United States
               Environmental Protection
               Agency
             Solid Waste and
             Emergency Response
             (5305W)
September 1998
 xvEPA
Metal Finishing F006
                               /
Benchmark  Study
                        U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
                            Mail code 3201
                        1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
                          Washington DC 20460
EPA
530/
1998.2
                      Printed on paper that contains at least 30 percent postconsumer fiber

-------

-------
510
              \
                      UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                   WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                                                            OFFICE OF
                                                                     SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
                                                                            RESPONSE
                                   OCT   7  1998
       MEMORANDUM
       Subject:

       From:


       To:
Metal Finishing F006 Benchmarking Study

                 HrU^*1 ---
                     A

CSI Metal Finishing Subcommittee
Michael
EPA/OSW
             On behalf of the RCRA workgroup, I am pleased to transmit the Metal Finishing
       F006 Benchmarking Study.  This report is the culmination of a two year effort and
       represents a lot of hard work by many workgroup participants.  In particular, I'd like to
       give special thanks to John Lindstedt'(Artistic Plating, Inc.)  who was instrumental in
       both the project design and implementation and, to Jim Lounsbury (US EPA) who
       coordinated the data collection efforts.

             This study was designed to answer the following questions:

       •>     what are the characteristics of F006?
       »•     what can metal finishers do to make F006 more recyclable, while optimizing
             pollution prevention? What pollution prevention practices are in place at metal
             finishing facilities?
       »•     what are the environmental impacts of F006 recycling?

             The attached report presents the results of this effort. These results will be used
       to inform upcoming discussions regarding potential modifications to RCRA regulations
       that relate to F006 (Phase II). If you have any questions regarding the report please
       contact Kristina Meson (US EPA 703/308-8488) or one of the RCRA workgroup
       members.
                 Recycled/Recyclable •Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Postconsumer)

-------

-------
             Common Sense Initiative
              Metal Finishing Sector
WORKGROUP REPORT: F006 BENCHMARKING STUDY
                   September 1998

-------

-------
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	3

I.     BACKGROUND	 8
      A.    What is the Common Sense Initiative?  	8
      B.    The Metal Finishing Industry and Electroplating Wastewater Treatment Sludges
              	10
      C.    F006 Sludge Generation and Management	10
      D.    Basis for Listing F006-Electroplating Wastewater Treatment Sludges as a RCRA
            Hazardous Waste in 1980	12
      E.    Reasons this Study was Conducted	16
      F.    Worker Health and Safety	17

II.    NATIONAL F006 BENCHMARKING STUDY APPROACH	20
      A.    Overview	'.	20
      B.    Methodology 	•.	; 20
            1. Regional Benchmarking Study	21
            2. National Benchmarking Study	23
            3. Statistical Analysis of the Regional and National Benchmarking Data	23
            4. Survey of Commercial Recyclers	24
            5. Survey of Community Environmental Groups	24

III.     RESULTS OF THE F006 BENCHMARKING STUDY	24
      A.    Summaries of Regional and National Benchmarking F006 Waste Characterization
            Data  	24
            1. Benchmarking Summary Tables	24
            2. Statistical Analysis:  Does this Data Come from "Typical" Metal Finishers?
                    	24
            3. Results of Commercial Recyclers and Citizen Group Surveys	25
      B. Detailed Results of the Regional and National Benchmarking Studies	29
            1. The Milwaukee Benchmarking Study	29
            2. Chicago Benchmarking Study	47
            3. Phoenix Benchmarking Study	64
            4. Detailed Results of the National Benchmarking Study	79

Appendix A:
      Summary of the  10 Issue Areas Identified for the Metal Finishing Sector	99

Appendix B:
      F006 Management Contained in EPA's 1995 Biennial Report Database	101

Appendix C:
      Observed F006 Handling Practices at Metal Finishing Facilities and List of Worker
      Health and Safety Regulations	 105

-------
Appendix D:
       Checklist Used to Identify Pollution Prevention Technologies at Metal Finishing Facilities
        	114

Appendix E:
       Laboratory Analysis Information: Constituents, Methods, and Detection Limits Used in
       the Benchmarking Studies	,	117

Appendix F:
       Regional Benchmarking Survey	125

Appendix G:
       National Benchmarking Survey	132

Appendix H:
       National Benchmarking Commercial Recyclers Survey	140

Appendix I:
       Responses to Citizen Group Phone Survey	143

Appendix J:
       Statistical "Representativeness" of the National Benchmarking Study	146
September 1998
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
                               EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

       This report presents current information about the metal finishing industry in the U.S.,
and is the result of a two year effort of the Metal Finishing workgroup of the Common Sense
Initiative (CSI). The CSI was begun by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1-994 to
explore "cleaner, cheaper, and smarter" environmental strategies beyond those required by
regulation. Using the special authorities of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), EPA
brought together representatives from federal, state, and local governments, industry,
community-based and national environmental interest groups, environmental justice groups and
organized labor to explore opportunities for managing environmental issues in new ways. Six
industry sectors were chosen for the initial CSI efforts, including petroleum refining, automobile
manufacturing, iron and steel production, electronics, printing and metal finishing.

Overview of the Metal Finishing Industry and Hazardous Waste Management.

       Metal finishing  refers to processes which deposit or "plate" a thin layer of metal and/or
apply an additional organic  topcoat as an outer coating on products received from other
manufacturing operations. Metal finishing is performed for either functional or decorative
purposes and affects many products we use everyday.  For example, hard chrome plating is a
functional plating process that increases the hardness and durability of engine parts.  Chrome
plating automobile bumpers is an example of a decorative plating process.

       EPA estimated that there were approximately 13,400 metal finishing establishments in
the United States. Of the total, approximately 10,000 metal finishing facilities are estimated to
be "captive" shops contained inside a larger manufacturing operation.  The balance of 3,400
metal finishing facilities are "job shops" or "independent" metal finishing operations that operate
on a job-specific contract basis.1 The total number of plating shops has decreased significantly
since the 1970's, mainly as a result of increasing regulations and competition.

       As in many manufacturing processes, some portion of the materials used in production or
in the product itself are not totally captured as salable product, and exit the process in
wastewater, solid waste, airborne emissions, scrap metal, or off-spec products. Prior to  1980,
there were no federal regulations covering the discharge or disposal of wastes from metal
finishing operations, and the wastes, which contained metals as well as other substances, were
often directly discharged to  surface waters or disposed of in landfills or lagoons.

       In 1980, EPA issued the Nation's first hazardous waste management regulations, which
"listed" sludges from electroplating wastewater treatment as a hazardous waste (F006), and set
standards for the storage, transportation, treatment and disposal of these sludges.  EPA
simultaneously developed regulations that require metal finishers to significantly reduce or
eliminate pollutants in wastewaters discharged to publically owned wastewater treatment systems
       1 Borst, Paul A. U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste. Recycling of Wastewater Treatment Sludges from
Electroplating Operations. F006. 1997.
September 1998
3
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
(final "pretreatment regulations were issued in 1986).
       As a result of the strengthening of the federal regulations, the metal finishing industry
implemented many improvements in material use, production processes and waste management
methods.

       Metals contained in F006 have commercial value if they are present in sufficient
concentrations and if other analytes in the sludge are below levels which would interfere with the
metal recovery process. There may be other materials contained in the sludge which do not
interfere with metals recovery, but which could be hazardous if improperly managed. The
economics of hazardous waste management is a strong determinant of whether metal finishers
send sludges for land disposal or to recycling facilities. Estimates of the amounts of sludge that
are recycled or land disposed vary widely.  One source estimates that between 10 and 20 percent
is recycled and between 80 and 90 percent is treated and land disposed.2

Why was this study conducted?

       The CSI Metal Finishing Subcommittee focused on the metal finishing industry's belief
that process improvements made by many metal finishers during the past 20 years have
significantly changed the composition of the F006 material that was listed and regulated in 1980,
and it is the industry's belief that modification of EPA's hazardous waste regulations for F006
could increase the metal finishing industry's ability to recover and recycle more commercially
valuable metals from F006 than they currently recover, and simultaneously decrease the amount
of metal finishing wastes disposed of in regulated landfills.

       In order to evaluate the current status of the industry, the Subcommittee formed a
workgroup to complete a characterization of F006 and to report on the results as the foundation
for any further discussions regarding potential modifications to F006 regulations.

       This report simply presents the data collected during the F006 Benchmarking Study as a
foundation for further evaluation of F006. The CSI Workgroup did not attempt to analyze the
data to determine  the extent to which the characteristics of F006 have changed based on industry
pollution prevention practices or other factors. In Phase 2 of this effort, the Workgroup will
analyze the information presented in this report, and examine whether potential modifications of
the current regulations applicable to F006 should be considered by EPA.

Worker Health and Safety

As part of the benchmarking study, the workgroup collected information on F006 handling
practices, identified the potential hazards to workers, and described possible hazard control
       2 Borst, Paul A. U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste. Recycling of Wastewater Treatment Sludges from
Electroplating Operations. F006. 1997.
September 1998
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
methods. In addition, the workgroup developed a list of the current worker health and safety
regulations and policies that may apply to on-site and off-site management of F006. This
information is presented in Appendix C of this report.  Beyond this information, the workgroup
did not attempt to complete a comprehensive review of worker health and safety issues
associated with F006 management.

       As indicated above, in Phase II of this effort the workgroup will examine whether
possible modifications of the current regulations for F006 should be considered based on the
information in this study. As part of this effort, the workgroup will consider potential worker
health and safety issues when examining possible regulatory changes for F006.

The F006 Benchmarking Study Approach

       The workgroup focused on three analytical questions to guide its work on characterizing
current practices in the metal finishing industry, and the composition and management of F006:

       1)     What are the characteristics of F006?
       2)     What can metal finishers do to make F006 more recyclable, while optimizing
              pollution prevention?  What pollution prevention practices are in place at metal
              finishing facilities?
       3)     What are the environmental impacts of F006 recycling?

       While not  an initial focus in this effort, the workgroup also examined worker health and
safety impacts in this study.

       To answer these questions, the workgroup designed a five part "benchmarking study" to
gather current information on the metal finishing industry. This  approach carefully balances the
need to gather detailed information from a diverse industry with  funding and schedule
limitations. The workgroup believes the study approach and the data presented in this report
provide a very useful characterization of a cross section of "typical" metal finishing facilities and
a strong sense for the environmental awareness of many metal finishing companies. The
workgroup also recognizes that there are  facilities in the metal finishing industry which do not fit
within the range of activities and practices characterized in this report, and that discussion of the
data presented in this report should take that into account.  The workgroup also discussed the
possibility that, despite the usefulness of the data gathered in the Benchmarking study, additional
data might be needed if subsequent discussions of policy options and/or regulatory options
analysis warranted more data.
       The study components summarized below, which are discussed in detail in the report,
include:
       A Regional Benchmarking Study that involved site visits to 29 metal finishing shops in
       three cities to gather detailed data on plating processes, pollution prevention practices,
       F006 chemical analysis and F006 handling and management practices;
September 1998
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
       A National Benchmarking Study that used a mail survey to gather less detailed data on
       metal finishing operations, pollution prevention practices, F006 characteristics and
       management practices from a broad range of metal finishers;
                                             i
       An Analysis of Statistical Representation to determine the extent to which the companies
       participating in the regional and national benchmarking studies represent the universe of
       metal finishers.

     .  A Commercial Recycling Company Mail Survey to gather data on the amount and
       chemical composition of F006 accepted for recycling by commercial recycling
       companies, and

       A Community Interest Group Phone Survey to assess whether community groups in the
       vicinity of commercial recycling companies believe those companies are good
       environmental and economic neighbors.

Results of the National F006 Benchmarking Study

       The results of the five components of the study are presented in the main body of the
report.  The results of the Regional and National Benchmarking Studies are presented in
summary form and in detail. The data describe the range of production, pollution prevention and
waste management practices employed by the facilities studied and the present information about
the quantity and composition of F006 wastes produced.  For example, the minimum, mean,
median, and maximum values of F006 laboratory analyses are provided in a format that allows
the reader to compare regional and national data.  Detailed data for each of the 29 facilities that
participated in the Regional study, and detailed results from the National study are also
presented. .

       The workgroup's statistical analysis examined the extent to which the data gathered in the
Regional and National Benchmarking studies represents the metal finishing universe, keeping in
mind that the Regional and National Benchmarking studies were designed to give the workgroup
descriptive data for facilities which operate the most commonly used metal finishing processes.
The Benchmarking study was not designed to capture data on the full range of metal finishing
operations. In short, the statistical analysis that was completed indicates that the Benchmarking
Study results can not be assumed to statistically represent the entire metal finishing universe.
This result does not  diminish the value of the Benchmarking study data.  The Benchmarking
Study does provide substantial additional data characterizing the F006 wastestream and provides
a sound starting point for further discussion.

       The workgroup was not able to obtain enough data to complete the commercial recycling
study, therefore no results are presented.  Results of the community group survey, which was
designed to accompany the results of the commercial recycling survey, are summarized even
though the commercial recycling study was not completed.
September 1998
6
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
       The Appendices of this report contain further details supporting various aspects of the study.

Project participants:
                      /•«*.

       The following people participated in this project:

       John Linstedt (Artistic Plating, Inc.),
       Diane Cameron (Natural Resources Defense Council),
       Bill Sonntag, Al Collins, and participating members of the American Electroplaters and
       Surface Finishers Society, National Association of Metal Finshers, and the Metal
     .-"Finishing Suppliers Association,
       Andy Comai (United Auto Workers),
       Tom Wallin (Illinois EPA),
       Doreen Sterling (US EPA),
       Mike Flynn (US EPA),
       Jim Lounsbury (US EPA),
       JeffHannapel(USEPA)
       John Lingelbach (facilitator, Decisions and Agreements, LLC) and,
       the SAIC Contractor Support Team.
September 1998
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
L      BACKGROUND

A.     What is the Common Sense Initiative?

       In 1994, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Carol Browner,
launched the Common Sense Initiative (CSI), describing it as a "fundamentally different system"
to explore industry-specific strategies for environmental protection. The program is designed to
promote "cleaner, cheaper, and smarter" environmental performance, using a non-adversarial,
stakeholder consensus process to test innovative ideas and approaches. Six industry sectors were
selected to participate in CSI:  Petroleum Refining, Auto Manufacturing, Iron and Steel, Metal
Finishing, Printing, and Computers and Electronics.

       In January of 1995, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chartered the Metal
Finishing Sector Subcommittee of the Common Sense Initiative under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act.  The Metal Finishing Subcommittee includes representatives of EPA
Headquarters and Regional offices, the metal finishing industry and its suppliers, state
government, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), national and regional environmental
organizations, the environmental justice community, and organized labor.

       The CSI Metal Finishing Sector was challenged by Administrator Carol Browner to
develop a consensus package of "cleaner, cheaper, and smarter" policy actions for the industry
as a whole, based on the lessons learned from the Sector's projects and dialogue.  Based on this
challenge the Subcommittee established a workgroup to develop a strategic policy and program
framework for the industry.

       The Metal Finishing Strategic Goals Program, designed by this multi-stakeholder group,
establishes a set of voluntary National Performance Goals for the industry that represent "better
than compliance" environmental performance for metal finishers. The Metal Finishing Goals
Program, summarized in Table 1, includes facility-based numerical performance targets which
track the CSI themes of cleaner, cheaper, and smarter performance.

       The goals program also includes a detailed Action Plan that addresses nine important
issue areas (listed in Appendix A) for the metal finishing industry. By implementing the Action
Plan, stakeholders provide incentives, create tools, and remove barriers for metal finishers to
achieve the National Performance goals.  Today's report presents the results of the first phase of
the  Waste Minimization and Recovery issue area.

       The Waste Minimization and Recovery Issue examines the metal finishing industry's
belief that process improvements made by many metal finishers during the past 20 years have
significantly changed the nature of the industry's wastewater treatment sludges, which are
regulated as a hazardous waste known as F006 under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). The metal finishing industry also believes that modification of EPA's hazardous
waste regulations for F006 could increase the metal finishing industry's ability to recover more
commerciaily valuable metals (contained in F006) than they currently recover, and
simultaneously decrease the amount of metal finishing wastes disposed of in regulated landfills.
September 1998
8
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
            Table 1: National Metal Finishing Performance Goals (By Year 2002)
  (1) Improved Resource Utilization ("Smarter")

   (a) 98% of metals ultimately utilized on product.
   (b) 50% reduction in water purchased/used (from 1992 levels).
   (c) 25% reduction in facility-wide energy use (from 1992 levels)

  (2) Reduction in Hazardous Emissions and Exposures (i.e.,"Cleaner")

   (a) 90% reduction in organic TRI emissions and 50% reduction in metals emissions to air and water (from
      1992 levels).
   (b) 50% reduction in land disposal of hazardous sludge and a reduction in sludge generation (from 1992
      levels).
   (c) Reduction in human exposure to toxic materials in the facility and the surrounding community, clearly
      demonstrated by action selected and taken by the facility. Such actions may include, for example,
      pollution prevention, use of state-of the-art emission controls and protective equipment, use of best
      recognized industrial hygiene practices, worker training in environmental hazards, or participation in the
      Local Emergency Planning Committees.

  (3) Increased Economic Payback and Decreased Costs ("Cheaper")

   (a) Long-term economic benefit to facilities achieving Goals 1 and 2.
   (b) 50% reduction in costs of unnecessary permitting, reporting, monitoring, and related activities (from 1992
      levels), to be implemented through burden reduction programs to the extent that such efforts do not
      adversely impact environmental outcomes.

  (4) Industry-Wide Achievement of Facility Goals.

   (a) 80% of facilities nationwide achieve Goals 1-3.

  (5) Industry-Wide Compliance with Environmental Performance Requirements. ~

   (a) All operating facilities achieve compliance with Federal, State, and local environmental performance
      requirements.
   (b) All metal finishers wishing to cease operations have access to a government sponsored "exit strategy" for
      environmentally responsible site transition.
   (c) All enforcement activities involving  metal fishing facilities are conducted in a consistent manner to achieve
      a level playing field, with a primary focus on those facilities that knowingly disregard environmental
      requirements.

  Note: At facilities where outstanding performance levels were reached prior to  1992, the percentage-reduction
  targets for Goals 1 (b) and (c), and 2 (a) and (b) may not be  fully achievable, or the effort to achieve them may
  not be the best use of available resources. In these instances, a target should be adjusted as necessary to make
  it both meaningful and achievable.
        The group formed to address this issue is the Metal Finishing F006 Benchmarking
Workgroup, comprised of representatives from the metal finishing, the recycling industry,
environmental interests, organized labor, local government and the EPA.  The workgroup has
completed a two year effort to gather new information on the generation, characteristics and
September 1998
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
management of electroplating wastewater treatment sludges (F006). The workgroup's approach
and results are described in detail in the remainder of this report.

B.     The Metal Finishing Industry and Electroplating Wastewater Treatment Sludges

       EPA estimated that there were approximately 13,400 metal finishing establishments in
the United States.3 Of the total, approximately 10,000 metal finishing facilities are estimated to
be "captive" shops where the metal finishing operation is contained inside a larger manufacturing
operation.  The balance of 3,400 metal finishing facilities are "job shops" or "independent" metal
finishing operations. Job shops are usually small businesses that operate on a job-specific
contract basis.4 The total number of plating shops has  decreased since the 1970's, mainly as a
result of increasing regulatory burden and competition. One source estimates that the number of
metal finishers decreased to as low as 7,200 in 1992.5

       Metal finishing refers to processes which deposit or "plate" a thin layer of metal and/or an
additional organic topcoat as an outer coating on products received from other manufacturing
operations.  Metal finishing is performed for either functional or decorative purposes and affects
many products we use everyday.  A large percentage of all metal or metalized products require
surface finishing before the product is ready for final use. Some examples of functional uses
include: hard chrome plating to increase hardness and durability in engine parts; zinc plating to
increase the corrosion resistance of fasteners; tin and silver plating electrical contacts in electrical
distribution switches for electrical enhancement and corrosion resistance; and gold plating in
high quality communications applications. Chrome plating automobile bumpers is an example of
a decorative plating process.6

       Metal plating involves a sequence of steps, including metal surface preparation and
cleaning, metal deposition, rinsing, and wastewater treatment. The electroplating step involves
immersing an object into a solution of metal ions and applying an external reductive source.
Control of the electrical current, solution temperature, pH, and solution chemistry determines the
thickness of the deposit. Other forms of metal finishing and plating are used by some shops, e.g.,
electroless plating, however, they are not the focus of this study. Table 2, below,  lists frequently
used metals and their applications.

C.     F006 Sludge Generation and Management
       3 USEPA, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. SUSTAINABLE INDUSTRY: Promoting
Environmental Protection in the Industrial Sector, Phase 1 Report. June 1994.
               cT

       4 Borst, Paul A. U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste.  Recycling of Wastewater Treatment Sludges from
Electroplating Operations. F006. 1997.

       5 Kirk-Othmer. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology (4th ed.), 199-888, v.9

       6 USEPA, Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste F006 Listing Background Document p. 107.
September 1998
10
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
       As in many manufacturing processes, some portion of the materials used in production or
in the product itself are not totally captured as salable product, and exit the process in
wastewater, solid waste, airborne emissions, scrap metal, or off-spec products.  Captive shops,
which repeat the same plating operations over time, use a  relatively homogeneous mix of
Table 2. Frequently Used Metals and Their Applications
Property/Function
Decorative
Corrosion resistance
Wear, lubricity, hardness
Bearings
Joining, soldering, brazing, electrical
contact resistance, conductivity
Barrier coatings, anti-diffusion, heat-
treatment
Electromagnetic shielding
Paint/lacquer base, rubber bonding
Electroforming manufacturing
Electronics manufacturing
Dimensional buildup, salvage of worn
parts
Principal Plating Metals
Chromium, copper, nickel, brass, bronze, gold, silver, platinum, zinc
Nickel, chromium, electroless nickel, zinc, cadmium, copper, copper
alloys, silver, tin, gold
Chromium, electroless nickel, bronze, nickel, cadmium, silver, tin,
metal composites
Copper, bronze, silver, silver alloys, lead-tin
Nickel, electroless nickel, electroless copper, copper, cadmium, gold,
silver, lead-tin, tin, cobalt
Nickel, cobalt, iron, copper, bronze, tin-nickel, palladium
Copper, electroless copper, nickel, electroless nickel, zinc
Zinc, tin, chromium; brass
Copper, nickel
Electroless copper, copper, electroless nickel, nickel, gold, palladium
Chromium, nickel, electroless nickel, iron, silver
Source: Electroplating Engineering Handbook, 1996.

chemicals and, consequently, generate a relatively contant mix of wastes.  Job shops are more
likely to change processes to meet the demand of a range of customers, which changes the mix of
materials used to plate products and the mix and concentration of wastes generated. This
difference in operations drives differences in the wastes generated by these shops.

       F006 sludge is formed by adding precipitation chemicals in electroplating,wastewater
treatment systems. The precipitation chemicals are used to remove toxic metals and other
hazardous constituents from the wastewater, a large portion of which settle to the bottom as
sludge.  The sludge (F006) is a very wet metal hydroxide mixture that is removed from the
treatment tank and usually "dewatered" in large presses, leaving a wet mud that is generally 25
percent solids by weight. Sludges are sometimes dried to further reduce moisture content and
weight. The sludge is stored in containers, such as, "super sacks," or larger "roll off boxes," and
is sent by truck or rail to RCRA permitted treatment and disposal facilities, or to hazardous waste
September 1998
11
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
permitted recycling facilities, which recover economically valuable metals from the sludge and
land dispose the remaining material.

       The metals contained in F006 have commercial value if they are present in sufficient
concentrations and if other analytes in the sludge are below levels which would interfere with the
metal recovery process.  There may be other materials contained in the sludge which do not
interfere with metals recovery, but which could be hazardous if improperly managed. Recycling
facilities generally blend F006 shipments from several generators to meet recycling specifications
for a particular target metal in the sludge. Secondary smelting, which is the most frequently used
recovery technology, "melts" a target metal (e.g., copper) from mixtures of F006, scrap copper,
and other copper containing secondary materials.  Often multiple metals are captured.  Smelting
wastes are generally land disposed.

       Estimates of the amounts of sludge that are recycled or land disposed vary widely. One
source estimates that between 10 and 20 percent is recycled and between 80 and 90 percent of
F006 is treated and disposed of through stabilization and placement in RCRA hazardous waste
landfills.7  In 1993, the National Association of Metal Finishers estimated that approximately 15
to 20 percent of F006 is  recycled for metal recovery.8 EPA's Biennial Reporting  System (BRS)
indicates that 824  metal  finishers which are large quantity (more than 1,000 kg/month) generators
of hazardous waste) recycled 282,000 tons of F006 in 1995, and 283  large quantity metal
finishing generators treated9 and disposed of 99,000 tons of F006 in  RCRA regulated landfills
per year.  The results contained in today's report are inconclusive and do not narrow the wide
variation in recycling estimates. These figures are explained in more detail in Appendix B.10

D.    Basis for Listing F006-Electroplating Wastewater Treatment Sludges as a RCRA
       Hazardous Waste in 1980

       In the early 1970's, the U.S. enacted legislation to reduce discharges of pollutants to U.S.
waters. In subsequent years, EPA, States and local governments developed wastewater
pretreatment regulations which require industry, including metal finishers, to significantly reduce
or eliminate pollutants from their wastewater before sending their wastewater to publicly owned
       7 Borst, Paul A. U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste.  Recycling of Wastewater Treatment Sludges from
Electroplating Operations. F006. 1997.

       8 op. cit.

         Prior to land disposal, F006 must be treated to meet the treatment standards specified in EPA's Land
Disposal Restrictions regulations, 40 CFR Part 268, to immobilize toxic constituents, mainly metals. Stabilization is
one technology that may be utilized, however, other technologies may be used.

        10  The Biennial Reporting System is not designed to provide "treatment train" (e.g., stabilization followed
by landfilling) information. Therefore, in an effort to avoid double counting, these quantities were calculated from
facilities reporting F006 management as either recycling or landfilling. In other words, the majority of the wastes
go through some interim management steps (e.g., stabilization, blending) not accounted for in these calculations. It
would be virtually impossible to account for the final management of sludge going through offsite treatment prior to
final disposition. In this case, only about 25% of the volume generated is accounted for.
September 1998
12
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
sewer treatment systems (40 CFR Part 413), Final Federal standards were promulgated
July,1986 (at 40 CFR §§413 and 433).

       Solid waste legislation in 1976, i.e., RCRA, required EPA to designate categories of
industrial waste which are "hazardous," and to issue regulations which ensure safe generation,
storage, transportation, treatment and disposal of these wastes. Metal finishers were among the
first industries to be regulated under the hazardous waste regulations in 1980.

       EPA "listed" the wastewater treatment sludges from certain electroplating operations as a
hazardous waste (hazardous waste code F006) under Subtitle C of RCRA11 in 1980 based on a
variety of factors (45 F.R. 74884, November 12,1980).  Key to this decision were typically high
levels of cadmium, nickel, hexavalent chromium and complexed cyanides in the sludge that
could pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health and the environment if
improperly managed. The Extraction Procedure Toxicity Characteristic (or EP) test used at that
time (at 43 FR 58956-58957); and the ASTM distilled water leaching test, showed that these
metals leached out of the sludge in significant concentrations, which increased the possibility of
groundwater contamination if these wastes were improperly disposed.  Leaching tests run by the
American Electroplaters' Society (AES) under an EPA grant yielded cyanide leach
concentrations of 0.5 to 170 mg/1, cadmium levels of non-detectable to 268 mg/1, and chromium
levels of 0.12 to 400 mg/1.
         »
       At that time, EPA also estimated that a majority of metal finishers discharged their
wastewater to POTWs without treating the wastewater. The remainder discharged to waters of
the U.S., on-site lagoons, or surface impoundments. Based upon data collected from 48 facilities
that did not treat their waste in 1976, EPA estimated that 20 percent disposed of their solid waste
on-site while 80 percent sent their solid waste off-site for disposal in a municipal or commercial
landfill.

       Prior to the issuance of RCRA hazardous waste regulations in 1980, there were no
Federal requirements for management of metal finishing sludges. Disposal practices  included
landfilling, lagooning, drying, beds and drum burial. These sites frequently lacked leachate and
runoff control practices, which increased the risk of percolation of heavy metals and cyanides
into soils, groundwater and  surface waters. Numerous damage incidents (e.g., contaminated
wells, destruction of animal life) attributable to improper electroplating waste disposal were
reported, indicating that mismanagement was an actual, rather than  a perceived or potential
threat. The long term persistence of heavy metals in the environment increased the potential  for
risk. The data EPA used for its listing determination came from various sources. Some of the
data was over 20 years old while other data used in the determination was current at that time.
       " A solid waste may be classified as a hazardous wastes if: 1) it exhibits a characteristic for ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity (40 CFR Part 261 Subpart C), or 2) if, classified as a listed waste (40 CFR Subpart
D),
September 1998
13
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
       Tables 3a and 3b are taken from EPA's F006 listing regulatory support documents
(1980). Table 3 a summarizes the chemical composition of typical electroplating baths used in
the 1970's.  Table 3b summarizes information on heavy metal concentrations in sludges.
Table 3a: Typical Electroplating Baths and Their Chemical Composition
Plating Compound
1 . Cadmium Cyanide
2. Cadmium Fluoborate
3. Chromium Electroplate
4. Copper Cyanide •
5. Electroless Copper
6. Gold Cyanide
7. Acid Nickel
8. Silver Cyanide
9. ZincSulfate
Constituents
Cadmium oxide
Cadmium
Sodium cyanide
Sodium hydroxide
Cadmium fluoborate
Cadmium (metal)
Ammonium fluoborate
Boric acid
Licorice
Chromic acid
Sulfate
Fluoride
Copper cyanide
Free sodium cyanide
Sodium carbonate
Rochelle salt
Copper nitrate
Sodium bicarbonate
Rochelle salt
Sodium hydroxide
Formaldehyde (3 7%)
Gold (as potassium gold cyanide)
Potassium cyanide
Potassium carbonate
Depotassium phosphate
Nickel sulfate
Nickel chloride
Boric acid
Silver cyanide
Potassium cyanide
Potassium carbonate
Metallic silver
Free cyanide
Zinc sulfate
Sodium sulfate
Magnesium sulfate
Concentration (g/I)
22.5
19.5
77.9
14.2
251.2
94.4 '
. 59.0
27.0
1.1
172.3
1.3
0.7
26.2
5.6
37.4
44.9
15
' 10
30
20
100 ml/1
8
30
30
30
330
45
37
35.9
• 59.9
15.0
23.8
•41.2
374.5
71.5
59.9-
Source: EPA F006 Listing Background Document, 1980
September 1998
14
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Table 3b: Heavy Metal Content for Chromium and Cadmium in Electroplating Sludges (Dry Weight ppm) |
Primary Plating Process
Segregated Zinc
Segregated Cadmium
Zinc Plating and Chromating
Copper-Nickel-Chromium on Zinc
Aluminum anodizing (chromic process)
Nickel-Chromium on steel
Multi-process job
Electroless Copper on Plastic, Acid Copper, Nickel Chromium
Multi-process with Barrel or Vibratory Finish
Printed Circuits
Nickel-Chromium on Steel
Cadmium-Nickel-Copper on Brass and Steel
Chromium
200
62,000
.65,000
500
1,700
14,000
25,000
137,000
570
3,500
79,200
48,900
Cadmium
<100
22,000
1,100
ND
ND
-
1,500
ND
-
<100
<100
. . 500
Source: EPA F006 Listing Background Document, 1980

       Only certain metal finishing sludges were listed as hazardous wastes.  Others studied
were determined to not pose a substantial hazard.  Regulated F006 includes:

       Waste-water treatment sludges from electroplating operations except from the following
       processes: (1) sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum; (2) tin plating on carbon steel; (3)
       zinc plating (segregated basis)  on carbon steel; (4) aluminum or zinc-aluminum plating
       on carbon steel; (5)  cleaning/stripping associated with tin, zinc, and aluminum plating on
       carbon steel; and (6) chemical  etching and milling of aluminum, (see 40 CFR 261.31)

       The promulgation of effluent guidelines for the metal finishing industry in 1986
significantly increased the quantities of wastewater treatment sludge generated. This increase
occurred because the guidelines required metal finishers to treat their wastewater to remove or
reduce pollutants prior to discharge to either a publicly owned treatment works (POTW)  or
directly to waters of the U.S. To comply with the effluent guidelines, metal finishers added iron,
lime and other chemicals to precipitate out or destroy pollutants such as chrome, zinc, copper and
cyanide.  The precipitate formed F006  sludge, which was then filtered and managed in
compliance with RCRA regulations.

       Current estimates of annual F006 generation in the United States range from 360,000 tons
dry weight equivalent (F006 industry estimate) to 500,000 tons dry weight equivalent 1,252,072
September 1998
15
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
tons/wet weigth (1989 EPA estimate). Most of this material is in the physical form of metal
hydroxide sludges.12

       F006 is subject to the full set of RCRA hazardous waste regulations (e.g., manifesting
burden, training, emergency response plans). Metal finishers are also subject to OSHA and EPA
worker health and safety regulations to protect workers from the potential effects of any toxic
materials or other hazards in the workplace. Appendix C provides a list of the worker health and
safety regulations and their applicability to metal finishers.

E.     Reasons this Study was Conducted

       The metal finishing industry believed that many metal finishers have significantly
changed the way they operate since 1980, and that the chemical makeup of F006 is more
amenable to recycling than it was in 1980.  The strengthening of wastewater pretreatment,
hazardous waste management, and hazardous waste minimization requirements since 1980 have
had a positive impact on materials used, improved process operations, and better waste
management practices in the metal finishing. These improvements have reduced the pollutants
contained in F006.
The industry also believed that these changes may be substantial enough to warrant modification
of regulatory controls.  This report provides current information about the metal finishing
industry in the U.S. and presents data characterizing F006.

       The metal finishing industry responded to the strengthening of wastewater and hazardous
waste regulations with improvements in alternative plating chemistries, production management
practices, equipment, and waste management technology. For example, the installation of
countercurrent flow, spray rinsing and drag out reduction methods are examples of techniques
that reduce wastewater volumes and the amount of metals and other chemicals used. Some metal
finishing companies installed pollution prevention methods  which are targeted at further reducing
or eliminating the use of specific toxic materials. The most  notable have been: the replacement
of traditional cyanide-based plating solutions (e.g., for zinc and copper plating) with alkaline-
based plating solutions; the substitution of trivalent chromium for highly toxic hexavalent
chromium for some applications; and the replacement of some single metal systems with alloy
systems (e.g., replacing cadmium with zinc-nickel).

       In 1980, EPA published regulations which set standards for permitting hazardous waste
land disposal facilities, and in 1988, EPA promulgated land  disposal restrictions regulations
which require metal finishers to treat F006 to meet the treatment standards specified in this rule.
The rule requires F006 to be treated to immobilize toxic constituents, mainly metals.
Stabilization is one technology that may be utilized, however,  other technologies may be used.
methods before disposing of the waste in landfills.
       12 Borst, Paul A. U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste.  Recycling of Wastewater Treatment Sludges from
Electroplating Operations. F006.  1997.
September 1998
16
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
       The economics of waste disposal result in most F006 being land disposed rather than
recycled because recycling is typically more expensive.  This means potentially recoverable
metals (i.e., those which are land disposed) are no longer available for commerce. Several of the
more prominent metals (e.g., nickel and chromium) are strategic metals which are not available
in the U.S.

       The results of a 1993 study by the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS)
and the National Association of Metal Finishers (NAMF) show that 90 percent of the 318
facilities that responded (16% response rate of 1,971 facilities queried) use pollution prevention
methods and benefitted from them.   Water conservation and in process recycling techniques
were noted to be more frequently used than chemical recovery.  Approximately 60 percent of
respondents attempted material substitution to reduce or eliminate one or more of the following
materials: cadmium, chromium (hexavalent), cyanide, and chlorinated solvents.13

       Some metal finishers recover precious or other metals on site (the number of facilities
that conduct on-site recovery is not available). Other facilities ship F006 to recycling facilities to
recover commercially valuable metals, or to RCRA permitted treatment and disposal facilities.
Table 4 summarizes an array of pollution prevention measures that may be used in metal
finishing operations.  •

Worker Health and Safety

       As part of the benchmarking  study, the workgroup collected information on F006
handling practices, identified the potential hazards to workers, and described possible hazard
control methods. In addition, the workgroup developed a list of the current worker health and
safety regulations and policies that may apply to on-site and off-site management of F006. This
information is presented in Appendix C of this report.  Beyond this information, the workgroup
did not attempt to complete a comprehensive review of worker health and safety issues
associated with F006 management.

       This report presents data collected during the F006 Benchmarking Study as a foundation
for further evaluation of F006. The CSI Workgroup did not attempt to analyze the data to
determine the extent to which the characteristics of F006 have changed based on industry
pollution prevention practices or other factors. In Phase 2 of this efort, the Workgroup will
analyze the information presented in this report, and examine whether potential modifications of
the current regulations applicable to F006 should be considered by EPA.
                   Table 4; Examples of Pollution Prevention Measures
 Method
Pollution Prevention Benefits
 Improved Operating Practices
       13
         NCMS/NAMF.  Pollution Prevention and Control Technology for Plating Operations. 1994.
September 1998
   17
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Table 4: Examples of Pollution Prevention Measures
Method
Remove cadmium and zinc anodes from bath
when it is idle. Anodes baskets can be placed
on removable anode bars that are lifted from
tank by an overhead hoist
Eliminate obsolete processes and/or unused or
infrequently used processes
a
Waste stream segregation of contact and non-
contact wastewaters
Establish written procedures for bath make-up
and additions. Limit chemical handling to
trained personnel. Keep tank addition logs
Install overflow alarms on all process tanks to
prevent tank overflow when adding water to
make up for evaporative losses
Conductivity and pH measurement instruments
and alarm system for detecting significant
chemical losses
Control materialpurchases to minimize obsolete
material disposal
Use process baths to maximum extent possible
before discarding. Eliminate dump schedules.
Perform more frequent chemical analysis
Reduce bath dumps by using filtration to
remove suspended solids contamination
Deburring containment
Ultrafiltration, oil removal
Pollution Prevention Benefits
• Eliminates cadmium/zinc buildup causing decanting of
solution due to galvanic cell set up between steel anode
basket and cadmium/zinc anodes
• Maintains bath within narrow Cd/Zn concentration
providing more predictable plating results
• Reduces risks associated with hazardous chemicals
• Creates floor space to add countercurrent rinses or other P2
methods
• Creates safer and cleaner working environment
• Eliminates dilution of process water prior to treatment
which can increase treatment efficiency
• Reduces treatment reagent usage and operating costs
• Prevents discarding process solutions due to incorrect
formulations or contamination
• Improves plating solution and work quality consistency
•Improves shop safety
• Minimizes potential for catastrophic loss of process solution
via overflow
• Prevents loss of expensive chemicals
* Identifies process solution overflows and leaks before total
loss occurs
* Alerts treatment operators to potential upset condition
• Reduces losses of expensive plating solutions
• Reduces hazardous waste generation
• Reduces chemical purchases
• Prevents discarding of solutions prematurely
• Reduces chemical costs
• Chemical adjustments of baths will improve work quality
• Extends bath life
• Reusable filter cartridges reduce solid waste generation
• Improves bath performance
• Segregates waste
• Removes contaminants from cleaning wastes, promotes
recycling
Process/Chemical Substitution
Substitute cyanide baths with alkaline baths
when possible
Substitute trivalent chromium for hexavalent
chromium when product specifications allow.
• Eliminates use of CN
• Reduces/eliminates use of hexavalent chromium
September 1998
18
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Table 4: Examples of Pollution Prevention Measures
Method
Eliminate use of cadmium plating if product
specifications allow
Eliminate cyanide copper
Introduce deposit substitutes: e.g., Zn-Ni alloy
replaces cadmium
Pollution Prevention Benefits
• Eliminates the use of cadmium
• Eliminates use of CN
• Eliminates use of Cd
Drag-Out Reduction Methods that Reduce Waste Generation
Install fog rinses or sprays over process tanks to
remove drag out as rack/part exits bath
Minimize the formation of drag out by:
redesigning parts and racks/barrels to avoid cup
shapes, etc. that hold solution; properly racking
parts; and reducing rack/part withdraw speed
Introduction of barrel spray rinsing
Automation control
• Can inexpensively recover a substantial portion of drag out
and does not require additional tankage
•Reduces pollutant mass loading on treatment processes,
treatment reagent usage, and resultant sludge generation
• May improve treatment operation/removal efficiency
• Reduces chemical purchases and overall operating costs
• Reduces pollutant mass loading on treatment processes,
treatment reagent usage, and resultant sludge generation
• Reduces process error and process waste
Rinse Water Reduction Methods. that Reduce Waste Generation . . ...
Install flow restrictors to control the flow rate of
water
Install conductivity or timer rinse controls to
match rinse water needs with use
Use counter-current rinse arrangement with two
to four tanks in series depending on drag out
rate
Track water use with flow meters and
accumulators. Keep logs on water use for
individual operations /*-• /
Ml
tr~-
Install pulsed spray rinsing
• Reduces water use and aids in reducing variability in
wastewater flow
• Very inexpensive to purchase and install
• Coordinates water use and production when properly
implemented
• Provides automatic control of water use
• Major water reduction can be achieved
• High impact on water bills
• May reduce the size of needed recovery/treatment
equipment
• Identifies problem areas including inefficient processes or
personnel • "
-• Helps management to determine cost for individual plating
processes.
• Reduced wastewater generation
Source: NCMS/NAMF:  Pollution Prevention and Control Technology for Plating Operations. 1994
September 1998
19
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
II.     NATIONAL F006 BENCHMARKING STUDY APPROACH

A.     Overview

       The workgroup focused on three analytical questions to guide its work on characterizing
current practices in the metal finishing industry, and the composition and management of F006:

       1) What are the characteristics of F006?
       2) What can metal finishers do  to make F006 more recyclable, while optimizing
       pollution prevention? What pollution prevention measures are in place at metal finishing
       facilities?
       3) What are the environmental impacts of F006 recycling?

       While not an initial focus in this effort, the workgroup also examined worker health and
safety impacts in this study.

       The workgroup then  designed a two year study methodology to address the three
analytical objectives. The study methodology is discussed below.

       The technical work required for this study was completed by Science Applications
International Corporation under contract to EPA. The contract work was managed by an EPA
workgroup member working in close coordination with the workgroup.  The workgroup
monitored progress and critiqued results throughout the analysis process.

B.     Methodology

       The workgroup designed a five part "benchmarking" study approach to address the three
analytical questions identified above. A Quality Assurance Project Plan was developed  and
approved for this study and  is available in a separate report14. The five portions of the study are
summarized below and discussed in more detail in the remainder of this section.  The five study
portions include:
       D.
A "Regional Benchmarking Study" that involved site visits to 29 metal finishing
shops in three cities to gather detailed data on plating processes, pollution
prevention practices, F006 chemical analysis and F006 handling and management
practices;
             A "National Benchmarking Study" that used a mail survey to gather less detailed
             data on metal finishing operations, pollution prevention practices, F006
             characteristics and management practices from a broad range of metal finishers;
       14USEPA, Office of Solid Waste. Quality Assurance Project Plan For the Metal Finishing
Industry. October, 1997.
September 1998
                             20
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
       •      An analysis which evaluates the extent to which the regional and national
              benchmarking studies represent the universe of metal finishers.

       •      A Survey of Commercial Recycling Companies to gather data on the amount of
              F006 recycled and the chemical composition of F006 accepted for recycling, and

       •      A "Community Interest Group Phone Survey" to assess whether community
              groups in the vicinity of commercial recycling companies believe those companies
              are good environmental and/or economic neighbors.
       Each of the above components of the study involved a series of analytical steps. The
approach used to complete each study component is described below.  The results are presented
in Section III of this report.

1. Regional Benchmarking Study

       The workgroup developed a method for identifying and gathering information from metal
finishing companies that are judged to be "typical" facilities in the metal finishing universe.

       The workgroup identified ten cities that are known to have high populations of metal
finishing facilities.  Milwaukee, Chicago, and Phoenix were chosen as cities which are
representative of the metal finishing  industry in terms of the processes they use and the industries
they serve.

       The workgroup agreed on a list of criteria for selecting facilities, and tried to include, as
much as possible, a balanced distribution of the following criteria in making facility selections:

              •       Type of shop: captive/job,
              •       Size: number of employees,
              •       Type of deposition process in use,
              •       Pollution prevention technologies in use,
              •       In-house metal recovery technologies:
                     -- counterflow rinse,
                     — ultrafiltration/microfiltration,
                     — other ion exchanges,
                     — electrolytic metal recovery,
                     — electrodialysis, or
                     -- reverse osmosis; and
              •       F006 treatment technology:
                     — alkaline precipitation,
                     — offsite metals recovery,
                     «landfilling of F006,
                     — other.

       The workgroup developed additional information regarding the third criteria listed above,
"type of deposition process in use. The workgroup identified five plating processes which are
among the most frequently used processes in the  metal finishing industry.  Studying facilities that
September 1998
21

F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
operate these processes would provide the workgroup with key information about these common
processes. The five processes included:

              -Zinc (Zn) plated on steel,
              -Nickel (Ni)/chromium (Cr) plated on steel, followed by plated on steel,
              -Cu/Ni/Cr on non-ferrous alloys,
              -Cu plating/stripping in the printed circuit industry, and
              -Cr on steel.

       These five processes are among the 25 most common processes identified in the
NCMS/NAMF study (1994), and were the main criteria in selecting facilities in Milwaukee.
Facility selection in Chicago began using the five processes, but resulted in a principal focus on
facilities that operate copper/nickel/chromium electroplate on nonferrous processes, a plating
process used by one-half of Chicago platers.  Facility  selection in Phoenix focused on obtaining
data from metal finishers that serviced the printed circuit board and aerospace industries.

       The workgroup identified a Point of Contact (POC) in each city. The POC and the
workgroup identified  10 facilities and several alternates located in or near each of the three
benchmarking cities that fit the criteria sought for each city and were willing to participate in the
study.  At their request, facilities remained anonymous to the workgroup throughout the
selection and information gathering process.  Facilities are identified as Fl, F4, Fl 1, etc.

       A facility selection table was completed for each city (see Section IV), and the workgroup
made its selections based on the criteria  discussed above. An overview of facility selection for
each city is discussed below.

       Milwaukee: The POC gathered information on 15 facilities, from which the workgroup
selected 10 facilities and three alternates. Each of the 10 facilities and three alternates was
contacted to schedule a site visit for completing a profile of operations and waste sampling and
analysis. Three of the 10 facilities were  eliminated during the site visits because it was
determined that their sludges are not F006, and the three alternates were added. The third
alternate was subsequently  eliminated because their sludge is excluded from the definition of
F006.  Consequently, only nine facilities were included in the Milwaukee benchmarking study.

       Chicago: The POC in Chicago identified 14 metal finishers willing to participate in the
study, from which the workgroup selected 10 and three alternates. Each of the ten facilities and
alternates was contacted to  schedule site visits.

       Phoenix: The POC in Phoenix identified 13 metal finishers, from which the workgroup
selected 10 facilities and three alternates. One facility was eliminated during the site visit
because it plated every two months as a batch operation and no F006 sludge was available during
the time of the study.  An alternate site was added.

       A survey was mailed to each facility to gather basic data from facility records (Appendix
F contains a copy of the Regional Benchmarking Survey).  On-site visits were completed to
gather detailed data on metal finishing processes, pollution prevention practices, recycling
September 1998
22
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
practices, F006 quantities, and F006 handling and management practices (handling practices
were recorded only in Chicago and Phoenix). The site visit information collection protocol is
provided in Appendix D.

       In addition to gathering information on plating processes, pollution prevention methods,
F006 generation quantities and F006 management, a total of 46 composite samples of F006 were
collected from the 29 facilities and transported to an EPA certified laboratory for chemical
analysis and quality assurance methods. Two samples of F006 sludge were collected at some
facilities (selected at random) as spot checks for variability in chemical content.  All samples
were analyzed for total concentrations of metals, TCLP metals, and general chemistry analytes.
Four of the samples collected in Milwaukee were also analyzed for total volatile and semivolatile
organic constituents, and TCLP volatile and semivolatile organic constituents, but since the
results of the organic analysis in Milwaukee showed nondetectable levels in nearly all cases, no
further organics testing was completed in the remaining two cities. See Appendix E for a list of
all chemicals analyzed. The laboratory results were reviewed for accuracy and completeness and
provided to each facility for review and comment.

2. National Benchmarking Study

       The workgroup developed a survey for gathering data on metal finishing operations,
pollution prevention practices, F006 characteristics and sludge management practices from a
large sample of the universe of metal finishers. The data categories contained in the survey are
similar to the regional benchmarking protocol, but less detailed. Appendix G contains the survey
used for the National Benchmarking Study.

       Nearly 2,000 surveys were distributed by mail using the mailing list of NAMF and AESF,
and by hand at a metal finishers national technical conference. 186 responses (9 percent) were
received. The data was compiled into a computer data base.

3. Statistical Analysis of the Regional and National Benchmarking Data

       A chi-squares analysis was completed to determine the extent to which the facilities
included in the regional and national benchmarking studies represent the universe of metal
finishers for demographic parameters.  Benchmarking results were compared to the universe of
F006 generators in the Dunn  & Bradstreet and EPA 1995 Biennial Report national databases.
The results are presented in Section III.

4. Survey of Commercial Recyclers

       The workgroup developed a survey to gather data from six commercial recycling
companies believed to be  representative of the commercial F006 recycling industry. The survey
requested data on the amount and chemical composition of F006 they recycle. Few data were
received. The results were inclusive and are not provided in this report.  A copy of the
Recyclers' Survey is contained in Appendix H.

5. Survey of Community Environmental Groups
September 1998
23
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
       A "community interest group phone survey" was developed by the workgroup to make a
preliminary assessment of whether ten community groups community groups in the vicinity of
commercial recycling companies believe those companies are good environmental and/or
economic neighbors. In order to promote candid responses, the workgroup agreed that
respondents could remain anonymous.  Each group was asked the following questions:

       •   Is the group aware of environmental impacts from the recycling facility?
       •   Is the group aware of economic impacts from the recycling facility?
       •   Is the facility considered a "good neighbor?"

       A summary of responses is provided in Section IV. Individual responses are provided in
Appendix I.

III.     RESULTS OF THE F006 BENCHMARKING STUDY

       The Regional and National  Benchmarking Studies produced a large body of current data
concerning facility operations, pollution prevention activities, F006 generation and management,
and F006 composition.  Section A below presents summaries of the data. Section B presents the
data in detail.

A.     Summaries of Regional and National Benchmarking F006 Waste Characterization
Data

1.  Benchmarking Summary Tables

       Table  5 summarizes the minimum, mean, median, and maximum analytical results for
each chemical analyzed for each of the three cities. The values presented represent only clearly
measurable laboratory results.  Non-detected samples (i.e., samples below laboratory detection
limits) and samples detected but below the laboratory quantitation limit (below the limit for
accurate chemical measurement) are not included.  Table 6 compares same statistics for the three
cities to F006 waste composition data received in the National Benchmarking Survey. Table 7
summarizes the results of the National Survey.

2.  Statistical Analysis:  Does this Data Come from "Typical" Metal Finishers?

       Statistical analyses are often used to determine the extent to which a sample selected from
a population represents the larger population from a statistical perspective, require  carefully
designed sample selection and testing procedures, and  are generally time consuming and
expensive.  Because of its specialized design (i.e., to provide the workgroup with a highly
descriptive set of data from metal finishing facilities which run the most "typical" plating
processes in the industry), the workgroup was limited in its abililty to compare Benchmarking
data to other databases which contain information on the metal finishing universe.
Notwithstanding the specialized design of the Benchmarking study, the workgroup completed a
statistical comparison of Benchmarking results to two national databases which contain some
information on the metal finishing universe.
September 1998
24
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
       The analysis used a chi-squares statistical method to compare the only three parameters
(facility size and location, and the amount of F006 waste generated) contained in the
benchmarking studies and in other national databases which contain information on metal
finishing facilities, i.e., the Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) business/economic database and EPA's
1995 Biennial Reporting System (BRS) database. The analysis results show that the facilities
participating are not necessarily representative of the universe of metal finishers. It is possible
that a larger number of participants in the Benchmarking Studies or a different mix of
participants could have provided results that show a more direct relationship between
Benchmarking and national data (D&B and BRS).  This result does not diminish the value of the
Benchmarking study. The Benchmarking Study provides substantial additional data
characterizing the industry's wastestream and provides a sound starting point for further
discussion.

3. Results of Commercial Recyclers and Citizen Group Surveys

       The workgroup received too few responses to the commercial recyclers survey to draw
any conclusions. Responses to the citizen group brief phone interviews received nearly complete
responses and revealed no significant adverse opinions regarding whether these facilities are
perceived as good environmental and economic neighbors. The results of the citizen group
phone survey is summarized Appendix I.
September 1998
25
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------

-------
I
0
I
.2

1
X
<
E
A
•S
7
a
<
i
       J' .. 3
        ts
       5*1
      II11
      HI?
     111!
     Jill
     «•££-
       IPS
    i
      111
      Ill
                    Siii
                          sTI
                                                      I
                                                             U u
                                                            Mil

-------

-------
       III
       lr
       n
        •Jj t

      J
-------

-------
Table 7: F006 Analytical Data from the National Survey: Excludes non-detects and includes only
values above method quantitation limit. 70 of 186 respondents submitted characterization data.
Constituent
# of Reported
Detections
Minimum
Mean
Median
Maximum
Tola) Metals (mg/kg)
Aluminum (Al)
Antimony (Sb)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Beryllium (Be)
Bismuth (Bi)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Chromium (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Magnesium (Mg)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Nickel (Ni)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Sodium (Na)
Tin (Sn)
Zinc (Zn)
34
22
35
38
20
7
39
28
60
51
38
47
14
28
30
44
35
30
9
28
48
0.59
1.80
2.00
6.00
0.59
2.10
2.10
682.00
10.00
33.60
364.00
5.00
187.00
13.00
0.05
51.00
1.900
1.50
25.00
9.00
57.00
13,387.89
2,188.23
489.67
199.27
12.55
50.86
6,122.32
37,239.28
39,601.20
55,474.35
82,420.74
5,754.10
48,798.09
830.91
0.39
23,456.33
7.86
169.64
18,458.37
20,906.06
88,692.44
1,725.00
67.40
10.00
73.70
8.50
29.00
22,00
17,250.00
13,900.00
10,620.00
48,950.00
346.00
10,800.00
563.00
0.30
5,935.00
6.50
87.50
11,000.00
1,100.00
24,600.00
76,100.00
34,800.00
8,780.00
1,080.00
37.00
398.00
71,300.00
143,000.00
206,000.00
631,000.00
560,000.00
175,000.00
336,000.00
3,300.00
2.00
180,000.00
16.60
1,190.00
89,200.00
467,000.00
460,000.00
TCLP(mg/l) ' .
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
17
16
18.
20
IS
15
16
17
ND
0.26
0.02
0.02
0.06
0.001
0.08
0.01
ND
1.29
8.36
9.48
113.97
0.005
0.08
0.67
ND
1.45
0.11
0.92
0.13
0.005
0.08
0.06
ND
2.20
144.00
56.20
1,630.00
0.011
0.08
3.80
General Chemistry (mg/kg)
Chloride (Cl)
Fluoride (F)
Chromium, hex
Cyanide, Total (CM)
Cyanide, Am (CN)
Percent Solids
20
13
15
25
11

64
1.2
0.1
0.8
2.6
13.5
8,035.09
719.06
108.89
692.47
609.56
37.65
2,225.00
161.00
11.00
114.50
51.00
30.80
70,100.00
4,240.00
1,190.00
3,920.00
5,340.00
94.10
September 1998
28
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------

-------
B. Detailed Results of the Regional and National Benchmarking Studies

       This section provides the detailed results of data gathering for the Regional and National
Benchmarking Studies.

1. The Milwaukee Benchmarking Study

       This section provides a detailed presentation of data gathered in the Milwaukee
Benchmarking Study (MBS), including a characterization of plating processes, pollution
prevention and recycling practices, F006 characteristics, and site specific variations in the
generation and management of F006 for nine facilities in Milwaukee.  Table 8 is the facility
selection matrix used to select  10 facilities from 13 candidates.  Table 9 presents information
collected for each facility in the study. Table 10 summarizes the results of the laboratory
analyses of F006 data and Table 11 presents detailed laboratory analysis results for each facility.

       Six of the nine facilities reported waste generation rates.  The total  reported waste
quantity for Milwaukee is approximately 590.5 tons/year. Four facilities reported landfilling
their F006 waste while four facilities reported recycling their F006 wastes. One facility sent half
of its F006 waste to landfills, and the other half to commercial recycling. Sixteen laboratory
samples were gathered from nine facilities. Four of these samples were for organic chemicals.
September 1998
29
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
——







X
'1,
t«
S
o
•PM
ts
2m
"3
O)
^»
S
3
cL
p*4
DJD
a
1 Finishi
«
•^^
u
S
£
^
M
^
i
• »
oo
^
z
re
H




- §
Ov «
O V
r* S
b. "3
e
« f
00 «
IS
fc •«
ss.

r***
w
£


VO
u
£

m u
,^
IS
b ~
ss
/— »
•a
"* &
u w
es «
b •«
c«
t***
* ^
^ g
w >-
£^
NMI'

r^
* H

3

_o
5


.0
o


1
U


JO
O
>-n
U
>
'1
U

JD
o
H-J



•i



s



Type: Captive/Job

o
00

VI
f*»


o
VO


0
s
&


o
 1— 1
§

js


g
o


c*
b
O


ftS
b
U
3
£§£
OjM

oi
b
U


->
t±H
i
«;
b
O
_j
OS
b
O



Treatment Technology

^
ov

CM

o
Z



o
Z



1



u
"o
&
u
<*
s
«
8

XO
0^
l/~l

^
S


I
•^r


S
>n


£
>

0)
u

#
o
0



1


vO




Landfill
J-
*O
!

b

u
"o
£
s
»

1
*
«n
O\


UH
-J

b

b




_U
"u
&

c4


b



T3
o
1
i
^
c
'3
S
01 O
b u ^ ft
"s y "7 o
lzl =
O
Z
4
ft
K
«S
|^ «
N Ǥ

-
S§§
N M

_ y u w
G$y %
KlZN
O

b S u
cu$
N 55 Z

£
1
N



U


u




Finishing Processes






C/)
"S S3
3J S
21
o §
» e
T5 •
— C
0, 0
T> S 6 -
a ^ 1 S
t« u 'S -^
§55 | S
•a S I •§ 1 2
tn « _£« .3 _ S B
S. 1 8- e Ji •« -1
^ 1 2 £ -o u S
i S S •§ 's £ 1
S S2 •» 15 « £ °
y S o •* & &"S
^ S .s .a & o !s
pa c4 N Z U O E


e rs o
: . t> t«-i u
'* l«-g
c a g g 3
o o M <5 -3 H
T3 « u S r* S
ta oo o % .,
* Eliminated because the>
Key:
Alk/PPT Alkaline precipit
IX Ion exchanj
Ultra Ultraflltrati
CFR Counterflo
EMR Electrolytic
1
co
 Ml

I
m
oo
o\
ON
QQ

-------









^^
"a
S,
X
S
S3
|
1
"3
cc
•g
A
Ml
ft
2
.2
.S
i
s
s
at
i






00
1— 1
u
i2
5^
*o g
<2|
sf
SJ
fe£
s^1

1



Facl4
Selected
"w*
^^
fH4 ^rf
l|

«M
U
.2
Facll
(Alternate)

*f
w ^
S^X





Selection Criteria

o

_>
'o.
as
U
u
U


I
U



;§


^
^


X)
o
1— >
o

3






| Type: Captive/Job

S

rn
o
£
o
ON
O
O
Wl


rj-
I



O


o



I/I
o
1
o

o






§
00
fc
S
5
fc

<
fc
<


Alk/PPT
offsite



Alk/PPT


1 fe
O °

4> .
*#M  S
3> P
- 1
ex o
g ^3 6 "^3
i-t O 3 U
en 4> 3 •«-»
.gl|l|ll
•^ 1 S £ "o u £

2 2 "1 •«; u « "S
Jsjassi
S3 cei SI 2 UU K


$
SO ^ ^ 3 a O
on N 2 u u ac





o
2 ^ u"
o> ^3 >•
QJ ^-H CJ
ao o u
0 U 0 J^
c B 5 S S
o o M c -n S
•O •» ea S I" S
. ja ofl O % ,.
* Eliminated because thej
Key:
Alk/PPTAlkaline precipil
IX Ion exchan
Ultra Ultraflltrati
CFR Counterflo
EMR Electrolyti<
t
 g,
 I
o
o
oo
 u
 8-
CO

-------
Table 9: Facility-Specific Information for Milwaukee Facilities
Facility F4
Platiag Process -' F606 Quantity and Management
Nickel-chrome on Aluminum 146 tons/yr
Zinc (non-CN) on Steel
Decorative nickel-chrome on Steel Landfill
Pollution Prevention Practices
SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS
Implementation of high temperature zinc baths to eliminate partial bath
dumps
Replaced hexavalent Cr with Trivalent Cr on decorative Cr line
Elimination of all cyanide plating baths
Substitution of chromate and dichromate seal with non-chrome sealer
Constant development of alternative plating technologies
Filtration on nickel recovery unit
Electrolytic dummying
Precipitation and monitoring of spent plating solutions
Uses purer anodes and bags
Tooling attention/maintenance on scrubbers
Evaporation techniques on nickel portion of chrome line
Chemical usage reduction through substitution - replaced hard chrome
with decorative chrome
Oil removal techniques
DRAG-OUT REDUCTION
Enhanced product hang times
Uses wetting agents occasionally
Drainage boards
Strategic workpiece positioning
Withdrawal and drainage time
Diking
RINSEWATER
Counter-current flow rinse systems for 1 plating line
Flow restrictors done with weirs
Use conductivity meters to monitor the quality of final rinses
Reuse electrocleaner rinse water as dilute plating bath solution
Reuse acid rinse waters for rinsing racks exiting soak cleaner
Evaporative recovery of Ni rinse waters
Closed-loop wastewater systems on Ni and Hex. Cr lines
OTHER
Chemical inventory and control
Conducts annual plant assessments and housekeeping
Preventive maintenance systems
Increased temperature of bath
Product longevity through specification alteration
Sample Description
Fl-01 - Sludge sample collected
directly from drop bin
F 1-02 - Sludee collected from
supersack dated the previous month
Sample Characteristics (Dry wt)
Fl - 01 Fl - 02
Total (ma/kg) Total (ma/kg)
Al- 3 1,200 Al- 17,300
Sb-5.5 Sb-1.8
As - 9.9 As - 9.3
Ba-41.9 Ba-34.3
Be-ND Be-ND
Bi - 2.7 Bi - 3.3
Cd - 7.5 Cd - 9.6
Ca- 24,800 Ca- 17,500
Cr- 59,500 Cr- 64,900
Hex. Cr - 0.6 Hex. Cr - 0.6
Cu-130 Cu- 1,480
Fe - 25,000 Fe - 27,700
Pb - 297 Pb - 366
Mg- 15,800 Mg- 17,400
Mn- 1,710 Mn-399
Hg-2 Hg-ND
Ni- 19,900 Ni- 18,200
Se-16.6 Se-16
Ag - 267 Ag - 97.9
Na- 8,360 Na- 2 1,700
Sn - 404 Sn - 582
Zn - 336,000 Zn - 335,000
CN-ND CN-ND
TCLP(mg/l) TCLP fme/H
As - ND As - ND
Ba-0.3 Ba-1.4
Cd-0.04 Cd-0.1
Cr-40.6 Cr-56.2
Pb-ND Pb-0.1
Hg - ND Hg - ND
Se-ND Se-ND
Ag - 0.05 Ag - ND
September 1998
32
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Table 9 (cont'd): Facility-Specific Information for Milwaukee Facilities
Facility F5
Plating Process FOQ6 Quantity aad Management
Zinc (non-CN) on steel 42.5 tons/yr
Cu/Ni/Cr on steel
Nickel chrome on steel Recycle (Horsehead)
Nickel plating
Hard chrome on steel
Pollution Prevention Practices
SPENT PLATING SOLUTION
Copper and nickel strips are sent out in liquid form for recycling reducing
quantity of F006
Filtration, carbon treatment, replenishment, and electrolytic dummying for
bath life extension
Replaced cyanide zinc plating with zinc alkaline plating
Planning to change to non-cyanide copper plating in 1997.
Oil removal techniques on pre-cleaning line
Chemical usage reduction through automated addition of brightener
Product longevity dirough specification alteration
Alternate stripping methodologies - replaced cyanide solution with non-
cyanide solution to strip nickel
DRAG OUT REDUCTION/RECOVERY
Mesh pad Mist eliminators on 2 of 3 chrome lines for drag-out recovery
Enhanced product hang times
New plating barrel reduces drag out
Increase drain time over process tanks
Drag out tanks and counter-current flow used where feasible.
Increased withdrawal and drainage time
. Uses wetting agents
Strategic workpiece positioning
Spray rinses
RINSEWATER
Flow restrictors
Spray rinsing on 1 line
OTHER
Tooling attention/maintenance
Waste collection plumbing alterations or improvements
Diking
Energy savings techniques
Conducts annual plant assessments and plant housekeeping
\ •' •" , •' ..
Sample Description
F5-01 - Collected from sludge drier
F5-02 - Collected from rolloff bin
accumulated ~1 month previously
1 Sample Characteristics {Dry wt)
F5 - 01 F5 - 02
Total (mg/kg) Total (mg/kg)
Al- 3,690 Al- 1,710
Sb-67.4 " Sb-45
As -15.4 As -18.3
Ba-843 Ba-157
Be - 0.6 Be - 0.7
Bi-2.1 Bi-3.2
Cd-9.6 Cd-13.4
Ca- 2 1,400 Ca- 23,200
Cr- 92,000 Cr- '7 1,000
Hex. Cr- 0.6 Hex. Cr- 0.1
Cu- 39,900 Cu- 4 1,500
Fe-92,100 Fe- 105,000
Pb - 976 Pb - 556
Mg- 13,000 Mg- 12,500
Mn- 1,200 Mn- 1,340
Hg - 0.3 Hg - 0.26
Ni- 104,000 Ni- 105,000
Se-!0.6 Se-11.5
Ag - 8.7 Ag - 3.4
Na - 5,950 Na - 6,830
Sn - 429 Sn - 337
Zn- 126,000 Zn- 158,000
CN - 700 CN - 900
TCLPfme/1) TCLPfma/l)
Ar - ND As - ND
Ba-1.7 Ba-2.2
Cd-0.05 Cd-0.1
Cr-27.2 Cr-12.1
Pb-ND Pb-ND
Hg-ND Hg-ND
Se - ND Se - ND
Ag - ND Ag - ND
September 1998
33
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
1 Table 9 (cont'd): Facility-Specific Information for Milwaukee Facilities

Plating Process
Hard Chrome on Steel



Pollution Prevention Practices
SPENT PLATING SOLUTION
Ion exchange resin system - echo-tec

Facility F8
FOQ6 Quantity and Management
unreported

Landfill

••



DRAG OUT REDUCTION/RECOVERY
Strategic workpiece positioning

OTHER
Annual plant assessments
Diked tanks
High efficiency lighting
Plant Housekeeping
Preventive Maintenance systems








Installed waste collection hard piping to control chemicals
Tooling maintenance once per year









































Sample Description
F8-01 - Collected from supersack
dated that week
F8-02 - Collected from suoersack
dated the previous month
Sample Characteristics (Dry wt)
F8-01 F8-02
Total (mg/kg) Total (me/kg)
At- 19,300 Al- 8,560
Sb-I61 Sb-110
As-5.5 As- 11.8
Ba - 83.4 Ba - 33.3
Be-ND Be-ND
Bi - ND Bi - ND
Cd-10.1 Cd-42.7
Ca - 67,400 Ca - 50,800
Cr- 193,000 Cr- 9 1,500
Hex. Cr - 0.4 Hex. Cr - 0.2
Cu- 24,500 Cu-41,100
Fe- 110,000 Fe- 279,000
Pb-858 Pb-231
Mg- 9,710 Mg-1 1,100
Mn- 1,360 Mn- 1,080
Hg-ND Hg-1.2
Ni-1,130 Ni-744
Se - ND Se - ND
Ag - ND Ag - ND
Na- 19,600 Na- 49,400
Sn - 129 Sn - 96.3
Zn - 3,790 Zn - 9,610
CN - ND CN - ND
TCLP(mg/l) TCLP(mg/l)
As - ND As - ND
Ba-0.3 Ba-0.7
Cd-0.01 Cd-0.3
Cr-54.1 Cr-12.8
Pb-0.1 Pb-ND
Hg-ND Hg- 0.005
Se - ND Se - ND
Ag-ND Ag-ND
September 1998
34
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
                 Table 9 (cont'd): Facility-Specific Information for Milwaukee Facilities
                	Facility F9	
 Plating Process
F006 Quantity and Management
Sample Description
 Chrome on aluminum
 Bright dip on brass
 Copper, nickel, chrome on steel
 Hard chrome on steel
 Nickel chrome on nonferrous
 Zinc (non-CN) on steel
150tons/yr

Recycle (Encycle/Horsehead 97%)
Landfill (3%)
F9-01 - Collected from supersack
loaded that day
F9-02 - Collected by facility about
2 weeks later
 Pollution Prevention Practices
                                 Sample Characteristics (Dry i*t>
 SPENT PLATING SOLUTION
 Eliminated cadmium plating line
 Replace some hexavalent chrome lines with trivalent chrome
 Utilizes filtration carbon treatment, replenishment, and electrolytic
 dummying for general bath life extension
 Uses precipitation, monitoring, carbonate agitation, and electrowinning on
 spent solutions
 Uses evaporative techniques on nickel plating bath
 Chemical usage reduction through automation and substitution
 Increased temperature of bath

 DRAG OUT REDUCTION/RECOVERY
 Drag out and counter-current flow rinse systems
 Ion exchange systems
 Evaporation and Mesh pad mist eliminators for drag-out recovery
 Spray rinsing and drag-out tankage
 Enhanced product hang times
 Withdrawal and drainage time
 Uses wetting agents and drainage boards
 Spray rinses only on nickel boards
 Utilizes strategic workpiece positioning

 RINSEWATER
 Implemented a strict control program for monitoring incoming water to
 each separate production line
 Company-wide water conservation program (e.g., spray rinses, flow
 restrictors water meters, etc.)
 Use spent acid bath for pH adjustment in WWT
 Reuse treated wastewater in production lines
 Replaced solvent-based washers with aqueous systems (increasing sludge
 generation)
 Flow restrictors

 OTHER
 Use sludge dryer to reduce sludge volume and transportation costs
 Reduced cyanide use by 80%
 Conduct annual training for waste treatment operators on chemical use
 and how this affects sludge volumes
 Tooling attention/maintenance
 Chemical inventory and control
 Waste collection plumbing alterations or improvements
 Diking
 Incorporated energy savings techniques
 Conducts annual plant assessments and housekeeping
 Uses preventive maintenance systems
                                 F9-01
                                 Total (mg/kg)
                                 Al - 27,000
                                 Sb - 5.4
                                 As-4.8
                                 Ba- 298
                                 Be-ND
                                 Bi - 72.5
                                 Cd-2.l
                                 Ca - 87,000
                                 Cr-28,200
                                 Hex. Cr - 29
                                 Cu - 20,700
                                 Fe - 105,000
                                 Pb - 439
                                 Mg - 44,300
                                 Mn-1,070
                                 Hg - 0.35
                                 Ni - 14,800
                                 Se-1.9
                                 Ag-65
                                 Na- 15,900
                                 Sn-1,100
                                 Zn - 67,200
                                 CN-46

                                 TCLP (mg/n
                                 As-ND
                                 Ba-1.1
                                 Cd-ND
                                 Cr - 0.9
                                 Pb-ND
                                 Hg-ND
                                 Se-ND
                                 Ag-ND
                 F9-02
                 Total (mg/kg)
                 Al-13,200
                 Sb-13.5
                 As-3.1
                 Ba-257
                 Be-ND
                 Bi-31.5
                 Cd - 17.3
                 Ca - 70,000
                 Cr-94,000
                 Hex. Cr-1,000
                 Cu-15,000
                 Fe - 80,800
                 Pb-410
                 Mg - 30,300
                 Mn-1,170
                 Hg - 0.6
                 Ni-18,700
                 Se-ND
                 Ag - 230
                 Na - 39,000
                 Sn-681
                 Zn - 83,900
                 CN-74

                 TCLP (mg/n
                 As-ND
                 Ba-0.8
                 Cd-ND
                 Cr-13.1
                 Pb-ND
                 Hg-ND
                 Se - 0.04
                 Ag-ND
September 1998
              35
     F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
                 Table 9 (cont'd): Facility-Specific Information for Milwaukee Facilities
                                           Facility Fll	•
 Plating Process
MQ6 Quantity and Management
 Zinc (non-CN) on steel
 Tin on non-ferrous and steel
 Nickel-chrome plating
 Copper-nickel on steel
unreported

Recycle (Encycle)
Fll-OI - Collected from sludge
drier
Fl 1-02 - Collected from supersack
dated the previous month
 Pollution Prevention Practices
                                 Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.)
 SPENT PLATING SOLUTION
 Eliminated cyanide cadmium plating
 Replaced zinc cyanide plating with zinc alkaline plating
 Spent alkaline baths are used for pH adjustment
 Oil removal techniques
 Chemical usage reduction through substitution
 Utilizes filtration, carbon treatment, replenishment, and electrolytic
 dummying

 DRAG OUT REDUCTION/RECOVERY
 Drag out recovery on chrome and nickel lines
 Enhanced product hang times
 Installed atmospheric evaporators on automatic chrome line for drag out
 recovery
 Wetting agents and drainage boards
 Strategic workpiece positioning
 Increase in withdrawal and drainage time

 RINSEWATER
 Counter-current flow rinse systems
 Monitors solutions and uses purer anodes and bags
 Utilizes exit spray rinse
 Uses atmospheric and simple evaporation techniques
 Flow restrictors
 Conductivity controls

 OTHER
 Installed sludge drier to reduce sludge volume
 Train staff on causes of increase in hazardous waste production
 Tooling attention/maintenance
 Chemical inventory and control
 Waste collection alterations or improvements
 Diking
 Product longevity through specification alteration
 Energy saving techniques
 Plant housekeeping and annual plant assessment
 Automatic leak detection system
 Preventive maintenance system
                                 Fll-01
                                 Total (mg/kg)
                                 Al-1,800
                                 Sb-14.2
                                 As-13
                                 Ba - 227
                                 Be-ND
                                 Bi-1.7
                                 Cd-12.5
                                 Ca-16,100
                                 Cr-31,100
                                 Hex. Cr-26
                                 Cu - 8,980
                                 Fe - 58,800
                                 Pb - 527
                                 Mg-13,500
                                 Mn - 557
                                 Hg-ND
                                 Ni-180,000
                                 Se - 7,3
                                 Ag - 163
                                 Na - 22,700
                                 Sn - 3,550
                                 Zn - 129,000
                                 CN-16

                                 TCLP(mg/l)
                                 As-ND
                                 Ba-1.3
                                 Cd-0.1
                                 Cr-3.1
                                 Pb-ND
                                 Hg-ND
                                 Se-ND
                                 Ag-ND
                Fll-02
                Total (mg/kg)
                Al - 1,650
                Sb-11.1
                As - 6.5
                Ba-159
                Be-ND
                Bi-1.8
                Cd - 7.3
                Ca - 14,800
                Cr-48,100
                Hex. Cr - 0.4
                Cu-11,300
                Fe - 69,300
                Pb - 230
                Mg-13,700
                Mn - 707
                Hg-0.3
                Ni - 84,600
                Se-5
                Ag-657
                Na-84,300
                Sn - 8,070
                Zn - 94,400
                CN - 6.6

                TCLP (mg/1)
                As-ND
                Ba-0.11
                Cd - 0.64
                Cr-ND
                Pb-ND
                Hg-ND
                Se-ND
                Ag - 0.08
September 1998
              36
    F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
                 Table 9 (cont'd): Facility-Specific Information for Milwaukee Facilities
                 	Facility F13	
  Plating Process
F606 Quantity and Management
Sample Description
 Nickel chrome on steel
15 tons/yr

Recycle (Inmetco)
F13-01 - did not meet the
regulatory definition of F006
F13-02 - Collected from sludge
supersack
                                                                    Sample Cnaracter
 SPENT PLATING SOLUTION
 Oil removal and filtration techniques
 Promote product longevity through specification alteration
 Uses alternate stripping methodologies - switched from cyanide to non-
 cyanide stripping
 Evaporation to concentrate plating by-products
 Substituted hexavalent chrome with trivalent chrome
 Set up pilot line to evaluate a liquid addition agent for cleaning
 Require operators to log plating parameters daily which improves their
 control
 Uses purer anodes and bags and fume suppressors

 DRAG OUT REDUCTION/RECOVERY
 Enhanced product hang times
 Wetting agents
 Air knives
 Spray or fog rinses
 Drainage boards
 Increased withdrawal and drainage time
 Strategic  workpiece positioning

 RINSEWATER
 Other than cooling water and water used to process incoming water, this is
 a zero discharge facility (from the process units)
 Rinse water is recycled through filtration, carbon absorption in waste
 treatment section, replenishment and ion exchange
 Counter-current flow rinse systems
 Utilizes electrocoagulation for cleaning (and reusing)  rinse waters
 Flow restrictors
 Reverse osmosis utilized on incoming water

 OTHER
 Tooling attention/maintenance, preventive maintenance systems
 Improved record keeping demonstrates areas to  be considered for
 improvement
 Installed filter press and sludge drier to reduce sludge volume
 Chemical inventory and control
 Waste collection plumbing alterations or improvements
 Diking
 High efficiency lighting
 Conducts annual plant assessments and plant housekeeping
                                 FI3-02
                                 Total (mg/kg)
                                 AI-311
                                 Sb - 0.6
                                 As - 2.3
                                 Ba-6
                                 Be-ND
                                 Bi-ND
                                 Cd-ND
                                 Ca - 855
                                 Cr - 193
                                 Hex. Cr-0.5
                                 Cu - 33.6
                                 Fe - 3,350
                                 Pb - 0.6
                                 Mg - 355
                                 Mn-3.8
                                 Hg-ND
                                 Ni - 76,000
                                 Se-ND
                                 Ag-ND
                                 Na- 16,400
                                 Sn - 9.0
                                 Zn-6.1
                                 CN - 2.0
September 1998
              37
     F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
                 Table 9 (cont'd): Facility-Specific Information for Milwaukee Facilities
                	Facility F14	
 Plating Process
FOQ& Quantity and Management
Sample Description
 Zinc (CN) on Steel
196 tons/yr

Recycle (Horsehead 58%)
Landfill (42%)
F14-01 - Sludge from drier output
 Pollution Prevent&n Practices
 SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS
 Separated the process chemistry and wastewater treatment departments
 Cyanide bath carbonate freezing to prolong life
 Utilize bags on 1 chloride bath
 Oil removal techniques on 1 barrel

 DRAG-OUT REDUCTION
 Workpiece positioning
 Increase dwell (rinse) cycles
 Wetting Agents
 Prolonged withdrawal and drainage time
 Drainage boards

 RINSEWATER
 Counter-current flow rinse systems
 Flow restrictors
 Spray rinse and multiple rinses
 Evaporators and filters on 3 of 4 baths
 Larger hole barrels
 Use alkaline cleaner baths for wastewater pH adjustment
 Sludge dryer reduces volume by 65%.
 Assessed source by source water use to eliminate major changes in flow
 which upsets WWT performance
 Employed an environmental engineering company to assist in water
 control and reduction.

 OTHER
 Eliminated several plating services: cadmium, nickel, hard chrome, tin,
 copper, and brass plating and aluminum anodizing
 Replacing CN baths with alkaline baths by end of 1997.
 Diking of all 4 production lines
 Plant Housekeeping
 Annual plant assessments
 Hazardous waste leak detection system
 Preventive maintenance system
 Installed waste collection hard plumbing on every machine
                                F14-01
                                Total (mg/kg)
                                Al -2,320
                                Sb-2
                                As-13.4
                                Ba-29.2
                                Be-ND
                                Bi-ND
                                Cd - 3.9
                                Ca-18,000
                                Cr -26,900
                                Hex. Cr - 2.6
                                Cu - 54.6
                                Fe- 194,000
                                Pb - 64.8
                                Mg - 9,990
                                Mn-979
                                Hg-ND
                                Ni-57.1
                                Se-5.7
                                Ag - 4.4
                                Na - 3,830
                                Sn-19.5
                                Zn - 277,000
                                CN - 200
                 TCLP fmg/1)
                As-ND
                Ba-1.3
                Cd - 0.03
                Cr - 0.2
                Pb-ND
                Hg-ND
                Se-ND
                Ag-ND
September 1998
              38
     F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Table 9 (cont'd): Facility-Specific Information for Milwaukee Facilities
Facility F16
Pbting Process Fd06 Quantity and Management
Nickel chrome on non- ferrous 41 tons/yr
Gold plating
Landfill
PeltotiOH Prevention Practices
SPENT PLATING SOLUTION
Filtration
Improved SOPs by tracking water flow reducing the level of chrome in the
hot rinse >90%
Leak detection systems on plating bath
Metals recovery system via ion exchange reclaims Cr and Ni from rinse
waters
Oil removal techniques on pre-cleaning line
DRAG OUT REDUCTION/RECOVERY
Conductivity meters
Rack design eliminates drag out
Enhanced product hang times on pre-cleaning line
Wetting agents on chrome line
Spray rinses and drainage boards
RINSEWATER
Counter-current flow rinsing on plating and pre-cleaning lines
Flow restrictors
Spray rinsing on some pre-cleaning lines
Replaced solvent-based washers with aqueous systems (increasing sludge
generation)
Continually searching for new environmentally safe cleaners
Operators are certified and receive on-going training
Tooling attention/maintenance
Chemical inventory and control
Diking
Utilize high efficiency motors
Conduct annual plan assessments
Ongoing plant housekeeping and chemical usage reduction
Preventive maintenance systems
Employ monitoring and utilize bags
Sample Description
F16-01 - Collected from supersack
dated that day
F 16-02 - Collected by facility about
2 weeks later
Sample Characterises (Djy>vi.>
F16-01 F16-02
Total fma/ke) Total (mg/ke)
Al- 3,940 Al- 1,210
Sb - 3.5 Sb - 2.7
As - 9.4 As - 7
Ba - 73.7 Ba - 24.5
Be - ND Be - ND
Bi - 5.4 Bi - 2.2
Cd-1.3 Cd-1.3
Ca - 97,300 Ca - 105,000
Cr- 13,800 Cr- 5,520
Hex. Cr- 0.2 Hex. Cr- 0.1
Cu- 13,600 Cu- 5,520
Fe- 11 4,000 Fe- 189,000
Pb - 2,870 Pb - 778
Mg- 10,400 Mg- 4,250
Mn - 671 Mn - 950
Hg - 0.4 Hg - ND
Ni - ND Ni - ND
Se - 30,700 Se - 16,800
Ag - 47.4 Ag - 20.2
Na - 5,490 Na - 7,900
Sn - 497 Sn - 50.8
Zn - 14,200 Zn - 5,790
CN - ND CN - ND
TCLPfmaT) TCLPfme/1)
As - ND As - ND
Ba - 0.9 Ba - 0.2
Cd - 0.03 Cd - ND
Cr-14.5 Cr-I2.7
Pb-0.3 Pb-1.3
Hg- 0.005 Hg-0.01
Se - ND Se - ND
Ag-ND Ag-0.04
September 1998
39
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Table 9 (cont'd): Facility-Specific Information for Milwaukee Facilities
Facility F17
Plating Process ld®$ Quantity and Management
Zn (non-CN) on steel unreported
Chrome on nonferrous
Copper-nickel on nonferrous Landfill
Copper-nickel on steel
Cadmium on steel
P&H«ti«rti Prevention Practices
SPENT PLATING SOLUTION
Uses vapor recompression evaporation and carbonate removal system for
recovery
Employs filtration, carbon treatment, replenishment, and electrolytic
dummying
Utilizes cyanide bath carbonate freezing to extend life of solution
Reduced 50% of cadmium to zinc
Oil removal techniques on pre-cleaning line
Alternate stripping methodologies - formerly used cyanide based stripper;
but now outsourced
DRAG OUT REDUCTION/RECOVERY
Uses stagnant rinse tanks or drag out tanks
Drag out waters replace drag in waters or added back to plating bath
Spray rinses and diking
Enhanced product hang times
Utilizes wetting agents and drainage boards
Increased temperature bath, withdrawal and drainage time
RINSEWATER
Segregate wastewater streams
Counter-current flow rinse systems
Flow restrictors
Conductivity meters
Uses reverse osmosis (3 units) and atmospheric and vacuum distillation
evaporation to recycle rinse waters
Ion exchange for water delivered to plating baths
OTHER
Planning to re-engineer the WWT to segregate the nickel sludge from the
cadmium sludge to enable recycling of the nickel sludge to Encycle.
Cadmium sludge will be landfilled.
Chemical inventory and control
Redesigned waste plumbing
Utilizes energy saving techniques
Conducts annual plant assessments and weekly plant housekeeping
Preventive maintenance systems and leak detection on reverse osmosis
equipment
Sample Description . <•"
F 17-01 - Collected from sludge
drier
F 17-02 - Collected from supersack
dated the previous month
Sample Characteristics (Dry \vt,)
F17-01 F17-02
Total (me/kg) Total (me/kg)
Al- 1,260 Al- 1,360
Sb - 0.6 Sb - 0.6
As -3.8 As -4.1
Ba-29.4 Ba-43.5
Be - ND Be - ND
Bi - ND Bi - ND
Cd- 39,300 Cd-21,600
Ca- 14 1,000 Ca- 140,000
Cr- 14,000 Cr- 9,250
Hex. Cr-19 Hex. Cr- 3.7
Cu- 2 1,900 Cu- 18,600
Fe- 24,300 Fe - 17,400
Pb-221 Pb-237
Mg- 12,900 Mg- 12,300
Mn-244 Mn-199
Hg-ND Hg-0.12
Ni- 83,000 Ni-35,100
Se-2.1 Se-2.1
Ag-0.5 Ag-1.5
Na-1 1,700 Na- 17,700
Sn-11.2 Sn-13.8
Zn - 35,500 Zn - 44,600
CN - 380 CN - 99
TCLP fme/n TCLP fog/D
As - ND As - ND
Ba-1.3 Ba-1.1
Cd-13.3 Cd-5.7
Cr-ND Cr-ND
Pb - ND Pb - ND
Hg - ND Hg-ND
Se-0.01 Se-ND
Ag - ND Ag - ND
September 1998
40
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Table 10: Overview of Milwaukee F006 Analytical Data: # of Samples Which Were: Not-Detected; "C" values
(i.e., Statistically Estimated Values Above Instrument Detection Limit, but Below Method Quantitation Limit);
Above MethodQuantitation Limit
Constituent .
# Samples
#Non
Detects
# Samples
Above Instrument
Detection, Below
Method Quantitation
# Samples Above Method
Quantitation Limit
Total Metals Concentration (mg/kg)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bismuth
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Tin
Zinc
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
, 16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%) .
14(87%)
6(37%)
1(6%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
6(37%)
2(12%)
2(12%)
3(37%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
6(37%)
2(12%)
3(19%)
0(0%)
3(19%)
2(12%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
1(6%)
0(0%)
1(6%)
4(25%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
1(6%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
1(6%)
16(100%)
10(63%)
14(88%)
13(81%)
2(13%)
7(44%)
13(82%)
16(100%)
16(100%)
16(100%)
16(100%)
15(94%)
16(100%)
15(94%)
6(37%)
14(88%)
12(75%)
12(75%)
16(100%)
16(100%)
15(94%)
TCLP (mg/l)
Arsenic
Sarium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
vlercury
Selenium
Silver
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16(100%)
0(0%)
4(25%)
2(12%)
12(75%)
13(81%)
14(87%)
12(75%)
0(0%)
12(75%)
4(25%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
1(6%)
3(19%)
0(0%)
4(25%)
8(50%)
14(88%)
4(25%)
3(19%)
1(6%)
1(6%)
Genera) Chemistry (mg/kg)
Chloride
Fluoride
Chromium, hexavalent
Total Cyanide
Amenable Cyanide
Jercent Solids
16
16 •
16
16
16
"16
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
4(25%)
4(25%)
" 0(0%)
0(0%)
1(6%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%) ft
16(100%)
15(94%)
16(100%)
12(75%)
12(75%)
16(100%)
September 1998
41
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
II Table 11: Analytical Data for the Milwaukee Facilities.
L . '" 	 "
|nonstitiient
CAS No
F1-011
FQ-01
F1rt-f)1
F17-01
Volatile Organics - Method 8260A ug/kg
Acetone
2-Butanone
2-Hexanone
Benzene
Chloroform
Chlorobenzene
Trichloroethene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
m,p-Xylenes
o-Xylene
67641
78933
591786
71432
67663
108907
79016
108101
108883
100414
108383 / 106423
95476
210
J
ND
ND
J
ND
ND
ND
J
ND
ND
ND
B 7,500
B 58
ND
53
6
J
ND
16
J
ND
ND
ND
B 290
B 69
JB
J
ND
ND
J
64
20
J
.J
J
24
J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Semivolatile Organics - Method 8270B ug/kg
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Phenol
Benzyl alcohol
117817
117840
206440
85018
129000
108952
100516
59,000
J
4,900
4,600
J
3,600
7,900
55,000
ND
ND
ND
ND
3,600
7,900
180,000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
28,000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Notes: All results reported on a dry-weight basis.
1 . Facility F4's F006 samples were designated as F 1 .
J Mass spectral data indicate the presence of a compound that meets the identification criteria for which the result
is less than the laboratory detection limit, but greater than zero.
B Analyte also detected in the associated method blank analysis.
ND Non-detect
Volatiles analyzed for but not detected include: Chloromethane, Vinyl Chloride, Bromomethane, Chloroethane,
Trichlorofluoromethane, 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether, 1,1-Dichloroethene, Methylene Chloride, Carbon Disulfide,
Vinyl Acetate, 1,1-Dichloroethane, trans- 1,2-Dichloroethene, cis-l,2-Dichloroethene, 1,1,1-Trichloroethane,
Carbon Tetrachloride, 1,2-Dichloroethane, Benzene, 1 ,2-Dichloropropane, Bromodichloromethane, cis-1,3-
Dichloropropene, trans-l,3-Dichloropropene, 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, Dibromochloromethane, Tetrachloroethene
(PCE), Styrene, Bromoform, 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,3-Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-DichIorobenzene, and 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene.
Semivolatiles analyzed for but not detected include: bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether, 2-Chlorophenol, 2,3-
Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-Dichlorobenzene, 1,2-Dichlorobenzene, 2-Methylphanol, bis((2-Chloroisopropyl)ether, 4-
Methyphenol, N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine, Hexachloroethane, Nitrobenzene, Isophorone, 2-Nitrophenol, 2,4-
Dimethylphenol, bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane, Benzoic acid, 2,4-Dichlorophenol, 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene,
Naphthalene, 4-Chloroaniline, Hexachlorobutadiene, 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol, 2-Methylnaphthalene,
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene, 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol, 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol, 2-Chloronaphthalene, 2-Nitroaniline,
Dimethylphthalate, Acenaphthylene, 2,6-Dinitrotoluene, 3-Nitroaniline, Acenaphthene, 2,4-Dinitrophenol, 4-
Nitrophanol, 4-Nitrophenol .Dibenzofuran, 2,4-Dinitrotoluene, Diethyphthalate, 4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether,
Fluorene, 4-Nitroaniline, 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol, N-Nitrosodiphenylamine, 4-Bromophenyl-phenylether,
Hexachlorobenzene, Pentachloropheno,! Anthracene, Carbazole, Di-n-butylphthalate, Butylbenzylphthalate, 3,3'-
Dichlorobenzidine, Benzo(a)anthracene, Chrysene, Din-octylphthalate, Benzo(b)fluoranthene,
Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Benzo("a)pvrene, Indenon,2,3-cd)pyrene, Dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and Benzofe.h.ftoerylene
September 1998
42
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------


















1
™
u
cq
&.
s

n

41
5
^

A
«
a
03
2
15
C
S
£
O
U
r*
I-N
—
a









c
O<
(j.


«^
C
0
U


o
G
i
S£
U


~


Jf
(I


^\
C
[i




C
IT



C
1
u.


^
1
"
£

^
C.
^
























w
E
fx^
p^.

d"
04
0
so
1
Q>
1
"S
u
13
*^
H












O
m
00



O
o
Os"




O
—





o
f'f




,.
o
r-__
,_•





o
OS
SO
rn




o
0
t-^



0
o
CN
r~4
^

m
O
Os
Os
O4
C--

[Aluminum I
o




5





r-
04





U
fi





U
p






S




oo



U
S


O
.0
o
5
r-

1 Antimony I
oo




%




O
p






Os






oo






J




en
Os



U
s


u
£
m
O
5
r-

o
1
**!



O
oo





>n
04





U
S






S






m




**)



0
5-


U
o
^
r-

[Barium
Q
Z




Q
Z





Z






Q
Z






Os
d





U
in
d



U
i




g



r-
o

t^

J
Q




g





04
CN





U
^






04






S



O
^



u
r-
04"


U
Os
Os
O
5
[-.

[Bismuth |
04




d





2





U
Z!





u
m






so
Os




SO
OS




in



OS
m
S
5
c^*

| Cadmium
o
o
oo
o"
1/1


o
o
0*
SO



0
o
o^
m"
O




o
o
r-
Os




0
o
°i
fl
04




|
(N



1
£f



o
o
oo
Tt"
O4

M
|
-«t
r-

| Calcium
"V
*m*
Os


O
§
rO
ON
^^


o
(N
in_
vn





o
S
c*->





0
o
0^
,_M
r-




o
0
p_
Os



O
0
OS
s



o
o
in
Os
in

r-
0

r—

[chromium I
o
•o
VHH
Tf


"1
^
04



O
O4
m"





g
\O
fl
l— 1




O
0
in
^^
"*




0
o
OS
Os"
f»1



0
oo
"*



o



oo
o
o
Tf
r-

CL
Q
O
U
O
o
o^
Os"

CN

O
O
o
o"

*""*


o
g
OS
00




§
o
^-





o
0
p_
l^
o




o
o
04"
Os



0
o
t-;
(•-"
04



O
g
m"
tN

SO
•OS
oo
OS
c£?
f-

1
m




00
in
oo





oo






o
r-
00
04





SO






so
r-
OS




SO




f-
S



S
Os
$J
r*»

1
O
o
f—t
f-H


O
Os"




O
m
**t
^>





0
o
o





g
C^l
*"*




o
g
"H



o
r-"



g
OO
*>
in
*"""

os
OS
m
TT
t-

1 Magnesium
o
oo
w»4



§
V-H




O
Os






C-
SO






o
**!
^^





o




Os
Os




O
r^
f~H


S
OS
ro
c^-

[Manganese |
CN



O
Q
Z





Q






o
o





U
so
r4
o





O
d



U
Q
Z




0
fS



Os
OS

r-

I
2
?




0
,_,




Q






Q
Z






o
o
0_
\f}
o




o
o
o_
2



O4
oo"



o
o
Os
Os"


O
I
5
f^.

_o
Q




O
Z





o
o
°°»
SO
^^




O
o"





2






SO
o




p




so



O)
OS
04
oo
r-
r-

1 Selenium |
Q




Q
Z





04
O
O4






J






S






t-
oe




OS
Os




SO



O)
04
O
5
i1**-

1
|
o\



o
oC




o
t-"





o
Os
in"





o
°°~
\Q





o
m




0
o
r-_
04



o
SO
oo"


in
04
o
5
; r-

1 Sodium 1
SO
Os




OS
04





co
d
m






r-
OS




-.

r-






Os
O4




m




o



o
5
t-

c
H
0
sO^
oC



r-^
ro^




O
Os
f-^
in





0
o
O4,
•^T





g
O^
oo"
m




O
g
so"
tN



O
g



g
p.
so"
£!

so
SO
0
5
r^

u
N























«d
E
0
c-
^"""
o"
o
SO

^
1

^
[
—
2
J
O
H










Q
Z




Q
Z





Q






Q






Q
Z






o
Z




Q




g



O4
oo
^
t-»-

[Arsenic I
r-
e>



CQ
<*!
o




U
04
O





U
Os
0





O
CN






Jj



U
2




SO
O4
d


U
OS
S
5
C**1

E
m
d




p
o




O
Q
Z






p





U
oo
o
d






m
0
d



U
£
d




p


U
Os
^
O".

[Cadmium I
oo




*





oj






in
•«*'






o_i






04




04
SO

-------











J
'o
es
fct
u
i
C9
i
,c
u
03

A
§


•4^
15
s
^
§
o
u
_
.2

£






=
c
2
u


*™
c
£

s
s

c
J£
tL

C
1
u




_
c
i

O














o
o
o^
oeT


O
o
oo"



o
Os

o
o
tN
CN~



o
o


o

I— 1






o
—



o
fN


s
£
OO
OO
SO

•8
1
43
U
f-



00
Tf




o

VO




2


(N
OO







O
s.
~



o
o



oo
oo
T
S
Os
SO

U
T3
1
E
Os
O


U
6



U
o
o
U
oo
1— 1
0



U
0
o"
CJ

SO
SO
e>






o
so
o


U

SO
SO
CJ


O
Os
Os
S
-a-
«1
OO

ex. Chromium
X
g



Q
Z




Q

i




o
0
OS


0
o
r-






D




Q



CN
r-

U
H
Q



Q




Q

Q
55




0
o
*
*
o
0
r-__




*
*
oo


*

—


*
£
CN
O
S
2
menable Cyan
<
oo
06



Os
Os




rn

CN




Os


U")
rX
Tt






2




oo






VI
"O
1
-t-J
1
s,


to

s
w
•6
-
HJ u
E 'S
c ,22
•S 1
S'>
2 M
>^ *S
li


•4-*
S f3
• ^-2
j2 i "S
ts'=
P* -4-» O
•S - ?
• ^ o  «> S e g u
•a S3 JS J -g -0
S * J c 8 1
o S ** cs d a
•a "5..S -S S o
« 1 "S S 03 g
£ £ "8 J J 'g
i}{iili
' H ^ ^H* **> rV^ £ jf*1^
q,> f T_ <^ Q5 ^JN K ^^
Z _; CQ o * 1 z
 X
T3
••a
 U3
 H
fi
 o
 §
CQ
^o
o
o
00
CTs
Os

-------
S
V

s













0
g
?r
X—
W)
s
™^
^p
r-
o"

VO
to
n
.S
1>

1
1
*?

^^
n*
r-








o
CN
m


o
8
p-
CN

O
CN
fN



ft




O
n
>n
oo




8
oo
^^
~*



§
SO



o
^)
^J-
<— 4


o
8
^M
2

CN
0
p-
o
3

| Calcium
o
o
o
^J
OS

8
CN
oo
CN

O
VO
fN


OS




0
O
OO




o
^M
fi


o
fN
OS
-Sj
*


O
8
rf


r-
^
c-
Ichromium
o
i^j
~™

o
0
fN

SO
in




vq




1
^*
^™



o
oo
OS
oo



o
o
00
!— •*



o
o
Os
^^
fN

oo
O
o
?
r--
S
Q.
O
U
o
o
00
o
oo

o
o
o
*n
o

0
o
<=>„
^
OS


o
fT)



8
(T.




1
00



O
0
r-
^— i



o
o
fl
ff
(N

OS
OO
OS
Tj-
r-
I
o



OS



00




OS
d



U
o
fN





p-
CN




fl
CN





fN
fN



OS
S?
^
TJ
4>
8
o


o
o
fl
<^-
•*

o
Os
Os
Os



en




0
o
p~
ft
-"



o
0
fn
*""


0
o
CN
1-^



O
o
OS
CN


OS
Os
ft
**•
| Magnesium
o
r~
T—


O
r-
o
^^


Os
P-
OS




00
CO



U
o





s




OS
OS





CN



SO
os
OS
fi
*~~
[Manganese
oo
d



f\
ri



Q
2




Q




OS
CN
d



O

Q
2




CN



U

Q
2



so
r-
Os
OS
9
^
1
p-
00


00
^f-
^^

p^




o
8
so
P~


0
o
^^
oo



o
0
o
0
oo


0
o
in
fi



o
o
o
m
oo

O
s
o

^
1
2
Q



OS

_,

S




Q
2




p
>n





p^




fN





CN



g
fN
oo
r-
p~
| Selenium
o
ro
fN



O



Tf




Q




SO





m
vo




!3





CN
in
o


U
CN
CN
O
5

tu
§
cy\
f,

8
OS
in


0
oo
fl



o
o
vo



0
o
^^
oo



o
0
CN
CN


P-
t-~
^^



P-
^_
*~ '

fN
O

^
1 Sodium
oo
so



O
o
,_1


Os




o
Os




o
p-
o
00




0
fl



oq
en





CN



8
^
p-

o
o
Os
ro
00

o
p~


8
o
p~
p-
CN

SO



U
o
o
•^f
OS



o
8
OS
CN


8
^O
-^
•x^-



o
o
n





en



OS
S
?
r-
[Cadmium
rn



Os
d



fN
•d




OS




d





2




Q
2





Q
2



p-
S
5
^
I Chromium
Q
2



Q
2



Q




Q




Q





Q




Q





.Q
2



S
Os
-=r
p-
I
Q
2



Q



Q
2




a
2




Q
2





g




Q





g



vo
r>
OS
S?
r-
3
1
d


U
Q
2



Q
2




Q




Q
2





a




Q
2





oo
p
d



Os
CN
OO
r-
t-
[Selenium
Q



Q
2



Q




Q
2




oo
O
d



U

Q
2




P





Q
2



CN
fN
^r
^
1
i/5
                                                                                                                    •a
                                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                                   in

-------
   c-


   (1
         o
         o
         (N
                          OS

         S
            O
            O
            C4
                       fS
                                                                                                      t
                    tN
                                                                                                      S
                                                                                                      1
a
to
            (N
                                                                                                      PQ
a
s
a
Q
^B
S
a
o
      oi

      |
u

U

S
o

g
O
         o
         S
         o"
               VO
                    VO
                    SO
                          tN
                          oo
                          m
                                    .3 .2
                               s>
                              S3
                              11
                               oabo
                                                                                                      O
                                                                                                      o
                    oo
                          Os

                          >ri
                          VO
   c

   n
                 r-

                 S
            \O
                       U
de
Ch
de
                 J
                 a
Chrom
hexa
                    O

                    "3
                          o
                          1/1
                          £
                                                                                                      oo
                                                                                                      ON
                                                                                                      Ov
                                                                                                       &
                                                                                                       00

-------
2. Chicago Benchmarking Study

       This section provides a detailed presentation of data gathered in the Chicago
Benchmarking Study, including a characterization of plating processes, pollution prevention and
recycling practices, F006 characteristics, and site specific variations in the generation and
management of F006 for ten facilities in Milwaukee. Table 12is the facility selection matrix
used to select 10 facilities from 13 candidates. Table 13 presents information collected for each
facility in the study. Table 14 summarizes the results of the laboratory analyses of F006 data
and Table 15 presents detailed laboratory analysis results for each facility.

       All Chicago facilities reported an annual quantity of waste generated. The total amount
generated from all 10 facilities is approximately 1712 tons/year. Nine of the facilities recycle
their F006 waste. One facility landfills its F006 waste.  Fifteen F006 laboratory samples
gathered.
September 1998
47
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------







-






•jjj
1

0
1
.£*
a
93
!SD
a

1/5
• NMH
5
"3
|
o
60
a
U
» *

•8
H







•a
£
2 -
Uw

1
0 <«
c
o E
1
— §
i— i —
u <
1
o w
53
„

sl
f
u
.oS



r- "
O <

£
ss


1-
tj
*

ul

1
.OS
,
.1
u*
•1
n '
Selection
Criteria


^
""'

XI

'XI
o


1C
->


^


^


o
•~»



XI
5


XI
o
"""I


XI
o


o

XI

J
°

1
Type:
Captive/Job


0
"•"



o


J-.
m





o


o







. o
r*l


O


m

^

0
—

o
oo
s


S fc
< ft.

< &

< §:

~j ,_
^5 gi
< 0.

"k3 t™1






o
Z


o







1


IS!
i 00

81
LU ji

u

I/I


i
it
C U


V.
>'

O

tn

VJ
O
•*
1




^

Wl
?







1


o


1

o

o
Z

o
| Landfill


(X,


E
3
S
PS

u-
1
{2
f^
J





i


S;






"o
I


.1
J2
CJ
«u

I

>
u
u
&
Pri
u
u
I
c 2 j=
•3 i s
sss
	
z ^
0 z
~ts w c u
N^NS

z z
o o
3 U)
',
5 1.
'y ^
? ^ •" c
3 ^7" ^ ^5 u
u u a N u.
|g
QJ tg '^ ^
<3 £ ti N
y

ss
y
z
u
X

z y
o &
O N ft
X
g O
U N £


ml
« z u
Ox

3 'H' t)
U N U.

U N £
0 &
3 u
l?6f „
O UJ E N u.
y
u
Finishing
Processes



^

Z

>
U
w
i
>-


Z
(J

^
o
«•
>




z


z


>.


>•




z

>
1 SURVEY?
T3

3
C/!
 00



I
J

 O

 §
CQ
V£>
O
O
PH
co
oo
ON
 (5


f
 d>
 •4-^

 &

-------
                     Table 13: Facility-Specific Information for Chicago Facilities
                                  	Facility Cl.	
Plating Process
F006 Quantity and Management
Sample Description
Cu-CN                 Cd-CN
Cu-Tin-Zn              Au-CN
Bright dip of Cu alloy    Ag-CN
Ni/Cr on steel           Acid-Cu
Electroless Ni           Chrome
Tins                   Tin-Ni
Tin-Zn                 Tin-acid
24 - 28 tons/yr

Recycle (World Resources)
Cl-01 - sludge collected from
supersack at drier output; slightly
warm; gray-green color
Pollution Prevention Practices
                                 Sample Characteristics (Dry wl.)
SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS
Filtration - E-Ni, Ni, Cu, Cd, Au, Sn, Ag
Carbon treatment - occasional use for Ni/as needed
Replenishment - complete change for E-Ni only/soap dumped periodically
Purified water - DI treated on-site
Electrolytic dummying - as needed - Ni - primary
Cyanide bath carbonate freezing - Na-CN every winter, Cd
Precipitation - combined with bath filtration of carbon
Monitor pH daily
Drag-in Reduction - pre-rinse with Dl water
High purity anodes (some tanks bagged)
Non-chelated process chemistries in Tin-Zn bath
Non-CN process chemicals - approx. 1/3 of chemicals non-CN
Solvent degreasing alternatives - mineral spirits and limited ultrasonic.
Alkaline Cleaners - skimming, chrome reducers
Have written procedures for bath make-up and additions
Use process baths to maximum extent possible (no dump schedule)
Remove anodes from bath when they are idle
Perform regular maintenance of racks/barrels
Pre-inspect parts to prevent processing of obvious rejects

DRAG-OUT REDUCTION/RECOVERY
Process Bath Operating Cone. - checked every other week
Process Bath Operating Temp. - automated; daily
Wetting agents - some
Workpiece positioning
Withdrawal and Drainage Time  - manual (operators trained)
Drainage  boards between all baths returned to bath  .
Drag-out  tanks on some tanks returned to bath
Electrowinning on Au only
Meshpad Mist Eliminators - chrome

RINSE WATER
Spray or Fog Rinse/Rinse Water Agitation
Increased Contact Time/Multiple Rinses
Countercurrent rinsing and flow restrictors
Recycling/Recovery of rinsewater
Manually turning off rinsewater when not in use
Air agitation in rinse tanks

OTHER
Established a formal policy statement with regard to P2 and control
Established a formal P2 program
Conduct employee education for P2
Establish  a preventative maintenance program for tanks
                                 Cl-01
                                 Total (mg/kg)
                                 Al - 4,390
                                 Sb - ND  ,
                                 As-ND
                                 Ba- 1,080
                                 Be-ND
                                 Bi-ND
                                 Cd-17,300
                                 Ca-47,400
                                 Cr - 83,000
                                 Hex. Cr- 1,190
                                 Cu - 40,000
                                 Fe - 27,800
                                 Pb - 10,300
                                 Mg- 51,100
                                 Mn - 332
                                 Hg-ND
                                 Ni - 98,800
                                 Se-ND
                                 Ag- 280
                                 Na-22,100
                                 Sn- 13,800
                                 Zn- 17,100
                                 CN- 1,800
                TCLP(mg/l)
                As-ND
                Ba-ND
                Cd-1.0
                Cr-2.8
                Pb-ND
                Hg-0.001
                Se-ND
                Ag - 3.8
          September 1998
                        "49
                F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Table 13 (cont'd): Facility-Specific Information for Chicago Facilities
Facility C2
Plating Process
Mg Anodizing Gold-CN
Cu/NiCr Electroless Ni
Zn (nCN) on Fe Chromic acid
Cu plating (nCN)
Ag-CN
Pollution Prevention Practices
SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS
F086 Quantity and Management
~347 tons/yr
Recycle (Horsehead)


Filtration - some continuous
Carbon treatment to remove organic contaminants on some baths
Purified water - DI
Precipitation combined with filtration on certain baths
Monitoring - daily with on-site lab
Purer Anodes and Bags - depends on bath
Nonchelated Process Chemistries
Non-CN process chemicals except Au/Ag
Solvent Degreasing Alternatives including Hot alkaline cleaning and
Electrocurrent
Alkaline Cleaners including Skimming and Coalesced on barrel lines
Acid Purification - Ion exchange removes metals
DRAG-OUT REDUCTION/RECOVERY
Wetting Agents - required
Workpiece positioning
Withdrawal and Drainage Time
Drainage boards between tanks
Drag-out tanks
Ion Exchange chrome rinses (off-site)
RINSE WATER
Increased Contact Time/ Multiple Rinses - manual rinse with DI water
Countercurrent Rinsing - some but limited space for more
Flow controls - Flow restrictors
Recycle rinse water
Recycle solvents via Safety Kleen
Sample Description
C2-01 - Sludge from roll-off bin;
not dried; ambient temp, cool;
consistency of fudge; chunky;
orange-brown; moist
C2-02 - Sludge from drier;
consistency of dirt; chocolate color
Sample Characteristics (Dry wt)
C2 - 01 C2-02
Total (mg/kg) Total (mg/kg)
Al - 45,900 Al -27,900
Sb -ND Sb - ND
As -ND As - ND
Ba-65 Ba-76
Be -ND Be - ND
Bi-66 Bi-19
Cd-3,740 Cd- 4,440
Ca -32,900 Ca - 26,400
Cr -9,300 Cr- 18,700
Hex. Cr - 53 Hex. Cr - 11
Cu -1,210 Cu- 1,600
Fe - 29,500 Fe - 40,400
Pb-170 Pb-I61
Mg -161,000 Mg- 111,000
Mn -1,240 Mn- 1,010
Hg - ND Hg - ND
Ni- 1,640 Ni- 7,390
Se - ND Se - ND
Ag-27 Ag-88
Na -29,600 Na-33,100
Sn- 1,270 Sn- 2,090
Zn -62,000 Zn - 89,200
CN-3.3 CN-0.8
TCLP (mg/1) TCLP (mg/1)
As -ND As - ND
Ba -ND Ba - ND
Cd-0.19 Cd-0.16
Cr - 0.08 Cr - 0.09
Pb - ND Pb - ND
Hg-ND Hg-ND
Se - ND Se - ND
Ag -ND ' Ag - ND
September 1998
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
» Table 13 (cont'd): Facility-Specific Information for Chicago Facilities
Facility C3
Plating l*jraees» - ^ -
Cd-CN
Zn(non CN) on Steel
Pollution Pww&w £raeffe«$ \
SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS
FOQ6 Quantify and Management
~90 tons/yr
Recycle (Horsehead)
-, *• f'

General Bath Life Extensions
Carbon Treatment - as needed
Monitoring - 3-4 times / day
Housekeeping - 1 person in charge of bath chemistry
Nonchelated Process Chemistries
Solvent Degreasing Alternatives - Hot Alkaline Cleaning and
Electrocurrent
Alkaline Cleaners - Skimming
DRAG-OUT REDUCTION
Process Bath Operating Concentration
Process Bath Operating Temperature - in the process of installing temp.
controls
Withdrawal and Drainage Time
Drainage Boards
Drag-Out Tanks - Cd line has dead rinse and is returned to plating bath
RINSE WATER
Improved Rinsing Efficiency - Countercurrent Rinsing
Flow Restrictors
Sample Description '- -
C3-01S - Sludge from left filter
press; mix of wet/soft and wet/hard
sludge; brown color; fudge
consistency
Sample CfcaractertetiES (Dry wt)
C3 - 01S
Total 
-------
                 Table 13 (cont'd): Facility-Specific Information for Chicago Facilities
                                           Facility C4	
Plating Process
         F006 Quantity and Management
                                 Sample Description
Cu/Ni/Cr on brass
Cu (Alkaline)
Dull and Bright Ni
Ni/Cr on steel
Bright dip of Cu
Zn phosphate
Chromating of A!
60/40 (Sn/Pb) solder
Zn-CN
Cd-CN
Sn-acid
~73 tons/yr

Recycle (Horsehead)
C4-OIS - Sludge from lugger box
under filter press: fudge
consistency, cool, chocolate-brown
color, cake formed into 1 *A inch
thick layers, estimated at 75%
water
Foliation Prevention Practices
                                           Sample Characteristics (Dry wt).
SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS
Filtration on the Tin, Ni, and Cu baths
Carbon Treatment in the Ni and Cu baths
Replenishment
Electrolytic Dummying for Ni, Cu, Cd, Zn, Cr
Cyanide Bath Carbonate Freezing
Precipitation - occasionally on tins
Monitoring - once/wk at minimum
Purer Anodes and Bags
Hexavalent for trivalent Chrome in clear chromate conversion coating
Solvent Degreasing alternatives: hot alkaline cleaning, electrocurrent, &
ultrasonic
Alkaline Cleaners - skimming
Waste reduction study conducted
Pre-inspect parts to prevent processing of obvious rejects
Perform regular maintenance  of racks/barrels
Remove anodes from bath when they are idle
Use process baths to maximum extent possible
Have written procedures for bath make-up and additions
Waste stream segregation of contact and non-contact wastewaters
Strict chemical inventory control
Evaluation of recycling alternatives

DRAG-OUT REDUCTION/RECOVERY
Process Bath Operating Concentration and Temperature
Wetting Agents - add to Ni baths
Workpiece Positioning
Withdrawal and Drainage Time and Boards
Drag-Out Tanks
Electrowinning for Cd

RINSE WATER
Spray Rinse/Rinse Water Agitation - some tin
Countercurrent Rinsing - 2 and 3-stage                     .-,•-.
Recycle/Recovery of Rinse Water                          '*'«•.;
Recycle/Recovery of Solvents
Eliminate rinsewaters to waste treatment
Manually turning off rinsewater when not in use
Flow restrictors

OTHER
Conduct employee education for P2
Housekeeping - QA manager controls bath chemistry
                                           C4-01S
                                           Total (mg/kg)
                                           Al-41,000
                                           Sb-ND
                                           As-ND
                                           Ba-715
                                           Be-37
                                           Bi-ND
                                           Cd -6,040
                                           Ca-63,500
                                           Cr -50,800
                                           Hex. Cr - 28
                                           Cu -9,940
                                           Fe-124,000
                                           Pb - 2,320
                                           Mg-49,500
                                           Mn -1,690
                                           Hg-ND
                                           Ni- 11,300
                                           Se-ND
                                           Ag-110
                                           Na -4,440
                                           Sn -36,200
                                           Zn-176,000
                                           CN - 3,740
                                                  TCLP fmg/1)
                                                  As-ND
                                                  Ba-ND
                                                  Cd-1.26
                                                  Cr-ND
                                                  Pb-ND
                                                  Hg-ND
                                                  Se-ND
                                                  Ag-ND
           September 1998
                                    52
                                                  F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
(Table 13 (cont'd): Facility-Specific Information for Chicago Facilities
Facility C6
Plating Process
Electroless Ni Ni
Cu-CN Sn
Zn Ag-CN
Au-CN -'
Pollution Prevention Practices
SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS
F006 Quantity and Management
-15 tons/yr
Recycle (World Resources)


Filtration - continuous
Carbon Treatment - periodically
Purified Water - for Ni
Electrolytic Dummying - for Ni
Cyanide Bath Carbonate Freezing - annually
Precipitation.? periodically
Monitoring - weekly to outside labs/daily-weekly internally
Housekeeping - lab controls bath chemistry
Purer Anodes and Bags - Silver 99.998%; Gold 99.999%; Nickel 98%
Hexavalent Chrome Alternatives - Trivalent chrome for clear/blue bright
conversion coatings
Solvent Degreasing Alternatives - Hot Alkaline Cleaning and
Electrocurrent
Alkaline Cleaners - Skimming
DRAG-OUT REDUCTION/RECOVERY
Wetting Agents - present in formula from vendor
Withdrawal and Drainage Time - Training
Drainage Boards
Drag-Out Tanks (Dead Rinse)
Electrowinning - Gold (periodic); Silver (continuous)
Nickel drag out sent back to plating bath
RINSE WATER
Improved Rinsing Efficiency
Spray Rinse/Rinse Water Agitation (Air Spargers)
Countercurrent Rinsing - 2-stage
Flow Restrictors
Sample Description ,
C6-OJ - Sludge from plant I;
sludge mixed with absorbent called
Absorbex; black and greenish-gray;
sludge is 2 days old
C6-02 - Sludge from superbag in
plant 2; green/gray and brown; clay
consistency; sludge generated the
previous week
Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.)
C6 - 01 C6-02
Total (me/kg) Total (me/kg)
Al -5,350 Al- 1,740
Sb -207 Sb - ND
As -ND As -ND
Ba-119 Ba-54
Be -20 Be - 10
Bi-ND Bi-35
Cd-51 Cd-ND
Ca -63,000 Ca- 13,000
Cr -698 Cr - 59,400
Hex. Cr-7. Hex. Cr- 174
Cu -37,500 Cu- 21,900
Fe - 24,600 Fe - 47,000
Pb - 326 Pb - 109
Mg -53,400 Mg-6,100
Mn -799 Mn - 746
Hg - ND Hg - ND
Ni- 77,100 . Ni- 21,500
Se - ND Se - ND
Ag -272 Ag - 32
Na -3 7,200 Na- 89,200
Sn -9,740 Sn-12,100
Zn -24,400 Zn- 8 1,400
CN - 373 CN - 240
TCLP toe/n TCLP fma/h
As -ND As - ND
Ba -ND Ba - ND
Cd -ND Cd - ND
Cr-ND Cr-0.08
Pb - ND Pb - ND
Hg -0.002 Hg - ND
Se - ND Se - ND
Ag - 0.29 Ag - ND
                                                     U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
                                                           Mail code 3201
                                                     1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
                                                        Washington DC 20460
September 1998
53
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
1 Table 13 (cont'd): Facility-Specific Information for Chicago Facilities
1 Facility C7
Plating Process
Plant 1: Plant 2:
Ag (CN)Sn (Dull)
Cu-CN Mi (Sulfamate)
Acid-Sn Cu-CN
Electroless Ni Sn (Bright Acid)
Cu-acid Solder
FoUnti&H Prevention Practice* ,
SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS
F086 Quantity and Management
~ 65 tons/yr
Recycle (World Resources)
.

Filtration - removes organics
Carbon Treatment
Purified Water - DI
Electrolytic Dummying
Precipitation
Monitoring - at least weekly
Purer Anodes and Bags - 99.9%
Solvent Degreasing Alternatives - Hot Alkaline Cleaning and
Electrocurrent
Alkaline Cleaners - Skimming for oil
DRAG-OUT REDUCTION/RECOVERY
Process Bath Operating Concentration
Process Bath Operating Temperature
Wetting Agents - in Brightener
Workpiece Positioning
Withdrawal and Drainage Time
Silver rinse - Either electrowinning or electrodialysis
RINSE WATER
Spray Rinse/Rinse Water Agitation - Air agitation
Countercurrent Rinsing - 2-stage on most lines
Flow Restrictors
Sample Description
C7-01S - From supersack; reddish-
brown and some greenish-gray,
muddy/clayey consistency
C7-02S - from supersack, big
chunks, very hard but breakable,
red-brown, ambient temperature,
smells like paint -Plant 2
Sample C&ara^rattes (Dry wt)
C7 - 01S C7-02S
Total (rag/kg) Total (mg/kg)
Al-4,510 " Al-493
Sb-ND Sb-ND
As -ND As - ND
Ba -20 Ba - 27
Be-ND Be-ND
Bi-ND Bi-54
Cd-9 Cd-ND
Ca -11,000 Ca- 16,100
Cr-161 Cr-127
Hex. Cr, -ND Hex. Cr-ND
Cu -2 1,400 Cu- 23,800
Fe-1,510 Fe- 13 1,000
Pb - 47 Pb - 2,080
Mg -3 36,000 Mg- 242,000
Mn-103 Mn-523
Hg - ND Hg - ND
Ni- 27,100 Ni- 10,100
Se-ND Se-ND
Ag -253 Ag - ND
Na- 1,060 Na- 1,230
Sn -9,680 Sn - 36,600
Zn- 1,070 Zn- 2,060
CN - 2,480 CN - 725
TCLP (me/n TCLP (me/H
As -ND As - ND
Ba -ND Ba - ND
Cd -ND Cd - ND
Cr - ND Cr - ND
Pb - ND Pb - ND
Hg -ND Hg - ND
Se-ND Se-ND
Ag -0.07 Ag - ND
September 1998
54
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
1 Table 13 (cont'd): Facility-Specific Information for Chicago Facilities
Facility C8
Plating Process "
Zn plating
Acid Chloride
Alkaline - non CN
Chromating
Pollution Prevention Practices
SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS
FOG6 Quantity arid Management
~135tons/yr
BFI landfill
v

Continuous Filtration
Carbon Treatment - intermittently
Replenishment - bleed off growth
Electrolytic Dummying - as needed
Monitoring - daily
Purer Anodes and Bags - 99.99% Zinc
Hexavalent Chrome Alternatives - Trivalent clear chrome
Nonchelated Process Chemistries
Non-Cyanide Process Chemicals - Dropped Cyanide plating in 1993
Solvent Degreasing Alternatives: Hot alkaline cleaning and Electrocurrent
Alkaline Cleaners - Skimming
DRAG-OUT REDUCTION/RECOVERY
Process Bath Operating Concentration
Process Bath Operating Temperature
Wetting Agents
Workpiece Positioning
Withdrawal and Drainage Time
Spray or Fog Rinses
Drainage Boards
Drag-Out Tanks - plating baths
Portion of drag out returned to plating bath
RINSE WATER
Improved Rinsing Efficiency: Spray Rinse/Rinse Water Agitation
Countercurrent Rinsing where feasible
Flow Restrictors
/ X.
Sample Deseripttoa
C8-01 - Sludge from supersack at
continuous filter press; soft and
moist; waxy; green/gray
C8-02 - Sludge from batch tank
filter press; clay consistency;
green/gray; outer layer has rust
color probably due to iron
oxidation.
Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.)
C8 - 01 C8-02
Total (me/kg) Total (mg/kg)
Al-204 Al-153
Sb -ND Sb - ND
As-ND ' As-ND
Ba -58 Ba - 45
Be -ND Be - ND
Bi - ND Bi - ND
Cd-11 Cd-ND
Ca- 15,000 Ca- 4,040
Cr-1 1,000 Cr- 59,000
Hex. Cr- 160 Hex.Cr-29
Cu-401 Cu-120
Fe - 24,600 E,e - 56,300
Pb - 30 Pb - 49
Mg- 10,800 Mg- 1,340
Mn-438 Mn-569
Hg - ND Hg - ND
Ni - 452 Ni - 257
Se - ND Se - ND
Ag-109 Ag-112
Na- 10,400 Na- 56,400
Sn -ND Sn - ND
Zn -460,000 Zn - 345,000
CN - 3 CN - 285
TCLP fme/n TCLP (msJl)
As -ND As - ND
Ba-ND Ba-0.80
Cd -0.02 Cd - ND
Cr-0.04 Cr-ND
Pb - ND Pb - ND
Hg -ND Hg - ND
Se - ND Se - ND
Ag -ND Ag - ND
September 1998
55
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Table 13 (cont'd): Facility-Specific Information for Chicago Facilities
Facility C9
Plating Process
Zn-acid plating
Cd-acid plating
Cu/Ni
Chromating
Phosphating
Pollution Prevention Practices
SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS
FOQ6 Quantity and Management
230-300 tons/yr
Recycle (Envirite)


Filtration - Zn baths as needed
Carbon Treatment - as needed
Purified Water - DI for chromates
Precipitation - Fe removal in Zn baths, combined with filtration
Monitoring - daily
Housekeeping - manager authorizes bath additions/changes
Purer Anodes and Bags - min. 99.9%
Hexavalent Chrome Alternatives - Trivalent chrome for clear chromates
Nonchelated Process Chemistries
Non-Cyanide Process Chemicals - No CN
Solvent Degreasing Alternatives: Hot alkaline cleaning and Electrocurrent
DRAG-OUT REDUCTION
Wetting Agents
Workpiece Positioning
Withdrawal and Drainage Time
Drainage Boards
Drag out Tanks - on rinses only
RINSE WATER
Countercurrent Rinsing - 2 - 3-stage
Flow Restrictors
Recycle/Recovery Rinse Water

Sample Description
C9-01 - Dried sludee from
supersack after sludge drier, warm,
dark chocolate-brown color,
granular to powdery consistency
C9-02 - Sludge from a supersack
dated the previous week, dry/moist
mix, reddish-brown, chunky and
powdery, ambient air temp
Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.)
C9 - 01 C9-02
Total (me/kg) Total (me/ke.)
Al-298 Al-311
Sb -ND Sb - ND
As -ND As - ND
Ba-578 Ba-789
Be -ND Be - ND
Bi-ND Bi-ND
Cd- 27,600 Cd- 13,800
Ca- 8,630 Ca- 17,000
Cr - 40,400 Cr - 32,200
Hex. Cr-6 Hex. Cr-11
Cu-388 Cu- 4,230
Fe- 185,000 Fe - 257,000
Pb - 5 Pb - 9
Mg -2,120 Mg- 4,190
Mn-2,130 Mn- 2,950
Hg - ND Hg - ND
Ni - 707 Ni - 2,730
Se - ND Se - NA
Ag -225 Ag - 173
Na -7,840 Na-1 1,600
Sn-ND Sn - ND
Zn -115,000 Zn- 175,000
CN-2.6 CN-1.6
TCLP(me/t) TCLPfme/n
As -ND As - ND
Ba -ND Ba - ND
Cd-144 Cd-15.8
Cr-0.14 Cr-0.02
Pb - ND Pb - ND
Hg -ND Hg - ND
Se - ND Se - ND
Ag -ND Ag - ND
September 1998
56
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
                Table 13 (cont'd): Facility-Specific Information for Chicago Facilities
                	Facility C13	
Plating Process
                 F006 Quantity and Management
                               Sample Description
Cu-CN
Au-CN
Sn
Ni
Ag-CN
3 tons/yr

Recycle (United Refining)
C13-01 - Sludge from filter press
bag; 30-day old sludge; consistency
of cookies; chocolate-brown in
color
Pollution Prevention Practices
                                                 Sample Characteristics (Dry wt)
SPENT PLATING SOLUTION
Filtration - as needed
Carbon Treatment - as needed (rarely)
Purified Water
•Electrolytic Dummying - Silver uses
Monitoring - once a month/ weekly additions
Housekeeping - QC program to calculate usage
Purer Anodes and Bags - Silver 99.99%
Solvent Degreasing Alternatives - Electrocurrent

DRAG-OUT REDUCTION/RECOVERY
Wetting Agents
Withdrawal and Drainage Time - Training
Drag-Out Tanks (Dead Rinse)
Ion Exchange for Gold
Electrowinning for Silver - commercial unit

RINSE WATER
Countercurrent Rinsing - 2-stage for tin
Flow Restrictors
Recycling/Recovery of Solvents (sent to off-site recovery)
                                                 C13-01
                                                 Total (ma/kg)
                                                 Al -564
                                                 Sb-90
                                                 As-ND
                                                 Ba-143
                                                 Be-7
                                                 Bi-ND
                                                 Cd-22
                                                 Ca -83,900
                                                 Cr-73
                                                 Hex. Cr-4
                                                 Cu-91,600
                                                 Fe - 69,000
                                                 Pb- 189
                                                 Mg-10,800
                                                 Mn -343
                                                 Hg-ND
                                                 Ni-9,010
                                                 Se-ND
                                                 Ag-351
                                                 Na-1,420
                                                 Sn-41,200
                                                 Zn -3,590
                                                 CN-3,310
                                                TCLP (mg/1)
                                                As-ND
                                                Ba-ND
                                                Cd-ND
                                                Cr-ND
                                                Pb-ND
                                                Hg-0.011
                                                Se-ND
                                                Ag -0.85
          September 1998
                                         57
                                               F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
                 Table 13 (cont'd): Facility-Specific Information for Chicago Facilities
                    	Facility C14                     	
PJating Process
F066 Quantity and Management
Sample Description
Zn-CN
Zn-Ni (CN)
ZnNi (Alkaline?)
730 tons/yr

Recycle (Horsehead and Envirite)
C14-01 - Sludge from the
luggerbox; orange-brown; dry;
chunks the size of dimes and
smaller. Carbonate from carbonate
freezing of Ni bath combined with
dewatered sludge sent to driers
Pollution Prevention
                                 Samite Chara
-------
Table 14: Summary of Chicago F006 Analytical Data
Constituent
# Samples
# Non Detects
#S^nu§1ne^ft81ieLWod
Total Metals Concentration (mg/kg)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium ,
Bismuth
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese '
Mercury
1 Nickel
•I Selenium
II Silver
•1 Sodium
|| Tin
I) Zinc
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15 '
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
0(0%)
13(87%)
1(7%)
0(0%)
11(73%)
1 1(73%)
3(20%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%) '
0(0%)
0(0%) .
0(0%)
0(0%)
10(67%)
0(0%)
.15(100%)
2(13%).
0(0%)
5(33%)
0(0%)
15(100%)
2(13%)
14(93%)
15(100%)
4(27%)
4(27%)
12(80%)
15(100%)
15(100%)
15(100%)
15(100%)
15(100%)
15(100%)
15(100%)
5(33%)
-. ' 15(100%) -
0(0%)
13(87%)
15(100%)
10(67%)
15(100%)
|[ TCLP ( mg/1)
11 Arsenic
1 Barium
• Cadmium
| Chromium
H Lead
II Mercury
|| Selenium
I) Silver
15
15
15
15
15
15
( 15
'' 15
15(100%)
14(93%)
6(40%)
7(47%)
15(100%)
12(80%)
15(100%)
11(7%)
0(0%)
1(7%)
9(60%)
8(53%)
0(0%)
3(20%)
0(0%)
4(93%)
|| General Chemistry (mg/kg)
IpChloride
|| Fluoride
• Chromium, hexavalent
• Total Cyanide
H Amenable Cyanide
|| Percent Solids
15
15
15
15
15 •
15
0(0%)
5(33%)
2(13%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
15(100%)
10(67%)
13(87%)
15(100%)
15(100%)
15(100%)
September 1998
59
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
1 Table 15: Detailed Chicago Analytical Data
Constituent
CAS No.
Cl-01
C2-01
C2-02
C3-OIS
C4-01S
C6-01
C6-02
Total Metals - Methods 6010A, 7471 A, 7060A, 7421, 7740 mg/kg
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bismuth
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Tin
Zinc
7429905
7440360
7440382
7440393
7440417
7440699
7440439
7440702
7440473
7440508
7439896
7439921
7439954
7439965
7439976
7440020
7782492
7440224
7440235
7440315
7440666
4,390
ND
ND
1,080
ND
ND
17,300
47,400
83,000
40,000
27,800
10,300
51,100
332
ND
98,800
ND
280
- 22,100
13,800
17,100
45,900
ND
ND
65
ND
66
3,740
32,900
9,300
1,210
29,500
170
161,000
1,240
ND
1,640
ND
27
29,600
1,270
62,000
27,900
ND
ND
76
ND
19
4,440
26,400
18,700
1,600
40,400
161
111,000
1,010
0
7,390
ND
88
33,100
2,090
89,200
597
ND
39
167
ND
ND
788
30,200
10,700
86
156,000
581
27,200
3,300
ND
106
ND
ND
8,200
68
262,000
41,000
ND
ND
715
37
ND
6,040
63,500
50,800
9,940
124,000
2,320
49,500
1,690
0
11,300
ND
110
4,440
36,200
176,000
5,350
207
ND
119
20
ND
51
63,000
698
37,500
24,600
326
53,400
799
0
77,100
ND
272
37,200
' 9,740
24,400
1,740
ND
ND
54
10
35
ND
13,000
59,400
21,900
47,000
109
6,100
746
0
21,500
ND
32
89,200
12,100
81,400
TCLP Metals - Methods 131 1, 6010 A, 7470A mg/L
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
7440382
7440393
7440439
7440473
7439921
7439976
7782492
7440224
ND
ND
1.0
2.8
ND
0.001
ND
3.8
ND
ND
0.19
0.08
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.16
0.09
ND
ND
ND
" ND
ND
0.7
1.57
ND
'ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.26
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.002
ND
0.29
ND
ND
ND
0.08
ND
ND
ND
ND
September 1998
60
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Table 15: Detailed Chicago Analytical Data |
Constituent
-
Chloride
Fluoride
Chromium, hex
Total Cyanide
Amen. Cyanide
CAS No.
Cl-01
C2-01
C2-02
C3-01S
C4-01S
C6-01
C6-02 ||
General Chemistry - Methods 300.0, 335.2, 335.1, 7195/6010A mg/kg
16887006
16984488
18540299
57125
E- 10275
Percent Solids
2,720
166
1,190
1,800
110
57.0
7430
4210
53
3.3
** 6.2
13.5
59,800
1180
11
0.8
** 2.6
44
5,980
ND
.33
3,240
** 4,940
15.3
959
96.5
28
3,740
** 5,340
14.7
2,140
128
7
373
'** 471
25
322
347
174
240
**354
30.3
Notes: * AH results reported on a dry-weight basis.
** Reported value is the concentration of cyanide after chlorination. Since this value is greater than the total
cyanide result, a value for the cyanide amenable to chlorination cannot be calculated.
ND = Not detected
September 1998
61
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
                        Table 15:  Detailed Chicago Analytical Data
1 Constituent
CAS No.
C7-01S
C7-02S
C8-01
C8-02
C9-01
C9-02
C13-01
CI4-01 |
Total Metals - Methods 6010A, 7471 A, 7060A, 7421, 7740 mg/kg
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bismuth
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Tin
Zinc
7429905
7440360
7440382
7440393
7440417
7440699
7440439
7440702
7440473
7440508
7439896
7439921
7439954
7439965
7439976
7440020
7782492
7440224
7440235
7440315
7440666
4,510
ND
ND
20
ND
ND
9
11,000
161
21,400
1,510
47
336,000
103
ND
27,100
ND
253
1,060
9,680
1,070
493
ND
.ND
27
ND
54
ND
16,100
127
23,800
131,000
2,080
242,000
523
ND
10,100
ND
ND
1,230
36,600
2,060
204
ND
ND
58
ND
ND
11
15,000
11,000
401
24,600
30
10,800
438
ND
452
ND
109
10,400
ND
460,000
153
ND
ND
45
ND
ND
ND
4,040
59,000
120
56,300
49
1,340
569
ND
257
ND
112
56,400
ND
345,000
298
ND
ND
578
ND
ND
27,600
8,630
40,400
388
185,000
5
2,120
2,130
ND
707
ND
225
7,840
ND
115,000
311
ND
ND
789
ND
ND
13,800
17,000
32,200
4,230
257,000
9
4,190
2,950
ND
2,730
ND
173
11,600
ND
175,000
564
90
ND
143
7
ND
22
83,900
73
91,600
69,600
189
10,800
343
0
9,010
ND
351
1,420
41,200
3,590
390
ND
ND
48
ND
ND
31
18,200
24,200
220
129,000
149
5,360
858
ND
128
ND
87
16,500
ND
375,000
TCLP Metals - Methods 1311, 6010A, 7470A mg/L
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
7440382
7440393
7440439
7440473
7439921
7439976
7782492
7440224
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.07
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.02
0.04
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.80
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

-------
TablelS: Detailed Chicago Analytical Data
Constituent
Fluoride
Chromium, hex.
Total Cyanide
Amen. Cyanide
CAS No.
169844SS
18540299
57125
E- 10275
Percent Solids
C7-01S
42.4
ND
2,480
** 4,050
47.4
C7-02S
17.5
ND
725
** 1,100
41.1
C8-OI
ND
160
3
**4.3
15.8
C8-02
ND
29
285
285
23.5
C9-01
343.
e'
2.6
**3.5
45.7
C9-02 '
ND
11
1.6
**3.1
41.4
C13-01
ND
4
3,310
250
32.8
C 14-01
416
18
3,920
830
40.4
Notes: * AH results reported on a dry-weight basis.
** Reported value is the concentration of cyanide after chlorination. Since this value is greater than the total cyanide
result, a value for the cyanide amenable to chlorination cannot be calculated.
ND = Not detected
September 1998
63
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
3. Phoenix Benchmarking Study

       This section provides a detailed presentation of data gathered in the Phoenix Benchmarking Study,
including a characterization of plating processes, pollution'prevention and recycling practices, F006
characteristics, and site specific variations in the generation and management of F006 for ten facilities in
Phoenix. Table  16 is the facility selection matrix used to select 10 facilities from 13 candidates. Table 17
presents information collected for each facility in the study. Table 18 summarizes the results of the
laboratory analyses of F006 data and Table 19 presents detailed laboratory analysis results for each facility.

       The  10 Phoenix facilities generate approximate 1428 tons of F006 per year. Eight facilities recycle
their waste and two facilities send their waste to be landfilled.  Fifteen F006 laboratory samples were
gathered.
           September 1998
64
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------











X
•pK
i
cs
s
B
O
•-C
^
~
"Z
VI
&
••*
PN«
"3
r*
fc
U
_B
w
E
13
**

£
«
r<
ft,

f-m
ft.



o
a.
ON
ft,


£

•K
tas^
EL,




^O
ft,

V)
ft,

•*
ft,


«
ft,


M
ft,


W*
ft,




.S
.1
*c
u
e
^
u
£
^
CO
"O
U
I
U
CO
*2
g
B
<
i
OT3
13
on

T3
£
B
I
05
Selected


Selected

i
•*->
<^^



i
u
L^
"8
1
^
1
O
u
i>
EW

Selected

1
8
£
V2
"d
1
U
£








M
S
ts
55
QJ
>
"1
o

A
5

JD
O
•— »



x>
o
»""»
u
>
f
o


_o
o
>-1

X)
o




JS
o
N— »
u
^
'I
o
u
>
-3
s


JD
O
•— V


J3
S

1>
!




J3
1
>

I
W
ii
&
K


S

o
•*

r--
T±



>n
VO
8
*n
r~


o
in

ft
O





cr
c^ -2
&Q



§B
o
"o
B
J=
U
«
H
I
d
2

S+±
5 BJ
•-, ? J2
PI
> -a
MX
A-I'S^
0 | | W
•° *
I.,
5 &
o o •
X



o
LH
U
S


o
2

o
2




i8-
M (i *5?
6 s-2
0 &

o

o
"Z,


o

h u
W cfl
B 3
1 &


S3
«




_«
u
>>
1
i
'£5
c
O


1

o
Z

1



o
1


o
2

o





Q
2

VI
u
>

s



O


O
2


o
2








S
•o
§



U c/>
4ml 1*
*•« VI
t> V3
_*-* jji
£ £
*• w
^J (/)
£ £



s 1
£ £
h m
- g
£ £


1 1
£ £

1
S
,±2
£


b jg^'u-
iii (y (M jj
E £ -c c
Q "•
LM r-n
£ S
£ £
S
!i
a.
1

u-
1 |
£ £

h w
U V3
l£

S
nj
1
S
E



•a
o
1

-4~l
C
i>
|M
2
e
'a
S

i --1 2
•a 2 u
^al
3 M
9 |
31
S o
3 &A-4?
V f- H 2 U
'3 .g" JB" -g" _3
< H &H * <


tf jo" Jj
H °r < 2
a .S .- U
01-2
5-
|z
u


^allfg
W UrC § ^

S £ !a ° '•?
«3l6-
Cj^fi
0 «._
z" .& ^ J2
S -fa •§ — "
I ^ -S 2
3 ^
o w
»f Z .N" "So
< • ^ - 3^5
T3 j> « o o-s v.
J< S-S-TJ 9-E «
•3 o. a. i. n.T3 >
.- o o S o ca s
2UUZUO&0
J .S3
^= 3 3U 3T) SO
2UUEULX







g1
S
"3.
VO * ^
i llfrts
f- o 'K J5 '^ ^ <"
2 °p 5 s o<— a «
Co C ~ -i O r^tS TT
t ifiSifiHf
1 |« = ^-s8"B
•" £29 6T3 ° 2 o
g £ £ MOJ|2S o
60 JJ^2^."^Ji.S
S UU.QCJ2OWM
E
•M U
| ^SOo.-aJ?^
u uuu,QO2 u5'rT£ e c p.S3 8
•*-; SU'WS^.CwJs
| I S.I l|ft I
O T3 U -1? *» G — T3 (U
i Illlllie
rs (S|*i^c3^oWwS
H "S^'O'nriSSfS
CQ ^^ ^*, 1— H N>^ *«— / NH t^J NW
tl.
fc
lil>
-------
1 Table 17: Facility-Specific Information for Phoenix Facilities
Facility PI
Plating Process '
Acid Cu Electroless Ni
Au-CN Electroless Cu
Tin-Pb
Pollution Prevention Practices
SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS
F006 Quantity and Management
~445 tons/yr
Recycle (World Resources)


Filtration
Carbon treatment
Bath replenishment ,
Purified water - utilize Reverse Osmosis (RO) and Electrodialytic
Removal (EDR)
Electrolytic dummying
Monitoring - 90% of baths changed via throughput - some constant
feed/bleed
Housekeeping via checklists
Drag-in reduction - drip boards/rack orientation
Purer anodes and bags - currently using purest level per specifications
Facility has explored electrowinning Cu
Solvent degreasing alternatives - currently use alkaline/aqueous
DRAG-OUT REDUCTION/RECOVERY
Wetting agents - contained in some chemistries
Workpiece positioning - some racks set at angle
Withdrawal and drainage time - increased hang time
Spray or fog rinses - all horizontal equipment
Drainage boards - automated line equipped w/drainage boards that move
w/racks
Drag-out tanks - replenish baths with drag-out tanks
Replenish plating baths with drag-out tanks
RINSEWATER
Spray rinse/rinse water agitation - air agitation in most cases
Increased contact time/multiple rinses
Countercurrent rinsing
Flow restrictors - horizontal flow sensors - flow restrictors on most rinses
Conductivity-actuated flow control - rinse after micro-etch on oxide line
Recycling of rinse water via a closed loop system for etch rinses
Sample Description ' -
PI -01 - collected from roll-off.
includes sludge generated from
separate alkaline etch batch
treatment press
PI -02 - composite of sludge
collected from two roll-offs
containing sludge. — --
Sample Characteristics (Dry wt,)
PI - 01 PI - 02
Total (me/kg) Total (ma/kg")
Al - 3,420 Al - 44,700
Sb - ND Sb - ND
As - 2 As - 8
Ba-6 Ba-22
Bi-ND Bi-ND
Cd - ND Cd - ND
Ca- 15,100 Ca- 15,300
Cr-10 Cr-23
Hex. Cr - ND Hex. Cr - ND
Cu- 7,690 Cu-28,100
Fe - 5,050 Fe - 4,020
Pb- 2,590 -Pb-194
Mg- 3 19,000 Mg- 245,000
Mn-101 Mn-288
Hg - ND Hg - ND
Ni - 3,080 Ni - 4,450
Se - ND Se - ND
Ag - 8 Ag - 22
Na- 4,050 Na- 4,780
Sn- 2,370 Sn-1,710
Zn - 57 Zn - 190
CN - ND CN - ND
TCLP (mg/1) TCLP (mg/1)
As - ND As - ND
Ba-ND Ba-ND
Cd - ND Cd - ND
Cr - ND Cr - ND
Pb-0,12 Pb-0.08
Hg - ND Hg - ND
Se-ND Se-ND
Ag - ND Ag - ND
September 1998
66
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
           Table 17 (cont'd): Facility-Specific Information for Phoenix Facilities
          ___	Facility P2	
Plating Process
                FJG6 Quantity and Management
                                Sample Description
Hard chrome
Sulfuric acid
anodizing
chromic Acid
anodizing
Hard anodizing
Electroless Ni
Sulfamate Ni
Cd-CN
Zinc
phosphating
Manganese
phosphating
Chromate
conversion
coatings
passivation
Cu-CN
~40 tons/yr

Recycle (World Resources)
P2-01 - collected directly from roll-
off, brownish-green mixed with a
white and green layer
Pollution Prevention Practices
                                                 Sample Characteristics (Dry wi)
SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS
Filtration - seals, anodize, sulfamate/electroless Ni, Cu, Cd
Carbon Treatment on CN rinses, periodically on sulfamate nickel
Replenishment - process tanks have drag-out w/ replenishment of Cd, Cu,
Cr, anodize
Purified Water - RO/DI, not all rinse tanks use purified water
Electrolytic Dummying - Woods Ni, strike, sulfamate Ni, Cr anodize, Cr
plate, Cu
Precipitation - hard Cr - BaC12 precipitates sulfate
Monitoring - wet lab/computerized cleaners-chronological
Drag-in Reduction - training on rinsing, minimum of 2 counterflow rinses
Purer Anodes and Bags - already employed (Cd 99.999%) - all highest
grade
Ventilation/Exhaust Systems - Cr scrubber reused for evaporation losses
Solvent Degreasing Alternatives - use vapor degreaser - not using
perchloroethylene, but instead a brominated solvent
Acid Purification - chromic acid purification (hard chrome). Uses
EcoTech system
         i
DRAG-OUT REDUCTION/RECOVERY
Process Bath Operating Concentration - chromic acid concentrations have
been looked at to reduce drag-out - limitations due to specs
Workpiece positioning - racking
Withdrawal and Drainage Time - spraying over bath
Spray or Fog Rinses over drag-out tanks
Spent Plating Solutions - Replenishment

RINSE WATER
Spray Rinse/RinseWater Agitation - air agitation in some tanks
Increased Contact Time/Multiple Rinses
Countercurrent Rinsing
Flow Restrictors in all cases
Conductivity-Actuated Flow Control - all rinses are conductivity/pH
controlled via lab
Rinse Water - recycling/recovery of CN rinses
                                                 P2-01
                                                 Total (mg/kg)
                                                 Al -72,300
                                                 Sb-ND
                                                 As- 12
                                                 Ba-67
                                                 Bi-71
                                                 Cd-77
                                                 Ca-15,800
                                                 Cr - 25,700
                                                 Hex. Cr - 5
                                                 Cu -2,660
                                                 Fe-13,600
                                                 Pb-1,160
                                                 Mg-198,000
                                                 Mn- 116
                                                 Hg - 0.3
                                                 Ni - 4,480
                                                 Se-ND
                                                 Ag-7
                                                 Na-15,800
                                                 Sn-171
                                                 Zn-251
                                                 CN-ND
                                                 TCLP(mg/l)
                                                 As-ND
                                                 Ba-ND
                                                 Cd-ND
                                                 Cr-0.1
                                                 Pb-0.12
                                                 Hg-ND
                                                 Se-ND
                                                 Ag-ND
          September 1998
                                          67
                                                 F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
          Table 17 (cont'd): Facility-Specific Information for Phoenix Facilities
          	Facility P3	
Plating Process
F006 Quantity aad Management
Sample Description
Hard chrome    Sulfamate Ni
Cu-CN         Electroless Ni
Ag-CN         Bright Ni
Sulfuric anodizing
Chrome anodizing
37 tons/yr

Recycle (Word Resources)
P3-01 - taken from roll-off, blue-
greenish color
P3-02 - taken from same roll-off,
sample collected from obviously
different press load - brownish-
green in color
         Prevention Practices
                                Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.)
SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS
Filtration on all process tanks
Carbon treatment used in regular filters
Replenishment
Purified water-RO/DI
Electrolytic Dummying - Ag/Nickel baths
Cyanide Bath Carbonate Freezing r precipitate AgCN from bath
Precipitation - precipitate Al out of anodize bath
Monitoring - most tanks weekly - either scheduled or monitored
replacements
Housekeeping - tank covers, clean anode/cathode bars
Drag-in Reduction - Counter Flow rinses
Purer Anodes and Bags - already using high purity Ni/Cu/Ag
Hexavalent Chrome Alternatives - MILSPEC, etc. limits options
Non-cyanide Process Chemicals - MILSPEC limitations, also would need
to redo permit to use these chemistries
Solvent Degreasing Alternatives - used to use Vapor degreaser
(perchloroethylene) switched -1995 to aqueous-based
Alkaline Cleaners - skimming on semi-aqueous cleaners (alkaline based)
Acid Purification - chrome baths - constant ion exchange, after 8 days,
baths are "dead"  and are diluted by half and run through ion exchange,
then evaporated to working concentration (can recover ~98% of original
bath)

DRAG-OUT REDUCTION/RECOVERY
Wetting Agents - some tanks have agents (Cu, Ni, fume suppressant-mist
control)
Workpiece Positioning - incorporated (optimization between drag-out and
throwing power)
Withdrawal and Drainage Time - operator subjective (training)
Spray or Fog Rinses in chrome baths - RO water spray
Drag-out Tanks - Ag tanks, chromic anodize, 3 rinse on chrome tank,
replenish bath
RINSE WATER
Spray Rinse/Rinse Water Agitation - some rinses have air agitation
Increased Contact Time/Multiple Rinses
Countercurrent Rinsing
                                P3-01
                                Total Cine/kg')
                                Al-76,100
                                Sb-ND
                                As- 11
                                Ba-686
                                Bi- 19
                                Cd-5
                                Ca-35,300
                                Cr - 205,000
                                Hex. Cr - 8
                                Cu - 5,670
                                Fe - 6,450
                                Pb- 191
                                Mg- 15,500
                                Mn- 183
                                Hg-ND
                                Ni - 4,400
                                Se-ND
                                Ag-23
                                Na-15,600
                                Sn -382
                                Zn - 7,390
                                CN - 2.4

                                _TCLP(mg/l)
                                As-ND
                                Ba-ND
                                Cd-ND
                                Cr - 0.92
                                Pb - 0.06
                                Hg - 0.003
                                Se-ND
                                Ag-ND
                P3-02
                Total (mg/kg)
                Al - 74,500
                Sb-ND
                As-12
                Ba-371
                Bi-29
                Cd-30
                Ca -  63,300
                Cr-118,000
                Hex. Cr - 11
                Cu-11,500
                Fe - 7,990
                Pb -  500
                Mg - 30,300
                Mn- 184
                Hg-ND
                Ni - 4,390
                Se-ND
                Ag-1,190
                Na-19,800
                Sn-182
                Zn-29,100
                CN - 579

                TCLP (mg/1)
                As-ND
                Ba-ND
                Cd -  0.02
                Cr - 0.56
                Pb-ND
                Hg-ND
                Se-ND
                Ag-ND
          September 1998
                         68
                F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Table 17 (cont'd): Facility-Specific Information for Phoenix Facilities
Facility P4
PlatiflgiPriBeesjr
Ni-Cr on steel
Hard chrome on steel
Cu-CN
Sulfuric acid anodizing
polJutioufrevintioa Practices
SPENT PLATFNG SOLUTIONS
FOOti Quantity and Management
85 tons/yr
Subtitle C Landfill
*

Replenishment on all tanks
Purified Water - DI water
Electrolytic Dummying - hard chrome (regeneration automatically in tank)
Monitoring once a week
Housekeeping - training for drag-out, air drying
Ventilation/Exhaust Systems
Nonchelated Process Chemistries - segregate chelating chemistries,
investigated material substitutions
Solvent Degreasing Alternatives - all cleaning is aqueous based
DRAG-OUT REDUCTION/RECOVERY
Wetting Agents - exploring with vendor
Workpiece Positioning
Withdrawal and Drainage Time - procedures set guideline
Drainage boards and drag-out tanks
Drag-out used as make-up in baths
RINSE WATER
Spray Rinse/Rinse Water Agitation - air and water agitation
Increased Contact Time/Multiple Rinses
Countercurrent Rinsing
Rinse Water - counterflow recycling/recovery
Spent Process Baths - a portion of FeCl is used in Waste water treatment
for flocculation
Sample Description - ,
P4-01 - collected directly from roll-
off, reddish-brown in color
Sample Cbftttt&r&titt (D*y w*,)
P4-01
Total (me/kg) TCLP Cme/l)
A1-2,I80 As-ND
Sb - ND Ba - ND
As -10 Cd-ND
Ba-'49 Cr-ND
Bi - ND Pb - ND
Cd - ND Hg - ND
Ca- 15,700 Se-ND
Cr- 5,680 , Ag-ND
Hex. Cr - 75
Cu-417
Fe - 560,000
Pb-80
Mg-6,310
Mn - 2,070
Hg-ND
Ni- 1,530
Se-ND
Ag-ND
Na - 6,700
Sn-38
Zn - 258
CN-ND
September 1998
69
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
          Table 17 (cont'd): Facility-Specific Information for Phoenix Facilities
          	Facility PS	
                                F006 Quantity and Management
Hard chrome    Sulfamate Ni
Cu-CN         Ag-CN
Aluminum anodizing
50 tons/yr

Subtitle C Landfill
P5-Q1 - composited a variety of
different press loads into a single
sample, colors ranged from dark
brown to light brown to greenish-
brown
Pollution Prevention Practices
                                Sample Characteristics (Dry wt)
SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS
Filtration of most baths
Replenishment of most baths
Purified Water - RO/DI
Electrolytic Dummying - hard chrome
Cyanide Bath Carbonate Freezing for all CN plating (CaC03 drops out)
Monitoring - wet chemistry - all changes are based on testing
Housekeeping - designated bath maintenance person
Ventilation/Exhaust Systems - scrubbers segregated as well
Nonchelated Process Chemistries - segregated (electroless Ni)
Solvent Degreasing Alternatives - all cleaning aqueous based
Alkaline Cleaners - coalesce/disk filter to remove contaminants

DRAG-OUT REDUCTION/RECOVERY
Wetting Agents
Workpiece positioning
Withdrawal and Drainage Time - SOP's
Air Knives - some used for drying
Spray or Fog Rinses - some drag-out tanks have spray rinse
Drainage boards and drag-out tanks
Sent back for replenishment of plating baths

RINSE WATER
Spray Rinse/Rinse Water Agitation - air agitation
Increased Contact Time/Multiple Rinses
Countercurrent Rinsing
Flow restrictors set at 5 gpm (timed)
Spent Process Baths - copper alkaline strip recycled/recovered off-site at a
smelter
Solvents - oil based wax removal sent off site for fuel blending
                                P5-01
                                Total (me/kg)
                                Al - 2,270
                                Sb-ND
                                As-160
                                Ba-387
                                Bi-ND
                                Cd - 806
                                Ca - 29,300
                                Cr- 206,000
                                Hex. Cr-77
                                Cu-23,500
                                Fe - 35,200
                                Pb - 377
                                Mg-31,300
                                Mn - 556
                                Hg-ND
                                Ni - 10,300
                                Se-ND
                                Ag - 457
                                Na- 15,300
                                Sn - 546
                                Zn-291.
                                CN- 102
                 TCLP (mg/T)
                As-ND
                Ba-ND
                Cd-ND
                Cr-1.06
                Pb-ND
                Hg-ND
                Se-ND
                Ag-ND
          September 1998
                         70
                F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
1 Table 17 (cont'd): Facility-Specific Information for Phoenix Facilities
Facility P6
Platting £r0ee!is y "' '-'
Cu sulfate
Hard chrome
Cyanide-based brass
Pollution Prevention Practices
SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS
F006 Quantity and Management
-590 tons/yr
Recycle (World Resources)
'

Filtration on all baths - cartridge, bags, and diatomaceous earth filters
Carbon Treatment - electroforming
Replenishment - continuous circulation
Purified Water - RO
Monitoring - on-line XRF, wet lab
Drag-in Reduction - multiple rinses, squeegees
Ventilation/Exhaust Systems
Non-cyanide Process Chemicals - looking at material substitutions
Caustic Etch Solution Regeneration - plate-out removes all copper
Acid Purification - filtration
DRAG-OUT REDUCTION/RECOVERY
Spray or Fog Rinses - some replenish to prior tank
All Drag-Out to Waste Water Treatment
RINSE WATER
Spray Rinse/Rinse Water Agitation
Increased Contact Time/Multiple Rinses
Flow Restrictors - some used but operators can adjust flow manually
Conductivity-Actuated Flow Control
Spent Process Baths - Recycling/Recovery of electroforming bath -
Solvent Extraction of copper off-site
Sample Description ", • '-
P6-Q1 - "fresh" sludge sample from
roll-off currently in use(sludge
dropped that day), sludge was a
mixture of bluish and dark brown
P6-02 - "old" sludge from hopper
accumulated the previous week,
appeared brownish
Sample Characteristics (Dry wt)
P6-01 P6-02
Total (mg/kg) Total (mg/kg)
Al-511 AI-233
Sb-221 Sb-153
As - 8,780 As - 5,600
Ba - 67 Ba - 1 1
Bi - ND Bi - ND
Cd -3 Cd - ND
Ca- 1,440 Ca- 1,980
Cr- 10,000 Cr- 7,820
Hex. Cr- 548 Hex. Cr- 466
Cu -552,000 Cu - 463,000
Fe - 6,650 Fe - 2,670
Pb- 19,800 Pb- 14,800
Mg- 1,320 Mg- 1,590
Mn - 72 Mn - 24
Hg-ND Hg-ND
Ni-99 Ni-51
Se - ND Se - ND
Ag -3 - Ag - ND
Na - 60 Na - 25
Sn - 3,570 Sn - 3,850
Zn- 3 1,600 Zn- 24,600
CN-169 CN-127
TCLP fmg/n ICLP(mg/l)
As - ND As - ND
Ba - ND Ba - ND
Cd - 0.02 Cd - 0.03
Cr-ND Cr-ND
Pb- 35.40 Pb- 39.80
Hg - ND Hg - ND
Se - ND Se - ND
Ag - ND Ag - ND
September 1998
71
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
          Table 17 (cont'd): Facility-Specific Information for Phoenix Facilities
                      	     Facility P8	
Wasting Process
F006 Quantity and Management
Sample Description
Electroless Cu   Acid Cu
Ni sulfamate    Au-CN
Tin-lead-copper
64 tons/yr

Recycle (World Resources)
P8-01 - sample collected directly
from hopper, appeared brownish in
color and was dropped that day
Pollution Prevention Practices
                                Sample Characteristics (Dry wt)
SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS
Filtration on acid Cu, Au, Ni, black oxide, pre-cleaning lines
Carbon Treatment on acid Cu/Sn-Pb/Au, Ni
Purified Water - RO/UV/ion exchange - incoming water
Electrolytic Dummying - acid Cu primarily (Sn)
Monitoring - lab does chemical maintenance - computer controlled (staff
monitors)
Housekeeping - drip trays, daily inspection
Drag-in Reduction - manual lines - training
Ventilation/Exhaust Systems - fume scrubbers on roof, ventilation on
tanks that are heated
Alkaline cleaners - Filtration and Skimming

DRAG-OUT REDUCTION/RECOVERY
Process Bath Operating Concentration - standard and well addressed
Process Bath Operating Temperature - already optimized
Air Knives and squeegee rollers
Spray or Fog Rinses
Drainage Boards - drip pads between tanks
Drag-Out Tanks

RINSE WATER
Spray Rinse/Rinse Water Agitation - air agitation on a few tanks
Countercurrent Rinsing - used in all processes
Flow restrictors isolated and operator controlled
Spent Process Baths - ammonium hydroxide etching recycled off site
                                P8-01
                                Total (mg/kg)
                                Al - 60,800
                                Sb-ND
                                As-3
                                Ba-125
                                Bi-ND
                                Cd-ND
                                Ca-9,710
                                Cr - 248
                                Hex. Cr - ND
                                Cu - 124,000
                                Fe - 50,900
                                Pb-3,610
                                Mg - 6,620
                                Mn - 496
                                Hg - 0.3
                                Ni - 2,900
                                Se-ND
                                Ag-835
                                Na-2,050
                                Sn - 14,700
                                Zn - 782
                                CN-ND
                 TCLP (mg/D
                As-ND
                Ba-1.5
                Cd-ND
                Cr - 0.02
                Pb - 0.64
                Hg-ND
                Se-ND
                Ag-ND
          September 1998
                         72
                F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
1 Table 17 (cont'd): Facility-Specific Information for Phoenix Facilities
Facility P9
Plating Process
Copper sulfate
Nickel sulfate
Au immersion (CN)
Tin
Electrolytic Au (CN )
Electroless nickel
Pollution Prevention Practices
SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS
PWfi Quantity and Management ••
109 tons/yr
Recycle (World Resources)
-

Particulate filtration
Carbon treatment
Replenishment
Purified Water - RO/DI
Electrolytic Dummying - Ni/Cu
Monitoring - AA testing, titrations, and microetch Cu testing
Housekeeping
Drag-in Reduction
Purer Anodes and Bags are already implemented (function of industry)
Ventilation/Exhaust Systems
Nonchelated Process Chemistries - chelating chemistries are segregated
Solvent Degreasing Alternatives - removed vapor degreaser
Caustic Etch Solution Regeneration - Cu Ammonium chlorite recycled off
site
DRAG-OUT REDUCTION/RECOVERY
Process Bath Operating Concentration - optimized
Process Bath Operating Temperature - optimized
Wetting Agents - Ni and Cu bath
Workpiece Positioning - looking at positioning sheets at 10° drip angle
Withdrawal and Drainage Time - automatic lines are programmed with
dwell and rate of removal
Air Knives and squeegees on conveyors
Spray or Fog Rinses
Drainage Boards - used some in electrolytic gold and used in conveyors
Drag-Out Tanks
Evaporation - Ni drag-out replenished to Ni plate bath
RINSE WATER
Spray .Rinse/Rinse Water Agitation
Increased Contact Time/Multiple Rinses
Countercurrent Rinsing
Flow Restrictors
Conductivity-Actuated Flow Control - used on large Cu-Tin line
Rinse Water - approximately 30 to 35% of total flow is recycled
Spent Process Baths - Au recovered on site
Sample Description
P9-01 - chelate sludge sampled
directly from small hopper prior to
moving to final storage roll-off
where commingled with non-
chelate sludge
P9-02 - non-chelate sludge sampled
directly from final storage hopper
avoiding chelate sludge (some
minor mixing of the two occurred)
Sample Characteristics (Dry wt)
P9 - 01 P9 - 02
Total (me/ke) Total fmg/kg)
Al-4,110 Al-59
Sb - 44 Sb - ND
As - 26 As - 9
Ba - 40 Ba - 9
Bi-21 Bi-ND
Cd - ND Cd - ND
Ca- 6,880 Ca-682
Cr-100 Cr-34
Hex. Cr-ND Hex.Cr-31
Cu- 48,700 Cu- 63 1,000
Fe - 204,000 Fe - 364
Pb- 1,660 Pb-ND
Mg- 10,700 Mg-230
Mn-191 Mn-104
Hg-ND Hg-ND
Ni- 1,990 Ni- 10,800
Se-ND Se-ND
Ag-38 Ag-12
Na- 3 6,900 Na- 4 1,600
Sn - 37,200 Sn - 402
Zn - 389 Zn - 2.750
CN-9.1 CN-ND
TCLP taa/n TCLP (meJl)
As - ND As - ND
Ba - ND Ba - ND
Cd - ND Cd - ND
Cr-ND Cr-ND
Pb-ND Pb-0.08
Hg - ND Hg - ND
Se - ND Se-ND
Ag - ND Ag - ND
                                                          U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
                                                                 Mail code 3201
                                                          1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
                                                              Washington DC 20460
September 1998
73
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
          Table 17 (cont'd): Facility-Specific Information for Phoenix Facilities
          	Facility Pll	
Plating Process
F006 Quantity and Management
Sample Description'
Acid Cu Ni sulfate
Tin-Pb         Acid Tin
Au-CN
~4 tons/yr

Recycle (World Resources)
PI 1-01 - sludge from supersack
PolJutiBB Prevention Practices
                                Sample Characteristics (Dry wt.)
SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS
Filtration on all process baths
Carbon treatment on acid-Cu quarterly and others periodically
Replenishment of baths with drag-out
Purified water - use deionized water
Electrolytic dummying periodically
Monitoring via wet lab (pH, titration); baths replaced based on sq. ft.
plated
Drag-in reduction - drain times/dwell times
Segregate chelating process chemistries (magnesium sulfate used on a
batch-by-batch basis)
Solvent degreasing alternatives - all cleaners are aqueous-based
Alkaline cleaners - resist strip is filtered

DRAG-OUT REDUCTION/RECOVERY
Workpiece positioning - racks are coated
Optimize withdrawal and drainage time
Use squirt bottles for rinsing Au/Ni solution back into bath
Utilize Drag-out tanks
Some drag-out tanks are used to replenish hot plating baths

RINSE WATER
Spray rinse/rinse water agitation
Increased contact time/multiple rinses
Countercurrent rinsing
Flow restrictors
Conductivity-actuated flow control
Recycling/recovery of rinse water - closed-loop on metal-bearing rinses
                                Pll-01
                                Total (mg/kg)
                                Al-819
                                Sb-ND
                                As - ND
                                Ba-  17
                                Bi-ND
                                Cd-ND
                                Ca-11,400
                                Cr-119
                                Hex. Cr - ND
                                Cu -  125,000
                                Fe - 75,800
                                Pb - 6,080
                                Mg - 72,600
                                Mn - 2,080
                                Hg-ND
                                Ni- 1,030
                                Se-ND
                                Ag-14
                                Na-  13,400
                                Sn-131,000
                                Zn -  820
                                CN-ND
                 TCLPfmg/n
                As-ND
                Ba-ND
                Cd-ND
                Cr-ND
                Pb-0.13
                Hg-ND
                Se-ND
                Ag-ND
          September 1998
                         74
                F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Table 17 (cont'd): Facility-Specific Information for Phoenix Facilities
Facility P13
Plating Process
Copper (CN) Au-CN
Ni
Pollution Prevention Practices
FOOfi Quantity and Management
~4 tons/yr
Recycle (World Resources)
y
SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS
Filtration
Carbon Treatment for alkaline rinse
Purified Water - DI system
Electrolytic Dummying - Ni baths
Monitoring via in-house lab - conductivity on rinse tanks, going to add
turbidity monitor to alkaline rinse
Housekeeping - process tanks are covered at end of the day and also
replace baths chronologically visually
Drag-in Reduction - spray rinses with double dipping
Ventilation/Exhaust Systems
Nonchelated Process Chemistries - electrowinning helps, and add
reducing agents
DRAG-OUT REDUCTION/RECOVERY
Workpiece Positioning - looking into new racks
Withdrawal and Drainage Time - subject to plater on manual lines (Au
racks are left to sit —10 minutes)
Spray or Fog Rinses - stagnant spray rinses (with water)
Drag-Out Tanks
Electrowinning - Ni, Cu
RINSE WATER
Spray Rinse/RinseWater Agitation - air agitation
Increased Contact Time/Multiple Rinses
Countercurrent Rinsing
Flow Restrictors - spray rinses
Conductivity-Actuated Flow Control - conductivity meters, but not
controlled because generate too much water
Rinse Water - Ni rinse with ion exchange is recycled
Sample Description
P13-01 - "old" sample collected
from top of superbag, appeared -
dry, and dense
PI 3-02 - "fresh" sample collected
directly from small hopper under
filter press
Sample Characteristics (Dry wt,)
P13-01 P13-02
Total (mg/kg) Total (mg/kg)
Al- 1,370 Al- 2,860
Sb- 34,800 Sb- 1,250
As - ND As - 10
Ba-253 Ba-198
Bi - 398 Bi - 32
Cd-ND Cd-3
Ca- 2,690 Ca- 143,000
Cr-29 Cr-170
Hex. Cr-ND Hex. Cr-ND
Cu -3,660 Cu - 6,430 .
Fe- 3,500 Fe-17,100
Pb- 175,000 Pb- 13,000
Mg-187 Mg- 2,640
Mn-13 Mn-92
Hg - 0.5 Hg - 0.4
Ni- 2,420 Ni- 7 1,900
Se - ND Se - ND
Ag-113 Ag-40
Na-310 Na- 5,660
Sn- 467,000 Sn - 15,300
Zn-672 Zn-357
CN - ND CN - ND
TCLP (ms/l) TCLP (me/1)
As - ND As - ND
Ba - ND Ba - ND
Cd-0.1 Cd-ND
Cr - ND Cr - ND
Pb- 1,630 Pb-1-26
Hg - ND Hg - ND
Se - ND Se - ND
Ag - ND Ag - ND
September 1998
75
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Table 18: Summary of Phoenix F006 Analytical Data: # of Samples Which Were: Not
Detected; Above Method Quantitation Limit
Constituent
# Samples
(%)
# Non Detects
(%)
# Samples Above
Method Quantitation
Limit (%)
Total Metals Concentration (mg/kg)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bismuth
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Tin
Zinc
15
15
15
15
0
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
0
15
15
15
15
0(0%)
10(67%)
2(13%)
0(0%)
0
9(60%)
9(60%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
1(7%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
11(73%)
0(0%)
0
2(13%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
15(100%)
5(33%)
13(87%)
15(100%) .
0
6(40%)
6(40%)
15(100%)
15(100%)
15(100%)
15(100%)
14(93%)
15(100%)
15(100%)
4(27%)
15(100%)
0
13(87%)
15(100%)
15(100%)
15(100%)
TCLP (mg/1)
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
0
8
' 15
15
15
7
0
0
0
7(87%)
11(73%)
10(67%)
4(27%)
6(86%)
0
0
0
1(13%)
4(27%)
5(33%)
11(73%)
1(14%)
0
0
General Chemistry (mg/kg)
Chloride
Fluoride
Chromium, hexavalent
Total Cyanide
Amenable Cyanide
Percent Solids
15
15
15
15
15
15
0(0%)
1(7%)
7(46%)
8(54%)
1(7%).
0(0%)
15(100%)
14(93%)
8(54%)
7(46%)
14(93%)
15(100%)
September 1998
76
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
                                                                                          1
1 able IV: Detailed Analytical Data for the Fhoenix Facilities ||
Constituent CAS No. Pl-01 P1-02 P2-01 P3-01 P1-02 P4-01 P5-01 -1
Total Metals - Methods 60 1 OA, 747 1 A, 7060A, 742 1 , 7740 mg/kg
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bismuth
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Tin
Zinc
7429905
7440360
7440382
7440393
7440417
. 7440699
7440439
7440702
7440473
7440508
7439896
7439921
7439954
7439965
7439976
7440020
7782492
7440224
7440235
7440315
7440666
3,420
ND
2
6
ND
•ND
ND
15,100
10
7,690
5,050
2,590
319,000
101
ND
3,080
ND
-8
4,050
2,370
57
44,700
ND
8
22
ND
ND
ND
15,300
23
28,100
4,020
194
245,000
' 288
.. ND
. 4,450
ND
22
4,780
1,710
190
72,300
ND
12
67
. ND
71
77
15,800
25,700
2,660
13,600
1,160
.198,000
116
0.3
4,480
. ND
7
15,800
171
-• 251
76,100
ND
11
686
ND
. 19
5
35,300
205,000
. 5,670
6,450
191
15,500
' 183
ND
4,400
ND
23
15,600
, 382
7,390
74,500
ND
12
371
ND
' 29
30
63,300
118,000
11,500
7,990
500
30,300
184
ND
4,390
ND
1,190
19,800
182
29,100
. 2,180
ND
10
49
ND
ND
ND
15,700
5,680
417
560,000
80
. 6,310
.2,070
ND
- 1,530
ND
ND
6,700
38
258
2,270
ND
16
387
. ND
ND
806
29,300
206,000
23,500
35,200
377
31,300
1 556
ND
10,300
ND
. 457
15,300
. 546
291
TCLP Metals - Methods 1 3 1 1 , 60 1 OA, 7470A mg/L
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
7440382
7440439
7440473
7439921
7439976
7782492
7440224
ND
ND
• ND
0.12
- ND
ND
ND
ND
... ND
ND
' 0.08
ND
ND
L. ND
- ND
ND
0.1
0.12
• ND
ND
ND
. ND
ND
. 0.92
0.06
0.003
ND
ND
ND
0.02
0.56
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
• ND
' ND
. ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.06
ND
. ND
ND
ND
General Chemistry - Methods 300.0, 335.2, 335.1, 7195/6010A mg/kg
Chloride
Fluoride
Hex. Chromium
Total Cyanide
Amen. Cyanide
. 16887006
16984488
18540299
. -57125
E- 10275
Percent Solids
542
. 49.5
ND
ND
**13.3
60.1
. 3,950
804
ND
ND
**89.7
30.1
451
782
5
. . 1.1
**8.4
. 27.3
430
3,090
8
2.4
• **7
27.8
. 566
4,240
11
• 579
**809
.20.9
8,120
ND
75
ND
-ND
28
4,790
161
77
102
'**156
28.5
Notes: ND - not detected *A11 results reported on a dry-weight basis.
**Reported value is the concentration of cyanide after chlorination. Since this value is greater
than the total cyanide result, a value for the cyanide amenable to chlorination cannot be
calculated.
September 1998
77
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
1 Table 19 (con't): Detailed Analytical Data tor the Fhoenix Facilities
ponstituent CAS No. P6-01 P6-02 P8-01 P9-01 P9-02 Pll-OJ PH-01 P13-02
Total Metals - Methods 6010A, 7471A, 7060A, 7421, 7740 mg/kg
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Barium
Bismuth
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
'Silver
Sodium
Tin
Zinc
7429905
7440360
7440382
7440417
7440393
7440699
7440439
7440702
7440473
7440508
7439896
7439921
7439954
7439965
7439976
7440020
7782492
7440224
7440235
7440315
7440666
511
221
8,780
ND
67
ND
3
1,440
10,000
552,000
6,650
19,800
1,320
72
ND
99
ND
3
60
3,570
31,600
233
153
5,600
ND
11
ND
ND
1,980
7,820
463,000
2,670
14,800
1,590
24
ND
51
ND
ND
25
3,850
24,600
60,800
ND
3
ND
125
ND
ND
9,710
248
124,000
50,900
. 3,610
6,620
496
0.3
2,900
ND
835
2,050
, 14,700
782
4,110
44
26
ND
40
21
ND
6,880
100
48,700
204,000
1,660
10,700
191
ND
1,990
ND
38
36,900
37,200
389
59
ND
9
ND
9
ND
ND
682
34
631,000
364
ND
230
104
ND
10,800
ND
12
41,600
402
2,750
819
ND
ND
ND
17
ND
ND
11,400
119
125,000
75,800
6,080
72,600
2,080
ND
1,030
ND
14
13,400
131,000
820
1,370
34,800
ND
ND
253
398
ND
2,690
29
3,660
3,500
175,000
187
13
0.5
2,420
ND
113
310
467,000
672
2,860
1,250
10
ND
198
32
3
143,000
170
6,430
17,100
13,000
2,640
92
0.4
71,900
ND
40
5,660
15,300
357
TCLP Metals - Methods 131 1, 601 OA, 7470 A mg/L
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
7440382
7440393
7440439
7440473
7439921
7439976
7782492
7440224
ND
ND
0.02
ND
35.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.03
ND
"39.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.5
ND
0.02
0.64
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
o:os
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.13
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.1
ND
1,630
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.26
ND
ND
ND
General Chemistry - Methods 300.0, 335.2, 335.1, 7195/6010A mg/kg
Chloride
Fluoride
Hex. Chromium
Total Cyanide
Amen. Cyanide
16887006
16984488
18540299
57125
E- 10275
Percent Solids
1,630
ND
548
169
**359
27.5
1,490
ND
466
127
**369
29.3
590
100
ND
ND
^**3.9
' 34.4
2,250
3,090
ND
9.1
**7-5.1
34.9
24,000
ND
31
ND
**20.8
27.2
4,110
ND
ND
ND
**16.6
45.2
64
ND
ND
ND
**14.7
94.1
905
ND
ND
ND
**39.4
41.1
Notes: ND -not detected * All results reported on a dry-weight basis. •
**Reported value is the concentration of cyanide after chlorination. Since this value is greater than the
total cyanide result, a value for the cyanide amenable to chlorination cannot be calculated.
September 1998
78
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
4. Detailed Results of the National Benchmarking Study

       Tables 20- 32 present detailed  results of the National Benchmarking Study. The data gathered is similar
in type but is often less detailed than the data gathered in the Regional Benchmarking Study. Data categories
include: metal finishing operations, pollution prevention practices, F006 characteristics and sludge management
practices from a broad range of metal finishers (Appendix G contains the survey instrument). The survey was
distributed by mail to member companies of NAMF and AESF, and at a metal finishers national technical
conference (SURFIN 97). In all, nearly 2,000 surveys were distributed.  One hundred eighty-six (186) responses
were received and compiled into a computer data base.  A variety of firms  responded. The number of employees
of respondents ranged from 4 to 7,250 with an average of 229. The survey question number is indicated in the
summaries below in [brackets].
a. Characterization of the Survey Respondents

Average number of employees responding:          229
Maximum number of employees responding:       7,250
Minimum number of employees responding:            4
A total of 186 surveys were received.

Number of respondents to this question:
171/186 = 92%
b. Product and Waste Stream Characterization [Cl]

Respondents reported product weight using different units:
Average of the responses reported in cubic yards :   60,867 tons
Average of the responses reported in barrel loads:   150,000 barrel loads
Number of responses to this question:
88/186 = 47%
c. Total quantity of F006 waste generated in 1996 [C4]

Average of reponses reported in tons:       1016 tons

Number of responses to this question:       161 /186 = 87%


d. F006 segregation [C2]

Facilities reporting that F006 wastes are combined in the wastewater:      139
Facilities reporting that F006 wastes are process-specific:                22

Number of responses to this question:  161 / 186 = 87%


e. Cyanide sludge segregation [C3]

Facilities reporting that cyanide-bearing F006 sludges are segregated:      33
Facilities reporting that cyanide-bearing F006 sludges are not segregated:  151

Number of responses to this question: 184 /186 = 99%


f. Quantity of F006 waste generated by process [C5]

Respondents reported generating an average 1,016 tons of F006 sludge annually. As noted in the statistical
analysis section, larger companies tended to respond more than smaller companies.  A summary of F006 sludge
generated by groups of plating processes is provided in Table 20.  Table 21 presents the estimates of process-
          September 1998
            79
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
specific F006 waste generation for 1996. The quantities assume that all units are equivalent (e.g., cubic yards
and dry tons).
Table 20: Summary oi FU06 Sludge Generation by Plating Category |
Platinp Catefforv
Mixed Acids
Anodizing
Bright Dip of Copper/alloy
Cadmium
All Chrome
Cleaner
All Copper
AH Cyanide
All Electroless Nickel
All Ion Exchange
All Nickel
Silver Plate
Stainless Electropolish
Tin
All Zinc
Quantity (drv tons}
118750.47
19.05
74,82
6373.50
55467.93
122.65
7419.35
8328.32
14.88
14.42
23019.36
75.65
68.63
51.45
15938.36
Table 21. Process-Specific FUU6 Waste Generation for 1996 |
Facility
027
064
022
016
016
078
123 .
037
090
037
083
145
075
023
001
036
148
146
144
174
144
035
112
Process
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
ABS/Steel Chromium plating
acid
acid batch treat
acid copper
acid rinses
acid-alkali wastewater
acid-chloride zinc
acid/alkaline
acid/alkaline rinses
alum treating
anodizing
anodizing
anodizing
sulfuric acid anodizing
Sulfuric Anodize/Hardcoat
bright dip of copper/alloys
black oxide.
brass plating
Quantity
1.00
30.30

0.56
0.14
78.47
80.00
0.13
6.04
26.50
118388.00
90.00
141.84
17.97
8.00
0.50
1.00
7.50
0.05
2.00
6.00
25.00
0.50
Measure 1!
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Long Tons
Metric Tons
Dry Tons
Cubic Yards
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
          September 1998
80
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Table 21. Process-Specific F006 Waste Generation for 1996
Facility
138
057
156
155
027
026
173
066
057
120
114
133
026
119
048
119
096
075
065
080
183
038 .
051
059
082
023
134
085
054
174
090
058
083
049 '
046
034
039
174
148
156
116
141
104
004
185
Process
brass waste treatment
bright dip of copper/alloy
bright dip of copper/alloy
bronze line cleaner side overflowing rinse
cadmium
barrel cadmium
cadmium
cadmium
cadmium plating
cadmium plating
cadmium and other processes
cyanide cadmium plating
rack cadmium
chelate
chromating
chrome
chrome
chrome
chrome anodize
chrome hydroxide
chrome plate
chrome plating
chrome plating
chrome plating and chromating
chrome plating and chromating
chrome rinses
chrome rinses
chrome/nickel
chromic anodize
chromic anodize
chromium
chromium
chromium contaminated wastewater
lard chrome
lard chrome
lard chrome
lard chrome plating
Conversion Coating
conversion coatings
Chromate conversion on aluminum
cleaner tank bottoms
cleaning
cleaning (soap and acid); aluminum cleaning
cleaning rinses
>atch treats(cleaners & Microetch)
Quantity
40.60
0.13
2.60
10.00
1.00
3126.00
1.00
26.00
0.50
14.00
14.00
55.00
3126.00
20.00
3.22
•15.00
8.10
54.75
1.50
55.70
10245.00
• LOO
10.92
61.00
43.75
5.39
46.50
155.50
16.00
0.25
9.98
0.99
35687.00
7508.00
7.38
7.00
1500.00
0.25
2.00
1.75
0.15
5.00
10.00
93.50
14.00
Measure
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Cubic Feet
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Long Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Metric Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Cubic Feet
Dry Tons
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
September 1998
81
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Table 21. Process-Specific FU06 Waste Generation for 1996
Facility
110
042
021
112
112
183
061
036
057
082
136
145
053
027
016
049
170
157
014
137
090
147
086
083
123
119
075
010
031
085
023
134
037
029
055
048
038
140
117
050
038
041
019
137
096
Process Quantity
copper nickel plating
copper
copper & brass
copper nickel chrome plating on non ferrous
copper nickel chrome plating on steel
copperplate
copper plate
copper plate
copper plating
copper plating
copper, nickel, chromium on steel
copper-nickel-chrome
copper/ni/chrome on ABS
copper/nickel/chrome
copper/nickel/chrome
copper/nickel/chrome
copper/nickel/chrome decorative plating
copper/nickel/chrome plating on plastic
Cu, Ni, Cr
Cu/Ni/Cr on non-ferrous
cyanide copper
cyanide copper plating on zinc die cast
cyanide copper/cyanide brass
cyanide contaminated wastewater
cyanide
cyanide
cyanide
cyanide bearing rinse waters
Cyanide destruction
cyanide processes
cyanide rinses
cyanide rinses
cyanide rinses
misc cyanide wastes
electroless nickel
electroless nickel and gold plating
electroless nickel plating
hot dip galv
ion exchange
ion exchange regen
iron plating
lead plating
Mn & zinc phosphate
Ni/Cr on steel
nickel
75.00
5.51
2.60
40.00
0.50
657.00
40.00
0.50
0.13
27.50
23.00
9.00
140.00
2.00
6.30
6000.00
42.00
300.00
23.50
5.55
4.03
0.24
15.00
7930.00
200.00
7.50
52.26
1.37
^ 3.70
93.30
8.99
11.00
3.45
16.75
1.10
12.88
0.90
21.00
10.14
4.28
1.75
14.85
7.00
9.25
0.90
Measure
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Long Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Metric Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
September 1998
82
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Table 21. Process-Specific tU06 Waste Generation for 1996
Facility
042
035
021
173
050
090
010
036
183
004
038
033
082
059
146
047
065
175
051
012
147
029
132
054
026
173
100
105
073
080
071
026
146
066
183
111
148
105
144
180
141
021
019
004
041
Process
nickel
nickel
nickel
nickel
nickel
nickel
nickel bearing-acid/alkali rinses
nickel plate
nickel plate(incl. Electroless Nickel)
nickel plating
nickel plating
nickel plating
nickel plating
nickel plating
nickel plating
nickel plating
nickel plating
nickel plating
nickel plating
nickel plating (all types)
nickel plating on zinc die cast
nickel plating treatment
nickel, silver, chrome, tin, and E-coat
nickel/chrome
automatic nickel/chrome
nickel/chrome
nickel/chrome plating
nickel/chrome plating
nickel/chromium plating
nickel/copper hyd. .
nickel chromium plating
Darrel nickel
passivation
phosphate
Silver Plate
silver plating operations
silver, tin, electroless nickel
stainless electropolish
stainless steel passivation
Steel
stripping
tin
tin plating ,
in plating
tin/lead plating
Quantity
63.31
10.00
2.00
2.00
6.42
8.42
3.00
3.00
684.00
25.00
0.40
3.00
37.50
60.00
0.50
3.00
1.00
21.00
10.49
30.25
0.21
11.92
1.00
10.00
18756.00
0.50
1.00
23.69
7.05
51.80
55.00
3126.00
2.00
100.00
71.00
2.65
2.00
3.38
0.25
65.00
5.00
0.30
1.00
50.00
0.15
Measure
Dry Tons
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Long Tons
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Cubic .Yards
September 1998
83
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
! Table 21. Process-Specific F006 Waste Generation for 1996
Facility
371
014
084
072
071
066
027
021
180
042
148
095
104
094
125
109
080
137
136 .
144
061
008
140
003
065
001
132
082
004
045
070
105
059
019
048
100
035
012
088
120
156
145
098
102
Process
titanium
zinc
zinc
zinc
zinc
zmc
zinc
zinc
zmc
zinc
zinc and cadmium plating
zinc cyanide
zinc cyanide plating and chromate conversion
zinc electroplating
zinc electroplating, zinc nickel alloy electropl.
zinc electrotherapy on steel
zinc hydroxide
zinc on steel
zinc on steel
zinc phosphate
zinc plate
zinc plating
zinc plating
zinc plating
zinc plating
zinc plating
zinc plating
zinc plating
zinc plating
zinc plating
zinc plating
zinc plating
zinc plating
zinc plating ,
zinc plating
zinc plating
zinc plating
zinc plating (all types)
zinc plating on steel
zinc plating on steel
zinc plating on steel
zinc-phosphate
ZnNi alloy plating & chromating of Zn &
ZnNi
chloride zinc on steel
Quantity
5.00
20.00
15.00
224.00
20.00
126.00
1.00
76.50
5.00
206.44
15.00
1.00
30.00
300.00
575.00
148.00
57.30
18.50
19.50
0.05
70.00
5507.20
175.00
5507.20
25.00
5.00
19.00
16.25
150.00
'1040.00
80.00
40.62
235.00
300.00
144.90
11.40
200.00
60.50
155.00
140.00
83.00
1.00
7.00
23.00
Measure
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Cubic Yards
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Cubic Yards
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Cubic Yards
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Cubic Yards
September 1998
84
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Table 21. Process-Specific F006 Waste Generation for 1996
Facility
118
Process
all zinc plating
Ouantitv 1 Measure
84.00|Cubic Yards
g. On-site recycling techniques prior to discharge [C6]

Number of responses to this question: 36/186=19%

On-site recycling techniques that were mentioned by more than one company:
•  Electro winning
•  Counter flow rinsing
•  Drag out rinses returned to plating tank
•  Electrodialysis
•  Evaporation
•  Precipitation

Metals that are recovered: brass, cadmium, chrome, copper, nickel, gold, silver.

Table 22 contains individual responses.
Table 22. On-Site Recvcline Techniaues 1
Facility
023
018
018
075
001
110
018
160
157
038
038
141
095
098
106
124
168
168
168
010
116
180
180
138
075
055
Description
BEWT Chemelec Unit, Reverse Cn Stip, Jaynor Units
brass
cadmium
cadmium electrowinning
chrome recovery
chromic acid through demineralizes
copper
copper grinding swarf
Corning Evaporators for Chrome Drag-out
counter flow rinsing chrome plate
counter flow rinsing nickel plating
drag out rinses
drag out tanks used for tank replenishment
drag out from plating tanks returned to bath
electrodialysis of rinsewater
electroless nickel directly reduced
electrowinning of gold solutions
electrowinning of silver solutions
electrowinning of solder and tin solutions
electrowinning-plating cells
evaporating recovery
evaporators
ion exchangers
metal recovery systems
nickel evaporation
nickel plate out from electroless nickel solution
Quantity
1.70
0.10
0.10
0.25
2.00
50.00
0.15
2.50
75.00
1.00
0.75
1.00
LOO
6.50
0.25
0.05
500.00
3000.00
1.00
0.06
0.20
30.00
10.00
3.50
0.75
0.05
Measure
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
          September 1998
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
i Table 22. On-Site Recycling Techniques
Facility
157
DOS
160
041
009
093
163
055
155
034
Description
nickel precipitation as carbonate
precipitation, filtration, & drying
re-sell copper turnings
reclaim tanks (dead rinse) used some solution
silver electrowinning
silver reclaim using plate out unit
six Eco-tec ion exchange units
sulfuric acid reclamation from anodize tank
use rinse water from plating side for bath makeup
washdown from fume scrubbers returned to tank
Quantity
35.00
5507.20
7.50
104.00
0.25
0.08
4.20

1.40
1.00
Measure
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Cubic Feet
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
h. Off-site recycling companies [C7]

Number of respondents: 15/186 = 8%

The following processes were used to recycle F006 wastes:
•      Blending
•      High temperature incineration
•      Hydro metallurgical
•      Pyrometallurgical
•      Smelting
•      Thermo concentration and compounding

Off-site recycling companies:
       World Resources Corp
       Horsehead Resource Development Corp
       Encycle/Texas Inc
       21st Century EMI
       Republic Environmental

Table 23 contains individual responses.
Table 23. Off-Site Recycling Techniques |
Facility
023
136
070
014
137
134
075
050
043
Process
Blending
high temp incineration
high temp incineration
high temp incineration
Hydro Metallurgical
Pyrometallurgical
Pyrometallurgical
Pyrometallurgical
Pyrometallurgical
Quantity
47.00
42.50
60.00
43.50
37.00
61.80
248.84
14.85
13.20
Measure
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Name
World Resources
Horsehead
Horsehead
Horsehead
Encycle/Texas Inc
Horsehead
World Resources
2 1st century EMI
World Resources
Location |]
Pottsville, PA
Chicago, 11
Chicago, IL
Chicago, IL
Corpus Christi,
TX
Chicago, IL
Pottsville, PA
Fernly, NV
Phoenix, AZ
          September 1998
86
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Table 23. Off-Site Recycling Techniques 1
Facility
020
008
003
051
031
024
Process
Pyrometallurgical
Pyrometallurgical
Pyrometallurgica
smelting
thermo concentration and
compounding
thermo concentration and
compounding
Quantity
36.00
5507.20
22.00
22.40
18.53
55.00
Measure
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Long Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Name
Republic
Environmental
World Resources
World Resources
World Resources
World Resources
World Resources
Location |
Hamilton,
Ontario
Phoenix, AZ
Pheonix, AZ
Phoenix, AZ
Phoenix, AZ
Phoenix, AZ
i. Management methods for F006 wastes [C8]

Number of responses: 57
Management methods:
       Incineration
       Neutralization
       Recycling
       Solidification
       Stabilization, landfilling
       Subtitle C landfill

Receiving facilities:
       Envirite
       Wayandot Landfill
       LWD
       Cynochem
       Envotech
       Stablex Canada
       Heritage Environmental
       Threamionic
       Romic Environmental
Chemical Waste Management
Peoria Disposal
LESI
USPCI
Cycle Chem
Northland Environment
Phillips Environmental
Chief Supply
Table 24 contains individual responses.
Table 24. Waste Management Methods F006 Wastes ||
Met
delisted facility
delisted facility
delisted facility
delisted facility
delisted facility
delisted facility
incineration
incineration
neutralization
Facility
002
170
115
125
052
066
029
133
152
Quantity
26.00
42.00
24.00
575.00
320.20
100.00
16.75
55.00
4850.00
Measure
Cubic Yards
Cubic Yards
Cubic Yards
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Cubic Feet
gal
Name
Envirite
Wayandot Landfill
Envirite
Envirite of Illinois
Envirite Corporation
Envirite
LWD
Cynochem
Cyanokem
Location 1
Thomaston, CT 1
Carey, OH 433 16
Canton, OH
Harvey, IL
Canton, OH

Calventy City, KY
Detroit, MI
Detroit, MI
          September 1998
  87
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
1 Table 24. Waste Management Methods F006 Wastes
Met
recycle
recycle
Solidification
Solidification
Solidification
Stabilization &
fixation
Stabilization,
landfilling
Stabilization,
landfilling
Stabilization,
landfilling
Stabilization,
landfilling
Stabilization,
landfilling
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Facility 1 Quantity 1 Measure
063
179
100
10S
098
048
065
090
065
065
064
083
004
005
093
026
041
071
054
074
071
062
066
034
157
063
179
165
164
163
162
161
113
041
094
157
274.50
35.01
11.50
28.00
7.00
154.00
1.50
311.95
25.00
1.00
\
30.30
2.20
293.00
11.50
20.00
38100.00
3.00
44.00
29.00
131.00
36.00
12.00
146.00
8.00
227.00
30.50
62.21
50.60
863.00
1330:00
505.00
945.00
58.00
11.00
300.00
73.00
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Name

World Resource Co.
Envirite Corp.
Envotech (EQ)
Envirite
Stablex Canada, Inc.
Heritage- nickel sludge
Heritage Environmental
Heritage- zinc hydroxide sludge
Heritage- chrome sludge
Envirite Corp.
Stablex
Stablex Canada Inc.,
solidification and C landfill
Stablex Canada Inc.
Envirite
Envirite
Envirite Corp.
Threamionic
Romic Environmental
Chemical Waste Management
(Adams Center)
Stablex
Heritage Env. Service
Peoria Disposal
Waste Management
Heritage Environmental

Stablex
LESI - Lone Mt
LESI - Lone Mt.
LESI - Lone Mt Facility
LESI - Lone Mt.
USCPI - Laidlaw
Envirosafe Services of Idaho,
Inc.
Heritage Environmental Ser.
hydroxide sludge non-hazardous
USPCI
Location

Pheonix, AZ
Canton, OH
Belleville, MI
Canton, OH
Blainville, Quebec,
Canada
Indianapolis, IN
Indianapolis, IN
Indianapolis, IN
Indianapolis, IN
Canton, OH
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canton, OH
Canton, OH
Harvey, IL
Canada

Fort Wayne, IN
Canada
Charlotte, NC

Indiana
Indianapolis, IN

Quebec, Canada
Waynoka, OK
Waynoka, OK.
Waynoka, OK
Waynoka, OK
Lone Mountain, OK
Boise, ID
Indianapolis, IN
So. Elgin, IL
Lone Mountain, OK
September 1998
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
1. Table 24. Waste Management Methods F006 Wastes
Met 1 Facility 1 Ouantitv
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
Subtitle C Landfill
thermal treatment
thermal treatment
155
151
147
146
134
132
131
119
118
156
029
029
320.00
9.35
0.60
10.00
4.90
20.00
4.10
64.00
84.00
- 87.35
4.53
6.03
Measure
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Cubic Yards
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Dry Tons
Name
USPCI Lone Mountain
Envirite Corp.
Cycle Chem
Northland Environmental
Chemical Waste Management
Inc
Envirite of Ohio
chromic, muratic acid
Phillips Environmental
Envirite Corporation
USPCI
Northeast Environmental
Chief Supply
Location
Oklahoma
North Canton, OH
Elizabeth, NJ
Providence, RI
Menomonee Falls, WI
Canton, OH
NV
Canada
Canton, OH
Lone Mountain, OK
73860
Wompsville, NY
Haskl, OK
j. Exported Waste [C9]

Ten respondents reported exporting their F006 wastes, the responses are presented in Table 25 The other 174
respondents are not exporting F006 waste.
                             Table 25. Export Quantities of F006
[Facility No.
004
005
009
048
071
083
114
119
169
179
Exported Waste (dry tons)
293.0
11.5
32.0
154.0
80.0
2.2
39
64
30
64.7
k. Wastewater Treatment [CIO]

Table 26 summarizes the number of respondents who are conducting wastewater treatment prior to discharge.
        Table 26.  Facilities Conducting Wastewater Treatment Prior to Discharge
 PROCESS
 NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
 ANSWERING "YES"
 Waste stream segregation
                92
          September 1998
89
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Hexavalent chrome reduction
Cyanide oxidation
Neutralization, flocculation, clarification, effluent polishing
Sludge blending to achieve desired concentration
119
69
143
20
1. Plating Operations [B]

Table 27 summarizes responses to question B, "what type of plating operations are conducted by your facility?".
                 Table 277 Types of Plating Conducted by Respondents
I PROCESS
Zinc plating on steel
Zinc plating on steel - cyanide
Zinc plating on steel - non-cyanide
Nickel chromium
Copper/nickel/chrome
Copper plating/stripping
Hard chromium
Copper plating
Tin
Cadmium
Sulfuric acid
Silver
Gold
Bright dip
Other
NUMBER OF
RESPONDENTS
ANSWERING "YES"
92
23
57
82
62
7
36
85
57
45
45
56
48
56
95
NUMBER OF
RESPONDENTS
ANSWERING "NO"
92
161
127
102
122
177
148
99
127
139
139
128
136
128
89
m.  Pollution Prevention Waste Minimization Activities [E]

The respondents were asked to complete a checklist of 59 individual waste minimization techniques broken into
three main categories (i.e., reduce drag out losses, reduce rinse water, and various operating practices). Table 28
presents the total number of positive responses for each of 59 waste minimization technique broken into three
main categories (i.e. reduce drag out losses, reduce rinse water, and various operating practices). Three groups
of facilities were identified: small, medium, and large. Each group contained an equal number of facilities (i.e.,
61) to enable a comparison of techniques by facility size.  Based on the analysis, it appears as though facility size
is not a deciding factor in determining the number or type of waste minimization techniques implemented. This
may be because the techniques included in the survey are relatively low cost and easy to implement.  Larger
facilities may be able to afford more sophisticated waste minimization improvements (e.g., process changes) that
were not included in the survey. Table 29 identifies pollution prevention measures by technique.
Table 28: Summary of Techniques Used by Facility Size1"
Technique
Reduce drag-out losses Total
Allow rack/part to drip over plating tank
Using drag-out rinse tanks and returning
chemicab to the process bath
Drip shields between tanks
Small Facilities
(530
employees)
182
33
27
18
Medium Facilities
(> 31 and < 65 employees)
175
27
30
22
Large Facilities
(> 65 employees)
232
38
33
29
          September 1998
90
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
1 Table 28: Summary of Techniques Used by Facility Size1"
Technique
Reduce rinse water use Total
Flow restrictors
Countercurrent rinses
Manually turn-off rinse waters
Air agitation in rinse tanks
Various operating practices
Total
Training and programs subtotal
Conduct employee education
Establish preventive maintenance program
| Use specifically assigned personnel
j Procedures subtotal
Perform routine bath analysis
1 Maintain bath analysis logs
1 Use process baths to maximum
1 Have written procedures
1 F006 volume reduction subtotal
[ Sludge dewatering
| Closed loop recycling •
| Use control method
| Inspections / maintenance subtotal
Perform regular maintenance of
racks/barrels
Pre-inspect parts
| Research / evaluations subtotal
| Evaluation of recycling alternatives
| Increase drain time
Research of alternative plating
1 technologies
Elimination / Replacement / Substitutions
1 subtotal
[ Eliminate obsolete processes
1 Replace cyanide based plating
[ Eliminate plating service
Small Facilities
(<30
employees)
151
26
30
22
22
586
120
21
15
27
200
34
33
29
25
58
28
16
6
60
26
22
60
16
19
13
88
20
14
16
Medium Facilities
(> 31 and < 65 employees)
166
39
38
28
22
659
114
22
22
35
213
33
33
30
28
88
47
15
14
66
24
23
73
21
20
18
105
19
21
17
Large Facilities
(> 65 employees)
285
58
61
47
37
781
152
30
28
40
271
41
39
31 .
37
86
50 t
10
10
73
29
24
91
27
22
21
108
22
23
1
 number of positive responses by facility
fable 9.0 summarizes the results of the responses to each of the 59 individual techniques.
           September 1998
91
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
       1











3
'5
•f-

H
A
•8
4*
1
O
B
O
iR
u
Q.
E
.2
"o
a.
OS

^
S
H


09
VI
S
H §
Sj:
II
fc VI
oa $
Ss W
M
if
o
II
v-H


»

O ^- ••• ^
1«II
A a B o
SgB^
3 5 S w
zS<«
o S
S_ 
A> O
0 &

2= tt!
! I

fl "M O*
g?a


Technique
=
^


^


c-


^
















































(A
•3
9
I
1
t--
(S
o
cs


r-


Tt


M

fN
(N
Is- V
«n «
Manual:
Automat


S




t^
oo


•o g
01 SH
Using drag-out rinse tanks
returning chemicals to the
bath
.
00


o


o


fO


VO
t^ ;•
(N.H
Manual:
Automat

m
•^
• '



vo
rn


00
•|«
1 Using drip tanks and retur
1 chemicals to the process b
.
^


o


Os


•n

o
fN
ro * "
^h O
Manual:
Automat

00

• '



f">
vo


t:
Reducing speed of rack/pa
withdrawal
2
o\


CO


0


m

CO
m
f#~) * >
\o o
Manual:
Automat


00




so
Os


1
CX
•c
I
c3 M
f «
?.g
5 0
o
vo


00


(N


r^>

^
i— i
VO * *
CN O
ll

l-H
*fr
r_<



o
*3"


ill
•3 'si?
o °  U *rt *C
Ctf G *C ^> fl\
•flgg-l
r--
0,


VO


CN


_


TJ-




VO
fi


•a
^
1
b
o (8
II
en
«>


m


^H


i-H

m
•—i
• •
1«H ^
Manual:
Automat


|
VO
2


OO


n


CS




CD
ll

VO
•^-




>n
f*l



Lower bath concentration
o
*


^r


o


-*




u
1
ll

oo





fT)
>— <


I
Increasing solution tempei
(reduces viscosity)
».
2


OO


^_


»n




(U
•S
u
II

to





oo
^


s
o
Using a wetting agent (rec
viscosity)
o
2


*"*


04


CS




0}
•s
u
II

vo
I—1
^ J



«n
so



f Positioning work piece to
| minimize solution holdup
fN
-


o


o


o




o
1
ll


rn





T.



1
6





























jlReftucl^RinseMIieiplJic
t
I
 O

 §
PQ

-------










i*
3
's
JS
H
£
£
C
v
ffi
B
O
**
>
Q.
B
0

15
&

03
H



W)
V
u
S
A
H JSf
**^ tl
£ ">
Ed <»
« £
0M g
en
o
11



.
0 > .- v
l«ls
.Q s B O
SO O G
3 ™ S 4)

•M
O ^
h «:
V fl
SZ «
^^ ^ ' ?^


o g
h. 2
A~v> °
^^(S



.2*
*S
o
t"
':'"- ':'.-,
'$:.


M
'>:'<':••-
w

•:';:.'.
i?i.

yjv
M

'&•
• •'•:• '
•'.•: ''.•'•:•
•.-•:
'•'• -.•:• "

;|.-;:::'
'.';• -'•"
ii-1:.

i :•:..-

-•ii


;;:c
.?: - .;.
i— •
**-
1
iie
i

























t








| Training and Programs
^

CM

^


«

^





-------




o
"K
1
1
1

td «T
ffl £
2u
S
in
O
1!
»^
's^.^s
Number
Manual
Automa
Respons
Number of
"No"
Responses
Number of
"Yes"
Responses
Technique
V
•s!
f
C^
-




-
"tf
co
<
•i
u
11
o
vo
ON
ON
fa
1
?!
si
'g'S
ctf o>
£"g
3£
«(4-1
'313
£§
w O
fl> W
^? U
D &









| Procedures
r«-
ON
C--
-
CO
u
1
11
t--
CN
*-H
m
Stricter conformance with Line
Preventive Maintenance Schedule
v>
VO
oo
CN
m
u
11
rn
ro
t— t
VO
CN
Stricter conformance with SPC
Procedures
VO
*~^
CO
oo
-
o
u
1
ll
rN
f-H
OO
en
Waste stream segregation of
contact and non contact
wastewater
o
ts
1— I
(N
^ — i
-=t
•*
U
1
II
8
I-H
o\
ir>
Strict chemical inventory control
CN
m
o
m
r-
fN
o
(U
«
11
o
>o
ON
ON
^
&
*3
1
x>
(D
1
2
1
PH
OO
(N
O\
•*
es
\o
CN
U
•8
u
11
m
VO
^O
ON
Maintain bath analyses/addition
logs
ts
CN
Cv|
(N
ON
-*
cn
(U
•i
0
^J J^
^ cti
VO
r-~
en
oo
Have written procedures for bath
make-up and additions
^o
(N
•^
JZ, sj
m
ts
vo
m
g.l
Ig-
-3.3
^ rt
••O C
i!
!<£
o u
§!2
S 2
g !5
c ?*^
S u
Pi^
o
fN
cs
o
m
«N
m
0
fc
0
II
S
o
oo
Jw
fCQ '•3
ll
XS
•5 g
1.1

VO
(N
-

-------













a
'a
JS
^
.a
•IS
1
B
.S
Prevenl
e
o

"o
CN

.8
£

«J
3

(A
jg
p^ •••
^ ^
W l!
Z v>
ti «
PQ £
2 1
e
11
1-H


+* <» o
® ^ *rt aj
•s S 1 1
S a « »

*S g
« a
.a. o
Bog-
Z" c2

._
0 g


^^ *J
I Technique
V



^



**

(S

,_

















r--
m



t**



o

o

o



0)
•a
o

II

«





2

il I^S^
d> -Q *J CA QQ Q^
pp^-l U g JH OJQ
in



m



VO

O

«




•s
U

II

O





ON

Install overflow alarms on process
tanks
U",



m



-"•

O

fr,



(U
•8
r^3
II

?





m

§
1
«
1
'dA^T1
11





























| Inspections / Maintenance
^



o



S

00

m



o
•§
^5
li

vo
oo





m

Perform regular maintenance of
racks/barrels
2



VO



2

r-

^-



V
1

II

s





3

Pre-inspect parts to prevent
processing of obvious rejects
r-



^f



T—4

^

CN



(U
••s
o

II

*— H





oo

Waste Reduction Study conducted





























| Research /Evaluation
oo



CO



s

r-

^



u
•8
o

II

8





ON

Evaluation of recycling
alternatives
oo



m



i— i

r-

^.



o
•8
Q

II

s





»n

Increasing drain time over process
tanks
m



^o



o

r-

VO




•8
o

II

00
0
f-H






-------











V
a
'5
ft
h
^
^
e
B
m




eu
e
3
a.
o\
f-



CA
W
S
H S
M J«
w ii
Z •"
H «
«w
^
2 «

o
II


«M <» u
® ^ ^ gj
fe *"^ ^ S

ill?

o s
h. M
4i a
£. O
|o|
Z c rt
0 «
!- W
£= O
Z= tf


Technique
V
«


ff



^

,_




















••
2
2


^O
*""*


CN

^



4>
_f^
O
ll



CN
0




r-

"8
W3
Eliminate obsolete processes
and/or unused or infrequently u
processes
CN
r-


VO



CN

en



D
ft
0
ll



en
o




in



00
||
|l
u -^

ff)
^*



cs


'(D
Elimination of rinse waters to
waste treatment (nickel, chrom
o
o


CN



O

O



u
,0
cfl
ll



r-

~^



CN



Substitution of chromate and
dichromate sealer with non-
chromate sealer
S
CO


r-



m

^



d>
^i .
03
U
11



*"-<
r-H
1—1



co
"*



Elimination of plating services
(cadmium, tin, nickel, copper,
brass, and hard chrome)
o\
cs
m


,-j.



-1

^H



w
^1
3
11



m

1—1



^


00
Elimination of vapor degreasin
2
.0


en



*-•

CN




O
II



0>
CN
1—1



O
en



Implementation of a multi-sta|
cyanide destruct system
o
o\


W1



~

o



o
f^i
0
II



l^J
CN




en


U]
Elimination of chelated cleanei
en
en


o



o

o



5>
,0
«
0
11




^O




10



ex
U)
i
1
1


~2*
c


•B

1




r\
O
II



^«O
V"l
1—1



en



E - Additional
 GO
 C



I



 u
 c
 
-------
n. Waste Minimization Techniques by Generating Process

Table 30 summarizes the types of waste minimization techniques reported by facilities that conducted only one
type of plating. The four processes were selected for analysis because they are most representative of the plating
industry and the most problematic from a regulatory perspective. A handful of facilities only performed tm
plating, bright dip, and sulfuric acid anodizing.
Table 30. Summary of Waste Minimization Techniques
TECHNIQUE
Reduce drag-out losses
Reduce rinse water use
Training and programs subtotal
Procedures subtotal
F006 volume reduction subtotal
Inspections / maintenance subtotal
Research / evaluations subtotal
Elimination / Replacement / Substitutions
Various operating practices
Total
NTCKF.I,
- 55
67
53
52
68
42
41
54
310
COPPER
47
52
41
43
52
34
34
41
245
CHROME
23
25
21
20
33
15
13
20
122
ZINC
62
78
78
55
54
72
45
63

CADMIUM
30
36
28
26
36
•23
20
26
159
o.  Impact of Waste Minimization Projects on Wastewater Discharge Rates [E2]

Number of positive responses:       63
Number of negative responses:       156
p. Recycle and Recovery Technologies [E3]

Table 31 summarizes the use of recycle and recovery technologies.
Table 31. Summary of Recycling and Recovery Technologies
TECHNIQUE
Electrodialysis
Electrowinning
Evaporator
Ion flotation
Ion exchange
Mesh pad mist eliminator/recycle
Reverse osmosis
Ultrafiltration
Other
Number of Positive Responses
7
26
39
1
28
15
8
5
11
Number of Negative
Respnnses
152
133 .
120
158
131
144
151
154
2
q. Solution Maintenance Techniques [E4]

Table 32 summarizes the solution maintenance techniques.
Table 32. Summary of Solution Maintenance Techniques
TFrHNTOTTF
Acid retardation
Carbon treatment (batch)
ft nf Positive Responses
1
46
# of Negative Responses
158
113
          September 1998
97
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
1 Table 32. Summary of Solution Maintenance Techniques
TECHNIQUE
Carbon treatment (continuous)
Dummying of metal contaminants
Electrodialysis for inorganic
contaminants
Carbonate freezing
Filtration, in-tank
Filtration, external
High pH treatment
Precipitation
Liquid/ Liquid extraction
Microfiltration
Ultrafiltration
Other, specify
# of Positive Responses
40
56
56
24
53
51
16
20
2
1 .
1
0
# of Nepative Responses
119
103
155
135
106
108
143
139
157
158
158
1
September 1998
98
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
                                Appendix A:
      Summary of the 10 Issue Areas Identified for the Metal Finishing Sector
September 1998
99
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Issue L      Operational Flexibility

             Industry performance leaders would receive operational flexibility (i.e.,
             less burdensome permitting, monitoring, and reporting requirements) in
             recognition of their good performance and as an incentive to seek the
             ambitious performance goals.

Issue 2:      Waste Minimization and Recovery

             The first phase of this project was a bench marking analysis of F006 constituents, using
             national and regional sampling data. The data generated in the bench marking study will
             be used by the RCRA Project Team to develop and assess options for reducing barriers to
             pollution prevention and on-site and off-site metal recovery requirements.

Issue 3:      Reporting and Right-to-Know

             This project applies business process reengineering techniques to examine federal, state,
             and local reporting requirements for metal finishers across all environmental media.

Issue 4:      Compliance Tools and Assistance

             This project is designed to overcome barriers to improved compliance and pollution
             prevention by combining pollution prevention assistance and enforcement relief policies as
             an incentive for improved environmental performance by metal finishers.

Issue 5:      Research and Technology

             The National Metal Finishing Environmental R&D Plan is a customer-oriented R&D
             strategy for risk characterization, exposure assessment, and technology transfer for metal
             finishers, communities, and other stakeholders.

Issue 6:      Industrial Pretreatment

             The POTW Pretreatment Project is designed to identify ways to improve the capabilities of
             POTW manage their industrial users by reducing mass pollutant loadings without limiting
             industry activity, and to provide the most effective POTW with increased managerial
             flexibility to achieve higher environmental quality at lower cost.

Issue 7:      Environmentally Responsible Site Transition

             This project develops a government sponsored "exit strategy" for metal finishers who wish
             to get out of the business that reduces future contaminated "orphan industrial sites."

Issue 8:      Enforcement for Chronic Non-Complier

             This project develops a sector-based, targeted enforcement program for government at all
             level to identify chronic non-complier and take appropriate action against them.

Issue 9:      Access to Capital

             This project focuses on developing innovative approaches for improving access to capital
             for metal finishers and electronics firms.
          September 1998
100
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
                              Appendix B:
      F006 Management Contained in EPA's 1995 Biennial Report Database
September 1998
101
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
          nagement Facilities:  This appendix lists the names of hazardous waste landfill facilities contained
          |995 Biennial Report that reported accepting and /or managing F006 waste. The table includes the
quantities of F006 waste managed by each facility, the facility's EPA ID, and the number of shipments the
facility received.

           Table 1:  F006 Waste Managed in Landfills
           Number of RCRA large quantity generators (greater than lOOOkg/month) who sent F006 waste off-site to a RCRA
           landfill in 1995 = 283
           Volume of F006 generated on-site and shipped off-site to a landfill = 80,298.370 tons
           Volume of F006 generated on-site and managed in a landfill on-site = 18,782.832 tons (2 facilities, not including
           TSDs)
           Total volume generated and managed in landfills = 99,081.202 tons
Landfills that Accept/Manage F006 Waste, by State:
Qty "Generated" QtyRcvd& # of
& Managed Shpmts GM/WR
Number EPA ID Company Managed On- On-site Rcvd Form
site
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

ALD000622464 Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
CAD000633 164 Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.
CAT0006461 17 Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
COD991 300484 Highway 36 Land Development Co.
IDD073 1 14654 Envirosafe Services of Idaho
ILD0008058 12 Peoria Disposal Co.
INDO 1658464 1 Midwest Steel Division
IND0789 1 1 146 Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
IND980503890 Heritage Environmental Services, Inc.
KSD0578893 13 Ashland Chemical Co.
LAD000777201 Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
MID00072483 1 Michigan Disposal Waste Treatment
MID048090633 Wayne Disposal Site #2 Landfill
NJD002385730 E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. Inc.
NYD049836679 CWM Chemical Services
OHD045243706 Envirosafe Services of Ohio Inc.
OKD065438376 U.S. Pollution Control Inc.
ORD089452353 Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
SCD070375985 Laidlaw Env. Svs. of SC Inc.
TND980847024 Excel TSD Inc.
TXD069452340 Texas Ecologists, Inc.
UTD982598898 Envirocare of Utah
UTD99130 1 748 USPCI Grassy Mountain Facility
WAD041337130 Boeing - Auburn
WAD04 1585464 Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
Everett
496.179
94.800
260.000
4,319.438
138.955
5,208.628
17,308.400
118.300 3,015.950
68,213.625
1.800
44,939.950
43,259.000
45,070.380
10,030.000
60.170
236.490 13,558.665
3,403.746
121.602 3,810,086.0
0.530 2,843.1
1.310
1,800.2
4,431.8
6,859.9
115,193.0


15
4

7
20


34
1
1
45

9

4
54
17
20
491

3
7
7
2


WR
WR
GM
GM,WR
WR
GM
GM
GM,WR
WR
WR
WR
GM
WR
GM
WR
GM,WR
WR
GM,WR
GM.WR
GM
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR

                                                         Totals
               78,018.7   47,026.0    2
           September 1998
102
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------

            GM = Reported on Biennial Report GM form: identifies generators who manage F006 in an onsite landfill.
            WR = Reported on WR form: identifies off-site facilities that receive and manage F006 in a landfill.	

Table 2 lists recycling facilities contained in EPA's  1995 Biennial Report that reported accepting and/or
managing F006 waste in 1995. The table includes the quantities of F006  waste managed by each facility, the
facility's EPA ID, the number of shipments the facility received, recovery system used, and a system description.

            Table 2:  F006 Waste Managed by Metals Recovery

            Number of generators who send F006 waste off-site to metals recovery = 824
            Volume of F006 generated on-site and shipped off-site for metals recovery = 64,670.462 tons
            Volume of F006 generated on-site and managed on-site by metals recovery = 217,292.304 tons (9 facilities)
            Therefore, total volume of F006 generated and managed by metals recovery = 281,962.766 tons
            Quantities and Number of Facilities/Streams that Shipped F006 Off-site for Metals Recovery
            System  System Description	Qty Shipped Off-site   # of Facilities
                                    # of Streams
            M011   High temperature metals recovery                       18,252.113       159
            M012   Retorting                                            295.301        4
            M013   Secondary smelting                                  11,958.071       74
            MO 14   Other metals recovery for reuse (iron exchange, etc.)         16,707.303       278
            MO 19   Metals recovery - type unknown	         	  17,457.674       309
                                       179
                                        12
                                        89
                                       320
                                       370
                                                       Totals
        64,670.462
824
970
            September 1998
103
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------



































S
tfl
03
£
S
es that Accept/Manage FO
•5
als Recovery Facil
«
IS
3,
!> g
S Q
O (S









E •§

a; Q
^ 1
o t/3

">
o £3
=tt g
a
0
*«5
C*Q i
•a jr
> O
O —3
(X S
>> 9
ex §
^ s
•a 

(A
!
1
6
TI-
o
s











8
P
*^"
t-




Pacific Circuit Services

CAD98 1695729
^^

S 2
0 0


j>
^
fc1 "
a> u.
O *"

w >
U ^
E ™
D. ^
1 1
»c o
eo x;
I "O
- TJ-
O O
s- s











2 2
fl VO
in o





Engelhard West, Inc.
Schlage Lock Company

CAT000612150
COD082657420
fM m

Bi
^




b
U
>•
o

c/l
1
U
E
ci.
00
X
—
o
2

01


00

(**:
oo










•I
13
on
4
£P
I
T3
U
a 6
^ 0

ILD005087630
,,.

«:
^


1

Si
w.

&
g

_OJ
I
%•
U
J=
O
Tt
O
s

m


S
oo
06
ro










c
Hydromet Environmental Ii

ILD984766279
• m

g S
> o


a s
3 3
U j.
<2 £

fr £•
o o

VI CO
1 i
u t>
j: j=
O O
Tt- <4-
o o
S S

m


1

C"~
(N



r-
r-
OS
^M
iC?
S


a
Amax Metals Recovery Inc
Production Plated Plastics, I

LAD058472721
MID047 153077
vO f*-*"

S
O



3
Si
o

o"
g
O

(A
S
O
E
i*
o
O
Tt
o
S




•••'






r-
cn
00
py^
S
s"



u
§
&
<
i

MID98 1099435
OO

e:
s




£•
u
>

a
W
1

E
1
•s
s
—.
o


^^


S
oo
O












u
c
a
u

NYDOOl 325661
Os

t£ G£
^ ?


M
3
£• •-
U jr
> (2
S^"
£v
b 0>
"3 u

E £
d S
g u
% -s
£ 6
- •*
o o


•* -


s 1

o I***
l^











AT&T Nassau Metals
Dayton Water Systems

NYD086225596
OHD061614673
o -*

^s^^^sls
^o^^^us'o
o

V 4> V 4>
en c/l V] crt
3 3 33
.. u ^ o .. u p
& •- C *- C •- "-
« fe 4> b u fe fe
> tS •* «2 •* <2 <2

o b u & o b g"
WiC'^W^'VJ'^^'
«-t3 o— O— O O
ffi •*-; ea ro ta ro o ej
'^OU'uU^UU
S1^2^^2^J2^2
d. £-, 2 D. 2 d. 2 2
|ll|lill
^gSjzSjzfefe
OjQ O ^ OO ^ DO J3 J5
KOTOSCO3COO
«^^.^^.WTf^.
oooooooo
SSSSS2SS

ON *^ ^ S *&
C^J

00 O "O O O
rt J5 Tf
o\ v^ ^ (xj oo
fO CN f) CS
oo ON O
TT" K1 ~-"

s s a
? OS ^t -^t
r^ >n vl i~^
s



J
1 1
I^iill
t « 1 rf 1 a §
1 3 1 ^ l-l 1 1
gjgee^oO^
a§«ol3— KJOO
a = = c o^—-^ §
£KmowSoor4
o?J^i2'"CT^<*llr'
38!o3£52:a
5>oo>oo"~7!;j
t— STiSS^oofs-Hvo
/V5 CN t*} ~* o t** OO C5
oS«s§S"8
3T O O ON *— i ^\ ,^ f**.
DQQQH689
^^ ^H HH HH i^, |^» ^s «-^.
fcCd.SceiHf-H^
fSf^iTj-in^ot^oo^





















m
^

VO

•n

CN
•o-"

Tf
O

rj

t;


S"





                                •o
                                3
                                CO
                                 00


                                I
                                 (U
                                O
                                o
                                oo
o

-------
                                     Appendix C:
   Observed F006 Handling Practices at Metal Finishing Facilities and List of Worker Health
                                 and Safety Regulations
                                                            U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
                                                                  Mail code 3201
                                                            1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
                                                               Washington DC 20460
September 1998
105
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
  Description of F006 Generation and Handling at Metal Finishing Facilities

  Diagram 1 presents a generic F006 waste generation and handling process.  Electroplating process
  wastewaters are treated through multiple processes to form a slurry/precipitate. The
  slurry/precipitate is sent to a filter press where excess water is separated by the filter press.  The
  moist F006 drops from the filter press to a cart, supersack, roll-off box or to a sludge drier.  When
  used a sludge drier reduces the amount of water in the sludge and reduces its volume. After drying
  or in the moist state, the F006 is either taken away by a recycler or hazardous materials handler to
  its final destination.

September 1998
106
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
          Diagram 1- Generic Flow Diagram of F006 After Wastewater Treatment to Final Storage*
                                                  Precipitator
                                                  Filter Press
                                                (Plate/Frame or Bag)
                                                      T
                       Luggerbox, Cart
                     Superbag or Fitterbag
                            Sludge Drier
1
i
Hopper

i
w
1



Superbags

                                                               Superbags

                         *F1ow diagram generated from Chicago ESVs conducted during CSI Project 10/97
September 1998
107
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
  Health and Safety Regulations and Guidelines
  This section provides a list of worker and safety regulations, policies, guides and operating
  procedures which may apply to on-site and off-site management of F006 waste. All of OSHA
  General Industry Standards are applicable.  In addition, OSHA Construction Industry Standards
  would be applicable to construction activities at these facilities.
Table 1 - List of Regulations, Policies, and Guidelines
Agency/Organization
EPA
OSHA
OSHA (cent.)
Title of Regulation
Personnel Training
Preparedness and Prevention
Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures
Use and Management of Containers
Best Management Practices for .Pollutant
Dischargers
Walking- Working Surfaces
Guarding floor & wall openings & holes
Fixed Industrial Stairs
Fixed Ladders
Scaffolds
Means of Egress
Emergency Action Plan Implementation
Fire Prevention Plan Implementation
Powered Platform Operation
Ventilation
Hearing Conservation
Flammable and Combustible Liquids
Dip Tanks Containing Flammable or Combustible
Liquids
Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous
Chemicals
Hazardous Waste Operations (HAZWOPER)
Training
Personal Protective Equipment
Eye & Face Protection
Location of Regulation
40 CFR §262.34(a)(4) and
40CFR§265.16
40 CFR §265, Subpart C
40 CFR §265, Subpart D
40 CFR §265, Subpart I
40 CFR §125.104
29 CFR §1910.22
29 CFR §191 0.23
29 CFR §191 0.24
29 CFR §191 0.27
29 CFR §191 0.28
29 CFR §1910.37
29CFR§1910.38(a)
29CFR§1910.38(b)
29 CFR §1910.66
29 CFR §191 0.94
29 CFR §1910.95
29 CFR §191 0.1 06
29 CFR §1910.108
29 CFR §1910.1 19
29 CFR §19 10. 120
29 CFR §1910.132
29 CFR §1910.133
September 1998
108
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Table 1 - List of Regulations, Policies, and Guidelines
Agency/Organization
OSHA (cont.)
DOT
ACGIH*
Title of Regulation
Respirator Requirements
Head Protection
Electrical Protective Devices
Sanitation
Confined Space
Lockout/Tagout .
Medical Services & First Aid
Fire Extinguisher Use
Fixed Extinguishing Systems
Air Receivers
Materials Handling
Powered Industrial Trucks (Forklift Operations)
Overhead and Gantry Cranes
Machines, General Requirements
Mechanical Power Presses
Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Equipment,
General
Welding, Cutting, Brazing - Definitions
Welding, Cutting, Brazing - General
Requirements
Electrical Systems
Air Contaminants (PELs)
Inorganic Arsenic
Lead
Cadmium
Hazard Communication
Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals
in Laboratories (\
HAZMAT Transport Training
Threshold Limit Values (TLVs)
Location of Regulation
29 CFR §1910.134
29 CFR §1910.135
29 CFR §1910.137
29.CFR §1910.141
29 CFR §1910.146
29 CFR §1910.147
29 CFR §1910.151
29 CFR §1910.157
29 CFR §1910.160
29 CFR §1910.169
29 CFR §1910.176
29 CFR §1910.178
29 CFR §1910.179
29 CFR §1910.212
29 CFR §1910,217
29 CFR §1910.242
29 CFR §1910.251
29 CFR §1910.252
29 CFR §1910.301
29 CFR §1910.1000
29 CFR §1910.1018 .
29 CFR §1910.1025
29 CFR §1910.1027
29 CFR §1910.1200
29 CFR §1910.1450
49 CFR §173
Guidelines onlv in "1996
TLVs and BEIs"
  *ACGIH (TLVs) are not legally enforceable
September 1998
109
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
  F006 Handling Practices That May be Used to Minimize Potential Hazards

  Table 2 summarizes F006 handling practices observed at Milwaukee, Chicago, and Phoenix metal
  finishing facilities. This table represents observed practices not recommended best management
  practices.
        Table 2 - F006 Handling Activities Observed in Regional Benchmarking Study
       Work Activity
      Potential Hazard
         Hazard Control Method
Paddling wet F006 sludge
cake from the filter press into
a lugger box, cart, or drum
Skin exposure to sludge,
ingestion hazard, Physical body
damage, slip hazard, possible
dust hazard
Personal Protective Equipment (eye
protection, gloves, respirator, non slip boots),
ergonomics Training
Replacing worn or damaged
filter cloths in the filter press.
Skin exposure to sludge,
ingestion hazard, Physical
damage to body appendages if
press is activated	
Personal Protective Equipment (eye
protection, gloves, respirator), Training,
Means of locking out filter press
Shoveling dried F006 sludge
into supersacks, luggerboxes,
or drums.
Inhalation of metal dust
particles, Skin exposure to dust,
ingestion hazard, Physical
lifting hazards, confined space
entry
Personal Protective Equipment (eye
protection, gloves, respirator), Training on
lifting
Shoveling dried F006 sludge
into a roll-off box
Inhalation of metal dust
particles, Skin exposure to dust,
ingestion hazard, Physical
lifting hazards
Personal Protective Equipment (eye
protection, gloves, respirator),  ergonomic
training on lifting activities
Manually moving cart or
lugger box to supersack or
roll-off box
Inhalation of metal dust, skin
exposure, ingestion hazard,
Physical hazard
Personal Protective Equipment (eye
protection, gloves, respirator),  ergonomic
training
Operation of overhead crane
to transport cart or lugger box
to roll-off box
Physical hazard of falling
objects, Crane failure,
Inhalation of metal dust
Personal Protective Equipment
Training on crane operation, crane inspection
program	
Opening/closing a roll-off box
manually or with a forklift
Inhalation of metal dust
particles, Skin exposure to dust,
ingestion hazard, Forklift
operation safety hazards,
Physical lifting damage	
Forklift Training, Personal Protective
Equipment, Standard Operating Procedures
(SOPs)
Changing the filter to the
sludge drier.
Inhalation of metal dust
particles, Skin exposure to dust,
ingestion hazard, drier lock-out
Personal Protective Equipment (eye
protection, gloves, respirator), Training,
means of locking out drier to prevent
accidental operation	
Any work activity in the
sludge drier room.
Inhalation of metal dust
particles, Skin exposure to dust,
ingestion hazard, noise
exposure, eye hazard	
Personal Protective Equipment (respirator,
eye protection, hearing protection)
September 1998
                   110
             F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Table 2 - F006 Handling Activities Observed in Regional Benchmarking Study
Work Activity
Sampling the F006 sludge
(wet or dry)
Housekeeping
(i.e., cleaning roll-off box)
Any work activity in noisy
areas (wastewater treatment
pumps)
Forklift operation a lugger
box, drum, or bag.
Potential Hazard
Inhalation of metal dust
particles, Skin exposure to dust,
ingestion hazard
Inhalation of metal dust
particles, Skin exposure to
sludge or dust, ingestion hazard,
Physical lifting hazards,
Slip/trip/fall hazards, Discharge
of F006 while cleaning the
inside of the roll-off box,
confined space entry
Noise exposure
Forklift operation safety hazards
Hazard Control Method
Personal Protective Equipment (eye
protection, gloves, respirator)
Personal Protective Equipment (eye
protection, gloves, respirator)
Means of locking-out Filter.press
Personal Protective Equipment (hearing
protection)
Forklift Training, Personal Protective
Equipment (respirator), Standard Operating
Procedures CSOPO
"Wet" sludge as the term is used here is that sludge produced after the filter press which constitutes about 25-60 %
solids. "Dry" sludge is produced by the sludge drier and constitutes about 90% solids.
  Personal Protective Equipment Guidance

  The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is the government agency
  responsible for performing health and safety studies and making health and safety
  recommendations. NIOSH has recommended personal protective equipment and sanitary measures
  for handling specific chemicals and substances.  Table 3 is extracted from the NIOSH "Pocket
  Guide to Chemical Hazards" recommending protective equipment and sanitary measures for
  specific chemicals and substances commonly found in F006 waste. This is not an all inclusive list,
  for example, respirators were not addressed. These recommendations supplement general work
  practices (e.g., no eating, drinking, or smoking where chemicals are used.)
Table 3 - NIOSH Recommended Personal Protection and Sanitation
Contaminant
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Skin:
N.R.
Prevent
skin contact
Prevent
skin contact
Eyes:
N.R.
Prevent eye
contact
Prevent eye
contact
Wash Skin:
N.R.
When
contaminated
When
contaminated
and daily
Remove
Clothing:
N.R.
When wet or
contaminated
When wet or
contaminated
Change
Clothing:
N.R.
Daily
Daily
Provide:


Eyewash,
Quickdrench
September 1998
111
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Contaminant
Barium
chloride/nitrat
& (ASRA)
Beryllium
Bismuth as
telluride
doped with
selenium
sulfide
Cadmium
Chlorine
Chromium
Chromium III
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Platinum
Platinum
(soluble salts)
Selenium
Silver
Skin:
Prevent
skin contact
Prevent
skin contact
Prevent
skin contact
N.R.
Frostbite
N.R.
Prevent
skin contact
Prevent
skin contact
Prevent
skin contact
Prevent
skin contact
N.R.
Prevent
skin contact
N.R.
Prevent
skin contact
Preven skin
contact
N.R.
Prevent
skin contact
Prevent
skin contact
Prevent
skin contact
Eyes:
Prevent eye
contact
Prevent eye
contact
Prevent eye
contact
N.R.
Frostbite
N.R.
Prevent eye
contact
N.R.
Prevent eye
contact
Prevent eye
contact
N.R.
Prevent eye
contact
N.R.
N.R.
N.R.
N.R.
Prevent eye
contact
N.R.
Prevent eye
contact
Wash Skin:
When
contaminated
Daily
When
contaminated
Daily
N.R.
N.R.
When
contaminated
When
contaminated
When
contaminated
When
contaminated
N.R.
Daily
N.R.
When
contaminated
When
contaminated
/daily
N.R.
When
contaminated
When
contaminated
When
contaminated
Remove
Clothing:
When wet or
contaminated
When wet or
contaminated
When wet or
contaminated
N.R.
N.R.
N.R.
When wet or
contaminated
When wet or
contaminated
When wet or
contaminated
When wet or
contaminated
N.R.
When wet or
contaminated
N.R.
When wet or
contaminated
When wet or
contaminated
N.R.
When wet or
contaminated
When wet or
contaminated
When wet or
contaminated
Change
Clothing:
Daily
Daily
N.R.
Daily
N.R.
N.R.
N.R.
Daily
Daily
/
Daily
N.R.
Daily
N.R.
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
N.R.
Daily
Provide:

Eyewash
Eyewash,
Quickdrench

Frostbite
protection














September 1998
112
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Contaminant
Sodium
hydroxide
Sulfur dioxide
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
Skin:
Prevent
skin contact
Frostbite
N.R.
Prevent
skin contact
N.R.
Eyes:
Prevent eye
contact
Frostbite
N.R.
Prevent eye
contact
N.R.
Wash Skin:
When
contaminated
N.R.
N.R.
When
contaminated
N.R.
Remove
Clothing:
When wet or
contaminated
When wet or
contaminated
N.R.
When wet or
contaminated
N.R.
Change
Clothing:
Daily
N.R.
N.R.
Daily
N.R.
Provide:
Eyewash,
Quickdrench
Frostbite
protection



Notes: Skin - Recommends the need for personal protective equipment
Eyes - Recommends the need for eye protection.
Wash skin - Recommends when workers should wash the spilled chemical from the body in addition to normal
washing.
Remove - Advises workers when to remove clothing that has accidentally become wet or significantly
contaminated.
Change - Recommends whether the routine changing of clothing is needed.
Provide - Recommends the'need for eyewash fountains and/or quick drench facilities.
These recommendations supplement general work practices (e.g., no eating, drinking, or smoking where
chemicals are used.)
N.R. - No recommendation specified
  References

  ACGIH. 1996 Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices for Chemical Substances
        and Physical Agents. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial
        Hygienists, 1996.                                                           i

  Cushnie, Jr., George. Pollution Prevention and Control Technology for Plating Operations. Ann
        Arbor, MI: National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, 1994.

  EPA. Development Document for Existing Source Pretreatment Standards for the Electroplating
        Point Source Category. EPA 440/1-79/003, Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection
        Agency, August 1979.

  NIOSH. NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-116.
        Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1997.

  OSHA Regulations (Standards - 29 CFR) - Part 1910 Occupational Safety and Health Standards,
        http://www.osha-slc.gov/OshStd_toc/OSHA_Std_toc_1910.html
September 1998
113
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
                                      Appendix D:
    Checklist Used to Identify Pollution Prevention Technologiesat Metal Finishing Facilities
September 1998
114
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
P2 Technology
/
Comment
1. SPENT PLATING SOLUTIONS
General Bath Life Extension
• Filtration
• Carbon Treatment
• Replenishment
Purified Water
• Electrolytic Dummying
• Cyanide Bath Carbonate Freezing
* Precipitation
• Monitoring
• Housekeeping
• Drag-in Reduction
* Purer Anodes and Bags
• Ventilation/Exhaust Systems
Hexavalent Chrome Alternatives
Trivalent chrome
Non-chrome conversion coatings
Nonchelated Process Chemistries
Continuous filtration
Non-cyanide Process Chemicals
Solvent Degreasing Alternatives
Hot alkaline cleaning
Electrocurrent
Ultrasonic
Alkaline Cleaners
Filtration (Micro/Ultra)
Skimming
Coalescer
Caustic Etch Solution Regeneration
Acid Purification
Ion Exchange








































2. DRAG-OUT REDUCTION
* Process Bath Operating Concentration
and Temperature
• Wetting Agents




September 1998
115
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
P2 Technology
• Workpiece Positioning
• Withdrawal and Drainage Time
» Air Knives
• Spray or Fog Rinses
• Plating Baths
* Drainage Boards
• Drag-Out Tanks
/







Comment







3. DRAG-OUT RECOVERY
• Evaporation
• Ion Exchange
* Electrowinning
• Electrodialysis
• Reverse Osmosis
• Meshpad Mist Eliminators










•

4. RINSE WATER
Improved Rinsing Efficiency
• Spray Rinse/Rinse Water Agitation
• Increased Contact Time/Multiple
Rinses
• Countercurrent Rinsing
Flow Controls
• Flow Restrictors
• Conductivity-Actuated Flow Control
Recycling/Recovery
• Rinse Water
• Spent Process Baths
• Solvents






















September 1998
116
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
                                     Appendix £:
   Laboratory Analysis Information: Constituents, Methods, and Detection Limits Used in the
                                Benchmarking Studies
September 1998
.117
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Table 1. Volatile Organic Target Analytes
Method 8260A
CONSTITUENT
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
Acetone
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
Carbon Disulfide
Vinyl Acetate
1,1-Dichloroethane
2-Butanone
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Chloroform
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Trichloroethene (TCE)
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Bromodichloromethane
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
2-Hexanone
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene
trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
TARGET DETECTION LIMIT ( Mg/Kg)
5
5
5
10
5
10
-"20
5
5
5
10
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
10
5
5
5
September 1998
118
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Table 1. Volatile Organic Target Analytes
Method 8260A
CONSTITUENT
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p-Xytenes
o-Xylene
Styrene
Bromofonri
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
TARGET DETECTION LIMIT ( MS/Kg)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
September 1998
119
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Table 2. Semivolatile Organic Target Analytes
Method 8270B - Solid Samples
CONSTITUENT
Phenol
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
2-Chlorophenol
2,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Benzyl alcohol
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
2-Methylphanol
bis((2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
4-Methyphenol
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
Hexachloroethane
Nitrobenzene
Isophorone
2-Nitrophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
Benzoic acid
2,4-Dichlorophenol
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-Chloroaniline
Hexachlorobutadiene
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
TARGET DETECTION LIMITJjUg/Kg)
660
660
660
660
660
1300
660
660
660.
660
660
660
660
660
660
660
660
3300
660
660
660
1300
660
1300
660
660
660
660
September 1998
120
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Table 2. Semivolatile Organic Target Analytes
Method 8270B - Solid Samples
CONSTITUENT
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Nitroaniline
Dimethylphthalate
Acenaphthylene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
3-Nitroaniline
Acenaphthene
2,4-Dinitrophenol
4-Nitrophanol
4-Nitrophenol
Dibenzofiiran
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Diethyphthalate
4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether
Fluorene
4-Nitroaniline
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
TARGET DETECTION LIMIT ( M8/Kg)
660
3300
660
660
3300
3300
660 :
3300
3300
660
660
660
660
660
660
3300
3300
660
660
660
3300
660
660
660
660
660
660
660
September 1998
121
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Table 2. Semivolatile Organic Target Analytes
Method 8270B - Solid Samples
CONSTITUENT
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Din-octylphthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,f)perylene
TARGET DETECTION LIMIT ( /*g/Kg)
1300
660
660
660
660
660
660
660
660
660
660
September 1998
122
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
                    Table 3.  Target Analytes: Metals and other Inorganics
  Detection Limits
  Analvte
Method^
                                                                SW-846
  Solid me/kg
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bismuth
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Tin
Zinc
Chloride
Fluoride
Cyanide (total and amenable)
Hexavalent chromium
6020
6020
6020
6020
6020
6020
6020
6020
6020
6020
6020
6020
6020
6020
7471
6020
6020
6020
6020
6020
6020
SM 300.0
SM 340.2
9010
3060A/7196A
10
1
2
10
1
1
1
100
2
1
10
0.6
100
3
0.1
1
1
1
100
1
4
NR
NR
NR
NR
  Notes:

  1     The target detection limits provided are for reference purposes. The actual method detection
       limits are sample dependent and may vary as the sample matrix varies.
  NR - Not required, best achievable limit by laboratory to be used.
September 1998
 123
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
                          Table 4. TCLP Compliance Criteria
Analvte
Metals
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Methods '

6020
6020
6020
6020
6020
7470
6020
6020
Target Ouantitation Limits me/L

5.0
100.
1.0
5.0
5.0
0.2
1.0
5.0
  Notes:
  1. All methods are SW-846 3rd Ed.
September 1998
124
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
                                    Appendix F:
                            Regional Benchmarking Survey
September 1998
125
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
                              EPA's CSI Survey of 10 Milwaukee Platers
                                               Instructions

          The National Association of Metal Finishers (NAMF) is member of Environmental Protection Agency's
  Common Sense Initiative (CSI) metal finishing sector workgroup and is participating in the data gather effort focusing
  on hazardous waste regulatory issues has identified the need to compare the characteristics of F006 wastes generated
  today with F006 wastes generated at the time of the listing under RCRA (1980). The following survey will be used to
  evaluate the chemical content of F006 generated by 10 metal finishing facilities from Milwaukee. This information
  will be used to characterize F006, evaluate the processes generating F006 and the level of pollution prevention
  practiced, and determine the recyclability of F006. Please note that this survey should be completed using available
  information or best engineering judgement and that you are not required to generate any new data.

  Confidentiality:  If you believe that some parts of the information supplied by your are commercially sensitive, you
  may claim protection for your data.  However it will be extremely difficult for the workgroup to use any data that is
  considered confidential in determining the F006 recyclability.  If you believe your information to be sensitive, it may be
  blinded in order for the workgroup to develop a final report.

  Return the completed survey within  10 days from date of receipt to:

  William (Bill) Sonntag
  NAMF
  2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 408
  Washington, DC 20037
  Phone:(202)965-5190
  Fax: (202) 965-4037

  The survey may also be submitted to the EPA contractor during the engineering site visit and sampling effort.

  For technical assistance, call Kristy Altaian, SAIC at (703) 318-4766.

  Response may be typed or handwritten neatly. Use additional paper as needed.

  A.      Corporate and Facility  Information
  Parent Corporation       	.	
  Name of Company/Affiliate      	
  Address of Corporation Headquarters
          Street  	

          City    	
  Name of Facility	
                                  State
Zip.
  Address of Facility (if different from above)
          Street  	
          City    	
               	   State.
RCRA Hazardous Waste Generator ID Number:
     POTW/NPDES Permit Number:
     PSD Permit Number:
   Zip.
  Name(s) of personnel to be contacted for additional information pertaining to this questionnaire

        Name                                 Title                           Telephone
September 1998
                                               126
                       F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
  Type of Facility:       	._ Job shop       	Captive shop

  Number of Employees: 	

  B.     Process Flow Diagram

  The purpose of this question is to provide the workgroup with an overview of the plating operations and understanding
  of how the various plating operations are linked together, and the flow of wastewaters to the waste water treatment
  plant (WWTP) generating the F006 sludge.

  The workgroup is most interested in the following commonly used processes:

  •      zinc plating on steel
  •      nickel/chromium plating on steel
  •      copper/nickel/chromium plating on non-ferrous substrates (zinc, brass, ABS)
  •      copper plating/stripping in the printed circuit industry
  •      hard chromium plating on steel
  •      cadmium plating

  Please provide a general process block flow diagram for each these plating processes that identifies basic plating
  operation. This should contain general information on feedstocks, plating solutions, waste generation, etc.

  Please provide a brief written description of the plating process. This should include:

  •      Feed stock, intermediate, or product storage
  •      Waste management units
  •      Waste storage and  shipping equipment
  •      Production output
  •      Waste generation
  •      Plating sequence, solutions, and substrates


  C.     Wastewater Treatment Plant Flow Diagram

  Please provide a brief description of the treatment process wastewaters go through to remove metals and other toxic
  substances prior to discharge.  Please discuss the following steps and equipment used (as applicable):

  •      waste stream segregation
  •      hexavalent chrome reduction
  •      cyanide oxidation
  •      neutralization, flocculation, clarification, effluent polishing
  •      sludge dewatering  and drying
  •      sludge blending to  achieve desired concentration
  •      sludge storage and  duration

  D.     F006 Quantity Generated and Management Methods

  D. 1.   What was the total  product weight produced by your facility in 1995?
         	Long Tons or Surface area (Circle one)

  D.2.   Is the F006 generated at your facility process-specific or is it combined in the wastewater treatment plant? 	

  D.3.   What was the total  quantity of F006 generated in 1995 ?	Dry tons

  D.4.   Estimate the quantity of F006 generated from each process in 1995?


September 1998                                  127                     F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
        Process
Quantity (dry tons)
  D,5.  Please provide a description of any onsite recycling of your F006. Please estimate the quantities (dry tons)
        recycled or recovered.
  D.6.  Please provide the name, location, brief process description (e.g., pyrometallurgical) and quantity (dry tons) for
        all F006 sludge that is sent offsite for recycling/metals recovery.
  D.7.  Please provide the name, location, management method (e.g., Subtitle C landfill) and quantity (dry tons) for all
        F006 sludge that is sent offsite for disposal.
  D.8.  What is the quantity of F006 sludge disposed of onsite?  	
  D.9.  What was the quantity exported outside the U.S. in 1995?..
                                         Dry tons
                                        Dry tons
  E.    F006 Waste Characterization

  Please provide waste characterization analytical data sheets for your F006 sludge. Submit both Toxicity Characteristic
  Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and total compositional data when possible. Please provide characterization information
  (if available) for pH, reactive cyanide, specific gravity, and phase distribution.  Please be sure your facility name and
  F006 sludge sample identification is clearly marked on each page or provide it in the top right hand corner of the
  analytical data sheet with any additional information you may wish to provide.  Please provide any specifications
  required by recyclers.

  F.    Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization Activities

  Briefly please respond to each of the following questions concerning your present or past pollution prevention/waste
  minimization (P2) activities. Please remember it is just as important to document your failures as well as your
  successes in conducting P2.

  F, 1.   What types of equipment changes or equipment layouts have you implement in conducting P2?
  F.2.   Describe how you have improved operating practices including operator training.
  F.3.   Describe any material substitution or elimination you have implemented to make your F006 less toxic or more
        recyclable.
  F.4.   Describe your water-use (e.g., flow restriction, drag out) reduction program or policy and any addition P2
        measures conducted at your facility not mentioned before.
September 1998
                  128
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
  F.5.   Describe any closed-loop recycling conducted by your plating operation.
  F.6.  .Please describe how your facility's use of pollution prevention has (or has not) affected the quantities and/or
         quality of F006 sludge generated at your facility.
  F.7.   Do you have any documentation where P2 was implemented and subsequently partially or completely
         abandoned in favor of reclamation. If so can you provide EPA with a copy of the documentation and briefly
         describe it below.
  F.8.   Please describe any industrial trends affecting your metal finishing facility or the metal finishing industry as a
         whole and/or the generation of F006 sludge.
  F.9.  Please describe any economic barriers and/or incentives to conducting P2. Please describe the principle
        economic factors that have lead to your facility's current practices.
  F. 10. Please describe any regulations that affect P2, recycling and sludge treatment/management decisions.
September 1998
129
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Workflow
 ±
                                              Example of Process
                                                Flow Diagram









Process .
Water F












360 gph L
f

-

360 ooh L

F




-90 gph k.
f



90 gph L
f


I
f
Alkyline j
rinse '
y
Acid dip
(pickling)
V
Pickling L

rinse fl
T
Nickel
plate
*
Two-stage
counterflow
rinse
T
Chrome
Plate
*
Two-stage
rou intapf Inifl

rinse
^
Hot water
rinse
i 	 ,
r




i
r




i^-
f



i
1 F


\
F







Neutralization
— F8^
Precipitation
920 gph ^

Clarification
f
Wfl^fpwfltpr

discharge

. Chro
F Kedu




September 1998
       130
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
                      Example of Wastewater Treatment Process Flow Diagram
CN Waste
15,000 pgd
20mgflCN
                     Caustic Chlorine
                       11
           Acid/Alkaline
           30,000 gpd
        Cr Waste
        15,000 gpd
        12QmgdCr
                                             Add/
                                             Caustic    Polymer
                                               1       1
                                                   SOdrytons^r
                                                   Sludge to
                                                   Recovery Site
                                                                              60,000 gpd
      (Example from "PoMion Prevention and Control Technology for Plating Operation," G. Cushnie for NCMS.)
September 1998
                                          131
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
                                  Appendix G:
                   National Benchmarking Survey and Instructions
September 1998
132
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
                                      Call for Data as Part of EPA's CSI
                                                Instructions

   The National Association of Metal Finishers (NAMF), American Electroplaters and Surface Finishers (AESF), and
 Metal Finishing Sciences Association (MFSA) are members of the Environmental Protection Agency's Common Sense
 Initiative (CSJ) metal finishing sector workgroup and are participating in the data gathering effort focusing on hazardous
 waste regulatory issues and has identified the need to compare the characteristics of F006 wastes generated today with
 F006 wastes, generated at the time of the listing under RCRA (1980).  The following survey will be used to characterize
 F006, evaluate the processes generating F006 and the level of pollution prevention practiced, and determine the
 recyclability of F006. Please note that this survey should be completed using available information or best
 engineering judgement and that you are not required to generate any new data.

   F006 is defined as "Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations except from the following processes:
   (1) Sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum; (2) tin plating on  carbon steel; (3) zinc plating (segregated basis) on carbon
   steel; (4) aluminum or zinc-aluminum plating on carbon steel; (5) cleaning/stripping associated with tin, zinc, and
   aluminum plating on carbon steel; and (6) chemical etching and milling of aluminum." (40 CFR §261.31)

 Return the completed survey as soon as possible but not later than 30 days after receipt of this survey to:

 Christian Richter
 NAMF/AESF/MFSA
 2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 408
 Washington, DC 20037
 Phone: (202) 965-5190
 Fax: (202) 965-4037

 Response may be typed or handwritten neatly.

 A. CORPORATE AND FACILITY INFORMATION

 Parent Corporation

Name of Company/Affiliate	
 Address of Corporation Headquarters

   Street   	,	

   City    	
    State
Zip.
Name of Facility
Address of Facility (if different from above)

   Street   	

   City    	
       State
   Zip.
RCRA Hazardous Waste Generator ID Number:

     POTW/NPDES Permit Number: 	

     PSD Permit Number: 	
     State or Local environmental permits:.
Name(s) of personnel to be contacted for additional information pertaining to this data

   Name                                  Title                           Telephone
Type of Facility:
Job shop
       Captive shop
   September 1998
                         133
                                F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Number of Employees:
B. METAL FINISHING OPERATIONS

What type of plating operations are conducted by your facility? Specify cyanide- versus non-cyanide-based plating.
           zinc plating on steel   CN     Non-CN
          nickel/chromium plating on steel
          copper/nickel/chromium plating on non-ferrous substrates (zinc, brass, ABS)
          copper plating/stripping in the printed circuit industry
          hard chromium plating on steel
          Copper plating
          tin (acid) plating
          cadmium plating
          sulfuric acid anodizing
          silver plating
          gold plating
          bright dip of copper/alloy
          Other,( specify):
C. F006 QUANTITY GENERATED AND MANAGEMENT METHODS
Cl.What was the total product weight produced by your facility in 1996? _
   yards/Cubic feet) Please circle appropriate units.
                             , (Long Tons/Cubic
C2.Is the F006 generated at your facility process-specific or is it combined in the wastewater treatment plant?

C3-Are cyanide-bearing F006 sludges segregated from non-cyanide F006?  Yes /  No
C4.What was the total quantity of F006 generated in 1996?.
   circle appropriate units.
C5.Estimate the quantity of F006 generated from each process in 1996?
              (Dry Tons/Cubic yards/Cubic feet) Please
Process




Quantity (Specify units)
•S#a ?



C6.Please provide a description of any onsite recycling of your metals prior to discharge to wastewater treatment. Please
   estimate the quantities (Dry Tons/Cubic yards/Cubic feet) recycled or recovered.
   September 1998
134
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Description of any onsite recycling



Quantity recycled or recovered



CT.Please provide the name, location, and quantity (Dry Tons/Cubic yards/Cubic feet) for all F006 sludge that is sent
   offsite for recycling/metals recovery.
Name


Location


Quantity



CS.Please provide the name, location, management method (e.g., Subtitle C landfill) and quantity (dry tons) for all F006
sludge that is sent offsite for disposal.
Name



Location



Management
Method



Quantity




                                                                 . Dry tons
C9.What was the quantity exported outside the U.S. in 1996?	

CIO.       Please check any of the wastewater treatment process used to remove metals and other toxic substances prior
           to discharge. Please discuss the following steps and equipment used (as applicable):





waste stream segregation
hexavalent chrome reduction
cyanide oxidation
neutralization, flocculation, clarification, effluent polishing
sludge blending to achieve desired concentration
D. F006 WASTE CHARACTERIZATION

Please provide waste characterization analytical data sheets for your F006 sludge. Submit both Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and total compositional data when possible. Please provide characterization information (if
available) for pH, reactive cyanide, specific gravity, and phase distribution.  Please be sure your facility name and F006
sludge sample identification is clearly marked.on each page or provide it in the top right hand corner of the analytical data
sheet with any additional information you may^wish to provide.  Please provide any specifications required by recyclers.

E. POLLUTION PREVENTION/WASTE MINIMIZATION ACTIVITIES

E1.        Check the techniques used at your site. If requested, indicate whether the technique is automated or manual.
           The pollution prevention benefits from the techniques you use (1= low success, 5= high success). If the rating
   September 1998
                                                    135
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
        is 1 or 2, indicate below what problems were encountered. Also, use the space below or other sheets to
        describe any innovative methods or to provide additional information.
Reduce Drag-Out Losses By:













Using drag-out rinse tanks and returning chemicals to the process bath
Q Manual or n Automatic
Using drip tanks and returning chemicals to the process bath
o Manual or n Automatic
Reducing speed of rack/part withdrawal
a Manual or a Automatic
Allowing rack/part to drip over plating tank
o Manual or n Automatic
Using a drag-in/drag-out arrangement (i.e., use of same rinse tank before and after plating
also referred to as a double-dip or double-use rinse)
n Manual or o Automatic
Fog or spray rinses installed over process bath
a Manual or a Automatic
Air knives that blow off drag-out
a Manual or p Automatic
Drip shields between tanks
a Manual or n Automatic
Lower bath concentration
Increasing solution temperature (reduces viscosity)
Using a wetting agent (reduces viscosity) _
Positioning work piece to minimize solution holdup
Other, specify
P2 Benefit













Reduce Rinse Water Use By:










Manually turning off rinse water when not in use
Conductivity or pH rinse controls
Timer rinse controls
Flow restrictors
Countercurrent rinses
Spray rinses
c-f
Air agitation in rinse tanks '-
Use flow meters/accumulators to track water use at each rinse tank or plating line
Reactive rinsing or cascade rinsing
Other, specify
P2 Benefit










September 1998
136
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------

Various Operating Practices:
P2 Benefit
Training and Programs:





Established a formal policy statement with regard to pollution prevention and control
Established a formal pollution prevention program
Conduct employee education for pollution prevention
Establish a preventative maintenance program for tanks
Use specifically assigned personnel for chemical additions





Procedures:










Stricter conformance w/ Line Preventive Maintenance Schedule
Stricter conformance w/ SPC Procedures
Waste stream segregation of contact and noncontact wastewater
Strict chemical inventory control
Perform routine bath "analyses
Maintain bath analyses/addition logs
Have written procedures for bath make-up and additions
Use process baths to maximum extent possible (no dump schedule)
Remove anodes from bath when they are idle (e.g., cadmium, zinc)
Regularly retrieve fallen parts/racks from tanks







4


F006 Volume Reduction methods:





Closed-loop recycling
Use control method for adding water to process tanks
Sludge Dewatering- (Vacuum filter, Solid bowl centrifuge, Imperforate basket centrifuge, belt
filter press, Recessed plate .filter press, sludge drying beds, sludge lagoons, sludge dryers, etc.)
Install overflow alarms on process tanks
Install other spill/leak detection system, specify





Inspections/ Maintenance:



Perform regular maintenance of racks/barrels
Pre-inspect parts to prevent processing of obvious rejects
Waste Reduction Study conducted



Research/Evaluations:


Evaluation of recycling alternatives
Increasing drain time over process tanks


September 1998
137
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Various Operating Practices:




Research of alternative plating technologies
Development of tracking system for monitoring flow from different areas
«,
Monitoring of incoming water with strict control program
Two separate labs for process chemistry and wastewater treatment
P2 Benefit




Elimination/ Replacement/Substitutions:










Eliminate obsolete processes and/or unused or infrequently used processes
Replace cyanide based plating solution with alkaline-based solutions
Elimination of rinse waters to waste treatment (nickel, chrome)
Substitution of chromate and dichromate seal with non chrome sealer •
Elimination of plating services (cadmium, tin, nickel, copper, brass and hard chrome)
Elimination of vapor degreasing
Implementation of a multi- stage cyanide destruct system
Elimination of chelated cleaners
Other, specify
Other, specify










Additional Information (attach other sheets, if necessary):	

E.2.       • Has the implementation of pollution prevention reduced your wastewater discharge rate?
           a  Yes            a No

   If yes, approximately how many gallons per day average have you reduced your flow by using pollution prevention?
          	 gpd eliminated (base year = 19	)
E.3.
Recycle and Recovery Technologies - Check each technology that you have used in the past or currently use,
indicate the type of process bath to which the technology is applied.
Technology








Electrodialysis
Electrowinning
Evaporator
Ion flotation
Ion exchange
Mesh pad mist eliminator/recycle
Reverse osmosis
Ultrafiltration —
Process Bath Technology is Applied to




.


-
   September 1998
                                        138
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Technology
| Other*
Process Bath Technology is Applied to

E.4. Solution Maintenance Techniques

Check the techniques that you presently use and indicate the type of process bath to which the techniques applied. Use the
space below to describe any innovative methods or to provide additional information.
Technology '
















Acid retardation
Carbon treatment (batch)
Carbon treatment (continuous)
Dummying of metal contaminants
Electrodialysis for inorganic
contaminants
Carbonate freezing
Filtration, in-tank
Filtration, external
High pH treatment
Precipitation
Liquid/ Liquid extraction
Microfiltration
Ultrafiltration
Other, specify
Other, specify
Other, specify
Process Bath Technology is Applied to
















Additional Information:
   September 1998
139
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
                                  Appendix H:
                National Benchmarking Commercial Recyclers Survey
September 1998
140
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
                          EPA's CSI Survey of Recyclers of F006 Instructions

The National Association of Metal Finishers (NAMF), American Electroplaters and Surface Finishers (AESF), and
Metal Finishing Sciences Association (MFSA) are members of Environmental Protection Agency's Common Sense
Initiative (CSI) metal finishing sector workgroup and are participating in the data gathering effort focusing on
hazardous waste regulatory issues. The workgroup has identified the need to compare the characteristics of F006
wastes generated today with F006 wastes generated at the time of the listing under RCRA (1980). The following
survey will be used to characterize F006, evaluate the F006 recycling processes, and determine the recyclability of
F006. Please note that this survey should be completed using available information or best engineering
judgement and that you are not required to generate any new data.

Return the completed survey within 30 days from date of receipt to:

William (Bill) Sonntag
NAMF/AESF/MFSA
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 408
Washington, DC 20037
Phone:(202)965-5190
Fax: (202) 965-4037

For technical assistance, please call Kristy Allman at (703) 318-4766.

Response may be typed or handwritten neatly. Use additional paper, as needed.

 A.      CORPORATE AND FACILITY INFORMATION

 Parent Corporation
 Name of Recycling Company/Affiliate     	•_	'     	.	
 Address of Recycling Company Headquarters
         Street
         City    	  State.
                                                  Zip.
 Address of Facility (if different from above)
       .  Street  	

         City    	
               	  State.

RCRA Hazardous Waste Generator ID Number:
     POTW/NPDES Permit Number: 	

     PSD Permit Number: 	
Zip.
      State and local environmental permits:
 Name of person to be contacted for additional information pertaining to this questionnaire
         Name                                Title                           Telephone
 Manner of Handling F006:
                               Hydrometallugical

                               Pyrometallurgical

                               Blender/Broker

                               Other, specify (%).
 September 1998
                                                141
                     F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Number of Employees:	

B.      PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
B.l
C.

C.I.

C.2.

D.

D.I.
D.2.
On a separate sheet of paper, please provide brief description of your process and, if possible, a process
flow diagram that identifies basic metal recovery methods. This should include general information
including process steps, feeds, products, and the emissions and wastes from the recycling process. This
should include:

•       Feed stocks, intermediates, and/or products
•       Process steps
•       Waste management units
•       production output
•       emissions and waste generation points
F006 QUANTITIES

What was the volume of all the materials processed by your facility in 1995?15

What was the volume of F006 sludge processed by your facility in 1995?' 	

F006 CHARACTERIZATION
             Long tons
       . Dry tons
Please provide analytical data for F006 evaluated in 19951.  If this represents a large quantity of data, you
may present a subset focusing on either more complete analytical scans or on a more recent time period
(i.e., the last month). If the data is confidential, you may present a range, with the average and number of
data points. If available, please provide the broader pre-approval scans, typically examining a broader
spectrum of constituents, rather than the more cursory screening analyses typically performed on each  load
of newly received F006.  When available, submit both Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
and total concentration data. Please be sure your facility name, and F006 sludge sample is clearly
identified on each page or provide it in the top right hand corner of the analytical data sheet with any
additional characteristic information you may wish to provide.  If you have any questions, you may call the
technical assistance line.

Please provide a copy or descriptions of the specification for the F006 sludge must meet for your facility to
accept it for recycle. Use additional paper if necessary.
D.3.    Explain any undesirable physical or chemical characteristics F006 might possess making it unacceptable to
        you facility. Use additional paper if necessary.
EVALUATION OF F006

E. 1.     How does your facility establish the value of F006 (i.e., how do you determine what your company will
        charge or pay for F006)?  Please list the specific metals or combination of metals, or contaminants which
        affect your valuations. (Please respond in less specific terms if specific termination is considered
        proprietary.) Use additional paper if necessary.
        15 The CSI workgroup is attempting to characterize the F006 sludge based on 1995 data.  If data for 1995 is
not available, other recent time frames will be useful. Please clearly mark the date or time frame on the data sheets.
September 1998
                                          142
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
                                  Appendix I:
                     Responses to Citizen Group Phone Survey

September 1998
143
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
Individual responses are summarized below.
Question #1: Is the Group Aware of Environmental Impacts from the Recycling Facility?
NO
NO. "Not in the past 6 years. No known violations. Involved in moving waste from one state to
question concerning whether it is "sham recycling" or not."
another— some
NO
NO COMMENT. The environmental group technically no longer exists.
NO
NO. "They generally try to make env. laws easier, through political influence. They also operate
site."
a superfund
NO
NO
UNKNOWN. "Never heard of the company."
 Question #1: Is the Group Aware of Economic Impacts from the Recycling Facility?
 NO
 NO. "They are the largest waste recycler in this state, but mostly imported from other states."
 NO
 NO COMMENT.  The environmental group technically no longer exists.
 YES.  "Positive impact, always in the business pages of the newspaper."
 NO
 NO. "Provides a good service for local companies."
 NO
 UNKNOWN. "Never Heard of the company."
 Question #3: Is the facility considered a "Good Neighbor?"
 UNKNOWN
 NO.  "They spread the waste on the ground to dry it."
 UNKNOWN. "Have heard little about this facility, it is 50 miles away."
 NO COMMENT.  The environmental group technically no longer exists.
 YES. "Have no information to say they are a bad neighbor."
 NO. "Don't trust them."
 YES.  "They make an effort to get involved in informing the community on what they do."
September 1998
144
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
 Question #3: Is the facility considered a "Good Neighbor?"
 YES.  "They received an environmental award and, we have participated with them on voluntary P2 committees
 and projects."
 UNKNOWN. "Never heard of the company."
                                      0
September 1998
145
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
                                   Appendix J:
           Statistical "Representativeness" of the National Benchmarking Study
September 1998
146
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
           Statistical "Representativeness" of the National Benchmarking Study

A ehi-square analysis was performed to determine whether there is a difference in the distribution
of sample proportions for D&B, BRS and "national" databases over the different regions.

•      Summary of results of comparison of the National sample with the Dun & Bradstreet
       extract

A chi-square analysis was performed to compare the National sample and the D & B extract (Primary
SIC code of 3471) on the number of data points for each of the ten EPA regions.

Results of the test showed that they are statistically different (p-value - 0.003. Please refer to Table
1 of Attachment 1). The difference can be attributed to the difference in percentages of the number
of facilities in the National sample and the D & B extract for EPA regions 4, 5, and 6. The D&B
extract had nearly 30% of the data points as against 42% in the National sample for region 5. The
National sample had 5.78 % (region 4), 1.16% (region 6) of the data points as against 9.84% (region
4) and 7.43% (region 6) in the D&B. The difference in size of the National sample (173) and the
D & B (4147) was an important issue for the significant p-value of 0.03%. If the National sample
is used to produce any national estimate, there should be caveats for the differences mentioned above
for EPA region 4, 5, and 6.

The National and the D&B extract were also compared on the basis of mean number of employees
per facility. It was found that the means for  the National sample were consistently higher than the
corresponding means in the D & B  ( Please refer to table 2 of Attachment 1).  This shows that
relatively larger facilities in terms of manpower volunteered for the National sample. Hence, any
national estimate from this sample must come with a caveat indicating a potential bias problem.

For 9 degrees of freedom, the  x2 value of 25.22 is significant beyond both 5% and 1% levels.
Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the sample proportions for D&B
and "national' databases. Note, however, that due to small sample sizes in the "national" database,
the results could be more informative after collapsing  several regions in larger strata.

2. In  this section,  a  statistical method for testing the difference between  average number of
employees from the D&B and "national" databases is described. Histograms and normal probability
plots applied  to the total number  of employees suggest that the characteristic  of interest (# of
employees) is distributed more lognormally than normally. Therefore, the log-transformed version
was used in all calculations. Assuming that the D&B database covers almost all facilities of interest,
the true mean and true standard deviation for each region can be approximated by
                                           o __
Since Nj is large enough and Sj is known, we can use normal approximation to test the differences
between the true (D&B) mean, YJ9 and the sample ("national") mean, YJ. In this case the test statistic
is given by
September 1998
147
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
                                              y=i,2,..,io
•      Summary of results of comparison of the National sample with the BRS sample

Results of the chi-square test performed to compare the National sample and the BRS sample are
similar to the results of comparison of the National sample and the D & B extract. In fact, with a
precision of 0.1%, we conclude that the distribution of sample points by region in the National
sample is significantly different from the distribution of sample points by region in the BRS sample.
The difference can be attributed to the difference in percentages of the number of facilities in the
national sample and the BRS sample for EPA regions 3,4, 5, 6, and 9.

Comparing the average F006 discharge for each region in the national sample and in the BRS
sample, we found that, in general, there are no significant differences for most regions in these two
samples. Only two regions (region 1 and region 5)  out of ten in the National sample discharged
significantly more F006 than the corresponding regions in the BRS sample. Note also that there were
no samples taken from region 8 in the National survey.

•     Comparison of the Regional Benchmarking Sampling data to the National Survey data

The results of the test for all 10 groups along with the corresponding p-values are attached.
In order to compare the responses from the ALLDATA sample and the NATIONAL sample, we
examine how much the mean and distribution of each analyte from the ALLDATA sample differ
from those from the NATIONAL sample. The table below summarizes the results of statistical tests
performed to compare the two samples. It contains p-values for the analytes  that are in both
ALLDATA and NATIONAL samples. P-values less than 0.05 indicate a statistically significant
difference between the responses from  the ALLDATA sample and the NATIONAL sample for a
particular analyte.

From this table we conclude that the  reported values  are significantly different for Amenable
Cyanide^Magnesium, Selenium, Total Cyanide, and Zinc from the TOTAL group. The results for
other analytes do not show significant differences between the two samples under study.
September 1998
148
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------
TCLP METALS
ANALYTE
BARIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
LEAD
MERCURY
SILVER




















P-VALUE
0.0691
0.5960
0.0517
0.3126
0.1071
0.4097




















TOTAL METALS
ANALYTE
ALUMINUM
AMENABLE CYANIDE
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CHLORIDE
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM, HEXA
COPPER
FLUORIDE
IRON
LEAD
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
NICKEL
SELENIUM
SILVER
SODIUM
TIN
TOTAL CYANIDE
ZINC
P-VALUE
0.1407
0^084
0.3772
0.2715
0.6320
0.3729
0.2239
0.3766
0.1183
0.4763
0.1502
0.2812
0.1159
0.1477
04179
0.6072
6T0044
0.3262
0.2802
0.2023
QM65.
0.2741
0.6743
0.2546
ojolTa
OU014?
«U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1W-450-121-10M8
September 1998
149
F006 Benchmarking Study

-------

-------