1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of Water
(4303)
EPA821-R-95-037
September 1995
EPA
821
R
'95
• 037
c,l
V.
Preliminary Study of the
Iron and Steel Category
40 CFR Part 420
Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards
-------
! 3
\ I
tr
-------
PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE
IRON & STEEL CATEGORY
IEfA
B*/
R
I *
* 037
I
I
I
" 40 CFR PART 420
• EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
AND STANDARDS
I
I
I
I George M. Jett
Project Officer
I
September 30,1995
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
| Office of Water
Office of Science and Technology
• Engineering and Analysis Division (4303)
401 M Street, S.W.
g Washington, D.C. 20460
EPA-821-R-95-037
I
I
I
-------
Acknowledgements
The Environmental Protection Agency appreciates the dedicated effort, technical expertise and
many contributions to the Preliminary Study of the Iron and Steel Category effort by the
Radian Corporation personnel in Herndon, Virginia and Amendola Engineering, Inc. in
Lakewood, Ohio under Contract Number 68-CO-0005 and Contract Number 68-C4-0024.
The Agency acknowledges the plant managers, engineers and other Iron and Steel Industry
representatives whose cooperation and assistance in site visitations and information gathering
activities greatly contributed to the completion of the technical studies and assessments. Also,
the American Iron and Steel Institute provided significant information that was useful in
understanding the current status of the industry.
A number of people within EPA made major contributions to this preliminary study.
Mr. George M. Jett (Project Officer, Metals Branch, Engineering and Analysis Division) was
instrumental in the management of the contractor efforts, and coordination among many EPA
offices. His deft guidance, technical expertise, and tireless efforts were essential to the
successful completion of this stage of the project William Anderson and George Denning
(Economics and Statistical Analysis Branch, Engineering and Analysis Division) ably
contributed to the overall efforts through dedicated performance related to the economics
analyses.
Ed Gardetto and Kevin Tingley (Exposure Assessment Branch, Standards and Applied
Science Division) provided Toxic Release Data summaries. Additional Agency support was
ably provided by Lucy Reed and Maria Malava (Office of Enforcement Compliance
Assurance), Steve Hoffman (Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response), Phil Mulrine
(Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards), and Ron Kovach (Region V Enforcements).
Legal support was provided by Carrie Wehling and Carol Ann Siciliano of the EPA's Office
of General Counsel.
Additional support was provided by Yousry Hamdy, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, for
which the Agency is greatly appreciated.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY x
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Purpose of This Review 1-1
1.2 Structure of the Regulation 1-2
1.3 Pollutants Limited by 40 CFR Part 420 1-3
2.0 INDUSTRY PROFILE 2-1
2.1 Manufacturing Processes and Wastewater Treatment 2-2
2.1.1 Cokemaking 2-3
2.1.2 Sintering 2-4
2.1.3 Ironmaking 2-5
2.1.4 Steelmaking 2-6
2.1.5 Vacuum Degassing 2-8
2.1.6 Continuous Casting 2-8
2.1.7 Hot Forming . . . 2-9
2.1.8 Salt Bath Descaling 2-10
2.1.9 Acid Pickling 2-10
2:1.10 Cold Forming 2-11
2.1.11 Alkaline Cleaning 2-12
2.1.12 Hot Coating 2-12
2.1.13 Electroplating 2-13
2.2 Industry Segments 2-14
2.3 Classification of Manufacturing Plants in the U.S. Iron
. and Steel Industry '...... 2-15
2.3.1 Stand-Alone By-Product Coke Plants '. 2-15
2.3.2 Integrated Steel Mills 2-16
. 2.3.3 Nonintegrated Steel Mills 2-16
2.3.4 Stand-Alone Finishing Mills 2-17
2.3.5 Other Stand-Alone Operations 2-17
2.4 Changes in the U.S. Steel Industry - 1982 through 1993 2-17
2.5 Production Trends and Capacity Utilization 2-18
2.6 Product Mix 2-20
2.7 Imports and Exports, Employment, and Financial
Performance 2-21
2.8 Capital Spending and Pollution Control Investments 2-22
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
3.0
4.0
Page
BACKGROUND OF CURRENT REGULATION 3-1
3.1 Prior Regulations 3-1
3.2 Applicability 3-3
3.3 Subcategorization 3-4
3.4 Technology Bases for the Regulation 3-5
3.5 Regulated Pollutants 3-10
3.6 General Provisions 3-11
3.6.1 Central Treatment 3-12
3.6.2 Water Bubble 3-14
ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT REGULATION 4-1
4.1 Applicability 4-1
4.1.1 §420.10 - Cokemaking 1 4-1
4.1.2 §420.20 - Sintering 4-1
4.1.3 §420.30 - Ironmaking 4-2
4.1.4 §420.40 - SteelmaMng 4-2
4.1.5 §420.50 - Vacuum Degassing . 4-3
4.1.6 §420.60 - Continuous Casting, §420.70 - Hot
Forming, §420.80, Salt Bath Descaling 4-3
4.1.7 Steel Finishing: §420.90 - Acid Pickling,
§420.100 - Cold Forming, §420.110 -Alkaline
Cleaning, and §420.120 - Hot Coating 4-3
4.1.8 §433 - Metal Finishing 4-4
4.1.9 New Steel Finishing Operations 4-5
4.2 Subcategorization 4-5
4.3 Better Performing Mills 4-7
4.3.1 Cokemaking - Figure 4-1 4-9
4.3.2 Sintering - Figure 4-2 4-10
4.3.3 Ironmaking - Figure 4-3 4-11
4.3.4 BOF Steelmaking - Figure 4-4 : 4-11
4.3.5 Vacuum Degassing - Figure 4-5 4-12
4.3.6 Continuous Casting - Figure 4-6 4-13
4.3.7 Hot Forming: Hot Strip Mills - Figure 4-7 4-13
4.3.8 Steel Finishing - Figures 4-8 and 4-9 4-14
11
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
4.4 General Provisions 4-15
4.4.1 NPDES and Pretreatment Standards Production
Rate 4-15
. 4.4.2 §420.01(b) - Central Treatment 4-17
4.4.3 §420.03 - Alternative Effluent Limitations (Water
Bubble Rule) -.. 4-20
4.5 Pollutants Selected for Regulation 4-21
4.5.1 Conventional Pollutants 4-22
4.5.2 Nonconventional Pollutants 4-23
4.5.3 Toxic Metal Pollutants and Cyanide 4-25
4.5.4 Toxic Organic Pollutants 4-26
4.5.4.1 Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins and
Chlorinated Dibenzofurans 4-27
4.5.4.2 Other Toxic Organic Pollutants 4-31
4.6 Preliminary Estimates of Pollutant Loadings and Order-
of-Magnitude Costs 4-32
4.6.1 Modelled Estimates 4-33
4.6.1.1 Modelled Estimates of Pollutant
Loadings at Current Regulation and
at Level of Better Performing Mills 4-33
4.6.1.2 Modelled Estimates of Order-of-
Magnitude Costs to Upgrade
Industry Performance 4-38
4.6.2 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Database 4-40
4.6.3 Permit Compliance System (PCS) Database 4-41
5.0 WATER QUALITY AND CROSS-MEDIA IMPACTS 5-1
5.1 Impaired Water Bodies 5-1
5.2 Receiving Water Sediments 5-2
5.3 Groundwater 5-3
5.4 Air 5-4
5.5 Solid and Hazardous Waste 5-5
5.6 Opportunities for Multimedia Rulemaking 5-5
5.7 Review of Recent Permit Violations and Enforcement
Actions 5-6
5.7.1 Recent Permit Violations 5-6
5.7.2 Recent Federal and State Clean Water Act
Enforcement Cases 5-6
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
6.0
7.0
8.0
Page
NEW AND INNOVATIVE APPROACHES 6-1
6.1 Production Technologies 6-1
6.2 Wastewater Flow Minimization and Improved Wastewater
Treatment 6-4
6.2.1 Wastewater Flow Minimization 6-5
6.2.2 Improved Treatment Methods and Treatment
Operations 6-5
6.3 Pollution Prevention . . 6-6
6.4 Residuals Management 6-9
6.5 Best Management Practices 6-9
REFERENCES
7-1
GLOSSARY 8-1
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX'B:
APPENDIX C:
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAMS OF TECHNOLOGIES
CONSIDERED BY EPA
MILL PERFORMANCE DATA VERSUS EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
IRON AND STEEL MANUFACTURING FACILITIES
INCLUDED ON STATE 304(L) SHORT LISTS
IV
-------
Page
2-1 Steelmaking From Raw Materials to Finished Mill Products 2-25
I
I
• LIST OF FIGURES
I
• - 2-2 U.S. Iron and Steel Industry: Steelmaking Capacity and
Production (1973 through 1993) 2-26
• 2-3 U.S. Iron and Steel Industry: Steelmaking Capacity Utilization
(1975 through 1993) 2-27
™ 2-4 U.S. Iron and Steel Industry: Production as Percent of World
Steel Production (1973 through 1993) 2-28
™ 2-5 U.S. Iron and Steel Industry: Blast Furnace Iron Production
(1973 through 1993) 2-29
™ 2-6 U.S. Iron and Steel Industry: Ratio of Pig Iron to Raw Steel
Production (1973 through 1993) 2-30
2-7 U.S. Iron and Steel Industry: Electric Arc Furnace Steel
_ Production (1936 through 1993) 2-31
I
2-8 U.S. Iron and Steel Industry: Raw Steel Production by Type of
~ Furnace (1973 through 1993) 2-32
2-9 U.S. Iron and Steel Industry: Raw Steel Continuously Cast
_ (1978 through 1993) 2-33
2-10 U.S. Iron and Steel Industry: Shipments by Type of Steel (1973
g through 1993) 2-34
2-11 U.S. Iron and Steel Industry: Steel Shipments, Major Products -
• All Grades (1973 through 1993) 2-35
2-12 U.S. Iron' and Steel Industry: Steel Shipments, Major Markets
• (1973 through 1993) 2-36
2-13 U.S. Iron and Steel Industry: Imports and Import Penetration
• (1973 through 1993) 2-37
I
I
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
2-14
2-15
2-16
2-17
2-18
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
Page
U.S. Iron and Steel Industry: Value of Imports and Exports
(1973 through 1993) 2-38
U.S. Iron and Steel Industry: Employment (1973 through 1993) 2-39
U.S. Iron and Steel Industry: Net Income by Reporting
Companies (1973 through 1993) ; 2-40
U.S. Iron and Steel Industry: Capital Investments (1973 through
1993) 2-41
U.S. Iron and Steel Industry: Environmental Control
Investments (1951 through 1993) 2-42
Mill Performance vs. Effluent Limitations Guidelines -
Cokemaking - Long-Term Average Data 4-65
Mill Performance vs. Effluent Limitations Guidelines - Sintering
- Long-Term Average Data 4-66
Mill Performance vs. Effluent Limitations Guidelines -
Ironmaking - Long-Term Average Data 4-67
Mill Performance vs. Effluent Limitations Guidelines -
Steelmaking - Long-Term Average Data 4-68
Mill Performance vs. Effluent Limitations Guidelines - Vacuum
Degassing - Long-Term Average Data 4-69
Mill Performance vs. Effluent Limitations Guidelines -
Continuous Casting - Long-Term Average Data 4-70
Mill Performance vs. Effluent Limitations Guidelines - Hot Strip
Mill - Long-Term Average Data 4-71
Mill Performance vs. Effluent Limitations Guidelines - Steel
Finishing - Long-Term Average Data 4-72
VI
-------
I
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
I
Page
I 4-9 Metal Finishing vs. Steel Finishing Performance - Comparison of
LTA Treated Effluent Concentrations 4-73
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Vll
-------
LIST OF TABLES
2-1
2-2
3-1
3-2
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-11
Iron and Steel Manufacturing Processes Identified Pollutants of
Concern
Facilities Engaged in Basic Steelmaking Operations 1982 and
1993
Page
2-23
2-24
Iron and Steel Manufacturing Subcategories, Subdivisions, and
Segments 3-15
Iron and Steel Manufacturing Processes Pollutants Limited by 40
CFR Part 420 3-19
40 CFR 420.0 l(b) Central Treatment Facilities Temporarily
Excluded from Part 420 4-42
Levels of CDDs and CDFs in Electric Arc Furnace Flue Gases
Before and After Bag House Filter During Continuous Charge
Through The Furnace Lid '. 4-44
Pollutant Loadings for Total Iron and Steel Industry 4-45
Pollutant Loadings for Direct Discharging Coke Plants 4-47
Pollutant Loadings for Indirect Discharging Coke Plants 4-48
Pollutant Loadings for Other Coke Plants 4-49
Pollutant Loadings for Sintering 4-50
Pollutant Loadings for Ironmaking 4-51
Pollutant Loadings for BOF Steelmaking, Vacuum Degassing,
Continuous Casting 4-52
Pollutant Loadings for Hot Forming (Integrated Mills) 4-53
Pollutant Loadings for Finishing 4-54
vm
-------
1
1
MR
1
|
I
• -
I
•
1
•
1-
_
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
4-12 Pollutant Loadings for Nonintegrated Mills .....;....
4- 13 Pollutant Loadings for Hot Forming (Stand-alone)
4-14 Pollutant Loadings for Cold Forming
4-15 Comparison of Baseline and Projected Technologies
4-16 Costs to Upgrade to the Level of Better Performing Mills
4-17 Summary of 1992 TRI Data
4-18 Summary of 1992 PCS Database .
5-1 EPA Permit Compliance System Violations (1989)
5-2 EPA Permit Compliance System Violations (1990)
5.3 EPA Permit Compliance System Violations (1991)
5-4 EPA Permit Compliance System Violations (1992)
5-5 EPA Permit Compliance System Violations (1993)
5-6 EPA Permit Compliance System Violations (1994)
6-1 • Common Practices for Residuals Management
ix
Page
4-55
4-56
4-57
4-58
4-60
4-61
4-63
5-10
5-12
5-14
. 5-16
5-18
5-19
6-11
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose of This Review
EPA is required by Section 304 of the Clean Water Act to review effluent
limitations guidelines and standards periodically to determine whether the current regulations
remain appropriate in light of changes in the industrial category caused by advances in
manufacturing technologies, in-process pollution prevention, or end-of-pipe wastewater treatment.
EPA is also required by the terms of a consent decree with the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) to initiate preliminary reviews of a number of categorical effluent limitations
guidelines and standards on a set schedule.4 This review is being conducted pursuant to those
legislative and judicial requirements.
The approach taken includes:
A preliminary assessment of the status of the industry with respect
to the regulation promulgated in 1982 and as amended in 1984;
Identification of better performing mills that use conventional and
innovative in-process pollution prevention and end-of-pipe
technologies;
Estimation of possible effluent reduction benefits if the industry
was upgraded to the level of better performing mills;
Identification of regulatory and implementation issues with the
current regulation; and
Identification of possible solutions to those issues.
-------
Industry Profile
There are 84 steel-producing companies located in the United States with more
than 300 separate manufacturing sites. The U.S. domestic demand for finished and semi-finished
steel products was approximately 104 million tons in 1993. U.S. producers manufactured about
98 million tons of raw steel and shipped about 89 million tons to domestic and export markets..
Imports of semi-finished and finished steel accounted for about 19 million tons, or about 19%
of U.S. demand. Exports from the U.S. totaled about 4.0 million tons. The industry operated
at about 89% of capacity in 1993.6
During the past fifteen years, the U.S. steelmaking industry consolidated and
modernized to become competitive in the U.S. and on world markets. Annual raw steelmaking
capacity declined from over 150 million tons in 1978 to approximately 110 million tons in 1993.
Direct steel industry employment declined from 450,000 people in 1978 to approximately
127,000 people in 1993. Approximately 61% of the raw steel produced is currently manufactured
in basic oxygen furnaces and 39% in electric arc furnaces; steel is no longer manufactured in
open hearth furnaces in the U.S. During 1993, approximately 86% of the raw steel was
continuously cast as opposed to approximately 15% in 1978. After a series of annual losses from
steelmaking operations (losses for eight of the eleven years during the period 1982 through 1992),
the industry returned to profitability during 1993, and is operating profitably during the economic
expansion continuing in 1994. U.S. steel producers are now among the lowest cost steel
producers in the world.6
Capital spending for new plants and equipment, including environmental controls,
has ranged from less than one to more than three billion dollars on an annual basis over the past
15 years. Capital spending devoted to environmental controls ranged from less than 5 to nearly
21 percent. Total investment in environmental controls for the period 1951 through 1992 was
more than 7 billion dollars (water - $2.6 billion; air - $4.5 billion; solid waste - $0.1 billion).
XI
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The industry is at or returning to the point where capital investments at the high end of its
investment cycle may be made.29
For 1992, the industry reported the following Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data
for direct and indirect wastewater discharges under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA):
,* ;v;-vV, \ v"."v- V* ;\\l'\y/'
V*",/ *. **** \'" •• f- "• ^ ^ .A
\- 'V!fSejDfet«*i*\ •'> - -[ '•- -; \
Ammonia-N
Cyanide Compounds
Phenol
Toxic Metal Compounds*
Other SARA Organic Compounds
>IL ' X> ' * f ff*~ f •% % *f C- '?Vf "• f f f *• ^ *
"-^ rJ&iiwt Wwdiprft.^'x -
:'< \,;>';vMlla^";^> ;'; %
1,830,000
65,500
65,000
447,000
671,000
'rijitos&t& «o ipoirws
v-;'/^;^l)S/yr>
679,000
14,400
618,000
55,400
63,100
*As defined in the Toxics Release Inventory.
Forty iron and steel mills were included on state 304(1) short lists which identifies
facilities discharging to impaired waterbodies (see Appendix C). Receiving water sediment
contamination by polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons has been documented at several iron and
steel mills where blast furnace coke has been manufactured as an intermediate product. Three
companies have been required to conduct sediment characterization and remediation as a result
of consent decrees resulting from recent federal Clean Water Act enforcement actions.
40 CFR Part 420: Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category
Part 420 was promulgated in May 1982 (47 FR 23258) and was last amended in
May 1984 (49 FR 21024) as part of a Settlement Agreement among EPA, the iron and steel
Xll
-------
industry, and the NRDC. The regulation was the first promulgated under the 1977 Amendments
to the Clean Water Act There are a number of regulatory issues identified by this study that
pertain to Part 420, as described below.
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
Comparisons of long-term average effluent quality performance for
a number of better performing mills (data represent time periods
ranging from six months to more than one year) with the long-term
average bases for Part 420 reveal that, in all subcategories, mills
are performing substantially better than is required by Part 420. In
a limited number of cases, zero discharge of pollutants is being
approached. This performance reflects increased high-rate process
water recycle, advances in application of treatment technologies,
and advances in treatment system operations.
A number of mills continue to discharge in excess of the effluent
limitations required by Part 420.
Several mills are not achieving the zero discharge limitations
applicable to semi-wet steelmaking operations.
In at least 10 of the 12 current subcategories, toxic and
nonconventional pollutants not currently regulated by Part 420 are
discharged. The current effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for toxic organic pollutants for the cold forming
subcategory are no longer applicable.
Scandinavian researchers have documented formation of chlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs) and chlorinated dibenzofurans (CDFs)
in electric arc furnace steelmaking where steel is manufactured by
remelting steel scraps.53"55 There are no published studies for U.S.
mills that characterize the formation of CDDs and CDFs in electric
arc furnaces, other steelmaking furnaces, or other iron and steel
operations. There are also no published data that characterize
process wastewater discharges from U.S. iron and steel mills for
CDDs and CDFs.
At §420.03, the regulation provides for alternative effluent
limitations (the water bubble) where dischargers can conduct intra-
Xlll
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
plant "trades" of like pollutants from one outfall to another to save
costs or improve compliance prospects. Part 420 is the only
effluent limitations guideline regulation that contains such a
provision. Although not widely used, the present cost savings from
§420.03 is more than $120 million, and there may be opportunities
to increase its utilization.38
Potential Load Reductions
Based on modelled estimates for the iron and steel industry to
upgrade to the treatment level of better performing mills, a
pollutant loading reduction of 1.9 million pounds of toxic
equivalents per year can be achieved with a total capital investment
of $339 million. Operating and maintenance costs are estimated at
$32.2 million per year. Assuming an equipment life of 20 years
and annual interest rates of 7% and 10%, the cost effectiveness for
the industry as a whole for these pollutant removals is $34/lb-eq
removed and $38/lb-eq removed, respectively.
Other modelled estimates of pollutant removals not included in the
toxic equivalent analysis are 29 million pounds per year of total
suspended solids, 6.9 million pounds per year of oil and grease,
and 710,000 pounds per year of ammonia-N.
Multimedia Pollutant Transfers
Because most process wastewaters from basic steelmaking
operations are generated as a result of air emission control and gas
cleaning, there are substantial pollutant transfers from the air media
to the water and solid waste media.
The most significant transfer of pollutants from the water to the air
media results from quenching of coke with untreated cokemaking
and by-product recovery process wastewaters. This quenching
practice is not widely used today; however, virtually none of the
toxic pollutants found in cokemaking wastewaters are regulated by
State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for coke quenching operations.
xiv
-------
Cross-media transfers from leaking coke quench sumps, leaking by-
product recovery wastewater sumps, leaking blast furnace slag pits,
a limited number of unlined wastewater collection and treatment
ponds, and leaking above-ground and below-ground storage tanks
for fuel and various chemicals (including chlorinated solvents),
have resulted in groundwater contamination at many steel mills.
Opportunities for Pollution Prevention
The greatest long-term opportunities for pollution prevention will
result from new cokemaking methods that result in reduced
emissions and discharges, and new iron and steelmakmg methods
that reduce or eliminate the need for coke. Several research
projects are underway; however, the technologies have not been
demonstrated to the point where they could serve as the basis for
revised BAT or NSPS.
A nonrecovery cokemaking technology (coke by-products such as
coal tar, crude light oil, and ammonia are not recovered) has been
fully demonstrated. The process results in virtually no process
wastewater discharges and air emissions that can be readily
controlled. This technology could serve as the basis for revised
NSPS.
There appear to be many pollution prevention opportunities in the
areas of increased process water recycle and reuse, cascade of
process wastewaters from one operation to another, residuals
management, and nondischarge disposal methods.
Applicability and Subcategorization
The regulation promulgated in 1982 provided a temporary
exclusion (not to exceed one year) for 21 mills or parts of mills
with central wastewater treatment facilities (§420.01(b)). The
exclusion remains in the regulation and continues to present
problems for state and EPA regional NPDES permit writers.
The 1982 regulation does not specifically address small, stand-
alone steel finishing operations. These facilities may not be
xv
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
characteristic of the larger facilities which were used to establish
the effluent limitations guidelines and standards. These smaller
facilities may be more similar to the type of facilities that will be
regulated by the Metal Products and Machinery Category, currently
under development
It may be appropriate to evaluate regulating continuous strip
electroplating operations at steel mills under Part 420, instead of
under Part 433 - Metal Finishing. Wastewater discharges from
continuous strip electroplating operations and wastewaters from
steel finishing operations are almost universally co-treated at steel
finishing mills. Also, the database used by EPA to establish the
Part 420 effluent limitations and standards included both
electroplating and steel finishing wastewaters.
The current industry subcategorization in Part 420 may need to be
reevaluated with regard to regulating continuous strip steel
finishing lines constructed during the past several years. These
mills are configured with both steel finishing and metal finishing
operations and are used to apply coatings of metals and metal
combinations that were not commonly used in 1982.
The current subcategorization does not adequately address
nonintegrated steel producers (so-called "mini-mills") that are
equipped with electric arc furnaces, continuous casters, and hot
forming mills.
In some instances, Part 420 is obsolete because some segments of
the industry no longer exist in the U.S. (e.g., beehive cokemaking,
ferromanganese blast furnace (ironmaking), open hearth
steelmaking).
xvi
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
40 CFR Part 420, Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Iron and
Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category, was promulgated in May 1982 (47 FR 23258), and
last amended in May 1984 (49 FR 21024) in response to challenges from the steel industry and
the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).1A3 The regulation was the first promulgated
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the 1977 Amendments to the Clean
Water Act, and thus was the first to distinguish between conventional, nonconventional, and toxic
pollutants in the regulatory scheme established by the 1977 Amendments. The regulation has
been implemented through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
program and through state and local pretreatment programs, and has resulted in effluent reduction
and water quality benefits.
1.1 Purpose of This Review
EPA is required by Section 304 of the Clean Water Act to review effluent
limitations guidelines and standards periodically to determine whether the current regulation
remains appropriate in light of, among other things, changes in the industrial category caused by
advances in manufacturing technologies, in-process pollution prevention, and end-of-pipe
wastewater treatment. EPA is also required by the terms of a consent decree with the NRDC to
initiate preliminary reviews of a number of categorical effluent limitations guidelines and
standards on a set schedule.4 This review is being conducted pursuant to those legislative and
judicial requirements.
The approach taken includes a preliminary assessment of the status of the industry
with respect to the regulation promulgated in 1982 and amended in 1984; identification of better
performing mills using conventional and innovative in-process pollution prevention and end-of-
pipe technologies; estimation of possible effluent reduction benefits if the industry was upgraded
1-1
-------
to the level of better performing mills; identification of regulatory and implementation issues with
the current regulation; and identification of possible solutions to those issues.
This report was commissioned by the Agency to use as one of. many sources of
information to determine whether revisions to the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards at 40 CFR Part 420 are warranted. Consequently,
recommendations are not made within the body of this report as to whether any specific revisions
should be made.
1.2
Structure of the Regulation
40 CFR Part 420 contains the following twelve subparts for twelve distinct
manufacturing operations conducted in the manufacture of steel and finished and semi-finished
steel products:
A. Cokemaldng
B. Sintering
C. Ironmaking
D. Steelmaking
E. Vacuum Degassing
F. Continuous Casting
G. Hot Forming
H. Salt Bath Descaling
I. Acid Fielding
J. Cold Forming
K. Alkaline Cleaning
L. Hot Coating
Electroplating operations conducted at steel mills are not regulated by 40 CFR Part
420, but are regulated by 40 CFR Part 433 - Metal Finishing.
Part 420 contains production-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards.
Accordingly, steel mills with higher levels of production will receive higher permit discharge
1-2
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
allowances. The regulation was structured in a building-block manner to facilitate co-treatment
of compatible wastewaters from different operations as shown by the following groupings:5
Cokemaking
Sintering
Ironmaking
Steelmaking
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Hot Forming
Salt Bath Descaling
Combination Acid Pickling
Cold Rolling
Acid Pickling
Cold Rolling
Alkaline Cleaning
Hot Coating
The regulation contains effluent limitations for the same pollutants for each group
of manufacturing operations, such that discharge permits can reflect co-treatment of compatible
wastewaters from these processes. At the time 40 CFR Part 420 was promulgated, EPA sought
to discourage co-treatment of wastewaters across these groups to foster process-specific high-rate
recycle of process water where possible, and to minimize less effective treatment of toxic metal
and toxic organic pollutants caused by dilution of pollutant levels by waste streams not
containing those pollutants.5
1.3
Pollutants Limited by 40 CFR Part 420
Conventional Pollutants
Total Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
PH
Nonconventional Pollutants
Ammonia-N
Phenols (4AAP)
1-3
-------
Priority or Toxic Pollutants
Total Cyanide
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Lead
Total Nickel
Total Zinc
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethylene
1-4
-------
I
I
• 2.0 INDUSTRY PROFILE
• The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) reported the following statistics for
the U.S. iron and steel industry for 1992 or 1993:6
• Number of steel producing companies in the U.S. in
. 1992: 84
• Leading steel producing states in 1993: Indiana, Ohio, and
• Pennsylvania
• 1993 Estimated direct employment: 127,000
| • 1992 Average hourly employee cost: $29.57
• • 1993 U.S. raw steel capacity: 109.9 million net tons
• 1993 U.S. raw steel production: 97.9 million net tons
m • 1993 U.S. capacity utilization: 89.1 percent
I
1992 world steel production: 787.6 million net tons
1992 Steel productivity (man hours/ton):
• United States 5.3
Germany 5.6
Japan 5.4
• • 1993 Steel production methods: 61% basic oxygen furnaces
39% electric arc furnaces
10% open hearth furnaces
.
• 1993 Continuous casting: 86% of raw steel produced
* • 1993 U.S. steel shipments of semi-finished and finished products (domestic
and export): 89.0 million net tons
™ • 1993 U.S. steel imports: 19.5 million net tons
• • 1993 U.S. steel exports: 4.0 million net tons
I
I
-------
1993 U.S. domestic demand: 104.5 million net tons
Environmental control investment: >$7 billion (1951-1992)
Environmental control costs in 1992: $10 to $20 per ton of steel
(typical costs to manufacture steel are in the range of $400 to $700
per ton)
1993 Selected product applications/markets (millions of net tons):
Service centers 23.7
Construction and contractors 13.4
Automotive industry 12.7
Container industry 4.3
Appliance industry 1.6
Detailed information about manufacturing processes and wastewater treatment;
production trends and capacity utilization; imports, exports and financial performance; and capital
spending and pollution control investments are presented in this section.
2.1
Manufacturing Processes and Wastewater Treatment
40 CFR Part 420 includes twelve subparts for regulating steel manufacturing and
steel finishing operations that generate and discharge process wastewaters and wastewater
pollutants; however, electroplating operations performed at steel mills are regulated by 40 CFR
Part 433 - Metal Finishing. The major processes regulated by 40 CFR Part 420 and
electroplating operations conducted at steel mill sites are described briefly below in terms of
principal products and by-products, process water usage, wastewater pollutants, and typical
»
treatment systems. More complete descriptions of these processes are found in The Making,
Shaping and Treating of Steel, 10th Edition.7 Figure 2-1 is a simplified schematic diagram of
the major ironmaking, steelmaking, and steel finishing processes. Table 2-1 presents a summary
of the wastewater pollutants associated with each process.8 Note that tables and figures are
located at the end of each section of this report.
2-2
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.1.1 Cokemaking
Carbon in the form of metallurgical coke is used to reduce iron oxides to metallic
iron in blast furnaces. Virtually all coke in the U.S. is produced in by-product coke plants. The
coke is produced on a batch basis by distilling metallurgical coals (blends of high, medium, and
low volatile coals designed to produce coke of sufficient strength for use in ironmaldng blast
furnaces) in slot type ovens at temperatures of 1,650 to 2,000°F in the absence of air. Coke
batteries comprise numerous ovens constructed side-by-side equipped with ancillary coal
charging, gas collecting mains, and coke pushing and coke quenching facilities. The coking
process typically lasts 16 hours. Coal is charged into the tops of the ovens with larry cars or by
pipeline. After the coking process is complete, the incandescent coke is pushed into a flat bed
rail car and transported to a coke quench station where the coke is quenched with water to near
ambient temperature.
The moisture and volatile components of the coal, typically 20 to 35% by weight,
are collected and processed to recover by-products, including crude coal tars, crude light oil
(aromatics, paraffins, cycloparaffins and naphthenes, sulfur compounds, nitrogen and oxygen
compounds), anhydrous ammonia or ammonium sulfate, naphthalene, and sodium phenolate.
The typical volume of process wastewaters generated at a well-controlled by-
product coke plant is approximately 100 gallons per ton (gpt) of coke produced.9 About 25 to
35 gpt is generated from water contained in the coal charge in the form of waste ammonia liquor.
The balance results from steam addition for distilling ammonia from the waste ammonia liquor,
crude light oil recovery, and miscellaneous sources. Cokemaking wastewaters contain high levels
of oil & grease (O&G), ammonia-N, cyanides, thiocyanates, phenolics, benzenes, toluene, xylene,
other aromatic volatile components, and polynuclear aromatic compounds (see Table 2-1).9
The conventional wastewater treatment approach consists of physical/chemical
treatments, including oil separation, dissolved gas flotation, and ammonia distillation followed
2-3
-------
by biological treatment with nitrification. An innovative biological treatment approach without
ammonia distillation pretreatment has been installed at one plant.10
During the past ten years, the number of active coke plants in the United States
has declined as a result of the consolidation of the industry, more stringent air pollution control
regulations, and because coke requirements for blast furnace operations has decreased with the
trend toward alternate carbon sources (e.g., direct injection of oil and pulverized coal).11 Many
blast furnace operators are using these techniques.
2.1.2
Sintering
Sinter plants are used to beneficiate (upgrade the iron content) iron ores and to
recover iron values from wastewater treatment sludges and mill scale generated at integrated steel
mills (see Section 2.3.2 for definition of "integrated"). Sinter plants consist of numerous raw
material storage bins; a mixing drum for each sinter strand; sinter strands (travelling grate
combustion devices); a windbox (device for drawing air through the travelling gate); a discharge
end; a cooling bed for sintered product; and wet or dry air pollution control devices. Coke
breeze (fine coke particles), iron ores, sludges, mill scales, and limestone are mixed in sinter
machines and charged to a travelling grate at a depth of approximately one foot. The mixture
is ignited and air is drawn through the bed as it travels toward the exit end. Clinkers (i.e., sinter
of suitable size and weight) are formed for charging to the blast furnace.
Wastewaters are generated from wet air pollution control devices on the wind box
and discharge ends of the sinter machines. Applied flows for wet air pollution control devices
are typically 1,500 gpt of sinter, with discharge rates of 120 gpt for the better controlled plants.12
Wastewater treatment comprises sedimentation for removal of heavy solids, recycle of clarifier
or thickener overflows, and metals precipitation treatment for blowdowns. Some sinter plants
are operated with once-through treatment. The principal pollutants include total suspended solids
(TSS), O&G, ammonia-N, cyanide, phenolic compounds, and metals (principally lead and zinc).12
2-4
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.1.3 Iron making
Blast furnaces are used to produce molten iron which makes up about two-thirds
of the charge to basic oxygen steelmaking furnaces, the balance being cold steel scrap. The raw
materials charged to. the top of the blast furnace include coke, limestone, beneficiated iron ores,
and sinter. Hot blast (preheated air) is blown into the bottom of the furnace through a bustle pipe.
and tuyeres (orifices) located around the circumference of the furnace. The iron-bearing furnace
burden (material charged to the furnace) is supported by coke and is reduced to molten iron and
slag as it descends through the furnace. The molten iron, at approximately 2,800 to 3,000°F, is
tapped at regular intervals into refractory-lined cars for transport to the steelmaking furnaces.
Molten slag, which floats on top of the molten iron, is also tapped and processed for sale as a
by-product. Blast furnace slag may be used as railroad ballast, as an aggregate in cement
manufacturing, and for other construction uses.
A simplified summary of the chemical reactions that occur in the blast furnace is
presented below:
+ H2 --> 2Fe3O4 + H2O
3Fe2O3 + CO --> 2Fe3O4 + CO2
Fe3O4 + H2 --> 3FeO + H2O
Fe3O4 + CO --> 3FeO + CO2
FeO + H2 --> Fe + H2O
FeO + CO --> Fe + CO2
3Fe + CO + H2 --> Fe3C + H2O
3Fe + 2CO --> Fe3C + CO2
C02 + C --> 2CO
H2O + C --> CO + H2
2-5
-------
FeO + C --> Fe + CO
3Fe + C --> Fe3C
The hot blast exits the furnace top as blast furnace gas in enclosed piping and is
cleaned and cooled in a combination of dry dust catchers and high-energy venturi scrubbers. The
cleaned gas is combusted in stoves to preheat the incoming air and used as fuel elsewhere in
integrated mills. Direct contact water used in the gas coolers and high-energy scrubbers
comprises nearly all of the wastewater from blast furnace operations. About 6,000 gpt of iron
is applied at the furnace.13 The principal pollutants include TSS, ammonia-N, cyanides, phenolic
compounds, and metals (copper, lead, and zinc). Standard treatment in the industry includes
sedimentation in thickeners or clarifiers, cooling with mechanical draft cooling towers, and high-
i
rate recycle. Low-volume blowdowns (<70 gpt of iron) are either consumed in slag cooling at
furnaces with adjacent slag pits, or treated in conventional metals precipitation systems. A few
mills practice alkaline chlorirtation to treat ammonia-N, cyanides, and phenolic compounds.
2.1.4
Steelmaking
All steelmaking in the U.S. is conducted in basic oxygen furnaces or electric arc
furnaces; open hearth furnaces are no longer operated. Basic oxygen furnace (BOF) and electric
arc furnace (EAF) processes are batch processes with tap-to-tap (batch cycle) times of about 45
minutes and two to three hours, respectively. Up to 360 tons per heat may be produced in a
BOF, while capacities in EAFs range from less than 10 tons to more than 300 tons per heat.14
BOFs are typically used for high tonnage production of carbon steels, while EAFs are used to
produce carbon steels and low tonnage alloy and specialty steels.
The principal purpose of BOF steelmaking is to refine a metallic charge consisting
of approximately two-thirds molten iron and one-third steel scrap by oxidizing silicon, carbon,
manganese, phosphorus and a portion of the iron. Oxygen is injected into the molten bath either
2-6
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
through the top of the furnace (top blown), bottom of the furnace (bottom blown), or both
(combination blown). Residual sulfur is controlled by managing furnace slag processes. Off-
gases from furnaces in the U.S. are controlled by one of three methods:
Semi-Wet Furnace off-gases are conditioned with moisture prior
to processing in electrostatic precipitators or bag houses;
Wet - Open Combustion. Excess air is admitted to the off-gas
collection system allowing carbon monoxide to combust prior to
high-energy wet scrubbing for air pollution control; and
Wet - Suppressed Combustion. Excess air is not admitted to the
off-gas collection system prior to high-energy wet scrubbing for air
pollution control.
About 1,100 gpt and 1,000 gpt of steel are applied in the open combustion and
suppressed combustion systems, respectively.15 The principal pollutants are TSS and metals
(lead, zinc). Standard treatment consists of sedimentation in clarifiers or thickeners and recycle
of 90% or more of the applied water. Blowdown treatment consists of metals precipitation. It
may be possible to operate semi-wet off-gas systems at zero discharge by balancing the applied
water with evaporative losses, but none are operated in this fashion. One suppressed combustion
EOF installation located in Germany has been operated with dry emission controls.
Most EAFs are operated with dry air cleaning systems with no process wastewater
discharges. A small number of wet and semi-wet systems also exist. The water flows and
pollutants of concern for those systems with wet and semi-wet air cleaning systems are similar
to those for the wet basic oxygen furnaces, but the levels of metals are higher because of the
100% scrap charge. Wastewater treatment operations are similar to those for the wet basic
oxygen furnaces.
2-7
-------
2.1.5
Vacuum Degassing
In this batch process, molten steel is subjected to a vacuum for composition
control, temperature control, deoxidation (O2 removal), degassing (H2 removal), decarburization,
and to otherwise remove impurities from the steel. Oxygen and hydrogen are the. principal gases
removed from the steel. In most degassing systems, vacuum is provided by barometric
condensers; thus, direct contact between the gasses and the barometric water occurs. The
principal pollutants are low levels of TSS and metals (lead and zinc), which volatilize from the
steel. Applied water rates are typically around 1,250 gpt of steel.16 Discharge rates of 25 gpt
•
are achieved through high-rate recycle. Standard treatment includes processing the total
recirculating flow or a portion of the flow in clariflers for TSS removal, cooling with mechanical
draft cooling towers, and high-rate recycle. Blowdowns are usually co-treated with steelmaking
and/or continuous casting wastewaters for metals removal. Vacuum degassing plants are often
operated as part of ladle metallurgy stations where additional steel refining is conducted. These
additional refining operations do not use process water.
2.1.6
Continuous Casting
Molten steel is tapped from the BOF or EAF into ladles of sufficient capacity to
hold an entire heat. The ladles are then processed in ladle metallurgy stations and/or vacuum
degassers prior to teeming (pouring) into ingot molds or direct casting into semi-finished shapes
using continuous casters. Steel cast into ingot molds must undergo cooling, mold stripping,
reheating, and hot rolling to produce the same semi-finished shape that can be produced with
continuous casting. The casting machine includes a tundish (receiving vessel for molten steel),
a water-cooled mold (or molds on multi-strand machines), secondary cooling water sprays,
containment rolls, oxygen-acetylene torches for cutoff, and a runout table. Molten steel is
transferred from the ladle to the tundish and then to the water-cooled mold at controlled rates.
The steel solidifies as it passes through the mold and is cut to length on the runout table.
2-8
-------
1
1
I
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
The four main types of continuous casters are billet, bloom, round, and slab. The
names derive from the shape of the cast product. Casting machines are either single-strand or
multi-strand. Modern slab casters used to manufacture flat-rolled products are universally of a
curved-mold design, while those used to produce bar products may be of a straight vertical mold
design with vertical cutoff or bending with horizontal cutoff.
Continuous casters usually include two separate closed-loop cooling water systems:
one for the copper mold (mold cooling water system), and one for all other mechanical
equipment (machine cooling water system). Direct contact water systems are used for spray
cooling and for flume flushing to transport scale from the caster runout table. Applied water
rates for the contact systems are typically about 3,600 gpt of cast product.17 Discharge rates for
the better controlled casters are less than 25 gpt. The principal pollutants are TSS, O&G, and
low levels of paniculate metals. Wastewater treatment includes scale pits for mill scale recovery
and oil removal, mixed- or single-media filtration, and high-rate recycle.
2.1.7 Hot Forming
In hot forming operations, ingots, blooms, billets, slabs, or rounds are heated to
rolling temperatures (about 1,800°F) in gas-fired or oil-fired reheat furnaces, and formed under
mechanical pressure with work rolls to produce semi-finished shapes for further hot or cold
rolling, or finished shapes for shipment Water use and discharge rates from hot forming
operations vary greatly depending upon the type of hot forming mill and the shapes produced.18
Applied process water rates typically range from 1,500 gpt for specialty plate mills to more than
6,000 gpt for hot strip mills. Discharge rates range from the applied water rates for hot forming
mills operated with once-through process water systems to near zero discharge for mills equipped
with high-rate recycle systems. The principal pollutants are TSS and O&G. Low levels of
metals are found in particulate form.
2-9
-------
Process water is used for scale braking, flume flushing, and direct contact cooling.
Wastewater treatment includes: processing in scale pits located adjacent to the hot forming mill
to recover mill scale and remove gross amounts of tramp oils; recycle of a large portion of the
scale pit effluent for flume flushing; sedimentation in clarifiers for TSS and O&G removal;
filtration in mixed- or single-media filters; and discharge or recycle. High-rate recycle systems
(e.g., >95%) have been installed at many hot forming mills.
2.1.8
Salt Bath Descaling
Salt bath descaling uses the aggressive physical and chemical properties of molten
salt baths to remove heavy scale from selected specialty and high-alloy steels. Two processes,
oxidizing and reducing, are commonly referred to by the names of the proprietary molten salt
descaling baths, Kolene® and Hydride®, respectively. These processes may be batch or
continuous and are conducted prior to combination acid pickling (hydrofluoric and nitric acids).
Wastewaters originate from quenching and rinsing operations conducted after processing in the
molten salt baths. Principal pollutants are TSS, cyanides, dissolved iron, hexavalent and trivalent
chromium, and nickel. Wastewater flows normally range from 300 to 1,800 gpt, depending upon
the product and process.19 Descaling wastewaters are usually co-treated with wastewaters from
other finishing operations (e.g., combination acid pickling, cold rolling).
2.1.9
Acid Pickling
The most common acid pickling processes are sulfuric, hydrochloric, and
combination acid pickling operations used to remove oxide scale from the surfaces of semi-
finished products prior to further processing by cold rolling, cold drawing, and subsequent
cleaning and coating operations. Acid pickling operations may be either batch or continuous.
For continuous pickling processes, flat rolled coils are welded end-to-end at the start of the line,
and are cut by torch at the end of the line. Nearly all pickling operations in the steel industry
involve immersion of the steel in acid and rinse tanks. Process wastewaters include spent
2-10
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
pickling acids, rinse waters, and pickling line fume scrubbers. Process water and wastewater
flows vary greatly depending upon product and process.20 Waste pickle liquor flows typically
range between 10 and 20 gpt of pickled product. Rinse water flows may range from less than
70 gpt for bar products to more than 1,000 gpt for certain flat-rolled products. The principal
pollutants include TSS, dissolved iron, and metals. For carbon steel operations, the principal
metals are lead and zinc, and for specialty and stainless steel, chromium and nickel.
In-process controls include: countercurrent rinsing; use of indirect heating versus
direct steam sparging for acid solutions; and recycle and reuse of fume scrubber blowdowns.
Spent acid solutions are rarely treated in conventional treatment systems on site; instead, they are
generally sold as treatment aids for municipal and centralized wastewater treatment systems;
injected into deep wells; or neutralized off site. Some steel mills are equipped with acid recovery
or regeneration systems for spent sulfuric and hydrochloric acids, respectively. Rinse waters are
usually co-treated with wastewaters from cold rolling, alkaline cleaning, hot coating, and
electroplating operations.
2.1.10 Cold Forming
Cold forming involves cold rolling of hot rolled and pickled steels at ambient
temperatures to impart desired mechanical and surface properties in the steel, and cold working
of pipe and tube. In most cold rolling operations, the reduction in thickness is small compared
to that resulting from hot forming. Cold rolling imparts hardness to the steel. Annealing (heat
treating) and temper rolling are usually performed after the initial cold rolling to obtain desired
mechanical properties.
Process wastewater results from using synthetic or animal-fat based rolling
solutions, many of which are proprietary. The solutions may be treated and recycled at the mill,
used on a once-through basis, or a combination of the two.M The principal pollutants are TSS,
O&G (emulsified), and metals (lead and zinc for carbon steels and chromium and nickel for
2-11
-------
specialty and stainless steels; chromium may also be a contaminant from cold rolling of carbon
steels resulting from wear on chromium-plated work rolls). Toxic organic pollutants including
naphthalene, other polynuclear aromatic compounds, and chlorinated solvents have been found
in cold rolling wastewaters. Process wastewater discharge rates may range from less than 10 gpt
for mills with recirculated rolling solutions to more than 400 gpt for mills with direct application
of rolling solutions.
Conventional treatment of cold rolling wastewaters includes chemical emulsion
breaking, dissolved gas flotation for gross oil removal, and co-treatment with other finishing
wastewaters for removal of toxic metals.
2.1.11
Alkaline Cleaning
Batch or continuous alkaline cleaning occurs after cold forming and prior to hot
coating or electroplating to provide a surface suitable to accept the coating. These finishing
operations may be conducted in separate cleaning lines or as integral parts of coating or
electroplating operations. The cleaning baths are solutions of carbonates, alkaline silicates, and
phosphates in water. Electrolytic cleaning may be used for high-production operations. Because
the baths are not aggressive chemical solutions, the principal pollutants generated are oils and
greases removed from the steel, and low levels of toxic organic pollutants found in cold rolling
solutions. Nearly all alkaline cleaning rinse operations in the steel industry involve immersion
in rinse tanks. Alkaline cleaning wastewaters are usually co-treated with wastewaters from other
steel finishing operations. Applied process water flow rates may range from 250 gpt to 350 gpt.
2.1.12
Hot Coating
Hot coating operations comprise immersing precleaned steel into molten baths of
tin, zinc (hot dip galvanizing), combinations of lead and tin (terne coating), or combinations of
aluminum and zinc (galvalume coating); any associated cleaning or fluxing steps prior to
2-12
-------
I
1
I
•\.
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
immersion; and any post-immersion steps (e.g., chromium passivation). Cadmium hot coating
operations in the U.S. steel industry are limited to certain wire coating operations. The principal
purposes of hot coating are to improve resistance to corrosion, and for some products, improve
appearance.
Wastewaters result principally from product rinses and fume scrubbers. In-process
controls include countercurrent rinses for lines with multiple rinses and recycle of fume scrubber
water. The principal pollutants are usually those associated with the coating metal or metal
combinations and hexavalent chromium for lines with chromium brightening or passivation
operations. Wastewaters from hot coating lines located at integrated steel mills or at stand-alone
steel finishing plants are almost universally co-treated with wastewaters from other steel finishing
operations in metals precipitation systems. Applied process water rates may range from 600 gpt
for flat rolled products to 2,400 gpt for wire products.
2.1.13 Electroplating
Electroplating operations conducted at steel mills are currently regulated by 40
CFR Part 433 - Metal Finishing, and not by 40 CFR Part 420. Historically, electroplating at steel
mills was limited to tin and chromium electroplating for the food and beverage markets and
relatively low tonnage production of zinc-electroplated (electro-galvanized) steel for the
automotive markets. In recent years, electro-galvanized steel production has increased
substantially in response to automobile manufacturers demand. New coatings consisting of
combinations of iron, nickel, and other metals have been developed.
Wastewater flows at large continuous strip electroplating lines are typically about
500 gpt. The principal pollutants are TSS and O&G generated from the precleaning operations
and the plated metals from electroplating, rinsing, and fume scrubbers. Conventional wastewater
treatment includes metals precipitation. At some finishing mills, wastewaters from electroplating
2-13
-------
lines are pretreated or treated separately to minimize the volume of listed hazardous waste sludge
generated due to heavy metal concentrations.
2.2
IndustrySegments
The three principal types of steels produced in the United States are plain carbon.
steels, alloy steels, and stainless steels. These are defined as follows:7
Plain Carbon Steels. Steels containing up to 1.65% manganese,
0.60% silicon, 0.60% copper, and smaller quantities of other
alloying elements.
Alloy Steels. Steels containing greater quantities of manganese,
silicon, or copper than plain carbon steels, and/or steels containing
specified minimum quantities of other alloying elements such as
aluminum, chromium (less than 4%), cobalt, niobium (columbium),
molybdenum, nickel, titanium, tungsten, vanadium, zirconium, or
any other alloying element added to obtain a desired alloying
effect
Stainless Steels. Steels containing at least 10% chromium in
combination with other alloying elements.
Carbon steels represent the most important group of engineered materials. They
are produced in much greater quantities than alloy and stainless steels (see Section 2.4) and have
the most diverse applications of any engineered material.7 Common uses include castings,
forgings, tubular products, plates, sheet and strip, wire and wire products, structural shapes, bars,
and railway items (rails, wheels and axles).
Alloy steels have enhanced properties due to the presence of the various elements
listed above. They include construction alloy steels, high-strength low-alloy steels, alloy tool
steels, heat-resistant steels, and electrical steels (high-silicon steels). Alloy steels are used where
2-14
-------
I
1
I
•M
I
I
1
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
I
i
i
i
enhanced properties of strength, foimability, hardness, weldability, corrosion resistance, or notch
toughness are desired for specific applications.
Most stainless steels are produced as plates, sheets, strips, bars, tubes, and wires.
These steels are specifically designed for corrosion-resistant applications or.where surface
staining is not desired.
Each type of steel may be produced in BOFs or EAFs; however, many alloy and
stainless steels are produced in smaller EAFs to facilitate sequential production of low-tonnage
steels with varying composition.
The three major segments of the U.S. iron and steel industry are: integrated
producers that operate coke plants, blast furnaces, and BOFs for high-tonnage production of
nearly all grades of carbon steels; nonintegrated producers that use EAF furnaces to produce
carbon steel bar products and lower grades of flat rolled products (i.e., the "mini-mills"); and
specialty steel producers that produce alloy and stainless steels, principally with EAFs.
Manufacturing facilities within the U.S. industry vary hi terms of operations performed, but can
be classified into the five major groups described below.
2.3 Classification of Manufacturing Plants in the U.S. Iron and Steel Industry
For purpose of this review, manufacturing sites of the U.S. iron and steel industry
currently regulated by 40 CFR Part 420 are classified as follows.
2.3.1 Stand-Atone By-Product Coke Plants
Stand-alone by-product coke plants are facilities that produce metallurgical coke
and are not located at integrated steel mills. Typically, the coke produced is sold under long-
term contracts to steel makers and on the spot market. These facilities may be owned by major
2-15
-------
steel producers (e.g., U.S. Steel - Clairton Works; LTV Steel - Aliquippa, Chicago, and Warren
Plants), or may be smaller, independently owned and operated facilities (e.g., New Boston Coke,
Tonawanda Coke). This group of facilities includes the largest U.S. coke plant (U.S. Steel -
Clairton, 13,000 tons/day) and smaller facilities with typical production rates of 1,000 tons per
day.
2.3.2
Integrated Steel Mills
Traditionally, integrated steel mills conducted all basic steelmaking operations (i.e.,
cokemaking, sintering, ironmaking, open hearth and/or EOF steelmaking, continuous casting);
hot forming; and steel finishing operations (e.g., acid pickling, cold rolling, alkaline cleaning, hot
coating, and electroplating) to produce finished steel products. Today, however, the term
"integrated mill" generally refers to facilities where steel is manufactured in BOFs from molten
iron produced in blast furnaces and scrap, as opposed to nonintegrated mills where steel is
manufactured in EAFs by melting various grades of steel scrap. Due to consolidation of the
industry, cokemaking and sintering operations have been permanently shut down at many
integrated mills. For the most part, flat-rolled carbon steel products for the automotive,
appliance, construction, and food and beverage markets are produced at integrated mills.
Integrated mills may also have EAFs for producing steel from scrap steel.
2.3.3
Nonintegrated Steel Mills
As noted above, nonintegrated mills (also known as "mini-mills") are those where
steel is manufactured from melting steel scrap in EAFs. Nonintegrated mills generally produce
carbon, specialty, stainless, and high-alloy steels. These mills typically include a two- or three-
furnace EAF shop, a continuous caster, and hot rolling mills. Specialty, stainless, and high-alloy
steel mills include ladle metallurgy and vacuum degassing operations. Although nonintegrated
steel producers are making inroads into carbon steel flat-rolled markets, most carbon steel
2-16
-------
I
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
1
i
I
i
i
I
i
i
t
produced at nonintegrated mills is currently in the form of bar, rod, or wire. Both flat-rolled and
bar products are produced at specialty and high-alloy nonintegrated mills.
2.3.4 Stand-Alone Finishing Mills
Stand-alone finishing mills process semi-finished steel into finished steel products..
Molten steel is not manufactured or processed at these sites. At most stand-alone finishing mills,
hot rolled steel is processed by a combination of acid pickling, cold rolling, alkaline cleaning,
hot coating, and electroplating operations.
2.3.5 Other Stand-Alone Operations
In addition to stand-alone coke plants and finishing mills, a limited number of
other stand-alone operations in the U.S. industry also exist These include a coke plant-sinter
plant-blast furnace combination; stand-alone blast furnaces; stand-alone hot forming mills; and
stand-alone cold forming and wire mills. Many of these facilities are located near integrated steel
mills and finishing mills to allow for relatively inexpensive transportation of intermediate
products, but typically have separate water and wastewater treatment systems and separate
discharge permits.
2.4 Changes in the U.S. Steel Industry - 1982 through 1993
Table 2-2 presents a preliminary comparison of the number of facilities engaged
in basic steelmaldng operations in 1982 when the regulation was promulgated, and in 1993.8'14'22'23
The estimates presented in Table 2-2 are preliminary because they were not derived from a
comprehensive census of the industry. These results show the dramatic decrease in cokemaking,
sintering, ironmaking, and steelmaldng facilities at integrated mills, and increases in continuous
casting.
2-17
-------
2.5
Production Trends and Capacity Utilization
Figures 2-2 through 2-9 present data regarding production trends and capacity
utilization for the U.S. iron and steel industry. These data were reported by AISI for. the period
1973 through 1993.24'29 AISI defines raw steel as steel in the first solid state after melting
suitable for further processing or sale, including ingots, steel for foundry castings and strand or
pressure cast blooms, billets, slabs or other product forms. Raw steel production capacity is
defined as the tonnage capability to produce raw steel for a sustained back-log of steel orders.
Steel production and steel shipments data reported by AISI are based upon reports by AISI
member and non-member companies. Financial data do not represent data for all steel producing
companies. Financial data for 1992 and 1993 represent data for companies producing about 66%
of total raw steel produced.
The U.S. iron and steel industry has undergone the following major consolidation
and changes during the period 1973 through 1993: mergers and bankruptcies among the major
integrated steel producing companies; shutdown of smaller integrated companies and shutdown
of all or parts of several integrated mills; modernization of basic steelmaking operations; and
continued expansion of the nonintegrated segment of the industry. Figure 2-2 illustrates the
results of some of these changes. Raw steelmaking capacity declined from a range of 150 to 160
million tons/year from 1973 to 1983, to a range of 110 to 117 million tons/year during the early
•
1990s. Actual production peaked at approximately 150 million tons during 1973, reached a low
of approximately 75 million tons during the 1982 recession, and recovered to about 98 million
tons during 1993.
The industry is highly capital-intensive, is cyclical with major economic trends,
and historically has required high-capacity utilization to generate operating profits. Figure 2-3
shows that capacity utilization during the period 1975 through 1993 was highly variable, reaching
the range of 85 to 88% during the 1977-1978 expansion, falling to less than 50% during 1982,
recovering to nearly 90% during 1988, falling to approximately 75% during the 1990-1991
2-18
-------
I
1
• recession, and recovering to 89% during 1993. Because of relatively strong automotive, farm
equipment, appliance, and construction industries, capacity utilization exceeded 91% for the first
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
t
quarter of 1994.30
During the period 1973 through 1993, estimated world steel production fell to
approximately 710 million tons in 1982 and rose to 865 million tons in 1989. Figure 2-4 shows
that U.S. raw steel production declined from nearly 20% of world supply in 1973 to a relatively
constant range of 10 to 12% during the late 1980s and early 1990s. There currently is
overcapacity in world steel markets for many semi-finished and finished steel products.
Figures 2-5 through 2-9 illustrate important trends and changes in steel
manufacturing methods and modernization of the industry. Prior to the advent of EAF
steelmaking during the late 1930s, virtually all steel produced in the United States was
manufactured from molten iron (hot metal) produced in blast furnaces. Open hearth furnaces
were the principal steelmaking furnaces at integrated mills prior to the 1960s when BOF
steelmaking became widespread commercially. Figure 2-5 illustrates the decline in blast furnace
iron production from approximately 100 million tons/year in 1973 to a range of 48 to 56 million
tons/year from 1987 through 1992, and about 40% in 1993. This dramatic decline is also
reflected in Figure 2-6, in the ratio of pig iron produced to raw steel manufactured. These data
highlight the increasing trend of EAF steel production shown in Figure 2-7. Raw steel produced
in EAFs increased from approximately 10% in 1965 to a range of 35 to 38% during the period
1985 through 1992. Most of the new EAF capacity was installed at nonintegrated mills ("mini-
mills") located to serve regional areas principally in the bar, rod, wire, and structural markets.
More recently, nonintegrated mills have been constructed to produce flat-rolled steel products.
Figure 2-8 shows U.S. raw steel production by type of steelmaking furnace for the
period 1973 through 1993. Open hearth furnace steelmaking declined from nearly 40 million
tons in 1973 to zero in 1992, while EAF production increased from approximately 28 million
tons to a maximum of 38 million tons in 1993. BOF steelmaking declined from approximately
2-19
-------
83 million tons in 1973 to a range of 53 to 59 million tons/year during the 1988-1993 period.
While the industry has been consolidating and shifting toward a higher proportion of raw steel
produced at nonintegrated mills, most mills have been modernized extensively to produce higher
quality products and to compete with imports to the U.S. market. This trend is illustrated in
Figure 2-9 by the significant increase in the percentage of raw steel continuously .cast as opposed
to traditional ingot casting. These data show the percentage of steel continuously cast increased
from approximately 15% in 1978 to nearly 86% in 1993. Installation of continuous casters
accounted for a large portion of the industry's investment in new plant and equipment during this
period.
2.6
Product Mix
Figure 2-10 presents steel shipments by type of steel (carbon, alloy, and stainless)
for the period 1973 through 1993. Carbon steels currently account for more than 90% of steel
mill shipments, alloy steels for less than 10%, and stainless steels for less than two percent.
During the past six years, there has been a trend of decreasing alloy steel shipments with a
corresponding increase in carbon steel shipments. Stainless steel shipments have remained fairly
constant as a percentage of total steel shipments.
Historical steel shipments for the period 1973 through 1993 by major grades and
markets are presented in Figures 2-11 and 2-12, respectively. The product data in Figure 2-11
show steady, slow declines in shipments of tin mill and wire and wire products, a significant
decline in pipe and tubing shipments in the early 1980s that has not since recovered, and variable
shipments of other products. Total shipments of all products were lower in the early 1990s than
during the early 1970s. The results presented in Figure 2-11 are reflected in the data presented
in Figure 2-12. A general trend of increasing shipments to steel service centers (processing
plants that perform various sizing and shaping operations on steel prior to resale) has occurred
in recent years, as end users have required more customized processing that can more
economically be provided at service centers than at producing mills.
2-20
-------
I
i
I
i
i
i
i
t
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
2.7 Imports and Exports. Employment, and Financial Performance
Figure 2-13 shows the import penetration to the U.S. steel markets of semi-finished
and finished steel products for the period 1973 through 1993 in millions of tons/year and as a
percentage of the apparent U.S. steel supply. These data do not include steel imported as
manufactured goods (e.g., foreign-made automobiles). From the late 1970s through the late
1980s, import penetration to the U.S. market has been a major factor limiting the ability of U.S.
manufacturers to raise prices and operate profitably. Import penetration peaked at approximately
26% of the U.S. supply during 1984 and declined to a range of 16 to 19% in recent years
because of a combination of voluntary import agreements with major importing countries, anti-
dumping actions against foreign countries and foreign steel-producing companies by U.S.
manufacturers, and the consolidation and modernization of much of the U.S. industry.
Figure 2-14 presents plots of the value of steel imports and exports for the period
1973 through 1993. The difference represents the net balance of trade deficit in steel markets.
The deficit was approximately $2 billion in 1973, peaked at approximately $9 billion in 1984,
and fell to less than $6 billion in recent years. Factors contributing to the improvement in the
balance of trade include improved productivity by U.S. steel producers, the value of the U.S.
dollar compared to foreign currencies, and economic performance of selected foreign economies.
The consolidation and modernization of the U.S. steel industry has resulted in a
major reduction in direct employment by U.S. producers from over 500,000 people in 1973 to
approximately 127,000 in 1993, as shown annually in Figure 2-15. Part of the decline resulted
from direct jobs that were lost because many companies now contract for services provided
formerly by direct employees.
Figure 2-16 shows the financial performance of companies reporting financial
results to AISI for the period 1973 through 1993. These results generally reflect the large
integrated producers and do not represent performance across the entire industry. Collectively,
2-21
-------
the reporting companies showed operating profits during the period 1973 through 1981, and
substantial operating losses for many of the subsequent years. Financial performance has
improved considerably during 1993 and 1994 as a result of the economic recovery in this
country, the weakness of the dollar compared to selected foreign currencies, and the improved
position of the U.S. industry in terms of overall productivity and the trend toward production of
higher grade products.
2.8
Capital Spending and Pollution Control Investments
Figure 2-17 shows capital investment for new plants and equipment for the period
1973 through 1993 and for environmental controls by reporting companies for the period 1973
through 1992 (the 1993 environmental control expenditures were not available at this writing).
Also shown for each year is the percentage of the total capital invested for environmental
controls. During this period, capital spending by reporting companies ranged from more than 3
billion dollars in 1976 to slightly more than one billion dollars in 1986. Environmental
expenditures ranged from 15 to more than 20% of total-capital investments during the period
1976 through 1981 when compliance programs associated with the amendments to the Clean Air
Act and Clean Water Act passed during the early and mid-1970s were implemented. The peak
was in 1979 at 20.9 percent. From 1982 to 1992, environmental expenditures ranged from 4,4
to 12.9% of total capital investment.
Figure 2-18 presents capital investment for environmental controls by reporting
companies for the period 1951 through 1992, broken out by investments in air and water
pollution control facilities and solid waste disposal faculties. AISI reports that, through 1992,
total capital investments for environmental controls exceeded $7.2 billion. Approximately $2.6
billion was invested in water pollution control facilities, $4.5 billion in air pollution control
facilities, and about $100 million in solid waste disposal facilities.
2-22
-------
I
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
u
-d
o
JS
11
*-> 3
le
2-25
-------
2-26
-------
1
1
1 „
1C
0
U
1®
«2
I
§3
£
* *2
•^H V
• €
* 1
m %
IT"
* "&
§JS O
OS O
PU
M 2P
| .S
1 S
<*•*
1— 05
i
12 .
U
w
*j
OJ
11
eo
c
• £
1
1
1
1
%' *v* 1
r ^..^p^
• :;^:
•""'•• 5»
% -. %
"•
. srawjiw
,' : ;S3'
s •'/'''
/ -:^«M^«;
- ,<';'>usb'
^ SJ,,vSv???
- ,\\;<.-;,-' ',/
«M)$tc3<><|
^ - - ' «WH?«A
•'•'•' / f
:^^
• '-^_
. •../:>•»>"*
^b
1
;
S
-
S
s
N
^
-
-
S
s
tal Suspended Solids
H
-
S
-
V
s
v
s
-
s
s
1 &. Grease
S
-
S
s
•z
.2
S
^
s
S
S
s
.4*
*
s
f2
\
s
s
M
£
-
N
s
•E
-
S
s
05
2-:
ssssssss s
s \ \s ss
\ SSS S SN N
S\ SNNN S\N
\N\NS
\ v v v v
SNSN \ NVNS
N N \ S N S
S S NS
.hiliiini.
SHHHH H HHHH
23
-
s
s s
N
SN N
xic Organic* (partial list)
TX.
\H*
tenols
(Soa^e
™
\l
II II II
-------
Table 2-2
Facilities Engaged in Basic Steelmaking Operations 1982 and 1993
wSiSJv-SW:^
Cokemaking
Sintering
Ironmaking
Number of Plants
Number of Blast Furnaces
Steelmaking
Open Hearth
BOF
EAF
Continuous Casting
67
33
54
127
5
30
>110
54
27
10
22
45
0
22
100
MOO
2-24
-------
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
i
8 8
8
(%)
8 8 8 § S 8
2-27
-------
i
t—
5
0)
It
SI
>^
111
II
«$$.
=>8
I
\ I III
-8
•8
-8
-R
— R
fc
— R
-R
-R
*• o
O)
uoi&npojd IBBJS PIJOM jo ;ueoj&d 'S'n
2-28
-------
I
i
i
I
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
a
i
i
i
i
5
3 0>
s t
^^ I
CM
-------
II
Si
1
Q.
I
-8
~S -
0>
I
-------
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
2? ^*
II
CM
153?
1
CM
-$'n jo IUQQ Jdd
2-31
-------
i
R
C C
D .9
CO
\
\ I
a:
c
—s o
1
8 §
suo± /o
2-32
-------
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
iff
i!
-8
8 „
^- ^
o»
-8
-fe
1
8 8
§ 8
iseo Aisnonuiiuoo IQQIS Mey ;o ;ueo JQd
2-33
-------
s
o>
^
ic to
CO
CO
8
h8
i
N.
"CO
-8
-s
-8
-S
»-
'CO
-R
8 8 S R
§ S § co CM i*
2-34
-------
1
1
i
i
i
I
I
I
i
i
i
I
i
i
I
i
i
i
Co
1
XS
i
s
S, V • I
V \ '. ; 1
x \\ ; '
\ 1
/
f (\ i
/ \\
i \\
\ t \
• • ,
\ \ \
V V". \
/ r 1
V U
\ •• /
> > is
/.-•'/ \ i
< • \ \ \i 1
/ \ - V i
\/ / !
>- > /) j
s~ ' S (/I
/ !'• \ 1 '
X i '. \ • 1
1 1 1 1 1
S 8 ? S 8 S
fst/ojiv^ s#Jdu/d/t/s /ee;s
2-35
J
-8 1 g
-S £S
-5 S ?
o Q- §
^j
i^h ^ ^i.
0) ®
CK C& -S*
k§ Q. §
j^. f?J
*O 2JJ
703 *» !
"09 I
^Q
?.«.}
-5* i |
-g ! °-
-S
1^ ^S
•R S 1
-------
\
,:^J
J I
-3 S2 S
—R
—R
o oo
CM o
2-36
-------
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
2-37
-------
&"
CM
55
UJ
I
co
' I
(suo!iaq$) syodxj pue syodwuo en/e/\
2-38
-------
I
I
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
ft
IK
eo
-8
-8
* 1
-8
-8
-R
-R
10
i
8
8
(spuesnoyjtf
2-39
-------
(suoiing$)
2-40
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(suotnig$) SHJ&UQS9AUI /ej/cfeo /BJO/
2-41
-------
CNf
00 ^
*~ *R
CO
=5
Uj
u>
i
8
-fe I
—§
—s
8
— R
•R
_ K
R
2-42
-------
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
3.0 BACKGROUND OF CURRENT REGULATION
3.1 Prior Regulations
EPA promulgated two regulations applicable to the iron and steel industry prior
to the current effluent limitations guidelines and standards at 40 CFR Part 420. The first was
promulgated on June 28, 1974 (Phase 1), and included Best Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available (BPT) and Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
effluent limitations guidelines, and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Pretreatment
Standards for New Sources (PSNS) for the following basic steelmaking operations:31
By-product Cokemaking Beehive Cokemaking
Sintering Blast Furnace (Iron)
Blast Furnace (Ferromanganese) BOF (Semi-wet)
EOF (Wet) Open Hearth Furnace (Semi-wet)
Open Hearth Furnace (Wet) Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
The terms "Semi-wet" and "Wet" refer to semi-wet and wet air pollution control
systems for the different types of steelmaking furnaces.
In response to several petitions for review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit remanded the regulation to the Agency on November 7, 1975.32 The Court rejected all
technical challenges to the BPT effluent limitations guidelines, but ruled that the BAT effluent
limitations guidelines and NSPS for certain subcategories were not demonstrated. The Court also
ruled that EPA had not adequately considered the impact of plant age on the cost or feasibility
of retrofitting pollution control equipment, did not assess the impact of the regulation on water
scarcity in arid and semi-arid regions, and failed to make adequate "net/gross" provisions for
pollutants found in intake waters.
3-1
-------
On March 26, 1976, EPA promulgated BPT effluent limitations guidelines and
proposed BAT effluent limitations guidelines and NSPS and PSNS for the following steel
forming and finishing operations:33
Hot Forming - Primary
Hot Forming - Flat
Pickling - Sulfuric Acid
Cold Rolling
Hot Coatings - Teme
Scale Removal
Continuous Alkaline Cleaning
Hot Forming - Section
Hot Forming - Pipe and Tube
Pickling - Hydrochloric Acid
Hot Coatings - Galvanizing
Combination Acid Pickling
Wire Pickling and Coating
Miscellaneous Runoffs - Storage
Piles, Casting and Slagging
In response to several petitions for review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit also remanded this regulation to the Agency on September 14, 1977.34 The Court again
rejected all technical challenges to the BPT effluent limitations guidelines; however, it again
questioned the regulation on the age/retrofit and water scarcity issues. It also invalidated the
regulation as it applied to the specialty steel industry for lack of proper notice. The Court
directed EPA to reevaluate its estimates of compliance costs with regard to certain "site-specific"
factors and to reexamine its economic impact analysis. Finally, the Court also ruled that EPA
had no authority to exempt certain steel mills located in the Mahoning Valley of Ohio from the
regulation.
The current regulation at 40 CFR Part 420 was proposed on January 7,1981, and
was promulgated on May 22, 1982.1'35 The regulation was last amended in May 1984 through
a negotiated Settlement Agreement with the iron arid steel industry and the NRDC in response
to challenges to the May 27, 1982 promulgation.1-2-3
3-2
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.2 Applicability
Section 420.01 (a) presents the following general statement of applicability for Part
420:
"(a) The provisions of this part apply to discharges and to the
introduction of pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works
resulting from production operations in the Iron and Steel Point
Source Category."
Section 420.0 l(b) provided a temporary exclusion from Part 420 for 21 steel mills
or parts of steel mills that were identified as having central treatment facilities at the time Part
420 was promulgated. Section 420.0 l(b) is reviewed in detail in Section 3.6.1 below.
In promulgating Part 420 in 1982, EPA addressed three court-remanded issues
from EPA's initial attempts to promulgate effluent limitations guidelines in 1974 and 1976:
• Inclusion of site-specific costs;
• Impact of plant age on the costs or feasibility of retrofitting control
facilities; and
• Impact of the regulation on the consumptive loss of water.
In response to these issues, EPA modified its costing methodology to include site-
specific costs to the extent they could be reasonably estimated, evaluated whether costs to retrofit
control facilities at "older" mills would be disproportionately higher than similar costs for the
industry as a whole, and evaluated the potential consumption of water that might occur as a result
of compliance with the regulation. Aside from the temporary central treatment exclusion
provided for selected mills at §420.0 l(b), which were promulgated independently of the remand
3-3
-------
issues, no exclusions from Part 420 were provided for mills on the basis of age, size, complexity,
or geographic location as a result of the remand issues.
The applicability statement presented in §420.01(a), and many of the applicability
statements for specific subparts of the regulation, are broad and include virtually all facilities
which manufacture or process coke, iron, steel, or semi-finished steel products. As described in
Section 4.1, some changes may need to be considered for small, stand-alone facilities that may
perform operations on finished or semi-finished steel that are subject to Part 420.
3.3
Subcategorization
When promulgating Part 420 in 1982, EPA revised the Subcategorization scheme
of the iron and steel industry from that specified in the 1974 and 1976 regulations to more
accurately reflect major types of production operations and to attempt to simplify implementation
of the regulation by permit writers and the industry. The following factors were considered in
revising the Subcategorization scheme:
Manufacturing processes and equipment;
Raw materials;
Final products;
Wastewater characteristics;
Wastewater treatment methods;
Size and age of facilities;
Geographic location;
Process water usage and discharge rates; and
Costs and economic impacts.
3-4
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
A.
B.
C.
D.
I.
J.
. Cokemaking
Sintering
Ironmaking
Steelmaking
Acid Pickling
Cold Forming
E.
F.
G.
H.
K.
L.
EPA found that the type of manufacturing process was the most significant factor,
and subsequently divided the industry into the twelve process subcategories (subparts) listed
below:
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Hot Forming
Salt Bath Descaling
Alkaline Cleaning
Hot Coating
These subcategories were further divided into subdivisions and segments as shown in Table 3-1.
These processes and electroplating operations conducted at steel mills are briefly
described in Sections 2.1.1 through 2.1.13. As described in Section 4.2, the current industry
subcategorization as reflected in Part 420 could be reorganized to more effectively regulate
nonintegrated steel producers; to include operations currently regulated under Part 433 - Metal
Finishing; to address new continuous strip steel finishing mills that include new metal coatings
and combinations of operations that currently fall under Pahs 420 and 433; and to delete obsolete
manufacturing processes.
3.4
Technology Bases for the Regulation
The technologies considered by EPA for establishing the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards contained in Part 420 are, for the most part, based upon a combination
of process water flow reduction and conventional end-of-pipe wastewater treatment technologies.
Because of the capital-intensive nature of the industry and the lack of commercially available
new cokemaking, ironmaking, steelmaking, forming, or steel finishing technologies that could be
applied on an industry-wide basis, EPA did not consider process change as a basis for the BAT
3-5
-------
effluent limitations guidelines and NSPS and PSNS contained in the current Part 420. As
described in Section 6, there may now be opportunities to establish revised BAT and NSPS for
certain operations based upon process changes.
When promulgating Part 420, EPA established Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (BCT) effluent limitations guidelines only for the hot forming subcategory at a level
equivalent to BPT. BCT was not promulgated for any other subcategories. For all subcategories
except cokemaking, PSES for nonconventional and toxic pollutants were set equal to BAT, and
PSNS were set equal to NSPS. PSES for cokemaking were based upon physical/chemical
treatment as opposed to a combination of physical/chemical treatment and biological treatment
for BAT.
Appendix A contains a series of schematic diagrams showing the technologies
considered by EPA in developing the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for each
subcategory.8 Following are brief summaries of the selected major model technologies for BPT
and BAT/NSPS for each subcategory:
Cokemaking
BPT. Recycle of final cooler water, dissolved gas floatation for
benzol plant wastewaters, free and fixed ammonia stripping,
equalization, and single-stage activated sludge.
BAT. BPT plus recycle of ammonium crystallizer water and
modify single-stage activated sludge to two-stage activated sludge
with nitrification.
3-6
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sintering
BPT. Clarification and recycle (92%) of air emission control
scrubber water and sludge dewatering.
BAT/NSPS. Recycle system blowdown treatment comprising
metals precipitation, two-stage alkaline chlorination, and
dechlorination.
Ironmaking
BPT. Clarification, cooling, and recycle (96%) for blast furnace
gas cleaning and gas cooling waters, and sludge dewatering.
BAT/NSPS. Increased recycle (98%) and recycle system
blowdown treatment comprising metals precipitation, two-stage
alkaline chlorination, and dechlorination.
Steelmaking
BPT. Clarification and recycle (95% EOF - Suppressed
Combustion; 90% EOF - Open Combustion; 94% Open Hearth
Furnace; 95% EAF) of Steelmaking wet air emission control
scrubber water, and sludge dewatering. Recycle to extinction of
gas conditioning water for BOFs and EAFs equipped with semi-wet
air emission control systems.
BAT/NSPS. Recycle system blowdown treatment comprising
metals precipitation and pH control for Steelmaking furnaces with
wet air emission control systems.
3-7
-------
Vacuum Degassing
BPT. Sedimentation and recycle (98%) for condenser contact
cooling waters.
BAT/NSPS. Recycle system blowdown treatment comprising
metals precipitation and pH control.
Continuous Casting
BPT. Closed loop cooling for casting machine and mold cooling
water systems; sedimentation, filtration, cooling, and recycle
(96.3%) for spray water.
BAT/NSPS. Increased recycle (99.3%) and recycle system
blowdown treatment for spray water comprising metals
precipitation and pH control.
Hot Forming
BPT/BCT. Sedimentation and oil skimming, partial recycle of
scale pit effluents (Primary Mills - 61%; Section Mills - 58%; Hat
Mills - 60%; Pipe and Tube Mills - 77%), clarification and
filtration, and sludge dewatering.
BAT. Not promulgated because of low toxic metals loadings and
high cost of high-rate recycle.
NSPS. Sedimentation, partial recycle of primary scale pit effluents,
clarification, cooling, additional recycle (to 96%), recycle system
blowdown filtration, and sludge dewatering.
3-8
-------
I
I
I Salt Bath Descaling
I • BPT. Oxidizing: Reduction of hexavalent chromium, oil
™ skimming, metals precipitation, and sludge dewatering,
I BPT. Reducing: Two-stage chlorination, metals
™ precipitation, and sludge dewatering.
I • BAT/NSPS. Effluent limitations guidelines and standards based
™ upon BPT technologies.
" Acid Pickling
• BPT. Recycle of fume scrubber waters, equalization, oil
_ skimming, metals precipitation, and sludge dewatering.
• BAT/NSPS. Acid regeneration plant absorber vent scrubber
_ recycle, and countercurrent cascade pickling rinses.
_ Cold Forming - Cold Rolling
I* BPT. Primary oil removal, emulsion breaking, dissolved gas
flotation, and sludge dewatering. Contract hauling of waste rolling
solutions for limited applications.
| • BAT/NSPS. Effluent limitations guidelines and standards based
upon BPT technologies.
I
Alkaline Cleaning
I
• BPT. Oil skimming, pH control, and clarification.
I
BAT. Not promulgated because of low toxic pollutant loadings.
NSPS. Standai
flow reduction.
8 • NSPS. Standards based upon BPT technologies with additional
I
I
3-9
-------
Hot Coating
BPT. Reduction of hexavalent chromium, equalization and oil
removal, metals precipitation, and pH control.
i
BAT/NSPS. Recycle of fume scrubber waters.
3.5
Regulated Pollutants
Table 3-2 presents, by subcategory, the conventional, nonconventional, and priority
(or toxic) pollutants regulated by Part 420. The regulated pollutants were selected based upon
process wastewater characteristics in each subcategory in terms of pollutant loadings and
concentrations, whether controlling certain pollutants would result in comparable control of
similar pollutants (e.g., limitations for lead and zinc based upon metals precipitation technology
would control other metals not directly limited), and whether co-treatment of compatible
wastewaters would be encouraged by limiting the same pollutants in different subcategories. A
principal concern expressed by the Agency was the potential for dilution of toxic metal and toxic
organic pollutants from co-mingling and co-treatment of incompatible wastewaters.36
EPA regulated the pollutants in Table 3-2 and grouped the following subcategories
to attempt to restrict indiscriminate mixing of incompatible wastewaters and dilution of toxic
pollutants:
3-10
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Group Subcategories
1 Cokemaking
2 Sintering, Ironmaking
3 Steelmaking, Vacuum Degassing, Continuous Casting, Acid
Pickling (B^SO4, HC1), Cold RoUing, Alkaline Cleaning, Hot
Coating
4 Specialty Steel Operations: Salt Bath Descaling, Acid Pickling
(Combination), Cold Rolling
This aspect of the regulation is reviewed in more detail in Sections 3.6 and 4.4
with the Central Treatment provisions set out at §420.01(b).
3.6 General Provisions
The General Provisions of the regulation contain the applicability statement
described above at §420.01(a); the temporary central treatment exclusion for selected facilities
and parts of facilities at §420.01(5); general definitions at §420.02; an alternative effluent
limitations provision for BPT, BCT, and BAT, otherwise known as the "water bubble", at
§420.03; a statement of basis for determining the appropriate production level for calculating
mass-based pretreatment standards at §420.04; a pretreatment standards compliance date at
§420.05; and a provision that would allow pretreatment removal credits for phenols (4AAP)
under certain circumstances, at §420.06.
Because of their actual and potential significance in the regulatory framework for
iron and steel mills, the temporary central treatment exemption at §420.0 l(b) and the "water
bubble" rule at §420.03 are reviewed separately below and in Section 4.4. The general
applicability statement at §420.01 (a) and the applicability statements for selected subcategories
are reviewed in Section 4.1.
3-11
-------
The General Provision regarding the appropriate production rate for establishing
mass categorical pretreatment standards is a more refined statement of the production basis used
to determine mass NPDES permit effluent limitations set out at §122.45(b). For the iron and
steel industry, most NPDES permits and pretreatment standards have been computed based on
the daily average production for the month with the highest production that occurred over the
prior five years at the time of permit issuance. Because of the cyclical nature of operations at
most steel mills, this approach results in what may be inflated effluent limitations or pretreatment
standards in some cases. This issue is reviewed in Section 4.4.
Because the recently promulgated removal credits provisions of the pretreatment
regulations at §403.7 specifically list the priority pollutant phenol as being eligible for removal
credits, and do not list the nonconventional pollutant phenols (4AAP), General Provision §420.06
regarding possible removal credits for phenols (4AAP) does not appear to be applicable at this
time.
3.6.1
Central Treatment
During development of the current Part 420, the industry requested that EPA
develop a subcategory for "central treatment" facilities (i.e., facilities that provide treatment for
wastewaters from multiple subcategories). In the promulgation of Part 420, EPA did not include
a central treatment subcategory. Upon examination of this issue, the Agency found that
numerous combinations of centralized treatment systems were used by the industry.37 Many
treated wastewaters were compatible (i.e., the mix of pollutants present was such that the
treatment provided would be essentially the same as that provided if the wastewaters were treated
separately, or that certain wastewaters could be effectively pretreated for selected pollutants and
then mixed and co-treated with similar wastewaters). EPA also found other types of centralized
treatment facilities where incompatible wastewaters were mixed and co-treated without
pretreatment. In many of these systems, mass discharges of pollutants were much higher than
could be achieved if only compatible wastewaters were co-treated and incompatible wastewaters
3-12
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
were treated separately. The principal issue raised by the industry was that the cost to retrofit
separate treatment facilities at mills with certain types of centralized treatment facilities would
be excessive when compared to the Agency's estimated costs of compliance.
Because EPA could not resolve cost issues at mills with centralized treatment
facilities during development of Part 420, it established a scheme in the proposed regulation
whereby alternative, less stringent limitations could be obtained for mills or parts of mills
provided the owners or operators made certain demonstrations regarding the costs to retrofit
pollution control facilities. Seven mills or parts of mills were identified by EPA from a list of
35 mills provided by the industry as possibly qualifying for such alternative effluent limitations.
Based upon comments received in response to the proposed regulation, EPA expanded the list
to 21 mills in the final regulation.
Section 420.0 l(b) provided that these facilities were temporarily excluded from
Part 420 provided that the owner or operator made the required demonstrations set out in the
regulation. These included an estimate of the cost to fully comply with Part 420 and estimates
of the effluent limitations that could be achieved if the owner or operator were to spend an
amount equal to the Agency's model treatment system cost estimate to comply with Part 420.
The regulation also required supplemental wastewater quality, production, and other data.
Although §420.0 l(b) does not address the extent of the temporary exclusion, the preamble to the
regulation at 47 FR 23267 stated that the Agency's intent was that the temporary exclusion was
not to exceed one year from date of promulgation.
As described more fully in Section 4.4, none of the 21 facilities listed in
§420.0 l(b) received alternative, less stringent effluent limitations or pretreatment standards
through the mechanism established by the regulation. Because the central treatment provision
remains in the regulation, the owners or operators of two listed facilities are currently attempting
to use §420.0 l(b) as a vehicle to obtain less stringent NPDES permit effluent limitations than
would otherwise be required under Part 420.
. 3-13
-------
3.6.2
Water Bubble
Section 420.03 (commonly known as the "water bubble" role) provides a
mechanism whereby dischargers with multiple outfalls may discharge greater quantities of
pollutants from outfalls where treatment costs are high in exchange for a larger decrease in
discharges from outfalls at the same plant where treatment costs are less. The regulation provides
that there can be only intraplant trades and no interplant trades; that only like pollutants can be
traded (e.g., zinc for zinc, not zinc for lead or ammonia-N); that minimum net reductions of 10%
for toxic and nonconventional pollutants and 15% for conventional pollutants must be achieved;
and, that trades within certain subcategories are restricted (cokemaking and cold rolling). These
restrictions were included to ensure there would be no inadvertent excess discharge of toxic
organic pollutants from these operations in implementing the water bubble rule.
Although the water bubble rule has not been used by many mills, the present value
of the cost reductions of intraplant trading at seven mills was recently estimated at $122.7 million
(1993 dollars).38 Possible modifications to the water bubble rule are reviewed in Section 4.4.
At the time the current Part 420 was under review for promulgation, U.S. EPA
evaluated whether to develop a water bubble type rule for other industrial categories including
petroleum refining, organic chemicals, pulp and paper, and metal finishing. The Agency found
that a water bubble rule would not be effective for these and other categories because most
manufacturing facilities in these categories do not have multiple process wastewater treatment
facilities and multiple outfalls that are characteristic of integrated steel mills.
3-14
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
03
H
I
o>
E
6JD
O)
CO
-e
rt
rf
,0
*S2
^
A
a
c«
•t
tn
-SJ
"u
O
en
J3
CO
on
B
»«••
IM
c
I
I
CO
e
o
• ^ "< ••
~j?!
' '8"
'••-••§
«5L
n,
_. v
V.
' ^
;;^:
s •
-
^
"i"
;|;
J-
.. .s
KX
5-
''I
,«
a
J
^
i
w
i
I
1
1
tj
a
!
«"
1
25
Beehive
Cokemaking
<
o
25
1
BO
CQ
i
1
§
H^
'So
43
-D
1
u
g
25
g
00
Cj
1
a<
Ironmaking
U
|
1
a
o
1
a
o
u
1
DO
1
U)
i
.1
e
o
wi
^
1
o
o
o
i
8
1
g
s?
5*
.2
cS
m
1
i
1
X
I
i
CO
1
u
1
Jj3
**^
i
j
00
1
1
wa
Q
1
25
1
oo
r*l
Vacuum Degas!
w
o
25
I
00
-§
Continuous Cas
*
3-15
-------
73
0>
O
U
«
2
en
•*•*
•o
e
cs
.23
'>
en
O
OD
|5BJ;:;i
BK
illll?;
:;:;:•:;:•:;:•:•:*
JjJ
1
S;||;SJI
jH
ilgp
l^l
•SS-xjCHA'
!|l)t
|i*S3|
iiil
B
i
%
+4
a
o
•S
'*
CO
£«
•-2
i
g
1
>,
c3
£
OQ
1^
S'
£
o
ffi
d
2
1
^
•S
•5
tA
&
"3
1
£<
T3
§
O
S
«a
§
f
U
e
o
-t"H
^
^
CO
Specialty mills
M
1
1
f
M
4-J
O
33
+-»
CQ
3
•a
i
CQ
S
1
^
-a
1
CO
U
g
as
aa
1
JJ
3
1
rt
.8-
a.
•\
S
3
ex
I
Cfl
• •
S
S
00
•rt
;S
fM«
^
6
00
.S
13
0
Q
rS
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.S
"•5
o
U
CQ
(U
S
en
01
c
CQ
*^
09
CA
WD
3
.CO
OJD
,
1
£5
I
1/3
•CJ
ea
c
o
i'T
<•;••
w y?
f v vA
» .y>.'.
V>
-&•>
^1-
'
1
.• .•
..
{
:\.
\
A
5
f
*
1
H^
,
''J"
C
U
1
T3
O
o
_o
3
a
PQ
"E,
1
•k
t
CO
•1
o
3
w"
£
5 scrubber
1
."2
u
1
3
CO
*3
i"
TS
i
1
00
1
•t
-------
en
+rf
g
OX)
0>
B
c
o
;s
«
A
U *
\^*> eg
S 1
CO
~
£3
9
•«•»
.8
•4^
CA
B
O
^x-;.c
V . ,^,
*rt^ "^
/^
^ **''*
^ ^f
J
^
/ B
«
^
> s
>=!,
.;,
''
•Ml
A
-^
"
\ \
;£
&
%1
»
^
i
•pjjj
-
•n
3
CA
JU
bD
Recirculation: sin
CO
i
50
O
I
Recirculation: mu
Combination
T3
gH
S3
M
«-M
c?
"53
Direct application:
-o
c
-S
crt
"S,
•a
•3
e
Direct application:
*
-
•
60
.s
1
T3
S
Water solutions
Oil solutions
t>
2
T3
' 1
O,
"8.
•tf
o
*
!
C?
"|
i.
2
o
U
H- 1
1
S
co
n
i
W5
Continue
(SO
1
s
0
V
.S
t^i
^
§
3
1
S,
w
3
1
ctf
*s
s
1
I
I
E
ti
«j
a
1
1
1
I
•a
i
J
o
1
o
00
Galvaniz
coatings
1
55
g
XI
X)
g
1/5
CJ)
-s
CD
a
^
a
3-18
-------
Table 3-2
Iron and Steel Manufacturing Processes
Pollutants Limited by 40 CFR Part 420
i .......... is..
*H
i$
HI
:I
;1
If
jfi
;•}
:vl
; I-
•i}
$
s
s
s
s
-
s
s
s
-
s
s
s
il
-
-
-
s
s
s
s
N
Oil & Grease
S
s
N
Ammonfa-N
S
-
s
N
Total Cyanide
-
-
s
Phenols (4AAP)
S S S
\ •* s s.
s s s s
S N
s s
N V
S N
S S
Total Metats
Chromium
Chromium +6
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
S S
S N S
Toxic Organlcs
Benzene
Benzo-a-pyrene
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethylene
3-19
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
4.0 ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT REGULATION
4.1 Applicability
The combination of the general applicability statement at §420.01 (a) and the
subcategory-specific applicability statements make Part 420 applicable to virtually all facilities
that manufacture steel or process semi-finished and finished steel products. As described below,
there are relatively few issues associated with applicability statements for the basic steelmaking
operations; however, applying Part 420 to small, stand-alone facilities which perform some steel
finishing and metal finishing operations has resulted in a number of NPDES and pretreatment
issues. Following are brief reviews of the subcategory-specific applicability statements and
preliminary assessments of possible modifications.
4.1.1 §420.10 - Cokemaking
The current applicability statement applies the current regulation to by-product
recovery coke plants and beehive coke plants; however, operating beehive coke plants in the
United States no longer exist. In addition, .the applicability statement does not address
nonrecovery coke batteries (discussed on pages 6-1 and 6-2). Although nonrecovery cokemaking
has not been installed at any major integrated mills, this technology allows for cokemaking with
comparatively few air emissions and wastewater discharges.
4.1.2 §420.20 - Sintering
The sintering applicability statement is written such that the regulation applies only
to sintering plants. Currently, there are tenoperating sinter plants in the United States, compared
to 33 when the regulation was promulgated. Because of the potential difficulties in permitting
new sinter plants from an air emissions standpoint, it is not likely that very many will be
constructed in the near term. Some steel makers have been evaluating and installing hot and cold
4-1
-------
briquetting plants to recover iron values from both blast furnace and steelmaking sludges.
Briquetting plants are also used at Direct-Reduced Iron (DRI) plants for agglomerating DRI into
a form that can be charged to steelmaking furnaces. Although most briquetting plants use
minimal process water compared to sinter plants with wet air emission control systems, they are
not regulated by Part 420. Also, because sinter plants can be operated with dry air emission
control systems, zero discharge could be considered for NSPS and PSNS on the basis of dry air
controls. The current NSPS and PSNS are based upon wet air emission control systems. Dry
air emission controls are currently used in the U.S. by three sinter plant operators to comply with
current air emission regulations
4.1.3
§420.30 - Ironmaking
The ironmaking subcategory includes iron-producing blast furnaces and
ferromanganese-producing blast furnaces. Ferromanganese is no longer produced in blast
furnaces in the United States. The ironmaking subpart does not apply to DRI plants which can
have process wastewater discharges.
4.1.4
§420.40 - Steelmaking
The applicability statement for steelmaking operations appears adequate to cover
existing conventional BOF and EAF steelmaking operations. It also encompasses open hearth
furnaces which are no longer used for steelmaking in the United States. Ferroalloy products are
also manufactured in EAFs; however, the applicability statement for the steelmaking subcategory
does not need to be amended to specifically exclude manufacture of ferroalloys in EAFs because
the applicability statements in Part 424 are specific to ferroalloys.
4-2
-------
I
i
i
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
4.1.5 §420.50 - Vacuum Degassing
The applicability statement appears adequate for existing vacuum degassing
operations. Most new vacuum degassing plants are installed as part of ladle metallurgy stations
that typically have dry air cleaning systems for the nondegassing operations. NSPS could be
developed based upon dry air emission controls to ensure that no wet systems are installed for
nondegassing ladle metallurgy operations.
4.1.6 §420.60 - Continuous Casting, §420.70 - Hot Forming, §420.80, Salt Bath
Descaling
Currently, there are no known or suspected issues associated with the applicability
statements for the continuous casting, hot forming, or salt bath descaling subcategories.
4.1.7 Steel Finishing: §420.90 - Acid Pickling, §420.100 - Cold Forming, §420.110 -
Alkaline Cleaning, and §420.120 - Hot Coating
As noted in Section 3.0, there are a number of issues associated with the
applicability of Part 420 to small, stand-alone facilities that process semi-finished steel products.
The current applicability statements for the steel finishing operations (acid pickling, cold forming,
alkaline cleaning, and hot coating) apply Part 420 to virtually all facilities that perform any of
the above operations on steel that are not regulated under Part 433 - Metal Finishing, This raises
the following issues:
The effluent limitations guidelines and standards in Part 420 were
based upon the flow rates and treated effluent quality attained at
large steel finishing mills with co-treatment of compatible steel
finishing and metal finishing wastewaters.
Exceptionally low treated effluent concentrations of toxic metals
are attained in these systems with conventional lime precipitation
4-3
-------
as a result of coprecipitation of toxic metals with ferrous and ferric
iron present from acid pickling operations.
Many of the small, stand-alone facilities do not have the benefit of
co-treating significant volumes of pickling rinse waters and thus
have difficulty readily achieving the same effluent quality with the
model technologies. This is particularly true of stand-alone hot dip
galvanizers.
Small, stand-alone facilities not affiliated with major steel finishing
operations tend to have higher flow rates per unit of production
than do the large flat-rolled, continuous strip steel finishing
facilities used as the basis for the effluent limitations guidelines
and standards.
It may be appropriate to consider revision to Part 420 to address these issues.
Because of their similarity to metal products and machinery facilities, small stand-alone steel
finishing plants may be more appropriately regulated under the new Metal Products and
Machinery Category.
The applicability statement for the alkaline cleaning subcategory should be made
clearer as to how alkaline cleaning operations integral to hot coating and electroplating lines are
regulated. Some permit writers have double-counted these operations within a facility.
4.1.8
§433 - Metal Finishing
Electroplating of chromium, tin, zinc, and other metals onto steel at steel finishing
plants is regulated by Part 433 - Metal Finishing. As described in Section 4.3, it may be more
appropriate for these operations to be regulated by Part 420 as a new subcategory.
4-4
-------
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
4.1.9 New Steel Finishing Operations
During the past five to seven years, several (approximately ten) new continuous
strip steel finishing facilities have been constructed to respond to demands from automobile
manufacturers for higher quality electro-galvanized steels, steels coated with other metals, and
new combinations of metals. At some of these plants, steel finishing and metal finishing
operations are conducted on the same extended processing lines without the shearing and re-
welding of coils that is typical for these types of process lines. These operations complicate the
discharge permitting process because the effluent limitations guidelines and standards contained
in Parts 420 and 433 are different in terms of method of application (mass-based vs.
concentration-based) and level of final effluent quality (see Section 4.3). Sufficient numbers of
these facilities exist to consider a separate subcategory on the basis of the mix of process
operations and wastewater characteristics.
4.2 Subcategorization
Based upon the issues presented above, the following modifications to the existing
Subcategorization of Part 420 are presented for consideration:
Cokemaking. Delete beehive coke plants and add nonrecovery
coke plants.
Sintering. Add a segment for briquetting operations.
Ironmaking. Delete ferromanganese blast furnaces, and add a
segment for Direct-Reduced Iron plants.
Steelmaking. Delete open hearth furnaces.
Vacuum Degassing. Add a segment for nondegassing operations
at ladle metallurgy stations. .
4-5
-------
Acid Pickling, Cold Forming, Alkaline Cleaning, Hot Coating.
Develop a size cut-off or otherwise modify the applicability
statements to exclude small, stand-alone facilities that perform
some or all of the steel finishing operations. The facilities could
be covered by the new Metal Products and Machinery Category.
Deletion of existing obsolete subcategories is presented because it may not be
appropriate to leave effluent limitations guidelines and standards for obsolete processes with
inherent high-pollution generation rates and high process water use.
In addition to changes to existing subcategories suggested above for review, it may
be appropriate to create new subcategories to better reflect the current iron and steel industry and
to more effectively regulate steel and metal finishing operations conducted at steel mill sites:
Nonintegrated Steel Mills. Nearly all nonintegrated steel mills
(mini-mills) are configured with EAFs with dry primary and
secondary air emission controls; continuous billet, round, or slab
casters; and section, flat, or pipe and tube hot forming mills. A
small number are also equipped with steel finishing facilities (e.g.,
acid pickling, cold rolling, hot coating). It is common practice at
nonintegrated mills to co-treat compatible continuous caster spray
water and hot forming process water in high-rate process water
recycle systems, and to co-treat blowdowns from these systems.
This is not the case at nearly all integrated mills where hot forming
and continuous caster process waters are independently treated and
recycled. The current regulation includes limitations for total lead
and total zinc for continuous casters, but no limitations for these
metals for hot forming mills. This has created a number of
permitting issues for these facilities. A new subcategory for
nonintegrated steel mills could be created to more effectively
regulate these facilities.
New Continuous Strip Finishing Mills. As described in
Section 4.1.11, a subcategory to specifically regulate this new type
of finishing mill could be developed. The mills are characterized
by continuous in-line acid pickling, cold rolling, annealing, temper
rolling, and/or hot coating and electroplating operations. Some of
these mills cannot be effectively regulated by either the current
4-6
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
t
Part 420 or Part 433, or by a combination of the two regulations.
In some cases, new metal coatings and combinations of metal
coatings are applied that were not in use at the time Parts 420 and
Part 433 were promulgated.
Electroplating Conducted at Steel Mills. Because of the factors
described in Section 4.3, a new subcategory for electroplating of
chromium, tin, zinc, other metals, and combinations of metals may
be appropriate. The effluent limitations guidelines and standards
for steel finishing operations were based upon performance of
treatment systems that co-treat steel finishing and metal finishing
process wastewaters; and the effluent limitations guidelines and
standards in Part 433 are much less restrictive than the comparable
effluent limitations guidelines and standards in Part 420.
Accordingly, NPDES permit effluent limitations and categorical
pretreatment limitations based upon a combination of the two
regulations are much less restrictive than would be allowed under
Part 420 alone. Some owners and operators of steel mills have
sought to take advantage of this circumstance through application
of the "water bubble" rule (§420.03).
4.3 Better Performing Mills
In order to assess on a preliminary basis possible advances in process water
management, process wastewater treatment technologies, wastewater treatment performance, and
effluent disposal practices, EPA obtained treated effluent data and production data from a number
of mills believed to be among the better performing mills located in North America. Some of
the data were gathered by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment as part of that agency's study
of its Iron and Steel Sector for its Municipal/Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA)
program.39'40 Additional data were assembled during this preliminary assessment. Although the
limited number of mills selected for review are believed to be among the better performing mills
in North America, the selection process was based upon personal knowledge of the project team
and not upon a comprehensive survey of the industry. Any technology, whether or not used on
a permanent basis in the U.S. or any other country, is a candidate technology for BAT and/or
4-7
-------
NSPS, There may be other mills with equal or better performance and there are many mills that
do not perform as well as the mills included in this review.
The approach taken was to obtain daily effluent performance data and total
monthly production during a period of relatively high production. For purposes of this report the
"long term average" is the arithmetic mean of the effluent data collected over a period of time
ranging from six months to more than one year, depending upon the specific treatment system
being evaluated. These data were used to compute long-term average concentrations, mass
discharges of monitored pollutants, and long-term average effluent flows. The mass discharge
data were divided by the long-term average production data to establish a long-term average
production-normalized discharge rate for each monitored pollutant in terms of mass of pollutant
discharged per mass of production (kg/kkg or lbs/1,000 Ibs). These results were compared on
a mill-by-mill basis to the long-term average production-normalized discharge rates in kg/kkg for
the currently applicable BPT, BCT, and BAT effluent limitations guidelines and NSPS from Part
420. Where process wastewaters from manufacturing operations in different subcategories were
co-treated, the long-term average discharge for each manufacturing operation was estimated in
proportion to discharge flow for each operation.
A modified approach was used for steel finishing mills that are currently regulated
by a combination of Parts 420 and 433. For these mills, the long-term average effluent mass
discharges were divided by the long-term average hydrochloric acid (HC1) pickling production
data to obtain production-normalized discharge loads for each monitored pollutant in kg/kkg of
HC1 pickled product. To develop a comparable long-term average discharge load that would
result from application of Parts 420 and 433, the long-term average mass discharge rate in kg/day
was determined for both Parts 420 and 433. These discharge rates were added together and
divided by the HC1 pickling production rate to obtain a production-normalized discharge load in
kg/kkg (lbs/1,000 Ibs) of HC1 pickled product that could be directly compared against the actual
long-term average production-normalized discharge loads.
4-8
-------
I
I
i
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
The results of these comparisons are presented in tabular form in Appendix B and
in Figures 4-1 through 4-8. The data in Figures 4-1 through 4-8 are presented as percentages
below and above the long-term average production-normalized discharge rates derived from the
effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELG LTA). The ELG LTAs are thus shown at the-
zero line on each figure. Performance better than the ELG LTAs is shown by negative
percentages above the zero line, with negative 100% representing zero discharge. Performance
•less than the ELG LTAs is designated by positive percentages below the zero line. A default
value of positive 100% was selected for mills with long-term average production-normalized
discharges two or more times the ELG LTAs to maintain a reasonable scale for these plots. The
results for each subcategory are reviewed below.
4.3.1 Cokemaking • Figure 4-1
The comparisons show performance substantially better than the ELG LTAs for
most monitored pollutants for the three coke plants selected for review, the exceptions being total
cyanide and phenols (4AAP). Performance of nearly 80% better than BAT is indicated. At the
time of data collection, Mills A and B had coke plant biological treatment systems in place
comparable to the model technologies used by EPA to establish the effluent limitations guidelines
and standards. Mill C has a conventional coke plant biological treatment system that is followed
by co-treatment of the coke plant effluent with blast furnace blowdown by equalization, metals
precipitation, alkaline chlorination and filtration. This level of treatment is beyond that
considered BAT by EPA in 1982.
There is also one U.S. coke plant equipped with a BAT type physical/chemical and
biological treatment system followed by sand filtration and granular activated carbon.
Performance data were not available at this writing to develop production-normalized wastewater
loadings for this facility.
4-9
-------
4.3.2
Sintering - Figure 4-2
Results for two sintering plants are presented in Figure 4-2. At Mill D, the
process waters are commingled in one treatment and recycle system. A large portion of the sinter
plant/blast furnace .blowdown at Mill D is disposed of by slag quenching (evaporation on blast
furnace slag in slag pits located at the blast furnaces). The portion of the blowdown that is
discharged is not treated. At Mill E, sintering and blast furnace process waters are separately
treated and recycled. The blowdowns from the recycle systems at this mill are mixed and co-
treated in a blowdown treatment system consisting of metals precipitation.
The comparisons show better performance for all pollutants at Mill D and better
performance for most pollutants at Mill E, the principal exceptions being ammonia-N and phenols
(4AAP). Mill E has an application pending for a Section 301(g) variance from BAT for
ammonia-N and phenols (4AAP). These results suggest that near zero discharge levels can be
attained at mills where slag quenching is an available option and that effluent performance
substantially better than BPT/BAT can be obtained for TSS, total cyanide, and total lead with
metals precipitation of sinter plant recycle system blowdowns.
Figure 4-2 presents effluent quality data for Mill C transferred to the EPA model
BAT sinter plant wastewater treatment system flow of 120 gallons per ton. As described in
Section 4.3.1, Mill C is equipped with a blowdown treatment system comprising metals
precipitation, alkaline chlorination, and filtration for treatment of combined coke plant and blast
furnace process wastewaters. Except for final effluent filtration, this treatment system is
equivalent to EPA's selected model BAT treatment system for sintering and ironmaking
operations. The transferred data show production-normalized loadings substantially better than
the BAT ELG LTAs for all pollutants except for ammonia-N, where performance is
approximately 20% better than BAT.
4-10
-------
I
I
i
i
1
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
4.3.3 Ironmaking - Figure 4-3"
The blast furnace systems selected for review include those that are equipped to
dispose of a portion of the gas wash water and gas cooling water recycle system blowdowns by
slag quenching (Mills F and G), and those that are not equipped for slag quenching (Mills C, E,
H, and I). Many blast furnace operators have applied for or obtained Section 301(g) variances
from BAT for ammonia-N and phenols (4AAP). This accounts for performance less than the
ELG LTAs for these pollutants. In addition to the blast furnace systems included in this review,
other blast furnace systems are operated at or near zero discharge through slag quenching.
Mills H and I are equipped with metals precipitation systems for blast furnace
recycle system blowdowns. Mill C (described above in Section 4.3.1 - Cokemaking) has a blast
furnace blowdown treatment system equivalent to EPA's model BAT and NSPS treatment
systems. This mill demonstrates better performance then the ELG LTAs for most pollutants
despite a higher blowdown flow than the EPA model treatment system blowdown flow rate.
The results presented in Figure 4-3 show that performance substantially better than
the ELG LTAs is being achieved for most pollutants for which treatment is provided.
4.3.4 BOF Steelmaking - Figure 4-4
Performance data for three wet - suppressed combustion BOF Steelmaking shops
and two wet - open combustion BOF shops are presented in Figure 4-4. Each BOF shop is
equipped with a treatment and recycle system comprising partial recycle at the furnaces, external
clarification facilities, and additional recycle of clarified gas cleaning water.
For the suppressed combustion systems, Mill F achieves zero discharge for
extended periods of time by using carbon dioxide injection for water softening of the
recirculating water to prevent fouling and scaling. Blowdowns are intermittent and average about
4-11
-------
5 gpt. The treatment systems at Mills C and G are similar to the EPA model treatment systems.
Although the treated effluent concentrations at Mill C are lower than the ELG LTAs,
performance at Mill C in terms of kg/kkg (lbs/1,000 Ibs) is adversely affected by blowdown
flows that are much higher than those from the EPA model treatment systems.
Performance at Mill B (open combustion) is substantially better man the ELG
LTAs for all monitored pollutants. Recycle system blowdown treatment consists of filtration.
Performance at Mill H is better than the ELG LTAs for TSS and total lead, but not as good for
total zinc. Blowdown treatment at the time these data were obtained consisted of metals
precipitation using sulfide. The performance at this mill is primarily a function of blowdown
flows higher than the EPA model treatment system flow rates.
Collectively, these results demonstrate that performance approaching zero discharge
for suppressed combustion BOFs and performance substantially better than the ELG LTAs for
open combustion BOFs can be achieved with conventional treatment technologies.
4.3.5
Vacuum Degassing - Figure 4-5
Performance data were obtained from Mills C and F for their vacuum degassers.
The vacuum degasser at Mill C is equipped with a dedicated recycle system for condenser
cooling water. The recycle system blowdown is combined with recycle system blowdowns from
BOF steelmaking, continuous casting, and a hot strip mill before treatment in a metals
precipitation system. This level of treatment is equivalent to the EPA model BAT and NSPS
treatment systems.
The Mill F treatment system is essentially the same as for Mill C's except that,
in Mill F, the blowdown from the dedicated vacuum degassing recycle system is treated
separately for zinc in a dedicated metals precipitation system prior to discharge to a combined
treatment system for a suppressed-combustion BOF and a continuous slab caster.
4-12
-------
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
I
i
I
i
4.3.6 Continuous Casting - Figure 4-6
Performance results for four continuous slab casters are presented in Figure 4-6.
Each caster is equipped with closed-loop cooling systems for mold and machine cooling water
and spray water recycle systems consisting of scale pits with oil removal, filtration, and recycle.
Mill J, which is a nonintegrated mill, operates two thin-slab casters. The blowdowns from these
casters are cascaded to other process water recycle systems and ultimately disposed of through
evaporation by direct contact cooling of EAF electrodes, resulting in zero discharge. This
method of effluent disposal may not be applicable to all continuous casters.
Performance at the other casters demonstrates that effluent quality substantially
better than the ELG LTAs can be achieved with conventional treatment.
4.3.7 Hot Forming: Hot Strip Mills - Figure 4-7
Performance data for four hot strip mills were obtained for this review. Three are
located at large integrated mills and one is located at the nonintegrated mill described in Section
4.3.6. All of these mills are equipped with high-rate recycle and treatment systems consisting
of scale pits, clarification and/or filtration, and cooling. Process water recycle rates at these mills
exceed 95%, while the BPT/BCT model treatment system process water recycle rate for the
effluent limitations guidelines and standards was 60 percent
Process wastewater blowdown discharged from the Mill J hot strip mill is disposed
of through evaporation on EAF electrodes. Discharges from the other mills are substantially
below the ELG LTAs for TSS and O&G, which are the only regulated pollutants in Part 420 for
hot forming operations. The ELG LTAs for total lead and total zinc shown on Figure 4-7 were
derived from BAT and NSPS model treatment system effluent quality considered by EPA, but
not promulgated. As shown in Figure 4-7, performance at Mill C is substantially better for total
zinc and nearly 40% lower than the estimated ELG LTA for total lead.
4-13
-------
Collectively, these results demonstrate that performance substantially better than
the ELG LTAs for BPT/BCT can be achieved at hot strip mills with conventional treatment and
recycle technologies. Hot strip mill performance with respect to TSS and O&G is transferable
to other hot forming operations (primary, section, flat-plate, pipe and tube) because the quality
of the process waters across all hot forming operations is relatively uniform. There are, however,
differences in concentrations and mass loadings of selected metals (e.g., lead, chromium and
nickel) among process waters for hot forming operations processing alloy and specialty steels
(e.g., leaded steels, stainless steels).
4.3.8
Steel Finishing - Figures 4-8 and 4-9
Performance data were obtained from two continuous strip finishing mills that
contain acid pickling, cold rolling, alkaline cleaning, hot coating, and electroplating operations.
The electroplating operations are currently regulated by Part 433 - Metal Finishing. Performance
data were obtained for two periods for Mill L, designated as Mill L-l and Mill L-2 on Figure
4-8. Each mill is equipped with treatment systems consisting of gross oil removal, mixing of
compatible waste-waters, and final treatment in metals precipitation systems. Mill L has dedicated
pretreatment systems for fluoride from tin electroplating operations and for hexavalent chromium.
The results demonstrate substantially better performance for all regulated pollutants
at both mills. The performance with respect to the regulated metals is noteworthy because the
ELG LTAs are based upon a combination of the long-term average values from Parts 420 and
433. The difference in actual mill performance versus the LTAs used to develop the effluent
limitations guidelines and standards in Part 433 is highlighted in Figure 4-9, where long-term
average treated effluent concentrations from three steel finishing mills are presented. Data are
presented from Mills K and L-l, as well as from Mill D, which has similar production facilities
plus an electrogalvanizing line. These comparisons show the actual performance from steel
finishing lines is substantially better than the ELG LTAs from Part 433.
4-14
-------
I
i
I
i
4.4 General Provisions '
4.4.1 NPDES and Pretreatment Standards Production Rate
'• Section 122.45(b) of the NPDES permit regulations provides that production rates
used to compute mass NPDES permit effluent limitations from production-based effluent
M limitations guidelines and standards "...shall be based not upon the design production capacity
but rather upon a reasonable measure ofactual productionof'the facility". For existing iron and
I steel industry manufacturing operations, this regulation has most often been interpreted to mean
the daily average production, assuming three turns of operation per day (three eight-hour
• operating shifts), for the month with the highest production that occurred over the five-year
period prior to permit issuance. This convention was established during the mid-1970s when the
• first effluent limitations guidelines were being developed and has continued to the present An
example of the calculation to determine the NPDES production rate is shown below for a
•*>+.
• hypothetical hot strip mill:
^
fx
I High Production Month: March 1994
Total Monthly Tonnage: 225,624 net tons
^ Operating Turns: 84
| Tons Per Turn: 2,686 net tons
NPDES Tons Per Day: 8,058 net tons
I
An operating schedule of 84 turns in one month is a relatively high operating rate
• that may occur as a result of full production with one maintenance day per month and one
maintenance turn per week. The high level of operation noted in the above example may be
I sustained for long periods during economic expansion; however, as discussed in Section 2.5, iron
and steel manufacturing operations are highly cyclic. NPDES permits and pretreatment
8—
limitations for iron and steel mills are typically not modified to account for changes in production
resulting from the business cycle. Consequently, NPDES permit effluent limitations and
i
,—%.
• 4-15
I
-------
In response to the requirements set out at §420.01 (b), the owners or operators of
the following mills elected not to provide.the required information and thus became subject to
Part 420 on July 26, 1982:41
Laclede Steel - Alton, JJL
Republic Steel - Chicago, IL (LTV Steel Company)
U.S. Steel - Provo, UT (Geneva Steel)
U.S. Steel - Fairless Hills, PA .
U.S. Steel - Chicago, IL
During the period 1982 through 1984 when EPA was evaluating §420.01(b),
NPDES permits were issued for the mills listed below. EPA considered these permits consistent
with Part 420. Mill-specific circumstances were instrumental for issuance of many of these
permits: Section 301(g) variances were granted to one facility; a water bubble was used to
resolve issues at another facility; and the owners or operators of other facilities conditionally
withdrew their applications for alternative effluent limitations pending promulgation of proposed
revisions to Part 420 resulting from the Settlement Agreement.2-3'41 Consequently, EGD
concluded that alternative, less stringent effluent limitations developed under §420.01 (b) were not
appropriate for these mills. The owners or operators notified EPA of their intent to withdraw
their requests for alternative effluent limitations on the dates shown below:
Facility
Interlake, Inc. - Riverdale, IL (Acme Metals, Inc.)
J&L Steel - Hennepin, IL (LTV Steel Company)
J&L Steel - Louisville, OH (J&L Specialty Steel)
J&L Steel - Aliquippa, PA (LTV Steel Company)
J&L Steel - Cleveland, OH (LTV Steel Company)
National Steel - Granite City, IL
National Steel - Portage, IN
Ford Motor - Dearborn, MI (Rouge Steel Company).
Date of Notification
February 3, 1984
April 10, 1984
April 10, 1984
May 17, 1984
July 2, 1984
May 3, 1984
April 24, 1984 .
July 19, 1984
4-18
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
i
I
i
i
i
l
i
i
i
U.S. Steel - Lorain, OH October 25, 1982
U.S. Steel - Gary, IN October 25, 1982
Weirton Steel Company - Weirton, WV May 29, 1984
(formerly National Steel)
EGD conducted detailed assessments of the remaining five central treatment
facilities listed below to determine whether alternative effluent limitations would be appropriate.
EGD determined that the total investment cost to comply with Part 420 would need to be at least
twice the total investment cost estimated by EPA for the facilities to qualify for alternative
effluent limitations. Because estimated investment costs for none of the facilities were that high,
EGD concluded that alternative, less stringent limitations would not be appropriate and that all
facilities listed at 420.01 (b) should be subject to Part 420:41
Armco, Inc. - Ashland, KY (AK Steel Corporation)
Bethlehem Steel, Burns Harbor - Chesterton, IN
Bethlehem Steel - Sparrows Point, MD
J&L Steel - East Chicago, IN (LTV Steel Company)
Republic Steel - Gadsden, AL (Gulf States Steel, Inc.)
As noted above, the draft proposed rulemaking developed by EGD in 1984 has not
been subjected to formal agency review or set out for public notice as a proposed modification
to Part 420.
The owners or operators of two mills (National Steel - Granite City, IL and Gulf
States Steel, Inc. - Gadsden, AL) are currently attempting to obtain favorable treatment under
§420.01(b) for their respective mills, more than twelve years after promulgation of the temporary
exclusion at §420.01(b).42-43 Because EPA has not modified §420.01(b), it remains in the
regulation and has resulted in permitting and compliance issues for EPA and state agency
personnel.44'45
4-19
-------
4.4.3
§420.03 - Alternative Effluent Limitations (Water Bubble Rule)
As described in Section 3.6.2, §420.03 is a regulatory flexibility mechanism that
allows for intraplant exchanges or "trades" of mass pollutant discharges among outfalls to
minimize overall compliance costs. Section 420.03 is commonly known as the "water bubble
rule". The rule allows trading like pollutants (e.g., lead for lead, not lead for zinc or ammonia-
N), and requires "appropriate minimum net reduction amounts" in pollutant mass discharges
resulting from trades.46'47 The rule includes restrictions on trades involving cokemaking and cold
rolling operations to avoid inadvertent excess discharges of toxic organic pollutants found in
cokemaking and cold rolling wastewaters.46 At the time Part 420 was promulgated, there was
concern that transfers of regulated conventional or nonconventional pollutants to cokemaking and
cold rolling operations might allow for less treatment of certain toxic organic pollutants which
were regulated through direct limitations for other similar toxic pollutants.
The water bubble rule has not been used extensively in NPDES permitting of iron
and steel plants. As part of a recent survey of the industry, ten trades under this rule
were identified.38 The present value of the cost reductions of intraplant trading for seven of the
ten trades was estimated at $122.7 million (1993 dollars).38 Based upon this survey, there
appeared to be no administrative impediments to industry or permit writers using the water
bubble rule.38
Many smaller mills are precluded from using the water bubble rule because they
have only one treatment system and one outfall; others have water quality-based effluent
limitations more stringent than technology-based effluent limitations and thus are also precluded
from using the rule.
4-20
-------
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
The following are issues regarding §420.03 that could be considered to expand its
use:
The requirement that trades be completed on an intraplant basis
limits possible opportunities to complete interplant and
intercompany trades for mills discharging to the same receiving
water segment
Restrictions on all trades for cokemaking and cold rolling
operations limits possible opportunities to affect trades where more
stringent effluent limitations for cokemaking or cold rolling
operations result, thereby ensuring that there would be no excess
discharges of unregulated toxic organic pollutants.
The trading of "like" pollutants limits possible opportunities to
trade "similar" pollutants (e.g., one toxic metal for another toxic
metal).
Discharges at steel mill sites that are limited by 40 CFR Part 433 -
Metal Finishing are not eligible for intraplant trades with
discharges from operations limited by Part 420. If electroplating
operations conducted at steel mill sites were regulated by Part 420,
expanded use of the water bubble rule could result.
4.5 Pollutants Selected for Regulation
The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes three classes of pollutants: conventional,
nonconventional, and priority or toxic pollutants. Conventional pollutants are those defined at
Section 304(a)(4) of the CWA, namely TSS, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), O&G, fecal
coliform, and pH. Analytical measures of TSS, BOD5, and O&G are not chemical-specific
determinations but aggregate measures of suspended particulates, oxygen-demanding substances,
and hexane-extractable (formerly freon-extractable) substances in water, respectively. Specific
compounds contributing to these measures may or may not exhibit toxic effects and may or not
be among the 126 designated priority or toxic pollutants defined by the CWA. The priority or
toxic pollutants are specifically designated elements or compounds that exhibit toxic effects in
4-21
-------
aquatic systems and, if determined to be present at significant levels, must be regulated by
categorical technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards pursuant to Section
301(b)(2)(A) of the CWA. Nonconventional pollutants are all other pollutants that are neither
the five listed conventional pollutants nor the designated 126 priority pollutants.
Nonconventional pollutants may be aggregate measures such as chemical oxygen demand (COD)
or adsorbable organic halides (AOX) or specific elements or compounds such as chlorine (C12),.
ammonia-N (NH3-N), and 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-dibenzofuran (2,3,7,8-TCDF). Nonconventional
pollutants can be nontoxic (e.g., iron at low levels) or highly toxic (e.g., 2,3,7,8-TCDF), EPA
has the authority and discretion to limit nonconventional. pollutants in categorical effluent
limitations guidelines and standards as appropriate based upon the presence of these pollutants
and findings that the removal or treatment of the pollutants is technically and economically
achievable.
Note that the database used by EPA to support the current Part 420 effluent
limitations guidelines and standards was collected principally during the late 1970s and was
limited to the original list of 126 priority or toxic pollutants, as well as conventional and
nonconventional pollutants common to the industry. EPA has not conducted broader pollutant
scans of industry process wastewaters.
4.5.1
Conventional Pollutants
Conventional pollutants regulated by Part 420 are TSS, O&G, and pH. BOD5 and
fecal coliform are not regulated. TSS and pH are regulated in all subcategories. O&G is
regulated in the cokemaking, sintering, continuous casting, hot forming, cold rolling, alkaline
cleaning, and hot coating subcategories.
There do not appear to be any compelling reasons to regulate BOD5 or fecal
coliform at kon and steel mills. Discharges from most iron and steel process wastewater
treatment systems are relatively low in organic content, the exceptions being discharges from
4-22
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
i
cokemaking operations and steel finishing operations that contain oxidizable organic material
from oils and rolling solutions. There are a few instances where states have proposed water
quality-based effluent limitations for BOD5 for steel finishing discharges to achieve in-stream
dissolved oxygen standards; however, there may not be sufficient need to establish categorical
effluent limitations for BOD5.
Fecal coliform or E. Coli. is limited under state regulations in a number of iron
and steel mill NPDES permits in discharges from on-site sanitary wastewater treatment systems.
Regulation at the federal level for these nonprocess wastewaters would be duplicative.
4.5.2 Nonconventional Pollutants
The nonconventional pollutants regulated by Part 420 include ammonia-N and
phenols (4AAP) in the cokemaking, sintering, and ironmaking subcategories. Phenols (4AAP)
means the value obtained by the method specified in 40 CFR Part 136.3. Phenols (4AAP) is a
non-specific measure of phenolic compounds present in steel industry wastewaters that respond
to the analytical test conditions. Based upon findings from the field studies conducted for
development of the existing regulation, following is a list of nonconventional pollutants that could
be considered in a revised regulation:
Cokemaking
Thiocyanate
Nitrate
Total Nitrogen (Total Kjeldahl N, Ammonia-N, NO2-N, NO3-N)
Sulfide
Sintering, Ironmaking. Steelmaking
Fluoride
4-23.
-------
Steel Finishing
Dissolved Iron
Hot Coating (Hot Dip Galvanizing with Zinc Ammonium Chloride Flux)
Ammonia-N
Each of these pollutants was found at significant concentrations in wastewaters
from the respective process operations based upon data collected during the late 1970s and
published in 19828. EPA did not establish effluent limitations guidelines and standards for these
pollutants when Part 420 was promulgated because they would be controlled incidentally through
direct limitations on conventional and toxic pollutants, and because setting limitations for
different pollutants in subcategories with compatible wastewaters would complicate NPDES
permitting.
Nitrate-N or total nitrogen could be regulated in cokemaking operations if BAT
or NSPS were redefined to include control of total nitrogen. Under the current regulation,
cokemaking treatment systems can be operated to nitrify ammonia-N to nitrate-N, without control
of nitrate-N discharges. Denitrification of coke plant wastewaters is apparently demonstrated in
Europe. Denitrification of coke plant wastewaters was attempted at one coke plant located in the
United States in a novel nitrification-denitrification mode. That method of treatment was
operated successfully for a period of time but later abandoned because of increased process
wastewater flow resulting from efforts to comply with coke plant NESHAPs requirements. The
increased process wastewater flow exceeded the hydraulic design of the system for operation in
the nitrification-denitrification mode.10
4-24
-------
I
I
i
I
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
4.5.3 Toxic Metal Pollutants and Cyanide
Total lead and total zinc are regulated for most subcategories, the exceptions being
cokemaking, hot forming, salt bath descaling, and combination acid pickling. Total chromium
and total nickel are limited for salt bath descaling, combination acid pickling, and cold forming
when cold forming wastewaters are co-treated with combination acid pickling wastewaters. EPA
selected these metals for limitation because they were generally present at the highest levels and,
based on limited analytical data and published solubility data, control of these metals was
expected to result in comparable control of other toxic metals. Total cyanide is limited in the
cokemaking, sintering, ironmaking, and salt bath descaling subcategories.
Many other toxic metals are present in iron and steel wastewaters.8 Below are
potential additional candidate metals for regulation:
Cokemaking
Total Antimony
Total Arsenic
Total Selenium
Total Zinc
Sintering, Ironmaking. Steelmaking
Total Arsenic
Total Cadmium
Total Copper
Total Chromium
Total Selenium
Vacuum Degassing. Continuous Casting
Total Chromium
Total Copper
Total Selenium
4-25
-------
Hot Forming
Total Chromium
Total Copper
Total Lead
Total Nickel
Total Zinc
Steel Finishing
Total Antimony
Total Arsenic
Total Cadmium
Total Copper
EPA has recently issued guidance regarding dissolved metals for purposes of
establishing ambient water quality standards and implementing those standards through water
quality-based effluent limitations in NPDES permits. The effluent limitations guidelines program
has historically regulated total metals because the ELGs are to reflect the capabilities of process
and treatment technologies to remove pollutants from process wastewater streams. Issuance of
dissolved metal ELGs could allow for conversion of dissolved metals into particulate form
without attendant solids removal. This, in turn, could result in metals deposition in receiving
water sediments.
4.5.4
Toxic Organic Pollutants
Part 420 regulates four toxic organic pollutants in two subcategories as follows:
Cokemaking
Benzene
Benzo-a-pyrene
Naphthalene
4-26
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
Cold Forming
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethylene
Benzene was regulated as an indicator pollutant for other volatile toxic organic
pollutants found in cokemaking wastewaters (e.g., ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene). Benzo-a-
pyrene and naphthalene were regulated as indicator pollutants for other semi-volatile toxic
organic pollutants, specifically the polynuclear aromatic compounds (PAHs) (e.g., acenaphthylene,
benzo-a-anthracene, chrysene, fluorene, fluoranthene, and pyrene). It appears that the limitations
for these compounds are effective for regulating the volatile toxic organic compounds and the
semi-volatile PAHs. Comprehensive GC/MS screens of untreated and treated cokemaking
wastewaters using current, more sensitive analytical methods would be necessary to determine
whether other toxic organic pollutants are present at levels where categorical effluent limitations
guidelines may be appropriate.
The field investigations conducted in developing the existing regulation revealed
the presence of a wide variety of toxic organic compounds present in cold rolling wastewaters.
These include several PAHs, a few chlorinated phenols, and two chlorinated solvents:
trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene. These compounds originated as components of the
rolling solutions and cleaning solvents used in mill operations. Naphthalene was selected for
limitation as an indicator pollutant for other PAHs and tetrachloroethylene was selected as an
indicator pollutant for chlorinated solvents. Because of the potential for operators to change
rolling solutions and cleaning solvents, there can be no assurance that the current regulation
effectively limits discharges of toxic organic pollutants from cold rolling operations.
4.5.4.1 Chlorinated Dibenzo-/?-dioxins and Chlorinated Dibenzofurans
Chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and chlorinated dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs,
respectively) are closely related families of highly toxic and persistent organic chemicals which
4-27
-------
are formed as unwanted by-products in some commercially significant chemical reactions, during
high-temperature decomposition and combustion of certain chlorinated organic chemicals, and
through other reactions involving chlorine and organic materials.48"55 There are 210 CDD and
CDF chemical compounds (or congeners) with varying chemical, physical, and toxicologic
properties. The congener that appears to be the most toxic and has generally raised the greatest
public health concerns is 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, (2,3,7,8-TCDD).
EPA's National Dioxin Study highlighted findings of CDDs and CDFs at wire
reclamation facilities and municipal waste combustors where incomplete combustion of
substantial quantities of plastics containing chlorine and chlorine compounds occur. The National
Dioxin Study did not examine all potential sources of combustion of plastics containing chlorine
or chlorine compounds. Swedish researchers have documented formation of CDDs and CDFs
in EAF steelmaking operations where steel scraps are remelted to produce and refine molten steel
for subsequent casting and hot forming.53'55 There have been no publicly reported studies of
formation or emissions of CDDs and CDFs from North American EAF steelmaking operations.
EAF steelmaking and advances in continuous casting of molten steels directly into
semi-finished shapes fostered development of "mini-mills", which, as the name implies, are small
steel mills that generally serve local markets. Mini-mills exclusively use EAFs to produce raw
steel which is men continuously cast into billets, rounds, or slabs. By the nature of their
operations, mini-mills consume mostly "purchased" scrap as opposed to "home" scrap. Home
scrap comprises the yield loss from processing liquid steel to the final products at a given mill,
and results from processing blooms, slabs, billets, and rounds into semi-finished and finished steel
products. Home scrap is usually more desirable, principally because it is of known metallurgical
composition and free from unwanted alloying elements that may be present in purchased scrap.
Purchased scrap is usually classified as either "dormant" scrap or "prompt
industrial" scrap. Dormant scrap comprises obsolete, worn out, or broken products of consuming
industries (e.g., used steel furniture, structural members, automobiles, used ships, and appliances).
4-28
-------
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Because of the variable quality of dormant scrap, careful sorting is required to prevent
contamination of the steel in the furnace with unwanted alloying elements. There are over 70
different classifications for dormant scrap.7 Prompt industrial scrap is generated by steel
consumers making their products (e.g., unused portions of sheet steel used for stampings,
trimmings from pressing operations, machine turnings, and rejected products). The source and
composition of prompt industrial scrap can usually be readily identified.
There are ten major grades of carbon steel scrap and one nonspecific category.25'26
No. 1 heavy melting steel (sections of beams, crop ends from ingots, billets, etc.) accounted for
about 32% of carbon steel scrap consumption in 1988; No. 1 and No. 2 bundles (baled scrap)
together accounted for nearly 15%; and, shredded or fragmentized scrap accounted for nearly 11
percent. No. 1 and electric furnace bundles are made from prompt industrial scrap. No. 2
bundles comprise junked automobiles and appliances, usually painted goods. Shredded scrap is
manufactured from the same items.
•
Shredded scrap is prepared from junked automobiles and appliances by passing
partially stripped automobile and appliance bodies through rotary shredders. Ferrous metal in
chip form is then separated magnetically. Plastics, which may comprise up to 30% of the
stripped automobile by weight, consists of the residual "fluff1 which is difficult to dispose of or
recycle due to combinations of various thermosets and thermoplastics in the mix. Separation of
the ferrous metal from the fluff is not 100% efficient. Thus, shredded scrap used in EAFs often
contains plastic residues.
In EAF steelmaldng, a mix of scrap is selected to make up the furnace charge.
Various types are used to obtain the smallest number of bucket charges, the most rapid melting,
lowest power utilization, and the lowest electrode consumption, consistent with the price of the
scrap mix charged.7 For efficient operations, common practice is to charge the furnace with two
buckets, with 60% of the charge contained in the first bucket. If the charge comprises mostly
lighter scrap, a three-bucket charge of 40%, 30%, and 30% may be used.7 Depending upon scrap
4-29
-------
availability, buckets are prepared with a layer of light scrap on the bottom followed by heavier
scrap. The light scrap provides protection for the bottom of the furnace during charging.
Shredded scrap is used for this purpose. It is also desirable to place any large pieces of scrap
low in the furnace to prevent damage to electrodes from falling steel during the melting cycle.
Medium weight scrap is charged next. Light scrap (shredded scrap) is usually also charged on
top to ensure quick boredown of the electrode tips such that furnace roof wear will be minimized
and high voltages can be applied more quickly.7
Consumption of shredded scrap in the United States has steadily increased as a
percentage of total scrap used for steelmaking. Consumption has increased from approximately
1.7 million tons in 1973 to approximately 3.5 million tons in 1981, then dropped precipitously
with overall steel production in 1982 and 1983.25-26 Since that time, consumption of shredded
scrap has steadily increased with increases in EAF steelmaking to about 6.1 million tons in
1992.26 The amount of shredded scrap used in EAF shops is variable and dependent upon
operating practice, price, quality, and availability of other light scrap.
At the start of the melting process, electrodes are lowered to the scrap charge in
the furnace. The initial melting is characterized by violent reactions and uncontrolled combustion
and melting of the scrap charge. It is likely that CDDs and CDFs form at that time from
incomplete combustion of residual plastics and other chlorine-containing materials in the scrap
charge. Table 4-2 shows experimental levels of CDDs and CDFs formed from EAF melting of
scrap with the indicated contaminants.54 Of interest is indicated formation of 0.8 ug/ton of
TCDD equivalents (Nordic - a 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalence scheme very similar to,
although not identical to, the I-TEF/89 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalence scheme adopted by
EPA and environmental agencies in many other countries) with "no chlorine" in feedstocks, 1.5
pg/ton with feedstocks contaminated with cutting oils, and 30 pg/ton with feedstocks
contaminated with PVC.
4-30
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Most EAF shops in the U.S. are equipped with dry primary air emission controls
and many are equipped with dry secondary emission controls. At the time Part 420 was
promulgated in 1982, there were nine EAF shops with wet scrubbers for air emission controls
and three semi-wet EAFs.15 There are no publicly available data or studies showing actual or
potential wastewater discharges of CDDs and CDFs from EAF steelmaking operations.
Formation of CDDs and CDFs in EOF steelmaking has not been reported in the
literature. The potential for such formation would appear to be lower than with EAF steelmaking
because comparatively less scrap is used per ton of raw steel produced, and the scrap is charged
to the furnace prior to adding hot metal; consequently, there is less opportunity for uncontrolled
combustion as in EAFs. Also, in open-combustion BOFs, any CDDs and CDFs formed would
likely be combusted in the zone above the furnace. Performance at suppressed combustion BOFs
might be different because furnace off-gases are not combusted until after wet scrubbing. In
these systems, there would appear to be a greater potential for any CDDs and CDFs formed to
reach the wastewater treatment systems. There are also no publicly available data regarding the
potential or actual discharge of CDDs and CDFs from BOF steelmaking operations.
Because of the nature of the combustion operations and the feed materials used,
formation of CDDs and CDFs may also occur at sintering plants.
4.5.4.2 Other Toxic Organic Pollutants
There has been growing concern about whether low level, chronic exposure to
estrogenic substances might account for the increasing frequency of infertility and associated
disorders of the male reproductive systems in humans.56 Alkylphenol polyethoxylates (APEOs),
which were introduced in the 1940s, are the second largest group of nonionic surfactants in
commercial production.57 They are widely used in detergents, paints, herbicides, pesticides, and
many other formulated products including water and wastewater treatment chemicals.
Nonylphenol polyethoxylates account for about 80% of APEOs (>300,000 tons are produced
4-31
-------
annually worldwide) and octylphenol polyethoxylates make up most of the remaining 20
percent.57 It has been estimated that 60% of the APEOs produced are released to the aquatic
environment,58 most entering via sewage treatment works, where they are readily degraded to
form relatively stable metabolites.59'60 Some of these metabolites are hydrophobic (e.g.,
alkylphenols, nonylphenol, and octylphenol) and tend to accumulate in sewage sludges and river
sediments. Recently, British researchers demonstrated that 4-nonylphenol, 4-octylphenol,
4-nonylphenoldiethoxylate and 4-octylphenoxycarboxylic acid, all compounds found in
groundwater and tap water in the U.S.59'61-62, are estrogenic in fish, avian and mammalian cells,
and they mimic the effects of ITfi-estradiol (a natural estrogen) by binding to the estrogen
receptor.
57
Possible sources of nonylphenol and octylphenol in the steel industry include water
and wastewater treatment chemicals, cleaning solutions used in steel finishing operations, and
cleaning solutions used in maintenance operations.63 A review of the composition of water
treatment chemicals and the cleaning solutions used in the steel industry and the possible fate of
alkylphenol compounds in steel industry wastewater treatment systems could be conducted to
determine whether and to what extent the industry contributes to the mass loadings of these
anthropogenic compounds to the environment.
4.6
Preliminary Estimates of Pollutant Loadings and Order-of-Magnltude Costs
Estimates for current industry pollutant loadings were made using the Toxics
Release Inventory Database, the Permit Compliance System Database, and by using a modelling
approach for the industry. The modelling approach was then used to estimate pollutant loadings
if the industry were to upgrade to the level of better performing mills presented in Section 4.3,
and the order-of-magnitude costs for this upgrade. The pollutant loading and cost estimates are
presented in the following sections.
4-32
-------
I
I
• 4.6.1 Modelled Estimates
• 4.6.1.1 Modelled Estimates of Pollutant Loadings at Current Regulation and at Level
of Better Performing Mills
As described in Section 2.3, U.S. iron and steel manufacturing sites can be
fl classified into the following five groups:
I Stand-alone by-product coke plants;
™ Integrated steel mills;
I
I
I
Nonintegrated steel mills;
Stand-alone finishing mills; and
Other stand-alone operations.
Because of the configuration of wastewater control and treatment technologies used
in the industry and the data available to characterize the performance of those technologies, a
modified industry classification was used to develop estimated baseline (current) pollutant
• loadings and projected loadings that may be achieved if the industry was upgraded to the level
of the better performing mills identified in Section 4.3. The modified industry classification is
• as follows: '
I» Cokemaking (all plants);
Direct dischargers;
Indirect dischargers;
fl — Other coke plants;
• Sintering (all plants);
™ • Ironmaking (all blast furnaces);
>• EOF steelmaking, vacuum degassing, continuous casting (integrated
mills);
I* Hot forming (integrated mills);
u
" 4-33
I
-------
• Finishing (integrated and stand-alone finishing mills);
• Nonintegrated mills (all operations combined);
• Hot forming (stand-alone hot forming mills);
• . Cold forming (stand-alone cold forming mills); and
• Wire (stand-alone wire mills).
Cokemaking. Cokemaking is performed at either stand-alone by-product coke
plants or at integrated steel mills. This was the only industry classification where distinctions
were made between direct and indirect discharges (although there are many stand-alone steel
finishing operations with discharges to POTWs, most of these are smaller facilities and were not
included in these estimates).
The "other coke plants" subclassification represents two coke plants where
untreated wastewaters are disposed of by dirty-water coke quenching and underground injection
in deep wells, respectively. Because these sites do not currently discharge to a surface water or
POTW, and are subsequently not subject to the current regulation, they are not included in the
total industry summary table (Table 4-3). Data for these two sites are presented in Table 4-6,
representing potential cross-media benefits to air quality and reductions in subsurface discharges.
Sintering. This classification includes all sintering plants in the industry with wet
air pollution controls, including those designated as "other stand-alone operations" in Section 2.3.
Ironmaking. This classification includes all ironmaking blast furnaces, including
those designated as "other stand-alone operations" in Section 2.3.
BOF steelmaking, vacuum degassing, continuous casting. This classification
includes the combination of these operations performed at integrated mills.
4-34
-------
I
I
• Hot forming (integrated). This classification includes hot forming operations
performed at integrated mills.
Finishing. This classification includes acid pickling, cold rolling, alkaline
I cleaning, hot dip coating, and electroplating performed at either integrated mills or stand-alone
finishing mills. Electroplating operations are currently regulated under 40 CFR Part 433, but are
I included in this review for the reasons cited in Section 4.3.
I
I
I
Nonintegrated mills. This classification includes the principal operations typically
performed at nonintegrated mills: EAF steelmaking with dry air emission controls, vacuum
degassing, continuous casting, and hot forming. Because there are a limited number
(approximately 5%) of nonintegrated mills with cold forming, acid pickling, alkaline cleaning,
and hot dip coating operations, loadings were not developed for these finishing operations.
I Hot forming (stand-alone). This classification includes hot forming operations
performed at stand-alone hot forming mills.
I
Cold forming. This classification includes cold forming operations performed at
| stand-alone cold forming mills, including stand-alone mills manufacturing pipes and tubes.
| Wire mills. This classification includes wire manufacturing operations performed
at stand-alone wire mills. Pollutant loading estimates were not prepared for mills in this group
| because they produced less than 1% of industry shipments in 1993 and because data to generate
baseline and projected production-normalized pollutant loading estimates are not readily available.
The classifications presented above include all of the current Part 420
I subcategories except salt bath descaling. Only a few salt bath descaling operations remain in the
_ U.S., and the production rates for these lines are relatively low. Therefore, pollutant loading
• estimates were not prepared for this subcategory.
*- 4-35
I
-------
The following data sources were used to estimate the number of facilities, the
facility classifications, and industry production rates:
1994 Association of Iron and Steel Engineers' Directory of Iron
and Steel Plants;
1993 American Iron and Steel Institute Annual Statistical Summary
(preliminary);
1994 International Trade Commission Report on Cokemaking;
1982 EPA Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Point Source Category; and
1991 Industry Round-up Article from 33 Metal Producing.
loadings:
The following data sources were used to estimate current and projected pollutant
1982 EPA Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Point Source Category;
1994 EPA mill visits;
1991 Municipal-Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA) program
- Ontario Ministry of the Environment; and
1980 SATS Coke Plant Verification Study (EPA Study).
To the extent possible, industry and mill production data were based directly upon
published references. Recent mill performance data were used to determine production-
normalized loadings of the better performing mills. Data from the 1982 Development Document
were used to fill data gaps for pollutants present but not routinely monitored by the identified
better performing mills.
4-36
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The loadings and reductions estimates are presented in Tables 4-3 through 4-14.
Table 4-15 summarizes the baseline technologies assumed to be in place for estimating current
pollutant loadings, and presents those technologies used to estimate the projected loadings and
pollutant loading reductions presented in Tables 4-3 through 4-14. The major assumptions used
for this effort are as follows:
For the purposes of estimating baseline pollutant loadings, the 1982
Development Document long-term average production-normalized
pollutant loadings were used at BPT for regulated and nonregulated
conventional pollutants and at BAT/PSES for regulated and
nonregulated nonconventional and priority pollutants.
Projected pollutant loadings were calculated using performance data from
the better performing mills presented in Section 4.3, and the number of
currently operating production facilities listed below. Projected pollutant
loading reductions were computed as the difference between the baseline
loadings and the projected pollutant loadings.
The following are the number of mills within each classification as
estimated using the above references sources:
Cokemaking
Direct dischargers 12
Indirect dischargers 13
Other coke plants 2
Sintering plants 10
Ironmaking 22
EOF steelmaking, vacuum degassing,
continuous casting 22
Hot Forming (integrated) 22
Finishing 53
Nonintegrated mills 100
Hot forming (stand-alone) 26
Cold forming 76
Wire mills 43
Based upon an assessment of the current industry status, it was
estimated that 50% of the hot forming mills (integrated and stand-
alone) have high-rate treatment and recycle systems approximating
those described as BAT - Option 1 or NSPS, and 50% have
4-37
-------
treatment systems with partial recycle approximating the EPA BPT
model treatment technology.
Nonintegrated mills were assumed to be equipped with electric
furnaces with dry air emission controls, continuous casters and hot
forming operations. The continuous casters, and hot forming mills
were assumed to be equipped with high-rate treatment and recycle
systems.
Specialty steel mills are more likely to discharge higher levels of
chromium and nickel than carbon steel or low alloy steel mills.
Because specialty steel production accounts for approximately 2%
of total steel production in the U.S., these mills were not
differentiated in the pollutant loading estimates.
The pollutants presented in Tables 4-3 through 4-14 represent the
pollutants of concern identified during the 1982 rulemaking effort,
and are not necessarily those currently regulated by 40 CFR Part
420. The list of pollutants limited by 40 CFR Part 420 is presented
in Table 3-2.
Table 4-5 presents estimated mass loading data for discharges from
indirect discharge steel mills to POTWs. These data do not represent
discharges to receiving waters.
Other specific assumptions made to develop the pollutant loading estimates are
included in the record for this project
4.6.1.2 Modelled Estimates of Order-of-Magnitude Costs to Upgrade Industry
Performance
Table 4-16 summarizes preliminary estimates of total capital investment and annual
operating and maintenance costs to upgrade the industry to the level of the better performing
mills for each industry classification listed in Section 4.6.1.1. In all cases, assumptions were
made about the baseline level of process wastewater treatment and recycle technologies currently
installed in the industry. Technologies necessary to upgrade mills to the level of the better
4-38
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
performing mills, including increased recycling, were then identified. Cost estimates were
developed based upon model plant cost data presented in the 1982 Development Document that
were scaled to wastewater flow rate and/or production rate for actual mill production capacities
for cokemaking and sintering operations and typical mill sizes for the other classifications.
The 1978 cost data presented in the 1982 Development Document were upgraded
to 1994 costs using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index. Because of the number and
nature of the assumptions that were made in this analysis and the use of a cost index over a
relatively long period of time, these estimates must be considered preliminary and subject to wide
variation. The assumptions made to develop the cost estimates and the bases for the cost
estimates for each classification are included in the record for this project.
Using an equipment life of 20 years and annual interest rates of 7% and 10% for
1994, the iron and steel industry totals presented in Table 4-16 for total capital investment and
annual operating and maintenance costs were converted to total annualized costs of $64.3 million
per year and $72.1 million per year, respectively.
To determine cost effectiveness, the differences in toxicity among the various
pollutants is accounted for by using toxic weighting factors (TWFs). TWFs are calculated such
that relatively more toxic pollutants have higher TWFs. In the majority of cases, TWFs are
derived from both chronic freshwater aquatic criteria and human health criteria established for
the consumption of fish. These factors are then standardized by relating them to copper. When
TWFs are multiplied by pollutant mass loadings in units such as pounds per year, the resulting
values are in units of toxic pound-equivalents. Mass loadings from different pollutants can be
summed together after they are converted to toxic pound-equivalents. TWFs are presented in the
last column of Table 4-3.
Using the data presented in Table 4-3, the toxic pounds-equivalents removed by
upgrading to the level of better performing mills was estimated at 1.9 million Ibs-eq/yr. The total
4-39
-------
annualized cost and the toxic pounds-equivalents removed can be divided to determine the cost-
effectiveness of upgrading to the level of better performing mills. For the industry as a whole,
the cost-effectiveness based on these modelled estimates is $34/lbs-eq removed and $38/lbs-eq
removed for annual interest rates of 7% and 10%, respectively.
4.6.2
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Database
Table 4-17 summarizes EPCRA Section 313 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
wastewater discharge data reported by the iron and steel industry for 1992. The summary
includes data from manufacturing facilities within SIC Codes 3312, 3315, 3316, and 3317. For
the purpose of estimating baseline pollutant loadings and pollutant loading reductions, the TRI
database has the following limitations:
Most integrated mills have large-volume noncontact cooling water
discharges from cokemaking and ironmaking operations and
associated steam- and power-producing units. It is common
practice to discharge treated, low-volume process wastewaters
through high-volume noncontact cooling water discharges. In some
cases, direct discharged TRI pollutant loadings may have been
estimated based upon the gross amount of pollutants discharged
from the combined noncontact cooling water flows. For large-
volume noncontact cooling water discharges in river systems where
upstream or background concentrations for selected pollutants are
measurable (e.g., ammonia-N), discharge loadings calculated in this
manner would not be representative and would overstate the actual
pollutant loadings contributed by the steel mill from the treated
process wastewaters.
At many mills, TRI estimates for direct and indirect discharges are
not based upon actual discharge measurements of all TRI pollutants
used or processed above TRI threshold levels. The TRI estimates
may not account for relatively low-concentration discharges of
toxic pollutants that can amount to significant annual mass loadings
; when considering the industry as a whole.
4-40
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Because these concerns could not be investigated within the scope of this project, baseline and
projected pollutant loading estimates and estimated pollutant loading reductions were developed
as described in Section 4.6.1.1.
4.63 Permit Compliance System (PCS) Database
Table 4-18 summarizes pollutant loading data from the EPA Permit Compliance
System (PCS) Database for 1992. The summary includes wastewater discharge data from
manufacturing facilities within SIC Codes 3312, 3315, 3316, and 3317. Many steel mills have
multiple treatment systems in which NPDES permit effluent limitations and monitoring
requirements are applied at the discharge of the treatment systems prior to mixing with
noncontact cooling waters and other nonregulated flows (e.g., stormwater). In many cases, the
pollutants limited and monitored at the internal monitoring stations are not limited or monitored
at the final discharge point. From examination of the PCS database, there are several examples
at integrated steel mills, nonintegrated steel mills, and stand-alone finishing mills where NPDES
monitoring data for internal monitoring stations have not been included in the database. Several
pollutants that are limited and monitored are missing from the database for selected mills. Based
on this review, the PCS database was judged to be deficient for estimating baseline pollutant
loadings and pollutant loading reductions for this project.
4-41
-------
Table 4-1
40 CFR 420.01(b)
Central Treatment Facilities Temporarily Excluded from Part 420
.-..., ,- ',,| -,. ..^; ,'-'..i.^-'-x=X-'\>\ , v-
,„ , ;,|Nattt ;/ - r ;
Annco Steel, Ashland, KY (AK Steel
Corporation)
Bethlehem Steel, Sparrows Point, MD
Bethlehem Steel, Bums Harbor, IN
Ford Motor Co., Dearborn, MI (Rouge Steel
Company)
Interlake, Inc., Riverdale, IL
(Acme Metals, Inc.)
J&L Steel, Aliquippa, PA
(LTV Steel Company)
J&L Steel, Cleveland, OH
(LTV Steel Company)
J&L Steel, Hennepin, IL
(LTV Steel Company)
J&L Steel, Louisville, OH
(J&L Specialty Steel)
J&L Steel, East Chicago, IN
(LTV Steel Company)
Laclede Steel, Alton, IL
National Steel, Granite City, IL
National Steel, Portage, IN
National Steel, Weirton, WV
(Weirton Steel Company)
Republic Steel, Gadsden, AL
(Gulf States Steel, Inc.)
Republic Steel, Chicago, IL
(LTV Steel Company)
U.S. Steel, Lorain, OH
(USX/Kobe Steel)
4"J4PB&$' $&&&*"*
* * °'l98fc
KY 0000485
MD 0001201
IN 0000175
MI 0003361
IL 0002119.
PA 0006131
OH 0000850
IL 0002631
OH 0007188
IN 0000205
IL 0000612
IL 0000329
IN 0000337
. WV 0003336
AL 0003522
IL 0002593
OH 0001562
_..,„,„,. „ „ f ,. , ^
< .r'V * <> * f f^ f"> * "" ^ :s '
i'.\.' r j.^.' j. %.'v, -* -• -• -••"•£• s* f ^ rt •'•'•••••• .v / -• v .-
11 "*
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 4-1 (Continued)
40 CFR 420(b)
Central Treatment Facilities Temporarily Excluded from Part 420
^ ^ ^ '"" "" V " * ' ' ' ,''''<. ' S' •> "l \
\- - ; % 'i ••'•*?'", - ,v%»<*^^?,- -,' ./*''•=• '
•\*v < .;•-.•••••- .; -•, -••if, ,•*<«_,' v , •.^\'^v-Kk'\x--f4\-'yfy-
* - , ; ; jPla»« \- •,« - «,> ' ,:v v> -
U.S. Steel, Provo, UT
(Geneva Steel)
U.S. Steel, Fairless ffills, PA
U.S. Steel, Gary, IN
U.S. Steel, Chicago, IL
>•!> ";-sJy ' '3* •• ' * •. '*•'
"fr '
UT 0000361
PA 0013463
IN 0000281
IL 0002691
^ •. * ' ; j '' , ' - - >
;" "'':'s€eti^»! YfeeflMMtlMnfr'' *
Total Plant
Terminal Treatment Plant
Terminal Lagoons
Discharge to POTW
() a Current Mill Owner.
4-43
-------
Table 4-2
Levels of CDDs and CDFs in Electric Arc Furnace
Flue Gases Before and After Bag House Filter During
Continuous Charge Through The Furnace Lid
(Results in TCDD Equivalents - Nordic (Eadon))
-,.--.. * "
' 'J V*L.r •. ^
"No Chlorine"
0.2 (0.2) ng/Nm3
0.8(l.l)pg/ton
0.1 (0.1) ng/Nm3
0.5 (0.7) fig/ton
0.3
0.5 (0.5) ng/Nm3
2.8 (2.7) pg/ton
0.04 (0.04) ng/Nm3
0.2(0.2) jig/ton
Cutting Oils
0.4
0.3 (0.4) ng/Nm3
1.5 (2.1) pg/ton
0.1(0.2) ng/Nm3
0.6(1.0) pg/ton
PVC
1.3
5.9 (6.4) ng/Nm3
30 (33) ug/ton
1.5(3.9) ng/Nm3
7.7(20) jig/ton
Source: Tysklind, 1989 (Reference 54)
Notes:
(1) The first number presented in columns three and four represents 2,3,7,8-TCDD Toxicity
Equivalents (TEQs) using the Nordic convention. The number in parentheses represents
23,7,8-TCDD TEQs using the Eadon convention.
(2) Mixtures of CDDs and CDFs are reported as 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs to simplify reporting
and to commonly express the potential toxicity of mixtures of CDDs and CDFs in terms
of the toxicity of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The International Toxicity Equivalents Factors
convention (I-TEF/89) was adopted in 1989 by the U.S. and most foreign countries. The
Nordic convention is similar to the I-TEF/89 convention.
4-44
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 4-3
Pollutant Loadings for Total Iron and Steel Industry
•.-.•.•> f
•. ., T. 1. v
[ •. - V ^
Pollutant ;
*"•*-,
Total suspended solids
Oil and grease
Ammonia - N
Total cyanide
Phenols (4AAP)
Acrylonitrile
Parachlorometacresol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Ethlybenzene
Fltioranthene
Isophorone
Phenol
Benzo-a-anthracene
Benzo-a-pyrene
Chrysene
Acenaphthalene
Fluorcne
Naphthalene
Pyrene
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Total arsenic
Total cadmium
>S>'' -,*i'^%* •• ^ s
rs/XJeiyeiirt^,:
: , ^fifi$r) :
34,000,000
8^00,000
900.000
180,000
300,000
2,000
uoo
13,000
6,100
5,600
2,400
310,000
1,600
700
1.800
7,900
1,600
490
1,800
490
4,000
2,400
7,900
3,500
^ *• > ^ O •»> *'I'T,'T, ;
•* $^jBKtK& * ^\.
tMtflh"!
,;.WW.'-J
5,000,000
UOO.OOO
190,000
34,000
UOO
160
40
660
240
2,800
80
510
79
340
240
160
160
340
400
340
400
160
3.200
750
'/]$*«•**£* ?;
^JfeS^ -•
29.000,000
6,900,000
710,000
150.000
300,000
1,800
1,200
12,000
5,900
2,800
2.300
310,000
1,500
360
1,600
7,700
1,400
150
1.400
150
3.600
2,200
4,700
2,800
^^,>«'^i
''^\ l^ftttait: ' " 1
Redfldion 'I
j-t - c- ;
85
84
79
83
99.6
90
97
92
97
50
96
99.8
94
51
89
97
88
31
78
31
90
92
59
80
, ^'TEtalfe^r^
n**r* -v
*
*
*
i.i
*
0.85
0.0043
0.0053
0.0014
0.92
0.00073
0.028
24
4,300
18
0.0084
0.70
0.015
0.98
0.018
0.0056
0.0015
4.0
5.2
Toxic Weighing Factors are not applicable for these parameters.
4-45
-------
Table 4-3 (Continued)
Pollutant Loadings for Total Iron and Steel Industry
Tosste
Total chromium
90,000
61,000
29,000
32
0.027
Total copper
12,000
2400
9,500
79
0.47
Total lead
39,000
7,300
32,000
82
1.8
Total nickel
14,000
3,400
11,000
79
0.036
Total selenium
1,600
790
810
51
1.1
Total zinc
200,000
21,000
180,000
90
0.051
"Toxic Weighing Factors are not applicable for these parameters.
4-46
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 4-4
Pollutant Loadings for Direct Discharging Coke Plants
' I? \ \ vj, , ;
\ itanttttT^ -
., ^ " •• •" £
Total suspended solids
Oil and grease
Ammonia - N
Total cyanide
Phenols (4AAP)
Benzo-a-pyrene
Naphthalene
Benzene
' €urj*'»t-Ix«Kl&igv
;^;3*fc#v>;N
2,600,000
180,000
110,000
38,000
300
300
300
300
^jPisBjIeetwl Jteff&itoig.
Vl7<^&$r}y^,
.."I » T ^.^.x^'....'•_.__^l:x.
73,000
33,000
11,000
8.200
190
150
150
150
^ ? •• """ o v ^
-l^*a, i< ^tetytl -,* >'
.- .* .-;jvo ffi, T-^ >^ '
2400,000
150,000
99.000
30,000
110
150
150
150
Percent - - :;
H«dac&Mi
96
83
90
79
37
50
50
50
4-47
-------
Table 4-5
Pollutant Loadings for Indirect Discharging Coke Plants
' ^ V <
0, ^>^laai;^C
Total suspended solids
Oil and grease
Ammonia - N
Total cyanide
Phenols (4AAP)
Aciylonitrile
Parachlorometacresol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Ethlybenzene
Fluoranthene
Isophorone
Phenol
Benzo-a-anthracene
Benzo-a-pyrene
Chtysene
Acenaphthalene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Pyrene
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Total arsenic
Total selenium
Total zinc
;^iwwtt^a j*. *viB&fy&f' w',// *
630,000
48,000
96,000
24.000
960
160
40
40
240
160
79
40
79
190
79
160
160
190
240
190
400
160
3,200
790
790
loading Reduction %
>v-v,:<|ii^\ ,.,-•-
160,000
72,000
380,000
110,000
290,000
1,800
uoo
7,900
6,200
1,400
2^00
240,000
1400
210
1,500
7,700
1,400
0
1,400
0
3,600
2,200
4,700
810
810
,• , Pereeot
H«dactuUi ;
20
60
79
85
99.7
90
97
99.5
97
88
96
99.98
94
53
94
97
88
0
88
0
90
92
60
51
51
4-48
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 4-6
Pollutant Loadings for Other Coke Plants
1 -u -!\\ ^ ' ' •" ' f *• ""
** ><&utjtttr • '
' * •• C * •• •>
Total suspended solids
Oil and grease
Ammonia - N
Total cyanide
Phenols (4AAP)
Acrylonitrile
Parachlorometacrcsol
2,4-Diaiethylphenol
Ethlybenzene
Fluoranlhene .
Isophorone
Phenol
Benzo-a-anthracene
Benzo-a-pyrene
Chrysene
Acenaphthalene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Pyrene
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Total arsenic
Total selenium
Total zinc
CiiTFefttlioatfiitg
1 - IllWWl^'vi
"..* iv.>. 5....J
260,000
390,000
3,100,000
260,000
1,600,000
4,000
2.000
16,000
9,900
2,600
1.600
910,000
990
520
1,300
12,000
2,000
160,000
2,000
180,000
82.000
40,000
6,600
660
660
•>Fro|ectoi'ii^diiBgVC
>*\ :$*&£*$'*<
24,000
11,000
3,400
2,700
61
98
24
24
150
98
49
24
49
49
49
98
98
49
150
49
250
98
2,000
490
490
XJoadftag KcdttctiteR -
;x;^wrv.
240,000
380.000
3,100,000
260,000
1.600,000
3,900
2.000
16,000
9,800
2300
1,600
910,000
940
470
1,300
12,000
1,900
160,000
1,900
180,000
82,000
40,000
4.600
170
170
' Pereoat ^
•j' m&etiatto ^
92
97
99.9
99
99.99
98
99
99.9
99
96
97
99.99
95
90
96
99
95
99,97
95
99.97
99.7
99.8
70
26
26
4-49
-------
Table 4-7
Pollutant Loadings for Sintering
•;*':-•':"" %/
, l%ttii*fflBt >
Total suspended solids
Oil and grease
Ammonia - N
Total cyanide
Phenols (4AAP)
Fluoranthene
Phenol
Chrysene
Pyrene
Total cadmium
Total chromium
. Total copper
Total lead
Total nickel
Total zinc
•» •••> c1 ff' ; , - »,;„•>,:
' nrliffjfffftf 'Iri'ftJfflTTT fftij!*
•• . . Jf ^ N ^
600,000
110,000
93,000
3,100
230
1.500
770
160
l
160
160
3,100
310
1,900
160
2,300
Pr^ect^d toA«ng
N -L •• V ^^ > X Ji C
80,000
17,000
80,000
1,800
40
160
160
160
160
160
2,300
310
730
160
970
Loading Rettacflwi
^'V/,,^*^"' - "\
520,000
93,000
13,000
1,300
190
1,300
610
0
0
0
800
0
UOO
0
1.300
!-;:^;iten«**x ;-,
iftedcdlaii ::
87
85
14
42
83
87
79
0
0
0
26
0
63
0
57
4-50
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 4-8
Pollutant Loadings for Ironmaking
"tv ^v-V/'V *' A-i
- | ;»«««*«" v?;.
Total suspended solids
Ammonia - N
Total cyanide
Phenols (4AAP)
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Fluonnthene
Phenol
Total cadmium
Total chromium
Total copper
Total lead
Total nickel
Total zinc
2,300,000
190,000
7,700
460
4,600
2400
65,000
3,100
6.200
930
3,400
3,100
4,600
"«L «H* aai ff "'^diut "
& V ';|^S/yrp „<'-' -'
1,900
1,900
41
1
620
2,500
310
310
4,600
620
17
460
22
0 f**'} fff •• f S / f
*vv:-*H*to ^- ;
2,300,000
190,000
7,700
460
4.000
0
65.000
2,800
1,600
310
3,400
2,600
4,600
''"" 'P^ctet' ^'"
•' Berfnctiolr
99.9
99
99
99.8
87
0
99.5
90
26
33
99.5
84
99.5
4-51
-------
Table 4-9
Pollutant Loadings for BOF Steelmaking,
Vacuum Degassing, Continuous Casting
- •• .. ' '•> " ^
Pollutant , ,:.
Total suspended solids
Oil and grease
Total cadmium
Total chromium
Total copper
Total lead
Total nickel
Total zinc
£imW i^ing
^NyrK,;
3.900,000
680,000
280
2,800
2.800
7,500
6,900
120,000
,^3^LfiaSdi,ig !
', ::;$&&j*y\ ,,;
26.000
76.000
280
770
770
370
2,300
5,800
i
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 4-10
Pollutant Loadings for Hot Forming (Integrated Mills)
^ •{• -, •£ v ^ 1 •""•*• ^
% % > V \ f
, •. ^^\$*j&uti!t8!t ,•• , ',
^
Total suspended solids
Oil and grease
Total chromium
Total copper
Total lead
Total nickel
Total zinc
•'"€ttor«Btioadiog",
^*$£iti$$::*j
8,700,000
1,800,000
640
7,000
4^00
3,800
31,000
Stfc>u»3<*«te^l IT j^JBWfc"
-jKrojectwp ixiatpttg,
^V.^OttWixV'1
740.000
340,000
71
780
450
430
3.500
:\Ts;o6$ir>;'^.
8,000,000
1,500,000
570
6^00
4100
3.400
28,000
"*', Pwc^itt ,,
> ; Rerfwcti«)t ,, ,
92
83
89
89
91
89
90
4-53
-------
Table 4-11
Pollutant Loadings for Finishing
Total suspended solids
10.000,000
3,200,000
6,800,000
68
Oil and grease
4,400,000
760,000
3,600,000
82
Total chromium
Total lead
Total zinc
77,000
10,000
21.000
53,000
4,800
8,300
24,000
5,200
13.000
31
52
62
4-54
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Table 4-12
Pollutant Loadings for Nonintegrated Mills
Total suspended solids
Oil and grease
Total lead
Total zinc
3,900,000
790,000
11,000
16,000
83.000
18,000
760
1.000
3300,000
770,000
- 10,000
15,000
97
97
91
94
4-55
-------
Table 4-13
Pollutant Loadings for Hot Forming (Stand-alone)
Total suspended solids
570.000
49,000
520,000
91
Oil and grease
118,000
22,000
96,000
81
Total chromium
42
37
88
Total copper
460
52
410
89
Total lead
290
33
260
90
Total nickel
Total zinc
250
2,000
28
230
220
1.800
90
4-56
-------
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Table 444
Pollutant Loadings for Cold Forming
Total suspended solids
Oil and grease
Total lead
Total zinc
47,000
21,000
290
180
47,000
21,000
no
180
ISO
62
4-57
-------
09
.—
*£b
2
"o
X3
4
CU
cu
•g9
£
T3
C
«
cu
£
1
CQ
CO
o
CO
I
O
CO
CO
U
to
-
I
I?
o
•o
1
o
,-§
I
s
g
ff
2
•-I
= 2
2 S
E E
'S'S
-------
2?
i
§ •
IV
V)
2
1 *'
•• - £
1
1
1" . W
W
*5b
0
t i
H
| s 1
•r ^ gj
3 U^ "3
5 . ob
*" CQ Q
S |f.
co r1 BO
-1'i
S S 1
«
1
ia
cold rolling solution
1 clarification
M a
**^ CJ
^ c
1 'i
rt .5
«J O.
11
§
DO
_e
*e
tu
1
CO
g S. S!
ID £j
11
•s .i 'i
e § ^
5 u g
"s sf
III
L< M (t^
H w o
l|
8>i
J= BOTS
lir emission controls;
for continuous castin
waters with combine
0 gpt of raw steel
ta % J^
•3 | §-8
.•§!&•!
S « M 1
^ v ?• o
" "o •§ "S
§ ?• i *
w ^Js
s
i
1
to
bO
S
_B
z
S
1
ta
M
*|
_e
o
^
-i
CO
•- ,0
•S -e
ll
C B
jjg O
• if
| 8 ^
al-S
a-S 3
l!s
1
1
00
1
1
£
**-!
I
i
00
i
2
o
B
3 •
§
DO
U-
If
•^ u
^ a
•e H
i
4-59
1
-------
Table 446
Costs to Upgrade to the Level of Better Performing Mills
. •• b: '"'. '\IM'H':/\:#'V?
- r*\ -- Y/WV w>\> v*\
^\j>XV C^ill^tfsSVr; 7tT'£
Direct discharging coke plants
Indirect discharging coke plants •
Other coke plants
Sinter plants
Ironmaking
t
EOF steelmaking, vacuum degassing,
continuous casting ' ;
Hot forming (integrated mills) •
Finishing ; , 1
• • i
Nonintegrated mills ' ,
Hot forming (stand alone) ; ; ,
Cold forming .
Industry total ' ' \
^ '~"J? ^ ^ '^C^9^^s^9t)XfC}l \n^ii
lihtMiniitiimtmmiiiritflifllntnuiml'iiiiuiiiiiuiuiuuiifL
•?£^&^i«&*ttr. :
v'%%^ -.'v-. ^ ,.
19.5 '
30.1
29.2 :
12.9
: 25.1
11.0
i . 119.4
! 30.6 - :
34.4
21.3
5.8
1 339
1^ «f 1994 Polters) ' - i
>
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
"
&
CO
3
(0
II I
® o C
^'5'~ o
2* o w
»•- 5
w w
I.E|
'5 °
c! 3
^ ^
•c *S ' *c
.2 fi" ff'S
0^ if) S (U
S E .2 ^
t«?«
•? m 2* 5.
J* ^ cfl ^^
^ S
f~" "5 w =
|_o-5
O)
c »_
S -£13
K 5 1^
.lie
S S to ^
o 3 .^ w
1— = o £
Q-S5
0 2
k. .£
5 =
E g
Chemical Name
CO
s
0
CN
ANTIMONY COMPOUNDS
o
S
CM
BARIUM COMPOUNDS
o
is
00
1*.
in
i-.
CHROMIUM COMPOUNDS
o
o>
t
!>*
3
S
CM
T"
COBALT COMPOUNDS
%
0
CO
^
CM
co
COPPER COMPOUNDS
o
0
••.-'
co
3
o
OO
CM
CYANIDE COMPOUNDS
i
4s
OO
r*-
CM
_
•*
LEAD COMPOUNDS
o
CM
-'.
co
§
|S»
^v
CM
MANGANESE COMPOUNDS
o
m
r
0)
§
CO
CN
m
NICKEL COMPOUNDS
in
o>
i
0
m
CM
SILVER COMPOUNDS
o
r-
i».
0
r*.
00
CM
00
ZINC COMPOUNDS
o>
9
UJ
CN
CD
O
THIOUREA
CN
CD
in
co
>•
CD
9
Ul
CO
0>
m
METHANOL
i
CO
«,
v>
1°
*~
CO
CO
^_
^>
(N
O
111
00
^
CO
^-
^^
BENZENE
3
IS.
>•
J
^
*
in
in
o>
CO
o
UJ
CO
*
m
m
0>
1 ,1.1-TRICHLOROETHANE
eo
in
r-
in
0)
>
j
it
'
$
*~
o
o
U)
CM
S
UJ
CM
"*
8
DICHLOROMETHANE
a
m
r-
,
in
o
UJ
co
^
o
m
CM
SEC-BUTYL ALCOHOL
O)
CO
r-.
!
•g
"*"
o
m
S
UJ
CO
eo
m
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
CD
O
O>
in
>-
a
^
CD
i-
<*
^
8
111
m
T~
r-
^
NAPHTHALENE
3
o>
._.
en
CO
*~
o
o
ill
f-(
in
o
QUINOLINE
in
CN
CN
en
>
v'
s
Ul
m
co
m
O-XYLENE
S
o>
in
0)
>
o
CN
S
UJ
^
S
CN
ETHYLBENZENE
I
o
en
4)
>-
0
UJ
^
0
STYRENE
m
CM
S
0
in
V
m
0
UJ
eo
CD
CN
CN
CD
"-
ETHYLENE GLYCOL
c\
0
en
0)
CO
••"
s
CM
S
UJ
CO
in
CO
CN
TOLUENE
co
OO
00
00
0
en
Ci>
>
o
m
8
UJ
05
CM
U)
CHLOROBENZENE
r-
o
en
00
0
en
>
^
CO
a"
"~
o
CD
CO
co
CD
9
UJ
00
CN
1
CO
co
CD
CN
PHENOL
S!
o>
on
0
S
UJ
00
^
§
O
o
m
DIETHANOLAMINE
CM
CN
•f
in
>-
8
**"
CO
T—
m
§
UJ
IO
CN
m
ANTHRACENE
£
CM
CM
111
a
CM
m
DIBENZOFURAN
I
•*
UJ
o
00
CO
£
,—
MOLYBDENUM TRIOXIDE
m
V)
a>
8
**"
co
UJ
CD
CM
O
CN
CRESOL (MIXED ISOMERS)
CO
h-
(>.
O)
T-
w
>-
co
UJ
CM
"*
CO
o
CN
XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
a
CM
4-61
-------
— "O
I
h- CM
v cn
0) «-
~n O
a
E
CO
= «I
O M C
i
S
in
O)
oo
CO
^SS
(O
cv
ro
CO
DE
6
9
co
9
CM
CO
in
-
CM'
2
a
CM
sn
CD
ca
co
CM
o>
4-62
-------
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
0
w m
Sc I
s i
§ £
01 E
'S "" **
£ w
3 5
jj-o —
0* St >i
ill
C (A _§
§5 =
0.
w-o
III
= « £
O M —
°-5
O)
— go
*lfl
"O
12 cu
III
— "S ja
o w =
°-5
o w
o
§
z
10
Chemic
<
8
>
CO
o
CO
CO
00
in
R!
03
r-
CO
O
UJ
«*)
a
00
Benzo(a)pyrene
oo
°
1
co
00
S
O)
0
3
CO
s
0>
o>
o
o
UJ
T*
3
CO
s
en
o>
Cyanide
in
CM
En
1
58
>-
8
o
»
CM
CO
S
CM
CO
CM
in
m
Trichloromethan
co
8
8
>
00
CO
CO
o
CM
UJ
OO
*"
00
CO
0
CO
Benzene
CM
co
£
$
§
o
CO
CM
O
CO
o
UJ
CO
*
CO
CM
O
1
,_•
T-
Trichloroethane,
CO
in
m
£
§
o
8
o
S
CM
S
O
Chloroethane
eo
§
in
r-
?
$
>-
S
,_
S
s
CM
O
UJ
r-
S
CM
CO
r
In
Bromodichlorom
S
in
r-
cO
CO
>•
o
o
o
3
o
o
UJ
00
T~
3
o
1
Dichloroethene,
S
in
r-
s
>•
o
o
o
3
o
CM
o
UJ
CO
CD
3
o
Trichloroethene
CD
o
o>
(A
o
o
o
18
o
3
III
CD
IS
O
Diethyl phthalate
CN
eo
0?
IT*
O
O
s
o
CM
a
UJ
CM
T~
S
o
a1)
7S
"co
>
jp
1
O
CM
S
oo
$
>-
p
,—
S
o
o
CM
*
CO
o
u!i
CD
in
S
"*
Toluene
i
o
w
4>
CO
^
*~
00
5
8
III
oo
CM
r-
00
m
Phenol
s
oo
o
(0
CO
s
>
CO
IO
^
T~
^
s
a
UJ
T~
T"
CM
CO
"S
ca
•p
Oj
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
5
£
(0
d)
10
>-
j*
T-
•*
CO
o
UJ
CO
'^
5
co
c
CO
0)
Dibromochlorom
00
ct
M
CO
3
5
,_
JO
0>
8
UJ
**"
CD
OJ
T*
0)
Tetrachloroethen
CO
CM
w
(0
>•
o
o
CM
0
o
UJ
oo
o>
CM
O
Pyrene
o
o
CM
«0
o
o
o
2
0
in
o
111
CO
o>
T-
o
CM
T
c
2!
Dichloroethene, I
m
a
0
0
o
UJ
CM
a>
§
o
Fluoranthene
o
5
§
S
CO
o
UJ
CM
"*
00
m
o
Xylenes
r-
o
CM
O
co
•V—
CM
O
UJ
a>
CN
K
CO
o
III
CD
«n
o
co
r-.
>8
OT
CO
>
8
co
o>
CM
O
m
00
CO
eo
CM
O
o
UJ
T—
eo
CO
Magnesium
at
o>
eo
r-
8
3
UJ
^
CO
o
o
^*
CM
d)
i
CO
01
n
in
o>
co
8
in
^
eo
CD
r-
CM
i-
S
UJ
o
in
CM
IT""
&
p
o>
a>
r*.
w
f
S
o
CM
CD
1
C
1
"5
§
r-.
i
^
g
CO
to
o>
|X>
CM
1
z
^
§
"•
w
00
00
oo
^—
m
S
0
UJ
"*
in
S
-------
I g c jg
_. 9 1^ Jj^
3
to
8
CO
s
C4
0)
8
q
g
8S8
I
CO
o
CN
§
CO
O)
CN
S
O)
§
UJ
co
in
§
UJ
CM
in
CN
3
co
in
CM
CD
m
m
in
co
CM
co
CN
in
in
<- .S
£1
CO
n
itanium
c
rse
E
_3
•Q
3
CO
o
I
CD
CO
CNjmJ
in
n
O
CM
UJ
in
CN
N
co
UJ
co
10
CN
CO
IO
CN
co
CO
1
§
CO
s
1^
CN
CD
CO
m
o
r-
^
I
co
co
m
>
CO
i
ULJ
m
CO
CN
CO
CO
CM
CM"
co
o>
3
R
co"
I
»
I
C
o
DC
UJ
Q.
UJ
UJ
4-64
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
CO
I
•Q
CD f
CO Q
1 1
,"*2 Q>
1 |
i **"• C
ill
•5* 35 §
"" 8 J
Q) 32
O <3
|l
0)
a.
1
i
i
&
<5
1
p
£
N
5
*
1. +0
1 +
+ o m
•
B
• 0 +
X
s
LJJ
• 4- 0
Jill
^ 0 0 0 0 C
SV17 O13 (+) 8^0^
4-6
o
*
+ o
1 1 1 1 1
s 8 % § 8 8
WJo(-)*oi98tUB3Jed
5
_j
S
*
"S
o
"I •
_
i
?• OQ
1
— ^ o
5 ^
"i 1
o
~8
-8
-------
CD
i
i!
1
1
8)
I1
a
$
*
i
• 0
j
1
1 + O
*X
' ? §•
UJ
1+ O
• 0
• 0 +
"
1 0 +
1 1 1 1
4-
+
I 1 1 1 1
J5
K;
-*
g.
-|
oT
-8
K
2:
i
o
-g
to
12
|
O
i
o
1
i
+
Q
i
•
8
013 (-)
4-66
-------
8
j5
CD
s
2 «
CD §
«0 Q
c to
.9 0)
m 8
f 1
P 1
O ^
c 6
§ i
j?"~
^
Q.
^5
§
•
§
8<
N
< + x •
3:4*
-f • <
10 < >
10^"
> s i
r1^1
^J
CD
UJ
-------
CD
co
g>
Q)
o
0.
i
o
I
N
X
x
f
i
J_
\ \
O
erf
o
x
1 1 1 1
00 £
II
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
15
if
09 co*
O Q)
ll
Lft *55 w
^ ***^ P..
||§
L O*
s|
O ,S>
C Q
CO p
"§2
Q.
1
s
T
>!
_
+
, .
1 1 1 1
5 S § § 8 Q
svn 913 (~) eAoqv-
4
,.
.
i i I j i
5 O ^5 ^5 ^i ^5
^j ^»
-------
•
CO
CD
^
^O <5
'3§
co O)
Limitation
TermAvera
'c. ?
9J 5
g i
lit Cft
^'i
0)O
O w
§ 0
II
t °
S
i
,
<
^^w
i
Q
8
0)
N
<
\
\ o + m
.
1 • +0
*"
Sx^"
0
ill
10
i i i i
.
"
i i i i i
_fi
l*j
-3
5
5
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MNP
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CO
1
75
g
2 _
co Q
1 1
II
N. -j i
4 *s ,®
*~ \*l^
^
o .Q.
1^^ JS&
1 5
0)
Q.
1
-
1
<
tj
09
s
o
c
N
<
1
?
^
t
1 O
] O
• » y
5
CD
ti
D
! 1 1 1 1
5 S 8 § 8 c
-III!
1
svn 013 (+) wo*
4
! l l II i
* 8 § 8 § 8
T-
WJO (-) MOfQQ iUB3Je
-------
CO
c 6)
^ • c
«£• o
jte -j
§ f
O ^
o ;g
5 ^
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8
8
o
•c $
o> .2 i
4.5 S
.111
££ ,8
1
CL
&
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.0
5.1
WATER QUALITY AND CROSS-MEDIA IMPACTS
Impaired Water Bodies
Prior, to the early 1970s, the following U.S. rivers were among those highly
polluted by discharges from major iron and steel mills:
Cuyahoga River at Cleveland, Ohio;
Grand Calumet River at Gary, Indiana;
Indiana Harbor Ship Canal at East Chicago, Indiana;
Mahoning River at Warren and Youngstown, Ohio;
Monongahela River in Western Pennsylvania;
Black River at Lorain, Ohio;
Rouge River at Dearborn, Michigan; and
Ohio River at Weirton, WV and Steubenville, Ohio.
At that time, many of these streams were polluted with heavy floating oils from
untreated and partially treated discharges from rolling mills; low pH and high iron levels from
dumping of spent pickling acids and untreated pickling rinse waters; and high concentrations of
ammonia-N, cyanide and phenols (4AAP) discharged from coke plants and blast furnaces. These
conditions greatly improved during the 1970s and early 1980s through implementation of the first
technology-based NPDES permits and federal and state enforcement actions.
Despite major improvements in these and other steel mill streams, state agencies
have identified 40 iron and steel mills with discharges to impaired water bodies. (See Appendix
C, Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities Included on State 304(1) Short Lists). Most facilities
were listed because of toxic metal discharges. Other pollutants listed include cyanide, phenols
(4AAP), selected toxic organic pollutants, and whole effluent toxicity (WET).64 This is an
indication that the current Part 420 is not wholly adequate to protect receiving water quality.
5-1
-------
Current NPDES permits for most integrated steel mills contain a combination of
technology-based effluent limitations and water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs).
Mills such as the U.S. Steel - Gary Works, Inland Steel - Indiana Harbor Works and the
Bethlehem Steel - Burns Harbor Division have internal monitoring stations where technology-
based effluent limitations apply and outfalls where combinations of technology-based effluent
limitations and WQBELS apply. Since the current Part 420 was promulgated, many state water
quality standards have been upgraded to include more stringent chemical-specific criteria for toxic
metals, ammonia-N and cyanide to conform to U.S. EPA water quality criteria. This has resulted
in application of WQBELs more stringent than corresponding technology-based effluent
limitations. It is more likely that mills located on large receiving streams will be limited more
so by the current Part 420 than WQBELs, while mills located on small receiving streams will
principally be limited by WQBELs.
5.2
Receiving Water Sediments
There are several documented cases of receiving water sediment contamination
caused by historical discharges from iron and steel mills:
Receiving Water
Black River at Lorain, OH
Grand Calumet River at Gary, IN
Indiana Harbor Ship Canal
Mahoning River
Black Creek at Gadsden, AL
Iron and Steel Mill
USX/Kobe Steel
U.S. Steel - Gary Works
Inland Steel, LTV Steel
LTV Steel
Gulf States Steel
Sediments in the Black River at Lorain, Ohio were contaminated by discharges of
PAHs from cokemaking operations. These sediments have been partially remediated under the
terms of a consent agreement between U.S. Steel and EPA.65 As required by a federal consent
order, U.S. Steel has characterized contaminated sediments in the Grand Calumet River,66 and
is currently negotiating the terms and extent of a major sediment remediation program with
5-2
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EPA.67 Also as part of a federal consent order, Inland Steel has committed to a sediment
characterization and remediation program for part of the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal and Indiana
Harbor.68
During the mid-1980s, EPA Region 5 conducted sediment screening studies in
receiving streams for a number of current (at the time) and former coke manufacturing sites and
documented sediment contamination by PAHs.69 The results of these studies suggest a high
probability that sediments contaminated by PAHs can be found at and immediately downstream
of most active and inactive coke plants located in the U.S.
5.3 Groundwater
Groundwater pollution at integrated iron and steel mills has resulted from: leaking
wastewater collection sumps, leaking coke quench towers, and leaking blast furnace slag pits;
leaking wastewater treatment lagoons and ponds; historical direct disposal of spent pickling acids
in earthen pits; and leaking underground storage tanks and pipelines used to store and transport
fuel oils and various chemicals including chlorinated solvents.
It is likely that many active and former by-product cokemaking sites have
groundwater contamination.' Disposal of untreated waste ammonia liquor and by-product
recovery wastewaters by coke quenching was. a common practice at many coke plants prior to
and during the 1960s and 1970s. This method of wastewater disposal is still practiced at a few
active coke plants. Groundwater contamination resulted from leaking coke quench pits used to
collect and recycle excess quench water. These pits are usually constructed of concrete and
remain in service as long as the coke batteries are operated, generally from 20 to more than 40
years. Other coke plant groundwater contamination sources include leaking by-product recovery
wastewater collection sumps, disposal of tank drag-outs and process wastes in unlined surface
impoundments, and leaking storage tanks. Principal pollutants include benzene, toluene, xylene,
ammonia, cyanide, phenolics, and PAHs.
5-3
-------
Similarly, disposal of blast furnace gas wash recycle system blowdown by
evaporation on blast furnace slag has caused groundwater contamination at a number of mills
from leaking slag pits and inadequate containment of excess quench water. Groundwater
contamination from this source is a relatively recent phenomena compared to contamination from
leaking coke quench pits. Most blast furnaces were equipped with treatment and recycle systems
during the 1970s, and disposal of recycle system blowdown did not become widespread until the
early and mid-1980s when compliance with Part 420 became an issue for blast furnace operators.
Disposal of recycle system blowdowns by slag quenching offered a relatively low-cost means to
comply with Part 420. Groundwater contamination from blast furnace operations is characterized
by ammonia, cyanide, and phenolics.
Many other sources of groundwater contamination at steel mills are similar to
those found at other industrial manufacturing sites: leaking above-ground and below-ground fuel
storage tanks and leaking underground storage tanks of chlorinated solvents (e.g.,
trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene).
5.4
Air
Most of the cross-media impacts in the iron and steel industry involve pollutant
transfers from air to water and solid waste media from wet and semi-wet air pollution control
systems and from blast furnace and coke oven gas cleaning systems. Disposal of untreated coke
plant waste ammonia liquor arid by-product recovery wastewaters by coke quenching probably
causes the greatest transfer of pollutants from water to air; however, this practice is currently
limited to a relatively small number of plants. Other water-to-air transfers result from loss of
volatile pollutants from: open coke plant wastewater equalization and storage tanks and
wastewater treatment systems; open process wastewater sumps; emissions from blast furnace slag
pits where blast furnace blowdown is used for slag quenching; and volatilization of oil-based
compounds from hot forming and cold rolling wastewater treatment systems. When Part 420 was
5-4
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
promulgated, EPA found that the effluent reduction benefits associated with disposal of blast
furnace blowdown by slag quenching outweighed the air pollution impacts.13
5.5 Solid and Hazardous Waste
As noted above, most of the cross-media impacts in the iron and steel industry
involve transfers of air emissions to water through wet and semi-wet air pollution control systems
and subsequent transfers from wastewater to solid waste in the form of wastewater treatment
sludge. There are also direct transfers from air to solid waste from dry air pollution control
systems, the most prominent of which are dry air controls on EAFs.
There are also opportunities for transfers from solid waste to water from handling
and disposal of wastewater sludges and air pollution control dust. At some mills, runoff from
dewatered wastewater sludge collection and storage areas reaches noncontact cooling water and
stormwater discharges without treatment. At other mills, air pollution control dust falls to the
ground to be absorbed in subsequent runoff in stormwater and noncontact cooling water
discharges.
5.6 Opportunities for Multimedia Rulemaking
Because many of the wastewaters generated from basic steelmaking operations
result from air emission control or gas cleaning operations, there are obvious opportunities for
multimedia rulemaking. To the extent that dry air controls can be the basis for either the air or
water technology-based emission or discharge limitations, wastewater discharges can be
eliminated. This can be done within the water media alone by setting NSPS at zero discharge
for those operations where dry air controls are a viable technology (e.g., sinter plants, EAFs, ladle
metallurgy stations, scarfers on hot forming mills, all of which are demonstrated in the industry).
A coordinated review of all iron and steel industry operations may yield additional opportunities.
5-5
-------
Coke quenching operations are limited by State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for
paniculate emissions only. Many of these limitations are in the form of maximum allowable
total dissolved solids (IDS) concentrations in quench water. Pollutants characteristic of coke
plant and by-product recovery wastewaters (ammonia-N, cyanide, phenols (4AAP), benzene,
toluene, xylene and PAHs) are not regulated. Because of the benzene NESHAP regulations
currently applicable to coke plants and additional pending regulations for HAPs (hazardous air
pollutants) under the Clean Air Act, a coordinated air/water review of coke plant regulations
would ensure that the resulting regulations would not be contradictory.
Other opportunities for multimedia rulemaking include consideration of regulations
that would limit disposal of iron and steel industry wastewaters by non-discharge methods such
as slag quenching and incineration in steelmaking furnace air emission control systems.
Coordinated rulemaking could also be considered to control groundwater contamination resulting
from wastewater treatment and disposal.
5.7
Review of Recent Permit Violations and Enforcement Actions
5.7.1
Recent Permit Violations
Tables 5-1 through 5-6 summarize data from EPA's Permit Compliance System
'(PCS) Database regarding documented NPDES permit violations. The data for 1994 are only
complete through August 31,1994. For each parameter, the number of violations and the number
of companies representing the violations are presented.
5.7.2
Recent Federal and State Clean Water Act Enforcement Cases
During the past six years, at least four major federal enforcement cases and one
major state enforcement case have been brought against iron and steel manufacturers for NPDES
permit violations under the Clean Water Act. The four federal enforcement actions were
5-6
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
eventually settled through negotiations resulting in Consent Agreements or Consent Orders,
whereby the affected companies agreed to technical remedies, and cash penalties and stipulated
penalties for continuing violations. The one state action has not been completed at this writing.
Following is a brief summary of each case describing the types of NPDES permit violations
alleged, the technical remedies and the cash penalties.
U.S.A. v. USX Corporation (Civil Action No. 88-558, N.D. Indiana)
In 1988, the U.S. Government alleged that U.S. Steel's integrated mill at Gary,
Indiana made unauthorized discharges of blast furnace process wastewater from noncontact
cooling water outfalls, exceeded NPDES permit effluent limitations for ironmaking and steel
finishing operations, made unauthorized discharges of intake screen backwash, and made
unauthorized discharges from unpermitted outfalls.
The Consent Order issued in 1990 required U.S. Steel to pay a cash penalty of
$1.6 million; spend at least $7.5 million for receiving stream sediment characterization and
remediation; and make several process wastewater sewer rehabilitation and treatment system
upgrades, which were reported to cost about $26 million. These upgrades included: installation
of a recycle system for basic oxygen process contact gas cooling water; development and
implementation of a coke plant wastewater management plan; rehabilitation of coke plant cooling
water sewers; corrections for discharges of blast furnace gas seal overflows and blast furnace
process water cross-connections to noncontact cooling water outfalls; routing of finishing mill
basement sump discharges to the finishing mills treatment system; and development and
implementation of a visible oil monitoring and correction action program for process and cooling
water outfalls discharging to the Grand Calumet River.
5-7
-------
U.S.A. v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation (Civil Action No. C-2-88-598,
S.D., Ohio)
In 1988, the U.S. Government brought a civil action against Wheeling-Pittsburgh
Steel for its plants located at Steubenville, Mingo Junction and Yorkville, Ohio (the Steubenville-
North, Steubenville-South and Yorkville Plants) for exceedances of NPDES permit effluent
limitations and untimely installation of wastewater treatment facilities necessary to comply with
the technology-based BPT and BAT effluent limitations applicable to those facilities.
The Consent Order for this case was issued in 1991 and required Wheeling-
Pittsburgh to pay a cash penalty of $6.1 million, complete construction of process wastewater
treatment facilities that was underway at the time of the lawsuit, and conduct a series of
investigative and corrective action programs at each facility, many of which were similar to those
required by the U.S. Steel Consent Decree noted above.
U.S.A. v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation (Civil Action No. 89-2375,
W.D., PA)
The U.S. Government also brought suit against Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel for
NPDES permit violations at its Allenport, Pennsylvania steel finishing plant in 1989. The
Consent Order in that case was issued in 1992 and required Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel to pay a
cash penalty of about $2 million and upgrade the process water and process wastewater treatment
systems at the mill.
U.S.A. v. Inland Steel Corporation (Civil Action No. H90-038, N.D. Indiana)
The U.S. Government's case against Inland Steel involved Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, Clean Air Act, and NPDES permit effluent violations. The Consent Decree
5-8
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
in that case required Inland Steel to pay a cash penalty of $3.5 million for all media violations.
The case was filed in October 1990 and the Consent Decree was issued in March 1993.
The required wastewater remedial actions included: upgrading sampling and
analytical quality assurance/quality control programs; a heavy metal corrosion inhibitor control
program; investigations and corrective actions at a number of process and cooling water outfalls;
rehabilitation of a sanitary wastewater treatment plant; development of a plant-wide
environmental communications program directed at spill prevention, control and response; and
a plant-wide visible oil monitoring and corrective action program. Inland Steel also agreed to
conduct sediment characterization and remediation in Indiana Harbor and the Indiana Harbor Ship
Canal as a supplemental environmental project.
IDEM v. LTV Steel Company, Inc. (Indiana Cause No. 37C01-9104-CP-54)
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management filed a civil enforcement
case against LTV Steel in 1991 for NPDES permit effluent violations from sintering, ironmaking,
steelmaking, vacuum degassing, and continuous casting operations at the LTV Steel Indiana
Harbor Works located in East Chicago, Indiana. The complaint also alleged that LTV Steel
caused an oil spill to the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal. The case is pending at this writing.
5-9
-------
Table 5-1
EPA Permit Compliance System Violations (1989)
' •>'-'' '*,"« *"''<>'"1 '+•.?&.'•? ^,*t".**S1^'
< , j* V- /, fMnoweter - '- - ,v .^x^ i
•• ••.', - -.\-- *- ,"-5 , ;- "'->*-? «r,t *' J
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
BOD, 5-day (20 deg. C)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
PH
Total suspended solids
Oil and grease
Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as N)
Total phosphorous (as P)
Total organic carbon
Total cyanide
Free cyanide (amen, to chlorination)
Total arsenic
Total cadmium
Hexavalent chromium
Total chromium
Total cobalt
Total copper
Total iron
Dissolved iron
Total lead
Total manganese
Total nickel
Total silver
Total zinc
»• *>*•«*«*"! -';&'* ' '.-. ^;w>i: , ••„ !
• ;;s ytmiitf* VjUM|M»,v,c
16
30
6
282
266
157
68
7
3
28
10
3
4
17
24
1
7
98
5
52
9
24
1
130
; Nw»lierof€wapai*t
V ? ^ f f 5 f %.
7
15
3
61
60
39
16
2
1
12
3
1
1
7
13
1
6
14
1
20
3
6
1
32
5-10
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 5-1 (Continued)
EPA Permit Compliance System Violations (1989)
' viV.-i^ * '' <* "'\$^- - "JLji^'-H ^/^fV"* V" ,*<
Total aluminum
Total recoverable phenolics
Toluene
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
Phenol, single compound •
Naphthalene
Phenols
Vi^^l&toi^x!;
•• j- s. ; o <>*• rt *-^, , •». f * % f',,'*
4
49
2
6
11
9
15
25
1
c" NamWr &-£w»jNmfejr
'„ s.,— ., - >-»^ :... ,
1
11
i
3
2
1
2
5
1
5-11
-------
Table 5-2
EPA Permit Compliance System Violations (1990)
'- * '-r \f&sw^.7^^-^:T*
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
BOD, 5-day (20 deg. C)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
pH
Total suspended solids
Oil and grease
Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as N)
Total phosphorous (as P)
Total organic carbon
Total cyanide
Free cyanide (amen, to chlorination)
Total cadmium
Hexavalent chromium
Total chromium
Total copper
Total iron
Total lead
Total manganese
Total thallium
Total nickel
Total silver
Total zinc
Total antimony
Total aluminum
'. "< ..:•.'» V *"* < •. '' "..
10
13
6
313
323
166
89
7
10
39
9
1
19
23
28
97
64
7
6
29
1
171
. 1
2
•,::w.:^' A •„> vy. •". ^ ^-.;. '. _, -.
N«n»b«r (^ Ctmipanjes
5
10
2
60
73
47
20
3
2
15
7
1
7
10
7
15
17
3
1
9
1
46
1
1
5-12
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 5-2 (Continued)
EPA Permit Compliance System Violations (1990)
, , •••• •- 1 :-•" * {• "Bw-awfctjr/- -" " "' ;\' « ' ?> "- -i
•• •• - s f ^ J' *- •* o ^ ^ *- •• "• -. t '5 ^ S •"
Total recoverable phenolics
Toluene
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Fluorene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
Phenol, single compound
Naphthalene
Phenols
:\v;Ki»»b«R «T -flWte^m' , ^
52
1
4
3
1
3
2
29
2
V^wmlwr of Companies :
12
1
. 2
2
1
1
2
9
2
5-13
-------
Table 5-3
EPA Permit Compliance System Violations (1991)
-" •• ~» " > *~ s-^''\ ' ;.. •> « C >» " '
:, .. s >,f..,,, --. - rN $>arai8«ter ? t . - ;- ^/, V i -.s
^ •« XC- «. ^^ .. v v^ j-"'-' f V« v f f* •* ,s.
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
BOD, 5-day (20 deg. 'Q
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
pH
Total suspended solids
Oil and grease
Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as N)
Total organic carbon
Total cyanide
Free cyanide (amen, to chlorination)
Hexavalem chromium
Total chromium
Total copper
Total iron
Dissolved iron
Total lead
Total manganese
Total thallium
Total nickel
Total silver
Total zinc
Total antimony
Total aluminum
Total recoverable phenolics
;4$^^lto^
19
19
3
309
258
185
68
2
46
11
23
19
17
73
4
47
2
12
22
5
138
1
2
55
iKuiBlwT ef Cwttpaiwes -/
9
10
• 2
75
70
46
23
2
12
2
8
10
7
12
2
15
2
1
9
2
36
1
1
9
5-14
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 5-3 (Continued)
EPA Permit Compliance System Violations (1991)
&>;-v '^:^mm^f^^^^^
•• •.. v •• .. 0\ . ^ ^ x>^ *\?^ ^ ^ "• <: •=
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Ruoran there
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
Phenol, single compound
Naphthalene
Phenols
:: "^I^Wf^^V^rtfeBS f "
: ' , , , v-'s ' ' , '»'-. '.
1
1
1
3
1
w>
9
N«»|>«rofC«i»|)aw»es -
1
i
l
l
1
4
3
5-15
-------
Table 5-4
EPA Permit Compliance System Violations (1992)
^ y ^ \ v > v^M&^£^v^>'W!A^&??
r ^r^^^^W^^-^^^^^
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
BOD, 5-day (20 deg. C)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
pH
Total suspended solids
Oil and grease
Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as N)
Total phosphorous (as P)
Total organic carbon
Total cyanide
Free cyanide (amen, to chlorination)
Total cadmium
Hexavalent chromium
Total chromium
Total copper
Total iron
Dissolved iron
Total lead
Total manganese
Total nickel
Total silver
Total zinc
Total antimony
Total aluminum
w* smjjfrjj£j^*ffiji0faA£,\?
•j;^l«Pl^r^ ^fl^sr^ *«..>
14
33
3
237
211
174
50
1
2
36
6
1
23
14
12
29
1
72
2
10
1
113
2
3
'" ^itmtM^nf f*flmtkai&*it '"
6
13
3
53
58
46
20
1
1
10
4
1
6
9
5
8
1
19
1
6
1
26
1
1
5-16
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 5-4 (Continued)
EPA Permit Compliance System Violations (1992)
Total recoverable phenolics
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
14,1 -trichloioethane
Naphthalene
Phenols
48
13
14
5-17
11
-------
Table 5-5
EPA Permit Compliance System Violations (1993)
s *'<*
*...,.......<:. ?..£At^.^..X..+ art^"A.-:*r £*-'•«''.'»<.
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
BOD, 5-day (20 deg. C)
pH
Total suspended solids
Oil and grease
Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as N)
Total organic carbon
Total cyanide
Free cyanide (amen, to chlorination)
Total cadmium
Hexavalent chromium
Total chromium
Total copper
Total iron
Total lead
Total nickel
Total silver
Total zinc
Total recoverable phenolics
Benzo(a)pyrene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
Naphthalene
Phenols
$? >f^^^i^f^^^l^'<°-'''^
^tfWFj^^^^^P-; -t<
5
7
232
150
119
33
1
27
1
2
11
12
10
17
53
16
14
99
29
1
2
4
2
^^jaf^^-
3
4
59
54
43
15
1
11
1
1
4
4
3
8
13
9
2
29
11
1
1
2
2
5-18
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 5-6
EPA Permit Compliance System Violations (1994)
;<" 0% ^">"** """"^ Optk^M&rf' >V ^ *'" '"V'^ 'tO V"
"" ^ ** v" Iv. ^ •> -u ^v-v* ... ' •«' s *• -ft f S *r -.jy, ^N v WN*? 1?
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
BOD, 5-day (20 deg.'C)
pH
Total suspended solids
Oil and grease
Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as N)
Total organic carbon
Total cyanide
Free cyanide (amen, to chlorination)
Total cadmium
Hexavalent chromium
Total chromium
Total copper
Total iron
Dissolved iron
Total lead
Total manganese
Total nickel
Total silver
Total zinc
Total tin
Total aluminum
Total selenium
Total recoverable phenolics
i . .'. . - *. O. - - '- - 1. >' "".'. *). - . t^jA. ?..?*'?..?... '.'. >* "?
6
22
133
100
67
32
1
23
10
1
19
12
9
19
2
26
1
5
7
59
1
1
1
28
•f^^^milk^
4
8
47
44
36
14
1
9
3
1
9
6
5
7
1
9
1
5
2
27
1
1
1
9
5-19
-------
Table 5-6 (Continued)
EPA Permit Compliance System Violations (1994)
&?£^Hn? fis»f|p^4 Wf %P8
Benzo(a)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenols
5-20
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.0 NEW AND INNOVATIVE APPROACHES
6.1 Production Technologies
(a) A considerable amount of research is currently underway into new iron and
steelmaking processes that would eliminate or substantially minimize the
need for coke. Among these is a $55 million Direct Steelmaking research
project funded primarily by the Department of Energy.27 The purpose of
this project is to determine whether direct steelmaking without production
of coke and molten iron in separate processes can be a commercially
viable technology. Processes to produce molten iron directly from coal
and iron-bearing materials are also being evaluated. Because these
processes have not yet been demonstrated on a commercial scale at this
tune, they are judged not to be suitable to form the basis for revised BAT
effluent limitations guidelines and NSPS. Furthermore, the capital
investment required to implement such processes across the industry for
existing mills within the compliance schedule required by the CWA would
most likely be prohibitive. In the long term, these projects may provide
substantial benefits for the integrated segment of the industry in the form
of lower capital investments for upgrades and modernization; improved
production scheduling and productivity through use of multiple parallel
production units instead of a smaller number of large units that must be
periodically taken out of service; and substantially lower air emissions and
wastewater discharges than current operations.
(b) In the United States, nearly all of the blast furnace coke is produced in by-
product coke plants with their costly and difficult air and water pollution
control problems. There is one commercial-scale nonrecovery coke battery
operated for production of blast furnace coke by Sun Coal Company in
6-1
-------
Vansant, Virginia. The coke battery comprises adjacent horizontal, dome-
shaped ovens constructed to allow combustion of the gasses evolved from
the coal during coking, thus consuming the by-products that are recovered
in by-product recovery coke plants. The process allows for energy
recovery and results in substantially lower air emissions and virtually no
cokemakmg process wastewater discharges compared to by-product coke
plants. Inland Steel announced plans to replace its coke plants with
nonrecovery coke batteries but later abandoned those plans for financial
reasons.
70
(c) A patent application is pending for a continuous; closed process to pyrolize
coal in circular tubes (ovens) which are indirectly heated with a portion of
the gas produced. The process is being developed by Calderon Energy
Company of Bowling Green, Ohio. Calderon reports the following major
components of the process:
• Positive displacement of coal feed and coke discharge;
• Horizontal pyrolysis of coal for consolidation;
• Integrated dry steam quenching of coke;
• Hot cleanup of raw gas yielding cracked desulfurized gas;
• Regeneration of sorbent yielding elemental sulfur; and
• Provision of lockhoppers for charging coal, discharging
coke, and sorbent handling.
Calderon reports that the process will generate no fugitive or process
emissions and that wastewater treatment will not be required because the
process cracks all coal distillation products (tars, ammonia, light oils).
6-2
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
Calderon reports that the process will result in three products: coke of
high stability, desulfurized syngas rich in hydrogen, and elemental sulfur.
The process has not been demonstrated on a commercial scale as of this
writing.
(d) Pulverized coal injection for blast furnace operations is a technology that
uses.raw material substitution. In this process, pulverized coal is injected
into the blast furnace through the tuyeres, thus supplying part of the carbon
required to reduce the iron-bearing materials to molten iron. This reduces
the coke demand for furnace operations and eliminates the air emissions
and wastewater discharges that would have occurred from production of
the displaced coke. The project team is not aware of any studies that fully
characterize blast furnace recycle system discharges from furnaces operated
with pulverized coal injection. Injection of oil and pulverized coal into
blast furnaces is demonstrated in the U.S. iron and steel industry.
(e) Although continuous casting is not a new process, it has only been
implemented on a large scale in the United States during the last fifteen
years (see Figure 2-9). This process results in substantial productivity
improvements, energy and manpower savings, and effluent reduction
benefits. The effluent reduction benefits accrue because virtually all
continuous casters are installed with high-rate recycle systems for cooling
and process waters. These systems replace blooming and slab mills that
typically have considerably higher water usage and effluent discharges.
Most continuous casters installed to produce flat rolled products are
configured to produce slabs ranging from 8 to 10 inches in thickness.
Breakdown of these slabs into strips requires a complete hot strip mill
equipped with reheat furnaces, several roughing stands, and a set of
6-3
-------
finishing stands. There is one nonintegrated mill that is equipped with
two, thin-slab casters to produce two-inch thick slabs. These slabs are hot-
charged into a normalizing furnace, processed in one descaling stand, and
then processed in a set of finishing stands. Recently, Acme Metals, Inc.,
one of the smallest integrated steel makers, announced plans to install a
thin slab caster to produce flat-rolled carbon steels for selected markets.71
The use of thin slab casting allows for lower capital investment
requirements for entry into some of the flat rolled steel markets, and
results in effluent reduction benefits from reduced water usage and
discharge from hot strip mills.
(f) A number of new continuous strip finishing mills have been constructed
during the last five to seven years. As noted earlier, several steel finishing
and metal finishing operations are often combined in one or two
continuous production lines compared to many separate mills. These
newer mills offer the potential for effluent reduction benefits over separate
processes. The project team is not aware of any studies that fully
characterize effluent discharges from these mills.
6.2
Wastewater Flow Minimization and Improved Wastewater Treatment
Aside from process modifications that would result in changes in the volume and
character of process wastewaters, there are three principal methods to reduce mass discharges of
pollutants to the environment from iron and steel manufacturing operations:
Wastewater flow minimization through process water conservation,
process water reuse, and process water recycle;
Improved end-of-pipe wastewater treatment to lower concentrations
of discharged pollutants; and,
6-4
-------
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Effluent disposal by nondischarge methods including evaporation
on slags, incineration in furnaces, and deep well disposal.
When considering the CWA goal of zero discharge of pollutants for iron and steel
manufacturing operations, wastewater flow minimization must be a first priority. For many of
the basic steelmaking operations, opportunities to minimize or eliminate the discharge of
pollutants become feasible only if process wastewater flows are minimized through high-rate
recycle.
6.2.1 Wastewater Flow Minimization
Since Part 420 was promulgated in 1982, better performing mills in the U.S. iron
and steel industry have significantly improved wastewater flow minimization through increased
high-rate recycle, cascading process water from one operation to another, and alternate effluent
disposal methods. Process water discharge rates at many of the mills highlighted in Section 4.3
as better performing mills are substantially below those used by EPA as model process
wastewater flows to establish the effluent limitations guidelines and standards. Except for
cokernaking and steel finishing operations, performance better than the ELG LTAs shown on
Figures 4-1 through 4-8 is principally attributable to reductions in process wastewater discharges.
6.1.2 Improved Treatment Methods and Treatment Operations
Also demonstrated by the better performing mills are improved wastewater
treatment methods and enhanced treatment system operations. These include:
Operation of coke plant wastewater treatment systems without
ammonia stripping as a pretreatment;
Improved operation of coke plant biological treatment systems by
adding enhanced biocultures;
6-5
-------
Combined metals precipitation and alkaline chlorination treatment
of pretreated coke plant wastewaters and blast furnace recycle
system blowdown;
Combined treatment of sinter plant and blast furnace blowdowns in
an advanced metals precipitation system;
Innovative treatment of wastewaters resulting from BOF suppressed
combustion emission controls that permits operation with zero
discharge for extended periods;
Cascading of recycle system blowdowns from basic steelmaking
operations (BOF, vacuum degassing, continuous casting) to
minimize process wastewater discharges;
Combined treatment of a blowdown from a hot strip mill high-rate
recycle system with blowdowns from other high-rate recycle
systems in a metals precipitation and filtration system; and
Operation of a combination of pretreatment and end-of-pipe
wastewater treatment systems to achieve minimal discharges from
steel finishing operations.
6.3
Pollution Prevention
For purposes of this report, "pollution prevention" is used in the context of EPA's
definition of the term: "... the use of processes, practices or products that reduce or eliminate
the generation of pollutants." EPA advocates a hierarchial approach to pollution prevention
which focuses first upon "source reduction" as a means to reduce or eliminate waste, and second
upon "recycling" to reuse or reclaim used materials and waste. Historically, the iron and steel
industry used pollution prevention as an integral part of its operations. However, most of the
following pollution prevention techniques are examples of recycling, rather than examples of
source reduction:
Recovery of by-products from cokemaking operations (crude coal
tars, crude light oils, anhydrous ammonia or ammonium sulfate,
6-6
-------
I
I
1
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
sodium phenolate) for use or processing into final products
elsewhere;
Reprocessing of coke plant tar decanter sludges and wastewater
treatment sludges in coke ovens;
Recovery of iron values from blast furnace flue dusts, blast furnace
wastewater sludges and mill scale, and consumption of coke breeze
in sinter plants;
Processing and reuse of blast furnace and steelmaking slags for use
in the road building, construction, and railroad industries;
Remelting and processing of home scraps, prompt industrial steel
scraps, and dormant steel scraps in BOFs and EAFs to make new
steel;
Collection and recovery of EAF flue dusts for recovery of lead and
zinc values;
Recovery and processing of recovered waste lubricating oils and
rolling solutions for use as fuel supplements;
Regeneration of spent acid pickling liquors for reuse and use of
spent pickling liquors as treatment aids for POTWs; and
Collection of dross from hot coating operations for recovery of
metal values at off-site processors.
Examples of source reduction in the iron and steel industry include the alternative
ironmaking and steelmaking processes briefly reviewed in Section 6.1: nonrecovery cokemaking
instead of by-product cokemaking and continuous casting instead of the combination of ingot
casting and primary rolling. Nonintegrated steelmaking with EAFs instead of integrated
steelmaking with intermediate production of coke, sinter, and molten iron could also be
considered source reduction. Because EAF steelmaking cannot currently be used to produce all
grades of steel products, and cannot be used to produce all steel products at current demand rates,
it would not be practical to base a revised single media or multimedia regulation on this
technology.
6-7
-------
A primary pollution prevention technique to eliminate wastewater discharges is use
of dry air emission and gas cleaning controls instead of wet or semi-wet controls where possible
(see Section 5.6). Other available pollution prevention techniques regarding wastewater treatment
include high-rate process water and process wastewater recycle for sintering, ironmaking,
steelmaking, vacuum degassing, continuous casting, and hot forming operations, flow reduction
through other means for steel finishing operations (e.g., cascade rinsing and fume scrubber
recycle for acid pickling lines), and cascading of recycle system blowdowns from one operation
to another. These technologies are well demonstrated in the U.S. iron and steel industry, but not
universally applied.
One example of an innovative process wastewater treatment and recycle system
is that operated by LTV Steel for the suppressed combustion BOF shop at its Cleveland Works.
The process water treatment system for the furnace air emission control wet scrubbers is operated
in a water softening mode such that LTV Steel operates with no discharge for extended periods
of time. Relatively low-volume, intermittent discharges are made to a nearby continuous caster
recycle system. The total discharge of toxic metals from the BOF system is substantially lower
than the effluent limitations derived from the applicable effluent limitations guidelines.72
A potential innovative approach for disposing of a blowdown from a combined
blast furnace/sinter plant recycle system is being explored by U.S. Steel at its Gary Works.67
U.S. Steel has applied for a permit from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management
to pilot test incineration of the blast furnace/sinter plant blowdown in BOF steelmaking gas
cleaning systems. This project is designed to eliminate a wastewater source by evaporating the
blowdown and incinerating the nonmetal pollutants. The metals present would be transferred to
the BOF gas cleaning water and treated with metals normally found in BOF wastewaters. It is
expected that the pilot testing will occur during the next year.
6-8
-------
I
i
I
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
6.4 Residuals Management
The iron and steel industry generates large quantities of residuals from the primary
ironmaking and steelmaking processes and wastewater treatment sludges from all industry
operations. Table 6-1 summarizes the more common practices for beneficially reusing or
disposing of residuals.
Virtually all residuals from by-product cokemaking operations are either recovered
as crude by-products (e.g., crude coal tar, crude light oil, ammonium sulfate), collected and
reused or sold (e,g., coke breeze), or recycled to the coke ovens for recovery of carbon values
(e.g., coal tar decanter sludge, coke plant wastewater treatment sludge). Ironmaking and
steelmaking slags generated at most integrated steel mills are processed and beneficially reused
in a variety of construction and road building uses. Blast furnace flue dusts and blast furnace
gas wash water wastewater treatment sludges are recovered through sinter plants at less than half
the blast furnace plants. These materials are recovered through cold briquetting at one known
mill. Other wastewater treatment sludges are landfilled at nearly all mills.
Continuous caster and hot forming mill scales are recovered on site at mills with
sinter plants, recovered off site in cement manufacturing, or are landfilled at a number of mills.
Wastewater treatment sludges from hot forming operations are generally not recovered or
recycled because of high oil content. Similarly, wastewater treatment sludges from finishing
operations are generally not recovered because of high oil and metals content. Although these
sludges are relatively high in iron content, it is not currently economical to process and recover
the iron from the sludges.
6.5 Best Management Practices
Part 420 does not contain best management practices (BMPs). Because of the
extensive raw material handling and the nature of cokemaking, sintering, ironmaking, and
6-9
-------
steelmaking operations, a considerable number of discharges are not currently regulated by Part
420 or by most NPDES permits. These unregulated discharges have been the subject of
remediation actions sought by EPA in steel industry enforcement actions.66'68'73 A more effective
and uniform means to control such discharges would be to require BMPs as part of 40 CFR Part
420. Following is a partial list of potential BMPs:
Control of spillage and losses from raw material unloading
operations (ore docks);
Control of runoff from raw material storage piles: coal, coke, iron
ore, limestone, scrap steel;
Control of fugitive discharges of process waters, process
wastewaters, and process materials to coke plant, blast furnace, and
sinter plant noncontact cooling water (NCCW);
Control of coke oven and blast furnace gas condensates;
Control of runoff/leachate and groundwater contamination from
coke batteries, coke quench tower sumps, and by-product recovery
areas;
Control of runoff/leachate and groundwater contamination from
blast furnace slag pits located at the furnaces;
Control of runoff from blast furnace and steelmaking slag
processing located at the furnaces and in remote areas (almost
always operated by contractors);
Control of runoff from EAF dust collection areas;
Control of spillage and runoff from loading stations for rolling
solutions and pickling acids; and
Surveillance and corrective action programs for oil discharges from
large NCCW flows.
6-10
-------
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Table 6-1
Common Practices for Residuals Management
Proc^Opera^i
Cokemaking
Ironmaking
Steebnaking
Continuous Casting
Hot Forming
Finishing operations
•-.'!-'^>'.^r^./^'.-'r.'1-. *' ? ,>*> v- s.'.rf A'V^'^V'V
Crude coal tar
Crude light oil
Ammonium sulfate
Ammonia
Coke breeze
Tar decanter sludge
Wastewater treatment sludge
Blast furnace slag
Hue dust
Wastewater sludge
BOFslag
EAFslag
Wastewater sludge
MiU scale
Mill scale
Waste oils
Wastewater sludge
Waste pickling acids
Waste oils
Wastewater sludges
Recovered and sold as by-product
Returned to coke ovens
Processed and sold as by-product
Recovered in sinter plants; cold briquetted;
landfUled
Processed and sold as by-product
Processed for recovery of metals
LandfUled; cold briquetted and reused
LandfUled; recovered in sinter plants
Recovered in sinter plants; recovered in
cement manufacturing; landfUled
Recovered and used as fuel supplement
LandfUled
Regenerated and reused; reused as municipal
wastewater treatment aide; neutralized and
discharged
Recovered and used as fuel supplement
LandfUled
6-11
-------
-------
I
I
7.0 REFERENCES
_ 1. 47 FR 232S8. Part II; Environmental Protection Agency; Iron and Steel Manufacturing
J Point Source Category Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards; May 27, 1982.
12. Settlement Agreement for Case No. 82-3225 and Consolidated Cases; National Steel
Corporation, etal., Petitioners v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent and
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Ihtervenor-Respondent; U.S. Court of Appeals
• for the Third Circuit; February 24, 1993.
3. 49 FR 21036. Part H Environmental Protection Agency; Iron and Steel Manufacturing
• Point Source Category Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards; May 17, 1984.
4. Consent Decree for Civil No. 89-2980; Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.; Public
I Citizen, Inc., Plaintiffs v. William K. Reilly, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Defendant, and American Paper Institute; National Forest Products Association;
et ah, Intervenor-Defendants; United States District Court for the District of Columbia;
• January 31, 1992.
5. 47 FR 23266. May 27, 1982.
• 6. American Iron and Steel Institute; Steel Works, U.S. Steel Industry at a Glance;
Washington, D.C, 1992.
•
• 7. Association of Iron and Steel Engineers; The Making, Shaping and Treating of Steel',
ISBN 0-930767-00-4; Pittsburgh, PA; 1985.
' 8. U.S. EPA; Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
m for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category, VoL I; EPA 440/1-82/024;
I Washington, D.C; May 1982.
_ 9. U.S. EPA; Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
I for the Inn and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category, VoL H (Cokemaking);
EPA 440/1-82/024; Washington, D.C; May 1982.
| 10. Personal communication between Gary A. Amendola, P.E., Amendola Engineering, Inc.,
Lakewood, OH and K.C Shaw, P.E., Chief Engineer - Environment, Geneva Steel, Provo,
• UT; June 16, 1994.
11. U.S. International Trade Commission; Metallurgical Coke: Baseline Analysis of the 17,5.
• Industry and Imports', Publication 2745; Washington, D.C; March 1994.
I
I
-------
12. U.S. EPA; Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standard*
for the In* and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category, VoL n (Sintering); EPA
440/1-82/024; Washington, D.C; May 1982.
13. U.S. EPA; Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guideline* and Standard*
for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category, VoL n (Ironmalring); EPA
440/1-82/024; Washington, D.C; May 198Z
14. BOF Roundup; 33 Metal Products; May 1991; p-35.
15. U.S. EPA; Development Document for Effluent Limitation* Guideline* and Standards
for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category, VoL in (Steelmaking);
EPA 440/1-82/024; Washington, D.C; May 1982. ,a
16. U.S. EPA; Development Document for Effluent Limitation* Guidelines and Standards
for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category, VoL ffl (Vacuum
Degassing); EPA 440/1-82/024; Washington, D.C; May 1981
17. U.S. EPA; Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standard*
for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category, VoL in (Continuous
Casting); EPA 440/1-82/024; Washington, D.C; May 1982.
18. U.S. EPA; Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category, VoL IV (Hot Forming);
EPA 440/1-82/024; Washington, D.C; May 1982.
19. U.S. EPA; Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category, VoL V (Salt Bath
Descaling); EPA 440/1-82/024; Washington, D.C; May 1982.-
20. U.S. EPA; Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category, VoL V (Acid Pickling);
EPA 440/1-82/024; Washington, D.C; May 1982.
21. U.S. EPA; Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
for the iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category, VoL VI (Cold Forming);
EPA 440/1-82/024; Washington, D.C; May 1982.
22. American Iron and Steel Institute; Directory of Iron and Steel Works of the United
States and Canada; Washington, D.C.; 1977.
7-2
-------
I
I
23. Association of Iron and Steel Engineers; Directory of Iron and Steel Plants; Pittsburgh,
PA; 1994
124. American Iron and Steel Institute; Statistical Highlights, U.S. Inn and Steel Industry,
Washington, D.C.; 1983.
25. American Iron and Steel Institute; Annual Statistical Report, 1988', Washington, D.C.;
1989.
26. American Iron and Steel Institute; Annual Statistical Report, 1992; Washington, D.C.;
1993.
27. American Iron and Steel Institute; Statistical Highlight* KS. Iron and Steel Industry;
Washington, D.C; 1993.
I
I
I
128. Personal communication between Gary A. Amendola, P.E., Amendola Engineering, Inc.,
Lakewood, OH and Mary Johnson, Statistics Department, American Iron and Steel
Institute, Washington, D.C, August 9, 1994.
• 29. American Iron and Steel Institute; Capital Expenditures by Reporting Companies for
Domestic Environmental Control and Solid Waste Disposal Faculties; AIS 17EC;
• Washington, D.C, 1993.
30. American Iron and Steel Institute; AISI News; Washington, D.C.; June 1994.
" 31. 39 FR 24114-24133. 40 CFR Part 420, Subparts A - L.
I 32. American Iron and Steel Institute, et. al, v EPA, 526 F.2d 1027 (3rd Circuit, 1975)
g 33. 39 FR 12990-13030. 40 CFR Part 420, Subparts M - Z.
• 34. American Iron and Steel Institute, et. al., v EPA, 568 F.2d 284 (3rd Circuit, 1977)
I 35. 40 FR 1858 - 1907. Part II; Environmental Protection Agency; Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Point Source Category Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards;
• January 7, 1981.
36. 47 FR 23266. May 27, 1982.
I
• 38. Industrial Economics, Incorporated; The Use and Impact of Iron and Steel Industry
I.
I
37. 47 FR 23265. May 27, 1982.
Industrial Economics, Incorpc
Intra-Plant Trades; Cambridge, MA; March 1994.
-------
39. Ontario Ministry of the Environment Status Report on the Effluent Monitoring Data
for the Inn and Steel Sector for the Period from November 1,1989 to October 31,
1990; Water Resources Branch; Toronto, Ontario; September 1991.
40. Hatch Associates Ltd. Inventory and Costing of Best Available Pollution Control
Technologies for the Iron and Steel Sector in Ontario', (Final Draft Report); Mississanga,
Ontario; September 1991.
41. U.S. EPA File Information. Central Treatment Rulemaking Record. September 27,1984.
Washington, D.C (Draft Proposed Modification to 40 CFR Part 420).
42. Mr. Joseph S. Kocot (Director - Plant Maintenance and Engineering, National Steel
Corporation, Granite City Division, Granite City, Illinois) to Mr. Timothy R. Kluge P.E.
(Manager, Industrial Unit, Permit Section, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
Springfield, Illinois); June 25, 1992; 3 pp w/attachments.
43. Mr. James H. Scarbrough (Chief, Water Permits and Enforcement Branch, Water
Management Division) to Mr. John Poole (Chief, Industrial Branch; Water Division,
Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Montgomery, Alabama); June 29,
1993; 3 pp w/attachments.
44. Personal communication between Gary A. Amendola, P.E., Amendola Engineering, Inc.,
Lakewood, OH and Irvin DzikowsM, Chief, Permits Section, Water Management
Division, U.S. EPA Region V, Chicago, IL; August 2, 1994.
45. Personal communication between Gary A. Amendola, P.E., Amendola Engineering, Inc.,
Lakewood, OH and Karen Buerki, Enforcement Section, Water Management Division,
U.S. EPA Region 4, Atlanta, GA; June 1993.
46. 47 FR 23273. May 27, 1982.
47. 49 FR 21025. May 24, 1984.
48. Espositot MJ., Tieman, T.O. and Dryden, F.E., Dioxins, Office of Research and
Development; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA-600/2-80-
197, November 1980.
49. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Dioxin Study Report to Congress,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C., August 1987,
EPA/530-SW-87-025.
7-4
-------
I
I
— 50. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The National Dioxin Study • Tien 3J,6, and 7,
• Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C., February 1987, EPA-
* 440/4-87-003.
I 51. Amendola, G.A., Barna, D., Blosser, R., LaFleur, L., McBride, A., Thomas, E, Tieman,
T., and Whittcmorc, EL, The Occurrence and Fate ofPCDDs and PCDFs in Bleached
m Kraft Pulp and Paper Mills, Chemosphere, Volume 18, Nos. 1 - 6, 1989.
52. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. EPA/Paper Industry Cooperative Dioxin
Screening Study, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C., March
1988, EPA 440/1-88-025.
•
153. Oberg, T. and Allhammar, G. Chlorinated Aromatics from Metallurgical Industries -
Process Factors Influencing Production and Emissions, Chemosphere, Volume 19, Nos.
1 - 6, pp 711 - 716, 1989.
I 54. Tysklind, M., Soderstrom, G., Rappe, C, Hagerstdet, L.E., and Burstrom, E. PCDD and
PCDF Emissions from Scrap Metal Melting Processes at a Steel Mill, Chemosphere,
• Volume 19, Nos. 1 - 6, pp 705 - 710, 1989.
55. Antonsson, A.B., Rumark, S., and Mowrer, J. Dioxins in the Work Environment in Steel
• Mills, Chemosphere, Volume 19, Nos. 1 - 6, pp 699 - 704, 1989.
56. Colburn, C. and Clement, C., Chemically-Induced Alterations in Sexual and Functional
I Development: the Wildlife/Human Connection. In: (ed) Princeton Scientific, Princeton,
• pp 1-403, 1992.
I 57. White, R., Jobling, S., Hoare, S.A., Sumpter, J.P., and Parker, M.G., Environmentally
Persistent Alkylphenolic Compounds are Estrogenic, Endocrinology: 135:175-182,
- 1994.
58. Nayior, G.C., Mierure, J,P., Weeks, J.A., Castaldi, F.J., and Romano, R.R., Alkylphenol
IEthoxylates in the Environment. Journal of the Society of American Oil Chemists:
69:695-703, 1992.
I
I
I
I
I
-------
59.
60.
61.
62.
Ahei, Mw Conrad, J. and Giger, W., Persistent Organic Chemicals in Sewage Effluents.
III. Determination of nonylphenoxy carboxyUc acids by high resolution gas
chromatography/mass spectroscopy and high performance liquid chromatography.
Environmental Science and Technology: 21:697-703,1987.
Giger, W., Ahel, M., Koch, M., Uubscher, H.U., Schaffner, J. and Schneider, J.,
Behavior of AUcylphenol-polyethoxylate Surfactants and of NitrOoacetate in Sewage
Treatment. Water Science and Technology: 19:449-460, 1987.
Zoller, U., Groundwater Contamination by Detergents and Potycyctic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons • A Global Problem of Organic Contaminants: Is the Solution Locally
Specific? Water Science and Technology: 27:187-194, 1993.
Clark, L.B., Rosen; R.T., Hartman, T.G., Louis, J.B., Stuffet, LH., Uppincott, RX., and
Rosen, J.D., Determination of AlkylphenolEthoxylates and their Acetic Acid Derivatives
in Drinking Water by Particle Beam Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy.
International JournaLof Environmental Analytical Chemistry: 47:167-180,1992.
63. Personal communications between Gary A. Amendola, P.E., Amendola Engineering, Ins,
Lakewood, OH, and Peter Howe, Permits Section, Water Management Division, U.S. EPA
Region 5, Chicago, IL; September 1, 9, and 26, 1994.
64. 304(1) lists.
65. USX/Kobe Dredging Consent Decree.
66. Consent Decree for Civil Action No. 88-558; United States of America, Plaintiff v. USX
Corporation, Defendant; United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana;
1990: - - -
67. Personal communication between Gary A. Amendola, P.E., Amendola Engineering, Inc.,
Lakewood, OH and J. David Moniot, General Manager - Environmental Affairs and
Water Manager, U.S. Steel, Pittsburgh, PA; September 1,1994.
68. Consent Decree for Civil Action No. H88-0328; United States of America, Plaintiff v.
Inland Steel Company, Defendant; United States district Court for the Northern District
of Indiana, Hammond Division; March 8, 1993.
7-6
-------
I
I
169. Personal communication between Gary A. Amendola, P.E., Amendola Engineering, Inc.,
Lakewood, OH and Mark O. Moloney, Environmental Engineer, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Environmental Sciences Division, Eastern District Office,
• Westlake, OH; May 27, 1994.
70. Personal communication between Gary A. Amendola, P.E., Amendola Engineering, Inc.,
I Lakewood, OH and Robert D. Johnston, Staff Engineer, Environmental, Health and
Safety, Inland Steel Company, East Chicago, IN, September 7, 1994.
171. Newspaper Article: Steel Producer Plans 'Hybrid? Afiff; Chicago Tribune; Thursday,
August 16, 1994.
172. Amendola, G.A. and Safavi, B.; LTV Steel Company - Cleveland Works Pollution
Prevention Case Study; 1992 (Draft Report).
173. Consent Decree for Case No. C2 88-216; United States of America, Plaintiff v. Wheeling-
Pittsburgh Steel Corporation, Defendant; United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio Eastern Division; 1991.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.0
GLOSSARY
Acid Furnace
Acid Steel
Additions
Air Cooled Slag
Alloy
A furnace lined with acid brick as contrasted to one lined with basic brick.
In this instance the terms acid and basic are in the same relationship as the
acid anhydride and basic anhydride that are found in aqueous chemistry.
The most common acid brick is silica brick or chrome brick.
Steel made in a furnace or converter lined with siliceous (acid) refractory
material. In the open hearth and electric furnaces employing the acid
process, the hearth or bottom consists of fritted ("burned in") silica sand.
The acid bessemer converter usually was lined with a kind of sandstone
called "firestone". Raw materials for acid steel must be low in phosphorus
and sulfur.
Materials which are added to the molten bath of steel or to the molten
steel in the ladle to produce the chemical composition required for the
specific steel order.
Slag which is cooled slowly in large pits in the ground. Light water
sprays are generally used to accelerate the cooling over that which would
occur in air alone. The finished slag is generally gray in color and looks
like a sponge.
A substance that has metallic properties and is composed of two or more
chemical elements of which at least one is a metal. .
Alloying Materials Additives to steelmaking processes for improving the properties of the
finished products. Chief alloying elements in medium alloy steels are:
nickel, chromium, manganese, molybdenum, vanadium, silicon, and
copper.
Alloy Scrap
Scrap steel which contains one or more alloying metals such as nickel,
chromium, manganese, molybdenum, tungsten, vanadium, silicon, or
copper. Such scrap must be very carefully classified according to
composition and kept separate from other kinds of scrap.
8-1
-------
Alloy Steel
Aluminum
Ammonia Liquor
Ammonia Still
Ammonia Still
Bottoms
Angle
Annealing
Apron Rolls
Steel is classified as alloy when the maximum of the range given for the
content of alloying elements exceeds one or more of the following:
manganese, 1.65%; silicon, 0.60%; copper, 0.60%; or in which a definite
range or a definite minimum quantity of any of die following elements is
specified or required within the limits of the recognized field of
constructional alloy steels: aluminum, boron, chromium up to 3.99%,
cobalt, niobium (columbium), molybdenum, nickel, titanium, tungsten,
vanadium, zirconium, or any other alloying element added to obtain a
desired alloying effect,
A metallic chemical element (1) In either the bessemer, open hearth or
electric furnace processes, it is (or was) used as a deoxidizer, by adding
it to the molten steel either in the ladle or in the mold to remove oxygen,
and thereby control, or entirely eliminate, the escape of gas (called
"killing"). Aluminum may also be added for the control of grain m/c, and
occasionally as an alloying element (2) A light weight metaL It weighs
28% as much as carbon steel.
Primarily water condensed from the coke oven gas, an aqueous solution of
ammonium salts of which there are two kinds; free and fixed. The free
salts are those which are decomposed on boiling to liberate ammonia. The
fixed salts are those which require boiling with an alkali such as lime or
sodium hydroxide to liberate die ammonia.
The free ammonia still is simply a steam stripping column where ammonia
gas is removed from ammonia liquor. The fixed still is similar except
lime or, more commonly, sodium hydroxide, is added to the liquor to
liberate .ammonia from its compounds so it can be steam stripped.
Treated effluent from an ammonia stilL
A very common structural or bar shape with two legs of equal or unequal
length intersecting at 90°.
Either batch or continuous heat treatment applied to cold rolled or cold
formed steel to soften the steel and modify other mechanical and physical
properties, or to produce a definite microstructure.
Rolls used in the casting strand for keeping cast products aligned.
8-2
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Bar, Hot Rolled
Base Box
Basic Bottom
and Lining
Basic Brick
Basic Furnace
Basic Material
Basic Steel
Basic Oxygen
Steelmaking
Battery
Produced from ingots, blooms, or billets covering the following range:
Rounds, 3/8 to 8-1/4 in. incl.; Squares, 3/8 to 5-1/2 in.; Round cornered
squares, 3/8 to 8 in. incl.; Hexagons, 1/4 to 4-1/16 in. incl.; Flats, 13/64
(0.2031) in. and over in specified thicknesses and not over 6 in. specified
width.
Standard and special shapes: Angles, channels, tees, and zees, when their
greatest cross-sectional dimension is under 3 in. Ovals, half ovals, and
half rounds. Special shapes.
A unit of measure peculiar to the tin plate industry. It corresponds to an
area equivalent to 112 sheets of tin plate, 14 x 20 in. each; or, 31,360 sq.
in.; or, 217.78 sq. ft.
In a melting furnace, the inner lining and bottom are composed of
either crushed burned dolomite, magnesite, magnesite bricks, or basic slag.
These materials have a basic reaction in the melting process.
A brick made of a material which is a basic anhydride such as MgO or
mixed MgO plus CaO. See acid furnace.
A furnace in which the refractory material is composed of dolomite or
magnesite.
A chemical expression meaning the opposite of acid. Basic and acid
materials, when brought together so that they can react, neutralize each
other, forming salts or slags. In such reactions, the base becomes the
positive part of the salt and the acid the negative. Examples of basic
materials; limestone (or lime, CaO), magnesite (MgO), dolomite
(containing both CaO and MgO). Examples of acid materials; quartzite or
silica (SiOj) and the various clays, oxides of sulfur, etc. In metallurgy, the
terms, "bases" and "acids," are applied to refractories, fluxes, and slags.
Slags aze said to be basic when the bases in them are greater than the
acids; or to be acid when the acids in them are greater than the bases.
Steel melted in a furnace that has a basic bottom and lining, and under a
slag that is dominantly basic.
The basic oxygen process is carried out in a basic lined furnace
which is shaped like a pear. High pressure oxygen is blown vertically
downward on the surface of the molten iron through a water cooled lance.
A group of coke ovens arranged side by side.
8-3
-------
Beam
Billet
Blackplate
Blast Furnace
Bloom
Slowdown
Box Annealing
Bosb
Briquette
An important member of the structural steel family. There are three
varieties; the standard H, I, and the side flange used for weight supporting
purposes.
A semi-finished piece of steel which has resulted from rolling an ingot or
a bloom. It may be square, but is never more than twice as wide as thick.
Its cross-sectional area is usually not more than 36 sq. in.
Cold reduced sheet over 12 in. wide to less than 32 in., in cut length or
coils, and within the uniform classification of Flat Rolled Carbon Steel
Products.
A large, tall conical-shaped furnace used to reduce iron ore to molten iron
or "hot metal".
A semi-finished piece of steel, resulting from the rolling or forging of an
ingot A bloom is square or not more than twice as wide as thick, and
usually not less than 36 sq. in. in cross-sectional area.
Volume of water discharged from process water or noncontact cooling
water recycle system. For high-rate recycle systems, the blowdown may
be less than 2% of recirculating water flow.
A process of annealing a ferrous alloy in a suitable closed metal container
with or without packing material in order to minimize oxidation. The
charge is usually heated slowly to a temperature below the transformation
range, but sometimes above or within it, and is then cooled slowly. This
process is also called "close annealing" or "pot annealing."
The bottom section of a blast furnace. The section between the hearth and
the stack, where melting of iron starts.
An agglomeration of steel plant waste material of sufficient strength to be
charged to a blast furnace.
By-product Coir Process in which coal is carbonized in the absence of air to permit
Processes recovery of the volatile compounds and produce coke.
Burden
Solid feed to a blast furnace.
8-4
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Bustle Pipe
Carbon Steel
Cast Iron
Casting
Caustic Dip
Channels
Charge
Chromium
Clarification
Large-diameter, refractory-lined pipe surrounding the bottom of a blast
furnace near the bosh (inverted conical section of blast furnace where
melting of iron starts). The bustle pipe is used to distribute the hot blast
from the blast furnace stoves to the furnace through tuyeres located below
the bosh.
Steel which owes its properties chiefly to various percentages of carbon
without substantial amounts of other alloying elements. Steel is classified
as carbon steel when no minimum content of elements other than carbon
is specified or required to obtain a desired alloying effect; when the
specified minimum for copper does not exceed 0.40%; or the maximum
content for the following does not exceed the percentage noted:
manganese, 1.65; silicon, 0.60; copper, 0.60.
The metallic product obtained by reducing iron ore with carbon at a
temperature sufficiently high to render the metal fluid and casting it in a
mold.
(1) A term applied to the act of pouring molten metal into a moM.
(2) The metal object produced by such pouring.
Immersion of a metal in a solution of sodium hydroxide to clean the
surface, or, when working with aluminum alloys, to reveal the
macrostructure.
A common steel shape consisting of two parallel flanges at right angles to
the web. It is produced both in bar sizes (less than 3 in.) and in structural
sizes (3 in. and over).
The minimum combination of skip or bucket loads "of material which
together provide the balanced complement necessary to produce hot metal
in the blast furnace of the desired specification.
An alloying element added to alloy steel (in amounts up to about 1.50%)
to increase hardenability. Chromium content of 4% or more confers
special ability to resist corrosion, so that steel containing more than 4%
chromium is called "stainless steeL"
The process of removing undissolved materials from a liquid, specifically
either by settling or filtration.
8-5
-------
Clinkers
Closed Hood
Coating
Cobble
Coke
Coke Battery
Coke Breeze
Coke Wharf
Cold Pig
Cold Rolled
Products
Another name for sinter, the product of burning a fuel (coke fines, coke
breeze) with limestone fines and a variety of fine iron-bearing materials
including iron ore screenings, blast furnace gas cleaning wastewater
sludges, and mill scale to form an agglomerated product suitable for
charging to a blast furnace.
A system in which the hot gases from the BOF are not allowed to bum in
the hood with outside air infiltration. These hoods cap the furnace mouth.
Suppressed combustion.
The process of covering steel with another material, primarily-for corrosion
resistance.
-.ce-
(1) A jamming of the tine of steel sheet while being rolled in a hot strip
milL (2) A piece of steel which for any reason has become so bent or
twisted that it must be withdrawn from the rolling operation and scrapped.
Some reasons for cobbling are: Steel too cold, a bad end which cannot
enter a pass, sticking to the roll and wrapping around it, etc.
The carbon residue left when the volatile matter is driven off of coal by
high temperature distillation.
A coke producing unit comprising numerous, adjoining, refractory-lined,
slot-type top coke ovens; coal charging and coke pushing facilities; coke
quench stations; coke oven gas collecting mains; and other appurtenant
equipment
Undersize coke particles recovered from coke screening operations and
coke quenching stations. Coke breeze is used as fuel in sintering
operations or sold as a by-product
The place where coke is discharged from quench cars prior to screening.
Blast furnace metal which has been cast into solid pieces, usually weighing
from 60 to 80 Ibs.
Flat-rolled products which have been finished by rolling the
piece without heating (at approximately ambient temperature).
8-6
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Conditioning
The removal of surface defects (seams, laps, pits, etc.) from semi-finished
steel in the form of blooms, billets, slabs. It may be accomplished by
chipping, scarfing, grinding, or machining. In special cases, the steel may
be pickled first so as to reveal more of the defects.
Continuous Casting A process for solidifying liquid steel in place of pouring it into ingot
molds. In this process, the solidified steel is in the form of cast blooms,
billets, or slabs. This eliminates the need for soaking pits and primary
rolling.
Continuous Mill
Creosote
Crop End
Dephenolizer
Deoxidize
Descaling
Double Slagging
Duplexing
Dustcatcher
A mill composed of several stands of rolls arranged "in tandem", usually
so close together that the steel being rolled is passing through several
stands simultaneously. Examples: bar mills, hot strip mills, and some
recently constructed plate mills.
Distillate from tar.
The end or ends of an ingot or rolled product that contain the pipe or other
defects to be cut off and discarded; also termed "discard."
A facility in which phenol is removed from ammonia liquor and is
recovered as sodium phenolate by liquid extraction and vapor recirculation.
in the limited sense used in metallurgy, the removing of oxygen from a
heat of molten steel. Oxygen is present as iron oxide (FeO), which is
dissolved in the steel, and is removed by adding a deoxidizing agent such
as manganese, silicon, or aluminum.
The process of removing scale from the surface of steel. Scale forms most
readily when the steel is hot by union of oxygen with iron. The most
common method of descaling is to crack the scale by use of roughened
rolls and a forceful water spray.
Process in which the first oxidizing slag is removed and replaced with a
white, lime finishing slag.
An operation in which a lower grade of steel is produced in a basic oxygen
furnace and then an alloyed in the electric arc furnace.
A part of the blast furnace through which the major portion of the dust is
removed by mechanical separation.
8-7
-------
Electric Arc
Furnace
Electrostatic
Precipitate*
Evaporation
Chamber
Extrusion
Ferroalloy
Ferrochrome
Ferromanganese
Ferrophosphorus
Ferrosilicon
A furnace in which scrap iron, scrap steel, and other solid ferrous
materials are melted and converted to finished steel. Liquid iron is rarely
used in an EAF.
A gas cleaning .device using the principle of placing an electrical charge
on a solid particle which is then attracted to an oppositely charged
collector plate. The collector plates are intermittently rapped to discharge
the collected dust to a hopper below.
A method used for cooling gases to the precipitators in which an exact
heat balance is maintained between water required and gas cooling; the
design is to discharge no effluent as all of the water is supposed to be
evaporated. .,
Shaping metal into a continuous form by forcing it through a die of
appropriate shape.
An iron-bearing product, not within the range of those called steels, which
contains a considerable amount of one or more alloying elements, such as
manganese, silicon, phosphorus, vanadium, and chromium. Some of the
more common ones are ferrochromium, ferromanganese, ferrophosphorus,
ferrosilicon, and ferrovanadium. The chief use of these alloys is for
making additions of their respective alloying dements to molten steel.
A finishing material which contains about 70% chromium. It is used as
a chromium alloying material.
A product of the blast furnace, containing, besides iron, 78% to 82%
manganese and some silicon, phosphorus, sulphur, and carbon.. It is used
as a deoxidizer and for alloying manganese.
A finishing material (see "finishing") which contains about 18%
phosphorus. It is used as a phosphorus alloying material.
A product of the blast furnace which contains 8 to 15% silicon, it is used
as a deoxidizer and for alloying silicon.
Ferrous Metallurgy That section of general metallurgy which embraces the science and
knowledge applied to iron and steel products, their preparation, and
adaptation to their uses.
Ferrovanadium
A product which contains iron and about 38% vanadium. Used for
alloying vanadium.
8-8
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fettling
Final Cooler
Finish
Finishing Materu
Flat Sheet
Flats
Flattening
Flume Flushing
Flying Shear
Flushing Liquor
Flux
Forging
The period of time between tap and start
An open packed tower for cooling coke oven gas by direct contact The
gas must be cooled to 30°C (86°F) for recovery of light oil Open final
coolers have been replaced with closed final coolers to control benzene
emissions.
In the steel industry, refers to the type of surface condition desired or
existing in the finished product
Finishing Materials Any material which may be added to purified molten steel in the latter
stages of producing a heat of steel (Le., for modifying its chemical
composition).
Sheet rolled as pieces of convenient size and then flattened or leveled,
usually by stretching. This operation may produce properties slightly
different from those of coiled sheet
Flat bars. They include all rectangular bars, except squares 13/64 in. and.
over in specified thickness, not over 6 in. in specified width.
Standard commercial flatness is obtained by roller leveling. This consists
in passing sheets individually or in packs through a machine having a
series of small diameter rolls.
Process by which mill scale collected under hot forming mills and runout
tables of continuous casters is transported with water to scale pits for
recovery.
A shear which severs steel as the piece continues to move. In continuous
mills, the piece being rolled cannot be stopped for the shearing operation,
so the shear knives must move with it until it is severed.
Water recycled in the coke battery gas collecting main for the purpose of
cooling the gas as it leaves the coke ovens.
Material added to a fusion process for the purpose of removing impurities
from the hot metal
(1) As a noun; a metal product which has been formed by hammering or
pressing, (2) As a verb; forming hot metal into the desired shape by means
of hammering or pressing.
8-9
-------
Forming
To shape or fashion with the hand, tools, mechanical equipment, or by a
shape or mold.
Forming Properties Those physical and mechanical properties that allow a steel to be formed
without injury to the steel in the finished product
Four-High Mill
Fourth Hole
Free Leg
A stand which has four rolls, one above die other. This kind of mill has
two working rolls, each of which is stiffened by a larger back-roll Four
high rolls are used only on mills which roll fiat products: slabs, plates,
sheets, and strips.
A fourth recovery lined hole in the roof of die electric arc furnace which
serves as an exhaust port for furnace gases.
A portion of old-design free and fixed ammonia stills from which
ammonia, hydrogen sulfidc, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen cyanide are
steam distilled and returned to the gas stream.
Fugitive Emissions Emissions that are expelled to the atmosphere in an uncontrolled manner.
Furnace Burden
Gages
Galvanizing
Galvannealed
Grade
Granulated Slag
The solid materials charged to a blast furnace comprising coke, iron ore
and pellets, sinter, and limestone.
Measurements of thickness. Examples of various standard gages are
United States Standard Gage (USS), Galvanized Sheet Gage (GSG),
Birmingham Wire Gage (BWG).
The process of applying a coating of zinc to the finished cold-reduced
sheet or to fabricated parts made from strip products. The coating is
applied by hot dipping or electrolytic deposition.
An extra tight coat of galvanizing metal (zinc) applied to a soft steel sheet,
after which the sheet is passed through an annealing oven at about
1,200°F. The resulting coat is dull gray, without spangle, and especially
suited for subsequent painting.
The term grade designates divisions within different types based upon
carbon content or mechanical properties.
A product made by dumping liquid blast furnace slag past a high pressure
water jet and allowing it to fall into a pit of water. The material has the
appearance of light tan sand.
8-10
-------
I
I
H-Steel Alloy steels that can be used in applications requiring different degrees of
I hardenability.
_ Hammer Forging A forging process in which the work is deformed by repeated blows.
£ Compare with press forging.
I Hammer Lap A defect on the surface of steel, being a folded over portion produced by
bad practice in forging.
I Hammer Welding Welding effected by heating close to their melting point the two surfaces
to be joined, and hammering them until a firm union is made.
I Hammering Beating metal sheet into a desired shape either over a form or on a high-
speed mechanical hammer, in which the sheet is moved between a small
curved hammer and a similar anvil to produce the required dishing or
• thinning.
Hard Drawn A temper produced in wire, rod, or tube by cold drawing.
I Hardness Defined in terms of the method of measurement (1) Usually, the
resistance to dentation. (2) Stiffness or temper of wrought products. (3)
• Machinability characteristics.
Hearth In a reverberatory furnace, the portion that holds the molten metal or bath.
" Heat Quantity of steel manufactured in a BOF or an EAF on a batch basis; the
capacity of the furnace.
~ Hexagons- A product of hot rolled carbon steel bars hexagonal in cross section.
Commercial size range of hexagons, 1/4 to 5-1/2 in. inclusive.
High Strength Steel Low alloy steels forming a specific class in which enhanced mechanical
— properties and, in most cases, resistance to atmospheric corrosion are
• obtained by the incorporation of moderate proportions of one or more
alloying elements other than carbon. The preferred terminology is "high-
g strength, low-alloy steels."
Holding Furnace A small furnace for maintaining molten metal from a larger melting
•. furnace at the right casting temperature.
Hoop Special quality flat rolled steel product developed to meet the requirements
• of the cooperage industry in the manufacture of barrels, pails, and kegs.
I
I
8-11
-------
Hot Bed
Hot Blast
Hot Metal
f.
Hot Metal Furnace
Hot Quenching
Hot Rolled
Hot Top
Hot Working
It is furnished in black or galvanized, and in cut lengths or coils, as
specified.
A large area containing closely spaced rolls or rails for holding hot,
partially rolled metaL
Preheated air blown into the blast furnace through a bustle pipe and
numerous tuyeres located around the circumference of the furnace.
Temperatures are in the range of 550°C to 1,000°C, and pressures are in
the range of 2 to 45 atmospheres.
The molten iron product of a blast furnace; pig iron.
A furnace that is initially charged with solid materials followed by a
second charge of melted liquid.
A process of quenching in a medium at a temperature substantially higher
than ambient temperature.
Hot rolled products are those products that are rolled to finish at
temperatures above the recrystallization temperature.
A reservoir insulated to retain heat and to hold excess molten metal on top
of an ingot mold in order to feed the shrinkage of the ingot Also called
"shrink head," or "feeder head".
Plastic deformation of metal at such a temperature and rate that strain
hardening does not occur. The lower limit of temperature for this process
is the recrystallization temperature.
Hydraulic Shear A shear driven by water or oil pressure.
Immersion Coating
Impact Extrusion?
In Tandem
Indirect Extinction
(Inverted)
Coating a metal with a second metal by immersing the first in a solution
containing ions of the second.
A cold forming process in which the metal is forced by impact to flow
around the punch, forming a tube with a solid bottom.
An arrangement of stands in a rolling mill, one after another, so that the
piece being rolled can travel in one direction through a number of stands.
An extrusion process in which the metal is forced back inside a hollow
ram that pushes the die.
8-12
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Induction
Hardening
A process of hardening a ferrous alloy by heating it above the
transformation range by means of electrical induction, and then cooling as
required.
Induction Heating A process of heating by electrical induction.
Ingot
bigot Iron
Ingot Moid
Iron
Iron Ore
Iron Scrap
Killed Steel
Kish
Ladle
A large block-shaped steel casting. Ingots are intermediates from which
other steel products are made. When continuous casters are not used, an
ingot is usually the first solid form the steel takes after it is made in a
furnace.
Steel so low in carbon, silicon, manganese, phosphorus, sulphur and other
metalloid content that it is commonly called "pure iron". Ingot iron is
sometimes used for making enameling sheets. Also, silicon is sometimes
added to "pure iron" to make high grade electrical sheets.
Cast iron molds into which molten steel is teemed. After cooling, the
mold is stripped from the solidified steel which is then re-heated in
soaking pits (gas or oil-fired furnaces) prior to primary rolling into slabs
or billets. Molds may be circular, square, or rectangular in shape, with
walls of various thickness. Some molds are of larger cross section at the
bottom, other are larger at the top.
Primarily the name of a metallic element In the steel industry, iron is the
name of the product of a blast furnace containing 92 to 94% iron, the
product made by the reduction of iron ore. Iron in the steel mill sense is
impure and contains up to 4% dissolved carbon along with other
impurities.
The raw material from which iron is made. It is primarily iron oxide with
impurities such as silica.
Blast furnace metal or other iron which may be salvaged before remelting
in a blast furnace or in a steelmaking furnace.
Steel deoxidized with a strong deoxidizing agent such as silicon or
aluminum in order to reduce the oxygen content to a minimum so that no
reaction occurs between carbon and oxygen during solidification.
A graphite formed on hot metal following tapping.
A large vessel into which molten metal or molten slag is received and
handled. Molten metal may be transported short distances in a ladle.
8-13
-------
Ladle Metallurgy
Lap
Lap Weld
Larry Car
Light Oil
Lime
Lime Boil
Liming
Machining
A secondary step in the steelmaking process often performed in a ladle
after the initial refining process in a primary furnace (BOP, EAF) is
complete. Ladle metallurgy is conducted for one or more of the following
purposes: control of gasses in the steel; remove sulfur beyond that
removed in primary steelmaking; remove undesirable non-metallics;
inclusion morphology; and, to change mechanical properties.
A surface defect appearing as a seam caused from folding over fins or
sharp corners during hot rolling and then rolling or forging, but not
welding, them into the surface.
A term applied to a weld formed by lapping two pieces of metal and then
pressing or hammering, and applied particularly to the longitudinal joint
produced by a welding process for tubes or pipe, in which the edges of die
skelp are beveled or scarfed so that when they are over-lapped they can be
welded together.
Movable device located on top of a coke battery for receiving and
charging predetermined amounts of screened coal to coke ovens through
charging holes.
A clear yellow-brown oil with a specific gravity of about 0.889. It
contains varying amounts of coal-gas products with boiling points from
about 40°C to 200°C and from which benzene, toluene, xylene, and solvent
naphthas are recovered.
Calcium oxide (CaO), produced by burning limestone, principally
comprising calcium carbonate (CaCO3), in a lime kiln. Lime is used as a
flux (slagging agent) in basic oxygen furnace steelmaking; limestone is
used as a flux in blast furnaces for production of molten iron (hot metal).
The fixed leg of the ammonia still to which milk of lime is added to
decompose ammonium salts; the liberated ammonia is steam distilled and
returned to die gas stream.
Application of lime to pickled rod produced in die wire industry for
protection against corrosion and as a lubricant for cold drawing.
In general, the cutting away of the surface of a metal by means of power
driven machinery. Specifically, a method of conditioning steel by
machining the surface.
844
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Malleability
Mandrel
Meltdown
Mill Edge
Mill Finish
Mill Length
Mill Scale
Mold
Molten Metal
Period
Molybdenum
Molybdenum
Nickel
'„
The property that determines the ease of deforming a metal when the metal
is subjected to rolling or hammering. The more malleable metals can be
hammered or rolled into thin sheet more easily than others.
A metal bar around which other metal may be cast, bent, formed, or
shaped.
The melting of the scrap and other solid metallic elements of the charge.
Normal rounded edge produced in hot rolling. Does not conform to any
standard radius. This replaces the old term, band edge.
A surface finish produced on sheet and plate, characteristic of the ground
finish on the rolls used in fabrication.
Those lengths which can be most economically handled by the mill
Upper and lower limits are set by equipment limitations in the mill
The iron oxide scale which breaks off of heated steel as it passes through
a rolling mill. The outside of the piece of steel is generally completely
coated with scale as a result of being heated in an oxidizing atmosphere.
A form or cavity into which molten metal is poured to produce a desired
shape. See ingot molds.
The period of .time during the electric arc furnace steelmaking cycle
when fluxes are added to furnace molten bath for the purpose of slag
formation.
A special alloying element commonly used to increase hardenability of
steel. Molybdenum is sometimes added to stainless steels to enhance
corrosion resistance to certain chemicals.
Molybdenum Oxide A commercial compound of molybdenum (MoO3) which is used as a
finishing agent in making molybdenum steels.
A metallic element used in some alloy steels.
8-15
-------
Nonrecovery Production of coke from coal with no recovery of coal by-products and
Cokemaking by-product chemicals that are recovered with by-product cokemaking (e.g.,
coal tars, crude light oil, ammonia and/or ammonia compounds,
naphthalene, sodium phenolate). In the nonrecovery cokemaking process,
coking occurs in horizontal, refractory-lined ovens. Volatile components
of the coal are consumed in the process,
Non-Standard Steel A steel is classified as non-standard when the chemical composition or
mechanical properties specified do not coincide with or encompass the
ranges of limits of a standard steel (AISI or ASTM), or when restricted
ranges or limits are outside the ranges or limits of a standard steel
Normalize
Off Size
Oiled
Open Hearth
Furnace
Open Plate
Panel Hood
Ore
Ore Boil
Ovals
Overfill
The normalizing process which is commonly applied to steel articles of
heavy section consists of: heating to a temperature about 100°F above die
critical range and cooling in still air.
Rolled steel, too light or too heavy to meet requirements.
Application of a suitable oil to final product to resist corrosion. Where
surface quality is a consideration, it is also desirable in reducing friction
scratches that may develop in transit The oil coating is not intended to
serve as a lubricant for subsequent fabrication.
A furnace for melting metal, in which the bath is heated by the
convection of hot gases over the surface of the metal and by radiation
from the roof.
A 4.5 meter to 6 meter square, rectangular, or circular cross
sectional shaped conduit, open at both ends, which is used in the EOF
steelmaking process for the combustion and conveyance of hot gases,
fumes, etc., generated in the BOF, to the waste gas collection system.
A mineral from which the metal can be extracted.
The generation of carbon monoxide by the oxidation of carbon.
A hot rolled carbon steel bar product which is oval in cross section.
A defect in a rolled bar or other section which is an overfullness on some
part of the surface. Among the causes are worn rolls and extrusion into
the clearance of the rolls.
8-16
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
Oxide
Oxidize
Oxidizing Agent
Oxidizing Slags
Pass
Passivation
Patenting
Pe!letizing
Phenols (4AAB>
Pickle
Pig
Oxides of iron, chiefly: FeO, Fe,O4, Fe-p,. Many mixtures of these
oxides exist which form on the surface of steel at different temperatures
and give the steel different colors, such as yellow, brown, purple, blue, and
red. Oxides must be thoroughly removed from steels to be coated with tin,
zinc, or other metals.
A chemical treatment which increases the positive valences of a substance.
In a limited sense, adding oxygen to a substance, as in oxidizing C to CO,
CO to COj, Si to SiO2, Mn to MnO.
A substance added to a mixture for the purpose of oxidizing some
constituents. For example, iron ore (Fe4O3) was used in an open hearth
furnace to furnish oxygen for the removal of Si, Mn, P, and C, by
converting them to SiO2, MnO, P2O5 and CO.
Fluxing agents that are used to remove certain oxides such as silicon
dioxide, manganese oxide, phosphorus pentoxide, and iron oxide from die
hot metal.
(1) Movement of a piece of steel through a stand of rolls. (2) The open
space between grooved rolls through which the steel is processed.
Chemical treatment of hot dip galvanized sheet with hexavalent chromium
compounds to prevent humid- or wet-storage staining.
In wire making, a heat treatment applied to medium carbon or high-carbon
steel before the drawing of wire or between drafts. This process consists
of heating die product in air or in a bath of molten lead or salt maintained
at a temperature appropriate to the carbon content of the steel and to the
properties required of the finished product
The processing of dust from the steel furnaces into a pellet of uniform size
and weight for recycle.
The value obtained by the method specified in 40 CFR Part 136.3.
Phenols (4AAP) is a non-specific measure of phenolic compounds present
in steel industry wastewaters that respond to the analytical test conditions.
Chemical or electrochemical removal of surface oxides.
An ingot of virgin or secondary metal to be remelted for use.
8-17
-------
Pig Iron
Piling
Pinch Pass
Pinch Rolls
Pitch
Plain Carbon
Scrap
Plate
Pouring
Preheating
Press Forging
Primary Scale
Impure iron cast into the form of small blocks that weigh about 30 kg.
each. The blocks are called pigs.
A form of rolled structural shape of two types: sheet piling and bearing
piling. The three forms of sheet pile - straight, arch type, and zee - are
used for construction of docks, breakwaters, coffer dams, etc. Bearing
piles, which range from 14 in. to 8 in. in depth, are heavy, wide flange
sections used for foundation and similar applications.
A pass of sheet through rolls that are set to give a very light reduction.
Rolls used to regulate the speed of discharge of cast product from the
molds of continuous casting machines.
Distillate from tar.
Scrap steel with less than: 1.65% manganese, 0.60%
silicon, 0.60% copper, or any other alloying element added for a special
alloying effect
Carbon steel plates comprise that group of flat rolled finished steel
products within the following size limitation:
0.180 in. or thicker, over 48 in. wide;
0.230 in. or thicker, over 6 in. wide;
7.53 Ib/sq ft or heavier, over 48 in. wide;
9.62 Ib/sq ft or heavier, over 6 in. wide
The transfer of molten metal from the ladle into ingot molds or other types
of molds; for example, in castings.
(1) A general term used to describe heating applied as a preliminary to
some further thermal or mechanical treatment. (2) A term applied
specifically to steel to describe a process in which the steel is heated
slowly and uniformly to a temperature below the hardening temperature
and is then transferred to a furnace in which the temperature is
substantially above the preheating temperature.
The forging process in which metal stock is formed between dies, usually
by hydraulic pressure. Press forging is an operation that employs a single,
slow stroke. Compare with hammer forging.
Oxide of iron
which is formed while the steel is being heated.
8-18
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Primes
Metal products such as sheet and plate, of the highest quality and free
from visible surface defects.
Process Annealing In the sheet and wire industries, a process by which ferrous alloy is heated
to a temperature* close to, but below, the lower limit of the transformation
range and is subsequently cooled. This process is applied in order to
soften the alloy for further cold working.
Quality
Refers to the suitability of the steel for the purpose or purposes for which
it is intended.
Quench Hardening A process of hardening a ferrous alloy of suitable composition by heating
within or above the transformation range and cooling at a rate sufficient
to increase the hardness substantially. The process usually involves the
formation of martensite.
Quench Tower
Quenching
Quenching Crack
Recuperator
Reducing Slag
Refining
A station at which the incandescent coke in the cokecar is sprayed with
water to prevent further combustion. Quenching of coke requires about
500 gallons of water per ton of coke.
A process of rapid cooling from an elevated temperature by contact with
liquids, gases, or solids.
A fracture resulting from thermal stresses induced during rapid cooling or
quenching of steels. Frequently encountered in alloys that have been
overheated and liquidated and are thus "hot short."
A piece of equipment for recovering heat from hot, spent gases and using
it for the preheating.of incoming fuel or air,- Incomingjnatraials pass-
through pipes surrounded by a chamber through which the outgoing gases
pass.
Used in the EAF following the slagging off of an oxidizing slag to
minimize the loss of alloys by oxidation.
Oxidation cycle for transforming hot metal (iron) and other metallics into
steel by removing elements present, such as silicon, phosphorus,
manganese, and carbon.
8-19
-------
Refractory
Rod Mill
Roll Forming
Roll Scale
Roll Table
Roughing Stand
Round Cornered
Squares
Runner
Runout
Runout Table
Ideally, any substance which is infusible at the highest temperature it may
be required to withstand in service. A perfect refractory, which does not
exist at present, would be one which: (1) would not fuse or soften, (2)
would not crumble or crack, (3) its contraction and expansion would be the
minimum, (4) would not conduct heat, (5) would be impermeable to high
temperature gases and liquids, (6) would resist mechanical abrasion, and
(7) would not react chemically with substances in contact with it
(1) A mill for fine grinding, somewhat similar to the ball mill, but
employing long steel rods instead of balls as the grinding medium. (2) A
mill for rolling metal rod.
(1) An operation used in forming sheet Strips of sheet are passed between
rolls of definite settings that bend the sheet progressively into structural
members of various contours, sometimes called "molded sections." (2) A
process of coiling sheet into open cylinders.
Oxide of iron which forms on the surface of steel while it is being heated
and rolled. Much of the scale is cracked and loosened during the rolling
operation and may fall off the piece naturally or be blown off by high-
pressure water sprays or by other means.
A conveyor-type table surface that contains a series of small rolls over
which metal products pass during processing.
The rolls used for breaking down the ingot, billet, or slab in the
preliminary rolling of metal products.
A bar product square in cross sections with rounded corners with size
ranges 3/8 in. to 8 in., inclusive.
A channel through which molten metal or slag is passed from one
receptacle to another; in a casting mold, the portion of the gate assembly
that connects the downgate or sprue with the casting.
Escape of molten metal from a furnace, mold, or melting crucible.
Area of a hot strip mill located after the finishing stands and before the
coilers where laminar-flow cooling is applied to the strip; generally, for
any hot forming mill, the area of the mill downstream of the last stand of
work rolls; for continuous casters, the area downstream of the torch cut-
off.
8-20
-------
1
1
•
1
1'
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
1
Scale
Scarfing
Scrap
Secondary Scale
Self-Hardening
Steel
Semi-Finished Steel
Semi-Killed Steel
Shake-Out
Shear
_ . . .
Shot Blasting
Silico-Mangaan»-
Sinter
•
An oxide of iron which forms on the surface of hot steel. Sometimes
forms in large sheets which fail off when the steel is rolled.
Catting surface areas of metal objects, ordinarily by using a gas torch.
The operation permits surface defects to be cut from ingots, billets, slabs,
or the edges of plate that are to be beveled for butt welding.
Iron or steel discard, or cuttings, or junk metal, which can be reprocessed.
Oxide of iron which is formed on hot steel while it is being rolled or
forged.
A steel containing sufficient carbon or alloying element or both.
to form martensite either through air hardening or, as in welding and
induction hardening, through rapid removal of heat from a locally heated
portion by conduction into the surrounding cold metal
Steel in the form of ingots, blooms, billets, or slabs for forging or rolling
into a finished product
Steel incompletely deoxidized, to permit evolution of sufficient carbon
monoxide to offset solidification shrinkage.
The operation of removing castings from their molds.
In a steel mill, a machine for cutting steel products. Steel shears may be
classified: as to kind of drive - hydraulic and electric; as to the work done
- cropping, squaring, slab, bloom, billet, bar shears; as to type of
mechanisms-rotary, rocking,- gate,, guillotine, alligator shears;, as, to
movement of work while shearing - flying shears.
Abrasive grit blasting of steel to remove scale; used in place of or in
combination with acid pickling.
An alloy containing silicon and manganese. lit the open hearth process, it
was used as a deoxidizer in the furnace and for the introduction of
manganese and silicon into steel.
In blast furnace usage, lumpy material which has been prepared from flue
dust, other iron-bearing materials, lime, and coke breeze. The dust is
agglomerated by heating it to a high temperature. Sinter contains valuable
amounts of combined iron.
8-21
-------
Skelp
Skin
Slab
Slab Shear
Slabbing Mill
Slag
Slag Top
Soak
Soaking Pit
Spark Box
Spiegeleisen
(Also Spiegel)
A plate of steel or wrought iron from which pipe or tubing is made by
rolling the skelp into shape longitudinally and welding or riveting the
edges together.
A thin surface layer that is different from the main mass of a metal object,
in composition, structure, or other characteristics.
A semifinished block of steel cut from a rolled ingot or manufactured on
a continuous slab caster, with its width at least twice its thickness. It
differs from a bloom which is square or nearly so. Currently, most slabs
are produced with continuous casters as opposed to slabbing on blooming
mills. Slabs are the product of a slabbing mill or a blooming milL
A shear for cutting a cast slab to desired lengths. This shear also cuts off
the discard or crop.
A mill which rolls ingots into slab shapes.
Vitrified mineral waste removed in the reduction of metals from their ores.
The principal components of blast furnace slag are oxides of silica and
alumina originating chiefly with the iron-bearing materials and lime and
magnesia originating with the flux. The major components of steelmaking
slags are calcium silicates, lime-iron compounds and lesser amounts of free
lime and magnesia. Usually, slags consist of combinations of acid oxides
with basic oxides, and neutral oxides are added to aid fusibility.
A variation of the hot top.
To hold an ingot, slab, bloom, billet, or other piece of steel in a hot
chamber or pit to secure uniform temperature throughout Freshly stripped
ingots are hottest in the interior, whereas a cold object which is being
heated is hottest at the surface. The term is used in connection with
heating of steel whether for forging or rolling or for heat treatment
A furnace or pit for the heating of ingots of steel to make their
temperature uniform throughout
A solids and water collection zone in a EOF hood.
A pig iron containing IS to 30% manganese and 4.5 to
6.5% carbon.
8-22
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sponge Iron
Stainless Steel
Steel
Steel Ladle
Stools
Stoves
Strand
Stretcher
Flattening^
Strip, Hot Rolled
Carbon Steel
Support Rolls
The material produced by the reduction of iron oxide with carbon, without
melting.
(1) A tradename given to alloy steel that is corrosion and heat resistant
The chief alloying elements ate chromium, nickel, and silicon in various
combinations with a possible small percentage of titanium, vanadium, etc.
(2) by AISI definition, a steel is called "stainless" when it contains 10%
or more chromium.
Refined iron. Typical blast furnace iron has the following composition:
Carbon, 3 to 4.5%, Silicon, 1 to 3%; Sulfur, 0.04 to 0.2%; Phosphorus, 0.1
to 1.0%; Manganese, 0.2 to 2.0%. The refining process (steelmaking)
reduces the concentration of these elements in the metal A common steel,
1020, has the following composition: Carbon, 0.18 to 0.23%; Manganese,
0.3 to 0.6%; Phosphorus, less than 0.04%; Sulfur, less than 0.05%.
A vessel for receiving and handling liquid steeL It is made with a steel
shell and lined with refractories.
Flat cast iron plates upon which the ingot molds are seated.
Large refractory filled vessels in which the air to be blown into the bottom
of a blast furnace is preheated.
A term applied to each continuous casting mold and its associated
mechanical equipment
A process for removing bow and warpage from sheet by applying a
uniform-tension at the ends- so^that the- piece-is-elongated-to-a-definite
amount of permanent set
Bat, hot rolled carbon steel produced in coils or in cut lengths is
classified as hot rolled carbon steel strip when the product is within the
following size limitations:
Width
up to 3-1/2 in. incL
over 3-1/2 to 6 in. incL
over 6 to 12 in. incL
Thickness
0.0255 to 0.2030 in. incL
0.0344 to 0.2030 in. incL
0.0568 to 0.2299 in. incL
Rolls used in the continuous casting machine casting strand for keeping
cast products aligned.
8-23
-------
Tandem Milt
Tap Hole
Tap to Tap Time
Tapping
Tar
Teeming
Temper
Temper Rolling
. A mill with a number of stands in succession.
A hole approximately fifteen (15) centimeters in diameter located in the
hearth brickwork of the furnace that permits flow of the molten steel to the
ladle.
Period of time after a heat is poured and the other necessary cycles are
performed to produce another heat for pouring.
Process of opening a taphole in a blast furnace to remove hot metal and
slag; process of pouring molten steel from a steelmaking furnace into a
receiving ladle for transfer to a ladle metallurgy station or continuous
caster, or into a teeming ladle for pouring into ingot molds.
The organic matter separated by condensation from coke oven gas in the
collector mains. It is a black, viscous liquid, a little heavier than water.
From it the following general classes of compounds may be recovered:
pyrites, tar acids, naphthalene, creosote oil, and pitch.
Pouring or casting of molten steel from a ladle into cast iron ingot molds
of various dimensions for cooling and solidification of the steeL
A condition produced in a metal or alloy by mechanical or thermal
treatment, and having characteristic structure and mechanical properties.
A given alloy may be in the fully softened or annealed temper, or it may
be cold worked to the hard temper, or further to spring temper.
Intermediate tempers produced by cold working (rolling or drawing) are
called "quarter-hard", "half-hard" and, "three-quarters hard", and are
determined by the amount of cold reduction- and the resulting tensile
properties. In addition to the annealed temper, conditions produced by
thermal treatment are the solution heat treated temper and the heat treated
and artificially aged temper. Other tempers involve a combination of
mechanical and thermal treatments and include that temper produced by
cold working after heat treating, and that produced by artificial aging of
alloys that are as-cast, as-extruded, as-forged and heat treated, and worked.
Relatively light cold rolling process (1 to 4% thickness reduction)
performed to improve flatness, alter the mechanical properties of the steel,
and to minimize surface disturbances. Temper mills are usually single-
stand mills.
8-24
-------
1
1
1
•
1
•
1
^H
1
1
1
1
1
•
1
1
1
1
Tempering
Tensile Strength
Ternepiate
Three-High Mill
Tinplate
Titanium
Train of Stands
Tramp Oils
Tundish
Tungsten
Tuyeres
A process of reheating quench-hardened or normalized steel to a
temperature below the, transformation range, and then cooling at any rate
desired.
The value obtained by dividing the maximum load observed during tensile
straining until breakage occurs by the specimen cross-sectional area before
straining. Also called "ultimate strength".
Steel sheet, hot dip coated with teme metal (10-15% tin; 85-90% lead).
A stand which has three rolls, one above the other. The steel which is
being rolled passes one way between the bottom and middle rolls, and the
other way between die middle and top rolls.
A mild steel of low carbon content bearing a coating of commercially pure
tin. Two manufacturing processes are currently used, hot dipped and
electrolytic tinning lines.
A metal which is commonly added to chrome-nickel stainless steel to
improve its welding properties. So used, it is called a "stabilizer" or is
said to prevent "carbide precipitation." The amount of titanium commonly
used for this purpose is 5 to 7 times the carbon content
In rolling mill construction, those stands of rolls which are placed side by
side (i.e., so that the rolls of the different stands come end to end so that
one engine or motor can drive them). Contrast this with strands in
tandem.
Waste oils and greases from lubricating and other oilr or grease-containing^
systems.
A refractory-lined vessel located between the ladle and the continuous
caster. Molten steel is tapped from the ladle to the tundish for the purpose
of providing a stable flow of metal into the caster by providing a constant
ferrostatic head.
A metal which is sometimes added to steel to make tool steeL
Water cooled openings located around the circumference of a blast furnace
at the top of the hearth through which the hot blast enters die furnace.
*
8-25
-------
Two-High Milt
Universal
Plate Mill
Upsetting
A stand having only two rolls. Some two-high mills ate reversing with
screw-downs to adjust the rolls; others are one way only and may or may
not have screw-downs for roll adjustment and may or may not be a part
of a continuous mill.
A mill for rolling steel plates which has vertical as well as horizontal
rolls so that its product has rolled edges.
(1) A metal working operation similar to forging. (2) Hie process of axial
flow under axial compression of metal, as in forming heads on rivets by
flattening the end of wire.
Vacuum Degassing A process for removing dissolved gases from liquid steel by subjecting it
to a vacuum.
Venturi Scrubber
Wash Oil
Water Tube Hood
Wet Scrubbers
Windbox
Wire Rod
Work Rolls
A wet type collector that uses the throat for intermixing of die dust and
water particles. The intermixing is accomplished by rapid contraction and
expansion of the air stream and a high degree of turbulence.
A petroleum solvent used as an extractant for by-product recovery in the
coke plant
Consists of steel tubes, four (4) centimeters to five (5) centimeters, laid
parallel to each other and joined together by means of steel ribs
continuously welded. This type of hood is used in the basic oxygen
steeimaking process for die combustion and conveyance of hot gases to the
waste gas collection system.
Venturi or orifice plate units used to bring water into intimate contact with
dirty gas for the purpose of its removal from the gas stream.
Device for drawing air through the sinter strand to enhance combustion
and fusing of the iron-containing materials into a sintered product
A semi-finished product from which wire is made. It is generally of
circular cross section approximately 1/4 in. in diameter.
Nongrooved rolls which come into contact with the piece of steel (slab,
plates, strip, or sheet) being rolled. In four-high mills, the rolls which
stiffen or strengthen the work rolls are called back-up rolls. The drive
spindles are connected with the work rolls.
8-26
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_ Appendk A
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAMS OF TECHNOLOGIES CONSIDERED BY EPA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
UJCO
w
O
a.
5
!
l
5z
£«
-J<
-------
IT
i|
< en
LU to w
* -l u.
O UJ O
°§~
H 5 w
8^1
5:
»2
cr
-------
cc
<
CO
IU
1
u
cc
o
0.
UJQ.
O
iu
o
f-TCO
m
-w
t-o.
Q.CO
032
S5
-
1 l!
A-3
-------
I
i
0)
CO
18
i
H
Ul
(E
O
Q.
O
O
O
i
I-
<
_l
Q.
UJ
O
O
«T| g|5| E«
^K "I «,1 .f
XD.C
~ w
A-4
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
UJ
12
UJ
o
UJ
o
=>
CO
z
UJ K
O 2
X^
QZ
o 2
&
f
o
3.
o
ec
o
o
O.
O
O
10
in
UJ
o
o
cr>
UJ
CO
a
u
CD
t
ffi
Ij
A-5
-------
z
o
t-
«
ffl
CO Z
MS
UJ 3
(C 0>
Q.
Ul O
*s
8£
< UJ
i?
£2
O
X
o
o
CO
<
m
%
I
I
o
Q.
I-
o
o
UJ
o
o
l!
ll'S
A-6
-------
1
I
1
1^
1
o
1 I
N 1
Z m 1
IP i L
— <0 ?•
3 to
• • sfc •!_,_
1 g| | r- ,
• Si M '
• °- => & I i
• o to S |
I £3 1
• * UJ g
• 1 0 °
UJ O z
02 ?
I IS L.._«
P UJ
- "• S
I |H
2 oc
> i_ \ •
* * u
» 0 If.
II o . -
ft
o
12 r-^
T 1
1 ! I 4
_J OT «
Iuj » •
1 1 '1
1
1
1
e
o
si 5
I f I
* e
1 ^
I « • S
- i. K
& f ^
= | I
'^"^^ ' K < . .
to -.5 *
i ° f- '
M uJ < m
z rwS z
CO j t-< ID
- S3£i ^
? -°-w r ^-, .
1 fev 8 s 1
— , S §5^ \ Si!
g §^ v_ s 1 f
2 1 ^^ / lit
r § i p/ .1 I bP
i i T^ $ i T
i i=
•" ^^*
§
i
o
~^A
I X \
UJ \
S V * S£ '
* / I5
/ § il _g
^""^^ e
1 i
."c
£
N^
1
§
s
A-7
Mil
ill!
-------
K
< I-
UJ Z
O
Q.
O
O
N
(D
I
UJ
O
O
tn
a.
i-
if
•Si
-i
a. O.
A-8
-------
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I <
SS
UJ
o
CO
_J
UJ
o
UJ
I- UJ
o o:
UJ K
o
o.
o
o
IO
I
UJ
s
M OD
05
u
8
i
*
oe
A-9
-------
UJ CC
UJ S
O 3
< CO
C CO
K Ul
I- Z
O I-
UJ <
_J UJ
UJ OC
o
o
CO
UJ
o
o
s
A-10
-------
I
I
i
i
in
CM
>K
8S
Kt
*f
S
2s
e
w
» CO
< _l
O til
UJ o
O O
**
=> I-
u y
< 2
UJ
ce
I
I
a>
01
m
CO
a.
tn
M
o
O
O
O
CJ
•J
a.
ui
o
O
|
1
u
3
M
T
•= CO
°s
r o.
11
o
A-ll
-------
o
a.
O
O
5
A-12
-------
I
1
1
|
•P
eg
IS
S
(VI
m
i
1 ^
I>
ac
S
0 ^
15 i
1- CO
S««o
2^3 ,
I« UI 1
§M r —
5 Q. * 1
3 co
|z Z U-
K Z
Z UJ
o s
0 »-
I< 1 '
UI r~- — i
£
r~
o (c
± w
I^g
0 1-
0
1
1 ° i i
~ t- z fi
_ co 2
o a. a.
1* **• S
~ ~ £
z g? "
S <*• u
5 o 5
i z "
1 , 1
• o 1
•P O *
1 £
1
i
i
£=
«M,
iff
S*
il
u
1 1
LJ
i
«-P>
*^J
^-O
*^J
i
u
(0
CO
UI
a
&
;
•
5 ^^^^"^^
i ••
1
&
\
•
f s
7
in
A- 13
I
1 4
81*
§Is
o! ,-L 8
1 FT] =
. 6s
^\ 1 It
g\ T ? If
5$ \ 1 5 i * h—J
^/ c. T
•"•••^ / (v x
^4 S «
'. ^p g
^Sg 2
£ w
^*— — — — . — — —
^
i
R
1
i
K
U
i
S'
to
a
1
.E
~3 1
1 «•
• : |
•'• ' |
, ' u
1 a.
^ B
-------
co
UJ
tr
<
2
3
w
co
.
m
UJ
LU
IX
P.H
^ ¥
tft ^
* 5
— e
H
• <
O
£
I*
*
o
2
1
1 _
^T
•5 o
>«
z
K
U
m
on .
2
£
0.
o
1
^^^^^^•M
1
o
u
1
•
t
f
l
1
(9
Z
2
O
O
10 K.
O O O O OOO O
O O O O OOO M
m v TCM vvio ift
CMir> «>|O (CW>— 10
•
• o
o °-
£9 » a. E >•
u o o -— . _ •»-
e o is
S
-------
I.
I *
1 i t£
O o
1 '•}"
N z
in 2
1 I 1-
• V . §
1 i T
I'
— *~
i
i I 2
1 rt 4
11° '
> . •*
I |
13 • i o-
(A 7> — W
52 « s § 1
« S« d * S "
1 g£«
• £^o i
Q, 2 [
_ 1- tf>
• OZ |-
• Z 2 u
• UJ C
2 S
i— <
1 » "
• fr
H i i
1..
*^
1
1 1 5-*— v
• KUI
— K <->K
| s !S=
• CO 0-
• Q.
"V
i i T
i
i
i
i
s
it
0 *
OT0
°cf
•
0
t i
w ojil
1 ?£i
zo: Ǥa
- 2 ..*. * S^
sr 2 8
1 %
z
oP
3S
0-*
O.Q
<_j
u.
r
o
>
5
m
3
CO
A-15
o o o o o o 0 o
o»v o« wvg M
— CM — W - » (M
(D
0}0) o^oi o>0io> 0)
O O OO O O O O
OO OO O O O CM
*!«• — CM «•«•« 10
Nil) IflfO W 10 — 10
•
• o
e a
•? « * -s- °- *
So o .5 g g 5
« u .00 OT S u
p1 -5 S S S H S.
S ^ 5 « i c5 «
u
03
£ z '
1 2 0
1 o S £
K U _) &
a. w u. a.
-------
r
>
(E
<
^ w
o
CO
UJ £ UJ
O N Q
CO
UJ
tr
UJ
en
a.
Q.
O
Ul "
O-
22.
1
w
i
§00 o
-------
1
1
N
1 *
* 1
*
ii
n ' # £
' 9
en O o
1 ''"
? 1
£S i
5 -8 ?
•N. ,2 A
1 * it
I M 0 — '
o. S.
2 5
* w
(X L^^^H
H '
m|
~A
i \ SB .«
3 / $c «
° /
1
1 ?
1 i
i
1
i « O
z 2 « »
2 co
fe w
< k_ «
i i I
3 > « 1
5 § ii
U-
1
A- 17
,/
-------
>
c
<
03
Z CO
3 CO
X -I
O Ul
UJ
UJ
ec
Zmv>m
a. 5i!
I- * &
<£ 1 »U
|s« »# sgf
nisilt^
•i§£^£I^
cw •
A-18
-------
i
i
en
z
CO
15
?
en
%
• ~ _r
1 B r
* 1
I*» i
i i L
a
—
•
1 l!
'31
E w n -
ML—
1 3« ^^
I 8^
Igg
sz 3 -
* S ° *
• I £3
0 £ J n
1
• - FLJ
° •
I 5,0-
°- <
w> -«
1 S ^
• UJ
in |-~l
a. •JLfc«,
IB Isr
5
£
CD
1 1
"
S
u
J
!Z
••••MM
il
1
^^MN^^
H
•^^•••^^
H
•^••^•IM^
1
SPS-3/PSNS-3
|
1
(M
A
CO
h
oc
<
i
OK
H<
K
§S r
Obl
KO 2
ss I
t <
u
Im^
r
i :
i ;
i
§e
u
H3 K
> "•
"1 COLUMNS | *"
4/MSPS- 4 / PftMi! - A
i
n en
K UJ
i 2
j >•
: «
2
•S
"*8
Z'
2
£:
Q.
5
CD
35.
IN
ai
r
%
•«• IOO% RECYCLE
TO PROCESS
-*»CENTRIFUGE
5
< ^^
UJ
-4
^
1 "2 S 58
i,
- „ « g o 2
^ * «• 8 * 1
*
z
o
p
z S
511 § 21|
2*1 | S«5
3 • S «
Sfi I 5*f
0 « S | jg « J
-------
LJ
ill
O
o 5 2
g< u
O-
oc
I-
en
z
-X
V)
I
CO
ui
10
a.
u
O
I
A-20
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
0
u i
to
o
§2
«
en
-------
Z 3
Ul
-I
<
UJ
UJ
a:
I-
i
I *
JTl
o P
.i
*
Off
Of
I
I
/
S
J
J
H
o
a
s
A-22
-------
1
1
i
1,
c
UJ
1 =
1
I ;
i t
<
10 Z
1 3
< CO
IIU -J
J
-------
HOT COATING / GALVANIZING
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
BPT/BCT/PSES-I/
NSPS-I/PSNS-I
lOOgpn
EQUALIZATION
TANK
Selidi
BAT-l/PSES-2
CHROMATE
RINSEWATER
FUME
SCRUBBER
BLOWDOWN
ALL OTHER
RINSEWATER
^
E
-»
L
ACID
5
o
SULFUR
DIOXIDE
^
1
^
<3
BAT-2/ PSES-3/
NJSPS-3/PSNS-3
CHROMATE
RINSEWATER
REDUCTION
FUME
SCRUBBER
BLOWDOWN
ALL OTHER
RINSE WATER
REDUCTION
,-IS gpm
4*1
-1
SULFUR
OtOXIDE
| ACID |
19
do
RmEi
T, .1^
(
REDUCTION
TANK
EQUALIZATION C*
]
i
o
IAHH REACTION
TANK
1 L^CLAR
1
IFIER
VACUUM
r
1
J
1
I— j FILTER f— *
NSPS-2/PSNS-1
NSPS-4/PSNS-4
100% Rtcyel*
*| EVAPORATION H^
Uc.^.
SOLIDS
HOT COATING RINSE WATER FLOW RATES (GPT)
PRODUCT
Strip /ShMt a
Mtic. Product*
Wire Product*
a Fostenar*
BPT/BCT/PSES-iaZ ,„
BAT-I/NSP3-I/P9N3-1 l"
600
Z400
ALL OTHER MODELS(Z>
150
6OO
tl)Fum« scrubbar fto* ot BPT/8CT/PSES-I/NSPS-I/PSNS-1 = IOOgpm/icrubbar
(2)Fum« tcrubbar flow at all other model§: 15 gpm/icrubber
A-24
-------
1
BPT/BCT/PSES-I/
INSPS-t/PSNS-l
100 am j
FUME /
• (ONCE-THROUGH)
•
1 RINSE
WATER
1
IBAT-I/PSE5-2
"""—/
• FUME /
• SCRUBBER 4*
SLOWDOWN
RINSE
WATER
IBAT-2/PSES-3/
NSPS-3/PSNS-3
15 9Pm 7
IFUME /
SCRUBBER •£•
SLOWDOWN
RINSE
REDUCTION
HOT COATING/TERNE 8 OTHER METALS
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
[POLYMER]
T| L i ME]
— — ' ' ' L
EQUALIZATION O>O
IAt-k REACTION
TANK
L^CLARIFIER^J
VACUUM
FILTER
1 *• Solid*
|POLYI»ER|
T. I LI ME [
,,9,
EOUALtZATION O*O
IArlR REACTION
TANK
fpQLTMEf
?l i
[LIME!
^ a
EQUALIZATION C>O
TANK
1
HOT COATING RINSE WATER FLOW RATES IGPT)
PRODUCT JJi
,
VACUUM
FILTER
Backwash ^""^^
1 1— ! FILTER )-«»
r
I NSPS-2/PSES- 1
1 8AT-5/PSES-4
1 1 NSPS-4/PSNS-4
VACUUM L » R*Cycl*
FILTFfl ,*- ro.CCI* j
1 >-»C(ntrifua(
Solidt
^YpS^/PSNS-l"1 *LL OTHER MODELs(2'
Strip/Sheet a 600 150
Mtsc. Products
Iwire Products 2400 600
a Fosteners
1(1) Fume scrubber flow at BPT/BCT/PSES -l/NSPS-l/PSNS-l' IS gpm /scrubber
(2) Fume scrubber at all other models : IS gpm /scrubber
- A-25
1
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix B
™ MILL PERFORMANCE DATA VERSUS EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5
H
3
ea
*2
•Jy
vV
o
*g
^1
t
•*4
O
*
g
•j
£
o
*
J£
i
^
f
5
«j
§
ti
^j
£
CM
in
CO
T™
o
(0
o
o
eo
to
eo
• o
o
o
o
in
3
r-.
to
o
o
o
o
,-
CO
CM
^
V"»
o
o
o
in
r-
o
o
o
CP
10
CB
W
C.
C9
08
•H
•H
O
in
«n
£
CO
o
o
o
(0
s
f»fc
^-
^
s
o
o
c»
in
o
o
o
r-
o
o
o
^
1
cd
•H
0
e
O
CM
CM
CO
m
o
o
o
N
8
•
o
(O
§
0
_
CO
CO
in
«
o
o
o
o
i
o
o
g
o
in
CO
CO
o
o
o
o
o
o
*
5
s
ft
1^
g^
o
0
eo
o
o
o
o
o
4)
C
CO
N
C
01
CO
to
CO
CO
CM
§
o
§
o
*
o
1
5
o
o
o
o
o
en
en
A
S
eo
o
o
o
o
o
yrene |
Q
i
«
|
O
N
CD
CO
CO
3
§
o
§
o
CO
CM
CO
r*.
o
o
o
o
o
o
en
en
A
*
n
o
o
o
o
o
£
p^
CB
^
a
CB
B-l
-------
O
a
•ri
!
V
i
tu
iH
*
U
ZM
*""j
*
,|
•t^
?5
O
dP
,
?s
••
£
o
*
'
§
35
o
H
is
5
3
s
5
SI *
*•
£
CO
CM
8
o
CO
R
in
o
o
o
«
o>
CM
CM
3
o
o
n
m
en
o
o
I
CO
s
CO
(O
in
o
3
'o
CO
o
CM
CM
§
O
V)
a
2
C9
00
•H
•H
O
CM
*
in
3
o
en
CO
1
o
o
o
CO
K
CO
f-
3
o
o
o
o
3
o
•at
1
9
•H
i
o
5
^_
in
o
o
o
o
o
s
CO
in
09
3
3
0
CO
0>
en
o>
o
3
o
o
o
o
o
3
0
01
s
c
(0
o
CO
CM
CO
n
o
o
3
0
CM
CM
1
CO
o
3
o
o
m
00
en
^
^i
^s
|
o
o
m
o
o
o
cT
^CT
-•
ID
iH
O
0)
a.
+
S
in
n
CM
o
o
o
o
o
CO
in
CO
S
i
0
CM
S
m
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CM
CD
O
3
O
•o
9
0
H
O
s
in
CO
o
o
*
^
1
CO
i
o
^.
m
CO
o
«••
o
3
o
o
1
3
o
o
c
•H
ISI
*
»-
C
V
a
o>
i
o
.a «
S01
So
.-£
o
S*
^c
H- a.
CB-H
e «
n
o
B-2
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
o
a
i
1*1
Sf
••
It.
**H
a
-
c&
_^
jj
t
Si
o
*
JC
-1
»•
g
^f
J*
Q
<
.J
S
.
1
t
»"H
^^
£
CM
*
0>
CO
f-
CO
o
CO
5
s
o
o
o
f-
s
m
CO
CO
o
o
o
CO
CM
O
o
CO
CO
l-
CM
N.
CO
•
S
N
O
0
in
CO
S
o
g
o
N
3
CO
O
O
O
o
o
o
CO
CO
CO
CM
g
g
O
o
000584
o
c*
•H
C
ffl
O
•
*~
in
CM
•
0
CM
O
o
g
o
m
CO
CO
m
o
o
o
o
o
in
in
o
CM
O
O
o
o
o
o
0000438
o
§
0>
^H
0
4)
.C
a.
CO
in*
CO
CM
o
IS
g
o
^
CO
CO
o
o
g
o
0
0
eo
CO
m
in
o
o
g
o
o
0000365
o
•D
a
_i
*
h-
t
CM
K
in
o
o
g
o
„
CO
„.
CO
o
o
o
o
o
T"
CM
CO
T™
CO
o
o
g
.0
0000438
o
o
c
•H
N
•
1-
«2
3
-,
^1
••
•H
^m
^^
CO
CM
CO
g
0
000584
o
0
TJ
•H
c
a
$
*
CM
i
g
g
o
o
o
Tt
CO
•
m
S
o
o
g
o
o
£
CO
eo
o
o
o
g
0
0000438
o
1
m
H
0
a
a.
CO
m
CO
^
g
^5
o
0
r-
co
CO
CM
O
o
o
o
o
0
^
CO
CO
s
c?
o
g
o
0000365
o
•o
n
-------
i
w
s
g
d
i
«
n
3
IL.
lH
•H
a
H
1
#
^
J5
t
(IP
^f
{2
••
g
o
««
«i
g
§
£
*
CO
CM
CP
S2
in
o
o
o
o>
•
CD
CO
CO
O
0
CO
CD
in
IT
CM
O
O
o
0
a
c
0
CO
CO
t-
*
CO
i
CD
o
o
at
CM
O
O
o
o
o
o
CO
in
3
i
§
o
0000417
o
T
C
t-
in
m
CO
r-
§
o
o
o
fc
^
^
o
o
o
o
o
in
en
I
o
o
o
o
0000834
0
g
IM
H-
9
O
m
n
,
3
f
-
:
I
-
*•
o
*
'
•<
1
o
»
^^
^^
«
«J
3
i
*
s
N.
r>-
CM
O
O
o
o
*
o
001836
o
d
o
c
•fM
N
t—
B-4
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
O
0
tf
1 1
u»
•-I
i
1
I
_^rf
>•
1
o
dp
^
j5
H*
^F
£9
d
i
J
^H
^
&
CO
o»
CO
CO
CO
o
00
2
in
o
o
o
o
r*.
m
n
o
o
o
CO
CO
CM
5
CM
S
O
O
o
o
o
•
O)
in
o
o
o
o
o
d
CO
eo
o
CM
o
o
e
o
o
•o
«
K
CO
O
§
d
CO
*
a
o>
CO
CO
o
o
o
o
o
CO
00
o
CM
O
o
CO
*~
r-
m
S
<§—
o
g
0
00
in
CO
o
o
o
o
CO
00
00
CM
o>
Is.
in
o
o
o
o
CO
m
o
o
o
Grease
od
•-i
•H
O
K
K
1*.
O
O
o
o
o
o
CO
CO
CM
CD
o
o
d
CO
*
in
CO
CM
o
o
o
o
o
o
in
CO
co
o
o
o
o
o
o
^
ffi
*
H
co
r-
N
O
O
o
o
o
d
CO
CO
§
g^
d
CM
«*
m
o>
o
o
o
o
o
CO
r*
i
o
s
o
o
•H
N
*"
10
«
01
o
o
Q.
ti
I
0»
0)
•M
(0
W
O
(0
o
O
U
01
•H CO
;H«
»•
0>
+J
O
B-5
-------
1
' •
o
jj
O
IM
M
O
Pi
H
i-4
K
4*
H *
^j} Q
Dig
•rl g
?* O
W CO ^
Table B-
Forming - Hot
erm Average Pe:
Cj
^J
Wo*
cs
S
S
H
IU
o
0
O
n
¥:?:*!-
11
III
-:•:•!-:•;•!-.
••:M:v.
sii?
•f'X'f'lv"
lo
iP
£:J£j
il
rllit
&i*§?
SISS
Ill
ill
III
11
.;*:?&.
11
ii
»;"W
III
II
£;::-fi:;£
ill
&/M.
'-S?""
i'i; *
::•!:::;::•
•;•;!->:
I''-'-:' :
P
S,;-
MS
-:•:•:-:•;
':x::::
'H-'
i
1
11
Si®
il
III
•'•4
:||:|
::>::::'::
j!j5;:
ill
ii
n
S
ill
in
$::®!
il
•';: ™
1S&:
ill
W$
Kv,;,v,;
CM
ii
il
v'-!'1-:
'•'.''.' ^
•:-:f
'.:.>
•;-:'" ^
||
•?l
fi;;';:::i::y;ir
/,.;;XL;. '::;.;: •:;;
:'.-: :'•• •: " : ] ;;:
a
';!'.]; !.ii/'O ';
;•-:;;•; ;. ' ^j :•:
•:-'v-'|: i;:|'; >¥\
:\;::;'i:!1:.:-1:-:"i':'':i
iii^f
;SissCH'':
'\.;.o o::<8 o1:
;\:|:|.':'.!-.:!^''>.:.::
pffi
1 ;;;?i|*«H.:;:
Jllll
f*-
in
o>
«
in
S
o
o
en
3
cv
1^
§
0
o
o
CD
C
c
c
^
c
o
03
M
O
§
^
O
i
o
CO
CO
CO
«te
^r
i
d
tt
en
m
0
to
c
i
0
tt
«!
a
L.
C9
<*
i-t
•H
C
*
CO
n
(O
Q
o
o
in
r-
c
o
•o
R
a
H
CM
CO
CO
S
£5
o
o
o
o
n
CM
tn
o
o
o
•
o
o
c
•H
N
H
, -
«0
Q>
O
2
a.
§
f
ZJA
^
M
•H
Q.
•H
(0
*
a
-o
(B
(0
t.
0
b continuous cast
.**
(tt
fH
CO
c
-H
5?
11
fc- ^3
S £-
ai
°!
•H 4-1
M (0
•H «t
S »
• •
Q>
^
Z
B-6
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
o
a
id
9
a
s
th.
|
JC
!j
<
tj
^j
dp
5
LJ
5
{5
<
-j
§
Pollirtairitsiih
WSmmm&m\
^
to
N
55
O
O
CO
o
(O
o
,-
CO
en
CO
CM
O
0
in
CO
^v
Is.
CM
O
O
en
o
0
CO
in
en
CM
0
0
CO
in
0
o
Q)
m
TO
Q>
CO
eB
O
CO
in
CO
CO
m
o
o
CO
CM
O
O
O
*•
•"•
CM
O)
O
en
CO
CM
O
O
o
o
en
CM
o
o
o
•H
|
0
1-
eo
8
N
N
§
O
O
o
o
o
o
o
«
m
CM
CD
CM
in
g
0
r-
o
o
•o
a
•"
in
en
CM
o
o
o
o
o
5
g
o
«
o
CO
en
CO
O
o
o
o
05
N.
CO
o
CO
o
o
o
o
en
CO
o
o
0
0
•H
N
h-
,s.
K
0)
§
g
O
o
CM
CO
O
o
o
CO
CM
CO
O
CO
fm
O
o
o
0
CO
co
f-
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix C
I IRON AND STEEL MANUFACTURING FACILITIES
INCLUDED ON STATE 304(L) SHORT LISTS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
Is
1
I
(
i
I
£
1
(M
i
to
i
1
C-l
-------
1
•I
i
I
t
M
en
<•»
pl
j
i
1
I
CO
I
1
u-
C-2
-------
-------
-------
|