuric acid.

The  Agency  has  elected  to base NSPS on option 5.  This option
adds  polishing  filtration  to  the  BAT  end-of-pipe  treatment
(chemical  precipitation  and  sedimentation)  and increased flow
reduction measures.  The increased flow  reduction  for  NSPS  is
applied  to  truck  washing.   The  BAT regulatory flow for truck
washing is reduced from 0.014 I/kg (BPT and BAT)  to  0.005  I/kg
for  NSPS.   This  flow  reduction measure is based on using two-
stage  rinsing  for  truck  washing;  1)  a  rinse  with  treated
wastewater,  2)  followed  by  a  final  fresh water rinses.  The
promulgated NSPS will result in the discharge of only a miniscule
amount of pollutants from new plants.  EPA has^concluded  that  a
national  standard  based  on  the  use  of  advanced end-of-pipe
treatment technologies beyond the recommended BAT plus filtration
in order to remove the  remaining  deminimis  pollutants  is* not
warranted.

Option  5  has  been  selected as the preferred option because it
improves pollutant removal and the  technology  is  demonstrated.
As an alternative to flow reduction and treatment, new plants can
select   dry   manufacturing  processes  and  water  conservation
                              622

-------
practices and achieve no discharge of pollutants.   No  discharge
of  wastewater  pollutants  is  practiced  by 57 existing plants.
Also, as discussed in the EIA, no  entry  impacts  are  projected
with the selection of this option.

POLLUTANT REMOVALS AND COSTS

The  Agency  used  the normal discharging plant to estimate costs
and pollutant reduction benefits associated  with  the  five  BDT
treatment  options for a new direct discharge lead battery plant.
Pollutant reduction benefits for options 1 to 4 are identical  to
those  presented  for  the  normal discharging plant  in Table X-5
(page 603).   Pollutant  reduction  benefits  for  option  5  are
presented  in  Table  XI-1  (page  624).   Based  on  the  normal
discharging plant, a new direct discharger would generate  14,459
kilograms (31,810 pounds) per year of toxic pollutants.  The NSPS
technology (option 5) would reduce toxic pollutant levels to 4.33
kilograms  (9.53  pounds)  per  year  and  the discharge of other
pollutants to 42 kilograms (92.4 pounds) per year.    The  capital
investment  cost for a new model lead battery manufacturing plant
to install the NSPS technology is estimated to be $0.119  million
with annual costs of $0.069 million (1983).

REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS

The Agency has no reason to believe that the pollutants that will
be  found  in  significant  quantities  for  processes within new
sources  will  be  any  different  than  with  existing  sources.
Consequently,  pollutants  selected for regulation, in accordance
with the rationale -of Section VI, IX, and X  are  the same  ones
that  were  selected  at  BAT  with  the addition of  TSS, oil and
grease, and pH.

NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

New source performance standards for this subcategory are  based
on the wastewater flow reductions achieved by improved in-process
control  and recycle, and the pollutant concentrations achievable
by lime, .settle and  filter  end-of-pipe  treatment.   Regulatory
flows  used as the basis for new source standards are the same as
those used at BAT (with the exception of truck wash)  and  can  be
found  in  Table  X-l  (page  598).  The NSPS regulatory flow for
truck wash is 0.005 I/kg.  Effluent concentrations achievable  by
the  application  of new source technology are displayed in Table
VII-21 (page 418).

Tables XI.-2 through 10 (pages 625-633) display ,NSPS for the  lead
subcategory.                                     ..-..-........  * .
                              623

-------
                                           TAB IB XI-1

                                  POLLUTANT REDUCTION  BENEFITS
                                            OPTION 5
                             RAW WASTE
PARAMETER
                              Removed
                               kg/yr
                                                                    OPTION 5
                     Discharged
FLOW 1/yr (106)

114  Antimony
118  Cadmium
119  Chromium

120  Copper
122  Lead
123  Mercury

124  Nickel
126  Silver
128  Zinc

     Aluminum
     Iron
     Manganese

     Oil & Grease
     TSS

     Total Toxics
     Total Nonconv.
     Total Conv.
     Total Pollutants
   69.91

   10.20
    0.37
    5.30

   12.29
14389.65
    0,57

    5.09
    1.32
   34.04

   20.82
  340.56
    2.79

 3817.66
80779.35

14458.83
  364.17
84597.01
99420.01
    8.85
    0.23
    5.10

   11.17
14389.42
    0.57

    4.46
    1.32
   33.38

   16.54
  339.76
    2.39

 3788.88
80771.87.

14454.50
  358.69
84560.75
99373.94
 2.87

 1.35
 0.14
 0.20

 1.12
 0.23
 0.00

 0.63
 0.00
 0.66

 4.28
 0.80
 0.40

28.78
 7.48

 4.33
 5.48
36.26
46.07
     Sludge
                          605046

-------
                            TABLE  XI-2

                         LEAD  SUBCATEGORY
                 NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE  STANDARDS
Mold Release Formulation
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
              Metric Units  - mg/kg  of  lead  used
              English  Units  -  lb/1,000,000  Ib  of  lead  used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
*Iron
Manganese
*0il and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within
0.01
0.0012
0.0022
0.0077
0.0017
0.0009
0.0033
0.0017
0.0061
0.0367
0.0072
0.0018
0.060
0.090
the range of 7.5 to
0.0052
0.0005
0.0009
0.0037
0.0008
0.0004
0.0022
0.0007
0.0025
0.0163
0.0037
0.0014
0.060
0.072
10.0 at all times
^Regulated Pollutant
                                625

-------
                            TABLE XI-3

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                 NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Direct Chill Lead Casting
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
 Maximum for
 any one day
        Maximum for
        monthly average
              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
 Antimony  •
 Cadmium
 Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
 Mercury
 Nickel
 Silver
 Zinc
 Aluminum
*Iron
 Manganese
*0il and Grease
*TSS
*pH	Within
     0.000386
     0.000040
     0.000074
     0.000256
     0.000056
     0.000030
     0.000110
     0.000058
     0.000204
     0.00122
     0.000240
     0.00006
     0.0020
     0.0030
the range of 7.5 to
           0.000172
           0.000016
           0.000030
           0.000122
           0.000026
           0.000012
           0.000074
           0.000024
           0.000084
           0. 00054
           0.000122
           0.00005
           0.0020
           0. 0024
10.0 at all times
*Regulated Pollutant
                               626

-------
                            TABLE XI-4

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                 NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Open Formation - Dehydrated
Pollutant or
Pollutant              Maximum for                Maximum for
Property         	any one day	monthly average

              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
*lron
Manganese
*0il and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within
3.24
0.33
0.62
2. 15
0.47
0.25
0.92
0.48
1.71
10.26
2.01
0.50
16.80
25.20
the range of 7.5 to
1.44
0.13
0.25
1.02
0.21
0.10
0.62
0.20
0.70
4.55
1.02
0.39
16.80
20.16
10.0 at all times
*Regulated Pollutant
                               627

-------
                            TABLE XI-5

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                 NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Open Formation - Wet
Pollutant or
Pollutant              Maximum for                Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
*Iron
Manganese
*0il and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within
0.102
0.010
0.019
0.067
0.014
0.007
0.029
0.015
0.054
0.324
0.063
0.016
0.53
0.80
the range of
0.045
0.004
0.007
0.032
0.006
0.003
* 0.019
0.006
0.022
0. 1 44
0.032
0.012
0.53
0.64
7.5 to 10.0 at all times
*Regulated Pollutant
                               628

-------
                            TABLE XI-6

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                 NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Plate Soak
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Proper ty	
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
* Iron
Manganese
*0il and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within
0.04
0.004
0.007
0.026
0.005
0.003
0.011
0.006
0.021
0. 128
0.025
0.006
0.21
0.32
the range of 7.5 to
0.018
0.001
0.003
0.012
0.002
0.001
0.007
0.002
0.008
0.057
0.012
0.005
0.21
0.25
10.0 at all times
*Regulated Pollutant
                               629

-------
                            TABLE XI-7

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                 NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Battery Wash (Detergent)
Pollutant
Pollutant
Property
or
             Maximum
             any one
for
day
Maximum for
monthly average
              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
*Iron
Manganese
*0il and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within
0.868
0.090
0.166
0.576
0.126
0.067
0.247
0.130
0.459
2.750
0.540
0.135
4.50
6.75
the range of 7.5 to
0.387
0.036
0.067
0.274
0.058
0.027
0.166
0. 054
0.189
1.22
0.274
0. 104
4.50
5.40
10.0 at all times
*Regulated Pollutant
                               630

-------
                            TABLE XI-8

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                 NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Truck Wash
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
   Metric Units - rag/kg of lead in trucked batteries
   English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead in trucked batteries
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
*Iron
Manganese
*0il and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within
0.009
0.001
0.001
0.006
0.001
0.0008
0.002
0.001
0.005
0.031
0.006
0.002
0.050
0.075
the range of 7.5 to
0.004
0.0004
0.000
0.003
0.0007
0.0003
0.001
0.0006
0.002
0.014
0.003
0.001
0.050
0.060
10.0 at all times
*Regulated Pollutant
                               631

-------
                            TABLE XI-9

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
                 NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Laundry
Pollutant or
Pollutant              Maximum for                Maximum for
Property	any one day	:	monthly average

              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
*Iron
Manganese
*0il and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within the
0.210
0.022
0.040
0.14
0.03
0.016
0.060
0.032
0.111
0.666
0.13
0.030
1.09
1.64
range of 7.5 to
0.094
0.009
0.016
0.07
0.01
0.007
0.040
0.013
0.046
0.295
0.07
0.025
1.09
1.31
10.0 at all times
*Regulated Pollutant
                               632

-------
                            TABLE  XI-10

                         LEAD  SUBCATEGORY
                 NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE  STANDARDS
Miscellaneous Wastewater Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant              Maximum  for                 Maximum for
Property   	any one  day	monthly average

              Metric Units - mg/kg  of  lead  used
              English Units  - lb/1,000,000  Ib  of  lead  used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum.
*Iron
Manganese
*0il and Grease
*TSS
*pH Within
0.59
0.06
0.11
0.39
0.085
0.05
0.17
0.09
0.31
1.88
0.37
0.09
3.07
4.61
the range of 7.5 to.
0.26
0.02
0.05
0.19
0.039
0.02
0. 11
0.04
0.13
0.83
0.19
0.07
3.07
3.69
10.0. at all times
*Regulated Pollutant
                                633

-------

-------
                           SECTION XII

                          PRETREATMENT


Section 307(b) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment
standards  for  existing  sources  (PSES), which must be achieved
within three years of promulgation.  PSES are designed to prevent
the discharge of pollutants which pass through,  interfere  with,
or  are  otherwise  incompatible  with  the operation of Publicly
Owned Treatment Works (POTW).  The Clean Water Act of 1977 adds a
new dimension by requiring pretreatment for pollutants,  such  as
toxic  metals,  that  limit  POTW sludge management alternatives,
including the beneficial use of sludges  on  agricultural  lands.
The   legislative   history   of  the  1977  Act  indicates  that
pretreatment standards are to be technology-based, and  analogous
to the best, available technology for removal of toxic pollutants.
(Conference   Report   95-830   at  87;  reprinted  in  Comm.  on
Environment,  and  Public  Works,  95th  Cong.,  2d   Session,   A
Legislative  History  of  the  Clean Water Act of 1977, Vol. 3 at
272) .

The general pretreatment regulations can be found at 40 CFR  Part
403.  See 43 FR 27736 June 26, 1978, 46 FR 9404 January 28, 1981,
and  47 FR 4518 February 1,  1982.  These regulations describe the
Agency's  overall   policy   for   establishing   and   enforcing
pretreatment  standards  for new and existing users of a POTW and
delineate the responsibilities and deadlines applicable to  each
part  in  this  effort.   In  addition,  40 CFR Part 403, Section
403.5(b), outlines prohibited discharges which apply to all users
of a POTW.

Section 307(c) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment
standards for new sources (PSNS) at the same time that it promul-
gates  NSPS.   New  indirect   dischargers,   like   new   direct
dischargers,   have  the  opportunity  to  incorporate  the  best
available demonstrated technologies  including  process  changes,
in-plant' controls, and end-of-pipe treatment technologies, and to
use  plant  site  selection  to  ensure adequate treatment system
installation.

This section describes the control technology for pretreatment of
process wastewaters from existing sources and new  sources.   The
concentrations   and  mass   discharge  limitations  of  regulated
pollutants for existing and  new sources, based on  the  described
control  technology,  are  indicted  by  the  data  presented  in
Sections V and VII.
                              635

-------
  DISCHARGE OF WASTEWATERS TO A POTW

'  There are 103 plants in  the  lead  subcategory  of  the  battery
  manufacturing  category  which  currently  discharge  to  a POTW.
  Pretreatment standards  are  established  to  ensure  removal  of
  pollutants  discharged  by such plants which interfere with,  pass
  through  or  are  otherwise  incompatible   with   a   POTW.     A
  determination   of  which  pollutants  may  pass  through  or  be
  incompatible  with  POTW  operations,  and  thus  be  subject  to
  pretreatment   standards,  depends  on  the  level  of  treatment
  employed by the POTW.   In  general,   more  pollutants  will  pass
  through  a  POTW  employing  primary  treatment (usually physical
  separation by settling) than one which  has  installed  secondary
  treatment (settling plus biological  treatment).

  Most  POTW  currently  consist  of primary or secondary treatment
  systems which are designed to treat  domestic wastes.  Many of the
  pollutants contained in  battery  manufacturing  wastes  are  not
  biodegradable  and  are, therefore,  ineffectively treated by such
  systems.  Furthermore, these  wastes  have  been  known  to  pass
  through or interfere with the normal operations of these systems.
  Problems  associated  with  the uncontrolled release of pollutant
  parameters identified in battery process wastewaters to POTW were
  discussed in Section VI.  The  discussion  covered  pass-through,
  interference, and sludge useability.

  The  Agency based the selection of pretreatment standards for the
  battery category primarily on the minimization of pass through of
  toxic pollutants at POTW.  The Agency compared the removal  rates
  for  each  toxic pollutant limited by the pretreatment options to
  the removal rate for that pollutant  at a well operated POTW.   The
  POTW removal rates were determined through a study  conducted  by
  the  Agency  at  over  40  POTW and  a statistical analysis of the
  data.   (See  Fate  of  Priority  Pollutants  In  Publicly  Owned
  Treatment Works, EPA 440/1-80-301, October, 1980; and Determining
  National  Removal  Credits  for  Selected Pollutants for Publicly
  Owned Treatment Works, EPA  440/82-008,  September,  1982).   The
  POTW removal rates are presented below:

                 Toxic Pollutant          POTW Removal Rate

                     Cadmium                    38%
                     Chromium                   65%
                     Copper                     58%
                     Cyanide                    52%
                     Lead                       48%
                     Nickel                     19%
                     Silver                     66%
                     Zinc                       65%
                                636

-------
The  study  did  not  analyze national POTW removals for mercury.
The range of removal indicated by the data ranged from 19  to  66
percent.   However,  as  discussed  in  Section  VI,  mercury has
inhibiting effects upon activated sludge POTW at  levels  of  0.1
mg/1 and loss of COD removal efficiency of 59 percent is reported
with  10.0  mg/1  of  mercury.   Therefore, unless treated at the
source,  mercury is likely to cause POTW interference.  The  model
treatment technologies chosen as the basis for PSES and PSNS will
achieve removals of greater than 99.9 percent for toxic metals as
is  demonstrated  by  the  pollutant  reduction benefits shown in
Table XII-1 (page 640).

The pretreatment options selected provide for significantly  more
removal   of   toxic  pollutants  than  would  occur  if  battery
wastewaters  were  discharged  untreated  to  the  POTW.    Thus,
pretreatment  standards  will  control  the  discharge  of  toxic
pollutants to the POTW and prevent pass through.

TECHNICAL APPROACH TO PRETREATMENT

The goal of pretreatment is to control pollutants which will pass
through a POTW, interfere with its operation, or  interfere  with
the  use  or  disposal  of POTW sludge.  Because battery manufac-
turing wastewater streams characteristically contain toxic metals
which pass through  POTW,  pretreatment  requirements  for  these
streams  do  not differ significantly from treatment requirements
for direct discharge.  Consequently, the  options  presented  for
PSES  and  PSNS  are  identical  to treatment and control options
presented for BAT and NSPS, respectively.  These options  combine
both  in-plant  technology and wastewater treatment to reduce the
mass of pollutants (especially  toxic  metals)  which  will  pass
through the POTW or contaminate the POTW sludge.

Factors  considered  in selecting the specific technology options
presented have been discussed in Sections IX, X and XI.  The same
considerations apply to pretreatment prior to introduction of the
wastewater into a POTW.

Option 0 for pretreatment standards for existing  sources  (PSES)
is  identical to BPT (option 0) which is described in Section IX.
PSES options 1-4 are identical to BAT options  1-4  respectively.
End-of-pipe  treatment  systems  for  each  of  these options are
depicted in Sections IX or X as appropriate.   PSNS  options  1-5
are the same as BDT options 1-5 discussed in Section XI.

Effluent  performance achieved by these pretreatment options will
be the same as that provided by the respective BPT, BAT  and  BDT
options  and  is  indicated  by  the  production  normalized flow
information provided in Section V and the technology  performance
                              637

-------
data shown in Section VII.  Compliance cost data for all  options
are  displayed  in  Table X-8 (page 606).  Pollutant removals for
indirect dischargers of the lead  subcategory  are  displayed  in
Table XII-1 (page 640).

PSES AND PSNS OPTION SELECTION

Option  1  is  selected  as the PSES option because standards are
achievable using technologies and practices that are currently in
use  at  plants  in  the  subcategory.   Implementation  of  this
technology  will  result  in  a  significant  reduction  of toxic
pollutant discharges to POTW which would otherwise pass  through.
This  option  is  analogous  to  that chosen for BAT and has been
determined to be economically achievable.

Option 5 is selected as the regulatory approach for  pretreatment
standards  for  new  sources (PSNS).  This option is analogous to
that chosen for NSPS and has been chosen for the same reasons  as
discussed in Section XI.

POLLUTANT REMOVAL BENEFITS AND COST

As  a  means  of evaluating the economic achievability of each of
the options, the'Agency developed  cost  estimates  for  existing
plants  and  used the normal dischargingg plant to estimate costs
and benefits for a new plant.  The cost  estimates  for  existing
indirect dischargers are presented in Table X-8.

Implementation of PSES will remove 1,488,399 kilograms (3,274,478
pounds)   per  year  of  toxic  metals  and  8,743,591  kilograms
(19,235,899  pounds)  per  year  of  other  pollutants  from  the
estimated  raw  waste  generation  for indirect dischargers, at a
capital cost, above -equipment in place, of $7.114 million  and  a
total  annual  cost of $4.069 million.  These costs assume plants
will install PSES treatment systems at the PSES regulatory  flow.
The  Agency  has determined that these standards are economically
achievable.

New source plant costs were estimated for  the  lead  subcategory
using the normal discharging plant.  The total capital investment
cost  for  a new lead battery manufacturing plant to install PSNS
technology is $0.119  million  with  corresponding  total  annual
costs  of  $0.069 .million.   This new lead battery manufacturing
plant would generate a raw waste -load  of  approxiamtely  14,459
kilograms (31,810 pounds) per year of toxic pollutants and 84,961
kilograms   (186,914   pounds)   per  year  of  other  pollutants.
Application of PSNS technology would reduce the  toxic  pollutant
discharge  to  4.33  kilograms  (9.53  pounds)  per  year and the
                              638

-------
discharge  of  other pollutants to 42 kilograms (92.4 pounds) per
year.

POLLUTANT PARAMETERS FOR REGULATION

Pollutant parameters selected for pretreatment regulation in this
subcategory are copper and lead.  As discussed in Section X these
pollutants were selected  for  their  toxicity,  use  within  the
subcategory  and  treatability.   For the pretreatment standards,
POTW treatment, incompatability and pass-through  of  copper  and
lead  were also considered.  Conventional pollutants and iron are
not specifically regulated because a  POTW  may  use  iron  as  a
coagulant  in  the  treatment  process and a POTW is specifically
designed to treat the conventional pollutants.

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS

Effluent  standards  for  existing   pretreatment   sources   are
identical  to  the BAT limitations discussed in Section X.  These
standards are expressed in terms of mg of  pollutant  per  kg  of
production  normalizing parameter for each process element.  PSES
are displayed in Tables XII-2 to XII-10  (pages  641-649).   These
standard tables list all the pollutants which were considered for
regulation, and those regulated are *'d.

Pretreatment  standards  for  new  sources  are identical to NSPS
discussed in Section XI except that conventional  pollutants  and
iron are not regulated.  Standards are displayed in Tables XII-11
to XII-19 (pages 650-658).
                              639

-------
                                                              TABLE XII-1

                                            POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS OF CONTROL SYSTEMS
                                                LEAD SUBCATEGORY - INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
PARAMETER

FLOW 1/yr (1
1 1 4 Antimony
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
1 20 Copper
122 Lead
1 23 Mercury
124 Nickel
126 Silver
128 Zinc
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
Oil & Crease
TSS
RAW WASTE
kg/yr
06) 7200.73
1050.60
38.11
545. 90
1265.87
1482133.95
58.71
524.27
135.96
3506.12
2144.46'
35077.68
287.37
393218.98
8320273.05
Total Toxics 1489259.49
Total Nonconv. 37509.51
Total Conv. 8713492.03
Total Pollu. 10240261.03
PSES
0
removed discharged
kg/yr kg/yr

452.17
21.63
366.68
1 94. 67
1481877.48
4.12
18.54
135.96
2799.54
684.95
34199.09
23.69
371783.65
8294549.83
1485870.79
34907.73
8666333.48
10187112.00
2143.43
598.43
16.48
179.22
1071.20
256.47
54.59
505. 73
0.00
706. 58
1459.51
878.59
263.68
21435.33'
25723.22
3388.70
2601.78
47158.55
53149.03
PSES
1
removed discharged
kg/yr kg/yr

842. 54
25.75
521.18
1004.25
1482098.93
58.71
303.85
135.96
3408.27
1477.02
34956.14
225.57
390237.13
8316694.83
1488399.44
36658.73
8706931.96
10231990. 13
297.67
208.06
12.36
24.72
261.62
35.02
0.00
220. 42
0.00
97.85
667.44
121.54
61.80
2981.85
3578.22
860.05
850. 78
6560.07
8270.90
PSES
2
remove'!! discharged
kg/yr kg/yr

910.52
25.75
525.30
1150.51
1482T10.26
58.71
459.38
135.96
3438. 14
1700.53
34994.25
246.17
390237.13
8319498.49
1488814.53
36940. 95
8709735.62
10235491.10
297.67
140.08
12.36
20.60
115.36
23.69
0.00
64.89
0.00
67.98
443.93
83.43
41.20
2981.85
774.56
444. 96
568. 56
3756.41
4769.93
PSES
3
removed discharged
kg/yr kg/yr

910.52
35.02
522.21
1251.45
1482130.86
58.71
509.85
135.96
3503.03
1700.53
34994.25
246.17
390237.13
8319498.49
1489057.61
36940.95
8709735.62
10235734.18
297.67
140.08
3.09
23.69
14.42
3.09
0.00
14.42
0.00
3.09
443.93
83.43
41.20
2981.85
774.56
201.88
568. 56
3756.41
4526.85
PSES
4
removed discharged
kg/yr kg/yr

968.20
29.87
534.57
1197.89
1482120.56
58.71
486.16
135.96
3465.95
1881.81
35029.27
263.68
391454.59
8319814.70
1488997.87
37174.76
8711269.29
102374*1.92
177.16
82.40
8.24
11.33
67.98
13.39
0.00
38.11
0.00
40.17
262.65
48.41
23.69
1764.39
458.35
261.62
334.75
2222.74
2819.11
Sludge kg/yr
62020523
62290177
62319532
62323034
62335600

-------
                           TABLE XI1-2

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
           PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING  SOURCES
Mold Release Formulation
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
              Metric Units - tag/kg of  lead  used
              English Units - lb/1>000,000  Ib of  lead  used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
0.01
0.002
0,003
0.011
0.002
0.002
0.01
0.0025
0.009 '
0,04
0.007
0.004 .
0.008
0.0009
0.001
0.006
0.001
0.0006
0.008
0.0010
0.004
0.02
0.003
0,002
*Regulated Pollutant
                                641

-------
                           TABLE XI1-3

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
           PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES
Direct Chill Lead Casting
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for  ,
monthly average
              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
0.00057
0. 00007
0.00009
0.0004
0.00008
0.00005
0.00038
0.00008
0.00029
0.0013
0.0002
0.0001
0.00026
0. 00003
0.00004
0.0002
0.00004
0. 00002
0.00025
0. 00003
0.00012
0. 0006
0.0001
0.0006
*Regulated Pollutant
                               642

-------
                           TABLE XI1-4

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
           PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES
Open Formation - Dehydrated
Pollutant or
Pollutant .
Property	
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver .
Zinc . -,
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese :
4.82
0.57
0.73
3.19
0.71
0.42
3.22
0.68
2.45
10.80
2.02
1.14
2.15
0.25
0.30
1.68
0.34
0.16
2.13
0.28
1.02
5.38
1.02
0.49
*Regulated Pollutant
                               643

-------
                           TABLE XII-5

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
           PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES
Open Formation - Wet
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
0.152
0.018
0.023
0.100
0.022
0.013
0.101
0.021
0.077
0.34
0.06
0.04
0.067
0.007
0.009
0.053
0.010
0.005
0.067
0.009
0.032
0. 17
0.03
0.02
*Regulated Pollutant
                               644

-------
                           TABLE XI1-6

                         LEAD SUBCATEGQRY
           PR'ETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES
Plate Soak
Pollutant or
Pollutant              Maximum for                Maximum  for
Property       	any one day	i	 monthly  average

              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
0.060
0.007
0.009
0.039
0.008
0. 005
0. 040
0.008
0.030
0.135
0.030
'0.014
0.026
0.003
0.003
0.021
0.004
0.002
0.026
0.003
0.012
0.067
0.010
0.006
*Regulated Pollutant
                               645

-------
                           TABLE  XI1-7

                         LEAD  SUBGATEGORY
           PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING  SOURCES
Battery Wash. (Detergerit)
Pollutant or
Pollutant              Maximum for                Maximum  for
Property	any one day	monthly  average

              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
1.29
0. 15
0.20
0.86
0.19
0.11
0.86
0.18
0.66
2.89
0.54
0.31
0.58
0.07
0.08
; 0.45
0.09
0.05
0.57
0.08
0.27
1.44
0.27
0.13
*Regulated Pollutant
                               646

-------
                           TABLE XII-8

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
           PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES
Truck Wash
Pollutant or
Pollutant              Maximum for                Maximum for
Property	  any one day	monthly average

   Metric Units - mg/kg of lead in trucked batteries
   English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead in trucked batteries
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
0.040
0.004
0.006
0.026
0.005
0.003
0.026
0.005
0.020
0.09
0.016
0.01
0.017
0.002
0.002
0.014
0.002
0.001
0.017
0.002
0.008
0.04
0.008
0.004
*Regulated Pollutant
                               647

-------
                           TABLE XH-9

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
           PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES
Laundry
Pollutant or
Pollutant              Maximum for                Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper .
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
0.31
0.037
0.05
0.21
0.05
0.027
0.209
0.045
0.16
0.70
0.13
0.07
0.14
0.016
0.02
0.11
0.02
o. in
0. .38
0.019
0.07
0.35
0.07
0.03
*Regulated Pollutant
                               648

-------
                           TABLE XII-10

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
           PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES
Miscellaneous Wastewater Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
0.88
0.10
0.14
0.58
0.13
0.08
0.59
0.13
0.45
1.97
0.37
0.21
0.39
0.05
0.06
0.31
0.06
0.03
0.39
0.05
0.19
0.98
0.19
0.09
*Regulated Pollutant
                                649

-------
                           TABLE XII-11

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
              PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES
Mold Release Formulation
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
              Metric Units - rag/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Alum inum
Iron
Manganese
0.01
0.0012
0.0022
0.0077
0.0017
0.0009
0.0033
0.0017
0.0061
0.0367
0.0072 \
0.0018 *
0.0052
0.0005
0.0009
0.0037
0.0008
0. 0004
0.0022
0. 0007
0.0025
0.0163
0.0037
0.0014
*Regulated Pollutant
                               650

-------
                           TABLE XII-12

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
              PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES
Direct Chill Lead Casting
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium .
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc ;•
Aluminum >
Iron
Manganese
0.000386
0.000040
0.000074
0.000256
0.000056
0.000030
0.000.110
0.000058
0.000204
0.00122
0.000240
0.00006
0.000172
0.000016
0.000030
0.000122
0.000026
0.000012
0.000074
0.000024
0.000084
0.00054
0.000122
0.00005
*Regulated Pollutant
                               651

-------
                           TABLE XII-13

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
              PRETREATMENT STANDARDS .FOR NEW SOURCES
Open Formation - Dehydrated
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
3.24
0.33
0.62
2.15
0.47
0.25
0.92
0.48
1.71
10.26
2.01
0.50
1.44
0.13
0.25
1.02
0.21
0. 10
0.62
0.20
0.70
4.55
1.02
0.39
*Regulated Pollutant
                                652

-------
                           TABLE 'XII-14

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
              PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES
Open Formation - Wet
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
              Metric Units - rag/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
0,102
0.010
0.019
0.067
0.014
0.007
0.029
0.015
0.054
0. 324
0.063
0.016
0.045
0.004
0.007
0.032
0.006
0.003
0.019
0.006
0.022
0.144
0.032
- ^0.012
*Regulated Pollutant
                               653

-------
                           TABLE XII-15

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
              PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES
Plate Soak
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
0.04
0.004
0.007
0.026
0.005
0.003
0.011
0.006
0.021
0.128
0.025
0.006
0.018
0.001
0.003
0.012
0.002
0.001
0.007
0.002
0.008
0.057
0.012
0.005
*Regulated Pollutant
                               654

-------
                           TABLE XII-16

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
              PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES
Battery Wash (Detergent)
Pollutant or
Pollutant              Maximum for                Maximum for
Property	any one day	monthly average

              Metric Units - rag/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of .lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
0.868
0.090
0.166
0.576
0.126
0.067
0. 247
0.130
0.459
2. 750
0.540
0.135
0.387
0.036
0.067
0.274
0,058
0.027
0.166
0.054
0.189
1.22
0.274
0.104
*Regulated Pollutant
                                655

-------
                           TABLE XII-17

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
              PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES
Truck Wash
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property	
Maximum for
any one day
Maximum for
monthly average
   Metric Units - me/kg of lead in trucked batteries
   English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead in trucked batteries
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
0.009
0.001
0.001
0.006
0.001
0.0008
0.002
0.001
0.005
0.031
0.006
0.002
0.004
0.0004
0.000
0.003
0.0007
0.0003
0.001
0.0006
0.002
0.014
0.003
0.001
*Regulated Pollutant
                               656

-------
                           TABLE XII-18

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
              PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES
Laundry
Pollutant or
Pollutant  .            Maximum for                Maximum  for
Property    	.	any one day   	monthly  average

              Metric Units - mg/kg of lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc - ,
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
0.210
0.022
0.040
0.14
0.03
0.016
0.060
0.032
0.111
0.666
0.13
0.030
0.094
0.009
0.016
0.07
0.01
0.007
0.040
0.013
0.046
0. 295
0.07
0.025
*Regulated Pollutant
                                657

-------
                           TABLE XII-19

                         LEAD SUBCATEGORY
              PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES
Miscellaneous Wastewater Streams
Pollutant or
Pollutant              Maximum for                Maximum  for
Property	any one day	monthly  average

              Metric Units - tng/kg of  lead used
              English Units - lb/1,000,000 Ib of lead used
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
*Copper
*Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
0.59
0.06
0.11
0.39
0.085
0.05
0.17
0.09
0.31
1.88
0.37
0.09
0.26
0.02
0.05
0.19
0.039
0.02
0.11
0.04
0.13
0.83
0.19
0.07
*Regulated Pollutant
                                658

-------
                          SECTION XIII


         BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY


The  1977  amendments  to  the  Clean  Water  Act  added  Section
301(b)(2)(E), establishing "best conventional  pollutant  control
technology"  (BCT)  for discharge of conventional pollutants from
existing industrial point sources.  Conventional  pollutants  are
those  defined  in Section 304(a)(4) [biological oxygen-demanding
pollutants (BOD5_), total suspended solids (TSS), fecal  coliform,
and   pH]   and   any   additional   pollutants  defined  by  the
Administrator as "conventional"  [oil  and  grease  (O&G)  44  FR
44501, July 30, 1979].

BCT  is  not  an  additional  limitation but replaces BAT for the
control of conventional pollutants.  In addition to other factors
specified in Section 304(b)(4)(B),  the  Act  requires  that  BCT
Limitations   be   assessed   in  light  of  a  two  part  "cost-
reasonableness" test (American Paper Institute v. EPA,  660  F.2d
954  (4th  Cir.  1981)).   The  first  test compares the cost for
private industry to reduce its conventional pollutants  with  the
costs  to  publicly  owned  treatment works for similar levels of
reduction in their discharge of  these  pollutants.   The  second
test  examines  the  cost-effectiveness  of additional industrial
treatment  beyond  BPT.   EPA  must  find  that  limitations  are
"reasonable"  under  both  tests before establishing them as BCT.
In no case may BCT be less stringent than BPT.

EPA published its methodology for carrying out the  BCT  analysis
on  August 29,  1979 (44 FR 50732).  In the case mentioned above,
the  Court  of  Appeals  ordered  EPA  to  correct  data   errors
underlying  EPA's calculation of the first test, and to apply the
second cost test.   (EPA  argued  that  a  second  cost  was  not
required.)   On  October 29,  1982, the Agency proposed a revised
BCT methodology.  EPA is deferring proposal  of  BCT  limitations
for   the  battery  manufacturing  category  until  the  proposed
methodology is made final.
                              659

-------

-------
                           SECTION XIV

                         ACKNOWLEGEMENTS


This document has been prepared by  the  staff  of  the  Effluent
Guidelines  Division  with assistance from technical contractors,
other EPA offices and other persons outside of EPA.  This Section
is intended to acknowledge the contribution of  the  persons  who
have contributed to the development of this report.

The  initial  effort  on this project was carried out by Hamilton
Standard Division of United Technologies, under Contract No.  68-
01-4668  and  68-01-5827.   They  performed data collection, data
compilation, field  sampling  and  analysis,  initial  wastewater
treatment  costing, and made the initial drafts for this project.
Hamilton Standard's effort  was  managed  by  Daniel  J.  Lizdas,
Walter  Drake, and Robert W. Blaser.  Edward Hodgson directed the
engineering activities and field sampling operations  were  under
the direction of Richard Kearns.

Assistance  with the assembling of the proposed document was done
under Contract 68-01-6469 by Versar Inc.  Versar's effort on  the
proposed  document  was  managed  by  Lee  McCandless  and Jerome
Strauss.  Efforts  done  by  Whitescarver  Associates,  a  Versar
subcontractor,  were  managed  by John P. Whitescarver.  Lawrence
Davies directed the project activities of the  support  staff  at
Versar  Inc. and made contributions to the report.  Contributions
to the report were  made  by  Robert  W.  Hardy  of  Whitescarver
Associates,  and Pamela Hillis, Jean Moore, Gayle Riley and other
technical and support staff at Versar.

In preparation of this final document, the Agency was assisted by
Versar Inc., under contract 68-01-6469, and two subcontractors to
Versar, Radian Corp. and JFA, Inc.  Versar's effort  was  managed
by  Lee McCandless.  Thomas Wall of JFA and Anna Wojciechowski of
Versar provided assistance  in  assembly  of  the  administrative
record.   Radian  technical  effort  was managed by James Sherman
with technical contributions by Mark Hereth, Robert Curtis, Heidi
Welner and John Cpllins.

Dov Weitman, Ellen Siegler and Mark Greenwood of  the  Office  of
General  Counsel  provided  legal  advise  to the project.  Ellen
Warhit, Debra Maness, Mary Ives, Allen Leduc, Emily Hartnell, and
William Webster  were  economic  project  officers;  Henry  Kahn,
Barnes  Johnson,  and Richard Kotz provided statistical analysis;
Alexandra Tarney and  Eleanor  Zimmerman  provided  environmental
evaluations.
                              661

-------
Word processing was provided by Pearl Smith,  Glenda  Nesby,  and
Carol Swann.

Technical  direction  and supervision of the project was provided
by Ernst P. Hall P.E., Chief, Metals and Machinery  Branch.   The
technical  project  officer was Mary L. Belefski, with assistance
from Jay von Hemert, and  Robert  W.  Hardy,  formerly  with  the
Agency.   It  is with special sadness that we note the passing of
Jay von Hemert on January 29, 1984.

Finally  appreciation  is   expressed   to   the   many   battery
manufacturing  companies  who  provided  detailed information and
explanations  of  the  many  and  varied  battery   manufacturing
processes  and  individuals who contributed comments and data for
the formulation of this document.
                              662

-------
                           SECTION XV

                          BIBLIOGRAPHY


"Antimony"  Final  Water Quality Criteria, PB117319, Criteria and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).

"Arsenic" Final Water Quality Criteria,  FBI 17327,  Criteria  and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards {45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).

"Batteries find a niche on the circuit board." Machine Design, L.
     Teschler  (editor), p. 75-79 (May 10, 1979).

"A       big       breakthrough      in      batteries...almost."
Mechanix Illustrated, p. 50-51, 115 (March 1978).

Bellack, Ervin, "Arsenic Removal  from  Potable  Water,"  Journal
American Water Works Association, July, 1971.

Bhattacharyya,   0.,   Jumawan,  Jr.,  A.B.  and  Grieves,  R.B.,
"Separation of Toxic  Heavy  Metals  by  Sulfide  Precipitation,"
Separation Science and Technology, 14(5), 1979, pp. 441-452.

Brown,  H.G.,  Hensley,  C.P., McKinney, G.L. and Robinson, J.L.,
"Efficiency of Heavy Metals Removal in Municipal Sewage  Treatment
Plants, "Environmental Letters, 5 (2), 1973, pp. 103-114.

"Cadmium" Final Water Quality Criteria,  PB117368,  Criteria  and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980.

Chamberlin,  N.S.  and Snyder, Jr., H.B., "Technology of Treating
Plating Waste," 10th Industrial Waste Conference.

Chen, K.Y. , Young, C.S., Jan, T.K. and Rohatgi, N., "Trace Metals
in Wastewater  Effluent,"  Journal  of  Water  Pollution  Control
Federation, Vol. 46, No. 12, December, 1974, pp. 2663-2675.

"Chlorinated Ethanes" Final Water Quality Criteria, PB117400, and
Standards (45  FR 79318-79379, Nobember 28, 1980).

"Chloroform" Filial Water Quality Criteria, PB117442, Criteria and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
                              663

-------
"Chromium"  Final  Water Quality Criteria, PB117467, Criteria and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).

Collins, D.H. Power Sources  3.   New  Castel  upon  Tyne:  Oriel
Press, 1971.

The Condensed Chemical Dictionary.   Van  Nostrand  Reinhold Co.,
Ninth Edition, 1977.

"Control technology for the metal finishing  industry  -  sulfide
precipitation."   Centec  Corporation,  Reston, VA., Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Contract  No.   68-03-2672
Work Directive 14, September, 1979.

"Copper"  Final  Water  Quality Criteria, PB 117475, Criteria and
Standards Division Office of Water Regulations and  Standards  (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).

Curry,  Nolan  A.,  "Philogophy and Methodology of  Metallic Waste
Treatment," 27th Industrial Waste Conference.

"Cyanide" Final Water Quality Criteria,  PB117483,  Criteria  and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).

Dean, J.  Lange's Handbook of Chemistry.  McGraw Hill, 1973.

Davis,  III,   James  A.,  and  Jacknow,  Joel,  "Heavy  Metals in
Wastewater in Three Urban  Areas",  Journal  of  Water  Pollution
Control Federation, September, 1975, pp. 2292-2297.

"Development  document  for  interim  final and proposed effluent
limitations guidelines and new source performance   standards  for
the   ore  mining  and  dressing  point  source  category."  U.S.
Environmental Protection  Agency,  EPA  440/1-75/061-c,  October,
1975.

"Development  document  for  proposed effluent limitations guide-
lines and  new  source  performance  standards  for  the  battery
manufacturing   point   source   category."   U.S.  Environmental
Protection Agency, 40 CFR 461, 1977.

"Development document for proposed existing  source  pretreatment
standards  for  the  electroplating  point source category." U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 440/1-78/085,  February 1978.
                              664

-------
"Dichloroethylenes"  Final  Water  Quality  Criteria,   FBI 17525,
Criteria  and Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (45 FR 79318-79379, November 28,1980).

"Draft development document for effluent  limitations  guidelines
and  new  source  performance  standards  for  the  miscellaneous
nonferrous metals segment of the nonferrous metals  manufacturing
point  source  category."   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,.
EPA 440/1-76/067, March 1977.

Electrochemical Power Sources: Primary and  Secondary  Batteries,
Edited by M. Barak, Peter Peregrimus Ltd. 1980.

Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.      Interscience,    Second
Edition, 1963.

Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.  John Wiley  &  Sons,  Third
Edition, 1978.

"Ethylbenzene"  Final  Water Quality Criteria, PB117590, Criteria
and Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards
(45 FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).

"Everready" Battery Applications and Engineering Data.      Union
Carbide Corporation, 1971.

Falk,  S.U., and A.J. Salkind.  Alkaline Storage Batteries.  John
Wiley & Sons Inc., 1969.    <

Flynn, G.  "Slowly  but  surely...batteries  move  up  the  power
ladder."  Product Engineering, p. 81-84  (September 1978).

"General  Electric  Company."   Communication  from Environmental
Industry Council to  Effluent  Limitations  Guidelines  Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 1980.

Ghosh, Mriganka M. and Zugger, Paul D.,  "Toxic Effects of Mercury
on  the  Activated  Sludge  Process,"  Journal of Water Pollution
Control Federation, Vol. 45, No. 3, March, 1973, pp. 424-433.

Graham,  R.W.   Primary Batteries - Recent Advances.  Noyes  Data
Corporation,  Park Ridge, NJ, Chemical Technology Review No. 105,
Energy Technology Review No. 25, 1978.

Graham, R.W.  Secondary Batteries - Recent Advances.  Noyes  Data
Corporation,  Park Ridge, NJ, Chemical Technology Review No. 106,
Energy Technology Review No. 26, 1978.
                              665

-------
Hall,   Ernst   P.   and   Barnes,   Devereaux,   "Treatment   of
Electroplating Rinse Waters and Effluent Solutions, "presented to
the  American  Institute of Chemical Engineers, Miami Beach, Fl.,
November 12, 1978.

"Halomethanes" Final Water Quality Criteria,  FBI 17624,  Criteria
and Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards
(45 FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).

Handbook of Analytical Chemistry.   L.  Meites  (editor),  McGraw
Hill, no date provided.

Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.  R.C. Weast (editor), Chemical
Rubber Company, Cleveland, OH, 50th Edition, 1969.

Hayes, Thomas D. and Theis, Thomas L.,  "The Distribution of Heavy
Metals  in  Anaerobic  Digestion,"  Journal  of  Water  Pollution
Control Federation, January, 1978, pp.  61-72.

Heise, G.W., and Cahoon, N.C.  The Primary Battery.  John Wiley &
Sons, 1971.

Howes,   R.,  and  R.  Kent.  Hazardous  Chemicals . Handling  and
Disposal.  Noyes Data Corporation, 1970.

"Inside the  C&D  Battery."   C&D  Batteries  Division,  Plymouth
Meeting, PA., no date provided.

"Insulation  keeps  lithium/metal  sulfide  battery  over  400C."
Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., p. 67-70 (June 1979).

"An Investigation of  Techniques  for  Removal  of  Cyanide  from
Electroplating    Wastes,"    Battelle   Columbus   Laboratories,
Industrial Pollution Control Section, November, 1971.

"Ionic equilibrium as applied to qualitative analysis."   Hogness
&  Johnson, Holt, Rinehart & Winston Co., 1954, complete citation
not available.

Intersociety  of  Energy   Conversion   Engineering   Converence,
Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference, 1972.

Intersociety   of   Energy   Conversion  Engineering  Conference,
Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference, 1974.

Intersociety  of  Energy   Conversion   Engineering   Conference,
Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference, 1975.

Jasinski, R.  High Energy Batteries.  Plenum Press, 1967.
                              666

-------
Jenkins,   S.   H.,   Keight,  D.G.  and  Humphreys,  R.E.,  "The
Solubilities of Heavy  Metal  Hydroxides  in  Water,  Sewage  and
Sewage  Sludge-I.   The  Solubilities  of Some Metal Hydroxides,"
International Journal of Air and Water Pollution, Vol.  8,  1964,
pp. 537-556^

Jones,   H.  R.   Environmental Control in the Organic and Petro-
chemical Industries.  Noyes Data Corp., 1971.

Klein, Larry  A.,  Lang,  Martin,  Nash,  Norman  and  Kirschner,
Seymour  E.,  "Sources  of  Metals  in New York City Wastewater."
Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 46,  No.  12,
December, '1974, pp.  2653-2663.

Kopp,  J.  F.,  and R. C. Kroner.  "Trace metals in waters of the
United States - a five year summary of trace metals in rivers and
lakes of the United States   (October   1,  1962  -  September  30,
1967)."  U.S. Department of the Interior, Cincinnati, OH, no date
provided.

Langer,  E. S.  "Contractor's engineering report for the develop-
ment of effluent limitations guidelines  for  the  pharmaceutical
industry   (BATEA,  NSPS, BCT, BMP, Pretreatment)."  Burns and Roe
Industrial  Services  Corp.,  Paramus,  NJ,  Prepared  for   U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, October 1979.

Lanouette,  K. H.  "Heavy metals removal."  Chemical Engineering/
Deskbook Issue, 84(22):73-80 (October  17, 1977).

"Lead" Final  Water  Quality  Criteria,  PB117681,  Criteria  and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).

Lonouette,   Kenneth   H.,   "Heavy    Metals  Removal,"  Chemical
Engineering, October 17, pp. 73-80.

Martin,   L.   Storage Batteries and Rechargeable Cell Technology
Noyes  Data  Corporation,  Park  Ridge,  NJ,  Chemical Technology
Review No. 37, 1974.

"Mercury" Final Water Quality Criteria,  PB117699,  Criteria  and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).

Mezey, Eugene J.   "Characterization of priority pollutants from  a
secondary    lead-acid   battery  manufacturing  facility."   U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-600/2-79-039, January 1979.
                              667

-------
Mohler, J. B.  "The rinsing equation."   Metal Finishing,  p.  64
(February 1978).

"More  power  to you."  C&D batteries Division, Plymouth Meeting,
PA, no date provided.

Mowat, Anne, "Measurement of Metal Toxicity by Biochemical Oxygen
Demand," Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol.  48,
No. 5, May, 1976, pp. 853-866.

Mytelka,  Alan  I.,  Czachor,  Joseph  S., Guggino William B. and
Golub, Howard, "Heavy Metals in Wastewater  and  Treatment  Plant
Effluents,"  Journal  of Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol.
45, No. 9, September, 1973, pp. 1859-1884.

"Naphthalene" Final Water Quality  Criteria,  FBI 17707,  Criteria
and Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards
(45 FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).

Neufeld,  Howard  D. and Hermann, Edward R., "Heavy Metal Removal
by  Activated  Sludge,"  Journal  of  Water   Pollution   Control
Federation, Vol.  47, No. 2, February, 1975, pp. 310-329.

Neufeld,  Ronald  D.,  Gutierrez,  Jorge and Novak, Richard A., A
Kinetic   Model   and   Equilibrium   Relationship   for    Metal
Accumulation,"  Journal  of  Water  Pollution Control Federation,
March, 1977, pp. 489-498.

"New  batteries."  Recovery  Engineering  News  -  Recycling  and
Reprocessing of Resources. L. Delpino (editor), ICON/ Information
Concepts, Inc., Philadelphia, PA, 4(1) January 1979.

"Nickel"  Final  Water  Quality  Criteria, PB117715, Criteria and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).

Oliver, Barry G. and Cosgrove,  Ernest  G.,  "The  Efficiency  of
Heavy  Metal Removal by a Conventional Activated Sludge Treatment
Plant," Water Research, Vol. 8, 1974, pp. 869-874.

"Organic  electrolyte  batteries."   In:   Intersociety of Energy
Conversion Engineering Conference (IECEC) Proceedings.        7th
Edition, p. 71-74 (1972.).

Patterson, J.  W.   Wastewater Treatment Technology.   Ann  Arbor
Science Publishers, 1975.
                              668

-------
Patterson,  James  W.,  "Carbonate  Precipitation  Treatment  for
Cadmium  and  Lead,"  presented  at  WWEMA   Industrial  Pollutant
conference, April 13, 1978.

Patterson,  J. W., H. E. Allen, and J. J. Scala.   "Carbonate prer
cipitation  for  heavy  metals   pollutants."    Journal of Water
Pollution Control Federation, p. 2397-2410  (December  1977).

Patterson,  James  W. and Minear, Roger A.,  "Wastewater Treatment
Technology,"  2nd  edition   (State  of  Illinois,  Institute  for
Environmental Quality) January, 1973.

Peck,  K.f  and J. C. Gorton.  "Industrial waste and  pretreatment
in the Buffalo municipal system."  U.S. Environmental  Protection
Agency, 1977.

"Pentachlorophenol"   Final   Water  Quality  Criteria  PB117764,
Criteria and Standards Division, Office of Water regulations  and
Standards  (45 FR 79318-79379, November 28,  1980).

"Phenol"  Final  Water  Quality  Criteria, PB117772,  Criteria and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).

."Phthalate  Esters"  Final  Water  Quality   Criteria,   PB117780,
Criteria  and Standards Division, Office of  Water  Regulations and
Standards  (45 FR 79318-79379, November 28,  1980).

Poison, C.J. and Tattergall, R.N., "Clinical  Toxicology,"   (J.B.
Lipincott Company),  1976.

"Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons" Final Water Quality Criteria,
PB117806,  Criteria  and  Standards  Division,  Office  of  Water
Regulations and Standards (45 FR 79318-79379, November 28,  1980).

Power Sources Conference, Proceedings of the  14th  Annual Meeting,
1960.

Power Sources Conference, Proceedings of the  16th, 17th and  1Sth
Annual Meetings, 1962-1964.

Power  Sources  Conference,  Proceedings of  the 20th  through 27th
Annual Meetings, 1966-1970,  1972, 1974, and  1976.

"Pretreatment  of  industrial  wastes."   Seminar  Handout,  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1978.

"Redox  battery  promising   to  store  energy   cheaply."  Machine
Design p.  6, no date available.
                              669

-------
Remirez,     R.      "Battery     development      revs      up."
Chemical Engineering, p. 49-51  (August 27, 1979).

"Removal  of priority pollutants by PACT* at the Chambers Works."
Letter communication from R. E. Funer, DuPont Nemours  &  Company
to R. Schaffer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 24,
1979.

Roberts,   R.    "Review   of  DOE  battery  and  electrochemical
technology program."  U.S. Department of Energy, ET-78-C-01-3295,
September 1979.

Robinson, A. K. "Sulfide  vs  Hydroxide  Precipitation  of  Heavy
Metals  from  Industrial  Wastewater," Presented at EPA/AES First
Annual conference on Advanced Pollution  Control  for  the  Metal
Finishing Industry, January 17-19, 1978.

Rohrer,  Kenneth  L.,   "Chemical  Precipitants  for  Lead Bearing
Wastewaters," Industrial Water Engineering, June/July, 1975.

Santo, J.t J. Duncan, et  al.   "Removal  of  heavy  metals  from
battery  manufacturing  wastewaters  by  Hydroperm  cross  - flow
microfiltration."    U.S.   Environmental   Protection    Agency,
Presented  at  the Second Annual Conference on Advanced Pollution
Control for the Metal Finishing Industry, Kissimmee, FL, February
5-7, 1979.

Sax, N. I.  Industrial  Pollution.   Van  Nostrand  Reinhold  Co.,
1974.

Sax,  N.  I.   Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials.  Van
Nostrand Reinhold Co.,  1975.

Schroder, Henry A. and  Mitchener, Marian, "Toxic Effects of Trace
Elements on the Reproduction  of  Mice  and  Rats,"  Archives  of
Environmental Health, Vol. 23, August, 1971, pp. 102-106.

Scott, Murray C., "Sulfex" - A new.Process Technology for Removal
of  Heavy  Metals  from Waste Streams," presented at j.977 Purdue
Industrial Waste Conference, May 10, 11, and 12, 1977.

Scott, Murray C.,  "Treatment  of  Plating  Effluent  by  Sulfide
Process," Products Finishing, August, 1978.

Schlauch,  R.  M.,  and A.  C.  Epstein.   "Treatment  of  metal
finishing wastes by sulfide precipitation."   U.S.  Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA  600/2-77-049, February 1977.
                              670

-------
"Selenium"  Final  Water Quality Criteria, PB117814, Criteria and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).

Shapira, N. I., H. Liu, et al.   "The demonstration of a crossflow
microfiltration system for the removal of toxic heavy metals from
battery manufacturing wastewater effluents."  U.S.  Environmental
Protection   Agency,   Presented  at  Division  of  Environmental
Chemistry 179th  National  Meeting,  American  Chemical  Society,
Houston, TX, March 23-28, 1980.

"Silver"  Final  Water  Quality  Criteria, PB117822, Criteria and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).

Sorg, Thomas  J.,  "Treatment  Technology  to  meet  the  Interim
Primary  Drinking  Water  Regulations  for  Inorganics,"  Journal
American Water Works Association, February, 1978, pp. 105-112.

"Sources of metals in municipal sludge and  industrial  pretreat-
ment  as  a  control  option."   ORD  Task Force on Assessment of
Sources of Metals  in  Sludges  and  Pretreatment  as  a  Control
Option, U.S. EPA,  1977.

Stone,  G.  "Your best buy in small batteries."  Popular Science,
p. 76, 79-81, 116  (August 1979).
                            *•
Stover, R.C., Sommers, L.E. and Silviera,  D.J.,  "Evaluation  of
Metals  in Wastewater Sludge," Journal of Water Pollution Control
Federation, Vol. 48, No. 9, September, 1976, pp. 2165-2175.

"SulfexT.  Heavy  Metals  Waste  Treatment   Process,"   Technical
Bulletin, Vol. XII, code 4413.2002 (Permutit®) July, 1977.

"Sulfex  TM Heavy Metals Waste Treatment Process."  Permutit Co.,
Inc., Technical Bulletin 13(6), October 1976.

Tappett, T.  "Some facts about  your  car's  battery."   Mechanix
Illustrated, p. 100, 102-103 (March 1978).

"Tetrachloroethylene"  Final  Water  Quality  Criteria, PB117830,
Criteria and Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations  and
Standards (45 FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).

"Toluene"  Final  Water  Quality criteria, PB117855, Criteria and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
                              671

-------
"Trichloroethylene"  Final  Water  Quality  criteria,   PB117871,
Criteria  and Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (45 FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).

UnitOperations for Treatment of Hazardous IndustrialWastewater.
D. J. Denyo (editor), A 978.
                     7  •                     :
Vaccari, J. A.  Product Engineering, p. 48-49  (January 1979).

Venugopal, B. and Luckey, T.D., "Metal Toxicity  in  Mammals  .2,"
(Plenum Press, New ¥ork, N.Y.), 1978.

Verschueren,     K.     Handbook of EnvironmentalData on Organic
Chemicals.  Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1977.

Vinal, G. W.  Primary Batteries.  John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1950.

Vinal, G. W.   Storage Batteries.   John  Wiley  &  Sons,  Fourth
Edition, 1955.

Water QualityCriteria.   The  Resources  Agency  of  California,
State Water Quality Control Board, Publication  No.  3-A,  Second
Edition, 1963.

"Zinc"  Final  Water  Quality  Criteria,  FBI 17897,  Criteria and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).

"1977 census of manufacturers - primary batteries,  dry  and  wet
(SIC  3692)."   U.S.  Department  of  Commerce, MC-77-I-36F-2(p),
April 1979.

"1977 census of manufacturers - storage  batteries  (SIC  3691)."
U.S. Department of Commerce, MC-77-I-36F-1(p), April 1979.
                              672

-------
                           SECTION XVI

                            GLOSSARY

                                      »
Active  Material  -  Electrode material that reacts chemically to
produce electrical energy when a  cell  discharges.   Also,  such
material  in  its  original  composition,  as  applied to make an
electrode.

Air Scrubbing - A method of removing air impurities such as  dust
or  fume  by  contact  with  sprayed water or an aqueous chemical
solution.

Alkalinity - (1) The extent to which an aqueous solution contains
more hydroxyl ions than hydrogen ions.  (2) 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.

Amalgamation -  (1) Alloying a zinc anode with mercury to  prevent
internal   corrosion  and  resultant  gassing  in  a  cell.   (2)
Treatment of wastewater by passing it  through  a  bed  of  metal
particles to alloy and thereby remove mercury from the water.

Anode  -  The  electrode  by  which  electrons leave a cell.  The
negative electrode in a cell during discharge.

Attrition Mill - A ball mill in which pig lead  is  ground  to  a
powder  and  oxidized  to  make the active material (a mixture of
lead and lead oxide called leady oxide) in lead acid batteries.

Backwashing - The process of cleaning a filter  or  ion  exchange
column by a reverse flow of water.

Baffles  -  Deflector  vanes, guides, grids, gratings, or similar
devices constructed or placed in flowing water or  wastewater  to
(1)  effect  a  more  uniform  distribution  of velocities or (2)
divert, guide, or agitate the liquids.

Bag House - The large chamber for holding  bag  filters  used  to
filter  gas streams from a furnace such as in manufacture of lead
oxide.

Ball Mill - A reactor in which pig lead is ground to a powder and
oxidized to make the active material  (a mixture of lead and  lead
oxide called leady oxide) for lead acid batteries.
                              673

-------
Barton  Pot  - A reactor vessel, used in the Barton process, into
which molten lead is fed and vigorously  agitated  to  form  fine
lead  droplets  in the presence of air.  The resulting mixture of
unoxidized lead and lead oxides (leady oxide) comprises an active
material in lead acid batteries.

Batch Treatment - A waste treatment method  where  wastewater  is
collected   over  a  period  of  time  and  then  treated  before
discharge, often in the same vessel in which it is collected.

Battery  -  A  device  that  transforms  chemical   energy   into
electrical  energy.   This  term  usually  applies to two or more
cells connected in series, parallel or  a  cpmbination  of  both.
Common usage has blurred the distinction between the terms "cell"
and  "battery"  and frequently the term battery is applied to any
finished entity sold as a single unit, whether  it  contains  one
cell,  as  do  most flashlight batteries, or several cells, as do
automotive batteries.

Bobbin - An  assembly  of  the  positive  current  collector  and
cathode material, usually molded into a cylinder.

Buffer  -  Any  of  certain  combinations  of  chemicals  used to
stabilize the pH values or alkalinities of solutions.

Burn - Connection of terminals, posts, or connectors  in  a  lead
acid battery by welding.

Button  Cell  -  -A  tiny, circular battery, any of several types,
made for a watch or for other microelectronic applications.

Can - The outer case of a cylindrical cell.

Carcinogen - A substance that causes cancer.

Casting - The process by which grids for lead acid batteries  are
made   by   pouring   molten   lead   into   molds  and  allowing
solidification.                              ,        ,
            •>                                 . '  .".        .''..'
Cathode - The electrode by which electrons  enter  a  cell.   The
positive electrode in a cell during discharge.

Cathodic   Polarization  -  Electrical  connection  of  a  nickel
electrode plaque to promote deposition of active nickel material.

Caustic  -  (1)  An  alkaline  battery  electrolyte,  sodium   or
potassium  hydroxide.   (2) Sodium hydroxide, used to precipitate
heavy metals from wastewater.
                              674

-------
Cell -  The  basic  building  block  of  a  battery.   It  is  an
electrochemical  device consisting of an anode and a cathode in a
common electrolyte kept apart with a  separator.   This  assembly
may  be  used in its own container as a single cell battery or be
combined and interconnected with other cells in  a  container  to
form a multicelled battery.

Central  Treatment  Facility  -  Treatment  plant which co-treats
process wastewaters from more than one manufacturing operation or
co-treats process wastewaters with noncontact cooling  water,  or
with    nonprocess    wastewaters    (e.g.,   utility   blowdown,
miscellaneous runoff, etc).

Centrifugation - Use of a  centrifuge  to  remove  water  in  the
manufacture  of active material or in the treatment of wastewater
sludge.

Charge - The conversion of electrical energy into chemical energy
within a cell-battery.  This  restoration  of  active  electronic
materials  is  done by forcing a current through the cell-battery
in  the  opposite  direction  to  that  during  discharge.    See
"Formation."

Chemical Coagulation - The destablization and initial aggregation
of colloidal and finely divided suspended matter by the action of
a floe-forming chemical.

Chemical  Oxygen Demand (COD) - (1) A test based on the fact that
organic compounds, with few exceptions, can be oxidized to carbon
dioxide and water by the action of strong oxidizing agents  under
acid  conditions.   Organic matter is converted to carbon dioxide
and water regardless of  the  biological  assimilability  of  the
substances.   One  of  the  chief limitations is its inability to
differentiate between biologically  oxidizable  and  biologically
inert  organic  matter.   The major advantage of this test is the
short time required for evaluation (2 hrs).  (2)  The  amount  of
oxygen  required  for  the  chemical oxidization of organics in a
liquid.

Chemical Precipitation - The  use  of  an  alkaline  chemical  to
remove dissolved metals from wastewater.

Chemical  Treatment  -  Treating  contaminated  water by chemical
means.

Clarifier - A unit which provides settling and removal of  solids
from wastewater.
                              675

-------
Closed Formation - Formation of lead battery plates done with the
plates already in the battery case.

CMC - Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose; an organic liquid used as a
binder in electrode formulations.

Colloids - A finely divided dispersion of one material called the
"Dispersed phase" (solid) in another material which is called the
"dispersion medium" (liquid).

Compatible   Pollutant   -   An   industrial  pollutant  that  is
successfully treated by a secondary municipal treatment system.

Composite Wastewater Sample - A combination of individual samples
of water or wastewater taken at selected intervals and  mixed  in
proportion  to  flow  or  time  to  minimize the effect of stream
variability.

Concentration, Hydrogen Ion - The  weight  of  hydrogen  ions  in
grams  per liter of solution.  Commonly expressed as the pH value
that represents the logarithm of the reciprocal of  the  hydrogen
ion concentration.

Contamination  -  A general term signifying the introduction into
water  of  microorganisms,  chemicals,  wastes  or  sewage  which
renders the water unfit for its intended use.

Contractor  Removal  -  The  disposal  of  oils, spent solutions,
wastewaters, or sludge by means of an approved scavenger service.

Cooling Tower - A device used to remove heat from  cooling  water
used  in  the  manufacturing processes before returning the water
for recycle or reuse.

Countercurrent Cascade Rinsing - A method of rinsing  or  washing
using  a segmented tank system in which water flows from one tank
segment to the next counter to the direction of movement  of  the
material' being washed.

Current  Collector  -  The  grid  portion  of the electrode which
conducts the current to the terminal.

Cyclone Separator - A funnel-shaped device for removing particles
from air or other fluids by centrifugal means.

Decantation - A method for mechanical dewatering of a  wet  solid
by  pouring  off  the  liquid  without  disturbing the underlying
sediment or precipitate.
                              676

-------
Demineralization - The removal from water of mineral contaminants
usually present in ionized form.  The methods used  include  ion-
exchange techniques, flash distillation or reverse osmosis.

Depolarizer  -  A  term  often  used to denote the cathode active
material.
        »
Dewatering - Any process whereby water is removed from sludge.

Discharge - Release of electric power from a battery.

Discharge o_f Pollutant(s) - The  addition  of  any  pollutant  to
waters of the U.S. from any point source.

Dissolved Oxygen  (DO; - The oxygen dissolved in sewage, water,  or
other liquid, usually expressed in milligrams per liter.

Dissolved  Solids  -  Theoretically the anhydrous residues of the
dissolved constituents in water.  Actually the term is defined by
the method  used  in  determination.   In  water  and  wastewater
treatment, the Standard Methods tests are used.

Dry  Charge  Process - A process for the manufacture of lead acid
storage batteries in which the plates are charged by electrolysis
in sulfuric acid, rinsed, and drained or dried prior to  shipment
of  the  battery.   Charging  of  the  plates  usually  occurs in
separate containers before assembly of the  battery  but  may  be
accomplished in the battery case.  Batteries produced by the dry-
charge  process  are  shipped  without  acid  electrolyte.   Also
referred to as dehydrated plate or dehydrated batteries.

Drying Beds - Areas for dewatering of sludge by  evaporation  and
seepage.

Effluent  - Industrial wastewater discharged to a sanitary sewer,
stream, or other disposal point outside the plant property.

Electrode - The positive (cathode) or negative (anode) element in
a cell or battery, that enables it to provide electric power.

Electrodeposition  -  Electrochemical  deposition  of  an  active
material from solution onto an electrode grid or plaque.

Electroforming - See (1) Electrodeposition, and (2) Formation.

Electroimpregnation - See Cathodic Polarization.

Electrolyte  -  The liquid or material that permits conduction of
ions between cell electrodes.
                              677

-------
Electrolytic Precipitation - Generally refers to making  powdered
active  material by electrodeposition and physical removal; e.g.,
silver powder from silver bars.

Electroplating - (1) Electrodeposition of a metal or alloy from a
suitable electrolyte  solution;  the  article  to  be  plated  is
connected  as  the  ca/thode  in  the electrolyte solution; direct
current is introduced 'through the anode  which  consists  of  the
metal  to  be  deposited.   (2)  The  Electroplating Point Source
Category.

Element - A combination  of  negative  and  positive  plates  and
separators to make a cell in a lead-acid storage battery.

End-of-Pipe Treatment - The reduction or removal of pollutants by
treatment  just  prior  to actual discharge to a point outside an
industrial plant.

Equalization - The collection of  waste  streams  from  different
sources,  which vary in pH, chemical constituents, and flow rates
in  a  common  container.   The   effluent   stream   from   this
equalization  tank  has  a fairly constant flow and pH level, and
will contain a homogeneous chemical mixture.  This tank helps  to
prevent an unnecessary shock to the waste treatment system.

Evaporation  Ponds  -  A  pond,  usually  lined,  for disposal of
wastewater  by  evaporation;  effective  only  in  areas  of  low
rainfall.

Filter, Rapid Sand - A filter for the purification of water where
water  which  has been previously treated, usually by coagulation
and  sedimentation,  is  passed  through   a   filtering   medium
consisting  of  a  layer  of  sand or prepared anthracite coal or
other suitable material, usually from 24 to 30 inches  thick  and
resting  on a supporting bed of gravel or a porous medium such as
carborundum.  The filtrate is removed by  a  drain  system.   The
filter is cleaned periodically by reversing the flow of the water
upward  through  the filtering medium.  Sometimes supplemented by
mechanical  or  air  agitation  during  backwashing   to   remove
impurities that are lodged in the sand.

Filter,  Trickling  - A filter consisting of an artificial bed of
coarse material,  such  as  broken  stone,  clinkers,  slats,  or
plastic media over which wastewater is distributed and applied in
drops,   films,   or   spray,   from  troughs,  drippers,  moving
distributors or fixed nozzles and through which  it  trickles  to
the   under-drain,   oxidizing  organic  materials  by  means  of
microorganisms attached to the filter media.
                              678

-------
Filter, Vacuum - A filter consisting of  a  rotating  cylindrical
drum  mounted  on  a horizontal axis, covered with a filter cloth
partially submerged in a liquid.  A vacuum  is  maintained  under
the  cloth  for  the  larger  part  of  a  revolution  to extract
moisture.  Solids collected on the surface of  the  filter  cloth
are continuously scraped off.

Filtrate - Liquid that has passed through a filter.

Filtration  - Removal of solid particles from liquid or particles
from air or gas stream through a permeable membrane or deep  bed.
The  filter  types  include:  gravity, - pressure, microstraining,
ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis (hyperfiltration).

Float Gauge - A device for measuring the elevation  of  a  liquid
surface,  the  actuating element of which is a buoyant float that
rests on the liquid surface and rises  or  falls  with  it.   The
elevation  of the surface is measured by a chain or tape attached
to the float.

Floe - A very fine, fluffy mass formed by the aggregation of fine
suspended particles.

Flocculator - An apparatus designed for the formation of floe  in
water or sewage.

Flocculation   -   In   water   and   wastewater  treatment,  the
agglomeration of colloidal and finely  divided  suspended  matter
afcer coagulation by addition of chemicals and gentle stirring by
either mechanical or hydraulic means.

Flock  -  Natural  or  synthetic fiber added to lead-acid battery
paste as a stiffening agent.

Flow Proportioned Sample - See "Composite Wastewater Sample."

Formation - An electrochemical process which converts the battery
electrode material into  the  desired  chemical  condition.   For
example,  in  a  silver-zinc  battery  the  silver applied to the
cathode  is converted to silver oxide and the zinc  oxide  applied
to  the  anode  is  converted  to elemental zinc.  "Formation" is
generally used interchangeably with "charging," although  it  may
involve a repeated charge-discharge cycle.

Gelled  Electrolyte  -  Electrolyte which may or may not be mixed
with electrode material, that has been  gelled  with  a  'chemical
agent to immobilize it.

GPP - Gallons per day.
                              679

-------
Grab  Sample  - A single sample of wastewater taken without a set
time or at a set flow.

Grease - In wastewater, a group  of  substances  including  fats,
waxes,  free  fatty  acids,  calcium and magnesium soaps, mineral
oil, and certain other nonfatty materials.

Grease Skimmer - A device for removing grease or  scum  from  the
surface of wastewater in a tank.

Grid  -  The  support  for  the  active  materials and a means to
conduct current from the active materials to the cell  terminals;
usually  a  metal  screen,  expanded  metal mesh, or a perforated
metal plate.

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  in  boilers,  damage  in  some  industrial
processes,  and  sometimes  objectionable  taste.   It   may   be
determined  by  a  standard laboratory 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.

Heavy Metals - A general name  given  to  the  ions  of  metallic
elements  such  as  copper, zinc, chromium, and nickel.  They are
normally  removed  from  wastewater  by  forming   an   insoluble
precipitate (usually a metallic hydroxide).

Holding  Tank  -  A  tank  for  accumulating  wastewater prior to
treatment.

Hydrazine Treatment - Application of a reducing agent to  form  a
conductive metal film on a silver oxide cathode.

Hydroquinone - A developing agent used to form a conductive metal
film on a silver oxide cathode.

Impregnation  -  Method  of  making an electrode by precipitating
active material on a sintered nickel plaque.

In-Process Control Technology - The regulation  and  conservation
of chemicals and rinse water throughout the operations as opposed
to end-of-pipe treatment.

Industrial  Wastes  - The liquid wastes from industrial processes
as distinct from domestic or sanitary wastes.
                              680

-------
Influent - Water or other liquid, either raw or  partly  treated,
flowing into a treatment step or plant.

Ion  Exchange - Wastewater treatment by contact with a resin that
exchanges harmless ions (e.g. sodium) for  toxic  inorganic  ions
(e.g. mercury), which the resin adsorbs.

Jacket  - The outer cover of a dry cell battery, usually a paper-
plastic laminate.

Kjeldahl Nitrogen - A  method  of  determining  the  ammonia  and
organically  bound  nitrogen in the -3 valence state but does not
determine, nitrite, azides,  nitro,  nitroso,  oximes  or  nitrate
nitrogen.

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
safeguard against upsets in the clarifier; for  stabilization  of
organic  matter  by  biological oxidation; for storage or sludge;
and for cooling of water.

Landfill - Land area used for controlled burial of solid  wastes,
sludges,   ashes,  industrial  wastes,  construction  wastes,  or
demonition wastes.  Solid wastes are garbage, refuse,  and  other
discarded   material   including  solid,  liquid,  semisolid,  or
contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial,
mining,  and  agricultural   operations,   and   from   community
activities.

Leaching  -  The  solubilizing  of  pollutants by the action of a
percolating liquid, such as water, seeping  through  a  landfill,
which potentially contaminates ground water.

Leady  Oxide  - Active material used for manufacture of lead-acid
battery plates consisting of a mixture of lead oxides and  finely
divided elemental lead.

Lime  -  Any  of  a family of chemicals consisting essentially of
calcium hydroxide made from limestone  (calcite) which is composed
almost wholly of calcium carbonates or a mixture of  calcium  and
magnesium ceirbonates.

Limiting Orifice - A device that limits flow by constriction to a
relatively  small  area.   A constant flow can be obtained over a
wide range of upstream pressures.

Make-Up Water - Net amount  of  water  used  by  any  process  or
process step, not including recycled water.
                              681

-------
Mass  -  The  active  material  used  in a pocket plate cell, for
example "nickel mass."

Milligrams Per Liter  (tng/1)  -  This  is  a  weight  per  volume
concentration designation used in water and waste analysis.

Mixed  Media  Filtration  - A depth filter which uses two or more
filter materials of differing specific gravities selected  so  as
to produce a filter uniformly graded from coarse to fine.

National  Pollutant  Discharge  Elimination System (NPDES) - This
federal mechanism for regulating point source discharge by  means
of permits.

Neutralization  -  Chemical  addition of either acid or base to a
solution to adjust the pH to approximately 7.

Non-Contact Cooling Water - Water used for cooling which does not
come into direct contact  with  any  raw  material,  intermediate
product, waste product or finished product.

Open  Formation  - Formation of lead battery plates done with the
plates in open  tanks  of  sulfuric  acid.   Following  formation
plates are placed in the battery cases.

Outfall - The point or location where wastewater discharge from a
sewer, drain, or conduit.

Oxidation  - 1. Chemical addition of oxygen atom(s) to a chemical
compound; 2. In general any chemical reaction in which an element
or ion is raised to a more positive valence state; 3. The process
at a battery anode during discharge.

Parshall Flume - A calibrated device developed  by  Parshall  for
measuring  the  flow  of  liquid in an open conduit.  It consists
essentially of a contracting length, a throat, and  an  expanding
length.-  At  the  throat is a sill over which the flow passes as
critical depth.  The upper and lower heads are each measured at a
definite distance from  the  sill.   The  lower  head  cannot  be
measured unless the sill is submerged more than about 67 percent.

Paste  -  Powdered  active material mixed with a liquid to form a
paste to facilitate application to a grid to make an electrode.

Pasting Machine - An automatic machine for  applying  lead  oxide
paste in the manufacture of lead-acid batteries.

pH  -  The  reciprocal  of  the  logarithm  of  the  hydrogen ion
concentration.  Th6 concentration is the weight of hydrogen ions,
                              682

-------
in grams per liter of solution.  Neutral water, for example,  has
a  pH  value of 7.  At pH lower than 7, a solution is acidic.  At
pH higher than 7, a solution is alkaline.

pH Adjustment -  A  means  of  treating  wastewater  by  chemical
addition; usually the addition of lime to precipitate heavy metal
pollutants.

Plaque  - A porous body of sintered' metal on a metal grid used as
a current collector and holder  of  electrode  active  materials,
especially for nickel-cadmium batteries.

Plate  -  A  positive  or  negative  electrode used in a battery,
generally consisting of active material  deposited  on  or  in  a
current-collecting support.

Pocket Plate - A type of battery construction where the electrode
is a perforated metal envelope containing the active material.

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.

Pollutant  Parameters  -   Those   constituents   of   wastewater
determined  to  be  detrimental  to  the  public  health  or  the
environment and, therefore, requiring control.

Po 1 y e 1 ec t r o.l y tes - Materials used as a coagulant or  a  coagulant
aid  in  water  and  wastewater treatment.  They are'synthetic or
natural polymers containing  ionic  constituents.   They  may  be
cationic, anionic, or nonionic.

Post - A battery terminal, especially on a lead-acid battery.

Precipitation  -  Process  of separation of a dissolved substance
from a solution or suspension by  chemical  or  physical  change,
usually as an insoluble solid.

Pressed  Powder  -  A  method  of making an electrode by pressing
powdered active material into a metal grid.

Pressure  Filtration  -  The  process   of   solid-liquid   phase
separation  effected  by  forcing the more permeable liquid phase
through a mesh which is impenetrable to the solid phase.
                              683

-------
Pretreatment - Any wastewater treatment process used to partially
reduce pollution load before the wastewater is introduced into  a
main sewer system or delivered to a municipal treatment plant.

Primary  Battery - A battery which must usually be replaced after
one discharge; i.e., the battery cannot be recharged.

Primary Settling - The first settling unit  for  the  removal  of
settleable  solids  through  which  wastewater  is  passed  in  a
treatment works.

Primary  Treatment  -  A  process  to  remove  substantially  all
floating and settleable solids in wastewater and partially reduce
the concentration of suspended solids.

Priority  Pollutant  -  Any  one  of  the 129 specific pollutants
established by the EPA from the  65  pollutants  and  classes  of
pollutants as outlined in the Consent Decree of June 8, 1976.

Process  Wastewater  -  Any  water which, during manufacturing or
processing, comes into direct contact with or  results  from  the
production  or  use  of  any raw materials, intermediate product,
finished product, by product, or waste product.

Raw Water - Plant intake water prior to any treatment or use.

Recycled  Water  -  Process  wastewater  or  treatment   facility
effluent which is recirculated to the same process.

Reduction  -  1. A chemical process in which the positive valence
of species is decreased.  2. Wastewater treatment to (a)  convert
hexavalent  chromium  to  the  trivalent  form, or (b) reduce and
precipitate mercury ions.

Reserve  Cell  -  A  class  of  cells  which  are  designated  as
"reserve",  because  they  are  supplied  to  the  user in a non-
activated state.  Typical of this class of cell  is  the  carbon-
zinc  air reserve cell, which is produced with all the components
in a dry or non-activated state, and is activated with water when
it is ready to be used.

Retention Time - The time allowed for  solids  to  collect  in  a
settling  tank.   Theoretically  retention  time  is equal to the
volume of  the  tank  divided  by  the  flow  rate.   The  actual
retention  time  is  determined by the purpose of the tank.  Also
the design residence time in a  tank  or  reaction  vessel  which
allows  a  chemical  reaction  to  go  to completion, such as the
reduction of hexavalent chromium or the destruction of cyanide.
                              684

-------
Reused Water - Process wastewater or treatment facility  effluent,
which  is further used in a different manufacturing process.  For
example, the reuse of process wash water as  non-contact  cooling
water.

Reverse  Osmosis  (Hyperfiltration)  -  A  treatment  or recovery
process in which polluted water is put under a  pressure  greater
than  the  osmotic  pressure  to  drive water across the membrane
while leaving behind the dissolved salts as a concentrate,

Reversible Reaction - A chemical reaction capable  of  proceeding
in either direction depending upon the conditions.

Rinse  -  Removal  of  foreign  materials  from the surface of an
object by flow or impingement of a liquid (usually water) on  the
surface.    In   the   battery  industry,  "rinse"  may  be  used
interchangeably with "wash".

Ruben - Developer of the mercury-zinc battery; also refers to the
mercury-zinc battery.

Sand Filtration - A process of filtering wastewater through sand.
The waste water is trickled over the bed of sand,  which  retains
suspended  solids.   The  clean water flows out through drains in
the bottom of the bed.  The solids accumulating  at  the  surface
must be removed from the bed periodically.

Sanitary  Sewer  -  A sewer that carries liquid and water carried
wastes to a municipal treatment plant.

Sanitary Water - Wastewater from toilets, sinks, and showers.

Scrubber _ General term used in reference  to  an  air  pollution
control device that uses a water spray.

Sealed  Cell  -  A  battery  cell  which  can operate in a sealed
condition during both charge and discharge.

Secondary Cel1 - An electrochemical cell or battery  system  that
can be recharged; a storage battery.

Secondary  Wastewater  Treatment - The treatment of wastewater by
biological methods after primary treatment by sedimentation.

Sedimentation -  The  gravity  induced  deposition  of  suspended
matter carried by water, wastwater, or other liquids, by.gravity.
It  is  usually- accomplished  by  reducing  the  velocity of the
suspended material.  Also called settling.
                              685

-------
Separator - A porous material, in a battery system, used to  keep
plates of opposite polarity separated, yet allowing conduction of
ions through the electrolyte.

Service  Water  - Raw water which has been treated preparatory to
its use in a process of operation; i.e., make-up water.

Settling Ponds -  A  large  shallow  body  of  water  into  which
industrial  wastewaters  are discharged.  Suspended solids settle
from the wastewaters due to the long retention time of the  water
in the pond.

Settleable  Solids  (1)  That matter in wastewater which will not
stay in suspension during a preselected settling period, such  as
one  hour,  but  settles  to  the bottom.  (2) In the Imhoff cone
test, the volume of matter that settles to the bottom of the cone
in one hour.

Sewer - A pipe or conduit, generally  closed,  but  normally  not
flowing full or carrying sewage and other waste liquids.

SIC  - Standard Industrial Classification - Defines industries in
accordance with the composition and structure of the economy  and
covers the entire field of economic activity.

Silver  Etch  -  Application  of  nitric  acid  to silver foil to
prepare it as a support for active material.

Sinter - Heating a metal powder such as  nickel  to  an  elevated
temperature   below   its   melting  point  which  causes  it  to
agglomerate and adhere to the supporting grid.

Sintered-plate Electrode -  The  electrode  formed  by  sintering
metallic  powders  to  form a porous structure, which serves as a
current collector, and on which the active electrode material  is
deposited.

Skimming Tank - A tank so designed that floating matter will rise
and  remain on the surface of the wastewater until removed, while
the liquid discharges continuously under  certain  wall  or  scum
boards.

Sludge  -  A  suspension,  slurry, or solids matter produced in a
waste treatment process.

Sludge Conditioning - A process employed to  prepare  sludge  for
final  disposal.   Can  be  thickening, digesting, heat treatment
etc.
                              686

-------
Sludge Disposal - The final disposal of solid wastes.

Sludge Thickening -  The  increase  in  solids  concentration  of
sludge in a sedimentation or digestion tank or thickener.

Solvent  -  A  liquid  capable of dissolving or dispersing one or
more other substances.

Spills -  A  chemical  or  material  spill  is  an  unintentional
discharge  of  more than 10 percent of daily usage of a regularly
used substance.  In the case of a rarely used (one  per  year  or
less)  chemical  or  substance, a spill is that amount that would
result in 10% added loading to the normal  air,  water  or  solid
waste loadings measured as the closets equivalent pollutant.

Sponge - A highly porous metal powder.

Stabilization  Lagoon  - A shallow pond for storage of wastewater
before discharge.  Such lagoons may  serve  only  to  detain  and
equalize  wastewater  composition before regulated discharge to a
stream, but often they are used for biological oxidation.

Stabilization Pond - A type of oxidation pond in which biological
oxidation  of  organic  matter  is   effected   by   natural   or
artificially  accelerated  transfer  of  oxygen to the water from
air.       •

Storage Battery - A battery that can store chemical  energy  with
the  potential  to  change  to  electricity.   This conversion of
chemical energy to electricity can be reversed thus allowing  the
battery*to be recharged.

Strap  -  A metal conductor connecting individual cells to form a
battery.

Sump - A pit  or  tank  which  receives  and  temporarily  stores
drainage  or  wastewater  at  the  lowest point of circulating or
drainage system.

Suspended Solid - (1) Solids that are  in  suspension  in  water,
wastewater,  or other liquids, and which are largely removable by
laboratory filtering.   (2) The quantity of material removed  from
wastewater  in  a  laboratory  test,  as  prescribed in "Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater" and referred
to as non-filterable residue.

Surface Waters - Any visible stream or body of water.
                              687

-------
Terminal - The part of a battery to which an external circuit  is
connected.

Thickener   -   A  device  wherein  the  solids  in  slurries  or
suspensions are increased  by  gravity  settling  and  mechanical
separation  of  the  phases,  or  by  floatation  and  mechanical
separation of the phases.

Total Cyanide - The total content  of  cyanide  including  simple
and/or complex ions.  In analytical terminology, total cyanide is
the sum of cyanide amenable to chlorination and that which is not
amenable   to   chlorination  according  to  standard  analytical
methods.

Total Solids - The total amount of solids in wastewater including
both dissolved and suspended solids.

Toxicity - The ability of a  substance  to  cause  injury  to  an
organism through chemical activity.

Treatment Efficiency - Usually refers to the percentage reduction
of  a  specific  pollutant  or  group of pollutants by a specific
wastewater treatment step or treatment plant.

Treatment Facility Effluent - Treated process wastewater.

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  reported  in
arbitrary  turbidity  units  determined  by measurements'of light
diffraction.

Vacuum Filtration  - See Filter, Vacuum.

Vented Cell - A type of battery cell which has a vent that allows
the escape of gas and the addition of water.

Wash - Application of water, an aqueous solution, or  an  organic
solvent to a battery part to remove contaminating substances.

Water Balance - An accounting of all water entering and leaving a
unit process or operation in either a liquid or vapor form or via
raw material, intermediate product, finished product, by-product,
waste  product,  or  via process leaks, so that the difference in
flow between all entering and leaving streams is zero.

Weir - A device that has a crest and some  containment  of  known
geometric shape, such as a V, trapezoid, or rectangle and is used
                              688

-------
to  measure flow of liquid.  The liquid surface is exposed to the
atmosphere.  Flow is related to upstream height  or  water  above
the  crest, to position of crest with respect to downstream water
surface, and to geometry of the weir opening.

Wet Charge Process - A process for the manufacture of  lead  acid
storage  batteries in which the plates are formed by electrolysis
in sulfuric acid.  The *pLate forming process is usually done with
the plates inside the assembled battery case but may be done with
the plates in open tanks.  In the case of  large  industrial  wet
lead  acid  batteries,  problems  in  formation  associated  with
inhomogeneities in the large plates are alleviated by  open  tank
formation.   Wet  charge  process batteries are shipped with acid
electrolyte inside the battery casing.

Wet Shelf Life - The period of time that a secondary battery  can
stand in the charged condition before total degradation.

Wet Scrubber - A unit in which dust and fumes are removed from an
air or gas stream to a liquid.  Gas-liquid contact is promoted by
jets, sprays, bubble chambers, etc.
                              689

-------
                                               METRIC UNITS

                                             CONVERSION TABLE
VO
o
MULTIPLY (ENGLISH UNITS)

     "ENGLISH UNIT     ABBREVIATION

acre                    ac
acre - feet             ac ft
British Thermal Unit    BTU
British Thermal Unit/
  pound                 BTU/lb

cubic feet/minute       cfm
cubic feet/second       cfs
cubic feet              cu ft
cubic feet           >   cu ft
cubic inches            cu in
degree Fahrenheit       °F
feet                    ft
gallon                  gal
gallon/minute           gpm
horsepower              hp
inches                  in
inches of mercury       in Hg
pounds                  Ib
million gallons/day     mgd
mile                    mi
pound/square inch
  (gauge)               psig
square feet             sq ft
square inches           sq in
ton  (short)             ton

yard                    yd
      by

  CONVERSION

     0.405
  1233.5
     0.252

     0.555

     0.028
     1.7
     0.028
    28.32
    16.39
  0.555(°F-32)*
     0.3048
     3.785
     0.0631
     0.7457
     2.54
     0.03342
     0.454
  3785
     1.609

(0.06805  psig +1)*
     0.0929
     6.452
     0.907

     0.9144
                                                                    TO OBTAIN  (METRIC  UNITS)

                                                            ABBREVIATION   METRIC UNIT .
ha        .   hectares
cu m         cubic meters
kg cal       kilogram - calories

kg cal/kg    kilogram calories/
               kilogram
cu in/min     cubic meters/minute
cu m/min     cubic meters/minute
cu m         cubic meters
1  '          liters
cu cm    „   cubic centimeter
°C           degree Centigrade
m            meters
1            liters
I/sec        liters/second
kw           killowatts
cm           centimeters
atm          atmospheres
kg           kilograms
cu m/day     cubic meters/day
km      ,     kilometer

atm          atmospheres  (absolute)
sq m         square meters
sq cm        square centimeters
kkg          metric ton  (1000
               kilogram)
m            meter
      *Actual conversion, not a multiplier.

-------